A Public Disputation of Sundry Days, Text

A Public Disputation of Sundry Days · Text

p. 1That the National Congregations of England are the true Churches of Chriſt, ſaith Dr. John Bryan, Miniſter in Coventry; and theſe are his Arguments to prove it, as followeth.

Denyed by Mr. JOHN ONLY, with the grounds of his diſſent, in Anſwers to his Arguments.

WHether the Pariſhes of this Nation generally be true Queſt.Churches?

Thoſe Societies which the true Churches of Chriſt Argument. 1. Dr. B.generally throughout the world own and acknowledge to be true Churches, they are true Churches; but the Pariſh Aſſemblies of England are ſo own'd and acknowledged; therefore the Pariſh Aſſemblies of England are true Churches.

The Minor is undeniable, for all the Reformed Churches of Europe gave us the right hand of Fellowſhip when we were much more corrupt then now, and ſo have all the Churches of New-England done in their Treatiſe of Church Covenant, and Anſwer to 32. Queſtions. I put you to name one Church in the world that doth not acknowledge the Church of England to be the Spouſe of Chriſt.

The Major is thus proved; if the Judgement of the Churches See the joynt conſent of ſundry godly and learned Miniſters, publiſhed by W. Rathbad. p. 7.of Chriſt ought to be taken for the Judgement of God, then thoſe Societies which they own and acknowledge to be true Churches, are ſo; but the former is true, therefore the latter; of the firſt Propoſition there can be no doubt. The ſecond Propoſition is evident from Mathew 18. 17. 18. He that will not regard the Judgement of that particular Church whereof he is a Member, is to be eſteemed as a Heathen, or Publican. Of how much ſorer cenſure ſhal he be thought worthy, that deſpiſeth the Judgement of all the known Churches in the world? Again, Chriſt hath given his Church power to judge and pronounce of a particular man, that he is in the Eſtate of ſalvation, and that infallibly: p. 2therefore he hath made it much more able to pronounce of a Congregation or people that is a true Church, which is a matter of no ſuch difficulty as the other, 1 Tim. 3. 15. the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth; but this it could not be if it ſhould be ignorant of a Truth ſo neceſſary as this, viz. what people are to be accounted a true Church.

That theſe ſocieties by you mentioned may bear Teſtimony to yours to be true, may be undeniable, but then the Que…ion will Anſw. I. O.be, whether theſe by you mentioned be true Churches rightly cō …ituted according to Goſpel order, that which is the very queſtion betwixt us is by you taken for granted before it be proved, and brought in by you as an Argument to prove it ſelf; the Queſtion you are to prove is, that the Pariſhes of that Nation be generally true Churches; which I deny, and ſo conſequently all other that be of the ſame Matter and Form: Now thoſe Churches which you bring to prove yours to be true, are of the ſame Matter and Form with you; and if you be falſe, then they alſo; and if they ſhould differ either in Matter of Form from you, they could not poſſibly confeſſe you to be true: Now to ſay you are true Churches, becauſe other ſocieties who are one for matter of ſubſtance with you (ſay ſo) is as much (as if you ſhould ſay) we are true Churches, therfore we are true Churches.

That the Teſtimony of ſuch a Church as is by you mentioned, Mat. 18. 1 Tim. 3. is to be taken according to the intent of thoſe Scriptures, I grant, but then you muſt firſt prove that thoſe Churches by you mentioned are ſuch (not ſo confidently beg the queſtion) till that be firſt done, theſe Scriptures will not ſupport your Concluſion.

Wheras you deſire me to name one true Church in the world, that does not acknowledge the Churches of England to be the Spouſe of Chriſt; that I ſhall doe in its proper place, where I ſhall have occaſion to vindicate the truth of thoſe Churches, which you deny to be true.

The ſumme of your Anſwer is, ſt fir by way of Conceſſion, that all the Churches mentioned by me (which are all the known Churches Reply. Dr. B.in the world) own and acknowledge our Parochial Aſſemblies to be true Churches; this ſavours of Ingenuity.

2. By way of Exception againſt the validity of the Teſtimony of p. 3theſe Churches, becauſe they are the ſame for Matter and Formwith ours (according to the Proverb, ask my Brother if I be a Thief) this ſeems to ſavour of Arrogancy. The Teſtimony of two or three men was wont to be taken for truth by Warrant, both of Law and Goſpel, John 8. 17. Mat. 18. 16. 2 Cor. 13. 1. Heb. 10. 28. Now put the Caſe you were accuſed of theſe or two known Enemies by one & were able to bring the Teſtimony of two hundred honeſt men to aſſert your Integrity, I preſume you would not take it well that their witneſs ſhould be ſlighted upon no other ground but this, becauſe they conſiſted of the ſame Matter and Form with you; It is juſt our Caſe, a very inconſiderable number (for ſo are all the Anti-paedo-Baptiſtical ſocieties Comparatively) and our profeſt Adverſaries draw up a Charge againſt us, that we are falſe Churches; we being for Juſtification of our truth more then a million of men, approved unto God and all good men, in whoſe Approbation we do, yea and will rejoyce, becauſe we beleeve and are ſure that they are the true Churches of Chriſt, and the Judgement of ſuch you deny not to be the judgement of God himſelf; but all Churches beſides thoſe of your way, (which are but of yeſterday) you plainly (though implicitly in the Cloſe of your Anſwer) deny to be true Churches, whereby you proclaime M. Mar ſhal unity of Saints.your ſelves to be the greateſt Schiſmaticks in the world, if the Scripture reaſon, that a burning and ſhining Light in our Church hath given be of any weight, which I refer to your ſerious Conſideration; as alſo the weight of this inartificial Argument to the judgement of the people.

Our Pariſh Aſſemblies have a true Church Conſtitution, therfore Argu. 2.they are true Churches.

The Conſequence is granted by you all, for this is the Main. if not only Reaſon, why you deny the Truth of our Churches, becauſe they want a right Conſtitution.

The Antecedent I thus prove; Thoſe ſocieties that have the true Matter and Form of Goſpel Churches have a right Conſtitution, Matter and Form being the only conſtitutive Principles, and making up the Eſſence of every Body, both natural and Political.

But our Pariſh Aſſemblies have the true Matter and Form of Goſpel Churches, therefore they have a true Church Conſtitution.

The Minor I make good from your own definition of a viſible Church, viz. A company of viſible Saints combined or conjoyn'd p. 4in ſpecial bond, conſent or Covenant to partake of all Gods Ordinances, and to perform all duties which they owe to God, and each to other.

I argue thus, thoſe Societies that conſiſt of viſible Saints ſo combin'd, are true Churches, ours are ſuch, therefore:

The Major is your own, the Minor is thus proved in both branches, our Pariſh Aſſemblies are Societies of viſible Saints.

Thoſe ſocieties where ſome are Real Saints, the worſer ſort Brethren in a Goſpel Account, and the worſt, Profeſſors of the true Faith, they are Societies of viſible Saints.

But ſuch are our Aſſemblies; therefore.

The Minor you cannot deny, there are with us many that are men of underſtanding, and not only blameleſs, but pious alſo in their Converſations. The Apoſtle commands us to account men ignorant and wicked (if they be not wilfully and obſtinately ſo) Bretheren 2 Theſ. 3. 14, 15. and you grant that the worſt among us profeſs in word the true Faith, viz. That Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God, that we are juſtified by faith alone, &c.

The Major is thus proved. The Apoſtolical Church Societies, were Societies of viſible Saints; but they had in them ſome reall Saints, the worſer ſort Brethren the worſt viſible Profeſſors: therefore, Societies that conſiſt of ſuch are true viſible Churches.

That Chriſt owns for his Church ſuch a Society where all profeſs the Faith, though the greater part be wicked, if there be a few names that are Reall Saints, is evident by the example of the Church of Sardis, Revel. 3. 1. 4. the like may be ſaid of the Church of Corinth, &c. We have therefore true Church Matter.

2. They have a right Form, for they are conjoin'd in a Church Covenant; this is manifeſt by their conſtant meeting every Lords Day to worſhip God together, which is an implicit Covenant, our Adverſaries being Judges.

That which was to be proved, was, that the Pariſhes of this Nation Anſw. J. O.in their firſt Conſtitution conſiſted of viſible Saints, and all that you have here ſaid is void the mark; for notwithſtanding any thing that you have ſaid, the greateſt part of the men in the Pariſhes of this Nation in their firſt conſtitution might conſiſt of viſible wicked men, and ſo all that you have ſaid is to no purpoſe, for if ever you ſay any thing to purpoſe, you muſt firſt prove that which you have undertaken, viz. That you conſiſted at the firſt p. 5conſtitution of viſible Saints, and of this you have not ſpoken one word, you rake back into the degenerated Eſtate and Condition of Churches, ſtriving to equalize and ſhroud your ſelves under the ſins of others, which are degenerated from what they were at firſt, which is nothing to the purpoſe, for I utterly deny that ever any of thoſe Churches in their firſt forming did conſiſt of ſuch diſobedient Perſons as the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, 2 Theſ. 3. 14. For ſuch with whom the Godly in that Church were forbidden to keep company with, were (ſure) unfit to be joyned with them as one Body, if they appeared ſuch at firſt, and the like may be ſaid of the Church of Sardis, Corinth, &c. Now becauſe theſe Churches were called Saints, and that they had ſuch among them as bad as any in yours, you would infer that you may be called ſo too. I grant that theſe were called Saints, but it was not as they were diſobedient Perſons, theſe never received the name of Saints as they were diſobedient, but as they being once viſibly holy, and Saint-like, and not ſo farre degenerated, but in a capacity of Recovering their former Eſtate, they bore among others the name of ſuch. Now except you firſt prove that you in your firſt conſtitution were Saints viſible (which in the leaſt meaſure you have not done) there can be no Argument drawn from the Name of them to you. I deſire if you can to produce one Scripture where in the conſtitution of an Apoſtolical Church, there was any ſuch diſtinction made of beſt and worſt, and worſt of all, as you make, though there might be a difference in the meaſures of Grace and Knowledge, and the word plainly ſhews that they did all at firſt appear to be Saints, though they afterwards degenerated and fell to diſobedience; yet they retained the Name till actually excommunicated.

Now more particularly to your Argument.

The Antecedent of your firſt Syllogiſm I deny.

The Minor alſo of the 2d. if you adde (as you muſt, or elſe you do nothing) in their firſt conſtitution.

The Major in the 3d. I own in the firſt branch, but deny the Minor in both branches.

To your Minor in the 4th (which you ſay cannot be denied) I have theſe things to ſay to the former branch of it; firſt, That there may be ſome truly in Gods favour (in your Pariſhes) I grant, but p. 6this doth not prove thoſe ſocieties, whereſoever they are viſible Saints, (except thoſe others had formerly viſibly been in that condition) for ſome of Gods people have been and may be in Babylon. Rev. 18. 4. & yet Babylon no ſociety of Saints. 2ly, You ſay the Apoſtle bids ns, account men ignorant and wicked, if they be not obſtinately and wilfully ſo; brethren it is true, but whether were they to be accounted brethren as ignorant and wicked, or as having been firſt viſibly holy, and ſtill in hopes of recovery, this latter is evident: Now theſe in your Pariſhes, who are ignorant and wicked, though not wilfully obſtinate, never were viſible Saints, as theſe Theſſalonians were; ſuch who were in God the Father, ver. 1. Elect of God. ver. 4. Followers of the Apoſtles, ver. 6. and of the Lord ſuch as had received the word of God, Chap. 2. 13. Followers of the Church of God, ver. 14. ſuch whoſe faith grew exceedingly and charity of every one to each other abounded. 2. Epiſt. 1. 3. &c. Now of theſe worſer ſort of your Members there could never be any ſuch thing affirmed, they never being in that condition; therefore this Scripture doth not prove the worſer ſort brethren. 3ly. Far wide is it to ſay the worſt of all be Profeſſors of the true faith, becauſe they profeſs in words that Chriſt is the Son of God, &c. for that profeſſion with the Mouth, joined with denial in practice, is a lie, 1 John 2. 3. A man cannot ſerve two Maſters, but his ſervants they are to whom they obey, now the worſt of your members following the works of the Divel, he is their Maſter.

I wonder that you wander ſo far about, keeping ſuch a coyl about the Churches, that were fallen from what they were at the firſt, when you well know, that before ever you can apply any of theſe Scriptures rightly to your purpoſe, you muſt make your Pariſhes in the firſt forming like thoſe, viz. viſible Saints either reſolve to ſpeak home to your queſtion, or ſay nothing. Either you muſt ſay that a Church may be formed up in its firſt Conſtitution of viſible Saints, and viſible wicked, or elſe of viſible Saints; the former I think you will never affirm, if you own the latter, as I think you do.

I earneſtly intreat you to ſhew & prove that all the Pariſhes of this Nation in their firſt diviſion into Pariſhes were viſible Saints, except you do this, all parallels between you & Sardis, Corinth, &c. p. 7will never help you; if you ſay they were all Profeſſors of the true faith, at their firſt conſtitution, and ſo fit matter, which I think is all that can be ſaid. I anſwer, thoſe that at their firſt conſtitution were for the moſt part abhominable, diſobedient, and to every good work reprobate, they were not all Profeſſors of the true faith, but the 8432. (as I think) Pariſhes of this Nation, at their firſt conſtitution were for the moſt part ſuch. Ergo; the Major is undeniable, for works & words are to be joined together, to the making up of a true profeſſion. The Minor I prove thus, If the greateſt part of the men in the mentioned Pariſhes, did at their firſt conſtitution onelyonly profeſs to know God, and in works deny him, then they were abhominable, &c. but they did ſo, Ergo the Minor is manifeſt; the conſequent is the Apoſtles, Titus 1. 16. more ſhall be ſaid of this in anſwer to the next Argument.

Now to the latter branch touching the Parochial Aſſembly, being conjoined in Covenant, which is evinced by their conſtant meeting every Lords Day to worſhip God together, which is an implicite Covenant.

Though I might well let this paſs, for I deny a Covenant to be the form of the Church, and therefore you have little reaſon to ſay this is our definition of a Church, for though I own it in the firſt branch, yet not in the ſecond; yet notwithſtanding, ſeeing you undertake to prove your Churches by this to be true in form, they fall ſhort of what they who make this definition intend by it, and what it holds forth, I ſhall ſpeak ſomething to it, thus; This combining or conjoining, &c. is by them who are called (though falſely) independently; the form of the Church whereby firſt they know themſelves from all other ſocieties in the world, and 2ly, whereby they are ingaged to a ſpecial watch over each other: Now this which you ſpeak of, that you have, viz. A conſtant meeting every Lords Day, &c. is neither of theſe: for firſt this meeting thus together carries with it no note of the Church from the world at all; for ſeeing that all may come to hear, and many in the world (that are not of the Church) may come to one place conſtantly to ſerve God; how is this poſſible to diſtinguiſh the Church and the world aſunder they can never be known either by others or themſelves; and 2ly, this combining, conjoining, &c. ingages them together, as members of one body to a ſpecial watch over each other, &c. Now to p. 8meet together every Lords Day, &c. is no ſuch thing, for if that be an incorporating into the Church, if that be the form of the Church there needs no more to enter a man into the Church, but comming to worſhip God every Lords Day, which is ridiculous, for then a man may make himſelf a Member of any Church whether they will or no; neither doth this ingage them to any watch at all over each other, for if it ingage one, then all that ſo come, and then a man meerly of the world out of the Church is ingaged to watch over the Church, and they over him, which is not true. Thus it appears, that for ought that you have ſaid, you have not had at the conſtitution of your Churches a right matter, viz. viſible Saints, neither ſuch a form as you indeavoured to prove.

You teach me what I ſhould have proved, as if my argument concluded not the queſtion, not conſidering, that it is our Churches preſent, not Reply. Dr. B.Primitive estate, which I undertake to vindicate what the men in the Pariſhes of this Nation, were in their firſt forming, I have not now to ſay, you ſay they might conſiſt, yea you riſe higher, and poſitively affirm they did conſiſt for the moſt part of viſible wicked men, abhominable, diſobedient, and to every good work reprobate; for which you give no proof but your own conjecture, yet thereupon paſs ſentence upon all my diſcourſe, that it is not at all to the purpoſe, but I preſume every unprejudiced man will judge you have clearly loſt your cauſe, if it can be made good that the member; of our Pariſhes are ſuch as the Apoſtolical Churches were, even in their ſtate of degeneration, which you ſo much harp upon, you deny, not but they were true Churchrs, and their Members called Saints notwithſtanding, & therefore if our Members appear to be as good Saints as they were, their matter then is undoubtedly right, let them come into compariſon, there were amongſt them very many (& in ſome of theſe Churches by far the greater number) Schiſmatical, Heretical, Carnal, Proud, Lovers of Preheminence, Supercilious, Cenſurers, Contentious Abuſers of Christian Liberty, Prophaners of the Lords Supper, Gluttons, Drunkards, Pelly-Gods, diſorderly Walkers, Idle, Buſie-bodies, ſuch as had not repented of the Vncleanneſs, and Fornication and Laſciviouſneſs, which they had committed, Enemies to the Croſs of Chriſt, Minders of earthly things, Contemners of the holy Apoſtle their ſpiritual Father, having a Form of Godlineſs but denying the power of it, prof…ſſing to know God, but in their works denying him, Abominable, Luke warm, &c. you cannot p. 9I ſuppoſe find worſe then theſe in our Aſſemblies, What they were at their firſt forming it makes no matter to me at preſent; yet ſome being really Saints, ſuch as you deſcribe the whole Churches are acknowledged Societies of Saints, the denomination being taken not from the greater, but better part: ſo a Field where good Corn hath been ſowne and ſome grows, is called a Corn field, a Wheat heap though most Chaff, Gold Oare though, more Droſs than Gold; You ſay, there may be ſome in Gods favor in our Congregations, but if an Holy, Humble, Wiſe, Exact Gracious converſation argue men to be in the favor of God, an impartial Eye may eaſily diſcern more ſuch in a few of our Aſſemblies than in moſt of the Seperate Societies. Yea, if you be ingenious, you will acknowleage that the Holineſs which m…st of all your Members have (ſaving in two or three new Opinions) they learnt it in, and had it from our Parechial Congregations; a little Practical holineſs ſerves the turn of too many when they have forſaken us and joyned with you, you ſpend, but might as well have ſpared a multitude of words in declaiming againſt our peoples profeſſion of the true Faith without works; the ſtreſs of the Argument is not laid upon verbal profeſſion: though let me tell you, if it were, it might ſink your Cauſe; for as true Faith gives being to the inviſible Church: ſo does prefeſſion of the true Faith and not Moral Obedience give being to the viſible. Do you no read of many who upon their verbal Proſeſſion were Baptized by the Apoſtles themſelves, and incorporated into the Church? Did not Obedience of Faith make the Gentiles Churches? Rom. 1. 5. 8. And if Obedience to the Commandements be ſo neceſſary to the life and firſt being of a true Goſpel Church, that queſtion would be reſolved, What difference there is between the Covenant of Grace and of Works? That which I affirm ſtands firm upon a ſure foundation, that where a whole Society profeſſeth all fundamental Truths though the greater part be naught; yet if ſoms of them be Saints indeed, Chriſt owns it for his Church; for their ſake the Church of Sardis had a name to live, i. e. conſiſted of verbal Profeſſors, but it was dead; The generality were void of Grace, and wicked Members; yet for the ſakes of a few names that had not defiled their Garments, Chriſt owns it for his Church, You ſay, God had ſome ſuch thing in Babilon. If you will ſay Babilon profoſſeth the true Faith, I will ſay and prove it a true Church for the ſakes of Gods People in it; the reaſon of whoſe Evocation may eaſily appear, to be their deviliſh Doctrins pertinaciouſly held, for which their damnation was at the door.

p. 10But you frequently urge the wicked ones in Sardis, and other Goſpel-Churches were viſible Saints at firſt, and yet you bring no proof at all beſides your own preſumption, that they brought more than a verbal profeſſion to make them ſo; or if you could evince they did, no prejudice would come thereby to my Argument, which proceeds not upon that which you call firſt conſtitution; that our 8432. Pariſhes (as you number them) were at their firſt conſtitution for the moſt part abominable, &c. is alſo void of proof. I might moreover add that our members may bee called viſible Saints becauſe they bear the badge of holy Baptiſme, and ſo are ſacramentally holy every one of them as Je…uſalem when it was worſer than Sodom, was called the holy Ci…; bu… I forbear to preſs this becauſe you hold our baptiſme a null…ie (I may happily ere long prove yours to bee ſo:) beſides, the ſanct…y of that doctrine which wee profeſs, may give us the name of S…ints, comparatively or in reſpect of Heathens, in oppoſition to whom the Apoſtle calls tho…e to whom he writes Saints.

I perceive the name of Pa…iſh is extream diſtaſteful to you, and all of your way, which yet is nothing elſe in ſignification, but the confining of Churches within convenient local limits: were is not that I finde ſundry learned godly men whoſe treatiſes are, or may be in your hands, abundantly vindicating both the name and thing: among others Mr. Hollingworth in his rejoynder to Mr. Eaton, and Mr. Taylers Reply, chap 2. ſhewing how Pariſhes are jure divino, and how not, and Mr. Cawdin in his Review of Mr. Hookers ſurvey, who gives ſix ſatis…actory Anſwers to that firſt Negative Concluſion, viz. That Pariſh precincts do not give a man Right, or make him more fit for a viſible Congregation, Chap. 2. p. 87. &c. I ſhould ſpend ſome pains and time to ſtop your mouth from quarrelling with the term, and make it appear that there is no reaſon why the number of theſe bounds by whomſoever meaſured ſhould offend any: to their writings I refer you, and follow you from the matter to the form of a viſible Church, viz. Combination or Conjunction in Covenant which is in our Aſſemblies, and is manifeſted by their conſtant meeting every Lords day▪ &c. You ſay you denied a Covenant to be the form of a Church, which I remember not. I am ſure ſome of the ſeven that took your part in the diſpu…ation who were Anti-pedo baptiſts (and were lookt upon by many hearers as Herods taking part with Pilate againſt Chriſt) did expreſly own it▪ and the Argument proceeded with your Approbation: p. 11and you now ſhew your gratefulneſs to them by a tender touch of their name, and juſtifie their mutual Covenanting and conſederating in the fellowſhip of the Faith, as that which gives being and conſtitution to a Viſible Church. From the two ends of it, neither of which you ſay are attained by our Peoples conſtant meeting, &c. which is untrue; for firſt our Aſſemblies are hereby known from all other Societies in the world, Heatheniſh, jewiſh. Mabometan, Popiſh, &c. who joyn not together in Gods true Worſhip. 2. The Godly of our Congregations declare themſelves hereby ingaged to watch over each other, and actually do ſo, yea the whole Body come to be inſtructed, reproved and watcht ever by their Paſtors, and are admoniſhed of their duty (which they yield, aſſent unto, and are convinced, though the moſt fail in performance.) But let our Brethren, whoſe cauſe you manage, ſpeak, and they readily acknowledge that we have the ſame Covenant for ſubſtance which themſelves have, and conſequently are as true Churches. Read reverend Mr. Hookers ſurvey, Chap. 4. thus the People of England in their Pariſhes conſtantly hold them to the fellow ſhip of the People in ſuch a place attend all the Ordinances, ſubmit thereto, &c. by ſuch actions, &c. they declare by their practiſes, which others by open profiſſion, an implicite Covenant preſerves the true Nature of the Church becauſe it carries the formalis ratio in it, by which a Church is conſtituted▪ animplicite Covenant in ſome caſes may be fully ſufficient, as if it conſiſt of ſuch who were children to parents confederate deceaſed, &c. The like and fuller acknowledgement you ſhall finde of all the Elders of New England in their Treatiſe of Church Covenant, where they give the ſame Reaſon which you ſo ſlight. Quoting Mr. Parker, whoſe words in his third Beck of Eccleſiaſtical policy, are theſe, Non abeſt ea r…alis, Et ſubſtantialis▪ quamquam Magis quam par erat implicita) Coitio in foe tus, eaque profeſſio fidei ſubſtantialis quae (Deo grata) eſſentialis Eccleſiae, idque viſibilis huc uſque ſartam rectam in Anglis conſervavit. You ſee how little you have gained by undertaking anothers Cauſe: which though you diſclaim as yours in this, yet you ſeem clearly to own in your Anſwer to the next Argument, whichas to gratifie you who cry out ſovehemently againſt the gathering of our Churches concluding that we are no true Churches, becauſe we cannot prove that we were at firſt rightly gathered; whereas it is clear enough that we might be true Churches, though it could not appear that we were at firſt p. 12rightly gathered, as men may be true Chriſtians, of whoſe Baptiſm and firſt converſion there can no clear accempt be given, and ſome ſocities may be named who were doubtleſs true Churches of whoſe firſt gathering nothing can be found in Scripture.

The Argument proceeds thus.

Our Churches had a right gathering, both out of Heatheniſm and out of Popery; therefore they are true Churches.Argu. 3:

1. Out of Heatheniſm, we were gathered 500. years before Auſtin the Monk, by the preaching of the Goſpel (and not at all Dr. B.by compulſion) this is proved out of approved Antiquaries.

2. Out of Popery. I thus reaſon, If the Churches of this Nation were gathered, or rather recalled out of Popery into the true Religion by the means that are approved and appointed in the word of God, then they were rightly gathered out of Popery. But the former is true, which is thus made good; the means approved and appointed by God to gather or recall a back ſlided People, are preaching and the command of the Civil Magiſtrate, this latter is evident by ſundry examples of good Kings, 2 Chron. 14. 4. 15, 12, 13, 30, 34, 32, 33. that theſe were the means of recalling our people out of Popery, is acknowledged by all.

Anſw: Its true, I ſay you are no true Churches, becauſe you cannot prove you were at firſt rightly gathered, and I ſay its alſo Anſw.as true ſome may be true Churches, of whoſe firſt gathering nothing can be found; but what is this to your purpoſe? the queſtion I. O.is not, whether they be true Churches, whoſe firſt original cannot be known; but whether thoſe be true, who can know and finde it, and yet are unable to prove it true, I queſtion not but was it to your advantage you could quickly tell us of the firſt original of your Pariſhes.

To the firſt branch of your Argument, that theſe 8432. Pariſhes (of which the whole land is) were gatheted by the preaching of the Goſpel, I deſire to ſee proved. I deny not but here might be Churches gathered, but I deſire to ſee it proved, that they were gathered as now they ſtand, a whole Nation divided into Pariſh Churches generally. If they were thus gathered by the Preaching of the Goſpel, then they were called from the p. 13World, after a ſort from themſelves, and united together as one body, as all the Churches in the Goſpel were. Now this whole Nation was never called out of the World (viſibly) what was the World out of which they were called, when they were all accounted Members? And for others in other Nations they were never amongſt. 2. The World (the luſts thereof) they retained in their hearts, coveteouſneſs, pride, malice, every evil work viſibly ſeen in many of them. 3 So far were they from being united as one Man, as that they were many of them deadly enemies one to another; ſure if the Goſpel did gather, its effects would be ſeen.

To the ſecond branch. This Argument is the ſame with your former, only you alter the term from conſtituting to gathering, which in effect, is all one; for you apply it to your firſt gathering out of Heatheniſm, which might be underſtood of conſtitution, ſo that I do not well know whether it be added as a proof of the former, or as an Argument of it ſelf; but to follow you in your ſcope.

Firſt, I cannot ſee that you have had any conſtitution at your coming from Popery: for there was no alteration of either matter or form, which are the eſſential conſtitutive principles, and if you had any conſtitution, you had it from Papiſts, for before you had none as now you ſtand; or if you had, it could do you no good, as I ſhall ſhew, Popery had ſo deeply infected thoſe that had been true Churches (and this among the reſt which was one with Rome) that the name and nature of your Church was loſt, yea paſt recalling; for where the Church was called the Spouſe, the wife, the body, the houſe, the garden, the Temple, the Zion of Chriſt; they come to be called▪ A whore, a mother of harlots, a Babylon an habitation of Divels. an hold of every foul Spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hareful bird, and whereas before the Church was peaceable, and meek, and kindly, affectionate, gentle, &c. Now they come to be a blood thitſty, adulterous whore, drunk with the blood of Saints: for in her was found the blood of all that was ſlain upon the earth, inſomuch that the Lord cries out, Come out of her my people. Now we know whilſt that People are p. 14in a capacity of recovery the Lord calls not out, but to reform: nay, if they were not paſt recovery, why did you come out from them, ſeeing you lay ſuch blame upon others for ſeparating from you becauſe you have ſome gudly, and ſo there was in Rome, from whence it appears, that you could not keep that conſtitution you had before (if you had any) therefore that conſtitution that you had from them, which you ſtill retain without any eſſential difference, evidenced that if you be a true Church, Rome is too. Pariſhes were the firſt ſeats of Popery, after of Prelacy, and now you endeavor to take them up under the ſame Notion. Firſt, they baptized all this Nation Infants, and there laid the foundation, making all Chriſtians (as they called them) and then by the Laws of Civil Policy, conveniency of ſituation &c. they divided this Nation into ſo many Pariſhes, and counted all Members, living within the precincts, bounds and liberties of ſuch a place, of ſuch a Church, though in works they denyed God. They came firſt in by Honorius Biſhop of Canterbury, ſaith Mr. Saltmarſh bringing the learned Mr. Selden for proof in his book, De decimis, but how ever it is evident, that there was never ſuch a thing as Pariſh heard of in all the word of God, they never were of Apoſtolical conſtitution; there was never ſuch a thing heard of in all the Word of God, that ever a man ſhould be accompted a member of this Society, rather then of that, meerly from liberties of place, whereby it appears they were not of Divine inſtitution, but humane. Laſtly I deny that to be the means appointed in the word of God in the days of the Goſpel for gathering of Churches, which you ſay yours were gathered by; viz. the preaching of the Goſpel, and the command of the Magiſtrate.

That is the way appointed and approved of by God that the Apoſtles went in when they conſtiruted Churches; but the way that they went was by the preaching of the Goſpel only, without the command of the Civil Magiſtrate; ergo, &c.

The Major is undeniable, the Minor is proved, Asts …. 41. and all the Churches that the Apoſtles conſtituted were ſo conſtituted. 2. If the preaching of the Goſpel and the command of the Magiſtrate are to go together to the conſtitution of a Church; then where men are wrought upon by the Goſpel, they muſt ſtay till the Magiſtrate commands, before they joyn to the Church; for p. 15what God hath joyned together, no man ought to part: but they ought not to do ſo, for they may joyne themſelves the ſame day of their converſion, if there be no Magiſtrate, Acts 2. 41. therefore theſe two are not to go together; Nay how if there ſhould be no Chriſtain Magiſtrate to command (it is▪ poſſible) muſt a man ſtay till there be one before he be joyned to the Church if he believe? How if there be none while he lives, what then? If you ſay as in our publike Diſpute you did, when I urged the Apoſtolical conſtitution, that then there was no Magiſtrate; this is a plain grant then, that you were not gathered as they were; and I deſire you to ſhew your Scripture to prove, that then the preaching of the Goſpel was ſufficient, then and after the power of the Magiſtrate is to be jo…ned with it. Where hath Chriſt ſhewed you this? Is not the Goſpel as well able to effect its own ends now as it was then? I was as eaſie for God to have turned the hearts of Magiſtrates then, had the Apoſties wanted their power as ſince. Are you true Miniſters of Chriſt powerfully enabled from him ro diſpence his Goſpel, it will bring as many as be fit matter for the Church, you need not make your ſupplement from the Word to the Sword. It is the commanding power of Love that is to force into the Church of Chriſt; and all that are ſo wrought upon, need not to be forced, they are willing in the day of the Lords power, and to force thoſe into the Church that are not willing, is a ready way to fill the Church with Hypocrites, and to force by compulſion into the Church is directly to contradict Chriſts order in his Teſtament, and to make up a Church of ſuch matter as all Gods people ought to flie from.

If you ſay it is not conſtitution you apply it to, but recalling; I anſwer, it is not recalling that can ſerve your turn; for you have never been called (as you ſtand) or if you had it was loſt, and a new foundation to be begun (as above) or thirdly, If it was not, the caſe is the ſame; no power of the Magiſtrate (though an Ordinance of God…n… place) is to be exerciſed in reforming Goſpel Churches, ſee Rev. 2, 4▪ 5, …, 1. 1, 2, 3, 4, 18 &c. See what the Lord councels theſe backſlided people too, to repent and turn to their firſt love, and take▪ he Lords Councel while he offered it, or elſe he would come upon them (not with the power of the Magiſtrate to beat them to him contrary to their wills) but with the p. 16power of his Juſtice to take away that means of grace he had afforded them; to your places of Scripture, I anſwer thus, we are not under Moſes but Chriſt: we are to follow thoſe examples in this caſe that the Apoſtles and God himſelf in the New Teſtament hath left us. Conſider Matth. 17 5. Heb. 1. 1. Acts 3. 22, 23. Thus theſe Arguments being anſwered, which ſhould be as the foundation to bear up all the reſt, and being found too light, all the reſt, were they 500. of them, will melt away like Snow before the Sun.

Your inanimadverſions is the reaſon why you ſee no difference between Replythis and the former Argument, that was taken from the internal eſſential cauſes, this from the external, inſtrumentally efficient: which might have been ſpared, but for your importunate crying out Dr. Bagainſt our firſt gathering: which I affirm to have been out of Heatheniſm only by preaching the goſpel, and out of Popery by that and the Magiſtrates aſſiſtance: You deſire to ſee proved that ever theſe 8432. Pariſhes were gathered by the preaching of the Goſpel into a Church; you may ſee ſufficient to give any reaſonable man ſatisfaction in the Anſwer of the Elders of New England (to which I formerly referd you) though their teſtimony ſway not with you, their intercited reaſons may.

The ninth Queſtion runs thus. Whether do you hold all the most of our Pariſh Aſſimblies in Old England to be true viſible Churches of Chriſt, with which you may lawfully joyn in every part of Gods true Worſhip, &c. They anſwer firſt, that they doubt not but of ancient time there have been many true Churches in England, conſiſting of right matter and compacted and united together by the right form of an holy Covenant. The Goſpel was brought hither in the Apoſtles times, or within a little while after. Mr. Fox his reports out of Guildas Te tullian and Nicephorus to confirm this are at large related. 2. Though Popiſh Apoſtacy did afterward for many Ages overſpread all the Churches in England, yet they believe God ſtill reſerved a remnant, for whoſe ſakes he preſerved the holy Scriptures amongſt them, and baptiſm in the name of the Trinity only; and when God of his rich grace was pleaſed to stir up the Spirit of King Edward the ſixth and Queene Elizabeth, to caſt off the Pope &c. though at firſt ſome Sbires and ſundry Pariſhes ſtood out againſt that Reformation p. 17for a time, yet afterwards they generally received the Articles of Religion agreed upon Anno 1562. which are publiſhed and conſented to by all the Miniſters endowed, with the ſilent conſent alſo of the People, and Subſcription of the hands of the chief of them, containing the Marrow and Summe of the Oracles of God, which are the foreign, the Eloquia Dei, concredited only to the Church. We doe therefore acknowledge, that where the People doe with common and mutuall conſent gather into ſetled Congregations every Lords day, as in England they do, to hear and teach this Doctrin, and doe profeſs their ſubjection thereunto, and doe bind themſelves, and their Children (as in Baptiſm they doe) to continue therein, that ſuch Congregations are true Churches.—much more you may read in their Treatiſe of Church Covenant, in their Anſwer to the eleventh Objection, where they ſhew, that if Chriſtian Congregations in England were at the firſt combined by Covenant, the Eternity of Gods Covenant is ſuch, that it is not the Interpoſition of many Corruptions that may ariſe in after-time that can diſanull the ſame, &c. That Objection alſo, that the Members of our Pariſhionall Aſſemblies were not brought in by their own voluntary profeſſion, but by the Authority and Proclamation of the Prince, as alſo that Rome and the Aſſemblies of Papiſts may go for true Churches alſo, you ſhall find there very fully anſwered. The Name of Pariſh I perceive all along is ſtumbled at as Popiſh (as are the names of Parſons, Vicars and Curats, which is the main, if not the only Reaſon why ſome of you caſt off both the Engliſh Churches and Miniſters) and yet the thing ſignified by the name is owned by Scripture, and upon that account Mr. Hollingworth proves Pariſhes to be of Divine Right, to whom I formerly referr'd you, and reaſon it ſelf evinceth it moſt expedient for the better performance of thoſe duties which ariſe from Church-Memberſhip, that the Members ſhould cohabit or dwell as neer together as conveniently they may. It's falſely charged upon as that we hold, Pariſh Precincts give a man right, or make him matter fit for a viſible Congregation; but the Queſtion is of a Nation or City Chriſtian, whether the bounds of Pariſhes diſcreetly meaſured, may not rationally be fixed, as moſt expedient for Religious Meetings, ſeeing all cannot meet in one place; and if the Members of a Pariſh be viſible Saints, you will not ſay it is not lawfull to limit the Congregation unto ſuch, (read the Review formerly cited) and that our p. 18Congregations generally conſiſt of ſuch, though not in your, yet in a Scripture ſenſe, hath been in part, and ſhall be more fully proved.

In your Anſwer to the firſt Branch I ſee nothing worth replying to,

1. The World out of which this Nation (when made Chriſtian) was called, every mans Eyes; but yours, eaſily ſee. 2. Many Members of the beſt Churches retain the luſts of the World in their hearts, and 3: May be deadly Enemies one to another, bite and devour one another, yea, and be Enemies to their faithfull Miniſters for telling them the truth, and yet the effects of Goſpel gathering ſeen well enough.

To the ſecond branch, 1. You ſay we retain the Conſtitution which we had from Popery, which is very falſe; for we rejected Popery, embraced Gods holy truths and joyned together in true worſhip, and ſo were Matter and Form diſtant far enough from Popiſh Rulers; you mean we retain the ſame Pariſh bounds which Papiſts left us, to which ſufficient hath been ſpoken.

2. You deny the Command of the Magiſtrate (aſſiſting the publick Preaching of the Goſpel) to be a means appointed and approved of God for the gathering or recalling of a back-ſlided People. That the Magiſtrates duty is to command, yea and compell men that have forſaken their God, and the true Faith, to return again to God, I proved by the approved examples of the good Kings undor the old Teſtament, which you throw off very lightly, as if old-Teſtament-Proofs were of no force; whereas the Apoſtle expreſly teacheth, that the Goſpel Churches are built upon the Prophets, as well as the Apoſtles, Epheſ. 2. 20. And that I may farther convince you of your Errour and Folly in ſlighting theſe Examples, 1. You cannot but grant that what theſe good Kings did was by vertue of divine warrant, Deut. 13. 5-11. 17. 2. Exod. 22. 20. 2. It will thus appear, that theſe Rules and Patterns are binding under the New Teſtament, 1. Becauſe we find no Repeal of theſe Precepts, no Prohibition of theſe Practiſes.

2. This Power is of Common and Naturall Equity, and that which is anſwerable to the Morall Law binds under the Goſpel. 3 This Power was eſtabliſhed and exerciſed upon Morall grounds, and for Moral ends, Deut 13. 5. 11. 4. We find this very thing propheſied of the times of the New Teſtament, Eſ 49. 23. Zech. 13. 3.

5. The Apoſtle makes Rulers a terrour to evill works, and Revengers to execute wrath upon Evil Doers, without limitation, or exception, and you will not deny tranſgreſſions of the firſt Table to be evill p. 19works. Moreover, you cannot but remember that it is a Goſpel-expreſſion, Compel them to come in.

Your firſt Argument from the Apoſtles gathering Churches, without the Magistrates help (there being no Christian Magistrate) proves the Power of God, who can make his Word alone Effectual, but it proves not, that had there been Christian Magistrates, they ought not to have aided by their authority, or that the Apostles would not have called for their aſſistance.

The conſequence of your ſecond Argument is abſurd. If I have Bread and Water to preſerve my life, muſt I not make uſe of theſe, becauſe I want thoſe other means which God hath appointed, and which, when he ſees good, he will add to theſe to make my life more comfortable?

Your concluſion of this Anſwer, is a triumph before the victory. My following Argument, which you ſay, will melt like Snow before the Sun, may make a floud which will ſweep away your refuge of lyes. James 3. 14, 15.

Thoſe Aſſemblies wherein Chriſt dwells by the ſpecial preſence Arg. 4. Dr. B.of his Grace, are true viſible Churches: but Chriſt dwells in the Parochial Aſſemblies of England by the ſpecial preſence of his Grace; Ergo the Parochial Aſſemblies of England are true viſible Churches. The Major proved, Rev. 1. 12, 13, Pſal. 132, 13, 14. Exod. 25. 31. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 2 Cor. 6. 16. The Minor thus, Where ever the word of God is faithfully and conſtantly Preached to the Ears and Eyes of people, and by them attended, and ſubmitted unto, there Chriſt is preſent by his grace: But the word of God is faithfully, and conſtantly preached in the Parochial Aſſemblies of England, &c. Ergo.

Again, Where Chriſt by his Spirit in the Miniſtry of his word converts, confirms and comforts his people, there is the ſpecial preſence of his Grace: But in our Aſſemblies Chriſt converts, &c. Ergo he is preſent with us.

Laſtly, Where there is a ſettled meeting together in the name of Chriſt for a true worſhip of Chriſt, there is Chriſt preſent: But there is ſuch a meeting by the Aſſemblies of England. Ergo.

The Major I grant, id eſt, 1, Where Chriſt dwells by the ſpecial Anſw. 1. 0.preſence of his Grace, as they be golden Candleſticks, a houſe of God, a Sion, there muſt needs be a true Church; for it is no p. 20more but as if you ſhould ſay thus, where the preſence of Chriſt is with a ſociety as they are a true Church, there muſt needs be a Church, for all thoſe expreſſions, Candleſtick, Sion, houſe, are but ſpecial tearms, emphatically to ſet forth the nature of that one thing the Church; for the Candleſticks are the Church, Rev. 1. 20. The Houſe of God is the Church, 1 Tim 3. 15.

But now I deny the Minor, I deny that God dwells in the Pariſhes of this Nation as a Church: I deny not but that God may be preſent with ſome, who walk in the ſincerity of their hearts to what they know; but that God dwells with the Pariſhes generally (of which the Queſtion is) as a Church, I deny.

And now to the proofs of your Minor, you argue thus, Where ever the word is faithfully, &c.

I deny, that the word is faithfully preached in the Pariſhes of Anſw. 1.this Nation, (generally.)

2. I deny, that the word, ſuch as it is, is generally ſubmitted unto, except by aſſent, and by ſubmitting you underſtand a bare acknowledgment of the things taught to be true, then the conſequence is abundantly falſe; for the wickedſt men in the world, perhaps the Devils themſelves, may aſſent and ſubmit ſo far, and no man will ſay ſuch may make a true Church.

Laſtly, I deny the Conſequence, that whereſoever the word is truly preached, there the preſence of Chriſt is, as it is a Church. A bare denial might be ſufficient to a bare aſſertion; for you have given neither Scripture nor reaſon for your Argument. But I anſwer firſt thus, If in many Pariſhes of this Nation there be ignorant, idle, dumb doggs for the Miniſters of thoſe places, then the Word cannot be faithfully preached there: But in many of the Pariſhes of this Nation there are ſuch, Ergo, the conſequence is undeniable. The Minor is your own words; For the firſt time I heard you Preach, and excepted againſt you, you applyed thoſe words of the Prophet, Eſay 56. to ſome of the Miniſters of this Nation. Secondly, That word that they do Preach, ſuch as it is, is not obeyed nor ſubmitted to upon your own grounds; for if the word be generally truely preached, and generally truely ſubmitted to, it muſt unavoidably follow that all the men in all the Pariſhes of this Nation are faithful people, which is falſe, becauſe in their works they do evidently deny it: and to ſay they be faithful people, is p. 21firſt to Preach plain contradictions, one while denouncing Gods judgements againſt them as wicked unbelievers, another while when you are put to prove them Churches, tell them they be faithful people, to ſow pillows under their elbows, and to ſay Peace when there is none, and making them to truſt in lying words that will not profit. Jer. 7. 4. Ezek. 13. 10.

Thirdly, I deny the Conſequence, Though the word ſhould be truly Preached and aſſented and ſubmitted to, that will not prove that place to be the place where the preſence of Chriſt is, as it ſtands related to the Church according to your Scriptures; becauſe the preſence of Chriſt in the faithful Preaching of his word, and alſo ſubmiſſion to, may be ſeparable ſometimes from the Church, and therefore cannot be a note, ſeeing that which is a note of a thing to know it by, muſt agree to it, and to it only, and at all times.

You argue further, Where Chriſt by his Spirit—Converts, &c.

Anſwer, The ſpecial preſence of Chriſt may be conſidered two ways, Either with Believers ſimply, as ſuch, being fit matter for a Church, or, Secondly, as they be a company of Believers joyned together in Goſpel-order, being a Temple built up by God for an habitation for himfelf through the Spirit. Epheſ. 2. 21, If the preſence of Chriſt be by you underſtood in this laſt ſenſe, which is only to your purpoſe, your firſt Argument ſtanding in that form, then I deny the Conſequence; becauſe that both Converſion by the Miniſtry of the word, &c. may be ſeparable from the Church, and performed out of the Church, as is ſo evident it needs no proof.

Laſtly, you reaſon thus, Where there is a meeting together &c.

Anſw. I deny that there is ſuch a meeting by the Pariſhes of England, as that in Matth. 18. for the preſence of Chriſt there ſpoken of is, that when two or three that are truly Godly are met together to deſire ſomething of the Lord, he will grant their requeſts, becauſe he at that time is preſent with them; but what is this to the general meeting of the Pariſhes of this Nation, where many, nay the moſt are openly wicked, ſome meeting for faſhion becauſe others do, ſome for Cuſtom becauſe they have done ſo, to hear a Sermon, a Prayer, and then depart, not knowing what the power of Godlineſs is? what (I ſay) that meeting p. 22in Matth. 18. is to this, is a riddle to me; and truly Sir, I wonder why you left your Minor ſo helpleſs, adding neither one Scripture nor Reaſon to help it.

You grant my Major, but in ſuch a ſenſe as is to me non ſenſe, when Reply. Dr. B.I ſay thoſe Societies where Chriſt dwels by his ſpecial preſence are his Church, you ſay, true, if he dwels in them, as they be his Church; You might have done better to have waved your Aſſes, and given us an instance of any one Societie where Christ was ever ſo preſent, that could be evicted by the Word not to have been his Church.

Where ever the Kings Perſonal preſence is, there is the Court, and ſo where Christs ſpecial Gracious preſence is, there is his Church; the Scriptures (which you ſpeak nothing to) plainly hold forth this doctrine, that the Aſſemblies where Christ is peculiarly reſident, and gives out ſpeciall tokens of his grace, are his Churches; and that he is in ſuch a manner preſent no where els, in all the world. I reaſon thus, Christ is only viſibly preſent in his viſible Church, therefore where he is diſcerned ſo preſent there is his viſible Church. Pſal. 63. 1, 2.

You deny my Minor, with the ſame limitation as you granted the Major, God dwels not (you ſay) in the Pariſhes of this Nation as a Church. I will to gratify, and (if it be poſſible) to convince you, make good, that Christ dwels in the Pariſhes of this Nation, as a Church, by thoſe three Reaſons, evidencing his preſence amongst us; For the fortifying whereof, I was ſparing in bringing Scripture-proof, or farther reaſon, not becauſe I had not ſtore of both, but becauſe I judged it needleſs to light a Candle to the Sun; but ſeeing you tax me for bare Aſſerting, you ſhall ſee me ſtrongly Confirming each of the Reaſons (taking in your own reſtriction) Firſt, I prove the Faithfull Conſtant Preaching of the Word, to be a note of Chriſts preſence with a people, as a Church. Deus. 4. 7, 8.▪ So nigh unto them—this ſpeciall neerneſs of God is proved, becauſe they had the Law ſet before them, i. e. fixed among them. Pſal. 147. 19, 20. By Word, he means his will, revealed in the Scriptures, given to his Church, as a moſt precious and peculiar treaſure. Zech. 8. 23. The reaſon why the Gentiles ſhould joyn themſelves to the Jews is, becauſe the Word was with them, we have heard by your Preaching, this was the great and glorious prerogative of the Jews, which afterward they loſt, and as ſoon as they loſt, it ceaſed to be a Church, Acts 13. 46. the Apoſtle witneſſeth this to be p. 23the greateſt privilege the Jews had. Rom. 3. 1, 2.

If this be a peculiar privilege to the Church of God, to have a ſtanding fixed preaching of the Word among them; and if no People in the world can be named, that had this ordinance of preaching, which were not Gods Church, then this is a ſure ſign. Secondly, it appears, that his working ſaving Grace, by this Ordinance, is as a ſure ſign, 1 Cor. 14. 24, 25.—he will report that God is in you (as a Church) of a truth. John 4. 22. Chriſt proves the Jewes to be a true Church: Becauſe Salvation might be had there; out of the Church there is no ſalvation (ordinarily) If you can ſhew that Chriſt is preſent to Convert, &c. in any Societie where his word is faithfully and conſtantly Preached that is not his Church, this Reaſon ſhall ſtand for invalid. Thirdly, the meeting mentioned, Matth. 18. you deny not to be a Church-meeting; therefore where a Societie meet to worſhip God by Prayer (as you expound it) or for the Adminiſtration of Church Cenſures (as the place carries it) there Chriſt is preſent as his Church.

Now that the Word is faithfully and conſtantly Preached in our Aſſemblyes, and that Chriſt Converts, &c. by our Preaching, and that our People meet together to pray in his Name, is manifeſt to all the world; that we have idle, ignorant Miniſters, in many Congregations, and a great multitude that want the power of Godlineſs among us, &c. is acknowledged, but its well known as bad of both ſorts were in the Church of the Jewes, and in the Apoſtolicall Churches, which notwithstanding remained true Churches, while he continued his preſence, and they met and joyned in his true worſhip, till God gave them a bill of divorce, and withdrew his preſence, and they caſt off Gods true worſhip, through obſtinacie.

Thoſe Aſſemblies that are built upon the Foundation of the Arg. 5.Prophets and Apoſtles are true Churches, Epheſ. 2. 19, 20. But ours are ſo built, for they have the whole Doctrine of the Old Dr. B.and New Teſtament for the infallible and immoveable ground of their Faith, whereby they ſubſiſt in Church-Communion.

I deny you Minor, What you mean by theſe words (they have Anſw. J. O.the whole Doctrine) &c. is doubtfull; if by having of it you mean Chriſt hath left this Old and New Teſtament in the world for the immoveable ground of mens Faith; that's true, but nothing to the purpoſe; for if ſo, it's left to all men, and many men may alſo beleeve it to be ſo, and yet be ſo far from being p. 24built upon it, as they walk and build directly from it: If you mean that they have it in the practiſe of it, ſo as they practically build upon it, that's falſe; for ſuch Perſons are built upon it, as the Apoſtle holds out in that Chapter, ſuch who were dead, but now alive, ſaved by Grace, ſuch who were made to ſit in heavenly places in Chriſt. Now the greater part of the men in your Pariſhes are ſuch as were never ſpiritually alive, lying in their ſins ſtill unquickned: therefore they are not built upon that Foundation practically.

When I ſay our Aſſemblies are built upon Propheticall and Apoſtolicall Reply.Doctrine, I mean there is no other Doctrine taught or own'd with us, but what hath warrant from the Old and New Teſtament; Dr. B.if there be ſhew it; now that hence it followes we are therefore Gods true Church is apparent from the Apoſtles Scope, proving the Epheſians to be the Houſhold of God, becauſe they were ſo built; for that by building is meant Owning and Confeſſing the truth, I prove from that of our Saviour, Mat. 16. 18. nor can you ſhew any Society Confeſſing the whole truth of God, that was not a true Church. The want of Practiſe which you allege in the greateſt part of our Members weakens not at all the force of the Argument; for the very ſame is taxed by our Saviour in the Church of Sardis, Rev. 3. 1. Thou hast a name to live and art dead; the generalitie of the members of that Church were voyd o… Grace, and ungodly men, and yet Christ owns it for his Church in the beginning of that verſe; and how far the Church of Corinth, and other Goſpell Churches were from being built practically (in your ſenſe) you have heard ſufficiently, and yet (bleſſed be God) we have in our Parochiall Churches a competent number of practicall Chriſtians, that walk exactly according to the rule of the Goſpell, for whoſe ſakes, if you had the Spirit of Chriſt, you would (I ſuppoſe) acknowlege our whole Societies to be his viſible Churches.

That Church, that is the pillar and ground of truth, is the true Arg. 6.Church, 1 Tim. 3. 15. but ſo is the Church of England, in reſpect of the profeſſion and maintenance of true Religion, which it both Dr. B.ſupporteth as a Pillar, and maketh it openly known to others, defending it againſt all Errors, Contradictions, and Corruptions whatſoever. Revel. 2. 13.

p. 25You ſubtilly alter the termes of the queſtion, that the folly of your Argument may not appear; inſtead of theſe words, the Pariſhes of this Nation, you ſay, the Church of England, which you ought not to have done; the Argument from theſe words (if it include the Queſtion) muſt proceed thus; That Church which is the Pillar and ground of Truth, is a true Church: but ſo are the Pariſhes of this Nation in their maintaining and profeſſing true Religion, ſupporting it as a Pillar, &c.

Now Sir, The Minor is evidently falſe, the very naming of it is Confutation ſufficient, it being evident to behold, that the Pariſhes of this Nation, have always been, and ſtill are, inclinable to whatſoever their Teachers and Rulers ſet up, without ever queſtioning the truth of it except here and there a man, which is nothing to our queſtion, it being of the Pariſhes generally; Look upon them in the time of Popery, and produce one Pariſh-Church (much leſs all) that oppoſed the power of the Pope, but all inclinable to that wicked worſhip; ſo in the time of Prelacy, how conformable to that, never once talking then of Preſbytery: and I believe as formerl… ſo now if the power of this Nation ſhould enact that al ſhould turn Independents, they would obey without any general oppoſition, and within this few years would as little think of Preſbytery, which you think to be truth now, as they did then, when he was Counted an Hereticke, that believed not as the Church believed, Which was then the ſcarlet-coloured whore of Rome; and yet you let not to ſay, they have been the Pillar of Truth, defending it againſt all Errors, which if true, Preſbytery is falſe, in that the Pariſhes of this Nation have born Testimony to two contrary Religions (Popery and Prelacy)—That Church that one time profeſſeth Popery, and another while Prelacy, being variable, according to the times, in which ſhe lives, that Church is not the Pillar and ground of truth: But the Pariſhes of this Nation have one while, &c. Ergo, and for Revel. 2. 13. When you have proved the Pariſhes of this Nation Pergamus, I will Conſider of it.

I know no advantage I ſhould have gotten, if the word Reply. Dr. B.Church had been permitted to ſtand inſtead of Pariſhes, but rather diſadvantage, becauſe a National Church is as liable (if not more) to exception, nor can I imagine how this could have hidden the folly of my Argument, its folly to pick a quarrell; the Church is nothing els but the Pariſhes, or if you will, that is the Mother, theſe the daughters: the Minor propoſition which you deny, will appear evident enough, by conſidering the Apoſtles p. 26meaning of Pillar and Ground of Truth, and applying it to our Aſſemblies. both which I will do in few words.

The Houſe, or Church of God, is ſo call'd, in reſpect of the profeſſion and maintenance of the true Religion of God, which it both ſupporteth as a Pillar, and maketh it openly known to others; as Magiſtrates uſe to hang and affix their Edicts and Proclamations on pillars, or other places of ſtrength and firmneſs; and here conſequently is declared the Office and duty of the Church, in holding and publiſhing the Truth, and defending it againſt all Errors, Contradictions and Corruptions, and whatſoever Societies do this, its written upon thoſe Societies with a Sun beam, that they are the true Churches of Chriſt.

Now, its notoriouſly known, that the Articles of Religion agreed upon, Anno 1562. are publiſhed and conſented to by all the See the anſwer of the Elders of the ſeveral Churches of New England to the ninth Queſtion p. 26. and Church Covenant, p. 40.Miniſters endowed in every Congregation of this Nation, with the ſilent conſent alſo of the People, and ſubſcription of the hands of the chief of them, wherein they do acknowledge no rule of Faith or Manners but the holy Scriptures, no divine worſhip but to God only, no Mediation nor Salvation but in Chriſt only, no Converſion by Mans free will but by Gods free grace, no Juſtification but by Faith, no perfection nor merit of works, with all other neceſſary and ſaving truths upon which the Church is grounded and built, and which alſo it holdeth forth and maintaineth; This alone abundantly evinceth, that the Pariſhes of this Nation are the Pillar and ground of Truth. Beſides, theſe truths are daily in moſt Congregations faithfully opened and applyed, and whatſoever is contrary thereunto on the right hand or left convincingly confuted; our Pariſhes therefore keeping Gods Records faithfully, are his Regiſters, and conſequently his true Churches.

Your declaiming againſt the inclinableneſs of our People, to alter with their Governors, might have been ſpared, well knowing it was the practice of the Church of Iſrael to do ſo, and the Churches of Galatia, how ſoon were they removed from him that called them into the Grace of Chriſt, unto another Goſpell, to the admiration of the Apoſtle? Galat. 1. 6. And therefore it needs be no marvell if our people ſo eaſily change from one Church-Goverment to another, which they may do without prejudice to fundamental verity, which though the Galathians overthrew, yet they p. 27remained true Churches. If you read the Epiſtle of Chriſt to Pergamus underſtandingly, and compare our Church with that, you will find, that we are not worſe, and wherein any in that Church were praiſe-worthy, for doing or ſuffering, you may find ſome in ours not ſhort of them.

From our practice, agreeing with the practice of the Primitive Arg. 7. Dr. B.Apoſtolical Churches. Thoſe Societies that continue ſtedfaſt in the Apoſtles doctrine and fellowſhip, and breaking of bread, and in Prayer, are true Churches, Acts 2. 42. but ſo do ours, Ergo.

I deny your Minor, and the reaſon why we ſeparate from you, is upon Anſw. J. O.that ground; you have added neither Scripture nor Reaſon to prove your Minor, but have left it deſtitute of all proof, you could hardly have brought a Scripture in all the Bible, which in every thing, both in doctrine and practice, makes ſo directly against you, as this that you have brought for you.

For firſt, your doctrine is contrary, ſecondly ſo is your practice; for doctrine firſt: after that Peter had preacht the Lord Christ, to theſe men, it working upon their hearts, ver. 37. they cryed out, What ſhall we do? the doctrine of the Apoſtle to them ver. 38. is Repent, and be Baptized, and ſo they were ver. 41. they were the ſame day added to the Church; but you, both Ministers and People, go directly contrary, firſt, Baptize them at three or four dayes old, and ſo make them members of your Church, and perhaps, twenty or forty years after preach Repentance, juſt contrary to the Apostles doctrine, and Gods examples. 1 King. 6. 7. Epheſ. 2. 21, 22. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Firſt, you take into your houſe, unhued ſtones, and unſquared timber, and twenty or forty years after fall to ſquaring them for the building; Now, for your practice in your fellowſhip, the powerfull operation of the Goſpell of Jeſus Christ, after it had workt them from the world, and from themſelves, and one into another in the unity of the Spirit, as one man, it is ſaid ver. 44, 45. and all that believed were together, had all things common, and ſold their poſſeſſions, &c. And chap. 4. 32, 34, 35. and the multitude of believers were of one heart, and one ſoul; neither ſaid any of them that ought that he poſſeſſed was his own, &c. But your fellowſhip is directly contrary, one ſortfed with all delicious fare, cloathed with gorgeous Apparell, and pride abominable, and the other ſort one company working and toyling more than they be well able, and glad if they may be ſet on work, p. 28and all to get a few cloathes and food, and yet cannot get enough to ſatiſfie, they being tormented by the oppreſſion of the rich, that as the Lord ſaith, their faces are ground, and their burdens are almoſt inſupportable, the other ſort begging from door to door, which is miſerable to ſee in that Nation, where many vainely ſpend ſo much in one hour as would relieve many a poor creature ready to periſh with cold, and famiſht with hunger, all which is evident by lamentable experience, and yet you have the boldneſs to compare your Pariſhes with thoſe in Acts 2. betwixt which there is as much difference, as betwixt light and darkneſs.

Thoſe that continue not in the Apoſtles doctrine and fellowſhip, &c. are no true Churches; but the Pariſhes of this Nation continue …ot, &c. Ergo, they are not true Churches; the Major is your own by the rule of contraries, the Minor is Evident by that which hath been ſaid.

You render us a reaſon of your ſeparation from us, which whether it will hold, when God ſhall ask you Who hath required this Reply. Dr. B.at your hands, you have juſt reaſon to queſtion; groundleſs ſeparation, and Church-diviſion, being as great a ſin as Adultery or Theft. Our Bleſſed Saviour and his Diſciples ſeparated not from Aſſemblies, whoſe teachers and members were worſe than ours, read Matth. 23. nor can you find any command or example in all the Scripture, for ſeparating from Societies that hold all fundamental Truths, and join together in Gods true worſhip, as ours do. The doctrine and practice of the Apoſtles in Baptizing Jews or Heathens, brought within the Pale of the Church, profeſſing their Faith and Repentance, and deſiring to be ſealed with this Sacrament, for the ſtrengthening of their Souls in this Faith, as theſe here did, is the doctrine of our Churches; our doctrine and practice of Baptizing Infants of Believers, is ſo far from being directly Contrary to the doctrine of the Apoſtles (there being neither here nor any where els any word of theirs forbidding to baptize Infants) as that there is very cleer warrant in this very place to Baptize ſuch Infants. For the Apoſtle makes it his Argument to them to be willing to receive Baptiſm, becauſe the promiſe is made to them and their Children▪and, to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call, and to their Children, this muſt needs be underſtood, or els the promiſe to Believing Gentiles is not of the ſame Latitude, as it is to Believing Jews. I preſume, you will acknowledge, that the Covenant of Grace is as fair and full to theſe. p. 29Now, if the Promiſe be made to Believers and their Children▪ the Command muſt reach, not only to them, but to their Children alſo; running thus, be Baptized you and your Children, for the promiſe is made to you and your Children, if otherwiſe, this that w…s intended to be an effectual motive, would have been an effectual diſſwaſive, and deterred Parents from accepting Baptiſm, and renouncing Circumciſion, to which initial ſign their Infant-Children till now had right, having privilege of Church Memberſhip as well as Parents, which by this acceptance they muſt loſe, and be caſt into a condition like that of Infidels. Which loſſe to the Church by Chriſts coming ſeemes to be no leſs than of denial of his coming in the fleſh. Moreover, the Apoſtles practice in Baptizing whole families (a part whereof, and the greateſt part for the moſt part, Children are) immediatly upon the parents believing, is a warrantable pattern for the practice of our Churches. Your objection that there is no expreſs mention of Infants Baptized in thoſe families, notwithſtanding your ſelves will take liberty to believe, that many were Baptized, of whoſe Baptiſm there is no mention made in Scripture (the twelve Apoſtles for inſtance) nor is it ſaid, there were wives, or ſervants, in thoſe families.

You do not well, to call all Infants, unhued, and unſquared Timber, have you never read, what the Scripture ſaith of Infant-Children, born within the boſome of the Church? Eſay 65. 20. The Child ſhall by an hundred years old, that is, he ſhall be as well inſtructed by Gods inward teaching (according to that promiſe, Eſae. 53. 14.) As if he had lived under the Churches teaching an hundred years. And if ſome Children be timber hued, and ſquared, for the Kingdom of Glory (Mark 10 14) why ſhould it be thought a thing incredible with you, that they be ſquareable for the Kingdom of Grace? Moreover, that place in 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. If duely conſidered, more than probably proves, that it was an Apoſtolical practice to Baptize Infants born within the Church, if not, it will be difficult to make the Apoſtles Compariſon of the two Churches, and their Sacraments, and ſubjects thereof, to run parallell.

Your pleading for Anabaptiſtical Community, I think not worth replying to, as neither your declaming againſt the hardheartedneſs of ſome of our rich members; you will find as bad, or worſe, p. 30among the members of the Churches Apoſtolical, read 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. and Jam. 2. and 5.

We are not therefore overbold to compare our doctrine and fellowſhip, with the Primitive; degrees of Purity, in doctrine and practice, we eaſily yield them above us; But the ſame Truth we hold faſt, and will not let it go, we teach no other doctrine, have fellowſhip in no other worſhip, Ergo, we are true Churches.

Thoſe Chriſtian Societies that have the true Miniſtry of Chriſt Arg. 8. Dr. B.ſet over them, for their Paſtors, and Spiritual Rulers, are true Churches, Epheſ. 4. 11, 12. But ſo have the Pariſhes of England. Ergo. That the Miniſters of England are true Miniſters, appeares by their ordination, which was, by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; Secondly, by their abilities both foreign, and foreign, 2 Tim. 2. 15. Galat. 2. 14. Thirdly, by Gods bleſſing on their endeavours and labours, 2 Cor. 3. 1.

I deny the Minor, in the proof whereof you forget your ſelf; you ſhould Anſw. I. O.ſay thus, that the Pariſhes of this Nation have a true Miniſtry of Chriſt ſet over them; and then the queſtion is, Who ſet them? you ſay, it appeares firſt by their Ordination, &c. I anſwer, your Ordination is falſe, and that upon a double account, and ſeeing, you either will not, or cannot prove it true, but onelyonly barely affirm without proof, I will give you the grounds of my deniall. Firſt, the Preſbytery by which you were ordained, which is the Biſhops, now it is undeniable, they had their Ordination from the Pope, and I am ſure, he had his from the Devill. Now, the Devill ordaining the Pope, the Pope the Biſhops, the Biſhops you, how can you be true Miniſters by him, that was none himſelf? how the Biſhops could confer that power to you that they never had themſelves, is a myſtery? you hold that Ordination is Eſſential to Preaching, now except you be able to prove your perſonal ſucceſſion of miniſtry from the Apoſtles, and that they do lineally ſucceed without interruption, your Ordination is falſe, for except there be a perſonal ſucceſſion uninterrupted by hereſy, or whatſoever elſe may nullify a Miniſters calling, from the Apoſtles time to this preſent, for if there be but one who when he ordained was no Miniſter (or not ordained) all that were ordained by him are no Miniſters, if Ordination be eſſential; now, if there ſhould be a perſonal ſucceſſion, this drawes with it a perpetual viſibility of a Church, which when and where it is to be found in the dark times of Popery, I deſire to ſee, for though there were Godly men, yet not a viſible Church with a p. 31right-ordained and ordaining Miniſtry. Secondly, were it granted that all the Biſhops were true Miniſters, Lineal ſucceſſion, &c. That as you were ordained, I deny that you were right ſet in thoſe Pariſhes (if they were Churches as they are not) according to Eph. 4. for Firſt, he muſt be enabled with abilities from God for that work, Epheſ. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 6. 1 Cor. 12▪ 11. Together with Grace to walk ſuitably thereunto, 1 Tim. 3. 23. tit. 1, 6, 7, 8. Secondly, being thus fitted with abilities, the Church that is in want of Officers, ſeeing ſuch Men fit for the work, are to Elect ſuch Men for the Service they are enabled to perform, Acts 14. 23. They ordained i. e. they Elected and Choſe, ſo the word ordained is put where the Scripture ſpeaks expreſly of Chuſing, Acts 1. 22. So ſaith one of your own Divines, they made them by voices, the matter went to ſuffrages, which could not be betwixt Paul and Barnabas, Election by moſt voices, or lifting up of hands, in token of a ſuffrage, had place only amongst a multitude aſſembled together, ſo Acts 1. 23. They, the Church, appointed two, and although the Lord ſhewed by lot, which of the two, yet it was the Churches Act, to reduce it to two, ſo Acts 6. 5. The Argument will hold good from the leſs to the greater, if the Church muſt chuſe a Deacon in the time the Apoſtles were preſent, and an inferior Officer, much more a Paſtor, that they were ſo highly concern'd in, and it is contrary to all reaſon, that the Church ſhould be debar'd of the choice of her own Officers, after which Ordination by Impoſition of hands, Acts 6. 6. onelyonly to ſignify the ſetting apart of that Man to that which he is choſen to. In the Apoſtles time, the Holy Ghoſt was given by it, but now as the Miracle ſo the Mystery is ceaſed, and if it be uſed to that end ſtill, it is falſe, the end being ceaſed. Now you were ſet in theſe Pariſhes by the Biſhops clean contrary, like Men minding directly to oppoſe Chriſt in all they did; for firſt, when Men proceeded to ſuch degrees in the Univerſities they made them Miniſters, in that they had attained to ſo much literature, and not only in regard of their having received abilities from God, with grace to walk up thereunto, which only ought to be the ground upon which they ought to be judged fit for that work▪ as appeareth from hence, in that they ordained many that were ignorant ſots in the knowledge of the things of God, that with all their wit could not tell how to make a Sermon in their way of ſermon▪ making, except they could patch up an houres talk out of others works, and then come & read it to the people, which is no Preaching; they had better bring their great books where their Sermons are made to their hands, & p. 32read out of them: for Firſt, It would ſave them much paixes. Secondly, It would not cozen their hearers. Thirdly, It would not be robbery to their owner; and ſo far have many of them been ſhort of grace to live holy lives, which is as abſolutely required as gif…s, 1 Tim. 3. 3. and Tit. 1. 0, 7. as that experience ſhewes their works are abominable. Secondly, as they went upon a wrong ground, ſo in a wrong manner: For firſt, they made them Miniſters before they had a flock to Miniſter to, which was ridiculous, ſeeing that Paſtor and Flock are Relates; the one gives being, and the Eſſential Conſtituting Cauſe to the other, and if it be fooliſh to ſay, a Man may be a father and have had no child, a buſband and no wife, it is alſo as fooliſh to ſay, a Man, a Miniſter, a Paſtor, without a flock, the like reaſon in both: So election by the Church which is to give the very being to a Pastor, in relation to the Office he is to perform, ſo as without which he may not perform the work, this is altogether left out, and a violent intruſion by the help of the Patron (a thing unheard-of in Gods Word) is come in its ſtead, and Ordination which is to be a ſolemn ſetting and Confirming of ſuch a Man into that work he is choſen, being the laſt, this is made firſt, and Chriſts order directly changed. Firſt, from hence it appeares, that the Miniſters of this Nation are not rightly ſet into the Office of the Miniſtery, and ſo their Churches no true Churches: and what help your other two Reaſons will afford comes now to examination; You ſay by their abilities foreign, and foreign, and then by Gods bleſſing on their endeavors. I anſwer, if theſe be particulars, to wit of ſome of the Miniſters of theſe Pariſhes, they include not the Question, which is of all generally, but if generally all the Miniſters of theſe Pariſhes of whom the Question is, I deny that they are generally able to divide the Word of Truth, as our Tranſlations render it, for if they be, you did very ill to call them dumb dogs & greedy dogs as you did, they are ſo far from rightly dividing the Word of Truth, as that the Word of Truth is a Myſtery to them, as daily experience ſheweth, and what this Exhortation of Paul to Timothy, ſtudy to ſhew thy ſelf, &c. Is to prove, that all the Covetous, Ignorant, Drunken Prieſts of this Nation are able to do ſo too, is a Myſtery to me; the like may be anſwered to the next, what bleſſing is to be ſeen in the labours of ſuch Men, I know not, where like Prieſt, like People, almost generally for where they have an Ignorant drunken Priest, ſuch commonly are the People, as it is eaſy to inſtance in too many, and what's the words of Paul, 2 Cor. 3. Ye are our Epiſtle &c. to prove p. 33that there is the like effects by the Miniſters of the Pariſhes of this Nation, generally upon their hearers, as was by Paul upon the Corinthians, I can in no wiſe ſee, and truly Sir, I must tell you, that I cannot but think that cauſe to be bad, that is fain to make uſe of ſuch poor proofs to hold it up, viz. That the Ministers of this Nation generally are ſet by Chriſt in theſe places, and yet many of them viſibly abominable, that have nothing to do to take Gods Word into their mouths, ſeeing they hate to be Reformed, and that all theſe are able rightly to divide the Word of Truth, and that God hath bleſt their Labours, which is ſo evidently falſe that the naming of it, is confutation ſufficient.

You did, or might have heard from my mouth, a full diſcourſe, Reply. Dr. B.in vindication of the Miniſtery of England, and of the lawfulneſs of their Ordination: wherein all that you have here objected, and much more, was fully anſwered, You have therefore no reaſon to ſay, that either I will not, or cannot prove it true, your ſelf, or friends, have the Notes at large, which you may remember, were publiquely produced the next Month day after the Sermon was preached. Two things I ſhall lay down, as to the charge brought againſt our ordination by Biſhops. Firſt, That the Biſhops, by See joint conſent anſwer to the 4 objection againſt the whole body of our Aſſemblies p. 19.whom we were ordained, cannot truly and properly be called Antichriſtian, becauſe they held the truth of doctrine, and prof…ſſed all the fundamental Articles of the Chriſtian Faith, many of them have written powerfully againſt P…pety, and ſuffered much for defending the Truth of Chriſt againſt Antichriſt, ſome of them yet living, ſuch Goſpell Miniſters againſt whom Envy it ſelf cannot except, fulfilling the Word o… God, by fidelity of diſpenſation, and ſincerity of Converſation. Let all ſuch places of Scripture be Conſulted where Antichriſt is deſcribed and you will find him always markt out by his falle doctrine; though therefore it be confeſſed, that in the Authority which our Biſhops had, and the exerciſe thereof, there were ſomething Antichriſtian, yet it is as unchriſtian, to call them Antichriſts, upon that account, as to call you an hypocrite, becauſe there is ſomething of hypocriſy in you. Secondly, Suppoſe them to be indeed Popiſh and Antichriſtian, it will not follow that the ordination we had from them is ſo. It is confeſt by all, that this Nation had not the light of the Goſpell, and conſequently the ordination of Goſpell-Miniſters from Rome, p. 34but from Jeruſalem, even in the times of the Apoſtles, or ſoon after; and though the ſucceſſion of this ordination hath paſſed through all the times of Popery ſince, and the ordination of our firſt Reformers was from men of the Popiſh Religion, yet is not the rightfulneſs of our vocation to the Miniſtery hereby Nulled; the Scriptures themſelves, Baptiſm, and the Articles of our Creed, have all paſſed through the Papacy to us, and yet they ceaſe not to be true Scriptures, true Baptiſm, no more does Ordination; Miniſterial Acts are not at all vitiated, much leſſe made null, though they paſſe through the hands of the worſt of men. Scribes and Phariſees were worſe than naught, Judas was a Devill, Math. 23. 2, 3. John. 6. 70. Acts done by vertue of Office may be juſt and allowable, though the Men and their Religion be naught. You are not ignorant of the inſtance given of Popiſh Landlords, and Judges, whoſe Leaſes and ſentences are not therfore Antichriſtian? So in this Caſe, Ordination is an Act of Office, and derived from Chriſt, and is not Popiſh, though it be executed by Papiſts. He that thinks Chriſts Ordination better for the Man that confers it, is juſtly thought to incur the danger of that Curſe denounced Jer. 17. 5. Much more may be ſaid to ſtop your mouth, but that ſo much is written already, that all our adverſaries are never able to reſiſt.

Touching the exception againſt our entrance, that we were not thoſen by our People, but preſented by Patrons, many things have been Anſwered that may ſuffice to give ſatisfaction to any ſober minded. Firſt, That the right of preſentation that patrons have, was given firſt by the Peoples free conſent, and therefore the choice they make may be accounted to be the choyce of the people. Secondly, The Law of our Land in the worſt times required, that People ſhould have the ſame Election for ſubſtance which you plead for. Thirdly, Many of our Miniſters were choſen by their People. Fourthly, The faithfull in many Congregations by their glad receiving of Miniſters placed by Patrons, and ſubmitting themſelves willingly to their godly directions, at leaſt by taking no exception againſt them, conſent to their entrance. Fiftly, Though it be very unfitting, that People (if fit to chuſe) ſhould have a Miniſter thruſt upon them, yet there is no cleer Scriptureevidence, that Miniſters muſt be choſen by their People, the meaning p. 35of that word in the Acts foreign, can be no more but this, that the event of the Lot was approved by the common conſent, and no marvell, becauſe it was determined by God, but hence it followes not, that it was their choice to accept or refuſe him for an Apoſtle, or if it did follow, what is this to ordinary Miniſters?

To that in Acts 6. not to ſay as ſome do, that it might be the Apoſtles indulgence to the People, Certain it is, that an example without a precept, makes not a conſtant Rule; again, from the Peoples Election of Deacons, to their Election of Miniſters, the Conſequence is not valid, as it is not from the Election of a Maior to the Election of a King. That place in Acts 14. 23. ſeemes moſt potent, but the word there foreign, is not ſtrong enough, becauſe it's uſed to ſignify any Choice whatever, though made by one alone, Acts 10. 41. foreign, the Apoſtles were Elected by Chriſt alone, Mark 6. Moreover, the word is vſed by Eccleſiaſtical writers for to ſignify Impoſition of hands, which no way belonged to the People, but was always referred to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors 6. Suppoſe it neceſſary, yet it is Evident enough that there may be ſome entrance into the Miniſtery ſufficient, where the People at firſt have not made Election; as in Caſe they have not knowledge of their right, or have not been ſuffered to uſe it, but yet afterwards yielded themſelves ſubject thereunto. 7. Thoſe that Conſider how the Office of High Prieſt in our Saviours time was bought and ſold, and the ſucceſſion ordinarily broken, and yet how valid Acts done by them were to all intents and purpoſes, will be abundantly ſatisfied that theſe allegations, to null our Miniſterial Office, are lighter than vanity.

The other two Reaſons to prove our Miniſters to be ſent of God, are ſuch as you threaten to examin, but finding them too ſtrong to deal with, you leave them, but leave not to caſt filth upon his Faithfull Labourers, becauſe there are many unfaithfull ones among them; as if the Prieſt-hood under the Law were made null, by the ignorance and wickedneſs of a multitude in that Office: If there were but a tenth of dexterous dividers of the Word of Truth in our Aſſemblies, and of ſuch whoſe Miniſtery God hath bleſſed with Converſion of Souls, it might ſuffice to prove Gods approving the Ordination, which you ſo vehemently inveigh p. 36againſt; you will not own one of all our Miniſters to be ſent of God, how able and holy, and ſucceſsfull ſoever, which ſhewes your miſerable ſhifting off the force of the Argument, becauſe the word General is in the queſtion, which you as miſerably Miſunderſtand, as if it included all. The Text in Timothy cleerly ſhewes, that by dividing the Word of Truth aright, Goſpell Miniſters approve themſelves to God, and that ſuch as do ſo, are called of God. And that in 2 Cor. 3. is a like manifeſt declaration of a lawfull miſſion, for as much as the Apoſtle brings it to prove his extraordinary calling of Apoſtleſhip; to which I add Gods own Word, Jer. 23. 22. Nor can you give an inſtance of Gods honouring any Prophets or Miniſters not ſent by him, whoſe labours he ever bleſſed with the winning of ſouls.

Thoſe Chriſtian Congregations, that ſeeing their defects and Arg. 9. Dr. B.Corruptions, labour after Reformation, are Chriſts true Churches; but ſo do the Congregations of England, Ergo▪

I deny your Minor, I deny that the Pariſhes of this Nation Generally Anſw. I. O.ſee their defects and Corruptions. For firſt, there is amongst all diverſities of Religion in the World, but one that is onelyonly right. Secondly, There is in this Nation a great many, perhaps half of the Ministers and Pariſhes, that ſtand in their hearts for the Goverment of Biſhops, that is now put down, and the reaſon why both theſe Miniſters and People are not ſo active as others, is not for want of will, but power to execute their will, for had they power according to their will, you ſhould find the Pariſhes of this Nation, ſo far from being generally for that which you call Reformation, as I believe, you ſhould ſee Preſbytery, as well as all others beſides their own, as ſoon put down, as their Common Prayer, Surplice, Hood, Tippit and Altar, &c. This being ſo evident, that it needs no proof, Common ſenſe proves it, from whence againſt your Minor I thus Reaſon… although I utterly deny that Preſbyterian Government which you would establiſh to be right, yet in this place I will give it to you to ſee of what advantage it will be to you) thus, that which you would reform, thoſe defects and Corruptions that you would mend, are ſuch as prevailed in the time of Prelacy, when Biſhop were in their pomp, and as you would reform it to that which is commonly called Preſbytery, now thoſe that were commonly called by the name of Cavalliers, of which there were many whole Pariſhes Genera…y, theſe think which you Reform from is Truth, and that which you Reform to is falſe, p. 37your Reformation is their deformation, and that which you count to be Corruption and defect, that they count to be truth, and would as willingly have all that they have had, as you to have the contrary; this being evident, your Minor is apparently falſe; for how can the Pariſhes of this Nation Generally ſee their defects and corruptions, and endeavour a right Reformation Generally, when that which one Pariſh would reform from, that another Pariſh would reform to; if it be ſaid, that many whole Pariſhes really ſee their defects, and deſire to mend, I anſwer, whatſome Pariſhes of this Nation ſee is nothing to our purpoſe; the Queſtion in diſpute is of the Pariſhes of this Nation generally.

You diſcover much Ignorance, in making every diverſity of Replie. Dr. B.Judgment and Practice in point of Church-Goverment, a diverſity of Religion, difference among Chriſtians, in higher matters, and much neerer the foundation, hinders not but they may be of one and the ſame Religion; and ſo Epiſcopal men, Presbyterians, and Independents, nor do any of theſe caſt off Antipoedobaptiſts, as men of another Religion, but pitty their folly, in cutting themſelves from Gods Churches, by denying all beſides their own Societies to be true Churches.

You miſtake much, if you think I intend in my Argument the deſire and endeavor of the whole body of our People in all our Pariſhes for a right Reformation, the greater part in all times have been backward to good, but if you go thorow all the Pariſhes of England, you will find very few where there are not ſome whoſe faces are Sion-ward, and theſe with a very great number of Miniſters in all quarters, earneſtly deſire, that in every Congregation there might be ſet up a Goſpell-government.

You ſeem to me cleerly to grant my Major propoſition, and to yield that there are ſome of our Pariſhes who ſee their defects and corruptions, and labour after Reformation. If you will acknowledge, that theſe (yea but one of theſe) are true Churches, I will ſay, it argues ingenuity in you: and farther give you ſatisfaction, that through the tender mercy of our God, it is with England at this day, as it was with thoſe fields our Saviour ſpeaks of, John 4. 35. That they are white already to harveſt, ready to receive a Goſpell-Reformation, and had been ere now in a more bleſſed caſe, had not thoſe of your way hindred the work; which I pray that God would lay it to your heart, that it may not be layd to your charge.

p. 38Drawn from Cant. 1. 7, 8. They that walk in the footſteps of Arg. 10. Dr. B. Anſw. J. O.Chriſts antient flock are true Churches: but ours do ſo, Ergo.

If you mean Christs antient flock recorded in the holy Word of God▪ your Minor is denied, this is the cauſe we ſeparate from you, becauſe you have and do tread in ſuch ſteps and pathes, as we cannot find in Scripture, but in by-paths of the inventions of man; and I cannot but wonder why you left your Minor deſtitute of all proof, ſeeing you cannot but know that it is always denied, whether you think it is without diſpute, or whether you think if you ſhould have compared the Pariſhes of this Nation with the Churches of Chriſt mentioned in the Scripture, your proof would appear weaker than your bare affirmation, or whether you thought barely to affirm was beſt, that ſo a bare deniall might be returned, truly I cannot judge, ſure I am, thoſe that write to ſatisfi…, do not in diſputable matters only ſay it is ſo without proof, for to me a bare affirmation without Scripture or reaſon, is proof but weak; had you but proved your Minor, the Controverſie had been ended, but ſeeing you have not▪ I muſt yet ſay, they that walk not in the footſteps of Chriſts Antient Flock, are no true Churches; this is your own by Rule of Contraries; but the Pariſhes of this Nation walk not, &c. Ergo, as is already proved from Acts 2.

I thought it ſuperfluous here to compare our Churches with Reply.the Churches of Chriſt mentioned in Scripture, having done it already: if you look upon the Flock of Chriſt before his Incarnation, you will find, that our Congregations walk in the ſteps of Abraham, of his Faith, as in other things, ſo particularly in this (which I look you will ſtorm at) that they bring their Infant-Children to the ſign of initiation appointed for the Church, in the adminiſtration under which they live: of the Faith of Moſes, and all the Prophets, following their doctrine and pious practice too.

If you ſay, moſt of our People deny the power of Religion, I anſwer, more of the Church of Iſrael did ſo.

2. Look upon the Flock after Chriſt, and you will find ours follow their ſteps both for doctrine and diſcipline, the former none denyes, and the ſubſtantials of the later we had, even in the Biſhops reign, as Learned and Godly Mr. Hilderſon hath made good againſt the Brownists; and for that which is ſtyled the Preſbyteri…n Government, if you read without prejudice, the Jus divinum Regiminis Eccleſiaſtici, you will find proof ſufficient that That layes p. 39trueſt Claim to divine right, and they that embrace and follow it, walk in the ſteps of Chriſts Antient Apoſtolical flock. Your common Allegation againſt this, viz. That our Members are not Baptized Believers, and therefore we walk not in the ſteps of the Antient Flock, is notoriouſly falſe. For firſt, that our Members are Believers, and many of them Real ones, you will not deny. Secondly, and that they were all Baptized in their Infancy you will acknowledge, at leaſt they had water applyed to them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, which is the right form of Baptiſm. All that you do, or can object, is, that they were not a fit ſubject of Baptiſm: but our Saviours Words in his Commiſſion, according to your own interpretation of them, confute you, for Infants are a part of a diſcipled Nation; yea, they are Diſciples, Acts 15. 10. holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. and Church-members, as learned Mr. Baxter hath proved by 27. Arguments, and by denying Infants of Believers to be a fit ſubject of Baptiſm, you deny (as was lately ſhewed) that Chriſt is come in the Fleſh. For if he be come, certainly the Church is no loſer, but a gainer by his coming: but by denying to Believers Infants this privilege, the Church is a loſer by his coming.

The tenth Argument ſhall be ad hominem, and an additional to a branch of the ſecond.

If your ſocieties be true Churches, then ſo are ours: but the former is true. Ergo, the latter. The conſequence is only to be made good. If all that's good in your Churches you had it from ours, both perſons and things, then the Conſequence is certain, Becauſe, nihil dat quod non babet: but all that's good in yours, &c. Two thing make perſons good; Firſt, Profeſſion of the true Faith; Secondly, Correſpondent piety: the former of theſe you have all along yielded, the latter likewiſe you have granted our beſt members have, but the beſt of them you muſt acknowledge you have gained from us, for as much as immediatly upon their departing us, you Baptize them, which argues they are fit matter for your Church▪

1. The Conſequence of the firſt, and alſo ſecond Syllogiſm framed Anſw. J. O.to prove the fi…st, is falſe. For, we might conſtitute our Churches, of ſuch matter as we gained from you; and yet ours true, and yours falſe; becauſe ours was conſtituted of ſuch matter as appeared all good, and yours was conſtituted of ſuch as was for the greateſt part bad. For though p. 40it be most true, that nothing gives that it hath not, yet it is alſo as true, that ſomething may be gained from another that the loſer retains not. An Army of Souldiers may conſiſt of honeſt men and wicked; and the honeſt may be gained from the wicked; and now upon your Conſequence, the wicked may prove themſelves as good as the honeſt thus; if all that's good in you, you had from us, then if you be honeſt, we are honeſt.

But all that's good in you, you had from us. Ergo, if you be honeſt, we are honeſt.

If this Conſequence be true, viz. That if all that's good in one Church they had in another: then if one be true, ſo is the other; I will upon your own principles prove Rome a true Church Thus:

If you be true Churches, Rome is true; but the former is true, Ergo.

The Conſequence is only to be made good: if all that's good in the Pariſhes of this Nation you had from Rome, both perſons and things, then the Conſequence is certain; becauſe, Nihil da… quod non habet: but all that's good in yours, &c. The Conſequence is your own, the Minor is evident, that you, both perſons and Ordinances came from Rome; and thus you may ſee what your Logick helps you to.

Now, let's ſee upon this Conſequence, which way you can prove your ſelves true. and Rome falſe; and I am confident, if you ſpeak to the purpoſe, you will anſwer for me againſt your ſelf.

But if by theſe words [had from ours] you ſhould ſay you mean not only to have a Companie out, but to have them made good, and fitted by thoſe from whence they be taken, if thu be your meaning, then the Minor of your ſecond Syllogiſm is contrarie to your ſelf for ſure, you never fit men to ſay, that your Miniſtrie is falſe, your Church and Ordinances falſe, and that ours is true, and that they ought to Separate from you, and come to us, if not they were not fitted by you for us: for thus they come to us. Thus the Conſequence of your Argument carries with it no Concluding force, and the Concluſion falls to the ground; for if all that's good in us dia come from you (as it doth not,) Yet we might be true, and you falſe. But ſecondly,

I deny your Minor, viz. That all that's good in us, came from you; Two things you ſay, make perſons good: profeſſion of the true Faith, and Correſpondant prety, the former I yielded the latter granted. I Anſwer, I never granted any ſuch thing; I have granted, and ſtill do; that there may be ſome in the Parochial Aſſemblies, that may be p. 41godly People; but that they be profeſſors of the true Faith, as it is fully banded out in the Goſpell, I have alwais denied. So not yielding the former, not granting the latter.

Our Baptizing them immediatly at their departure, you ſay argues, we judge them fit matter, &c. I anſwer,

It's not true, we Baptize them not Immediatly at their departing you, but upon conſiderable time of triall, as may be convenient to judge, that their Converſations, together with their principles, in owning of ours, and diſowning of yours, and all others, ſo far as they be contrary to truth, is reall.

Next you ſay, for things, the pure word and Sacraments rightly Dr. B.adminiſtred they had in our Church: you will not (I know) object want of diſcipline, becauſe you teach, that not to be neceſſarie to the being of a Church.

If it was, many of our Churches are not without it: the power of the Keyes (you well know) is exerciſed in many of our Congregations. That which you Object is want of true Baptiſm, and giving the Lords Supper to a promiſcuous Company.

I prove they had true Baptiſm thus; If the Baptiſm they had in our Churches, be better than that they had in yours, then it is true Baptiſm; now that it is ſo, I thus evince. That Baptiſm that is diſpenſed by an authorized Adminiſtrator is better than that which is adminiſtred by ſuch as are not authorized: but our Baptiſm is ſo adminiſtred, ſo is not yours. That our Adminiſtrators are lawfully authorized, you heard me prove at large in a full diſcourſe, and then I took away all material objections againſt our calling, and manner of Enterance into it, to which I heard you then ſaid nothing, though the day after, you mention'd one of the objections I put, viz. That we had our Ordination from the Biſhops, they theirs from the Pope, he his from the Devill, but to this I gave two anſwers: viz. That our Biſhops were not Antichriſtian, becauſe they had truth of doctrine. Secondly, If they were, yet it makes not our calling null; the Reaſons at large you have in your notes: if you pleaſe to deal faithfully in overthrowing them, I ſhall take it thankfully. Evident it is, that our Adminiſtrators are ſet apart by ſolemn Calling, and Ordination, for the publick Miniſtry; and that ſuch only may baptize, appears Matth. 28. 18, 19.

p. 42As for you, or any of yours that adminiſter Baptiſm, who ſay, you have authoritie from Jeſus Chriſt, I wouldfain, I could never yet ſee, that Queſtion ſo frequently put to you, anwered to the leaſt colourable ſatisfaction, I intreat you to do it, viz. How came you by this authoritie from Jeſus, to Baptize, immediatly, or mediatly? If you ſay immediatly, you muſt either ſhew a new Commiſſion, or make it appear by an immediat Calling, your names are put into that only written Commiſſion, (ſo you call it) And if your calling be extraordinary, let me ask you as the Jewes did Chriſt, John 2. 18. whereby it may appear, that you do theſe things by divine authoritie; ſhew the gifts of tongues, miracles, interpretation of tongues, &c. An extraordinary call never wanted the evidence of Extraordinary abilities, or qualifications, in one kinde or other. If you ſay, your Calling is mediate from the Church of Chriſt, then our demand is, whether your Call came from a Church in order built up, according to the true Goſpell Platform; or from a Company of Believers out of Goſpell Order, i. e. ungathered; you will not ſay ſure from the larter, becauſe you deny the Miniſters of the Church of England to be a true miniſtery, becauſe they were not Called by a true Church, i. e. a ſociety of Baptized Believers, and put into order according to your way: if you ſhould ſay, you had your Call from a Church ungathered, you would proclame your Calling to be Antichriſtian, from your own principles; and yourſelves Scihſmaticks by ſeparating from a true Miniſtery. If you ſay, your calling is from a Baptized Congregation, then the Queſtion ſtill is, whether this Congregation was of your own, or ſome others gathering. If you gathered them, then you gathered without Call, for none can elect till they be Baptized, and in a way of Goſpell order.

If the Congregation that Choſe and Called you, was of anothers gathering and Baptizing, then we ask who Called than man to gather and Baptize, and ſo up higher; you muſt needs find out ſome one that was a baptized perſon, and called by a Baptized Congregation, by whom the firſt Adminiſtrator in England was Baptized, from whom to derive it ſucceſſively.

If you can finde ſuch a man, yet (you know) two ſcruples remain ſtill, which you are deſired to remove; the firſt is, How that Baptizer had his Call, and ſo backward to the firſt, and he (it ſeems) p. 43muſt either be one who Baptized himſelf, or one who reſted contented with his own infant-Baptiſm; but this you hold nul, and for that you will not ſay, there is the leaſt colour in Scripture, or if neither of theſe, then he muſt prove himſelf ſent of God, to begin a new Inſtitution, as John was, even more than a Prophet, for, this way was not till 1500. years after. The other ſcruple is this, by what authority that man ſo called, Baptized the firſt perſon that was Baptized in England, ſeeing to Baptize is an act of office, and power, and no man can be a lawfull Officer, or Adminiſtrator, unleſs elected to that authority by baptized Perſons?

I need not acquaint you how you are preſſed with theſe Queſtions: and the reſult that is gathered, viz. That you have no miſſion from God, or his Church, but Sathan hath filled your hearts with blind zeal, and ſent you abroad to prophane this holy Ordinance, and to lead people in the ditch; that you are wandring ſtarrs, and ſubverters of unſtable ſouls, ſuch as have fed upon aſhes, &c. but I will make no ſuch inference, but expect that you either juſtifie your calling, or repent you of your Practice.

Firſt, we neither have had the pure Word taught, but inſtead thereof J. O. Anſw.they are the Commandments of men; Nay many Pariſhes from whom we have received members, have been ſo far from having the pure Word taught, that their teachers have been Ignorant, Idle, dumb doggs, as ſaid your ſelf, and ſuch as know not well what preaching is, as ſaid Dr. Grew.

Neither yet have we had the Sacraments rightly adminiſtred; for the firſt, inſtead of Baptizing a Believer, according to the aaMar. 16. 15. 16. Mar. 28. 19, 20. Go ye Diſciple i, e. Make them Scholars or learners. See Luk. 14. 16, 27.Mark 16:15Mark 16:16Luke 14:16Luke 14:27Institution of the Lord Jeſus, and the practice bbJoh. 4. 12. Act. 8. 12. 13. 37 &c.John 4:12Acts 8:12Acts 8:13Acts 8:37of all his holy Diſciples, that are recorded in holy Writ; you have ſprinkled a little water in the face of an Infant; that hath been falſe in the Subject, viz. an Infant, inſtead of a viſible Profeſſor of the Lawes of Jeſus; falſe in the manner, viz. Sprinkling inſtead of dipping, accoraing to the ſignification of the word, according to Chriſts own ccMat. 3. 16. Act. 8. 38.Matt 3:16Acts 8:38example, and his holy ſervants, and according to one end for ddRo. 6. 4.Rom 6:4which it was Inſtituted; and falſe in one Principal part of the end, it being by you moſt applied as a Scal of grace; when moſtly it is a ſignification of eeMat. 28. 19. Baptizing into the Name (ſo the Word) which frequently ſignifieth profeſſion. Ma. 10. 22. Jo. 15. 21. Act. 5. 41. Revel. 2. 13. &c. So Paul 1 Cor. 1. 13. 15. Were you Baptized into the name of Paul? i. e. Were you in your Baptiſm cauſed to devote your ſelves into the profeſſion of Paul, or rather of Chriſt? which principal end of Baptiſm is wholly evacuated by the Baptizing of Infants.Matt 28:19John 15:21Acts 5:41Rev 2:131 Cor 1:131 Cor 1:15profeſſion made: And for the adminiſtration p. 44of the Lords Supper, it hath been ſo far from being rightly adminiſtred, that whilſt we were amongst you, it was adminiſtred to viſible, abominable, curſed Creatures, directly contrarie to the Holy Ghoſts Command, 1 Cor. 5. 11. whereby we through you, in that you ſeparated not the precious from the vile, were made partakers of other Jer. 15. 19. Hag. 2. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 5. 6. Pſal. 119. 99, 100. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Cor. 6. 15, 16, 17.Jer 15:19Hag 2:12Hag 2:131 Cor 5:6Ps 119:99Ps 119:100Rev 18:42 Cor 6:152 Cor 6:162 Cor 6:17mens ſinns, being leavened by their wickedneſs; that had not the Lord through his Commandements given us more underſtanding than all our teachers, and cauſed us to obey that word, Come out of her my people, we might alſo have ſtayed to have been made partakers of her Plagues; and to this part of the Objection, you are ſo far from removing that you do not once ſet about it.

Now, how will you prove the Baptiſm we had from you to be good, comes to be examined? You ſay, if the Baptiſm they had with you be better than that they had with us, then it is true: but the former is true, Ergo.

The Conſequence is weak and feeble, and carries with it not the leaſt ſhow or ſhadow of truth, as a weak capacitie may eaſily ſee.

For one thing may be bad, and another may be better, and yet both naught. Suppoſe I ſhould grant by way of Conceſſion, that your Baptiſm is better than ours: do you think you would not be pittifully troubled, by vertue of that onelyonly grant, to prove by ſound Arguments yours true: Ours may be bad, and yours a little better, and yet both ſhort the rule, for ought this Conſequence forces; thus the Conſequence being feeble, the Concluſion falls of it ſelf: and all that you here ſay (which is more than you have ſaid to eight of your other Arguments, where it ſeemes, you think you have ſome great advantage) might be let paſs, for I am onelyonly to attend ſuch Arguments as you have to produce to prove your ſelves true, which this in the leaſt doth not; Yet nevertheleſs I denie the Minor, viz.

That your Baptiſm is better than ours.

Yours you ſay is better, being diſpenſed by a Lawfull Adminiſtrator, p. 45and ours not, which you have alreadie proved, &c.

That your Adminiſtrators are lawfully authorized, I denie, and though I heard you in your Lectures endeavour to prove it, and anſwer Objections that were brought againſt you, yet in my apprehenſion there was not any thing ſaid by you, that had any ſtrength to ſway with the Judgments of thoſe that were not prepoſſeſſed with prejudice againſt whatſoever on the contrarie part ſhould be ſaid.

And though you ſay you heard me then ſay nothing, but the day after, &c. Yet others can witneſs, that when you had done ſpeaking, I declared my ſelf unſatisfied, touching what was delivered, and I began with the beginning of your Sermon, intending to have gone through it; for in my apprehenſion, you ſpake little that was true that day; you after ſome few words, pleaded your wearineſs, &c. told me, that if I would diſpute, there was one that ſhould do it for you, and ſo went your way, and I demanded of the man, if he would juſtifie what you had preach'd, which he ſeemed to be willing to, and ſo we began where we left before, viz. Whether the Pariſhes of this Nation were right for matter, &c. and from that I came to what you preach'd about the truth of your Miniſtrie (of which you ſay, I ſaid nothing) you ſaying your Ordination came not from the Pope, but Chriſt. I deſired him to ſhew how he could be able to prove your ſucceeding from Chriſt, ſucceſſively down to you, through all the dark times of Popery, and not from them? did the laſt true Miniſter before Poperie, live to ſet Ordination on foot after Poperie; or was there any ſucceſſively in the time of Poperie, and not of them (which I deſired to ſee) and if neither of theſe, but that you were made Ministers by the Biſhops, and they by the Pope, and he by the Devill, how could your Ordination come from Chriſt? ſeeing,

No man can confer, and give out to another, what he hath not in himſelf. Sure, Chriſt never authorized the Pope to ordain Ministers, to which he (to my remembrance) made no Reply: but ſaid, he had not ſtudied of thoſe things, &c.

Immediatly, upon which you came in again, demanding what you had preach'd that was not true. And I told you what, which was, that thoſe who were not Ministers in Office, might not publickly preach: which I told you was falſe, and gave you my grounds from Scripture to prove it; and after ſome ſmall debate, you again departed, and would not ſtay to hear what I had further to ſay; therefore to ſay, I then ſaid nothing, is not true.

p. 46But to this you ſay, you gave two Anſwers. Firſt, that our Biſhops we not Antichristian, becauſe they had truth of doctrine. Secondly, If they were, it makes, not our Calling null. The reaſons I have in my notes at large, &c.

For what you have writ I am ready to anſwer.Reply.

But for what you preach'd I am loth to meddle with: for though I did take the notes of your Sermon, yet by reaſon of the mighty croud of people, I could not write one perfect ſentence (having hardly liberty to breath) but only the beginning▪ and end, in ſome imperfect characters, which whilſt partly in memory, partly before me, and you ready to rectify what I took amiſs, it ſerved for the preſent, though now uſeleſs.

However you go about to juſtifie the wicked in their wickedneſs, ſaying, the Biſhops were not Antichriſtian: I think they were cryed down under that notion. Do not declare it to the world now, that you cryed them down under that notion, as Antichriſtian, not that they were ſo indeed, but being the eaſier gotten down under that name, you might the ſooner get into their places. I know not what you mean by, they had truth of doctrine: whether they had it left by Chriſt in his Word, or whether they had it in the knowledge of it. Sure I am, they practiſed contrary, as appeared in their impoſing ſo many abominable things upon the conſciences of men, that were Popiſh, human, and meerly of the Invention of the Devill: to root out the pure Ordinances of Chriſt, intrenching upon the Kingly office of Chriſt, which is the only Law-maker to his Church; and not only ſo, but perverting, and helliſhly tormenting the Saints of Jeſus, that bore teſtimony to the Regal office of Chriſt, oppoſing and perſecuting Chriſt in his members. If theſe men were not Antichriſtian, I know not where Antichriſt will be found; If you ſay, they were not all ſuch, but ſome of them were godly, I anſwer, the office of them all was Antichriſtian, els why did you not put down only the bad ones, and let the good ones remain? their calling to their office was all alike, and the Pope was the Ordainer of them all; therefore if you were all Ordained by the good ones, as you were not, the caſe is not a whit the better, ſeeing they Ordained not by goodneſs, but by Office; which was alike in them all.

Secondly, you ſay, if they were Antichriſtian, it makes not your p. 47calling null; and the reaſon that you gave (as I remember) was, that ſome things may be wanting in the worſhip of God, and yet not all null, as you inſtanced; I anſwer, You hold Ordination Eſſential to preaching, ſo as a man may not preach without it, now the Office of the Biſhop being falſe, and they in that office Antichriſtian, having never received call to that Office from Chriſt, or his Church, but originally from the Devill, how theſe can by that Office, make a true Miniſter of Chriſt, conferring that power to another, that they were never poſſeſt of themſelves, is a myſtery.

This is not only a want of ſome, but all things, whereby the work ſhould be lawfully performed.

Evident you ſay it is, that your Adminiſtrators are ſet apart, &c. And that ſuch only may Baptize, Mat. 28. 18, 19. to that I anſwer.

That an Ordination you have it's true, but it's performed by ſuch as have no authority from Chriſt, for what they doe. Neither yet doe they do it according to Chriſts Order; as I have already proved, in anſwer to the 5. Argument, whereunto I refer the Reader, being unwilling needleſly to multiply words, and how you ſhall be able to juſtifie your Call, manner of Entrance, &c. againſt thoſe exceptions, when I ſee it publiſhed (for before I muſt not by our agreement) I ſhall in Convenient time give the world, and you, an account of the ſtrength or weakneſs thereof; and that ſuch may Baptize, whom Chriſt Authorizes, in Matth. 28. I grant, but that Chriſt Authorizes only Miniſters in office, by Ordination (if you was ſuch as you are not) I utterly deny; for that text holds forth the plain contrary, as preſently ſhall be ſhewed.

Now for your Call, where you make ſo many intricat turnings, and needleſs tautologies, many of your Quaeres being for ſubſtance one, I ſhall firſt ſhew by what means, and how we had our Call to the performance of this Ordinance; and then ſhall anſwer what of yours that makes againſt, and what is in yours not contradictory to the thing in hand, when rightly ſhewed, ſhall be left as not materiall; thus—

The myſtery of iniquity from the Apoſtles time beginning to 2 Theſſ. 2. 7.2 Thess 2:7work, and after their death more and more to creep into the Church, and ſo far prevailed by degrees, (through the ſubtilty of the Devill) that the pure Lawes of Jeſus came to be eaten out, p. 48and the inventions of man came in their room, ſo far prevailing, till the Lord Chriſts Prophetical, Regal, and Prieſtly offices were juſtled out, and cunningly undermined, till at laſt the man of ſin did get into the Temple of God, ſhewing himſelf that he was God, Verſe 4.revenging the contempt of his wickedneſs, and making ſpoil of the precious Saints of Jeſus that teſtified againſt his Abomination, till they were drunk with the blood of the Saints, that ceaſed not to cry, How long Lord holy and true, &c. then were the Inhabitants of Rev. 6. 10.Rev 6:10the earth made drunck with the wine of her fornication, and all the world wondered after this Beaſt; in ſo much that ſhe began to Chap. 17. 2.ſay in her heart, I ſit a Queen and I am no Widow, &c. thus being at her pitch of glory, darkneſs, ye thick darkneſs, and a diſmal Chap. 18. 17.gloomy night, was ſpred over the world: for the neglect of keeping cloſe to the Word of Truth the Lord ſuffered an Eclipſe (by the interpoſition of mans inventions betwixt his truth and their ſight) to darken the world, till his pleaſures was to appear, and then like the appearing of the day, darkneſs and the clouds of Ignorance began to diſſipate, and he by the brightneſs of his coming, did reveal by degrees the myſterie of iniquity, and ſweetly Verſ. 2. 8.enlighten his ſervants in the knowledge of his Truth, by that infallible Word the Scriptures of Truth: helping them by his Spirit to a right underſtanding thereof, and by degrees giving forth the knowledge of his will, each age receiving more than other, as Waldenſes, Wickliff, Hus, Luther, &c. ſtill more and more increaſing till it was by ſome ſeen (not immediatly, hence here is an anſwer to your firſt demand, neither yet mediatly by the help of men, hence an anſwer to the ſecond) by means of the Scripture, the Spirit of the Lord, helping to a right underſtanding thereof, that they had been cheated of that bleſſed (though much deſpiſed Ordinance) of Baptiſm, and a contrary intruded in its room, that was right neither in the Subject, Manner, nor End; and theſe people ſeeing it their duty to practize it, and knowing of it to be the will of Chriſt, that it ſhould be performed, Reſolved upon the work, to reaſſume this Ordinance. Now the Call to the knowledge of it was thus, The Spirit of the Lord inlighting, by means of the Scripture, to the underſtanding of his Will.

They Call to the practice of it thus.

A company of believes, aſſembled in the Name of Chriſt, willing p. 49to follow him in the way of his Ordinances revealed in his Word: and yet ſeeing their want of a perſonall ſucceſſion, and yet knowing it their duty, and the will of Chriſt it ſhould be performed, did appoint one that was unbaptized, to reaſſume and ſet again on foot this Ordinance of Chriſt.

And if any one queſtion the lawfulneſs of this, further than I ſhall have occaſion to vindicate it from ſuch exceptions as here make againſt it, I refer him to a Treatiſe intituled, A way to Zion ſought out, where all that are willing to ſee, may Firſt, from abominable, damnable abſurdities that will follow, if the Saints in light (though they want a perſonal ſucceſſion of this Ordinance) ſeeing themſelves deprived of this or any other Ordinance, may not take it up without a Lineal ſucceſſion. Secondly, from Scripture plainly proved, where all that will not wilfully ſhut their eyes may ſee.

Now what of yours ſeemingly makes againſt this is, firſt,

If you ſhould ſay, you had your Call from a Church ungathered, you would proclaim your Calling Antichriſtian, from your own principles, and your ſelves Schiſmaticks, by ſeparating from a true Miniſtery. Anſwer.

Let the reaſons wherefore we judge you falſe Miniſters (in relation to the external Call which we are now only ſpeaking of) be briefly laid down, and alſo the grounds of our reaſſuming this Ordinance, and then let the Judicious judge, whether upon the Judgement that is given of the firſt, the like may be given upon the latter, upon the ſame Principles.

We judge you falſe, Firſt, becauſe the very Original of your Call came from the Devill, he ſending the Pope, the Pope the Biſhops, the Biſhops you; and ſeeing you ſtill retain, and ſtand Miniſters, by vertur of that Call, and yet no man can communicate that to any other, that he hath not himſelf: and the Devill never being Authorized by Chriſt to ordain Miniſters; and yet you having no other, muſt needs, (we think) be falſe.

Secondly, for manner of entrance; that Church that is in want of a Miniſter, is to elect ſuch a man as ſhe ſhall judge ſit; which man thus choſen, is to be ſolemnly ordained by the approbation of the body for whom he is to officiate.

And you were made Miniſters, (ſuch as you are) not only by them whom Chriſt never authorized to ordain: but alſo before p. 50ever you knew what flock to Miniſter to, which is a ridiculous foolery, ſeeing Paſtor and Flock are relates, the one gives being and the eſſential Conſtituting Cauſes to the other, and then get to the patron, or to thoſe in whoſe power it was to eſtabliſh you, and make the place ſure, and then intruding your ſelves into the ſervice of thoſe, demanding, nay forcing wages from thoſe that never ſet you at work, whereby we judge you falſe Miniſters.

The other is this. A ſociety of believers (as yet no Church in order) aſſembled together in the Name of Chriſt, to reaſſume an Ordinance of Chriſt, appoint one man for the performance of the work (not as a Paſtor) but as a man enabled by God, to be inſtrumental in the diſcovery of this Truth.

Now, whether there be the like reaſon, upon the ſame principles, to judge of the one, as the other, I leave it to be conſidered. And which of theſe two, is the rightlyeſt authorized, let all men judge. And how the holding that an unbaptized perſon, in caſe of neceſſity (one rightly Baptized not to be found) might Baptize, will prove us Schiſmaticks, in ſeparating from a true Miniſtery, is to me a riddle, the unfolding of which belongs to the Learning of him that doth aſſert it.

Hence your firſt ſcruple may be removed, viz. how the firſt Baptizer had his Call; being one who never did Baptize himſelf, nor yet reſted contented with his Infant-Baptiſm; neither yet ſent of God to begin a new Inſtitution, as John the Baptiſt was: but one enlightned to diſcover, that old, yet new appearing inſtitution unto us.

For if what you ſay was truth (as it is not, there having been ſome in all ages, bearing teſtimony to this Truth) viz. That this way was not till 1500. years after, there was no need of beginning a new Inſtitution: for that Matth. 28. 18, 19. is to laſt to the end of the world, whether men obey it once in a thouſand yeares or not; now whereas you demand, by what authority this firſt man Baptized, ſeeing to Baptize is an act of office, &c. And no man can be a lawfull Adminiſtrator unleſs Elected, &c.

I Anſwer, by what Authority, I have already ſhewed; and for Baptizing to be an act of office, and ſo not not to be performed but by officers, I deny.

p. 51And the Scripture you bring to prove it, Matth. 28. 18, 19. proves the plain contrary, as is evident; for ſuch as had received Abilities from Chriſt, whereby they were enabled to Convert a ſoul to Chriſt, might Baptize ſuch a perſon ſo Converted. The Commiſſion holds alike for both, Diſciple and Baptizer, &c. Now this Commiſſion, though it was given to the Apoſtles, it was not given to them as Apoſtles, but as Diſciples, and in them to all others ſo gifted, to the end of the world; as your ſelf well know; and undeniable it is that they were to Preach and Baptize, by vertue of Gift, and not by vertue of Office, ſeeing theſe men were ſuch as were never elected by any Churches, to the Paſtoral charge; for that was not Congruent to their Comiſſion: the Election of the people tying to the Church, by whom they were elected, and the Comiſſion ſending them forth to all the word, to prepare matter for the Church; whence it is evident, that ſuch who can diſciple men to Chriſt, may Baptize ſuch ſo diſcipled, diſciple and baptize, &c. but ſome that are not Miniſters in office can do that, Ergo.

The propoſition is evident from the words, the Aſſumption I ſuppoſe no man will deny, except it be ſome who do endeavor to Monopolize Preaching only to themſelves, and ſtop the mouthes of all others, though never ſo eminently gifted, except they have ſerved a prentiſhip to the ſame trade that they have done, or els come under their Biſhopping, by laying on of their hands, that ſo they may ty them to preach after their faſhion; which opinion is ſo groſſe, that I am loth to ſpend time in confutation. Yet ſeeing, though you dare not deny, but that all who have received gifts, whereby they are enabled to preach, may; yet deny that they may publickly preach: and this preaching, Matth. 28. is a publick preaching. I ſhall give you an Argument or two, to prove that.

If there be tolleration given by God, to all who have received the gift of Prophecie, to Propheſie in the Church; Then there is tolleration given by God to all who have received the gift of Prophecy to Propheſy publickly; but the former is true, 1 Cor. 14 31. Therefore the latter.

This whole argument you have granted to be true, only you ſay, that Prophecy was extraordinary; but that it was not, I thus evince. That Prophety is there meant, that came within trial and p. 52Judgment; but extraordinary Prophecy did not ſo; therefore that's not meant.

To this you Reply, that extraordinary Prophets doctrine did, Acts 17. 11. to which I anſwer. That Judgment ſpoken of in the 14. of Cor. was ſuch a judgment as preſuppoſed the Prophets might err; but this ſearching of the Bereans, to ſee if the things Paul ſpake were ſo, was no ſuch thing. Therefore nothing to the purpoſe, it only ſhewed that Paul preaching, and alleging Scriptures, as his manner was, thus and thus it is written and yet citing neither Chapter nor ver…e, That they did ſeek to ſee if it was as he ſaid: and did in no wayes preſuppoſe, that Paul was liable to err in what he preacht. Secondly, That Prophecie in that place that men (that are gifted) are tolerated; That Prophecie in that place women (though gifted) are forbidden; but extraordinary Prophecy women are not forbidden, Ergo.

The Minor, viz. that women extraordinary gifted may deliver their Prophecy in any place, I think no man will deny. And for the Major, viz That the ſame manner of Prophecy, that the gifted diſciples were tolerated, in verſe 31. is the ſame that women are forbidden, verſe 34. is evident to all that will Conſult the ſcope of that place.

Secondly, we have an example in Scripture of ſuch men preaching See alſo Acts 18. 28. If it be objected Apollos was an officer, 1 Cor. 1. 12. Anſwer: firſt, It is not probable it was the ſame man. Secondly, If it was, the conſequence is bad to ſay, Apollos was an officer, when Paul wrote this Epiſtle; therefore he was one when he preacht in the 18 of Acts, knowing only the Baptiſm of John, verſe 25.Acts 18:281 Cor 1:12who were not Miniſters in office, publickly, which work hath had the approbation of God, by accompanying theſe men in this work, with his holy Spirit, making their preaching effectual to the converſion of Souls; Therefore all who have gifts enabling them to preach publickly, may, by a Scripture example, and the approbation of God concerning that thing.

The Conſequence, I think no man will deny, that ownes the Scripture as a rule of direction for us to follow. The Antecedent is evident in both branches: Firſt, Acts 8. 1. they, i. e. the Church, were all ſcattered and they thus ſcattered, went every where preaching… verſe 4. which preaching was approved of by God, in accompanying them in this work by his Spirit, Acts 11. p. 5321. But to this you object, Firſt, that we cannot prove but that they were Officers; I Anſwer, That we can evidently, firſt, it is ſaid, they were all ſcattered, and all thus ſcattered preach'd. Now all men know, all a Church is not Officers; but to this you object; The word All, ſignifies not every one. Anſwer, true, but where the Scripture ſayes, All, except ſuch as it excepts, with what forehead dare any man ſay the contrary? It is in effect as much as to ſay, the Apoſtle ſaid not true; evident it is, Philip preached; Acts 8. Object. Philip was an Evangeliſt. Anſw. True, by gift, in that he brought the glad tidings of Remiſſion of ſins by the Blood of Jeſus, to the ſoules of ſinners: but both he and Stephen, Acts 7. by Office were Deacons, Acts 6. 5. by which office, they had no more to do to Preach than any Diſciple. Object. Saul entred into every houſe haling men and women, &c. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial; therefore not all ſcattered. Anſw: There is never a ſyllable in the Text, that proves this was in Jeruſalem; but it might be in other places, whither they fled for refuge; and for the burial of Stephen, that was before they were ſcattered, for the perſecution aroſe about the ſtoning of Stephen, Acts 11. 19.

But the laſt ſhelter that you are forc'd to fly to, from the cleer Countenance of this Text, is, that this was extraordinary, as Davids eating that bread in time of hunger, that at other times was unlawfull. Yet neceſſity might juſtifie the action; to this I Reply, that ſome things, in caſe of neceſſity, may be done, that at other times are unlawfull: and that neceſſity juſtifies the action I grant: but now there is not the like Connexion betwixt perſecution and preaching, as is betwixt hunger and bread, a man in ex…reme hungar cannot well forbear bread, but a man in time of perſecution may forbear preaching; was it lawfull for theſe men to preach? it could not be perſecution that could make it lawfull? what, though they were perſecuted a thouſand times, they might hold their tongues for all tha; was it unlawfull for them to have done it? nay, rather of the two, it tyed them to hold their peace, being perſecuted for what they preach'd.

Thus it appeares, that all that can preach may; and ſuch who can by preaching convert a ſoul to Jeſus, may Baptize him ſo converted, though no Miniſter in office.

And whereas you ſay, no man can be a lawfull Adminiſtrator, p. 54unleſs Elected, &c. That's apparently falſe; for, both Philip Acts 8. 38. and Ananias Acts 9. 18. Baptized, and were never Elected to that work. See but the natural face of your aſſertion.

No man can be a lawfull Adminiſtrator, unleſs elected to that authority by Baptized perſons.

But neither Ananias, or Philip, were elected ſo.

Ergo. Neither of theſe were lawfull Adminiſtrators; the Major's your own, the Minor is evident. Philip a Deacon, Ananias a diſciple.

Thus your aſſertions caſt dirt in the face of the Scripture.

Now for the inference that you ſay is drawn; that we have no Miſſion, &c. I anſwer. I never yet heard any man, from ſuch queſtions draw ſuch inference, had you but done me that favour, to have told me who they were, I ſhould have been ready to anſwer them. I have cauſe to ſuſpect from whom it comes, and I fear, themſelves are the men, to whom every part of that reſult may with eaſe be applyed, but ſeeing you ſay you make no ſuch inference, I am willing to let it paſs; it being you only I deal with.

Thus having anſwered this which you have moſt ſpoken to, I ſhall expedite an anſwer to the reſt of your Arguments, which it ſeemes, you make leſs account of, in that to ſome you have endevoured to add a little proof, and to ſome none at all.

If the ſeparated ſocieties be not true Churches, then our Aſſemblies Arg. 11. Dr. B.are; for certain it is, Chriſt hath ſome true Churches amongſt us; and the only queſtion is, whether the Parochial or ſeparated Congregations; but you are not true Churches, which I prove by an Argument of your own.

Thoſe Churches that are not righly gathered, are no true Churches; but your Churches are not rightly gathered. The Minor I prove thus:

The way of gathering your Churches hath no warrant in Scripture, Ergo.

I put you upon producing one precept or preſident in all the Scripture of gathering Churches, out of Societies that hold and profeſs the fundamental verities.

2. Thoſe Churches that rob Gods people of their right, are no true Churches; but ſo do yours; for you take away Churchmemberſhip from the Infant Children of Believers, in denying the Sacrament of Initiation, appointed for Goſpel-Churches, which p. 55was granted them under the former adminiſtration, and is no where repealed but confirmed rather Rom. 11. Acts 2. 39.

3. Your Churches want a right form, Ergo. The conſequence is cleer, becauſe form gives being. The antecedent is certain, becauſe an expreſs Covenant is no where made the right form of a viſible Church. If this be the right form, then why are not Popiſh Churches true, there being ſuch a Covenant between Popiſh Prieſts and people?

If by ſeparated ſocieties you mean all that are ſeparated from you, Anſw. J. O.the conſequence may be good, otherwiſe not; There not being fulneſs enough in the diviſion: If you mean all, I deny the Minor, both of the first, and alſo of the ſecond framed to prove it, and alſo the Conſequence of the third, and after all, the reſult is, you put us too no proof that we are no true Churches, we are not rightly gathered, the way of our gathering hath no warrant in Scripture, and that this is ſo, I put you to prove that it hath.

This is the pittifullest proof that ever I heard man make, had I undertook to prove your Churches falſe, and after three Arguments, drawn ſuch a Concluſion, you would even have hiſt at it, ſure, your ſchooles never taught you thus to diſpute. I had thought you had ingaged to proove.

Sir, prove that you the Pariſhes of England generally hold and profeſs the fundamentall verities. Secondly, That it is unlawfull to ſeparate from a people ſo profeſſing, &c. And when I ſee it, I will return you an anſwer.

To the ſecond, viz. that we rob Gods people of their right, &c. I anſwer. The expreſſion [Rob] is as unſuitable; as untrue; for we take not away that in the night, nor ſecretly in the day, that which we are afraid to be taken with in the light; but what we withhold, we proclame and give, nay invite all to bring in their evidence, That if they for Infants can lay just claim thereunto, they ſhall be admitted. Sir, take heed you pronounce not ſentence of Condemnation againſt your ſelves: for I think was it material it might eaſily be made appear, that you rob Goa's people of their right, and that in many things. But that we do not rob Goa's people of their right you ſhall be witneſs, and your ſelf ſhall anſwer your ſelf, and that may the ſooneſt give your ſelf and others ſatisfact on: thus from the notation of the word Church, which ſignifies (you ſay argument thirteen) a company called out from the world unto Chriſt, come together upon that call, &c.

p. 56Whence I thus reaſon. If the word Church ſignifie ſuch a company, ſo call'd, ſo come, then it's impoſſible for ſuch who were never thus called, thus come, neither yet are in a capacity to be of that company.

For words ſignificant ariſ… from the nature of the thing to which they are applied, and where the anſwering of the ſignification of a word is not to be found, there that word is improperly applied, as I think all men will grant, and Scripture example is full; but the word Church ſo ſignifies. This is your own, Ergo.

Now that Infants are not called out of the world, by the Word, come together upon that call, &c. is undeniable. Therefore Infants are not of that Company.

Thus, if to deny Infants Church-memberſhip be rebery, it's the Notation of the Word Church, and your thirteenth Argument, that is the theef, Sir, you muſt either repeal this thirteenth Argument, or it will utterly repeal Infants Church-memberſhip, and put you to prove where and when it was done; and for Acts the 2. and Romans 11. where you ſay it's Confirmed, I anſwer.

When you have reconciled this thirteenth Argument, and Infant-Church-memberſhip together, and drawn your Arguments from Acts 2. Rom. 11. to prove it, I will return you an anſwer.

And for your third reaſon, where you ſay, we want a true form, &c. I anſwer, we make not an expreſs Covenant the form of a viſible Church, (as you well know) therefore this makes nothing against us; we may be true Churches for all that, if what you ſay be true.

Either our Congregations are true Churches, or there were none Arg. 12. Dr. B.ſince Chriſt, and the Apoſtles; for what Churches can be ſhewed that have come neerer the rule in reſpect of Doctrine? and for Government, the Jus divinum regiminis Eccleſiaſtici, And Provincial vindication, have ſufficiently evinced the Presbyterian government to lay juſt claim to divine Right. But the latter is falſe, for the gates of Hell never did, never ſhall prevail againſt the Church.

1. To ſay, that if you be not true Churches, there have been none Anſw. J. O.ſince Chriſt, &c. is confidently to dictat and Magiſterially to ſet down, without the leaſt colour of proof that which is ſo principal a Queſtion betwixt us; for we have abundantly offered to make good, that we come neerer the rule, firſt in Reſpect of doctrine, than you; and for government, which you ſay is ſufficiently evinced in the Jus Divinum, &c. I ſhall pay you with your own coyn, and that may ſooneſt ſatisfie; thus, p. 57your Preſbyterian government hath been abundantly confuted, and the Independ…cy of Churches, in Relation to a ſufficiency in herſelf, for the performance of all the Ordinances of Chriſt, by the learned Mr. Hooker, in his ſurvey of Church diſcipline.

Secondly, I deny that the latter is falſe, by vertue of that Scripture, (if you underſtand it of the viſible Church, which is only to your purpoſe) for the gates of Hell may, nay hath prevailed, yea overcome the viſible Church, as the Revelations abundantly makes manifest. Sir, I wonder you have not ſo much foreſight, as to ſee how upon your own **He that can make it appear that this place is meant of the viſible Church, and that which is a true Church, ſhall alwaies viſibly appear, will do the Pope eſſential ſervice, he no doubt will return him many thanks, he will undeniably prove Rome a true Church, becauſe Rome once only viſibly appeared, keeping down all others.principles, your own arguments wound your ſelf. For, where was the viſibility of your Preſbyterian Church in the midſt of Popery (except you will ſay Rome was it) where is the line of your ſucceſſion? I doubt it is utterly loſt, and ſo upon your own interpretation of Scripture, you prove your ſelves falſe Churches.

From the notation of the word Church, which ſignifies a Company Arg. 13. Dr. B.called out of the world unto Chriſt by the word come together upon that call, all are called externally and ſome effectually.

This Argument fi…rcely fights againſt nay cuts the throat of the Anſw. I. O.Cauſes it ſhould defend; for the word Church, ſignifying ſuch a Company ſo called, ſo come, doth utterly exclude all not ſo called, ſo come, being of that Company; now beyond diſpute it is, that the generality of People in the Pariſhes of this Nation, were never viſibly called out of the world, &c. Therefore not poſſibly to be concluded of that Company. I had alwaies thought there had been a World in England, what are all the Carnal, wicked, covetous perſons in the Pariſhes of this Nation called out from the world to Chriſt? if they have not as any man that hath but the leaſt ſpark of godlineſs may eaſily ſee; how dare you apply this notation of the word to them? if this be not to ſow Pillows under all Arm-holds, making them truſt in living words, ſaying, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, ſo you the Church, Church-Members, faithful people, &c. I am much miſtaken, Sir, take beed leſt that fall upon you ſpoken of, Pro. 17. 15. all you ſay p. 58called externally, ſome effectually, Anſwer, if by external call you mean a bare call by the Preaching of the word, without a viſible ſubmiſſion thereunto, you are contrary to your ſelf, which is not of a verbal call ſimply, but of a calling O…t, and a comming thereupon unto Chriſt, if you ſay they are viſibly called out, &c. nothing can be ſpoken more falſly, common ſenſe proves the contrary, and what the effectual calling of ſome is to prove that all are externally called out according to the notation of the word, is to me a Paradox.

Our Churches are in Covenant with God, Ergo, They are true Churches, the conſequence is evident from Pſal. 50. 5. where the Arg. 14. D. B.Prophet implies, that by being in Covenant with God, Men are really a Church, for they have right to be an actual Congregation; the Aſſumption is proved ſo abundantly by others, that I need ſay no more till they be anſwered; the ſum is this, we have the word ourſelves, and the bleſſing of the Covenant, Ergo, we are in Covenant with God.

I deny the Antecedent, That the Pariſhes of this Nation generally Anſwer I. O.are Saints, who have made a Covenant with God by ſacrifice, according to Pſ. 50. 50. is moſt abominably falſe; the very naming of it is confutation ſufficient; he that juſtifies the wicked in their wickedneſs, is abomination before God; and who thoſe are that have proved, that the Pariſhes of this Nation generally are Saints, that have made a Covenant with God by ſacrifice, I never yet ſaw attempted; the truth is, you have neither had the word (as you ought to have had) nor yet the Seals rightly adminiſtred, neither yet the bleſſing of the Covenant, and that this is ſo, is ſo abundantly proved by others, that I need ſay no more till they be anſwered.

Thoſe Societies that anſwer the Kingdom of Heaven in thoſe Parables of our Saviour, where he declares what the viſible Church Arg. 15. D. B.is, they are true Churches; for his ſcope is to teach us by thoſe ſimilitudes how to know the viſible Church on earth; but ſo do our Aſſemblies. I will inſtance in two or three of thoſe Parables, firſt of the good ſeed ſown in the field, Mat. 13. 24. which becauſe our Saviour ſays is meant of the world ver. 38. you with many others deny the viſible Church to be thereby intended; but interpret it of the wider world.

But that Chriſt means his Church (his Field) ſcattered throughout the world, appears evidently by the ſervants wondring at the p. 59tares, ver. 25. there had been no place for this wonder, if that were his meaning, for who can wonder to ſee the world full of wicked perſons, I argue thus,

Thoſe Societies that have good ſeed ſowen in them, and mixture of good men, and wicked hypocrites, united in external Communion and Profeſſion of Religion, are true viſible Churches; but ſo have ours, and ſo had the Apoſtolical Churches, in Corinth for example. A ſecond is that of the Draw Net, ver. 47. Many in the Church not of the Church, 1 Jo…. 2. 19. this is apparent that in the Church, ſincere and hypocrites are gathered to profeſſion and external Communion, and where they are ſo, there is the Church, to the ſame purpoſe is the Parable, Mat. 22. of him that had not on a wedding Garment, and that in Mat. 25. of the 10. Virgins. Finally the Church is compared to a flower, where there is Chaf mixt with Wheat; that which is objected, that the Church is a ſociety of Saints called to be Saints, is eaſily anſwered, the denomination is taken from the better part i. e. all ſhould be, ſome are real Saints.

To the firſt of theſe Parables it is apparant, it is not meant of the Anſwer I. O.Church at all, but the world, ver. 38. Christ himſelf interprets it; now whether it be believed of Christ or you, Let all men Judge. Whereas you ſay we interpret of the wider world, I deſire you in your next to ſhew if you can, where Chriſt makes any diſtinction of wider or narrower world, or whether the Church is not a people called out of the world viſibly known from it, if you cannot, you do not well in making ſuch diſtinctions, where the Scripture makes known, you ſay Christ means his Church his Field. Anſwer, That is as much as you ſhould ſay, his Church, his World, for Field is world, ver. 38. ſo you confound the Church and world together as one, that hath alwaies been ſo diſtinctly ſeparated; nay this is alſo to confound your ſelf, who ſay the word Church ſignifies a Company called out of the world.

You ſay it appears by the ſervants wondring at the tares, and if meant of the world, there had been no place for this wonder. Reply.

This it ſeems is that weighty reaſon. that perſwades your judgement contrary to Chriſts expoſition of his own words; There is never a ſuch Word as Wonder in the Text, they only askt the Question if he did not ſow good ſeed in his Field, and from whence came the tares; and that they might well do, from the conſideration of that precious Goſpel of p. 60Peace Chriſt caſt into the world, and that deadly enmity hatched against is when declared; or if there could no reaſon be given of this their Queſtion. we muſt not therefore frame an expoſition of our own, contrary to Christs expreſs determination, for ſimilitudes carry not an equal Parallel in all things, but very many times:

That Chriſt means not the Church, I thus evince.

That which makes void the Doctrin of Excommunication, and makes Chriſt ſpeak plain Contradiction, is not the meaning of Chriſt in this Parable; but to interpret it of the Church doth ſo, Ergo.

The Major is undeniable, the Minor is manifest from the whole ſcope of the place; for when the tares, i. e. wicked Men, ver. 38. did viſibly appear, ver. 26. the ſervants ſaid, wilt thou ver. 28. that we go and gather them up, the Maſter ſaid nay, ver. 30. Let both grow till the Harveſt, which Harveſt is the end of the world, ver. 39. now what can be more plainlyer laid down in the world then this, that if it be meant of the Church, no Min is to be caſt out of it till the day of judgement, though viſibly wicked; and how doth it make Chriſt ſpeak plain contradition, one while commanding ungodly perſons to be caſt out of his Church, and an other while commending them to be kept in? Let them alone, &c. thus the interpretation of this Scripture by you being falſe, the Argument that you draw is from a groundleſs Conſtruction of the words, and ſo uſeleſs; now for all the reſt if they be to be underſtood of the Church, its ſuch a mixture as is not ſeverable till the day of judgement, and ſo undeniable, not diſcernable to the eys of Men; ſeeing thoſe that appear to be nought, are to be ſeparated before that time, 1 Cor. 5. 2, 5, 7, 11, 13. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. With many other places to the ſame purpoſe; evident it is, for that of the Draw net, ver. 49. to the end of the world was the time of ſeveration, and ſo the time of diſcerning, and of him that had not the wedding Garment on, it ſeems the Maſter of the Feaſt only diſcerned; and for the ten Virgins, the time of diſcerning the wiſe from the fooliſh, was when the Bridegroom came. I readily grant, that in a true Goſpel Church there may be many in it that are none of it: many Hypocrites gathered to profeſſion and external Communion, &c. but then they muſt be ſuch as to the eys of the Church undiſcernable: for we ſee all along the Scripture by Chriſts own command, Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17. If thy Brother treſpaſs againſt thee, go and tell him of his fault betwixe him and thee alone, and if he will not hear thee, take with p. 61thee one or two more, and if he will not hear them, tell it to the Church, and if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee at a Heathen and Publican, and thus the Apoſtle was carefull to keep the Church viſible, purer, Purge out from you the old Leaven, ſaith Paul, know you not that a little Leaven leaveneth the vvhole lump, ſee and conſider Haggai 1. 11, 12, 13: now you being ſuch as are and ever were for the moſt part viſibly nought, cannot Anſwer thoſe Parables, if underſtood of the Church; true it is that many Churches in the Apostles times had amongſt them viſibly bad, they being degenerated from what he was, but they were to remain but for a conſiderable time of tryal, to ſee if they would be reſtored; and if they would not be reclamed, but prove contumacious, they are to be delivered to that Kingdom from whence they For thoſe which you ſo harp upon, that was bad in the Apoſtolicall Churches, and as bad as you ſay, as yours, theſe were not fit matter for a Church, as ſuch, for ſuch they were commanded to excommunicate, 1 Cor. 5. 5, 6, 7. and forbad to have Communion with ver. 11, 12, 13. ſure was unfit matter for the Church.1 Cor 5:51 Cor 5:61 Cor 5:7came; and for the objection that you ſay is ſo eaſily anſwered, the Church being called Saints, the denomination being taken from the better part, I anſwer, if you mean this if a Church at its firſt conſtitution, its abundantly falſe, and you have ſpoken it without the leaſt colour of Scripture or reaſon. I challenge you or any Man in the World, to produce one example in all the New Teſtament of any one Church, that at its Constitution received one viſible wicked Man; and if not but all appeared Saints, then undeniable it is, that the denomination aroſe from the viſibility of ſanctity that appeared in all, and ſo it was as the Scripture plainly declares, to all that are willing to ſee.

If you mean it of a Church when degenerated from what they were, its nothing to your purpoſe, becauſe you for the most part were never viſibly Regenerated; it appears that the Churches after corrupted, retained the name of Saints, from that viſible ſanctity once they had; and yet not paſt recovery to their former Eſtate; for after they appeared paſt recovery, ſee what they may be called, Mat. 18. 17. all you ſay ſhould be, anſwer, true, therefore thoſe that are not, are as they ſhould not be.

Some you ſay are true; but that doth not ſhew that thoſe that never p. 62were are to be accounted ſo; nor that thoſe that never were are to be accounted Church Members, though amongſt the other; for then Babylon is a Church, and a ſociety of Saints, for ſome Saints may be, and have been there, Rev. 18. 4.

Thoſe ſocieties from which it is a Sin to ſeparate, are true Churches, Arg. 16. D. B.but it is a Sin to ſeparate from our Aſſemblies, Ergo.

That Church for ſeparation from which there is as little reaſon as there was for ſeparating from the Church, whereof Chriſt profeſſeth himſelf a Member, John 4. 22. and ſo from the Church of Corinth it is a ſin to ſeparate from; but there is little reaſon to ſeparate from our Aſſemblies; compare our Churches with the Church of the Jews in Chriſts time for Teachers and Rulers, and you ſhall find as bad of both as with us; if you ſay theſe Churches had a right Conſtitution and gathering, I have proved ours have both.

The Minor of the firſt, and alſo of the ſecond Syllogiſm, is denyed, Anſwer 1. 0.and were our ſeparation from you onelyonly; for the evilneſs of you, it might eaſily be made appear, that there is more reaſon to ſeparate from you, then either the Church of the Jews or Corinthians; You have been ſo far from proving that Conſtitution true, that after you had indeavoured it, and ſee my anſwer to it, you then deny that you were to prove any ſuch thing, ſee page the 2d. Argument 2. and then page 6. at the Reply.but the truth is, you yet never were a Church at all; you never having had any Goſpel Conſtitution, and where you ſay you have proved it, there I have diſproved it, and proved it falſe, where unto I refer the Reader, being unwilling needleſly to multiply words.

Thoſe Churches that have brought forth a multitude of Martyrs, Argument. 17. Dr. B.for the Cauſes of Chriſt againſt Anti-Chriſt are no Anti-Chriſtian but true Churches; that ours have ſo, is ſuperfluous for me to prove.

Sir, I deſire you in your next to prove, that the bringing over Anſwer. 1. 0.of men to yield up their lives in the defence of ſome truths, (for theſe did no more) is ſufficient to prove the ſocieties that ſo taught them, true Churches; go throughout all the diverſities of Religions almoſt in the world, and you ſhall find ſome ſo taught, as were they called to it, would yield up their lives, and Seal ſome truths p. 63of Chriſt with their blood. Rome it ſelf I am confident would yield many Martyrs for the Cauſe of Chriſt, in many real truths; and though they could not be concluded Anti-Chriſtian in that, yet they might in many other things that they might hold, that might be erronious.

Here are many ſocieties in England, that deny the Baptiſm of water to be practiſed upon any ſubject, without which no ſociety in the world can be accounted a viſible Church, and yet I am confident (had they occaſion) rather than they would deny, they would ſeal many precious truths of Chriſt with their blood; and now upon your Argument, they in ſo doing might be proved true Churches (if what you ſay be true) though they deny that without which no men can be eſteemed ſo.

Secondly, I deſire to ſee it proved (for yet you have not) that the Pariſhes of this Nation did bring forth theſe Martyrs, I rather think that the Pariſhes of this Nation were as willing to have them Martyred, as thoſe bloody men themſelves that did it; for that Pariſh that brought forth ſome that were Members of her to profeſs and dye for ſome truths, muſt needs profeſs the ſame things themſelves, and ſo they ſhould all have been Martyred; for ſuch was the blood-thirſtineſs of thoſe men, that all that would not ſubmit to their abominations muſt dye.

But we ſee no ſuch thing; for only ſome few in ſome Pariſhes (and in any one) were Martyred, and the reſt not toucht, which ſhews that the Pariſhes (except ſome few) were of the mind of thoſe bloody men, and ſo the edge of the Argument may be turned into your own Neck thus.

Thoſe Churches that have conſented to the Martyrdom of a multitude of thoſe that dyed in the defence of the Cauſe of Chriſt; are no true Churches, but the Pariſhes of this Nation have ſo conſented, Ergo.

Thirdly, were all this true, viz. that they that have brought forth ſuch, are true Churches, and that ſome Pariſhes have done ſo; as it is not, yet this Argument includes not the Queſtion; for I think it will never be proved, that half the Pariſhes of England have brought forth any, and ſo all thoſe Pariſhes that have brought forth none, are (notwithſtanding) this Argument not proved true, were it true as it is not.

Thoſe Churches that Anti-Chriſt hates with a perfect hatred, p. 64and ſeeks the deſtruction of, and which hate Anti-Chriſt with Arg. 18. D. B.as perfect a hatred, and pray for the deſtruction of, are true Churches, but ſuch are ours.

This Argument is onelyonly affirmed without proof, you onelyonly ſay it Anſwer I. O.is ſo, and I with as much reaſon may ſay it is not ſo; to what purpoſe would five hundred Argments ſo left be? truly Sir if your end in writing be for ſatisfaction, I would intreat you to bring ſome Scripture or reaſon for what you ſay, or elſe ſay nothing, for your words will now be taken no more for Oracles, you'l be beleeved no further than clear evidence carries a perſwaſive power.

I know not what you mean by perfect hatred; it cannot be denyed but Anti-Chriſt hates all, ſo far as they hold and practice any thing that's good, Let it be Pope, or who it will, and they alſo ſo far hate him.

But this proves not ſuch true Churches; but if by perfect hatred you mean, the higheſt perfection of helliſh malice, which Anti-Chriſt caſts forth againſt a ſociety, indeavouring their deſtruction in chief.

I acknowledge the Major true; for thoſe that have ſo far, and ſo perfectly hated Anti-Chriſt, as to get clean out of his kingdom, imbodyed together in Goſpel order, and indeavour to diſcover, and break in pieces his kingdom.

They are the principle, perfect ſubject, of his hatred, betwixt whom there is the deadlieſt enmity; he inſeeking their deſtruction in chief, and they of him; but now I deny your Minor, viz. that Anti-Chriſt hates you with this hatred; for daily experience ſhews that there be ſome ſocieties, that he is at more deadly enmity then with you, ſeeking all helliſh contrivances, to caſt dirt in the faces of them that are departed his kingdom; now if you be not chief ſubject of his hatred, (as you have neither proved, nor once ſet about it) then you perfectly hate not him; for ſuch who perfectly hate him, are the chief ſubjects of his hatred.

And for your praying for his deſtruction; that you may do all your life, and practiſe ſuch thing as are the foundation of his upholding, men may highly be Anti-Chriſtian under a ſeeming pretence of ſeeking his deſtruction.

Thoſe ſocieties that conſiſt of faithful Rulers in the Lord, and Arg. 19. D. B.faithful Members united, the one ruled well, the other ruled p. 65willingly they are true Churches, but ſuch are many of our Parochial Aſſemblies.

The Minor is ſhort the mark, and includes not the queſtion Anſwer I. O.in diſpute, which is of the Pariſhes generally; if you ſay be generally, is not meant every one, but the greateſt part; yet ſtill it will be too ſhort; for if ſuch ſhould be faithful Rulers, and ruled as you judge ſo, yet you can never prove, that above half the Nation is ſuch.

For though I utterly deny, that there is ever a Pariſh in England, that conſiſts of ſuch faithful Rulers, i. e. faithfully ruling according to the will of the Lord, revealed in his word, neither yet are the other faithful Members united, i. e. in compleat order according to the Goſpel rule; yet ſeeing the queſtion is ſtated, and this Argument brought to prove it, and yet includes it not, no anſwer need be given, it not only includes not the queſtion in debate; neither yet gives proof for what it doth conclude of.

Sir, wherefore is it that you decline the queſtion in the cloſe of all, and leave out ſome Pariſhes as no true Churches: not onelyonly here, but alſo in diſpute, when you argued from the truth and ability, &c. of the Miniſtry, to the truth of the Churches (Argument 5.) I anſwering you with your own words, that you preacht thereby undeniably proving that all was not ſuch, and ſo not all true; therefore not including the queſtion, you ſaid (to this purpoſe) that if above half was, it did, whence I declared that you granted ſome to be falſe, to which you denyed not.

Now this is a plain grant that you are all falſe.

For you ſtand all upon one foundation, you have all one and the ſame matter and form, and all the Reformation that ſome above others are more zealous of, is ſuch, as (had they their deſires) gives no new eſſential conſtitutive principles, viz. matter and form, but is onelyonly a building upon the ſame matter and form, that you had once together with thoſe you now leave out, and which they alſo retain ſtill, as well as you.

Therefore if there be ſome Pariſhes that be falſe Churches, there is never a one that's true.

The conſequence is evident, in that matter and form, which is p. 66onelyonly a differeneing note of diſtinction, is one and the ſame with you all.

But there are ſome that be falſe.

This you have not denyed, or if you had, it might eaſily have been proved from the Minor of the laſt Argument, there being ſome (upon your own principles) that have neither faithful Rulers in the Lord, neither yet faithful Members united, and ſo not poſſible to be true.

Therefore there is never a one thats true.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Bryan, A Public Disputation of Sundry Days (1655)