JERUBBAAL. OR, A Vindication of the Sober Testimony against Sinful Compliance, from the Exceptions of Mr. Tombs, in Answer to his THEODULIA.  
Wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, is more largely discussed, and proved. The Arguments produced in the Sober Testimony, reinforced: The Vanity of Mr. Tombs his Reply thereunto, evinced: His forty Arguments for Hearing, fully answered. The Inconsistency of Mr. T. his present Principles and Practices, with passages in his former Writings, remarked; and manifested, in an Appendix hereunto annexed.  Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death, whilst it is yet morning: If he be a God let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his Altar. Judg. 6. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gal. 2. 18. Nulla potest lingua satis exprimere, quantum malum, quantum peri●ulum, quantum confusionem, sacrae Scripturae contemp●us quae p●ocul dubio sufficiens est, pro Ecclesiae gubernation, alias Christus imperfectus Legislator esset) Et humanorum inventorum affectatio, in Ecclesiam invexit. Ad hujus rei evidentiam, consideretur clari status, cui sapientia coelestis, desponsari debuit: sua cum me etrice ilia, sapientia humana adulteriam commiserunt illi: si ut status Ecclesiae mere bestialis, & monstrosus evase●it: infra coelum, supra vero terra, subest Spiritus, dominatur caro, etc. non erubescunt tamen quidam dicere humanis inventionibus melius Ecclesiam gubernari, quam Lege Divina, & Lege Evangelii Christi quae assertio blasphema est, &c, Johannes Gerson, Se●. in die Circumcis. p. 3. consider. 1. 
London, Printed in the Year, 1668.   

An ANSWER to the Epistolary Preface of Mr. Tombs his Theodulia.  
To the Christian Readers, especially those who by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.  
Dear Beloved,  
'tIs now some five years since, 〈◊〉 little Treatise, called A Sober Testimony against Sinful Compliance, was for my own (and some few Christians of my intimate acquaintance) use and further information in the grand Controversy of the Time (viz. the Hearing of the present Ministers of England) compiled, and about two years after, upon the earnest request of some Friends (whom I could not deny) published; for the satisfaction, and further establishment of others also. What the success, by the blessing of the Lord, of that undertaking was, with the acceptance it had with many truly fearing God, I list not now to declare. Not long after its publication, (without any enquiry of mine) I had frequent intimations of an Answer, by some one or other thereunto (which by several it seems was deemed necessary.) I confess, being in my own spirit assured, I had pleaded for nothing but what (in the substance of it) would be found to be the Truth of Christ; I was not over-solicitous into whose hands that undertaking would be committed. When I heard (not long after) that the party (whose Exceptions thereunto, we have in the ensuing Treatise considered) had undertaken the refutation thereof, I was not a little well-pleased, (since an opposition thereunto was deemed necessary) that it fell into such a hand. For although I had frequent intimations of that sad frame of spirit he hath of late been under (and from some Tractulates lately published by him, had some ground to believe it:) yet was I unwilling to entertain any evil surmise concerning him (which I knew to be a fruit of the flesh) or to give way (without most evident proof) to the belief of the suggestion intimated. Two things I did assure myself of; 1. That he would deal like a Scholar, in the management of the present Controversy, candidly and fairly, for the bolting-out of Truth (as he phraseologiseth p. 1.) Nor could it enter into my mind, that a person of such Learning as Mr. Tombs would be accounted to be, in stead of a fair and sober Answer, should have turned aside by Cobweblike and unnecessary distinctions, like the obs and sols of the Schoolmen, of which it may be said, as one 
† Prudent. Apothe. of some of the Ancient Philosophers.  of old-spake of others, 

Statum lacessunt omnipotentis Dei,  
Calumniosis litibus.  
Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus,  
Ut quisque est lingua nequior.  
Solvant, ligantque quaestionum vincula,  
Per Syllogismos plectiles.   to the clouding and obscuring, of what was plain and obvious to the understanding of the meanest capacity, and the perverting the intendment of his Antagonist, nakedly represented to a meaning never intended by him: as not once (that he might seem to say somewhat) he hath done; setting up a man of straw of his own fo●ming, to spend the heat of his misguided zeal upon. 2dly, I supposed also, that a man of that repute in days past, for Sobriety (to which he is still no mean pretender) and Holiness as Mr. T. would never have defiled himself with the vomit and shameful spewing of passionate and most unchristian expressions (worse than which, had he been disputing with the Devil, if he would have taken a measure of modesty from the Archangel, he could not have made use of) he is frequently venting and disgorging against his Adversary. The review whereof, I am assured, will not be over-pleasing to him, if his heart be but in the least fixed upon that frame of spirit in which our services for God (of which he deems his present undertaking to be a part) should be managed. He hath sure read (and I wish he would lay it to his very heart) Jam. 1. 20. that the wrath of man worketh not the Righteousness of God; and 2 Tim. 2. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which Lud. de Dieu and others interpret de verborum, as well as verberum pugna, of tongue-strifes, and contentions, and is by some rendered to scold) as also Tit. 1. 7. from the guilt whereof I know not how he will acquit himself. He talks indeed of Billingsgate Rhetoric, used by others, p. 16. and expects, he saith in his Epistle to the then Lord Chancellor, no other event than Obloquy from persons of the mind of this Author. For my part I am not conscious to myself of giving the least occasion of such expressions from this Animadverter, not remembering what one sentence throughout the whole Treatise, doth justly deserve such a castigation; and am resolved not to return him the same measure he is pleased to meet out, not liking the Copy so well as to write after it. So that  he meets with from others, I assure him, how grateful soever it may be unto him, upon some accounts (which may make him expect it as he speaks) he shall miss of the returnal of Obloquy; for Obloquy & those wrathful & passionate expressions he is frequently venting in the Papers under consideration. Through Grace we have otherwise learned Christ, and can say touching this Animadverter, as Calvin touching Luther, Though Luther call me Dog, etc. yet I will say of him, he is (I hope) the Servant of Jesus Christ. Though I must crave leave to add, that these Animadversions of his will be no joy of heart to him in the day of the Lord, when all our works shall be tried by fire of what sort they are, because they will be found hay and stubble in that day; 'Tis an Argument Mr. T. is an utter stranger to the Author of S. T. else he would never have expected such a returnal from him. In sect. 1. of this Preface he inveighs against Prefaces and expressions which tend to create prejudice, and partial propensity to one part more than to another, which he would have prohibited and restrained severely. In which that I am not in the least concerned, I must profess myself to be wholly a stranger not being conscious to myself of any such Preface, or expression used by me, and do hearty wish that all such might be forborn that have a tendency to forestall the judgement of any; being desirous that what I writ, may be impartially and candidly weighed in the Balance of the Sanctuary, where if it be not found weight, I desire it may be rejected, not having (as I know of) espoused any private opinion, nor embraced what, upon Scriptural evidence to the contrary, I cannot more cheerfully lay down, than ever I assumed it: And am so far from such a temper of spirit, as to return any that shall labour to convince me of my mistakes (for I am a man, and subject to them) obloquy for their love and pains, that I shall thankfully acknowledge both, in such a Christian undertaking, and profess myself their debtor. With what severity, or under what penalty Mr. T. would have such procedures interdicted and restrained, and who shall be constituted of the Committee of Tryers touching expressions and prefaces of such a tendency, because he hath not expressed himself, I cannot divine: I hope he is not sanguinary in this dictate, and desire! There are (I presume he thinks) Laws enough, by penalties sufficiently severe, interdicting the writing and preaching of the men of his seeming indignation, and he hath more pity to persons under heavy strokes and burdens, than to have them increased. If it be (as he intimates towards the close of this his Epistolary Preface) the Epistle to the Reader, prefixed to the S. T. he thus inveighs against, as guilty of the wretched design mentioned, he knows there is nothing therein new, nothing but what is usually done by persons writing lesser Tractates; nothing to forestall the judgement of any is thereby intended. And some think that this Animadverter is in this matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doing more in a few lines to ballast the Reader to his persuasion, th●n the Author of the S. T. hath done in his whole Epistle.  Qui alterum incusat probri ipfum se intueri oportet. 
Towards the end of sect. 1. he intimates, and sect. 2. plainly expresses, that some personal exceptions have been entertained against him, and such averseness to his later Writings found in the spirits of a great number of those that seem to be inquisitive after Truth, that they have not found such reception as such Arguments were deemed to require, which he attributes to his writing about a point that few can concoct. That this is the ground of their prejudice (many of them) who are persons of the complexion intimated, is a mistake of the Animadverter, which a little enquiry might easily deliver him from. My small acquainrance amongst such, as do not only seem (as Mr. Tombs out of the abundance of that charity, which he frequently condemns ●is Antagonist for the want of, speaks) but are really inquisitive into Truth, gives me ground to say, That not those (for the most part) who cannot, but such as have well concocted the point he mentions, which, if I mistake not, is the Baptism of Believers, upon a manifestation and declaration of Faith received, are the persons (chief) of the prejudices intimated. And 'twere well if the non-reception of his late Writings, amongst persons of such a denomination as he speaks of, did put him upon a review of them, the frame of spirit in which he writ them, together with the temper of his spirit and actions in days past, that he may see from whence he hath fallen, and repent. I am very apt to think that the present undertaking of the Animadverter, is not like to meet with better entertainment, than the , amongst persons inquisitive into Truth: Especially considering, how opposite to former say of his, this undertaking of his is. The Tables are easily to be consulted with; where, in legible characters, the mind of Mr. Tombs (in his Book entitled, Fermentum Pharisaeorum, being a Sermon preached at Lemster in Herefordshire Novemb. 24. 1641. on Mat. 15. 19 ordered by the Committee of the House of Commons, April 19 1643. to be printed, when Reformation began to be countenanced) is to be read, contrary to what now he seems to plead for. Hear him speak. Having in pag. 17, 18. in his third use of his Doctrine raised from the words, viz. That however they think of their actions, they in vain worship God who teach for doctrines Man's precepts. P. 2. S. 2. He takes occasion to admonish Ministers to avoid the way of those Pharisees who taught for Doctrine man's Precepts, and pithily expostulates the case with them, Sect. 14. And P. 18. Sect. 15. he saith, 4ly. From hence we may take occasion to admonish the people, to take heed of such Pharisaical Teachers, as teach for Doctrine the Commandments of men. Our Saviour Christ having manifested the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees in this thing, bids his Disciples l●t them alone, telling them that they were blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch, Mat. 15. 14. And elsewhere, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy; Lake 12. 1. And surely people have need to take heed of such Teachers, sigh Superstition, as it is a pernicious evil, so it easily insinuates into people's minds, and sticks fast in them under show of Antiquity, Decency and Gravity. I know this will be interpreted as if it were a heinous thing, to persuade people to withdraw themselves from the Ministers of their Parish, though never so negligent or corrupt. But let Bishop Bilson answer for me. Primo populus ipse deficiente Magistratu Christiano deserere falsos, et improbos pastores jure divino potest, coercere vero minime. Declinare, et derelinquere eos possunt, cogere, aut pnnire non possunt. Vis & vindicta gladio alligatae, extra privatorum sortem, ac caetum collocata sunt. Unde Paulus, Rom. 16. observate eos qui dissidia, & scandala contra doctrinam quam edocti estis, faciunt, & declinare ab iis. Oves meae, inquit Dominus noster, vocem meam audiunt, & sequuntur me. Alienum autem nequaquam sequentur, sed fugient ab eo. Idem Cyprianus & reliqui Episcopi consulti rescripserunt Epistl. 1. ep. 4. Soperemini inquit Dominus a taberuaculis hominum istorum durissimorum, & nolite tangere ea, qua ad eos pertinent, ne simul pereat is in peccatis eorum. Propter quod plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini, & Deum meturus, à peccato praepofitó seperare se debet, nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia misare quando ipsa (defectu sidelis Magistratus) maxim habeat potestatem, vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel recusandi indignos. Thus far he in open defiance of his present undertaking. But to proceed in Sect. 2. and afterwards, we have an account, notwithstanding his late discouragement in writing, why he still follows that employment, and in particular, of his engaging in the confutation of the Treatise under consideration, which may be reduced to these heads.  
1. The expectation of h●● giving account of the Talents, committed to him by h●s ●ord and Master, which being restrained from public preaching, he thinks he ought to make use of this way.  
Answ. That a strict account must be given to the Lord for the improvement of Talents received, is undeniable. The Parable, Mat. 25. 14 to 31. ev●nceth as much. The consideration whereof should quicken us to our duty: the most exact and diligent performance of it imaginable, that we have not at the last the most direful judgement of the wicked and slothful Servant, ver. 26, 28, 30. past upon us. But every use of our Talon is not a faithful improvement of it for God: Wisdom, parts, etc. are Talents given by him: many have used them against him; and smitten him (if I may so say) with his own weapons; nor had they been in a capacity of doing so much against him▪ had they not received so much from him. Whether Mr. T. hath in his present undertaking been improving his Talon according to the mind of Christ, I humbly beg him in his more retired thoughts to consider. That none can so improve their Talents without the blessed supplies of the Spirit of Christ, this Animadverter will not deny: 'Tis impossible any duty or service should be accepted of God, without these. 'Tis one end for which he is sent from the Father and the Son, to in-dwell in the hearts of Believers to enable them hereunto, Rom. 8. 26. How little of the Spirit of the Lord in those Magisterial and Dictatorlike expressions, (manifesting too much of a spirit of pride and self-ful●ess, with an horrible contempt of what is opposite to the mind of this Animadv.) together with those reproachful, biting, passionate words, that without any just cause given, do ever and anon drop from him, he will upon a review be able to discern, I am not able to foresee? We are ●oo apt to judge partially in our own causes, and of our own actions; but the day will declare it. Should I muster up the many expressions of this nature, scattered almost from the one end of this Book to ●he other, and represent them at once, possibly it might somewhat startle this Animadverter of his being restrained from public preaching; I have nothing to say but only this, That if Mr. Tombs supposeth himself to be called forth by the Lord to the work of preaching the Gospel, I see not now (at least whilst not under corporal restraint) he can answer the obligation is upon him, by such a call, by a total neglect of that duty, either publicly or privately, notwithstanding the interdiction of any. Our retreat in such cases to the old Apostolical Maxim, Act. 5. 29. Whether it be lawful to obey God or man, judge ye? being suitable and warrantable. Nor is it I believe justifiable, to improve Talents given in one work or duty with the neglect of another, to which we are as equally obliged by the reception of them. He adds, as a second Reason of this undertaking, his meeting with the Book under consideration, and another, entitled, Prelatical Preachers none of Christ's Teachers, which manifesting that the seeds of most rigid Separation were sown, and spread themselves amongst many, out of the greatness of his love, and design to do them good, and for the public peace of the Nation he conceived himself bound to pluck up such roots of bitterness; and the rather, because some that had known him to be for Believers Baptism, have been ready to think him for Separation also. Answ. That he met with the Book under consideration I readily yield him, being informed that in some heat of spirit, about two years before the publishing his Theodulia, he threatened the Refutation thereof. But that the seeds of Separation are roots of bitterness, is as warmly said as weakly proved, in his following Treatise. The word (though it sounds ill in the ears of the world) is of a middle signification, denoting neither that which is evil nor good in itself (as Mr. T. well knows) A twofold Separation we read of in the Scripture. 1. A wicked and unlawful Separation, which is a causeless departure from the People and Appointments of Christ, as not able to bear their spirituality, strictness, purity, and glory, in contempt of Christ's Institution, and merely for the satisfying their lusts, Judas 19 This is the Separation that is condemned in the Scripture. Do either of the Tracts mentioned, undertake the defence or vindication of it? Are there not Principles laid down, and asserted therein, wholly opposite hereunto? 2dly. A warrantable lawful Separation enjoined by Jesus Christ, which is a peaceable departure from a Church (or People) not rightly constituted according to the mind of Christ, the pattern exhibited by him, or degenerated therefrom, beyond a possibility of recovering their first state, purely for the enjoyment of the Ordinances of God in power and purity. This is the Separation (no other) pleaded for in the Papers mentioned. Which ●●ch poor worms as we are apt to think there is ground enough in the Scriptures for. 1. 'Tis of old prophesied of, Num. 23. 9 Isa. 52. 11, 12. & 62. 10. 2dly. Commanded by the Lord, Prov. 4. 14. & 9 6. & 14. 7. Eph. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Act. 2. 39 Psa. 45. 10. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Rev. 18. 4. 3dly. Practised by the Saints (not to mention them of old, Gen. 4. 26.) Exod. 19 5. Deut. 7. 6. & 33. 28. Numb. 33. 52. Exod. 24. 12, 15. John 15. 19 Rev. 19 7, 8, 9 which the Epistles of the Apostles to the Churches justify, who writ to them as Saints separated from the World, and the Worship thereof. What the Animadverter hath done, in order to the plucking up the seeds of this Separation, is afterwards considered. He that is successful in such an undertaking (o● desires to be so), had need do more than ●ent his passion in some biting satirical expressions, against the men of his contest, or dictate to them as if Wisdom only rested with him, and all others were to hang on his lips for Indoctrination: whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without control were to be submitted▪ But Christ's School knows no such Rabbi besides himself. If a man seriously intent to pluck up the roots of this Separation he must (I humbly conceive) do these five things. 1. Manifest that the terminus a quo, or that from which any separate, i● of the Institution of Christ: because to separate from that which is not so, is nowhere (that I know of) in the Scripture condemned as sinful, but enjoined us as our duty. To pursue us with outcries, that we are Separatists and Schismatics, because we have separated from the Church of England, without any tender of proof that it was ever rightly constituted according to the mind of Christ, is but (in my poor judgement) to do as he, 
— Caput altum in praelia tollit,  
Ostendit que humeros latos, alternaque jactat,  
Brachia, protendens & verberat ict. bus auras,  but beat the Air. 2dly, That the Church (on People separated from, if ever of the Institution of Christ, are not so degenerated and apostatised from what it was at first, that 'tis now qui●● another th●ng, retaining little, besides the name and shadow, o● a church; so dreadfully corrupted and fallen, that the ends of Gospel-communion cannot be attained, nor enjoyed in it; nor is it in ●n utter impossibility of recovering to its pristine state of Gospel-order and purity. A departure from such a collapsed Church, being abundantly warranted in Scripture, enjoined to Saints as their duty. The Church of Rome was once a pure Church, of the Institution of Christ; whilst it abode so, it was (ordinarily) the duty of its Members to continue in the communion thereof; but when once it apostatised, and so irrecoverably fell, as that there remained no probability or possibility of its recovery and healing, it became the duty of the Saints concerned in its Communion, to separate from her, according to Rev. 18. 4. 3dly, That those against whom this Charge is laid, be proved once regularly to belong to that Church, (which, whatsoever is pretended by this Animadverter, none can do but by their voluntary consent) from which they are supposed to separate. For sure it will not be pleaded, that a man is 〈◊〉 a Separatist from that Church, true or false, to which he had no union or relation, as a visible Member thereof. For any one to have joined to the Church of Sardis, could not (as I conceive) be adjudged separation from the Church of Ephesus, supposing he never was by his own free consent a member of the Ephesins. Church. Now this is the case of most of the Members of the Congregated Churches; they were never by their own voluntary consent, Members of the Church of England, and therefore cannot justly be charged with sinful separation from it. 4thly. That the means or way of Separation, Secession, or departure be unwarrantable. I conceive the Animadverter is of that opinion, that it is lawful, under some circumstances, to departed from the visible Communion of a true Church of Christ, without being guilty of such rigid Separation. If he judge the Church of England to be a true Church; and the Parish-Churches thereof as such; it's possible to leave the outward Communion of the one, and the other, without being guilty of sinful Separation: otherwise Mr. T. will make more Separatists than he is ware of; every one removing out of one Parish to dwell in another, and joining with the same numerical Ordinances there; that goes out of the Nation and joins with the Church, suppose in France or Bohemia being so. 5thly, He had need also prove that their Separation be not for this end, to enjoy the Ordinances of God in power and purity, but merely for the satisfying their lusts; no other Separation being condemned in the Scripture. Till this be done, the discharging of many volleys of hard and lofty expressions, of gathering Churches out of Churches, being Schismatics, Separatists, etc. will be very insignificant to the Judicious: however they may affright the the weak from closing with that way (though of God) which is with much obloquy declaimed against by persons of Mr. T. his learning and sobriety. But he hath not yet done, he thinks himself obliged to pluck up these roots of bitterness, out of his great respect to the public peace. An unhandsome insinuation, to say no more; secretly accusing those, that are for the principles in the aforesaid Tracts (which he cannot but know many truly fearing God in the Nation are) as the disturbers of the Peace of the Nation, thereby rendering them odious to the Rulers thereof; and himself lovely,  Gallinae Filius albae. 
But Sir, what are the Seeds sown in those Treatises that do endanger the disturbance of the peace of the Nations? If he conceive that an Uniformity of Worship is necessary for the preservation of the Nations peace; and somewhat opposite to this Uniformity, being asserted in them, they are destructive thereof, he knows he hath more Antagonists than one in that Assertion: and who they are that have asserted, and proved, that the ground of the late Confusions, and Garments rolled in Blood, was not discrepamy in Worship, but the rigid pressing of Conformity. Nor is he a stranger to this, That the peace of the Nations abroad is preserved, where Uniformity is not pressed, and hath been at home in the days of the greatest Toleration, and therefore no reason but it may be here again. If he mean that the spirits of his Antagonists, and such like, are against the Peace of the Nation, he deals injuriously, none being more for Peace upon the most righteous and lasting foundations, than they; which will be (and not till then) whatever the contrivements and attempts of men are, when the Interest of Nations is laid in a subserviency to the true Interest and Kingdom of Christ, which we are praying for, that the time ●ay come in which those Prophecies shall have their full accomplishment, Isa. 2. 4. Mic. 4. 3, 4. In the mean while we are not a little comforted, that thus persecuted they the Prophets; Elijah was the troubler of Israel, so was Jeremy: Christ, he was an enemy to Caesar, likely enough to assume the Government; and he is no friend to Caesar that goes about to preserve his life: the Apostles, who were men that turned the world up side down. This smiting his fellow-servants, will one day be no joy of heart to him to think of.  
He tells us, thirdly, He was hereunto provoked by the direful imputation of serving the Image of the Beast, which the Title chargeth upon the hearing the present Ministers.  
Answ. But, 1. why should this provoke him, when he tells us pag. 7. that the Book, so far as he can learn, hath been dispersed (chief if not only) amongst persons, who were not able to examine what is said by Fathers, Councils, Schoolmen, who, 'tis more than probable, thought that the English Title was all that was signified by the Greek one, till Mr. T. explained it to them. 2dly, What I mean by the Image of the Beast, I intimate, p. 53. of S. T. where are these words, They make an Image to the Beast, Rev. 13. 14, 15. i. e. erect an Ecclesiastical state of Government, in a proportionableness to, and resemblance of the Civil State. This Ecclesiastical state of Government, I assert to be the Image of the Beast; by worshipping it, I mean no more, than subjecting, bowing down to, or owning of this Ecclesiastical-State, which is no such direful expression, amounting only to thus much, A Christian Testimony against such as own, subject to, are partakers with, the Ecclesiastical State, and Government of the Church of England. That there are some that do so, Mr. T. will not deny; nor can he, that the Government of the Church is laid in a proportionableness to, and resemblance of the Civil-State: which I apprehending to be an evil, 'tis much to me a man of Mr. T. his sobriety should be offended at my bearing a Christian Testimony against it, or interpret so sober a Title to be a direful imputation, etc. I think not what he pleads for in the Treatise under consideration, to be Theodulia, or the Worship of God, but am not provoked he so styles his Book, because he thinks it is so; yet have I as just cause to be offended thereat, as he hath by the Title of the S. T. given him to be provoked.  
Another stone of Offence in Mr. T. his way is, That there are direful Predictions in the Epistle against hearing the present Ministers of England, as if likely to meet with the same Judgements in the day of God's wrath with the Antichristian Beast, and seeming commiseration of such as join in Communion with the public Church-Assemblies.  
Answ. And I am sorry these things are provoking to him: Can he not hear sin condemned, and the warning of God against sinners given forth in Scriptural expressions from the Prophecies thereof, but his spirit must rise against them? He will one day know that another frame of spirit had better become him, and would have conduced more to his true peace, comfort and interest, than that which was upon him under the reading those Scriptural Predictions; for such are those mentioned in the Epistle, though, as Mr. T. speaks, one would rather think them to be some Enthusiastical dreams, than the Warnings of the Lord in the Scriptures, sounded forth by an unworthy dust. Commiseration he also discerns in those lines, but understanding the hearts of the Children of men, he can roundly pronounce of it, Audacter satis, that I say not blaspheme, that it is but seeming commiseration; at the best this is an evil surmise, a fruit of the flesh, to be bemoaned and mourned over. I can assure Mr. T. that they are not seeming, but real Commiserations; and that my soul is sorely afflicted within me because of the Wrath of the Lord that is like to be poured forth, for the transgression and sinful compliance with the corrupt and superstitious Worship of the Nation, (after God hath from Heaven witnessed against it, and so many of the precious Children of God have sealed a Testimony with their dearest Blood against it) of the professing People of God in England upon them; and I cannot but once more cry aloud to them, and to this Animadverter, to hasten their escape from the Tents of these false Shepherds and Assemblies, lest being complicated and twisted together with them, they share of the judgement is like to be poured forth upon them. God is a jealous God, and will in his jealousy plead with those, that teach for Doctrines the Commandments of men, and worship according to their Precepts: And what I said then, I say again now, who knows (not intimating, as Mr. T. falsely suggests, that it would be, but my own darkness as touching the extent of the long-suffering of the Lord to such as continue disobedient to his voice) but this may be the last Warning you may have from God. For his Throne is like the fiery flame, and his Wheels as burning fire, a fiery stream issues, and comes for●h from before him, Dan. 7. 9, 10. He seems to be risen up against an hypocritical people, and a speedy riddance will he make in the earth. However these things may seem to Mr. T. to be brutum fulmen, like a great thunderclap without any thunderbolt in it, (as he speaks) which makes my very soul pity him, especially they being (as I said) the Prophecies of the Lord levelled against the very persons against whom I levelly them. My prayers to God for him shall be, that they may prove words of awakening and humbling, and not of destruction and further addition of misery in the day of the Lord, which without faith and repentance come between, if for nothing but for that slight contemptuous frame of spirit upon him in the reading of them they are too like to be. He adds, that I judge such Compliance a damnable sin. If he mean a sin that in its own nature deserves damnation, I do so indeed, nor can ● do otherwise, not having embraced that novel distinction of the Papists between damnable (or deadly) and venial sins: as if the merit (or wages) of all sin were not death, judging it (as I do) to be a sin. But if by damnable he mean irremissible, like that of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which he intimates as if I judged and suggested the sin of Compliance in some to be, I must crave leave to tell him, That I detest and abhor the least thought of any such thing. 'Tis true, in the event it may be irremissible, like the sin against the Holy Ghost, and so may the least vain word; but that I judge it is so in its own nature, is an Assertion of that nature that nothing is more false and untrue. And I cannot but wonder with what forehead this Animadverter could impute it to me. Nor can I guests at his design in so doing, not the occasion administered by me. I have read the Epistle over, and find not the least prints or marks of such an Assertion. If any words may be wrested to such an intendment, I do here solemnly disclaim and disavow it, professing from my very heart that I believe quite otherwise. Our God is a God ready to pardon, to multiply pardons: though you have turned aside from him, he will heal backslidings, and love freely; therefore poor hearts be not deterred from looking to him. But he goes on, which must needs produce these woeful effects. 1. An irreconcilable enmity betwixt the Separatists, and such as hold communion with the present Churches and their Pastors. Answ. But what will produce this effect? will judging their sin to be irremissible? This is a Calumny. I know none that doth so. Will the pleading for separation from that which God calls aloud to separate from? I hope better. And wish this Animadverter takes not a measure of others spirits by his own. God forbidden that any should be returning enmity for love. The Lord knows out of greatned bowels of compassion I writ what I writ; and after all if I meet with such a returnal as that intimated, I hope never to live (through the rich grace of the Lord) to see that day in which I should be repaying any that may be possessed with enmity against me in their own kind, or cease to love, pity, and pray for them. Can we not differ in opinion, and tell each other in plainness, of the guilt and evil we discern on each other, but this direful effect of irreconcilable enmity must be produced? I hope not enmity, much less irreconcilable enmity. And am persuaded that this Animadv. cannot justly charge any of the Separatists (as he in scorn calls them) with any such thing. And believe that God will help poor dusts to such a measure of a Gospel-spirit, that there shall not be the least of the frame mentioned, budding, or putting forth upon them. And because I conceive it may be needful, I shall mind Mr. Tombs of what he hath sometimes read in the Preface to the Harmony of Confessions, published in the name of the French and Belgic Reformed Churches, Praeclare quodam loco dicit Ambrose, inter servos Christi contentio non debet esse, sed colla●io; qnum enim sit ea mentis humanae hebetudo, in rebus praesertim divinis, ut res alioqui maxime claras, saepe perspicere non possimus, quin ex mutua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & amicâ fraternâque disceptatione plurimum lucis assequamur negari nullo modo potest— Contendere, vero, rixari & ferociter ac proterve digladiari tantum abest, ut deceat à Deo institutos homines, ut ne modestis, aut humanis quidem conveniat— Equidem Sancta Sanctè ac Religiose sunt tractanda in timore Divini Numinis, et Charitate proximi, which I wish him to make his Copy when he next writes Controversies. 2dly. The ruin of many thousands in their Liberties, Estates, Lives, if the Law should not be mitigated, is the next doleful effect mentioned▪ Answ. That the preservation of these, so far as honestly we may, is a moral duty I grant. These effects are not the issue of embracing the opinions and principles pleaded for in that Treatise, but of those grievous and unrighteous Decrees (by which the Child of this man's tuition, hath ever, even from its swadling-clou●s; I mean the Common-Prayer-Book Worship, been fostered and sustained. The effects mentioned are no other than hath been the usual attendment of embracing the Gospel: which our Lord tells us we must expect, if we will be his Disciples. Nor are they, as this Animadverter calls them, woeful effects, but blessed and glorious, being brought upon us for Christ's, for the Gospels-sake; in which he would have us to rejoice with leaping joy, Mat. 5. 10, 11, 12. And many of the Children of the Lord have taken them joyfully, Heb. 10. 34. Nor is this any better reason for the Animadverter's advance against the Treatise under consideration, than was that of Lycurgus, who would have the Vines destroyed because the fruit of them made men drunk, (nor yet indeed is it so good) ●or any other than what he might frequently have had to engage him to write against the reception of the Gospel; and at this day in many places against the Doctrine of the Reformed Protestants; The embracing that Doctrine producing such a woeful effect (if it must be so called) An Apology for Christians that could not in conscience submit to the Ceremonies of the Church of England, to the Rulers thereof (as Justin Martyr and others in their day) for the repealing or mitigating the grievous Decrees established, had been a more proper and Christian employment, than by such invectives as are frequently, and false charges given forth in these Animadversions, for the further incensing persons in authority against them. As touching what is added from Dr. Burgess, I assent to it, but add, 'tis most impertinently and scandalously applied to the men of his present contest. God forbidden we should call light darkness, or darkness light; Christ Antichrist, or Antichrist Christ: We desire the pulling down of nothing but what hath the lineaments of Antichrist (as lively deciphered by the Spirit) upon it. And that God will pull down whether we speak one word against it or not. The last account he gives us of his present undertaking, is second to none in his Epistolary Preface, viz. 1. The relation he hath met with of the endless brawls, prodigious errors, that have been the issue of Separation in former and latter times. Answ. And he knows, 1. That the same might have been objected against the preaching of the Gospel at the very firs●; (As it was by the Heathens (who boasted that no such things were the offspring of their way) as witness Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. l. 7. and Aug. L. de Ovibus, chap. 15. what brawls and contentions? what prodigious errors, denying the Resurrection, were there amongst the members of the Church of Corinth; even when they met together for the solemnisation of the same Ordinances, the carrying on the same Worship in Paul's time, and afterwards, as appears from the Epistle of Clemens (or the Church of Rome) to them. 2dly. That the same things were objected against Luther, and the great work of Reformation he was in the hand of the Lord carrying-on at that day; who was so far from being startled hereat, that he professeth, Nisi tumultus hos vidissem, Evangelium esse in mundo non crederem, he should not have believed the Gospel had been preached in the world, if he had not seen these brawls and tumults. Nor, 3dly, is Mr. T. a stranger to what of late hath been charged upon Protestants, with a design to persuade to a returnal to the Church of Rome, upon the account of the schisms, divisions, brawls that have ensued separation from thence; And with as good reason as this Animadverter chargeth these upon the Separatists, out of a design to allure to Conformity. Sir, these things are to be charged upon the corruptions of men's hearts, the malice and wrath of Satan against Truth, which the more it displays its Banner, and breaks forth as the Sun out of the dark and thick clouds of Ignorance and Antichristian confusion, shining gloriously in its native brightness, the more mad is he against it, and industrious to raise prejudices in the minds of men against its reception. In which work I am sorry to find this Animadverter a coadjutor. Though, blessed be the Lord, as to all the Congregations of the Separatists in England, I know not one of whom it may not be said, that the things here spoken by Mr. T. are false, a mere calumny; and yet they are not a few I am acquainted with. The truth is, these things may more truly be charged upon the members of the Church of England, than on the Separatists (as he calls them.) As for any brawls that may be amongst any of them, 'tis hoped touching them Mr. T. will be found a false Prophet, and that they will not prove endless. God can heal the Waters, and through wonderful Grace hath given down much of a spirit of love and mutual forbearance amongst the Nonconforming Separatists, though in some small matters of different apprehensions. And I hope that such carriage, as this Adimadverter useth towards them, will engage us to press more than ever after it, that this stone of offence may be rolled out of the way, and the mouth of absurd and unreasonable men may be muzzled, that they may have nothing justly to object against us, while they behold our Love, as the Disciples of Christ, to one another, and to all the Saints, and our godly conversation accompanied with fear. As for the promiscuous prophesying mentioned, though we dare not quench the Spirit in any Believer, nor despise its operation and breathe, yet I know not any that are in the Animadverter's sense for it: Gifts and abilities for that work with the consent and approbation of the Church (which is before satisfied in their personal holiness, and soundness in the Faith, is required in those to whom a constant liberty of prophesying is granted. As for the vain fancies and opinions destructive of true Religion, I must crave leave to profess I know not any such vented amongst the Congregations of mine acquaintance: And if they were, they could not rationally be charged upon the Congregational way, (more than that horrible Ignorance, Atheism, those wretched Oaths, Blasphemies, Adulteries, horrid Abominations (not to be named amongst the Saints) daily, hourly committed by the members of the Church of England, are to be charged upon it) or any principles owned by such as walk therein, which are, as they have manifested to the world, directly and diametrically opposite thereunto. That the practices of the Separatists have caused a disturbance of Ecclesiastical and Civil peace in those places where they have had any considerable duration, is another crimination. And it brings to my mind that passage, Acts 17. 6. These that have turned the world upside down, are come hither also. I sha●l crave leave to add, that there is a wicked false peace, a very conjuration and conspiracy against Christ and Truth; where the Gospel comes in power, it breaks and dissolves this peace There is an Ecclesiastical peace that is the result of such a confederacy, and Mr. T. knows who pleads this on the behalf of the most Idolatrous Church, (so called) in the world. And am sorry to find him writing after so sorry a copy, on the behalf of one of her daughters. There was an Ecclesiastical peace amongst the Heathens when the Gospel was first promulgared, as it was received in power: this peace was broken and dissipated, without any just reflection o● disparagement to the Gospel, or the way thereof; being rather its glory, manifestly discovering itself hereby to be the power of God. When the Animadverter proves that any Ecclesiastical peace of the appointment of Christ is broken, and disturbed by the persons he inveighs against, we shall conceive ourselves concerned; till then these words are but scarecrows, vain and trivial. As touching the disturbance of the Civil peace, we have already spoken some what, we shall only add, That it was not Elijah, but the whoredoms of Jezebel, that was the troubler of Israel, though he (good man) must ●ear the blame of all. And Mr. T. knows, that if any trouble or evil had befallen the Empire, the voice was, Christianos ad Leones, they are presently charged and dealt with as the only occasions and causers of it. Nor can he be ignorant, that not the Separatists (but some others) have been the disturbers of the Nations peace. I suppose a so that he is no stranger to a Treatise written by Mr. Pryn, displaying the Treasons committed against the peace of Kings and Kingdoms by the Prelatical party, and I should be sorry if he can produce one parallel instance among the Congregational Churches. These are the reasons the Animadverter is pleased to give of his present undertaking, which I thought it my duty to examine. I shall detain thee, Christian Reader, no longer in this Epistolary Preface, but desire from my very soul, that thou wouldst impartially wei●h what is offered on each side in this Controversy, and beg of God for his good Spirit to lead thee and guide thee, that thou mayest judge righteous judgement, and walk in the good old paths, that thou mayest find ●est to thy soul. And if we differ in opinion (as to the whole, or part, of any thing herein controverted) let us keep up Love, and a Spirit of Christianity; be labouring to reduce each other into the way of Truth. Which is the earnest request of him, who is, in truth,  
Thy souls friend, and servant, for Christ's sake; C. A.   

JERUBBAAL: OR, A Review of the Sober Testimony: The Vindication of the Preface thereof, from the Exceptions of Mr. Tombs.  

CHAP. 1.  

Sect. 1:  
A twofold Worship of God. Natural Worship what it is. What the Law of Nature teacheth with respect to Worship. That God is to be worshipped. Of Atheism. The say of Cicero and Seneca touching the Opinions of the Nations with respect to a Deity. That God is to be worshipped in a Community: that he is to be worshipped according to his own will. The pretences of Zaleucus, Lycurgus, Minos, Numa, the most famous Lawgivers amongst the Gentiles: and their imposition of Laws. The famous saying of Socrates in Plato touching the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or manner of Worship prescribed by the Gods. That the Voice of God is to be harkened unto, when, and in what manner he shall be pleased to speak. The Gentiles owned but one chief Deity. The custom of the Nations in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Diabolical Oracles leading them thereunto; which they supposing to be the voice of the Gods, obeyed. Instituted or Ceremonial Worship wherein it consists. Hearing the Word, such a Worship. Mr. T. declines the matter in controversy. Men do not worship God in Hearing when they hear. 1 Thess. 2. 13. opened, and explained.  
HAving already answered what Mr. T. was pleased to premise in his Epistolary Preface to the Reader, so far as we are (or can be supposed to be) concerned, we are now ready to attend his further motion toward the discussion (as he phraseth it) of the Book itself; which is (as he saith) distinguished into a Preface and ten Chapters. How suitable the method is, or comprehensive in his judgement, I am little concerned: it seemed to me to answer my aim and intendment, which was solely the clearing Truth, and satisfying the Scruples of tender Consciences in the matters we were enquiring after.  
The first thing Mr. T. is pleased to take notice of, is an Assertion of mine in the Preface to the ensuing Discourse; wherein I affirm that the matter we were to treat of, is one part of the instituted Worship of Christ under the Gospel: from whence he takes occasion in his first Section to run forth into a discourse touching the derivation of the word Worship, and very learnedly tells us, that it is a contract of the word Worthy-ship, and notes singular respect— by reason of some worth in the thing worshipped, conceived in the heart, and expressed by some sign, which he gathers from the use of the word Worshipful, and your Worship, given to Superiors,— and gives us several distinctions about Worship, which as they are trite and obsolete, so what the intendment of the Animadverter should be in producing them, except to show his reading, or amuse the Reader with a multiplicity of words and distinctions, and thereby render him the more unfit to examine what is offered in the Controversy to consideration, I cannot divine. As the quibbling upon every particular word in a Dispute, is much like that which the Apostle condemns, 1 Tim. 6. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 14. so I know not of what use it can be to the Reader, nor that it serves to any thing, save to render the Controversy more arduous and difficult, when the meaning of each other is obvious to any considerate understanding without it. There is (as I know of) no more than a twofold Worship of God; 1. That which is natural, original, or moral: which I call natural, because in the principle of it it was concreated with man; and moral, because it is invariable and always the same; and is comprehensive of our saith, affiance and trust in God, our subjection to him, as the God, sovereign Lord and King, and Lawgiver to all. That Worship which the Law of Nature, or the Law written and engraven upon the hearts of the children of men, teacheth, is that I call the natural Worship of God. Four things this Law teacheth with respect to Worship. First, that God is to be worshipped. Whether there were ever any so guilty of Atheism as to deny a Deity, is not much to our present purpose to inquire. Cicero saith, Nullam unquam fuisse Gentem, etc. That there was never any Nation so barbarous, which knew not that there was a God. And to the same purpose Seneca, Epist. 3. Veritatis Argumentum est, omnibus aliquid videri tanquam Deos esse, quod omnibus de Diis opinio in sita sit, neque ulla gens usquam est adeo extra Leges, moresque posita, ut non aliquos Deos credat. Nor is there any thing, Psal. 14. 1. opposite thereunto, which the Chaldee Paraphrast renders, No power or dominion of God in the Earth. But this (as was said) is not of our present disquisition. Upon the acknowledgement of a Deity, the principles of Nature dictate that he is to be worshipped. 2dly, That as God is to be worshipped, so is he (not only severally, each one by himself, but) by persons in particular bodies and societies to be worshipped and served, is another dictate of Nature. The erection of Temples for Worship, with the forms of public Service, and Priests for the managery thereof, to be found amongst the most ignorant and dark corners of the World, both before and since the Gospel-dispensation, sufficiently evince the truth of the suggestion. Yea,  
3dly. That God is to be worshipped according to that Revelation ●● Himself he is pleased to exhibit to the children of men, not according to their wills one or other of them. Hence when any had a design of imposing Laws upon others of their own devising, they presented them unto them, not as their own inventions; upon which foot of account they knew they would meet with little respect from persons attending the dictates of Nature, but as received from the Gods. Thus did Zaleucus, Lycurgus, Minos, Numa, the most famous Lawgivers amongst the Gentiles. Famous is the saying of Socrates in Plato to this purpose, That every God will be worshipped, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that way which pleaseth best his own mind. Contrary to which, as if those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, enstamped upon the hearts of men, as men, were totally obliterated. Some assume the confidence to plead, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or manner of Worship, is not from divine direction and prescription; but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Worship itself.  
4thly. That the Voice of God when he should be pleased, or in what manner soever, to speak to them, was to be harkened and attended to, the same Law of Nature did indoctrinate them in; I say the Voice of God: for however unto some of them there were Gods many and Lords many, yet the wisest and most learned amongst them, did acknowledge but one chief Deity or God, at whose beck and ordinance all the rest were, whom therefore they contemned as things of naught. Hence Plautus in Casina, Act. 2.  
Unus Tibi hic dum sit propitius Jupiter,  
Tuistos minutos cave Deos flocci feceris.  
Hence Satan easily abused them to an attendance upon his dictates as the Oracles of God, though never so cruel and sanguinary. That it was usual amongst the Gentile Nations to offer up Men and Women in Sacrifice to the Gods, is known. Tacitus tells us of the Germans, that they were wont to sacrifice Men to Mercury; Tacit. de morib. German. Tertullian assures us that the people of Africa sacrificed their Children to Saturn, and that openly, even to the time of the Proconfulship of Tiberius; Apol. c. 8. And when the Carthaginians were overcome by Agathocles the Sicilian Tyrant, judging the Gods to be greatly angry with them, they at once sacrificed two hundred Nobleman's Sons to Saturn, as Pescenninus Festus witness. The same Abomination was rife among the Romans, which seems to have continued amongst them to the time of the Consulship of Cornelius Lentulus, and Publius Licinius Crassus, as witnesseth Pliny, Natur. Hist. l. 3. c. 1. the French (as Cicero, Orat per Fontei.) the Britan's (as Tacitus, Annal. 14.) (of whom saith Horace, Visam Britannos hospitibus feros) were led captive to the like ferosity to their own flesh.  
That they received this Abomination from their diabolical Oracles (which they mistook for the voice of the Gods to them) is more than probable. That the destruction of Menecaeus and Iphigenia is to be fixed here, is known. Nor had the manner of the Lacedæmonians, wounding themselves in the worship of their Gods, any other spring, as witnesseth Apollonius, apud Philostrat. l. 6. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. e. in the honour of Diana it was their custom to wound themselves, according (as men say) to the Commandment of the Oracles. And Pausanias' Baeotic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The Oracle of Delphos enjoins that a beauteous Child be offered in Sacrifice to Bacchus. This was the state and condition of the Gentile World, whilst God was known only in Jewry, the times of which ignorance he winked at, and suffered each Nation to do what was good in their own eyes under the regiment of Satan, perpetrating the most horrible abomination, being fearfully cruel to their own flesh. The review of which may fill us with pity and bowels towards the poor dark corners of the World, w●ere this gross darkness is still residing, and the same or greater wickednesses are committed; and increase groans to the Lord in us, to cause the light of his glorious Gospel to arise and shine upon them; as also stir us up to thankfulness for the light of the Gospel he hath sent amongst us: and whilst we have it to walk in it, not loving darkness more than light. But thus far will the light of Nature, engraven upon the heart, lead us with respect to the right Worship of God, and I humbly conceive ne plus ultra, not a step farther.  
2dly. As there is a natural or moral Worship of God, so is there that which is ceremonial or instituted; which depends upon Divine Revelation, and is nothing but the expression of the moral and internal Worship of God, our love, faith, fear, subjection of, and to him in those external ways that are of his own revelation, wherein he hath said he will have us manifest and express them; and, as a great encouragement thereunto, hath promised in our so doing to meet with us, and bless us. This is that which is most usually in Scripture called the Worship of God and Christ. And this is that Worship whereunto I refer hearing the Word as 'tis a Gospel-Institution to be practised by the Saints: which was so plainly asserted in the Sober Testimony, that there was no occasion for Mr. T. to trouble himself or the Reader with his guessing at the meaning of the Author, did he not delight to multiply words: but to have owned it, if true; or otherwise to have addressed himself to the confutation thereof. That which I asserted was; that Hearing (by the Saints under the dispensation of the Gospel, for of them and their duty is the question proposed, pag. 13.) is part of Instituted Worship. Which when Mr. T. endeavours the confutation of, I may be supposed to be concerned in his discourses; but till then, the most partially addicted Reader will acquit me from any bounden service or attendance on them. 'Tis an easy way of answering Books (though not much to edification) to desert the main point to be impugned, and divertise one's self and Reader with discourses that are but at best collateral thereunto, and scarce speak a word to that which is the alone thing to be spoken to, as Mr. T. in this matter hath done. So that in what he saith, not speaking to the thing in question in these two first Sections, I am little concerned, yet can I not but take notice of one thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we pass on, which I cannot close with him in; viz. That we worship God in hearing when we hear; which he pretends to prove from 1 Thess. 2. 13. which as thus crudely proposed, I humbly conceive is very remote from truth. There is more to be done than so. I am apt to think that those who worship God in hearing, must first come to it as to an Institution of Christ. Which if a man doth nor, he worships not God at all therein. For persons to come to hear a Sermon out of custom, curiosity, lothness to undergo the penalties of the Land, censures of others, for company, or the like; not heeding it, or coming to it as an Institution of Christ, will hardly be accounted by the Lord as worshipping him, being indeed not at all so. 2dly, That they set themselves to hear what is spoken as the Word of the eternal God, receive it in meekness, faith, love, giving up themselves to its authority and conduct; which except we do, we worship not God. Jehoiakim in Jeremiah heard the Roll read, but he takes his Penknife, cuts it in pieces, and throws it into the fire. The Pharisees hear Christ preach, Luke 16. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they blew their noses at him in scorn and derision. Act. 7. you have Stephen preaching to the Jews, who for a great while hear him with silence and attention, b●t v. 54. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were vexed so as if they had been cut with a Saw, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; they shown their teeth, and grind them like mad dogs against him. To which many more instances might be added of such as heard the Word of God under such abominable passions. Will Mr. T. say, that such as these worship God in hearing? what more absurd? And yet if he deny it, his Assertion falls to the ground, That men worship God in hearing when they hear. 'Tis one device of Satan to undo souls (and no mean one) by miscalling things, and appropriating those names and titles to them, that do not belong to them, to cause them to think that they have and do, what they neither have nor do. Some transient checks of conscience, slight and superficial sorrow for sin, assent to propositions of truth, escaping the pollutions of the world, saying their prayers, going to hear, he calls (and would make poor hearts believe they are so) the saving convictions of the Spirit, Gospel-humiliation, precious, unfeigned Faith, Evangelical Sanctication and Holiness, worshipping God, etc. which if they do, they have only this advantage, that they go down with more pomp and state to Hell, than those that know nothing of these semblances of Grace and Holiness. 'Tis a fond conceit that poor blind ignorant creatures flatter themselves with, that their going to Church (as they call it) and joining with the Preacher in the outward acts of praying and preaching, (supposing it to be according to the Institution of Christ) is worshipping God; and I am sorry to find Mr. T. by such expressions hardening them in this dangerous conceit. Alas, ye cannot thus worship God, for he is a jealous God; he is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth. Precious Mr. Burroughs in his Treatise of Gospel-Worship, speaks excellently to this matter, pag. 93. Though I do kneel down in prayer, and present my body to hear the Word— this is no● to worship God as a Spirit (and yet he that worships him not as a Spirit, worships him not at all:) And p. 109. Many people think it a very easy matter to worship God (and so it were, if Mr. T. his Assertion were true) If it were nothing else to worship God but to come and hear a Sermon, than it were the easiest matter in the world to worship God, but there is more required in the duty of God's Worship than thou hast been acquainted with, there is a power of Godliness in it. And citing Josh. 24. 19 he adds, q. d. You think it is nothing to serve the Lord— alas, you cannot serve the Lord, for he is a holy God, and a jealous God— you must have other manner of hearts than yet you have— you must understand his Worship in another manner than yet you do: until you understand God, his Ways and Worship, you cannot serve the Lord, i. e. you do not, cannot worship him. Nor doth the Scripture, 1 Thess. 2. 13. prove his Assertion, but rather the contrary. The words are, For this cause thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Not to multiply words, the Apostle (with Silvanus and Timotheus, chap. 1. 1.) acquaints them in this verse, 1. of the returns they were on their behalf making to God, for the Grace was bestowed on them; We thank God without ceasing. 2. Particularly declares the ground and reason of this their thanksgiving; which was their reception of, obedience to, the Gospel, which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word of God; which because they ministerially brought to them, he calls also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word of hearing speech, or report from them. This he saith they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they tried, proved, considered, weighed in their spirits what was offered to them by the Apostles (as learned Beza tells us the word signifies, whereby it is saith he distinguished from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) An entertainment that the Gospel did not  meet with, being many times cried out against, run upon, and violently opposed, as were the Publishers of it) without so much as soberly considering whether things be so or no: nor here but by a very few, the Rabble in an hurly-burly, furiously assaulting the house of Jason, Act. 17. 5. (whither 'twas like the Disciples were wont to repair) And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having upon trial found it to be of worth and weight, they received, embraced it (as Beza, Zanchy, etc. on the place, say the word signifies) and that as the Word of God; with reverence giving up themselves to his conduct. How this came to pass he also asserteth, it was from the effectual energy of the Lord upon their hearts by his mighty Power (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which they were not able to resist. As learned Cameron in Myroth. Evang. ad Phil. 2. And Praelect. and holy Bains on Eph. 1. 11. say. And they being thus powerfully and effectually wrought upon to the embracing the Doctrine of the Gospel as the Word of God, they become followers of the Churches of God; which in Judaea were in Christ Jesus, i. e. as they had before done who were in Christ before them, so do they gather together into a distinct Body, or particular Congregation, for the celebrating the Ordinances of God together, and worshipping him according to his will. Therefore we worship God in hearing when we hear; of which the Apostle speaks, ne gry quidem, as Mr. T. well knows. Yet is this the only Scripture produced for the confirmation of his Assertion. They were so far from worshipping God in their bare hearing, that had they done no more, they had not worshipped him at all; no more than the rest of them of Thessalonica with the Jews, who although they heard the Apostles, consorted not with them, but afterwards persecuted and opposed them, Act. 17. 4, 5. who 'tis to be thought Mr. T. will not say, worshipped him at all. He need never fear miscarrying in any cause he thinks meet to undertake: if he can but beforehand assure himself he shall meet with such partially addicted Readers as will take such proofs as these to be cogent and convincing, but  Parvas habet spes Troja si tales habet, 
Strong and confident Assertions, without more clear and evident proof, are not likely to lead the understanding of persons, soberly inquisitive after Truth, into obedience of them.   

Sect. 2.  
Of Instituted Worship. Mat. 17. 5. explained. What ever is to be practised by N. T. Saints in respect of Worship, is solely to be bottomed upon the authority of Christ. Luke 10. 16. considered. O. T. Precepts with respect to Hearing, how obliging. Luke 16. 29. explained. The intendment of Christ in the Parable, evinced. 2 Pet. 1. 19 opened. Whom we are prohibited from hearing in the N. T. Mat. 15. 4. explained. 2 Tim. 3. 5. considered and opened. Of the scattered Disciples, Acts 8. 1, 4. touching whom Mr. T. egregiously trifles, and abuseth his Reader. No hearing the present Ministers as gifted Brethren. Whether hearing of Preachers be a moral and perpetual Worship common to all times.  
MR. T. his first Section being spent in the consideration of the word Worship; and some distinctions about the Worship of God, the second is designed to the consideration of the word Instituted. And having learnedly told us that the Instituted Worship of Christ is such as is by Christ's Institution; i. e. the Instituted Worship of Christ is the Instituted Worship of Christ. He further acquaints ●s what a Civil Lawyer saith of Institutions, viz. That they are preceptions by which men are instructed and taught: which after some exemplification by particular instances, he applies to the Worship of Christ under the Gospel, and tells us that 'tis such that is by Christ's preceptions taught, directed or appointed in the time thereof, which may be meant (he saith) of the Natural Worship which belongs to God or Christ, such as Prayer to God, giving Thanks to him, Hearing, which yet in respect of some peculiarities, are to be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New Testament, yet not excluding the Old, or the Light of Nature, so far as the Worship is perpetual and general to all people and times, as being either natural or moral. Answ. Very good! Hearing it seems then, as a Gospel-duty to be performed by the Saints in the time thereof, is part of Natural Worship; for hereof must he speak, or he speaks impertinently, the question being about the duty of these, Sober Testim. pag. 13. which not attempting the least proof of, we are bound to take no further notice thereof than to avouch the contrary. If the Animadverter thinks, that because some things are consonant to the dictates of right Reason, the Light and Law of Nature; therefore, as to be performed by Saints under the Gospel, they are not merely of the institution of Christ, and to be performed solely upon the account of his Authority and Command, he shall not have me for his Rival. Nor will any sober Christian, tender of the honour and glory of his Lord and Master Christ, swallow down such an Assertion without better proof. About this matter a worthy and learned person hath spoken excellently in a Catechise lately published, called A brief Instruction in the Worship of God, where in pag. 84. Q. 18. are these words; Whereas sundry of these things, (viz. Prayer, Preaching, etc. of which he had spoken before, as principal Institutions of the Gospel) are founded in the Light and Law of Nature, as requisite unto all solemn Worship, and are moreover commanded in the Moral Law, and explications of it in the Old Testament, how do you look upon them as Evangelical Institutions to be observed principally on the Authority of Jesus Christ? Answ. Neither their general suitableness unto the principles of right Reason, and the dictates of the Light and Law of Nature, nor the practice of them in the Worship of God under the Old Testament do at all hinder them from depending on the mere Institution of Jesus Christ, as to those especial ends of the glory of God, in and by himself, and the edification of his Church in the Faith which is in him, whereunto he hath appointed them: nor as unto the special manner of their performance, which he requireth; in which respects they are to be observed on the account of his Authority and Command only, Mat. 17. 5. & 28. 20. John 16. 23, 24. Heb. 3. 4, 5, 6. Eph. 1. 22. & 2. 20, 21, 22. Heb. 12. 25. In the explication whereof he speaketh after this wise: The principal thing we are to aim at in the whole Worship of God, is the discharge of that duty which we own to Jesus Christ the King and Head of the Church, Heb. 3. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 15. This we cannot do unless we consider his Authority as the formal reason and cause of our observance of all that we do therein. If we perform any thing in the Worship of God on any other account, it is no part of our obedience unto him, and so we can neither expect his Grace to assist us; nor have we his Promise to accept us therein; for that he hath annexed unto our doing, and observing what ever he hath commanded, and that because he hath commanded us, Matth. 28. 20. This promised Presence respects only the observance of his Commands. Some men are apt to look on this Authority of Christ as that which hath the least influence into what they do. If in any of his Institutions they find any thing that is suited or agreeable to the Light of Nature, as Ecclesiastical Societies, the Government of the Church, and the like, they say are; they suppose and contend that that is the ground on which they are to be attended unto, and so are to be regulated accordingly. The interposition of his Authority they will allow only in the Sacraments, which have no light in Reason or Nature, so desirous are some to have as little to do with Christ as they can, even in the things that concern the Worship of God. But it would be somewhat strange, that if what the Lord Christ hath appointed i● his Church to be observed in particular in an especial manner, for special ends of his own, hath in the general nature of it an agreement with what in like cases the Light of Nature seems to direct unto, that therefore his Authority is not to be considered as the sole immediate reason of our performance of it. But it is evident,  
First, that our Lord Jesus Christ, being the King and Head of his Church, the Lord over the House of God, nothing is to be done therein but with respect unto his Authority, Mat. 17. 5. Eph. 4. 15. & 2. 20, 21. Secondly, and that therefore the suitableness of any thing to right Reason, or the Light of Nature, is no ground for a Church-observation of it, unless it be also appointed and commanded in especial by Jesus Christ. Thirdly, That being so appointed and commanded, it becomes an especial Institution of his, and as such is to be observed; so that in all things that are done or to be done, with respect unto the Worship of God in the Church, the Authority of Christ is always principally to be considered, and every thing to be observed is commanded by him, without which consideration it hath no place in the Worship of God. Thus far he with convincing brightness and evidence.  
'Tis true, Mr. T. tells us there are some particularities which God hath tied us to in the New Testament in hearing: But of what nature they are he expressly tells us not: Whether such as do constitute it New-Testament-Worship, without which it is not, or cannot be accounted to be so. The Scriptures cited by him are not wholly strangers to such a thing. First, Mat. 17. 5. fairly intimates that what ever is to be done in the New-Testament-Worship, is to be done solely upon the Authority of Christ. In v. 2. we have an account of Christ's transfiguration before Peter, James, and John. Vers. 3. Moses and Elias appear talking with him. Moses was the great Lawgiver to the Old-Testament-Church, Deut. 33. 21. (i. e. in the portion or inheritance which Moses the Lawgiver according to the Command God had given to the Gadites) Elias was the great Reformer of the Church in the days of Jezebels Apostasy from God: men of great renown in their day. Peter (and the rest of them being amazed) cries out, It is good for us to be here; let us make three Tabernacles, one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elias; Whereby he seems to equalise them with Christ, each of them a tabernacle, v. 4. What saith the voice of God? v. 6. While he yet spoke, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him. And Mark tells us, chap. 9 9 That suddenly when they looked about, they saw none but Jesus: Moses and Elias were vanished and gone. The intendment of the whole seems to be this; That though betwixt Christ, Moses and Elias there was a sweet coalescency and agreement (they talked together) yet in the Worship of God under the Gospel, not Moses nor Elias, but only Christ is to be harkened and attended unto. Therefore but a reasonable postulatum, that the whole of the Worship of Christ, in the times of the Gospel, be divolved upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament, He being appointed and deputed by the Father, solely to be attended unto for Laws and Directions touching it; for which also he came from the bosom of the Father, John 1. 18. By whom he hath spoken to us in these last days, Heb. 1. 2. To whom fullness of Power and Authority is delegated by the Father, Mat. 28. 18. From whence the Commission to the Apostles for preaching the Gospel (v. 20.) doth originally spring; and consequently our hearing or attending upon Preachers in that work, is to take its measure from the Laws and Statutes, which, as Lord of the Family, he hath given forth, thereabout, for his Household to observe and do. Nor, 2dly, doth Luk. 10. 16. cited in the second place by this Animadverter, serve to any other purpose but to cut the throat of the cause he hath at present undertaken the management of. They are the words of Christ unto the Seventy, whom he sent two and two before his face, v. 1. and prove thus much, That hearing those that are sent out by Christ, is a positive Institution of his, and such an Institution, that therein we hear him: which proves not the lawfulness of attending upon the Ministry of such as act not by virtue of any Authority received from him, but the contrary. If the Argument Christ here useth be valid, That he who heareth them whom he sends in his Name, heareth him, and he that heareth (or receiveth, Mat. 10. 40.) him, heareth (or receiveth) him that sent him, (viz. the Father) as most certain it is: I do not see that this can be accused of weakness and invalidity; though such an one as Mr. T. cares not (it may be) to hear of, viz. that he who heareth the Parish-Ministers, heareth the Bishops; and he who heareth the Bishops, heareth the Pope, from whom they originally received and derive their power and authority. And yet it may be this may not be so distasteful to this Animadverter as I had thought, whom I already find, pag. 344. pleading it lawful to hear the Jesuits; a fair advance towards the personal hearing of his Holiness.  
Thus insuccesful is Mr. T. in producing Testimonies, every one of them speaking otherwise than he would have them, and much to the disadvantage of the cause he undertakes the management of. Nor do we say, that the many Precepts in the Old-Testament about Hearing, are vacated, we rather establish them, whilst we make it part of instituted Worship. God was of old to be attended, in his speaking in and by his Servants and Prophets, whom he instituted and inspired, to whom the Word of God came to communicate it to his People. They that indeed came in his Name were to be heeded and harkened unto, and that by obligation from positive Law and Institution: So are those that now come in the Name of Christ, the alone Lord, Lawgiver, and King over his House; to whom all Power is given and entrusted by the Father; who hath appointed his Stewards in his absence over his Household, to give them their portion of meat in due season, Luke 12. 42. Nor will those of the Household be ever able to acquit or justify themselves before the Lord when he cometh, if a thief or stranger break-in upon them (and eject the Stewards appointed by him) in their attendance upon him, to say the meat he feeds us with is our Lord's meat, which 'tis true they should be ready to receive, but from the hands destined and appointed to give it them.  
2dly. Mr. T. supposeth that what is spoken of the Law and the Prophets, Luk. 16. 29. is spoken as obliging to New-Testament-Saints, but without the least attempt of proof. If his own Ipse dixit will not carry the cause, and persons will not suffer themselves to be guided by a worse (if possible) than the Popish phanatique C●edo, or implicit Faith, there is not much danger of his captivating any to his [at present] espoused opinion: This being most usually the whole of what is tendered by way of evidence of what he is pleased confidently to aver from one end of his Theodulia to the other. The contrary is evident.  
1. 'Tis spoken to the Pharisees, v. 14, 15. 2dly, One part of the aim and intendment of our Lord in the Parable, seems to be to exalt the Institutions of God, above whatever may be fixed upon by the children of men (one or other of them) as more probable to effect what they are instituted and appointed by the Lord for. The rich man supposed that if one risen from the dead, and testified to his Brethren, they would repent, v. 28. 30. No, saith Abraham, (i. e. Christ) If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one arose from the dead. Hereby testifying the unalterable obligations that lie upon persons (what ever specious pretences of edification, profit, or the like, may be urged by the sons of men) to an attendment upon Divine Institutions: Not as if the Lord would have his New-Testament Saints attend upon Moses' Appointments, or go to Mount Sinai for the pattern of his Gospel-Worship. 3dly. v. 16. he expressly tells us that the Law and the Prophets were but until John, and since that time the Kingdom of God, or Gospel-Church-state (frequently so called in Scripture) is preached. But suppose Mr. T. had evinced (or should ever be able to do so) that the words of Christ did respect New-Testament-Believers (any otherwise than hath already been intimated by us) he had need do one thing more before they will stand him in any stead, viz. manifest that they are spoken by Christ with relation to Worship; that therein New-Testament-Believers are to be regulated by Moses and the Prophets, (for if they respect only the Doctrine taught by the peculiar Types of that day, and the Truths dropped by them touching Christ the Messiah, they make nothing at all to his purpose) which when he hath done,  Erit mihi magnus Apollo. 
Nor doth 2 Pet. 1. 19 the other place cited by him, contribute the least mite of assistance to his dying cause. The Apostle understanding by Divine Revelation (as 'tis thought) that he must shortly die, v. 14. As he was resolved whilst he lived not to cease to call upon them, and stir them up (as v. 12, 13.) so he was willing to leave this Epistle with them, to put them in remembrance of the great things he had taught and communicated to them, v. 15. which he tells them, v. 16. were not cunningly devised fables, so artificially interwoven as though they seemed to be true, they were most false: store of which had been in those days invented by Jews and Poets. Oh no! had they been so, he could have had no comfort in the review of them now he was going off the stage of the world, which he had, not having followed these when he made known unto them the power and coming (or the powerful coming, or coming in the power of our Lord Jesus C●rist (manifested to be so in the efficacy of his Doctrine, working Miracles, his Resurrection from the dead) they were, he tells them, eye-witnesses of his Majesty. The honour and glory whereof he proves by a double Argument; 1. The testimony and witness the Father bore of Christ, the honour and glory put upon him when that Voice came from Heaven, when he was on the Mount transfigured before them (viz. Peter, James and John.) 2dly, From the word of Prophecy: lest they should think the former Apparition was a fiction of his own, he acquaints them that the Prophets have testified of his coming and glory. Of which Word of Prophecy he asserts, 1. That 'tis of no private interpretation (i. e. the holy men to whom it came, gave it forth as they received it from God, without putting any of their own glosses, meanings, private interpretations to it.) 2dly, That to this they do well to take heed, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which taking heed ye do excellently, worthily, and as becometh Saints) as unto a light that shines in a dark place. Yet, 3dly, with this limitation, as to the time of their so doing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in their hearts. Which if we should interpret of the day of the Gospel, and the more clear revelation of the administrations thereof, which some learned and judicious men do, as the Assembly in their Annotations on the place (and indeed as by shadows we are sometimes to understand the Jewish administration of affairs under the old pedagogy; so by day, the time of the dispersion of those Shadows, and the introduction of the Gospel-Churc●-state, Cant. 2. 17. & 4. 6.) The whole of what Mr. T. would infer from this place would not only be enervated, but a Sword ready furbished put into the hands of his Antagonist to put an end to his expiring cause. Nor will it at all avail him to say, that the Gospel-administration was already introduced and brought in: for although that was afoot some while before, yet many Jewish Ceremonies were yet winked at, and practised by the believing Jews, of whom the charge was committed unto Peter, Gal. 2. 7, 8, 9 to whom he writes these Epistles, who were much in practice of their old Ordinances (some of them) till the time of the ruin and devastation of their Temple by Titus Vespasian, when some think 2 Pet. 3. 7, 9, 10. of the burning and consuming of the then Heavens and Earth (viz. the Jewish Pedagogy and old Administration of affairs) had its accomplishment, and the new Heavens or Gospel-Church-state was fully introduced. Though we need not assert any thing of this nature. The Apostle, as was said, is treating not of the Worship, but Doctrine of the Messiah, in particular of his Glory, Power and Coming, which the Prophets he tells them had abundantly bore witness to, and to their Testimony it was their duty (is ours) to attend. That hence such a conclusion as this, is or can be logically inferred; that therefore the Precepts and Directions of the Old-Testament are to be heeded and learned in respect of the matter therein contained, and the persons that reveal it (with respect to Worship, of which he must speak or he saith nothing to the matter in hand) is the firstborn of absurdities, and needs the abilities of one transcending the degree of a B. D. to make good. But this Mr. T. thought not of. No wonder his late Writings, as he complains, find so little acceptance amongst persons inquisitive after Truth, if there be such chasmas betwixt the head and heels of his Arguments, that 'tis impossible the Reader should find mediums enough to fill up and render them in the least conclusive. But he goes on, and tells us, that he meets with no prohibition to hear any but false Prophets, Mat. 7. 15. Deceivers, Tit. 1. 10. That teach other Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1. 3. 2 John 10. Another Gospel, Gal. 1. 8, 9 Answ. 1. Christ's institution of Officers of his own for the administration of the affairs of his House, had there been no express interdiction, had been interdiction sufficient to hear a Ministry not of his appointment. The Lord having caused Fire to come down from Heaven, and giving a charge that it should be kept alive continually upon his Altar, was such an interdiction of offering Sacrifice with strange Fire, that Nadab and Abihu not observing it (though no express command against offering strange fire) die by the immediate hand of the Lord, as a punishment for their transgression. But, 2dly, we read of other prohibitions in the Scripture, though Mr. T. is not pleased [now] to take notice of them; as Mat. 15. 14. which about twenty five years ago he seems to suppose to be an injunction of Christ not to hear the Scribes and Pharisees (and indeed the word there used plainly imports as much, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to remove from, forsaken so as never to come at them more, which Beza saith is the proper signification of the word; and the learned Grotias 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut & remittere proprie, et primigenio significatu est, a se amovere atque ita sumitur, Mat. 4. 20. et alibi saepe unde sumpta metaphora significat & deserere, & dimittere, & permittere, frequentissime autem rationem alicujus rei▪ non habere, quod Latini simili locutione dicunt missum aliquid facere: ita sumi ha●c vo●em apparet, Mat. 15. 14. G●ot. de sa●is. Christi.  saith little less) and in them a prohibition to hear such as should act like them, viz. teach for doctrines the traditions of men. Nor is the Animadverter a stranger to that solemn Injunction of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from such turn away. [The word signifies devocare & avocare, saith Aretius; whence, saith he, we may understand that 'tis our duty to shun them, that we be not made like them.] That there is a dispensation granted to abide with Ministers of such a complexion, I never yet read. 3dly, Were there no more prohibitions than those instanced by Mr. T. these were enough to prove it the duty of Saints to separate from the present Ministers of England. That they are false Prophets, Mat. 7. 15. we have evinced, ch 6. of S. Test. (which is vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions, chap. 7th of this Treatise) and Sect. 10. of this chapter. That they are Deceivers, according to Tit. 1. 10. the second place instanced in by him were easy to demonstrate. That they teach other Doctrine, according to 1 Tim. 1. 5. the third place he is pleased to introduce, he that thinks it any part of his concern to examine what they do, cannot be ignorant. Is not Canonical obedience, compulsion in matters of Religion and Faith, conveniency at least of Surplice, Organs, Cross in Baptism, Regeneration thereby, with many more that might be instanced in, as a National Church in the time of the Gospel, Communion with persons visibly wicked and profane (Subjection to which they have a Law to compel men to) the necessity of Godfathers and Godmothers, another Doctrine? Did they learn these things from Christ and his Apostles, or from the Cabal at Rome? Nor will it avail this Animadverter to say, that these cannot be called another Doctrine, because some of them not expressly forbidden, nor directly contrary to what is taught by them. For what is more than they taught, is another Doctrine, though not directly contrary thereunto. Hear what the Assembly in their Annotations upon the place say, Teach no other doctrine] the chief Pastors of the Church, who were endued with Apostolical Authority, as was Timothy, were to forbid any to preach, not only doctrine that was contrary, but that which was beside that which the Faithful have received from the Apostles. And indeed the word is plainly so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, e. i. saith Piscator, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they teach not things divers, viz. from the Doctrine of the Apostles. So Beza. And Hyperius is very full, that they teach no other Doctrine, either for matter or manner, for substance or circumstance. As to what he adds, that Christ more especially tied his Disciples, to hear his Apostles and such as were sent by them to them, yet when all the Church at Jerusalem, except the Apostles, were scattered abroad by persecution, and went every where preaching the Gospel, Acts 8. 1, 4. it was no sin to hear them, they were not the strangers meant, John 10. 5, etc.  
I must crave leave to inform him, of what he cannot be ignorant, that he trifles and abuses his Reader egregiously. 1. Christ did not only chief, but solely enjoin his Disciples to hear his Apostles, and those that afterwards were sent by his appointment in his Name, as acting in the ministration of the Gospel by virtue of an Office-power. The instance of the scattered Brethren, Act. 8. 1, 4. is not at all to his purpose; they were indeed to be heard, but not as Ministers of the Gospel acting by Office-power in the promulgation thereof (which they were not, nor pretended to be) but as gifted Brethren or private Christians, receiving abilities from the Lord for that work and duty they were now providentially called unto. 2dly, Mr. T. knows that the Author of S. Test. is for the liberty of Prophesying, though he seems to suggest the contrary in these expressions. Nor did I ever think (nor any man in the world in his wits) that those scattered Brethren, Acts 8. 1, 4. were the strangers mentioned John 10. but some others, as is proved in the Treatise under his consideration. Those in Acts 8. were to be heard (as was said) as gifted Brethren, not as Officers of Christ, which they were not. What this makes to proving the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, to which good service it seems transiently designed, is not easy to understand, who preach not so, whom we cannot hear as such, except we would put out our eyes and renounce our understanding, when they avouch they preach as Ministers, and we see them daily in the exercise of that, which suppose an Office-power, as Baptism and breaking Bread, for the doing of it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; these things must he speak to, who considers Mr. T. his Papers, for want of what is more material. But perhaps Sect. 3. doth the business, where he flourisheth on the head of it, as if he were resolved to come up close to the matter in hand, and demonstrate by irrefragable Arguments, that Hearing, as a duty incumbent upon the Saints in the time of the Gospel in the way appointed by Christ, is not a mere positive or ceremonial Worship: But perhaps (saith he) the Author means by instituted Worship, such as is merely Positive, or, as we use to speak, Ceremonial, such as Baptism and the Lord's Supper, etc. In which he hath almost hit the white of the Author's intendment and meaning, as plainly expressed as he knew how: which is this, That however Hearing may put on the endument and property of Moral Worship, yet as practised under the New-Testament, it solely appertains to Positive Worship, or the Institution of Christ: and whoever performs it not as such, I am apt to conceive worships not Christ at all therein. What saith the Animadverter to this? Why, this Author seems to me very inconsiderate. But seriously, Sir, I was well ware, knew, and well considered of what I writ in this matter. He seemeth to me very inconsiderate, is a pitiful Argument to evert the Assertion impleaded by Mr. T. it being not much to the purpose what seems to him, or me, to be considerate or otherwise. These matters will be judged by others whether we will or no. As for what he adds, 'tis of no more weight than what went before, That hearing of Preachers is a moral and perpetual Worship, common to all times and persons. He must 1. except Adam, to whom at first it was no duty so to do, except he make God the Preacher, and then he altars the state of the question: and afterwards 'tis more than probable he preached to his Family, not they to him. 2. Except the time of ignorance God winked at, when he sent no Preachers to the Gentile world, but suffered them to walk in their own ways. 3. He had need to qualify his Assertion a little better, else it will not be found weight. I am apt to think that hearing all Preachers (and an indefinite Proposition (as Mr. T. his is) is equipollent to an universal, is neither part of moral, nor instituted Worship. The Romans had their Flamens and Archflamins, (from whence the pattern of Bishops and Arch-Bishops;) Baal had his Chemarims; our forefathers in England, the Druids (who in their solemn acts of Worship were clad in a white-garment, you may call it a Surplice, from whence 'tis probable that rag had its original) all Preachers; yet the hearing of them no part (I hope) of moral Worship. Yea, the Devil was once a Preacher, and of the Gospel too, till Christ silenced him, Luke 4. 41. yet I very much question whether should he do so again, as 'tis not impossible, our Animadverter would assert it lawful to hear him. There were also Preachers of the Circumcision; whom Paul thought it no part of the Worship of God to hear; the duty of Saints lying in the direct contrary part by virtue of the Apostolical Injunction, Phil. 3. 2. So that 'tis evidently a mistake of Mr. T. to say that hearing of Preachers is a moral and perpetual Worship, common to all times and persons. Whereas, 4. the very truth is, Though hearing the Word of God, whenever and however it shall please him to dispense it, be a moral and perpetual Worship; yet hearing these or those Preachers appointed by him to dispense it, is purely of Sovereign Institution. It being free to the Lord to have sent his Word always by the hands of his Angels (as sometimes he did to his Children) as well as otherwise; which had he done, it had been so far from being our duty to attend upon Men-Preachers, that it had been our sin to have heeded any other than these Angelical ones. I must desire the Animadverter by the way to correct one passage of his, it being a gross mistake, wherein he seems to intimate, that I make the hearing the present Ministers, such an instituted Worship of Christ, as is merely positive; and adds, that herein I seem to be very inconsidèrate; Which I confess I should be if I did so. Mr. T. knows I am so far from making it such an Instituted Worship of Christ, that I say 'tis no Worship of Christ at all, either moral or instituted, to hear them; and, exprofesso, prove, as well as I can, the contrary: which that it is not satisfactory to Mr. T. I cannot help. Some men will be satisfied with little except what hath the countenance of Authority on its side. However I never said that hearing the present Ministers is any part of the instituted Worship of Christ; which had I believed to be so, I had done very wickedly to have opposed it. He adds, that should it be granted me that the whole of Gospel-Institutions were to be devolved upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament, yet would it be to the disadvantage of myself and the rest of the Separatists, who use many places of the Old-Testament about the Sabbath, Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc. and I do so in this dispute. Answ. Egregie dictum, excellently said indeed! as if because we affirm, that whatever is to be practised in Instituted Worship in the time of the Gospel, is to be wholly bottomed, as to the Law and Precept instituting it upon some Commandment of Christ in the New-Testament, therefore we assert that no use may be made of the Scriptures of the Old-Testament, treating thereabout by way of prophecy or otherwise; which is a Consequence this learned Animadverter will never be able to make good. 'Tis true, many learned men do make use of some places of the Old-Testament to prove the morality of one day in seven, or the seventh part of time, not as I remember, except Psa. 118. 24) which some conceive, by way of prophecy, speaks of the Lord's honouring the first day) for the confirmation of the observation of the first day; which they conceive Christ's resurrection on that day, the practice of the Primitive-Church meeting together for the solemn Worship of God, 1 Cor. 16. 2. Acts 20. 7. the appellation [the Lord's Day] which they judge is given to it, etc. is a sufficient warrant for their observation thereof in Gospel-times. They plead not for Baptism or the Lord's Supper upon any other bottom than Gospel-Institution, or their preception by Christ in the New-Testament: Though 'tis true, as touching the subjects of the one and the other, they judge they may by way of analogy argue somewhat from Old-Testament-Scriptures; from which apprehension they see nothing so weighty in what is tendered by Mr. T. (notwithstanding his brag and immodest Assertion, pag. 18. Sect. 14. that such a way of arguing is irrational; as if wisdom rested with him, and he had the measure of it, and a man could not differ from him but he must be a block or bruit) to influence their departure. That because the granting the Assertion would be disadvantageous to the Author and the Separatists; therefore it should be in Mr. T. his opinion an unreasonable postulatum, to devolve the question upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament, I understand not. He takes not a measure (I presume) of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of requests from their advantagiousness or disadvantagiousness to such contemptible creatures as we, and should he do so he were much to blame, as to infer from hence; therefore I see no reasonableness in his Postulatum, which is introduced not as the natural issue of any thing premised which he knows it is not, but merely for pomp and show.   

Sect. 3.  
The judgements of the Ancients no sufficient substratum to build my practice upon in the Worship of God. The opinion of the Ancients themselves in this matter. None but the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures can satisfy the consciences of any dissatisfied in matters relating to Worship. Our Faith not to be resolved into the Testimony of men: which is a principle decried by the Ancients and Protestant Churches. The consciences of none can be satisfied in what is written by the Ancients, before they are assured, 1. that what they read as, or are told is theirs, be indeed so, and not counterfeited nor adulterated. 2. That in their Writings they were, as the Apostles and Prophets, guided by an unerring Spirit. The true use of the Testimony of the Ancients. Congregational-Principles owned by them. Of Councils and Schoolmen.  
THe fourth Section is fronted with this, The judgement of the Ancients not useless in this Controversy, as if the Author of the Sober-Testimony had asserted it to be so; which Mr. T. knows he not where doth: This indeed the words of the Author, not perplexing ourselves nor the consciences of any with the judgements of men in generations past, wherein they cannot acquiesce fairly, intimate, 1. That the judgement of none of the children of men, though never so famous in their generation, since the Apostles fell asleep, is a sufficient Substratum to build my faith and practice upon in the Worship of my God. In which we have the concurrence of the Ancients themselves. Basil tells us, that it is necessary and consonant to Reason, that every man learn that which is needful out of the Scriptures, both for the fullness of Godliness, and lest they be enured to humane traditions; Regul. contract. 95. p. 902. And Austin (Epist. 112. ad Paulin.) saith, If a matter be grounded on the clear authority of the holy Scriptures, it is to be believed without all doubt; but as for other witnesses and testimonies, upon whose credit any thing may be urged unto us to believe it, it is lawful for thee either to credit or not to credit them; according as thou shalt perceive them of weight to deserve or not to deserve credit. Origin saith (Homil. 1. in Hierem.) We must of necessity call the Scriptures to witness; for our senses and interpretations without them are of no credit. Famous is the saying of Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem (Catech. 4. p. 15.) We must not deliver any thing, though never so small, without the holy Scriptures; neither may we be led away with probabilities and shows of words; neither yet believe me barely saying these things unto you, unless you also believe the demonstration thereof from the Scriptures; for the security of our faith ariseth from the demonstration of the holy Scripture.  
2dly. That not the say or judgement of the Ancients, but the clear Testimony of the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, is sufficient and efficacious for the satisfying persons that are dissatisfied in any thing relating to Faith or Worship. Come to a poor soul under real scruples of spirit with respect to these, and tell him, this Father is of this opinion and that Father of that, you do but oleum & operam perdere; when you have said all, he remains as he was, dissatisfied, and so will do, without evidence from Scripture. More than these two things the Animadverter cannot righteously infer from the expression he discants on. What saith he to these? not a word more or less. And I am apt to believe of Mr. T. that he is a man of greater modesty than to oppose them. He tells us indeed that it may be of good use to satisfy men's consciences, that no such separation as now is from the present Ministers of the Church of England was allowed of by the first Fathers and Writers (what truth there is in this suggestion shall by and by be manifested) He will not say surely of what good use he supposeth it to be, that the faith of any is to be resolved into their testimony, which it must be if what they say satisfy the scrupling conscience, i. e. I must believe what they say is true, because they say it, else that they say it, will never tend to my satisfaction; which yet is an homage and duty that we own to none but the Lord. A principle decried and abhorred by the Ancients themselves. The saying of Austin (Epist. 48.) is known, Audi dicit Dominus non dicit Donatus, aut Rogatus aut Vincentius, a●t Hilarius, aut Ambrose, aut Augustinus, sed dicit Dominus. And, Epist. 112. I will not have you follow mine authority, to think it necessary that you believe any thing therefore because I say it. And generally abhorred by the Reformed Churches. The Helvetian Confession speaks roundly and fully to this matter; Quapropter non patimur nos, etc. Wherefore we suffer not ourselves in controversies of Religion, or matters of Faith, to be imposed upon with the bare opinions of the Fathers, or determinations of Councils, much less by received customs, or the multitude of persons thinking the same things, or by prescription of long time. We admit no other Judge of Faith than God himself, pronouncing by the holy Scriptures what is true, what false; what is to be embraced, what not. We rest in the judgements of none but such as are spiritual, taken from the Word of God. Harmon. Conf. cap. 2. Certainly Jeremiah and the rest of the Prophets grievously condemned the Councils of the Priests instituted against the Law of God; and diligently admonished that we harken not to Fathers, or go in their ways, who walking in their own inventions decline from the Law of God. Before the consciences of any can be satisfied in the judgement and practice of the Fathers & primitive Writers, two things they had need be assured of; 1. That what is handed out to them be indeed their say and practices whose they are pretended to be. For suppose my conscience ought to be satisfied in what they say or do, yet I had need be assured, that what I read or hear of their say or practices, be indeed theirs, and not the interpolations or impostures of others, fraudulently mixed in their Writings and imouted to them; which this Animadverter knows to be no easy matter to assure any body of: The most of them have unquestionably been exposed to corruption and adulteration by them into whose hands they have fallen; from whom we have received them. Particular instances whereof lie near at hand to be produced, were it needful. Of Ignatius his Epistles some talk much; that they are (at least) wondrously corrupted, if not wholly forged and counterfeit, were easy to demonstrate. To mention only what you have, Epist. 2. Fear and reverence your Bishop, as Christ; for so the holy Apostles commanded you. He that obeyeth the Bishop and Presbyters, is within the Altar and abides pure: but he who doth any thing without the Bishops and Presbyters, is without the Altar, defiled in his conscience, and more miserable than an Infidel. For what is a Bishop but one endued with the power of Christ, who is God, whose prescript as man he follows, and obtains Authority more sublime than all Empire and Principality? And what is the Presbytery but an holy Council, the Counsellors and Assessors of the Bishop. And Epist. 7. speaking of the same persons, Amongst all men I will not say none are more excellent, but none can be found so like to God, etc. Expressions that the simplicity of that Age was wholly ignorant of, and could not entertain without a blush, nor think of but with great abhorrency of spirit. The like may be said of other of the Ancients. Ambrose is made to speak after this rate, The Episcopal honour and dignity can be by no comparisons adaequated; if you compare it to the fulgor of Kings, and diadem of Princes: this would ●e as much beneath it, as if thou shouldst compare Led to the brightness of Gold. For thou mayest see the necks of Kings and Princes bowed down to the knees of Priests, etc. De Dignitat. Sacerd. cap. 2. And cap. 3. There is nothing in this World to be found more excellent than Priests, nothing more sublime than Bishops. Which those who have in the least enquired into the state of affairs in that Age, will be constrained to acknowledge to be counterfeit and spurious. The like may be manifested of the rest, and of these in other points; but that design would require a Treatise by i● self, larger than we intent this to be. But, 2ly, suppose things with respect to them, were otherwise than we have manifested them to be; and we could be ascertained that thus they said and writ, thus they did and practised; we had need, ere our consciences could be satisfied, be ascertained of one thing more, viz. That in their Writings they were, as the Prophets and Apostles, guided by an unerring Spirit, that in their practice they were to be our examples: for if I am not assured that what they writ is infallibly true, I am not to believe it; for sure it will not be pleaded that there is any obligation lies upon me to embrace what any man saith, right or wrong, because he saith it; and yet except I believe it, conscience will not, cannot be satisfied in their indoctrination. Now this is infallibly false Mr. T. knows, who writ retractations of a great deal he had writ before; and had he lived longer, we might have see more Books of retractations. And this they themselves acknowledge. So Austin; I cannot deny but there are many things in my Works, as there are in the Writings of my Ancestors, which justly and with good discretion may be blamed. D. 9 Negat. And Anselme writes, that in their Books which the Church reads, many times are found things corrupt and heretical. Comment. in 2 Cor. Let the wise Reader peruse their Books, and he shall find this true that I say. The same may be said of the practice of the Fathers. Of what they did we have uncertain rumours; wherein they acted exorbitantly and not according to rule, they are not to be heeded. So that not what the Fathers said and did is sufficient to satisfy my conscience in any point, but only what Jehovah speaks in the Scripture. All which I say, not to detract from the true worth of the Worthies of old, but to manifest the weakness of Mr. T. his Assertion, That it will not conduce much, or be of good use to satisfy men's consciences, etc. wherein truly it is of no use at all, not being appointed by the Lord for such an end; though I deny not but to other▪ ends and purposes it may be useful, as for stopping the mouths of Adversaries, who glory in the Fathers and primitive Writers as if they were all for them; To remove prejudices out of the minds of people against Truth upon account of its seeming novelty, etc. as I said in S. T. Nor shall I at any time refuse for the manifestation of the vain brag of persons, that they have all Antiquity on their side, though I cannot admit of what they say into my Creed because they say it (the only foundation of Faith being the infallible speakings of God in the Scriptures) to debate from thence the matters in controversy with Mr. T. And doubt not but it may be made manifestly to appear, that things are far otherwise with respect to the Testimony of the Fathers, than is by him intimated; and that the footsteps not of the Episcopal Hierarchy, Common-Prayer-Book-service, Church of England, etc. but of the way of the Congregational-Churches, are to be found in and amongst them. And such principles laid down by them that will abundantly justify persons separating from such a Ministry as that of the Ch. of Engl. Cyprian (l. 1. epist. 4.) tells plainly, Nor let the people flatter themselves, as if they were free from the contagion of sin when they communicate with a wicked Priest, yea that they ought to separate from them: wherefore the people that obey the Laws of God and fear him, aught to separate themselves from a wicked shepherd, and not be present at the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest: directly contrary to what this Animadverter affirms, Sect. 9 Evil persons may be heard as true Ministers. And Epist. 6. He may by no mean● have or keep a Church, who is not ordained in the Church (viz.) to which he is related as Minister; which the Ministers of England are not. ' Twe●e easy to fill many pages with citations to this purpose. Mr. T. speaks of Councils and Schoolmen, and of some that are not able to examine what is said by them. As for the latter of these, it had been well for the Church of God if they had never been: And the former, for the most of them, it might have been well without. Nazienzen, who 'tis thought knew as much of them as many other men, saith, If I must write the truth, I am much inclined to flee from all the Councils of Bishops; because I never saw a joyful and happy end of any Council; nor was there by them any suppression of evils, but rather an addition and increase of them; Greg. Naz. ep. ad Procul. And Luther affirms of the very best of them, I understand not that the holy Spirit is in this Council: All these Articles are hay, stubble, wood, etc. And learned Beza tells us, that such was the folly, ignorance, ambition, wickedness of many Bishops in the best times, that you would suppose the Devil to be Precedent in their Assemblies. (Praef. ad N. Test.) Which if so, that which Mr. T. intends as a disparagement, will be found to be clean contrary. No matter how little we have to do with them: had they been studied less than they are, and the Scriptures of the Lord more, we had ('tis more than probable) been at a nearer agreement in more controversies than one at this day. Had the Lebian Rule of Reformation been laid aside, and this Ezratical Golden one been solely made use of in measuring the Temple and them that dwell therein, Reformation had been carried on with more celerity, and another Gospel-Church-state introduced than many are ware of.   

Sect. 4.  
Some beams of Light may be communicated by a retrospection into the estate of affairs in the time of the old Law into the present enquiry, though the whole thereof be devolved in our present disquisition upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament. Gen. 4. 26. considered. The Reformation of the then Church by segregation and aggregation. The issue hereof was the continuation of their Church-state for about a thousand years after. The lawfulness of separation from the Church of England, proved by Ainsworth, Cotton, Bartlet, etc. No more pollution to be found among those, Gen. 4. 26. from whom the Saints then separated, than is to be found upon the Church of England. The Animadverter begs the question in supposing the Church of England, to be a true, and rightly constituted Church. The end of Separation of calling upon the Name of God. Those from whom they separated, Gen. 4. in what sense they called upon the Name of God. Of the Noachical Separation, Gen. 6. The spring of the Apostasy of those from whom they separated. Of the old Iron Age. The wickedness of the Church of England. The duties we own to persons from whom we separate.  
IN his fifth Section this Animadverter takes notice of some expressions in S. T. to this purpose, That since some beams of Light may be communicated into the present enquiry by a retrospection into the state of things under the Law, we are willing to take a little notice of the administration of affairs in the House of God then; which after a bare mentioning of what was done by the Faithful in the days of Seth, Gen. 4. 26. We begin to consider from the time of the giving forth of the Law upon Mount Sinai, when we say the People of Israel had a standard set up for them to repair unto, and they became as a City on an Hill, conspicuous unto all. What saith Mr. T. to this? Why, 1. It will not be easy to discern how some beams of Light may be communicated from a retrospection into the state of affairs of old unto the present enquiry, if the whole thereof be devolved on the Scriptures of the New-Testament: which being a mere slight and scoff put upon the words of his Antagonist, might be passed over in silence. That Saints may not receive some beams of Light with respect to their deportment towards the Appointments of Christ now, by a view of what was of old instituted, and carriage of the Saints then towards those Institutions, because the present Institutions (in the practice whereof the Saints now are concerned) are bottomed singly upon the Scriptures of the New-Testament, had the Animadverter by one Argument laboured to have evinced, we should (though notwithstanding Mr. T. thinks to the contrary, 'tis in itself evident they may) have further considered it. When I find the Lord giving forth Laws to his People of old to walk by, and strictly enjoining them to conform to those Laws, without adding any thing of their own thereunto, I had thought that the Lord having given forth Laws under the New-Testament for the ordering the affairs of his House now, some beams of Light might from hence be communicated touching my deportment towards these Laws from what was done of old; and rejecting all mixtures of humane inventions with them, which the Soul of the Lord in days past manifested his indignation against, with relation to his then Institutions. The like may be said of the other observations, and Laws enjoined upon that People, we have briefly remarked. But 2dly, he grants he tells us, that Dr. Owon hath in his Latin Book of the nature, study, and progress of true Theology, shown divers corruptions in the Ages before and after the Flood in the pure Worship of God unto Moses his time, and that the restitution of true Theology was sometimes by a separation from the Wicked, when there was a general Apostasy from the true ways of God unto a profanity of his Name (as some conceive, Gen. 4. 26. is meant either by Blasphemy, or setting up of Idol-worship) as it was before Abraham's separation, Josh. 24. 15. Answ. 'Tis very true, that learned person hath done so in that excellent Treatise, and manifested, that not the profaning the Name of God by the ways mentioned by the Animadverter (which they did not); but the Reformation of the Church is by those expressions, Gen. 4. 26. held forth. Two things he tells us the words import. 1. That the Saints set up distinct or separated Assemblies for the solemn performance of the Worship of God, separating themselves from the Wicked of the day (which they had not done before, nor had they any need so to do, whilst a Reformation might be accomplished without it, which it might whilst the Church was contained within the limits of one family, viz. by the ejection of the Contumacious.) 2●ly. That being thus separated they took upon them the peculiar name of the Worshippers; or Sons of God (which they retained to the next horrible defection from the ways of God about one thousand years after) both which our Interpreters approve, who in the Text read, than began men to call upon the Name of the Lord, and in the margin add, to call themselves by the Name of the Lord. That from this act of the Church of God some beams of Light may be communicated to Saints now, under the same circumstances they were then touching the duty of segregation and aggregation, though bottomed on New-Testament-Precepts, we are apt to conceive: but Mr. T. knows better. Yea, but 2dly, this Animadverter thinks that neither by him nor any other is it shown, that a separation was approved from Preachers that teach no worse doctrine than that is held forth by the Articles, Homilies, etc. of the Church of England, or from a Church no more polluted by Idolatry or other corruptions in Worship, than are charged upon the Public enjoined Worship of the Church of England.  
Answ. 1. That such a separation as that from the Church of England hath not been proved lawful, Mr. T. doth but think. The works of Ainsworth, Cotton, Bartlet, etc. manifest the contrary. 2dly, If he mean that it hath not been proved by that learned Author, nor any others, that those from whom they separated were not more guilty of pollution by Idolatry or other corruptions, than the Church of England, he is not a little mistaken. Dr. Owen in the foresaid place manifests (as far as a matter of so long standing can be supposed to be capable of evidence) that they were not guilty of Idolatry, in the sense that the word is taken by this Animadverter, the Worship of the only true God continuing, as saith Josephus, even to the 7th Age, (with whom R. Eliezer accords, and most of the Ancient Christians, as Cyril, Epiphanius, etc.) But 3dly. Mr. T. pitifully begs the question, whilst he talks of separation from a Church, no more polluted than the Church of England. which should we grant him was never proved lawful (nor could be), yet would it advantage him nothing; except he prove, that the Church (so called) of Engl. was ever a rightly constituted Church of Christ, which he knows we deny; and though he frequently beg it of us, in these Animadversions, yet shall we never (upon those terms) grant him that it is so, being abundantly assured of the contrary. What pollution and Idolatry the Church of Engl. may be charged with, and whether these are sufficient to justify our separation from her, must afterwards be reviewed. He adds, If Gen. 4. 26. be meant of a Reformation by setting up separate Congregations, as Dr. Owen conceives, S. 2. cap. 3. it was that therein they might call on the Name of the Lord, which shows it was from them that did not call on the Name of the Lord, not from them that did, as in the Worship of the Church of Engl.  
Answ. 1. Others beside that learned man, judge the words import a Reformation by setting up Separate Congregations. So doth Dr. Willet (who I dare say Mr. T. will acquit of the guilt of Separation) who having rejected other interpretations of the words, fixeth upon this, asserted by him; But now (saith he) when as the Worship of God began to be corrupted and profaned, in the wicked posterity of Cain, than Adam, Seth, and other of the Righteous Seed, began publicly to exercise Religion, and to have their holy Meetings and Assemblies for the Service of God. And afterwards more fully (from Mercerus.) Wherefore the true meaning is, as before expressed, that now the Church of God being increased to a full number, did make a public Separation in their Worship, from the generation of the Wicked, and began apart, in a solemn manner, to worship God. But 2dly. That they separated to call on the Name of the Lord, is true; The end of their Separation was to worship God, as a people alone, from the wicked of the world, amongst whom they lived, according to his own Appointments: nor can a Separation from any, for any other ends be justified. But this evidenceth that those they separated from, did not call on the Name of the Lord. Ans. Not at all. They did call upon his Name. That there was no Worship amongst them, will not be asserted: No Nation under the thickest darkness that ever overspred the World, but had some worship of the Gods amongst them. The worship of Idols (properly so called) was not yet invented (as was said from Josephus, etc.) nor introduced: so that 'tis evident they did call upon the Name of the Lord, i. e. they had not rejected the true God, nor all Worship of him. This indeed follows, that they had much degenerated in their Worship of him: This we prove of the Church of England, which would justify our Separation from it, as it did theirs from them, could no more be said therein. As for what he saith of Noah's Separation, that it was from men that had filled the earth with violence; 'Tis true, they had done so, and that with other things mentioned, chap. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11. was the ground of Noah's Separation from them, and God's sweeping destruction upon them. Their apostasy from the pure Ways of God (that began in their toleration of the Wicked upon carnal respects in their societies) arose at length to that height, that the whole Earth was corrupt (i. e. all the inhabitants of the World) except Noah and his Family, had depraved God's pure Worship, (as precious Ainsworth expounds it, and the word frequently signifies, Exod. 32. 7. Deut. 32. 5. Judg. 2. 19 2 Chron. 27. 2. with 2 King. 15. 35.) and filled with Violence, or Injustice, and cruel deal to men. The usual pair we find walking hand in hand all along the Scripture, Degeneracy in respect of Worship in the Ecclesiastical, Violence and Oppression in the Civil state. And now the Animadverter will yield it necessary to separate, which is as much as we need to justify our Separation. Degeneracy of Worshop we prove the Church of England guilty of, and Violence and Oppression, open Unrighteousness and Injustice we every where meet with; As if the Iron-Age had again took place in the world, of which the Poet  

— Erupit Venae pejoris in aevum  
Omne nefas: fugere pudor, verumque fidesque.  
In quorum subiere locum, fraudesque delique  
Insidiaeque & Vis, & amor sceleratus habendi.  
Vivitur ex rapto, non hospes ab hospite tutus,  
Nec socer à genero, fratrum quoque gratia raraest.   
But this saith Mr. T. is not the cause of the Separation avowed by this Author. Answ. 'Tis not indeed the alone cause, but one amongst the rest; So that in the judgement of this Animadverter, the Separation pleaded-for, is necessary. For whom he intends what he puts in a parenthesis [though it appears not, but Noah continued to preach to them, and live among them] I know not. As rigid as the Separation pleaded-for, is, 'Tis not so rigid, but we do, and can do both and more than so too. We look upon it as our duty, to follow the Callings and Employments the Lordhath placed us in in the World, to have civil converse amongst the men thereof, 1 Cor. 5. 10. to fill up all the duties of the relation we stand in, to the worst amongst them; to do any office of love we can for them; nor do we cease to pour forth our souls (though they are some of them desirous to pour out our blood) to the Lord on their behalf, that they may be turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God: And are (as we have opportunity) preaching to them, though we run the hazard of the loss of our Liberties, if not Life itself: thereby we know Christ's bowels and pity to poor sinners is great; we have found it to be so, who have obtained grace from God, and we cannot (knowing also the terrors of the Lord) but warn and beseech them to flee from the wrath that is to come. What follows in this Section, not at all relating to the matter in controversy, being only a captions exception against an expression made use of by me, my intendment wherein is obvious to any ordinary understanding, might be passed over in silence. I say not as Mr. T. falsely represents my words, that he might take occasion to talk of Job and other holy men, who (he thinks) were not bound to repair to the people of Israel, except they would become Proselytes, which the avoiding the Idolatry of the Gentiles might require of them; not such corruptions only as are in the Church of Engl. that a Standard was set up for the people to repair unto, i. e. as he seems to intimate, the people of the Gentile world, at least those that feared the Lord amongst them, but them, viz. the People of the Jews. So that his discourse about Job and such like is impertinent and frivolous. Job lived about the year of the World 2100, several years after the giving the Land. He with the rest, he tells us, were not bound to repair to them, except they would become Proselytes, which the avoiding the Idolatry of the Gentiles might require; i. e. they were bound to repair to them, which indeed they could not do; or if they did, they would no● nor could they be accepted, except they turned Proselytes. But the corruptions that were amongst the Gentiles, were not only such as are in the Church of England, (i. e. they were somewhat more, and greater) and God forbidden they should: Lesser abominations in a once rightly constituted Church, are warrant sufficient for separation from it, than what were at that day to be found amongst the Gentiles. But these things are not at all to the business in hand.   

Sect. 5.  
The People of the Jews indispensibly bound to the Statutes and Ordinances Jehovah gave forth to them, with respect to Ecclesiasticals and Civils, without addition or detraction. The case of the Disciples plucking the ears of Corn, and David 's eating the Shewbread, considered. Hos. 6. 6. explained. God's dispensing with his own Law no argument that the Jews might add to or diminish therefrom. Of the seven other days kept by the Assembly, 2 Chron. 30. 23. Of David's Ordinance, 1 Sam. 30. 20, 25.  
MR. T. in his 6th Section repeats what I affirmed pag. 8. of S. T. touching the people of the Jews, the sum where of is, That God gave them Statutes and Ordinances, both with relation to Civils and ecclesiastics, which they were, without adding to, or detracting from, indispensibly bound to conform to. To this the Animadverter replies,  
1. By way of concession, They were (he saith) bound to conform to them, and so much the Texts alleged do prove. 2dly, By way of negation, That they were bound indispensibly, without adding to or detracting therefrom, to conform hereunto, not one of the Scriptures prove. This is to be considered.  
The first Scripture instanced in, is Exod. 21. 1. Now these are the Judgements thou shalt set before them, (the Judgements, i. e. the Judicial Laws or Civil Sanctions, as by Statutes or Decrees the Ordinances relating to Worship are usually understood) which he particularly doth in the following verses. (To what purpose he is charged to set them before them is easy to be conjectured, viz. that they might conform to them; and not solely to do so, had been a contempt and disvaluation of the wisdom and love of God who gave them forth); and chargeth them, chap. 23. 13. that with respect unto them they be circumspect, (i. e. that they heed them, and them only.) Leu. 18. 4. (the second place instanced) speaks after this wise, Ye shall do my Judgements, (i. e.) mine only; as, him thou shalt serve, Deut. 6. 13. is expounded by Christ, Mat. 4. 10. him only shalt thou serve. Nor is there any thing more frequent in the Hebrew language (which is short and concise) as is known, than such a manner of speech.) The same line of interpretation is to be stretched over, Leu. 19 37. & 20. 22. & 25. 18. But how egregiously doth Mr. T. mistake in affirming, that not one of the Scriptures instanced in, saith, that they were indispensibly bound, without adding or detracting, to conform to these Statutes and Judgements, when Deut. 4. 2. the 7th Scripture instanced in, expressly asserts it? Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the Statutes and Judgements which I teach you, for to do them; Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord you God which I command you. Bound they were by this Scripture to conform to the Statutes and Judgements, without addition to them [thou shalt not add] or detraction from them [neither shalt thou diminish.] And if bond they were indispensibly so: For no man hath power (though the Papists blasphemously assert their Pope hath) to dispense with the breach of Jehovah's Law; what he himself may do is not of our present disquisition: which is enough to evince the falsity of Mr. T. his Assertion. This one Scripture (if there had been no more) as it is a sufficient proof of what we asserted, so it gives us light into the intendment of the Spirit of the Lord in the rest instanced, according to the measure whereof they are to be interpreted. Nor can it be otherwise, the holy and wise God having given forth Laws for his People to walk by, they must needs be perfect and complete: To accuse them of Imperfection, as to the end for which they were given forth (and they were given forth for a Law and Rule to walk by) is to accuse and charge the infinitely holy and blessed God with Imperfection. That a People having a perfect Law revealed to them to conform to, should not be indispensibly bound so to do, is the firstborn of improbabilities and absurdities. But Mr. T. will prove the contrary: we attend his dictates. He tells us, 1. Our Lord hath determined the contrary. Answ. But this is nothing to the purpose: We say not that they were so bound to the observation of these Laws, that God could not dispense with them (that he sometimes did, and at last, at the least as to one part of them that eminently related to instituted Worship, he hath wholly removed and taken out of the way) but so bound, that it was not lawful for any of the sons of men to add to or detract from them. The case of the Disciples plucking the ears of Corn, and David's eating the Shewbread, is not at all to the business: Christ who was present with the Disciples, warranting the action, who is Lord of the Sabbath; and might have done so, had they on that day done some greater work than the plucking the ears of corn. And this he asserts as one part of the plea he makes for them, Matth. 12. 8. The Animadverter will never be able to make good this consequence. Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, dispensed with his Disciples when they broke a Law of the Sabbath (though indeed the plucking the ears of Corn, was no breach of any Law of the Sabbath, but of the Tradition of the Elders, who by their corrupt glosses had nefariously added to the Law) granting for Argument-sake that they had done so. Therefore the people of the Jews were not bound to conform to the Laws given to them by the Lord, for the management of their Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs, without addition or diminution. And as for the matter of Shewbread, and David's eating it: it was, 1. A case of necessity, an extraordinary case, which the Lawgiver might dispense with, under such a circumstance, and yet the people of the Jews bound to conform to his Statues and Judgements, without addition or diminution. 2dly, 'Tis evident that David did nothing but what the Law of God permitted him to do. 'Tis true, Christ saith, Mat. 12. 4. that it was not lawful for him to eat; But that is to be interpreted, that out of the case of necessity (as David's case at present was) it was not lawful for him so to do: or that by the Ceremonial Law, or Law of the Priesthood (which by the Law of God ought to give place to works of mercy and necessity) it was not lawful. But that it was not absolutely forbidden him, is evident. 1. The Priest when he comes to him makes little or no scruple of his taking the Bread, so be the young men that were with him were legally clean, 1 Sam. 21. 4. 2dly, David tells him (as the case stood) the Bread was in a manner common, v. 5. for Ceremonies ought to give place to Charity, by the Law of the same Lawgiver that instituted them. Yea, 3dly, Our dear Lord in the place mentioned by Mr. T. Matth. 12. 5. tells us, that the practice both of his Disciples and David, was according to the Warrant and Law of God; v. 7. But if ye had known what that means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. Which is a citation out of the Prophet, Hos. 6. 6. The meaning seems to be, that in cases of real necessity some Ceremonial Institutions should give place to Moral Duties. Now how weakly doth Mr. T. argue! God did in the Law in some cases dispense with the violation of some particular branches of the Ceremonial Law, therefore the People of the Jews were not indispensibly bound to the observation of it. The question not being, what God did or could dispense with, who was the absolute and supreme Lawgiver, but what the duty of the sons of men was, with respect to the Law, where there was no such dispensation; and whether they were not bound without additions and diminutions of their own, solely to conform to it? So that Mr. T. his Argument is no better than A Baculo ad Angulum; and altogether inconclusive of what he would prove thereby.  
But it may be what follows is more to his purpose? Let that be considered. He tells us, that as for additions to Laws Ecclesiastical, the Assemblies keeping other seven days besides those prescribed in the Law of the Passover, 2 Chron. 30. 23. and to Civils, the Ordinance of David, 1 Sam. 30. 20, 25. show that in both some additions might be by the Prince, etc.  
Ans. 'Tis true indeed, the Assembly in Hezekiah's time did over and above the seven days prescribed by the Law of the Passover, keep also other seven days: and 'tis as true that this Animadv. openly prevaricates in the cause he is pleading. For, 1. This was an extraordinary case, not to be reduced to ordinary practice, nor of force to enervate a general Rule. 2dly, This was no Institution or positive Law, nor was there any Injunction laid upon the People for the observation of those Laws, but the People might if they would (or otherwise) observe them: and therefore cannot properly be said to be an addition to the Laws Ecclesiastical; (it being no more than any agreement of men amongst themselves to keep a day or days of Thanksgiving or Humiliation) which had there been, it had been abominable wickedness. Mr. T. himself saith, in his third part of the full review of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism, etc. That Jeroboams Sacrifice and keeping a Feast at another time than God appointed— is condemned as Will-worship, p. 3, 4. The Ordinance of David, 1 Sam. 30. 20. is to as little purpose instanced in by this Animadverter. 1. It was a Military Ordinance, made by David when in a wand'ring state driven out of the borders of Israel. 2dly, Some refer the words, v. 25. to David, as if he alleged an old Law and Custom, as if it were written, It is both now and hath been ever. So Vatablus who renders the words, that was observed from that day and above, i. e. from the beginning of the World to that day. Some say it was a Statute from Abraham's time, (so Grotius acquaints us) who asserts, that Eschol and Mamre. Gen. 14. 24. abode by the Carriages, yet Abraham will have them receive a part of the spoil. 3dly, This Ordinance is no more than a particular exemplification of what Christ tells us is the Law and the Prophets, Mat. 7. 12. (i. e. what is required in the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets) and is the sum of what they teach concerning the duties of man to man, viz. That whatsoever we would that men should do to us, we should do to them. But, 4thly, This Ordinance is expressly established by the Lord, Numb. 31. 26, 27. Take the sum of the Prey that was taken— and divide the Prey into two parts: between them that took the War upon them, who went out to Battle, and between all the Congregation. And Jos. 22. 8. And he spoke unto them saying, Return with much Riches unto your Tents, and with very much — divide the spoil of your enemies with your Brethren. So that this Ordinance of David is no addition to the Civil-Laws of Israel. What Mr. T. hath further to add touching this matter, chap. 1. shall there be considered.   

Sect. 6.  
The Election or Ordination of Levites not asserted by the Author of the Sober Testimony, to be a Rule for the Ordination and Election of Ministers now. Mr. Tombs his mistake, and injurious dealing therein, manifested. Mr. T. grants as much as we assert in this matter. The ground of giving the firstborn to God. The Levites given to him by the Congregation in the room of the firstborn. The People set apart the Levites to the Ministry. Exod. 22. 29. Numb. 8. 16, 17, 18. explained. The reason of the People's laying on of hands. Aaron and his sons Levites. In what sense the Levites are called Priests: their office and work.  
THe seventh Section is by this Animadverter fronted with this, The Election and Ordination of the Levites is no Rule for Election and Ordination of Ministers now: which if with an intendment to insinuate into the mind of the Reader, as the Assertion of the Author of the S. T. he egregiously abuseth both the one and the other; There being not the least word, syllable or tittle throughout the whole Treatise, that gives him the least ground to surmise any such thing, but rather the contrary. The Election and Ordination of Ministers is a positive Institution of Christ, to be managed according to Rules given forth by him in the New-Testament. This I prove as well as I can, chap. 4. pag. 33. So that what Mr. T. closeth this Section with, that if it were true, that in this act of imposing their hands there were Election and Ordination, this was not a successive Election and Ordination, as is when one dies and another is chosen and ordained in his room, as oft as there is such a vacancy, when one Minister dies and another comes in his stead. For this Election and Ordination (if it may be so called) was but once, and of the whole company together; and so is no pattern for Election or Ordination of Elders successively, by a particular Congregation successively, or the major part of them, is not at all to the purpose. I no where intimate that it is a pattern of such an Election; Though I know as wise men as this Animadverter that do: as Cyprian Epist. lib. 1. ep. 4. and others. Yet I see no reason but that we may review what was by the appointment of the Lord practised amongst his people, that bears some analogy and resemblance to what is commanded under the Gospel for our further enlightening therein. (Mr. T. himself in his Apology, or Plea for the two Treatises, grants, p. 141. that we may use an Analogy to enforce a Duty, before proved) And this is the whole of what I profess to be my aim in this Review of Ancient Institutions; in the Prologue thereunto, in these words, Yet inasmuch as some beams of light may be communicated unto the present enquiry, by a retrospection into the state of things in the time of the old Law, it shall not be grievous to us, briefly to remark the state and management of affairs under that Oeconomy: which was so plainly asserted to be my sole aim therein, that I cannot but wonder Mr. T. should have the confidence to impose upon me, as if from thence I would deduce a pattern for New-Testament-Institutions, which he knows I do not. But I say, that persons were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation, for the public administration of Ordinances and Worship. Thus were the Levites, Exod. 13. 2, 12, 13. & 22. 29. Num. 3. 12. Answ. I do so indeed: what hath this Animadverter to say against it? 'Tis true, he grants they were given to God from among the Children of Israel to do the service of the Congregation; but it is not true that they-were appointed by the Lord to be chosen by the Congregation. Answ. This must be a little further considered. Upon the account of his sparing the firstborn of the children of Israel, when he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians, doth the Lord challenge them to be his, Exod. 13. 14, 15. These were the Congregation of Israel to set apart unto the Lord, v. 12. Thou (the People or Congregation of Israel, v. 3.) shalt set apart unto the Lord, all that openeth the matrix, (or, as the Serventy renders it, thou shalt put them apart unto the lord) This is called, chap. 22. 29. the giving of the first born of their sons to God, viz. to his work and service. In the stead of these he afterwards appointeth the Levites, Numb. 8. 16, 18. For they (the Levits) are wholly given unto me from among the children of Israel, in stead of such as open every womb, even instead of all the firstborn of the children of Israel. Concerning whom these few things are considerable: 1. That the Levites are said to be given, wholly given unto God, and that in the stead or room of the firstborn, v. 16, 17, 18. (who they were that set apart the firstborn to God was before showed) 2dly, That by the●r being given unto God, is intended their donation for his work and service, is evident, v. 11. for an offering of the children of Israel, that they (the Levites) may execute the service of the Lord. Whether the people had any hand in setting them apart to this work and service, is the question to which the Spirit speaks fully, ver. 9, 10. 1. The Levites were to be brought before the Tabernacle of the Congregation. 2. The whole Assembly of the children of Israel is to be gathered together, v. 9 which had been needless had they not been concerned in their approbation, (which is all I intended by the word chosen, which the Animadverter afterward carps at, or can be supposed to do, having before asserted that they were appointed by the Lord, a word frequently used in that sense as he knows.) Precious Ainsworth saith as much upon the place: The whole, or all the Congregation (saith he) because the thing concerned them all to know and approve, the Levites being now taken instead of the firstborn. 3dly, Whether this were testified by the people's imposition of hands, let the Scripture determine, v. 10. And the children of Israel (i e. some of the chief amongst them in the name of the whole, as say our Annotators) shall put their hands upon the Levites, by which sign (saith Ainsworth) they put the charge and service of the Church upon them, and consecrated them to God in their name (wherein they figured the Church of Christ, called the General Assembly of the Firstborn) from whence in the very next verse, they are called the Offering, or Wave-Offering of the children of Israel, (which Aaron is said to offer or wave for them, v. 11.) and are said, v. 14. to be thus separated from amongst the children of Israel (i e. according to the Rites ) in allusion to which some think the same word is used, Acts 13. 2. and Paul, Rom. 1. 1. saith of himself, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, separated to the Gospel of God. If it be objected, that it is said ver. 14. Thus shalt thou separate, as if it were Moses his act alone: the whole context confutes that vanity, in which there is an apparent distinction betwixt the act of Moses, Aaron, and the People. But here he is said to separate them, because the whole of this affair was managed according to the directions given by him from the Lord to them. And vers. 16. to be wholly given to the Lord, viz. by the People. Given of the sons of Israel unto God, i. e. for his Service, faith Chazkum. After all which they enter upon the work of the Lord to which they were thus solemnly deputed and set apart, v. 11, 15. This Animadverter saith indeed, that the reason of the laying on of the hands of the children of Israel upon the Levites, was to signify their obedient yielding them in their stead to God, etc. If he mean, that it was one reason whereof, it's granted, no act of worship which we perform, but we thereby signify our subjection and obedience to God. If the formal and only reason, his Assertion is void of truth; it being, as was showed, to set them apart to the office of Ministry or Service of God, that they laid their hands on them: nor is there the least print in v. 19 (the only proof of this Assertion) of any such thing. 'Tis true the choice (i. e. the first-choice or appointment of them to this Ministry) was God's; the presentment of them to the Congregation Moses his act; the yielding of them, or rather the solemn deputation of them to the work of the Lord, not the act of the firstborn merely, but of the Congregation who were called together for this purpose. The Assembly in their Annotations speak clearly hereunto, Numb. 8. 10. The Children] meaning some of the chief among them in the name of the whole. Their hands] the imposition of hands was used in Benedictions and Ordinations, not only in the Old-Testament as Gen. 48. 17, 20. Numb. 27. 23. but in the New, See Acts 6. 6. & 13. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 14. & 2 Tim. 1. 6. The People's putting their hands upon the Levites, was partly to testify that they gave up all carnal and worldly respects, and interests in them, and bequeathed them wholly to God, and that they did approve of their office in the behalf of themselves, in whose stead they stood in the performance of many of their ministrations. But Mr. T. hath found out a grievous mistake, which he again takes notice of Sect. 8. which if true, enervates all that we have asserted; and that is, that these were not Priests, they were distinct from the Levites, viz. Aaron and his sons, who were called of God, Heb. 5. 4. without the People's laying on of hands. But 1. Aaron and his sons were Levites, Exod. 4. 14, 16, 18, 20. 2dly, Calling of God, and Consent and Ordination of the People are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so that though. Aaron w●s called of God, he might also be set apart by the People unto that work, who were not altogether therein unconcerned, as is evident Exo. 29. 4. Leu. 8. 2, 3, 4. This Animadverter is not ignorant of the saying of Cyprian upon that action of Moses, Num. 20. 26. Sicht in Numeris, etc. As in the book of Numbers God commanded Moses, saying, Take Aaron thy brother, and Eleazar his son, and set them before all the Synagogue — God commands him to be constituted Priest before all the Synagogue; whereby he instructeth and showeth, that Sacerdotal Ordinations ought not to be managed without the knowledge of the People, who are to assist therein, etc. And Piscator upon Heb. 5. 4. saith, Ministerio Ecclesiae, etc. i. e. None ought to exercise the Ministerial Function, except he who is thereunto called of God. Now this vocation is either immediate or mediate. The Prophets, Apostles, and Christ the Prince of them, were immediately called. Mediately were the PRIESTS of old, and Evangelists called; as are at this day Pastors, Teachers, Governors and Deacons, each of whose vocation is by the Church. And Josephus tells us plainly, Lib. 3. cap. 9 that all the People approved the election of Aaron to the Priesthood, which God had made. And l. 4. c. 2. introduceth Moses speaking to the People upon the occasion of Korah's Rebellion, thus, Although by the loss of that honour (viz. of the Priesthood) which he (Aaron) hath received from your own election. And 'tis most certain that a long time after Zadok was anointed to the office of Highpriest by the People, 1 Chron. 29. 22. But the Levites were not Priests.  
Answ. 1. That they were not such Priests as Aaron and his sons, is granted; Priests to offer Sacrifice or burn Incense they were not: nor do I any any where assert them so to be. Priests and Levites are sometimes in Scripture distinguished I also grant: but then Priests are taken for the Sacrificing-Priests, viz. Aaron and his sons, to whose assistance in their ministry and service they were appointed by the Lord.  
Yet 2dly, That the word Priests is of various acceptions in the Scripture Mr. T. cannot deny. 1. The People of Israel (all of them) are called a Kingdom of Priests, Exod. 19 6. 2dly, Persons of note, eminency, power and authority, Gen. 41. 45. Exod. 2. 16. pass under the same denomination. 3dly. The firstborn of the male-childrens, Exod. 19 22. with 13. 2. are (say some) so called. As ●s (4thly) Christ, Heb. 7. 17. 5thly, The Saints, 1 Pet. 2. 5. The word is (6thly) usually taken for Church-officers that were solemnly set apart as Ministers of the Sanctuary for the solemn management of the public Worship and Service of God. And of these, with the leave of Mr. T. I would take the confidence to assert, that (amongst others) there were of these three sorts. 1. The Chief, or Highpriest, who (alone) might once in the year enter into the most Holy, but not without Blood, Heb. 9 7. 2dly. The inferior and ordinary Priests, who approached to the Altar of Burnt-Incense, offered Sacrifices, etc. 3. The Levites, who were a more inferior order of Ministers, given for the help of the Priests to them in the work of the Sanctuary, and solemn service of God; Who are called Priests, Psal. 132. 9 and are said to have a Priesthood, Josh. 18. 7. upon the account of their destination unto the service of the Tabernacle and work of the Ministry, to distinguish them from the Congregation or Body of the People of Israel, they are so called. They were indeed (as was said) an inferior order to Aaron and his sons, but draw nigh to God they did, in the Service of God they were employed on the behalf of the Congregation, and are called Priests, and said to have a Priesthood; and hereupon one would think one might assume the boldness to call them so. Mr. T. tells us indeed, it was the Priest's office to do that work in which was the Worship of God, viz. to offer the Sacrifices, sprinkle the Blood, and such other duties; the Levites were employed to do other services, as the bearing of the utensils, and such like. Wherein how truly and candidly he speaks, is to be considered. 1. 'Tis true it was the Priest's office (Aaron and his sons) to do that work in which was the Worship of God, (i. e. the work they did when they drew nigh to God, or worshipped him, was the Worship of God, which by office they were bound to do); But that it was their office exclusively to the Levites to do that work in which was the Worship of God (as he must be interpreted if we suppose him to speak pertinently) is false. They ministered, and by office (whereunto they were set apart) in the Service and Worship of God, as was before proved. Their bearing the utensils was as much the Worship of God, being commanded by him, as sacrificing or sprinkling the Blood of the Sacrifices upon the unclean. And this Animadverter, if I may assume the boldness to say so, writes indiscreetly and fallaciously to oppose these. 2dly. 'Tis true, that to Aaron and his sons it did by office, and exclusively to the Levites, appertain to offer Sacrifice, and sprinkle the Blood; but that the Levites were only employed in bearing the utensils and the like, is not so. They were, as well as the Priests, the son● of Aaron; 1. To teach the people, and instruct them in the Law, Deut. 33. 10. 2 Chron. 17. 7, 8, 9 80 30. 22. & 31. 4. & 35. 3. Ezra 7. 10, 11. Nehem. 8. 7, 8. & 9 4, 5. 2dly. They were solemnly to praise God, 1 Chron. 16. 4. & 23. 30. 2 Chron. 8. 14. & 20. 19 & 30. 21. & 31. 2. Ezr. 3. 10. Neh. 9 9 & 12. 24. 3dly. To bless in his Name, Deut. 10. 8. 4thly. The Judgement of things sacred appertained to them, as touching Leprosy, Deut. 24. 8. 2 Chron. 19 8, 10, 11. works in which the Worship of God was as eminently as Sacrifice, etc. upon the account of their designation whereunto they may be called Priests, and are so in the Scripture. Yet 3dly. I no where use the name Priests, to denote the Levites only (in distinction from Aaron and his sons) but make use of that term, to denote the Officers or Ministers amongst the Jews, designed and separated for the Worship of God, and the management of holy things for and to them, whether Priests or Levites; who being so called by the Spirit of the Lord, I thought I might warrantably use that appellation without distasting any one; and as yet see no just ground for the change of my thoughts in that matter.   

Sect. 7.  
Persons invested into the office of Priesthood, not left to the liberty of their own wills, or the wills of any: the whole of their Worship, with respect to the matter and manner thereof, of divine Institution. Of the Candlestick made by Moses. The matter of it. His obligation to the pattern in making it. What it typed out. The ground of the acceptance of Worship. Several places of Scripture revised and considered.  
THat persons invested into the office of Priesthood were not left to the liberty of their own wills, or the wills of any of the sons of men, that the whole of their Worship, with respect to the matter and manner thereof, was purely of divine Institution, is a third Assertion of mine touching the state of things under the old Law, which Mr. T. takes notice of Sect. 8. which he grants to be thus far true; that what was of the Institution of the Lord, both as to matter and manner, they were not in their office left to their own wills, or the wills of any others; and so much he saith the Scriptures produced prove.  Sed dabitur ignis tamen etsi ab inimicis petam. 
We will not thank him for his grant, and doubt not but to manifest somewhat more, viz. That nothing was to be intermixed with what the Lord had instituted, nothing of man to be superadded thereunto, whether you respect the matter or manner of the Worship. And this the Scriptures instanced do prove. Exod. 25. 9, 40. According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all the Instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it— And look that ye make them after their pattern which was showed thee in the Mount. And this Dr. Willet upon the place plainly asserts, It is hence gathered (saith he) the form of the Tabernacle is not left to the will of man, no not to the judgement of Moses; to teach us that God will not be served with will-worship, according to the devices and inventions of men, but as he himself hath prescribed. Prelarg. Piscat. So our blessed Saviour allegeth in the Gospel out of the Prophet. Mark. 7. 7. Num. 8. 4. According to the pattern which the Lord had showed Moses, so he made the Candlestick. The Candlestick was a figure of the Church, said to be but one here, because the Church at this day was National (as also Zech. 4. 1.) But Rev. 1. 20. we read of seven Candlesticks, which are expressly said to be the seven Churches of Asia, i. e. they signified the seven Churches of Asia; they were represented by the seven Candlesticks said here, and there to be made of Gold, beaten Gold; to point forth the matter constituting them to be visible Saints, and to be made according to the pattern (of which Exod. 25. 31.) to type forth that no other ground or form of Doctrine, or of the Church, is to be brought in, than that which is showed of God, 2 Tim. 1. 13. 1 Tim. 1. 3, 4. & 3. 15. Mat. 28. 20. To this Pattern Moses was so strictly bound, that it was utterly unlawful for him to have added the least of his own invention; which to have done had been not only great unfaithfulness in him, but an impeachment of the Wisdom of God, and his Love to his People. Heb. 8. 5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle: For see (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the Mount; i. e. To the type and example set before him to imitate, to which he was not to add the least pin of his own, 1 Chr. 28. 11. (The pattern of the Porch, i. e. of the Temple (saith Vatablus) which David received either by revelation, or by the hand of the Prophet, 1 Chr. 28. 12, 19 Exod. 8. 27. & 39 1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 31, 43. (other places instanced in the S. T. preach forth the same thing) These were types of the heavenly Ordinances in the Church of Christ, Heb. 8. 5. And type out that nothing of man is to be superadded thereto, but all things to be done according to Divine Commandment.) To the same thing doth the Spirit of the Lord bear witness, Exod. 40. 23, 25, 29. Num. 8. 3. Exod. 35. 10, 29. & 36. 1, 5. Isa. 29. 13. To which may be further added, Deut. 4. 1, 2, 40. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the Statutes and Judgements which I teach you, for to do them— Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish aught from it, that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God— Thou shalt keep therefore his Statutes and Commandments which I command thee this day—. All which prove not only the obligation that lay upon them to conform to what was of the Institution of the Lord, but the utter unlawfulness to add thereto, or introduce any thing of their own in his service; (The ground of the acceptance of any Worship or Service offered to him, being his Command and Institution) and that with such evidence and brightness, that it seems Mr. T. durst not look them in the face, lest they should have so reproved him as to have hindered his further advance in that good work and cause, he was resolved (having undertaken its defence) to prosecute. He only takes notice of two of these many places instanced in, viz. Leu. 8. throughout, which he grants speak of the investure of the Priests into their Office, according to the Rites set down; but whether any other might to these have been added to the sons of men, he tells us not: which yet he should have proved, if he would have demolished and thrown down what it was his good pleasure to set himself against. And he doth wisely not to approach too near this Scripture, which stands with a twoedged Sword in its hand to defend the Truth opposed by this Animadverter. No less than ten times, viz. v. 4, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 34, 35, 36. The Commandment of the Lord is laid as the foundation of the whole of that procedure, clearly importing that matters of this nature, (viz. things relating to his Worship) are solely to be bottomed on Divine Precepts; and condemning and interdicting whatever of the like nature is offered to him on any other bottom. Which Aaron's sons afterwards attempting to do, Leu. 10. 1. perish in the flames of God's jealousy and wrath. R. Menachem on Leu. 8. 36. hath these words, In every other place it is said, as the Lord commanded Moses; but here, because they added unto the Commandment, he saith not so, for they did not as the Lord had commanded; and added moreover unto them strange Fire which he had not commanded them, Leu. 10. 1. And Josephus b. 3. c. 9 saith th●s, Nadab and Abihu bringing Sacrifices unto the Altar, not such as were appointed by Moses, but of that sort they were accustomed to offer aforetimes, were burned by the violent flame that issued from the Altar, that at length they died. The other place he takes notice of is Isa. 29. 13. which he refers to be discussed to the first chapter: All the other places (as was said) are passed over in silence: which manner of dealing is a great abuse both to the Truth and Reader. To the Truth, by waving the consideration of what is offered as the substratum upon which it is built: To the Reader, by pretending to answer to what is asserted by his Antagonist, for the confirmation of Truth, without advancing one step forward towards its confutation. But perhaps he means not, that where God hath given direction about any part of Worship it's lawful to add any thing thereunto, but only wherein God hath not spoken and determined as touching the management of his Worship, there the will of some of the children of men takes place, and they may determine. But if so. 1. This is a most pitiful Petitio principii or begging the thing in question, viz. That God hath not determined the whole of his Worship and Service, but hath left somewhat to the wills of men relating to Worship, as such, to be determined by them, which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the thing in question, and will never be granted him upon those terms. 2dly. Contrary to that fundamental principle placed in the nature of man, and employed and fairly intimated in each Scripture before instanced in, that nothing in his Worship and Service is acceptable to him but what is of his own prescription. 3dly. Diametrically opposite to Deut. 4. 1, 2. (these additions let them be of what nature, or in what case they will, are additions to the Word of Jehovah) Isa. 29. 13. with Mark 7. 7. (being evidently doctrines and institutions of men, which the Spirit there tells us must have no place in the Worship of God) That the Jews had their Service more fully particularised in all things pertaining to it than we have, (if he mean things relating to Service, or Worship, as such) is spoken after the rate that a great many other things in this Treatise are, viz. with confidence enough, but without proof. There being nothing relating to Gospel-Worship, as such, but is determined by Christ, and appointed in the Scripture. When he sends forth his Apostles, Mat. 28. they were to teach what he had commanded them, nothing more or less. And he being Lord and Master of his House (whose House are we, Heb. 3. 6.) who dares be so bold as to intermeddle with the affairs thereof, without his appointment, or can do so without an encroachment upon his Sovereignty? He was faithful as Moses, who received and revealed the Ordinances of the then House of God, that he left nothing relating to the Worship thereof, as such, to the wills of men. But of this more hereafter.   

Sect. 8.  
Of the apostasy of the Jews from Divine Institutions. The aim of the Author in remarking it. It's application to the Church of England. Whose Investions are expressly forbidden. Of things in themselves out of the cas● of Worship indifferent. 'Tis not in the power of the Church to make that which is left indifferent by the Lord, a necessary Worship. The judgement of the Protestant Writers. Of the decency and order is in the Ceremonies of the Church of England. Of their being imposed by Public Authority. How they draw from God. Of their rise from the customs and manner of the Nations, directly contrary to many precepts. The introduction of men's Inventions into the Worship of God idolatrous. Will-worship Idolatry. The judgement of the Ancients and others thereabout. A departure from the Institutions of God, to the Customs of the Nations, called in Scripture a forsaking of God. Several Scriptures reviewed. Of the Jews worshipping other Gods. How these things are applicable to the Church of England.  
IN Sect. 9 This Animadverter examines, what was asserted in S. T. touching the Apostasy of the Church of the Jews from the pure Institutions of the Lord, mingling therewith the Inventions of Men, and Customs of the Nations, of which God sorely complains, and for it severely punisheth them; the Contests of God from first to last being bottomed upon this foot of account; which as it relates to the People of the Jews, he acknowledgeth the truth of. But to apply these things (with the threaten and punishments in the places mentioned) to the imposing or using of such Ceremonies as are retained in the Church of England, is a gross abuse. Answ. 1. But who applied them hereunto? The utmost of the Athors' intention in this assertion, was only to manifest, That a Church might be wonderfully gathered and separated by the Lord out of the World, taken near to himself for his People, yet soon apostatise and departed from him, which the Jews did: From whence I thought it had been lawful to conclude, That another Church, or Churches (except some special Privilege or grant to the contrary, given to them of the Lord, could be produced) might likewise apostatise from God; which when applied to the Church of England (as ●e calls it) only amounts to thus much, that supposing it once was a true Church, 'tis possible (if it hath not already) it may apostatise and departed from God; which Mr. T. will not deny. And that this was the utmost of my intendment in this matter is evident, from Q. 7. P. 11. Where are these words, Whether any Church in the world (we speak of a visible instituted Church) hath greater security against Apostasy from God, and that sore Judgement of having its Candlestick removed (and being unchurched) than the People of the Jews had? If not, Then whether, supposing a National Church of the Institution of Christ, it may not so come to pass, that it may be so overspread with corruptions, that it may lose the essence of a Church, and justly be disrobed of that appellation. Yet upon second thoughts, I see not that there is such a vast discrepancy betwixt the Inventions of men, charged upon the Jews, for which they were threatened and punished, and the Inventions are to be found in the Church of England, as this Animadverter would compel us to the belief of. He tells us, 1. That their Inventions were expressly forbidden; And are not the Ceremonies of the Church of England? Inventions of Men he grants at least some of them to be. Now all the Inventions of man in the Worship of God, relating to it as such, were then and now expressly forbidden; (whilst he supposeth the contrary he doth but beg the Question) by the second Commandment, and elsewhere, as hath been showed. The learned Dr. Willet in his Comment▪ on the 2d. Com. tells us, That the true Worship of God, which according to his nature, must be spiritual, is commanded in this 2d. Precept, and that he will be worshipped according to his Will revealed in his Word; to which it is not lawful to add to, or take any thing therefrom, as the Lord said to Moses, Exod. 25. 9 He further acquaints us, That all other kinds of superstitious Worship, devised by man, which the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship, Col. 2. 23. (for we must (saith he) be contented with Rites and Ceremonies prescribed of God himself) and the application of things of themselves indifferent, so unto the Service of God, as to make them a necessary part thereof, is condemned by this Precept: 2dly. Mr. T. asserts, That the Ceremonies of the Church of England, are confessed out of the Case of Worship, in themselves to be things indifferent. Answ. 1. And were there no Ceremonies amongst the Jews, confessed out of the case of Worship to be so? This Animadverter knows the contrary. 2. By what authority doth any of the children of men make that necessary in case of Worship, that is confessedly not so out of it; i. e. make it a part of Worship; for if necessary in case of Worship, 'tis evidently made a part thereof, without which it cannot acceptablly be performed. I confess (Dr. Foes. in Comitiis Oxon. An. 1605.) one of their own Poets sings.  

In Domini cultu, si quid medium esse videtur  
Quod populti dubio, stat, cadit arbitrio.  
Hoc Sacro-sancta parens Ecclesia si modo sanxit,  
Inque sacris cultum hunc si velit esse ratum.  
Non erit hic cultus medius, cogetur ad illum  
Quisque necessarius, hic quoque cultus erit.   
Wherein he tells us, That if any thing be indifferent in the Worship of God, and Holy-Mother-Church shall establish and confirm it, it ceaseth to be indifferent, and becomes necessary Worship, which every one is to be compelled to. In which he speaks, shall I say, like a true Son of the Church of England, or of Rome? But he forgets to tell us upon what Scripture he bottoms these two Assertions. First, That there is any thing relating to the Worship of God, as such, of an indifferent nature. Secondly, That 'tis in the power of the Church to make that which is left indifferent by the Lord, a necessary Worship; nor can he produce any, but the unwritten Word or Law communicated to the Pope or his Conclave, I know not when, and kept I know not where; which will prove no better (at best) than the proof the Jews bring for their Fopperies, since their Apostasy and scattering abroad, out of their Talmudical Writers; or the Turks from their Alcoran, i. e. frivolous and ridiculous. This is generally decried and exploded by Protestant Writers. Peter Martyr (In Epist. ad Hoop. Episcop. Glocest.) affirms of the English Ceremonies, That, Quoad aliter facere non liceat, i. e. in their imposition, as necessary parts of Worship, they were grievous and burdensome. Certain Princes of Germany, to please Charles the Emperor, Imposed the Surplice, and other Rites, upon the Ministers of their several Territories, and are all condemned (Supplicat. Teolog. German. A. 1561.) for this, That they caused to sigh the Spirit of God, and the hearts of good men. It is Blasphemy to think that any outward thing may be made a Sign in the Church of any thing that is spiritual (as the Cross in Baptism is) unless it be expressly ordained in the Word, and Commanded by God himself to be used to that end, saith Lambert. Danaeus (Cont. Bellar. de Cult. Sanct. Lib. 3. Cap. 7.) Contrary whereto is the Doctrine of none of the Reformed Churches, besides the Church of England, but of the Church of Rome; the Basis upon which her pompous Worship is built, which being removed would fall to the ground, and perish with its own weight. Yea, but Thirdly, The Ceremonies of the Church of England are for Decency and Order. To which I shall only say what one said of the like speech of the Monks of Bordeaux, when they affirmed, That the Signs added to Baptism, were an Ornament to it: We Reply, saith he to them, Num igitur sunt, etc. Are they wiser than Christ Jesus, who hath ordained his Sacrament in so great Purity, and simplicity, and who knoweth better than all the men in the world, what Ornament was sittest for it. If it be but the Covenant of a man, when it is confirmed, no man abrogateth it, or addeth any thing to it; What arrogancy is it then to add to the Institution of Christ? What the Animadverters private thoughts of the Ceremonies of the Church of England are, with respect to their Decency and O●der, I know not; as wise men as he think the contrary. The Ceremonies which have been abused to Superstition (as the Ceremonies of the Church of England have been) can never serve for Order or Comeliness; say the Divines of Germany, who stood against the Ceremonies then enforced. And for the Surplice, one calls it, A Player-like apparel (Gualt. in Hos. 2.) and (Calv. Instit. Lib. 4. Cap. 10. Sect. 29.) A vain Vizard. Another (Baleus in Declar. of Bon. Arti. p. 100) A pretty Toy. And (Dr. Taylor Act. and Mon. p. 1659.) An Apish Toy. Another (Baecon. p. 1. Cathe. p. 486.) Histrionical, Scenical, and Scorner-like. As for their being, 4thly, Imposed by Public Authority, So were the Jewish Inventions. Jeroboam imposeth them upon the People, who are so far from being excused upon that account, that they are condemned for their fearful and slavish subjection to him, Hos. 5. 11. and elsewhere. But Fifthly, Their Inventions were such as drew them to serve other Gods, and forsake the Lord. Answ. If he means that they were by these immediately influenced to the rejecting the true God, that made the Heavens and the Earth, he talks like himself, confidently, and without proof. This indeed they did draw them to, a rejection of Divine Appointments, and casting off that Obedience and Subjection they owed to God▪ and so do the Inventions and Ceremonies of the Church of England. No Innovation in Worship but is a stealing from God, that Obedience and Service that is alone due to him, and giving it to another (viz. the Innovator.) In time also God gives them up in a judicial way, as a punishment of this their departure from Divine Institutions, to the Inventions of man, to blindness of mind, and strong delusions. Thus he dealt with Israel, Isa. 6. 9, 10. and 29. 10, 13. So that they at last grew so sottish, as to fall down before the stump of a Tree, yet without the utter rejection or denial of the true God, whom they worshipped through that false Medium. They swore by the Lord (i. e. Worshipped him) when they swore by Malcham. Unto what blindness of mind God hath given up many of the Pleaders for, and Conformers to the present Inventions and Ceremonies, I had rather leave to the silent thoughts of the Reader, than express. And what in time, as a punishment for mingling the Worship of God with the Inventions of men, and departure from Divine Institutions, befell the Synagogue of Rome in respect of their Icolatria, or Image-worship; and the Church of England in days past, (and now in their falling down before the Sacrament, of which in its proper place we must speak) is known to all. And I hearty wish that the review thereof might make us to tremble to provoke the Lord to jealousy by the works of ourhands. But he adds, None of the Inventions of men mentioned in the places cited, are such as can be charged upon the Church of England, (for that I take to be his meaning;) nor are any threatened by the Lord, or did he contest with the Jews upon the account of any Customs of the Nations, but such as were Idolatrous; and of this he saith, Let all the Texts alleged be viewed. Answer. And we are contented they be reviewed, only we crave leave to premise; 1. That this Animadverter doth not deny, that the Ceremonies of the Church of England, (at least some of them) are derived from the Customs of the Nations, nor indeed that mediately (through the Church of Rome, from whom we immediately received them) they are so, can be denied. The Surplice, Durandus indeed thinks (Rational. Lib. 3. Cap. 1.) was borrowed from the Jews. It was rather (as we said) from the Heathen Priests, who were clad in white in their Ministration. The Ri●g in Marriage, the Cross in Baptism, the distinction of the Priests (from the Roman Heathen Flamens, and Archflamins;) and many of their Feasts, as Eostar, or Easter, Epiphany, etc. smell of the same Forge; which is directly contrary to many Precepts of the Lord in the Scripture, Leu. 20. 23. Deut. 12. 30. (So will I do, i. e. not unto Idols, but unto the Lord, a● the next verse manifests.) Hereupon the Hebrews say, Thou mayest not inquire or ask concerning the way of the service of an Idol, how it is, although thou serve it not; for this thing occasions to turn after it, and to do as they do. Maimon Tract. of Idol. Cap. 2. Sect. 2. Not only the Worship of false Gods, but false or Idolatrous Worship of the true God is here forbidden, and all imitation of Idolaters is condemned, 2 Kings 17. 15. Jer. 10. 2. Psal. 106. 35. 2dly. That this Animadverter supposeth, That the Introduction of the Inventions of Men into the Worship of God, is not Idolatry; That such Ceremonies are not Idolatrous: which we cannot yield him, it being the making an Image to ourselves, contrary to the second Commandment. Nor am I singular in this opinion. August. de Consens. Evang. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. Vasq. de Adorat. Lib. 2. Disput. 1. Cap. 3. Dr. Bills. against Apolog. p. 4. p. 344. assert, That all Will-Worship is flat Idolatry. And Mr. T. will yield, That what is Praeter mandatum, beside the Commandment, is Will-worship. 3dly. That a departure from one or more of the Institutions of God, to the embracement of the Customs of the Nations, is in Scripture called, a forsaking of God, 2 Kings 17. 15▪ Deut. 28. 20, with 15. Isa. 1. 4. which cannot be interpreted of their casting off the whole Worship of God, which they did not; for they continued to sacrifice to him, to tread his Courts, and made many Prayers, they observed the New-Moons, Sabbaths, etc. vers. 11, 12, 13, so that totally they had not rejected him and his service, but turning aside to the Inventions of men, and mixing them with the Worship of God, he saith, They had forsaken him: which that the present Ministers and Church of England have done, we have evinced in Chap. 4, and 5, of S. T. And now let the judicious Reader consider the places produced, Deut. 32. 18. Jer. 23. 27. and 9 13, 14. and 15. 6. Ezr. 9 10. Jer. 16. 11, 12. and 19 4, 5. and I doubt not but he will say, that they are not grossly abused (as Mr. T. speaks) when applied (though we did not do so) to the imposition or use of the Ceremonies in the Church of England. 'Tis true the Jews are, in some of the places mentioned, accused with worshipping of Idols, but the great thing that is charged upon them is their departing from the Appointments of the Lord; which had they not done, they had never worshipped those false Gods; who yet, so far as I am able to discern, were not strictly the Object of their Worship, but false Mediums, through which they worshipped and went to the true God; as others do through the Common-Prayer-Book-Service, as great an Idol as ever was in the World, and as much the invention of man as the Calf in the Wilderness, or the Calves at Dan and Bethel.   

Sect. 9  
Of the confidence of the People of the Jews under their Apostasy, that they were the People of God. Their Persecution, even to death, of such as testified against their Innovations. The Church and Ministers of England guilty of such Innovations, as the Prophets, Christ, etc. condemned the Jews for. Our bearing Testimony against these hath no tendency to the infringement of the Peace of the Nation. The way of ridged Conformity no Basis sufficient to support the Nations Peace. The saying of Cyril. The unjust Accusations of Mr. T. against us  
WHat I remark in the fifth place touching the People of the Jews, that notwithstanding their Apostasy they remained confident that they were the People of God, and persecuted, and put to death the Prophets and Servants of the Lord, that bore their Testimony against their Innovations, Mr. T. grants to be true, Sect. 10. But intimates 1. That the People and Teachers of England are not guilty of such Innovations, as the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles charged upon the Jews: Whether they are or no, let the judicious Reader judge from what is offered in the foregoing Section. To which we shall only add, that Mal. 1. 6, 7. may most truly be spoken of them. They call God indeed Father, and Master, but they fear and reverence others as such, whose Canons and Constitutions they are bound to yield Canonical obedience unto. They despise his Name by offering polluted bread upon his Altar; a service not commanded by him, that hath been polluted, defiled by Antichrist. Nor can they be cleared from that imputation of Christ, Mat. 15. 9 Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men. Which that they do, Mr. T. himself in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum, yet speaketh, and every one knows. So that by this Animadverters confession we do well to bear our Testimony against them. 2dly, That our witnessing against them tends to infringe the public Peace. Answ. This was an accusation managed in every day against the witnesses of Christ. The Prophets infringed the Peace, so did Christ, the Apostles, etc. It was thought therefore not to be for the safety of the Nations to suffer them to live. And Mr. T. doth what he can (by such wicked and unchristian intimations as these) to irritate the present Rulers to proceed against us in like manner: Which (through the grace of the Lord) is a small matter to us, who would not account our lives dear ●o ourselves, so we may finish our work and testimony for Christ with faithfulness and joy. What peace these expressions will in the review of them administer to Mr. T. I know not; I am sure they will be bitterness in the latter end. For our parts, where is the person that can testify aught against us, as the disturbers of the peace of the Nation? Are there any in it, that do more covet and desire the introducing what may and will most assuredly be a Basis to support its continual peace and welfare? The way of rigid Conformity will never do it, as some hundreds of years experience manifest. To this Animadverter I shall only further say, as Cyril of old (Cyril Epist. ad Cleric. Constan. in Concil. Ephes. p. 72.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Are we Enemies to Peace? In no wise, we rather will pull it to us with violence, so that the true Faith withal may be confessed. If ou● Testimony do not eventually rectify any thing, we cannot help it, 'tis no other than what the servants of God (yea Christ himself, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servant) met with. The people would go on in their superstitious practices, say what they could in the Name of the Lord unto them; yet were they bound to testify against them. This is our comfort, that our judgement is with the Lord, and our reward with our God. That this Animadverter accuseth us of being guilty of Calumny, and our practice as proceeding not from holy zeal but evil passion, we are not much concerned. 'Tis a small matter to be judged of man's day; we must shortly stand before an higher Tribunal, whither we can cheerfully appeal; and hearty wish that Mr. T. had manifested less passion, and more holy zeal in this Treatise than I am able to discern; then would he have had greater cause of rejoicing in the day of Christ.   

Sect. 10.  
Of the false Prophets that were amongst the Jews. To whom the Ministers of England bear a great resemblance, manifested in 6 particulars. Isa. 9 15. and 28. 7, 8. Jer. 23. 11. Zeph. 3. 4. Hos. 9 8. 2 Pet. 2. 1. explained. To prophesy lies in the Name of the Lord, what. Ecclesiastical Canons against the practice of the present Ministers. To do violence to the Law: to be a snare of a fowler: What they import. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or false Teachers, who they are. Damnable Heresies what, and why so called. Denying the Lord that bought them, what it imports. The Plea of the Animadverter for the Church and Ministers of England, not much better than what was, or might have been made use of by Jeroboam himself.  
WHat I mention in the 6th place touching the false Prophets that were amongst them of Old, who ran before they were sent, and prophesied smooth things to them in the name of the Lord, according to the desire of the heart of them and their Rulers, upon the account whereof they were in great esteem amongst them, Mr. T. grants. But intimates. 1. That the Ministers of England are not such as the texts produced describe, and therefore those that accuse them, as if they were such, are false accusers.  
Answ. But — Ne saevi magne Sacerdos.  
Have a little patience, and we doubt not but to manifest, that they bear a very great resemblance and likeness to them.  
1st. Did they run before they were sent, Jer. 14. 14, 21. and 23. 21. (i. e. pretend to come and act in the Name of the Lord, when he never commanded them, nor spoke to them?) Do not the Ministers of England the same? This we afterward manifest.  
2dly, Did they Prophesy lies in the Name of the Lord, Isa. 9 15. Lies, what are they? They are called, False Visions, and Divinations, a thing of nought, and the deceit of their hearts, which God never commanded, neither ever entered it into his heart to do so, Jer. 14. 14. Dreams, Jer. 23. 27. Ezek 13. 2. and 22. 28. (i. e. the Inventions and Traditions of men, which they mingled with the Word of the lord) That of this the Ministers of England are guilty, we prove Chap. 4, and 5, of S. T.  
3dly. Were they (some of them) swallowed up of Wine, erring through strong drink, (i. e. a parcel of drunken Sots) Isa. 28. 7, 8. and 56. 12. And hath Mr. T. the forehead to deny this of the present Ministers of the Church of England? I speak it without passion or prejudice against their persons; I believe, (and the the whole Nation will (I judge) attest the truth thereof) that there are not such a parcel of drunkards and debauched persons to be found amongst any one profession of men in England, as amongst this Tribe.  
4thly, Were they given to Covetousness? Jer. 6. 13. (i. e. the generality of them were so) & 8. 10. Isa. 56. 11. And is it not the general complaint of the people of the Nation, who have eyes to see, and understandings to judge of persons and things, as well as this Animadverter, that the present Ministers of England are so. From whom (were they Brethren) it is therefore our duty to separate by Apostolical Precept, 1 Cor. 5. 11. Their greedy gaping after preferment and greater places of emolument— heaping one Steeple upon another (could no more be said) abundantly evince the truth hereof. Which is not only contrary to Christ's Canons (to which many have too little regard) but to Canons Ecclesiastical in former days, which interdict such practices, upon penalty of being deprived of their Office and Benefice. Lib. Concil. Epist. Leo. Pap. 54. & Decret. causa: 7. Qu. 1.  
5thly. Were they profane? did the Lord find their wickedness in his House? Jer. 23. 11. (are profane, i. e. have little or no respect to my Institutions; their wickedness have I found in my House, i. e. my very Temple is full of their Superstitions and Idolatries; so our Annotators. Did they do violence to the Law? Zeph. 3. 4. i e. corrupt it with their glosses, forced interpretations, constructions, such as God never put into it; they set by the Law, and set up their own inventions, wills, traditions, by which the Law was made void.) And can the present Ministers be acquitted from a copartnership with them herein? we prove the contrary, chap. 4, & 5. of S. T.  
6thly. Were they as a snare of a Fowler in all his ways, and battered in or against the House of the Lord? Hos. 9 8. (i. e. they watched the Godly in Ephraim, or amongst the ten Tribes, who durst not strike in with Jeroboam's Abominations, but went up though by stealth and secretly (some of them) to the House of God which was at Jerusalem; and privily) as the snare of a Fowler that is laid secret, not in the sight of the  Bird) accused and molested them, being full of hatred against them, or the Worship that was managed and carried-on at Jerusalem, whither they went. The very same thing is practised by the present Ministers against such as dare not comply with them in their established inventions: which is so generally known, and by some felt at this day, that it cannot be denied; Who if they do not (some of them) openly, yet secretly labour to ensnare, molest and trouble, by causing to be presented into the Bishop's Courts, etc. persons of such a complexion. What the frame of their spirits is with respect to the Worship which is of the appointment of Christ, and will be found at the last to be so; their railing (not being able to do more) and snarling against it in their preaching, etc. together with their prayers and endeavours for its extirpation, sufficiently evince.  
7thly. Did they prepare War against such as put not into their mouths? Mic. 3. 5. Had they no Vision, were they dark, blind, without an answer of God? ver. 6, 7. And doth Mr. T. think that he will ever persuade the enlightened people of God in England that these things are not true of the present Ministers of England? Hath he alone been such a stranger in our Israel, as not to know that they are legible, and visible upon the Clergy thereof? And if he a thousand times over call us Calumniators and false Accusers, for our affixing them to them: Wisdom will be justified of her Children whether he will or no. The good People of the Nation (yea those that are but sober amongst themselves) will acquit us that we speak nothing but truth of and touching them in this matter; knowing full well that these things are indeed so.  
But Mr. T. adds, 2dly, They do not bring-in damnable Heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, 2 Pet. 2. 1.  
Answ. 1. Nor did I in S. T. charge them with so doing: 'Tis true, I cite 2 ●et. 2. 1. but the utmost of my intendment therein was to manifest, That as under the Law there were false Prophets, so under the Gospel there are false Teachers: which that Scripture proves. And one step further can none compel me to go.  
2. If the Animadverter thinks that because they are not guilty (if indeed they are not) of what those false Teachers are there charged with, therefore they cannot be charged as false Teachers, or such as symbolise with the false Prophets of old, he is mistaken. They are so, do so upon other accounts, though they should be acquitted of what is there mentioned. The Apostle saith not, the false Prophets of old brought in damnable Heresies, and denied the Lord that bought them, (which latter in plain terms they did not) they pretended as much to him as the true; that they came acted in his Name, that the Spirit of God was with them, 1 King. 2. 24. yet were they justly and frequently charged as such.  
But 3dly, upon second thoughts I see not but the characters of false Teachers there mentioned, may truly and properly be charged upon the present Ministers. First, They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which imports either that they, 1. falsely arrogated to themselves the title of Teachers, when really and indeed they are not so; or 2dly, that they taught false things for true, thus some carry it. But 3dly, the corrupt and abominable innovations of Antichrist are in 2 Thess. 2. 11. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lie; with allusion hereunto these Doctors or Teachers are here called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or teachers of a lie, viz. the great Antichristian Lie. Hence though there were many false Teachers at that day (as is known) the Apostle saith not in the present tense, there are, but in the future, there shall be, viz. when Antichrist (according to Paul, whose Epistles Peter conversed with, 2 Pet. 3. 15.) should be revealed. In respect of each of which the title is applicable to the present Ministers. 1. They assume the title of Teachers falsely, (as is proved, chap. 3. of S. T.) 2dly. They teach false things, as we demonstrate, ch. 5. & 10. of S. T. 3dly. That they are teachers of a great part of the Lie of Antichrist; their Discipline, Worship and Doctrine thereabout, being for the most part hammered at his forge, cannot be denied. Secondly, Of them it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they shall bring in Heresies of destruction. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to bring in besides, i. e. besides men's expectations, or besides the Truth taught by Godly Teachers, by themselves in part also to countenance their Errors, so the Assembly; They shall do it fraudulently under the vizard of Truth, so Aretius. They shall do it privily and subtly, pretending a show of Piety and name of the Church, so Gerh. Heresies of cestruction are no other but the Heresies or false Doctrines of Antichri●●, such as destroy and lay waste the Church, the Truths and Institutions of Christ, being alien and contrary to what is of his prescription, and are supported by force and violence against them that do oppose them. For which at the last swift destruction is brought upon themselves. Upon which account Antichrist (as is thought) is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rev. 9 11. i e. a Destroyer, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Thess. 2. 3. the son of destruction, or perdition. That the Ministers and Church of England do thus, is too evident to admit of a denial. They assume to themselves the name of the Church, cry out against all others that separate from them as Heretics and Schismatics; preach some truth, with which they slily mix their Errors; that lay waste the Institutions of Christ, and persecute all these, imprison, waste, ruin, destroy them (or at the least attempt it to the utmost of their power) that stand up against their Innovations, and Church-destroying Doctrines. The greatest difficulty may seem to be in those words that are spoken of them, Thirdly, That they shall deny the Lord that bought them; the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They denied not that he bought them (if it be meant of Christ) but denied him, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Lord, cast off (in part at least) his Authority as sole King and Lord of his Church. And this too, not openly and in words, which is against the express letter of the Text, they shall privily or slily bring it in, but in practice doing that which doth invelop or wrap up in it a denial of the Despotical or Kingly Office and Authority of Christ. And this saith Grotius the word signifies; De tali desertione quae non verbo, sed reipsa fiat, figurate usurpatur. Hugo Grot. Whence Dux Gregis, the Captain of this Herd is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that lawless-one, that despiseth, sets light by the Laws and Authority of Christ. That hereof the present Ministers are guilty we prove, chap. 4. & 5. of S. T. So that not one of the Scriptures produced but may justly be applied to them. And the Conforming-Ministers are rightly charged, as the false Prophets of the Jews are in the places produced in S. T. This Mr. T. denies: but if he would have made good his denial (in my conceit) he should have produced the particular places mentioned, and manifested that they could not properly be applied to them. But he knew an easier way, Mentiris, Bellarmine, mentiris; a few keen words against his Antagonist would cost him little. 'Tis true, he tells us that the present Ministers teach the Fundamentals of Christian Religion, but what he means by the Fundamentals of Religion he tells us not: Doth he intent that they own one God, etc. so did the false-Prophets. The great Fundamental of true Religion is, That God is to be worshipped according to the Revelation he hath made of himself in the Scriptures of Truth: that all we do in his Worship and Service, that relates to it as such, be bottomed on divine prescript. This fundamental they deny, (introducing the Ordinances and Inventions of man, and making these a part of Worship) A departure from which is the ground of all the Apostasy that ever was in the World.  
4thly. This Animadverter's plea for the Church and Ministers of England is not much better than what was or might have been made use of by Jeroboam himself, for his Ministry, Church and Worship. Touching which precious Ainsworth in his Arrow against Idolatry, ch. 3. introduceth Jeroboam speaking after this rate, I see my course (O men of Israel) to be much suspected, if not wholly misliked of many; some thinking my Ceremonies to savour too rankly of Heathen Superstition; some charging me plainly with flat Apostasy, and forsaking of God: But how far off I am from all such Impiety, I hope to manifest to all indifferent persons, chief sigh that I have neither spoken nor done against any Article of the Ancient Faith, not changed any Fundamental Ordinance of Religion (The very plea of Mr. T. for the present Ministers) given us by Moses, but worship with reverence the God of my Fathers, and love him (as I am taught) with all my heart, and with all my soul, cleaving unto him alone who is my life and the length of my days. Other Gods of the Nations I utterly abhor, with all their impure rites and services— The alteration I have made is in matters of circumstance, things whereof there is no express, certain or permanent Law given us of God, and which are variable, as time, place, or person give occasion, and such as good Kings have changed before me, and have been blameless. This the sum, upon which he dilates excellently; and Sect. 12. introduceth him asserting his Worship for substance to be the same that God commanded by Moses: We worship (saith he) the same God: we offer the Sacrifices of Beefs and Sheep, burn Incense, pay First-fruits and Tithes, and observe all the Ordinances that our Fathers have kept since the World began: We hold the main Article of our Messiah to come, and of Redemption from our sins by him— Thus plausibly, with much more mentioned by that worthy person beforenamed, in his Arrow against Idolatry; a Tract, to say no more, worthy the perusal. Might Jeroboam plead for himself and practice (as Josephus tells us he did, B. 8. Jews Antiq. ●ap. 3.) yet are his ways and worship abominable and not to be joined with. And yet Mr. T. hath not hitherto said more for the justification of the Ministers and Worship of England.  Parvas habet spes Troja si tales habet. 
If no more can be pleaded in defence of the present Ministers and Worship than Jeroboam could plead for his Innovations and horrible Apostasy from God, their case is deplorable indeed.   

Sect. 11.  
In the height of the Israelitish Apostasy, God left not himself without a Witness, reserved to himself a Remnant. Of the self-invented Worship of that day. Whether there be no such Worship to be found in England. The duty of Saints with relation thereunto. Of Mr. T. his rash judging.  
THat God left not himself without a Witness in the height of the Israelitish Apostasy, but raised up one or other to testify for him against their self-invented Worship, that he reserved unto himself a Remnant that clavae to him and his pure Appointments, is a seventh Assertion in the S. T. which Mr. T. also grants to be true, Sect. 12. but yet hath somewhat to say hereunto.  
1. That self-invented Worship was bowing the knee to Baal, 1 King. 19 18. Rom. 11. 3, 4. Serving Idols, 2 King. 17. 12. Burning Incense to Vanity, Jer. 18. 15. Going after other Gods, to serve them and worship them, Jer. 25. 6. & 35. 15.  
Answ. Very good! Doth the Author of the S. T. deny, that when the Apostasy of the Jews arose to its height, it came indeed to this? (the beginning hereof being laid in the departure from that Principle, That God is to be served according to the revelation he makes of himself, not according to man's inventions) his citation of the places now again mentioned by Mr. T. evinceth the contrary?  
2. O but there is no such self-invented Worship found in England.  
Answ. That there is not in every particular, the same is granted. I know not that they set up the image of Baal to worship it; what they do in the chambers of their imagery, God only sees; openly they serve not the same Idols, nor burn Incense to Vanity, etc. but that there is no such self-invented Worship to be found in England is gratis dictum, and without proof. All self-invented Worship being indeed such, like it in its principle, a departure from the  fundamental-principle of Religion, being the source and spring from whence it issues forth; A bowing the knee to Baal, or yielding obedience to other Lords (viz. the Instituter and Commander of that Worship which is invented) a serving Idols (in the setting up Man in the room of the Spirit of God, and the image (or form) created and made by him in the place of Divine Appointments.)  
But 2dly. 'Tis to me a fond conceit to imagine, that upon a supposition that the Ministers and Church of England are not guilty of such gross Abominations, as the places mentioned intimate the Jews to be guilty of, against whom the Prophets bear their Testimony; Therefore none must bear testimony against present Abominations, nor can they be justified in their so doing, from these Texts. Whereas had they been guilty of less wickedness than they were, it had been the duty of the Servants of the Lord to have testified against them. The doing of what was not commanded by the Lord (as well as what was expressly forbidden) is part of their Testimony, 2 King. 16. 11. & 17. 11, 13. We pretend not to be extraordinarily raised up, and spirited, to witness against present Abominations, conceiving it not at all needful in the present undertaking. Every Christian that hath tenderness to the honour and glory of God, (according to the capacity they are in) being obliged to testify for him against the Innovations and Will-worship of the day. Whether that speech of Christ to James and John be most aptly applied to this Animadverter, and that generation he is become the Advocate of, and who they are that call for fire to come down from Heaven upon those that will not embrace their doctrines, others will judge. We have through grace otherwise learned Christ. Whether it be bitter or holy Zeal for God that moves us, by whom whether our language will be judged just reproof, or unjust reviling, will one day be declared. I am sure Mr. T. hath adventured upon what doth not at all appertain to him in judging before the time. And in this can we rejoice, that under all his Censures we have the Testimony of the Spirit of the Highest, That in godly simplicity, and from a principle of holy Zeal ●o God, we are carried forth in this matter. Though we dare not acquir ourselves of fleshly mixtures (which we too much discern to our abasement and grief in all our undertake) But what hath this Animadv. to accuse us of? 'Twere as easy to have manifested (if it had been so, and we conceive he would not have spared us) could he have done it, wherein the bitterness of our Zeal did appear, as to have said it was bitter; to have showed wherein our reproof was unjust, as to intimate it to be so. These are but words, and I hope not spoken from a spirit of gall and bitterness towards us, though perhaps some other will be apt to think they are so.   

Sect. 12.  
The People of God of old not to hearken to the teachings of such as were not sent by the Lord. The Command of God touching their cutting-off. Saints forbidden to hear them. The false Prophets preached much truth, though not the whole truth. So doth Antichrist. They were not called false Prophets merely for their preaching falsehood, but because they ran before they were sent. The present Ministers preach falsehoods, etc. In what sense to be cut off. Separation from the enjoined false worship of old, commanded. 'Tis a breach upon the Sovereign Authority of God, called by the names of Adultery, Whoredom, Idolatry, etc. Upon what account so called. Jer. 9 2. Hos. 3. 3. & 1. 2. Rev. 14. 8. explained, worshipping God at Jerusalem. Non-separation from his Worship there, no argument of the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England.  
IN his 13th Section Mr. T. takes notice of what I offer in the eighth place touching the duty of the Saints of old, viz. That they were 1. Not to hearken to the teachings of such as were not sent of the Lord, though they pretended never so much to be sent by him. This we prove, 1. from the Command of God touching these false Prophets, viz. to cut them off, Deut. 18. 20. 2dly. They are expressly forbidden to hear them, Deut. 13. 3. Jer. 27. 6, 16.  
To which the Animadverter replies; 1. None are said in the Texts mentioned, nor in any other he meets with, not to be sent by the Lord, who delivered the Truth of God, but such as delivered falsehoods, inciting to Idolatry, or contradictory to the message to the true Prophets.  
Answ. 1. If by the Truth of God, he means the whole Truth of God, 'tis granted, That never any false Prophet delivered the whole Truth of God, nor do the Ministers of England, as we prove S. T. p. 91. If he mean that all they delivered was false and erroneous, there is nothing more false can be invented or spoken. They knew (and so did Satan that set them on work) that so to have done, had been immediately to have miscarried in the design they were advancing. Antichrist in his Ecclesiastical state, is called the false Prophet, Rev. 19 21. his Doctrine and Worship, a Lie, 2 Thess. 2. 11. yet many Truths are embraced and preached by him.  
2. If Mr. T. thinks they were called false Prophets merely upon the account of their preaching Falsehoods, and such as incite to Idolatry, and contradict the message of the true Prophets, he is mistaken. They are called false Prophets, upon the account of their running before they were sent, Ezek. 13. 6. Jer. 14. 14, 15. which they had been though they had delivered nothing but Truth; coming in his Name, when he never sent them: And as such were to be put to death. So, saith Maimonides in his Treatise of Idolatry, Chap. 5. Sect. 7, 8. (one who understood these things as well as Mr. T.) The false Prophet is to be strangled to death, although he prophesy in the Name of the Lord, and neither addeth nor diminisheth, Deut. 18. 20. Whether he prophesieth that which he hath not heard by Prophetical Vision, or whoso hath heard the words of his fellow-Prophet, and saith, That this word was said unto him, and he prophesieth thereby; lo he is a false Prophet, and is to be strangled to death. That they preached falsehoods we deny not, and such intimated (at least some of them) but that they were singly upon this foot of account so called, this Animadverter will never prove. The Hebrews (who more perfectly knew these things than we) say the contrary, as but now was manifested; They were false Prophets though they prophesied Truths, without adding or diminishing, if they pretended God sent them, spoke to them when he did not.  
3. The present Ministers, as the false Prophets of old, preach falsehood, and such as incite to Idolatry, as we prove, S. T. chap. 7. and such as are contradictory to the great Prophet Christ, as we manifest, ch. 4, & 5. of S. T. Therefore not to be heard by the concession of this Animadverter, though commanded by Kings and Rulers. By which he may guests how fit these things are to my present purpose, and how frivolously he speaks when he saith, I should have left out these Allegations, if I had well bethought myself how unfit they were to my present design: but I will not he presumes say, that the present Ministers should be cut off. Answ. If by cutting off he means putting to death, I will not indeed say so; though it may be Mr. T. when an Assistant for the ejection of scandalous Ministers thought it lawful civilly to slay them; the saying of Divine Service being one branch of scandal for which they were to be ejected. And the truth is, the Author of S. T. thinks they should not open their mouths, as if Messengers and Ambassadors for God, till he opens them by giving down the holy Unction to them (the great qualification of Gospel-Preachers, which most of them, 'tis to be feared want) and an heart to relinquish their Antichristian standing; that they may go forth in the work of God from Authority received not from his grand Enemy, but from himself. 2dly, As not harkening to the false Prophets, was the duty of the Children of the Lord of old, so is Separation from the devised Worship of that day, in the forecited places asserted, and proved to be (1.) From the greatness of the sin of self-invented Worship; which is,  
1st, A breach upon the sovereign Authority of God.  
2dly, Called by the names of whoredom, Adultery, Idolatry, Fornication, Psal. 73. 27. Isa. 57 3, 8. Jer. 9 2. Ezek. 23. 45. Hos. 3. 7. and 7. 3. Leu. 20. 5. Jer. 13. 27. Ezek. 16. 17. and 20. 30. Hos. 1. 2. Rev. 14. 8. and 18. 9 19, 20.  
3dly, Separation here-from, is solemnly charged upon them as their duty, Hos. 4. 15. Amos 5. 5. Prov. 4. 14. and 5. 8. Cant. 4. 8. To which Mr. T. reples,  
1st, That devised Worship, which is termed Adultery, etc. is Leu. 20. 5. committing whoredom with Molech, Psal. 73. 27. being far from God, etc.  
Ans. 1. But Sir, the Question is not, what that self-invented Worship was, that is so called, but whether it be not so called (let it be what it will) on the account of its being self-invented. The Lord had taken that People into Covenant with himself, for his Bride, Beloved: To them he was Ishi, a Lord, a Husband. By him, as such, they were obliged by virtue of that Covenant into which he had taken them, to be solely guided and ruled; to observe his Statutes and Judgements to do them, not harkening to the voice of any other beside himself. Their acting contrary hereunto was a breach of this Covenant, which being a Covenant of Betrothment or Conjugal relation, the breach of it is therefore called by the names of Adultery, whoredom, etc. which they had been guilty of, had they in smaller matters than those instanced in, turned aside from God, Jer. 3. 19, 20. But I said, How shall I put thee among the Children, and give thee a pleasant Land, a goodly Heritage of the Hosts of Nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My Father, and shalt not turn away from me. Surely as a Wife treacherously departeth from her Husband: so have you dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel. Their turning aside to their own Inventions is the bottom upon which these abominations are so called. Psal. 106. 39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions; Jer. 9 2. They be all adulterers (i. e. turned away from God, say the Assembly) Hos. 3. 3. Her not playing the Harlot, is expressly said to be, her not being for another man: which should she be (as by subjecting to the Ordinances of men, in the Worship of God, we are) she plays the Harlot. And Hos. 1. 2. Departing from the Lord (or his Institutions, and Appointments) is called, committing great whoredom.  
2dly, 'Tis true the Worship which is called Fornication, Rev. 14. 8. and 18. 9 is such as Babylon made all Nations, even the Kings of the Earth to commit. Which learned Brightman upon Rev. 14. 8. interprets to be, the Superstitions, Errors, and Idolatries of the Church of Rome, which the West sucked from her as from her Mother's Breasts, which proved Wine of wrath or jealousy, as well as Fornication; because hereby the jealousy of God was stirred up and provoked against them, as to purpose it hath been; manifesting and displaying itself in Characters of Blood and Flames, Ruin and Devastation more or less, throughout the European Kingdoms. That the very Service of the Ch. of Engl. (called by an Antiphrasis, Divine Service) is the Service of the Church of Rome; That many of the Fornications, Superstitions, Errors, etc. of the old Strumpet are yet remaining in the Church of England, we have demonstrated, Chap. 7. of S. T. The Holidays observed by the Church of England, are the Holidays of Rome, its Collects, Prayers, Litany, Rites, from thence, Mr. T. knows and in part confesseth, pag. 102 of his Theodulia. So that if her Worship be Fornication, the Worship of England (being the very Worship of Rome) is so too; From which Mr. T. tells us, in this Sect. without controversy the People of God were to separate, and have no communion with any in. So that,  Habemus confitentem reum. 
He passeth sentence upon himself in having communion with, and pleading for the Church and Worship of England, and aquits the Innocent in their righteous Separation therefrom, in that very Treatise he designed to justify the one, and condemn the other. That which is further, is a most sorry begging of the Question (a piece of Sophistry this Animadverter is frequently guilty of) the sum is, But neither the Texts alleged, nor any other do require separation from the Worship of God, or the Ministers of God, that are in some things corrupt, even in their ministration; which he exemplifies in samuel's ministering before the Lord, and Hann●h's presenting him and herself at the solemn Feasts, when Hophni and Phinehas did corrupt the Worship of God: And those of Judah were not to separate from the service at Jerusalem, which was to God, while there was burning incense and sacrificing on the high-places; and though there were sundry corruptions in the Church and Services of the Jews, yet did Christ join in the public Service of the Temple, and persuaded the cleansed Leper to offer the Gift Moses had commanded. From whence he infers, That though there should be some degree of corruption in Worship, yet this is not sufficient to justify our Separation from the Church and Ministers of England.  
Answ. 1. That every corruption in Worship, that every disorder in Church-administrations is a sufficient warrant for separation from the Worship, Church or Churches that are of Divine Institution, (as was the Worship and Church at Jerusalem) I no no where assert; never thought.  
2dly. Whilst from h●nce the Animadverter infers, That though there should be some degree of Corruption in Worship, yet this is not sufficient to justify our separation from the Ministers and Church of England He doth but like an unwise Soldier, that not well heeding the ground he stands on, is displaying his Colours till he sinks into the Earth. There is one thing wanting to his Inference, that makes it too light to pass with persons but of ordinary understanding; viz. That the Church o● England is a true Church, the Worship thereof the true Worship of God, a strong supposition whereof (instead of evident demonstration) is the Basis upon which the inference is built. For what though there were Corruptions in the Church and Worship of Israel, in samuel's time, in Christ's time: What if notwithstanding these Corruptions it were no● the duty of persons to separate from that Church and Worship which was originally from God; what is this to the case of separation from the Church and Worship of England, which this Animadverter knows we deny to be of God? which, when he or any one for him shall prove to be, I do faithfully assure him never to plead for, nor practise separation more; which I speak from an assured confidence they can never be able so to do. Though otherwise (upon supposition it could be proved a true Church, at first rightly constituted according to the mind of Christ) such corruptions are to be found upon it, that are sufficient to justify any man's peaceable separation from it. Though every corruption in Worship and Church-Administrations, as was said, will not do so. There is nothing in this 4th. Sect. of that moment as to require our stay in the consideration thereof. Whether those eight Positions asserted in S. T. touching the management of affairs of old, be evidently comprised in the Scripture or no, may be perceived by the examination of Mr. T. his exceptions against them, let the Christian and judicious Reader judge. I argue not from thence by way of Analogy, though I conceive the Institution being founded upon some command of Christ in the New Test. (the only warrant for the practice of Gospel-Appointments) To argue from the carriage and deportment of Saints to Divine Ordinances of old, to the carriage of Saints towards New Test. Institutions, from parity of Reason, is neither irrational nor unwarrantable; which when Mr. T. proves it to be, or attempts to do so, his Arguments shall be considered: his second and third Sect. in his second part of the review of the dispute about Paedo-Baptism (to which he directs us) spoke not a word hereunto as he knows.   

Sect. 13.  
Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it imports. Its acceptions in the Scripture. 1 Cor. 12. 28. and 15. 9 Act. 4. 32. opened. The Churches of Asia, Galatia, Judaea, not National, Diocesan, or Provincial, but particular Churches. The foundation of Diocesan Churches. Mat. 16. 18. and 18. 17. expounded. By the Church not meant the Pope and his Cardinals, a Synod, the Bishop, or Chancellor's Court, the Magistrate, the Presbytery, nor select Arbitrators, but the whole Church consisting of Elders and Brethren, proved.  
IN Sect. 15th. Mr. T. gins to consider the Queries in the Preface of S. T. and in answer to the first Query, whether there be any National Church of the Institution of Christ under the Oeconomy of the Gospel; he falls upon the consideration of the word Church, and tells us, in the New Testament it's taken for,  
1. An assembly of Unbelievers, Act. 19 32, 39, 40.  
2dly. For the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness, Acts 7. 38.  
3dly, The Universal Church, whether visible or invisible, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Heb. 12. 23. Ephes. 1. 22.  
4thly, The visible Church indefinitely but not universally, 1 Cor. 15. 9  
5thly, The Church Topical, as of a City, Town, or House, Act. 8. 1. Philem. 2. or of a Country, or Nation; and then it's put in the Plural Number; as the Churches of Asia, Galatia, Judaea.  
Answ. 1. The word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Church, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to advocate, or call out; Because, as saith Musculus, in Rom. 1. 7. the Church is a number called out from the rest; and in the general signifies any company of men, singled out, or separated from the rest, for any end or purpose whatsoever. That 'tis of various acceptations in the Scripture cannot be denied; some of which are rightly assigned by the Animadverter.  
First, 'Tis taken for an Assembly of Unbelievers, Acts 19 32. 39  
Secondly, For the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness, Acts 7. 38.  
But Thirdly, As touching the third acceptation of the word instanced in by this Animadverter, we must crave leave a little to demur about it.  
1st, If by the Universal Church visible, he mean that which some call the Church-Catholick visible, consisting of the universality of men professing the Doctrine of the Gospel, and yielding obedience thereunto throughout the World; I do very much question whether the name of the Church be given to them throughout the Scripture. The places instanced in by this Animadverter are remote from the proof of any such thing. 1 Cor. 12. 28. speaks not a tittle to it: For,  
1. The Church, vers. 28. is the Body of Christ, vers. 27. This Paul tells them (the Church of Corinth) they were; and every Saint in the Church a Member in particular.  
2. 'Tis such a Church amongst whom a Schism might be, vers. 25. (as in the Church of Corinth there actually was, which was the occasion of Paul's writing to them) That there should be no schism in the Body. But Schism is entirely in one Church amongst the members of one particular Society, saith that learned man J. O. in his Treatise of Schism.  
Besides, 3. It will be hard to prove that in the Church catholick-visible (as such) Officers are set and placed, as 'tis vers. 28, 29. These were in the Church of Corinth, which was founded by Paul, Acts 18. 8, 9, 10. Probably Peter had been there; for he intim●tes, That, at least, some of them had gloried overmuch in him, 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22. (Cephas, i. e. Peter) Prophet's, Teachers, Miracles, Gifts of hea●ing, Helps, Governments, diversities of Tongues were found amongst them, as is known. Some of these there is no question, but they relate to a particular Church. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Teachers here, are the same who are elsewhere called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Presbyters, Elders, and Overseers, Mr. T. will not, I presume, deny. Arguments lie near at hand for the demonstration thereof, were it needful: These are placed of God in particular Churches, relate to them as such, Acts 14. 23. & 15. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, & 16. 4. & 20. 17. & 21. 18. Tit. 1. 5. Jam. 5. 14. Act. 20. 28. Nor am I singular in the application of this Scripture to the particular Church of Corinth. Pareus hath these words upon the place, Et quia, etc. And because he had said, that the Church of the Corinthians was the Body of Christ, etc. manifesting his consent and harmony with us herein, that Paul is not treating of the Church-Catholick-visible, but of a particular Church of Christ, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Church of God that was in Corinth. Nor can this Scripture be meant of the invisible Church of Christ, for in it God hath placed no Officers that I know of, nor will the Animadverter say he hath.  
2dly, If by the Universal Church-visible, he mean the Elect of God, redeemed, sanctified, justified, by the spirit of the Lord and the blood of Jesus. These are indeed called by the name of the Church, in Heb. 12. 23. Eph. 1. 22. To which we may add Mat. 16. 28. Eph. 5. 25, 26. That the word Church, 1 Cor. 15. 9 is taken for the visible Church indefinitely, I cannot subscribe to. Possible by the Church of God he means,  
First, The Churches of God (by an usual Figure) there being in those days, few or no Believers, but were added to one Church or other; as might easily be demonstrated, Acts 2. 41, 42. and Acts 4. 32. The multitude of Believers is a Paraphrastical description of the Church, Acts 5. 11. The great care of the Apostles was to reduce them that embraced and believed the Gospel, into a Church-state, or that Order of the Gospel, which, however oppugned by Mr. T. will be found to be of the Institution of Christ: As is evident from the Churches in Jerusalem, Acts 7. Samaria, chap. 8. Antioch, Chap. 14, & 15. In Syria, Cilicia, Acts 15. 41. Phrygia, Galatia, Acts 16. 5, 6. Macedonia, Chap. 16. Thessalonica, Chap. 17. Achaia, Chap. 18. Ephesus, Chap. 19 Asia, Rev. 1. and 2. and 3. Rome, Rom. 1. etc. planted by them notwithstanding the utmost attempts of the power of darkness, or great Red Dragon in the Roman Pagan Empire; and of the Children of the Kingdom, or the chief Priests, Scribes, Pharisees, Rulers, multitudes of People (especially of the base sort, fit for any desperate design) contradicting, blaspheming, opposing them herein. When once we read of the Gospel preached, and mingled with Faith in them that hear it, the next news we frequently hear, is, that these Believers embody together for the worshipping God in the same numerical Ordinances, the enjoyment of those privileges, and mutual performance of those duties, which in a scattered individual state and capacity they were not capable of. Though Secondly, By way of eminency, he might in that expression, (and no doubt he did so) I persecuted the Church of God, have his eye upon that famous Church of Jerusalem, in the persecution and dispersion whereof he had, it seems, no mean hand, Acts 7. 58. and 8. 3, 4. As for Saul, he made havoc of (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he laid waste) the Church; entering into every house, haling (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by force and violence dragging them along the ground) both men and women, he committed them to Prison. And the very truth is, this is the most considerable instance (if not the only one) of saul's Persecuting the Church of God. 'Tis true, Acts 9 1. 'tis said, And Saul breathing out threaten and slaughters against the Disciples of the Lord; but that only imports the wrath and fury that was in his spirit against them, and resolution to persecute, imprison, waste and destroy them (the usual issue of blind zeal, for the Tradition of their Fathers) in other places, as he had already done at Jerusalem: For which end, he procures Letters to Damascus, to bring men and women disciples bound to Jerusalem, that he should find of this Heresy there. But, Oh the wonder of Love! Before he arrive thither, Christ way-layes him, speaks from Heaven to him, converts him, and sets him upon preaching up that very way and truth, he was thus violently persecuting, and setting himself against. So that not the visible Church indifinitely taken, but some particular Churches of Jesus Christ, and in especial, and by way of eminency, that famous Church at Jerusalem is intended, 1 Cor. 15. 9  
That which Mr. T. mentions in the 5 th'. place, That the word Church is taken for the Church Topical, i. e. A particular Church of Christ, or a company of Believers (dwelling in this or that place) giving not themselves to the Lord, and one another, according to his will; walking to gether in the fellowship of the Gospel, and meeting, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same place, for the worshipping God in the same numerical Ordinances, according to the prescription, will and institution of Christ, Acts 8. 1. 1 Cor. 1. 1. Ephes. 1. 1. and many other places. Of which Chap. 4. of S. T. we assent to as true. But that we should ever subscribe,  
6thly, To that dictate of the Animadverter, That Church in Scripture is taken for a Church of a Country or Nation, and then it is put in the Plural Number, as the Churches of Asia, Galatia, Judaea; being so dissonant to truth, and contrary to the express language of the Spirit of the Lord, he could never imagine. For the Churches of Asia, Christ tells us expressly they were Seven: Not one Provincial, or National Church, but seven particular instituted Churches.  
First, To each Church is there a distinct Epistle written.  
Secondly, Each Church had its particular Officer, or Angel, to whom each Epistle was directed to be communicated to the Congregation (for to them in it doth Christ by his Spirit speak, Rev. 2. 7, 11, 17, 29. & 3. 6, 13, 22.)  
3dly. Each Church received its particular commendation, bore its particular burden. The Evils found in one are not charged upon the rest, nor the Good found in either imputed to them generally but severally.  
4thly. The power of Excommunication, or rejection of Scandalous Offenders, seems to be seated in each Church severally and apart, therefore no Provincial, or National Churches, but Congregational. For the neglect of which power some of them are expressly rebuked by Christ, Rev. 2. 14, 15, 20. (which our English Annotators apply, and that truly, to a non-rejection of them by excommunication, and cite 1 Cor. 5. 2, 6.) Alas! a National, Diocesan, Provincial Church was not then thought of. Diocesan Churches were first founded (as 'tis said, but it were no difficult task to evince that their original is antedated some scores of years) by Dyonisius Bishop of Rome, about 280 years after Christ (or, as some will, about 251) he was the first that appointed the limits and bounds of Parishes. Here in England they received their rise and original from one Honorius Bishop of Canterbury, (Polyd. Virgil. de Invent. rer. lib. 4. c. 9) Nay, the truth is, the Churches mentioned were so far from being a Church of a Region or Nation, that they were not all that lived in the same Place, City or Town appertaining to the Church there. As for the Church of Ephesus (one of the seven) Paul speaks of it as distinct from the rest of the Inhabitants, Eph. 1. 1. so doth Christ of the Church of Pergamos, Rev. 2. 13. I know thy works, and where thou dwellest (i. e. among what manner of people thine abode is, Psal. 57 4. & 120. 5, 6. Ezek. 2. 6. Phil. 2. 15. viz. a wicked, graceless, ungodly people) even where Satan's seat is, where Satan dwelleth: who were sure no part of the Church. The like may be said of the rest of them. 'Tis strange to me that when God calls them Churches, any person pretending to sobriety, should dare to aver them to be but one.  
Touching the interpretation of Mat. 16. 18. & 18. 17. there are indeed great debates (as our Animadverter saith) betwixt Protestants and Papists, amongst Protestants also and Protestants. The exposition the Papists give of Mat. 16. 18. who from hence would infer, that Peter, and after him the Bishop of Rome, was made Universal Bishop, is so frivolous, that 'tis not worth the mentioning.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super hanc petram, is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super hunc Petrum; upon this Rock will I build my Church, we Englishmen think to be very different from, upon St. Peter will I build i●. The Faith Peter confessed we take to be one thing, his person another.  
2. We find not (notwithstanding this promise) that Peter was the Prince of the Apostles (at which lofty rate these Gentlemen love to speak) or Universal Bishop. If he had been so, Paul much forgot himself, when he said 2 Cor. 11. 5. For I suppose (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I conclude for certain) I was not a whit behind the chiefest Apostles. And much more Gal. 2. 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Strange! that he should carry it with no more respect to the Prince of the Apostles, and Universal Bishop and head of the Church-Catholick-visible.  
3. But if these were granted them, what is this to their Pope? Why Peter was at Rome.  
Answ. That is uncertain: Yet should it be granted he was there, it would not in the least advantage them in their present cause. 'Tis most certain he was at Samaria, Antioch, Lydda, Joppa, Cesaria; yet no Primacy or Supremacy affixed to either of them upon that bottom.  
4. Yea but he placed his Chair at Rome, fixed his Seat there.  
Answ. This is false and untrue, nor can they ever make it appear that he did so. Yet if this should be granted, they are never a whit the nearer the mark, except they prove, 1. That a succession in this universal, Unlimited, Archiepiscopal power was entailed to the Church of Rome, and that so, that 1. Though those who ascended that Chair, came to be invested therein, by bribery, cozenage, cruelty, bloo●, whilst they possessed it were Heretics (and declared by Councils to be so, and their Successors) Conjurers, Adulterers, Idolaters, Atheists, Blasphemers, bloody Persecutors, destroyers of bodies and souls of men, the veriest Villains and Wretches that ever the Earth bore.) 2. Though this Succession hath been interrupted by a Vacancy, or Interregnum, of some years; polluted by a Woman, a Whore, delivered with her Cardinals about her in solemn Procession; whence  Papa parit Papam, peperit Papissa Papillum. 
By the setting up of Anti-popes', two or three at a time, contesting to the pouring out of much Blood, wasting, destroying Villages, Towns, Cities; Cursing, excommunicating one another, and all that adhere to each other, for the Popedom, or St. Peter's Chair; yet when in it, and those that succeed them, be they as bad or worse than they that went before, must infallibly be his successor: which when they prove, I will be a Papist; and before they shall effect this, it being the grand Principle of their Religion (or Superstition rather) it would become all that have (or would be accounted to have) the least spark of Wisdom remaining in them, to have nothing to do with such a generation. For my part I am abundantly satisfied, that the Church there, is neither the Church-Catholick visible, nor any particular Church, as such, but the Invisible-Church, or Elect of God.  
Tell the Church, Mat. 18. 17. hath divers interpretations put upon it, according as the interests of some lead and incline them. In the language of the Episcopalians it is, Tell the Lord Bishop, and his Consistory: but this is such an heterogeneous piece, so wild an interpretation, that it would put a sober man (if concerned in them) to a blush to hear it mentioned. 1. There were no such creatures at that day, nor for some hundreds of years after. Alas! there was somewhat else to do, than to think of erecting Episcopal Seas and Consistories, when they were every day fight with beasts, and made a spectacle to Angels and men, for the Truth and Gospel-sake; which was the state of the Church of God, (for the most part) for the first three-hundred years and upwards, as is known. 2. One man (as saith precious Cotton) is not the Church, nor can he represent the Church, unless sent by them; but so is neither the Bishop nor his Commissary. 3. The Bishop ordinarily is no member of the Church where the offence is committed; and what is his satisfaction to the removal of the offence given to the Church? 4. The Parisian Doctors say truly, Ecclesiam nunquam, etc. The Church cannot be taken for one person, nor be governed by one. Of which the Learned Chamier gives his reason, How can it be that the Bishop should be the Church, according to whose Ecclesiastical Authority things should be determined, Mat. 18. when a long time after the Bishop himself by humane authority had his original? of which Ambrose complains— And as soon as the Lord had said, tell the Church, he speaks in the plural number all along afterward? Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever Ye shall bind on Earth, etc. Whence it plainly appears, that the Church is not taken for one person, but for many congregated together. Pol. Eccles. Yea, Sutcliffe when disputing against Bellarmine, saith, Christ did not constitute the chief Tribunal in the hands of Peter, but of the Church: for not those who refused to hear Peter, but those who refused to hear the Church, were to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans. De Pontif. Rom. l. 1. c. 5, 6. Besides in matters of controversy, Peter himself was subject to the Tribunal of the Church. But a superior cannot be judged by an inferior. If any controversy happened amongst the Apostles, that could not be defined by particular persons, but a Council of the Church was to be congregated. This we see done Acts 15. Now one would think our present Bishops should not be so arrogant as to assume that power to themselves, which when disputing with the Papists they will not allow to Peter.  
2dly. In the judgement of our Brethren of the Presbyterian way, Tell the Church, is, tell the Presbytery. But they are, I humbly conceive, somewhat wide of the mark too. My Reasons are, 1. The Church is sometimes put for the Congregation, as distinct from the Presbytery or Elders and Officers, Acts 14. 23. & 15. 22. never for these, as distinct from the Congregation, throughout the New-Testament. 2. The Presbytery may be the party offending, and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth; i. e. go tell themselves: But the Scripture is express, that after private dealing with the offenders themselves, upon non-amendment, the Church, as distinct from them, is to be acquainted with it. 3. What if the Presbytery themselves be offended? whom shall they tell? must they tell themselves? If they are the Church, they can go no further. 4. Besides, we find, 1 Cor. 5. not the Presbytery alone, but the whole Church concerned in the matter of Excommunication, of which our Brethren confess Christ here treateth. This Animadverter manifests his good will to interpret it of an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium, or if extended as a direction to Christian Brethren, whether to refer it to their Assembly, under an Ecclesiastical consideration, or Political, i. e. the Christian Magistrate: he seems to demur with an apparent inclination to the latter. To the first of these Mr. Cotton answers; 
† Treat. of the Keys, p. 40 An. 3.  It is not credible that Christ would send his Disciples to make complaint of their offences to the Jewish Synagogues: for is it likely he would send his Lambs and Sheep for right and healing, unto Wolves and Tigers? Both their Sanhedrim, and most of their Synagogues were no better. And if here and there some Elders of their Synagogues were better affected; yet how may it appear that so it was, where any of themselves dwelled? And if that might appear too, yet had not the Jews already agreed, that if any man did confess Christ, he should be cast out of the Synagogues? Joh. 9 22. To which we add, 2dly, Christ knew that within a little while the Synedrim and whole Church-Policy of the Jews would be at an end. And, 3dly, in the mean while charges his Disciples to have nothing to do with them. Mat. 15. 14. Tell them that they would persecute, kill them, and think in doing so they did God good service: As it fell out afterwards accordingly. So that it cannot with the least show of reason be imagined, that Christ should direct them to appeal to them, and stand to their final determination. 2dly. The second desires not a reply. Go tell the Church, i. e. go tell the Magistrate, is so wild an interpretation, that the bare naming it is the giving it too much honour. 1. The Magistrate is not where called the Church: 2dly, The Magistrate (quâ talis) hath nothing to do in the stating and determining Church-Controversies. 3dly, Sometimes, and for the most part, they have ever since been (for above three hundred years afterward they undoubtedly were) no members of the Church, but enemies to it, destroyers of it.  
Mr. T. adds, that he can find no Institution by preception or command of a Church, i. e. there is no such thing as an instituted Church of Christ under the Gospel, but 'tis left to the prudence of men, etc. to determine, whether they shall be Domestic, Congregational, Parochial, Classical, Diocesan, Provincial, Patriarchal, or Ecumenical: which how derogatory to the Honour and Sovereign Authority of Jesus Christ; to his love and tenderness to his Children, to his Faithfulness with respect to the obligation that lay upon him as Mediator, to reveal the whole will of the Father to them, others will judge. For my part I am fully of his mind, who some while since said, That there were particular Churches instituted by the Authority of Jesus Christ, ordained and approved by him; that Officers for them were of his appointment, and furnished with gifts from him for the execution of their employment; That Rules, Cautions and Instructions for the due settlement of those Churches were given by him: that these Churches were made the only seat of that Worship, which in particular he expressed his will to have continued until he came, is of so much light in Scripture, that he must wink hard that will not see it. Which is as much as we need to say to this Animadverter in this matter; what he saith herein, being mere dictates of his own, without proof: which (when he shall be able to evince that Christ hath not the Government of his Churches upon his shoulders; that he is not sole King and Lord over them, or having so, hath not given them Rules to walk by of his own, but left them to the liberty of their own wills, or which is worse, the wills of such as by Providence are permitted to ascend the Throne, though such, as whilst they profess to know God, in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate) he will be supposed to say something in way of confirmation. But of this more in Sect. 15. 'Tis true, de facto, Parochial, Classical, Diocesan, Provincial, Patriarchical, and Ecumenical Churches, by the prudence of men, etc. have had and yet have their being it the World: and the Animadverter deals ingenuously, in acknowledging that their original is not from Heaven, but the issue of humane prudence, etc. So that to them, or their Rulers and Officers, as such, we own no tribute or respect by virtue of any Institution of Christ, which they are (as he acknowledgeth, and that truly) destitute of. ' Twe●e easy to fill many pages with citations of Authors speaking to this matter.  
Whereas originally there was a small uncertain number of Presbyters at Roms, they were brought to a certain number and order by Cletu● and Evaristus, Popes of Rome. First, Cletus reduced the Presbytery of Rome to the number of twenty five: Afterwards Evaristus, about the year of Christ 100, appointed and prescribed a several Parish to every one of these Presbyters, which Parishes were afterwards ●nlarged, and had their bounds and limits more perfectly and more exactly prescribed to them by Pope Dyonisius, as was said, about the year of Christ 260; After which time Marc●llus, about the year of Christ 305, limited the number of those titles, which anciently were first given to the Presbyters by Evaristus, and did by Decree constitute, That there should be in Rome 25, as it were so many Dioceses; for the more convenient baptising of such Gentiles as were daily converted to Christian Religion: Onuphrius Panvinius, de praecipuis urbis Romae Basilici●; And Selden in his History of Tithes, chap. 6. Sect. 3. writes thus, For Parish Churches, it is plain, that as Metropolitan sees, Patriarchates (Exarchates, in the Eastern Church) Bishoprics, these greater dignities were most usually at first ordained and limited according to the distinction of Seats of Government and inferior Cities, that had been assigned to the Substitutes, or Vicarii of the Praefect. Pratorio, or Vice-Roys of the East and Western-Empire: So were Parishes appointed, and divided to several Ministers within the Ecclesiastical rule of these dignities, according to the conveniences of Country-Towns and Villages; one, or more, or less (of such as being but small Territories might not by the Canons be Bishoprics) to a Parish: The word Parish at first denoting a whole Bishopric (which is but as a great Parish, and signifies no other ●han Dioces●, but afterwards being confined to what our common language restrains it. The Curates of these Parishes were such as the Bishops appointed under him to have cure of souls in them, and were called Presbyterii Parochiani, i. e. Parish-Presbyters. But thus far of this matter.  
As touching what Mr. T. adds, that there is no precept about the defining how many should go to a Church, or be accounted to belong to one Church, etc.  
We answer, 1. That 'tis very impertinently produced by him, tending not at all to the matter in hand; such a visible nonsequitur as he will never be able to make good. How many should go to a Church, we have no precept of Christ directing and enjoining us; Ergo no Institution of a Church by preception or command.  
But 2dly, That we are in this matter wholly destitute of Law or Rule is a mistake of this Animadverter.  
First, Mat. 18. 20. manifests that the Church cannot well consist of fewer than seven. For, 1. there is the Brother offending. 2dly, Two or three reproving this offending Brother. And 3dly, the Church before whom the matter is to be brought for final determination, which cannot be supposed to be fewer (if so few) as the persons bringing it before them.  
Secondly, That they be no more than can conveniently meet together in one place, and so that they may hear and be edified (which is the great end of Church-communion) the Scripture plainly intimates 1 Cor. 14. 23. If therefore the whole Church be come together in one place, ver. 26. let all things be done unto edifying. But if all cannot hear, they cannot be edified. So wide off the mark of Truth is his Assertion, that neither Christ nor his Apostles have given us any Rule or Law of bounding or modelling Churches: which (though how many members may be added to a Church be not expressly prescribed) he hath done.  
That Text Mat. 18. 17. seems much to perplex this Animadverter; what is meant by Church there he cannot tell; 'Tis uncertain (he saith) whether the Christian Civil Judicatory, or Ecclesiastical Consistory or Congregational Assembly of Believers, or some select Arbitrators be meant.  
Of the three first of these we have spoken already, and manifested, that not the Jewish Synedrium, but the Christian Church; not the Christian Civil Judicatory or Ecclesiastical Consistory is intended by the Church here. That select Arbitrators should be meant, is the firstborn of improbabilities. 1. They are not where called a Church in the Scripture. 2. The Church in the Text are such a company to whom the party or parties aggrieved may presently have their recourse; which to select Arbitrators they cannot have: they must first be chosen (of which notwithstanding there is not the least tittle in the Text.) 3. Here is no mention of the consent of the party offending in the election of the Arbitrators; which of right aught in such cases to be. 4. From the Church here there seems to lie no appeal. 5. The Sentence pronounced by the Church, is a Sentence confirmed in Heaven, ver. 18. which Mr. T. upon second thoughts will not say can be affirmed of the Sentence of his select Arbitrators. Yea, 6ly, if the party offending will not hear the Church, he is to be accounted as an Heathen (i. e. they are to hold no religious communion with him) and Publican (i. ●. withholding from them familiar, civil communion): but I much question whether it be my duty to carry it so to a Brother, that shall refuse to submit to the sentence of Mr. Tombs his select Arbitrators; especially if he had no hand in their election, never referred his affairs to their arbitrement, testifies his willingness to hearken to the Church, and stand to their determination therein. But 'tis time we attend the reasons this Animadverter gives of his opinion.  
The first whereof is, The offence is private that might be remitted by the party offended.  
Answ. 1. If by private he mean such an offence as was only known to them two, it's granted: The words are a direction from Christ to Brethren how to carry it each to other in case of secret and private scandals and offences: for when the fact is open, public and notorious, there needs not this private admonition, another way of procedure is directed to, and established, 1 Tim. 5. 20. Those that sin (viz. cum scandalo Ecclesia, saith Piscator) rebuke before all; that others also may fear. And the Church of Corinth, without any such previous process, was bound (the fact being public and notorious) to excommunicate and purge out from amongst them that wicked person, 1 Cor. 5. 2, 4, 5, 7. but it follows not that because the offence in his sense is private, that therefore by Church must be meant not a particular instituted Church, but select Arbitrators. But 'tis more than probable by private he means such a particular injury or offence committed against his Brother, that is not a sin against God: but in this sense we deny the offence here to be private; and had Mr. T. by one Argument endeavoured to have evinced it, he had done something; a failure wherein renders the ensuing fabric liable to sink with its own weight. 1. Sins against our Brother, are sins against God; Psal. 51. 4. Against thee only have I sinned, saith David touching the wickedness he had wrought in the matter of Uriah. 2. The word rendered trespass against thee, Mat. 18. 15. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies properly to err from the prefixed mark, metaphorically, to sin a sin, or, to do that which is contrary to the Law of God; Alsted in Lex Theol. which (though by it we are injured) as a sin, is properly against God, As all Indictments in criminal pleas are styled against the King, his Crown and Dignity. Nor can the Animadverter give one instance (throughout the whole New-Testament) of the use of the word for such a private offence or scandal committed against a Brother, as is not a sin and transgression against God.  
What he adds, 2dly, That the Brother against whom the trespass is committed, might remit or forgive it; is, 1. more than the Scripture will justify him in asserting: Must be received cum grano Salis, with caution, or 'tis plainly atheological.  
1. If he mean, he might remit or forgive it so far as it was an injury to him, 'tis granted (in ●ome cases) he might; but it is also a sin against God, which he must not suffer to rest upon his Brother, Levit. 19 17.  
2. If he mean, that upon an acknowledgement of the offence, and manifestation of sorrow and repentance (so far as he is able to discern) unfeigned, he be bound to own and receive him as formerly, without acquainting any others, or the Church with it, 'tis undoubtedly true. He hath attained the utmost end aimed at in the whole process, viz. the conviction and bringing the offender to repentance; and therefore need not advance one step further: to do so, were frivolous, ridiculous, irregular, sinful, an open breach upon all the rules of charity enjoined by Christ. But yet it follows not that by Church is not meant a particular Congregation, but select Arbitrators. When Mr. T. proves the consequence of this proposition (The offended Brother may forgive the Offender upon his confession of, and sorrow for his trespass committed, so as to own him for a Brother, without publishing his fault, that was only known to them two, to any other; therefore by Church (to whom without such acknowledgement and repentance he was to have communicated it) we are to understand select Arbitrators) I will be his convert.  
In what he adds, that there is no act ascribed to the Church, save an Admonition to the injurious Brother, to do right to him whom he hath wronged, this Animadverter is evidently mistaken.  
For, 1st, Here is a Juridicial Sentence ascribed to the Church, vers. 18. Verily I say unto you (the Church) whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, etc.  
2dly. The issue or consequence of this Juridicial Sentence is, That h● is to the Church (for what one is lawfully to a part of the Body, he is to the whole) as a Heathen or Publican, i. e. shut out of their Communion or Fellowship. But Mr. T. is sure (he tells us) the Publicans were not excluded a sacris.  
Answ. 1. If by sacra he means those Ordinances that peculiarly related to them as members of the Judaical Church, and by Publicans unproselyted, uncircumcised Publicans, 'tis most false, that such were not excluded a sacris. They might not partake of the Passover with them (to instance in no more particulars) Exod. 12. 48. And Maimonides (in Korban Pesach Cap. 5. Sect. 5.) tells us, That as the Circumcision of himself omitted, debarreth him from keeping the Passover, so doth the circumcision of his Sons and his Servants, etc. if omitted: And if he kill it before he do circumcise them, it is unlawful. Of which R. Menache● renders a reason, on Exod. 12. Whilst the power of uncleanness, and the superfluous foreskin is upon him, etc. he is unfit to be united with the divine Majesty, etc.  
2. If by sacra, he mean coming to their Synagogues to hear them Preach or Expound the Law; he speaks nothing to the purpose: an Excommunicated person may come to the Church-Assemblies, and hear and see what is done there, as may an Heathen: The Scripture instanced in affords not the least sanctuary to his Assertion.  
First, 'Tis a Parable, and so (it may be) a supposition of what never was.  
Secondly, 'Tis spoken (it seems) of a broken converted Publican. He looked down, smote upon his Breast, cried out, The Lord be merciful to me a sinner.  
Thirdly, 'Tis not said that he joined with the Jewish Church in any act of Worship. That he went up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Holy (the whole building of the Temple, consisting of an inward and outward Court, is so called) to pray, is Parabolically said of him as of the Pharisee; but both the one and the other prayed by themselves, severally and apart, vers. 11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, word for word, standing to himself, (or apart from the Publican) he prayed these things; O God, I thank thee, etc. vers. 13. And the Publican, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, standing a far off, viz. in the first Court of the Temple, where all sorts of People, Publicans and Sinners might come. 1 Kings 8. 41.  
Fourthly, 'Tis most certain, and the Animadverter cannot be ignorant hereof, That the Publicans were excluded, not only, a sacris, which they were, but also from Civil Communion, so far as possibly they could; insomuch as it was a great crime charged upon Christ by them, That heat and drank with Publicans and Sinners, and that more than once, Matth. 9 11. and 11. 19 Mark, 2. 16. Luke 5. 30. and 7. 34. Accordingly upon this sentence of the Church upon the Offender, the Members of the Society are to carry it towards him, not only as towards a Heathen (with whom they might have civil Commerce) but as towards a Publican (with whom they at that day had none) 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Thes. 3. 14. And he that should have seen the Publican, Luke 18. (if there was ever such a thing done) praying in one Court, and the Pharisee in another; or if in the same Court, one at one Corner and the other at the other, apart by themselves, would scarce have concluded, that they held Communion together, or inferred therefore the Publicans were not excluded a sacris. Which Consequence Mr. T. will take time to make good, usque ad Graecas Calendas.  
It remains, That forasmuch as by Church, Mat. 18. 17. is not meant the J●●ish Synedrium, nor the Lord Bishop and his Consistory, nor the Civil Magistrate, nor the Presbytery, nor Mr. T. his Select Arbitrators; (the vanity of each of which hath been evinced) that therefore it is a particular instituted Church of Christ in the New Testament, as Mr. T. knows the learned of old, and of late have interpreted it. So Ignatius (who applies it to the particular Church of Philadelphia) chrysostom, etc. The judicious Casaubon (Exercit. Lib. 15. p. 433.) &c.  
These things premised, we attend his Answers to the Questions proposed in S. T. of which in the next Section we shall treat.   

Sect. 14.  
Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel. Mr. T. his answers hereunto, considered. Isa. 49. 23, & 66. 8. explained. That they are Prophecies that wait their accomplishment, demonstrated. Of the miraculous conversion of the Jews, Zach. 12. 10. explained. The Sign of the Son of Man, Mat. 24. 30. What.  
THe first Quest. in S. T. proposed by us is, Whether since the Apotomie or unchurching the Nation of the Jews, the Lord hath so espoused a Nation or People to himself, as that upon the account thereof, the whole Body of the People thereof may be accounted his Church? Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel? This Mr. T. is pleased to make two Questions, though in itself but one; the latter being only exegetical to the former.  
1st. He grants, That God hath not, since the unchurching▪ the Nation of the Jews, espoused a Nation to himself, as that the whole Body of the People thereof may be accounted his. i e. There is no National Church of divine Institution under the Gospel; for if there be, the Lord hath most assuredly visibly espoused that Nation to himself, and they are to be accounted his. What h● adds, viz. We own no Church visible now, but of Believers by their own personal profession, we are not concerned to take notice of. His mentioning the 9th Article of the Church of England, by way of approbation, and as if it were of the same mind with him touching the subjects of the visible Church, is an abuse of it and the Reader. 'Tis known that the addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly, Chap. 25. Art. 2. Of children's Church-membership, is the Doctrine of the said Church. Of this matter we are not now treating.  
Secondly, In answer to the Question, Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel? I say (saith Mr. T.) that though there be no National Church, so as that the whole Nation, and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ, by virtue of their generation and Proselytism, and such Covenant as was made to Abraham; concerning his natural Seed, or to Israel at Mount Sinai, or elsewhere, yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation, may by reason of their common profession be called a National Church, as well as the whole body of men throughout the world upon the account of their professing the Faith of the Gospel, etc. are and may be called the visible Catholick-Church of Christ.  
Answ. 1. But if Mr. T. thinks this to be an answer to the Question, he will scarce find in this matter any Corrival: Quaestio est de ollis, Responsio de sepis. We are not enquiring, whether a company of Believers living in a Nation, may be called, upon the account of their Faith and Profession, a National Church, which by the figure Ca●achresis it may be they may. I am sure most abusively and improperly it is that they are so called.  
Nor, 2dly, Is the enquiry de facto, of what by the Providence of God is come to pass, in which sense we grant there is a Natio●al Church under the Gospel; the Church of England is so.  
But, 3dly, Whether upon the account of a compulsed, or education-Faith and Profession (contradicted by the most) assumed and professed by persons living in a Nation divided in several Parishes & Dioceses, under the conduct of their Parochial Ministers, and Diocesan, Metropolitan Bishops, united together under one (or more) Ecclesiastical visible Head; This company of People thus moulded, are or may truly be accounted a Church of Christ, instituted by him under the Oeconomie of the Gospel. Which, whoever will undertake to demonstrate, must I conceive attempt the proof of these few things.  
First, That a profession of Faith forced and compelled, or at least in which men have been trained up from their Infancy (as the Turks are in the Doctrine of their Alcoran) and that for the most part contradicted in their conversation, is sufficient to give a man or woman a right and title to Church-membership.  
Secondly, That persons co-habiting, or living together in a Parish, are, de jure, upon the account of that their co-habitation (at least if they make so much profession as to be able to say the Creed, Lords-Prayer, and ten Commandments, though, as was said, contradicted by a course of debauchery etc.) are a Church of Christ; or that Parish-Churches, quâ tales, are of the Institution of Christ.  
Thirdly, That the Subordination of these Churches and Ministers to Diocesan Bishops, Archdeacon's, Consistories and Commissaries, and these again to an Archbishop, or Metropolitan is of the same Original.  
Fourthly, That these Bishops, Arch-deacons, Commissaries, Courts Ecclesiastical, Metropolitical Head, are of the Institution of Christ. Which when Mr. T. (or any one for him) shall do, I will be a Member of the Church of England. But he knows an easier way; 'Tis but saying, That there is no Institution of a Church by Preception or Command; and he avoids, he thinks, the necessity of putting himself to all this toil. But seriously Sir, very few considerate and judicious Christians will care to be Members of such a Church as is destitute of divine Institution, and whether his Clients of the Church of England will thank him for this part of his Plea, I am not certain. In the greatness of his love he seems to be killing his Mother with kind embraces. The Church of England is not, he grants, of the Institution of Christ (for there is no Church that is) so that there is no need to allege, Isa. 49. 23. and 66. 8. for the Institution of a National Church: Nevertheless that the Prophecy, Isa. 49. 23. waits the time of its accomplishment, is said by the author of the S. T. with more confidence than evidence.  
Answ. Well, Mr. T. will not be guilty of the same crime: what evidence brings he of this confident assertion? Why, many learned Interpreters (among whom Mr. Gataker) think otherwise. But Sir, we have not learned, Jurare in verba Magistri, to take any man's dictates for evident proof of any thing of this nature, which we are sure they are not. As learned Interpreters are of the mind of the Author of S. T. The truth of the Assertion is evident.  
1st. The Prophecy hath respect to some time after the coming of Christ in the flesh, of which he speaketh, vers. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. which one consideration manifests the nothingness of the first part of Mr. Gatakers notion; That it had its fulfilling in Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Ahashuerus, with the Queens of some of them.  
2dly, It's to receive its accomplishment after the Preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles (which was not till after the Ascension of Christ) vers. 1, 6. which the Apostle citys, Acts 13. 47. for his warrant in speaking the Word of God to them.  
3dly, The Deliverance and Glory, God doth in this Chapter engage to bestow upon the twelve Tribes (as is evident from the Names of Israel, vers. 3, 5, 6, 7. Of Jacob, vers. 5. Of the Trib●s of Jacob, vers. 6. The preserved of Israel (ibid.) i. e. the ten Tribes, in way of distinction from whom the two Tribes are called Zion, vers. 14.) evinceth, that as yet it waits its accomplishment. For though the two Tribes were delivered from the Babylonish Captivity, yet the ten Tribes (as it's known) have remained in their graves ever since they were carried captive by Salmaneser to this day. 'Tis true, God did once call his People of the two Tribes from the North, in the time of Cyrus, etc. But from the West, and from the Land of Sinim (i. e. from all parts of the world into which they have been scattered) they have not yet been called, as 'tis vers. 12.  
4thly, When God doth this, his People shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the heat or Sun smite them, vers. 10. (i. e. they shall hunger, or thirst no more, the heat, or Sun shall never after more smite them, Rev. 7. 16. i e. they shall never be burnt by the heat or Sun of Persecution more; all sorrow and crying shall departed, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, (Rev. 7. 17.) which we are sure is not yet accomplished.)  
5thly, Vers. 17. Was never yet fulfilled, at their return from Babylon their destroyers and they that made them waste went not out of them; There were then the crew of Sanballat, Tobiah, etc. that opposed them, and that so far, that they put a stop at the last to the work of the Lord at Jerusalem, into which, anon after Alexander the Great enters; after him Antiochus Epiphanes wasteth, after these the Romans conquer it; and now the Turks possess it.  
Nor hath, 6thly, the 19th vers. ever been accomplished since the carrying away the ten Tribes, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were never full of their own Inhabitants. Those sent to possess it 2 Kings 17. 24. we never read were sent for home again. They that swallowed up the twelve Tribes have been changed (the Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, have interchangeably done it) but not removed. All which abundantly evidence the truth of what I asserted; That the Prophecy waits the time of its accomplishment. If you apply the Scripture solely to the Gentile Saints, 'tis evident, hitherto it hath not been fulfilled. They are still under Sorrow, Oppression, Sufferings, which at this day of its accomplishment they shall not be; (of whom this Prophecy speaks) vers. 10. Their Wasters, Destroyer's, &c. are not gone out from among them, as 'tis, vers. 17. The prey is not yet taken from the mighty, nor the lawful Captive delivered. Nor hath God contended with the Persecutors of his People, according to the purport of vers. 24, 25, 26. So that evidently the Prophecy had not its accomplishment in the days of the Persian Potentates, or of Constantine, etc. or since in any of the ten Horns; but waits the time thereof, as we think Mr. T. himself will say we now assert with as much evidence as confidence. The former whereof (with a great abatement of the latter) is much desired in the writings of this Animadverter by sober minded persons, not a few, who have spent some of their time in perusing them. That the text, Isa. 66. 8. is a Prophecy expressly relating to the Jews, and their miraculous conversion, (as is asserted in the S. T.) Mr. T. tells us is not certain; and citys Mr. Gataker, acquainting us that the most Interpreters understand it of the sudden delivery of the People out of the Babylonian bondage by Cyrus; Divers of the Restitution and Restauration of the Church, under the Ministry of the Gospel, when so many thousands were converted, Acts 2. 41. & 4. 4.  
Answ. 1. But that learned person is no Oracle, to whose dictates we are indispensably bound to attend, and give evidence.  
2. Other Interpreters understand it of the miraculous conversion of the Jews; and those not a few, nor contemptible.  
3. That it hitherto hath not had its fulfilling we have the concurrent Testimony of some of the Ancients. Just. Mart. in his Dialog. cum Trip. pag. 312. refers this place of Isa. 66. from the 5th vers. etc. to Christ's second coming. In which words (saith he) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which Mr. Mede understands as meant of the Resurrection of the Godly; the mystery of our being again generated, or made new at the Resurrection) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— and absolutely of all who expect Christ shall appear at Jerusalem, and by well-doing study to please him. And the serious consideration of the context will afford that brightness to the understanding of the judicious Reader, that will lead him captive to the belief thereof. Let any one tell me when vers. 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, ever had its fulfilling. Now this one observation removes out of the way, both the Expositions given in by that learned person. It relates not to the time either of Redemption from the Babylonish Captivity, or the conversion of those, Acts 2. & 4. For the context evinceth, that it hath not yet been fulfilled.  
4. That the Jews shall not be converted by the ordinary preaching of the Gospel, but by some extraordinary means; and particularly the appearance of Christ in the Clouds, is no private opinion of our own. Mr. Mede in his Apocalyptical Key, is of the same mind, who thinks Paul's Conversion was a type hereof. The Scripture leads us into the belief hereof, Zach. 12. 10. And I will pour upon the house of David and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplication, and they shall look on him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only Son: and shall be in bitterness for him as one is in bitterness for his firstborn.  
A few things are briefly to be remarked.  
1. That the Conversion of the Jews, the whole Nation of them, is here propesied of, who are here called, The House of David, and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem.  
2dly, That this their Conversion is attributed to the pouring down of the Spirit, and their looking upon Christ.  
3dly. The Question is, What is meant by their looking upon Christ? That their seeing him in Clouds of Heaven in Majesty and great Glory, is hereby intended, we have an unquestionable infallible Interpreter assuring us, Rev 1. 7. Behold, he cometh with Clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the Earth shall wail because of him. And Mat. 24. 30. Then shall appear the Sign of the Son of Man (either per Synechdochen, the great signs of Glory and Majesty, which then shall compass him round about; or the Son of Man himself, as the sign of Circumcision is nothing else but Circumcision itself) in Heaven. And then shall all the Tribes of the Earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the Clouds of Heaven, viz. in Majesty and great glory. The sight whereof shall be the mea●s of their miraculous Conversion. Accordingly you have here in Isa. 66. vers. 5. The appearing of the Lord. The issue whereof is (1) The ruin of his enemies, vers. 6, 14, 15, 16, (where you have Christ's appearance, largely discoursed of Rev. 19) (2) The Conversion and Restauration of the Jews, vers. 7, 8, 9 (3) The concomitant Glory in the new Heaven, and new Earth state, or the time of the restitution of all things, vers. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23. All which considered, I humbly conceive I had ground enough to assert, That Isa. 66. 8. is a Prophecy expressly relating to the Jews and their miraculous Conversion. That because 'tis said, Rom. 11. 25, 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, all Israel shall be saved: Therefore I may find something of a National Church, consisting of several Parish Churches, bounded by old Customs, Laws, Constitutions, etc. in subordination to Diocesan, Metropolitan Churches, with their several Officers, of Priests, Arch-Deacons, Bishops, Arch-Bishops on the head of them, which is the National Church we are enquiring after in Isa. 66. 8. is a Consequence I shall never see Mr. T. make good. That he should do so, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, amongst the number of those things that are impossible. And once for all I desire him, when he writes next, not to think so highly of himself, as to conceit that his dictates must pass without control, but to remember he is, (as well as other men) obliged to give us a reason of them; else we shall not think ourselves bound to take any further notice of them, then to reject them as say of no weight or value.   

Sect. 15.  
Of National Ministers. Peter, Paul, Titus, no National Ministers. Ephes. 4. 11, 12, 13, explained. The Body of Christ there, not the Church-Catholick visible, but a particular Church of Christ, proved. Pastors and Teachers are only belonging to one particular Congregation. If a man be a Minister by the appointment of Christ, of a Church-Catholick visible, he cannot be a Minister of Christ of a National Church. The Ministers of Christ are either Extraordinary or Ordinary. Of Saint's Interest in each. 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23, expounded.  
THE second Querie in the S. T. is, Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ? Or, Whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church, as a National Church must be if not of Divine Institution?  
To this Mr. T. pretends to answer, Sect. 16. And after conjectures of what I mean by National Ministers, he gives us such a description of them, as he could not (sure) think any man besides himself would subscribe to; but it served his design (he thought.) By National Ministers, I mean such as are members of a National Church, related to it as the Ministers thereof, as such; Ordained and set apart by National Officers, bound up by its Canons and Laws in their Ministrations: who when Mr. T. shall prove to be Ministers of Christ, he will be supposed to say something in answer to the Querie, which as yet he hath not done. His ensuing Arguments speak not a word for such National Ministers, himself being Judge.  
1st, Peter, though he had the Apostleship, of Circumcision, and Paul of the Gentiles, were not National Ministers.  
2dly, Nor Titus, though left in Crete, to set in order things that were wanting, and to ordain Elders in every City, Tit. 1. 5. F●r they were,  
First, No members of a National Church.  
Secondly, Not related to it as the Ministers thereof.  
Thirdly, Not Ordained, or set apart to their Office by Natinnal Officers.  
Fourthly, Not bounded and circumscribed in their M●nistrations, by any devised Institutions or Canons thereof: None of which were then in being as is known. He goes on and tells us,  
3dly, They that may be Ministers of Christ, though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ, and all the Members thereof, ma● be Ministers of Christ, though National;  
But Pastors and Teachers are given for the edifying of the Body of Christ;  
Therefore, etc.  
Answ. 1. If by the Body of Christ, Mr. T. means the Church-Catholick visible; The Apostle, Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13. speaks not a word of it; not the Body of Professors, or multitude of persons professing Faith in Christ, is there intended; but some particular Instituted Church of Christ. Which we prove,  
1. The Body of Christ, Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13. is the same with the Body and Church of Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 27, 28. as by the serious perusal of both places (comparing the one with the other) will to the sober and judicious be evident. That there it signifies a particular Church of Christ, we have demonstrated Sect. 13. therefore here it also so signifies.  
2. Here Pastors and Teachers are said to be given for the edifying of the Body of Christ, (i. e. particular instituted Churches of Christ) and accordingly we find them ordained in every Church, Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. and the whole of their charge limited to particular Churches, Acts 20. 17, 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Col. 4. 17. who are commanded to obey them in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. from whom they might not upon every occasion, nor without ●he consent of the Congregation, upon any pretext whatsoever, remove; (See Calv. Institut. l. 4. c. 3. s. 7.) of which Mr. Paul Bains speaks in his Exposition on the Ephesians, chap. 2. 3. p. 350, 351. As the Lord doth give a Calling and Grace, so a People, towards whom it is especially blessed— It is true, the Apostle had a more large Flock, the care of all Churches was upon him; but wheresoever God giveth a Calling, there he giveth a People, of whom the Minister may say, Toward you Grace is given me of God, Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. God hath assigned every ordinary Minister a portion of his People: for this is the difference between extraordinary, as the Apostles, Evangelists, the seventy Disciples, and our ordinary Pastors: The Apostles had an Universal Commission; and the Evangelists were Delegates of the Apostles— The Seventy (if not Evangelists, which some of the Ancients incline to) yet they were illimited helpers, and fellow-labourers in the work of the Lord. But ordinary Ministers the Lord commanded to fasten them to certain places, Tit. 1. 5. Ordain Elders City by City. And in the Council of Chalcedon, chap. 6. Let none be ordained at large, lest he prove a wand'ring Jonathan. Every Minister must be, 1. Separated, 2. Authorized, 3. have allotted to him a certain portion of people which may be instructed by him, which the diminutive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may seem to insinuate. Now as God doth give every Pastor his several Flock, so he will that we travel in leading of them, we must not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we must not be Bishops in other men's Dioceses, lest God say, Who hath required this at your hands? When the Lord lighteth Candles he doth find Candlesticks on which to set them, etc.  
The sum is, 1. The Body of Christ (Eph. 4. 11, 12.) is a particular Church of Christ, for the edification of which Pastors and Teachers are given. 2ly. Ordinary Officers are limited to particular Churches. From whence the vanity of this Animadverter's Argument is conspicuous to every eye.  
If by Body of Christ he understand, in his first Proposition, the Universal Catholic Church: 1. His Argument is naught, consisting of four terms: for we have manifested that the Body of Christ in the Minor (which is the Apostles) is a particular Church of Christ. 2. Hi● Major is invalid; It doth not follow, that if men may be Ministers of Christ, though they be Ministers for the Body of Christ, and all the members thereof, that they may be Ministers of Christ though National. If he think Ministers for the Body of Christ, and all the members thereof, and national Ministers are aequipollent, upon second thoughts he will be so ingenious as to acknowledge he was mistaken. Nay, 3dly. The very truth is, 'tis so far from being true, that upon supposition a man may be a Minister of the Body of Christ, and yet the Minister of Christ; i. e. by the appointment of Christ a Minister for his Body, and all the Members (Churches) thereof. That therefore he may be the Minister of Christ though National, that ejus contrarium, est verum. A man cannot be a Minister of Christ if a National Minister, or Minister of a National Church, upon supposition that Christ hath instituted and appointed his Ministers to be Ministers for his Body, i. e. his Church-Catholick-visible, which is not sure confined within the narrow circumference of one Nation: A man's residence wherein will be accounted but a pitiful discharge of his Ministry upon the supposition aforesaid. But, 4thly, By the Body of Christ, Ephes. 4. we have proved a particular Church of Christ to be intended. That there is any show of reason in the Animadverters proposition; They that may be Ministers of Christ, though they may be Ministers of the Body of Christ, i. e. a particular Church of Christ, and all the Members thereof (which by the appointment of Christ they are) may be Ministers of Christ, though National, (which none are but by the devisings of man, and appointment of Antichrist) he himself will not have the confidence to aver. There are these things incumbent upon him to prove if he ever reinforce this Argument.  
First, That by Body of Christ, Ephes. 4. is not meant a particular Instituted Church of Christ.  
Secondly, That ordinary Church Officers (for to run into a discourse of what was done by the Apostles extraordinary Officers, who were not fixed any where, nor could be, whilst they made conscience of their Commission, Mat. 28. 19 which was to Preach the Gospel to every Creature; In which Office none are their Successors, as we prove Chap. 4. is such a pitiful fig-leaf to cover one's nakedness with, that every eye will see through) are not limited to, or fixed in a particular Congregation.  
Thirdly, Manifest the truth of this proposition (shoul● it be granted him for disputes sake, that by Body, Ephes. 4. is meant the Church-Catholick-visible) They that may be Ministers of Christ, though they may be Ministers of the Body of Christ (i e. the Church-Catholick-visible) and all the members thereof, may be Ministers of Christ though National. The Bottom or Basis upon which it is built, I must acknowledge my short-sightedness to be such, that I cannot ken, nor, it may be, a wiser man than either of us.  
His Fourth Argument is like the rest, 'tis thus form: If any of the Saints, as well as one particular Congregation, have an In●erest in all the Ministers of Christ, so as that they are truly theirs, than Ministers of Christ may be National;  
But 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23, Paul, and Cephas, and Apollo's were all the Corinthians, and all others who were Christ's;  
Therefore.  
Answ. En cor Zenodoti, en jecur cratetis.  
What is most admirable in this Argument I know not. A few things will manifest its nakedness to all.  
1st, The Ministers of Christ are either such as were called extraordinary, as were immediately sent by Christ, (or assumed to themselves by them who were so sent, to be coadjutors, or fellow-workers with them in that service and employment) to preach the Gospel throughout the world, and were fixed no where; related as Pastors or Teachers to no one particular Congregation more than another; or such as were mediately sent by Christ, ordained in, and set apart for particular Congregations. Of the former sort were the Apostles, etc. Of the latter, Pastors, Teachers, as we but now proved.  
2dly, The having an interest in Ministers, is either the having an interest in their gifts and abilities God hath given them, or in their persons, as Ministers appointed by the Lord, to oversee, instruct, and watch over their souls, as such that must give an account, Heb. 13. 17. Now let him take Ministers in either sense, for extraordinary or ordinary Ministers, and an interest in them for an interest in their gifts, or in them as Ministers appointed by the Lord to watch over and instruct them; the consequence of his first proposition is most weak and invalid. Though all the Saints in the world might claim an interest in Paul, etc. it doth not follow that they were National Ministers, which 'twas impossible they should be, there being no such thing as a National Church, from whence a National Minister hath his denomination. And Mr. T. may as well surmise a King without Subjects, a Father without Children, or a Husband without a Wife, as to surmise Paul, etc. to be National Ministers, when there was no such thing in being as a National Church. The like may be said of Pastors and Teachers in that day.  
But, 3dly, If he take Ministers for ordinary Ministers (as he must do, if he speak to purpose, extraordinary Ministers being ceased with the Apostles) and their interest in them, for their interest in them as Ministers, to oversee and instruct them in the Lord, by virtue of Office-power; there is nothing more false than this, that every Saint hath an interest in them as such; none but that particular Congregation having in that sense an interest in them, to which they are related as Ministers. Nor doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 22, 23. say that every Saint hath.  
1. All is yours, is no more than all is and shall be for your good.  
2. He speaks to the particular Church of Corinth, of which neither Paul, nor Apollo's, nor Gephas, were Pastors or Teachers.  
3. He is condemning them upon the account of their crying up and preferring one before another, upon the supposition of the excellency of gifts; some thought they saw in one, others in the other; which caused them to side and tumultuate the one against the other: To allay which, amongst other things, he tells them, All is theirs, whether Paul etc. i e. the gifts of the one and the other, were for their use ●nd emolument, as the Lord was pleased in his providence to cast them amongst them.  
4. He speaks of extraordinary unlimited Officers, t●at were to continue but for a season, and (whilst they were) fixed and ●etled in no particular Church, so that the Corinthians might lay as much claim to them upon that account as any other: Therefore National Ministers may be Ministers of Christ, is this Animadverter's Logic, wh●ch when I purpose ludicrè sophisticare, I may imitate him in.  
What follows, viz. That a man may be a Commissioner for approbation of Public Preachers throughout a Nation, (as Mr. T. was when that was in fashion) and so a National Minister, or an Itinerant Preacher, and yet be a Minister of Christ, is not at all to the purpose.  
1. If Mr. T. looked upon himself as such an one, when he sat at White-Hall amongst the Tryers, I know many of the● that then sat there, did not. And in the sense I speak of National Ministers, as explained in the beginning of this Section, he could not be one.  
2dly. Some (at least) of the then Tryers were so far from being National Ministers, that to my knowledge they were not Ministers at all, but private Gentlemen, whom the then Powers thought fit to entrust with the management of that affair.   

Sect. 16.  
No National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel. The National Church of England destitute of what Mr. T. makes essential of a true Church. Somewhat more essential to a true Church than the truth of Doctrine of Faith, the truth of Worship, the truth of holy Conversation, viz. Segregation and Aggregation, proved. The A●imadverter's Argument retorted upon himself. Though every defect of Order doth not nullify a Church, yet the defect of that Order that is of the essence of a true Church doth. Of the Disorders of the Church of Corinth. Their impertinent Allegation by the Animadverter of Synods: the learned Whitaker's judgement of them, and General Councils. These no proof for National Churches. Of many particular Congregations under one Presbyterial Government. These may be yet no National Church. The Church of Jerusalem but one particular Congregation, meeting together in the same place for celebration of Ordinances. How this Church was the pattern of all other Churches. Mr. T. his Cavils refuted.  
THe next attempt of Mr. T. in this Section, is to prove a National Church, so denominated from their subjection to some Canon-Rulers Ecclesiastical (which is the National Church we are enquiring after) or conveening by Deputies in some National Synod, though not of Divine Institution, is a true Church.  
This seems at first blush to be a difficult task: to assert a Church not of Divine Institution, to be a Church of God (for so 'tis if a true Church) his Temple, Tabernacle, in which he walks and dwells, is to me such a Paradox as requires a strong brain and hard forehead to make good. But Aquila non capit muscas, nothing but what others despair of ever accomplishing is thought by daring spirits worthy the attempting. We attend his proofs. Thus he argues: They may be a true Church who have all things essential to a Church, and nothing destructive of its being such. But a National Church may have all things essential to a Church, etc. Therefore.  
Answ. Very good! We deny his minor Proposition, that a National Church may have all things essential to a Church, etc. What saith he for the proof of it? He tells us, that a National Church may have the truth of Doctrine of Faith, the truth of Worship, the truth of holy Conversation, besides which there is nothing essential to a true Church.  
Answ. But this is gratis dictum, and without proof.  
1. That Mr. T. can give us an account of any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel, concerning which it may be affirmed that the truth of the Doctrine of Faith, the truth of Worship, the truth of holy Conversation did appertain to it, (i. e.) if I do not much mistake him, it hath been sound in Doctrinals, the true Worship of Christ hath been managed and carried on in it, and the particular members thereof (i. e. the multitude of the Inhabitants of the Nation) holy and righteous, will not hastily be believed by such as have thought themselves concerned to look into these matters. As for the Church of England we suppose he will not have the confidence to assert that it may be truly affirmed of it, that the members thereof are so qualified. The frequent staggering and shameful spewings, through excess, that we daily behold in no small number, even of the Captains and chief of this Herd, evince the contrary. Of the soundness of their Doctrine we give an account, Chap. 11. and of the truth of their Worship, Chap. 8.  
But 2dly, The Animadverter full well knew that his Antagonists look not not upon the particulars instanced in, to be the Essentials of a Church. We Country-folk are not wont to say, that when the materials of an House are fitted and brought together, the House is built; there must be an orderly forming and placing of each piece in the building according to the Scheme or Platform thereof, before this can be affirmed of it. And therefore hic pes figendus, he should have manifested the truth of his dictate, that besides these there is nothing essential to a true Church.  
We are apt to think that two things, over and above wh●t is instanced in by him, are so essential to a true Church, that without them it is not such. 1. Segregation, or separation from the wicked, carnal, formal, hypocritical world, and the worship thereof, of which chap. 4. of the S. T. and in our Epistle to the Reader prefixed to this Treatise. 2. Aggregation, or a solemn gathering together, by free and mutual consent, into particular Congregations, in the fear of the great God, g●ving up ourselves to him and one another, according to his will, to ●alk together in the fellowship of the Gospel, in obedience to all the Institutions and Appointments of our dear Lord.  
1. That thus it should be in gospel-days the Prophets of old bear their Testimony, Jer. 50. 5. Come let us 
† Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which points forth not a casual aggregation, not a forced conjunction; but a free and voluntary giving up themselves to the Lord, and to one another. 'Tis used of such a conjunction as is made by marriage.  join ourselves to the Lord, etc. so Isa. 2. 3. Mich. 4. 2. Isa. 44. 5. Zech. 8. 21, 22, 23.  
2dly. Accordingly we have the Churches of Christ in the New-Testament practising, and commended for their so doing, as acting therein according to the will of God, Acts 2. 41, 42. 2 Cor. 8. 5.  
3dly. The several names and tit●es given unto particular Churches evince as much. Every such Church is called,  
1. A Body, 1 Cor. 12. 27. Col. 3. 15. Rom. 14. 4, 5. Eph. 5. 30, 32. Col. 1. 18, 21. Now 'tis not the multitude or number of members, whether many or few, that constitute or make a Body. We say not, if we come into a Field where a Battle hath been fought, and find an Arm in one place, a Leg in another, an Hand in a third, etc. though we meet with as many members scattered up and down as are in the body, yea though thrown together in heaps, that here is a body; no, no, 'tis  Rudis indigestaque moles, 
Their union each with other and coalescency in one, is that which gives them that denomination: Particular Saints scattered here and there, or casually coming together are not (nor can they be) called the Body of Christ; their union each with other by their free and mutual consent, is that which denominates them so to be.  
2. An House or Temple, Heb. 3. 6. Ephes. 2. 21, 22. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Mr. T. knows who have thought the world was made by the casual confluence of Atoms; he doth not sure think, that a casual concurrence of people professing the Name of the Lord, without more ado, are, or can become an House or Temple for him.  
3. A City, a Kingdom, Eph. 2. 19 Mat. 21. 43. Heb. 12. 28. Joh. 18. 36. That a man should be any way a member of these but by his free consent, cannot be asserted with the least show of reason.  
4. A Fraternity or Brotherhood, Zech. 11. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 17. compared with chap. 5. 2, 13.  
5. A Candlestick, in allusion to Moses his Candlesticks, Exod. 25. 31. (wherein though there were many shafts, yet they did all coalesce in one) Rev. 1. 11, 12, 20. All which as they import Aggregation, or a solemn union; so they clearly evince that this cannot be but by free and mutual consent.  
4. Besides, we find Christ promising his Presence to his Church and People thus aggregated or gathered (an Argument of his wellpleasedness therein) Mat. 18. 20. which accordingly he makes good to the Churches of Asia (as to the rest) Rev. 1. 13. which we have proved to be particular, Congregational Churches. That they were separated from the World and its Worship, gathered together by their own free consent for the worshipping God, Mr. T. cannot deny; There were no Laws to compel them hereunto, but the contrary.  
So that 3dly, we may righteously retort this Animadverters Argument upon himself. There cannot be a true Church where those things essential to a true Church cannot be found: But in National Churches in general (in the Church of England in particular) those things that are essential to a true Church cannot be found: Therefore.  
The Major is Mr. T's; The Minor we prove. Right matter and form is of the essence of a true Church, both wanting in the Church of England.  
1. The right matter Mr. T. denies not, to be visible Saints; visible Drunkards, Swearers, Whoremongers, covetous persons are not such: yet of such as these is the Church of England mostly composed.  
2dly. The form of a true Church we have manifested to consist in separation from Worldly, Formal, Antichristian Worshippers, gathering together by free consent into a Church-state, or particular Societies, for the Worship and Service of God: neither of which can be asserted of the Church of England. Much of the Worship of the Nations, of Antichrist (at least their rites and modes of Service) is retained in it. And into that Church-state (such as it is) in which they are fixed, did they never enter by their free and voluntary consent, but by the Laws of the Kingdom were they at first (I speak of their National-Church-state; that the Gospel was early (whether by Joseph of Arimathea, or some one of the Apostles, is not material) preached in England; that then a true Church, or Churches, were here planted I grant, but this is nothing to their present frame as a Church-National) compelled thereunto, and by severe Laws retained therein to this day. From which (as from the Lordly Prelacy) the most sober People of the Nation do  (groaning, being burdened) long to be delivered.  
What follows will receive a speedy dispatch. 1. 'Tis true the defect of outward order (i. e. of every outward order, though of the institution of Christ) doth not nullify the Church; but want of that order which is of the essence of the Church, as we have evinced to be the case of the Church of England, doth so. 2dly, Mr. T's instances of the disorders in the Church of Corinth, yet a true Church, are so evidently impertinent, that the bare mentioning them is confutation sufficient. The Church of Corinth was a rightly constituted Church, made up of visible Saints, 1 Cor. 1. 1. gathered together into a particular body, 1 Cor. 12. 27. meeting together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same place, for the Worship of God, 1 Cor. 11. 20. & 14. 23. Some disorders found amongst this Church did not nullify it: Ergo the defect of that Order that is instituted by Christ ad esse, to the very existence and being of a Gospel-Church (as is the case of National Churches) doth not nullify them, will not in haste be made good. When Mr. T. proves the sameness of constitution betwixt the particular Church of Corinth, and the National Church of England, his instance of disorders amongst the Corinthians will be acknowledged pertinent; but till then he will not himself, upon second thoughts, say it is so. The having of Natio●al Rulers Ecclesiastical, either single persons, or in a Synod or Convocation, make not a false Church, saith the Animadverter.  
Answ. 1. But should this be granted, it would not follow that a National Church is not a false Church, which it may be upon other accounts, though upon the account hereof it should be acquitted.  
But 2ly, National Officers (or Rulers) Ecclesiastical, in whom all Church-power is stated (as Archbishop,) and from thence derived to Diocesan Bishops, and by them communicated (in part) to the ordinary Parish-Priests (as is the case of the National Ecclesiastical Officers of England) are false and Antichristian Officers and Ministers, we prove chap. 3. of the S. T. That a National Church so denominated from their subjection to these, should be a true Church, is beyond the reach of my understanding.  
What he addeth touching Synods owned and submitted unto by those of the Congregational way, and Churches of a greater number and at a greater distance than could meet in one place every Lord's day, is not at all to his purpose. At the best it is but a recrimination. I know not how this Animadverter could imagine that the owning and asserting of these things as lawful, had the least tendency to the establishment of a National Church. But some men are so distempered that they suppose every thing makes for the advancement of that design they are driving on. If he deems Synods, owned by men of Congregational Principles, and his Ecclesiastical Convocation of National Officers are of the same nature, he is mistaken.  
1. Those are chosen by the particular Churches to which they are severally related, and what they act and do is in their name, and upon the account of that power and authority they receive from them: The Convocation of the Clergy act in their own name and authority, being never chosen by any one Congregation to sit and make Laws.  
2ly. Those pretend not to be the Church, nor to any self-power to make Laws, and impose them upon the Churches as obligatory and binding, to be received and subjected to by them, without the least judgement of discretion allowed them, or liberty of dissenting, if not persuaded in their consciences of the truth of what is decreed by them, and its consonancy with the Scriptures of the Lord. As is known to be the case of the Convocation of the Church of England, to descent from whose Canons (at least to oppose them) is censured with no less than an Excommunication, or delivering up to Satan. Which how directly it leads to the Popish implicit faith, of believing as the Church believes, every one is able to discern.  
For my part, with reference to these, I am much of the mind of the learned Whitaker, de Council. p. 12. General Councils may err, and embrace false opinions: Nam Concilium Antiochenum veritatem damnavit & haeresin apertam propugnavit: Similiter Ariminense & Ephesinum secundum, ex quo patet veritatem non esse metiendam ex numero Episcoporum. Of them he saith,  
1. That their calling together is a certain politic and humane invention, pag. 35, 77.  
2. That they cannot frame Articles of Faith to bind the Conscience, pag. 19  
3. That their end in coming together, is not to feed as Pastors, but to consult what is best for the Churches, pag. 85.  
4. That they are not simply necessary, pag. 23.  
5. That they do not give authority to the Scripture, pag. 242, 243.  
6. That their Decrees are not immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, pag. 262, 263.  
7. That the ultimate determination and judgement of a General Council may be false, pag. 231.  
8. That there is no judgement of a Council properly in matters of Faith, ibid.  
9 That the truth of things determined in Councils, may afterwards be called into question, and again disputed, pag. 283.  
10. That the Churches of Christ have been kept sound in Faith without them for the first 300 years, pag. 23.  
To which I add, 11. That I never yet read of any Council, or Synod since that Act 15. but 'twere easy to demonstrate, that in one thing or other it hath erred.  
The most of the Hay and Stubble that is built upon the Foundation at this day (not to mention their attempts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) owing its original to some of them. So that I confess I am no admirer of them; and am bold to affirm, of any that have yet been, it had been better for the Church of God that they had never been in the world. But these things are little to Mr. T. his purpose. That persons owning the lawfulness of Synods (from Scripture-warrant as they conceive) should therefore be necessitated to own a National Church as a true Church of Christ, is a position that Mr. T. will never make good.  
I suppose by the view I have taken of some of his Writings, he is very confident of his own abilities; but he is a rare man indeed that can compose a Rope of Sand. The lawfulness of a National Church, or unlawfulness thereof, having no dependence upon Congregational Synods, but is to take its measure from somewhat else, of which before. Of Churches of a greater number ●han can meet at one place, for the celebration of all the Ordinances of Christ, I shall not need to say any thing; till he acquaint us what Congregational men are of that persuasion, it will be accounted a mere Calumny. The assembling of the members of a particular Church in the same place, for the celebration of the same Numerical Ordinances, being one considerable part of the definition given by our Congregational Brethren of such a Church: And yet if they did own Churches of a greater number, 'tis ridiculous to imagine that they could from thence be compelled to the owning of a National Church, which wants both the matter (and form) of a true Church of Christ, which yet the other may have. So that we need not turn aside to consider the proofs used by those that held, That many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government, Printed 1645. Of which this Animadverter reminds us. For though I am not of their mind, nor do I conceive their Reasons to be cogent: Yet were that true, a National Church could not from thence be proved a true Church of Christ. For,  
1st, They suppose these Congregations to be particular Churches of Christ, constituted and made up of visible Saints, which cannot (as yet) be affirmed of any National Church in the world, or any Parish Church as a part thereof.  
2dly, They also affirm, that these particular Churches have power within themselves to determine differences by their own Elders, to excommunicate Offenders, obstinately guilty of notorious scandals.  
3dly, They are utterly against all Archiepiscopal, National Officers, the source and spring of a National Church.  
4thly, They conceive not all in England, nor all in a Parish to be lawful Church-members because born there; nor will they compel them, as such, to receive the Sacrament with them; which is the known case of the Church of England. That at Jerusalem there were more Churches than one under a Presbyterial Government, is a fond conceit, which the numerous multitude of Believers thereunto belonging, contribute not the least mite of assistance to. Be they never so many, they are called Acts 8. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Church which was at Jerusalem. The like may be said of the Church of Corinth; it was one single Congregation, the Church of God which was at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1, 1. 2 Cor. 1. 1. So was the Church at Ephesus, Rev. 2. 1. But as was said, The grant of more Churches than one under one Presbyterial Government, is remote enough from the establishment of a National Church, which by other bonds and ligaments (than the Assertors thereof will own) must be united to one National Head; or it hath not, cannot have, a being in the world. So that these things are little to his purpose. The next attempt of this Animadverter, is to remove an obstruction which he seethe to lie in his way, which in sum is this: The first Church of Christ under the Oeconomy of the Gospel, was undoubtedly form according to the mind of Christ. But this was a particular instituted Church, which though numerous, was not so numerous, but that they might meet together in the same place. Therefore not a National Church, but a particular Church of Christ is of his institution, etc.  
The first Proposition is easily demonstrated: It was form by the Apostles, men of integrity and faithfulness, who would not, durst not, innovate in the things of Christ, who had but lately received charge from him to teach Believers to observe and do all things whatsoever he had commanded them; and had promised thereupon his presence with them. To whom also, after his Resurrection, he opened his heart, or plainly spoke of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, or Gospel Church-state, Acts 1. 3. Accordingly 'tis said of them, That they revealed the Counsel of God; not their own, but his, Acts 20. 27. delivered to them what they had received of the Lord Christ, 1 Cor. 11. 23. To have done otherwise, had been an establishment of Will-worship, which they condemn, Col. 2. 13.  
The Minor Proposition is manifest: The first Church of Christ under the Oeconomy of the Gospel, was the Church at Jerusalem: This was a particular Church of Christ. 'Tis said of them, Chap. 2. 46. That they continued daily with one accord in the Temple. Vers. 47. Such as we converted, are said to be added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to that Church, viz. which was at Jerusalem. See Chap. 4. 23, 24, 29. and 5. 12. and 8. 1, 3. and 11. 22. and 12. 5. and 15. 4, 22. 'Tis strange to me, that when the Spirit of the Lord, whenever he makes mention of this Church at Jerusalem speaks of it as one particular instituted Church of Christ, any persons of sobriety should dare to assert, that it was not such, lifting up themselves against his dictates and Testimony. Let's consider what the Animadverter replies hereunto.  
He tells us, 1. That in Luke, in many places the word multitude, with an universal sign, is not taken for every one, not one exempted; as Luke 8. 37. Acts 25. 24. & 6. 2. & 16. 12, 30. & 21. 22. To which briefly.  
1st, 'Tis granted, though what he produceth Acts 16. 12, 30, to evince I cannot tell; I am sure 'tis hugely impertinent to the matter in hand.  
Nor, 2dly, Is it at all material, whether in the places instanced in by us (where that expression is used) it be taken for every one none exempted, or not. This only is incumbent on us to prove. First, That the Church at Jerusalem was a particular Church of Christ. And 2dly, Such a particular Church as did meet (all of them when not providentially hindered) might do so, notwithstanding their multitude, for the Worship of God: There was no impossibility in rei natura of their so doing: which he must wink hard that doth not see shining forth in its brightness in the  Scriptures: which when Mr. T. offers one Argument to evert, it shall be considered. His 'tis not likely will not pass for demonstration amongst persons that look for proof of that which is asserted. The Spirit of the Lord assuring us, that the multitude of the Disciples were called together, 'tis not only likely, but most certain that they were so. Nor is it likely that those whose particular duty and concern lay in what was to be managed the●e, would willingly absent themselves. Mr. T. himself tells us (in his Antipaedobaptism, or the 3d part, p. 340.) that all the Church did come together, Act. 5. 11, 12. were gathered together, Act. 14. 27. and that they were not parts of the Church who did not come together, etc. His second Reply is scarce worth the mentioning. If it be granted that they then met for that business, yet there is no likelihood that they met for Ordinances.  
And why so I pray? why 'tis said, Act. 2. 46. that they did break bread from house to house.  
Ans. 1. But that because they sometimes celebrated that Ordinance more privately, it should necessarily follow that they never did it all of them together, that they were not in a capacity, were in an utter impossibility of so doing (as is the case of a National Church) is beyond the verge of any man's understanding but Mr. T. And 'tis desired he would at his next leisure make good that consequence.  
I am informed (and doubt not the truth of it) that Mr. T. after he had been in hearing of the Parish-Priest at Lempster, not long since got as many of the Church, to whom he once owned himself related as their Pastor, together as he could, and broke bread privately with them; yet may it not thence rationally be concluded that he never celebrated that Ordinance with them more publicly, or that he never intends to do so, much less that the Congregation, he still it seems holds communion with, is so numerous that they cannot break bread together in the same place. Such pitiful Sophisms as these will never pass for proof amongst persons that have the exercise of their understanding or reason.  
Yet 2dly, The Animadverter's Concession is a grant of the verity of that he sets himself to oppose. If, Act. 6. 2. the Church did meet in one Congregation for that business (as Mr. T. saith) 'tis evident they were not so numerous but they might meet together in one Assembly, which is the matter in controversy betwixt us.  
He adds, 3dly, The Church of Jerusalem cannot be said to be the pattern of all Churches.  
Answ. 1. Nor is it necessary that we assert it so to be. The discovery of the Will of Christ, the Laws and Rules he hath given forth touching the aggregation of his Children into a Gospel-Church-state, are the pattern of all the Churches of Christ in the World: and whatever Church is not constituted according to this pattern, is none of his, nor will ever by him be owned so to be.  
Yet 2dly, This Church at Jerusalem, being planted by the Apostles, according to the mind of Christ, may with reference thereunto, be said to be the pattern of all rightly constituted Churches. What hath our Animadverter to except against this? He tells us this cannot be, because 1. There was no distribution of Believers under particular Officers.  
Answ. 1. But what doth Mr. T. mean by the distribution of Believers under particular Officers? doth he mean that they were not distributed into several Congregations, under their particular Pastors? no one saith they were; we assert them to be one Church. They are no less a pattern of particular Churches, than if they had been so distributed, so long as we find them in a possibility of meeting in the same place.  
2dly. Doth he mean that they had no Pastors amongst them? This is more than he will in haste make good. For, 1. They had Apostles. 2dly, They had fixed Officers, if Presbyters and Elders be such (as 'tis evident they are, from Act. 14. 23. & 20. 17, 28.) whom we find in the Church at Jerusalem, Act. 11. 29, 30. & 15. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23. & 16. 4. & 21. 18.  
3ly. What he further offers, That the Church of Jerusalem was to be that Church from whence were to be taken such as might plant other Churches, for which end they were after dispersed, Acts 8. 1, 4. therefore it cannot be said to be the pattern of all Churches, is, to speak modestly, such a strange nonsequitur, that he must take time to make good. That because the Lord in his providence suffered the enemies of his Son, to dissipate and scatter this Church, and by it took advantage, in the greatness of his Love and Wisdom, for the preaching the Gospel to others also, that therefore it should be a Church, not form up according to the mind of Christ, or being so form, was not to be an example and pattern, with respect to the matter and manner of its constitution to succeeding Churches, is a consequence that will not be swallowed down because Mr. T. saith it; and yet nothing but his ipse dixit is tendered towards its support and maintenance.  
But what he saith in the 4th place, will he thinks do his work, 'tis this: Be the Church of Jerusalem of what nature or kind soever, whether Congregational, Presbyterian or Parochial; it was so, not from any Institution of Christ, but came to pass according to divine Promises and Providence, which being so various, as that no certain rule can be accommodated to all times, places and estates of the Church; We may judge, that Christ hath left the shaping of Churches much to humane prudence. That is in short, there is no Form of Churches of divine institution. An Assertion so derogatory to the honour and glory of our dear Lord Jesus, that it cannot but be grievous to Christ-loving Saints to hear it abetted by any. I confess if this were the state of Churches, it were to no purpose to contend with him about his National Church: nor is it at all to be wondered at, if he hath always been for that Church-Government that was uppermost in the World. But this being an Assertion wherein most of the Saints of God in the World, do look upon themselves (upon more accounts than one) to be greatly concerned, Mr. T. should have brought most irrefragable Arguments to make it good. But behold in the stead hereof, we meet with a deep silence; he only turns aside to consider what worthy Mr. Parker offers, to prove that the form of Churches is of Divine Institution. Of which in the next Section we shall speak.   

Sect. 17.  
The Form of Churches of Divine Institution. The learned Parker 's Arguments vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions. Particular Churches called the Body of Christ, his House, and Temple. The plain upon which the Antichristian Church was first erected. No other foundation of the Church but Christ 1 Cor. 3. 10. Eph. 2. 20. Zech. 6. 13. Rev. 11. 1. explained. Twelve Arguments to prove the Form of Churches is of Divine appointment.  
IN Sect. 17. Mr. T. pretends to answer the learned Parker's Arguments, by which he proves (Lib. 3. de Polit. Eccl. c. 17.) that the Form of Churches is of Divine Institution: How well he hath discharged this province is now to be considered. The sum of Mr. Parker's first Argument is this: The Church is the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 27. But in the first forming of man's Body, he shown himself such an accurate worker, in the determining the dimension and measure of it, Gen. 2. that nothing might be added to or taken from it by any: Therefore it cannot be imagined that he should be so regardless of his own Body, as not accurately to circumscribe the dimension thereof. This Mr. T. is pleased to call a Rhetorical flourish; but by his good leave, it will be found an Argument of such weight, that he will not be able soon to remove it out of his way. If the Church of Christ be his Body, he hath certainly determined the dimensions of it. Not to have done so, had been an Argument of little care thereof; of his leaving it to the arbitrary disposements of the children of men, of which we read not a tittle in the New-Testament. Who, or where is he, that dares assume the confidence of ordering and disposing the Body of Christ without his leave, or can do so without treading the Sovereignty of Christ over it, under foot; and proclaims himself to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that lawless one, the Antichrist or Beast, that ascends out of the bottomless-pit, & must go into perdition?  
What saith Mr. T? The Church of Christ, he tells us, is the Body of Christ; but this is rather true of the Universal Church, and Mystical Body of Christ, as may be gathered from, 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. Eph. 1. 22, 23. & 4. 4. than of a particular Congregation.  
Answ. 1. But he gives us no Argument to demonstrate, that 1 Cor. 12. 27. is to be interpreted of the Universal Church (we have demonstrated the contrary Sect. 13.) which he should have done if he would have us think ourselves concerned in his reply.  
2dly, He himself grants, That a particular Church of Christ is and may be called his Body (as his words, 'tis rather true, of the Universal Church, than of a particular Congregation, import) That he should entrust any with a power to model, figure and fashion his own Body as they please, and yet never give us the least hint of any such betrustment, is the firstborn of improbabilities and absurdities. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very plain in the Land of Shinar, upon which the cursed Fabric of the Antichristian Church, Babel, was at the first erected, as Mr. T. well knows.  
The learned Parker further argues: Each first Church of God is the house and building of God, 1 Cor. 3. 9 Heb. 3. 3, 4. 1 Tim. 3. 15. And what prudent householder will permit the Figure and Quantity of his House to the arbitrement and will of others? To this Mr. T. adjoins, 'Tis true the Church of God is his House; God built it, Christ is the only Foundation of it, yet others are subordinate Builders, and Foundations too in respect of their Doctrine, 1 Cor. 3. 10. Ephes. 2. 20. to whom many things pertaining to the outward figure and quantity, i. e. the distributing of Churches into Ecumenical, National, Classical, Parochial, etc. are left, etc. This the Sum.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis true Paul calls himself, 1 Cor. 3. 10. A Builder (with respect to his (instrumental) planting and founding of that Church; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a wise Architect, or chief Builder) but that he (or any others) was to build according to the good pleasure of their own wills, that they had no Idea, Platform, or Model given them by Christ the Lord and Master of the House, according to which they were obliged to fashion their building, is not from hence proved. 'Twas of old prophesied of Christ, That he should build his spiritual House (or Temple) and bear the glory, Zac. 6. 13. (which accordingly 'tis said he did in which he was faithful, Heb. 3. 3, 5.) How either the one or other can be affirmed of Christ, if he, not at all concerned himself with the figure or quantity of his House, but left this to the prudence of men, I am not able to conceive. Certainly if there be any glory in the Structure, 'tis to be ascribed (according to this Animadverters principles) to the dreg and net of humane prudence and policy: Man must bear the glory thereof, not Christ; which whether it be not plainly to justle Christ out of the Throne of his Glory, and set up a Man of clay there, a very Idol in his room, let the judicious Reader determine.  
2dly, Where any, besides Christ, is called, The Foundation of this Building, (as this Animadverter asserts) I know not: I remember full well, that the Apostle speaks of him as the alone Foundation, 1 Cor. 3. 10, 11. an expression wholly destructive of Mr. T. his Assertion. 'Tis true, Eph. 2. 20. the Apostle tells the Ephesians, They were built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, i. e. on Christ, the Foundation upon which they, and all Believers that ever were in the world, were built. But he not where saith, That these were the Church's Foundation: And yet were this yielded him, it would be short of an evident demonstration, of what our Animadverter introduceth it to evince, viz. That many things appertaining to the outward figure, and quantity of the Church, were left to them to order and determine, in and by their own private spirit. What they did in this matter, they had instructions from Christ to do, were infallibly guided by the Spirit of the Lord in. Yet were it further granted him, That the distribution of Churches was in a great measure left to the Apostles, doth it thence follow, That others of the Children of Men, Antichrist, the Son of Perdition, may distribute and figure them as they please, and that in direct opposition to the figure and quantity of them exhibited by the Apostles, in the first Institution of Churches in the world? What more frivolous? The worthy Parker proceeds, The Material Temple had its breadth, and its measure described most accurately by God; shall not the Spiritual have its? Wherefore then was that Reed given to John? Wherefore a Command to measure the Temple, Rev. 11. 1?  
To which Mr. T. 1st, By way of Concession. Each Congregational Church is the Temple of God: The true Christian Church is shadowed by the Type of the Old Temple; the several parts of which were of old most accurately described, and measured by the command of God: that men might know that this House was made by God, that it is not of humane Structure. God hath by his providence described the Spiritual Temple as well as the Material.  
2dly, By way of Negation. God hath not given us any such description of the outward fashion and order, the breadth, and measure (i. e. the number, etc.) of the Spiritual Temple, as he did to Moses, etc. of the material Temple. And afterwards, God hath not determined the distribution and order of particular Churches so, but that he hath left many things therein to humane prudence.  
Answ. And this Mr. T. calls, an Answer to the forementioned Argument, that any person (not bereft of his understanding) besides himself will deem it to be so, he must not imagine. The Question is, Whether the Form of Churches be of Divine Institution? Mr. T. deries it. The learned Parker proves it is, Because the Form of the Temple (which was a Type of the Gospel Churches) was so, and God cannot be supposed to take less care of his Spiritual, than he did of his material Temple.  
What is our Animadverters reply? Why, the Form of Churches is not of Divine Institution. He persists in his opinion, without taking the least notice of the Argument advanced against it. But seriously Sir, persons of judgement and sobriety will either smile at your folly, or pity you for your self-conceit in such replies as these. In my shallow judgement, would he have removed this Argument out of his way, he should either have proved that the material Temple of old, was not typical of Gospel-Churches, or that the figure and model of it was not of divine Institution, or that though both these are true (which he grants) the consequence is not valid; that therefore God hath instituted the form of his New-Testament-Churches; which when he shall be able to prove that the Antitype must not correspond with the Type, or that God's care was more about his material than his Spiritual Temple, he will be supposed to say something, but till then, though he cry till his Lungs crack, falleris Parkere, falleris; though he may amuse the simple, with his noise of words, the intelligent Reader will discern his weakness, and nakedness.  
2dly, Gods describing the Spiritual Temple as well as the Corporal by his providence, is a certain kind of Gibberish I understand not; he describes both in his Word.  
To that Question, Wherefore then was the Reed given to John? Wherefore a Command to measure the Temple? Rev. 11. 1. Our An madverter Replies, It was not that he should set down the figure, or quantity of each particular Church, or the number of Persons that are to belong to it etc. but his measuring the Temple was his understanding the the extent of it, i. e how large and how narrow the Church should be in aftertimes, in what estate of Peace or Persecution, etc.  
Answ. But these are his wont dictates, without any tender of proof.  
1. The Temple of God was typical of the New Testament Churches, who are therefore here represented under the notion and similitude of the Temple.  
2. These had hitherto during the first ten Persecutions remained in some measure of Purity and consonancy to the first Institution.  
3. But now they were to contest with another (an Antichristian) Beast; therefore measure them, saith the Angel to John, with a Reed: Let them look to it that they mend what is already amiss in, and amongst them by, and that they swerve not from the measuring Reed or Rule, for therein will lie their safety (as we know it hath done) from Antichristian defilements.  
4. The Golden Reed is the Word of God, which though in itself precious and excellent as Gold to the men of the world, and the carnal Antichristian Church, it's accounted and used as a Reed, a mean and contemptible thing: though it is indeed like unto a Rod, the Rod of Christ's strength it is, by which he ruleth in the midst of his enemies. That there should be a Command given forth to measure the Temple, the Churches, by this Reed, if their Form were not instituted and appointed therein, is not to be imagined; upon that supposition a measure of them by it, were impossible to be taken.  
5. The measured Court (saith the learned Mede) setteth forth the primitive state of the Christian Church conformable to the Rule of God's Word.— The measuring is an allusion to Ezek. 43. 7 to 10. or to building, viz. That what the drawing of the Platform is to Builders, the same is Measuring to God in the language of the Prophets, i. e. the state of the Church figured thereby is God's workmanship.—  
6. The measuring is, as was said, a clear allusion to Ezek. 43. 10. but that measuring was in order to the showing the form of the House. Let them measure the pattern, ver. 11. Show them the form of the House, and the fashion thereof— therefore the measuring here must be for the same end too.  
Mr. Parker further argues, If God, when the Church of the Jews is called to the Faith, designs the quantity, longitude, latitude thereof, it cannot be imagined that he hath left the dimension of the Gentile Churches to humane pleasure: But when the Church of the Jews is called to the Faith, he designs the quantity, etc. thereof: Therefore.  
Mr. T. replies, 1. That the Holy City is the visible Church of the Jews, etc. Or, that the measuring it was to design the quantity of particular Churches, is not probable.  
Answ. But this is more than probable, that the Holy City (be it what it will) is exactly form and figured by the Lord, as the measuting the City, the Gates, the Walls thereof— doth abundantly evince. If you take it for the converted Jews (as some learned men do) or the Gentile Churches after the fall and ruin of Antichrist, to which it may be Mr. T. rather inclines, 'tis not probable that God should then take such exact care about the forming and figuring of the Church-societies of these, and in the mean while leave his present Churches to the good pleasure of the children of men, and those none of the best neither.  
2dly. He tells us, Inasmuch as the Apostle, Rom. 11. 25. asserts, that all Israel shall be saved, he might better argue for a National Church of Christ's Institution, from the visible Church-state of the Jews at their future calling, than for a Congregational Church.  
Answ. 1. But then he must argue, that some Church-form is of divine institution, which would overturn his present structure.  
2. He must first prove, that the Jews Church-state upon their conversion, will be National, which the Apostle's words [all Israel shall be saved] do not evince; for so they may be, though form up into particular societies, as some learned men think they shall.  
3. God's designing more diligently the quantity, etc. of the Jewish Church at their calling hereafter, and leaving the dimension of ours to humane choice, may be done (Mr. T. tells us) out of more special love to them.  
Answ. 1. But pag. 39 he tells us, That God's leaving things appertaining to the New-Testament-Churches to be set down by man, more than he did to the Jewish-Church, is an Argument of greater love and care to the New-Testament-Churches than to them. This needs a Reconciler.  
2. However, he neither manifests that God bears greater love to the Jews than Gentiles, (which to speak properly he cannot do) nor that if he did so, he should bear so little love to the New-Testament-Churches, as to leave them wholly to the forming of the sons of men.  
What he adds fourthly, in answer to what is further argued by Mr. Parker, that the Church is compared to a City; but no City is so negligently administered by man, that no regard is had to the bounds and lin its thereof, is greatly impertinent: for though it may consist with the prudence and care of good Princes, to leave many things to the choice of some in the City incorporated; as the ordering their Meetings, etc. ●s shall be found most convenient for them; yet to take no more care thereabout, than to suffer the City to grow up into the compass of a Shire, a Nation, would scarce be accounted consistant with that prudence and wisdom which should be in them. And thus far of Mr. T. his reply to the famous Parker's Arguments for the Divine Institution of Churches. For a close of this Section we shall briefly propose twelve Arguments, for the further clearing of the truth, That the Form of Churches is of Divine Institution; which our Animadverter may answer at his leisure.  
Argum. 1. If the Form of the Church be not of Christ's appointment, 'tis not so, either because it was not needful, or because Christ was not careful, faithful, or sufficient to institute or ordain it: But neither of these is true. To assert the latter, were blasphemous, etc. That 'tis needful, is evident. 1. There are some duties which cannot well be performed, but upon supposition hereof, as Mat. 18. 15. 2dly, The care of the Apostles to bring such as they converted, into Church-order. 3dly, Their diligent instructing them in their duty, as members of particular Bodies and Congregations. 4thly, Christ's owning them, who walked together in such Societies, affording them his Presence, promising it to them, and that in opposition unto Babylonish Assemblies, of the formings of man, abundantly evince the needfulness thereof. Besides, 5thly, If it be not needful, they are bloodily cruel who persecute men, to the loss of Estates, Liberties, Lives, and give them up to the Devil by the sentence of Excommunication; For no other reason, but for refusing communion with their National Church, or denying its form and frame to be of the institution of Christ.  
Arg. 2. If the Form of the Church be not of Christ's appointment, than there must be more Lords over the Church besides Christ, (for the forming or figuring of Churches (pro libito) is an act of Lordly Authority) But there cannot be more Lords over the Church besides Christ, Isa. 33. 22. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Jam. 4. 12. Therefore—  
Arg. 3. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment, Then is it in the power of man (without any precept or authority from Christ) to add to, or take away from the Body of Christ, (for so are particular Churches, as we have proved) But this is contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 18, 27. with Rom. 12. 4, 8. Therefore.  
Arg. 4. That which the Apostles practised, in pursuance of the Commission they received from Christ, is undoubtedly an Order and Institution of his: But the gathering of Disciples into particular Congregations, the Apostles practised in pursuance of the Commission they received from Christ, Mat. 28. 19, 20. with Acts 2. 41, ●2, 43. Therefore—  
Arg. 5. If the Form of Churches be not of Divine Institution, Then the Church of Christ is either not his Palace, Kingdom; or Christ hath not that care over his Palace and Kingdom, as the Princes of the world have over theirs: But both these are false and highly injurious to Christ: Therefore.  
Arg. 6. That Church to which Christ hath enjoined his Disciples to appeal, in matters of Scandal found upon their Brethren, with which he hath promised his Presence, to which he hath given the Keys of the Kingdom, power of binding and losing, is a Church of his own forming. But this is a particular Congregational-Church, Mat. 18. 17, 18, 19 (as we have demonstrated) Therefore.  
Arg. 7. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment, than there is either no beauty, splendour, glory therein; or Christ bears not, cannot bear that glory. But both of these are absurd, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9 Zech. 6. 13. Therefore.  
Arg. 8. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment, Then the Church of Christ may have communion with, yield obedience to the inventions, constitutions, ordinances and appointments of men, (of Antichrist the Man of Sin.) But that they are charged ●ot to do, upon most dreadful penalties, Rev. 18. 4, 5. & 14. 9, 10, 11. Therefore.  
Arg. 9 If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment, Then either Christ hath not left sufficient Laws for the government of the Saints, or man may superadd to his Laws. But both these are false, scandalous and injurious to Christ, Gal. 3. 15. 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. Rev. 22. 18, 19  
Arg. 10. If the Form of Churches be not of Christ's appointment, Then the Church is not to be governed as 'tis taught, (for it must be taught only by the Word of God, Isa. 8. 2.) But the Consequence is absurd. Therefore.  
Arg. 11. If the placing of Officers in particular Churches, be of the appointment of Christ; then the Churches themselves are so. But the placing of Officers in particular Churches is of the appointment of Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11, 12. Therefore.  
Arg. 12. Those Churches which Christ owns for his Candlesticks (in allusion to the Candlesticks of the Temple, which were purely of divine institution) are of the institution of Christ. But Christ owns particular Churches, for his Candlesticks (viz. the Seven Churches of Asia) which we have before demonstrated were particular Churches, Rev. 1. 20. Therefore—  
Those that desire further satisfaction in this matter, may consult a little Treatise, lately published, entitled, A brief Instruction in the Worship of God, and Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament, p. 93. where they will find it clearly and amply debated.   

Sect. 18.  
Of National Ministers. What meant by Ministry. Of extraordinary and ordinary Officers. Upon what account the Church of Engl. is asserted to be a false Church. Mr. T. his Arguments to prove, that in a National Church, or a Church irregular in its constitution, may be a true Ministry of Christ, answered. The contrary is demonstrated.  
THE Design of Mr. T. his 18th and 19th Sect. is to answer the second Query in S. T. Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ? Or, whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church? (as a National Church must be if not of divine Institution, upon what pretence soever it be so denominated.) Before he attempts the Resolution of this Query, he considers  
First, What the Ministry is, of which it is enquired whether it be true or false: And having at large acquainted us with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he tells us, he understands the query to be meant of that part of the Ministry which is by preaching. But I must crave leave to tell him, he somewhat misseth the white of the Author's intendment, who by it intends an Office-Power of Ministry, for discharge of that whole work, that peculiarly relates to the Ministers of the Gospel, to be performed and managed by them according to the Will of Christ; Whether it be the Ministry of the Word, the Lords Supper, etc. This, as Mr. T. saith rightly, is either the Ministry of extraordinary Officers, as Apostles, etc. of which our Question is not; or of ordinary Officers, as Pastors, etc. of whom it is queried, Whether ordinary National Officers or Ministers are of the Institution of Christ? What saith Mr. T?  
He tells us, 1. That Paul was a Minister not only to a particular Church, but even to the Gentiles.  
Answ. That this doth not in the least concern the Question in debate, which is of ordinary Church-Officers, (and Paul, as I remember, (with the rest of the Apostles) was an extraordinary one, receiving a Commission for the Preaching of the Gospel to all Nations.) he will be so ingenuous, as upon the review, to acknowledge.  
Secondly, A Church may be said to be false many ways.  
Answ. True, it may so; but in his discourse there abouts we are little: concerned, who assert the Church of England to be a false Church, because it is destitute of the true Matter (visible Saints) and the true Form (freely giving up themselves unto the Lord, and one another, to worship him together as a Community, according to the revelation of his will.)  
But he will prove, Thirdly, That in a National Church, or a Church irregular in its constitution, (i. e. that hath neither the matter nor form of a true Church of Christ) or discipline, may be a true Ministry of Christ.  
His first Argument is, Arg. 1. If the truth of the Ministry depend upon the truth of the Church, or its regularity; then where is no true regular Church, there is no true Ministry. But that is false, since there may be a true Ministry where there is no Church at all, and therefore no true Church.  
Therefore.—  
Answ. If by a true regular Church, Mr. T. means a Church for matter and form rightly constituted, according to the mind of Christ; and by a true Ministry, the Ministry of ordinary Officers, such as Pastors, and Teachers (as he must do if he speak pertinently) we deny his Minor Proposition. Where there is no true Church at all, in a false Church, or Church not regularly constituted, according to the mind of Christ, (as is the case of the National Church of England) there cannot be a true Ministry; which Mr. T. forgot to attempt the proof of. And indeed his abilities seem to lie much in Dogmatizing, and 'tis great pity but he were created a Rabbi in the Pythagorean School, his accuteness therein being so incomparably excellent.  
1st, That there can be no true ordinary Ministry where there is no Church, is manifest.  
First, Where ever we read of ordinary Ministers, we read of them as appertaining to some one particular Church or other, Acts 14. 23. & 15. 2, 4, 22. & 20. 17, 28. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Phil. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. As good a man may imagine an Husband to be without a Wife; or a Major, without a Corporation; or a Father, without Children; as a Minister, without a Church; in which he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to minister according to the will and appointment of Christ.  
Secondly, Every lawful Minister is elected, and chosen to his Office by the Church or People of God. Therefore there can be no true ordinary lawful Ministry, where there is no Church. Of this we have spoken at large, Chap 4. of S. T. To which multitudes of Testimonies might be added. The Churches of Helvetia (Harm. Confess. Sect. 11. the min. Eccl.) affirm, The Ministers of the Church must be called and chosen, by Ecclesiastical and lawful election; (i. e. they must be religiously elected by the Church, or by some from her deputed thereunto.) So also do they speak, Artic. 16. ibid. So the Bohemian Churches; Men who are firm and strong in the Faith, fearing God, having received necessary gifts for the work of the Ministry, of an honest and unblamable conversation, by People fearing God, must be chosen, and called to the administration of holy things. (Harmon. Confess. Sect 11. cap 9 the min. Eccl.) And they expressly tell us That they permit none to discharge the Office of the Ministry without such an Election of the Church, as appears (ibid.) by the ancient Canons thereof. To the same purpose the Belgic Churches declare, (ibid. Art. 31.)  
But, Thirdly, Ordinary Officers cannot be before the Church;  
Therefore, where there is no Church there can be no lawful ordinary Officers.  
The Antecedent is evident.  
1. All along the Acts we read first of the Constitution of Churches before the Ordination of Officers.  
2. The Scripture saith expressly, That all Officers are set in the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Which setting doth necessarily presuppose a Church in which they are set.  
2dly, A true Ministry cannot be in a false Church; false, I mean, either with respect to its first Constitution, or by reason of such an Apostasy as hath destroyed the essence and being of it.  
For, first, A false Church is no Church of Christ: Therefore in it can be no true ordinary Ministry, according to the mind of Christ, for the reasons before mentioned.  
Secondly, Such a Church is entrusted with no Authority from Christ, therefore cannot communicate any, nor send forth any to act in his Name.  
That Christ hath entrusted his Church with power to elect and choose Officers, we manifest, Chap. 4. Pag. 32, 33, of S. T. That any Church not right in its Constitution (as is the Case of National Churches) is invested with any such power, is the firstborn of absurdities and improbabilities. 'Tis the Queen, the Bride, the Lamb's Wife that hath the Keys at her girdle; not the Concubines. But Mr. T. hath more to say to evince the contrary.  
Arg. 2. If there be a true Ministry, though to, or in a National visible Church, or Catholic; than the extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church, makes not the Ministry false. But Peter and Paul's Ministry to the Jews or Gentile Churches, was a true Ministry, though the Church were National or Catholic. Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. 'Tis a most sad thing (upon more accounts than one) to be engaged against Truth, such sorry shifts are men put to, and driven to the use of Sophisms so puerile, that at other times they would be ashamed of. Thus fares it with this Animadverter, who argues so jejunely, that considering what I have heard of him for a Disputant, I am ready to question whether the Arguments I read be his, or no. Though Truth seeks no corners, yet it makes its Adversaries frequently to do so. The enquiry, as Mr. T. saith rightly in p. 34. is of the ministry of ordinary Pastors, etc. His two first Arguments relate only to extraordinary Officers, viz. the Ministry of the Apostles; so that we are not concerned to take the least notice of them. Many such impertinencies is th●s Animadverters Treatise stuffed with.  
2. Besides, the Argument is inconclusive of what Mr. T. pretends to prove, viz. That in a National Church, or a false Church, there may be a true Ministry: If there be a true Ministry, though to or in a National visible Church (saith he) than the extent, which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church, makes not the Ministry false. But Sir, whether there be a true Ministry in a National Church, is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; how it comes to be the medium of your Argument, I am yet to learn. Sure I am such kind of Arguings would deservedly be hissed out of the Schools, being in themselves illogical. I suppose he would have argued thus; If that extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church, makes not the Ministry false, Then there may be a true Ministry, though to, or in a National Church. But the extent, which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel-Church, makes not the Ministry false: for Peter's and Paul's Ministry to the Jews and Gentiles were true Ministries, though the Churches were National, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ergo. To the Argument I answer; 1. By denying the consequence of the first Proposition: For though the extent inconsistent to a true Gospel-Church, should not make the Ministry false, yet somewhat else may. What thinks he of an Antichristian Ordination, or a Mission to officiat from the Antichristian Persecuting Beast and Whore, though the Church were rightly constituted, in and to which a man is a Preacher? I conceive his Ministry is false. But 2dly, I deny his Minor Proposition (if by Ministry he understands the Ministry of ordinary Pastors, etc. which if he doth not, he speaks not a word to the question, as he himself acknowledgeth, pag. 34.) the extent of a Church inconstent with a Gospel-Church, renders the Church false, and indeed no Church, (i. e. no Gospel-Church) Therefore it renders the Ministry false, as we before proved. Mr. T. his proofs are weak and impertinent. 1. Paul and Peter's Ministry was not the Ministry of ordinary Pastors, as he grants, p. 34. 2dly. They were not Ministers in, or to a National Church. 'Tis true, they preached to the Jews and Gentiles; but for the first, their Church-state was virtually terminated at the death of Christ, when the Veil of the Temple was rend: as for the Gentile Nations they were no National Churches. The forming of which owes its original (as was said) to a latter date. So that hitherto Mr. T. hath only hung out signs of Arguments to prove his Assertion, being weighed in the balances they are found wanting, are plainly sophistical. It may be in what follows he speaks more pertinently. Thus he argues.  
Arg. 3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical, Schismatical, and in some sort Heretical, may be a true Ministry; much more to a Church National, etc. those being greater degrees of falsehood than this. But the Antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians, to the Churches of Pergamos, Thyatira and Sardis. Ergo.—  
Answ. No doubt but Mr. T. and his Associates in this work, think they have excellently well acquitted themselves in this Argument; but the emptiness and invalidity of it will soon appear.  
1. What if we deny the consequence of the Major Proposition? upon supposition that there may be a true Ministry to Churches of such a complexion as that intimated, it doth not at all follow, that there may be a true Ministry to and in a Church National. Where is Mr. T. proof of his consequence? Why these are greater degrees of falsehood than are to be found in a National Church. Well, this is denied also. What offers he to make it appear to be so? Why you have his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it; he saith so. But seriouslly Mr. T. is so inconstant to his own words, principles, and practices, that we are afraid if we should assent to what he asserts upon that foundation, we should once in seven or eight years, if the minds of men in authority over us should in that time be different, believe, and disbelieve the same positions. What if the National Church be as Schismatical, Heretical, Hypocritical as the Church's instanced in? (this were a facile undertaking to demonstrate) I hope than it being false in its constitution, which the others instanced in, were not, we may with this Animadverter's leave, assert, that greater degrees of falsehood, are not to be found in and upon them, than are to be found upon his National Church. Besides, supposing the Church's instanced in to be such as M. T. saith they were, they were once true Churches of Christ, to whom power was delegated from him, fo● the election, and choosing of Officers to act in his Name and Authority amongst them: which cannot be affirmed of any National Church in the World. That because a true Ministry may be in a true Church, under great degeneracy; therefore there may be a true Ministry in a false Church: is an Assertion that this Animadverter had need to consult with some body else to help him to make good, than his present Adviser●. But  
2. We crave leave to deny his Minor; A true Ministry cannot be in Hypocritical, Schismatical, Heretical Churches. If they are such, they are no Churches of Christ; if known to be so, they are not to be owned as such by them that fear him.  
But he hath proved this from the Epistles to the Corinthians, to the Churches of Pergamos, Thyatira and Sardis.  
Answ. What hath he proved? that these Churches were Hypocritical, Schismatical, Heretical? nothing less! 'Tis true, 1 Cor. 1. 11, 12. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he heard there were Contentions amongst them, etc. that the Church was schismatical he saith not. That there are Contentions amongst the members of the Church of England, Mr. T. cannot deny: that therefore it is to be accounted a Schismatical-Church, he will scarce assert. 'Tis true also, that there were some in the Church of Pergamos, and Thyatira, that held false and erroneous opinions; and that the Churches were too much to blame to suffer them, as they did, (for which Christ rebukes them): In Sardis the generality of the members were wonderfully declined in their spirits, a time of withering, decays, deadness was upon them; yet was not the one an Heretical, nor the other an Hypocritical Church: Nor can Mr. T. make good his charge against either of them. As for the Church of Pergamos, Christ witnesseth of them, that although they dwelled where Satan's seat was, (i. e. where the Roman Governor lived, who was Satan's chief instrument for persecuting the Saints) yet they h●●d fast his Name, and did not deny his Faith: which is not a description of an Heretical Church. They owned Christ, retained, cleaved to the Doctrine of the Gospel, i. e. the Body of the Church did (though some few amongst them held strange Heterodoxies) therefore no Heretical-Church. The like may be said of the Church of Thyatira, doth Christ charge her with Heresy? doth he say the whole Body, or ma●or part of the Church was infected with the doctrine of Jezebel? nothing less! He saith indeed that the Church was too negligent in their duty to put a stop to her seducing his Servants, and intimates as if some were led astray by her: But withal testifies, that there were a considerable number amongst them, that had not received her doctrine, nor known the depths of Satan (they called them depths, i. e. deep and wonderful things, but they were the depths of Satan.) Of Sardis Christ also witnesseth, that there were some things remaining that he would have her strengthen, i. e. some graces that were not quite extinct and dead in them; and of some of them expressly, that they had not defiled their garments, and that they should walk with him in white, for they were worthy, (which cannot be affimed of Hypocrites) Rev. 2. 13, 19, 20, 24, 25. & 3. 2, 4. Therefore no Heretical nor Hypocritical Churches. And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of this Animadverter to affirm it of them, after the testimony Christ gives touching them: it being little less than giving him the lie to his face. So that of this Argument we shall ('tis probable) hear no more.  
Of his fourth Argument we need say no more but this, that the Ministry therein mentioned is the Ministry of the Apostles: which he grants not at all to relate to our present Question. If he can make good this Consequence, the Apostles who were extraordinary Officers, immediately sent forth by Jesus Christ, were true Ministers, afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches, without their election or mission, Therefore Pastors and Teachers (who are to be chosen by a Church regularly constituted) are true Ministers though not so chosen; he will be able to reinforce this Argument, else he must never bring it into the field more.  
His fifth Argument in brief is, The denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine, and no other form denominating them. But there may be a Ministration of true Doctrine in a false Church: Ergo—  
Answ. 1. The Major is most false; the denomination of true Ministers is from somewhat else beside the truth of their Doctrine, viz. A regular Mission according to the mind of Christ, or an entrance in by the Door; else they are not true Ministers, but Thiefs and Robbers. What places they are  that he saith placeth the truth of Ministry in the Doctrine taught, and no other thing, I cannot tell; and do assure him that when he brings one place to prove it, I will be his convert. Col. 1. 6, 7. saith no such thing. Epaphras preacheth the Truth of God to the Colossians, and is said to be for them a faithful Minister of Christ; therefore the denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine and nothing else, is one of those consequences are frequently imposed upon us, without the least shadow of proof.  
2dly. That 'tis the duty of true Ministers, and in some sense their property, to preach and promote Truth, is most certain. Paul tells us, 2 Cor. 13. 8. that they could do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. But that the denomination of true Ministers is from the truth of their Doctrine, and no other form denominating them, is I suppose asserted by our Animadverter in haste, and will upon second thoughts be retracted by him. For it will hence follow, that whoever brings the truth of Doctrine, is a true Minister. Then the Devil was so, Mark 1. 24. Luke 4. 34. Every private Brother, a Woman may be so. For where the Form denominating is, there the Subject is rightly denominated from it. But this is too absurd for Mr. T. to cleave to.  
His sixth Argument is, False Prophets, false Apostles, false Brethren are only denominated from their false Doctrine: therefore they are not false Ministers, but true, who teach the truth of the Gospel. The Antecedent he proves from 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2 Cor. 11. 13. Gal. 2. 4, 5. 1 Joh. 2. 18, 21, 22, 26. 2 Joh. 7.  
Answ. 1. We deny the consequence, it doth not follow ●pon supposition that false Prophets are so denominated from their false Doctrine; that whoever preach true Doctrine are true Ministers; the proof whereof we expect by the next.  
2ly. the Antecedent is manifestly false. False Prophets are so called, because they ran and prophesied in the Name of the Lord, when he never sent them, speak in them, or to them, Jer. 14. 14, 15. & 23. 21, 22. & 27. 15. & 28. 15. & 29. 9, 31. & 43. 2. Ez●k. 13. 6. Of false Apostles there is the same reason. The true Apostles are so called upon the account of their Mission from Christ: nor is any one so, except lawfully called by Christ, saith Pareus on 1 Cor. 1. The false, upon the account of their pretending thereto, when indeed they were never sent by him. Nor doth 2 Cor 11. 13. make void this Assertion, it rather establisheth it. 'tis true, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or false Apostles, preached false Doctrine, but they are not upon that foot of account so denominated, but because they were metaschematizing, or transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ, as Satan is also sometimes transforming himself into an Angel of light; i, e, they come as the Apostles of Christ, pretend to be his Ambassadors, men sent by him (as M. T. knows the word signifies) when really and indeed they were not so. 1 Joh. 2. 18, 21, 22, 26. tells us of Antichrists that were already come, such as Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, and that t●ey opposed the Person and Doctrine of the Son of God, who with their endless genealogies, and unintelligible conceptions attempted the total overthrow of the Gospel, wondrously perplexing the Saints of that day; but that therefore they were called false Apostles, there is not the least mention. Gal. 2. 4, 5. speaks of false Brethren; but that they are so called singly, upon the account of their spreading false opinions, is a conceit that Mr. T. will not in haste make good. They were unsound, hypocritical Professors, that pretending to be Brethren, sought an occasion to injure and mischieve the Children of the Lord: (which Paul had too great an experiment of, 2 Cor. 11. 26.) 2 Pet. 2. 1. hath already been considered. So that with more Scripture-evidence it may be argued; If false Prophets, false Apostles be so denominated, upon the account of their running before they were sent, pretending to come in his Name, when he never missionated them; Then they are false Ministers, who come in the Name of Christ, and have received no authentic Commission from him. But the Antecedent is true, as we have evinced. Therefore—   

Sect. 19  
Of God's determining the whole of our Worship. His so doing of old in the Statutes and Judgements he gave to Israel, an eminent act of Love: it is so now to his New-Testament-Churches. Mr. T. his ten Arguments to the contrary, answered. Acts 15. 10. Heb. 7. 18, 19 & 9 9, 10. Joh. 1. 18. explained.  
THe third Query in the S. T. is, Whether God doth not bea● as much love to, and exercise as much▪ faithfulness over his New-Testament-Churches, as over the National Church of the Jews? To this Mr. T. answers, No doubt of it. He grants he doth.  
To the fourth Query, Whether he hath not, as of old he did, with reference to the then Church, determined the whole of the Worship appertaining to them, to whose Institutions (without any humane additions) it is the duty of fouls solely to conform? He answers in the Negative; God hath not determined Circumstantials in Worship (he must mean Circumstances of Worship relating to it, as such, or he speaks nothing to the purpose; and these are such necessary parts of Worship, that without them it is not accepted) and his not doing so, is an argument of greater love to his New-Testament-Churches, than his determining the whole of his Worship to the Church of the Jews was to them.  
Answ. 1. In pag. 32. he tells us, that if God do design more diligently, the longitude and latitude of the Jewish Church at their calling hereafter, (which are things Mr. T. accounts Accidentals of Worship undetermined) and leave the dimension of our Church to humane choice, this may be done out of more special love to them; So that the same act of God is (it seems) a manifestation and no manifestation of greater love from God; i. e. when it will serve Mr. T. his design to assert it to be so, it is so, when otherwise, he will persuade to the belief of the contrary.  Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo. 
2dly. When the Lord speaks of the Judgements and Statutes he had given to Israel (whereby the whole of their Worship was determined) he speaks of them as the wondrous manifestation of his love to the●, whereby they were eminently exalted above all the people in the world, Psal. 147. 19, 20. Ezek. 20. 11. Neh. 9 13. Deut. 6. 24. That the determination of their Worship should be an issue of dearest love, and the non-determination of ours, a manifestation of greater love, is an Assertion that had need be backed with strong proofs and evidence, else it is not likely to find the least entertainment amongst the Saints. But this he manifests by no less than a decade of Reasons.  
Reas. 1. Because the determination of the whole of the Worship of God to the Jews, was the imposing of a yoke on them which neither the elder, nor later Jews were able to bear, Acts 15. 10.  
Answ. But this is a mistake of the Animadverters. The Apostle Peter saith not, the determination of the whole of the Worship of God to them was such a yoke, but the pressing Circumcision and Mosaical Observances by some Sect-masters amongst them, as the way to Justification and Salvation, was so; As is evident from ver. 1, 5, 11. The Doctrine of Justification and Salvation by the works of the Law, was a yoke that they were not able to bear; Ergo, the determination of the whole of the Worship of God was so, is a most ridiculous and puerile Conclusion. 2. Grant the yoke to be Mosaical Observances, their number and multitude, etc. made them such an insupportable yoke, not their determination by the Lord. Whatever he institutes and commands (as such) is the joy and delight of the Saints to conform to, not their yoke and burden.  
Reas. 2. Because the determination of the whole of God's Worship to the Jews, did bring in many things which were unprofitable, weak, and made nothing perfect, Heb. 7. 18, 19 And if God had so determined to us, he had commanded things unprofitable, weak, etc. Therefore—  
Answ. 1. The will of God was the ground and measure of those things the Apostle calls unprofitable, etc. which had they been more so, upon the account thereof they ought to have been submitted unto: the unprofitableness and weakness of any thing, being no ground for its rejection when commanded by the Lord.  
2dly, This Animadverter is not so much of God's counsel, as to be able to say what had been, if the whole of Gospel-Worship had been (as it is) determined by the Lord. That there is some part of Gospel-Worship instituted, he will not deny: Is this unprofitable, weak? If not, what necessity is there, that what he supposeth not to be instituted, had it been so, should be liable to such a crimination.  
3dly, What is most weak, contemptible, and unprofitable in the eye of man, is usually made the power of God to them that are saved, 1 Cor. 1. 18, 23, 24, 25.  
4thly, These supposed accidentals of Worship non-determined of God, are left by him (according to Mr. T. his dictate) to be determined by Governors. If the determination of the Lord would have rendered them weak and unprofitable, doth their determination make them efficacious and profitable? Are they wiser, stronger than God? or being determined by them, may we reject them as unprofitable, weak, and good for nothing? To what purpose disputes he then for them?  
5thly, If God hath left them to be set down by Governors, to whom obedience is due (as saith the Animadverter) 'tis out of love, and faithfulness to us, that he hath done so: that it should be greater love and faithfulness in him to us, to leave them to the determination of men (with a necessity of our subjection to them when determined) than to do it himself, is absurd to assert.  
But 6thly, The observances instanced in by Paul, Heb. 7. 18, 19 were not accidentals of Worship, they were necessary, and essential parts thereof; such things wherein the greatest part of the Instituted Worship of God amongst the Jews did consist, which are called weak, and unprofitable, etc. not with respect to the determination of God, as if his determining them made them so, which were impious to imagine, nor in respect of the end for which they were instituted by the Lord (which it was impossible they should be, he never failing of his end, nor mistaking in the choice of means proper and suitable thereunto) but with respect to the great works of Justification, Sanctification, etc. accomplished and wrought by the Melchizedechian Priesthood of the Lord Jesus, as the Apostle speaketh: and in this sense all the Worship of Christ that is determined by him is weak, unprofitable, makes nothing perfect, viz. in itself, or with respect to Justification; and by this Animadverters Argument, it had therefore been a greater demonstration of love and faithfulness in the Lord to us, to have determined no part of Instituted Worship.  
Reas. 3. The things God determined to the Jews about the Circumstantials of his Worship, were but shadows of good things to come, which were not fit to be continued, or to be supplied with any other, Christ being come who was the Body or Substance, Colos. 2. 16, 17. Heb. 10. 1. Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. What was fit or not fit for God to do, Mr. T. is too bold to assume the confidence to determine: He never made him, or any of the Sons of men his Counsellor.  
2. Not the circumstantials of Worship only, but the greatest part of the instituted Worship of the Lord amongst them, was a shadow of good things to come. The Sacrifices, Passover, Ordinances of the Priesthood, etc. were eminent Types of Christ, who was the Substance and Body of them: yet no accidentals of Worship, but that wherein the Worship itself did consist.  
But, 3dly, Mr. T. will never prove, That if God determine the whole of his Worship under the Gospel, he must introduce such things as are such shadows of good things to come, as the Jews Observances were. The determination of the whole of the Worship of Chri●t, asserted by us, secures us, we find by experience, from such things; which the asserting a liberty in men to determine what they please, under the notion of accidentals of Worship, exposeth us to; (witness the Cross in Baptism, Surplice, Hood, Tippet, and a hundred such ridiculous trinkets invented by them) and yet except he prove this, his reason is irrational, and ludicrous. Let us see if there be any more weight in what follows.  
Reas. 4. Such Ordinances were carnal, to endure only to the time of Reformation, which is this time of the Gospel, Heb. 9 9 Therefore it's part of God's love, etc. that neither the same in particular, nor other are precisely determined to us by God.  
Answ. 1. The Jewish Ordinances, are called Carnal, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Justifications, or Righteousnesses of the flesh, because in their own nature they reached only to the outward man (saith Piscator) because they did sanctify only to the purifying of the flesh, vers. 13. (say our Annotators) These were to continue but until the time of Reformation, as the Apostle saith, even to the times of the Gospel; but that no other Ordinances that in their own nature (I speak not of what is done by the blessing of the Lord upon his own appointments) reach only to the outward man, and the purifying of the flesh, are of the appointment of Christ; whatever others say, Mr. T. upon second thoughts will not assert it.  
But, 2dly, These Ordinances were carnal and virtually abolished at the death of Christ, actually taken away and removed when the Temple was destroyed by Titus Vespasian, the same Ordinances in particular are not determined by the Lord; but that no other Ordinances are, is a slip of Mr. T. his Pen, or it may be a Typographical error, which he will not justify.  
3dly, When this Animadverter proves that it was not an act of rich love and faithfulness in the Lord, upon the cessation of the carnal Ordinances of the Jews, to institute de novo, and precisely determine, a more simple or spiritual Worship; or that because these then ceased, therefore it could not be an act of love in the Lord so to do: i. e. When he shall make good his Inference, he may be supposed to say something, but till then an ordinary capacity will be able to discern that he doth but trifle.  
His 5, 6, 7, Reasons are not worth the mentioning, concluding only, That New-Testament-Believers are released from Jewish Observances: which we assert and own as well as he. And when he shall be able to manifest, that any thing else can Logically or Rationally be deduced from them, I will be his bondman.  
Reas. 5. For what though the Jews were in their minority, and therefore to be kept under those beggarly elements, etc. until the time appointed by the Father, Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3, 9 Doth it therefore follow, that God hath not determined the whole of his Worship now? Is the Son because grown up, to offer to God what Worship he pleaseth? This indeed follows, That we are not under those beggarly Elements, and to return to them or any like them (not of the appointment of Christ) is an act of great ingratitude to the Lord, for his love and faithfulness, manifested to us in the establishment of a more sublime, and spiritual Worship under the Gospel. As also that it is great wickedness to introduce, impose or subject to such beggarly Elements; now these stood for the most part in bodily rites, in differences of meats and drinks, of times, places, garments, etc. of which he may do well humbly to inform his good Mother the Church of England, that she is too too guilty.  
The like may be said of his 6th, Reason: The time before Christ, was an estate under Moses, a Servant, the estate of Christians is under Christ, the Son, Gal. 4. 4, 5, 6, 7. Heb. 3. 5. Therefore we are no longer to be subject to Mosaical appointments, had been somewhat tolerable arguing; but therefore 'tis greater love in the Lord, not to determine the whole of his Worship to us now (which being the Position he attempts the proof of, should have been his Inference) is such a pitiful illation, that one would never expect from such a learned person as Mr. T.  
It rather follows, Therefore Christ hath determined the whole of his Worship under the New Testament, being faithful as a Son, when Moses the Servant, according to the appointment of the Lord, gave forth Laws for the ordering the whole of the affairs of the then House of God: especially considering that he was the Prophet like unto Moses, whom the Father promised to raise up; into whose mouth he said, he would put his words, and that he should speak unto the Sont of Men, whatever he commanded him, Deut. 18. 18. Accordingly when he comes into the world, 'tis said of him, He revealed the Father, Joh. 1. 18. (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he plainly and delucidly expounded to them the mind and will of the Father) that the Father spoke to us in or by him, Heb. 1. 1. and gives us a charge to hear him, Mat. 3. 17.  
Reas. 7. His seventh Reason is like the rest. 'Tis true, had not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or hand-writing of Mosaical Ceromonies been abolished, Col. 2. 14. we had not reaped the fruit of Christ's death, by which they were abolished, Ephes. 2. 14, 15. and so consequently tasted the less of the love of the Lord. But that therefore 'tis a greater argument of love in God, not to determine the whole of his Worship, or that if he ha● done so, we had not reaped the fruit of Christ's death, is such a sort of nakedness in Mr. T. his arguing, that one would not willingly discover, did not the vindication of Truth necessitate one hereunto.  
Reas. 8. His eighth Reason is (if possible) more weak and absurd. The Apostles judged it a great benefit to the Christian Churches, that they were exempt from the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law, Acts 15. 28. therefore they accounted it an effect of God's love, that he had not determined the whole of his Worship to us.—  
With what affection others will peruse these passages I cannot tell, for my part I hearty pity him, that he should ever undertake the defence of a cause so deplorable, as to be driven to such pitiful shifts, in the managery thereof: which I cannot impute to his want of Abilities (which he will one day find, he might better have employed than in his present undertaking) but the desperateness of the Cause he endeavours to defend. It follows indeed, that therefore they accounted it an effect of God's love, that they were delivered from the burden of those external Rites and Ceremonies, (especially as they appertained to the Covenant of Works) and so do we. 'Tis strange if this Animadverter reckon it to be so, that he should plead for the same, the like, yea worse Ceremonies, imposed not by the Lord, but by men, whose servants we never were, nor in these matters ought to be. But that they accounted it an effect of love, that God had not determined the whole of his New-Testament-Worship, is such a crimination as their souls abhorred.  
But he proceeds: Reas. 9 'Tis an effect of greater love to the Gentile Churches, that God hath not determined the whole of his Worship; because they being of divers Nations and Languages, under divers Governments, used to divers Customs, they could not conveniently (if at all) practise such an Uniformity of Circumstances, as they must have done, if God had so determined.  
Answ. 1. That their being of divers Nations, etc. should discapacitate them with respect to their conforming to the will of God, even in Circumstantials of Worship, as such, any more than they are discapacitated in their conforming to that part of Instituted Worship, Mr. T. grants to be determined by the Lord, is beyond the ken of my shallow understanding.  
2dly, That the Saints must have practised any external Uniformity (I suppose he means it with respect to Liturgies (falsely called Divine Service) in use amongst the Papists and Church of England, Vestments called Holy, etc.) if God had determined the whole of his Worship, we crave leave to deny he hath so done; yet such an Uniformity ought not to be practised, 'tis wretched and abominable. And yet had the Lord seen it meet to have enjoined any such thing, it ought to have been practised, nor would it by the Saints have been accounted a less argument of his love to them, because thereby they should have been exposed to outward inconveniencies. This reason at the best is but carnal and selfish; from our conveniencies external, or inconveniencies, a measure of the Lords love, in Divine Appointments, is not to be taken.  
But there is yet one Reason behind.  
Reas. 10. The Assertion, That God hath determined the whole of his Worship in Circumstantials relating to it, as such, is to infringe our Christian Liberty, and to bring us into such bondage as they were in under the Law; therefore not agreeable to that love, God bears to the New-Testament-Churches.  
Answ. 1. That the Lords determining the whole of his Worship, should in the least infringe our Christian Liberty, is a monstrous assertion; it rather establisheth it, in the freedom it gives, not only from the Jewish Ceremonies, but the Inventions and Devices of men, with force and violence, attempted to be imposed upon us. For if God had determined the whole of his New-Testament-Worship, it cannot be supposed that we own the least homage or subjection to these: We may not be the servants of men.  
2dly, I never yet thought, that a conformity to any thing, that God had revealed and determined, as our duty, had (upon that account) been our bondage. 'Tis the liberty, joy, and delight of the Saints to do his will, Psal. 119. 45. 1 Joh. 5. 3. Psal. 19 8. & 119. 111. Such kind of weak impertinent arguings, asserted with state and confidence (as is the manner of the man) must he be content to deal with, who undertakes the consideration of what is proposed by this Animadverter. But to recite these Arguments had been Answer sufficient to the judicious and intelligent Reader. We attend his further motion.   

Sect. 20.  
God had designed his own Officers for the management of the affairs of his House. Who they are, may be collected from Ephes. 4. 11. The Animadverter proves not, that Arch-Bishops, etc. do the work of the Ministers of the Gospel, are commissionated by Christ. His apprehension when he took the solemn League and Covenant, not the same as now. The extensiveness of the Privileges of the Saints under the Gospel-Oeconomie. What things were wanting to the Jews under the second Temple, which they had under the first. The Election of Ministers the peculiar Privilege of the Church. That it was practised by the Saints in the first Ages, granted by the Animadverter. Many things charged upon the Saints then living, that are false. Neither former disorders, nor present distempers amongst the Saints any sufficient Warrant for the changing an Institution of Christ. The Privilege of Women asserted from Scripture, and learned Writers. Of the Decree of the Council of Carthage. 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. 1 Tim. 2. 12. explained What is to be done in case of difference in the Congregation touching the election of Officers.  
MR. T. in his 21. Sect. proposes the 5th Query in S. T. to consideration, viz. Whether God hath not now, as then (under the time of the Law) designed the several Officers and Offices his wisdom thought sufficient for the management of the affairs of his House; so that the Invention of new ones by the Sons of Men, is not only needless, but a daring advance against the sovereignty, care and wisdom of God over his Churches. To which after a large harangue touching Moses, the 70 Elders, Joshua, the Judges, David and other Kings, the Prophets, Aaron and his Sons, with the Levites, whom the Lord appointed for the management of the affairs of his House; (having also learnedly told us, that God hath not in the Christian Church designed such Officers and Offices as these) the twelve Disciples, and amongst the rest, Peter, (to whom he seems to assert a Primacy, by way of promise to appertain.) He resolves the Question in the affirmative. Tells us, that who the Officers of Christ's designing are, may best be gathered from Eph. 4. 11. (of which we have formerly spoke in Chap. 3. of S. T.) As for what follows, when Mr. T. shall prove,  
1st, That the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. of the Church of England do the works enjoined by Christ and his Apostles, to the Ministers of the Gospel.  
2dly, That every one that doth those works, though not Commissionated by Christ thereunto, nor performing them after the order appointed by him, is a Minister of Christ.  
3dly, That its lawful for the Sons of men, to make more degrees of Ministry, (one above the other) under new Names, Titles, (with maintenance foreign to the maintenance of Christ) employed in works he not where charges upon them to do, than Christ ever instituted & appointed, shall look upon ourselves as concerned in what he offers in this Section. But till then we shall neither trouble ourselves or Reader with his Lordly dictates, which being tendered without proof, may righteously be rejected by us. Only thus much I would tell him in his ear, That if he had (when he took the solemn League and Covenant) the same apprehension of this generation of men he now seems to have, he did very wickedly to swear to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy (i e. as in the Covenant is explained, Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacon's, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy.) What? Durst he swore to extirpate the Ministers and Ministry of Christ, as he now supposeth them to be? But  Tempora mutantur, nos & mutamur in illis. 
In Sect. 22. Mr. T. takes notice of the 6th enquiry in S. T. touching the extensiveness of the Privileges of the Saints under the Gospel, whether not commensurate with theirs under the Law: which if understood of Saints in appearance, or the visible Church, he tells us, The visible Church of the Jews had in some things greater Privileges; as those mentioned Rom. 9 4, 5. & 3. 1, 2. (and are they not as much committed to the Church and People of God now? so that these Texts are little to his advantage;) together with Gods revealing his mind to them by Urim and Thumim, extraordinary Prophets, and many more (which he not being pleased to particularise to us, we shall not turn aside to make enquiry after:) But to those instanced in we Answer.  
First, That the Church and People of God are destitute of some of the Privileges mentioned, is granted: and so was the Church of the Jews, after their return from the Babylonish Captivity. The Rabbis tell us, That in the second Temple there were five things wanting which had been in the first.  
1. The Ark with the Mercy-Seat and Cherubims.  
2. The fire from Heaven.  
3. The Urim and Thummim, Ezra 2. 63. Neh. 7. 65. whereby the Lord never answered them more.  
4. The Majesty (or divine presence) whereby they seem to mean the Oracle in the most holy place, where God hath dwelled between the Cherubims, Psal. 80. 2. Numb. 7. 89.  
5. The Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of Prophecy, which was not in the Prophets after the second year of Darius, after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had finished their Prophecies.  
Secondly, The Inference of the Animadverter is weak, Believers (or visible Saints) under the Gospel have not some things with which the Church of the Jews was privileged, therefore their Privileges are not as extensive; which notwithstanding they might be, yea abundantly more extensive. The first Temple upon many accounts was more glorious than the second, which wanted (as was but now remarked) many things wherein its glory lay. Yet, Hag. 2. 9 the Prophet tells them, that the glory of the latter house should be greater than of the former; which it was, though it had not the same things for its ornament and glory, upon other accounts, viz. it's being honoured with the bodily presence of Christ there, etc. Of the Privileges of the Gospel-Churches, and their super-eminency, with respect to the Old-Testament-Church, we shall not now treat. They are delivered from the Yoke of Ceremonial Observances, have the Gospel unvailed, preached amongst them, 2 Cor. 3. 18, etc. Nor need we the intendment of our present enquiry, being only this; Whether the solemn deputation of men signally pointed out by the Lord for the administration of holy things in his house, by the Body of the Church, be not now as then; their peculiar privilege?  
What saith Mr. T. hereunto?  
1. The solemn deputation of Apostles and other Ministers, we find not in the New Testament, to have been the peculiar privilege of the Church.  
Answ. 1. But our Question is not touching extraordinary Officers, such as Apostles, but of ordinary ones, such as Pastors, etc.  
Yet 2dly, a man need not go far to find such a deputation, even of an Apostle, to the work of the Lord by the Body of the Church, together with the rest of the Apostles, Acts 1. 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26. being an evident proof hereof beyond exception.  
He adds, 2. Their Ordination is not where mentioned as done by the Saints, or Brethren, which were not Officers.  
Answ. 1. The Animadverter mistakes Ordination, for Imposition of hands, which is only one part of Ordination, and comprehends the whole act of deputing or setting men apart to the work of the Ministry.  
2. That Assertion, That the Church, or Assembly of Believers, are nowhere said to have an hand therein, must be imputed to Mr. T. his forgetfulness, Acts 6. 3. & 14. 23. manifestly declare the contrary.  
He grants, that in the first ages there are relations of the election of their own Ministers by the Church; but the management hereof with Tumults, Frays, Disorders, necessitated an alteration: and considering the present temper of the Saints, how unquiet, injudicious, deceitful, factious, divided they are, he thinks it not safe it be again committed to them.  
Answ. 1. The first Ages in that matter held fast to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and the Privilege, which according to the Institution of Christ, his Church and People were invested in.  
2. Many things are reported of the Saints in the first Ages, notoriously false and untrue; and it may be the story of their tumults, frays, etc. in electing their own Pastors, may be so. Contentions I know there were, early amongst them, about this matter; that there were tumults and frays, may perhaps be coined by some ambitious spirits, that they might the better take an occasion to divest the Saints of that sacred Privilege.  
3. The former disorders, or present distempers amongst Saints, are no warrant for the variation, or nullifying an Institution of Christ.  
4. What strange Saints (it may be he means only the Parochians of his Mother the Church of England) Mr. T. hath his lot cast amongst I cannot tell. Blessed be the Lord there are thousands of Saints, and many Churches in England (this little point of the World) directly of another temper and spirit, being peaceable, judicious, upright, serving the Lord with one consent, according to the discovery he hath made to them. And if any in any thing are of different persuasions, praying the Lord to reveal that also unto them. And Mr. T. doth not well thus to asperse and blacken the Generation of the Righteous.  
The absurdities that Mr. T. supposeth will ensue upon the asserting the election of Ministers to be the privilege of the Saints, are not worth the mentioning. I know not any Law that forbids Women to intermeddle herein, whose privilege reached farther than so.  
1. There are many Scriptures that seem to assert it as their right and liberty. (1.) In the choice of Officers they were unquestionably present, Act. 1. 15. & 6. 2, 34. & 14. 23. & 16. 23. (2.) At the deciding of Controversies, Act. 15. 22. & 21. 22. 1 Cor. 6. 2. (3.) At the choice of Men to carry the Benevolence of the Church to the needy Brethren, 2 Cor. 8. 19 1 Cor. 16. 3. (4.) At the casting-out of Offenders, Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. (5.) In their readmission upon Repentance, 2 Cor. 2. 6 to 10. They being part of the Church, must necessarily be understood as concerned in these matters, wherein the whole Church are said to be concerned.  
2. 'Twere easy to introduce above a Jury twice told, of learned Writers, who have written as much as this comes to: As Beza, Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Melancthon, Bucan. Paraeus, Junius, Cyprian, Trelcutias, Sibrandus, Rivetus, Jerome, Augustine, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact; So the Magdeburgenses in 2 Cent. c. 7. de Consociatione Ecclesiarum; who all assert that Church-affairs should be executed by the consent of the whole Church. The Council of Carthage indeed decreed 4. can. 99 That a Woman, though never so holy and learned, should not preach in public, nor baptise; can. 100 And Tertullian tells us that in his time it was forbid to a Woman to teach in the African Church, and baptise; but they deny them not liberty to vote, consent, or descent in Church-matters.  
Nor do the Scriptures mentioned by this Animadverter in the least advance themselves against what is asserted by us. Not 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35.  
1. 'Tis as much, more against the practice allowed by his Mother the Church of England. In that Church Women have liberty not only to say Amen, to say Prayers after the Priest with a loud voice, but with the Men to act their parts in Worship, the Priest saying one part, and they another. They have (at least they had not long since) liberty in case of necessity to baptise: which is greater than the Sister's privilege we plead for. Sure this is speaking in the Church. But this is clavem clave pellere.  
2. That Women might be chosen Church-officers, is evident from 1 Tim. 5. 9 Phoebe was a Deaconess, Rom. 16. 1. Touching the management of their office, they ought (especially if called upon by them so to do) to give an account to the Congregation: How they could do this without speaking in the Church I am not able to understand. Therefore,  
3. The sense of the Apostle is, that they be not admitted to public preaching or prophesying (ordinarily) by virtue of Office-power: That they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, command, (as the word sometimes signifies) or speak so as to usurp authority over the man, as the Apostle explains it, 1 Tim. 2. 12. But I suffer not a Woman to teach, or usurp authority over the Man. The latter expression is exegetical of the former, i. e. not so to teach as to usurp authority over the man! Yea I had ever till now thought that speaking so as to testify one's consent, or descent, to inform the Church of what they knew not, of concern to them, and the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 2. 12. had been vastly different: And indeed see no reason to change my thoughts from any thing this Animadverter offers; that these Scriptures make nothing for his purpose.  
As for the second absurdity that Mr. T. supposes would follow upon the asserting the Saints Privilege in the election of their own Ministers, viz. That whom the major part choose, the lesser part are not to take for their Minister— scarcely deserves to be taken notice of.  
1. The difference supposed seldom happens amongst the Congregated Churches; if but once, 'tis too often: Though Mr. T. his expression intimates as if a frequent case; which I cannot but tell him is a mere calumny. 'Twill not one day be for his credit, however it may at present serve his design, that he walks so much by that rule,  Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit. 
2. When it happens the exercise of those Rules of Condescension, Love, and mutual forbearance, enjoined by Christ upon his Disciples, would soon put an end to the differences suggested. But,  
3. If this will not do, the calling-in the help of some Sister-Church, may quench the flames. Yet,  
4. If nothing will do, but, through the prevalency of corruption, Schisms remain amongst them, and separation at the last each from other ensue, to prevent this we must not lay aside an Institution of Christ.  
5. Besides, the imposing a Minister upon a People by a Patron with a Bishop's Institution and Induction, hath more frequently (and I am sure more justly and warrantably) been the occasion of the offence and difference intimated.   

Sect. 21.  
Of a visible instituted Church, and its security from Apostasy. What Errors and Corruptions unchurch a Church. Of the National Church of England. Of the Governors and Officers of a collapsed Church. The condition of England's Church-Officers. Of Separation from a collapsed Church. Of Communion with a Church not rightly constituted, and compulsion thereunto.  
IN Sect. 23. Mr. T. transcribes the 7th Query in S. T. Whether any visible instituted Church in the world hath greater security against Apostasy from God, and that sore judgement of having its Candlestick removed (and being unchurched) than that people of the Jews had? If not, then whether, supposing a National Church to be of the Institution of Christ, it may not so come to pass, that it may be so overspread with corruptions, ●hat it may lose the essence of a Church, and justly be disrobed of that appellation. To which he answers in the Affirmative, and tells us, that they justly plead it against the Church of Rome, and that the promise, Mat. 16. 8. doth not belong to any particular instituted Church in the World, but to the invisible Church of Gods Elect. And we are of the same mind with him in this matter. But lest any reflection of disparagement should from this Concession, happen to the Church of England, as a very dutiful Son, he adds, That not every, no nor many corruptions of some kind do unchurch, but such Errors as overthrow the foundation of Christian Faith: Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry, in life by evil manners, utterly inconsistent with Christianity.  
Answ. 1. Nor did we ever assert, that every or many corruptions of some kind did unchurch. So that in this matter Mr. T. might have saved his pains.  
Nor 2dly, had we the least occasion to do so with respect to the Church of England, which we deny to be a true Church, not because dreadfully degenerate from what at first it was, but because in its first Constitution as National (which it received under the Papacy) it was never a true Church of Christ.  
Though 3dly, such fundamental Errors, such corruptions in Worship and evil manners, are to be found upon it, that are inconsistent with the power of Godliness (or Christianity) and therefore such as, by Mr. T. his Concession, were enough to unchurch it.  
To the eighth Query in S. T. viz. Whether the Ecclesiastic and Spiritual Rulers, Governors, and Officers of such a collapsed Church, may not righteously, as of old, be accounted and esteemed as false Prophets, that go about to cause the people to forget the Name of the Lord (or his pure Worship) by their lies or unscriptural Traditions, Innovations, and ceremonious Pageantries. Mr. T. pretends to answer, Sect. 24. which he fronts with this; Every Error makes not a false Prophet: which no one saith it doth. And further, by way of reply, having placed in the Van 2 Pet. 2. 1. Judas 4. 1 John 4. 1. 2 John 7. 1 John 2. 22. which speak of false Prophets and Antichrist; but advantage him not in the least in his present undertaking, as we have manifested. He adds, that so long as they teach the Worship of Christ in his Name, are without Idolatry in their Worship, and Heresy in their Doctrine, they are not to be accounted false Prophets.  
Answ. But this, as to the present Ministers of England, will not be granted. They practise not the Worship of Christ, but of Antichrist, as we prove ch. 7. of S. T. They come not really in Christ's Name (though they pretend to it) but in the name (by the authority) of the most professed enemy he hath in the world, as we evince ch. 3. of S. T. Though the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. be the most sincere part, the greatest care of our Reformers at first being thereabout; yet they own, and preach false Doctrine: the most of them are greatly degenerated from the Doctrine of the Church of England in not a few points; as touching Election, , the extent of the Death of Christ, etc. as might be evidenced from their Sermons, and printed Papers. Of this we have spoken chap. 10. of S. T. The addition of this Animadverter of  In Te ipsum cudetur faba, 
as if guilty of the same things, or such like, as we charge upon the Ministers of the Church of England, I challenge him to make good, else he doth but calumniate.  
His 25th Section is an Answer to the 9th Query in S. T. about separation from a Church, so dreadfully collapsed as to lose the essence of a Church. The sum is, 1. Separation by reason of some corruptions is unwarrantable.  
Answ. And we say so too: but this is not ad Rhombum, we are speaking not of corruptions of any kind, but of such as destroy the essence of a Church, as is evident from the 7th Query in S. T. upon which this hath a dependence.  
He adds, 2dly. Separation from a Church, somewhat erroneous in judgement, and corrupt in worship and conversation, that is not Idolatrous nor heretical, nor requires that to their Communion which would be sinful, especially if from all attending on Ministers and Ministry at all times is unjustifiable.  
Answ. 1. All this might be granted without the least disadvantage to the Cause we are pleading.  
2dly. By his own Sword is the Cause he undertakes the defence of, wounded under the fifth rib. We prove the Church of England Idolatrous, Heretical. She requires that to her Communion that is sinful, viz. Conformity to the Mass-book (I should have said the Liturgy from thence stolen) bowing at the Name of Jesus; communicating with a Drunken Parish-Priest, and a company of Swearing Drunken Parishioners, whereby persons become one Bread with them; kneeling at the act of receiving; having their Children signed with the sign of the Cross: which we are apt to think are things sinful, and till Mr. T. is pleased better to inform us, are like to abide in our present apprehension thereabout: from whence Separation from her is warrantable by the Animadverters concession and grant.  
3dly, That Separation from one part of Worship in a Church should be somewhat justifiable, and not from the whole, at some time and not always (things still remaining as they were) is a mystery that I profess I understand not. I presume he suggests it with reference to the Prayers and Sacraments of the Church, a separation from which he supposeth is more justifiable than from their Preaching.  
But seriously I would thank Mr. T. if he would take the pains to prove, 1. That 'tis lawful for me to join with that Church in any part of Worship, with whom I am not obliged, cannot in conscience pray. 2dly, That where the Sacraments are not duly administered, there is a true Church: The due administration of Sacraments, having been hither to asserted as one certain note of a true Church. If they are duly administered in the Church of England, why doth Mr. T. refuse to join in their Administration? If they are not duly administered, the Church of England is a false Church, and not to be joined with in any part of Worship. What follows in this Section, that the Separation pleaded-for, is for the most part, the fruit of pride, or bitter zeal, and tends to strife and confusion, and every evil work, must be imputed to the overflowing of Mr. T. his gall and passion; 'Tis at the least a fruit of the flesh, which he will do well to wait upon God to humble him for, and mortify in him. I shall only say, The Lord forgive thee. The Scripture instanced, Jam. 3. 16.  more applicable to the Church of England, than to those of the Congregational way, as every considerate Reader will acknowledge.  
To the tenth Query in S. T. viz. Whether supposing a Church apostatised, as aforesaid, never to be, according to Truth, a visible instituted Church of Christ; and the People of God living in the Nation, never by their free consent, members thereof, as it is on the pretended Churches part, most unheard-of cruelty to compel them so it be not on the part of the freeborn Children of God, most stupendous folly and disvaluation of the Institutions of Christ, and ingratitude to God for the light and liberty from the yokes of men received, imaginable, to join affinity with it in Worship, or attend upon its Ministry, he pretends to answer in his 26th Sect. I say he pretends to do so: for Mr. T. must suppose that Reader to be distempered in his brain, that shall take what he saith to be indeed an Answer to the Query proposed.  
1. He grants, compulsion of men may be cruelty.  
Answ. But Sir, the question is not about every compulsion, but a compulsion to conformity to, and communion with a Church (so called) that never was of the Institution of Christ; of which we never owned ourselves members. Is not such a compulsion cruelty? doubtless (if there be any cruelty in the world) this is so.  
2. He runs to his old shift, of joining with a Church that hath some humane inventions in Worship, a Ministry that (for the main) preach the Gospel, with some mixture of Errors, not requiring persons to practise that which is in itself evil—  
Answ. 1. This hath been answered, as it relates to the Church of England, over and over. 'Tis an Argument our Animadverter hath little to say (for the defence of his Church) that is true; when we hear the same story so oft, which (yet in a great measure) is notoriously false, as if he had been brought up at the feet of old Battus, he speaks exactly like him  
— subillis  
Montibus inquit erant, & erant sub montibus illis.  
Montibus inquit erant, & erant sub montibus illis.  
the same over and over, for fear of failing.  
But 2dly, One Key will never fit every Lock, nor one Answer serum to every Question. Sir, the Query is not, what we may do with respect to a Church collapsed (of which we before spoke) but whether it be not great folly for the People of God, who by their own voluntary consent were never members of such a Church, to join affinity with it in Worship, and attend upon its Ministry, which none of the Texts of Scripture produced by Mr. T. evince. Acts 21. 18, etc. & 16, 3. 1 Cor. 9 19, 20, 21. give us an account of the readiness of Paul to condescend to weak Believers, in what he lawfully might: Ergo it is our duty, for peace-sake, to join with a Church which is not of the Institution of Christ. Which consequence when Mr. T. makes good, he will manifest himself to be a man of rare abilities indeed. Mat. 17. 27. is so remote to his purpose, that I wonder to what purpose he produceth it. Christ works a Miracle, to pay Tribute, exacted of the Emperor's Collectors; Ergo, we must not separate from a false Church, but attend upon its Ministry, join in affinity with it. How he will in his next cover these palpable mistakes I know not, nor can I advise him to a better Apology than that  — Semel insanivimus omnes.   

CHAP. II.  

Sect. 1.  
Of Sanctifying the Name of God in our drawing nigh to him. Of particularities of Worship and their Imposition. Of an implicit Faith in matters of Worship. The first Argument in the S. T. against hearing the present Ministers, vindicated. Of a Warrant by permission; and part accidental of Instituted Worship. Of Shaphan's reading the Law. 2 Chr. 34. 18. Joh. 8. 47. explained. The unlawfulness of practising any thing in Instituted Worship, for which we have no warrant in the Scripture. Whether Christ hath only revealed the essentials of Worship, and left accidental Parts thereof to be determined by the prudence of Rulers. The rise of Ceremonies. Col. 2. 8, 9, 10. explained. Of the Scriptures perfection. The Testimonies of the Ancients. Josh. 22. 34. explained.  
THe Preface of the S. T. being vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. T. wherein his skirmishings have been manifested to be velitary, and weak indeed: We attend his advance and onset upon the Triarii, or main Battle (as he phraseth it) against which let him do his worst, after all his endeavours to rout it, he will find it keeping the field against him.  Statque ut dura silex, aut ut Marpessia cautes. 
The first thing he takes notice of is, a saying of mine, in the beginning of Chap. 1. of the S. T. That God having said he will be sanctified in all that draw nigh to him.— It's therefore the necessary duty of Saints in all their approaches to God, to see to his Institution, both in respect of the matter and manner of Worship. To which he subjoins, This is yielded, with respect to determined particularities, but as to such as are undetermined by the Lord, there may be too anxious care, tending to be get scruples, perplexities, divisions,— which experience hath proved, to cause fluctuating in men's minds, inconstancy in their practice.— And it's therefore adviseable, that people of weak judgements did satisfy themselves in these things, in the judgement of their faithful, learned, wise, and holy Teachers and Rulers.  
Answ. Bravely spoken, had it been at Rome, our English stomaches can scarce away with such Coleworts.  O dura Messorum ilia! 
1. The Animadverter all along takes for granted, that which we expressly told him, Chap. 5. 7. of the S. T. pag. 41, 62. we denied, viz. That there are any circumstances, or particularities of Worship, relating to it, as such, undetermined by the Lord. 2dly. Under the notion of particularities of Worship undetermined, he shrouds the many Popish toys, and Antichristian inventions, (as Cross in Baptism, Ring in Marriage, Surplice—) yet retained in the Church of England. These he would not have persons too careful about. But seriously Sir, those that know the Lord, know him to be a jealous God, and that he hath manifested his jealousy, in such terrible rebukes, against some of the sons of men (as Nadab and Abihu, Levit. 10. 1, 2. Vzza, 2 Sam. 6. 6, 7. whom he slew in his fury, for their Worshipping him otherwise than he had determined) that be they never so weak, they tremble (and abhor) to draw nigh to God, in a way they have no Scripture-warrant for. 3dly. They desire to be satisfied in the authority of the Children of men, in their attempts to impose upon their Consciences, and make those things the necessary parts of Worship, which they themselves acknowledge, Christ hath left as particularities undetermined. 4thly. They would also be directed by Mr. T. to those faithful, learned, wise, and holy Teachers, he speaks of, for they can find few, or none such, in a whole County. And yet 5thly, One thing more they would be satisfied in, Whether an implicit Faith in matters of Worship, be any more tolerable and justifiable than in matters of Doctrine: And whether this will ever be a satisfactory answer to their mighty Sovereign, the Lord of Hosts, when he shall demand of them, Who hath required this at your hands? Why, truth Lord, we never read that thou didst ever do so; but our faithful— Teachers told us we might, yea ought notwithstanding to practise these things, and believe it will never be accepted as such. 6thly. His scurrilous reflections they can freely pardon, though they know that the brood of Ranters, etc. (he speaks of) have not been produced by the inquisitiveness of any after the mind of God, with respect to Instituted Worship; but persons taking up, with such slight thoughts of the Worship of the Holy God, as such expressions, as these used by him, are apt enough to beget in the minds of men, together with the instability and inconstancy of persons, whom they have (it may be) owned as their Teachers and Rulers; being ready to embrace and shake hands with whatever is uppermost in the world: labouring to support, uphold, and draw others, to the embracement of that now, which not long ago they Prayed, Preached against, and with hands and eyes lift up to Heaven, they swore to seek (to the uttermost of their power) to root out, and demolish. Sir, these things are some of those occasions (through the subtlety of Satan, and the corruption of man's nature) of that Rantism, Atheism, etc. that is in the world. And blessed be the Lord, the Congregations of his People, have been but little emptied hereby; they are a brood issuing, for the most part, out of the Womb of the Church of England, and are such (as it's known) that little enquired into these matters, taking all for Gospel that their Preachers taught them.  
The next attempt of the Animadverter, is the exatnination of the Arguments advanced in the S. T. against hearing the present Ministers of England. The first is,  
That which there is no warrant for in the Scripture, (●eing part of Instituted Worship) is not lawful for the Saints to practise: But there is no warrant in the Scripture for hearing the present Ministers (and Heariug is part of Instituted Worship.) Therefore—  
To which he answers, Sect. 2. Chap. 1. The sum is. There is a Twofold Warrant, by Command, or by Permission. Of Instituted Worship there are two Parts. 1. Essential, without which it is not, or is not rightly called Instituted Worship. 2. Accidental, which may be present, or absent, and yet the Worship be, or righteously be so called: If the Major be meant of Warrant by Command, and part accidental of Instituted Worship, it is denied; and so is the Minor. Hearing the Word from this or that person, is a part accidental of Instituted Worship, undetermined, and hath a warrant by Permission as being not contrary to any Precept or Rule in Scripture about such Worship.  
Answ. 1. This Animadverter continues still his old trade of begging, and dictating without proof, which doth not become him; and being in matters wherein our souls are so nearly concerned, we cannot bear it in him.  
1. He te●ls us, That with respect to Instituted Worship, there is a twofold warrant, by Command, or by Permission; but would he had thought it incumbent upon him, to have proved, what he asserted. This we deny. Whatever hath not a warrant of Command in the Scripture is plainly interdicted, and forbidden therein, Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Rev. 22. 18. punished with no less than death upon those that have adventured to act exorbitantly, without such a warrant, as we but now manifested.  
2dly. He tells us, That there are two Parts of Instituted Worship, Essential, and Accidental; but this also is false, and untrue, we expect his proof of it. A part Accidental of Instituted Worship, is a sort of gibberish (that as it is unscriptural so) it is little less than down-right-nonsence. Instituted Worship is such Worship as is appointed by command from Christ, or that is by Christ's institution, saith Mr. T. (in answer to the Preface of S. T. Sect. 2.) How any part of instituted Worship, can be an accidental part i. e. such a part of Worship, (as though enjoined by Christ, which if it be not, it is not instituted) as may be done, or not done, without sin, I must profess I understand not. And desire Mr. T. would inform me (not in a Dictatorlike way, as if he were a second Pythagoras, but) from Scripture-evidence. And lest he should mistake, this is that which is incumbent upon him to prove, That a part of instituted Worship (which is a Worship commanded by Christ) may be accidental, i. e. performed, or not performed without sin.  
3dly, That hearing the present Ministers of England preach the Doctrines and Traditions of men (as he must do at some time or other, that constantly attends on their Ministry) or (according to Mr. T.) the Word of God, hath Warrant in Scripture by permission, as being not contrary to any Precept about Worship, is another dictate of his, that he will make good ad Graecas Calendas. 'Tis true the Light of Nature dictates, That God is to be heard by whomsoever he speaks; and 'tis as true, that God having instituted Officers of his own, none are to be heard, as speaking in his Name, by virtue of an office-power, but those that are so instituted by him: for if we may hear any one, what need of such an institution?  
That hearing them is contrary to Scripture-Rule, we demonstrate in the subsequent Chapters in S. T. What Mr. T. further offers in this matter is nothing to the purpose. God commanded the Levites to read the Law,— Deut. 31. 9 — Yet Shaphan reads it before Josiah, 2 Chron. 34. 18. which was an accidental part of Worship warranted by permission.  
Answ. 1. The reading of the Law by Shaphan, was not an accidental part of Worship warranted by permission (which Mr. T. doth ill so impose upon us) it was commanded, Deut. 6. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. 18.  
2dly. Had Shaphan acted therein as a Church-officer (as is the case of the present Ministers) it had been his sin, and utterly unlawful for any one to have attended on him in so doing. Luke 10. 16. hath been considered in our Answer to Mr. T. his Exceptions against the Preface of the S. T. Sect. 2. where we have manifested, That the Spirit of the Lord, in it, lists up himself against what Mr. T. endeavours to support by it. Nor doth John 8. 47. communicate the least mite of assistance to his assertion. 'Tis expressly and particularly spoken with relation to Christ. The Jews bragged that they were Abraham's Children, vers. 39 Christ labours to drive them out of that hold, Vers. 39, 40, by manifesting to them, that they did not the works of Abraham. They tell him, that God was their Father, Verse. 41. He labours to convince them of the contrary; and amongst other things asserts that general Aphorism, Verse. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that is of God (i. e. He that is born of God (as 'tis John 1. 13.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heareth Gods Words, (i. e. subjects, conforms to, obeys them) q. d. If ye were of God as ye say, ye would believe, obey the Word of God, that I the Son of God, the great Prophet of the Church preach to you; Ergo, It's lawful to hear God's Word who ever brings it, i. e. attend upon any Ministry, though of evil Spirits, unclean Frogs, that come out of the mouth of the Dragon, Beast, and false Prophet, Rev. 16. 13.  — quod erat demonstrandum. 
The Apostle seems to be of another mind, 1 John 4. 5, 6.  
The next attempt of the Animadverter, Sect. 3. is to dissipate, what we offer for the confirmation of the Major Proposition, vi●. That 'tis not lawful to practise any thing, being part of instituted Worship, for which we have no warrant in the Scripture.  
This I say is evident, 1. From the nature of instituted Worship, which consists in this, that it be of divine Revelation. — This is true saith he, of essential, not of accidental parts of instituted Worship.  
Answ. 1. But we deny that there are any accidental parts of instituted Worship; for if instituted (i. e. commanded by Christ) it cannot be accidental (i. e. left to our liberty as what may or ●ay not be done without sin.) If accidental, it may be a part of somewhat else, but of the instituted Worship of Christ it cannot be. And this was in effect told Mr. T. in S. T. but he is wise and resolves to take no notice of what he sees he is not able to make some kind of reply or other to! His discourse of Jehoiakims hearing Jehudi, read the Roll, is not at all pertinent: what may be thought to be of weight in it, is already answered in the case of Shaphans reading the Law, but now replied to.  
2dly, From the Verdict of Christ, who pronounceth all the Worship of man to be vain and fruitless (and so unlawful) that is bottomed on any thing but divine Revelation, Mar. 7. 7. To which he answers, This is true of those Actions in which the Worship of God is placed.  
Answ. Very good: in hearing the present Ministers, Mr. T. supposeth the Worship of God to be placed; Let him produce an Institution for his so doing, or, his Worship (by his own confession) is vain, sinful, unlawful. So that to what follows we need not say any thing.  
The hearing the Law of God read, was a part of Worship, but whether in the Synagogue, or in their own Houses, was not so; it related not to Worship as such at all, being nothing but what was common to other actions, to be performed by them in a Community. Circumstances of Worship [as such] undetermined by the Lord, to be appointed by men, we deny, and challenge Mr. T. to make good. These circumstances are such as without which the Worship of God is perfect or 'tis not; if the first, we need them not, they are vain, fruitless, having without them a perfect Worship. If the second, the Worship God hath commanded, as it comes out of his hands, without humane additaments is imperfect; but this is little less than blasphemy.  
We assert, 3dly. If it be lawful to conform to any one part of instituted Worship, without warrant from the Scripture; 'Tis also lawful to conform to another, a third, the whole. This is granted saith Mr. T. and therein hath he yielded the matter in controversy. 'Tis no more lawful to conform to any one part of instituted Worship, without warrant from the Scripture, than 'tis to conform to the whole (as our Animadverter grants) but no man in his wits will say 'tis lawful to conform to the whole of Instituted Worship, without Warrant from Scripture; Therefore.—  
But I add in S. T. That the asserting it lawful to conform to the whole of Instituted Worship, without warrant from Scripture, is the ready way to banish Instituted Worship out of the World. This Mr. T. denies for this reason, The Pharisees observed many Traditions from the Elders, Mar. 7. 3, 4. but this did not banish the Instituted Worship of the Passover out of the world.  
Answ. Egregie dictum, and as became such a Doctor!  
For, 1st, The many Traditions they practised from the Elders, were but a part of their Religious Observances, not the whole.  
2dly, Had they practised nothing as a part of their instituted Worship, but what they had received by Tradition from them, they must most assuredly have banished the truly Instituted Worship of the Lord out of the world; which except revealed by him, is not his instituted Worship, nor can it properly be so called.  
We affirm, 4thly, That to assert, it is lawful to conform ●o any part of instituted Worship, without warrant from the Scripture, reflects sadly upon the wisdom, and faithfulness of Christ; for either he was not wise enough to foresee, that such a part of Worship was, or would be requisite, or had not faithfulness enough to reveal it: though the Scripture compares him to Moses for faithfulness, who revealed the whole will of God, to the making of a pin in the Tabernacle.  
Mr. T. replies, It was neither for want of wisdom, nor faithfulness in Christ: he did foresee what parts of Worship were and should be requisite, and what parts were essential and necessary to be observed, were determined in Scripture; as for accidental things, they were left to the prudence and authority chief of Rulers, (Who told him so? This canting he surely learned of the Romish Cabal.) Christ was faithful, in that he revealed what was his Father's will in Spirituals, but for Externals appointed but a few things, and left the rest to be ordered under general Rules, as it should be found convenient in after times.  
Answ. 1. These are Mr. T. his dictates, of which you must expect his proofs when he hath greater leisure; but in the mean while no man can reasonably be blamed, if he refuse to subscribe to them.  
2dly, If Christ hath determined what parts of worship are essential, and necessary to be observed, as he grants, this part of the Controversy is at an end, and must be by him acknowledged to be so, till he have proved,  
First, That there are accidental parts of Instituted Worship.  
Secondly, That unnecessary trifles may be added to the essential and necessary parts of Worship, as parts thereof.  
Thirdly, That what Christ thought not necessary to be observed, is necessary to be observed, because men think so.  
But 3dly, Would Mr. T. would direct us, to the place where Christ hath granted that power to the Rulers (or any else) to add what they shall judge convenient to his Worship, he being Head of his Body, the Church, and King of Saints, we suppose he will not have the confidence to assert; they may do this without his leave (the doing so being a plain usurpation of his Throne and Kingly Authority.) I have read over the New Testament more than once, and must profess, I find not the least intimation of any such thing therein, but the contrary.  
4thly. We do not understand how Christ could be faithful, if he revealed only what was his Father's will in Spirituals, and neglected to do so, with respect to Externals (as Mr. T. intimates) when he was to reveal the whole will of his Father to his Church, and for that end came into the world, John 1. 18. Heb. 1. 2.  
Nor 5thly, Can we conceive, how it consists with the wisdom of Christ to leave it to men (the greatest and wisest of them) to determine what is fit and convenient to be added to his Worship; because nothing is more evident, than that they are incompetent Judges hereof. Their folly herein being frequently remarked in the Scripture. Jeroboam thinks it convenient that the People worship at Dan and Bethel, and that they have golden Calves, as visible representations of that God whom they worshipped. Ahaz thinks it decent and convenient, that a stately Altar, (the pattern whereof he had seen at Damascus) be set up by the Altar of the Lord that was at Jerusalem, which things were the provocation of the eyes of his glory. The truth is, the wretched additaments of the Sons of men to the Worship of Christ, own their original to this one abominable figment of Mr. T. That what is by men thought convenient, in the Worship of Christ, is left to be ordered by them. In the Papacy, Holy Water is by Pope Alexander thought to be convenient to be reserved in Temples, to sanctify the People, and drive away Devils; So is the Dedication of Temples by Pope Higinus: That all of ripe years, do every Easter receive the Sacrament, by Pope Zephirinus. That Priests Stand when the Gospel is read, by Pope Anastatius: The Litany, by Pope Gregory: Confirmation of the Baptised, by Clemens (as 'tis said:) (though many of these things are antedated, and ascribed, as to their Original, to persons that would have abhorred them. Scultetus Med. Patr. p. 1. l. 11. c. 10. saith, Of all the Epistles of the first Popes, no man that reads them attentively, but acknowledgeth them to be forged. The Epistles Decretal which pass under the Names of Clement, etc. are all forged, and that for six Reasons, saith Perkins. The like saith Dr. Prideaux in his 9th Orat. de Pseudoepigraphis, Sect. 3.) The Celebration of the Mass upon the Altar, by Xistus (or Sixtus:) The Distinction of Parishes by Dionysius, with a command to Preachers to keep within their Bounds. The singing the Creed, by Pope Marcus: The Glory to the Father, to be said after the Psalms: And the Order of Queristers or Singing-Men, by Pope Damasus: The Dedication of Churches by Bishops, by Foelix: Pope Stephen the 7th thinks it convenient to Degrade all that had taken Orders from P. Formosus, & he himself gives them new ones. John Sicco the Successor of Silvester, an. 1003 makes a Decree, that the election of the Roman Popes, should belong only to the Roman Clergy, without the consent of the People; because the People are to be led, and not followed: he establisheth the Feast of All Souls. P. Urban An. 1096, ordained, That no Clergy or Layman should eat Flesh from Shrovetide to Easter. Innocent the third, ordained Transubstantiation: yea the Fathers of the Council of Constance, publish a Decree in these words, Although Christ after Supper hath instituted and administered to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament, under both kinds, of Bread and Wine; yet notwithstanding, the Authority of the sacred Canons, the laudable and approved custom of the Church, hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacrament ought not to be finished after Supper, nor administered under both kinds— and seeing this custom hath been according to reason brought in, and a long time observed by the Church and holy Fathers, it is to be held for a Law. Concil. Const. Sess. 3.  
And if the case be so with us, as is suggested by this Animadverter, 'tis not to be thought that our condition is in the least bettered by the removing the carnal ordinances of the Jews, 'tis by many degrees worse than theirs. They had a stinted number of Ceremonies, of the institution of the Lord: We have an innumerable company of the devising of man, nor any security, but we may have a thousand more: for if ●●e Rulers shall judge them convenient, they may ordain them, and we are bound to submit unto them, if Mr. T. his Doctrine be true. But blessed be the Lord, things are far otherwise: Christ hat● not broken the yoke of the Jewish observances off the necks of his Disciples, to have them become such servants of men as to stoop to every Theatrical and Ludicrous Ceremony (that under the notion of Conveniency) shall be by them thought fit to be imposed on them. If he hath, let Mr. T. produce one Scripture in which he hath so done; if not, we expect he manifest so much Christian modesty, as to retract his over-confident Assertion, that Christ hath under general rules left what (relating to the externals of Worship) was to be added, to be ordered as it should be found convenient in aftertimes.  
We further add in S. T. That 'tis not lawful for the Sa●nts, in matters of Instituted Worship, to practise what there is no warrant for in the Scripture, because so to do (5thly) pours out contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches (as if it were less to these, than to that under the Law) and the Oeconomy of the Gospel, as not so complete as that of old; the whole of whose Worship, Orders and Ordinances (as was said) was bottomed upon pure revelation.  
To this saith Mr. T. 1. This pours out no contempt upon the care of God over the New-Testament-Churches, as is before proved, in answer to the Preface, Sect. 20.  
Answ. What Mr. T. there dictates (for he proves little) we have already considered, and removed out of the way, in our reply thereunto. 2dly. He begs of us to yield him, that Circumstantials of Worship, as such, are liable to variation, are not bottomed upon pure revelation divine, but in many things left to humane prudence.  
Answ. 1. But be he never so importunately precarious herein, we cannot yield it him, but demand his proofs hereof, else we judge he speaks injuriously both to Christ, and Saints.  
2dly. We cannot but demur a little upon that expression, pure revelation divine, upon which he saith these circumstantials of Worship are not bottomed. I hope he doth not think his Antagonists own any Revelation, but that which is Divine. Though as touching the Ceremonies, he is (under the notion of Circumstantials) pleading for, they are not, indeed, built upon Revelation Divine, but Diabolical, diametrically opposite to that which is Divine. The language whereof is, that nothing be offered up to God, but that which is of his own prescription.  
3dly. In many things (he saith) these Circumstantials of Worship are left to humane prudence.  
Answ. 1. Would he had told us in what things; 2. Thought it incumbent upon him to prove his dictate. 3. Manifested how we might be able to discern (if an exect enumeration of particulars is not to be obtained) betwixt those many that are left to humane prudence, and the some that are not. 4. Discover to us what security we have, that if a Protestant-Bishop— impose on us some of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, under the notion of Circumstantials and Accidentals of Worship (though they are indeed such strange accidentals, as were never heard-of in the world before, viz. such, as without which the Worship must not be performed) that if the Papists should ever bear sway (which is not impossible) his Holiness the Pope shall not impose upon us all the rest, (that are as yet behind the Curtain) upon the same pretensions.  
4. He tells us, 'Tis an effect of God's love and care over the New-Testament-Churches, that he hath not tied them in so many things, to external rites— as he did the Jews.  
Answ. And we say so too; but herein Mr. T. speaks not pertinently: The Question is not, Whether the Lord's not tying us in so many things, as he did the Jews, to external rites, be an effect of his care and love, or no, which we say it is: but whether it be consistant with that his care and love, in delivering us from these, not to determine the whole of our Worship, as he did determine the whole of theirs, but leave us to the wills, lusts and inventions of men, to be ordered and ruled by them according as they should think meet and convenient: Which when Mr. T. shall think himself able to persuade any, but the blind, when the Sun shines in its strength, that it is not day, he may attempt the proof of.  
5. He adds, The Occonomy of the Gospel is not less complete than that of old, for this cause: This reasoning if he understands the Apostle, Col. 2. 8, 9, 10. is either the same, or very like that of the Philosophical Judaizing-Teacher.  
Answ. 1. But Mr. T. his Assertion is no proof. If the whole of the Worship of the Jews was complete without humane additaments (being built upon pure Revelation) and ours be not complete without many things, that are left to humane prudence to determine, relating to Worship as such, ours is most assuredly less complete than theirs.  
2dly. Mr. T. his abilities of understanding, I have little to say to, Bernardus non videt omnia. And he hath a strange faculty of discerning, that can see our reasoning to be the same, or much like to the reasoning of the Judaizing Teachers, Col. 2. 8, 9, 10. 1st. They disputed for Jewish observances; we argue as well as we can against them. 2dly. They asserted that they were not, nor could be complete without them; this we oppose, and affirm the contrary, That neither our Persons, or Worship are, or can be any whit the more completed by them, or any other Observances in the world, not instituted by Christ in the New-Testament. Mr. T. indeed asserts, that there are some Ceremonies left to be ordered by men, according as they shall see convenient: Which is somewhat like to the Doctrine of these Judaizing Teachers, which the Apostle cautions the Church of Colosse against, v. 8. That by the Rudiments of the world is meant Jewish Ri●es, we may grant; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Traditions of men, seems to be somewhat else, viz. humane Additions to Divine Institutions, such as were those amongst the Jews, that Christ calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 15. 3, 6. which he interprets, v. 9 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Commandments of men. Whether our reasoning, or the Animadverter's be more like that here of the Philosophical Teachers, is left to the judgement of the Judicious to determine.  
3dly. How little to Mr. T. his purpose this Scripture-citation is, he already may discern, how much it makes against the grand Design he is labouring to advance, the proposing of one or two Arguments from it will fully evince.  
1. Those Traditions and Rudiments that are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after Christ, (i. e. according to the Doctrine and Institution of Christ, which only ought to take place in the Church (as say our Annotators upon the place) are not to be complied with, but to be watched & warred against, as such that do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lead us captive from Christ. But the Rudiments Mr. T. pleads for, are such as are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the Institution of Christ (if they are, let Mr. T. produce the place where they are so) Therefore—  
2. If the Church at Colosse was so complete in Christ that they needed not to subject (ought not to do so) to the Jewish Rites, and Traditions of the Elders; then much less need we to subject to the Rudiments of men, or any of the accursed Rites and Ceremonies of the Papacy. These Rites are much more weak and absurd than the former, as never being of the Institution of the Lord, but the devising and imposing of his professed enemy. Therefore—  
6thly. The Assertion, That it's lawful to practise any thing in Instituted Worship, without warrant from Scripture, we say in S. T. reflects sadly upon its authority, and perfection, which is the next thing we affirm to evidence the truth of the major Proposition. This M. T. saith is true, with respect to all Doctrinals of Faith, and Manners, and Worship, in respect of Essentials, but not of Accidentals thereof, undetermined in the Scripture.  
Answ. 1. The unscripturalness, and vanity of that distinction we have already discovered.  
2ly. We had thought that the perfection of the Scripture, had consisted in this, that the whole of that obedience, that God required of us, had therein been stated and enjoined; for which end we conceive it was at first commanded to be written, and hitherto by the wonderful gracious providence of the Lord continued to us. The Accidentals of Worship are either part of that Obedience we own to God, or they are not. If not, how come they to be such parts of Worship, as without them we are interdicted to perform it? or indeed, whence is it that we are tendering them up to God, when all our Worship is nothing else but the solemn tender of that Obedience that we own to him: if they are, than there is some part of our Obedience, that is not prescribed in the Scripture; then is the Scripture imperfect, and that with respect to the main end for which it was given forth, viz. to indoctrinate and direct us in the whole of that Obedience that God requires of us (and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Aristotle, l. 2. de Coelo. c. 4.)  
But this is contrary to 1. The testimony and witness of the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3. 15. Prov. 2. 1, 9 Isa. 8. 20. 2 Pet. 1. 19 Luke 1. 4. John 5. 39 & 20. 31. 2 Cor. 4. 6. Luk● 10. 26. & 16. 29. Deut. 12. 8, 32. Prov. 30. 5. Mat. 22. 29. Gal. 1. 8. Eph. 2. 20. Heb. 4. 12. Rev. 22. 18. 2dly. To the Witness of many of the Worthies of the Lord in their day. The renowned Waldenses (or the Church of Christ in the Wilderness) some hundreds of years ago, declare and attest, that nothing is to be admitted in Religion but what only is commanded in the Word of God; that all men's Traditions are to be rejected— and therefore this singing and superfluous chanting in the Chancel to be left. It is necessary and consonant to reason, that every man learn that which is needful out of the Scriptures, both for the fullness of Godliness, and lest they be enured to humane traditions, saith Basil, Regul. contract. 95. pag. 502. God will ask no more of a Christian Believer in this life, but only to obey the Precepts of that most blessed Law. If any Prelate of the Church require more, or else any other kind of obedience than this to be used, he contemneth Christ, exalting himself above God, and so becometh an open Antichrist, saith the Lord Cobham in the Confession of his Faith, offered to Hen. the 5th, about the year 1413. Chrysostom calls them a most exquisite rule, and exact square and balance to try all things by. Augustine expounding Gal. 1. 8. saith, If we, or an Angel from Heaven, declare unto you, either concerning Christ, or his Church, any other matter belonging to our Faith, or Life, any thing but that which you have received in the writings of the Law and the Gospel, let him be accursed. Cont. Lit. Petilian. Don. l. 3. c. 6. & de unitat. Eccles. cap. 11. Et honos praeter mandatum est dedecus, God is dishonoured by that honour that is ascribed to him beyond his own prescription, saith Hierome. Yea, 3dly, our Protestant Divines disputing with the Papists, about an universal Head of the Church, Cardinals, Purgatory, Mass, etc. have ever thought this one good Argument against them, that they find them not commanded in the Scripture; and to assert them needful, or lawful to be used in the Church of Christ, they affirm to be derogatory to the perfection of the Scripture. Suppose a Papist ●o say, 'Tis true the Scripture is perfect with respect to the essential parts of Worship, not so with respect to Accidentals, such as are Cross, Spittle, Salt in Baptism, Holy Water, Pope, Cardinals, Crosses, etc. What would Mr. T. answer hereunto? 'Tis a thousand to one, but the same Answer would stop his own mouth, in the reply to the Argument undertaken to be refuted by him. We add in S. T. as a further confirmation of the truth of the Proposition under debate,  
7thly, That God condemns not only that which is done against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done beside it, Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Mat. 15. 9 Leu. 10. 1. Prov. 30. 6. Jer. 7. 31.  
To which Mr. T. replies, 1. That the Assertion understood of Accidentals of Instituted Worship is false.  
Answ. 1st. Very good! It seems than it is lawful to add, what we please as accidental parts of instituted Worship, for God no where condemns our doing so. Altars, Candles, Crucifixes, Baptism with Spittle, Salt, etc. Dedication of Churches to He-Saints, and She-Saints (with the Inscription of Laus Deo, S ta Helena,) of the Popes make; Baptism of Bells; the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions, may by Mr. T. his arguing, be introduced; for these are but Accidentals of Worship, and no where expressly interdicted.  
Secondly, The Protestant Divines have ever thought this a sufficient convincing Argument, against these fooleries of the Papists, That Christ hath no where commanded them, therefore they may justly reject them as unlawful; Christ being the alone Pastor, Eccl. 12. 11. Master, Mat. 23. 8, 10. Prophet of his Church, Acts▪ 7. 37. Who shall dare to speak where he is silent, or can do so without an open undervaluing and contempt of his Authority? 'Twere easy to fill many Pages with citations of Protestants to this purpose; in whose Writings nothing is more frequent than this, Nihil sine, nihil extra, nihil praeter, nihil ultra Divinam Scripturam admittendum esse. Peter Martyr, on 2 Sam. cap. 6. pag. 212, 213, saith; From this History we may see, that the true Worship of God (he speaks of Uzzah's touching the Ark) is not to be deduced from the Palestines or Ethnics, but the Word of God. For God will be worshipped according to his own Prescript, not our Inventions.— But as touching what pertains to the Worship of God, nothing is to be sought without the Word of God. It went ill with Uzza, that he would imitate the Palestines; with Nadab and Abihu, that they would offer profane fire; with Ozias the King, that he would offer Incense in the Tabernacle, when he was neither Priest nor of the Tribe of Levi.  
But Thirdly, The Scriptures produced, abundantly manifest the truth of the Assertion; Let the judicious Reader seriously peruse them, and they will lead him captive to the belief of it, Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Pro. 30. 6. Strictly interdict man's adding to the Word of God; which if it be not a condemnation of what is practised in his Worship, without any warrant from him, I must confess I know not what is. Is not, You shall sign with the Cross in Baptism, kneel at the Sacrament, wear the Surplice, etc. an adding to the Word of God, when he is altogether in the Scriptures silent in these matters? Mat. 15. 9 speaks of the Inventions of men, with respect to accidental parts of Worship (as Mr. T. accounts them.) The essentials of Worship, as praying, hearing, etc. they had from the Lord, these things were not what Christ condemns in them, as the Doctrines of men; What was it then? Mr. T. in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum, on Mat. 15. 9 shall answer for me. But in this place (saith he) that which our Saviour objects to them is; That they sought to establish the Traditions of men,— chief that they taught men to observe things, praeter Legem, besides the Law, in stead of God's Law, as the washing of hands before meals, the washing of Cups and Potts,— with many such like Traditions inve●ted by men.— And afterwards (Sect. 5.) tells us, That Bowing, Ducking, and such like Gestures, Usages and Rites, invented by men to express Humility, Devotion, and Reverence to God, he contemns as Childish, Apish, Theatrical, and ridiculous. And Sect. 7. he adds, That this teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of men, intrencheth on God's Prerogative, who is the only Lawgiver to his Church, Jam. 4. 12. for his Worship, and that with respect to the fashion, and way of Service. 'Tis an injuring God, whilst we conceive him to be so childish, as to be affected with pomps and shows, gestures and carnal Rites, which he never appointed. It opposeth God's Word, his Law, his Gospel: because it brings in another Rule of Worship than God's Law, viz. Tradition of Elders, Custom, Example; contrary to Deut. 4. 2. Pro. 30. 6. It opposeth the manifestation of the clear light of the Gospel, as shadows, the light of the Sun: Look into the places where there is so much preaching of Ceremonies, and Church-orders, and such a regular observation of them, as in places where the Cathedral and Canonical Preachers, and officiating Priests do bear sway; there is little spiritual understanding, and lively feeling of the Doctrine and Grace of Christ, to be found. Sect. 8. with much more to the same purpose. Leu. 10. ●. Jer. 7. 31. expressly assert, that their sin lay in doing that which God commanded them not, which had he done, it had been lawful. Let Mr. T. show where the offering of strange fire was expressly forbidden, and he may be supposed to say somewhat that is pertinent. Mr. Ainsworth, whom he citys on Leu. 10. 1. is against him; Strange fire, he tells us, is other fire than God hath sanctified on his Altar, fire not commanded— And the Assembly upon the place say rightly, In God's Worship his Command, not man's wit or will, must be our rule. The citation of Josh. 22. 34. 2 Chron. 20. 3. & 30. 23. Esth. 9 27, 31. by this Animadverter is impertinent. Josh. 22. 34. gives us an account of their building an Altar, but they expressly affirm it was not for burnt-offerings nor for Sacrifices; not for an Ecclesiastical, but a Civil use, v. 22, 23, 24, 26, 28. Had they built it for the Worship of God, it had in the judgement of the whole Congregation of Israel, been Rebellion against him, ver. 16. So that this Scripture, instead of supporting, cuts the throat of his dying cause: nor can Mr. T. ever satisfactorily answer this Argument. 'Tis great wickedness to commit a trespass against, to turn away from following, to rebel against the Lord: But the doing, or practising any thing in his Worship, besides what God hath enjoined to be done, is, to commit a trespass against him, to turn away from following, to rebel against him. Therefore—  
The Major no sober Christian will deny. The Minor is evident from v. 16, 18, 19 Nor will Mr. T. his old shift of Essential and Accidental parts of Worship serve him in this case. For, 1. The erection of an Altar, he supposeth to be but an accidental part of Worship. 2. He produceth this Scripture to prove the lawfulness of men's orders in, and about the Accidentals of Instituted Worship. As for his other Scriptures, 2 Chron. 30. 23. hath been already considered and answered in our Answer to Prof. Sect. 5. 2 Chron. 20. 3. Esth. 9 27, 31. speak only of the Proclamation and Decree, or Purpose of the King and People, to observe and keep certain days unto the Lord, upon the account of such signal providences that the Lord had brought them under, wherein they judged he was calling them thereunto.  
To what is added in S. T. touching the judgement of the Ancients, Mr. T. replies, but so jejunely, that it deserves not to be taken notice of. As for Cyprian's testimony, 'tis full up to the matter in hand, the foundation upon which he dealt against the Aquarii, being no other than what we are pleading-for, that Christ alone is to be heard in matters of Instituted Worship (as Mr. T. will grant the Sacrament to be.) I stand amazed at the confidence of the Animadverter, in asserting, that Beza's words on Phil. 1. 1. are to be understood of things determined in the Scripture, when he expressly speaks of giving the title of Bishop (for Polities sake) peculiarly to him that did preside in the Assembly, whereof he tells us the Devil began to lay the first foundation of Tyranny in the Church of God: and then he adds, Behold of how great moment it is to decline from the Word of God, though but an hairs breadth, if it be but in giving titles peculiarly to persons, which are not so given to them in the Scripture. And much more do I wonder if he did without blushing, writ, that Luther is to be understood of Doctrines and Decrees, (if he oppose these to Church-Ceremonies, which if he do not, he yields his Cause) when he expressly saith, he means, that nothing with respect to external Rites (which he calls Traditions, and the mixing the Worship of God with foolish Gewgaws) is to be taught, without the express words of God for our warrant. 'Tis true, Dr. Whitakers words are meant of the Popish use of Oil in their Sacraments; but the ground of his opposing it, is plainly the same with that we are contesting about, viz. That nothing is to be added to the Instituted Worship, as a part thereof, without warrant from the Scripture; for, saith he, we acknowledge no Oil, because we read nothing of Oil in the Scriptures. To these I say many may be added. Take a few instances instead of many; Whatsoever things men find and fain, without the Authority and Testimony of the Scripture, as if they were from Apostolical Tradition, are smitten by the Sword of God, saith Hierom, Comment in Hag. c. 2. And again, Men are (saith he) set to eat their meat without Salt, when they are commanded any thing that hath no relish from the Word; and to build without Hay and Stubble, like Israel in Egypt, when they be not allowed some warrant out of the Scripture, which only can combine the matter of the work, and make the frame of the building sure. And Chrysostom giveth a reason, why we must take nothing from the Prelates, which is not clarè perspicuously demonstrated from the Scriptures: for our Cogitation halteth when the Word wanteth, which halting is s●n, because we are bound to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a full persuasion, even in indifferent things and all. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Homil. 13. So the Churches of Helvetia, The universal Church of Christ hath fully explained in the Scriptures, whatever things appertain to saving Faith, and to the informing the Life, rightly to please God. To which that nothing may be added or diminished, is distinctly commanded by the Lord. We judge therefore that from these Scriptures, true Wisdom and Piety is to be sought. Also the Reformation and Government of the Church (which are with Mr. T. Adjuncts of Worship) and the Institution of all duties of Piety. C. 1. Conf. Helvet. poster. in Harmon. Conf. And those famous Witnesses of Christ, the Waldenses, speak after the same rate: In hac enim (de Scripturâ & ejus perfectione loquuntur) quae ad Doctrinam, & Sanctae Ecclesiae Disciplinam & Gubernationem, ad singulos & universos, in ordinario salutis Ministerio (unde & vera fides existit) necessaria sunt: Ea inquam, omnia plene omnino, & quantum opus est, ut in eximio, artificiocissimoque Sancti Spiritus opere, in hac comprehensae sunt, & conclusa, quâ nec Angelus de Coelo ullus proferre aliquid certius potest, & si adferret diversum aliquid credi ei non deberet. Conses. Bohem. seu Walden. in Harmo. Confess. Which if Mr. T. will not, others will believe, speak home to the matter in hand.  
The Declaration of the Congregational Elders, chap. 1. I own, and told Mr. T. as much as they say, in S. T. Circumstances concerning the Worship of God, etc. common to humane actions and societies, are to be ordered by the Light of Nature and Christian prudence, as place, time of meetings, etc. but they assert not that Circumstances of Worship, as such, are so to be ordered, or to be practised without warrant from Scripture, which is that we deny. Thus far of the Major Proposition of our first Argument. His Exceptions to the Minor will receive a speedy dispatch, of which in the next Section.   

Sect. 2.  
Hearing the Word part of Instituted Worship, proved. Mr. T. his Objection refelled. The Judgement of Mr. Burroughs in this matter. Hearing the present Ministers, not warranted in the Scripture. Of the tendency of the Separation pleaded-for. Mr. T. a self-contradicter. Of declaring for, or against things, according to affection. The saying of Hierome.  
THe Minor Proposition of our first Argument against Hearing, we say, consists of two parts. 1. That Hearing is part of Instituted Worship, which we proved by this Argument: That in which we wait upon God, in the way of an Ordinance, for the communication of good, beyond the virtue of any creature to convey, is part of Instituted Worship: But in the hearing the Word we thus wait upon God: Therefore—  
To which Mr. T. replies, 1. by way of concession. In some sense he grants Hearing to be part of Instituted Worship. But 2dly, if he takes not the Argument to be demonstrative, sigh there be many things, As Marriage, Eating, Drinking, etc. in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance for the communication of good beyond the virtue of any creature to convey to us, and yet are not parts of the Instituted Worship of God.  
Answ. 1. But how sophistically and ludicrously doth he argue? The Argument is of Good Spiritual and Eternal, Mr. T. talks of Good Natural, Political, Temporary. If he will prove the Argument, not to be demonstrative, he must prove, that that in which we wait upon God in the way of an Ordinance, for the communication of Spiritual and Eternal Good, beyond the virtue of any creature to convey to us, is not part of Instituted Worship.  
2. Precious Mr. Burroughs speaks fully to this Objection; When I am busied in natural & civil actions, there I must profess that these things can do me no good without God; but I do not wait ●pon God in an Ordinance for the conveyance of Natural good, beyond what God hath put into the creature; 'tis his blessing with it, that God in the ordinary course of his Providence, doth convey such natural or civil good in the use of those creatures: But now when I come to hear his Word, I here come to wait on God in the way of an Ordinance, for the conveyance of some spiritual good, that this Ordinance hath not in itself, take it materially, but merely as it hath an Institution in it, and is appointed by God for the conveyance of such and such things. God doth appoint meat to nourish me, and together with his Appointment, he hath given a natural power to meat to nourish my body; that, in an ordinary course of Providence, is enough for the nourishment of my body: But now when I come to hear the Word, I must look upon that, not only as a thing to work upon my soul, and to save my soul by, not as a thing that hath any efficacy put into it, as the other hath, in a natural way; it is not in the nature of the thing that carries such a power in it, but it is the Institution of God, and the Ordinance of God in it.  
But I say, 3dly, Hearing the present Ministers is not warranted in the Scriptures. This will be manifested when we come to th● ventilating and scanning those places which usually are produced for the abetting the practice of some in this matter.—  
To which Mr. T. subjoins, 1. The Scripture warrants the hearing them, whilst they teach the Doctrine of God's Word.  
Answ. When he shows us where it doth so, he will say somewhat; till then, we are not bound to believe him: Every one that teacheth true Doctrine, we have proved, is not to be heard.  
He adds 2. The Scripture forbids only the hearing false Prophets, Mat. 7. 15. Antichrists, 1 John 2. 18. etc.  
Answ. 1. This Assertion is false, as we have already manifested. 2. We have in S. T. chap. 6. proved the present Ministers to be false Prophets, and in our Answer to Mr. T. his Exceptions to the Preface, Sect. 10.  
He saith further, 3. Personal Exceptions against their entry into the Ministry, or their sinful practices; or the ventilating the places produced for the abetting the practices of some in this matter, will not prove the Minor.  
Answ. But if we prove they act from an Antichristian Call, and that 'tis the mind of Christ we should not attend upon a Ministry that so acts: if we prove them guilty of such sinful practices, as Christ commands us to withdraw from persons that are guilty of them; if we demonstrate that there is not a word in Scripture to justify any in their practice of hearing them, the most partially addicted Reader to the cause of the Church of England will acknowledge we have fully proved the unlawfulness of attending on its Ministry. This we do chap. 2, 3, etc. of S. T.  
The Argument drawn from Judas his preaching the Gospel, we answer ch. 10. of S. T. and we are unwilling actum agere.  
That the Separation pleaded-for tends to the undoing of men in their estates, we may thank some for, and this Animadverter is not wanting to blow the coals. That it hinders the public peace, is a papistical, wicked, and false suggestion, than which a more malicious one, could not have been invented by the Devil. That the furtherance of the Gospel is thereby hindered, is monstrously false. The aim and motive of the author of the S. T. in that Treatise, and Mr. T. in this Reply, is known to the Lord, and may shortly be more manifestly discovered then some would wish. And considering how he doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contradict, and oppose now, what not many years ago he so confidently pleaded for, I wish him to examine his heart, and to take heed he be not found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Who they are speak for, or against things according to the affection they bear to men, I know not. And do hearty, wish they may be reduced from that evil custom, trying, and proving things offered to them, by the Scriptures, whether they be so, or not. I approve of the saying of Hierome, Epist. 152. Non juxta Pythagorae discipulos, praejudicata Doctoris opinio, sed doctrinae ratio ponderanda est: omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete: Et estote probati nummularii, ut si quis nummus adulter est, et figuram Caesaris non habet, nec signatus est, moneta publica reprobatur: quj autem Christi faciem claro lumine praefert, in cordis nostri marsupium recondatur. Cur me lacerant amici mei, & adversum silentem crassae sues grunniunt? quarum omne studium est, imo scientiae supercilium aliena carpere, et sic Veterum perfidiam defendere, ut perdant fidem suam. Meum propositum est antiquos legere, probare singula, retinere quae bona sunt, et a fide Ecclesiae Catholicae non recedere; which should all practise, the service and ceremonies of the Church of England would soon be returned into her Mother's lap of Rome, from whence they were borrowed. Mr. T. promiseth fair, he will show Scripture warrant (he saith) for hearing the Ministers of England.— And I assure him if he doth, I will do what penance, they shall be pleased to impose on me (though it be to hear them, in a white sheet) for lifting up my pen against them; I only advise Mr. T.  Ne impossibilia captas.   

CHAP. III.  

Sect. 1.  
The second Argument in S. T. vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions. Speaking the truth of the Gospel, not the only consideration requisite to the Hearers to be respected in hearing. Mr. T. his six Reason answered. Christ forbids to hear others besides such as preach falsehood. Saints fit to examine the office, &c, of those they hear. Of hearing such who are not in Office, nor gifted Brethren. The practice of the Bar●ans. The Scriptures not only the Rule of the Doctrine we hear, but of the Persons whom we should hear. The Principle pleaded-for, no hindrance of a man's edification, etc. Of the old Apostolical Rule, of receiving ●one without the Testimonial of Brethren of known integrity in the Churches, etc.  
IN his second Chap. Mr. T. attempts the confutation of the second Argument produced in S. T. to prove the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of England, the sum whereof is:  
If it be lawful to hear the present Ministers, it is lawful to hear them, either as Ministers of the Gospel, or as gifted Brethren: But it is not lawful to hear them, either as Ministers of the Gospel, or as gifted Brethren. Therefore—  
The Major I took for granted, but this Animadverter is pleased to deny it, and that for a two fold Reason. 1. Because the dis●unction is of terms not opposite, but co-incident.  
Answ. Very good! It seems then that Ministers of the Gospel, and gifted Brethren, are terms co-incident: but this Mr. T. upon second thoughts will be ashamed of. This is not the first instance, that his Theodulia was writ in haste, and requires a review. 'Tis true, every Minister of the Gospel is a gifted Brother, yet not quâ Minister of the Gospel; 'Tis most false, that every gifted Brother is a Minister of the Gospel: so that the terms are not (as he suggests) co-incident.  
He adds, 2. The disjunction is not full, sigh a third member may be assigned, that they may be heard as preaching the Word of God.  
Answ. This Animadverter hath a rare invention, but it will not always serve his turn: What strange Preachers of the Word of God he surmiseth, that are neither Ministers of the Gospel; nor gifted Brethren ipse videat, for my part I desire not to be acquainted with them. I had ever thought, that at least, gifts enabling a man for the creditable discharge of the office of preaching the Gospel, had been required in every one, that should have undertaken that employment.  Cucullus non facit Monachum, nec barba Philosophum. 
But this Animadverter will prove, That speaking the truth of the Gospel, is the only consideration requisite to the hearer, to be respected in hearing.  
Answ. 1. He should have excepted the Devil, who spoke the truth of the Gospel, yet somewhat else was requisite to the hearer to be respected in hearing, for him he might not hear.  
2. He should have put in, the mixed truth of the Gospel, the sincere Word of God. For those that are partial therein, are not to be attended. Such were the Preache●s of the Circumcision, whom Paul condemns, and chargeth us to separate from them, Phil. 3. 2. (i. e. keep at the greatest distance from them, have no communion with them) yet they spoke the truth of the Gospel, they only added therewith the Ceremonies of the Law.  
3. Yet upon second thoughts, he did wisely, not to make that addition, for than he knew what he had said had not been applicable to the present Ministers (who though they preach the Truth of the Gospel, yet add thereto the Ceremonies of humane devising, as those of the Circumcision did, the Ordinances once of divine appointment) But we attend his proof.  
Six Reasons he gives of this Assertion.  
Reas. 1. Because God hath forbidden to hear none, but such as preach falsehood.  
Answ. This hath been often before inculcated, and as often answered: its falsehood, and impertinent application to the present Ministers justification (who preach falsehood) manifested. So that we need not further trouble ourselves or the Reader with it.  
Reas. 2. Because hearers are not fit to examine the Office, Power, Gifts, or Brotherhood of those they hear.  
Answ. If he speak of the generality of hearers, 'tis granted, they have not abilities so to do: the question relates not to them.  
2. If he mean the Saints, spiritual hearers, he contradicts the Spirit of the Lord, 1 Cor. 2. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Spiritual man throughly discerneth or judgeth all things, viz. belonging to the Worship of God, and eternal life.  
Reas. 3. he adds, It is lawful to hear such as are neither in Office-power, nor gifted. Brethren, as Act. 18. 26. 1 Tim. 1. 5. 2 Tim. 3. 15. The Iberian Prince, the captive Maid, the Indians Frumentius.  
Answ. 1. But when we speak of hearing, we speak of it, as in a Church-society, true, or false, the Animadverters examples reach only to private instructions of particular persons.  
2ly. He himself p. 46. when he thought it would serve his turn, would not have a Woman to speak in the Church; now he would have them Preachers to a Congregation, for else he speaks impertinently.  
3ly. Our assertion is of the Ministers of England who must be heard (we say) as Ministers of the Gospel, or gifted Brethren, to which his story of Priscilla, Lois etc. hath no relation.  
Reas. 4. He acquaints us, That the Beraeans are commended for their examining Paul's doctrine, without examining his office, etc. Act. 17. 11.  
Answ. 1. The Beraeans were not Christians: what they did is heterogeneous to our present dispute, which is of the duty of Believers.  
2ly. Of the gifts of Paul they had sufficient evidence, nor could they be ignorant of the wonders that were wrought by him, a sufficient evidence of his Office-power.  
3dly. That because the Beraeans are commended for examining Paul's Doctrine, without examining his Office, etc. Therefore the speaking the Truth of the Gospel, is the only consideration requisite to the hearer to be respected in hearing, is such an inconsequent Consequence that he will never make good: possibly they might examine his Office, though it be not recorded; if they did not, it doth not follow that it was not their duty to have done so; because they are commended for doing what they did; which was also their duty.  
He adds, 5thly. The Scriptures are the Rule of the Doctrine we are to hear; therefore we are bound to look to no more for the lawfulness of our hearing, than the congruity of what we hear with it.  
Answ. 1. We deny the Consequence, and challenge Mr. T. to make it good: would I could persuade him to cease his Lordly dictates; and think it concerns him to prove what he saith, as well as other men; which (considering his frequent change of opinions, with the change of times) I affure him it doth; else whatever he tenders, will levi brachio be rejected. The Scripture is not only a Rule of the Doctrine we hear, but to us of the persons whom we should hear. Mat. 17. 5. John 10. 3, 5. v. 8, 27. Act. 3. 22. & 7. 37. Rom. 10. 14. Luke 10. 16. 1 John 4. 5, 6. Phil. 3. 2. 1 John 4. 1. Mat. 7. 15.  
2dly. Christ having instituted Officers of his own, laid down Rules touching orderly prophesying; foretold us that false Teachers would arise, that should pretend to come in his Name, when he never sent them; charged us to try the Spirits: We are ready to conclude, that the Commission of men is to be tried and examined by which they act, as well as the Doctrine they bring, according to the Scripture.  
3dly. This Argument will as well prove the lawfulness of hearing, the Pope, Cardinals, Jesuits, the Devil himself, as the present Ministers, whilst they preach Truth,  Nullas habet spes Troja si tales habet. 
He tells us, 6thly. To forbid a man to hear him that preacheth, because he knows him not to be a Minister in Office, or gifted Brother, may be a means to hinder his Edification and Salvation, and to harden him to his perdition.  
Answ. 1. This, as proposed by Mr. T. reacheth not fully the case of the Ministers of England, whom we do not only know to be Ministers in Office, or gifted Brethren, but we are assured they are not so.  
2. That 'tis lawful to hear all Preachers, he will not, when out of heat and passion of a dispute, assert: I must know them to be Christians, ere it be lawful for me to hear them; and such as are at least sound in the fundamental Doctrines of the Gospel. How I should know this of a stranger, and not at the same time be able to inform myself, whether he be a Minister or a gifted Brother, I am not able to divine: So that I do no more hinder my Edification and Salvation, by refusing to hear him, till I am satisfied herein, than I do by refusing to hear him, because I know him not to be a Christian, which yet I am bound to do. It were well if the old Apostolical Rule were reassumed, Acts 9 26, 27. (of which more afterwards, p. 124.) as it is amongst some) of receiving none but such, of whose ability and faithfulness they received Testimonial from Brethren of known integrity in the Churches, more universally among Christians, which yet this Animadverter dares not say did (or would) hinder the Edification or Salvation of any.  
3. That the refusing to hear the present Ministers should have so sad an issue, those who know how little to Edification, etc. the preaching of most of them is, will not in haste believe.  
Besides, 4thly. When Christ hath (as was said) not only appointed that the Word be heard, but also from such as are sent by him, upon the account whereof they are to be received by us, Mat. 10. 40. with vers. 5. and no spiritual advantage can groundedly be expected, from any hearing but that which is the institution of Christ; so that Mr. T. ●rgues (if dictating may be so called) exceeding weakly, whilst he tells us, That to forbid to hear such as are not of Christ's appointment, is to hinder men's salvation, etc. And give me leave to say, what I believe, the most that truly fear God in England will attest, That more souls (it's to be feared) by far have been hardened by attending on the present Ministers, for these seven years, than have been conve●ted, saved by them from the evil of their way.  
His subsequent discourse, being composed of scurrilous reflections, (being now pretty well used to them) I pass over. Who they are that reject persons because not of their party Mr. T. may better know than I, who (as I am credibly informed) refused to admit an honest godly man, desiring it, to sit down and break bread with those he had gathered together into Church-Communion at Bewdly, for no other reason, but because he was not baptised, according to his conception of Baptism. For my part I own myself of no party, it being my avowed principle, to own Saints upon the account of Saintship, and the shines of the image of the blessed God upon them, though in lesser matters differing in judgement from me, according to that Apostolical rule, Phil. 3. 15. Rom. 14. 1.  
That from Christ's appointment of some, as Ministers, enjoining others as their duty, upon the collation of Gifts upon them, to preach the Gospel, for the edification of his Body, a lawfulness to hear them, as Ministers or gifted Brethren, doth not necessarily arise, is, to say no more, a strange assertion! as implying that 'tis unlawful to hear some whom Christ hath appointed to preach, which is absurd, as good we may reject Christ.  
The reason he gives us hereof, viz. Because a Minister; or gifted Brother, 'tis possible may be Heretical, and so to be shunned, Tit. 3. 10. is of no weight. For, those whom it is our duty to hear at one time, whilst walking in the ways of Christ, 'tis most undoubtedly our sin to hear at another, when departed from those ways. But he hath found nodum in scirpo, an assertion of mine, that he makes himself, for a season, merry with, and thinks he hath no small advantage by. I say (saith he) 'tis lawful to others to preach, as their liberty permitted to them: which if so, then,  
First, 'Tis lawful for Ministers to Preach as their liberty.  
Answ. 1. Who denies it?  
2. Why doth this Animadverters good friends, the Bishops, hinder them?  
3. It doth not sure thence follow, that 'tis lawful for Antichristian Ministers so to do.  
He adds, Secondly, Than it follows, that there is some practice that is a part of instituted Worship, that is warranted in Scripture, as persons Liberty by permission without command; Therefore hearing the present Ministers may be warranted by permission, without command: which was my Answer to this Authors first Argument against hearing them, is now confirmed by his Concession.  
Answ. 1. But what if this be not any Assertion of the Author of S. T. but a mistake of this Animadverter. His conceived advantage, and triumph is then suddenly extinct.  
2. That I no no where assert it, not in the place mentioned, the review of the passage he descants upon may inform him.  
1st, I say only, that the permission of such, as have received enablements from the Lord, to exercise and improve them in praying and preaching, for the edification of the Body of Christ, though not solemnly invested into Office, is assented unto by some of those with whom I have to do.  
2dly, I immediately add, that 'tis enjoined them as their duty (viz. by Christ) so to do. Which, with what Conscience the Animadverter could overlook, that he might impose upon his Antagonist (to his own seeming advantage) what was never asserted by him, I know not. These things ought not to be.   

Sect. 2.  
'Tis not lawful to hear the present Ministers as Ministers of the Gospel. They are not such, therefore may not be heard as such. The validity of the consequence evinced. Mr. T. his Exceptions enervated. Hearers bound to satisfy themselves, that he who pretends to come and act in the Name of Christ, is indeed sent by him. 'Tis not above the ability of hearers to judge of the Ministers call. Peaceable possession no evidence of Gospel-right. The testimony of Nazianzen. The impertinency of Mr. T. his arguing from Paul's speech to Ananias, Acts 23. 5. from Caiaphas his prophesying. John 11. 51. etc. evinced.  
IN Sect. 2. Mr. T. considers the proof we bring for the confirmation of the Minor Proposition, viz. That 'tis not lawful to hear them, either as Ministers of the Gospel, or as gifted Brethren.  
1. Not as Ministers of the Gospel, they are not such, therefore may not be heard as such  
To this Mr. T. replies. I deny this consequence; a man may be heard as a Minister of the Gospel, though he be not such.  
Answ. 1. Nor can I help it, or any man in the world (if Mr. T. be resolved on't) if he deny the Sun to shine at noonday.  
2dly, The consequence presents itself with that evidence to the understanding of  men, and shines so clearly in its own brightness, that 'tis hardly capable of, further demonstration.  
3dly, To hear a man as a Minister of the Gospel, is to hear him as a Preacher sent from Christ, that I may, that is, that it is my duty to hear one as sent from Christ, that is not sent from Christ, is an Assertion that the bear naming of is confutation sufficient.  
I must believe that he is sent from Christ ere I can hear him, as such: that I am bound to believe a lie, Mr. T. will not in haste prove. We attend to what he is able to say for the confirmation of this Assertion, whereof he gives you three Reasons.  
First, Because every hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function.  
Answ. 1. This (if meant of Christian hearers) is false; every such hearer is bound to satisfy himself, that he who pretends to come and act in the Name of Christ, is indeed sent by him; else I see not how he can own, or receive him as a Minister of Christ to him, and perform those other duties (if he so do) he is obliged to do and perform to him by express command from Christ.  
2. Should it be granted, That every hearer is not bound to examine the entrance of the Teacher into his Function, it doth not follow that its lawful, or the duty of persons to hear such as are not Ministers of Christ, as Ministers of Christ. This indeed would follow, That 'tis possible (had they no other way of satisfying themselves in the truth of their Ministry) they might through mistake do so, but that they are bound by command from Christ so to do, M. T. cannot prove.  
3. What if they receive Letters Testimonial from persons of known integrity in the Church (or some verbal satisfaction from them) touching them, and it be the duty of Hearers not to receive them without these; this may sure help to mend the matter. Now this seems to be evident from the practice of the Saints, Rom. 16. 1, 2. Col. 4. 10. Acts 18. 27. 2 Cor. 3. 1. Acts 9 26, 27.  
Y●t 4. His inference makes much against himself. Therefore (saith he) it is enough to hear them as such, that there is nothing appears to the contrary: for hence it follows, that if there be any thing appearing to the contrary, 'tis not lawful to hear them as such: Now we manifest in S. T. chap. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. that there is much appears to the contrary: Therefore 'tis not our duty to hear them.  
He adds, 2dly. 'Tis lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel, though they are not such, because it is above the ability of the hearers to judge of the Ministers call, etc.  
Answ. 1. We deny this Consequence. 'Tis above the ability of Hearers to judge of the Ministers call, therefore 'tis lawful for them to hear as Ministers of the Gospel such as are not such: who have indeed nothing like such a call, as the Scriptures mention in the Ministers of Christ.  
2dly. That 'tis above the ability of Christian hearers, to judge of the Ministers call, when 'tis so plainly declared in the Scriptures, is Mr. T. his mistake; an Assertion that he will never be able to prove: nor need they to fit themselves herein, to spend their time— to inquire into their many proceed, in getting Testimonials, using means for the obtaining Ordination, Institution, etc. (as he talks) they have through the great kindness of God to them, the Bible in their hands, and the holy Spirit dwelling in them, to lead them into all Truth; they have the qualification of Gospel-Ministers laid down, 1 Tim. 32. to 8. Tit. 1. 5 to 10. etc. the manner of their call and solemn inauguration into their office: where they find persons, let their pretences be never so high, that are not able to acquit themselves according to those Rules, they may judge (and yet 'tis not they so much as the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture) that they are not the Ministers of Christ.  
But he hath a third Reason; In all Governments and Societies the peaceable possessor is presumed to have right, till the contrary be evinced. Ergo 'tis lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel that are not such.  — risum teneatis amici. 
If this be good arguing, 'tis easy to prove it lawful to hear the Pope, yea the greatest Heretics that ever were in the world. He is in the peaceable possession of St. Peter's Chair (as they call it:) The Arrian Bishops once had it generally, yet not to be heard (I hope) as Ministers of Christ. The learned Field de Eccl. citys Nazianzen speaking far otherwise, Neque qui per vim irrupit, successor habendus est, etc. Nor is he to be accounted the Successor, who gets possession by violence, but he who suffers violence; not he who defends a false opinion, but he who is endued with the same Faith: unless any one perchance may be called a successor, as we say a disease succeeds health, darkness light, a tempest tranquillity, wisdom madness. And so we confess the present Ministers are the Successors of the Ministers of Christ, and possessors of their room.  
2dly. If by right, he m●an right to their Parsonage and Vicarage-house and Globe-lands, etc. a right they have (for aught I know) by the Law of the Nation (as things now stand) thereunto. If a right of Ruledom over the People of God, in the Nation; 1. They are not peaceably possessed of this right, they protest against them, as Intruders. 2dly. These being the People and Flock of Christ, they can have no right over them except it be given them from him; let us see his Commission whereby they are authorized, and we are satisfied. 3dly. If he suppose that a Patron's presentation of a sorry thing in black, (suppose a debauched Sir John, a Knight Errand of the Pope● make) with the Bishop's institution and induction into a Benefice, and he is in the peaceable possession hereof, that therefore he is to be heard as a Minister of Christ, and would impose it upon others, as Truth, he must know, that he hath to do with such who pity him because of his folly, and expect proof of what he asserts, before they will believe him. The instances of Paul's speech to Ananias, Act. 23. 5. of Caiap●as prophesying, John 11. 51. Christ's not excepting against him, when convented before him; are such pitiful stories, that I must crave pardon of the Reader whilst I mention them. Paul owned Ananias as Highpriest, Act. 23. 5. (which yet 'tis probable he did not, but spoke ironically) Caiaphas prophesied, John 11. 51. (and so did Balaam, Num. 23 & 24.) and Christ doth not object against his Office, though both supposed to be unlawful Officers: Therefore it's lawful, from Christ's and Paul's example, to hear them who are not right Officers (though neither of them heard these preach, nor had they to do with them in any act of Instituted Worship) when they peaceably possess the place, and consequently it is lawful to hear them as Ministers of the Gospel, who are not such rightly called. Such non-sequiturs (introduced with pomp and state) I must profess I never before read in any Author, which others it may be take notice of with contempt; for my part I hearty pity him, and beg him to consider, whether the hand of God be not gone forth against him, in stripping him of the parts he once had (as well as in other things) as a just judgement upon him, for his lifting up his hand against his Truths, and the Kingdom of his Son in the World. Till he prove these consequences of his, we are not concerned to take further no●ice of them; there being indeed not the least show of Argument in what he doth, with so much confidence and pomp of words, affirm and declare.   

Sect. 3.  
The Ministers of England not Ministers of the Gospel. They come not in by the Door, proved. John 10. 1, 9 opened. Of Petrus Waldo, and other Reformers. Their contrariety to what Mr. T. attempts to erect. Of Ordination by particular Churches. The Exceptions of the Animadverter refuted. Act. 14. 23. explained. The Ministers of England imposed upon the People without their consent. Parish-Churches no true Churches of Christ.  
IN Sect. 3. this Animadverter gins to consider the proof of our Assertion, viz. That the Ministers of England are not Ministers of the Gospel. The sum whereof is, They that enter not in by the Door, viz. Christ, i. e. by virtue of some authority derived to them from him, immediately or mediately, are not Ministers of the Gospel, John 10. 9 But the Ministers of Engl. come not in by the Door, receive no Commission or Authority from Christ, either immediately or mediately. The first we say will not be asserted— The second cannot, for they receive no Authority from any particular Church of Christ, to whom power is solely delegated, for the electing their own Officers, Acts 6. 5. & 14. 23.  
What saith Mr. T. hereunto? Why after he hath eased his spleen, by disgorging himself of that choler that did (it seems) oppress it; in some Billingsgate Rhetoric (as he speaketh) he tells us, 1. That th●● may be urged against the Presbyterian Preachers.  
Answ. This is only mentioned ad phaleras populi, to take the people: But good Sir, why may this be urged against the Presbyterian Preachers? is it, because they disown Particular Congregations, or Churches of Believers? or, because they absolutely deny the designation of particular persons, to Offices Ecclesiastical by them? But each of these is owned by them, at least by some of them.  
He adds, 2dly, This makes against his gifted Brethren.  
Answ. 1. Why his gifted Brethren? is Mr. T. become a Scorner of the Brethren? or, are there none (thinks he) that have received gifts from Christ, for the edification of his Body?  
2. Why doth it make against these? They pretend not to act as Ministers of Christ, when they prophesy for the edifying the Body of Christ by virtue of any Office-power, so that they need not any such Election. What follows is a Rhapsody of words, that the ingenuous Reader knows proves nothing; introduced to cast the odium of Irreligion-upon the men of his Contest: The best is, the Nation knows him to be (at least in this matter) a false Accuser.  
He tells us, 3dly, That it may be doubted whether Christ be meant by the Door, John▪ 10. 1.  
Answ. But why it should be doubted when Christ expressly tells us, v. 9 that He is the Door, I cannot tell. That the Door, v. 1, & v. 9 is not the same Door, is not probable; and less probable, that by the Door, v. 9 should be meant the Scriptures of the Prophets, who although they foretold of Christ, yet can in no sense, that I know of, be said to be the Door through which he entered. But this he is unwilling to abide by.  
He adds 4ly. That if the door be the same Joh. 10. 1, 9 the entering in v. 9 cannot be entering into the Ministry by the lawful election of a particular Church; for than it would follow that every one that so enters in, shall be saved, but that is manifestly false.  
Answ. 1. But if by saved he mean everlastingly saved, this doth not at all follow, he knows right well, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not always to be restrained, to such a signification.  
2ly. The whole expression he shall be saved, and shall go in, and out, and find pasture, seems to intimate no more than this, that he may expect the blessing of God with him, the defence of God upon him in his Ministry, that thus enters into it according to his mind: according to Deut. 28. 6. So the Assembly, Beza, etc. interpret the words: which I think is so far from being manifestly false, that nothing is more true. Of immediate Calls to the Ministry, and the ways whereby men may prove themselves to be so called, I shall not now turn aside to speak, nor in what sense I asserted, that persons receiving Commission immediately from Christ to preach the Gospel, will never be made good without the working of miracles, it not being pleaded (as I know of) that the present Ministers, have any such Commission, nor do they pretend to it. Of Petrus Waldo (and other Reformers) I think as honourably as this Animadverter. They were worthy, and eminent witnesses for Christ, in their day, no small part of their Testimony was against the Abominations pleaded for, by Mr. T. in his Theodulia. They admitted nothing into their Church, but what is written in the Bible, no Decrees, no Epistles, Decretals, nor the Legends of the Saints, nor the traditions of the Church, They held that the Preaching of the word of God is free to every man (that hath received abilities from the Lord for that work) That the Priests Vestments are little worth. That no day a man may cease from his labour, except the Lord's day, and not the feasts of of Saints. Zanchy introduceth a certain Orthodox man, speaking thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and afterwards adds, the Churches are to be reform according to the best form: a better from of the Church cannot be invented, than that which Christ and his Apostles, in the beginning of the Church did constitute, and appoint. And afterwards all Doctrines of Worship and Discipline are to be examined not by the Lesbian rule of humane judgement, but by the Touchstone of the Divine Word — Zanch. de ver. Eccl. reformand. ration. Johannes Gerson, affirms, That the authority of the Primitive Church was greater than now it is: for it is not in the power of the Pope, or Council, or Church, to change the Traditions taught by the Evangelists and Paul, as some dream; de vit. Spirit. animae. Budaeus saith, Canonum canitieses, vel caries potius nulli jam usui est, sed velut anus delira è foro explosa est: de ponte enim jam diu comitiorum paracleti, dejecta est disciplina Canonica, ut annis sexaginta major, atque etiam sexcentis de Translat. Heclerismi; lib. 2. And afterwards, Navis nobis disciplinae à servator● relicta est, Ecclesiae conditore, quae Cantico, Ministerio, instrumento, miraculisque instructa fuit ab ipso aut ejus auspiciis. These were some of the Witnesses of Christ in their day (whom we honour as such) that bear their Testimony against what Mr. T. thinks good for the present to espouse to himself.  
5ly. This Animadv. speaks of the proof of our Assertion, that those that receive authority to preach the Gospel mediately from Christ, have it from some particular instituted Church of Christ, to whom power is solely delegated for the electing their own Officers, according to Acts 6. 5. & 14. 23. as weak and impertinent. He tells us, 1. That though this should be granted, yet power may be given to others, to choose, send and ordain Preachers for the unconverted, who are and may be heard as Ministers of the Gospel.  
Ans. 1. This we deny, the Keys being given to the Church by Christ, Mat. 16. 19 with 18. 17, 18. we cannot conceive how any can legally choose or send forth persons, to act by virtue of an Office-power, in the preaching of the Gospel, but the Church.  
2dly. We never yet understood, that Interrogations were sufficient Answers; his may not for all this— is no evidence that it may.  
He adds, Yea, may not some others ordain Elders for particular Instituted Churches?  
Answ. 1. Without the Church's consent, Election, etc. they may not: 'Tis true Titus was left by Paul in Crete to ordain Elders in every City, Tit. 1. 5. but that he might do this without the choice, election, and concurrent act of the Church (as a Diocesan Bishop as some fond imagine) is a fancy, that as it hath over and over been confuted by many Godly Learned, so Mr. T. will never be able to make it good.  
2ly. Should it be granted (which yet is most false, contrary to the practice of those times, and many years after) that Titus ordained by himself, (without the knowledge, counsel and approbation of the people) Elders, it doth not in the least follow that any persons may do so now.  
For. 1. He had express warrant and direction from the Apostle to do what he did.  
2. He was an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist, not limited to a certain Church, the continuance of which office we have no direction for in the Scripture.  
3. The officers that were to be continued in the Churches are said to be Elders, or Bishops (which were not names of distinct officers, but of the same Tit. 1. 5, 7.) to be confined, or limited to o●e particular Congregation, not having or exercising jurisdiction over many, Phil. 1. 1. Acts. 14. 23. & 20. 17, 28. Tit. 1. 5, 6, 7. so that this instance makes little to his purpose. When he proves his suggestion, that there are any invested with authority, derived to them from Christ, to elect & ordain officers to, and for the Churches of Christ without their knowledge and consent, he will be supposed to speak pertinently, which in this matter hitherto he hath not done. Let us consider if there be aught more to the purpose in what follows.  
To Acts. 6. 5. he replies. 1. That was but one act.  
Answ. 1. Who saith it was many? Consonant to this one act was the practice of the primitive Church for many years after, some prints whereof in the election of the Overseers of the Poor do yet remain amongst us.  
He adds, 2. They were not such a particular Church as made up one Congregation that could meet together for all Offices.  
Answ. This vanity we have already refeled Sect. 
of our Reply  to Mr. T. his Exceptions against the Preface of S. T.  
He proceeds and tells us, 3dly. They did not choose the Deacons upon any conceived power delegated from Christ, by virtue of any rul● that was to be perpetual, in all ages, to all Churches.  
Answ. 1. This is a mere conjecture of his own, without the least tender of proof.  
2dly. 'Tis the ready way to banish all the instituted Worship of Christ out of the world. 'Tis but saying, 'tis true, this or that was done; but without any Rule that was to be perpetually binding, and the work is effected.  
3dly. 'Tis injurious to the Apostles, and the primitive Believers, to imagine (and indeed ridiculous) that they should devise an Office in the Church without authority derived to them from Christ, and that so necessary an Office, as the experience of above sixteen hundred years manifests the Church of God could not have been without; which was not only continued in the Churches afterwards, Phil. 1. 1. but Rules laid down for their future election and choice, 1 Tim. 3. 8 to 13. with a solemn injunction to Timothy (and in him to succeeding Believers) to keep that Commandment (amongst others) without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, chap. 6. 14. So that these are but shifts, our reverend Dictator scarce knows what to answer it seems to the Evidence introduced. I shall only add, Malè res agitur, cum tot opus est remediis, it is a bad sore that must be wrapped in ●● many clouts. Yet he hath not done.  
He adds, 4thly. This can be no rul● for choosing other Officers; there was a peculiar reason why they should choose Deacons, whose honesty— was to be discerned, and not other Officers, whose sufficiency to teach— was to be considered, of which th● multitude of Church-members then and now are rarely competent Judges.  
Answ. 1. But we had, thought honesty had been as necessary a qualification of a Pastor or Teacher, as of a Deacon.  
2dly. The Apostles mention it as the Church's privilege, without the least intimation of any peculiar reason thereof, Act. 6. 3.  
3dly. There is the same reason for the election of one Officer in the Church as another: those with whom power is entrusted for the choice of one, it is for the choice of all the rest.  
4thly. That the Saints then, and now, are not competent Judges of the abilities and Orthodoxy of other Officers this Animadverter is desired to prove. 1. 'Tis derogatory to the Spirit of Christ that indwells in Believers. 2. Contrary to the express Testimony of the Spirit of God touching them. 3. A mere Petitio principii. The question is, whether they did elect and choose them? the Answer is, they were not fit to do so: but their fitness is presupposed in that they had liberty or power to do it.  
To the other Scripture, Acts 14. 23. he replies. 1. By way of seeming concession. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered by Beza, They created by Suffrages, i. e. when the people by lifting up their hands, had testified their consent in the election of them, they set them apart to that work. An allusion to the custom of the Greeks in the election of their Officers by Suffrages and Votes, signified by the stretching out of the hand: which was unquestionably the practice of the Church for the first three hundred years. Cyprian who lived an. 240 often intimates as much. Take one instance in the stead of many: Propter quod diligenter de traditione divinâ, & Apostolica observatione observandum est, & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque & fere per provincias universas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus delegatur PLEBE PRAESENTE quae singulorum vitam plenessime novit, & unuscujusque actum; de ejus conversatione perspexit: Quod & apud vos factum videmus in Sabinae collegae nostri ordinatione, ut de VNIVERSAE FRATERNITATIS SUFFRAGIO, & de Episcoporum (qui in praesentia convenerant, quique de eo ad vos literas fecerant) judicio Episcopatus ei deferretur— Epist. ●8.  
2dly. By way of Exception he tells us, 1. This is but one example, not sufficient to infer a perpetual Rule.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis intended but for one example.  
2dly. We find the thing practised afterwards; Elders are ordained, Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That they should so suddenly vary from the practice of the Apostles here (no intimation thereof being given, but rather the contrary, 2 Tim. 1. 14. & 3. 10. Tit. 1. 5. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that thou mayest set straight, or according to the li●e or rule that thou hast learned of us, the things that are wanting, and ordain (viz. according to that rule) Elders in every City) is not probable: That they did not do so for some hundreds of years after Mr. T. grants, and we have proved. Which is a sufficient Answer to his Exception about constituting Elders, without the mention of any such election of the People, Tit. 1. 5.  
3dly. In the election of other Officers, as an Apostle, we find the people concerned. 1. Out of an hundred and twenty persons, they chose and presented two, v. 23. out of which two, one being c●osen by lot, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was counted amongst the Apostles by the common Suffrages of them all, v 26. And this very Scripture amongst others is used by Cyprian to confirm the power of the people, in chase or refusing their Ministers. Epist. 4. l. 1. Deacons (as was said) was so chosen, Act. 6. 3, 5, 6. Put all together, and you have as full an evidence of the truth of the Assertion as can be desired.  
But our Animadverter, 2dly, acquaints us from Dr. Field, etc. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to other creating then by Suffrages, as Acts 10. 41.  
Answ. 'Tis granted, it sometimes is so applied; but the proper and most usual signification of the word is to elect by Suffrages, as Mr. T. knows: That because it's once (or twice it may be) used in a metaphorical sense, where it cannot be otherwise interpreted, therefore we must departed from the proper notation of the word, where the context of the place doth induce us, and the practice of the Church and People of God in after-generations, to abide by it is not tolerable arguing.  
His next Exception is, 3dly. None are said to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but Paul and Barnabas, and they are said to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for them, viz. t●● Church, or Disciples.  
Answ. 1. Nor is it necessary that we affirm any other so to do: They herein presiding over them, and regulating the whole affair according to the instructions received from Christ, bear the name of the whole work, though the Votes and Suffrages of the Disciples were in it also: The Apostles ordained by Suffrages, viz. the Suffrages of the Church, Elders for them; But this proves not that the Vote of the Disciples was excluded, it rather evinceth the contrary.  
Yet 2dly, Why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must be rendered creating by Suffrages (or ordaining) for them, I do not understand: It may every whit as properly be rendered with them, viz. with the Church or Disciples. For so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently rendered; so Mat. 13. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye root up also the Wheat (not for, but) with them. Act. 17. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reasoned with them, Heb. 8. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for finding fault with them: and in many places besides. That it should be so rendered here is evident; 1. 'Tis consonant to the practice of the Saints then, and in after-generations, as is known. 2. How Paul and Barnabas may be said properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to ordain by Suffrages alone by themselves, every understanding is not able to reach, render the word with them, i. e. with the Disciples, and the c●se is plain ●nd evident, viz. the Apostles with the Church or Congregation of Believers, by Suffrages and Votes ordained Elders, which is the matter enquired after. So that whatever this Animadverter is able to say to the contrary, this Scripture proves the power of particular Churches, to elect their own Officers: and therefore if the present Ministers have not received a Commission from Christ thus mediately by the election of some one or other particular instituted Church of Christ; if they pretend not to it, have it in derision, come barely with a presentation from a Patron, Ordination, Institution and Induction from a Lord-Bishop, things foreign to the Scripture, and impose themselves upon the People whether they will or no (as it may most truly be affirmed of them) they are not Ministers of the Gospel, nor may be heard as such.  
But Mr. T. hath somewhat more to add, he tells us, 1. That it will be hard for us to prove that the Parish-Churches in England are not particular instituted Churches of Christ.  
Answ. 1. Of what is hard or easy for us to do, or any man else, our Animadverter seems a very incompetent Judge.  
2dly. He is not ignorant that this is already done to our hands by several learned men, and 'tis sure no difficult task actum agere, to do over again what we find done to our hands before.  
He further affirms, 2dly, It will also be hard to prove that the Ministers of England are imposed on the People whether they will or no.  
Answ. 1. The generality of the People of England will attest the verity hereof: who for the most part know not their Minister till he comes to them with his Orders; nor is their Consent touching his Reception desired, or at all significant, with respect to his exercising an Office-power over them.  
2dly. What they do in London, and some few particular places where the Inhabitants it may be are the Patrons, is not considerable or worth the minding. 1. For the most part they are imposed upon the people whether they will or no. 2. Were they chosen by their Parochial Inhabitants, they were never the nearer Ministers of Christ; Because, 1. That their choice hath not the least influence upon their being constituted such, 'tis the Bishop's Ordination— that in this matter doth all. 2. The Parish-Churches of England are not true Churches of Christ: which we demonstrate,  
1. Where there is not the true matter of a Church, there is not a true Church: But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not the true matter of a Church: Therefore—  
The Minor, which alone is capable of a denial, is evident. That only is fit matter of a Church, which corresponds to the matter of the Primitive Churches, planted by the Apostles. These were Saints, Ephes. 1. 1. Col. 1. 2. Holy Brethren, 1 Thess. 5. 27. Such ●● were not of, but called out of the World, Joh. 15. 18, 19 whom God had received, Rom. 14. 3. Such as please Christ, and are dearly beloved by him, Eph. 5. 29. are built upon the foundation of the Prophet's an● Apostles, Eph. 2. 20. have the Spirit of Christ, Eph. 4. 4. are built up together an holy and spiritual House to God— 1 Pet. 2. 5. God 's House, 1 Tim. 3. 15. Heb. 3. 6. are living Stones, a chosen Generation, a Royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, v. 9 faithful in Christ Jesus, Eph. 1. 1. The sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty, 2 Cor. 6. 17, 18. Christ is said to be their Husband, their Head; They his Bride, Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. his Temple, 1 Cor. 3. 16. Now he must have a brow of brass, that shall affirm that these Characters are applicable to the Parish-Assemblies of England, when they themselves will confess they appertain not to them. Are Drunkards, Swearers, Revilers, Persecuters of God and Holiness, lose, profane, scandalous livers (of which these Assemblies (for the most part) are constituted and made up) Saints, holy Brethren, such as are called out of the World? etc. None will dare to aver it.  
2dly. Where there is not the true form of a Church, there is not the true Church: But in the Parish-Assemblies of England there is not the true form of a Church; Therefore—  
The Minor (which is alone liable to exception) is evident. The form of a Church consists in the free and voluntary embodying together of Saints, giving up themselves to the Lord, and one another, according to his will (as we have already proved.) Now this cannot be asserted of the Parish-Assemblies. Those Civil divisions (for they are not others) were of the institution of man (as we have demonstrated) And to this day they are held together by penal Statutes and Ordinances, such as never came into the heart of Christ to establish.  
3dly. There where there is not the Church-power, that of right belongs to a true Church of Christ, there is not a true Church of Christ: But in the Parish-Churches of England there is not that Church-power (nor as such are they capable of it) Therefore—  
The Minor (which alone is to be proved) is perspicuous. 1. The power of electing their own Officers they have not; This belongs to Patrons, Lord-Bishops, etc. 2. The power of admission of Members, and ejection of the Scandalous by excommunication they have not. The first a man hath by buying or renting a piece of Land in the Parish, and dwelling there: the other is managed in the Bishop's Courts, by a sorry thing called a Chancellor, it may be as deboist as the worst that is brought before him. Now that with respect to these things Christ hath entrusted his Church with power, we evince, chap. 2 & 4. of S. T.  
4ly. That company of men that are not capable of performing those duties, and cannot answer that end that Christ requires of his Churches, for which he instituted them, are not a true Church of Christ: But the Parish-Assemblies of England are not capable of performing those duties— Therefore.  
'Tis the Minor needs proof. The duties Christ requires to be performed by them, the end he aimed at in instituting his Churches was▪  
1. To set forth his honour and praise, Eph. 3. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 9  
2. To promote the true Light and Knowledge of God, Ephes. 1. 8. 1 John 1. 6, 7.  
3. The mutual edification of one another in the things of God, 1 Thess. 5. 11. Eph. 4. 29. 1 Cor. 14. 26. Judas 20. I appeal to any  man in the world, whether he thinks in his conscience that the Parish-Assemblies of England can perform these duties, answer this end. The contrary is most evident, and too notoriously known to be true, than to admit of a denial. But I shall not enlarge on what is already so judiciously asserted and argued by others, which Mr. T. is not able to evert. The Ordination of Lord-Bishops (of which he next speaks) is foreign from Scripture, if the Office it sel● be. This we prove, chap. 3. of S. T. and Mr. T. once swore to extirpate it as such, and I am sorry to find him now pleading for it. Whether I have abused John 10. 1, 9 neither Mr. T. nor I must now be judge; the judicious Reader will judge for us both, and I doubt not according to truth.   

Sect. 4.  
The Ministers of Engl. not to be heard as gifted-Brothren. Judas not particularly declared by Christ, Joh. 6. 70. to be a Devil. The Animadverter abuseth the Author of the S. T. in affirming he ●ies up Saintship to particular Churches; whom the Scripture makes Brethren. Mr. T. reduceth the Brotherhood to a smaller scantling than we. We cannot perform the duties of Brethren to the Ministers of Engl. and why. If we own the best of them for Brethren, we must own the worst. Of Judas his receiving the Sacrament. The mixed multitude making acclamation to Christ of joining with other in Worship. We separate no more from the Church of England than they do from us. 1 Cor. 5. 1●. 'Tis not lawful to break Bread with the visibly profane, proved. I● what sense the Bishops are styled Reverend Fathers. They are not to be owned as such. The Ministers of Engl. disorderly walkers, proved. They engage against Scripture-Reformation. 2 Thes. 3. 6. explained. Of Obedience to Ministers.— Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 7. opened. We ought not to hear those from whom 'tis our duty to withdraw. Mr. T. his Arguments to the contrary, answered.  
IN Sect. 4. our Animadverter replies to the proofs produced in S. T. for the confirmation of the second part of our Minor Proposition, viz. That 'tis not lawful to hear them as gifted-brethrens; because, 1. The most of them are not gifted, nor 2. Brethren, being Canonical Drunkards, Swearers, etc.  
To this he saith, 1. That any of them are such, is to be bewailed in a Christian way; the persons guilty are to be rebuked, Leu. 19 17. not to be thus charged in print, in a Book vented in the dark, tending to make them odious.  
Answ. 1. When he shall be pleased to manifest the Rule of Christ I have trangressed, in thus charging them, I shall as publicly acknowledge my error. Those that sin, rebuke before all, 1 Tim. 5. 20. is some part of what I have to plead for my so doing. 2. If the Book were vented in the dark, I may thank them for it, who would have such things stifled, that their works may not be made manifest. 3. I make them not odious, they have made themselves so, throughout the Nation. 4. Mr. T. his hoping this is not true, proves nothing: the contrary is manifest to thousands.  
He adds, 2dly. Were all this and more true, yet they might be heard preach the Gospel, as Brethren gifted.  
Answ. But knows he what he saith? We affirm that they are not gifted, nor Brethren; that this should be true, and more too, and yet they might be heard as gifted Brethren, is such a Paradox to me, that comes but a little short (if a little) of downright nonsense; i. e. there are some may be heard as Brethren gifted, that are neither gifted, nor Brethren. That Judas was declared by Christ to be a Devil, John 6. 70. as he suggests, is false. He saith one of them was so, but names him not. 'Tis true, John tells us, ver. 71. that he spoke of Judas, but this neither he nor any of the rest knew till afterwards.  
We add in S. T. 3dly. The best of them cannot by Saints, in respect of Gospel-communion, be accounted Brethren. For, 1. There was never any giving up ourselves each to other, whence such a Brotherhood doth result.  
To this Mr. T. answers. 1. By Saints he means such as are members of a particular, instituted, Congregational Church, distinct from the Presbyterian; for such only are accounted Saints by him, as give up themselves each to other, etc.  
Answ. False, and untrue. I am amazed to see with what conscience this matter is managed by him, no regard seems to be had to truth and honesty, so he can cast dirt upon his Antagonist. 2. 'Tis contrary to my avowed principle and practice. 3. I do verily believe that there are many Saints in England that are neither for the Presbyterian, Parochial, or Congregational way; yea, with Dr. Ames, Trip. p. 523. afterwards cited by him, I doubt not to say (according to my conscience) that amongst those which live under the tyranny of the Pope's and do not utterly separate from him, through ignorance, there be many Christians— belonging to the true Catholic Church, and so to be accounted our godly Brethren (viz. upon the account of their Catholicism) and so I believe there are in the Church of England, som● amongst the Ministers thereof, of whom I say still, I deny not, but they may be good men. But yet we say, 4. That upon the account of Gospel-Communion, they cannot be accounted by us, as Brethren, because they are (as Mr. T. saith rightly) no members of a Christian Church, i. e. any particular instituted Church of Christ.  
That which is added by him, makes much against him. 1. 'Tis false That the Scriptures make all who hold the same Faith, and are Baptised into Christ, to be Brethren, and Members of all the Churches in the world, Gal. 3. 26,— 1 Cor. 10. 16. — and 12. 12,— Eph. 4. 4. They make them to be Brethren only of those particular Churches to whom those Epistles are directed, as the serious reading them will evince.  
2. Were what he saith true, He would reduce the brotherhood, to a narroer compass, than we, either do or dare; For if his notion be true, only those that are baptised into Christ, can be so accounted, but Mr. T. thinks, that only such as are baptised at years of discretion are thus baptised into Christ; Therefore only such are Brethren, and then I am sure the Ministers of England are not to be so accounted. Thus frequently doth he wound to the heart the cause he undertakes the management of with his own sword. We add in S. T.  
Secondly, We cannot (as things stand) perform the duties of Brethren to them, according to Mat. 18. nor will they, or can they, in the state in which they stand to us. What Mr. T. hath answered to Ma●. 18. in his answer to the Preface, Sect. 15. we have refuted in the Vindication thereof, Sect. and have evinced a Congregational Church is there meant. 'Tis no Argument of hatred (as Mr. T. according to his wont candour suggests) that we cannot perform the duties of Brethren to them.  
1. They are a Church of such a Latitude, that 'tis almost impossible we should do so.  
2. We are in no Church-state together.  
3. Should we reprove them, we could do no more, (therefore we cannot perform the duties of Brethren, required by that Scripture, which indoctrinates us, in case of non-repentance, to bring it before the Church) we know no Churth to whom we may complain: The Parochial Assemblies have no power to deal with them: The Bishop's Court is no Church of Christ, yet thither must we appeal, if any where, and we have little encouragement to do so, it consisting of persons altogether ●● vicious and deboyst as those we are to complain of. We say further in S. T.  
Thirdly, If we acknowledge the best of them for Brethren, we must acknowledge the worst of them. For, 1. They are all members of the the same Church. 2. They profess themselves to be one Brotherhood.  
To which Mr. T. pretends a Reply, in a Rhapsody of words, little, or not at all, to purpose.  
He tells us, 1st, Of a twofold Communion, Private, or Public, and that the worst of the present Ministers, are to be accounted as Brethren, in respect of private Gospel-Communion; i. e. we are to restore them as Brethren, open our hearts to them, according to Gal. 6. 1. Mal. 3. 16. Jam. 5. 16. I industriously omit his Scoff, of Pharisaically minded, reputed Saints, which he must shortly account for, to him, who will reckon with men for their hard and reproachful words to his Children. And to what may be thought of any moment in this his Answer, we Reply.  
Answ. 1. His distinction of Private and Public Gospel-Communion, is impertinent, as is his discourse of the lawfulness of holding private Gospel-Communion with them. 'Tis of Communion with them in preaching, etc. that we are treating, which he accounts Public Communion.  
2. Not one of the Scriptures produced, but condemn what he would have them justify. The Brethren Paul speaks of, Gal. 6. 1. were Members of a particular instituted Church. Gal. 1. 2. Such as had received the Spirit. Chap. 3. 2. The Sons of God by Faith. Vers. 26. Baptised into Christ; putting him on. Vers. 27. Sons into whose hearts God had sent forth the Spirit of his Son, crying Abba Father. Chap. 4. 6. Heirs of God through Christ, Vers. 7. Such as knew God; were known of him, Vers. 9, etc. Mal. 3. 16. Speaks expressly concern-such as feared the Lord, in opposition to the proud and them that work wickedness; such as those mentioned, Jam. 5. 16. which Mr. T. knows in his conscience cannot be affirmed of the worst of the present Ministers. Certainly the forementioned Characters fit not the drunkards, swearers, adulterers (that are known to be) of that Tribe.  
Nor, 3. Am I able to make any tolerable sense of what follows, that concerning this, it follows not, if we acknowledge the best of them as Brethren, we must also acknowledge the worst of them, he having asserted, and introduced the Scriptures but now requoted, to prove it, that concerning this, The worst of the present Ministers are to be accounted as Brethren.  
2dly, As touching public Gospel-Communion, he tells us, It consists in hearing them, praying with them, receiving the Lords. Supper, etc.  
Answ. Very well! How proves he that, with respect hereunto, we m●y own them, as Brethren?  
Why, 1. Judas might be heard, as an Apostle, was (perhaps) a Communicant at the Lords Supper; It's therefore lawful to hear and joy● in the Lord's Supper, with the worst of the present Ministers.  
Answ. 1. Of the case of Judas, that is repeated, usque ad na●s●am; we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. At present we shall only say.  
2. He was an Apostle sent forth by Jesus Christ, which the present Ministers of England are not.  
3. He was a visible Saint, carried it so well, that but immediately before his betraying his Lord, the Disciples seemed rather to suspect themselves than him; which cannot be affirmed of visible Drunkards.  
4. That he received the Communion is uncertain; If he did, they were in a Church-state, he was a visible Saint, no actual crime, or evil could be laid to his charge; so that this instance makes not a● all for Communion with the worst (or best) of the Ministers of England, who are not in a Gospel Church state, etc.  
He further tells, 3dly, A mixed multitude made acclamation to Christ, yet our Lord justified their joining together in their praying and praising God, Mat. 21. 16. Luke 19 39  
Answ. 1. This was but one act.  
2. Out of a Church-state.  
3. From an extraordinary impulse of Spirit.  
4. They joined with the Disciples, were not the mouth of the Disciples to God, and therefore reacheth not at all our present Cas●.  
5. Mr. T. Can never prove this Consequence valid. The Disciples sing Hosanna to Christ, and others, a mixed multitude, by an extraordinary impulse of Spirit, sing so to; Ergo, It's our duty to join with the present Ministers, as Brethren, in praying, preaching, receiving the Sacrament, etc. which yet he must make good, or confess he hath hitherto proved nothing.  
He adds, 4thly, 'Tis no sin to join in the true Worship of God, w●th any, if we have no command to withdraw from that Service, because of their presence, nor power to exclude them, and yet bound to the duties then performed; Believers might prophesy and hear it, though unbelievers came in, 1 Cor. 14. 24.  
Answ. 1. This Animadverter takes for granted, what we deny, First, That the true Worship of God is performed in the Parish Assemblies. All praying and preaching is not the true Worship of God. The offering Sacrifice at Jerusalem was so, but not elsewhere. These things must be performed in the way appointed by him, else they cannot be so accounted.  
2dly. 'Tis true, bond we are to perform the duties they pretend to perform, but according to the Institution of the Lord, not man's devising, as they are performed in the Church of England, Isa. 29. 13. Mat. 15. 7.  
3ly. Though it be no sin to join in the true Worship of God, yet 'tis a sin to join with false worshippers, in a false way of Worship, as praying after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, hearing an Antichristian Minister.  
4thly, Believers, 'tis true, might prophesy though unbelievers came in; but it doth not therefore follow, that '●is lawful for Believers to join with Unbelievers, or forsake the Way and Institutions of Christ, to go to the Assemblies of Unbelievers and hear them Prophesy. As the worst of Ministers (of whom he is discoursing) and the generality of Parochial Assemblies undoubtedly are, if a Spirit of profaneness, visible debauchery, an excess of riot bespeak persons to be such. And from such he grants we are to separate by command from Christ, 2 Cor. 6. 17. to which may be added, Eph. 5. 11. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Acts 2. 39, 40. But why talks he of our separating from them, when they separate as much from us as we do from them; we were never no more of them than they were of us. Of Rev. 18. 4. we shall hereafter speak. For the present we deny, that by Babylon there, is meant only literal Rome, and expect the proof of his dictate. The keeping company, and eating interdicted, 1 Cor. 5. 11. he tells us, must be meant of eating Common Bread,— Because vers. 10. That keeping company which is forbidden to such Brethren, is allowed in vers. 9, 10. to the Fornicators of the world, which cannot be Gospel-Communion, keeping company in eating of the Lords Supper.  
Answ. 1. It seems then that with the Fornicators of the world, we may not have Gospel-Communion; if so, than not with the Church of England, for with it we cannot have Communion without holding fellowship with such as these.  
2dly, If it be not lawful to have Communion with a Brother, one of the same particular Church (for of such an one the Apostle speaks) that is a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, so far as to common eating and drinking, then, a fortiori, may we argue, it is utterly unlawful to have communion with him in the Worship of God, and much more unlawful to have fellowship with one we never walked with in the way of the Gospel, according to any institution of Christ.  
3. That 'tis lawful to hold Communion in eating the Lords Supper, with Railers, Drunkards, etc. I am sorry to find Mr. T. asserting, of which we expect his proof. The contrary is evident. 1. Persons must be in a Church-state, before they are capable of the regular enjoyment of that Ordinance; which is a Church-Ordinance, and part of Instituted Worship; but Persons of such a Complexion, are not fi● matter for a Church, as we before proved. Therefore— 2. Those who ought to be excommunicated out of a Church, were they in, we may not have Communion with (especially when in a false Church-state, as is the case of the members of the Church of England) But persons of such a character, as the Apostle mentions, should be excommunicated out of the Church. Therefore— 3. Those with whom we have Communion in breaking Bread as a Gospel-Ordinance, with them we are one Bread, 1 Cor. 10. 17. But we may not be one Bread with Drunkards, etc. Therefore— 4. Those with whom we are commanded to have no fellowship, with them we may not have fellowship in that Ordinance of breaking Bread: But with such as these we are commanded to have no fellowship, Eph. 5. 11. That the People of God can scarce ever break Bread with comfort in the best instituted Churches (as he tells us) from this doctrine, is a notoriously false Crimination, a mere Calumny. His subsequent scoff, is such froth and vanity as becomes not his years nor profession, we pass it over as beneath us to take further notice of.  
We add in S. T. 3dly, That we cannot acknowledge the present Ministers for our Brethren, but we must acknowledge the Bishops for our Reverend Fathers, for theirs they are; but that we cannot do.  
To this Mr. T. adjoins, Sect. 5. 1. They are called their Reverend Fathers, in respect of their Ordination.  
Answ. 1. But we cannot own them as Reverend Fathers, with respect hereunto, when we assuredly know they are herein usurpers of what doth not appertain to them.  
But 2dly, This is not all, they own them as such upon the account of their Authority over them, and the Parochial-Assemblies in the respective Dioceses, who are to give forth Canons and Laws for them to walk by, in not a few things relating to Worship (as is known) Now so we cannot own them as our Reverend Fathers, we know no honour or obedience we own them as such. We think the inspection of one Bishop over an hundred Congregations, can be proved by no better Arguments than the inspection of the Pope over an hundred thousand: That a Diocesan and Ecumenical Bishop are much of the same kind, and have their standing on the same foundation. We know no Bishop of the institution of Christ, but a Pastor of a particular Congregation. He that pretends to more, must prove his pretensions, or we cannot but look upon him as an usurper. I would gladly know whether Mr. T. thought it lawful to own them as his Reverend Fathers, when he swore to extirpate them with the whole Hierarchy? and whether his so doing were an act of filial obedience? That they are to be accounted Fathers, in respect of their (Antichristian) Office; because the Apostle saith, 1 Tim. 5. 1. That an Elder is to be entreated as a Father, when they are not Elders, but a degree above them, not from the Institution of Christ, but the Courtesy (at the best) of Princes, he will never prove. Of their success in begetting others to Christ, I understand nothing: Those whom they have begotten, may upon the account thereof esteem them as their Reverend Fathers; but yet I am apt to think, should they not be invested in the Title till then, (for the most of them at least) they would go to their graves without it. These are but Figleave-covering, The Animadverter knows they are not upon this bottom so called or accounted, but with respect to that Office-power they have in the Church over the rest of the Ministers and Parochial-Assemblies thereof; which being a mere encroachment, usurpation and innovation, we dare not own them as such. We further argue in S. T.  
4thly. We cannot hear them as Brethren; because they are, if Brethren, such as walk disorderly, from whom we are bound to separate by express precept, Mat 18. 2 Thess. 3. 6. That they walk disorderly we prove. Those that walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles (and from the Primitive Church, for above 300 years after Christ, but according to the traditions of the old Bawd, and Strumpet of Rome) are such as walk disorderly: But the present Ministers walk not after the tradition received from the Apostles, but after the traditions of the Whorish Church of Rome: Therefore— The Major is bottomed upon the express words of the Apostle, in the place instanced in, and were it not, no person of ingenuity would have the confidence to deny it. The Minor we prove by particular instances. They have no Apostolical written Tradition for Liturgies, Surplice, Cross in Baptism, etc. If they have, let them produce it, and we are satisfied; if not, they are disorderly walkers (and to be separated from) that they are such, 2. cannot be denied by such as pretend to Reformation, if submitting to ordination, or reordination by a Lord-Bishop, covenanting, and protesting with detestation against a Reformation according to the Scriptures, and the best reformed Churches be so.  
In answer to which, Mr. T. tells us. 1. That it belongs not to him to speak for the present Ministers, but to themselves.  
Answ. 1. And indeed many sober minded persons think so too. It very ill becomes any man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to go about to build again the things he once destroyed.  
But yet 2ly, It's not the part of an Advocate thus to desert his Clients in open Court. If he undertake their defence, it appertains to him to answer for them, to what is objected against them.  
However, he acquaints us, 2ly, what he conceives they would say for themselves. 1. That they do not covenant and protest with detestation against a Reformation, according to the Scripture, and the best reformed Churches—  
Answer. The whole of my intendment in that expression, was to intimate their renunciation of that Covenant, wherein the Reformation intimated, was solemnly engaged to be promoted: whic● what is it less than to protest against the Reformation therein asserted, and enjoined? That they did this is evident, from their subscription of the declaration, or acknowledgement following. I A. B. do declare that I do hold, there lies no obligation upon me, or on any other person, from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any change, or alteration of Government, either in Church or State; and that the same was in itself an unlawful Oath—  
That they did, because they judged the matter of the Covenant at least with respect to reformation of the Church, by purging it of the Hierarchy, to be sinful, I do suppose they will not deny, nor that they renounce sin without detestation. So that the Author of S. T. will in the judgement of sober minded persons, be soon acquitted fro● being in this matter a Calumniator.  
He tells us, 2ly. He conceius they would justify their submitting to Ordination, or reordination by a Lord-Bishop, their owning, and reading a Liturgy in the Church, their wearing the Surplice, Crossing in Baptism, etc.  
Answ. 1. No one doubts but they would; nor can any other be expected from them, who are in the practice of these things. But that because they will justify them, therefore they are no disorderly walkers, is not (in my poor judgement) an argument of the least weight. The Papists will justify their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Image-worship, and the rest of their abominable idolatries, and bring Scripture to prove it lawful too. Gregorius de Valentia tells us, there is some worship of Images lawful, and proves it from 1 Pet 4. 3. because the Apostle would there deter them from the unlawful worship of Idols: yet I hope Mr. T. will not affirm they are not disorderly walkers, and to be separated from as such.  
2ly. We say not, that they themselves will confess that they are disorderly walkers; but that such as Mr. T. who have covenanted against Bishops, and pretended to be for Reformation, cannot deny, but that they are indeed so, with respect to the matters instanced in: which he must acknowledge to be true; for they are the very things they covenanted against, as intolerable disorders and abuses to remove out of the way. So that however they might call me an egregious false accuser (which yet were but a sorry answer to the charge laid against them) yet one would not have expected such language from Mr. T. These things are disorders, or they are not: If they are not, why did this Animadverter Covenant, Preach, Print against them, glory that he was one of the first that in print testified his dissatisfaction touching them. If they are, most assuredly those that practise them are with respect to them disorderly walkers. And is Mr. T. of late grown such a fond Admirer of them, that a man cannot speak truth of them, but he must call him an egregious false accuser, I am afraid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and seriously to review with what spirit he writ such passages as these.  
He adds, 3dly. These practices (except the first) are not of such a degree of pravity (whether justifiable or sinful) as that barely for them they should be reputed in the number of Disorderly walkers, and so after due process, to be separated from, by virtue of positive precept from Christ, Mat. 18. 2 Thess. 3. 6. For 1. Mat. 18. 15, 16. is meant of personal injuries, the Separation permitted is a Separation only from civil eating and familiar reception, not from Gospel-communion.  
Answ. 1. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and hath already been fully confuted.  
2dly. He further affirms, that the disorderly walking, 2 Thess. 3. 6. must be understood of sins of greater pravity, than the particulars instanced in, and charged upon them, except the first, which they will deny.  
Answ. 1. But the first we have proved against them; therefore they are disorderly walkers, according to this Scripture, by Mr. T. his confession, and so to be separated from.  
2. Every sin is a disorderly walking; if persons will stand in, justify, plead for any sin, they are to be separated from, by virtue of this Apostolical precept.  
But 3dly. If the sins charged upon the present Ministers be too small to constitute the disorderly walking here mentioned, what are the greater that do so? The gross sins (he tells us of) of any Brother, not a Minister, who was bound to work — v. 10. such as those, 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 12. 20, 21.  
Answ. 1. Why the gross sins of a Brother, not a Minister? Is not the Ordinance of private admonition, Church-Censures, an Institution of Christ, out of the abundance of his love for the good of his Children? Is a Minister exempt from it more than others? he will not sure say so.  
2dly. Why such gross sins as those mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2. Cor. 12. 20, 21. doth the Apostle charge the Church of Thessalonica with any such evils as those there mentioned? nothing less! These are instanced in, because the Animadverter supposeth (at the least some of) the present Ministers are not guilty of them. Let the Scriptures be perused, if the evils mentioned may not be charged upon the most (if not all of them) and that without the least breach of charity, I am mistaken.  
Though 3dly, The evil the Apostle calls disorderly walking, is supposed to be only a Brother's living idly, or not working; which that it is a greater sin, than what we have here charged the Ministers of England with, will not in haste be believed, by such as know the Lord to be a jealous God, and the abhorrency of his Soul against humane Inventions in, and additaments to his Worship; I say, supposed to be— For I am of the mind, that the disorderly walking, v. 10. is but a branch of that disorderly walking, v. 6. which may be taken in general for all kind of evil carriage; and so includes in it the particulars mentioned. That by tradition v. 6. should be meant only that command, v. 10. is not likely. 'Tis rather to be extended to those mentioned 2 Thes. 2. 15. And laid down as a direction, or help to secure them from the cheats, and innovations of Antichrist, and his minister's, whom he tells them should come, and that with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, intimates that many should believe their lie, v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. presses ●hem v. 15. to stand fast, viz. in the doctrine of the Gospel, with respect to Faith and Worship, to hold the Traditions they had been taught by them, v. 15. And having prayed for them, v. 16, 17. and exhorted them to pray for him; he tells them of his Faith and Confidence touching their establishment by the Lord, and keeping them from evil, chap. 3. 1, 2, 3. And again, praying for them, v. 5. he presseth, v. 6. to withdraw from every Brother that shall walk disorderly, and not according to their Traditions, i. e. shall so far side with Antichrist and his Ministers, as to practise & conform to his Innovations in the Worship of Christ; which we prove they do. And the things mentioned are known to be such. Nor is it necessary that we produce an Apostolical tradition expressly against them, because in matters of Worship, that which is not commanded, is forbidden. What Mr. T. hath said in answer to Chap. 1. Sect. 3. we have already replied to.  
To his Query, Where is your Apostolical tradition for your Church-Covenant, Election of Ministers? we shall only say, That when Mr. T. (or any one for him) shall be able to show as much Apostolical tradition, for the matters with respect to which we charge the Ministers of England as disorderly walkers, as the learned Ainsworth, Cotton, Bartlet, and we ourselves in S. T. have showed for the matters instanced in by him, we shall surcease our accusation, and acknowledge we have done them wrong.  
That which he adds, 3dly, If every one that hath not a written Apostolical tradition for what he doth, walks disorderly, than every one that sins walks disorderly, will receive a speedy dispatch. Answ. He doth so!  
Yea but then this Author (saith he) if he be not a Perfectionist, nor thinks himself excluded from the number of those, of whom Jam. 3. 2. 1 Joh. 1. 8. is a disorderly walker, and to be separated from.  
Answ. Setting aside his scoff, which becomes him not at all, I answer, First; Disorderly walking is twofold. 1. Private, known only to a man's own self, which is matter of burden▪ sorrow and lamentation to him, under which he groans and wars against it. 2dly, More public, which is twofold: 1. Such as through weakness, and the remainders of corruption the Children of the Lord do fall into, which they are ashamed of, grieved for, and are thankful to any that shall reprove them for it, and help them against it. Or 2. Such as is owned, avowed, men justify themselves in the practice of, will not, whatever is said against them, be reclaimed from. Persons guilty of disorderly walking in this last sense, we say are to be separated from; and that this is the case of the Ministers of the Church of England is notoriously known.  
He proceeds and tells us 4thly. The present Ministers will be apt to allege for themselves, that they have Apostolical tradition for those practices for which they are accused as disorderly walkers, viz. Rom. 13 1. Heb. 13. 17. and be ready to recriminate us for separating from our Brethren, disobeying our Ministers and Governors commanding things lawful.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis very like they may do the one, and the other. As for the latter, Si accusari sufficiat, nemo erit innocens: Let them (or ●ny for them) prove that we have separated from any of them, and therein broken any rule of the Gospel of Christ; that they are by virtue of any appointment of Christ our Ministers and Governors, whom we ought to obey, and that the things required are lawful, and they will be supposed to say somewhat that we are concerned to take notice of, but till then we are innocent. Rom. 13. 1. Tells us We must obey the Powers that are of God, but saith not we must do so in that which is sinful, in their additaments to the Worship of Christ. In such cases, neither Solomon, nor Jeroboam was to be obeyed; neither Kings, Popes, or bishops are to be subjected to. The Renowned Hus tells the Council of Constanc● to their face, that If the Pope's Commandment be not concordant and agreeable with the Doctrine of the Gospel, or the Apostles, 'tis not to be obeyed. And citys Isidore speaking thus, He which doth rule, and doth say or command any thing contrary or BESIDES the will of God, or that which is evidently commanded in the Scriptures, he is honoured as a false-witness of God, or Church-Robber: whereupon we are bounden to obey no Prelate, but in such case as he doth command or take counsel of the counsels and commandments of Christ. Heb. 13. 17. tells us we must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obey our Rulers, or Leaders; but this doth not prove, that we must obey those that we never owned to be our Leaders, that we are sure by virtue of any institution of Christ are not such, and that in every foppery they shall devise. Sure it was not the duty of the good people of England, to obey the Guides or Rulers were set over them in the Marian days, and yet they might with as good reason have urged this Scripture for subjection to them, as these now. It was a presentation, institution and induction then as now, (together with an Episcopal Ordination) that constituted them Ministers of this or that Parish. Let the Individuals acquit themselves to be Ministers of Christ, and we shall pay them whatever obedience can be manifested from any precept of Christ, to be due to them from us, but till then.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
But for a conclusion of all, our Animadverter adds, That if the Ministers were disorderly walkers, and to be withdrawn from, yet it doth not follow, that they might not be heard as gifted Brethren. Of which he gives us three learned reasons. 1. Because the withdrawing themselves, from every Brother that walks disorderly, cannot be meant of their excluding themselves from Hearing, Praying, or receiving the Lords Supper if such an one be present.  
Answ. Right! but though this withdrawment from such a Brother cannot be meant of exclusion from hearing, whilst he is present, yet I hope it may from hearing him, who walks thus disorderly. The same may be said of receiving the Lords Supper. If he be there as a looker-on, merely; this ought not to hinder any from waiting upon Christ, in that institution (though the Church of England in imitation of the old Pagan custom, of the Druids etc. of old, interdicts the Priests saying service, whilst an excommunicate person is there;) but if he shall be forced upon the Congregation, as a member to join with them in that ordinance, and much more, as their Minister to celebrate it, as is our case, it is the duty of the Saints to surcease the performance of that duty, for that season. It was the keeping themselves from being polluted that caused them to sever from him, that reason remaining, (which it doth, till he hath testified his repentance) their withdrawment is to continue.  
He adds, 2ly. That the withdrawment mentioned 2 Thes. 3. 6, 14. is only from arbitrary communion in entertainments etc.  
Answ. This is an old shift of Mr. T. we have already refuted.  
He further tells us, 3ly. If we omit it, we omit the Worship of God, and so break his Commandments.  
Answ. 1. This is a mere petitio principii, we deny the ministration of the Sacraments according to the rights of the Church of England, to be the Worship of God, strictly so called.  
2ly. There's no need, through grace, of omitting the Worship of God; if we worship not with them, there are meetings of his people, whither we may have recourse to worship him in his own way. To what follows in this chapter, we have already answered. We attend his advance towards the discussion of our third argument, of which in the next chapter.    

CHAP. FOUR  

Sect. 1.  
Such as act from an Antichristian calling— not to be heard, proved. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it signifies. Who is Antichrist, what is Antichristian, explained. The Ministers of England, derive their Office-power from the Papacy. The Bishops of England, Petty-popes'. 'Tis unlawful to attend upon the teachings of Antichrist, therefore upon the teachings of such as act by a power derived from him. Christ calls his People to separate from every thing of Antichrist. Rev. 18. 4. and 14. 9 explained. Of trying the Spirits, 1 Joh. 4. 1. of Christ's instituting Officers of his ow●. No promise of a blessing in attending upon an Antichristian Ministry.  
IN Chap. 3. of S. T. a third Argument is produced against hearing the present Minister's, viz.  
Those that act in the holy things of God, by virtue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling, are not to be heard, but to be separated from: But the present Ministers of England, act in the holy things of God, by virtue of an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling. Therefore—  
The Major is evident: for, 1. The Power, Office and Calling of Antichrist is opposite and contrary to the Power, Office, and calling of Christ: not to separate from such as act by virtue of such an Office-power, is to stand by, and plead for Antichrist, against Christ.  
The sum of what Mr. T. answers hereunto is, If by Antichristian Power, Office, and Calling be meant the Papal Power— and the acting in the holy things, be by preaching the doctrine of the Trent Council, in the points determined therein against Protestants, by administering Sacraments according to the Roman Missal, and Discipline according to the Canon-Law of the Popes; the Major is granted and the Minor denied. But if by Antichristian power, etc. be meant by virtue of ministry according to the Liturgy, Articles of Religion, and Homilies of the Church of England, from the Ordination and Licence of the Bishops, his Major is denied: that which he calls Antichristian, is not truly such; and it is denied that what he calls Antichristian is opposite, and contrary to the Power, Office, and Calling of Christ—  
Answ. 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as this Animadverter tells us) found only in the Epistle of John; and principally 1 John 2. 18. where the Apostle distinguisheth between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, between the mean Antichrists and the main Antichrist. The best interpretation of the word, seems to be a false Christ, or ● Counter-Christ; one that under the pretence of being for Christ, doth really oppose Christ (the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both in opposition and composition signifies [For] in the Scripture, as Mat. 2. 22. Acts. 13. 7. and in Classical Writers, as Homer, Hesycheius &c.) in his Offices, Ministry, Discipline, Worship— He is Antichrist that under the pretence of acting for Christ, doth indeed (though covertly) act against him, in his name, and under the vizard of his authority. That is Antichristian, that though it be pretendedly for, and from Christ, it really is not. And in this sense the Major is to be understood, Those that act in the holy things of God, (viz. Praying, Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, etc.) by virtue of a Power, Office, and Calling, that is not (though pretendedly) really from Christ, are to be separated from, as we plainly declare in the first proof of the Major proposition, in S. T. which Mr. T. would have disproved if he could: But in the stead thereof he labours to raise a dust with a multitude of words, before the eyes of the Reader, that he might not be able to perceive wherein the weight of the Argument lay.  
2ly. He acknowledges the Major to be true, if understood of the Papal Power, Office, and Calling, so that he which acts in the Holy things of God (i. e. in Preaching, for whether it be the doctrine of the Trent Council, (or otherwise) is not in this case considerable; for if he act from an Antichristian Office-Power, 'tis not his preaching Truth which would make that Antichristian Office-Power, Christian) administration of Sacraments according to the Roman Missal, and discipline according to the Canon-Law) by virtue of an Antichristian Papal Power, is not to be heard— but in this sense he denies the Minor. And I cannot but wonder at the confidence of the man; doth he not know that they derive their Office-Power from the Papacy? he is not so ignorant, as no● to know it. Do not the Bishops of England, exercise, the same power over the Clergy and Laity (as they are called) thereof, as the Pope doth over his, so that they are upon the matter Papilli Petty-popes'? Is this power Antichristan in the Papacy, and not so in the Prelacy? Is not the manner of administation of Sacraments in use amongst us, taken out of the Popish Missal? Mr. T. knows it is. Is not the Discipline of their Church from the Canon Law? with what forehead can he deny it? Whence is the Hierarchy, Ecclesiastical decrees, Episcopal jurisdiction, Procurations, Dispensations, Pluralities, Non-residencies, Popish-retained-Ceremonies, their Excommunications by a Commissary, Ordinations, Absolutions, Degradations, Visitations, Offerings, Courts, Silencing of Godly Preachers, disquieting the Lord's people for Nonconformity, if not from the Cannon-Law? These things are notoriously known to be from them. So that Mr. T. grants the present Ministers may lawfully be separated from. But this might be a slip of his pen before he was ware. That it is our duty to separate from persons acting from an Antichristian Power, Office, or Calling we prove.  
2ly. 'Tis unlawful to attend upon the Teachings of Antichrist, therefore upon the teachings of such as act by virtue of a power derived from him.  
To this Mr. T. replies. If by teachings of Antichrist be meant the teachings of the present Doctrine of the Church of Rome — and the power derived from him be meant the English Bishops Ordination, it is impudence to say they derived their power from Rome.—  
Answ. 1. We are not yet speaking of the Ministers of England, to separate from those that act from an Antichristian power, be they Ministers of Germany, Holland— if they so act in their Ministry, they are to be separated from, and that because we may not attend upon Antichrist in his Teachings, or Ministration: doth Mr. T. deny t●is? He saith indeed if they preach truth, we may attend upon their Ministry though they so act.  
Answ. But this hath been often said without the least proof, and as frequently replied to, and its inconsutilousness in its application to the present Ministers, who preach Popish Errors, and are interdicted the preaching all truth manifested. 'Tis an assertion most derogatory to the Dignity, and Authority of our Lord and King, and not to be born by his Loyal Subjects. Hath not he Servants enough of his own, to do his work, to preach his Gospel, but he must be beholding to the greatest enemies he hath in the world, to send forth Servants into his Vineyard.  
2dly. The present Ministers of England deny their power from the Papacy, or they do not; if they do not, it had been my mistake, not impudence to say they did. If they do, (as most certain it is they do, and they themselves acknowledge it and plead it) the Impudence is rather in Mr. T. to deny it.  
I add in S. T. 3dly. Christ calls his to separate from every thing of Antichrist, Rev. 18. 4. & 14. 9, 10, 11. Therefore from his Ministry, or such as act by virtue of an Antichristian power—  
To which our Animadverter replies. 1 Rev. 18. 4. may be understood of a local departure from Babylon, when her judgement of destruction from the Kings of the Earth draws nigh.  
Answ. 1. And who can hinder Mr. T. from making conjectures? his it may be is no proof that it is. However the ground of the Lord's calling them out of Rome (should it be granted him, that by Babylon were meant the City of Rome) is plainly intimated to be, lest they should partake of their sins. Not their dwelling in Rome, but their complying with the Antichristian Ministry, Worship— thereof, their abominable Rites and Ceremonies is that which is loathsome to the Lord.  
2dly. 'Tis true, God calls not his People to departed from every doctrine the Pope teacheth (there is some truth remaining amongst them, which is to be cleaved to, because truth) much less a rejection of the Bible— These are but vain words, empty flourishes, this Animadverter knows full well that these things are not affirmed by those with whom he hath to do.  
3dly. To a departure from her by forsaking Communion with her in Worship, and leaving subjection to her Government, he grants this Scripture may be extended: which is all we need contend for. The Worship of Rome and England are much the same, as we prove. The Church-government in use amongst us by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, issues from the same source and spring, as is known. Therefore a separation from the Worship and Ministry of England lawful by the Animadverter's confession.  
4thly. When God commands to come out of her, he must be interpreted to come out of every thing of her, viz. that which is truly hers; whatever hath not the stamp and authority of God upon it: for the reason why the Lord would have his forsake any thing of hers, is, because it is hers, and hath not his own Image and Superscription. 'Tis ridiculous to imagine, that God should command a separation from her Worship and Government, and not from her Ministry, when this is a main part of her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Church-Government.  
He adds, 2dly. By the Beast and his Image, Rev. 14. 9, 10, 11. is meant some Empire or State, which promotes Idolatry, the Roman Papacy, the worshipping of which is undoubtedly the acknowledging of its power, and subjection to their Idolatrous Decrees and Edicts; The receiving his mark is a profession of our being the servants of the Pope, to subject to his authority: and after the citation of Mr. Brightman and Mr. Mede speaking to this purpose, he saith, which doth evince that the worship of the Beast and his Image— is not retaining every usage of the Papists, though superstitious and corrupt, but acknowledging the universal Monarchy, of the Pope's adoring Images, the Host, etc.  
Answ. 1. But what doth evince that this is all that is intended by worshipping the Image of the Beast? Mr. T. would bear his Reader in hand, as if he had produced somewhat for the confirmation of his Assertion, when he hath not said the least word tending thereunto.  
The very truth is, 2ly. The Beast mentioned, Rev. 14. 9, 10. is the same with the Beast mentioned Rev. 13. 11. or the false Prophet, Rev. 19 21. or Antichrist considered in his Ecclesiastical State, composed of head (the Popes) and members, the rest of the Antichristian Clergy (whether at Rome, or elsewhere:) for as the learned Mede saith, the Pope alone maketh not up the Beast, except the Clergy be joined with him: since the Beast doth signify a company of men composed of a certain order of members (like as the Beast hath) not one man alone: the Image of the Beast cannot be a dumb Image, 'tis expressly said to be a speaking one, viz. the Ecclesiastical policy, that in its Cannon-Laws (upon which both that of Rome and England is founded) breatheth forth nothing but Excommunication against such as shall disobey them, upon which they are delivered over to the Secular Power here with us, though not to be burned, yet to perpetual Imprisonment. The worshipping the Beast and receiving the mark, is subjection to an Antichristian Ministry, and Church-polity, from which it is the duty of the people of God to separate; and if we prove not the Ministers of England to be so, we acknowledge this Argument to be null, and that notwithstanding any thing in it hitherto asserted, it may be lawful to attend them.  
We say in S. T. 4ly. That there is not a command in the Scripture, enjoining Saints to take heed of being deceived, to try the spirits— but is an abundant demonstration of the truth of the first Proposition.  
To which Mr. T. subjoins; 1. If by acting in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian power— be meant their acknowledging the power, teaching the doctrine, owning the calling of him that is truly Antichrist, 'tis granted.  
Answ. To this we have already replied; 'Tis enough to prove any person ought to be separated from, if he act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian power, though the doctrine he preach be true.  
He adds, 2ly. The Scriptures mentioned forbidden (command he means) only to reject Antichristian Doctrine, and Worship, not every thing said by any without proof to be a thing of Antichrist.  
Answ. 1. Very well; If we prove then the Worship of the Church of England to be Antichristian, it is to be rejected. Now it being the Worship of the Papacy, which is acknowledged by him to be so, I cannot see how it can be otherwise.  
2ly. The Scriptures mentioned, fairly import, not only a command for the rejection of the Doctrine and Worship which is Antichristian, but them also that pretend to be, but really are not of God. The persons are to be proved and tried, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, try them as Goldsmiths try Gold, whether it be pure and right; and if you find them not to be so, reject them. 1 John. 4. 1.  
We proceed, and in S. T. say further, 5ly. The institution of Officers of his own, by Christ to be continued to the end of the World, Eph. 4. 11. evinceth the truth of the Major proposition.  
To this our Animadverter answers, 1. 'Tis true some of the Officers mentioned Ephes. 4. are to be continued to the end of the World in the way appointed by him, but that there is any particular way of Election— of ordinary ●astors, and Teachers, in those words appears not.  
Answ. Who saith there is? 'Tis sufficient they prove the continuation of the Officers in the Church to be an Institution of Christ. Of the particular way of their election we have mentioned elsewhere, as we have showed. 2ly. 'Tis well this Animadverter will acknowledge that there is a way appointed by Christ, in which Church-Officers are to be continued: which as I conceive is a part of Church-Government, which therefore cannot be left to such an indifferency as he sometimes intimates.  
He tells us 2ly. How the Major is proved by it he discerns not, unless this be the Argument; Christ hath appointed these, therefore no other are to be heard, which overthrows the hearing of Gifted-brethrens.  
Answ. We are contented with the form our words are by him cast into: only with this alteration, therefore no other are to be heard as Ministers, acting by virtue of an Office-Power, which makes nothing against the hearing of gifted Brethren. We further add in S. T.  
6ly. That there is no promise of a blessing in the whole Scripture, upon persons attending upon such a Ministry—  
Mr. T. replies, 1. Though there be no promise of a blessing upon persons attending on such a Ministry, yet if they Preach the Gospel truly, there is. Luk. 11. 28.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis not probable they should Preach the Gospel truly; as touching the present Ministers of England, they do not so. 1. They preach it from a false mission. 2ly. They preach it by halves (as is known) 3. They mixed many humane traditions therewith, and thereby obscure the Gospel, as Mr. T. himself in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum asserts. 4ly. There is no blessing promised to persons attending upon such a Ministry, Luk. 11. 28. Christ speaks not there of any such Ministry; the whole of his intendment is, that no external privilege, though it were to bear him in the Womb, etc. who was a true Messiah, renders a man glorious, blessed, and excellent, as a conformity to the divine will, which how much it is to his purpose others will judge.  
He saith, 2ly. If there were no promise of a blessing, the Major is not proved, unless this were true, They are not to be heard, but separated from, to whose Ministry as such, a blessing is not promised; which makes unlawful the hearing of gifted Brothers, unless they can produce such a promise.  
Answ. Let me seriously ask this Animadverter, whether he doth not when he goes to hear,— go to meet with God in that duty, and to receive a blessing from him? This he will not sure deny: now, I would know further, whence it is he expects to meet with God, and be blessed by him in his so doing? can he or any one in the world, give any other reason▪ but this, Because God hath promised to meet and bless his people, while they are waiting on him, in his own ways? Whether the work be managed by a Minister of Christ, as acting by Office-power, or a private Brother acting by virtue of Talents received, for the profiting and edification of the Body, we are not destitute of a promise of a blessing; Exod. 20. 24. Isa. 64. 5. Mat. 18. 20. Eph. 4. 11 to 15. But if we run to a false Ministry, to such as act from an Antichristian office and calling, I know not any promise of a blessing, but rather the contrary. So that the Major Proposition remains unshaken, notwithstanding Mr. T. his Battery against it. His next attempt is against the Minor, of which in the next Section.   

Sect. 2.  
The present Ministers of England, act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian power, office, or calling, proved. They are not from Christ. There is a twofold Church, Ministry, Worship. Of Luther's Ministry. The names, office of the present Ministers, their admission thereinto foreign to the Scripture. Of Suffragan Bishops.  
THat the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichristian power, office, or calling: (which is the Minor Proposition of the last mentioned Argument) we say in S. T. wants not sufficient demonstration. 1. The present Ministers of England are either from Christ, or from Antichrist, there is no medium— That they are not from Christ, besides what is already proved, may be further evinced.  
To which our Animadverter answers. 1. Mr. Bradshaw asserts, that there is a medium, and that a Ministry may be from Christ in respect of the thing ministered, though from Antichrist in respect of the way of entry into it; yea, he saith, it is not necessary that the ministry of Priests and Deacons, though ordained by Antichrist himself, should be the ministry of his apostasy; but notwithstanding his Ordination, their ministry may be the Ministry of Jesus Christ, as was the Ministry of Luther, Hus, etc.  
Answ. 1. All that Mr. Bradshaw saith is not Gospel, nor to be believed because he saith it.  
2dly. That the thing ministered should render that Ministry, that with respect to the way of entry into it is Antichristian, a Ministry of Christ, is to me such a riddle, as needs an Oedipus to unravel; I am sure the distinction is unscriptural. We read therein but of two Churches, 1. The Woman clothed with the Sun, (afterwards in the Wilderness) the Bride the Lamb's Wife, with her Ministry, Ordinances, Worship, (though in a mean persecuted state) called the Ministers of Christ, Men of God, Stewards of the Mystery of God, Angels, Pastors, etc. 2. The false Antichristian Church, called Babylon, the Whore, the Mother of Harlots, the Woman in pompous array, outward splendour and glory, drunk with the blood of the Saints, Rev. 17. 2, 3, 4. her Worship called the Wine of her Fornication, Abominations of the Earth— her Ministry called False-Prophets, Locusts (as some think) Rev. 9 3. unclean spirits like Frogs, Rev. 16. 13. And to one of these every (called Christian) Minister in the world must appertain: if to the first, they are of Christ; if to the second, of Antichrist.  
3dly. That a Ministry of Priests— ordained by Antichrist himself, is not a Ministry of his Apostasy, but a Ministry of Christ, had need be attended with more evidence than a bare assertion; it being so evidently false and untrue. How there should be any Antichristian Ministry in the world if that were true, I know not.  
4ly. The Ministry of Luther— was the Ministry of Christ: but he received not his Ministry from Rome, but his Friardom.  
Mr. T. adds of his own. If by being from Christ, or Antichrist, be understood of outward calling, Ministers may be neither from Christ nor Antichrist, and yet true Ministers (he should have said of Christ) as those that preached Christ even of envy, Phil. 1. 15, 18.  
Answ. 1. That a man should be a Minister of Christ, and not from Christ, or externally called according to his appointment, i. e. a Minister of Christ, and not a Minister of Christ, is somewhat a strange Assertion.  
2dly. How doth he prove that those, mentioned Phil. 1. preached Christ by virtue of an Office-power, as Ministers and not as gifted Brethren.  
3dly. If Ministers, how proves he that they were not from Christ in respect of outward calling. This he should have proved if he would have made good his Assertion, his failure wherein exposes it to the contempt of the judicious Reader. But our Animadverter delights in dictates without proof.  
His next advance is to the consideration of the evidence we bring to prove the present Ministers not to be from Christ. 1. Their names are foreign to the Scripture; where read we of Priests, as distinguished from Christians, in the new Testament, Deans, Canons, Petty-Canons— these are only found in the Pope's Pontifical, whence they are derived.  
To this he answers, 1. That the term Priests is the same with Presbyters, and that is sure found in Scripture, Acts. 11. 30.—  
Answ. 1. Thus indeed Hooker Eccles. Pol. l. 5. and before him Whitgift Answer to the Admonit. say, but in vain. For, 1. The words are never used to signify the same thing, but divers. 2. The first Assumers of the title (under the times of the Gospel) never intended to signify any such thing thereby. They assumed it not (merely) to distinguish themselves from the people, but as a note of distance amongst themselves.  
2dly. The other names (saith M. T.) note not any Ministry different from the Ministry of Christ.—  
Answ. 1. I stand astonished to hear Mr. T. say so: if they do not, those who bear those names are the Ministry of Christ: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Is this the draught of that hand, which was solemnly lift up to Heaven, when he swore to extirpate them, as none of Christ's Ministry?  
2dly. Where read we of any such Officers of Christ in the Scripture (who are not so called, as Lecturers— with respect to the manner of their doing the work of the Ministry) but with respect to some place in the Church, higher or lower than the residue of the Clergy?  
3dly. The Author of the S. T. argues not the names are foreign to Scripture, therefore the things, as this Animadverter falsely pretends, he asserts, as fast as he can, that both name and thing is so.  
4thly. 'Tis a shrewd sign that those Ministers came out of the Mint of Antichrist, who bear the names wherewith he stamps his Ministers.  
We add, 2dly. As their names are foreign to the Scripture, so are their Offices. Deacons attending tables we read of; But Deacons praying, preaching, administering Sacraments by virtue of an Office-power, an order of the first step to the Priesthood, we find not: Priests in the old Testament we read of, in the New, Saints are so called— but an Office of Priesthood in men for the Ministry of the Gospel, that are to be bounded by men in that their Office, must preach what they would have them, and cease when they would have them (as in the case of the present Ministry of England) the Scripture is a stranger to.  
To which Mr. T. adjoins, 1. If they be appointed to pray, preach, and administer Sacraments, they have this to say, that P●●●ip did so, Acts. 8.  
Answ. 1. The Church at Jerusalem, to which he was related as a Deacon, was first scattered. 2. It appears not that he preached by virtue of an Office-power, as a Deacon, or in any other capacity then as a gifted Brother. 3. 'Tis most certain it was no part of his work as Deacon, Acts. 6. 2. the attending on the Ministry of the Word is peculiarly distinguished from the attending Tables. 4. His baptising seems to be by the extraordinary, and immediate call and impulse of the Spirit: none of which can be asserted of these Deacons.  
He adds, 2dly. The Deacons Office may be well conceived the first step to the Priesthood— in that Paul requires of the Deacons, that they hold the Ministry of Faith, in a pure Conscience, and tells us that they who have used the Office of a Deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree— 1 Tim. 3. 9, 13.  
Answ. 'Tis true, Paul saith so, but that thence this Animadverter should be able to infer, therefore the Deacons Office may be well accounted the first step to the Priesthood, must be imputed to that acuteness of his, whereby he is enabled to deduce quidlibet ex quolibet, what conclusion he hath a mind from any premises. There being not a tittle more or less spoken by Paul of any such thing, nor thought of in those days.  
As for the name Priest, (he saith) if the Saints, as Saints, may be termed▪ Priests, then may the Elders.  
Answ. 'Tis true, the Elders, as Saints, may be so called, but not as Elders, or in respect of their Office of drawing nigh to God: nor doth the expression used by Paul, Rom. 15. 16. prove any such thing.  
Mr. T. proceeds. As for that which is added, that the present Ministry of England is bounded by men, in their Office; so as that they must preach what they would have them, and cease when they would have them; I think (saith he) 'tis not without example in the best ordered Churches.  
Answ. 1. I remember Pope Leo the 10th, in the Lateran Council, Ses. 2. decreed, That none should preach concerning the coming of Antichrist, but if the Lord shall reveal some things to others, as by Amos he promiseth to do, they ought not to divulge it, before the Sea Apostolic hath examined it, or if that cannot commodiously be, the Bishop with some others; he that doth otherwise let him be excommunicated. From whence the Reader may easily conjecture from what quarter the present practice of the Bishops in this matter doth arrive.  
2dly. 'Tis true, the Apostle would have Timothy to abi●e at Ephesus, that he charge some, that they teach no other doctrine, 1 Tim 1. 3. and Titus to reject an Heretic, Tit. 3. 10. and saith, 1 Cor. 14. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, the first must hold his peace— But that because Paul took all the care he could, to hinder the spreading of error, and the preventing disorderly prophesyings, (as more than one speaking at once) therefore 'tis lawful for the Bishops in an Antichristian way, by force and violence, to hinder the free passage of Gospel-truths, is like the rest of this B. D. Logic, for which I dare say the least Smatterer in that kind of learning, will say, he needed not to have taken any degree in the Schools.  
3dly. That the practice instanced in, is not without example in the best ordered Churches (after an unusual rate of modesty with him) our Dictator tells us, he doth think; but he might easily have informed himself otherwise. 'Tis such a piece of tyranny, that ●ell ordered Churches cannot bear, that persons sanctified, and taught by the Spirit of the Lord, sound in the Faith, called also according to the appointment, and way of Christ, to preach the Gospel, should no● be suffered so to do without the licence of an Antichristian Foundling, a dumb Idol of the Popes make, called a Lordain (I should have said a Lord) Bishop; Many of the worthies of the Lord have protested against, as the renowned John Hus, the Churches in Bohemia, the most eminent in the Council of Basil— as abominable and Antichristian.  
But Mr. T. further tells us, that if the Prelate's silence persons when they should not, they are accountable to Christ, but it is no proof that their Ministry is not from Christ; who submit to the commands of men, who have power over them, forbidding them to preach some truths—  
Answ. 1. That the Prelates are accountable to none but Christ (as this Animadverters expressions intimates) I am sorry to hear from him: the most flattering Canonist would not say more of the Pope himself.  
2ly. 'Tis a proof that the Ministry is not of Christ, that is so bounded, if Paul's words be true, Gal. 1. 10.  
3. That Lord Bishops have any power over the Ministers of Christ, by virtue of any institution of his, he cannot prove; the submission of Ministers unto them, in things Ecclesiastical, when they are destitute of such authority, is so far from being an extenuation, that it is an aggravation of their crime.  
We add in S. T. 3dly. That the admission of the present Ministers into their Office, by a Lord Bishop, without the consent of the Congregation, in which they act as Officers, is also foreign to the Scripture.  
What Mr. T. hath before said in opposition hereunto, is already answered. What he hath further to argue, shall be now considered. He tells us, 1. The admission of the present Ministers hath not always been by Lord-Bishops, some have been made by Suffragan Bishops—  
Answ. 1. The most of the present Ministers (Mr. T. denies not, nor can he) have their admission from a Lord-Bishop.  
2dly. The very truth is, they all have so, the Suffragan Bishops (he speaks of) is but the Lord Bishop's Deputy, who represents his Lordship's person in that act of Ordination, and therefore what is done by him, is done by the Lord Bishop.  
3dly. Admission by a Suffragan, titular Bishop, is foreign to Scripture, as well as admission by a Lord-Bishop.  
He proceeds, 2dly. Where the Parishioners are Patrons, there is the election of the Congregation.  
Answ. There are but few Parishes, that as Patrons, present their own Ministers, and yet those that do, must not have any Minister, but whom the Lord-Bishop pleaseth; his admission is still from him.  
He further tells us, 3dly. In others there is an implioit consent, in their Ancestors yielding that power to their Patron, to present; and an after-consent, by receiving him that is instituted as their Minister.  
Answ. This is a vanity not worth the minding. 1. He cannot produce any authentic Writing, testifying such a reddition by our Ancestors. 2. If he could, though it may be supposed they may alienate what of right belongs to us as men (which yet in many cases is false) 'tis impossible they should do so, with respect of what appertains to us as Christians. 3. The after-consent signifies nothing, they must consent whether they will or no; if they do not, but testify their dissent, by abstaining from hearing them,— they are presented into their Ecclesiastic Courts, excommunicated, imprisoned, ruined.  
He adds, 4thly. But whether these usages be right, or wrong, notwithstanding them, yet may the Offices of the present Ministers of England be from Christ.  
Answ. 1. This is a dictate without proof, which we reject. 2. That a Minister should in their names, office, and admission thereunto, not symbolise with the Ministers of Christ, and yet be his Ministers, is absurd and irrational to imagine. This we have proved of the present Ministers, and add, that in all these they symbolise with the Popish order of Priests: which we at large demonstrate in S. T. what Mr. T. excepts against it, shall be considered in the next Section.   

Sect. 3.  
The present Ministers of England symbolise with the Popish order of Priests. Of the name Priests. The abolition of names once abused to idolatry. Hos. 2. 15. Z●ch. 13. 2. explained. Baali what it signifies. Exod. 23. 13. Psal. 16. 4. opened. Of Orthodox Antiquity, 'tis no sufficient justification of what we do in divine things. The Testimony of the Ancients. M. T. his arguing and Baronius the Papist, alike. Ignatius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The book of ordering Priests and Deacons is stolen out of the Pope's Pontifical: as is evident by the parallel drawn betwixt them.  
THat the present Ministers of England symbolise wit● the Popish order of Priests, we evince in S. T. under several considerations.  
1. They are both called, and own themselves Priests; which being a term borrowed either from the Priests of the Law, the assertion of such a Priesthood, being a denial of Christ come in the flesh; or from the Priests of the Heathen (from whom the word Orders is undoubtedly borrowed) or from the Antichristian Church of Rome, such idolatrous, superstitious names, being commanded by the Lord to be abolished. Hos. 2. 15, Zech 13. 2. wants not its sufficient weight—.  
To which Mr. T. 1. The word Priest is no more than Presbyter, nor used in any other sense by the Papists, or the Church of England.  
Answ. 1. this hath already been replied to, than which there is nothing more false: The English of Sacerdos, is not, (nor ever was) Presbyter or Elder, but Priest.  
2ly. This is not to his purpose: The Ministers of England and Rome symbolise in name, if they are both called Priests, which this Animadverter cannot deny. Whether there hath not been a willingness in some to return to Popery manifestly discovered, let the Nation judge.  
He adds, 2dly. Zach. 13. 2. is not a command, but a promise. 2ly. It's the abolition of the names of Idols, not of Priests, that is there promised.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis true Zach. 13. 3. is a promise, but such an one as abundantly manifests the detestation of the Lord against them, which implies a command from God to his people, not to make use of them. 2dly. The names of Idols are the names used (peculiarly) in Idolatrous Worship; so that though Mr. T. never found Priests to be reckoned amongst Idols, (which yet they might too in days past have been, when too much idolised by the people.) Yet he knows the name Priest hath been used in idolatrous worship, both Heathen and Antichristian, peculiarly appropriated unto their Ministers therein employed.  
3dly. Hos. 2. 16, 17. is rather, he tells us, a prediction then a prohibition, God would be called Ishi not Baali, because that name signifies a kind husband, this, one that is cruel and rigorous: or, lest she should in thought remember the Idol, or be thought by others to continue that Idolatrous name.  
Answ. 1. The words are not merely a prediction, they are a prohibition also: Thou shalt call me no more Baali, we had thought had been an express forbidding them so to call him.  
2dly. The Question is, Whether these names were superstitious names, commanded by the Lord to be abolished, or not? upon whatother accounts they were so commanded: so that till Mr. T. proves that this was not abused to Idolatry, nor commanded by the Lord to be abolished, he doth but auram vapulare, speak nothing to the purpose.  
Yet, 3dly. That God would not be called Baali, because that name signifies a cruel and rigorous husband, is 1. more than puerile, every smatterer in that language knows the word Bagnal, or Baal, signifies not an austere, but a kind husband, (coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exceedingly to love) it signifies indeed a Lord, but that is metaphorically, and not a tyrannous and cruel Lord neither. 2dly. 'Tis wicked, being a charging of the holy God falsely; He is called Baali, their Lord, Isa. 54. 5. yet no cruel, and rigorous one I hope: I am sure he is there so called upon the account of his love and tenderness to his people, rolling away their reproach, and crowning them with dignity & glory. 3. The Spirit of the Lord gives us another reason of the rejection of the name v. 17. Groti. us saith well upon the place, the Church is interdicted the use of the name, out of horror of that name which hath been imposed on an Idol.  
We add in S. T. Of the same mind with us in this matter, is Hierom, the Hebrew Doctors, Sanctius, Polanus, Rivet—.  
M. T. replies, I do not think any of his Authors say so.  
Answ. 1. But it's evident they do say so: viz. that the names given to the Idols are to be abolished, and not given to God, Hierom in the words cited by him, affirms as much: I so hate the names of Idols, that I will not have it said Baali, but Ishi— God's hatred to the Idol, he tells you, is the ground why he will not have that Idolatrous name used in his service. I do not think but sacrificing Priests are altogether as abominable to the Lord; and by the same reason that name that hath been given to them, ought not to be given to his Ministers. What Rivet saith, he assents to, yet that is as much as we affirm, God abhorreth the use of names because they have been abused to Idolatry, the name Priests have been so abused, and this Animadverter must acknowledge as much, except he will deny the abominable Sacrament of the Mass, a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead, (as the Papists say) to be Idolatry; The Sacrificers, or Mass-Priests, being so called.  
The testimony of the Helvetian Churches he grants is, as we have reported: They give not the name Priest to their Ministers, not because they think the word as it answers to Presbyter (he tells us) is evil— but as it is used in the Church of Rome.  
Answ. 1. They know the word Sacerdos, Priest, answers not to the word Presbyter at all. 2. They reject the word Priests, because it hath been abused in the Papacy to Idolatry, and they read nothing of it as peculiarly applied to Ministers, by way of distinction from other Christians in the New-Testament.  
He tells us further, If Host 2. 16, 17. (as he will not deny, ver. 17. to import) be a prohibition according to the Law, Exod. 23. 13. it only forbids the using such names with honour, or so, as to trust in them, as Psal. 16. 4.  
Answ. 1. The Text saith expressly, Thou shalt call me no more Baali; for I will take away the names of Baalim out of their mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.  
2. Should we accept his interpretation, we must not use such names with honour, liking or approbation, according to Exod. 23. 13. Deut. 12. 3. Josh. 23. 7. Psa. 16. 4. it would avail him nothing; for although some ('tis true) do affix the name of Priests to the Ministers of England in a way of disgrace, yet they themselves assume it, as given to them by the Bishops, as an Ensign of Honour and Renown.  
But 3dly, there seems to be somewhat more in those prohibitions, they forbidden the frequent use of Idolatrous names, or names abused in Idolatrous service, and their use at all, in the Worship of God▪ The name of other Gods might not be heard (saith precious Ainsworth) out of their mouths, or imprinted in books, or graven on pillars— The Reub●nites therefore changed the names of Cities that carried Idol▪ names, Numb. 32. 38. And by the Hebrew-Canon it was decreed, from this Law; Whoso maketh a Vow in the name of an Idol, or that sweareth by it, is to be beaten, whether he sweareth thereby for himself, or for an Infiael. And it is forbidden to make an Infidel swear by his God, or to mention the name thereof, though not by way of Oath. Maimonid. Treat of Idolatry. ch. 5. sect. 10. That the Prophets who speak as the holy Ghost gave them utterance, did afterwards use the name Baal— is not at all to his purpose, the Spirit of the Lord is not bound, the Law was not made for him, but for us, 'tis not said I will not, but, you shall shall not.  
What he adds is most frivolous; 'twere wicked and abominable in our addresses to God to call him Molech, Milcom, Malcham, Jove,— but that therefore, if the names of Idols be to be abolished, we may not call him King, Lord, Jehovah— because some of the  Titles so signify, and others as 'tis thought were derived from these names of God, is most absurd. Christ is called Priest, he is truly, really so; and upon the account of his once offering up himself for the sins of the people, before any Mass-Priest was thought of in the world, that therefore the name of Priests may lawfully be applied to a company of persons, accounted Ministers of the Gospel (which was a title assumed by the most idolatrous generation of men, professing themselves to be of the same order, when such as these pretend to be, are not where in the Scripture so called) will not in haste be proved.  
We manifest in S. T. 1. a further agreement betwixt the Priests of England and Rome. 2. They are both Deacons before they are Priests. 3. Ordained to their Office by a Lord-Bishop, or his Suffragan. 4. Both presented by an Archdeacon, or his Deputy, with these words, Reverend Father, I present these men unto thee, to be admitted to the Order of Priesthood.  
Our Animadverter replies. These are granted and avouched as not Popish, but justifiable and agreeable to Orthodox Antiquity.  
Answ. 1. That these things are not Popish, are avouched without proof: They are exactly extracted out of the Pope's Portuis, not retained in any one of the Reformed Churches, but ejected as the sour leaven of Popery.  
2dly. That they are justifiable, is said, not proved. Mr. T. should not talk thus confidently of Orthodox Antiquity, when he knows 'tis of all things, the most difficult to determine what things are agreeable to Orthodox Antiquity.  
3dly. Nothing will justify what we do in matters Divine, but the Scriptures: Orthodox Antiquity is not sufficient. Hear what Basil saith, If whatever is not of Faith is sin (as saith the Apostle, but Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God) without doubt whatever is without Divine Scripture, since it is not of Faith, is sin. So Hilary ad Constant. Augustine, Tertullian de prescript. cap. 15. 8. Hierom in Mat. 23. and Lactantius, Humane Precepts have no weight which want Divine Authority; lib. 3. c. 27. Theophylact saith, 'Tis Diabolical to account any thing Divine, without the authority of Divine-Scriptures: that is Divine which is Apostolical, nor is it ●o be sought any where without the Scripture; lib. 2. Paschal. The saying of Ignatius is worthy to be written in letters of Gold, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ is our Antiquity.  
Yet, 4thly, the Animadverter cannot justify these things from Orthodox Antiquity, any better than the Papists can justify their Oil, Spittle, Salt,— in Baptism, their orders Ecclesiastical of Exorcists, Acolytes— And indeed his arguing and Baronius' for these, seems to be much a like, although there is mention made in Scripture only of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; yet (saith he) Ignatius (in those counterfeit Epistles you must understand that pass under his name) mentions more, so that it is necessary that either they were in the Apostles time, or at least were approved of by them. By such Orthodox Antiquity, Mr. T. may soon justify, not only the forementioned practices of our Clergy, but all the inventions of the Romish Bawd: 'Tis a trick of the Devil, saith Augustine, under the pretext of Antiquity, to commend fallacies to us: de quaest. Vet. & Nou. Testa. q. 14. some things seemed to be new, that were indeed ancient, as Christ's Doctrine to the Pharisees, Christian Religion to Celsus and his Pagans: some things seem to be ancient, that are but the impostures, cheats, and fallacies of the later days.  
We add in S. T. 5thly. The Priests of Rome, must be ordained to their Office, according to their Pontifical; the Priests of England according to their Book of ordering Priests and Deacons, which is taken out of the Pope's Pontifical.  
To this Mr. T. returns the same answer that Archbishop Whitgift gave, the sum whereof is: 1. That what is good in the Pope's Pontifical, if in our Pontifical, our Pontifical is never the worse for having it.  
Answ. That nothing but Divine Institution, in the Scripture of the Lord, renders any thing good, considered as it relates to the Worship of God, as such, we have already proved: In such cases to talk of things as good, for which no precept instituting them can be produced, is to talk without book. 'Tis diabolical, saith Theophylact.  
He proceeds, 2dly. 'Tis most false, that the book of ordering Ministers— is word for word drawn out of the Pope's Pontifical— Ignorance, and rashness drives you into many Errors.  
Answ. 1. Why the Book of ordering Ministers should be called a Pontifical, if not from the chief Pontifice of Rome, I understand not. 2. We say not, that the English Pontifical is taken word for word out of the Popes, but that it is so, i. e. for the substance thereof. 3. I have often observed that persons most guilty of ignorance and rashness, have been most free in charging their Antagonists therewith. Thus fares it with our Animadverter, as is evident to the eye of an ordinary Reader from the view of the ensuing parallel.  

Romish Pontifical.  
1. Tempora ordinationum sunt, etc. The times of ordination are the Sabbaths, in omnibus quatuor temporibus— Rom. Pontif. de ordinibus conferendis.  
2. Ordinationes Sacrorum Ordinum— The ordination of holy Orders shall be in the times appointed, and in the Cathedral Church, the Canons of the said Church being present thereat, shall be publicly celebrated in the time of Divine Service. ibid.  
3. They are taken to the order of Presbytery who have continued in the Office of a Deacon at least a whole year except for the profit, and necessity of the Church it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop — ibid.  
4. Episcopus autem Sacerdotibus▪ but the Bishop, Priests being adjoined to him, and other prudent men, skilful in the Divine Law, and exercised in Ecclesiastical functions, shall diligently examine the persons age— of him that is to be ordained.  
5. Nullus ad ordinem— None shall be admitted to the order of a Deacon before he be twenty three years old, nor to the order of Presbytery before the twenty fifth year of his age.  
6. Archidiaconus offerens— The Arch Deacon presenting those who are to be promoted to the order of Deacons, (each of them being decently habited) unto the Bishop, sitting in his seat before the Altar, saith, Reverend Father.—  
7. Pontifex, etc. The Bishop shall ask, Do you know them to be worthy? the Archdeacon shall answer, As much as humane frailty suffers me to know, I know and testify that they are worthy.—  
8. Pontifex— The Bishop shall speak to the Clergy and People, If any one hath aught against th●se persons, let him come forth, and with confidence speak for God, and before God.—  
9 Postremo— last, the Bishop takes and delivers to them all the Book of the Gospel, saying, Receive power of reading the Gospel in the Church of God.—  
10. Pontifex— The Bishop shall say, the Ministers and Chaplains answering, Lord have mercy upon us— O God the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us. O God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us— That it may please thee to bless, sanctify and consecrate these elect— ☞. We beseech thee hear us.  
11. They sing one and the same Hymn, only the one is in Latin the other in English.  
Veni Creator Spiritus,  
Mentes tuorum visita, etc.  
12. Pontifex— The Bishop shall lay his hands upon the heads of each of them, kneeling upon their knees before him, saying to every one, Receive the Holy Ghost; whose Sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose Sins thou dost retain they are retained.  
13. Pax — The Peace of God be always with you, the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost descend upon you—   

English Pontifical.  
1. We decree that no Deacons, or Ministers, be ordained, but only upon the Sundays (more heathenishly spoken, than the Pope in his Pontifical) immediately following, jejunia quatuor Temporum, commonly called Ember-weeks — Constit. & Can. Eccl. can. 31.  
2. And this be done in the Cathedral, or Parish Church where the Bishop resideth, and in the time of Divine Service, in the presence not only of the Archdeacon, but of the Dean — ibid.  
3. And here it must be declared unto the Deacon that he must continue in that office the space of a whole year (except for reasonable causes it shall otherwise seem good unto the Bishop. The Book of ordering Priests and Deacons.  
4. The Bishop, before he admit any person to holy Orders, shall diligently examine him in the presence of those Ministers that shall assist him at the imposition of hands — Can. 35.  
5. None shall be admitted a Deacon except he be twenty three years of age— and every man which is to be admitted a Pries●, shall be full twenty four years old. The Preface to the Form and Manner of making Priests and Deacons, etc.  
6. The Archdeacon, or his Deputy, shall present unto the Bishop (sitting in his Chair near to the holy Table) such as desire to be ordained Deacons (each of them being decently habited) saying these words, Reverend Father—  
7. The Bishop — Take heed that the persons whom you present unto us be apt and meet for their learning— The Arch Deacon shall answer, I have enquired of them, and also examined them, and think them so to be.  
8. Then the Bishop shall say to the people; Brethren, if there be any of you who knoweth any impediment, or notable crime in any of these persons— let him come forth in the name of God, and show what it is.  
9 Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the New Testament, saying, Take thee authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God.—  
10. The Bishop with the Clergy and People, shall sing, or say, the Litany. O God the Father of Heaven, have mercy upon us, miserable sinners, O God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.— That it may please thee to bless these they Servants— ☞. We beseech thee to hear us good Lord.  
Come Holy Ghost our souls imspire,  
And lighten with Celestial Fire, etc.  
12. The Bishop— shall lay their hands severally upon the heads of every one that receive the order of Priesthood, the Receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, and the Bishop saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose Sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose Sins thou dost retain, they are retained.  
13. The Peace of God— and the Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost be amongst you, and remain with you always. Amen.   
To which it were easy to add other parallel particulars, but these upon a slight view of the Roman Pontifical, offering themselves, being sufficient to confute that assertion of Whitgift, and Mr. T. that the Book of ordering Ministers and Deacons is almost in no point correspondent to the Roman Pontifical, we content ourselves with them. From whence the ingenuous Reader will soon determine, to whom ignorance and rashness may justly be imputed.  
We add, 6thly. The Popish Priests must kneel down upon their knees, at the feet of the Lord Bishop that ordains them; and he must say to them (blasphemously enough) Receive the Holy Ghost; whose Sins ye forgive, they are forgiven; whose Sins ye retain, they are retained: which exactly accords with the fashion of ordaining the Priests of England.  
To which Mr. T. replies in a long harangue, not at all to the purpose; giving us an account what Whitgift and Hooker say to this practise, confesses at last, they offer some force to the Scripture to which they allude, tells us, those words may be used prayer-wise.  
Answ. 1. The Question is, Whether in the particular instanced in, there be an exact symmetry betwixt the Ordination of the present Ministers of England, and the Priests of Rome? This Mr. T. denies not; but leads the Reader to the consideration of somewhat else.  
2. The use of the words, John 20. 22, 23. he grants to be an offering force to the Scripture, and if so, it is wicked and abominable; to wrest the Scripture to our private interpretation is undoubtedly so.  
3. That they should be used prayer-wise is a most ridiculous evasion, the manner of expression evinceth the contrary.  
4. Mr. Richard Hooker Eccles. Polit. lib. 5. sect. 77. as cited by our Animadverter, interprets it of the collation of the gifts of the holy Ghost, which if we should interpret of the Office of Ministry, it belongs (as we have said) to the Church, not to such a thing as a Lord-Bishop, to collate. We proceed in the Parallel.  
7thly. The Popish Priests are not ordained in, and before the Congregation to whom they are to be Priests, but in some Metropolitan, Cathedral City— So the Priests of England.  
To which Mr. T. replies, 1. This is not always so.  
Answ. I challenge him to give one instance of the contrary, for these six or seven years' last passed.  
2dly. It may be before the Congregation to whom the person is to be Priest.  
Answ. What may be is one thing, what is, another. We say not only that it may be, but that it ought to be, yet we know it is not. 'Tis added in S. T.  
8thly. The Popish Priests take the care of Souls, though n●t elected by them, from the presentation of a Patron, by the Institution and Induction of a Lord Bishop: so the Ministers of England.  
To which our Animadverter, This is not always so, nor when so, Popish.  
Answ. 1. The first is most notoriously false, and we challenge Mr. T. to make it good if he can. 2. the latter remains to be proved by him: to assert it is not Popish, is a piece of beggary this Animadverter is much used to. What he hath before said is already answered. We add,  
9thly. The Popish Priests wait not the Churches call to the Ministry, but make suit to some Prelate, to be ordained Priest, and giving money for their Letters of Ordination; so the Priests of England.  
Mr. T. replies. To offer a person's self for ordination, is in some case a duty, 1 Tim. 3. 1. Isa. 6. 8.  
Answ. 1. The Scriptures produced, prove not his assertion. Isa. 6. 8. is sufficiently remote from any such thing, there's not the least mention of Ordination therein, it's only a testimony of Isaiah's readiness to obey the voice of the Lord, in going forth to bear a testimony for him against an untoward rebellious people. 1 Tim. 3. 1. only tells us, that he that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work (i. e. as say our Annotators, is inwardly moved by the Spirit of the Lord thereunto) which he may do, and yet I hope wait the Churches call thereunto.  
Besides, 2ly. Should this be granted, it signifies little, till he prove that it's the duty of any, with the neglect of the Churches call to this Office, to seek ordination thereunto from an unscriptural Prelate, which is that we charge upon them; which Mr. T. knows they do.  
He tells us, 2dly. Giving money for their Letters of Ordination, is only Wages to the Register for writing.  
Answ. 1. Be it so, that they give money for their Letters of Ordination, is all that is asserted by us, which Mr. T. grants they do. 2. 'Tis well if there be no Simony (as it's called) found amongst them. 3. If provision be made against the Registers exacting overmuch, by the Canons of the Church of England, he informs us that the same provision is made by the Popish Trent-Council. The Parallel in this particular holds good. We say,  
10thly. The Popish Priests are ordained to their Office, though they have no Flock to attend upon: So the Priests of England.  
Mr. T. replies. The Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title, according to Can. 33. even the Trent-Council hath made some provision thereabout.  
Answ. 1. Mr. T. doth well to consociate the Canons of the Church of England, and the Church of Rome in the Trent-Council together, they are (in not a few things) near of kin. 2. However I cannot but stand astonished at his confidence, in telling us that the Priests of England are not to be ordained without some title, according to Can. 33. when that Canon saith expressly, That they may, if a Fellow, or in right as a Fellow, or to be a Chaplain in some College in Oxford or Cambridg; if a Master of Arts of five years standing, that liveth of his own charge in either of the Universities, if to be shortly admitted either to some Benefice or Curatship then void; or if the Bishop do after his admission into the said office, keep and maintain him with all things necessary till he prefer him to some Ecclesiastical Living. 3. But it may be the Animadverter, by title, means some one of those things mentioned. To which I shall only say, that if so, he doth openly prevaricate; pretends to answer, to what he speaks not one word; such Titles are supposed to be without a Flock to attend upon.  
What he adds, of Ministers being necessary for Armies, etc. is nothing to the purpose: This proves not that they may be ordained Ministers, without a Flock to attend upon, which they may have, and by them be sent forth for the works mentioned for a season: We know it hath been the practice of the Churches so to do. 2. Private Brethren may act for the supply of the services mentioned, (and frequently have done so) nor indeed do I conceive how any can act therein in any other capacity. Which is not incongruous to Acts 23. 2. (as this Animadverter suggests) which speaks not a tittle of their ordination to the Office of Ministry which they had before, but only a solemn commending of them, by Fasting and Prayer, to the Blessing of the Lord by the Church, in the Service they were now setting upon; in which they testified their consent, by the laying on their hands, as say our Annotators.  
To the 11th Parallel, viz. That the Priests of England must swear Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary, as the Priests of Rome. Mr. T. only saith, That 'tis true at their institution into Benefices they do so, but it is so bounded that it is not intolerable, 'tis nothing like that which is required of the Papists.  
Answ. 1. The Parallel herein betwixt the English and the Popish Priests is acknowledged, which is all we affirm. 2. That the Oath is tolerable, that 'tis nothing like the Oath of Canonical Obedience, tendered to the Popish Priests, is only affirmed by Mr. T. without proof: that was the copy and pattern of this, as he cannot be ignorant.  
The 12th Parallel (touching their leaving their Benefices for advantage-sake, without consent of the People; The 13th, touching their special Licence to preach (without which they must not) from ●he Prelates, though thereunto before ordained. The 14th, (touching their subjection to be silenced— by the Prelates) betwixt the Ministers of England and Rome, he grants to be true, nor saith he any thing by way of reply that deserves the taking notice of. To the 15th, viz. the Popish Priests are not of like and equal power, degree and authority amongst themselves, but are some of them inferior to others herein, as Pastors to Archdeacon's, Archdeacon's to Lord-Bishops, Lord-Bishops to Arch-Bishops— so the Priests of England.  
Our Animadverter replies, 1. Inequality is judged to be in the Elders of the Primitive Churches by the inscription of the seven Epistles to the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia.  
Answ. But this rather proves there equality; to each is a several Epistle directed; whereas had there been one Archbishp, or Superintendent over them, one Epistle had been sufficient, and had been, no doubt, directed to him.  
He adds, 2dly. It hath been in some sort in all well-ordered Churches, and is necessary to settled order.  
Answ. These are his dictates, which he is not at leisure to prove. The Church of Rome (in the Apostles days) of Corinth, Ephesus— were (as I remember) well-ordered Churches, yet cannot be manifest any inequality amongst their Elders. No Superintendent, Lord-Bishop, or Archbishop as I read of.  
2dly. What thinks he of the Church of the Waldenses, were they well-ordered Churches? They were from the beginning without this Superiority of Elders, one above the other. The like may be said of most, or all the Reformed-Churches. The Churches of Helvetia reckoning up the degrees of Arch-Bishops, Suffragans, Metropolitans, Deans, Subdeans— tell us plainly, they are not solicitous about them. That the Apostles Doctrine touching Ministers, is sufficient for them, cap. Confes. Helvet. poster. c. 18. And afterward, there is one, and the same equal Power, and Function, in all the Ministers of the Church; and though in process of time, one was chosen from amongst the rest to preside in Synods, yet was he not set over others, nor endowed with greater power, than the rest. cap. conf. Helvet. prior. Arti: 15. the French Churches say, We believe that all true Pastors wheresoever they are placed, are endowed with equal authority, under that only head, high, and sole universal Bishop, Jesus Christ: and therefore it is lawful for no one Church, to claim authority, and dominion over another. cap: conf. gall: Confes. Art. 30. So say the Belgic Churches. Belly. conf. Art: 31. So that Mr. T. out of his great love and dutifulness to his Mother the Church of England, is not sparing to cast dirt in the face of the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves, and most, or all the Reformed Churches at this day, who own no such inequality as he pleads for: and therefore were, are all of them not well-ordered Churches, in comparison at the least, to her, and the Church of Rome, where the Hierarchy is established.  
To the 16th. parallel about holy Vestments he is able to object onthing worth the considering.  
The 17th. is, The Popish Priests are tied to a book of stinted Prayers and a prescript Order devised by man, for their Worship and Ministration: so are the Ministers of England, and that to such a one as is taken out of the Pope's Portuis—  
To this Mr. T. replies. 1. The Assembly of Westminster prescribed a Directory for Worship.  
Answ. 1. Quid hoc ad Rhombum? I am not in the least concerned to justify all that was done by that Assembly; and am apt to think they might in that matter have spared their pains. 2dly. The same Assembly abhorred the Common-Prayer-Book Service, as a most detestable, and filthy Idol, preached, printed against it, procured its Abolition. 3dly. Every one that knows any thing, knows that upon various accounts, there is no likeness betwixt these two. None were compelled to the use of this or that form of words, by the Directory, as in the Book of Common-Prayer.  
He adds, 2dly. Those prayers, and portions of Scripture, which are holy, and good, are never the worse because they were in the Pope's Portuis, no more than the acknowledgement of Jesus to be the Son of the most High God, is the worse because the Devil used it, Mar. 5. 7.  
Answ. 1. Of the Scriptures, and that glorious Truth of Christ's Eternal Deity, as the Son of the most High God, and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service, there is not the same reason: They were from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, originally Divine; this of man, devised upon the prevailing of Apostasy upon the Churches of Christ, imposed with threaten, cruelties and slaughters upon the Children of Christ by his professed Enemy, abused by a confessed Idolatrous generation of men (if there be any such in the world:) That because the abuse of the Scriptures, and the Truths contained in them, doth not render them the worse, therefore a devised Service (that it the best is wicked and abominable, in its imposition intolerable) used by Idolaters is not the worse, I challenge Mr. T. to make good. 2. Though the Scriptures are not the worse because portions of them are read in the Romish Idolatrous Service, yet the following the Romish Synagogue in curtailing the Scriptures, reading one part of a Chapter at one time, another at another, and manifestly misapplying them, causing them also to give place to the Apocryphal Writings, is abominable.  
He goes on, 3dly. That which is suggested as if the Common-Prayer-Book now in use, were little different from the Pope's Missal (he tells us) is untrue.  
Answ. 1. The Animadverter is a little mistaken: We affirm in S. T. that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service used in King Edward the 6th's days, and the Pope's Missal were not much different: And for the proof of that we produced the Testimony of the King and Council: which we thought M. T. would never have questioned. That the Common-Prayer-Book now in use, and that then used is not much different, every body knows.  
2dly. 'Tis true, all that is in the Pope 's Missal is not in the Common-Prayer-Book (nor did any one ever assert this) but the most that is in the Common-Prayer-Book is stolen out of the Pope's Missal. The Epistles and Gospels, the Prayers (or Collects) the rites and usages therein joined are so: and this Mr. T. denies not. I had thought to have represented the truth of this, to the eye of the Reader, by exhibiting our English, and the Pope's Latin Mass at one view to him; which I have by me faithfully collected, and compared together. But the swelling of this Treatise unexpectedly, and the difficulty of printing any thing of this nature that is voluminous, through the tyranny of the Prelates, makes me wholly to lay aside that intendment to a fit season, if need be.  
The sum of what we have been offering in this matter, (we say in S. T.) is this:  
1. Those Ministers, that in their names, office, admission into their offices, are not to be found in the Scripture, are not Ministers of Christ, act not by virtue of an Authority, Office-power, Calling received from him.  
2. Those Ministers that in their names, office, admission into their office, are at a perfect agreement with the Ministers of Antichrist, (such are the Popish Priests acknowledged to be) are not the Ministers of Christ— But such, as have been abundantly demonstrated, are the present Ministers of England. Therefore—  
The Minor Mr. T. saith is manifestly false, he hath said nothing to prove it in the main.  
Answ. This is soon said: had he proved it manifestly false, be had done somewhat. Whether any thing considerable hath been offered by us, for the proof of the Minor, others besides Mr. T. and I, will now judge.   

Sect. 4.  
The present Ministers of Engl. proved Antichristian. They act from a Power, Office, and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop, whose Office is Antichristian. The opinion of the Learned touching them. Their Office is not to be found in the Scripture: Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7, 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5, 7. Acts 20. 28. know them not. They were not known in the Church for some hundreds of years after. The Office of Lord-Bishops wherein it consists. Of Diotrephes his asserting Supremacy. Our Bishops neither Evangelists, nor Pastors, nor Teachers, nor Apostles, proved. Mat. 28. 19 explained. Of the Rise of Episcopacy. The Testimonies of Dr. Hammond, Whitaker, Reynolds, Eusebius, etc. touching it.  
WE further prove in S. T. The present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Antichr●stan Power, Office and Calling. Because, 2dly, That they act from a Power, Office, and Calling received from a Lord-Bishop, whose Office is Antichristian. This the sum.  
To which Mr. T. replies, That neither himself, nor any sober Writer judged them Antichristian.  
Answ. 1. Whether he once so judged of them, his taking the Covenant to extirpate them, wherein they are condemned as Antichristian, will evince.  
2. What he or I judge them is not material; that no sober Writer, or considerate man (that ever he met with) hath judged them Antichristian, must be imputed to the shortness of his memory: He ha●h, I suppose met with Zuinglius, Keckerman, who say little less. The former, Art. 34. p. 254, 255, tells us, That for any to claim any Rule, Power, or Superiority over any Church of Christ (which we know out Bishops do) is Devilish, Proud, and Popish Arrogancy. And Aretius in his Problems producing Christ's prohibition of Superior power to his Apostles, Mar. 10. 5. Luke 22. 25. saith, None but Antichrist dare be so fancy as to usurp it.— Marlorat, on Rev. 17. 3. saith, That Arch-Bishops— are in Office under Antichrist. And on Chap. 19 The tails of Antichrist. Bale on Rev. 17 saith, That Canterbury and York are the Beastly Antichrists Metropolitans. And on Chap. 13. That Archbishop, Diocesan— are very Names of Blasphemy. Of these we spoke pag. 28. S. T. who I dare say, were sober Writers, and considerate men. Mr. T. his answer to their Testimony, viz. That they writ thus against the Romish Hierarchy, is ridiculous; they writ against the Offices of Arch-Bishops as such, which are not a whit the better because they constitute the English Hierarchy. We mention Cartwright, the seekers of Reformation in Queen Elizabeth's days, proclaiming them to come out of the bottomless Pit of Hell, to be Antichristian, Devilish. These also must pass in the Roll of inconsiderate fellows; yet others (as wise as Mr. T.) think otherwise of them. For the proof of the Antichristianism of the Office of Lord-Bishops, I propose a few things briefly in the S. T. as,  
1st, That Office that is not to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ, but is contrary to express Precepts of his, is Antichristian: But the Office of Lord-Bishops is not to be found in the Scriptures, is contrary to express Precepts: Therefore—  
The Major Mr. T. is nibbling at, but he doth but think he tells us, if Universal, it is not true. The Office of the Religious Votaries he talks of, is Antichristian. If there be any Antichristian Office in the World, that must needs be so, that is introduced into the Church of Christ, though not of his Institution, directly contrary to express Precepts. That this Assertion should necessitate any one to affirm every sin to be Antichristian (though in a large sense, as Antichristian signifies, that which is against Christ, every sin, every error is so) is absurd to imagine.  
The Minor, I say, consists of two parts. 1. That the Office of Lord Bishops is not to be found in Scripture of the Institution of Christ. This I manifest by considering the most remarkable places, where the Officers and Offices that are of Christ's appointment are enumerated, in which we have a total silence of them; Ephes. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7, 8. 1 Tim. 3. 12. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5, 7. Acts 20. 28. I add also, that they were never dreamt of in the world for some hundreds of years after Christ: We introduce the Testimony of Clemens, Lombard, Dr. hamond's acknowledgement of their Rise.  
To which Mr. T. answers, The whole Discourse is impertinent: the thing to be proved was, that the Office of Lord-Bishops was not to be found in the Scriptures; and the whole Discourse is about the Superiority of Order above Presbyters, Primacy, or Supremacy of Degrees among Bishops.  
Answ. 1. We have examined the particular places wherein mention is made of the Officers of Christ's Institution, and find no Lord-Bishops instituted in any of them, which manifests that they are not; If this be not taken for proof, I know not what will; If this be not to the purpose, I am in despair of producing any thing that he will account so.  
2dly, The Office of Lord-Bishops, as such, consists in the Primacy, Superiority, and Supremacy mentioned (as is known.) If Mr. T. grants this not to be found of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture, he gives away the Cause.  
3dly, They themselves do own and avow a great part of their Office to consist in the foresaid Primacy, Jurisdiction.— And if this be not it, I am sure some of them are seldom or never minding their Office, these things are what is most attended by them. Of whom we may complain as Bernard of old, Vides omnem Ecclesiasticum Zelum forvere pr● sola dignitate tuenda: honori tantum datur, sanctitati nihil aut parum. Si causâ requirente paulo submissius, agere, aut socialius to habere tentaveris, absit inquiunt, non decet, tempori non congruit, majestati non convenit; quam geras personam attendito: De placito Dei ultima mentio est, pro jactura salutis nulla cunctatio: quod sublime est hoc salutare putamus, & quod gloriam redolet id justum. De Considerate. Lib. 4.  
His following Exceptions are not worth the heeding. I mention Diotrephes in S. T. and say, That some appearances of a Spirit striving to ascend into this Chair of wickedness was seen in him, and others in the Apostles days.  
To this Mr. T. But this was not the usurping the Superiority of Order, of a Bishop above a Presbyter.  
Answ. Nor do I say it was, I expressly affirm the contrary, wh●n I say that such a Superiority was not in the world, for some hundred of years after Christ; we only say, that some appearances of that Spirit was seen in him, which the Apostle affirms, John Epist. 3. Vers. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — He loveth the pre-eminence among them; attempts the Primacy, so Beza. Which if it be not an appearance of the Spirit mentioned, I know not what is; he endeavoured to rule all himself, carried it proudly, pragmatically, arrogantly over the Church, the Brethren, John himself, who was an Elder, saith Mr. T. He that cannot see somewhat of our Episcopal Spirit in this, is (I fear) wilfully blind, I am sure he must wink hard.  
He takes notice that in reciting Ephes. 4. 11. I twice leave out Evangelists, which he knows not the reason of.  
Answ. Nor do I myself, possibly it was an oversight, it may be an omission of the Amanuensis: However it was, it was not I assure him, any fear I had that he, or any one could justly plead, that our Prelates were Evangelists.  
1. I know that Title is declined by Pleaders for Episcopal Jurisdiction.  
2. Our Bishops do not the works of Evangelists. They had no settled residence, but traveled up and down with, or after the Apostles, to help forward the work of Christ, that was set on foot in the world by them. We find Titus (who was an Evangelist) sometimes at Crete, Gal. 2. 3. At Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4. 10. appointed to meet Paul at Nicopolis, Tit. 3. 12. Sent to Corinth, 2 Cor. 12. 18. At Macedonia, 2 Cor. 7. 5, 6. Such an itinerant laborious life that our Bishops are unacquainted with.  
3. Evangelists were such extraordinary Officers as ceased with that Age; for we find no directions given touching their future Election in in the Churches.  
Mr. T. tells us, Our Prelates challenge the term of Pastors and Teachers; this, I had said, was too great a debasement of their Lordships, he tells us, This is a Satirical Sarcasm, no proof.  
Ans. 1. However it is evidently true. Pastors and Teachers we have already proved are Officers appertaining to one particular Church. 'Tis certainly a debasement of their Lordships, who preside (as petty Princes) over hundreds of Pastors, and Churches (so called) to be reduced to a laborious oversight over one.  
2dly, I had said in S. T. That their Parochial Priests, over whom they preside, are supposed to be Officers in that degree.  
The Argument is this (which Mr. T. may take time to answer) If the Parochial Priests, over whom the Bishops of England preside, be such Pastors and Teachers as the Scripture mentions, than the Bishops of England are not, cannot be such (for they are an Order and Degree above them, to them as their Superiors they promise and swear fealty:) But though former (according to the judgement of the Church of England) is true: Therefore;—  
The Story he after tells us of a Presbyters having, in case of infirmity, Assistants, who notwithstanding may be called a Teacher, is so remote from the business in hand, that though some would cry out,  Quis temperate a risu. 
For my part I hearty pity him.  
1st, This is known not to be the reason of the Bishops having Parochial Priests under them; were they never so strong, it were impossible they should perform the Office of Pastors to the several Congregations in England.  
2dly, The Presbyter is not an Order above his Co-adjutor (as is the case of the Bishops) he is a Co-Presbyter; one of the same degree with himself. So that of this, we shall I suppose, hear no mere.  
We add in S. T. That they pretend to be (and are so accounted by some) the Apostles Successors: but if they derive their succession through the Papacy; 'tis an evident Argument they are Antichristian, if the Pope be the Antichristian head over many Countries, as Protestants affirm. In respect of their Office we prove they are not their Successors.  
Because, 1. The Apostles were immediately sent by Christ.  
2. Extraordinary Officers sent forth to preach the Gospel throughont the Nations of the world.  
3. We find no Apostles after them.  
4. None appointed by them, to succeed them.  
5. None are qualified with gifts for the discharge of such an Office; and Christ sends not forth servants in any employment, but he furnisheth them with gifts suitable thereunto. This the sum.  
To which our Animadverter pretends to answer, Sect. 5. Chap. 3. 1. Apostles he grants they may not be reckoned; yet 2. They may be their Successors.  
1st, Dr. Owen (of Schism. Cap. 6. Sect. 55.) grants That persons adhering to ordination by succession from Popish Bishops, may be right worthy Ministers of the Gospel, but not upon the account of that their Successional Ordination, but the eminent gifts God hath vouchsafed them, and the Lords people submitting themselves to them in the administration of Ordinances. And the Author of S. T. denies not they succeed them as Christians; and if so, they may be heard as gifted brethren, which was denied by him, Chap. 2.  
Answ. 1. How all this proves the Bishops of England to be the Successors of the Apostles, in respect of their Office, which was what he pretends to attempt the proof of, I know not.  
2. I deny indeed that they may be heard as gifted Brethren, Chap. 2. and give my reasons of my so doing, which I have vindicated from this Dictator's exceptions. That we are to have communion with all, that we cannot deny to be Christians, in that wherein they act not as such, but by virtue of an Office-power (we know) they have not received from Christ; Mr. T. will not in haste attempt the proof of.  
He asks, Why may they not succeed them in Office?  
Answ. I wonder he should ask such a Question. En Tabulas! The reasons thereof are given in the place he undertakes the confutation of; They were (it seems) too weighty for him, & he wisely lets them alone without burdening himself so far with them as to attempt their removal. The Apostles Office was indeed no other than that mentioned, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mar. 16. 15. but that was,  
1st, An Office of Preaching, not of Lording and Loitering.  
2dly, Into it they were immediately invested by Christ.  
3dly, They were to preach the Gospel through the Nations of the World, (not to stretch themselves upon Beds of Ivory, in a Lordly Palace) which was as much their Office as Preaching the Gospel; upon the account whereof, Paul saith, He was a debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians.— Rom. 1. 14. Christ its true, promiseth his presence with them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But, 1. I am not satisfied that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Consummation of this world, is any more than the winding up or perioding of that Age. I am sure the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies the space of 70 or 100 years, and sometimes not near so many, as Mark 13. 30. which came to pass within 50 years. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is no more than the perioding of the Jewish pedagogy, or Church state. Heb. 9 26.  
2. I hope Christ is with them now, so that there needs not a succession of persons in the same Office (which we have proved there never was) to whom Christ may make good his promise.  
3. The Lord promised Joshua never to leave him nor forsake him, Josh. 1. 5. This Promise he will not say doth necessarily suppose a succession of Officers in the place of Joshua, which upon all accounts there was not. The Apostle applies it to the Saints, Heb 13. 5. And I am of the mind, Christ doth as really fulfil that Promise, Mat. 28 20. made originally to the Apostles, when he vouchsafes his presence to the Saints, to comfort, quicken, uphold, defend them,— according as their exigencies do require, as ever he did to the Apostles themselves. So little reason is there of asserting the necessity of Officers, as successors of the Apostles in their Office of Apostleship, to vindicate the faithfulness of Christ in that Promise of his. The succession we speak of, which the present Ministers pretend to, is a personal succession through Papacy, (i. e. that the Apostles ordained Bishops, these ordained others downwards, to this day; a Catalogue of whom, from time to time some pretend to.) That when Antichristianism overspread the world, and the Pope, as the Head thereof, ordained and sent forth Ministers, from whom they received their Office-power, these should be notwithstanding not Antichristian, is a fond conceit. He could not communicate that he had not; that he had any true power (any other than a false Antichristian Office-power) Mr. T. will not have the confidence to aver. So that the whole fardel of words that ensue, are not at all to the purpose; A succession in doing the same work after them, and preaching the same Gospel (which yet they do but rarely, if at all) is not the Succession pleaded for by our Prelates. They care not for Preaching (hinder, oppose it, (many of them) dreading it as the Engine in the hand of the Spirit, that would shake their Kingdom, and utterly overturn and demolish it) so they may have their Lordships, Pleasures, and Palaces. 'Tis not indeed Antichristian for me to confess the Apostles Creed, because it is conveyed to our hands through the Papacy, for however it cannot be so called, because the Apostles were the Former's of it, which they were not; yet the matter thereof, being (except in one Article) bottomed upon the Scriptures, I ought to confess it. But this is remote from what he is pleading for, viz. A personal succession of Bishops through the Papacy, receiving their Power and Authority from the man of Sin,— which (I say still) whilst the Bishops pretend to, they do therein proclaim their shame, and yield the matter in controversy; though their Advocate shamefully prevaricates, that he may with a multitude of words cover their nakedness; omitting the consideration of what was incumbent upon him, especially to have removed out of the way, viz. The Arguments produced to evince, That the Apostles, as Apostles, had no successor in that their Office: Which if it remain good, the present Bishops most assuredly cannot be their Successor● as Apostles.  
He adds, 5thly. That Bishops as a Superior order, or degree above Presbyters, were not dreamt of in the world for several hundreds of years after Christ, he thinks can hardly be made good; but he wisely retreats with a Protestation, that he will not enter the lists with respect to that point.  
The truth is he knows it hath been proved, and that with that strength of evidence, that he cannot bear up against. That Clemens his not takeing notice of them, as distinct from Presbyters, is balanced by the passages in Ignatius his Epistles (which I am persuaded he rejects as spurious, and counterfeit, I am sure it were easy to manifest them to be so, it is already done by others) is such a pitiful covert, that a man would never fly to but in case of extreme necessity, when he knows not what to say. Lombard's words import, he grants, that the order of Bishops above Presbyters was not known, till after the Apostles days; and if so, they are no order of divine institution, in which he once more perfectly yields the cause; they are not of the institution of Christ in the Scripture. Though he cannot prove that by the primitive Church, Lombard means the Churches in the days of the Apostles, his words seem to import somewhat more. And Beauties himself acknowledgeth, that the name of Elders was given in common to Bishops and Elders. And Eusebius, lib. 5. c. 24. calls Victor, Anicetus, Pius, Telesphorus, Xistus (who was almost three hundred years after Christ) Bishops of Rome, Elders. And the learned Whitaker ingenuously confesseth, That betwixt an Elder and a Bishop, there was of old no difference— That such Bishops, as are now, in the Roman Church (in the English Church we may as truly say) were from the beginning, is most false and can never be proved. There were then more Bishops, i. e. Pastors of one Church, Act. 20. 17. contr. 2. q. 5. c. 6. p. 284.  
But Mr. T. tells us, 'Tis enough for his purpose if the office be found in Scripture, though not their Superiority.  
Answ. And is this your pleading for your Clients? Seriously Sir, you would discourage any person in the world from entertaining you as his Advocate, when you are exposing your Client thus to ruin by your own plead, at every turn. The question is, whether the office of Lord-Bishops, which as such, consists in there Superiority, jurisdiction over the Priests and Ministers of England, be of the institution of Christ? Saith Mr. T. their Superiority is not. Very good! what needed so many words to no purpose; 'tis well however he will be so ingenuous as to confess at last that the juridicial office of Lord-Bishop is not of Christ's institution. The words of Dr. Hammond he grants to be as we recite them, but thinks we misapply them, But certainly if, as the Dr. saith, a Primary & Metropolitical seat was constituted over Episcopal Seats and Churches (viz. such as are Diocesan) that their state and frame may be accommodated to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations, in the Empire; he that hath but half an eye will see, that hence it follows that the Primacy, and Supremacy of the Bishops over these Churches, was the result of the designs of men, to accommodate the state and frame of the Church, to the state and condition of the Government of the Nations. But the truth of this Assertion depends not upon the Doctor's concession; it's notoriously known, and acknowledged by several others; The distribution of Churches ordinarily followed the destribution of the Commonwealth: so that when some Regions were subjected to the Civil jurisdiction in any City, the same were ordinarily subjected also to the Ecclesiastical; and as they were reckoned to be of the same Province in respect of the Civil, so were they of the same Church or Diocese, in respect of the Spiritual Government, saith Rainoldes Confer. with Hart. And the Council of Constantinople decreed, That if any new City, by the Authority of the Emperor, was erected, that the order of Ecclesiastical things should follow the Civil and Public form. Hence by the same Council, Constantinople receives the Primacy, because it was New Rome, Can. 5. which before Old Rome enjoyed for that very reason. But that you may understand, how the Pope encroached on Bishops by degrees, until of an Equal he became a Sovereign, first over a few, next over many, at last over all: I must fetch the matter of Bishops Metropolitans, and Arch-Bishops somewhat higher; and show how Christian Cities, Provinces, and Dioceses, were allotted to them. First therefore when Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church, Act. 14. 23. through every City, Tit. 1. 5. to feed the flock of Christ, whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, Act. 20. 28. They, to the intent they might the better do it by common council and consent, did use to assemble themselves and meet together. In which meetings, for the more orderly handling, and concluding of things pertaining to their charge, they chose one amongst them, to be the Precedent of their Company, and Moderator of their actions— (And this is he, whom afterward, in the Primitive Church, the ●athers called Bishop. i e. the Precedent of the Presbyters—) who was th● Bishop of the chiefest City, whom they called the Metropolitan. For a Province, as they termed it, was the same with them, that a Shire is with us: And the Shire-town, as you would say of the Province, was called Metropolis. i e. the Mother-City: In which as the Judges and Justices with us do hear at certain times the causes of the whole Shire: So the Ruler of the Province with them did minister Justice, and made his abode there ordinarily. Whereupon, by reason that men for their business, made great concourse thither, the Church was wont to furnish it (of Godly Polity) with the worthiest Bishop, endued with gifts above his Brethren. And they reposed in him such assiance, that they did not only commit the Presidentship of their Assemblies to him, Concil. Antioch. ●an. 20. Chalced. can. 19 But agreed also, that none throughout all the Province, should be made Bishop without his consent; nor any weightier matter be done by them, without him. Concil. Nic. can. 4 & 6. Concil. Antioc. can 9 Now the Roman Empire was governed in such sort, that the Circuits of the Lord-Presidents had many Provinces within them, and were called Dioceses. Through occasion whereof the Bishops of those Cities, in which these Lieutenants of the Emperor were resident (The state Ecclesiastical following the Civil. Wolfgang. Luzu. Comment. Reip. Rom. l. 2. c. 2.) did grow in power too. Neither were they only named Arch-Bishops, and Patriarches of the Diocese, i. ●. the chiefest Bishops, and Fathers of that Circuit, which the Lieutenant ruled, but also obtained that the Metropolitans of the Provinces in their Diocese, should be likewise subject and obedient to them, as Bishops were to Metropolitans. So the Archbishop and Patriarch of Antioch had Prerogatives given him through the Diocese of the East, wherein were seven Provinces. Concil. Const. 1. can. 2. Concil. Antio. in exord. So nothing could be done in the Diocese of Egypt, which under the Bishop had ten Metropolitans, without the consent of the Archbishop and Patriarch of Alexandria. Conc. Chalc. Act. 4. so it was granted to the Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, that the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia & Thracia (within which were twenty eight Provinces) should be ordained by him. Finally so was it decreed, that if a Bishop had any matter of Controversies with the Metropolitan of his own Province, the Patriarch of the Diocese should be Judge thereof, Concil. Chalced. can. 9 & 17. as also if any man did receive injury of his own Bishop, or Metropolitan. Thus were the Roman Popes (as they are called now) first Bishops over Elder● within their own City, next Metropolitans over Bishops within their own Province; Then Arch-Bishops and Patriarches over Metropolitans within their own Diocese: And this is the Princely Diocese which I meant, when I said that the Pope in the time of Pelagius was become Archbishop of the Princely Diocese; but he was yet but an Archbishop: He was not universal Pope and Patriarch of the whole World. For although the Patriarch of Constantinople, being puffed up, because in his City, the Emperor himself was resident, he would be called the Patriarch of the whole world, as the Emperor was called the Lord of the world, Greg. Regist. l. 4. Epist. 39 yet the Roman Patriarches, Pelagius & Gregory did withstand his Pride. Rainolds Confer. with Hart, c. 8. Beza also Thes. Geneves. tells us, that the Fathers in the distribution of Churches (under Bishops, Arch-Bishops, etc.) followed the type or pattern of the Roman Emperor. And the learned Brightman in Rev. 13. 4. tells us, that they are the worshippers of the Dragon in the Beast, who wonder at the Primacy for the Political Majesty of the Dragon, granted by the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 16. Indeed in Clement's Constitutions we find, if possible, a more filthy source from whence their original is asserted: In the place where they were before first-Flamines, Pet●r commanded Patriarches to be placed; and in Cities where before were Arch-flamens, Arch-Bishops, the rest were only Bishops— That we had h●re in England twenty eight Head-Priests, which they called Flamines, and three Archpriests among them, which were called Arch-flamens, which had the oversight of their manners, and were as Judges over the rest, is known: hence the pattern of our Arch-Bishops and Bishops.   

Sect. 5.  
The office of Lord-Bishops contrary to express precepts of Christ. Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22. 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3. considered. Of the titles of Dr. of Divinity etc. The office of Lord-Bishops derived from, and only to be found in the Papacy. The Popes of Rome the head of Antichrist. No Lord-Bishop till after Constantine. Of the first Nicene Council: whether there were any Lord-Bishops before: what difference betwixt Lord-Bishops then, and now. Of the retention of the same office in the Greek, Eastern, Russian Churches. The difference betwixt the Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches, and our Bishops. An Objection answered. The Bishops of England act not in the matter of Ordination as Presbyters.  
THat the office of Lord-Bishops is contrary to express precepts of Christ in the Scripture, is the second part of our Minor Proposition, which in S. T. we prove from Mat. 20. 25. Mark 10. 42. Luke 22 25. 1 Pet. 5. 3.  
To which Mr. T. answers, 1. That we shoot wide of the mark.  
Answ. This we have already replied to. His instance of the Titles of Doctor of Divinity in the Schools, is not at all to the purpose: They pretend not to any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Elders and Churches, by virtue of their being invested into such titles, as our L-Bishops do.  
2dly. He considers the particular Scriptures instanced in, to which what to reply he seems to be much at a loss. 1. He would have the words of the Evangelists not to be a precept showing their duty, but a prediction manifesting the event of what should be.  
Answ. 1. This is expressly contrary to the letter of the Text.  
2. The Lordship, Supremacy, Superiority (call it what you please) is a Lordship— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, amongst themselves, over one another, that is interdicted and forbidden by Christ; that it was lawful for them to exercise such a Supremacy, this Animadverter will not say▪ now this must be supposed, if the words be not a precept, but a prediction.  
3dly. He expressly tells us in his Romanism discussed, Art. 7. Sect. 8. p. 174. l. 14. That Superiority is (in these words) plainly forbidden. 2ly. He is inclined to think, that if it be a precept, it is a precept to the Apostles only, not to others.  
Answ. 1. Than not to the Pope; then Mr. T. palpably abuseth this Scripture in his Roman. discussed, Art. 7. Sect. 8. p. 173. where from hence he argues and inveighs against the Pope's Supremacy. But 2ly, as good he may say that the great Doctrines of Self-denial— frequently pressed by Christ upon the Apostles, is a precept only to them. 3ly. We find the Apostle charging the same thing upon the Elders, 1 Pet. 5. 3. who knew the mind of his Lord in this matter it's to be thought as well as Mr. T.  
He tells us, 3dly, If it be a precept to others besides the Apostles, whether to all Christians, or only to Ministers of the Gospel? and whether it forbidden simply Dominion at all, or tyrannical Dominion— is doubtful.  
Answ. And yet the first he positively affirms within ten or eleven lines afterwards: and here, and in his Roman. discussed asserts, that 'tis not tyrannical Dominion, but the Dominion of one Apostle over another that is interdicted. So that the same thing is doubtful, and not doubtful with Mr. T. in the writing a few lines. And this he proves by no fewer than ten reasons in his Rom. discussed.  
2dly. Here he tells us, that 'tis an affectation of the Rule which a person may have, and lawfully exercise, that is forbidden there, that the Dominion or Rule itself is interdicted: which he would do well to reconcile, and answer his Arguments he there produceth for its confirmation. The sum whereof is, Christ would have none amongst them superior, but all equal; he forbids not only tyrannical Dominion, but also any Dominion at all over one another: which is (saith he) apparent, 1. From the occasion of the words: Christ forbids what they sought for,— but they sought for chief Dignity, Seniority and priority of Order (as do the Bishops of England.) 2dly▪ From the Subjects whose Dominion is forbidden, viz. Kings, that had lawful Authority, and therefore such Rule, is forbidden as the best Rulers, used amongst the Nations. 3dly. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, although sometimes meant of mere lordly, forcible Rule, against the will and good of the person ruled; yet here it cannot be so meant, sigh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use Dominion at all, and to have power at all over one another, is forbidden Luke 22. 25. 4thly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is used still of Rule without abuse, is forbidden. 5thly. It is forbidden to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. to affect that title which implies one to be under another, and to be beholden one to another, as persons that could gratify one another— which doth imply superiority in some sort. 6thly. The additional speech of Christ commanding in the stead of Dominion, Mat. 20. 26, 27. rather Ministry and Service, shows he would have none among them superior, but all equal. 7ly. Christ's propounding himself as their example, only in service. 8●y. He requires such a mutual debasement— as taketh away the taking to themselves priority of order, or place— or rule over one another, Mat. 20. 26, 27. Mark 10. 43, 44. Luke 22. 26. 9ly. This is confirmed by other places upon a like occasion, Mat. 18. 1, 2, 3, 4. Mark 9 33. — Luke 9 46. In which Christ resolves them that they should be as a little child, that assumes not Empire, but is humble, and accounts others as equal to him. 10ly. From Luke 22. 28.— that Christ having forbidden superiority in any of them, among themselves, promises them a Kingdom, afterward, in recompense of their abiding with him in his temptations.  
All which manifest, 1. a Superiority interdicted. 2. That the Superiority interdicted is not interdicted to all Christians (as he would in his Theodulia bear us in hand) for then Christians should be forbidden to exercise Civil Dominion and Power, as Mr. T. his ten Arguments manifest. But, 3. a Superiority of order over one another, as the Bishops of England exercise over their fellow-Ministers. That the Apostles exercised any such Superiority over the Church of God, or Ministers of a lower order, as the Bishops of England exercise over them, this Animadverter will never prove; And if he were able so to do, this would not justify the Bishops in their exercise of such Superiority, who are invested with no Apostolical Power that I know of. 'Tis true, a rule over the Faith of Saints is disclaimed by the Apostle, 2 Cor. 1. 24. but that this is not the whole of what is interdicted in the places before-cited, he hath himself proved by ten Arguments, but now repeated by us.  
As for 1 Pet. 5. 3. he tells us what the Assembly in their Annotations say on the place, viz. that is, not imperiously commanding your own inventions, in the stead of the Doctrine of the Gospel; not carrying hemselves insolently and magisteriously towards God's People, 3 Joh. 9  
Answ. 1. All this is known to be practised by the present Bishops. They command imperiously their own inventions, to which the preaching of the Gospel must give place, when there is not time for both, as in the case of Liturgy-worship is known to be true: How insolently and magisterially they carry it towards the people of the Lord, the whole Nation is witness. 2. The Elders being interdicted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to exercise Lordly Rule over the Heritage of God, is certainly an interdiction of the introduction of any such Officer into the Church of God, as against the will of the Lord's People, should by virtue of an Office-power, exercise a Lordly jurisdiction over them and their Ministers, (as a superior order of Priesthood) and certainly more forbidden than the office of an Elder. Jurisdiction is not an abuse of our Prelate's Office, as is known, though they too often abuse it, by exercising it exorbitantly, even contrary to their own Canons, but a great, a chief part of it, wherein they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exercise dominion over the People of God, and that against their will by fore and violence, to their utter undoing, and that in execution of that office they have received, and exercise according to their Canon Laws, in their Courts Ecclesiastical.  
We further prove in S. T. That the office of Lord-Bishops is Antichristian, because derived from, and only to be found in the Papacy: none of the Reformed Churches have retained it; the Woman in her flight into the Wilderness carried it not along with her: it's rejected by the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ, in all ages. We instance in several, as Hierom, the Churches of Helvetia, etc.  
To this Mr. T. replies, 1. Though the latter Popes, viz. from the time of Boniface the third (about the year 606.) be the head of Antichrist, yet it doth not follow, that the office that is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy, is surely Antichristian; there having been bad Officers perhaps derived from good Popes, and continued only in the Church of Rome.  
Answ. 1. That the Popes of Rome were not the head of Antichrist, till the time of Boniface the third, this Animadverter will never prove.  
2dly. Should it be granted him, what good Popes he will find from the time of Sylvester about the year 320 I know not, nor what Officers were derived from them. Lord-Bishops there were none till afterwards. When Constantine coming to the Throne, the Man of Sin began by little and little, according to the prophecy of Paul touching him, 2 Thess. 2. 7. to show himself in the following Popes. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Letter, viz. the Roman Pagan Emperors, being removed out of the way (about which time many report a Voice was heard, Hodie Venenum, etc. This day Poison is poured forth into the Church of Christ) And from this time, the noble and renowned Witnesses of Christ, the Waldenses state the Defection of the Church; Catal. Test. 1509. From which time at least, whatever Offices or Rites were introduced, being introduced by the Antichrist, that was now gradually revealing himself, are justly to be accounted Antichristian.  
3dly. Would Mr. T. had told us what Officers they are that are only continued in the Church of Rome that are of divine appointment, that we might have considered the truth of his suggestion. Lord-Bishops we prove are not such.  
He further tells us, 2dly, That it is not true, that the office of Lord-Bishops is derived from, and is only to be found in the Papacy. 1. It is manifest in the first Nicene Council, can. 6. that then and before were Patriarches, Metropolitan Bishops, and Lord-Bishops with their Office.  
Answ. 1. That they were before is not so easily proved: Hither, as to their source and spring, are they usually referred. The learned Hooper tells us; A Bishop ought to be a Bishop only of one City: it is to be lamented that the Episcopal Office is so greatly degenerated: I● was not so from the beginning, when Paul commanded Titus to constitute Bishops through every City. And certainly if the ancient love toward the people did flourish (in us) we should confess that there is more to be done in one City, than can easily be performed by the best. 'Tis sufficiently known that the Primitive-Church had no such Bishops (as were over more Cities or Congregations than one) before the time of Sylvester the first; In whose time was the first Nicene Council.  
2dly. That because the first Nicene Council acknowledged Metropolitan and Lord-Bishops, therefore they are not derived from the Papacy, is not so easily demonstrated. This Council was in o● about the year 315. Long before the Spirit, by which the body Antichristian is animated, visibly manifested itself, not once, nor twice, a● is known. What other spirit shown itself in Victor, who excommunicated the Eastern Bishops, for not keeping Easter with him at the same time: which brawl continued till the first Council of Nice; which sides with Victor (an Argument that they were acted by the same spirit).  
3dly. What assurance will our Animadverter give us, that this Canon (as well as some others, which confessedly are) is not foisted into the Acts of that Council by persons of after-ages? He is not ignorant that Protestants plead this against the Papists, who for the establishment of the Tyranny of the Roman Primacy, produce a fictitious Canon of the Nicene Council.  
4thly. 'Tis incumbent upon him to prove that such Metropolitan Bishops and Lord-Bishops as are now in England, were in and before the first Nicene Council; which he knows to be false and untrue.  
1. The English Episcopacy is an order above the order of Presbyters; then Episcopacy and Presbytery was accounted one and the same order.  
2. Ruledom and Jurisdiction is the peculiar flower of the Garland of our English Episcopacy; of that it was not so. As the Presbyters were to do nothing without the Bishop, so neither was the Bishop to do any thing without the Presbyters.  
He adds, 2. That in the Greek, Eastern, Russian Churches, the same Office is continued.  
Answ. 1. Nor do we affirm the contrary: that we should do so, is not necessary. The Greek-Churches were at the first involved in the same Apostasy with the Roman, at least with respect to the matter in debate betwixt us. 2. We only say, that 'tis only found in the Papacy; with respect to the Reformed-Churches, none of them have continued it.  
He therefore adds, 3. That it is also pleaded, that the Lutheran Churches Reform, that have separated from the Papacy in Germany, Denmark, Swethland, have retained the same Office under the name of Superintendents.  
Answ. 'Tis indeed thus pleaded by Downham, etc. who 'tis like took up the story of Hadrianus Saravia, a known Patron of the Popish Hierarchy, who asserts it in a way of reproach to the Lutheran Reformation; whether it be truly pleaded, or otherwise, Mr. T. tells us not; though he cannot be ignorant of the contrary. The Superintendency of the Lutheran Churches is exceeding different from the Office of our Bishops. 1. Their Superintendent is only as a Precedent or Chairman, for the preservation of order in an Assembly. 2. He is only so during the Session, out of it he exerciseth no authority at all (more than the rest of his Co-Presbyters) as do the Bishops of England. 3. He is subject to the Presbytery; our Bishop's Lords over them. 4. He differs not in order and degree from the rest of the Ministe●●; as do the Bishops of England. 5. He is but a Pastor of one particular Church; our Bishops are of scores, hundreds.  
He proceeds after the same rate of confidence and verity, 4. That it is false, that the true Spouse and Witnesses of Christ have in all ages utterly rejected the Office of Lord-Bishops, and that it hath its entertainment only by the false Antichristian Church.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis much he doth not produce one instance of this Assertion, and yet so confidently avers it; which could he have done, he would as well have proved it false, as said it was so.  
2dly. For the confirmation of the truth of what he saith is false, we have produced several Testimonies; his Answer thereunto, such as it is, we have already taken notice of it, and manifested its lightness and vanity.  
He adds, This is manifest by the many Epistles written to the English Prelates by their reception at the Synod of Dort.—  
Answ. 1. What the Epistles are he intends, what the Reception mentioned, is not of such import, as to spend our time in enquiring thereabout.  
2dly. That they have rejected the Office of Lord-Bishops is known; they have published their dislike and detestation of it, in their Confession to the world. What respect any of them give them (either in point of civility, or as Messengers, or persons sent from the King, or perhaps not being truly informed what the Jurisdiction and Office is they exercise) in their private Letters, or otherwise, is not considerable in the matter in hand. The Office of Lord-Bishops, or a superiority of Order above Presbyters or Elders, they absolutely condemn, as we have proved.  
We add in S. T. One Stone of Offence must be removed out of our way— It is said, that though Lord-Bishops are Antichristian, yet it doth not follow that the Office and Ministry derived from them is so: for they are also Presbyters, and ordained as Presbyters.  
To which Mr. T. subjoins, 1. There is nothing replied to the allegation that Bishops ordain with Presbyters.  
Answ. 1. Nor is there any such allegation in the objection proposed. 2ly. If there were, it's not so considerable as to deserve to be taken notice of: They are only assistants to the Bishop: 'tis he (not they) that sets them apart, admits them into Sacred Orders, as they heathenishly call them.  
He adds, 2dly. Nor to this, that some of the Bishops have acknowledged Episcopacy, not to be an order above Presbytery.  
Answ. 1. Who they are that have thus acknowledged I know not.  
2. Mr. T. saith not that any of the present Bishops do so. 3. If they did in words, their practice contradicts it, exercising jurisdictions over the Presbyters, or Elders.  
3dly. Nor to this (saith he) that though the Bishop imposing hands do act as of superior order, yet being a Presbyter his act is valid; as he that convey's a thing, as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor, if he be not Heir, yet if he be only Executor & by that hath power to convey i●, the Grant is good.  
Answ. 1. But this is Mr. T. his mistake; I say expressly, though it should be granted that they act as Presbyters, yet their act is not valid, because they act not as Presbyters of the institution of Christ● of which he afterwards takes notice.  
Though 2dly, Mr. T. will never be able to prove, that the Bishop imposing hands, as a Bishop, and acting under that capacity, yet being a Presbyter, his act is valid. For. 1. when a Bishop, he is no longer a Presbyter, but one of an higher order and degree; as a Presbyter, is no longer a Deacon, when once made a Presbyter. 2. As a Bishop he hath no authority from Christ at all, to act in the business of imposition of hands; therefore acting as such, his act is invalid, which his once being a Presbyter cannot make otherwise, because he is not now so, nor acts as such but avowedly the contrary. 3. His instance of a persons conveying a thing, as conceiving himself as Heir and Executor— is not pertinent. For. 1. He hath originally and legally the same right if he be one, as if both, and pretends to a right to both in his conveyance. 2ly. Should he refuse his Executorship, and make a Conveyance as Heir, and he prove not to be so, his Conveyance is naught. Nay, 3. if he make a Conveyance of what neither as Heir or Executor, he hath any right to, the Grant is undoubtedly not good. This is evidently the case of our Lord-Bishops.  
To the objection as proposed by us, we answer. 1. That they act in the capacity of Presbyters in the matter of ordination, is false: 2. Contrary to their avowed principles.  
Mr. T. replies, This is uncertain—  
Answ. And he may as well say it is uncertain that the Sun shines at noonday: The least smatterer in the usages of the Church of England, and principles of these Doctors thereof, see, and know it to be certainly true. 2. Contrary to the known Law of the Land, by which they receive power to act therein, in which they are known, and owned only in the capacity of Lord-Bishop.  
Mr. T. replies, This is not true, for the ordination of Suffragan-Bishops who are not Lords, is valid by Law.  
Answ. A weak proof of such a crimination. A Suffragan-Bishop is a Titular-Bishop when he acts: in the matter of ordination, he represents the Lord-Bishop whose Suffragan he is. And the Law accounts his act, not his own, but the act of the Lord-Bishop, whose Representee he is. And this Mr. T. could not be ignorant of.  
We say, 3dly. 'Tis contrary to their late practice, whereby they have sufficiently declared, the nullity of a Ministerial Office, received from the hands of a Presbytery, in thrusting out of doors several hundreds of Ministers, so ordained. Strange! that it should be pleaded they act as Presbyters in the matter of ordination, and yet they themselves judge a Presbyterian ordination invalid.  
What saith Mr. T.? Why, 1. They do not nullify ordination by a Presbytery in foreign Churches.  
Answ. But this is not at all to the purpose; have they not done so at home? To attempt to do so in foreign Churches, where they have no power; were but to expose themselves to greater contempt, as busy Bishops indeed.  
2dly. In England they do it, because the Laws (saith he) require Episcopal Ordination—  
Answ. But Sir, the question is not upon what accounts they have so done in England, but whether their so doing, be not a manifestation, that they act not in the capacity of Presbyters in the business of Ordination; for if they did, they fore-condemn their own act, in condemning Presbyterian ordination; their ordination being upon this supposition only such.  
2dly. He grants The Law requires Episcopal ordination; if so, it doth sure tie them that act in it, to think themselves Bishops, to act with such an intention, and under that notion, which not many lines before he denied.  
We further answer in S. T. What if this should be granted; it would avail nothing, except it can be proved, that they are, and act as Presbyters of the institution of Christ, which (these being only in a particular instituted Church of Christ) will never be to the world's end,  
To which our Animadverter replies, If this be held, than all the Presbyters of the French, Dutch, and other Churches under Presbyterial government, are not of Christ's institution, and so a separation avowed from all Protestant Churches, except their own.  
Answ. 1. But this is no proof, that the Bishops of England act in the matter of ordination, as Presbyters of the institution of Christ: which is the one and only thing he should have heeded in his reply, but of that he is wholly silent.  
2dly. No doubt he thinks he hath sufficiently bespattered u●; but if he account it a discredit to speak palpable untruths, it will be his own.  
1. 'Tis false that we avow separation from all Churches, but those of our own way: that our Assertion tends to such an end, I challenge our Dictator to make good. 2. The Presbyterians own particular Churches of the institution of Christ, have their Presbyters, fixed officers, in and amongst them, and that both in England and beyond the Seas. What satisfaction he will think meet to make us, for so foul an aspersion, whereby he labours to render us odious to the Godly, at home & abroad, we shall know by the next. In the mean while we are ready to attend his motions in the next Chapter.    

CHAP. V.  

Sect. 1.  
The fourth Argument in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers, vindicated. A twofold denial of the Offices of Christ. Whether the Papists are guilty of a verbal, professional denial of Christ's Offices. 'Tis not lawful to hear such as are guilty of a verbal or real denial of Christ's Offices. The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ. They do so who harken not to that revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders of his House. Deut. 18. 18, 19 Act. 3. 23. Mat. 3. 17. Isa. 9 6. explained. The vanity of Mr. T. his dictates to the contrary, evinced.  
IN Chap. 4th of S. T. we advance a fourth Argument against hearing the present Ministers, which is this.  
Those that deny any of the Offices of Christ, are not to be heard but separated from: But the present Ministers deny some of the Offices of Christ: Therefore—  
Before we come to clear the several parts of the Argument, we premise, 1. That there is a twofold denial of the Offices of Christ. 1. Verbal, and professional, (of this the Jews, not the Papists, no● the Ministers of England are guilty.) 2. Real, and actual, when persons do that which enwraps in the bowels of it a denial of the Offices of Christ. Thus the Papists, the present Ministers are guilty.  
To this Mr. T. replies, I allow the distinction; but it is false, that the Papists are not guilty of the verbal professional denying of the Offices of Christ: for though they acknowledge Christ to be King— yet their doctrine overthrows all the Offices of Christ; as he that ascribes Kingly power to a Subject, doth make another King, and so doth unking him— Thus the Papists do while they will have unwritten traditions to be received—  
Answ. 1st. To dispute about words with any man living, I shall not: by a verbal professional denying of Christ's Offices, I mean, express, and downright asserting, that he is not King— of his Church; this I say the Papists do not, they own, preach up all the Offices of Christ, i. e. they acknowledge him in their discourses of his Offices to be King— to his Church, which Mr. T. knows they do. Their ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ, in assertions mentioned, I make a real and actual denial and oppugning the Offices of Christ. It being a doing what enwraps in the bowels of it such a denial of them.  
2dly. This Animadverter hath already asserted, what will in part at least make good our charge in this matter against the Ministers of England. The ascription of Kingly power to any but Christ, is a denying his Kingly authority; the Papists [Prelates and Ministers of England] do so, in asserting, that traditions unwritten are to be received— That the Pope [a Convocation, or Assembly of Prelates and Priests] can make Laws to bind the Conscience by virtue of his [their] authority, can dispense with God's Laws, incestuous Marriages (by granting a Licence for a good Spill) prohibited by God— therefore the Papists [the Ministers of England] do deny the Kingly authority of Christ.  
We premise in S. T. 2dly. That a verbal professional acknowledgement of Christ, is nothing when contradicted in practice: To which we subjoin, that such as really oppose, or deny any of the Offices of Christ, are not to be heard, but separated from: which we prove, 1. Because such a● do so, are the Antichrists, 1 Joh. 2. 22. and 4. 2, 3. 2 Joh. 7. 2dly. To hear such, is to strengthen and encourage them in that their denial of, and opposition to the Offices of Christ, and thereby to become partakers with them in their sin. Of which we treat more at large in S. T. chap. 4. p. 29, 30.  
Whereunto Mr. T. replies; 1. That a verbal professional acknowledgement of the Offices of Christ, when contradicted by practice, is nothing to the salvation of the person so professing; his plea shall not be admitted before God, or man's Ecclesiastcal censure (i. e. he may be suspended, excommunicated for his so acting notwithstanding his profession,) yet all this doth not prove— that his doctrine may not be heard—  
Answ. 1. It seems then its lawful to hear persons, not walking exorbitantly, but under Church censure for so doing, which pours forth most fearful contempt upon that institution of Christ, Excommunication. To what purpose is it that any one is cast out of the Church, if it may be lawful to hear them notwithstanding — i. e. own them as the mouth of God to me, and my mouth to God, whom the Church thought not meet to be continued as a member in the body.  
2dly. In vain (then) are all the exhortations of the Apostle to the Saints with relation to their withdrawment from such as these, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. Ephes. 5. 11.  
3dly. To no purpose did Paul write to the Corinthians to receive the incestuous person, had they but known their liberty, they might have done so before: for if his doctrine did not oppugn the Offices of Christ, it might have been heard, to their profit (according to our Dictator's dictates) they might not only have received him, but as a Preache● amongst them.  
Nay, 4thly, In vain is the charge of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 3. 5. for if they profess to own the Offices of Christ (i e. Have a Form of Godliness) though they contradict it in their walk (i. e. deny the Power thereof) they may be joined with. Poor Paul understood not so much of our Christian Liberty, as rich, confident Mr T. who is driven to such pitiful shifts, and gross absurdities in the management of this Controversy, that I really pity him.  
He adds, 'Tis not true, that Christ saith, the false Prophets are to be descried by their vicious Life only. Nor do I say (in this place) he doth; I say, he saith, they are to be known by their fruits. Preaching, and practising what invelops in it a denial of the Offices of Christ, though attended with a visible holy Conversation I am contented that he make the fruits mentioned to be. His discourse of Judas, and false Prophets being so called, not in respect of their outward Calling, or vicious Lives, but of their Doctrine, that upon the least occasion he runs frequently forth into, we have already answered. Nor say we, that teaching something (through ignorance, and inadvertency) as is appointed by Christ, which is not, or denying something to be instituted which was so appointed, is what doth denominate a man a false Prophet.  
The Animadverter forgets what it is he attempts to answer; we are not talking of false Prophets, but of such as deny the Offices of Christ, nor do we say that this (as thus proposed by him) doth render a man guilty of real denying the Offices of Christ (or is a sufficient ground of separation from him, much less than an opposing in heart any of the Offices of Christ is so, as he suggests afterwards we do) but that those that do really oppose any of the Offices of Christ, viz. by setting themselves against the most, if not the whole of Gospel-Institutions, by owning a power in others, to constitute Laws for the Family and Household of Christ, even contrary to his Institutions, and acknowledging another Head beside him, of his Church, is such a real denial of the Offices of Christ, that upon whomsoever it is found, 'tis the duty of Saints to separate from them, and that for the reasons before mentioned; which Mr. T. may disprove when he can.  
The rest of this Section being spent in railing, and sorry impertinencies: I come to his second Section, were he sets himself to consider our Minor Proposition, viz. That the present Ministers of England do oppose and deny the Prophetical and Kingly Offices of Christ; Which we prove thus.  
Those that harken not to the Revelation Christ hath made, and as Supreme Lord and Lawgiver hath enjoined to be observed, touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House, deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ, Deut. 18. 18. Acts 3. 22. Isa. 9 6. But the present Ministers of England hearken, and conform not to, the Revelation Christ hath made, touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House; Therefore.—  
To which Mr. T. replies by denying the Major, (or first Proposition) But he wisely takes no notice of the Scriptures produced for the Proof hereof, as Deut. 18. 18, 19 where the Lord promiseth to raise up Christ from among his Brethren, in whose mouth he would put his words, by whom he would speak to them, to whom whosoever will not hearken, God saith, he will require it of him; (i. e. take vengeance on him, as the Greek renders it, or as the Apostle, Acts 3. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall be exterminated from amongst the People; rejected by the Saints, as a Despiser, oppugner of the Offices of Christ, into which he was so solemnly invested by the Father, Mat. 3. 17.) In Isa. 9 6. It is Prophesied of Christ, That the Government should be laid upon his shoulders, he should be King in Zion, give forth (as such) Laws and Constitutions, for the Government of his People; which accordingly he doth, and solemnly promulgates them by his Heralds, and Messengers, fixeth them as upon public Pillars, in the Scriptures of Truth, to be seen and read of all men. That after all this; persons should refuse, slight, neglect to hearken to these Institutions of Christ, violate, oppose preach against them, and yet not be guilty of denying his Prophetical and Kingly Offices, is the firstborn of absurdities. Go, and offer it to thy Prince; deal so by the constitutions of thy Rulers, and see what they will say to thee, what interpretation will be by them put upon thy so dealing with them. But he gives the reasons of his denial; and tells us,  
1. Denial is more than not harkening to.  
Answ. There is a denial its true, that is more than a not harkening to, but there is a not harkening to, that is a real denial, rejection of the Authority of him to whom we refuse to hearken. The Scripture expressly affirms it, Psal. 81. 11. But my People would not hearken to my voice: Israel would none of me. Ezek. 20. 8. but they rebelled against me, (i. e. opposed, rejected my Authority) and would not hearken unto me. Nor can I tell how those Luke 19 14. are said to send a message after Christ saying, We will not have this man [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to King it over us (which is sure a denial of his Kingly Authority) but by refusing to hearken, and conform to his Royal Appointments.  
He adds, 2dly, The not harkening may be out of ignorance, incapacity to understand, fearfulness, etc. without any enmity of heart, habitual stubbornness,— which are requisite to a plain denial of the Offices of Christ.  
Answ. 1. It may be so indeed, but whether this be the reason of the Ministers of England, not harkening thereunto, he acquaints us not. Certainly they are not fit to be Ministers of the Gospel, or to be accounted Overseers of the flock of Christ, who are ignorant of his Institutions, and incapable of understanding them.  
2. Though it be out of fearfulness, prevalency of temptation, that they harken not, yet may their not so doing be a denial of the Offices of Christ. It was out of fearfulness, the prevalency of temptation, that Peter denied his Lord, without any enmity of heart, yet his denial was a plain denial. So false is that which Mr. T. saith, That enmity of heart, habitual stubbornness, or wilful gainsaying are requisite hereunto.  
He tells us, 3dly, There may be sundry Orders of his House controverted, if acknowledged such, not thought to be of that moment, as to break the Peace of the Church, by contending for them, or not judged perpetual or not binding the Ministers to observe till the Magistrates reform.—  
Answ. 1. But upon such Principles as these, I know not but Christ may be divested of the Sceptre of his Kingdom, all his bonds and cords broken asunder, and cast away; and yet no one would be nocent. It is evident that this is the lot of many, most of them already.  
2dly, There are but few of the Orders of Christ's House, but are controverted amongst the Children of men; will this excuse any from subjection to them? May not the Papists plead thus for their rejection of the Institutions of Christ? Must Christ lose his obedience, till the parties Litigant are at an agreement? Nugae, & tricae sic●lae! what more frivolous could have been invented!  
3dly, This Animadverter will one day find, that there are no Institutions of Christ, but what are of moment, how derogatory to the glory of Christ, the Oeconomie and Administration of the Gospel, such assertions as these are, others will judge.  
4thly, That any of the Institutions of Christ remarked by us were temporary, I challenge Mr. T. to make good, i. e. such as were not to endure till his coming. Such Principles as these would soon evert all Gospel-Institutions, and make way for the Introduction of unwritten Vanities, and humane Traditions, which the soul of our Lord abhors.  
5thly, I desire to be informed, what Appointments of Christ those are, that are not binding to the Ministers, till the Magistrate reform; I know not any such, and conceive the assertion to be foreign to Truth.  
1. The Primitive Believers were obliged to conform to ●hem all, though the Magistrate blasphemed, and opposed.  
2. 'Tis wondrous derogatory to Christ's honour to ask the Magistrate leave whether his Institutions shall be binding or not (i. e. ●f he will reform, they shall, otherwise not) such trash as this, will nev●r pass for sound reason: absurd dictates, without proof, though never ●o importunely imposed, Mr. T. must not imagine will meet with reception amongst judicious Christians.  
6thly, That it should be scandalous to hearken to the Institutions of Christ (as he suggests) is such a monstrous assertion, that I a● amazed to think it should drop from such a person. The reciting it i● refutation sufficient. So that the Major Proposition I still take for manifest truth, notwithstanding his three dictates to the contrary, which are now abundantly refuted.   

Sect. 2.  
The present Ministers of England do not hearken and conform to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House, proved by the induction of seven particulars. All power for the Calling, Institution, Order, and Government of his Church, is invested solely in Christ. Mat. 28. 19 1 Tim. 6. 14, 15. John 3. 35. Acts 3. 22. and 5. 31. Mat. 23. 8, 9, 10. 1 Cor. 11. 23. and 14. 37. Gal. 1. 8. 2 John 10. Rev. 22. 18. Acts 15. 25, 28. considered. The present Ministers own other Lords (that have a Law-making-Power) over his Churches, besides Christ; which Mr. T. grants is a denial of his Kingly Authority. Separation from the World, and Saints walking together in particular Societies an Institution of Christ, proved. This is opposed by the present Ministers. 1 Cor. 1. 2. Phil. 1. 1, 5. 2 Cor. 8. 5. John 15. 19 and 17. 6. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Acts 2. 40. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Acts 19 9 Rev. 18. 4. considered. Of the acception of the word World. Characters of persons that are not of the World. A third Institution of Christ remarked. Of the power Christ hath entrusted his Church with. Acts 1. 23. 1 Cor. 5. 5. explained. Of the Officers of Christ's appointment. Their Election by the Church. Of the Liberty of Prophesying. Nothing must be offered up to God in Worship but what is of his own prescription. The present Ministers of England refuse to subject to these Ordinances of Christ. An Objection answered. Mr. T. his Exceptions considered, and removed out of the way.  
2dly. THat the present Ministers of England do not hearken and conform to the Revelation Christ hath made touching the Orders and Ordinances of his House; we prove in S. T. by the induction of seven particulars.  
To this Mr. T. replies, in Sect. 3. Chap. 4. 1st, In the stead of Argument, he proves all with Interrogations.—  
Answ. False and untrue; I wonder at the conscience and confidence of the man in asserting it. He knows I prove it by the induction of the most remarkable Orders of the House of Christ, which they harken not to.  
2dly, He asks, Which of the Ordinances of Christ have they made void?  
Answ. They were under his view whilst he wrote these words; so that his question is frivolous. I enumerate seven of the Orders and Institutions of Christ they have so dealt with.  
He adds, 3dly, He should have reckoned up seven times seven.  
Answ. 1. And why so? If guilty of a rejection of these, which are the principal; they oppose his Kingly and Prophetical Office, though they embrace some others that are of his appointment. The Romanists do so, yet this Animadverter grants they are guilty of the crime instanced in.  
2. Mr. T. cannot reckon up seven times seven Institutions of Christ that are of the peculiar Institutions of his House, to be performed by Saints embodied, and united together in the fellowship of the Gospel, nor many more than these seven mentioned by us. He instanceth in hearing the Word, praying to the Father in the Name of Christ,— which he tells us they have not made void by their Traditions.  
Answ. 1. The first of these is in a great measure (if not totally) made void by them. 1. They oppose and deny the management of this duty, in the way of Christ's appointment, whilst they debar Christians from electing their own Officers, or attending upon the Ministry of such as are according to the mind of Christ elected by them. 2. The Preaching of the Word must give way to their Service-Book-Worship; or Forms of humane devising; which I am much mistaken, if it be not, in a great measure, a making void of that Institution of Christ (he speaks of) by their Traditions.  
2. I wish the same may not be said (with respect to the most of them at least) of praying to the Father in the Name of Christ, which none can do but by the Spirit, whom they despise, reproach, set up their stinted Form● in opposition to him and his breathe.  
The first of the Orders of Christ's House instanced in, is, That all Power for the Calling, Institution, Order and Government of his Church, is invested solely in him, as the alone Lord, Sovereign Ruler, and Head thereof, Mat. 28. 19 1 Tim. 6. 14, 15. John 3. 35. Acts 3. 22. and 5. 31. Hence Christ chargeth his Disciples, not to be called of men Rabbi; nor to call any Father; (viz. not to impose their authority upon any, or suffer themselves to be imposed upon by any in the matters of their God.) Mat. 23. 8, 9, 10, because one is their Master and Lord, viz. Christ Hence also the Apostles lay the weight of their exhortations upon the Commandment of Christ, 1 Cor. 11. 23. and 14. 37. proclaim all to be accursed that preach any other Gospel, Gal. 1. 8. Charge Chr●stians not to receive such as bring any other Doctrine, 2 John 10. The Spirit terribly threatens such as shall add to the Revelation of God, Rev. 22. 18. This Institution, we say, they conform hot really unto, they own other Lords, Heads and Governors (that have a Law-making Power, over his Churches) beside him.  
To this Mr. T. 1. That all power for the Calling, Institution, Order and Government of his Church is invested solely in Christ, as the alone Lord, Sovereign Ruler, and Head thereof, he grants as a Truth.  
Though, 2dly, He assents not to our Paraphrase on Mat. 23. 8.— As if Christ did forbid the Apostles to impose their Authority upon any in the matters of their God; which they did, Acts 15. 25, 28.  
Answ. 1. By imposing their Authority,— is meant giving forth Commands, Doctrines in their own Names, as from themselves, without the Authority of Christ. Where did they so? Do they not every where disavow it, 1 Cor. 1. 15. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 1. Divine Revelation, not the Dictates of men, one or other of them, is the Foundation of a Christians Faith.  
2. Mr. T. mistakes when he saith, they did this, Acts 15. 25, 28. For, 1st. They enjoined nothing but what was before enjoined by the Lord, (only acquainted the Gentile Believers therewith) as is, 1. Abstinence from Fornication, Exod. 20. 14. Ezek. 16. 26, 29. Mat. 5. 32. 2. From things Strangled, Deut. 12. 24. 3. From Blood, Gen. 9 4. 5. (i. e. the Life-Blood, or any member of the creature pulled from it whilst it is yet alive, as the Jewish Rabbins expound it, and that truly.)  
2dly, He speaks against the express Letter of the Scripture, vers. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us; Expressions very remote from the countenancing such an authoritative imposition, as he speaks of.  
2. He asks, How comes this to be an Order,— of the House of Christ, he took such Orders to be Precepts of Christ to us, but this seems to be God's gift to him.  
Answ. That Christ's Ruledom and Sovereignty over his House is a gift of God to him, we grant; but such a gift as doth necessarily imply a duty, on the part of his Household, viz. That they own, obey, subject to none, in the matters of Worship, but only him, admit no Laws or Institutions amongst them but his. And this is expressly asserted in S. T. which we took then, and still do, for an Order of Christ's House.  
3. He tells us further, That to assert, the present Ministers of England own other Lords (that have a Law-making Power over his Churches) besides him, is to unchristen them.  
Answ. 1. And however Mr. T. his Book came to be licenced, with an intimation from the reverend Licenser, That he finds nothing in it contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England. Some of them think (though I assure him I do not) he hath asserted that, pag. 123, that doth indeed unchristen them.  
2. However, if the assertion mentioned unchristens them, they unchristen themselves. The persons, I mean, that they own as Lords and Governors, that have a Law-making power, are the Prelates— in the Convocation-House— That they own these, as such (to them and their Canons they promise obedience and subjection) needs no more proof, than the Sun at noon-days that it shineth. Whether this be a denial of Christ's authority, rebellion against him, let the Reader inform himself from Mr. T. Chap. 4. Pag. 119. of his Theodulia. He that ascribes Kingly power to a subject, doth make another King than the right King, and so doth, unking him: this he tells us the Papists do, when they assert the Pope can make Laws to bind the Conscience, by virtue of his authority; and I know no more power our Convocation of Bishops— have to do so then the Pope. Till that be showed, the Animadverter grants our Ministers asserting the same of them in this matter (as the Papists of the Pope) they really unking Christ.  
Nor, 3dly, Let him think, that he is to deal with such Children, that with his drollery, will be persuaded that they see, and know not, what they both see and know. 'Tis not the calling persons (as he doth, by what spirit let him judge) Diabolical Calumniators, Railers and Scolds (in Latin and English) that now a days will be taken for an answer or confutation of what the whole Nation know to be true. And they themselves will acknowledge and plead for it.  
A 2d Order and Institution of Christ we mention in S. T. viz. That 'tis his will, that those whom he hath called by his Word, should separate from the World, walk together in particular Societies, and Churches,— 1 Cor. 1. 2. and 5. 12. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Rev. 18. 4. John 15. 19 and 17. 6. Acts 2. 40. and 19 9 Phil. 1. 5. Acts 2. 41. and 17. 4. 2 Cor. 8. 5.— This Institution we say the Ministers of England are at open defiance with; admitting persons visibly wicked and profane, into their Communion.  
To this Mr. T. replies, Sect. 4. 1st. He hath read somewhat in Ainsworth, Cottons Writings (for to them we refer the Reader for further satisfaction) But he doth not find in them, nor the Scriptures mentioned, any such separation as these Author's press.—  
Answ. The Separation we press is a separation from the visible wicked and profane; cannot the Animadverter find this in the Scriptures, nor in the Author's instanced in? Let me prevail with him in a sedate frame without passion or prejudice, once more to review them, and beg of the Lord to open the eyes of his understanding, that he may see his mind therein. 1 Cor. 1. 2. Phil. 1. 1, 5. 2 Cor. 8. 5. Give us an account that those who constituted and made up those particular Churches, were visible Saints, sanctified in Christ Jesus. (The like instance might be given of the rest of the Churches mentioned in the Scripture.) The Disciples of Christ are said to be chosen out of the World, John 15. 19 and 17. 6. The Saints in a Church-state are commanded not to suffer a Fornicator, Covetous person, an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, in their Communion (though allowed civil commerce with them in the world) 1 Cor. 5. 12. In Acts 2. 40. 2 Cor. 6. 17. we find the Apostles pressing, and Chap. 19 9 practising Separation from the wicked World; which is also commanded with respect to Antichristian worship, Rev. 18. 4. If Mr. T. cannot see such a Separation as we press, contained in these Scriptures, I cannot but pity him. 'Tis said that when this way was more countenanced, he practised somewhat not much unlike thereunto.  
2dly, He grants, That Separation from the World, in respect of Worship, is the duty of Saints,— 2 Cor. 6. 17. but then by the World is meant professed Infidels,— or at least such as were professed unbelievers, as John 15. 19 and 17. 6. Acts 2. 40. and 19 9  
Answ. 1. That the word World is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word of various acceptions in the Scripture is known, with which we shall not trouble the Reader. The Animadverter grants, That it is taken for persons living in the World: Now these are but of two sorts, that I know of, regenerate, or unregenerate; such as walk after the Flesh, or such as walk after the Spirit; Believers, or Unbelievers. And when the word World is put in opposition to the Saints, it's always taken for the World of unregenerate persons that lies in wickedness, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is in subjection to the wicked one, 1 John 5. 19 That men are not of the World, because from Tradition, Education, Compulsion, Interest, or the like, they profess the Name of Christ, though they never knew a work of Grace, or change upon their spirits is a fiction of this Animadverter that he will never make good. If such as these are not of the world, they are chosen, called out of it, let us a little consider whether the Characters of these be found upon them.  
1. They are said to be Branches in Christ, that abide in him, and bring forth fruit, John 15. 2, 4, 5.  
2dly, They are clean through the word that he hath spoken to them, vers. 3.  
3dly, They have a mighty power and prevalency with God, vers. 7, 16.  
4thly, They have the words of Christ abiding in them, vers. 7.  
5thly, Are such whom Christ loves, vers. 9  
6thly, His Lovers and Friends, ready prenst to do whatever he commands them, vers. 14, 15.  
7thly, To whom he hath revealed the Mysteries of God, vers. 15. Chap. 17. 6, 14.  
8thly, They are hated of the world, vers. 18, 19, 20, 21. and Chap. 16. 2, 3, 33. and 17. 14.  
9thly, Keep God's Word, Chap. 17. 6.  
10thly, To them Christ gives the glory that the Father hath given to him, Chap. 17. 22. will have them to be with him where he is, to behold his glory, vers. 24. with much more that might be instanced. Elsewhere they are called such as are delivered from the power of darkness, Col. 1. 13. Quickened, who were dead in trespasses, and sins, Ephes. 2. 1. Called to be Saints, Rom. 1. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Are Light in the Lord, Ephes. 5. 8. have received the Spirit, which the World, or Men of the world cannot receive (and abide such) John 14. 17. These are the Characters of those that are not of the world. Do we refuse to hold communion with, do we separate from persons of this complexion? What more false? We cry aloud to them, woe, beseech, entreat them, as many of them, as are yet, too much holding fellowship with the carnal wicked world in Worship, to come out from them: which was one, and no small part of our design in S. T. As for others, that know nothing of the things mentioned, they are yet in their sins, though they profess the Name of Christ, under the regiment of the wicked one, and of the world; and therefore to be separated from as this Animadverter grants. Of the Apostles going into the Jewish Synagogues, etc. we shall speak in its proper place. Though we have no command to separate from the true Worship of God, and the professors of the true Faith, walking suitable thereunto, yet we have express precepts, to have no communion in Worship, that is of the devising of man, the Pope, Antichrist, with persons as members of the same Body, and that have the very Lineaments of Satan, the portraiture of Hell upon them, with whom Christ doth not, will not walk. The Scriptures but now instanced in, evince as much. Rev. 18. 4. commands separation from a false Church; false either in constitution or by apostasy: The Church of England (Rome) is so, as we have proved, and the false Worship thereof, of this we have already spoken. Let the Reader seriously consider the Scriptures, he will find it to be so. In a word, the Babylon mentioned, our Animadverter will grant, is the Roman Church, Chap. 17. 1, 2, 3. The scarlet coloured Beast is th' Civil Power (not once represented under the notion of Beasts, Dan. 7. 3, 17.) by which she hath ever been supported from the beginning. The seven Heads are the seven sorts of Governments, viz. Kings, Consuls, Dictator's; Decemvirs, Tribunes, Caesars, Christian Emperors, (and the seven Mountains upon which Rome was built, Rev. 17. 9, 10.) The ten Horns, are the ten Kingdoms, which her abominations, and filthiness of her fornications did overflow (of which England was one (as is known, and generally granted) vers. 12, 13. The coming out of her is a separation from the whole of her Abominations, Ministry, Rites, Inventions (which if we do not, we come not out of her) she hath in the ten Kingdoms, by the power of the Civil Magistrate, that supported her, erected, and by external force and violence, compelled persons to bow down to; with respect hereunto she is represented as drunk with the blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Jesus. This is all we plead for from this Scripture. We would not have the Institutions, Inventions of this old Bawd and bloody Strumpet, imposed upon us, and subjected to, as if from Christ.  
Let the Animadverter or any one for him prove the Hierarchy of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Chapters, etc. their Parish-Churches, as such, Organs, Singing-Service, bowing before Altars, Candles, (there placed) Copes, holy Vestments, Service-Book,— to be of the Institution of Christ, and we are ready to stoop to them, and own those that practise them: but if they have no other foundation but what ●he Mother of Harlots, compelled the Civil Powers to give them, when she rid them at her pleasure, and made them serve her Lusts, to the murdering of millions of the Servants of Christ, in the Nations, as most certain it is they have not; as it would be the honour of the chief Rulers of the Nations, to eradicate them, they remaining as a badge of their old slavery, to the worst of Strumpets: So it's eminently the duty of the Children of God, by virtue of express precept from this Scripture, in the mean while (whatever they may suffer) to separate from them. The Church of England (i e. the best, and most enlightened amongst the chief of the Nation) thought it their duty in days past to separate from the Doctrine of the Papacy, and some of her Trinkets to cast overboard: we plead but for separation from her Discipline, and Ministry, and the rejection of the rest of her fopperies; that as we profess ourselves Christians, we may have (not the Canons of Rome, but) the Laws of our dear Lord for our Rule and sole guide in this matter, which one would think above many, Mr. T. might permit one peaceably to do, 1 Cor. 5. 12, 13. Phil. 1. 5. Act. 2. 41. and 17. 4. were brought to prove it the duty of Saints as such to walk together distinct, and apart from the world; not to distinguish of the duties of Pastors and People, nor to prove any written Church-Covenant, which we were not treating of. So that in what follows in this Sect. we are not at all concerned. We have thrown no dirt upon the face of the Church of England (as he is pleased to talk) we only tell her what di●t and filth is there, that evety body sees, but her Admirers. Nor are we solicitous touching his throwing dirt in the face of the separated Churches, from the Writings of any railing false accusers; God will plead their Cause, and bring forth their Righteousness in the fit season.  
The third Institution of Christ mentioned in S. T. is this, That he hath entrusted his particular Churches with power for the carrying on the Worship of his House, to choose Officers, admit Members, excommunicate Offenders— Acts 1. 23. and 6. 3, 5. and 14. 23. 2 Cor. 8. 19 Mat. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4. The Ministers of the Church of England own not, conform not to this Institution of Christ, we manifest in the said Treatise.  
Mr. T. his Reply hereunto is, 1. The Election, Acts 1. 23. was of an Apostle, and that by Lot, and contains no Institution of Christ we are bound to follow.  
Answ. 1. This last is Mr. T. his dictate, which 'tis fit should be rejected, till he proves it; especially considering, that the Churches for some hundreds of years, afterwards, chose their own Officers.  
2. Though it was the Election of the Apostle, yet he was I hope an Officer of Christ, and that to the Churches.  
3. His being chosen by Lots, doth not evince that he was not chosen by the Church; they gave forth the Lots, seems to be expressive of the way they took, to manifest the person whom they chose. What he hath said of Acts 6. 3, 5. and 14. 23. is already answered. The Election, 2 Cor. 8. 19 being of a person employed in service by them, manifests that none are to do services for the Church, but by their appointment. Of Mat. 18. 17. we have at large spoken already, and vindicated it from Mr. T. his Exceptions. That 1 Cor. 5. 5.  more than Excommunication practised by the Churches of the Saints, he cannot prove: his turning Mat. 18. 17. also to another sense, is an argument of his denial of any such Institution of Christ to be practised by the Churches in the World.  
1st, That 'Tis a Church-Act is evident from the words, vers. 4, 5. The Church is to be gathered together for this end, to deliver the Incestuous person over to Satan; But no Church (saith Mr. T.) had power over unclean Spirits, to command them to cruciat the Bodies of persons: Therefore (say we) that cannot be here intended.  
2dly, The Church comes together to do that which Paul condemns them, that they had not done before, stirs them up to set about vers. 2. Now it had been absurd to have condemned them for not doing that which they had no power or Authority to do.  
3dly, That which he calls here a delivering to Satan, he calls a purging out from among them the old leaven, verse. 7.  
4thly, To the working of Miracles by the Apostle, there had been no need to have assembled the Church, but it was necessary, that to the doing of this act the Church be assembled, vers. 4, 5.  
5thly, He is to be delivered to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved; which is not likely to be effected by Satan's Ministry.  
6thly, 'Tis more than probable, the Church did what the Apostle commanded them to do. Now this is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the public rebuke inflicted by many (which many cannot signify the Apostle, but the Church of Corinth) all which evince, that it was a Church-act, and no more than what is practised by the Churches of Christ at this day. Though 'tis true, it is more than the ordinary Excommunication of the Church of England; by a Chancellor or Proctor, several miles from the Parish-Church to which the person is related, and (it may be) unknown to them; an argument they own not this Institution of Christ. We add in S. T. as another Institution of Christ,  
4. That the Officers of his appointment are only such as these, Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, Widows, or Helpers; who as they are in one particular Congregation, so they have not any Lordly authority over each other, — Ephes. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7. and 16. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. Acts 6. 5. and 15. 2. and 20. 17. and 28. 21, 28. 1 Tim. 3. chapped. and 5. 9, 10, 17. This Law of Christ they subject not (we say) unto; set up other Officers and Offices.—  
To which Mr. T. 1st, There were other Officers given by Chrst, besides these mentioned, viz. Apostles, therefore these are not the only Officers of his appointment.  
Answ. 1. Had he said therefore, These were not the only Officers of his appointment, he had spoken more properly; Apostles were of his appointment, are not now, as we have proved.  
2. We are speaking of ordinary fixed Officers, in the particular Churches of Christ, which the Apostles were not; so that his instancing these, and inference thereupon, is frivolous and impertinent. If these had Superiority over others, it will not advantage the Animadverter, except he can prove the Bishops in respect of Office, to be their Successors, which he will never be able to do. That because the Elders mentioned, 1 Tim. 5. 17. must be accounted worthy of double honour, therefore they were of a Superior order of Ministry, to lord it over the rest, is one of Mr. T. his Consequences, that a youth of half a years standing in the University would be ashamed of. Besides Sir, the double honour is due to the working Presbyter, not the lording loitering Bishop, as is the custom of England. The person mentioned, 2 Cor. 8. 19 was chosen by the Churches for the present expedition, was no standing fixed Officer amongst them, therefore appertains not to our present disquisition.  
He adds, Whether all the Officers and Offices, be rightly ordered in the Church of England, is not our present inquiry.  
Answ. But this is no small part of our present enquiry: for if they are not rightly ordered, they are not Officers of Christ; if they are not such, 'tis evident they reject this Institution of his, set up other Officers and Offices.—  
What he tells us is notoriously false, viz. That the present Ministers of England, have neither Name, nor thing required by Christ in this Law, is manifestly true; Their Parish Ministers, are called Priests, not Pastors, or Teachers. 'Tis true they have those are called Doctors, which signifies Teachers, but that is a School, not a Church-Title; they are called so, with respect to an Academic degree, not with relation to any particular Church or Churches in whom they are placed. They have those tha● are called Deacons, but they are not such Officers as Christ calls so; those that come nearest to these, are those they call Churchwardens, o● Overseers of the Poor. But they have the thing, the Office of preaching the Gospel continues with them.  
Answ. 1. 'Twere well if it could be said of many of them, that they preached the Gospel. Alas! they understand it not.  
2dly. However, they have not the Office, as we prove: whilst he suggests the contrary, he doth but beg the Question. Whether the Assertion, That they set up other Officers and Offices, as if in open contempt and defiance of Christ's Authority, be very unrighteously said, others will judge, I am sure as was said in S. T. They are such, of which it may righteously be said, he did at no time command them, neither did it ever enter into his heart so to do. And I challenge Mr. T. to give an instance of the contrary.  
We remark a 5th Institution of Christ in S. T. viz. That these Officers be chosen by the common Suffrage of the Church of Christ,— according to Acts 1. 15, 23, 26. and 6. 1, 2, 3, 5. and 14. 23. and 9 26. which we find the Church in the practice of for some Centuries of Years. As the Epistle of Clemens to the Church of Corinth, Martin Luther, Cyprian, Lambard, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Gualther, Zanchy, Calvin, Beza, the united Brethren of Bohemia, manifest. Of which at large we there treat. This Institution of Christ, we say, the present Ministers conform not to.  
Mr. T. replies. 1. He finds not this to be an Appointment of Christ, in the Scriptures mentioned.  
Answ. Whether it be or not, let the Reader judge; the impertinency of his Answer to the three first, we have already showed. Acts 9 26, 27. proves thus much, That 'tis in the Church's power to reject any one, or refuse to receive him as a Preacher amongst them, till they have received satisfaction touching him; which doth not a little demonstrate the power of Election of their own Officers, to be seated in them. For he assayed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to join himself to the Disciples, as a Brother in the fellowship of the Gospel, (as the word signifies, Acts 5. 13. 1 Cor. 6. 16, 17.) but they would not suffer him so to do, till better informed of him, and then he comes in, and goes out at Jerusalem, ver. 28. i. e. is owned, received by them. What follows is a repetition of what he had before said, Sect. 22. in answer to the Preface, to which we have there spoken. Clemens speaks fully to our purpose, Ministers must be appointed by famous and discreet men, with the good liking and consent of ALL the Church, (without which it seems they could not be constituted) In that which follows in Clemens his Epistle, touching a readiness in the Elder or Pastor to departed, or return, according as the multitude of Believers should determine. We have sure a proof that the choice or rejection of a Pastor is seated in them. That Luther, Bullinger, meant no more, than the not obtruding unable Ministers on the Churches of Christ, is Mr. T. his mistake. They both assert the Church's privilege in the choice of their own Pastors. Their voice (saith Luther) ought not to be severed from the choosing Ecclesiastical Persons: 'Tis tyranny to do so, saith Bullinger. Let the judicious Reader peruse the words of the rest recited in S. T. and he will be convinced that they speak home to the matter in hand, and that Mr. T. doth but trifle whilst he labours to avoid their Testimony. That there is nothing like this Institution of Christ, practised amongst the Ministers of the Church of England, is known. And Mr. T. acknowledgeth, That by reason of the continuance in force, of so much of the Pope's Canon Law, things are far otherwise than they should be. Now this is that we say, A non-hearkening to the Institutions and Laws of Christ, with an embracement and subjection to the Cannon-Law of Antichrist, is a real denial of Christ's Kingly Authority. This the Ministers of England are guilty of. The latter our Animadverter hath the ingenuity to confess; the former we have proved. What difficulties Congregational men have found in the rectifying these things, besides what they have ground to expect, in any work of God, (in which 'tis not new thing to find Satan at our right hand to resist us) I know not.  
That Separation and Election by the Churches makes things worse than they are, is a plain calumny against the known experience of them all.  
We proceed, and in S. T. instance a sixth Institution of Christ, viz. 6thly, That Saints may Prophesy one by one, and aught to admonisy, exhort and build up one another in their most holy Faith, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Rom. 8. 26. and 12. 6. 1 Cor. 4. 17. and 5. 4. and 11. 23. Ephes. 4. 7, 11, 12. 1 Tim. 2. 1. and 3. 15. Judas 20. 1 Cor. 12. 7, 11. Mat. 25. 24. 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. 1 Cor. 12. 15. and 14. 12, 24. Ephes. 4. 3, 7, 15, 16. Acts 2. 42. Rom. 15. 14. Ephes. 5. 19 Col. 3. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 14. 2 Thes. 3. 15. Heb. 3. 13. to which might be added the frequent Examples of the Saints in the Old and New Testament, 2 Chr. 17. 7, 8, 9 John 2. 11. Mal. 3. 16. Luke 4. 16. Acts 13. 15. 1 Cor. 14. 24, to 34. and the practice of the Primitive Church, as witness Origen, (in his Epistle to Celsum.) Tertullian (in his Apol.) Justin Martyr (in his Apol.) and many others. This Institution of Christ, the present Ministers trample under foot, rail against, oppose, reproach, do all they can to cause to perish from amongst the people of Christ.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 8. upon the matter speaks not one wo●d, in a way of contradiction, tells us, Prophesying was an extraordinary gift, by an immediate Revelation of the Spirit, whereby some hidden thing is discovered, and this prophesying the Ministers of England neither do nor can hinder; none that he knows of have this gift.—  
Answ. 1. Were all this granted, it would not at all advantage him. There is a Prophesying that was (as he saith) an extraordinary gift.— But that is not the Prophesying (as he knows) we are treating of, but a speaking to men to edification, exhortation, and comfort: This we say is an Institution of Christ, bottomed upon the forecited Scriptures, which notwithstanding the present Ministers of England oppose and deny.  
Are not these things so? Is Mr. T. able to disprove them? Doth he attempt to do so? nothing less. A very fardel of Contradictions, not worth the mentioning, is the whole of what he is pleased to return in Answer hereunto; one while the restraint of such exercises, is no transgression of Christ's Command, and yet immediately adds, that the duties in the Texts, aught to be cherished, furthered, and such meetings countenanced.  Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo. 
An Institution of Christ he denies not this to be, nor that it is not harkened to, but rejected, opposed by the present Ministers. His imputing practices to us, tending to Sedition and Disturbance very ill becomes him. The whole Nation is under the conviction of the contrary. 'Tis no more than what of old was charged upon the Saints. A very false crimination, for which I advise him, that he pray to God to give him repentance unto Life.  
A 7th Institution of Christ remarked in S. T. is this, That nothing be offered up to God, but what is of his own prescription, divine and spiritual, without affectation of Legal Shadows, John 4. 24. Of worldly Pomp, or carnal Excellency, 2 Cor. 1. 12. and 2. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 12. and 6. 13. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Isa. 33. 22. Jam. 4. 12. Mat. 15. 6, 9 Heb. 8. 5. 1 King. 13. 33. and 12. 13. Jer. 7. 31. Numb. 15. 39 Deut. 12. 1. & 4. 31. This the Ministers of England conform not to, they act what is contrary thereunto, whilst they offer up a Service not of his prescription, affect Legal Shadows, worldly Pomp, and carnal Excellency.  
M●. T. replies, Sect. 9 Where God hath left us free, not forbidding us to use a prescript form of words; Music in the praising of God, there we may so do.  
Answ. 1. This is such a shameful petitio principii, or begging the thing in question, that he could not sure write without blushing.  
2dly. Contrary to what he hath in other Treatises formerly asserted.  
3dly. Directly opposite to some of the Scriptures instanced in, which he takes no notice of.  
4thly, An open door for the Introduction of all the Popish trinkets, and fopperies.  
5thly, A most Papistical assertion, generally exploded by Protestant Writers, when they dispute against the Papists, who affirm that an Argument from the authority of the Scripture negatively, is valid, i. e. 'tis not commanded in Scripture, not to be proved thence, therefore not to be believed nor practised, as Sutcliffe argues against Bellarmine, de Pontif. l. 2. c. 9 p. 134, 135, and others. So that notwithstanding what Mr. T. is able to say to the contrary, the present Ministers of Engl. refuse to subject to, despise, oppose, persecute the Orders and Institutions of Christ in his House, and therefore deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office.  
We proceed in S. T. to the removing an Objection, which is thus proposed.  
But perhaps to these things some may say, These are but small matters, good men differ among themselves herein.  
To which we Answer, 1. That they are part of the Instituted Worship of God,— hath already been proved: To say that any part thereof is a small matter, is no small derogation to the wisdom of him who instituted it.  
To this Mr. T. Sect. 10. Replies, 1st, Though nothing commanded by God is small, yet some things are comparatively small, Mat. 23. 23.  
Answ. 1. Christ speaks not of Gospel-Institutions, of which we are treating.  
But, 2. Of Commandments, and Ceremonies, that were then drawing apace to their period, and full point.  
3. He says not that they were so small that they ought not to be observed, but the contrary.  
4. The Appointments instanced in by us are of such import, as that in them, the visible Kingship of Christ, in and over his Churches, doth consist; the taking away, rejection of which, is to take away, and reject the visible Sceptre of his Kingdom; So that betwixt these two there is no compare.  
He adds 2dly, That they are part of Gods instituted Worship needs better proof.  
Answ. 1. This is but Mr. T. his opinion, he hath not manifested the weakness of the proof exhibited.  
2. He acknowledgeth some of the Institutions mentioned to be the Appointments of Christ. We say,  
2dly, What if it should appear, that as small as these things seem to be, they are the grounds of the late Controversies of God, pleaded with fire and sword in most of the European Kingdoms? This may perhaps a little stay sober persons from so rash a Conclusion, That these are small matters.  
To which our Animadverter saith, This is not demonstrated.  
Answ. I am upon some accounts unwilling to review things; he cannot be ignorant of the truth of the suggestion. What was the ground of the first contest in Scotland, was it not the imposition of the Liturgy? What begat the bad blood in England? was it not the Prelate's Pride, imposition of their Inventions upon the Saints? What the Covenant was against, this Animadverter hath not yet forgot; But enough of this.  
I add, 3dly, As small matters as these have been severely punished by the Lord, as 2 Chr. 26. 16. Num. 16. 1 Chr. 15. 13. with Num. 4. 11, 15. 1 Sam. 8. 7. which we more at large speak to in S. T.  
Mr. T. Replies, 'Tis not demonstrated that in the rejection of these Institutions that the Ministers sin, as Uzziah, etc.  
Answ. But that herein they do so, and that at an higher rate, is evident. 1. Uzziah, etc. sinned but against one Institution of the Lord, these against many.  
2. They sinned under the Law, against the carnal administrations thereof, these under the Gospel.  
3. They sinned of ignorance and weakness, (as may charitably be deemed, at least some of them;) which ('tis to be feared) cannot be said of many of the present Ministers; who have preached, printed, sworn against, what they now own and practise.  
We add, 4. As small matters as these, when once commanded by the Lord, are of that force, as not only to deface the well-being, but to overturn the true being of the Worship of God. We instance in the case of Sacrifices, which being appointed to be offered at a certain place, if offered elsewhere (which was but a failure in a circumstance of place) they were a stink in the Nostrils of God, and not accounted by him as any Worship performed to him. Doth Mr. T. deny these things to be so? Not at all. He only tells us, That the Ministers of England in their opposing the Institutions mentioned, overturn the true Worship of God, is not demonstrated. Which how much it is to the purpose others will judge. The judicious Reader knows, we were not upon the proof of any such thing, the utmost of our intendment, being only to demonstrate, that the particular Institutions remarked, were not such small matters as some made them, since as small matters (viz. a circumstance of place commanded) neglected, have been of that force, as to overturn the true being of the Worship of God, which we are apt to think abundantly demonstrated; and desire Mr. T. to leave dictating, and manifest by Argument and Reason our mistake. Though we did not, yet may we righteously argue, non-subjection to circumstances of Worship enjoined, is of that force as to overturn the true being of the Worship of God (sacrificing any any where but at the place appointed was so) Therefore the non-subjection of the present Ministers of England to the forementioned Institutions (should we assert them to be only Circumstances of Worship determined) doth so. Their Ministry is no Ministry of Christ, their Excommunication no Institution of Christ, because not according to divine appointment.  
We say further in S. T. As for what is added, that good men differ among themselves in this matter, it's of no more weight than what went before.  
1. 'Tis not at all to the business in hand.  
2. 'Tis possible good men may for a while do that which really enwraps in the bowels of it a denial of the Offices of Christ.—  
The Animadverter adjoins, 1. That good men may do that which by consequence may be a denial of Christ's Office is granted, it being no more than that they may err, or sin.  
Answ. 1. We say more; Good men may under the power of Temptation, plainly, directly, with cursing and banning themselves, deny Christ. Peter did so, Mat. 26. 74. (some say that he curs● Christ)▪ yet a good man. 'Tis true this is no more than that they may e●re or sin; the greatest miscarriage any of the Children of the Lord, ever were, or can be guilty of; David's Murder and Adultery, the Corinthians Incest, was no more.  
He adds, 2dly, If the Ministers of England are in the account of God good men, we should not have censured them so deeply, as walking disorderly, symbolising with Antichrist,— nor have dissuaded men from hearing them, or joining with them in God's Worship.  
Answ. 1. Good men (in the main) may be guilty of great miscarriages, may be told of, censured for them, and that publicly, if they are public and notorious.  
2. When Mr. T. proves that I have said any thing of them that is false and untrue, or that by mentioning these I have made any breach upon any rule of Christ, I do assure him in the word of a Christian, to make a public acknowledgement and recantation thereof: till than I have so little cause of being afraid or ashamed, that I have boldness, and confidence through the grace of God in the Testimony I bear (though unworthy) against their enormities, and cause of rejoicing in Christ, whatever I may suffer.  
3dly, That good men, (that in the account of God may be so) ought not to be separated from, when under the guilt of scandalous offences, this Animadverter cannot prove; many Scriptures have already in this Treatise been produced for the confirmation of the contrary.  
We add in S. T. 3. That good men differ is an Argument of their ignorance and darkness, which though in some cases it excuses a tanto, yet not a toto; it may alter the degree, never the nature of the sin.  
To this our Animadverter replies, There may be darkness in this Author.—  
Answ. 1. And this Author saith so to; 'tis what he is daily bemoaning before the Lord.  
But 2dly, In the matters he is treating of, he knows, and is persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that the truth is with him, and he dares not call Light, Darkness, for fear of man, or advantage in the world.  
3dly, He conceives these words might have been spared, inasmuch as they are greatly impertinent, whether Darkness be with them or me; If we sin, though our sin be not a sin of that magnitude, as if it had been committed against Light, yet 'tis a sin still, and so to be censured; and if scandalous in some cases, the persons guilty of it to be separated from.  
We say moreover in S. T. 4thly, 'Tis false, that good men pressing after Reformation— according to the primitive pattern, do differ touching the substance of the things instanced in.—  
To which Mr. T. adjoins, The more to blame is this Author to widen the Breach.—  
A. But this Author doth no such thing, he widens not the Breach, urges not Separation from good men, who press after Reformation according to the primitive pattern: But such as have renounced the pursuing such a Reformation (though they were once sworn (some of them) to prosecute it to the uttermost of their power) persecute, oppose it in them that are pressing after it. As is the known case of the present Ministers of England.  
What is added by us, in the 5th place, viz. That the particulars instanced in, being commanded by Christ, they are not discharged from the impeachment drawn up against them (who conform not to them) of Nonconformity to the Laws of Christ by this Plea, That good men differ in these matters, (i. e. some good men transgress the Laws of Christ—) he grants to be true: Nor doth he offer any thing further in this Chapter that deserves our attendment.    

CHAP. VI  

Sect. 1.  
The present Ministers own Laws not of Christ's revealing, contrary thereunto, therefore deny his Offices. The first proved by the induction of fourteen particulars. Mr. T. yields the matter in controversy. Ezek. 43. 8. explained An Objection answered. Of the Authority of Rulers touching Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical. Of Synods.—  
THE second Argument whereby in S. T. we prove the present Ministers deny the Kingly, and Prophetical Office of Christ, is this:  
Those who own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances, which not only are not of Christ's revealing, but contrary thereunto, do really deny, and oppose the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ: But the present Ministers of England do own, submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not only not of Christ's revealing, but contrary thereunto: Therefore.—  
The Major (or first Proposition) is beyond exception. Persons nonconformity to the Laws of Magistrates (if in what they have power to command) their giving forth Laws of their own, without the consent of their Rulers, directly contrary to their Laws, is a visible, notorious opposition, denial, and rejection of their Authority, in them that give forth such Laws, and in them that conform and subject to them. This we manifestly prove to be true of the present Ministers of England, with respect to Christ, the alone Independent Lord, King and Sovereign of his Church and People.  
That which Mr. T. opposeth hereunto Chap. 5. Sect. 1. will receive ● s●eed● dispatch.  
1. His distinctions about the Orders and Ordinances of Christ are needless, they are but a clouding and darkening of Truth, by words without knowledge: The Orders we speak of, are the Appointments of Christ to his Church, with respect to Worship, wherein their practice is more or less concerned; to deny and reject these, and in the place of them to substitute others, of their own, of Antichrist, and subject thereunto, is a denial of the Offices of Christ mentioned, or it is not: If Mr. T. his conscience tells him, that it is, he doth ill to equivocate. This he grants to be true of the Pope of Rome, Chap. 4. pag. 119, 120. Why it should not be so of the Pope of Canterbury and his Prelates,— I yet understand not. That the giving forth and subjection to the Cannon-Law in the Papacy, should be Antichristian and a denial of the Offices of Christ, and the same thing in the Church of England not so, is a Riddle to me.  
Henry the 8th rejected the Pope's Supremacy; an Act of Parliament is instituted 25. H. 8. c. 9 for the retention of the whole of his Canon-Law in its wont vigour, that is not contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, nor prejudicial to the Royal Prerogative; by virtue whereof, how great a part of his Law, whereby he ruled his Kingdom of darkness (and still rules it) received its establishment, Mr. T. knows and in part confesseth, Chap. 4. Of which the Institutions and Orders mentioned are a part, by which the Pope yet speaks as a King amongst us (though his Supremacy be justly by Law rejected) for the Law of a King is his mouth. That very Law (that is, the Canon-Law of the Papacy) by which the Saints were burned in Smithfield (and other places) is that Law, by which in the stead of the Institut●ons of Christ, the Church of England is governed, the Saints are excommunicated, delivered over to the Secular Power, imprisoned, ruined at this day. This Law the present Ministers of England subject to, which is the Canonical obedience they promise to their Ordinary. And though this Animadverter multiply millions of words, he will never make persons of judgement and sobriety believe that this is not a real denial, and rejection of the Authority of Christ. They tell him in their practice, that they will have none of his Institutions; they prefer Antichrists Canon-Law before them, which is stuffed with such filthy Abominations, that Luther was wont to call the Decretals, Excretal●, and had them publicly burned at Wittemburge. And Whitaker (one of their own) saith, The Canonical, Decretal, and Pontifical Law, aught to have no place amongst us because it is Antichristian and altogether a stranger to all Piety and Religion, Lib. de Concil. 9  
2. If the Animadverter will speak to the purpose, and evert what hath been offered in this matter, he must, I conceive, either manifest that the Pope's Canon-Law, is not the Law of Government to the Church of England, or that a retention thereof (with a rejection of the Institutions of Christ) is not a denial of his Offices.  
To tell stories of things done of ignorance— (which we have over and over, and in this matter cannot have place, they themselves know that things are with them as we have reported them) the setting up open Antichrists, and Universal Monarches, is the ready way to expose himself to contempt for his impertinencies, no probable one to carry the Cause he undertakes the defence of.  
There being nothing further worth the considering in this first Sect. we hasten to the 2 d.  
In order to the confirmation of the Minor Proposition of the forementioned Argument, two things, we say in S. T. are incumbent upon us to prove.  
1. That the present Ministers of England do own, submit, and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are not of Christ's revealing, which we manifest by the Induction of 14 particular Instances.  
As First, They own the Orders and Offices of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. and promise subjection and obedience to them, Eccles. Can. can. 7.  
To which Mr. T. 1. He will not undertake to justify all that is in the Ecclesiastical Canons, nor need he, nor perhaps will the present Ministers or Bishops.  
Answ. 1. But he having undertaken to be their Advocate, he must either justify their Canons, or manifest that they themselves do not.  
Secondly, 'Tis notoriously known that that the present Ministers justify the aforesaid Canons Ecclesiastical, and dare not but do so.  
He adds 2dly, 'Tis not said Ca●. 7. That the Orders and Offices of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. are Orders needful and necessary in the Church of Christ, nor is it required therein that Ministers promise subjection and obedience to them.  
Answ. 1. But the former of these is fairly implied, in the foresaid Canon, which saith, 'tis a wicked Error to assert them to be Antichristian or repugnant to the Word of God; for which persons are ipso facto to be excommunicated.  
2. The latter they actually do when they are Ordained Ministers. And in Artic. 36. They are to subscribe to this, That the Book of Common-Prayer, and of Ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, contains nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully be used, and that they themselves will use the Form in the said Book prescribed, in public Prayers and administration of the Sacraments, and none other. Whence it follows, that they own, submit to whatever is contained in the Canon's Ecclesiastical (though in every particular Canon it is not said they do) and the Common-Prayer-Book-Service, the Orders and Rites thereof, with the Orders and Rites of the Book of Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons. So that when we prove this, or that, to be contained it this or that Canon, we prove their submission thereunto, Canonical Obedience (or Obedience to these Canons) being what at the time of their Ordination (as was said) they promise to the Bishop, which is a sufficient answer to all that Mr. T. asserts in this Sect. In Can. 4. The Liturgy-Worship is asserted to be the Worship of God, whoever affirms, It is a corrupt, superstitious, and unlawful Worship of God, is to be excommunicated. They promise at the time of their Ordination (as was said) To use the Form in the Common-Prayer-Book, prescribed, in Public Prayers— and none other; which if it be not a sufficient proof, that they own and submit to it, I must profess I shall for ever despair of ability to prove any thing.  
His exceptions to the Third Particular, touching their engaging to conform to the Rites of the Common-Prayer Book, are not worth the mentioning.  
They own Fourthly, The Office of a Deacon to be the first step to the Order of Priesthood, inasmuch as this is asserted so to be in the Book of Ordering Priests and Deacons, to which they are to subscribe by Can. 36. and Can. 32.  
It's fairly intimated also, Fifthly, That no person be admitte● to expound the Scriptures, though judged worthy of the Cure of Souls, without Licence from the Bishop thereunto, is plainly asserted, Can. 49. Though the words, judged worthy of the cure of Souls, be not expressed, they are evidently implied; the Cure they there speak of, can be no other th●n that they so call.  
Sixthly, That there be some lawful Ministers, which are no Preachers. And,  
Seventhly, That these unpreaching Ministers, may lawfully administer the Ordinances of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, is fully asserted, Can. 49, 57  
So is the Eighth particular, touching the sentence of Excommunication to be passed upon such as refuse to have their Children Baptised, or to receive the Sacrament from such dumb Ministers.  
Ninthly, Though it be not said in so many words, That Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops, is an Ordinance of God, Can. 6. yet it is fairly implied, and in the Common-Prayer-Book they bottom it upon the Apostles practice, which fully evinceth; they esteem it as such.  
That it (Tenthly) appertains to the Office of Ministers to Marry, the regulation of the Ministers therein by Can. 62. clearly manifests.  
Eleven. That the Bishop of the Diocese may lawfully suspend a Minister from his Ministry, for refusing to bury the Dead, Mr. T. grants is presupposed, Can. 68  
So is, 12thly, The unlawfulness of Ministers Preaching, and administering the Communion in private Houses, except in time of necessity.  
And 13thly, The unlawfulness of appointing Fasts, holding Meetings for Sermons, Can. 71, 72. I wonder he dare aver the contrary.  
Whether, 14thly, It be not said, Can. 74. That Ministers ought to be distinguished by their Vestments and Apparel, as Gowns, Hoods, etc. Let the Reader satisfy himself by the perusal of the said Canon, to which their practice is known to be correspondent.  
Having instanced in these 14 particulars, we add in S. T. Are any of these Ordinances of the appointment of Christ? when, and where were they instituted by him? To which this Animadverter replies,  
1. That he might answer by cross interrogations, Are the Church Covenant-gathering-Churches in the Congregational way, election of Ministers by the Church, etc. Ordinances of Christ? when and where were they instituted?  
Answ. 1. He may so indeed, but he must not imagine that any one besides himself will take this for an Answer to what is proposed and argued in this matter by us.  
2. Of the particulars instanced by him, we have hinted somewhat in S. T. and more largely in this Treatise, proving them to be Ordinances of Christ. Cotton, Ainsworth, Bartlet, Robbinson, Can, etc. have distinctly proved these matters at large.  
When Mr. T. (or any one else) is able to say half so much for the particulars instanced in, we will openly acknowledge our error and mistake.  
But 2dly, He grants, They are not Ordinances and Institutions of Christ.  
Answ. Ingeniously said: Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and the rest of that Hierarchy, is no Ordinance of Christ (than are they not Ministers of Christ, for none are such but by his Institution.) The Lyturgie-Worship, Rites, enjoined in the Common-Prayer-Book, the Office of a Deacon, as the first step to the Priesthood, denial to expound the Scripture without the Bishop's Licence, unpreaching Ministers, or bare Readers, administration of Sacraments by such, Confirmation by Diocesan Bishops, the Marrying of persons, burying the dead by the Priest, are no Ordinances of Jesus Christ, is acknowledged by Mr. T. Yet all these, and much more, as a National Church,— are owned, and submitted to by the present Ministers; Therefore they do own, and submit to Ordinances that are not of the appointment of Christ; their own Advocate being judge.  
We add in S. T. That these are Posts set by the Lords Posts,— of which he complains, Ezek. 43. 8. who sees not?  
To which Mr. T. replies, I see not; I think him in a dream or frenzy that saith he sees it; no Interpreters that I have met with so expound the place.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis no disparagement to Mr. T. that he sees not every thing; though some think he sees further than he is pleased to own, in his Theodulia, or at least hath done so, and are sorry to find him at that toilsome work, of building again the things he once destroyed.  
Nor am I, 2dly, concerned with his thoughts touching this matter; If I am in a frenzy, 'tis (through grace) an holy one, and I would be more phrenetical for the Interest of my dear Lord, Sorne think these expressions might have been spared, though for our parts  Contenti sumus hoc Caton●. 
3dly, What Interpreters he hath met with I know not. The Assembly, in their Annotations upon the place, are of our mind, Their setting of their thresholds by my thresholds, i. e. adding their Traditions to my Precepts, Isa. 29. 13.) So is Mr. Greenhill, etc.  
We further propose (in S. T.) an Objection to consideration, viz. That though these Canons, and Constitutions, owned by the Ministers of England be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be found in the Scripture of the Institution of Christ, in so many words, yet by consequence they may rationally be deduced from thence. As where it is commanded, that all things be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14. 40. which 'tis the duty of the Church to make Rules and Constitutions about; which when it hath done, it is the duty of every Son thereof, to own, or subject to them without questioning its Authority.  
To this Mr. T. Sect. 3. subjoins. 1. He asserts not, that the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England, may rationally be deduced from Scripture.  
Answ. Goodly Constitutions surely, that cannot rationally be deduced from Scripture, but have their Original singly from the bloody Canon-Law of the Papacy, and worthy to be submitted to by such as profess themselves Ministers of the Gospel! what greater contempt any one could pour forth upon them I know not!  
But 2dly, Whilst Mr. T. refuseth to assert this, he plainly relinquisheth his concern in the Objection proposed by us, and tells us, He will not stand up in its defence. However, 2. This he asserts in the room thereof, That Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, concerning Divine Worship, and Church-Government, may be made by Governors, if not opposite to such Rules as are in Scripture about God's Worship, and the Rule of his Church, and be indeed subservient and conducible to the well-ordering of such Worship and Rule; which 'tis the duty of the Members of such a Church to obey.  
Answ. 1. But I would be informed, whether by Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, concerning Divine Worship, he means only Canons touching the spreading the Table at the Communion, with a linen Cloth; the Sermons beginning at the Reading of the Text— at which rate he speaks in Sect. 4. Or whether he means Canons and Laws for the Institution of considerable parts of Worship, together with such accidentals (as he calls them) that must be submitted to, by such as are admitted to the public managery of Worship, without which they shall not be permitted so to do. If the first, he doth but trifle, we have not been taking notice of things of such an inferior allay. If the latter, I desire to be satisfied by what Law any Rulers or Governors do assume to themselves such an Authority, which when Mr. T. shall be pleased to show us, we shall further consider it. Heb. 13. 17. speaks not a tittle thereunto. Of the vanity of its Application to the Governors of the Church of England we have already spoken. The Reasons of his Assertion are these.  
1. Without such Regulations Church-Societies cannot be continued by reason of the difference of mi●ds.—  
Answ. 1. The contrary is manifest, before ever such constitutions as those he speaks of were in the World, Church-Societies were continued. One of the first open breaches amongst them, was because of them: as he knows fell out, betwixt Victor Bishop of Rome, and the Eastern-Churches, about the observation of Easter. All the confusion, differences, breaches, that have been in the Churches (so called) is for the most part to be charged upon their Impositions.  
2dly, The Animadverter supposeth, That without such Constitutions, the Churches should be wholly destitute of Regulation, but falsely; 'Tis derogatory to Christ, the Scriptures perfection, a pitiful begging the thing in question. As Christ hath a Church in the world, he hath Laws (with respect to external polity) by which he rules it; needs not be beholding to Antichrist for his. 'Tis impious, scandalous, to conceive, indite such dictates.  
He further adds, 2dly, All sorts of Churches have had their Synods to this end.  
Answ. 1. To what end? To make Laws and Constitutions for an Order of Ministry that Christ never established, to impose a Ly●urgical Worship upon his Churches, to set up an unpreaching Ministry, in his House— Mr. T. knows that these things are false, and untrue. If he mean not these, I would advise him to speak pertinently in h●s next. These are the Institutions we charge the present Ministers w●th submitting to.  
2. That all sorts of Churches have found it necessary to have Synods, is more than Mr. T. can prove. The Learned Whitaker tells us, That they are not simply and absolutely necessary, De Concil. q. 1. p. 22. and I am sure they may be well enough without them. Licinius interdicts them, Euseb. de Vit. Constant. l. 1. c. 44. yet the Church's continued, a●d in a flourishing sttate.  
3dly, That few or no Synods that ever were yet in the World, have had a right Constitution, were a facile undertaking to demonstrate. The Synod (so called) of the Church of England, (by which the Laws we mention were out of the Pope's Canon-Law collected) was not so. A right Synod is constituted of the Messengers of the Churches (upon the account whereof they are said to be the Church's Representatives) sent by them with Instructions from them, touching matters to be debated in that Convention. This cannot be affirmed of the aforesaid Synod, nor of any Synod that ever was in the World, since the Apostles fell asleep. So that whilst our Animadverter is discoursing of them as necessary, he is talking of the necessity of ● Nonens, a mere Chimaera.  
4thly, The Churches of Christ had a perfect Discipline, before ever the Synods he speaks of had a being in the World.  
Nor, 5thly, had these ever from Jesus Christ any Authority (and what they have not from him, is not Obligatory) to impose any thing upon the Churches, to be observed by them by virtue of an Authoritative power seated in themselves. 'Tis a Yoke not to be endured by the freeborn Subjects of Christ, that any of the Children of men should impose upon them in the matters of their God. The Synod of Jerusalem did not do so, as we have proved. His third Reason is downright begging the thing in question: Christ hath left nothing relating to the Worship and Government of his House, as such, undetermined; against which I advise him not to talk so confidently in his next, till he hath proved the contrary. The Texts mentioned by him, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Heb. 13. 17. prove no such thing, as the lawfulness of additional Institutions, in matters of Church-Polity, as a part thereof to the Institutions of Christ. 1 Cor. 14. 40. is afterward in S. T. (Heb. 13. 17. hath already been) considered. That because Paul gives direction, in some cases, to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11. 34. and tells them, the rest he will set in order when he comes to them, therefore 'tis left to Church-governors to institute, de novo, Ordinances and Institutions of their own, and impose them upon the Churches, is such a Consequence, that would put a modest (concerned) person to a blush, to review: we have no Apostles, none acted by an infallible Spirit as they.  
In answer to the Objection, as proposed by us, we say, that the whole of it is built upon such false suppositions as these. That Christ hath not determined in the Scripture, how the affairs of his House should be managed with decency and order, as well as commanded that they be so; which is derogatory to the Scriptures perfection; to the Wisdom and Faithfulness of Christ; diametrically opposite to the Scripture (1 Cor. 14. 40.) instanced it; of which we give this brief account. The Apostle having condemned them for their irregularity in the matter of Prophesying, vers. 26. He gives direction touching its regular performance: And that, 1. Generally, vers. 26. 40. 2. Particularly, by telling them how they ought to manage this affair in a way of decency and edification, vers. 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35. That from hence a power invested in the Church, for the binding the Consciences of men touching Ceremonies in Worship, should be regularly deduced, is the firstborn of improbabilities.—  
1. Paul speaking by an infallible Spirit, adviseth the Church of Corinth, That all things be done decently and in order.  
2. Tells them wherein that decency and order lies; therefore such as pretend not to such a Spirit, may, of their own heads, bind our Consciences by Laws of their own, in the Service of God, is such a nonsequitur, as will not in haste be made good.  
To this Mr. T. pretends to answer, Sect. 4. The sum is, Christ hath left many particularities undetermined in his Worship, and the Rule of his Church to be determined by Governors.  
Answ. 1. If by particularities of Worship, he mean such as relate to it, as such; of Church-government, such as are special parts thereof, as the things mentioned by us are made to be, this hath been often denied and disproved by us.  
2. He egregiously trifles in the matters instanced in by him: though I think it horrible wickedness, not to be born, for Ecclesiastical Governors by penal Laws and Statutes, to impose even those things upon the Churches; That it should be criminal at the Communion, not to have the Table spread with a Cloth. That the Service begin with the recital of the Institution, or otherwise; (as he speaks) and beseech this Animadverter, if he resolves again to draw the Saw of this Controversy, that we may agree in this, not to multiply impertinencies, and so prove what we say. I know not any of the Sons of men that have power to bind my Conscience, where Christ hath not. But this Mr. T. proves, because, 1. Parents are charged to bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Ephes. 6. 4. 2. We are to pray for Kings,— that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life under them. Ergo, (Antichristian Church-Officers, or) Governors Ecclesiastical have power to make and impose Constitutions for Church-Government upon the Saints. Apage ineptias! That the Reader should suppose such arguings as these worth the considering, I cannot be so injurious to him as to imagine, whilst I conceive him to be one not bereft of his understanding. Much after the same rate that some admirers of the Gentleman at Rome are wont to argue for his Supremacy above Princes; because 'tis said, God made two great Lights, the Sun to rule the Day, and the Moon to rule the Night: Doth Mr. T. at present argue for the power of the Rulers, of the Church of England, in matters of Worship and Government, without authority from Christ.  
Yea, but 3dly, The Bishop must take care of the Church of God, 1 Tim. 3. 5.  
Answ. 1. But this is a Christian-Gospel-Bishop, a Pastor of a particular Church, which our Bishops are not.  
2. It remains to be proved, that his taking care of the Church of God, is his imposing institutions of his own upon them. A forced Interpretation; to say no more. We read Luke 10. 34. that the Samaritan took care of the wounded man, and v. 35, bid his Host take care of him; yet I am persuaded neither the one nor the other, called Synods to establish Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical to impose upon him. The whole work of a Bishop is not surely to Rule and Govern, he is to instruct, exhort, admonish, rebuke, with all long-suffering and mee●ness, to strengthen the weak, comfort the comfortless, and in all to have respect to the will and appointments of his Sovereign Lord and King, not to act exorbitantly, according to his own will and pleasure.  
What he adds by way of Answer to what we assert, that the conceit that Christ hath not determined in the Scripture how the affairs of his House should be managed, is a derogation to the perfection of the Scripture and the faithfulness of Christ, is already fully replied to, and removed out of the way. Only whereas he citys, 2 Tim. 3. 15. and intimates that the sufficiency there ascribed to the Scripture, consists in affording Doctrines of Faith, and Rules of Life, we crave leave to tell him, That his Assertion is, 1. Papistical; exploded by our Protestant Divines. 2. False and untrue; the Apostle expressly asserts their sufficiency with respect to church-polity, to instruct Timothy wherein, is no small part of his design in this Epistle.  
He goes on and tells us, That we give not a true account of the Apostles dissertation, 1 Cor. 14. 1. He asserts not the Liberty of Saints in Prophesying.  
Answ. Of the truth of this let the Reader inform himself from vers. 31. 'Tis not material as to our present purpose, whether by Prophesying he meant a particular gift of foretelling things to come, or an Exposition of Scripture for the edification of the Saints, whether it were the one or the other, those to whom the gift was given were to improve it, and this the Apostle expressly asserts to be their Liberty and duty.  
He tells us, 2dly, It is not right that the Apostle, vers. 40. represseth his direction, vers. 26.  
Answ. The serious perusal of the Chapter will evince the contrary to this dictate of his.  
Yea, but 3dly, saith he, If it were so, there is nothing to prove that no particular ways of decency and order, are permitted to the care of after-Rulers.  
Answ. 1. We are answering an Objection, not proving a Position or Doctrine. 'Tis enough that we manifest that the Scripture produced warrants not Governors to introduce New Orders and Institutions, an endless company of ridiculous Ceremonies, under the notion of Decency and Order; which whether we have evinced or not, let the Reader judge.  
2. That he waves the Controversy about Ceremonies, as Cross, Surplice, Kneeling at the Sacrament, is wisely done, and had he waved the whole Controversy some think it had been no argument of his indiscretion, but his so doing is no Answer: He that will justify the present Ministry and Worship of the Church of England, persons of such dull capacities as ourselves conceive, must justify these too; They being made so necessary a part of their Worship, that the Worship itself must rather be omitted, than these devices of their Prelates (or rather the Archpriest of Rome:) a Minister, though never so able, must not Preach, if he will not wear the Surplice; nor Baptise, if he will not Cross; nor may any either administer the Communion, or receive it, without Kneeling: In which things, if they transgress, they are liable to be presented, suspended, excommunicated.— I have no power to compel Mr. T. to plead for any thing that he hath no mind to plead for. In due time, for aught I know, he may as fast draw off from the tents of these men, as he hath of late been advancing towards them. He will not plead for their Canons, nor for their Ceremonies (at least some of them) he tells us, p. 54. It may be the next step may be, nor for their Ministry. To what purpose Mr. T. disputes for the power of Governors to Institute Rules for Church-Polity, when he will not plead for those they Institute, I know not.  
We manifested in S. T. the invalidity of this Argument; The Apostle by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth, That all things de done decently and in order; and discovers to them wherein that Decency and Order lay; therefore persons that pretend not to such a Spirit, may of their own head bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the Service of God.  
To this Mr. T. replies, He conceives none would thus unadvisedly conclude.  
Answ. And I believe so too; but if they will argue rightly from this Scripture, thus must they argue, as we have demonstrated. But he will yet prove the power of Governors in this matter, from 1 Cor. 14 40. thus.  
That which belonging to Decency and Order, is commanded in general, but not in the particularities determined, is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rulers. But so is the Apostles command, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. Both Propositions are liable to exception. 1. Upon supposition that what in the Worship of Christ belongs to Decency and Order is left undetermined, it doth not follow that it belongs to the Rules of the Church to determine thereof, which is to make the Rulers Lords over God's Heritage, to introduce insupportable Tyranny into the Churches of Christ.— They are the Church's Servants, not Lords, that are her Ministers.  
2dly, The Minor Proposition is notoriously false and untrue, the Apostle is debating the business of Prophesying, touching this he lays down particular rules for Decency and Order, which he requires them to conform to. Let any sober Christian peruse the Chapter, he will see this shining therein in brightness; So Ambrose, Aquinas, etc. inform us. Decently and in Order, that no unseemliness or tumult arise. But this prescription of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal Traditions, but the Apostles own, viz. such as he had delivered to the Churches, saith a learned man. Thus the heat of this contest is allayed.  Pulveris exigui jactu. 
We further reply in S. T. But let this be granted, suppose that 'tis the Privilege and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order; this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture, or 'tis not; If it be, then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands, it's not to be obeyed, and so we are where we were before, That Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture. If it be not bounded thereby, than whatever Ceremonies it introduceth, not directly contrary thereunto, they must be subjected to; which how fair an inlet it is to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions, who sees not?  
To this Mr. T. adjoins, That he doth not plead, that it is the Privilege and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order.  
Answ. Very good! The Church of England Mr. T. thinks hath no such Power, Privilege or Authority granted unto them, by the Lord Jesus; Then have they, whilst they have so done, invaded his Throne and Kingly Authority. The Parish Priests whilst they own, abet and subscribe to what they have done in this matter are Copartners with them in their iniquity, are really guilty of opposing the King-ship of Christ, which was the matter we have been all this while contesting about, and is now, in effect, granted by our wary Antagonist. We argue thus.  
Those that assume power to make Laws and impose the reception of them, upon the People of a Nation, beside those (and without any Privilege or grant to them by such given) in whom the Sovereign Power of Ruledom resides, are guilty of Rebellion against such their Rulers and Governors: Those that abet them herein are guilty of the same Rebellion: But this the Church of England, with respect to Jesus Christ the only Sovereign Lord and Ruler of his Churches, hath done, her Ministers have abetted her herein. Therefore.—  
The Major cannot be denied. The Minor is evident. 1. That the Church of England hath made Constitutions for the binding th● Consciences of men in the matters of Decency and Order; their Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical evince; that they have no authority from Christ so to do, Mr. T. grants: So that in what follows we are little concerned, partly because he hath already yielded the cause, and partly because the particularities he speaks of, be they what they will, are only, he tells us, of Decency and Order, not determined in the Scripture. Now we deny any such particularities undetermined, we think it a most fearful undervaluing of the Wisdom of Christ, to assert, That man's ' Devices can add Beauty, Order, or Decency to Christ's Institutions, i. e. They are not Orderly or Decent without Humane Impositions. Nor see we how these can be prescribed by Canons Ecclesiastical to be obeyed, because enjoined by the Rulers of the Church, to whom we are, saith Mr. T. in Conscience bound to submit; if it be not the Privilege nor Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding the Consciences of men in matters of this nature, and think that the latter part of his Answer is in contention with the former. Besides we are yet ●o seek for a proof of this matter; That we are obliged to obey Rulers Ecclesiastical, commanding us any thing in the Worship of God, as such, under the notion of Decency and Order; and believe this very assertion is contrary to the Law of Nature and right Reason, which teacheth us, That God is to be served after that way that pleaseth him best: That ●he Will of God (who is the alone Master of the House) not man is solely to be heeded in the Ordering of his Family and Household.  
Mr. T. would take it ill should I prescribe Rules to him for the well-ordering of his Family, and that without his Licence, and that after I know he hath Constituted and appointed Laws himself for that very end. And yet I conceive he is not so far above me, as the great and only wise God is above the mightiest and wisest of mortals. So that whilst he would avoid the horns of the Dilemma, that of the Poet is verified of him,  Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Carybdim. 
Nor do I see how he avoids the horns of the Dilemma by what he replies in this matter: The Rulers Ecclesiastical are either when they make Laws binding the Conscience, indirectly bounded in their so doing by Scripture, or they are not, i. ●. they must impose no Laws upon us without Scripture Precept, or they may. If the first, we are bound to obey them no further than they are able to evince the justness and righteousness of their Commands, upon the account of their being bottomed upon the Scripture. Then no Obligation lies upon us to observe the Canons, Ceremonies of the Church of England any further than they can manifest their Observation commanded therein; then she and her Ministers do wickedly to Excommunicate, Imprison, Ruin us, for not yielding subjection, when and where none is due. If the second, than whatever Ceremonies they introduce, under the notion of Decency and Order, that are not contrary to the Scripture, must be subjected to, which is an open inlet to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions. We fear the General Rules in Scripture, the Laws of Nature, right Reason, other laudable Customs,— that Mr. T. tells us, must be observed in this matter, will be but a weak defence against them. For who shall be judge of their consonancy to these Principles? Shall every man be judge for himself? This our Rulers think to be absurd, and contrary to the Principles asserted by our Animadverter to be observed. If our Governors, they will tell us, whatever they impose, 'tis consonant to all the forementioned Principles, that we subject to them therein. Ask our Bishops they will tell you so with respect to the whole of their Popish-English-Canon-Laws and Ceremonies.  
Ask Mr. T. and he will tell you little less, than That a blind obedience should be yielded to them in undetermined particularities. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Ask the Pope and his Conclave, they will tell you, 'Tis consonant to the  Principles, that we subject to all his Ceremonies: Nor indeed can we say of most of them, that they are more dissonant to right reason,— than some that are retained amongst us. So that the horns of the Dilemma are piercing the heart of the Cause, whose defence Mr. T. hath undertaken.  
We further argue in S. T. Yet were this also yielded them, they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at, except it can be proved that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies, to be invested in the Church, thence a power for the Institution of new Orders and Ordinances, the introducing of Heathenish, Jewish, and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God may be evinced. And yet should all this be yielded them, how will they prove the Constitutions mentioned, to be the Constitution of a right constituted Church, a National Church? the Church of England is not so. Yet if all this were granted, where are the Constitutions of this Church, that we may pay the homage to them that is meet? When was it assembled in the same place together, in its several Members, freely to debate and determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them?  
If it be said, That it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers, or such as shall be chosen by their Officers, whose Laws every Member is bound to be obedient to.  
We Answer, But these Officers being not the Church (nor are true Officers of a right constituted Church, any where so called in the Scripture) I own no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions, it being pleaded that 'tis the Church that hath only power in this matter. It remaineth therefore, (notwithstanding what is pleaded in this Objection) That the present Ministers of England own— Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sense of Christ's revealing, and therefore oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ.  
To which Mr T. 1. I do not plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England.—  
Answ. But the framers of the Objection proposed do; Which if Mr. T. will justify, he must also plead for them; but I shall not co●pel him to a warfare he is not willing to engage in, he may take his liberty to stand by and look on, but then he had done fairly not to have pretended to justify what he scarce speaks a word to. The impertinent Questions he speaks of, are pertinent to the Objection and Objectors we have to deal with.  
What he hath spoken of a National Church in answer to the Preface Sect. 15. we have removed out of the way by our Reply thereunto.  
He tells us, 2dly, That the Church of England was Assembled at London in its several Members, by Deputation freely to debate things, at was the usage of the Synods in the ancient times,— as the Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament, so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod.  
Answ. 1. No doubt Mr. T. (and his Abettors) thinks he hath now spoken to the purpose indeed, but the emptiness of the whole is soon manifested. No Synods whether ancient or new, can be supposed to represent the Church, but upon the account of the free Election of the persons constituting them, and deputation by the Members of that Church which they represent. Whosoever is sent by the Church, represents the person of the Church, saith the Learned Whittaker, De Concil. q. 3. c. 3. p. 103. Yea Bilson himself tells us, None are bound to the Council, but those who send to the Council. No Council doth bind the whole Church except the consent be general. Con. Ap. p. 49, 51. And Saravia tells us, The Council represents no Churches except those who send their Messengers to the Churches, Con. Gretz. p. 379. Yea in every rightly constituted Synod, the Laity (as they are called) are not to be excluded. 'Tis a Rule founded in Nature and Reason, Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet. That which concerns all, aught to be handled by all. Although the Priests and Clerks do alone exercise Judgements Ecclesiastical, yet where a matter is agitated that pertains to the Church Universal, which consists not only of Clerks, but also of Laics; it is not equal that the Laics (or Lay-People) should be removed from these deliberations; but all Decrees ought rather to be confirmed by common consent: Which that it was observed by the Apopostles of Christ, the sacred History testifies, Acts 15. And this is the Opinion of the most famous Doctors of the Canon-Law, saith Durandus De Sanct. Minist. Lib. 1. c. 11. He saith more truly perhaps than he was ware, That as the whole Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament, so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod, and no otherwise. Now we know that the meeting of a company of Knights, & Gentlemen at Westminster is not the Parliament, the Representative of the Kingdom; Their free Election by the Body of the People of the Nation renders them so. In like manner the Convention of a company of Prelates and Priests make not a Synod (by our Animadverters own Argument) but their Election by the People, to meet and sit in Council together as their Representees, which the Synod, so called at London, One thousand six hundred and three (nor any National Synod ever since) had not; the Choice of the People was never minded, never was their consent required: So that in the sense he takes the word Church, (which yet is foreign to the Scripture, as we say in S. T.) the Church of England was never yet concerned.  
In what follows in this Section, Mr. T. himself will acknowledge I am not further concerned.   

Sect. 2.  
The present Ministers oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, whilst they own Laws contrary to the Revelation of Christ. That they do thus, evinced by the induction of particular instances, Acts 8. 27. ● Tim. 6. 15. Jer. 51. 26. Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7, 8, 9 Whether Christ there instituted a form of Prayer. Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. Mark 14. 18, 22, 23. opened. That Christ sat with his Disciples in the celebration of the Ordinance of breaking Bread, evinced. Of Kneeling. The reason of its first institution. It's opposition to 1 Thes. 5. 22. manifested. Of forbidding to Marry, and commanding to abstain from Meats.  
IN Sect. 6. Mr. T. proceeds to the examination of what is further produced in S. T. for the manifestation of the guilt of the present Ministers, in their opposing the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ, which we further prove, because they own, submit, and subscribe to Laws, Constitutions and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ. This we prove by particular instances.  
They own and acknowledge, 1. That there may be other Arch-Bishops, and Lord-Bishops in the Church of Christ, besides himself. Which is contrary to 1 Pet. 5. 3. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Ephes. 4. 5. Heb. 3. 1. Luke 22. 22, 25. 26.  
To which our Animadverter replies, 1. They do not acknowledge them in opposition to these Scriptures.  
Answ. But that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Mr. T. may be ashamed of such pitiful beggary.  
He adds 2ly, They do not acknowledge Arch-Bishops over the whole Church, as the Pope, but in their own Province.  
Answ. This is not at all material, the authority of Arch-Bishops— over a Province— is as much against the Texts mentioned, as over the whole Church. 'Tis not the extent of Authority, Lordship,— that is therein condemned, but the thing itself.  
3ly. He further tells us, They have no such dominion ascribed to them over the Church they oversee, as is forbidden, 1 Pet. 5. 3. Luke 22. 25, 26.  
Answ. 1. This is again to beg the thing in question. 2ly, We have proved the contrary.  
He adds 4ly, They are not Lords in the Church— but in the Kingdom and Parliament.  
Answ. False and untrue, I wish he speak not against knowledge in this matter. 1. When invested into their Episcopal Sees, they are styled Arch-Bishops of such a place or Province, Lord-Bishop of such a See. 2. The Priests submit to them, pray for them as their good Lords. 3. They have Power, Authority, Precedency as such over the rest of the Clergy, give forth Laws and Canons to rule and guide them, to whom they promise obedience at their Ordination. 4. They exercise jurisdiction, authority over their respective Dioceses in their Ecclesiastical Courts, and Consistories as such, all evident Ensigns and Demonstrations of Lordly Dignities, even in and over that which they call the Church.  
That which he 5ly adds of the Eunuches being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 8. 27. without contradiction to 1 Tim. 6. 15. where Christ is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is frivolous.  
1. The Eunuch is not said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Potentate with respect to the Church of God, over it he was not such, but with respect to the Kingdom of Aethiopia, where he was a Noble Man, a Governor under Candace the Queen: Our Bishops are Potentates in and over that which they call the Church of Christ.  
2. That any other besides Christ should exercise Lordship and Authority in the World, is not interdicted, as is their so doing in the Churches of Christ, in the Scriptures mentioned.  
He saith 5ly, He hath not showed that what is acknowledged is a Law, Constitution, or Ordinance, nor the Ministers own it by subscription.  
Answ. True indeed, I did not do so, for I thought it needless to demonstrate that the Sun shines at noon-days. Are not the Offices of Arch-Bishops, Lord-Bishops Constitutions and Ordinances? Have they not their Foundation and Establishment by Law? Doth not Mr. T. know it? Is he only a stranger in our Israel? Of the Truth of this there are not many in the Nation that are or can be ignorant. That the Ministers own these (whether by subscription, or otherwise, is not considerable, Mr. T. deals injuriously whilst he suggests, I say, they own these, with the rest of the particulars mentioned by subscription, when I assert only, That they own, submit, and subscribe to, i. some of them they manifest they own by Subscription, others other ways, but they own submission to them all) is too notorious to admit of a denial; They do so in their Ordination, when they promise Canonical Obedience to them, in their prayers for them, subjection to their precepts from time to time, transmitted to them, which they dare not transgress. 2ly, That men may and aught to be made Ministers, only by these Lord-Bishops, is we say in S. T. owned by the present Ministers: which is contrary to Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1, 7. & 13. 20. Acts 14. 23. with 6. 3, 5. What Mr. T. adjoins hereunto touching Ordination by Suffragan Bishops, hath already been removed out of the way. How much they own a Presbyterian Ordination, (of which he speaks) many good men in the Nation feel and find. Of these things we have already spoken. That Ordination by Lord-Bishops is established by Law, is known, and that exclusively to any other without them. Hereunto the Ministers subscribe, Can. 36. The Scriptures instanced in prove this to be contrary to the Revelation of Christ, Heb. 5. 4. John 10. 1, 7. & 13. 20. manifestly evince; That  undertakes to be a Minister of the Lord in his Church, must be called of, sent by him. (So was Aaron—) Acts 14. 23. & 6. 3, 5. manifest that the Way of the Lord's mission is not by Lord-Bishops, but by his Churches and People. What he tells us he hath said in answer to any of these Scriptures, we have replied to Chap. 2.  
We add in S. T. 3ly, That Prelates, their Chancellors and Officers have power from Christ to cast out of the Church of God, is owned by them, contrary to Mat. 18. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 5. 4.  
To which our Animadverter subjoins, He finds no such Law.—  
Answ. It may be he is willingly ignorant hereof. This he cannot but know, that in the Name of Christ the Officers mentione● do excommunicate out of the Church (so called) of Christ. Do they do this without Law? Is it not one of their Church-constitutions, that they may do so? Do not the present Ministers own them herein? Whilst they cite, present, persecute their Neighbours for not coming to Divine Service, (as they call it) it may be for refusing to pay them a four-penny-due, in the Ecclesiastical Courts, even to an Excommunication, whose Act therein they afterwards publicly denounce and declare, once and again in obedience to them? What more evident▪ The weakness of his answer to Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. we have already manifested.  
We say further in S. T. That they own 4ly, that the Office of the Suffragans, Deans, Canons,— are lawful and necessary to be had in the Church, contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 18, 28. Rom. 12. 7. Ephes. 4. 11. The Officers instituted by Christ are sufficient for the edification and perfecting of the Saints, till they all come unto a perfect man, — v. 12, 13. In what sense the forementioned, being not one of them of the Institution of Christ, may be owned as lawful and necessary, without an high contempt of the Wisdom and Sovereignty of Christ, I am not able to conceive;— this is the sum.  
Mr. T. replies, 1. He knows not where this imagined Ordinance is.  
Answ. That there are such Officers and Offices in the Church of England established by the Laws thereof, he cannot be ignorant: To say, They are Antichristian, or repugnant to the Word of God, is censured by the Canons thereof, Can. 7. That the Ministers own, submit to some of them, is known. The vanity and impertinency of Mr. T. his pleading for them (not to mention his perjury therein) is discovered in our present Vindication of Chap. 3. from his exceptions against what is by us therein argued.  
We say they own— 5thly, That the Office of Deacons in the Church is to be employed in public Praying, administration of Baptism, and Preaching, if licenced by the Bishop thereunto, contrary to Act. 6. 2. Ephes. 4. 11.  
Mr. T. replies, 'Tis not contrary to Christ's Revelation— that they should be employed in those works.  
Ans. 1. But when Christ hath instituted the office of Deacons for this end, to attend Tables, or look after the provision, and necessities of the Saints; That any persons may own an Office of Deacons in the Church, to be employed by virtue of Office-power in any other work than that for which they are entrusted by Christ, and called unto Office, without an advance against that Institution of Christ, is absurd to imagine.  
2. That the present Ministers own such an Office he doth not deny.  
3. What he speaks of Stephen and Philip, he had said before, and to it we have replied already, and need no● add more.  
A sixth Law or Ordinance that we say they own— is this, That the Ordinance of Breaking Bread, or the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, may be administered to one alone, as to a sick man ready to die: Which is diametrically opposite to the Nature and Institution of that Ordinance, 1 Cor. 10. 16. and 11. 33. Mat. 26. 26. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7.  
To which Mr. T. This is not easily proved from the Scriptures instanced in.  
Answ. Whether it be or not, is left to the judgement of the judicious Reader to determine. I am weary in pursuing him in his impertinencies. He grants a Communion is proved in that Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10. 16. but vers. 17. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. prove the Communion to be rather with all Christians; Of which yet there is not one word in either of the places. In vers. 17. He speaks of the Church of Corinth, that was one bread, one body. The other Scripture speaks nothing of Saints Communion one with another in this Ordinance, 1 Cor. 11. 33. Acts 20. 7. he confesseth prove, That it should be administered when all the Communicants (Church or Brethren, he should say) are come together. Whether its administration to one alone, be not diametrically opposite hereunto, as also to the very first Institution of this Ordinance, Mat. 26. 26. let the Judicious judge. Though it be said, Act. 2. 46. that they broke bread from house to house; it doth not follow there was none beside the Minister and the sick man; the words import the contrary.  
We manifest further in S. T. That they own, 7thly, a prescript form of Words in Prayer; that a ceremonious pompous Worship devised ●y man, and abused to Idolatry, is according to the will of God, and may lawfully be used under the New Testament Dispensation; contrary to Mat. 15. 9 and 28. 20. John 4. 23. Deut. 12. 32. Jer. 51. 26. Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. By this prescript form of Words,— this ceremonious pompous Worship— the Common-Prayer-Book, Collegiat-Worship and Service is intended. This I say is devised by man, the owning whereof is contrary to Mat. 15. 9 and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 22. abused to Idolatry: The owning hereof is opposite to Jer. 51. 26. It is Ceremonious and Pompous, the abetting whereof is adverse to Joh. 4. 23. as is the owning of a prescript Form of Words, to Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15.  
To which our Animadverter replies. 1. He should have told us what part of the Common-Prayer-Book was abused to Idolatry.  
Answ. The whole of it is so, being Worship not appointed by the Lord, and used in that Church, that is the most Idolatrous Church in the world.  
What he hath said in this Chap. Sect. 3. or in Chap. 3. Sect. 4. We have already answered. His great outcry of our abuse of Jer. 51. 26. produced to prove it unlawful to use any thing in the Worship of God abused to Idolatry, will soon be evinced to be an empty sound.  — Vox & praeterea nihil. 
1. We have for our Companions in this Exposition, perso●s not contemptible for wisdom and holiness, who make conscience of applying Scriptures, and abusing the Reader.  
2. Of all men Mr. T. i● the most incompetent for the management of this charge, who most egregiously perverts Scriptures in this Treatise, contrary to former Interpretations given by himself to them, and to the plain intendment of the Spirit therein: As we have in part manifested, and may do further in our Appendix.  
3. He egregiously abuseth the Reader in this very passage, whilst he bears him in hand, that we expound the words of a prohibition to the Jews, That they should not use the stones of Babylon to build a Temple to God at Jerusalem, because abused to Idolatry, which we do not. Nor was it likely they would ever have gone about to do so. Babylon was too remote for them, such a prohibition had been altogether needless and vain.  
But 4. That Chap. 50, and 51.— be one entire Prophecy, that reacheth farther than the Destruction of Literal Babylon, even to the ruin of all the Scripture calls so, is evident.  
For 1st, This Prophecy relates to the restauration of all the Tribes; Israel as well as Judah, vers. 4. 5. which to this day hath not been fulfilled. The ten Tribes (represented by Israel) being in a dispersed state, ever since they were carried away Captive by Salmanasser. 'Tis true Judah after the 70 years' Captivity did return; but what is that to Israel? when this Prophecy is accomplished, they must also be brought to their habitation, which is again repeated vers. 19 And I will bring Israel again to his habitation, and he shall feed on Carmel.— This Carmel was the portion of the half Tribe of Manasseh, belonging to the ten Tribes, Jos. 19  
2dly, When God doth this, the iniquity of Jacob shall be sought for, and there shall be none.— vers. 20.  
3dly, He will then make use of Israel as his Battle-Axe and weapon of War, to destroy and break in pieces Kingdoms and Nations, vers. 20, 21.  
4thly, The Deliverance and Vengeance here prophesied of, is the issue of the groans and cries of the Inhabitants of Zion against Babylon, vers. 35, 36. But against Literal Babylon the Children of Israel were not to cry, but the contrary, Jer. 29. 7.  
5thly, Many material passages in this Prophecy are applied by the Spirit of the Lord to Mystical Babylon, as Chap. 50. 8. Rev. 18. 4. vers. 29. Rev. 18. 6. Chap. 51. 6. Rev. 18. 4.—  
6thly, The Babylon mentioned in this Prophecy, and the Babylon spoken of in the Revelation, is one and the same Babylon, differing at most but as Type and Antitype. Babylon is a Type of the City and Seat of Antichrist, saith the Learned Ainsworth on Psal. 137. v. 1. This is evident to the eye of the understanding Reader from the ensuing Scheme.  

Jeremiah's Babylon.  
Jer. 50. 8. Remove out of the midst of Babylon. And 51. 6. Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul, be not cut off in her iniquity, for this is the time of the Lords vengeance, he will render unto her a recompense.  
Jer. 50. 29. Recompense her according to her work; according to all that she hath done, do unto her: for she hath been proud against the Lord, against the Holy One of Israel.  
Jer. 50. 39 The wild beasts of the desert shall dwell there, and the owls shall dwell therein, and it shall be no more inhabited for ever: neither shall it be dwelled in from generation to generation; as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.—  
Jer. 51. 7. Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunk of her wine, therefore the nations are mad.  
Jer. 51. 8. Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed, howl for her.   

John's Babylon.  
Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my People, that ye be not partakers of her Sins, and that ye receive not of her Plagues: for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.  
Rev. 18. 6, 7. Reward her even as she hath rewarded you, double unto her double, according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her again. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much sorrow give her.  
Rev. 18. 2. Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. Rev. 18. 22. The voice of harpers and musicians— shall be heard no more at all in thee: and no craft's man shall be found any more in thee.— verse. 8. she shall be utterly burnt with fire.  
Rev. 17. 2. With whom the Kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. And 18. 3. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornications.  
Rev. 14. 8. Babylon is fallen, is fallen,— Rev. 18. 2. Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen, vers. 9 And the Kings of the earth who committed fornication, and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her,— saying, alas, alas,— for in one hour is thy judgement come, vers. 11, 15, 19   
The sum is; the Prophesy not being confined to Literal Babylon, but eminently relating to Mystical Babylon, or the false whorish Church, in the Revelation, the not taking a stone of her for a foundation,— (having no respect to the Jews not using the stones of Babylon in building the Temple, which it is not like they had the least intendment to do) points out the duty of the spiritual Jew, or Christian Believer in his departure from the Antichristian Church, not to introduce any of her things, once abused to Idolatry, into the Worship of the House of God: which we cited this Scripture to prove.  
Mr. T. proceeds and tells us, 2dly. That external words and gestures, are not contrary to John 4. 23.  
Answ. Nor do we say they are: this we affirm, That a form of words enjoined, the Ceremonious pompous Worship of England, managed and carried on in our Collegiate Churches and Chapels with outward pomp and state is so. That which he saith in answer hereunto, viz. That this Text excludes the Legal shadowy-Worship of the Law, establisheth what we say: For if a pompous, shadowy-Worship, once of the Institution of the Lord, be excluded by this Scripture, much more that which is so, and of the devising and establishment of Antichrist.—  
In what he saith, 3dly, That we conceive a form of Words prescribed and devised by man, to be contrary to Mat. 15. 9 and 28. 20. Deut. 12. 31. he openly prevaricates; For though, as commanded in the Worship of God, it be so; yet we rather refer those Scriptures to the whole of their humane devices, in their Worship and Service, viz. Surplice, Organs, Cross in Baptism, etc. that have not the least foundation in Scripture, and are therefore contrary to them. What Mr. T. dictates, That if no prescript form of Prayer, devised and imposed by penal Laws, to be used by man (for thus he must speak if he speak pertinently) may be used, then conceived forms of Prayer may not be used: I desire him not to attempt the proof of, because 'tis such an impossible task that he will never be able to make good. That Christ hath commanded a set form of Prayer, Luke 11. 2. Mat. 6. 7, 8. is first false.  
For, 1st, If he had done so, it were utterly unlawful to use any other than the words therein contained, because he saith, When ye pray say, Our Father.—  
2dly, That which is in Mat. 6. is a full Interpretation of Luke's expression, and Christ's intendment, viz. vers. 9 After this manner pray ye, etc. (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to this purpose.)  
3dly, We no no where find the Disciples, either themselves using the form of words here mentioned, nor in all their directions given to the Churches, touching this important duty, is there the least recommendation of the use of these words to them, nor are they prescribed as a matter of duty upon any of them.  
4thly, There are not the same words, nor the same number of words in Mat. 6. 9 as in Luke 11. 2.— So that if Christ enjoins us to the use of the words, he enjoins us to sin; for if I use the words recited by Matthew, I sin against the injunction in Luke, and so contrarily.  
5thly, Paul expressly saith, We know not what to pray for as we ought, Rom. 8. 26. which were scarce consistant with truth, if Christ had tied us to the use of those words in Prayer. 2. Impertinent, destructive of the cause he hath undertaken the defence of, upon supposition that Christ hath prescribed a Form of Prayer to be used, it follows not that others may so prescribe and ordain, but rather the contrary. The prescription of another form by them, casts on his the reproach of imperfection and insufficiency. Our Saviour hath prescribed us a form of Prayer to be used as a form, by the repetition of the same words, therefore we may use it, yea we must, is an invincible Argument, on supposition of the truth of the Proposition: But our Saviour hath prescribed us such a form,— Therefore we may use another which he hath not prescribed, hath (saith a learned man) neither show, nor colour of Reason in it.  
But Mr. T. will prove, That a form of Prayer prescribed and imposed is not contrary to Rom. 8. 26. 1 Cor. 14. 15. For,  
1st, 'Tis not said, the Spirit helps our infirmities by suggesting the form of words, but by making known what things we shall ask, and by exciting in us groans and sighs that are unutterable.  
Answ. 1. The words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Spirit helpeth (as the Nurse the Child, or as a strong man him that is fainting under his burden) our sicknesses, weaknesses, infirmities. Whatever the inabilities and infirmities of the Saints are, he helps them in and under them, which Mr. T. doth ill to apply solely to our inward weaknesses, when the Lord doth not do so.  
2. Hath he never known an unaptness of expression to be upon him, in this and other duties in which he hath been helped by the Spirit of the Lord?  
3. Is not such an unaptness one of our weaknesses (to prevent which i● is pleaded, forms of Prayer are prescribed; which is directly to justle out the Spirit and put these forms in his place) this the Spirit shall help saith the Apostle.  
4. Have not many of the Saints, under the sense of their inability, suitably to express themselves lived in a dependence upon this promise, and found the Spirit helping their infirmities indeed?  
5. Is it not as much our duty to wait for the Spirit to give us a Mouth and Wisdom to speak to God, a door of utterance when before him, as when we are speaking to men.  
6. The Assembly in their Annotations interpret it of the assistance of the Spirit, in respect of words, as otherwise.  
But Mr. T. will prove the contrary; because, 1. It's said the Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable.  
Answ. 1. Groans unutterable are either, 1. such as my words and expressions cannot fully reach; or, 2. such whose virtue and excellency doth not consist in the number and flourish of words, as the prayers of Hypocrites, Mat. 6. 7. but in most lively feelings and pangs of the Spirit; but that therefore we must not use words in prayer, or that in so doing we may not expect the help and assistance of the Spirit, is yet to be proved.  
He adds 2dly, That 1 Cor. 14. 15. is such a praying in the Spirit as may be, 1. without the understanding of him that prays; or 2. others, even such as he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, cannot say, Amen.  
Answ. 1. The first is not said; Mr. T. doth ill to impose his own crude conceptions upon the Spirit of the Lord: 'Tis said indeed, That his understanding is unfruitful, viz. to others, what he conceives they are not bettered by, because brought forth in an unknown tongue.  
2. The words they speak in an unknown Tongue, were from the assistance of the Spirit, therefore called a praying in, or by the Spirit; so that this is so far from abetting what he produceth it for, viz. that the Spirit doth not suggest words, that it proves the contrary.  
3. A manifest evidence also, that a form of prayer imposed is contrary to this gift of praying in the Spirit; for had they been tied to the former, the exercise hereof had been altogether shut out; which being a Spiritual gift, was to be coveted by the Saints, chap. 14.  
1. As for what he adds, 1. That the assistance of the Spirit, Rom. 8. is meant of secret, private prayers, not of public, is frivolous. 'Tis not to be imagined that God should promise his help in the managery of private duties, and not afford it in such as are more public, in the honourable performance whereof his glory is more eminently concerned. 'Tis, 2. fond to imagine that it should be meant of raptures and ecstasies in Prayer. 'Tis a promise made to the Saints in general, which they reap the daily fruit of, to their own Souls, and cannot be persuaded upon such easy terms to let go their interest therein. These Texts stand diametrically opposite to a form of Prayer, which renders the assistance of the Spirit, both as to matter and words, useless; both which are ready prepared therein.  
We say in S. T. That the present Ministers own, 8thly, That wicked and ungodly persons, and their Seed are lawful Members of ●he Church, and if they consent not willingly to be so, they may be compelled thereunto, contrary to Psalm 110. 3. Acts 2. 40, 41, 47. & 19 9 2 Cor. 6. 14, 17. & 9 13. Which is so notoriously known to be according to the Canons of their Church, (and consonant to their daily practice) that I wonder Mr. T. should inquire after the Law or Constitution of this instance; and much more that he should say, He knows not where to find it, (as he doth Sect. 8.) He hath sure read Can. 112. 22, 57 where he will find an abundant demonstration of the truth of what we have asserted.  
He adds, None of the Scriptures produced prove that persons may not be compelled by pecuniary mulcts to come to Common-Prayer, or the Communion.  
Answ. 1. And why pleads he only for the lawfulness of Pecuniary Mulcts? Do●h the Canon-Law extend no further? Doth the Bishop's cruelty arise no higher? What means the sighs of the poor and needy, who to the ruin of their Families have for many years lain in noisome Prisons for their nonconformity?  
2. Why pleads he not for the Spanish Inquisition, the Stake and Faggots in the Marian days? he knows they have all the same bottom and foundation.  
3. Several of the Scriptures produced, prove that none but such as of their free will (being under no constraint but that of the Spirit thereunto) desire to be so, were Members of the Churches of Christ, (compulsion whereunto we are so foolish as to think to be hereunto contrary) as Psal. 110. 3. (a Prophecy of Gospel-times, as he grants) Acts 2. 41, 47. 2 Cor. 9 13.  
From whence we argue; If it be prophesied of such as are to constitute the Gospel-Church-State, that they shall be a willing people, and we find only such in the time of the Gospel taken thereinto, their subjection of consent or willingness to the Gospel of Christ, both with respect to Doctrine and Discipline, being what the Saints rejoiced to behold, then compelling any by Pecuniary mulcts, or otherwise, to be Church members, is wicked and unlawful, contrary to the forecited Scriptures. But the first is manifestly proved by them. Therefore—  
'Twere easy to manifest that this is a Principle decried by the Primitive Believers, with the Witnesses of Christ in all Ages; A● Tertullian, Clemens Alexand. Lactantius, the Council of Sardis, of Toledo, chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ignatius. Constantine at first made a Decree, That Liberty of Worship ought not to be denied. — Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 10. c. 5.  
The noble Lord Cobham, in answer to Dr. Walden's speaking contemptuously of Wickliff, saith, Where do you find in all God's Law, That you should thus sit in judgement of any Christian man, or yet give sentence upon any other man unto death, as ye do here daily: no ground have you in all the Scriptures so lordly to take it upon you, but in Annas and Caiphas, which sat thus upon Christ and his Apostles,— of them only have you taken it, to judge Christ's Members as you do; and neither of Peter nor John. 'Tis some of the sour leaven of the Papacy yet left amongst us, the only prop by which Antichrist's Kingdom hath from the beginning been supported and propagated in the World; the same Spirit animating it, that breathed in the Roman Pagan Empire, to the ruin and destruction of multitudes of Christian Souls. Whether, Acts 2. 40. & 19 9 2 Cor. 6. 14, 17. prove that wicked and ungodly men are not fit matter for Church-Communion, we will leave to the Judicious Reader to determine.  
We add in S. T. 9thly. That Women may administer the Sacrament of Baptism, is owned by them; which is contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. Mat. 28. 18, 19, 20. Ephes. 4. 11.  
Mr. T. replies, This was allowed in the English Church before the Conference at Hampton Court, in the Reign of King James, but not since.  
Answ. 1. Yet the Learned Hooker, (who is supposed to speak the mind of the Church, and Ministers of England, as much as another man) after the aforesaid Conference, pleads for the lawfulness thereof, Eccles. Pol. Sect. 62.  
Yea, 2. I find no public renunciation of the foresaid erroneous Principle, nor is it any any where (as I know of) expressly and avowedly condemned by them. And am persuaded, that upon enquiry it will be found, that it's generally owned by them to this very day. What he seems to urge for the justification of this practice, is trivial, viz. Philip had four Daughters that did Prophesy, Acts 21. 9 Mention is made of the Woman Praying or Prophesying, 1 Cor. 11. 5. Priscilla instructed Apollo's, Therefore we cannot exclude them from private Teaching of the most able, if they be fitted thereunto: Which no body that I know of denies, but that therefore they may Baptise, which should have been his inference, is such a nonsequitur, that deserves no other answer t●an contempt.  
We proceed, and in S. T. say, 10thly, That the present Ministers own that the Lords Supper is to be received kneeling. Touching which we affirm three things.  
1. That the posture of kneeling is opposite to the practice of Christ in his first institution of that Ordinance, and so it is if kneeling be directly opposite to sitting, which 'tis expressly said he did, Mark 14: 18, 22, 23.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 9 replies, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used Mark 14. 18. signifies lying along on Beds.  
Answ. 1. Dato non concesso, Yet Kneeling is directly opposite to that posture; so that that observation (were it true) adv●ntageth not his cause at all.  
2. The word (as it's known) signifies, to sit down, or to sit down together at Meat, Mark 16. 14. Luke 17. 37.  
3. 'Tis most evident Christ sat with his Disciples in the Administration of this Ordinance.  
1. So say all the Evangelists, Mat. 26. 20. Mark 14. 18. Luke 14. 22. John 13. 12.  
2. The Papists themselves confess as much,  Rex sedet in caenâ, turbâ cinctus duodenâ,— Alex. Alens. 
3. Most foreign Ministers and Commentators, (as Aretius, Brentius, Calvin, Beza, Deodat, Zuinglius, Pisca●or, Danaeus,—) together with our Countrymen, affirm as much.  
4. Till above 1460 years after Christ, we meet with no Council or Synod, no Rubric in all the Liturgies, that enjoin people to kneel in the act of Receiving.  
5. Our first Reformers in the time of H. 8. in their Treatise touching the Lord's Supper, desire that Christian Princes would command and establish a form of administering the Lord's Supper, wherein all the Congregation may be ordered to sit round about the Lord's Table, as Christ, his Apostles, the Primitive Christians did.  
Nor is, 6. one main end of this Institution, viz. our communion with Christ, and one with another, so fitly represented by the posture of Kneeling, as sitting. What else he mentions, is not worth the reminding. Christ sat out of choice in the celebration of this appointment, for there was no constraint upon him so to do, he might ●ave stood, or kneeled, if he had pleased.  
That we are rather to subject to Antichrist's Canons, ●nd Custom in kneeling, than follow Christ's Example, sober Christians will not be over forwardly to believe.  
1. Paul. 1 Cor. 11. 23. omits the gesture, because than it had not been in the least controverted.  
2dly, That the posture of Kneeling is opposite to the practice of the Churches of Christ for several hundred years after, to the time of the invention and introduction of the Popish breaden God, to the judgement and practice of most of the Reformed Churches to this very day. The truth of this Mr. T. denies not. The say of Dr. Burgess the Bishop of Rochester, Paybody, etc. in opposition to the former of these, being without the least tender of proof, and they themselves sticklers, for kneeling is not to be heeded. The contrary hath in part already, and may be anon more fully evinced.  
We say further in S. T. 3dly, That the posture of kneeling, is contrary to 1 Thes. 5. 22. It hath an appearance of evil in it, being a gesture used by the Papists, in the adoration of their breaden God.  
To this Mr. T. replies at large. Having acquainted us with several interpretations that may be given of the words, (too large to be here repeated); he tells us, That Interpreters of all sorts, apply it to the appearance of evil, in practice; but whether the Apostle means it of that which appears evil to another, or to a man's self, may be doubted. To this latter he inclines, and gives his reasons.  
Answ. But what if a man should say, That what hath in itself really an appearance of evil, is to be abstained from, and that by this Apostolical precept, and that the trial and probation mentioned, is in order to the finding out of this? This renders all that Mr. T. hath asserted and laid down, impertinent and invalid.  
1. This best suits with the context.  
2. None of the absurdities mentioned would follow hereupon.  
Kneeling at the Sacrament hath a real appearance of evil in itself, were not men's eyes blinded with passion, custom, self-interest, prejudice, etc. they could not but see it.  
Whatever, not of the institution of the Lord, hath been abused to Idolatry, the greatest Idolatry in the World, hath a real appearance of evil in it. Kneeling in receiving the Sacrament hath been so abused. Therefore,—  
That which Dr. Burgess (afterwards cited by this Animadv.) saith, is rather a confirmation of the truth of the minor Proposition, than otherwise. The Papists he confesses receive it kneeling as we do; he denies indeed that in that very moment of time they intent to adore it. But this is the Doctors mistake; they themselves acknowledge they do so, and protest that did they not believe, that the very Body and Blood of Christ, were really and carnally in that Sacrament, they would abhor to kneel at the reception thereof, as do the Protestants.  
3. We conceive that should it not be the duty of men to abstain from evil, till it appear to them to be so, they might commit many evils without being justly charged as Transgressor's, many practising what is really evil (hath a real appearance of evil) under the notion, and apprehension of an appearance of good.  
Though, 4thly, An appearance of evil in any thing (that is indifferent) to a tender conscience (another's conscience) is what obligeth Saints to abstain from it, as the Apostle argues in the case of the idolothite: afterward reviewed by us, Chap. 9  
None of the absurdities mentioned follow hereupon. Not the first, because till I know the thoughts of the Brother, to whom it appears to be evil (upon supposition that 'tis in itself indifferent) I am not obliged to abstain from it: nor the second or third; for there are many things, the most, all, that I am by positive Precept engaged to conform to, that either appear not to be evil to the Saints I converse with, or if they do, they being my duty, I am obliged to do it; b●t this is not our present case.  
Kneeling in receiving the Sacrament will not be pleaded to be my duty, by virtue of any positive Law, or Precept from Christ, which is also a sufficient answer to his 4th reason. I shall only add what I find delivered by one of their own, viz. Tho. Bacon, Prebend of Canterbury, in his Catechism printed Cum privilegio; Who writes thus, I could wish all such gestures were avoided, as have outwardly any appearance of evil; according to this saying of St. Paul, Abstain from all evil appearance. He instanceth in the gesture of Kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament, tells us 'twas introduced by the Doctrine of the Papists, wisheth it were taken away; for, saith he, i● hath an appearance of evil. When the Papists had made, of the Sacramental Bread and Wine a god, and hath taught and commanded the People to worship it as God, then gave they commandment, That all the People should with all reverence kneel unto it.— And b● this means the gesture of kneeling crept in, and is yet used in the Church of the Papists, to declare that they worship the Sacrament as their Lord God.— Kneeling with the knowledge of Godly honour is due unto none but God. Sitting at the Lord's Table, he tells us is the most comely gesture. 'Tis not to be doubted but Christ and h●s Disciples, and the Primitive Church a long time after used that gesture.—  
It is added in S. T. jolly, What should I mention the Constitutions and Canons before pointed to, wherein 'tis forbidden to any to preach, not Licenced by the Bishops thereunto, to marry or eat flesh at certain times,— directly contrary to the sovereign Edicts of Christ, and some of them evident Characters of the last days Apostates, 1 Tim. 4. 3. from whom Saints are warned to turn away. 2 Tim. 3. 5.  
To which Mr. T. replies, Sect. 10. 1. Of forbidding to preach, answer is made, Sect. 2.  
Answ. And to that we have already replied.  
2. Forbidding to Marry, and to abstain from Flesh upon Politic considerations, or for the better observing a religious Fast, may be justified by Jon. 3. 7. Joel 2. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 5. Dan. 10. 3.  
Answ. 1. Of abstaining from Marriage, there is not the least tittle spoken in the Scriptures produced.  
2. They are wholly silent of a set, involuntary, compulsive fast; and from flesh only.  
3. Interdiction of Marriage, and abstinence from Flesh, is bottomed upon the Canon-Laws; persons are liable to be presented into the Ecclesiastical Courts for their contrariety thereunto: Dispensations from thence may be obtained for money; a sufficient evidence, that whatever persons pretend, these things are of an Ecclesiastical consideration.  
4. Eating Flesh is not absolutely forbidden, by the Papists themselves, but on certain days; nor Marriage, but to certain Persons; yet to these the Character of the last day's Apostates Mr. T. grants doth appertain; and why not as much to the Daughter as to the Mother, to England as to Rome, I am not able to divine? I am sure the same times of abstinence both from Meats and Marriage, is enjoined in both. The serious perusal of 2 Tim. 3. 5. will abundantly satisfy the unprejudiced Reader, that the present Ministers of England are such, as are there spoken of. So than it being undeniably evident that the present Ministers of England do own, submit and subscribe to Orders and Ordinances that are contrary to the Revelation of Christ, they do really deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office.   

Sect. 3.  
The present Ministers deny the Kingly and Prophetical Offices of Christ, whilst they acknowledge another Head of the Church beside him. There is no other Head of the Church but Christ, proved. Of the Head-ship of the Pope. H. 8. assumes the same, within his own Dominions. The testimony of the learned Fuller, Rivet, Calvin. Of Christ's Headship of influence and Government. Whether particular Churches may be said to be the Bodies of their Governors? Whether the Apostles were the Heads of the Church? Ojections answered. Mr. T. his Exceptions thereunto considered. 1 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. expounded. Whether the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church? Isa. 44. 28. explained. The Government of the Church and State proved distinct.—  
WE further manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers deny the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ, thus.  
3dly, Those that acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ, deny his Prophetical and Kingly Office: But the present Ministers of Engl. do own and acknowledge another Head over the Church beside Christ. Therefore.—  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 11. The Author of S. T. speaks darkly, and thence falls to conjecturing what I mean by the Head of the Church.  
Answ. To satisfy this Animadverter once for all, By the Head of the Church, I mean the King and Bishops, that as Heads and Lawgivers thereunto assume unto themselves a power to institute Laws and Ordinances of their own, and create Officers in the Church which were never of the appointment of Christ; (which Danaeus and others make to be some of the essential parts of Church-Government, and they are indeed so) And if the owning such an Head-ship be not a denial of his Kingly Authority, I must profess I know not what is.  
This Mr. T. denies. But 1. without giving us the least reason of his so doing. 2. In contradiction to what is affirmed by himself, p. 119. chap. 4. of his Theodulia. 3. 'Tis avowedly condemned by many sober judicious Protestant Writers and Churches, as Rivet, Calvin, etc.  
He tells us, 2dly, That no such Headship is owned by the present Ministers, as the Pope claims.  
Answ. 1. The question is not whether such an Headship be owned by them as the Pope assumes; but whether such an one as is not a denial of the Sovereignty of Christ.  
2. With respect to the extent thereof it is acknowledged there is no such Headship owned by them: The King is not Universal Monarch of the Church.  
Yet 3. For the kind of it, it is the same, i. e. Henry the 8th having cast off the Pope's supremacy, rests himself with it in his own Dominions. Hence the learned Fuller in his History of the Church of England, tells us, That the King became the Pope's heir at Law. And it was indeed evidently so.  
1. Did the Pope claim a right to that Title, Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo, The Supreme Head of the Church under Christ?  
2. Did he account himself the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Power?  
3. Did he undertake to make and dispense Laws pro libitu, according as he saw meet? So did H. 8. and his Successors the Kings of England, with respect to the Church of England. The Title of Supreme Head or Governor under Christ is given to them. They are the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, it being by Statute Law annexed to the Crown. The Bishop's Courts ought to be held, all Processes to go out in their Name: With a Synod of Priests (or without sometimes) they can make and dispense with Laws for the binding or losing of the Members of the Church thereof.  
Hear what the learned Rivet saith, Explic. Decal. Edit. 2. p. 203. touching this matter (taxing Bishop Gardener for extolling the King's Primacy—) For he that did as yet nourish the Doctrine of the Papacy, as after it appeared, did erect a new Papacy in the person of the King. And reverend Mr. Calvin; And at this day (saith he) how many are there in the Papacy that heap upon Kings whatsoever right and power they can possible; so that there may not be any Dispute of Religion, but this power should be in one King to Decree according to his own pleasure, whatsoever he list, and that should remain fixed without controversy? They that at first so much extolled H. King of England (certainly they were inconsiderate men) gave unto him Supreme power of all things: and this grievously wounded me always, for they were Blasphemers (and yet the present Ministers avow the same) when they called him, The Supreme Head of the Church under Christ.— Thus he, in Amos 7. 13.  
What this Animadverter saith, Hart the Jesuit acknowledgeth of the Pope, with respect to the whole Church, is for the most part acknowledged by the present Ministers of the King,— with respect to the Church of England. The Power which we mean to the Pope (the King and Archbishop) by this Title of the Supreme Head, is that the Government of the whole Church of Christ throughout the World (of the Church of England) doth depend of him. In him doth lie the power of judging and determining causes of Faith, of ruling Councils, (or National Synods) as Precedent, and ratifying their Decrees; of Ordering and Confirming Bishops and Pastors, of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the Coasts of the Earth; (all the parts of the Nation) Of reconciling any that are Excommunicate, of Excommunicating, Suspending, or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend.— Finally all things of the like sort, for governing of the Church; even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine, or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ, (of England) which whilst the Animadverter goes about to insinuate as not appertaining to the King,— he advanceth himself against the Royal Prerogatives of his Crown and Dignity.—  
Nor doth the Explanation mentioned Artic. 34. and 37.— contradict what we have asserted, Jurisdiction and Power of exterior Government is acknowledged to belong to him; which comprehends the substance of what we are contending for.  
In what follows we are not in the least concerned; we abhor the Primacy of the Papal Antichrist; we deny not the King's Headship and Supremacy over the Church of England, by the fundamental Laws of the Nation it appertains to him. We only infer from hence,  
1st, That the Church of England is no true Church, because Headed by some one else besides Christ.  
2dly, That whilst the present Ministers account it Christ's Church, and own another Head over it besides himself, they deny his Sovereignty and Kingship; they make another King over it, and thereby really unking him.  
We add in S. T. as a proof of the Major Proposition, If the assertion of another King in Engl. that as the Head thereof hath power of making and giving forth Laws to the free born Subjects therein, be a denial of his Kingly authority (as no doubt it is) the Major cannot be denied. If Christ be the alone King of his Church (as such) he is its alone Head and Lawgiver; If he hath not by any Statute-Law established any other Headship in and over his Church, to act in the holy things of God from and under him, besides himself, the assertion of such a Headship carries with it a contempt and denial of his Authority; If there be any such Headship of the Institution of Christ, let us know when and were it was Instituted? Whether such a Dominion and Sovereignty over the Subjects of his Kingdom with respect to Worship be granted by him to any of the sons of men, absolutely or conditionally? If the first, t●en must the Church be governed by persons casting off the yoke of Christ, trampling upon his Royal Commands and Edicts; for so its possible it may fall out, those that attain this Headship, may do, as its evident many Popes of Rome (the great pretenders hereunto) have done. If the second, let one iota be produced from the Scripture of the Institution of such an Headship, with the conditions annexed thereunto; and we shall be so far from denying it, that we shall cheerfully pay whatever respect, homage or duty, by the Laws of God or man, may righteously be expected from us. But this we conceive will not in haste be performed, and that for these Reasons.  
1. The Scripture makes mention of no other Head in and over the Church, but Christ, Ephes. 1. 22. & 5. 23, 29. 2 Cor. 11. 2.  
To this Mr. T. answers, 1. We use not the title of Head, but of Supreme Governor; yet that title being given to Saul, 1 Sam. 15. 17. and others, 1 Cor. 11. 3. Ephes. 5. 23. Exod. 6. 14. — and may be used.  
Answ. 1. What We Mr. T. means, when he saith, We use not the title of Head, I know not; 'tis the usual form of the present Ministers to style the King in their prayers, Under Thee, and Thy Christ, Supreme Head and Governor.  
But 2dly; Head of the Church, is a title nor to be given to any in that sense in which it is given to Christ, this Animadverter grants.  
I ask, Hath Christ only an Headship of influence to his Church, (communicating vital Spirits unto the true Members thereof;) Hath he not also an Headship of Government over it? If he assert the first, he knows he is departed into the Tents of the Antichristian Papal Shepherds, who allow indeed such an Headship to Christ alone. The second they divide betwixt him and the Pope, as Mr. T. seems to do betwixt him and the King.— If the second be owned by him, than none of the Children of men have an Headship of Government over the Churches of Christ, they are not so the Supreme Governors thereof, as to give forth Laws and Institutions of their own, for the Saints to conform to, For this title of Head is not to be appropriated to any, in that sense in which it is given to Christ, as saith our Animadverter.  
Besides, 2dly, If the Kings of the Earth are the Supreme Governors of the Churches of Christ, they have this Supremacy over them by grant from Christ, and that either absolutely, or conditionally; if the first, than whoever ascends the Throne of worldly Ruledom, hath a right of supremacy over them, though they themselves be such as have cast off the Yoke of Christ, are trampling upon his Royal Laws and Edicts; If the second, let us see the proof thereof from Scripture, with the conditions annexed to this their supremacy, and we are satisfied.  
This we told Mr. T. before, but he was not pleased to take notice of it, That because the Scriptures mentioned by him, attribute ●he title of Head of the Tribes to Saul, and the Man is called the Head of the Woman,— Therefore the Governors of the World may be called the Head of the Churches of Christ, when that title of Head of the Church is given to none but Christ in the Scripture, is such a pitiful nonsequitur, as Mr. T. will not (surely) without blushing review.  
Sir, Saul was constituted by the Lord King over Israel: a Man to have superiority over the Woman, with allusion hereunto, they are called their Head by the Spirit of the Lord: But where is the Scripture constitution of the Superiority, Kingship of any over the Church beside Christ? Amongst whom he saith, He will have no such thing.  
Where is it that any have this title of Head of the Church ascribed to them by the Holy Ghost? This must be proved, or you must acknowledge the impertinency and invalidity of their present arguing; the best of it is, whether you will be so ingenuous or no, 'tis but a Fig-leaf covering, that every eye can discern your nakedness through it.  
We say in S. T. 2dly, If there be any other Head of the Church besides Christ, he must be either within or without the Church.  
The latter will not be affirmed; Christ had not sure so little respect to his Flock as to appoint Wolves and Lions to their Governors and Guides in matters Ecclesiastical: nor can the former, for all in the Church are Brethren, have no Dominion or Authority over each others Faith or Conscience, Luke 22. 25.  
Mr. T. replies, Though all in the Church are Brethren, yet all are not equal, nor doth Luke 22. 25. prove it.  
Answ. 'Tis enough for our present purpose, that all in the Church are thus far equal, that being all brethren, none may exercise any Ruledom or Authority over the rest, without their consent, nor any such Ruledom as to command in case of Worship where Christ is silent, which is at least asserted, Luke 22. 25. and Mr. T. may confute it when he is able. Of this Scripture we have spoken at large, Chap. 4. and of Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. frequently; and have fully removed out of the way what is here repeated touching the Laws of Rulers, and their obligation upon Conscience— nor need we add more.  
We say further in S. T. 3dly, If any other be Head of the Church, but Christ, then is the Church the body of some others beside Christ; but this is absurd and false, not to say impious and blasphemous.  
To which Mr. T. Particular Churches, in respect of that ministration and government which their Governors afford them, may be said to be the bodies of their Governors.  
Answ. Boldly ventured however! 1. The Church is frequently said to be the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 12, 27. Ephes. 5. 30, 32. Col. 1. 18.  
2dly, Is not where said to be the body of any other, not of Peter, Paul,— much less of Nero, Domitian, (the Supreme Governors of the Empire at that day.) By what Authority Mr. T. takes the body of Christ and joins it to another Head besides himself, I am yet to learn.  
3dly, The Church is called his Body, upon the account of that glorious nearness and union is betwixt Christ and them; the reception of Spirits, life from him, their absolute indisputable subjection to him. Is the Church the body of any other with respect hereunto beside Christ? Where is it so called? Is it united, or in subjection to any other besides Christ, as the Woman is to the Man, upon the account whereof she is called his body, Ephes. 5. 28. (his, I say not another's) That Mr. T. should assert, That upon the same account the Church may be called the body of some other beside Christ?  
We add, 4thly, There was no Head of the Church in the Apostles days but Christ. That upon any account the Apostles or Elders were Heads of the Church; that in respect of ministration and government they were so, as our Dictator speaks, is notoriously false.  
1. There is not the least intimation of any such thing in the N. T. Nor, 2. any Language or Speech of any Headship over the Church, but Christ's, till the rise of that man of sin, who profaned the Crown of our Lord, by casting it to the ground.  
3. We find not the Apostles talking of themselves at this lofty rate; they confess themselves to be the Brethren of the Saints, their Servants for Christ's sake.  
4. Why talks he of Heads of the Church? Doth the Scripture mention any more than one? Is this the Language of Christ or Antichrist? Will he make the Church a two-headed Monster; but  Quô passim sequerer corvum? 
I am sorry, and ashamed, that so learned a Person as Mr. T. should suffer such trifles to drop from his Pen.  
We proceed in S. T. and say, 5thly, If any be Head of the Church beside Christ, they either have their Headship from an original right seated in themselves, or by donation from Christ. To assert the first, were no less than blasphemy: if the second, let them show when and where, and how they came to be invested in such a right, and this controversy will be at an end.  
To which our Animadverter answers, Their Headship is by donation from Christ, in the places often alleged. He means, Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 17. That they refuse to afford shelter to this dying Cause, we have already manifested.  
We add 6thly, He that is asserted in Scripture to be Head of the Church, is said to govern, feed, and nourish it to eternal Life, is he● Husband, 2 Cor. 11. 2. In which sense none of the Sons of men can be the Head thereof, and yet of any other Head, the Scripture is wholly silent. But of this matter thus far. It cannot by any sober person be denied, but an owning a visible Head over the Church, having power of making Laws, with respect to Worship, (such an Headship not being of the institution of Christ) must needs be a denial of his Sovereign Authority and Power.  
To which Mr. T. replies, None can be said to be the Husband of the Church as Christ is, or to govern, feed, and nourish as he, by the influence of his Spirit, yet the Apostles, and such as convert and build up Souls, may in a qualified sense be said so to do, as, 1 Thes. 2. 7, 11. the Apostle saith of himself.  
Answ. 1. This is a mere Dictate without proof, and so fit to be rejected; the Apostle saith not any such thing, 1 Thes. 2. 7, 11.  
2. He tells us not in what qualified sense they may be said so to do. Nor, 3. doth he show us where any one is said to be the Husband of the Church beside Christ, nor indeed can he; so that the Argument abides firm. He that is in the Scripture. said to be the Head of the Church, is also said to be her Husband, to govern, feed and nourish her to eternal Life; but Christ alone is, and doth so. Therefore,—  
We add, That the present Ministers do own such an Headship, is undeniable, witness their Subscription, Oath, Conformity in Worship to Laws and Edicts made and given forth by the sons of men as Heads-of the Church, which are not only foreign to, but lift up themselves against the Royal Institutions of Christ. This being matter of fact, the individuals charged herewith must prove themselves not guilty, or manifest that what they do is lawful. The former being notoriously known to be true, the latter must be insisted on.  
Mr. T. answers, Sect. 12. 1. He cannot justify all the present Ministers do in their subscription and conformity.  
Answ. 'Tis good to be ingenuous, we know he cannot,  
Longa dies citior brumali tempore, noxque  
Tardior Hyberna solstitialis erit.  
Nor is there any one will compel him to more than he hath a will to.  
He adds, 2. The Ministers may own Laws— given forth by men (as the Governors and Heads of the Church) that lift up themselves in opposition against the Institutions of Christ, and yet not deny his Kingly Office. Because 1. this may be done out of weakness or error.  
Answ. This is already removed out of the way. 2dly, A man may subscribe, yield subjection to the commands of a Usurper, (as some did to Richard the Third, who acknowledged him not to be King of right, and some do to the Decrees of the Trent Council, or the Pope's Edicts) and yet not own his power.  
Answ. 1. This is such a legerdemain, so like to those Jesuitical equivocations condemned by our Protestant Writers, that I understand not, nor desire to be acquainted with.  
2. By my subscription to the Laws mentioned, and promising obedience to some of the formers of them, as my Reverend Fathers in God, I avowedly own their power, except I have learned Fallere mille modis, nec non intexere frauds. to use such hard dissimulation and treachery as an Heathen would abhor.  
3. Will Mr. T. stand by this plea, will he undertake the Ministers of England shall do so? If not, Why doth he multiply words to deceive the Reader; if he will, he egregiously scandalizeth the King and Bishops, supposing them to be Usurpers. Though he hath taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, he hath not thereby manifested his loyalty in acknowledging him to be King of right, but only hath submitted for peace-sake; to what, though he owns not to be just or right, he cannot remedy. If the Laws of Trent Council, or the Pope's Edicts should be established amongst us, (which God forbidden) Mr. T. can it seems subscribe to them, without owning them as just, or the power imposing them; he seems well acquainted with the cursed carnal Machiavellian principle of self-interest and preservation,  Cum fueris Romae Romano vivito more. 
No need of taking up the Cross daily to follow Christ, to subscribe to what is uppermost (which we may do without owning it, or the Authority by which it is established) is better and safer.  
We proceed in S. T. to the answering of some Objections that lay in our way; as, 1. That the Headship owned by them, is an Headship under Christ.  
To which we Answer, 1. But this Headship is either of Christ's appointment, or 'tis not; if it be, let it be shown where it was instituted by him.— If it be not the assertion and owning of such an Headship, is a denial of Christ's Authority.  
To this Mr. T. replies, Sect. 13. The term, Head of the Church, is not used in the Oath of Supremacy, (this we have already answered in this Sect. and need not say more) but Supreme Governor: And this is agreeable to Rom. 13. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13.  
Answ. By Supreme Governor over the Church of Christ, is meant one that hath power seated in him for the prescribing Rules in things undetermined (as Mr. T. grants) the establishing of Laws, Institutions not of the appointment of Christ (contrary thereunto) who is the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and church-polity. That Mr. T. sees such a Supreme Governor to be agreeable to the Scriptures produced by him, must be imputed to that acuteness of his whereby he may be supposed to transcend the rest of his Neighbours.  Ille solus sapiens, reliqui velut umbra vagantur. 
Of Rom. 13. 1. we have already spoken. Though the Church be comprised under every soul, yet it doth not follow that Magistrates are the Heads, or such Supreme Governors of the Church as are invested with power for the establishing and instituting of parts of Worship, or commanding them in any thing relating to Worship, as such; of which the Apostle speaks not a tittle in that place. Civil subjection as subjects of the Empire, is the utmost can rationally from thence be argued for. Those that were then Rulers and Governors, were such as Nero, Domitian,— who persecuted the Church, designed to root the Worship of Christ out of the world; were Idolaters, establishe● by force and violence an Heathenish Idolatrous Worship, whom Christ never intended to intrust with any such power: which is a sufficient answer to 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is exponed by our Annotat. Of Civil Government. 1 Tim. 2. 2. is impertinently cited, That because the Apostle there exhorts that Prayers be made for Kings,— therefore they have Ecclesiastical Power and Sovereignty committed to them over the Churches of Christ, is a consequence that the very reciting of is confutation sufficient. When I ascribe (as he talks) as much power to the Church as he doth to the King and Bishops, I know not. That I should make the Church the Head of the Church (which is downright nonsense) is not probable. For the present I must crave leave to tell him he is utterly mistaken. I ascribe no power of inventing Rites and Ceremonies, devising Laws and Constitutions of their own, relating to Worship, as such, to any one Church or Churches in the World. I challenge him to make good his assertion. I dispute against it as well as I can in S. T. Chap. 5. pag. 41, 42. Whatever power I ascribe to the Church, 'tis only such as Christ hath entrusted her with; that this should be as much a denial of Christ's Kingly Office, as the ascription of a power over the Churches of Christ, to any to whom he hath not committed such a power, Mr. T. will not in haste be able to prove.  
We further reply in S. T. 2dly. The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other, viz. than a Head-ship under Christ.  
To this Mr. T. 1. I grant the Church of Rome pleads for no other Headship. But 2. They usurp a power in some respects superior to Christ, in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths, allowing of Incestuous Marriages.  
Answ. And the same may be said of the Heads of the Church of England. I suppose this Animadverter may be yet of the mind that the Oath of the Solemn League and Covenant was a lawful Oath; yet that can be dispensed with. Marriages prohibited— are not seldom allowed of by their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  
We add 3dly, 'Tis not so as is pretended; they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ, having a Law-making and a Law-giving Power touching Institutions of Worship, that never came into his heart, are flatly against his appointments, as hath been proved.  
We add in S. T. 4thly, One Head in subordination to another, doth as really make the Body a Monster, as two Heads conjoined.  
To this Mr. T. The terms Head and Body, being used only Metaphorically, there's no more Monstrosity in making a Head under a Head, than in making a Governor under a Governor.—  
Answ. 1. Should it be granted there were no Monstrosity in the thing itself, yet there is in the expression in the Title; an argument it was never from the Spirit of the Lord.  
2. Bernard is of another mind; Thou makest a Monster, saith he, if removing the hand, thou makest the Finger to hang on the Head.— Thou makest the Body of Christ a Monster, if thou placest the Members of his Body otherwise than he hath placed them in the Church.— Lib. 3. cap. 10. Con. ad Eugen. Much more to take a Beast, a Lion, or Bear, as wicked and graceless men are (whom yet Mr. T. see●s to allow for Heads in the Churches of Christ) and place them not only as Members in, but as Heads over (though under Christ) the Church of God.  
3. The making of a Governor under a Governor in the Commonweal, hath no Monstrosity in it, because agreeable to the Will of God, Principles of State-polity, which a Head under a Head in the Church hath; because dissonant, contrary to the Law and Sovereignty of Christ its Supreme Independent and alone Head.  
A second Objection is in S. T. thus proposed by us. That the Kings of Israel were the Heads succesively of the than Church, and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful.  
To which we Answer, 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel, there is a vast disproportion; many things were of old lawful, which now to practice were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh.  
2. The Kings of Israel were Types of Christ; which (notwithstanding Mr. T. dictates that it is falsely and vainly asserted, Sect. 14.) till he prove the contrary, we take for truths. What he speaks with reference to the Kings of Israel and England, we are unconcerned in. That the Rulers of the Jews or any other Nations had, de jure, any such Dominion or Power over their Subjects as to make Laws, introduce Constitutions of their own framing, in matters relating to Worship, and compel them by force and violence to subject thereunto, Mr. T. hath not proved. Isa. 44. 28. Is a Prophecy of the Liberty the Jews should obtain under Cyrus to go up to Jerusalem to build the Temple; of the fulfilling whereof you have an account, Ezra. 1. 1, 2, 3. But not a tittle of his Dominion about things sacred, or introducing Constitutions relating to their Worship as such; or compelling any to go up to Jerusalem, is there mentioned. He only removes the Babylonian yoke that was upon them, and sets them at liberty to build the Temple of the Lord— (which the Kings before him would not grant them to do) and Worship him according to his own appointments, Isa. 45. 1. is impertinently alleged, relating only to the Victories and Conquests the Lord would afford unto Cyrus over the Cities and Nations of the World. Jonah 3. 7, 8. gives us an account of a Decree published by order of the King, for a solemnisation of a Fast, and to turn from impiety; but this comes short of the proof of the Headship argued for, which is an Headship, having power of making and giving forth Laws touching Institutions of Worship, Orders, Rites, etc. that never entered into the heart of Christ; the judicious Reader will easily, from what we have already offered, discern the impertinency of Ezra 6. 7. and 7. 13. Dan. 3. 29. and 6. 26. to the present design.  
'Tis true, as he saith, Christianity altars not civil Relations or Estates, 1 Cor. 7. 24. And 'tis as true, that if in the time of my infidelity, I have been the servant of men that are my Political Masters, with respect to Worship, though I am, whilst I continue their servant, to perform faithful service to them, with respect to things Civil, yet am I not to own them or subject to them as my Lords & Governors, with respect to the Service of God; therein one only being my Lord and Master, viz. Christ.  
2. I say not that all the Kings of Israel were Types of Christ, but that the Kings of Israel were so, i. e. some of them; nor do I restrain the word Israel to the ten Tribes, but to the twelve, headed by David, Solomon, a pair of eminent Types of the Messiah.  
That Christ and the Apostles yielded subjection to Civil Powers with respect to things sacred (of which this Animadverter must speak, or he speaks impertinently) is a gross mistake unworthy so learned a person.  
We say in S. T. 3dly, That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church is false, God was its alone Head and King. Hence their Historian saith, Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And when they would needs choose a King, God said, They rejected him; to whom even as to their Political Head, a Shekel was paid yearly as a Tribute, called the Shekel of the Sanctuary. True indeed as they were a Political Body, they had visible Political Governors,— but that these had any Headship over them, to make any Laws, introduce Constitutions of their own framing, in matter relating to Worship, will never be proved.  
To which Mr. T. replies, 1. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom of Israel is one of the proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church, distinct from the Civil Government of the State.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis no matter whose opinion 'tis; if Truth, it ought to be embraced.  
2. That there is a real and formal distinction betwixt the two Societies, Church and Commonwealth, is at large proved by several. As Mr. Gillespy in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming, b. 1. c. 3. The Assembly in their Jus Divinum. Hear their Reasons, p. 88, 89.  
1st, The Society of the Church is only Christ's and not the Civil Magistrates, it's his House,— and he hath no Vicar under him (as is abundantly proved by Mr. Rutherford, in his Divine Right of Church-Government, Chap. 27. Q. 23. Pag. 595, to 647.)  
2dly, The Officers Ecclesiastical are Christ's Officers, not the Magistrates, 1 Cor. 4. 1. Ephes. 4. 8, 10, 11. 1 Cor. 12. 28.  
3dly, These Officers are elected and ordained by the Church without Commission from the Civil Magistrate, by virtue of Christ's Ordinance; and in his Name, Acts 6. 3, 4. with 14. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. with Acts 13. 1, 2, 3, 4.  
4thly, The Church meets not as Civil Judicatories, for Civil Acts of Government,— but as Spiritual Assembles, for such as are spiritual, viz. Preaching.—  
5thly, Should not these two Societies be acknowledged to be really and essentially distinct from one another, several gross absurdities would follow: As, 1. Then there can be no Commonwealth where there is not a Church; but this is contrary to all experience: Heathens have Commonwealths, yet no Church. 2. Then there may be Church-Officers elected where there is no Church, seeing there are Magistrates where there is no Church. 3. Then those Magistrates where there is no Church are no Magistrates.— And if so then the Church is the formal constituting Cause of Magistrates. 4. Then the Commonwealth as the Commonwealth, is the Church; and the Church as the Church, is the Commonwealth.— 5. Then all that are Members of the Commonwealth, are, because so, Members of the Church. 6. Then the Commonwealth being formally the same with the Church, is, as Commonwealth, the Mystical Body of Christ. 7. Then the Officers of the Church are the Officers of the Commonwealth, the power of the Keys gives them right to the Civil Sword, and consequently the Ministers of the Gospel, as such, are Justices of the peace.— All which how absurd let the world judge.  
He adds, 2dly, That Solomon and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons is evident, because he deposed Abiathar.  
Answ. 1. Who denies it? How this proves the power of the Kings of Israel, as Heads of the Church, to innovate in Worship (which is the thing to be proved) I know not.  Hic labour, hoc opus est. 
And Mr. T. hath more wit than seriously to attempt it. 2. Solomon deposed Abiathar not as High Pontifee, or Head of the Church, for male administration in Church-affairs, but as King of Israel for treason against the Commonwealth, in the business of Adonijah. Ergo Solomon was the Head of the Church of Israel.  — risum teneatis amici. 
Of 2 Chr. 29. 30, and 30. 2. which he produceth to prove That the Kings of Israel had power in Ecclesiastical things, we have already spoken.  
What follows in this 14th Sect. is not worthy our spotting paper with the repetition of.  
1. He grants, That God was the alone Head and King of the Church of Israel, with respect to power Legislative, to assign what Faith, Worship, Judicatories, and what other things were necessary for that Congregation; all which solely appertained to him: which is all we need contend for. The Kings of Israel had not any Legislative power with respect to these, he grants; from the power of these Kings than it cannot be argued, that any have power now to innovate in matters of Faith and Worship, they are not Heads of the Church invested with authority to introduce Constitutions of their own framing, in matters relating to Worship, as such; nor had the Kings of Israel any such Authority.  Jam sumus ergo pares nec ab uno dissidet alter. 
2. What he talks of Kingly Government, we are not at all concerned in. All that we assert in S. T. is that Josephus saith, Their Government was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Theocracie, that when they choose a King, they rejected God, 1 Kings 8. 17. which when he attempts the confutation of, we may attend him.  
3. That a Shekel was yearly paid to the Lord, Ex. 30. 13.- (which continued to the destruction of Jerusalem, Josep. l. 7. c. 28. of the Jewish Wars) he grants, that it was paid to him as their Political Head, he denies. Now though this be not of any moment, as to our present concern therein, yet the truth thereof is easily demonstrated. 1. It was paid to the Lord in token of their thankfulness for his delivering them from the Egyptian yoke, which he did as their Political Head. 2. None were to pay it under 20 years of age; because till then they were not so fit for the service of the Commonwealth, though at 8 days old they were reckoned as Church-members. That because it was converted to the service of the Temple, therefore it was not paid to God as their Political Head, is a consequence Mr. T. will never make good, since it belongs (as he will say) to Political Heads and Governors to take care for the furtherance and maintenance of the Worship of God. 4. The say of the Author of S. T. interfere not, inasmuch as he owns God to be both their Political and Ecclesiastical Head, which the having visible, Political Governors doth not in the least enervate. 5. That the Kings of Israel had an Headship over the Church of Israel, to make Laws relating to Worship, as such, is not proved by the Scriptures cited by him. Hezekiah 2 Chr. 29. 27. commands no more than what was long before commanded by the Lord. Jehoshaphats act oh. 20. 3. is warranted by divine precept, Joel 1. 14. & 2. 15. in appointing singers, v. 21. he only revives what was by David from divine Revelation instituted. Of c. 30. 1, 2. we have already spoken. What is mentioned ch. 31. 2, 3. makes against our Animad. It was no constitution of his own framing, but a revival of what was written in the Law of the Lord, vers. 3.    

CHAP. VII.  

Sect. 1.  
A 5th Argument against hearing the present Ministers. That they have the Characters of false Prophets— upon them, proved. Jer. 23. 21. Rom. 10. 15. reviewed and expounded. Of Christ's Mission. Whether such a Mission be of the Essence of a lawful Ministry. Of Spiritual Adultery. Jer. 23. 14. opened.  
THE 6th Chap. of S. T. contains a fifth Argument against hearing the present Ministers, which is thus form.  
Those who have the Characters and Properties of false Prophets and Priests upon them, are not to be heard but separated from: But the present Ministers of England have the Characters and Properties of fals● Prophets and Priests upon them: Therefore.—  
The Major or first Proposition is proved from the Injunctions and Cautions of Christ, Mat. 7. 15. and 24. 4, 5, 23. 1 John 4. 1. 2 John 10. 11. Acts 20. 29.— To which Mr. T. faith nothing but what we have already replied to.  
The Minor we prove by the introduction of the signal Characters of false Prophets, which are visibly upon the present Ministers.— The whole Nation knows they are truly affirmed of them.  
Mr. T. hath assumed a forehead of brass whilst he de●ies it. 2 Pet. 2. 1. is manifestly true of them, as we prove Chap. 1. Sect. 10.  
The 1st Character we mention is, That they run before they are sent, Jer. 23. 21. That a Mission from the Lord is of the Essence of a lawful Ministry. That whoever wants such a Mission is no Officer of Christ, but a false Prophet and Minister of Antichrist, may hence by way of Analogy be deduced is evident: Which also exactly accords with what is asserted by the Apostle, Rom. 10. 15. That the present Ministers of England want such a Mission hath already been demonstrated, and we shall not actum agere.— from whence it follows, that they have this Character of False Prophets upon them.  
To which Mr. T. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. 1st▪ The sending mentioned Jer. 23. Rom. 10. is not meant the mediate, regular, outward calling.  
Answ. Nor did we say it was, but a Mission or sending from God, either immediately or mediately, which whoever wants, and goes forth notwithstanding to preach the Gospel authoritatiuè, or by way of Office, hath the Character of a false Prophet upon him. The former of these the present Ministers pretend not to; the latter, we have already demonstrated they have not.  
He dictates, 2dly, That a regular outward mediate Calling is not from a rightly constituted Church of Christ.  
Answ. But we have proved the contrary by such evident Testimonies as Mr. T. will not in haste be able to refel.  
He adds, 3dly, That either an immediate or mediate Mission, are of the essence of a lawful Minister, I deny.  
Answ. 1. If neither of these be of the essence of a Minister, than a Minister may be a Minister without either of them; then an outward calling is not necessary for him that takes on him the public function of Preaching; but this Mr. T. in the very next Page, in contradiction to what he here asserts, affirms to be necessary.  
Then 2. The Institution of Officers by Christ, to be sent forth in the way appointed by him is needless; men may be Officers in his House without any such Mission from him, which must be either mediate or immediate; a third way of sending I believe he cannot easily coin, and both these he hath exploded.  
3. The directions given by Paul, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. with respect to the right management of this affair, are vain and frivolous. If a man spend a few years in Oxford or Cambridge, read a little of Aristotle, Logic, Physics and metaphysics, get a few Notions of Divinity from some Common-place-Book, though he have never read the Bible over in his life, and is Ordained by a Prelate, with a black Cassock and Girdle, a Presentation, Institution, and Induction, he is, if Mr. T. may be believed (because he can Preach some Truths) a Minister of Christ without any more ado. — nobis non licet esse tam desertis. The Churches of Christ have other thoughts (and ever had from the beginning) of this matter. That because it is said, They stood not in the counsel of God, they prophesied lies in his Name,— therefore their running without a Mission from God is not condemned in them, and made a Character of a false Prophet, is such a perverting of the Scripture as cannot be justified.  
He tells us, 5thly, To make an outward Mission of the Essence of alawful Minister, is contrary to the Authors grant, chap. 2. where he allows gifted Brethren to preach without such a Mission.  
Answ. He doth so indeed, but who allows this Animadverter thus sophistically and openly to prevaricate, I know not? I a●low them to Preach but not by virtue of an Office-Power, as Ministers of the Gospel, which I expressly deny in the forecited place they may do. Of the Preaching of the Brethren, Acts 8. we have already spoken.  
It is added in S. T. as a second Character of false Prophets, 2. That they commit adultery, (i. e. spiritual adultery, a departure from the Institutions of the Lord in Worship to the Inventions of me●, is usually in Scripture expressed under that Notion, Jer. 3. 8. Ezek. 23. 37. Rev. 2. 22. All Interpreters that I have met with so expone it) and walk in lies (a worship of humane devising, called a lie, Isa. 28. 15. Am. 2. 4. Joh. 8 44. 2 Thes. 2. 11.) Jer. 23. 14. This Character, we say, appertains to the Ministers of England, and ask, which of the Institutions of Christ have they not mixed with their own inventions?—  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 3. 1. Mr. Gataker interprets the Words of Corporal Adultery.  
Answ. 1. It may be so; I have not that Author to converse with.  
2. He is no Oracle, that his Dictates must be subscribed to.  
3. The Adultery mentioned in the Text, is made a Character of a false Prophet, which corporal Adultery Mr. T. saith is no●.  
He saith, 2dly, Every departure from the Institutions of the Lord in Worship to the inventions of men, is not any where committing Adultery.  
Answ. Of this matter we have treated, chap. 1. sect. 12. whither we refer the Reader.  
3dly, Walking in lies, he tells us, is a character of a false Prophet but they are lies in Doctrine, not Worship that is intended in the places cited.  
Answ. 1. Of the Annotators he citys, not one of them is of his mind. Diodati interprets the Phrase of false worships and superstitions, as do the Assembly in their Annotations on Am. 2. 4.  
2dly, We have manifested from other Scriptures, that the expression is used by the Spirit of the Lord in this sense, both he●e, and Sect. 10. p. 96. to refute which he offers nothing, and his own Dictates will never pass for proof.  
3dly, We demonstrate the present Ministers walk in lies in the sense contended for by this Animadverter, chap. 10. of S. T.  
4thly, To the Queries he answers, The Institution of Preaching the Gospel they have not mixed with their own inventions.  
Answ. But this they evidently do, whilst none must be allowed to Preach the Gospel, but such as subject to Episcopal Ordination, promise Canonical Obedience to their Ordinaries, observe the Regulations for Preaching given forth by the Pope of Canterbury, they are bound to omit the preaching of the Gospel when they have not time to Preach, and read Service too. Wherein Divine Institution must give place to humane inventions: In Baptism, he will tell you, they mix an Institution of Christ's with the inventions of man, in respect of the wrong Subject, and they evidently do so whilst they sign with the sign of the Cross, and make it such an essential part of Baptism, that it is not lawful to be omitted. The Institution of the Lord's Supper they mix with that Popish humane invention of kneeling in the Act of receiving, which they constitute such a necessary part thereof, that they will not admit any to receive in any other posture.—  
To the second, viz. From how many have they gone a whoring? He answers, it concerns him that accuseth, to show.  
Answ. And that concern I dispatched, chap. 4. of S. T.  
To the third, viz. Is not a great part of their Worship, drops of the Whore's cup of Fornication?—  
Mr. T. though he multiply many words, answers not at all, not understanding, or being willingly ignorant of my intendment in those expressions, which was solely this, that their Divine Service, wherein a great part of their Worship doth consist, is for the most part taken out of the Service-Book of Rome, which Mr. T. may disprove if he can.   

Sect. 2.  
A third Character of false Prophets, mentioned Jer. 23. 13. A fourth, Jer. 6. 14. etc. A fifth, Isa. 56. 11. etc. Which exactly agree to the present Ministers.  
THE third Character of a false prophet, mentioned in S. T. is this, That they strengthen the hands of evil doers, that none doth return from his wickedness, Jer. 23. 13. This it's said the present Ministers do, whilst though in the general they denounce the Judgements of God against sinners, they Saint them in the Chancel, tell them that the body of Christ was broken for them.—  
To which our Animadverter subjoins, Sect. 4. 1. Mr. Gatakers Paraphrase upon the Text is, That they confirmed them in their wickedness, by bearing them in hand that they should do well enough whatsoever Gods Messengers tell them, though they continue in their sins.  
Answ. 1. The sin laid to their charge, is strengthening the hands of evil doers, whether they did this practically or doctrinally, is not expressed, 'tis all one. Probably they told them, they were the holy People, the true Church, had his Temple and Ordinances with and amongst them, and therefore God could not reject, destroy them, notwithstanding the Prophecy of Jeremiah to the contrary, whom they reviled as a made seditious fellow, thereby labouring to take off the people from an attendance on the Prophecy, and threaten given forth by him. This we charge the present Ministers to be guilty of, as the holy People, and Church of God, they admit the visibly profane and wicked to the Lords Table, and their Children to Baptism; bury them as holy Brethren (whom they call so, not upon the acco●nt of Creation, but Christianity (which their conversations contradict) and Church-membership with them) though they die in the very act of drunkenness— of whose joyful resurrection to eternal Life, they profess they have a sure and certain hope, (which can be referred to no other but the person interred) they asperse, reproach those who would deal truly and roundly with them, as seditious mad persons that are fit for the Stocks, Prisons, Dungeons, whereby they evidently strengthen their hands in their wickedness.  
2. It is not true, that the false Prophets told them expressly that they should do well enough, though they continued in their si●s; they flattered them with the mercy and patience of God, the privileges and immunities he had crowned them with, by which they lead them into the belief of this, that God would not reject them.  
3. The Assembly in their Annotations, explain the Phrase of strengthening the hands of evil doers, with this, they confirm them in their wickedness, and so keep them from Repentance, Ezek. 13. 22. Which by the ways and means instanced in, 'tis known the present Ministers do.  
4. 'Tis not charity, as he intimates, to say to a known Drunkard, Swearer, that the body of Christ was broken, the blood of Christ shed for him, that he should take, and eat, and drink the Bread and Wine in ● membrance that Christ died for him; but cruelty, tending to the nourishment of false peace and confidence, to the ruin of millions of Souls. If Judas was at the Sacrament, he was a visible Saint, is no Warrant to administer it to persons of the complexion intimated. The expressions above mentioned; are not at all like those used by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. 11. Heb. 10. 29. He speaks of visibly Saints these are spoken of, and to the visible wicked and profane.  
5. That these things do not confirm and strengthen the hands of evil doers, was the alone thing to have been proved by our Animadverter, but to that he speaks not at all.  
What he further mentions, is a pretended reply to what is remarked touching the Ministers of England, that it is a rare thing to hear of one Soul that is brought over to God by all their Preaching; so that visibly that Judgement of God seems to be upon them, Jer. 23. 32. Therefore they shall not at all profit this people.  
He tells us, That the Prophets, Isa. 49. 4. (he should have said Christ, for the Prophet there personates Christ) & 53. 1. and Christ John 12. 37, 38. had the same success.  
Asnw. False and untrue: that they had not that success as was desirable is true; that it was rare to hear of one soul converted by them, our Animadverter cannot prove.  
What he citys from Mr. Robbinson, is directly against what it is the good pleasure of Mr. T. to plead for, he saith, The Ministers that convert Souls may be said to be sent of God.  
We affirm that this is rarely (if at all) found to be the attendment of the present Ministers preaching, and all that know any thing, know it to be true. Nor indeed do I know how upon their Principles they can preach the Doctrine of Conversion, when they reckon and account all those to whom they preach to be Church-Members, i. e. such as are converted already, for of such only is the Kingdom of Heaven, or Gospel-Church-State, John 3.  
A fourth Character of false Prophet's instanced in , That they prophesy placentia, smooth things, according to the desires, tempers, and lusts of men, to the pleasing of whom they addict themselves, Jer. 6. 14. & 27. 9 Ezek. 13. 10, 11. This it's said the present Ministers have been, are guilty of; which whilst they do, they cannot be the Servants of Christ, Gal. 1. 10.  
In answer to which, Mr. T. tells us, Sect. 5. what Mr. Gataker saith upon Jer. 6. 14. which is not at all opposite to what is affirmed by us, nor is that which is afterward added by himself: let it be granted that the false prophets told them that they should not serve the King of Babylon, that all should be well, notwithstanding what Gods Prophets told them, the false prophets knew these things would please the people, and therefore they gave them forth. And this is called, Ezek 13. 10, 11. Daubing with untempered mortar. Upon which Scripture Mr. Greenhil observes, that it's a clear Argument of a blind and false Teacher, to speak things answerable to the humours and corruptions of men. This Mr. T. attempts not to disprove. That the Ministers of England are guilty hereof he grants.  
A fifth Character of a false prophet mentioned in S. T. is, That they are greedy dogs that can never have enough, and look every man for his gain from his quarter, Isa. 56. 11. seeking and serving themselves in their ministration, Ezek. 13. 19 Mic. 3. 5, 11. The present Ministers of England do so. Their gaping after preferment— manifests as much.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 6. replies; 1st. Isa. 56. 11. may be understood as well of the Civil Magistrate as the Minister; 'tis not a character of a false Prophet.  
Answ. 1. Of this you have only his say-so for proof. 2. It appertains to the Prophets to admonish the people of their sins, Isa. 58. 1. and forewarn them of evils approaching, Ezek. 3. 18, 19 the neglect whereof is charged upon the Watchmen in the Text, under the notion of dumb dogs that cannot bark, v. 10. an evident demonstration that they are Prophets that are spoken of, v. 11. 3. The generality of Expositors interpret the words of them. 4. That they should be Prophets that are there characterized, and not false prophets, is a vanity once to imagine: They are sure no character of true Prophets; these were men of another complexion, and therefore must be a description of them that are false.  
2. He grants that Ezek. 13. 19 & Mich. 3. 5, 11.  false prophets; But the proper character of them, as such, is not their prophesying for handfuls of Barley,— or preparing War against them that put not into their mouths, but that they polluted God among his people; by lying to them, that they make them to err.  
Answ. Seriously Mr. T. is a bold man, who dares to separate what God hath joined together, and outface the Spirit of the Highest, when he bears testimony against him. Let the Reader seriously peruse the Scriptures, and he will be led captive to the belief of the truth of the Suggestion; Will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of Barley? q. d. pollute me ye do by your ceremonies, inventions, prophecies of your own heart, and ye do it for reward; and ye slay the Souls that should not die, by raising persecution against them, who will not receive your lies, submit to your ceremonies, inventions, looking after gain, and persecuting such as put not into their mouths, he will plainly see is made equally, (Mich. 3. 5, 11.) the character of the Prophets spoken of, as their causing the people to erx. Ribera (though a Jesuit) is forced to acknowledge as much in his Comment on the place, In what follows we are but little concerned.  
We manifest in S. T. That the present Ministers have this character of false prophets upon them. 1. From their removing from places of less, to places of greater value.  
Mr. T. replies, 1. This may be objected to the Pastors— of the Congregational Churches.  
Answ. 1. This is but a recrimination, no answer. 2. This hath been but rarely (if at all) practised by them. 3. Never without the consent of the Churches, (as I know of) to which they were related, upon the account of greater opportunity of Service for God as they judged: If otherwise, 4. let the individulas plead for themselves, I shall never be their Advocate.  
2. This may be upon just cause, of itself, it proves not a covetous mind.  
Answ. 1. We grant it, but outward advantages and emoluments are no just cause. 2. Their removal from places of less to greater profits, (seldom or) never from greater to less, is no small Argument of such a frame of Spirit, which being their constant practice, men may righteously judge of. 3. From their persecuting persons that cannot in Conscience put into their mouths, by imprisoning, ruining them and their Families, which 'tis known they do. What Mr. T. discourseth in a way of justifying them in their so doing, till he produce a Scripture Warrant for what he undertakes the defence of, we are not obliged to take notice of it. I am sorry to find him an Advocate of such cruelties.   

Sect. 3.  
A 6th, 7th, 8th Character of false Prophets found upon the present Ministers. Mat. 7. 15. Rev. 13. 11. opened and explained. The second Beast, Rev. 13. and false prophet, Rev. 19 are the same, proved.  
THE sixth Character of false Prophet's instanced in, is this, That they sadden the hearts of the Righteous, Ezek. 13. 22. This we say they do by profaning the Name and Ordinances of God, by their subjecting to the ceremonies and inventions of men.—  
To which Mr. T. adjoins, 'Tis granted, that sadning the hearts of the Righteous by lies, is a Character of a false prophet, but the Author omits by lies.  
Answ. That by lies is meant the inventions of men introduced into the Worship of God, we have already manifested; that by their supporting of, subjection hereunto, they make the hearts of the Righteous sad, we affirm, (and 'tis generally known and felt amongst such whose hearts the Lord hath made tender); So that till Mr. T. proves that by lies is not meant devices of their own, they have by his confession the character of false prophets upon them: Which renders his heap of perhapses and conjectures, frivolous. The dirt he casts upon the Churches of Christ, he will one day find will rather tend to his own disparagement than theirs, and that herein he hath reproached the Tabernacles of God. Till he prove that the Pastors of the Congregational Churches have by introducing, practising humane devices (and such as have been abused in the Papacy) in the Worship of God made the hearts of the Righteous sad, which 'tis universally known they have not done, he will acknowledge that his reflection upon them is impertinent, and not at all to his purpose. All that he hath as yet said, amounts not to the least mite of proof, cannot at all be called so.  
That the insinuations of the Author of S. T. against the Ministers of England, would have proved the Teachers of the best Churches in the Primitive times to have been false Prophets, is untruly said. These made not the hearts of the Righteous sad, by profaning the Ordinances of Christ, introducing subjection to the inventions of men; which is known to be true of the present Ministers.  
The seventh Character mentioned, is, That they mix the Word of God with their Dreams, Jer. 23. 25, 29.  
The answer Mr. T. intimates, Sect. 7. that he hath given to this before, is already replied to.  
We add 8thly, as an eighth Character of false prophets, That they come in Sheep's clothing, having the Horns of a Lamb, but are inwardly ravening Wolves, and speak like Dragons, (i. e. pretend to the holiness and meekness of Christ, and Saints, but are inwardly full of raven and cruelty, yea, terrible in their Edicts and Laws, stirring up, and making use of the powers of the World to persecute, kill, and destroy the Saints) Mat. 7. 15. Rev. 13. 11. (which second Beast is no other than the false prophet mentioned Rev. 19 20.) This Character, we say, is upon the present Ministers; Upon this Generation of men, all the cruelties that the first Beast hath exercised upon the Saints for these 1260. years, is to be charged: They now press a rigid conformity to the infringing the liberty of the Saints.  
Mr. T. replies. 1. Outward holiness and meekness, inward ravenosity and cruelty, is not a signal Character of false prophets.  
Answ. Christ saith it is; and 'tis fit we believe him before Mr. T. for having cautioned his Disciples to beware of them, he tells them in what manner they will come to them; what is their signal character and property: They will come to you in Sheeps-clothing, (which the Apostle phraseth they shall be transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness, 2 Cor. 11. 15.) but inwardly they are ravening Wolves; which if not their character and property, had in vain and to no purpose been mentioned by Christ.  
The second Beast, and the false prophet, Rev. 19 20. we say, are the same; by it is understood Antichrist in his Ecclesiastical State, or the Antichristian Clergy; their character is, Rev. 13. 11. That they have the Horns of a Lamb, (and outward semblance to the meekest of Lambs, the Lord Jesus) but speak like Dragons; are cruel in their Edicts and Laws. Doth Mr. T. disprove what is herein affirmed by us? doth he attempt it? nothing less!  
He confidently tells us, That this did not show them false prophets.  
Answ. But this is made the character of the second Beast, which is no other than the false prophet, as say Mede, Brightman.— And therefore what shows them to be the second Beast, shows them to be false prophets. Which if Mr. T. will confute, he must prove the second Beast, Rev. 13. and false Prophet, Rev. 19 not to be one and the same. Which its manifest they are, by a serious comparing what is said of the second Beast, Rev. 13. 13, 14, 15, 16. with what is said of the false Prophet, Rev. 19 20.  
1. The second Beast is a worker of miracles, Rev. 13. 17. so is the false Prophet, Rev. 19 20.  
2dly, The second Beast deceives them that dwell on the Earth, Rev. 13. 14. so doth the false Prophet, Rev. 19 20.  
3dly, The first and second Beast are helpful one to the other, Rev. 13. so are the Beast and false Prophet, Rev. 19 19, 20.  
As to what follows, 1. I say not that all the persecutions— of the Children of God, that the Antichristian Civil State, or powers of the World hath exercised, is to be charged upon the present Hierarchy and Ministry of England, but upon this Generation; i. e. Persons that have appertained to the same Hierarchy. Yet, 2. whilst the present Hierarchy and Priests of England are (as 'tis known they are pressing rigid Conformity to the ruining (as to the outward man) of the Saints, are walking in the steps of their Progenitors, they entitle themselves to all the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, that by the persuasions of those that possessed the same Seats before them, was poured forth by the Civil Powers of the World, that upon them may come (as it will undoubtedly do, if they repent not) all the blood that was shed from the beginning to this very day. A manifest demonstration that the Lineaments of the second Beast, or false Prophet, is visibly to be read and found upon them.   

Sect. 4.  
A 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th Character of false Prophets, each applicable to the present Ministers. Ezek. 22. 26. 8▪ 34. 4. explained. Ecclesiastical Shepherd's ther● meant. Rev. 13. 11. explained. Of the obscurity of the Revelation. Rev. 13. 13, 14, 15. opened.  
THE ninth Character of false Prophets mentioned, is, That they put no difference betwixt the holy and profane, Ezek. 22. 26. Of this the present Ministers (we say) are deeply guilty. Drunkards, Swearers,— (living and dead) are their dear Brethren and Sisters; i e. the children of them all are admitted to the Font, and they themselves to the Lord's Table.—  
Our Animadverter replies, 1. This is a charge against the Priests of the Law, accusing them of neglecting to discern between clean and unclean persons, or offerings, but is no character distinguishing a false Priest from a true.  
Answ. Whether it be, or not, let the Reader satisfy himself from the serious review of the words, compared with Jer. 15. 19 Ezek. 44. 23.  
However, 2. This is nothing (saith he) to our Ministers, who are not now to count any wan or creature, common or unclean, Acts 10. 15. 28.  
Answ. 1. That the Lord hath not as great care that his New-Testament Churches be not polluted by the admission into them of persons morally unclean, as that the Sanctuary and Congregation of Israel of old was not by the entrance thereinto of persons legally so, is this Animadverters dictate, of which we expect his proof at his leisure. In allusion to the Priests of old, the Porters, or New-Testament Officers, are commanded to watch, Mark 13. 34. (viz. that as much as in them lies, they hinder persons morally unclean from entering into Gospel-Churches.)  
2. He tells us, That none but Saints are to be admitted thereinto.  
3. Threatens those Ministers that shall be careless, and negligent in this matter, with a deposition from their Office, Ezek. 44. A Prophecy, though in Old Testament-clothing, expressly relating to New Testament days; as is acknowledged by most. And to any that shall compare what is there spoken, with what is recorded of the New Jerusalem, Rev. 20, 21, 22. Chap. 'twill manifestly appear so to do.  
4. Acts 20. 28. is most impertinently alleged, and wretchedly abused by the Animadverter. It only preacheth forth thus much, That the Gentile Nations were not so unclean (as the Jews fond imagined) but that persons might go unto them, and preach the Gospel amongst them, as vers. 28, 29, 34, evince. But that Adulterers, Drunkards,— should not be accounted unclean and common, so as not to admit them into Church-Communion, or if admitted, that they ought not legally to be ejected, Mr. T. attempts not the proof of. The Scriptures fully manifest that they ought so to be. Whether every single Minister hath power to keep any professing the Faith, from the Lords Supper, is not of our present disquisition; if Ministers of Christ, they with the particular Church to which they relate have power so to do. The constant practice of the present Ministers in admitting the visibly wicked and profane to the participation of Church-Ordinances and Privileges, is a manifest discovery, that they symbolise with the Priests of Old, of whom the complaint of the Lord is, That they put no difference betwixt the holy and profane.  
The 10th Character of false Prophet's instanced in, is this, that they do not exercise pity to the weak, broken, scattered sheep of Christ, nor show bowels in their recovery, but with force and cruelty rule over them, Ezek. 34. 4. This we say is evidently true of the present Ministers, with force and cruelty they rule over us, (in stead of exercising pity towards us) threaten us with Excommunications, Imprisonment, dispoi●ing us of our Goods, yea condemning us to Death, if we stoop not to their lure.  
All that can be called an Answer hereunto Sect. 9 is this. 1. The Shepherds mentioned in Ezek. 34. are Civil Rulers, for the Prophets did not rule over the People with force and cruelty, but with lies and deceit.  
Answ. 1. Junius, the Marginal Notes of the Geneva Translation, Diodati, the Assembly in their Annotations on the place, the most of Interpreters expound it of false Ecclesiastical Shepherds or Ministers. That this is the intendment of the Spirit of the Lord is evident.  
1st, He speaks of such Shepherds whose special duty it is to feed the flock, the neglect whereof he condemns them for, v. 2, 3. But this is the duty of Ecclesiastical Shepherds, Cant. 1. 8 John 21. 15, 16, 17, 1 Cor. 9 7. 1 Pet. 5. 2.  
2dly, They are condemned for ruling over them with force and cruelty, vers. 4. The like condemned in Ecclesiastical Rulers, 1 Pet. 5. 3.  
3dly, It's a Prophecy that runs down to the times of the Gospel, and speaks of such Shepherds, in opposition to whom Christ is said to be the true Shepherd, vers. 23, 24. John 10. 11, 12, 14.  
The Reason alleged by Mr. T. to prove Civil Rulers are here meant, being weighed in the Balance, is found wanting. They may righteously be said to rule over the flock of God with force and cruelty, when they provoke the Magistrate to do so: as the Woman or Antichristian Church is said to be drunk with the blood of the Saints, Rev. 17. 6. And in her, 'tis said, was found the blood of— all that were slain upon the earth, Rev. 18. 24. because she prompted and provoked the Civil Magistrate to pour it forth.  
That the present Ministers of England are not righteously charged with ruling over us with force and cruelty— he saith not, thinks there are some to whom this evil may be imputed.—  
'Tis added in S. T. What should I mention, 13thly, that ●hey come u out of the Earth, Rev. 13. 11. i e. are raised up by men of earthly spirits and principles.  
To this, after an harangue of words, Sect. 10. that I might leave him upon second thoughts to correct himself for. As 1st. Tha● the Book of the Revelation is obscure; which in itself is not, but a Lantern, a Light. 'Tis a horrid disparagement to any part of the Scripture so to speak of it. The Sun is not dark, though blind men discern not the light and brightness of it: The obscurity is in us, not in the Scripture.  
2. That sober men have wished it were less read. Which wish (whatever the men are) I am sure is not over sober, being directly opposite to the advice of the Spirit, for the reading of it with an encouragement thereunto, Rev. 1. 3.  
He answers, 1. That the first and second Beast, Rev. 19 are differently conceived.—  
Answ. Who the first and second Beast are, we have already explained, which Mr. T. may confute when he is able. That the second Beast and the false Prophet, Rev. 19 are the same, we have but now demonstrated. The Hierarchy of England, and Rome are the same Antichristian Hierarchy, their Original the same; the Canon Laws, by which their Jurisdiction is supported, their Courts, Officers, etc. the same.  
He further acquaints us, 2dly, With horrid consequences that attend this Principle, that the second Beast is to be interpreted the Hierarchy and Ministry of England.  
1. The first we own with this limitation; The first Beast is the Antichristian Civil Powers, who if at the coming of Christ are found such, and in actual rebellion against him, shall be cast into the Lake burning with fire.  
2. The second, about worshipping the first Beast (if understood of the Pope, as he saith) may be truly affirmed of the present Hierarchy, who cause the Earth and them that dwell therein so to do, whilst they cause them to own, bow down, subject to his Canon-Laws in their Consistories, Ecclesiastical Courts.—  
3dly, That all who subject to the Image of the Beast, or Ecclesiastical Government, shall drink of the Wine of the wrath of God.— Without general or particular repentance, being no more than this, That those that die in any one sin unrepented of shall do so (as Mr. T. will grant) we affirm, and challenge Mr. T. to prove these things to be horrid consequences, monstrously uncharitable, an argument of dotage, the speech of a furious Bedlam.  
Sir, you will one day know that your tongue is not so your own, but you must give an account of these hard speeches with which you are beating your fellow-servants; I pray may not be laid to your charge.  
He asks, 3dly, How doth it appear that to come out of the Earth, is to be raised by men of earthly Spirits and Principles?  
Answ. 1. That the word Earth, is to be taken Metaphorically, and points out the men of the earth, or men of an earthy spirit or principle, he will not deny.  
2. Precious Brightman expounds the expression much after the same rate: His words are (on Rev. 13. 11.) He ascends out of the Earth, as being both made more ample and great by the authority of earthly men, and those of the Laity (as they call them) whom the earth doth chief signify.  
3. The best Interpretation of Prophetical Expressions is from their actual fulfilling; now take this second Beast for the Pope and his Clerly, or his Hierarchy of England, 'tis notoriously known, that men of such Spirits and Principles have elevated them to the state and dignity to which they are ascended. Which is a full answer to his second Query.  
The 12th Character minded is, That they exercise the power of the first Beast, or make use of the Civil Power for their supportment, vers. 13.  
M. T. replies, To exercise the power of the Beast is not to make use of the Civil Power for its support, but to act with the same Power the first Beast used in making war with the Saints.  
Answ. 1. The Power the first Beast used is the Civil Power, it was the same Power the Dragon, or Devil made use of in the Roman, Pagan Emperors, Rev. 13. 2. which was such. This Mr. T. grants the second Beast acted with, i. e. made use in persecuting the Saints, which was done in order as he thought for his support; so that Mr. T. acknowledgeth what he sets himself to oppose.  
2dly, The mind of the Spirit in Prophetical expressions, is best understood when the Prophecies are accomplished. (or in accomplishing) Grant this second Beast is the Pope and his Hierarchy (as our Animadverter is apt to think) Have not they exercised the Power of the first Beast, or made use of the Civil Power for their supportment in persecuting the Saints? they have made use of no other. They deliver the Saints over to the Secular Power to be burnt by it, they ●ever did it themselves. This from the beginning hath been the support of their Grandeur and Empire, as is known. The same may be said of the Popish English-Hierarchy.  
He adds, 2dly, But this is no evil, to make use of the Civil Power for their support.  
Answ. 1. To have no other Basis or Foundation of their Hierarchy and Government but that, is an argument 'tis not of the Institution of Christ.  
2. To make use of the Civil Power in order to their own support and security, in the Banishing, Imprisoning the People of God, is an Argument of persons being acted and influenced by an Antichristian beastly-spirit; that they are members of that Beast or false Prophet, whose proper Character it is so to do.  
The 13th Character remarked is, That they make an Image to the Beast, vers. 14, 15. (i. e. erect an Ecclesiastical State of Government, in ● proportionableness unto, and resemblance of the Civil State.)  
Mr. T. adjoins, If the Ecclesiastical State, as it resembles the Civil, be the Image of the Beast, and to erect it be the Character of a false Prophet, and this be so evil: Then it is much more evil to erect the Civil State. The Ecclesiastical State is rather the better and more desirable for this.  
Answ. Neither the one nor the other follows hereupon. Not the first, because the evil of the resemblance, and proportionableness of the Ecclesiastical State to the Civil lies not in this, That it is the resemblance of a Civil State that is evil, but that Christ hath no no where said it should resemble or bear a proportionableness unto the Civil State, but the contrary. No Civil State that ever was in the world, though never so just and righteous, was instituted as a Prototype and exemplar, according to which the Churches of Christ were to be conformed. To make any Civil State such, is evil, be the State never so righteous. Not the second, because the conformity and proportionableness of the Ecclesiastical Church-State, to the Platform of Christ, or the Rules given forth by him, is that wherein its beauty and excellency lies. It's being laid in a subserviency to the interest of Men or States renders it not so.  
We add 14, That they compel all under the penalty of Death to worship or bow down to the Image of the Beast (or Ecclesiastical Government, in its Courts, Canons, Laws and Ceremonies devised by it) vers. 15.  
To this Mr. T. When did they thus compel them?  
Answ. 1. I am sorry Mr. T. his memory so much fails him, as that he asks such a question. He cannot sure forget what was done in Queen Elizabeth's days to Barrow, Greenwood, etc. and who were the cause of pouring forth of that blood.  
2. He knows that all are civility slain with respect to any Ecclesiastical promotion (as they speak) who cannot subject hereunto: and who promoted that business?  
3. He cannot forget Mr. Prin, Mr. Burton, Dr. Bastwick, and what they suffered in the Palace-yard and elsewhere, for standing out against the Pope of Canterbury, and opposing the Church-Ceremonies, and how short it came of Death▪ if upon some accounts it were not in itself more grievous.  
Besides 4. Those poor men that by Writs of Excommunication have been cast into stinking Goals, and there kept many years to the utter undoing of themselves and families, as to the world, (some of them choked to death there) because they dare not stoop to their Hierarchical jurisdiction and sopperies. All which with much more that might be mentioned, are an abundant answer to his question.  
The 15th Character instanced in , That they compel all to receive a mark either in their right-hand, or foreheads: i e. secretly or openly, one way or other to acknowledge subjection unto this Beast, without which they may neither buy nor fell; being cut off from the Church by their Excommunications for their stubbornness, vers. 16, 17.  
Mr. T. replies; Do all great as well as small,— receive such a mark?  
Answ. 1. No, though the g●ace of the Lord there are a Remnant that have not bowed their knees to this Baal: But no thanks to the Hierarchy, who (as I said) compel all, i. e. some of all sorts; as the particle frequently signifies, and so our Annotators, Brightman, Mede, expound the place.  
2. Those that do not, when they are called thereunto, are cut off from the Church by their Excommunications, and no man by their Canon-Law is permitted to eat or drink, buy or sell with them. I● which they speak like the Dragon indeed. For the Bloody Dioclesian set forth the like Edict against the Christians, That no man should sell, or secretly give any thing to them, except first they would burn Incense to the Gods. Of whom venerable Beda thus singeth, in the Hymn of Julian the Martyr.  
Non illis emendi quidquam aut vendendi copia:  
Nec ipsam haurire aquam dabatur licentia,  
Antequam thurificarent detestandis Idolis.  
The truth of these things is so generally known throughout the Nation, that as I am sorry the mention thereof should drive Mr. T. into such a swea●ing passion, as it seems to do; so can I not but wonder at his confidence, in calling those things palpable gross untruths, when the whole Nation knows the contrary. His Satirical expressions I omit. The visible Lineaments and Characters of false Prophets being instamped upon the foreheads of the present Ministers, they are not to be heard but separated from.    

CHAP. VIII.  

Arg. 6. Sect. 1.  
A sixth Argument against hearing the present Ministers. Saints must not have Communion with Idolaters. The vanity of Mr. T. his arguings to the contrary, evinced. 1 Cor. 10. 14. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, opened. A threefold Idolatry. Whether the Idolaters of old worshipped the creature terminatively. Of the golden Calf. Baal. Molech. That the Worshippers of them worshipped them not terminatively; proved. Of Devil-Worship. Psal. 106. 37, 38, explained. The Heathen Images dedicated to the true God. The Testimony of the Heathens in this matter. Of refined Idolatry. Worshipping of God in a way not of his appointment, is Idolatry. The Testimony of Calvin, Perkins, Ames, Pareus, Willet, Peter Martyr, etc. to the truth of the Assertion. The Romans worshipped the Gods, an hundred and seventy years and more, without Images.  
A Sixth Argument advanced in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers is this.  
Those that are guilty of Idolatry, Saints may not have communion with, much less own them as their Teachers, but aught to separate from them: But the present Ministers of England are guilty of Idolatry: Therefore.—  
The Major is bottomed upon express Commands from Christ, 1 Cor. 5. 11. & 10. 14. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 18.  
To which Mr. T. replies, 1. The Conclusion is not the same with that which Chap. 1. was undertaken to be defended: That it is not lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers, which we may do though Communion with them be unlawful, though we are bound not to own them as our Teachers, but separate from them.—  
Answ. Now this I confess I understand not; Communion consists in giving and receiving, a constant or frequent attending upon any one's teaching (especially when by the Prelates instituted and inducted to such a Parish as a Teacher, whereof I am a Member) is an Argument of my owning him for my Teacher. Separation from any one consists in this, that I have no Communion with him in that, in respect of which I am bound to separate from him. That I should with frequency hear a man preach as a Minister of the Gospel, and yet be said to have no Communion with him, to separate from him,— is an Aenigma that needs some Oedipus to unravel.  
He tells us, 2dly, The Major is not true; if the Idolatry be in worshipping in any other way than what he hath prescribed; or if the Idolatry be secret or if open, if by infirmity a man falls into it and reputes, or be not censured as such, or teacheth not such Idolatry, nor requires any communion with him in his Idolatry.  
Answ. 1. If the Major be not true, it follows that its lawful to have Communion with Idolaters, for with persons guilty of Idolatry the Major saith we must not have Communion. Mr. T. is drive● to his shifts indeed, when to defend the cause he hath undertaken, he is forced to plead for such gross absurdities, so contradictory to the Scriptures, and the judgement of all sober Christians that ever were in the world.  
2. If worshipping God in another way than he hath appointed, be in Scripture, Idolatry, and in it we are commanded to abstain from such Worship and Worshippers; then though the Idolatry consist therein, the Major is true. When the Scripture commands us to flee from Idolatry, it means that which is so in its own sense, not Mr. 't's.  
3. 'Tis true I am not to separate from a person I know not to be guilty of Idolatry till I know he is so; but this reacheth not the case of the present Ministers, whom we prove manifestly guilty hereof. When Ezekiel once came to understand that the Ancients of the House of Israel committed Idolatry in the Chambers of their Imagery, Ezek. 8. 7, to 13. he might not have Communion with them, though they committed it in the dark.  
4. Repentance restores a man fallen into the same place amongst the Saints he was in before he fell; but this is not at all to the purpose; the present Ministers justify their actings, would compel a●l to do as they do.  
5. That 'tis not our duty to separate from Idolaters till they are under Church-censure, is a mere fancy.  
1st, What if they are such as are in no Church-state, persons without, with whom the Church hath nothing to do?  
2dly, What if the so called Church be generally overspread with Idolatry, as our Animadverter will confess the Church of Rome is? must I wait the Church's censure till I refuse to hold communion with Idolaters? Is it ever likely that an Apostate, Idolatrous Church will pass sentence upon itself? or rational, that I hold communion with them till they do?  
So is, 6. That 'tis not our duty so to do, except they teach it, and require my communion with them in it.  
For, 1. he that practiseth it, teacheth it by his practice. 2. As it relates to the present Ministers, 'tis vain and frivolous, they both practice and preach it, and require my communion with them in it.—  
He saith 3dly, The Texts do not prove the Major.  
Answ. Let the judicious Reader judge for himself whether they do or no, 1 Cor. 5. 11. we have already vindicated from his exceptions.  
That 1 Cor. 10. 14. is not to our purpose, because the Apostle only saith, Flee from Idolatry, not from teachers that are Idolaters, is a fond conceit. The intendment of the Apostle is to provoke to the greatest circumspection, not only to avoid the thing itself, (which saith Pareus, Was not only the gross Idolatry of the Gentiles, but every kind of Idolatry) but all the occasions thereof. And certainly the hearing or attending on the ministry of persons, guilty of Idolatry, is no mean occasion thereof. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. commands separation from the Idol, Mr. T. grants: Now I must profess, I know not by what Logic he will prove, that though it be my duty to separate from Idols, I may so far retain communion with the Idolater, as to own him for my Teacher; the very repeating these absurdities is confutation sufficient.  
Before we attempt the proof of the minor Proposition, we premise in S. T. That Idolatry may be considered under a threefold Notion. 1. Most gross and absurd Idolatry, when the creature is worshipped terminatively. This we say few are guilty of. In the matter of the golden Calf Israel was not, they worshipped God in it, Exod. 32. 5.  
Maimonides de Idolat. 8. 2, 3. tells us, That through the Idols, Idolaters worshipped the God that made the Heaven and the Earth.  
Mr. T. replies, 1. To worship the Creatures terminatively is most gross-Idolatry, the Israelites, Exod. 32. and many Heathen Idolaters did not do so. 2. 'Tis not true that few or none worship the Creature terminatively, for the most of the Idolaters of old worshipped the Host of Heaven, and at this day the Devil himself is worshipped in the East and West Indies.—  
Answ. 1. That most of the Idolaters of old worshipped the Host of Heaven, is granted; that they worshipped these or any other Idols terminatively, our Dictator attempts not the proof of. What is said of Baal, 1 Kings 16. 31. or Molech, Psal. 106. 37, 38. who is also called Moloch, Amos 5. 26. and Milcom, 1 Kings 11. 33. and Malcham, Zeph. 1. 5. (i. e. the Sun) proves not that they so worshipped the Sun, (in commemoration of which these Images were erected) 'Tis true, Psal. 106. 37, 38. 'tis said, They sacrificed— to Devils, but that therefore they worshipped the Devil as the utmost terminus, cannot be conceived. 'Tis called Devil-worship, because it was not from God, but of the invention and instigation of the Devil, as all the false worship in the World is. Of their worshipping Molech, or Milcham, 'tis expressly said, that they worshipped the Lord too, when they worshipped him, Zeph. 1. 5. (Heb. to the Lord, and in Malcam, as the Papists say, they direct their worship to God only, in, or through their Images) which fully answers what can be pleaded from Acts 7. 41, 42, 43.  
2. The most learned of the Heathens do affirm, That their Images were dedicated to the true God, whom in them they worshipped, reputing the Images themselves but Stooks and Stones, and that in them they worshipped but one God. Seneca saith, By Jupiter standing in the Capitol with Lightning in his hand, they understand the Preserver and Governor of all things,— the Maker of all the World, Qu. nature. l. 2. c. 45. Who it was that sang,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  
Mr. T. is not ignorant. See Arnobius, l. 6. contra. Gent.  
We premise 2dly, That there is a somewhat more refined Idolatry,— and to this Head we refer,  

1. The ascription of a Godhead to any creature, as to Herod, Acts 12. 22.  
2. The ascription of the properties of the Godhead to any Creature.  
3. The worshipping God in any other way than what he hath prescribed, which is the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment.  
4. The Oblation of Worship, and Service to God that hath been offered up to Idols, for which there is no prescription in the Scriptures.   
'Tis this second sort of Idolatry, we say, the present Ministers of England are guilty of.  
Mr. T. answers, 1. The definition of Idolatry by Dr. Rainold, ●ath hitherto been received by all Protestants that he knows of, that it is exhibiting Divine Worship to a Creature, proved from Rom. 1. 15.  
Answ. 1. That this is Idolatry, I grant, that nothing else is so, will not be proved. Protestants affirm otherwise, as Calvin, Perkins, Ames, Paraeus.  
Though, 2. the very truth is, when we submit to a Worship of humane devising, we exhibit Divine Worship to a Creature, viz. the deviser, imposer thereof, we worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides the Creator, as Hilarius, Beza, expound the Phrase, Rom. 1. 25.  
And Paraeus, Explicat. cate. p. 3. Q. 9 p. 528. saith, What is required in the second Commandment? Answ. That we express not God by any Figure, and that we worship him not in any other way or manner than he hath in his Word commanded us to worship him, 1 Sam. 15. 23. Deut. 12. 30. Mat. 15. 9— Idolatry is contrary to this Commandment, which is a false and superstitious worship of the Deity, of which there are two chief kinds; one more gross, 
☜  as when a false Deity is worshipped; this is forbidden in the first Commandment— another more refined, when the true God is pretended to be worshipped; but there is a mistake in the kind of Worship, i. e. when Worship is pretended to be performed to God in some work which he hath not required; this is condemned in this second Commandment.— & p. 529. Those who sin against the second Commandment, sin also against the first, because they who worship God otherwise than he will be worshipped, they feign to themselves another God, and indeed worship not God, but the figment of their own brain.— To feign another Worship of God, is to feign another will of God, and by consequence another God.—  
Mr. Perkins, Vol. 1. p. 659. saith, When God is worshipped otherwise, and by other means than he hath revealed in his Word, that is Idolatry. Idolatrous Worships are all they which are appointed without the Command of God, Mel. Tom. 2. p. 107.  
We shall only add what we find mentioned by the Learned Peter Martyr, in his Comment on the first of Sam. ch. 7. p. 40. Men are wont sometimes to feign to themselves Commentitious gods, as Jupiter, Neptune, Mercury: Sometimes to worship the one and true God, but with a Worship that is forbidden, or strange, (i. e. not commanded) as if any one should slay his Son, or do what King Ahaz did, who constituted a Damascene Altar in the Temple of God.— To do thus, is nothing else than to worship an Idol. For men do hereby feign a God who will so be worshipped, who is in truth no God.—  
Therefore August. Quest. 29. in lib. Jos. in which place the same thing is proposed to the people by Joshua that is here by Samuel, He that feigns to himself God to be other than he is, doth carry in his heart another God. Wherefore not only Jupiter, and the vain Deities, but also those Idols and Phantasms are altogether to be cast out of our mind. This will be done if we constitute to ourselves God to be such as he is described to us to be in the Holy Scriptures.  
Tertul. in lib. de idololat. saith, Not only the Cross and made Worship of Images is Idolatrous, (for the Ancients of old had Temples 
† The Romans for above 170. years, worshipped the Gods without Images, say Vario, Plutarch.  without Images, who were nevertheless Idolaters. It matters not whether thou make to thyself a God of Plaiscering, or Marble, or of a Trunk of a Tree, (I add, saith P. Martyr, or of thy own Phantasm)— an Idol is so called of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a Form, an Idol therefore is a little Form.  
Samuel therefore exhorts (chap. 7. 3.) that they cast away commentitious Gods, and vain Worship, and evil Opinions of God out of their minds.  
What this Animadverter mentions out of Tertullian in his Book of Idolatry, c. 15. makes for us. If Idolatry be when any thing that is not God, is extolled beyond the measure of humane honour, then when the Prescribers of Divine Service are so extolled (as they are when the Service prescribed by them is subjected to, it being the peculiar honour and prerogative of God to prescribe his own Worship, (as say the Heathens themselves from the Light and Dictates of Nature) there is Idolatry.  
2dly, Mr. T. tells us, That the worshipping God in any other way than he hath prescribed, is not the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment, that all who writ upon it say not so, that worship (not of Divine prescription) abused to Idolatry, is not Idolatry.  
Answ. 1. If the first be true, this last is undoubtedly so, i. e. if worshipping God in any other way than he hath prescribed be the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment, that Worship that hath been abused to Idolatry, and was never of Divine prescription, is undoubtedly so.  
2. Mr. T. grants that there is some kind of Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment, and I desire to he informed what it is; If he say the worshipping false Gods, that Idolatry is forbidden in the first Commandment; If he say the making of Images, I ask, 1. Whether the making of Images for civil uses, or Divine Service? The first he will not assert; if the second, their forming for that use and purpose, is condemned, because a medium of Worship not instituted by the Lord; for had it been so, it had not been Idolatry, but our duty to have form them.  
2. Weather by Images he mean corporeal Images, or incorporeal Ideas, or false Conceptions of things in the mind of man? and whether this later, in the Judgement of most eminent Divines, be not as really Idolatry as the former? and if so (as undoubtedly it is) the worshipping God in any other way than he hath prescribed, is evidently Idolatry, and that forbidden in the second Commandment; and so say all that I have yet met with that writ thereupon.  
What he adds the Pharisees washing their hands, and that Christ doth not accuse them as Idolaters, is frivolous.  
1. That Custom did not so immediately border upon the Worship of God, was not made such a part of it as our Common-Prayer-Book-Service.  
Yet 2, They placing too much of their Religion and Devotion therein, Christ doth little less than call them so, in the place instanced in by Mr. T. Mat. 15. 9 In vain do they worship me; Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●. 1. They shall reap no fruit by it.  
2. Their Worship is vain, frivolous, vanity, as the Lord calls Idols and Idolatrous Worship, Leu. 26. 1. Ezek. 30. 13. Psal. 97. 7. Isa. 19 3. Jer. 14. 14. Zach. 11. 17. Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the 70 render (and that truly) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain things, and so the Apostle calls all the Gods of the Gentiles, Act. 14. 15.  
3. That because Christ doth not expressly call them so, therefore they were not such, Mr. T. will not prove. Christ calls not Pilate an unjust Judge, yet he was so.—  
We add in S. T. 3dly, That there is a most refined sort of Idolatry, when the heart goes forth in desires after any thing beyond what is limited by the Lord, and trusts in any thing on this side God, which Mr. T. gives no occasion of debate about.   

Sect. 2. Arg. 1.  
The present Ministers of England are Idolaters, proved. Of Worshipping God in a false way. That to do so is Idolatry; proved. Acts 17. 23, 24. explained. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it signifies. Why the Athenians are so called. The present Ministers worship God in a false way. The Common-Prayer-Book Worship, a false way of Worship, evinced. Mat. 6. 9 Luke 11. 2. & 10. 5. The judgement of Grotius, Tertullian, Cornelius a Lapide, Musculus, on Mat. 6. 9  
THat the present Ministers of England are Idolaters, (which is the Minor Proposition of the forecited Argument) we manifest in S. T. by several Arguments. As,  
Arg. 1. Those that worship the true God in any other way than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him, are Idolaters. But the present Ministers worship God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by him. Therefore.—  
The Major we say is evident from this single consideration: To Worship the true God through false Mediums is Idolatry. Such as so worship him are Idolaters. But to worship God in any other way than what is of his own prescription, is to worship him through a false Medium. Therefore so to worship him is Idolatry, those that so worship him are Idolaters.  
To which Mr. T. replies, Sect. 2. 1st, By descanting upon the expression [any other way] which what I meant thereby, he might easily have informed himself from the Treatise he attempts to confute I mean away of drawing nigh to God, invented and so established by man, as to be made such a necessary part of Worship, as that without it I trust not publicly draw nigh to God in worship at all, which is to worship him through a false Medium; and this I say is Idolatry, or else there is little or no Idolatry in the World. (The Achenians were Idolaters upon this very account and no other, for they worshipped the true God, Acts 17. 23, 24.) What he adds touching their worshipping by an Image is of an easy dispatch.  
1. That Image through which they worshipped the unknown God, was a false Medium, and upon this foot of account singly are they charged with Idolatry. No doubt but they had a multitude of Images, and that in respect of these their City is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, full of Idols, or wholly given to Idolatry; which it was, in as much as through these Images, as false Medium's, they worshipped God; and so it had been if through any other false Medium's they had drawn nigh to him, though there had not bee● one of these Statuae, or pillars abiding amongst them.  
2. That the unknown God to whom their Altar was dedicated, was as a Daemon, is, to say no more, a very inconsiderate assertion: When Paul tells them, in vers. 23. It was God that made the world, whom they ignorantly worshipped. Nor is there the least footing for such an assertion from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'tis true Mr. Mede renders it a Worshipper of Daemon-Gods, but our Translators better, too superstitious. They are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with respect unto their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Budaeus demonstrates, signifies Religion; Plutarch explains it of the overmuch, and importune worship of the Gods, whence arose multitudes of superstitious Ceremonies. No doubt they were great devotionists who miscarried not in this, that they directed not their Worship to the true God (which the Apostle saith they did) but in their worshipping him▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with many Ceremonies of humane Invention: upon the account whereof they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or too Ceremonious, or Superstitious, and vers. 16. to be given to Idolatry; which is what we charge upon, and prove against the Ministers of England.  
The Minor Proposition, viz. That the present Ministers worship the true God in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped, and is prescribed by him, is in S. T. thus demonstrated.  
Those that worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, worship him in another way than he hath said he will be worshipped in, and is pr●scribed by him: But the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book: Therefore.—  
The Minor cannot be denied; their subscription before they are admitted into the Ministry, with their daily and constant practice, are sufficient evidences thereof.  
To this Mr. T. replies Sect: 3. 1. Way of Worship not prescribed by God, he tells us may be, 1st, When the Worship is to another thing besides or with God, in which sense the Minor was denied and should have been proved.  
Answ. 1. But in this sense we discharged the Ministers of England of the guilt of Idolatry: What obligation lies upon us to prove a charge against them, we never impleaded them as guilty, I know not.  
2. If this be all Mr. T. contends about, That they worship not another thing besides, or with the true God, he fights with a man of straw of his own making.  
3. When he demonstrates (as he how dictates) that this alone proves Idolatry, i. e. there is no other Idolatry but the worshipping that which is not God by Nature, I will acknowledge my mistake; we have proved the contrary, in which we have the concurrent testimony of the most (all) Expositors and Casuists that have written about Idolatry, who make worshipping the true God in a way not of his perscription, to be the Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandment; Dr. Willet (one of their own) tells us as much, Com. on Exod. p. 338. So doth the learned Usher, Ball, Ursin, Calvin, Wendeline, Altingius, Ravanellus, Maccovius, etc. besides those we have already mentioned.  
He adds 2dly, By another way may be meant, another Ceremony or Rite in which the Worship of God is placed; but this Author goes not about to prove the minor in this sense.  
Answ. 1. By worshipping God in another way,— I understand the tendering to God a Worship and Service of humane devising, that he no no where calls for. This I prove the Ministers of England do, when they draw nigh to God with their Common-Prayer-Book-Service in their hands: And Mr. T. talks idly, when he saith, The Worship of God is not placed therein. If it be not, they have in many places of the Land no Worship of God at all; 'tis frequently by them called Divi●e Service, and the Service of the Church. 'Tis made such a necessary part of Worship, that Preaching must give place to it.  
As to what he adds, 1. That I suppose that God hath appointed the particularities of the way of his Worship.—  
We answer, ' That particularities of Worship, as such, are determined by the Lord, we have asserted and proved; what Mr. T. hath offered to the contrary in answer to the Preface, Sect. 20. chap. 1. Sect. 3. chap. 4. Sect. 9 chap. 5. Sect. 3, 4, 5, 7. is fully answered in our Reply thereunto.  
2. That the Argument may be retorted upon myself, is a vanity of the Animadverter; because, 1. our dispute is not (as he would bear the Reader in hand) about every form of expression, but of such a form wherein the Worship of God is placed, which is imposed upon the Churches of Christ, without subjection to which it is denied them to worship God at all as such, for refusing whereof they are exposed to Excommunications, and total ruin in this World. 2. We have already proved that forms of prayer enjoined, are condemned by the Lord, and praying in the Spirit, commended and commanded.  
We proceed in S. T. and prove, That to worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, is to worship him in a way that is not of his appointment, (which is the major proposition) because the least footsteps of such a way of Worship is not to be found in the Old or New Testament, enjoined by Christ or his Apostles; nor for several centuries of years afterwards; of which we treat at large in S. T.  
What Mr. T. is pleased, Sect. 4. in the first and second place to answer hereunto we have already replied to.  
He adds, 3dly, He still acknowledgeth that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is the Worship of the true God.  
Answ. 1. I do so indeed, and so was the Athenian Worship, Acts 17. 23. yet an Idolatrous Worship, and they themselves Idolaters.  
2dly, Though I grant it to be the Worship of the true God, yet I prove it not to be the true Worship of God, and therefore Idolatrous.  
He adds, 4thly, That he doth not except against the matter of the prayers in the Common-Prayer-Book.—  
Answ. True, in the place under consideration, I do not, but it doth not therefore follow that it's not liable to exception. Somewhat was hinted in S. T. touching this matter, and more may be added in its proper place.  
He adds, That these three things are affirmed by me; 1. That all Liturgies, or stinted forms of prayer, are not of God's appointment, but of humane invention.  
2. That they are unduly imposed on Ministers.  
3. That Ministers do sinfully, yea, idolatrously use them, because it's ● way of Worship not appointed of God. With respect to which he affirms;  
1. That stinted forms of Prayer, and Service of God, which are not otherwise faulty, then in that they are stinted, may be lawfully used by a Minister of the Gospel in his public Administration.  
2. That such Prayers and Service are a Worship of God in a way of his appointment.  
Answ. 1. And both these might be granted him without the least detriment to the Cause undertaken by us. For the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is otherwise faulty than in that it is stinted, viz. because abused to Idolatry; the matter of it is in not a few things liable to exceptions, the Rites and Modes enjoined therein abominable.  
2. He should have proved one thing more, viz, That a Service devised by man, (as the Common-Prayer-Book is) may lawfully be imposed, and as so submitted to, and that this is justifiable. A failure wherein renders us unconcerned in what is nextly offered by him.  
This he expressly tells us, p. 222. He will not justify.  
So brave a Champion is he for the Clergy, that when he should come to a close encounter, he fairly takes his heels and quits the Field, leaving them, poor men, to shift for themselves as well as they can.  
However we attend the proof of his Assertions, 1. Christ appointed the Lord's Prayer to be used by the Apostles, (as a stinted form, tying them to the use of so many words and no more) Mat. 6. 9 Luke 11. 2.  
Answ. 1. Notoriously false, as we have manifested, together with the invalidity of men's arguings from hence, for a stinted imposed Liturgy, cap. 6. of this Treatise.  
2. Nor is this one of the Placita of the Separatists, Grotius is of the same mind, (on Luke 11. 1. Teach us a compendium of those things we are to pray for; for at that time they were not bound to the use of so many words and syllables.—) as are Tertullian, Cyprian, Cornelius a Lapide, Musculus, etc.  
But, 3dly, should it be granted that Christ enjoined the use of that form of Prayer as a form, this will not prove that stinted forms of Prayer are lawful, and as such may lawfully be imposed and used; which can have no other basis than this; 'tis as lawful for Civil or Ecclesiastical Rulers to devise and impose forms of Prayer upon the Churches as for Christ, a most absurd and blasphemous assertion.  
As touching what he adds, 2. Christ justifies the children's crying of Hosanna, uses himself the forms which David used before in the Psalms, etc.  
We answer, That in all this he doth but beat the Air, and speaks not one word to the purpose: We find no footsteps of any enjoined Liturgy, or stinted forths of Prayer imposed either in the old Testament or the New; though we find the same words used sometimes by them, yet that they might never use any other in their public devotions, which is the condition of stinted enjoined forms, & the known case of the Ministers of Engl. with respect to their Church-Service, we find not, (which is also a full answer to what he citys out of Cyprian, touching their use of the Lord's Prayers, and other Forms,— if they used any, they were not bound to use them and no other—) When he proves this consequence, the Saints of old used the same words in prayer sometimes, and Christ used words before used by them— Therefore a set and stinted Liturgy was in use amongst them, and such an one as our Common-Prayer-Book-Worship, I will be his Convert. He knows the contrary: His answers to Justin Martyr and Tertullian, are impertinent, and not worth the reciting. The words of the former are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Atheists we are not, seeing we worship the Maker of the World.— And in all our Oblations we praise him according to our abilities, in the way of prayer and thanksgiving. And afterwards tells us, that the Precedent of the Assembly poureth our prayers— according to his ability, and continues long in this work. — Tertullian tells us, The Christians looking towards Heaven, (not on their Common-Prayer-Book) with their hands spread abroad, prayed without a Moniter, because from their hearts, expressions wholly exclusive of, inconsistent with, the forms of prayer contended for. The say of Socrates in his Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. who lived about the year 430. tells us, That among all the Christians in that Age, scarce two were to be found that used the same words in prayer: He passeth over in silence, as he doth the account I give of the use of them, not till about the year 600. and the imposition by Charles the Great of Gregory's Liturgy, as is thought, and the support thereof by threats and punishments ever since. These things h● knows to be true, and yet they are such as the Dragon he labours to support, cannot possibly stand before.   

Sect. 3.  
Common-Prayer-Book-Worship not of the appointment of Christ, because an obstruction of some positive Duty charged by Christ upon the Saints. Mr. T. his Exceptions refuted. Of resting on the Sabbath Day. Whether Sacrificing was an obstruction of that Duty. Mat. 5. 12. explained. Following Christ no obstruction of positive Duties to Parents. Of the gift and grace of Prayer. Rom. 8. 26. opened. 'Tis the duty of Saints to improve Gifts received. Common-Prayer-Book-Worship contrary to Scripture. 'Tis not necessary to the edification— of the Saints. The Judgement of the Reformed Churches.  
A Second Argument advanced in S. T. to prove that Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is not of the appointment of Christ, is thus form. That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive Duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints, is not a Worship that is of his appointment. But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship. Therefore.— Christ hath given Officers to his Church, Ephes. 4. 11. to them he hath given gifts every way suiting the employment he calls them forth unto, the improvement whereof he expects and charges upon them, 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 7. Ephes. 4. 11. Prov. 17. 16. Luke 19 20. To think after all this that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ, that shuts ou● as unnecessary the exercise of the gifts given, is absurd, and injurious to Christ.—  
To which Mr. T. answers, Sect. 5. 1. The major is not in all cases true; resting on the Sabbath Day was a positive Duty; yet sacrificing, which was an obstruction of that Duty, called profaning the Sabbath, Mat. 12. 5. was Worship of God's appointment; following Christ preaching of the Gospel, were Worship of Christ's appointment, yet they were obstructions to positive duties to be done to Parents.—  
Answ. 1. Resting from our own works on the Sabbath Day, was a positive Duty, not from the works of Religion, and the Worship of God, as was Sacrificing. 'Tis true, Christ saith, Mat. 12. 5. That the Priests in the Temple profaned the Sabbath; but this is spoken in respect of the vulgar Opinion, that thought the Sabbath violated if any necessary work were done therein, not that indeed the Sabbath day was broken by them. So Dr. Willet, on Exod. 20. 9 and our Annota●ors upon the place expound it.  
2. That following Christ,— is an obstruction of any posstive duty we own to Parents, Mr. T. will prove,  Quum durae quercus sudabunt roscida mella, 
i. e. never. 'Tis true, Christ sometimes calls us to leave Father and Mother— for his Name and Gospel-sake, but then our abiding with them is no longer any positive duty enjoined us by him, but the contrary; so that the major Proposition abides firm.  
To the minor, viz. That the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is an obstruction of a positive duty, viz. the exercise of the gift of Prayer, which is excluded hereby. He answers,  
1. 'Tis supposed that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is a different sort of Worship, from such as is used by those who exercise the gift of Prayer.  
Answ. And so it is, the one being of the Earth, earthy, carnal, devilish, the other from Heaven; as good he may say the Ark and Dagon are the same, as that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship, and the Worship of Jesus Christ is so. When he proves the absurdities mentioned are the proper issue of this assertion, we shall think ourselves concerned to take notice of them, but till then we reject them as the spurious offspring of his own begetting.  
He adds, 2dly. The Author intimates, that ability to conceive, compose, and utter in variety of Expressions, Petitions to God, is the gift of Prayer; and the exercise of it, is the exercise of that gift.  
Answ. I do so indeed. That there are some that have ability so to do, Mr. T. will not, cannot deny, nor that this ability may be where there is not true Grace; what will Mr. T. call this? Ability to express one's self in variety and suitableness of expressions to the Children of men, is a gift given by the Lord, and that not to every one; that to be able so to do to God should not be a gift of his, is absurd. Rom. 8. 26. speaks not solely of the gift, but of the grace Prayer, which sometimes meet in the same subject, but are distinct. There may be the gift, where there is not the grace of Prayer; and on the contrary. I say not, p. 62. That the gift of prayer is the donation of the Spirit, as if I thought this could not be, where the Spirit did not indwell, though indeed none but such can be in the acceptable exercise of that gift. I account not the gift of Prayer to be a gift proper to Ministers, i. e. exclusively to others, but affirm that all Christ's Ministers have the gift of Prayer, and aught to use it; which the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship shuts out of doors as unnecessary, and therefore is not of Christ's appointment.  
To this our Animadverter replies, 1. That Ephes. 4. expresses not Ministerial gifts.  
Answ. This is evidently his mistake; they are expressly mentioned, v. 7, 8.  
He adds, 2dly, If they are implied, it's questionable whether they are ordinary or extraordinary.  
Answ. They are ordinary, for they are such as are to continue with the Ministry to the perfecting the Body of Christ.  
3dly, If ordinary, whether the gift of Prayer, as he means, were one?—  
Answ. This must be one, if the exercise of the duty be for the edification of the Body of Christ, v. ●, 11, 12. To imagine that Christ doth not continue to dispense this gift unto his Gospel-Ministers, for the foresaid end, is injurious to his faithfulness to, love, and care of, his Children, to conceit that better provision can be made, than he makes by the bestowment of his gifts for that end; and such as shall exclude the exercise of them, is derogatory to his Wisdom, and blasphemous.  
He adds, 4thly, That though the Apostles said, Acts 6. 4. We will give ourselves continually to prayer, — and Paul, 1 Tim. 2. 1. Exhorts, that prayers be made for all men; yet we read not that it's made the Ministers work to express the necessities of the Church in the public Auditory.—  
Answ. 1. But this is not to the question; whoever they are that are called forth to this work, they are to do it according to the abilities the Lord hath given them.  
But, 2dly, if it be not the Ministers work, whose is it? whence is it that they who repute themselves such, exclude all others, and monopolise this work unto themselves?  
3ly2, Christ and his Apostles used no forms of prayer before or after their preaching, he grants; and I am sure there is not the least tittle of direction touching the composing and imposing any for the future; hence it follows not that either way of praying (I conceive he means by stinted prescribed forms, or otherwise) is lawful, but that dev●sed, and imposed forms of prayer are utterly unlawful; for who shall dare to prescribe where Christ is silent, upon his freeborn Subjects?  
What he further adds, That the one way of Worship, (he must mean that of imposed stinted Liturgies, if he speak pertinently) shuts not out of doors the other, is notoriously false.  
But, 4ly, Christ hath given to his Ministers gifts for the edification of his Body, amongst the rest the gift of Prayer, which they are bound to improve when ever called to the discharge of that duty, as we prove from 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 7. Ephes. 4. 11. Prov. 17. 16. Luke 19 20. The exercise whereof is shut out by the Common-Prayer-Book-Service. This Mr. T. should have disproved. The reading of a Prayer cannot possibly by a man of the least understanding in the things of God, be supposed to be the exercise of this gift. Reading is not praying, nor any where so called in the Scripture. As for Women, we assert, if they have the gift of Prayer, when ever called forth to the performance of that duty, they are bound to the exercise of that gift, which is a sufficient Answer to what follows: though persons are not bound to be always in the actual exercise of this gift, yet when called to the performance of the duty of prayer, for which it is eminently given of God, they are obliged to be improving it; their not being so, is a napkening up of their Talon; and Mr. T. may prove the contrary when he is able.  
'Tis added in S. T. That it will not in the least take off the weight of the Argument, to say, That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon.  
For, 1. the whole Worship of God may according to these men's Principles be discharged without any Sermon at all, and is requently in most of the Assemblies of England.  
2. Those their prayers are also bounded and limited by the 55. Canon, and that both in words and matter, for they are enjoined to pray in that form, or to that effect, as briefly as conveniently they may, which will by all sober persons be accounted a boundary, notwithstanding Mr. T. his confident Dictate to the contrary.  
3. We had always thought that Christ having given gifts unto Men, did require the use of those gifts whenever persons were called to the performance of that service, to which they were designedly given by him by virtue of the forementioned precepts. When Christ hath given a gift of Prayer unto his Children, and charged them to stir up the gift given them, and not to napkin their Talon, we had verily thought that whenever they had been called forth to the performance of that duty he did really intent, and expect that they should be found in the exercise of the Gift given.—  
To the first and last of these Mr. T. is wholly silent, what he saith to the second we have already removed but of the way.  
Mr. T. adds yet further, The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship may further the duty of exercising the gift of Prayer; and therefore may lawfully be used. Which he proves thus,  
That form may be lawfully used for Worship which may be a means to further any positive Duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints: But such may be the Forms of Prayer in the Liturgy of the Church of England: Therefore.—  
The Major he proves thus. That which requires a Duty, requires the Means conducing thereto.  
The Minor thus; The Common-Prayer-Book directs what things are to be prayed for, by reason of the brevity of the Colects, the Responds, the frequent use, the plain expressions, help the memory and cloqution, wherein the gift of Prayer consists.  
Answ. 1. A Papist may say as much and as truly for their Books of Devotion, their Whip, Pilgrimages,— Mr. T. knows they do so. They are means, they tell us, tending to the furtherance of positive duties.  
To which our Divines answer (as we do Mr. T.) That only those things are to be accounted a means of furthering any positive duty, that God, not man, hath appointed as such thereunto. And in this sense is the Rule given by them about the Decalogue. That which requires the duty, requires the means conducing thereunto. And except means be taken by him in this sense we deny his Major, No Form may lawfully be used in Worship but that which is a means of the appointment of God to further a positive Duty. If he prove his Common-Prayer-Book-Service to be such a Form, he doth somewhat, but till then,  — Rapiunt conamina Venti. 
Hebeats the air.  
2ly. Why speaks he so faintly in his Minor? Such May be the Forms— Why speaks he not out, and plainly, as one that believes he speaks Truth? Such Are the Forms of Prayer in the Common-Prayer-Book.  
Now this we also deny; not only, 1. Because they are not means appointed by the Lord for that end: But also because, 2. The gift of Prayer consists in somewhat else than memory and eloqution, viz. In an ability of mind to form words expressive of the desires of our hearts, wherein these Forms are not pleaded to be helpful. And yet 3. However it comes to pass we find not the most devout Liturgists to excel either in memory or eloqution. And 4. Our own experience, and the experience of the whole Nation tells us the contrary to what Mr. T. affirms. The Common-Prayer-Book-Priests are of all persons the most dull, unapt, and heavy in that duty of Prayer; who must have a praye● penned for them for every occasion, or they can say nothing. Now Mr. T. hath not produced one convincing Argument to prove that a man must believe contrary to what he sees and knows.  
We add in S. T. 3dly, The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is a Worship of which we find no footsteps in the Scripture, as hath already been demonstrated: Whence it follows that 'tis a Worship of pure humane invention, which is not only not of Christ's appointment, but contrary to the very nature of instituted Worship (as is proved in our first Argument) and to very many precepts of the Lord in the Scripture, Exod. 20. 4, 5. Deut. 4. 2. & 13. 32. Prov. 30. 16. Jer. 7. 31. Mat. 15. 9, 13. Mar. 7. 7, 8. Rev. 22. 18. The mind of God in which Scriptures we have exemplified, Leu. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. Jos. 22. 10. Judg. 8. 2. 2 Kings, 16. 11. 1 Chr. 15. 3.  
What Mr. T. answers hereunto Sect. 6. is, 1st, No more than what he hath often said, and hath been as often answered.  
2dly, He hath could out five or six Scriptures from the rest, ●hich he yet wrists to another purpose than they were produced for. We do not introduce them to prove the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is an Humane Invention (which we demonstrate it to be, because not founded upon the Scriptures) but that the Introduction of Humane Inventions into the Worship of God is interdicted in them: The verity whereof the Reader will evidently see proved by a sober perusal of them.  
3dly, He absurdly asserts that a Worship not founded in the Scriptures is not of pure Humane Invention; I confess it may be Diabolical, and is called Devillism, or worshipping the Devil, Psal. 106. 37. But Divine it is not whilst not built upon that Basis.  
4. He yields the whole cause whilst he grants that all Inventions of Men whereby our Worship of God is signified are unlawful, if made necessary, when the Worship of God is placed in them, or their use, which all know to be the case of our Liturgical forms. Of Jos. 22. 10. we have at large treated, chap. 2.  
We say further in S. T. 4thly, That Worship which is not necessary for the edification, comfort, or preservation of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel, is not of the institution of Christ; but such is the Worship of the Common-Prayer-Book. Therefore. The major is evident, the particulars instanced in, were the great aim and end of Christ in all Gospel-Administrations, Ephes. 4. 7, 10, 15. Col. 2. 19 Acts 9 31. Rom. 14. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 10. 23. & 14. 3, 4, 5, 12, 26. 2 Cor. 12. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 4. The minor is proved by this, that the Churches of Christ, for the first four Centuries of years and more, knew not any thing of such a Worship, yet they enjoyed the ends of Gospel-Administrations mentioned.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 7. 1. Insinuates that the Scriptures produced, are abusively wrested, as proving nothing of Christ's aim in his Institutions.—  
Answ. 1. Let this be considered, Ephes. 4. 7, 8. Ye have an account of the ascension of Christ, and his giving gifts unto men, as Apostles, — v. 11. For what end and purpose? v. 12. For the perfecting of the Saints— for the edifying of the Body of Christ. Col. 2. 19 speaks of the Church's increase as a Body, through the nourishment ministered (in the Administration of the Gospel, or through the Golden Pipes of Gospel-Institutions, by which) Acts 9 31. it's said, The Churches were edified. Rom. 14. 19, 20. It's pressed as the duty of Saints in Gospel-fellowship, to follow after things wherewith one may edify another; and 1 Cor. 10. 23, 24. tells us, That some things in themselves lawful, are to be forborn amongst Saints in Church-Communion, because they edify not. Ch. 14. 3, 4. etc. 26. tells us, That the end for which the gift of prophesying was given, was the edification of the Saints, which Paul professeth, 2 Cor. 12. 19 to be the aim of his Soul, and charges Timothy, 1 Tim. 1. 4. to mind this as the great thing in his Ministry. An evident demonstration that this was the main end of Christ in these Gospel-Institutions; and that the Separatists (as Mr. T. talks) multiply not Texts impertinently, b●t he needlessly cavils against what is from Scripture-evidence asserted, and egregiously abuseth the unwary Reader.  
2. Doth he deny the things mentioned to be the aim and end of Christ in Gospel-Administrations? Doth he prove that the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is necessary for the obtainment of these ends? nor at all.  
He tells us indeed, That Prayers, Praises, etc. are so.  
Which if meant of such as are of his appointment, managed according to his will, in his own way, by his own Spirit, we grant to be true; but he forgets to prove that the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is so. That we confound the form or mode of the Worship with the Worship, is not true; they themselves make these forms such a necessary part of Worship by their imposition, that without them we may not pray to, or praise God at all. Whilst he grants Liturgical forms are not necessary for the ends mentioned, he throws down the master Pillar upon which it stands upright in the thoughts of some; the preservation of union amongst the people, necessarily requires such an uniformity, say the Masters of Ceremonies. His retortion of the Argument is ridiculous.  
We say not, That that Worship which in respect of the mode or form of performing it, is not necessary for the edification— of the Saints in the Faith and Unity of the Gospel, is not of the institution of Christ; but that those modes and forms that are made an essential part of Worship, (which the Common-Prayer-Book forms are (though using Notes in the Pulpit— are not, which are therefore impertinently and ineptly produced by our Animadverter) not being necessary to the forementioned ends, are not of the institution of Christ, because in all Gospel-Institutions those ends were aimed at by him; by which the Judicious Reader will easily perceive how little we are concerned with his Argument.  
That the Common-Prayer-Book-Service is as a polluted, accursed, abominable thing to the Reformed Churches, is from hence evident, that they will not touch nor meddle with it, no more than with any thing that is most notoriously so. Their expressions touching Popish Rites and Ceremonies (of which not a few are retained in our Common Prayer-Book) manifest as much. Calvin calls them, Filthy Dunghills, Conrade. Schlusselburg, l. 13. p. 593. saith, That the Adiaphorism of Rites Popish retained, is the very Image of the Beast, whose Mark, Character, and Name, those Adiaphorous Rites are.  
The third Angel, who preacheth against the Image of the Beast, and the receiving his Mark, representeth the Preachers that withstand the rail of Antichrist left behind in the Church of God.  
The Germane Divines, Thes. de Adiaph. Theol. Sax. p. 193. tell us, That the retention of Popish Ceremonies, under pretence that they be Adiaphora, is a countermand to that precept, Go out of her my People, seeing hereby men do even return, yea enter into Antichrist.  
And Buc●r expressly avers, That all things that are of the Roman Antichrist, are abominated, — in Censur. cap. 3. p. 460.  
What this Animadverter speaks further in this Section, will receive a speedy dispatch.  
Calvin speaks of the Prayers and Rites, not their Imposition (when he speaks favourably of them in Epist. 87.) which he abhorred.  
Maresius his Assertion amounts only to a justification of forms of Prayer, not our English forms, much less their imposition.—  
So that, notwithstanding what Mr. T. is able to say to the contrary, The Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is not of the appointment of Christ; and therefore those that Worship him in the way thereof, worship him in a way that is not of his appointment.   

Sect. 4.  
An Objection answered. Nothing in the Instituted Worship of Christ that is a Circumstance thereof as such. Of praying in a Form. The unlawfulness thereof evinced. Mr. T. his Arguments to the contrary answered. Praying in the Spirit, what it is. What is meant by quenching the Spirit, 1 Thes. 5. 19 Forms of prayer imposed, are necessary parts of Worship. The Opinion of the Papists and present Ministers touching this matter.  
THere is one stone of offence, that lying in the way of our former discourse, we endeavour in S. T. to remove; 'Tis this,  
Object. That the Liturgy, or Common-Prayer-Book-Worship is no essential part of Worship, but merely circumstantial: Praying, 'tis true, is part of Worship, but praying in this or that form is not so, but merely a circumstance thereof; and therefore though it be true, that the present Ministers of England worship God after the way of the Common-Prayer-Book, yet it follows not that they worship him after away that is not of his appointment.  
To this we answer, That many things are supposed as the Basis upon which the weight of this Objection is laid, which we cannot grant, as,  
1. That there are some things in the instituted Worship of Christ, that are merely circumstances thereof as such, which we deny. Circumstances in the Worship of Christ attending Religious Actions, as Actions, we grant; but Circumstances of Worship, as such, will never be proved: To infer, that because time and place, with sundry things of the like nature, are Circumstances in Worship, therefore there are Circumstances of Worship, as such, is frivolous: these things being the attendment of Religious Actions common to any civil actions of the like nature, to be performed by the Sons of Men: no action to be managed by a community can be orderly performed by them without such an assignment of time and place; public prayer being so to be managed, as a Religious Action, hath the circumstances before mentioned attending it, and so it would, were it a mere civil action to be performed by a community, though it related not at all to the Worship of God.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 8. 1. 'Tis not true that the Objection supposeth that some things in the Instituted Worship of Christ are but mere circumstances thereof as such.—  
Answ. The naked meaning of the Author of S. T. in that expression, is this, That whereas the Liturgical forms of prayer are by their imposition made parts of the Instituted Worship of Christ, the Objection supposeth that they are but mere circumstances thereof as such. This was so obvious to any ordinary understanding, that I cannot but fear our Animadverter did wilfully mistake our meaning, whilst he makes it to be this, that that particularity of action that is instituted by Christ, is a mere Arbitrary circumstance— which not Christian in his wits will affirm.  
2dly, He tells us, The distinction of circumstances in the Worship of Christ attending Religious Actions as actions, and circumstances of Worship, as such, is an unnecessary nicety— and intimates as if we were agreed in the thing.  
Answ. 1. If it be a nicety, 'tis such a one as cuts the thro●t of his cause; nothing is then to be subjected to, or used in the Worship of God or Christ, as a circumstance thereof, there are no circumstantial, accidental parts of Worship, (for which he hath hitherto pleaded) nothing to be practised relating to it, as such, of an indifferent nature. The whole of it being either commanded by Christ, and so to be indisputably subjected to, or else not of his Institution, and so to be rejected; how great a part of his tottering Fabric he hath by this one concession shaken about his ears, the Judicious Reader is able to discern.  
We add in S. T. the Objection supposeth, 2ly, That it is lawful for Saints to tie themselves to a written stinted form of words in prayer. This we say is not yet proved, nor like to be. That it is not needful that we enter into the debate thereof, till it be proved, that to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer-Book, or imposed devised Liturgies is so. We only briefly offer a few things that evince the unlawfulness of Saints, tying themselves to a written stinted form of words in prayer.  
Because, 1st, 'tis a quenching of the Spirit in prayer,  
2dly. A rendering useless the donation of the Spirit, as a Spirit of Prayer unto the Children of God.  
3dly, Directly opposite unto the many positive Precepts of Christ before instanced in, of stirring up the gifts given to us of God.  
4dly, If it be lawful for Saints to pray in a form, 'tis lawful, 〈◊〉 because they have not the Spirit, or that having the Spirit, he is not a sufficient help to them in their approaches to God: If the first, they are not Saints, Rom. 8. 9 to assert the second is little less than blasphemy; besides its direct opposition to Rom. 8. 26.  
To which Mr. T. pretends to answer, Sect. 9 1. 'Tis no hard thing to prove it lawful to pray in the form of the Common-Prayer-Book, if we suppose the Ministers, and Common-Prayer-Book-Worshippers not to have the Spirit, for than they do not quench the Spirit.—  
Answ. 1. But upon this supposition, they are not Christians, (for if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his) are not Ministers, and so to be separated from.  
2dly, Our present enquiry is of the duty of Saints, with respect to forms of prayer, of others we are not now speaking; which what Mr. T. saith, Is wholly foreign to, and greatly impertinent, as he knows.  
He adds 2dly, We must prove it lawful for the Saints— to use once a stinted form of words,— which will be done by this Argument. That Prayer may be lawful to Saints, in which neither is any thing done forbidden by God, nor any thing omitted which God requires thereto. But such may be praying in a form. Therefore—.  
Answ. 1. Were he able to prove a stinted form of Prayer lawful, he will not carry the cause, except he manifest that Liturgical forms are so.  
2. We deny his minor, with which he deals very unkindly to leave it to shift for itself, so soon as he hath brought it forth into the World. And retort his Argument thus, That Prayer is utterly unlawful to the Saints, in which something is done forbidden by God, and something omitted which God requires thereunto. But in a stinted form something is done that is forbidden, (the Spirit is quenched, undervalved, grieved, the form is rested, trusted in rather than the Spirit) something is omitted which God requires, viz. the exercise stirring up, and improvement of the gift given.  
To what we briefly offer touching the unlawfulness of stinted forms of prayer.  
Mr. T. answers, 1. That the things offered, are bottomed upon mistakes. As, 1. that praying in the Spirit, Ephes. 6. 18. Judas 20. is meant of extemporal unprescribed forms of words; whereas it's meant of praying by operation of the Spirit within, not of prayer, in respect of the form of words wherein it's expressed.  
Answ. 1. To pray in the Spirit, is to pray from the power and assistance of the Spirit, who not only forms requests in the hea●s of the S●●●ts, but also gives in apt words for the expressing those inward groans in a way of edification, and comfort to the household of Faith, and the assistance of the Spirit in both these they experience. The expressions of praying alway with all prayer— do not in the least intimate that the Apostle speaks of solitary prayers, and if he did, Saints are wont to use words when they draw nigh to God in their secret Chambers. Ephes. 5. 19 is so far from proving that Ephes. 6. 18. is meant of solitary prayers, that it totally enervates it. Their speaking to themselves in Psalms,— is their speaking one to another for their mutual edification.  
2dly, We say not that meditation and preparation to this important duty of Prayer is unlawful, or that he who beforehand gives himself hereunto, prays not in the Spirit, as Mr. T. intimates; yet this we assert, that no awakened enlivened Saint under the highest preparation for this duty, dares say, these words will I speak and no more, nor can he do it, without an high undervaluation and contempt of the love, care, and faithfulness of the good Spirit of the Lord to him, who is often enabling him in a way of enlargement beyond the utmost thoughts of his heart.  
3dly, Suppose it lawful to use a form of words in prayer, the Spirit assists in the forming of groans within answerable to that form of words without; I ask, What if the Spirit should form in us requests beyond what are in words expressed in the form, (which sure he may do, for however it be pleaded that 'tis lawful to bind us to the form, it will not be supposed that the Spirit is bound) Must I pour them forth in words he helps me to, or must I not? if he say the first, actum est, perlisti, there is an end of his stinted forms of prayer; if the second, there is an apparent slighting, quenching of the Spirit in his motions and assistance he is ready to afford us.  
A second mistake, upon which he saith, The things offered proceed, is, That the ability to express petitions in words extemporary, is termed the Spirit of Prayer, as if it were in every one that hath the sanctifying Spirit of God, and they only; for so the alleging Rom. 8. 9, 26. for it, in the fourth Argument; must infer: now a man may have the Spirit, and yet not have this ability; he may have this ability, and yet not have the Spirit.  
Answ. Crimen inauditum Caie Caesar.  
Doth Mr. T. consider what he writes? 1. We no no where say that this ability to express our inward desires in prompt and significant expressions to the Lord, as separated from the grace of Prayer, or the sanctifying presence of the Spirit of God, is the Spirit of Prayer: En tabulas! Let him direct us to the place where we so do.  
2. We grant there may be the grace of Prayer without the gift, and the gift without the grace; but say, that when God calls forth his Children to the public discharge of this duty, he bestows the gift of Prayer upon them; which if they have not, they are not called forth thereunto: When otherwise the Spirit of Adoption in them is abundantly sufficient to enable them to pour forth their souls to God, so as that they need not the help of the Crutches of Forms, as some speak.  
3. The Question is whether it be lawful for Saints to use a stinted Form of words in Prayer? Of others we are not speaking. Rom. 8. is produced to prove it is not lawful for them so to do.  
The particular Answers he gives to the Arguments produced against such Forms of Prayer, are of an easy dispatch.  
To the first he answers. 1. The quenching of the Spirit is not meant of the Spirit of Prayer more than any other exercise.—  
Answ. Grant it, it's meant as much of the Spirit of Prayer as any other exercise. The expression is wholly Metaphorical. The Spirit in his operations and motions is frequently called and compared to fire (as is known) the quenching of him is our resisting, not giving up ourselves to the obedience of those motions; how we do this by stinted Forms of Prayer was but now showed.  
He adds, 2dly, The quenching of the Spirit is the act of him in whom the Spirit is quenched.  
Answ. Very true, the tying of ourselves to a prescript form of words in Prayer is our own act, none can actually compel us thereunto; hereby we quench the Spirit.  
Yea but 3dly, The hearer is stinted in all joint Prayer.—  
Answ. 1. Not as he is when he ties himself to a Form of Words in Prayer.  
2. Not so, but if the Spirit (whose motions are regular, and leads not to such confusions as Mr. T. talks of, of all speaking together) moves powerfully upon the heart of the hearer, he ought after the other hath done to proceed further in that work according to the ability shall be given him, and not to do so were his sin. So that of these things there is not the same reason. How the true motions of the Spirit of God are to be discerned, from the stir of our natural affections, is of greater import than in this haste to be spoken to: caution and carefulness is herein to be used.  
To the second he answers, In some cases a stinted Form is helpful to the understanding, memory, affections, utterance in Prayer.  
Answ. 1. To this we have already replied.  
2ddly, The experience of many Saints is far otherwise.  
3dly, The Spirit is given to help our infirmities in Prayer, Rom. 8. 26. both as to matter and manner of expression; the donation of the Spirit as to both these ends is by a Form of Prayer rendered useless; direct me as to matter he must not, for what I am to pray for is in my Prayer-book under my eye; nor as to words, for I am absolutely tied up to the use of those verbal expressions, are in the Prayer before me.  
To the third he tells us, 1st, That that of 2 Tim. 1. 6. is to be understood of his ability to preach the Gospel, so is the improving the Talents, Mat. 25. 15, 27. Luke 19 13, 23.  
Answ. By the Gift given and the Talents, we are to understand every gift and ability given to us of the Lord, which we are bound to improve by virtue of the forecited Scriptures; for to that end was it given us. If God hath given the gift of Prayer, for the edification of the Body of Christ to any one, woe be to that man that shall neglect to improve it.  
Mr. T. talks carnally whilst he calls the gift of Prayer a mean thing; Spiritual Saints know it to be sublime, excellent and glorious, being in them, the fruit of the Spirit of Adoption.  
He adds, 2dly He may stir up the gift of expression at another time, who is tied to a Lyturgical Form.  
Answ. 1. The gift of Prayer is more than the gift of Expression, as we have showed.  
2. Gifts received are always to be exercised when called to the work for which they are received: We must offer of our own that God hath graciously given us, when we offer to him, not another man's.  
3. We are always obliged to those Lyturgical Forms in every Church-administration, except before and after Sermon, and then we are not without a boundary, as was showed.  
To the fourth he answers, The lawfulness of Saints praying in a Form is neither because they have not the Spirit, nor because he is not sufficient to help them in their approaches to God, but because there is nothing in such praying done that is forbidden, nor any thing that is required omitted.—  
Answ. The falsity and vanity of this we have evinced but even now; nor is there any thing further offered touching this matter that is worth the considering, but what is already replied to.  
What he hath spoken Chap. 5. Sect. 7. we have answered in our Reply thereunto.  
'Twere easy to multiply Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of stinted Forms of Prayer, were it needful; As fifthly, They are not where commanded by Christ, or permitted.  
Sixthly, They are neither lawful for unregenerate or regenerate persons. Not for the first, because 1. They teach them to blaspheme, belie, and misreport God, viz. to call him Father when they are not begotten again of him. 2. They harden them in a way of sin, and strengthen their vain confidences that they are in a saved state. 3. They lead them forth to a plain mocking of God, viz. In praising him for that he never bestowed upon them; as regeneration, the holy Spirit, peace, joy through believing, etc. Nor for the regenerate are they lawful for the reasons but now mentioned, as also because the most exact Forms are not expressive of what they want. They bond them where God hath not bound them: Ask what ye will, saith God: Ask only what is in the Form, saith the Formalist. They hinder their spiritual growth, divert the intention of the mind, cool the fervency of the Spirit in the performance of the duty of Prayer; with much more that might be offered were it needful.  
We add in S. T. 3dly, That the Objection supposeth that Forms of Prayer imposed, are but mere circumstances of Worship, and not parts thereof: The contrary hereunto we say is evident.  
That which is made so the condition of an action that without it the action is not to be done, is not a circumstance of it, but such an adjunct as is a necessary part thereof: But Forms of Prayer imposed are so made by that their imposition: Therefore.—  
Sacrificing of old on the Altar at the Tabernacle and Temple, was part of the Worship of God that they were to perform; this Worship only at those places being once commanded, was not a circumstance of that Worship, but as real an essential part thereof as sacrificing was. The case is the same here; Prayer is commanded, so is the use of these Prayers, which are as really by that command made alike parts of Worship.  
To this Mr. T. replies. That what is made so the condition of an action by virtue of God's appointment, as that without it the action is not to be done, is thereby made a necessary part of Worship: Not so when made such a condition of an action by virtue of man's precept (as is the case of Lyturgical Forms, which are therefore notwithstanding that imposition but mere circumstances of Worship.)  
Answ. 1. What strange Circumstances and Adiaphorisms doth Mr. T. make, which are so essential to Worship, as that without them it may not be performed? Andr. Frisias (though a Papist) spea●s better. If it be Adiaphorus, why is it not left to the Liberty of every one to use or not to use as he pleaseth? for that is the nature of those things that are Adiaphorus,— De Eccles. Lib. 2. Tract. 13. in Epist. ad Paul. 4. fol. 542.  
2. How bloodily cruel and sanguinary doth he make our Spiritual Fathers! who deliver their own Children over to Satan, yea imprison if not banish or hang them for trivial circumstances. Strange paternal affections!  
Yet 3dly, There is indeed somewhat of Truth in what is asserted by our Dictator; 'Tis the Authority of God alone that can make any thing a part of his own Worship, the imposition and commands of men make it a part of theirs. Bowing the knee, falling down, is no essential part of God's Worship, but it was of Nebuchadnezars, when the Decree was once published, neglect of Conformity to which had nea● cost the Three Children their Lives. Worshipping at Dan and Bethel was no necessary part of God's Worship for the same reason, but it was of Jeroboams, when once established and commanded by him. The case is the same here, Liturgical Forms are no necessary parts of God's Worship, because no no where commanded by him; but are of the Lyturgists' Worship because established by Law. And this is all we affirm, they are the necessary parts of that Worship which is managed and carried on by them, which they suppose is the Worship of God.  
What he adds from the Preface of the Common-Prayer-Book, That particular Forms of Divine Worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be used therein, are things in their own nature indifferent, and alterable, makes not void what we have asserted, it rather establisheth it. For, 1st, The same may be said of many acknowledged essential parts of Divine Worship, Circumcision, Sacrificing,— yet alterable and abolished. If it be said that none could abolish them but God; the answer is easy, nor can any abolish the Lyturgical Forms and Rites, but only those who have such Authority as that by which they were imposed, who are to the Lyturgists as Vice-Godds.  
We add in S. T. 2dly, That the present Ministers of England make the Liturgy, or Common-Prayer-Book-Worship a principal part, yea the whole Worship of God. Whence we conclude, That the present Ministers of England worshipping God in the way thereof, which he hath not prescribed, they are Idolaters.  
To which Mr. T. 1. He doth not think its true that any Minister of England would affirm the Common-Prayer-Book to be an essential part of Worship.  
Answ. But what Mr. T. thinks in this matter is not considerable, the truth of the assertion is notoriously known, and he may as well tell us they disown the Cross in Baptism,— which they are daily in the practice of.  
He adds, 2dly, If it were, they do not think it an essential part of Worship by virtue of God's Command, but they conceive they ought to obey their Governors' Laws, not judging others who use it not.  
Answ. 1. This is not at all ad Rhombum. Jeroboam's Priests and those Apostatick Worshippers that struck in with him, did not account sacrificing at Dan and Bethel, an essential part of Worship by virtue of God's Command, but the Kings.  
2. To obey their Governors in such things as these, Mr. T. saith, is bottomed upon Christ's Command: and if so, whilst they account it their duty from divine Precept, to subject to their Governors imposing it upon them as an essential part of Worship, they do little less than account it to be so by virtue of Divine Command.  
3. I wonder with what forehead Mr. T. could say, They judge not others who use it not, when their Pulpits ring with invectives against them, and they will not suffer them to preach, but Excommunicate, and Imprison them for no other reason but because they will not conform to it.   

Sect. 5.  
A second Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolaters. They act in holy things by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters, and offer up to him a Worship abused to Idolatry with the Modes and Rites of Idolaters. All will-worship Idolatry. The testimony of the Ancients, etc. The Romish Church Idolaters: their worship Idolatry. The present Ministers act by virtue of an Office-power received from that Idolatrous Church. Com. Prayer-book-worship Idolatry. The Rites used by the Ministers Idotrous. Rites in themselves indifferent, when once abused to Idolatry, not to be used, proved. The Testimony of the Learned touching this matter.  
A Second Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolaters, is in S. T. thus form.  
Those who act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Office-power received from-Idolaters, and offer up to him a Worship nearly of Humane composition, once abused to Idolatry with the Modes and Rites of Idolaters, are themselves such: But the present Ministers of England do so: Therefore.—  
In the Major two things are asserted.  
1st, That such as act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters, are themselves such, at least in respect of that their Office-power. Jeroboams Priests being Idolaters, those that acted by virtue of an Office-power from them must needs be so: as those who act by virtue of authority to them committed from Rebels in matters civil, are equally guilty of Rebellion, as those from whom they derive that their authority.—  
This Mr. T. denies: But, 1. for the ground of his denial nothing is offered but Dictates built upon this mistake, That none can be accounted Idolaters but such as exhibit Divine Worship to the Creature: The vanity of which is before evinced.  
2dly, I desire at his leisure to be informed whether there be any truth in that Maxim, One cannot give that to another that he hath not himself. If the Idolater communicate an Office-power to another, and he have none himself but that which is Idolatrous, he doth most assuredly communicate an Idolatrous Office-power to him. That persons acting from authority received from Rebels, if under hand they design the restitution of their Prince, are not to be accounted Rebels (as he saith) is an assertion, 1. That will scarce pass for truth amongst the learned of the Law. 2. Impertinent. For, 1. The present Ministers act from such an authority for the support of Antichristian Courts, oppressive diabolical Usurpations and Prerogatives, for the keeping out their lawful Prince, Christ Jesus. 2. They justify their acting from the authority aforesaid, refuse to act from any other, contemn and despise it.  
2dly, That worshipping God by a Form merely of humane composition with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters is Idolatry; those that so worship him are Idolaters.  
Mr. T. replies, That this makes not Idolaters, unless there be Idolatry in the Form, and the Rites be Idolatrous in the Use.  
Answ. 1. This he speaks without proof.  
2. Upon this mistake, that there is no other Idolatry but the giving of Divine honour to the Creature.  
3. All will-worship is Idolatry, so saith August. de Consens. Evang. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Vazq. de Adorat. Lib. 2. Disput. 1. Cap. 3. Dr. Bills ag. Apol. p. 4. p. 344. and Mr. T. denies not such a worshipping God, as that mentioned to be will-worship.  
What he adds, That it is not true, that they are Idolaters who use that which is of divine appointment to the right use, because Idolaters abused it to Idolatry. Those may do well to take notice, of that are concerned in it: For our parts we say no such thing; the allegation is impertinent to the matter in hand, the Form used in the English Liturgy is not of Divine appointment, nor the Rites thereof; neither will Mr. T. have the confidence to assert they are. That I any any where revoke that assertion of mine, That few or none worship the Creature terminatiuè, is Mr. T. his mistake. 'Tis true pag. 65. I say, That Bellarmine affirms, that the Images themselves terminate the veneration given to them, as they are in themselves considered.— But this is but one Doctor's opinion (retracted by him, de Sac. Euch. l. 4. c. 29. where he asserts that which is contrary thereunto) should two or three more be remarked of the same mind with him, they amount but to a few in comparison of the generality of mankind, otherwise minded.  
The Minor Proposition, viz. That the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters, and offer up to him a Worship merely of humane composition, once abused to Idolatry, with the Modes and Rites of Idolaters, we do in S. T. demonstrate. Three things are in this matter argued and evinced.  
1st, That the Romish Church are Idolaters, their Worship in the complexion thereof Idolatry. This we prove at large, and our Animadverter grants it to be true.  
2dly, That the present Ministers of England act by virtue of an Office-power from this combination and Assembly of Idolaters. This they themselves will not deny. Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry. This we argue at large in S. T. and Mr. T. after a great many words, grants their succession from Rome.  
But adds, 2dly, That this is not one of their best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry.  
Answ. 1. When they (or he for them) produce a better, it shall be considered; this is what they especially plead: an Argument 'tis one of their best pleas in their account, however our Animadverter thinks otherwise.  
Nor indeed, 2dly, Do I see how their Episcopal Ordination can be justified without it.  
He conceives, 3dly, That they will deny that they act by virtue of an Office-power received by succession from the combination of Idolaters in the Church of Rome.—  
Answ. 1. The derivation of their succession from the Papacy they deny not: This their succession pleaded for is a succession of Ministry; That they should be so absurd as to acknowledge a succession in respect of their Ministry, from them, and deny the reception of their Office-power from them, (which is nothing more or less than their Office of Ministry) I cannot imagine.  
What follows in this Sect. hath already been replied to, and therefore we shall not further trouble the Reader therewith.  
We say in S. T. 3dly, That the present Ministers offer up to God a Worship merely of Humane composition (as the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been proved to be) once abused to Idolatry (being the Worship of that Church, whose worship is so; the whole of it being taken out of the Pope's Portuis) with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters (viz. their Holy Vestments, Bowings, Candles, Altars,— which are the Rites of the Idolatrous Church of Rome, and were introduced from thence by Austin the Monk) cannot be denied. And hence conclude, That the present Ministers acting in the holy things of God, by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters, and offering up to him a Worship merely of Humane composition, once abused to Idolatry, with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters, are deeply guilty of Idolatry.  
What Mr. T. replies hereunto Sect. 14. hath for the most part already been removed out of the way.  
1. The Forms of Prayer in the Service-Book, by their Imposition are made an essential part of Worship (as we have proved) as such, they are not agreeable to God's Word, not of Divine (but merely humane) composition.  
2. Had these Forms never been in the Mass-Book, being made by their imposition a part of Worship, they had been superstitious, Idolatrous, being an open violation of the second Commandment.  
3. I wonder at the forehead with which 'tis affirmed that the Rites and Modes used in the Church of Rome, that are Idolatrous, are not observed and used. What thinks he of bowing at the Altar, the Name of Jesus (which Dr. Willet acknowledgeth to be superstitious, Idolatrous, Synops. Papism. the 9th gener. Contro. p. 492, 493. as do our Protestants generally) kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament, the Cross in Baptism? These are some of the Rites used in the Papacy, and as so used, Mr. T. will not, I presume, deny them to be Idolatrous.  
4. The learned Muccovius proves what he asserts (That the sacred Rites of Idolaters (though they be things in themselves indifferent) are 
† So say our Divines generally, to whom Z●nchie, Junius, Pelican Calvin, Beza, Farrel, (yea Lyra, though a Papist) Pezelius, Mollerus, Zegedinus, Danaeus, Zepperus, Sadael.  not to be retained, because all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided) from Leu. 19 19, 27, 28. & 21. 5. & Deut. 14. 1. The things there interdicted were in themselves indifferent; the ground of their interdiction was, because they were the sacred Rites of Idolaters, as say Salmasius, Herodotus, l. 3. Maimonides, Treat. of Idolatry, chap. 12. Sect. 7, 11. Vatablus, Fagius, etc. I cannot upon this occasion but remind the judicious Reader of what the learned Zanchy writes touching this matter to Q. Eliz. l. 1. Epist. p. 431. 'Tis not honest (saith he) that those things which have a long time been used in idolatrous Worship, if they are things in themselves indifferent, should be retained in the Church, with the hazard of the Salvation of the Godly. The brazen Serpent which was appointed by the Lord, and indeed for the Salvation of Israel, because the Isruelites ab●sed it contrary to the Word of God, was by the good King Hezekiah taken away, who is greatly praised for it,— how much more should things and Rites indifferent, instituted by men, when they decline to Superstition and other abuses, be removed; which Mr. T. may answer at his leisure.   

Sect. 6.  
A third Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolaters. That worshipping God in, by, or before the creature respectiuè, or with relation to the creature, is Idolatry.  
WE advance in S. T. a third Argument to prove the Ministers of England Idolaters, which is thus form; Adoration in, by, or before a creature respectiuè, or with relation to the creature, is idolatrous, such as so adore or worship God are Idolaters: But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in, by, or before a creature respectiuè, or with relation to the creature. Therefore,—  
The major proposition, we say, is generally owned by Protestants, it being the very same Maxim they make use of, and stop the mouths of the Papists with, in the point of adoring God mediately by the Creature. The truth of the minor proposition, their bowing and cringing at the Altar, their kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament do evince. That their kneeling is an adoration or worshipping God before the creature respectiuè, or with relation to the creature, is manifest: Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are, objectum a quo, or the motive of their kneeling, which if they were not there, they would not do. Didoclavius, p. 755. tells us, That Genuflexion is Idolatry; which Maccovius assents to, Loc. Com. p. 861.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 15. 1. The Author of S. T. contradists himself, for in chap. 5. p. 40. he hath said, That kneeling at the Lords Supper, is one peg beneath the adoration of the Breaden God, he will not affirm, but here he saith, 'tis an adoration, in, by, or before the Creature respectiuè, or with relation to the Creature.—  
Answ. 1. Very good, and I say so still, nor am I able to discern the least contradiction betwixt these two assertions. The present Ministers may not worship the Popish Breaden God, (as the Papists do) and yet worship the true God, in, by, or before the creature, respectiuè, or with relation to the creature. His pitiful gibes are beneath ●e to take notice of. The Idolatry in kneeling at the Sacrament, is to be referred to the second kind of Idolatry we at the beginning mentioned, it being a way of adoration enjoined by man, not commanded by the Lord; and every thing beside the Commandment is an Idol, hath been an hitherto received Maxim.  
But it cannot be this kind of Idolatry, (saith Mr. T.) for kneeling in prayer— to God is appointed by him.  
Answ. 1. This is false; I no no where find any such appointment exclusive of any other posture.  
2. Impertinent; We are not treating of kneeling in prayer, but in receiving the Sacrament. Where hath God said he will have this Gesture and no other used in this part of his Worship? 'Tis true, man hath of late so determined it, and written the cruelty of their determination in bloody Characters. Worthy Mr. Dyton and Mr. Porter of Ware, being stifled by their Imprisonment, the one in the Gatehouse, the other in the New-Prison, for not conforming thereunto, not to mention others then, nor late sufferers for the same cause.  
3. Even in prayer to God, the posture of standing seems to be more used throughout the Scriptures, Gen. 19 27. Levit. 9 5. Deut. 10. 8. & 29. 10. 1 Kings 8. 14, 15. 2 Chron. 20. 5, 19 & 29. 11. Jer. 15. 1. & 18. 20. Ezek. 44. 11, 15. Luke 18. 11, 13. Mark 11. 25. an Argument kneeling in that duty was no appointment of the Lord. That the Primitive Christians, for above 800. years after Christ, on all Lords Days throughout the year, and from Easter till Whitsuntide, constantly prayed standing, Mr. T. knows is upon good Authority affirmed.  
What he nextly adds, we have already answered, (That I speak ambiguously, and indistinctly, I cannot help, 'tis not given to every one to be a B. D. nor to speak with that eloquence and clearness as Mr. T. I did what I could to be understood.  
However to make sure work on't, he denies both major and minor,  
1. Adoration in, by, or before a creature respectiuè, or with relation to the creature, is not Idolatry; such as so worship God are not Idolaters; for the Holy Ghost invites the Jews to worship at God's Footstool, his Holy Hill, Psal. 99 5, 9 which were creatures in, by, or before whom respectiuè, or with relation to them, as the objectum significatiuè a quo, or the motive of their Worship, they were to bow down to God.  
Answ. 1. From God's Commands, to man's Inventions, is but lame arguing; God commanded Israel to worship at Jerusalem before the Ark, Altar there, which they did, without being guilty of the sin of Idolatry; therefore when men command us to bow down, and worship before the creature, we may do so without the contraction of any such guilt, is a sort of reasoning that Mr. T. upon second thoughts will be ashamed to defend. As good he may argue, 'Tis lawful for men to rob and spoil their Neighbours, for the Israelites, by the command of God, spoiled the Egyptians, without being guilty of Theft.  
But, 2dly, that the Temple, Altar— was the objectum significatiuè a quo, or the motive of their Worship is not true; it was solely the command of God that was the motive thereof; and had neither Temple, nor Altar— been there, had God bid them worship there, they would have done it.  
3dly, To worship at his Footstool, is no more than to worship in the Temple, to worship in the House of his Sanctuary, saith the Chald. Paraph. which is as remote from Mr. T. his purpose to prove it lawful to worship God in, by, or before the creature respectiuè, as 'tis from Bellarmine's who introduce it, to prove the lawfulness of Image Worship.  
What follows, 2dly, is of an easier dispatch. 'Tis true, the use of the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper, is of the Institution of Christ, but bowing down before it is not so, as worshipping at the Temple, before the Altar— was.  
So is 3dly, the instance he gives of the Israelites falling down upon their faces and worshipping God, when the fire came down, and the Glory of the Lord was seen, 1 Kings 18. 38. 2 Chron. 7. 3.  
For, 1st, should we grant that the people bowed and worshipped God, by occasion of the coming down of the fire, it would not follow that they worshipped before it, which is somewhat more.  
2dly, The Plea is Papistical, and may as righteously be used for the worshipping God before Images.  
3. The sight and presence of the fire was not the motive of their worshipping, but the conviction of the Glorious Majesty of God, that from that Vision fell upon them.  
4. Their bowing was as to man a voluntary act, from the extraordinary compulsion of the Spirit, and by singular occasion: ours a forced act frequently performed in imitation of the most horrid Idolaters in the World, by the compulsion of the spirit of Antichrist, and Satan: Their Act hath therefore no place in our present case, wherein neither such a compulsion nor occasion can be pleaded.  
Dr. Jackson tells us, That such actions as have been managed by God's Spirit, suggested by secret instinct, or extracted by extraordinary and special occasions, are then only lawful in others, when they are begotten by like occasions, or brought forth by like impulsions. Which is indeed what is usually asserted by our Protestants, in answer to such Papistical Arguments, as our Animadverter, for want of better, is forced to make use of.  
He adds, 2dly, The minor may be denied, the present Ministers do not worship God, in, by, or before the creature respectiuè, or with relation to the creature, as the objectum significatiuè a quo, or the motive thereunto, for the Common-Prayer-Book saith, That kneeling is not for adoration of the Elements, but for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ.  
Answ. 1. But it saith not the Elements are not the motive of their kneeling, which they are, else why is not this posture enjoined in other parts and acts of worship, wherein 'tis our duty to signify our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ.  
Nay, 2dly, whence is it that in that very Ordinance another posture is after the receiving the Bread and Wine permitted? Yea, do not our kneelers teach us that we ought to stand up at Gloria Patri, (which is as solemn a thanksgiving as any they have in their Common-Prayer-Book) rising from our knees and seats to repeat it.  
Nor, 3dly, do I understand the bleating of that expression in the place cited by Mr. T. That genuflexion is enjoined for the avoiding such profanation in the Holy Communion as might ensue: Except they give honour more than enough to the Elements, it being much like what was pleaded by the Papists for the same practice, viz. that the Priests may put it more easily into the mouth of the Receiver, without danger of spilling it.  
Nor, 4thly, know I a greater profanation of any Ordinance, than the adding something of our own devising thereunto, as a part thereof, and kneeling in the Act of receiving by their imposition being so added, that which they pretend to do for the avoiding of profanation in the Communion, is the greatest profanation thereof imaginable. I crave leave to add that it is to be feared that there are hundreds of ignorant people in the Country, who upon strict enquiry, would be found to make the Bread and Wine, not only the motive, (which all know it is) but the object of their Worship. Touching the Ministers bowing and cringing at the Altar, he leaves them that are concerned to plead for themselves, he will be no Advocate for them; only this he will say, That those who use it, avouch they do it not to any other but God, and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry.  
Answ. 1. The vanity of this consequence we have over and overconfuted. 2dly, Many of the Heathens, the Romanists avouch as much touching bowing to their Images, they do it not to any other than God; yet he will not sure say, therefore they are not guilty of Idolatry. These cover are quite too short to cover the nakedness of the Ministers of England, which may be easily discerned through them.  
Our next attempt in S. T. is, The removal of Objections; the first whereof is thus proposed.  
Object. 1. The charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry, is exceeding harsh, and that which is an Argument of a very unchristian and censorious Spirit.  
To which we answer, 1st, That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard say, and not to be born.—  
To which Mr. T. Christ's sayings were unjustly counted hard, because they were true, yours justly because not so.—  
Answ. 1. Whether ours are true or false, is left to the Impartial Reader to determine.  
2dly, That they are unchristian and censorious, is an uncharitable Dictate of this Animadverter, they tend not to division amongst the Saints, but Union.  
We add, secondly, That in this matter we have said nothing but what is asserted by most, or all, Protestant Writers upon the second Commandment, who tell us, That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him, is Idolatry, such as do so are Idolaters; Our Application hereof to the present Ministers, whom we have proved guilty of so worshipping God, we see no reason why any should account unchristian or censorious.  
Mr. T. replies, That which by the Protestant Writers is said, is not all true.  
Answ. Nor do I say it is; but when the same thing is asserted by them in Thesi, that we in this matter affirmed, 'twas supposed that we might no more justly be charged with censoriousness and uncharitableness than they; the truth whereof Mr. T. doth not deny.  
We say, 3dly, What would these Objectors have said to Tertullian, who is by far more nice in this point of Idolatry than we have declared ourselves to be,— yet could he not justly be charged wi●h an unchristian and censorious Spirit.  
To which our Animadverter adjoins, 1. Tertullian in the close of his life was a man that ascribed too much to private revelations.  
Answ. 1. And what if he did? Is what he saith touching Idolatry, bottomed upon those private revelations? Nothing less. Was he in his declamations against Idolaters uncharitable and censorious? Who besides himself will affirm it? What rule of charity have we broken in what we have argued and offered in this matter? What one particular have I laid to the charge of the present Ministers that is not evidently proved? Let him manifest the one or the other to be done by us, and we will acknowledge our evil; till than declamations and outcries of uncharitableness and censoriousness are but empty sounds.  
2. His reflection, as if we were guilty of ascribing too much to private revelations, we can bear with contentment,  Non hoc primum pectora vulnus mea senserunt graviora tuli. 
with this intimation, that through Grace we are not. Nor dare we embrace any thing (should an Angel from Heaven preach it) which is not consonant to the Law and Testimony of God contained in the Scriptures.  
3. That Tertullian had more reason (as he saith) to be nice about the point of Idolatry than we, he proves not; the contrary is evident: Did he live amongst Pagans? do not we live amongst Romish Idolaters? who have been not a little industrious to introduce and impose upon us the whole of their Idolatrous Worship and Service. Christians were then hastening from the superstitions of the Heathens; many are now posting toward Antichristian Idolatry. Who could have thought that so much of the Worship of Rome, their Prayers, Anthems, Rites, and Instruments of their Idolatry, as Surplice, Altar, Candles, Organs— shluld in so little time have taken root in England, as in five or six years they have done?—  
The second Objection proposed in S. T. is, What shall we judge of Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, — who worshipped God after the same way of worship that these do now, were they also Idolaters?—  
To which we answer, 1. That they were eminent Witnesses of Jesus Christ in their day.—  
2dly, That they are now with Christ, and shall come with him to judge their unjust judges we believe.  
But, 3dly, they were but men encompassed about with many infirmities; that they were guilty of the sin of Idolatry cannot be denied. Yet, 1. They were in that day but just peeping out of the Gates of Babylon; and 'tis no wonder if some of the filth of her Fornications did cleave to them.  
To which Mr. T. How is it that they are now with Christ, where no unclean thing enters?  
Answ. 1. How is it that Joshua is now with Christ, who comes out of Babylon with filthy Garments, Zach. 3. 3.  
But, 2dly, his question is answered in what follows in S. T. 2. God (of pure Grace) accepted them in Christ, granting them a general repentance for those iniquities they saw not to be so.—  
Mr. T. adjoins, That they should repent of that they offered to justify a little before they died, is not likely.  
Answ. 1. But that they had a general repentance for what they seeing not to be evil, did not particularly bewail, he attempts not the proof of. The Patriarches manifested no particular repentance for their polygamy, they justified it by their practice to the last. Abraham took him Concubines when very old. David added to those he had, Abishag, when ready to leave the World. I ask, Was this their sin i● Mr. T. will not deny it, nor that they were defiled with it; every ●niquity leaving defilement behind it. How is it that they are now wi●● Christ where no unclean thing enters? That they should repent of that which they justified a little before they died is not likely; what will Mr. T. answer? If I mistake not, the same answer will serve to stop his own mouth with respect to his present arguings. Nor know I a better than this; 'tis true, we find not that they particularly repent hereof, but a general repentance we in charity believe they had, which God accepted in Christ.  
2dly, What is that they offered to justify a little before they died? Did they offer to justify kneeling in the act of receiving? Nothing less! the wearing of the Surplice? But some of them, as Ridley— abhorred it, and were troubled at the very heart that they imposed it upon others, as he knows.  
We conclude in S. T. The Intelligent Reader knows that these things are not of any moment for the invalidating what hath been offered upon this Subject.  
Our Animadverter replies, 1. Though this be not a direct answer to their Argument, yet 'tis a very great prejudice against it, that by striking at the present Ministers you wound the Holy Martyrs, and make them Idolaters for that very thing for which they died, that they might not be Idolaters.—  
Answ. 1. 'Tis true, in the thoughts of some this might be a great prejudice against the Argument, against the Truth. 'Tis no new thing for the Truths of God to be attended with as great prejudices as this.  
2dly, That this should be accounted any prejudice at all by persons that desire to weigh things uprightly in the Balance of the Scriptures; setting aside the consideration of persons, cannot be imagined.  
Nor is it, 3dly, any greater prejudice against our Argument, than lies against the Arguments of the Protestants against the Papists Idolatries and Superstitions; who yet (some of them that have been guilty thereof) have been true Christians, and in some things witnesses of Christ against Papal pride and abominations, and have sealed their Testimony with their blood.  
He adds, 2dly, That I should when I wrote this Chapter, have thought of Psal. 73. 15.  
Answ. 1. But to what purpose I know not; that mentioning the infirmities and weaknesses of the Children of the Lord, (with that tenderness, regard to their due honour, and esteem amongst the Saints as I did) for the removing of prejudice that might arise in the minds of any against what I was pleading for, under this assurance, that it is Truth, should be a sinning against the Generation of the Righteous. Mr. T. is the first that I believe did ever suggest it; and 'tis pity but he should be the last, it being a most monstrous and absurd figment. The Patriarches Polygamy, Aaron's, Moses, david's, Peter,— weaknesses are in Scripture (and may be by any one upon just occasion) mentioned, I hope without sinning against the Generation of the Righteous; and why not the Idolatry of these last Worthies? The Animadverter sees I have (according to his advice) reviewed this Argument, and do assure him, I see not the least cause from what he offers to retract what was offered in S. T. touching it; but conclude that the present Ministers of England are guilty of Idolatry, and therefore 'tis the duty of Saints not to hear, but separate from them. And if this be in Mr. T. his account an extreme of Fanaticism, (as he speaks) I desire for ever to be found in this extreme.    

CHAP. IX.  

Arg. 7. Sect. 1.  
A seventh Argument against hearing the present Ministers. 'Tis an offence, grief, scandal, and cause of stumbling to their Brothers, forbidden, Mat. 18. 6. Luke 17. 1, 2. Rom. 14. 13, 15, 20. 1 Cor. 8. 8, 9, 13. & 10. 24. Mr. T. his eight Arguments to the contrary, refuted.  
THE eighth Chapter of S. T. contains a seventh and eighth Argument against hearing the present Ministers; The seventh is thus form; 'Tis not lawful for Saints to do any thing (for the doing whereof there is no positive precept in the Scripture) that is an offence, grief, scandal, and cause of stumbling to their Brothers. But the hearing the present Ministers of England (as there is no positive precept in the Scripture for it, so it) is an offence, grief, scandal, and cause of stumbling to the Brethren.— Therefore—  
The major, or first Proposition we prove from Rom. 14. 13, 15, 20. 1 Cor. 8. 9, 13. & 10. 24. The minor, we say, consists of two parts.  
1. That for hearing the present Ministers, there is no positive warrant in the Scripture; if there be, let it be produced, and this Controversy is at an end.—  
Now considering Mr. T. his brag, p. 61. of the facility of producing Scripture-Warrant for hearing the present Ministers, one might justly have expected he should here produce it. But in the stead thereof, Ch. 8. S. 2. you have only an intimation of what he hath already showed in this matter, which hath already been refuted by us.  
We add in S. T. 2ly. That the Saints hearing the present Ministers of Engl. is an offence, grief, scandal, and occasion of stumbling to their Brethren,— to many thousands it is so, as their groans and tears alone, and together upon this foot of account demonstrate; many have been drawn (as is known) by the practice of some leading Brethren in this matter against the checks of their own Consciences to a conformity herein to their after grief & wounding.  
To which, Sect. 3. Mr. T. replies, (after he hath talked of men's appropriating the term visible Saints, to those of the Congregational way, or Presbyterial (which we do not) that this Argument is unnecessary if the other be good, that it supposeth all that is formerly disputed to be weak (which is one of his empty flourishes) that we affright persons by such Arguments to keep them to ourselves (in which he speaks falsely, wickedly—) That hearing the present Ministers is not such an offence, grief, scandal, as that which is forbidden, Mat. 18. 6. Luke 17. 1, 2. Rom. 14. 13, 15, 20. 1 Cor. 8. 8, 9, 13. & 10. 24. and this he will prove thus.  
Arg. 1. That is not scandalising forbidden in these texts which is neither by giving evil example in doing that which is intrinsically evil, nor by enticing practices, or persecution impelling to evil, nor by abuse of liberty in things lawful to the harm of another: But the Saints hearing the present Ministers, is not scandalising either of these ways: Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. We deny his Minor, for which he brings no proof. We say with him, That hearing the Ministers of England is not a matter of indifferency; 'tis not the duty of the Saints, but their sin; yet some others accounting it neither matter of duty nor sin, but liberty, we were willing to debate the case of scandal with them, upon that their avowed principle, as we afterward do. So that we are wholly unconcerned in what follows in this Argument, which yet we have already fully answered to.  
2dly, His Argument is justly retorted upon himself, thus; The scandalising of Brethren by giving of evil example, in doing that which is of itself evil (as joining with an Antichristian Ministry and Worship is) by enticing practices, or persecution, impelling to evil (as those do who by their practices in hearing— allure, or by presenting (or abetting those that do so by holding Communion with them—) impel such as are weak thereunto) or by abuse of liberty in things lawful (as some hearers judge their hearing to be) to the harm of another (viz. the wounding grieving the consciences of the weak, it may be striking them off the ways of Instituted Worship, when they behold the turning to and fro of a zealous forwardly professing people) is scandalising forbidden in the forecited Scriptures. (This Mr. T. grants) But the Saints hearing the present Ministers, is a scandalising with respect to each of these particulars: (as we have showed) Therefore.—  
Arg. 2. His second Argument is, That is not scandalising forbidden in those Texts which doth not tend to one of those evils, for preventing of which those precepts of non-scandalizing were given: But the hearing the present Ministers tends not to any of those evils: — Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. It tends to some or all of those evils mentioned in the Texts; it tends to sin, 'tis a joining with a false Antichrist an Ministry, to the justification, encouraging of them in the exercise of a false Ministerial power; it tends to the sorrow, or godly vexation of the Saints, whilst they see their Brethren in the constant disobedience of the Calls of God to come out of Babylon; forsaking those ways in which they have found rest and peace, and returning to those their souls lately loathed and abhorred. His following Sarcasms he will one day know had been better omitted; the representing hearing the present Ministers as dangerous and sinful, occasions not any to fall to erroneous Principles and Practices. The compliance of Professors together with the debauchery of the Priests, is for the most part the source and spring hereof; so that we may better argue,  
2dly, That is the scandalising forbidden in those Texts, which tends to any of those evils, for preventing of which those Precepts of not scandalising were given; (this Mr. T. grants) But the hearing the present Ministers tends to some of those evils: (as we but now showed) Therefore.—  
Arg. 3. His third Argument follows thus; That is not scandalising forbidden in those Texts, which doth not arise from any defect of Charity, or undue behaviour of the person offending, but from the distemper of the person offended: But the scandalising by hearing doth not arise from the defect of either of these, but from the distemper intimated: Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. We deny his Minor, and expect is proof thereof by the next; till when we crave leave,  
2. To retort this Argument upon himself; That is scandalising forbidden in the Text which doth arise from the defects intimated, and not from the distemper of the person offended: But this is the scandalising by hearing.  
1. 'Tis a defect of Charity to the souls of their weak brethren, whom they wound, grieve, before whom they are continually laying a temptation of apostasy from Profession, Religion, whilst they behold noted Professors to cleave to those ways, persons and things, that they once could have no communion with, with hands lifted up to Heaven, covenanted against.  
2. 'Tis a defect of Charity to poor sinners, who are hereby encouraged to sit under a dead, formal, sapless Ministry, to abide in a lazy formal way of worshipping God.—  
And. 3. In both these respects 'tis an undue behaviour.  
4. That it ariseth not from distemper we shall evince when we come to consider what Mr. T. hath offered to prove that to be the source and spring from whence it doth arise.  
We attend his fourth Argument, which is thus form.  
Arg. 4. That is not the scandalising forbidden in those Texts which is not offending persons weak in the Faith, and of doubting Consciences, yet peaceably minded, but of persons conceiving themselves strong.— But such is the disposition and carriage of those that pretend to be offended at hearing the present Ministers: Therefore.—  
Ans. 1. This Argument interferes with his first, where he makes the giving an evil example, by doing that which is in itself evil, to be the scandal condemned: Now I conceive not only persons weak in the Faith, but strong Christians, will be, cannot but be scandalised at professors so doing.  
But to wave that; 2. We deny his Minor, for the confirmation of which he offers nothing that may deserve the Name of proof; (For what if the persons offended think themselves strong, able to argue against the practice of hearing the present Ministers, oppose it with violence,— they may be weak in the Faith notwithstanding. The weak brother thought himself able to dispute against the practice of him that eaten the idolothite as sinful, and yet a weak brother.—)  
However, 3. We are engaged to him for affording us a fourth Argument, to prove the scandalising by hearing to be the scandalising in the Texts.  
That is scandalising forbidden in those Texts which is offending persons weak in the Faith, and of doubting consciences, yet peaceably minded: But such is the scandalising by hearing the present Ministers: Hundreds of weak Saints, tender, young Converts are hereby offended. Therefore.—  
Arg. 5. His fifth Argument is this, That is not scandalising forbidden in those texts which is by using our liberty, where we know not any present that will be offended at the use of it, or that signifies the offence at our action when we do it. In which case the Apostle allows the eating of things offered to Idols, 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28, 29. and consequently the use of our liberty in other things lawful; and if any absent be offended, we are ready to give a just reason of our doing—: But so it is at the offence of persons in hearing the present Ministers.— Therefore.  
Answ. 1. We deny his Major, partly because that scandalising is forbidden in the texts, which tends to the grieving the Saints; now this they may be, are, as much by the report and information of their brethren's action, that they conceive evil, though these judge it their liberty, as if they were present; of which a just reason can never be given; for if the thing I do be matter of liberty, I can never give any just reason of my doing it to the grief and wounding of my weak b●other; for my so doing is an express violation of the commandment of Christ in the Scriptures mentioned; partly because the scandalising in hearing is by giving evil example in doing that which is intrinsically evil; which whether the person offended be present or absent is condemned, and no just reason thereof can be given.  
Nor 2. Is the Minor always true, but rarely (if at all) there are persons present that will be, are offended at it; it may be weak Saints that by their example (it may be) with a doubting Conscience are brought thither.  
Arg. 6. His sixth Argument is, That is not the scandalising in the texts, in which if the offence be regarded, the person supposed to offend shall be always deprived of the use and benefit of his liberty, contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 29, 30. and that is a matter of the greatest moment for his souls welfare, the hearing the Word of God; whereby his liberty will be lost, and a yoke of bondage received, contrary to Gal. 2. 5. & 6. 1. But so it is in th● offence for hearing the present Ministers. Therefore.—  
Answ. The discovery of the unsoundness and rottenness of the foundation upon which this Argument is built, will totally enervate and render it useless, with respect to the end for which it is produced.  
1. 'Tis supposed that we ought not always to deprive ourselves of that which is the matter of our Liberty, if a weak brother be always offended with our use of it. But this is notoriously false. First, The ground or reason of my first forbearance to exercise my Liberty remaining, Reason will dictate that I must forbear the exercise thereof still. Secondly, Directly contrary to what is asserted by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. 13. Thirdly, Opposite to his intendment in the place cited by the Animadverter, viz. 1 Cor. 10. 29. For why is my Liberty judged of another man's Conscience, i. e. why should I give occasion to another of judging my Liberty? The Interrogation is of one denying (saith Paraeus) q. d. I will by no means do it, I will rather abstain from eating flesh for Eternity, as he speaks, 1 Cor. 8. 13.  
2. 'Tis supposed that except a man hear the present Ministers, he cannot hear the Word of God at all, which blessed be the Lord is far otherwise.  
3. The Liberty mentioned, Gal. 2. 5. & 5. 1. Is a Liberty from Jewish Ceremonies, the Bondage is owning, subjecting to them. which what it makes to his purpose, I cannot tell. Sure his Liberty from these will not be lost by his not hearing the present Ministers; Liberty from some of them, together with Ceremonies of Humane Invention will hereby be established and obtained, in which it is the duty of Saints to stand fast.  
4. 'Tis supposed that 'tis my Liberty to hear the present Ministers, or otherwise; but that Mr. T. cannot plead, who hath denied hearing them to be a matter of Liberty.  
Arg. 7. His 7th Argument is this, That is not scandalising forbidden in those texts, the avoiding of which draws after it a greater scandal: But in shunning to hear the present Ministers there is a greater scandal than in hearing them.— Therefore.—  
Answ. We deny his Minor, his proofs whereof are a mere petitia principli, false and ludicrous.  
1st, The person refusing to hear scandalizeth not himself, by confirming himself in his superstitious error, hindering his spiritual growth, and ensnaring himself in an unjustifiable separation. Nor doth he scandalise others by his example, confirming those that refuse to hear in their error and schism, whom he ought to oppose as Paul did Peter, Gal. 2. 11. For, 1. Refusing to hear the present Ministers is no error; Nor, 2. Superstitious; Nor, 3. An hindrance of spiritual good and growth. (Saints experience, through the grace of the Lord, the contrary) Nor is, 4. Separation from them unjustifiable; Or, 5. Schismatical; nor cannot be: for Schism, according to the Scripture notion of it, as a worthy learned person hath lately proved, is in one particular Church amongst the members thereof; which of the Church of England we are not. Nor, 6. is Gal. 2. 11. a ground sufficient for any one to reprove or oppose persons in their nonconformity to the present Ministers.  
1st, Paul reproves Peter for non-communion with the Saints upon Principles purely Judaical; those that refuse to hear, refuse communion with visibly debauched and wicked persons upon Gospel-Principles.  
2dly, 'Twas Peter's dissembling that Paul reproved, vers. 11, 12. One while he would eat with the Gentiles; other-while for fear of the Jews he will not; which will rather countenance a persons reproving such as hear those whom not long since they refused to have communion with, and swore to extirpate.  
He adds, 2dly, By refusing to hear the present Ministers, 1. The sheep of Christ are scattered.—  
Answ. They are rather united in one. That there is such bitterness and enmity in the best of the Separatists (as Mr. T. mentions) towards dissenters from them, that breaks the bond of Charity, is false and untrue. I wish that he speak not against his knowledge and conscience in this matter. The bond of love and charity amongst the true disciples of Christ, they are so far from going about to break, that they labour to strengthen, increase it. And could wish that all those names and titles of distinction, which either some have assumed to themselves, or others have reproachfully applied to them that love Christ in uprightness, were removed; that we might know one another as Christians, and study the exaltment of truth and peace amongst each other, and the Nations where our lot is cast.  
He tells us, 3dly, The refuser to go to hear, scandalizeth those that do so, who are censured and shunned as lapsed Brethren, and mere Fo●malists, and thereby are grieved:— He scandalizeth the conforming. Ministers, who are much hindered in their performance of their Ministry—  
Answ. 1. It may be those who are censured as lapsed Brethren, are justly so censured, being such as have departed from the truth ●nd way of the Gospel they once embraced and walked in, and if so the censure is not unjust, but righteous; and, if managed in a Gospel-spiri● of love and meekness, there is no just cause of grief administered: The censure (if the Lord bless it for their awakening and recovery) may be a foundation of future joy and rejoicing.  
2. That the Conforming Ministers should hereby be much hindered in the performance of their Ministry, is not likely, since what they do therein they have ready prepared in their hands; and if it were true, their Ministry being a false Ministry, 'tis our duty in the way of the Gospel to hinder them therein.  
Arg. 8. His 8th Argument follows: That scandalising is not forbidden in these texts, by avoiding of which the Magistrate is scandalised, his Government disturbed, his Power excited against others as disobedient to his Laws; whereby many persons with their Families are undone: But so it is when the present Ministers are not heard as the state of things now is Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. The Major Proposition understood of scandalising, by giving evil example, in doing that which is in itself evil (which is our present case) is notoriously false and untrue. The not coming to the Service and Sacrifices of the Gentiles, in the days of the Apostles; The not owning the Pope, the Sacrament of the Altar, coming to their Parish-Churches in the Marian days, was that which scandalised the Magistrate, disturbed (as was said) the Government, excited the Magistrate against others as disobedient to his Laws, whereby many persons were, as to their Families and Estates, undone, they themselves lost their lives, yet were they not to scandalise the Saints, by adhering to the foresaid abominations.  
2. The Minor understood of a just ground of scandal, is not true, i. e. the Magistrate hath no real or just ground to be scandalised by persons not coming to hear the present Ministers, nor is the Government disturbed thereby, nor hath he, as we know of, any Scripture-Warrant to exert his power against the Non-conformists, to their and their Family's ruin; and if he do so, 'tis better to suffer than sin, to hazard the loss of all, than debauch our Consciences, and sin against God.   

Sect. 2.  
Of Scandal taken and given, Wherein the nature of it consists. Of offening the World. Hearing the present Ministers, a scandal given. 1 Cor. 8. 10. explained. Of sitting in the Idols Temple. Some of the Corinthians thought they might be present at the Sacrifice of Idols. Of having fellowship with Devils. 1 Cor. 10. 20. exponed. The Judgement of the Learned Paraeus thereupon. The offended Brother had not greater reason to be offended at persons eating the idolothite, nor so great, as we have at persons hearing the present Ministers. Of the Scandalising. Mat. 18. 6. Rom. 14. 3. explained. Of offence by forbearing to go to hear. Mat. 17. 27. 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. John 10. 27. Mark 4. 23. opened.  
THE next attempt in S. T. is to answer Objections that might be made against what was in the foregoing Discourse, in the matter of scandal argued by us. The first is this;  
Object. 1. There is a twofold scandal; 1. A scandal or offence taken. 2. A scandal or offence given. In respect of the former, possibly many may be offended at persons hearing the present Ministers— that there is any just offence given by them herein is denied.  
To this we answer, 1. That as we admit of the distinction, so no doubt there is a truth in what is suggested thereupon, That whatever I do, some one or other will be offended at it; there are a Generation of men, whom the doing my duty will offend, and cause to blaspheme, these are not to be minded, but to be pitied.  
To which Mr. T. replies, Sect. 4. That there is any Generation of men, whose offence is not to be minded, is not the Doctrine of the Apostle, but contrary to it, 1 Cor. 10. 32, 33. & 9 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.  
Answ. Nor is it any doctrine delivered by us. We say not, That in matters of liberty we are not bound to heed giving offence to the World, we believe the contrary. But this we affirm, tha● such persons as will be offended at me, and blaspheme because I do my duty, (for so are the words) are not to be heeded, i. e. I am not to surcease what God requires me to do, because they are offended, and blaspheme, which what is cited by Mr. T. doth not contradict.  
That which follows touching hearing the Ministers of England, being avowedly asserted upon this Foundation, that it is lawful so to do, we pass by, as what we are not in the least concerned to take notice of; though there is indeed upon that supposition nothing of Argument in it.  
We add in S. T. 2dly, But 'tis not yet proved, nor like to be, that the scandal treated of is a scandal taken and not given; the very nature of scandal given, (as is confessed by all) and evident beyond exception, from the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor. 8. 10. lying in the doing of what is judged by me to be my liberty, but other Saints account my sin, and from thence have occasion of grief and stumbling administered to them. This was the very case of the Church of Corinth, (upon the occasion whereof Paul writes to them) some of them judged it their liberty to sit at Meat in the Idols Temple, others not being fully persuaded hereof, were scandalised many ways at this their practice, which the Apostle therefore condemns as unlawful.  
To which Mr. T. 1. 'Tis not confessed by all that the nature of scandal given, lies in the doing what is judged by me to be my liberty, which other Saints are ready to conclude to be my sin, and from thence have occasion of grief and stumbling administered unto them, Dr. Hammond, M●. jean's, — are otherwise minded.  
Answ. But Mr. T. abuseth us and his Reader; we say not that scandal given lies in angering— our Brother; but evidently assert that there are two things that constitute it.  
1. It must be a matter that the giver of it judgeth to be his liberty, and the receiver accounts his sin.  
2. It must administer occasion of stumbling, grief, and sorrow unto the scandalized, i. e. he is either grieved, troubled at it, or by it influenced to sin against God. And this I say is confessed by all. Nor do the Authors cited by him, or he himself contradict this notion of scandal given— so that the heat of this velication is allayed.  Pulveris exigni jactu. 
He adds, 2dly, This Author's notion about the nature of scandal given, is not evident beyond exceptions from the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor. 8. 10.  
Answ. 1. That the Apostle speaks there of scandal given, Mr. T. will not deny.  
2. That the nature of the scandal lay in this, the Corinthians eating the idolothite, or sitting at meat in the Idols Temple, wherewith others were scandalised many ways; 'twas an occasion of causing them to eat the idolothite with a doubting Conscience, or being wounded, grieved, discouraged in the way of Christianity, 1 Cor. 8. 9 which he more plainly, if possible, expresseth, Rom. 14. 13, 15, 20, 21. which if it consort not with our notion of scandal given, I know not what doth. As for what follows, we are little concerned, whilst he attempts not the confutation of what is asserted by us touching the nature of scandal given.  
He tells us, We are mistaken in these things, 1. That the offending person judged it his liberty to sit at meat in the Idols Temple.  
Answ. But this is Mr. T. his mistake, not mine, 1 Cor. 8. 10. [In the house of Idols, saith the Arabic,]  
And the Learned Paraeus, in 1 Cor. 10. 21. tells us, That some of the Corinthians were of this Opinion, That they might be present at the Sacrifices of the Idols.  
Yea but (saith our Animadverter) this is ill applied however to the case of hearing; for the sitting at meat in the Idols Temple, was having fellowship with Devils, 1 Cor. 10. 20. But this is the Service of the living God; the hearers of the present Ministers judge it not only their liberty, but their duty so to do.  
Answ. 1. If they judge it to be their duty, they are able to produce some Scripture to evince it so to be; let them do that, and take the Cause.  
2. Many of the hearers do not judge it their duty, but matter of liberty.  
3. He begs the question, whilst he supposeth hearing the present Ministers to be the service of the living God; were it so, it were unquestionably our duty to hear them; but that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
4. For the rest, the Learned Paraeus shall answer for me, who in 1 Cor. 10. 20. saith, God doth forbid the Jews, Levit. 17. 7. to sacrifice after the manner of the Gentiles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hairy Devils. Numb. 25. 3. He complains that they had joined themselves to the Devil of the Moabites, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, the Lord of opening, i. e. Fornication. THIS IS THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD OF EVERY WORSHIP.— WHICH IS NOT PERFORMED ACCORDING TO HIS WORD; 'TIS NOT PERFORMED TO GOD, BUT TO THE DEVILS. But Idolaters, neither in the Pagan State of old, nor now in the Papacy, do intent to offer to Devils, but to God. What then? The Apostle pronounceth the contrary, whatever they intent. For God is worshipped not by humane inventions, but by his own precepts.—  
The second mistake Mr. T. mentions, is his own, not mine; I say, the scandal lay in grieving the offended Brother, and occasioning him by the evil example of the offender to act with a doubting Conscience, i. e. Some Brethren were grieved at the liberty the Offender took, others stumbled to act doubtingly by his example, and so to sin: The latter he grants, the former Paul asserts, Rom. 14. 15.  
He adds, 3dly, That I do not set down that the Corinthians might have reason to be scandalised at the eating the idolothite, because against the Mosaical Law, and the Apostles Decree, Acts 15. 25.  
Answ. Was I obliged so to do, the Saints have greater reason to be offended at persons hearing the present Ministers, because against the Oeconomie of the Gospel.  
He tells us, 4thly, This Author doth not mention that the scandal in the Corinthians case, was foreseen as future, 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28.  
Answ. Nor need he do so, when the scandal in hearing the present Ministers is also foreseen as future.  
He adds, 5thly, This Author takes no notice, that scandal given in the use of our liberty, is not to be made perpetual.—  
Answ. 1. This hath been already answered. 2. It follows not that we must never hear the present Ministers of England, if we must not hear them for the reasons given. I would hope that God may convince and convert some of them from the evil and error of their way, make them to acknowledge their sins,— bring them out of their Antichristian standing and office, and then the reason of the present scandal ceasing, the scandal itself will be removed also.  
He tells us, 5thly, That the case of the offended among the Corinthians, by eating Idolothytes, and the Brethren now in England cannot be paralleled rightly, because the Corinthians offence was at the time when the Doctrine of Gospel-liberty was not fully cleared; Professors in England have been fully instructed therein.  
Answ. Mr. T. supposeer that we shall not yield him, 1. That the hearing or not hearing the present Ministers is our liberty: we prove the first our sin, the last our duty.  
2. That the case of scandal ceaseth when persons have been doctrinally instructed in their Christian Liberty. Now this is most evidently false, contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle in the forecited places, Rom. 14. 1, 2, 6, 14, 17. What could be more plainly doctrinally delivered touching the Christians liberty of eating or not eating? yet there remaining scruples upon the Consciences of the weak touching this matter, Paul commands the strong not to eat to their offence and scandal, v. 20, 21. So 1 Cor. 8. 4, 8. the Christians liberty is fully asserted, yet v. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. the use of it is interdicted for fear of offending the weak.— So that evidently in this matter the case betwixt the Corinthians and Professors of England (who suppose it to be their liberty to hear the present Ministers) runs parallel. I confess there are some things that may be argued on the behalf of the offended Brethren now, that the offended Corinthian could not plead; God had spewed out this Generation of men with loathing and contempt, with the whole fardel of their Liturgical Rites and Ceremonies, wounded them in the head, removed their Lords the Bishops, from whom they derive their Authority; the present scandalisers (many of them) rejoiced in what was done; swore before it was done, to do their uttermost to effect it; that after all this they should strike in with them, attend on their Ministry, is an aggravation of their scandal. The Offenders have no Apostolical word to warrant the lawfulness of hearing them, as the Corinthian Offenders had to warrantize the eating the idolothite out of the case of scandal. So that they that hear them, are justly charged with scandal given; notwithstanding the empty flourish, and wordie dispute of Mr. T. to the contrary.  
We add in S. T. Should it be granted for Arguments sake, (though in truth it is not so) that 'tis the liberty of Saints to hear the present Ministers, yet many sincere Lambs of Christ being (groundedly) stumbled and scandalised hereat; for that very reason, if no more could be said, it becomes our sin: to be guilty whereof, who can choose but be filled with trembling, that hath ever with seriousness read that terrible commination of Christ? Mat. 18. 6.—  
Mr. T. replies, 1. This were to make every honest hearted Christian a Pope, a Lord over my Conscience.—  
Answ. No in no wise: 'Tis touching (supposed) matters of Liberty that we are treating, in my acting, wherein to the scandalising of the weak Christian, I sin, and this Paul affirms, 1 Cor. 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. and so do all that writ about scandal. Yet 'tis not to be thought they hereby make the weak Christian a Pope, infallible Judge, Lord, or Lawgiver to them; This is so far from divesting Christ of his Kingly Authority (as he speaks) that it rather establisheth it; he is exalted as King, whilst in obedience to his command I am forbearing the exercise of my Liberty, because offensive to my Brother, though upon every other account it were lawful for me to be found in the practice of it.  
He tells us, 2dly, That his Treatise of scandal shows Ma●. 18. 6. to be meant of other scandalising than such as this Author means.—  
Answ. But if it be a scandalising to make them to halt or turn away from God, Luke 17. 2. i e. from his Ways and Divine Appointments; if it be with despising them, promoting their persecution, causing their perdition, that is meant, Mat. 18. as Mr. T. saith it is, 'tis such a scandalising as we mean. The professing People of God that are in the practice of hearing, are stumbling-blocks in the way of the weak, occasioning them to turn off from God to the institutions and inventions of men, whereby they are made worse and more languid in true godliness, (as some say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, Polyc. Lyser.) And as by experience we find them to be, who forsaking the Assembling themselves together, attend upon the Ministry of England; they despise, disdain, vilify, set at naught, basely esteem them (as Paul speaks, Rom. 14. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as such whose grief and offence is not to be heeded and regarded, by preferring the matter of their own liberty above their Brother's scandalising; they promote their persecution, by strengthening the hands of Persecutors, and incensing them so much the more against them, to force them to a compliance, because others of the same way and persuasion in days passed with them, are wrought over thereunto.—  
Mr. T. his Application of the say of Paybody, (an enemy to the Non-conformists in days past, and a bitter one, who would speak the worst of them, and more than is true) to such as are against hearing the Ministers, is wicked and scandalous; Do these merely profess in imitation— out of humour— are they such as cannot abide to be instructed by them of contrary judgements, despising what they say before they know it, that never seek to have their doubts resolved, who avow the necessity of confessing against kneeling, and yet upon some other man's Declaration of the lawful liberty of it, profess they never studied the Point; that make no Conscience of slandering, backbiting, conformity to the World in apparel, pleasures, scandalous, covetousness, unfaithfulness in their Callings, unjustice in their Deal, who have confessed themselves to be convinced of the lawfulness of Conforming, and yet will not, or would, but for their discredit in the World, especially among the persons of that side.  Estn● haec tua tunlca mi pater! 
Is this the voice of Mr. T. (a once zealous and forward Professor) against those who dare not attend on the present Ministers? Are these persons of the complexion intimated? How dared he affirm it? Will not the worst of their Neighbours where they live give them a better character, and tell Mr. T. to his face, that he hath aspersed and belied them?  
We propose in S. T. a second Objection to be considered, viz. But if I do not go to hear the Ministers of this day, many godly and sober Christians will be offended at my forbearance; so that whether I hear, or whether I forbear, I shall offend.  
To which we Answer, 1. That granting the Case to be as is suggested, (though perhaps somewhat else upon a serious and strict search may be found to lie at the bottom of men's Conformity — I am apt to believe were a toleration granted, they would not so do.) We ask, 1. Do you look upon your going to hear as your duty, or liberty? If the first, let the proof thereof be produced, and we are satisfied; if the second, you are bound by many solemn Precepts not to use your liberty to scandalise your Brethren.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 6. 1. If the Case be granted, as is suggested, the same Argument which proves it unlawful to hear the present Ministers, proves it unlawful not to hear them.  
Answ. 1. Granting the Case to be as is suggested, is no more than dato non concesso, granting it for Arguments sake, not yielding what is suggested to be true; from whence 'tis not granted by any rules of Disputation that I know of, for Mr. T. to draw conclusions, 'twere irrational so to do.  
Though, 2dly, were the case granted in Mr. T. his sense, yet what he infers from thence, he hath not, will not be able to demonstrate. 'Tis granted, Mat. 17. 27. speaks of scandalising by omission.  
But, 1. there were none on the other side who would have been offended at the doing thereof, as is our case.  
2. Peter had but now said that his Master did pay tribute, and for him to have refused, it had been upon that account a scandal w●th a witness.  
As for what follows, we said not in S. T. that somewhat else lay at the bottom of persons Conformity, but intimated our jealousies, desired the Conformists to make a strict search thereabout; which when Mr. T. manifests to be untrue, we shall be far from justifying it.  
He tells us, 2dly, If a toleration were embraced by them, this would only show they did not tie themselves to the present Ministers.—  
Answ. 'Twould sure do somewhat more, 1. Manifest that they judge it not matter of duty, but liberty, to hear them: for, if their duty, the giving toleration would not discharge them thereof, they were as much bound to attend them afterward as before.  
2. Discover that it was not the fear of offending any that caused them to attend on the Ministry of England, for that offence continuing, (as it would, notwithstanding a tonleration granted) they would hear them still.  
His reflections upon the grounds of our separation we can bear; 'Twas indeed (as he saith) somewhat else that did heretofore engage hereunto, besides offending the Lambs of Christ, viz. his Command (of which we have given an account in this Treatise) which yet (together with the springs of Love, and Life, Peace and Pleasantness in Communion with himself he is pleased to dig up for us) keeps us therein. His stories of preferment, power, adherence to a party, I am, through grace, a stranger to, and do from my Soul abhor. Possibly he may better understand these things.  
To the question, Do you look upon your going to hear as your duty?  
He answers, That it is the duty of Saints to hear the present Ministers, though not chosen by them to be their Pastors, I think may be proved from 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. John 10. 27. M●rk 4. 23.  
Answ. The impertinency of these citations to his purpose will soon be discovered, 1 Thes. 5. 12. Paul beseeches them, to know them that labour among them, and are over them in the Lord, i. e. by his appointment, according to the Orders and Ordinances of his House are deputed Pastors— over them; But what is this to the Ministers of England, who (we prove) are not set over us according to any institution of Christ, but according to Antichristian Canons are obtruded, and thrust upon us whether we will or no? The impertinency of Heb. 13. 17. to his present purpose we have already discovered. John 10. 27. speaks of Christ's Sheep hearing his Voice, but in the way he hath appointed. — Mark 4. 23. is a proverbial expression, in use at that day, exciting the Auditors to a solemn attendment unto what was spoken to them; Christ useth it to press them to a serious attention to what he spoke; which that it hath the least tendency towards the proof of attending upon an Antichristian Ministry, or the present Ministers of England, such dull persons as we, are not able to discern.  
Seriously Sir, you do but expose the cause you undertake to defend, to contempt, and yourself to the scorn of some, and pity of the more sober, whilst you are able to make no better defence for it.  
'Tis added in S. T. 2dly, Let both parties be weighed in an upright balance, such as you judge to be offended with you for not hearing, and such as are offended thereat; I am bold to say the last mentioned, for number, holiness, spirituality and tenderness, do far surmount the former.—  
Mr. T. his Answer herento, 1st, is A composure of passionate expressions, and reflections upon the Brethren of the Congregational way, even the prime Leaders of them, of stories of the piety of Hildersham, Ball, Bradshaw, Gataker; of the rottenness and stinkingness of puffing up my own party, and disparaging dissenters.  
Answ. 1. But what needs all this wrath? I own myself of no party, love all that love Christ, disparage not such as descent from me, have a reverend esteem of many of them; only say, That such as attend not on the present Ministers, for number, holiness, spirituality and tenderness, surmount those that do; which I should not say, but that this is generally known to be true. The generality of their hearers being a debauched, formal, covetous generation of men, but few, very few, serious, enlightened souls to be found in their Assemblies, they worship elsewhere.  
2. That which he saith, That by the Author's Rule if we would know our duty, we must leave studying of the Scriptures, and study men, is false and scandalous. I am fully of Tertullian's mind, Non ex personis fides aestimanda, sed ex fide persona: and crave leave to tell him, that had he studied men less, and the Scriptures more, we should have met with fewer Antiscriptural Notions than we do in his Theodulia.  
I conceive the Rule, mentioned by the Author of S. T. is bottomed upon Scripture.  
1st, Let it be remembered that the matter of our debate is touching what is at the least conceived to be the Christians Liberty, not Duty.  
2dly, That the case as proposed is of scandal by the use of my Liberty, whether it be this way or that. The eating the idolothite is my liberty, I may do it or not do it without sin. If I do it not, my Heathen Neighbour will be offended, and say I am proud and unsociable.— If I do it, my Christian Brother will be scandalised. What shall I do? Offend not thy weak Brother, saith Paul: He bears the Image of Christ, the other doth not. But what if some Brethren be offended at my going, others at my forbearing, What shall I do now? Why truly I know no better way to determine the doubt by a parity of Reason, than by the Answer before given: Consider who they are that will be offended, that exceed in number.— For certainly if it be not my duty to offend one Saint because a Saint, then when the case is brought to that pass, that I must necessarily offend some Saints, my duty l●es in doing that whereby I shall offend the smallest number of Saints; which Mr. T. may confute at his leisure.  
We add 3dly, Let also the grounds of the offence on both sides b● weighed: the one are offended at you that you build not up in practice in a day of trouble, and cause thereby the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme and triumph, what in a day of liberty you did in your preaching and practice pull down and destroy: The other, because of your disobedience to what they are satisfied, and you yourselves once were, God is calling you to (viz. to have nothing to do with, separate from this generation of men.)  
To which Mr. T. 1st, These words are Enigmatical, and require an Oedipus to unriddle them.  
Answ. 1. It may be Sir, you yourself stood so in your own light, that you could not see to unriddle them. 2. It may be you were not willing to have them unridled. 3. If they need an Oedipus, you yourself shall be the man. Sir, you were he that in your Fermentum Pharisaeorum, called the People from attending upon the Ministers of England, as Preachers of Superstition; though for the generality of them (in some things) much better than than now: 'tis an offence, and just ground of offence, to your Brethren, to see you in this day of their distress, to plead for what in the dawnings of Liberty you preached down. You are the man that, with hands lift up to Heaven, swore to extirpate the Hierarchy, with its Appurtenances, Traditions,— who rejoiced, and were glad at the prosperity of those who carried on that work, resisting unto blood: You are he who sat at White Hall as a Commissioner for the approbation of Ministers, and rejection of such as were scandalous (gloried in Print, that the then Protector had so good an opinion of you, as to constitute you one of that number) and 'twas one part of scandal to use the Service-Book: Now after all this, for you to write a Book for the defence of this very Hierarcy and Worship, your Brethren think it a just ground of Scandal, and at their refusing to hear, you have (and such as you at least) no real ground at all, since 'tis no more than what they practised in days past, and that without your offence, by your leave, or at least connivance, as the People you particularly walked with at Lempster did. Hereby you have given occasion to Saints to mourn, wicked profane persons to rejoy;: So that the grounds of offence on your side are not in the least considerable in comparison of theirs. What follows is a heap of impertinencies that I am not concerned in.  
1. I count not any the enemies of the Lord, but such as are evidently such; a generation of Swearers, Drunkards, Adulterers and Adulteresses; these, the turn about of Professors cause to blaspheme, thereat they rejoice.  
2. He is mistaken whilst he thinks the Author of S. T. was for violent practices in days of Liberty, who more or less was not concerned with those public transactions, nor ever was the prosecutor of one person in any kind, who by the then Law might be obnoxious to ejection out of their places of spiritual or temporal promotion, or otherwise.  
3. Of some of the things he mentions, he himself was once guilty, particularly of setting up private Brethren to preach; which I account not his fault, but wish he had had a little more respect to his own repute, (if regard to the ways of truth and peace had not been prevalent upon him) than to condemn others for practising the very things he himself hath been found in the practice of. That we gather Churches out of Churches, that particular Churches of Christ have not the power of government within themselves,— he should have proved before he had given liberty to his Pen to wander at this wild rate. That eminent Independent (as he calls him) who would not have the Lords Prayer used in a prescript form of words, is of age to answer for himself; that he hath given any one just cause of offence by that assertion, Mr. T. may evince by disproving what he hath written thereabout in his, Vindiciae Evangelicae. pag. 667.— when he is able.  
The ground of the offence on the Non-hearers side, is so visibly just and righteous, the others so notoriously groundless, that his impertinent and false stories (some of them contrary to his own knowledge and Conscience) are insignificant to remove the one, or justify the other.  
We add, 4thly, That 'tis the duty of Saints, especially if in a Church-relation, to meet together as a people called and picked by the Lord out of the Nations of the World, cannot be denied; The neglect of which is charged by the Lord as the first step to Apostasy, Heb. 10. 25. Be you in the practice of this duty, and see what Spiritual Saint will be offended at you: If any should, you might have peace therein; you doing your duty, no just cause of scandal is given.  
Mr. T. replies, They do not think it their duty to meet together as a separated Church.  
Answ. 1. Who do not so think? Do not they that are for Separate Churches so think? To these we are speaking.  
2. That 'tis the duty of Saints so to do, we evince Ch. 9 of S. T. Heb. 10. 25. is again taken notice of by him, Chap. 9 S. 2. where we shall consider it.  
We yet add in S. T. 5thly, Consider on which side the Cross lies, which the fl●sh and fleshly interest is most opposite to, whether in going, or forbearing to go to hear these men: Usually that is the way of God that hath most of the Cross in it, and the fl●sh is most struggling and contesting against. In which I only assert, That the way of God hath usually most of the Cross in it, and is mostly opposed by flesh and blood; which Mr. T. knows is true, and therefore though of itself this be no certain sufficient Rule to judge by, yet is it not, together with others, inconsiderable: which Mr. T. doth not oppose.   

Sect. 3.  
An eighth Argument against hearing the present Ministers. We cannot do so without being guilty of partaking with them in their sin. The several ways of partaking with others in their sin. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14, 15. explained.  
THE 8th Argument against hearing the persenr Ministers is in S. T. thus form.  
That which Saints cannot do without being guilty with others in their sins, is utterly unlawful for them to do: But the Saints cannot attend upon the Ministers of England, without being guilty of partaking with them in their sins. Therefore.—  
The Major Proposition is bottomed upon Psal. 50. 18. Ephes. 5. 7. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 John. 11. Rev. 18. 4. 1 Thes. 5. 22. This he grants is true.  
In order to the confirmation of the Minor two things are briefly enquired into.  
1st, What that or those sins are the Ministers of England are guilty of. These we say are worshipping God in a false way, acting from an Antichristian Office-power therein, opposing the Offices of Christ,— doing what such as go to hear them account to be sinful, who therefore cannot do the same, nor join with them whilst they do it.  
We instance in the case of Reordination, using the Service-Book, administering the Sacrament to all.— To which, when Mr. T. (or any one for him) shall inform us of any thing that is offered by him, by way of Answer that deserves a Reply, we shall consider it. What he saith requires proof, we have already proved.  
We inquire in S. T. 2dly, How it will appear that any person attending on their Ministry, renders him guilty of partaking with them in their sins. This we say, the consideration of the several ways persons may be justly charged with being guilty of partaking with others in their sin will demonstrate. We instance in these particulars. 1. Then may persons be justly charged as guilty hereof.  
1st, When they are found any way consenting with them in their sin, Psal. 50. 18.  
2dly, When they do that which hath a real tendency to encourage persons in their sin, 2 John 11.  
3dly, When they neglect the doing those duties which the Lord requires at their hands for the reclaiming of them from their sins, such as watching over, rebuking, admonishing, first privately, then by two; and in case of obstinacy and perseverance therein, telling it to the Church, according to 1 Thes. 5, 14. Heb. 3. 12, 13. and 10. 24, 25. Leu. 19 17. Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17. (all this Mr. T. tells us he grants; nor doth he except against the Texts brought to prove them, except that Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17. the vanity of his exceptions whereunto we have demonstrated, pag. 87. of this Treatise.)  
4thly, When they (notwithstanding all that they can do) perceive them to persevere in their sin, shall still continue to hold Communion with them and not separate from them, Rev. 18. 4. The abiding with obstinate offenders, as it is against positive injunctions of the most high, Rom. 16. 17. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. 1 Tim. 6. 5. Ephs. 5. 8. 11. Rev. 18. 4. so in the last place instanced in, 'tis assigned by the Spirit to be one way of partaking with others in their sins. So saith learned Brightman upon the place.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 7. This is not true, we may hear the Word of God, pray with, receive the Lords Supper from a Minister that is an obstinate offender, and yet not be partaker with him in his sin. The texts alleged prove not separation from such.  
Answ. Whether they do or not we leave to the judgement of the discreet and pious Reader to determine; yea to Mr. T. himself (the texts are so marvellously plain for the proof of such a separation) when he is able, in an undistempered unprejudiced spirit to review t●em. What he here offers to the contrary is not worth the spotting Paper with.  
1. A man may cause divisions and offences, contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, Rom. 14, and 15. touching the use of Liberty in matters indifferent to the offence and scandal of the Saints; as the Ministers of England do, (if Mr. T. his notion about the indifferency of their Ceremonies be true) whilst they practise them to the offence of the Saints, and yet preach the same Doctrine in other things the Apostles preached, which yet the present Ministers do not.  
2dly, When Mr. T. is at leisure, he may prove that separation from the wicked and profane, or from a false Church, is contrary to Rom. 16. 17. Because the Apostle charges them to note and avoid those that cause devisions in a true Church. By the use of things indifferent, contrary to his Doctrine thereabout of 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. & Rev. 18. 4. we have already spoken and vindicated it from Mr. T. his exceptions.  
We add in S. T. Not to multiply more particulars, let us in a few words make application of these remarked to the business in hand. Is there any thing in the world that carries a greater brightness, and evidence with it than this, that the hearing the present Ministers is to be partakers with them in their sin?  
To which Mr. T. Just as if one should say, he that heard Juda● preach the Gospel, was partaker with him in his theft; which is like the inference of a man crazed in his intellectuals.  
Answ. 1. With thanks to him for the civility of his expression I answer, the case is not at all the same; Judas acted from a true Commission, was not a known Thief, nor guilty of any notorious visible wickedness till he betrayed his Lord: The Ministers of England act from a false Antichristian Authority, and some of them are visibly scandalous and profane.  
2. Had Judas acted from a false Commission, as these do, such as had attended on his false Ministry had been guilty of the sin thereof, whilst by their so doing they had encouraged him in the exercise of it.  
3. Paul was sure sound in his Intellectuals, yet he tells the Corinthians, That their not casting the incestuous person out of their Communion was a partaking with him in his sin.—  
We add in S. T. Our hearing them is a secret consenting with them, and encouraging them in their evil deeds.  
Our Animadverter replies. 'Tis not so, but a consenting with them and encouraging them in preaching the Gospel, which is well-doing.  
Answ. 1. Many of them preach not at all.  
2. Many of them that do, preach not the Gospel.  
3. Few or none preach it without the mixture of humane Inventions.  
4. They all preach it from an Antichristian call.  
5. They read the Service-Book, and conform to the Rites thereof, which is evil doing; and our attendment upon their preaching encourageth them herein.  
In what nextly follows we are little concerned till he prove, That because men's withdrawment from a godly lawful Christian Ministry, was to them ground of discouragement and complaint, therefore we must hear such as act from an Antichristian calling in their Office of Ministry, and for the most part are vicious and deboyst.  
Of Phil. 1. 18. we speak afterwards. We righteously blame them that attempt to silence good Preachers, for non-assenting to the Liturgy because it 's a setting up an Idol of Man in opposition to the Command and Work of God.  
He tells us, The Prelatists may as well argue, If we should permit the Separatists to preach, we should consent secretly with them, and encourage them in their evil deeds, such as gathering a separate Congregation, and taking a Commission from it.  
Answ. 1. But they must prove these things to be evil deeds; they are (as we have proved) the Institutions of Christ.  
2. Betwixt hearing men preach, and permitting them so to do, we conceive there is a vast difference. For our parts, were it in our power, we should not by outward force and violence hinder a Prelatist from preaching. We know Christ's Kingdom admits of no such weapons for its propagation in the world.  
We add in S. T. That hearing the present Ministers is very remote from the discharge of those duties are incumbent upon us (if we account them as Brethren) for their reclaiming; 'tis not separating from them, 'tis in respect of some or all the particulars remarked, a participation with them in their sin.  
To which our Animadverter adjoins; If it be not the discharging their duty for their reclaiming them, (which, as it's stated, would perhaps be rather their sin) yet it is to discharge their duty in hearing God's Word.  
Answ. 1. But that 'tis our duty to hear the Word of God from Antichristian Officers, when Christ hath appointed some of his own to dispense it, should have been proved and not begged.  
2. That it should be the sin of any Brother to reprove his Minister for what he sees evil upon him in the way of the Gospel, is something strange Doctrine, which we know not what to make of; that when he hath done so, and no Reformation follows, and he hath proceeded as far as he is able for his amendment, that he ought to attend still on his Ministry, to his grief and wounding, and not separate from him, is contrary to the many Scriptures produced by us in this Argument.  
3. Not to reprove, rebuke, admonish a guilty sinner (being a Brother) of his sin, I have but now proved to be a partaker with him in his sin; to which Mr. T. sets his probatum est, p. 295. That the same act neglected and done should be a sin, seems to me to be inconsistent: That I should be guilty of sin in not reproving an offender, and guilty when I reprove him, seems to me a contradiction.  
He adds, Hearing them fits them for the reclaiming of Ministers from any sin they are to reprove in them; for this shows they account them not as their or the Lords enemies; which is agreeable to the Apostles Rule, 2 Thes. 3. 15.  
Answ. 1. In hearing them I join with them in (am partaker of) their sin, viz. the sin of their false ministry: That partaking with others in their sins should fit me for the reclaiming them from them, is an absurd dictate.  
2. Th● Apostle intends not in that Rule 2 Thes. 3. 15. That we still hold Communion with the Brother there spoken off, nor, saith he, that our so doing is the best way to reclaim him but the contrary, v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Note him with a brand of infamy, that all may avoid him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and be not mingled with him, have no such familiarity with him as a man with his friend: But that in tenderness and love as I have opportunity I am still seeking to reclaim him from the evil of his ways. Mr. T. doth ill (though we take liberty to weary men with his unproved dictates, by them) to oppose the Spirit of the Lord.  
What follows being a very dunghill of unsavoury words, and unhandsome reflections upon the men of his dislike, not having the least of Argument or Answer in them, I pass over, and attend his dictates in the following Chapter.    

CHAP. X.  

Sect. 1.  
The 9th Argument against hearing the present Ministers. 'Tis a casting contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ; a hardening persons in a false way of Worship and rebellion against him. Separation from the World and ways of false Worship an Institution of Christ, proved. Who meant by World. Numb. 23. 9 explained. The Children of Israel in what respects Typical of the People of God. John 15. 19 2 Tim. 3. 5. Hos. 4. 15. Prov. 14. 7. Mat. 13. 30, 39, 40, 49, expounded. The distinct Meetings of the Saints for their mutual edification, an appointment of Christ, proved. Particular Congregations of Believers for the celebration of the Worship of God, in opposition to National Churches an Ordinance of Christ, manifested. Christ hath instituted Officers of his own, for his Churches, given them abilities for the discharge of the services he calls them to, evinced. Whether Ministers belong to the Catholic Church, or particular Churches, discussed.  
IN Chap. 9th, of S. T. We propose several Arguments for the Demonstration of the truth enquired after, of which the 9th is thus form.  
That the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the ways and Institutions of our Lord Jesus, and hardens persons in a false way of Worship and Rebellion against him, is utterly unlawful for the Saints to do: But the hearing the present Ministers of England is that, the doing whereof doth cast contempt upon the ways and Institutions of our Lord Jesus, and hardens persons in a false way of Worship and Rebellion against him. Therefore.—  
The Major we understand of real contempt and hardening;— in which sense Mr. T. acknowledgeth the truth of it, Chap. 9 Sect. 1.  
In the Minor we say three things are asserted.  
1st, That hearing the present Ministers casts contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ. The truth whereof we evince by the review of several Institutions of Christ which they pour forth contempt upon.  
As, 1. That separation from the World, and all ways of false worship, and the inventions of men thereabout, until the Saints of the most High, be apparently a people dwelling alone, and not reckoned amongst the Nations, is one grand Institution of Christ, Numb. 23. 9 John 15. 19 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 17, 19 Ephes. 5. 8, 11. 2 Tim. 3. 5. Hos. 4. 15. Rev. 18. 4. Prov. 14. 7. Which we say is not denied by some of our conforming Brethren. By the World we understand persons in an unregenerate state, in their enmity, rebellion against God, who though accounted Christians, are really visibly enemies to the Cross of Christ. By the Saints dwelling alone, we mean their distance from the worship of the World, and worldly, carnal, anti-evangelical Church, as Israel was from the ways and worship of the Nations.—  
This, saith Mr. T. is false and dangerous, not proved by the Texts. Numb. 23. 9 Is a prophecy of Balaam concerning the people of Israel after the flesh, that they should dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the Nations, which yields a better proof for a Nations-Church-Christian,— than for separation.  
This must be a little farther considered. First then, that the people of Israel were Typical of the Church, and people of God, hath hitherto for the most part been taken for granted. These upon this bottom are called his Israel, Israelites indeed, Jews, the Circumcision, the Seed of Abraham, who is said to be their Father, an holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood, a peculiar People, (as Israel of old was called) Heb. 8. 8. John 1. 47. Rom. 2. 29. Phil. 3. 3. Gal. 3. 29. Rom. 4. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 5, 9 They are the chosen; called of God, taken by Covenant near to him, above the rest of the World, sensible, and sighing under a worse than Egyptian bondage, from whence God brings, redeems them by an outstretched Arm: Their Enemies pursue, overtake them, they are surrounded with Red-Sea difficulties, ruin, destruction inavoidable, (in the eye of reason) yet God lifts up his hand wonderfully for them, and makes a way for escape, they then magnify him, and sing his Praises. They are brought into a Wilderness, yet not without the Pillar and Cloud, the directing, protecting, presence of God with them, Lions, Bears, Beasts of prey continually ready to devour them, ye● upon them as his glory, Jehovah hath a defence, provides plenteously for them, and at last brings them into the rest remaining for them, as Israel in the Letter and Type.  
2dly, Of this the Apostle discourseth at large, 1 Cor. 10. 11. their Institutions and Ordinances were all Typical of the Spiritual things of the Gospel: Their Laws and Statutes touching the Non-admission of persons legally unclean into the Camp, Sanctuary, Temple, Numb. 5. 2. & 19 20. for which end Porters were set at the Gates, 2 Chron. 23. 19 were Types of the exclusion of persons morally so from the New-Testament Churches; their Canaan was a Type of the Rest that remaineth for the People of God, into which Joshua will lead them, Heb. 4. 1, 2, 3, 9 There dwelling alone not being reckoned amongst the Nations, i. e. their separation from the Nations of the World, with respect to Faith and Worship, as Exod. 19 5. Levit. 20. 24, 26. Ezra. 9 2. was Typical of the separation of the New-Testament Saints from the Wicked of the World in their Communion, Worship, and Service of God.  
Answ. 1. That Israel should in most remarkable passages be Typical of New-Testament Saints, and not in this, as remarkable as any, upon some accounts the most remarkable of them all, is not probable.  
2. With respect to their Separation from the World, they are called, Exod. 19 5, 6. A peculiar Treasure to God, a Kingdom of Priests, an Holy Nation. In answer whereunto Peter so calls New-Testament-Believers, 1 Pet. 2. 9 The Chaldee saith, Ye shall be before me Kings, Priests, and an holy People, such hath Christ made the Saints unto God, Rev. 1. 6. & 5. 10. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Rom. 12. 1.  
3. Accordingly the Church of Christ is said to be chosen out of the World, John 15. 19 1 Pet. 2. 9 They are said to be of God, in opposition to the whole World beside, which is said to lie in wickedness, 1 John 5. 19 So that evidently the duty of the New-Testament-Believers, with respect to separation from the World, and its Worship, is typed out in what is spoken of Israel according to the flesh, the great Type of them, Numb. 23. 9 The weakness of Mr. T. his Assertion, that from this Scripture a National-Church-Christian may better be proved, than separation is from what hath been said, abundantly evinced. Israel was to the Nations of the World, what the Churches of Christ now in the Nations thereof are, distinct from them in their Ministration, Worship, and Service. Herein they were Types not of National Churches, which are not of the institution of the Lord in the New-Testament, but of particular Churches, as we have proved.  
His exceptions to the other Scriptures, will receive a speedy dispatch. In his answer to John 5. 19 He supposeth, that persons professing Christ from education or compulsion, being form up by Penal Laws into a National Church, under Ecclesiastical Heads and Governors that are foreign to the Scripture, though they live in a course of debauchery, and actual Rebellion against him, are not the World, nor so called by Christ; Of which we expect his proof.  
Of this matter we have discoursed at large in this Treatise: What he hath before said of 2 Cor. 6. 14. Ephes. 5. 8, 11. Rev. 18, 4. we have already considered. What Paul writes to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3. 5. he writes,  
1. For our Instruction.  
2. It being a prophecy of the last day's Apostasy, under the Conduct and Regiment of Antichrist, it was more directly and immediately intended for us than him.  
3. 'Tis not a separation in respect of Arbitrary society in the World (the Apostle is giving directions how we should behave ourselves with respect to Instituted Worship—) that is enjoined, and yet if it were, certainly those with whom we may not have such society, we may not walk with in the fellowship of the Gospel, Hos. 4. 15. is a Precept to Judah not to have communion with Idolatrous Israel in matter of Worship; thence separation from such as worship God in a false way, is evidently demonstrated to be our duty. That 'tis our duty (as the Spirit tells us 'tis Prov. 14. 7.) to fly from the presence and sight of foolish men, and yet have communion with them in Worship, is a most absurd Dictate.  
But he will prove the Position false, 1. It supposeth Christ to have instituted such a separation as he hath told us shall not be to the end of the World, Mat. 13. 30, 39 40.  
Answ. This is the Animadverters mistake, the separation Christ tells us shall not be till the end of the World, is a separation in respect of Civil Societies and Cohabitations in the World, which we plead not for. And this he plainly tells us, v. 38. The Field is the World, wherein both the godly and the wicked do and may grow together undisturbed by us, notwithstanding the separation pleaded for. And that this is the whole of Christ's intendment is evident.  
1. The Tares, when discovered, are not to be pulled up out of the field, v. 15. But when persons are discovered to be (Tares) wicked ones, they must be cast out of the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 2. — Rev. 2. 14, 15, 16, 20.  
2. The plucking up of the Tares is forbidden, lest thereby some detriment should happen to the Wheat, v. 29. but the excommunicating, separating from scandalous Offenders, is not to the prejudice, 'tis to the good and advantage of those that are truly Righteous, as the Apostle intimates, 2 Cor. 5. 6, 7, 8. Ver. 39 is the Key of the Parable of the Draw-Net.  
Which, 1. fairly intimates to us that the same line of Interpretation is to be stretched over it, as over the Parable of the Tares.  
But, 2. grant it to be meant of a Gospel-Church-State, it opposeth not the Separation pleaded for; there's no doubt there may be foolish Virgins as well as wise, Judasses' as well as Peter's in the best constituted Churches, and are like to be to the end of the World; but though they are known to God to be Devils, they are not upon their admission into the Churches for other than real Saints, and when they are found to be otherwise, they are to be cut off from them as useless Members. The separation pleaded for, is not a separation from such refined Hypocrites, as can act the part of Saints so well, as that none but God is able to discern them from such; but from those who have the visible Lineaments of men of the World, and Children of Disobedience upon them, which is not in the least opposite to either of these Parables. The Fish in the Draw-Net were supposed to be good whilst in the Draw-Net, till brought to Land, and taken out from thence▪ The account is given of the Churches of Asia, Corinth— manifests that they were constituted of visible Saints, Rev. 2. 1, 2, 3, 9, 13, 19 1 Cor. 1. 2. They are blamed for suffering those that had discovered the rottenness of their hearts by works of unrighteousness, (though when admitted they seemed to be Saints) to continue in their Communion, Rev. 2. 14. 20.—  
What he adds, That the Separation pleaded for, was ever judged Schismatical, and proved unhappy in the conclusion.  
Is, 1. an Arrow drawn out of the Popish Quiver: What the Papists usually object against the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome; as indeed many of his Arguments and Answers in this Treatise are, which I had thought to have manifested at the close, by the induction of particular instances, but that this Treatise so unexpectedly swells under our hands.  
2. All that is accounted Schismatical, is not presently so because so accounted.  
3. Schism being a breach of some Union of the Institution of Christ, he must prove our Separation to be a breach of some such Union before he proves it schismatical.  
What unhappiness the Animadverter means that hath attended separation from the visibly wicked and profane, I know not; all things are not unhappy that men account so. That which is of God in the Premises (as we have proved Separation to be) cannot have unhappiness in the conclusion.  
He adds, The separation pleaded for is dangerous, sigh it puts persons upon withdrawing their subjection from Ecclesiastical, Civil, Houshold-Rulers and Governors, it would overthrow all States, Bodies Politic, and Houshold-Government.  
Answ. 1. If by Ecclesiastical Rulers and Governors, he ●ean such as are of the Institution of Christ, (and to others we own no subjection as such) the whole (and every part) of what is affirmed by him in this matter, is most scandalously, falsely, and wickedly spoken; ● question whether not contrary to his own knowledge and Conscience; if not, he undertook to answer a matter before he understood it, which i● not much to his honour.  
2. The separation pleaded for, is no other than what was pleaded for by the Apostles of old, and Primitive Believers; So that if it overthrows Government, theirs did also; and indeed this was laid to their charge, as 'tis to ours, how truly let the whole Nation judge: of this we have already spoken.  
A second institution of Christ instanced in, in S. T. is this, That Saints separate from the World, should frequently meet together as a distinct Body therefrom, for the edification and building up of each other in the way and will of God, according to the gifts bestowed, Mal. 3. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 11. Heb. 3. 12, Judas 20. Heb. 10. 24, 25. 1 Cor. 12. 9 Acts 12. 12. & 18. 23. Ephes. 5. 19 James 5. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 14.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 2. Saints separated from the World, i. e. unbelievers, should frequently meet for the ends aforesaid: But, 1. one party of Christians should not call another party of Christians, the World, who own the true Faith of God, and worship him, because they are not of the same way of Church-Government and Worship.  
Answ. Right, but with Mr. T. his good leave, Christians may call such, as (though they outwardly profess the Name of Christ) drive a trade of sinning against God, are strangers to the Work of Grace upon their Spirits, who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in subjection to the wicked one, the World, they being really, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbelievers, if any in the Wo●●d be so; which is all we contend for. And if this b: granted, (which yet I see not how it can be denied) farewel a National-Church; the most of whose Members are of the Complexion intimated. That which follows in this Section we are not at all concerned in. The Scriptures produced sufficiently evince that what we affirm to be the Institution of Christ is indeed so; nor is Mr. T. able to gainsay the truth thereof.  
A third Institution of Christ mentioned in S. T. is, That particular Congregations and Assemblies of Believers, gathered into one Body for the Celebration of the Worship of God, (in opposition to any National-Church or Churches whatsoever) are of the appointment of Christ, Acts 1. 13. & 12. 1. & 13. 14. & 15. 22. & 18. 22. & 20. 14, 28. 1 Cor. 1. 2. & 6. 4. Acts 9 1. 1 Cor. 16. 19: Rom. 16. 4. 2 Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. Acts 16. 4, 5. & 14. 23. 1 Cor. 11. 16. & 14. 4, 5, 12, 19 2 Cor. 1. 1. Rev. 1. 2, 3, 11.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 3. 'Tis questionable whether Acts 15. 22. & 18. 17. be not a Provincial Church.  
Answ. 1. Of this we have formerly spoken. 2. That it was the particular Church of Corinth, v. 2, 4, 12, 22, 23, 25. evince. 3. That a Provincial Church had not as yet a being in the World Mr. T. knows, and we have proved, Chap. 1. Sect. 13. The same line of Interpretation is to be drawn over Acts 18. 22. (for that he intends instead of v. 17.)  
The Texts he grants, mention Churches in several Cities and Provinces, but he questions, Whether they were by their voluntary agreement under Pastors of their own choice, gathered into one Body, for the celebration of the Worship of God. They are called the Church of such a City, as of Jerusalem, — from their Habitation, where they had many meetings from House to House for celebration of Worship, as Acts 2. 46, 47.  
Answ. That there is any thing of weight in this Answer, none will imagine but Mr. T.  
1. 'Tis built upon this rotten Foundation, that the particular form of Churches is not of the Institution of Christ; of which we have at large treated, Chap. 1. of this Treatise.  
2. It plainly contradicts the Spirit of the Lord, speaking in some of the Scriptures mentioned, He questions, he saith, whether they were by voluntary agreement gathered together into one Body; But this the Spirit of the Lord affirms, Acts 2. 41. 2 Cor. 8. 5. Nor can it be otherwise; there was no external force or Law to compel them thereunto. Whether they were under particular Officers of their own, see Acts 20. 28. & 15. 4. 23. & 21. 18. that these were chosen by themselves, that the Church consisted of no greater a number than could meet together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same place, to worship God in the same numerical Ordinances, we have before demonstrated.  
The reason why there were not more Congregations than one in a City, was, because that the multitude of Disciples was not so great but that they might so do. No wonder that we read only of the Elders of the Church, Acts 15. 4, 23.— when there was but one Church at Jerusalem; none ever pleaded for one's being an Elder of one part of the Church, another of another; but such as assert Provincial-National-Churches; with us, he that is an Elder to a part, is an Elder to the whole. That the Churches mentioned in the Scriptures instanced in, were not particular Independent Churches, Mr. T. attempts not the proof of.  
What he adds from 1 Cor. 12. 28. is already answered, nor is there any thing more in this matter replied by him, that requires our stay.  
'Tis added in S. T. 4thly, That Christ hath appointed Officers of his own to act in the holy things of God, in and over these Assemblies, whom he furnisheth with gifts every way suiting their employment, to whom, without turning aside to the voice of strangers, or attending upon the Ministry of such as are not of his appointment, ' it's the duty of Saints to hear●en, is very evident from Ephes. 4. 11. Heb. 13. 7, 13. Mat. 24. 4, 5, 23, 24. 1 John 2. 18. & 4. 1. 2 John 10. Acts 20. 29, 30, 31. Rev. 2. 14, 15, 16. Which exactly agrees with what was practised by Primitive Believers, who, it seems, received none without the testimony of some Brethren of known Integrity in the Churches, 1 Cor. 16. 3. Acts 9 26.  
To which Mr. T. 1. That Christ hath appointed Officers of his own, and furnished them with gifts whom we are to follow and obey in opposition to the Ministry of strangers, viz. Such as are deceivers, false-teachers, Antichrists, he grants, which being the substance of what is pleaded for (at present) with his subsequent Discourse we are little concerned.  
Whether we have proved the Ministers of England to be deceivers,— the judicious Reader will determine; and if such, Mr. T. grants we have proved they are not to be heard. Whether Christ hath appointed Officers to the Universal Church, or appropriated them to particular Congregations, is not of our present disquisition. The for●er Mr. T. hath not demonstrated. The latter we have in part evinced, Chap. 1. Sect. 15.  
To which may be added, If by virtue of Christ's appointment Ministers are not fixed to particular Congregations, than Ministers are no more by virtue of Christ's appointment Ministers of this Company or Flock of Christians, than of another, which is expressly contrary to Acts 20. 28.  
2. Then either Ministers have no Authority over this or that particular Flock, to which, as such, they minister; or if so they have as much authority over every particular society of Christians to whom they providentially preach, and this without their actual consent, which is absurd and tyrannical.  
3. Then no Church can claim by virtue of Divine appointment a greater right and Interest in one Minister than in another, nor is any by virtue of such an appointment, more obliged to minister to them then to others; though we deny not but the gifts given to Ministers (to Brethren) are given for the Edification of all Christians, amongst whom by the Providence of God they are cast, which they are bound for that end to improve; nor that its unlawful to hear others besides Pastors of Congregational Churches, we assert the contrary in the Treatise he undertakes to confute. Yet doth it not hence in the least follow, that we may lawfully hear the present Ministers, we have proved the contrary; the non-attendment upon whom tends not to the decay of Spiritual Life, it promotes it rather.—  
We say in S. T. That the hearing the present Ministers pours forth contempt upon each of these Institutions of Christ.  
It supposeth, 1st, That separation from the Assemblies of England, though in their Constitution carnal and worldly, and the Worship thereof (although false, and merely of Humane Invention) was and is our sin and evil.  
2dly, That it's not by virtue of any Institution of Christ, the duty of Saints to meet together as a Body distinct (without going out to other Assemblies to worship with them) for their mutual edification.—  
3dly, That particular Assemblies are not solely of the Institution of Christ, but that National Churches are also to be accounted true Churches of Christ.  
4. That the Officers of Christ's appointment are not sufficient for the Saints, but together with them, the help of false and Idol Shepherds is to be sought after. Than which, what greater contempt can be poured forth upon the forementioned Institutions of our dear Lord.  
The truth of the assertion we fully manifest in S. T. nor doth Mr. T. deny, but that the hearing the present Ministers doth pour out contempt upon the Institutions mentioned, he denies them to be the Institutions of Christ. Sect. 5. tells us, That 'tis a gross error which is oft in the mouths of the Separatists, that they may not hear with the world, nor pray with the world, whence it hath come to pass, that some have left off praying in their Families,— unless Members of their Church.  
Answ. The first and second we have proved, beyond what Mr. T. hath as yet been able to reply to.  
2dly, The last I hope is not true; God forbidden that any that pretend to Christianity, much more such as are so in truth, should so far degegenerate into the Spirit of Heathenism, as not to call upon God in their Families, or cease to do their uttermost to convert their Children and Servants to the Lord, and instruct them in his fear.  
3. That this is the consequence of the principle of Separation, or that 'tis in itself a gross Error, that 'tis unlawful for me to hear with the world, or pray with the world, i. e. join with them in their Worship, he may prove when he is able.  
What follows hath either already been replied to, or will be in its proper place; so that we need not attend it here.  
The second thing in the Minor Proposition incumbent upon us to prove, we say in S. T. is, 2dly, That hereby poor souls are hardened in a false way of Worship, what can be thought less (supposing the worship in the Parish-Assemblies of England to be so, as hath been proved) when they shall see Professors that were wont to pray and preach together, to profess and protest against Common-Prayer-Book Worship, and Priests, to cry up, or at least approve of (as Mr. T. 'tis tho●ght, did) Laws made for their ejection, if guilty of no other crime than conformity to the Worship they now conform to and practice, now flock to their Assemblies, and hear their Priests. What can they imagine less than that these persons thus acting in a direct contrariety to their former judgement and practice, do now see they were mistaken; and are beginning at least to return unto those paths from whence they departed; and that these ways in which they and their forefathers have walked, are the good Old Way in which rest is to be found? To which Mr. T. Answers nothing but what hath already been considered, no● any thing that deserves our stay.  
The 3d, Particular asserted in the Minor Proposition, it's said in S. T. is, That hereby poor souls are hardened in their rebellion and blasphemy against God, his Spirit, and Tabernacle, and them that dwell therein. This is not to be questioned, we every day hear stout words spoken against the Lord because of the practice of some in this thing; what say the wicked less, thanthat Religion is but a fancy; that the professors thereof are but a generation of Hypocrites, that will turn to any thing to save themselves; that the Spirit by which they are acted, is but a Spirit of Phanaticism and delusion? Yea how do they bless themselves, that they are not nor ever were of the number of such Professors! and that because they see these for fear of Persecution desert their former principles, strike in with their Assembly and Ministers.—  
To which Mr. T. adjoins, 1st, Papists have thus insulte● over Protestants upon the return of any seeming zealous Protestant into the Roman Church, yet the Answerer knows how to reply to such, that men's instability shows their own weakness, not the thing in which they have been zealous to have been good or bad.—  
Answ. Very right, and we know how to reply to the insulting of the Conformists upon the account of the return of any seeming zealous Professors to them; but still we say, that their return to them gives them too just occasion of insulting. The contrary to which Mr. T. should have proved, of which he speaks not one word.  
He adds, 2dly, This Author doth not do well to call the Obloquys against his party, speaking against Religion, blaspheming God, the Spirit, Tabernacle and them that dwell therein.  
Answ. Sir, the party I am through grace of, are not mine but Christ's, the followers of the Lamb in opposition to the wicked profane world, of no other party do I own myself to be.  
2. The Obloquys, Blasphemies mentioned, being such as are vented against the Institutions of Christ (as we have proved them to be) and such as conform to them, by the Beast and his party, may well be called Blaspheming God, his Temple, Tabernacle, and them that dwell therein: They are so called by the Spirit, Rev. 13. 5, 6.  
He adds, 3dly, It were very sad should we be afraid to do a thing because of Clamours (Answ. True, if the thing done be our duty which if he supposeth in the present case, he begs the question) or continue in that which we cannot justify, because men will be hardened in their own way.  
Answ. Very right, but if a man departed from that way which he once owned to be the way of God, which he justifies in the Scriptures to be such, and in so doing hardens persons to cleave to a way of Superstition, Formality to their utter undoing, and gives them just occasion to open their mouths against the Institutions of Christ, reviling, blaspheming them, and those that walk in them; this is not justifiable, nor will it be found matter of joy to us at the end of our days, that we have administered such occasions to them.—  
It remaineth then that inasmuch as the hearing the present Ministers pours out contempt upon the ways and Institutions of Christ, hardens persons in a false way of Worship, Rebellion, and Blasphemy against God, it's utterly unlawful for Saints to be found in the practice thereof.   

Sect. 2.  
A 10th Argument proving the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers. 'Tis not lawful to go to the places of false Worship. All Monuments of Idolatry to be abolished, proved. The judgement of the learned Mede, Cotton, Ainsworth, Robbinson. 2 Cor. 6. 17. 1 John 5. 21. Judas 23. 1 Sam. 2. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 20. & 14. 26. explained.  
THE 10th Argument against hearing the present Ministers, is in S. T. thus form.  
God calls his People out of, and strictly chargeth them not to go ro the place of False Worship, Hos. 4. 5. Amos 4. 4. Therefore 'tis unlawful for the Saints to attend upon the present Ministers of England. The Reason of the Consequence is, because we cannot go to hear them, without we go to the Places and Assemblies of false Worship, (as the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been proved to be.)  
To which Mr. T. replies, Sect. 7. 1st, This Argument is bottomed upon this Opinion, That all Monuments of Idolatry, all Temples, Altars, Chapels— dedicated by the Heathens or Antichristians, to their false Worship, aught by lawful Authority to be razed and abolished, not suffered to remain for nourishing Superstition, much less employed in the true Worship of God.  
Answ. 1. That the Animadverter can see any such Principle at the bottom of our Argument must be imputed to that wonderful quicksightedness that is predominant sometimes in him; we only say, that God calls his people out of— places of false-worship, i. e. not such as have been, but such as are at present such; which is the utmost of what Mr. T. can compel us to own, from any thing we have asserted in this Argument.  
But,. 2dly, Having such good company, as the learned Ainsworth, Robinson, and other Worthies and Witnesses of Christ in their day, and being satisfied, (which is the all in all to us) that they have in this matter the Spirit for their Guide and Leader, we are contented to advance a step or two farther with them.  
The Proposition but now laid down by Mr. T. we subscribe to, and judge its clearly proved by Exod. 20. 4. 5, 6. & 23. 13. Isa. 30. 22. Gen. 35. 2, 3, 4. Deut. 12. 2, 3, 30, 32. & 17. 18, 19, 20. 2 King. 10. 26, 27, 28. & 18. 4. & 23. 12, 13, 14, 15. 2 Chr. ●7. 6. Acts 17. 23. & 19 26, 27. Judas 23. with Leu. 13. 47, 51, 52. Rev. 17. 16. & 18. 11, 12. The Scriptures cited by the Separatists of old. We are not willing to debate this matter at large. That the things mentioned should be abolished they give their Reasons in their Apology, pag. 76. The sum whereof is,  
1. The retaining of them is a breach of the second Commandment, Exod. 20. 4, 5, 6, with Deut. 12. 2, 3. Isa. 30. 22.  
2. So long as they are continued Antichrist is not fully abolished, according to Rev. 17. 16. & 18. 11, 12, 13.— 2 Thes. 2. 8. with 2 King. 10. 26, 27, 28.  
3. The consecrating of any Garments, Places, or the like, peculiarly to the Worship of God now in the time of the Gospel, hath no Warrant in the Word.  
4. The worshipping God in the places, and by the things appointed, and hallowed of God himself, was under the Law a part of honour done to him, and pleasing him, Deut. 12. 5, 6. Leu. 17. 3, 4. The destroying them tended to his dishonour, Psal. 79. 1. & 74. 6, 7, 8. The building and repairing them pertained to the establishing and restoring his true Worship, Hag. 1. 4, 8. So on the contrary, the worshipping God now in the places and by the things dedicated, and hallowed by Antichrist, is a special part of Popish Devotion; such is the building, repairing them, as the razing them will be to their dishonour and greater confusion: The like may be said of the Heathen Places, touching which, see Deut. 12. 2, 3, 4. with 2 King. 10. 26, 27, 28. & 14. 3, 4. & 23. 8, 13, 15, 19  
5. Godly Princes are commended for abolishing the Monuments of false Worship, 2 Chr. 17. 6. 2 King 18. 4. & 23. 12, 13, 14, 15.  
6. This being done the People are more easily persuaded to the true worship of God in Spirit and Truth; whereas otherwise they are still nourished in Superstition, — Gen. 35. 2, 3, 4. 2 King. 18. 4. 2 Chr. 11. 34. Acts 17. 23. & 19 26, 27. Leu. 13, & 14, Chap. with Judas 23.  
7. The Lord hath promised a blessing to them which do reject and abolish them, and threatened a curse to the contrary, and so also hath done, Isa. 30. 22, 23. Exod. 20. 5, 6, 2 Chr. 17. chap. & 31. 20, 21. with 2 Chr. 21. 13, 14. & 24. 17, 25. & 28. chap.  
We shall only add, 8. That the soul of the Lord did detest and abhor whatever was used to Idolatry, whether Vestments, or Places,— under the Law, is evident from the forecited Scriptures; that he is as jealous a God now as ever, the Animadverter will not deny, nor can he, That the Idolatrous High▪ Places, dedicated to the Popish Mahuzzims, or Saints-Idol Gods (as the most of the High-places of England the Image of the Saint to which each was dedicated, being set up in the Roodloft betwixt the Church and Chancel, where in many places the Roodloft yet remains) are as Idolatrous, and upon that bottom as much abhorred by the Lord, as those of old were; and therefore are to be separated from, destroyed as those of old.  
9 They are some of the things of Antichrist; they were consecrated by him, dedicated (as is known) to his He-Saints, and She-Saints, and therefore must perish with him.  
10. The People generaly Idolise them, bow down when they come in to them, honour them with Cap and Knee, think there is holiness in them, and that God is more acceptably served there than else where; which if nothing else could be said, they being detestable Idols, are therefore to be abhorred by the Saints.  
We shall only add the say of two Learned men of late days, who give their judgement touching this matter. The one is Mr. Mede, who expounds the 39th vers. of Dan. 11. as a part of the description of Antichrist. He renders the Text thus; He shall make the holds of Mahuzzims, with all, or jointly to the foreign Godd. And paraphraseth t●us, And though the Christian God whom he shall profess to acknowledge and worship can endure no compeers, yet he shall consecrate his Temples (Ecclesiastical holds) jointly to the Christian God, and his Mahuzzims to God and the Saints. The other is precious Cotton, on the Vials, who, pag. 14. on Vial. 7th. saith thus, When the zeal of God lifts up the hearts of people, than they will not endure a consecrated place in all the World where they come: and when this Vial is poured out, the earth shall be full of the knowledge of God, and then all the Chapels of ease, and Churches of state, and Temples of glory, 
☞  wherewith the world hath been deluded, shall be thrown down; they will not leave them a stone upon a stone that shall not be thrown down.  
Our Animadverter citys Mr. Robinson touching this matter, who pag. 354, 356, in his Justification of the Separation from the Church of England, there pleads against going to worship in these Ecclesiastical holds, and tells us,  
1. That his Arguments are fully answered by Mr. Paget.  
Answ. How much to the purpose Mr. Pagets Answers are to the Arguments produced, others will judge.  
2. Mr. Robinson's Texts he tells us, are impertinent. The unclean thing 2 Cor. 6. 17. not to be touched, is the Idol itself, not the place abused to Idolatry, which is touched when adored or worshipped.  
Answ. 1. This is more than the Animadverter proves, no● i● it likely that any in the Church of Corinth, did, or were about to worship the Idol, that he should caution and charge them not to do so. Being converted from dumb-Idols to the living God, 'tis not to be thought they should return to worship them again; that they were guilty of so doing is not in the least intimated, as is their going to the Idols-Temple, and sitting at meat there, which the Apostle would have them abstain from. 2. Mr. T. himself saith, pag. 279, That it was unlawful for them to touch, or go to the Idols Temple, and sit at meat there. 3. The place itself in our case is the Idol, it's worshipped, adored, idolised, by the People of the Nation, as it's known, therefore not to be touched.  
He saith further, 2. They which join not in any Idol-Service or Honour, keep themselves from Idols, as is required, 1 John 5. 21.  
Answ. All self-devised Worship, as is the Worship carried on in those places at this day, is Idol-worship, the deviser thereof being in a conformity thereunto idolised, the second Precept touching Idolatry thereby violated: those that would keep themselves from Idols, must upon Mr. T. his own grounds keep themselves from that Worship, and consequently from those places where it is solemnised and carried on.  
2. The place itself, as was said, is the great Idol of the Nation; if we must keep ourselves from Idols we must keep ourselves from it. Judas 23. enjoins us to avoid the very appearances and occasions of evil, and is therefore righteously urged by Mr. Robinson for Separation from the places of false Worship. Rev. 14. 9 & 18. 4. enjoin a total relinquishment of all the things of Antichrist, whereof his Ecclesiastical Holds, (as Mr. Mede calls them) are a part. What he talks with respect to the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been showed, we have already replied to, and proved it to be false-worship, notwithstanding all our Dictator is able to say to the contrary.  
He adds, Were there some superstition in the Worship, it were not sufficient to make the places, places of false-Worship, as is evident from 1 Sam. 2. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 20, 21, 22. & 14. 26. nor were it necessary to go out of them, except Idolatrous.  
Answ. But if false-worship be managed and carried on in the places, they must undoubtedly be places of false-worship, i. e. places where false-worship is managed and carried on; to assert the contrary were absurd and ridiculous. Nor is there any thing in either of the Scriptures produced by our Animadverter, that speaks the least syllable to what 〈◊〉 produced by him for. The first gives us an account of the wickedness of samuel's Sons, but that they offered not the Sacrifices commanded by the Lord, upon the Altar of the Lord, at the place appointed by him, it saith not. The latter condemns some disorder about some acts of Worship in some Members of the Church, but th●t there was any superstition in the Worship it saith not; much less was there (as in our case) the introducing a new, formal, sapless Service, cut out, dressed and served in for the nourishment of an Idol, and idle dumb Priesthood, of which the Scriptures speak not a tittle. 3. The places themselves are superstitious and Idolatrous, as we have showed, and therefore Hos. 4. 15. Am. 4. 4. are rightly cited by us, as our Animadverter himself acknowledgeth. What he adds, That God's People were required to go up to Jerusalem to worship, after it had been defiled with Idolatry, and the Idol removed, and that Christ himself went up thither, he ●ill upon the review, I suppose, raze out upon the account of its egregious impertinency. That place was built by the appointment of the Lord, his Name placed there, there was the Ark, Altar, etc. there he was solemnly to be worshipped, and would be no where else, none of which can be said of the Temples of England.  
He further tells us, That its false, that we cannot go to hear the present Ministers, without we go to their places and Assemblies of false Worship; Which if understood of the public Meeting-places allowed by Law, (as he must mean if he speaks pertinently, for of such is the reason of the consequence meant) I suppose he cannot prove. That they frequent private Meetings, set up Conventicles, (as they are called) is not likely, it being expressly against the Canons of their Church.  
To which he adds, That we are guilty of Judaizing, in tying people to worship only in the place of the separated Churches, contrary to John 4. 21. 1 Tim. 2. 8.  
Answ. 1. This is notoriously false, we tie persons to worship in no place upon the account of its holiness, but an House, a Mountain, a Ship, any place, if not polluted with Idolatry, is equal and alike esteemed by us.  
2. This may righteously be retorted upon the Clergy of England, who judaize in their going about to compel us to worship in their Temples dedicated to Antichristian Mahuzzims, and consecrated with Popish Holy Water, and Prayers, and accounted more holy than other places in the Nation, of which they are notoriously guilty, contrary to John 4. 21.— 1 Tim. 2. 8.   

Sect. 3.  
There is no promise of a blessing upon hearing the present Ministers, therefore 'tis not lawful to hear them. Isa. 55. 3. Luke 11. 28. explained. Zion typical of the New-Testament-Churches; Babylon of the Antichristian Herd. National Churches bear a resemblance, not to Zion, but old Babel.  
THE 11th Argument produced in S. T. against hearing the present Ministers, is, That, upon the doing whereof, Saints have no promise of a blessing, nor ground to expect it, is not lawful for them to do: But in the hearing the present Ministers, there is no promise of a blessing, nor ground to expect it. Therefore—  
The Major, or first Proposition we took for granted: But Mr. T. is pleased to enter his demurrer against it.  
Sect. 8. He tells us, Blessings are of many sorts; 1. Immunity from evil, or punishment, in this sense the Major is true. 2. Collation of some special good; in this sense it is not true; there are many things lawful to be done, as eating, drinking, buying, selling, in respect of which men have no ground to expect any such blessing. Ezekiel preached lawfully when he was told Israel would not hearken. Ezek. 3. 2, 7. And Jonah when he thought Niniveh would not repent, Jonah 4. 2.  
Answ. 1. Not to make many words, the things done by the Saints are either such as appertain to the sustenance of their life and being, the management and carrying on the concerns of their particular Callings in the World, in respect unto which they have ground to expect, not only a general but a special Blessing, Psalm. 1. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 8.  
2. The things relating to the Worship and Service of God, in which sense the Major is to be understood, his instances of eating, drinking,— are impertinent hereunto; that I am to do nothing in the Worship of God, in the doing of which I have no promise of a blessing, nor ground to expect it; viz. a special Spiritual Blessing, God having said, Where he records his Name, he will meet with his People, and bless them, Exod. 20. 24. That where two or three are met together in his Name, he will be in the midst of them, Mat. 18. 20. viz. In respect of his gracious presence, or communication of special Grace; I had thought we might rationally have inferred from hence, That that, upon the doing whereof (relating to the Worship and Service of God, of which we were treating) Saints have no promise of a Blessing, nor ground to expect it, is not lawful for them to do; for when they are attending ●pon God in his own way, he hath promised to meet them and bless them, Isa. 64. 5.  
3. What he writes of Ezekiel's being told that Israel ●ould not hearken, is very frivolous and impertinent.  
1. He had in his going forth to act for God in that Work, a promise of his presence, and Blessing, though Israel abode obstinate, Ezek. 3. 8, 9, 19—  
2. There were a Remnant that attended upon the Word of the Lord from his Mouth, to whom God made it a blessing.  
But he is upon second thoughts willing to wave this, and denies the Minor.  
He tells us, That the Saints have a promise of a Spiritual Blessing by hearing these men, while they preach the Gospel; which he proves from Isa. 55. 3. Luke 11. 28.  
Answ. 1. The former place relates not at all to a mere external hearing, or an outward attendment upon that Ordinance; nor doth the latter, but an obediential giving up ourselves unto the Word of God.  
Yet, 2. they both imply an hearing according to the appointment of the Lord, which if we do not, but go out of his way, attending upon a false Ministry, (as we have proved the present Ministry of England to be) these words import not the least promise of a blessing.  
3. They may be as well urged to prove an attendment upon the Ministry of Rome; and that upon our so doing we had ground ●o expect it.  
He adds, 2dly, The experience of former times tells us, that more have been converted, strengthened— by Conformists, yea Bishops themselves, than by the best of Separatists.  
Ans. 1. Of this the Animadverter is no competent Judge; Reformation to civility, is not Regeneration, Conversion to Christ and Holiness. 2. Should it be granted, all that could be inferred from hence were this, that God did of mere Grace honour his own Word for the conversion of sinners,— not that we have any ground to expect a blessing upon our attendment on that false Ministry, by wh●m 'tis dispensed.  
We say in S. T. To prove a promise of a blessing— upon our attendment on the present Ministers, we conceive is no easy task for any to do; for these Reasons.  
1. The blessing of the Lord is upon Zion, Psal. 87. 2. & 78. 68 There he dwells, Psal. 9 11. & 74. 2. Jer. 8. 19 Isa. 8. 18. Joel 3. 17, 21. The presence of Christ is in the midst of his Golden Candlesticks, Rev. 1. 12, 13. & 2. 1. 'Tis his Garden in which he feedeth and dwells, Cant. 6. 2. & 8. 13. And we are not surer of any thing than we are of this, that the Assemblies of England, in their present constitution are not the Zion of God, his Candlestick, his Garden, but a very wilderness, and that Babel, out of which the Lord commands his People to hasten their escape, Rev. 18. 4.  
2. God never promiseth a Blessing to a people waiting upon him in that way which is polluted, and not of his appointment, (as we have proved the Worship of England to be.)  
3. The Lord hath expressly said, concerning such as run before they are sent, that they shall not profit the people, Jer. 23. 32.  
4. He professeth, that such as refuse to obey his calls, to come out of Babylon, shall partake of her plagues, Rev. 18. 4.  
5. Where the Lord is not in respect of his special presence and Grace, there is no ground to expect any blessing: But God is not so in the midst of the Parochial Assemblies of England: Where are the Souls that are converted, comforted, strengthened, established by their Ministry?—  
To which Mr. T. answers, 1. The first reason is a fond application of what is said of Gods dwelling in Zion, (meant of his special presence there, in that his Temple and Service was upon that Hill, in the time of the Old Testament) to the Congregational Churches, exclusively to the Assemblies of England, who in their present constitution are not the Zion of God.—  
Answ. 1. Will Mr. T. stand to this, that by the Lords dwelling in Zion, we are to understand nothing more than his presence in the Temple with his people of old worshipping there? This he seems immediately to retract, whilst he citys the Assembly in their Annotations on Heb. 12. 22. making Mount Zion a Type of the Gospel-Church, with approbation.  
2. That the People of Israel were Typical of the Saints in gospel-days, we have already demonstrated; Zion was so.  
1st. Their Assemblies are called, the Assemblies of Mount Zion, Isa. 4. 5.  
2dly, The solemn investment of Christ into the exercise of Kingship, and regal Authority over them, is called, The Lords setting his King upon Zion, or over Zion, the Mountain of his Holiness, Psal. 2. 6.  
3dly, Saints, Believers, are called Zion— Psal. 146. 10. & 147. 12. & 149. 2.  
4thly, The New-Testament Churches are called his Temple, 2 Cor. 6. 16.— with allusion to the Temple that was built upon Mount Moriah, one of the Mountains of Zion; to which the true Worship of God was affixed, not only in opposition to the Heathen Worship of the Nations, but the Worship of the Apostatick ten Tribes under Jeroboam, the infamous head of their Apostasy; as to these the true Worship of God is fixed, in opposition to the Antichristian worship of the Mother-Church of Rome and her Daughters.  
5thly, Mount Zion is called the Holy Hill,— the people that Worship there, an holy People;— evidently expressive of the qualifications of the Church-Members in the times of the Gospel, as we have proved.  
6thly, As Zion was typical of Gospel-Churches, so was Babylon of false Antichristian-Churches, who are her very Picture, (the Church of England is so) as 'twere easy to demonstrate. That Old Babylon was given to superstiaion, and self-invented-worship, Jer. 50. 38. & 51. 44. Isa. 46. 1. (bottomed upon no better Authority than tradition and antiquity) compelled others to Uniformity in her false worship under Penal Laws and Statutes, Dan. 3. 3, 6. was cruel and tyrannical against the People of God, Jer. 51. 25. Isa. 14. 17. & 47. 6. Jer. 50. 33. and would not permit them to build the Temple at Jerusalem, and worship God there according to his appointment; that in answer hereunto the false Antichristian Church, or New-Babel is described, as given to superstition, and self-invented-worship, Rev. 13. 14. & 17. 5. compelling others to uniformity thereunto under Penal Laws and Statutes, Rev. 13. 15, 16, 17. & 17. 2. & 18. 3, 9 most cruel and tyrannical against the Saints, who cannot conform to her Inventions, Rev. 13. 7, 10, 15. & 16. 6. & 17. 6. & 18. 24. is so evident, that none can deny it.  
So that, 7thly, except Mr. T. can prove the Assemblies of England, in their present constitution, to be Gospel-Churches, they are not the Zion of God, nor to be accounted so.  
Of this we have already spoken, and shall only add, Those Churches that have no answerableness to Mount Zion, the Type of the true Gospel-Churches, but are the very Picture of old Babylon, the Type of Antichristian Churches, are not the Gospel-Churches typed out by Mount Zion, but the Babel, out of which 'tis the duty of the Lords People to fly, in whom God dwells not. But National-Churches are not answerable to Mount Zion, but old Babel. Therefore.—  
Look upon Zion, consider her diligently; 1. She was an Holy Mountain or Hill, Psal. 2. 6. & 15. 1. where the holy People dwelled.  
2dly, There was the Temple of God built according to his appointment, of hewn stone ready fitted and prepared,— precious costly stones, 2 Chron. 3. 6.  
3dly, There was the Worship of God managed by Officers of his own, according to his own direction and appointment. What more evident than that National Churches, the Church of England, is most unlike hereunto? May it be called an Holy Hill? rather a Mountain of Corruption. Are its Members an Holy People? What less? A Generation of Atheists, Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers and Adulteresses cannot be so accounted. If God's Worship managed according to his own appointment, by Officers of his own in their Assemblies, we have proved the contrary. Are not they the very Picture of old Babylon in their self-invented Worship, rigid pressing of Uniformity under Penal Laws, the only support of their Service, and murdering the Children of the Lord who descent from them? All that know any thing, know these things to be so. Nor can they be called his Candlesticks, who are not of pure Gold, fashioned in all respects (so near as humane frailty will admit) according to the Idea and platform given forth in the Scriptures of Truth, upon which account the New-Testament-Churches are so called, with allusion to Exod. 25. 31. but the contrary: Their matter for the most part is Reprobate Silver, the very dross of the Earth, and scum of the World, instead of pure Gold. They are form according to the devices of men, laid in a subservency to their pride, arrogancy, and lusts; of them we have not the least print in the Scriptures, nor for some Ages after, as we have proved. Nor can they be called his Garden, being constituted of such as were never chosen, and separated by him from the rest of the World, in whose hearts the Fruits of Paradise are not planted, as their outward deportment shows, who are not dressed by him, nor bring forth fruit to him, who are not enclosed by his own Rules, but the Canon-Law of Antichrist his professed Enemy. His answer to the following Reasons hath nothing in it but what we have already considered.  
To the Question, Where are the Souls that are converted, comforted, strengthened, established, that are waiting at the doors of their House?  
He Answers, 1. That though there were none such, yet this proves not God not to be present in them (in respect of his special presence and Grace.)  
Answ. 1. This I confess is to me a most strange Paradox, that no Souls should be converted, comforted, strengthened, established in the Parochial Assemblies of England, and yet God be present there in respect of his special Presence and Grace; when these things are as much the proper issues of such a presence, as light and heat are of the shining of the Sun in its brightness.  
2. The Scriptures cited by him are impertinent; 1. Because they expressly relate to the people of the Jews, to whom (I speak with respect to the body and bulk of them as a Church National) God gave not of his special Presence and Grace; at that day he had blinded them, Isa. 6. 9, 10. John 12. 40. 2. Because notwithstanding those complaints, there were some, yea many, converted, comforted, strengthened, established. Isa. 49. 4. is a Prophecy of Christ. Were none converted by him? Isa. 53. 1. John 12. 38. Rom. 10. 16. Isa. 65. 2. Rom. 10. 21. Mich. 7. 1. Luke 7. 31. — Mat. 23. 37. are the complaints of the Lord, and his Messengers against the Church of the Jews for their obstinacy against Gospel tenders of Grace and Love; but say not that God was with that Church in respect of his special Presence and Grace, which had he been, they had most assuredly believed and obeyed the Gospel, nor do they intimate that there were none converted.— We read of many, yea of some thousands converted— by Christ and his Apostles, notwithstanding these complaints.  
What follows, being an heap of impertinencies, we might omit. 1. We design not to beget enmity and prejudices in the minds of men against the present Ministry, they themselves for the most part are the occasion hereof, by their covetousness and debauchery. 2. We know not any of the Churches of whom they may say you are the Seal of our Ministry.— 3. Our groans to the Lord are for poor England, that God would show mercy to it, and give them hearts to receive the Truth in the love of it: We hope he hath a great Harvest yet to reap in the midst of us, and we are incessantly praying him to send forth Labourers into his Harvest. Though to be plain, we think not that God will use any in this work of gathering Souls to Christ, who come with an Antichristian Call, and the Wooden Sword of a Common-Prayer-Book and Homily under their Arms, which will never pierce so much as skin deep; but such as come with a glorious Gospel-Unction upon them, the great Character of Gospel-Ministers. 4. He grants, That a sad Spirit of withering and visible decays are to be found upon the Auditors of the Ministers; but reflects upon the Congregational Churches. To which I shall only say, That through the good presence of God with them, things are far otherwise with them than this Animadverters words import. They meet with choice Springs of Life, and Royal establishments from the God of Glory; the s●out of the King, the Lord of Hosts, is many times heard in the midst of them, and they triumph gloriously in him.   

Sect. 4.  
The 12th Argument against hearing the present Ministers, vindicated. 'Tis one step to Apostasy, proved. Heb. 10. 25. considered. Some Reasons why persons may not hear Parochial Ministers as formerly. Mr. T. his Answers to the Queries in S. T. considered. His agreement with Bellarmine in the qualification of Church-Members, evinced.  
THE 12th Argument produced in S. T. for the proof of the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of England, is this, That, the doing whereof is one step to Apostasy, is not lawful to be done. But the hearing the present Ministers of England, is one step to Apostasy. Therefore—  
To which Mr. T. adjoins, Sect. 9 1. If the Major be understood of Apostasy from the living God, and the Christian Faith, it's true; if of the Congregational Principles and Practices, it's false.  
Answ. 1. The Congregational Principles and Practices we have in this Treatise, in part proved to be from God, others have done it more largely; that 'tis lawful to do that which is a step to Apostasy from the Institutions of God or Christ, Mr. T. will not, out of the heat of dispute, assert.  
2. Apostasy from one Institution of Christ, to the embracement of the traditions of men, is one step to Apostasy from God, and the Christian Faith, tending indeed to Superstition and downright Atheism. 'Tis no less than a rejection of the Authority of Christ, and espousing to ourselves other Lords. The rejection of this one Principle founded in the Law of Nature and Grace, that God is to be worshipped solely according to that Revelation he is pleased to make of his mind and will, touching his Worship in the World, was what lay at the bottom of all that Apostasy, that from the beginning hath been in the World, as is known. And indeed that Spirit which leads me to a departure from any one Institution of Christ, will lead me (if Grace prevent not) to a rejection or corrupting of all the rest. Those who laid the first stone of the Antichristian Fab●●●k, never thought it would have grown to such a Babel of horrible Abominations as it's grown to. The beginning of great evils are certainly to be resisted, a departure from any one Institution of Christ is a great evil. So that the Major cannot be denied.  
The Minor, or second Proposition, That the hearing the present Ministers is one step to Apostasy, we manifest in S. T. because, 1. it cannot be done (especially by persons of Congregational Principles) without a relinquishment of Principles owned by them, as received from God: That the Church of England, as National, is a Church of the Institution of Christ, that persons not called to the Office of the Ministry by the Saints, are rightful Ministers of Christ, must be owned, and taken for granted, ere the Conscience can acquiesce in hearing the present Ministers (for we suppose it will not be asserted by those with whom we have to do, that there can be a true Ministry in a false Church, o● that false Ministers may be heard, & yet the present Ministers are Minister's in, and of the National Church of England, and were never solemnly deputed to that Office by the Suffrage of the Lord's People, (to which Mr. T. faith nothing that deserves our stay,) 2. Nor can it be done without the neglect of that duty, which with others is of the appointment of Christ, to secure from Apostasy, Heb. 10. 25. viz. the Saints assembling themselves together as a people dictinct from the World and its Assemblies, to exhort and edify one another.—  
To which our Animadverter replies, 1. They may hear the Ministers, and do the duty enjoined, Heb. 10. 25. they may do the one some hours, and the other some other.  
Answ. 1. But the Scripture instanced in, requires as frequent an attendment upon this duty as may be, which whilst they are hearing the Ministers they must neglect. 2. It commands that they go not forth to meet with any other than themselves, not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together.—  
Yea, but 2dly, they were Hebrew Infidels, from whom the Apostle would have them meet as a body distinct.  
Answ. And they are Christian Infidels, (for the visibly wicked, and profane, are notwithstanding their assumed Christianity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbelievers, or Infidels) from whom we would have Saints now to meet as a body distinct; for as to any that fear God in the Assemblies of England, it would be the joy and rejoicing of our Souls to see them forsaking them, we should gladly receive them into our Communion, and in the mean while we love and tender them; nor do we separate any more from them than they do f●●m us. If those that separated themselves, Heb. 10. 25. departed to Judaisme, the people of England are departed to Antichristianism, (a mixture of Judaisme and Heathenism) inasmuch as they embrace the very Worship, Modes, and Rites of Antichrist.  
To what he adds, That he sees no reason why persons of Congregational Principles may not hear Parochial Ministers as formerly.  
We Answer, 1. They are not the same persons, have not the same gifts, qualifications. 2. They pretend to press after the work of Reformation, these have protested against it. 3. They came with the Word of God, these with the Instruments of foolish Shepherds, the Common-Prayer-Book and Surplice. 4. They abhorred the Inventions of men in Worship; these plead for, embrace, promise obedience to them; which are some of those many Reasons may be given of persons refusing to hear in Parochial Assemblies as formerly.  
To the Queries proposed in S. T. he answers, Sect. 10. 1. Whether the Lord Jesus be not the alone Head, King and Lawgiver to his Church? To which he replies, meaning it of the supreme absolute Independent Head, — He is. Which is no more than what Bellarmine himself grants; a very Papistical Answer. There are other Heads of the Church, (it seems) though Christ be the alone Supreme— Of this matter we have already spoken.  
The second, Whether the Laws,— Orders, and Ordinances of Christ be not faithfully to be kept, though all the Princes in the World should interdict and forbidden it?  
He Answers, They are. Whereby he justifies the men of his indignation, in their Nonconformity, separation from the present Ministers, and Worship— notwithstanding the Edicts of men to the contrary, till he be able to remove out of the way what they produce to prove their practice herein to be according to the Orders and Institutions of Christ.  
To the third, Whether to introduce other Laws for the Government of the Church of Christ, and the Worship of his House, be not an high advance against, and intrusion into his Kingship and Headship?  
He replies, No; If they be no other than such as are showed to be warranted in this answer to the Preface, Sect. 8. 20. to Chap. 1. Sect. 3. to Chap. 5. Sect. 11, 12.—  
Answ. The unwarrantableness of his Warrant we have discovered in our Answer to the places quoted by him.  
To the fourth, Whether the Lord Jesus, as King and Head over his Church, hath not instituted sufficient Officers and Offices for the administration of holy things in his House, to whom no more can be added, without a desperate undervaluation and contempt of his Wisdom, Headship, and Sovereignty over it?  
He Answers, Some servants and services may be appointed by Rulers without such an undervaluation.  
Answ. If by Servants— he understand Church-Officers, (as he must if he speak pertinently, the enquiry being of them) he would have done well to have proved his dictate; we can see no foundation for it in Scripture or Reason; but believe had he settled his Family, and appointed every one their Place and Office in it, he would account others appointing new Officers, and Offices, that he thought no● of, and introducing them without his consent as necessary to the well-being of his Family, such a disvaluation as that intimated. Of this we ●ave already treated.  
To the 5th. Whether Officers instituted by Christ are not only Pastors, Teachers, Deacons and Helpers, he replies; I find not Helper● Officers instituted by Christ, but others I find here mentioned, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11.  
Answ. 1. Of helpers you may read, Rom. 16. 3, 9 2. There are indeed other Officers mentioned of Christ's Institution in the places cited by him, but they being such as are confessedly gone off the Stage, we purposely omitted them. Those mentioned, are the alone knownstanding Officers in the Churches of Christ; directions touching whose qualifications, Election, Office, Work, are laid down in the Scriptures.  
To the 6th, Whether the Offices of Arch-Bishops, Lord-Bishops, Deans, Subdeans, Prebendaries, Chancellors, Priests, Deacons, (as the first step to a Priesthood) Arch-Deacons, Subdeacons', Commissaries, Officials, Proctors, Registers, Apparitors, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Canons, Petty-Canons, Gospelers, Epistolers, Chanters, Virgers, Organ-players, Queristers, be Officers any where instituted by the Lord Jesus in the Scripture? He Answers, Some are, some are not. See the Answer to Chap. 3.  
Answ. To our Reply thereunto, we refer the Reader for satisfaction in this matter.  
To the 7th, Whether the Calling and admission into the●e last mentioned Offices, their Administration and Maintenance, now had and received in England, be according to the Word of God; he replies, This is answered before in sundry places.  
Answ. The vanity of his Answers we have already discovered.  
To the 8th, Whether every true visible, particular Church of Christ be not a select company of People, called and separated from the world and the false worship thereof, by the Spirit and Word of God, and joined together in the fellowship of the Gospel, by their own free and voluntary consent, giving up themselves to Christ, and one another, according to the will of God; He answers, The terms are so ambiguously used, that in some sense it may be answered Affirmatively, in some Negatively.  
Answ. We have already explained the terms, and demonstrated the truth of the Question in the Affirmative, in all the branches thereof.  
To the 9th, Whether a company of People living in a Parish, though the most of them, be visible Drunkards and Swearers,— or at least strangers to the work of Regeneration upon their souls, coming by compulsion or otherwise to the hearing of public Prayers or Preaching, are in the Scripture account Saints, and the Church of Christ according to the pattern given forth by him,— He answers, If their Faith be right, they are: i. e. if I mistake not, If they assent to the Doctrine of the Church of England, if they own no other Doctrinals but what are right (for as to true saving Faith, the persons described are undoubtedly strangers to it, 'tis impossible but they should be so whilst they abide such.) Now I believe never man in the world gave such an account of Saints; Saint Drunkard, and St. Swearer, and St. Whoremaster, sounds but harsh in the ears of men of understanding, they themselves will swear they are no Saints. That external profession of Faith is sufficient to constitute a person a Church-Member, Bellarmine indeed affirms (it may be Mr. T. received his notion from him) and is therein opposed by the learned Whitaker, who citys that saying of August. Collat. 3. cum Donat. The Church is one Body, in which is both a Soul and Body; the Soul is the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, i. e. the internal graces: The Body is the external profession of Faith, and Communion of Sacraments. And Sutliffe, one of their own, saith better. To the Church not only profession of Faith, but also holiness is required. If the persons characterized by us, are not the Church of Christ, the Bride the Lamb's Wife, (as we have proved they are not) they must be accounted Daughters of the old Whore, and Babel, spoken of in the Scripture.  
To the 10th, Whether in such a Church there is (or can rationally be supposed to be) a true Ministry of the Institution of Christ? He replies, It may: But we have proved the contrary:  
To the 11th, Whether the Book of Common-Prayer, or stinted Liturgies be of the prescription of Christ, and not of man's devising and invention? he saith, The Worship or matter for the greatest part of the Common-Prayer-Book is of Christ, though the method and Form of Words be of men.  
Answ. 1. Modestly spoken however; The whole of the matter of the Common-Prayer-Book he seems to grant is not of God, though the greatest part he thinks is. 2. Sufficiently impertinent! 'tis the method and Form of words that is the Liturgy or stinted Service, to these men are tied; If these are not of Christ, as he grants, their Liturgy is not.  
To the 12th, Whether some part of the Worship used by a People be polluted, the whole of the Worship be not to be looked upon in a Scripture account as polluted and abominable, according to 1 King. 18. 21. 2 King. 17. 33. Isa. 66. 3. Hos. 4. 15. Ezek 43. 8. Zeph. 1. 5. So that if their Prayers be nought and polluted, their Preaching be not so to? He answers; No, nor is any such thing said in these Texts.  
Answ. Let the Reader consult them, and he will find that they condemn the whole of the Worship (though they did somewhat that was, for the matter of it, right and of the appointment of the Lord) as polluted and accursed, because some part of it was so. His talk of the Imperfections of Ministers in prayer is impertinent; every imperfection in Prayer, renders not the Prayer naught and polluted, in that sense in which we affirm the prayers of the Church of England, or their devised Liturgy to be so, upon the account of its non-institution by the Lord, and oblation to an Idol.  
To the 13th, Whether a Ministry set up in direct opposition to a Ministry of Christ, which riseth upon its fall, and falls by its rise, can by such as so account of it, be lawfully joined unto? He replies, No; but they are bound to leave this account, if it be erroneous. Answ. 1. But they think it not to be erroneous: And, 2. Mr. T. was lately of their mind, when he swore to extirpate the Hierarchy.  
To the 14th, Whether such as have forsworn a Covenant-Reformation according to the Word of God, and swear to a Worship that is merely of humane devising, that have nothing of the essentials of a Ministry of Christ to be found upon them, may be accounted of, as his Ministers, and be adhered to? He replies, No. Wherein he hath given away the Cause pleaded for by him. The Ministers of England are known (and we have evinced it in this Treatise) to be persons of the Complexion intimated.  
To the 15th, Whether such as shall do so be not guilty of casting contempt upon the Institutions of Christ, and disobedience against his Ro●al Edicts, commanding them to separate from persons of the complexion intimated? He saith, They would be if they should do so wittingly and willingly.  
Answ. But if they do it ignorantly, (though their sin be not so great) the action itself casting contempt upon the Institutions of Christ, they are guilty hereof.  
And thus far in Reply to Mr. T. his Answers to Arguments and Questions proposed.  
His next attempt is to make good the Catascevastick part of this Dispute; how well he dischargeth that Province, shall be considered in the next Chapter.    

CHAP. XI.  

Sect. 1.  
Mat. 23. 1, 2. explained Mr. T. his two Arguments drawn from thence to prove the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, refuted. Whether the Scribes and Pharisees were Teachers and Expounders of the Law. Mr. T. his proofs thereof examined. The Titles of Rabbi, Doctor, Master, Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not peculiar to Ecclesiastical Officers. Of their paying Tithes, Mat. 12. 18. If they were Ministers, they were lawful Ministers, proved. Christ doth not command or permit his Disciples to hear them, demonstrated. Of the true reading of the words. Mr. T. his mistakes manifested.  
THE first attempt of Mr. T. in his 10th Chap. is to vindicate the Arguments produced by others, mentioned in S. T. as Objections against the Truth contended for therein from the Answers we have given thereunto. The first whereof is thus proposed.  
Object. 1. Christ commands, (or at least permits) his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, who were men as corrupt in their Doctrine as vicious in their Lives, as the present Ministers of England can be supposed to be, Mat. 23. 1, 2. Therefore its lawful to hear these.  
The Animadverter, after many words, which our present haste admits not our stay to consider of, (nor is it at all necessary that we should do so) draws up a twofold Argument from this Scripture.  
Arg. 1. That hearing of Ministers against which there is no more just exception than was against the hearing the Scribes and Pharisees,— is lawful for Christian Saints now: But there is no more just exception against hearing the present Ministers of England than was against hearing the Scribes and Pharisees: Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. We deny the Major Proposition, to the proof whereof we say, That Christ allowed not his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, as we prove in S. T. 2. The Minor also is short of Truth; to the proof where of we say, That the Exceptions against the present Ministers are upon some accounts greater and more just than against the Scribes and Pharisees. Neither of which he attempts the proof of, but prays it may be granted him; which upon these terms will never be; the contrary we afterwards manifest.  
Arg. 2. That which warranted Christ's Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees,— notwithstanding other defects, warrants the Saints hearing the present Ministers of England notwithstanding other defects: But the Scribes and Pharisees preaching the will of God, warranted Christ's Disciples hearing the Scribes and Pharisees notwithstanding other defects: Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. By the very same Argument the lawfulness of hearing the Priests of Rome, the Friars— may be evinced, for they preach some some Truth. 2. We deny his Minor, and to the proof thereof say. 1st, That sitting in Moses Chair, is their teaching the observation of God's Laws, is begged by him without the least tender of proof. So is, 2dly, That Christ therefore permitts the Disciples to hear them because they so taught. And, 3dly, That he allowed the hearing them a● all. Each of which is denied by us: and fail he in the proof thereof, his Argument sinks of itself, as he himself knows.  
To the Objection as proposed by us, which contains the sum of Mr. T. his two Arguments, we answer in S. T. That there are some things which the Objectors take for granted, which are the very Basis upon which the stress of the Objection lies, that will never be proved.  
As, 1st, 'Tis supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of, were in the Ministerial Seat Teachers and Expounders of the Law. Some of them 'tis granted were, these here mentioned, are said to sit in Moses Seat, which was the Magistratical Seat (to the Posterity of Aaron the Office of Priesthood did appertain) and are condemned for neglecting Judgement and Mercy, things most nearly relating to the Office of Magistracy. Now 'twill not in the least follow, that supposing Christ enjoined his Disciples to attend upon the Scribes and Pharisees, acting as Magistrates, and conform to what is justly and righteously prescribed by them, as such; that therefore 'tis lawful to attend upon the present Ministers.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 2. 'Tis supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of, were Teachers and Expounders of the Law: which he attempts the proof of, 1. Because, vers. 4. 'tis said, They bind heavy burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders.—  
Answ. But Mr. T. should have proved, that they did this as expounders of the Law, and not as Magistrates by civil sanctions; till when he saith nothing.  
2. They affected to be called of men Rabbi, Masters, Fathers, Leaders, vers. 8, 9, 10.—  
Answ. What then? This is no proof that they were Ecclesiastical Officers. 1. They might affect these Titles and not have them. 2. Others besides such who were Expounders of the Law had them given to them. 1st, The very words that were spoken at the time of the Investment of any into the Title of Rabbi, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Behold thou art promoted, and there is power given to thee of exercising capital Judgements; (which I am sure appertained not to them as Expounders of the Law) abundantly evince, that that Title was given to those that had authority in things Civil. As is the Title. 2dly, Of Master, Exod. 1. 11. 1 Sam. 26. 16. 2 Sam. 2. 7. 2 King. 10. 2, 3, 6. 1 Sam. 29. 4. 2 King. 9 31. & 19 4. 1 Chr. 12. 19 3dly, Of Father, 1 Sam. 24. 12. 1 King. 5. 13. & 16. 7. In which sense Machir is said to be the Father of Gilhad, i. e. the Prince of that Country, 1 Chr. 2. 21, 23. And David is called the Father of the Jews, Mark 11. 10. Nor, 4thly, Is it necessary that we restrain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Leaders, to Ecclesiastical Leaders or Guides, when it may as propperly be referred to Civil Rulers. 5thly, The Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctors or Teachers, he tells us, is translated, Master in Israel, Joh. 3. being applied there to Nichodemus, who was a Ruler of the Jews, (i. e. a Civil Ruler amongst them.) The other Title, 6thly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Blind Guides (or Captains) there is no necessity that we refer to Ecclesiastical Rulers, so that hitherto he fails of the proof of his Assertion.  
He adds, 2dly, They were not Priests, for they paid Tithes, vers. 23.  
Answ. 1. This upon the present supposition makes rather for, than against us. If they were not Priests, 'tis the more probable they were not Teachers of the People, who were to seek the Law at their mouths, Mal. 2. 7. And if his Argument be good, they were not Priests because they paid Tithes (whereas the Priests were wont to receive Tithes) they were not Levites neither, for to them were Tithes paid, Neh. 10. 37. & 13. 12. Heb. 7. 5. Numb. 18. 31. And if neither Priests nor Levites, lawful Officers, or Expounders of the Law, by virtue of Office-power committed to them by the Lord, they could not be; for to these only, by virtue thereof, did the Exposition of the Lay appertain (as is known.)  
2. He seems to grant that they were such ordinary Magistrates as were in the Jewish Synedrion, which is as much as we need plead for. From an attendment upon the Synedrion of the Jews determining in cases of Judgement and Justice, a lawful attendment on the present Ministers will never be proved. He himself afterwards grants, Tha● the Scribes and Pharisees were, many of them, Rulers of the Jews; but, very learnedly tells us, not as Scribes and Pharisees; which none ever thought they were, being as he acknowledgeth particular Sects among the Jews: That these here mentioned were not such, he is not able to demonstrate. They sat in Moses Seat as Magistrates, though their jurisdiction or power was not so great as his.  
He adds, That what we say some observe, that these Scribes and Pharisees are especially charged with the omission of Judgement and Mercy, things most nearly relating to the Office of Magistracy, to whom it doth especially appertain to look thereunto, is frivolous.  
Answ. But others think not so, nor hath Mr. T. said any thing to incline them to think so. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judgement, is any where taken for right ordering the conversation towards God and man, he cannot prove; in Mat. 12. 18. 'tis not so taken: 'Tis rather taken for the Ruledom and Government of God. Christ was to publish true Religion among the Gentiles, and to cast out Superstition; which thing, where ever it is done, the Lord is said to Reign and Judge there. And Mr. T. cannot be ignorant, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judgement, is the act, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, o● the Judge, or Magistrate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which passeth sentence, or judgeth, and that this is the proper notation of the word, which its being joined with Mercy and Faith, Luke 11. 42 doth not disprove, except he will suppose that these are not to be regarded by Governors in the Administration of Justice, which they eminently are: Faith or faithfulness in the discharge of the trust committed to them by the Lord, with the exercise of Mercy and bowels towards the Body and Souls of men, is what especially becomes a Ruler; so that the observation wants not i●s weight.—  
For disputations sake we suppose in S. T. 2. The Scribes and Pharisees to be Teachers and Expounders of the Law at that day; But if such, they were lawful Church-Officers, of the appointment of the Lord, which we have proved the present Ministers of England are not; and therefore a lawfulness to hear these, from a lawfulness to hear them, cannot be pleaded; except we grant they were mere intruders into the Ministry, which (upon supposition, that they were Ministers) we cannot yield, for these Reasons. 1. The Pharisees are expressly said to be Priests and Levites, John 1. 19, 24. which were the ordinary lawful Ministers of that day.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 3. This only proves that some of the Pharisees were Priests and Levites, not that all were so.  
Answ. True! but the Scripture testifying there were some Pharisees that were Priests and Levites, when it speaketh of their doing what peculiarly, and by way of office, did belong to the Priests and Levites; 'tis but rational to interpret it of them, and not of any others.  
He adds 2dly, But if they were Priests, it doth not follow that they were the lawful Ministers of that day. 1. Christ's Apostles were the lawful Ministers of that day.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis true, they were so, but not of the Jewish Church, exclusively to others, so that this Allegation is impertinent.  
2dly, It's certain, that the Priests of those times got their places by bribing the Roman Deputy, as Josephus reports the high Priest did.  
Answ. Grant the high Priest did so, it doth not follow that the inferior Priests should so do, nor doth any Historian report so of them.  
We add in S. T. 2. These of all others were most apt to question the Authority of such as taught the People: So when John appears Preaching and Baptising, and professes to them that he was not the Christ,— they immediately question his Authority, John 1. 25. which they could not be supposed to have the face to do, if they themselves, of all others, had been the greatest intruders.  
To which our Animadverter saith, That they did so, is no wonder, for they were puffed off with conceits of their Authority and Righteousness.—  
Answ. This is no reason of his Assertion, they had great Authority amongst the people, their outward conversation was Righteous and blameless, as saith Josephus, Jewish Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. so that in this matter they had whereof to glory.  
We add, 3dly, When they question Christ himself about his Authority, he asks not them from whence they had theirs, which doubtless upon that occasion he would have done, had they not been lawfully seated in the Seat they did possess, but from whence John had his, who was esteemed as a Prophet.  
To which our Animadverter, Though Christ did not then, yet he doth afterwards, calling them a Generation of Vipers, blind Guides; and his charging them with affectation, and ambitious seeking the chief Seats, and to be called Rabbi; What is it but an evidence that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his Seat?  
Answ. A marvellous evidence indeed, which no one in the World would have ('tis likely) lighted on, if it had not been Mr. T. his hap to have stumbled on it, nor he himself if he could else have told how handsomely to have salved up the matter. 2. Christ calls them, Generation of Vipers,— therefore he seems to charge them, that they did unlawfully climb into Moses his Seat, (of which he speak● not one word) is such an absurd consequence, as he will not be able easily to make good. As if a man should say, such a one is a Drunkard, therefore he saith he is a Thief; or such a one affects the title of Bachelor of Divinity, therefore he usurps it; which every one wou●d smile at as inconclusive.  
We say further in S. T. 4thly, We have the Lord Jesus many times crying out above all others against the Pharisees, condemning them of pride, hypocrisy, avarice,— but not the least tittle of the usurpation of Moses his Seat, is by him charged upon them, or in the least intimated, which doubtless would have been, had they been guilty thereof.  
Mr. T. replies, 1. 'Tis no wonder that Christ's charging them herewith is not in express terms related, sigh their instigation of Herod to take away John Baptists life, (related by Josephus) is not related as imputed to them by him.  
Answ. 1. 'Tis very uncertain whether they were guilty of any such crime. 2. If they were, it might might not be known. 3. The Scripture gives us another account of Herod's taking away his life, Mark 14. 3.— Therefore probably Josephus was mistaken.  
He adds, 2dly, How irrational this Argument is, We read not that Christ charged them with usurpation of Moses Seat, therefore he did it not. every Pung in the Schools knows it, who have learned that rule of Logic, an Argument from Testimony negatively is not of force, especially in matters of fact, it is not related, therefore it was not done.—  
Answ. 1. As irrational as this way of arguing is, it is what is made use of by as learned Protestant Writers as Mr. T. who to prove that the Original Copies of the Scriptures of the Old Testament were not corrupted in Christ's time, make use of the same medium, viz. Christ no where condemns the people of the Jews for corrupting the Original Text, therefore they kept it entire, towards whom he will sure exercise more modesty than to tell them its an irrational Argument, though perhaps his good Friends the Jesuits may assume the confidence so to do.  
2. An Argument from testomony negatively is not of force in matters done, whereof nothing at all is mentioned, nor any just occasion so to do offered, we grant is true; but when any persons are frequently charged with evils by the Spirit of the Lord, that their putridity, rottenness and corruption might be seen & read of all men; and that in particulars instanced in; to imagine that any particular Crime whereof they were guilty, and that of so great moment as that whereof we are speaking, should be omitted, men of reason, (with the leave of our Animadverter be it spoken) will be apt to conclude irrational to imagine.  
We add in S. T. That if this also be granted except it be granted, 3dly, that when Christ saith, What they say unto you, do; he is to be interpreted to command, or at least to permit an attendance upon their ministry, it will advantage the Objectors nothing. Now this we deny, for these reasons, 1. The words are in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — Which may more strictly be rendered, the Scribes and Pharisees have sat in Moses Seat, all things therefore whatsoever they have said unto you,— (i. e. whatever in times past you have heard delivered by these men, according to the Mind of God, do you not now reject, because of that hypocrisy, pride, covetousness— you are made to see is predominant in them.)  
To which Mr. T. ●. The command to do what they bid, implies a permission to hear.  
Answ. Not so, they might hear what they bid in times past, to which so far as it was consonant to Truth, they were to conform without any command for the future attendance on their Ministry.  
2. Though the words, v. 2. may be rendered, have sat in Moses Seat, yet the word sit, being in the first Aorist, is best rendered, sit, noting an indefinite time, and so is to be conceived, signifying a continued time, past and present, they have, and do still sit; and the words, v. 3. according to the Greek Language, must be rendered, whatsoever they shall say unto you.  
Answ. 1. That the former part of the words may be rendered as we have rendered them, Mr. T. grants. 2. That the first Aorist of the Indicative Mood, is most fitly and properly so rendered, every one that hath but read his Grammar knows. 3. Why it should not here be so rendered, he gives no reason, and we know not any Law compelling us, jurare in verba Magistri. 4. That the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— must be rendered, whatsoever they shall say unto you.— He speaks after the same rate with the former. 'Tis true, the first and second Aorist of the Subjunctive Mood, is usually rendered in the Future Tense, but that it is always so, or must be so rendered, he will not upon second thoughts assert; Since instances not a few, lie near at hand to be produced, that evince the contrary. 1. 'Tis sometimes rendered in the Present Tense, Mat. 7. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — whom if his Son ask Bread.— & 3, 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — and think not to say.— 2. 'Tis sometimes rendered in the Future Tense, Mark 4. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — but when they have heard.— John 16. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — as soon as she is delivered, after she hath brought forth. So Beza, Jud. 9 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, — and laid wait for him. To which many more might be added.  
He proceeds, and saith, Were it granted, that the bidding were meant of the time past, the Argument were of force; they heard, therefore they may hear, for Christ doth not disprove their former practice, but gives a reason, which infers a continued permission to hear them, because they sat in Moses Chair, (i. e.) taught the Law of Moses, which while they did, they were to hear them, notwithstanding other corruptions.—)  
Answ. 1. That because the Disciples had heard the Scribes and Pharisees, therefore they might hear them, our Dictator will never be able to make good, it being no better an Argument than this; Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel before his Conversion, therefore he might do so still. The Corinthian Believers had communion with Idolaters, therefore they might still. Those that have gone to Mass may do so still. That what they did in an uncovered state, when they were in darkness, blindness, sin, and Hell, they might do when converted to Christ, sanctified, enlightened, is such an absurd assertion, that the very naming it is confutation sufficient.— Yet this is one of those solid Foundations upon which this Answer is built.  
2. That Christ doth not disprove their practice of hearing them, is no better reason that they might do so than the former. 1. 'Twas needless that he should do so, when they themselves were already taken off their attendment on their Ministry, saw its emptiness, discerned the wickedness, blindness, hypocrisy of the guides they once followed. Yet, 2. the very discourse of Christ in this Chapter, and elsewhere touching them, is a sufficient disapprobation of, and dissuasive from the hearing of them. 3. Mr. T. takes for granted, that which we deny, and he should have proved, that their sitting in Moses seat was their teaching the Law of Moses, which for the most part they did not do. They taught for Doctrines the Commandments of men, Mat. 15. 9 They made void the Law by their Traditions, Mat. 15. 6. Corrupted it with their false glosses, Mat. 5. So that their teaching the Law of Moses, could not be any reason at all why they should hear them.  
We add in S. T. 2. Let the words be as they are rendered; the Disciples might observe, and do what they said from the knowledge thereof, through their particular occasional meeting and discourse with them, (as otherwise) though they had never spent one hour in attending upon their Ministry; which that our Saviour did not enjoin, no not so much as permit,— we suppose may be clearly demonstrated from the ensuing considerations.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 5. 1. If by attendance on their Ministry be meant a constant and ordinary hearing of them, as their ordinary Shepherds, doubtless neither Christ did command nor permit his Disciples such an attendance.  
Answ. 1. Very good! a constant attendment upon the present Ministers of England, cannot be proved from this Scripture: Christ did not permit his Disciples so to attend on the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees. 2. Own them as our ordinary Shepherds we may not, for so the Scribes and Pharisees were not to be owned by the Disciples of Christ, as Mr. T. grants. Wherein how much the greatness of Truth hath prevailed upon him, others will judge. But, 3. hearing being an institution of Christ, to be conformed to according to the directions given forth by him thereabout, I am not able to divine by what Law or Rule I may hear a man rarely, upon whose ministry (if by providence I have an opportunity afforded so to do) I may not more frequently, constantly attend. Nay, 4. I am apt to think that Mr. T. by this one concession hath given away the whole of his concern in this Argument. The Scribes and Pharisees might not be heard as their ordinary Shepherds by the Disciples; the present Ministers of England (should it be granted, it were proved by this Argument lawful to hear them) are not then to be heard as our ordinary Shepherds or Ministers, because of any thing that is contained in this Scripture, or can be deduced from it. Now as such for the most part we must hear them, or not at all; they being imposed on us as our Parish— Ministers, our hearing required of us by Law, is hearing them as such. This, by this Argument, Mr. T. grants cannot be proved.  
We produce several reasons in S. T. why we suppose Christ neither commanded nor permitted his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees. 1. There are not a generation of men of whom he speaks more contemptuously, and chargeth with greater enormities than he doth that generation of Scribes and Pharisees, and that in this very Chapter, see, v. 5, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29. and v. 6, 7. and v. 13, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26. and v. 16, 17, 18, 33▪ 34. And can it be imagined that Christ should have no more tenderness to poor Souls than to direct them to an attendance upon such persons as these for teachings? are they likely motives to persuade or enforce any thereunto? 2. Yet this is what he immediately subjoins, having said, Whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do.  
To which Mr. T. These personal evils were not sufficient motives to keep them back from hearing God's Law expounded by them.  
Answ. 1. But their exposition of God's Law was abominable, intolerable; had they been guilty of no personal evils not to have been born, a sufficient ground of itself to have forborn hearing them; they corrupted, perverted it by their expositions.  
2. We are in the mind Mr. T. hath not his second in the World of sober-minded men, who will aver that such personal evils as those mentioned, are not a sufficient Bar to hinder the attendment of Saints upon preaching, (or expounding of the Law) by those upon whom they are to be found.  
3. 'Tis sure, a bad cause he hath undertaken the defence of, that in the pursuit thereof he is forced to assert the lawfulness of he●ring persons that we infallibly know to be Hypocrites, (for Christ having told them so, they knew it to be infallibly true) proud men (whom the Lord abhors) such as shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; will not go in themselves, nor suffer others; such as make their Proselytes worse than themselves, either by their evil example, or by making them more zealous for their Traditions, and more bitter against the Preachers and preaching the Gospel than themselves; who are blind guides, preverters of Scripture, such as make void the Commandments of God by their Traditions; that are Serpents, a Generation of Vipers, that cannot escape the damnation of Hell; that kill, crucify, scourge, persecute the Messengers of the Lord. To repeat ●o absurd a Position, is confutation sufficient, and honour more than enough. I wonder if our Animadverter could write it without blushing. Jeroboam was not to be blamed, who made Priests of the lowermost of the people. Our Animadverter thinks, if the scum of the World, and Hell get into a Pulpit with a Bible and Common-Prayer-Book in their hand, and a Surplice on their back, they may lawfully be attended. Tush! Paul was too scrupulous, (and almost a Fanatic) who talks of qualifications in Bishops, 1 Tim. 3. 2 Tim. 2. Tit. 1. 'Tis no great matter what they are, so they read some Scripture, and interlace it with the traditions of men, persons may lawfully hear them wit● out more ado. This is some of that Hay and Stubble that Mr. T. his Theodulia is stuffed with, that will one day be burnt up.  
We add, 2. 'Tis not likely that Christ would command or permit his Disciples to attend upon the preaching of the Scrib●s and Pharisees; because they preached false Doctrine, viz. justification by the works of the Law, which was diametrically opposite to the Doctrine he preached, and the work he was upon.  
To which our Animadverter replies, Christ doth not permit them to hear the Pharisees teach all the Doctrines of their Sect, touching some of which he forewarns them, Mat. 15. 14. &. 16. 12. but as they taught them the duties of Moses Law.  
Answ. 1. But if Mr. T. calls this an answer, I am afraid he will not find a second in his Assertion; it being indeed nothing like one: The Question is, Whether Christ commanded or permitted his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees? We prove he did not, because they preached false Doctrine, another Gospel to what was preached by Christ. Mr. T. answers, He did not permit them to hear all the Doctrines of their Sect. But Sir, the Question is, Whether he permitted them to hear any at all, to attend upon their preaching, who were every way such Anti-Gospellarians; that he should do so, we conceive is not rational to imagine, when the very scope of their preaching tended to the overthrow of that he came to promulgate.  
But, 2. if they were to attend them, only as they taught the duties of Moses Law, (as he saith) they were so seldom to attend them, that upon search it will be found they were not to do so at all, since they had so foully perverted it, that upon the matter they made it another thing.  
3. By Mr. T. his Argument, 'tis lawful for persons to hear such as preach another Gospel; for so did the Scribes and Pharisees. Paul was out when he wisheth such accursed, calls them Dogs, Gal. 1. 8.— Phil. 3. 2. and bids them beware of them, i. e. not attending upon their preaching.  
We add, as a third Reason of our Assertion, that they denied Christ to be the Messiah, blasphemed him in his Doctrine, (as the deceiver of the people;) in his Life, as a Wine-bibber and gluttonous person; in his Miracles, as one that wrought them by the Devil, who are therefore condemned by Christ as guilty of the very sin of blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, Mat. 12. 31. And we cannot imagine that Christ would permit his Disciples to hear such as thus blasphemed him.  
Our Animadverter replies, The third Reason hath the same answer, with this overplus, that to prevent any conceit of allowing the hearing of them in their blasphemy, he avoucheth himself to be their Master and Teacher, v. 8, 10.  
Answ. 1. They took all occasions to blaspheme him, and if they attended their Ministry with any constancy, 'twas impossible ●ut at one time or other they must hear them so doing. But, 2dly, What is this to the purpose? Is it lawful to hear such as blaspheme Ch●ist? Is it likely that Christ would permit his Disciples to do so? That the Scribes and Pharisees were persons of such a complexion is known. 3dly, The same Answer he talks of is already replied to.  
We add, 4thly, We no no where find the Disciples attending upon the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees, notwithstanding this supposed command or permission of Christ.—  
Mr. T. replies, This is but from a testimony negatively, ●nd so of no force; we read not that they used the Lords Prayer, yet none will say they did not, less that they might not.—  
Answ. 1. But if Christ had commanded or permitted them so to do, and that with an intendment to make it a precedent to walk by, with respect to persons of the same or like qualifications with these who should in the last days stand up to speak in his Name to his Children: 'Tis more than probable that the practice of the Apostles herein would have been registered, as well as in matters of lesser concern. 2dly, We find expressions touching the practice and deportment of the Disciples that utterly evert this figment, Acts 1. 23. & 10. 41. 3dly, That we no no where read of the Disciples using the Lord's Prayer (when we have an account of other of their Prayers) its an Argument they did not use it, that they might not so do. Of which before at large. 4thly, Of their Alms, we have mention Acts 11. 29. Although they having little in the world, it was not possible they should be over-liberal o● over-frequent in almes-giving. 5thly, 'Tis more than probable they did not fast while Christ was with them, Mat. 9 15. No wonder we have no account of their doing so during that season. Afterwards we have mention made hereof, Acts 13. 2, 3. & 10. 30. & 14. 23. 2 Cor. 6. 5.  
We say in S. T. 5thly, We cannot but think the supposition of Christ's permitting his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, not only inconsistent with, and opposite to that expression concerning Christ, Mar. 6. 31. but also to that command, Acts 2. 40. and the practice of the Disciples, vers. 42.  
To which our Animadverter, 1st, Christ did conceive the People to be without a Shepherd, notwithstanding the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law; because though that doctrine were right, and to be observed, yet it was not sufficient to feed them to Eternal Life.  
Answ. Here are several mistakes in these few words. 1st▪ That the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law was right Doctrine, which is most notoriously untrue: 'Tis true, the Doctrine of the Law was right Doctrine; but the Pharisees teaching the duties of the Law, was not so. For, 1. they taught duties of the Law that were not contained in the Law, Mat. 5. 43.— 2. They corrupted, perverted the duties of the Law by their traditions, Mat. 15. 3. They pressed the duties of the Law for justification of life, which was not right Doctrine. 2dly, 'Tis false, and not to be supposed without great reproach to Christ, that he should send his Disciples to attend upon such a Ministry as break not the Bread of life, preached not the Doctrine which was sufficient to feed them to eternal life.—  
He saith further, 2. Peter did well to exhort his Auditors to save themselves from that untoward Generation, viz. in not doing their works, nor following their perverse Doctrine; and the Church did rightly practise▪ in continuing in the Apostles Doctrine,— v. 42. Yet he was not to dissuade them from hearing or practising the Pharisees Doctrine of observing the duties of Moses 's Law.—  
Answ. 1. The Pharisees Doctrine of the observing the duties of Moses his Law, was, that men observe them for life; this as I remember the Apostles opposed, and it was their duty to do so. 2. Our Animadverter supposeth, That the exhortation of Peter, Acts 2. 40. was only meant of their not doing their works, non-embracement of their perverse Doctrine; but 'tis evident from v. 42. that Peter meant it of non-communion with them in acts of Worship. And I cannot discern how I can hear a man preach, but I must have Communion with him in that act, which is an act of Worship.  
We add, 6. Were that the intendment of Christ, as is suggested, (and the Argument of our Brethren valid) a lawfulness to hear the veriest blasphemer in the World, that denies Christ is the Messiah, affirms that he was a deluder of the people, a gluttonous person, a Wine-bibber, one that did Miracles by Belzebub the Prince of Devils, that persecutes even to death Christ in his people, might by a like parity of reason be deduced. Christ commanded, or at least permitted his Disciples to hear the Pharisees, who were such, as hath been proved; therefore it's lawful to hear persons with the same Character upon them. But God forbidden any such injurious dealing should be offered to Christ, or that any who pretend to fear God, and I hope do so in reality, should stand by a cause that hath no better Arguments to defend it, than what may be as righteously every way made use of for their attending upon the Ministry of the greatest blasphemer, and opposer of Christ in the World.  
To which Mr. T. I grant it lawful to hear any man preach Truth with whom God allows us converse and communion, as we are m●n.  
Answ. 1. Would he had given us his reasons of his monstrous assertion. 2. Thought it incumbent upon him to have reconciled it with former printed passages of his own. 3. I am allowed converse and communion (if my occasions, and calling in the world compel me thereunto) with the worst of men, as men, a Turk, a Jew, th● Pope himself, a Drunkard, Swearer, Adulterer or Adulteress,— but that I may have Communion with these in instituted Worship, as I have when I hear them, is such a monstrous Figment, so devoid of Scripture evidence, so opposite thereunto, so abhorred, and abominable to the Spirit of God breathing in his Children, that I stand amazed he should assert it:  
But enough of this; 'tis evident that Mat. 23. 1, 2. refuseth to afford the least sanctuary to the opinion of hearing the present Ministers.   

Sect. 2.  
The Answer to the second Objection vindicated from Mr. T. his Exceptions. Of Christ, and the Apostles going into the Synagogues. The ends of their so doing. The 3d Objection vindicated. Phil. 1. 15, 16, opened. All preaching of Christ not to be rejoiced in, proved.  
A Second Objection proposed in S. T. to be considered, is this; We find Christ and his Apostles going frequently into the Synagognes' where the Scribes and Pharisees preached.  
Which Mr. T. proves they did from Luke 2. 46. & 4. 16. Acts 3. 1. & 13. 14, 15. & 16. 13. & 17. 2. And further add●, That the Synagogues, nor their Rulers, nor their order of the reading of the Law, nor their Teachers were of the appointment of God; yet our Lord and his Disciples were present at them, and joined with them in hearing them read, and such other services of Religion, as were done to God, which i● a good reason wherefore it should not be accounted necessary to separate from the present Assemblies of England, and the public Ministers, notwithstanding corruption in Worship, defect in calling,—  
To which we Answer in S. T. 1. That all that Christ and the Apostles did, is not lawful for Saints to practise.  
To which Mr. T. Sect. 6. What they did out of peculiar power, commission or instinct, is not lawful for us to do; but what they did as m●n, or part of the Jewish People in the Worship and Church of the Jews, is a warrant for us in the like case to do in the assemblies of the Christians.—  
Answ. 1. But he proves not, that they did not this out of peculiar instinct; which if they did, by his own confession, the Argument deduced from hence for the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers is not valid. 2. If they did it in discharge of their duties as members of the Jewish Church, as he intimates, their example binds us, as he saith, only in the like case, i. e. Members of a rightly constituted Church, (for so was the Church of the Jews) are to worship in the Church-Assemblies with them, notwithstanding some corruptions: But the Church of England, we have proved, is no rightly constituted Church, we were never Members thereof. So that hitherto he hath said nothing that is pertinent.  
We further answer in S. T. 2dly, That 'tis one thing to go into the Synagogues, and another thing to go thither to attend upon the Ministry of such a● taught there. This the present case, which that Christ or his Apostles ever did, cannot be proved.  
Our Animadverter replies, Though Christ and his Apostles did not go to attend on the Ministry of such as taught there, yet they did there hear the Law and the Prophets read, and join in Prayers.  
Answ. 1. If they went not to attend on the Ministry of such as taught there, an attendment upon the present Ministers of England cannot be proved from their example. In which assertion, that Mr. T. hath given away the cause he hath all this while been pleading for, is in itself evident. If we may not attend on their Ministry, we may not hear them as Ministers. Nor indeed 2dly, can we hear them at all, for in that their Ministry they act as Ministers. 'Tis true Christ and the Apostles went to the Synagogues whither the People were gathered together, and sometimes they heard the Law, and the Prophets read (that they joined in Prayer with them is not where affirmed.) Acts 3. 1. 'tis said, They went up to the Temple at the hour of Prayer; but 'tis evident they went not in to pray with them, for Peter having wrought that miracle in cureing the Cripple, they flock to him, and he preacheth to them. And Act. 16. 13. 'tis said, Paul went to the River's side where Prayer was wont to be made, but that he prayed with them there, is not intimated (nor probable) but their end in going thither, as is evident by their practice, was to take an opportunity to teach and instruct the People who were convened together, which is no warrant for our going to the present Assemblies, where liberty so to do is not afforded us; nor do we or can we propose such an end to ourselves in going thither.  
We add in S. T. 3dly, They went thither to oppose them in and confute their Innovations and Traditions in the Worship of God, to take an opportunity to teach and instruct the People,— Which when any have a spirit to do, and are satisfied they are thereunto called by the Lord, in respect of the present Ministers and Worship of England, we shall be so far from condemning them therein, that we shall bless God for them. But this is not to the purpose in hand.  
The attendance of our Brethren upon the Ministers of England is quite another thing, that requires other Arguments for its support than we have hitherto met with. What saith Mr. T. hereunto? Doth he manifest that these were not the ends of their going to the Temple and Synagogues? Doth he manifest that upon supposition they ●ere, the Argument from their example is valid.— He attempts not the one or the other; which yet if he will not give up his concern in the present Argument, he could not but see was incumbent upon him ●o prove.  
He only tells us, That Christ or his Apostles went into their Synagogues: to oppose them in, or confute their Innovations, Traditions in the Worship of God, he doth not remember to have read.  
Answ. 1. That they came thither to take an opportunity to teach the People, Mr. T. denies not, which were enough to enervate what can be argued, for the hearing the present Ministers from their example, as was said before. But 2dly, The shortness of his memory I am not able to mend; would he converse with the Scriptures of the Lord more, possibly that might make him more ready than he seems to be in them: 'Tis evident they did oppose them in, and confute their Innovations.— Christ did so in the Temple, Matth. 21. 12, 13. and Chap. 23. For that Discourse of his was in the Temple, as is evident from Chap. 24▪ 1. In the Synagogue, Mark 3. 1. where he confutes their Innovation touching the Sabbath, by manifesting that works of mercy might be done on that day. vers. 4, 5. (see Mat. 12. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Luke 6. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. and 13. 10.—) contrary to the Tradition of the Elders. The Apostles, Acts 17. 1, 2, 17. & 18. 4, 19 & 19 8. How little Mr. T. hath said to reinforce the Argument, the Reader will judge.  
We proceed in S. T. and propose a 3d Objection. Object. 3. Paul rejoiceth at the preaching of the Gospel, though it was preached out of envy, Phil. 1. 15, 16.  
From whence our Animadverter argues; Arg. 1. They in whose preaching of Christ we may rejoice, though they should not preach Christ sincerely, but in pretence, out of envy,— may be heard by the Saints lawfully: But the Saints may rejoice in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ, though they should not preach him sincerely but in pretence:— Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. We deny his Major. I may rejoice and that lawfully in those men's preaching Christ, whom I have no warrant to hear. There may be cause of rejoicing, as we told Mr. T. in S. T. in respect of the issue and event of things, by the wise Providence of God, though the means used for their production be evil, and not to be complied with. In what have Christians greater cause of rejoicing than in the death of Christ? Yet had it been utterly unlawful to have joined in Counsel with, or any ways abetted or encouraged those wicked persons that crucified or slew him. Should the Pope send some Jesuits into any remote parts of Asia to preach the Gospel to the poor Indians there, here were upon some accounts ground of rejoicing, yet no ground to attend upon a Jesuitical Ministry. Nor do his Scriptures in the least prove his Major, Isa. 52. 7. 〈◊〉 1. 15. being applied by the Apostle to Gospel-Preachers: Rom. 10. 15. evince only thus much, That such as act from Gospel-Authority in that work, are to be welcomed and heard. What Mr. T. replies is not considerable. 1st, 'Tis true preaching Christ is a good thing and to be rejoiced in, but preaching Christ by virtue of an Antichristian Call and Office-power is not so, nor to be rejoiced in, or complied with. 2dly, That he knows no reason why the Saints may not attend on the Ministry of the Jesuits sent from the Pope to preach the Gospel, if they do so, is no Argument that there is no reason. That they act from an Antichristian Call and Commission, is to Christ-loving Saints reason sufficient.  
2dly, We deny his Minor Proposition; Saints may not rejoice in the present Ministers of England preaching Christ. Because, 1st, All preaching of Christ is not to be rejoiced in; as the Devils, Mar. 1. 24. Luke 4. 34, 41. Acts 16. 17, 18. The Judaical Preachers preaching Christ with the Ceremonies of the Law, Gal. 5. 12. Phil. 3. 2, 3. Grievous Wolves, Acts 20. 29. Such as hate to be reform, Psal. 50. 16, 18. (as the Author of Prelatical Preachers none of Christ Teachers Argues.) Which though Mr. T. thinks to put off with this, All these Texts are impertinent, for as much as these do not preach Christ (in which I wish he speak not against his own Conscience) yet others will not take this for an answer. They all preached Christ, and upon other accounts are not to be heard but turned from, as the intelligent Reader may inform himself by the perusal of the Scriptures instanced in. We shall only infer, If the Judaical Teachers were not to be rejoiced in though they preached Christ, because they mixed therewith the Doctrine of Mosaical Ceremonies, much less is their preaching to be rejoiced in; who mix therewith the Doctrine of Antichristian fopperies, and manifest themselves to be grievous Wolves in their persecuting the flock of Christ, who cannot conform thereunto. Because, 2dly, In propriety and strictness of speech (as saith the Author of the forementioned Treatise) Christ cannot be said to be preached by a Prelatical Ministry they justify them who deny Christ to be the sole Lawgiver of his Church, and so make him an Idol. (What the Animadverter hath dictated Chap. 5. in opposition hereunto, is there answered by us.) Nay, 3dly, In case such a Minister as this, that preacheth by the Bishop's Licence, should in his Doctrine affirm Jesus Christ to be the sole Lawgiver to his Churches, yet in and by his very act of Preaching he should deny it. Which though Mr. T. makes a dreadful outcry against, spitting the fire of his passion on the face of his Antagonist, an Argument that he hath nothing soberly to reply, is evidently true. For, 1st, Thereby he doth own an Officer no where of the Institution of Christ in the Scripture. 2dly, He makes the Biship a Lawgiver to himself, by whose Licence he preacheth, and not otherwise. What Mr. T. would rejoice in I am not concerned to take notice of, there are some men who dare rejoice in a thing of naught.  
Arg. 2. He adds, That preaching of Christ that is no other than Paul rejoiced in,— the Saints now may rejoice in:— But such is the preaching of the present Ministers: Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. To wave the general exception we have against the Argument, which proves not what it is produced to prove, viz. The lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, which we find not in the Conclusion, nor is it deducible from the Premises. We answer, 2dly, The Minor is most notoriously false and untrue: There is other exception taken against hearing the present Ministers, than against the persons mentioned by Paul: And we told this Animadverter so in S. T. 1. It cannot be proved, (as it hath been, with respect to the Ministers of England) that those mentioned by Paul were not true Gospel-Ministers. 2. Their preaching Christ out of envy doth not evince it; the Object whereof was, not Christ but Paul; notwithstanding which, they might be real Saints and true Gospel-Ministers. To which he only opposeth his Dictates without proof, which we are not concerned to take notice of. There might be in them at the root Brotherly-love to Paul, though under the power of temptation they preached Christ out of envy to him.  
We say in S. T. 4thly, Here is not in this Scripture the least word requiring Christians to hear them. That because Paul rejoiceth at their Preaching, therefore 'tis the duty of Saints to attend upon their Ministry, is such a nonsequitur as will never be made good. To which he speaks not the least word that may be called a Reply, he attempts not at all to manifest the validity of the consequence, which he should have done, if he would have reinforced this Argument.  
What he citys out of Mr. Robinson, in his Justification of the Separation, p. 307. we are not concerned to take notice of it. Had he not cited it by halves, the Reader would soon have perceived his cause smitten by it through the fifth Rib.   

Sect. 3.  
The answer to the fourth Objection vindicated. All that preach truth are not to be heard, proved. The Ministers of England preach truth but by halves, as the Bishop is pleased to allow them. Many of the truths they preach, they contradict in their practice. With them they mingle many errors. Particular Instances (in the most remarkable Heads of Divinity) hereof produced.  
THE fourth Objection proposed in S. T. is, The Ministers of England preach Truth, and is it not lawful to hear Truth preached?  
To which we answer, 1. That 'tis lawful to hear Truth preached, but this must be done lawfully, and in the way of Christ's appointment: Which the hearing the present Ministers we have proved is not. 2. All that preach Truth are not to be heard, nor will our dissenting Brethren say they are. For, 1. there was never yet any heretical Preacher in the World, but he preached some truth. 2. The Devil himself. 3. The Popish Priests did, do so; yet who will say 'tis lawful to attend upon their Ministry.  
To which Mr. T. 1. All that preach some truth are not to be heard; yet all that preach the great truths of the Gospel, notwithstanding some errors non-fundamental, may be heard. 2. 'Tis no sin to hear either Heretical Preachers, or Popish Priests, (who preach errors which overthrew the Foundation) preach truth. 3. The Devils we are to have no communion with, God having put an enmity between the Serpent and the Seed of the Woman.  
To which briefly, 1. The two first assertions are mere Dictates, without show of proof, and therefore fit to be rejected. So abhorred by the Saints, and contrary to all the solemn cautions given by our Blessed Lord, with respect to this duty of hearing, touching which we have already spoken, that it were frivolous to take further notice thereof. 2. To the third we answer, If we may not hear the Devil, because we are to have no communion with him, God having put an enmity between him and the Seed of the Woman; then may we not hear a wicked Priest, the Lord having said, We must not have communion with the wicked, who are the Seed and Children of the Devil, Mat. 23. 33. 1 John 3. 10. John 8. 44. betwixt the Righteous and whom God hath put an enmity, Gen. 3. 15.  
'Tis added in S. T. 3. That the present Ministers preach truths but by halves, and dare not preach any thing they are inhibited by the Bishop to meddle with, though never so clearly revealed in the Scripture.  
To which our Animadverter, The Bishops allow them to preach truths necessary to Salvation, and if they forbidden them to preach things disputable, as Church-Constitution,— they have the same reason as Christ had for not acquainting his Disciples with many things he had to say to them, and is agreeable to the Apostles rule, Rom. 14. 1. and practice, Acts 15. 28. If they preach those truths by halves, it's lawful to hear those halves.  
Answ. 1. That it is lawful to hear such as are such perfect Servants and slaves of men, (upon the account whereof they cannot be the Servants of Christ) that they dare not for fear of a Lord-Bishops Inhibition, communicate what of the mind of God they have received from him, is intolerable confidence to impose on us without proof. 2. Their so doing is direct rebellion against Christ, in whose Name they pretend to act, who hath charged all that so act, to publish and declare whatever he reveals to them. 3. There is no truth that Christ hath revealed, but is for the comfort, establishment, peace, edification, or direction of the Saints, that he is to be heard as a Minister of Christ, who will suffer his mouth to be muzzled by a sorry thing, called an Arch-Bishops Prohibition, is the firstborn of absurdities to imagine. 4. The Scriptures cited, are most impertinently alleged by him. John 16. 12. Christ tells his Disciples, He hath many things to say which they are not able to bear. Rom. 14. 1. Paul adviseth, That the weak Christian be received, but not to doubtful disputations. It seems good, Acts 19 28. to the Holy Ghost, and to the Apostles, to lay upon the Gentiles no greater burden than those necessary things.— Therefore an Archbishop may interdict persons to preach any other truth than he hath a mind they should, is some of Mr. T. his Lempster Logic, which a young Sophister would laugh to scorn. What follows is already answered.  
'Tis added in S. T. 2. The main truths they preach (at least many of them) are contradicted in their practice, conforming to Institutions, and Laws that are not of his prescription. This we have abundantly demonstrated.  
What Mr. T. tells us he hath replied hereunto, we have already removed out of the way.  
We say, 3. With the truth they preach, they mix many errors.— Instances of this kind have been already exhibited, to which may be added many more. We name several in S. T. the very truth is, they are grossly erroneous in most of the chief heads of Divinity, as a man may run and read in the following Particulars.  
1. Concerning the Scriptures; they hold, 1. That they are not the certain, exact, and alone rule of all things which appertain to Religion and Worship; but that humane additaments make it more decent and amiable. 2. That traditions that have no foundation in the Scripture, are to be believed, received, practised. 3. That Apocryphal Books which have in them Errors, 2 Mac. 12. 44, 45. & 14. 41, 42. Eccles. 46. 20. Wisd. 19 11.) Untruths, (2 Esd. 14. 21, 22, 23. 2 Mac. 2. 4, 8. Tob. 5. 11, 12, 13. with 12. 15. Judith 8. 33. & 10. 9 with v. 12. & 11. 6, 12, 13, 14, 15. 2 Mac. 1. 13, to 17. & 9 1, 5, 7, 9, 28, 29.) Blasphemy (Tob. 12. 12, 15. with Rom. 8. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 5. Rev. 8. 3, 4.) Magic (Tob. 6. 6, 7, 8. & 9 2, 3. with 3. 7, 8. & 11. 10, 11, 13. with 2. 9, 10.) and contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures, Judith 9 2, 3, 4. with Gen. 49. 5, 6, 7. Esther in the Apochrypha, Chap. 12. 5. & 15. 9, 10. with Esther Canonical, Chap. 6. 3. & 5. 2. Eccles. 46. 20. with Isa. 57 2.) may be used in the public Worship of God.  
Mr. T. replies, This is not preached, as I know of, by any of them.  
Answ. 1. Their practise in reading them (according to their Calender-directions) in their public Worship, is a loud preaching, that they may be so used. What the Animadverter adds in this matter, is inconsideroble. 1. We charge them not with owning them as part of the Canonical Scripture; 2. Nor say we that they are all read: but this we crave leave to add, That it is most wretched and accursed dealing to have such Writings as these so full of abomination to be used in the Worship of God, to the justling out of a great portion of the Canonical Scriptures, which are not read at all, which we are apt to think is a fearful contempt and undervaluation of God and his Laws. 3. What was once resolved by Archbishop Abbot, I am not at all concerned with, notwithstanding which they are still appointed to be read. 4. That any of the places instanced in, are capable of an easier censure than I put upon them, he may demonstrate when he is able so to do. 5. That they are read, when and where we need not be present, signifies little, they are read in their Worship, to the shutting out the Canonical Scripture, which we account a notorious error.  
2. Touching God and Christ; they own; 1. That it's lawful to bow down before that which is not God in Religious Worship, as the Altar, the repetition of the Name of Jesus, the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, (of which one of their Reverend Prelates hath been mo●e than once heard to say, That the presence of Christ in the Sacrament is not Symbolical, but Realiter, and upon that account we give adoration; 'tis like more are of his mind) as horrible Idolatry, as bowing before a Crucifix or Image. 2. That Christ is not alone the Head of the Church. 3. They seem to attribute greater efficacy to the Blood, than the Body of Christ, whilst they pray, That their bodies may be made clean by his Body, and their souls by his most precious Blood. (as they do in the prayer before that which is used at the Consecration.) 4. That Christ descended into Hell, (as if he descended into the place of the Damned, as ●he Papists hold.)  
To which Mr. T. 1. 'Tis in the Creed, called the Apostles.  
Answ. 1. This is no part of Scripture. Nor, 2. ever composed by them whose name it bears. Nor, 3. is it certain when or by whom it was so done. 4. To this very day it was never in any full and general Council confirmed and established. So that its being in the Creed proves it not so authentic as that we are bound to believe it. 5. What is said by Bishop Ʋsher— touching this matter, I have not leisure to inquire: since it's put after his burial, it can signify no other descent but into the place of the damned, which is as rotten a figment as ever was invented.  
3. Touching Man. 1. They generally own (I speak, especially of them who are called the Church) freewill. And, 2. an implicit Faith, not in words, but really and indeed, whilst they say, We must practise in Worship the determinations of the Church; though we ourselves see no reason for them, because she hath determined them, and that this is reason sufficient for our so doing, i. e. We must (in these things) believe (●or Faith must preceded practice in the Worship of God) as the Church believes.  
4. Touching Worship. They hold, 1. That Worship dev●sed by man, (though abused to Idolatry) is the Worship of God, with which he is well-pleased. 2. That God is more particularly to be worshipped in one place than in another; and that these places being Consecrated, are the Houses and Churches of God, and upon that account holy, and to be reverenced. 3. That reading an Homily, or a few Prayers out of the Liturgy, is a more excellent worship of God (though not where commanded in the Scriptures) than Preaching, which must therefore give way to it. 4. That none must be suffered publicly to worship God, or privately (except in their own Families) but according to Forms of man's devising. Which, 5. they say, Is the Worship of God.  
5. Touching the Sacraments. 1. They seem to intimate that there are more than two, when they say there are two only generally necessary to salvation. 2. That Women may Baptise in casu necessitatis (as the Papists hold) and that such Baptism is valid. 3. That Baptism is to be administered with a Cross in the forehead. 4. That all Children when baptised, are regenerate, and received by the Lord for his own Children by adoption. (Common-Prayer-Book of Public Baptism) 5. That Children being baptised have all things necessary for their salvation, and shall undoubtedly be saved. 6. That all that are baptised have received remission of sins. Confirmation before the imposition of hands. 7. They seem to make the imposition of hands a Sacrament, when they say, 'Tis a sign to certify Children of God's grace and favour towards them. (Ibid. in the Prayer after the imposition of hands) Yea they really do so; if the definition they themselves give of a Sacrament be right, viz. That it is an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace. 8. So they; to make Matrimony, by that expression used by them, consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery— in one of the Collects in the form of the solemnisation of Matrimony. 9 They adore before the Elements of Bread and Wine. 10. That the wicked and ungodly may receive it. 11. That though the most notorious offenders be partakers of it, yet the People that join with them are not defiled thereby. 12. That the Body of Christ was broken, the blood of Christ was shed (particularly) for them.  
6. Touching the Church. 1. That under the time of the Gospel there is a National Church. 2. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church, which is notoriously known (nor have they the face to deny it, though Mr. T. talks as if they would) to be consonant to their principles and practice. 3. That 'tis not lawful to separate from this Church; whoever do so are Sectaries, Schismatics, to be excommunicated, imprisoned,— a bloody error. 4. That the Clergy is the Church (as is the Pope and his Conclave to the Romanists.) 5. That these is another Head of the Church besides Christ. 6. That 'tis not in the power of the Church to choose their own Officers. 7. That 'tis in the power of Kings to appoint the highest Church-Officers. 8. That Lord-Bishops are Officers of the Church of Christ. (though not where of his appointment) 9 That Lord-Bishops can give the Holy Ghost, and power to forgive and retain sins▪ 10. That 'tis in the power of a Priest to absolve from sins [In the Visitat. of the Sick.] 11. That 'tis not in the power of the Church to excommunicate, but the Bishop.— 12. That Pastors and Teachers are to be ordained by Lord-Bishops. 13. That dumb Ministers are lawful Ministers of Christ. 14. That the Ministry, Worship, and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church, is not to be received or joined unto, unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christians, do allow it. And this their practice preacheth forth.  
7. Touching things supposed indifferent. 1. That 'tis in the power of the Church (i. e. the Bishops in their Convocation—) to make that which is in itself indifferent, a necessary part of Worship. 2. To devise what Rites it pleaseth, and add to the Worship of Christ. 3. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain (Popish) seasons, as in Lent, Advent, Rogation week.— 4. That the Cope; Surplice, Tippet, Rochet,— are meet and decent Ornaments for the Worship of God, and ministry of the Gospel. 5. That Altars, Candles, Organs,— are necessary and useful in the Church of God. Mr. T. his thoughts are vain, when he thinks that they will not assert this. Certainly they will not be so imprudent as to aver that they lavish the Gold out of the Bag for the erection of that in the Service of God, which is neither necessary nor useful. 6. That there may be Holy Days appointed to the Virgin Mary, John Baptist, the Apostles, all Saints and Angels, together also with Fasts on their Eves, on Ember days, Fridays, saturdays, (so called, heathenishly enough.)  
Mr. T. answers, They will deny this to be their Tenent, and c●tes Whitgift, etc. telling us, That they mean not that on these ●ayes the Saints should be honoured.  
Answ. 1. To these Saints, for their Worship and Service days were instituted by the Popes of Rome— to be observed; Lessons peculiar and proper thereunto, appointed to be read in their Service-Books: If no intendment of honour to the Saints were in their present observation, whence is it that the very same days, the very same Lessons▪ the very same Collects and Prayers are appointed to be used in the Church of England, on many of the Saints days that are appointed in the Church of Rome on the same days? 'Twere easy to demonstrate the truth of this by particular instances, but that would be too ●edious. 2. They are called still (in their Common-Prayer-Book) by the names of the Saints, as St. John's day,— and are accounted Holy, (for not resting on them, persons are more liable to be excommunicated by their Church, than for Swearing and Drunkenness) which as it is an imitation of Heathenish and Antichristian Superstition, so it is an occasion of nourishing a most horrid error, if not Idolatry in the hearts of the simple and ignorant, who think that day to be set apart in honour of the Saint whose name it bears. Which, 3. if it be not, I see no ground why it should be called by his name; as the same day is in the Papacy, from whence the rise and spring of our observation thereof.  
Now although we say not that 'tis unlawful to hold communion with persons that hold some errors, yet this we are bold to affirm. 1. That the ground or foundation is laid by Mr. T. upon which we may hear the present Ministers, viz. Their preaching truth is hereby discovered to be sandy and rotten, they being guilty of so many errors. Which, 2. being of such a nature as enwrap in them (some of them) a denial of the Offices of Christ. 3. Such as lie at the bottom of that superstitious corrupt, idolatrous Worship and Service, that is directly contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel, Clouds, and obfuscates the splendour and glory thereof, (as this Animadverter elsewhere acquaints us.) Yea, 4. Such as they have frequently, sacrificed, the Liberty, Estates, and precious blood of the Children of the Lord for the support of, they may well cause a Saint to enter his demurrer against hearing them; yea, if they obstinately hold and maintain them as they do. Though many of the Witnesses of Christ have born a testimony against them, whom they have no otherwise been able to resist, but by force and violence utterly to separate from them, and have nothing to do with such an hardened and bloody Generation.   

Sect. 4.  
The Answer to the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th Objection, vindicated. Of the case of Judas his preaching. Of hearing good men. Of the practice of Learned, and good men in this matter. Of the Magistrates command; how far obligatory. Of men's converting Souls, whether an Argument of true Gospel-Ministers. Of spending the Lords Day. Wherein the sanctification of it consists.  
THE fifth Objection in S. T. is, Judas preached, though a wicked man, and no doubt it was lawful; yea, the duty of Saints to hear him. To this we say, no doubt it was so. But, 1. Judas was not a visible wicked man at the time of his preaching, (that Christ, as God, knew him to be so, is not in our case considerable) but so close an Hypocrite, that he was not known, no not to the Disciples to be so; but some of the present Ministers are visibly wicked and profane. What Mr. T. answers hereunto hath already been considered. There was a special reason in the case of Juda● his preaching to answer the Prophecy, Psal. 41. 8. of which Acts 1. 16.— Nor can any thing rationally from hence be deduced more than this; that 'tis lawful to hear visible Saints known only to God to be Hypocrites; for so was Judas.  
We add, 2. Judas was chosen and called by Christ to be an Apostle, commissioned by him to preach: but the present Ministers of England are not so, as hath been proved.  
To which when Mr. T. shall be pleased to offer any thing that deserves consideration, it shall be considered. His reflection upon the Congrational Ministers (as 'tis false) is no answer. That because Judas, a commissionated Officer, by Christ was to be heard, though an Hypocrite, therefore 'tis lawful to hear such as are not commissionated by him, (though visibly profane) will be an hard task for any to prove. We proceed in S. T.  
Object. 6. But there are some good men amongst them, and such as belong to God, may we not hear such?  
Answ. 1. That there are some good men amongst them we deny not.  
Mr. T. adjoins, With what face can he acknowledge them good men, who hath represented them as walking disorderly, deniers of Christ's Offices?—  
Answ. 1. Mr. T. thinks there are good men in the Papacy, yet I presume he will thus represent them, and that with a better face ●e may do so than build again the things he hath destroyed. 2. Good men may be guilty of the greatest enormities, the sin unto death excepted. 3. Noah, David, Solomon, Peter,— were good men, yet represented by the Spirit of the Lord as guilty of heinous iniquities.  
We add in S. T. Yet we crave leave to say, That they are all of them such as are sadly polluted by their compliance, in respect of their standing in the Ministry, Antichristian, whose teachings Saints have no warrant to attend upon.  
Mr. T. subjoins, 1. That their Ministry is Antichristian, when they minister the Word of God, is a contradiction.  
Answ. 1. This is merely his dictate without proof. 2. The Ministry of Rome, (he grants is Antichristian) yet they minister the Word of God.  
He adds, 2dly, That they stand in that Ministry which they received by Episcopal Ordination, is their virtue, which for any to disclaim, is to go back from the service of God; for that Ministry is no other than of the Doctrine, and Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and a● this Church and Realm hath received the same.—  
Answ. 1. 'Tis true, thus they speak in their Book of Ordination, but these words imply a contradiction; Christ's Ministry, Administration of Sacraments and Discipline, and the Church of England are sufficiently remote; hers being received not from Christ, but Austin the Monk, and the Apostatick Church of Rome. 2. Their Priests have no Ministry of Discipline, 'tis reserved in other hands. 3. That Lord-Bishops are no Officers of the Institution of Christ, but Antichristian, we have proved; that any should receive from them any Ministry but what is Antichristian, is the first born of absurdities to imagine. 4. That to stand in such a Ministry, is to stand in a Ministry of Christ, is, oppositum in opposito, a contradiction indeed.  
We add, 3dly, The greater hopes we have of their goodness, the more cautelous we should be of encouraging them in a false way.—  
What Mr. T. answers hereunto, being a mere begging the thing in question, viz. that their way is the true way of Christ, (the contrary to which we have proved in the former part of this Discourse) requires not our stay further to consider.  
We say further in S. T. 4thly, The goodness of any, as to the main, is no warrant for any to hold communion with them, or attend upon their teachings; there are Brethren that walk disorderly, whom 'tis the duty of Saints to separate from: that the very best of the Ministers of England do so, will not be denied, (to all which Mr. T. saith nothing.) The incestuous person, 1 Cor. 5. was as to the main, for aught I know, a good man, yet the Corinthians were not to hold communion with him, till upon his repentance he was again received, 2 Cor. 2. 6.  
To which our Animadverter, It cannot well be conceived that he was a good man, since he committed such a sin as was not named amongst the Gentiles.  
Answ. 1. Before his admission into the Church of Corinth, he was by them thought to be so, else they had not received him. 2. When they excommunicated him, they well hoped he might be so, for they did it that the Spirit (through the destruction of the flesh) might be said in the Day of the Lord. 3. The kind and blessed effect that Sentence had upon him, doth not a little demonstrate as much; for had he not had the Seed of God in him, more probably he would as others, have been hardened thereby, gone on opposing, blaspheming God and his Church. 4. The Animadverters reason hath no reason in it, for I know not any security a Child of God hath from any particular word of promise, that he may not fall into the worst of sins, except the sin unto death. 5. That it would be now the sin of any to mourn, that an Antichristian, drunken ignorant Minister, from whom (for the most part) profaneness is gone forth into the Land, are not removed,— more than it was twenty or thirty years ago. When Mr. T. and the whole Generation of the People of God almost sought their removal with Prayers and Tears, I am not able to understand. He cannot be ignorant that they are the burden and plague of the Nation, the great obstacles of the work of Reformation in it.  
We yet add, 5thly, 'Tis utterly unlawful to communicate with a devised Ministry, upon what pretext soever. 6thly, So is it for any to partake in other men's sins, (as hath been proved) but every usurped Ministry is the sin of him (though never so holy a Person) that exerciseth it.  
In answer to which Mr. T. dictates nothing, but what is notoriously false, and hath already been replied to. We proceed to the seventh Objection.  
Object. 7. But many learned and good men have in days past, and do now hear the present Ministers.  
To which we answer, 1. That the greatest Scholars, and most accomplished for humane Wisdom, yea visible Holiness, have sometimes been the greatest opposers of Christ, ignorant of the Will of God, in respect of the truth, and work of their Generation,— as the Scribes and Pharisees,— who opposed Christ, and the Doctrine of the Gospel preached by him.  
Mr. T. answers, 1. Learned and good men amongst Christians are never found the greatest persecutors and opposers of Christ.  
Answ. Nor do we say they are, but that men of Learning an● visible Holiness are so. Which Mr. T. knows to be true; many of that complexion have been found amongst the Papacy (and are) that have poured forth the blood of many millions of Saints, and opposed the Ways of Christ to the death, and that out of Conscience (as they thought) to God. So Paul before his Conversion. 2. That the greatest Scholars have not always been on the Lord's side, have been stupendously ignorant of his Will, he grants. With the rest we are not concer●ed.  
We add, 2dly, That persons of as great holiness and renown for learning, and all manner of accomplishments, as learned Ainsworth— have been, and are of the same apprehension with us in this matter, not to mention the Reformed Churches who generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England, not admitting any by virtue of it, to the charge of souls. What our Animadverter speaks by way of disvaluation of Cotton-, Ainsworth, redounds to his own disparagement, their praise is in the Churches. 2. That Mr. Cotton was (at least in part) of our persuasion in this matter, let the Reader inform himself from pag. 111. to the end of his Way of the Churches in New England. 3. Of the judgement of the Reformed Churches, and Mr. T. his mistake thereabouts we have already spoken.  
We say in S. T. 3dly, To the Law and to the Testimony, Isa. 8. 20. If they speak not according to this Rule, though Angels for knowledge, or holiness, they are not to be received or heeded: One word from the Lord is of more weight to hearts made truly tender, than the example of an hundred professors can be.— 4. The Apostle hath long since determined this case, 1 Cor. 11. 1. Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ. So far as Saints follow Christ, I may and aught to follow them, but no further. So that the learning, parts, o● holiness of any that attend upon the present Ministers of England, is no warrant for me so to do. — All this, he tells us, he likes well: So that he grants this Objection to be of no value. What he afterwards adds, Of resting in some cases on learned Guides, we have already answered. We proceed to the review of the 8th Objection.  
Object. 8. But the Magistrate commands us, and ought we not to obey Magistrates?  
To which we answer, 1. That Magistrates have no power to command in matters of Instituted Worship where Christ is silent, or to govern in his Church, is affirmed by many.  
What Mr. T. Sect. 12. saith of the confession of the Brownists, Art. 39— is altogether impertinent; they speak nothing th●t is contrary to what is affirmed by us. What he hath said, Chap. 5. is already refuted; should it be granted that Magistrates may command men▪ (and, ought therein to be obeyed) to be present at the true Worship of God, yet till he hath disproved wh●t we have offered to prove the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship to be false and Idolatrous Worship, the Ministers of the Church of England false and Antichristian, we are not concerned in it. 2. The conformity of the Disciples to the just and righteous Decrees of Magistrates we said was permitted them, was a mere supposition for Arguments sake, relating only to things Civil, and therefore is not at all of our present concern. 3. What he talks of Popish Recusants, and the Laws of the Land, I am not at all concerned in. Better all the Laws (of that nature in the world) were evacuated, that one Command of Christ should be violated.  
We add, 2dly, The Commands of Magistrates when contrary to th● will and way of Christ, (as we have proved the hearing the present Ministers to be) are not to be subjected to, Acts 4. 19, 20. & 5. 29. Dan. 3. 16, 17. & 6. 10. We remark the Testimony of August. de Ver●. Dom. Ser. 6. in this matter, who was fully of the same mind with us. Sed timeo inquies— He tells us plainly, That such as fear to offend ●heir superiors, should much more fear to offend God who is greater than all. The Emperors and Monarches of the World threaten us with a Prison if we disobey them; The Lord threatens us with Hell upon our disobedience to him. To which Mr. T. answers not at all.  
The 9th Objection in S. T. is, The Ministers of England are true Gospel Ministers, for they convert souls; which the Apostle makes the Seal of his Ministry or Apostleship: Therefore its lawful to hear them.  
To which we say, That the conversion of Souls proves not ● lawful Ministry. 1. Paul makes it not, 1 Cor▪ 9 2. singly a sufficient demonstration of his Apostleship.— 2. Many have converted souls that were not Apostles, as ordinary Ministers, yea Brethren, Women, remarkable Providences; yet who will say that these last are Apostles or Ministers of the Lord Jesus? 3. Should it be granted, that Conversion of souls is an Argument of a lawful Ministry, Where are the Churches, nay where are the particular persons converted by them?— In answer to which Mr. T. grants, That Conversion of souls is no certain sign of a true Gospel Minister; whereby he hath discharged this Argument (as insufficient) from further attendance upon this service. In what follows there is nothing (but what hath already been replied to) in this Sect. that requires our stay.  
The last Objection proposed and answered in S. T. is, Our Ministers are removed, and we know not where to go to hear; would you hav● us sit at home idle?  
Answ. 1. Though we are not against any Ordinance of Christ, yet we are afraid that those that know not how to spend the Lords ●ay without hearing, do too much Idolise that Ordinance, and never knew what 'twas to spend that day with him.  
Mr. T. adjoins, That such persons conceive they cannot spend ●he Lords day without hearing, is not out of any Idolising that Ordinance of God; but because it is one duty of sanctifying the Lords day; not only to exercise themselves in Reading and Prayer at home, for that is every days duty, but also to frequent the public Assemblies where God is worshipped,— Heb. 10. 25. Exod. 20. 8. Acts 20. 7. Rev. 1. 10. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. Joh. 20. 26, 29.  
Answ. 1. If by Public Assemblies he mean the Assemblies of Swearers, Drunkards, Adulterers, Idolaters,— called Christians, where God is worshipped in a way of man's devising, by an Antichristian, Formal, Superstitious (and it may be) Drunken Priest, in opposition to the Private Meetings and Assemblies of the Saints; The frequenting such Assemblies is so far from being that wherein the sanctifying the Lords Day doth consist, that it is a profanation thereof, being rebellion against that solemn Institution of our Lord Jesus, enjoining persons to separate from such Assemblies. The Scriptures produced by him totally evert his Figment; the most of them preaching forth the duty and practice of the Saints in opposition to such Assemblies. And Rev. 1. 10. John was alone on the Lord's Day, and yet I hope sanctified it according to the will of God. 2. I cannot but wonder that People (especially men of learning & reading) should talk so much of Public Assemblies, and Public Ordinances, when they cannot but know that ever since Christianity had a being in the world, for the most part, the Assemblies of Pagans, and Antichristians with their Ordinances and Worship, were public, and the Assemblies of the true Church and Worship of Christ retired and private. Whence in Rev. 12. 6. (when you have the Beast and Whore in their Ruff and Gallantry, the whole World wondering after them, Rev. 13. 3. you have the poor Witnesses of Christ prophesying in sackcloth, Rev. 11. and the Church flying into the Wilderness, a state of solitariness and retirement, Rev. 12. 6, 14. Might not the Papists in the Marian days have pleaded thus against the Protestants? Such Public Assemblies as Mr. Cotton— spoke of, viz. The Assemblies of Believers in a particular Church-State, we say are not carelessly or wilfully to be neglected or forsaken. But what's this to the Parochial Assemblies of England, who are not such?  
Mr. Crofton's Argument cited by him is easily answered; 'Tis this, Communion with the Church-visible in Gods solemn Worship, is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, an indispensible duty: But Communion with the English Church, in the Worship by her celebrated, is Communion with the Church-visible in Gods solemn Worship: Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. By the Church-visible he must understand a particular instituted Church (for with the Universal-Church-Visible, of which some talk, as such, I cannot have Communion in the celebration of Ordinances) of the appointment of Christ, by Go●'s solemn Worship, Worship appointed, instituted by him, to be managed and performed according to his will, for otherwise it is not his Worship: I● which sense we grant his Major, Communion with the Church-visible (i. e. a particular instituted Church of Christ) in God's solemn Worship, (i. e. Worship of his own appointment, celebrated in his own way) is an essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, an indispensible duty, (with this limitation, when and where there is any such Church with whom I may meet.) But then the Minor is most notoriously false and untrue, because the Church of England is no such particular instituted Church, as we have proved; the Worship celebrated by her is not Worship of the appointment of God, managed in his own way, but of man's devising, performed by Antichristian Officers, as we have demonstrated.  
We say further in S. T. 2dly, You need not sit at home idle,— you may soon hear of some or other of the Assemblies of the Saints, whither you may repair to wait upon the Lord with them. Mr. T. is mistaken that such Assemblies as these are not in many places to be found. Through the grace of the Lord, 'tis for the most part far otherwise than he intimates.  
We add, 3dly, Were it, or should it be otherwise, yet better be idle than do worse, better do nothing than sin against God, encourage others in their evil deeds.— Which he confesseth to be true upon supposition that public hearing is a sin, 'twere better be idle than do that. Whether we have manifested it to be so, let the indifferent Reader judge.—  
We add, 4thly, There is no necessity of being idle, if thou knowest not where to hear on that day.— If thou hast a sight of thy interest in God, thou mayst spend thy time in admiring, magnifying the rich love of the Lord to thee, if not in getting thy interest cleared up unto thee; in studying thine own heart, getting sin mortified, grace quickened, strengthened, reaching after communion with God, getting ready trimmed for the coming of Jesus.— That any of these directions are such as weak Christians are not able to make use of, that they would be dangerous to them, (as Mr. T. speaks) causing them to decay in the exercise of Godliness, grow barren and lifeless in Prayer, occasioning them to fall into errors, enthusiastic conceits, to turn Seekers,— is absurd to imagine. How far public hearing is required for hallowing the Lords Day, when, and how, not, we have but now declared, and need not add more.    

CHAP. XII.  

Sect. 1.  
Mr. T. his Arguments for hearing the present Ministers, answered. Some things are unlawful in which is no sin. There is sin in hearing the present Ministers. (Nothing relating to instituted Worship, as such, but is necessary.) Against hearing them lie Exceptions that are not merely  but essential to the duty of hearing. God's cautions restrain us from hearing them. 'Tis no characteristical property of Christ's Sheep so to do, but the contrary. John 8. 27. & 10. 27. considered. Not to hear them is no sign of one that is not of God. No such profaneness that is condemned in Esau. No refusing the Pearl of great price. Of the efficaciousness of the Word. We have no ground to expect the present Ministers preaching should be made effectual to us. The neglect of which is no occasion or reason of men's condemnation. John 3. 20. opened. They have not the words of eternal life. John 6. 68 explained. The words of eternal life, what they import.  
MR. T. closeth his Theodulia with no fewer than 40 Arguments, Sect. 15. whereby he endeavours to prove the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, which are briefly to be considered.  
Arg. 1. That is lawful in which is no sin. In hearing the present Ministers preach the Doctrine of the Gospel— is no sin. Because it's no breach of any Law of Nature, or of the Scriptures,— and sin is a transgression of the Law; and where there is no Law there is no transgression, 1 John 3. 4. Rom. 4. 13.  
Answ. Both Propositions are liable to exception. The Major is not universally true: There are some things unlawful in which there is no sin per se, as the eating the Idolothite, which was only per accidens so, in respect of the offence of the weak brother; and yet utterly unlawful to be done, how much this concerns the present case we have showed already. 2. The Minor is notoriously false. 1st, In hearing the present Ministers is sin; 'tis a violation and transgression of the Law of Nature, the voice whereof is, That God must be served and worshipped according to the revelation of his will.— That nothing be done herein but what he gives direction and commandment about: so say the Scriptures, as we have proved Chap. 2. Now Mr. T. is not able to produce one Scripture wherein God commands us to hear them. What he replies hereunto is frivolous.  
He saith, 1. That a command is not necessary to prove a thing lawful, but to prove it a necessary duty.  
Answ. But there is nothing relating to Instituted Worship▪ as such, (of which we have proved hearing to be a part) that is lawful, but is our necessary duty, viz. necessary, necessitate praecepti instituting it.  
2. That as express command may be showed for hearing them, (as he saith) as for hearing the Congregational Ministers,— is his mistake. The hearing these is showed to be a positive duty by command from Christ;— The other, contrary to many solemn commands given forth by him, all along this Treatise. So that  
His Argument may be Retorted upon himself. — That which is a breach of the Law of Nature, and Scripture, moral or positive, in express terms, or by good consequence, is sinful and unlawful to be practised. (This Mr. T. grants.) But such is the hearing the present Ministers (this we have already proved) Therefore.— He adds,  
Arg. 2. Those Ministers may lawfully be heard, against the hearing of whom lie no exceptions; but such as are  to the duty of hearing, as it is a part of God's Worship: But so it is concerning the hearing the present Ministers. Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. We deny his Minor, and to the proof thereof we say, that the duty of hearing consists not only in this, that we apply ourselves to learn the mind of God, but that we do this lawfully and according to the mind of God: when he hath appointed Officers of his own, and given his Spirit unto his Children to enable them to communicate his mind and will to the Sons of Men, to imagine that an attendment upon those to learn the mind of God, whom he hath not deputed to dispense it, (charged us as Antichristian-Officers, persons that walk disorderly,— to have nothing to do with, but separate from) is  to the duty of hearing, is a fearful contempt and disvaluation of the sovereignty and authority of Christ.  
His 2d Argument may easily be Retorted upon himself, thus. Those Ministers may not lawfully be heard, against the hearing of whom ●e exceptions that are not merely  (but essential) to the duty of hearing as it is a part of God's Worship: But so it is concerning the hearing the present Ministers. 'Tis not , but essential, to the duty of hearing Ministers, that I hear the mind of God, not from such as act from an Antichristian Call, that walk disorderly, oppose Christ in his Offices,— but such as are deputed by him to dispense it.— Therefore.  
His 3d, Argument is thus form. That is not unlawful from which Gods cautions restrain us not: But from hearing the present Ministers Gods cautions restrain us not, for they only restrain us from hearing such as teach false Doctrine, Deut. 13. 3. Mat. 7. 15. Mar. 4. 24.  
Answ. 1. We deny his Minor. 1. Every command enjoining us not to attend upon, have communion with Antichristian Ministers, such as walk disorderly,— are cautions against hearing them. As are 2dly, the Scriptures produced by him, since we prove that they are false Prophets who labour to draw the People off the pure Institutions of Christ to the putrid Inventions of men.  
Whence we argue, 3dly, That is unlawful for us from which Gods cautions restrain us: But God's cautions restrain us from hearing the present Ministers, for they restrain us from having to do with a false Ministry, false Prophets, who mingle their own Dreams and Humane Inventions with the Word and Truths of the Lord; which we have proved true of the present Ministers. Therefore.— He adds,  
Arg. 4. That is not unlawful which may be a duty and characteristical property of one that is of God, or Christ's Sheep. But to hear the present Ministers, being supposed to teach the Word of God, and the Voice of Christ, may be a duty and characteristical property of one that is of God, or Christ's Sheep, John 8. 47. & 10. 27. Therefore.—.  
Answ. We deny the minor; the Scriptures produced prove not that it is the duty— of one that is of God,— to hear every one that teacheth somewhat of the Word of God, but only such as teach it according to Christ's appointment, (nor will Mr. T. say it is, the Devil did so, Women may do so, yet he saith they are not to be heard) much less, that it is the duty of one that is of God to hear the present Ministers of England who preach Christ's Word from Authority humane, Antichristian, and that mixed with a multitude of humane Inventions. We may better argue, that is unlawful which is not a duty and characteristical property of one that is of God, or Christ's Sheep, but to hear the present Ministers of England, is not a duty and characteristical property of Christ's Sheep, (as we have proved:) And have yet to add, 1. They preach not the Word of God lawfully from Authority in his Name, of which the Scriptures mentioned are to be understood. 2. They preach the Commandments, traditions of men in the stead of God's Word. 3. They hinder, oppose, persecute such as have authority to preach it. 4. They are the strangers mentioned, John 10. from whom 'tis the property of Christ's Sheep to flee. 5. Many of them preach not the Word at all, nor can they so do. Therefore.— He adds.  
Arg. 5. That may be unlawful which may be a sign of one tha● is not of God, nor of Christ's Sheep: But not to hear the present Ministers when they teach the Word of God,— may be a sign of one that is not of God, John 8. 47. & 10. 26.  
A. This is answered in what was replied to the former Argument. i. The minor is denied, for the same reasons of our denial of the mi●or in the precedent Argument. 2. This Patron of charity at once rejects the many thousands of England, precious in the sight of the Lord, and beloved of him, as persons not of God, not of Christ's Sheep, because they hear not the present Ministers. 3. We may more righteously argue; To hear those that pretend to teach the Word of God, as Ministers, (intermixed with the traditions of men) but are not commissionated by him, so to do is unlawful, for 'tis a rejection, and contempt of Christ's Authority, (who alone hath power to appoint his own Officers, by whom he will communicate his mind and will.) But to hear the present Ministers, is to hear such as pretend to ●each the Word of God, (intermixed with the traditions of men) bu● are not commissionated by him so to do, (as we have before demonstrated.) Therefore.  
Arg. 6. His sixth Argument is thus form, To refuse to hear the Word of God, though delivered by the present Ministers, is such profaneness as is condemned in Esau, Heb. 12. 16. for it is the rejecting or neglecting of an holy thing, Matth. 7. 6. therefore it may be unlawful to shun hearing them, and consequently lawful to hear them.  
Answ. 1. Very good! It seems then that all that refuse to hear the present Ministers, are profane Esau's: this he will have so much ingenuity as to retract in his next. 2. He supposeth that the non-hearing of the Ministers is a refusing to hear the Word of God, which is a most nefarious and diabolical accusation. We refuse not to hear the Word of God in the way of his own appointment, but to comply with and abet a false Antichristian-Ministry. 3. The People of God conceive it to be one part of their birthright as Men and Christians, not to be compelled to hear those who come in their own names, in the name of Antichrist, which they refuse to sell for advantage, in the World, with profane Esau, and therefore judge it irrational, a contradiction, to be accused, as if profane, like him, for not d●ing that, upon the account of his doing whereof, he was branded by the Spirit of the Lord as such.— 4. They judge they may more rationally argue, To hear the Word of God as delivered by the present Ministers is an Esau-like profaneness, (because, 1. 'tis a rejection of their birthright, as Men and Christians. 2. 'Tis a compliance with, encouragement of those who trample upon the Sovereignty, Authority of Christ. 3. 'Tis a departing from the appointments of Christ, to the Ordinances of Antichrist, which is no small undervaluing of the Grace of Christ, of the Gospel, whereof Esau's profaneness was a Type.) Therefore 'tis unlawful to hear them.  
Arg. 7. The seventh Argument advanced by him for this good service, is, The Word of God is a Pearl of great price, Mat. 7. 6. & 13. 44, 46. Therefore to be heard and received by whomsoever held forth; and consequently its folly and sin to refuse hearing it, because of personal exceptions against the bringer.—  
Answ. 1. We deny the consequence, nor will Mr. T. affirm it, out of the heat of dispute, to be true; he hath asserted the contrary in his Theod. 2. 'Tis wisdom, not folly, to refuse to meddle with the Pearl of the Prince, when brought us by the hands of those from whom he hath charged us not to receive it, who were never authorized by him to bring it to us, especially when it is to be had from persons of his own authorisement. 3. We have found the present Ministers such merchandizers for their own profit in the World, that they put off dross for Gold, and stones for Pearls; at the best, mix it with the dirt and gravel of the Antichristian City, the traditions of the great Whore, which they also impose upon us.— 4. We think we may more justly argue; The Word of God is a precious Pearl, (Mat. 7. 6. & 13. 44, 46.) therefore they ought not to hear the present Ministers, who spoil, corrupt it with their traditions, and thereby offer violence to it; who contemn, despise, tread underfoot much of the Contents thereof; who huckster, and make merchandise of it; who prefer the Canon-Law of Antichrist before it, so debaseing it to their lusts, and wills of their Lords and Masters, lest they should partake of the guilt of those injuries they offer thereunto, whom they see (many of them) more zealous and nice in the punctual observance of an Edict, or Institution, given forth by their Masters the Bishops, as bowing the knee, uncovering the head, or the like, than the Institutions of their Lord Christ. So that we may too truly say of them as Theodoricus Niemensis once said; As the Priests of the Jews were at last possessed with that madness, that they cried out, We have no King but Caesar; So I have a long time feared, and do fear, that our Priests may say, We have no other King but the Prelate. He adds,  
Arg. 8. If the Word of God preached by the present Ministers may be effectual for that good, which is the end wherefore it is preached, than it ought to be heard from them, according to James 1. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 1. But the Word of God preached by the present Ministers may be thus effectual. Therefore.  
Answ. 1. If he understand the Major of a may be of possibility, with respect to the power of God, we deny the consequence of the Major Proposition. God can, if he please, by the ministration of Angels, good or bad, effect that for which the Word is preached; but it doth not therefore follow that we may attend the Ministry of these, especially the latter of them. 2. If of a may be of credibility, with respect to Institution, i. e. I have ground to expect it will be, by virtue of the promise of God, for the blessing of his own Institution, and making it effectual for the end intended, we deny his Minor; which he will be able to make good, when he proves that the preaching the Word of God by the present Ministers, is a Divine Institution, upon which the Lord hath promised his blessing for the making it effectual for the ends for which he hath instituted the preaching of the Gospel; which we have already disproved. 3. This Argument may be righteously retorted against himself, That preaching the Word of God, in which (by virtue of any Institution of the Lord, or promise of his Blessing and Presence thereupon) I may not expect should be effectual for that good for which preaching the Word was instituted by him, is not to be attended. But this is true, with respect to the preaching the Word of God by the present Ministers. Which will be taken for granted, till what is offered in this Treatise to prove it, be enervated, and the promise of the Presence and Blessing of God upon their so doing, as his own Institution be produced. Which as yet we have not met with. Therefore.— He goes on,  
Arg. 9 That is not unlawful, (lawful he means) the neglect of which may be the occasion and reason of a man's condemnation. But the neglect of hearing the present Ministers may be the occasion and reason of a man's condemnation. Therefore.— The minor he proves thus; The neglect of coming to the Light, may be the reason of men's condemnation, John 3. 20. But the neglect of hearing the present Ministers, is a neglect of coming to the Light, for they hold forth the Light. Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. We deny the minor of both Propositions. The coming to the Light, John 3. 20. is believing in Christ (the true Light, John 1.) of their not so doing Christ complains, John 5. 40. That the neglect of hearing the present Ministers should be a refusing to believe in Christ, is not easily demonstrated. 2. There are others that hold forth the Light (in the Animadverters sense) i. e. preach the Gospel beside (and at another rate than) the Prelatists and their Dependants, whom if we hear, (by his own Argument) we neglect not to come to the Light. 3. The present Ministers hold not forth the pure Light of the Gospel, they obfuscate, darken it by humane Traditions and Ceremonies.— 4. We may more justly argue, those Teachers that oppose and hinder the holding forth the Light, or the fruitful faithful preaching of God's Word, may be the occasion and reason of men's condemnation, and so not to be owned and joined with. But the present Ministers of England do so. Therefore. The Major will not be denied; the Minor is (for the most part) Mr. T. his own, in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum, p. 7. and is generally known to be true. I would gladly be informed how those that are disaffected, adversaries to, and do oppose fruitful, faithful, and godly preaching, (which Mr. T. affirms the Teachers of England do) can be said to hold forth the Light. His tenth Argument follows.  
Arg. 10. We may go to them as Teachers of us who have the words of eternal Life, John 6. 68 But the present Ministers, who teach the Gospel of Christ, have the words of eternal Life, for it contains his words, and is the power of God to Salvation from the matter of it, Rom. 1. 16. 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5.  
Answ. 1. By the words of Eternal Life he means, the Doctrine or Matter of the Gospel, in which sense we deny his Major. That because a man hath read the Scripture●, and got a Systeme of Divinity into his head, (without one drop of the Spirit, or inward experience of the things he notionally understands) therefore he is fit to be a Teacher of the Gospel, and must be attended, will not in haste be believed by such as have acquaintance with the Mysteries thereof. John 6. 68 proves it not, being spoken of Christ, who was in the bosom of the Father, sent into the World, commissionated by him to preach the words of eternal Life. 2. That the Gospel, from the matter of it, is the Power of God to Salvation, I must crave leave to enter my demurrer against; 'tis the energy, or powerful working of the Spirit of the Lord with it, which makes it to be so, (upon the account whereof, the words of Christ are by Peter said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the words of eternal Life, which to affirm, that any of the Sons of Men have as Christ had, to whom the Spirit was given without measure, is little less than blasphemy) without which the matter of the Gospel, or the Glorious-truths' contained therein operate not to the salvation of any, for want whereof 'tis to some the savour of death unto death, a stumbling-block, foolishness, not profiting them at all. In it lies the whole of its energy and power, its mightiness to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, is said to be through God, 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5.   

Sect. 2.  
Arguments for hearing the present Ministers, refuted. Personal qu●lifications to be heeded in hearing. The case of the Beraeans, Acts 17. 11, 12. examined. It's impertinency to the matter in hand, manifeste●. The Ministers of England forbidden to preach in Christ's Name. The weakness of Mr. T. his reasoning from Luke 9 49, 50. Mat. 7. 22, 23. discovered. In hearing the Ministers, we hear not Christ, Luke 10. 16. considered. Of their preaching the Gospel of Peace. The reception of gifts how to be improved. Of the interest of Saints in Gospel-Ministers. Forbidding men to hear the present Ministers, no glorying in men: These are no Stewards of the Mysteries of God.—  
THE eleventh Argument Mr. T. advanceth to prove the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers is thus form, If we ought to hear the Word of God as God's Word, we ought to hear it at any time from any person, without consideration of the personal qualifications of them that deliver it. But the Word of God is to be heard as God's Word, and not as the words of men, 1 Thes. 2. 13. Therefore.—  
Answ. We deny the consequence of the first Proposition, That we hear the Word of God as God's Word, i. e. with reverence and godly attention, is our duty; of which the Apostle, 1 Thes. 2. 13. that in hearing, we ought to have respect to personal qualifications, we have proved abundantly in this Treatise. He adds,  
Arg. 12. They may be right hearers of the Word, who may hear them as the Beraeans did, Acts 17. 11, 12. But the Beraeans heard the Word of God without respect to personal qualifications, as examining his Commission to preach, or the like. Therefore.—  
Answ. The Major is denied. 1. Those whom the Beraeans heard were extraordinary Officers, who confirmed their Calling by Miracles, ours not so, who give no such evident proof thereof; therefore there is more reason to have respect to personal qualifications. 2. They were not converted to Christianity, knew nothing of any personal qualifications was required by the rules thereof, that they ought to have respect unto; 'tis otherwise with us: there are personal qualifications required in the Gospel in persons that go forth authoritatively to preach it. Which we are to have regard to. 3. They had no just ground of personal exceptions against the Apostles, as we have against the present Ministers. 4. There was no Scripture-Law interdicting their hearing the Apostles, we have produced several Statute-Laws given forth by our Lord and King, forbidding our hearing the present Ministers. 5. They preached only the Word of God, these the Traditions of men; of this matter we have already treated, Chap. 3. Sect. 1. His thirteenth Argument follows.  
Arg. 13. They may be heard preach in Christ's Name, who are not to be forbidden to preach in Christ's Name; but the present Ministers are not to be forbidden to preach in Christ's Name. Therefore.— The Minor he proves by a parity of reason thus, Christ forbade not those who cast out Devils in his Name, yet joined not with his Disciples, sigh so doing they did not speak evil of Christ, nor were against him, but for him, Luke 9 49, 50. Therefore he would not have the other forbidden to preach in his Name.—  
Answ. We deny his Minor; we have proved the present Ministers are forbidden to preach in his Name. To the proof thereof we answer. That it doth not follow, that because Christ would not have the person forbidden that cast out Devils in his Name, so to do that, therefore he would not have the Ministers of England forbidden to preach.— For, 1. there was no previous Election or Call required to that work, as there is to the authoritative preaching of the Gospel. 2. He cast out Devils in the Name and Authority of Christ; These men act from the authority of Antichrist. 3. He was not against Christ; these speak evil of, oppose, persecute him in his ways and people. 4. By this Argument, for aught I know, he may as well prove it lawful to hear an unconverted Pagan, if he get some Sriptures to read to us, for I find not that the person that cast out Devils was converted to Christianity.  
Arg. 14. His fourteenth Argument is thus form, Their prophesying in Christ's Name, who were workers of iniquity, is not condemned, but allowed by Christ as good, Mat. 7. 22, 23. Therefore their teaching in Christ's Name, who are only supposed to be defective in outward Calling, or faulty in some actions consistent with Christianity, is to be allowed, and so by consequence the hearing of them.  
Answ. 1. The Major is not proved in the Scripture cited by him; their prophesying in Christ's Name seems rather to be condemned: They plead this with Christ for ownings and acceptance; Away, saith Christ, I am so far from thinking that you deserve any thing for that, that I account their very prophesying in my Name to be a work of iniquity, and you upon the account thereof workers of iniquity. But, 2. we deny the consequence; it follows not that though Christ did allow (if he did) their prophesying in his Name, that therefore the teaching and hearing the present Ministers of England is allowable. For, 1. though Christ tells them that they are workers of iniquity, yet they seem to be such close Hypocrites that no body else knew them to be so, no it seems not they themselves, for they come at the very last to Christ for ownings and admission. They seem much like to the foolish Virgins, Mat. 25. Many of the present Ministers are visibly wicked and profane. 2. They prophesied in Christ's Name from a visible authority committed to them by him; these not so, as we have proved. 3. They visibly owned the Kingship and Lordly Authority of Christ, these deny it, as we have proved. He adds,  
Arg. 15. They may be lawfully heard, in hearing whom we may hear Christ; but by hearing the present Ministers, who preach the Doctrine of Christ, we hear Christ. Therefore.— The reason of the Minor is from the Speech of Christ, John 7. 16. My Doctrine is not mine, but him that sent me; so the Preachers Doctrine which he preacheth, after Christ, is not his own, but Christ's, who sent him; as an Ambassadors Message is his Kings, not his own, and by hearing him deliver it according ●o his Commission, his Master is heard.  
Answ. We deny his Minor; which John 7. 16. proves not. He vainly surmizeth, 1. That every one that preacheth the Doctrine of Christ, is sent by Christ, which we have over and over confuted. 2. That the present Ministers are the Ambassadors of Christ, Act by virtue of Commission from him, which he should have proved, not begged, we have evinced the contrary. 3. We may more justly argue, They only are lawfully to be heard, by hearing whom we hear Christ, (for he is the great Prophet of the Church, whom we are to hear in all things) but in hearing the present Ministers, we hear not Christ. Therefore.— The Major will be denied; the Minor is evident, partly from the reason given by the Animadverter, their Doctrine for a great part of it is not Christ's, but their own; but chief, because they are not sent by Christ, upon the account whereof 'tis that Christ saith, Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me; as is evident from, v. 1, 2, 3. He proceeds, and saith.  
Arg. 16. Those that preach the Gospel of Peace, that bring the glad tidings of good things, are sent to preach, their feet are beautiful, and they are to be heard,— Rom. 10. 15. But the present Ministers preach the Gospel of Peace.— Therefore.  
Answ. 1. The Major understood universally, is not true, nor will Mr. T. affirm it to be so. All that preach the Gospel of Peace— are not sent (i. e. as Officers are Commissionated by Christ) to preach, nor doth the Scripture produced evince any such thing, but the contrary, viz. that a man cannot (i. e. authoritatiuè, and by virtue of an Office, Power, lawfully) preach the Gospel of glad Tidings except he be sent. And how shall they preach except they be sent, i. e. they cannot authoritatiuè, and lawfully do so. So that, 2. we may better argue, Those that have no Gospel Mission for the preaching of the Gospel, and in the stead of preaching thereof, preach the Traditions of men, are not to be heard as Ministers of the Gospel; But this is true of the present Ministers. Therefore.  
We proceed to the consideration of his seventeenth Argument, the substance whereof is, Those who have received abilities from Christ to preach the Gospel, aught to improve those abilities in their so doing, and are therein to be attended, Mat. 25. 15. Luke 19 13. 1 Cor. 12. 7, 8, 28, 29. Ephes. 4. 11. But the present Ministers have received abilities to preach the Gospel, and aught to improve their abilities in that work. Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. The Major is not absolutely true, 'Tis the duty of those who have received gifts from God to improve them, and to be attended in their so doing; but both the one and the other is to be done lawfully. Because a Friar hath received gifts from God, a Drunkard, Idolater, it doth not therefore follow that he is bound to exercise these gifts in a false Ministry, or that I am bound to attend upon persons of such a Character in the exercise thereof. 2. Nor do the Scriptures produced in this Argument, or 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. (in the following Argument, which is comprehended in this, and requires no other answer) speak any such thing. They relate to persons in, and of the Kingdom of Heaven, in a regular Gospel-Church-State, and the improvement of gifts in a regular, orderly way, according to the appointment of Christ. 3. This Principle lies at the bottom of this Argument, That gifts received make a lawful Minister, and we are bound to attend upon such, as such who have received gifts from God, be they never so wicked and scandalous in their Conversation; which Mr. T. upon second thoughts will not assert. 4. As to the most of the present Ministry, the Minor may be righteously denied. They preach not the Gospel, nor have they received gifts so to do.  
His 18th Argument is for substance the same with this, and hath received its Answer. We proceed to his 19th.  
Arg. 19 Every Christian hath an interest in every Preacher of the Gospel, so that no Minister is to be accounted as peculiar to any party of Christians, so as to be impropriated by them, that the ability of every one may be used by any, though not their proper Minister, nor persons regularly ordained, as is evident from, 1 Cor. 3. 22. Acts 18. 24, 25, 26. Therefore ●he present Ministers may be heard by any Saints while they teach the Gospel, though such irregularities as are objected against them, were granted to be in them, or their Ministry.  
Answ. 1. Every Christian hath an Interest in every Gospel Minister, and may lawfully hear him, is true: But Mr. T. must prove the present Ministers to be such, else he himself will acknowledge the Argument is invalid. 2. Grant Apollos was not sent forth to peac● the Gospel by virtue of Office; he might be heard as a gifted Brother, which we have proved the present Ministers cannot. 3. It doth not follow that because the Saints at Corinth had an Interest in every Minister:— Therefore 'tis lawful for Saints to hear the present Ministers.  
Arg. 20. The sum of his 20th Argument is, Preferring one Minister of the Gospel— before another, because of our party and way, is glorying in men, forbidden by the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 21. & 4. 6. But to forbid hearing the present Ministers of England, though Ministers of the Gospel,— and ●ying▪ men to hear those only who are their elected Ministers, is a preferring one Minister of the Gospel before another. Therefore.—  
Answ. We deny his Minor; Because, 1. The Ministers of England are not Ministers of the Gospel. 2. We tie not persons to hear only those of our own way, as he calls it. Such as fear God, act not as Ministers of the Gospel from an Antichristian Call, walk orderly,— let Saints hear: None as I know of will interdict them so to do. I am sorry Mr. T. should discover his nakedness so much, that every Argument almost should be a mere petitio principii, a sorry begging the thing in question, or build upon some monstrous notorious mista●e, in the review whereof he will surely be ashamed. Thus fares it with him in his 21th Argument.  
Arg. 21. Those Ministers who are the Ministers of Christ,— who labour among the Saints and are over them in the Lord, and admonish them that are Elders that rule well, especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine, who are their Rulers or Guides, who speak to them the Word of God, are to be esteemed, honoured, remembered for their works sake, 1 Cor. 4. 1. 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. 1 Tim. 5. 13. Heb. 13. 7. and therefore much more are to be heard: But the present Ministers of England are the Ministers of Christ:— Therefore.  
Answ. The Minor is denied, wherein the Animadverter pitifully begs u● to grant what he should have proved; That the Ministers of England are the Ministers of Christ, which no one in their right wits will suppose he proves by this Argument. The Ministers of Christ are Stewards 〈◊〉 ●he mysteries of God, who labour in the Word and Doctrine, who ●peak unto us the Word of God: But the Ministers of England are Stewards of the mysteries of God,— for besides the begging of what we shall not grant him; viz. That the Ministers of England are Stewards of the mysteries of God, which none can be but those who are put into the Office of Stewardship by the Lord of the Family, which we challenge Mr. T. or any one for him, to make good with relation to the Ministers of England. It invelops and wraps up in it this absurdity, That whoever labours in the Word and Doctrine— is a Minister of Christ. Of which we have frequently spoken, and beg Mr. T. for the future not to impose thus crudely upon us without proof. 2. That they are over the People of God in the Lord, i. e. by virtue of Divine appointment, which we have disproved. 3. That they are Elders, who being only in and over a particular Church of Christ (as we have proved) they cannot be. 4. That they are Elders who rule well, whereas they have no authority to rule at all, that is a flower that grows only in their Lord-Bishops Garden, entrusted mostly in the hands of an Antichristian Officer called a Chancellor. 5. That they labour in the Word and Doctrine, which as touching the generality of them is false, who labour only in their Ceremonies and Service-book. 6. That they are their Rulers and Guides, which they cannot be but by their free consent (as hath been showed) which they never had nor sought after.  
Arg. 21. Retorted; It may more justly be Argued, Those Ministers who are not the Ministers of Christ, nor Stewards of the Mysteries of God, who labour not among the Saints, nor are over them in the Lord, nor admonish them, who are not Elders that Rule well, nor labour in the Word and Doctrine, who are not legally their Rulers and Guides, who speak not to them the pure Word of God, but the Traditions of men, 'tis unlawful for Saints to hear: But this is all true concerning some of the present Ministers, and some what of it concerning all of them. Therefore.—  
What he saith of denying the Saints Liberty, — That 'tis a sin against the 5th Commandment, is ridiculous, till he hath proved them our spiritual Parents.   

Sect. 3.  
Non-hearing the present Ministers tends not to Schism. (The nature of Schism. The Schism condemned in the Church of Corinth, what?) 'Tis not to have the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons. (The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or accepting persons condemned, Jam. 2. 1. what it is.) 'Tis not to cause offences and divisions, contrary to Rom. 12. 4, 5. & 14. 1. & 15. 1. & 16. 17. Nor making enclosures, co●●●● to 1 Cor. 14. 36. Phil. 3. 15, 16. explained. The vanity of Mr. T. his arguings from thence, manifested. The Holy Ghosts recording the Prophesy of Balaam. Of Caiphas, of Infidel Idolatrous Poets, no grounds for the Saints to hear the present Ministers. The impertinency of 1 Thes. 5. 20, 21. to his purpose. Nothing can be argued to prove the lawfulness of hearing them from the Author's concession Chap. 2. Our Reasons against hearing them, cannot righteously be retorted against ourselves. The grounds of our denying the lawfulness thereof, neither false nor doubtful. The Ministers of England have not sufficiently proved the truth of their Ministry. Of the duty of Christians with respect to hearing. The power of the Church over Ministers. Non-hearing the present Ministers, takes not away the the Christians Liberty. Is no negative Superstition. Our denial of the lawfulness of hearing them, no denial of the Kingship of Christ, or usurpation thereof. No hindrance of the knowledge of God's Word. No evil consequences or absurdities follow hereupon.  
FOR the lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, Mr. T. further argues thus.  
Arg. 22. That which tends to Schism amongst Christians, or to a breach of that peace, unity and love, should be among them who have the same God, Lord, Spirit, Faith,— that is the same, or very like Schism among the Corinthians, or tends to it, and hath begotten, or is like to beget the same if not worse effects among the Christians in England, is to be avoided as a great evil; and that which tends to peace among them, is a great good to be embraced, 1 Thes. 5. 13. 1 Cor. 12. 25, 26, 27. But the non-hearing the present Ministers of England tends to Schism amongst Christians. Therefore.—  
Answ. We deny his Minor. Non-hearing the present Ministers is not Schism, tends not to it; is nothing like the Schism amongst the Corinthians. For, 1st, We were never by our free consent Members of the Church of England. 2dly, It's no particular instituted Church of Christ. 3dly, We meet not with them, and there dispute, side, quarrel, contend when met together for the celebration of the sam● numerical Ordinances, as was the case of the Church of Corinth. The matter of Schism is so clearly stated, our non-concern therein with respect to our departure from the Church of England, by Dr. Owen in his Treatise of Schism, that (as Mr. Cawdrey hath not) Mr. T. will never be able solidly to reply thereunto. 4thly, We do nothing in our separating from them, than what God calls us to, as we have proved. If the disturbance of peace, envyings,— ensue hereupon, we cannot help it; these things were the frequent attendments of the Gospel in the first promulgation thereof as is known, whilst we make it our care to keep the guilt of these things from off us, we are innocent, and not concerned with the bitter and passionate declamations of persons hereabout. We may with more evidence of truth argue, That which tends to Schism amongst the Churches of Christ, or to a breach of the peace, unity and love which should be among them, which is the same, or much like the Schism that was amongst the Members of the Church of Corinth, is to be avoided as a great evil: But the hearing the present Ministers tends to Schism.— Therefore.— He further Argues;  
Arg. 23. That which is to have the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons, for other reasons than their faith, is sinful and unlawful, Jam. 2. 1. But to hear one that preacheth the Faith of Christ, because he is of our particular Society, or by reason of particular interest, or agreement in opinion, or any other than the unity of Faith in the Lord Jesus; and to declaim hearing another that hath the same Faith, preacheth it, and holds communion with them that embrace it, or to separate from such.— (He should have added, because he is not of our particular Society, or by reason of particular interest, or non-agreement in opinion) is to have the Faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons.— Therefore.  
Answ. We may grant the whole without the least disadvantage to the cause we have undertaken the defence of; we refuse not the hearing the present Ministers because not of our particular Society,— but for other Reasons, of which before. 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or accepting persons, that is condemned, Jam. 2. 1. is a respecting persons for their outward condition in the world, as their riches, honour,— with the neglect or contempt of others, though equal or better deserving, for their poverty, or the like; which cannot be charged upon us with respect to the present Ministers; so that this instance of the Apostle is not at all to his purpose. He adds;  
Arg. 24. To cause offences and divisions contrary to the Doctrine taught us in the Scriptures, is sinful and unlawful, Rom. 16. 17. But those who teach men not to hear their Ministers, which preach to them the truth of God's Word, because they are not in a Congregational Church, or not Elected, and Ordained, according to the Rules of such Churches, or because they conform to some things conceived unwarrantable, which are made the reason's of unlawfulness to hear the present Ministers, do cause offences and divisions, contrary to the Doctrine, Rom. 12. 4. 5. & 14. 1. & 15. 1. Therefore.—  
Answ. This Argument is bottomed upon many miserable mistakes, the discovery whereof will expose it to the contempt of all that pass by, for its insufficiency and weakness, in respect of the end aimed at by it. 1st, We teach not men, not to hear their own Ministers, but such, as according to the appointment of Christ, were never such. 2dly, We teach them not to avoid such as preach the pure Word of God, but suct as corrupt it, intermixing therewith the leaven of Antichristianism and Superstition, which Mr. T. tells us, in his Fermentum Pharisae●●um, is a good ground to avoid hearing them. 3dly, We say not that they are not to be heard merely because not in a Congregational Church,— but because we are destitute of any Scripture-Warrant for our so doing, because they walk disorderly, act from an Antichristian Call.— That this is to cause offences contrary to the Doctrine, Rom. 12. 4. & 14. 1. & 15. 1. which forbids the giving offence to weak Believers, by the intempestive using of our Liberty in things indifferent, is such a frivolous conceit, as persons may put Mr. T. to the blush upon the review thereof. He argues further;  
Arg. 25. Schismatical and arrogant conceits, that the Word of God is from them as the only right Teachers, or confined to them, as the only persons to whom it was communicated, and from whom it might be received, is condemned by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 36. But such conceits and enclosures they have and make, who deny the present Ministers to be heard, conceiving the separated Churches and Ministers the only right Churches and Ministers to be heard. Therefore.—  
Answ. 1. We deny the Minor; we make no such enclosures as the Apostle condemns, which are not what are mentioned by this Animadverter; There were no Churches of Christ in the world at that day, so much as in Name and pretence, but such as were separated, these were the right Churches and no other, no ordinary Ministers but such as were related to, and Ministers of such separated Churches. This the Apostle cannot be supposed to condemn. But if this be not that he condemns, What is it? Briefly, 2. The Church of Corinth was one of the most famous Churches of Christ (upon the account of what is mentioned by the Apostle, Chap. 12.) at that day in the world, by reaso● whereof they were apt enough to be swelled, puffed up against other Churches (that were as equally the Churches of Christ as they) who had not the excellency of gifts they had. This the Apostle condemns in them, and gives them to understand that the Word of God came not out from them, they were not the first Church to whom it was communicated, and from whom it was transmitted unto others; nor came it unto them only, i. e. other Churches had received, embraced it as well as they, therefore they ought not to carry it proudly towards them; which what it makes against the enclosure our Animadverter mentions, I know not. The Apostle condemns one Congregational Church for being puffed up against another; therefore to assert Congregational Churches and Ministers to be the only right Churches and Ministers, is condemned by him, is such a strange consequence as will never readily be embraced. But 3. we make not such enclosures; I believe there are hundreds in England that are not of that way, who have the Spirit of God, and are deservedly to be attended in their Ministration of the Word of Truth. That because we deny it lawful to hear the present Ministers we must be necessitated to deny the hearing of all others, but men of Congregational Principles, is a supposition as monstrously false and absurd as the former. We give some special and peculiar grounds of our not hearing those, that can be applied to no other. He adds.  
Arg. 26. The Apostle, Phil. 3. 15, 16. presseth such as were perfect or well instructed in the Christian Doctrine (of liberty from the Mosaical Laws) not to separate from, but hold Communion with such as were weak in the Faith, and otherwise minded, that thought Mosaical Laws were yet obligatory. Therefore we may not separate from Christians and Ministers by reason of diversity of judgement about Church-Government; and Liturgy, and different practice about Conformity, and Nonconformity to them, which are of less moment than those differences about Meats and Days.—  
Answ. 1. We deny his Consequence; That because it was the duty of Saints to hold Communion in a true Church-State, without altercations about Meats or Drinks, therefore 'tis our duty to hold Communion with a false Church and a false Ministry, our Animadverter can never prove. 2. That the business of Church-Government (wherein the Kingship of Christ in a great measure lies) is of no more moment than the eating or not eating, about which the contests among the primitive Believers in the dawning of the Day of the Gospel did in a great measure lie, he will not easily demonstrate. 3. That the retention for a while of Mosaical Ceremonies, whilst the Temple was yet standing, to which they were affixed, should be a greater ground of separation from a true Church of Christ, than the reception, embracement of the Liturgy and Ceremonies of Antichrist, in and by a false Church, and Ministry from it, is as absurd an assertion as ever dropped from the mouth or pen of so learned a person. And yet fail he in the proof hereof, this Argument is of no moment. We attend his next.  
Arg. 27. The holy Ghost hath recorded the prophecy of Balaam, Num. 24. 3, 4. Of Caiaphas, Joh. 11. 51, 52. Yea the sayings of Infidel. Idolatrous Poets, Acts 17. 28. 1 Cor. 15. 33. Tit. 3. 12. Therefore it's lawful to hear the present Ministers.  
Answ. Now I confess if he be able to make good this Argument, it will follow, that we may not attend the Ministry of the present Ministers of England only, but the very vilest and worst of men. Ye● I think we may righteously deny his Consequence, and expect his proof thereof, before we credit it. The reading of Poets, or citation of them is no part of instituted Worship as I remember, which we have proved hearing the present Ministers to be. He proceeds,  
Arg. 28. The Apostle, 1 Thes. 5. 20, 21. requires Christians not to despise prophesyings, but to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. And the Apostle, 1 John 4. Believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they are of God. They make it not sin merely to hear them that are erroneous, if they try them; they may hear pretenders prophesying if they prove it, much more those Ministers who preach truth.—  
Answ. 1. Prophesyings are not to be despised, all things are to be proved, the Spirits to be tried, whether they are of God; bu● all this must be done in his own way. For persons from hence to take liberty to go to Mass, hear the Jesuits, frequent the meetings of Ranters, is dangerous and a plain tempting of God. 2. Why he should accommodate, 1 Thes. 5. 20. to the preaching of the present Ministers, and impose it upon us as our duty not to despise prophesyings, who tells us, pag. 136. l. 30. That he knows not of any at this day that have the gift of prophecy, I understand not. 3. 'Tis abominable wickedness to violate other commands of Christ, upon the pretext of these Scriptures, and a plain irrision of Christ; when he hath charged us, as we have proved, to have nothing to do with such a generation, for us, upon pretence of trying all things, to attend their Ministry and Worship, is abominable profaneness, not to be justified. 4. There are some things so visibly opposite to Christ and his ways, that they need no trial in order to a discovery. Whether drunken ignorant Priests, the shame and contempt of the Nation, be Ministers of the Gospel? Whether a formal, sapless, self-devised Worship and Ministry from the Pope and Bawd of Rome be the Worship and Ministry of Christ?— are things so palpably and notoriously foreign to the Scriptures, that a man need not put them to the trial for satisfaction. He further argues.  
Arg. 29. This Author, Chap. 2. allows the hearing gifted Brethren, — He would not think it unlawful to hear Parents or Masters catechise, or Readers in the University, when they read Divinity Lectures.— Therefore by a like reason must allow hearing the present Ministers.  
Answ. This consequence we deny; there is no parity or likeness of Reason in it; why we cannot hear them as gifted Brethren, we have manifested, Chap. 2. There are more reasons against hearing them, than against hearing Parents catechise, (as their acting from an Antichristian Call—) or Readers in the University, to which I go not as to a part of instituted Worship, but School-Exercise. That they are ordained according to the Discipline of the Church in which they live, is nothing at all for their commendation, except that Church were a true Church, or the Discipline thereof more different from the Discipline of Rome than it is.  
His thirtieth Argument is not worth the mentioning; That our Arguments may be retorted upon ourselves, is not improbable; any man's Arguments may be so. The difficulty lies in proving the justness of their retortion; which when he shall be able to effect,  Erit mihi Magnus Apollo. 
To dictate that Ordination by other Ministers, besides the Elders of their own Congregation, is necessary for the constitution of a Gospel-Ministry; that the Church of England is a true Church, or that separation from a company of wicked and ungodly persons, is not warrantable by Scripture, (when we have proved the contrary) is to expose himself to the pity, or contempt of the judicious.  
Arg. 31. The grounds upon which the Author of S. T. and other Separatists, deny the unlawfulness of hearing the present Ministers, are neither false nor doubtful. That nothing is to be done in the Worship of God, and Church-Discipline, (relating to it as the Worship of God) without a particular Institution; we have abundantly before proved.  
Arg. 32. That the Ministers of England have proved the truth of their Ministry against Papists and Separatists; That the Prelates have so opposed Popery, that were not men resolved never to lay down a calumny they have once taken up, they would not cry them down as Antichristian, Popish,— is but what he at present thinks: They have opposed the person of the Pope, and retained his Laws and Canons. They oppose the Pope of Rome, and his Conclave, and set up and maintain the Pope of Canterbury,— and his Hierarchy, against whom the very Arguments they use against the Pope ●f Rome directly point.  
Arg. 33. The absurdities will follow upon denying to hear the present Ministers, because not rightly elected,— or because they use the Common-Prayer-Book, or are faulty in their lives,— are either not such, or really follow not thereupon.  
Answ. 1. Every Christian Reader is able to judge of (at le●st some of) the Reasons in the S. T. whether they can warrant his not-hearing. 2. He must be able to judge every Minister he hears, whether he be rightly elected; but this his judgement may proceed from the information of the Church to which the Minister is related; or if his Minister, he tries, and judgeth with the Church as a Member thereof, which gives not Authority to individual Hearers, (but to the Church, or rather Christ Jesus, who hath entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven with them) over their Ministers. Much less, 3. must every individual hearer have power to silence or withdraw from his Minister.— This he hath power to do, and this he ought to do, with respect to the Pastor of that Church to which he is related, if he knows any sin or evil upon him to admonish him, and in case of perseverance therein, to take two or three with him, and again admonish him; and if he remain obstinate, to bring it before the Church, who have power (if he will not hear them) to depose him: If he be a Pastor of some other Church, to which he is not as a particular Member related, to bring i● to the Elders of that Church, or some Brother of known integrity appertaining thereunto, who is to observe the same Rules already minded: which would not introduce oppression upon Ministers, nor will they, if truly Christian, account the execution of the Righteous Laws of Christ to be so. The Sceptre of his Kingdom is a right Sceptre. To compare the corrupt bloody Popish Canons herewith, is little less than blasphemy. 4. That hereby there should be any danger of Gospel-ministers being exposed to penury, deserted of their Members, is not likely. 5. That there can be no settled Government in Church or State, if the stated Ministers,— according to the present Laws should be deserted or disobeyed,— is a false and bloody assertion.  
Arg. 34. That such a Plea, as this is made by the Papists for their Recusancy, we have already answered.  
Arg. 35. To this we say, 1. Christ hath debarred us from hearing the present Ministers, (as we have at large proved.) 2. Whilst we press men to an obedience to the Voice of Christ, we make not men Rabbis, (it hath not the least tendency thereunto) but Christ. Nor are we against hearing any whom Christ in his Royal Law forbids us not to hear.  
Arg. 36. To this we say, Not to hear the present Ministers is no Negative Superstition, 'tis built upon Divine Precept, (as we have proved) it occasions not the neglect of God's Command, (he begs the Question whilst he supposeth it) or any duty of love incumbent upon the Saints. It begets not unnecessary perplexities in men's Spirits, nor puffs them up with conceit of more holiness than others; nor causeth them to be censorious of others. Nor hath Mr. T. proved these things to be so, or the consequent of the Opinion contended for.  
The whole of his 37th Argument, That the denying the hearing the present Ministers is a usurpation of Christ's Regal Office, in putting a Law on the Consciences of men, arrogating that power which is proper to Christ, James 4. 12. Mat. 23. 4. is a mere calumny; Nor is the Animadverter able to prove what he saith, nor hath he so much as attempted so to do. We have demonstrated, that the non-hearing the present Ministers is no imposition of our own, but a Yoke of Christ. We forbidden not any to hear Preachers of the Gospel, but such as pretend to be so, and are not.  
To his 38th Argument, we answer, By this means the knowledge of the Word of God is not at all hindered, nor the furthering his Kingdom neglected, but the contrary. 'Tis not true, that those who hold the Opinion of not hearing the present Ministers in public, think it enough if they can teach those of their own Society, they are willing to instruct others also; which they do as they have opportunity. That 'tis seldom by conference that we instill any truths into others, without somewhat that alienates them from others, and engageth them to our own Society, with diminution of love to others,— is a most false suggestion.  
His 39th Argument is composed of unproved Dictates; to which we have over and over answered in this Treatise.  
Touching his last Argument, we say in the general, 1. There is not one of the absurdities, he saith, are consequent on the Opinion of non-hearing of the present Ministers, but is as much the consequent of the Opinion of the unlawfulness of going to Mass, or hearing a Popish Ministry, were it established by Law.  
2. Particularly; 1. We cannot (considered in their present state, as an Antichristian Ministry, set up in opposition to the Ministry of Christ) rejoice in, or pray to God that they may, or praise God for their preaching. 2. It follows not that 'tis then better that Barbarism— spread among the people.— There is no necessity of the one or the other. Barbarism and rudeness may call them, their Fathers, or foster-fathers', since whose return barbarity and rudeness is broken in like a mighty torrent upon us. Who were the promoters the Book of Sports, (in days past) a great piece of barbarism and rudeness, Mr. T. knows. Who are more the encuragers of persons lying at an Alehouse, than their fuddling Priests? who by their practice strengthen the hands of their drunken Parishioners therein. There are other meetings in most places within a small compass, whither they may go to hear, so that they need not lie at an Alehouse, nor sit at home idle. 3. We think the Magistrates do evil to compel people to hear them. 4. In respect of their Antichristian calling, non-preaching Readers, and their preaching Ministers are alike tolerable. Their Pedigree is the same, their opposition to Christ and his People the same. 5. The less they preach, in respect of their Antichristian standing and Office, the less they sin. Though, 6. they, accounting themselves Ministers of Christ, and receiving wages from the people to preach to them,— 'tis open injustice, and unrighteousness for them rarely or not at all so to do; as it is Lordly Papal pride, and arrogancy in the Prelates to usurp Authority over those they acco●nt Ministers of the Gospel, and hinder them from preaching, who, they say, are rightly ordained thereunto. Of the seeming contradictions Mr. T. hath found in some Writings of J. G. to the Book Entitled, Prelatical Preachers none of Christ's Teachers, I am not concerned to take notice. Though they might easily be reconciled. And the Judicious Reader can do it himself. 'Tis separation from a true Church, and Gospel-Ministry, (not a false Antichristian-Church and Ministry) upon the account merely of some difference about the subject of Baptism, that he condemns, which that it riseth up in opposition to what is asserted in the forementioned Treatise, I am not able to discern. If Mr. T. dreams that a man cannot speak against separation from a true Church, without condemning separation from a false, he will scarce find his Rival amongst persons of Learning and Judgement.    

CHAP. XIII.  

Sect. 1.  
Serious advice to Saints that worship with the Nation, and cleave to the Ministry thereof. The ground of their present practice to be considered. The thoughts of their hearts in days past. For what Saints then and now suffer hard things. Their aims and ends in this matter to be pondered, with the present temper of their Spirit. A solemn Call out of the Parochial Assemblies. The Renowned hus his Prophecy touching Reformation.  
HAving through Divine Assistance examined, and fully answered what Mr. T. was pleased to object in his Theodulia against the S. T. I desire the patience of the Christian Reader for one moment longer, whilst I open my heart in a few words.  
1. To the precious Children of God, who are yet worshipping with the Nation, and cleaving to the Ministry thereof, would I humbly offer these seven things.  
1. Seriously weigh without prejudice, in the balance of the Sanctuary, what we have been tendering to you in this Treatise, and think not what you read to be the words of an Enemy; they are the counsels of a Friend, of one who hath through wonderful grace so far learned Christ, that he cannot but love you, pray for you, should you account him, and use him as an Enemy.  
2. Strictly examine by the Scriptures of Truth, the bottom and ground of your present practice. Where is the word of Institution by Jesus Christ, that warrants your attending on the present Ministry. Mr. T. hath written a large Treatise thereabout, but is not able to produce one Scripture to warrant your practice in this matter.  
3. Recollect the thoughts of your heart in days past; Should any one have told you, when you were for a godly, preaching, praying Ministry, for Gospel-Reformation, that there would a day come when an Episcopal, drunken, Common-Prayer-Book, dumb ignorant Clergy should be set over you, to the casting out of the godly, sober, and judicious, and that you would side with them, attend their Ministry? would your answer have been other then that of Hazael, But are we dead Dogs that we should do thus?  
4. Remember what it was you● Brethren lost their Ears, Liberties, Lives in days past for, what they and you covenanted against, was it not for witnessing against, utterly to extirpate this present Hierarchy and Worship? Did you not rejoice in its extirpation? and will you again encourage, or comply with the building of that you once endeavoured to evert and demolish.  
5. Consider soberly of your aims and ends in your present attendment upon the Ministry and Worship of the Nation? Whet●er they are such as you can comfortably own in the great Day of Assize, that is now ready to spring in upon the World?  
6. Observe the present temper of spirit, whilst attending upon the present Ministry and Worship; Have you grown in grace? is there not rather a spirit of declension, formality, deadness, earthiness, seizing you? do you meet with Christ in the Public Assemblies? Are you not rather with respect to them forced to say, He is not here, he is risen.  
7. Hasten your escape from Parochial National Churches an● Assemblies, and get into the Assemblies of his Children, where he hat● recorded his Name, will meet with you and bless you. The Vials of written vengeance are ready to be poured forth upon false Worship and Worshippers. And ere long the subject of our present contest will be removed. Not an Archbishop, or Lord-Bishop, nor any of their Hierarchy shall be known in the Nation, or Nations of the World; none spoken of but with loathing and abhorrency. Their nakedness, insolency, pride and contrariety to the true interest of Christ, and Nations, shall be so discovered, that they shall be the hissing and reproach of the People; insomuch that they shall be ashamed to own their function. I have many times thought of that Prophecy of John Huss, cited in Fox's martyrology, Vol. 1. pag. 830. Moreover, saith he, hereupon note and mark by the way, That the Church of God cannot be reduced to her former dignity, or be reform, before all things first be made new: The truth whereof is plain by the Temple of Solomon. Like as the Clergy and Priests, so also ●he People and Laity; or else, unless all such as be now addict unto avarice, from the least to the most be first reclaimed, as well the People as the Clergy and Priests. Albeit, as my mind now giveth me, I believe rather the first; that th●n shall arise a new People, form after the new man, which is created after God, of the which People, new Clerks and Priests shall come and be taken, tha● shall hate covetousness, and the glory of this Life, hastening to a heavenly conversation; notwithstanding all these things shall come to pass, and be brought by little and little, in order of times, dispensed of God for the same purpose. And this God doth and will do for his own goodness, and the riches of his great longanimity and patience, giving time and space of repentance to them that have long lain in their sins, to amend & flee from the face of the Lords fury whilst that in like ma●ner, the carnal People and Priests, successively and in time shall fall away, ●e consumed with the Moth. But we have a more sure Word of Prophecy, that the pompous carnal Church and Ministry, the Whore and false Prophet, with all their retinue, shall be dethroned, and for ever cease to be: And then shall piety flourish, and the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the Earth as the waters do the Seas. Then what shame will cover you that have not harkened to Christ's voice, though he loudly calls you to come with him from Lebanon, to look from the top of Amana and Shenir, from the Lion's Dens, and Mountains of the Leopards, that you have not forsaken the Tents of false Worshippers.—   

Sect. 2.  
Counsel and advice to Saints separated from the carnal worldly Church▪  
2. TO you that have heard, and obeyed the voice of your Beloved, in separating from the present Worship and Worshippers, would I also speak a few words.  
1. Pray hard for the making the vision plain; that you may understand how long it is to the end of these wonders. The wise shall understand.  
2. Wait, watch, and pray for the glorious effusion of the Spirit, according to the promise of the Father. Antichrist's day is now even run out; not the first fruits only, but the full harvest of New-Covenant glories shall shortly be upon you.  
3. Get on the whole Armour of God, that you may be fitted and fixed to accost the Prince of darkness, and his Hellish Armado in their next and last attempt against the Saints, when the Dragon will be wroth, and go about to make war with the remnant of the Woman's Seed, that keep the Commandments of God, and have the Testimony of Jesus.  
4. Condemn the world and worldly Church by those shines of holiness, and that heavenly conversation shall be found amongst you.  
5. Take heed of degenerating into the Form, mind the power of Christianity and Godliness: Be not contented to have a Name to Live when Dead. Take heed of the Temptation of the Day; a Temptation to slumbering, especially considering the Cry at Midnight (which is a Ministerial voice or outcry) The Bridegroom cometh go ye out to meet him.  
6. Press after a Gospel-Spirit of Love and Union one with another. Study to be of one Spirit, of one Mind. Wherein you differ (for want of the same measure of Light) bear one with another as becometh Brethren of the same Father, Members of the same Body, pray one for another, and if any one be otherwise minded, God will reveal this also unto him in due time. Know not one another as Men only, but as Christians. Let the bottom of your Communion each with other be not the foundation of agreement in extrafundamental Principles (which the Spirit of Antichrist leads to) but blessed satisfaction that you are received, beloved, begotten again of God, and bear his Image. Study to forget the names of distinction that have been too much used in days past. Neither Presbyterian, nor Independent, nor Anabaptist is any thing, but if real Saints, we are all one in Christ. Remember the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. The departure from Scripture words and appellations, hath had no small influence into that Antichristian Apostasy that hath overspread the Nations. Take heed of animosities and divisions one amongst another. 'Tis the Devil's grand Maxim, Divide & Impera, Divide and Rule. Bear with and forbear one another in love. Prefer your peace and edification before private interest. Methinks such Discourses, with a Pen dipped in Gall, as drop from this A●imadv. should engage us to make it our study to be of one heart, and one soul, if we cannot in all things be of one Judgement and Opinion. But whither sail I? 'Tis a pleasant Sea, a sweet Theme, the Lord bow the hearts of his People every one of them to an embracement of it. I must not expatiate.  
7. Hold fast that you have, that no one take your Crown. Yet a little while and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.   

Sect. 3.  
An Appendix, or Felo de se; being a brief but faithful Collection of several passages in his former Writings, opposite to what is asserted by him in his Theodulia.  
LAstly, to Mr. T. our present Antagonist would I speak a few words by way of Counsel and advice. I beseech you Sir in the bowels of Christ,  
1. With a sober spirit to review your Theodulia, and consider whether you will be able to justify your undertaking therein. What have you been doing but sadning the hearts of the righteous, and gladding the hearts of the wicked? Had it not been better you had let Baal have pleaded for himself, since one had thrown down his Altar? It may be in your retired thoughts, you now begin to think so. The design itself was bad; but Sir, how can you review the frame of spirit, the gall and bitterness, the reviling and reproachful language with which your Book is stuffed from the one end thereof to the other, against the Ways and People of Christ, whom you in your Conscience think to be so, and hold up your face with confidence before God and his People. I had once thought to have gathered into one heap the several parcels of scurrilous, unsavoury, scandalous and false expressions you were pleased to make use of, but I found the dunghill would swell so big, and the smell of it might be so offensive, that after I had made some progress therein, I forbore.  
2. Read with seriousness the Reply we have made to the Treatise mentioned: You see Sir, we have not writ after your Copy, nor rendered reviling for reviling into your bosom; we have otherwise learned Christ, and commit our Cause to him that judgeth righteously. The Lord, the Lord God, his Spirit, Scriptures and People be judge betwixt us.  
3. Read twice ere you Reply once; You know, Sir, whose Motto it was, Festina lente; sat citò si sat been. Too much haste to oppose Truth, never brings with it a return of sweetness; every motion and advance against it, though of the slowest, is too great haste.  
4. Pray much for Divine Leadings and Direction before you set upon the work of making your Reply hereunto, and every step you take in it. And let's discern you have been much in this duty, by that meek, and Gospel-Spirit with which your next shall be leavened.  
5. If you think it of concern, seriously weigh whether this writing of yours tend to the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, with its Hierarchy, and the promoting Reformation according to the Word of God, and the best Reformed Churches. For Oaths the Land mourns. The Lord grant we may do so too.  
Lastly, Review, if you please, the ensuing Collections we have gathered out of your own Writings, from a cursory view of some of them; which are, if we mistake not, opposite to what you at present plead for. And if you think meet, reconcile yourself unto yourself; and blame not me, Sir, that I thus deal with you, I do but follow the pattern you have given me, in your dealing with Mr Baxter formerly, and Mr. John Goodwin of late, after this manner.  

Collections out of Mr. T. his Writings.  
If this Argument proceed, it will follow there is some National Church amongst the Gentiles as of old amongst the Jews, which is not to be granted. — In his exercitation concerning Infant Baptism, pag. 21. Institution is the Rule of exhibiting Worship to God. ibid. pag. 23. If Institution be the Rule of Worship, it is necessary that he that shall administer the Worship bind himself to the Rule, otherwise he will devise Will-worship, and arrogate the Lords Authority to himself. Surely the Apostle in the business of the Lords Supper insinuates this; when being about to correct the aberrations of the Corinthians concerning the Lords Supper, he brings forth these words, 1 Cor. 11. 23. For I have received of the Lord,— ibid. pag. 24.  
The use of Sureties in Baptism, and Episcopal Ordination, he asserts to be Humane Inventions. Ibid. p. 29.  
The Common-Prayer-Book and Hierarchy have no true ground from Christ's Institution, which alone can acquit it from Will-worspip, Examer. p. 3. Episcopacy is now found an abuse, ibid. p. 24. I have entered into Covenant to endeavour a Reformation as well as you, and though I have not had the happiness, as indeed wanting ability to be employed in that eminent manner you have been in the promoting of it (in which I rejoice) yet have I in my affections sincerely desired it, in my intentions truly aimed at it, in my Prayers hearty sought it, in my Studies constantly minded it, in my endeavours seriously prosecuted it, for the promoting of it greatly suffered, a● having as deep an Interest in it as other men, ibid. pag. 26. When I consider how exact a Reformation our Solemn Covenant binds us to endeavour, ibid. p. 27. 'Tis a dangerous principle, That in mere positive things we may frame an addition to God's Worship.— They that read the Popish Expositors of their Rituals do know that this very Principle hath brought in Surplice, Purification of Women, — ibid. p. 29.  
If any take upon them to appoint to men's consciences any rite, in whole or in part,— it is an high presumption in such against Christ, and against the Apostles commands to yield to it, Col. 2. 20. Though it hath a show of wisdom, vers. 23. And the Apostles example, Gal. 2. 3, 4, 5. binds us to oppose it, ibid. pag. 30. And p. 31. He commends a passage in a Sermon of Mr. Marshals on 2 Chr. 15. 2. Who admires that ever mortal man should dare in God's Worship, to meddle any further than the Lord himself hath commanded.  
For had it been a will-Worship, it had been a sin if they had received it, (speaking of the Circumcision of the Females) there being no command to do it. As it had been a sin for a Child to be circumcised afore or after the eighth day, in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God, ibid. p. 37. No reason of ours in positive Worship can acquit an action that is performed from will-Worship, nothing but Gods Will manifest in his Institution— can do it, ibid. p. 38. see p. 111, 132. Full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant Baptism, Sect. 1. P. 2.  
Against Prelacy, Holidays, Surplice, there have been many and just declamations, Ibid. P. 110. The Superstitious custom of keeping Easter, and receiving the Communion once a Year on that Day, which I think you will be ashamed of, p. 119.  
Unless you will alter the definition of Will-worship, according to Mat. 15. 9 in point of Worship, that is excluded which is not expressed. p. 132.  
And though all do not join in breaking of bread (speaking concerning the Godly in Bewdly) some going to that Parson, others declining him as a stranger to the private Meetings of the Godly, and an adversary to such godly Preachers as they had gotten for the Chapel,— went to Mr. B. others being baptised have joined with me. — He afterwards speaks of Mr. B ' s. Book, charging them with Schism, for Reforming themselves, and affrighting people from their Society, Praecurs. Sect. 5. p. 10, 11. The Baptised Christians with whom I hold Communion. Full review of the dispute concerning Baptism, Epist. to the Reader. The Christian Church consists not of a whole Nation,— but of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word, to profess the Faith of Christ, ibid. p. 221. I think my actions justifiable in celebrating the Lords Supper at Night as Christ did, and admitting none but Baptised persons after profession of Faith, ibid. pag. 239.  
Frequenting Church-meetings he makes to be one way of visible owning God, ibid. p. 268.  
That there were some particular visible Churches in which were no Hypocrites, may be true notwithstanding the Parables, Mat. 13. & 25. or 1 Tim. 3. 15. compared with 2 Tim. 2. 20. p. 284.  
There is not any likelihood that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church, ibid. p. 298.  
To confine the term Heathens only to them that are not Christians in Name, is indeed according to the vulgar speech, but beside the Scripture use, ibid. p. 261.  
We do neither in practice nor opinion maintain such impure Churches of ignorant and vicious persons as Mr. Bl. and the Presbyterians commonly do, ibid. p. 262.  
The essence of the Church consists in the association, or union of the Members,—▪ which is given by such transeunt fact as whereby God separates them from others, and unites and incorportes them together, which I call the Church-call, agreeably to the Scripture, Rom. 9 24, 25, 26. 1 Cor. 
☞  2. 24.— which Church-call now is not by any coercive power of Rulers, but by the Spirit and preaching the Gospel, ibid. p. 320.  
Nor did I join any in Communion, till I saw that those that did their duty in being Baptised, were rejected, and made odious with Ministers and People, whereby they were necessitated to join in Communion by themselves, Praecurs. Sect. 12. p. 48. Because it is manifest, from Acts 2. 41. 46. 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3. & 12. 13. Persons were Baptised before they broke bread together, therefore the taking any without Baptism to the Lords Supper will but strengthen men in their opinion, that their Infant Sprinkling is sufficient. — Therefore he sees a nececessity of desisting from that enterprise of admitting persons of different persuasions touching Baptism into their communion, ibid. p. 49.  
The Christian-Church-constitution of Volunteers is better, ibid. Sect. 11. pag. 431.  
In the Worship of God it was wont to be accounted a certain Rule that God's Worship should be observed according to his appointment, and no otherwise, ib. Sect. 16. p. 66.  
My opposing the Bishops began with the soon.— And for my non▪ conformity, Reasons were given with some of the first. — I justify not the Ceremonies, ibid. Sect. 21. p. 89.  
It is true our English Prelatical Divines do account Baptism sufficiently administered that is so done, yea though it were by a Popish Priest, or a Midwife, ibid. p. 91.  
However, for the Tenet, of the People's governing by Vote, I know no reason why they (he speaks of those called Independants) should be called a Sect, rather than their opposites. The Excommunication which ●he Scripture speaks of,— is not where made a part of Government or of the Elders Office, any more than the People's. In Antiquity its apparent out of Cyprian— That the People had a great hand in Elections, Excommunications, Absolutions, ibid. p. 93.  
No one Country, City, or Tribe together, were gathered by the Apostles or other Preachers, into the Christian visible Church, but so many of all as the Lord vouchsafed to call by his Word and Spirit. 1 Cor. 1. 26. — Not many wise men,— Ergo, Not the whole Nation. And afterward to Mr. B. Question, Hath he not commanded to disciple Nations? He answers, Yes, to make Disciples of all Nations, by preaching the Gospel to every creature, but no where by Civil Authority to gather a whole City, Country or Tribe, and to draw them into a National, and City-Covenant together, — abide. Sect. 22. p. 97.  
Jeroboams Sacrificing and keeping a Feast at another time th●n God appointed. Ahaz his forming an Altar after the pattern of that of Damascus, Nadab and Abihu their offering strange fire, keeping Holy Days to Saints, he condemns as Will-worship; Full Review of the Dispute conces. Infant-Baptism, p. 3.  
1 Pet. 2. 9— Which are meant only of the Elect and true Believers of every Nation, are applied to a National Church,— consisting of a great part of either ignorant persons, that know little or nothing of Christianity, or persecutors of Godliness, profanely despising the Word, and hating the Godly, ibid. pag. 27.  
God forbade Infants under eight days old to be circumcised, in that he appointed the eighth day to be Circumcised. Now if this be a forbidding to Circumcise before (as I acknowledge it is, and so do many Protestant Divines, as Paraeus, Com. in Gen. 17. 11.) then that is forbidden which is otherwise than God appointed, ibid. p. 81. And p. 180. He reckons the Cross in Baptism, amongst Popish usuages, such as Bell▪ Baptism, Baptising of Dead persons.—  
I said it is a carnal imagination, that the Church of God is like to civil Corporations, if persons were admitted to it by birth— nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary, that Mr. M. tells me, the Jewish Church was in the like civil Corporations: for I grant it was the whole Nation— whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution — ibid. p. 265, 266.  
If Christ did say to Judas, that his Body was broken for him, and his Blood shed, it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of Universal Redemption; I think it the safe stand most likely tenant that, Judas went out afore the Lord's Supper p. 291. ibid. Christ is the Head of the visible Church, in giving them Officers, outward order, direction — ibid. p. 294.  
But all these are altered now, the Church is not National, no one Highpriest, Temple, Sanhedrim — ibid. p. 334.  
I know that our Army hath done so much for the settling the Church as that the Antiprelatists Congregations had been either none, or much oppressed if they had not broken the force of the opposite party. Nor dare I be so unthankful to God or them, as not to acknowledge the great Mercy and benefit we at this day enjoy thereby, however Mr. B. fret at our Liberty and jibe at the Instruments, ibid. p. 383.  
A not commanding is a plain forbidding; Mr. Collings provoc. pro. ch. 5. Nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what we have precept or precedent for; which whoso denies, opens a door to all Idolatry, and Superstition, and Will-worship in the world, which Mr. T. approves of, ibid. p. 408.  
Of divine Institution there is no reason can be right, but what is from Gods own appointment, though it may seem right to us it should be so. In things positive our reason is deceivable, and God's appointment is only to be attended, ibid. p. 461.  
And now Sir, though I might to these Collections (which are diametrically opposite to the main principles of your Theodulia, the very basis upon which that Fabric stands) have added many more, as you well know, yet am I willing to spare you; not knowing but the Lord may give you to see and bemoan your evil, in gladding the hearts of the Wicked, & sadning the Righteous, or confirming them in crooked paths who have turned aside thereunto; which notwithstanding your natural temper and height of spirit (with which we are sufficiently acquainted) that will prompt you to say something in a way of self-justification— is not impossible for God to do. If you writ in Answer to our Reply, and to the purpose, you shall receive a Return (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in a spirit of meekness and christianity; If we meet therein wi●h mere dictates, without tender of proof; impertinent citations of Scriptures, without the least attempt to minifest their congruity with the assertion they are introduced to prove; and a parcel of passionate railing expressions, in the stead of the words which the Wisdom that is from above, and the Spirit of our dear Lord teacheth (which we too often meet with in your Theodulia) you have your Answer. Farewell.     
FINIS.