Vindiciae veritatis: TRUTH VINDICATED AGAINST CALUMNY. IN A brief ANSWER to Dr. Bastwick's two late Books, entitled, Independency not God's Ordinance, with the second Part, styled The Postscript, &c.  
By HENRY BURTON, one of his quondam-fellow-sufferers.  LEVIT. 19 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 1 TIM. 5. 20. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. And (Tit. 1. 13.) Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. ZACH. 8. 19 Love the Truth and Peace. 
LONDON, Printed by M. S. for Gyles Calvert, and are to be sold at his Shop at the West end of Paul's. 1645.   

❧ To the ingenuous Reader.  
CHRISTIAN READER;  
THi● Answer was long ago so conceived and formed in the womb, as the slow birth may seem to have outgone its due time. It waited for the Postscript; Which coming forth, proved such a strange creature, as some friends would not have me foul my fingers with it. Hezekiah's word to his people was, in such a case; Answer him not. But finding, that he still pursued me with his incessant provocations in more Books since, I thought of Salomon's counsel, Answer not; and yet, Answer. For I perceived, that no Answer coming, a tumour began to grow, which needed timely lancing, to prevent some extreme inflammation hastening to a head, while the humour flowed in so fast: Therefore I hastened at length as fast, as before I was slow, if possible to recover our Brother. So as if I be quick and short with him it is to say him with fear, plucking him out of the fine. I am plain, and that's all.  
Farewell.   

A brief ANSWER TO Dr. Bastwick's two late books, entitled, Independency not God's Ordinance, &c. First and second part, or Postscript: By one of his quondam-fellow-sufferers.  
BRother Bastwick, I had resolved for a time at least (as I have done) to have been silent in these controversies, though provoked not a little▪ But now your two Books you lately sent me as also your late triumphing at Westminster, that the man in Friday-street had not yet answered your book, as was given out provoked me afresh in arenam descendere, to take them both to task, and so una fidelia duos parietes. And if the perusal of them be not enough in lieu of thanks, I have returned you a compendious Answer; wherein you have bound me by a double engagement: the one, for the Cause; the other, for my Person. But you will say, you have not named me in either of your two Books. 'Tis true indeed. But give me leave to tell you, you have vellicated me, plucked me by the very beard. I will not say, as Joab 
2 Sam. 20. 9, 10.  took Amasa by the beard; and, withal smote him in the fift rib. What? Use a Brother so? And a quondam-fellow-sufferer too? Yea, & to take him so disgracefully by his white beard too, & that with a scurrilous Epithet, calling it 
* See the Postscript, pag. 44.  a great white ba●ket-hilted beard? Parcius ista. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, (as said the old Poet) pitying his white head, and his white chin. And the wise man saith, The beauty of old men is the grey head, yea a crown of glory▪ 
Prov. 20. 29. & 16. 31.  being foundin the way of righteousness. I remember when the G●●●es by force entered Rome-gates, where they found the grave Senators sitting in the gate in their senatorian robes, And their white staves in their hands, thinking thereby to strike some reverence into those barbarous Gauls, and one of them readily taking one of the Senators by his white beard, the good old Senator, (though in that condition) not brooking such an affront, struck the Gaul over the pate with his white rod; though this cost him, and the rest their lives, the barbarians instantly falling a butchering of them. But for all your provocations throughout your Books, Brother, you shall not find with me so much as a white staff to lift up against you, though you charge us (but how justly)▪ we have the sword in our hands. Nor do I purpose to retort, or retaliate your little expected, and less deserved calumnies, lest I should therein be like unto you: but I shall answer you in the words of truth and soberness, and in the spirit of meekness and love.  
But how comes it to pass, that my two fellow-sufferers, and myself, should fall at this odds? Was it by any divine providence ominated or presaged, by your two standings on one pillory, and mine alone in the other, that we should now come upon one▪ Theatre to become spectacles to the world, by mutual digladiations, as if the one pillory should contend with the other? Or did the distance of the two pillories bode any such distance in our present judgements? But yet, O! O, never be such a distance in our affections! But, herein at least ever be we a threefold cord, not easily broken. But the will of the Lord be done, who is only wise, and will cause all things to cooperate for good to them that love him.  
But Brothers, we expected, that (according to your own words, pag. 7.) you would have acted the part of a Moderator between us. But instead thereof we find you a Judge, and that a severe one too; but how justly, I leave to others to judge. For in your promised, or rather menaced Postscript, which (to forestall your Readers with a prejudicate opinion of us; and old piece of rhetoric, as that of Tertullus before Felix, telling him of Paul; we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition, &c. which he was not able to prove, his best rhetorical argument being Calumnidre audacter, aliquid haerebit, Calumniate boldly, some thing will stick) you both prefix, and for sureness, affix to your book; you fasten upon us uncharitable dealing, fraud and jugglings of many of our Pastors and Ministers, as misleaders and troublers of Church and State, &c. all which 
* Jude 5.  ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) hard and harsh terms, we can no less than spread before the Lord the righteous Judge.  
I now come to your first book.  
And first for those two Scriptures which you face your frontispiece withal, I desire it may appear to all men in the conclusion, whether you or I have the better right to them, 2 Cor. 13. 8. and 1 Thes. 5. 21.  
Pag. 6. Brother, that which you entreat of us, you shall find of your Brother; only give us leave in your own words to entreat you to lay aside all passion, and all vainglory, and bitterness, which not only this your book, but your threatened Postscript breathes out against us.  
Pag. 7. You methodize and model your book into two Questions: First, Concerning the Government of the Church, whether it be Presbyterian Dependent, or Presbyterian Independent: Secondly, Concerning gathering of Churches.  
Now for the first of these, before we come to your Arguments, give me leave to except against your terms, Dependent and Independent, whereupon as upon a foundation you state your Question. And if the foundation be not sure, the superstructure cannot be secure. Now Brother, do you set these two terms, Dependent, and Independent, at such odds, as if there were a great gulf between them, never to come together, and become one? You hold of Dependent only: we hold not only of Independent, but Dependent also. I shall make this clear: Your Church Dependent is so called in a twofold relation: First, Because it depends for its form of Government upon the laws of civil States, and so (as the Cha●●leon) receives impressions of sundry forms, changeable according to the present condition of the civil Power, whether Protestant, or Papist, Christian, or Antichristian (as our Brother hath set forth) so as by this means, Christ's Church and kingdom; his Spouse, that woman clothed with the sun, and having on her head, 
Rev. 12. 1.  a crown of twelve stars, and the moon under her feet, should herself be turned into the moon, as being subject to continual changes. Secondly, Because your Church Dependent, depends necessarily upon a combination of Presbyters of many Churches, as counsels, Synods, Assemblies, Classes, without whose counsel (say you) nothing is to be done in any particular Church, of which more hereafter 
Pag. 16. Pag. 18.   
On the other side; The Churches which you call Independent, are also Dependent. First, They are not otherwise Independent, than first, that they are not, nor ought (in respect of Doctrine, Discipline, Worship, Church-Government) to depend upon human laws, Canons, Decrees, customs; but only upon Christ and his laws; as wherein they assert and hold forth Christ's Kingly Office and Government over them; and do affirm, that to set up human forms of worship and Church-Government, unto which the consciences and souls of God's people must necessarily conform and be subject, is a dethroning of the Lord Jesus Christ, and a denying him to be the only King of his Church Secondly, Independent in this respect, because every particular visible Church, rightly constituted according to the Word of God, depends not directly and necessarily upon any other Church or Churches, as without whose jurisdiction (call it Presbyterian, or what you will) it may not exercise all that power, which Christ hath given to every particular Church, as touching all the Offices and Ordinances thereof, and that in as ample manner, as if there were besides that one, no other Churches in the World.  
And yet secondly, This Church thus Independent, is also Dependent. For, as it depends absolutely upon Christ, as the only Head of this Body; so as it is a member-church of the Catholic, and a sister-church of all particular Churches, with which it makes up one body, and one Spouse of Christ her Head and Husband: so it hath a mutual dependence upon all true Churches, for communion, for consociation, for consultation, for comfort, for support; though always saving and retaining to itself all those church-privileges, which by Christ's Charter are peculiar to every particular Church, and body of Jesus Christ. And in case this particular Church do any act of censure upon any, who thereby shall think himself wronged, and shall address himself to other Churches, by way of complaint, and they shall thereupon desire of that church an account of their proceedings therein, this church will not refuse, but as in Christian duty bound, will to those Churches render a reason of that, or any other their doings, if questioned, and lawfully required. And all this in a sweet and loving way, with meekness and fear, 1 Pet. 3. 15. so as none is debarred of any such appeal. Nor is any well constituted Church of Christ to be conceived so brutish, or so conceited of herself, as to think she may not err, or herself so wise, as in many difficult cases not to need the counsel of others, or so inflexible, as with the Stoics, Sententiam mutare nunquam; nullius rei poenitere; never to change 
Cicer. Orat. pro L. Murena.  their mind or judgement, of nothing to repent, when convinced of an error. But what if one particular Church will not, after all due means used, (which yet no rational man can imagine will ever come to pass) harken to the unanimous judgement and counsel of the other Churches? What is to be done? Surely they may upon just cause withdraw communion from that Church, which, in that case, is the highest censure the Churches can proceed 
Act. 24. 25, 26 Joh. 18. 28. Mat. 10. 17, 18  to. And if the party aggrieved complain to the civil Magistrate, the Church being called is accountable to the power. Thus have I plainly, clearly, and fully, as I conceive, stated these two terms Dependent and Independent: whereby is sufficiently cleared to the view of all unpartial Judges, not possessed with prejudice, our Dependent Independency, or Independent Dependency, from your manner of stating.  
And for your Simile; wherein you propound it for better understanding 
Pag. 8.  (as you say) it halteth downright of all four, as being altogether absimile, and Heterogeneous, of another nature. There is a vast disproportion between a civil Government, and ecclesiastical: the one established upon man's laws, the other on Gods; the one various, and variable, according to several civil States, kingdoms, and laws: the other one and the same, (or should be, if right) in all the Churches of the Saints, having one 
1 Cor. 14. 33▪  Rule, one Law to walk by, immutable: And, Brother, for your paralleling of your many several Congregations in one city, or one Division, or Hundred, or within such a Circuit, with a great Corporation, as of London, where is one Lord Major, and Aldermen and Common council, and so reducing so many Churches into one Corporation, as so many Companies making upon city: I suppose you mean not that one provincial, with his Diocesans, and Priests under them, should make up this Parallel. But this of necessity you must do, if you will have all the Congregations in their several Divisions, or Weapontacks, to be governed by their several Presbyteries respectively. Reason requires, that first you set up such Presbyters over every one of your Congregations, as may be for the greatest part of them good, pious, learned, orthodox: or otherwise, if the greater party be Malignant, and ill affected, profane and haters of the power of godliness, they will over-vote the good party; and so what a hard yoke will you put upon the necks of all such, as be truly godly, when they shall be cast out by a malignant parochial Congregation? and going to complain to your Presbytery, they shall find as cold comfort, as formerly they have done in the prelate's Consistory. But there will be a better care had of placing good Presbyters. But Brother, let us first see it, that so your Presbyterian Government may show us a face the more amiable, and less formidable to all truly godly, and most conscientious men. But if you cannot do this, whither shall the poor souls go, which live under a profane Presbyter, or one that admits all sorts tag rag to the Lord's Table, with whom godly souls can no more converse, then with Heathen; and much less at that holy Ordinance, where they must be made companions with such kind of Saints, as Job would not set with the dogs of his flock: And if any whose conscience is not so strong to digest such hard bits, as others of the common multitude are, who either see no difference at all between the precious and the vile; (but account all alike Saints at least, when but at the Sacrament) or have such Sepulchre-wide throats, as they can swallow a camel, when a tender and more narrow conscience is apt to be choked with every Gnat: What shall this poor soul do? Doth he rather withdraw from the Ordinance, than he can endure to see it so profaned, and so partake with the prophaners? then he hears, A schismatic. Now if you have not a good Presbytery, where shall he go to complain? He may go and appeal higher, you will say. And what if the higher the worse? Good Brother, either provide the people of the Land an honest godly Presbytery, that may be as so many Angels to gather out of Christ's kingdom every thing that offends: or else let there be a tender care of tender consciences, and some provision made for them, that they may not be scandalised, by being forced to be the companions of the scandalous. And therefore Brother, you that profess so much solicitous care to poor bodies, let some drops of your charity fall upon their souls. And at the least, and last extremity, call in that Postscript of yours, and suppress it in the press, that it may never see the sun; as wherein you proscribe all those, that are not of your Dependent Presbytery: for you tell us, it is to come forth a fortnight hence, in the which it will be proved, that it is the duty of all christian Magistrates, Parents, Masters of families, and all such as truly fear God, to yield their hand for the suppressing of heresies, and all novelties in Religion, if they really desire the glory of God, &c. And what you mean by your heresies and novelties in Religion, is obvious to all by this your book already come forth, Independency is heresy, and novelty in Religion, and what not, that nought is? Now did ever proceed out of the mouth of a quondam-Martyr, and one newly brought out of a baleful prison, such a fiery breath as this? Oh Brother, remember thyself, and repent; and let the world know, that thou hast made a better use of afflictions, than so fiercely to run on in such a course, as to wreck the malignity of a prison upon thy best friends, the seed of whose love, so liberally sown upon thee and thine, expected another-gates harvest, than nettles, briars, and thorns.  
But you bring the Scripture for you. Come on, Brother, let you and me try it out by the dint of this sword. And truly, I shall by the help of my God make no long work of it. You spend above eleven sheets, wherein you have woven sundry long threaden Arguments, to measure out your Dependent Presbytery, as holding parallel with the line of Scripture. Now you must pardon me, if I shall assay (according to an old proverb) with one stroke of Photions' hatchet, to cut in two the long thread of your Alcibiadian fluent and luxuriant Rhetorications.  
For answer. First, let me ask you a Question: Whether those many Congregations you so call, you do not understand to be so many distinct, and particular entire Church-bodies, or Churches respectively. If they be, tell us, if each of these Churches be 〈◊〉 its prime and proper notion an entire Church, without or before it be united in such a Presbyterian Combination, and Government, as you speak of. And if so, whether it be de esse, or de bene esse, of the being, or only well-being of each particular Church, so to be united, and combined into a Church-collective, of many Churches into one. If you say, it is of the being of a Church, to be yoked with other Churches, as into one, than what being had that Church in Abraham's family, seeing there were then no other Churches in the world, but that? And if that were extraordinary, (as perhaps you will say) then say I, when Churches are multiplied, and combined into one, whether is this Church collective Dependent, or Independent? If Dependent, than not an entire Church, but subordinate unto, or depending upon some greater Assembly. But come we to the highest of all, a general counsel of all the Churches in the world: is this now, a Church Dependent, or Independent? If Independent, than there may be a Church Independent in the world; and so the first particular Church in the world, was no less an Independent Church, in reference to other Churches. And if all Churches in one ecumenical council, as one Church, be Dependent, then whereupon Dependent? Or is it a Dependent on itself? That were blasphemy to say it. Whereon then? Surely on the Scripture or nothing. All Churches than are Dependent upon the Scripture necessarily: not so necessarily one Church upon another, whether particular or general. Ergo, all particular Churches being not necessarily dependent one upon another, nor one upon many, but absolutely dependent upon the Scripture for their ultimate or final resolutions, are no less Independent upon other Churches; because all the Churches in the world put together, cannot of themselves give forth an infallible Oracle; as to say, this we command to be believed and observed. This is Antichrists voice, Volumus & jubenius. The Church, or Churches may show 
Platina: in vita Bonifacii 3.  their reasons from Scripture, and labour to persuade, but cannot bind them upon faith or conscience; this the Holy Ghost and Scripture can only do.  
But I come briefly to your Arguments, whereby you would prove your classical Presbyterian Government, and so upward. The pattern hereof you take from the Christian Church at Jerusalem. Hereof many arguments, or rather words, and tautologies you multiply, and toil yourself and vex your Reader withal, which you might have reduced to one. It is in sum, this:  
In Jerusalem were many Christian Congregations, and all these made but one Church, and so were governed by one Presbytery.  
But that Church at Jerusalem, being the prime Apostolic Church, is a pattern for all succeeding Churches:  
Ergo, all Church-government ought to be regulated by that, and consequently by a Presbytery over many Congregations.  
For as for your indefinite enumeration of those multitudes baptised by John Baptist, and by Christ's Disciples, we take no notice of them, unless formed into a Church, or Churches: but following the express Scripture, the first formed Church we find in Act. 2. which though consisting of five thousand, yet it was one entire particular Church, and not Churches; and they continued daily {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, with one accord in one place together, (ver. 2.) and in the Temple, (ver. 44. 46.) growing from a hundred and twenty (Act. 1. 15.) to three thousand more, (Chap. 2. 41.) and then in all five thousand (Chap. 4. 4.) and all these but one Church, which assembled together to hear the word in the Temple; and though they wanted a convenient place so spacious, as wherein to break bread, or receive the Lord's Supper all together, so as they were constrained to sever themselves into divers companies, in several private houses to communicate, yet this severing was not a dividing of the Church into so many distinct formal Churches, or Church-bodies, being but so many branches of one and the same particular Church; which though you call so many Congregations, yet properly so many Churches they were not. And therefore you never read, The Churches at or in Jerusalem, but, The Church at Jerusalem. And this no national Church neither, witness those Churches in Judea, Gal. 1. 22.  
Whereupon I answer to your Argument; and first to your Proposition. I deny that those Congregations you name, are so many Churches, properly so called, having their distinct Officers and members, united into one Church-body respectively. This I put you to prove. And without proving it, your 11 or 12 shee●… spent about this Argument prove to be mere wast paper. And for your Assumption, that the Church at Jerusalem, as being a prime Apostolic Church, is therefore a pattern for all succeeding Churches, and therefore for a classical Presbytery over many Churches▪ you must first prove your Proposition, as before, that there were many Churches in Jerusalem constituted in their distinct forms, and bodies. Secondly, it being no more, than one entire particular Church (and not any Diocesan, or provincial Church, or the Presbytery thereof classical, (as you would bear us in hand) it is a pattern for all particular Churches in succeeding ages; and yet (by your favour) not so perfect a pattern, as no Apostolic Church besides it should also come in, to make up the pattern complete. For we are necessarily to take all the Churches in the New Testament together, to make up one entire & perfect Church pattern. For in the Church at Jerusalem, we find election of Officers, but we find not expressed that part of Discipline; for casting out of corrupt members, as in the Church of Corinth, and so in the rest. For the Churches were not brought forth to full perfection in one day. Their very constitution had a gradual growth. The Church at Jerusalem had not at first Deacons, till there was a necessity; and the largeness of the Church required seven Deacons; which is no pattern for every Church to have seven Deacons. The sum is, to make up a complete pattern, not only the Church at Jerusalem, but that of Corinth, of Ephesus, those of Gal●tia, that of Philippi, and the rest; are to be conferred together, that each may cast in its shot to make up the full reckoning, that so what is not expressed in one, may be supplied by the rest, to make one entire platform. For the Scripture consists of many Books, as so many members in one body; one member cannot say to another, 
* 1. Cor. 12.  I have no need of thee.  
Again, the Church at Jerusalem, if it must be a pattern for all other Churches, then in this, that all other Churches must be subject to some one Church, because (Act. 15.) things in question were there debated, and determined, and sent to other Churches to be observed. But for as much as that Church at that time in those things was infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, wherewith the Apostles there were inspired, in which respect their resolutions were with authority, It pleased the Holy Ghost and us, (that which no particular Church since the Apostles could ever say) it followeth that the Church then at Jerusalem remains not in all things a pattern for other Churches; for a pattern must be in all things imitable, and perfect.  
Lastly, for appeals, so much agitated, and pressed, I have said enough before, and elsewhere (as in my Vindication) to vindicate 
Page 98.  the right use of that in point of Church matters. And so I pass briefly from your first Question to your second; which is concerning the manner of gathering of Churches, and admitting members and Officers: Viz:  
Whether Ministers of the Gospel may, out of already congregated 
To the second Question.  Assemblies of believers, select and choose the most principal of them into a Church-fellowship peculiar unto themselves, and admit of none into their society, but such as shall enter in by a private covenant, and are allowed of by the consent and approbation of all the Congregation.  
This is your general stating of your Question; and out of the womb thereof, there doth issue a numerous brood, no less than six Queries, or if you will (to usurp your own usual expression) so many sucking Questions, hanging at the dugs of their dam, your general Question.  
For answer to all in their order: But before I answer, let me 
Page 14.  premise thus much: Brother, I well see (and that without spectacles) that among all those Independents whom you so familiarly hurl stones at, and cast up dust, yea dirt in their faces, I am not the least object in your eye, as by many palpable passages in your book doth appear. And therefore I shall crave leave, that I may have the favour to represent and personate all those my Brethren the Ministers, whom Giantlike you revile and challenge, and war against under the name of Independents, as taking this take upon myself alone, in answering this your Question about gathering of Churches.  
First then to your general stating of the Question. You say, it concerns the manner of gathering. Do you imply here the lawfulness of the matter of gathering, by questioning only the manner? Your words may seem to import so much. But I will not quarrel a word. I come to your Question, viz. Whether Ministers of the Gospel, &c. Surely if any, than Ministers of the Gospel may gather Churches: and that for two reasons; first, because by the Gospel, & the Ministry thereof, Churches are gathered to Christ. Secondly, because we read, that the Apostles▪ and other Ministers of the Gospel have by their Ministry gathered Churches.  
Therefore no question, but if any, than Ministers of the Gospel may gather Churches to Christ.  
Ay, but out of already congregated Assemblies of Believers, to select and choose the most principal of them. Indeed this is something to purpose. But tell me, Brother▪ who is it▪ that doth this? You apply it to us all, and to me in particular. But I deny that I so do, and I dare say the like for others. And can you prove all those Parishes, out of which Churches are so gathered, as you say, to be Assemblies of believers? But they all profess to be Christians. True, so do all Papists. Ergo, are all Popish Parishes, Assemblies of Believers? So as if Ministers of the Gospel should by their preaching convert sundry Papists of several Popish Parishes to become a Church of Christ, should they gather such a Church out of so many Assemblies of believers?  
But (say you) we gather Churches out of Assemblies of believing Protestants. Why Brother, do you not know this to be a time of Reformation? And have we not all taken the solemn Covenant to reform ourselves and others, according to the word of God? And to endeavour to our power, to extirpate and root out all Popery, Prelacy, Idolatry and Superstition out of this kingdom? And the time of this first gathering, was it not then, when the old service and ceremonies were in use? And who hath gathered these Churches? We. Who are we that you should thus charge us? As Peter and John answered, Why look ye so on us? So, why do ye impute that to us, which is only to be attributed to the Gospel of the grace of God, whereby our very Protestants are won from their old superstitions, and will-worship, and from under the yoke of human forms in the matters of Christ's kingdom? So as when they hear, Christ is the only King of his kingdom, the only lawgiver of his Church, and his Word the only law and rule of all Church-government, and all this demonstrated in the Word of God, which they have taken a solemn Covenant in all things to follow: do you reproach us, for being a people who are ready to obey Christ, so soon as we hear of 
Psal. 18. Acts 3. 22▪  him, who alone is to be heard in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto us?  
And for Churches, do you, Brother, limit Churches to Parishes? What if you find so many hundred Parishes in England, whose Inhabitants both Ministers and persons are all Malignants, or popishly-affected? Will you have those Parishes to be so many Churches, and those popish Malignants, so many believers? Were not this to set up Ecclesiam malignantium, or Churches malignant, which are no way militant, but against the power of Religion, and the peace of the civil State? Or if there be found some one or two in each of those Parishes, that have the love of Christ in them, and are truly godly, and whose souls are grieved to communicate with Sodom: Will you not allow God to send an Angel, his Messenger, with a word to call them forth? And do you not know, that the ancient Church of the Jews was then a Church, when the Apostles 
Acts 2.  by their preaching gathered a Church out of it? A Christian Church out of the Jews Synagogue?  
ay, say you, but we gather Christian Churches out of Christian Churches. Surely then it is God's word that calleth Christians to come into a more reformed churchway, out of ways more corrupt and less reformed. Nor do we separate from the Churches as Christian, as you call them, but from their corruptions,* separating 
*  the precious from the vile, as from something Antichristian.  
But you will say, Now are the Parishes and Churches purged, no Service-book now, no Hierarchy, no such thing, and yet we select and choose the most principal into a Church-fellowship peculiar unto ourselves. To which I answer: Though the Service-book, Hierarchy, &c. be taken away, yet the Parishes are not so purged of them, but that most men's hearts are still hankering after that Egyptian-service and taskmasters. Again, all those that profess to be come off from those things, yet are not resolved what Religion to take to, but are ready to take up (as themselves say, and do) what Religion men will set up over them, not looking to what the Scripture prescribes and commands; so as it remains, that those who embrace the Word, and prefer Christ's Decrees before man's, are those principal men, whom not we, but the Word of Christ doth call forth, select and choose voluntarily to join in Church-fellowship; and this not so peculiar to ourselves, but that when a right Reformation is set up in the several places where they dwell, they may enjoy the pure Ordinances there, as I have showed in my Vindication. And if you examine who they be that have joined themselves unto the Lord, either of this parish, or of other, you shall find 
Esa. 56. 3.  them to be for their outward estate, (in comparison of others) none of those principal men you speak of.  
But say you, we admit of none into our society, but such as shall enter in by a private Covenant. Now the very name of Covenant is become a bugbear to many. But it is mightily mistaken, as I have showed in my Vindication: For it is nothing else, but a declaration of a free assent, and voluntary agreement to walk in the ways of Christ with the Church, whereof they are members, and to perform all service of love one to another, submitting themselves to the Order and Ordinance of Christ, in that Church respectively. So that it is not the name of Covenant that is so terrible, but the Order of Church-communion; and this to those only, that having used to walk without a yoke (as the Scripture calls sons of Belial) love not to come under the yoke of Christ, than which to a willing bearer nothing is more easy and sweet.  
But lastly, you say, they must be allowed of by the consent and approbation of all the Congregation. And (I pray) what harm in that? Nay, doth it not stand with very good reason, that they who are to walk together, should first be agreed together? As Amos 3. 3. Can two walk together, except they be agreed? If therefore any one of the Congregation can object any thing, as a just cause of non-admittance of a member, he ought to show it, not only for his own peace, but the peace of the Church. Therefore, to object such things as these, doth it argue a spirit favouring of such a holy humility, as becomes those who affect the society of Saints? And when the whole church gives approbation in this kind, it is both to the church and the member admitted, a comfort, and withal, a discharge of their duty in a provident care for preventing inconveniences and scandals; 
Turpius ejicitur, quàm non admittitur bospes.  seeing it is easier for a guest to be kept out, then to be cast out. Thus much of your Question in general; which because I have met with it in the several branches, I shall need to say the less to those Queries which you derive from it. And in truth they are rather captions than Queries; and the first is answered in my former stating of the Question. For the second, to know those well, that are to be admitted, Abundans ca●tela non nocet: In things weighty, we cannot be too wary; nor do we so much look at circumstances in conversion, as the substance. The third, for the consent of the Congregation, it is answered before: So also the fourth, about the Covenant. The fifth, for the power of the keys, we tie it not to womens' girdles. The sixth, and last, I answer, that those Churches, which are for matter and form, true Churches, and are governed according to Christ's Word, do set up Christ as King upon his Throne. And for such as are otherwise, let them consider, whether they do as they ought, set up Christ as King upon his Throne.  
You proceed, I have (say you) specified the things without any spirit 
Page 100  of bitterness. In deed, this your first book (as we find by tracing your steps in other Tracts) is a summary collection of what they have gone before you in, whose thread hath led you all the way through this maze: but when you come (as in your Postscript) to minister your own Dosis, and to show yourself in your own element, there we find the main ingredient to be the very gall of bitterness, which yet your first book is not altogether free of.  
Pag. 101. you say, The Apostles, and other Ministers of the gospel were to receive all such as believed, and were baptised, and that upon the profession of their faith and repentance, without any further testimony of others, unless they had been formerly known to be open enemies, and then they were justly to be suspected, till they had given public evidence by witness to the Apostles and Ministers of their true conversion, as concerning Paul, Acts 9 26, 27.  
Now here I observe:  
1. A notable contradiction to what you say, pag. 115. As God's command to all Ministers was, that they should admit all such into the Church, as believed and were baptised, upon their desiring it, without any confession, either private or public. Here I leave you to reconcile your own contradiction. upon their profession, and without any confession.  
2. I answer, that in these days of professed, and covenanted-for Reformation, there is required the profession or confession of one special point of faith▪ (which in words; none dare, but in practice most do deny) touching Christ's Kingly office, formerly suppressed by Antichristian tyranny, but now breaking forth from under the cloud in its native light, concerning his absolute, sole sovereignty over our consciences and Churches, without dependence upon human Ordinances, or national laws to prescribe such forms of Church-government, as are most serviceable to the political ●nd● of several States; which point of faith is (though not always explicitly, yet) implicitly confessed by all those, which ●ender themselves to be admitted into such Churches, as are of a constitution most agreeable to the law and rule of Christ. And withal, an implicit profession at least of their repentance is included, as having formerly lived under an Antichristian government, and inventions of will-worship, all which is implicitly professed and repented of, by their very entrance into Church-fellowship; and so much the more is repentance herein needful, because many, yea most of such Conformists, if not all, have had their hands, less or more, either by acting, or assenting, or by silence and connivance in the persecution of those godly Ministers and people, which stood out against that Antichristian usurpation over their consciences, refusing conformity to their Canons. So as in this case, you confess, that our people (formerly Conformists, and now, for the greater part, but newly crope out of the shell of their bondage, being brought off from their old ceremonial service, and this more by human authority in general so ordering, then of conscience) ought not only to approve themselves by the profession of their faith, and repentance, but to have the testimony of others also, as having been formerly known to be either pressed and sworn vassals, or volunteers in the prelatical Militia, which what is it else, but a continual war against the true Church and kingdom of Jesus Christ?  
But you add (pag. 102.) that Commission was delivered to the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel, as whose place only it was by the keys to open and shut the doors of the Church, and so to admit, or refuse, as they found men fitted or qualified, to be made members; and this you labour to prove by the practice of John Baptist.  
Now, as for John Baptist (about whose gathering you have so bestirred your selfbefore, and to as little purpose) you may observe, that those believers in Christ then to come, according to the Papists Doctrine, were not formed into a Christian Church, or Churches, as after Christ's resurrection the believers were. And when you come to visit those Christian Churches once constituted in their Gospel-form by the Apostles, you shall find, that the power of admitting or rejecting, or casting out of members, was not in the Apostles or Ministers alone, but in the Churches. For 
1 Cor. 1. 2.  this, read 1 Cor. 5. where the whole Church of the Saints in Corinth, to whom Paul wrote, were to cast out the incestuous person; as also afterward upon his repentance, to readmit him, 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7. This one instance is a sufficient precedent for all Churches.  
But you allege that of Cornelius sending to Joppa for Peter, he 
Page 105.  sent not (say you) to the Church of Corinth; true, and what then? Ergo, none but the Minister of the Gospel hath power to admit members. It is one thing to preach, and instrumentally to convert souls, which chiefly pertains to those that are called thereunto: but in the case of Church-government, of admitting▪ or casting out, it is otherwise. And here let Peter himself (whose words you allege) resolve us; Who, when the Holy Ghost so wonderfully fell on all them that heard the Word, said, Can any man forbid water, that 
Acts 10.  these men should not be baptised, &c. Which words imply, that ifany exceptions could have been made, it was in those Jews present, to give forth their allegations, why those believing Gentiles should not be admitted to become one Church with the believing Jews. So as your observations thereupon fall to the ground; as that, First, Peter was sent to, and not the Church; and, secondly, Peter commanded them to be baptised: Again, this example was extraordinary in all the circumstances of it; and when you have said all, you can conclude nothing. Your instance of the Eunuch, Acts 8. 8. of Lydia, Acts 16. as many other, are mere extravagants. We speak of Churches constituted, not of single converts, here and there one, not yet jointed into a particular Church-body.  
I pass by your impertinent declamatious against different opinions 
Page 115.  in the same house. Do you reconcile them; for Christ himself foretold of them, as we shall tell you when we come to your Postscript; which when I mention here, doth not your mind misgive you? But of this in due place.  
And where you say, all that believe, and are baptised, are by God's command to be admitted, desiring it, without any confession, or Covenant: But what if they do not believe aright? What if they not only not believe, but deny and disclaim Christ's Kingly Prerogative? And so, what if they stiffly maintain a most damnable and destructive heresy, which overthroweth a main principal and fundamental of faith? If such a one, as Dr. Bastwick with all his ●air flourishes of holiness, should desire to be admitted into Church-fellowship, being known to be an adversary to Christ's Kingly government over his Churches, according to the Gospel: might not the Doctors own words satisfy, in case of refusal (pag 102.) as having been formerly known for an open enemy and persecutor of the Church, and so justly to be suspected, till public evidence by witness given? Although it cannot be imagined that the ba●e desiring of admittance into Church-fellowship could stand with the denial, but necessarily implies a confession of Christ's Kingly office in its highest degree.  
Pag. 116. You tell us, that our gathering of Churches hath no example in Scripture, and as for Christ's Disciples, they were all sent to gather in the lost sheep of the house of Israel, they went not to gather in converted amongst converted men, &c. Now we cannot have a more pregnant and more warrantable example in all Scripture than this, which you here allege against us. Christ's Disciples gathered Christian Churches out of the Church of the Jews; nor can you deny, but the Jews were a Church, when the Disciples gathered churches out of it. Those Churches in Judea (Gal. 1. 22.) were gathered out of the Church of the Jews; and that Church of the Jews generally believed that the Messiah, or Christ, was to come. And if they were a Church when many being converted, were gathered out of it, then much more Churches may be gathered out of Nations or kingdoms of the world, though for their general profession of Christianity, every such Nation or kingdom be respectively called a church, though the new Testament knows no such church, and then not of divine constitution, as that of the Jews was, even when churches Christian were gathered out of it. And brother, prove unto us, that such as you call a national Church, is a church of divine institution; show us an example of a national Church in all the new Testament, otherwise you do but weave the spider's web.  
But we (say you) gather converted men from among converted men, and so pick out of others folds and flocks the best and fattest sheep. This you do familiarly cast in our dish, and yet it is never the fatter. Now in this we may justly demand of you, to prove, that those whom you call converted men, from among whom we gather churches, be indeed so converted as they should be, when as yet they come not up close to the rule of Reformation, God's Word, as thereby to endeavour the setting up of Christ, without waiting on men, as without whom God's Word is not a sufficient rule, and as on whom we must necessarily depend for the form and law of Reformation: And yet we deny not but many such may be godly, though otherwise they are not as yet throughly convinced of this kingly government of Christ, which we endeavour after; nay, let me go a little higher; for as much as this is an undeniable, yea, and prime principle in Divinity, that the Scripture is the only rule of faith, and of worship, and Church-government, and this rule is no Monopoly to one man, but that all and every man hath a power and privilege to repair to this Law and Testimony, to do all things according to this Word: And seeing we have all bound ourselves by solemn Covenant to reform ourselves, and those under our charge, according to the Word of God; yea, and every one to go before other in this Reformation: tell me now, brother, were it not a matter worth the while, for our reverend and learned Assembly, seriously to take it into debate, whether the general tying up of men, to wait necessarily on the Synod for its final resolution about Church-government, be not an usurpation upon our Christian liberty, and a diminution, at least of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and so consequently be not a trenching upon a fundamental heresy; as also an inhibition, restraining every man in his place, Ministers, Masters, &c. from setting upon the work of Reformation, and so necessitating a violation of our Covenant, or a dangerous retarding of the work, bringing in a sleepy carelessness upon men's spirits, to inquire at God's Oracle, and so preparing a way for blind obedience; I leave to the consideration of the wisest.  
But in the interim, to return to your Converts; Do you hold all them to be converts, from among whom churches are gathered? Do you not allow of a difference to be put? Are there not a number of both ignorant and scandalous, that are not fit to come to the Lord's Table? See the Directory: Or do you take the greatest number in England to be godly, and truly converted? Or are there not (trow you) many Parishes in England, where, perhaps but a few true converts are to be found? And how few (in comparison) truly godly and faithful Ministers are to be found for every Parish, under who●e pastoral charge, two or three sheep may safely and comfortably feed among so many Goats, yea, perhaps, Wolves? Or do you make every parish to be a Church? You may do well herein to deal plainly with us, whether you would have so many inhabitants as are in every Parish, to be so many communicants. For so it seems you would have it: For (pag. 117.) you say, in the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, coloss, were many that walked disorderly, taught false doctrine and heresies, and made schisms; yet the Apostles did not bid the Christians to separate themselves from the communion and assemblies of the Saints, and from the Ordinances, for these men's causes, &c. But you may know, those churches, though in part accidentally corrupt, yet were essentially, and in their original constitution pure and holy churches; and so were never your parochial churches, they never had a right divine constitution, but merely human and political. And therefore all your argumentation a dispari, falls to ground, and beats itself into a mere spume.  
But (pag. 118.) you plead, such Ministers and Churches to be true, where the truth of Christ is preached, received and professed. If you mean the whole truth of Christ, it is well. But do not you know, that 
Homily, second Sermon for Whitsunday.  there are three special visible marks of a true visible Church, The Gospel purely preached, the Sacraments duly administered, and Discipline rightly practised? all which marks together, the Church of England (for aught I know) is yet to seek.  
For (to speak nothing here of the materials of a true particular visible Church: as visible Saints; nor of the form of it, so many members united into one Church-body and fellowship, according to the Gospel, which you can hardly show us in any of your parochial Congregations) I will only ask you, What particular visible Church you are a member of (you may choose what Parish you please in England): Next, I ask you, What Discipline you have in that your church; and whether a man complaining of you to your Congregation, or to your Minister, for wrongs done by you, and for your scandalous walking, he shall find so much Discipline there as to convent you before them, and justly charging you for walking scandalously, to the great offence and shame of the very name of Christian Religion, you shall thereupon be brought under ecclesiastical censure, so as to have the scandal removed, and the offence satisfied? Good now tell me, what church either parochial, or classical, I should go unto? For, suppose I have a complaint against you, for which I demand satisfaction, at the least, so as by the means of your church-censure you may be brought to a contrite acknowledgement of the wrong you have done me. But if you cannot show me such a church in any of your Parishes, 
Page 118.  b●… is it that you affirm* Christ to be set up as King in his Throne in men's hearts, swayed and guided by the sceptre of his Word and Spirit in your parochial Congregations: when as you cannot show us (I say) in any one of those Congregations 
* 1 Cor. 5. 4.  the Name and Power of our Lord Jesus Christ to be so set up, as authoritatively and judicially to deliver over to Satan, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or otherwise condignly to censure such a one, as whose brother complains of to that Congregation, for unsufferable wrongs, and most base and barbarous usage, unbeseeming a natural Heathen, much less a professed Christian? And here I challenge our Brother for taking Christ's Name in vain, when in stead of finding Christ set upon his Throne in their congregations, we find there no more but an Image, such as Michal had made up in 
1 Sam. 19  stead of King David; or as those, that in mockery, made of Christ a Pageant-king, stripping him, and putting on him a scarlet robe, and on his head a crown of thorns, and in his hand a reed, saluting him with, Hail king of the Jews, with which title over his head they crucified him. And therefore those passages which (page 118, 119.) he quotes of his Brother (though not named) will stand good against their opposers▪ The sum of which is this: That all that depend upon men for Church-government, and not upon Christ and his Word alone, do deny Christ's Kingly government over Consciences and Churches: that all that receive not Christ's Kingly office in the full extent of it, but after manifestation, do reject it, are at the best converted but in part, and so in a worse condition, than those who though they believed, yet they had not so much as heard there was a Holy Ghost, but hearing, they received him: that such as refuse to be in Covenant with 
Acts 19 2.  Christ, or to make profession or confession thereof before men, want their evidence of their being God's people, and so quantum in se, as much as in them lieth, cut off their children from having interest in baptism, the external seal of the Covenant. And therefore seeing such things are objected, how doth it concern both Ministers and people to look to their evidences?  
To omit his tedious tautologies all along (being the bombast of the book) to pag. 124. there he saith, When the Ministers of England teach this doctrine in their preachings and writings, how can they be truly said to deny, disclaim, and preach against Christ's Kingly government over men's consciences and Churches? It were well if they did truly indeed preach it, which few or none of them do. Or if they do truly preach it, why do they not practise it, and persuade the people to depend upon Christ for it, and not upon men?  
But (pag. 126.) the Ministers of England set up a Presbytery after God's Word. This you can never yet prove unto us, until we may see it. But the Independents themselves are Presbyterians (say you) and labour ●o set up a Presbytery of their own. Thus here, and all along you carry it with a torrent of words, and that is all. We set up that Presbytery, which we find in God's Word, and none other.  
Then (pag. 127.) you fall again upon the strictness used in admission of members, which (say you) the Apostles used not. But we know, that all those who were admitted by them, did first make confession of their faith and repentance, as Mat. 3. 6. Acts. 2. 37. Act. 19 18, 19 Act. 8. 37. And the Apostles feared to receiv●Paul, as their fellow-Apostle, until they had examined the truth thereof.  
And (pag. 130.) you charge us with making schisms, &c. Surely we are commanded to separate ourselves from all corruptions of the world, and human inventions; as 2 Cor. 6. 16. Acts 2. 40. and this, when a Christian Church began to be gathered out of that of the Jews.  
Pag. 138. you inveigh against new truths, and new lights, as you everywhere nauseously call them: and say, Where was it ever heard of, either in the Christian or Pagan world, that it was ever permitted to any Minister or Preacher, to have all the Pulpits in any Nation to preach a diverse doctrine to that whi●h is set up by authority, and such as tends to make a faction and division amongst the people? I do most assuredly believe, that there cannot the like precedent be produced. So you. No? What say you of that precedent of the Apostles, who in the Temple daily preached a diversed doctrine, to that of the Pharisees? So of John Baptist. So of Christ. And this in Judea, which was a Parallel at least to a national Christian Church, only that was originally founded upon divine institution, but this not so. And for the Pagan World, what innumerable precedents are there, of preaching the Gospel, and constituting of Churches, even throughout the Pagan world? And all this divers to that which was set up by man's authority, whether Jewish, or Paganish. And as our Brother here, so did the High Priests in their counsels charge the Apostles, saying, 
* Act. 5. 28.  ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine. A new Doctrine, a new Truth, a new Light. So Act. 24. 5. Tertullus, with his rhetoric, being feed by the High Priest and the Elders, makes a declamation against Paul, saying, we have found this m●m●… pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarens. And this word Nazarens, signifies the sect of Saparatists, of whom the Apostle is there maliciously marked, as the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ the ringleader. The like outcry we have, Act. 21. 28. Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the Law, and this place, &c. Nor want we a Pagan precedent, Act. 19 26 where Diana's silver-shrine-maker, what a dust he raiseth in the whole city, saying; ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying, that they be no Gods which be made with hands. Thus you see Paul, and the other Apostles, and Evangelists, found Pulpits everywhere, both among the Jews and Gentiles, though they preached a divers doctrine, to that set up by authority. And must Christ have no other doctrine or Church-government in the world, then that which is set up by the world's authority? Surely, this is a new light indeed, if a light at all; a new doctrine, diverse to that which Christ hath set up by his divine authority. But this doctrine (say you) tends to make a faction and division among the people. And did Paul's, and the Apostles doctrine escape the scourge of this whip? Note all the places forecited, with many more throughout the New Testament, and all ages, where the Gospel in its purity and power is preached. But one thing more I must not pass, without a note. How doth our Brother make good his exclamation: Was it ever beard of either in the Christian or Pagan world, that it was ever permitted to Preachers, to have all the Pulpits in a Nation to preach a divers doctrine, & c? And is it so indeed? Have we all the Pulpits in the kingdom? I hope your Brother T. E. by his pen and preaching, and you by your pen, will take an order for that, that we shall not have all the Pulpits, no nor any at all with your good will witness that late misrule at your town of Colchester, upon your Books, and T. E. his preaching. And therefore this may be placed among your Grolleries.  
And for the Jewish Synagogues tolerated among the Heathen, 
Ibid.  if we may not have the Pulpits, good now envy us not our Synagogues. Be not worse to us, than the heathen were, and are, as you give us sundry examples, pag. ibid. 138.  
Page 140 you call the people of the Presbyterian Independent Congregation, a company of wild geese. But we are not yet come to your Postscript; Where Pag. 14. you call them silly goslings following the old goose. Yet here you acknowledge that the Elders have oftentimes great abilities of wit, and scholarship, learning and eloquence: which in your Postscript you universally strip them of, except only two for breed.  
The rest of your book to the end, being all along overgrown with nettles, stinging upon every touch, and the sharper still, the nearer it draws to the Postscript, (as, Worse than 
* Page 139.  Diotrephes, or the Pope▪ 
* Page 144.  most diabolical Tyranny, Lording it over God's Clergies, 
* Page 149.  Fellows of Gotham college, not knowing their Prim●r in politics, nor their catechism in divinity, and the like) we gladly pass ove● untouched, as being all prickles, and no pith. Only one sharper than all the rest, I may not be unaware of, which you call, the weapon of 
Page 149.  the left hand, namely, the sword, which you would have the Magistrate to take up to suppress our Brethren the Independents (as you style them) calling that man a Ninny, and a man unworthy to sit in counsel in any State, that should say with Gamaliel, refrain from these men, for if their work, or counsel be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest ye be found fighters against God; and so let them go on to do mischief. For herein (say you) Gamaliel spoke neither as a wise man, nor as a Christian. Thus our Brother drawing near the end of this his book, hath drawn it so low near the bottom, that the very lees of it begin to run a-tilt, and that remains, is reserved to be poured forth in the Postscript.  

The Postscript.  
THis whole Postscript is a very C●nto & farrago, or hodgepodge of invectives, sarcasms, scurrilous scoffs, incendiary incentives to stir up the State, and all sorts of people, to root out, and cut off all those that are of the Independent way, as they call it. I shall only note some of his passages all along, to prevent (if it may be) the nauseousness of the Reader by brevity.  
And first in his Defence against calumnies, being in way of a Preface to his Postscript.  
Page 2. They affirmed (saith he) that I was the greatest Incendiary in the kingdom, and that they would prove it; and page 4. they calumniate me as the greatest incendiary of the kingdom, which they accused me of before they had seen my book; and I have been freed from that reproach by both Houses of Parliament, who adjudged all my sufferings unjust.  
Answ. But now they may bring your book for a proof and witness, whether you be not one of the greatest Incendiaries in the Land. And for this I shall quote but two places, as two witnesses for confirmation hereof. The first is in your Preface, pag. 28. They (Always meaning the Independents) have the sword now in their hand, and they think their party strong enough to encounter any adverse and opposing party, and they profess they care not how soon they come to cutting of throats, and speak of nothing but the slanghtering and butchering of the Presbyterians. And therefore there is just cause given us to think we may expect better quarter from the very enemies, then from the Independents. The second witness is (Postscript pag. 45.) That they were all resolved to have the liberty of their Consciences, or else they would make use of their swords, which they have already in their hands.  
Now these two witnesses of your own, want but a Judge, judicially to pronounce sentence, whether these words be not of an incendiary nature, and that in a high degree. For who so blind, as doth not clearly see these fiery flashes and flames to fly in the face of that Army, which God hath honoured with many crowns of admirable victories, both at York, at Nasby, and at Lamport, with the recovery of Leicester, Bridgewater, Bath, &c. so as God hath made this despised Army the Preservative of city and country, the 
* Isa. 58. 2.  Repairer of the breach, the restorer of the paths to dwell in. But do they profess the butchery of the Presbyterians? Produce them; bring your witnesses. These words are not to be borne. But I leave the judgement thereof to the wisdom and justice of the Parliament, whose former freeing of you, extends not to clear your words from being incendiary.  
And further to discover your spirit against those Worthies in 
Postsc. Page 68  the Army, you go about to eclipse the glory of that famous victory at Marston m●ore. For, speaking contemptuously of it, you say, Some of the Independents stood to it in the battle of York, when other of them run away; for they ran as well as others; and if they be not liars, all the other Independents had run away too, and left the field, if they had known what had happened in the other parts of the Army. So you, with many other words of elevation, and slighting that party, by whose noble prowess, and undaunted courage, God was pleased to give the victory, and even then when a great body of the Army deserted the field. And whereas you say, they saw not the flight, else they would have fled too for company, if (say you) they be not liars; or if you say true. But I can produce those that were actors in that battle, and are no Independents, that affirm, there was no running away at all, of those whose valour you so vilify; yea, though they did perceive how the matter went with some, as when a whole body flies, a thing with no great difficulty to be discerned. The rest of your vilifications so much exaggerated upon these men, are so nauseous, as every ingenuous Reader will loathe them. And notorious is that you say, as by experience, 
Ibid. pag. 68  I know not any Independent in England (two only excepted) that do not as maliciously and impla●ably hate the Presbyterians, as the mortalest enemies they have in the world. Now surely were all the Presbyterians in England of your spirit, though the Independents would not maliciously hate you, as Presbyterians, yet cause you would give them sufficient to beware of you, as of their mortalest enemies in the world. And you boldly conclude, saying; It is a 
Ibid.  mere faction, and the most pharisaical, proud, envious, and malicious sect, that ever sprung up; doing all out of an arrogant faction; as cunning as Gypsies, &c. Now the Lord rebuke the railing Rabshakees.  
Pag. 4. He commends the King's Cavaliers for brave Gentlemen; and he found more favour (which he doth ever acknowledge for a singular courtesy) then ever he found from Protestant Gaolers. Was it that you discovered unto them some of that bitterness of spirit against the Independents, or some courtly compliance with Papists, preferring them before Independents or Protestants, that made those Popish Cavaliers so much to applaud you?  
But do the Independents accuse your book, as worthy to be 
Ibid.  burnt by the common hangman, and that you are crazed in your brain? Surely, there is so much fire in the bowels of your book, (as in the Trojan horse) that a wonder it is, it hath not all this while set itself on fire, & with itself (like that tongue in James 3.) the whole frame of nature. And for your brain, you may do well to use your physical inspection.  
Page 7. Neither have I (say you) forgot, that I was a sufferer, or am now a persecutor of the Saints, as they calumniate me. It were well if you would forget & forgo to be a persecutor of the Saints, and that upon your repentance God would forgive you, as those Saints are ready to do. There is no greater persecution, then that 
Psal. 57 4. Jer. 18. 18. Gal. 4.  of the tongue and pen, sharper than swords and spears. No sorer persecution than Esau's scoffs, and the Jews tongue-smitings. But most transcendent from a brother, a companion in tribulations, a familiar friend. Et tu Brute? And yet all your scoffs and hard speeches, and bitter reproachings of those, whom you must needs confess to be Saints, will not amount to the least Item of persecution. That were pity. What think you of the like speech the late Prelate of Canterbury used in his 
* Relation of a Conference. Epist. Dedic.  book to the King? God forbid (saith he) that I should persuade persecution in any kind, or practise it in the least. Did this protestation (trow you) clear him from being a notorious, yea, unparalleled Persecutor? Witness both your ears and mine. But you do but oppose the Saints heresies and 
Ibid.  novelties in Religion. But must that needs be heresy, which you account heresy? Or that novelty, which appears so to those that measure things rather by custom, than truth? And do you not no less oppose, vilify, disgrace, jeer, and scoff at their persons? 
Defence, pag 4.  Do you not call them 
* Postsc. 41.  Beasts? 
* Postsc. 12. 32. 34. 36. 38.  Grolls? Puffoists? Wild geese? Old geese? a company of Jugglers? Sticklers against Parliament and Presbytery? a generation of cunning and crafty jugglers? cunning deceivers? and fighters against God? violaters of all the laws of God and Nature? the most dangerous sect that ever yet the world produced? a company of rats among joined stools? Despisers of Magistracy? a generation of men, not worthy to give guts to a bear? Moone-calves? All the Independents put together, have 
Page 54. Ibid. 58. Defence p. 30 Postsc. 61. Pag. 66. 69.  not so much learning as any one of a thousand other Ministers? A wheelbarrow (such as they trundle White-wine-vinegar on) fitter for them then a Coach? Stirring up all along Magistrates and People to cut them off? making them odious to the Scots? speaking nothing but daggers, and daring? and what not? Now is all this no opposing of the Persons of those you call Independents?  
To conclude all: You tell us a story of some that fight against 
Pag. 43, 44, 45.  their Christian brethren; and to that end in the frontispieces of their Books set down Christ's words, Mat. 10. 34, 35, 36. think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword, &c. Well: what of this? Out of which words, misunderstood (say you) they would persuade the people, and make them believe, that they have good warrant and ground to fight against their Christian brethren, for the maintenance of their own Whimsies. But Brother, who is this you speak of? Who hath done thus? They? What they? You put it in the plural, In their frontispieces. You know, Dolosus v●rsatur in universalibus. But is it in any more than one only frontispiece? And have more than one done it? And what one? You describe him (pag. 44.) as not knowing his name, but one who is no Novice, Younker, and freshwater soldier, but a grave man with a great white basket-hilted beard. Why, Brother, what needed all these periphrases and circumlocutions? You might much more honestly, ingenuously, and candidly have said, My brother Burton, then thus slily and disgracefully to take him by the beard, or Serpent-like, to come behind him, and bite him by the heel. But this is not all. How comes it, that you fasten upon your Brother such a false gloss, as that he should persuade the people, and make them believe, that from Christ's words, they have good warrant and ground to fight against their Christian brethren? Brother, I must needs here challenge you of extreme violation, not only of brotherly charity, but even of the laws of common humanity. Do you (out of no other ground but mere malice, as all the world must needs judge) hatch a cockatrice-egg, a senseless, whimsy in your own brain, and then lay your dead child by me, and take my living child from me, as you have done, in framing your own false sense, and putting it for mine, and taking my true sense, and making it your own? Brother, What's become, I say not of your brotherhood, but of your manhood? Or did you think to cover yourself with your own Cobweb, that the palpable nakedness of your shiftless and shameless affront should not be seen? Surely, this is enough, not only to discover the hollow of your heart, but the shallow of your brain, and to bring in the verdict of the whole Universe, that you are a man, not only whose heart is divided, but whose head is, &c. salve it as you can. Now the Lord Jesus Christ reprove you for this, and give you repentance for this your more than unnatural dealing, that I may not say diabolical, certainly not Christian, even your best friends being Judges.  
And for the grollery and dotage you put upon your brother, (ibid. and pag. 45.) as abusing the Scripture, when yourself most grossly abuse both it and him; assure yourself, your brother is not yet come to that dotage, but for all your vauntings on your part, and vilifying of his, he dare, through the help of Christ, deal with Dr. Bastwick hand to hand, as neither admiring your learning, nor envying your Roman buff, wherein your chief strength most lieth, except in your scoffing, scurrilous, malicious bitter biting; yea, bloody language, in which faculty, as facile princeps, you do so tripudiate and glory.  
But in your last Book, which you style (but how justly) A just Defence, 
Page 21.  &c. you would seem to teach us another rule to walk by, which it seems you had not then learned, when you writ your Postscript: We ought not (say you) per latus unius totam gentem perstringere▪ you tell the Liev. Colonel, that he should not have condemned the whole council for a few, but should have singled them out, and by name have aspersed them▪ And why did not you then rather call me by my name, as your brother Burton (as our brother Prynne hath done) then to hale me out by my great white basket-hilted beard, as some hideous Monster, or ridiculous spectacle to the world? And whereas (ibid.) you 
Page ibid.  add, that you have written nothing in your books against the Independents, wherein you can be convinced of a lie: For (say you) I write nothing in my books against the Independents, but what upon my own knowledge I can affirm to be true, yea, depose it too. Now to go no further than this one instance of your dealing with me (aliâs your brother) in fathering upon me such a damnable and diabolical gloss, being the spurious brat of your own brain; What say you? Do you know it of your own knowledge to be so, that because I set that Scripture in the front of my book, therefore my meaning was, hereby to persuade the people, and make them believe, that they have good warrant and ground to fight 
Postscript, pag. 43, 44.  against their Christian brethren for the maintenance of their own Whimsies? They be your own words, and you may take the whimsies in to boot. Now, did I ever so persuade the people, or make them believe so? Nay, I will put it to your own conscience (as hoping you have so much left) whether in your conscience you can so much as once imagine, that your brother could ever have the least thought that way, or the least word tending thereunto; wherein I challenge that, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the accuser of the brethren 
Rev. 12. 10.  himself, whose Scholar I wish not you to be. As for that other passage of your said book (pag. 39) to let pass many other; as touching your Independent-Pastor, it is as false as sly, do you and your reverend brother try it when you will.   

An Appendix.  
WHerein is touched the main point of difference between the two Parties, classical or national, and congregational: Our brother, Mr. William Pryn, whose latter books (Truth triumphing, &c. and A fresh Discovery, &c.) I have merely (God is my record) out of tenderness to the present state of things, forborn to answer, hath sundry times in those books objected principally those words in my Vindication, concerning Christ's kingly office over the Churches and consciences of his people: as in Truth triumphing, pag. 112, 113. and in his Fresh Discovery, pag. 4. in these words, Mr. Henry Burton, in his Vindication of Churches, commonly called Independent, &c.  
The Church is a spiritual kingdom, whose only King is Christ, and not man; it is a spiritual republic, whose only lawgiver is Christ, and not man: A spiritual house, whose only builder and governor is Christ: A spiritual Corporation, whose only head is Christ, and not man. No man, or power on earth, hath a kingly power over this kingdom; no earthly lawgiver may give laws for the government of this republic; no man can, or aught, to undertake the government of this communion of Saints; no human Power or Law may intermeddle to prescribe rules for the government or form of this spiritual House, NOT counsels, NOT SENATES. This is Christ's royal Prerogative, which is uncommunicable to ANY, TO ALL THE POWERS ON EARTH. He adds my words, pag. 60, 61. we challenge you to show us any Parliament, council, Synod, ever since the Apostles, that could, or can say thus, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us, so to determine controversies of Religion, to make and impose Canons to bind all men, &c. show this to us at this time, and we will obey. But if you cannot, as you never can, never let any man press upon us that Scripture, that Synod, (Acts 15.) which hath no parallel in the whole world; and so is no precedent or pattern for any counsels, Synods, Parliaments.  
Thus our brother sees down the words, here and there with capitals, as if so many capital crimes. But the worst of all is, that he ranks them under the head of his first Section, containing divers seditious, scandalous, libellous passages against the Authority and Jurisdiction of Parliaments, Synods, and temporal Magistrates in general, in ecclesiastical affairs, in the late writings of several Independent New-lights, and Firebrands; so runs the Title of the Section, under which he marshals those my words, as if Christ could not be sole King, Lord, and lawgiver over his own spiritual kingdom in the souls and assemblies of his Saints, but this doctrine must needs be seditious, scandalous, and the writers thereof libellous, against civil authority, yea, firebrands, and what not? How more equal was the Heathen Emperor Domitian, though the 
Eusebius Eccles. Hist.  Author of the second Persecution, who though he laboured utterly to extirpate and extinguish all the natural kindred of Christ, because he heard that Christ was a King, fearing thereby the overthrow of his Empire; yet understanding afterward, by two of Christ's nearest kinsmen brought before him, being but poor men, and who got their living by hard labour in husbandry, how that Christ was a King indeed, but his kingdom was not of this world, but heavenly: the Emperor hereupon, (as the Story saith) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, ceased the Persecution against the Church, by calling in his imperial Decree. I wish our brother would more seriously consider, not only of this famous example of an Heathen Emperor, but also upon what sound reason it is grounded: as namely, upon such a distinct specifical difference between these two kingdoms, the celestial and the terrestrial, as that in no sort they may be confounded, or compounded into one terrene kingdom, unless you will set up a papal power, an Harmophrodite-government, with Ecce duo gladii hîc, Behold here two swords, which the Pope 
Bon face 8.  caused to be carried before him in solemn procession the two first days of his new erected Jubilee.  
And for my challenge alleged by him, it stands good still, till he can prove those words, in the end of his Truth triumphing, true, where your words are, we cannot but in Christian charity expect and believe, that all the Assembly and Parliament resolve on, may have inscribed on its front, IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND us. And then again, 
Acts 15.  you must prove your reason good, whereupon you infer this conclusion; namely, because there be in the Parliament and Assembly, at least some true nathaniel's and Stephens, filled with the Holy Ghost, and so many armies of prayers in the Spirit daily sent up to heaven, to bring down that Spirit of truth upon them. But can a few, at least some nathaniel's, among so many, carry the matters by vote, if they be many that contra-vote? You know things go sometimes in counsels, rather by number then weight, rather by tale, than truth. I doubt, whether if the true nathaniel's and zealous Stephens should bear the sway, it would not well please, at least our 
* D. B. In his Independency not God's Ordinance, p. 149. Acts 5. 38, 39, 40, 31.  brother Bastwick's palate, who altogether condemneth Gamaliel and his counsel, whereby he persuaded and swayed the whole Synedrion to refrain from Peter and John, for peaching Christ, saving only that they escaped not a scourging. For further answer to my dear brother, I shall forbear till a fitter season.  
In the mean time, I shall conclude with the words of my brother Bastwick, which he delivers as the confession of the faith of the Church of England, concerning Christ's kingly office; and so consequently of his own faith. That Jesus Christ is the only and sole King, and governor of the whole universe, to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, Matth. 28. but more especially of his Church, who by God himself was set King over his holy mountain, Psal. 2. 6. And that he is King of righteousness, Hebr. 7. The King eternal, Isai. 9 The King of kings, and Lord of lords, Apoc. 17. and that he doth by his mighty power and wisdom, uphold and govern all things, but with a more peculiar care, and a more special manner preserve and defend his Church, 1 Tim. 4. 10. as that which he hath purchased with his precious blood, and by his power redeemed out of the captivity and slavery of Satan; and that he is the head of his Church, which is the body, who infuseth life into it; righteousness, peace, joy, happiness, and all the graces of wisdom and knowledge of God with certainty and assurance of his love; and that his kingdom and Empire is a spiritual and heavenly kingdom, no terrene and fading Monarchy, Joh. 18. 38. Luke 1. 33. and is upheld and governed ONLY by the sceptre of his Spirit and Word, and not by the authority, virtue or wisdom of any human power. Thus Dr. Bastwick, and that after all his bitter reproaches cast upon his Independents, who hang all that which he calls Independency upon this sole hinge; namely, That Christ's kingdom and Empire, is a spiritual and heavenly kingdom, no terrene and fading Monarchy; and is upheld and governed ONLY by the sceptre of his Spirit and Word, and not by the authority, virtue or wisdom of any human power. Now if Dr. Bastwick will hold to his words and writing, he must needs confess, that Christ is no titular or Pageant Prince (as before) but real and indeed: And therefore his kingdom is not to be governed according to the various and variable laws and customs of earthly kingdoms, commonwealths, Countries; but by the Only sceptre of his Spirit and Word; Otherwise the spiritual kingdom and the temporal must be confounded together, and become one kingdom, and then must either the spiritual become terrene and transitory, or else the temporal become eternal, and so make up one Babylan, Roma aetern●, confusion and blasphemy.  
And for a close, to satisfy my brother Prynne's Question, What I mean by so much asserting Christ's Kingly office, as sole Head, governor, lawgiver of his Churches, I mean, he is the sole immediate King. And the proofs are from solid Scripture, the sole rule of faith: As Isai. 8. 20. and 29. 13. Hos. 5. 11. Matth. 15. 6, 7, 8, 9 Mar. 7. 7. And our brother confesseth these Scriptures but in part, by joining thereto the laws and customs of Kingdoms and Common-weals, as a partial rule, if not rather paramount to the sacred, Canon; as Rome acknowledgeth the Scripture to be the rule of faith, but partial, joining thereto her own traditions; and so ● thereby, as the Pharisees of old, make the Word of God of no effect, through human Traditions, laws, Decrees, customs, Manners of men, Prince and People, Protestants and Papists, as well under Queen Mary and her Parliament, as under Queen Elizabeth and hers; and so Regis ad exemplum: as the Prince and Pope, or State is affected, well or ill, Christ's kingdom, must Chameleon-like, change both complexion and constitution. And if this satisfy not my brother, let him be pleased to read over my Vindication once again, wherein he may clearly see, how the Scripture all along sets up Christ as the only governor and lawgiver of his Church, excluding all human wisdom and Power, from intermeddling in the regulating of his kingdom, by man's Lesbian Rule.   
FINIS.