To my Reverend and much Honour­ed Brethren, the Authors of the late Book, called, The Prea­cher Sent.

I Have ſeriouſly peruſed your Epiſtle directed to thoſe pro­feſſing the Order of Church Fel­lowſhip, and Government, called Presbyterian, of which number I muſt own my Self to be one (though the leaſt of all the Servants of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who walk in that way) to­gether with your Book to which it is prefixed; and muſt profeſs my ſelf, as to ſeveral parti­culars in either of them, very much unſatisfi­ed, both as to the truth of the Notions you contend for, and to the mediums by which you endeavour to eſtabliſh them; putting therefore away all wrath, prejudice, or bitterneſs, as in the following ſheets I have endeavoured to ſhew you your miſtakes, as to the matter of your Book, ſo I ſhall in this Epiſtle do the like, as to what is contained in your Epiſtle: In the mean time profeſſing my ſelf (to uſe your own expreſſion) bound for peace, as far as the ſhoes of the Goſpel will carry me; and long­ing for that diſpenſation (if it may be expect­ed in this life) when all the Lords People ſhall be bleſſed with One heart, and guided into one way, only deſiring to divide my zeal equally betwixt truth and peace, knowing that God is as much the God of the one, as of the other.

I rejoyce to ſee my dear and Reverend Bre­thren ſenſible of the great abuſe of that Li­berty, for which they plead. I know our Brethren have not been ſuch Strangers in Iſ­rael, but they have ſeen and obſerved, that moſt of thoſe ſpurious notions, which in•heſe times of Blaſphemy have been found in every Street, and with an impudent forehead have called the holy Spirit of God Father, and the lovely Virgin Truth mother, have been found lying at the door of this Liberty, and have really been born in her houſe. That moſt of thoſe ſad Earthquakes, which have rent the bowels of the Church, and overturned ſome Churches of God, both in Holland, and in Old and New England, have been cauſed by the wind of this Liberty, which they ſtill en­deavour to keep up. I know they cannot but have heard the cryes of many poor people in this County, who are fed with theſe husks in­ſtead of bread, with the chaff of theſe exer­ciſes, inſtead of the more ſubſtantial wheat of publick Ordinances. And ſurely, if an Ar­gument from the blaſtings of Providence, or the general diſreliſh of judicious Chriſtians, be worth any thing, we have as good a plea as againſt any licentious practice in the worſhip of God.

It was ſaid once by a Learned Perſon in this Nation, that if a Book were compoſed of all the Engliſh Sermons, preached by men of worth, containing the choiceſt matter contained in them, which had been Preach­ed within ſome few years, he believed no Book in the world would be to be compared with it: I believe our Brethren judge, that if all the Errors, Crudities, Nonſenſe, imperti­nencies, blaſphemies, ſelf-contradictions, which (by vertue of the exerciſe of this Liberty they plead for) have within theſe fifteen or ſixteen years laſt paſt, been vented in open Pulpits, were ſummed in one Book, the Tur­kiſh Alcoran would ſcarce afford ſuch a rapſody of error, nonſenſe, blaſphemy and impertinency. To give our Brethren a taſte, I have a Letter ſtill by me, wrote by a gifted Brother, who took upon him to tell me, that he heard me ſuch a day, and I did not open my Text a­right (my Text that day was, Eph. 2. — Aliens to the commonwealth of Iſrael.) He told me, if I had rightly opened it, I muſt have told my people, 1. What the wealth of Iſrael was. 2. How it came to be common. 3. How far forth it was common. With much more ſuch non­ſenſical ſtuff; and very teachy he was with me, that I had not fallen upon his notions: if either this perſon had underſtood the Greek, or our Tranſlation had Tranſlated〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉polity, all the jeſt had been ſpoiled, which probably he would have made three Sermons upon.

I ſhould have really thanked our Brethren, for acknowledging an abuſe of this Liberty, if I could have ſeen, 1. That any uſe of it (other than I had granted them) were not an abuſe of the greateſt Ordinance of the Goſpel.

2. Or if I could have ſeen that our Bre­thren could have fixed a rule of regulation, it would have done ſomething with me; but when you tell us, you plead for none but ſuch as are really gifted, and then tell us none have to do to judge whether they be ſo or no, it is con­venient the Church ſhould, but if they Preach without, it is no ſin. To my apprehenſion yee do but complain of a Flood-gate, that ſtands ope too deep, when your ſelves put in a bar that it may not ſhut down more cloſe. It is true, the abuſe of a thing plainly neceſſary by a neceſſity of precept, is no argument to take away the uſe, but where no precept is plain, the general miſcarriage, and accurſed conſe­quences of it, are a ſtrong topick to prove it is not according to the will of God. And I hope our Brethren upon ſecond thoughts, will not judge any one Text quoted by them plainly concluding the Caſe. All your Argu­ments run either from the uſe of gifts, to the uſe of this gift (when as yet you will not al­low all gifts to be ſo exerciſed) nor any judg­ment to be made of the gift) or from examples where there is no parity, as you will perceive by the following Diſcourſe.

You rightly apprehend, that the ſingular notion you have entertained of a Church is the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉of this, and many other unhappy Controverſies; you are therefore pleaſed in your Epiſtle, to endeavour to make the light of your notion concerning a Church to reflect upon our faces. You tell us,

That a Church is a particular company of Saints in mutual union for mutual Fellowſhip in the means of worſhip appointed by Chriſt,Ep. Dedic. for the glo­ry of God, the edification of their own ſouls, and the good of others. This you ſay is the only Church that is capable of Officers to be im­mediately ſet in it, and over it.

That this is a Church we grant, but that only this Church is capable of Officers we de­ny: I ſhall have liberty to enter my diſſent, in examining the ſix particulars you inſtance in for the explication of this deſcription.

Firſt, You ſay it is a company, that we grant, Eccleſia properly is nomen multitudinis, one properly and ſtrictly cannot be called a Church.

Secondly, You ſay it is a particular Company, and that there never was, nor ever will be exiſting in rerum naturâ, any other than a particular com­pany. I muſt confeſs to my dear Brethren, that I cannot fathom their notion of particular: we uſe to ſay, particularis is oppoſed both to univerſalis and ſingularis, I ſuppoſe our Bre­thren here oppoſe it to Ʋniverſalis. An uni­verſal theme in Logick is that (as our Brethren know) which is apt to be predicated natu­rally concerning many: I think Church is ſuch a Theme. Thus much our Brethren I am ſure will grant, that their Congregations at Lon­don, Norwich, Yarmouth, may each of them be called a Church. Now the Queſtion is, whe­ther all theſe Churches may not be conſider­ed together, and called a Church: Or if you will, Whether all the Churches of God upon the earth, may not by an univerſal notion be called a Church, or is not called a Church in Scripture. You acknowledge it in a reformed ſenſe an uni­verſal company, but not an univerſal Church, that is (as I ſuppoſe you mean) a body capable of Officers, otherwiſe it were a ſtrange thing that ſeven perſons, who are viſible Saints ſhould be called a Church,Mr. Hudſons Vindic. p. 31. ad. p. 40. and ſeven hun­dred ſhould not. If our Brethren will pleaſe to read what Reverend Mr. Hudſon hath wrote, he will ſhew them where the word Church is both generally and indefinitely applied where it cannot be underſtood of particular Churches, Acts 8.3. Gal. 1.13. Acts 26.11. Acts 9.31. compared together, Acts 12.1. Acts 2.47. 1 Cor. 10.32. Gal. 4.26. Eph. 3.10. 1 Cor. 12.28. All theſe Texts will prove, that the Scripture hath not reſtrained the notion of Church to a particular Company ſo called.

But you will ſay, This is a Church not capable of Officers to be ſet in or over it. Brethren, have you read what Mr. Hudſon ſaith, to prove Mi­niſters Officers to the Church Catholick? Do they not (when they Baptize) admit into the Catholick Church;Pag. 232: why elſe are not your Members baptized again, when they are tran­ſlated from the particular Church into which (according to this principle) alone they were Baptized? Do they not by Excommunication caſt out of the Catholick Church? Or will our Brethren ſay, that a Church may lawfully ad­mit to its Communion, a Member which ano­ther Church hath cut off from her Communi­on? Were the Apoſtles (think our Brethren) Officers only to a particular Church? If to the Ʋniverſal, then there was an univerſal Church once exiſting, capable of Officers. Nor is that irrefragable Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. (as our Brethren ſay) preſt to the ſervice of the Catho­lick Church. No, it comes as the Lords Volun­tier willing to engage for this Truth. You ſay Brethren, that what it is written, ver. 18. of that chapter, God hath ſet the Members every one in the body, doth as much prove a Catholick or univerſal Body, as God hath ſet ſome in the Church, proves a Catholick Ʋniverſal Church. I know my Brethren aym at greater things than quiblings about a word: that paſſage God hath ſet the Members every one in the body, together with ver. 12. and all the members of that one body, being many are one body, will prove that the body is Totum integrale: So alſo ſaith the Apoſtle is Chriſt, i. e. the Church of Chriſt. If our Brethren will but grant us this, That the Church is a Totum integrale, you muſt grant that a particular Church is but a part of this Totum. If you ſay there is no other To­tum called a Church, but only the particular Church, I have proved the contrary, that the term of Church is applied otherwiſe than to a particular Church. If you ſay, this Church hath no Officers, that Text, 1 Cor. 12.28. confutes you; neither will your conſequence follow, that becauſe an univerſal body is not proved from ver. 18. therefore an Ʋniverſal Church is not proved from ver. 28. viz. from the whole verſe. If it had been ſaid v. 18. God hath ſet the members every one in the body; and then the Text had made an enu­meration of ſuch members, ſome of whoſe uſe and office was not confined to the ſervice of that particular body, but would ſerve any other particular bodies, as he doth of Church Officers, ver. 28. I hope it would have proved an Ʋniverſal body. You tell us (Brethren) you renounce the name and thing of an Ʋniverſal or Catholick Church, you muſt then renounce the Holy Scripture (witneſs the Texts before mentioned) and renounce right reaſon, and renounce the moſt learned and judicious of your own Brethren, who generally acknow­ledge, both the name and thing, only deny it to be Organical: But you think, you have five Arguments will prove, that a particular Church cannot be a part, but a Totum.

1. You ſay firſt, every part is in power incom­pleat; But every particular Church hath the power of a whole Church — And may act in all Church work, not as a part, but as a whole. I muſt deny your Minor (Brethren!) I hope you account a power to meet in a Synod, and to conſult (at leaſt) a piece of Church work, to which Gods word gives a power, Acts 15. and yet when you think of it again, you will not ſay that a particular Church hath a power alone to make a Synod. We ſay the like for Ordination (ex­cept in caſes of abſolute neceſſity) and for ex­communication (where the Church is very ſmall) there are that think it is not a work fit for a particular Church. See Brethren what Reverend Mr. Hudſon ſays to all theſe in the Book before cited.

2. You tell us next, that every whole is really diſtinct from every part, and from all its parts collectively conſidered, they are conſtituting, that is conſtituted; but where that Church is which is really diſtinct from all particular Churches, or wherefore it is you know not. This is Brethren ſuch a fallacy, as ſcarce deſerveth an anſwer; the body of a man is a whole, all his members are parts; now when you have found out where that body is, which is really diſtinct from all the members, and wherefore it is, you will have anſwered your ſelves. The Nation of England is a whole, every Pariſh is a part, finde us where that Nation is, which is diſtinct really from all the Pariſhes taken together. We uſe to make this a Maxime in Logick,Totum reipſâ non differt à partibus ſuis ſimul ſumptis & unitis. That a whole doth not really differ from all its parts ta­ken together and united.

3. In the next place you tell us, there can be no viſible univerſal Church, becauſe there is no univerſal viſible meeting: and that the Greek word tranſlated Church (in all Civil and Sacred uſage) ſignifies a meeting, in fieri or facto eſse. But you began to think that the inviſible Church, are never like to have ſuch a meeting; and therefore (to ſalve it) you heal this wound in your Argument (in my opinion) very ſlightly, when you ſay, it doth meet inviſibly & in Spirit. If you will but grant us that Brethren, that the name of Church in Scripture, is given to thoſe that never locally meet, but it is ſuffi­cient for them to be preſent in Spirit; you have by an unhappy heel, kicked down all that good milk, which your Argument was giving down for the ſuckling of your infant-no­tion of a Church. And yet the Scripture will enforce you to grant it, it ſpeaks of the Church of the firſt-born. There is an univerſal meet­ing of the Catholick viſible Church, at the throne of Grace (before their great Paſtor) and in Spirit (as it is only poſſible for a Catholick Church to meet) whiles they agree in the Profeſſion of the ſame Truths and Ordinan­ces. For the viſible Meeting which you menti­oned at firſt, you have quitted your plea for the viſibility, to ſave the Church of the firſt-born from Excommunication; and we hope it will alſo ſave the Church Catholick, viſible, from any hurt by this Argument.

4. You go on (Brethren) and tell us, There are no diſtinct Officers for a Catholick Viſible Church: Ergo, there is no ſuch Church. If you had expreſſed the Major Propoſition, I ſhould have denied it; the aſſertion of a Church Ca­tholick viſible (though we add Organical) doth not imply there muſt be diſtinct Officers for that Church; it is enough that the Officers of the ſeveral particular Churches (which as parts conſtitute that whole) have power to act as Officers in any of thoſe parts, which united make up that whole: I am not wil­ling, but here neceſſity conſtrains me to tell my Reverend Brethren, that this is no fair play, to pretend to diſpute againſt the Presbyteri­an notion of a Catholick Church, and to mention only the Antichriſtian, and Prelatical Notion of it. Let any one read Mr. Hudſons Vindication, p. 129, 130, 131. and he will ſee we plead not for ſuch an univerſal Church, as muſt needs have a Pope for an univerſal Head, and Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, &c. for his derivatives. But this we ſay, that the whole Church (all the particular Churches in the world) make but one body of Chriſt; and as it is one (una) ſo it is (unita) united in a Common Profeſſion of the Goſpel; & as there is this union, and communion of members, ſo there is a communion of ſome Officers, par­ticularly Miniſters, who may Preach as Chriſts Ambaſſadors, by vertue of Office, any where, and may any where Baptize, and Admini­ſter the Lords Supper, upon occaſion; and we ſay our Brethren in practice grant this; for the Paſtor of one of their Churches will give the Supper of the Lord to thoſe, to whom he is not in Office, as his particular Church, and this is a Common practice with our Bre­thren; how conſiſtent with our Brethrens principle let them judge: while our Brethren ſay they do this by vertue of a Communion of Churches, they do but blinde the Com­mon People with a dark notion, that ſigni­fies nothing: What mean they by a Commu­nion of Churches, if they do not mean this, that by the word of God, one particular Church hath a power to communicate in that Ordinance with another? If they have ſo, there muſt be a Communion of Offices, as well as Gifts, for the diſpenſing the Sa­craments is acknowledged by our Brethren to be an act of Office. If that it be not the will of God in his Word, that the Officer of one Church, ſhould do an act of Office in ano­ther Church, or to a Member of another Church, it is not his will that in all things there ſhould be a communion of Churches. If this be his will, it is as much as we ask; for then the Officer is not only an Officer to the particular Church, and the members of it, but alſo to any particular Churches in the world, or to any of their Members. We ask no more. This is the Catholick Organi­cal Church we plead for. Let our Brethren conſider whether while they think this an I­dol, and pretend to abhor it, in the notion, they do not in practice bow down to it, and commit Sacrilege.

5. You tell us in the laſt place (Brethren) That no Church is greater than that Church which hath power to determine, and hear offences, Mat. 18.17. But that is a particular Church. Ergo. You are ſenſible that your Minor is not extra aleam controverſiae, and you have taken as good care as you could, to ſtrengthen it, by ſaying, it cannot be meant of both; and to ex­clude the Congregational Church, is unſcriptural, irrational, abſurd.

But I muſt crave leave to tell you, 1. That your whole Argument is nothing to the Queſti­on; for it is not, whether be greater the Church Catholik, or the Church particular; but whe­ther there be any Church Catholick or no, grea­ter or leſs.

Object. But you will ſay, if there be any it muſt be greater.

Anſw. Then I muſt examine your ſenſe of the word Greater, whether you underſtand it in reſpect of quantity or quality: If in reſpect of quantity, number, &c. the Ma­jor is apparently falſe. If in reſpect of quality, as you ſeem to hint by the term, having power, then your Argument is this,

There is no Church hath a greater power, than that which hath the power to hear and determine offences committed in the Churches:

But the particular Church hath that power, Mat. 18.17. Ergo.

I will give you Brethren ſuch another Ar­gument, judge you whether it be good or no, and if it be not, you muſt prove your own better.

There is no Court hath a greater power than that which hath the power to hear and determine offen­ces in a Nation.

But the Sheriffs-Hundred-Court hath a power to determine offences. Ergo, that is as great a Court as the Court of Common. Pleas.

You muſt therefore put in finally determine, and all offences, in any part of the Church, or elſe your Major is falſe, when you have men­ded that we will deny your Minor, and tell you, that admit that Text, Mat. 18.17. ſhould be meant of a particular Church, yet it proves no ſuch power, either finally to determine, or all offences, as well thoſe betwixt Church and Church, as thoſe betwixt party and party, or party and Church. Neither can I divine the ne­ceſſity you would impoſe upon us of exclu­ding the one or the other Church out of that Text, (according to the nature of the offence) nor do I think your ſaying, that to exclude the Congregational Church, viz. ſome Congre­gational Churches, is unſcriptural, irrational, abſurd, amounts ſo much as to the ninety ninth part of an Argument in the caſe. I think it is far more rational, and far leſs abſurd, to ſay that when a Member is to be cut off from all the Churches of God in the earth, it ſhould be done by a Church, made up of ſeveral Chur­ches in aſſociation and upon a Common con­ſultation, and by a common act of many Re­verend and Judicious perſons, then by ſeven perſons, none of which poſſibly hath reaſon enough to judge truly of the merit of the cauſe. And in reaſon it ſhould ſeem more like to be the will of Chriſt, who is very tender of all his peoples ſouls. Our Brethren know we could give them ſad inſtances of particular Churches, excommunicating their Godly and Reverend Paſtors, who are ſufficiently known to have deſerved no ſuch things.

You tell us Brethren, that the Officers of Churches met together, are no true Church. Zuinglius (you ſay) ſaid ſome ſuch thing, but it was in a caſe no more like this, than chalk is like cheeſe: We are diſputing now, whe­ther the Officers of particular Churches meeting together in a Synod, may not be called a Church, they being ſent to repreſent the particular Churches. We have a Rule in Logick, Cui competit definitio convenit definitum. I therefore argue.

A Church ſay you, Is a particular Company of Saints in mutual union, for mutual fellowſhip in the means of Worſhip appointed by Chriſt, for the glory of God, the edification of their own ſouls, and the good of others.

But a juſtly-conſtituted Synod is ſuch a Company — Ergo, they are a Church.

1. They are a Company, one cannot make a Synod.

2. They are a particular Company, they are but a part of the Church, not every individual; nor (ſay our Brethren) did ever any other company exiſt.

3. They are an holy Company, at leaſt ſhould, or may be ſo.

4. They are united, their conſent to meet and ſit together unites them, ſo doth the con­ſent of the particular Churches ſending them.

5. They are united unto fellowſhip in means of Worſhip, we will ſuppoſe them while they are together, to meet together in one place on the Lords days to hear, pray, receive Sacraments together, &c.

6. The end of this fellowſhip, is the glory of God, the edification of themſelves, and the whole Church, and the good of others.

So that in Anſwer to our Brethrens expreſ­ſion borrowed from Zuinglius in a quite differ­ing caſe, Repreſentativant eſſe credo, veram non credo. I return, Aut veram eſſe credo, aut falſam eſſe veſtram credo definitionem: Either they are a true Church, or your definition of a Church is not true.

Thirdly, you tell us, a Church muſt be an holy Company. I Anſwer.

1. So was not the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉mentioned Acts 19.32, 42. But concerning the Church of Chriſt, we grant it (ſano ſenſu) upon ſome of your Arguments, which I think are conclu­ſive enough.

2. We ſay, God himſelf calleth the whole Jewiſh Nation holy, Exod. 19.6. The Apoſtle calls the ſeed of thoſe Parents holy, where one of them was a believer, 1 Cor. 7. In this ſenſe we grant every member of the Church muſt be holy, ſeparated from a Paganiſh converſa­tion, and under an external Covenant with God.

3. We ſay, it is their duty to be holy by ſanctification, this they are to labour after. But we deny,

1. That they muſt neceſſarily be all real Saints, or no Church, and this our Brethren will not own.

2. That a viſibility of ſaving grace, is neceſ­ſary to the conſtitution of a Church in all the members of it.

1. Becauſe our Brethren (we hope) will own the Infants of their members, to be mem­bers, in whom is no ſuch viſibility.

2. Becauſe ſpecial ſaving grace is a thing in­viſible, and of which we can make no true judgement.

3. Becauſe we find no ground in Scripture for it; we cannot ſee what viſibility of ſaving grace the Apoſtles could act by, who ad­mitted three thouſand and five thouſand in a day, Acts 2. Acts 4. more then their being baptized upon their owning the Goſpel.

Fourthly, our Brethren themſelves ſay, that filthy matter may be found in a Church conſtituted, which is not fit matter in the conſtitution: We look upon the Companies of perſons in our Pariſhes, as they have united themſelves in means of worſhip, Churches conſtituted, not to be conſtituted; and do not underſtand (while the form, which doth dare eſſe continues) how ſome decays in the matter annihilates the Church, any more then the rottenneſs of ſome pieces of Timber, yea though the ma­jor part of thoſe pieces be hardly ſound, makes the houſe (while it ſtands and keeps the form) not to be an houſe.

But fifthly, we grant to our Brethren, that ſuch as err in the fundamentals of the Goſpel, or are affectedly ignorant of them, or are guilty of leudneſs in their lives, ought to be caſt out of the Church, though we dare not determine any ſingle acts of wickedneſs inconſiſtent with grace, remembring the failings of Lot, Noah, David, Solomon, and Peter; yet we ſay by ver­tue of the Command of God (though they may have a root of grace) they ought to be admoniſhed, ſuſpended, and excommuni­cated, and this for the glory of God, the honour of the Church, and the good of their own ſouls, not becauſe they have no ſaving grace, or no viſibility of it; for it may be we may have ſeen formerly ſo much of them, as to make us of another minde.

We therefore grant you (brethren) that the vi­ſible Church, is the Kingdom of Chriſt, the body of Chriſt, and yet there may be ſubjects of this Kingdom, who give not due homage to him, members of this body, real members, and yet muſt be cut off, branches in this Vine, and yet not bringing forth fruit, John 15.2. You deſire to know what reaſon we have to ju­ſtifie a practice of enquiring after a truth of Grace, in order to the Communion in the Lords Supper, and yet to blame you for ſuch an enquiry in order to the Communion of Saints.The An­ſwer Brethren is very eaſie, Becauſe we find, that a man ſhould examine himſelf before he eat­eth of that Bread and drinks of that Cup: but we no where find, Let a man examine himſelf, before he comes into the fellowſhip of the Church; and we think the three thouſand and five thouſand had ſcarce any leiſure before their admiſſion, to do it very throughly. But our Brethren know no Rule they ſay, for an ordi­nary ſuſpenſion of compleat and owned Mem­bers of the Body from the Sacrament. If you conſult Beza's notes upon 2 Cor. 2.6. He will ſhew you plain Scripture for it; if the inceſtu­ous perſon had been excommunicated, St. Paul needed not to have ſaid, ſufficient is the puniſh­ment which is inflicted, for they had puniſhed him as much as they could. Nor was there any thing to be remitted. See Beza on the Text more fully. However our Brethren (as I hear) ordinarily practiſe it, when a perſon is under admonition, and the Church waiting to ſee the iſſue of it, we plead for it no further.

5. You tell us fifthly (Brethren) that a Church muſt be an united company; if you had told us in what ſenſe you underſtand united, we could better have told you our minds (at leaſt I could have better told you mine) con­cerning it. People may be united by cohabita­tion, by common profeſſion, by mutual conſent, this you ſeem to underſtand: this again may be either explicitly, by Covenant, or implicitly, by a conſtant joyning in the ſame practice which our Brethren contend for, or whether they be indifferent in the thing I cannot tell: this being premiſed Brethren, I conceive.

1. Every company called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉cannot be ſaid to be an united company, either as to an union of judgement or practice: the rout, Acts 19. called by this name were not.

2. Every Religious Company or Church of Chriſt (called by this name in Scripture) were united, but neither by cohabitation, nor yet by conſent to walk together in the ſame individual Ordinan­ces, but every ſuch company muſt be an uni­ted company as to profeſſion of the ſame Do­ctrine, and acknowledging the ſame ſpecifi­cal Ordinances of the Goſpel; all the places I quoted out of Mr. Hudſon to prove the uni­verſal Church prove this.

3. There is no need that every particular Church (if not organized) and under the exerciſe of Diſcipline, ſhould be united, by conſent as to pra­ctice, in the ſame numerical Adminiſtrations; every particular company of the univerſal Church may properly enough be called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉without ſuch a conſent; you often read of the Church in a particular houſe, Col. 4.15. Rom. 16.5. Phil. 2. of which no ſuch thing can be proved.

4. Indeed it ſeems reaſonable, that a par­ticular Church, organized, and in which Diſci­pline ordinarily ſhould be adminiſtred, ſhould be a company united by conſent; for my own part I can allow you this, though I know ſome of my Brethren will not.

5. That this Ʋnion muſt needs be by an expli­cite Covenant, or conſent is neither to be proved by one Text, nor yet by one ſound reaſon, and to im­poſe this as neceſſary, is a meer humane in­vention, and not to be indured, becauſe there is not the leaſt warrant in Gods word for it.

But laſtly, we heartily wiſh, that for the putting of our Churches into order upon clear grounds for the exerciſe of power, the members of our Churches would ſubmit to ſuch an explicite conſent. And we cannot but commend our Worceſterſhire Brethren for endeavouring to bring their people to it, though we ſuppoſe they will be tender of Excommunicating ſuch, as ſeeing no command of God for it, ſhall not think fit to ſubmit to it: Thus far I can yield our Brethren, that a particular Church is an united Company. And upon this principle we plead for our Parocheall Socie­ties to be true Churches, not (as ſome would (ridiculouſly) faſten upon us) becauſe they live within ſuch local limits, but becauſe they are ſocieties of baptized perſons, who by a tacit, and implicit conſent, have united themſelves, wait­ing upon God in the ſame numerical Ordinances of inſtituted worſhip. And this Ʋnion holding, we ſay they are to be looked upon as true Churches, although (as the Church of Corinth) corrupt­ed in ſome of their members, and therefore not to be ſeparated from, nor diſowned as no Churches, but to be purged, and the old lea­ven put out, that they may be a new lump.

5. For what our Brethren ſay in the fifth and ſixth place, That they muſt be a company united unto fellowſhip in means of worſhip appoint­ed by Chriſt, and this for the glory of God, &c. I freely grant, nay it may be I will grant more, viz. that they muſt be a people, who either have elected or ſubmitted to the Officers of the Church for the Adminiſtration of the Ordi­nance of Diſcipline.

But let it not offend my dear and reverend Brethren, if I tell them, I have almoſt made my head ake, with ſtudying the connexion of a paſſage which you have in the laſt page of your Epiſtle (ſave one) and do what I can, I underſtand not how it relates to the former Diſcourſe, or is brought in upon any eaſier terms, then they ſay, The Fellow brought in Hercules, viz. by head and ſhoulders; for un­doubtedly) if it had been led by the conduct of ſenſe or reaſon, it would never have come there: The paſſage is this,

But we ſhall ſay no more of this, Our Brethren not being baptized into the belief of the ſame truth, aſſerting Presbyterial Government to be from hea­ven, although the confidence of our late Aſſembly could ſay no more but this: The Scripture doth hold forth, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government. May be! they would have ſaid, muſt be, had they ſeen the ſtamp of Jus Divinum upon it.

I muſt profeſs my ſelf (dear Brethren) to be ſo ignorant, that I can neither underſtand the ſenſe of this paſſage, either copulatively, or disjunctively; will you give me leave to ſift it a little? poſſibly (though it all looks like chaff) ſome kernels of ſenſe or truth may be found in it.

But we ſhall ſay no more of this (you ſay) Our Brethren not being Baptized into the belief of the ſame Truth. Of this? of what? You had be­fore been ſpeaking of the Papiſts, making their Decrees and humane inventions, equal with the ten Commandments; and told us, you believe Revela­tions of new matter are ceaſed, and that Chriſt hath ceaſed from his work, &c. Now you tell us, you ſhall ſay no more of this: your Bre­thren (viz. We of the Presbyterial perſwaſion) not being baptized into the belief of the ſame truth, aſſerting Presbyterial Government to be from hea­ven: whats this to the making of Church Ca­nons of equal authority with Gods word? Do any of us make them ſo? Or had our Brethren a minde to make the world believe that of us which never entred into our thoughts, nor was ever expreſſed by us in any of our Books. Doth [the ſame truth] relate only to what fol­lows, that we are not all of a minde, as to the Divine Right of Church-Government: what need­ed our Brethren have added this in this place, or what is the meaning of thoſe words? [But we ſhall ſay no more of this] and then adding the other as a reaſon. But let us ſee if there be more truth in what followeth, That the Presby­terians do not all believe that their Government came from Heaven: They are fouly to blame then, for I ſhould think Popery, as to Govern­ment, better than Presbyterie, if I did not think Presbyterie came from heaven. But it is yet more wonderfull (Brethren!) which you tell us, that the Aſſembly did not ſo believe, yea, expreſſed as much; for they only ſay, Many particular Congregations may be united; and you note, they would have ſaid muſt be, if they had ſo judged. Our Brethren have indeed ſaid in their terms no more then it may be, but they have alſo in the ſame place proved that it was ſo, both in the Church of Jeruſalem, and alſo in the Church of Epheſus.

If they only ſay it may be, but prove it muſt be, I hope it is enough; our Reverend Brethren loved to uſe ſoft words, and hard Arguments: But indeed they could not well ſay it muſt be, for there might be but one particular Church in a Nation, and then it was not neceſſary; but ſurely our Brethren would not have ſaid, it may be, if they had thought there was no par­ticular or general ground for it in Gods word, and ſurely, what hath ſuch a foundation in Gods word, is jure Divino (not withſtanding our Brethrens critical obſervation.) Our Brethren of the Aſſembly do not ſay it may be, the ſenſe of the Texts they quote to prove it, yet you (Brethren) muſt remember you tell us ſo for ſome if not all of your Texts for Election, where all you pretend to, is our ſenſe may be the ſenſe; yet I hope you will ſay that Election is jure Divino. Our Brethren know that they have pretended a Jus Divinum too for gifted mens preaching, and yet for fear of their ask­ing maintenance (and to avoid our Argument from thence) tell us, they may preach occaſio­nally, but will not ſay, They muſt preach conſtantly.