Flagellum Flagelli: OR Doctor Bastwick's Quarters Beaten up in two or three POMERIDIAN EXERCISES, by way of ANIMADVERSION upon his first book, entitled, Independency not God's Ordinance. By J. S. M. A. Published by authority. LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, dwelling in aldersgate-street. 1645. To Doctor Bastwick. SIR; WHen I first took your book in hand, it was to read, not to write, but finding it easy, and advantage enough, I fell on: I had thought to have scanned the particulars as I began, but the course I was in at the Wells for my health forbade me, and I presume I should have been no otherwise advised by yourself, whose judgement in such matters might be worthy of more account. I therefore quartered your Book, and took hold of the pillars of your discourse, which if I have shaken, how can your building stand? If some few hands more would do but as much as this, to what parts (or passages rather) are omitted, you might perhaps come to know all the faults of your book in time, which is the worst wish of The truth's friend and yours, J. S. Flagellum Flagelli: OR, Dr. Bastwick's quarters beaten up, &c. PAge 1. It hath ever been observed, that diversity of judgement and opinion bath made a difference in affection. Answ. But you prove not that to be other than the fruit of Corruption; therefore throw the stone at Corruption, Solomon says, only through pride (therefore Prov. 14. 10. not through difference) comes Contention. There is an Antipathy between the Hound and the Hare, but was it so from the beginning? Or, must one of them be destroyed? 2. We see many a husband and wife, neighbour and neighbour, friend and friend of several judgements, that yet live very amicably and friendly together, therefore the observation is not universally true: And if a few do, and may do so, all might, had they the same grace, and were there the like mortification of pride. And as for your instance, of the Disciples animosity against the Samaritans, Luke 9 whereby this grave Sentence is exemplified: Doth not Christ reprove his Disciples instead of contriving the ruin or removal of the Samaritans, though it was not difference in Religion, but incivility and inhumanity against the very person of Christ himself, that Vers. 53. so stirred the Disciples choler? but whatsoever it was for, will you humour, justify and make provision for such a passion, which Vers. 55. Christ so sharply condemns in his Disciples? Pag. 2. Therefore should all care and diligence among brethren be used to get a right understanding of one another. Answ. 1. If by a right understanding one of another, you mean properly, viz. a calling of every thing by its right name, aggravating nothing, nor looking through multiplying glasses upon the inconveniences of each others opposite opinion I am for you, and shall call you a man of peace: Or, if you speak Metonymically, using the Cause for the Effect, and by right understanding, mean an incorporation into one opinion; yet if you carry this impartially, and beg not the Question, but put them into an equal balance, resolving yourself, as well as desiring others to embrace whatsoever shall appear to be the truth, you do well: But if you will anticipate and forestall the judgement of your Reader, and nothing will please you but a coming over to your opinion, what singular thing, or what new Invention towards an agreement do you offer more than the rigidest Presbyterian confident of his own Way, and abounding in his own sense, hath done before you? Certainly, if we could turn Presbyterians, we question not but the strife were ended: But here were a part worthy of a man of parts, in case we cannot be of one mind, to find out a Way of peace and love, and to move brethren to bear with one another, as you say, contiguously with the former, but have little endeavoured it yet, and not a little the contrary. Pag. 3. The honour of the Church, for which you profess you contend, is an unsavoury expression, too much symbolising with the stile of the Papists, as doth the practice of some men with theirs also. And whereas you say [the honour of that Church] you speak very ambiguously, and improperly, not determining where, or who that Church is, whether in England or Scotland, or elsewhere, or everywhere, whether Catholic or national, tell us, that we may honour it with you. Pag. ead.. Some few lines below, where you undertake to reckon all the undeceiveable marks of the true Church, saying expressly, these are all those undeceiveable marks, &c. Yet having named only three, you eke them out with an [all other requisites] not naming the rest, like the Bishops Et caetera; who juggles now? And whereas you say contiguously, From such a Church as hath the Gospel purely preached and believed, the Sacraments rightly administered, and in the which there is the true invocation of God and all other requisites, &c. there is no just separation. I answer, There is a whole Category of Amphibolies in your speech; For neither by all the Requisites, do you say whether you mean essentials or integrals: Nor by separation, whether you mean absolute and total separation, or partial; from Communion ordinary or from all communion; from internal or external; therefore I might justly take no notice of this, till you speak plainer; yet to undeceive the world, we give this account and answer: An internal communion there is, and aught to be acknowledged between all the members of the body mystical, whether they be in bodies ministerial or no: an external communion in all the common duties of Religion; as praying, hearing, conference, admonition, may not be denied with all Christians, and with all men occasionally to edification: An external communion in Church-ordinances, as sacraments and censures, may not be subtracted or withdrawn from a Church right for the essentials, as if it were no Church, or under such a notion, but as from an imperfect Church, if it want integrals; or a corrupt, if it be redundant with superstitions, &c. so it may: Lastly, an occasional communion even in the Lord's Supper, may be admitted with a Church that walks up to their light, with whom yet, perhaps, we cannot with comfort sit down ordinarily. As for your apology for the non-dedication of your Book, in regard of your sufferings for your former, I say only this upon it: It was far better with you when you suffered for presbytery in opposition to prelatical tyranny, than now, if you would make others suffer by Presbytery, in opposition to the congregational government; only I doubt, in the sequel of your Discourse you will not be found to entitle the Lord Jesus to your book, (as in terms you profess.) If so, I hope there will be no quarrel between us; for all we contend for, is that the Government may be left where it is laid by the Father Isai. 9 6. even upon his shoulders. As for God and Faith, which you join together, pag. 5. saying, You have learned to believe God and Faith upon their word and bond: I know not what that Faith should mean; we ordinarily take faith for that whereby we believe, and not that which we believe: or if you take it so (metonymically objectively) what is it other than God, or the will of God, which I suppose you mean the Word of God? For God, or his will in its Essence is not immediately objected to us, but he reveals his will in his Word; but to the substance of this boast, and that that follows (if there be any substance in it) if you will believe God and the sufficiency of his institutions, without the sureties of human reason and authority, as you do here equivalently profess, you will not be offended at the congregational Way for that inconsistency and deficiency that is carnally objected against it. As for that you say, pag. 6. That this is no new opinion of yours, it is no more than the Papists may say for their mystery of Iniquity. And as for your sufferings for it, which you boast of; alas, sufferings are subject to the same vanity and bondage of corruption as doings; yea, and the whole creation are (i.) to be applied to ill things, and graffed with an ill cause, though I say not it was ill as opposing prelacy, or as it was a gradual recidivation from that tyranny. And as for the acceptance of your endeavours and sufferings, in that cause, and your inference thereupon, That therefore you see no good Pag. eadem. reason why a truth than should not be counted a truth now; You beg the Question: Prove first it was a truth, otherwise 'tis no wonder if that which seemed to be a truth six or seven years ago, find not the same acknowledgement now, as might be instanced in many particulars. Next you come to state the Question, pag. 7. and immediately you give that which you call a simile of it, but if it be, it is 1. a carnal one, and I had rather hear, and it would better become a spiritual man to compare spiritual things with spiritual: for Christ's institutions 1 Cor. 2. 13. must not be exacted by the Last and Rule of human ordinances. God gave Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle in the Mount, he doth not send him to take a pattern for it from any Exod 25. 40. 26. 30. earthly frame or fabric, though there were far more costly and curious, but the Tabernacle was to have, and had a fashion by itself that differed from all: When we know the true nature of spiritual things, of the devices of God, as I may call them, we may find a resemblance of them in things here below, which are made after them, but we cannot fetch the knowledge of heavenly composures from these earthly things. 2. Yet neither is this bed of your simile large enough for the tall Isai. 28. 20. and proper limbs of your Presbytery to stretch themselves upon: For though the several Companies in each city, as you say, (though we have not many such cities in England, except you have more of them in Scotland, wherein there are such several Companies that have all their several halls, (e. g.) Merchant tailors, gross, &c. for to yield the matter of this simile) are not independent, but associate and combined in a common council, &c. yet there are Corporations as small as these Companies in the kingdom, that are Independent, and do not act in association or coordination. So that if the Churches in the city must, to hold correspondence with the form of civil Government, be in association and act in a Presbytery, yet this Simile will not carry any such thing to an ordinary understanding, that in the country (where they live three or four, or more miles asunder, and act their civil affairs independently) they must do so. Nay then, we will argue from the Simile: If the towns in the country be independent in their civil Government, that is, act singly and independently (in respect of any other towns intermeddling) their own businesses and concernments, as they do, why should not the Churches in those towns do so too? then at least the Churches in the country must be exampted from Presbytery. But 3. I answer to your simile, That as it is shorter than that Presbytery, as you would be willing to extend it in the praxis, may stretch itself upon, so it is abs re, far from illustrating the sense you intend. For your simile in the true resolution of it proposes no other then whether Inferiors may act independent of their Superiors. For all those appeals, whereof you speak, are still resolved into a higher notion, power, and authority, (e. g.) The Lord Major, Court of Aldermen, and Common council, are superior to any Company or Companies of the city, in degree as their rulers, or amount to a superiority in value and sum, as the representative of the city, the whole, which is better than any part: therefore your simile is not fit for this purpose. But now if you would propose a proper simile, it should be thus; Whether Companies or Corporations, equal and coordinate, may not and do not act their own proper affairs and concernments independently in respect of one another? (i.) Whether if a Citizen of Merchant-taylors' Company, be aggrieved by the carriage of any thing in that Company, he can so appeal to the Company of the Stationers, and the Company of the Vintners, and two or three more, or the Heads of these, as to subject the Company of Merchant-taylors to the jurisdiction and arbitrament of those Companies? for this is the case here. As suppose there be no imparity (i.) superiority or inferiority in the Churches, but all are coordinate, all are one Spouse to Jesus Christ, and he entrusts one Congregation as well and as much as another, and gives them as large a share of common interest in spiritual government, or managing the matters of his kingdom, one Church as another, and hath made no Common council, no Court of Aldermen, no Lord Major in his Church, nor no Officers or distinctions answering to these. And suppose further, that as neither male nor female, bond nor free, so such a distinction of whole and part, have no place in this matter, but Christ Jesus the quickening Spirit be, as in all, so all in all, and each of these particular bodies; and as a whole Christ went for the ransom of each particular believer, and a whole Christ is in every believer, (as the soul tota in toto) so the whole and entire glory of Jesus Christ be entrusted with every particular Congregation, (i.) an entire and perfect administration of all government be committed to them, and the entire * Rev. 1. 4. spirit of government be in each such Congregation. Suppose, I say, it be thus (as I conceive it will be found to be,) that each part be to Christ as the whole; Christ being indivisible, and recollecting his whole self in himself, and in every part of himself (which the spirit of human power, order, and authority cannot do) and so we cannot weigh Christ against 1 Cor. 1. 13. Christ, Christ's power against Christ's power, nor many Congregations against one. I say, Suppose these things be so, then is it any Question, whether such Congregations may act independently? When as we know that Companies do act independent of their fellow-Companies, and Corporations in the Countries do act independent of other neighbour-Corporations: indeed they act not independently incontrollably of the higher names above them; but a Company is not indicted by a Company, a Corporation by a Corporation. Until therefore you shall prove that Churches are not coordinate, or that there are higher names than Churches and Church-Presbyters, or that the same persons are in higher place and office in a Classis, then in their own particular spheres and Congregations, (which if it were so, then why should they not have suitable names, that might import the superiority of the Relation (even as the common-council-men, though they be Masters and Members of the several Companies, yet when joined in a Common council, they are not called the Masters of the Companies of the city, but by a distinct name of interest and honour, the Court of Aldermen, and Common council) until, I say, you prove these, your simile will lie in the dirt. I know we have such names, as Classes and Synods, adapted and adopted to this ecclesiastical Hierarchy, but they being only jure humano, will not pass with us for grounds of Authority or superiority in the things that are called by them. Next after your Simile you come to your Question, and to divide your position into four Branches, which yet you fall off from again by a digression of sixteen or seventeen pages long, to prove, viz. That all the Churches we read of in the New Testament, were pregnant Churches, or accumulated of many, governed by a Common Presbytery: Which labour you might have saved, if you had hopes to make good the four Branches propounded, (two of which are, That the Mother-Church was such a Church, and so governed; and secondly, That all other Churches are to be governed as that was:) at least you might have kept this for a reserve, if they had failed. But besides that, you prove neither part of your Assertion, viz. Either that they were aggregated Churches, or that the Presbytery to which they were committed, was a joint Presbytery, and not each Church to its particular, (for those many Scriptures you quote, do neither of themselves sound so, nor for aught I see, do you put such a twang into them:) you commit these errors by the way. 1. You impose upon your Reader, without any authority or reason, that Diotrephes was an Independent, and that was the quarrel 3 Epist. Joh. John had against him; and that his Church was in the faction with him, when as we have no mention of his Church at all, nor of his prating against the Presbytery. And for the crime objected, of seeking the pre-eminence, if the Lord keep us that the world be never able to charge us with a likelier fault, we shall not be afraid to make our Accusers our Judges; Alas, our offence is, that we are against pre-eminence. 2. You confidently exclude the people from having any hand in the Government, (in which you account the solving of difficulties in doctrine, as well as other matters to be a part) when yet in the places quoted, especially and most expressly, Act. 15. 22. the interest of the Brethren and the whole Church is spoken of, not in actu signato only, but in actu exercito. 3. Pag. 18. You make the names of Pastors and shepherds, when applied to Church-Officers, to import that authority, power, and government, as they do when applied to Magistrates: at least you make the symbolising of Church-Officers with civil Magistrates in those Names an Argument of communicating with them in such a kind of power as they have, though not the same degree; but how weakly, let all men judge. 4. Pag. 19 You exact the ways of God by the line and rule of human reason, and will give no more to an Institution, than it will go for in that Market. 5. In the same page you put such an Objection upon the Independents about requiring Miracles, as the condition and qualification of Elders now adays, else not to be acknowledged Elders, as I am confident the congregational judgement will not, nor ever did they own, what ever some other Independents (for it is a generical name, appliable to whomsoever the inventors of it please, and more properly to some others, than they that are commonly called by it) may do; but that it might be a scandal to all of the Name, you do very wisely, and take the right course, not to name the book or Author, where you find that Objection. Pag. 29. You lure after your reader (who might very well be turning his back upon your discourse) that now you come in order to prove the four propositions, but you keep not this order long. The first proposition is; That there were many Congregations and several Assemblies in the Church of Jerusalem, &c. For the proof whereof you bring the multitudes of Converts to John's baptism; The people of Jerusalem, all of them, and all Judea, &c. Whereby (say you,) they all became Christians, or Members of the Christian Church: For (say you,) John's baptism was into Jesus Christ, and the very same with that of the Apostles. We answer to your Reason; 1. John's baptism was into Christ, but it was in Christum moriturum, not in Christum mortuum. 2. To say it was the same with Christ's and the Apostles, is flat Mat. 21. 25. Act. 18. 25. contrary to the Assertion of John himself, and the Apostles; I baptize you with water (Says he) but there comes one after me, who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. 3. Therefore now by John's baptism they were not all made Christians, no more than the body of the Jews before John were turned Christians by being baptised in the red Sea, &c. for they were baptised into Christ by their baptisms. I deny not but this baptism 1 Cor. 10. 3. of John was to prepare men for Christ, and did bear a more immediate relation to such a work, than any Ordinance before, but it did not make them absolute Christians; It did not absolve and perfect the new Church, I mean not so far as that Ordinance of baptism was to do afterwards. 4. The learned and judicious know, that John was but the Messenger before Christ's face, and his baptism was but as the Mal. 3. 1. streamings of light in the Heavens before the day, and he did only bring and restore all things to their legal perfection by water, the Element of the Law; but Christ Jesus he comes and baptises with fire, Consummates all things with this transforming powerful Element, even his Spirit. 5. So far was it that all that were baptised by John, were made Christians, that even John's own Disciples (who had the best and frequentest instruction,) not only hesitated, but were downright * Joh. 3. 26. scandalised at the true Messiah; and others did under that form of John's baptism, fight against the true baptism and baptizer the Lord Jesus: so that I conceive this Argument (were it granted that all the people received John's baptism) will stand in little stead to prove the Conclusion, viz. That they were made Christians, much less cast into a Church-mould, according to the New Testament form, and least of all that they were all members of one Christian Church at Jerusalem. But note an absurdity in the sequel of the discourse, where the Doctor having got a multiplying glass in his hand, goes on to make strange discoveries of the increase of Christian believers, Pag. 36. he tells us, That Christ made many more Disciples and believers than John, and added daily to the Church that was then in Jerusalem, such as should be saved. Here's two Paradoxes. First, That Christ made more Disciples than John: Out of whom should he make them, when as John had swept all along with him, as you affirm before, pag. 32. med. not taking it synecdochically, (whatever you determine of it here.) Secondly, That Christ should add daily to the Church that was then in Jerusalem, is not this a marvelous anticipation and mistake, to apply that which was done by the Disciples after Christ's ascension, Act. 2. last, unto the Ministry of Christ himself, and yet in the sequel you reckon this to the Apostles also expressly, pag. 56. Judge if here be not false Musters. And let me tell you, you give us occasion shrewdly to suspect your ignorance (to say no worse) to talk of a Church in Jerusalem, besides the national Church of the Jews in the life-time of our Saviour. And thus far I have taken notice of most of the material Excipienda in your book: I had thought to have bestowed as much time on the rest, but that other Considerations forbade me, therefore I shall only briefly examine the main Propositions that follow, omitting the Amplifications and collateral Notions that fall in the handling thereof. And so I shall leave this Proposition, without taking any further Exceptions to it, or any more passages in the asserting of it, and the rather, because there are, and those so able, already engaged in the dispute thereof; and come to the second Proposition, viz. That all these Congregations and several Assemblies To the second Proposition. made up but one Church: Which Proposition, except the former stand good, is to little purpose, as the Doctor foreseeing is therefore very brief in the manifestation of it, I shall not therefore be long in the Examination of it, though in that little compass of lines he gives cause of manifold Exceptions. For first whereas you say, The Brethren themselves acknowledge, that all the believers in Jerusalem were all members of that Church: If you mean the Church spoken of Act. 15. 4. I deny, and say, it is a gross presumption, and begging of the Question, to say, that we acknowledge all the believers in Jerusalem to be Members of that one ministering Church, especially if you reckon all John's Disciples and Converts to these believers: For as there was a good space of time after there were multitudes of believers, ere there was such a Church, so for any thing hath yet been brought to the contrary, it is probable enough that the true believers, (which were not so many after you have cut off John's Converts, I mean those that did stick in John's baptism, which were multitudes, and temporary believers, which ceased to walk with Christ, which were not a few, and strangers, which did afterwards disperse themselves into several Countries) those that did remain at Jerusalem, did gradually grow up unto Church-fellowship. And it amounts to no less than the former begging and presumption, that which follows, viz. That this Proposition is manifest out of the Scripture, viz. that they that were convented, are said to be added to the Church. For what if that be to be understood of the Church Catholic, and not a particular Church? It may not be denied, that the word Church, is often so used in the New Testament, and it is suspicious that the three thousand converted at once, were not so soon instructed in Church-followship as converted. As for that which follows, that they continued in the church's Communion, and the Apostles doctrine: The Doctor hath moulded the Text for his own advantage, and indeed hath falsified it; for 'twas in the Apostles Act. 2. 42. doctrine and fellowship, not in the church's fellowship, except you are content it should be understood in the communion of the Church Catholic, which is no more than in Christian Communion in general: and for aught I know, that is all that is meant there: And tell me any act wherein the multitude of believers did communicate, that can bespeak it necessarily to be any more than a Christian Communion in general, or what Christians may have together, though not of the same Church; and the Doctor himself says before, The chief public Ordinance they communicated in was preaching. To the third Assertion or Branch, Pag. 82. which is, That the Apostles and Presbyters, governed, ordered, and ruled this Church of Jerusalem, consisting of many Congregations and Assemblies, by a Common council and Presbytery. I answer; First, I am not satisfied by any thing hath been alleged, that that Church consisted of many Congregations and Assemblies, and that upon the scruples before instanced. Secondly, In asserting that the Presbyters did rule that Church, and ordinarily other Churches, whom do you hit? Sure not the Independents, as you call them; We grant, 'tis their part to rule: but we distinguish between Authority and jurisdiction on the one hand, and power and interest on the other: this latter belongs to the people; the other is proper to the Officers, which yet they exercise in the name of the Church: So they, (i.) the Officers ordain, they excommunicate, (i.) pronounce Excommunication, they lead and direct in all Government and disputes, they have the executive power, as you demand pag. 93. But the people have a power and interest too, as those places alleged by yourself show expressly, Act. 15. For tho ver. 2. Paul and Barnabas are said to be sent to the Apostles and Elders only, yet ver. 4. they are said to be received of the Church, and Apostles, and Elders, therefore they were sent to the Church also; and that word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} with one accord, ver. 25. imports a multitude met together; and this to be the result of that multitude, else it were no great commendation of the resolution that it was convened about and issued forth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. And though only the Apostles and Elders are mentioned, as coming together to consider of the Question, ver. 6. yet it is said, ver. 22. that it pleased (not only the Apostles and Elders) but the whole Church also, therefore the Church also came together to consult; or the Apostles and Elders▪ as a Committee, first prepared the dispute, as not counting it so safe perhaps to admit the weak to the same, while it was intricate, and then reported it, and had their assistance and concurrence; and the Letters of resolution run in the name of the Brethren (i.) the Church as well as the Apostles and Elders, ver. 23. And so in Ordination {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, (i.) Election by lifting up of the hand, belongs to the Brethren, Act. 6. 5, 6. though {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, (i.) Imposition of hands, be proper to the Officers, where there are Officers, as in a Church constituted and complete. 3. That where the whole Church is written to and exhorted to a part of discipline, that the Officers only should be intended, as in confirmation of your Assertion you afterwards affirm by the instance of the Church of Corinth, we can no way admit. Rather on the other hand, Christ many times writes and directs his Commands to the Officers, when they appertain to the whole Church, and are so to be understood, only written and sent to them, as being principal parts of the Churches, by and from whom they are ex Officio, to be communicated to the whole. And for your Simile of Kings directing their mandates to a city or Corporations, which are to be executed by the Majors, sheriffs, &c. I conceive it doth ire in contrarium, it is contrariously framed to the manner, which is rather to direct to the sheriff or Major, what doth concern the Corporation, and is required of the whole: and so we find Christ to do in the Epistles to the seven Churches. For that anticipating assertion, That the Apostles ruled this Church▪ aggregate, not by virtue of their Apostleship, but by virtue of its union. I shall refer it to the next head, viz. That the Church of Jerusalem, and the government of the same, is to be a pattern for all Congregations and Assemblies in any city or vicinity to unite into one Church, and for the Officers and Presbyters of those Congregations to govern that Church jointly in a college or presbytery, which is your fourth and last branch of your first Question, pag. 97. Answ. 1. They are not an example of uniting or aggregation, except it be found that there were many church's aggregated, which a very facile and swasible reader may well doubt of, for any thing that hath yet been said to make it good. 2. If this were granted that many Churches did aggregate and unite in the beginning, yet would not this example be bindingly presidential: For as many things were done out of that ordinary course that was after settled, in the creation, and in a singular way by themselves, as the enlightening of the world without a Sun, the watering of the earth with a mist before it rained, the producing of fruits ex tempore; which things afterwards ceased, being digested into orderly rules and courses; so might it be in the first plantation of churches: Many things might pro tempore be taken up, which might not afterwards be continued. (e. g.) The Apostles did * Act. 6. 2. serve Tables at first, but afterwards an office was instituted for that on purpose: So suppose there were in the Church of Jerusalem a greater multitude than could meet in one place, and yet all one church, and ruled jointly by the Apostles and Elders thereof, (which yet we do not admit) yet could not this from hence be drawn into precedent, because, that howsoever the Acts of government which the Apostles exercised, together with the Elders, in and over this Church, were common and ordinary and done after the ordinary manner (as the Doctor contends) yet I shall make bold to remember him again of that which it seems he remembers very well to have been answered in this case formerly (though he make not so good an use of it) viz. That the extent of their power in the exercising of these Acts there and elsewhere was extraordinary as was their persons and calling to Apostleship. And we do not so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by this distinction, that he should not know where to have us, for 'tis easily apprehended what we say is imitable, and what not imitable in these Apostles. And now for that cavil; That the Apostles did not this by virtue of their Apostleship, but by virtue of the union of those assemblies. I answer, that in asserting it thus exclusively of their Apostleship, you suppose the Apostles to have been the officers ordinary, or at leastwise extraordinary of this Church of Jerusalem only, and so that they could not elsewhere exercise the like power, or not otherwise then by virtue of an union of churches, which is no greater prerogative than you will grant to ordinary officers now; and so the Apostles shall have no greater a Commission than we, which is as to say, their persons were no more extraordinary, nor their office, then common Presbyters now adays. But thirdly, to abound in the answer of this same matter, if that many churches in Jerusalem did unite and transact their affairs, or some of them jointly, and that therefore we may do so, yet it follows not that we must, whether we will or no, for this is to urge us beyond the pattern. The churches in Jerusalem (admit) voluntarily, spontaneously through the opportunity and advantage of the Apostles help, and through the strength of the spirit of love and confidence which they had one to, and towards another, and for other good causes and considerations, did act many things (that concerned the churches) in an associated way, therefore all churches, will they nill they, have they the same grounds, reasons and encouragements, yea or no, must do so: Is this good logic? And that you may not think here is prevarication or juggling in this business, I for mine own part must ingenuously grant and confess, that I am not very solicitous concerning the answer of this matter; for whether it were so, or it were not so then, that they did, or did not associate, I think it might be so now; I mean, some kind of aggregation and union might be, though we might tread more confidently, having the steps of the Primitive Churches before us, that is, to speak more plainly, The Churches of Christ now, though possessed of an entire independent Church-power in each body; yet may, when, and where, and with whom, and in what cases or things God shall persuade them, transact such affairs as they shall think fit jointly and sociously; provided, that hereby they divest not themselves of, nor prejudice themselves in any privilege of an entire, sole, and and single administration, or the like, which Christ hath given them, but retain that power of resuming and recollecting themselves to themselves, when they shall see o●casion. And if the churches in Jerusalem did so, we have cause to think this was all they did; and if the Brethren of Antioch did appeal (Acts 15.) we have cause to judge it was a free and voluntary appeal, and they were not called and compelled thereto. And that they, and we in imitation of them, might do this, is no wave of the sea, but stands upon this bottom and foundation, viz. That no privilege is a hindrance in that thing wherein it is ordained for a privilege: and so the entireness of a Congregation whereby it is able to recollect itself, as having the whole spirit of government in it, is not to be made a bar to a church or churches, that shall find it convenient, and for edification to join with other churches (where God shall knit their hearts reciprocally) in the common transaction of such affairs as they shall think fit and consent unto: But this cannot be prescribed and enjoined upon them by man, but is to be done electively by them, as flowing indeed, from a special love and pleasure, which those churches take in one another, and bear to one another. This we say in their ordinary affairs they may do, we speak not of cases extraordinary for difficulty and moment; wherein, if their own means suffice not, they are bound to seek the help of other Churches. Briefly, to shut up all, Had we a Collegde of Apostles, or apostolical men, we should make as much use of them, and reference to them as they did; and were there more churches of such a temper and quality as they ought, (that might be the foundation of such a mutual dearness, pleasure and confidence) we might do more in this Way of associating then we do; but we hold it our right, liberty, and privilege, to do what we do in this kind freely, and not to be compelled thereto; nor indeed would it be any other than a mere formal association did it arise otherwise. Win us therefore to an association by the beauty of your fellowships, and you shall not need to compel us. THe second Question which takes up full one third part of his Book, is of the manner of gathering Churches, and of admitting Members and Officers proposed by him: 1. In the Chaos it seems: 2. Orderly, (as he supposes) drawn forth into six Queries, though I dare not say there is not interfering tautology and great confusion. The nature in which the things are, viz. of Quere, incourages me the rather to do something in them, for that I hope the Doctor will not be great of his own sense, but take an answer of these things from those that know the way better than himself, who it seems, is but a Caetechumenos therein. I shall here therefore endeavour to instruct him in stead of refuting him, for as much as to me it seems unmeet, that a man should be polemically exercised before he be positively principled. The first Quere which must go but for one, though it be Legion, I must answer to, part by part, as follows: Whether for the gathering of Churches, there be either precept or precedent in the Word of God? A. Yes; Is not the word a gathering ordinance? are not the people thereby invited, yea, compelled to come in, and called to Luk. 14. 23. 1 Ep. Joh. 1. fellowship with the Saints as well as with the Father and the Son? is not man a sociable creature? doth not nature teach us for politic advantages to fall into societies? is there not heat where two lie together? Eccles. 4. 11. and is it not foreprophesied they shall serve the Lord with one Zeph. 3. 9 Mat. 18. shoulder? And lastly, Doth not Christ say, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, &c. But all this hitherto you would be as sorry it should once come into question as I: for who or what should be saddled for the Presbytery, but such a like thing as they call a church at lest? (only by this I perceive what churches you would have {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ (i.) All together, tag & rag, no selection, this is the way indeed to embase the kind and make them carry gentle.) I demand therefore further: ought not Church-societies to be particular, certain, and definite, for as much as that which is every one's work, is done by nobody; and to profess to owe equal and immediate duty to all, is both the way to perform it to none, and a sign that a man intends so? But if that that follows must be taken for the meaning of this Quere, viz. Whether Preachers and Ministers of the Gospel did ever leave their own ordinary charges (to which they are called, and whereto they are fixed with a command not to leave them) and under pretence of a new way, &c. did run about, and alienate the minds of the people well-affected formerly to their several Ministers, &c. I answer, by no means is this warrantable: But I count a vast difference between a Minister or Ministers, going abroad of their own heads, and merely under pretences in a secret clandestine way to get the hearts of men from their sound and orthodox Teachers, for this was the practice of the false * Gal. 17. Apostles; and on the other hand, a Minister or Ministers going forth with the consent and approbation of a Church or churches, when, or where Christ shall make an opportunity, and open a door for the peaceable, comely and orderly doing thereof, either to vindicate some truths under reproach and disgrace through a cloud of ignorance and prejudice hanging over the eyes of men; or to discover and lay open certain errors or usurpations wherein Christ is injured, and the Saints liberties infringed; and this in a free ingenuous way of preaching and dispute, offering and commending their Doctrine and Way to the impartial search and examination of all, both Pastors and people, (that hear or will hear them) by the Word, and all this not to such an end to breed any disaffection or alienation between people and their Ministers, but to make them both free by the truth, that they may both of them know and practise their several duties, and Christ may reap the fruit of it in the honouring of his Name, and themselves in the comfort of their own souls, through obedience and faith. The former is dishonest and abominable, but this is honourable, and a duty for which we have Paul's example, not only by a public Epistle, undeceiving the Galatians of that error they had sucked in from men, perhaps, of a worse quality, but even withstanding Peter (an Apostle) to his face, for haking in the matter of circumcision. For the third and last division of this Quere, Whether it was ever heard of in the Apostles and Primitive times, that any believing Christians were in great numbers congregated from among other believing Christians? I answer; 1. That 'tis well known there hath been, and may be, great defects, even in believers themselves; and such, as that they may need even to be cast into a new mould, as witness the Galatians, of whom the Apostle did travel in birth again, till Christ were formed Gal. 4. 19 in them. 2. It will be granted, that believing Christians should desire and endeavour to be instructed in the whole will of God, that they may touch no unclean thing; and as they know, to be still true to their 2 Cor. 6. 17. Principles; and if in any thing their Principles exceed or go beyond others, they must not come down to them, although they carry the Odium and prejudice of a separation for it, but it is the duty of the others to come to them, which if they will not, liking rather to correspond with the world, how can it be helped, or whose fault is it? The second Question is, Whether for the making any man or woman a member of the Church, it be requisite and necessary (to their believing and being baptised) that they should walk some days, weeks, months, perhaps years with them, &c. Answ. Who holds it so? but only that they appear to the Church that receives them to be believers, let the means of the church's knowledge, or discovery, be what it will, (as it is various) so that it be not extraordinary and miraculous, we dare not trust enthusiasms nor blind charity. And to the other part of this Quere, Whether confession are required, &c. I answer, confessions are good, and may be to edification, but are not absolutely necessary, therefore not insisted upon as the condition of admission. These things being of fact and practice, let a brief account suffice. For the third Question, Whether to the admission of any to membership or office-bearing in a church, the consent of the congregation or the major part thereof, as well as officers, be requisite. We hold it yea, and that as well in regard every one takes a charge upon him, as in respect of interest. For the fourth Quere of an Explicit Covenant, whether necessary to admission. Ans. I know not why it should be more inconvenient than a public national Covenant, which the Doctor by Nation is bred to approve highly of. But necessary we hold it not, therefore not as the condition of admission, so that we see cause to judge it not to be scrupled in a way of provision for an arbitrary liberty of a roving and unsettled mind to slip the knot, when they dislike and dispense from duty and obligation when they please, but that it be merely a conscientious scruple, because they see not sufficient ground for it out of the Word to make it necessary, yet will own a particular tye and relation for spiritual edification, in such case who will deny these admission? For the fifth Question, Of womens' votes whether they are admitted in Elections, &c. I remember a Question once in the schools, An Doctoris uxor eodem gaudeat privilegio quo Maritus; but as for this, of womens' voting in the Church, we have no such custom, nor any of the Churches of God that I know of. For the last Question or Quarrelsome captious Quere rather, Whether the practice and preaching of all these things, &c. be to set up Christ as King upon his throne? I answer, No Question but the purging and purifying of Church-Ordinances and fellowship, which some contend for, is to set Christ upon a higher throne visible to the world, then by some other ways he is; though we deny not he may have a throne in many Congregations not of this mould, and may be very highly advanced in the hearts of many of our Brethren, who never yet gave their names to the congregational way. In relation to whom my prayer is, That if they be in the right, the Lord would make them joyful instruments of instructing us with meekness; Or if we, that the Lord would by us show them his will, who would do it, and have already received hearts from him to submit to truth, from whomsoever ministered to them. FINIS. The Postscript. AS for your Postscript, I find it so foul, that I have adjudged it to lie in the STONE-BASON at Tunbridge wells, there to be washed till it be clean and fit to finger, and then I doubt it will be washed all away. Only, lest the frenzy thereof should have prevented me, and ere this have derived itself up and down, it may be needful to add, That whereas * Pag. 61. of your Postscript. you wonder at the lenity and humanity of this Nation, towards those men, whom you nickname Independents, we conceive there will rather be cause to wonder at the clemency of the Parliament if they shall take no notice of this and other your seditious instigations, (though I had rather see you repent then suffer.) In the mean time, it sufficeth us, that you never wrote, nor could write such lines by those NEW LIGHTS you jeer, with such unchristian, yea, unmanly levity: for a man may safely say, such stuff was written in the dark, not by any light, either Old or New.