CERTAIN QUERES Modestly (though plainly) Propounded to such as affect the Congregational-way, And specially To Master Samuel Eton and Mr. Timothy Taylor.  
WITH AN EPISTLE Also directed to them Concerning their late Book Entitled A Defence of sundry Positions, etc.  
BY Richard Hollinworth, Mancuniensis.  
You shall not turn aside to the right hand, or to the left.  Deut. 5. 
If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them,  Isai. 8.20. 
If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness?  Matth. 6. 
London, Printed by Ruth Raworth for Luke Fawn, and are to be sold at the sign of the Parrot in Paul's Churchyard. 1646.   

THE EPISTLE.  
Reverend and beloved Brethren,  
I Have perused your defence lately Printed (which how able or unable to justify Independency, or to vindicate the Positions and Scriptures, time may discover.) At present I have these few things to advertise you of.  
First, you charge me with provoking you to be my Antagonists in Print 
a In the Epistle. ; from which, I was so far, that when others (rather than myself) thought fit the Examination of sundry Scriptures, etc. (which for the most part was an Answer to some Allegations, as they were privately made to me for satisfaction) should be Printed, I gave special charge that neither my own name, nor the name of Manchester, much less the name of other persons and places should be inserted at length, in, or before the Book (though some few Copies came out otherwise) lest I should seem either to provoke persons, or reveal secrets.  
The deep and heavy charge (as you call it b) in the first part of my Preface against misinterpretation of Scripture, as a belying of God, counterfeiting the King of King's hand, etc. (Though I now see how I have sped) I repent not of, nor see I cause why you should repine at it, or complain of it, if you have clearly manifested (as in your Title page you say you have) the Positions and Scriptures alleged for your Churchway, and by me examined, to be sufficient, pertinent, and full of power.  
And yet I find myself deeply and heavily charged by you, To deprave places, to blot and blur sweet humble spirited, holy pertinent expressions, to wrong the Elders of N. E. to wrest allegations, etc. Yea, though I said, I will not tell you who said All the Church is holy, ye take too much upon you: Yet you think it not unworthy my serious consideration, Whether it might not be said to me, as sometimes Christ said to one of the twelve, when he asked, Master Is it I, and he answered Thou hast said 
c Psa. 85.15. , (a bitter personal invective) What is your beloved brother, your good brother, as a Judas or Corah, Dathan, & c? I hope in this (to say no more) we neither are, nor shall be Brethren, and desire an humble modest Christian Contestation with you, which are (in your own phrase) my Antagonists in Print in this grave controversy; and withal calmly to consider (what I spoke in relation to your cause, not to any person) whether investing non-Elders with Ministerial power, placing Church power in the body of the Congregation, and complaining of the Elders that rule over them in the Lord, for taking too much upon them, be not the gainsaying of Corah, a sin of the new as well as of the old Testament? Whereof if I be guilty, I justly bear this reproach; if not, you have much wronged me; but God hath sent you to do it, from whom I deserve much worse, though not from you any evil.  
The usual occasion of your censures of depraving places, etc. is a wide (I hope) not a willing mistake in you, and not any iniquity in my hands or heart. You expect the Positions and Scriptures alleged, to agree fully and exactly with the places cited in the Margin, which I neither professed, nor intended, nor could effect without some (in mine opinion unfitting) alterations of them as they were alleged to me. But on the contrary for evidence, that I followed another rule then the Printed Books (as at the first coming out of my Book, I advertised one of your Brethren) I sometimes alleged no Book at all, even where you know I might as Pos. 4. Other times, that by comparing Arguments that otherwise came to hand with the Printed Books, I might probably intimate from whence they were taken, and also evidence the truth of what I said in my Preface, That Independency for the most part produceth the same Texts in Print, which she did in Preaching, Writing and Conference. I alleged Printed Books the Bystanders mentioned in the Preface with these or the like clauses, 
See your own Defence, p. 1, 13, 14, 46, 78, 90.  See almost the same Argument verbatim. The like you have. This though not so fully. This seems to be taken out of. These Scriptures are alleged though not with such tartness, etc. And sometimes I alleged for one Position (the second for example) two or three Printed Books, differing possibly more than in phrase one from another, which are so evident signs, that I tied not myself to the Printed Books, that I cannot but wonder that you did not observe it, which had you done, you needed not to have fought so earnestly and frequently with your own fiction; for if it be acknowledged that the Scriptures alleged witness no such thing as they are produced for, (whether they be in Printed Books or no) I (as I told you in my Preface) have my full end.  
You have also either to bring an odium upon me, or the cause I plead, sprinkled here and there, both unlovingly and unnecessarily some secret intimations of affecting Prelacy, whereas I in the worst times was not so much, or no more Prelatical than the greatest and godliest Independents in the Kingdom, if not at least one of you have been (though what ever I was or am, that is no Answer to my Arguments) nor do I plead the cause of Prelacy which we have Covenanted to endeavour to the utmost to extirpate: But of the Government of the Reformed Churches which we have Covenanted to defend against the common enemy, maintained by godly, learned men, our betters, known opposers of Prelacy, which have obtained a good report in Manchester, and the parts about it, viz. Master Burn of Manchester, Master Gosnol of Boulton, Master Fleetwood of Wigan, both Master Midsley's of Rachdal, Master Storer of Stockport, Master Hildersham of Ashby, Master Herring of Shrowesbury, Master Ball of Whitmore, Master John Paget (to omit his Brother Master Thomas Paget, and multitudes of others now alive) Master Hunt of Oldham, Master Rathband of Cockey, Master Gee of Newton, Master ●ilecoat of Stretford, etc.  
Nor is the Presbyterian-way, a Prelatical-way, but a Social-way, as between Friends, Colleagues, Confederates, Brethren; where all judge, and all are judged, all things done communi consilio; where no Congregation is above another Congregation, no Minister above another Minister; though the major part of them (as of the spirits of the Prophets to the prophets, and of Congregational Members, though equal one to another) be about the minor part; where every Elder is left to enjoy the Office of an Elder, and each Congregation left to the freedom of the Congregation, in what belongs to them, and they able to perform; where Presbyteries Classes, Synods of the same Congregations, or their Commissioners in matters of common concernment, do strengthen and help particular Congregations, walking according to the rule, and reduce such as walk not in truth and peace, but are leavened with error and variance; and Elders upon a call, do teach, and rule, and perform all Ministrations with reference to, and the best advantage of the whole Church of Christ, though more specially of those parts of it, to which they are most related.  
Also, I cannot but observe, that there is a difference between your Title-page, in which you say indefinitely, That the Positions and Scriptures alleged (not some or many of them) by me examined, are sufficient, pertinent, and full of power, and are manifested, yea, clearly manifested so to be; and some other passages in your Book, in which you disclaim the places applied to Pos. 23. as it is by me controverted, and are confident they are not found in the Works of any Congregational man. 
d P. 105.  And Pos. 15. after the Allegation of some Authorities, in stead of answering a Text (upon which, the distinction of Pastors and Teachers is grounded) you the one, a Teacher, and the other Pastor, conclude, If we do put a false gloss upon the Scripture, by misinterpreting of Ephes. 4.11. yet more modest language (let any man find immodestly in that examination, if he can) had become you brother, seeing such Reverend and Learned men, whom yourself so much honour, have gone before us in this Exposition 
e Pag. 7. ult. . So Pos. 19 do you clearly manifest, or so much as assert, that the Text Matth. 18. (what ever other Texts do) doth prove, That the Church must be Congregational. Pos. 20. have you clearly manifested that Matth. 16. proves that the Keys were given to Peter to be used by him (for you could not but know that to be the meaning) as a Disciple or Believer, not as an Officer 
f Pa. 93. 1. . Pos. 12. have you clearly manifested that Col. 4.17. proves the Church's power to censure her Officers, when the best Arguments you bring to prove Archippus his faultiness (without which it was no censure) amounts but to a strong presumption 
g Pa. 59 l. 14. , and that you know is a weak proof, So Pos. 2. have you clearly manifested from Adam's family, that seven, eight or nine, make a Church, when for any thing you Answer, Adam's family was no more a Church when they were seven or eight, then when they were but two or three, and do acknowledge (notwithstanding your clear manifestation) that God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church 
h P. 10. lin. 14, 33, 34. . Also methinks you have not manifestly cleared, that Revel 8.8, 9 is sufficient and full of power against settled endowments in the Church; of which Text you say Our brethren present their Exposition, as probable; they force the Interpretation upon no man. And Pos. 7. you do not manifestly clear that 2 Cor. 8.5. doth pertinently and powerfully prove, that every Member at his admission, doth promise to give himself 
i P. 68 l. 12.  to the Church to be guided by them, when you say The practice of the Churches of Macedonia by way of allusion is made use of; and the Argument is a comparatis: 
k P 44. l. 18.  For you know Allusions and Comparisons are not Argumentative. And Pos. 13. instead of clear manifestation of Minister's maintenance out of the Stock of the Church, you say, We think we see most warrant for it from the New Testament; and as most probable once disputed it; but neither then nor now are we peremptory in it 
l P. 61. l. 5, 6, 7. . Finally, to omit more instances, when you say, We think, We conceive it is probable, etc. or do never so confidently assert any of the several Positions, and do not prove the same by the several Texts respectively alleged, nor clear the said Texts from all the Objections made against your Exposition (one material Objection unanswered, being enough to invalidate the same) you afford so many Arguments to any wise Reader, that you have not clearly manifested the Positions and Scriptures (where such speeches are found) to be sufficient, etc.  
As for your pretending to prove some Positions and Practices by other Scriptures and Arguments (which makes your Book swell so big:) Suppose you should really so prove them, yet that (as to mine intent expressed in the Preface) is but a bymatter; For Positions and Practices may be true and lawful, and yet not truly nor lawfully grounded on the Texts alleged; and if I answer them, and you produce other new ones, we shall contend in infinitum, and not come to any issue. I could wish we might keep close to the Scriptures and Positions alleged, till they be one way or other cleared, and then we may more safely and orderly proceed to other Scriptures and Arguments.  
If the Positions and Scriptures be so clearly sufficient, why do you not directly Answer the Examination, but obliquely and evadingly, in sundry places? For instance, in the very first words of your first Reply, when I allege one thing, viz. That the Apostles never taught or practisied, to gather or separate one part of this true Church, and another part of that (especially persons which themselves converted not) to make a purer Church: You answer of another thing, which was never denied. viz. The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews, and gathered them into a Christian Church, while yet the Jewish Church (you say) was not dissolved, but was a Church of God.  
But suppose you did solidly prove that the Church of the Jews was then a true Church: Yet first it was not a Christian Church, nor are the Reformed Churches and Ministers to be compared to the than Jewish Church and the Priests thereof, and you should prove Separation from a Christian Church.  
Secondly, It was but one Church, and you should show gathering out of several Churches.  
Thirdly, It was only of those Jews which they converted to Christianity from unconverted Jews; and you should show the gathering of Christians converted by others from other Christians converted, as well as they, and (possibly) from those persons by whom they were converted.  
Fourthly, That Church was then by God's Commandment to be dissolved, and many Churches to be built upon its ruins; and therefore doth no more warrant the building of one Christian Church upon the ruin of other true Christian Churches, than the Parliaments Commission (if there were such a one) to the Inhabitants of Derby Hundred to take down Latham house to build them houses of, doth warrant any one of the said Inhabitants to take as many good stones as he can come by out of this, that, and the other Neighbours houses, concerning which they gave no such commandment: Your not bringing a more punctual and pertinent proof, argues either an implicit confession of the Truth of my Answer, or inability to oppugn it. A little after you discover too much willingness to quarrel at my Expressions, 
Pag. 6. l. 20, 25.  wherein you say I would suggest that you make Opposition to Magistracy. But doth not Master Weld a Congregational man, when Master Rathband chargeth Independents to hold that Christians may and aught to set up new Churches, and practise in them all God's Ordinances, without the consent of a Christian state, yea, against their peremptory commands and established Laws, and in the midst, and against the mind of such Churches as they freely acknowledge the true Churches of God, say of this Article, No Pen can express a greater latitude of Opposition against Magistracy, and Laws, and Churches too, than he affirms to be in us. Do not I use his own words? Print them in a different Character, cite him in the Margin? (which citation you (for what ends you know best) leave out as you do many others) should you not blame Master Weld, or yourselves, rather than me? This is but one example of many.  
And whereas according to rule and reason, he that affirms that such a Scripture holds forth such a Position, must prove it: You have a faculty, and make much use of it, when I show you where the proof of the Position from the Text alleged is defective, and require you to supply that defect, to turn it over to me to prove the contrary: As 1 Cor. 16.1. when I say the Churches of Galatia might for aught you allege to the contrary, be combined one to another. The substance of your Answer to this passage is, Without proof we cannot grant them (id est, Combinations of Churches) in Galatia: And (that you may more plausibly put the business off yourselves) you leave out the words, For ought you allege to the contrary.  
Finally, because charges of you for your indirect deal without instances to make them good, are but weak; and Instances of the several kinds would too much enlarge this Epistle, I will now omit them.  
And yet one thing being a great wrong to me, and to the Truth of God, I cannot pass by, viz. That you oftimes curtal and clip my Answers and Arguments, not only the Supplement (which yet in a large Answer to a little Book in a Twelvemonths time, is scarce allowable) being in my close stile very little; but also part of the substance and strength of them, sometimes folding them up in obscure, etc. where (you know) they cannot be read, sometimes omitting them with a censure (as the seven particulars in Pos. 24.) lest the Reader (had you transcribed them) should have expected an Answer, sometimes not giving any hint or intimation of any thing omitted: For example, to omit the other places (for if they were all transcribed, they would augment this Epistle in sundry pages, though my whole Examination (your Positions deducted) scarcely amounts to thirteen Leaves.) Out of my Examination of Pos. 6. a main passage, viz. Gods Covenanting with Abraham, did not impose nor suppose an express vocal Covenant on Abraham's part, etc. And out of my Examination of Pos. 7. the principal part of my Answer, It is not said that they gave themselves to the Church or Churches, but to us, viz. Paul and Timothy, etc. And out of my Examination, Pos. 22. my whole Answer to Revel. 4.14. are by an Index Expurgatorius quite blotted out.  
Brethren, let me with love and meekness reason with you; Do not you when you find the shadow of such dealing in me, much complain of it? Is it not one error under the Sun (and a great one too) in men, and perhaps in some good men, that they will strive for victory rather than truth? Do not you omit that which you know to be pertinent, while you transcribe, and largely Answer some thing less pertinent? You know many will read your Reply, that possibly will never see my Answer; and would you make them to believe that to those Scriptures alleged in the Position, and published by myself, I should Answer either nothing at all, or no more, or otherwise then you set them down, that they may account me not only weak (as I am) but ridiculous? Is this the fault of the Printer (who hath committed few other Erratas, and left out I suppose none of your Reply) or is it your fault, who say in your Epistle, You think I will confess your candour? Surely, Either the Printer or the Publisher, have not dealt kindly, nor candidly, but deceitfully with me, and the Reader. Cannot your cause or some particular of it, be maintained without such dealing? Is this the way to clear manifestly the Positions and Scriptures to be sufficient, pertinent, and full of power, by leaving out the Examination of them in whole or in part?  
Thus I have signified unto you some of those plain things, which at the first reading of your Book appreared, to me; and have also sent you some Queres prepared, and shown to some of your Brethren, and (possibly) to one, or both of you, before the coming out of your Reply, and little altered since, beseeching you to hold out your way (as (you say) you are able) by giving not subtle only, but solid Scriptural or Rational Answers to them all, as they respectively do require, and not to take and leave where you list, nor (seeing you know Quaestie quaestionem non selvit) to return Antiqueries (much less censures) in stead of Answers, which notwithstanding if you shall do, I shall, if God thereunto assist, and his cause and the necessity of the Church do require, endeavour to Answer (when you have first answered these Queres) as also rejoin to your Reply (and that within the time Geometrically proportionable to the time you took in Replying) with more mildness, clearness, and candour, than you (as by this short Epistle every wise Reader will easily see) have used in your Book.  
The God of Truth, and Peace, 
 be with you, and your 
 loving Brother. 
 R. H. November 29. 1645.   

Some Quere's mildly and modestly propounded to such as affect the Congregational-way.  
WHether to be wise, and holy, above or without the Rule, be not folly, profaneness, and presumption?  
Are not unscriptural ways of procuring and preserving Church-purity, as bad as voluntary humility and will-worship?  
Are not humane inventions in God's worship. imposed by a Congregation upon her Members, or freely observed by them, as opposite to the second Commandment (at leastwise in respect of the things themselves) as if the Parliament or Assembly, had imposed or should impose or observe them?  
Are not such humane inventions as are unjustly pretended to be God's Ordinances, so much the more detestable to God and godly wise men, and more unlawful to be submitted to, then if they were plainly professed and practised as Institutions of the Church? Was not Episcopacy the worse when Jus Divinum was stamped on it?  
Whether profession and practice of humane inventions, as a part of God's Worship, or as essential to a Church, a Minister, or Church-Member, was not formerly esteemed, and asserted to be; and is it not still Antichristian impiety, and much liker to procure God's judgements on the Kingdom, than the discovery, confutation, and opposition of them?  
Whether they which in opposition to Presbyterial Government, the Government of the most, and best Reformed Churches, make Disturbance, Divisions, Separations, pretending their way is the Scriptural-way, the only way, must not have as clear, yea, more clear Scriptures for their way, than the other, or else be justly accounted enemies to Truth and Peace?  
Doth the Scripture require the new Constitution of any true Churches, (such as the Reformed Churches are confessed to be) and which already by your confession, have the essence of Constitution, and where doth it require it?  
May not the said Churches be fully reform according to God's Word without a new Constitution?  
Doth the Scripture use the phrase gathering the Church, in the sense that you use it, for the first Constitution or Coalition of a Church?  
By what name or names, is thè said Church Constitution so much urged upon tender consciences, called in Scripture?  
Did the Apostles or Ministers in those days teach or practise, to gather or separate one part of this true Church (of the Jewish Church I speak not, which was then by God's Commandment to be dissolved) and another part of that, yea, persons which themselves converted not to make out of them all a purer Church?  
Did they sever the godly into bodies distinct from others of the same place, professing the same Religion?  
Is it not the Scriptural-way of purging a corrupt Church, to cast out the grossest offenders first (as the Church of Corinth in which were many Schismatics, Heretics, Fornicators, Drunken Communicants, was advised to cast out the incestuous person) that others may hear and fear, etc. And so in case of Heresy and Error, Gal. 5. and 6. First, the Seducers were to be cut off; and they that were overtaken with a fault, to be restored with the spirit of meekness?  
Doth not the setting up of a Church in a Church, and extracting the one out of the other, or out of Churches, imply the incorrigibleness, incurableness, dissolving and disannulling of that Church or Churches, out of which it is extracted?  
Doth mere Separation of Members from a confessed true Church, and Ministry endeavouring to reform according to her Light, without their admonition, assistance in the Work of Reformation, or so much as intimation to the Ministers or Members, free their consciences from the guilt of those corruptions which they judge to be in that Church? Is it not a neglect of Christ's rule, viz. Admonition, Tell him his fault, etc. And the substitution of another in the place, viz. Separation, which is as it were an Excommunication of the Church. and beyond the Rule?  
Whether if seven, eight, nine, ten, twenty, separating voluntatily, yea, sinfully (as if they turn Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists, Antinomians. Arminians) from a Congregation of an hundred, two hundred, or a thousand, do by a particular Covenant combine themselves together, are presently thereupon exempt from the Jurisdiction of that Church, and have as much or more Church power, than they had while they were (as they ought still to have been) Members of the said Church, yea, do become a distinct Independent sister Church?  
Whether Women (at least Widows and Maids, that are sui juris) be not engaged to-seek the participation of all God's Ordinances; as well as men, and bound to join in Church-Covenant, whether any considerable number of men, or any men at all do join with them or no?  
Had Paul converted those Women to whom he preached; Acts 16.13. which could not be brought into an Organical Congregation: can it be conceived that they (though Baptised) were still without? were not their children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy, having right to Baptism?  
If it be essential, that the Church should be at first made up of visible Saints; can a man in Faith join to any Church, or being joined, bear Office, submit to Censures, or give any Church respect unto her, at the Constitution whereof he was not present, nor knoweth the first Members, or possibly suspecteth them to be unsound, seeing he may well doubt, whether the said Church hath all the Essentials of a Church, or no?  
Is not that which was once Essential to a true Church ever Essential? and is not the matter of a Church, visible Saints, as necessary in the continuation, as in the first constitution of it?  
Was every Member at his admission into the Church in the Apostles times, called to give account of the Work of Grace in his heart? and how is that proved?  
Was the Congregation to judge, and what Congregation in Scripture did so judge whether that work was wrought in his heart or no: and consequently, whether he were to be admitted, or no?  
Did John Baptist: which Baptised Jerusalem, and all Judel, yea, those which he calls Generations of Vipers, Luke 3.7. with 21. and the Disciples of Christ which Baptised more Disciples than John, so much mistake (though they were born and lived amongst them) as to think every of them a true Saint of God? Was this gross mistake the ground of their Baptising so many of them? Did they profane or prostitute the Holy Virgin Ordinance of Baptism in baptising so many thousands, yea, myriads (for they could be no less) amongst whom were so few (very few comparatively,) either real or visible Saints? Should they not have prepared the people better than thus, and let them have walked sometime in fellowship with them for approbation of their Conversation? for so the very Cells of Satan (say some) Monasteries and Nunneries, do before they admit any into their Society?  
Was not the first (if not the only) Church, founded by Christ himself, domestical in Christ's own Family (as the first Jewish Church was in Abraham's Family,) in which, Christ himself, the Master of the house, who chose the Apostles and not they him, was the Priest, Prophet, and Pastor, (as also Adam, Noah, Abraham, in their Families) and in which, the Sacrament was administered and received (which we read not in other Families, called Churches;) and to which, Christ might have added many formerly converted by himself and others, and yet did not; and should or may a family of twelve or thirteen be, and continue so long an entire Church, without adding one Member of any other family (though never so fit to be received) as Christ's Family till it was dissolved by his death did?  
Whether the Church being first Domestical and after Congregational, both the one, and the other, were not accidental to it (the Jewish Church having the essence of a Church when it was National, as well as while it was Congregational) and to the Office of an Apostle, than the only Church Officer (seeing (themselves say) an Officer and a Church, an Universal Officer and Universal Church, are Relatives) as it is accidental to a General to have but one Company or one Regiment?  
Whether Subordination of Ecclesiastical Judicatories, and the benefit of Appeals in the Old Testament, was merely Ceremonial (though the High Priest, Temple, and some other things were) or was it grounded on natural Reason and Equity? and so far as it is so grounded, is it abrogated in the New Testament? and how doth the abrogation of it appear?  
Doth not 1 Cor. 12.28. warrant an Universal visible Church, name, and thing, seeing it is improper to say That the Apostles which by Office had the care of all Churches, were set, put, or placed in any one? If they were Members of any particular Church, was it not rather of Jerusalem then of Corinth (to which, Paul did but come as to other Churches; and no other Apostle that we read of was there; and which at his Baptism was a mere nonens; much less were the Jews and Gentiles Baptised into the Corinthian Church)? Is not Paul's speech, Ye are the Body of Christ, corrective of itself: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he should say, Ye are not the whole Body, but members in part of that Body, in which, the Jewish and Gentilish Churches are said to be Heb. 13.3. Ephes 3.6. Whereof Paul was a Minister, Colos. 1.15. viz. The Catholic visible Church?  
Is not this Body or Church Catholic totum integrale, and the particular Churches similares parte? Doth not the Scripture usually set it down as one Spouse, one Woman travelling, one Assembly of twenty four Elders, and four Beasts, one City of God, one Household, one Temple, (whereof the Church of Ephesus (being not the whole City, Household, or Temple,) were fellow Citizens, of the Household, and built together, viz. With other Churches and Children of God) one new Jerusalem, etc. The Scripture not warranting the expression of an hundred or a thousand Cities of God, New Jerusalem, & c?  
Doth not the Scripture expressly, and almost in the fame words teach, That the Sacraments, Officers, and Censures, belong primarily to the Catholic visible Church, when it saith, We are all Baptised into it, and in it God hath set not only extraordinary persons, callings, gifts, as Apostles, Prophets, etc. but ordinary as Teachers (there is the same reason of Pastors, Helps, Governments, in which the Censures are included?  
If the Scripture allow the name and thing of an Universal visible Church: If also the Jewish Christian Churches be called in Scripture, one Bride, one new Jerusalem, and all the Gentiles Churches one Sister, and all the Jews and Gentiles converted one sheep fold under one Shepherd; may not all the Churches in a Nation, living under one Civil Government, agreeing in one Confession of Faith, and Directory for Worship, joined in one Covenant, and represented sometimes in one Assembly of themselves, or their Messengers, be by warrant of Scripture called one Church?  
Whether though National Churches were as lawful as either Domestical or Congregational, There was in the Apostolic times any possibility of having a National Church when there was no Christian Magistrate, (which we now esteem a special blessing,) nor were Christians so many as to bear the name of a Land or Nation (as if but one Family had been Christian, the Church could not have been more than Domestical) nor had they liberty, safely and freely to meet in National Synods or Assemblies (which yet we now hold lawful and useful Ordinances of God.) Can the Protestant Church be National in the days of Henry the eighth, and Queen Marry, as it was in the days of King Edward, and Queen Elizabeth?  
Whether can a wise impartial man, which reads and considers the wonderful operations of the Sermons of John Baptist, Jesus Christ, the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples, conceive that the one hundred and twenty, Acts 1. were the total number of the Christians in Jerusalem (among whom, were the eleven and the seventy) or the major part of them?  
Whether it be possible or probable, that all those of Jerusalem which were converted and Baptised before the death of Christ, Matth. 3.1, 5, 6. John 4.12. and 12.19. Luke 10.17, 18. together with those several thousands converted to Christianity by Peter, Acts 2, etc. might notwithstanding their numbers, join in Public Prayer, and Preaching, so that all might hear, and all might be edified?  
Whether doth any Scripture show, that the many thousands confessed to be of the Church of Jerusalem, did meet ordinarily together to receive the Lords Supper (the chief Church Ordinance?) Can it be imagined, that so many at once could be accommodated with room, Beds to sit, lie, or lean upon, (as Christ did according to the custom of those times) a Table to receive at, and Cups to drink in, especially seeing that though they continued with one accord in the Temple, yet they broke Bread from house to house, (the Jews probably not permitting this new Ordinance in the Temple,) viz. In the several houses of those poor that then received the Gospel?  
Can it be showed that any Church in a City, or Town, how numerous soever it grew, was for the numerosity of it, divided into two or more Churches (I speak of Ecclesiastical Judicatories, not of Congregations) or that there were for that reason more Churches than one, in any one City or Town, and by what Scripture?  
Do not places in Scripture denominate Churches? Were not all the believing Corinthians of the Church of Corinth; the Brethren that were in Laodiced of the Church of Laodicea; the Saints in Ephesus; the Church of Ephesus, & c? And each of them under the Jurisdiction respectively of Corinth, Laodicea, and Ephesus, & c.? Is not this a pattern uncontrolled by precepts and other patterns? Is there any example or warrant in Scripture, That a Christian living in a Town or City where there was a Church, was not, nor aught to be a member of that Church, but of a remoter Church?  
Did not Pastors in Scripture feed the flock of God that was amongst them? or can they watch over their flocks, or Church members one over another, as by Covenant they are bound, if they live five, ten, fifteen, twenty miles a sunder?  
Can it be showed that God in the Old or New Testament, did erect one Church without Officers? Seeing Adam was a Priest to his Wife and Family, and the first born afterwards were Priests at the founding of the Jewish Church, and Christ was an Officer to the Church in his house, and the Apostles were Officers in commission at the founding of the Christian Churches?  
Hath a Church without an Elder, or with one only, and consequently no Presbytery, power to censure, yea, excommunicate? Can an Instance be given of any such incomplete Church that did exercise any Church Government? Or can it be proved by Scripture, that they might and ought to have exercised it?  
Doth not Election of, and Submission to the same Officers and Ministry, ordinarily frequenting the same Ordinances and Worship, joint maintenance of Officers and Ordinances (not to speak how considerable cohabitation and private Christian Communion is) include a sufficient, though an implicit covenant or consent, which may be justified by holy Writ?  
Whether there be any Precept, direct or indirect, or Precedent at the founding of the first Churches, for a solemn express verbal Covenant or Agreement, more explicit than this? and if not, are not they guilty (to say no more) of strange boldness, which make it not only lawful, but useful, and far better than the said implicit Covenant, yea, a binding Ordinance of God, necessary, if not to the being, yet to the wellbeing, strength and purity of the Church?  
Whether there be a Church Covenant in Scripture (viz. which not only in general promiseth Service and Obedience. but hath also special relation to Church State, and Church Members duties as such, as marriage Covenant hath to conjugal duties as such?  
May not the Scripture Covenants, viz. God shall be our God, etc. be taken by two or three, though too few to make a Church; or by one Family, or by persons of several Churches, and yet leave them in the state they were in, and not make them Members of a distinct Church, as Independents Covenants are said to do?  
Whether Subscription to your Confession of Faith, be as essentially necessary to Church Constitution, as entering into Covenant? Is your Confession the very same with the Confessions of other Independent Churches, or a Different? Is the Confession of your later Churches, the very same with the Confession of your former Churches? Do yourselves esteem all things therein unquestionable Fundamental Articles of Faith, seeing you require Subscription to them all alike, as a Confession of Faith, and that upon pain of Non-Admission?  
Whether there be any Precept or Precedent in Scripture for requiring a Promise, before we admit Members, that they will not departed without the Churches leave? Is this a standing Ordinance, or but a Politic invention, requisite for the good of Societies so moulded? Are not Church Members Liberties much infringed, when they can neither dispose of themselves, or their children in Service, Marriage, and Factorship, remote from that Church, without discovering the causes them thereunto moving, (which is not always fit and safe to be done,) and having Approbation and Dismission from her, which sometimes is hard to be got, especially for rich and useful Members?  
Whether any Apostle or other in the Primitive times, did refuse to admit any known beloever to the Sacrament, because he was not (to use the new phrase of these times) in Church-state, or that they enquired of him whether he was convenanted into some particular Congregation, and that such a one as they might lawfully hold Communion with?  
Was the Baptism of John, and of the Disciples, and Apostles of Christ, a Seal of Congregation Communion? Was Paul the Apostle, and the Ennuch, Baptised into a particular Congregation? did not the ordinary Pastors of Corinth Administer that one Baptism, and Baptise in the same Body that John Baptist did, and that Paul Baptised Crispus and Gains, and the household of Stephanas into? Is Baptism one time a Seal principally of Congregational Communion, and other times not? and what Scripture is there to warrant such a distinction?  
Whether every Congregation which joins in Covenant, doth, or must consist of all, or some Christians able to try the sufficiency of an Elder, yea, fit to discharge that Office? Or, whether visible Sanctiry without such ability, be not sufficient? And may this Congregation lawfully, (without assistance of others, unless themselves please,) notwithstanding their apparent inability, choose their own Minister, and that one of themselves also which must needs be an Insufficient one?  
May this Congregation also (suppose they had a godly learned Pastor) proceed against him in case of Error and Heresy, even to Deposition and Excommunication. if their weakness shall judge it fit? And is the said Deposition valid (whether just and unjust) unless the said Church be pleased to recall it, to deprive the said Pastor of his Ministerial Authority and Office; and is there no remedy in such a case?  
Is it not improper to call them that rule only, by the name of Elders; and them that both rule and labour in the Word and Doctrine, by a meaner name, Ministers? Doth the Scripture apply the name of Elders, rather to Ruling then to Preaching Elders; and if it doth not, why should we?  
Are the Ministers in the New Testament called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The Ministers or Deacons of the Church, or of the people? Are they not usually called Ministers of the Lord, of God, of Christ, of the New Testament, of the Gospel, of the Word, & c? and with reference to their people, Elders, Rulers. Pastors, Teachers, Overseers, Ministers for them, & c? Doth that Expression in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 4. Vers. 5. Ourselves your servants (wherewith Paul call-himself as well as others; 〈◊〉 imply, that he received his Authority and Office from the Church, did Officiate in their names, was censurable by them, as a servant by his Master; or that he made himself a servant to them, as Christ did to his Disciples, and as all good Ministers do to their Flocks for their good?  
Are the spirits of the Prophet's subject to the people, or to the Prophets? Is not this subjection of the Spirits of the Prophets, to the Prophets, viz. Of the fewer to the greater number, as well in Synods and Assemblies of Churches, or of their Messengers, as in particular Congregations?  
Whether these two Propositions [Synods or Assemblies of Churches, or of their Messengers (to say nothing now of their Jurisdiction) are God's Ordinances,] and [Every particular Congregation may, yea, must enjoy all God's Ordinances within itself] be not cross and contrary one to another, or how are they reconciled according to Scripture grounds?  
Is it any privilege for Congrogations to subsist every one by herself? May they not stand and flourish surer and better in an holy and Brotherly combination, and coordinate subjection, then in a divided singularity?  
Doth not Communion of particular Churches require, and the light of nature, and the equity of Scripture rules, and examples teach, that they may, and aught to enter into mutual Consociation or Confederation amongst themselves, in Classes and Synods, that they may so far as conveniently can be, make use of common consent and mutual assistance, especially in those things that are of greater moment?  
If the Keys be given to Believers to be exercised by them as Believers, then are they not given to all believers: whether in Church Covenant or no, Church Members or no? If they be given to Church Members as such, doth it not then follow, that Pastors as Pasors, or Elders as Elders, have no more power of the Keys then othher Church Members? And may not women as Church Members challenge power and right in them, do they not challenge the same in some of the new Congregations?  
Is not investing Non-Elders with Ministerial power, placing the power of the Keys in the Body of the Congregation, and complaining of the Elders that rule well, for taking too much upon them, the sin of Corah? Is it not a sin of the New, as well as of the Old Testament? Doth Judas Historically or Prophetically speak of it? If Prophetically? When, and in whom is it, or shall be fulfilled?  
Doth Election without Ordination make the Officer? Were the seven chosen by the people, Acts 6. Officers by virtue of their Election, before the Apostles prayed and imposed hands? If so, then did not the people rather than the Apostles appoint them over the business?  
If Ordination be less than Election, then why is laying on of hands, rather than lifting up of hands in suffrages, reckoned amongst the Principles, Heb 6. Why is the charge more express that Ordination (rather than Election) should not be suddenly and hastily made? Why is the description of persons to be ordained much more large in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus which were to ordain, then of persons to be elected in any or all the Epistles written to the Churches to whom such election is conceived to belong?  
Is Ordination of Ministers an act of Presbyterian power, or of Church-liberty?  
Did the Apostles (which you confess 
(a) Reasons of the dissenting Brethren  did wherever they came, leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right which be longed to them) invest non-Elders with the power of Ordaining?  
Did not Churches wait, and not ordain their own Elders? (though they had as much Authority, and knew it as well as Churches now do) Did not the Apostles go themselves to ordain Elders in every Church, or send some Elders or other to that purpose?  
Doth the Scripture require that every particular Congregation may, yea must (though she hath neighbour-Congregations to assist which is our case) alone ordain her own Elders?  
What one Elder in Scripture was ordained by those that were only of that particular Congregation where he was to officiate?  
What may be the reason that the Apostle (which did all things fitly) writing to so many Churches (in each of which was a particular Eldership) did not so largely (if at all) set down Rules for Ordination as in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus?  
Did the Presbytery that ordained Timothy, consist only of one particular Congregation? and of what Congregation? and how is it proved?  
Was not every Apostle (as also Timothy and Titus) as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man?  
When the Apostles joined with other elders in Ordination, under what notion did they join? as Elders of sundry Churches, or only as Co-elders of that particular Congregation? If under the later notion, what did they add unto them; the Elders of a Church, being but Three or Four, having as much power as if by addition of Two or Three they were made Five or Six?  
May we not grant in some cases that Supreme Civil power (suppose in executing one that had murderer his father and attempted to murder his mother) as well as Ecclesiastical may be exercised in one Congregation, yea, in one family (if it be in a wilderness, when it can have no assistance in Government) without having the least thought that in ordinary eases every Congregation or Family ought to be Independent in Ecclesiastical or Civil matters?  
Ordinary Elders imposing hands on Apostles or Apostolic men, as you say the Teachers of Anttoch ordained Paul an Apostle, Act. 13.1, 2, did they set him apart to officiate only in one, their own Congregation, and not in other Churches? For example, not in Rome, to which Paul writing, calls himself, with reference to that Ordination. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Apostle separated, etc.  
Is there not as many precepts or precedents for admitting to the Sacrament known Christians of no set Congregation (which you so much boggle at) as of admitting the members of other Churches and their children, which you commonly practice?  
Do not Elders receive their power and commission for the whole Church of Christ, and may they not (having a Call) preach in any Congregation, administer the Sacrament to any Christian, yea, vote in any Synod, as the Scotish Divines by consent do vote in our Assembly?  
Doth not communion of Churches bring communion of Offices and Officers? Else how can a Minister administer the Sacrament as an Officer (for as a gifted man, he cannot dispense it) to men of another Church, by virtue of the said communion of Churches? And if so, why may not an Elder of other Churches in Jurisdiction?  
If recommendation be as it were a dismission (by your own Principles) differing not really, but only in time; may not a Minister recommended, that is, dismissed for a time, act Ministerially in another Congregation? may not the Mayor of one Corporation, by consent of all parties interested, act authoritatively out of the said Corporation? (as the Mayor of London is Bailiff of Southwark) And may not the Colonels of Lancashire (your own similitudes) by like consent govern and rule the Soldiery of Cheshire?  
Is not the whole Church of God one Corporation, one City (ut supra)?— And may not then the Aldermen and Officers, notwithstanding their several Wards, Limits, Companies, join together in a Court of Common counsel for the Government of the City?  
May a Pastor, as a Pastor, pray for the Universal Church, or no?  
Is it a divine or but an humane Institution, that Ministers should be maintained by Lordsday collections? If humane; can any man which holds all Humane Institutions unlawful, with good conscience offer at those Collections? If you say it is divine; where is the warrant for it? Dare you determine it as certain, or do you but dispute it as probable?  
Do not those Independent Ministers which enjoy Church lands, and receive Tithes or compositions for them, or yearly, half yearly, quarterly stipends, hold these ways of maintenance as lawful as Lords-day-collection?  
By what Scripture prove ye that it is the duty of any Christians that are not of your Church (nor ever were) but are by you excluded out of it (possibly because they will not take your Covenant, or subscribe your Confession, or the like) to contribute to your maintenance; seeing you take no charge of them, nor so much as preach to them as Pastors? Have you from Christ any power to receive maintenance from such?  
May a Church, to save charges, make it a rule or constant practice to choose no Ruling-elders, though never so fit and able, but such as are able to maintain themselves? Doth not that Text, 1 Tim. 5.17, hold forth the maintenance (notwithstanding the poverty of those times) as well as the lawfulness of Ruling elders?  
Whether Moderators and Precedents of Synods and Church-assemblies, Assessors, Scribes, and Registers of Church-proceeding (to say nothing of ringing Bells to public Worship) be lawful and useful or no? Are these Offices grounded on Scripture, or on Reason, or the light of Nature?  
Hath God any where forbidden that he that exerciseth those Offices of Presidency or Moderatorship, etc. in one Synod, should exercise them in the next, and in the third, fourth, etc. while he is willing able, faithful in discharge of his duty, and is thereunto elected and approved?  
Is not the preaching of the Word the highest and hardest part of the Ministerial Function, in respect of which. Paul saith Who is sufficient for these things! And if so; by what warrant do private men unfit for the meanest Office in the Ministry, so ordinarily and presumptuously usurp it, and yet are justified by some of you?  
How dare non-Elders, which have no commission from Christ to Preach and Baptise, nor power to receive maintenance, usually and publicly preach the Word in the Congregations, and receive maintenance for the same? Do not they themselves sin, and all they which usually hear and maintain them in their way; especially such as may hear true Ministers as able and as faithful men as they?  
Hath not any in the Congregation (by their own grounds) as much authority to preach and receive maintenance, if the Congregation judge him gifted, and desire it?  
Doth the absence or dissent of some or of the minor part of the Congregation disannul the election of an Officer, admission, excommunication, &c, of a member, or other Church-proceeding? or is the minor part bound to rest in the vote of the major part, though contrary to their own judgements? or must they separate from the Church, in case they conceive the major part doth sin in such election, admission, etc. lest they be leavened?  
Are not all bound in conscience ordinarily to hear their own Ministers, which themselves, or their husbands, or parents, or the major part of the religious in their Congregation did either elect or afterward consent and freely submit to? (which after consent, in the case of Leah, was enough to make a Marriage) Or is every Christian notwithstanding this, at liberty to hear whomsoever and whensoever they please, even upon Sabbath days, when they conceive he is bound to preach?  
Were not husbands, wives and children always of one and the same Church? Doth the vote of the husband, or his joining to this or that true Church, include the vote and joining of his wife and children under his Government? Is it not then a disorderly unscriptural practice that husbands should be of one true Church, and wives (and that often without their husband's privity) of another, and children possibly of a third? Can an example of the like be showed?  
Can Masters of Families (in such a case) take that care that those that are under their Government do sanctify the Sabbath, which by the moral Law of God they are obliged to take, when one goes one way, another a second, another a third?  
Whether there be any precept or precedent in Scripture for suspension of any member of a particular Church or Congregation from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, who is not at the same time cast out of the Church? and where is it?  
Whether any greater degree of knowledge and sanctity ought to be required from any before we admit them to the Sacrament, than Christ required of all those which he admitted to it; if so great a degree may be required, considering what men they were, and what means they enjoyed?  
Doth the Scripture contain in it any precept, precedent or warrant that a man should refuse to communicate where either the Presbytery or Congregation are remiss in Discipline, and admit such to the Sacrament as in his judgement are not fit?  
Was every particular Corinthian by communicating guilty of that gross profanation of the Sacrament by the Incestuous person, though in his place he (as it is like some few did) laboured to reform it, and mourned for what he could not mend?  
Is not the instance of Achan for Relative guilt, more suitable to the Israclites as a Camp then as a Congregation, and as valid against fight in an Army as against communicating in an Assembly where wicked men are admitted?  
May a man under pretence that he abhorreth Idols, commit sacrilege; that is, in Scripture phrase, rob Churches or Temples of that which belongs to them, and convert to private use things he never bought or bargained for (nor is the propriety of them legally in him, but in others) because he falsely conceiteth (or suppose truly) that they were at first idolatrously and superstitiously dedicated to God? Is gain godliness? Doth this Reformation savour of conscionableness or Covetousness? Is there now adays any such sin as Sacrilege? and what is it?  
Whether the practice of every humane Invention (suppose those mentioned in these Queres prove such) or the practice of every humane Institution used by the Papists (suppose celebrating and receiving the Lords Supper before dinner, in unleavened bread, bore headed, etc. be such) though accompanied with sincere hatred and solemn renunciation of the Papacy and Popery, be the mark of the Beast?  
Can they that receive the mark of the Beast, be saved without explicit knowledge of it and particular repentance for it?  
Is that the mark of the Beast in one Age, that is not in another?  
Was there not both Pastors and People during all the rage and reign of Antichrist which did not receive the mark of the Beast, but their Father's name, and were Virgins; and yet did live and die in the practice of some Traditions used by the Papists?  
Can it be said either with truth or charity that the reformed Churches or Waldenses, Albigenses, etc. which were more corrupt than they, did or do receive the mark of the Beast? and who is he that can or will justify this accusation?  
Whether, notwithstanding the apparent differences between the Apostolic Churches and ours; the Jewish Ceremonies being then scarce dead, or at least not buried, their Civil customs differing from ours, the Church being then but in gathering from amongst Heathens and Jews, under Heathenish and Jewish persecuting Magistrates, and endued with extraordinary gifts and offices, (which is not our case) the Rites and ceremonies, Practices and Usages of the Apostolic times be unalterably binding to all after-ages?  
Doth Christ's faithfulness above Moses consist in a more particular and punctual determination of all externals of God's Worship in the New Testament than was given by Moses in the Old? Are the times and days of Baptism and the Eucharist as plain as the days and times of Circumcision and the Passeover, the place of meeting, with the utensils etc.  
Is the particular way how maintenance should be given to the Ministry as punctually prescribed in the New Testament as in the Old, or the place of, & c.?  
Where in Scripture is that glorious title of The Kingdom of Christ, applied to the external policy of the Church; and of all other ways of Church-Government, to the Congregational-way only and chief; so that no Christians (though never so sincere and holy) have Christ for their King, except they be Church-members, and also within the Congregational Covenant; or at lest none so much as they? And if it be not so applied in Scripture, do not they wrong Christ his Kingdom and people, that presume so to apply it?  
Did not New England-men well and warrantably, when their hopes began to languish of reducing the erroneous by private means, or by preaching and conference, to hold an Assembly of the Churches for discovery and confutation of them?  
Had the General Court Civil in New-England a lawful power, when Opinions grew on, and experience discovered the danger, to make a Law that Churches should not be set up in N. E. without the consent of the Magistrates and Churches there? And hath not the Civil power in Old England, from whence theirs is derived, seeing the Word of God doth not alter with Climates, the same power, when there is the same or greater occasion? And ought not obedience by yielded here as well as there?  
Would not they that now plead for Liberty of Conscience and Toleration in the Kingdom, were they able to root out Presbyterians and their Way, and could Civil Authority enclinable to put forth coercive power against it, tell the Magistrate that he might (if not, he ought) repress it with a strong hand, at least under the notion of being prejudicial to the Civil peace, if it could not otherwise be suppressed?  
Did not the Magistrates of N. E. when they saw that neither preaching, conference, nor Assembly of the Churches did work the cure of their Distractions, but the erroneous went on in their former course, not only to disturb the Churches, but miserably also to interrupt the Civil Peace, to convent them, and to disfranchise some, fine others, and banish others? Is it true or no, that sundry speak, and some writ, that our N.E. Brethren would not tolerate a few Presbyterians (notwithstanding the now-pretended smallness of the difference) which were persecuted for Nonconformity, in any corner of their Country; no not so much as in that which was next to the Barbarians?  
Whether they which hold Episcopal Government to be Antichristian, Babylonish, to be destroyed by fire and sword; and also Presbyterian Government to be Antichristian, as bad or worse than Episcopal, be not bound by their principles to root out Presbyterial Government and the resolute abettors of it, with fire and sword, if they can get ability and opportunity for such a design?  
Whether they which have solemnly sworn to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine, Discipline, Worship and Government, according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches, and to endeavour the Uniformity of the Churches in the three Kingdoms, and the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresy, Schisin, etc. as all Parliament men, the Assembly, and the best affected in the Kingdom have done, can with good conscience allow or tolerate Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresy Schism? and why may they not (for any obligation lying upon them by this Covenant) tolerate Popery, Prelacy and Superstition as well as Heresy and Schism?  
Whether the Parliament can perform those promises they have made in the first Remonstrance, and since (wherein the Kingdom hath much confided) If they lose the golden reins of Discipline, and leave private men or particular Congregations to take up what form of Divine Service they please, without requiring conformity to that Order which the Laws enjoin according to God's Word?  
Have our Brethren expressed all their present opinions and desires, or kept some for a reserve? and what may be the reason of such a reserve? Are they fully persuaded in their own minds of the truth of all that which they express themselves to hold, or only take them up for the present, waiting for further light? May not the Presbyterian-Way, for aught they certainly know (howbeit they at present think not so) be the Way of God, and most agreeable to his Word? And have not expressions to this purpose proceeded from their Tongues or Pens?  
FINIS.