SEVEN QVESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY between the CHURCH of ENGLAND, AND THE Separatists and Anabaptists, briefly discussed.  

1. Whether is the Church of England as it now stands a true Church?  
2. Whether the Church of England be a right Nationall Church?  
3. Whether are the Ministers in the Church of England sent of God, and so are true Ministers or not?  
4. Whether is the Baptism of Infants a true and lawful Baptism or no?  
5. Whether it be lawful to be Rebaptised or not?  
6. Whether is it lawful to separate from all the public Ordinances and Christian Assemblies in our English Church, because there are some defects in Discipline, and in other things amongst us?  
7. Whether is it necessary to demolish our Churches (Steeple-houses as the Separatists call them,) and to build them in other places, because they were built by Idolaters for Idolatrous worship, were abused with Images, and dedicated to Saints?   
By IMMANVEL KNUTTON, Preacher of God's Word at Beeston in Nottinghamshire.  Endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, there is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephes. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. 
London, Printed by Tho: Pain, and are to be sold by Andrew Comb at Margret's Hill in Southworke. Anno Dom. 1645.   

TO THE HONOURABLE COMMITTEE of Parliament in Nottingham, Immanuel Knutton, Wisheth all present happiness and future blessedness.  
IT is well known to your Honours, that I endured a long and tedious bondage at Newarke, together with my godly Con-captive and fellow labourer in the work of the Ministry, M. William Hewit, for the space of almost thirty weeks; and how God wrought our enlargement, by the worthy instrument of his glory, Captain John Needham Governor of Killingworth Castle in Warwickshire. But at my return to Nottingham from Newarke, I found this Garrison much distracted by some Separatists in it, who desert our public Assemblies and the Divine Ordinances, and have seduced too many to their way; In my conference with them, I found their Tenets unchristian, and themselves pertinacious in them; Their tenets were these, 1. The Church of England is no true Church of Christ. 2. The Ministers of this Church are not true Ministers, not called of God. 3. Baptism of Infants is no true Baptism, therefore not lawful. 4. It is not lawful to hear us Ministers Preach, lest they should by their presence approve of our Popish calling by the Bishops, and because we preach in popish steeple-houses, also because we were Baptised in our Infancy, but if we will renounce our calling by the Bishops; Preach at the Market-crosse, not in the Steeplehouse; and be rebaptised, they well hear us, otherwise not. 5. Our steeplehouses ought to be demolished, neither is it lawful to worship God in them. These their opinions too many in this Garrison approve of, and follow, therefore I have briefly answered their arguments and published them▪ that I might hereby excite others more able than myself, to handle these points of controversy more fully; and in the mean time I beseech your Honours to suppress these errors offensive both to God and the godly, lest these Schisms turn to heresies, endeavour to extirpate all Popery, Schism, and profaneness, as the Covenant enjoins you; which you heard worthily explicated and urged home to your consciences in St. Mary's Church on Thursday August 8▪ by that faithful Minister of Christ M. Richard Whit-Church in his Lecture Sermon upon that Text, Jer. 50.5. Almighty God establish you in his truth, direct you ever by his spirit, secure you and this Garrison by his presence, or own your designs with comfortable success, to the glory of his name, and to the perpetual happiness of this Nation, Amen.  
So prayeth your Honour's humble Servant Jmmanuel Knutton. From my Study at Beeston, August 16. 1644.   

❧ SEVEN QVESTIONS about the Controversy between the Church of England and the Separatists and Anabaptists, briefly discussed.  

QVEST. I. Whether is the Church of England as it now stands a true Church?  
Answer. I Premize this; that in this Church is much defect in Discipline, and in the execution of it in comparison of other reformed Churches, who in this, fare exceed us.  
Next I affirm it is a true Church, yea the spouse of Christ.  
Reas. 1 First, Because the Church of England hath the matter and form of a true Church; the matter of a Church, are men and women in a right Logical sense, matter which is one of the causes hath this property, it is passive; for action is from the form which is called the beginning of doing, as matter is of suffering, so are men by nature (in the internal and real work of grace in conversion) passive, Phil. 2.13. such matter our Church hath; it hath also the form of a Church, the form of a thing in strict logical sense, is a chief cause which actuates the matter and perfects it, it is a constituting cause; now the form or constituting cause of a Church is faith, which brings it into relation to Christ, & therefore in Scripture the Church is called the Lords Spouse, Vineyard, House, etc. because of its relation to him: this form our Church hath, it hath many true believers: Now Discipline, though it conduce to the well being of a Church to keep it in a sweet order, yet it is not the cause of a Church, it doth not give being to a Church, as the cause gives being to a thing; in nature a man is begotten and borne, but the order he is tied to observe in his life, makes him not a man, but conduceth to his well being in his life, so is Discipline to the Church; so than our Church hath many true believers, who by faith are united to Christ, and are thereby made members of his body (as the Separatists acknowledge) and if they help to make up his body, they must needs be Christ's Church, for his body is his Church, Col. 1.18.24. Ecclsia est caetus hominum vocatorum, Dr. Ames. 1 Cor. 1.24 1 Cor. 10 32.  
Reas. 2 Secondly, because the Church of England hath the essential notes and marks of a true Church of Christ.  
1. One is the word of God purely and powerfully preached, professed, and maintained, which always gathers a people to the Lord, being so taught, 2 Cron. 13.10, 11, 12.  
2. The lawful administration of the two Sacraments according to Christ's institution, Mat. 28.19, 20.  
3 The true obedience to the word of God, a right following Christ's voice, and conforming to his will, John 10.27.  
4. The union with God by his spirit and faith, and with his Saints by love, Col. 1.4. 2 Cor. 6.16. Rom. 8.14.  
Object. But this Church wants the Discipline of Christ, therefore no true Church.  
Ans. I confess it wants it, yet it hath these forenamed fundamental & essential notes by virtue whereof, it's the Church of Christ as truly as the Church of Corinth was, in which was wanting the execution of spiritual Discipline, & more horrible abuses of the ordinances then in England, yet Paul writes to it as to a true Church, 1 Cor. 11.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30. So the Churches of Galatia maintained justification by works, which we account a damnable heresy in the Romish Church at this day, yet Paul called them Churches, though this heresy be worse than the want of complete Discipline and other Ceremonies in our Churches. Also there wanted true Discipline amongst the Israelites, and was more profane abuses of God's worship than is amongst us, yet we account them to have been a true Church, 1 Sam. 2.16, 17, 22, 29.  
Reas. 3 Because this Church of England was rightly called and constituted at the first by the preaching of the word and gracious Laws of the Magistrate.  
Object. But it should have been gathered only by the word taught, not by constraint from the Magistrate:  
Ans. Constraint itself may justly have place in the lawful constitution or reformation of a Church, witness, 2 Chron. 33.16. 2 Chron. 34.32, 33. 2 Chron. 15.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Magistrates may compel Infidels to here the word, 2 Chron. 30. They are keepers of both tables, they must abolish Idolatry and profaneness, by command from the word, and they have as good ground to cause people to attend the public Ordinances.  
Ob. But to believe, is a voluntary act, and must not be enforced. Psal. 110.3,  
Ans. True: God must sweetly and effectually persuade people to believe and bend their wills by his spirit, the Magistrate must not compel any man to believe, but he must compel them to attend the means of grace, and to leave their wickedness. Luke 14.23. The guests must be compelled to come in, though not to eat when they are come. Compelled, not by persuasions; for these were the first invitations; therefore by further means. So then both Word and Sword was effectual through God's blessing to gather a Church in this Island, the Gospel was worthily taught in King Edward's days, which brought 300. Martyrs in Queen Mary's days to the Stake, and many godly professors to the succeeding times in Queen Elizabeth's days, there was great confluence of zealous Professors who spread the Gospel over the land, and drew flocks of hearers to them: then came a Christian Edict from the State, that every man should yield obedience to this truth wherein they had been thus instructed: it was performed by the most, whose submission was an actual profession of their faith and repentance.  
Reas. 4 Because, We all in this land have entered into Covenant with God in Baptism, to serve and honour him all our days, our Baptism ties us as strictly to God's service as Circumcision tied the Jews, and that our Baptism is a right Baptism, you shall hear proved afterwards.  
Ob. But the Church is a company of men and women called, as Doctor Ames describes it, now in England the most people are uncalled, profane, etc.  
Ans. There is a double calling, external and internal, so the Church is either visible or invisible, now many are outwardly called by the sweet invitations of the Gospel, God calleth all sorts of men, and men of all sorts, but his inward and effectual calling, and the election of grace is but of few, which is the meaning of that, Mat. 22.14. Many are outwardly called to be Members of the Church visible, entered thereinto by Baptism, made partakers outwardly of the word and Sacraments, but few of these belong either to God's eternal Election; or are effectually called and chosen to be Members of the Church invisible. So John 15, 2. We are in Christ two ways, 1. By external profession, frequenting the Ordinances, having a form of godliness but, etc. these are Members of the Church visible: 2. By real implantation, and these are the true spiritual Members of Christ, both these our Church hath; the common sort are outwardly called by the word, initiated by baptism, and have a form of Religion, and are outward Members of the Church visible, as truly as such were in the Jewish Church, and as Judas was in Christ's family, and as Hypocrites are Members of any reformed Church, for Hypocrites are worse than the openly profane.  
Reas. 5 Because, This Church hath a godly and learned preaching Ministry sent of God (as you shall here proved afterward:) and a faithful heavenly people as any that live upon earth, the Ministers are bvilders, and the other God's building: 1 Cor. 3.9. Yet in that Church were horrible crimes, incest maintained. 1 Cor. 5.1.2. Some of them denied the Resurrection. 1 Cor. 15.12. Though we have many dumb dogs and wicked people, yet the Church receives its denomination from the better part, not from the major part, as an heap of wheat having much chaff in it.   

QVEST. II. Whether the Church of England be a right Nationall Church?  
Answer. I Affirm it is as true a national Church, as the Jewish Church was. Reas. Because this Church liveth by one Law Ecclesiastical and Civil, it continues one body, and every Congregation is a Member of it, as, amongst the Jews, they had their several Synagogues: our Church hath the Sacrament of baptism for imitation as the Jews had circumcision.  
Object, But we read of no Nationall Church in the New Testament, therefore there is no Nationall Church now a days.  
Ans. 1. If this Argument were valid to prove that there is no Nationall Church now, than it may as well prove there was no Church at all before Christ's coming, for we cannot find the word Church in all the Old Testament, God indeed called the Jews his portion, inheritance, chosen people, etc. but never Church:  
2. But I add further, that no Nationall Church is mentioned in the New Testament, Because there was no such, during the abode of Christ and his Apostles upon Earth, but only particular Churches gathered by the Apostles preaching amongst the Heathen, there was no King nor Potentate that embraced the Christian Faith, for 300. years, till Constantine the great Emperor of Rome, who did most zealously receive, countenance, and promote the progress of the Gospel, and encouraged the Ministers of it exceedingly.  
3. If the judgement of Mr. Brightman, and some other learned Divines upon the Revelation, be Orthodox and sound, (which I question not) than Nationall Churches are spoken of, and prefigured by those seven Asian Churches, whom that Eagle-eyed expositor looked upon as Types of succeeding Churches, and those Churches whom they set out to be the Counterpane, as Sardis set out the Church of Germany, Laodicea our English Church, Philadelphia set out the Churches of France, Helvetia, Suevia, Geneva, Holland, Scotland, because they live by one and the same form of Ecclesiastical Government, and so of the rest.  
4. Lastly, In the Old Testament are divers illustrious prophecies of Nationall Church of the Jews, when God shall convert them and bring them bacl to, and settle them in their own Kingdom, for the Prophets frequently speak of it. Isa. 60. Isa. 61. Isa. 62. and 63. and 64. etc. Jer. 30. Jer. 31. Jer. 33.12, 13. Ezek. 34.25, 26, 27, 28, 29. Ezek. 36.24. Ezek. 37.25. Likewise we find these Prophets speaking of Nationall Churches amongst the Gentiles, which should come and join with the Church of the Jews. Isa. 49 23. Isa. 60.16. Isa. 19, 24.25. Doubtless there shall be many famous Nationall Churches after the conversion of the Jews, which I hope draws on fast. And when those days are come, there will be more famous National Churches then ever the old Jewish Church was. Zach. 14.20.21  
Object. But the Church of England wants those Church Officers mentioned, Eph. 4.11. which Christ left to his Church.  
Answer. Can there be no Church, no Christians without them? What shall we say of the Families of the Patriarches? of the Jewish Congregations under the Law▪ yea, of Christ and his Apostles? Either deny them to have been visible Churches, or show us these distinct Officers amongst them: look upon the Church since Christ was there not a worthy Church of God in Jerusalem, from the time of Christ's ascension, till the Election of the 7 Deacons? those hundred and twenty Disciples, Acts 1.15. And 3000. Converts, Acts 2.41. those continual troops that flocked to the Apostles, were they no true Church? Let the Apostles and Evangelists be Pastors and Doctors: where were their Elders, Deacons, Releevers? Afterwards when Deacons were ordained, yet what news is their of Elders till Acts 11.30. Yet that of Jerusalem was more forward than the rest: we will not (as the Separatists are wont) argue from Scriptures negatively: no proof, yet much probability is in St. Paul's silence: He writes to Rome, Corinth, and other Churches: Those his divine letters, in a sweet Christian civility, salute even ordinary Christians: and would he have utterly passed by all, mention of these Church Officers, amongst his so precise acknowledgement of lesser titles in others, if they had been ere this ordained? Rom. 1.8. 1 Cor. 15. 1 Thes. 1.7. Gal. 4.15. All these, notwithstanding all this, were true Churches, famous, forward and exemplary. Only the Phillippian Church is styled with Bishops and Deacons, but no Elders besides them. Phil. 1.2.  
But through God's great mercy, we have many who conscionably teach and feed, by teaching call them what you please, Lecturers, Parsons, Vicars, etc. If they preach Christ truly, upon true inward abilities, upon a sufficient (if not perfect) outward vocation, such are Pastors and Doctors allowed by Christ: we stand not upon circumstances and appendancies of the fashions of ordination, manner of choice, attire, titles, maintenance, but if for substance these be no true Pastors and Doctors, Christ never had any in his Church since the Apostles left the Earth.   

QVEST. III. Whether are the Ministers in the Church of England sent of God, and so are true Ministers or not?  
Ans. I Affirm they be true Ministers of Jesus Christ sent of God into his Vineyard, to build up his Church and People as living stones upon Christ the chief corner stone.  
Reas. 1 Because we have many Godly, learned and painful Ministers, as well qualified for that worthy function as any in the world, who are exceedingly diligent in the excercise of their gifts, endeavouring to convert and confirm souls, to the utmost of their ability: now their ability and fidility argues, that God hath sent them. Rom. 10.15. Jer. 23.21, 22. As if he had said, I gave no commission to these Prophets, yet they ran, as of their own heads, etc. If they had received directions and creands from me, and had delivered them accordingly too my people, they should have laboured to have turned them from their lewd courses. Where the Lord shows that the conscionable, and able preaching of his word, proves that he sends such about that work.  
Reas. 2 Because, That God hath blessed the labours of the Ministers of this Church, to the conversion of many, and to their confirmation in the truth, which thing God would not have done, if he had not sent them. Jer. 23.32. 1 Cor. 9.2. Yea. the Separatists themselves received their first Illumination, Faith, and other graces from the word preached by us, before they made a divorcement from us.  
Object. But the Ministers of the Church of England were called by the Prelates, whose calling is Antichristian, from the Pope, therefore they are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.  
Ans. I grant that the calling of the Lordly Prelates (as they are described in the second Article of the Covenant & exercise their jurisdiction in their Courts by their Substitutes) is Antichristian & yet the Godly and Learned Ministers of this Church (called by them) are true Ministers called of God, for these reasons.  
Reas. 1 Because, the Prelates are Christians and so their calling of us is not altogether unlawful: with the Separates, every Vlebeian Artificer hath power to elect and ordain by virtue of his Christian profession (the act of the worthiest standing for all) how can they deny this right to persons in some measure qualified for this work?  
Reas. 2 Because, The Prelates are learned men, and Divines, many of them are judicious and orthodox in judgement against popish Heresies, and have written and preached substantially against them, which yet I speak not in favour of their calling, for I look upon it as Antichristian, and directly opposing Christ's words, in Mat. 20.25, 26.  
Reas. 3 Because, The Prelates in their ordination, command us to preach the Gospel truly now, ● we be not rightly called, because called from them, than one of these things of both these must necessarily follow. Either it is unlawful for the Prelates to command us to Preach the Gospel, or it is unlawful for us to preach the Gospel as they command us, I cannot see how the former can be unlawful, because their charge and command to Ministers is no ways Antichristian, but Christian, for they command us to preach the Gospel not as Popish Prelates, but as Christians and Learned Divines, now good counsel is worthy to be followed from whomsoever it comes, though from an enemy. I see not how the latter is unlawful, if one be qualified w●th fidelity and ability, he ought to preach the word; (though the Prelates licenced and commanded him) because as yet here was no other outward way of calling Ministers to preach in this Church of England, appointed and established by authority.  
I heard of an Usurer in this Kingdom, who had gotten very much money by usury and unjust gain, he made it his only calling, (which doubtless is unlawful) it pleased God to convince him of the unlawfulness of his usury, he made restitution largely to his debtors, and sent his servant with restitution money to divers of them, though his course of usury was unlawful, yet it was lawful, yea, needful for him to command his servant to carry home restitution money to such as borrowed of him; and it was lawful for his servant to obey him in this, of the like nature is the business I speak of.  
Object, But the Ministers of the Gospel should be called in a Church way, by the Church, and not be obtruded upon them, as many Ministers in this Church be against the consent of the people, in this land people being profane as Heathens, and being no Church, cannot choose Ministers, neither are such true Ministers, as are called by them:  
Ans. 1. I think every Godly and Learned Minister will not account himself a Minister sent of God, as he hath his calling from the Prelates, but will rather look at his divine qualifications for the Lords work, as his internal call from God, and at his people's election of him, to such a charge as his outward call, and will look at the Episcopal ordination as a mere Ceremony which cannot nullify his divine call from God and the Church.  
2. I conceive, that sometimes a Minister may be sent of God to preach the word, when the people desire him not. As after Christ's ascension the Apostles dispersed the Gospel in divers heathenish Nations, so may it now fall out, if a Minister should go and preach among the Pagans, and convert divers of them to the truth, for aught I see, he may be truly said to be a Minister sent of God.  
3. Though our land hath many profane in it, (yet it's a Nationall Church as I proved) I should propose this quaere to the conscience of any reasonable man: Suppose a profane parish where no means of grace ever was, nor any Godly Christian ever dwelled, should from the conviction of the necessity of preaching, make earnest suit to some Godly and able Minister (not tied to any other charge) to be their pastor, and teach them the way to life, I demand whether this man have a true divine call from God to them or not? I conceive he hath, though they be not a true Church, yet they may be; God by his spirit may excite in them a true desire after the word, and that Minister may have much work to do there. Acts 16.30. Paul and Silas had a true call, to go into the Jaylours' house at his questioning of them about salvation, though he was not fully converted.  
4. I think a Minister may be truly sent of God, by a Synod of Godly and Learned Divines to a Pastoral charge, though the people sometimes call him not, as if he be to preach the word in a prophain parish, that desires not powerful preaching, but hates it, and would oppose the coming in of such a Minister, the Synod may send him to such a place, and God may bless his labours to the conversion of many there; a learned Synod is better able to judge of a Ministers ability and fidility, for that sacred function, than a vulgar congregation, and there are too many ignorant parishes in this land, who will hardly ever call zealous and godly Ministers to them, if our blessed Parliament, and reverend Synod have not a care to send such to them.  
Object. But the Ministers of this Church are maintained by Tithes, a Jewish Ceremony, and abolished long since by Christ.  
Answer. Tithes are not ceremonial, for a Jewish Ceremony was a carnal type of an holy thing, enjoined for the service of the Tabernacle and Temple, only until the time of Reformation. ●eb. 9 Now, to say that tithes were instituted to signify something only for a time, as all ceremonies were, is not truth: If any say, they signified the maintenance of Ministers under the Gospel, than it will follow, that they signified a fare larger maintenance for the Ministers of the Gospel, than the levitical Priesthood had, because the office of Ministers of the Gospel is of greater worth & excellency, than the office of Priests and Levites under the law. Also because the Antitype or thing signified, is larger than the type or ceremony signifying. Neither could tithes signify an Arbitrary maintenance, to be left to the will of the Magistrate, (as some say) for this were to make a certainty tipyfie an uncertainty. That tithes are moral and so perpetual, I thus prove it, 1 Cor. 9.13.14. That is by tithes, else the Apostles apodosis answers not to his protasis, than the similitude were lame.  
Reas. 1 Because, The heathen by the light of nature, judged that tithes were to be paid to such gods as they worshipped, if the light of nature dictated tithes to be perpetual, then much more doth the word of God. Herodotus saith, that Cyrus' King of Persia, having conquered the Lydians, offered the tithes of all to Jupiter. Plutarch saith, the Romans used to offer tithes to their gods, Camillus vowed tithes to the goddess mater Matuta, in case he should overcome the Vejans. He saith, Lucullus grew rich because he observed the use of paving tithes to Hercules. Xenophon saith, that others used to pay tithes to Apollo. Pliny writing of the Sabaeans, and Aethiopians (more barbarous than the Romans) saith, that Merchants may not meddle with the Spices which those countries yield abundantly, before the Priests have laid out the tenth to their gods. Festus saith, the people of old did offer all the tenths to their gods. Which use amongst all Nations shows that it was dispersed from Noah amongst them: yea, it argues that it came from the incorrupt light of nature before the law was given.  
Reas. 2 Because, That tithes were the Lords right, long before the law was given. Levit. 27.30. Here is neither institution nor assignation of tithes, but a declaration of the Lords right, here he saith not they shall be, or let them be, as was said of other Ceremonial laws, as of the Passeover: Exod. 12.24. But as it's said of the seventh day, it is the Lords Sabbath, so of tithes, they are the Lords. All that which concerning tithes was, instituted in the law, was that tithes should be assigned to the Levites so long as they served the Tabernacle. Numb. 18.21. Though God gave the tithes to the Levites, yet did he not first found them in that Incorporation, but only transferred his own right to that order of Priesthood so long as it should endure, and after the ceasing of that Priesthood, the same right descended to the Ministers of the Gospel: so tithes were due to the levitical, Ministers as Ministers, not as levitical and so are successively due to Evangelicall Pastors, as Pastors not formally, as Evangelicall.  
Reas. 3 Because, It was the custom of God's Church in all ages, to pay tithes to the Lord, before the law was written, so Abraham paid the tith of all. Gen. 14.20.  
Object. That which Abraham paid was of the spoils, Heb. 7.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Ans. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the best of a man's goods, sometimes the first fruits; But admit that it signified spoils, and that Abraham gave tithes of the spoils, yet it more confirms the right of tithes, for if he gave tithes of the spoils, much more did he use to do the same of his own goods, for here the Apostle saith. Heb. 7.2. He gave a tenth part of all, why is this compared with levitical tithes which were paid yearly, if this were not also usual and continual? the Apostle would not use this manner of speech of one only action, unless it shown the common use and practise how tithes were then paid to the Priest, as by common use and practise they were afterwards paid to the Levites.  
Besides, I think with judicious Calvin, that Abraham paid tithes not of the spoils, but of his own goods: because it's said Gen. 14.22.23. That Abraham had lift up his hand to God, that he would not take so much as a thread or shoe latchet of that which was taken, which he yielded to the King of Sodom, etc. It's more than probable that he paid no tithes of the spoils, seeing he would not account any part thereof his own. The next testimony before the law is, Gen. 28.20.21. etc. From hence it appears that it was the general opinion of the godly before the law was given, that tithes ought to be given to God. For otherwise Jacob did offend unless he knew that this thing pleased God, as being appointed by him.  
Object. But Jacob vowed a vow to give the tenth, now no moral thing may be vowed, because we are bound without a vow to perform such things?  
Answer. Yet its lawful to vow moral duties which God commands us, to bind ourselves to more careful obedience, to excite our dulness, to prevent omission, the holy practice of the godly proves it, 2 Chron. 15.12, 13, 14 Psal. 119.106. Psal. 50.14. Psal. 56.12. and though ceremonial things might be vowed under the law, yet no otherwise, but as they drew to some moral duty. Besides, the other parts of jacob's vow was not ceremonial, but moral▪ Gen. 28.20, 21, 22. That God should be his God: this was vowed by him on like condition, with tithes, and for aught I know jacob might as well vow tithes to God for ever, as that God should be his God: jacob in this vow I think vowed not for himself alone, but for his seed that should succeed; because the vision which Jacob saw, concerned all his posterity so did his vow, God promised many blessings to him and his seed: he vows holy service and obedience to God, for him and his posterity, those that would ascend into Heaven by jacobs' Ladder, (which is Christ john 1.51.) must be tied to jacobs' vow, for jacobs' vow answering the vision, whilst any part of the vision is to be performed, which will be till Christ's second coming; so long shall tithes be God's inheritance. Because as I said his vow concerned his seed, as much (if not more) than himself. And those are his seed who are more of his faith then his flesh: for all the families of the earth, which here are blessed in jacobs' seed, were not all of jacobs' flesh, but even japhets' seed coming to the tents of Sem; the Gentiles called: Therefore all subject by jacobs' vow to tithing. Rom. 9 6.7.8.  
Object. But we read not of the constant paying of tithes, nor of any law for tithing, till the time of Moses. Numb. 18.  
Answer. Neither do we read of the observation of the Sabbath from the Creation till Exod. 16. Yet doubtless the people of God observed it, but as concerning tithes, we have here two examples, Abraham and jacob.  
Reas. 4 Because, Tithes were due and were paid to Melchizedeke by Abraham, and so ought to be paid to Christ, or else Christ should fail in some thing to be as Melchizedeke was, which may not be granted, seeing he is after his order, as the Priests of the law after Aaron's order, and so were in every thing as Aaron: Now tithes being due to Christ, must be paid to his servants the Ministers of the Gospel, Heb. 7.1. to 11. From this place consider these things, 1. The scope of this place is, to set forth the greatness and the honourable condition of Melchizedek, and consequently, of Jesus Christ. 2. Melchisedecks receiving of tithes, the Apostle makes a special argument of his greatness, viz. his receiving tithes of Abraham, whose Offspring the Tribe of Levi took tithes. 3. Melchizedek is as great as ever he was, and so in all things as he was in the time of Abraham, for he is the Priest of God for ever that never dies, and so his Priesthood and the rights of it never cease 4. how can his admirable greatness in his Antitipe Christ, be said still to be the same, if Christ takes no tithes, neither hath right to take them? seeing the Apostle urgeth this as a main argument of his greatness: his scope is to prove Melchizedek more excellent than Aaron or Abraham himself, or then any of the Jewish Nation, and consequently Christ more excellent, that the Hebrews might not be hindered by an over weening opinion, touching the aaronical Priesthood so long settled amongst them from coming unto Christ. The super excellency of Melchizedek is proved by this, that he took tithes of the Patriarch Abraham & blessed him, the title Patriarch being added for Abraham's greater honour, to magnify Melchizedek the more.  
Next, the supper excellency of Melchizedek is in this amplified by comparing this tithing, with that under the law used amongst Abraham's children, for if some of them had a greater honour done to them in this that they took tithes of their brethren, Melchizedek was far more honoured in taking tithes of Abraham; and if they were honoured to bless others their brethren, being hereby proved greater; then Melchizedek in blessing Abraham, was much more honoured & proved greater than he, and by consequence then Levi, and the high Priest springing of him, for so much as Levi himself being then in Abraham's loins paid tithes unto him, and was blessed of him: from all this it follows plainly, that tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel, in regard they are Christ's Ambassadors to reconcile people to God, and to bless them with conversion by preaching the word; because tithes are Christ's and Melchizedeks as they were a means of blessing, for in this respect also Abraham is noted to have paid tithes to Melchizedek when he met him and blessed him.  
Object. But we read not that Christ or his Apostles received tithes or demanded them?  
Answer. Neither received they ought else of some Churches, but their own hands ministered to their necessities that they might not be scandalous to weak brethren, nor chargeable to afflicted Churches, must Ministers of all ages do the like?  
Secondly, the argument follows not from no practice to infer no right, for the Apostles traveled from place to place to preach the Gospel, that then this could not be well done, but the right was not infrienged hereby, no more than the right of Circumcising by the intermission thereof forty years in the Wilderness.  
Thirdly, we read soon after Christ's ascension, the Apostles took the price of whole fields and possessions of such as joined themselves to them for their own maintenance, and of their poor brethren, Acts 2.45. Acts. 4 34, 35, 36, 37. this course continued about 200. years, during which time no marvel though they required not tithes, that which was given them being a fare greater proportion: such as oppose the morality of tithes now, would not be willing to deal so with us Ministers of the Gospel.   

QVEST. FOUR Whether is the Baptism of Infants a true and lawful Baptism or not?  
Answer. I Affirm it is a true, right, lawful, and fit Baptism, and aught to be used in a Christian Church professing God's truth.  
Reas. 1 Because (excepting the difference of the visible ceremony) there is the same analogy of reason of Baptism as of circumcision, the same internal, & spiritual thing signified, viz. remission of sins, & mortification of the flesh, Deut. 10.16. Jer. 4.4.6. Act. 2.38. Act. 22.16. Rom. 6.4. both of them are Symballs of our Adoption into God's family, and so our imitation into the Divine Covenant, Gen. 17.7.10. 1 Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3.26, 27. besides Baptism succeeds Circumcision, Col. 2.11.12. or else the conditon of Christian infants under the Gospel, were worse than the condition of Jewish Infants under the Law, in regard of their age; if Baptism might not be conferred upon them now, as Circumcision upon the Jewish children, if Baptism belong not to Infants, than the grace and favour of God by Christ's coming, is more obscure and strait and less testified, than it was to the Jews, which to affirm, is an horrible indignity offered to Christ.  
Object. But there was an express commandment for circumcising of Infants, Gen. 17. but no such for Baptising of Infants now?  
Answ. 1 There is a general command Mat. 28.19, 20. all that believe of any condition whatsoever, should be Baptised; under which Infants borne of Christian parents are comprehended, for in Laws and Precepts that be general, an enumeration of singulars and particulars is not required, because laws do command concerning the whole Kind.  
Secondly, the Baptism of Christian Infants hath descended and continued from the Apostles days to us, Origen who lived in the year 213. said, that the Church received the tradition from the Apostles, to give Baptism to Infants. Augustine who lived in the year 420. said, that Baptism of Infants, the Church univerfall held it not instituted by Counsels, but always retained it, and most rightly believed it to be delivered by Apostolic Authority. Now such examples are equivalent to express commands.  
Thirdly, The New Testament doth not literally command, remember to keep holy the Sabbath, not to say grace before and after meals, not to pray with our family's morning and evening, not women to receive the Lords Supper, & many other such like things I might instance, yet we hold this to be moral duties, and aught of necssiety to be performed, and may be proved sufficiently by consequence out of the New Testament.  
Reas. 2 Because Christian Infants are in the Covenant of grace, as well as the children of Israelites, Gen. 17.7. Act. 2.39. for this blessed Covenant is exceedingly extended and enlarged by Christ, good reason then, the seal of this Covenant should not be straightened▪ nor made narrower than Circumcision was; now Christian Infants being within the Covenant of Grace, Baptism the Seal of it is their right, for as much as they are Christians belonging to the Church of God, 1 Cor. 7.14. here he saith your children are holy; if but one of the persons married be a believer, some by (holy) understand, legetimate, as if he had said, your children are not bastards but lawfully begotten and borne; But the Apostle speaks not of civil legitimation, for the children of Infidels may be and are legitimate, others construe the words thus, that your children are holy, viz. by education in Christianity: others interpret them thus, your Children are holy, viz. by the secret operation and illumination of the spirit, which begets in them new inclinations towards God, as in John Baptist, and the Prophet Jeremy. Others say thus, your children are holy. viz. They are Christians, belonging to the Covenant and to the Church, this I choose: holy, here is not understood civil but legally; the Law called things unclean, profane, as vessels, and living creatures, and men without the Church, and so the Law called things dedicated to God, holy; therefore as the children of the Jews in the old Testament were not unclean but holy, that is, they were not Gentiles, but Jews, in Covenant with God from the womb, by the vigour and virtue of that promise, Gen. 17.7. though by nature they were children of wrath; so here, Christians with their children who are adopted into the place of the Jews, now in the new Testament the Apostle calls holy; that is, they are not Heathens but Christians, though by reason of original sin they are borne children of wrath; so according to faederal grace, we are borne Christians, though according to national generation we are borne sinners, by virtue of which faederal sanctity Christian Infants have as clear a right to Baptism as Jewish Infants had to Circumcision: such than who oppose faederal sanctity and teach that the custom or Baptising Infants hath continued in the Church not from example or command in Scripture, but from the degrees of the Church, take part with the Papists who stiffly seek to maintain theirs against us.  
Reas. 3 Because Infants are capable of the thing signified, therefore they may be Baptised, they may have grace secretly bestowed as Jeremy and John Baptist, many such belong to heaven, Mat. 19.14. as if he had said, of such little ones and of others affected like them doth the Kingdom of God consist, Mark 10.14. Christ blessed them, than we may bestow the Sacrament and seal of blessing on them.  
Object. If we could certainly know which Infants had grace wrought in them, and did belong to Heaven, than we might baptise them, but this we know not, therefore it's the best not to baptise them, till they come to riper years to make a profession and a confession of the Christian faith?  
Answer. First know, that we cannot infallibly discern which man hath true grace, and is elected, this God only knows, we may and aught to judge very charitably upon an exact profession, & so upon a bare profession; Philip Baptised Simon Magus, Act. 8.13. We must never Baptise any, if we stay for infallible knowledge of any particular man's Election and particular Sanctification.  
Secondly, the faith of Parents may warrant their infant's Baptism, yea though they have a bare historical faith, (not a justifying faith,) if they can credere ad baptismum, though not ad salutem, this faith makes their children fit for Baptism, there were many in the Apostles times who were Baptised having only an historical faith, as Magus and others.  
Object. But the new Testament runs much upon these speeches; believe and be baptised, repent and be baptised, teach and baptise, now Infants are not capable of the exercise of any of these graces, nor capable of teaching; and what good can the Parents faith do to the Infaint in Baptism, seeing every one must live and be saved by his own faith?  
Ans. Those phrases, Teach and Baptise, Repent, and Believe, and be Baptised, etc. are meant of such who were of riper years, and made profession of the Christian faith, whom they gathered out of the Heathens by the preaching of the Gospel.  
In like manner, if we were to preach the Word amongst the Pagans and Infidels who knew not Christ, believe not in him, heard not of him, we ought not to Baptise them nor their children till they profess faith in Christ, and come to know him. But now in this Church of England, all our people profess themselves Christians, and say, they believe in Christ and hope to be saved by him, though in their works many profane Protestants and licentious Christians deny Christ, opposing the power of godliness, yet having a temporary faith, they are entitled and called Christians, and have right to Baptism as well as the Children of many profane Jews had to Circumcision.  
Secondly, I say, the Parent's faith may benefit the Infant so much, as to bring it under the compass of the Covenant, and to make it a partaker of the sign and seal of the Covenant, Rom. 4.11. He saith Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of the faith, children we know were circumcised, what faith could they express? therefore the faith of their parents, applying the righteousness of Christ to themselves, by their Circumcision, it made their children to be borne Jews by nature, Gal. 2.15. Next this their faith assured them, that God would be a God to their seed, according to that promise, Gen. 17.7. In as good stead doth faith stand Christian Parents in, now, about the Baptism of their children, for Baptism is a clearer seal of righteousness than Circumcision was.  
Thirdly, We read the Apostles Baptised whole families, Acts 16.15.33. Acts 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16. and it is probable there were children amongst them.  
Reas. 4 Because 1 Cor. 10.2. The Apostle making their passing under the cloud and through the red sea a type of Baptism, he saith they were all Baptised through the conduct or Ministry of Moses in the cloud and sea, now there were six hundred thousand footmen, Exod. 12.37. besides very many young infants and small children, and they were all baptised tipically; very well, yea, much more may Infants of Christian Parents now under the Gospel, have Baptism conferred upon them, in the Truth and Antitipe, for the Truth or Antitipe is larger and of greater consequence than the Type; The Israelites, their passing into the bottom of the sea, signified our burial with Christ in Baptism, their coming out of the sea, our rising up to newness of life, Rom. 6.4. So the Apostle, 1 Pet. 3.21. Makes Noah's Ark a type of our Baptism; for saith he, the like figure whereunto even baptism, etc. as if he had said: Answerable unto which preservation of the eight persons in Noah's family, by water, is the benefit which we receive by baptism, which doth also now save us by, and in applying unto us, the power of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and become effectual unto us, not in respect of the outward element, which only washeth off the filth of the flesh, but in respect of the inward efficasie of the grace, thereby represented, and exhibited; whereby the conscience is both quieted, & assured of pardon and favour, and is there upon enabled to treat for, and expect mercy from God, and reconciliation with him.  
Object, But Christ was not Baptised until he was thirty years of age, Luke 3.21, 22, 23.  
Ans. True; he was baptised, 1 to fulfil all righteousness, Mat. 3.15. that is, to accomplish in all due obedience, all that part of God's will which concern him. 2 To confirm John's baptism, doctrine, & ministry, & to commend and confirm to us the use of baptism by his example. 3. That he might sanctify our baptism to us, and seal up this fellowship with us. 4 To signify that he was sent to be baptised, namely to die, and to wash away our sins with his blood, Luke 12.50. 5 That the truth might answer the type or figure; for as the high Priest, at his inauguration had his whole body washed with water, the sacerdotal garment was put upon him, he was set in the sight of all the people, and oil was poured upon his head; Exod. 29.4, 5, 6▪ so Christ being to enter upon the public function of the Ministry to preach the Gospel, he would be baptised, that he might be ordained, and confirmed by the public testimony of the whole Deity. But this example binds not us in respect of the time of his baptism, for if it did then Ministers must be baptised at their entrance into the Ministry; then none might enter into the Ministry till they be thirty years old, nor be baptised till they come to that age; so then, Christ entering upon his public function at that age, did answer the legal type of the Priests and Levites, who ordinarily were chosen to the public service of the tabernacle at thirty years of age, Numb. 4.3.23.30. etc. He did not by his example bind us to receive baptism at that age.  
Reas. 5 Because Baptism hath been effectual to produce mortification and vivificate in many, as divers good people can witness, which it should not have done, if God had not approved of Paedobaptism.   

QVEST. V Whether is it lawful to be rebaptised or not?  
I Answer, that if one were Baptised in the name of God in general, without particular explication and recitation of the three persons be not mentioned but omitted in Baptism, it's not right and lawful baptism; or if one was baptised of those heretics who delivered not the right doctrine of the Trinity, such as were the Marcianites, Arrians, and Pneumatomachi, it's not right and lawful Baptism, because the essential form of Baptism is not observed, which (according to Christ's institution) must be in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: but if Baptism be rightly administered according to the institution of Christ and the form prescribed of him, than rebaptisation is unlawful, for these reasons.  
Reas. 1 First, because there is no command for rebaptisation, as there is for the frequent receiving of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.26. and the Apostle saith, there is but one Baptism, Eph. 4.5.  
Reas. 2 2. Because Circumcision was not iterated, to which Baptism succeeded.  
Reas. 3 3. Because Baptism is a Sacrament of Regeneration, but it's enough to be once borne again, and to be entered into the Church of God, as one is borne naturally but once; so the spiritual birth is but once.  
Object. But many who were baptised in their infancy, were never truly borne again?  
Ans. Likewise many who are baptised in their elder years are never truly regenerate, but are notorious Hypocrites, as Simon Magus, and others.  
Reas. 4 4. Because the strength and fruit of baptism lasteth all the life of a true Christian, and a Christian may, yea he ought to feel the force and virtue of his baptism working mortification and vivification in him, he must often remember the covenant he made with God in that ordinance, and in the remembrance of it must be careful to take heed of falling into sin, to rise after he is fallen, and to serve God in sincerity all his days.  
Now some of the separatists hold that our baptism in the Church of England is no baptism, because it's conferred upon Infants; and therefore they are rebaptised: but they grossly err; not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God in that Sacrament to us; I hold these their tenets and practise unlawful for these reasons.  
1 Because they seek to nullify and frustrate the Sacred ordinance of Christ, viz. Baptising in Infants, and so by consequence speaks blasphemy, horribly taking God's name in vain, in that they vilify and reject one of his Ordinances, as a matter of no worth, efficacy, and consequences if any of them shall say, that they never felt or discerned any benefit by their baptism in their infancy? I answer, that they do discover carnality and pride, and are in the bond of iniquity with Simon Magus, if they were regenerate, they might feel as much benefit and comfort of their baptism in their infancy, as the godly L●●●n might from their circumcision in their infancy: also they discover hypocrisy in that they made profession formerly of their Covenant made with God in Baptism, but now since their Separation, they disclaim this Sacrament, and acknowledge themselves nothing better for it.  
2. Because many of them are baptised by such as are no true Ministers of Christ, not sent by him to preach the Gospel, for I am certain they are not able to preach the word, therefore not sent by the Lord; now, none should baptise but they who are able teachers, sent of Christ, Mat. 28.19.  
3. Because this opinion revives the ancient heresy of Martion the Heretic, who lived in the year 143. he was the inventor of a strange & new custom, for he taught, that after a man had been once baptised, he may be baptised again the second time, and third time also. This he did to wash away his whoredom; his father was a Preacher of God's word in Pontus, and he himself had vowed chastity, and afterwards polluted himself with whoredom, and was cast out of the Church by his own father; who when he came to Rome, not being admitted to the fellowship of the Church, there he joined himself to the fellowship of Cerdon and augmented his error, who held that there were two Gods or two beginnings, the one they called the Author of all good things, the other the Author of all evil things; to which Martion added this heresy: he said, first, there was one supreme and universal God, and him he called the good God, who created nothing that is in this world: secondly, there was a visible God, who was creator and maker of all things, and thirdly, there was the Devil, as a mid thing between the visible and invisible God; no heresy sprang up at that time that was so universally over spread in many nations and countries as Martions' heresy was.  
Object But we read Acts 19.3, 4, 5. that Twelve Disciples of Ephesus were Baptised by Paul, who had been baptised by John; therefore it's lawful to be rebaptised?  
Ans. Some think that those twelve Disciples were only instructed in the Doctrine of John (there called baptism) and not baptised of him with water, but were now baptised in the name of Jesus.  
Some hold they were baptised of John with water, & not of Paul, as the text seems to import, but that they were baptised in the name of Jesus, that is, they were furnished with admirable gifts of the Spirit, after Paul had laid his hands upon them, which effusion of the spirit is called baptising, Acts 1.5.  
Some hold they were baptised amiss by some of John's followers in a corrupt form, but now were rightly baptised, yet here was no rebaptisation.  
Some hold they were baptised of john and Paul both for the divers manner of signification, john baptised in the name of Jesus that was to come, and to be exhibited, Paul in the name of Jesus already come and exhibited.  
But let us consult the text a little better; first, the text saith not, that Paul baptised those who before were baptised of john, as the Anabaptists urge, but we must rightly distinguish the words of Paul from the words of the Evangelist, Luke relating that history, Paul's words were these; john verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is▪ on Christ Jesus. Luke's words were these, When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus, and when Paul had laid his hands upon them, etc. So Luke saith, when they heard this, that is the Preaching and Doctrine of john, than they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus; that is of john, not of Paul: So that Luke here sets down how truly, worthily, and rightly these 12. Disciples were baptised of john and that john baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, for else his baptism had not been right and sound, but john baptised thus, I say, as appears, Mat. 3.11.16.17. Secondly, in that those twelve said, they heard not whether there be an Holy Ghost or not? its not meant of the existence of the holy Ghost, for john taught clearly concerning the holy Ghost. Mat. 3.11. but it's to be understood metonymically, of the effusion of the visible gifts of the holy Ghost, which flourished excellently in the beginning of the Church, as john 7.39. so that when Paul had laid his hands on them, the holy Ghost came upon them; that is after a visible manner, he means not here the gift of regeneration offered to all in baptism, but those peculiar and extraordinary gifts; as the gift of tongues, and gifts of working miracles and such like. Give me leave to set down a short Paraphrase upon five verses in the beginning of this Chapter, for the further illustration of this point.  
Acts 19.2. Have ye received the holy Ghost since ye believe? and they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any holy Ghost.  
Paraphrase. Have ye received the extraordinary and miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost, since ye believed? and they said unto him; we have not so much as heard, that there are those miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost, bestowed on men that believe.  
Verse 3 And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptised? and they said unto john's Baptism.  
Paraph, And he said unto them? These graces and gifts are wont to be given by imposition of hands, after Baptism; which since Ye have not taken notice of, tell me, unto what were ye baptised? And they said we were Baptised by john's Baptism, to the remission of sins by Jesus Christ, that lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.  
Verse 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus.  
Paraph. Then said Paul, john verily as the outward Minister of Baptism, baptised you with water, to the remission of sins, together with his baptism teaching the people, that they should believe in that Jesus Christ, which should come after him; so as his baptism was true and perfect; yet such as was not accompanied, & attended with these miraculous gifts, which now since the full glorification of Christ, are bestowed upon men.  
Verse 5 When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord jesus.  
Paraph. Whiles therefore john taught them thus, and made this holy commentary upon his said baptism, they that heard it (in receiving his baptism) were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.  
Verse 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the holy Ghost came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.  
Paraph. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them (as having before been fully and duly baptised) the Holy Ghost came down upon them, in miraculous gifts, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.  
So that here is no ground for rebaptisation in this place, these twelve doubtless had received the Holy Ghost, (though not in that miraculous and extraordinary manner as they did after) for Paul in his question saith they believed, now to believe, is a fruit of the Spirit; Therefore the Separatists do very ill oposing our Baptising of Infants, for in Scripture we find no examples, wherein Infants of Christian Parents were denied baptism but examples we find, wherein they had it conferred upon them, 1 Cor. 10.2. as I proved before, and Lydia with all her household was baptised, likewise we find no negative precept inhibiting paedobaptism, neither can it be proved truly that Christ's command. Teach and Baptise, etc. doth exclude infants from baptism; now if their be neither example▪ nor precept, against paedobaptism, than such as oppose it do ill; for they follow those pestilent heretics called Annabaptists in Germany, who sprung up there (when the light of the Gospel first began to shine) not very long since, about Luther's time, this their opinion being but new and upstart, there is good reason they should disclaim it, and be humbled for it.   

QVEST. VI. Whether is it lawful to separate from all the public Ordinances and Christian assemblies in our English Church, because there are some defects in Discipline, and in other things amongst us.  
Ans. I Conceive it is absolutely unlawful to relinquish Gods holy Ordinances, and the Assemblies of godly Christians in this Church of England, because of our mixed congregations, and because of some defects in our Discipline.  
Reas. 1 Because Jesus Christ leaves us not for our defects and weaknesses, but continues with us, and I hope will do for ever: It appears Christ dwells amongst us, because he hath settled his sacred word amongst us, sent us many godly and learned teachers, and where these are teaching the truth there is Christ, Mat. 28.20. Also he hath planted his Sacraments in our Church, he hath converted many souls in our land to himself by the faithful dispensation of his Ordinances, but where all this is, there Christ is resident, Exod. 20.24. such a Church is the spouse of Christ, and whilst she holds the foundation of Religion, retaining the substantial grounds of it, agreeable to the analogy of faith, she is spoused to Christ, but if she reject the foundation of religion, she is an harlot, as the Church of Rome is, Revelat. 2. there Christ walks amongst the seven golden candlesticks, viz. Those seven Churches of Asia, yet some of them had great defects; Now till Christ leaves us, it is unlawful for them to leave us, and account our Church an harlot; such as do thus, do through the sides of our Church wound Christ, strike at him, and dishonour him, Luke 10.16.  
Reas. 2 Because in separating from our Assemblies and Ordinances, you prevent the exercise of many an holy duty which you might, & aught to have performed amongst us, Heb. 10. And let us consider one another, to provoke unto love & good works, but some might ask how must we perform this duty? he answers verse 25. not forsaking the Assembling of ourselves together, etc. here the Apostles impugneth the supercidiousnesse of the self conceited Jews, who out of contempt of the Gentiles deserted the Christian Assemblies, as if he had said, notwithdrawing and utterly separating ourselves from the assemblies of God's people, upon conceit of the peculiar rights & prerogatives which God hath given the Jews above the Gentiles; and standing upon the high terms of difference, as the manner of some is, etc.  
Reas. 3 Because its the high way to the sin against the Ghost, as is very clear, Heb. 10.25.26. for such as despise and desert our Christian Assemblies and Gods holy ordinances amongst us, for some defects and imperfections; (which do not alienate Christ his presence & love from us) are in the ready way to fall to blaspheme the truth, and to sin unpardonable. Mr. Paget of Amsterdam in his preface to his book called An arrow against the Separation of the Brownists, complains of them thus; It is apparent that three or four hundred of the Brownists have brought forth more Apostate Anabaptists and Arrians, sometimes in one year, than 10000 members of the reformed Dutch Church in this City have done in ten years or more, though tempted and compassed about with seducers as much as any other. Now the Arrian heresy, is fearful and odious, in the year 324 sprang up Arrins a Presbyter in Alexandria, who denied that the Son of God was begotten of the substance of the Father, but said, that he was a creature, and that there was a time wherein the Son was not: The Anabaptists taught, that infants should not be baptised until they came to perfect age, and can give a confession of their own faith. Next, that Christ took not flesh and blood of the Virgin, but brought it from heaven. Next, that God not only revealeth his will by the written word, but also by visions and dreams. Next, that that Church is not a true Church; wherein there is any Spot or wrinkle. Next, that the Office of Magistrates under the New Testament is not a calling approved of God. Thomas Muntzerus one of the first Fathers of this Sect, made a great insurrection (though the Anabaptists teach that wars are unlawful for Christians) but was overcome and beheaded in the year 1533. johannes Leidensis troubled the City of Munster, but was taken and condemned to death, he called himself King of new jerusalem. David Georgius an Anabaptist in Holland, said that he was Christ the Messiah and Saviour of the world. Thus we see when men disdain the Assemblies of Saints for some defects, God leaves them to fall into fearful errors and heresies through the pride of their hearts.  
Reas. 4 Because it argues an extreme height of pride, such as separate from all the ordinances, are puffed up with ambitious spirits like unto those in Isa. 65.5. such would make themselves seem holier than Christ and his Apostles, who went and preached amongst the profane Jews and Heathens, and though some of these seem humble, yet their seeming depth of humility, may be a real height of pride; they may not lawfully separate from us except Christ also did, whilst he stays with us, they should do the like.  
Reas. 5 Because this doctrine of Separation crosseth the judgements and practices of the godly Saints in all ages, it is but of late invention, those that seem to have been the Separatists their predecessors in former ages were the Donatists, 400. years after Christ, Donatus Bishop in Numidia drew many after him, and had many favourers called by divers names, Parmeniani, Rogatistae, Cirtenses, Maximianistae; Circumciliones, the worst branch of this root, for these would burn, or drown themselves, and account this kind of death Martyrdom: the main heresy of the Donatists was, 1 that the true Catholic Church was not where else to be found, but only in that corner of Africa, wherein they themselves dwelled: 2 that baptism was not effectual, except it had been ministered by one of their society, against these heretics did Augustine, Bishop of Hippo contend with mighty grace, the Separatists of these times are in some measure like them, but in some points they exceed the Donatists, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Johnson in one part confess this their Separation to be late and new; but in the nature and causes thereof, to be as ancient as the Gospel, the former I grant, the latter I deny, for we never read that the Saints in Scripture separated from those assemblies where God was truly worshipped, in the old Testament Elkanah frequented the public Assemblies at Shiloh, 1 Samuel 1.3. though there were more vile abuses of the Lords ordinances, then amongst us in England, 1 Sam. 2.22. and in that time between the Prophet Malachy & Christ's Nativity, we read that Zachary executed his Office, Luke 1.8.9. and did not Separate from the Lords ordinances, though there were fearful abuses amongst them, as fare as I remember in the Old Testament, Cain was the first that separated from God's holy servants and service, Gen. 4.16. and judas in the new, 1 Cor. 11.33.34. he wished them not to separate but to reform their horrible abuses of the Lords Supper.  
Reas. 6 Because to separate from us, is to separate from the sweet presence of Christ in his Ordinances, and from the fellowship of holy Saints as any be in the world, which to me seems unlawful.  
Reas. 7 Because the Separatists themselves, had their first illumination in our Church, by the word taught amongst us; they made profession amongst us before they left us, now that ministry of ours which first converted them, doubtless through God assistance is able to build them up, and they are bound to respect our Ministry before other, because it first converted them, 1. Cor. 4.14, 15. this their separation is an ill requital to their spiritual fathers.  
Object. Though we leave your Godly Saints and Ordinances, yet we have the society of other holy Saints and the Ordinances in purity?  
Answ. I believe there be amongst the Separatists some godly Saints; but this is no sign of a Saint to departed from our Church for some defects in it, it is altogether without example or ground from the Scripture, and is rather a sign of a proud Pharisee; do not think that all your fellow Separatists are upright and sincere, there be as discembling Hypocrites amongst them, as any are amongst us; neither expect such edification from the ordinances dispensed amongst you, as from the Ordinances amongst us; because God gives you not now extraordinary gifts, as he did to the Apostles, and your lay preaching wants those eminent gifts of learning (which are gifts of the spirit, 1 Cor. 12.4.10.11.) which the ministry of this English Church enjoyeth, yea, some who followed the Separation a while, but afterwards returned from it, to our public assemblies again, said, that the Ministry amongst the Separatists is a very fruitless, dead, and heartless Ministry, that they will often disagree about the interpretation of some places of Scripture, and sometimes none of them hit upon the right sense, whereas if they had a man of learning, and judgement amongst them, he would soon resolve their doubts, and prevent that unedifying confusion that is too much amongst them. I desire you of the Separation to consider that place well, Heb. 13.7. whose faith follow: now those godly teachers who instrumentally converted you were not of your faith, but did believe this English Church to be a true Church, wherein the Lord dwells, and they joined with us in God's service. I desire you likewise, to tell me ingenuously, whether you have heard the voice of Christ, & sensibly felt his spirit working upon your hearts, more by the Ministry of this English Church, than, or by the Ministry of the Separation; time was when you would have melted in prayer amongst us, you would have trembled at God's word in our Congregations, ye would have obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine we delivered, your hearts would have burned with zeal in holy performances amongst us, you seemed to be inflamed with precious love to Christ, to his ordinances, and to his servants, do you find the ministry of the Separation working these effects in you? I hardly believe you do.  
Object. But (your Ministers being called by the Prelates, their calling is Antichristian,) we dare not come to your public Assemblies to God's worship, because in so doing we shall approve of their unlawful calling.  
Answer. If you come to our Assemblies with good hearts, to get edification by the word, you bare presence at the ordinances, is no approbation of our calling by the Prelates, whilst your judgements and speeches are against it: many godly and learned men frequented our Christian Assemblies even when the Prelates lorded it over us, and troubled us with their ceremonies, yet they approved not of the Prelates calling, not of their ceremonies, but manifested their disapprobation and utter dislike of them, so I desire you to come and join with us in our Christian Services, private and public, speak what you please against the Prelates and their Ceremonies, and confute our outward calling from the Prelates by argument as much as you please, so that you will but keep the unity of the spirit with us in the bond of peace; but this renting from us doth exceeding much hurt, it brings many an able Minister into contempt, and the word he preacheth to much disgrace; it makes many weaker Christians to stagger, and is commonly an inlet to divers errors and heresies, for inveterate schisms oft times turn to heresies; the Donatists because they could not effect their cruel design against Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, fell from the unity of the Church, and in the end were defenders of heretical opinions: we read 1 Sam. 2.22. what horrible abuses of the Lords service was then, yea worse than is amongst us, yet Elkanah and his wives did frequent the public Assemblies, 1 Sam. 1.3. which he would not have done, if his presence there had been any approbation of those abuses, 1 Cor. 11.33, 34. there were more horrible abuse of the Lords Supper, then are amongst us, yet Paul bids them not separate upon this, but come together again, yet better prepared. I suppose it is lawful for you to read a Papists Book (whose religion is heresy) or to dispute with a Jesuit, and yet by your presence give no approbation of his Religion and condition, Mat. 23.3. Christ bids them hear the Pharisees (a vain sect sprang up amongst the Jews 144. years before Christ saith Josephus,) yet Christ approves not of them, farther than they taught the law truly, but in the same chapter denounced many woes against them, Phil. 1.18. Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached of envy and strife by the false Apostles (whose calling was not from Christ,) than I believe that Paul accounted it lawful for people to here such Preach, and yet be in no danger of approving their false Apostleship. Besides if your bare presence at our Assemblies doth give an approbation of our calling (which seems Antichristian to you) than your presence in our markets where be many profane people, may as truly approve of their sins and wickedness, Christ knew Judas to be a notorious hypocrite, a covetous wordling, yea, a traitor, yet he admitted him into his family, permits him to sit with him at the table; yet Christ was fare from approving of judas his sin and wickedness.  
Object. But I dare not join with your mixed Assemblies, lest I contract the guilt of their sins upon mine own head?  
Answer. That blessed man of God, Mr. Hooker, (now in New England) in a famous Sermon he Preached upon 2 Tim. 3.5. answers this objection thus; suppose saith he, those in authority will not cast out profane persons, yet the Saints of God should not abstain from the Congregation, it is pitiful indeed, and the thing is troublesome and tedious to a gracious heart, and we must mourn for it, but being it is not in my power, I must not abstain: Then he answering the objections of the Anabaptists saith; They (saith he) cast this as a reproach upon our Church, common drunkards say they, and swearers, if they pay but two pence for their offering at Easter, may receive the Lords Supper; he answers thus, we confess this fault, let it lie where it is, we cannot reform it, we only can mourn for it, and that God will accept. Obj. 1 Cor. 5.11. if there be an adulterer, etc. with such do not eat, that is communicate not? he answers; to eat, there is not referred to the communion in eating the body of Christ, but eat not with him, that is, be not familiar with such a person, and it includes the word familiarity, not communion at the Lords table, Psal. 41.9. their eating implieth a common inward familiarity, mine own familiar friend, etc. But (saith he) they reply from the greater to the less; if we may not eat with them privately, then much less publicly may we communicate with them? he answers, It's no good reason, because I have more authority to refuse the company of a man in mine own house, than I have to refuse in the open congregation, I can keep a man out of my house, but I cannot fling him out of the open congregation, that belongs only to those that are in authority. Thus fare Mr. Hooker.  
Next, I say you may not lawfully relinquish our public Assemblies and ordinances, because of profane persons that be amongst them, whilst we have the Ordinances purely dispensed for the substance.  
Reas. 1 Because there is neither example nor precept in Scripture to warrant it, if one cannot frequent the means of grace in mixed congregations, without contracting the guilt of their sins, then surely, Elkanah would never have sacrificed to the Lord in Shiloh yearly with Hophni and Phinehas such profane persons: if there were such danger of contracting the guilt of others sins this way, than Paul would not have wished the Corinthians to come together again, though there were amongst the most vile abuses of the Lords Supper, worse than amongst us. Upon the same ground the Jews might have refused to hear the Pharises, (as wicked a generation of Hypocrites as ever was, both for life and Doctrine,) yet Christ bids the Jews and his own Disciples hear them, Mat. 23.3. on the same ground, its unlawful for you to frequent our markets, to have civil commerce with us, for there, even there do the profane people amongst us act, and practise their wickedness more openly, boldly, and frequently, then in our meeting houses, in the Markets they use swearing, drunkenness, lying, cozening, etc. I should think it more dangerous being there, (though a true Christian may lawfully be there, through the necessity of his particular calling,) then in our public Assemblies at God's worship; for in God's public worship amongst us, the profanest persons put on a form of piety, carry themselves demurely with outward reverence, they do not act their lewdness and folly there, but conform to the outward worship; I conceive then, there is less danger for you to be there.  
Reas. 2 Because we are bound in conscience by command from God's word, to frequent the public ordinances for our own particular edification, Isa. 55.1, 2, 3. Prov. 8.1. to 11. verse. Prov. 9.1. to 7. verse. and in many other places, now this I must obey, or else I sinne fearfully against God and mine own soul, if the wicked intrude amongst the Saints in their sinful estate, there sins shall lie upon their own head; indeed, if I commit their sins with them, or approve of their wickedness, and encourage them in it, or if I connive at their sin and reprove them not for it, if I have a lawful calling to do it, or if I mourn not for their sins, nor endeavour to reform them, than I make myself guilty of their sins; but if I come in obedience to God's command, to meet him in his ordinances, for the enlargement of my communion with him, this makes me not guilty of their wickedness; if it did, then doubtless Christ who knew Judas to be an Hypocrite, would not have suffered the other Apostles to eat the Passeover with him, but he would have excluded Judas and expelled him, or else he would have dissuaded the other Apostles from coming into Judas his company; neither of which he did. Therefore it favours strongly of Pharisaisme, to relinquish our public Assemblies; because they are mixed, the Pharisees thought it sin to converse with the base vulgar, their Phylacteries did say, touch me not, for I am cleaner than thou; though we have some profane, yet not all, there be amongst us many godly Christians keeping the mystery of faith in a pure conscience, now, we should love these as much as hate the other; if all main truths be taught amongst some godly, some profane, why should I more shun those profane, then cleave to those truths, and those godly? If I have daily admonished him, and detest and bewail his sin, what is another man's profaneness to me? If profaneness be not punished, it is their sin whom it concerneth to redress them: if the Officers sin, must we run from the Church? its a famous and pregnant protestation by God, Ezek. 18.20. and if the Father's sour grapes cannot hurt the children's teeth, how much less shall the neighbours? if any unbidden guess come with a ragged garment, and unwashen hands, shall I forbear Gods heavenly dainties? the Master of the feast may say, friend how camest thou in hither? not friends why came you hither with such a guest? God bids me come, he hath imposed this necessity, never allowed this excuse: my teeth shall not be set on edge with the sour grapes of others: if the Church cast not out the known unworthy, the sin is hers: if a man will come unworthy, the sin is his, but if I come not because he comes, the sin is mine: I shall not answer for that others sin: I shall answer for mine own neglect: another man's fault cannot dispense with my duty.  
Reas. 3 Because God hath many of his Elect amongst the profane people in our Assemblies, though they be not yet converted yet they shall be, the word is sent principally for the Elects sake, to convert such as be for the present, profane; but yet elected, and to confirm those that be already converted; now if the profaneness of the common sort, be a sufficient ground for us to separate from the public ordinances, then how should the means of grace be settled any where amongst us, for the conversion of such as be elected?  
Therefore its needful for you to adhere to us, to help forward the conversion of many, who belong to God's decree of Election, but are for the present in the state of nature.  
Reas. 4 Because to separate from us for this cause, gives great offence to God's people; which you ought not to do, 1 Cor. 10.32. there is the offence of grief, and the offence of error, both these your separation gives to many Christians; it grieves their hearts, & the spirit of God in them exceedingly, to see you relinquish the public ordinances, as if Christ was not to be found there; Object. also your separation causeth many Christians to stumble, and to forsake those Ministers, and that preaching, who first begat them in Christ Jesus; 2 Cor. 6.17. Come out from amongst them and be ye separate, etc.  
Answer. The Christians in Corinth, had too much fellowship with the idolatrous heathens, in going to their feasts, and in marrying with them, therefore the Apostle verse 14. dehorted them from this, and in this 17. verse: As if he had said; be not so familiar with the Idolatrous heathen, as to eat and drink with them at their feasts, because thus ye should draw in one yoke of wickedness with them, having communion in their abomination, & if any near familiarity with them be condemned, much it more o marry with such. To come out from amongst them is, to reprove their sins; to touch no unclean thing is, to refrain from doing those sins which they do. Here is no ground to separate from God's Church, because there be wicked persons, we should rather bear with some things for the preservation of the peace and unity of the Church, then through offence at these, to lose the benefit of communion in the word and Sacraments.  
Reas. 5 Because, in departing from our Christian Assemblies upon this ground, you depart not so much from evil company, as from the blessed presence of God, meeting us in his sacred Ordinances. By this means you lose more divine benefit and comfort in the ordinances, than you could have received hurt by the pretence of profane people there. Blessed be God for it, the presence of God, and the efficacy of his spirit in his ordinances amongst us, are more effectual to do good, than the presence of wicked men there, is able to do hurt; or else there had not been half so many precious Saints and heavenly Christians at this day in England, as now there be. God increase their number a thousand fold Amen.  
In the next place, I shall show you that it is more unlawful & unfit for you to separate from our English Church, now, than it was formerly.  
Reason 1 Because it mightily hinders the work of reformation, this is one cause that it goes on with much difficulty and very slowly, London can prove this by witness sufficient, this separation turns many to the Cavaliers, and exasperates the Cavaliers extremely against the work of reformation, they think that both the Parliament, and all that side with them would turn Separatists, be rebaptised; and depose all humane learning, so that any mecanicke and artificer may turn preacher, all this and much more the Cavaliers objected bitterly against the Parliament side to my face, in my long and tedious durance at Newarke where I was prisoner almost thirty weeks,  
Reason 2 Because this Separation offers horrible indignity to the Honourable and high Court of Parliament, which sets more earnestly for a complete reformation then any Parliament ever did formerly, and if we can but wait with patience, we may comfortably hope to see it effected, now this Separation doth rather disparage the Parliament by outrunning the authority of it, as if it was not wise enough to accomplish a reformation, and as if it was lawful and fit to set up a reformation in England without Parliamentary authority: The best Israelites in the times of Abijah, Asia, jehosaphat, Hezekiah, josiah, never took upon them to reform without, or before, or against their Princes 2 Chron. 13. 2 Chron. 14. and 15. 2 Chron. 29. and 30. 2 Chron. 34. Nehemiah without Artaxerxes (an heathen King,) did not set up the walls of Jerusalem, Ezra. 4 23.24. zerubabel and Joshua built not without leave and command from Cyrus, and when contrary letters came from above, they laid by both trowells and swords, private profession is one thing, public reformation is another; every man must do that in the main, none may do this but they of whom God says, I have said, ye are Gods.  
Reason 3 Because this Separation is like to breed great distractions in the Parliament Garrisons, if ever they should be besieged by the enemy, for many that outwardly stand for the Parliament, yet have little or no power of piety, do vow to fight as soon against the separatists as the Papists, if ever their Garrisons should be besieged.  
Reason 4 Because Separation crosseth the famous late Covenant which we took, which enjoins us to endeavour to extirpate Popery schism, and profaneness, doubtless this Separation is schism, a renting from this Church which I proved to be the spouse of Christ, therefore for such as have taken this Covenant, and yet Separate from us, how they can do this with a good conscience; I cannot see.   

QVEST. VII. Whether is it necessary to demolish our Churches (Steeplehouses as the Separatists call them) and to build them in other places, because they were built by Idolaters for Idolatrous worship, were abused with images, and dedicated to Saints?  
Ans. I Hold it neither necessary not fit to pull them down, because of the Idolatrous service practised in them.  
Reas. 1 Because we that worship God in them, do reject those Superstitions which were used in them, and use them lawfully in the true worship of God: as Goliath his sword though an instrument of cruelty and murder, serving for the maintenance of heathenish Idolaty in the hand of the Giant, was yet lawfully used by David as an instrument of justice to the glory of God, 1 Samuel 17.51. 1 Sam. 21.9. the authority of the Magistrate hath cast Superstition out of these houses, & converted them to the true worship of God.  
Reas. 2 If for the Superstitious rits of consecration, our Temples should be demolished, then how comes it to pass that the Church yards are not liable to the same judgement, seeing they have been consecrated by Bishops with abominable rites and Idolatrous superstitions as the Temples were? The people of biscay in Spain admits of no Bishop amongst them, for when Fernand the Catholic came in progress hither, accompanied by the Bishop of Pampelune, the people arose in arms, drove back the Bishop, and gathering all the dust on which they thought he had trodden and fling it into the Sea; If Popish superstition have defiled our Churches, and Church yards with an indelible stain, why serve you not them so likewise?  
Reas. 3 Then it will also follow, that Popish Baptism being in like manner defiled with Idolatrous rits▪ aught by the like necessity to be abolished, & a new baptism to be sought, & while you retain amongst you the baptism administered in Popery, you cannot without partiality refuse our Temples; the pollution of Baptism by idle ceremonies of crossing, exorcism, exsufflation, salt, spittle, oil, etc. is as great as the pollution of the Temples by their consecration; Besides Mr. Ainsworth in on part of his works saith, that persons unlawfully circumcised and baptised in Idolatrous and false Churches, might yet through faith and repentance, come to a lawful and comfortable use of their former circumsition and baptism, why then cannot our repentance and faith, as well sanctify unto us, the places superstitiously consecrated, while we do in like manner disclaim and renounce their superstitions?  
Reas. 4 If the superstitious consecration of places unto Idolatry, doth necessarily infer the destruction of the same, then are private houses of Idolaters to be destroyed, for many of them have been defiled with images and superstitious Rits.  
Reas. 5 If Temples popishly consecrated, must be demolished because of their former superstitions, than it will also follow that the living Temples, as Infants in their popish Baptism, and popish Ministers in their superstitious ordinations, and popish Princes in their Coronations, being as much defiled with Idolatrous rits, as our Temples are in like manner to be destroyed. Shall achan's tent be burnt, and not Achan himself? Iosh. 7.24, 25. this is the rather to be marked, because Revel. 18.13. the souls of men are expressly mentioned and reckoned amongst the wares and merchandise of Antichrist, so as the Temples are not; therefore such as stand for the demolishing of our Temples, I suppose they would not have such persons destroyed as are converted from popery, because they have been Papists; nither would they destroy a Papists house, if the Parliament should bestow one upon them.  
Object. But the retaining of these steeple-houses for the service of God is a breath of the second Commandment, Exod. 20.4, 5, 6. with Deut. 12.2, 3.  
Ans. 1 I conceive that commandment, Deut. 12. is a temporary ordinance, part of Moses his policy that is abrogated, and therefore not binding us in these times, for how ever the equity thereof continue, teaching us to detest Idolatry, yet it binds us not in such manner, and by such means, to signify our detestation thereof, as it did them in Moses time: for example; as God here commands to abolish Idolatrous places, so in the next chapter, Deut. 13.12.15, 16, 17. God commands them, not only to demolish their places of worship, but also their goods and cattles to burn it with fire; the equity of this commandment, leads us to a great detestation of Idolatry; but who will say, that it is to be declared by the very same means and manner of judgement, in destroying such things as are of necessary use?  
Secondly, As God commands to destroy Idolatrous places, so he commands to abolish their names, and not to retain them, Deut. 12.3. this commandment appears hereby to be temporary and ceremonial, because now in the New Testament, we see that the names of divers Idols, have been retained in divers persons thereupon denominated, as the names of Mercury, Venus, Phebe, jupiter, Apollo, Fortuna, that were heathenish Idols worshipped for gods and goddesses, and yet their names not abolished in the Saints mentioned by the Apostles, Rom. 16.14. Phil. 2.25. Rom. 16.1. Titus 3.13. 1 Cor. 16.17.  
Thirdly, this command for destroying Idolatrous places, as it's not perpetual for time, so also not universal for the place, but expressly restrained to the land of Canaan, to the Idols of those Nations which Israel should possess; from that place they were to be cut off, ●s is thrice noted in three verses together, Deut. 12▪ 1.2, 3. even as God would have greater severity and detestation to be manifested towards the Idolaters in Canaan, then to those of other Countries a fare off, Deut. 20.10.15, 16, 17. Iosh. 9.6, 7.  
Fourthly, Seeing meats sacrificed to Idols were as much polluted, as the places of their worship, and yet notwithstanding may now lawfully be retained for our necessary use, Psal. 24.1. with 1 Cor. 10.15, 26, 27. why not the Temples also?  
Fiftly, There is not the like reason, to abolish the buildings abused unto Idolatry now, as the high places of old, because God having appointed one only place for sacrifice, Deut. 12.5, 6 etc. Levit. 17.3.4. those high places being for sacrifice were to be destroyed, though no Idolatry had been committed in them, but being polluted with the service of Idols, there was then double cause of their destruction, which is not now in these, while differance of place is taken away. John 4 21.  
Sixtly, The high places, the Groves, Altars, Images destroyed by Josias, 2 Chron. 34. whereof no necessary use, as our Temples now are; the high places were Altars in heigh Mountains and Hills. Acts 19.9, 10. There we find an Idolatrous place converted, by the Apostle unto the service of God, the school of Tyrannus, being as the rest of the heathenish schools, the nurseries of superstition, idolatry, false worship, and pernicious opinions, was yet after this used by Paul, for a place of God's worship, for a school of religion, to preach the Gospel of Christ in the same. Levit. 6.28. Levit. 11.32, 33. God there ordained that things polluted, being of less price should be broken, but being of more worth, were to be purged and so retained, as the merciful care of God for his people appeared herein, even under the Law: so much more under the Gospel, this type is fulfiled unto us, and God in his large bounty doth grant us the necessary use, both of things polluted with Idolatry, as also of such thing as were otherwise ceremonially unclean. I hope these reasons will satisfy any reasonable man, who truly loves the peace of Zion; they satisfy me, and convince me of the truth of these points, which I have endeavoured to defend; but howsoever, some may like these reasons, and others may dislike them, I shall say to myself in the words of the Poet Theogins; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    
FINIS.