A Pretended VOICE FROM HEAVEN, Proved to be The Voice of Man, and not of God.  
OR, AN ANSWER To a Treatise, called A Voice from Heaven, Written by Mr. Gualther Postlethwait, an unordained Preacher, Taking upon him to exercise the Pastoral charge, in a Congregation at Lewis in Sussex.  
Wherein, his weakness, in undertaking to prove all Protestant Churches to be Antichristian, and to be separated from, as no true Churches of Christ, is discovered; and the sinfulness of such a Separation evinced.  
Together with, A brief Answer inserted, to the Arguments for Popular Ordination, brought by the Answerers of Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, in their Book called The Preacher sent.  
By Ezekiel Charke, M. A. And Rector of Waldron in Sussex.  Job 6.25. How forcible are right words? but what doth your arguing reprove? Gal. 4.17. They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude us, that you might affect them. 

Imprimatur,  
Edmond Calamy.   
London, Printed for Andrew Kembe, and are to be sold at his shop at St. Margaret's hill, near the Talbot in Southwark and under St. Margaret's Church on New-Fishstreet-hill. 1659.   

To the Christian Reader.  
Reader,  
UNderstand the Reasons, why this Answer came forth no sooner, to be, 1 That Mr. P's Book had been a good while public, ere I thought of being his Respondent. 2 This Answer was drawn up, above a year since; But some Brethren not judging his Book worth an answer, I had almost resolved to lay it by. Yet afterwards, considering that some answer might be needful, for the People's sake in these parts, some of whom are easily shaken, and to repress Mr. P's Arrogancy; I reviewed and contracted it, and divided it into Sections. 3 There coming of late to my hands, the Book called The Preacher sent; which pleads, among other things, for a popular Ordination of Ministers: I judged it convenient, to insert an Answer to that part of their Treatise in mine.  
Withal, I desire thee to take notice, that although many things in this Treatise, touch the Congregational Brethren in general; Yet, I put a great deal of difference, between many of them, and Mr. P. and those of his way and mind: Well knowing, that their Moderation, freeth them, from many of those charges, which his rigid principles and way fall under; And, that there are hopes, that if matters between us, were subjected to a fair, free, and amicable inquiry, upon principles owned on both sides, (but rejected mostly, by those of the principles and way, which Mr. P. cleaves to) we might prove agreed.  
For the evidencing of which, I shall set down those Principles, as yielded and owned by some of the chief Masters of their Assemblies in their Tracts, wherein they hold a fair correspondency with us.  

1 Concerning the Subject of Church-power and Rule, in general.  

Mr. Cotton Keys. p. 20.  The Key of authority and rule, is committed to the Elders of the Church; and so, the act of Rule, is made the proper act of their Office. The Church, and its Elders, are not  societies, in respect of ordinary execution. 
Mr. Noy, p. 34. etc.  A necessity of Members consent in ordinary execution, constitutes a Church excessively Democratical, and renders the Elders only Titular Governors. Governors or Rulers should have judicial power, to constrain obedience, which is inconsistent with a necessity of the members consent. The Relation of Elders to Churches, doth challenge power complete. The Church is to be carried, not to carry; to obey, not to command; to be subject, not to govern, etc.   

2 Concerning the Subject of power, for admission of Members, and Excommunication.  

Mr. Cotton. Keye● p. 21 Mr. Noyes p. 33, 34, 39  It is an Act of the power of the Elders, to examine any whether Officers or others, before they be received of the Church.  
It is naturally in the power of the Presbytery, to admonish the whole Church, to suspend the whole Church, in respect of the Seals, Elders, have as full power, to Baptise, as to teach; & by consequence they have full power to admit Members. What the Apostles could do in all Churches, that the ordinary Elders can do, in respect of ordinary administration, within the Spheres of their particular Churches; and the Apostles could admit, excommunicate, threaten the Rod, make Decrees, etc. They did not ask the vote of the Church, in admissions or excommunications. Philip could admit without the Church. The twelve gates of New Jerusalem, Rev. 21. are the particular Churches; The Angels are Presbyters, and are set to govern the gates, they are not to open and shut of themselves, but the Angels are to open and shut them, in the use of the Keys.  

Mr. Baines Diocese. trial. p. 79, etc.  The Church Christ speaketh of, Matth. 18.17. he doth suppose it, as the ordinary Executioner of all Discipline, and censure: But the multitude, have not this execution; as all, but Morelius, and such Democratical spirits do affirm.   

3 Concerning the Covenant, for admission of Church-Members.  

Mr. Catton Way. p. 3. & 4.  In sum, we account it all one, and of like value, when a Covenant on God's part is propounded, and given to a People; whether they receive it by silent consent, or by express terms: and whether their cleaving to their brethren, and Officers, and mutual watchfulness, be expressly mentioned, or included only in their general profession of subjection to God's Ordinances.  
An implicit Covenant, 
Mr. Hooker Survey first part. p 48.  preserves the true nature of the true Church, because it carries the formalis ratio of a confederation in it. In some cases, an implicit covenant may be fully sufficient, as suppose a whole Congregation should consist of such, who were Children to the Parents now deceased, who were confederate. This fully reacheth our case; Our Churches are made up of the children of such Parents, who were confederate.  
Explicit, and particular Covenants, 
Mr. Noyes. p. 8.  are not necessary to the constitution of Churches. Christians fallen into fellowship, without any such form in primitive times, etc.   

4 Concerning qualifications of Church-Members, required for their admission.  
The Profession of Faith and Repentance, 
Mr. Noyes. p. 62, 63, 64, 65.  with knowledge of the fundamentals, and subjection to the Ordinances, aught to give satisfaction in admission; especially, where there is testimony, of an answerable conversation precedent. That Rule, which requireth more than is necessary, for the weakest Believer; must needs exclude the called of God. The practice of the Apostles must confine our prudence. They expected no testimony, not a day's experience. They could not in so short a time, make any inquisitions, or hear any persuasive relations. The Apostolical rule was large, it did suffer many corrupt Members to creep in. None (as far as we read) were ever put by. Yet, converts were many, young, ignorant, rude; and conversions were sudden, and passionate. The Apostles were never acquainted with those questions, when, where, whereby, by whom, conversion was wrought; They accepted of Profession and subjection, with congratulations.   

5 Concerning the quantity of a Church, that it may consist of divers Assemblies.  
Mr. Hooker grants, 
Survey. part ●, p. 129.  that the Church of Jerusalem was so numerous, that they must needs meet in divers Congregations.  
Several dissenting Brethren have yielded, that Corinth had more than one Congregation.   

6 Concerning the gathering of Members into Congregations.  
Respect is to be had, to vicinity of habitation, 
Mr. Borroughs Heart Diu. p. 163. 169.  according to the rule of Christ. All believers, who live in a place together, ought, so far as they can, to join in one Church, though they be of different judgements and tempers. The way of Christ all along in Scripture is, that those in a place, that are not more than can join in one, should join together, and make but one Church.   

7 Concerning the return of Church-Members, from gathered Churches, to their proper Pastors in the places of their Habitations.  

Mr. Borroughs Heart div. p. 165.  Do you pray for, and endeavour, the putting on reformation to the uttermost, and then, see what they will do. They have not yet declared themselves so joined, by any Covenant, that they may not join with you.   

8 Against Separation from our Churches, as no true Churches.  

Mr. Cotton. Way, p. 111, 112.  We cannot but conceive the Churches of England, were rightly gathered and planted according to the rule of the Gospel at first. So that all the work is now, not to make them Churches which were none before, but to reduce and restore them to their primitive institution.  

Congr. Way cleared, p. 14  Mr. Robinson's denial, of the Parishional Congregations in England, to be true Churches; was never received into any heart, from thence to infer, a nullity of their Church-state. Neither was our departure from them, even in those evil times, a separation from them: as no true Churches.  

Mr. Burroughs Heart div. p. 163.  Men must not separ●●● from a Church, though there be corruption in it; to gather into a new Church, which may be more pure, and in some respects more comfortable. Because, we never find the Saints in Scripture, separating, or raising Churches, in such a case; and there would be no continuance in Church-fellowship, if this were admitted.   

9 Of Election, and Ordination of Church-Officers.  

Mr. Bains. Diocese. trial. p. 84.  If any fail in any Office, the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a Ministry, of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of Office given him, in the place vacant.  

Mr. Cotton Keys, p. 21. Way. p. 40  Ordination of Officers, whether Elders or Deacons, belongs to the Elders of the Church; and is to be performed, by prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands.  

Mr. Hooker Surveys part 2. p. 76. Mr. Noyes p. 69.  When Churches are rightly constituted, and completed, the right of Ordination belongs to the Elders. The act appertains to the Presbyters, when an Officer is invested in his place, for of these it is expressly spoken, 1 Tim. 4.14. It hath been proved, that common Members, may not ordain, by themselves without Officers.   

10 Concerning the Ordination of the Ministers of the Church of England.  
Congregational Brethren generally acknowledge, the Ordination of our Ministers to be valid, and that, they need not any new ordination, nor those that have been ordained by them.   

11 Concerning the power of Synods.  
We dare not say, 
Mr. Cotton Keies. p. 25.  that their power reacheth no farther than giving of Counsel. They have power by the grace of Christ, also, to command, and enjoin, the things to be believed and done, Act. 15.28. In case a particular Church, 
p. 47.  be disturbed with error or scandal, maintained by a faction: now, a Synod of Churches, or their Messengers, is the first subject, of that power and authority, whereby error is judicially convinced and condemned, and the way of truth and peace declared, and imposed on the Churches. See also Mr. Noyes Temple measured, p. 56, 57, 58.  
Thus far, and in several other particulars, we, and the congregational Brethren, are, or at least were sometimes, agreed. And, did they own what may be from these principles inferred, and practice what they lead to, I doubt not, but that we should soon be fully agreed.  
But a generation of men are now Risen up (who yet would be accounted one with these, terming themselves Congregational also) who call most, if not all, these principles into question: and instead of tending to an accommodation, raise and heighten our divisions; proclaiming our Churches, Ministry, Government, to be Antichristian, etc. Among whom I have found my Antagonist, laying about him to this end with all his might.  
I confess, I have dealt plainly with him; but believe, that my sharpest expressions fall short of his merit.  
Reader, consider and judge, and the Lord lead thee, with me, and all his people, into all truth. So prays,  
From my study in Waldron this 12th of August. 1658. Thy Servant for Jesus sake, EZECHIEL CHARKE.    

The Table.  

Sections. 1 ANimadversions, upon some passages in the Epistle, concerning the Magistrate's Power in matters of Religion. Pages. 1  
Sections. 2 Of Mr. P's Text, and the interpretation thereof, and inferences from it; particularly, of the coming out of Babylon, and an Antichristian Church-state. Pages. 6  
Sections. 3 Of National Churches. Pages. 11  
Sections. 4 Of Parish-Churches, Ministers maintenance, the Churches of England, the Witnesses, and Separation. Pages. 13  
Sections. 5 Of Congregational, Presbyterial, Classical Churches, and of the Church Catholic, and Synods. Pages. 28  
Sections. 6 An Examination of Mr. P's Answers, to the Objections he mentions, as made against his Doctrine of Separation, and of his Reasons for Separation. Pages. 61  
Sections. 7 Of Mr. P's injunctions to the Magistrate, and first concerning Parishes, Parish-Temples, and Patrons. Pages. 80  
Sections. 8 Of Tithes. Pages. 89  
Sections. 9 Concerning the Commissioners, for approbation of public Preachers. Pages. 101  
Sections. 10 Of Mr. P's Counsels, and Directions for Reformation. Pages. 104  
Sections. 11 Of the Call of our Ministers. Pages. 106  
Sections. 12 A Question discussed, Whether any unordained persons, among us, are lawful, and complete, Ministers of the Gospel: with, an Answer to the six Arguments for Popular Ordination, brought by the Answerers of Jus Diu. Min. Evangelici, in their Book called, the Preacher sent. Pages. 110  
Sections. 13 Containing the Author's humble supplication, to those in Authority for Reformation. Pages. 123  
Sections. 14 Of Mr. P's Conclusion, abusing that of the Lord Du Plessis his book. Pages. 125    

AN Answer to Mr. Postelthwaite's Book, Entitled, A voice from Heaven.  

SECT. I. Animadversions, upon some Passages in the Epistle, Concerning the Magistrate's Power, in matters of RELIGION.  
CAn God endure to be prescribed by Creatures? shall man coin Laws, for Rules of acceptable walking with God, in spiritual, Civil, or Ecclesiastical things? etc.  
You are not ignorant, that in Ecclesiastical things, both for Doctrine, and Discipline, we own no other Rule but the written Word of God, by which both Magistrates and Subjects must be guided. And therefore your flourishing insinuations of the contrary, are very uncharitable and vain. We wish that those golden verses, Deut. 17.18, 19, 20. were written in the hearts, and transcribed in the lives of all Christian Princes. We acknowledge, that Magistrates have no power to create new Laws, for the Government of the Church, contrary to the Divine pattern laid down in the Word. But, have not Magistrates power to make Penal Laws, to enforce obedience to the Law of God, in matters of Ecclesiastical concernment? Your book doth in effect deny them all power.  
For the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion, Consider,  
1. The light of Nature pleads for it; It hath taught Heathen Princes to interpose their Power in matters of Religion, and their people to acknowledge it. Scripture examples clearly evince this, which God seals with his approbation, Ezra 7. 25, 26, 27. Dan. 3.29. Jonah 3.6. etc. And Heathens generally, have looked upon the blessing of God upon States and people, as a consequent of their care and zeal for Religion.  
2 The Magistrates and Kings of Israel had and exercised power in matters of Religion. Moses and Joshuah had so, Exod. 32.27, 28. Josh. 5.2, etc. Josh. 24.14. to 29. So it was with the Judges, 1 Sam. 7.3, 4. And the Kings succeeded the Judges herein, as that which God called them to, Psa. 78.70, 71, 72. 
Pascant reges & principes suos subditor, primum coelesti doctrina, hoc est curent recte doceri ecclesiam, prohibeant idololattiam, superstitiosos cultus, extirpent errores in ecclesia, & compescant blasphemos; conferant opes ad conservationem ministerii, & studiorum necessariorum; Deinde current etiam corpora subditorum. Moller. in locum.  He took him from the sheepfold to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. Not only to protect them in their Civil immunities and privileges, But to feed, or see them fed with heavenly Doctrine, pure Ordinances and Worship, to countenance true Religion, and extirpate Idolatry. This is the principal part of a King's Office in reference to God's inheritance. So did David, So did all other good Kings and Rulers feed Israel, 2 Chro. 14.17, 29, 30, 31. Chapters, and Nehem. 13. And God's frequent complaints against the Kings of Israel, for not so doing, are pregnant proofs of their power in matters of Religion.  
3 Under the Gospel, the Christian Magistrate, as such, hath answerably power in matters of Religion.  
For, 1. All those Texts wherein this power of the Magistrate under the Law is made out, whether by way of Precept, approved example, or blame for not exercising it; show the duty and Power of Magistrates under the Gospel: Since we no where find the charge that God then laid upon those, repealed, or taken off in relation to these.  
2. The Commission of the Christian Magistrate, as such, is not only as authentic, but every whit as large, as that of the Jewish Magistrate, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3, 4. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. Titus 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Here Magistrates, are said to be sent and ordained of God. 
Mali nomen comprehendit, etiam omne quod circa sacra committie tu●; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bonum qualecunque. Grot. de imper. Sum potest.  The end for, and work about which they are sent and ordained, is to punish evil, and encourage good works: The comprehensiveness of those expressions, shows plainly, that the Magistrates power refers even to Religious concernments. We must not distinguish where the Law doth not. If therefore to blaspheme the name of God, break the Sabbath, etc. be evil works, they fall under the Sword of the Civil Magistrate no less than Murder or Adultery: and so the Magistrate is custos utriusque Tabulae, the keeper of both the Tables of the Law. Therefore we are commanded to obey them, as Ministers of God for good; resisting their lawful commands, is called a resisting of God, and we must pray for them, that under them as Rulers we may live in all Piety towards God, as well as in all Righteousness towards men.  
3 The same reasons from the object, which required the interposition of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion under the Law, are of as much force under the Gospel. men's spirits are as licentious and prone to seduce people now as then. The name of God is as much blasphemed, by damnable heretical Doctrines. Men are as apt to be seduced by the subtle craftiness of those that lie in wait to deceive. All m●ans, without the Magistrates sword are as ineffectual; Will such as decry all Churches, deny Christ's Deity, and the Scriptures to be our Rule, care for a bare Church-censure?  
4 The judgement of the Ancients, 
Si omnis, & vestra; Quis vos excipit ab Universitate. Bern. ad Archiep.  that lived near the time of Christ, and of the reformed Churches in these last ages, is fully for it. The Fathers generally assert it. chrysostom infers from Rom. 13.1. That even Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets were bound to be subject to the Magistrate. Constantine was termed the Maintainer of Faith and Religion. Kings (saith Austin) Serve God, as they are men one way, as Kings another; As men they serve God by a faithful obedience to his Laws, But as Kings they serve God by commanding things just, 
Aug. ad Bonif.  and prohibiting the unlawful, restraining them with convenient rigour, making and putting Laws in execution for beating down sin, and promoting Gods glory. Thus Hezekiah, thus Josiah served God, and thus Kings become nursing fathers, and Queens Nursing Mothers to the Church as it was promised, Isa. 49.23. & 60.16.  
The Confessions of the Reformed Churches are exceeding full and unanimous in this point. 
See Corpus Conf.  And most of the Brethren of the Congregational way have seemed to be suffragators to them herein. 
Platform of Church government. ch. 17.  Those of New-England are very express for it: And our five Apologists for that way, courted once the Magistrate to believe, that their opinion allowed him more power in matters of Religion than the judgement of others. To the Magistrate's power (say they) we give as much, and as we think more than the principle. 
Apologetical Narration. p. 19  〈◊〉 the Presbyterial Government will suffer them to yield. (which how it may be, I understand not, unless in a sense in the which I would not understand it, by giving it more than the principles of their own government will suffer them to yield,) So that the Churches in all ages are agreed that the Magistrate hath power in matters of Religion; 
Neque enim aliud, aut belli laboribus, aut pacis consilits ordinamus, nisi ut verum Dei cultum, Orbis nostri plebs devota custodiat. Theod. & Honour. ad Marcel. Caesarei est muneris ut non solum pacifie sed pie etiam subditi vivant. Theod. ad Cyril.  (against which stand only a small company of dissenters, muchly led by Anabaptistical unscriptural principles) And accordingly the first Christian Princes, and their Successors since, have, with the approbation of godly Bishops and Pastors, owned and exercised it.  
But you proceed confidently, Therefore my beloved brethren accept no Lawgiver but Jesus Christ, neither in Church nor Commonwealth, that will in due time save us, from Devilish Government in the Church, and from all worldly government in commonweals, when the stone cut out of the Mountain shall smite on the toes of the Image; Then no more place shall be found for them, no not for the goodliest government, that ever was invented by the wit of man.  
If Christian Magistrates should cause you to suffer for these lines, would you not suffer as an Evildoer? Doth not the Apostle, Judas 8. call those filthy dreamers that despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities? You proclaim to the world in Print, that for the present, de jure, they have no power neither in things of Religion, nor yet of Civil concernment, and call off men from yielding that obedience to them, which the Laws of God and man require. You say expressly, that de facto, they shall have no power in matters of Religion, or Civil concernment, in the most glorious times of the Church. And this is the doctrine which by you, and men of your opinion, is still buzzed into the ears of the people, dangerous to Rulers, and contrary to the Word of God, and to the blessed example of the Apostles of Christ. They, in the most glorious time of the Church that hath yet been, never exhorted men to cast off, and cast down Magistrates, though they were then Heathen, but to the contrary, to pray for, and submit to them. And yet the Apostles, understood, I am sure, the Monarchy of the Lord Christ, fare better than you.  
That Magistrates have power in matters of Religion hath been proved before; That they s●●ll have and exercise this power, in the latter and most glorious days of the Church, may be easily made evident from Scripture.  
Isaiah 60. Speaks of a glorious time to the Church, in the days yet to come, for it speaks of the conversion of the Jews, and the flourishing Church-state ensuing thereon. But the promise there, concerning Magistrates then, is not that they shall be removed, but reform and established, verse 17. and made instrumental for the edification of the Church, verse 10, 16. (as Isa. 49, 22, 23.) and this all along that glorious time of the Church, verse 11.  
Rev. 21. Is generally understood to speak of the future glorious times of the Church; but not a word there of the ending of earthly governments; But on the contrary, verse 24, 25, 26. it is said, The Kings of the earth do bring, and shall bring their glory and honour into the new Jerusalem; and for this end, the gates thereof shall not be shut.  
Zech. 13. Speaks of the latter State of the Church, and verse 3. declares that Heretical seducing Teachers shall then undergo capital punishment, 
Transfigent, id est, supplicio afficiendum tradent judicibus. Pisc.  His Father and Mother shall thrust him through. Which, Expositors, (and Mr. Burroughs with them) understand of their convening them, out of zeal for God's glory, before the Christian Magistrate, and so causing them to be put to death.  
From these and many the like places, it is evident that all along the most glorious times of the Church, there shall be Magistrates exercising their power and authority for the Churches good, in matters both of Civil and Religious concernment.  
What Government it is, which you call Devilish Government in the Church, you do not here expressly tell us; But your book gives the Reader abundant cause to conclude, that you mean, all Government in the Church but that of your way. And if so, do you know what manner of spirit you were of, when you wrote this passage? Dare you pronounce all Government in the Church besides the Congregational, to be for the substance of it Devilish, and so all those that exercise it to be the Servants of the Devil therein? What could the Antichrist of Rome have said more against Protestant Churches? I shall say no more to you at this time but the Lord rebuke thee; And shall now address myself to examine, whether your Treatise doth prove the Protestant Churches, and their Government to be Antichristian and Devilish, for that's the sad task it undertakes.   

SECT. II. Of Mr. P's Text, Rev. 18.4. And the interpretation thereof, and inferences from it; particularly, of the coming out of Babylon, and an Antichristian Church-State.  
YOur explication of the Text and it's context, had need to have been more clearly and firmly laid, to have borne up such doctrines as you build upon it. But you are mainly for the particular conclusion, 
P. 5.  We must departed from the fellowship of Antichristian Churches, that is with you, Protestant Churches, or else we remain in Babylon still.  
I shall a little reflect upon your text, and it's context, and show that this conclusion of yours, in the sense mentioned, can of right claim no acquaintance with their import.  
In this Revelations 18. Babylon's ruin is set forth, 1 By the instrumental causes of it, the Word of God's mouth denounceing it, and drawing off her associates from her, verse 1, 2, 3, 4. 2 By the procuring cause of it, her foul Idolatries and seduceing, verse 3. 5. 3 By the consequents of it, the sorrowing and wailing of her followers and lovers, and the great joy of the Church and people of God, verse 9, to 21. I shall particularly consider the four first verses.  
Verse 1. I saw another Angel come down from Heaven, etc. Pareus understands it in a literal sense. Brightman of some chief Executioner of God's wrath, as Commander General of God's armies against Babylon. But, in regard by Angels in this book, are often meant the Ministers of the Gospel, whose tongues and pens God imploies to discover Antichrists impostures, as Interpreters agree those places mean: Rev. 14.6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18. This Angel may also be understood to signify them, since he brings for substance no other message than the former; only his discovery is more clear, being nearer Antichrists ruin; and therefore, whereas the Angel, Rev. 14.6. is said to fly in the midst of the Heavens; this Angel is said to come down from Heaven, and to cry with a strong voice, and the earth to be enlightened with his glory. By this Angel, I understand the company of God's Ministers of the reformed Churches, that have been, and shall be raised out of the bowels of the territories of Antichrist, who, by their preaching and writing, enlighten the earth, that is, the common sort of Christians, who were before the footstool of Antichrist, and basis of his Hierarchy.  
For though this was in a great measure done, at the pouring out of the first vial, upon the Throne of the Beast, when the Waldenses, Albigenses, Hussites, etc. began every where to renounce the authority of the beast, calling Rome ecclesiastical, the Apocalyptical Babylon: Yet this vial, is as yet poured out but in part, as are also several others of the Vials: The dregs of them, and of this in particular, remaining to be poured upon the beast, in a doctrinal way by this Angel, who shall give the last warning of Babylon's instant ruin. The effect whereof is, that the earth is enlightened, that is, many more of the common people, are drawn off from communion with Babylon, and join issue with some of the ten horns, fallen off from the Whore, and hating her. But as for her more honourable slaves and vassals, they receive no benefit by the Ministry of this Angel, but either perish in Babylon's ruin, or by the dregs of the vials poured out upon her associates.  
Vers. 2. 
Cecidit, cecidit, i. e. Paulo post casura, certissime, gravissime. Pisc.  Here we have the sum of the report of this Angel, concerning Babylon's fall, which is by way of anticipation set down, as actually come to pass, after the manner of the Prophets, to note the certainty of it; and the expression doubled, to note the grievousness of her fall.  
Vers. 3. Here we have the procuring cause of Babylon's fall, her abominable Idolatries, and whoring seducings, wherein she continueth after convictions, admonitions, and threaten.  
Vers. 4 Here 'tis observable, 
Militaris exhortatio, ut non solum ab ea secedant, sed et acriter eam oppugnent. Grass.  that the Holy Ghost altars the usual manner, and way of witnessing against Babylon; for here is no Angel, but a voice from heaven. It may be, vox è castris, a voice from the camp. God is mustering up his Armies, and the war is advancing to the very gates of Rome, and now, the voice of Providence doth thereby cry out aloud, Come out, etc.  
By Babylon, I understand with Pareus, etc. not only the City of Rome, but all those places that are under the power and jurisdiction of the Pope, where his authority takes place, and where his idolatrous worship and doctrines, are submitted to, and embraced. To come out of Babylon, is to renounce communion with her, in her soul sins, and abominable Idolatries and to disclaim and reject the usurped power of Antichrist, both in temporals, and especially in spirituals. The not doing of this, maketh men her associates, and will cause them to partake of her plagues. Rev. 13.16, 17. Rev. 14.8, 9, 10. and here Rev. 18.3, 4. From these Texts, I observe,  
1 That Antichrists sin lies principally in this, that he causeth all, under great penalties, to receive the mark of the name of the beast, in their right hands or foreheads; that is, to own the universal headship of the Pope, especially in spirituals: So that no point of Christian faith must be received, unless warranted by his authority, and whatsoever is stamped with his authority, must be owned, though never so contrary to the Scriptures.  
2 The sin of his followers, lieth in this, that they resign up themselves in obedience to the Pope, and make him sovereign Lord over their persons, rights, and consciences, in all things; receiving, owning, pleading, fight for, his abominable Doctrines, worship and usurpation. Kings themselves, submitting their crowns to him, and maintaining by their Laws, and edicts, his blasphemous doctrines, and tyranny.  
3 Those only are threatened, to partake of Babylon's plagues, that partake with her in her sins. And who those are, the Holy Ghost tells us, Rev. 13.16, 17. All, and only they, that receive a mark, the name of the beast, or the number of his name, in their right hand, or in their forehead. That is, that own the usurped authority of the Pope, and his doctrines and idolatries, because stamped with his authority, which whosoever doth to the death, cannot be saved, Rev. 16.3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as set forth, and confirmed for such, by the Tridentine Council, is this Sea, consisting of the popish errors collected into one body, as many waters meet in the Sea. The Angel that turned this Sea into blood, might be among others, Martin Chemuitius, who poured out his vial on it, when he wrote his Examination of the Trent Council. And every Soul living in this Sea died, whosoever owneth the Popish Religion, as set forth by that Council, and dies in that Faith, cannot be saved; for what the Apostle saith of one of its anti-Scriptural doctrines, Gal. 5.4. may be said of all of them that raze the foundation.  
On the contrary, those that renounce the universal headship of the Pope, and all his anti-scriptural doctrines; as, the insufficiency of the Scriptures, the authority and necessity of his traditions, justification by works, praying to glorified Saints and Angels, worshipping Images and Crucifixes, Purgatory and Indulgences, etc. and withal abhor and renounce his Idolatrous worship, and profess themselves resolved, to resist unto blood, rather than hold communion with him in his sins: All such persons and Churches, are come out of Babylon already. And among such are, the Protestant Churches in England, Scotland, Holland, France, Germany, etc. professing the sound doctrines of the Gospel, in opposition to Antichrists Idolatries. How those Churches that disown, and reject the corrupt doctrine, and worship of the Roman Church, and have sealed their witness against them with their blood, being by their profession and sufferings, the instruments whereby God hath shaken the Kingdom of the Beast; How these Churches should yet be Antichristian limbs of the Beast, may well be a Mystery to all considerate and unprejudiced men.  
And whereas Mr. P. believes, that none, save a few separate Churches, named Congregational, are yet come out of Babylon, (which the Brownists, Anabaptists, Quakers, etc. plead each for themselves) I have one text to offer to his consideration thereupon, which is, Rev. 14.1, 2, 3, 4.  
1 By the Lamb, is undoubtedly meant the Lord Jesus Christ.  
2 Mount-Sion is opposed to Babylon, the Gospel-Church, to the Church Antichristian.  
3 The 144000 that stand upon Mount-Sion (a definite number for an indefinite) and have their Father's name written in their foreheads, must therefore be members of the true Church, in opposition to the members of the Church of Antichrist, who have his name, or mark in their right hand or forehead.  
4 By their having their Father's name written in their forehead, is therefore hinted, their keeping close, in the main, to God's institutions, in profession and worship, in opposition to the Idolatries of the Antichristian Church. Which further appears, in that it is said, that they are not defiled with women, verse. 4. that is, with the Idolatries of the great Whore. Now can any man say, that those of whom the holy Ghost thus speaketh, are yet in Babylon? How can they be upon Mount-Sion, and yet in Babylon too?  
5 The 144000 signify some definite number of the people of God, that in all ages, from the first rise of Antichrists Kingdom, have cleaved to the Lamb, and kept a true Church-State, which is signified by their standing with the Lamb upon Mount-Sion, with their Father's name, etc. That their standing, synchronizeth with the standing of the Antichristian Church, appeareth, Rev. 13.16, 17. with the four first verses of the 14th. Chapter. For the company of the Lambs marked one's, is opposite to the Beasts whole marked company, whilst it was such; whilst the Church-State of the Beast was false and corrupt, the Church-State of the 144000 was true. And it is said, they were not defiled with women, which argues that the Whore was at the time of their standing, seducing. And the Apostle John, at the same time, sees an Angel going forth, and crying, 
Forbes. Gyffard Fulk. Deut. Fox. Bernard. Broughton.  Babylon is fallen. Accordingly, Brightman, Mede, and sundry other worthy Expositors, understand this context of the 144000 to denote the true Church of God, in the midst of whom Christ reigned, who were fed with purer ordinances, and worship, during Antichrists reign, and standing out all along against his Idolatry.  
Now seeing the Congregational Churches are as it were but of yesterday: who are those 144000 that have stood with the Lamb upon Mount-Sion, all along the time of Antichrists reign? Either you must assert the loss of a true Church-State in the world for many ages past; or else you must acknowledge, that the Churches that have maintained a true profession, all along the time of Antichrists reign, were true Churches, and that the Protestant Churches that have owned and maintained the same profession to this day, have been, and are true Churches, and are in the number of the 144000. If you dare not say the former (as I suppose you do not) you must confess the latter; and then, with what face or reason will you justify that separation from them, as Antichristian Churches, which you contend for?  
Consider, I beseech you, what you have to answer for before the Lord, in branding all the Christian Churches in the world, from the rise of Antichrist to this day, who have disowned and opposed him (except a few separate Congregations of these latter days) as false and Antichristian Churches. And the Lord give you repentance from this rash and unchristian dealing.   

SECT. III. Of National Churches.  
CIvil co-habitation with wicked men is dangerous; Ecclesiastical communion with them in the times of the Gospel, 
p. 6, 7, 8.  much more dangerous and unwarrantable, 1 Cor. 5.1. To worship God with a strange worship, is to worship a strange God. Stephen lost his life, for preaching against the Temple, and so consequently against the Jews National Church, the bond of which was, their meeting together at the Temple, in one individual worship.  
That the Church is not of the world, all grant; but that it should not be in the world, is strange. Christ gives his Disciples leave, when persecuted in one City, to fly to another, Matth. 10.23. but never requires his followers to forsake their habitations, because near wicked neighbours. As for that, 1 Cor. 5. touching the incestuous person, it is uncharitably managed by you, for separation from Protestant Churches, who contend for the excommunicating of scandalous persons to their power; But it cometh too close to YOUR OWN DOOR, verbum sapienti sat. The other Texts you mention, set forth the danger of society and intimate converse and communion with Idolaters, but fasten not upon us, because our Churches are not Idolatrous, nor our worship strange worship, not grounded upon the Word, as shall be made appear.  
In what you allege of Stephen's bearing testimony against the National Church of the Jews, and so consequently (as you would be understood) against all National Churches, as inconsistent with Gospel times; the consequence follows, not by Stephen's Logic, but your own. For how doth it appear, that because he preached against the Temple, and the Ceremonial-Law, as things which had an end put to them by the death of Christ; therefore he preached against a National Church, as inconsistent with Gospel times, in respect of the Nationality of it? Or that a National Church, purely in respect of its Nationality (considered without the adjuncts of one single person, as the head of it, and one single place of worship, to which all should repair at some set time; for you know we plead not for these things, but acknowledge them to have been peculiar to the Church of the Jews) is contrary to the institution of Christ, and his Apostles in the New Testament?  
If it be said, we have no example of a National Church in the time of the Apostles, nor yet in the times of the primitive Church: This cannot be an objection of weight. For in those times, whole Nations were not converted to the profession of the Gospel, and Magistrates, in most of them were bloody persecutors of the Christian profession. But yet,  

See Divine right of the Ministry of England, p. 12. 13.  1 We have both prophecies and promises in the Old Testament, of National Churches under the Gospel: Psa. 72.10, 11, 17. and Isa. 19.18. to the end. Here 'tis prophesied and promised, that Nations shall serve God, and be his people, and that they shall combine, and hold communion with one another, for the better carrying on of God's service and worship, and God approveth of them, and blesseth them upon that account.  
2 There have been National Christian Churches in the world, since the primitive times, according to the Apostle John's historical prophecy. Rev. 12.7, 8, 9 we have a short description of the Heathen Emperors, 
See History of the life of Constantine.  Maxentius, Licinus, Maximius, overthrown by the victorious arms of Constantine the Great, the Manchild that the Church brought forth; and now says verse 10. is come salvation, and strength, and the Kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ; to wit, brought into the Roman Empire, Persecutors, Idolatry, and Heresy being suppressed, and Christian religion countenanced, professed, promoted by the godly zeal of Constantine in his dominions. Again, Rev. 11. We have a description of the downfall of Antichrist, verse 13. the tenth part of the City fell (many of the places under the Roman jurisdiction cast off the Pope) than it follows, verse 15. The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ. The Kingdoms which before were the Kingdoms of the Beast, become professedly subject to the Laws of Christ, and embrace his Gospel, which our eyes have been so happy as in part to see.  
And indeed, considering that the Nationality of a Church lies properly in this, that the body of a Nation, living under one Civil Government, and professing the Gospel, should have one way of Doctrine and Worship, established in all the Congregations of it, and one way of Government by greater and lesser Assemblies: how such a constitution as this should be contrary to the mind of God concerning Churches, under the New Testament, I do not see, nor believe any man can demonstrate.   

SECT. iv Of Parish Churches, Minister's maintenance, the Churches of England, the Witnesses, and Separation.  
I Shall now explain what I mean by Antichristian Churches. 
P. 9, 10, 11  And first I mean Parish-Churches, to prove which to be Antichristian, I shall show what I find storied of their Original, etc.  
You cannot prove the Original of Parish-Churches to be from Rome, 
Quid certi, aut explorati, a tempore Trajani, ad imperium Constantini haberet Ecclesia, si Divinum thesaurum non haberet?  however confident your small reading maketh you of it. Your borrowed relation, concerning Cletus and Evaristus, is not much to be valued, as neither are most of the Histories of the Church, for the first three hundred years. And if this relation were true, the thing is still unproved; for I find it recorded of Ignatius, who as some say, was Peter's successor at Antioch, and suffered Martyrdom in the eleventh year of Trajan; that being sent from Syria, because he professed Christ to Rome, where he suffered; when he passed through Asia, he strengthened and confirmed the Parishes, through all the Cities, as he went, with his exhortations and preaching. So that these Parishes are ancienter than those of Rome. But, if it were granted, that Parishes had their Original at Rome, about the time you speak of, it makes not to your purpose, and that for two Reasons.  
1 Because Rome then was, and long after continued to be a pure Church of Christ, affording many Martyrs, that sealed the truth with their blood; therefore division of Parishes is not in its Original from Antichrist. But, you think you have prevented this answer sufficiently, by saying, Neither doth it help, 
P. 13.  that Parish-Churches derive their pedigree from times so near the Apostles, for the mystery of iniquity did work even in Paul's time. If you could prove that the mystery of iniquity sprung up in Rome, or chief there, in the Apostles days, you would have some (though but a slender and insufficient) ground to think that Parishes, if they began there, are Antichristian.  
But, from Scripture, and Church-history, no such thing appears. In the Apostles days, Diotrephes is charged with aspiring towards an universal Headship, 3 John 9, 10. The Church of the Galatians, mingleth works with Christ's righteousness for justification, and are by this piece of Popery in danger of the loss of salvation, Gal. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. The doctrine of worshipping of Angels, creeps in Apostle-times into the Church of Colosse, Col. 2.18. But all this while, the Church of Rome keeps her garments undefiled, of these, and the like abominations, and for a sound profession of faith, is famous throughout the whole Christian world, Rom. 1.8. And long after this, and even in that very time, wherein you suppose the division of Rome into Parishes, the Saints there sacrificed their lives in the flames to God, in the maintenance of the profession of the Christian doctrine. And yet Mr. P. is so charitable, that to maintain a Fable that he thinks will serve his turn, the Church of Rome must needs be then Antichristian.  
2 Because it cannot be made to appear, that Parish divisions, as such, have in them the least evil, or appearance of evil. Without divisions according to co-habitation, within certain bounds, Christians cannot conveniently meet to worship, nor Ministers and people discharge their mutual duties. I no way doubt, but that they have ever been in use, when they might be had, in the Church of God. The Jews had their several Synagogues for several vicinities. And it is very probable, that the Apostles in planting Churches, observed such divisions, as fare as might be; They ordained them Elders in every City, But in many Cities, the Church consisted in each of several Congregations (as shall be evidenced, Sect. 5.) and 'tis most probable, that these were distinguished, to attend on their respective Elders, according to the nearness of their habitation, to the several meeting-places. However, believers are still found in Scripture, to have ecclesiastically embodied in the places of their habitation, as those in Ephesus, Corinth, etc. And is not this sufficient warrant for Parochial Congregations, as such, that is, the Ecclesiastical imbodying of such, in a vicinity, as profess the Gospel?  
But now, the way of gathering Churches, used by most of the Congregational Brethren, and yourself, picking some out of one Parish, and some out of another, and that without the leave, and against the mind of their godly Ministers (who endeavour after reformation, and the use of all Ordinances, according to God's mind in their places, but are hindered therein, to your might, by your sinister deal) and some of those members, so many miles distant that you are thereby utterly disabled from discharging mutual duties, this way and practice is altogether a stranger to the Word of God, and sound reason, and hath more than an appearance of evil in it.  
There is nothing in Scripture of limitation of Churches by the Minister's function; or maintenance, by the edicts of Popes, 
P. 13.  Bishops, or Princes of this world. And it is enough against a thing belonging to the worship of God, that there is no institution for it, that the Scripture speaks nothing of it.  
Then, surely it concerns you to look about you. Where have you an institution for uniting in a single Congregation, members living at such a distance from one another, as your practice doth? and undertaking to be a Pastor to a scattered people, over whose souls it is impossible you should watch? and urging an explicit Covenant, as necessary for admission? etc. As for limitation of Churches by the Minister's function, how is your Church distinguished from other Churches, but by your taking the charge of the members thereof, to watch for their souls? (how well or possible you can do it, it concerns you to see to) and is not this limitation of a Church, by the Minister's function? That the Scripture says nothing of Minister's maintenance, by the edicts of Princes of this world, is true, if you mean de facto that Scripture gives no example of maintenance thus appointed and raised; Princes, when the Gospel was penned, had power to raise maintenance for the Ministry, but would not, being enemies to the Church. But to argue, that because Scripture gives no example of it, Christian Magistrates, who are by Scripture appointment, to be nursing Fathers and Mothers to the Church, may not by their Edicts, Laws, and Power settle a sufficient revenue upon the Ministers of the Church, is vain and frivolous; and the result of it is, which seems to be your meaning, that the maintenance of the Ministers must be by the people's free will, and they must live upon the Alms of the Church. That this is not the mind of God, but that a certain liberal maintenance is by God's ordinance due to the Ministers of the Gospel, is from Scripture very clear.  
1. Because God established a certain liberal Maintenance, for the Priests and Levites under the Law, as appeareth by the books of Moses; And godly Magistrates, quickened up by their royal commands, the backward people to pay it, 2 Chron. 31.4, 5. whose examples are preceptive to Christian Magistrates now. And shall we think that God bears a less tender respect to a Gospel, than to a Legal Ministry? neither appointing them a certain maintenance, nor means to raise it, if it be withheld.  
2 Dependence upon voluntary contributions, is the ready way to tempt Ministers to be the greatest temporizers in the world, since it will force many of them to please their givers, or starve.  
3 Duties required of Ministers under the Gospel, call for a liberal and certain maintenance. They must be given to hospitality: But they cannot exercise it, without a maintenance liberal and certain.  
4 That command to hearers of the Gospel, Gal. 6.6, 7. leaves not men to their liberty, but chargeth a duty upon their consciences, which they cannot neglect without mocking God.  
5 Ministers may require this maintenance in an authoritative way, as an absolute due debt, for their work in the Ministry, 1 Cor. 9.11, 12, 13, 14.  
Now, a liberal maintenance being by God's Ordinance due to the Gospel Ministry, what hinders, but that the fixing of it should be a lawful, yea a necessary means for their enjoying of it. Before there were any Christian Magistrates in the world, the revenue of the Church was not altogether unsettled. Constantine the first Christian Emperor, being come to the Crown, enacts, that the Church Lands or goods, that had been injuriously taken away, though annexed to his own Crown, should be restored, that such as had purchased Church-Lands, should make present restitution of the same. These lands and possessions were, 'tis probable, long before purchased out of the public bank of the money laid at the Apostles feet, and other charitable donations since that time, and settled upon the Church, that so Ministers having some certain maintenance, might serve God in their places with the less distraction. And therefore the building Oratories and Churches, and endowing them with maintenance, for the certain support of fixed Ministers, which you make the object of your contempt, appears to be in itself considered, a lively imitation of primitive practice.  
These things considered, I demand,  
1 Where a maintenance is already established, and hath been so for many hundreds of years together, and that by as firm Laws as any man hath for his personal estate; Whether now, the Magistrate may not animate those Laws, and make meet new ones, for the due payment of that established maintenance, as Hezekiah did? 1 Chron. 31.4.  
2 Where maintenance is wanting, whether the Magistrate may not provide and settle it, by a levy upon the people? Seeing 'tis God's ordinance there should be a liberal maintenance, and that many people, if left to themselves, will rather want the Gospel, than be at charge for it; and that it is a duty incumbent on the Christian Magistrate, to provide for the good of men's souls, and for the continuance, support, and encouragement of the Ministry for that end.  
But to return to Parish-Churches; you say,  
Consider, what Babel's of confusion, and superstition they be. Here you may see Saints and sinners jumbled together, without any kindly separation of the precious from the vile. Great care, that all may be consecrated, but the worshippers. Are they not given unto the Gentiles? 
P. 13, 19, 20  do not men of uncircumcised hearts (for so are the Major part, in those Churches) stand seized of the power of the keys? Let us say to those christened Gentiles, that upon pretence of being of the same Religion, and Church with us, would interess themselves, in rebuilding our Gospel-Temple, as the Jews did to the Samaritans, Ezra 4.1, 2, 3.  
Specious arguments to take ignorant persons. 'Tis common with those of your way, to argue against the Church-state of Churches, from the corruptions in manners which are found in them. Whereas the Scripture every where declares such an arguing to be of no force; witness its owning the Church of the Jews, as such, under its great, and severely reprovered corruptions. So the degenrate Churches of Asia, dead Sardis, and lukewarm and miserable Laodicea. If a man fix his eye on those Churches, under their then condition, and apply your charge to them (as he may) and thence conclude, that they were no true churches, will he not contradict the holy Ghost, and the Truth? and what then doth your arguing prove? Whatever corruption is in out Churches, we make as much the matter of our grief, as you of your scorn, and are as ready to bear witness against it, as yourself; But not with you, to encourage the sin of separation, but to advance the duty of reformation. This many church-guide do zealously endeavour after in our Churches, so unjust is your charge, generally fastened upon them, that they take care, all may be consecrated, but the worshippers, and that they make no kindly separation, of the precious from the vile. You seem to make use of a bad rule, Calumniare fort it er aliquid haerebit. Your own knowledge of the contrary to your charge, in many Parish-Congregations, should make you blush for these expressions. And truly that they are no more reform, and others in no way for reformation, may be as much ascribed to the practices of yourself, and many of your way, in drawing off from them helpful members, and hindering endeavours for healing and restauration, as to any other single cause, yea as to many of them put together. And had not men of your way, in a time, when uniformity in worship according to the Word, was about to have been established by the Magistrate in the Churches of England, hindered that good work: 'tis very probable, that reformation had been much forwarded in our Churches at this day, and many of our civil shake and overturnings prevented thereby. Your comparing of those, that comply not with your opinion, in matter of Church-State and Government, to the Idolatrous Samaritans, and loading them with the opprobrious name of christened Gentiles, is very devoid of modesty and truth. Many church-guide in our Congregations are as free from the least taint of Superstition, as any of your way. And for the members of our Churches, who have been baptised in them, and own their Baptism, though the most of them do not appear to be godly, yet they differ very much from Heathens, being taken into an external Covenant with God, and in the number of those that are called; And are as much the people of God, as sometime formal and profane Israelites were; the estate of the Gentiles at this day, to whom the ordinances are given, being not inferior to that of Israelites of old; Rom. 11.17. And therefore as the Infants of the Israelites had generally right to Circumcision: So have the children of Professors of Christianity, owning their Baptism (though corrupt in their conversation, but promising reformation) right to Baptism. Else were the grace of God straighter under the Gospel, than before Christ was exhibited in the flesh, which cannot be.  
But you have this more against our Churches, that men of uncircumcised hearts stand seized of the power of the keys in them, because the major part are such in our Churches.  
Petitio principij! As if the people had the power of the keys committed to them; you know we own not that doctrine.  
church-guide, have the power of the keys committed to them, and many of such among us, are to be reputed godly. And, if in most places, wicked men stand seized of the power of the Keys, yet this will not serve to justify separation from our Churches, as false and Antichristian. The wicked Scribes and Pharisees stood seized of the power of the Keys in the Church of the Jews, and yet Christ with his Disciples held communion with that Church, and gives no encouragement to separation from it, whilst he had not set up a new Church-State, Mat. 23.1, 2, 3.  
Your prudential consideration for separation, That there is no probability of reforming our Churches, 
P. 20, 21, 22  because the greatest part in them are wicked, and will hinder the work; which you strengthen with a passage, out of the Epistle to the Little Stone; Is certainly an argument which the Prophets and holy people of God, in the Church of the Jews, were not acquainted with, or thought not to be of force, to warrant them to separate, or to neglect endeavours for reformation. Neither doth Jesus Christ look upon such a reasoning, or the ground for it, as sufficient to excuse the Angels of, and Christians in the Churches of dead Sardis, and wretched Laodicea (who might plead the same improbability of reformation) from putting forth their utmost endeavours for it. Your Prudence would it seems have taught them, that they might spare themselves a labour, and rather gather new Churches, than stand about a work so unlikely to be effected as the reforming of the old. But surely, the Spirit that spoke by the Prophets, exhorting to endeavours for reformation in the Church of the Jews (as miserably corrupted at least as our Churches) and the command of our Lord, pressing the same duty upon the Churches of Asia; do excuse us from practising by your prudential consideration, and teacheth us to do our duty for reformation, and leave the success to the Almighty God, depending upon him by faith. And I doubt not but that it all church-guide, and pious Christians in our Churches, would to their power join, and set about this work, we should find the Lord dispelling our fears, facilitating the work, and shaming us for our distrust. But you say,  

〈◊〉. 16.  If we would make a kindly reformation, we must not build on Antichrists foundation, but return to primitive practice.  
Agreed, But, in regard it doth not appear, that Parish-Churches had their original from Antichrist; and that it appears, that Primitive Churches were made up of co-habiting, or neighbouring families: this puts no necessity upon us, of demolishing, or forsaking Parish-Churches, in order to a reformation; no more than the duty of repenting, reforming, and conforming to Primitive patterns, did upon Sardis and Laodicea, to forsake their then Church-standing, and erect new Congregations.  
Christ's Church-State, and Antichrist are opposed, Rev. 11.1, 2, 3, 4. The witnesses against this, are impowered and specified to be the two Olive-trees (noting Magistracy and Ministry) and the two Candlesticks (noting Churches) that arise against the Antichristian Church-State. At least, at the latter end of Antichrists reign, 
〈◊〉 17, 18  shall the testimony be managed, by separating Congregations. The Holy Ghost speaks plainly for separating, not only from the corruptions of the Antichristian Church, but from the Antichristian Church-State itself.  
Can Mr. P. be so blind, as not to see, or so wilful, as not to acknowledge, that Protestant Churches, are Churches separating from the Antichristian Church, and from its Antichristian Church-State? and that they have been witnesses against them, from the beginning of their appearing to this day? What? was the Antichristian Church, and Church-State, never separated from, till Independent Congregations came of late to be erected, who separate from Churches, that separate from Rome? Grant, that there remain some Antichristian corruptions in Protestant Churches (I am sure there do in the Independent, and those of a higher nature, For Schism, and Separation from all the Churches of Christ but their own, is an Antichristian corruption, of one of the first magnitudes, The Romanists, being the great Schismatic, and Separatists;) will it follow, that Protestant Churches, while they, in the main, renounce, forsake, and protest against Rome's pretended Supremacy, and her abominable doctrines, Idolatry and worship; are not Churches separating from Rome, and witnessing against her? What Churches, in the last ages to these late years, have managed the testimony against Antichrist, but Protestant Churches, that separated from him, and sealed their testimony with their blood? (whereon ours have not done the least.) And must we now look upon them, as Churches still in Rome, strip them of the glory of being witnesses against her, despise the sufferings undergone by them, for refusing to own and subject to her? And own, as Churches separate from Rome, and witnessing against her, only a very small number, of late Congregations, in this corner of the world, who have little by profession, and nothing by suffering, witnessed against Rome, but much inveighed against, and separated from Protestant, Rome-opposing Churches, to the great service of Rome? Surely Mr. P. must bring better proof of it, than he doth, before it can persuade, or deserve our belief.  
But let us weigh his device concerning the witnesses whereby he presumes to make it out.  
1 He will have the two Olive-trees, to note Magistracy and Ministry, and the two Candlesticks, Churches. But we have but his word for it. The holy Ghost doth not there distinguish the witnesses, but says of them both, These are the two, Olive-trees, and the two Candlesticks.  
2 He saith, In the latter end of Antichrists reign, the Testimony shall be managed by separating Congregations. Whereas, the holy Ghost doth not set forth two sorts of witnesses in different times, but says that the same shall prophesy in sackcloth one thousand two hundred and sixty days, during the whole time of Antichrists reign.  
My apprehensions of the witnesses, according to Scripture, are these. Three pair of Types we find of them in the Old Testament, Moses and Aaron in the Wilderness, Elias and Elisha under the Baalitical Apostasy, Zerubbabel and Joshuah under the Babylonish Captivity: And the holy Ghost alludes to somewhat famous, in the history of the lives of these persons, which is answered, with something parallel, in the two witnesses. Verse 4. alludes to Zerubbabel and Joshuah, who are called two Olive-trees, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth, Zach. 4.  
Verse 3, 5. And the former part of the sixth allude to Elias and Elisha, who witnessed against the Apostasy, and Idolatry of their times, and more particularly to Elias, who destroyed his enemies by fire, and did, by his prayers, open and shut Heaven, 2 Kings 1. James 5.17, 18. Verse 6. the latter part alludes to Moses and Aaron, who did turn the waters to blood, and did smite the Egyptian earth with all Plagues, Exod. 7.  
Now it is observable, 1 That in two of these three pair of types, one bears the person of a Magistrate, the other of a Minister or Prophet. Moses and Zerubbabel were Magistrates, Aaron and Joshuah Ministers. 2 That in the times of the Baalitical Apostasy, which answers most fitly to the times of the Apostasy of Antichrist, the witnesses are only Prophets, Elias and Elisha. 3 That we have in these three pair of types, four Prophets for two Magistrates.  
These things considered, By the two Witnesses, I understand Magistrates and Ministers, some of both sorts, who have in their several ages, witnessed against Antichrist; from the very first rise of him, down to our times. But in no age, have Prophets been wanting to this office and work, whereas, Magistrates appear in it, at some times only; as, 1 In the beginning of reformation, in a Land or Nation, as Moses appeared with Aaron. when the people were brought out of Egypt, to serve the Lord; and Zerubbabel appears with Joshua, in the beginning of the reformation, after the Babylonish captivity.  
2 Towards the end of Antichrists reign, Rev. 17.16. But now, the Prophets, they must prophesy in sackcloth one thousand two hundred and sixty days, that is, all along the Tyranny of Antichrist, which hath been in great part, made good by the event.  
This being so, overthrows his notion of the Witnesses, neither can Congregational Ministers, be any otherwise reckoned, any part of the Witnesses, than as they are taken in conjunction, with the other godly Ministers of this and other reform, and Rome-renouncing Churches, that have, and in this age do stand up, as a part of the two Witnesses against Antichrist, and for God's truth and worship. And though, in a large sense, all those may be reckoned, as witnesses against Antichrist; that have made open profession of the grand truths of the Gospel, in opposition to Antichrist, and those, who have laid down their lives in that witness: Yet, in a strict sense, 
Effecta, quae efficiunt Praec●nes illi, in electis duo, consolatio & illuminatio; quarom illa significatur nomine Olearum; ista vero nomine Candelabrorum. Pisc.  [the Witnesses are Magistrates and Ministers, and yet more especially, Ministers, who have in all ages, opposed themselves to Antichrists Idolatries. These are the two Olive-trees, and the two Candlesticks that enlighten, comfort, and feed the Church of God, during the whole time of Antichrists reign, Rev. 11.3, 4. and Rev. 12.6. compared.  
To what you cite, out of the Epistle to the Little-stone, that, Almost nine parts of ten, in the Churches of Scotland, are not sheep, nor fit for civil, much less for spiritual privileges: I answer, 
P. 21.  I am not easily induced to believe the State of the Church of Scotland, to be so corrupt; considering what an honourable testimony holy Mr. Burroughs hath given concerning it, Lect. 13. on Hosea, p. 368. And whereas it is said, that" many of the sheep there, turn head against their Shepherds. The more, I say, is the pity. But certainly the reason of it is, the present laxness of Church-Government (to which, those of your way, contribute not a little) and which, if it should recover its ancient vigour, and strength, and beauty, would remedy this evil. And I believe, some Brethren of the Congreganal way have cause enough to make the same complaint of their Sheep. One of them, godly, and learned, told me some few years ago, that their people were grown to such a pass, that they knew not what to do with them. 
Mr. W. G.  And how many sad proofs have we seen hereof, in these late years?  
Neither let it seem harsh, to any that admire the antiquity of Churches in England, which they conceive begun to be planted, by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, that I press the casting out of the Parish-Churches, the deemed successors of them. They retain not their privilege, whose neither constitution, nor conversation, they can be found to imitate. And we know, 
P. 24, 25.  that the Holy Ghost teacheth us to say of as few as may be, to give a valid testimony against the Antichristians, of two witnessing Churches; These are the two Candlesticks (i. e. Churches) standing before the God of the earth. Whereby the Churchdome of these witnessing separated Churches, is, not only established, and approved, but the much claimed Churchdome of others rejected.  
Your prohibition cannot hinder it from seeming harsh, not only to us, but also to some Congregational Brethren, that you should unchurch our Churches, 
Way. p. 54  because Parochial. It appears (saith Mr. Cotton) to be an error, to say, there is no limitation or distinction of Parishes, 
Way. p. 112.  meaning of Churches jure divino; and (speaking of the Churches of England;) All the work now is, not to make them Churches, which were none before, but to reduce, and restore them to their primitive Institution. Yourself, do not deny our Parish-Churches, to be the successors of the Churches planted here, by the mentioned worthies; and on that account one would think, reformation should serve your turn, without rising so high as separation. But this you think will bear you out, that they do not imitate the constitution, nor conversation of those first Churches. If you should go about to prove either part of this assertion (which you wisely forbear to do) you would find a hard task of it; Because it is not possible, you should certainly know, what was the constitution or conversation of those first Churches. But I shall grant, and do believe, ours do not generally imitate their conversation, being more corrupted in manners, through the neglect of Discipline. And what then? doth the Scripture any where teach you, that corruption in manners, yea in many regards in administration, and use of ordinances, whilst the fundamentals, and essentials are retained, in doctrine and worship, is a sufficient ground for Separation? I provoke you to make that appear. And indeed this is the point, that you Separatists stand bound to make good, and which if you cannot (as I am sure you cannot from the Word) all your declamations against our Churches, will not a whit free you from the guilt of Schism.  
As for the other branch, of not imitating their constitution, 'tis a charge, as weakly bottomed, and inferring as the other. For, the particular constitution of those Churches, is, as I have said, unknown to you, and our Churches, are not now newly constituting, but have been long constituted, and are successors of those first Churches. And no more unchurched, and necessitated to be newly constituted, by the intervention of Papal corruptions, than the Church of Israel was, by the intervention of heathenish Idolatries in it, during the reign of bad Kings. And that way of constitution, still holds our Churches in their State, which gave and maintained an ecclesiastical being, to the Apostolical Churches, even the professing and owning of the doctrines of the Gospel in them, and the associating under Pastors, for the use of Ordinances. Which, though defective among us, in some points that concern the bene esse, yet are so far found, as suffice to maintain the esse of our Churches. So that notwithstanding your prohibiting us, to account your Magisterial pressing of the casting out of Parish-Churches, harsh: it is, and must be looked upon by us, as very harsh, arrogant, unjust, and unchristian; having no ground in reason, nor ground or example in Scripture, to countenance it.  
The Text you here build upon, Rev. 11.4 for the strengthening of your excommunicating sentence, passed upon all Protestant Churches, that are not of your way, maketh not at all for you, but much against you (as hath been in part showed;) for,  
1 The two Candlesticks, cannot mean Churches properly, or peculiarly, but the Witnesses in general, whom the Holy Ghost calleth both the two Olive-trees, and the two Candlesticks.  
2 That which is attributed to the Candlesticks with the Olive-trees, verse 5, 6. that fire goes out of their mouth, etc. is proper to the guides of the Church, and not to the Churches, as appears by viewing the types of the Witnesses, as hath been before cleared.  
3 The Holy Ghost had spoken of the Church, and its state under persecution, before, verse 1. The false Church-State is also spoken of, verse 2. and vers. 3, 4, 5, 6. the Holy Ghost proceeds to describe the two Witnesses, and their condition, during the whole time of Antichrists reign, distinguishing them from the Church, as those that are chief in it, and are singled out, and enabled to act in a way of eminency, for the manifestation of God's glory, and for the Churches good. Accordingly, they are called the two Olive-trees, and the two Candlesticks, to note them to be instruments, bringing, in a way of office, comfort and illumination to the Church. There being a manifest allusion to Zech. 4.11, etc. So that the two Olive-trees, as well as the two Candlesticks, mean the Witnesses, as they are distinct from the Churches, by way of eminency and office. Though the Churches do witness, yet they are not The Witnesses. The Witnesses guide and feed the Church, Rev. 12.6.  
But you say; The Candlesticks, 
P. 17  in the language of the Revelation, chap. 1.20. are Churches, therefore they are so to be interpreted, Rev. 11.4.  
1 I answer, It follows not. For, in the former Text, they are expressed to mean so, but in the latter not, and the circumstances lead us to interpret them otherwise, as hath been said.  
2 In the former Text, there is a clear distinction, between the Stars, and the Candlesticks; the one are the Angels, the other the Churches; But in the latter, the Holy Ghost makes the Olive-trees and the Candlesticks all one. Therefore, if the two Olive-trees are the Magistracy, and the Ministry, as you grant, p. 18. you must needs acknowledge, the two Candlesticks to be so, and not to be the Churches, as you affirm, in opposition to the Text, and yourself.  
But, supposing (not granting) the Candlesticks here, to mean Churches; will it follow hence, that the Churches of your way, are owned, to the rejection of all others, as you modestly bear your reader in hand? Or, doth not the contrary rather follow?  
For consider, These two Candlesticks, are said to stand before God, during the whole time of Antichrists reign. But separated Churches, are but of yesterday, and therefore, if they be in the number of, yet they cannot be the only witnessing Churches. Seeming to be ware of this, you say, p. 18. At least, at the latter end of Antichrists reign, shall the testimony be managed, by separating Congregations, Indeed, if they be witnesses, they must be so only at the latter end of his reign, for they had no existence before. But you are not ware, how you wound your cause, by the shift which you thought would help it. For separate Churches, arising at the latter end of Antichrists reign, and having the dignity of being the witnesses appropriated to them by you; It will follow hence, that till the latter end of Antichrists reign, there have been no witnessing Churches in the world; whereas the Holy Ghost saith expressly, that the Candlesticks (which you call Churches) shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, which is all the time of Antichrists reign. And you have no way to free yourself from contradicting the Holy Ghost, but by acknowledging (whilst you keep to your notion, of accounting the Candlesticks Churches) that the Churches that renounced Antichrist, from the beginning of his reign, to the rise of the separate Churches, were witnessing Churches; Which doth (by your own rule) establish the Churchdome of the Eastern, Western, and late Protestant Churches, that have renounced Antichrist, all along his reign hitherto; And (say I) call in question the Churchdome of your Congregations, that separate from the witnesses against Antichrist.  
I suppose the Reader sees that your Arrow flies back in your face, and that though your own postulatum (of interpreting the Candlesticks Churches) should be granted you: Your excommunicatory sentence, is no more to be dreaded than the Pope's, with whom you join issue, in reprobating Protestant Churches, that you may appropriate Churchdome to those of your way.  
And, as posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa, you foreseeing that the paucity (as well as novelty) of your Churches, is like to inconvenience your cause; go about to salve the matter, with this weak conceit; that, because the Candlesticks, which you have interpreted to be Churches, are said to be two, therefore separate Congregations, who are fewer than others, must be meant thereby, their Churchdome thereby established, and the Churchdome of others thereby rejected. Wonderful subtlety! Quidlibet ex quolibet. What shall by this argument become, I pray you, of the one hundred forty four thousand, and of the great multitude of Palm-bearers, which no man could number of all Nations, and Kindred's, and People, and Tongues? Surely they are too many to be the Separate Churches, therefore by Mr. P's doctrine, their Churchdome is rejected, though they stand before the Lamb, and with him upon Mount Zion. Is not this rare Divinity? By the same reason, any Sect that is not so numerous as that of Congregational Churches, may rob them of their pretended Churchdome, and appropriate it to themselves, because they being fewer, are more likely to be meant by the Candlesticks, which are said to be two. Surely, the conceit is not worth more words, nor so many. 'Tis plain, that any number may be signified by two, and that Eastern and Protestant Churches, renouncing Rome, have been few in comparison of Antichristian Churches, and that the Churches witnessing against Antichrist, are held out in the Revelation, as increasing toward the latter end of Antichrists reign, and arising out of all Nations, in great numbers, out of which proceed the seven Angels, to pour the seven last plagues, upon the Kingdom of the Beast, Rev. 15.2, 4, 5, 6.   

SECT. V Of Congregational, Presbyterial, Classical Churches; and of the Church Catholic, and Synods.  

P. 25, 26  We come now, in the second place, to interpret Antichristian Churches, by Episcopal Churches, that are, the greater territories, form into Diocesan, Provincial, and Ecumenical Churches, under the several orders of Bishops.  
Episcopacy, of the kind you mention, being now discharged among us, you might have spared your reader, about this matter. Let those that would see, what is said for and against that Government, read the treatises of learned men on that subject. I shall only, here say to you in general, that corruption in Church-Government is no sufficient cause for separation from a Church. We must not (say you, p. 52.) for respect to a right faith, swallow a wrong order. And we must not, (say I) because of some corruptions in the form of Church-Government, forsake communion with a Church, professing the true faith. Your assertion, in your sense, stands only upon your own authority. Mine stands in the very light of the Scripture. The Apostle John, in his third Epistle, mentions a great corruption in Church-Government, but giveth not thereupon, any precept for, or encouragement to separation. There were great corruptions crept into the form of Church-Government among the Jews, in Christ's time; The Lord had appointed, that there should be only one Highpriest at a time, and he was to continue in his office during life; But there were then two High-Priests together, that acted in the function, each his year successively, John 11.47, 49. Besides, the High- Priesthood, was at that time bought for money, procured by favour at the hands of the Romans. Multitudes of corruptions there were also in the Priest's actings, etc. Yet, the Lord Christ gives no command, or intimation to his Disciples, to separate from them, as from a false Church; but only bids them take heed of being leavened with their corrupt doctrines, and drawn to an imitation of their wicked actions. And the Lord himself held communion with them, as a true Church, in his life time.  
Jesus Christ hath instituted no other visible, integral, Organical Church, or Church with Officers, 
P. 26.  for the practice of his visible, public, and solemn worship, but one particular Congregation, that may meet together, ordinarily, in the same place, to worship in all the Ordinances of God's house. Such was the Church at Jerusalem, there were added to it about three thousand, Act. 2.41. They grew to five thousand more, Chap. 4.4. yet they were all in Solomon's porch, Chap. 5.12. Multitudes were added, Chap. 5.14. yet the Apostles call them together to them, Chap. 6.2, 5. And Chap. 15.4. Paul and Barnabas were received of the Church, that is, all the multitude, verse 12. who were present at the disputation, verse 6, 7.  
Here, indeed, is the Hinge of the Controversies, between us and our Reverend Brethren of the Congregational way, in Old and New- England, who stand to their first professed principles; owning our Congregations as true Churches, but scrupling the Government of them by their Guides united, confining all power of Government, to a single Congregation, and contending that it ought to be so, with all Gospel-Churches. Had Mr. P. been such a one, I should more gladly have entered the lists with him than I do. But he hath much out-grown his Brethren in Scruples, and nothing will satisfy him concerning our Churches, but what the Edomites wished against Jerusalem, even the rasing of them to the foundation thereof.  
For our parts, we believe that Gospel Churches may, and commonly aught to consist of divers single Congregations, united under, and governed by their Elders in common; and that we have primitive examples for it; and among them, in the first and chief place, that of the Church of Jerusalem in the Apostles times, which is that, that Mr. P. instanceth in, to establish the contrary opinion.  
Before I enter upon the dispute, I desire it may be considered, that the enquiry is not, of what number of members a Church consisted, when it began first to be planted: But, the inquiry is, how it was with Churches, when arrived to strength and maturity, during the times in which the Apostles lived.  
This premised, I begin with the Church of Jerusalem, and say, that the Church of Jerusalem, 
1 Of the Church of Jerusalem.  when it grew numerous enough for it, consisted of divers single Congregations, as of so many parts, making up one entire and complete Church. For proof whereof, let it be considered, that,  
1 There was a Church at Jerusalem, before the addition of the first three thousand, Act. 2.41. And the members of the Church at that time, cannot be conceived to have been contained within the limits of one single Congregation. For the Ministry of Christ was exceeding successful, Mark. 5.31. John 2.23. John 12.19. It is said of John, Matth. 3.5, 6. Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, went out to him, and were baptised of him. And yet, of Christ, it is said, he made and baptised more disciples than John, John 4.1. Visibly more, so that the Pharisees could take notice of it. Unto these converted by john's and Christ's Ministry, add those brought in by the Ministry of the Apostles, and seventy Disciples, whom Christ endued with a power to work miracles, that thereby they might gain faith to their doctrine, Mark. 6. Luk. 10. and yet, still there is great want of labourers, the Harvest was so great, Luk. 10.2. and besides these, more are found (not without Christ's approbation) labouring in his Vineyard, impowered also to work miracles, to confirm Christ's doctrine which they taught, Mark. 9.38, 39 and of those there seem to have been many, Matth. 7.22. Now, seeing our Brethren will not grant, that by Baptism men are admitted into any other, than a particular Church, and there is no mention in Scripture of any other particular Church; till long after this time, but that of Jerusalem only: Let them from the premises judge, whether the Church of Jerusalem, even before the addition of the first three thousand, must not needs consist of more Congregations than one. But supposing, that as yet there might be but one Congregation in Jerusalem; yet when we consider, from the Texts Mr. P. quotes, the addition of the three thousand, and of five thousand more, and afterwards of multitudes, and add hereunto, Act. 6.1.7. and 12.24. which speak of the farther prevailing of the Word, and great increase of the number of the Disciples, and together therewith, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  reflect on that, Act. 21.20. Thou seest, how many ten thousands of the Jews there are which believe: me thinks, reason should compel men to acknowledge, that the Church of Jerusalem, must needs in the Apostles time, consist of divers single Congregations. What is said against these Texts shall be anon considered.  
2 There was a great number of labourers, in the Church of Jerusalem. There were at first the twelve Apostles, and one hundred and eight Disciples (and most likely 'tis, there were more afterwards) men of rare abilities, and extraordinary endowments, all whose labours cannot well be imagined to have been spent in the service of one single Congregation.  
3 The time, when there was a full employment for so many labourers was the first year after Christ's Ascension, and 'tis likely 'twas early in that year; for in the second year Paul was converted, whereupon the persecution begun at Stephen's death slacked, and the Churches were multiplied, Act. 9.31. Now, many more might be brought in by the Apostles, during the persecution, for they abode at Jerusalem, Act. 8.1. And they continued in Jerusalem divers years after the persecution was ended, Act. 15.2. this Council being held about seventeen years after Christ's Ascension. Now, that all this while the number of believers in Jerusalem, should not be increased beyond the bounds of one single Congregation, that might meet ordinarily together in the same place, to use the Ordinances of God's service, and worship, is to me beyond belief.  
4 At this time there were divers languages spoken in Jerusalem, by persons dwelling there, Act. 2.5. sixteen several languages are reckoned up, verse 9, 10, 11. Now, many of these persons being converted to the profession of the Christian faith, Reason teacheth us to apprehend, that they were distributed into several Congregations, according to their several languages, to have in them the mysteries of the Gospel preached unto them, for their edification in the faith of Christ. For which cause, and that some of them might preach unto strange Nations, Christ poured out the gift of tongues on the twelve Apostles, and one hundred and eight Disciples, Act. 1.8.15. with Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4.  
These considerations prevail with me to conclude, that in Jerusalem there were divers Congregations, under several Teachers, and yet all making up but one complete Church. All these several Congregations, being called in the singular number the Church of Jerusalem. This instance is granted, by the learned Mr. Thomas Hooker, who saith, It doth not appear, that (setting aside the Church of Jerusalem) they (the Christians of one Church) should needs meet in several places. 
Survey part 1. P. 129.  Therein acknowledging, that it appeareth the Church of Jerusalem must needs, and did; and I doubt not but others did also.  
But, because yourself and others much deny this of the Church of Jerusalem, and that if this instance be made good, the cause is ours, in the point of Presbyterial Churches, consisting of divers Congregations; I shall answer the Objections made by you, and others.  
Object. 1 The three thousand, Act. 2.41. (say the Reverend Authors of the defence of the nine positions, p. 125.) were added to the one hundred and twenty. They have their communion together described, etc.  
Answ. 1 If this one hundred and twenty, were the whole number of Disciples in Jerusalem, gathered into a Churchway at this time, than no account can be given of those multitudes converted by the Ministry of John, Christ, the Apostles, and seventy Disciples, how they were disposed of. Neither is it any way probable, that the three thousand should be added to the Church, before those.  
2 Either these were added before the three thousand, or not at all, for aught appears from Scripture.  
3 That there were at this time, many more believers of the Church of Jerusalem, before the hundred and twenty, is to me out of doubt. Christ appears to above five hundred Brethren at once, 1 Cor. 15.6. These may be conceived, embodied brethren of the Church of Jerusalem, met together in the exercise of the duties of God's worship, Luk. 24.33, 36. and a part of those converted by John, Christ, the Apostles, etc. And I am of opinion, that Christ, during his forty day's converse with his Apostles, Act. 1.3. speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, gave them directions for his worship, and the Government of his Church; and that during that time, and between it and the mission of the holy Ghost, on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles did, by Christ's direction, cast Christians into a certain Gospel-order (which, possibly till now they were not fixed in) for the use of all the Ordinances of Christ, in several societies, under their proper officers; and that these made up the Church of Jerusalem, to which the three thousand were added, to share in those privileges, which the rest enjoyed before, which is implied, Act. 2.42.  
4 The hundred and twenty were only the Guides of the Church, their number is made up, of the twelve Apostles, seventy Disciples, and thirty eight Persons more, all of Christ's retinue whilst he was on earth, Act. 1.15, 21. The Apostles, and seventy Disciples, were, we read in the Gospel, made Ministers by Christ; and the other thirty eight, cannot well be looked upon as no Ministers. For 1 They conversed, in the same special manner, with Christ, both before, and after his resurrection, as the Apostles, and seventy Disciples did, Act. 1.21, 22. 2 Any one of the thirty eight was in as near a capacity to be made an Apostle, in the room of Judas, as any of the Seventy; which argueth them to be men of the same rank, with the Seventy. 3 All the hundred and twenty, were to stay at Jerusalem, waiting for the promise of pouring the Holy Ghost on them, by which they should be endued with the gift of strange tongues, Act. 1.4, 5, 13, 14, 15. with Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4. 4 From these last texts, it appeareth, that the whole hundred and twenty, received the gift of tongues, on the day of Pentecost; the end of which was, to preach the Gospel to people of divers languages, now in Jerusalem, and hereafter in other Nations. Therefore all the hundred and twenty were Ministers, and the three thousand were added to the Church of Jerusalem, where they Ministered, and they were the standing Presbytery, the Guides and Governors of that Church, and not any of them of the governed: The multitude of baptised believers at Jerusalem, being in all likelihood, many hundreds, if not some thousands; Else, what account can be given, of the success of Christ's Ministry in Jerusalem, mentioned Joh. 2.23. and 4.1. and 7.31. and 8.30. and 11.28, 45. and 12.19? And, this standing Presbytery of the Church of Jerusalem, is the basis of the discourse of the Evangelist, concerning the Church, in this book of the Acts, unto which, many passages in it, do particularly relate; which by many, and Mr. P. are thought to relate to the whole Church of Jerusalem, as shall be made to appear.  
Object. 2 All that believed were together, Act. 2.44. continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, verse 46. Therefore they were but one single Congregation.  
Answ. Together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, relates not to the place of their assembling, but to their oneness, in heart, spirit, and practice. The phrase is often used by the Septuagint, in this sense, to note men's concurrence, in the same actions, though distant in place, Psal. 2.2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●ariter.  The Kings of the earth assembled themselves together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Psalm 49.2. Give ear all ye inhabitants of the world, both high and low, rich and poor together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where 'tis plain, that, together, relates not to the place of their assembling (for what place can contain the whole world as an auditory?) but to their concurring in attention, to the Prophet's doctrine when declared to them. Therefore these believers being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will not infer, that there was but one Congregation of them, but, that they were one in heart, spirit and practice. Neither can that other place be useful, in the service for which 'tis pressed, that, they continued with one accord, in the Temple. That same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, confirms what hath been said to the other place, and is exegetical to it. And for their continuing daily in the Temple, It teacheth us, that as yet, they had not cast off all the worship of the Temple, but resorted thither at the hours of Prayer, Act. 3.1. as before; holding correspondency with the Church of the Jews so far as they might; But it doth not hold out, that the Temple was their meeting place (as our Reverend Brethren suppose) either for the feeding Disciples with the Word, 
Defence of the nine positions. p. 125.  or the administering of Sacraments to them, for neither of these would have been endured there, Act. 4.1, 2.  

p. 26.  Obj. 3" They were all with one accord in Solomon's porch, Act. 5.12.  
Answ. 1 The Text speaks not of the multitude of Believers, but of the Apostles, by whose hands miracles were wrought, as appears clearly by what precedes and follows the parenthesis, in the 12. and 15. verse. So that the mistake is palpable, in interpreting this of the multitude. The Text distinguisheth clearly, between the Apostles and the Church, vers. 10, 11, 12.  
2 Were it granted, that all the multitude of believers was there; It follows not, (neither can it ever be proved) that they convened there, to partake of the Ordinances of Christ, as administered by the Apostles; Or that, the Apostles did there Administer them to them. The work of the Apostles (as Ministers) in the Temple, is still found to relate to the unconverted; And no one place can be produced, that proves, that they there fed the converted.  

p. 26.  Object. 4 Act. 6.2, 3. The twelve, called the multitude of the Disciples unto them, and said, Brethren, look ye out among you seven men, etc. Therefore at this time, the Church did all meet in the same place, and consequently were but one single Congregation.  
Ans. 1 It may be questioned, whether this multitude mean the whole number of Believers, or only the multitude of the Presbytery, called to choose from among themselves seven men. Authors of good note there are for the latter.  
2 Supposing the choice of Deacons to be permitted to the whole Church of Jerusalem, this will not help our brethren's cause. 1 Because it cannot be proved, neither is it likely, that all the Members of the Church, both men and women, did meet upon this occasion; But that of the men, as many met as would and could, as is usual in public conventions, as in the choice of Parliament men, etc. 2 If every individual member met, yet who knows not, that many more may come together in the same place, who by lifting up of hands, or some other signal, may give testimony of their choice of persons, than can meet together in the same place to hear the word preached, and, in an ordinary way, to partake of all Ordinances. The whole multitude might on such an occasion come together, and yet for the orderly use of all Ordinances, meet usually in several Assemblies.  
Object. 5 Act. 15.4, 6, 7, 12. Paul and Barnabas, 
p. 27.  were received of the Church, by which Calvin understands, plebem ipsam, & totum corpus. All the multitude of the Church were present at the disputation, for they gave audience to Paul and Barnabas, and concurred with the Apostles and Elders, immediately upon the conclusion of James his speech, v. 22.  
Answ. 1 What Calvin says, will not serve your turn. 
Peculiarem locum assignat Apostolis, & Presbyteris, a quibus praesertim excepti fuerunt.  You might have seen, by what he subjoins, his meaning to be that they were received by the Apostles and Elders, and some chief ones of the Members of the Church, in the name of the whole. Thus, the act of the Lord Maior, Aldermen, and Common Council, is reputed the Act of the whole City. So also is the third vers. expounded by Calvin, and so to be understood; 
Communi Ecclesiae nomine, adjuncti fuerunt comites.  of the Church of Antioch, for who can think, that the whole body of the Church brought them on their way?  
2 The Multitude that kept silence, and gave audience to Paul and Barnabas, was the multitude of the Elders with the Apostles, met to decide the Question, about which the Church of Antioch was troubled: For vers. 6. mentions no others, The Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter; and to them were Paul and Barnabas delegated, ver. 2. and they only speak in the judging and deciding of this question (for such power doth not belong to common members, as shall be proved) therefore they were the multitude, that gave audience to Paul and Barnabas.  

In vers. 6.  3 There is not ground to conclude, that the whole Church was present at that disputation. Non dicit Lucas (saith Calvin) totam Ecclesiam congregatam, sed eos qui doctrina, & judicio pollebant, & qui ratione officii, hujus causae legitimi erant judices. Your Reason brought to prove that 'tis very plain, that the whole multitude of the Church was present, because the whole Church is said to concur with the Apostles and Elders, in choosing brethren, and sending letters, seems to me very obscure, and not at all cogent. For though the Apostles and Elders concluded then to write Letters and send Messengers, yet it follows not, that the thing was immediately done; Nor that the Church was then present to consent to the doing of it. There is no necessity that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should signify immediately upon the conclusion of James his speech, no more than that, so when they were dismissed, which follows the end of the letter, should mean that the messengers were sent away towards Antioch that night. That which the Apostles and Elders determined then, might be afterwards put in execution, with the concurrence of the Church, had in due time and place by way of consent. Or, if the Letters were then drawn up, and the consent of the whole Church was then given to it, and to the sending of the chosen Messengers (which cannot be firmly proved) yet, there is no necessity of understanding by the whole Church here, all the members of the Church of Jerusalem, but some chief ones of it that might be there in the name of the whole Church, whose consent was, on that account, the consent of the whole Church. The presence and explicit consent of every individual member of the Church, appeareth not to have been required, necessary or probable.  
Nothing therefore can hence be concluded, to prove the Church of Jerusalem one single congregation, or to disprove its consisting of many particular congregations, which hath been before evinced.  
Object. 6 And whereas the Apostle speaks of many myriads of Jews that believed, Act. 21.20. 
p. 27.  It is not to be restrained to Jews dwelling at Jerusalem, seeing it was the time of Pentecost, when Jews and Proselytes came to Jerusalem out of all Nations, and we have express mention of the Jews that were of Asia, ver. 27.  
Ans. Those myriads appear to be the very same multitude, spoken of vers. 22. that must needs come together; the reading of the context evinceth it. Now page 28. you say, It doth not seem congruous, that this should be said of any other, but the Church of Jerusalem; what other multitude should the Apostles expect to come together? So that if I prove my assertion, your own words will confute you. But that those myriads spoken of, were all members of the Christian Church of Jerusalem, appears. For,  
1 Paul being come to Jerusalem, giveth an account to James and the Elders, of the success of his Ministry among the Gentiles, vers. 18, 19 And they on the other side, give Paul an account of the hand of God with their Ministry at Jerusalem, vers. 20. Therefore to thrust in the Jews of Asia, and other parts, is quite besides the purpose.  
2 The Jews are such as it seems Paul had no account of till now, though he were the Apostle of the Gentiles, and had laboured among them many years, and so had cause to know of them better than any other Apostle. Therefore they were Jews of Jerusalem.  
3 These Jews had the charge against Paul only by information from others, vers. 21. which Argues that they did not live among the Gentiles, for than they would have had personal knowledge of his carriage.  
4. These Jews are supposed by the Apostles to be satisfiable by Paul's present conformity, vers. 22, 23, 24. But Jews dispersed among the Gentiles, that had heard Paul, and seen and known nearly his practice, would not have been thus satisfied.  
5 The Jews of Asia could be none of the number of these myriads of Jews, for by the matter of their declaiming against the Apostle, they manifest that they had not embraced the Gospel. But the Myriad of Jews spoken of are said to be believing.  
Therefore I conclude these Myriads of Jews did belong to the Church of Jerusalem, and did dwell in or about Jerusalem, and therefore the Church of Jerusalem must needs consist of many Congregations, this objection notwithstanding.  

p. 27.  But you help out the matter, as well as you can, saying, Neither is it impossible for Myriads (in the Language of Luke at least) to come together, and to hear at once the same Preacher, to show which Mr. Norton urgeth Luk. 21.1.  
I Answer, 1 Mr. Norton speaks not of Myriad in Luke's language (which is your weak conceit, as if Myriad in Luke's language, were less than in the common acceptation) neither doth he urge, but merely allege that Text. 2 Though by that place it appear, that Myriad flocked after Christ, yet it proveth not that they all did, or could actually hear him, at the same time. We know commonly, that in a great concourse of people, in an open place, there are many, that can neither see, nor hear, what they came to observe. And Christ is said there, to speak to his Disciples, and not to the whole multitude. 3 A Myriad, never consisting of more or less than ten thousand, Many Myriads could not possibly meet in the same place, at the same time, to hear the word, much less orderly to partake of all Ordinances, and carry on (according to your sense especially) Church-work.  
There being then, many ten thousands, in the Church of Jerusalem, it must needs consist of divers Congregations, this Argumenticle, notwithstanding. And so much for the Church of Jerusalem.  

P. 28.  You proceed to say. We may add to this instance, that of the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14.23. and Antioch, Act. 15.30. But I find no contrary instances.  
Either you mean (if the meaning of your words may be found) that Jerusalem only, is pressed by us, as an example of a Church consisting of many Congregations; Or, that the Churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, and Antioch, are the only Churches, that we plead consisted of divers Congregations. Both which assertions are void of truth. For, not only Jerusalem, Corinth, and Antioch, but also Rome, Thessalonica, Philippi, and the seven Churches of Asia, are all asserted by us, to have been Presbyterial Churches, consisting of divers Congregations, and that upon strong, and to us persuading grounds. A reverend Brother adds, 
Hudson.  It seemeth difficult to find in the New Testament an express instance, or example, of a Congregational Church, standing and continuing so, by itself. The Church of Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1. is the likeliest, yet it is not certain, for it was a Port-Town of the Corinthians, 
Dr. Owen, of Schism. p. 36, 37.  but eight miles distant from Corinth. And, a learned Congregational man, supposeth the Church of Cenchrea, to be included in that of Corinth.  
Come we therefore now to speak particularly to some more instances.  
The Church of Corinth was a Presbyterial Church, 
2 Of the Church of Corinth.  made up of divers Congregations. For proof whereof, consider,  
1 The eminency of the place. Corinth was the famous Metropolis of Achaia. Lumen Graeciae, saith Tully; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Thucydides in Eustathius. It mastered one half of Greece. Now, that in this famous City, the number of Christians should be no greater, 
Vide Pisc. in 1 Cor. 14.23  than what might ordinarily meet in some one private house (for they had in primitive times no large Temples to meet in) seems no way credible.  
2 God tells Paul in a vision, Act. 18.10. that he had much people in this City, to wit, to be added to those already converted, and brought into Church-order, vers. 8. And they were much people, 1 In reference to the number of the Jews there, that rejected Christ, and had a Synagogue, verse 4, 6. for this is brought in, as a stay to Paul's spirit in that case, to assure him that he should have an abundant seal of his Ministry, though many opposed it. 2 In reference to the City itself, a great number of those in it. Therefore they must be more than could meet in one house, else they had been but a very small handful to the City.  
3 Paul stayeth at Corinth a year and six months, Act. 18.11. Now, it being the work of an Apostle to plant Churches, and leave them to others to water, this makes it probable, that there were there divers Congregations, for the settling of which, 
Of Schism. p. 37, 38.  Paul stayeth so long. And besides this, The Christians of all Achaia (saith Dr. Owen) did belong to the Church of Corinth, and assembled therewith as they could, for the participation of Ordinances, and the Church of Cenchrea cometh under the same name with that of Corinth. Put this together. The believers in Corinth, in Cenchrea, and in all Achaia besides, are accounted members of the Church of Corinth by the learned Doctor (to whom I suppose Mr. P. will subscribe) and then, who sees not, that there must needs have been many Congregations belonging to the Church of Corinth?  
4 There was a great number of Teachers in that Church, that speech, 1 Cor. 4.15. clearly implies it; and this argues, that there were several Congregations for so great a number of Teachers to attend upon.  
5 The Apostle speaketh expressly of divers Congregations belonging to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your Women, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, keep silence in the Churches; Therefore, there were Churches, several Congregations, to which the women of the Church of Corinth did belong,  
Against this there are chief two Objections.  
Object. 1 1 Cor. 14.23. If the whole Church be come together, and all speak with tongues, etc. Therefore they were but one single Congregation.  
Answ. 1 The Greek is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and may well be rendered, about the same thing, or for the same end and purpose; n. to partake of God's Ordinances. Diodate saith, to verse 31. ye may all prophecy, etc. namely, by course, and in divers or several Assemblies. So saith Estius, The Prophets were to prophesy in divers Assemblies, and therefore it is said, Let your Women keep silence in the Churches.  
2 I suppose none will say, that all the members of the Church of Corinth, did speak with tongues, for then, what need of an Interpreter, and yet the Church here spoken of did so.  
3 Therefore here is a clear pattern, of a Representative Church; The Prophets, as distinguished from the rest of the members, are called the Church.  
4 Here is a clear pattern of Prophets, in combination with, and subjection to their fellow Prophets. Let the Prophets speak, two, or three, and let the other judge, verse 29.  
Obj. 2 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. When you are gathered together, to deliver such a one to Satan. Therefore they were but one Congregation.  
Answ. 1 The Text speaks not of the gathering together of all the members of the Church of Corinth, but of the meeting of the Church- Officers, to excommunicate the incestuous person. Authoritative binding, acts of rule and government, belonging only to Church-Officers, as is granted by the most moderate and learned of the Congregational Brethren. The Key of Authority and Rule (saith Mr. Cotton) is committed to the Elders of the Church, 
Keys, p. 20. & alibi.  and so, the Act of Rule, is made the proper act of their Office. Christ gave the power of binding and losing to all the Apostles, and the Apostles committed it to the Elders. The power of the people, is a power of liberty, to join with the Presbytery, in casting out, or cutting off; But authoritative power they have not. 
Temple measured, p. 35  And (says Mr. Noys) A necessity of members consent, doth constitute a Church excessively Democratical, and renders the Elders only titular Governors. Hence it appears, there was no need of the presence of all the members of the Church of Corinth, to excommunicate the incestuous person.  
2 The persons, that met for this work, were to meet with Paul's pastoral spirit; this suits the Church- Officers, not the people.  
3 Paul chargeth it upon the ordinary members, as their sin, that they mourned not for that sin, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and for their Elders neglect of discipline, using the passive voice, not the active, (as Mr. Rutherford observes) whereby it appears, that the members were patients, rather than agents. That some of the ordinary members were present, at the excommunication, may be granted; But, that all the members of the Church of Corinth, were present, or bound so to be, cannot be proved; Nothing therefore is hence gained.  
The Church of Antioch also appeareth to have consisted of divers Congregations; 
2 The Church of Antioch.  because of the multitude of labourers there. Divers of the Teachers of Jerusalem come to Antioch, being driven away by the persecution, and the hand of the Lord was with them, in bringing in Gentiles, to join with the believing Jews, Act. 11.19, 20, 21. They soon want more labourers, Barnabas is sent to assist in the work, verse 22. he finds the work so great, that he fetcheth over Saul, to assist him, verse 25. Barnabas and Paul, stay at Antioch a whole year, teach much people, and here Disciples are first called Christians, verse 26, and returning, they abode there a long time, chap. 14.28. What more likely, than that there were divers Congregations belonging to that Church, since it needed so many Teachers, and kept there so long, men so eminent, Planters of Churches?  
Object. Act. 14.27. When they had gathered the Church together, Act. 15.30. the multitude together, Act. 11.26. they assembled themselves with the Church.  
Answ. The first Text may well be understood of the Representative Church, to wit, the Elders, by whom the multitude might at their set times of meeting, for the use of public Ordinances, be informed. And if we should understand it of the whole Church, the Text puts no necessity upon us, of understanding it, of their being all gathered into one and the same place. They might be gathered into their several meeting-places, and there be informed of the success of the Messengers, by several of them. The two other Texts may also be so understood. The multitude might be gathered and informed of the Epistle in their several meeting-places; and Paul and Barnabas, and the other Teachers, might assemble with the Church in several meeting-places, some in some, and some in others. From these Texts therefore nothing can be concluded, to prove Antioch's a congregational Church.  

4 The Church of Rome.  The Church of Rome, likewise, appears to have been Presbyterial. There was one congregation meeting in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 16.3, 5. and two others meeting in other places, vers. 14, 15. and there is ground to conclude, that there were yet more Congregations belonging to that Church. 1 Because Paul saluteth several in this Chapter, that seem to have been Teachers in that Church, vers. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 2 The Faith of the Romans was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. 1. which argueth them to have been a numerous Church. 3 Their continuing sound in the faith for many years together, when other famous Church's mouldered away, argues the same.  
We might also instance in the Churches of the Colossians, Thessalonians, Philippians; But I shall, for a conclusion, mention the Churches of Asia.  

5 The seven Churches of Asia.  The seven Churches of Asia, spoken of Rev. 2. & 3. chap. were Presbyterial Churches, consisting of divers Congregations, which appears; because,  
1 The Cities in the which they were planted were great Cities. Ephesus was the head of jonia, the greatest market of all Asia, famous among the Heathen for the Temple of Diana; and there the Apostle Paul spent his labours for three years together, Act. 20.31. Laodicea was one of the greatest Cities in all Phrygia, famous for traffic. The rest were also famous Cities, and of great command. Therefore 'tis not probable that there was but one single Congregation of Christians in each.  
2 There was a great number of Teachers in each of these Churches. To the Angel of the Church, writ, so gins every Epistle. Now 'tis apparent from several places in these Epistles, that there was more than one Minister in each Church; and therefore this Angel must mean, either a College of Pastors in each Church, or a Precedent over that ruling society, as the leading man in all acts of public concernment and Church-government. The former seems most probable, and is proved by Smectymunus, from Rev. 2.24. But unto you, I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  etc. where the Angel is bespoken in the Plural number, as distinct from the members. In Ephesus alone in Paul's time, the Elders appear to have been so many, as were more than needed for one single congregation, Act. 20.25, 36, 37. Ye all shall see my face no more, He prayed with them all, They all wept sore; these three alls imply that they were very many. And the Church is called all the flock, vers. 28. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which argues that there were several charges for them to attend upon. So in Pergamos there were divers Pastors, for there were divers erroneous teachers three, some teaching the doctrine of Balaam, Rev. 2.14. Some that of the Nicholaitans, vers. 15. (and what more likely than that they did it in several Congregations?) and others holding fast Christ's name, who were so many, that they are required to purge out those erroneous ones. Therefore 'tis not probable that they were all over one single congregation only. The like may be said of the rest of those Churches, that are exhorted to deal in a disciplinary way with false teachers. There were very many Pastors in them, and consequently several Congregations on which they attended.  
3 The Holy Ghost hints clearly that these Churches were Presbyterial, consisting of divers Congregations, when he calleth each of them, first a Church, and then Churches, Rev. 2.1, 7. & 8.11. & 12.17. & 18.29. So Rev. 3. Each of these bodies is called Churches, as it was made up of divers congregations under their proper Pastors, and yet but one Church, as these congregations were combined, and subjected together to the government of all the Elders in common.  
These two Chapters well weighed, would put an end to divers controversies among us, about the Discipline of the Church. For, 1 Hence Christians might be convinced, that Church-power was never committed to the people, but to Church-officers only. The Angels only are censured for neglect, and ill administration of Government in the Churches; and praised for, and exhorted to the due exercise of Discipline. 2 Hence a combination of the Officers of divers congregations, united to govern them in common may be evinced. The Elders in Pergamos sound in the faith, must in a disciplinary way hinder the Balaamites and Nicholaitans, from teaching their errors in the assemblies of Christians there. 3 Hence appears that the spirit of the Prophets is not subject to the people, but to the Prophets only. The Angel of each Church, the Church-officers, must try the Prophets, and those that say they are Apostles, Rev. 2.2.  
Let us now consider, how Mr. P. proceeds.  

p. 29, 30, 31, 32  Classical Churches are put in the room of Episcopal Churches, by the effectual working of the mystery of iniquity. These are combinations of congregations, united by subjection to one and the same Court of Elders, chosen out of the whole to govern them. These are pressed so far, as to take away power of government, and exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline from the Congregations. For they appropriate power of Government to the Eldership. This agrees not with the institution, Matth. 18.18. When Christ says, whatsoever ye bind on earth, etc. doth he not include the offending brother? Christ promised the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven unto Peter, as unto a lively confessor of him, and did not therein look on him otherwise.  
I have already given in reasons to manifest Gospel Churches in Primitive times, to have been Classical; and more shall be said to it upon your next paragraph. The first branch of your charge against those that are for them, I shall now consider; which is, that they appropriate the power of Government, and exercise of Ecclesiastical discipline, to the Eldership. A sad crime believe it! and as much to be condemned as the appropriating of power of government in the Commonwealth to the Magistrate; which by some passages in Mr. P's Book, seems to be in his judgement a crime too. If the people can lay claim from Christ's appointment to the power of the Keys; as, to the Preaching of the Word, administration of the Sacraments, authoritative binding and losing (for the Keys go together, and were given to Peter together) if these things belong to the Community in the Church; we shall confess ourselves guilty, in appropriating the power of government to the Eldership. But though we have looked much after it, we cannot discern any such grant and appointment of our Lord Christ the King of the Church. And when I read such places as these, Matth. 18.18. & 28.19, 20. John 20.22, 23. & 21.16. Eph. 4.11, 12. I cannot without offering violence to my reason, imagine that they speak to and of the Community; considering withal, what express charges the Community have upon them from God, to be subject to those that are over them in the Lord, as to their Governors, Teachers, Pastors, Rulers, etc.  
But I will particularly consider, the first of these Texts, which is that, Mr. P. urgeth for his cause, and show how little it makes for it.  
That Mat. 18.17, 18. speaks of the Church-Officers only, doth appear, because it is spoken by Christ, with reference firstly, to the Jewish Church-governors', than which there was then no other governing Church in being. And this is the joint judgement of the Ancients, Ambrose, Cyril, Theodoret, Gregory, etc. and of multitudes of later lights in the Church, Melanchton, Aretius, Musculus, Bucan, Cartwright, Parker, etc. and Mr. Fenner gives a reason of it from the words our Saviour useth, viz. Publican, Heathen, and that otherwise the Apostles could not have understood Christ, knowing then no other Church governing. So that, the Lord Christ manifestly alludes to the Jewish, and gives from it a pattern to the Christian Church. First, the offending brother must be dealt with, in a private way; If this prevail not, one or two witnesses are to be taken, the next time admonition is given; If this work not on him, than the Church is to be told of it, that is, the Elders of the Church, before whom among the Jews, Ecclesiastical causes were brought (first the Elders of that particular congregation, than (if need be) the associated Elders of combined Congregations, for so among the Jews the Rulers of the Synagogue were first complained to, and then the great Ecclesiastical Court, which was the Church representative) and if the offendor will not hear them, he must be excommunicated, and accounted as a Heathen and a Publican. And he that is thus bound on earth, if the thing be duly done, is bound in heaven. Hence it appears, that the Communities sharing in the power and act of binding, cannot any way be hence gathered, without offering a manifest violence to the Text; which Mr. P. doth to purpose, and withal to all rules, both of divine and humane Polity, when he makes not only the community judges and Governors, but even the offending brother, a judge in his own cause.  
Let us now, draw an Argument from this Text, to relieve Classes against his fierce assault. If in this place, our Saviour lays down a rule, for the healing of all the grievances of his Church; then, by the Church here to be complained to, we must understand, not only the Church governing of one Congregation, but also the Church governing of many Congregations: But in this place, Christ lays down a rule for the healing of all the grievances of his Church; therefore, we must by the Church here understand, the Church governing, even of many Congregations, or the united Elders of several Congregations and Churches. The minor is clear, because this is the only express Text, wherein Christ did lay down a rule to his disciples, for the healing of offences in his Church; and I suppose none will say, that Christ's remedy, is too short to reach the malady. The consequence of the major is made out thus. Not only one Brother may offend another, but the Elders one another, one part of the Congregation the other, the Congregation the Elders, the Elders the Congregation, and one or more Churches, one or many Sister Churches. Our sad experience proves this to be a truth, and it is also proved by Scripture-examples. Now, how shall such evils be healed, but by an appeal, and application to a representative Church, a Church governing so comprehensive, as the case will require? If a Church so comprehensive, be not here meant, than Christian Churches, are in such cases, left without remedy; but that being not to be granted, it will follow, that the Church governing here spoken of, takes into its meaning, an assembly or Church of Officers of many Congregations.  
Leaving Mr. P. to consider this Argument, I return to the point, the holding of which he chargeth upon us, as a crime, that the power of the Keys belongs only to the Eldership. For which, I shall cite the suffrages of Congregational Brethren themselves. The Key of authority and rule (saith Mr. Cotton) is committed to the Elders of the Church, 
Keys p. 20.  and so, the act of rule is made the proper act of their office. Common members (saith Mr. Noyes) are not to govern by suffrage with their Elders, 
Temple measured, p. 30, 31, 34, 35, 36  their consent is not absolutely necessary, and is not authoritative. The Ministerial Keys were given to Peter, as an Apostle, Peter is made, Matth. 16.18, 19 oeconomus Ecclesiae, and is evidently distinguished from the Church; (which Mr. P. denies, and in saying, that Christ in this speech, looked on him no otherwise, than as a lively confessor of him, he puts into every believers hands, the power of the Keys, for if, I give unto thee, respect Peter only as a lively confessor of Christ, it extends to every lively confessor of Christ, and so every true Believer is vested with power to preach, administer the Sacraments, and bind and lose authoritatively; than which, what is more absurd?) Again, the Elders, are Rulers, Governors, have power to command, as superiors in authority judicial. The Church is charged to obey them, not to command, to be subject, not to govern. The Angels are rebuked, for the corruptions of the Churches of Asia, as if it had been in their power to prevent, and redress things amiss. Governors, and to govern with coactive power, are conjugates. Are they not proper Governors, which shall govern the people, over which they are Governors, only when themselves list? 
Keys p. 47.  In case (saith Mr. Cotton) a Church be troubled with error, or scandal, and the same maintained by a faction among them; now a Synod of Churches, or their messengers, is the first subject of that power and authority, whereby error is judicially convinced, and condemned, the truth searched out and determined, and the way of truth and peace declared and imposed on all Churches. Quid plura? Do not our Brethren grant what we say, though in some places, they make exceptions from their own grants, in favour of the Community? But one Objection is to be removed.  
Object. Neither Matthew 18. nor any other place, is to be understood of a governing Church, or a Presbytery, because such a company is never called a Church in Scripture.  
Mr. Noyes answereth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for any assembly, in the New Testament, Act. 19.39. and therefore is applicable to an assembly of Elders, and the Presbytery is called the Congregation, or Church, in the Old Testament, Numb. 35.24, 25. with Deut. 19.12. and our Saviour may well be supposed to conform his speech to the Old Testament. We have showed, that 1 Cor. 14.23. calls clearly the Teachers, the Church, neither can Church be otherwise understood, in Matth. 18. but of a Presbytery or governing Church, since the power of binding and losing is ascribed to it, which is not where granted to the Community, as hath been said. Let us now heed Mr. P's second assault or charge.  
Secondly, They exclude the single Congregations, considered severally, each one by itself, from having an Eldership, having power to exercise Ecclesiastic Discipline. 
P. 32, 33, 34.  But is it likely, that, go tell the Church, should mean, go tell the Elders of the combination? It hath been proved, that the Church of Jerusalem and Corinth were single Congregations, and that of Corinth exercised ecclesiastic discipline. But they stay not here, but translate the power of Government to their Elderships, subordinate one to another, till they come to an ecumenical assembly. Now, if we grant, that single Congregations with their Elderships, be excluded from the power of Government, yet will it not appear from Scripture, that there are any higher Elderships, or larger combinations of Churches, than those of the first form, and first step from the single Congregations. The Churches of Asia, grant them collective Churches, do severally receive of Christ, the praise of their good, and blame of their evil carriage, etc.  
Here, in some things you apprehend not our mind rightly, and in others, you overthrew your cause.  
1 We hold, that the power of Government residing in the Eldership; a particular Congregation may, and aught to have an appropriate Eldership belonging to it.  
2 That a single Congregation having an appropriate Eldership, is a true Church.  
3 That such single Congregations, have equal power, severally considered.  
4 That though a single Congregation, be a Church; yet, it is, or aught to be also, when it may, a part or member of a Presbyterial Church; and hath not so much power, as a Classical Church hath.  
5 That the Presbytery of a single Congregation, have power to end differences among themselves, in cases that are ordinary.  
6 That in cases weighty and extraordinary, as excommunication, The Presbytery or Eldership of consociated Congregations, are concerned, as well as the Presbytery of that single Congregation, of which the offending Brother is. Paul writeth not to the Eldership of that particular Congregation, of which the incestuous person was more peculiarly a member, but to the Presbytery of all the Congregations belonging to the Church of Corinth, to cast him out.  
7 That there is no example, in all the New Testament, of excommunication, by the particular Eldership of one single Congregation.  
8 That therefore a single Congregation, ordinarily, is not a complete, entire Church, furnished with full power, for all acts of Church-discipline.  
9 That we find in the New Testament, Church-Discipline commonly executed, in a Presbyterial Church, consisting of divers Congregations. Such was the Church of Ephesus, and the Eldership of this Church, as such, did commonly exercise Church-Discipline, tried false Prophets, and those that called themselves Apostles, and convicted them as liars, Rev. 2. The like we might say of other Churches.  
10 That in extraordinary cases, we have an example of appeal, from one Presbyterial Church, to an association of such Churches to guide us. The Church of Antioch (and probably also those of Syria and Silicia, Act. 15.23.) appeals, to an assembly of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, and the Elders of that Church united; (probably also of the Elders of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia) and the controversy, which could not be ended otherwise, is ended in and by that Synod.  
And thus, larger Synods and Councils may be necessary, even an Ecumenical, to heal public and spreading evils. If the Church (saith Mr. Cotton) where the offence lieth, 
Way. p. 108  persisteth in the neglect of their duty, and the counsel of their Brethren; the matter would be referred, to a Congregation of many, or all the Churches together. That is, sure, to the Elders of all the Churches, for to them he says, the power of rule, or Government, doth properly belong.  
Hence, you may rectify your mistakes; we exclude not the Eldership of a single Congregation, from power of Government, but say, it hath not ordinarily power for all acts of Church-Discipline. And, in that we arise from a Congregational, to a Classical, Synodal, and Ecumenical Eldership, we have respect to the need of the Church so requiring it, and to the precedents given us of the two first, in Scripture; which are also a sufficient ground for the latter.  
What you say of Jerusalem and Corinth, helps you not, for it hath been evinced, that they were not single Congregations.  
What you add, against higher Elderships, or larger combinations of Churches than those of the first step from single Congregations, from the consideration of the Churches of Asia, doth you no service, but è contra. For,  
1 By granting the Churches of Asia to have been collective Churches, you pull down what you had said, for the congregationalness of Churches. Grant them collective Churches, and the greatest part of your book is una litura.  
2 By saying, that it appears not from Scripture, that there are any larger combinations of Churches, than those of this first form; You look beside the Scripture, and the state of the Question. The state of the question; because we stand not for stated and fixed combinations of Churches, beyond that first form, but only occasional ones; and the Scripture, because as hath been, and shall be showed, there was a higher Eldership, and larger combination of Churches in the Synod at Jerusalem, than those of the first step from single congregations: the Elders of the Presbyterial Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, being there combined, and in all probability, those also of Syria and Cilicia, as hath been said.  
3 If you will stand to what you say, that the Churches of Asia, do severally receive praise or dispraise, each for herself, without reflection on the rest; I will compel you to grant positively (and not only suppositively) that they were collective Churches. For the Epistle to every one hath this close, He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. If what Christ says to one Church, he says to the Churches, and yet the several Churches do each for herself, restrainedly receive praise or dispraise; It follows avoidable, that every one of the seven Churches, was a collective Church, and so you dispute against, and confute yourself.  
4 'Tis not strange, as you say it is, that Christ should not speak of a combination of these seven Churches, as an Ordinance of his, for their remedy; and blame them for the neglect of it. For they were first to use, and Christ directs them accordingly to the use of, the first means, the help of the Presbytery of each Church. If this would do, there was no need of carrying the cause higher; if upon trial it would not do, they knew what course was next to be used, and had an example of it in the practice of the Church of Antioch.  
To your question, Whether it be likely, that, go tell the Church, should mean, go tell the Elders of the combination; I answer, it is likely, and it hath been proved to mean so; yet not firstly, as you seem to insinuate that we hold, but secondarily, when the Eldership of the particular Church, where the offence is given, prevail not to remove it.  
Here was no Synod, Act. 15. that is, an assembly of Officers, resulting out of many inferior Presbyteries. 
P. 35. 10 p. 45  1 Because we read not of any such combination of the Churches there mentioned, to become subject to the rule of one Superior Eldership. 2 Because we read of no foreigners, that came to this Synod, but those of Antioch, who concurred not in the Decrees of it, and are excluded from the decision of the controversy, Act. 16.4. 3 Here was no appeal from the censure of the Church at Antioch, there passed no censure, but only had been a dissension, and disputation; and so the errand of the Messengers was to get satisfaction, that the same doctrine was taught at Jerusalem as at Antioch. 4 Here was no rule exercised over the Churches, for it would argue a diminution of Paul's Apostolical Authority, that the Decrees of the Apostles should more than materially bind him. And these Decrees are made by a joint act of the Apostles, Elders and Brethren (difference in the order of their concurrence we grant, but in the nature of the Act we cannot grant) but it will not be granted that the Brethren did exercise an Act of Rule over other Churches. To say, that by the whole Church is meant the Synodical Church, is without ground, being built on the impossibility of the meeting of the Church of Jerusalem in one place, which hath been refuted. And if the Brethren were shut out from a concurrence of the same nature with the Elders, will they say, that the Elders of a Classical Presbytery at Jerusalem, did exercise rule over all these Churches so far distant, that could not be of their combination? If vers. 28. of laying a burden be objected; Let it be considered whether there be not as much said of the assertion of the Pharisees, ver. 5, & 10.  
Thus, if we should grant Classical Eldership, it will be hard to grant any more with Scripture warrant. But we shall not grant these, having proved the most numerous Churches to have been Congregational, and called severally by the name of Church in the singular, and the numerous Church of Corinth was not only Congregational, but had and exercised the power of the Keys. Paul, wraps up Elders and people together, in the exercise of discipline, with a concurrence of the like nature. And thus, the whole fabric of the Classical way falls to the ground.  
Mr. P. (as one observes) is a man of growing scruples, and hath much outstripped in them, the Reverend New-England Congregational Brethren; 
Keys chap. 6.  and that in weighty points, rejecting Ruling-Elders, etc. and here Synods. Mr. Cotton tells him, that Synods are an Ordinance of Christ, grounding himself on Act. 15. saying, 'Tis a precedent for succeeding Ages. And that, they have power by the grace of Christ, to command and enjoin the things to be believed and done; for which he citys the express words of the Synodal letter, vers. 28. And that this power to bind burdens, ariseth not only materially from the weight of the things imposed, but formally from the authority of the Synod, as an Ordinance of Christ. Adding, that the fraternity have only a power of liberty, not of authority, for which he quotes Act. 16.4. And excepts from the power of a Synod, only the enjoining of things in their use indifferent, not denying them power of Ordination and Excommunication.  
But Mr. P. is an Independent of an higher form, Let us consider what he saith.  
1 His first reason against the Synodicalness of this Assembly, that we Read not of a combination of Churches, is untrue, For, the deputed Elders of the Church of Antioch, combined with those of Jerusalem; and there is no reason to exclude those of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, since the Decrees reach them, and that, not only the Church of Antioch, but also those Churches, are subjected to them. Will Mr. P. grant no more, than what he reads in express words?  
2 His second is as weak, That we read of no foreigners there, but those of Antioch, and that they concurred not in the making of the Decrees. For, if there were no more foreigners, yet foreigners they were; but where doth he read, that the Elders of Syria and Cilicia were not joined to them? There is sufficient reason to conclude they were, since the Decrees reach those Churches. In saying, that these foreigners concurred not in making the Decrees, he speaks clearly besides the book. For they being Elders, and at Jerusalem, met with the Elders of that Church; and he being so punctual in holding no more than he reads in express words; Let him see whether he can exclude them from those Texts, vers. 6, 20, 22, 25, 28. & Act. 16.4. If the Foreigners were Elders, certainly these texts include them; and 'tis one of the mysterious reaches of his wit, to apprehend them excluded from the decision of the controversy, by Act. 16.4. for were not the Foreigners Elders, and were they not at Jerusalem, and in the Assembly at the making of the Decrees? how then doth this text exclude them?  
3 His third is frivolous; That there was no appeal from the censure of the Church at Antioch. Grant there had passed no formal censure (which is more than he can prove) might they not appeal, for the deciding of what was debated, and which there could be no joint agreement upon? His fancied main end, of their applying themselves to the Church of Jerusalem, to get satisfaction that there was the same doctrine taught at Jerusalem, that was at Antioch; showeth that he looketh on the Chapter, through spectacles of pre-occupation. Else he would have seen that coming about the Question of difference, vers. 2. and the Apostles and Elders coming together to consider of the matter, ver. 6. and together decreeing and laying a burden upon the Churches concerned, verse, 28. must needs evince, that the main end was, to have the question authoritatively decided. The knowing of the mind, and practice of the Church of Jerusalem, needed not all this work. Paul and others might have informed the Church of Antioch of it before; Any Messengers sent might soon have certified them of it; Those that came might without such a solemn convening have been assured of it. The Apostles and Elders in their Epistles show not that they minded such an end chief in assembling. For though they disown the erroneous Teacher's doctrine, and declare that they gave them no encouragement for it (in those words, To whom we gave no such commandment, which is all that Mr. P. can build upon) yet they clearly manifest, that the end of their convening was, upon the hearing the difference in the Church of Antioch, to decide the Question authoritatively; and that the end of sending chosen men with Barnabas and Paul, was to give them the greater assurance of this decision, as the dependence of the 28. vers. on the 27. by the illative, for, doth clearly show.  
4 His fourth, is a huddle of groundless surmises. Here was (he saith) no Rule exercised, because 'twould be a diminution of Paul's Apostolical Authority. But Paul acted not then, as an Apostle, but as an Elder of the Church of Antioch. When the Elders there could not prevail against the corrupt Teachers, and their Doctrine, they have recourse to a Synod, joining themselves as Elders, to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, giving herein an example of the right way of healing Church-divisions, (that cannot be remedied in the respective Churches) to the end of the world. The Apostles themselves acted not merely as Apostles, but as members of the Synod, yielding to a fair dispute on both sides.  
Next he saith, The Brethren concurred with the Apostles and Elders in making the Decrees, therefore there was no rule exercised thereby, for it will not be granted (by us) that the Brethren can exercise an act of rule over other Churches. I Answer, no nor over their own Church neither; But it is but supposed by him, that the Brethren out of office, concurred in making the Decrees. They consented to the making of them, or to them made, and might use their power of Liberty, as Mr. Cotton speaks, but concurred not in the act of making them, for if so, they had been their Decrees, but they are not so called, but expressly otherwise, Act. 16.4. Much less can we conceive with Mr. P. that the Brethren concurred with the Elders, in a way of the same nature, assigning the difference to be only in the order of their concurrence. For hence it follows, that all in the Church are Rulers and guides, and have the Key of Authority, and binding power, which is another absurd attainment, wherein he goes beyond many of his brethren, and the vanity of which hath been already observed.  
The whole Church here cannot, he saith, mean the Synodical Church only, because the reason given for it, the impossibility of the meeting of the Church of Jerusalem, together in one place, hath been refuted by him. The Reader may look back, and see what cause he hath to boast; and if his triumph be but imaginary, than he hath brought in an argument against himself.  
But you must not think, that if he do shut out the Brethren from a concurrence of the same nature with the Elders, he hath not strength enough left him to prove, that in this Assembly there was no Rule exercised; and for that he will but cast an interrogation at us. Will they say that the Elders of a Classical Presbytery at Jerusalem, did exercise Rule over all these Churches, so far distant, and not of their combination? This being the Tail of his arguing, a sting might be feared in it, but 'tis quite unarmed. We will not say so, and yet, he gets not any thing by it; for though we say not, that the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, singly considered, did exercise Rule over the Churches concerned: yet we will say, by his leave, that these Elders, and the Elders of the Churches concerned, united in Synod, and acting jointly, did exercise Rule over those Churches; which appears both by the tenor, and by the use of the Decrees, Act. 16.4.  
So that, Mr. P. is more bountiful, than maketh for the profit of his cause, in granting his adversaries, to make the most of, Act. 15.6. and Act. 16.4. For besides, that in these we find not the Elders of the Churches concerned excluded, but included, and as one; in the latter, we find the Decrees imposed on some of the Churches concerned, as ordained of the Apostles and the Elders which were at Jerusalem, at the time of the making of them, none excepted, and therefore, their joint-act of authority and rule.  
He hath now but an answer to an Objection left him, and therein he comes off worst of all. For, to that which is said, for the exercise of authority by this meeting over the Churches (and accounted an unanswerable argument by most, and which if he remove not, all his talk against that Synod is to no purpose) that the 28th. vers. calleth the Apostles and Elders Decrees, the laying a burden, of necessary things, upon the Churches: He only says, Let it be considered, whether there be not as much said of the assertion of the Pharisees, vers. 5. and 10. Which, Gersom Bucer's answer, in another case, will suit well; Quis adeo ineptire sustinuerit? Who can choose but wonder at his weakness, to put forth such a reasoning as an argument? and at his confidence, to undertake a debate of that moment, as is that which he is upon, whilst he appears, so much a stranger to the Laws of a true Syllogism, and reasoning? If some of the Sect of the Pharisees, contending for the necessity of circumcision, and keeping the Ceremonial Law, are said, thereby, (tempting God) to put a yoke of Jewish bondage upon the neck of believers, and this their imposition, was not authoritatively binding; Then, when the Apostles and Elders say, that they lay by their Decrees, a burden of necessary things upon the Churches, their Decrees, are not to be accounted authoritatively binding. But some of the Pharisees, etc. Ergo. This is his sad arguing, of the deplorableness of which, I need not any farther inform any intelligent Reader.  
But, there is nothing like a good courage, and therefore he concludes (be it how it may) Thus you see, how hard it will be, to grant any more with Scripture warrant, if we should grant Classical Elderships and combinations. Which difficulty, I suppose, those that have considered what hath been said, do not see at all.  
But, lest men should take his Supposition of Classical Elderships for a grant, he now returns to renounce them, and tells us, 1 That he hath proved the most numerous Churches to have been congregational; To which I answer, I have disproved it. 2 That they are called severally by the name of Church in the singular (that is always, or else he says nothing) Witness, say I, the seven Churches of Asia, concerning each of which his words have been made to grant, that it is said, without reference to, or reflection upon the rest, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. 3 That the numerous Church of Corinth in particular, was congregational. To which I say, witness 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your Women keep silence in the Churches.  
What he subjoins, that the body of that Church did exercise the power of the Keys, and that the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. wraps up Elders and People together with a concurrence of the like nature, is gratis dictum, as hath been showed. I shall add, Though the Apostle there mention no express limitation of the power of the Keys to the Eldership, it follows not that it is not to be understood, for to whom should acts of rule be appropriated, but to the Rulers? A concurrence with them may be granted to the community, in the use of their power of liberty (as they speak) but a concurrence with them in the thing, of the like nature with the power and acts of the Elders, he will never prove, till he hath proved, that all are Rulers in the Church, and have a power of Office, which he will do ad Graecas calendas. And, if the Apostles silence there, concerning the appropriation of the power of exercising Discipline to the Eldership, be an argument for the communities like power: then, the sole mention of the Angels of the Churches, Rev. chap. 2. and 3. who are commended for, blamed upon the neglect of, and exhorted to exercise Church-Discipline; is an argument against the communities like power therein, and a far stronger argument against it, than the other is for it, in regard that here the Holy Ghost appropriateth the power, and there he doth not, and so by this place the other is to be expounded. Neither hath any known Writer of note in the Church, for these sixteen hundred years past (until some of the late risen Independents) understood, that in 1 Cor. 5. the Apostle wraps up Elders and People together in the exercise of Discipline, with a concurrence of the like nature; nor hath any Church during that time that we read of (unless those of the Donatists) practised by it. And therefore well may Beza say, Quod nounulli, ex hac vocula congregatis, colligunt, 
Beza in locum.  totius Ecclesiae coetum, in judiciis omnibus Ecclesiasticis convenisse, & suffragium tulisse, neque ratione, neque ullo exemplo nititur; excommunicationis jus, penes pastors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuit.  
What difference between the Episcopal and Presbyterial Government, wherein doth their constitution differ, 
P. 45, 46, 47, 48  except in the exorbitant power of a chairman? What difference between the Universal Church of the Papists, and that of the Presbyterians? There is an easy transition from Presbytery to Episcopacy, yea Papacy; they agree much in nature, and therefore I have put them together; as also Mr. Bains, Diocesan Trial, q. 1. p. 21. Those who subject themselves to a Presbytery, saith he, as being under it by subordination, may, in effect, as well be subject to an Episcopal (and by consequence, I say, to a Papal) consistory.  
Os hominis! With what face can Mr. P. put these questions? Do the Episcopal and Presbyterial Government differ only in regard of the power of a chairman? Do not the patrons of the former attribute all power to the Bishop in his Diocese, excluding the Ministers of the several Congregations in matters of Discipline? And do not the Presbyterians assert, that all Ministers have equal power? and is this difference only circumstantial, and the transition from one to the other so easy? And as to the Universal Church, is not the difference between Papists and Presbyterians vast? whilst the one do restrain it to the Romanists, that own the Papal doctrines; the other extend it to all that embrace the fundamental truths of Christian Religion, and renounce the abominations of Rome? (is Mr. P. so mean a scholar, that he doth not know, as to the point in hand, what Universal and particular are? Doth not the Papists referring the root and head of their Universality to Rome, make their Church a particular Church, as our Champions against them have fully evinced? and is this no considerable difference that the Presbyterians do the contrary?) The one subject it to the Pope, or to a general Council of Pontificial Bishops, convened by, and presided in by the Pope; The others to a general Council, of the Elders of the Christian Churches, throughout the world, assembling in the name of Christ, as the sole head of the Church? Did I love to recriminate, might I not with more reason say, that Mr. P's. way, borders upon, and that there is an easy transition from it, to Donatism, Brownism, Anabaptism, Familism, Quakism, Libertinism, and confusion? and that it opens a door to the setting up and nourishing of all sects, errors, heresies, false worship, and blasphemies, even the Roman themselves? For, under the notion of Independentism (of that degree as his is especially) may any thing shelter itself; and therefore the Roman Factors usually say, that in England, Presbyterianism is a great hindrance, but Independentism a wonderful help to them, in their gaining Proselytes to the Roman Church.  
But, if you were resolved to say your worst of Presbyterians, as the greatest opposers of your Democracy; yet, why must you abuse the Reverend name of Mr. Bains (whom you pretend to be altogether of your side) and obtrude upon the Reader, a palpable untruth concerning his consent with you, in putting Episcopacy and Presbytery together, as having little or no difference between them? It is not Mr. Bains that puts Episcopacy and Presbytery together; but the Objection of the Episcopal party, p. 3. which Mr. Bains answers here, p. 21. and in his answers, repeats the terms of the Objection, and shows the invalidity of it. 1 By telling them that they misapprehended the practice of the Churches of Geneva, They have, (says he) power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confederate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutual communication in that common Presbytery. 2 It is (saith he) one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory, wherein they shall have no power of suffrage, another thing, to communicate with such a Presbytery, wherein themselves are members and Judges with others. 3 Say (says he) they had no power, nor were no members in that Presbytery; yet it is one thing to submit themselves to the government of Aristocracy, another to the Bishop's Monarchical Government, for while his Presbyters are but as Counsellors to a King, though he consulteth with them, he alone governeth.  
Let the Reader now judge, whether Mr. P. hath Mr. Bains on his side, in saying, What difference between the Episcopal and Presbyterial Government? and whether he hath ground to say, that because they agree much in nature, Mr. Bains hath put them together; when as they are his Objectors that do it, whom he answers and confutes. This makes me remember, a pleasant passage in Kekermans Eccles. Rhet. l. 2. c. ult. A young Theologue, reciting his Postil to the people, at a time when there was health within their walls, and inveighing therein against some sins; broke out at last into this expression; hence it is, that God hath visited you and your families with the plague, which rageth already every where in our streets. The people stood amazed at this report, and when Sermon was ended, the Praetor of the place enquired of the Preacher, in what families or houses the plague was broken forth; who answered, whether the plague be in our Town or not, so I found it it in my Postil. Such an account is Mr. P. able to give, of Mr. Bains his consent with him in putting Presbytery and Episcopacy together, as having no difference between them in their constitution; Whether the words of the Objection which put them together, be Mr. Bains words, or express his mind or not, he found them printed in his book.  
And now, because Mr. P. by mentioning thus Mr. Bains, doth intimate to the Reader that his doctrine hath a full friend in him; It is to be considered, that though Mr. Bains in his dispute against, and opposition to Diocesan Episcopal Churches, doth plead for Independency of Churches: yet as he judged the difference between Episcopacy, and Presbyterial dependent Government very great: So doth he fully declare against that Democratical Government in Churches, which most of the Independents of our days, and Mr. P. among them, do plead for; and doth very fully assert the whole power of Government, into the hands of the Elders, in many places of that book. I shall cite some of them to make Mr. P. do penance.  
P. 80. on Matth. 18. Christ doth not by the name of Church, understand essentially, all the Congregation, for then Christ should not give some, but all the members of the Church to be Governors of it. Christ speaketh it of such a Church, to whom we may ordinarily and orderly complain, now this cannot be to the whole multitude. This Church he speaketh of, he doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all Discipline and censure; But the multitude have not this execution, as all but Morelius, and such Democratical spirits do affirm. P. 81. The Church in the Old Testament noteth an assembly of Priests, sitting together as Judges in the causes of God, and Christ doth here only presuppose the joint authority, and joint execution of a representative Church, a Presbytery of Elders, who were Pastors and Governors. P. 82. The Apostles, in determining the Question, Act. 15. had the joynt-suffrages of the Presbytery with them, because it was a thing to be determined by many, all who (mark that) had received power of the Keys, doing it ex officio, and others from discretion and duty of confessing the truth. P. 83. Ordinary power with the execution thereof, was not given to the Community of the Church, or to the whole multitude of the faithful, so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ, and virtually deriving it to others. P. 84. Ordinary power of Ministerial Government, is committed, with the execution of it, to the Senate or Presbytery of the Church. If any fail in any office (mark that) the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a Ministry, of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant. So much for Mr. P's. correction.  
One thing more I have to consider, and so shall end this Section.  

P. 46.  Let it be seriously considered, that the Bishop of Rome is not reckoned the Antichrist, from what time he got the peaceable possession of his Universal Bishopric; But from what time he aspired to, and carried it ambitiously, and had it usually yielded to him, to sway Bishops and Churches at his pleasure.  
We have considered it, and find no very good sense in it. For when he had it usually yielded to him, to sway Bishops and Churches at his pleasure, he had the peaceable possession of his universal Bishopric. And as to what you mean, that he did aspire to an Universal headship long before he was possessed of it; and that from that time of aspiring, he is reckoned Antichrist, you bring no Scripture, nor reason for it, but only quote a place of Mr. Cotton, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would do the deed. Now, what says Mr. Cotton? The head was in conception long before Phocas his grant. True, for 'twas in conception in the Apostles days, and yet, I suppose, he would not say the Bishop of Rome was Antichrist then. Is it likely the Holy Ghost should speak of him, as of a formed, apparent, complete head (so visible, that all the world should wonder after the Beast upon the hearing of it) whilst he was but yet in his conception? And it is certain, there was not any claim laid by the Bishops of Rome to the Universal headship, any long time before it was possessed by them. The first that laid claim to it, was not the Bishop of Rome, but John the fourth, surnamed the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople, about the year, 580. (six and twenty years before the matter was determined by Phocas, for the Bishop of Rome in the year, 606.) The Bishop of Rome, at the same time, strongly opposing, and disputing against the name and title of Universal Bishop, as the name of the Beast, and a new and profane title, contrary to the scope of the Gospel, which none of his Predecessors did ever use. Saying, that whosoever calleth himself, or desireth to be called, 
Greg. Magn. lib. 6. Ep. 30. & lib. 4. Ep. 34, & 38.  the Universal Priest or Bishop, is the forerunner of Antichrist, and that in regard the said John did assume it, it appeared that the time of Antichrist was now at hand. And to that John, he saith, What wilt thou answer to Christ, in the trial of the day of judgement, seeing that by this name Universal, thou seekest to enthral the members of his body to thyself. What Mr. P. proceeds to say upon his supposition is not worth the considering; and so I come to see how well he answers the objections that he considers as made against his separating device.   

SECT. VI An examination of Mr. P's. Answers, to the Objections he mentions, as made against his doctrine of Separation; and of his Reasons for Separation.  
OBject. 1 It will be said, this way of separation that you press, 
P. 49, 50, 51, 52  nulls all (at least the most part of) the reformed Churches in the world. Answ. This tends not to null, or make void, the faith of true believers, that shall be found in the aforesaid ways of Church-order. I deny not their faith, whereby by they are of the Mystical Church, and accordingly destroy not their Mystical Churchdome, but assert, that though their faith he Christian, their order is Antichristian. I deny them to be such Churches as Christ hath instituted, and to be the Candlesticks, that stand before the God of the earth. Some have had power, to set up Christ's order, in the face, and to the teeth of the Beast, though they were slain for it. Such was the Congregation in Queen Mary's time, which Mr. Fox mentions; and those hundred persons which Mr. Cotton mentions (Congr. Way cleared p. 4.) that were in Queen Elizabeth's days. 1576.  
'Tis one thing for Churches to be looked upon as Churches, in point of salvation, another thing, for them to be looked upon as Churches, in respect of outward constitution; in the former account, we cannot but give the right hand of fellowship, to all that look to no other way of salvation, but by the blood of the Lamb; in the latter account, we can give the right hand of fellowship, only to those that are after the heavenly pattern.  
Answ. He needed not to say, that his way nulls at least the most part of the reformed Churches, for it clearly nulls them all; The Churches of his way and principles, being not to be numbered among the Reformed Churches, since they renounce them, and account them Antichristian. So that his way clearly nulls all the reformed Churches in the world at this day; yea generally, all the Churches that have disowned the Papal Church of Rome, throughout the ages since the rise of it.  
His Answer, whereby he would salve the matter, is exceeding frivolous and childish. He denies not the faith of true believers in reformed Churches, nor their mystical Churchdome. But what is that to the purpose? whilst he denies them to be Churches of Christ, and to be the candlesticks that stand before the God of the earth (by which he weakly understands Churches, of which Sect. 4.) doth he not utterly null them as Churches? Neither will that passage shield him (wherein he clearly contradicts himself) that 'tis one thing for Churches to be looked upon as Churches, in point of salvation, another, to be looked upon as Churches in respect of outward constitution, etc.  
For if they are not to be looked upon as Churches in respect of outward constitution, they are not to be looked upon as Churches at all; unless he can make it appear, that believers out of Church-order, make up Churches, and that there are many mystical Churches. And if reformed Churches are to be looked upon as Churches in point of salvation, they looking to no other way of salvation but by the blood of the Lamb, and he can give the right hand of fellowship to them on that account; he thereby asserts their Churchstate, and separates practically from them, therefore, without sufficient ground. For if they are Churches in point of salvation, they have the essentials of Church-order, and are not to be separated from. The Protestants would not have separated from the Church of Rome, if they could have looked upon her (especially after the Sanctions of the Trent Council) as a Church in point of Salvation, looking to no other way of salvation but by the blood of the Lamb.  
So that notwithstanding his distinctions, Mr. P's doctrine doth absolutely null all the Reformed Churches, and all Churches that have disowned Papal Rome, from the rise of Antichrist to this last age; And thereby denyeth that there hath been a true Ministry, and a true Church-state, during many hundreds of years since Christ, in the world. Directly contrary to, Matth. 28.19, 20. Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. Rev. 11.1, 2. Rev. 14.1, 8. Eph. 3.21.  
To the instances which he brings, of Churches of his way, ushering them in with a boast of their setting up Christ's order, in the face, and to the teeth of the beast, though in danger to be slain for it; I Answer, that surely the Congregational Brethren of our days, have not waded through such great dangers in contending for, and setting up their popular government. They have had, and have, as much countenance from the Civil Powers, as they can desire. On which account many have struck in with Independency, to be of the rising side. (Surely there are some whom they know, that have outgone them in sufferings, for cleaving to their principles) and whilst the Powers did oppose their way heretofore, flying to New-England and Holland, was not a setting up of the order which they deemed to be Christ's, in the face, and to the teeth of the Beast.  
But to his instances. I suppose that Congregation in Queen Mary's days, to have consisted of holy persons, but cannot from the relation that History gives us of it, see upon what grounds he presumes them to have been a party of his own way, in point of order and government. Mr. Bentham their last Minister, is there said to have been soon after, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, and therefore in all probability no Independent. As to the hundred persons in Queen Elizabeth's days, which Mr. Cotton mentions, I should have liked their witnessing against the corruptions in the Church, so far forth as their call would bear them out: but if they separated from the Congregations in England in general, as no true Churches, no man is able to prove their separation lawful by the word of God; and the words of the same Mr. Cotton, pag. 14. of that book, will condemn them, where he saith, Mr. Robinson's denial of the Parishional Congregations in England to be true Churches, was never received into any heart, from thence to infer a nullity of their Church-state; Neither was our departure from them, even in those evil times, a separation from them as no Churches.  
So that, grant these two companies to have been Independent Churches; yet, if they separated from the Churches of England, as no true Churches, they were in Mr. Cottons judgement, so fare in an error; and much more is Mr. P. for nulling all the reformed Churches in the world, whereby he maketh his Independentism to become Donatism.  
He addeth to justify himself, We must not for respect to a right faith, swallow a wrong Order; hath not the letting go the right Order, 
p. 52.  let in a wrong faith? Yes, it hath indeed by those of your way most evidently. For whereas the word of God placeth most evidently the power of Church-government in the Officers of the Church, as hath been above proved: your letting go this Gospel- Order, and bringing in the room of it a fantastic Democratical government, strange to the word of God, hath let in a wrong faith with a witness; for at this back door have entered all the rabble of Sectaries, Anabaptists (now generally at least semi-Papists) Seekers, Quakers, and Fifth-Monarchy-men of the last edition, enemies to Magistratical and Ministerial power, as their seditious Pamphlets, Sermons, and practices, tending to imbrue the State in blood, and Church in confusion, do witness.  
Object. 2 It will be said, this lays a ground to question all the Ordinances, that have been administered in any other way, 
P. 52. to 55  than that which you press for, whether they are to be counted null and void. Answ. Some Ordinances have been corrupted in the essentials of them, as the Lords Supper in the Popish-Churches, and when so, they become no Ordinances, and of no efficacy. Others were circumstantially corrupted only, as Baptism, and when so, though we have cause to be humbled, yet we cannot reject the Ordinance. When 'tis promised that the Woman should be nourished in the Wilderness, Rev. 12.6. it must needs imply, that there should be some Ordinances preserved from corruption, in their essentials, and that God's people should be accepted in the use of them. Yet, that is no argument against coming out of the Wilderness; no more is the validness of Ordinances, in the Episcopal, Classical, Parochial Churches, against separating from them. And this separation, doth not require rebaptisation, for 1 The Scripture speaks nothing of it. 2 We must either own our Baptism, received in the Catholic visible Church of Rome the Mother, or in the Diocesan or National Churches the Harlot Daughters; or else we must conclude, that the Churches owned of God, during the four and twenty months of Antichrist, of which, Rev. 11.4. shall want utterly the initiatory seal of the New Testament, and of this we find no precedent or hint in Scripture; Or else there must be an extraordinary way, of reviving the lost Ordinance of Baptism in these Churches, and of this, I know neither promise nor experience, for these hundreds of years, since there have been such Churches. Therefore, the first must be granted; for, from the Church's rest, till the Wilderness began to set up particular visible Churches, by the Waldenses and Albigenses, 'tis rare to find a man, that would acknowledge any other Church than the Beast and his Images, that would acknowledge a particuliar visible Church.  
Answ. It is hard for Mr. P. to manage an argument, that doth not fall back upon his cause. In answering this second Objection, he overthrows what he had said, and condemns his way of Separation; which will easily appear, in making his concessions to speak out, what they at first sight are capable to infer that way.  
1 He grants, that when Ordinances are not corrupted in the essentials, but only in the circumstantials of them, we cannot reject them; and thereby he condemns his denying of our Ministry and Church-State to be true, for are they corrupted in their essentials? Will not his distinction keep our Ordination, Ministry, and Church-State from being null, as well as the Ordinance of Baptism? The same way as he will maintain the validness of this, we will the validness of those; and the same exceptions that he can make against the validness of those, will equally strike at the validness of this; Let him try and he shall find it to be so.  
2 He grants that the Woman's being nourished in the Wilderness, implies, that Ordinances were preserved in their essentials, and God's people accepted in the use of them, and that there were Churches owned of God, during the four and twenty months of Antichrist. Whereby, he clearly condemneth that intercision of a true Church-State, which he had before asserted, frequently and lately, p. 52. where he saith, I deny them not (speaking of Churches not Independent, and there were none considerable but such till these late days) to be the Woman nourished in the Wilderness, but I deny them to be the Candlesticks (that is true Churches, in his sense.) And here, Till the Waldenses and Albigenses, began to set up particular visible Churches, 'tis very rare to find a man, that would acknowledge any other Churches than the Beast and his Images. So also, he condemns here, his restraining of a true Church-State to Independent Churches, in saying, that during that time (wherein he saith there were Churches owned of God) particular visible Churches, (that is as Independent) were not acknowledged. So that hence must be inferred, whether he will or no, that the Churches not Independent, renouncing Rome, during the four and twenty months, which includes our age, were and are true Churches, and so not to be looked upon as Antichristian, and Harlot Daughters of Rome (as his charity calls them) nor to be separated from. Which would farther appear, if we should take in his notion of the Candlesticks (Sect. 4th.) for, they are in his sense Churches, and they prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, which is four and twenty months' Rev. 11.3, 4 and there were during that time, till this last age, at least till the Waldenses, by his own concession, no considerable Independent Churches; Therefore, the preceding Churches, not Independent, renouncing Rome-Papal, and ours their successors, were and are true Churches, and (if Churches be properly Witnesses) at least, as truly Witnesses as the Congregational, and not to be separated from.  
But, he seeming to foresee, that he opened us a gap to strike at his separation, saith, That the validness of Ordinances in our way, stands no more against separating from our Churches, than the validness of them when received in the Church of Rome, against separation from it. A doughty reasoning. He knows, that we plead, besides the validness of Ordinances among us, a renouncing of the Idolatries of Rome's worship, and a Professing and owning of the true doctrines of Christianity, in opposition to Rome's blasphemies and fundamental Antichristian errors. And surely, the validness of Ordinances so accompanied, renders a separation from us, and our Churches, of quite another nature than that from Antichristian Rome; which, if inconsiderateness and prejudice lay not in many rolls upon the eyes of his understanding, he could not choose but see. Thus, the matter of his answer recoils upon himself, of which more may be said, Sect. 11.  
As to the form of it, in relation to the Objection, it removes it not at all. For what says he? The Ordinances are not to be accounted essentially null, but the Church-State in the which they were administered is to be accounted null; for he calls all reformed Churches, images of the Beast, and Harlot Daughters of Rome, and his way sets up a new Church-State, distinguished and differenced in essential respects from that of all those Churches. Now, if their Church-State hath been null, their Ministry hath been null, and consequently the Ordinances administered by such a Ministry null, and so the Objection remains in full force against him, notwithstanding all his striving to assoil it, and his principles drive to rebaptising or Seekism, choose he whether.  
Neither let him say, that this toucheth us also, who have separated from Rome as a false Church, through which notwithstanding we had our Ministry and Ordinances; for he may know, and shall be told anon, that our principles and apprehensions about this matter, do exceedingly differ from his.  
I shall close this with those Queries upon his riddles. 1 Are the Woman nourished in the Wilderness, and the Churches owned of God during the four and twenty months, all one or not? 2 Had the Woman in the Wilderness, that had Ordinances preserved from corruption in their essentials, and was accepted in the use of them, any true Church-State or not? 3 Were the Churches that are said to have been these hundreds of years, and owned of God, Independent Churches or not? 4 Did the Waldenses and Albigenses set up Independent Churches, which seem here to be meant by particular visible Churches? If I had his positive answer to these, I should say something more to him. But he here delivers himself obscurely about these things, as those use to do that are such as the Apostle speaks of, 1 Tim. 1.7.  
Object. 3 But many godly men have worshipped God zealously in this way, and do still, and God hath been, and is still, no question, 
P. 59 60.  found of them. Answ. This must be looked on as an indulgence of God unto sincerity, owning what is of himself, mingled with much of man. They are much deceived, that think it is enough to say for a way, that they have found God in it, or rather in something of his that is practised in it.  
Answ. That the Lord is found of any of us his poor servants, seeking him in his ways, we humbly acknowledge to be of his gracious indulgence, owning what is of himself mingled with much of man. And will not you say the same concerning yourselves? But that our way of worship, and our Church-State, are not in the main according to divine Institution, is that which you have not, nor will ever prove. We grant, that they are much deceived, etc. and it toucheth us not, for we think not that it is enough to say so; And we suppose, that this may better serve to indoctrinate those of your way, than us; for it is not rare with many of them, to judge of a way, by the Impressions they have upon their spirits, concerning, or in the use of it, more than by Rule. But the Question should be, whether God is as much found, of those that seek him in a false way, and much swerving from his institution, as of those that seek him in a way conformable to his Institution? I suppose you will answer negatively. But now, through God's goodness, we are able to say, that God is and hath been as much found of us, in our Churches and way, and our Ministers have received as glorious a seal of their Ministry, as any Churches that we know of, since the Apostles days, and fare more than our Congregational Brethren themselves in their way; who although they deal out this hard measure to us, to cry down our Ministry and Churches, as Antichristian, own most of them that are renewed, their conversion unto God, unto our Ministry, as the instrument for it in God's hand, themselves being Judges. Though they had ten thousand Independent Instructors, yet could they not say they are their Fathers, for in Christ Jesus the Ministry of our Churches hath begotten them to the Gospel. If I am become a fool in glorying, they have compelled me.  
Object. 4 But there may be, and hath been good done this way, errors suppressed, etc. and those that reject it now, 
P. 61.  made use of it once. Answ. The good that God brings out of evil, is not to be construed into a divine approbation of it, Nor the use that hath been made by good men of a false way of Churches, to be drawn into an argument to continue in it.  
Answ. What good there hath been done by reformed Churches, few can be ignorant of: What good hath been done by Independent Churches, hath not yet much appeared. That some of their flocks are pure, they own to our Churches, as hath been said. Errors have been indeed suppressed by ours, but not by theirs, (it appears therefore they have made but a bad exchange;) but cherished by many of them, who have been to them as Cities of refuge, and out of which they have swarmed abundantly, into all parts of the Land, and for this the Land groans. And thinks Mr. P. to put off this so slightly, with his begged supposition, of the truth of the Churches of his way, and the falseness of ours? Surely, the beating down of error, and the promoting of truth, is no contemptible note of a true Church, though some corruptions be found in it, Rev. 2.2, 4. and on the contrary, etc.  
That those that owned our Churches once, have now rejected them, I judge from the word to be their sin. They should have continued in them, since Christ hath not divorced them (though he hath somewhat against them) and have endeavoured to reform them. But they have not laboured to heal, yea, they have widened and increased our wounds; and then they insult over us, Antichristianize us, separate from us, and draw away the best of our flocks, boasting in other men's lines, of things made ready to their hands. The Lord judge between us and them.  
Object. 5. and 6. But, shall we do it without the authority of the Magistrate? 
P. 62, 63, 64  without the consent of the Church? Answ. That which is pressed, is but the doing of the duty that lies upon every Christian, to separate from unwarrantable societies. The Text hath no such proviso, if the Magistrate bid or give you leave, then come out of Babylon. Therefore, we are to resolve with Peter Martyr, and with Wollebius, etc. After God hath made known his truth, (says the first) we must not delay. Consent indeed is to be expected, if the matter be dubious and obscure, (to wit, to him to whom it is revealed, as the course of his speech makes manifest.)  
Answ. The Magistrate is as no body with you (unless you have him on your side, and then you can change your note.) But we hold, that very much respect is to be had to the Magistrate in this matter, and all means possible are to be used, to engage the Magistrate to carry on the work of Reformation. Give me but one example in all the Old Testament, of any considerable reformation in the Church, without the interposition of the power of the Magistrate; or one example of it in Ecclesiastical history, in a time when there were Christian Magistrates. Can our Magistrates endure, that their authority and power should be contemned as it is? I hope they will not, but that they will exert it for the good of the Church, in discountenancing, restraining, and punishing, men of corrupt minds, principles, and practices, leading to separation, blasphemies, errors and rebellion; sheltering themselves under this notion, that the Magistrate hath nothing to do with Church-matters, and that all men are therein to be left to their liberty, and the dictates of their own spirits.  
The places that you pick out of Martyr and Wollebius, favour not your fancy. The place of Wollebius, taken in his sense, I readily yield to. That when Religion is depraved, it is to be reform by the Magistrate; But if reformation cannot be obtained of the Magistrate, he being an enemy to the Church, than reformation lies upon those whom God hath furnished with necessary gifts for it; neither is the consent of Roman Bishops to be expected, for, if our Fathers had done so (says he) there would have been no reformation. And he produceth the examples of Gideon, Jehoiada, the Maccabes, the Apostles, etc. to make good his assertion. Now when you shall have proved, 1 That the supreme Magistrate is an enemy of Religion, the Church and reformation. 2 That the way of reformation you contend for, is indeed the way of God. 3 That all lawful means have been used, and notwithstanding reformation cannot be obtained at the Magistrates hands. 4 That England's condition, and the State of the Church in the time of Gideon, Jehoiada, the Maccabes, the Apostles, and Protestant reformers, are alike. 5 That you have Instruments that have the like call from God, and are furnished with such abilities for reforming as they had and were; Then, I confess, this place will speak something for you. 6 The reformation Wollebius speaks of, refers chief to essentials in Religion, and that he is an Antagonist to your way of separation from reformed Churches, appears sufficiently in his book. Martyr you much mistake also. 1 The reformation he presseth, refers chief to fundamentals in Religion. 2 Those whose consent he says was not to be expected, were the Roman Bishops, whom he calls sworn enemies to the truth. 3 He doth not incite and stir up the people, to set upon the work, without the consent of the Magistrate, but the inferior Magistrates, to endeavour in their places a reformation of Religion, in banishing the impure Mass out of their Cities, etc. and how doth this reach your case? 4 The cause, he says, was clear, and such as was confessed to be Gods, and delays might endanger the loss of a good cause. Consent, indeed, says he, is to be expected, if the matter be dubious and obscure. And here you bring in your shameful Parenthesis (to wit, to whom it is revealed) which Parenthesis spoils and abuseth Peter Martyrs Text; For his words clearly import, to any man that will read there, that the cause was not only clear unto them, whom he endeavours to interest in carrying on the work of reformation, but clear in itself, and not as to its matter dubious and obscure, being such, as all the Churches on earth, but the Romish, would own. For shame, leave off your abusing of Authors, at which work I have caught you more than once or twice in this Treatise. Again, your Parenthesis is full fraught with all seeds of Rebellion against the State, as well as of confusion in the Church of God. For, if men may freely follow the apprehensions of their own misguided judgements, and deluded fancies, against the mind of the Magistrate, and consent of the Church of God: How shall our Religion, or Liberties, Persons Estates, or Lives be secured to us? Probably, the late fift-Monarchy-Traitours, had read your Treatise. I find a harmony between their remonstrance and your book, in many passages; and I am sure, they will assert the cause they undertook was clear to them, and then your parenthesis bears them out, they needed not to expect any consent.  
You now conclude, notwithstanding all Objections; Let those whose hearts God hath raised up, go up and build his house. Get we our brethren, 
p. 64.  if we can, along with us, but let us not delay our duty.  
Indeed, reformation-work is blessed work, but people had need to have better guides than you in it, lest they mistake their way, and whilst they think they are flying from Babylon, they fly indeed into it; for thither your way drives, though I suppose you perceive it not. Babylon and you are farther agreed, than all men are ware of. 1 The Pope cries down all Churches as Antichristian, and heretical, but his own, especially Protestant Churches. Mr. P. proclaims all Churches that are not of his way, to be Antichristian, and especially the Western reformed Churches, called Protestants, to be Babylon-Harlots, etc. 2 Mr. P. is an earnest contend for Democratical, and against Presbyterial Government. The Pope, he hates a Scripture Presbytery at his heart, but favours, by his agents, Democratical government, hoping to work out his own designs by it. And therefore, his disguised Agents, insinuate into Independent congregations, and strengthen them in their way of independency and separation, as that which best helps on their work, and gives them the greatest advantage for the sowing of their bad seed. Hence have proceeded from such Congregations, Anabaptists, etc. with Popish doctrines and arguments in their mouths. Therefore let Mr. P. beware, lest a blind zeal betray him, and that instead of a Reformer, he prove a Deformer (leading men to Rome, whilst he calls upon them to come out of it) for men of his understanding, spirit, and confidence, are usually in danger to prove such in the end.  
Consider we now, his reasons for separation from our Churches.  
The Reasons of the point are, 1 Because Antichrists Churches are sin. The great Beast spoken of, Rev. 13, 1, 2. is the Universal visible Church of Rome. It cannot be meant of the Roman Pagan, nor Christian Empire, nor of Antichrist which is the other beast, vers. 11. he is one of the heads, but not the Beast itself. Antichrist causeth an image to be made to the first Beast, vers. 14. that is, to set a Church in every Nation, etc. that may have the likeness of the Roman Church, viz. Metropolitan, National, Diocesan, Cathedral, and Provincial Churches, as Mr. Cotton shows on Rev. 13. and these are the living Characters of the first Beast, the Catholic visible Church of Rome, and so the image, and the Parishes are but relics of them.  
Protestant Churches; are it seems, Antichrist his Churches, and SIN, in the abstract, if Mr. P. may be judge. If he can prove them to be so, they are no doubt to be separated from, but hitherto, he hath not come near it.  
Here he seems to sum up his grounds, of so bold an assertion; which arise from an interpretation of Rev. 13.  
This Chapter, hath always much perplexed Interpreters, to make out what is meant by these two Beasts; both because of what is said of them, and because they seem to be spoken of as but one Beast, vers. 18. and chap. 17. Some will have the first Beast, to be the Roman Pagan Empire, the second the Pope.  
But the stream of Interpreters, generally understand them to be one and the same beast, the Pope of Rome, under a double notion; and Bellarmine himself, 
Per unam, exprimitur Antichristus ratione Regiae potestatis & tyrannidis; per alteram, ratione magicae artis, qua callidè homines seducet.  judgeth that the same Antichrist is meant by both, indifferent respects.  
But, however it be, it may easily be made to appear, that the first beast cannot mean, as Mr. Cotton, and Mr. P. from him would have it, the Catholic visible Church of Rome.  
1 Because such a Church supposeth an Universal visible head, for these are relates; But there was no universal visible head, until long after the time of the wound which Mr. Cotton mentions, the year 415; For Phocas conferred the universal headship on Boniface the third, in the year 606. and not long before that, Gregory disclaimeth such a title and power.  
2 Because the setting of Diocesan, etc. 
See the end of Sect. 5.  Churches in every nation, cannot be a making of an Image to the Catholic visible Church of Rome; Since these as Papal, are parts of that Church, and help to make it up: And that the Image will then be more perfect than the Original, or pattern. For the Catholic visible Church of Rome, was never such in that manner and measure before, as after the wound. Yea, the Visible Catholickness of the Church of Rome, hath little or no appearance at all in History, before that time of the wound.  
3 Because the things predicated of this first Beast, vers. 2. are no way applicable to the Catholic visible Church of Rome, especially before that time of the wound. The power of a Bear, and of a Lion, and of the Dragon, giving it his seat, and great authority; cannot be found in History, to have been possessed and exercised, by the Catholic Visible Church of Rome, before that time. And a man must speak mere dreams that will undertake, to make what is said of the first Beast, unto the rise of the second, vers. 11. to suit to the universal Visible Church of Rome, before that rising of the second.  
4 Because, the Text expressly distinguisheth between the Beast that exerciseth Sovereign rule and authority, and those that are under his rule and Government. He is set forth, vers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Those under his rule are set forth by their admiring of him, and worshipping and subjecting to him, vers. 3, 4, 7, 8. and these make up the Roman Catholic Visible Church.  
Mr. P's foundation therefore is found to be null, and so consequently his inferences from it fall to the ground.  
2 Because they are Harlots, and will entice, and draw away to their lewd Courses. 
p. 67, 68  Babylon hath golden pretences, for her abominable idolatries; The prevention of Schisms, and Heresies, for a Catholic Church visible; Reverence to the womb that bore us, and the paps that gave us suck, for Metropolitan, National, Diocesan, Parish-Churches, etc. And she is stubborn, she will not return to you. God's people would have cured her, but she is not cured. None that would have through reformation, dare take the whole Parish along with them to the work. Why should they be washed at the same laver (at least their children) that may not eat at the same Table? Let us take the Prophet's Counsel; forsake we Babylon, and go every one to his own Country; Let us wash our hands of her, and expect what God hath determined of her, as Du plessis once said of the Roman Church.  
Babylon, and the best reformed Churches in the Christian World that are not of his way, are all one with this modest Theologue. Rome renounceth, abhorreth, anathematizeth them; and they have separated from, renounce and abhor Rome's Doctrine and Worship; and yet, this piece of subtlety finds them to be one and the same Babylon. Surely, should the Pope understand what service this Separatist's book tends to do him, in proclaiming the Protestant Churches to be Harlots, and the Babylon to be separated from, he would account himself indebted to him for it.  
They are Harlots (says he) they have lewd courses, abominable Idolatries; and what are they? A Catholic Church visible, and National and Parish Churches, these are abominable Idolatries, in Mr. P's Atheological Divinity. Of the two latter I have spoken enough before, to vindicate them from this charge; I shall now add something, to what hath been said for the former. A Catholic visible Church, hath been always generally acknowledged among Christians in all ages; So that Mr. P. lays abominable Idolatry, to the charge of all the Christian Churches, that have been, unto this last age; yea, of some of those writers that have appeared on the side of the congregational way. Dr. Ames saith, that the Church never ceaseth to be visible (which cannot be understood of any paticular Church, for that may fail) and that Particular Congregations, are as similar parts of the Catholic Church, and so participate of its name and nature; and those that by profession only are believers, whilst they remain in a society, are members of that Church, as also of the Catholic Church, in respect of its External estate. And in Bell. Eneru. We acknowledge the Militant Church to be visible, as to its outward, and accidental form, in its parts both separated and conjoined. What can be more plain? But let us briefly consider, what Scripture says to it, Act. 8.3. speaks of a visible Church, else it could not have been persecuted, and yet not of a particular Church, for the persecution was in Jerusalem, Damascus, in every Synagogue, in strange Cities, yea, against all of that way; therefore it speaks of the Catholic visible Church. 1 Cor. 10.2. must needs be understood of it also. 1 Cor. 12.28. is too clearly for it, to be denied with any likely reason; for, 1 The Church here spoken of is an Organical Church. 2 It cannot be understood of a particular Church, Apostles, and Prophets, being Catholick-Officers. 3 It must therefore be understood collectively, of all that were within the bounds of the Apostles Commission, the Church in the whole world. Indeed, this whole Chapter treats of the Catholic visible Church. All the members of Christ mystical are one body, vers. 12. & 20. Jews and Gentiles are baptised into one body, vers. 13. and they are one Church, vers. 28. Eph. 3.10. cannot mean otherwise, nor Eph. 3.21. What Church can the Church of all ages mean, but the Catholic Visible Church? Which, though some particular Churches, may and have failed, hath continued, and shall continue in all ages. Matth. 16.18. proves this, and the point in hand; for, it may not be understood of any particular Church, and it cannot be understood of the Invisible Church, as distinct from the visible; for the invisible Church, is not built upon a visible profession, as Peter was; and the Church here spoken of, is such whereof the Keys are given to Peter, and every Minister of Christ, to let in members, and eject scandalous sinners; Now, how a member of the invisible Church, as such, can by a censure be cast out of the Church invisible, who can see? but, out of the Church visible he may be cast, therefore, this Text speaks clearly of the Catholic Church Visible, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.  
Add to this, that all the Metaphors, that set out the Church in Scripture, shows the unity of the Catholic Church as visible. She is a Woman, Rev. 12.1. One sheepfold, John 10.16. One body, Rom. 12.5. The House, Temple, City of God, 1 Tim. 3.15. Eph. 2.19. Heb. 12.22. Rev. 3.12, etc. Therefore Mt. P's eyes were bloodshotten, when he wrote, that a Catholic visible Church, is an Abominable Idolatry. But he is angry, it seems, at the pretence too, and makes it a piece of Babylon's golden cup; to wit, the prevention of Schisms and Heresies (what he insinuates thereby, that Protestant Churches have but this pretence for it, and no ground in the Word, is untrue, and unworthy) Surely we may think, that Mr. P. sees, that the opposing of Schisms strikes at his Democracy, and separation, and that therefore he is not well pleased with the prevention of Schisms; if they be let alone, his Schism will escape among them. But Protestant Churches have not so learned Christ, knowing that they are enjoined to take the Foxes, and the little Foxes that spoil the vines, Cant. 2.15. and to mark them that cause divisions, and offences, and avoid them, Rom. 16.17. and to have no divisions among them, 1 Cor. 1.10. and that when single Churches cannot effect this, they must labour to do it united, so fully as the case will require, Act. 15.  
What he addds, to prove the stubbornness of Protestant Churches, (which his dialect terms Babylon) that God's People would have cured her, but she is not cured; is an impudent, unreasonable, and false speech. Wonderful impudence it is, especially in such a Theologaster, as he, that needs to be taught what a Church is, to charge all reformed Churches with stubbornness in evil; Stubbornness is a sinning against light, and conviction, and what audaciousness is it, in this aeccuser of the brethren, to publish in print, that all the reformed Churches sin against conviction, in cleaving to their Church-state, and way of government? Unreasonable also it is, for him to say, that God's people would have cured Protestant Churches; for thereby, he seems to confine God's people to those of his way, and those of his way, have not, I am sure, put forth requisite endeavours to cure our Churches (supposing them to be sick of Romish diseases) unless reviling of them to the uttermost, neglect of means to reform them, separating from them as fast as they can, yea while, and when they are reforming, drawing away others, lest they should help to reform them, and proclaiming them to be Antichristian, and wholly to be razed, be requisite endeavours to cure them; and that destroying of them be curing of them. Nay, 'tis sufficiently known, to those that have acquainted themselves with the carriages of our and their church-guide, in these late years, that when overtures were made by ours, for an accommodation, and for unity in reformation, upon Scripture principles, it was refused; and the hopeful beginnings of it, broken off by them. Yet I must not be so much a Disciple of Mr. P. as to say, that they were stubborn therein, though there be much moer ground to say it of them, than of us. False also it is, to say Universally, that Protestant Churches are not cured, by endeavours put forth for their cure; For, though not by Independents, I confess, yet by the endeavours of many zealous Protestants, much of that, which looked like something of Rome, and was more according to the Traditions of men, than the word of God, hath been removed, and in particular in our Land; which notwithstanding the prejudice Mr. P. is overgrown with, he cannot, I suppose, but acknowledge. I confess, much of corruption there is remaining, but such as cannot by the rule of the Word, deprive Protestant Churches of their Church-state, or render it Antichristian.  
What he saith next, That none of those that would have a thorough Reformation, dare take their whole Parish along with them to the work, as it is nothing to his purpose (for corruption in manners, proves not a Church to be Antichristian) so it is ridiculously propounded. For though a godly Minister, that is a Pastor to a Parish-Congregation, think not all in a meetness for the Lords-Supper, nor admits them all to it; yet it follows not, that he takes not the whole Parish-Congregation along with him to the work of Reformation, considering it in a Scriptural sense. He may speak to all, admonish all, instruct all, and endeavour to reform all, though he administer the Supper only to those who are fit for it; and it is one of Mr. P's Slanders, to say as he doth of our Ministers, that they lay aside the most of their people, as the Jews the Samaritans; for they own their membership, tell them in relation to the Supper, they have a Fundamental right, though not a proximate right to present participation, being as yet unfit; receive them to all Ordinances that they are capable to profit by, and exhort them to labour in the use of means, for fitness for the use of all Ordinances, and then they shall rejoice to administer even the Lords Supper to them; and is this to lay them aside, as the Jews the Samaritans? No more, than the keeping from the Passeover under the Law, those that were judged by the Law to be in a present incapacity to use it.  
But, the man's head is full of his Democracy, which makes him measure us by his principle, and think, that those whom we admit to full communion, we admit to exercise the power of the Keys also (which makes him talk, of taking them along with us to the work of reformation, and admitting them to the management of that matter) and that those that are not admitted to all Ordinances, are quite laid aside, because 'tis so with him.  
To his Query, Why should they be washed at the same laver (at least their children) that may not eat at the same Table? If he be ignorant of our answers to it, let him read them in those many Tracts that have them; and if he be not ignorant of them, why puts he the Question, and that without answering our arguments for this practice? Some men will ask why? though they have been told why a hundred times, and can say nothing that is worth hearing against it.  
His inference from his sorry Reasons, the words of which he borroweth, from that famous assertour of Reformed Churches, the Lord Du Plessis, is a farther evidence of his weakness, mistakes, and impudence. Our Churches, this man brands every where as Antichristian and Babylon itself; but not one argument of weight doth he bring to prove it. Neither answers he the solid arguments of the godly-learned, condemning separation from our Churches, as no true Churches, for a grievous sin; which indeed should have been properly his work (since he had an itch to write) in regard, he stands charged by those writings, with this sin. But this, belike, he finds too hard a task, and that it is easier to lay on, than to take off charges (and we must not blame a man for not undertaking what he cannot perform) and so instead of answering their arguments, sometimes he wrists their words, and perverts their sense, to make it serve his turn; Sometimes abuseth their expressions for separation from Rome, by pressing them, for the service of his unscriptural separation from reformed Churches, as he shamefully doth here, those of this champion of the reformed Churches.  
Did ever Duke Plessis think, that his exhortation to separation from Rome, should have been so much polluted and abused, as to be managed for separation from Reformed Churches? or that the World would have produced a writer so absurd, as to account reform Churches, to be yet in, and of, and the Babylon itself? How could he, if he had any forehead left him, so much as name that woruhy Champion of the Protestant Churches, when he exhorts to separation from them? But we shall have a worse carriage of this nature to look upon, at the end of his book.   

SECT. VII. Of Mr. P's Injunctions to the Magistrate, and first, concerning Parishes, Parish-Temples, and Patrons.  

P. 69. etc.  BEE wise O ye Kings, be instructed ye Judges of the earth. Take away Parishes, by an Act of State, away with all those Consecrated places for worship; Away with Patrons, or Lay-founders; Away with Tithes, etc. Away, I say, with all appurtenances of a Parish-Church.  
Can this be Mr. P's voice (I mean not in regard of the imperiousness of it, for there is no ground to doubt it to be his on that account, but) appealing in matters that concern Religion, to the Magistrate, whose power he hath so much decried? Strange, that these worldly Governments, whom he exhorts men in his preface, not to accept as Lawgivers, no not in the Commonwealth, and hopes Christ will in due time deliver us from, should now be applied to by him, for the exercise of their power, and that in matters that concern Religion! What strange liberty is this that he takes, to pull down Magistrates at his pleasure, when they stand in his light, and set them up again to be his Servants, and drive on his designs? But possibly he means those Rulers that Mr. Feak and his party (of which he hath manifested himself to be) would have in place of authority; and then his injunctions might have been deferred till their time, which I hope we shall never see. But consider we a little what he doth enjoin.  
First, take away Parishes by an Act of State, the Ecclesiasticalness of them. But, no Reason that he hath urged against them hitherto, will warrant it. What says he now for it? Hezekiah broke the brazen Serpent, because the Children of Israel did Idolise it. Josiah demolished the Altar of Bethel, and the high place there. Rare arguing! What analogy is there between these things? Are Protestant Parish-congregations idolatrously worshipped? because, whilst Rome was owned in them they were Idolatrous, are they to be demolished now that they renounce it, and own Gods true worship? Are they like the Altar of Bethel, and the High-places, against Divine institution, in place of being, and means of worship? For place, Churches are now confined to no set place, as that of the Jews was then, but may any where be made up of co-habiting professors of Christianity. For the means of worship, let the Reader judge, whether he hath proved our Churches Idolatrous. And what would this Arguer say, I trow, from his instances, against those Protestant Churches, that are not Parishional in France, etc. made up of Professors, whose dwellings are scattered in the Popish Parishes, in compasses near to their meeting-places? Must they be taken away by an Act of State too, if such a one could be procured there?  
Next, our Temples feel his wrath.  
Away with all those Consecrated places for Worship, 
P. 70. 71  those holds of Mahuzzim, Daemons, or Saint-Gods, as Mede expounds them; may monuments of Idolatry be better endured than heretofore? The argument for the demolishing of these is perpetual, and so the precept, Deut. 7.5, 6, 25, 26. the reason why they are suffered, is want of zeal, as is hinted by Master Cotton, Vial the 7. p. 14.  
I fear Mr. P's zeal is as misguided, as that Luke 9.54, 55. want of due consideration, and the power of prejudice, and wrath, do, it is to be feared, kindle his zeal. For, are our Temples holds of Mahuzzim now? Is any Saint-God, but the holy Trine-une-God, worshipped and owned in them, as their Protector and Defender? How untrue is Mr. P's insinuation of it? Surely, learned Mede is much abused by him (as are most of the Non-congregational Authors, whom he quotes) in being made, from that expression he mentions, to account our Temples holds of Mahuzzim; whereas, he intends it only for the Romish Temples, where Saints are worshipped; distinguishing Protestants from Papists, p. 101. True Christians have with David one Mahoz, but apostate Christians have their many Mahuzzims; and how much he was for the holiness of our Churches, as places not Idolatrous and profane, his tract bearing that name, with that of the reverence of God's house, and several other places in his works, do sufficiently demonstrate, to shame Mr. P. if he be not perfrictae frontis. But says Mr. P. They are monuments of Idolatry, and may they be better endured than heretofore? Here he reasons strangely; for, if because they were heretofore abused to Idolatry, they may not be used now without Idolatry, but must be pulled down: then the Temple should have been destroyed, and not used for the performing of the worship of God in it by Josiah, because Manasseh his father had set up Idolatrous Altars for all the Host of Heaven, and a carved Image in it, 2 Chron. 33.4, 5, 7. but he neither pulls down, nor scrupleth worshipping in the Temple, when he had purged it, which yet he should have done by Mr. P's doctrine; because his father had made it a monument of Idolatry.  
In times near the Primitive, Christians scrupled not to use for Christian worship, Temples before used for the worship of Pagan gods, when they came to be in their power; neither, I believe, would the Apostle Paul, who preached upon Mars-hil, have scrupled to have used them for the worship of God, if they had been in the hands of Christians in his time. About the text in Deut. (however confidently he build his Temple-demolishing doctrine upon it) he is much deceived; and hath need to be taught, that the reason of those precepts, for the destroying of the Canaanites places and means of worship, and not using them in God's service, was, that God had purposed and appointed, that there should be but one only place, in the whole Land of Israel, to which they were to bring their gifts, offerings, and sacrifices, as the Levitical Law required; which is expressly told us, Deut. 12.1. to 8. And we find, that that precept, Deut. 7. did not bind them to demolish, and reject from being used in God's service, whatsoever was abused to undue worship. The Censers of the two hundred and fifty, that should not have offered incense, were made broad plates for the covering of the Altar, Numb. 16.39. and the Censers that Nadab and Abihu put strange fire in, were not, that we read of, cast away, and made no use of in the Tabernacle, and therefore probably Eleazar, and Ithamar, that succeeded, used them. Our Temples, many of them had a being before the Popish religion prevailed in our Land, and some of them have been built since it was removed, and had they been all erected during the prevalency of that religion, yet their use being changed, to the worshipping and religious honouring of God alone, they are no more holds of Mahuzzim, but Temples of Christ. As to Mr. Cottons opinion, which he mentions, it is built upon exceeding slender grounds. He, p. 9 & 14. doth expound, Revel. 16.20. thus. By Islands are meant Churchyards, and their grounds consecrated by Popish devotions; by Mountains, Cathedral Churches, and all those high places that over-top the people of God. Hence he concludes, when the zeal of God lifts up the hearts of his people, they will not endure a Consecrated place in the world. With reverence to Mr. Cottons piety and learning, let the judicious Reader judge, whether any thing may not be said and inferred, at this rate of interpreting. Never did any man in the Christian Church so interpret this text; neither can it in any reason be thought to be the sense of the Holy Ghost; but rather, that Islands and Mountains are put for places of strength, and the powers in them, wherein Rome relies, and which in the overthrow of Babylon, though she look for help from them, are not able to afford it her, but fall, as many as adhere to her, under ruin themselves; which is, that the generality of the best Interpreters, understand by it.  
But would you think, that Mr. P. that inveighs thus against our Temples, should use them himself? He tells us plainly, that he not only hath done, and doth, but also hints that he intends to continue so to do; and that with the help of this pretty distinction.  
I confess, were it not to cry out against the Altar at Bethel, 
P. 71, 72, & 81.  and gain an advantage of speaking, that otherwise I cannot have, after the example of the Churches meeting in Solomon's Porch, after the Temple was abolished, Act. 5.12. I would never more preach, or perform any holy duty in them. I could not meet with the Parish, were it not that I come as a Prophet from Judah to Bethel to them, to cry out against the Altar there; or upon occasion of the Church's meeting, not theirs primarily.  
If he comes as a Prophet, yet will he say, he is so extraordinary a Prophet, as to have a dispensation, to do evil that good may come of it, which the great Apostle durst not do, Rom. 3.8? Surely his practice speaks it in effect, supposing that he believeth that to be true, which he hath delivered, that our Temples are high places, and that it is equally sin to use them, at it was to use these. Either he must recant what he hath said, or he must acknowledge that he doth evil (to him evil) that good may come of it. If this confident accuser charge us, who are not convinced of the Antichristianism of our Temples, of living in a sinful practice, for using them: how deeply may he be charged for using them, who accounts them holds of Daemons, Idolatrous high places, not to be endured by any zealous person, such as God expressly forbids men to have to do with? But let us consider his pretences, for the warrantableness of this practice, notwithstanding his Principle; what weight are they of? even none.  
1 He comes as a Prophet from Judah to Bethel, to cry out against the Altar there. But surely, (besides that he can never show such a Commission, for his inveighing against our Temples, as that Prophet had, to declare against the Idolatrous Altar at Bethel, as may be easily concluded from what hath been said) it is plain, that he useth not our Temples always on this account, but commonly, for the performing of Divine services to God, with the people that are with him, in the use of all Ordinances; which I am certain, that Prophet would not have done at the Altar of Bethel. So that, this is but a mere empty pretence.  
2 He doth it to gain an advantage to cry out against the Altar, etc. that otherwise he cannot have, after the example of the Church, Act. 5. But, (besides, as I have said, that this is not commonly his work, when he appears in our Temples, but to use ordinarily Gods Ordinances with the people there, which the Prophet would not have done at the Altar of Bethel, and which we read not that the Apostles did in Solomon's Porch, though if they had, the case had been fare different from that in hand) Can he not cry out against the Altar, etc. elsewhere, and that with more probable advantage? Would it not better suit with Mr. P's Principles, to ascend to the top of the Marketplace, or upon some Scaffold erected on purpose, and there to cry out against our Temples? And I dare say, in so doing, he shall have more hearers than he can expect in a Temple.  
3. He meets with the Parish in the Temple, upon the account of the Churches meeting there, not theirs primarily. But, cannot his Church meet elsewhere? Surely, after all his drawing away of the Members of our Churches, his company is not so big, but that some room of theirs may contain them, as it doth when they list; and, one would think, this Prophet should instruct and lead his flock better, than to carry them to, and suffer them to meet and worship God, in an Idolatrous place, as unwarrantable to be used, in his judgement, as the high-places, and the Altar of Bethel in Israel's time. 'Tis a sad thing, that this Prophet should be so like that other old Prophet, mentioned, 1 King. 13.18, 19, etc. he in his practice leads his people to use our Temples; and yet in his doctrine he condemns the use of them, as very sinful, Idolatrous, and not to be practised by any; and thereby condemns, both those who are led by him into this practice, and himself much more, who is found, and leads others into it, contrary to his principles, convictions, and doctrine. Is it not to be feared, that in this he is not a true Prophet of the Lord? and that his voice in this Book is no more from Heaven, than the Message of that old Prophet was from an Angel? But yet, attend we his third injunction.  
Away with Patrons, or Lay-founders, that usurp the Prerogative of Christ, they will found Churches; 
P. 72. ●  not only build a Synagogue, but appoint the Church, and the Minister. Is not Christ Jesus the builder of the house? Durst Paul and Barnabas exercise such tyranny, as to impose a Minister on the people? Acts 14.23.  
Certainly, Mr. P. invents a crime against Patrons, especially those of our days. Do they appoint the Congregations of Professors? surely he dreams; they only present Ministers to Congregations already form; and if those Ministers can be proved by any in those Congregations, to be unfit to be over them in the Lord, there is now, and hath commonly been, by public appointment, a way to keep them out, and make the presentation null; but if they have no valid exception against them, what harm is there done by the Patrons presenting? I shall not here speak to Patrons right; But I think, their using of that privilege of nominating Ministers to places (which was bestowed upon them at first, by the favour of Princes, that men might be thereby encouraged to so good a work, as building Temples, and endowing them with means, to maintain Ministers to preach there, for the edification of Souls) cannot truly be termed, an usurping of the Prerogative of Christ, nor an exercising if tyranny over the people. Ministers may have Christ's mission, either wholly, or inchoatively by fitness, and a true desire of edifying Souls in the Ministry, though they be presented by Patrons; yea, Patrons present them, upon the account that they apprehend them to have Christ's mission; and people have sufficient means to invalidate the Presentation (especially among us) in case they can evidence them to be unfit; and to procure them to be ejected, after admission, in case they can prove them insufficient, ignorant, or scandalous. Those that are presented, must bring a sufficient Testimonial of their good conversation; They must undergo a trial, in relation to their abilities; and it any Objection of weight, is laid in by the people against them, they cannot enjoy the benefit of their presentation, unless that be removed; Also, it is no hard matter, for prudent godly people, to prevail with Patrons, to present whom themselves shall pitch upon.  
All which things considered, as I cannot look on their presenting as an exercising of Tyranny over the people: So I think, that places are better provided for this way, considering the condition of our Churches, than if they had the full power of nominating, choosing, and admitting their Ministers.  
But Mr. P. would have done well, since he accounts the presentations of Patrons such abominations, to have instructed, and reproved, 
Mr. L.  one of his chief members, who, not long ago, sinned against his Antipatronical doctrine. For, enquiring what course he should take, to be settled in the Living where he was, he in whose right he held it being deceased; and being answered by me, that he must have recourse to the Patron: Though he then much inveighed against Patrons, and declared that he would have no recourse to him, nor use him in this matter; yet he soon after, addressed himself to him, and procured himself to be presented by him. Quid non mortalia pectora cogis, Auri sacra fames?  
The Text, Act. 14.23. whence Mr. P. queries, Durst Paul and Barnabas impose a Minister on the people? is mistaken by him; but for once, he doth not wrong the Presbyterian Author he quotes, 
p. 72, 73  (which is a rare virtue with him) about the import of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For it is true, that Reverend Calvin, Beza, and some others, say that Paul and Barnabas, are by this word to be deemed, to have put the Election of the Elders, to the suffrages of all in the Churches. But others, not a few, nor mean, hold, that as they were Elders themselves, and more than Elders, so they chose and ordained Elders for the Churches, by virtue of their Office, as best able to appoint to them therein; and that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, refers not to the people's choosing, by lifting up of hands, but to the act of Paul and Barnabas, who by imposition of hands, ordained them Elders. Scriptores Ecclesiastici (saith Marlorat) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usurpant, pro solemni Ordination is ritu, qui in Scriptures vocatur manuum impositio.  
And indeed, by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, were Ministers put into office, 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. And as yet, I have not seen one example of weight produced from Scripture, of a Minister, Pastor, or Elder, chosen by the people, much less thereby constituted a Minister. That Text, Act. 1.21. etc. reacheth not the case; for the Apostleship is allotted to Mathias, not by the choice of the Disciples, but by divine decision; and if the choice had been by the Disciples, yet they were not all the Believers in Jerusalem, but only the one hundred and twenty, who were all Ministers, as hath been before evinced. Act. 6, 1. to 6. concludes nothing in the case in hand neither; for, probable it is, as hath been showed, that the Deacons were not chosen by the multitude of the Disciples at Jerusalem, but by the Presbytery; and if they were chosen by the people, it makes nothing here, for it speaks not ad idem. There is a wide difference, between a Deacon and a Pastor; though it were left to people to choose their own Deacons, yet it cannot hence be concluded, that de jure divino, people have power to choose their own Ministers. Let Mr. P. consider, what the Author, whom he elsewhere so unhappily leans upon, says to this, n. Mr. Bains in a place already quoted. If any (says he) fail in any Office, 
Diocesan Trial. p. 84. Conc. 4.  the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a Ministry of calling one, whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of Office given him, in the place vacant.  
Let the world, as well as the Church, 
p. 74  be supplied with Ministers according to Christ's institution. But then, say I, they must not be supplied with such as yourself, gifted brethren, unordained; for these are not Complete Ministers, according to Christ's institution, of which more afterwards; And you have given no solid reason, why presented Ministers, that are tried, approved of, ordained, and sent to Congregations, to administer Christ's Ordinances, should not be, in your account, Ministers according to Christ's institution.  
That which is stuck at, is the rights and properties of Patrons; the taking away these, is looked upon as a piece of injustice. Remember Pharaoh King of Egypt, and Sihon King of Heshbon, how their hearts were hardened, by abuse of righteous principles, urging them against God's command. Mr. P. hath not yet produced a Command of God, against Patron's properties; And 'tis a mystery to me, how Pharaoh can be said, to have stuck to righteous principles, in oppressing so grievously the Israelites, by whose means he and his land had been saved from famine; and refusing to let those enjoy their liberty, by whom he and his land enjoyed life and freedom. Mr. P. hath a strange art in reasoning, if he can make it out, that Pharaoh acted towards the Israelites as he did, from righteous principles.  
I am sorry for men in these days, that make it a ground to break up Parliaments, 
p. 75.  and make Ordinances to preserve the right of Patrons, etc.  
Neither was that Parliament, which Mr. P. intends, broken up properly, by any power but their own; Nor was the reason of their dissolution, either wholly or chief, the preserving of the rights and properties of Patrons. But the Committee having presented to this Parliament these proposals, 1 That Commissioners be sent down into the Counties, and enabled to eject scandalous and unable Ministers, and settle able Ministers in void places; 2 That such as are, or shall be approved for public Preachers of the Gospel, shall have, and enjoy such maintenance as is already settled by Law; 3 That upon hearing and considering what hath been offered to the Committee, touching propriety of Tithes, of Incumbents, Rectors, Possessors of Donatives, or appropriate Tithes; It is the opinion of the Committee, that the said persons, have a Legal propriety in Tithes: Instead of concurring with the Honourable Committee, a Party in this Parliament resolve, 1 To put out of Office all the Ministers in the Land. 2 To abolish the maintenance of Ministers by Tithes, no other maintenance being provided in the stead thereof. 3 That no Ministers should have been capable of being admitted to exercise their Ministry, that would not have renounced their former call to the Ministry, and taken up a new call from the People.  
Hereupon, the Major part, with the Speaker, resign up their power into his Excellency's hands, whence they had it; foreseeing, that confusion, and much evil would have ensued upon the execution of such Counsels.  
Mr. P. would, it seems, have rejoiced to have seen them executed; But not only Presbyterians, but also Independents, that are not of his form, bless that hand of providence, that disappointed them. Sad would that day have been to England, that should have brought forth the fruits of them.  
His bitter insinuation, that, Patrons presenting, 
p. 75.  doth oblige Ministers to daub with untempered mortar, and sew pillows under their elbows; is very uncharitable, and unreasonable.  
Godly Ministers will be rather engaged, by being presented, to labour to edify the souls of Patrons. And were Ministers chosen by the people, and cast off by them when they please, as Mr. P. would have it; they would lie thereby, under a far greater temptation, to humour the people in their lusts; Since among them they live, and with them they have continually to do: Whereas Patrons, most of them, live not in the places to which they present; and have no power to put out, whom they have once presented. So that, the power which he claims for the people, is far more likely to produce that evil, than is the power of Patrons; and instances might be given that it hath done so. But I forbear recriminating.   

SECT. 8. Of Tithes.  
MR. P's. fourth injunction to the Magistrate, is concerning Tithes.  
Away with Tithes, that Old-Testament maintenance, plainly distinguished from the New-Testament maintenance, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. 'Tis plain he argues a Simili, and like is not the same, Gospel maintenance, differs from Law maintenance, in the very kind. Tithes, are a legal, Jewish, Popish way of maintenance. Either Tithes are paid by the light of nature, or Moral command, or else by a Ceremonial precept; But not by either of the two former; The instances of Abraham's, and jacob's paring them, before the Law, are not sufficient; for Circumcision, and Sacrifices, were then, and yet part of the Ceremonial ●aw: and, the institution of our Saviour, Luke 10.7. urged 1 C●r. 9.14. and explained, Gal. 6.6. will not stand with Tithes; These are out of the seed of the land, the fruit of the Trees; or the herd, or the flock; the Gospel-maintenance is raised out of all good things. Therefore, Tithes belong to the Ceremonial Law, which to practise, is to dig Christ out of his grave, and a Character of Antichrist. Neither will it avail, for any to say, that they take them not as Tithes, for the Corinthians could not be so excused, as to their eating things sacrificed to Idols, etc.  
Mr. P. knoweth, or might know, that there are several pleas for Tithes, as the Minister's maintenance; The Power and Laws of the Magistrate, The right of Donation, and The Divine Right. And therefore, since he thought fit, to give a reason of his excommunicatory sentence against them, with relation to the last of those pleas, he should have done it, in relation to the rest also. Else, though it shall happen, that his strong arguing may cause men to quit them with one hand, on the last account; yet the other pleas, being not impugned by him in particular, they may hold them with the other hand, on their account; and so, his away with Tithes, may lose its labour. Two Cords may hold them, though the edge of his arguing, should be so keen, as to cut the other.  
1 The Magistrate's Power, and Authority, is generally acknowledged, to have been given them by God, in relation to the good of the Church; and cannot fairly be denied, to extend itself, by his appointment, to the Teachers, as well as to the taught in it. Those must live, and be maintained, as well as these; the text he quotes, evinceth this, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. and Magistrates are to take care, that what God hath appointed, may be performed; how are they else, Ministers of God, for good, without exception or restriction? Now the even so, in this Text (leaving his apprehension, of the farther sense of it, to be considered under the last plea) implies clearly, that a set, determinate, and sufficient maintenance, is to be assigned, and paid to the Ministers of Christ, and established for them (for such a one there was enjoyed, by the Ministers of holy things, under the Law) and surely, the effecting of this, falls under the Christian Magistrates care, and is within the verge of his power. But now, certainly, there is no reason, why the Magistrate may not appoint, as well a tenth, as a ninth, or an eleventh, to be the Minister's maintenance; And having so fair a precedent before them, as the determinate proportion, once allotted by God to his Ministers, n. a Tenth; and no other mentioned in Scripture: No reason can be given (supposing them not to consider that allotment as binding now) why they should not pitch upon this, rather than any other. The equity of that proportion, doth undoubtedly still remain; it is the proportion which the wisdom of God chose, and he hath no where forbidden them to pitch upon that proportion, or pointed out any other; therefore, that proportion they may best pitch upon, and establish to be the Minister's maintenance. This proportion, Christian Magistrates, and ours in particular, have pitched upon, and established by Laws to be the Minister's maintenance; and that out of the increase of the land, which might easily be proved, to be the most fit, certain Maintenance, the most suitable, to all incident conditions of the land, that can be found.  
And why, upon this account, may not Tithes be appointed and maintained by the Magistrates, required by the Ministers, and paid by the People? What Law of God, do those, or these, sin against herein? Suppose the determinate proportion, and way of maintenance, not expressed and determined by God, now in New-testament-days, but only that there should be a fit Maintenance; Doth not the determining of the way and proportion of maintenance, belong to the Magistrate? And is this way and proportion Jewish, when they pitch not upon it on the Jewish account, as any way a part of, or subservient to the Ceremonial Law? Or is it oppressive, and unreasonable (as some complain) seeing it is the equitable way, which the wisdom of God once appointed, for his Minister's maintenance? Is not here a sufficient bottom, for any man's spirit to rest upon, in relation to Tithes? But if this were not enough,  
2 None can deny, that men may give away, and perpetually bequeath to others, the tenth part of the profits of their goods, lands, and inheritances. If any man of Mr. P's. Congregation, should bequeath to him and his Successors, the future Pastors of that Congregation, the tenth part of his own proper revenues for ever; might not he, and his Successors lawfully claim and enjoy it? would not their title be good to it? Now thus it is, in the case of Ministers claiming, and taking Tithes in England; as is sufficiently known, to any that know any thing to purpose, in this matter. The first Monarches of this Nation, when all the Lands in England were their Demesn, demised the Tenth of all the profits of them, to the Ministers of holy things. I shall here transcribe something of what is unquestionably recorded about it.  

Mr. Treleyny of Tithes, p. 13 etc.  Tithes are legally the Ministers own, not given to him by the Subject, as is now pretended, but paid unto him, as a rent-charge laid upon the land; and that before the subject, either Lord, or Tenant, had any thing to do in the Land at all. It appeareth (saith Sir Edward Coke) by the Laws and Ordinances of ancient Kings, and especially of King Alfred, that the first King of this Realm, had all the Lands of England in Demesne. And at this time it was, when all the lands of England were the Kings Demesne, that Ethelwolph, the second Monarch of the Saxon race (his Father Egbert being the first which brought the former Heptarchy under one sole Prince) conferred the Tithes, of all the Kingdom, upon the Church, by his Royal Charter. King Ethelwolph (saith Ingulph) with the consent of his Prelates and Princes, which ruled in England under him, in their several Provinces, did first enrich the Church of England, with the Tithes of all his Lands and Goods, by his Charter Royal. He gave (saith Ethelward) the Tithe of his possessions, for the Lords own portion, and ordered it to be so in all parts of the Kingdom. He discharged (saith Florence of Worcester) the tenth part of his Realm, of all tributes and services due unto the Crown, and by his perpetual Charter, offered it to the three-one God. The Charter makes it evident, that the King did not only give, de facto, the Tithe, or tenth part of his whole Realm, to the use of the Clergy, but that he had a right, and a power to do it; as being, not only the Lord Paramount, but the Proprietary of the whole Lands; The Lords and great men of the Realm, not having then a property, or estates of permanency, but as accomptants to the King, whose the whole Land was. And this appears yet further, by a Law of King Athelstanes, made in the year 930. about which time not only the Prelates of the Church, as formerly, but the great men of the Realm, began to be settled in estates of permanency, and to claim a property in those Lands which they held of the Crown, and claiming so, begun it seems, to make bold to subduct their Tithes. For remedy whereof, the King made this Law, commanding all his Ministers, throughout the Kingdom, that in the first place, they should pay the Tithes of his own estate (which he held in his own hands, and had not estated out to his Lords and Barons) and that the Bishops did the like of what they held in right of their Churches, and his Nobles and Officers of that which they held in property, as their own possessions, or inheritance. So then, the Land being charged thus with the payment of Tithes, came with this clog unto the Lords, and great men of the Realm, and hath been so transmitted, and passed over, from one hand to another, until it came to the possession of the present owners; who, whatsoever right they have to the other nine parts, either of Fee-simple, Lease, or Copy, have certainly none at all in the Tithe or tenth, which is no more theirs, or to be so thought of, than the other nine parts are the Clergies. For in whatsoever tenure they hold their Lands, they purchased them, on this tacit condition, that besides the Rents and Services they pay to the Lord, they are to pay to the Clergy, or those who succeed in their right, a tenth of all the fruits of the earth, and of the fruits of their , and all Creatures tytheable.  
And, by how many Acts of Parliament, Tithes have been confirmed to the Clergy on this account, in the reigns of several of our Princes, unto this day; appears fully in the Treatises of learned Lawyers, as also what care hath been taken, for the true payment of them.  
These things considered, it is evident, that by Donation, the Ministry of England hath as good a civil right to the Tithes, as any other persons have to the other nine parts possessed by them. And I fear therefore, that many of those who are now so hot for the abolishing of Tithes, would soon labour, if they had power in their hands, to extinguish Landlords Rents also.  
Thus, Tithes are made over and held, may be claimed, and aught to be paid, on the account of the Magistrates lawful appointment, determination, and Laws, and the right of ancient Donation in England. And these two grounds, well-considered, are sufficient to satisfy any man, that there is no need to take them away, though the Divine right of them should not be made good. Sufficeth, there is a firm civil right for them. But yet, because Mr. P. is so confident, and peremptory, in denying and opposing the Divine right of Tithes (though, as his manner is, he answers not the many and weighty arguments, urged by no mean Divines, and Masters of reason for it) I shall view what he saith to that plea. Consider we then, that,  
3 Some plead for Tithes, upon the account of Divine right; alleging, that this way of Ministers maintenance, by Tithes, was appointed by God before the Law, and under the Law, and is not repealed, or any other substituted in its room, by the Gospel. And that therefore, Tithes are due by a Moral, and perpetually binding Law of God.  
What says Mr. P. to this? It is an Old-Testament maintenance. Be it so, this is that is pleaded. The older the better, as to evidence, if it be not repealed. The Sabbath is an Old-Testament Ordinance, and hath no New-Testament Law, expressed, to establish it; will he therefore say, away with the Sabbath? What saith he to the repeal of Tythe-maintenance? It seems to me, plainly distinguished, from the New-Testament maintenance, in that, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Plainly! Every man hath not so good eyes as Mr. P. I see not the least appearance of any such thing, in that text. 'Tis well he says, to me plainly; for I dare engage, upon my little reading, that no Expositor of note, did ever see any such thing, in this Scripture, much less see it plainly. Some of them have thought, they have seen the contrary to this notion in it, and have pleaded from the SO, for the Divine right of Tithes: but none that I know of, did ever behold the maintenances plainly, or indeed at all, distinguished in it. This sharpness of sight, Mr. P. shall carry away the glory of. Well, but he will make us see it. Behold we then. 'Tis plain, (says he) he argues a Simili, from the like, and like is not the same. Now, it is plain to me, that Mr. P. understands not the text, and that he abuseth Logic; though not out of ill will to it, I suppose. The Logic is too too bad, even for a Midsummer Bachelaur. For the axiom, as used by him, hath a gross fallacy in it, A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. It is true, that like is not, cannot be, the same Numerically, but it may be the same Specifically, and is; and, if Mr. P. had been better acquainted with Aristotle, he might have known so much. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 10. E●. c. 3.  Like things are not the same simply, but they are the same as to species, or kind.  
Suppose then, the Apostle to argue from the like, when he argues for a Gospel-maintenance, from the consideration of the maintenance had under the Law; doth it follow, he must mean another kind of maintenance, by that which he pleads for? Are not Tithes paid under the Law, and Tithes paid under the Gospel, alike, as Tithes paid? and yet, are not they the same, as they are one kind of maintenance? May not Mr. P's Successor in his Church, have such a maintenance as he hath, a maintenance like his, and yet the same kind of maintenance?  
But, if Mr. P's Logic were as good as it is bad, yet he hath no footing in the Text for his arguing, he plainly misunderstands it. For the context, compared with the text, evinceth, that the Apostles aim and scope is not to compare the maintenances as to their peculiar kind, but to prove that maintenance is due to Gospel Ministers for their work, as well as it was to legal Ministers for theirs. A maintenance these had, whereby they did live, and had a subsistence suitable to their condition, as Ministers of holy things; and a maintenance thus sufficient, whereby they may live as Gospel Ministers, he argues those aught to have, by the Lord's Ordinance. He that ordained, that Legal Ministers should have a sufficient and honourable maintenance, hath also, yea and therein, ordained that Gospel Ministers should have such a maintenance. God's Ordinance in this respect reacheth the one as well as the other, and is accordingly applied by the Apostle, to all Ministers of holy things as one in this thing, vers. 10. For our sakes no doubt this is written, that is, for the sakes of all Ministers of holy things. God would have them subsist, by a sufficient and honourable maintenance. Thus this plain text is plainly nothing to his purpose.  
But, he hath more than one string to his bow. Next comes an Argument, that he thinks will do the deed. The sum of it is this. Tithes are paid, neither by the light of Nature, nor by a Moral command; for the instances of Abraham's and jacob's paying Tithes will not evidence so much; for Circumcision was of the Fathers, and yet obliged to keep the whole Law; and Sacrifices were as old as Cain and Abel, yet part of the Ceremonial Law. Again, no Gospel-Law is inconsistent with a Natural or Moral Law; but the institution of our Saviour for maintenance, explained Gal. 6.6. will not stand with Tithes. Therefore they are paid by a Ceremonial precept, and belong to the Ceremonial Law, which to practice is to dig Christ out of his Grave, and a character of Antichrist.  
Strange confidence this, to build so peremptorily, so deep, so censuring a conclusion, on such slenderly-proved premises. Two Reasons he hath here, why Tithes are not paid by a Moral command, which pretend to overthrow two of those, whereby they that are for the Divine right of them, assert that they depend upon a Moral command.  
1 The instances of Abraham and Jacob will not serve the turn for it. And why I pray? We know, the Priesthood to which Abraham paid was not Ceremonial, and no Scripture tells us, his payment was a branch of the Ceremonial Law. The portion due to Melchisedecks' Priesthood, is due to the Priesthood of Christ, it being after the order of his; and so to Gospel Ministers, as Christ's servants. If therefore Abraham in duty paid Tithes before the Law, to Melchisedecks Priesthood, are they not now to be paid, to the Priesthood of Christ, and received by his Ministers? No, saith Mr. P. for Circumcision and Sacrifices were before the Law, and yet did belong to the Ceremonial Law, and are abolished. What a wonderful confutation is this? For, (besides that he saith nothing, to what is commonly alleged concerning Melchisedecks Priesthood, when that instance is urged) doth it follow, that because Circumcision and Sacrifices, that were before and under the Law, are abolished, that therefore Tithes, that were so, are abolished also? certainly by no Logic but Mr. P's. For the two former we have express Scriptures, declaring that they are abolished, but not so for the latter. It is not every thing that was appointed before the Law, and continued under the Law, and was not explicitly recommanded by the Gospel, that is abolished (for so the Sabbath itself should be abolished) but, what the declared will of God hath abolished. Therefore Mr. P. hath but confirmed the opposite argument. Abraham paid Tithes by command; Mr. P. denies it not. That command is not expressly and explicitly repealed, as are those for Circumcision and Sacrifices; Mr. P. doth not show, or say that it is. What hinders then, but that it should be looked upon as a Moral and perpetually binding command? It must be his second Reason, if any thing, for his first says, it is not in me.  
2 The Assumption (says he) is manifest, because no Law appointed in the Gospel, is inconsistent with a Natural or Moral Law of God: But the institution of our Saviour, explained Gal. 6.6. will not stand with Tithes; these are out of the seed of the land, the first fruit of the trees, and the herd, or flock; The Gospel-maintenance, is raised out of all good things, that the person taught hath. Tithes were paid, the first tenth to the Levites, and they paid the tenth of the tenth to the Priests, etc.  
This Reason is Mr. hooker's, and (saving the reverence due to so worthy a man) may justly be said, to have no cogency at all in it. Tithes may very well consist with Christ's institution, for Minister's maintenance, as explained, Gal. 6.6. For 1 Suppose this expression of the Apostle, in all good things, be as comprehensive, as Mr. Hooker would have it: Yet, it appears not, but that under the Law Tithes were so paid. No places in the Law of Moses, that mention Predial Tithes, do restrain the payment to them, excluding personal Tithes. The Law mentions the chief, and comprehends under them the rest; as may appear, by considering, that neither grass, nor honey, nor wax, nor several other things, that might be mentioned, are referrible to any of the mentioned expressions, being neither of the seed of the Land, nor the fruit of Trees, nor of the herd, or flock, which yet, no man doubts, I suppose, but were tithed. Therefore, Mr. Hooker, could not on sufficient ground say, that the Tithes under the law, were not of all good things, even in his sense. Nay, there is as express a place, to prove that Tithes under the Law, were paid of all good things, as this Gal. 6. is for the communicating maintenance out of them, under the Gospel, which is Luke 18.12. I give Tithes (says the Pharisee) of all that I possess. Is not, all that I possess, as fully expressive, as, all good things? 2 May not Gal. 6. mean suitably to the Law? In all good things, that is, in all things communicable, and whereof a portion was to be communicated to Ministers, under the Law. If it must be understood in a limited sense (as who can doubt but it must, in relation to many particulars) where shall we have a rule to limit it, and bound it, but the practice under the Law?  
3 What ever becomes of the Tithe under the Law, we are sure, we can match this expression, in Gal. 6. with those, whereby Abraham's and Jacob's paying of Tithes, before the Law (which is firstly to be heeded in this business) is set forth.  
Of Abraham, it is said, Gen. 14.20. He gave him Tithes of ALICE, spoils and all, Heb. 7.4. And says Jacob, Gen. 28.22. Of ALL that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth unto thee.  
Where lies the Reason now, why the Institution of Christ for Minister's maintenance, should not stand with Tithes? That requireth, men should communicate to Ministers, in all good things, and herein it is answerable to the Law of Tithes, for Abraham before the Law, gave tithes to Melchisedeck of all, and Jacob Tithes to God of all, and persons under the Law (as appears by that of the Pharisee) gave tithes of all that they possessed; and these, cannot but be deemed, to have acted therein according to God's Ordinance.  
As for the other branch of this second reason, that the first tenth was under the Law to the Levite, etc. it speaks nothing at all, for the inconsistency of Tithes with Christ's institution. For, that order and distinction is acknowledged on all hands, to have been Ceremonial, and adventitious to the nature of the maintenance. We must strip the Ordinance of the Sabbath itself, of morality, if we will have no appointment moral, that was attended, under the Law, with something Ceremonial.  
Thus, it may clearly appear, to the considerate Reader, that as yet Mr. P. hath not made his assumption manifest, but rather his weakness; neither of his Reasons holding good. And therefore, consequently, his flourishing conclusion makes but a vainshew. He hath no way proved, that Tithes are paid by a Ceremonial Precept, and belong to the Ceremonial Law. And withal, he hath avoided, or omitted, one great part of his task under such an attempt; n. to prove that, and show how, Tithes 1 were a shadow of Christ, or grace to come by Christ here; in the Law for them, nature of them, proportion in them; 2 Analogically represented heavenly things; which are porperties, that enter into the definition of Legal Levitical ceremonies, from Scripture; and which, I am assured, Mr. P. will never be able to make out concerning Tithes.  
But yet, poor man, he seems to think, he hath done such wonders, in confuting Tithes, that now, if any dare refuse to let them go, yet they will not have, he thinks, the face to take them as, and under the notion of Tithes. And therefore follows, Neither will it avail, for any to say, that they take them not as Tithes; for the Corinthians could not be so excused, as to their eating things sacrificed to Idols, etc. Certainly, there is no cause to fear, from any thing that he hath said, that men, that have duly considered the thing, should betake themselves to that refuge; or to think, they should judge the case of eating things offered to Idols, in the Idols Temple, and the taking of Tithes alike. Alas! what unequal yoking of things is here?  
Nay but, Tithes are Popish, and were sacrificed to Idols, either directly, or interpretatively by Papists. Not Popish sure, in their institution; nor since Christ, owned at first, as the Minister's maintenance, by Papists, or to promote directly, or indirectly, Popery, or Idolatry. Mr. P's reading should have taught him better. Tithes are far Elder than Popery, even in the Christian Church. And however Papists have abused, either Tithes, or Temples, there ariseth hence, no more necessity to forsake them, now that those abuses are renounced, and expelled; than there did to Israel, to abolish their Tithes or Temple, because they were used during the prevalency of Idolatry in that nation, to maintain it.  
But withal, I must mind Mr. P. that as to the Divine right of Tithes, the Papists shake hands with him, for they generally disown it, and dispute against it.  
Now we are reminded of his injunctions hitherto with a caution.  
Away, I say, with all appurtenances of a Parish Church. 
p. 82  Let us not desire the silver and gold of the Idol, lest we be snared, and become an abomination like it, and accursed like it.  
Mr. P. doth well to comprehend himself, and those that are with him in his admonition to avoid that, which he deems to be a curse. But he would do better, since his judgement is thus, if he did more labour to reform at home, what he doth so highly declaim against in others. One lately of his Church, though he weakly renounced his Ordination, yet to his end, would not quit his Tithes. Others of the members of his Church, are Parish-Preachers, and receivers of Tithes. May it not now be queried, upon Mr. P's principles, whether his Church be come out of Babylon, when such brats of Babylon, as he accounts Parish-Ministers, and receivers of Tithes to be, are the main Pillars of it, and are suffered in it, though they live in a practice directly contrary to their Pastor's Doctrine? Or, is it Antichristian in all others, to receive Tithes, but not in the Members of Mr. P's Society?  
But Reader, is it not more strange than this, and matter of wonder, that Mr. POST LETHWAIT himself, who doth so highly inveigh against Tithes, should defile his fingers with the silver and gold of the IDOL, that accursed thing in his judgement? and give an acquittance for Tithes, by the name of TITHES, under his own hand, and that Since he hath appeared in print, in his Pamphlet against Tithes? I can assure thee, it is not more strange than true. Judge now, what heed is to be given to his declamations against us, who take tithes, which we judge we may lawfully receive; whenas, he can allow himself to take them, who professedly condemns them, and accounts them Antichristian.  
I shall presume, to give Mr. P. some advice hereupon, and so close this Section. 1 I beseech him, to make sure, of an actual particular repentance, from that sin against his judgement. 2 I wish him, to study controverted points more throughly, before he adventure, to determine of them so peremptorily. 3 I entreat him to consider, that if his judgement be still the same, concerning Tithes; he should labour, speedily, to his power, to restore that Tythe-money, he hath heretofore received. If it be Babylonish Gold, an accursed thing, gain unjustly gotten, why should it abide in his Tabernacle, to consume both it and him? This he was minded of, by a Parish-Minister, who breaks bread with him; who told him, that by the Principles of his book, he was bound to make restitution, of the Tithes, he had at any time received, to the utmost of his estate. I hear his evasion is, he would make restitution, if he knew to whom. But, doth not he know, that when the right owners of goods unlawfully gotten, cannot be discovered, the Poor are the Heirs, Luke 19.8? Herewith, Mr. P. will do well, to think upon that of Austin, Non aufertur peccatum, nisi restituat rab latum.   

SECT. IX. Concerning the Commissioners for approbation of public Preachers.  
TAke heed, that you set not up Episcopacy again. 
p. 84, 85.  Saints are afraid, what the Commissioners for the trial of Ministers will come to at last. At first, I was pretty well satisfied with the Ordinance for their sitting, save that it is grounded in part, on the defence of Patron's rights and properties. But since, my scruples increase. I know no qualification, that is put on the Patron's presentation, but only to take care to preserve his rights and properties. Again, is there not the same kind of Tyranny exercised over the elections of the people, that was formerly? If the Patron and the Commissioners agree, that brings in a Minister into a Parish, in spite of their hearts.  
I am sorry to find, and it sounds very ill towards him, that Mr. P. who is so scrupulous a man, should in relation to Tithes, as we have seen, and the Commissioners trial, as he tells us here, adventure upon practices, that his scruples condemn; and so act against his Conscience. Surely, this no way becomes such a Reformer, and must needs lay a great block, in the way of his endeavoured reclaiming of those, whom he accounts to be in Babylon. Though he was in part satisfied concerning the Commissioners, yet he tells us, he was not satisfied in them, in that the Ordinance for their si●ting, is grounded on the defence of Patron's rights and properties. Now Patrons, being in Mr. P's apprehension, so great an abomination as he doth express; and Tithes, which by their approving of him, he had power to receive, and did receive, being in his account an accursed thing: It must needs be that he sinned against his Conscience, in addressing himself to them, and in procuring them, to gratify him, with some of the gold and silver of the Idol. Should our professed Principles, and apparent practices thus jar, how ill should we hear from Mr. P? Surely, whatever Saints of his way are afraid of, Saints of ours see cause to fear, that he is not a man of such a tender conscience, as he makes show of.  
He fears, the Commissioners will set up Episcopacy again, though none of them are of the Episcopal judgement, and many of them favour the Congregational way. So he fears, with Mr. Ellis (p. 95.) that Popery rective, will follow upon Presbytery; though the experience of Protestant reform Churches, that have exercised this Government for above a hundred years together, and are as fare from Popery rective, as at the first, forbidden this fear. But indeed (if men must speak their fears) I fear rather, that those of his rigid way of separation, will bring in Popery again. Rective they may, for Doctrinal they have; it hath already crept in, at the back door of their Democratical Government, and is too frequently found in many Societies of highflown Sectaries, that have swarmed out of their hives.  
But, since Mr. P. is so scrupulo and fear full, I wonder he made no scruple, and did not fear (which is a further sad evidence against the tenderness of his Conscience) to charge, most falsely, the Protector and Council, in saying, That there is no qualification put on the presentation of the Patron, but only care taken, to preserve his rights and properties. For, Mr. P. cannot but know, that the Ordinance takes care, that the person presented by any Patron to a living, should be a meet man to preach the Gospel; which to evidence that he is, he must have a Testimonial, under the hands of godly Ministers and others, touching his unblameable life and conversation, from their personal knowledge of him; which, when the Commissioners have received, they are to make trial of the grace of God in him, of his knowledge, utterance, ability, and fitness to preach the Gospel. And unless these evidences, concur so sufficiently, that they can approve of him; no Patron's presentation can avail any man; his right and property signifies nothing, as to the instating of such a person in any Living. Mr. P. may therefore consider, whether he hath not here sinned against that Scripture, Exodus 22.28.  
It also appears, how unjust his Charge is, of Tyranny exercised in this business. It is well known (not to speak now to his fancy, of the necessity of the people's election, to which, and to presentations, something hath been said, Sect. 7) that Patrons are generally easily prevailed with by the People, to present any fit man they shall desire; and that in case an unfit person be presented, people may object against him to the Commissioners, and obstruct his passing, if they have matter of weight against him; and in case a presented Minister prove insufficient, or scandalous, people know how and where to be freed from him. Unjust therefore is his Charge, and rankly uncharitable is that speech, that if the Patron and Commissioners agree, that brings in a Minister in spite of the people's hearts; As if, whatever reasons the people show against it, the Commissioners would do it right or wrong. I hearty wish, Mr. P. may have grace, to learn more modesty, charity, and truth, than these, and many other passages in his Treatise, manifest him to have. He now concludes his Injunctions thus.  
I know, the great Objection against what hath been said is, that Ministers will want their certainty. But for all this, 
p. 83.  they that trust in the Lord, will say, cast up, take away the stumbling-block, and that with a great deal of fervour. I have refused livings, when I might have had them, and laid them down, when God called for them. Vincat veritas, ruat coelum.  
What a bitter insinuation is here? that those Ministers, that cast not up their Tithes, and standing, and turn not Feakish Independents, as Mr. P. hath done; are persons, that do not trust in the Lord: and that they are convinced of the unlawfulness of their maintenance and standing, but will not renounce them, for fear of wanting their certainty. How hardly doth Mr. P. judge, of those that are not of his way? But there are some, not only of his way in the main, but also of his Church, who are Parish-Ministers, and receivers of Tithes, and who will not, with Mr. P. cry, Cast up, take away Tithes; unless they be first well assured, of a settled maintenance another way. And will Mr. P. say of these, that they trust not the Lord, and that fear of wanting a certainty, makes them act against their consciences? If so, having persisted in it after admonitions, why communicates he with them? If not, but he judgeth otherwise of them; how is it true which he saith, that those that trust in the Lord will cry, cast up.  
What Live Mr. P. hath refused, I know not; but as forward as he is, in trumpeting out hereby his Self-denial: so forward, I think, he is bound in conscience to be, to make restitution of the silver and gold of the Idol (as he phraseth it) which he hath received, ever since he first took upon him to preach. Let him hereby manifest his fervour, in saying cast up; and, that he spoke from his heart, when he said, Let truth prevail though the sky should fall. But I fear the sky will fall, as soon as he do it.   

SECT. 10. Of Mr. P's Counsels, and direction for Reformation.  
IN his 89. & 90. page, he subjoins to his injunctions to the Magistrate, an exhortation to all, to come out of (Babylon that is, in his sense) Reformed Churches. And to this end, makes use of his old unworthy Art, of abusing Authors. The greatest part of those pages, being a citing of some passages, out of Diodati, and Calvin, (Minister in the Protestant Church at Geneva) intended against Rome, as separated from by that, and all other Protestant Churches: and wresting them, to carry on his exhortation to separation, from those separating Protestant Churches. This is a way of abusing Protestant writers, whereby Mr. P. outstrips the very Papists themselves; who, though they be their sworn enemies, yet never had such a foreheadlesse impudence, as to abuse them in this kind.  
His Directions follow.  
1 Reform not only substance, but circumstance; hate the garment spotted by the flesh, 
p. 91.  etc.  
Here is nothing but unkind insinuations, that we labour not so to do, the contrary to which hath been evinced. I wish rigid Separatists, had the substance of Religion well reform among them, and did not look more after Circumstances, than it; and that Mr. P. whilst he is so zealous about Circumstances, close not in with those of them, that have embraced Popish opinions and doctrines, and so pervert the substance. But what Circumstances, inconsistent with the word, do we retain? Mr. P. mentions none here. Si accusare sat est, quis erit innocens?  
2 Take away, not only Idolatrous notions, but the things. God (say those Reverend Lights, 
p. 92.  Dod and Cleaver) in Deut. 7.25. forbids the Israelites to covet, or touch the plate of Idols, covered with gold and silver, l●st it should make them remember the Idol, and so Worship it. So, we must lay aside, all superstitious things and actions.  
I suppose, he strikes here at our Parish-Churches, Tithes, and Temples, which have been abundantly proved to be no Idolatrous things; and which, those pious writers, never thought of, when they wrote this; or imagined, that any man would be so unreasonable, as thus to misapply, and abuse their expressions. But it is observable, that Mr. P. who calls them Reverend lights, and hath thus flowers at hand, 
See whom this resembleth, Matth. 23.29, 30, 31.  to strew upon the hearses of these dead Ministers, would, notwithstanding, have the Living lights of our Churches, who are men of the same Principles, in matters of faith and discipline, put under a bushel; and laid aside as broken vessels, of no farther use in the Church of God.  
Mr. P. may remember time, place, and company, when, where, and in which he thus expressed himself. I profess, were I a man in absolute authority, I would make SCAVINGERS, of all the Parish-Priests in England, to clean the ways, or rake the dunghills. Reader, art thou not amazed? Truly, though I cannot sometimes, but answer him according to his folly; my soul mourns for him, and I fear, God will severely visit, these murderous intentions, desires, and expressions upon him. How sad is it, that such thoughts of heart, should be found, and manifested to be in him, in relation to many as worthy, dear, & painful Servants of the Lord, as are this day in the world; only because, they close not with his apprehensions, and differ from Congregatinal men, in matters of discipline? Certainly, we may judge by this, that we should have a sad Reformation, were it referred to Mr. P's will. The gravest, holiest, and most painful Parish-Ministers, would be accounted Idolatrous things; and so taken away according to his Direction. How well is it for England, that God hath given him no more power in it?  
As for the mentioned Comment, we readily assent to it, and it toucheth us not. We have showed, that our Churches, Maintenance, Temples, cannot be proved to be Idols, or Idolatrous. But Mr. P. must be again minded, that though it was not lawful for the Israelites to convert the silver and gold, of the Canaanitish Idols, to their own private use: yet, they were not forbidden, to convert it to the use of the house of the Lord. And there is a command for it, Josh. 6.18, 19.24. It was an accursed thing, if they took it to their own private use; But being brought into, and bestowed upon the house of God, it was holy to the Lord. And so, answerably now, Places, and Things, however idolatrously used heretofore, being consecrated to God, and employed in his service, and for his worship, do no more remain Idolatrous.  

p. 93  3 Return, NOT only to the true object of worship, but to the right means, that are instituted in the word of God.  
Understands not Mr. P. what the right means of God's worship are? or doth he knowingly, and falsely, accuse his Christian Brethren? Prayer, Preaching, Singing of Psalms, administration of the Sacraments, these are the principal means of God's Worship, and have we not these in our Congregations? But Mr. P. doth, I suppose, apprehend Discipline, and a form of Church-Government, to contain virtually all the means of worship. But surely, Church-government is no means of worship; though it be a means, to preserve the Ordinances of God free from pollution. And, as to Church-Government, I suppose, and believe, to have proved in this Treatise, that that which we plead for, is agreeable to the Divine pattern, and the Independent not so. That 2 Cor. 11.3, 4. is misapplied by him. The Apostle speaks not there of Church-Discipline, but of Fundamental Christian doctrines.   

SECT. 11. Of the Call of our Ministers.  

p. 94  LAstly, beware of Antichrists Brokers, and buy nothing of him at second hand.  
This man's modesty, is pleased to call as pious, able, and successful a Ministry, as the Christian world hath, Antichrists Brokers. And why so? Our Ordination is that which will not down with him, it is from Rome, and therefore we are Antichrists Brokers and Antichristian.  
For answer, I conceive, that this Objection and charge, may be two ways taken off. I shall propound them, and leave them with the judicious Reader.  

Jus. Diu. Min. Angl. p. 33, etc.  1 The common Answer, which is that that is in particular laid down, improved and urged, by the Reverend Provincial Assembly of London, is, that, Our Ordination and Ministry, is descended to us from Christ, and his Apostles, and the primitive Churches; through, but not from, the Apostate Church of Rome; And, that the receiving of our Ministry thus through Rome, makes it no more null and void, than the receiving the Scriptures, Sacraments, or any other Ordinance of God, through Antichristian Rome, doth make them null and void. Nay, that it is a great strengthening to our Ministry, that it appears hereby derived to us, from Christ and his Apostles, by the succession of a Ministry continued for 1600. years. And that, we have not only a lineal succession, from Christ and his Apostles, but also a Doctrinal succession, which is more, etc. So much they have said, in vindication of our Ministry from Antichristianism, as I am confident can never be fairly answered.  
Mr. P. as his manner is in other points, takes no notice of what they, or others have said, in this argument; But cries out, Antichristian Ministers, Antichrists Brokers, etc. How easy is it, but how unreasonable, and absurd, thus to keep fresh, and renew charges, without removing the answers, that have taken them off? And upon what ground, can men that act so, expect that any notice be taken of what they say? But one good turn is, that Mr. P. in this charging book, answers himself; and says, that which doth in effect establish the mentioned Plea, for the validity of our Ordination and Ministry. When Ordinances (saith he, page 53.) are but circumstantially corrupted, we cannot reject them, no more, than the Israelites could reject the Ark, because it was carried, in a Cart of the Philistims making. And he instanceth in Baptism; in which though much were added, as Anointing, Crossing, etc. yet the essentials were retained, whilst it always was administered by washing, sprinkling, or dipping in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Let any man now apply this to our Ordination and Ministry, and see whether it will not fit them, as well as Baptism. The essentials of Ordination, have been always retained; Ministers being ordained by Ministers of the Gospel, with Prayer, and imposition of hands, according to Christ's institution, Act. 13.1, 2, 3. 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. Therefore though some Circumstantial Corruptions, cleaved to our Ordination received through Rome; yet according to Mr. P's own conclusion, we may not renounce it. Neither can he say any thing, against the validity of Ordination so received, which will not equally strike at Baptism, received through Rome also.  
Our Ministers are no more Antichristian Ministers, or Antichrists Brokers, because they received their Ordination through Rome; than those that have undergone the Ordinance of Baptism among us, and Mr. P. among them are Antichrists Christians, or Antichristian baptised persons, because the Ordinance came to them through Rome. We must (saith he) own our Baptism received in the Church of Rome; and is there not as much ground to say, we must own our Ordination received in the Church of Rome? Especially in England, which had a true and pure Ministry in primitive times (as the Congregational Brethren confess.) Now this Ministry, for the Essentialness of it, hath been derived successively to our times, wherein it is purged from those corruptions, that did, during the prevalency of Popery, cleave unto it. And our Ministry thus derived, can no more be called an Antichristian Ministry, than the Ministry and Priesthood of those Priests under the Law, that were consecrated during the prevalency of Idolatrey in that Church, or of those that succeeded them; could be called, when the service of the Lord was restored in purity, and they attended upon it, a Heathen Ministry or Priesthood.  
2 Though I account that answer good and strong, and believe, that our accusers will never be able to remove it: Yet, I conceive, we need not grant them so much, as that our Ministry is descended to us through Rome. The Congregational Brethren say, some of them, that we are Antichristian Ministers, because we received our Ordination from Rome. Papists say, we are not Christian Ministers, because we do not receive our Ordination from Rome. Well, let those two parties dispute it out. We need not trouble ourselves with the controversy. We may assert the Christianity of our Ministry, upon another account, which is this,  
The Ministers of the Protestant Reformed Churches, have their Doctrinal, and Lineal Succession, from the hands of Christ and his Apostles, FROM and THROUGH the hands, of the witnesses prophesying in Sackcloth, during Antichrists reign. To evidence this, let it be considered,  
1 That there have been true Churches of Christ in the World, yea in the territories and Nations where Antichrist hath prevailed, more or fewer, all along the time of his reign, to this last age; maintaining the profession, and Ordinances of the Gospel of Christ, in opposition to his corruptions, though he hath persecuted and sought to destroy them for it. And among these, those of Bohemia, and the Waldenses, and Albigenses, are famously known to have continued a long while. Enemies themselves, acknowledge concerning these last, that in all likelihood they had their beginning, though possibly under other names, near the time of the Apostles.  
2 That in these Churches, considered in their order of time, there was both a Doctrinal, and lineal succession, from Christ and his Apostles, unto the rise of the Churches, called Protestant.  
3 That the Protestant Reformers, and the Churches that withdrew with them from Rome, did own the same fundamental truths, in Doctrine and Discipline, that those did; as sufficiently appears by the History of the Waldenses, and the conferences that passed, between the Protestant Reformers and them about it.  
4 That although (whereas it is certain, that the Waldenses being by persecution scattered, did sow the seeds of the true religion in sundry Countries, where afterwards Protestant Churches were established, which did lay a groundwork for their arising) we have not much evidence, of the Protestant Ministers receiving Ordination, from their Ministers: yet, we are assured from the Histories of those times, that there was a very cheerful, and unanimous consent, between those Waldensian Churches, and the Protestant Churches; and a full concurring, in matters of Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Ministry; as also there was, for the main, between the Protestant Churches beyond the Seas, and ours, afterwards, in England, in their time of Reformation.  
Now, in cases so extraordinary, as those of the Protestant Churches in their first rising were; the right hand of fellowship, (which some of the Congregational Brethren, judge in ordinary cases sufficient) being given in effect, to the Ministry of beyond-sea Protestant Churches, by the Ministry of those former Churches; and to the Ministry of our Churches, by the Ministry of those Protestant Churches; may well be thought enough, to supply the want, and stand in the room, of formal Ordination from them. And this Ministry of Protestant Churches, received from Christ, through the Witnesses prophesying in Sackcloth, hath been since continued by formal Ordination, both beyond Seas and among us; as that, which in fixed Churches, and where it may be had completely, is of necessity, according to the rule of the Word, to be maintained and used formally, for the continuation of a Gospel Ministry.   

SECT. 12. A Question discussed, Whether any unordained persons among us are lawful and complete Ministers of the Gospel. With, An Answer to the six Arguments for Popular Ordination, brought by the Answerers of Jus Diu. Min. Evangelici, in their Book called, The Preacher sent.  
Whilst Mr. P. and the Congregational Brethren of his form, are so forward to condemn our Ministry as Antichristian; it will be hard for them, to free their own from that charge. This proposition I will engage to make good;  
Those Preachers, that are either not at all Ordained, or are ordained only by the People, when they might have been, and might be ordained by a Presbytery of preaching Elders: either they are no Ministers at all, or their Ministry is more liable to the charge of Antichristianism, than the Ministry of any of the Protestant Churches.  
For proof hereof let it be considered, that as Ordination is by the Word rendered necessary, when it may be had, for the constituting of a Gospel-Ministry: so there is no rule, for any other way of Ordination of Ministers left us, in the Word of God, neither by command, nor yet by example, but only by a Presbytery of preaching Elders, either extraordinary, or ordinary, or mixed. By a Presbytery of preaching Elders, was Ordination always conferred in Primitive times, on the Officers of the Church. All the texts that speak of Ordination, will bear witness to this truth, Acts 6.6. Acts 13.1, 2, 3. Acts 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. 2 Tim. 1.6. Tit. 1.5. Church-officers extraordinary, or ordinary, are the persons ordaining in all these places. There cannot be one text of Scripture produced, so much as for the concurrence of private Believers, with Officers extraordinary or ordinary, in the act of ordaining any, though the lowest Officer in the Church. Therefore, the London Ministers assertion holds good, Ordination of Ministers by the People, is a perverting of the Ordinance of God; and of no more force than Baptism administered by a Midwife, or the consecration of the Elements in the Lord's Supper by a person out of office. And, since Ordination of Ministers, by Ministers of the Gospel, is the only way of ordination warranted in the Word, as the former texts prove: then, Ordination of Ministers by the People must needs be an Antichristian way of Ordination, because it wholly crosseth Christ's rules for Ordination, given us in the New Testament.  
What is pleaded, for unordained persons assuming the holy Office of the Ministry, may be easily answered.  
1 Many of them, are gifted for the Ministry.  
Ans. 1. But who hath made trial of their abilities? That they should be their own Judges, in this case, is unreasonable; that People ordinarily are not able to judge of their gifts, is certain. Who so meet to judge of their fitness, as Ministers? and is not this work appropriated to them? 1 Tim. 3.2, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15. compared, & 5.22?  
Ans. 2. Suppose their gifts and qualifications for the Ministry, were proved and approved; yet, Ordination is necessary ordinarily, to invest them into office. The Apostles were endowed with choice abilities, for the work of the Ministry; yet they take not upon them to be Preachers of the Gospel, until they are invested into office by Jesus Christ, Mark 6.7. to 14. So also the seventy Disciples preach not the Gospel, until they have a special Commission from Christ, Luk. 10.1. to 12. Timothy, and Titus, must have sufficient proof of men's abilities, and qualifications for the Ministry, and then such persons must be invested with Office, by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. This is God's way, and in it those that would serve him should desire to be found. Wheresoever (saith Calvin) there is a Church of God, 
In Jer. 23.21  it hath its Laws and certain Rules of Government; and there, no man ought to thrust himself into the work of the Ministry, although he should equal all the Angels in holiness. How God hath born witness against such persons, as have boldly thrust themselves into this holy Office, without a lawful call and investiture; (as he did against Uzziah, 2 Chro- 26.19, 20) who, though many of them were before reputed sober and Orthodox Christians, yet soon after have been given up to believe a lie, and are become instruments to draw off others, into the erroneous and crooked paths of Socinianism, Arminianism, Papism, Quakism, Atheism, is most sad to consider. From such Prophets as these, is profaneness gone forth into the Land.  
2 They are not only gifted, but they find in themselves a strong inclination, and desire to preach the Gospel, that they may win souls to God. Therefore they may take upon them the Ministry.  
Ans. What Anabaptist, Arminian, Quaker, may not thus plead? And indeed, in the Schools of Arminians, and Anabaptists, was this Doctrine tending to confusion, and all error hatched. The Remonstrants judge it lawful for any one to preach the Word, 
Episcop. Thes. private. Disp. 26. Thes. 5. Zanch. in Precept. 4.  if he be fit to teach, and the People desire it; and the Anabaptists in Zanchy's time, thought it lawful for any man to take upon him the Ministry, if he thought he had the call of the Spirit. Those that desire to win Souls to God, aught to desire, if they are fit for it, to be invested with office in the way of Christ, by a lawful Ordination, by a Presbytery of preaching Elders.  
What is pleaded for Popular Ordination, comes now to be considered. The Answerers of Jus Diu. Min. Evangelici, lay down this proposition. In a Church that hath no Officers in it, some Believers may lawfully, and warrantably Ordain without Officers.  

The Preacher sent, p. 323. to p. 330,  This they endeavour to prove, by six Arguments.  
Arg. 1. To hold that some Believers may not lawfully and warrantably ordain Officers, in a Church that hath none in it, would necessarily and unavoidably infer, Ordination to be in such a case unattainable; therefore it is contrary to sound Doctrine, and not to be asserted. For the Antecedent, they say, There are no Officers on earth, authorized or appointed by Christ, to Ordain (in case a Church hath no Officers in it) any more than Believers without Officers. In regard, the special rules and examples left in the Gospel, about Ordination, give no more warrant to Officers to ordain, in such a Church, than Believers without them. For, either they were extraordinary Officers that ordained, or had an extraordinary Call to ordain. There is no precept for, or example of any ordinary Officer, acting in Ordination (out of the particular Church he is over) upon any ordinary call, in any one text.  
Ans. This Argument is built upon a false Hypothesis, That the Churches of the Gospel are Congregational only, which I have disproved before. Were our Churches generally conformed to the Gospel-pattern, divers single Congregatious being united in one complete Church, after the constitution of the Church of Jerusalem, Corinth, Rome, the Churches of Asia, etc. this case would hardly fall out that is mentioned. For, though the Officers of a single Congregation might fail, yet there would still be a sufficient Presbytery left in that Presbyterial Church, to Ordain others in their room.  
But take the case as it is, these Brethren fall short of proving their Argument; for, 1 Suppose, that all the Officers, mentioned as Ordainers in other Churches in the New Testament, were as to their Office or Call extraordinary: yet, how in-consequent must it needs be that therefore the People may ordain? All the precepts and examples, hold forth the Ordainers to be Church-Officers; none of them give the least hint, of the like power in the people, in any case; therefore, surely this power is restrained to Officers, and denied to the people. That this work belongs to Officers, the Precepts and Examples prove clearly; that it belongs in any one case to the People, let them give us one precept or example. 2 The matter of the Objection, which they pretend to answer, is a sufficient answer to them; That, the extraordinary Officers mentioned, might act in this as ordinary Officers, and so their acting may warrant ordinary Officers in ordaining, even in the case they mention. Officers are appointed to Ordain, the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is required in Ordination, ordained Officers had it in those Primitive times (whose practice is our pattern) though from Ministers, that belonged not in particular to the Congregations for which they were ordained; and, will it not hence follow, that in unpresbyterated Churches, Officers of other Churches are to ordain Ministers? If not, (to retort these brethren's reasoning, and use it more consequently than they do) Ordination will be in such Churches unattainable; for Christ, who hath given expressly power for it to Church-Officers, hath no where given it to the people. Their Medium, will better serve against them, than for them. 3 It is as evident, as that they say sometimes the contrary, that there was then ordination by ordinary Officers. Act. 13.1, 2, 3. speaks of Ordination by ordinary Officers at Antioch, such certainly were many there, and it is a wonder these Brethren should question it; What, no ordinary Officers at Antioch? The Presbytery at Antioch (says the New-England platform) laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas; 
Platform. p. 12.  The Presbytery at Ephesus, upon Timothy an Evangelist. Ordinary Officers laid hands upon the Officers of many Churches. Where there are no Elders, we see not why imposition of hands may not be performed by the Elders of other Churches. Timothy and Titus did ordain with imposition of hands, in Unpresbytered Churches, but they laid not on hands alone, but with a Presbytery, for so had Paul appointed them, as must be confessed, unless (which is groundless and unreasonable) we do suppose Paul's command and directions, to cross his own practice. See 1 Tim. 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6. But, say these Brethren, those Presbyteries had an Extraordinary Call, they acted not in such Ordinations upon an ordinary call. That is easily said, but they would have done well to have proved that their call was extraordinary. They do not do it, they cannot do it.  
'Tis warrant then enough, for Ordination in Unpresbyterated Churches, by Presbyteries, Ministers of other Churches, and against the people's Ordination; that Ordination, is made by the word the work of a Presbytery, and signified to have been performed in such Churches by a Presbytery, which these Brethren cannot prove to have had an extraordinary call to it; and that it is not where made the work of the people, or signified to have been performed in any case by them.  
Argum. 2 In a Church that hath no Officers, either some believers may ordain without Officers, 
Preacher sent. p. 330. to 334.  or else Believers and Officers of other Churches, or else Officers of other Churches only, or else there is no way laid out by Christ, for Ordination in such a case. But Officers of other Churches only, are not appointed; let our Brethren prove it. We have under the former Argument found, that all the Texts that speak about Ordination, intimated, either the Officers that acted in it, or the call to be extraordinary.  
Ans. In such a case, neither may Believers alone, nor Believers and Officers of other Churches jointly, ordain; Because, we have no example in the New-Testament, of the people's concurring with Officers, extraordinary or ordinary, in ordaining any, though the lowest Officer in the Church, much less of their ordaining alone. And therefore, we st●●● retort their argument against them; Either Ordination in the case mentioned, must be the act of Officers of other Churches only: or else, there is no way laid out by Christ for ordination, in such a case. Let them prove, by Precept or Example, that it may be the people's act (affirmanti● incumbit probatio) or else, they jangle to no purpose. They tell us, they have under the former Argument found, that all the Texts that speak about Ordination, intimate the Officers that acted in it, or the Call, to be extraordinary; When as all that they have said, is only, that they might be all extraordinary Teachers in Antioch, and they much question, whether the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. were an ordinary Presbytery, and they might be all extraordinary; and not one word to prove, that if there were any ordinary Officers among them (and who but they think there were not) their Call was extraordinary in this business; which, notwithstanding, was the main thing they should have done.  
They require proof, for the peculiarness of ordaining power, in Officers of other Churches, in the case in hand. We have proved, and do prove it. Ordination is by the Holy Ghost, committed to Church-Officers, and we find them acting in it, and no intimation that the people have any thing to do in it; Therefore to Church Officers alone it belongs, to act in it in all cases, and so in the case in hand.  
Their harping upon the extraordinariness of the Ordainers which the New-Testament mentions, cannot enervate the argument; no not if they could prove, that none but extraordinary Officers ordained, in the places in relation to which Ordination is mentioned, which they can never do: for still it remains, that it is the work of Officers, and put upon and practised by none else: Therefore, if Ordination be to be continued in the Church, after the cessation of extraordinary Officers, it is the work of ordinary Officers, and of none else.  
We read of none, that administered the Lords-Supper, but Extraordinary Officers, the Lord Jesus, and the Apostles, Act. 2. and Paul, Act. 20.11. and the Commission given by Christ (This do,) in the institution of this Ordinance, was given to Extraordinary Officers, even to his Apostles. But, will it hence follow, that the Administration of this Ordinance, belongs not to ordinary Officers, and to them only, now? Yet, by these brethren's way of arguing, this may be as well concluded, as what they do contend for. Their begged supposition, that there is no Scripture-warrant for any other Presbytery, but that only which is in a particular Congregation; and no rule, to justify a Presbyteries putting forth any acts, as a Presbytery, towards any but the particular members of that Congregation, where they are fixed (which is another false hypothesis they build upon) I shall not here consider, having spoken to it in this Treatise.  

Preacher sent. p. 335.  Argum. 3 Some Believers, who are no Officers, may publicly Preach, as we have proved; therefore, some Believers, who are no Officers, may ordain without Officers, in a Church that hath no Officers. For, Scripture doth not evidence, that Ordination is so great work as Preaching, or that it is more limited or restrained to Officers, than preaching is,  
Answ. That Believers, who are no Officers, may publicly and ordinarily Preach, they have not proved: as Reverend Mr. Collings, his late Vindicia Min. Eu. revind. doth abundantly manifest, to which I refer them and the Reader, to see how poorly they have acquitted themselves, under that attempt. All reformed Churches condemn the practice of such persons, as Antiscriptural, that without Ordination, take upon them to be Preachers, in a constituted Church; allowing them to Preach, only for Probation, in order to Ordination desired by them. As for their Argument, and the Reason of it, they are very wild. For, were it granted, that Believers that are no Officers, might ordinarily Preach, yet they themselves will grant, they preach not as Officers. But Ordination they cannot find in Scripture (neither do they say they do) committed to, or performed by any, but Officers; Therefore, it is an act of Office, and so, it no way follows, that if Believers may preach (as no Officers) they may also Ordain. But (say they) Ordination, is not more limited or restrained to Officers, than Preaching. Well, but what Preaching mean they? Extraordinary, occasional, probational preaching, is not so much limited or restrained to Officers, as Ordination; but Authoritative preaching, is as much restrained to them as Ordination, and Ordination as that. But it is not (say they) so great a work as Preaching; therefore, if believers may Preach, they may Ordain. Alas! is the Preaching the Scripture magnifies the preaching of private Believers, or of Officers? certainly their Argument, and their Reason speak not ad idem.  
The Scripture magnifies an authoritative Preaching of the Gospel, by Church-Officers above other acts; These Brethren, speak of the preaching of gifted Brethren out of Office, which is not authoritative; and then tell us they may Ordain, because they may Preach, which is the greater work. How unhandsome is this arguing for men of parts? And if unordained gifted brethren's preaching bee that great work, which the Scripture magnifies, above other Ministerial acts: may they not at well say, such may administer the Sacraments? every whit as well.  
Argum. 4 Some Believers may with Christ's allowance act in other public special Church-works, and such, as that there can be no special reason given, against their ordaining, more than against their doing those other works. Therefore in a Church that hath no Officers they may ordain. Act. 15.2, 22, 23. & 2 Cor. 8.18, 19, 23.  
Answ. If their proposition were true, yet they could gain nothing by it; for it is Reason enough against private Believers Ordaining, that the Holy-Ghost hath expressly put this work upon Officers, and no where upon private Believers. But, they are far from proving what they say. Act. 15.2. speaks in all probability, of the Officers of the Church at Antioch only; read 1, 2, 3. verses. They that determined to send, were those between whom there was no small dissension and disputation. The certain other of them, are some of those Teachers sent with Paul and Barnabas; and they are all distinguished from the Church, as Officers from the people. That they were all Teachers, the 32. verse also evinceth. But, if the Church of Believers, had chosen and sent these their Officers, for this work; will it follow hence, they might put men into Office? Apage. That there were any private Brethren, in the number of the chosen and sent here, let them prove; they cannot.  
The 22. & 23. verses, whence they say, that the brethren acted in the Synod, and therefore Believers may act in ordination (unless we will say, that men may act in making Decrees, in a Synod, that may not ordain) give them no sufficient ground thus to speak, and are much mistaken by them, as by what hath been said, Sect. 5. of this Treatise may appear. The whole Church, may mean that Synodical Church. The Brethren are mentioned, to signify their consent to what was decreed; Yet it cannot be proved, that private Brethren, much less that the whole Church of Jerusalem, were present at the Synod. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (then, vers. 22) can be no way necessitated to signify, immediately upon the conclusion of James his speech; no more than [so when they were dismissed] vers. 30. signifies that the Messengers from Antioch, went away that night. The Decrees might be written out, and the consent of the Church of private Brethren might be had, in due time and place; though not at that particular season. And, though the private Brethren are mentioned, as consenting to the Decrees; yet, as it infers not that there was a necessity of their consent: So doth it not at all prove, that they concurred in making the Decrees, for then, they had been their Decrees. But, as they are not said to come together to consider of this matter, but only the Apostles and Elders, vers. 6. (though it is possible some of them might be there, to hear how it was considered of) So, the Decrees are not called their Decrees, but expressly the Deerees ordained of the Apostles and Elders, Act. 16.4.  
That the Brethren are taken into the inscription of the Letter, is fare from proving, that they concurred in making the Decrees, or had any joint power, with the Apostles and Elders, in imposing them; Because, it is frequent, for the Epistles of the New-Testament, to take into their inscriptions, for Salutation, and by way of consent to what is written, those who cannot be reputed, to have had joint power with the Writer of them; and of whom, all that is spoken, even without limitation, cannot be affirmed, etc. as Gal. 1.2. & 8. and other places.  
These Brethren, therefore, are too too weakly confident, in saying, Either our Brethren must say, that some Believers may ordain; or else, That men may act in making decrees in a Synod, that may not ordain: It is denied them, that private Believers may act in making Decrees in a Synod, and that they did it in that Synod; and they have not proved, nor will ever be able to prove it.  
That other place, 2 Cor. 8.18, 19, 23. helps them not at all neither. For, it doth not appear, that these messengers were any of them private Believers; nor that they were chosen and sent by private Believers; and if they had, what can they infer from hence for private brethren's ordaining? Nothing certainly by all their Logic. Messengers are chosen by the Churches, to carry their contribution to necessitous Brethren, Therefore, they may depute private Believers (to whom Christ never gave power for it) to ordain Ministers. Who sees not the weakness of this consequence? is there any equality, or analogy between these acts?  
Arg. 5. Those that give the essence of the Call to Office, 
Preacher sent. p. 337.  may also give the adjunct. But some Believers without Officers, do give the essence of the call to Office; For Election is that which giveth the essence to the outward call to Office, and that belongeth to a Church (of believers without Officers) Ergo, they may give the adjunct, Ordination.  
Answ. This is another false Hypothesis of theirs, and a main cause of their many mistakes, that Election gives the essence of the call to Office, nay, the whole essence of it, p. 242. and that Ordination is but an adjunct.  
But, because this point is largely discussed, between the Reverend Authors of Jus. Diu. Min. and them; I shall say the less to it.  
1 If Election did give the Essence of the Call to Office, and Ordination were but an adjunct; yet it follows not, that Private believers may ordain. Because, whatever ordination be, Christ hath made it the work of Officers, and no where of the People, as hath been said. Their reasonings will do them no good, without a Precept, or Example.  
2 If Election did give the whole essence of the Call to Office, yet, it follows not that the People's Election alone doth do it. Surely, Ministers have an electing Power also. When Titus is appointed to ordain, to constitute Elders in every City, he is charged to look, that they be such, as were able to convince gainsayers, Tit. 1.5, 9 and that ordinarily, private Believers, yea, Churches of private believers, are not sufficient to judge of, nor any where appointed Judges of it. If then, the Ministers, who are the proper Judges of this, do not approve and choose as such persons, those whom the People choose; the people's choice hath no validity in it, and so doth not constitute them Ministers. In vain should Paul tell Titus, what abilities Elders should be found by him to have, in order to his constituting them in every City; if the people might choose men, whom he judged unable, and their election stand valid.  
3 If Election did give the essence of the Call to the Office of Eldership, yet these Brethren cannot prove from Scripture, that it belongs to private Believers, as giving such a Call. No Scripture, that I know of, giveth power to people, to choose their Elders, so as to give them thereby a Call to Office. They may choose them in order to the exercise of their Ministerial Office among them; but, do not by that choice, confer the Ministerial Office upon them; no nor empower them, to exercise that office among them. The Scriptures commonly urged for it, prove no such thing. For which see Sect. 7. of this book, about the the end. That Ministers have power to choose and set Elders in the Churches, that mentioned place in Titus proves. That People have such an electing power, no Scripture proves. There is some show, of their power to choose Deacons, but not Elders; and that choice, Act. 6. doth not appear to have constituted them such. Besides, there is a great deal of difference between choosing those who are to look to the goods of the Church, and those who are to watch over the souls of the Church, and to rule them in the Lord. The Deacons are the Church's Servants, but Elders their Rulers.  
4 That Ordination gives the essence of the Call to Offfice, the Authors they answer have proved; and will, I suppose, vindicate their proofs from what they have said against them, if they shall find it to be tanti. The very first of them, from the New Testament, is sufficient to conclude this, which is concerning Deacons, an Office inferior to Eldership, Act. 6.3. Look ye out among you (say the Apostles) seven men, whom we may appoint over this business. They cannot be deemed to have had the Essence of the call to Office, till they were appointed to it; the looking of them out, did not appoint them to it; the setting them before the Apostles, did not appoint them to it, for it is whom we (not you) may appoint. Appointed to it they were then, by the Apostles laying of hands on them with prayer. Therefore, the Apostles Ordaining them, with prayer and imposition of hands, gave them the essence of the call to office; and so Ordination gives the essence of the call to office, and is not an adjunct. This Argument then, is fare from proving that people may ordain.  
Arg. 6. If Ordination consisteth in, 
Preacher sent, p. 338, etc.  or be made up of such acts only, as Believers may undoubtedly perform, and these acts be not limited in their use, upon this occasion, to Officers only; then, in a Church which hath no Officers, some believers may lawfully and warrantably ordain without Officers. But, Ordination consisteth, etc. Ergo. The minor they endeavour to prove, by saying, that, The three things belonging to Ordination on the part of the Ordainers, fasting, prayer, imposition of hands, may be all performed by Believers.  
Ans. The minor is exceeding weak. That private believers may join with the Ordainers, in fasting and prayer, none deny, but what is that to the purpose? That Ordination consists in prayer (as they say) we deny, and they can never prove it. It consists in mission, appointing, setting apart; which, Scripture precepts, and examples, teach us do belong to Officers, and no where hints to belong to the People. That private believers may lay on hands on Officers in Ordination, no Scripture proves; Numb. 8.10. is fare from it; for, 1. Nothing can be certainly concluded from Mosaical Ceremonies, for practices under the New Testament, unless they be there opened, and the practices there confirmed, by precept or example; and this might be answer enough. 2. They are told, that those of the People who laid on hands, had a command to do it (their talking of mediate and immediate is to little purpose) but there is no such command, express, or included in the New Testament; And will they say, from that command, that there is now a necessity of the people's laying on hands in Ordination? They must say it if they will make use of this text their way; and than it will follow, there have been none rightly ordained for one thousand six hundred years since Christ. 3. It is clear from this eighth of Numbers, by reading the following verses, that the Levites being taken instead of the firstborn, which were Gods by his appointment, vers. 16, 17, 18. the people, whoever of them they were, did by this Ceremony only declare, that they closed with the Lords appointment, and desired the Levites might according to it, be accepted and taken in the room of the first born; and therefore, they are called, an offering of the children of Israel, vers. 11. they offered them by God's appointment to the Lord, instead of the firstborn, and the laying on of hands was a sign thereof. After this, sacrifices being offered for them, and they offered to the Lord by Aaron and his sons, vers. 12, 13. they were to enter upon their Office, vers. 14, 15. Now, what analogy is there, between the People's offering of the Levites, with imposition of hands, upon such a special reason and account, and but in order to their being constituted Officers, and admitted to the service of the Tabernacle, which they were afterwards by Aaron and his Sons: and the ordaining of Ministers, with impositions of hands by the people, and that without Officers, now under the New Testament, where we have clearly, institution, and example, to declare it to be the Ministers work?  
They proceed to say; None of the texts, which speak of Ordination, limit it to Officers only. Let our brethren prove any such limitation, else private believers may warrantably ordain.  
What Readers, did these Brethren think, their Book would meet with, to urge this reasoning, again and again, as an argument for popular Ordination? They might have considered, how easy the proof is. Either it is limited to Officers only, or committed to others as well as them; But it is not committed to others; therefore it is limited to Officers only. Let them show, by Scripture-precept, or example, out of the New Testament, that it is committed to others; else, private believers Ordaining, must needs remain unwarrantable. Let them show private Believers warrant, as Ministers can theirs. We prove it is committed to Officers, they cannot prove it is committed to others; doth it not then follow that it is limited to Officers only. May they not by their way of reasoning, as well say that Magistrates, as such, may ordain Ministers, because they are not by name excluded? and so screw Erastus his way one pin higher, than ever he durst bring it to? Nay, may they not, by this reasoning, argue that private believers may administer the Sacraments, since no place of Scripture doth express the administration of them to be limited to Officers, by excluding the people from it?  
These brethren's Arguments, then, are not at all conclusive for their purpose. The Holy Ghost hath committed Ordination to Ministers, and no where to the people; for them therefore to act in it, is a gross and very sinful usurpation.  
Hence also it will follow, that people cannot, without sin, own unordained persons, or such as are ordained only by the People, as Ministers of Jesus Christ. As these may be justly charged, to run before they are sent, as those did, Jerem. 23.21. so those may be charged justly, as the Israelites about their Kings, Hos. 8.4. to set up Pastors but not by him, and Ministers but he knew not (approved not) of it.  
Therefore, let such supposed Ministers, be humbled for their rash intrusion, and seek for Ordination at the hands of Gospel-Ministers; And People, who have such Pastors, urge them to it, and upon their refusal and neglect of it, let them know, that they cannot own them as Ministers of Christ.   

SECT. XIII. Containing the Author's humble supplication to those in Authority, for Reformation.  
SInce, notwithstanding the Criminations of the Accuser, whom this Book answereth; and the several charges from others; our Churches remain true Churches of Christ, and need not new making, but reforming; and our Ministry a true Ministry; and that it appears, that such only are lawful Ministers of Jesus Christ, and Ambassadors for him (among us who have a constituted Church,) as have been ordained by a Presbytery of preaching Elders: My humble request to the Magistrates of our Land, is,  
1 That they would improve to their utmost, the power put into their hands, by the King of the Church Jesus Christ, for Reformation in our Churches; by stirring up, and enjoining Ministers, to lay out themselves more fully, for the instructing, admonishing, and reforming, of the flocks committed to them; and people, to receive, yield, and submit, unto their Ministerial labours, and authority, in order to the due use of all the Ordinances of Christ, and such a conversation as becometh the Gospel. And that therefore, they would be pleased, to countenance, and enjoin, the necessary works of Catechising, and private instruction; and, by their authority, to strengthen the hands of Christ's Ministers, in their keeping the Ordinances of Christ, and particularly that of his Supper, from profanation.  
2 That they would take care, that every Congregation, so fare as may be, stand furnished with a Minister of the Gospel, rightly qualified, and invested into office, by Ordination, received from Ministers of the Gospel, according to Christ's institution. Jehosaphat, sent none with his Princes, to teach the People the Law of God, but Levites, and Priests, persons regularly invested with office, 2 Chron. 17.8, 9 The Churches of God, in Primitive times, in after ages, at this day, in Scotland, France, Sweden, Denmark, Helvetia, Germany, the Netherlands, New-England, all the Presbyterian Churches in England, yea of Congregational Churches almost all, do with one consent affirm, that authoritative preaching of the Word, and dispensing of the Sacraments, belong only to a lawfully Ordained Ministry. I beseech our Rulers, in the bowels of Christ, that effectual care be taken, that all our Ministers may be such; that countenance, public places, and public maintenance, be afforded only to such. How should we expect our comforts should be dear to God, if we are not zealous for that, which so nearly concerns his glory?  
3 That they would be pleased, effectually to suppress, to their power, all Blasphemies, Heresies, and Antifundamental Errors; that they may not be written, taught, vented, promoted, to the prejudice of the Truth, trouble of the Church, and endangering the immortal Souls of people; and that men may not have liberty to defame, and every Blatero to rail at, and charge with Antichristianism, the Churches and ways of God, which Protestants have generally owned, and sealed their testimony unto, with the blood of multitudes of Martyrs.  
Then would their light break forth as the morning, and the glory of the Lord would be their rearward.  
Let timid spirits cry out of Lions in the way, and fear, that if there be an owning of thorough Reformation, erroneous and lose persons will be discontented, and ready to join with foreign enemies, to disturb the public peace, and procure the ruin of Church and State. But, let Magistrates, who are the Ministers of God, and bear his Name, zealously go through with the work of the Lord, and expect confidently protection, and a blessing from him in it; setting before them that excellent pattern, Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 17. whose care, and zeal for Reformation, was remarkably owned, and rewarded by God; for, He established the Kingdom in his hand, all Judah brought him presents, and the Philistines and Arabians tribute, he had riches and honour in abundance, and the fear of the Lord fell upon the Kingdoms of the Lands, that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehosaphat. Thus will the Lord reward, Rulers that are zealous for his honour, and against whatsoever strikes at it; And our Supreme Magistrate, and Chief Rulers, may, in the discharge of this work, look for like success.   

SECT. XIV. Of Mr. P's conclusion, abusing that of the Lord Du Plessis his Book.  
I Shall conclude all, with that noble Speech, 
P. 95, 96.  of that noble Lord Du Plessis. May we not lawfully say with the Prophet, We would have cured Babel, but she would not be cured? forsake her, and let us go every one to his own Country, etc.  
It is no small aggravation of this man's sin, in renouncing Protestant Churches, and declaiming against them as Antichristian; that, he doth so grossly abuse, in many places of his Pamphlet, the exhortations, and expressions of their Writers, so as to outstrip therein in impudence, the Papists themselves. And yet, he is so insensible of the evil of this miscarriage, that he dares, to conclude his Treatise with it; (for though he marks but eight lines as Du Plessis his words; his two last pages, from the beginning of the words now mentioned, to the end of his Book, are verbatim, the translated conclusion of Du Plessis his Book.) Now, how highly unworthy this carriage of his is, appears, in that, 1. He smooths, and speaks honourably, of this Lord (whom the very drift of his Book casts disgrace upon, he being a main assertor and defender of the Protestant Church-State) calling his Speech, that noble Speech, of that noble Lord. Wherein, he is exceeding like those Pharisees, against whom Christ pronounceth a woe, Mat. 23.29. 2. He grossly wrists his exhortation, which is to separation from Rome; in pressing it, for separation from Protestant Churches, which never came into this Lord's heart. 3. He shamefully abuseth his exhortation, which is to close with, and get, to that holy Mountain, the little Zoar, God's Church, how small and contemptible soever in the eyes of the world (by which he meant Protestant Churches) in managing it, for joining with separate Congregational Churches, as distinct, and separating from those Protestant Churches as Antichristian; and setting up a Democratical Government, contrary to theirs; which Duke Plessis would have abhorred the very thought of. If he doth not (as he saith, p. 95.) scornfully upbraid any, explicitly; yet, surely, he doth implicitly upbraid this Lord, and all Protestant Churches, with owning an Antichristian Church-state; and withal foully abuseth their admonitions to separate from Rome, in urging them for separation from them; as if they had condemned their own standing, which they are sufficiently known to have throughly asserted as Christian.  
The Lord give Mr. P. repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth; and deliver him, and all others of his mind, from their deluding apprehensions, and sinful separation. Amen.   
FINIS.   

A Catalogue of some Books sold and printed for Andrew Kembe, at his Shop at St. Margaret's Hill in Southwark.  

DOctor Williams right way to the best Religion, wherein at large is explained the principal head of the Gospel. fol.  
Mr. Elton, on 7, 8, 9 Romans, fol.  
Mr. Paul Baynes on the Ephesians, fol.  
A view of holy Scripture by Mr. Broughton, fol.  
Ancient Funeral Monuments within the united Monarchy of Great Britain, Ireland, and the Islands adjacent, their Founders, and what eminent Persons have been interred.  
Paraeus upon all the Revelations, fol.  
Luther on the Galathians, and upon the Psalms of Degrees.  
The Gospel-Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace opened, by Peter Buckly, sometimes Fellow of Christ's College in Cambridge.  
God's holy mind in ten Words, or ten Commands, which he himself uttered and taught his Disciples, by Questions and Answers, by the late learned and faithful Preacher Mr. Elton, late Pastor of St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsy, near London, 4ᵒ  
Arraignment of Error, by Doct. Samuel Bolton, late Master of Christ's College in Cambridge.  
Bounds of Christian Freedom.  
The Exposition of the five first Chapters of Ezekiel, with the other three parts, 4ᵒ  
All Mr. Henry smith's Sermons gathered into one Volume, with his Life, and Picture.  
Mr. Dod on the Commandments, 4ᵒ  
Mr. Calamies Sermons, 4ᵒ  
Military Discipline, or the Youngman's Artillery, wherein is shown the posture both of Musket and Pike, By Lieutenant Colonel Barriffe.  
The Art of Dialling, or Court of Arts, by S. M.  
Mr. Slater on the fourth of the Romans, 4ᵒ  
Also on the book of Malachi.  
Dariotts Judgement of the Stars, containing the whole Art of Astrology.  
Hudsons' Vindication of the Church Catholic visible, and the priority thereof, in regard of particular Churches.  
Also an Addition, or Postscript to the Church Catholic visible.  
Mr. Cradicots Sermon preached at the Spittle, 4ᵒ  
The Guard to the Tree of Life, by Dr. Samuel Belton, late Master of Christ's College in Cambridge.   

Octavoes.  
Mr. Goodwin on the Sacrament.  
On Family Duties.  
On the Sabbath.  
Mr. Ford of the singing of Psalms.  
Baker's Arethmetick.  
Mr. Tippin of Eternity.  
Dr. Sibbs on Canticles.  
Dr. Tailor, on Circumspect Walking.  
Amesius upon the whole Book of Psalms, and the two Epistles of Peter. 8ᵒ.  
Francis Spira.   

School-Books.  
Farnabies' Phrases.  
Farnabie on Seneca.  
Farnabie on Juvenal and Persius.  
Farnabie on Martial.  
Farnabies' Epigrams, Greek and Latin.  
Dux Grammaticus, by Mr. Clark.  
Macropedius de conscribendis Epistolis.  
Vigerius Idiotism. Graecae Linguae.    

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. line 18. r. him, p. 83. l. 18. for three r. there, p. 85 l. 33. for if r. of, p. 102. l. 13. for scrupulo r. scrupulous, l. 39 for person r. person.