Chapter XVI: Part 16

Mr. Cotton concludeth this passage thus: “The church of Corinth had such as partook with idolaters in their idols’ temple, and was not this,” saith he, “touching of an unclean thing, and did this reject these members from church fellowship before conviction? and did it evacuate their church estate for not casting out such members?”

_Answ._ This was an unclean thing indeed, from which God calls his people in this place, with glorious promises of receiving them: and Mr. Cotton confesseth that after conviction any member, obstinate in these unclean touches, ought to be rejected; for, said he, did this sin reject these members from church fellowship before conviction?

[Sidenote: It lesseneth not a rebellion that it is in a multitude: hence a city in Israel idolatrous was to be destroyed.]

And upon the same ground, that one obstinate person ought to be rejected out of church estate, upon the same ground, if a greater company or church were obstinate in such unclean touches, and so consequently in a rebellion against Christ, ought every sound Christian church to reject them, and every sound member to withdraw from them.

[Sidenote: Obstinacy that casteth out, will keep out from communion with the Lord Jesus in his church.]

And hence further it is clear, that if such unclean touches obstinately maintained, as Mr. Cotton confesseth and practiseth, be a ground of rejection of a person in the church, questionless it is a ground of rejection when such persons are to join unto the church. And if obstinacy in the whole church after conviction be a ground for such a church’s rejection, questionless such a church or number of persons obstinate in such evils cannot congregate, nor become a true constituted church of Jesus Christ.

[Sidenote: The church of Corinth, and every true church, separate from idols as a chaste virgin to Christ.]

The greatest question here would be, whether the Corinthians in their first constitution were separate or no from such idol temples? and this Mr. Cotton neither doth nor can deny, a church estate being a state of marriage unto Jesus Christ; and so Paul professedly saith, he had espoused them as a chaste virgin to Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. xi. [2.]

CHAP. XVII.

Mr. Cotton proceeds to answer some other allegations which I produced from the confession of sin made by John’s disciples, and the proselyte Gentiles before they were admitted into church fellowship, Matt. iii. 6; Acts xix. 18, unto which he returneth a threefold answer: “The first is grounded upon his apparent mistake of my words in a grant of mine, viz., such a confession and renunciation is not absolutely necessary, if the substance of true repentance be discerned. Whence,” saith he, “according to your own confession, such persons as have the substance of true repentance may be a true church.”

[Sidenote: The substance of true general repentance in all God’s children, though living in many gross abominations of false worship, ministry, &c. Not the same measure and degrees of repentance in all.]

I answer, it is clear in the progress of the whole controversy, that I ever intend by the substance of true repentance, not that general grace of repentance which all God’s people have, as Luther, a monk, and going to, yea, publishing the German mass, and those famous bishops burnt for Christ in Queen Mary’s days; but that substance of repentance for those false ways of worship, church, ministry, &c., in which God’s people have lived, although the confessing and renouncing of them be not so particularly expressed, and with such godly sorrow and indignation as some express, and may well become: And indeed the whole scope of that caution was for Christian moderation and gentleness toward the several sorts of God’s people, professing particular repentance for their spiritual captivity and bondage; during which captivity also, I readily acknowledge the substance of repentance, and of all the graces of Christ in general.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

In his second answer, Mr. Cotton saith, I “grant with the one hand, and take away with the other; for he denies it necessary to the admission of members, that every one should be convinced of the sinfulness of every sipping of the whore’s cup, ‘for,’ saith he, ‘every sipping of a drunkard’s cup is not sinful.’”

[Sidenote: Some have drunk deep of the whore’s cup, and some but sipped yet intoxicated.]

_Answer._ First he doth not rightly allege my words; for a little before he confesseth my words to be, that anti-christian drunkenness and whoredom is to be confessed of all such as have drunk of the whore’s cup, or but sipped of it. In which words I plainly distinguished between such as have drunk deeper of her cup, as papists, popish priests, &c., and such, as in comparison have but sipped, as God’s own people; who yet by such sipping have been so intoxicated, as to practice spiritual whoredom against Christ, in submitting to false churches, ministry, worship, &c.

Secondly, whereas he saith every sipping of a drunkard’s cup is not sinful:—

I answer: neither the least sipping, nor constant drinking out of the cup which a drunkard useth to drink in, is sinful; but every drunken sip, which is our question, is questionless sinful, and so consequently to be avoided by the sober, whether the cup of corporal or spiritual drunkenness.

CHAP. XVIII.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

_Mr. Cotton._ “Yea; but,” saith he, “the three thousand Jews were admitted when they repented of their murdering of Christ, although they never saw all the superstitious leavenings wherewith the Pharisees had bewitched them: and so no doubt may godly persons now, although they be not yet convinced of every passage of anti-christian superstition, &c.; and that upon this ground, that spiritual whoredom and drunkenness is not so soon discerned as corporal.”

[_Answer._] I answer, it is not indeed so easily discerned, and yet not the less sinful, but infinitely transcendent, as much as spiritual sobriety exceeds corporal, and the bed of the most high God, exceeds the beds of men, who are but dust and ashes.

[Sidenote: The first Christians the best pattern for all Christians now. The power of true repentance for killing of Christ.]

Secondly, I answer, the converted Jews, although they saw not all the leavenings of the Pharisees, yet they mourned for killing of Christ, and embraced him in his worship, ministry, government, and were added to his church: and oh! that the least beams of light and sparkles of heat were in mine own, and others’ souls, which were kindled by the Holy Spirit of God in those famous converts at the preaching of Peter, Acts ii. The true Christ now in his worship, ministry, &c. being discerned, and repentance for persecuting and killing of him being expressed, there necessarily follows a withdrawing from the church, ministry, and worship of the false Christ, and submission unto the true: and this is the sum and substance of our controversy.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

Concerning the confession of sins unto John, he grants the disciples of John confessed their sins, the publicans theirs, the soldiers theirs, the people theirs; but, saith he, “it appears not that they confessed their pharisaical pollution.”

And concerning the confession Acts xix. 18, [19,] he saith, it is not expressed “that they confessed all their deeds.”

_Answer._ If both these confessed their notorious sins, as Mr. Cotton expresseth, why not as well their notorious sins against God, their idolatries, superstitious worships, &c? Surely throughout the whole scripture, the matters of God and his worship are first and most tenderly handled; his people are ever described by the title of his worshippers, and his enemies by the title of worshippers of false gods, and worshipping the true after a false manner; and to prove this were to bring forth a candle to the bright shining of the sun at noon day.

CHAP. XIX.

_Mr. Cotton._ His third answer is; “But to satisfy you more fully, and the Lord make you willing in true meekness of spirit to receive satisfaction, the body of the members do in general profess, that the reason of their coming over to us was that they might be freed from the bondage of human inventions and ordinances, as their souls groaned under, for which also they profess their hearty sorrow, so far as through ignorance or infirmity they have been defiled. Beside, in our daily meetings, and specially in the times of our solemn humiliations, we generally all of us bewail all our former pollutions wherewith we have defiled ourselves and the holy things of God, in our former administrations and communions; but we rather choose to do it than talk of it. And we can but wonder how you can so boldly and resolutely renounce all the churches of God, for neglect of that which you know not whether they have neglected or no, and before you have admonished us of our sinfulness in such neglect, if it be found amongst us.”

[Sidenote: How can a soul truly oppose anti-christ, that endures not to have his name questioned.]

_Answer._ I answer, with humble desires to the Father of lights for the true meekness and wisdom of his Spirit, here is mention of human inventions and ordinances, and defiling themselves and holy things of God in former administrations and communions, and yet no mention what such inventions and ordinances, what such administrations and communions were. “We rather choose to do it,” saith he, “than to talk of it;” which makes me call to mind an expression of an eminent and worthy person amongst them in a solemn conference, viz., What need we speak of anti-christ, can we not enjoy our liberties without inveighing against anti-christ? &c.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton witnessing against a national church, and yet holding fellowship with it.]

The truth is, I acknowledge their witness against ceremonies and bishops; but that yet they see not the evil of a national church, notwithstanding they constitute only particular and independent [congregations,] let their constant practice speak, in still joining with such churches and ministers in the ordinances of the word and prayer, and their persecuting of myself for my humble, and faithful, and constant admonishing of them, of such unclean walking between a particular church, which they only profess to be Christ’s, and a national [one], which Mr. Cotton professeth to separate from.[256]

[Sidenote: Impossible for the answerer to be ignorant of their church estate, as Mr. Cotton pretendeth.]

But how could I possibly be ignorant, as he seemeth to charge me, of their state, when being from first to last in fellowship with them, an officer amongst them, had private and public agitations concerning their state and condition with all or most of their ministers, and at last suffered for such admonitions to them, the misery of a winter’s banishment amongst the barbarians? and yet, saith he, “You know not what we have done, neither have you admonished us of our sinfulness.”

CHAP. XX.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

A third scripture which I produced was Haggai ii. 13, 14, 15, desiring that the place might be thoroughly weighed, and that the Lord might please to hold the scales himself, the prophet there telling the church of the Jews, that if a person unclean by a dead body touch holy things, those holy things become unclean unto them: and so, saith he, in this nation, and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer is unclean; whence I inferred, that even church covenants made, and ordinances practised, by persons polluted through spiritual deadness, and filthiness of communion, such covenants and ordinances become unclean unto them, and are profaned by them.

_Mr. Cotton._ Mr. Cotton answers, “your purpose was to prove that churches cannot be constituted by such persons as are unclean by anti-christian pollutions; or if they be so constituted they are not to be communicated with, but separated from. But the prophet acknowledgeth the whole church of the Jews to be unclean, and yet neither denies them to be a church truly constituted, nor stirs up himself or others to separate from them.”

[Sidenote: The church of the Jews a national church truly constituted, therefore not to be separated from.]

_Answer._ I acknowledge the true constitution of the church of the Jews, and affirm that this their true constitution was the reason why they were not to be separated from: for being a national church, ceremonial and typical, their excommunication was either putting to death in, or captivity out of that ceremonial Canaan. Hence Shalmaneser’s carrying the ten tribes captive out of this land, is said to be the casting of them out of God’s sight, 2 Kings xvii. [18,] which was their excommunication.

[Sidenote: Death and captivity in the national church, typed out spiritual death and captivity in the particular.]

Accordingly in the particular Christian churches, Christ Jesus cuts off by spiritual death, which is excommunication: or for want of due execution of justice by that ordinance in his kingdom, he sells the church into spiritual captivity, to confused, Babylonish lords and worships, and so drives them out of his sight.

[Sidenote: Ceremonial uncleanness in the national church, typed out moral uncleanness in the particular.]

Now from the consequent of this place in Haggai mine argument stands good; and Mr. Cotton here acknowledgeth it, that holy things may be all unclean to God’s people, when they lie in their uncleanness, as this people did. Those scriptures, Lev. xvi. and Num. xix., which discourse of typical and ceremonial uncleanness, he acknowledgeth to type out in the gospel the moral uncleanness either of dead works, Eph. v. 11, or dead persons, 2 Cor. vi. 14, or dead world, Gal. vi. 14. And in this place of Haggai, he acknowledgeth that God’s people, prince and people, were defiled by worldliness, in which condition, saith he, their oblations, their bodily labours, were all unclean, and found neither acceptance nor blessing from the Lord.

Therefore saith he afterward: “In the church godly Christians themselves, while they attend to the world more than to the things of God, are unclean in the sight of God; therefore the church cannot be constituted of such; or if it be constitute of such, the people of God must separate from them.” And, lastly, he saith, “the church of Christ and members thereof must separate themselves from their hypocrisy, and worldliness, else they and their duties will [still] be unclean in the sight of God, notwithstanding their church estate.”

_Answ._ What have I more spoken than Mr. Cotton himself hath uttered in this his explication and application of this scripture? As,

First, that godly persons may become defiled and unclean by hypocrisy and worldliness.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton’s own confession concerning unclean worships, even of godly persons.]

Secondly, while they lie in such a condition of uncleanness all their offerings, persons, labours, are unclean in the sight of God, and have neither acceptance nor blessing from him; but they and their duties are unclean in his sight, notwithstanding their church estate.

Thirdly, the church of Christ cannot be constituted of such godly persons, when defiled with such worldliness.

Fourthly, the church consisting of such worldly persons, though otherwise godly and Christian, the people of God must separate from them.

[Sidenote: Inferences from Master Cotton’s grant.]

These are Mr. Cotton’s own express words which justify:[257]

First, my former distinction of godly persons in their personal respect, between God and themselves; and yet becoming ungodly in their outward defilements.

Secondly, they justify my assertion of a necessity of cleansing from anti-christian filthiness, and communions with dead works, dead worships, dead persons in God’s worship, if the touches of the dead world, or immoderate love of it, do so defile, as Mr. Cotton here affirmeth.

Thirdly, if, as he saith, the church cannot be constituted of such godly persons as are defiled by immoderate love of the world, much less can it be constituted of godly persons defiled with the dead inventions, worships, communions of unregenerate and ungodly persons.

Fourthly, he justifies a separation from such churches, if so constituted, or so constituting; because though worldliness be adultery against God, James iv. [4,] yet not comparable to spiritual adultery of a false bed of worship, ministry, &c.

CHAP. XXI.

_Mr. Cotton_ proceedeth: “The second stumbling block or offence which you have taken at the way of these churches, is that you conceive us to walk between Christ and anti-christ. First, in practising separation here, and not repenting of our preaching and printing against it in our own country. Secondly, in reproaching yourself at Salem, and others for separation. Thirdly, in particular, that myself have conceived and spoken, that separation is a way that God hath not prospered; yet, say you, the truth of the church’s way depends not upon the countenance of men, or upon outward peace and liberty.”

Unto this he answers, “that they halt not; but walk in the midst of two extremes, the one of being defiled with the pollution of other churches, the other of renouncing the churches for the remnant of pollutions.”

This moderation he, with ingenuous moderation, professeth he sees no cause to repent of, &c.

_Answ._ With the Lord’s gracious assistance, we shall prove this middle walking to be no less than halting; for which we shall show cause of repentance, beseeching Him that is a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto his Israel, Acts v. 31.

First, Mr. Cotton himself confesseth, that no national, provincial, diocesan, or parish church, wherein some truly godly are not, are true churches. Secondly, he practiseth no church estate, but such as is constituted only of godly persons, nor admitteth any unregenerate or ungodly person.[258] Thirdly, he confesseth a church of Christ cannot be constituted of such godly persons who are in bondage to the inordinate love of the world. Fourthly, if a church consist of such, God’s people ought to separate from them.[259]

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton extenuates and minceth the root, mass, and substance of the matter of national churches, which he acknowledgeth to be unregenerate, not yet born again, by naming only a remnant of pollutions. The estate of the godly mingled with the ungodly in worships. The state of men must be faithfully discovered unto them.]

Upon these his own confessions, I earnestly beseech Mr. Cotton, and all that fear God, to ponder how he can say he walks with an even foot between two extremes, when, according to his own confession, national churches, parish churches, yea, a church constituted of godly persons given to inordinate love of the world, are false and to be separated from: and yet he will not have the parish church to be separated from for the remnant of pollution, I conceive he meaneth ceremonies and bishops, notwithstanding that he also acknowledged that the generality of every parish in England consisteth of unregenerate persons, and of thousands inbondaged, not only to worldliness, but also ignorance, superstition, scoffing, swearing, cursing, whoredom, drunkenness, theft, lying. What are two or three or more of regenerate and godly persons in such communions, but as two or three roses or lilies in a wilderness? a few grains of good corn in a heap of chaff? a few sheep among herds of wolves or swine, or (if more civil) flocks of goats? a little good dough swallowed up with a whole bushel of leaven? or a little precious gold confounded and mingled with a whole heap of dross? The Searcher of all hearts knows I write not this to reproach any, knowing that myself am by nature a child of wrath, and that the Father of mercies shows mercy to whom and when he will; but for the name of Christ Jesus, in loving faithfulness to my countrymen’s souls, and [in] defence of truth, I remember my worthy adversary of that state and condition from which his confessions say he must separate, his practice in gathering of churches seems to say he doth separate; and yet he professeth there are but some remnants of pollution amongst them, for which he dares not separate.[260]

CHAP. XXII.

_Mr. Cotton._ “Secondly,” saith he, “I know no man that reproacheth Salem for their separation, nor do I believe that they do separate; howsoever, if any do reproach them for it, I think it a sin meet to be censured, but not with so deep a censure as to excommunicate all the churches, or to separate from them before it do appear that they do tolerate their members in such their causeless reproachings. We confess the errors of men are to be contended against, not with reproaches, but the sword of the Spirit; but on the other side, the failings of the churches are not forthwith to be healed by separation. It is not chirurgery but butchery to heal every sore in a member with no other but abscission from the body.”

_Answ._ The church of Salem was known to profess separation, and was generally and publicly reproached, and I could mention a case wherein she was punished for it implicitly.[261]

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton seems to be both for and yet against separation.]

Mr. Cotton here confesseth these two things, which I leave to himself to reconcile with his former profession here and elsewhere against separation. First, saith he, if any reproach them for separation it is a sin meet to be censured. Secondly, the churches themselves may be separated from, who tolerate their members in such causeless reproachings. In these latter passages he seems, as in other his confessions and practices mentioned to be for it, sensible of shame, disgrace, or reproach to be cast on it.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton’s own confessions are sufficient answers to himself.]

I grant with him the failings of churches are not forthwith to be healed by separation; yet himself, within a few lines, confesseth there is a lawful separation from churches that do but tolerate their members in causeless reproaches.

[Sidenote: Not for a sore of infirmity, but a leprosy or gangrene of obstinacy, ought a person to be cut off. Mr. Cotton deeply guilty of cruelty both against consciences and bodies in persecuting of them, yet cries out against the appearance of due severity in the church of Christ.]

I confess also that it is not chirurgery but butchery, to heal every sore with no other medicine but with abscission from the body: yet himself confesseth before, that even churches of godly persons must be separated from, for immoderate worldliness: and again here he confesseth they may be separated from, when they tolerate their members in such their causeless reproachings. Beside, it is not every sore of infirmity or ignorance, but an ulcer or gangrene of obstinacy, for which I maintained that a person ought to be cut off, or a church separated from. But if he call that butchery, conscientiously and peaceably to separate from a spiritual communion of a church or society, what shall it be called by the second Adam, the Lord Jesus, who gives names to all creatures and all actions, to cut off persons, them and theirs, branch and root, from any civil being in their territories; and consequently from the whole world, were their territories so large, because their consciences dare not bow down to any worship but what they believe the Lord Jesus appointed, and being also otherwise subject to the civil state and laws thereof.[262]

CHAP. XXIII.

Thirdly, whereas I urged a speech of his own, _viz._ that God had not prospered the way of separation, and conceives that I understood him of outward prosperity: he affirms the puritans to have been worse used in England than the separatist, and thus writes: “The meeting of the separatists may be known to the officers in court and winked at, when the conventicles of the puritans, as they call them, shall be hunted out with all diligence, and pursued with more violence than any law can justify.”

[Sidenote: God’s controversy for persecution.]

_Answer._ Doubtless the controversy of God hath been great with this land, that either of both have been so violently pursued and persecuted. I believe they are both the witnesses of several truths of Jesus Christ, against an impenitent and unchristian profession of the name of the Lord Jesus.

[Sidenote: The sufferings of the separatists and puritans in England compared. Mr. Udall, Mr. Penry, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Greenwood.]

Now for their sufferings: as the puritans have not comparably suffered, as but seldom congregating in separate assemblies from the common,[263] so have not any of them suffered unto death for the way of nonconformity to ceremonies, &c. Indeed the worthy witness Mr. Udall,[264] was near unto death for his witness against bishops and ceremonies;[265] but Mr. Penry,[266] Mr. Barrow, Mr. Greenwood followed the Lord Jesus with their gibbets on their shoulders, and were hanged with him and for him, in the way of separation:[267] many more have been condemned to die, banished and choaked in prisons, I could produce upon occasion.

[Sidenote: Few conscientious separatists, but first were puritans. The nonconformist’s grounds enforce separation.]

Again, I believe that there hardly hath ever been a conscientious separatist, who was not first a puritan: for, as Mr. Canne hath unanswerably proved,[268] the grounds and principles of the puritans against bishops and ceremonies, and profaneness of people professing Christ, and the necessity of Christ’s flock and discipline, must necessarily, if truly followed, lead on to and enforce a separation from such ways, worships, and worshippers, to seek out the true way of God’s worship according to Christ Jesus.

But what should be the reason, since the separatist witnesseth against the root of the church constitution itself, that yet he should find, as Mr. Cotton saith, more favour than the puritan or nonconformist?

[Sidenote: Most of the separation of the lower sort of people.]

Doubtless the reasons are evident: first, most of God’s servants who, out of sight of the ignorance, unbelief, and profaneness of the body of the national church, have separated and durst not have longer fellowship with it:—I say, most of them have been poor and low, and not such gainful customers to the bishops, their courts and officers.

[Sidenote: The poverty of Mr. Ainsworth. The nonconformists have been a fair booty for bishops.]

That worthy instrument of Christ’s praise, Mr. Ainsworth, during some time, and some time of his great labours in Holland, lived upon ninepence per week, with roots boiled, &c.[269] Whereas on the other side, such of God’s servants as have been nonconformists have had fair estates, been great persons, have had rich livings and benefices, of which the bishops and theirs, like greedy wolves, have made the more desirable prey.

[Sidenote: The separatists have been professed enemies; but the puritans in many things professed friends and subjects to the bishops.]

Secondly, it is a principle in nature to prefer a professed enemy, before a pretended friend. Such as have separated have been looked at by the bishops and theirs, as known and professed enemies: whereas the puritans professed subjection, and have submitted to the bishops, their courts, their officers, their common prayer and worships: and yet, as the bishops have well known, with no greater affection than the Israelites bore their Egyptian cruel taskmasters.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

He saith, “God hath not prospered the way of separation with peace amongst themselves, and growth of grace.”

[Sidenote: A false church may enforce a present peace greater (though false) grace than the true spouse of Christ Jesus. God’s people have found infinite sweetness and peace in some times of their holy communion. Breaches have been and must be among all God’s people, to make them celebrate the Lord’s holy ordinances according to due order.]

_Answer._ The want of peace may befal the truest churches of the Lord Jesus [as] at Antioch, Corinth, Galatia, who were exercised with great distractions. Secondly, it is a common character of a false church, maintained by the smith’s and cutler’s shop, to enjoy a quiet calm and peaceable tranquillity, none daring, for fear of civil punishment, to question, object, or differ from the common road and custom. Thus sings that great whore, the anti-christian church, Rev. xviii. [7,] _I sit as a queen, am no widow, see no sorrow_: while Christ’s dearest complains she is forsaken, sits weeping as a widow, Lam. i. [1.] Thirdly, God’s people in that way, have sometimes long enjoyed sweet peace and soul contentment in England, Holland, New England, and other places, and would not have exchanged a day of such an holy and peaceable harmony for thousands in the courts of princes, seeing no other, and in sincerity seeking after the Lord Jesus. And yet, I humbly conceive, that as David with the princes, and thirty thousand Israelites, carrying the ark on the shoulders of the oxen, leaped and danced with great rejoicing, until God smote Uzzah for his error and disorder, and made a breach, and a teaching monument of Perez Uzzah, the breach of Uzzah: so in like manner all those celebrations of the spiritual ark or ordinances, which yet I have known, although for the present accompanied with great rejoicing and triumphing, yet as they have not been after the due order, so have they all met with, and still must, a Perez Uzzah, breaches and divisions, until the Lord Jesus discover, direct, and encourage his servants in his own due holy order and appointment.

[Sidenote: Many graceless Judases amongst God’s people. Multitudes of gracious and holy persons that have professed separation.]

And for growth in grace, notwithstanding that amongst all sorts of God’s witnesses some false brethren creep in as cheaters, and spies, and Judases, dishonouring the name of Christ Jesus, and betraying his witnesses: yet Satan himself, the accuser of the saints, cannot but confess that multitudes of God’s witnesses, reproached with the names of Brownists, and anabaptists, have kept themselves from the error of the wicked, and grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus, endeavouring to cleanse themselves from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit, and to finish holiness in the fear of God. I will not make odious and envious comparisons, but desire that all that name the name of the Lord Jesus may depart wholly and for ever from iniquity.

CHAP. XXIV.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

Lastly he addeth, “That such as erring through simplicity and tenderness, have grown in grace, have grown also to discern their lawful liberty in the hearing of the word from English preachers.”[270]

[Sidenote: Four sorts of backsliders from separation far from growth in grace.]

_Answer._ I will not question the uprightness of some who have gone back from many truths of God which they have professed: yet mine own experience of four sorts who have backslidden I shall report, for a warning to all into whose hands these may come, to be like Antipas, Rev. ii. [13,] a faithful witness to the death, to any of the truths of the Lord Jesus, which he shall please to betrust them with:

[Sidenote: Some backsliding turn to familism.]

First, I have known no small number of such turn to absolute Familism, and under their pretences of great raptures of love deny all obedience to, or seeking after the pure ordinances and appointments of the Lord Jesus.

[Sidenote: Some to profaneness.]

Secondly, others have laid the reins upon the necks of their consciences, and like the dog licked up their vomit of former looseness and profaneness of lip and life; and have been so far from growing in grace, that they have turned the grace of God into wantonness.

[Sidenote: Some to persecuting of others.]

Thirdly, others backsliding have lost the beauty and shining of a tender conscience toward God, and of a merciful compassion toward men, becoming most fierce persecutors of their own formerly fellow-witnesses, and of any other who have differed in conscience from them.

[Sidenote: Some to languishing in sorrow and sadness, &c.]

Lastly, others although preserved from familism, profaneness, and persecuting of others, yet the leaf of their Christian course hath withered, the latter beauty and savour of their holiness hath not been like their former; and they have confessed and do, their sin, their weakness, their bondage, and wish they were at liberty in their former freedom; and some have gone with little peace, but sorrow to their graves, confessing to myself and others, that God never prospered them, in soul or body, since they sold away his truth, which once they had bought and made profession of it never to sell it.

CHAP. XXV.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

Yea; but, saith he, “they have grown to discern their lawful liberty, to return to the hearing of the word from English preachers.”

[Sidenote: Mr. Canne’s answer to Mr. Robinson’s liberty of hearing.]

_Answer._ Here I might engage myself in a controversy, which neither this treatise will permit, nor is there need, since it hath pleased the Father of lights to stir up the spirit of a faithful witness of his truth in this particular, Mr. Canne, to make a large and faithful reply to a book, printed in Mr. Robinson’s name, tending to prove such a lawful liberty.[271]

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton’s confession concerning the ministry.]

For such excellent and worthy persons whom Mr. Cotton here intends by the name of English preachers, I acknowledge myself unworthy to hold the candle to them: yet I shall humbly present what Mr. Cotton himself professeth in three particulars:

First, concerning this title, English preachers.

Secondly, hearing the word from such English preachers.

Thirdly, the lawful calling of such to the ministry or service, according to Christ Jesus.

[Sidenote: ποίμενες διδασκαλοὶ ἐπισκοποὶ πρεσβυτεροὶ Matt. xxviii. μαθητέυειν. Preachers and pastors far different.]

For the first, he acknowledgeth, that the ordinary ministers of the gospel are pastors, teachers, bishops, overseers, elders, and that their proper work is to feed and govern a truly converted, holy, and godly people, gathered into a flock or church estate; and not properly preachers to convert, beget, make disciples, which the apostles and evangelists professedly were. Now then, that man that professeth himself a minister, and professeth to feed a flock or church with the ordinances of word and prayer, he must needs acknowledge that his proper work is not to preach for conversion, which is most preposterous amongst a converted Christian people, fed up with ordinances in church estate. So that, according to Mr. Cotton’s confession, English preachers are not pastors, teachers, bishops, elders, but preachers of glad news, evangelists, men sent to convert, and gather churches, apostles, ambassadors, trumpeters, with proclamation from the King of kings, to convert, subdue, bring in rebellious, unconverted, unbelieving, unchristian souls to the obedience and subjection of the Lord Jesus.

[Sidenote: Conversion in a church accidental.]

I readily confess that at the pastor’s, or shepherd’s feeding of his flock, and the prophet’s prophecying in the church, an unbeliever coming in is convinced, falls on his face and acknowledgeth God to be there: yet this is accidental that any unbeliever should come in; and the pastor’s work is to feed his flock, Acts xx. [28,] and prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for them that believe, to edify, exhort, and comfort the church, 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 22.

[Sidenote: Personal repentance wrought in thousands by godly persons in popish ministries.]

I also readily acknowledge, that it hath pleased God to work a personal repentance in the hearts of thousands in Germany, England, Low Countries, France, Scotland, Ireland, &c., yea, and who knows but in Italy, Spain, Rome, not only by such men who decline the name of bishops, priests, deacons, the constituted ministry of England hitherto; but also by such as have owned them, as Luther remaining a monk, and famous holy men remaining and burning Lord Bishops. For all this hath been under the notion of ministers feeding their flocks, not of preachers sent to convert the unconverted and unbelieving.

[Sidenote: To preach mainly for conversion of that people to whom a man stands shepherd, as to a converted people and flock of Christ, a dangerous disorder. God’s people must seek after a ministry sent by Christ to convert.]

This passage I present for two reasons; First because so many excellent and worthy persons mainly preach for conversion, as conceiving, and that truly, the body of the people of England to be in a natural and unregenerate estate; and yet account they themselves fixed and constant officers and ministers to particular parishes or congregations, unto whom they also administer the holy things of God, though sometimes few, and sometimes none regenerate or new born have been found amongst them; which is a matter of high concernment touching the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the souls of men. Secondly, that in these great earthquakes, wherein it pleaseth God to shake foundations civil and spiritual, such a ministry of Christ Jesus may be sought after whose proper work is preaching, for converting and gathering of true penitents to the fellowship of the Son of God.

CHAP. XXVI.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

The second thing which Mr. Cotton himself hath professed concerning English preachers is, that “although the word, yet not the seals may be received from them: because,” saith he, “there is no communion in hearing, and the word is to be preached to all, but the seals,” he conceives, and that rightly, “are profaned in being dispensed to the ungodly, &c.”

[Sidenote: The communion or fellowship of the word taught in a church estate.]

_Answer._ Mr. Cotton himself maintaineth, that “the dispensing of the word in a church estate, is Christ’s feeding of his flock, Cant. i. 8: Christ’s kissing of his spouse, or wife, Cant. i. 2: Christ’s embracing of his spouse in the marriage bed, Cant. i. 16: Christ’s nursing of his children at his wife’s breast, Cant. iv.:” and is there no communion between the shepherd and his sheep? the husband and his wife in chaste kisses and embraces? and the mother and her child at the breast?

Besides, he confesseth, that that fellowship in the gospel, Phil. i. 5, is a fellowship or communion in the apostles’ doctrine, community, breaking of bread, and prayer, in which the first church continued, Acts ii. 46. All which overthrows that doctrine of a lawful participation of the word and prayer in a church estate, where it is not lawful to communicate in the breaking of bread or seals.[272]

CHAP. XXVII.

[Sidenote: Eminent ministers, so accounted in Old England, profess themselves private Christians in New England.]

Thirdly, concerning the lawful commission or calling of English preachers. Mr. Cotton himself, and others most eminent in New England, have freely confest, that notwithstanding their former profession of ministry in Old England, yea, in New England, until they received a calling from a particular church, that they were but private Christians.[273]

Secondly, that Christ Jesus hath appointed no other calling to the ministry, but such as they practise in New England; and therefore consequently, that all other which is not from a particular congregation of godly persons, is none of Christ’s.[274]

[Sidenote: False callings or commissions for the ministry.]

As first, a calling or commission received from the bishops.

Secondly, from a parish of natural and unregenerate persons.

Thirdly, from some few godly persons, yet remaining in church fellowship after the parish way.

Lastly, that eminent gifts and abilities are but qualifications fitting and preparing for a call or office, according to 1 Tim. iii. Tit. i. All which premises duly considered, I humbly desire of the Father of lights, that Mr. Cotton, and all that fear God, may try what will abide the fiery trial in this particular, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed in flaming fire, &c.

CHAP. XXVIII.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]

The close of his letter is an answer to a passage of mine, which he repeateth in an objection thus: “But this you fear is to condemn the witnesses of Jesus, the separate churches in London and elsewhere, and our jealous God will visit us for such arrearages: yea, the curse of the angel to Meroz will fall upon us, because we come not forth to help Jehovah against the mighty: we pray not for them, we come not at them, (but at parishes frequently); yea, we reproach and censure them.”

To which he answereth, “that neither Christ nor his apostles after him, nor prophets before him, ever delivered that way. That they fear not the angel’s curse, because it is not to help Jehovah but Satan, to withdraw people from the parishes where they have found more presence of Christ, and evidence of his Spirit, than in separated churches: that they pray not for them, because they cannot pray in faith for a blessing upon their separation: and that it is little comfort to hear of separated churches, as being the inventions of men; and blames them, that being desirous of reformation, they stumble not only at the inventions of men, but for their sakes at the ordinances of the Lord: because they separate not only from the parishes, but from the church at Plymouth, and of that whereof Mr. Lathrop was pastor,[275] who, as he saith, not only refuse all the inventions of men, but choose to serve the Lord in his own ordinances. Only, lastly, he professeth his inward sorrow that myself help erring, though zealous souls, against the mighty ordinances of the Lord, which whosoever stumble at shall be broken, because whosoever will not kiss the Son, that is, will not hear and embrace the words of his mouth, shall perish in their way.”

_Answer._ However Mr. Cotton believes and writes of this point, yet hath he not duly considered these following particulars.

[Sidenote: The garden of the churches of both Old and New Testament, planted with an hedge or wall of separation from the world. When God’s people neglect to maintain that hedge or wall, God hath turned his garden into a wilderness.]

First, the faithful labours of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, extant to the world, abundantly proving, that the church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type, and the church of the Christians under the New Testament in the antitype, were both separate from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the hedge, or wall of separation, between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if he will ever please to restore his garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the world, and added unto his church or garden.[276]

[Sidenote: The nonconformist’s grounds necessarily enforce a separation of the church from the unclean, in clean and holy things.]

Secondly, that all the grounds and principles leading to oppose bishops, ceremonies, common prayer, prostitution of the ordinances of Christ to the ungodly, and to the true practice of Christ’s own ordinances, do necessarily, as before I intimated, and Mr. Canne hath fully proved, conclude a separation of holy from unholy, penitent from impenitent, godly from ungodly, &c; and that to frame any other building upon such grounds and foundations, is no other than to raise the form of a square house upon the keel of a ship, which will never prove a soul saving true ark or church of Jesus Christ, according to the pattern.

[Sidenote: The great suffering for this cause.]

Thirdly, the multitudes of holy and faithful men and women, who since Queen Mary’s days have witnessed this truth by writing, disputing, and in suffering loss of goods and friends, in imprisonments, banishments, death, &c.—I confess the nonconformists have suffered also; but they that have suffered for this cause, have far exceeded, in not only witnessing to those grounds of the nonconformists, but to those truths also, the unavoidable conclusions of the nonconformists’ principles.

[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton’s and others’ zealous practice of separation in New England. Mr. Cotton allowing liberty to frequent those parishes in Old England: which parishes he himself persecutes in New England.]

Fourthly, what is that which Mr. Cotton and so many hundreds fearing God in New England walk in, but a way of separation? Of what matter do they profess to constitute their churches, but of true godly persons? In what form do they cast this matter, but by a voluntary uniting, or adding of such godly persons, whom they carefully examine, and cause to make a public confession of sin, and profession of their knowledge and grace in Christ?[277] Nay; when other English have attempted to set up a congregation after the parishional way, have they not been suppressed? Yea; have they not professedly and lately answered many worthy persons, whom they account godly ministers and people, that they could not permit them to live in the same commonwealth together with them, if they set up any other church and worship than what themselves practise?[278] Let their own souls, and the souls of others seriously ponder in the fear of God, what should be the reason why themselves so practising, should persecute others for not leaving open a gap of liberty to escape persecution and the cross of Christ, by frequenting the parishes in Old England, which parishes themselves persecute in New England, and will not permit them to breathe in the common air amongst them.

[Sidenote: A great mystery in the escaping of the cross of Christ.]

Fifthly, in the parishes, which Mr. Cotton holds but the inventions of men,[279] however they would have liberty to frequent the worship of the word, yet they separate from the sacraments; and yet, according to Mr. Cotton’s own principles, as before, there is as true communion in the ministration of the word in a church estate as in the seals: what mystery should be in this, but that here also the cross or gibbet of Christ may be avoided in a great measure, if persons come to church, &c.

[Sidenote: The New English churches pretended by some to be purer than the first established by the apostles.]

Lastly, however, he saith, he hath not found such presence of Christ, and evidence of his Spirit in such churches, as in the parishes: what should be the reason of their great rejoicings and boastings of their own separations in New England, insomuch that some of the most eminent amongst them have affirmed that even the apostles’ churches were not so pure? Surely if the same New English churches were in Old England, they could not meet without persecution, which therefore in Old England they avoid by frequenting the way of church worship, which in New England they persecute—the parishes.

[Sidenote: The reformation desired now had been accounted heresy in Edward the Sixth’s days.]

Upon these considerations, how can Mr. Cotton be offended that I should help (as he calls them) any zealous souls, not against the mighty ordinances of the Lord Jesus, but to seek after the Lord Jesus without halting? Yea; why should Mr. Cotton, or any desirous to practise reformation, kindle a fire of persecution against such zealous souls, especially considering that themselves, had they so inveighed against bishops, common prayer, &c., in Edward the Sixth’s days, had been accounted as great heretics, in those reforming times, as any now can be in these? yet would it have been then, and since hath it been, great oppression and tyranny to persecute their consciences, and still will it be for them to persecute the consciences of others in Old or New England.

[Sidenote: Persecution is unjust oppression wheresoever.]

How can I better end than Mr. Cotton doth, by warning, that all that will not kiss the Son, that is, hear and embrace the words of his mouth, shall perish in their way, Ps. ii. 12. And I desire Mr. Cotton, and every soul to whom these lines may come, seriously to consider in this controversy, if the Lord Jesus were himself in person in Old or New England, what church, what ministry, what worship, what government he would set up, and what persecution he would practise toward them that would not receive Him?[280]

FOOTNOTES

[1] Bancroft’s Hist. of U. S. i. 342. Knowles’ Life of R. Williams, p. 31.

[2] See Broadmead Records, Introd. p. xxii.

[3] Neal’s Hist. of N. England, i. 141, 144. Baillie’s Dissuasive, p. 66. Mather’s Magnalia, i. 19.

[4] Neal, i. 144. Bancroft, i. 350. Cotton Mather’s Magnalia, book i. p. 19. Backus’ Hist. of Baptists in New England, i. 45.

[5] Knowles, p. 37.

[6] Bancroft, i. 367.

[7] Knowles, p. 23, 391. Backus, i. 508.

[8] “Master Cotton may call to mind that the discusser [Williams], riding with himself and one other of precious memory, Master Hooker, to and from Sempringham, presented his arguments from scripture, why he durst not join with them in their use of Common Prayer.” Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 12. See also pp. 43 and 374 of the present volume. Baillie’s Dissuasive, p. 55.

[9] In his letter to Major Mason, he refers to “King James, whom I have spoke with.” Knowles, p. 31.

[10] Such is Governor Winthrop’s testimony. Knowles, p. 46.

[11] Welde’s Answer to W. R. p. 10. 4to. 1644.

[12] Backus, i. 54, 57.

[13] See pp. 287, 247, 353. Knowles, pp. 45, 49. Backus, i. 49. Bancroft, i. 360. At Taunton, the minister, Mr. Streete, “publicly and earnestly persuaded his church members to give land to none but such as might be fit for church members: yea, not to receive such English into the town.” Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 283. By a subsequent law no church could be constituted without the sanction of the magistrates: and the members of any church formed without it, were deprived of the franchise. Backus, i. 77.

[14] See pp. 247, 287, 353, &c. “Mr. Cotton effectually recommended, that none should be elected nor electors therein, except such as were visible subjects of our Lord Jesus Christ, personally confederated in our churches.” Mather’s Magnalia, b. iii. p. 21.

[15] Backus, i. 54. Knowles, p. 50.

[16] Knowles, p. 53. Mr. Cotton, in his Answer to Roger Williams, tells us that “elder Brewster warned the whole church of the danger of his spirit, which moved the better part of the church to be glad of his removal from them into the Bay.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 4.

[17] Mather’s Magnalia, iii. 20. Cotton’s Way of Cong. Churches, pp. 16, 30.

[18] Knowles, pp. 42, 43. “It was requested of Mr. Cotton,” says his descendant Cotton Mather, “that he would from the laws wherewith God governed his ancient people, form an abstract of such as were of a moral and lasting equity; which he performed as acceptably as judiciously.... He propounded unto them, an endeavour after a theocracy, as near as might be to that which was the glory of Israel, the peculiar people.” Magnalia, iii. 20. Backus, i. 79.

[19] Knowles, p. 57, 61. Master John Cotton’s Answer to Master Roger Williams, p. 4. This is usually bound up with the “Bloudy Tenent Washed,” and cited as part II.: it is, however, a separate piece, and separately paged, and is Cotton’s Answer to the second treatise in this volume.

[20] Cotton’s Answer, p. 4. Knowles, p. 61. Mather, vii. 7. Backus, i. 57.

[21] Knowles, p. 66.

[22] So Winthrop. Knowles, pp. 68-70. Backus, i. 67, 68. See also p. 422 of this volume. Cotton’s Answer, p. 4.

[23] See p. 372. Cotton’s Answer, pp. 5, 9. Cotton treats his sickness as a “check from the hand of God,” p. 56.

[24] See pp. 387, 388. Bancroft, i. 373.

[25] Knowles, pp. 71, 72. The sentence was as follows:—“Whereas Mr. Roger Williams, one of the elders of the church of Salem, hath broached and divulged divers new and dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates; as also writ letters of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here, and that before any conviction, and yet maintaineth the same without any retractation; it is therefore ordered that the said Mr. Williams shall depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks, now next ensuing, which, if he neglect to perform, it shall be lawful for the governor and two of the magistrates to send him to some place out of this jurisdiction, not to return any more without licence from the Court.” Backus, i. 69, 70.

[26] Cotton’s Answer, p. 26.

[27] Cotton’s Answer, pp. 27-30.

[28] Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 276.

[29] Bancroft, i. 327.

[30] See pp. 249, 257, 262. Mr. Cotton pleads that anabaptists and others were not compelled _against_ conscience; nor were they punished for conscience’ sake; but for _sinning_ against conscience. Tenent Washed, pp. 165, 189; Backus, i. 98.

[31] See pp. 186, 331; Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 122. By the law of September 6, 1638, the time was extended to six months. Backus, i. 45, 98; Bancroft, i. 349.

[32] “The Lady Moody, a wise and amiable religious woman, being taken with the error of denying baptism to infants, was dealt withal by many of the elders and others, and admonished by the church at Salem.” To avoid more trouble, she went amongst the Dutch; but was excommunicated. In 1651, the Rev. J. Clarke and Mr. O. Holmes, of Rhode Island, for visiting a sick baptist brother in Massachusetts, were arrested, fined, imprisoned, and whipped. At an earlier period, they had been compelled to leave Plymouth for their opinions. Mr. Cotton approved of this. Backus, i. 146, 207, 225.

[33] Williams’s Letter to Endicot. Bloody Tenent more Bloody, p. 305. See p. 245.