Separation Examined, Text (1 of 3)

Separation Examined · Text (1 of 3)

p. 1Separation Examined.

I Will not trouble my ſelfe to prove that there is a viſible Church upon the Earth, or true viſible Churches in England, I thinke there are none that owne the Scriptures, who will deny the former, though there are ſome who deny the latter, unleſſe I meane the Congregationall Churches, which they will acknowledge to be Churches, but none elſe; yet many of thoſe, whom I write againſt, doe not owne them, for though they have opportunity, and may joyne with ſuch Churches, yet they refuſe to doe ſo, being unwilling (I perceive) to come under, or maintaine any Officers; I wiſh there be not too ſtrong arguments to prove, that Covetouſneſſe and Ambition reigne too much amongſt this kind of Separatiſts, yet becauſe the proving that there are true viſible Churches in England, will be of great conſequence to the following Diſcourſe (as being the ground-work of it:) I will therefore produce one Argument to prove it, and if I can prove that, then it will neceſſarily follow, there is a true viſible Church on the earth; which (as I ſaid) I thought no Chriſtian dares deny. But what da…es not the vile heart of man think, ſay, or doe, if God give it up, to its owne blindneſſe, and wickedneſſe?

Maſter Burroughs making mention of Schuſſelburgius, Iren. pag. 236.who collected the Sects, Opinions, and wayes of men ſoone after Luther ſaith, There is not any one ſtrange Opinion amongſt us now, but you ſhall finde it amongſt them in terminis; onelyonly I remember not that one that hath taken ſome, who though they acknowledge the Scripture, yet thinke there is no viſible Church on the earth.

Many were the errours that were confuted, condemned in the firſt Synod in New England, which errours I finde here in England, but there was not this errour amongſt them all (to my remembrance:) it was wont to be ſaid of Africa, that every p. 2yeare it produced a new Monſter, but now it muſt be ſaid of England, that it hath produced ſuch a Spirituall Monſter, as no Nation, that owned the Scriptures, ever did before. The Lord ſave us from our owne hearts. But I will now prove the Theſis, as I ſaid before, there are true viſible Churches in England.

Where there are many Societies of viſible Saints, and true Miniſters, conſenting together to worſhip God in his holy Ordinances, there are true viſible Churches.

But in England, there are many Societies of viſible Saints, and true Miniſters conſenting together to worſhip God in his holy Ordinances, Ergo, in England there are many true viſible Churches.

The Major is ſo plaine, that none who know what a viſible Church is, and what the Churches in the Goſpel were, but muſt needs yeeld it.

Here are the eſſentiall cauſes of a Church; Ergo, here is a Church.

Firſt, here is the materiall cauſe, Viſible Saints, the Miniſters alſo, as viſible Saints, help make up the matter; but as they are Miniſters they make the Churches Organicall (which is more.)

2 Here is the formall cauſe, their conſenting to worſhip God, &c. he that yeelds the eſſentiall cauſes, and yet denies the effect, hath loſt his reaſon.

A Church, is any company of Saints in body, to ſet up what Ordinances of God they know; This is a true Church, and here God dwels, In Hoſ. 8.1.Hos 8:1ſaith Mr. Burroughs.

He ſpeakes of a Church, as it is a Homogeneall body, but I goe further; the Separatiſts indeed will catch hold of his definition, as Cyprian ſaith, the Schiſmaticks in his time did of that text, in Matth. 18.20. to which eh anſwered very well, De unita Eccleſ. and hence they will conclude, we are Saints in body; ergo we are true Churches.

But I pray, are there not viſible Saints alſo in the Churches, from which you irregularly (as I ſhall prove after) did ſeparate? Are they not as good as your ſelves? Did not you attain to that viſibility of Saint-ſhip, which you have, while you were in thoſe Churches? Doe you ſet up the Ordinances of God ſo farre as you know (or may know, if errour doth not hinder) as they doe from whom you have ſeparated? Nay, you cannot p. 3doe it, for you neither have men fit for Office, nor will you endure to come under Officers; and therefore if you looke into the ninth verſe of the ſame Chapter, Faciunt faves veſpae, faciunt Eccleſias Marciouitae. Tertul.you ſhall finde Mr. Burroughs ſaying, That thoſe, who love to live without Ordinances, from under the government of Chriſt, are thoſe that love to live in the Wilderneſſe. His words may be applyed to many of theſe Separatiſts, who call for ſeparation from the word, as well as to thoſe who are in the world. But to my Argument.

All the quarrell will be about the Miniſters, The Presbyterians ſpeake the ſame Language, if the words in Body pleaſe you, the Correlatum of Eccleſiaſticall Power is a people embodied in a Church, or a Spirituall corporation, Gilleſp. Aar. rod. 191. Iren. p. 102.and the conſenting together, &c. as for Mr. Burroughs phraſe, there being in Body, this they like well, but ſo are not thoſe viſible Saints I mention, ſay they. But to take away that Cavill, and ſo to returne to the Miniſters, you may know what Mr. B. meanes by being in body, by ſhewing what makes a Church Covenant; ſaith he, I know nothing more is required, but to manifeſt their aſſent, to joyne with that Body, to ſet up all the Ordinances of Chriſt, ſo farre as they know. And doe not thoſe viſible Saints actually manifeſt their aſſent by their continuall attendance upon their Officers in all the Ordinances of God, and maintaining their Officers to that intent, that they may have the Ordinances of Chriſt ſet up amongſt them? Shall the want of an Adjunct null the Church, when as they do the very thing, which they ſhould expreſſe? Put caſe you expreſſe your aſſent, and doe not the things which you expreſs your aſſent unto, are you therefore a Church, becauſe of your expreſſing your aſſent? What then are thoſe who doe the things, though they doe not expreſſe their aſſent in words, but in Acts? This is good, and ſufficient to prove the eſſence, though both expreſſion and doing is better, but of this more after.

But the Miniſters are thoſe who ſpoyle all; there are thoſe who cannot deny there are Ordinances, but there are none to adminiſter them; and this was the reaſon, which one of the chiefe Members of a Church in London (who did uſe to Propheſie (as they call it) in the abſence or wearineſſe of the Paſtor) gave to an honeſt man, who was troubled, becauſe he fell off from the Church, and exerciſing his gifts, and turned Seeker. I name not the man, nor the Church, but it is too true.

Now ſuppoſe I could not prove the Miniſters to be true Miniſters, yet thoſe viſible Saints which I named before, and thoſe whom you call Presbyterians, doe meet together, conferre, pray, and faſt together; watch one over another, and ſo, if you wil p. 4conſider them as Homogeneall Bodies, they are as good Churches as thoſe Separatiſts, which have no Officers; therefore ſtill there are true viſible Churches in England, beſides the Separatiſts, and ſo my Argument ſtands firme. But I will prove there are many true Miniſters, even amongſt thoſe, whom you call Presbyterial Miniſters, thus:

Where there are men ſufficiently qualified by God, orderly (at leaſt for ſubſtance) called to the Miniſtry, and doe that worke, which Chriſt appointed his Miniſters to doe, there are true Goſpel-Miniſters.

But in many of the Churches of England, there are ſuch men, ergo in many of the Churches of England there are true Goſpel-Miniſters.

I put in the word many, I dare venture farre here, but that I would ſave my ſelfe againſt thoſe whom I oppoſe.becauſe I am ſure I ſhal maintaine my ground, for why ſhould I have undertaken to prove that all the Miniſters in England are true Goſpel-miniſters? and that in every Parochiall Congregation in the blinde corners of England, there are ſuch viſible Saints, as ought to be, in the conſtitution of a Church (enough I meane to make a Church) I ſhould have had a hard taske; but by this word many I include abundance both Churches and Miniſters, beſides our Congregationall Miniſters; now to my Argument.

The major cannot be denied, for all the cauſes are there ſet downe, which are required to a true Miniſter.

1 The efficient cauſe, God;

2 Materiall cauſe, a man ſufficiently qualified, I meane according to Pauls phraſe, 2 Tim. 2.2. foreign, the ſame word with 2 Cor. 2 16 who is ſufficient? two diſtinctions would cleare this latter text, but I ſpare the reader.

3 Formall cauſe, orderly called, I put in (at leaſt for ſubſtance) becauſe I would include many of the Presbyteriall men.

4 Finall cauſe, Epheſ. 4.12. the end of the Miniſtry is, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the Miniſtry, for the edifying of the Body of Chriſt. So that no rationall man can deny the major.

Now for the minor, that there are many ſuch Miniſters in England, we ſhall ſee;

1 For the efficient cauſe, there is no controverſie there.

2 For the materiall, that they are ſufficiently qualified in that ſence above mentioned, who can deny it? many, yea abundance p. 5qualified with reall grace, and experimentall workings on their owne hearts, beſides their Miniſteriall qualifications, and theſe many others have, who it may be have not the former, as could be wiſhed; but I hope, though ſome doe whiſper, yet they will not undertake to defend it, that there can be no true Miniſter, unleſſe he have reall Grace: I have heard ſome that have affirmed as much, but they are not ſuch as dare undertake the Queſtion. But as for Miniſteriall qualifications, I doe beleeve the gifts of Miniſters were never larger then now; ſince the Apoſtles dayes never were the truths of God more clearly layed open then now; God doth ſeeme to give out ſuch large meaſures in theſe dayes, as it were in oppoſition to this wild Generation, that when they are crying out, there are no Miniſters, God confutes them, by pouring out more of his Spirit in point of Miniſteriall abilities upon them, then before; indeed where other holy men have gone before in ſuch Pariſhes, and places thereabouts, we finde not that preaching workes now, as it did when it came new to the places, yet I ſay the gifts of Miniſters now are as ſtrong, as they were before; but this is one of the Miniſters heavie burdens in our dayes, their Trading is dead.

Thirdly, formall cauſe: Our Miniſters, abundance of them are orderly called (for ſubſtance:) there are but two things that I know of to make up this call, Election and Ordination: For election, many, if not all, of the godly Miniſters are elected by the people, ſome by the whole Pariſh, and others by the beſt in the Pariſhes. But you ſay the Patron preſents: It is true, but not ſo, as to bring one in againſt the conſent of the people: Verily for Patrons to preſent an unworthy Miniſter, and bring him in againſt the conſent, eſpecially of the godly, and orthodox Chriſtians, it is an act of cruell Tyranny, and worthy of a Petition to the Parliament to get ſuch an horrible abuſe removed; but you have a way now to helpe your ſelves againſt ſcandalous Miniſters by the Civill-power, and ſhould have had it by Church-power, if once Diſcipline were ſet up.

But if the Miniſter be not an unworthy man, though the Patron did preſent, as in former times, and he came in without the conſent of the people at the firſt, but had it afterwards; this makes his election good: Hear what the New England Miniſters ſay to this point: Yet ſometimes the peoples acceptance and approbation afterward p. 6may ſupply the want of election at the firſt, Anſ. to the 32. Queſt. p. 69. V. Ames Conſc. l. 4. c. 25. q. 7.as Jacobs after conſent and acceptance of Leah, made her to be his wife, though he choſe her not at the firſt; and by this we hold the calling of many Miniſters in England may be excuſed, who at firſt came into their places without the conſent of the people. So Dr. Ames.

But are all theſe Separatiſts ſo regular? I doubt not: I can give inſtance of a Weaver, who lived in a Towne, where I had my abode for a little time; the Miniſter of the place was a very able man, regularly called, and inclining at that time to the Congregationall way; yet this Weaver (I thinke that was his calling) ſeparated from him, and the other Chriſtians, and had his owne ſociety, to whom he did preach (as they ſaid) but when the winde did ſettle in the Independent quarter; this Weaver had a minde to a Pulpit, but I hope then he will looke to his orderly calling; he will not dare to venture but by the Goſpel-way, that now we ſhall judge; his way of election was this, as an honeſt Chriſtian of the ſame Towne, and one of this mans friends told me, that Goodman B. an honeſt Carrier being a Sequeſtrator in the Towne, he puts him in, and this is one part of his calling, as for Ordination that is a Toy: But is this regular? then let theſe Separatiſts for ever hold their tongues; I know not, but if a Sequeſtrator may put a Weaver (let him be a godly and a pretty man, as ſome ſay he is, I love not to judge other folkes godlineſſe, I have enough to doe at home) into a Pariſh, when as the people call him not, then may a Patron put in able and godly Divines into their Pariſhes with the peoples conſent firſt or laſt: as the noble Earle of Warwick, I beleeve hath helped many Pariſhes to as able godly Divines, as any one Sequeſtrator hath done. I could give the Reader inſtances of others, but ſo much I perceive by theſe kinde of men, that I little regard what they ſay, for if there lye any matter of advantage in their way, they will ſtretch their principles, as far as they pleaſe.

As for their ſufficient qualification, which ſhould make the materiall cauſe of a Miniſter, we muſt not queſtion them in our dayes: Paul indeed ſaid, Who is ſufficient for theſe things? our language is, Who is not ſufficient for theſe things? much might here be ſaid (I am privy to mine own inſufficiency, and deſire to bewail it) but let me propound one thing to theſe men, and ſee how they anſwer it. Amongſt the opinions which Mrs. Hutchiſon had brought forth in New Eng. this was one, That there was no inherent p. 7grace in a beleever, no new creature, nothing but Jeſus Chriſt, and he was the new creature; one of Mrs. Hutchiſons followers, on a Lords day ſtood up in the Congregation, and would defend it againſt the learned and reverend Teacher, and told him the text was read ſo in the original, If any man be in Chriſt, the new creature, 2 Cor. ….17. foreign, what can theſe men ſay to this that know not the Originall, nor Grammar, both which a man muſt know to anſwer this: ſo if another ſhould defend a hereſie, and tell you the text is ſo in the Hebrew: for the Jeſuits ſubtle and crabbed diſputations, we muſt not mention them, theſe men are doubtleſſe ſufficient; not but that I could allow a ſolid, humble, experienced, orthodox, and well-gifted Chriſtian, called regularly, and ſet apart to the worke of the Miniſtry, with the neighbour-hood of ſome learned able Divine to have his recourſe to, I ſay, I could allow ſuch a one to preach in dark corners of the land. But when men will cry out of other Miniſters for want of orderly calling, ſeparate from them, and thus carry themſelves, that the bones of their ambition ſticke out, and then through unfoundneſſe in opinion, though no way able, though not regularly called, yet they will get into Livings and Pulpits, this is abominable.

So much for Election, that part of their calling will hold; as for the other requiſite, Ordination, to prove our Miniſters have that alſo; (for the ſubſtance of it) here will lye the pinch of the controverſie, therefore I reſerve it for another place.

Fourthly, for the finall cauſe, here alſo the Miniſters will appeare to be true Miniſters; for converſion and edification, the Lord hath honoured the Engliſh Miniſtry with as much ſucceſſe, as any Nation under heaven; the Lord hath ſet ſeale to hundreds of our Miniſters, in giving them ſome ſoules in converſion, and building up many, according as are their ſeverall gifts; and for a proofe of it, let me appeale to your ſelves, who have thus ſeparated from them: Cannot you ſay, that you have found God in their Miniſtry? I am ſure your owne words muſt witneſſe againſt divers of you, if you deny it, for you have acknowledged, by them you were firſt awakened, and brought home: Now I beſeech you conſider what you doe, you who are the ſobereſt, and retaine the ſavour of God in your hearts: If Chriſt ſhall ſay to you, Why doe you deny theſe to be true Miniſters? I owne them to be ſuch, I have qualified them with Miniſterial and perſonal p. 8gifts; I have ſealed to their Miniſtry, by making them my inſtruments to bring home many, and to build up thoſe, who were brought home: I have often humbled, awed, cheared, refreſhed the hearts of my people by them, your owne ſelves (who are mine) are witneſſes of it, I found you out by them, &c. They had their call from the people, and though there were ſome circumſtantiall defects in their ſetting apart to the worke, yet thoſe they freely acknowledge, and I doe as freely pardon, will not my preſence with them make up that defect in your hearts, ſtill to owne them, and reverence them, as my Miniſters, ſince I doe?

Now I ſay, what would you anſwer to the Lord Jeſus? I doubt not, though many have their infirmities (as who have not many infirmities) yet Chriſt doth owne them for his Miniſters, and Paul, or the Apoſtles, if they now were alive, would not deny it.

Object. If you ſay, that indeed God did goe along with the old Miniſters, but not with theſe.

Anſw. But the ſame argument you give againſt theſe Miniſters from their Ordination, doth make as much againſt theſe old Miniſters, as theſe now living, they were no true Miniſters neither by your opinion.

2. We can ſay, that even with the labours of theſe Miniſters doth Chriſt goe along, though not ſo much as he did before, when the Goſpel came firſt into places, for edification we finde it, which is one end in that Epheſ. 4.12. and I pray take heed that your ſcorning of them, be no occaſion to hinder their worke, for you muſt anſwer for it, what ever the Decrees of God be. So much for my firſt argument.

2. I would uſe a ſecond argument to prove we have true Miniſters, &c. And here I would propound one queſtion to theſe men, who thus deny the Miniſtry: It is this, Were there ever any true Miniſters and Churches (let me put in them alſo) ſince the Apoſtles dayes? I hope you will ſay yes: But I pray how long were there ſuch Miniſters and Churches? in which Century did there ceaſe to be true Miniſters, and true viſible Churches? I ſuppoſe you will ſay, when Antichriſt began (here now you would doe us a good turne, if you could make it out cleare to us when that was, that ſo we might know how long our miſeries ſhall laſt) if ſo, then to be ſure for the firſt three hundred yeares after Chriſt, which were times of perſecution, yea, and divers yeares after, you muſt grant there were true Miniſters. p. 9Let us then compare our Miniſters, and Churches with them; for our Miniſters, many are godly, as well as thoſe, all the Miniſters then were not truly gracious I beleeve; nay by ſtories we can learne they were not. As for Miniſteriall gifts, thoſe who have skill to compare the workes, and Sermons of our Miniſters now, with their workes and Homilies, ſhall finde that the Presbyterial Miniſters are not behinde them, but in opening the doctrines of Free-grace, Chriſt, promiſes, which are the glory of the Goſpel, as alſo for diſcovering of Hypocriſie (without any diſhonour to thoſe Ancients,) I may ſay they do excell them.

For the Churches, it is true, we know not what we ſhould doe, if the Lord ſhould call us to ſufferings; but this we know, the ſame power, which carried them through, is able to carry us through: for loſſes of eſtates, leaving of their native Country, &c. I am ſure New England hath gone very far with them for that kinde of ſuffering, and ſo have ſome here alſo, yea, and for not ſubmitting to ſuperſtitious Ceremonies, and inventions of men in the worſhip of God, which they even in thoſe times made nothing of: How many vaine rites and ceremonies were then uſed in Baptiſme, **By Tertul. Cyp. Ep. 59 The kiſſing of the childe. By August. time there were many Ceremonies added Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 1. Lib. de Coro. mil. Ep. 70.72. Tertul. de Bap.which our Miniſters did never owne, but were ſilenced, &c. for leſſe matters, yet theſe were the primitive Churches.

Beſides thoſe Ceremonies in Baptiſme, there were other ſtrange things uſed, which our Divines never owned, I ſay, in thoſe primitive Churches.

As the Anointing of the baptized, As Cyprian, It is neceſſary that the baptized perſon be anointed, &c. yea, and puts much in it, as one may ſee, who reads thoſe Epiſtles.

Tertullian alſo makes mention of this.

Hence Fabianus ordered, that this oyle ſhould be prepared every yeare, and reprehended thoſe, who kept it two or three yeares together, in ſecunda Epiſt. and Epiſc. orient. Hence alſo care was taken afterwards, that none but Biſhops ſhould make this, the Presbyters muſt not dare to doe it. Sylveſter in Concil. Rom.

Alſo holy Veſtures for the Miniſters to be uſed onelyonly in the Churches; many of ours never owned theſe, Epiſt. Steph ad Hil.all have caſt them away.

Alſo in the Lords Supper, the mixing of water with the wine, which how ever ſome ſay, it was becauſe of the hot Countries, p. 10yet Alexander, who they ſay was the firſt that mixed water with wine, Epiſt. ad omnes Ortho. Apol. 2.doth not give that reaſon, but becauſe water and blood came out of Chriſts ſide. In Juſtin Martyrs time, it ſeemes this was their manner alſo, but this was not the Inſtitution.

Alſo we find ſeverall Church-officers among them, as appears by Gaius Biſhop of Rome, who ordered, that all the orders in the Church muſt aſcend, from the door-keeper to the Biſhop. Oſtiarius, Lector, Exorciſta, Acolythus, Subdiaconus, Diaconus, Presbyter, Epiſcopus. The ordination of theſe Officers, with their Ceremonies are after ſet downe in the fourth Councel of Carthage.

If the Decretals of Gaius be of any Authority, all theſe were in primitive Churches, before Conſtantine came to the Empire.

More things I might adde, but I forbeare.

And though there were many glorious Martyrs, yet all their Church-members were not ſuch, many did yeeld to the heatheniſh Idolatry, when perſecution began, yea, and there were foul ſins among them Churches, as Adultery, Whoredome (yea, even among thoſe, who had beene Confeſſors, as Cyprian affirmes, ingemiſcimus ſaith he, to ſee it) drunkenneſſe, ſwearing, and what not, as any one may well gather, who is but a little verſed in Antiquity, De unita Eccleſ.and by reading over the Canons made in their Councels, we may learne what they were troubled with.

As for the Miniſters, they alſo were ordained by Biſhops (though they were not ſuch lordly ones as ours were) with Presbyters joyning with them, this no man can deny that knows any thing of thoſe times; whence then I am bold to affirme, that if there were true Miniſters, and true viſible Churches in thoſe times, even while they were under perſecuting heatheniſh Emperours, then there are true Miniſters, and true viſible Churches now in England, and if there be none now, neither were there any in thoſe times; but I thinke no man is ſo impudent to deny that there were true Miniſters and Churches in thoſe times. I plead now for many Presbyteriall Miniſters, and their Congregations. So I have done with my ſecond Argument, which if I ſhould draw into forme, it runnes thus:

If there were true Miniſters, and true viſible Churches in the p. 11firſt three hundred yeares after Chriſt, then there are true Miniſters, and viſible Churches now in England.

But the Antecedent is true, ergo the conſequent is true.

Some we have that dote, they tell us, they expect men to be ſent from God, and endued with extraordinary gifts, as were the Apoſtles, &c, and theſe are the men, who ſhall ſet up Churches, and reforme us. Good Lord, whither will our vile hearts carry us, if thou doſt leave them?

Theſe perſons are not worth the anſwering, but yet let me ſay a little to them, and ſo paſſe on to the chiefe thing I intend.

For the gift of Tongues, I need not ſpeake, what is neceſſary God hath given to moſt, and many excell in that gift.

For Miracles.

I They were given but for that time, to help on the worke of the Miniſtry (as ſauce doth meat) but now if God doth that by the Miniſtry of his Servants without Miracles, which he did then by the Miniſtry accompanied with Miracles (viz. Convert, Edifie, Formalize, &c.) this doth but more confirme our Miniſtry, and prove that God ownes theſe deſpiſed Miniſters. The plaine word preached, hath made as good Chriſtians, as preaching, and Miracles.

2 If any Body hath need of the gift of Miracles, then Maſter Eliot in New England hath, who now preaches to the Indians, and others with him; but God carrieth on his worke amongſt the Indians without miracles.

3 Doe not you your ſelves beleeve the Scriptures to be the Word of God? if ſo, what need have you of ſuch kinde of perſons ſo gifted? The greateſt Miracle which I deſire to confirme me in the truth of the Scriptures, is to finde the power of Chriſt his Death, and Reſurrection in my heart, without which I care not for miracles. But enough for theſe.

There are others, who having been Members of an Independent Church, where diviſions have fallen out, and ſo have broke in peeces, they have ſaid, that Miniſters are not fitted with a ſpirit of Government, to keep Churches in order, and therefore theſe are not times as yet for ſuch Reformation, I anſwer;

1 The more ſhame for your Church-Members, who are of ſuch proud, and turbulent ſpirits, that godly and able Miniſters are not able enough to governe them; thoſe who come into Church p. 12Communion with the awe of God upon their hearts, we can governe them; ſome ſuch ſpirits we finde among the Independents, but if we could ſee more it would be better.

2 I wonder not at your Diviſions, when I ſee what Principles ſome godly Congregationall men have gone by, for the ordering of their Church Government.

3 Your Argument is as ſtrong againſt the Apoſtles, for there were Hereſies, and Schiſmes in their dayes.

But I leave theſe, and return to that, from whence I have made a digreſſion; Having then proved there are true Miniſters, and Churches in England, let us examine the grounds, why theſe men ſeparate from theſe Miniſters, and Churches; I conceive their grounds may be referred to one of theſe heads:

Either to The Miniſters,

Either to Or Worſhip,

Either to Or the Congregation,

Either to Or the place of meeting;

If there be any thing elſe that cannot ſo well be reduced to one of theſe, yet I am ſure I ſhall meet with it, before I have done.

For the Miniſters, they are indeed made the Dung of England, who are more ſcorned then they, eſpecially the Presbyteriall men, be they never ſo holy, or learned? Whether there be juſt cauſe in reſpect of men, I leave it to God to judge; I am ſure when Miniſters were in honour, we found the Word had good effect, but ſince they came to be thus ſcorned, little good hath been done. I deny not but God may have a juſt quarrell againſt us, and give me leave (without offence) to propound the Reaſons why.

1 The firſt I had rather conceale, becauſe I ſhould ſeem to ſpy out a mote in my Fathers, and Brethrens eyes, when I have a beame in my owne; but therefore I rather propound it, as I heard it from a Reverend and judicious Divine, a man of a gracious and moderate ſpirit, Mr. Nathaniel Rogers in New England. I was talking with him there, when the newes came of the Covenant that England, and Scotland entred into; the thing pleaſed him, and all our Churches exceedingly: This only, (ſaid he) I have not heard of, That there hath been a generall Humiliation amongſt the Miniſters, for their yeelding ſo much to the ſuperſtitious inventions of that Hierarchy.

2 I conceive God may juſtly have a quarrell againſt us (the p. 13younger ſort of Miniſters) for our wofull conformity to the Faſhions of the times; what long haire now doe we ſee moſt young Miniſters weare, and if any new fond faſhion comes up, who follows it ſooner then they? Who take more liberty here then Independent Miniſters, the younger ſort?

3 There hath been a too great Idolizing of Learning, and abuſing it in Sermons, by reciting of the Fathers, or School-men, ſome men fondly making, it may be, a quarter of their Sermons to be Latine, or Greek ſentences out of them, and then turning them into Engliſh, to make people admire them, and conclude them to be great Schollars; not but that it is lawfull to quote a Father, or a Schoole-man: but I ſpeake of that exceſſe, and pride alſo, that went along with it, that they thought themſelves ſo exalted above the people, and looked on them, as the Phariſees, Joh. 7.49. Hence God doth now let Miniſters and Learning be trampled upon. But this was not the fault of thoſe godly men, who now are deſpiſed, as much as the worſt.

4 There is in ſome young Miniſters a too baſe eſteeme of private Chriſtians, that are not learned; I have heard my ſelfe thoſe, who have ſpoken very contemptibly of them, ſcorning they ſhould have any hand in Church affaires; now it is true, there are abundance of private Chriſtians very weake, but ſome there are, ſolid, underſtanding men; and though we doe not admit theſe to be Governours in the Church (unleſſe choſen to the Office of a Ruling Elder, to joyne with us) yet Miniſters ſhall finde ſometimes, that they have no cauſe to repent, in giving an eare to what they ſay.

Theſe things I have obſerved, and wiſh (eſpecially for the three latter) that God hath not brought us downe for them. I might have added, ſome young Miniſters ſtudy more quint-eſſentiall Notions, curious Phanſies, and pleaſe people much with fine ſpeculations about Chriſt, and Free Grace, but have left the old way of Preaching, which did the good. This Chymicall Divinity hath pleaſed mens eares, but not awed, nor humbled mens hearts; it makes frothy, but not ſolid Chriſtians.

But theſe are not to be imputed to all the Presbyterians, who are thus ſcorned.

But now to the Miniſters.

p. 14The generall apprehenſion that theſe men have of the Miniſters, is that they are Anti-chriſtian Miniſters, and what is more common in their mouthes then to call them ſo? This is a heavie charge, if it could be proved: but this terme Anti-chriſtian is both a ſimple terme, a complexe Propoſition, a Syllogiſme, i. e. they think it ſufficient proofe to charge them with it, though hundreds of theſe know no more then a Babe, wherein the formality of Anti-chriſtianiſme doth conſiſt, but every thing that diſpleaſes them, that is Antichriſtian; Infant Baptiſm is Anti-chriſtian, the Ordination of Miniſters is Anti-chriſtian, ſinging of Pſalms is Anti-chriſtian, it is proofe ſufficient, they have ſaid it; now this ſeemes to me very ſtrange, that thoſe men, who Inſtrumentally, 1. Convert men to Chriſt. 2. Build up men in Chriſt. 3. Oppoſe Anti-chriſt to the utmoſt. 4. Who have caſt off Anti-chriſt. 5. If they were under Anti-chriſts power, ſhould ſoon finde his favour to be Fire and Faggot, yet theſe men to be called Anti-chriſtians, I ſay with the Text, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan: But if you will take Anti-chriſt in a large ſence, why may not thoſe be as truly called Anti-chriſtians, who doe throw downe, what Ordinances Chriſt hath ſet up; as, The Ordinance of the Miniſtry, giving his promiſe to be with it to the end of the world; the Baptizing of the infants of beleeving Parents; ſinging of Pſahnes, any forme of externall Church-Government; all theſe are throwne downe by moſt of you, and many walke above Ordinances. I ſay, may not theſe be called as truly Anti-chriſtians in a large ſence, who thus throw downe, what Chriſt hath ſet up, as well as thoſe, who ſet up ſuch Ordinances, as Chriſt never did ſet up? (which is one ſigne of Anti-chriſtianiſme.)

But if you would know what is properly Anti-chriſtianiſme, Expoſi. on Hoſ. firſt Book, p. 162.I pray take it from a farre more able man then my ſelfe, one well knowne, and that deſerves honour, Mr. Burroughs; he well obſerved the madneſſe of people, that cry out againſt any thing, that diſpleaſes them, that it is Anti-chriſtianiſme, then ſets downe thus, wherein it conſiſts.

1 Whoſoever ſhall obtrude any Doctrine upon the Church, to be beleeved by their owne Authority.

2 The intruſion of ſuch Offices, and Officers in the Church, as meerly belong to the ſpirituall man.

3 The impoſing of any Ordinance, or new Inſtitution upon the Church.

p. 154 The impoſing of Lawes ſo to binde Conſcience, as the Lawes of Chriſt doe.

This, ſaith he, is to ſet up another head. I need not adde the owning of the Pope as a viſible Monarchical head over the Church, who doth all that, which Mr. Burroughs hath mentioned; but this then I deſire, that any, who thus call the Miniſters Antichriſtian, would charge them, and make it good, that they are guilty of any of theſe things, or elſe be aſhamed for ever after to call faithfull Miniſters of Chriſt, Antichriſtians.

But what colour have theſe men for this vile aſperſion, I never heard but onelyonly this, their Ordination. The ſumme of all they ſay, amounts to this, The Miniſters of England ſtand by a Romiſh ordination; Ergo, They are no true Goſpel, but Antichriſtian Miniſters, this is that, which makes the heavy ſtir in England.

For anſwer to this, I may ſay as the father of the blinde man, He is of age, and can ſpeake for himſelf; ſo the Presbyterial Miniſters are of ability ſufficient to ſpeake, and have ſpoken enough in anſwer to this cavill, to ſatisfie ſober mindes; but what will ſatisfie unreaſonable men? I am not very willing to inſiſt upon this, becauſe I can ſpeak but little, which hath not beene ſpoken before (for the ſubſtance) but yet this being an ingredient unto the formall cauſe of a Miniſter (which I have mentioned before, and promiſed to prove, that for the ſubſtance of the Ordinance our Miniſters have it) I muſt ſpeake a few words in anſwer to their cavils againſt it.

The Ordination of theſe Miniſters, ſay they, came from the Romiſh Synagogue, they alſo were ordained by Biſhops, Ergo, They are no true Miniſters, hence we ſeparate from them.

I anſwer,

Firſt, had I thought there had beene ſuch a ſtirre in England about this, I ſhould have laboured to have underſtood the minds of our Elders in New England about it; all the time I was there, I never heard the queſtion moved, whether they did look on that Ordination they had here, as true (for ſubſtance) or not. But this I dare boldly affirme for them;

1 That they doe looke upon abundance of our Presbyteriall Miniſters, as true Miniſters of Chriſt.

2 I know that they will diſapprove of the practice of ſome, who have ſeparated from the Miniſters, whom they have before choſen, and the godly Congregations, upon this notion, as I p. 16know ſome have done, I do honour the grace of divers of thoſe Chriſtians who ſeparated, but Satan got into an Angel of light, and deceivedeſpecially from that famous Congregation of Dedham, of which I dare ſay, that for a Parochial Congregation, there is not the like number of reall and viſible Saints in any Congregation in England; I am ſure there was not before this Separation was made; and for the Miniſters I ſpeake not of them, they are men well knowne. I wiſh I had nothing more to trouble me, then to live under that Miniſtry in that Congregation, I hope whereas now I am a ſad man, I ſhould be as chearfull as any man in England. Mr. Burroughs ſaid, he could communicate in that Congregation, then it ſeemes hee did not queſtion whether there were any true Miniſters.

Object. But if you ſay, Our New England Miniſters doe renounce their Ordination which they had here, for they are ordained againe.

Anſw. See Anſw. to 32. q. 70Its true, they are ordained againe, but I never heard it was upon that ground, for let a Miniſter be ordained there in one Church, if there be cauſe of his removall, and ſo be elected in another Church, they ordaine him againe.

Thirdly, I can ſay this, our New England Miniſters have often deſired, and frequently admitted to preach in their Congregations, that went from hence, but were not ordained there.

But our Miniſters of New England are here judged nothing worth, but are as contemptible as any, in the mouths of our Separatiſts, yet they are men of worth.

Secondly, I anſwer to what you ſay, It came through, and from the Romiſh Synagogue. If your argument have any force, you muſt caſt it thus:

Thoſe Miniſters which ſtand by a Romiſh Inſtitution, are no true Miniſters of Chriſt. But the Miniſters of England ſtand by a Romiſh Inſtitution; Ergo, the Miniſters of England are no true Miniſters of Chriſt.

The major you will grant, and if we can prove the minor, our Miniſters ſhall utterly renounce their Ordination, I dare undertake for them; but the minor is very falſe, they ſtand by no Romiſh Inſtitution: for Ordination is none of their inventions, but inſtituted by the Lord Jeſus himſelfe, long before Antichriſt was. But your Argument runs thus:

Thoſe Miniſters which ſtand by an Inſtitution of Chriſt deſcending p. 9to them from the Apoſtles through the Church of Rome, they are no true Miniſters of Chriſt.

But the Miniſters of England ſtand by an Inſtitution of Chriſt, deſcending to them from the Apoſtles through the Church of Rome, Ergo, They are no true Miniſters.

This is the true meaning of your Argument, but the major is very falſe: ſhall the paſſing through Rome null the Inſtitutions of Chriſt? did not the Scriptures, Sacraments, and what ever Ordinances we now have, deſcend to us from the Apoſtles through Rome? Shall we therefore caſt them away? That Argument runnes as ſtrong againſt our Baptiſme, and any other Ordinance, with which though the Church of Rome mingled their inventions, did they therefore null the Ordinance? the veſſels that were once dedicated to God by his owne Inſtitution, though they were put into the houſe of Nebuchadnezzars gods, and thoſe that were fit, very like uſed by Belſhazzar to drinke wine in, when he praiſed the gods &c. they were not ſo much as new caſt againe, but carried to Jeruſalem.Ezra 1.7. ad fin.Ezra 1:7

I pray what doe you thinke of the judgement of Mr. Johnſon? a man great, I am ſure, among the brethren of the Separation (though the Separatiſts in our dayes make a tuſh at the judgement of any man, yea, although he were of the Separation; but yet conſider the reaſons which ſwayed him, and then judge.) The caſe was this, One that was a Miniſter in the Church of England, was after choſen Teacher to a ſeparate Congregation, without any new Impoſing of hands, this he undertakes to juſtifie thus:

1 Impoſition of hands is of God, and not an invention of man: It was not a poſtor threſhold firſt brought by Antichriſt into the Temple of God, but had therein afore Antichriſt ſate there.

2. Baptiſme and Impoſition of hands are joyned together among the principles of the foundation ſpoken of, Heb. 6.2. therefore it ought to be regarded.

3. Impoſition of hands is in the Church of Rome ſtill given to the office of the Miniſtry, and in the name of the Lord, as they doe alſo ſtill adminiſter Baptiſme.

4. We found not either precept, example, or ground in the Scripture binding us to the repetition of it.

5. The Prieſts and Levites in Iſrael becoming unclean, when afterward they were cleanſed, retained ſtill their places of being Prieſts, and Levites; and the children of the Prieſts and Levites ſucceeding after them, …id adminiſter without a new anointing, or new impoſition of hands &c. p. 18Thus then, as Mr. Johnſon and Mr. Ainſworth oppoſed Rebaptization, becauſe Baptiſme is an Ordinance of God, which was had in the Church of Rome, before ſhe fell into Apoſtaſie, and hath been there continued ever ſince the Apoſtles times (how ever comingled with many inventions of their owne:) ſo Mr. Johnſon defended the Ordination of that Miniſter, which he had in England, becauſe Impoſition of hands was in the Church of Rome from the Apoſtles times, before her Apoſtaſie, and is there continued to this day, though mixed with many pollutions of their owne.

I pray onelyonly note this, that whereas I ſay, they ſtand by their Ordination, I doe not meane that onelyonly, but alſo they have the election of the people, of which I ſpake before, and that the Separatiſts cannot deny, which yet they make the greateſt matter in a Miniſters call.

Thirdly, I anſwer, If this argument be of any force, it would rather prevaile againſt the firſt Reformers, as in other Nations, ſo againſt our firſt Reformers in England, who came newly out of Popery; but what is this to us, who have beene above ninety yeares out of that bondage, and have caſt off their Government, Worſhip, and Doctrine (ſo farre as Antichriſtian) for a long time; but if our firſt Reformers were able enough to maintaine their call, then much more our Miniſters.

Fourthly, but if you will throw away all that comes through Rome, let us ſee what courſe you will take, when you have denied all the Ordinances, that have beene adminiſtred for theſe ninety yeares in England [for if no Miniſtry, then certainly no Authoritative preaching, no Sacraments] and thus you have renounced yuor Baptiſme, which you had by theſe Miniſters; what method will you take in your Reformation? how will you come to be re-baptized? you will tell me, You will covenant together, and then elect and ordaine a Miniſter, and he ſhall baptize: Of this more afterward.

But let me examine what you ſay at preſent; You will covenant together (ſuppoſing your ſelves to be Saints firſt) ſay you ſo? are you Saints by calling? how came you to be ſo? what did God call you immediately? No, you muſt ſay many (if not all) of you, who have any truth of grace, by the preaching of the word; what, by thoſe Miniſters from whom you ſeparate, as no Miniſters, becauſe of their Ordination? hath the Lord ſo farre p. 19owned his deſpiſed members, as to make them the inſtruments to bring you to be viſible Saints, fit to imbody or covenant, &c? and are theſe now no Miniſters? are you the effect of their Miniſteriall labours, and they no Miniſters? Surely in this one thing you have overthrowne your ſelves; but then you ſay, you will ordaine him, this I will conſider in its owne place; Then he ſhall baptize: but ſince he did renounce his owne baptiſme alſo, who ſhall baptize him firſt? you muſt have a Miniſter to do that, to be ſure he cannot doe it himſelfe, nor none of you, for you are private perſons; to adminiſter the Lords Supper before you be baptiſed, is contrary to Scripture rules.

There was a report when I was in New England, that a Carpenter re-baptiſed Mr. Williams, In Iuſt. Mar. time none received the Supper, but ſuch as were firſt baptiſed, Apol. 2. Ius Divi. Apend. p. 269.and then he did re-baptize the reſt: I do not ſtand to defend the thing whether it be true or no, but it was like enough to be true, and ſutable to the other opinions and practiſes of that wilde generation. Where are we now?

Fifthly, that is very obſervable, which the London Miniſters have added in the defence of their Ordination, That in this Church of England, the corruptions which the Church of Rome would have introduced about Ordination of Miniſters and other Eccleſiaſticall affaires, were withſtood and oppoſed by the Kings of England: Nor doe we read of any Miniſters that were ordained by any Agents ſent from Rome, but onelyonly ſome idle ceremonies of Confirmation, or them that were ordained by the Pall and the Ring brought thence into England. Thus far the London Miniſters: In the margent they have ſet downe the Authours that prove it.

Sixtly, There might be another anſwer given by ſome, who are good Hiſtorians, [which I confeſſe I am not, wanting both time and ſuch bookes] ſo farre as I can goe, I will. That the Churches in England were at firſt rightly gathered and conſtituted, it is not to be doubted, Mart. 1. Vol. p. 237 laſt Edition.the inſtruments of gathering being Apoſtles or Apoſtolicall men, as is evident by Mr. Fox; neither is it to be doubted, but they did ordaine officers in the Churches, for we read of Miniſters and Biſhops. The land falling to the poſſeſſion of the Saxons about the yeare 568. p. 147.the Story ſaith by them, all the Clergy and the Chriſtian Miniſters of the Britains were then utterly driven out, in ſo much that the Arch-biſhops of London and Yorke went into Wales: thus p. 12long then it ſeemes the Miniſters of England had no ordination from Rome; P. 149.this appeares alſo by Auſtine, who came into England in the yeare five hundred ninety eight, he about the yeare ſix hundred, P. 153.aſſembled the Biſhops and Doctors of Britaine (ſo that ſtill here were Miniſters, but where their abode was, the ſtory ſets not downe, but ſuppoſed to be towards Wales,) and charged them to preach the Goſpel to the Engliſh-men, and alſo that they ſhould among themſelves reform certain rites in their Church (ſo that ſtill here were Miniſters and Churches) ſpecially for keeping of Eaſter-tide, baptizing after the manner of Rome, &c. to which the Scots and Britaines would not agree (this ſhews they did not depend upon Rome.) Afterward there was another Synod gathered, where ſeven Biſhops of Britaine were preſent; and though we finde a great battell fought preſently after, where the Britains were overcome, yet the Story doth not mention that the Miniſters were all ſlaine there. Now the thing I aime at is this, that ſince there were ſo many Miniſters and Biſhops in England, who had their ordination by ſucceſfion from thoſe Apoſtolical men, and not from Rome, and wee finde ſo many, when Auſtine came, why may we not ſuppoſe that theſe might againe preach the Goſpel to the Engliſh-men, though at firſt they were oppoſite, when they had ſmarted for their folly? and why may we not ſuppoſe they might returne into England againe, eſpecially into thoſe parts neare Wales? alſo thoſe who were driven out, as the Story ſaith they were, ſuppoſe into ſome other parts, might not they returne into England? alſo muſt we take the words of the Story, (All the Clergy and Chriſtian Miniſters were driven out) ſtrictly ſo, as none at all were left, though latent, &c? thoſe, who are good Hiſtorians, may helpe here, and it would be ſome anſwer to that objection of our ordination coming from Rome, though unto me, the objection is very feeble, if this anſwer cannot be made out.

As for the Churches of England, being rightly at firſt gathered, Way of Ch. in N. E. Ch. 7. p. 111.as above mentioned; Mr. Cotton yeelds it, ſo as he ſaith, That all the work now is, not to make them Churches, which were none before, but to reduce, and reſtore them to their primitive Inſtitution, &c.

To that part of the Objection, They were ordained by Biſhops; I pray what doe you thinke of Maſter Bradford, and the reſt of p. 13thoſe holy Miniſters and Martyrs that were ordained by the Biſhops in thoſe dayes, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, &c? was he an Anti-chriſtian Miniſter, and all thoſe Miniſters, who were then ordained, though now they were ſcarce got out of the Popiſh Ceremonies? &c. the holy Martyrs then did never offer to ſeparate from Mr. Bradford, and the reſt, nor call them Antichriſtian Miniſters. I pray how many ſuch Bradfords have you among you? Not all the Separatiſts in England can afford ſuch a one; Chriſt cals him his faithfull Miniſter, but you ſay Mr. Bradford is none; curſed be that doctrine. Now if thoſe Miniſters were true Miniſters, though they had an Epiſcopall Ordination, then ſo are ours, notwithſtanding their Ordination by Biſhops. It is vaine to ſay thoſe Biſhops were godly men, ſo were ot ours: for it is a bold aſſertion to ſay, that none of the Biſhops ſince have been godly men, no doubt there are divers in Heaven. And beſides, it is abſurd to thinke, that the truth and efficacy of an Ordinance depends upon the truth of Grace in him who doth adminiſter it; as for Ceremonies, if you ſearch, they were not cleare then, no more then our Biſhops were.

It is a ſilly ſhift to ſay, They walked according to their light; I hope there was the ſame rule to judge of the truth of Miniſters then, that is now; it was not their light which made them true Miniſters, but the rule. But the truth of their Miniſtry was never queſtioned, till our Separatiſts roſe up, who are not comparable to them in parts, or holineſſe.

2 I pray, what doe you make of thoſe Miniſters who were ordained in the Primitive Churches? Cyp. Epiſ. 33,they were ordained in Cyprians time by Biſhops, and Presbyters; and by Hieroms time the Biſhops had ingroſſed that power into their owne hands, as appeares by that ſpeech of his, Excepting Ordination, Epiſt. ad. Evagr.what doth a Biſhop that a Presbyter doth not? ſo that by this time it ſhould ſeeme that the Presbyters were turned out, and the Biſhops only Ordained. It is poſſible this might be but in ſome Churches, for the fourth councell of Carthage ordered, That no Biſhop ſhould Ordaine without the councell of his Clergy, Can. 22. Can. 3. Now, what were theſe no Miniſters? Anti-chriſt was not yet got into his Seat, for the yeares of his reigne had been expired before this time. It is ſtrange, that thoſe ſhould be no true Miniſters, who lived ſo neare the Apoſtles times, and under p. 22perſecution alſo, as in Cyprians time; neither was Cyprian ſurely the firſt Biſhop that did Ordaine, for there were Biſhops before him; yea, beſides this Ordination by Biſhops, we finde the Papiſts contending ſtrongly for ſtrange Rites, which they uſe in Ordination, and they ſay they were alſo uſed in thoſe Primitive times: for the anointing of the hands of the Presbyter that is ordained, this they would prove from Cyprian, or at leaſt the Author of The Card. worke of Ch. who ſhou ld ſeeme to be as old as Cyprian; alſo from Euſebius Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. 10. c. 4. which place would ſeeme to favour it; and others there are, whom they quote. See Greg. De Val. to 4. d. 9. q. 5. Alſo for the ſhaving of the heads of their Miniſters, this we finde indeed in Auguſt. time, Ep. 26. & Ep. 147. And this Calvin himſelfe doth not deny to have been uſed then, and gives the reaſon why it was uſed; which Greg. de Val. ſcornes, and gives other reaſons, To. 4. D. 9. q. 5. p. 3. If the Decret. Epiſtles of Anicetus be of any Authority, we ſhal finde it in his days, long before Auguſtin; and I wonder that Greg. Val. doth not quote him. I am apt to think, being they were ſo prone to Ceremonies in other Ordinances, that ſomething was added to this alſo; Iuſt. l. 4. c. 19 Sect 27.and I marvel that in the fourth Councell of Carthage, where they ſet down their rites in Ordinations of other officers, and ſome very ridiculous, that the ordination of Presbyters ſhould be the moſt pure; but ſtill with Biſhops as well as Presbyters, which is the thing now in hand.

3 A Biſhop, if you conſider him meerly as a Biſhop, was but a Miniſter, and ſet apart to doe the worke of a Miniſter, the ſame, which all other Miniſters may doe; Biſhops did Pray, Preach, Baptize, adminiſter the Lords Supper, Ordaine, Suſpend, Excommunicate, and theſe things other Miniſters doe, and may doe; that he did lift up himſelfe above other Miniſters, that was his errour, that he would take upon him the ſole power of Ordination, and Excommunication, this was his errour; but as the addition of an human invention did not null the Ordinances, (as ſuppoſe only growne perſons had been baptized, and that by dipping, and after dipping they had been ſigned with the ſigne of the Croſſe, would this have nulled the Ordinance in the Anabaptiſts eſteeme?) no more this uſurpation of the power of adminiſtring theſe Ordinances did null a Biſhop, ſo as he was no Miniſter; the Ordinances were, and are Chriſts inſtitutions. Indeed you may call him, an Over-growne Presbyter, p. 23but a Presbyter. 3 Ep. Ioh ver. 10.Diotrophes loving of pre-eminence did juſtly deſerve reproofe, and John did no doubt deale with him, but yet for preſent did not deny him to be a Miniſter, though a corrupt one; for the ſole power of Ordination, they tell us, It is the order of the Church of England, as of the Councell of Carthage, that when a Presbyter is Ordained, all the Presbyters that are preſent ſhall lay hands. As for the ſole power of Excommunication, though it was an errour groſſe enough, yet by the 17. Canon, Concil. Sardic. Ofius who was the cauſe of that Ganon being made, was alſo at the Councel of Nice.it ſhould ſeeme the Biſhops by that time had got that power to excommunicate alone; which Canon provides a remedy for a perſon wrongſully excommunicated by his Biſhop, to got releefe by Appeales; now if that corruption had got in ſo early, long before Anti-chriſt had got to his Seat, no wonder though it was found among our Biſhops, yet I hope they were true Miniſters whom they Ordained. As a Biſhop was a Lord Biſhop, his Lordſhip was but a meere civill addition annexed to the Biſhoprick by Regallfavour, his Lordſhip was no ingredient into Ordination.

4 The Lawes of this Realme doe account nothing Divine in a Biſhop, but his being a Presbyter, Lond. vind. 125. Dr. Seam. anſw. to Diat. p. 85.and therefore the Parliament in their Ordinance for Ordination, tels us, that they did ordaine as Presbyters, not as Biſhops, much leſſe as Lord Biſhops; yea, I have heard a reverend Miniſter (now Paſtor of a Congregationall Church in Eſſex) ſay, that when the Biſhop ordained him, he told him, I doe ordaine you as I am a Presbyter.

5 The Miniſters of England are ready to acknowledge thoſe defects, and corruptions which did cleave to their entring into the Miniſtry by the Biſhops; heare their owne words, London Vindica. p. 124.We doe not deny, but that the way of Miniſters entring into the Miniſtry by the Biſhops, had many defects in it, for which they ought to be humbled; but we adde, that notwithſtanding all the accidentall corruptions, yet it is not ſubſtantially, and eſſentially corrupted. They acknowledge then the errour, and deſire to be humbled for it: what more would you have, God will accept of this I doubt not, and why not you? How to mend Dr. Seamans Divinity I know not, where you have alſo the errour acknowledged implicitely (for it is in anſwer to this Objection) then giving his judgement in the caſe: When ſinne cleaves to the manner of Calling, Anſwer to Diat. p. 85.through the generall errour or corruption of all ſorts of people who are concerned in it, &c. it is nototherwiſe to be invalidated here below, then by doctrinall Cenſure, and Repentance, p. 16and not by iteration. Repentance through Chriſts Bloud doth take away corruption out of Gods fight, and will it not (when they are ſo ingenuous) out of your ſight?

6 There is a maxime taken up among the Independents, Many may truly beare the name, yea they owne it, and practiſe accordingly.(yea and others) and it goeth for as good Divinity as any the Goſpel hath, viz. That errours in Non-fundamentals muſt be borne withall in Churches, we muſt labour indeed to convince people of ſuch, but if they will not be ſo convinced, we muſt not proceed any further to caſt them out. I have heard the New England Miniſters ſharply cenſured, becauſe they have excommunicated for ſome errours, (i.e. denying of ſome Ordinances) which are ſuppoſed to fall within the compaſſe of Non-fundamentals; This maxime is cryed up among the Separatiſts. For the Theſis it ſelfe (conſidering into what a narrow compaſſe Fundamentals are pent up) I thinke it to be Apocryphall Divinity, and juſt it is with God to let in errours in Fundamentals, when ſuch Church, and Truthdeſtructive Principles are drunke in by godly Chriſtians; yet let us bring this rule, and lay it to the caſe in hand: I hope they doe not make rules for themſelves, if it be a true Chriſtian Rule, it is for all Chriſtians; Here then we have men qualified by God with Miniſteriall, and (abundance of them) perſonal gifts, they have the election or conſent of the people, they are ſeparated to the worke of the Miniſtry by perſons, who were Miniſters, but did erroneouſly aſſume too much to themſelves, now grant that here is an errour, yet I hope it is not in a fundamentall point. Some great Divines call Ordination but an Adjunct, and your ſelves leſſe, you thinke it a Toy: ſo then if you muſt not be ſeparated from a Church for errours in Nonfundamentals, then neither ought you to ſeparate from a true Church for an errour, which is not fundamentall. Certainly if that rule hath place any where, then here: you will by this rule keepe Anabaptiſts, Anti-Sabbatarians, Antinomians, (truly ſuch) Anti-Pſalmiſts, Arminians, &c. within your Churches, and not caſt them out; but (forſooth) a little errour (in compariſon of them) and that acknowledged, in the Miniſters, that is ground ſufficient to caſt off them, and call them Antichriſtians, &c. yet there are no conſcientious men but theſe; the Separatiſts Goſpel will afford Rules for them, but not for other Chriſtians.

As you trouble the Miniſters here, ſo I doubt they will p. 25trouble you in the Ordinations of your Miniſters; that is, to make it cleare to them, that private men have power to Ordaine: I have ſeene it my ſelfe, when two private men have impoſed their hands upon him, who was to be their Paſtor. Another I know, whom a Carpenter and a Taylor Ordained, with impoſition of hands; I doubt the Miniſters will put you hard to it, to prove that this is according to the Rule, (yea, when other Miniſters [but of other Churches] were preſent, theſe have impoſed hands.) If we conſult with the Goſpel, we ſhall finde it rather to favour a Biſhop (though no Lordly one) by the example of Timothy and Titus, (from whom our Biſhops proved their Superiority, and ſole power of Ordination) to Ordaine, then private men, and that in the preſence of divers other Miniſters. I am ſure this will be hard to prove from Scripture, I ſhall ſpeake a few words to this point afterward. Suppoſe any of the Biſhops had been of that opinion, that none but perſons growne, and making confeſſion of their Faith ought to be Baptized, and they would Baptize only by dipping, would not the Anabaptiſts have judged this to be true Baptiſme? would they null this Baptiſme, becauſe he was a Biſhop, ſince he was a Miniſter, ſet apart to that worke? &c. as Auſtin baptized many thus, after he had been in England a while, who yet was an Arch-Biſhop, was that no true Baptiſme? I doe not thinke that the Anabaptiſts (if they have any braines in their heads) will deny that Baptiſme were nul; if that were good, ſo is Ordination for the ſubſtance of it. If there have been no true Miniſters, nor Ordinances, nor Churches, but where there hath been no humane mixtures, nor wicked perſons, then there hath been but few Miniſters, Ordinances, or Churches, ſince there was a Church upon earth, and if there ought to be ſeparation from ſuch Miniſters and Churches, then we ſhould have found Separatiſts enough; how hardly was Superſtition kept out in the Church of the Jewes before the Captivity, ſay, how many yeares? Alſle. Chron. p. 2153. Goodw. Mo. Ar. l. 1. c. 10. Chemnitius in 10. Ioh. takes theeves there to be the Phariſees, for their order was not inſtituted by God, nor brought in by the Prophets, but only a humane invention, and through their owne boldneſſe.Afterward, when Chriſt came, were they cleare? what thinke you then of corrupt Caiphas the High Prieſt, his corrupt entring into, and his continuance in the place for one yeare? So the Phariſees, a Generation that God never inſtituted, their Schoole p. 26began, ſome ſay, two hundred and forty yeares, ſome ſay more, before Chriſt, and for their Superſtitious inventions they were not barren in them: but did Chriſt, ſo ſoon as he came to Preach call away the people, and bid them ſeparate? here are corrupt Officers, &c. No, we finde no ſuch word; nay, he bids then heare, Matth. 23. After Chriſt, I pray tell me, how long did the Churches continue without Superſtitious mixtures, I doubt you will finde the Church hath not been long free, but we doe not finde ſeparation preſently, and nulling of Miniſters, as now Men ſhould doe well to give us a precept, or example out of the Word, where Ordinances have been diſpenſed true for the ſubſtance, though ſome humane mixtures have been joyned to them, that therefore they were iterated. If they cannot give us a direct precept or example, ſhew us it by a neceſſary conſequence from Scripture. I wonder men ſhould be ſo forward to iterate Baptiſme, and Ordination, as theſe Separatiſts call for, without Scripturall grounds.

9 There are hundreds of Miniſters in England, who were not Ordained by Biſhops, but you ſeparate from thoſe alſo; they had the election of the people firſt, then with faſting and prayer, ſolemnly ſet apart to the worke by divers godly and learned Divines, who were againſt Biſhops, yet theſe are alſo ſcorned by your ſelves, as much as the others; but (forſooth) becauſe they were Ordained by Biſhops, and had not renounced their Ordination, and taken their Ordination from you, therefore that infection ſpreads even to all Generations. Out of what I have ſaid, I may pick up ſome anſwers to this, but for troubling the Reader; and the truth is, they are in ſome ſence unreaſonable men I deale with; but this let me ſay, it is ſtrange, that when an Ordinance is purged in it ſelfe, and thoſe who adminiſter it, renounce what defects have cleaved to their owne Ordination, only for the ſubſtance owning it (as another Ordinance may be corrupted, or rather have corruptions annexed to it, but not nulled by thoſe accidentall corruptions) that this infection ſhould adhere ſo ſtrongly, that it cannot be mended, but by nulling of it. Friends, this cavilling will not doe in the Day of Judgement. Beſides, I pray give me an inſtance where it was ever practiſed, that perſons, that were not Baptiſed, did Ordaine a Miniſter? If you aske me, What need that queſtion, for we are Baptiſed, therefore it doth not concerne us? By whom I p. 27pray? If you ſay, by the Miniſters, then I deſire no more; if they were ſo farre Miniſters as to adminiſter Baptiſme to you, then they may well adminiſter Ordination to us; renounce therefore the Baptiſme you had by them, ſo I am ſure you cannot ordaine; and when you are regularly re-baptiſed, and can warrant your Act, and prove that you have the power to Ordaine, then we will liſten to you.

For my owne Ordination, it was in the face of my people, the day was ſpent in faſting, and Prayer, thoſe who carried on the worke were Mr. Dan. Rogers, Mr. Marſhall, Mr. Ranew, with other godly Miniſters, who joyned with them in the impoſing of hands (the Miniſters lived about me) I never ſaw that Ordinance carried on with more ſolemnity in my life, the people ſhewed their election by ſuffrage, holding up their hands; all was done according to the Pattern; but yet I am a man as much ſcorned as other men, who were Ordained by Biſhops. (I can ſubmit to God in that ſcorne that theſe caſt upon me, for I deſerve it at his hands;) only there was a foule errour committed at my Ordination, and it is told up and downe by ſome of this kinde, againſt whom I write, and I pray what is it? This, The Miniſters impoſed hands in my Ordination; this hath been talked of as a ſtrange thing; but let me anſwer for the Miniſters, it was no errour, much leſſe ſuch a great one as you make it.

1 If private men, Carpenters and Taylors may impoſe hands, why may not Miniſters? but the former have done it. Ergo.

2 All the Ordinations that ever I ſaw in New England were performed with impoſition of hands; I have ſeene Deacons ordained thus.

3 If you be wiſer then the Elders in New England, Anſw. to the 32. que. p. 67. Survey of Church Diſe. p. 2. p. 74.and Maſter Hooker, then over-throw them, for they conceive it neareſt to the inſtitution.

4 If you obſerve the examples in the New Teſtament, which are our Guides in Church affaires, we ſhall finde Ordinations have been thus performed; as Acts 6.6. Act. 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 5.22. Heb. 6.2. Laying on of hands; Which place, by Claſſicall men, Congregationall men, and Separatiſts, is interpreted of Ordination. I doe not here bring in the practiſe of Churches in former times, becauſe I intend not to handle the controverſie, Whether impoſition of hands be neceſſarily required in ordination? p. 28but bring you in as many examples from Scripture, where there were Miniſters Ordained without impoſition of hands; as alſo the practiſe of other true Churches Orthodox and ſound, who doe Ordaine without, &c. or elſe be aſhamed of your ignorance, and charge not thoſe men with errour where none was, but a true following the patterne.

The ſubſtance and eſſence then of Ordination being this, That perſons qualified Miniſterially be ſet apart, or ſeparated for the worke of the Miniſtry by perſons in Office [ordinarily it muſt be thus, what may be done extraordinarily, when no Officers can be had is another caſe] the Miniſters in England have that Ordinance for the ſubſtance, and they have the election and conſent of the people, (it is hardly to be ſuppoſed that every individuall perſon in a Pariſh will conſent to every godly Miniſter, but conſent there is) hence theſe two concurring to the Call, which is the forme of a Miniſter, many Presbyteriall Miniſters are true Miniſters. I dare ſay more, but I am ſure now I ſave my ſelfe. But I have not done with Ordination yet, I ſhall meet with it once againe afterwards. Let us now come and try the ſecond ground for ſeparation, ſcil. The Worſhip of God; the fault here muſt be reduced to one of theſe three heads; either;

1 Becauſe they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God in theſe Churches. Or,

2 Becauſe the Ordinances of God are mixed with humane inventions, that they cannot partake of them without ſinne. Or,

3 Becauſe here are other Ordinances ſet up in the Churches then ever Chriſt did inſtitute. I cannot conceive any more.

For the firſt; Suppoſe it were ſo, that there were a defect of ſome Ordinances, is that a ſufficient ground for ſeparation? Mr. Hooker ſaith no. If a Father of a Family wants a Rod in his houſe, The preface to Survey of Church Diſcip.is it ergo no family? there may be ſome diſorder in the houſe for want of good Government, yet a family. Divers Divines of great note conceive by that text, Nehem. 8.17, 18. That the Church of the Jewes did omit the celebration of the Feaſt of Tabernacles almoſt the ſpace of a thouſand yeares, the Arke was abſent from the Tabernacle from the time of Eli, to the time of David, 1 Sam. 4.11. compared with, 2 Sam. 6, 17. and it was a great fault; the Scribes rejected the Baptiſme of John, p. 29but where doe you finde any ſeparation all this while, that the godly ſhould not joyne with that Church, and partake in what Ordinances they had? But this objection hath no place in theſe Churches, for Prayer, Preaching, Administration of the Sacraments, yea, Diſcipline they had in the Epiſcopall dayes, they did ſuſpend from the Lords Supper, and the Biſhops gave the Miniſters power, but ſuſpenſion is the leſſer Excommunication, and now to be ſure there are none wanting (at leaſt ſhould not be,) if the Miniſters were not hindred in ſetting up all the Ordinances.

Obj. No, ſay you, the Claſſicall Churches have no explicite Covenant for the forme of them, they will not admit it into their Churches, therefore we ſeparate.

I ſhal meet with this in another place, only for the preſent diſprove what Mr. Hooker hath ſaid, and the former examples I have given you; but yet you will have a hard peece of work, to prove this to be a ſufficient ground for your ſeparation, as afterwards I hope I ſhall make good.

For the ſecond, Humane mixtures in Ordinances.

This indeed was the ground of the old Separatiſts, yet in thoſe dayes many holy and learned Divines wrote againſt the Separation; but in theſe dayes that ſtumbling blocke is removed; and this let me ſay, that if you read over all the Church-ſtories, ſince there was a Church upon the earth, there cannot be found any example of ſuch ſeparatiſts, as are now amongſt us; the old Donatiſts had their Miniſters, yea, Biſhops as well as Presbyters; the ſeparate Churches of later dayes had their Miniſters, and how ſtrictly did they maintaine and practiſe all thoſe Ordinances, which ours laugh at, as ſinging of Pſalmes, Infant-Baptiſm, obſervation of the Sabbath, and ſuch opinions as thoſe learned and godly men, Mr. Ainſworth, Robinſon, Johnſon, did abhorre, are ſwallowed downe among ours; ſo that theſe men cannot ground their practice from any example heretofore; and as for the Scripture, if they can finde any grounds there, I muſt confeſſe I am altogether ignorant in the Scripture.

Suppoſe there ſhould be ſome human mixtures (though for my part I know of none) are all the Ordinances ſo polluted: preaching and prayer were kept pure in the Epiſcopall dayes; why doe you not communicate with them in thoſe Ordinances, which are pure?

p. 30If you object, The Ordinances indeed are pure, but thoſe who joyne in thoſe Ordinances are not pure, therefore we ſeparate.

This properly belongs to the third head (the Congregation) I ſhall there anſwer to this Cavill.

Thirdly, for the ſetting up ſuch Ordinances as Chriſt never did, I cannot imagine where you will be, unleſſe you meane Infant-baptiſme, and ſinging of Pſalmes, for I finde theſe are ſpoken againſt very much. But are theſe fundamental errors, if they bee errours, have you beene forced to baptiſe your Infants, or ſing Pſalmes? are you not at your choice whether you will or not? do not many people ſit in Congregations, and not ſing at all? not but that I conceive Church-members ought to be regarded in this, and called to an account, though they had need be handled tenderly, if otherwiſe they ſeeme to be godly, yet their being hopefully godly, is not a ſufficient ground to keep them from Church-cenſures, unleſſe all circumſtances being confidered they appeare to be truly conſcientious, men of humble ſpirits, not ſelfe-willed, and deſiring forbearance and patience in clearing of the point, then I know Miniſters would beare with ſuch a long time; but to have perſons runne into theſe errours, and let alone, as if they were things of no concernment; truly by what rules you will looſe two Ordinances, you may looſe foure; Officiall preaching is cryed downe, and Church Diſcipline alſo, by the Eraſtians, no outward forme of Government, which I ſuppoſe was the ſcope of Mr. Dells Sermon before the Parliament; and ſo I thinke it is that which Rob. Purnell in his ſhort Propheſie of the down-fall of Presbytery and Independency aimes at, that there ſhould be no externall forme of Church-Government, but only the government of the ſpirit within; and for all Ordinances, ſome are above them, who have been Members of Congregationall Churches, inſomuch that when the Brethren came to chuſe an Officer, a Maſon roſe up and oppoſed it, profeſſing he lived immediatly upon Chriſt, and he owned none; neither was he alone I beleeve: but if you take away all the Ordinances, how we ſhall know there is a God in the world, I know not; to be ſure, we ſhall not know by the dealings of theſe men: I know ſo much by them, that one had as good deale with the Indians as with ſome of them, ſo that in concluſion we ſhall have brave Churches without ordinances.

p. 31As for Infant-baptiſme, this is not a place for me to prove it to be an Ordinance of God; what the Adverſaries can ſay is ſummed up in Mr. Tombes, a man, I heare, eſteemed truly godly on all hands, and for his Learning he ſhewes himſelfe to be a Schollar, it is pitty the mans parts were defiled in maintaining ſuch a wretched opinion, as Mr. Hooker calls it. I confeſſe, Maſter Tombes's abilities are ſuch, that I may hold the Candle to him, but yet let me ſay this, I can eaſily diſcerne Mr. Tombes to diſpute more like a Sophiſter, then a Chriſtian, that did deſire to ſee truth. Mr. Marſhall tells him, and not without cauſe, In his defence, &c. p. 247.Your faculty is farre better in darkening, ſlurring, and plundering the Arguments of your Adverſarie, then in making good your owne. It is the happineſſe Mr. Marſhall hath above many, that in his preaching, and ſo in printing, he can convey his minde to his Hearer, or Reader ſo, as the weakeſt may underſtand; how then his Arguments come to be ſo darke, to ſo learned a man, as Mr. Tombes, I cannot conceive, if he had dealt candidly; but when Maſter Tombes hath anſwered Mr. Marſhall, Cotton, Baxter, Cobbet, Hooker, Holmes, Geree, &c. then we ſhall bethinke our ſelves of new Arguments, but theſe Worthies have maintained that Ordinance with that ſtrength, that I beleeve the contrary opinion will rarely, or never take with an intelligent head, and a ſober, godly heart.

For ſinging of Pſalmes, this is not a place neither to follow that Queſtion: whether it be an Ordinance of God, I never heard of any that writ againſt it, except one, whom Mr. Cotton hath anſwered, and I thinke ſufficiently enough. When Maſter Cotton is ſilenced, then we ſhall bethinke our ſelves concerning that Ordinance: I heare of others that have printed for it, but Maſter Cottons peece is all I have ſeene concerning that ſubject, Pro or con.

Only becauſe there was a Sectary, In Colcheſter.that in a Shop ſcoffingly asked me, To what purpoſe ſinging of Pſalmes was? the mans ſpirit I ſaw very unſavoury, and the place not convenient to diſcourſe; I gave him no anſwer, but ſhall now give him the grounds that lead me to beleeve it is an Ordinance of Chriſt, and let him confute them. I cannot avoyd it, but I muſt touch divers things that have been touched before, but what I doe, ſhall be very briefe.

1. If ſinging of Pſalmes were an Ordinance under the Old p. 32Teſtament, and not repealed in the New Teſtament [being not Typicall, or Ceremoniall, &c.] then it is alſo an Ordinance under the New Teſtament.

But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Conſequent is true.

For the Antecedent, that it was an ordinance then, the Adverſaries deny not, and as other ordinances, which then were in uſe, and not repealed (as Prayer, Preaching, &c.) are ordinances now under the New Teſtament, why ſhould not ſinging of Pſalmes alſo be continued an ordinance ſtill?

They object, Singing of Pſalmes with the voyce, is but a type of ſinging Pſalmes with the heart.

I anſwer; If indeed it were typicall, then it were ſome ground to beleeve it was repealed; we read your Dictates, but we read no proofes, give us your texts to prove it was typicall, elſe your Dictates will not take with us; That which makes me ſtrongly to beleeve the contrary is this, That Paul, and Silas, when none but they were in the Priſon, yet they ſang, Act. 16.25. now this was ill done of them, if it were Typicall, yet to keep it in practiſe, when they were alone, however in other points and Ceremonies the Apoſtles did condeſcend as farre as they could to the Jewes, Epia. 19.giving the Ceremonies (being now dead) as Auguſtine ſaith, an honourable buriall, yet that Paul and Silas being now alone without Jewes, having no ſuch temptation, but may keep their liberty, ſhould practiſe a Typicall ordinance, beleeve it who will, for I cannot. When I had framed my anſwer, looking into Mr. Cotton, I perceived that he mentions this of their ſinging in anſwer to this Cavill, P. 24.and giveth more anſwers, whither I referre the Reader.

2 The ſecond ground that moves me is the expreſſe Scripture, Epheſ. 5.19. & Col. 3.16. ſpeaking one to another in Pſalmes, foreign i.e. foreign ſaith Beza, as the word is uſed, Epheſ. 4. ult. foreign forgiving one another; ſo in Col. 3. foreign our Tranſtation there renders it, one another: Loquentes inter vos mutuò, Beza, ſo Piſcator, ſo Zanchy: When drunkards are full of wine, then they begin to ſing their Songs, ſaith he; ſo Chriſtians filled with this wine, have theſe Spirituall Songs, Pſalmes, &c. to ſing; for the difference between theſe, ſee our Engliſh Annotations, or Hiero. in Loc.

Severall Objections are here made, which I ſhall not ſtudy to anſwer, only in a word.

p. 331 They ſay, The text doth not ſay, ſing one to another, but ſpeake one to another; the Pſalmes dwelling in their hearts, they were to diſpenſe them in way of teaching; but as for ſinging, he maketh no mention of that untill he came to teach them, the manner of diſpenſing the Word of Chriſt [a darke expreſſion] unto God in the end of the verſe, and that is making melody in the heart.

Maſter Cotton anſwers with a grave reproofe; That men ſhould rather bow their judgements and practiſes to Scripture Language, then bow the ſence of the Scripture to their owne conceptions againſt the Language of the Scripture; for ſaith he, it is one thing to ſpeake one to another in Pſalmes, and Hymnes, and ſpirituall Songs, as is done in ſinging, and another thing to teach one another out of Pſalms, &c. It is true, they were to teach one another out of the Pſalmes, and the ſcope of Paul will reach that; but if he had meant only ſo, he would not have ſaid, Speake yee one to another, In Pſalmes, but Out of the Pſalmes, as is the Scripture phraſe, &c.

2 To me it ſeemeth ſtrange, if that were all Pauls meaning, why ſhould Paul mention only thoſe parts of the Word which uſe to be ſung? Why doth he not mention the Prophets, Iſaiah, &c. as alſo the New Teſtament, to teach one another out of them? Are there not as excellent Truths, gracious Promiſes, to be found in thoſe Prophets, and worthy for Chriſtians to be inſtructed in, as in the Pſalmes, or other Songs that we finde of Moſes, Deborah, &c? but for Iſaiah, Jeremiah, and all thoſe Prophets, beſides other parts of the Old and New Teſtament, they were never wont to be ſung in the Church, but only theſe which Paul mentions in both places, not adding any portion of Scripture more in the Epiſt. to the Coloſſians, then to the Epheſians, therefore I cannot beleeve that ſhould be the meaning, as the Objector ſaith.

3 The Apoſtle mentions ſinging we ſee preſently, now if any thing can be made out of what the Objector ſaith, it may poſſibly be this; That Paul would have them teach one another the ſence and ſcope of a Pſalme, that all may underſtand the meaning of the Pſalme they ſing [as is the practiſe of ſome Miniſters, if they be to ſing a Pſalme that is more darke, then in a few words they give the people to underſtand the meaning of the Pſalme they ſing] and ſo ſing with underſtanding, 1 Cor. 14, 15. I ſay, Why may not this be ſomething of the meaning? I leave p. 34it to more able heads to judge. But this doth not exclude ſinging

But whereas he conceives ſinging ſhould be only the making melody in the heart, Hieron, in Coloſ. 3. Nuſquam legimus aliquem ſine voce cantaſſe, unde neceſse eſt hic, in corde, ex corde, intelligi, &c.Col 3I pray let him heare what an old Commentator ſaid long agoe, upon the words; We read no where that any one ſung without a voyce, wherefore it is neceſſary that in the Heart here, he underſtood from the Heart. viz. That we ſing not only with the mouth, but with the heart, So Beza, In your heart, i. e. Serio cordis affectu, non autem linguâ duntaxat, neque enim in corde idem hic declarat atque intus & apud ſe, cum mentio fiat canendi in caetu. So other Divines, as Calvin, Zanchy, &c. whom I forbeare to name.

The ſame text alſo affords a good ground for ſinging Davids Pſalmes, with other ſpirituall Songs recorded in Scripture; or elſe I deſire them to give me a reaſon, why Paul ſhould direct us to the very Titles of Davids Pſalmes, and yet not meane Davids Pſalmes, any one that hath the leaſt taſte of the Hebrew Language knowes this. Some of them are called foreign Pſalms, the word foreign is uſed about forty times in Davids Pſalmes, I doe not ſtand upon the exact number. foreign Hymnes, the Book of Davids Pſalmes is named by this word foreign ſo foreign Spirituall Songs, See Buxto. Concord. Exod. 15.Exod 15this is frequent in Davids Pſalms; alſo Deborah uſeth this word, Judg. 5.12. ſo now it ſeemes ſtrange that Paul ſhould point us to theſe, and yet we muſt not ſing them, which were ſung before.

The third ground that moves me, is the example I finde in the New Teſtament, of Chriſt himſelfe, with his Apoſtles, Matth. 26.30. they ſung a Hymne; he did not ſing it between the Paſſeover and the inſtitution of the Supper, as being a Typicall thing, and ſo let it be joyned to the Paſſeover, as the Jewes did; but after he had inſtituted that Ordinance, which muſt laſt to the end of the world, and they received the Bread and Wine, then he and they ſung, as ſome conceive ſix Pſalmes, Beza in Loc.beginning at 112. to 117. whence it is the practiſe of Churches, following the patterne, to ſing after the receiving of the Supper.

So the example of Paul and Silas, Act. 16, 25. foreign Hymnos canebant Deo, ſaith Beza, or Hymnis laudabant Deum, Piſcator, and Paſor, they praiſed God with Hymnes; that which ſome object, the text ſaith, they ſang praiſes, not Pſalmes; this is very poore, beſides the originall word, how ſhould one ſing praiſes to God but in ſome Pſalme, ſpirituall Sons, &c. for Praiſe, if p. 35you take it properly as diſtinct from honour and glory, is but the honourable making mention of another, and that externally by tongue or pen; alſo that text, Heb. 13.15. by him therefore let us offer the ſacrifice of praiſe to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, &c. intimates as much.

And this text over-throws that conceit of ſinging only in the heart, which one that was a member of the Church of Rowly in New England had taken up, and upon that ground, and ſome other notions he had, denied ſinging, and maintained (as well as he could) that ſinging of Pſalmes was no Ordinance of God. I doe not know how this mans opinion came to be knowne, for had he kept his owne counſell, I ſuppoſe none ſhould much have taken notice of him, which makes me thinke it was of his owne venting at firſt; our Elders laboured with him to convince him (the Elders of Ipſwich, beſides his owne Paſtor) this text was alledged to prove ſinging with an Audible voyce, for they ſang, and the Priſoners heard him: yet this man could not [or rather would not, for the thing is plaine as any one may underſtand] be convinced of the thing; the man after long labouring with him, but to no purpoſe, for he was tenacious in his owne opinion, and as Hieron. ſaid of Jovinianus, Non eſt contentus noſtro, i. e. humano more loqui, altius quiddam aggreditur; High flowne in his notions. The Elders ſeeing that obſtinacy was joyned to his errour, they concluded, that either they muſt caſt that Ordinance out of the Church, or elſe caſt him out of the Church, and ſo the Church of Rowley did caſt him out. I know they have been cenſured for this Act by ſome here, but at the Day of Judgement they will give as comfortable an account for maintaining of the Ordinances of Chriſt, as they ſhall doe, who through their maxime of errours in Non-fundamentalls, make way to looſe all the Ordinances, and then where is the Church?

From this example of Paul and Silas we may argue, if two may ſing Hymnes or Pſalmes together, then foure may, ſo forty, the number hinders not, for the voyces here of many are no hinderance to the Ordinance, but rather they help to ſtirre up the affections one of another; as in thoſe, who are filled with wine, two ſinging together, or foure, doe not hinder their conceited mirth. So Chriſt and his eleven Apoſtles ſang together.

Whether will theſe men allow one Chriſtian to ſing a Pſalme p. 36alone by himſelfe, methinkes the texts and examples mentioned, together with Jam. 5.13. Is any man merry, foreign let him ſing Pſalmes, are ſo plaine, as no rationall man can deny it; But if one may, then the Church may. There is no act of Worſhip which any member of the Church is bound to performe, but the Church is bound to performe; but on the contrary it is not true, that what worſhip the Church doth performe, a member of Church can, or may; for inſtance for the firſt part, Meditation needs no Organ of the body, and therefore I leave that. But doth a Member of the Church Pray, ſo doth the whole Church: doth he read the Scriptures? ſo they are read in the Church; doth he faſt and pray? ſo doth the Church; doth he ſing a Pſalme? ſo doth the Church; but it is not true on the contrary, as appeares in the Sacraments, Preaching, Diſcipline, &c. Neither is that place, Revel. 15.2, 3. of ſmall force, to prove ſinging to be an Ordinance, Expoſit. Hoſ. 2.15. p. 525.Hos 2:15Thoſe who overcame the Beaſt, ſung the Song of Moſes; This ſaith Mr. Burroughs I note, becauſe hereby we may ſee that ſinging is an Ordinance in the Church of God, not only in the time of the Law, but in the time of the Goſpel, &c. he was ſpeaking of the text before.

4 The fourth ground that moves me is this [I know not how it will take with others, but with me it is ſomething] Pſal 92. The title ſaith, it is a Pſalme, or Song for the day of Sabbath; it is cleare, that one way of ſanctification of the Sabbath was by ſinging of Pſalmes; two of the words that Paul uſes in Epheſ. 5.19. are in this Title foreign Pſalme, Spirituall Songs; will any ſay, this Pſalme was only for thoſe times, but now is aboliſhed with the Jewiſh Sabbath? what, is that admirable promiſe, in the thirteenth, and fourteenth verſes vaniſhed, and of no uſe to us? Should not Chriſtians apply it, and plead it now, when as they are planted in Gods houſe, and attending on him on our Chriſtian Sabbath? have not we as much need of the Promiſe as they? this with me hath much prevailed; if we owne a Chriſtian Sabbath, ſinging of Pſalmes may well be owned alſo for an Ordinance of God now, as well as then.

5 The fifth is the preſence of the Spirit of God with his people in the uſe of this Ordinance; for the proofe of what I ſay, let thouſands of Gods people ſpeake, if they have not found God in the Ordinance; I will not goe ſo farre as Auguſtin, p. 37but our Fathers, Confeſ. l. 9 c. 6. & l. 10. c. 33.who uſed it in their families more then ſome of us doe, I am ſure they found God, and ſo have many now in theſe dayes; thoſe who have not found God in it, they may cavill indeed, but let them be rather humbled, that God hath not given them, what others have taſted; thoſe who doe frequently finde God in this Ordinance, they will not ſo ſlightly, and ſcornfully ſpeake of it, as that Sectary did to me; but if God had uſually manifeſted his preſence with his Churches under the Old and New Teſtament, in the uſing of this Ordinance, this with the former Scriptures alledged prevaile with me, to beleeve it is a Goſpel ordinance ſtill.

6 The laſt ground that moves me, is the practiſe of the Primitive Churches: Antiquity after Scripture is as a Cypher after a Figure, and doth increaſe the number; that ſinging was frequent among thoſe Chriſtians I finde it recorded.

1 Euſebius reporteth out of Philo, the Lives, manners, &c. of the religious men in Aegypt; Marke being ſent into Aegypt, Eccleſ. hiſt. lib. 2. c. 17as ſaith the ſtory, to preach Chriſt, he there converted many, whoſe converſation (as I ſaid) Philo Judaeus, a very learned man at that time, ſets forth in commendation of the Chriſtians: Hierom alſo relates this out of Philo Orationi vacatur & Pſalmis. Catal. ſcript. Eccleſiaſt.among other things this he reporteth; They contemplate not only Divine things, but they make grave Canticles, and Hymnes unto God, in a more ſacred rime of every kind of meeter and verſe. This Philo (a Hebrew) flouriſhed about the yeare forty, being ſent of an Embaſſage to Caius Caligula about that time; ſo then this was their practiſe in the Apoſtles times, Philo muſt needs be borne, and well growne in Chriſts time.

2 For Tertullian, Mine in Paris print, anno 1580.there are two Teſtimonies brought out of him for ſinging of Pſalmes, the one is out of Apol. c. 2. the Letter which Plinius Secundus wrote to Trajan in behalfe of the Church, where he mentions the practiſe; the other is out of Cap. 39. Apol. ſhewing the Diſcipline of the Chriſtians, and there it is mentioned; but I finde two other places in him beſides theſe as cleare as thoſe; one is, l. 2. ad uxorem, having ſpoken ſtrongly againſt Chriſtians marrying with Infidels, he ſhewes the contrary, how good it is for Chriſtians to marry with Chriſtians, and among other things this he mentions; Sonant inter Duos Pſalmi & Hymni, & mutuò provocant quis melius Deo ſua canet; but moſt cleare is that place, Cap. 3. De Animâ, as for his opinion De effigie animae, I leave that; but there he makes p. 38mention of a Siſter of their Church, who had the gifts of Revelations, which it ſeemes ſhee had in the Church on the Lords Day, As the Scriptures are read, or Pſalmes are ſung, he reckons up other Ordinances, Prayer, &c. then matter for viſions were adminiſtred, &c. Now this is moſt cleare, it was in the Congregation, for when the people were gone (exerciſes being finiſhed) then it ſeems ſhe was wont to tell (the officers I ſuppoſe he means) what revelations ſhe had, which they noted exactly. Tertullian then is ſo plaine and full for this practiſe, that none can doubt whether the Churches uſed this Ordinance or no.