Separation Examined: OR, A TREATISE Wherein the grounds for Separation from the Ministry and Churches of England are weighed, and found too light. The practice proved to be not only unwarrantable, but likewise so hurtful to the Churches, that Church-Reformation cannot with any comfort go forward, so long as such Separation is Tolerated. Also an humble request presented to the Congregational Divines, that [since the differences between them and the Classical-Divines are very small] they would please to strike in with the Classical-Divines in carrying on the work of Reformation, before the Inundation of these corrupt Opinions, have destroyed both Ordinances and Religion.  
By Gi. Firmin Minister to the Church in Shalford in Essex.  
1 Cor. 1.10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no Schisms among you.  
Judicabit autem & eosqui schismata operantur, qui sunt immanes, non habentes Dei dilectionem, suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quàm unitatem Ecclesiae, propter modicas & quaslibet causas magnum & gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt & dividunt, etc. Irenae l. 4. c. 62.  
Cavenda sunt autem, fratres dilectissimi, non solum quae sunt aperta & manifesta, sed & astutae fraudis subtilitate fallentia, etc. haeteses invenit & schismata, quibus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem, Cypr. de unit. Eccles.  
LONDON, Printed by R. I. for Stephen Bowtell, at the Bible in Popes-head-Alley. 1652.   

The Contents.  

THere are true visible Churches in England. pag. 1  
There is a true Gospel-Ministry in England. pag. 4.  
The grounds of Separation must be either in the 

Ministry,  
Worship,  
Congregation, or Place of meeting. p. 12    
The Ordination of the Ministers by Bishops can be no ground for Separation. p. 22  
There can be no ground in the Worship, being singing of Psalms is here touched. p. 32  
There can be no ground in the Congregation, though many wicked persons be there. Nor in the place of meeting. p. 39  
The Proposals of the Separatists, what they would have are set down, and answers returned; as,  
1 They would have Ministers lay down their former Call, and join with them, than they (it may be) will elect them, and ordain them; where this question is handled. p. 46  
Quest. Whether election only gives the essentials to a Minister, and Ordination be but an Adjunct. p. 50  
Whether the People have power to Ordain? p. 70  
Whether the Fraternity be the first subject of the power of the Keys? briefly touched. p. 73  
2 They will have an explicit Covenant, which they call the form of a Church. p. 81  
3 No Church-Members, but visible Saints. p. 82  
4 Power in Admissions, and Excommunications. p. 83  
5 Liberty to Prophesy. p. 84  
6 Liberty of Conscience. p. 88  
How it appears that Church-reformation cannot with comfort proceed, so long as the Separation is Tolerated. p. 91  
The Separatists are no such-friends to the Civil Power, as is pretended. p. 94  
The Questions propounded to the Separatists, in reference to their Separation. p. 97  
The agreements and differences with and between the Classical, and congregational Divines are reviewed, their agreements found to be many, their differences very few. p. 100  
Whence an humble request is presented to the congregational Divines, speedily to join with the Classical Divines, backed with seven reasons. p. 108    

To the Reverend the Ministers of London, the Authors of the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Ministry, etc. Printed, 1650.  
Fathers and Brethren:  
THe goodness of God, manifested of old to England (in causing the Sun of his Gospel to rise early upon this Nation, and to find such entertainment in the hearts of the Supreme Power, that it was the first Nation that ever received the Gospel with the countenance of public Authority, having the first Christian King that ever was) is known to the whole Christian world; his goodness in these latter days, since he took from our necks the Anti-christian yoke, hath been also wonderful, honouring the Ministers of his Gospel with such Holiness, Learning. Ministerial abilities, and success in their labour in converting many, and setting up the power of godliness in this Nation, that he hath not honoured any Nation more; nay (without pride it may be spoken) his Free Grace hath not honoured any Nation so much in these respects, as this English Nation; but now in our days the Ministry, which God hath thus honoured, is as much dishonoured, and that by such, who cannot but acknowledge (their own mouths have spoken it) that what Spiritual good they have received, it was wrought by the Ministry; and now we find scorning, deriding, separating from the Ministry, and many not so much as stepping over their thresholds, to hear them, who were the first instruments of their good (if they have any, as some we hope have) and yet the Ministers are the same they were before; yea, some repenting, that ever they bestowed so much pains and time to follow the Minister, as one that lives but four or five miles from Dedham hath said, He repent that he followed that eminent Servant of God, Mr. Rogers so much, to hear his preaching. While I observed these things, and considered into what a sad condition we are fallen, and read over your Vindication, in which I saw a holy, meek, and true Christian spirit breathing, calling upon the congregational men to join with you; certainly I thought that Book deserved a courteous Christian answer from the ablest of our congregational men: what they have done towards it I know not, (being little acquainted with affairs abroad, being locked up in much sadness of spirit at home) but I thought with myself, that being I was numbered among the Independents (though I am the weakest, and most worthy the holy Lord should turn me out of his holy Work) laying other things together (which I have mentioned in the Epistle to the Reader) I resolved to improve the little Talon the Lord had given me, in examining the grounds of these practices, and to stand up in the defence of such Ministers, who I saw were dear to Christ, and whom in holiness, learning, and abilities, the Lord had honoured fare before myself. And now (my Fathers) the quarrel is not only with you, because you are Presbyterial Ministers, the quarrel is with the whole Ministry, for this spirit hath infected even some in New England, and I believe will cause more troubles there in those Churches, than ever the Bishops did, though they threatened them much. What are the practices of some, and what are the fears of the worthy Ministers there, I understand by Letters. I do not, I dare not censure the congregational Churches here, some of the Ministers I know to be holy, and reverend (I wish I had such grace) many Members no doubt are really godly; but had I not lived in New England, and seen the Churches there, by what I hear of divers, and what I know by some Churches here, I should have been convinced that Independent (as it is here called) Government, was never of Christ's institution. I have observed few people that come once to stand up for Independency, but they grow very tender (as they call it) towards corrupt Opinions, if not leavened with them themselves, not allowing a Minister to speak against them; yea, and those, whom I took to be the soberest and best grounded Christians, have not stuck to Censure New England sharply, for being too strict against those which they call, Non-fundamentall Errors; and I wish that some Ministers were not sick of that policy, to plead for Toleration of such Opinions, esteeming it a piece of true Christian wisdom to be silent, and not to meddle, but comply with all Opinionists, especially, if they conceive them to be not in the fundamentals, which are but a few.  
Hierome thought it was Augustine's honour, 
Aug. Epist. 25.  that he so strongly opposed the Heresies of his time, that all the Heretics hated him; to oppose by Argument is good, yea and to discountenance the contumacious is not amiss; but it is now an honour for a man to be silent. For your parts (my Fathers) you and the godly Presbyterians of England, are esteemed the causes of all these troubles; yea, I observe by Letters, which myself and others have received from the Divines of New England, that some have informed them, as if you were the causes of the second War, when Duke Hamilton, and Lord Goring, etc. arose. Also that you are so adverse to the congregational Churches here, that you had rather join with the Common Enemy, and hazard your own Liberties, then enjoy your Liberties with your Brethren, the congregational men; but you have I think sufficiently cleared yourselves from these aspersions in your Vindication, yea, and so can the congregational men clear you, I believe; there is one report that goes for truth, and that amongst persons of note, and upon that ground I perceive, I mean some men here, they much satisfy themselves in this scorn cast upon you, viz. That the Assembly of Divines, when things were likely to settle on the Presbyterian side, should determine, That congregational Ministers should not be allowed any public place to preach in, nor should be allowed any public maintenance. This is certainly believed by men of note, I wish the truth were cleared; I am not ignorant what provocation it was, to have your people taken from you, etc. but yet I can hardly believe the Assembly to be so hard to their Brethren.  
Further (but that I am too mean to move, and know not whither my motion be good or no in your thoughts) I could hearty wish, you would please to declare, 
Pag. 119, 120, 121.  how fare you could yield to the congregational Brethren: you have hinted some things in your Vindication, which imply much; but if it were thought meet to speak out a little more fully, then should our New England Divines clearly understand where the greatest cause of this dis-union lies, against all false reports that are sent to them.  
And now (my reverend Fathers) I beseech you accept of this testimony of the honour I own you, having ventured after many resolutions to the contrary (fearing my weakness) to dedicate this Treatise to you, it being the greatest desire of my heart to see the Kingdom of Christ, first exalted in my own wretched heart, and then to see Classical, and congregational men joining together, with one shoulder to set up his visible Kingdom in England, opposing Error and Schism, and Christ riding in Triumph upon his white Horse, conquering souls by his poor Instruments, that once it may be said of England, The Lord bless thee, O habitation of Justice, and mountain of Holiness. 
jer. 31.23.   
So prayeth he, who is unworthy to be called your Fellow-labourer in the Lord: Jan. 19 1651. Giles Firmin.   

TO THE READER.  
Christian Reader,  
I Shall briefly give you an account what moved me to undertake this task: 1. I observed it very common among Christians, when we have been speaking about some Minister, godly, eminent, etc. against whom no objection can be made; but if he were a man of the Presbyterial judgement, they would make slight account of him. He? He is a Presbyterian, and if you have said so, Presbyterian is crime enough; hence to separate from a Presbyterial Minister, though never so able and godly, they think it no offence at all; this made me search what they had to say against these Presbyterial men, whether their grounds for such contempt were solid, as also for their separation.  
2. I received two Letters from New England from a worthy Divine, one some longer time since, the other but lately, in which there were these passages: In the first, which was writ after the overthrow of Duke Hamilton he hath this passage, We do not know what to pray for in your behalf: God hath removed adversaries, fought miraculously for you against the Scots, and put the power of things into such hands, as have been most active for the godly party, and yet your condition is as miserable as ever, the Lord help, for vain is the help of man: I much fear, you that are the godly Ministers, have been too passive, and not so zealous against Errors and Heresies, as you ought, and therefore it is just with the Lord, to let in these inundations of hellish opinions upon you, which damp all power of Religion, wheresoever they become; though I am not worthy to be reckoned among the godly Ministers, yet my conscience doth not accuse me of this fault, I am rather judged a man too severe. In his other Letter, which came at the end of this Summer, he wrote thus:  
It's the wonderment of this side of the world, that you that are godly, and may agree, yet will not. Neither doth my conscience accuse me in this point, I hope I shall clear it by the ensuing Discourse.  
3. Among the many crimes charged upon the Independent Churches, I have noted these two especially; 1. That they are but a back door for Errors and Heresies. 2. That they regard nothing but their own interest, so long as they have their liberty, though there are Ministers as godly, able, and learned, and many hundreds of true visible Churches in the Nation besides theirs, yet they regard not them, nor their comfort; being therefore set down by Mr. Edward's in his Catalogue of Independents, I thought I would clear myself of all these things, and though I be but amongst the meanest, and not worth the regarding, yet to discharge myself, and to have my spirit free, when ever God shall visit us for these Divisions, Errors, Heresies, etc. [for what can we expect but some rod, if we continue in the frame we now are in?] I have made bold humbly to address myself to our Congregational Divines, to beseech them, to take those offers, which the Presbyterial brethren make for agreement, that so we may strengthen one another against the common adversaries, that trouble our Reformation.  
I thought to have taken occasion here to clear myself from what Mr. Edward's had writ concerning me, but the man being dead, I rather let it alone, (for sin, I thank God, he hath charged me with none) I know, if ever the Lord bring such an unworthy wretch as I am to heaven, I shall not bear Mr. Edward's a grudge for what unkindness he hath offered to me here. But whereas Mr. Edward's hath branded me for an Independent; some of (miserable) Colchester have told me that I have altered my principles; but I know no reason why the one should charge me to be an Independent, nor the other for departing from my principles; for I never declared any thing in public, but only once, which was concerning the matter and form of a visible Church: for the government of the Church never troubled me, but how to have the people reform, and scandalous persons debarred from the seals of the Covenant, and persons brought into a posture fit for Discipline, but what is this to Independency? Once also I expressed this, that I conceived, a Church organised, and walking regularly might execute all the power of the Keys within itself. I never expressed any thing more there concerning Church-work, but did labour to keep alive the old truths, which I found my heart had more need of, then to preach about Church-government in such a Town, as that was. But if you say, though I did not express it openly, yet I was an Independent in my judgement: but how can men charge me with that, whi●c neither in public, nor private they ever heard me express? but then to deal plainly I shall set down what manner of Independent than I was, and then you shall see how much I am altered. In these points I did join with the Congregational-men.  
First, I thought none but visible Saints to be fit matter for a Church.  
Secondly, 
So the Belgic Churches.  I thought a promise from the people to subject themselves to Church-discipline was of very great concernment, to carry on Discipline with strength and comfort, as likewise to subject themselves to all other Ordinances, as became Christians.  
Thirdly, though I did own the Churches of England for true Churches, yet because for want of Catechising and Discipline, they were overgrown with ignorance and profaneness: I did desire the grossly ignorant and profane to stay a while, before I gave t heir children the seal of Baptism, that having got knowledge, and conversation freed from scandal, the Ordinance might be administered with more comfort.  
Fourthly, I thought that if Churches were now constituting, the Officers should not receive any into Church-fellowship against the consent of the people, giving sufficient proof against them.  
Fifthly, I thought the Officers ought not excommunicate any person, If the people did not consent to them [not that a Church must be obstructed, if two or three have a mind to be cross.]  
Sixtly, I thought a particular Church organised to be the first subject of the power of the Keys, and according as Mr. Cotton held it out: but this I did not express publicly.  
Seventhly, I did somewhat question whether the Officers of one Church had power to excommunicate in another Church.  
But in these points I was no Independent.  
First, I could not be clear that the people were the first subject of the power of the Keys.  
Secondly, neither that the Fraternity had power to ordain formally.  
Thirdly, that a Minister should preach only as a gifted broth ere out of his own place.  
Fourthly, I could not consent to have the godly people taken away from a godly Presbyterian, into an Independent Church.  
Fifthly, I could not approve that Independent Churches should refuse to communicate with Presbyterial Churches, though there were good store of visible Saints, for want of an explicit Covenant.  
By this time, I hope I shall be no rank Independent: But where is then my thanging of my principles? let these men prove it, for I am the same still, only since I read Mr. Hudson, I do somewhat waver about the first subject of the Keys and this is all my change.  
That my mind may be cleared against whom I writ; I observe Separatists are not all of a size; some separate from Ministers & Churches, and get into their private houses, own no officers, but please themselves with their own gifts and opinions; these are the persons whom I chief aim at, as such that so trouble us, that no Church-discipline can hold so long as they stand.  
Others live in places where there are visible and real Saints, the Ministry godly, and able, yea, it may be called to the place by these persons, but because they cannot have all they would picking a quarrel with the Ordination of their Minister, etc. they choose some other Minister in some other Town, and so departed from the Prebyterial to a Congregational Church, continuing still in the same Parish; It is well these men hold up Ordinances and Officers, yet the grounds of their practice the ensuing Discourse will try. I am sure, peace and unity among Churches cannot possibly stand with this practice; it is very sad that we should not yield a little, where we may, nay where we ought, for peace with our brethren whom we cannot but judge holy and sincere.  
If there should sometimes fall out a quotation somewhat sharp, yet I pray do not think that I apply it to all Separatists, but to some among them, who may deserve it.  
What success my poor endeavours shall find, I know not, I look for little good they shall do amongst the Separatists, who with an imperious scorn neglect to listen to, or read any thing, which tends to overthrow their practice; and though they be so confuted, as they are not able to answer a word, yet they scorn to acknowledge their error, and return to the Congregations, from which they have separated, which to me is a clear demonstration, that however these men pretend conscience, yet it is no such thing; for were these men lead by a pure conscience, considering how they separate from holy men, such also as have been instruments of their souls good, considering also how they weaken their hands, grieve their spirits, they would hear, read, pray, take any course, that they might be sure to be found in the truth. 
Act. 13.36.  But I leave the success to God, my desire was, to serve my Generation, and there I rest.   

Separation Examined.  
I Will not trouble myself to prove that there is a visible Church upon the Earth, or true visible Churches in England, I think there are none that own the Scriptures, who will deny the former, though there are some who deny the latter, unless I mean the congregational Churches, which they will acknowledge to be Churches, but none else; yet many of those, whom I writ against, do not own them, for though they have opportunity, and may join with such Churches, yet they refuse to do so, being unwilling (I perceive) to come under, or maintain any Officers; I wish there be not too strong arguments to prove, that Covetousness and Ambition reign too much amongst this kind of Separatists, yet because the proving that there are true visible Churches in England, will be of great consequence to the following Discourse (as being the groundwork of it:) I will therefore produce one Argument to prove it, and if I can prove that, than it will necessarily follow, there is a true visible Church on the earth; which (as I said) I thought no Christian dares deny. But what da●es not the vile heart of man think, say, or do, if God give it up, to its own blindness, and wickedness?  
Master Burroughs making mention of Schusselburgius, 
Iren. pag. 236.  who collected the Sects, Opinions, and ways of men soon after Luther saith, There is not any one strange Opinion amongst us now, but you shall find it amongst them in terminis; only I remember not that one that hath taken some, who though they acknowledge the Scripture, yet think there is no visible Church on the earth.  
Many were the errors that were confuted, condemned in the first Synod in New England, which errors I find here in England, but there was not this error amongst them all (to my remembrance:) it was wont to be said of Africa, that every year it produced a new Monster, but now it must be said of England, that it hath produced such a Spiritual Monster, as no Nation, that owned the Scriptures, ever did before. The Lord save us from our own hearts. But I will now prove the Thesis, as I said before, there are true visible Churches in England.  
Where there are many Societies of visible Saints, and true Ministers, consenting together to worship God in his holy Ordinances, there are true visible Churches.  
But in England, there are many Societies of visible Saints, and true Ministers consenting together to worship God in his holy Ordinances, Ergo, in England there are many true visible Churches.  
The Major is so plain, that none who know what a visible Church is, and what the Churches in the Gospel were, but must needs yield it.  
Here are the essential causes of a Church; Ergo, here is a Church.  
First, here is the material cause, Visible Saints, the Ministers also, as visible Saints, help make up the matter; but as they are Ministers they make the Churches Organical (which is more.)  
2 Here is the formal cause, their consenting to worship God, etc. he that yields the essential causes, and yet denies the effect, hath lost his reason.  
A Church, is any company of Saints in body, to set up what Ordinances of God they know; This is a true Church, and here God dwells, 
In Hos. 8.1.  saith Mr. Burroughs.  
He speaks of a Church, as it is a Homogeneal body, but I go further; the Separatists indeed will catch hold of his definition, as Cyprian saith, the Schismatics in his time did of that text, in Matth. 18.20. to which eh answered very well, De unita Eccles. and hence they will conclude, we are Saints in body; ergo we are true Churches.  
But I pray, are there not visible Saints also in the Churches, from which you irregularly (as I shall prove after) did separate? Are they not as good as yourselves? Did not you attain to that visibility of Saint-ship, which you have, while you were in those Churches? Do you set up the Ordinances of God so fare as you know (or may know, if error doth not hinder) as they do from whom you have separated? Nay, you cannot do it, for you neither have men fit for Office, nor will you endure to come under Officers; and therefore if you look into the ninth verse of the same Chapter, 
Faciunt faves vespae, faciunt Ecclesias Marciovitae. Tertul.  you shall find Mr. Burroughs saying, That those, who love to live without Ordinances, from under the government of Christ, are those that love to live in the Wilderness. His words may be applied to many of these Separatists, who call for separation from the word, as well as to those who are in the world. But to my Argument.  
All the quarrel will be about the Ministers, 
The Presbyterians speak the same Language, if the words in Body please you, the Correlatum of Ecclesiastical Power is a people embodied in a Church, or a Spiritual corporation, Gillesp. Aar. rod. 191. Iren. p. 102.  and the consenting together, etc. as for Mr. Burroughs phrase, there being in Body, this they like well, but so are not those visible Saints I mention, say they. But to take away that Cavil, and so to return to the Ministers, you may know what Mr. B. means by being in body, by showing what makes a Church Covenant; saith he, I know nothing more is required, but to manifest their assent, to join with that Body, to set up all the Ordinances of Christ, so fare as they know. And do not those visible Saints actually manifest their assent by their continual attendance upon their Officers in all the Ordinances of God, and maintaining their Officers to that intent, that they may have the Ordinances of Christ set up amongst them? Shall the want of an Adjunct null the Church, when as they do the very thing, which they should express? Put case you express your assent, and do not the things which you express your assent unto, are you therefore a Church, because of your expressing your assent? What then are those who do the things, though they do not express their assent in words, but in Acts? This is good, and sufficient to prove the essence, though both expression and doing is better, but of this more after.  
But the Ministers are those who spoil all; there are those who cannot deny there are Ordinances, but there are none to administer them; and this was the reason, which one of the chief Members of a Church in London (who did use to Prophesy (as they call it) in the absence or weariness of the Pastor) gave to an honest man, who was troubled, because he fell off from the Church, and exercising his gifts, and turned Seeker. I name not the man, nor the Church, but it is too true.  
Now suppose I could not prove the Ministers to be true Ministers, yet those visible Saints which I named before, and those whom you call Presbyterians, do meet together, confer, pray, and fast together; watch one over another, and so, if you will consider them as Homogeneal Bodies, they are as good Churches as those Separatists, which have no Officers; therefore still there are true visible Churches in England, besides the Separatists, and so my Argument stands firm. But I will prove there are many true Ministers, even amongst those, whom you call Presbyterial Ministers, thus:  
Where there are men sufficiently qualified by God, orderly (at least for substance) called to the Ministry, and do that work, which Christ appointed his Ministers to do, there are true Gospel-Ministers.  
But in many of the Churches of England, there are such men, ergo in many of the Churches of England there are true Gospel-Ministers.  
I put in the word many, 
I dare venture fare here, but that I would save myself against those whom I oppose.  because I am sure I shall maintain my ground, for why should I have undertaken to prove that all the Ministers in England are true Gospel-ministers? and that in every Parochial Congregation in the blind corners of England, there are such visible Saints, as aught to be, in the constitution of a Church (enough I mean to make a Church) I should have had a hard task; but by this word many I include abundance both Churches and Ministers, besides our congregational Ministers; now to my Argument.  
The major cannot be denied, for all the causes are there set down, which are required to a true Minister.  
1 The efficient cause, God;  
2 Material cause, a man sufficiently qualified, I mean according to Paul's phrase, 2 Tim. 2.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same word with 2 Cor. 2 16 who is sufficient? two distinctions would clear this latter text, but I spare the reader.  
3 Formal cause, orderly called, I put in (at least for substance) because I would include many of the Presbyterial men.  
4 Final cause, Ephes. 4.12. the end of the Ministry is, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ. So that no rational man can deny the major.  
Now for the minor, that there are many such Ministers in England, we shall see;  
1 For the efficient cause, there is no controversy there.  
2 For the material, that they are sufficiently qualified in that sense above mentioned, who can deny it? many, yea abundance qualified with real grace, and experimental workings on their own hearts, besides their Ministerial qualifications, and these many others have, who it may be have not the former, as could be wished; but I hope, though some do whisper, yet they will not undertake to defend it, that there can be no true Minister, unless he have real Grace: I have heard some that have affirmed as much, but they are not such as dare undertake the Question. But as for Ministerial qualifications, I do believe the gifts of Ministers were never larger than now; since the Apostles days never were the truths of God more clearly laid open then now; God doth seem to give out such large measures in these days, as it were in opposition to this wild Generation, that when they are crying out, there are no Ministers, God confutes them, by pouring out more of his Spirit in point of Ministerial abilities upon them, than before; indeed where other holy men have gone before in such Parishes, and places thereabouts, we find not that preaching works now, as it did when it came new to the places, yet I say the gifts of Ministers now are as strong, as they were before; but this is one of the Ministers heavy burdens in our days, their Trading is dead.  
Thirdly, formal cause: Our Ministers, abundance of them are orderly called (for substance:) there are but two things that I know of to make up this call, Election and Ordination: For election, many, if not all, of the godly Ministers are elected by the people, some by the whole Parish, and others by the best in the Parishes. But you say the Patron presents: It is true, but not so, as to bring one in against the consent of the people: Verily for Patrons to present an unworthy Minister, and bring him in against the consent, especially of the godly, and orthodox Christians, it is an act of cruel Tyranny, and worthy of a Petition to the Parliament to get such an horrible abuse removed; but you have a way now to help yourselves against scandalous Ministers by the Civillpower, and should have had it by Church-power, if once Discipline were set up.  
But if the Minister be not an unworthy man, though the Patron did present, as in former times, and he came in without the consent of the people at the first, but had it afterwards; this makes his election good: Hear what the New England Ministers say to this point: Yet sometimes the people's acceptance and approbation afterward may supply the want of election at the first, 
Ans. to the 32. Quest. p. 69. V Ames Consc. l. 4. c. 25. q. 7.  as jacob's after consent and acceptance of Leah, made her to be his wife, though he chose her not at the first; and by this we hold the calling of many Ministers in England may be excused, who at first came into their places without the consent of the people. So Dr. Ames.  
But are all these Separatists so regular? I doubt not: I can give instance of a Weaver, who lived in a Town, where I had my abode for a little time; the Minister of the place was a very able man, regularly called, and inclining at that time to the congregational way; yet this Weaver (I think that was his calling) separated from him, and the other Christians, and had his own society, to whom he did preach (as they said) but when the wind did settle in the Independent quarter; this Weaver had a mind to a Pulpit, but I hope than he will look to his orderly calling; he will not dare to venture but by the Gospel-way, that now we shall judge; his way of election was this, as an honest Christian of the same Town, and one of this man's friends told me, that Goodman B. an honest Carrier being a Sequestrator in the Town, he puts him in, and this is one part of his calling, as for Ordination that is a Toy: But is this regular? then let these Separatists for ever hold their tongues; I know not, but if a Sequestrator may put a Weaver (let him be a godly and a pretty man, as some say he is, I love not to judge other folk's godliness, I have enough to do at home) into a Parish, when as the people call him not, then may a Patron put in able and godly Divines into their Parishes with the people's consent first or last: as the noble Earl of Warwick, I believe hath helped many Parishes to as able godly Divines, as any one Sequestrator hath done. I could give the Reader instances of others, but so much I perceive by these kind of men, that I little regard what they say, for if there lie any matter of advantage in their way, they will stretch their principles, as far as they please.  
As for their sufficient qualification, which should make the material cause of a Minister, we must not question them in our days: Paul indeed said, Who is sufficient for these things? our language is, Who is not sufficient for these things? much might here be said (I am privy to mine own insufficiency, and desire to bewail it) but let me propound one thing to these men, and see how they answer it. Amongst the opinions which Mrs. Hutchison had brought forth in New Eng. this was one, That there was no inherent grace in a believer, no new creature, nothing but Jesus Christ, and he was the new creature; one of Mrs. Hutchisons' followers, on a Lord's day stood up in the Congregation, and would defend it against the learned and reverend Teacher, and told him the text was read so in the original, If any man be in Christ, the new creature, 2 Cor. ●. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what can these men say to this that know not the Original, nor Grammar, both which a man must know to answer this: so if another should defend a heresy, and tell you the text is so in the Hebrew: for the Jesuits subtle and crabbed disputations, we must not mention them, these men are doubtless sufficient; not but that I could allow a solid, humble, experienced, orthodox, and well-gifted Christian, called regularly, and set apart to the work of the Ministry, with the neighbourhood of some learned able Divine to have his recourse to, I say, I could allow such a one to preach in dark corners of the land. But when men will cry out of other Ministers for want of orderly calling, separate from them, and thus carry themselves, that the bones of their ambition stick out, and then through unsoundness in opinion, though no way able, though not regularly called, yet they will get into Live and Pulpits, this is abominable.  
So much for Election, that part of their calling will hold; as for the other requisite, Ordination, to prove our Ministers have that also; (for the substance of it) here will lie the pinch of the controversy, therefore I reserve it for another place.  
Fourthly, for the final cause, here also the Ministers will appear to be true Ministers; for conversion and edification, the Lord hath honoured the English Ministry with as much success, as any Nation under heaven; the Lord hath set seal to hundreds of our Ministers, in giving them some souls in conversion, and building up many, according as are their several gifts; and for a proof of it, let me appeal to yourselves, who have thus separated from them: Cannot you say, that you have found God in their Ministry? I am sure your own words must witness against divers of you, if you deny it, for you have acknowledged, by them you were first awakened, and brought home: Now I beseech you consider what you do, you who are the soberest, and retain the savour of God in your hearts: If Christ shall say to you, Why do you deny these to be true Ministers? I own them to be such, I have qualified them with Ministerial and personal gifts; I have sealed to their Ministry, by making them my instruments to bring home many, and to build up those, who were brought home: I have often humbled, awed, cheered, refreshed the hearts of my people by them, your own selves (who are mine) are witnesses of it, I found you out by them, etc. They had their call from the people, and though there were some circumstantial defects in their setting apart to the work, yet those they freely acknowledge, and I do as freely pardon, will not my presence with them make up that defect in your hearts, still to own them, and reverence them, as my Ministers, since I do?  
Now I say, what would you answer to the Lord Jesus? I doubt not, though many have their infirmities (as who have not many infirmities) yet Christ doth own them for his Ministers, and Paul, or the Apostles, if they now were alive, would not deny it.  
Object. If you say, that indeed God did go along with the old Ministers, but not with these.  
Answ. But the same argument you give against these Ministers from their Ordination, doth make as much against these old Ministers, as these now living, they were no true Ministers neither by your opinion.  
2. We can say, that even with the labours of these Ministers doth Christ go along, though not so much as he did before, when the Gospel came first into places, for edification we find it, which is one end in that Ephes. 4.12. and I pray take heed that your scorning of them, be no occasion to hinder their work, for you must answer for it, what ever the Decrees of God be. So much for my first argument.  
2. I would use a second argument to prove we have true Ministers, etc. And here I would propound one question to these men, who thus deny the Ministry: It is this, Were there ever any true Ministers and Churches (let me put in them also) since the Apostles days? I hope you will say yes: But I pray how long were there such Ministers and Churches? in which Century did there cease to be true Ministers, and true visible Churches? I suppose you will say, when Antichrist began (here now you would do us a good turn, if you could make it out clear to us when that was, that so we might know how long our miseries shall last) if so, then to be sure for the first three hundred years after Christ, which were times of persecution, yea, and divers years after, you must grant there were true Ministers. Let us then compare our Ministers, and Churches with them; for our Ministers, many are godly, as well as those, all the Ministers than were not truly gracious I believe; nay by stories we can learn they were not. As for Ministerial gifts, those who have skill to compare the works, and Sermons of our Ministers now, with their works and Homilies, shall find that the Presbyterial Ministers are not behind them, but in opening the doctrines of Freegrace, Christ, promises, which are the glory of the Gospel, as also for discovering of Hypocrisy (without any dishonour to those Ancients,) I may say they do excel them.  
For the Churches, it is true, we know not what we should do, if the Lord should call us to sufferings; but this we know, the same power, which carried them through, is able to carry us through: for losses of estates, leaving of their native Country, etc. I am sure New England hath gone very far with them for that kind of suffering, and so have some here also, yea, and for not submitting to superstitious Ceremonies, and inventions of men in the worship of God, which they even in those times made nothing of: How many vain rites and ceremonies were then used in Baptism, 
* By Tertul. Cyp. Ep. 59 The kissing of the child. By August. time there were many Ceremonies added Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 1. Lib. de Coro. mil. Ep. 70.72. Tertul. de Bap.  which our Ministers did never own, but were silenced, etc. for less matters, yet these were the primitive Churches.  
Besides those Ceremonies in Baptism, there were other strange things used, which our Divines never owned, I say, in those primitive Churches.  
As the Anointing of the baptised, As Cyprian, It is necessary that the baptised person be anointed, etc. yea, and puts much in it, as one may see, who reads those Epistles.  
Tertullian also makes mention of this.  
Hence Fabianus ordered, that this oil should be prepared every year, and reprehended those, who kept it two or three years together, in secunda Epist. and Episc. orient. Hence also care was taken afterwards, that none but Bishops should make this, the Presbyters must not dare to do it. Sylvester in Concil. Rom.  
Also holy Vestures for the Ministers to be used only in the Churches; many of ours never owned these, 
Epist. Steph ad Hil.  all have cast them away.  
Also in the Lord's Supper, the mixing of water with the wine, which how ever some say, it was because of the hot Countries, yet Alexander, who they say was the first that mixed water with wine, 
Epist. ad omnes Ortho. Apol. 2.  doth not give that reason, but because water and blood came out of Christ's side. In Justin Martyrs time, it seems this was their manner also, but this was not the Institution.  
Also we find several Church-officers among them, as appears by Gaius Bishop of Rome, who ordered, that all the orders in the Church must ascend, from the doorkeeper to the Bishop. Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus, Subdiaconus, Diaconus, Presbyter, Episcopus. The ordination of these Officers, with their Ceremonies are after set down in the fourth Council of Carthage.  
If the Decretals of Gaius be of any Authority, all these were in primitive Churches, before Constantine came to the Empire.  
More things I might add, but I forbear.  
And though there were many glorious Martyrs, yet all their Church-members were not such, many did yield to the heathenish Idolatry, when persecution began, yea, and there were foul sins among them Churches, as Adultery, Whoredom (yea, even among those, who had been Confessors, as Cyprian affirms, ingemiscimus saith he, to see it) drunkenness, swearing, and what not, as any one may well gather, who is but a little versed in Antiquity, 
De unita Eccles.  and by reading over the Canons made in their Counsels, we may learn what they were troubled with.  
As for the Ministers, they also were ordained by Bishops (though they were not such lordly ones as ours were) with Presbyters joining with them, this no man can deny that knows any thing of those times; whence then I am bold to affirm, that if there were true Ministers, and true visible Churches in those times, even while they were under persecuting heathenish Emperors, than there are true Ministers, and true visible Churches now in England, and if there be none now, neither were there any in those times; but I think no man is so impudent to deny that there were true Ministers and Churches in those times. I plead now for many Presbyterial Ministers, and their Congregations. So I have done with my second Argument, which if I should draw into form, it runs thus:  
If there were true Ministers, and true visible Churches in the first three hundred years after Christ, then there are true Ministers, and visible Churches now in England.  
But the Antecedent is true, ergo the consequent is true.  
Some we have that dote, they tell us, they expect men to be sent from God, and endued with extraordinary gifts, as were the Apostles, &c, and these are the men, who shall set up Churches, and reform us. Good Lord, whither will our vile hearts carry us, if thou dost leave them?  
These persons are not worth the answering, but yet let me say a little to them, and so pass on to the chief thing I intent.  
For the gift of Tongues, I need not speak, what is necessary God hath given to most, and many excel in that gift.  
For Miracles.  
I They were given but for that time, to help on the work of the Ministry (as sauce doth meat) but now if God doth that by the Ministry of his Servants without Miracles, which he did then by the Ministry accompanied with Miracles (viz. Convert, Edify, Formalize, etc.) this doth but more confirm our Ministry, and prove that God owns these despised Ministers. The plain word preached, hath made as good Christians, as preaching, and Miracles.  
2 If any Body hath need of the gift of Miracles, than Master Eliot in New England hath, who now preaches to the Indians, and others with him; but God carrieth on his work amongst the Indians without miracles.  
3 Do not you yourselves believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God? if so, what need have you of such kind of persons so gifted? The greatest Miracle which I desire to confirm me in the truth of the Scriptures, is to find the power of Christ his Death, and Resurrection in my heart, without which I care not for miracles. But enough for these.  
There are others, who having been Members of an Independent Church, where divisions have fallen out, and so have broke in pieces, they have said, that Ministers are not fitted with a spirit of Government, to keep Churches in order, and therefore these are not times as yet for such Reformation, I answer;  
1 The more shame for your Church-Members, who are of such proud, and turbulent spirits, that godly and able Ministers are not able enough to govern them; those who come into Church Communion with the awe of God upon their hearts, we can govern them; some such spirits we find among the Independents, but if we could see more it would be better.  
2 I wonder not at your Divisions, when I see what Principles some godly congregational men have gone by, for the ordering of their Church Government.  
3 Your Argument is as strong against the Apostles, for there were Heresies, and Schisms in their days.  
But I leave these, and return to that, from whence I have made a digression; Having then proved there are true Ministers, and Churches in England, let us examine the grounds, why these men separate from these Ministers, and Churches; I conceive their grounds may be referred to one of these heads: 

Either to The Ministers,  
Either to Or Worship,  
Either to Or the Congregation,  
Either to Or the place of meeting;    
If there be any thing else that cannot so well be reduced to one of these, yet I am sure I shall meet with it, before I have done.  
For the Ministers, they are indeed made the Dung of England, who are more scorned than they, especially the Presbyterial men, be they never so holy, or learned? Whether there be just cause in respect of men, I leave it to God to judge; I am sure when Ministers were in honour, we found the Word had good effect, but since they came to be thus scorned, little good hath been done. I deny not but God may have a just quarrel against us, and give me leave (without offence) to propound the Reasons why.  
1 The first I had rather conceal, because I should seem to spy out a mote in my Fathers, and brethren's eyes, when I have a beam in my own; but therefore I rather propound it, as I heard it from a Reverend and judicious Divine, a man of a gracious and moderate spirit, Mr. Nathaniel Rogers in New England. I was talking with him there, when the news came of the Covenant that England, and Scotland entered into; the thing pleased him, and all our Churches exceedingly: This only, (said he) I have not heard of, That there hath been a general Humiliation amongst the Ministers, for their yielding so much to the superstitious inventions of that Hierarchy.  
2 I conceive God may justly have a quarrel against us (the younger sort of Ministers) for our woeful conformity to the Fashions of the times; what long hair now do we see most young Ministers wear, and if any new fond fashion comes up, who follows it sooner than they? Who take more liberty here then Independent Ministers, the younger sort?  
3 There hath been a too great Idolising of Learning, and abusing it in Sermons, by reciting of the Fathers, or Schoolmen, some men fond making, it may be, a quarter of their Sermons to be Latin, or Greek sentences out of them, and then turning them into English, to make people admire them, and conclude them to be great Scholars; not but that it is lawful to quote a Father, or a Schoolman: but I speak of that excess, and pride also, that went along with it, that they thought themselves so exalted above the people, and looked on them, as the Pharisees, Joh. 7.49. Hence God doth now let Ministers and Learning be trampled upon. But this was not the fault of those godly men, who now are despised, as much as the worst.  
4 There is in some young Ministers a too base esteem of private Christians, that are not learned; I have heard myself those, who have spoken very contemptibly of them, scorning they should have any hand in Church affairs; now it is true, there are abundance of private Christians very weak, but some there are, solid, understanding men; and though we do not admit these to be Governors in the Church (unless chosen to the Office of a Ruling Elder, to join with us) yet Ministers shall find sometimes, that they have no cause to repent, in giving an ear to what they say.  
These things I have observed, and wish (especially for the three latter) that God hath not brought us down for them. I might have added, some young Ministers study more quintessentiall Notions, curious Fancies, and please people much with fine speculations about Christ, and Free Grace, but have left the old way of Preaching, which did the good. This Chemical Divinity hath pleased men's ears, but not awed, nor humbled men's hearts; it makes frothy, but not solid Christians.  
But these are not to be imputed to all the Presbyterians, who are thus scorned.  
But now to the Ministers.  
The general apprehension that these men have of the Ministers, is that they are Anti-christian Ministers, and what is more common in their mouths then to call them so? This is a heavy charge, if it could be proved: but this term Anti-christian is both a simple term, a complexe Proposition, a Syllogism, i. e. they think it sufficient proof to charge them with it, though hundreds of these know no more than a Babe, wherein the formality of Antichristianism doth consist, but every thing that displeases them, that is Antichristian; Infant Baptism is Anti-christian, the Ordination of Ministers is Anti-christian, singing of Psalms is Anti-christian, it is proof sufficient, they have said it; now this seems to me very strange, that those men, who Instrumentally, 1. Convert men to Christ. 2. Build up men in Christ. 3. Oppose Anti-christ to the utmost. 4. Who have cast off Anti-christ. 5. If they were under Anti-christs power, should soon find his favour to be Fire and Faggot, yet these men to be called Anti-christians, I say with the Text, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan: But if you will take Anti-christ in a large sense, why may not those be as truly called Anti-christians, who do throw down, what Ordinances Christ hath set up; as, The Ordinance of the Ministry, giving his promise to be with it to the end of the world; the Baptising of the infants of believing Parents; singing of Psahnes, any form of external Church-Government; all these are thrown down by most of you, and many walk above Ordinances. I say, may not these be called as truly Anti-christians in a large sense, who thus throw down, what Christ hath set up, as well as those, who set up such Ordinances, as Christ never did set up? (which is one sign of Antichristianism.)  
But if you would know what is properly Antichristianism, 
Exposi. on Hos. first Book, p. 162.  I pray take it from a fare more able man then myself, one well known, and that deserves honour, Mr. Burroughs; he well observed the madness of people, that cry out against any thing, that displeases them, that it is Antichristianism, then sets down thus, wherein it consists.  
1 Whosoever shall obtrude any Doctrine upon the Church, to be believed by their own Authority.  
2 The intrusion of such Offices, and Officers in the Church, as merely belong to the spiritual man.  
3 The imposing of any Ordinance, or new Institution upon the Church.  
4 The imposing of Laws so to bind Conscience, as the Laws of Christ do.  
This, saith he, is to set up another head. I need not add the owning of the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church, who doth all that, which Mr. Burroughs hath mentioned; but this than I desire, that any, who thus call the Ministers Antichristian, would charge them, and make it good, that they are guilty of any of these things, or else be ashamed for ever after to call faithful Ministers of Christ, Antichristians.  
But what colour have these men for this vile aspersion, I never heard but only this, their Ordination. The sum of all they say, amounts to this, The Ministers of England stand by a Romish ordination; Ergo, They are no true Gospel, but Antichristian Ministers, this is that, which makes the heavy stir in England.  
For answer to this, I may say as the father of the blind man, He is of age, and can speak for himself; so the Presbyterial Ministers are of ability sufficient to speak, and have spoken enough in answer to this cavil, to satisfy sober minds; but what will satisfy unreasonable men? I am not very willing to insist upon this, because I can speak but little, which hath not been spoken before (for the substance) but yet this being an ingredient unto the formal cause of a Minister (which I have mentioned before, and promised to prove, that for the substance of the Ordinance our Ministers have it) I must speak a few words in answer to their cavils against it.  
The Ordination of these Ministers, say they, came from the Romish Synagogue, they also were ordained by Bishops, Ergo, They are no true Ministers, hence we separate from them.  
I answer,  
First, had I thought there had been such a stir in England about this, I should have laboured to have understood the minds of our Elders in New England about it; all the time I was there, I never heard the question moved, whether they did look on that Ordination they had here, as true (for substance) or not. But this I dare boldly affirm for them;  
1 That they do look upon abundance of our Presbyterial Ministers, as true Ministers of Christ.  
2 I know that they will disapprove of the practice of some, who have separated from the Ministers, whom they have before chosen, and the godly Congregations, upon this notion, as I know some have done, 
I do honour the grace of divers of those Christians who separated, but Satan got into an Angel of light, and deceived  especially from that famous Congregation of Dedham, of which I dare say, that for a Parochial Congregation, there is not the like number of real and visible Saints in any Congregation in England; I am sure there was not before this Separation was made; and for the Ministers I speak not of them, they are men well known. I wish I had nothing more to trouble me, then to live under that Ministry in that Congregation, I hope whereas now I am a sad man, I should be as cheerful as any man in England. Mr. Burroughs said, he could communicate in that Congregation, than it seems he did not question whether there were any true Ministers.  
Object. But if you say, Our New England Ministers do renounce their Ordination which they had here, for they are ordained again.  
Answ. 
See Answ. to 32. q. 70  It's true, they are ordained again, but I never heard it was upon that ground, for let a Minister be ordained there in one Church, if there be cause of his removal, and so be elected in another Church, they ordain him again.  
Thirdly, I can say this, our New England Ministers have often desired, and frequently admitted to preach in their Congregations, that went from hence, but were not ordained there.  
But our Ministers of New England are here judged nothing worth, but are as contemptible as any, in the mouths of our Separatists, yet they are men of worth.  
Secondly, I answer to what you say, It came through, and from the Romish Synagogue. If your argument have any force, you must cast it thus:  
Those Ministers which stand by a Romish Institution, are no true Ministers of Christ. But the Ministers of England stand by a Romish Institution; Ergo, the Ministers of England are no true Ministers of Christ.  
The major you will grant, and if we can prove the minor, our Ministers shall utterly renounce their Ordination, I dare undertake for them; but the minor is very false, they stand by no Romish Institution: for Ordination is none of their inventions, but instituted by the Lord Jesus himself, long before Antichrist was. But your Argument runs thus:  
Those Ministers which stand by an Institution of Christ descending to them from the Apostles through the Church of Rome, they are no true Ministers of Christ.  
But the Ministers of England stand by an Institution of Christ, descending to them from the Apostles through the Church of Rome, Ergo, They are no true Ministers.  
This is the true meaning of your Argument, but the major is very false: shall the passing through Rome null the Institutions of Christ? did not the Scriptures, Sacraments, and what ever Ordinances we now have, descend to us from the Apostles through Rome? Shall we therefore cast them away? That Argument runs as strong against our Baptism, and any other Ordinance, with which though the Church of Rome mingled their inventions, did they therefore null the Ordinance? the vessels that were once dedicated to God by his own Institution, though they were put into the house of Nebuchadnezars gods, and those that were fit, very like used by Belshazzar to drink wine in, when he praised the gods etc. they were not so much as new cast again, but carried to Jerusalem. 
Ezra 1.7. ad fin.   
I pray what do you think of the judgement of Mr. Johnson? a man great, I am sure, among the brethren of the Separation (though the Separatists in our days make a tush at the judgement of any man, yea, although he were of the Separation; but yet consider the reasons which swayed him, and then judge.) The case was this, One that was a Minister in the Church of England, was after chosen Teacher to a separate Congregation, without any new Imposing of hands, this he undertakes to justify thus:  
1 Imposition of hands is of God, and not an invention of man: It was not a postor threshold first brought by Antichrist into the Temple of God, but had therein afore Antichrist sat there.  
2. Baptism and Imposition of hands are joined together among the principles of the foundation spoken of, Heb. 6.2. therefore it ought to be regarded.  
3. Imposition of hands is in the Church of Rome still given to the office of the Ministry, and in the name of the Lord, as they do also still administer Baptism.  
4. We found not either precept, example, or ground in the Scripture binding us to the repetition of it.  
5. The Priests and Levites in Israel becoming unclean, when afterward they were cleansed, retained still their places of being Priests, and Levites; and the children of the Priests and Levites succeeding after them, ●id administer without a new anointing, or new imposition of hands etc. Thus then, as Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth opposed Rebaptization, because Baptism is an Ordinance of God, which was had in the Church of Rome, before she fell into Apostasy, and hath been there continued ever since the Apostles times (how ever co-mingled with many inventions of their own:) so Mr. Johnson defended the Ordination of that Minister, which he had in England, because Imposition of hands was in the Church of Rome from the Apostles times, before her Apostasy, and is there continued to this day, though mixed with many pollutions of their own.  
I pray only note this, that whereas I say, they stand by their Ordination, I do not mean that only, but also they have the election of the people, of which I spoke before, and that the Separatists cannot deny, which yet they make the greatest matter in a Ministers call.  
Thirdly, I answer, If this argument be of any force, it would rather prevail against the first Reformers, as in other Nations, so against our first Reformers in England, who came newly out of Popery; but what is this to us, who have been above ninety years out of that bondage, and have cast off their Government, Worship, and Doctrine (so fare as Antichristian) for a long time; but if our first Reformers were able enough to maintain their call, then much more our Ministers.  
Fourthly, but if you will throw away all that comes through Rome, let us see what course you will take, when you have denied all the Ordinances, that have been administered for these ninety years in England [for if no Ministry, then certainly no Authoritative preaching, no Sacraments] and thus you have renounced yvor Baptism, which you had by these Ministers; what method will you take in your Reformation? how will you come to be rebaptized? you will tell me, You will covenant together, and then elect and ordain a Minister, and he shall baptise: Of this more afterward.  
But let me examine what you say at present; You will covenant together (supposing yourselves to be Saints first) say you so? are you Saints by calling? how came you to be so? what did God call you immediately? No, you must say many (if not all) of you, who have any truth of grace, by the preaching of the word; what, by those Ministers from whom you separate, as no Ministers, because of their Ordination? hath the Lord so fare owned his despised members, as to make them the instruments to bring you to be visible Saints, fit to imbody or covenant, & c? and are these now no Ministers? are you the effect of their Ministerial labours, and they no Ministers? Surely in this one thing you have overthrown yourselves; but than you say, you will ordain him, this I will consider in its own place; Then he shall baptise: but since he did renounce his own baptism also, who shall baptise him first? you must have a Minister to do that, to be sure he cannot do it himself, nor none of you, for you are private persons; to administer the Lords Supper before you be baptised, is contrary to Scripture rules.  
There was a report when I was in New England, that a Carpenter re-baptised Mr. Williams, 
In Iust. Mar. time none received the Supper, but such as were first baptised, Apol. 2. Ius Divi. Apend. p. 269.  and then he did re-baptize the rest: I do not stand to defend the thing whether it be true or no, but it was like enough to be true, and suitable to the other opinions and practices of that wild generation. Where are we now?  
Fifthly, that is very observable, which the London Ministers have added in the defence of their Ordination, That in this Church of England, the corruptions which the Church of Rome would have introduced about Ordination of Ministers and other Ecclesiastical affairs, were withstood and opposed by the Kings of England: Nor do we read of any Ministers that were ordained by any Agents sent from Rome, but only some idle ceremonies of Confirmation, or them that were ordained by the Pall and the Ring brought thence into England. Thus far the London Ministers: In the margin they have set down the Authors that prove it.  
Sixtly, There might be another answer given by some, who are good Historians, [which I confess I am not, wanting both time and such books] so fare as I can go, I will. That the Churches in England were at first rightly gathered and constituted, it is not to be doubted, 
Mart. 1. Vol. p. 237 last Edition.  the instruments of gathering being Apostles or Apostolical men, as is evident by Mr. Fox; neither is it to be doubted, but they did ordain officers in the Churches, for we read of Ministers and Bishops. The land falling to the possession of the Saxons about the year 568. 
p. 147.  the Story saith by them, all the Clergy and the Christian Ministers of the Britain's were then utterly driven out, in so much that the Archbishops of London and York went into Wales: thus long then it seems the Ministers of England had no ordination from Rome; 
P. 149.  this appears also by Austin, who came into England in the year five hundred ninety eight, he about the year six hundred, 
P. 153.  assembled the Bishops and Doctors of Britain (so that still here were Ministers, but where their abode was, the story sets not down, but supposed to be towards Wales,) and charged them to preach the Gospel to the Englishmen, and also that they should among themselves reform certain rites in their Church (so that still here were Ministers and Churches) specially for keeping of Eastertide, baptising after the manner of Rome, etc. to which the Scots and Britain's would not agree (this shows they did not depend upon Rome.) Afterward there was another Synod gathered, where seven Bishops of Britain were present; and though we find a great battle fought presently after, where the Britain's were overcome, yet the Story doth not mention that the Ministers were all slain there. Now the thing I aim at is this, that since there were so many Ministers and Bishops in England, who had their ordination by succesfion from those Apostolical men, and not from Rome, and we find so many, when Austin came, why may we not suppose that these might again preach the Gospel to the Englishmen, though at first they were opposite, when they had smarted for their folly? and why may we not suppose they might return into England again, especially into those parts near Wales? also those who were driven out, as the Story saith they were, suppose into some other parts, might not they return into England? also must we take the words of the Story, (All the Clergy and Christian Ministers were driven out) strictly so, as none at all were left, though latent, & c? those, who are good Historians, may help here, and it would be some answer to that objection of our ordination coming from Rome, though unto me, the objection is very feeble, if this answer cannot be made out.  
As for the Churches of England, being rightly at first gathered, 
Way of Ch. in N. E. Ch. 7. p. 111.  as above mentioned; Mr. Cotton yields it, so as he saith, That all the work now is, not to make them Churches, which were none before, but to reduce, and restore them to their primitive Institution, etc.  
To that part of the Objection, They were ordained by Bishops; I pray what do you think of Master Bradford, and the rest of those holy Ministers and Martyrs that were ordained by the Bishops in those days, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, & c? was he an Anti-christian Minister, and all those Ministers, who were then ordained, though now they were scarce got out of the Popish Ceremonies? etc. the holy Martyrs than did never offer to separate from Mr. Bradford, and the rest, nor call them Antichristian Ministers. I pray how many such Bradfords have you among you? Not all the Separatists in England can afford such a one; Christ calls him his faithful Minister, but you say Mr. Bradford is none; cursed be that doctrine. Now if those Ministers were true Ministers, though they had an Episcopal Ordination, than so are ours, notwithstanding their Ordination by Bishops. It is vain to say those Bishops were godly men, so were ot ours: for it is a bold assertion to say, that none of the Bishops since have been godly men, no doubt there are divers in Heaven. And besides, it is absurd to think, that the truth and efficacy of an Ordinance depends upon the truth of Grace in him who doth administer it; as for Ceremonies, if you search, they were not clear then, no more than our Bishops were.  
It is a silly shift to say, They walked according to their light; I hope there was the same rule to judge of the truth of Ministers then, that is now; it was not their light which made them true Ministers, but the rule. But the truth of their Ministry was never questioned, till our Separatists risen up, who are not comparable to them in parts, or holiness.  
2 I pray, what do you make of those Ministers who were ordained in the Primitive Churches? 
Cyp. Epis. 33,  they were ordained in Cyprians time by Bishops, and Presbyters; and by Hieroms time the Bishops had engrossed that power into their own hands, as appears by that speech of his, Excepting Ordination, 
Epist. ad. Evagr.  what doth a Bishop that a Presbyter doth not? so that by this time it should seem that the Presbyters were turned out, and the Bishops only Ordained. It is possible this might be but in some Churches, for the fourth council of Carthage ordered, That no Bishop should Ordain without the council of his Clergy, Can. 22. Can. 3. Now, what were these no Ministers? Anti-christ was not yet got into his Seat, for the years of his reign had been expired before this time. It is strange, that those should be no true Ministers, who lived so near the Apostles times, and under persecution also, as in Cyprians time; neither was Cyprian surely the first Bishop that did Ordain, for there were Bishops before him; yea, besides this Ordination by Bishops, we find the Papists contending strongly for strange Rites, which they use in Ordination, and they say they were also used in those Primitive times: for the anointing of the hands of the Presbyter that is ordained, this they would prove from Cyprian, or at least the Author of The Card. work of Ch. who should seem to be as old as Cyprian; also from Eusebius Hist. Eccles. l. 10. c. 4. which place would seem to favour it; and others there are, whom they quote. See Greg. De Val. to 4. d. 9 q. 5. Also for the shaving of the heads of their Ministers, this we find indeed in August. time, Ep. 26. & Ep. 147. And this Calvin himself doth not deny to have been used then, and gives the reason why it was used; which Greg. de Val. scorns, and gives other reasons, To. 4. D. 9 q. 5. p. 3. If the Decret. Epistles of Anicetus be of any Authority, we shall find it in his days, long before Augustin; and I wonder that Greg. Val. doth not quote him. I am apt to think, being they were so prone to Ceremonies in other Ordinances, that something was added to this also; 
Iust. l. 4. c. 19 Sect 27.  and I marvel that in the fourth Council of Carthage, where they set down their rites in Ordinations of other officers, and some very ridiculous, that the ordination of Presbyters should be the most pure; but still with Bishops as well as Presbyters, which is the thing now in hand.  
3 A Bishop, if you consider him merely as a Bishop, was but a Minister, and set apart to do the work of a Minister, the same, which all other Ministers may do; Bishops did Pray, Preach, Baptise, administer the Lords Supper, Ordain, Suspend, Excommunicate, and these things other Ministers do, and may do; that he did lift up himself above other Ministers, that was his error, that he would take upon him the sole power of Ordination, and Excommunication, this was his error; but as the addition of an human invention did not null the Ordinances, (as suppose only grown persons had been baptised, and that by dipping, and after dipping they had been signed with the sign of the Cross, would this have nulled the Ordinance in the Anabaptists esteem?) no more this usurpation of the power of administering these Ordinances did null a Bishop, so as he was no Minister; the Ordinances were, and are Christ's institutions. Indeed you may call him, an Overgrown Presbyter, but a Presbyter. 
3 Ep. joh ver. 10.  Diotrophes loving of pre-eminence did justly deserve reproof, and John did no doubt deal with him, but yet for present did not deny him to be a Minister, though a corrupt one; for the sole power of Ordination, they tell us, It is the order of the Church of England, as of the Council of Carthage, that when a Presbyter is Ordained, all the Presbyters that are present shall lay hands. As for the sole power of Excommunication, though it was an error gross enough, yet by the 17. Canon, Concil. Sardic. 
Ofius who was the cause of that Ganon being made, was also at the Council of Nice.  it should seem the Bishops by that time had got that power to excommunicate alone; which Canon provides a remedy for a person wrongsully excommunicated by his Bishop, to got relief by Appeals; now if that corruption had got in so early, long before Anti-christ had got to his Seat, no wonder though it was found among our Bishops, yet I hope they were true Ministers whom they Ordained. As a Bishop was a Lord Bishop, his Lordship was but a mere civil addition annexed to the Bishopric by Regallfavour, his Lordship was no ingredient into Ordination.  
4 The Laws of this Realm do account nothing Divine in a Bishop, but his being a Presbyter, 
Lond. vind. 125. Dr. Seam. answ. to Diat. p. 85.  and therefore the Parliament in their Ordinance for Ordination, tells us, that they did ordain as Presbyters, not as Bishops, much less as Lord Bishops; yea, I have heard a reverend Minister (now Pastor of a congregational Church in Essex) say, that when the Bishop ordained him, he told him, I do ordain you as I am a Presbyter.  
5 The Ministers of England are ready to acknowledge those defects, and corruptions which did cleave to their entering into the Ministry by the Bishops; hear their own words, 
London Vindica. p. 124.  We do not deny, but that the way of Ministers entering into the Ministry by the Bishops, had many defects in it, for which they ought to be humbled; but we add, that notwithstanding all the accidental corruptions, yet it is not substantially, and essentially corrupted. They acknowledge then the error, and desire to be humbled for it: what more would you have, God will accept of this I doubt not, and why not you? How to mend Dr. Seaman's Divinity I know not, where you have also the error acknowledged implicitly (for it is in answer to this Objection) then giving his judgement in the case: When sin cleaves to the manner of Calling, 
Answer to Diat. p. 85.  through the general error or corruption of all sorts of people who are concerned in it, etc. it is nototherwise to be invalidated here below, then by doctrinal Censure, and Repentance, and not by iteration. Repentance through Christ's Blood doth take away corruption out of God's fight, and will it not (when they are so ingenuous) out of your sight?  
6 There is a maxim taken up among the Independents, 
Many may truly bear the name, yea they own it, and practise accordingly.  (yea and others) and it goeth for as good Divinity as any the Gospel hath, viz. That errors in Nonfundamentals must be borne withal in Churches, we must labour indeed to convince people of such, but if they will not be so convinced, we must not proceed any further to cast them out. I have heard the New England Ministers sharply censured, because they have excommunicated for some errors, (i.e. denying of some Ordinances) which are supposed to fall within the compass of Nonfundamentals; This maxim is cried up among the Separatists. For the Thesis itself (considering into what a narrow compass Fundamentals are penned up) I think it to be Apocryphal Divinity, and just it is with God to let in errors in Fundamentals, when such Church, and Truthdestructive Principles are drunk in by godly Christians; yet let us bring this rule, and lay it to the case in hand: I hope they do not make rules for themselves, if it be a true Christian Rule, it is for all Christians; Here than we have men qualified by God with Ministerial, and (abundance of them) personal gifts, they have the election or consent of the people, they are separated to the work of the Ministry by persons, who were Ministers, but did erroneously assume too much to themselves, now grant that here is an error, yet I hope it is not in a fundamental point. Some great Divines call Ordination but an Adjunct, and yourselves less, you think it a Toy: so than if you must not be separated from a Church for errors in Nonfundamentals, then neither ought you to separate from a true Church for an error, which is not fundamental. Certainly if that rule hath place any where, then here: you will by this rule keep Anabaptists, Anti-Sabbatarians, Antinomians, (truly such) Anti-Psalmists, Arminians, etc. within your Churches, and not cast them out; but (forsooth) a little error (in comparison of them) and that acknowledged, in the Ministers, that is ground sufficient to cast off them, and call them Antichristians, etc. yet there are no conscientious men but these; the Separatists Gospel will afford Rules for them, but not for other Christians.  
As you trouble the Ministers here, so I doubt they will trouble you in the Ordinations of your Ministers; that is, to make it clear to them, that private men have power to Ordain: I have seen it myself, when two private men have imposed their hands upon him, who was to be their Pastor. Another I know, whom a Carpenter and a Tailor Ordained, with imposition of hands; I doubt the Ministers will put you hard to it, to prove that this is according to the Rule, (yea, when other Ministers [but of other Churches] were present, these have imposed hands.) If we consult with the Gospel, we shall find it rather to favour a Bishop (though no Lordly one) by the example of Timothy and Titus, (from whom our Bishops proved their Superiority, and sole power of Ordination) to Ordain, then private men, and that in the presence of divers other Ministers. I am sure this will be hard to prove from Scripture, I shall speak a few words to this point afterward. Suppose any of the Bishops had been of that opinion, that none but persons grown, and making confession of their Faith ought to be Baptised, and they would Baptise only by dipping, would not the Anabaptists have judged this to be true Baptism? would they null this Baptism, because he was a Bishop, since he was a Minister, set apart to that work? etc. as Austin baptised many thus, after he had been in England a while, who yet was an Archbishop, was that no true Baptism? I do not think that the Anabaptists (if they have any brains in their heads) will deny that Baptism were nul; if that were good, so is Ordination for the substance of it. If there have been no true Ministers, nor Ordinances, nor Churches, but where there hath been no humane mixtures, nor wicked persons, than there hath been but few Ministers, Ordinances, or Churches, since there was a Church upon earth, and if there ought to be separation from such Ministers and Churches, than we should have found Separatists enough; how hardly was Superstition kept out in the Church of the Jews before the Captivity, say, how many years? 
Alsle. Chron. p. 2153. Goodw. Mo. Ar. l. 1. c. 10. Chemnitius in 10. joh. takes thiefs there to be the Pharisees, for their order was not instituted by God, nor brought in by the Prophets, but only a humane invention, and through their own boldness.  Afterward, when Christ came, were they clear? what think you then of corrupt Caiphas the High Priest, his corrupt entering into, and his continuance in the place for one year? So the Pharisees, a Generation that God never instituted, their School began, some say, two hundred and forty years, some say more, before Christ, and for their Superstitious inventions they were not barren in them: but did Christ, so soon as he came to Preach call away the people, and bid them separate? here are corrupt Officers, etc. No, we find no such word; nay, he bids then hear, Matth. 23. After Christ, I pray tell me, how long did the Churches continue without Superstitious mixtures, I doubt you will find the Church hath not been long free, but we do not find separation presently, and nulling of Ministers, as now Men should do well to give us a precept, or example out of the Word, where Ordinances have been dispensed true for the substance, though some humane mixtures have been joined to them, that therefore they were iterated. If they cannot give us a direct precept or example, show us it by a necessary consequence from Scripture. I wonder men should be so forward to iterate Baptism, and Ordination, as these Separatists call for, without scriptural grounds.  
9 There are hundreds of Ministers in England, who were not Ordained by Bishops, but you separate from those also; they had the election of the people first, then with fasting and prayer, solemnly set apart to the work by divers godly and learned Divines, who were against Bishops, yet these are also scorned by yourselves, as much as the others; but (forsooth) because they were Ordained by Bishops, and had not renounced their Ordination, and taken their Ordination from you, therefore that infection spreads even to all Generations. Out of what I have said, I may pick up some answers to this, but for troubling the Reader; and the truth is, they are in some sense unreasonable men I deal with; but this let me say, it is strange, that when an Ordinance is purged in itself, and those who administer it, renounce what defects have cleaved to their own Ordination, only for the substance owning it (as another Ordinance may be corrupted, or rather have corruptions annexed to it, but not nulled by those accidental corruptions) that this infection should adhere so strongly, that it cannot be mended, but by nulling of it. Friends, this cavilling will not do in the Day of Judgement. Besides, I pray give me an instance where it was ever practised, that persons, that were not Baptised, did Ordain a Minister? If you ask me, What need that question, for we are Baptised, therefore it doth not concern us? By whom I pray? If you say, by the Ministers, than I desire no more; if they were so fare Ministers as to administer Baptism to you, than they may well administer Ordination to us; renounce therefore the Baptism you had by them, so I am sure you cannot ordain; and when you are regularly re-baptised, and can warrant your Act, and prove that you have the power to Ordain, than we will listen to you.  
For my own Ordination, it was in the face of my people, the day was spent in fasting, and Prayer, those who carried on the work were Mr. Dan. Rogers, Mr. Martial, Mr. Ranew, with other godly Ministers, who joined with them in the imposing of hands (the Ministers lived about me) I never saw that Ordinance carried on with more solemnity in my life, the people shown their election by suffrage, holding up their hands; all was done according to the Pattern; but yet I am a man as much scorned as other men, who were Ordained by Bishops. (I can submit to God in that scorn that these cast upon me, for I deserve it at his hands;) only there was a foul error committed at my Ordination, and it is told up and down by some of this kind, against whom I writ, and I pray what is it? This, The Ministers imposed hands in my Ordination; this hath been talked of as a strange thing; but let me answer for the Ministers, it was no error, much less such a great one as you make it.  
1 If private men, Carpenters and Tailors may impose hands, why may not Ministers? but the former have done it. Ergo.  
2 All the Ordinations that ever I saw in New England were performed with imposition of hands; I have seen Deacons ordained thus.  
3 If you be wiser than the Elders in New England, 
Answ. to the 32. que. p. 67. Survey of Church Dise. p. 2. p. 74.  and Master Hooker, then overthrow them, for they conceive it nearest to the institution.  
4 If you observe the examples in the New Testament, which are our Guides in Church affairs, we shall find Ordinations have been thus performed; as Acts 6.6. Act. 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 5.22. Heb. 6.2. Laying on of hands; Which place, by Classical men, congregational men, and Separatists, is interpreted of Ordination. I do not here bring in the practice of Churches in former times, because I intent not to handle the controversy, Whether imposition of hands be necessarily required in ordination? but bring you in as many examples from Scripture, where there were Ministers Ordained without imposition of hands; as also the practice of other true Church's Orthodox and sound, who do Ordain without, etc. or else be ashamed of your ignorance, and charge not those men with error where none was, but a true following the pattern.  
The substance and essence then of Ordination being this, That persons qualified Ministerially be set apart, or separated for the work of the Ministry by persons in Office [ordinarily it must be thus, what may be done extraordinarily, when no Officers can be had is another case] the Ministers in England have that Ordinance for the substance, and they have the election and consent of the people, (it is hardly to be supposed that every individual person in a Parish will consent to every godly Minister, but consent there is) hence these two concurring to the Call, which is the form of a Minister, many Presbyterial Ministers are true Ministers. I dare say more, but I am sure now I save myself. But I have not done with Ordination yet, I shall meet with it once again afterwards. Let us now come and try the second ground for separation, scil. The Worship of God; the fault here must be reduced to one of these three heads; either;  
1 Because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God in these Churches. Or,  
2 Because the Ordinances of God are mixed with humane inventions, that they cannot partake of them without sin. Or,  
3 Because here are other Ordinances set up in the Churches then ever Christ did institute. I cannot conceive any more.  
For the first; Suppose it were so, that there were a defect of some Ordinances, is that a sufficient ground for separation? Mr. Hooker saith no. If a Father of a Family wants a Rod in his house, 
The preface to Survey of Church Discip.  is it ergo no family? there may be some disorder in the house for want of good Government, yet a family. Divers Divines of great note conceive by that text, Nehem. 8.17, 18. That the Church of the Jews did omit the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles almost the space of a thousand years, the Ark was absent from the Tabernacle from the time of Eli, to the time of David, 1 Sam. 4.11. compared with, 2 Sam. 6, 17. and it was a great fault; the Scribes rejected the Baptism of John, but where do you find any separation all this while, that the godly should not join with that Church, and partake in what Ordinances they had? But this objection hath no place in these Churches, for Prayer, Preaching, Administration of the Sacraments, yea, Discipline they had in the Episcopal days, they did suspend from the Lords Supper, and the Bishops gave the Minister's power, but suspension is the lesser Excommunication, and now to be sure there are none wanting (at least should not be,) if the Ministers were not hindered in setting up all the Ordinances.  
Obj. No, say you, the Classical Churches have no explicit Covenant for the form of them, they will not admit it into their Churches, therefore we separate.  
I shall meet with this in another place, only for the present disprove what Mr. Hooker hath said, and the former examples I have given you; but yet you will have a hard piece of work, to prove this to be a sufficient ground for your separation, as afterwards I hope I shall make good.  
For the second, Humane mixtures in Ordinances.  
This indeed was the ground of the old Separatists, yet in those days many holy and learned Divines wrote against the Separation; but in these days that stumbling block is removed; and this let me say, that if you read over all the Church-stories, since there was a Church upon the earth, there cannot be found any example of such separatists, as are now amongst us; the old Donatists had their Ministers, yea, Bishops as well as Presbyters; the separate Churches of later days had their Ministers, and how strictly did they maintain and practise all those Ordinances, which ours laugh at, as singing of Psalms, Infant-Baptism, observation of the Sabbath, and such opinions as those learned and godly men, Mr. Ainsworth, Robinson, Johnson, did abhor, are swallowed down among ours; so that these men cannot ground their practice from any example heretofore; and as for the Scripture, if they can find any grounds there, I must confess I am altogether ignorant in the Scripture.  
Suppose there should be some human mixtures (though for my part I know of none) are all the Ordinances so polluted: preaching and prayer were kept pure in the Episcopal days; why do you not communicate with them in those Ordinances, which are pure?  
If you object, The Ordinances indeed are pure, but those who join in those Ordinances are not pure, therefore we separate.  
This properly belongs to the third head (the Congregation) I shall there answer to this Cavil.  
Thirdly, for the setting up such Ordinances as Christ never did, I cannot imagine where you will be, unless you mean Infant-baptisme, and singing of Psalms, for I find these are spoken against very much. But are these fundamental errors, if they be errors, have you been forced to baptise your Infants, or sing Psalms? are you not at your choice whether you will or not? do not many people sit in Congregations, and not sing at all? not but that I conceive Church-members ought to be regarded in this, and called to an account, though they had need be handled tenderly, if otherwise they seem to be godly, yet their being hopefully godly, is not a sufficient ground to keep them from Church-censures, unless all circumstances being considered they appear to be truly conscientious, men of humble spirits, not self-willed, and desiring forbearance and patience in clearing of the point, than I know Ministers would bear with such a long time; but to have persons run into these errors, and let alone, as if they were things of no concernment; truly by what rules you will lose two Ordinances, you may lose four; Official preaching is cried down, and Church Discipline also, by the Erastians', no outward form of Government, which I suppose was the scope of Mr. Dells Sermon before the Parliament; and so I think it is that which Rob. purnel in his short Prophecy of the down-fall of Presbytery and Independency aims at, that there should be no external form of Church-Government, but only the government of the spirit within; and for all Ordinances, some are above them, who have been Members of congregational Churches, insomuch that when the Brethren came to choose an Officer, a Mason risen up and opposed it, professing he lived immediately upon Christ, and he owned none; neither was he alone I believe: but if you take away all the Ordinances, how we shall know there is a God in the world, I know not; to be sure, we shall not know by the deal of these men: I know so much by them, that one had as good deal with the Indians as with some of them, so that in conclusion we shall have brave Churches without ordinances.  
As for Infant-baptisme, this is not a place for me to prove it to be an Ordinance of God; what the Adversaries can say is summed up in Mr. Tombs, a man, I hear, esteemed truly godly on all hands, and for his Learning he shows himself to be a Scholar, it is pity the man's parts were defiled in maintaining such a wretched opinion, as Mr. Hooker calls it. I confess, Master Tombes' abilities are such, that I may hold the Candle to him, but yet let me say this, I can easily discern Mr. Tombs to dispute more like a Sophister, than a Christian, that did desire to see truth. Mr. Martial tells him, and not without cause, 
In his defence, etc. p. 247.  Your faculty is fare better in darkening, slurring, and plundering the Arguments of your Adversary, then in making good your own. It is the happiness Mr. Martial hath above many, that in his preaching, and so in printing, he can convey his mind to his Hearer, or Reader so, as the weakest may understand; how then his Arguments come to be so dark, to so learned a man, as Mr. Tombs, I cannot conceive, if he had dealt candidly; but when Master Tombs hath answered Mr. Martial, Cotton, Baxter, Cobbet, Hooker, Holmes, Geree, etc. then we shall bethink ourselves of new Arguments, but these Worthies have maintained that Ordinance with that strength, that I believe the contrary opinion will rarely, or never take with an intelligent head, and a sober, godly heart.  
For singing of Psalms, this is not a place neither to follow that Question: whether it be an Ordinance of God, I never heard of any that writ against it, except one, whom Mr. Cotton hath answered, and I think sufficiently enough. When Master Cotton is silenced, than we shall bethink ourselves concerning that Ordinance: I hear of others that have printed for it, but Master Cottons piece is all I have seen concerning that subject, Pro or con.  
Only because there was a Sectary, 
In Colchester.  that in a Shop scoffingly asked me, To what purpose singing of Psalms was? the man's spirit I saw very unsavoury, and the place not convenient to discourse; I gave him no answer, but shall now give him the grounds that lead me to believe it is an Ordinance of Christ, and let him confute them. I cannot avoid it, but I must touch divers things that have been touched before, but what I do, shall be very brief.  
1. If singing of Psalms were an Ordinance under the Old Testament, and not repealed in the New Testament [being not Typical, or Ceremonial, etc.] then it is also an Ordinance under the New Testament.  
But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Consequent is true.  
For the Antecedent, that it was an ordinance then, the Adversaries deny not, and as other ordinances, which then were in use, and not repealed (as Prayer, Preaching, etc.) are ordinances now under the New Testament, why should not singing of Psalms also be continued an ordinance still?  
They object, Singing of Psalms with the voice, is but a type of singing Psalms with the heart.  
I answer; If indeed it were typical, than it were some ground to believe it was repealed; we read your Dictates, but we read no proofs, give us your texts to prove it was typical, else your Dictates will not take with us; That which makes me strongly to believe the contrary is this, That Paul, and Silas, when none but they were in the Prison, yet they sang, Act. 16.25. now this was ill done of them, if it were Typical, yet to keep it in practice, when they were alone, however in other points and Ceremonies the Apostles did condescend as fare as they could to the Jews, 
Epia. 19  giving the Ceremonies (being now dead) as Augustine saith, an honourable burial, yet that Paul and Silas being now alone without Jews, having no such temptation, but may keep their liberty, should practise a Typical ordinance, believe it who will, for I cannot. When I had framed my answer, looking into Mr. Cotton, I perceived that he mentions this of their singing in answer to this Cavil, 
P. 24.  and giveth more answers, whither I refer the Reader.  
2 The second ground that moves me is the express Scripture, Ephes. 5.19. & Col. 3.16. speaking one to another in Psalms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Beza, as the word is used, Ephes. 4. ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgiving one another; so in Col. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Transtation there renders it, one another: Loquentes inter vos mutuò, Beza, so Piscator, so Zanchy: When drunkards are full of wine, than they begin to sing their Songs, saith he; so Christians filled with this wine, have these Spiritual Songs, Psalms, etc. to sing; for the difference between these, see our English Annotations, or Hiero. in Loc.  
Several Objections are here made, which I shall not study to answer, only in a word.  
1 They say, The text doth not say, sing one to another, but speak one to another; the Psalms dwelling in their hearts, they were to dispense them in way of teaching; but as for singing, he maketh no mention of that until he came to teach them, the manner of dispensing the Word of Christ [a darke expression] unto God in the end of the verse, and that is making melody in the heart.  
Master Cotton answers with a grave reproof; That men should rather bow their judgements and practices to Scripture Language, then bow the sense of the Scripture to their own conceptions against the Language of the Scripture; for saith he, it is one thing to speak one to another in Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, as is done in singing, and another thing to teach one another out of Psalms, etc. It is true, they were to teach one another out of the Psalms, and the scope of Paul will reach that; but if he had meant only so, he would not have said, Speak ye one to another, In Psalms, but Out of the Psalms, as is the Scripture phrase, etc.  
2 To me it seemeth strange, if that were all Paul's meaning, why should Paul mention only those parts of the Word which use to be sung? Why doth he not mention the Prophets, Isaiah, etc. as also the New Testament, to teach one another out of them? Are there not as excellent Truths, gracious Promises, to be found in those Prophets, and worthy for Christians to be instructed in, as in the Psalms, or other Songs that we find of Moses, Deborah, & c? but for Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all those Prophets, besides other parts of the Old and New Testament, they were never wont to be sung in the Church, but only these which Paul mentions in both places, not adding any portion of Scripture more in the Epist. to the Colossians, then to the Ephesians, therefore I cannot believe that should be the meaning, as the Objector saith.  
3 The Apostle mentions singing we see presently, now if any thing can be made out of what the Objector saith, it may possibly be this; That Paul would have them teach one another the sense and scope of a Psalm, that all may understand the meaning of the Psalm they sing [as is the practice of some Ministers, if they be to sing a Psalm that is more dark, then in a few words they give the people to understand the meaning of the Psalm they sing] and so sing with understanding, 1 Cor. 14, 15. I say, Why may not this be something of the meaning? I leave it to more able heads to judge. But this doth not exclude singing  
But whereas he conceives singing should be only the making melody in the heart, 
Hieron, in Colos. 3. Nusquam legimus aliquem sine voce cantasse, unde necesse est hic, in cord, ex cord, intelligi, etc.  I pray let him hear what an old Commentator said long ago, upon the words; We read not where that any one sung without a voice, wherefore it is necessary that in the Heart here, he understood from the Heart. viz. That we sing not only with the mouth, but with the heart, So Beza, In your heart, i. e. Serio cordis affectu, non autem linguâ duntaxat, neque enim in cord idem hic declarat atque intus & apud se, cum mentio fiat canendi in caetu. So other Divines, as Calvin, Zanchy, etc. whom I forbear to name.  
The same text also affords a good ground for singing David's Psalms, with other spiritual Songs recorded in Scripture; or else I desire them to give me a reason, why Paul should direct us to the very Titles of David's Psalms, and yet not mean David's Psalms, any one that hath the least taste of the Hebrew Language knows this. Some of them are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalms, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used about forty times in David's Psalms, I do not stand upon the exact number. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hymns, the Book of David's Psalms is named by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritual Songs, 
See Buxto. Concord. Exod. 15.  this is frequent in David's Psalms; also Deborah useth this word, Judg. 5.12. so now it seems strange that Paul should point us to these, and yet we must not sing them, which were sung before.  
The third ground that moves me, is the example I find in the New Testament, of Christ himself, with his Apostles, Matth. 26.30. they sung a Hymn; he did not sing it between the Passeover and the institution of the Supper, as being a Typical thing, and so let it be joined to the Passeover, as the Jews did; but after he had instituted that Ordinance, which must last to the end of the world, and they received the Bread and Wine, than he and they sung, as some conceive six Psalms, 
Beza in Loc.  beginning at 112. to 117. whence it is the practice of Churches, following the pattern, to sing after the receiving of the Supper.  
So the example of Paul and Silas, Act. 16, 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hymnos canebant Deo, saith Beza, or Hymnis laudabant Deum, Piscator, and Pasor, they praised God with Hymns; that which some object, the text saith, they sang praises, not Psalms; this is very poor, besides the original word, how should one sing praises to God but in some Psalm, spiritual Sons, etc. for Praise, if you take it properly as distinct from honour and glory, is but the honourable making mention of another, and that externally by tongue or pen; also that text, Heb. 13.15. by him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, etc. intimates as much.  
And this text over-throws that conceit of singing only in the heart, which one that was a member of the Church of Rowly in New England had taken up, and upon that ground, and some other notions he had, denied singing, and maintained (as well as he could) that singing of Psalms was no Ordinance of God. I do not know how this man's opinion came to be known, for had he kept his own counsel, I suppose none should much have taken notice of him, which makes me think it was of his own venting at first; our Elders laboured with him to convince him (the Elders of Ipswich, besides his own Pastor) this text was alleged to prove singing with an Audible voice, for they sang, and the Prisoners heard him: yet this man could not [or rather would not, for the thing is plain as any one may understand] be convinced of the thing; the man after long labouring with him, but to no purpose, for he was tenacious in his own opinion, and as Hieron. said of Jovinianus, Non est contentus nostro, i. e. humano more loqui, altius quiddam aggreditur; High flown in his notions. The Elders seeing that obstinacy was joined to his error, they concluded, that either they must cast that Ordinance out of the Church, or else cast him out of the Church, and so the Church of Rowley did cast him out. I know they have been censured for this Act by some here, but at the Day of Judgement they will give as comfortable an account for maintaining of the Ordinances of Christ, as they shall do, who through their maxim of errors in Non-fundamentalls, make way to lose all the Ordinances, and then where is the Church?  
From this example of Paul and Silas we may argue, if two may sing Hymns or Psalms together, then four may, so forty, the number hinders not, for the voices here of many are no hindrance to the Ordinance, but rather they help to stir up the affections one of another; as in those, who are filled with wine, two singing together, or four, do not hinder their conceited mirth. So Christ and his eleven Apostles sang together.  
Whether will these men allow one Christian to sing a Psalm alone by himself, methinks the texts and examples mentioned, together with Jam. 5.13. Is any man merry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him sing Psalms, are so plain, as no rational man can deny it; But if one may, than the Church may. There is no act of Worship which any member of the Church is bound to perform, but the Church is bound to perform; but on the contrary it is not true, that what worship the Church doth perform, a member of Church can, or may; for instance for the first part, Meditation needs no Organ of the body, and therefore I leave that. But doth a Member of the Church Pray, so doth the whole Church: doth he read the Scriptures? so they are read in the Church; doth he fast and pray? so doth the Church; doth he sing a Psalm? so doth the Church; but it is not true on the contrary, as appears in the Sacraments, Preaching, Discipline, etc. Neither is that place, Revel. 15.2, 3. of small force, to prove singing to be an Ordinance, 
Exposit. Hos. 2.15. p. 525.  Those who overcame the Beast, sung the Song of Moses; This saith Mr. Burroughs I note, because hereby we may see that singing is an Ordinance in the Church of God, not only in the time of the Law, but in the time of the Gospel, etc. he was speaking of the text before.  
4 The fourth ground that moves me is this [I know not how it will take with others, but with me it is something] Psal 92. The title saith, it is a Psalm, or Song for the day of Sabbath; it is clear, that one way of sanctification of the Sabbath was by singing of Psalms; two of the words that Paul uses in Ephes. 5.19. are in this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm, Spiritual Songs; will any say, this Psalm was only for those times, but now is abolished with the Jewish Sabbath? what, is that admirable promise, in the thirteenth, and fourteenth verses vanished, and of no use to us? Should not Christians apply it, and plead it now, when as they are planted in God's house, and attending on him on our Christian Sabbath? have not we as much need of the Promise as they? this with me hath much prevailed; if we own a Christian Sabbath, singing of Psalms may well be owned also for an Ordinance of God now, as well as then.  
5 The fifth is the presence of the Spirit of God with his people in the use of this Ordinance; for the proof of what I say, let thousands of God's people speak, if they have not found God in the Ordinance; I will not go so fare as Augustin, but our Fathers, 
Confess. l. 9 c. 6. & l. 10. c. 33.  who used it in their families more than some of us do, I am sure they found God, and so have many now in these days; those who have not found God in it, they may cavil indeed, but let them be rather humbled, that God hath not given them, what others have tasted; those who do frequently find God in this Ordinance, they will not so slightly, and scornfully speak of it, as that Sectary did to me; but if God had usually manifested his presence with his Churches under the Old and New Testament, in the using of this Ordinance, this with the former Scriptures alleged prevail with me, to believe it is a Gospel ordinance still.  
6 The last ground that moves me, is the practice of the Primitive Churches: Antiquity after Scripture is as a cipher after a Figure, and doth increase the number; that singing was frequent among those Christians I find it recorded.  
1 Eusebius reporteth out of Philo, the Lives, manners, etc. of the religious men in Egypt; Mark being sent into Egypt, 
Eccles. hist. lib. 2. c. 17  as saith the story, to preach Christ, he there converted many, whose conversation (as I said) Philo Judaeus, a very learned man at that time, sets forth in commendation of the Christians: 
Hierom also relates this out of Philo Orationi vacatur & Psalmis. Catal. script. Ecclesiast.  among other things this he reporteth; They contemplate not only Divine things, but they make grave Canticles, and Hymns unto God, in a more sacred rhyme of every kind of meeter and verse. This Philo (a Hebrew) flourished about the year forty, being sent of an Embassage to Caius Caligula about that time; so than this was their practice in the Apostles times, Philo must needs be borne, and well grown in Christ's time.  
2 For Tertullian, 
Mine in Paris print, anno 1580.  there are two Testimonies brought out of him for singing of Psalms, the one is out of Apol. c. 2. the Letter which Plinius Secundus wrote to Trajan in behalf of the Church, where he mentions the practice; the other is out of Cap. 39 Apol. showing the Discipline of the Christians, and there it is mentioned; but I find two other places in him besides these as clear as those; one is, l. 2. ad uxorem, having spoken strongly against Christians marrying with Infidels, he shows the contrary, how good it is for Christians to marry with Christians, and among other things this he mentions; Sonant inter Duos Psalmi & Hymni, & mutuò provocant quis melius Deo sua canet; but most clear is that place, Cap. 3. De Animâ, as for his opinion De effigy animae, I leave that; but there he makes mention of a Sister of their Church, who had the gifts of Revelations, which it seems she had in the Church on the Lord's Day, As the Scriptures are read, or Psalms are sung, he reckons up other Ordinances, Prayer, etc. then matter for visions were administered, etc. Now this is most clear, it was in the Congregation, for when the people were gone (exercises being finished) than it seems she was wont to tell (the officers I suppose he means) what revelations she had, which they noted exactly. Tertullian then is so plain and full for this practice, that none can doubt whether the Churches used this Ordinance or no.  
Socrates' Scholast. speaking of the Hymns, which Chrysost. appointed his own people to sing in opposition to the Arians, 
Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 8.  in the end of the Chapter tells us that Ignatius, a man very familiar with the Apostles, saw a vision of Angels which extolled the blessed Trinity with Hymns, that were sung interchangeably, and delivered unto the Church of Antioch, the order and manner of singing expressed in the vision; so he would make Ignatius the Author of Anthems: I somewhat doubt whether that manner of singing was so ancient, but that singing was, I doubt not, then in practice.  
4. 
Quest. & Resp. Orth. q. 107.  Just. Martyr (or whosoever was the Author of that book) shows it was in use in that time, setting down with all the benefit that comes by singing.  
So that in the Apostles times, and the ages next to the Apostles, we find singing was in use.  
If we come a little lower to the year three hundred sixty four I find in 15. Canon, Concil. Laodic. none were allowed to sing praeter Canonicos Psaltes; here was a corruption got in by this time, cross to the command of Paul in his Epistles to the Ephes. and Coloss. but this implies that singing had been before in use in the Churches, and that the people were wont to sing, that now they limit singing to the Canonical Psalmists.  
That Athanasius used singing in his Church, appears also in August. Confess. l. 10. c. 33. also that the Psalms of David were sung then appears in the same place, and in his 119. Epist. c. 18. where he affirms, that for singing of Psalms and Hymns, we have the examples and precepts of Christ, and the Apostles, blaming withal the Donatists, that learning David's Psalms, they sung Hymns of their own inventing, etc.  
As for those, who would allow singing, if it might be of some spiritual song composed by some Saint now upon some occasions, I do not now trouble myself about them, only I wish them to make better songs, than that brother of one of the Churches in London [I do forbear to name whose Church it was] who composed a song to be sung on the day of Thanksgiving for the overthrow of the Scots at Dunbar; I heard the Song read over, and the party who read it, told me it was sung in the Church: I deny not but the man who composed it, might have an honest heart, but sure he had but a shallow head, in comparison of what men should have, that compose such Songs.  
If these be not grounds sufficient to answer that scoffer, let him give me better grounds to prove singing of Psalms is no Gospel Ordinance.  
So much for the second branch, the worship can be no ground of separation. Now I come to the third.  
Let us see if there be sufficient ground for separation in respect of the Congregation. The Congregations are very corrupt they say, hence they think they are bound to separate, and allege these places, 2 Cor. 6.17. Revel. 18.4.  
1. That there are very many corrupt persons in the Presbyterial Congregations, there are none deny it (and I wish the Independent Churches have not some corrupt persons also amongst them) you do not hear them justify all their Church-members, but you shall find them complaining of this corruption, and endeavouring by degrees to correct it, yea, I believe, had they power in their hands, they would soon show what they would do: I pray hear some of their words, 
Vindica. p. 115.  the London Ministers, Though we dare not make separation from a true Church, yet we do make separation in a true Church. Read over the whole Answer, and you may perceive their minds, 
P. 76.  before this in their exhortation to the Ministers and Elders, you have this one branch of their exhortation, That they would labour to make their Congregations pure as well as peaceable, following after piety, as much as after verity and unity, that all your people under your charge, may be visible Saints at least, 
Review of Mr Hoo a p. 89. ad 97.  you may feel how the pulses of these men beat. I observe also Mr. Cawdry differing very little from Mr. Hooker, in this point about visible Saints, being the material cause of a Church; where you may see what he would have, if Discipline were once established; that the Congregations are thus corrupt, 
See him also p. 202  the fault is not in them, but in the old Hierarchy, whose Errors while they go about to mend, you go away from them.  
2. I am sure, very many Parochial Congregations in England, have both visible and real Saints: must these and the Ministry be cast off for the sake of other corrupt ones? whom they would gladly also mend, if they could, or else purge them out.  
3. I wish you would give us precept or example, where there have been Churches with so many visible Saints, and such Ministers, and these Ministers desiring and labouring to reform as they do, and yet that Christians have done, or should separate from them. Those Texts above mentioned, and often alleged, if you please to view them well again, are very far from proving it: Corrupt members there were enough in the Jewish Church, and so in the Christian Churches soon after, and in the Apostles times; but you have no example of separating from them, but in them, say the London Ministers, we do separate,  
4. But I pray wherein do these wicked men trouble you? I hope you will give men leave to hear the word, be they never so wicked, but many of you come not so much as to hear.  
Object. But they trouble us, because they mix with us in prayer.  
Answ. No mixtures ever troubled me in Ordinances, so much as my own heart, 
The Grecians before they went to kill the sacrifice, used to cry out to the people, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us pray, Rous. Arch. Att. l. 2. c. 9 They prayed also in the Temple. c. 7.  if I could separate from that I should be happy.  
But for Prayer, why would not you have them join in prayer? when as,  
First, Prayer is a part of natural worship, the light of nature dictates this to every man, if he own a God, then pray unto him, Jonah 1.6. Call upon thy God, etc. but I hope none in your Congregations, but own even the true God, therefore they are bound to pray to him.  
Secondly, Peter when he saw Simon, Act. 8.22. in the very gall of bitterness, yet bid him, Pray God: Then worst of men may pray.  
Thirdly, Prayer God hath used to be a converting Ordinance; I have known one myself that now is in heaven, but was at first a notorious wretch', a mock-God, Captain of Drunkards, who coming into the Church as the Minister was in prayer, God broke his heart, and followed it on so, as he became an eminent Saint.  
Object. They mix with us in our singing, mixed worship we cannot join in.  
Answ. I cannot conceive what harm this can do to you; is the mixing of your own corruption in your service less prejudicial to the acceptance of it with God, than the presence of wicked men joining in the service?  
If indeed you can prove to me that God will not have wicked men sing, but if they do, he will not accept of the service of his people, this is some ground for your exception; but I conceive you will not be able to prove the former, much less the latter.  
That wicked men may sing, I prove thus:  
First, If wicked men may pray unto God (as the light of nature teaches) than they may praise God; the light of nature teaches this also: nature teaches me to pray to God for what I want, and nature teaches me to praise God for what I receive. If then natural men may praise God with their mouths [for praise must be expressed with tongue or pen, if you take it properly, as I said before] why not by singing? God hath given this gift to them, as well as to others. But that to praise God is a part of natural worship, and belongs to all men, we may conceive by the example of the Philistims, Judg. 16.23. They met to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon, and to rejoice (because of Samson.) Here is a day of Thanksgiving; so 1 Chron. 10.9. because Saul was slain, etc.  
If we go to the Romans, we shall find nature had taught them to sing to their feigned gods, 
Godw. Rom. Ant. l. 2. s. 2. c. 19  not to transcribe their rites in their sacrifices, After the portion laid out for the gods had been burnt, then did all the people repair to a common feast; where, as they were eating, they sung hymns and songs in the praise of their gods, and playing on Cymbals, they danced about the Altars, intimating thereby, that there was no part of their body, but should be employed in the service of their gods, etc. If nature taught the Romans to sing hymns and songs to their feigned and foolish gods, why should wicked men be debarred from singing to the true God?  
2. We find Exod. 15.1. Moses and the sons of Israel, sang a song to the Lord, in v. 12. Miriam bids the women sing; I doubt not but among these sons and daughters of Israel, there were persons as corrupt as any in our Congregations: then the presence of wicked men do not so defile you, or the Ordinance, as is supposed; to themselves indeed it was polluted, as are all other things, but this hindered not Moses, nor Miriam, they did not separate all those, who were godly, from the rest, and sing only with them; I doubt they should have had but few songsters.  
3. May a wicked man read a Psalm, or one of those songs? give me a reason why not? Will you debar a wicked man from reading the word? If he may read a Psalm, why may not he sing the Psalm? To read the word is worship, so to sing the Psalm is worship: It is true, he cannot sing as he should, no more he cannot read the Psalm as he should, nor hear, etc. therefore he must not read nor hear the word: To sing, is we see taught by the light of nature, as well as the other, to pray, read, or hear the word. This Ordinance is not, as the Sacraments, which we do not see so by nature's light, but have them by divine Institution revealed, having also a sealing nature annexed to them.  
4. We find the word calling upon all sorts of persons to praise God, Psal. 96.1. Sing unto the Lord all the earth, Psal. 68.32. Sing unto the Lord all the Kingdoms of the earth, etc. Several such texts we find.  
I might add more Arguments, and answer to some objections, but I content myself with these.  
Object. But they mix with us in the Lord's Supper.  
Answ. That the presence of others defile you [especially if you have done your duty to keep that Ordinance clear] is a thing that our Congregational men utterly deny; those who are acquainted with their works, may see it often mentioned, therefore I quote none.  
2. I will be bold to say there are many Presbyterial Ministers, who have as few wicked men, at that Ordinance, as were in the Church of Corinth. There were more matters of exception in that Church for the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, then are in abundance of these Churches; besides, you see what course they did take to keep that Ordinance clear, and when they could not obtain what they desired of the Civil power, yet they resolved to go further, which gave Mr. Prynne occasion to write against them.  
3. I doubt if we examine things well, yourselves are most to blame in that for which you separate. Suppose you be in a congregational Church, and have all things, as you desire; if there be any person there, who falls scandalously, that he deserves to be suspended from the Ordinance, I pray tell me, what method will you take? I am sure the method is this, If thy Brother offend, tell him, if he hear thee not, take two, if not, tell the Church, Matth. 18. What shall the Minister alone suspend him [it may be he knows not of it] when no Witness comes in against him? No sure; yea, suppose a Minister saw a man drunk, one of his Members, and none saw him, or knew it but himself; he deals indeed with this Member, but the man denyeth it, he said he was not; the Minister is sure he was drunk but wants witness; the man comes to the Supper [denying the thing though the Minister had wished him privately to forbear] shall the Minister now debar him? No sure, the text lays another method, the Minister must not be the sole Witness and Judge too; For if Ministers may debar upon their own heads without Witness, they may soon do strange things; now have you done thus, dealt with the Person, or two of you gone to the Minister, and told him, you know such things by such persons, which you can and will prove, such things, as if not repent of, make him unfit for the Ordinance? 
See Master Barro, Hos. cap. 5. v. 3.  and hath the Minister yet received him [if he hath, you have discharged your duty, and no guilt lieth on you, you may partake] I doubt there are few have done-thus, but if they be persons of quality (especially) than you pull in your horns, afraid to appear, but yet you will have the Minister to suspend him, when no Witness comes in (contrary to the rule) or else you separate; this blame will lie on your own heads.  
All your shift here is, we have no power to deal with men, we want an explicit Covenant.  
Though I could hearty wish all our Ministers would follow the practice of the Holland Churches, who cause all, 
Apollon.  who come to the Sacrament, to promise to subject to Discipline, yet for the present I say this, there is an implicit Covenant in all these Churches, and if you be afraid to speak to these persons first, whom you would have suspended, then go to the Minister, and carry sufficient Witnesses [as you must do in any Church] and I am confident, without satisfaction given [no more can be required in any Church] thousands of the Presbyterial Ministers will keep away scandalous persons; [at least you are clear as I said before] yet to see these men separate for that, in which themselves are most to blame.  
Obj. But they baptise all Children, making no difference though never so scandalous.  
A. Though this is very seldom urged, yet because I would draw out all that can be said, I add this.  
For my own practice, I confess in this I differ from other men fare better than myself, but yet were I a Member of some other Presbyterial Congregation, I should not dare to separate upon this ground.  
1 It is granted by our congregational men, 
Mr. Hook Survey, p. 3 p. 11.  that though persons be very wicked, yet so long as they live in visible Churches, and are not proceeded against, they may justly challenge the privileges of Church-Members: but I dare not deny them to be true visible Churches, in which there are many such, for there are many both real and visible Saints in such Churches, where these wicked men are.  
Obj. But then this makes against yourself, in denying some children Baptism.  
A. 
Learned Mr. Cawdrey came to my hand, after I had printed my little Treatise, had I seen him before, I should have humbly presented some answer to some things, which I see the●e, so fare as concerned my question [the question about Confederacy doth not concern me] also I would have propounded some Reasons, why his third way i e. Adoption, I should not so easily admit under the New Testament, till those Reasons were removed. I perceive he admires at them who deny the Children of Excommunicated Parents Baptism, I have no place now to answer but only this; I say, it is not good to put too much upon Baptism, nor too little upon that dreadful ordinance of Excommunication. What he saith, p. 202. about the impotence to reject profane persons through the iniquity of the times, which implies what he would do, if he had power, confirms my practice.  I answer; [as I have declared in that little Tract upon this question, which the uncivil carriage of some in the Congregation, when I had dealt lovingly with them in private before, forced me to print] I deny not them Baptism absolutely, but as I suspend them from one of the Seals, so I do from this also, till they will labour to get out of their gross ignorance, and scandalous conversations, and will subject themselves to Church-Discipline; so that I do [as say the London Ministers] separate in the Church, but not from the Church; as the state of our lapsed Churches will give us leave: I desire to proceed against such, yet but gently, [as for Excommunication, that is a great work] having the advantage in the Church, that many good Ministers [better than myself] have not, viz. That the strongest Party in the Town is religious; but had many Presbyterial men the same advantage, I believe you should see they would be more strict than now they are. Congregations must be mended by degrees: to purge per vices in foul bodies, is better than at first to give Hellebore, Scammony, and such strong workers; it will cost abundance of prayer, wisdom, labour, meekness, to bring these Congregations fallen into this ignorance and profaneness for want of Catechising, and Discipline; let the Bishops look to their account.  
Besides, divers Presbyterial Ministers do examine their people before they will Baptise, yea, and I have heard one who is esteemed a rigid Presbyterian say, That if the Presbyterial Government were settled, they would Baptise none, but they would have the parents; 1. Examined in point of knowledge. 2. If they were scandalous, that they should confess their sin. 3. Promise for the time to come to reform. 4. That if persons would refuse to submit to Church-Discipline, they would deny them the Lords Supper.  
Since than it is in the hearts of many to reform, and it is the thing they would gladly have power to do, I think it is very unwarrantable upon this ground to separate from them; besides, there are many reasons they give for Baptising of all that do but profess Christ, which though they are not satisfactory unto me, so as to give the Seal of the Covenant to one, who saith, He believes in Christ, but yet is grossly ignorant, scandalous, etc. yet their reasons prevail with me so, as to be very charitable to those, who do Baptise upon those grounds; if there be any sin in it, let the Minister look to that, that is not your fault.  
Certainly, people think it is a very easy thing to reform Churches, it may be done with a wet finger; but if they were in the place of Ministers, and had what knowledge is fit for the place, they would find it a hard Work, especially some Churches.  
So then as yet we find no grounds warrantable for this Separation: I come to the last; The place of meeting, it is Idolatrous, and I know not what.  
I thought here to have given in some answers to this absurd cavil, but the practice of this generation hath given in a full answer; for it was observed in a neighbour Town, the Minister not preaching upon a day of Thanksgiving, a Trooper got into the Pulpit, and did, etc. This was such a pretty thing, that divers of the Separatists in the Town, who had not been in the Steeplehouse for some years before, ran in haste, and became Auditors of the Trooper. Another of them, who called himself the King of England, came to me, and offered to supply my place [the man was mad, as error had made him mad, but for all civil actions sober enough:] now from these practices I gather, that either it is no sin to meet in a Steeplehouse [as they call it] or else they have no good consciences, these practices are frequent, if Troopers get into Pulpits.  
For the lawfulness of the assembling in these places, Mr. 
Hos. 2. ch. 15. Lect.  Burroughs hath pleaded. More might be added, but I spare the Reader.  
As yet then we have found no sufficient ground for separation; I shall desire yet to come nearer, and request of these persons, what it is they would have, which way may we be brought to an union; if what they propound be rational, and will be borne out by Scripture, we shall desire to come up to them; for I am sure in that posture we now stand, nothing can go forward. I have not their proposals before me, only I may surmise what they would have, and accordingly I will set them down, and examine them.  
First, 
The Separatists first proposal.  We would have Ministers lay down their former Ordination, and come join with us in an explicit Covenant, than we will call them and ordain them, and this will be one great way to union.  
Very good, but are all the Separatists of this mind, do they require no more of their Ministers? I doubt you should have put in one clause more, i.e. They must not expect any maintenance, but preach &c. freely. What else is the reason that many of you do so cry out of Ministers, because they require maintenance of the people, when as the Spirit of God hath left so many express Texts in the Scripture for it [foreseeing this generation, who run upon express Texts.] What is the reason divers of you keep bacl your tithes (the maintenance the State for present allows) from the Ministers in the places where you live? but if you be real, 
They often allege Act. 20.35. etc. Briefly I answer, 1. These Elders coming but lately out of heathenism, could not in an ordinary way attain to Ministerial abilities in so short a time, therefore God did in an extraordinary way help them. 2. Before they were converted, they had other trades, whereby they lived in their heathenism, so they could follow other trades, if need were, but we have not other trades. 3. Our Churches are not so poor, so there is no such need. I could add more, but this is enough. But these ignorant men know not the weight of the work of the Ministry.  that you would according to the Word, allow honourable maintenance, 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. Then I shall come to your proposal.  
Answ. 1. As I made use of one of your principles before, so now I will make use of another; you admit nothing for which you have not express Scripture. Hence you throw away Infant-baptisme, Sabbath, etc. Now I pray give us an express Text [precept or example] where we have it proved, That Ministers first chosen by the people [or had the consent of the people freely afterwards, though most of ours were elected at their first coming.] 2. Have Ordination for the substance, freely acknowledging the accidental corruptions. 3. Men very well qualified, as any since the Apostles days. 4. Whom God hath used instrumentally to convert divers, or to build up those who were converted: 5. Have administered the Ordinances for many years; that yet after all this, they must lay down their Ministerial call, join with you, etc.  
I say, I challenge all the Separatists in England to give me one express Text: when you have done this, we shall bethink ourselves.  
I call now for express Texts, for such is your own principle; if that be a true principle, than I hope it is one for us, as well as for you. I put this once to a Separatist, who told me, this it was they required of Ministers: but the poor man could not bring one, and because he had held me to this rule of express Texts in another case [though I soon made him confess, that necessary consequence would hold, by an instance I gave him; Suppose it had not been recorded of Christ, that ever he eaten or drank, yet being it is recorded in Scripture, that he was true man, like to us in all things, but sin; hence I would argue, If so, than he did eat and drink, I believe that though it be not expresely written, the man yielded] I held him to his own principle here, but the man seeing himself so foiled, grew froward and angry, so I left him. To see the frame of these men's spirits, we may soon answer their reasons, but their wills they hold: It is no disputing against men's wills.  
2. 
Medul. Theol. li. c. 39 sect. 32 Survey ch. disc part. 2 p. 66.  Dr. Ames, Mr. Hooker, and many of our congregational men affirm, That the election of the people gives the essentials to an officer, and that ordination is but an adjunct: And though there may be some defect in the people's election at first, yet there may be the substance of it, and that will save it, or an after consent. See the places before quoted, pag. 5. If so, then there will be few of the Ministers of England excepted, who are not true Ministers: This I am sure you freely assent to, and make Ordination a thing not worth the regarding; why then do you keep such a stir at that, which you look upon as little, when as they have that, which you say, gives the essentials to an officer; what have they the essentials of an officer, and must they go and lay down their call? you must rather say, Let them lay down their election, than their ordination; but in saying so, you cut the throat of your own Objection; for if they have election, than they have the essentials of a Minister, and then they are Ministers, your own selves being judges. You would make Ministers very simple men to lay down their former Call, and you would give them a Call, which they had before, elected before, and no more now.  
Obj. But what we judge is one thing, they look upon their Ordination as chief, and think they stand by that.  
Ans. What is that to you what they think, they have that which, yourselves say, gives the essence, so that they are Ministers, you cannot deny it, unless you will cross your own Position; and let them think so, why should this trouble you? Suppose a Deacon thinks his Ordination gives him the essentials of his Office, the people think their election doth; what then, will you separate from him, and not go to him for relief in case of want? he hath Election and Ordination, so that to be sure a Deacon he is: the case is the same with our Ministers, 
Iren. p. 183 184.  see Mr. Burroughs urging this instance.  
To cavil here, they were indeed elected, but not by the godly Party, it is very false, first of hundreds of the Ministers, some visible Saints had their Vote, or gave after their consent; I believe many of you, who now separate, did join in the Call of the Minister, from whom you now separate, which is worse; but however this is a feeble Objection.  
3 Before they renounce their Ordination, you must prove they have not so much as the substance, and essence of that Ordinance; they will acknowledge accidental corruptions, but still affirm they have the essence, and this none of you all have disproved.  
4 In this which you require you intimate, that they are no Ministers at all, for if they be true Ministers, though there were something humane mixed in their Call, their work must be to renounce those humane mixtures [which they do] but if they be not true Ministers, have not so much as the essentials of the Office, than they are no Ministers at all; Consequently, we have had no ordinances at all; if you say, Yes, I pray tell me, how may any one, who is not an Officer dispense the Seals, preach Authoritatively, & c? You practise indeed some of you as if he might, but it is a thing abhorred of all men, both Classical, and congregational; God is a God of order in his House, as well as in the world: In the Civil State none must be Justices of Peace, unless set apart to the Office, 
Heb. 5.4 jer. 14.14  every man cannot make Warrants, nor execute Justice [yet some men have as much knowledge in the Law, as many Justices have] but in the Church of God, there must be no order. Our Ministers then have been but private men, all this while they have dispensed the Ordinances: it is the Call to a Place, or Office, that makes men Officers or public persons, but Call they have none by your esteem.  
Learned Chamier proves, 
To. 4. l. 5. c. 14. Survey ch. dis. part 2. pag. 42. 45  That Baptism administered by a private person is no Sacrament at all.  
Mr. Hooker speaks home to this point: he laid down this conclusion; That there is a causal virtue put forth in a subordinate way under Christ, to bring in the specifical being of an Ecclesiastical Office to a person, etc. After three things premised he comes to a fourth, viz. Persons though gifted and fitted every way, be they never so many, they are not therefore Officers.  
A call they must have, without which none can warrantably do any act, which belongs to an Officer.  
Without this, whatever is done in that behalf is void, and of none effect.  
The validity of an outward Call appears in this, if it proceeds from such, who may give it by rule, because whosoever hath regularly received this Call, he is then a true Officer, though not inwardly graced, and fitted worthily to such a place, etc.  
Afterwards he speaks to this purpose again; 
Pag. 3. p. 9  It is a Frenzy of the Anabaptists, which gins to labour with the loathsomeness of itself, that any Christian gifted, who can teach, or administer a word of instruction to win a Disciple after him, that he in a corner may Baptise him; but as Paul said of Jannes and Jambres, their madness is made to appear to all, etc.  
If the Lord Christ in his infinite Wisdom, and Kingly care, conceived it necessary for the honour of the place, and the execution of the work of a Deacon, to appoint choice men, and solemn Ordination to Authorise them to the work, etc.  
The sum is, the practice is but loathsome, and the Acts of such men are void, who do such things as properly belong to a Church-Officer, and are not called to the Office; thus Mr. Hooker.  
Mr. 
Keys, p. 6 Inst. l. 4 c. 15. s. 20 In par. 2. 1. Vol. p. 766. Bell. ener. to. 3. l. 2. c. 2.  Cotton he speaks against such practices, so doth the stream of all Divines, Calvin, Zanchy, Perkins, Ames, etc.  
Hence than if you null their Call, you must null all the Acts they have done as Ministers, and you will be troubled (as I said before) which way to come into order; you had better therefore be quiet, and if you will needs quarrel with their Ordination, yet content yourselves with their election, which you say is the chief.  
Before I pass on to my last answer, let me a little examine this Thesis, viz. Election gives the essentials, and Ordination is but an Adjunct. Heretofore I have indeed been of this opinion, never much weighing the thing, being wholly carried away with the Authority of Dr. Ames, and Mr. Hooker, and others, admiring their learning and holiness, seeing myself but a mere babe in comparison of these men, and so I judge of myself still; but I remember a passage of Mr. hooker's in his conference with forty Ministers, said he, We see things fall cut in our Churches, which puts us upon further searches; so when I observed what use is made of this Thesis in England amongst our Sectaries, and what confusion is brought upon us, for any number of Sectaries will elect one (be he what he will) but Election gives the essence, Ordination is but an Adjunct, therefore may be left out; these practices have made me to search further into this opinion, this being my greatest trouble, that if I cast off the opinion, I must go cross to such men, whom I do so much admire and reverence; I am apt to think our holy Men did in this as our first Reformers did in other points; Luther let some words fall against the Law, which might have been spared; so our Divines in their definition of saving Faith, in opposition to the Papists; so in this point the Papists cried up ordination too high, ours now are run on the other side, and cry up popular election as high, and cry down Ordination, but surely a medium might have been found out, which had come nearer to the rule (with submission I speak it.)  
Reverend Mr. Hooker lays down his Thesis thus, 
Survey part. 2. pag. 66.  Election of the people rightly ordered by the rule of Christ (I wish he had set down this right order) gives the essentials to an officer, etc. but I doubt (with honour to this choice Saint) he hath not laid down his Thesis so clear, as Dr. Ames (whom he quotes after) I presume he intends the acceptation of the person elected must concur; nay, I will affirm the acceptation is as essential, as their election, for what if this, or that, or four Churches more choose I will refuse them all, if I please; if election gives the essentials, than it seems I must be a Pastor to that people, who elects me, will I, nill I; but this reverend Mr. Hooker will not own: then I say election doth not give the essentials. Secondly, I say my own acceptation, is as essential to my Call, as their election, therefore Dr. Ames lays it thus, 
Medul. Th. l. 1. c. 39 s. 32.  Vocationis essentia est in electione Ecclesiae, & acceptatione electi; but this is not material, for our Sectaries are forward enough to accept, if any will elect.  
In searching out this truth, I shall desire to set by all men, and consult with the Scriptures; I will first search what texts we have for Election, than what for Ordination, and this I set down with myself, that if Ordination be but an Adjunct, & the election so essential, than the Texts for Election are fare more clear, full; and those for Ordination more dark and rare; for an Adjunct, the meanest Logician knows, is but little in comparison of an essential cause; it doth consentire, but modo quodam; 2. It supposeth the subject complete in its essence before; 3. Therefore potest abesse; much might be spoken this way.  
The Texts I find for Election are three; neither do I observe our Divines to quote any more.  
1. The first is, Act. 1.23. where we have these things observable, as here are eleven Apostles in this election, but we allow those to choose, where there is no officer to guide them, and many times very weak persons.  
2. It is very easy to choose one of these, for v. 21. It was one who had accompanied them from the time, etc. This was easy for the meanest to know, but to choose a man fit for a Pastor, requires more skill than so.  
3. If we observe it narrowly, they did not so properly elect the Apostle, for when they had appointed two, Joseph and Mathias suppose one should have asked Peter, or the rest, which of these is the Apostle? he must have said he could not tell, properly God made the election: then they knew who was the Apostle, like to some Corporations in the choice of a Mayor, the floor nominate two, but the Aldermen choose which they will have, whence the people say, The Aldermen choose the Mayor. 1. Something may here be gathered for popular election, but very different is this practice from ours; I could add other scruples, but I forbear.  
2 The second place is Act. 6.3. a very clear place for the popular election of a Deacon, but the last words of the verse do very much shake this notion of Ordination, being but an adjunct, yea, it shakes the essential causality of popular election, Do ye look on, etc. but they add, whom We may appoint over this business. How do the Apostles appoint them over the business? It is by Ordination vers. 16. Those that do authoritatively appoint another, or others over some business, they put forth a causal virtue surely in that appointing; these appointed by this Act of Ordination [the Apostles did not not meddle here with the election] then the Apostles Ordination was more than an Adjunct.  
From this place Divines argue commonly, If they may choose Deacons, then much more Pastors, to whom they are more engaged, must honour, maintain them, etc.  
Thus we argue one while a majori, the people elected an Apostle, ergo, they may elect a Pastor; here now a minori, the people elect a Deacon, ergo, they may elect a Pastor, but then those Axioms one of them must be false, a majori licet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solummodo, & à minori solùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both which experience proves to be false, and Logicians observe it; but put the case we should question this argument; The people may elect a Deacon, ergo, their Pastor; election followeth the judgement, and is guided by it, but must we needs suppose the people to be as able to judge, who is fit for a Pastor, as who is fit for a Deacon? Dr. Ames saith, à minori ad majus, si quantitas probabilitatis intelligatur, semper concluditur affirmatè. Is this as probable? 
Thes. log 143.  Sure it is less probable, that the people should be fit to judge of the fitness of a Pastor, than a Deacon. I am confident there are hundreds of Congregations in England, in which there are many real Saints, yet all the Jesuits in Rome might scatter themselves into these Congregations, and not be discerned, if the people were left alone to their own election: 
Medul. l. 1. c. 39 s. 31. & Bel. ener, To. 2. l. 3. c. 2. s. 23.  Hence therefore our Divines dare not trust the people alone with the election of an officer, but tells us they must have the counsel of the Presbyters, as Dr. Ames, and Mr. Cartwright upon Act. 14.23. Rhem. Test. We do not only give unto the Bishops (Scripture Bishops) Ordination, but also we make them the chief, and directors in the election, saith he, where is this practised?  
The third is that of Act. 14.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but certainly if we come to find out the substantives to this participle, they must be the same which were substantives to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and they were Paul and Barnabas: I know what is said about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to defend the people's election, as the custom was taken from the Grecians; Dr. 
To. 4. l. 5. c. 14. s. 65.  Ames saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud veteres idem sepe sonant, so it appears by that passage of Basil quoted by Chamier to prove, that no private person may baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but if it it be taken in that sense here, I do not know how it will pleasure the people, unless we should go cross to the gramaticall construction.  
The sum is, 
Zanchy in 4 praec. Calvin in loc. Piscat. in loc. obs. 2 Malcol. in loc. Diodat. in loc. English Annot. &c expound it of the ordination of Paul & Barnabas  there are no places brought for the people's election, but those who are but shallow, will find enough from the Texts to wrangle very hard, thouh I am for the people's election myself.  
The Texts brought for Ordination are these:  
Act. 6.6. When they had prayed, they laid on hands on them.  
Act. 13.3. When they had fasted and prayed, and laid on hands, etc. they did not separate Paul and Barnabas by Election, but Ordination.  
Heb. 6.2. The laying of bands there, is meant of Ordination, say Pareus, Dickson, Gillespie, Johnson. H. Jacob urges the Text, so that he would overthrow all the Ministry of England, because (he said), they erred in the Foundation, but he mistakes: Mr. Hooker proves Church-discipline to be a fundamental point of Religion from this place thus: That which is a fundamental point of Religion, that hath Divine Institution, etc.  
But Church-discipline is a fundamental point of Religion, Heb. 6.  
Laying on of hands, being by a metonymy of the Adjunct, put for Ordination; Ordination, one particular, put for the whole of Church discipline. So Mr. Hooker.  
1 Tim. 4.14. With the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: I know not that this Text is questioned by our Divines, Mr. Hooker, and our New England Divines from this Text conceive Imposition of hands in Ordination to be nearest the rule, as I have quoted them before.  
1 Tim. 5.22. Though some would have it of the admitting of penitents, of which we have no example in Scripture, yet the common interpretation is of imposition of hands in Ordination; this interpretation hath other Scriptures to confirm it, the other none.  
1 Tit. 5. Ordain Elders in every City. I do not find that our Divines oppose this place neither. What Sectaries carp at, I weigh not.  
Rom. 
Miscel. p. 37.  10.15. How shall they preach, except they be sent? Mr. Gillespy hath, I think, sufficiently cleared this Text. To be sure, he is not alone in his interpretation. He likewise clears Ordination from that, Heb. 5.4. and first verses.  
Now since the Scripture is more copious, and plain in giving us examples, and precedents of ordination of Ministers, then of the people's election of Ministers (though I grant something may well be drawn out of those Texts for election against the Papists, besides the ancient course of the Church) I cannot see any reason (if Scripture be our guide) why we should  these Texts for Ordination with this logical affection of an Adjunct, and the other with the affection of a formal cause: I should put most upon that, where the Scripture is plainest and fullest, which I am sure in any man's esteem, that observes those Texts with an impartial eye, is ordination.  
Whether Ordination according to Scripture-light be not as essential to a Minister as Election, 
Vind. cha. Cath. vis.  let any one judge. I think Mr. Hudson speaks Christianly, I prefer one Divine Testimony, before ten arguments, and one good argument, before ten humane Testimonies. But thus by clothing these Scriptures with these logical affections, we have cried up election, and cried down Ordination, sectaries take advantage of this, and hence come in our disorders. Ordination is a Divine institution.  
Ars est in rebus, and Logic is a general Art, so that we must give some logical terms to Election and Ordination: I deny not this, only it is good to bring Art to Scripture, and not carry Scripture to Art: If you ask, what logical Arguments are there between a Ministers call, and Election and Ordination? 
I said before these two constitute the form of a Minister, mutatâ affectione, mutatur argumentum. Survey par. 2. pag. 68 in 4 praec.  what if I should answer, The Call is Totum integrale, Election and Ordination are membra constituting this Totum; Thus I make Election to be essential, and so I speak the highest of Election, though I must profess upon serious thought, I rather question whether Election be essential, than I do Ordination. Reverend Mr. Hooker indeed saith, Ordination is but the approbation of a person constituted in his office; but I am apt to think, Ordination doth most respect that inward, or Arcanam vocationem (as Zanchy calls it) which God gives a man into the Ministry, fitting and qualifying of a man first for the work (which none else can do) and giving him an earnest desire to the work, God did there as it were, separate him inwardly, and now he doth it outwardly in Ordination. The particular Congregation doth but give him a Call by their election and subjection to him, to exercise this power among them pro hic & nunc; That which moves me to think so is,  
First, Churches may not choose whom they list (as do our Sectaries) but persons qualified by God.  
Secondly, the Scripture is so full and clear for Ordination over it is for Election, though I deny not but Election may well be proved.  
Thirdly, because a man may in some cases be ordained to the Ministry, when no election of the people doth precede, as I shall give instance afterward.  
2. I argue thus:  
If the election of the people doth give the essentials to an officer, then may a man elected execute all official power without ordination, and that commonly.  
But no man may execute official power, and that commonly without ordination; ergo, election doth not give the essentials; by the essentials here, he means the formal cause, for as for the material cause, they cannot give that, and we have but two causes that do dare essentiam, though all four do dare esse.  
The consequence is clear, that they may execute, etc. without ordination, for forma dat operari; but election gives the form, say these Reverend men, and ordination is but an Adjunct, effects do not depend upon Adjuncts, for operation the form gives that.  
The minor, that they must not do so.  
First, it is cross to Scripture precedents; if it were but a Deacon, 
Survey part. 3. pag. 9  saith Mr. Hooker, yet, we see, he was ordained.  
Secondly, It is cross to your own practice; it is frequent in New England to have a man elected, and preach half a year, a whole year, yea, I know one elected and preached two years to his people, and they maintained him all that while, and yet all that time he never administered a Sacrament to his people, but he and they, when they would partake of the Lords Supper, went ten miles to the Church, out of which they issued, to receive the Sacrament; but this was very hard and needless, if he had the form given him in election.  
2. That which doth nextly invest a man with official power, so as now he may perform official acts, and before which he could not do so, that doth give essence, and consequently is not a mere adjunct.  
But Ordination doth nextly invest a Minister with official power, so as now he may performe official acts, which before he could not do; ergo,  
The minor is clear by the Scripture examples.  
Secondly, it is clear by your own practice, for those who for two years, and more, stood only by election, but that while dispensed no Sacraments, when they were ordained, did presently put forth all official acts.  
The major, take all together, I suppose will not be denied; it doth nextly invest a man with official power, so as now he can perform official acts, and before he could not do it; to say he had official power before given him by election, but could not act it, is strange, frustra est illa potentia, etc. had such a person continued twice as long unordained, he had not executed any official power, nay, his preaching all that time was not esteemed preaching by way of office.  
Neither can it be said such preach only upon trial, for I now speak of such, as had been tried before, nay, have been preachers in England long before they went over, and such I am sure, as the people would willingly had them ordained within one month after they had chosen them, they were so well satisfied in the persons, whom they had chosen.  
Fourthly, it is something that solemnity the Scripture expresseth, that was in the ordination of Ministers, prayer and fasting, and imposition of hands: we read of no such solemnity in election, though people ought to pray before they do choose. So it was in New England, this act was very solemn; when notice was given of the ordination of an officer to the several Churches (as before any ordination, all the Churches adjacent had notice given) it ran in that form, There is an Ordination to be this week at such a Church, etc. for the election of the person, we knew it long before, whom they had chosen, and though the people did by their suffrage declare their election in this day of Humiliation, yet they declared no more than the Country knew before; and I hope you will not say, he was not elected before now, when first they chose him to go with them, or come to them, and there continued a year or two preaching, & they contributing to his maintenance; the same I might say in regard of myself, I had as full an election of my people at my first coming, as was declared at my ordination, and it was above two years, before I could get my ordination in the place where I was elected (through the troubles of the times) but all that while I did not conceive myself invested with official power, till I was also ordained. The Scripture then expressing such solemnity in this act, and not in the other, makes me think, this is not such a slight Adjunct, and the other only essential.  
Fifthly, I observe two Texts, which make me think ordination is not an Adjunct, 2 Tim. 2. And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also. And that Text, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands suddenly upon no man, neither be partakers of other men's sins etc. Timothy is a Church-officer, here is a charge given to him to take heed, who comes into the Ministry, yea, he may be partaker of other men's sins, if he have not a special care, whom he admitteth into the Ministry, Nam si quem cito ordinaveris, qui indignus sit, 
Communicare cum dicit peccatis qui non probatus fuerit ordinatus. Hieron in Loc. v. Zanch. in 4 praec. p. 784. etc.  communicabis peccatis alienis, dum ille malè docebit, aut vivet, saith Gerhard in Loc. He quotes also Leo Papa, Ep. 87. Ad Africanos Episc. Quid est citò manus imponere, nisi ante aetatem maturitatis, antè tempus examinis, ante meritum laboris, antè experientiam Disciplinae, sacerdotalem honorem tribuere non probatis? Calvin also on the last words, Keep thyself pure; Ac si dixisset, si quid perperam fiat ab aliis, vide ne ulla ex consensu, vel approbatione contagio ad te perveniat. He refers it to Timothy, joining with others in ordaining unworthy persons; now these texts do not belong to the people, but Ministers, Officers, as was Timothy, which makes me think, that what the Ministers do in examining, trying, ordaining, is more than the people's election; where do we find such things spoken to the people? Where the greatest blame lies, for unworthy men coming into the Ministry, surely there must lie the greatest power of admitting men into the Ministry, else the blame is not just; but we see the blame is here laid upon the Ministers; 
☞  Paul no where writes to the people to commit the things they have heard, etc. nor doth he bid them not lay on hands suddenly, etc. he bade them indeed look out men for Deacons, but that doth not answer these texts; but if the great stroke, the formal cause lie in the popular election, the Ministers may well say, We do but ordain, we give but an Adjunct, the people did the main Act, they gave the essence, the essence being given, we must give the Adjunct, so that there will be no blame left for the Ministers.  
6 It should seem by a passage of Doct. 
Bellar. Ener. To. 2 l, 3. c. 2. S. 12.  Ames, that ordination is more than an Adjunct; Bellarmine had said, Vocatio seu missio ministrorum non ad populum pertinet, sed ad Episcopos, etc. Doct. Ames in his second answer hath these words; Absurdè ad modum distinguitur vocatio ministri, ab ejus Ordinatione & electione, tanquam pars distincta; neque in Scriptures, neque in antiquis Patribus alia vocatio ordinaria memoratur, quam illa, quae exurgit, quasi Totum, ex electione & ordinatione: what Totum the Doctor means, is plain by his words, Exurgit ex ordinatione & electione, he means Totum integrale; so than ordination and election are members of this Integrum, but all the members do give essence to the Integrum, for Membra sunt symbola causarum essentialium. If so, then ordination cannot be an Adjunct in respect of a Ministerial Call, for no Adjunct gives essence, but follows the essence, supposing the subject complete in its essence before; if then ordination doth give essence, as well as election, this notion may hold, else we should have an Integrum consisting but of two parts, and but one part give the essence, which cannot be. This notion of a Ministers Call to consist as a Totum ex electione & ordinatione, is much nearer the Rule, then to have election alone to give the essence, and ordination to be but an Adjunct.  
To this agrees Mr. Jacob [a man well known] There are two essential parts of calling to the Ministry, Election, Ordination: 
Dr. Seaman quotes him, Ans. to Diat, p. 64  so the Calling is a Totum. As for the Objections made against this, if ordination be essential, what then shall become of our Ministers, whose ordination is not legitimate? This I have spoken to before; and so, what will you do in case a Church were so cast by providence, that they could get no Officers to Ordain them an Officer? [for those who are of this opinion deny the People power to ordain] it is easily yielded by our Divines, that may be done in an extraordinary case, which ordinarily ought not to be done. See Rutherford, Due right of Presbytery, p. 187. Gillespie, Miscel. p. 34. etc. for my part, I conceive then the Church fasting, and praying, for such a one, who is elected, may do that which is equivalent to ordination, though it be not ordination formalitèr.  
The strong argument wherewith reverend Master Hooker proves, That Election gives the Essentials to an Officer is this: 
One Relate gives the essential constituting causes to another.  
But Pastor and People are Relates; ergo.   
The answer which Mr. Rutherford gives to it, viz. That ordination made him a Minister before, and election doth but appropriate him; This Mr. Hooker denyeth to be any answer, because it supposeth ordination to antecede election, which is quite cross to the Scripture pattern, Act. 6.3.6. But (with favour) I should humbly propound this question, 
This is not a bare supposition, for one of the young Scholars doth now preach to the Indians in their language.  Whether Ordination may in no case precede election? As now in this case, Suppose one of the Scholars in the College, or suppose four, or more had learned the Indian Language, and upon examination they were found to be Ministerially qualified; suppose now the Presbytery should solemnly set apart these young men to the work of the Ministry, and send them forth to preach among the Indians, though the Indians have not elected them; here indeed would the essentials of an Officer be given without election: I pray what breach of rule would here be? If it be said, that the examples mentioned, Act. 6. & Act. 14. show their election goes first; It is true indeed where there are Churches, but here are none. Besides, Act. 13.3. when Paul and Barnabas were sent out to preach among the Gentiles they were ordained, 
Though some deny ordination here to be meant, yet many learned men affirm it.  when no election did precede; it is true, they were extraordinary Officers, but what then? though this doth not make those young men extraordinary Officers, as were the Apostles, to have power in all Churches, yet I see not any breach of rule in separating them to this work. If it be said, what need of that Ordination, they may preach without? It is true, they may, but it is not so comfortable, as when men are set apart by a Divine institution, there is an authority more conferred; they may now baptise as they find success of their Ministry (which was the old way) and shall not need be put to those troubles, which now they are; 
Suppose laborious Mr. Eliot were not ordained, who should baptise the Indians, called home to Christ by him? The first preachers, that came into England were ordained, before elected here.  as suppose they should convert divers Indians forty or fifty miles from any Plantation, how shall these be baptised? what, shall they now elect, and ordain these men? shall unbaptised persons ordain an Officer? where have we a rule for that? then it seems all these must come to another Church, etc. forty or fifty miles distant, to a Church also whose language they understand not, and there be baptised by a Minister, whom they understand not, nor he them. Here are many odd things fall in, cross to all Scripture precedents, but to have these ordained and sent forth, is not cross to the Scripture precedents; but if this be granted, than Ordination without election may give the essentials to an Officer.  
But further, here you say election gives the essentials, I beseech you, what shall we do then with all those Scriptures, where ordination is held out so fully? shall we omit them if they contain but an Adjunct? No, I am sure this gracious Saint would not do so, his heart was so awed with high thoughts of God, and his Word, that he dared not omit such a Divine institution, as those Scriptures hold out; are then those six or seven Scriptures alleged for ordination, as necessary to a Ministers Call, as those three which are brought for election? if not, I pray give a reason, why some Scriptures should be less set by, than others in this nature; Divine Authority we acknowledge in both: but this was far from this reverend man's thoughts, for we see him prove Church-Discipline to be a fundamental point of Religion, from imposition of hands; then if these Scriptures be equally as necessary to the constitution of a Minister, that none must dare to omit them, we do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in saying, that ordination is but an Adjunct, etc. In constituted Churches, those, who omit ordination, go cross to those many texts of Scripture, they follow not the pattern, 
Some I know make little of election, but I would give it the most  and so sin against the second Commandment, as do they, who go cross to the texts for election; and if election in an extraordinary case may serve without a formal ordination, in the like case may ordination be without election, and so we are even.  
Further, in answer to the Argument, they are Relates; suppose I should say, The election of the people gives a part of the essence to the Officer [for so we considered the Call of a Minister to be a Totum arising out of election and ordination, as Doctor Ames] it may be you will say, Relata, quà sic, do not give a part of the essence, but the whole: here than will be our trouble, whether we must bring Scripture to Logic, or carry our Logic to Scripture; why then do not Ministers act officially upon bare election, as I said before? But it is answered, their election gives the essence, as he is their Minister, but ordination gives the essence, as he is a Minister; 
Mr. Hudson hath spoken closely to this. Vind. Chur. Cathol. vis●● p. 138. ad. 151.  for ordination doth invest a Minister with power to act beyond those, who have called him, giving him an habitual power in actu primo to exercise and perform the Acts belonging to his Office elsewhere upon a Call. I know indeed our New England Divines, many (I say not all) as well as reverend Mr. Hooker, are of another opinion, That a man is an Officer only to his own particular Congregation, Relatorum mutuum est iter; but suppose I should say, A Minister bears an habitual relation to the whole Church-Catholick visible, which some of our Divines do now (I think) strongly prove; for my part I could never swallow that notion, that a Pastor preaches only, as a Pastor, to those who elected him, and to other Churches, as a gifted Brother. I dare boldly affirm in the Apostles times, and the purest Ages next them, this notion was never heard. As for this notion of a Catholic visible Church, I have not so much busied my head about it till of late, & in my weak judgement I think, there is so much said for it by Mr. Hudson (especially) and others, that I suppose it will not easily be answered; that which made me lean to this opinion, was;  
First; the light which his Scriptures and Arguments bring along with them.  
2 I did not see by this notion, that the people were at all defrauded of what is properly theirs, they may elect officers, they may have power to bring in testimony, to exclude unworthy communicants, yea, or may object against any, who should be admitted Church-members (if Churches were in their first constituting) if they knew good reason why they should not be admitted; neither are they debarred from consenting with their officers in excommunication; I say, I do not see but these privileges may consist with this notion.  
3. 
Mr. Huds. vind. 160. 161. Let particular churches walk as they should regularly and they have as much liberty as they can desire; if they walk irregularly See Mr. Cottons Keys 53.54. the second Impression.  I saw this notion did not cross that Position, which I have held out, viz. That a particular Church organised, and walking regularly, may execute all the power of the Keys within itself. I see not how a particular Church in this case is at all hindered, for such a Church to walk irregularly, and to claim exemption from all other Church-power, let those, that will, be members of such Churches, I desire not to be so, but in such Churches, where there may be means to help a wicked heart.  
4. In this notion I saw a way how Congregations, that have no Ministers may have Ministers ordained successively by officers (which I am sure was the old way) yea, and officers may be judged per pares and excommunicated; I saw it would bring in much order into Churches.  
5. The practices I observed in New England that did imply such a notion as this, did lead me much to it.  
1. As that members of one Church did so frequently partake of the Sacraments, both the Lords Supper, and Baptism in other Churches; one Pastor it may be might administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, to the members of five or six Churches at one time; I know it is often said that a Mayor of one Corporation, may administer justice to the members of another Corporation, if they be under his jurisdiction, but he must not go to them, but similia ad pompam, non ad pugnam. The Analogy between a Commonwealth, and the Church will not hold, as I may touch afterward; but this I am sure, according to that practice, that seven make a Church, they may admit five or six whole Churches, and a Pastor chosen by none of them may administer the Sacrament to them all at one time; but do we find whole Corporations go to the Mayor of another Corporation for Justice? Mr. Philip's Pastor of the Church in Water-town, while Mr. Wilson Pastor of the Church of Boston was here in England, went to Boston, and administered the Lords Supper to that Church (I was not then in the Country, but I heard of it soon after, when I went over with Mr. Wilson) I know no sin in that act. I thought to have given some Instances, how frequent this was in the Primitive Churches, 
Vind. Cath. à 192 ad 196  for one Minister to act officially beyond the people, who elected him: But Mr. Hudson (a man far more able) hath set down those examples, which I would have given, and many more, to whom I refer the Reader; Yea, it was ordinary for the members of one Church to dwell one or two years; nay, six, or seven years in another Town, and to partake of the Sacraments there as frequently, as any of the members of that Church: Indeed of late the Elders have not liked this, to have them live so remote from the inspection of their own officers, and therefore have required such to join with the Church, where they dwell, this is good and orderly: The letters also of Recommendation, which the Churches make for the members, when they come over hither, requiring of the Churches here what communion, counsel, or comfort they shall need, promising the performance of the like debt to others, etc.  
2. Also I saw, if a man were excommunicated out of one Church, he stood excommunicated out of them all, but if a man be disfranchised in one Corporation, another Corporation may receive him, and give him his freedom, if they please, this shows there is something more in a Church, then in a Commonwealth.  
3. I saw they preached frequently in other Churches, but that it should be only, as gifted brethren, this is so harsh to conceive: I pray what act doth the mayor of one Corporation do in another Corporation like this, that carries authority in it? and that here we must distinguish of the Mayor, if he did this at home, he did it as a Mayor authoritatively, but in this Corporation he doth it as a private man?  
Further, they are Ministers or Pastors only to those, who elect, and the fraternity only elect (where there is no officer) but there are divers in the several Towns, who are not joined to the Churches, so they did not elect, than it seems they preach as pastors, only to those, who elected; but to the rest of the Town, as gifted men; consequently, when God blesses their labours to the conversion of any of those, they convert them (instrumentally) not as Ministers of Christ, ordained, separated to that work, but only as gifted men; yea, they never convert any, as Ministers, unless some of those, who elected them be close hypocrites, and so they convert them; but ordinarily those, who choose, are reputed godly already, and they are Ministers only to them. Hence rises that vile notion, that some here have taken up, That Pastors should preach only to the edification of the Saints, not to others.  
4. I have heard since I came away, that when people have chosen an Officer, and had no Officers to ordain him, that the Ministers of other Congregations have done it, and the Confession of Church-discipline by the Synod of New England, as also Mr. Hooker, 
Survey part. 2. pag. 59  allow as much.  
5. If one Congregation should prove pertinaciously scandalous, and heretical, then though they do not formally excommunicate such a Congregation, yet all the Churches in the Country would proceed to the Non-communion of such a Church; and for all the Churches to express so much to such a Church, We do all renounce communion with you, etc. this amounts to a censure, and is equivalent to excommunication, containing in it all the effects, that appear in excommunication, and so I should reckon myself as much excommunicated.  
Mr. Burroughs saith, They may by a solemn act in the name of Christ, 
Iren. 43.  refuse any communion with them, till they repent. They may declare in the name of Christ, that these erring Churches are not to be received into fellowship with any Churches of Christ, nor to have communion one with another in the Ordinances of Christ; all this solemnly in Christ's name: Only some (may be) will say, if this be an Ordinance of Christ, bring out the texts to prove this, and then we shall see, if those texts will not bear it out, that the Churches united thus in this censure, have not some authority over that particular Church. If you go to the old polity, the Synedrion had power over particular Congregations; if to light of nature, that will carry it; so that we must have texts to decide this Question. For my part I must leave this to better heads.  
Laying all together, the Churches seem to pactise, as if there were such a Church.  
Some things there are, which a little trouble me in this notion, that make me not come off so roundly in receiving it; I question not the Church-catholicke-visible, but I mean that it is one organical body, but as he said Veritas est temporis filia, so I believe Time will cleave out this, but so much I see, as commands me to lean to that side.  
I was thinking how dangerous this might prove; If the major part of the Catholick-visible-church should decline, grow superstitious etc. other Churches yet remaining pure, if they did not subject to the major part, what then? but I saw inconveniences also on the other side, if a Congregation be so entire, that they can elect, ordain, and are exempted from all power, than Arians, Photinians, and all manner of Heretics may elect, ordain, etc. who shall deny them? and besides, suppose the major part of congregational Churches should decline, they would proceed to Non-communion of other particular Churches more pure, and this is in a manner all one.  
Further, If so, then if a Minister be removed from one Congregation to another, or if his people should die, he now is but a private person, and may nor baptise, etc.  
Hence also he must have another ordination when elected, and as oft as he is elected; 
I have not heard any there, but here allege it.  I confess I am not clear in the practice; I have searched to find what scriptural grounds there were for it, but I find none that these Reverend Elders express; some have alleged in conference, that Act. 13.3. Paul and Barnabas were ordained before, and now they are ordained again: but I find Mr. Hooker saying, 
To. 4. l. 4. c. 24. s. 25.  here was no ordination to office at all. Survey part. 2. pag. 83. then I perceive this will not warrant it; I find learned Chamier also of that opinion, he saith, 
So our English Annotations, and Calv. in Loc.  there was not properly any ordination into a new Ecclesiastical office, but confirmatio missionis ad Gentes, ad quas nondum erant ex professò missi. The Author of the Diatribe, saith they were Ministers before, Act. 12. ult. but I doubt that place will not prove it, for their fulfilling of their Ministry or Charge there, may refer to C. 11.29, 30. the carrying of the relief to the Saints at Jerusalem, which they might do, though no Apostles.  
Here than we are in the dark what to judge of the text, if we rest only upon men's opinions, there are many, who are for the contrary opinion, that here was ordination, as I have named before, and I think those, whom Chamier quotes in the twentieth Section of the former Chapter, conceive so, saith he, Act. 13. Imponuntur manus Paulo, & Barnabae mittendis ad Evangelii praedicationem in Gentes, quid hoc est? Chrysostomus, Theophylactus Oecumenius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad Apostolatum. Me thinks when I see here are the same acts done, which are done at another Ordination, and there was no Ordination before, nor after, where any more acts were done, why this should not be understood for Ordination, I know not: A man to be separated to the work whereunto God called him (the work of the Ministry) therefore to have prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands, this was done at other Ordinations, when others were separated, though not to be Apostles, as these were. I dare not say that these were not Apostles before now, because I see so many Divines are of that opinion; for Barnabas we find him made mention of, Act. 4.36. a Levite, and a man of excellent gifts, no doubt, as it appears in Chap. 11. but to say he was an Apostle before, I do not see it made so clear, Act. 13.1. There were Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas, so that Barnabas was one of them, but as yet not an Apostle, for we know these are distinguished, Apostles, Prophets, etc. though I dare not gainsay it, but impute it rather to my ignorance; for Paul, there seemeth to be more said for him, Act. 9 for those that say Ananias his imposition of hands upon Paul, was to separate him to the work of his Apostleship (for that was one end of Imposition of hands) I dare not oppose Divines in this, 
Pareus upon Gal. 1.1. when Paul saith he was an Apostle not by man, thinks he points to this Act. 9 but so he was not, though here he were first called to that office for his call was immediate, as Chamier notes. To. 4. l. 4. c. 24  the 12. vers. saith, He saw one in a vision, putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight, and Ananias saith, vers. 17. The Lord hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Now if that necessarily implies that ergo now he was ordained to his Apostleship, I will not oppose, though it is possible that might be, though he were not yet an Apostle; and this is somewhat different from others, that first Ananias alone, secondly in a private house, (the question is who were with Paul in the house) 3. before he was baptised, should be ordained thus to be an Apostle, though I cannot oppose much, for if Christ will have it, it is orderly enough; but if they were men extraordinarily qualified, and not set apart to the office of their Apostleship, than this place of Act. 13.3. may be interpreted of their ordination to the office of their Apostleship. But suppose they were Apostles, yet will this text be sufficient proof to maintain, that Ministers must be newly ordained, if they remove from one particular Congregation to another? I am sure there may be sufficient grounds, given, why they may remove; if indeed the case were now, as than it was with the Gentiles [Act. 11.19. The scattered Disciples preached to the Jews only, but the G entiles had none sent among them before in this manner, as those were sent (though Peter had been with Cornelius) to be Apostles of the Gentiles) we might allow a second Ordination: In Antiquity we do not find a second Ordination made mention of; something we find to the contrary, as in that Tract of Cyprian, which though it may be proved not to be Cyprians own, yet no doubt the Author may be as ancient as Cyprian, written in his time, as Pamelius observes, neither doth Goulartius oppose him in it; 
De Ablutione pedum  Nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat, etc.  
In the 67. Can. Apost. thus, Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, secundam ab aliquo ordinationem susceperit, deponiter tàm ipse, quam qui ipsum ordinavit, nisi forte constet ordinationem eum habere ab haereticis, etc.  
Augustine speaking of Baptism and Ordination saith, 
Contra permian l. 2. c. 13.  Vtrumque enim Sacramentum est, & quadam consecratione utrumque homini datur, illud cum baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur; ideoque in Catholicâ utrumque non licet iterari. To the same purpose he speaks in his book, de bono conjugali, contra Jovin. c. 24.  
From which places I gather it was not their manner to iterate Ordination; indeed Scripture and strong Argument, is more than humane Testimony; but that is not sufficient to say, Ordination is but the approbation of a person constituted in his office, unless it could be proved that Ordination is no more, which will easily be denied.  
For our Modern Divines, I do not know any that maintain this iteration of Ordination, in case a man remove from the place where he was first ordained.  
The second Argument which Reverend Mr. Hooker useth to prove that Election gives the essentials, etc. is this:  
It is lawful for the people to reject a Pastor upon just causes, and put him out of his office, ergo, it is in their power to Call him outwardly, and put him into his office. By this Rejection, he means Excommunication, for so he saith afterward, This rejection cuts him off from being a member, etc. So consequently it must needs make him cease from being an officer.  
For that phrase of putting him into his office, if it be taken secundum quid, and as to their officer, it hath not been opposed, but if taken absolutely, that their election makes him a Minister, (as Mr. Hooker doth) that is it which is denied.  
As for the Antecedent, whether people have power to reject, (or if you mean Excommunication, as it seems that is meant) that is another question; If there be officers, and the people consent with them to cast out an officer, pertinaciously scandalous and heretical, none doubt of that; but for the people, being but a homogeneal body, to reject, i.e. excommunicate an ossicer, will cost more to prove; had Reverend Mr. Hooker been alive, and saw what work Church-members make here in England in very many Churches, I think it would have caused him to bethink himself again of the people's power. Something we hear of, is done in a Church not fare from the place where he lived, it cannot be kept close; the light of that fire shines into England. For the people to withdraw their subjection from such an officer, when there are no other officers to join with them to excommunicate him, this is not denied, for by their subjection to him, they made him their officer (that was some part) so they may withdraw their subjection again.  
But for Excommunication, Mr. Cotton saith, It is one of the highest acts of rule in the Church, 
Keys p. 16  and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers.  
Mr. Burroughs saith, 
Iren. 51.  If the Church be without officers, they cannot do that which belongs to officers to do, they have no Sacraments amongst them, neither can they have any spiritual jurisdiction exercised amongst them, only brotherly admonition, and withdrawing from such as walk disorderly, for their own preservation.  
So then here is a way for the people to preserve themselves though they cannot excommunicate, and those Texts which Reverend Mr. Hooker brings, Matth. 7.15. and Phil. 3.2. do not prove the Church, as a homogencal body, to have power to excommunicate their officers, though they may prove withdrawing, as also Rom. 16.17. may prove it.  
For the reason of his consequence, that staple rule, ejusdem est Instituere, destituere, this maxim is turned every way, sometimes to prove the people may excommunicate their officers, because they do Instituere.  
The people in Election put forth no act of jurisdiction, therefore they may put forth the highest act of jurisdiction, in excommunication; that there is no act of jurisdiction in election, Doctor Ames acknowledgeth; Ovas rationales possunt eligere sibi Pastorem, sicut sponsa eligit sibisponsum, non per jurisdictionem aut Gubernationem sed potius per subjectionem. In the answer before he affirms the same, and elsewhere: now what arguing is this, 
Bellar. ener. to. 2 l. 3. c. 2. S. 19 Ib. S. 13.  to argue from subjection, to the highest Act of Jurisdiction? there was no Authority in election, for electio non cogit [yet there is more power seen in Civil elections, than Church-elections, as I shall touch afterward] but in Excommunication, Authority appears. That also is denied, that the people do instituere in constituted churches, and ordinarily what may be done in an extraordinary case is no ordinary rule.  
Here the maxim is turned, to prove that they may Jnstituere, because they can destituere, but that will be denied, unless it be in the sense before mentioned, i. e. in what manner, and how fare they did instituere, i.e. by a subjection to be their Officer, so they may withdraw their subjection from him, and not own him to be their Officer; but to Excommunicate is more.  
Quest. But suppose this be granted, that the Fraternity cannot excommunicate; their Officer, but withdraw their subjection they may, you say, and so he ceases to be their Officer; but what, is he now an Officer to other Churches?  
A. If the withdrawing their subjection, and rejecting be irregular, then though they make him not their Officer de facto, [which he is still the jure] yet his relation to the Church-Catholick visible doth still hold, and another Church giving him a Call, he hath then power actu secund● to administer the Ordinances there.  
For instance, the separatists cast off him, whom before they chose for their Officer, supposing now, unless he will renounce his ordination he is no Minister, doth he therefore cease to be a Minister? how busy some congregational Churches are in withdrawing from their Officers, it is too manifest, and many go to the Anabaptists, some turn Seekers, andif all the Members do thus, do they now cease to be Ministers?  
2 But if the withdrawing be regular, the cause just, tried, etc. then that which is sufficient ground for their withdrawing from him, is just cause, why he should be excommunicated, being pertinaciously scandalous, or Heretical, as Mr. Hooker supposeth. If then the case of a Church be so, as they are cast by providence into some remote place, where are no Churches besides to combine with, then as their election of him, etc. [as I said before] may supply the want of ordination; so this withdrawing in such an extraordinary case may be Analogum to excommunication; but (say our Divines) if that Church be in combination with other Churches, as now under a Classis, than the people shall not need to stay there, in their withdrawing, but the case being judged and tried by the Classis, they as they ordained him, when the people elected him [the people consenting] do excommunicate him; then as a man cast out of one Church, is cast out from the Catholic Church visible; so he who is cast out from being an Officer to this Church, is cast out from being a Minister to the Church-Catholicke visible.  
For the other Argument, 
Burro. Iren. p. 50 Nort. resp. ad Apoll. p. 76, 78  the people conveying of power to an Officer; I know of no power the people conveys, only a designation of such a person to officiate in this or that Society; but their power they receive from Christ immediately (as our congregational men affirm) and hence they act in his Name, not in the name of the Church.  
5 The last answer I would give to this Proposal is this; if you conceive this to be the only way of Reformation, than you must give the Ministers strong proof that you may ordain; the Ministers will as much question your power to ordain, as you question the Bishop's power; so that we take it for granted you are able to prove this, because you are so punctual, you say, for reforming by the word. But of this practice I much doubt.  
1 My ground is, because I find not one jota of any such thing in the New Testament.  
Obj. Though you do not in the New Testament, yet in the Old Testament there is, Numb. 8.10.  
A. That place is the only resuge, but  
1 It is commonly answered, That it is no fair arguing to go to the Old Testament for one thing we would have, and when another comes to the same Polity for an argument for their turn, now to debar them, and tell them this is the old Polity; either leave out the Jewish Polity altogether, or else give others leave to fetch Arguments from thence, as well as yourselves.  
2 If you will go to that Polity, why may I not as well prove, That the Civil Magistrate may ordain, as well as Moses did Aaron, Levit. 8.?  
3 But in that Church at that time there were Officers, Aaron and his sons, thence (if that be a rule) it must follow, that though there be Officers in a Church, yet the people may ordain, which I am sure those Divines, who are for the people's power in ordination, will never admit, being cross to their own Principles, and Scripture.  
4 We find in the eleventh verse, that after that was done, Aaron did wave these Levites before the Lord, so that they were not complete till Aaron had done his Act; whence I remember learned Master Cotton (in his discourse with me) said, the people's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there, did but answer to the people's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament, and Aaron's waving of them did answer to our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: this clause only I remember, but he had a larger answer, which I took from him in discourse, by which, I remember, he did enervate this Objection, but I lost his notes, with all my other helps, in my shipwreck.  
These men call for precept and example, give you us one for this in the New Testament, for you put us to that also, we must give you them out of the New Testament; yea, Iwould go further, and desire them to give me one examplein the first six hundred years after Christ, that ever the people did ordain their Minister; now this is strange to me, that we can find no foot-step of any such thing in the Scripture, nor in the Ages next, and yet that we should make it so frequent, that they must ordain most frequently; for if every particular Church be Independent (as now such a Church where I am in a small Village, where the maintenance will not keep one Minister, and therefore to be sure we cannot have more Ministers) then if the Minister remove, or die, if there come a new Minister, the people must ever ordain, thus it must be in most places in England, few will be excepted; 
justin. Mart. Apol. 2  and if every new election must have a new ordination, than it must always be in the people's power; In the Primitive times, there were Churches in Cities, and Villages, but that the Christians in Villages did ordain their Officers, I would gladly see that proved.  
Ordination in those times was carried by a continued succession, the Apostles ordained some Ministers, those ordained others, so downwards, but never by the people.  
Learned Dr. 
●ell. ener. to. 2. l. 3. c. 2. s. 6  Ames seems to answer this; for whereas Bellarmine had said, In novo Testamento ubicunque mentio fit manunm impositionis, semper ea Apostolis caeterisque Episcapis, nunquàm vero plebi tribuitur. The Doctor answers to this; In Historiâ novi Testamenti, exempla babemus constitutionis Ministerii, & ejusdem etiam conservationis, sed non restaurationis ejus aut reformationis post generalem Apostasiam; omnia igitur quae pertinent ad plebem fidelem, in tali casu non representantur ibi certis exemplis. However these words seem to carry it, as if the Doctor did hold, that the people had this power, in a general Apostasy, yet I question whether the Doctor would look upon the Churches of England now under such a notion, neither would he deny the ordination of our Ministers, to be valid for substance; but yet hear one might cast in something, in times of Reformation it may be, he saith:  
1 To Reform the Minister, is to Form it now as it was first form.  
But the Ministry was not at first form by the people, ergo the Ministry cannot be now reform by the people.  
I think the Major will not be denied, for the Minor, let any prove that. According to this some will say, We must have Apostles, they form the Ministers first [we speak of ordination] I say, Non sequitur, unless you can prove the Apostles ordained only quâ Apostles; if so, I know not how those Ministers, whom the Apostles did ordain, could ordain others, but to be sure they did.  
2 I desire a text of Scripture that holds out this, that the people may ordain in a general Apostasy.  
3 I doubt we shall rarely find such times, when there is a Society of godly Christians to ordain, but there is some Ministers also; ordinarily there are Ministers who teach this people.  
4 It will be a question, Whether the Apostasy hath been such as to require this, for if Baptism was not repeated, but was thought valid, though administered by a Romish Minister, because he was set apart to the work, and kept the essence of the ordinance, why might not the ordination administered by those Ministers hold as well?  
2 A second ground that makes me doubt is this, it seems strange to me, that Christ should appoint extraordinary officers, and make that a part of their work, which the people themselves may do; Paul leaves Titus to ordain, but what needs that? the people might well say, what need Paul leave Titus to do that, which we can do ourselves? Frustra fit per plura, etc. the Apostles never needed but to preach, and convert the people to the faith, when they had done so, they should have said, we have now done our work, brought you to be believers, you may now elect an Officer, and ordain him yourselves, the power is yours, (only here would have been some trouble about baptising) since than I find, that this was part of their Office, than I cannot believe this is the people's work. Paul might easily have left us a precedent in some Society of Christians, that would have quieted all our disputes.  
More might be said (and is said by others) but I see our New England Divines do almost yield it, by giving power to some Ministers to ordain in other Congregations.  
Since nothing can be drawn from Scripture, by precept, or example to prove this, hence some would draw it out by Argument.  
Those who can do the greater, may do the less.  
The people can do the greater, viz. elect.  
Ergo,  
The minor is as freely denied, as it is affirmed, election is not the greater, Scripture-light being judge. That was the design I doubt of making Ordination but an Adjunct, for so indeed it would easily be granted, if election gives the essence, and this only be an adjunct, the people may well ordain; Yea, and in a Church, where there are Officers to Ordain, I know not why they, who give the essence may not give the adjunct, why should an adjunct be proper to the Officers only in that Church, when the essence doth not belong to them, 
Mr. N. W. Omnis quaestio non per aliud quod quaeritur babebit resolutionem nec ambiguitas per ambiguitatem, sed ex elaris manifestis, etc. Irenae l. 2. c. 10.  further than as members, they join with the people? for so it seems the Officers elect as members, and if you do elect only as members, why should you not also ordain as members? for election is the greater, this the less.  
The other Argument is, the people are the first subject of the power of the keys. Ergo: But this is not easily yielded; it was a witty speech of him, Let the Elders keep the keys, and the people the keyclog; it proves so too often. What our Divines have said about it is well known. I think they have battered this notion pretty well.  
Augustine sometime is quoted for this opinion, but I am confident it was never in Augustine's thoughts; In Evan. Joan. Tract. 50. Tract. 124. I am mistaken, if he be not rather for the Catholic Church by his words especially in the latter place quoted, not mentioning what other Divines have spoken, there are two or three things that have made me doubt of this, so as I never did throughly close with this notion, when I was but a private member of a Church.  
1. That which is the primum subjectum, is the proprium subjectum: none doubt of this, Proprium subjectum est quod cum suo accidente reciprocatur. Animal est proprium subjectum sensus, homo risus, hence we say, omnis homo est risibilis, & omne risibile est homo, this is Axioma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but every Axiom that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth include in it the rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the predicate is true de omni subjecto, omni loco, omni tempore, this is true of animal & sensus. So it must be true of the power of the keys and the Fraternity, Omni tempore; but if we find the power of the keys exercised before there was a Fraternity, than there was some other subject before the Fraternity; When Paul came to Corinth, he preached Authoritatiuè, Ergo there was the power of the keys in some subject, but the Fratemity was Nonens at this time, how then could they be the subject?  
Those, who are the effect of the power of the keys, are not the first subject, that is clear.  
But the Fraternity is the effect; it was so in all the Churches, which the Apostles gathered, and is indeed to this day. This was one Argument troubled me.  
So that which is primum, is immediatum subjectum: but how can this be? since Mediantibus Apostolis, and so now Mediantibus Ministris the Fraternity is made: The elector is before the elected: its true of Christ, who elected the Apostles, and gave to them the keys, from whom by a continued succession of Ministers still the Fratemity was made; but had not the power of the keys had some effect, there had not been a Fraternity to choose an Officer: though they are now in time before him, whom they now elect, yet they were not before him or them [quâ fratres] who by the power of the keys in the ministry made them capable to choose an Officer; therefore the power of the keys was in some subject before them.  
Besides election is no part of the power of the keys, 
Doma: log. p. 461. Keckes. syst: log. l. 2. c. 20.  therefore to argue, the people elect, ergo they are the first subject, etc. is fallacia non causae procansâ [causae nomen hic usurpat ur pro quo vis argumento] taking that to be a part of the power which is not.  
2 If so, that which is primum, est absolutum subjectum, cui accidens absolutè sint ulla limitatione partis inharet: sic animal est absolutum subjectum sensus, adeoque visus & auditus; ideoque tantum animal dicitur rectê videre & audire: oculus non videt propriè, quia non est Animal: quando ergo oculus dicitur videre, id non subjectiuè intelligendum est, sed instrumentaliter, quod animal videat per oculum. To apply this to our case, the power of the keys is in the whole body, so the power of preaching &c. there is the power subjectiuè & propriè; so that if we ask who preached to day, we must answer, properly and subjectively the people preached, but instrumentally only the Pastor preached; so for the administration of the Sacraments, this is very harsh; hence again, because animal videt, if a man die, or beast, the eye which was the instrument of seeing, excepting it may be the dissipation of the animal spirits, else as an Organ, it remains entire in the coats, humours and optic nerves, but yet it sees not.  
So it seems a Minister, in case his body, the people, should die, he being but the instrument of their preaching, he can preach no more: this is strange; how do they preach out of their own bodies ordinatily? If the men die, and only women and children be left, the officer hath lost his preaching, and cannot preach to them authoritatively, because the Fraternity, in whom the power was subjectiuè, is dead.  
3 I have observed, that seven have been esteemed enough to make a Church; suppose now one of these should offend another of the seven, he must deal with him, if he will not hear, he must take two more, here are four of the seven, if he will not hear them, tell the Church, that is, the three left, the rest are parties.  
Some to prove that Mat. 16. To thee I give the Keys, must be meant the Fraternity, say, that To Thee, here is the same with Mat. 18.  
But this is somewhat doubted, for that in Mat. 18. may well be meant of a particular Church, 
The visible Church is here meant saith Mr. Hoober Sur. p. 278.  but in this place the Church must be meant of the Catholic visible Church: for it must be such a Church as must not fail.  
But particular Churches may, this or that particular Church I mean.  
2 But suppose i the so, yet why must that Mat. 18. be meant only of the Fraternity? Tell the Church, i. e. the Fraternity, if he will not hear the Church, i. e. the Fraternity, where are the Officers, are they no body? one in New England would needs know of me, why they should tell the Ministers of it, when as it is, Tell the Church, not the Ministers? this indeed would confirm it, and here we should have brave order.  
Mr. 
Vind. vin. p. 6.  Cawdry upon that Text seems to have a good Argument, since that the Kingdom of Heaven is there meant the Church, the keys are given to Peter as distinguished from the Church; It is not a reasonable construction (saith he) of the Text to say, I give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, of the Church, and to mean, I give to the Church the keys of the Church; whence he concludes, they were given to Peter, and so to the Officers for the Church, as the keys are given to the Steward for the family. This Argument is worth the Answering.  
Object. The strongest Objection to me is this, the first subject takes up the whole adjunct, for there is a reciprocation; therefore the Presbytery cannot be the first subject, for the keys are not reciprocated with them; instance is given in Election, Admission of Members, Discipline, which cannot be performed without the Fraternity.  
Answ. If reciprocation be so required, etc. then this will as well deny the people to be first subject, for reciprocation cannot be with them; for Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, Government etc. to be sure the people cannot do; there will be more said for the Presbytery; they actually choose, they actually admit, they actually govern and exercise discipline, they have both the Power and the Act: but for the people they cannot do any Act which belongs to the Officer, nor have so much as the power of it: we may see by this, where the power will chiefly reside: to say, the Fraternity, though they have not official power, yet they have power to choose an Officer, and so consequently, they are the first subject, this is very unsatisfactory, to have the Adjunct reciprocated at the second hand, it being denied before that they have the Adjunct; the reciprocation between homo & animal risibile is not at second hand  
2 This doth not at all shake me, but I stand on my ground still, conceiving, that the Church or ganized is the first subject of the power of the Keys, not that I make the people equal sharers in the power of the keys with the Officers, but what I mean I shall express afterwards.  
3 Yet am I not satisfied (nor could ever be) that whatever belongs to the Church must needs be included in the power of the keys; Election, I look at it only as Potest as circa claves, but not to be a power of them.  
The Text tells us the use of them, what thou bindest, what thou losest, to bind and to lose is the use of them: but what is this to the election of an Officer? when as he may refuse their Call, or the Call of any Church? how do they lose him or bind him? Electio noncogit.  
For the other two things, Admission, and Discipline: Those Divines, who say, that Baptism makes men Members of the Church, if they can prove this strongly, they will carry away the former, scil. that the people have nothing to do in Admission of members, for baptism makes members; now to this I cannot yet fully agree, there might be much said for the contrary. I conceive the New England Divines have spoken well to this besides the opinion of M. Cartwright, 
Ans to 32. Qu. p. 12.  and Ames, who join with them.  
So, those Divines who affirm the Presbytery may excommunicate, renitente plebe, if they can prove it strongly, they will carry away the latter, and then indeed its clear, the people have no interest in the power of the keys; but this neither can be admitted, and the stream of Divines oppose this.  
But though I yield the Ministry cannot orderly do these things without the people, yet I deny the people do these things in the same way and order, that the Ministry doth them: And therefore Quaere, Whether it be proper to say, the people hath any power of the keys?  
For Admissions, this will be more troublesome, because we find no examples of the Churches where the people did show their power in Admissions: for that act of Paul, Act 9.26, 27. Whether it be sufficient to prove it, I leave it to consideration; they did not admit, why? they were afraid of him, the text saith, being a persecutor, than no wonder the Apostles, as well as the people, were afraid of him; the 27 verse saith, Barnabas carried Paul to the Apostles, not to the people, which would imply, the Apostles carried the stroke in Admissions.  
Further to search into this, let us suppose the Ministry of the Church of Corinth preach, an Infidel hear them, the man is so far convinced of the vanity of his Heathenism, and danger of his sinful lusts he wallowed in, and so far convinced of the necessity of that Doctrine which he hears, that he renounces his Idols, reforms his conversation, etc. now he comes to the Ministers to signify what is done, and what he desires, to be received into the Church, and be baptised, being willing to give up himself to that doctrine: the Ministry [instrumentally] hath wrought this; now what power hath the people here to hinder this man? is it at their choice whether they will admit him or no? when the Officers see what effect the preaching hath had, here being a Disciple made, shall they be hindered from baptising him? what power have the people here? what shall they go first and examine him? I know not where examination was ever given to the people; must he make his profession of faith before all the Church, as Victorinus that brave Rhetorician? 
Aug. Con fes. l: 8. c: 2.  we find it was not their course to do so with all those whom they admitted, for many did only to the Presbyters: This power indeed the brethren have, that if any know this man to live in a known way of wickedness, that cannot possibly stand with any hopes of faith, to come and give in witness against such a person to the Officers: I suppose this will be yielded, and the Officers would not now baptise him. But what power more they have, I know not; they see his conversation, and can testify of that, but it were strange that it should be left to the people's choice, whether they will admit a man or not, when the word hath had so much power, and they cannot bring in sufficient objections to the contrary. Put case the major part of the members of the Church had drunk in some errors [that a major part may do so, hath been proved in our time] and they will not give their consent to the admission of the man, if they find him not of their opinion [commonly those who have drunk in error, use to look untowardly upon those who are contrary] now the Ministers have no power to admit this man, nor baptise him, though they see he hath right to it. But I leave that.  
For Discipline, I conceive renitente plebe, the Eldership should not excommunicate: it is in vain to do so indeed, if the people will hold communion: but yet this doth not argue that the people do here act, as doth the Eldership; For the Eldership doth it Authoritatiuè, the people by a popular consenting with the Officers, that the person be excommunicate: the people do act here obedientially to their Officers, therefore a  difference is between them. I remember a passage of Mr. hooker's in the Assembly of Divines; When a case is brought to the Elders, the Elders having searched all things to the bottom, now the Elders bring the case to the Fraternity, and lay it down clear before them, this is the case, and this aught to be done, now (said he) the people are bound to obey us, as well as when we preach. And it is clear, for as in preaching they discover the mind of God, so in this sentence they declare the same concerning this act. 
Keys 15  2 Cor. 10.6. We have in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Mr. Cotton saith, the Apostles revenge of disobedience by way of reproof in preaching, doth not follow the people's obedience, but proceedeth, whether the people obey or not; it was therefore their revenge by way of censure in Discipline, which they had in readiness, when the obedience of the Church is fulfilled in discerning and approving the equity of the Censure, which the Apostle, or Elders have declared to them from the word.  
That phrase, discerning and approving of the equity, needs a little more clearing; but I leave them: However this Reverend Divine seems to refer that obedience unto the will of Christ, by the words going before his exposition, yet that hinders not, but it may in some sense be applied to their officers [who also obey Christ] for that phrase is not strange to have people obey their officers, Heb. 13.17. O obey your Rulers, there may be some thing in it, not only obey your Teachers, but Rulers; when they rule, as when they preach, Mr. Norton expressing, 
Resp. ad Apol. p. 67.  as I conceive, how the brethren act with the Eldership [for so I remember it was in his Tables which I had, & had some thoughts to have Printed them, but in that great fire, when Colchester was besieged (having lent them to a friend) they were burnt, as I hear) Parts judicii in rebus jurisdictionis, quales sunt fratrum examinatio, dijudicatio & sententiatio Causae per modum obedientiae, Presbyterio debitae, 2 Cor. 10.16. & cap. 2.9.  
Mr. Gillespie, also besides his own opinion giveth reasons, 
Aar. rod, p. 289, etc.  and allegeth divers Divines, who interpret this place of Church censures: & these words, when your obedience is fulfilled, gives him one ground for his interpretation: for as Estius and Novarinus explain the Apostles reason, it is in vain to excommunicate all such as are worthy of excommunication, when there is a general renitency in the Church: but still we observe the people act obedientially to their officers, that they did not at that time, was their fault.  
Besides, if excommunication be the highest act of Rule, and therefore cannot be performed where Rulers are not, as saith Mr. Cotton: and if a homogeneal body can express no spiritual Jurisdiction, but only withdraw, as saith Master Burroughs, than the people having Rulers, are not now made Rulers, nor have the power of jurisdiction; there is indeed jurisdiction exercised among them by reason of their Rulers, to whom they consent and obey.  
Government is proper to the Presbytery, saith acute Mr. Norton, 
Resp: ad Apol. p: 65 67:  and shows under seven particulars how the Presbyters govern in Church affairs, and so in this exercise of Discipline: if so, than the people are governed in this act; how then doth a people governed, act in reference to Rulers governing, but by way of obedience? So that to me there appears a  difference between the power of Discipline, as it is in the hands of the Presbytery, and as in the hands of the people, though the Ministers cannot excommunicate without the people.  
I speak a few words to this point here, because I would spare the labour in another place.  
As for the Analogy drawn from the civil power, the people are the first subject of civil power; Ergo the Fraternity is the first subject of Church power; For the Antecedent I leave that, but the consequence I should deny, there is a great disproportion.  
First, The People are not the effect of their Magistrates, or follow after them (as the people of Israel were not of Saul) but the Fraternity, quâ sic, is the effect of the Ministry: The Apostles converted, and after them the Ministers converted; Converting is but to make the people such, for whom the power of the keys is given:  
Secondly, There is some thing in this; In Corporations, if the people have elected a man to be an Alderman, or Mayor, if he refuse it, there is a Fine set upon him; some have been fined 20 li. some more according as the Corporations are: but if the body of the people will choose an Officer, and he will refuse it, what then? I know no kind of Church act that reaches him: this shows there is something more in civil than Church power,  
Thirdly, The people do give to their Magistrates a power to make Laws, etc. for their good; but the Church gives no power into the hands of her Ministers, but they have all their power immediately from Christ.  
Fourthly, Hence the people may limit their people, or enlarge it: But the people cannot limit, nor enlarge the power the Ministers have.  
Fiftly, We see the Magistrates Act in the name of the people [in the name of the Commonwealth of England] but Ministers do not act in the name of the Church, but Christ; as saith Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Norton before quoted.  
More might be produced, but I content myself with these; and though that maxim be received, Salus populi, Suprema lex, yet it hinders not but the people may save themselves, though they be not the first subject of the keys. Mr. Richardson, whom Dr. Ames and Mr. 
Manuscr: Tables  Hooker,. honoured much, and follow much, placeth the power of binding, and losing in the Governors, not in the people.  
This discourse I have run into by answering to the first Proposal, which being the main, I have bestowed more lines about it; the rest I shall run over quickly. Come we now to the second.  
The second Proposal may be this; 
The second Proposal. No Congregational Divine dares put the form of a Church in the explicitenesse of the Covenant, but these do. Survey, pair first, p. 47, 48.  We would have an explicit Covenant in every particular Church, this we judge to be the form of a Church, and we cannot join with a Church without it.  
A. Many people have taken up this by the end, a Covenant is the form of a Church, understanding it of an explicit Covenant, but they know not what a Form is; if they did, they would be more wary than they are. But let us hear what congregational men say, from whom you take up this word.  
1 Mr. Hooker saith, an implicit Covenant preserves the true nature of the true Church, etc. and an implicit Covenant is, when in their practice they do that, whereby they make themselves engaged to walk in such a society, according to such rules of government, which are exercised amongst them, and so submit themselves thereunto, but do not make any verbal profession thereof. Thus the people in the Parishes in England, when there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron, or Bishop, they constantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place, attend all the Ordinances there used, and the Dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them, etc. by such actions, they declare that by their practices, which others hold forth by public profession; thus fare Mr. Hooker, so Mr. Norton, Resp. ad Apollon. p. 22.28. so the Confession of Church Disc. by the Synod of New England.  
2 You have a Nationall Covenant, a solemn one, I think it is strong enough if you observe it well: there is that which answers the Covenants you find made in Scripture.  
To say, by that we are made a Nationall Church; this were very silly, yet I think there may be so much said for a Nationall Church that will not readily be answered. But suppose the Churches in New England [which God forbidden] should decline, etc. If the General Court should make such a Covenant to pass through all the Churches in the Colony, would it make a Nationall Church? they would conceive their Churches still to be congregational.  
3 I make no doubt but you should have found (if you had but a little patience) that when the Ministers had come to set up Discipline, they would have brought their people under some stricter tye, to subject to Church Discipline, I have heard some speak of it; they would have found it too lax, that implicit consent to make people put in execution that, Matth. 
Read his first chapter, in some Churches he saith, there was Solennis protestatio subjection is, sub discipliná Ecclesiasticâ. p. 13.  18.15, 16, etc. as some have found before them; and it was not without some cause that Apollonius sets down that, as one thing that is required of a Church-Member, and whom they will admit to the Lords Supper, That he shall promise to subject himself to Discipline; he tells us, thus it was concluded upon in several Synods, he mentions fix Synods. I have found the experience of this so already, that I should think myself in a poor case to exercise Discipline without it; the people feel some stricter tye upon their spirits, and I thank God I have known good effects by it.  
4 If you will needs go closer do, you may enter into a close Covenant, as did those worthy Christians in Wetherfield, in that old Prophet's days, who sets down their Covenant in his seven Treatises; but they did not separate as you do. Excel those Christians if you can.  
The third Proposal; 
The third Proposal.  We would have no Church-Members but visible Saints.  
A. This were a thing to be wished indeed, and that I believe which the Ministers would be glad, if they could attain it; I gave you instances before out of their Books, and it is that which they would put forth their power to effect, so fare as the state of the Kingdom is capable of, if once they were invested with power to exercise Discipline; and indeed as the condition of England stands, there is need of a Civil Power to back them; the case is not now, as in the Primitive times.  
2 You must put a difference between Churches new erecting, and these in England, which have been Churches so long; when I raise a house new from the ground, I may then do as I please, but if I be mending of an old house, I must do as well as I can, repair by degrees.  
3 What would you have done with all the rest, Excommunicate them? that's a piece of work indeed; and besides, there is a great deal of work to do before we come to that, it may be many will not be found contumacious; nay you see, they do separate them from the Lords Supper, and divers begin to look something more narrowly to baptism.  
4 How many corrupt Members do you find in the Church of Corinth and Galatia? for the latter, what a change was there made in their affections towards Paul? 
Gillesp. Aar. rod. 287.  who close did they cleave to those Judaizing Zelots? who turned them away almost to another Gospel, insomuch that though Paul wished those Seducers were cut off, Gal. 5.12. i e. by Excommunication, yet he did not peremptorily command it, renitente Ecclesiâ. The Church of Corinth had drunk in vile errors, the women it should seem (disorderly) would speak in the Church; and for Members, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. you may conceive by the sins there mentioned, what they were many of them, Ch. 13.2. 
Aar. rod, 289.  Paul indeed saith, he will not spare them. This place Master Gillespie thinks gives light to, Ch. 10. & 6. When your obedience is fulfilled; our Ministers debarresuch from the Supper.  
5 If you did not thus separate from them, they might do more towards the reforming of their Congregations, but you weaken their hands, as I shall touch hereafter.  
6 But what do you mean by visible Saints, what is required, or how would you judge of one? what, would you have them real Saints? I suppose you do not think so, cross to the texts, the Floor, the Drag-net, etc. what would you have such, as by the exactest scrutiny that can be made, we may judge to be Saints really? I desire your Texts for this. Did the Apostles do thus when they baptised any? surely they must either judge by an Apostolical Spirit, but we see they were mistaken if they did so; or else they must stay a good while and try men, winter them, 
The Churches after took more time, but they did not come to that exact scrutiny, etc. Bell. ener. to. 2. l. 2. c. 1. s. 5.  and summer them (as we say) before they did judge of their Saint-ship; but this they did not do, they baptised them quickly; such Members as the Apostles admitted, we may, or else give us texts to the contrary. I have touched this in another Tract, desiring, that those who are for such strictness in Members, would give us their grounds; remember Doctor Ames, Falsum est internas virtutes a nobis requiri, ut aliquis sit in Ecclesiâ quoad visibilem ejus statum.  
The fourth Proposal; We would have power in admission of Members, and in Excommunication.  
Ans. For admission of Members:  
1 When you bring proof out of the Word, what power Church-Members have exercised in admission of Members, I hope you shall find none shall debar you from having that power.  
2 When there are Members to be admitted, who never were Church-Members, you shall find it granted, but that is not our case here; if you would have power in admission to Sacraments, you have that liberty given you, to bring in Testimony for, or against; and if you bring in sufficient proofs against persons, you shall find they shall not be admitted; thus must you do in any Church . If any good Christian shall come, and give in testimony for another, the Minister will gladly receive it.  
For Excommunication, the Presbyterial Ministers will not Excommunicate without the people's consent; you shall have liberty [first ask leave of the Minister, who is the Ruler, and Mouth of the Congregation] to propound any question soberly, and gravely, which you would have cleared, before you manifest your consent, if there be any thing dark to you, that so you may clearly obey them [for I hope you do not look to be equal with Officers in this Act] and I hope this is more than ever you saw practised in old times. Now that the Ministers will not Act against the people [I suppose they mean the Body of the People, for if they mean, unless all the people consent, I would not consent to the Presbyterial Ministers in this, that some few particular persons, guilty it may be themselves in some degree, shall obstruct the sentence, when the sounder and major part of the Church consents] hear their own words.  
In the great Censure of Excommunication, 
Lond. vindic. p. 25  we say, That it ought not to be executed against the consent of that particular Congregation, to which the party to be Excommunicated belongs; 
The fifth Propos.  this is full.  
The fifth Proposal; We would have the liberty to Prophesy, as 1 Cor. 14, etc.  
A. What do you mean by Prophesying, or Prophets? If you mean such Prophets as we find in 1 Cor. 14. & 12. etc. you have two things to prove:  
1 That these were Prophets in no Office.  
2 
Rutherf. Diu. right, presbyt. p. 271. Gillesp. Mis. c. 5  That the gift of Prophesying there mentioned was ordinary, and perpetual; of the Presbyterial Divines you have two men [there may be more for aught I know] to grapple with, that have strongly debated this question, and have answered all that is brought. Of the congregational Divines I find two men of no small worth, who though in some extraordinary case in places where Ministers are not to be had, if there be any able Christian fit to speak, they would grant such a liberty in a regular way; but for the places you bring to prove that it is an Ordinance of Christ for private members to prophesy, 
Keys 20.  they oppose this: Mr. Cotton saith, That place 1 Cor. 
Resp. ad Apol. p. 125.  14.31. doth not speak of ordinary private members, but of men furnished with extraordinary gifts, he proves it afterward. Mr. Norton saith, Prophecy, concerning which Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 14. is not to be understood of any ordinary and perpetual gift whatever, much less of an ordinary and perpetual gift of private brethren, and that he proves.  
I intent not to launch forth Into this Controversy, for others have answered all those arguments that are brought; but let me say this, When I considered these places, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers. The 29. verse, Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? In the same order he reckons them. So Ephes. 4.11. He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, etc. So Act. 13. 1. There was in the Church at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas, etc. Prophet's have ever their place next Apostles, and are ranked before Teachers; these texts are to me strong proofs, that these Prophets were no such private men as ours, nor their gifts ordinary; those that would be such must needs take place of their officers, you are before them, for these Prophets are always placed before ordinary officers. That 1 Cor. 13.2. and 14. v. 22.30. these places well considered will prove it was no ordinary gift.  
But I would leave that way of arguing? and would argue against it from what I have observed about it.  
1. It is needless, what need is there of it? I have observed that the ordinary time when these Prophets go to work, is after the Ministers have done preaching: what need is there of these men now to go to Prophesying? why do they not go home and meditate upon the Sermons they have heard, and call them over in their families? but (for sooth) now the brethren must go to Prophesy.  
2. It is not only needless, but it is dangerous, Satan hath a design in it.  
First, to undermine the power of the word preached, these persons who have heard two Sermons before, run now to Prophesying, where is the word the people heard before? 
Tortul. hath an observation of the heretics then, Nec suis praesidibus reverentiam noverunt & hoc est quod. schismata apud hereticos fere non sunt; quia cum sint, non apparent schismata. Praescrip. adv Hae●●t. This is very true of these kind of people, so far as I have observed among most of them.  this fine thing hath put out that.  
Secondly, his design is to blast the Ministers, for I have observed, Ministers, nor their preaching is in any request with this generation, and the people are more taken with their prophesying, being a pretty new conceit, than they are with their officers preaching; be it never so solid.  
A near friend of mine (yet living) a Divine well known travelling into Germany, coming home in Holland he went to hear Mr. Ainsworth, who preached a very strong Sermon (the person was able to judge) while Mr. Ainsworth was preaching, my friend observed the carriage of his members, it was, he thought, not becoming the Ordinance (I will not write all he told me, left I should be thought to write out of malice) very dull and dead that was the fairest; when Mr. Ainsworth had done, they now were to prophesy; my friend said he observed, that those, who sat so dully and unreverently, while their Pastor was preaching very excellently, now their turn came to prophesy, risen up, and were so perk and lively, that he could but note their carriage. The word preached by officers, though never so able, doth little good, where this trade is driven.  
3. I have observed, order with peace and unity, is seldom or never kept, where these persons flourish: one thinks his parts are as good as his brothers; this man he carps, and finds fault with his brother's doctrine; then come differences in, and heart-burnings; this man would be thought to be the chief, and most called upon to exercise, another likes not that, jangling, discord, breaches, I have known to be the fruit of this good work.  
4. I have rarely known any of these persons that were humble men: the bones of pride, and self-conceitedness have stuck out shamefully in the chief of those, whom I have known; what others are, whom I have not known, I cannot tell, but the most gracious, savoury, humble persons that I have known, though as able as those who are so forward, yet they cannot be brought to this practice, but content themselves in improving what talents they have otherwise.  
5. I do not find private men to be so able, as these suppose themselves to be; some particular persons, Christians of good experience, and ripe understandings, and some that are scholars may be able to speak to some points very well; but most what our Prophets deliver, either vile errors, as I have known, or else wrong the Scriptures very grossly many times: 
This man doth use to prophesy much, this is commendable in him that he is adverse to other errors. I have known other Christians besides him, very eminent and sound yet give gross interpretations of plain Scripture.  One of late was handling that Text of Cornelius, Act. 10. that he was a devout man, prayed, gave alms, etc. he cast this gloss upon it, that Cornelius was but as our devout Papists, that use also to pray, and give alms; this is strange that Cornelius was no other than such a one, doth the Scripture set such commendations upon such a person? I doubt the man did not well know what it was to be devaut in Scripture account; the next words, fearing God, might have helped him to understand what manner of one he was. Being at London within less than a year, I heard there was a meeting of Christians, and the brethren were to prophesy, and it seems it was their manner to speak ex tempore after the first had spoken; I suppose they would imitate that text, 1 Cor. 14.30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, etc. I had no great stomach to go, yet I thought I would go hear, supposing that these persons who cry up prophesying, had something more excellent than other Ministers, especially being such adversaries to Black-coats: The text was 1 Thes. 5. Quench not the Spirit; the next words, Despise not prophesying, were brought in be sure, and charged home, that people should observe that, as one way of quenching the Spirit, I believe they spoke ex tempore: Learning, and Ordination they were cried down; the glorious new lights brought in by the illiterate men were cried up; but such a mess I had, that should our poor Country Black-coats prophesy no better, we should teach our people to despise prophesying.  
These things I have observed in this new invented Ordinance: the sum is, when you bring us the men that are qualified for such a work (such as that worthy and honourable man Mr. Winthrop, who was a solid man, a good scholar, and natural Philosopher, fitted to speak excellently, and did sometimes, before Mr. Cotton went over to New England, when the officers desired him, but I never heard whether he did, after Mr. Cotton came) and can prove those texts to be meant of ordinary gifts, and the Prophets to be persons out of office, than we shall give you leave to Prophesy, but not after other Sermons preached by your officers.  
The last proposal is this, 
The last proposal.  We would have liberty of Conscience.  
Answ. 
Iren. p. 30.  Mr. Burroughs saith, The Devil uses to take sanctuary in conscience, hoping there men will be tender; but enquiry is to be made, whether he be indeed got in there, or in some other room of the soul. What that worthy man hath spoken to this point, I refer the Reader to Chap. 6. of his Irenicum.  
Because conscience is so often pleaded, and made the Asylum for every opinionist, let us search when a man may be judged by Christian rules to be swayed by conscience.  
First, I would look that such a man be one, that according to the best observation that can be made of him, hath a renewed conscience: I must find him to be uniform, else I weigh not what he saith about his conscience. There will be infirmities, but then they are but infirmities, and those truly lamented.  
Though a man have a renewed conscience, 
Posito abstracto & concreto non statim ponitur modus agendi.  yet I will not say that a true renewed conscience is the cause why he maintains such an opinion, he may not be rightly conscientious in that.  
Secondly, such a one is ready to give an account of his conscience if you call him to it, if he will not give me a reason what moves his conscience, I regard him no more: Conscience is but a Deputy, it cannot make Laws, but they are made before.  
Thirdly, such a man hath used all means, the best means he can, to find out God's mind, prayer, reading, conferring with the ablest Saints, and such as have most skill to guide; yea, prayer and fasting, any way to find out the truth his conscience is troubled about: If he hath not used the best, and all means, I weigh not his plea of conscience.  
Fourthly, if after searching he cannot yet come to see what the stream of holy and learned men do hold and practise, but must differ from them, it will be a trouble and grief to his spirit, that he should differ from them, fearing lest God should hid it from him, seeing others how holy and able they are, and therefore thinking they may know more of God's mind, than he doth.  
Fifthly, such a man will walk very humbly and respectively towards those men, from whom he differs, being he knows so holy and able, let us hear Mr. Burroughs speak: 
Exposit. Hos. c. 5. ver. 5. p. 395.  But you will say, every man pleads conscience; how shall we know whether it be the stoutness of his heart, or the tenderness of his conscience? Thus, if this man behaveth himself humbly, and the rather humbly in all other things, because he cannot see what his Brother doth in such and such particulars, and so is in danger to be an offence to his Brother, and therefore his soul is humbled, this is a good witness that it is mere conscience, and not stoutness that makes him differ: But now, if his behaviour be high, and proud, when he differeth from his brother, he doth not take it to be an affliction to him, that he cannot see what his brother doth, but censureth him, and thinks that it is either through his weakness, or through his wilfulness that he will not see, and so carries himself high, and proudly before his brother, this witnesseth to his face that it is stubbornness, and singularity. Nay, than Mr. Burroughs, you have scarce left ten conscientious Separatists in England, the former part of this I have not seen in any, the latter I have seen enough.  
6 A man truly conscientious, etc. in those points where he doth agree with other learned and holy men, will there cleave close to them, in opposing also all other points which he judgeth to be false; he will not be a sly enemy, or scoffer of such, and a conniver at, and a favourer of other Sects and Opinions, which his heart tells him are not sound, or at least he doubts much of them.  
Now the grounds of all these several heads in the trial of him, who differs purely out of conscience, are these:  
1. Because such a conscience in the very formal notion of it carrieth this, viz. this man's heart is awed, and carried away with the Majesty, and Authority of God and his Truth; it argueth much grace, if one takes it in the true notion, than I am sure such a heart will do all these things.  
2 Such a man is awed with all truths, 
Ephes. 4.3. Phil. 2.2. 1 Cor. 1.10  and therefore the command of unity, to be all of one mind, to speak the same things; these have such a power on his spirit, as it puts him upon all these.  
3 Such a man considers that to be an offence to other godly Christians, from whom he differs, is a thing that he had need take heed of; also a fear of weakening the work of God in the place where he lives.  
4 Such a one knows the vileness of his own heart, and is prying into his own weaknesses, others he can see more holy and able than himself, and hence he fears himself, and conceives such men, being so holy and near to God, I fear he may reveal that to them, which he conceals from me.  
Now then, if you can bring us men who express all these, and walk truly by these rules, you shall not need to go to the State, to get an Act for Toleration of tender consciences, for I doubt not but Churches will be very tender of such; God seldom leaves these to drink in any vile error, if for a time they be misled, he will discover his mind to them ere long, I am assured. But alas, how fare are our people from these things? I do not rehearse them over again, but either let these be disproved to be no rules to judge by, or if they be, there are not ten (as I said) of such scarce to be found in England, who separate from the Ministry, and Churches, and have betaken themselves to their private houses; yea, if we go to our congregational Churches, and examine these, who plead for Liberty of Conscience, we shall hardly find these Rules observed. The sum is, you see, if indeed you be right conscientious men, and lead by a pure Conscience in the points wherein you differ, you shall have that liberty that Christ would have allowed you, and none will Domineer over your Consciences.  
I know of nothing more can be alleged, but I think I have taken in all that is brought against the Ministry, and Churches. It may be, some would be apt to cast in this, That the Ministers are no friends to the State, ergo, etc.  
I shall not stay to give any answer to this more than thus:  
1 The Separatists were, before this Government was erected, to be sure the leaven of all was laid, if not all actually separated.  
2 Where there are Ministers, who are friends to the State, it is all one, for they separate for all that.  
3 Matters of State differ from the Church matters, and they were also very intricate and dark, especially as some conceive, the Covenant and Protestation having been taken before, therefore in intricate things more time should have been given, till you had seen God tying a knot upon things.  
4 I know that many Ministers had not hung off so from the State, but that they saw such Separatists to be winked at, they thought too much.  
Obj. But you will say, Grant all this, that their grounds are insufficient, why cannot you go on in the work of Reformation, set up Discipline, etc. and let these alone? how do these hinder your work from going on comfortably?  
Ans. If their grounds be insufficient, 
Schism was esteemed a great evil in the Apostles times: those little matters in the Church of Corinth not comparable to ours, how doth the Apostle speak against them? so in the Ages after, as may be seen in August. contra Permeni: etc. Irenae saith, Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio, quanta est Schismitis pernicies, l. 4. c. 26. So our Divines of late against the Papists, to prove they were not guilty of Schism, have laboured strongly, but outs do but fancy grounds, and make a tush at Schism.  then why do they not come bacl again to the Churches from which they have departed? but before I give the answer, let these things be observed.  
1 Few of these, who have any true good in them, but must and have acknowledged they have received it from the Ministers, yea, in those times, when there was much more corruption in the Churches then now.  
2 Since they have left their Ministers they have got nothing; many lost the savour once they had, and some their comforts that were true, and some of these I know have come home again; generally they run out of one error into another, that is their thriving.  
3 I never heard of one true Convert that was ever brought home to God amongst them all; indeed the Principles they maintain, will not stand with sound conversion; for no Law must be to awaken men, and show them their vile condition naturally, work of faith is easy; teach no duty, but all Christ, [as if men could truly teach Christ, and no duty] these things speak enough against them.  
But I answer further, If the Classical and congregational men would but join together [as they may if they will] and set upon that work, they might do something, notwithstanding these persons, but yet they cannot comfortably hold so long as these are tolerated.  
Quest. Why, what harm have these done, or will they do?  
Ans. I shall tell you, under several particulars.  
1 They have much weakened the hands of the Ministry in the work, they were once the joy of their Ministers, their Crown, and had they held close to them still, holding up their old Principles, and walking reverently, they had very much comforted their hearts, and strengthened their hands, now they came to the work of Reformation; they could in time of Persecution, when Ceremonies, and such trash abounded, cleave to them, and to those, who were silenced, they were a comfort; but now those who should have joined with their Ministers, and carried on the work with joint prayers, they are gone. Cyprian compares the unity of the Church, 
De unitâ Eccles. 1 Kings, 11.30.  to Christ's Garment which had no seam, nor was divided; Schism he compares to the Garment which Abijah rend in twelve pieces, that was not good for salomon's house, how did it weaken the Nation? thus have these rendings weakened our Churches exceedingly: Vis unita fortior.  
2 They are now turned the greatest Persecutors the Ministers have, for tongue persecution it is wheeled about, and resides in this Generation: Puritan, Precisians, were the old terms, but now the terms are, Baals-Priests, anti-christians, Priests, and Blackcoats are the soberest terms, besides other jeers and scoffs; nay yet worse, many of these would have the Ministers utterly rooted up [we heard of a Petition drawn up by some of them to be presented to the house for that end] they have threatened us what they would do, and I doubt not, if the State would give them their wills, this should be their first vote, Down with the Ministry; so that all the old Persecutors were not comparable to these, they would have some down, but honour the calling, these would cut down all.  
3 They are the Nurseries of all Errors and Heresies; where is there one society that is not tainted? who can tell how gross they are [though we know many gross enough] for they meet in private houses, who can tell what they vent there? but if they get into Pulpits, than they will vent something, and thence we may guess of the rest; some of them have spoken a 'gainst the Scriptures, yet some again would have the Apocrypha to be Canonical; as a company of Anabaptists spent the afternoon of a Lords day, to prove the Apocrypha to be so; the London Ministers have set down some bad enough in their Vindication, Mr. Edward's also [only he should not have jumbled all Independents together, as if they did favour such vile Opinions, he should have spared some] now if we have such Nurseries among our Churches, we shall find it a difficult work to keep our Churches clear: some of these cursed seeds will be blown into the Gardens.  
4 They cause Church-Members to walk irregularly: if any do not walk as they should, or have drunk in any poison, if now the Brethren first, and then the Officers come to deal with them, they care for no body. If they be of any number to make a Society, that they can meet together, than they will rend away, and so meet together; but if not so many (if but one) yet they know where there is a Society of Separatists, who will take them in; and hence, what care they for all Officers and Churches? But have you experience of this you will say? Yes that I have, I could instance quickly in more than one Church. Hence I have heard congregational Ministers say, it was but a vain thing to go about to gather a Church in a Town where the Separation was, or if it were near, neither have they gathered any.  
5 They do labour to draw away the hearts of our Members from us; it hath been the language of some to my people, You must not believe the Black-coats. Another time preaching about family duties, as it lay in my Catechise in order, one of them would needs know of one of my people, what I had to do to preach such things, I must teach Christ; so none shall find any settling who attend upon Ministers; but blessed be God, there be many who can tell them its false, and I pray God keep me from their settling.  
6 They have spoilt many hopeful young Plants, persons newly awakened, who have given some hopes; they have come in, and [like the spirits at London] stolen them away; this blessed Burroughs complained of, whose Ministry in the beginning of these troubles worked excellently, and hoped for a fine crop, but this Generation got away those young ones, 
Cap. 5. v. 7. p. 431.  as they saw them moved, and leavened them with their errors; thus this man lost many of his hopeful Plants; yea, I find something in his Exposition upon Hosea, where though he doth not express his own particular trouble concerning this [for what I mention, was his speech to some friends, I could set it down larger than I have done] yet there is the thing, I know no such dreadful argument of God's displeasure against this Nation [these are weighty words, yea, he repeats it over again at the end of the same Paragraph] as this, that as soon as young ones begin to know Jesus Christ, there are presently corrupt errors infused into them, under the notion of honouring Christ and free grace, etc.  
For my own self I am but weak, and God hath not honoured me in that kind, so as others of his Servants, yet I have known where I have been bestowing pains, and have had some hopes, within a fortnight that an apparent change hath been discerned: Some of this generation have come to draw them away into their Societies; telling them they shall never be settled if they attend upon Ministers.  
If these things be seriously considered, you may easily judge how comfortably our work will go on, while these are tolerated amongst us; this is poor comfort for Ministers to go about Church-work, when as if their members will prove wanton, if their officers come to deal with them, and send for them, they shall scorn to come at them, and send them base letters abusing their officers (I could set down in the margin where such things have been acted, but I forbear) this is nothing, so long as the Separatists, the enemies of the Ministry, are tolerated, for they can resort to them, yea, if all the members of congregational Churches, as well as of Presbyterian Churches, will separate from their Officers, and go into their private houses, they may if they will, if they do but meet together and exercise their gifts, it is sufficient. So that though Christ hath appointed the standing ordinance of the Ministry, and left the example how these shall be orderly called, yet here is the foundation laid to destroy that Ordinance, and bring in nothing but confusion; Christ was faithful in his house as a Son, and ordered all things in that house, he hath used his Ministers hitherto to bring home those that he hath elected and purchased, he will have his house upon the Mountains, but now we are come to this point not to care whether we have Ordinances or no, officers or no, what comfort then can we have in going about this work of reforming our Churches?  
But further if it be well observed, these people are no such friends to the State, though they are looked upon as the only friends the State hath; it will appear if we consider them in a moral or political respect.  
First, for the moral respect, the strength of a Christian state lies, in having Christ on their side, and I am sure the strength of our State lies there; now is that a way to keep Christ on our side, to tolerate those who seek to undermine that whereby he is known in the world? take away Ordinances, and the Ministers who are appointed by him to dispense these Ordinances, where shall we know Christ? but these labour to do this. Can it be for their safety to tolerate such, that hinder his visible Kingdom from being set up, (at least with poor comfort?) what is the reason that all this while there is no Discipline set up? why are we in such a shattered broken condition? no man hath any mind to stir; our obstructions are not from the Drunkards, Whoremongers, profane swearers, etc. chief these carry so much conviction in their own consciences, that they dare not much appear; but these Schisms and Errors tolerated have been our obstructions: If it shall please the State but to put forth some power to heal these (not that I would have all errors knocked down with club-law) and but stand to the Ministry, I hope we shall see the Churches of England in another posture, and things so carried, that no man, who walks by a pure conscience, shall be justly offended; for as for the Classical and congregational Ministers, they are come so near, that I believe there will be no difference between them. Those who hinder Christ's Kingdom, cannot be true friends to a Christian civil State. If any shall object, the State hath prospered since these Schisms, and Errors have had their liberty, therefore God doth witness for them: I should say there is little Divinity in this kind of arguing, viz. to argue from Providence, to the maintaining of things cross to the word of God: besides here is fallacia non causae pro causâ; For next to Gods own free & sovereign pleasure, which was the main cause, the instrumental cause of the prospering of Army, etc. must be referred to the many precious Saints of God, Ministers and others, who are men resolute for Christ's Ordinances, and Officers; men who stand to their old Principles, abhorring these Errors and Schisms; who very much fearing, lest if the Scottish party prevailed in this way, there would be little liberty for the sound and moderate Presbyterial men, as well as congregational, and therefore they lay in hard with God, by fasting, and Prayer, for the disappointing of the Scottish designs: and surely Christ hath more respect to his own people, who are tender of his Ordinances, Truths, and Officers, and long to see him set up in all his Ordinances before they die, rather than to such, as make light of all the former. Few of these Separatists trouble fasting and prayer very much, they are so full of joy; they cast off those flesh-afflicting Ordinances.  
I would have none to mistake me, as if I were an enemy to the Church of Scotland. No verily, I do much honour divers of the Ministers, and the Church of God is much bound to bless God for their labours; both of former times, Rollocke etc. and also in these latter days; I conceive that man is either proud, or ignorant, or erroneous, who shall read Mr. Rutherford against the Jesuits, and Arminians, and doth not bless God for him. Yea, the pieces that he, and Mr. Gillespie have writ concerning the controversies of these times, for their learning, and sweetness of spirit in them, who can but bless God for them, yea, though in some places cross to our congregational men? though they are condemned and slighted here, yet they are reverenced, and highly esteemed amongst the worthies in New England.  
Yea, I add further, I wish from my heart, that the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, as I find it set down in Mr. Rutherford, and others, were set up in England, though in some points a little cross to congregational principles; and yet lay all together, what I find in Mr. Gillespie, I am so satisfied that I know men of moderate spirits in the congregational way, may be borne with, and live sweetly with them. What the practices of the people in Scotland are, I know not [I am sure they have not worse hearts than mine] they are not their Practices, but their soundness in Opinion, and Discipline I desire, they must be honoured for their purity in Worship, against humane mixtures, and for their soundness in the faith.  
2 In a political respect they cannot be judged true friends to the State.  
This appears, First, From what we have observed already among them; in that time, when the Levelling party stirred, how many of these did strike in with that party, is well known here in the Country, and other great Towns, by drawing up Petitions [only they were interrupted in their work] some again speaking most basely of the Parliament, they could match the old Royalists in their language; such, I say, as are now, and then were tolerated; and I doubt if that party moves again, we shall see what faithful Subjects these are, though now they are tolerated as friends.  
Secondly, The tolerating of these keep other men of great holiness, learning, and abilities from cordial closing with the State; the Covenant to be sure, is expressly against Schism, and Heresy. I have heard leading men say, if there were a good Aristocracy set up in the Nation, so that we might have true Patriots for the Nation; and if they would take some order with these Schisms, and Errors, so that the Ordinances and Government of Christ might be set up, indeed they could submit very well, if God shows it to be his mind to lay by Monarchy: Now it would be more honour and safety for a State, to have such men close with them, rather than such as these are; I have heard this from such, as are leading men before the Worcester fight, which I add because it may be thought, now they would do it, now they see no other hopes.  
I shall wind up this Discourse against our Separatists [many of which, I am sure, have before owned the Ministers; yea, and received Baptism and the Lords Supper at their hands] by propounding a few Questions unto them.  
1. Quest. 
Questions propounded to the Separatists  Have you any thing against your Ministers in respect of their conversations [if they be scandalous in their lives, you have a way to help yourselves] do they not walk in some measure as becometh Christians?  
2 Is not their Ministry wholesome? do they not preach sound, converting, and edifying truths? though all have not the same gifts.  
3 If you can charge them with either of these, have you with that respect, which becomes their places, dealt with them, and told them of such faults? have you told them once and again, yet they have refused to hear you, while you have patiently waited? you must do so towards a private brother, before you part, much more with a Minister.  
4 Have you called in other Ministers to hear the Case, and to judge in it? or are you only your own judges?  
5 Do they mix any thing in the Worship of God, so as you cannot join with them in the worship without sin? and have you dealt with them as before?  
6 If there be some thing which you would have received or done, have you given them convincing Arguments to prove it ought to be?  
7 Was the thing you desired Tanti, of so great consideration, that the word will clearly bear you out for separating, because you could not enjoy what you would have?  
8 Might not meekness of spirit waiting a while have won your Ministers to a yielding in some degree to what you desired?  
9 Was there no Church in the Town before you separated, and entered into a Covenant together? (this I add because some of these call themselves The Church) and are there no visible Saints in the Town but yourselves?  
10. When you did separate, whose counsel had you? what Churches joined with you in the act, and also were present when you did join together, to hear your Confession of Faith, whether you were sound in the Faith or no?  
I hearty wish they would give in Answers to these Questions according to the word clearly, I think they will see themselves snared. Let us in few words hear what others say concerning separation.  
Mr. Hooker, 
Survey Chu. dis. in Pref.  that eminent man of God saith, The faithful Congregations in England are true Churches, and therefore it is sinful to separate from them, as no Churches.  
Mr. Norton, 
Resp. ad Apollon. p. 156. etc.  another Congregational man, acute and holy, hath written upon this subject excellently: If the Separatists do understand the Latin tongue, they shall find their practices overthrown and condemned, Rejicimus Separatistas non distinguentes inter ecclesiam, & impuritates ecclesiae, Grave crimen schismatis. I wish we had a few of these Mr. norton's in England, though he be a man who stands much for the people's liberty, yet he so ordereth their liberty, that our Ministers would be glad if they had their Churches governed, as is the Church whereof himself, together with Mr. Na. Rogers, are officers; these are congregational men. 
De schismate.  I will not rehearse what I find in Camero, because he wrote before these times, and will be reckoned for a Presbyterian; four grounds he gives for separation, none of which I am sure our Separatists can allege, 1. Grievous and intolerable persecution. 2. When the Church is Heretical. 3. When Idolatry is set up. 4. When the Church is the seat of Antichrist. I shall conclude with a speech of his,  nihil aequè arguit ingenium spiritus Christi, ac studium conservandae societatis & unionis, in quo charitas elucet; sic etiam nullum est evidentius argumentum pravitatis ingenii humani (unde & inter carnis opera contentienes nominantur) quàm tumultuandi & rixandi studium.  
Object. But you have spoken against godly men all this while.  
Ans. Not against their godliness one word, their schism & errors only I have opposed. But I know not what new Divinity we have got up in these days, that if they be godly men that drink in errors, or practise inordinately; Oh, take heed how you speak, they are godly men; there may be an unwise speaking, when men shall only fling out against persons, but confute nothing; but certainly godly men deserve reproof as well as others; I hope the being of a godly man doth not make that to be no sin in him, which is sin in another; but here is the subtlety of Satan, and it was all the game he had to play in those times, I must now, saith he, get into an Angel of light, and I must work among these godly professors, 
This w●● Satan's plot in Cyprians time as he mentions in his book De unitä Eccles. yet when he saw his heathenish worship would not prosper. but was cast down, than he plagued the Church with heresy and schism.  if I can get some of those away, I shall get other hollow ones to cleave to them, and make a party: If I now make not a division among them, but that they join all with one shoulder to set up Christ's Kingdom, and thrust down mine, it will go hard with my kingdom; now therefore, find fault with the Ordination of Ministers, it was Popish, so separate from them; plead conscience, that is a tender piece; strive for exact purity (though it be beyond the rule as to visible Church-fellowship,) and thus he hath found out his ways to damp all the work of Reformation.  
I shall say no more but this, though some of these Separatists are godly men, yet if godly men stand thus as now we do, I believe God will not spare us, though we be godly men, but he will ere long bring such plagues upon the professing party in England, as shall make their hearts ache. For my part, I look on England thus, there have been choice servants of God in England, who laboured under the hierarchical oppression, many strong cries have they made for the removal of that burden, and that they might enjoy him in his own Ordinances, without the mixtures of men's inventions; God hath given us in the answer of those prayers, as to the removing of what offended: and now saith God, look you to it, ye Professors, I give the power (which never your Fathers saw) into the hands of the Puritanical 
* The old scoff.  party, let me now see how you will improve it for the advancement of my Church and glory; but verily if we improve it no better than now we do, we must look that God will not intrust us with this power long (he doth not use to stay long before he visits his Churches) but quickly deprive us of this liberty, and Lord if thou dost, thou shalt be just.  
Having done with the Separatists, I shall now take a short view of the agreements and differences that are with, and between the Classical and Congregational Divines, and then shall make bold to present an humble request to the Congregational Divines.  
1. Do the Classical-brethrens stand for all the Ordinances of Christ, as Praying, Preaching, Sacraments, Discipline, & c? so do the Congregational-brethrens.  
2. Do the Classical-brethrens stand for Christ's officers, Pastors, sach ers, Ruling-elders, Deacons, allowing such, and only such? o do the Congregational-brethrens. They agree in worship and in officers.  
3. Do the Classical-brethrens hold to the old doctrines of Faith, Repentanee, holding up the preaching of the Law in its method, to prepare before faith, to guide after faith? so do the Congregational-brethrens, such as we look upon as sound, and esteem worth the regarding.  
4. Do the Classical-brethrens hold the government of the Church to be Presbyterial? so do the Congregational-men, such as are the most acute. Besides what Mr. Norton (none of the lowest rank) hath asserted in his book which I quoted before, I have heard him say, That if the Congregational-government did make the government of the Church democratical, he would give up the cause.  
For my part, I am but among the weakest of God's Ministers, but yet I think it were no hard matter to prove the government of the Church to be Aristocratical: I enter not now into the debating of the question, but this hath much stuck with me.  
First, there is government in the Church, I mean an external polity, besides an internal government of the Spirit, what ever our fantastical Spiritualists have dreamt of; the Scripture is too plain against these.  
Secondly, than there are governor's and governed; this must needs be yielded, else government cannot be; for governor's there are, none that are sound in their wits can deny, if they own the Scriptures.  
Thirdly, the affairs then of the Church must be so carried, that these Relates may be kept distinct: for that government which destroys these, by making the Correlate, i. the body governed, to be governor (and so there are none governed) cannot possibly be, a government standing so much with the light of nature. There is no government, if all rule.  
Obj. But how can the government of the Church be Aristocratical, when as you carry things by the suffrage of the people?  
Answ. I should desire also to propound these questions.  
First, would you not, if now Churches were constituting, give the people this liberty, that if any could bring in good testimony against a man, who was to be received into the Church, that they should do it, and if the thing be proved, will not you refuse to admit such a one?  
Secondly, if it now come to casting out of a member, will not you give liberty to any of the brethren, who shall (first ask you leave to speak) in a sober, grave way, propound some question to the clearing of the case in hand, before the people join with you in cutting off a member, I say, would not you give this liberty?  
Thirdly, will you excommunicate renitente ecclesiâ? your books say otherwise, and you know what both our Ancient and Modern Divines have affirmed in this point, and therefore I quote none.  
I do not mention election to be given to the people, for that hath nothing of government in it, and this you give fully; but if you grant me the three former heads, than which way you will prove the government to be Aristocratical, the same way I shall. I have spoken to this before, and therefore conclude with Chamies, and others, the government is Aristocratical.  
Obj. But how can this be, if the people will not consent, how are they governed?  
Answ. Put case Jonathan had been indeed a great malefactor, and Saul would have had him legally and justly put to death, but the people would not consent to their King, but rescue Jonathan, shall we hence conclude, ergo the government of Israel is not Monarchical? the case is the same here.  
Now I am upon this head, I shall desire to make a little digression, before I proceed to any more heads. Mr. Edward's in a Sermon at Colchester laid down this Thesis.  
That there was no such tyrannical government in any Church (unless it were in the Church of Rome) as is in the Independent Churches; he proved it thus, They carry all things by the suffrage of the people, and if all do not consent, they will censure them; how he will prove this? a special example, in the Church of Boston in New England, when they excommunicated Mrs. Hutchison; because her own son did not join in the casting out of his own mother, he was likewise censured; an unnatural thing, said he, and so carried it, that both his own friends, and other Ministers, who were strangers, thought he was also excommunicated, as they told me when I spoke with them.  
The story doth something concern the head I am upon, and therefore I make bold to insert it here. I was a little troubled at the passage, knowing well how things were carried, being present at that time, and so took occasion some few weeks after, to give a bare narrative how the thing was carried with so much meekness, I am sure as none could accuse me. The sum is this, When all ways according to the word had been tried with Mrs. Hutchison to recall her, but none would prevail, the question was put to the Church to manifest consent for her excommunication; her son and son-in-law (one more than Mr. Edward's mentioned) stood up to put some stop in the way (had they sat still, as any body would have expected, though they had suspended their votes, I know not who would have spoken one word to them) Mr. Cotton risen up, and gave them a grave admonition, that though their natural affection might now work, for which he did not blame them, yet he would not have them prefer their mother before Christ, nor hinder their mother from that Ordinance, which might be a means to save her soul; with these words they both sat down: they never had any other censure (if this be a censure) and the Church proceeded in her excommunication. Now I appeal unto all, to judge where was the tyranny in this act? yet though I carried this with all mildness, this was the only cause why Mr. Edward's raked up all he could against me, and put it into print, even such things as never were in my thoughts. But here you may see, they stand not upon the suffrage of all the people.  
Fifthly, do the Classical-men call for Synods? so do the Congregational-men, Mr. Cotton, Keyes c. 6. Mr. Norton, Respon. ad Apollon. p. 112. etc.  
And certainly they are men of strange spirits, who deny Synods to be useful, and no Ordinance of God: I doubt he did not well consider what his pen let drop, and left it to posterity, That he never saw any good that came by any Synod, but rather the contrary. A great Clerk indeed he was, but surely the man was in some passion; I am sure I have known the contrary, much good come by Synods; but some of our Independents snutch up this sentence of his, as if it were Apostolical. This is the difference, say the Congregational-men, the Synod binds directiuè, non juridicè, the Classical will have both.  
When I observe what both sides speak of Synods, methinks this can be no such matter of difference.  
The Classical Brethren say, 
Lond. Vind. p. 23  All the determinations even of Nationall Synods are to be obeyed no further, than they agree with the word of God; and that a Synod est judex judicandus; That Congregations are to examine with the judgement of discretion, what is sent to them from Synods.  
Mr. Rutherford saith, 
Peac. plea. p. 322.  The Acts of the Assembly oblige all the absents, not present in all their members, not because of the Authority of the Church, but because of the matter, which is necessary and agreeable to God's word.  
That people may not examine decrees of their Synods according to God's word: That people may not reason or speak in their Synods, 
Ib. p. 246.  we acknowledge no such Synods. This latter needs a little fencing, otherwise we should have confusion enough; our Churches in New England chose out of every Church, two of the ablest of the private brethren, and sent them as their messengers, these indeed had liberty to speak and propound doubts in the Synod, but it was not left free for any body to speak, that would.  
Mr. Gillespie states a question; Suppose a scandalous person would come to the Sacrament, 
Aar. rod. 477, 478  the Minister knowing him to be so, adviseth the Eldership to join with him, and do their duty in keeping this person away, it may be they refuse; Appeal is made to higher Assemblies, Classis, Synod, etc. they it may be will judge him fit for the Sacrament, this is their sentence, must this Minister now obey the sentence of the Classis or Synod? His determination is, That the Minister being clear in his conscience, and the matter of scandal sufficiently proved, he must not do an unlawful act in obedience to men, but follow the rule, 1 Tim. 5.22. Keep thyself pure, his conscience illuminated by God's word is a rule to him of his own personal acting, or not acting.  
Come to the Congregational-men, Mr. Cotton saith, 
Keys p. 25  We dare not say that the power of a Synod reaches no further than the giving counsel, they bind burdens, they bind not only materially, but formally, from the Authority of the Synod, See more, p. 53, 54.  
Neither do I see, that our reverend Divines in their preface to that book do oppose Mr. Cotton; for say they [in laying down Mr. Cottons judgement] Christ hath not furnished them only with ability to give Counsel, but with a Ministerial power and Authority, to determine, declare, and enjoin such things, as may tend to reducing such Congregations to right order and peace. But is there Authority? it may be my shallowness; but for the present I do not call to mind any power invested with Authority, but if they enjoin a thing to be done, and it be refused, that Authority will reach further. Authoritas cogit, as is the kind of the Authority, Civil or Ecclesiastical.  
Blessed Burroughs [in answering to that which some would have, 
Iren. p. 44.  scil, that a Synod may formally excommunicate, because by excommunication, they (i.e. Heretical Churches) are put out of the Kingdom of Christ, into the Kingdom of Satan, and this will terrify] saith, consider whether this be not done before, and that with an authority of Christ, by those former six things (mentioned in the page before) for Heretical Congregations, or persons are judged, and declared in a solemn Ordinance, by the Officers of Christ gathered together in his name, to be such as have no right to any Church Ordinance, to have no Communion with any of the Churches of Christ; now if this judgement be right, are not such persons or Congregations put out of the Kingdom of Christ, and put under the power of Satan, consequently?  
Certainly, this cannot be a ground of such difference, shall Non and Ex make such a stir, when Non is as bad as Ex? I should judge myself, I am sure, to be in as bad a case by the one, as the other, though for my part this notion of Catholike-visible-Church, hath made me ready to yield to Synods juridical power; I could I say yield it, and yet not differ from these reverend Divines, if they follow home their non-communion close.  
Now if you say, what doth this help against Heretical Congregations, though you have proceeded to Non-communion, they regard it not, but still go on in their Heresies, and leaven others? to that they will say, what do they care for your excommunication, if all the Heretics in England were excommunicated, they would not care, but go on still. Indeed our New England Divines will teach us a way how to help it, viz. if a Synod hath declared against an Heretical Congregation, being pertinacious, and so hath proceeded to non-communion, they will call in the Civil power to help, and so they have a way to help by their non-communion, and this must be the help of them though they be excommunicated.  
This Mr. Norton intimates, 
Resp, ad Apol. 148 Keys 50 Iren. c. 4. Mr. Marshal relates, that Zuinglius in a public dispute did so stop the mouths of the Anabaptist; that they appearing to the Magistrates unreasonably obstinate, were banish d the City, Defen. ag. Tomb. 58.  Ecclesiae appellant Magistratum in causis Ecclesiae non ad doctrinam declarandam, vel disciplinam exequendam, sed ad doctrinam a Cencilio declaratam, vel disciplinam ab ecclesiâ applicatam sanctione Civili confirmandam. The duty which Mr. Cotton showeth to lie upon the Civil Magistrate infers as much. As also Mr. Burroughs. And thus it was in New England; when the Synod (at which the Civil Power was present, as to hear, so to keep civil order) had confuted and condemned the Errors and Heresies, and so was broke up, than a General Court was called, which soon suppressed those Heresies, and brought the Churches to peace again.  
If the Civil power would do as much here, we should soon see our Churches in better order. What Civil Magistrates have done in this ease before, I need not mention, books are full. It's true, the Churches were, when there was no Civil Power to defend them, but oppose them; but we can find how many Heresies and Schisms they were then troubled with; shall the Church be in no better case under a Christian Civil Power, Nursing-fathers', then at that time?  
6 Do the Classical godly men look upon their Congregations, having visible Saints among them, to be true visible Churches? so do the congregational men judge them also. I gave instance before.  
7 Would then the Classical brethren, have their members (being such as have right to the Ordinance) to partake with Congregational Churches in the Lord's Supper to show their communion? certainly so they ought; but why Congegationall men do refuse godly men, members of Classical Churches, not admitting them to the Lords Supper, when they have desired it, is very strange to me; I wish our reverend Brethren would give us solid grounds for this practice, for it gives offence, and that justly. 
a Preface to survey ch. dis.  Mr. Hooker, and 
b Iren. p. 266.  Mr. Burroughs have both said they should be admitted: Shall a Church be acknowledged to be a true Church, where Doctrine and Worship is pure also, this person a member of it, a visible Saint (it may be a real Saint) and shall he be denied communion?  
8 For Classes, 
Pref. surv. ch. dis.  the congregational men say Consociation of Churches is not only lawful, but in some cases necessary. So Mr. Hooker. Mr. Cotton speaks fully to this, Keys p. 54, 55. weighty matters such as, Election and ordination of Elders, excommunication of an Elder, or any person of public note, the translation of an Elder from one Church to another, it is an holy Ordinance to proceed with common consultation and consent. I suppose thus much might have been obtained of the Classical-brethrens, that though in cases of weight, as excommunication, they would not have such an Ordinance carried on by one Minister, but have the thing seriously examined first, and debated in a Classis, yet when the thing had been concluded upon, they would leave the execution of the sentence to the officer, or officers of the Church, where the case lieth. If so much might be obtained, I should be very fare from opposing a Classis, I would not willingly live without one.  
I know of no other material point of difference, as for the first subject of the power of the Keys, that is but a notion, though its true, much practice depends upon it, yet I find not that our Divines here would have the fraternity to be the first subject, by their owning of Mr. Cotton his book of the Keys; for Mr. Cotton makes a Church organised to be the first subject, and not the Fraternity, as is apparent in divers places of that book.  
The sum is, I wonder at our differnces, well might that worthy Divine say in his letter to me from New England, It's the wonderment of this side of the world, that you that are godly, and may agree, yet will not! surely the cause lieth more in the Will, than any thing else. Give me leave therefore I pray, to make my humble request to our Reverend Divines, the Congregational-men, that they would please to close in with the Classical brethren, and not suffer these groundless differences to trouble the Churches any longer. If you ask, Why do you make your request to us, are we the cause why they are not healed? I cannot think the cause lies only in the Ministers; nay I have heard long since there had been an agreement among the Ministers, had not some others that live by divisions, broken it; but whether all Ministers are of the same mind I know not: nay, I have observed the spirits of some Congregational-Ministers carried with more eagerness against the Classical-brethrens, then è converso, and I am sure, if there be any blame among the Ministers, it is charged most upon the Congregational-men, whether justly or no, it concerns you to clear yourselves: Besides, at this time the Civil power most smiles upon you, and now it is a good time to show you seek the peace and flourishing of all Churches, by joining with your fellow-brethrens, and not to be content though your Interest be safe, unless the whole may have comfort as well as yourselves; for you cannot but judge that there are more true visible Churches, than those which are called Independent Churches, and that there be others that are true Ministers, besides the Independent Ministers; why then should not the comfort of these Churches and Ministers be sought? which cannot be, unless yourselves be pleased to declare against these errors and schisms of the times, and fall in with these Ministers to carry on the work of Christ together. Let me, I beseech you, present to your view a few things to be considered.  
First, the Classical men have bid very fair for peace and agreement with you; hear their words, 
Lond. in Vind. p. 120. 121.  We do here manifest our willingness te accommodate with you according to the word in a way of union; and (such of us as are Ministers) to preach up and to practise a mutual forbearance and toleration in all things, that may consist with the sundamentals of Religion [what need then any other Toleration?] with the power of godliness, and with that peace, which Christ hath established in his Church; but to make ruptures in the body of Christ, and to divide Church from Church, etc. there is no warrant for this out of the word. The page before this, they offer as much as this, and speak so Christianly and ingenuously, that it must needs move any Christian heart that loves the peace and prosperity of the Churches, to meet them half way, and not suffer any differences more to appear.  
As for that exception they make, the ruptures of Churches, I think it to be a very just exception; that golden rule hath place here, ut tibi, sic aliis, would any of us be content to have other Ministers take from us the best of our people that have chosen us before, and owned us for their officers? say what you please, you are men, and I know it would be a strong temptation, when as for want of these, also their hands are weakened in the carrying on of Reformation in their Churches.  
If you take away the best (who are the joy of a Minister) take away the worst also. If you live near a place where there is no Minister, and take in such Christians to you as the place affords, and return them when the place is furnished: or if there be a Minister, and but few Christians, so that he cannot give the Lord's Supper with comfort, if he and his people will join with you they may, none oppose this; but when a godly Minister hath visible Saints sufficient in his Parish, to have these taken from him, is such a thing which I would not have offered to me, therefore I would not offer the same to another. I know where the pinch lies, on the Minister's part, Our maintenance ariseth from the members, etc. but for this the State hath provided an answer (and certainly it is a great mercy) reform you in the place where you live, take none but Scriputre-visible-Saints to the Sacraments, catechise, and do what you can to reform the rest, the State hath provided for your maintenance, none shall keep it from you, as well as the word gives it you, Gal. 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things. Christ sent Paul not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1.17. preaching is the spending work, and the chief, of this all the Parish are partakers, I am ready to dispense the Seals to all visible Saints, therefore I know no scruple why I should not receive from all, since all receive from me.  
O but your members will not be content with this. I know not but your members may find God in a godly reformed Classical Church, we see the differences are very small; but suppose the worst, let then your members remove into the Parishes where you live, and this is no offence to any; if they say, It will something hinder their estate: Mr. Burroughs will tell them then they love their bodies better than their souls, 
Expos. Hos. c. 2. v. 1.2. p. 225.  if they look upon things very much concerning their soul, and will not buy them with some abatement of their profit: could this have been once enjoyed, New England sufferers had not been there now; Though Parishes are not Churches, yet Ministers care must be bounded some where. I presume you are willing to close, so that you may not sin.  
I beseech you first, what sin is it to let a godly Classical man enjoy his own members?  
Secondly, What sin is it to admit a visible Saint, and member of a Classical Church to communion with you?  
Thirdly, what sin is it to declare against the errors and schisms of the times? you see it is the thoughts of the New England Divines, that through our too much connivance at these, this inundation of errors is like to destroy all. If these three be but yielded, I believe you may live and enjoy your liberty of conscience, and no man will trouble you.  
2. A second consideration is this, you see those who call for agreement, they are no babes, they are men, holy, learned, excellently gifted, and the arguments they give for their Classical form of government are not slight, but such as deserve strong heads to answer; it may be my shallowness, but truly I cannot yet see some things they plead for to be clearly answered, as their arguments for the Catholick-Church-visible; their arguments for their Presbyterial Church, from the Church of Jerusalem, Corinth, etc. yet I have read the answers with a kind of prejudice against the Classical way, being before engaged in the Congregational-way, and usually than men are apt to make a little serve the turn: But I cannot yet be satisfied, and that such a Church as is in this small village where I live, should have equal power with the Church of Corinth, and be exempted from all other power, though (which God forbidden) we should walk scandalously, is a piece of Divinity that I cannot yet believe. There seems to be something in that which learned Mr. Hudson hinteth from 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your women keep silence in the Churches. Here are Churches in Corinth, he doth not say, Let women, but Let your women (that indeed which is a rule for the Churches of Corinth, is a rule for all Churches) those Congregations are called Churches, yet one combined Church of Corinth.  
There are other points besides which I mention not, but certainly the controversy is not so clear as the controversy against Papists, Socinians, etc. therefore I should think that we had need close the more with these men.  
A third consideration is this; unto me it is something, I know not how it takes with others, the strange things that God in his Providence hath suffered to fall out in congregational Churches, I mean for Divisions especially, and errors; that charge cannot be denied of many congregational Members what errors they have drunk in; and for Divisions, they are not secret things, but such as the whole Nation knows, insomuch that I have heard a serious congregational Minister, and an able man say, when he hath heard what cracks, and rendings there have been in congregational Churches, he thought seriously whether it were the way of God or no; how many congregational Churches may be reckoned where these have been, and if Ministers do not let their Members take their own course, even what they will, and drink in what errors they will, it is hard to keep a Church from rending, 
Ius Divi. p. 114 that learned Book.  England gives strong proof of this. It is a very unhappy Story that Mr. Edward's relates of the Church at Arnheim, if it be true, I find it quoted by the London Ministers: where that Act was done in New England, that Mr. Cawdrey mentions in his Epistle to the dissenting Brethren, I cannot imagine; but that is also strange, if true; I suppose he relates as it was related to him, I know indeed where there is a sad example of this kind there also. This use I make of these things, that we had need take another review of congregational principles, in respect of that power which is given to the Fraternity, and in the mean time to be very tender towards the Classical Brethren, and study agreement with them.  
The fourth, The Classical men are opposed in reforming their Churches, as well as the congregational men; now for these to be opposed, not only by the profane part, whom they keep off from the Lords Snpper, but to be opposed also by the congregational men, that they prove a grief to them, this is a hard chapter; certainly we had need more close with them, and help to comfort them, rather than grieve them in their work, they are scorned by the profane party, let not us scorn them.  
5 These Nurseries of errors [I mean the Separatists, who cast off Orthodox Officers] are as bad enemies to the congregational Churches, as they are to the Classical; nay worse, your Members will quickly drink in their poison, yea, and go away from you to them, 
Pag. 119.  as experience hath testified; therefore it concerns you to join with the Classical men against them; but by one passage I meet with in the London Vindication, it seems some congregational men do not think so, for they in their complaint to you thus speak; Are there not some of you that choose rather to join with Anabaptists, and Episcopal men then with us? and that will give letters dimissory to your Members, to departed from you to the Churches of the Anabaptists? and at the same time deny them to such as desire them, for to join with Churches of our Communion? we charge not these things upon you all, but upon some, whose names we forbear to mention; this is very strange, but this confirms what I said before, that the cause of our dis-union is not altogether in the Classical men.  
6 I pray consider what a fine Game the Devil hath played by this opposition between us, hath he not turned our Reformation into a deformation? Hath he not caused the building of the Temple to cease? Do not all things that concern the Reformation of the Church stand at a stay? What do we now? indeed those who are for congregational Government, have the opportunity to gather Churches [as they call it] but what becomes of the whole? It was told me when I was in Spain, [which was the winter before Naseby Fight] that divers that were in religious Orders that lived there, were got into England; Certainly Jesuits, or Devils have been here to hold the congregational, and Classical Brethren at such a distance, that while they have been contending about Government, we are in danger of losing Ordinances, Truths, Government, and be swallowed up with a deluge of Errors, Schisms, and Heresies; Divide & impera, that hath been Satan's project.  
7 I beseech you consider, whether we lie not open to God's stroke: is there not matter of provocation given him, by reason of these Divisions (that his work stands at a stay) Errors, Schisms, Heresies, and decay of godliness that follows upon these, that he should take away the Liberties he hath given us, and make us feel a heavy yoke again? Surely these things will not be long borne. Mr. caryl hath a sad speech, 
Expos. on Job, c. 5. ver. 9  God hath begun to do so many marvels amongst us, that I verily believe the work he is about, will end in a marvel too; and we in the close shall be made either a wonder of Mercy, or a wonder of Judgement to all the Nations round about.  
We are made indeed a wonder in regard of the strange Opinions, Heresies, Divisions, they wonder at us in New England; but till God sets up his Kingdom in our hearts, 
Rom. 14.17.  consisting in righteousness, peace, and joys of the Holy Ghost, and sets up his Kingdom in the Nation, riding in triumph in his Ordinances, converting of souls, and battering down the profaneness of our hearts, scattering our Errors and Schisms, we shall not be a wonder of mercy to other Nations; but if God shall be pleased to let our hearts feel his inward Kingdom, and our eyes see his external visible Kingdom after that manner exalted, than Lord, some of us care not how soon we fall asleep.  
FINIS.