A PUBLIC DISPUTATION SUNDRY DAYS At Killingworth in , betwixt JOHN BRYAN, Doctor in Divinity (Minister at Coventry) and JOHN ONLEY, Pastor of a Church at Lawford.  
Upon this Question, Whether the Parishes of this Nation generally be true Churches.  
Wherein are Nine Arguments alleged in proof of the Affirmative of the Question, with the Answer of 1. 0. thereunto, together with Doctor B. Reply.  
Also an Addition of ten Arguments more in further proof of the Question, with an Answer adjoined in disproof thereof.  
Try all things, hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5. 21.  
Published by both their consents, as appears by the ensuing Epistles.  
LONDON, Printed for W. Larnar and are to be Sold at the Black-Mores-Head at Fleet-Bridge. 1655.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
SInce the everlasting God, of the inflnit riches of his grace, hath been pleased to discover what Babylon is;  
The Hearts, Pens, Tongues of many have been exercised, in discovering what they conceived Zion to be.  
Amongst which Doctor Bryan hath been one who hath endeavoured in several Lectures to prove, that the Parochial Assemblies are true Churches, her Ministry true Ministers, and that none may publicly Preach, but such as are Ministers in Office; all which being contrary, to truth in my apprehension, I thought myself bound in conscience (especially many giving out, that it we had any thing to say for ourselves, why did we not speak) both to vindicate what I apprehended to be truth (that was there cried down as error) as also to testify against that which was false, (that was there Preached up as truth.)  
And in the close of the second days disputation, it was desired by the Doctor, that I would state some questions, and appoint a Day only to dispute, and accordingly I did, and stated two, viz.  
1. Whether the Parishes of this Nation generally be true Churches?  
2. Whether every Brother (though no Elder) that hath received abilities from God, whereby he is in abled to Preach, may publicly Preach, which was consented to, I being Respondent in the first, and Opponent in the second; which Day being come, Nine Arguments were brought by the Doctor in vindication of the affirmative of the first question, which when half our time was spent in debate of the two first, I moved for the rest of the time to oppose in the second, which was granted, only with a motion for the reading of the other seven to the Congregation, to which I consented, only desiring a Copy of the Arguments undisputed of, to return an answer to be likewise publicly read the next meeting Day, which was granted, according to which I drew up a Reply, and read it to the Congregation (that very same that is here Printed, not once thinking that ever it should appear in Print) immediately after the reading of which, a Gentleman then present desired it might be Printed, and desired me to motion it to the Doctor, which I did; to which he replied, if he might reply he was willing, but he had twelve Arguments more in proof of the question, to which I replied, I was contented, he should reply to my answer to the Nine first without my rejoinder, provided, I might answer to the Twelve last without his Reply, only till they were Printed, and then each should be at liberty to write what he pleased; which was consented to, which when I had finished my Answer to the Ten last, and the Doctor his Reply to my answer to the Nine first, we joined them together, to be Printed in one volumn, so that this work is published by both our consents; and this is the occasion of this Treatise, thus unwontedly coming forth, which I thought necessary to inform thee of.  
Now that the Parishes of this Nation are false Churches, and that they never had a Gospel Constitution, that her Ministry is a false Ministry, and that they are not that Mountain that shall be established on the top of all Mountains, to which the desire of all Nations shall come, I beg not thy consent to concur with my judgement therein; but whether the Nineteen Arguments be sufficient to prove it, or the Answers thereto to overthrow it, I humbly refer to the judicious to Judge.  
JOHN ONLEY.   

Mr. JOHN ONLY,  
THe end of our Monthly meeting at Killingworth (begun in December last) was well known to be the setting up, and settling of a Gospel order in our Parochial Congregations; and because I well knew, that some in our County were not satisfied in Conscience concerning the truth of our Churches and Ministry, my resolution was (being put upon it by my reverend Brethren) to endeavour in the first place a vindication of both: I did therefore publicly desire all that had any thing to except against what I should deliver, to send to me their exceptions in writing, which with my answer to them should (if they pleased) be read before the people at the next meeting, professing withal, my readiness to receive back any Gold, that should be found counterfeit or light, by the touchstone and balance of Scripture.  
Accordingly a Godly Brother of the Congregational way (Lieutenant Fox by name) sent in sundry objections to my third discourse (upon that text in Col. 2. 5. joining and beholding your Order) and some Letters passed between us, whereof he desired not any publication, though for parts, and piety, he is judged no whit inferior to you, who the next Day openly declared your dissent, and declared yourself desirous to dispute with me publicly upon these two questions. 1. Whether the Parish Assemblies of England generally be true visible Churches? (which you denied, 2. Whether every Brother) though no Elder, that hath received abilities from God, whereby he is enabled to Preach, may publicly Preach? (which you affirmed) appointing me to be Opponent in the first, and Respondent in the second, the next Monthly Day.  
I need not tell you how many dissuasions I had from entering the Lists with an illiterate Adversary, (such you were taken for by many) among others this, that I should in so doing disparage myself, nor was there any probability of good to come of it; but those words of Job came into my mind, Chap. 31. 13. 14. If I did despise the cause of my man servant, or of my maid servant, when they contended with me: What then shall I do, when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? whence I gathered, how displeasing it might be to God, should I despise a dissenting Brother, protesting that the end of his contention, was to receive satisfaction to his conscience, which doubted of the doctrine I had dispensed; besides, I knew God oft reveals his mind to Babes in humane learning, which he hides from the greatest Clerks Matth. 11. 25. 26. 1 Cor. 1. 20. moreover, the ablest Preachers know but in part, and prophecy in part, 1 Cor 13. 9 and therefore may err, and Aquila and Priscilla may expound to Apollo's the way of God more perfectly, Acts 18. 26. a little Child may show an erring Man his way; finally the Apostle Peter commands us all, to be ready always to give an answer to every Man, that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear, if God's honour, and the good of those who ask, require it; both which I apprehended were concerned in my yielding to your motion, and therefore embraced it, le●ving the issue to God; and for the same reason have I yielded to your secod motion made in the close of the third or fourth days disputation, viz. that your Arguments and Answers, and Replies, and Rejoinders upon the first question, might be put in Print; and to your Proviso, that at present I should make no Reply unto your answer to the Ten last Arguments, as you would no rejoinder to my Reply upon your Answers to the Nine first; and if you have a mind, you may rejoin (your engagement to the contrary I free you from, yea and give you liberty (which you have already taken all along without check) to oppose what you please, and to take in also the help of Master Morley, and those other seven who assisted you in disputation, that the utmost you and they can object further against our Parish Churches may come under our view only; (for your Readers sake) I could wish you would forbear instead of arguing, to make any more excursions by tedious impertinent Declamations against our Ministers and Members, wherein all your Answers for the most part spend themselves; which yet the Men of your own way will admire seriously, but all others of any competent understanding ironically; using Jobs words to Bildad, Chap. 26. 3. How hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is? suffer me to speak my thoughts and hopes; when all is that can be said by their self or any other to overthrow the Parochial Assemblies of this Nation, they will stand like Mount Zion; which though it may be moved in its place, cannot be removed out of its place; and the Presbyterian Government which we are endeavouring to settle in our Congregations, will prove like the Palm tree, quae non cedit ponderi, sed surgit adversum pondus. Nor do I doub, but when Christ our King hath turned his hand upon us, and purely purged away our dross, and taken away all our tin, he will set up his throne, and keep a standing Majesty in the midst of these golden Candlesticks; then they that are our enemies shall see, and shame shall cover them which said unto us, where is the Lord your God? mean time we will bear the indignation of the Lord, because we have sinned against him, until he plead our cause, and execute judgement for us: yea though he suffer you to kill us, after three days and a half we shall revive and stand upon our feet: and many out of all languages (separate Societies) shall relinquish their dividing principles and practices, and take hold of the skirt of a Gospel Presbyterian, saying, we will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you; this is the hope, and shall be the Prayer of  
Your loving friend and servant in the Lord, JOHN BRYAN.   

That the National Congregations of England are the true Churches of Christ, saith Dr. John Bryan, Minister in Coventry; and these are his Arguments to prove it, as followeth.  
Denied by Mr. JOHN ONLY, with the grounds of his dissent, in Answers to his Arguments.  
WHether the Parishes of this Nation generally be true 
Quest.  Churches?  
Those Societies which the true Churches of Christ 
Argument. 1. Dr. B.  generally throughout the world own and acknowledge to be true Churches, they are true Churches; but the Parish Assemblies of England are so owned and acknowledged; therefore the Parish Assemblies of England are true Churches.  
The Minor is undeniable, for all the Reformed Churches of Europe gave us the right hand of Fellowship when we were much more corrupt than now, and so have all the Churches of New-England done in their Treatise of Church Covenant, and Answer to 32. Questions. I put you to name one Church in the world that doth not acknowledge the Church of England to be the Spouse of Christ.  
The Major is thus proved; if the Judgement of the Churches 
See the joint consent of sundry godly and learned Ministers, published by W. Rathbad. p. 7.  of Christ ought to be taken for the Judgement of God, than those Societies which they own and acknowledge to be true Churches, are so; but the former is true, therefore the latter; of the first Proposition there can be no doubt. The second Proposition is evident from Matthew 18. 17. 18. He that will not regard the Judgement of that particular Church whereof he is a Member, is to be esteemed as a Heathen, or Publican. Of how much sorer censure shall he be thought worthy, that despiseth the Judgement of all the known Churches in the world? Again, Christ hath given his Church power to judge and pronounce of a particular man, that he is in the Estate of salvation, and that infallibly: therefore he hath made it much more able to pronounce of a Congregation or people that is a true Church, which is a matter of no such difficulty as the other, 1 Tim. 3. 15. the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth; but this it could not be if it should be ignorant of a Truth so necessary as this, viz. what people are to be accounted a true Church.  
That these societies by you mentioned may bear Testimony to yours to be true, may be undeniable, but then the Question will 
Answ. I. O.  be, whether these by you mentioned be true Churches rightly cō●ituted according to Gospel order, that which is the very question betwixt us is by you taken for granted before it be proved, and brought in by you as an Argument to prove itself; the Question you are to prove is, that the Parishes of that Nation be generally true Churches; which I deny, and so consequently all other that be of the same Matter and Form: Now those Churches which you bring to prove yours to be true, are of the same Matter and Form with you; and if you be false, than they also; and if they should differ either in Matter of Form from you, they could not possibly confess you to be true: Now to say you are true Churches, because other societies who are one for matter of substance with you (say so) is as much (as if you should say) we are true Churches, therefore we are true Churches.  
That the Testimony of such a Church as is by you mentioned, Mat. 18. 1 Tim. 3. is to be taken according to the intent of those Scriptures, I grant, but than you must first prove that those Churches by you mentioned are such (not so confidently beg the question) till that be first done, these Scriptures will not support your Conclusion.  
Whereas you desire me to name one true Church in the world, that does not acknowledge the Churches of England to be the Spouse of Christ; that I shall do in its proper place, where I shall have occasion to vindicate the truth of those Churches, which you deny to be true.  
The sum of your Answer is, saint fir by way of Concession, that all the Churches mentioned by me (which are all the known Churches 
Reply. Dr. B.  in the world) own and acknowledge our Parochial Assemblies to be true Churches; this savours of Ingenuity.  
2. By way of Exception against the validity of the Testimony of these Churches, because they are the same for Matter and Formwith ours (according to the Proverb, ask my Brother if I be a Thief) this seems to savour of Arrogancy. The Testimony of two or three men was wont to be taken for truth by Warrant, both of Law and Gospel, John 8. 17. Mat. 18. 16. 2 Cor. 13. 1. Heb. 10. 28. Now put the Case you were accused of these or two known Enemies by one & were able to bring the Testimony of two hundred honest men to assert your Integrity, I presume you would not take it well that their witness should be slighted upon no other ground but this, because they consisted of the same Matter and Form with you; It is just our Case, a very inconsiderable number (for so are all the Antipaedobaptistical societies Comparatively) and our professed Adversaries draw up a Charge against us, that we are false Churches; we being for Justification of our truth more than a million of men, approved unto God and all good men, in whose Approbation we do, yea and will rejoice, because we believe and are sure that they are the true Churches of Christ, and the Judgement of such you deny not to be the judgement of God himself; but all Churches besides those of your way, (which are but of yesterday) you plainly (though implicitly in the Close of your Answer) deny to be true Churches, whereby you proclaim 
M. Mar shall unity of Saints.  yourselves to be the greatest Schismatics in the world, if the Scripture reason, that a burning and shining Light in our Church hath given be of any weight, which I refer to your serious Consideration; as also the weight of this inartificial Argument to the judgement of the people.  
Our Parish Assemblies have a true Church Constitution, therefore 
Argu. 2.  they are true Churches.  
The Consequence is granted by you all, for this is the Main. if not only Reason, why you deny the Truth of our Churches, because they want a right Constitution.  
The Antecedent I thus prove; Those societies that have the true Matter and Form of Gospel Churches have a right Constitution, Matter and Form being the only constitutive Principles, and making up the Essence of every Body, both natural and Political.  
But our Parish Assemblies have the true Matter and Form of Gospel Churches, therefore they have a true Church Constitution.  
The Minor I make good from your own definition of a visible Church, viz. A company of visible Saints combined or conjoined in special bond, consent or Covenant to partake of all God's Ordinances, and to perform all duties which they own to God, and each to other.  
I argue thus, those Societies that consist of visible Saints so combined, are true Churches, ours are such, therefore:  
The Major is your own, the Minor is thus proved in both branches, our Parish Assemblies are Societies of visible Saints.  
Those societies where some are Real Saints, the worse sort Brethren in a Gospel Account, and the worst, Professors of the true Faith, they are Societies of visible Saints.  
But such are our Assemblies; therefore.  
The Minor you cannot deny, there are with us many that are men of understanding, and not only blameless, but pious also in their Conversations. The Apostle commands us to account men ignorant and wicked (if they be not wilfully and obstinately so) Brothers 2 Thes. 3. 14, 15. and you grant that the worst among us profess in word the true Faith, viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that we are justified by faith alone, etc.  
The Major is thus proved. The Apostolical Church Societies, were Societies of visible Saints; but they had in them some real Saints, the worse sort Brethren the worst visible Professors: therefore, Societies that consist of such are true visible Churches.  
That Christ owns for his Church such a Society where all profess the Faith, though the greater part be wicked, if there be a few names that are Real Saints, is evident by the example of the Church of Sardis, Revel. 3. 1. 4. the like may be said of the Church of Corinth, etc. We have therefore true Church Matter.  
2. They have a right Form, for they are conjoined in a Church Covenant; this is manifest by their constant meeting every Lord's Day to worship God together, which is an implicit Covenant, our Adversaries being Judges.  
That which was to be proved, was, that the Parishes of this Nation 
Answ. J. O.  in their first Constitution consisted of visible Saints, and all that you have here said is void the mark; for notwithstanding any thing that you have said, the greatest part of the men in the Parishes of this Nation in their first constitution might consist of visible wicked men, and so all that you have said is to no purpose, for if ever you say any thing to purpose, you must first prove that which you have undertaken, viz. That you consisted at the first constitution of visible Saints, and of this you have not spoken one word, you rake back into the degenerated Estate and Condition of Churches, striving to equalise and shroud yourselves under the sins of others, which are degenerated from what they were at first, which is nothing to the purpose, for I utterly deny that ever any of those Churches in their first forming did consist of such disobedient Persons as the Apostle speaks of, 2 Thes. 3. 14. For such with whom the Godly in that Church were forbidden to keep company with, were (sure) unfit to be joined with them as one Body, if they appeared such at first, and the like may be said of the Church of Sardis, Corinth, etc. Now because these Churches were called Saints, and that they had such among them as bad as any in yours, you would infer that you may be called so too. I grant that these were called Saints, but it was not as they were disobedient Persons, these never received the name of Saints as they were disobedient, but as they being once visibly holy, and Saintlike, and not so fare degenerated, but in a capacity of Recovering their former Estate, they bore among others the name of such. Now except you first prove that you in your first constitution were Saints visible (which in the least measure you have not done) there can be no Argument drawn from the Name of them to you. I desire if you can to produce one Scripture where in the constitution of an Apostolical Church, there was any such distinction made of best and worst, and worst of all, as you make, though there might be a difference in the measures of Grace and Knowledge, and the word plainly shows that they did all at first appear to be Saints, though they afterwards degenerated and fell to disobedience; yet they retained the Name till actually excommunicated.  
Now more particularly to your Argument.  
The Antecedent of your first Syllogism I deny.  
The Minor also of the 2d. if you add (as you must, or else you do nothing) in their first constitution.  
The Major in the 3d. I own in the first branch, but deny the Minor in both branches.  
To your Minor in the 4th (which you say cannot be denied) I have these things to say to the former branch of it; first, That there may be some truly in God's favour (in your Parishes) I grant, but this doth not prove those societies, wheresoever they are visible Saints, (except those others had formerly visibly been in that condition) for some of God's people have been and may be in Babylon. Rev. 18. 4. & yet Babylon no society of Saints. 2ly, You say the Apostle bids ns, account men ignorant and wicked, if they be not obstinately and wilfully so; brethren it is true, but whether were they to be accounted brethren as ignorant and wicked, or as having been first visibly holy, and still in hopes of recovery, this latter is evident: Now these in your Parishes, who are ignorant and wicked, though not wilfully obstinate, never were visible Saints, as these Thessalonians were; such who were in God the Father, ver. 1. Elect of God. ver. 4. Followers of the Apostles, ver. 6. and of the Lord such as had received the word of God, Chap. 2. 13. Followers of the Church of God, ver. 14. such whose faith grew exceedingly and charity of every one to each other abounded. 2. Epist. 1. 3. etc. Now of these worse sort of your Members there could never be any such thing affirmed, they never being in that condition; therefore this Scripture doth not prove the worse sort brethren. 3ly. Far wide is it to say the worst of all be Professors of the true faith, because they profess in words that Christ is the Son of God, etc. for that profession with the Mouth, joined with denial in practice, is a lie, 1 John 2. 3. A man cannot serve two Masters, but his servants they are to whom they obey, now the worst of your members following the works of the Devil, he is their Master.  
I wonder that you wander so far about, keeping such a coil about the Churches, that were fallen from what they were at the first, when you well know, that before ever you can apply any of these Scriptures rightly to your purpose, you must make your Parishes in the first forming like those, viz. visible Saints either resolve to speak home to your question, or say nothing. Either you must say that a Church may be form up in its first Constitution of visible Saints, and visible wicked, or else of visible Saints; the former I think you will never affirm, if you own the latter, as I think you do.  
I earnestly entreat you to show & prove that all the Parishes of this Nation in their first division into Parishes were visible Saints, except you do this, all parallels between you & Sardis, Corinth, etc. will never help you; if you say they were all Professors of the true faith, at their first constitution, and so fit matter, which I think is all that can be said. I answer, those that at their first constitution were for the most part abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobate, they were not all Professors of the true faith, but the 8432. (as I think) Parishes of this Nation, at their first constitution were for the most part such. Ergo; the Major is undeniable, for works & words are to be joined together, to the making up of a true profession. The Minor I prove thus, If the greatest part of the men in the mentioned Parishes, did at their first constitution only profess to know God, and in works deny him, than they were abominable, etc. but they did so, Ergo the Minor is manifest; the consequent is the Apostles, Titus 1. 16. more shall be said of this in answer to the next Argument.  
Now to the latter branch touching the Parochial Assembly, being conjoined in Covenant, which is evinced by their constant meeting every Lord's Day to worship God together, which is an implicit Covenant.  
Though I might well let this pass, for I deny a Covenant to be the form of the Church, and therefore you have little reason to say this is our definition of a Church, for though I own it in the first branch, yet not in the second; yet notwithstanding, seeing you undertake to prove your Churches by this to be true in form, they fall short of what they who make this definition intent by it, and what it holds forth, I shall speak something to it, thus; This combining or conjoining, etc. is by them who are called (though falsely) independently; the form of the Church whereby first they know themselves from all other societies in the world, and 2ly, whereby they are engaged to a special watch over each other: Now this which you speak of, that you have, viz. A constant meeting every Lord's Day, etc. is neither of these: for first this meeting thus together carries with it no note of the Church from the world at all; for seeing that all may come to hear, and many in the world (that are not of the Church) may come to one place constantly to serve God; how is this possible to distinguish the Church and the world asunder they can never be known either by others or themselves; and 2ly, this combining, conjoining, etc. engages them together, as members of one body to a special watch over each other, etc. Now to meet together every Lord's Day, etc. is no such thing, for if that be an incorporating into the Church, if that be the form of the Church there needs no more to enter a man into the Church, but coming to worship God every Lord's Day, which is ridiculous, for then a man may make himself a Member of any Church whether they will or no; neither doth this engage them to any watch at all over each other, for if it engage one, than all that so come, and then a man merely of the world out of the Church is engaged to watch over the Church, and they over him, which is not true. Thus it appears, that for aught that you have said, you have not had at the constitution of your Churches a right matter, viz. visible Saints, neither such a form as you endeavoured to prove.  
You teach me what I should have proved, as if my argument concluded not the question, not considering, that it is our Churches present, not 
Reply. Dr. B.  Primitive estate, which I undertake to vindicate what the men in the Parishes of this Nation, were in their first forming, I have not now to say, you say they might consist, yea you rise higher, and positively affirm they did consist for the most part of visible wicked men, abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobate; for which you give no proof but your own conjecture, yet thereupon pass sentence upon all my discourse, that it is not at all to the purpose, but I presume every unprejudiced man will judge you have clearly lost your cause, if it can be made good that the member; of our Parishes are such as the Apostolical Churches were, even in their state of degeneration, which you so much harp upon, you deny, not but they were true Churchrs, and their Members called Saints notwithstanding, & therefore if our Members appear to be as good Saints as they were, their matter then is undoubtedly right, let them come into comparison, there were amongst them very many (& in some of these Churches by far the greater number) Schismatical, Heretical, Carnal, Proud, Lovers of Pre-eminence, Supercilious, Censurers, Contentious Abusers of Christian Liberty, Prophaners of the Lords Supper, Gluttons, Drunkards, Pelly-Gods, disorderly Walkers, Idle, Busybodies, such as had not repent of the Uncleanness, and Fornication and Lasciviousness, which they had committed, Enemies to the Cross of Christ, Minders of earthly things, Contemners of the holy Apostle their spiritual Father, having a Form of Godliness but denying the power of it, professing to know God, but in their works denying him, Abominable, Luke warm, etc. you cannot I suppose find worse than these in our Assemblies, What they were at their first forming it makes no matter to me at present; yet some being really Saints, such as you describe the whole Churches are acknowledged Societies of Saints, the denomination being taken not from the greater, but better part: so a Field where good Corn hath been sown and some grows, is called a Corn field, a Wheat heap though most Chaff, Gold Oar though, more Dross than Gold; You say, there may be some in God's favour in our Congregations, but if an Holy, Humble, Wise, Exact Gracious conversation argue men to be in the favour of God, an impartial Eye may easily discern more such in a few of our Assemblies than in most of the Separate Societies. Yea, if you be ingenious, you will acknowledge that the Holiness which m●st of all your Members have (saving in two or three new Opinions) they learned it in, and had it from our Parechial Congregations; a little Practical holiness serves the turn of too many when they have forsaken us and joined with you, you spend, but might as well have spared a multitude of words in declaiming against our people's profession of the true Faith without works; the stress of the Argument is not laid upon verbal profession: though let me tell you, if it were, it might sink your Cause; for as true Faith gives being to the invisible Church: so does prefession of the true Faith and not Moral Obedience give being to the visible. Do you not read of many who upon their verbal Procession were Baptised by the Apostles themselves, and incorporated into the Church? Did not Obedience of Faith make the Gentiles Churches? Rom. 1. 5. 8. And if Obedience to the Commandments be so necessary to the life and first being of a true Gospel Church, that question would be resolved, What difference there is between the Covenant of Grace and of Works? That which I affirm stands firm upon a sure foundation, that where a whole Society professeth all fundamental Truths though the greater part be naught; yet if soms of them be Saints indeed, Christ owns it for his Church; for their sake the Church of Sardis had a name to live, i. e. consisted of verbal Professors, but it was dead; The generality were void of Grace, and wicked Members; yet for the sakes of a few names that had not defiled their Garments, Christ owns it for his Church, You say, God had some such thing in Babylon. If you will say Babylon profosseth the true Faith, I will say and prove it a true Church for the sakes of God's People in it; the reason of whose Evocation may easily appear, to be their devilish Doctrines pertinaciously held, for which their damnation was at the door.  
But you frequently urge the wicked ones in Sardis, and other Gospel-Churches were visible Saints at first, and yet you bring no proof at all besides your own presumption, that they brought more than a verbal profession to make them so; or if you could evince they did, no prejudice would come thereby to my Argument, which proceeds not upon that which you call first constitution; that our 8432. Parishes (as you number them) were at their first constitution for the most part abominable, etc. is also void of proof. I might moreover add that our members may be called visible Saints because they bear the badge of holy Baptism, and so are sacramentally holy every one of them as Je●usalem when it was worse than Sodom, was called the holy Ci●●●; bu● I forbear to press this because you hold our baptism a null●●ie (I may happily ere long prove yours to be so:) besides, the sanct●●y of that doctrine which we profess, may give us the name of S●ints, comparatively or in respect of Heathens, in opposition to whom the Apostle calls tho●e to whom he writes Saints.  
I perceive the name of Pa●ish is extreme distasteful to you, and all of your way, which yet is nothing else in signification, but the confining of Churches within convenient local limits: were is not that I find sundry learned godly men whose treatises are, or may be in your hands, abundantly vindicating both the name and thing: among others Mr. Hollingworth in his rejoinder to Mr. Eton, and Mr. Tailor's Reply, chap 2. showing how Parishes are jure divino, and how not, and Mr. Cawdin in his Review of Mr. hooker's survey, who gives six satisfactory Answers to that first Negative Conclusion, viz. That Parish precincts do not give a man Right, or make him more fit for a visible Congregation, Chap. 2. p. 87. etc. I should spend some pains and time to stop your mouth from quarrelling with the term, and make it appear that there is no reason why the number of these bounds by whomsoever measured should offend any: to their writings I refer you, and follow you from the matter to the form of a visible Church, viz. Combination or Conjunction in Covenant which is in our Assemblies, and is manifested by their constant meeting every Lord's day▪ etc. You say you denied a Covenant to be the form of a Church, which I remember not. I am sure some of the seven that took your part in the disputation's who were Antipedo baptists (and were looked upon by many hearers as Herod's taking part with Pilate against Christ) did expressly own it▪ and the Argument proceeded with your Approbation: and you now show your gratefulness to them by a tender touch of their name, and justify their mutual Covenanting and consederating in the fellowship of the Faith, as that which gives being and constitution to a Visible Church. From the two ends of it, neither of which you say are attained by our People's constant meeting, etc. which is untrue; for first our Assemblies are hereby known from all other Societies in the world, Heathenish, jewish. Mabometan, Popish, etc. who join not together in God's true Worship. 2. The Godly of our Congregations declare themselves hereby engaged to watch over each other, and actually do so, yea the whole Body come to be instructed, reproved and watched ever by their Pastors, and are admonished of their duty (which they yield, assent unto, and are convinced, though the most fail in performance.) But let our Brethren, whose cause you manage, speak, and they readily acknowledge that we have the same Covenant for substance which themselves have, and consequently are as true Churches. Read reverend Mr. hooker's survey, Chap. 4. thus the People of England in their Parishes constantly hold them to the fellow ship of the People in such a place attend all the Ordinances, submit thereto, etc. by such actions, etc. they declare by their practices, which others by open profission, an implicit Covenant preserves the true Nature of the Church because it carries the formalis ratio in it, by which a Church is constituted▪ animplicite Covenant in some cases may be fully sufficient, as if it consist of such who were children to parents confederate deceased, etc. The like and fuller acknowledgement you shall find of all the Elders of New England in their Treatise of Church Covenant, where they give the same Reason which you so slight. Quoting Mr. Parker, whose words in his third Beck of Ecclesiastical policy, are these, Non abest ea r●alis, Et substantialis▪ quamquam Magis quam par erat implicita) Coitio in foe tus, eaque professio fidei substantialis quae (Deo grata) essentialis Ecclesiae, idque visibilis huc usque sartam rectam in Anglis conservavit. You see how little you have gained by undertaking another's Cause: which though you disclaim as yours in this, yet you seem clearly to own in your Answer to the next Argument, whichas to gratify you who cry out sovehemently against the gathering of our Churches concluding that we are no true Churches, because we cannot prove that we were at first rightly gathered; whereas it is clear enough that we might be true Churches, though it could not appear that we were at first rightly gathered, as men may be true Christians, of whose Baptism and first conversion there can no clear accempt be given, and some societies may be named who were doubtless true Churches of whose first gathering nothing can be found in Scripture.  
The Argument proceeds thus.  
Our Churches had a right gathering, both out of Heathenism and out of Popery; therefore they are true Churches. 
Argu. 3:   
1. Out of Heathenism, we were gathered 500 years before Austin the Monk, by the preaching of the Gospel (and not at all 
Dr. B.  by compulsion) this is proved out of approved Antiquaries.  
2. Out of Popery. I thus reason, If the Churches of this Nation were gathered, or rather recalled out of Popery into the true Religion by the means that are approved and appointed in the word of God, than they were rightly gathered out of Popery. But the former is true, which is thus made good; the means approved and appointed by God to gather or recall a back slided People, are preaching and the command of the Civil Magistrate, this latter is evident by sundry examples of good Kings, 2 Chron. 14. 4. 15, 12, 13, 30, 34, 32, 33. that these were the means of recalling our people out of Popery, is acknowledged by all.  
Answ: It's true, I say you are no true Churches, because you cannot prove you were at first rightly gathered, and I say it's also 
Answ.  as true some may be true Churches, of whose first gathering nothing can be found; but what is this to your purpose? the question 
I. O.  is not, whether they be true Churches, whose first original cannot be known; but whether those be true, who can know and find it, and yet are unable to prove it true, I question not but was it to your advantage you could quickly tell us of the first original of your Parishes.  
To the first branch of your Argument, that these 8432. Parishes (of which the whole land is) were gatheted by the preaching of the Gospel, I desire to see proved. I deny not but here might be Churches gathered, but I desire to see it proved, that they were gathered as now they stand, a whole Nation divided into Parish Churches generally. If they were thus gathered by the Preaching of the Gospel, than they were called from the World, after a sort from themselves, and united together as one body, as all the Churches in the Gospel were. Now this whole Nation was never called out of the World (visibly) what was the World out of which they were called, when they were all accounted Members? And for others in other Nations they were never amongst. 2. The World (the lusts thereof) they retained in their hearts, covetousness, pride, malice, every evil work visibly seen in many of them. 3 So far were they from being united as one Man, as that they were many of them deadly enemies one to another; sure if the Gospel did gather, its effects would be seen.  
To the second branch. This Argument is the same with your former, only you altar the term from constituting to gathering, which in effect, is all one; for you apply it to your first gathering out of Heathenism, which might be understood of constitution, so that I do not well know whether it be added as a proof of the former, or as an Argument of itself; but to follow you in your scope.  
First, I cannot see that you have had any constitution at your coming from Popery: for there was no alteration of either matter or form, which are the essential constitutive principles, and if you had any constitution, you had it from Papists, for before you had none as now you stand; or if you had, it could do you no good, as I shall show, Popery had so deeply infected those that had been true Churches (and this among the rest which was one with Rome) that the name and nature of your Church was lost, yea past recalling; for where the Church was called the Spouse, the wife, the body, the house, the garden, the Temple, the Zion of Christ; they come to be called▪ A whore, a mother of harlots, a Babylon an habitation of Devils. an hold of every foul Spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hareful bird, and whereas before the Church was peaceable, and meek, and kindly, affectionate, gentle, etc. Now they come to be a blood thitsty, adulterous whore, drunk with the blood of Saints: for in her was found the blood of all that was slain upon the earth, insomuch that the Lord cries out, Come out of her my people. Now we know whilst that People are in a capacity of recovery the Lord calls not out, but to reform: nay, if they were not past recovery, why did you come out from them, seeing you lay such blame upon others for separating from you because you have some gudly, and so there was in Rome, from whence it appears, that you could not keep that constitution you had before (if you had any) therefore that constitution that you had from them, which you still retain without any essential difference, evidenced that if you be a true Church, Rome is too. Parishes were the first seats of Popery, after of Prelacy, and now you endeavour to take them up under the same Notion. First, they baptised all this Nation Infants, and there laid the foundation, making all Christians (as they called them) and then by the Laws of Civil Policy, conveniency of situation etc. they divided this Nation into so many Parishes, and counted all Members, living within the precincts, bounds and liberties of such a place, of such a Church, though in works they denied God. They came first in by Honorius Bishop of Canterbury, saith Mr. Saltmarsh bringing the learned Mr. Selden for proof in his book, De decimis, but how ever it is evident, that there was never such a thing as Parish heard of in all the word of God, they never were of Apostolical constitution; there was never such a thing heard of in all the Word of God, that ever a man should be accounted a member of this Society, rather than of that, merely from liberties of place, whereby it appears they were not of Divine institution, but humane. Lastly I deny that to be the means appointed in the word of God in the days of the Gospel for gathering of Churches, which you say yours were gathered by; viz. the preaching of the Gospel, and the command of the Magistrate.  
That is the way appointed and approved of by God that the Apostles went in when they constiruted Churches; but the way that they went was by the preaching of the Gospel only, without the command of the Civil Magistrate; ergo, etc.  
The Major is undeniable, the Minor is proved, Asts ●. 41. and all the Churches that the Apostles constituted were so constituted. 2. If the preaching of the Gospel and the command of the Magistrate are to go together to the constitution of a Church; then where men are wrought upon by the Gospel, they must stay till the Magistrate commands, before they join to the Church; for what God hath joined together, no man ought to part: but they ought not to do so, for they may join themselves the same day of their conversion, if there be no Magistrate, Acts 2. 41. therefore these two are not to go together; Nay how if there should be no Christain Magistrate to command (it is▪ possible) must a man stay till there be one before he be joined to the Church if he believe? How if there be none while he lives, what then? If you say as in our public Dispute you did, when I urged the Apostolical constitution, that then there was no Magistrate; this is a plain grant then, that you were not gathered as they were; and I desire you to show your Scripture to prove, that then the preaching of the Gospel was sufficient, then and after the power of the Magistrate is to be joined with it. Where hath Christ showed you this? Is not the Gospel as well able to effect its own ends now as it was then? I was as easy for God to have turned the hearts of Magistrates then, had the Apostles wanted their power as since. Are you true Ministers of Christ powerfully enabled from him ro dispense his Gospel, it will bring as many as be fit matter for the Church, you need not make your supplement from the Word to the Sword. It is the commanding power of Love that is to force into the Church of Christ; and all that are so wrought upon, need not to be forced, they are willing in the day of the Lords power, and to force those into the Church that are not willing, is a ready way to fill the Church with Hypocrites, and to force by compulsion into the Church is directly to contradict Christ's order in his Testament, and to make up a Church of such matter as all God's people ought to fly from.  
If you say it is not constitution you apply it to, but recalling; I answer, it is not recalling that can serve your turn; for you have never been called (as you stand) or if you had it was lost, and a new foundation to be begun (as above) or thirdly, If it was not, the case is the same; no power of the Magistrate (though an Ordinance of Goden ly place) is to be exercised in reforming Gospel Churches, see Rev. 2, 4▪ 5, ●, 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 18 etc. See what the Lord counsel these backslided people too, to repent and turn to their first love, and take▪ he Lord's Council while he offered it, or else he would come upon them (not with the power of the Magistrate to beat them to him contrary to their wills) but with the power of his Justice to take away that means of grace he had afforded them; to your places of Scripture, I answer thus, we are not under Moses but Christ: we are to follow those examples in this case that the Apostles and God himself in the New Testament hath left us. Consider Matth. 17 5. Heb. 1. 1. Acts 3. 22, 23. Thus these Arguments being answered, which should be as the foundation to bear up all the rest, and being found too light, all the rest, were they 500 of them, will melt away like Snow before the Sun.  
Your inanimadversions is the reason why you see no difference between 
Reply  this and the former Argument, that was taken from the internal essential causes, this from the external, instrumentally efficient: which might have been spared, but for your importunate crying out 
Dr. B  against our first gathering: which I affirm to have been out of Heathenism only by preaching the gospel, and out of Popery by that and the Magistrates assistance: You desire to see proved that ever these 8432. Parishes were gathered by the preaching of the Gospel into a Church; you may see sufficient to give any reasonable man satisfaction in the Answer of the Elders of New England (to which I formerly referred you) though their testimony sway not with you, their intercited reasons may.  
The ninth Question runs thus. Whether do you hold all the most of our Parish Assimblies in Old England to be true visible Churches of Christ, with which you may lawfully join in every part of God's true Worship, etc. They answer first, that they doubt not but of ancient time there have been many true Churches in England, consisting of right matter and compacted and united together by the right form of an holy Covenant. The Gospel was brought hither in the Apostles times, or within a little while after. Mr. Fox his reports out of Guildas Te tullian and Nicephorus to confirm this are at large related. 2. Though Popish Apostasy did afterward for many Ages overspread all the Churches in England, yet they believe God still reserved a remnant, for whose sakes he preserved the holy Scriptures amongst them, and baptism in the name of the Trinity only; and when God of his rich grace was pleased to stir up the Spirit of King Edward the sixth and Queen Elizabeth, to cast off the Pope etc. though at first some Sbires and sundry Parishes stood out against that Reformation for a time, yet afterwards they generally received the Articles of Religion agreed upon Anno 1562. which are published and consented to by all the Ministers endowed, with the silent consent also of the People, and Subscription of the hands of the chief of them, containing the Marrow and Sum of the Oracles of God, which are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Eloquia Dei, concredited only to the Church. We do therefore acknowledge, that where the People do with common and mutual consent gather into settled Congregations every Lord's day, as in England they do, to hear and teach this Doctrine, and do profess their subjection thereunto, and do bind themselves, and their Children (as in Baptism they do) to continue therein, that such Congregations are true Churches.— much more you may read in their Treatise of Church Covenant, in their Answer to the eleventh Objection, where they show, that if Christian Congregations in England were at the first combined by Covenant, the Eternity of God's Covenant is such, that it is not the Interposition of many Corruptions that may arise in aftertime that can disannul the same, etc. That Objection also, that the Members of our Parishional Assemblies were not brought in by their own voluntary profession, but by the Authority and Proclamation of the Prince, as also that Rome and the Assemblies of Papists may go for true Churches also, you shall find there very fully answered. The Name of Parish I perceive all along is stumbled at as Popish (as are the names of Parsons, Vicars and Curates, which is the main, if not the only Reason why some of you cast off both the English Churches and Ministers) and yet the thing signified by the name is owned by Scripture, and upon that account Mr. Hollingworth proves Parishes to be of Divine Right, to whom I formerly referred you, and reason itself evinceth it most expedient for the better performance of those duties which arise from Church-Membership, that the Members should cohabit or dwell as near together as conveniently they may. It's falsely charged upon as that we hold, Parish Precincts give a man right, or make him matter fit for a visible Congregation; but the Question is of a Nation or City Christian, whether the bounds of Parishes discreetly measured, may not rationally be fixed, as most expedient for Religious Meetings, seeing all cannot meet in one place; and if the Members of a Parish be visible Saints, you will not say it is not lawful to limit the Congregation unto such, (read the Review formerly cited) and that our Congregations generally consist of such, though not in your, yet in a Scripture sense, hath been in part, and shall be more fully proved.  
In your Answer to the first Branch I see nothing worth replying to,  
1. The World out of which this Nation (when made Christian) was called, every man's Eyes; but yours, easily see. 2. Many Members of the best Churches retain the lusts of the World in their hearts, and 3: May be deadly Enemies one to another, by't and devour one another, yea, and be Enemies to their faithful Ministers for telling them the truth, and yet the effects of Gospel gathering seen well enough.  
To the second branch, 1. You say we retain the Constitution which we had from Popery, which is very false; for we rejected Popery, embraced Gods holy truths and joined together in true worship, and so were Matter and Form distant far enough from Popish Rulers; you mean we retain the same Parish bounds which Papists left us, to which sufficient hath been spoken.  
2. You deny the Command of the Magistrate (assisting the public Preaching of the Gospel) to be a means appointed and approved of God for the gathering or recalling of a back-slided People. That the Magistrates duty is to command, yea and compel men that have forsaken their God, and the true Faith, to return again to God, I proved by the approved examples of the good King's undor the old Testament, which you throw off very lightly, as if old-Testament-Proofs were of no force; whereas the Apostle expressly teacheth, that the Gospel Churches are built upon the Prophets, as well as the Apostles, Ephes. 2. 20. And that I may farther convince you of your Error and Folly in slighting these Examples, 1. You cannot but grant that what these good Kings did was by virtue of divine warrant, Deut. 13. 5-11. 17. 2. Exod. 22. 20. 2. It will thus appear, that these Rules and Patterns are binding under the New Testament, 1. Because we find no Repeal of these Precepts, no Prohibition of these Practices.  
2. This Power is of Common and Natural Equity, and that which is answerable to the Moral Law binds under the Gospel. 3 This Power was established and exercised upon Moral grounds, and for Moral ends, Deut 13. 5. 11. 4. We find this very thing prophesied of the times of the New Testament, Es 49. 23. Zech. 13. 3.  
5. The Apostle makes Rulers a terror to evil works, and Revengers to execute wrath upon Evil Doers, without limitation, or exception, and you will not deny transgressions of the first Table to be evil works. Moreover, you cannot but remember that it is a Gospel-expression, Compel them to come in.  
Your first Argument from the Apostles gathering Churches, without the Magistrates help (there being no Christian Magistrate) proves the Power of God, who can make his Word alone Effectual, but it proves not, that had there been Christian Magistrates, they ought not to have aided by their authority, or that the Apostles would not have called for their assistance.  
The consequence of your second Argument is absurd. If I have Bread and Water to preserve my life, must I not make use of these, because I want those other means which God hath appointed, and which, when he sees good, he will add to these to make my life more comfortable?  
Your conclusion of this Answer, is a triumph before the victory. My following Argument, which you say, will melt like Snow before the Sun, may make a flood which will sweep away your refuge of lies. James 3. 14, 15.  
Those Assemblies wherein Christ dwells by the special presence 
Arg. 4. Dr. B.  of his Grace, are true visible Churches: but Christ dwells in the Parochial Assemblies of England by the special presence of his Grace; Ergo the Parochial Assemblies of England are true visible Churches. The Major proved, Rev. 1. 12, 13, Psal. 132, 13, 14. Exod. 25. 31. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 2 Cor. 6. 16. The Minor thus, Where ever the word of God is faithfully and constantly Preached to the Ears and Eyes of people, and by them attended, and submitted unto, there Christ is present by his grace: But the word of God is faithfully, and constantly preached in the Parochial Assemblies of England, etc. Ergo.  
Again, Where Christ by his Spirit in the Ministry of his word converts, confirms and comforts his people, there is the special presence of his Grace: But in our Assemblies Christ converts, etc. Ergo he is present with us.  
Lastly, Where there is a settled meeting together in the name of Christ for a true worship of Christ, there is Christ present: But there is such a meeting by the Assemblies of England. Ergo.  
The Major I grant, id est, 1, Where Christ dwells by the special 
Answ. 1. 0.  presence of his Grace, as they be golden Candlesticks, a house of God, a Zion, there must needs be a true Church; for it is no more but as if you should say thus, where the presence of Christ is with a society as they are a true Church, there must needs be a Church, for all those expressions, Candlestick, Zion, house, are but special terms, emphatically to set forth the nature of that one thing the Church; for the Candlesticks are the Church, Rev. 1. 20. The House of God is the Church, 1 Tim 3. 15.  
But now I deny the Minor, I deny that God dwells in the Parishes of this Nation as a Church: I deny not but that God may be present with some, who walk in the sincerity of their hearts to what they know; but that God dwells with the Parishes generally (of which the Question is) as a Church, I deny.  
And now to the proofs of your Minor, you argue thus, Where ever the word is faithfully, etc.  
I deny, that the word is faithfully preached in the Parishes of 
Answ. 1.  this Nation, (generally.)  
2. I deny, that the word, such as it is, is generally submitted unto, except by assent, and by submitting you understand a bare acknowledgement of the things taught to be true, than the consequence is abundantly false; for the wickedest men in the world, perhaps the Devils themselves, may assent and submit so far, and no man will say such may make a true Church.  
Lastly, I deny the Consequence, that wheresoever the word is truly preached, there the presence of Christ is, as it is a Church. A bare denial might be sufficient to a bare assertion; for you have given neither Scripture nor reason for your Argument. But I answer first thus, If in many Parishes of this Nation there be ignorant, idle, dumb dogs for the Ministers of those places, than the Word cannot be faithfully preached there: But in many of the Parishes of this Nation there are such, Ergo, the consequence is undeniable. The Minor is your own words; For the first time I heard you Preach, and excepted against you, you applied those words of the Prophet, Esay 56. to some of the Ministers of this Nation. Secondly, That word that they do Preach, such as it is, is not obeyed nor submitted to upon your own grounds; for if the word be generally truly preached, and generally truly submitted to, it must unavoidably follow that all the men in all the Parishes of this Nation are faithful people, which is false, because in their works they do evidently deny it: and to say they be faithful people, is first to Preach plain contradictions, one while denouncing Gods judgements against them as wicked unbelievers, another while when you are put to prove them Churches, tell them they be faithful people, to sow pillows under their elbows, and to say Peace when there is none, and making them to trust in lying words that will not profit. Jer. 7. 4. Ezek. 13. 10.  
Thirdly, I deny the Consequence, Though the word should be truly Preached and assented and submitted to, that will not prove that place to be the place where the presence of Christ is, as it stands related to the Church according to your Scriptures; because the presence of Christ in the faithful Preaching of his word, and also submission to, may be separable sometimes from the Church, and therefore cannot be a note, seeing that which is a note of a thing to know it by, must agree to it, and to it only, and at all times.  
You argue further, Where Christ by his Spirit— Converts, etc.  
Answer, The special presence of Christ may be considered two ways, Either with Believers simply, as such, being fit matter for a Church, or, Secondly, as they be a company of Believers joined together in Gospel-order, being a Temple built up by God for an habitation for himself through the Spirit. Ephes. 2. 21, If the presence of Christ be by you understood in this last sense, which is only to your purpose, your first Argument standing in that form, than I deny the Consequence; because that both Conversion by the Ministry of the word, etc. may be separable from the Church, and performed out of the Church, as is so evident it needs no proof.  
Lastly, you reason thus, Where there is a meeting together etc.  
Answ. I deny that there is such a meeting by the Parishes of England, as that in Matth. 18. for the presence of Christ there spoken of is, that when two or three that are truly Godly are met together to desire something of the Lord, he will grant their requests, because he at that time is present with them; but what is this to the general meeting of the Parishes of this Nation, where many, nay the most are openly wicked, some meeting for fashion because others do, some for Custom because they have done so, to hear a Sermon, a Prayer, and then depart, not knowing what the power of Godliness is? what (I say) that meeting in Matth. 18. is to this, is a riddle to me; and truly Sir, I wonder why you left your Minor so helpless, adding neither one Scripture nor Reason to help it.  
You grant my Major, but in such a sense as is to me non sense, when 
Reply. Dr. B.  I say those Societies where Christ dwells by his special presence are his Church, you say, true, if he dwells in them, as they be his Church; You might have done better to have waved your Asses, and given us an instance of any one Society where Christ was ever so present, that could be evicted by the Word not to have been his Church.  
Where ever the King's Personal presence is, there is the Court, and so where Christ's special Gracious presence is, there is his Church; the Scriptures (which you speak nothing to) plainly hold forth this doctrine, that the Assemblies where Christ is peculiarly resident, and gives out special tokens of his grace, are his Churches; and that he is in such a manner present not where else, in all the world. I reason thus, Christ is only visibly present in his visible Church, therefore where he is discerned so present there is his visible Church. Psal. 63. 1, 2.  
You deny my Minor, with the same limitation as you granted the Major, God dwells not (you say) in the Parishes of this Nation as a Church. I will to gratify, and (if it be possible) to convince you, make good, that Christ dwells in the Parishes of this Nation, as a Church, by those three Reasons, evidencing his presence amongst us; For the fortifying whereof, I was sparing in bringing Scripture-proof, or farther reason, not because I had not store of both, but because I judged it needless to light a Candle to the Sun; but seeing you tax me for bare Asserting, you shall see me strongly Confirming each of the Reasons (taking in your own restriction) First, I prove the Faithful Constant Preaching of the Word, to be a note of Christ's presence with a people, as a Church. Deus. 4. 7, 8.▪ So nigh unto them— this special nearness of God is proved, because they had the Law set before them, i. e. fixed among them. Psal. 147. 19, 20. By Word, he means his will, revealed in the Scriptures, given to his Church, as a most precious and peculiar treasure. Zech. 8. 23. The reason why the Gentiles should join themselves to the Jews is, because the Word was with them, we have heard by your Preaching, this was the great and glorious prerogative of the Jews, which afterward they lost, and as soon as they lost, it ceased to be a Church, Acts 13. 46. the Apostle witnesseth this to be the greatest privilege the Jews had. Rom. 3. 1, 2.  
If this be a peculiar privilege to the Church of God, to have a standing fixed preaching of the Word among them; and if no People in the world can be named, that had this ordinance of preaching, which were not God's Church, than this is a sure sign. Secondly, it appears, that his working saving Grace, by this Ordinance, is as a sure sign, 1 Cor. 14. 24, 25.— he will report that God is in you (as a Church) of a truth. John 4. 22. Christ proves the Jews to be a true Church: Because Salvation might be had there; out of the Church there is no salvation (ordinarily) If you can show that Christ is present to Convert, etc. in any Society where his word is faithfully and constantly Preached that is not his Church, this Reason shall stand for invalid. Thirdly, the meeting mentioned, Matth. 18. you deny not to be a Church-meeting; therefore where a Society meet to worship God by Prayer (as you expound it) or for the Administration of Church Censures (as the place carries it) there Christ is present as his Church.  
Now that the Word is faithfully and constantly Preached in our Assemblies, and that Christ Converts, etc. by our Preaching, and that our People meet together to pray in his Name, is manifest to all the world; that we have idle, ignorant Ministers, in many Congregations, and a great multitude that want the power of Godliness among us, etc. is acknowledged, but it's well known as bad of both sorts were in the Church of the Jews, and in the Apostolical Churches, which notwithstanding remained true Churches, while he continued his presence, and they met and joined in his true worship, till God gave them a bill of divorce, and withdrew his presence, and they cast off Gods true worship, through obstinacy.  
Those Assemblies that are built upon the Foundation of the 
Arg. 5.  Prophets and Apostles are true Churches, Ephes. 2. 19, 20. But ours are so built, for they have the whole Doctrine of the Old 
Dr. B.  and New Testament for the infallible and  ground of their Faith, whereby they subsist in Church-Communion.  
I deny you Minor, What you mean by these words (they have 
Answ. J. O.  the whole Doctrine) etc. is doubtful; if by having of it you mean Christ hath left this Old and New Testament in the world for the  ground of men's Faith; that's true, but nothing to the purpose; for if so, it's left to all men, and many men may also believe it to be so, and yet be so far from being built upon it, as they walk and build directly from it: If you mean that they have it in the practice of it, so as they practically build upon it, that's false; for such Persons are built upon it, as the Apostle holds out in that Chapter, such who were dead, but now alive, saved by Grace, such who were made to sit in heavenly places in Christ. Now the greater part of the men in your Parishes are such as were never spiritually alive, lying in their sins still unquickned: therefore they are not built upon that Foundation practically.  
When I say our Assemblies are built upon Prophetical and Apostolical 
Reply.  Doctrine, I mean there is no other Doctrine taught or owned with us, but what hath warrant from the Old and New Testament; 
Dr. B.  if there be show it; now that hence it follows we are therefore Gods true Church is apparent from the Apostles Scope, proving the Ephesians to be the Household of God, because they were so built; for that by building is meant Owning and Confessing the truth, I prove from that of our Saviour, Mat. 16. 18. nor can you show any Society Confessing the whole truth of God, that was not a true Church. The want of Practice which you allege in the greatest part of our Members weakens not at all the force of the Argument; for the very same is taxed by our Saviour in the Church of Sardis, Rev. 3. 1. Thou hast a name to live and art dead; the generality of the members of that Church were void o● Grace, and ungodly men, and yet Christ owns it for his Church in the beginning of that verse; and how far the Church of Corinth, and other Gospel's Churches were from being built practically (in your sense) you have heard sufficiently, and yet (blessed be God) we have in our Parochial Churches a competent number of practical Christians, that walk exactly according to the rule of the Gospel, for whose sakes, if you had the Spirit of Christ, you would (I suppose) acknowledge our whole Societies to be his visible Churches.  
That Church, that is the pillar and ground of truth, is the true 
Arg. 6.  Church, 1 Tim. 3. 15. but so is the Church of England, in respect of the profession and maintenance of true Religion, which it both 
Dr. B.  supporteth as a Pillar, and maketh it openly known to others, defending it against all Errors, Contradictions, and Corruptions whatsoever. Revel. 2. 13.  
You subtly alter the terms of the question, that the folly of your Argument may not appear; instead of these words, the Parishes of this Nation, you say, the Church of England, which you ought not to have done; the Argument from these words (if it include the Question) must proceed thus; That Church which is the Pillar and ground of Truth, is a true Church: but so are the Parishes of this Nation in their maintaining and professing true Religion, supporting it as a Pillar, etc.  
Now Sir, The Minor is evidently false, the very naming of it is Confutation sufficient, it being evident to behold, that the Parishes of this Nation, have always been, and still are, inclinable to whatsoever their Teachers and Rulers set up, without ever questioning the truth of it except here and there a man, which is nothing to our question, it being of the Parishes generally; Look upon them in the time of Popery, and produce one Parish-Church (much less all) that opposed the power of the Pope, but all inclinable to that wicked worship; so in the time of Prelacy, how conformable to that, never once talking then of Presbytery: and I believe as formerly so now if the power of this Nation should enact that all should turn Independents, they would obey without any general opposition, and within this few years would as little think of Presbytery, which you think to be truth now, as they did then, when he was Counted an Heretic, that believed not as the Church believed, Which was then the scarlet-coloured whore of Rome; and yet you let not to say, they have been the Pillar of Truth, defending it against all Errors, which if true, Presbytery is false, in that the Parishes of this Nation have born Testimony to two contrary Religions (Popery and Prelacy)— That Church that one time professeth Popery, and another while Prelacy, being variable, according to the times, in which she lives, that Church is not the Pillar and ground of truth: But the Parishes of this Nation have one while, etc. Ergo, and for Revel. 2. 13. When you have proved the Parishes of this Nation Pergamus, I will Consider of it.  
I know no advantage I should have gotten, if the word 
Reply. Dr. B.  Church had been permitted to stand instead of Parishes, but rather disadvantage, because a National Church is as liable (if not more) to exception, nor can I imagine how this could have hidden the folly of my Argument, its folly to pick a quarrel; the Church is nothing else but the Parishes, or if you will, that is the Mother, these the daughters: the Minor proposition which you deny, will appear evident enough, by considering the Apostles meaning of Pillar and Ground of Truth, and applying it to our Assemblies. both which I will do in few words.  
The House, or Church of God, is so called, in respect of the profession and maintenance of the true Religion of God, which it both supporteth as a Pillar, and maketh it openly known to others; as Magistrates use to hang and affix their Edicts and Proclamations on pillars, or other places of strength and firmness; and here consequently is declared the Office and duty of the Church, in holding and publishing the Truth, and defending it against all Errors, Contradictions and Corruptions, and whatsoever Societies do this, it's written upon those Societies with a Sun beam, that they are the true Churches of Christ.  
Now, it's notoriously known, that the Articles of Religion agreed upon, Anno 1562. are published and consented to by all the 
See the answer of the Elders of the several Churches of New England to the ninth Question p. 26. and Church Covenant, p. 40.  Ministers endowed in every Congregation of this Nation, with the silent consent also of the People, and subscription of the hands of the chief of them, wherein they do acknowledge no rule of Faith or Manners but the holy Scriptures, no divine worship but to God only, no Mediation nor Salvation but in Christ only, no Conversion by Man's free will but by God's free grace, no Justification but by Faith, no perfection nor merit of works, with all other necessary and saving truths upon which the Church is grounded and built, and which also it holdeth forth and maintaineth; This alone abundantly evinceth, that the Parishes of this Nation are the Pillar and ground of Truth. Besides, these truths are daily in most Congregations faithfully opened and applied, and whatsoever is contrary thereunto on the right hand or left convincingly confuted; our Parishes therefore keeping Gods Records faithfully, are his Registers, and consequently his true Churches.  
Your declaiming against the inclinableness of our People, to alter with their Governors, might have been spared, well knowing it was the practice of the Church of Israel to do so, and the Churches of Galatia, how soon were they removed from him that called them into the Grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, to the admiration of the Apostle? Galat. 1. 6. And therefore it needs be no marvel if our people so easily change from one Church-Goverment to another, which they may do without prejudice to fundamental verity, which though the Galathians overthrew, yet they remained true Churches. If you read the Epistle of Christ to Pergamus understandingly, and compare our Church with that, you will find, that we are not worse, and wherein any in that Church were praiseworthy, for doing or suffering, you may find some in ours not short of them.  
From our practice, agreeing with the practice of the Primitive 
Arg. 7. Dr. B.  Apostolical Churches. Those Societies that continue steadfast in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and in Prayer, are true Churches, Acts 2. 42. but so do ours, Ergo.  
I deny your Minor, and the reason why we separate from you, is upon 
Answ. J. O.  that ground; you have added neither Scripture nor Reason to prove your Minor, but have left it destitute of all proof, you could hardly have brought a Scripture in all the Bible, which in every thing, both in doctrine and practice, makes so directly against you, as this that you have brought for you.  
For first, your doctrine is contrary, secondly so is your practice; for doctrine first: after that Peter had preached the Lord Christ, to these men, it working upon their hearts, ver. 37. they cried out, What shall we do? the doctrine of the Apostle to them ver. 38. is Repent, and be Baptised, and so they were ver. 41. they were the same day added to the Church; but you, both Ministers and People, go directly contrary, first, Baptise them at three or four days old, and so make them members of your Church, and perhaps, twenty or forty years after preach Repentance, just contrary to the Apostles doctrine, and Gods examples. 1 King. 6. 7. Ephes. 2. 21, 22. 1 Pet. 2. 5. First, you take into your house, unhued stones, and unsquared timber, and twenty or forty years after fall to squaring them for the building; Now, for your practice in your fellowship, the powerful operation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, after it had worked them from the world, and from themselves, and one into another in the unity of the Spirit, as one man, it is said ver. 44, 45. and all that believed were together, had all things common, and sold their possessions, etc. And chap. 4. 32, 34, 35. and the multitude of believers were of one heart, and one soul; neither said any of them that aught that he possessed was his own, etc. But your fellowship is directly contrary, one sortfed with all delicious fare, clothed with gorgeous Apparel, and pride abominable, and the other sort one company working and toiling more than they be well able, and glad if they may be set on work, and all to get a few  and food, and yet cannot get enough to satisfy, they being tormented by the oppression of the rich, that as the Lord saith, their faces are ground, and their burdens are almost insupportable, the other sort begging from door to door, which is miserable to see in that Nation, where many vainly spend so much in one hour as would relieve many a poor creature ready to perish with cold, and famished with hunger, all which is evident by lamentable experience, and yet you have the boldness to compare your Parishes with those in Acts 2. betwixt which there is as much difference, as betwixt light and darkness.  
Those that continue not in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, etc. are no true Churches; but the Parishes of this Nation continue ●ot, etc. Ergo, they are not true Churches; the Major is your own by the rule of contraries, the Minor is Evident by that which hath been said.  
You render us a reason of your separation from us, which whether it will hold, when God shall ask you Who hath required this 
Reply. Dr. B.  at your hands, you have just reason to question; groundless separation, and Church-division, being as great a sin as Adultery or Theft. Our Blessed Saviour and his Disciples separated not from Assemblies, whose teachers and members were worse than ours, read Matth. 23. nor can you find any command or example in all the Scripture, for separating from Societies that hold all fundamental Truths, and join together in God's true worship, as ours do. The doctrine and practice of the Apostles in Baptising Jews or Heathens, brought within the Pale of the Church, professing their Faith and Repentance, and desiring to be sealed with this Sacrament, for the strengthening of their Souls in this Faith, as these here did, is the doctrine of our Churches; our doctrine and practice of Baptising Infants of Believers, is so far from being directly Contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles (there being neither here nor any where else any word of theirs forbidding to baptise Infants) as that there is very clear warrant in this very place to Baptise such Infants. For the Apostle makes it his Argument to them to be willing to receive Baptism, because the promise is made to them and their Children▪ and, to as many as the Lord our God shall call, and to their Children, this must needs be understood, or else the promise to Believing Gentiles is not of the same Latitude, as it is to Believing Jews. I presume, you will acknowledge, that the Covenant of Grace is as fair and full to these. Now, if the Promise be made to Believers and their Children▪ the Command must reach, not only to them, but to their Children also; running thus, be Baptised you and your Children, for the promise is made to you and your Children, if otherwise, this that w●s intended to be an effectual motive, would have been an effectual dissuasive, and deterred Parents from accepting Baptism, and renouncing Circumcision, to which initial sign their Infant-childrens till now had right, having privilege of Church Membership as well as Parents, which by this acceptance they must lose, and be cast into a condition like that of Infidels. Which loss to the Church by Christ's coming seems to be no less than of denial of his coming in the flesh. Moreover, the Apostles practice in Baptising whole families (a part whereof, and the greatest part for the most part, Children are) immediately upon the parents believing, is a warrantable pattern for the practice of our Churches. Your objection that there is no express mention of Infant's Baptised in those families, notwithstanding yourselves will take liberty to believe, that many were Baptised, of whose Baptism there is no mention made in Scripture (the twelve Apostles for instance) nor is it said, there were wives, or servants, in those families.  
You do not well, to call all Infants, unhued, and unsquared Timber, have you never read, what the Scripture saith of Infant-childrens, born within the bosom of the Church? Esay 65. 20. The Child shall by an hundred years old, that is, he shall be as well instructed by God's inward teaching (according to that promise, Esae. 53. 14.) As if he had lived under the Churches teaching an hundred years. And if some Children be timber hued, and squared, for the Kingdom of Glory (Mark 10 14) why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that they be squareable for the Kingdom of Grace? Moreover, that place in 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. If duly considered, more than probably proves, that it was an Apostolical practice to Baptise Infants born within the Church, if not, it will be difficult to make the Apostles Comparison of the two Churches, and their Sacraments, and subjects thereof, to run parallel.  
Your pleading for Anabaptistical Community, I think not worth replying to, as neither your declaiming against the hardheartedness of some of our rich members; you will find as bad, or worse, among the members of the Churches Apostolical, read 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. and Jam. 2. and 5.  
We are not therefore overbold to compare our doctrine and fellowship, with the Primitive; degrees of Purity, in doctrine and practice, we easily yield them above us; But the same Truth we hold fast, and will not let it go, we teach no other doctrine, have fellowship in no other worship, Ergo, we are true Churches.  
Those Christian Societies that have the true Ministry of Christ 
Arg. 8. Dr. B.  set over them, for their Pastors, and Spiritual Rulers, are true Churches, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. But so have the Parishes of England. Ergo. That the Ministers of England are true Ministers, appears by their ordination, which was, by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; Secondly, by their abilities both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Tim. 2. 15. Galat. 2. 14. Thirdly, by God's blessing on their endeavours and labours, 2 Cor. 3. 1.  
I deny the Minor, in the proof whereof you forget yourself; you should 
Answ. I. O.  say thus, that the Parishes of this Nation have a true Ministry of Christ set over them; and then the question is, Who set them? you say, it appears first by their Ordination, etc. I answer, your Ordination is false, and that upon a double account, and seeing, you either will not, or cannot prove it true, but only barely affirm without proof, I will give you the grounds of my denial. First, the Presbytery by which you were ordained, which is the Bishops, now it is undeniable, they had their Ordination from the Pope, and I am sure, he had his from the Devil. Now, the Devil ordaining the Pope, the Pope the Bishops, the Bishops you, how can you be true Ministers by him, that was none himself? how the Bishops could confer that power to you that they never had themselves, is a mystery? you hold that Ordination is Essential to Preaching, now except you be able to prove your personal succession of ministry from the Apostles, and that they do lineally succeed without interruption, your Ordination is false, for except there be a personal succession uninterrupted by heresy, or whatsoever else may nullify a Ministers calling, from the Apostles time to this present, for if there be but one who when he ordained was no Minister (or not ordained) all that were ordained by him are no Ministers, if Ordination be essential; now, if there should be a personal succession, this draws with it a perpetual visibility of a Church, which when and where it is to be found in the dark times of Popery, I desire to see, for though there were Godly men, yet not a visible Church with a right-ordained and ordaining Ministry. Secondly, were it granted that all the Bishops were true Ministers, Lineal succession, etc. That as you were ordained, I deny that you were right set in those Parishes (if they were Churches as they are not) according to Eph. 4. for First, he must be enabled with abilities from God for that work, Ephes. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 6. 1 Cor. 12▪ 11. Together with Grace to walk suitably thereunto, 1 Tim. 3. 23. tit. 1, 6, 7, 8. Secondly, being thus fitted with abilities, the Church that is in want of Officers, seeing such Men fit for the work, are to Elect such Men for the Service they are enabled to perform, Acts 14. 23. They ordained i e. they Elected and Chose, so the word ordained is put where the Scripture speaks expressly of Choosing, Acts 1. 22. So saith one of your own Divines, they made them by voices, the matter went to suffrages, which could not be betwixt Paul and Barnabas, Election by most voices, or lifting up of hands, in token of a suffrage, had place only amongst a multitude assembled together, so Acts 1. 23. They, the Church, appointed two, and although the Lord shown by lot, which of the two, yet it was the Church's Act, to reduce it to two, so Acts 6. 5. The Argument will hold good from the less to the greater, if the Church must choose a Deacon in the time the Apostles were present, and an inferior Officer, much more a Pastor, that they were so highly concerned in, and it is contrary to all reason, that the Church should be debarred of the choice of her own Officers, after which Ordination by Imposition of hands, Acts 6. 6. only to signify the setting apart of that Man to that which he is chosen to. In the Apostles time, the Holy Ghost was given by it, but now as the Miracle so the Mystery is ceased, and if it be used to that end still, it is false, the end being ceased. Now you were set in these Parishes by the Bishop's clean contrary, like Men minding directly to oppose Christ in all they did; for first, when Men proceeded to such degrees in the Universities they made them Ministers, in that they had attained to so much literature, and not only in regard of their having received abilities from God, with grace to walk up thereunto, which only ought to be the ground upon which they ought to be judged fit for that work▪ as appeareth from hence, in that they ordained many that were ignorant sots in the knowledge of the things of God, that with all their wit could not tell how to make a Sermon in their way of sermon▪ making, except they could patch up an hours talk out of others works, and then come & read it to the people, which is no Preaching; they had better bring their great books where their Sermons are made to their hands, & read out of them: for First, It would save them much paixes. Secondly, It would not cousin their hearers. Thirdly, It would not be robbery to their owner; and so far have many of them been short of grace to live holy lives, which is as absolutely required as gifts, 1 Tim. 3. 3. and Tit. 1. 0, 7. as that experience shows their works are abominable. Secondly, as they went upon a wrong ground, so in a wrong manner: For first, they made them Ministers before they had a flock to Minister to, which was ridiculous, seeing that Pastor and Flock are Relates; the one gives being, and the Essential Constituting Cause to the other, and if it be foolish to say, a Man may be a father and have had no child, a busband and no wife, it is also as foolish to say, a Man, a Minister, a Pastor, without a flock, the like reason in both: So election by the Church which is to give the very being to a Pastor, in relation to the Office he is to perform, so as without which he may not perform the work, this is altogether left out, and a violent intrusion by the help of the Patron (a thing unheardof in God's Word) is come in its stead, and Ordination which is to be a solemn setting and Confirming of such a Man into that work he is chosen, being the last, this is made first, and Christ's order directly changed. First, from hence it appears, that the Ministers of this Nation are not rightly set into the Office of the Ministry, and so their Churches no true Churches: and what help your other two Reasons will afford comes now to examination; You say by their abilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then by God's blessing on their endeavours. I answer, if these be particulars, to wit of some of the Ministers of these Parishes, they include not the Question, which is of all generally, but if generally all the Ministers of these Parishes of whom the Question is, I deny that they are generally able to divide the Word of Truth, as our Translations render it, for if they be, you did very ill to call them dumb dogs & greedy dogs as you did, they are so far from rightly dividing the Word of Truth, as that the Word of Truth is a Mystery to them, as daily experience showeth, and what this Exhortation of Paul to Timothy, study to show thyself, etc. Is to prove, that all the Covetous, Ignorant, Drunken Priests of this Nation are able to do so too, is a Mystery to me; the like may be answered to the next, what blessing is to be seen in the labours of such Men, I know not, where like Priest, like People, almost generally for where they have an Ignorant drunken Priest, such commonly are the People, as it is easy to instance in too many, and what's the words of Paul, 2 Cor. 3. Ye are our Epistle &c. to prove that there is the like effects by the Ministers of the Parishes of this Nation, generally upon their hearers, as was by Paul upon the Corinthians, I can in no wise see, and truly Sir, I must tell you, that I cannot but think that cause to be bad, that is fain to make use of such poor proofs to hold it up, viz. That the Ministers of this Nation generally are set by Christ in these places, and yet many of them visibly abominable, that have nothing to do to take God's Word into their mouths, seeing they hate to be Reform, and that all these are able rightly to divide the Word of Truth, and that God hath blest their Labours, which is so evidently false that the naming of it, is confutation sufficient.  
You did, or might have heard from my mouth, a full discourse, 
Reply. Dr. B.  in vindication of the Ministry of England, and of the lawfulness of their Ordination: wherein all that you have here objected, and much more, was fully answered, You have therefore no reason to say, that either I will not, or cannot prove it true, yourself, or friends, have the Notes at large, which you may remember, were publicly produced the next Month day after the Sermon was preached. Two things I shall lay down, as to the charge brought against our ordination by Bishops. First, That the Bishops, by 
See joint consent answer to the 4 objection against the whole body of our Assemblies p. 19  whom we were ordained, cannot truly and properly be called Antichristian, because they held the truth of doctrine, and professed all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, many of them have written powerfully against P●pety, and suffered much for defending the Truth of Christ against Antichrist, some of them yet living, such Gospel's Ministers against whom Envy itself cannot except, fulfilling the Word o● God, by fidelity of dispensation, and sincerity of Conversation. Let all such places of Scripture be Consulted where Antichrist is described and you will find him always marked out by his fall doctrine; though therefore it be confessed, that in the Authority which our Bishops had, and the exercise thereof, there were something Antichristian, yet it is as unchristian, to call them Antichrists, upon that account, as to call you an hypocrite, because there is something of hypocrisy in you. Secondly, Suppose them to be indeed Popish and Antichristian, it will not follow that the ordination we had from them is so. It is confessed by all, that this Nation had not the light of the Gospel, and consequently the ordination of gospel-ministers from Rome, but from Jerusalem, even in the times of the Apostles, or soon after; and though the succession of this ordination hath passed through all the times of Popery since, and the ordination of our first Reformers was from men of the Popish Religion, yet is not the rightfulness of our vocation to the Ministry hereby Nulled; the Scriptures themselves, Baptism, and the Articles of our Creed, have all passed through the Papacy to us, and yet they cease not to be true Scriptures, true Baptism, no more does Ordination; Ministerial Acts are not at all vitiated, much less made null, though they pass through the hands of the worst of men. Scribes and Pharisees were worse than naught, Judas was a Devil, Math. 23. 2, 3. John. 6. 70. Acts done by virtue of Office may be just and allowable, though the Men and their Religion be naught. You are not ignorant of the instance given of Popish Landlords, and Judges, whose Leases and sentences are not therefore Antichristian? So in this Case, Ordination is an Act of Office, and derived from Christ, and is not Popish, though it be executed by Papists. He that thinks Christ's Ordination better for the Man that confers it, is justly thought to incur the danger of that Curse denounced Jer. 17. 5. Much more may be said to stop your mouth, but that so much is written already, that all our adversaries are never able to resist.  
Touching the exception against our entrance, that we were not thosen by our People, but presented by Patrons, many things have been Answered that may suffice to give satisfaction to any sober minded. First, That the right of presentation that patrons have, was given first by the People's free consent, and therefore the choice they make may be accounted to be the choice of the people. Secondly, The Law of our Land in the worst times required, that People should have the same Election for substance which you plead for. Thirdly, Many of our Ministers were chosen by their People. Fourthly, The faithful in many Congregations by their glad receiving of Ministers placed by Patrons, and submitting themselves willingly to their godly directions, at least by taking no exception against them, consent to their entrance. Fiftly, Though it be very unfitting, that People (if fit to choose) should have a Minister thrust upon them, yet there is no clear Scripture-evidence, that Ministers must be chosen by their People, the meaning of that word in the Acts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can be no more but this, that the event of the Lot was approved by the common consent, and no marvel, because it was determined by God, but hence it follows not, that it was their choice to accept or refuse him for an Apostle, or if it did follow, what is this to ordinary Ministers?  
To that in Acts 6. not to say as some do, that it might be the Apostles indulgence to the People, Certain it is, that an example without a precept, makes not a constant Rule; again, from the People's Election of Deacons, to their Election of Ministers, the Consequence is not valid, as it is not from the Election of a Mayor to the Election of a King. That place in Acts 14. 23. seems most potent, but the word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not strong enough, because it's used to signify any Choice whatever, though made by one alone, Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostles were Elected by Christ alone, Mark 6. Moreover, the word is used by Ecclesiastical writers for to signify Imposition of hands, which no way belonged to the People, but was always referred to the Apostles and their successors 6. Suppose it necessary, yet it is Evident enough that there may be some entrance into the Ministry sufficient, where the People at first have not made Election; as in Case they have not knowledge of their right, or have not been suffered to use it, but yet afterwards yielded themselves subject thereunto. 7. Those that Consider how the Office of High Priest in our Saviour's time was bought and sold, and the succession ordinarily broken, and yet how valid Acts done by them were to all intents and purposes, will be abundantly satisfied that these allegations, to null our Ministerial Office, are lighter than vanity.  
The other two Reasons to prove our Ministers to be sent of God, are such as you threaten to examine, but finding them too strong to deal with, you leave them, but leave not to cast filth upon his Faithful Labourers, because there are many unfaithful ones among them; as if the Priesthood under the Law were made null, by the ignorance and wickedness of a multitude in that Office: If there were but a tenth of dexterous dividers of the Word of Truth in our Assemblies, and of such whose Ministry God hath blessed with Conversion of Souls, it might suffice to prove Gods approving the Ordination, which you so vehemently inveigh against; you will not own one of all our Ministers to be sent of God, how able and holy, and successful soever, which shows your miserable shifting off the force of the Argument, because the word General is in the question, which you as miserably Misunderstand, as if it included all. The Text in Timothy clearly shows, that by dividing the Word of Truth aright, Gospel Ministers approve themselves to God, and that such as do so, are called of God. And that in 2 Cor. 3. is a like manifest declaration of a lawful mission, for as much as the Apostle brings it to prove his extraordinary calling of Apostleship; to which I add Gods own Word, Jer. 23. 22. Nor can you give an instance of Gods honouring any Prophets or Ministers not sent by him, whose labours he ever blessed with the winning of souls.  
Those Christian Congregations, that seeing their defects and 
Arg. 9 Dr. B.  Corruptions, labour after Reformation, are Christ's true Churches; but so do the Congregations of England, Ergo▪  
I deny your Minor, I deny that the Parishes of this Nation Generally 
Answ. I. O.  see their defects and Corruptions. For first, there is amongst all diversities of Religion in the World, but one that is only right. Secondly, There is in this Nation a great many, perhaps half of the Ministers and Parishes, that stand in their hearts for the Government of Bishops, that is now put down, and the reason why both these Ministers and People are not so active as others, is not for want of will, but power to execute their will, for had they power according to their will, you should find the Parishes of this Nation, so far from being generally for that which you call Reformation, as I believe, you should see Presbytery, as well as all others besides their own, as soon put down, as their Common Prayer, Surplice, Hood, Tippit and Altar, etc. This being so evident, that it needs no proof, Common sense proves it, from whence against your Minor I thus Reason's although I utterly deny that Presbyterian Government which you would establish to be right, yet in this place I will give it to you to see of what advantage it will be to you) thus, that which you would reform, those defects and Corruptions that you would mend, are such as prevailed in the time of Prelacy, when Bishop were in their pomp, and as you would reform it to that which is commonly called Presbytery, now those that were commonly called by the name of Cavaliers, of which there were many whole Parishes Genera●●y, these think which you Reform from is Truth, and that which you Reform to is false, your Reformation is their deformation, and that which you count to be Corruption and defect, that they count to be truth, and would as willingly have all that they have had, as you to have the contrary; this being evident, your Minor is apparently false; for how can the Parishes of this Nation Generally see their defects and corruptions, and endeavour a right Reformation Generally, when that which one Parish would reform from, that another Parish would reform to; if it be said, that many whole Parishes really see their defects, and desire to mend, I answer, whatsome Parishes of this Nation see is nothing to our purpose; the Question in dispute is of the Parishes of this Nation generally.  
You discover much Ignorance, in making every diversity of 
Reply. Dr. B.  Judgement and Practice in point of Church-Goverment, a diversity of Religion, difference among Christians, in higher matters, and much nearer the foundation, hinders not but they may be of one and the same Religion; and so Episcopal men, Presbyterians, and Independents, nor do any of these cast off Antipoedobaptists, as men of another Religion, but pity their folly, in cutting themselves from God's Churches, by denying all besides their own Societies to be true Churches.  
You mistake much, if you think I intent in my Argument the desire and endeavour of the whole body of our People in all our Parishes for a right Reformation, the greater part in all times have been backward to good, but if you go thorough all the Parishes of England, you will find very few where there are not some whose faces are Sion-ward, and these with a very great number of Ministers in all quarters, earnestly desire, that in every Congregation there might be set up a Gospell-government.  
You seem to me clearly to grant my Major proposition, and to yield that there are some of our Parishes who see their defects and corruptions, and labour after Reformation. If you will acknowledge, that these (yea but one of these) are true Churches, I will say, it argues ingenuity in you: and farther give you satisfaction, that through the tender mercy of our God, it is with England at this day, as it was with those fields our Saviour speaks of, John 4. 35. That they are white already to harvest, ready to receive a Gospell-Reformation, and had been ere now in a more blessed case, had not those of your way hindered the work; which I pray that God would lay it to your heart, that it may not be laid to your charge.  
Drawn from Cant. 1. 7, 8. They that walk in the footsteps of 
Arg. 10. Dr. B. Answ. J. O.  Christ's ancient flock are true Churches: but ours do so, Ergo.  
If you mean Christ's ancient flock recorded in the holy Word of God▪ your Minor is denied, this is the cause we separate from you, because you have and do tread in such steps and paths, as we cannot find in Scripture, but in by-paths of the inventions of man; and I cannot but wonder why you left your Minor destitute of all proof, seeing you cannot but know that it is always denied, whether you think it is without dispute, or whether you think if you should have compared the Parishes of this Nation with the Churches of Christ mentioned in the Scripture, your proof would appear weaker than your bare affirmation, or whether you thought barely to affirm was best, that so a bare denial might be returned, truly I cannot judge, sure I am, those that writ to satisfy, do not in disputable matters only say it is so without proof, for to me a bare affirmation without Scripture or reason, is proof but weak; had you but proved your Minor, the Controversy had been ended, but seeing you have not▪ I must yet say, they that walk not in the footsteps of Christ's Ancient Flock, are no true Churches; this is your own by Rule of Contraries; but the Parishes of this Nation walk not, etc. Ergo, as is already proved from Acts 2.  
I thought it superfluous here to compare our Churches with 
Reply.  the Churches of Christ mentioned in Scripture, having done it already: if you look upon the Flock of Christ before his Incarnation, you will find, that our Congregations walk in the steps of Abraham, of his Faith, as in other things, so particularly in this (which I look you will storm at) that they bring their Infant-childrens to the sign of initiation appointed for the Church, in the administration under which they live: of the Faith of Moses, and all the Prophets, following their doctrine and pious practice too.  
If you say, most of our People deny the power of Religion, I answer, more of the Church of Israel did so.  
2. Look upon the Flock after Christ, and you will find ours follow their steps both for doctrine and discipline, the former none denies, and the substantials of the later we had, even in the Bishop's reign, as Learned and Godly Mr. Hilderson hath made good against the Brownists; and for that which is styled the Presbyterian Government, if you read without prejudice, the Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, you will find proof sufficient that That lays truest Claim to divine right, and they that embrace and follow it, walk in the steps of Christ's Ancient Apostolical flock. Your common Allegation against this, viz. That our Members are not Baptised Believers, and therefore we walk not in the steps of the Ancient Flock, is notoriously false. For first, that our Members are Believers, and many of them Real ones, you will not deny. Secondly, and that they were all Baptised in their Infancy you will acknowledge, at least they had water applied to them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is the right form of Baptism. All that you do, or can object, is, that they were not a fit subject of Baptism: but our Saviour's Words in his Commission, according to your own interpretation of them, confute you, for Infants are a part of a discipled Nation; yea, they are Disciples, Acts 15. 10. holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. and Church-members, as learned Mr. Baxter hath proved by 27. Arguments, and by denying Infants of Believers to be a fit subject of Baptism, you deny (as was lately showed) that Christ is come in the Flesh. For if he be come, certainly the Church is no loser, but a gainer by his coming: but by denying to Believers Infants this privilege, the Church is a loser by his coming.  
The tenth Argument shall be ad hominem, and an additional to a branch of the second.  
If your societies be true Churches, than so are ours: but the former is true. Ergo, the latter. The consequence is only to be made good. If all that's good in your Churches you had it from ours, both persons and things, than the Consequence is certain, Because, nihil dat quod non babet: but all that's good in yours, etc. Two thing make persons good; First, Profession of the true Faith; Secondly, Correspondent piety: the former of these you have all along yielded, the latter likewise you have granted our best members have, but the best of them you must acknowledge you have gained from us, for as much as immediately upon their departing us, you Baptise them, which argues they are fit matter for your Church▪  
1. The Consequence of the first, and also second Syllogism framed 
Answ. J. O.  to prove the fi●st, is false. For, we might constitute our Churches, of such matter as we gained from you; and yet ours true, and yours false; because ours was constituted of such matter as appeared all good, and yours was constituted of such as was for the greatest part bad. For though it be most true, that nothing gives that it hath not, yet it is also as true, that something may be gained from another that the loser retains not. An Army of Soldiers may consist of honest men and wicked; and the honest may be gained from the wicked; and now upon your Consequence, the wicked may prove themselves as good as the honest thus; if all that's good in you, you had from us, then if you be honest, we are honest.  
But all that's good in you, you had from us. Ergo, if you be honest, we are honest.  
If this Consequence be true, viz. That if all that's good in one Church they had in another: then if one be true, so is the other; I will upon your own principles prove Rome a true Church Thus:  
If you be true Churches, Rome is true; but the former is true, Ergo.  
The Consequence is only to be made good: if all that's good in the Parishes of this Nation you had from Rome, both persons and things, than the Consequence is certain; because, Nihil da● quod non habet: but all that's good in yours, etc. The Consequence is your own, the Minor is evident, that you, both persons and Ordinances came from Rome; and thus you may see what your Logic helps you to.  
Now, let's see upon this Consequence, which way you can prove yourselves true. and Rome false; and I am confident, if you speak to the purpose, you will answer for me against yourself.  
But if by these words [had from ours] you should say you mean not only to have a Company out, but to have them made good, and fitted by those from whence they be taken, if thu be your meaning, than the Minor of your second Syllogism is contrary to yourself for sure, you never fit men to say, that your Ministry is false, your Church and Ordinances false, and that ours is true, and that they ought to Separate from you, and come to us, if not they were not fitted by you for us: for thus they come to us. Thus the Consequence of your Argument carries with it no Concluding force, and the Conclusion falls to the ground; for if all that's good in us dia come from you (as it doth not,) Yet we might be true, and you false. But secondly,  
I deny your Minor, viz. That all that's good in us, came from you; Two things you say, make persons good: profession of the true Faith, and Correspondant pretty, the former I yielded the latter granted. I Answer, I never granted any such thing; I have granted, and still do; that there may be some in the Parochial Assemblies, that may be godly People; but that they be professors of the true Faith, as it is fully banded out in the Gospel, I have always denied. So not yielding the former, not granting the latter.  
Our Baptising them immediately at their departure, you say argues, we judge them fit matter, etc. I answer,  
It's not true, we Baptise them not Immediately at their departing you, but upon considerable time of trial, as may be convenient to judge, that their Conversations, together with their principles, in owning of ours, and disowning of yours, and all others, so far as they be contrary to truth, is real.  
Next you say, for things, the pure word and Sacraments rightly 
Dr. B.  administered they had in our Church: you will not (I know) object want of discipline, because you teach, that not to be necessary to the being of a Church.  
If it was, many of our Churches are not without it: the power of the Keys (you well know) is exercised in many of our Congregations. That which you Object is want of true Baptism, and giving the Lords Supper to a promiscuous Company.  
I prove they had true Baptism thus; If the Baptism they had in our Churches, be better than that they had in yours, than it is true Baptism; now that it is so, I thus evince. That Baptism that is dispensed by an authorised Administrator is better than that which is administered by such as are not authorized: but our Baptism is so administered, so is not yours. That our Administrators are lawfully authorized, you heard me prove at large in a full discourse, and then I took away all material objections against our calling, and manner of Entrance into it, to which I heard you then said nothing, though the day after, you mentioned one of the objections I put, viz. That we had our Ordination from the Bishops, they theirs from the Pope, he his from the Devil, but to this I gave two answers: viz. That our Bishops were not Antichristian, because they had truth of doctrine. Secondly, If they were, yet it makes not our calling null; the Reasons at large you have in your notes: if you please to deal faithfully in overthrowing them, I shall take it thankfully. Evident it is, that our Administrators are set apart by solemn Calling, and Ordination, for the public Ministry; and that such only may baptise, appears Matth. 28. 18, 19  
As for you, or any of yours that administer Baptism, who say, you have authority from Jesus Christ, I wouldfain, I could never yet see, that Question so frequently put to you, anwered to the least colourable satisfaction, I entreat you to do it, viz. How came you by this authority from Jesus, to Baptise, immediately, or mediately? If you say immediately, you must either show a new Commission, or make it appear by an immediate Calling, your names are put into that only written Commission, (so you call it) And if your calling be extraordinary, let me ask you as the Jews did Christ, John 2. 18. whereby it may appear, that you do these things by divine authority; show the gifts of tongues, miracles, interpretation of tongues, etc. An extraordinary call never wanted the evidence of Extraordinary abilities, or qualifications, in one kind or other. If you say, your Calling is mediate from the Church of Christ, than our demand is, whether your Call came from a Church in order built up, according to the true Gospel's Platform; or from a Company of Believers out of Gospel's Order, i. e. ungathered; you will not say sure from the larter, because you deny the Ministers of the Church of England to be a true ministry, because they were not Called by a true Church, i. e. a society of Baptised Believers, and put into order according to your way: if you should say, you had your Call from a Church ungathered, you would proclaim your Calling to be Antichristian, from your own principles; and yourselves Scihsmaticks by separating from a true Ministry. If you say, your calling is from a Baptised Congregation, than the Question still is, whether this Congregation was of your own, or some others gathering. If you gathered them, than you gathered without Call, for none can elect till they be Baptised, and in a way of Gospel's order.  
If the Congregation that Chose and Called you, was of another's gathering and Baptising, than we ask who Called than man to gather and Baptise, and so up higher; you must needs find out some one that was a baptised person, and called by a Baptised Congregation, by whom the first Administrator in England was Baptised, from whom to derive it successively.  
If you can find such a man, yet (you know) two scruples remain still, which you are desired to remove; the first is, How that Baptizer had his Call, and so backward to the first, and he (it seems) must either be one who Baptised himself, or one who rested contented with his own infant-Baptism; but this you hold nul, and for that you will not say, there is the least colour in Scripture, or if neither of these, than he must prove himself sent of God, to begin a new Institution, as John was, even more than a Prophet, for, this way was not till 1500. years after. The other scruple is this, by what authority that man so called, Baptised the first person that was Baptised in England, seeing to Baptise is an act of office, and power, and no man can be a lawful Officer, or Administrator, unless elected to that authority by baptised Persons?  
I need not acquaint you how you are pressed with these Questions: and the result that is gathered, viz. That you have no mission from God, or his Church, but Satan hath filled your hearts with blind zeal, and sent you abroad to profane this holy Ordinance, and to lead people in the ditch; that you are wand'ring stars, and subverters of unstable souls, such as have fed upon ashes, etc. but I will make no such inference, but expect that you either justify your calling, or repent you of your Practice.  
First, we neither have had the pure Word taught, but instead thereof 
J. O. Answ.  they are the Commandments of men; Nay many Parishes from whom we have received members, have been so far from having the pure Word taught, that their teachers have been Ignorant, Idle, dumb dogs, as said yourself, and such as know not well what preaching is, as said Dr. Grew.  
Neither yet have we had the Sacraments rightly administered; for the first, instead of Baptising a Believer, according to the 
a Mar. 16. 15. 16. Mar. 28. 19, 20. Go ye Disciple i, e. Make them Scholars or learners. See Luk. 14. 16, 27.  Institution of the Lord Jesus, and the practice 
b Joh. 4. 12. Act. 8. 12. 13. 37 etc.  of all his holy Disciples, that are recorded in holy Writ; you have sprinkled a little water in the face of an Infant; that hath been false in the Subject, viz. an Infant, instead of a visible Professor of the Laws of Jesus; false in the manner, viz. Sprinkling instead of dipping, accoraing to the signification of the word, according to Christ's own 
c Mat. 3. 16. Act. 8. 38.  example, and his holy servants, and according to one end for 
d Ro. 6. 4.  which it was Instituted; and false in one Principal part of the end, it being by you most applied as a Scal of grace; when mostly it is a signification of 
e Mat. 28. 19 Baptising into the Name (so the Word) which frequently signifieth profession. Ma. 10. 22. Jo. 15. 21. Act. 5. 41. Revel. 2. 13. etc. So Paul 1 Cor. 1. 13. 15. Were you Baptised into the name of Paul? i. e. Were you in your Baptism caused to devote yourselves into the profession of Paul, or rather of Christ? which principal end of Baptism is wholly evacuated by the Baptising of Infants.  profession made: And for the administration of the Lords Supper, it hath been so far from being rightly administered, that whilst we were amongst you, it was administered to visible, abominable, cursed Creatures, directly contrary to the Holy Ghosts Command, 1 Cor. 5. 11. whereby we through you, in that you separated not the precious from the vile, were made partakers of other 
Jer. 15. 19 Hag. 2. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Psal. 119. 99, 100 Rev. 18. 4. 2 Cor. 6. 15, 16, 17.  men's sins, being leavened by their wickedness; that had not the Lord through his Commandments given us more understanding than all our teachers, and caused us to obey that word, Come out of her my people, we might also have stayed to have been made partakers of her Plagues; and to this part of the Objection, you are so far from removing that you do not once set about it.  
Now, how will you prove the Baptism we had from you to be good, comes to be examined? You say, if the Baptism they had with you be better than that they had with us, than it is true: but the former is true, Ergo.  
The Consequence is weak and feeble, and carries with it not the least show or shadow of truth, as a weak capacity may easily see.  
For one thing may be bad, and another may be better, and yet both naught. Suppose I should grant by way of Concession, that your Baptism is better than ours: do you think you would not be pitifully troubled, by virtue of that only grant, to prove by sound Arguments yours true: Ours may be bad, and yours a little better, and yet both short the rule, for aught this Consequence forces; thus the Consequence being feeble, the Conclusion falls of itself: and all that you here say (which is more than you have said to eight of your other Arguments, where it seems, you think you have some great advantage) might be let pass, for I am only to attend such Arguments as you have to produce to prove yourselves true, which this in the least doth not; Yet nevertheless I deny the Minor, viz.  
That your Baptism is better than ours.  
Yours you say is better, being dispensed by a Lawful Administrator, and ours not, which you have already proved, etc.  
That your Administrators are lawfully authorized, I deny, and though I heard you in your Lectures endeavour to prove it, and answer Objections that were brought against you, yet in my apprehension there was not any thing said by you, that had any strength to sway with the Judgements of those that were not prepossessed with prejudice against whatsoever on the contrary part should be said.  
And though you say you heard me then say nothing, but the day after, etc. Yet others can witness, that when you had done speaking, I declared myself unsatisfied, touching what was delivered, and I began with the beginning of your Sermon, intending to have gone through it; for in my apprehension, you spoke little that was true that day; you after some few words, pleaded your weariness, etc. told me, that if I would dispute, there was one that should do it for you, and so went your way, and I demanded of the man, if he would justify what you had preached, which he seemed to be willing to, and so we began where we left before, viz. Whether the Parishes of this Nation were right for matter, etc. and from that I came to what you preached about the truth of your Ministry (of which you say, I said nothing) you saying your Ordination came not from the Pope, but Christ. I desired him to show how he could be able to prove your succeeding from Christ, successively down to you, through all the dark times of Popery, and not from them? did the last true Minister before Popery, live to set Ordination on foot after Popery; or was there any successively in the time of Popery, and not of them (which I desired to see) and if neither of these, but that you were made Ministers by the Bishops, and they by the Pope, and he by the Devil, how could your Ordination come from Christ? seeing,  
No man can confer, and give out to another, what he hath not in himself. Sure, Christ never authorised the Pope to ordain Ministers, to which he (to my remembrance) made no Reply: but said, he had not studied of those things, etc.  
Immediately, upon which you came in again, demanding what you had preached that was not true. And I told you what, which was, that those who were not Ministers in Office, might not publicly preach: which I told you was false, and gave you my grounds from Scripture to prove it; and after some small debate, you again departed, and would not stay to hear what I had further to say; therefore to say, I then said nothing, is not true.  
But to this you say, you gave two Answers. First, that our Bishops we not Antichristian, because they had truth of doctrine. Secondly, If they were, it makes, not our Calling null. The reasons I have in my notes at large, etc.  
For what you have writ I am ready to answer. 
Reply.   
But for what you preached I am loath to meddle with: for though I did take the notes of your Sermon, yet by reason of the mighty crowd of people, I could not write one perfect sentence (having hardly liberty to breath) but only the beginning▪ and end, in some imperfect characters, which whilst partly in memory, partly before me, and you ready to rectify what I took amiss, it served for the present, though now useless.  
However you go about to justify the wicked in their wickedness, saying, the Bishops were not Antichristian: I think they were cried down under that notion. Do not declare it to the world now, that you cried them down under that notion, as Antichristian, not that they were so indeed, but being the easier gotten down under that name, you might the sooner get into their places. I know not what you mean by, they had truth of doctrine: whether they had it left by Christ in his Word, or whether they had it in the knowledge of it. Sure I am, they practised contrary, as appeared in their imposing so many abominable things upon the consciences of men, that were Popish, human, and merely of the Invention of the Devil: to root out the pure Ordinances of Christ, entrenching upon the Kingly office of Christ, which is the only Lawmaker to his Church; and not only so, but perverting, and hellishly tormenting the Saints of Jesus, that bore testimony to the Regal office of Christ, opposing and persecuting Christ in his members. If these men were not Antichristian, I know not where Antichrist will be found; If you say, they were not all such, but some of them were godly, I answer, the office of them all was Antichristian, else why did you not put down only the bad ones, and let the good ones remain? their calling to their office was all alike, and the Pope was the Ordainer of them all; therefore if you were all Ordained by the good ones, as you were not, the case is not a whit the better, seeing they Ordained not by goodness, but by Office; which was alike in them all.  
Secondly, you say, if they were Antichristian, it makes not your calling null; and the reason that you gave (as I remember) was, that some things may be wanting in the worship of God, and yet not all null, as you instanced; I answer, You hold Ordination Essential to preaching, so as a man may not preach without it, now the Office of the Bishop being false, and they in that office Antichristian, having never received call to that Office from Christ, or his Church, but originally from the Devil, how these can by that Office, make a true Minister of Christ, conferring that power to another, that they were never possessed of themselves, is a mystery.  
This is not only a want of some, but all things, whereby the work should be lawfully performed.  
Evident you say it is, that your Administrators are set apart, etc. And that such only may Baptise, Mat. 28. 18, 19 to that I answer.  
That an Ordination you have it's true, but it's performed by such as have no authority from Christ, for what they do. Neither yet do they do it according to Christ's Order; as I have already proved, in answer to the 5. Argument, whereunto I refer the Reader, being unwilling needlessly to multiply words, and how you shall be able to justify your Call, manner of Entrance, etc. against those exceptions, when I see it published (for before I must not by our agreement) I shall in Convenient time give the world, and you, an account of the strength or weakness thereof; and that such may Baptise, whom Christ Authorises, in Matth. 28. I grant, but that Christ Authorises only Ministers in office, by Ordination (if you was such as you are not) I utterly deny; for that text holds forth the plain contrary, as presently shall be showed.  
Now for your Call, where you make so many intricat turn, and needless tautologies, many of your Quaeres being for substance one, I shall first show by what means, and how we had our Call to the performance of this Ordinance; and then shall answer what of yours that makes against, and what is in yours not contradictory to the thing in hand, when rightly showed, shall be left as not material; thus—  
The mystery of iniquity from the Apostles time beginning to 
2 Thess. 2. 7.  work, and after their death more and more to creep into the Church, and so far prevailed by degrees, (through the subtlety of the Devil) that the pure Laws of Jesus came to be eaten out, and the inventions of man came in their room, so far prevailing, till the Lord Christ's Prophetical, Regal, and Priestly offices were justled out, and cunningly undermined, till at last the man of sin did get into the Temple of God, showing himself that he was God, 
Verse 4.  revenging the contempt of his wickedness, and making spoil of the precious Saints of Jesus that testified against his Abomination, till they were drunk with the blood of the Saints, that ceased not to cry, How long Lord holy and true, etc. then were the Inhabitants of 
Rev. 6. 10.  the earth made drunk with the wine of her fornication, and all the world wondered after this Beast; in so much that she began to 
Chap. 17. 2.  say in her heart, I sit a Queen and I am no Widow, etc. thus being at her pitch of glory, darkness, ye thick darkness, and a dismal 
Chap. 18. 17.  gloomy night, was spread over the world: for the neglect of keeping close to the Word of Truth the Lord suffered an Eclipse (by the interposition of man's inventions betwixt his truth and their sight) to darken the world, till his pleasures was to appear, and then like the appearing of the day, darkness and the clouds of Ignorance began to dissipate, and he by the brightness of his coming, did reveal by degrees the mystery of iniquity, and sweetly 
Vers. 2. 8.  enlighten his servants in the knowledge of his Truth, by that infallible Word the Scriptures of Truth: helping them by his Spirit to a right understanding thereof, and by degrees giving forth the knowledge of his will, each age receiving more than other, as Waldenses, Wickliff, Hus, Luther, etc. still more and more increasing till it was by some seen (not immediately, hence here is an answer to your first demand, neither yet mediately by the help of men, hence an answer to the second) by means of the Scripture, the Spirit of the Lord, helping to a right understanding thereof, that they had been cheated of that blessed (though much despised Ordinance) of Baptism, and a contrary intruded in its room, that was right neither in the Subject, Manner, nor End; and these people seeing it their duty to practice it, and knowing of it to be the will of Christ, that it should be performed, Resolved upon the work, to reassume this Ordinance. Now the Call to the knowledge of it was thus, The Spirit of the Lord inlighting, by means of the Scripture, to the understanding of his Will.  
They Call to the practice of it thus.  
A company of believes, assembled in the Name of Christ, willing to follow him in the way of his Ordinances revealed in his Word: and yet seeing their want of a personal succession, and yet knowing it their duty, and the will of Christ it should be performed, did appoint one that was unbaptised, to reassume and set again on foot this Ordinance of Christ.  
And if any one question the lawfulness of this, further than I shall have occasion to vindicate it from such exceptions as here make against it, I refer him to a Treatise entitled, A way to Zion sought out, where all that are willing to see, may First, from abominable, damnable absurdities that will follow, if the Saints in light (though they want a personal succession of this Ordinance) seeing themselves deprived of this or any other Ordinance, may not take it up without a Lineal succession. Secondly, from Scripture plainly proved, where all that will not wilfully shut their eyes may see.  
Now what of yours seemingly makes against this is, first,  
If you should say, you had your Call from a Church ungathered, you would proclaim your Calling Antichristian, from your own principles, and yourselves Schismatics, by separating from a true Ministry. Answer.  
Let the reasons wherefore we judge you false Ministers (in relation to the external Call which we are now only speaking of) be briefly laid down, and also the grounds of our reassuming this Ordinance, and then let the Judicious judge, whether upon the Judgement that is given of the first, the like may be given upon the latter, upon the same Principles.  
We judge you false, First, because the very Original of your Call came from the Devil, he sending the Pope, the Pope the Bishops, the Bishops you; and seeing you still retain, and stand Ministers, by vertur of that Call, and yet no man can communicate that to any other, that he hath not himself: and the Devil never being Authorized by Christ to ordain Ministers; and yet you having no other, must needs, (we think) be false.  
Secondly, for manner of entrance; that Church that is in want of a Minister, is to elect such a man as she shall judge sit; which man thus chosen, is to be solemnly ordained by the approbation of the body for whom he is to officiate.  
And you were made Ministers, (such as you are) not only by them whom Christ never authorised to ordain: but also before ever you knew what flock to Minister to, which is a ridiculous foolery, seeing Pastor and Flock are relates, the one gives being and the essential Constituting Causes to the other, and then get to the patron, or to those in whose power it was to establish you, and make the place sure, and then intruding yourselves into the service of those, demanding, nay forcing wages from those that never set you at work, whereby we judge you false Ministers.  
The other is this. A society of believers (as yet no Church in order) assembled together in the Name of Christ, to reassume an Ordinance of Christ, appoint one man for the performance of the work (not as a Pastor) but as a man enabled by God, to be instrumental in the discovery of this Truth.  
Now, whether there be the like reason, upon the same principles, to judge of the one, as the other, I leave it to be considered. And which of these two, is the rightlyest authorized, let all men judge. And how the holding that an unbaptized person, in case of necessity (one rightly Baptised not to be found) might Baptise, will prove us Schismatics, in separating from a true Ministry, is to me a riddle, the unfolding of which belongs to the Learning of him that doth assert it.  
Hence your first scruple may be removed, viz. how the first Baptizer had his Call; being one who never did Baptise himself, nor yet rested contented with his Infant-Baptism; neither yet sent of God to begin a new Institution, as John the Baptist was: but one enlightened to discover, that old, yet new appearing institution unto us.  
For if what you say was truth (as it is not, there having been some in all ages, bearing testimony to this Truth) viz. That this way was not till 1500. years after, there was no need of beginning a new Institution: for that Matth. 28. 18, 19 is to last to the end of the world, whether men obey it once in a thousand years or not; now whereas you demand, by what authority this first man Baptised, seeing to Baptise is an act of office, etc. And no man can be a lawful Administrator unless Elected, etc.  
I Answer, by what Authority, I have already showed; and for Baptising to be an act of office, and so not not to be performed but by officers, I deny.  
And the Scripture you bring to prove it, Matth. 28. 18, 19 proves the plain contrary, as is evident; for such as had received Abilities from Christ, whereby they were enabled to Convert a soul to Christ, might Baptise such a person so Converted. The Commission holds alike for both, Disciple and Baptizer, etc. Now this Commission, though it was given to the Apostles, it was not given to them as Apostles, but as Disciples, and in them to all others so gifted, to the end of the world; as yourself well know; and undeniable it is that they were to Preach and Baptise, by virtue of Gift, and not by virtue of Office, seeing these men were such as were never elected by any Churches, to the Pastoral charge; for that was not Congruent to their Commission: the Election of the people tying to the Church, by whom they were elected, and the Commission sending them forth to all the word, to prepare matter for the Church; whence it is evident, that such who can disciple men to Christ, may Baptise such so discipled, disciple and baptise, etc. but some that are not Ministers in office can do that, Ergo.  
The proposition is evident from the words, the Assumption I suppose no man will deny, except it be some who do endeavour to Monopolise Preaching only to themselves, and stop the mouths of all others, though never so eminently gifted, except they have served a prenticeship to the same trade that they have done, or else come under their Bishopping, by laying on of their hands, that so they may tie them to preach after their fashion; which opinion is so gross, that I am loath to spend time in confutation. Yet seeing, though you dare not deny, but that all who have received gifts, whereby they are enabled to preach, may; yet deny that they may publicly preach: and this preaching, Matth. 28. is a public preaching. I shall give you an Argument or two, to prove that.  
If there be toleration given by God, to all who have received the gift of Prophecy, to Prophesy in the Church; Then there is toleration given by God to all who have received the gift of Prophecy to Prophecy publicly; but the former is true, 1 Cor. 14 31. Therefore the latter.  
This whole argument you have granted to be true, only you say, that Prophecy was extraordinary; but that it was not, I thus evince. That Prophety is there meant, that came within trial and Judgement; but extraordinary Prophecy did not so; therefore that's not meant.  
To this you Reply, that extraordinary Prophet's doctrine did, Acts 17. 11. to which I answer. That Judgement spoken of in the 14. of Cor. was such a judgement as presupposed the Prophets might err; but this searching of the Bereans, to see if the things Paul spoke were so, was no such thing. Therefore nothing to the purpose, it only showed that Paul preaching, and alleging Scriptures, as his manner was, thus and thus it is written and yet citing neither Chapter nor ver●e, That they did seek to see if it was as he said: and did in no ways presuppose, that Paul was liable to err in what he preached. Secondly, That Prophecy in that place that men (that are gifted) are tolerated; That Prophecy in that place women (though gifted) are forbidden; but extraordinary Prophecy women are not forbidden, Ergo.  
The Minor, viz. that women extraordinary gifted may deliver their Prophecy in any place, I think no man will deny. And for the Major, viz That the same manner of Prophecy, that the gifted disciples were tolerated, in verse 31. is the same that women are forbidden, verse 34. is evident to all that will Consult the scope of that place.  
Secondly, we have an example in Scripture of such men preaching 
See also Acts 18. 28. If it be objected Apollo's was an officer, 1 Cor. 1. 12. Answer: first, It is not probable it was the same man. Secondly, If it was, the consequence is bad to say, Apollo's was an officer, when Paul wrote this Epistle; therefore he was one when he preached in the 18 of Acts, knowing only the Baptism of John, verse 25.  who were not Ministers in office, publicly, which work hath had the approbation of God, by accompanying these men in this work, with his holy Spirit, making their preaching effectual to the conversion of Souls; Therefore all who have gifts enabling them to preach publicly, may, by a Scripture example, and the approbation of God concerning that thing.  
The Consequence, I think no man will deny, that owns the Scripture as a rule of direction for us to follow. The Antecedent is evident in both branches: First, Acts 8. 1. they, i. e. the Church, were all scattered and they thus scattered, went every where preaching verse 4. which preaching was approved of by God, in accompanying them in this work by his Spirit, Acts 11. 21. But to this you object, First, that we cannot prove but that they were Officers; I Answer, That we can evidently, first, it is said, they were all scattered, and all thus scattered preached. Now all men know, all a Church is not Officers; but to this you object; The word All, signifies not every one. Answer, true, but where the Scripture says, All, except such as it excepts, with what forehead dare any man say the contrary? It is in effect as much as to say, the Apostle said not true; evident it is, Philip preached; Acts 8. Object. Philip was an Evangelist. Answ. True, by gift, in that he brought the glad tidings of Remission of sins by the Blood of Jesus, to the souls of sinners: but both he and Stephen, Acts 7. by Office were Deacons, Acts 6. 5. by which office, they had no more to do to Preach than any Disciple. Object. Saul entered into every house haling men and women, etc. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial; therefore not all scattered. Answ: There is never a syllable in the Text, that proves this was in Jerusalem; but it might be in other places, whither they fled for refuge; and for the burial of Stephen, that was before they were scattered, for the persecution arose about the stoning of Stephen, Acts 11. 19  
But the last shelter that you are forced to fly to, from the clear Countenance of this Text, is, that this was extraordinary, as David's eating that bread in time of hunger, that at other times was unlawful. Yet necessity might justify the action; to this I Reply, that some things, in case of necessity, may be done, that at other times are unlawful: and that necessity justifies the action I grant: but now there is not the like Connexion betwixt persecution and preaching, as is betwixt hunger and bread, a man in ex●reme hunger cannot well forbear bread, but a man in time of persecution may forbear preaching; was it lawful for these men to preach? it could not be persecution that could make it lawful? what, though they were persecuted a thousand times, they might hold their tongues for all that; was it unlawful for them to have done it? nay, rather of the two, it tied them to hold their peace, being persecuted for what they preached.  
Thus it appears, that all that can preach may; and such who can by preaching convert a soul to Jesus, may Baptise him so converted, though no Minister in office.  
And whereas you say, no man can be a lawful Administrator, unless Elected, etc. That's apparently false; for, both Philip Acts 8. 38. and Ananias Acts 9 18. Baptised, and were never Elected to that work. See but the natural face of your assertion.  
No man can be a lawful Administrator, unless elected to that authority by Baptised persons.  
But neither Ananias, or Philip, were elected so.  
Ergo. Neither of these were lawful Administrators; the Major's your own, the Minor is evident. Philip a Deacon, Ananias a disciple.  
Thus your assertions cast dirt in the face of the Scripture.  
Now for the inference that you say is drawn; that we have no Mission, etc. I answer. I never yet heard any man, from such questions draw such inference, had you but done me that favour, to have told me who they were, I should have been ready to answer them. I have cause to suspect from whom it comes, and I fear, themselves are the men, to whom every part of that result may with ease be applied, but seeing you say you make no such inference, I am willing to let it pass; it being you only I deal with.  
Thus having answered this which you have most spoken to, I shall expedite an answer to the rest of your Arguments, which it seems, you make less account of, in that to some you have endeavoured to add a little proof, and to some none at all.  
If the separated societies be not true Churches, than our Assemblies 
Arg. 11. Dr. B.  are; for certain it is, Christ hath some true Churches amongst us; and the only question is, whether the Parochial or separated Congregations; but you are not true Churches, which I prove by an Argument of your own.  
Those Churches that are not rightly gathered, are no true Churches; but your Churches are not rightly gathered. The Minor I prove thus:  
The way of gathering your Churches hath no warrant in Scripture, Ergo.  
I put you upon producing one precept or precedent in all the Scripture of gathering Churches, out of Societies that hold and profess the fundamental verities.  
2. Those Churches that rob God's people of their right, are no true Churches; but so do yours; for you take away Church-membership from the Infant Children of Believers, in denying the Sacrament of Initiation, appointed for Gospel-Churches, which was granted them under the former administration, and is no where repealed but confirmed rather Rom. 11. Acts 2. 39  
3. Your Churches want a right form, Ergo. The consequence is clear, because form gives being. The antecedent is certain, because an express Covenant is not where made the right form of a visible Church. If this be the right form, then why are not Popish Churches true, there being such a Covenant between Popish Priests and people?  
If by separated societies you mean all that are separated from you, 
Answ. J. O.  the consequence may be good, otherwise not; There not being fullness enough in the division: If you mean all, I deny the Minor, both of the first, and also of the second framed to prove it, and also the Consequence of the third, and after all, the result is, you put us too no proof that we are no true Churches, we are not rightly gathered, the way of our gathering hath no warrant in Scripture, and that this is so, I put you to prove that it hath.  
This is the pitifullest proof that ever I heard man make, had I undertook to prove your Churches false, and after three Arguments, drawn such a Conclusion, you would even have hist at it, sure, your schools never taught you thus to dispute. I had thought you had engaged to prove.  
Sir, prove that you the Parishes of England generally hold and profess the fundamental verities. Secondly, That it is unlawful to separate from a people so professing, etc. And when I see it, I will return you an answer.  
To the second, viz. that we rob God's people of their right, etc. I answer. The expression [Rob] is as unsuitable; as untrue; for we take not away that in the night, nor secretly in the day, that which we are afraid to be taken with in the light; but what we withhold, we proclaim and give, nay invite all to bring in their evidence, That if they for Infants can lay just claim thereunto, they shall be admitted. Sir, take heed you pronounce not sentence of Condemnation against yourselves: for I think was it material it might easily be made appear, that you rob Goa's people of their right, and that in many things. But that we do not rob Goa's people of their right you shall be witness, and yourself shall answer yourself, and that may the soon give yourself and others satisfaction: thus from the notation of the word Church, which signifies (you say argument thirteen) a company called out from the world unto Christ, come together upon that call, etc.  
Whence I thus reason. If the word Church signify such a company, so called, so come, then it's impossible for such who were never thus called, thus come, neither yet are in a capacity to be of that company.  
For words significant aris● from the nature of the thing to which they are applied, and where the answering of the signification of a word is not to be found, there that word is improperly applied, as I think all men will grant, and Scripture example is full; but the word Church so signifies. This is your own, Ergo.  
Now that Infants are not called out of the world, by the Word, come together upon that call, etc. is undeniable. Therefore Infants are not of that Company.  
Thus, if to deny Infants Church-membership be rebery, it's the Notation of the Word Church, and your thirteenth Argument, that is the thief, Sir, you must either repeal this thirteenth Argument, or it will utterly repeal Infants Church-membership, and put you to prove where and when it was done; and for Acts the 2. and Romans 11. where you say it's Confirmed, I answer.  
When you have reconciled this thirteenth Argument, and Infant-Church-membership together, and drawn your Arguments from Acts 2. Rom. 11. to prove it, I will return you an answer.  
And for your third reason, where you say, we want a true form, etc. I answer, we make not an express Covenant the form of a visible Church, (as you well know) therefore this makes nothing against us; we may be true Churches for all that, if what you say be true.  
Either our Congregations are true Churches, or there were none 
Arg. 12. Dr. B.  since Christ, and the Apostles; for what Churches can be showed that have come nearer the rule in respect of Doctrine? and for Government, the Jus divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici, And Provincial vindication, have sufficiently evinced the Presbyterian government to lay just claim to divine Right. But the latter is false, for the gates of Hell never did, never shall prevail against the Church.  
1. To say, that if you be not true Churches, there have been none 
Answ. J. O.  since Christ, etc. is confidently to dictat and Magisterially to set down, without the least colour of proof that which is so principal a Question betwixt us; for we have abundantly offered to make good, that we come nearer the rule, first in Respect of doctrine, than you; and for government, which you say is sufficiently evinced in the Jus Divinum, etc. I shall pay you with your own coin, and that may soon satisfy; thus, your Presbyterian government hath been abundantly confuted, and the Independency of Churches, in Relation to a sufficiency in herself, for the performance of all the Ordinances of Christ, by the learned Mr. Hooker, in his survey of Church discipline.  
Secondly, I deny that the latter is false, by virtue of that Scripture, (if you understand it of the visible Church, which is only to your purpose) for the gates of Hell may, nay hath prevailed, yea overcome the visible Church, as the Revelations abundantly makes manifest. Sir, I wonder you have not so much foresight, as to see how upon your own 
* He that can make it appear that this place is meant of the visible Church, and that which is a true Church, shall always visibly appear, will do the Pope essential service, he no doubt will return him many thanks, he will undeniably prove Rome a true Church, because Rome once only visibly appeared, keeping down all others.  principles, your own arguments wound yourself. For, where was the visibility of your Presbyterian Church in the midst of Popery (except you will say Rome was it) where is the line of your succession? I doubt it is utterly lost, and so upon your own interpretation of Scripture, you prove yourselves false Churches.  
From the notation of the word Church, which signifies a Company 
Arg. 13. Dr. B.  called out of the world unto Christ by the word come together upon that call, all are called externally and some effectually.  
This Argument fiercely fights against nay cuts the throat of the 
Answ. I. O.  Causes it should defend; for the word Church, signifying such a Company so called, so come, doth utterly exclude all not so called, so come, being of that Company; now beyond dispute it is, that the generality of People in the Parishes of this Nation, were never visibly called out of the world, etc. Therefore not possibly to be concluded of that Company. I had always thought there had been a World in England, what are all the Carnal, wicked, covetous persons in the Parishes of this Nation called out from the world to Christ? if they have not as any man that hath but the least spark of godliness may easily see; how dare you apply this notation of the word to them? if this be not to sow Pillows under all Arm-holds, making them trust in living words, saying, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, so you the Church, Church-Members, faithful people, etc. I am much mistaken, Sir, take beed lest that fall upon you spoken of, Pro. 17. 15. all you say called externally, some effectually, Answer, if by external call you mean a bare call by the Preaching of the word, without a visible submission thereunto, you are contrary to yourself, which is not of a verbal call simply, but of a calling O●t, and a coming thereupon unto Christ, if you say they are visibly called out, etc. nothing can be spoken more falsely, common sense proves the contrary, and what the effectual calling of some is to prove that all are externally called out according to the notation of the word, is to me a Paradox.  
Our Churches are in Covenant with God, Ergo, They are true Churches, the consequence is evident from Psal. 50. 5. where the 
Arg. 14. D. B.  Prophet implies, that by being in Covenant with God, Men are really a Church, for they have right to be an actual Congregation; the Assumption is proved so abundantly by others, that I need say no more till they be answered; the sum is this, we have the word ourselves, and the blessing of the Covenant, Ergo, we are in Covenant with God.  
I deny the Antecedent, That the Parishes of this Nation generally 
Answer I. O.  are Saints, who have made a Covenant with God by sacrifice, according to Ps. 50. 50. is most abominably false; the very naming of it is confutation sufficient; he that justifies the wicked in their wickedness, is abomination before God; and who those are that have proved, that the Parishes of this Nation generally are Saints, that have made a Covenant with God by sacrifice, I never yet saw attempted; the truth is, you have neither had the word (as you ought to have had) nor yet the Seals rightly administered, neither yet the blessing of the Covenant, and that this is so, is so abundantly proved by others, that I need say no more till they be answered.  
Those Societies that answer the Kingdom of Heaven in those Parables of our Saviour, where he declares what the visible Church 
Arg. 15. D. B.  is, they are true Churches; for his scope is to teach us by those similitudes how to know the visible Church on earth; but so do our Assemblies. I will instance in two or three of those Parables, first of the good seed sown in the field, Mat. 13. 24. which because our Saviour says is meant of the world ver. 38. you with many others deny the visible Church to be thereby intended; but interpret it of the wider world.  
But that Christ means his Church (his Field) scattered throughout the world, appears evidently by the servants wondering at the tares, ver. 25. there had been no place for this wonder, if that were his meaning, for who can wonder to see the world full of wicked persons, I argue thus,  
Those Societies that have good seed sown in them, and mixture of good men, and wicked hypocrites, united in external Communion and Profession of Religion, are true visible Churches; but so have ours, and so had the Apostolical Churches, in Corinth for example. A second is that of the Draw Net, ver. 47. Many in the Church not of the Church, 1 Jo●. 2. 19 this is apparent that in the Church, sincere and hypocrites are gathered to profession and external Communion, and where they are so, there is the Church, to the same purpose is the Parable, Mat. 22. of him that had not on a wedding Garment, and that in Mat. 25. of the 10. Virgins. Finally the Church is compared to a flower, where there is Chaf mixed with Wheat; that which is objected, that the Church is a society of Saints called to be Saints, is easily answered, the denomination is taken from the better part i. e. all should be, some are real Saints.  
To the first of these Parables it is apparent, it is not meant of the 
Answer I. O.  Church at all, but the world, ver. 38. Christ himself interprets it; now whether it be believed of Christ or you, Let all men Judge. Whereas you say we interpret of the wider world, I desire you in your next to show if you can, where Christ makes any distinction of wider or narrower world, or whether the Church is not a people called out of the world visibly known from it, if you cannot, you do not well in making such distinctions, where the Scripture makes known, you say Christ means his Church his Field. Answer, That is as much as you should say, his Church, his World, for Field is world, ver. 38. so you confound the Church and world together as one, that hath always been so distinctly separated; nay this is also to confound yourself, who say the word Church signifies a Company called out of the world.  
You say it appears by the servants wondering at the tares, and if meant of the world, there had been no place for this wonder. Reply.  
This it seems is that weighty reason. that persuades your judgement contrary to Christ's exposition of his own words; There is never a such Word as Wonder in the Text, they only asked the Question if he did not sow good seed in his Field, and from whence came the tares; and that they might well do, from the consideration of that precious Gospel of Peace Christ cast into the world, and that deadly enmity hatched against is when declared; or if there could no reason be given of this their Question. we must not therefore frame an exposition of our own, contrary to Christ's express determination, for similitudes carry not an equal Parallel in all things, but very many times:  
That Christ means not the Church, I thus evince.  
That which makes void the Doctrine of Excommunication, and makes Christ speak plain Contradiction, is not the meaning of Christ in this Parable; but to interpret it of the Church doth so, Ergo.  
The Major is undeniable, the Minor is manifest from the whole scope of the place; for when the tares, i. e. wicked Men, ver. 38. did visibly appear, ver. 26. the servants said, wilt thou ver. 28. that we go and gather them up, the Master said nay, ver. 30. Let both grow till the Harvest, which Harvest is the end of the world, ver. 39 now what can be more plainlier laid down in the world than this, that if it be meant of the Church, no Min is to be cast out of it till the day of judgement, though visibly wicked; and how doth it make Christ speak plain contradition, one while commanding ungodly persons to be cast out of his Church, and an other while commending them to be kept in? Let them alone, etc. thus the interpretation of this Scripture by you being false, the Argument that you draw is from a groundless Construction of the words, and so useless; now for all the rest if they be to be understood of the Church, it's such a mixture as is not severable till the day of judgement, and so undeniable, not discernible to the eyes of Men; seeing those that appear to be nought, are to be separated before that time, 1 Cor. 5. 2, 5, 7, 11, 13. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. With many other places to the same purpose; evident it is, for that of the Draw net, ver. 49. to the end of the world was the time of severation, and so the time of discerning, and of him that had not the wedding Garment on, it seems the Master of the Feast only discerned; and for the ten Virgins, the time of discerning the wise from the foolish, was when the Bridegroom came. I readily grant, that in a true Gospel Church there may be many in it that are none of it: many Hypocrites gathered to profession and external Communion, etc. but then they must be such as to the eyes of the Church undiscernible: for we see all along the Scripture by Christ's own command, Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17. If thy Brother trespass against thee, go and tell him of his fault betwix him and thee alone, and if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, and if he will not hear them, tell it to the Church, and if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee at a Heathen and Publican, and thus the Apostle was careful to keep the Church visible, purer, Purge out from you the old Leaven, saith Paul, know you not that a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump, see and consider Haggai 1. 11, 12, 13: now you being such as are and ever were for the most part visibly nought, cannot Answer those Parables, if understood of the Church; true it is that many Churches in the Apostles times had amongst them visibly bad, they being degenerated from what he was, but they were to remain but for a considerable time of trial, to see if they would be restored; and if they would not be reclaimed, but prove contumacious, they are to be delivered to that Kingdom from whence they 
For those which you so harp upon, that was bad in the Apostolical Churches, and as bad as you say, as yours, these were not fit matter for a Church, as such, for such they were commanded to excommunicate, 1 Cor. 5. 5, 6, 7. and forbade to have Communion with ver. 11, 12, 13. sure was unfit matter for the Church.  came; and for the objection that you say is so easily answered, the Church being called Saints, the denomination being taken from the better part, I answer, if you mean this if a Church at its first constitution, it's abundantly false, and you have spoken it without the least colour of Scripture or reason. I challenge you or any Man in the World, to produce one example in all the New Testament of any one Church, that at its Constitution received one visible wicked Man; and if not but all appeared Saints, then undeniable it is, that the denomination arose from the visibility of sanctity that appeared in all, and so it was as the Scripture plainly declares, to all that are willing to see.  
If you mean it of a Church when degenerated from what they were, it's nothing to your purpose, because you for the most part were never visibly Regenerated; it appears that the Churches after corrupted, retained the name of Saints, from that visible sanctity once they had; and yet not past recovery to their former Estate; for after they appeared past recovery, see what they may be called, Mat. 18. 17. all you say should be, answer, true, therefore those that are not, are as they should not be.  
Some you say are true; but that doth not show that those that never were are to be accounted so; nor that those that never were are to be accounted Church Members, though amongst the other; for then Babylon is a Church, and a society of Saints, for some Saints may be, and have been there, Rev. 18. 4.  
Those societies from which it is a Sin to separate, are true Churches, 
Arg. 16. D. B.  but it is a Sin to separate from our Assemblies, Ergo.  
That Church for separation from which there is as little reason as there was for separating from the Church, whereof Christ professeth himself a Member, John 4. 22. and so from the Church of Corinth it is a sin to separate from; but there is little reason to separate from our Assemblies; compare our Churches with the Church of the Jews in Christ's time for Teachers and Rulers, and you shall find as bad of both as with us; if you say these Churches had a right Constitution and gathering, I have proved ours have both.  
The Minor of the first, and also of the second Syllogism, is denied, 
Answer 1. 0.  and were our separation from you only; for the evilness of you, it might easily be made appear, that there is more reason to separate from you, then either the Church of the Jews or Corinthians; 
You have been so far from proving that Constitution true, that after you had endeavoured it, and see my answer to it, you then deny that you were to prove any such thing, see page the 2d. Argument 2. and then page 6. at the Reply.  but the truth is, you yet never were a Church at all; you never having had any Gospel Constitution, and where you say you have proved it, there I have disproved it, and proved it false, where unto I refer the Reader, being unwilling needlessly to multiply words.  
Those Churches that have brought forth a multitude of Martyrs, 
Argument. 17. Dr. B.  for the Causes of Christ against Antichrist are no Antichristian but true Churches; that ours have so, is superfluous for me to prove.  
Sir, I desire you in your next to prove, that the bringing over 
Answer. 1. 0.  of men to yield up their lives in the defence of some truths, (for these did no more) is sufficient to prove the societies that so taught them, true Churches; go throughout all the diversities of Religions almost in the world, and you shall find some so taught, as were they called to it, would yield up their lives, and Seal some truths of Christ with their blood. Rome itself I am confident would yield many Martyrs for the Cause of Christ, in many real truths; and though they could not be concluded Antichristian in that, yet they might in many other things that they might hold, that might be erroneous.  
Here are many societies in England, that deny the Baptism of water to be practised upon any subject, without which no society in the world can be accounted a visible Church, and yet I am confident (had they occasion) rather than they would deny, they would seal many precious truths of Christ with their blood; and now upon your Argument, they in so doing might be proved true Churches (if what you say be true) though they deny that without which no men can be esteemed so.  
Secondly, I desire to see it proved (for yet you have not) that the Parishes of this Nation did bring forth these Martyrs, I rather think that the Parishes of this Nation were as willing to have them Martyred, as those bloody men themselves that did it; for that Parish that brought forth some that were Members of her to profess and die for some truths, must needs profess the same things themselves, and so they should all have been Martyred; for such was the blood-thirstiness of those men, that all that would not submit to their abominations must die.  
But we see no such thing; for only some few in some Parishes (and in any one) were Martyred, and the rest not touched, which shows that the Parishes (except some few) were of the mind of those bloody men, and so the edge of the Argument may be turned into your own Neck thus.  
Those Churches that have consented to the Martyrdom of a multitude of those that died in the defence of the Cause of Christ; are no true Churches, but the Parishes of this Nation have so consented, Ergo.  
Thirdly, were all this true, viz. that they that have brought forth such, are true Churches, and that some Parishes have done so; as it is not, yet this Argument includes not the Question; for I think it will never be proved, that half the Parishes of England have brought forth any, and so all those Parishes that have brought forth none, are (notwithstanding) this Argument not proved true, were it true as it is not.  
Those Churches that Antichrist hates with a perfect hatred, and seeks the destruction of, and which hate Antichrist with 
Arg. 18. D. B.  as perfect a hatred, and pray for the destruction of, are true Churches, but such are ours.  
This Argument is only affirmed without proof, you only say it 
Answer I. O.  is so, and I with as much reason may say it is not so; to what purpose would five hundred Arguments so left be? truly Sir if your end in writing be for satisfaction, I would entreat you to bring some Scripture or reason for what you say, or else say nothing, for your words will now be taken no more for Oracles, you'll be believed no further than clear evidence carries a persuasive power.  
I know not what you mean by perfect hatred; it cannot be denied but Antichrist hates all, so far as they hold and practise any thing that's good, Let it be Pope, or who it will, and they also so far hate him.  
But this proves not such true Churches; but if by perfect hatred you mean, the highest perfection of hellish malice, which Antichrist casts forth against a society, endeavouring their destruction in chief.  
I acknowledge the Major true; for those that have so far, and so perfectly hated Antichrist, as to get clean out of his kingdom, embodied together in Gospel order, and endeavour to discover, and break in pieces his kingdom.  
They are the principle, perfect subject, of his hatred, betwixt whom there is the deadliest enmity; he inseeking their destruction in chief, and they of him; but now I deny your Minor, viz. that Antichrist hates you with this hatred; for daily experience shows that there be some societies, that he is at more deadly enmity then with you, seeking all hellish contrivances, to cast dirt in the faces of them that are departed his kingdom; now if you be not chief subject of his hatred, (as you have neither proved, nor once set about it) than you perfectly hate not him; for such who perfectly hate him, are the chief subjects of his hatred.  
And for your praying for his destruction; that you may do all your life, and practise such thing as are the foundation of his upholding, men may highly be Antichristian under a seeming pretence of seeking his destruction.  
Those societies that consist of faithful Rulers in the Lord, and 
Arg. 19 D. B.  faithful Members united, the one ruled well, the other ruled willingly they are true Churches, but such are many of our Parochial Assemblies.  
The Minor is short the mark, and includes not the question 
Answer I. O.  in dispute, which is of the Parishes generally; if you say be generally, is not meant every one, but the greatest part; yet still it will be too short; for if such should be faithful Rulers, and ruled as you judge so, yet you can never prove, that above half the Nation is such.  
For though I utterly deny, that there is ever a Parish in England, that consists of such faithful Rulers, i. e. faithfully ruling according to the will of the Lord, revealed in his word, neither yet are the other faithful Members united, i. e. in complete order according to the Gospel rule; yet seeing the question is stated, and this Argument brought to prove it, and yet includes it not, no answer need be given, it not only includes not the question in debate; neither yet gives proof for what it doth conclude of.  
Sir, wherefore is it that you decline the question in the close of all, and leave out some Parishes as no true Churches: not only here, but also in dispute, when you argued from the truth and ability, etc. of the Ministry, to the truth of the Churches (Argument 5.) I answering you with your own words, that you preached thereby undeniably proving that all was not such, and so not all true; therefore not including the question, you said (to this purpose) that if above half was, it did, whence I declared that you granted some to be false, to which you denied not.  
Now this is a plain grant that you are all false.  
For you stand all upon one foundation, you have all one and the same matter and form, and all the Reformation that some above others are more zealous of, is such, as (had they their desires) gives no new essential constitutive principles, viz. matter and form, but is only a building upon the same matter and form, that you had once together with those you now leave out, and which they also retain still, as well as you.  
Therefore if there be some Parishes that be false Churches, there is never a one that's true.  
The consequence is evident, in that matter and form, which is only a differeneing note of distinction, is one and the same with you all.  
But there are some that be false.  
This you have not denied, or if you had, it might easily have been proved from the Minor of the last Argument, there being some (upon your own principles) that have neither faithful Rulers in the Lord, neither yet faithful Members united, and so not possible to be true.  
Therefore there is never a one that's true.  
FINIS.