AN ANATOMY OF INDEPENDENCY, OR, A brief Commentary, and Moderate Discourse upon The apologetical NARRATION of Mr Thomas Goodwin, and Mr Philip nigh, &c. BY Argument, laying naked the dangers of their Positions, AND From Experience, discovering their spirits and ways.  1 THES. 5.22. 
Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.  


Published by Authority.    
LONDON, Printed for Robert Bostock, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, at the sign of the Kings head, 1644.   

Imprimatur,  
IA. CRANFORD. june 7. 1644.   

The Preface.  
THese being times( according to the judgement of the most godly and judicious) wherein God is to make both men and every mans work manifest, and to try of what sort it is, and that by judgement beginning at his own house, 1 Cor. 3.13. 1 Pet. 4.17. to the end that what cannot endure the trial, being burnt by this fire kindled in the Church of God, and what will hold weight in the balance of the Sanctuary abiding, the unhappy and scandalous divisions, even of the true members of Christs body, being taken away the Church may rejoice to see her brethren dwelling together in unity.  
It needs not seem strange to any spiritual and discerning eye, to see either more differences or divisions to have appeared of late in the Church of God then formerly, or any men with the authors of this apologetical Narration( as they in the beginning thereof profess) to be forced to anticipate such discoveries of themselves, and their opinions, as they otherwise resolved to leave to time and experience of their ways and spirits: it being impossible, opinions should be thus tried, unless discovered, and that in his time who best knoweth the due season of such discoveries, and not in mans who at his best being but vanity knoweth not his time, Eccl. 9.11. If withall we consider, that a main hindrance unto Reformation, both of the inward judgements and affections of men, and of the outward state and condition, as of mens conversations, so of the doctrine and discipline of the Church, proceeds from a gross mistake, whereby all opposing the ways of the Hierarchy, are judged by the ways of some, and equally and indifferently ranked in one rank, and delineated by one character, and under one notion of Puritan, Brownist, or Independent, if not of Anabaptist: it must be found a thing not only expedient, but also very necessary to make a full discovery of men, and their opinions and ways, that every man appearing in his own colours and livery, may be the better d●scerned and owned, and that wise and prudent distinction and difference between Puritan and Puritan( as the world pleaseth to call them) which King James observeth in the Preface to his Basilicon Doron, may the better qualify and prepare the spirits, especially of these in authority, to strengthen the hands of such as stand for Reformation, while they appear to be such, whom King James there protesteth upon his honour, he equally loveth and honoureth with men of episcopal humour and opinion; and that the rather, if they consider how he describeth them, to wit, Preachers and others that like better of the single form of policy in the( then) Church of Scotland, then of the many ceremonies in the Church of England, that are persuaded, that their Bishops smell of a papal Supremacy, that the Surplice, the cornered Cap, and such like, are the outward badges of Popish errors:( thus far he:) adding that, which if it were the opinion of others in authority, likewise( to wit) that he ever esteemed these things indifferent, though they did not judge them( as they ought) evil; yet what a ready way might it make for a cheerful yielding unto Reformation, it being urged and prosecuted by such men. Besides, that such a discovery is very requisite, that every man may bear his own burden, and the innocent and sincere Professor, pursuing nor breathing after nothing but Religion, Order, and Policy in the Church, may not suffer with such as affecting singularity stumble upon disorder and confusion.  
These being the sincere aims and ends of this ensuing Discourse, though my weakness may perhaps in measure frustrate both me and it of obtaining these ends; yet I hope the integrity of these aims shall procure, as, an acceptance of what shall be found subservient to th●se ends, so also a charitable construction of, and pardon for what may come short thereof, especially from these my brethren the Authors of this Apology, since it is their main desire to be discovered and judged by experience of their ways and spirits: which is the work of this Discourse.   

A BRIEF COMMENTARY Or Discourse upon the apologetical Narration, &c.  
IN the entry of this apologetical Narration, our Brethren lay down the ground moving them to the writing and publishing thereof, to be the sudden and unexpected noise of confused exclamations in the interpretation of the most, reflecting on them, though not so expressly directed against them in particular.  
This noise was sudden and unexpected: sudden and unexpected noises use to arise from sudden and unexpected grounds, which makes me suspect there might be some reality in such noises of unexpected and strange exclamations, and expressions of Independents against presbyterial Government, as have come to our ears, which might be the cause of the suddenness of these exclamations against them: but that they should not have expected this noise, as it might seem somewhat strange to any, who know how liberal, they have been from time to time to vent their contumelious and scornful censures on presbyterial Government, and considers them standing at such a distance in their ways and government from all Christian Churches; so on the other hand, it seems no ways strange to me, that these who are possessed with such a conceit, and confidence of themselves, their abilities in searching and finding out new Truths, and their ways as is ordinary for most of their mould, to be, and as this apology shows they are, should not expect to hear any whisper against them, though they m●y censure others at their pleasure. But why were not these exclamations particularly directed against them? if it be, because perhaps they were not particularly name, this is but a poor reason; if it be because they are not guilty, of the matter of these exclamations, and particularly of Independency, abhorring that proud and insolent title, pag. 21. and 23. yet these exclamations might be directed against them( though unjustly.) Secondly, how justly they pled not guilty in the matter of these exclamations, shall( God willing) appear in our ensuing Discourse; though we will not affirm they are guilty of all, which perhaps might by these exclamations have been fastened on them, yet if they be guilty, but in the least part or measure, it is enough to show these exclamations might be at least in part directed against them. Thirdly, may it not seem strange, that these our Brethren should be so averse from owning exclamations against Independency and Independents as directed against them; whereas they not onely profess here, in this Apology what pains they have taken to find out, and establish in their Churches that Government which they know the world calls independency; but know also, that they are looked upon generally by all as the chief Authors, and abettors thereof in all England.  
They will not own the name of Independency, yet if we speak or preach against Independency, they will tell us we preach against them, as appeared in a late instance of one of these our Brethrens own fellow-labourers in the same Congregation at Rotterdam with some one of his flock, expostulating with another Reverend Divine for telling his people, that that Government which they swore to maintain in the Scots Covenant did exclude Independency, affirming this was to preach against them.  
This noise enforced them to this apology, and that by anticipation. That this Apology and discovery came out by force, I can easily believe: for their sparingness in discovering themselves therein may sufficiently show us they could have been better contented to have made no discovery of themselves at all, if something had not enforced them unto it at this time, but that that was rather the fear of losing their expected liberty, then the noise of these exclamations, may in my judgement appear from hence:  
First, the time when this Apology comes forth, when there was likelihood they should be frustrate of liberty, the desire whereof is the conclusion and result of this Apology.  
Secondly, to my knowledge the most of them have heard many exclamations, not onely reflecting, but particularly directed against them in Holland ere now, and I believe in England too, unless their ears have been closer stopped then other mens; nay, as themselves here confess, pag. 25. and yet none of these exclamations could awaken them, or enforce them to any Apology, till now at such a neck of time: but they give a sufficient reason of their former silence in England, in that same place; but whether this reason will hold water, we shall see in its own time and place.  
Thirdly, if their aim herein had been to take off those misrepresentations, and mal-administrations, and mistakes, and reproaches they complain of pag. 23. then surely in all reason they ought to have made a full and plain discovery of themselves, and their ways, and opinions; whereas it shall( God willing) appear, that their main study here is to cover, rather then to discover themselves, concealing most of all their differences from us, and delivering some onely in general terms( as that the truth of Church Discipline lieth in a middle way betwixt brownism and presbyterial Government, pag. 24. without telling us wherein this middle way doth consist) which are means rather to confirm the world in that jealousy, that they nourish some Monsters or Serpents of opinions lurking in their bosoms,( whereof they complain, pag. 28.) then to persuade the contrary, though my jealousy of them shall not reach so far. Its no wonder then they tell us, that this Discovery is anticipated, and that by force: for something must be said, though against the hair, to underprop their hopes of liberty, which upon these grounds I can hardly believe these exclamations should otherwise have wrung out; and therefore what may make for liberty shall be discovered, and that in such plausible terms as may best take; but what may prejudize this liberty shall be close covered as much as is possible. Had they not been thus enforced to this Discovery, they resolved( say they) to have left it to time, and experience of their ways and spirits, the truest discoverers, and surest judges of all men, and their actions.  
Here it is worth the observing, first, that they resolved to reserve the main Discovery of themselves to what any might see in their practise, and how loathe they were to come to an Apology, or any other kind of Discovery of themselves; therefore they so couch these words, as the discovery by time is so connected unto that by their ways and spirits, as by this time they may mean the time of that practise of their ways, which I find ground rather to conjecture, then that by this discovery by time they should mean a discovery by writing, or a full Declaration by word afterwards, from their limitation of that further Declaration, and more exact and scholastic Relation of their judgements in points of Difference, which they promise, pa. 30. where they tell us, we shall have this,( as necessity shall after require) which sheweth us, how loathe they are to come to the light further then necessity forceth them.  
Secondly, that they were resolved to enter upon the practise of their ways before any other discovery of their opinions, leaving the world to discover them by their practise if they would: either they must have resolved to have gone on in their way, without seeking or obtaining leave of the State, or they must have had a strange confidence and strange grounds whereon to build such a confidence of obtaining leave of the State, to set upon a way of their own, without giving a full account what it should be. But it is false that mens ways are the best Discoverers of men, that is, of mens opinions: for first, mens practise may sometimes out of infirmity and weakness cross their opinion. Secondly, mens ways can onely discover men to those, who see their ways, and so their opinions in England might thus be undiscovered to many even there, who yet might be of the number of those Exclamators against them; whereas a discovery by writing might discover them to all. Thirdly, it cannot be the best course for satisfying the offended, to leave them to discover us by our ways: for mens ways cannot discover men further, then they have occasion to put those ways in practise; and there may be some of those ways, whereof there may never be occasion, as our Brethren prove themselves, pag. 9. They never exercised Excommunication, how then should their opinion of Excommunication be best discovered and judged of by their ways? Perhaps these two reasons may make them so averse from a discovery of themselves, otherwise then by experience of their ways. Fourthly, by their ways we may either understand the practise of their opinions as they interpret themselves, pag. 30. or the consequents arising upon these practices. Secondly, mens actions may be discovered, and judged either physically, or morally; Physically, when they are discovered in their nature and kind, as when Independency is judged to be an exemption either of the people of a particular Congregation from the Authoritative power of their Pastors, or Elders, further then they may mutually exercise the same power of government over their Pastors or Elders, or an exemption of all the members of a Church from any subjection to itself, and other Churches authoritatively assembled in a representative body of a Synod: Morally, when mens actions are discovered, and judged just or unjust; as when that independency is discovered to be a just or unjust Government in the Church of God. If by their ways we understand the practise of their opinions, then the experience thereof cannot be the best discovery and judge of them& their actions: for thus they are onely discovered physically, but not morally, whereas both are to be discovered; it is fit both the world should know what kind of Government, and other ways they practise or maintain, and likewise should discover the lawfulness or unlawfulness thereof, which must be discovered, and judged by another rule then these ways themselves.  
If by ways, we understand the consequents arising upon the practise of such ways, and thereby will discover and judge the morality of these actions, or that practise, then neither are they thus the best Discoverers and surest Judges of men and their actions, since we all know how unsure it is to judge by the event, though some consequents of our ways may serve, to give a reasonable touch of the morality thereof: especially these that concern the intrinsical ends of these ways, as that Government being the best, in the practise whereof we may best attain to the ends of Government, where we see the consequents or events of any Government to be most answerable to the ends of Government, we may judge that government to be the best; and therefore one of the main and intrinsical ends of Government being to conserve peace among the governed. 1 Tim. 2.2. and( by our Brethrens confession, pag. 4.) presbyterial Government hath been accompanied with more peace then other Governments, that may be an evidence that it must be the best, and much better then our Brethrens Government, which hath always been accompanied with Rents and schisms, strife and debate, multiplying of Churches out of Churches;& the peoples casting off their Pastors at their pleasure by their Independent liberty; and if not casting them off, yet improving that power they assume as due unto them to the utmost in reproaching, rebuking, and drawing up Articles against them; whereof Mr. Bridge and others, have found plentiful experience at Rotterdam, to the tiring out of his spirit amongst them there; in so far as he hath been often heard to affirm, that if he had known at first, what he met with afterwards, he would never have come amongst them, nor, being amongst them, have given them such scope and liberty as he had: how attainable that end of peace is also in and by their government may be perceived by that expression of Mr. Bridges in the time of their distractions at Rotterdam, that since they could not live together with peace, it was better they should separate: all their complete power amongst themselves in their own Congregations being too narrow a plaster for to heal their sores. Hereupon a great part of that Church did without further leave, or order, or giving any satisfaction for offences, abandon the Church, and joined with others to the erecting of that Church whereof Mr. Sympson was Pastor, and were by him received without any more ado, notwithstanding that their schism. I cannot here also pass by a notable instance of the fruits and consequents of their Government, as one of their ways, which is this; these two Churches being of late commanded by the Magistrates of Rotterdam to unite again in one, and that Church whereof Mr. Sympson had been Pastor,( and Mr. Symons then was) being unwilling to join to the other, unless some members thereof should be first put off, especially one, and the Church whereof that party was a member, being willing to gratify the other in this, and yet professing and attesting as an act of the whole Church by writing, that all the time he had been a member his conversation had been without offence; yet their Teacher must be forced, as himself confesseth, with grief of heart( having nothing to except against the person) to urge him to take his dismission from the Church. If we should judge them by such ways, must we not judge the Officers by virtue of the peoples Independent liberty, to be enslaved to their corrupt appetites and pleasures?  
If hereunto we add the defection of some of their members to anabaptism, and how apt others of them are to be made a prey therein by any of that Sect that come along to seek proselytes, more then the members of other Reformed Churches; as late instance hath manifested, some having professed Mr. Sympsons principles have made them Anabaptists: have we not here their own Warrant to judge them by these ways? If their ways were but as well known in England as they have been at Rotterdam, I doubt not but many would affirm, as I have heard some, who coming out of England in some good opinion of them, being ignorant of their ways, till they took notice of them there, that they would never have believed that their ways had been such, unless they had seen it.  
The next truest discoverer, and surest Judge they thought to have left this discovery unto, is the experience of their spirits, but this can be no such true discovery of them, or their actions: for as the actions may in themselves be very good, and yet a spirit of pride, envy, &c. may appear in the performance of them, Philip. 1.15, 16. So on the other hand, unjust and illegal actions may be managed with a very fair and approvable temper of spirit, the affection outstripping the judgement; who knoweth not that holy and learned men, as these our Brethren are known to be, may hold forth a spirit of Holinesse in actions not approvable; yet since we know, that God, to show his discountenancing and dislike of evil, even to the best, doth often leave his people to some back-byas of spirit in the prosecution of such ways as he approveth not, and our Brethren so much desire to be judged by, experience of their spirits; as it was Dr. Ames his prudence and charity not to judge simply and absolutely of Dr. burgess his spirit, but onely of that spirit, which God left him to put on, when he became a Rejoyner by the marks of his spirit in that work: so shall this be a fit place for us not to judge absolutely of our Brethrens spirits, but onely to discover what spirit God seemeth to have left them to in this their plea and Apology for that unwarrantable Government of theirs, and how free they are of that spirit of schism, faction, pride, and singularity, whereof they so much labour, pag. 23. &c. to clear themselves.  
To this end let any judicious Reader first observe the frame, model and style of this Apology, and they shall see it cast in such a mould as may rather dazzle a popular eye by specious and rhetorical flourishes, and pathetic aggravations, with encomiastic applauses of their own ways and proceedings, and so to steal the affections of the ignorant vulgar( more apt to be taken with pathetic expressions, then strength of reasons) then satisfy the mind of any intelligent Reader: when the common sort look on them appearing with these expressions, pag. 3. and consider them having all these helps they boast of to find out the truth, their freedom& exemption from these temptations that might arise, from the place they went to, the condition they were in, the company they went forth with, to by as them any way: all these enlarged in divers particulars, leaving them as freely to be guided by that touch and light Gods Spirit should by the Word vouchsafe their consciences, as the needle touched with the Loadstone is in the compass? What ordinary capacity would not believe it were impossible for such men to miss the mark?& so with an implicit faith follow them whithersoever they should led them; whereto if we add the pathetic aggravations of their miseries, their patient forbearance of preaching, or printing any thing towards the vindication of themselves, being so every way provoked thereunto, pag. 25. who would not pity, love, and have compassion on such? And how apt such affections are to believe men on their own bare word, the affection commanding and forestalling the judgement, who knoweth not? And yet what weight can be in all these to press the justness of their cause, or truth of their deductions from thence what discerning eye cannot see? That wherein they were to satisfy the world in by this Apology, ought to have been a clear discovery of their opinions and ways, wherein they differ from us, and a vindication of the truth and equity of these above ours; but how far they come short in the former we have heard already, and shall yet see more fully; yea how little satisfaction any intelligent Reader can find in either of these by the Apology, may be infallibly concluded by their own words, pag. 27. where they profess to reserve the declaration of their judgements, and what they conceive to be Gods truth therein, to the due and orderly agitation of this Assembly; and pag. 30. to reserve a more exact and scholastic relation of their judgements in the points of Government about Church-government unto the more proper season and opportunity of this Assembly, &c. where we have a clear confession, that we have not a Declaration of their judgements, nor a scholastic Relation thereof, which must comprehend the Arguments to confirm the same in this Apology;( which makes me wonder how they could in the same, pag. 30. and with the same breath affirm, that thus they had nakedly, and with all simplicity rendered a clear and true account of their ways and spirits hitherto) and if so, whereto serves this Apology? unless it be by big and plausible words to gain the affections of the unstable vulgar, before they shall come to know their ways, which is to hold out a popular spirit.  
Secondly, though my conscience be my witness how little desirous I am to accuse them of pride, or partiality; yet that this apology seemeth to hold out such a spirit, I presume none shall deny, who shall but impartially consider these particulars therein. First, the confidence they have, pag. 3. of their looking upon the Word of God as impartially, and unprejudicially, as men made of flesh and blood are like to do in any juncture of time that may fall out; surely humility, and impartial respect to themselves, would have blushed to own such an expression, and have taught them to judge better of others then themselves, especially the best, at least in some juncture of times; might there not be some juncture of time as much favouring others in this, as that did them? And in such a juncture, is it not possible, that any of the choicest of Gods people might go( though but a hairs breadth) beyond them in looking impartially on the Word of God? Secondly, consider we the different eye wherewith they looked upon the writings and practise of other reformed Churches, and the old Non-conformists, and those of New-England, and if they have looked no more impartially on the Word of God, they shall appear to have been but flesh and blood; here first, one argument why they judge the Discipline of other reformed Churches, not so good as their own, is, because they found that that Discipline was not so accompanied with the practise and power of godliness, as they found even that in England, how-ever accompanied with more peace; pag. 4. is not this prejudice and partiality to respect a government, because they cannot discern those under that government to be proportionable in godliness to those whom( I think) they will not say lived under a better, but, we may confidently say, under a worse, to wit, episcopacy? I can hardly think they can be ignorant that evil men may live under a good government, or that they can think that some defect in the execution of good Laws, whereby liberty and licentiousness may increase, must needs argue a defect in the Law itself: I believe our Brethren know, that the power and practise of godliness are rather the fruits and effects of the free grace of God, and a powerful and sound dispensation of the Word, then of Government, properly so called. Secondly, they but consulted with reverence with the practise and writings of other reformed Churches; but they looked upon the light of the old Non-conformists as matter of advantage to them, and what they had written came more commended unto them, not onely because they were their own, but because sealed with their manifold and bitter sufferings; pag. 4. So also the ways and practices of those of New-England, they propounded as examples to themselves,( this is more than with reverence to consult with them) and that because they had testified their sincerity by such an extraordinary undertaking:( as though a sincere affection and great undertaking must needs argue a right informed judgement) pag. 5. Let any judge, whether to judge more truth to be in any mans way or writing then in anothers, because the one is our countryman, the other not; because the one hath suffered, the other not; whether so to look on the undertakings and sufferings of some, as to with-draw their eyes from thee, as great, undertakings, and as bitter, if not more bitter, sufferings, of others, be not extreme partiality; and how this can consist with that standing as unengaged spectators they boast of; pag. 5. and whether such impartiality, or rather partiality, as this is, in searching out truth, be not the way rather to stumble on errors then find out truth. Hereunto we may add their partial and tender care and wariness of saving the credit of those of the separation, whom they will not call Brownists, but whom( say they) ye( that is, we) call Brownists; pag. 5. no ways thus tender, or careful of the credit of other Reformed Churches; but whereas, at least to make them equal with those of the Separation, they should have called them such as Papists, and Lutherans call Calvinian Churches, they stick not absolutely to call them Calvinian Churches, pag. 22. Thirdly, if we will take a farther scantling of their partiality and pride in this apology, let us more particularly consider their aggravations of their miseries in their absence from their country; as, first assuming so frequently the title of Exiles, Gods poor Exiles, pag. 22. sufferers even to Exile: pag. 31. Secondly, they tell us, these were the saddest dayes of their pilgrimage on Earth, pag. 21. where they endured many miseries the companions of banishment, and that through the distemper of the place, they hardly came off that service with their healths, yea lives: pag. 22. First, suppose all these things were fully so, yet they conducing nothing towards that which ought to be the aim and end of this apology, nor they having any such occasion of this kind of boasting, as Paul had against the counter-boastings of others to the prejudice of the Gospel, where he yet did apologize for his boasting, 2 Corinth. 12.11. What can we judge less then that they here side more with the Pharisee than the Apostle; but I have had occasion to be somewhat acquainted with their conditions there: and I profess sincerely that( all things considered and compared) a man in such a condition might be well content to esteem any country his native country, such miseries, mercies, and such dayes the most comfortable dayes of their pilgrimage, and never to desire to come off that service with life; Oh how pride and partial self-love turns mercies into miseries!  
Fourthly, look we on the excessive hyperbolical encomiastics, whereby they magnify the actions and qualities of men of their own profession, and see if there be no partial spirit; pag. 5. they tell us, those that went to New-England undertook that voyage merely to worship God more purely, whither to invite them there could be no other invitement; It seems they must have been very privy to the aim and by as of all these mens spirits; if they had said there was no other invitement, it had been more then they could well affirm, I having known some to have been invited, and others to have gone by other motives besides that, but that there could be no other, either as a sufficient motive in respect of itself, or at least as a motive to them, though perhaps in itself not sufficient to persuade better judgements, I presume none can believe, but such as resolve to point at those mens actions and ends onely with such a partial finger, as shall put out the eye of their own common reason. Again, pag. 22. they tell us they lost some friends and companions, their fellow-labourers in the Gospel, as precious men as this earth bears any; I am so far from derogating from the memory of these mens deserved worth, that I believe in their life they would have abhorred such an applaudite.  
Fifthly, compare we the weakness and deficiency of the Founders of Reformation in the Calvinian Churches, in attaining to the perfection of that reformation the first day( as they call it) with their prosperous success in their second reformation, and that the first day, and see we what spirit that will discover unto us: pag. 22. it is a ground sufficient to them to judge those Churches to have need of a farther reformation, because they come new out of popery, and their Founders had no apostolic infallibility, and so might not be perfect the first day; They on the other hand came new out of Popish and episcopal superstition and Conformity, having according to their own confession, pag. 3. and 4. at first never looked further then the dark part of superstitions, until having chosen banishment, and being in that condition they were cast upon a farther necessity of inquiring into and viewing the light part, the positive part of Church worship and government; whereunto if we add, that they entred upon the practise of that worship and government as soon as they came into Holland, hereupon it must follow, they must have so far exceeded our first Reformers as to become so perfect in their Reformation, and that the first day, as to find( according to their own words, pag. 20.) principles enough not onely fundamental, and essential to the being of a Church, but superstructory also to the well being of it, and these to them clear and certain, and such as might well serve to preserve their Churches in peace, and from offence,( it is wonder there should such trouble and offence have been among them then) and such as would comfortably guide them to heaven in a safe way; and consequently, either they must have had apostolic infallibility, or must have been as blindly lead on in their first practise of their worship and Government in Holland, as they were in their many yeers practise of their superstitious and corrupt government in England, and have come with such forestalled affections to enter upon their new search, as those who devour holy things, and after vows make enquiry; Prov. 20.25. it would appear the world would have come to a better and more perfectissue, if they had been the first Founders of Reformation.  
Sixthly, let any judge whether, for any whose ways lye under so much suspicion and censure as they aclowledge theirs to do, not having either given a full Declaration of their opinions and judgements, nor scholastic reasons for the vindication of the same,( as we have seen also by their own confession they have not) to come to such a judicatory, as they aclowledge the Parliament to be, and require an allowance and toleration in the practise of their unknown, and unjustified opinions and ways, be not a touch of such a spirit as tells even a Parliament they deserve allowance in any thing, without being bound to give an account wherein, or wherefore; if this be that respect and authority they give to the Civill Magistrate beyond us, we can well spare them this precedency.  
What concerneth a spirit of faction, singularity and schism, first, let the world judge, whether, for these our Brethren without the knowledge and consent of that Assembly, whereof they are members, to set out an apology of this nature, to desire a toleration before their ways be known, and taken into consideration by the Assembly, and that to separate from all other reformed Churches, and stand singly by themselves, savoureth not of a spirit of faction, singularity and schism.  
Secondly, it is certain there is a party and faction, and a headstrong one too of their profession in England, and therefore it is not easily to be imagined, that this can be, without some influence from them, who are known to be the chief owners, and Patrons of these opinions there: there be two particulars also, which may seem to strengthen this jealousy; first, that which they pag. 24. express to prove the contrary, to wit, that they found the spirits of the people of that kingdom of England that profess or pretend to the power of godliness, ready to take any impressions, and to be cast into any mould that hath but the appearance of a stricter way: where ye see such sounding of spirits, with such Apologies, may it not increase the jealousy of an intended faction? Secondly, how ever ready they are in their Considerations, Consid. 1. and 6. to dehort others from a disorderly gathering of Churches; yet one of their own profession, who ought to know it,  told me they might well dehort others, when themselves had already gathered their own Churches; I have spoken with these also, who being at Brook-house in London to hear one of them preach, and he being suddenly called up to preach above, because of the crowd below, did hear many of them below affirm, they must hear him, and he must not preach, unless they heard, because they were of his flock; and himself was known to affirm, and profess he would preach no where unless his own people might be there; and is not this kind of gathering Churches somewhat factious, and a means to disturb the peace of the Church, and give occasion of Divisions, as they confess in their Considerations. Consid. 9.  
Thirdly, their expressions concerning the Church of England their opinions, government, and practise thereof are all Divisive, and destructive of the union of the Church, denying that common authority and government, which is the bond of that union; even as in a common-wealth, many Cities are also one body of a common-wealth, by one common Government, and common Governors. Hence they cannot endure the name of a national Church, not onely as Episcopal men absurdly understand it, meaning thereby the Bishops of a Nation, or a Convocation, but even as we rightly understand it to be meant of all the particular Congregations making one entire body, which is represented in a national Synod; and therefore in this apology they constantly speak of the Churches of England in the plural, never of the Church of England in the singular number, as may be seen, pag. 5. and 6. whereas, as the unity of invisible grace, and that inward and invisible government whereby Christ inwardly governs his people as King of his Church, is to us a ground and foundation whereon to build the unity of the invisible Church; so, also by the same consequence, are we forced to draw the unity of the visible Church from the unity of that visible profession, which all the particular Churches hold forth, necessary requiring one visible government of Christ, by those, unto whom he hath entrusted the keys thereof, according to that of Cyprian, De unit. Eccl. exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur; the keys not being given to the invisible, but the visible Church; hence we are not afraid to call all the visible Churches, one Church in the singular number, and that according to express Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.32. 1 Cor. 12.28. 1 Tim. 3.15. as being more properly the body of Christ, Col. 2.19. 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Ephes. 4.4, 12, 16. the new and heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of us all, Gal. 4.26.( See Whittak. Cont. 3. q. 5. cap. 3. pag. 601.) and the Spouse of Christ, Revel. 21.9, 10. than any one particular Church, which D. Ames confesseth to receive the name, and nature of the whole, as a similar part, and properly to be a part in respect of the whole, as the integral, though in respect of its composition by aggregation of divers members, it is also an entire body. Ames. Med. theol. li. 1. c. 32. Sect. 4.5.  
But they labour to clear themselves of such a spirit by a twofold Argument. First, pag. 23. they tell us that schism, which they affirm to have been a calumny cast upon them, must either relate to a differing from the former ecclesiastical Government of that Church( meaning the Church of England) established, and then( say they) who is not involved in it as well as we, or to that constitution and government that is yet to come, and until that be agreed on, established, and declared, and actually exist, there can be no guilt, or imputation of schism from it.  
To this we answer, first, that it were no sufficient plea for them, though all others were involved in it, as well as they, if it be a schism to differ from that government, since to have many companions in sin doth no ways excuse us.  
Secondly, a naked differing from any government maketh no schism, but such as is accompanied with emulation, contention, and strife, whereby the peace of the Church is disturbed by dividing and separating from it, drawing away others, setting up their own Congregations apart without order, preventing the Magistrate, or stirring up strife in it: for schism consists rather in affection then opinion. Hence, 1. Others differing with them from the former Government may be free of schism, and yet they not free. Secondly, hence they might be guilty of schism, even in respect of that Government which yet is to be established by their obstinate and disorderly running before authority in setting up their own.  
Thirdly, all others differing from the former government, and yet agreeing altogether peaceably in an other are no schismatics, and yet they differing so with them from the former, as withall they differ from all others in their own government might be schismatics, suppose schism might consist in a differing in government.  
The second Argument whereby they labour at large to clear themselves of a spirit of faction, &c. is taken from their long silence and forbearance to draw out such a spirit, being so manifoldly provoked thereunto, both from the advantage they had therein from the pliable humors and dispositions of the people, pag. 24. and the writings against them, and misconstructions of their silence, pa. 25. &c. To this we answer, that this is an Argument of no consequence: for what ever spirits men are of, they may in policy, either draw out these spirits, or in silence forbear, according as they see the one or the other may most advantage their ends. Now what ever other ends they here pretend of their silence; yet that the main end thereof was, the better, and more easy to obtain their liberty, as themselves here aclowledge, this to be one of their ends, and a main one too, to wit, the hopeful expectation they have been entertained with of an happy latitude, and agreement by means of this Assembly, and the wisdom of the Parliament, pag. 26. yea, and that this was the onely end of their silence, may appear from hence. First, had they forborn, as they tell us, pag. 25. they did, because they knew and considered that it was the second blow that makes the quarrel, and that the beginning of strife would have been as the breaking in of waters, then they might have published their opinions, without blows or scholastic reasons, as they insinuate they have done in this apology; and since they complain, that the cause and ground why mens affections are so edged against them, is the misapprehensions, and mistakes of them and their ways; in all reason a naked relation of their points of difference from us, would have served to take away those mistakes, and so rather to appease, then increase strife: but the truth is, they knew that a full discovery of their ways would have prejudiced their liberty, and therefore it was best to be filent, notwithstanding all provocations, and when they find it necessary to writ, they must be tender in touching any thing wherein they differ from us, but large enough in the enumeration of these points, wherein they agree with us, because the former might prejudice, but the latter may advance their liberty, si non castè, saltèm cautè.  
Secondly, all other ends pretended by them, as the avoiding occasion of strife, and their respect to a peaceable and an orderly Reformation, &c. did as much urge and press their silence now when they wrote this apology, as before, and yet now their liberty lieth at stake, all these cannot prevail with them to be longer silent, therefore it is evident that they were rather awakened to make this discovery, by the hazard of their liberty, then any exclamations, which they could patiently enough hear before without awakeing. Thus if Independent-Government may be best judged by the spirit wherewith it is maintained, I trust the world may discern what sentence is fit to pass on it.  
Next, they appear in public, and appeal, and that first unto the iudgement of the Parliament with a twofold confidence, the first of the iustice of this appeal manifested in a bold Quere, unto whose judgements they should first appeal, but theirs as the supreme judicatory of the kingdom. The second of the justness of their cause, manifested in their daring, and not fearing to appear before, and appeal unto so just and severe a tribunal, trusting to find it a sacred refuge, and an Asylum for their mistaken and misjudged innocency. Brethren, you are yet but putting on your armor, and therefore boast not as they who put them off.  
Before whom, and unto whose judgements should you first( say you) present yourselves, but to the Parliaments? First, the end of your appearing before them, you insinuate in these words( who have hitherto lain under so dark a Cloud of manifold misapprehensions,) so the Parliament must clear and resolve your ecclesiastical controversies and differences, judge what is independency, what not, what Government is the best, what is schism, what not, I can yet hardly persuade myself you think the Parliament the fittest Judge in such causes.  
Secondly, you appear first before and appeal unto the Parliament, and that because it is the supreme Iudicatorie: but therefore ye ought to have appeared and appealed last before, and unto it, and cannot appeal immediately unto it, without contempt of these inferior and subordinate Corporations and Judicatories you live under, appeals being from the inferior to the superior, and from the incompetent to the competent Judge.  
Thirdly, why do they tell us of their appearing and appealing first before or unto the Parliament? do they intend afterwards to appear before, or appeal unto any other inferior judicatory? I can conjecture no other reason why this word First was inserted, unless it were to pacify the Assembly of Divines, in showing themselves willing afterwards to appear before them: but do not themselves tell us, that they have adventured themselves upon that way of God wisely assumed by the prudence of the State,( meaning the way of the Assembly of Divines) in a conscientious regard had to the orderly and peaceable way of searching out truths, and reforming the Churches of Christ; and that as the stage whereon they would first bring forth into a public view their tenets, page. 28. If they know, and are in conscience persuaded, that the way of searching truths by the Assembly of Divines is assumed by the Parliament, and that, 1. wisely, 2. as the way of God, 3. as the stage whereon first to appear in public view, 4. as the orderly way, 5. promised so to do, then do they not commit a fault against knowledge, conscience, and promise, and that foolishly, and break and invert order, and the way of God and man in appearing first in public view before the Parliament, contrary to the Parliaments own prudent order; specially since their appearing before the Assembly is by themselves, page. 27. acknowledged to be an act of as great confidence( they calling it the most judicious and severe theatre of all other) as this in appealing to the Parliament, as the most just and severe tribunal. If their innocency in other things be no better, than this kind of contraveening the order of Parliament, they will have but little reason to expect to find it a sacred refuge for such innocency.  
This kind of disorderly appeals troubling Parliaments with such matters, the decision of ecclesiastical controversies, inverting the order of legal proceedings, contemning the Order of Parliaments, and slighting and neglecting inferior Judicatories, may show us, how likely it is that their mould will be coexistent with the peace of any form of civill Government on earth, as they affirm, page. 3. Though it hath been observed to be the impudently false language of some, that their mould and Government is the main cause of Christ, the Parliament contends for: yet I suppose the peace of this parliamentary Government hath been somewhat disturbed by their mould, and if it be the same with that of Brownists, to wit, popular Government, as experience hath and doth hitherto demonstrate,( what ever middle way they tell us of, page. 24.) then the many long and bitter Law-suits before the Governours and Government of Amsterdam flowing from the shameful rents and divisions, occasioned by that mould, may tell us how likely their mould is to be coexistent with the peace of any civill Government on earth; neither hath the peace of the civill Government of Roterdam been altogether free of disturbance by their mould. I could yet give other symptoms of the coexistencie of their mould with the peace of any other civill Government, if I would follow their example, in going about to exasperate the spirits of those in authority against them, as they endeavour to do against us, by telling the world, pag. 19. that they give as much, and( as they think) more to the Magistrates power, then the principles of presbyterial government will suffer us to yield: or if I had not more respect to the advancement of Reformation, then to think the whetting of the edge of authority( already so sharp) against who desire and urge it might be no hindrance thereunto: if that conscientious appehension of the danger of rending and dividing the godly Protestant party in that kingdom that were desirous of Reformation, and of making several interests among them, in a time when there is an absolute necessity of their nearest union and conjunction, and all little enough to effect that Reformation intended, and that conscientious regard to a peaceable way of reforming the Churches of Christ, whereof they make such sad profession, pag 25.26, and 28. were to be judged by such an endeavour as this, to rend the head further from the members, and the members from one another, I leave the impartial to apprehended whether they should not rather be found to be hinderers, then furtherers, both of the Peace and Reformation intended, unless they apprehended their Government to be the Reformation intended, the Calvinian and Presbyterian Churches standing in need of that farther Reformation, wherein the first Founders of Reformation shot short, and therefore the better to advance their Reformation, they may conceive it fit to blow the coal, and help to make presbyterial Government the more odious in the eyes of authority, as a deformation equal with episcopacy on the one hand, and worse on the other hand, in derogating from authority what theirs giveth. These men and Bishops may in the end be like to agree, and conspire again In odium tertii: for better one Bishop then many.  
After an enumeration of the helps and advantages they had to find the Truth, which we shall not need further to touch, at the end of the fifth page. they give an account of their opinion of the Churches and ministry of England: where they tell us, all the defilements thereof did never work in them any other thoughts, much less opinion, but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and parochial Congregations thereof were the true Churches and body of Christ, and the ministry thereof a true ministry; where it is plain, they aclowledge onely Multitutdes, of, not all the Churches of England true Churches, and the ministry of these Multitudes, not all, a true ministry. Me thinks, candour and ingenuity, would here have required a plain and free Declaration, what sort of Congregations and ministry they approve, and what sort they approve not, and upon what grounds; but such plainness had full ill suited the end and aim of this apology, and therefore I must be at the pains to unfold this mystery for them, to such as know it not.  
The difference then betwixt them and us in this particular consists herein. First, whereas Cartwright, Parker, and other Non-conformists agree with us, in the lawfulness and expediency of confining, for orders sake, particular Churches within the bounds of several distinct Parishes, they with the Separatists think this confinement unlawful,( though not in that degree to disannul, or annihilate the essential being of that Church so confined) but would have a liberty left to any where ever they live, to join to what Church they think good; and though I cannot say, they take on any as members, who cannot, by reason of the distance of their habitation, be ordinarily present and join with them in the worship of that Church, whereof they are members; yet being admitted members, let them remove their dwelling, and settle where they will, yea even to other Countries, yet, unless they have taken a formal dismission, they are accounted as members of that Church still, though it were after divers yeares residence elsewhere, and have as full power in matters belonging to that Church, as those who are residents where the Church is. An instance whereof there was not long ago at delft in Holland, where an English Church being begun to be formed, and upon the removal of him, who was to have been pastor, to Roterdam, and other occasions, all the men, who had been received members, having also removed thither, and to other places( two or three excepted) yet in the opinion of Roterdam, those remaining must be a Church still; and rather then fail, those who were removed must stand members, and join with those two or three left at delve, and must have power to call a Pastor, and take on members to the Church of delve, they living at Roterdam and elsewhere; and Mr. Forbes must be cried out on, as the breaker of the Church, because he would not suffer such a course to go on. Secondly, whereas it is a main foundation, whereby to justify that mixture, which they condemn in parochial Churches, and to own even such, who being baptized and professing the Protestant religion, after being come to yeares, though in their conversation they appear openly profane, as members of the Church, though not to be admitted to the Lords Supper: yet so as the Rulers of the Church are bound to have the oversight of them, and use the rod of Discipline against them, that the baptized children of the members of the Church are by virtue of their baptism made members of the Church: for since baptism doth initiate them in the Church, it cannot be in the invisible, but in the visible particular constitute Church whereof their parents are members, or wherein they are baptized; for by the former, wee should, besides other absurdities, stumble upon the Popish Opus operatum, and every baptized child should ipso facto be regenerated, yet their principles will not allow this, which hold, that none are members of a Church, but such( that I may speak in Parkers words, de Polit. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 16. sect. 1.) as being gathered by Christ into his Church by the ordinary means of the preaching of the gospel, are by that preaching prepared, and voluntarily enter into covenant with the Church, and are fit for participating in the Lords Supper.  
And hence their third and main difference from us, we may perceive in the first reason, whereby they labour to vindicate themselves from blotting the Congregations of England out of the roll of true Churches; because by the same reason( say they) the Churches of Scotland and Holland( for their mixture) must be judged no Churches also: Where they imply, not onely that their Churches are free of such a mixture, but their meaning is, that though there may be a Church, where there is this mixture of good and bad, yet in their opinion the Church consisteth onely of the good, requiring inward and true grace to the essential being of a member of a visible Church, still telling us with the Brownists, that a Church must consist of true Saints, alleging that place 1 John. 2.19. So then looking upon multitudes of the Parishes of England, having some true sanctified ones amongst them, them they look on as the Church, and such Parish-Churches for true Churches onely, and that in respect of these members. This may appear more plainly in that they admit none to communicate with them but who are members of a Church, and whom they aclowledge for such by their true godliness, may be seen pag. 6. at the latter end, where they tell us, they did proffer to receive into communion of the Lords Supper with them, some( whom( say they) we knew to be godly) upon that relation, fellowship, and commembership they held in England: hence a godly Minister coming to Arnhem, and desiring to communicate with them, he must first declare unto them that he was fully persuaded that there were some truly godly among those whom he had received as members of the Church, whereof he was Pastor; because otherwise they would not have acknowledged that Church for a true Church, and so could not have admitted him being no member of a true Church,( they admitting none but such.) Hence it is that we have D. Ames, Medul. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 32. sect. 11. making true inward faith onely the internal and essential state of a visible member of a visible Church, as well as of a member of the catholic, or invisible Church, and external profession the outward and accidental state even of a member of a visible Church: whence it must follow, that both the visible and invisible Church must have one essential form, and so the visible Church shall be essentially the invisible Church, and the invisible Church essentially the visible Church: Also, that he who is a member of the invisible Church must, ipso facto, be also a member of the visible Church, as being in the essential state thereof; whereas in truth outward profession is as essential and intrinsical to the visible Church, as inward grace is to the invisible, and puts a man in the essential state of a member thereof, as really as inward grace doth in the essential state of a member of the invisible.  
Fourthly, such Churches where there is either an explicit or implicit Covenant betwixt the members( ever supposing them to be true Saints) and the Pastor, and betwixt the members among themselves, these they hold for true Churches; but where there is no such Covenant as they must, and do imagine there is not in many parishes in England, there being in the Parish none who have thus bound themselves to one another, or to the Pastor, these Churches, or Parish Congregations they hold for no true Churches, nor the Ministry thereof a true Ministry: Hence pag. 7. at the beginning, they tell us, they offered to receive some in Communion with them, whom they knew godly, by virtue of their commembership, relation, and fellowship they held in their Parish Churches in England; they( say they) professing themselves to be members thereof, and belonging thereunto: their meaning in these words being, that they acknowledged them members, knowing them godly by virtue of this their profession, this including that Covenant, whereas without this profession, and acknowledgement of themselves to be members of that Parish Church, they would not have received them into communion with them, as not acknowledging them as members of any Church.  
Here two things are to bee noted, as their Tenets and practise: First, that they aclowledge no man a true Minister by virtue of his Ordination in England; but all their acknowledgement of any true ministry in England, is onely by virtue of an explicit or implicit Call, grounded on that explicit or implicit Covenant with him. Hence they all renounced their Ordination in England, and ordained one another in Holland: When Master Ward was chosen Pastor, and Master Bridges Teacher at Roterdam, first Master Bridges ordained Master Ward, and then immediately Master Ward again ordained Master Bridges. Secondly, they receive none to communicate with them but such as are, and by them acknowledged to be, members of Churches: So that a man may bee to their knowledge and acknowledgement in Christ, in covenant with God, and so have interest in all the promises of God, live without scandal, able to examine himself, and yet he shall be by them denied the seal of that Covenant, though he be cast out of that membership, by force, necessity, and persecution. Hence when Master John Forbes was violently thrust from his ministry among the Merchant Adventurers at delft, by Canterburies means, he with his whole family were denied the Communion at Roterdam: and one of the members at Roterdam taking grievously on, because one of the Merchants Adventurers( who out of conscience had renounced the Merchants Church, when Master beaumond became Pastor to it) did communicate with them, and being asked why he took such offence thereat, being he knew the man to be godly, answered in my hearing, That he had as much to do with an Heathen and a Publican as with him, so long as he was no member of a Church: So they dote on the Communion of Churches alone, as they forget the Communion of Saints.  
Pag. 7. They tell us of the respect wherewith they were entertained by the Reformed Churches abroad, and what mutual respect they gave them back again.  
To this we answer, First, That whatever respect personal, or otherwise, might have been shewed them at first, it might and did proceed, 1. From their being looked on as men forced to leave England, by the Bishops persecutions. 2. From the benefit the members of their Churches residency brought to the places where they lived. 3. From the ignorance of their ways; and therefore let us see what respect they had when their ways were known: Those of them who were at Roterdam, know what opposition Master park had from the Dutch-Church at delft, the Ministers thereof drawing their main plea from the confusions and schisms of Roterdam, objecting them continually, fearing the ways of their Church to be erected at delft might be conformable to theirs; and warning the Magistrates of delft openly out of the Pulpit, to take heed what English Preacher they allowed there, lest one Church might quickly multiply in two or three, and those of several ways, as they affirmed it to be in Roterdam. Neither are they( as I believe) ignorant how much the Dutch Preachers of Roterdam solicited the Magistrates, that they might be commanded to bring their differences to the Classes or presbytery, whereby such members, as finding themselves aggrieved, complained to the Dutch Preachers or Classes, might find a way of redress.  
Secondly, I know no other entertainment any of their Churches had there, but what other Sectaries had, save onely one of their two Churches at Roterdam, where their Preachers had maintenance allowed them, and that was by reason that that Church was formerly under presbyterial Government, and conformable to the Dutch-Churches, and had onely begun to decline towards their ways, a little before their coming to it, in Master Peters his time, who yet notwithstanding professeth himself at this hour to be a presbyterial man, for all his having been in New England, since his being Pastor of that Church: Master Sympsons Church maintained their own Officers, and preached in a private house, which they then fitted to be a public allowed Church since,( if this word, Church, in this sense be not offensive to them).  
Thirdly, What may concern the mutual respect they gave unto, and correspondency they also held with the Reformed Churches: We confess they acknowledged them for true Churches, yet it is not unknown with what disdain and censure, they, and their presbyterial way have been commonly spoken of at Roterdam; neither can they show us such a correspondency and fraternity between them and these Churches, as I am( and I believe truly) informed Master Sympsons Church( whether by him, or after his time by Master Symons I have not inquired) entred in, with those of the Separation at Amsterdam, by a mutual covenant and agreement to own each other. I believe it to be by virtue of that correspondency and covenant, that some of their members, not Officers of the Church, nor ecclesiastical persons, do publicly preach in Master Cans Pulpit at Amsterdam.  
In their Relation of the ways and practices of their Churches, pag. 8. they are so wise as to borrow some of that human prudence which they so much condemn in matters divine, pag. 10. for scarce touching any thing, wherein their ways and practices differ from ours, they onely mention such particulars wherein we agree; pag. 23. they grievously complain that the odious name of brownism, together with all their opinions, as they have stated and maintained them, are cast upon them; a man would think therefore that it should concern those men, in the account they give of their ways and practices, to show the world fully how much they differ from Brownists, if they would have that imputation taken off: and yet, in the enumeration of their ways and practices, they mention nothing but what is the way and practise of the Brownists in conformity with us, as fully as theirs: They tell us in the first place, that public worship was the same with that of the Reformed Churches; but they do not tell us whether their public Worshippers be the same or not, there being here a wide difference between them and us; for whereas we appropriate public preaching and praying to the Ministers alone, by virtue of their Office,( they being onely appointed by God to be his mouth to the people, and theirs to him) their common and ordinary practise alloweth this liberty to any man of the Congregation, in whom they apprehended ability thereunto, so that he is a public Preacher to day, who to morrow is no more, nor hath more charge in the Church then the meanest member; hath not Master laurence, a Gentleman and no Preacher, yet preached all this while at Arnhem, while his brethren were in England: but this had too near affinity with brownism, and therefore it was prudence to conceal it: neither was some of their preaching and prayers altogether the same with the preaching and prayers of the Reformed Churches, as I was informed from Master Sympsons often hearers, and very good friends; who  told me, his Prayers and Sermons contained little or no matter of confession of sin, or threatening of judgement, or what concerned the Law, or repentance; but of exalting the grace of God in Christ already wrought, and of thanksgiving, as being bound to frame his Sermons, and direct his speech to the benefit of none but those of his own Church, on whom he looked as already converted; these therefore he was onely to confirm and awaken to thankfulness, and not to aim at the conversion of any, it being the ordinary opinion among them, that this is not the work of a Pastor. Thirdly, in the matter of singing of psalms, which they reckon one part of their public worship, they differ not onely from us, but are also at variance among themselves; some thinking it unlawful for any to sing but he who preacheth, and this hath been the late practise at Arnhem; others thinking it unlawful for women to sing in the Congregation; hence some women at Roterdam do not sing with the rest of the Congregation: I hear also they think it unfit for any at all to sing in such times of the Churches trouble as this. Fourthly, they differ from other Reformed Churches in their public prayers; for whoever preach or pray otherwise among them, yet none must pronounce the blessing but the Pastor; neither do they esteem it lawful to use the Lords Prayer in public. Fifthly, in the Administration of the Sacraments they differ from them also; for they will baptize none but the children of their own members.  
Secondly, They tell us their Officers are the same with those allowed by the Reformed Churches; but so are the Brownists Officers also: Why did they not tell us, whether their way of calling and ordaining their Officers was the same or not? here we should have seen that an Officer cannot be called among them, unless he be first a member of their own Church, as among the Brownists: So that if they be to call some one who hath been, or is a Pastor elsewhere, he is not capable of a call to be their Pastor; but they must onely call him to be a member with them, and he must take his hazard of being called Pastor, after he hath left his former charge, and joined in membership with them; and I assure you, this may prove a hazard sometimes amongst them: So here we should have seen that not onely the power and practise of Calling, but also of Ordination, is wholly and solely in the hands of all the Congregation indifferently amongst them: neither were all their Officers the same with those of the Reformed; for I hear of no ruling Elders that ever Master Sympson had in his Church, but that he thought that Office unlawful; which suits better with their principles then the contrary: for if the keys of Government and Discipline be given to all the faithful, what keys of this nature should these Elders have apart? These Elders are( say they) with them, not Lay-men, but ecclesiastical persons, separated to that service: But, Brethren, have all Churches ability to maintain them? is every Church furnished with men of such abilities, as you require these ecclesiastical Elders to be? your Church at Roterdam hath long wanted Elders, and that, by their own confession, for these reasons: and if the troubles end in England, they may be like to want them still; and therefore, Brethren, do you think Christ hath confined his Church within the compass of these straits?  
Thirdly, the matter of Government( say they) and Censures was the same, which all aclowledge, viz. Admonition, and Excommunication; but was, or is the form the same also? do they not pled as hard for the peoples right, and power in Government, and Excommunication, equal with that of the Rulers, without subjection either to consistorial, or presbyterial authority, as ever Master can did for Sions Prerogative royal? and yet these mens way of Government must lye in a middle way, between Brownisticall and presbyterial Government, pag. 24. I doubt when this middle way shall be discovered, it shall be found medium abnegationis in respect of presbyterial, and medium participationis in respect of Brownisticall Government. By these particulars it may in measure appear how just cause they have to complain, that all the opinions of the Brownists are cast upon them, and what warning they took by the Land-marks, and shipwrecks of the Separation, of these rocks and shelves they run upon, as they profess, pag. 5. to have taken: and it is worth the noting, that pag. 23. they do not complain, that they are simply made to own all the opinions of brownism, but that they are made to own them as they are stated and maintained by them; do but state them otherways, which may be done without any great material difference, and the occasion of that complaint is taken away. Fourthly, they tell us they use Excommunication onely upon obstinacy and impenitency, and that for sins against the parties known light, and the light of nature, &c. A man would think these our Brethren were very sparing of their censures, yet they have been observed, by all who have known their ways, to censure some persons for some such causes, as no well Reformed Church would censure any; but to pass that, together with the danger of their restraint of Excommunication to such sins as they do restrain it to, onely, me thinks, what they here affirm is not very suitable to that their practise, whereof I am informed by those who ought to know it, to wit, they having some discourse in their public meeting concerning the introduction of that which they call prophesy, in their Church at Roterdam, and of dissolving the Church, that they might cast one in their own mould; whereupon six or seven members standing up, and telling them, they would complain to the Magistrates that they were Brownists, and were a going to change the Church into a Brownist-Church, it was immediately voted about, whether these members should not instantly be excommunicated? and was carried affirmatively, and should accordingly have been executed, had not Master Bridges his prudence prevented it. I think it may be much questioned, whether these men here sinned against their known light, or the light of nature? however, sure the time was very short to convince them of impenitency and obstinacy.  
Next they come to their Principles, the first whereof is to follow the pattern and example of the Churches erected by the Apostles, and not to move beyond the direction of the Scripture, not daring to eke out what was defective in their light with human prudence. brethren, Scripture is a full and perfect rule; yet you confess here, that there is such a blemish in our eyes, as we cannot come to a clear knowledge of the directions and examples therein, especially to find out rules for all cases, though they be to be found; why then, when any case may occur, a rule concerning which we cannot find in Scripture, yet, if we may find a rule for it in prudence, which Scripture doth not cross, nor it Scripture, must we there suspend all practise, when the case urgeth something to be done, and prudence furnisheth reasonable and equitable grounds and ways to proceed in? When we find general rules in Scripture, as of Decency and Order, must not prudence help us to apply them fitly to particulars? When we urge them often, from their own principle, with the Apostles directions and examples in Government and Ordination, it being never left to the people in Scripture, &c. they are ready to tell us, the Apostles were extraordinary persons, and therefore not imitable: must not prudence here umpire the business, and show us what actions are imitable, or not imitable in the Apostles? We have seen they can sometimes help themselves with prudence, yea such human prudence as we shall never own: When he which succeeded Master Bridges was asked why he would, against his heart, and with grief, at the peoples desire, urge that Member of whom we have made former mention to leave the Church, he answered he took the prudential way. Whether was it the rule of Scripture, or human prudence, that put them at Roterdam on that resolution of dissolving the Church, both first and last, that they might be free of such members as were not of their mould? Wee have a general direction in Scripture, that the members of a Church shall entertain Church-communion together; some kind of prudence taught some women at Roterdam for a long time to apply this rule to a particular practise of communion together every week, in joint fasting and prayer, till better prudence hath of late taught them to leave it. God give all of their mind and way prudence to apply Scripture fitlier, and more properly then they usually do in these controversies with us, and then our Brethren do here that particular Scripture of the old and new garment, to that purpose for which they apply it. The rules of divine and human prudence may be the same, and equally appliable to human and divine matters, as the moral law, and the law of Nature are. We hope both Scripture and prudence, and if neither of these, at least experience shall in the end teach our Brethren, that popular Government is not the way to preserve Churches in peace, and from offence.  
Their second Principle was, not to make their present iudgement and practise a binding law unto themselves for the future. I think no man makes his practise a law for the future; but why durst they not trust their present iudgement? they are jealous of themselves( say they) because they had too great instance of their frailty, in the former way of their conformity. Here we see first that they were jealous and doubtful, whether that Worship and Government they practised was right or not, fearing their judgements might be misinformed in this, as in their former conformity: where is then the truth of what they affirm immediately before? that they found in the word Principles enough, not onely fundamental and essential to the being of a Church, but superstructory also for the well-being of it, and those to them clear and certain. Secondly, they commend this as a Principle to be carried about with us, not to make our present judgements a binding law to us for the future: I grant this is a good Principle where men are so uncertain and jealous as they were, and hope this Principle may be a means of their union with us in the end, which is the thing our souls breath after; but to such as have attained to a certainty of the truth and equity of their ways, they are bound to make that certainty a binding law for their future practise: neither did I think that our Brethren would have us live in a continual wavering and doubting, and not, according to the rule, bee persuaded in our minds, Rom. 13.15. and not condemn ourselves in what wee allow, and sin in all wee do, not doing it of faith, ibid. 22, 23.  
Their third principle was, to choose still to practise safely, and so as they had reason to judge that all sorts, or the most of all the Churches did aclowledge warrantable, although they make additaments; here their rule is, 1. to practise safely; 2. they measure this safe practise, by all or the most Churches acknowledgement of that practise to be warrantable, as may appear by their first instance, the taking in of members, wherein( say they) they choose the better part, and to be sure,( that is, to practise safely) received in none, but such as all the Churches in the world would by the balance of the Sanctuary aclowledge faithful. First, this principle crosseth the first, where they justly made the Scripture the onely measure of safe walking. Wee are much to honour the unanimous consent and practise of Churches, and wish our brethren would not so easily take up singular practices of their own, which they so unanimously condemn, or reject those which they approve: but wee require them not to make their warrant the rule of safe practise to them. Secondly, in this their first instance, where they say, they received none, but such as all the Churches judged faithful, if they would hold to their principle in stead of( judged faithful) they should have said,( judged warrantable to receive;) for all the Churches may aclowledge some faithful, whom they will not judge warrantable to receive. Thirdly, it is neither the safest way, nor do all, or the most Churches judge it warrantable to receive none, but whom all the Churches in the world shall aclowledge faithful; what if any one, or some Churches such as theirs, or the Brownists, may not( as they do not) aclowledge some, yea many faithful, whom other, yea, I dare say, all other Reformed Churches will aclowledge such, do they therefore think that all the other Churches will judge it warrantable, that these shall not be received, because they aclowledge them not faithful? Fourthly, if they think they walk safely in practising so, as all sorts, or the most Churches judge warrantable, then, why do they not receive such others, besides them they do receive, whom, I believe, they know the most part of other Reformed Churches aclowledge warrantable to receive? Why is not the warrant of the most of other Churches as powerful with them in these things, which they call their additaments, as in other things? must not their answer be, because all the Churches aclowledge what they do lawful and good, but they cannot judge, that which other Churches do beyond them, lawful, and so the English of their practising, so as all, or most Churches shall aclowledge warrantable, must be, that they will embrace and follow the warrant of other Churches, though the most, or all, so far as they shall have their own warrant, and so the safety of their practise shall be measured by their own, not the warrant of any or all other Churches; but to come to particulars, do not all, or the most Churches aclowledge it warrantable, and safe to receive such whose tender hearts may cast them in such doubting,( notwithstanding their exemplary conversation) as they dare not profess themselves to be converted, and so proffer themselves to the church in their desire of enjoying ordinances of Christ, as having interest therein in Christ, as they require to be done by every one, whom they receive: one whom they will aclowledge as holy and savoury a Christian as any in their Church of Roterdam  told me, that Mr. Bridges having urged them to become a member of that Church, the party answered, they could not, as not daring to make such a profession, not having that assurance of their conversation or interest in Christ. Secondly, the most Churches think it the safest way to hazard to err rather in the excess, then in the defect of charity; yea that charity is to umpire the business, whether to judge the party faithful, or worthy to be received, or not, in respect of some acts of some sin, or sins in him, on the one hand, and other ways and carriages, as signs of sincerity on the other hand; but their practise is not futable to this practise and judgement of most Churches: for they receive none, but whom all the Churches in the world shall aclowledge, that is, evidently see without scruple to be faithful. Thirdly, all or most Churches think it safe and warrantable, that those who are to be received, be tried by the Gevernours of the Church, and that apart from the Congregation and not to allow a licentious liberty to all, and every member o● the Church, to go first and inquire in their ways and conversations, and to examine them by private conference, and then caus● them to make a public confession of their faith, in the hearing of all the Church; whereby many that have not the least, but even much of Christ, are many times, out of bashfulness and other respects, kept out; but their practise herein is quiter contrary to this iudgement of most Reformed Churches. Fourthly, they here tell us, they took measure of no mans holinesse by his opinion, whether concurring with them, or adverse unto them, that is, be of what opinion he will, if they can find holinesse in him, which they measure not, nor judge by his opinion, they received him: but I am sure all the other well Reformed Churches in the world, will be so far from acknowledging this practise warrantable, as they contrarily will judge this a very Heterodox position, as admitting not onely Brownists, Arminians, and Lutherans, and Anabaptists to be members of their Churches, but not excluding men of any opinion whatsoever, and judging holinesse may consist with any the grossest opinion; and so Arrians, and Socinians may be holy men; but charity forceth me to believe, that though out Brethren have here over-reached themselves in their expressions, yet their meaning was onely to show they admitted Protestants of all opinions, for them, or against them and their holinesse; they did not measure by their opinion, as we may collect from that immediate following expression, where they tell us, they were sure no Protestant could but approve( as touching the members of it) of Churches made up of such; but my Brethren, you are more confident of this also, than you have reason: for I believe, no Protestant, but themselves, will either approve of Brownists Churches, or allow any Reformed Church to receive Brownists, showing, and professing themselves to be Brownists, or Separatists as members, a profession of the Orthodox Faith and Truth of the gospel, and a Communion with, and acknowledgement of the true Churches of GOD, without schism from them, being requisite in such members as the Reformed Churches will approve: Neither can wee see how they can receive any Protestant, though he differ in opinion from them: for how can they receive any of the opinion of presbyterial Government, since such must not onely refuse to take a share of their keys in his own hands, as not judging the keys to belong to him; but also to submit himself to their Government, as being in his opinion unlawful, will they receive such a one? I trow not.  
Passing their second instance, I come to the third, wherein the main controversy between them and us doth consist: And here they misse-shape and mistake the Question, that we scarce know where or how to fasten on them. For first, they being( according to their Principle) to show, that what is their practise in the matter of Government and Discipline, is acknowledged warrantable by all, or the most of the Reformed Churches; to show this, they first tell us, that however the practise of the Reformed Churches be, in greater matters to govern each particular Congregation by a combined presbytery of the Elders of several Congregations, united in one for Government; yet so as in their judgements( meaning of the Reformed Churches) they allow, especially in some eases, a particular Cougregation a complete and entire power of jurisdiction to be exercised by the Elders thereof within itself;( thus far they.) Here they themselves give us three Restrictions of that power, which by the judgement of the Reformed Churches is given to particular Congregations within themselves; and so( according to their Principle) their practise of that power ought to be bounded by those Restrictions, that so it may be judged warrantable by the Reformed Churches. Now let us examine whether it be so or not. The first Restriction must be, that particular Congregations must have this entire and complete power within themselves onely in smaller matters; for in greater matters( say they) the practise of the Reformed Churches is, to govern them by a presbytery. But do they not assume this power in all, even the greatest matters, as in their sole calling and ordination of Officers, and Excommunication,& c? Nay, do not these words( entire and complete) exclude all limitations? do not these words, pag. 14. where they profess to assume a full, entire, and complete power within themselves until( say they) we should be challenged to err grossly, show us, that they do not so much as aclowledge themselves bound to require the help of other Churches, even in their consultative way, without any authority, and that in the greatest matters, until they be challenged to err grossly; which cannot be till the error be committed, and consequently till they have increased their power in that wherein their error is. The second Restriction, whereby they aclowledge the Reformed Churches have limited particular Congregations in their power, is, in that they allow them this power within themselves( say they) in some cases onely; and this we do not deny: for in case a particular Church be solely remote from other Churches that it cannot enjoy the benefit of a presbytery, we deny it not an exercise of power within itself; for Necessity hath no Law; and this case is extraordinary, and so cannot be regulated by ordinary laws: but do they not assume this full and complete power in all, and not in some cases onely, and so walk without the circuit of their Principle? The third Restriction is, that the Reformed Churches allow all this power in particular Congregations( say they) to be exercised onely by the Elders thereof. Here, if by the exercise of that power by the Elders, they mean, that the execution onely of that power is proper to the Elders, and that the power itself belongeth to all the members of the Congregation; then first, they wrong the Reformed Churches, in making them to give onely the exercise of that power, and not the power itself, to the Elders: Though some particular men may derive the power from the body of the Church to the Officers, yet I believe they shall find no Reformed Churches but will affirm, that the Officers have the power of jurisdiction itself, as well as the exercise thereof; the Reformed Churches leave this opinion to them, with Papists, Prelates, and Brownists: and so they want the warrant of the Reformed Churches in this also. Secondly, suppose the Reformed Churches did allow onely the exercise of power to the Elders alone, do they so also? No surely, if giving suffrage and definitive sentence, calling, examination, and ordination, and deposition of Officers, excommunication, public preaching, and praying, be exercises of power, which any member of the Congregation may, and doth as well exercise amongst them as the Elders. When that business of the deposition of their Pastor was in debate between them of Rotterdam and those of Arnhem as they had all had a hand in this deposition, so in that meeting did not the richer sort of the Church agree to make up the loss, which the poorer sort complained they did sustain by being kept from their work, that they might all stay, to the end the business might be agitated by all their suffrages, and by their common power;( here by the way, me-thinks such inconveniences as these, commonly attending their Government, might show them, it must be rather a yoke then a prerogative:) besides, will they affirm that all the while either the one or the other Church of Rotterdam wanted Elders, they could have no exercise of Government; there is no Elder there at this present, nor hath been since Mr Burroughs went away, yet they will confess they assume both a power and practise of Government,( by Elder I here mean onely a Ruling-Elder, for I know they will not say the Pastor can govern alone:) and if Mr Sympson, or others among them, will have no Ruling-Elders, as not allowing of them, who then shall have the exercise of Government? Thus we see by these particulars in these two instances, how justly they may or do hold forth that true and just apology unto the world, that in the matters of greatest moment and controversy, they still choose to practise safety, and so as they had reason to judge that all sorts or the most of all the Churches did aclowledge warrantable, although they make( say they) additaments thereunto.  
Next, whereas they should have shewed us where the most Reformed Churches give such power as they assume to themselves, and to particular Congregations, in stead of these Churches they give us three Non-conformists; and as though their very names would strike all dead, they usher them in with a( yea;) yea and( say they) our own Mr Cartwright, holy Baines, and other old Non-conformists, place the power of Excommunication ( this is more then the practise or exercise of Excommunication) in the Eldership of each particular Church, with the consent of the Church, until they do miscarry, and then indeed they subject them to Presbyteries, and provincial Assemblies, as the proper refuge for Appeals, and compounding differences among Churches; which combination of Churches( say they) others of them( meaning Parker) call Ecclesiae ortae, but particular Congregations Ecclesiae primae, as wherein firstly the power and privilege of a Church is to be exercised; thus far they. Here they would persuade us, that these Authors place a full power of Discipline in the particular Congregation, until they miscarry, a presbytery or Synod not having power to meddle with them, but in the case of gross miscarrying. For Baines, I have him not by me, but I remember when I red him I found him fully for presbyterial Government; but sure I am the other two are made to speak what they never meant: for Cartwright in his first Reply to Whitgift pag. 187. telleth us, that not onely if the Elders shall determine any thing contrary to the Word of God,( which is our brethrens case of miscarrying here) but also in harder and difficulter causes( which I hope may be before the particular Church may miscarry in them, and not onely for remedy of the vices and incommodities which the Churches be in, but also are in danger to be in, ( and consequently in danger to miscarry in) things were carried to the Synods, provincial, national, or general, where he mentioneth this practise as a thing he so far allowed, as he telleth us we ought to have our recourse to such remedies, and that for that end these meetings ought to be as often as conveniently may be. As for Parker, he indeed calleth particular Congregations Ecclesias primas, and Synods Ecclesias ortas, but not as they affirm; because the power and privilege of a Church is firstly to be exercised in these Congregations: for we shall presently see, that he thinks that in many cases it should not be firstly exercised by them,( or rather indeed he calleth them so, not in respect of, or relation to, either the power, or the exercise of that power first or last, but in respect of the original of their being and nature, the primae Ecclesiae being before the ortae, and these having their rise from a combination of the primae, as we may see in his definition of both, de Polit. Eccles. l. 3. cap. 13. at the very beginning of that Chapter) and so he cannot call them so for their( therefore;) that is, because the power must be in the particular Congregations, till they miscarry, and then onely the parties aggreeved might appeal to Presbyteries and Synods: for he will have things referred to a Synod, first, in all common matters, allowing a particular Congregation power onely in her own proper matters, that is not a case of miscarrying. Secondly, if proper matters cannot be decided in the particular Congregation, he refers them to the presbytery, here is yet no case of miscarrying. Thirdly, then cometh in their case, that is in case of ill administration. And fourthly, he giveth liberty of appeal from a particular Congregation to a Presbytery or Synod, even when they have well administered, and so not miscarried; and that, as he proveth, by the University of Paris, and Whitaker; because appeals are juris divini& naturalis, which I desire our brethren to take notice of: See Parker de Polit. Eccles. l. 3. cap. 20. Sect. 2. And in the same third Book cap. 23. sect. 3. we shall see him allow the fonne of Geneva, where the lesser and more insufficient Congregations may not excommunicate, nor exercise Discipline, without having recourse to the rest of the Churches, as a practise founded on the communion of Churches, and having its rise from the prudence of the Spirit; yea, and he thinks this a thing not unworthy the most perfect Churches to practise; quod ego Ecclesiis vel perfectissimis haud indignum reor. Thus they have neither any reformed Church, nor these Authors they so much rely on, to help them, in their independent power within particular Congregations, even ti●l they be challenged to err grossly. But page. 14. they will not have this power called an Independent power, abhorring that proud and insolent title: Why? because the very sound thereof( say they) conveys to all mens apprehensions the challenge of an exemption of all Churches from all subjection and dependency; or rather, a Trumpet of defiance, against whatsoever power, spiritual or civill. Brethren ye are very angry at this title, and therefore wrong the innocent Word, the sound whereof neither imports nor conveys any apprehension of defiance; for one man may be said not to depend on another, and yet not to defy him, for he may be more then his match; neither doth it convey to mens apprehensions an exemption from all subjection and dependency, and that on whatever power, either spiritual or civill, but simply an exemption from dependence on power, which no rational man can presently apprehended to be from all kinds of power: but you may, and that justly, be called Independents, if there be any sort of power you depend not on, nor are subject to; and I am sure you exempt yourselves from a dependence on the power of Presbyteries and Synods: But you will tell us, as you do pag. 14. that you claim not an independent power to be subject or give an account to none others; but onely a full and complete power within yourselves until you should be challenged to err grossly; such as( mark it) Corporations enjoy, who have the power and privilege to pass sentence for life and death within themselves, and yet are accountable to the State they live in. If hereby you mean, that as these civill Corporations are subject to the civill State in their civill causes, so your ecclesiastical Congregations, and for decision of ecclesiastical controversies, are subject, and that only, to the civill Magistrate, then as the comparison is too unsuitable, so I hope you will grant that we may call you Independents, as you exempt yourselves from any ecclesiastical subjection to any ecclesiastical authority of Presbyteries and Synods: If by that comparison you will illustrate and declare the dependence you are willing to have on, and thereby to give an account to and be censurable by other Churches, as these Corporations are by the State, as you express page. 21. then if you will but stick to your own fit comparison, the controversy shall be ended betwixt us: For then, first, as this Corporation, being an entire body within itself, is also a part of the greater body of the State composed of that, and all the other Corporations in the State: so a particular Congregation, though it be an entire body, yet is it also a part and member of the greater body of a national Church, composed of that and all the other particular Churches in the Nation. Secondly, as this Corporation is accountable to the State, as to a superior Judicatory, having authority over it, though it be collateral to every one of the other Corporations, whereof the State is composed: so a particular Congregation, though collateral to the several other Congregations, yet must be subject to them combined in one national Church, so as they must have an authoritative power over it. Thirdly, as the superior Judicatory( as a Parliament) may by its power take any cause immediately before them; so the combined Churches may take a cause out of the hands of a particular Congregation. Fourthly, as there are some cases as of Treason; and some parties, as Noble-men, which are not to be judged by any particular Corporation, under which the parties live, but by a superior judicatory, and their peers; so also there may be some cases and persons in a particular congregation, which may not be judged but by a combination of Churches. Suppose the King were a member of some of these our brethrens congregations, he having any of them to be Pastor to the Church of his family, would they think their sole authority sufficient to judge him especially it being very like they are of Ambrose his mind, that Emperours and Kings may be excommunicated? were their sole authority sufficient for such a sentence against such an one, in whom, and wherein the whole State and all the Churches must be so much interested, as the foundations of both might be shaken thereby: Ambrose was wiser, who would not undertake to excommunicate Theodosius without a Synod. I entreat our brethren seriously to consider, whether common reason doth not show the same equity and necessity to be of the same proportional authority of Synods over particular congregations, as there is of that authority in the State over particular corporations in these particulars, in the acknowledgement whereof if they would join with us, we should not quarrel with them concerning that state of the Question, which they frame page. 14. alleging, we affirm that it should be the institution of Christ, or his Apostles that the combination of the Elders of many Churches should be the first entire and complete seat of Church-power over each congregation so combined; or that they could challenge and assume that authority over these Churches, they feed and teach not ordinarily, by virtue of those forementioned apostolical precepts: for though it be a question agitated among Divines, especially Papists and episcopal men, the one to uphold the power of the Pope and the Romish Church; the other, to uphold their Cathedrals: yet we shall willingly yield them, that the combined Presbytery is not the first entire, full, and complete seat of Church power over each congregation so combined; neither do any of these derive power to other but instrumentally, both having their power immediately from Christ, who when he gave power to the one gave it to the other also, as they cannot but have seen sufficiently cleared by their own Ball in his trial of the grounds of Separation, cap. 12. That which we affirm, is, that as by Christs and his Apostles Institution, every particular congregation is to govern itself Aristocratically by its Governours and Rulers; so these congregations, by the same institution, and the Law of nature, and common reason, ought to be so combined as to govern themselves authoritatively by their Rulers and Elders, deputed, and so farther and immediately authorised to that end by their several congregations; neither do we ascribe to them, or do they assume that authority over those Churches, they seed and teach not ordinarily, by virtue of those apostolical precepts, which our brethren mention page. 14. either onely, directly, or principally, as they here suppose; as we shall presently see in the examination thereof. After we have first examined out brethrens first argument, urged against the power of presbyterial combinations, which they urge page. 13. where they tell us, the first Churches planted by the Apostles consisted of no more, then might make up one particular congregation in one City at first; and so for the Churches in the Acts, by the testimony of Non-conformists: therefore particular congregations( which must be their inference) had their entire and complete being and power within themselves, before, and without cerivation of that power from Synods, or before they could be combined in Presbyteries. This last inference they there intimate.  
To this we answer, first, that if this argument were reduced in a form, we should find four termini in it: for whereas the premises onely mention congregations of Cities, the conclusion is general of all other congregations also, and so they conclude also à particulari ad universale. Secondly, either they afsinne the Apostles gave those first Churches their complete power, without those three restrictions formerly mentioned, or with these restrictions: if the former, then besides the truth of what wee formerly affirmed of their not tying themselves to these restrictions in their practise, wee see also they mentioned these restrictions onely to make the World believe their practise is conformable to that of the reformed Churches; whereas here they tell us, that of the Reformed Churches to be contrary to apostolical institution: If the latter, that is, if the Apostles gave particular Congregations that power so limited, then it must follow, that the Apostles must have allowed of some other seat of power, whereby that limited power might be more enlarged, and accordingly practised: for if the power of particular congregations be, and that by apostolical institution, onely in smaller matters, and some cases, must not the Apostles allow another seat of power in greater matters, and all cases? Thirdly, this argument runneth upon these false suppositions; first, that as soon as particular Churches have a being, they must ipso facto have all power: secondly that no particular Church can by our opinion have a being before a combination of Churches: thirdly, that this combination also by our opinion must bee the first seat of Church power, deriving it to particular Congregations. This later we have disclaimed already, and the second we are so far from owning that contrarily we cannot but know from our own principles of presbyterial government, that there must have been particular congregations formed, and invested with power, as the matter whereof the Presbytery is to be compounded,& from whose power their Delegates must bee authorised, before there could be Presbyteries, thus compounded of and authorised by them( who knoweth not that simples must be before their compounds as there must be particular corporations before there be a Parliament; but that it doth hence follow, either that these Churches thus formed by the Apostles, are not to combine in Presbyteries and Synods afterwards; or that therefore no particular congregations may be formed by the power of Presbyteries and Synods is as absurd, as that particular corporations in a Nation are not to join in a common State, because there was no such State when the first Corporations were erected; or as, that States or Parliaments may not erect or form new Corporations in a Common-wealth or kingdom, but they must form themselves by their own power, because there was no common State, or Parliament composed of divers Corporations, at the forming and erecting the first Corporations, but Corporations were before them: Let States, Parliaments, and civill Magistrates here observe, what power the principles of Independency alloweth them above and beyond that, which the principles of presbyterial Government will or can allow them. Fourthly, I answer, that though there were no Presbyteries then to give being to, and to form those first Congregations yet there was that power which is equivalent to the power of Presbyteries, to wit, apostolical power, and wee see these Congregations did not form or plant themselves, nor were they formed and planted by any one Preacher alone, as theirs are, but by the Apostles: this apostolical example is to us moral, grounded upon this perpetual equity, that Sectaries of any profession might not have liberty at their pleasure to gather themselves into Churches, and this example our brethren knew to have been constantly followed and imitated in the Church after the Apostles times, which by the corruption of times gave accidentally occasion afterwards to the usurped power of Cathedrall Churches, which from hence were called Mother Churches; we give this power to combined Churches, as being both most equitable, that what power in such a case an Apostle used, should not be exercised by any one person or Church, but by many; and also is most suitable to that equality which our brethren and we both justly require in the Church of God.  
Their second argument is this, pag. 15. whatever power combined Churches assume over particular congregations, must be assumed by virtue of those apostolical precepts, which they relate pag 14. but that cannot be, for( say they) we judged that all those precepts, Obey your Elders, and them that are over you, were( to be sure and all grant it) meant of the Pastors and Teachers ordinarily feeding and teaching their people, and other Elders that were set over them in each particular congregation respectively, and to be as certainly the intendment of the holy Ghost, as in these like commands, Wives obey your own husbands, servants your own Governours, to be meant of their several families respectively; where they insinuate, that by virtue of these precepts, Pastors and Elders are only to rule their own particular congregations, and these only obey their own Rulers thus set over them, even as husbands are only to rule their own wives, and masters their own servants, and wives and servants to obey none but their own husbands and masters.  
To this argument we answer: First, that it is false, that all the authority which combined Churches assume or may assume, over particular congregations must only be by virtue of these apostolical precepts. We confess, if there were no other grounds for presbyterial Government then these precepts, that these alone would not enforce it; they might therefore have done well to have proved this, that there can be no other grounds for that authority, but from these precepts; whereas contrarily wee know the Apostles had authority over particular congregations, and by virtue of that authority enjoined them these precepts; and therefore their authority over them could not be derived from these precepts: and if there may be other grounds for apostolical authority, why not also for presbyterial?  
Secondly, if all authority of Pastors or Rulers over particular congregations must be drawn from these precepts, then either there must be no authority( especially since apostolical power is at an end) over Pastors, Teachers, and Elders themselves, or then wee must have it from these precepts: and so first, the meaning of Obey your Elders, &c. should be, Elders obey yourselves. Secondly, whereas they subject the Officers and Elders unto the people the precepts must be inverted thus, Elders and Governours obey them that are under you, and your own servants, husbands obey your own wives. I hope these absurdities may let our brethren see, that as there is a necessity of presbyterial Government, so that it is not firstly or only to be derived from these precepts, but far more pertinently from that precept Mat. 18. Tell the Church; on which words, their own Parker de Polit. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 20. pag. 318. hath this gloss. For( saith he) since Christ will have every one judged by his own Church, Mat. 18. or if the judgement of his own Church displease him, yet ever( mark it) by the Church, that is,( saith he) by a Synod of many Churches. Secondly, from that precept Acts 15.28.29. and 16.4. the same author telling us de Polit. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 23. pag. 346. that here the Church of God hath ever held Synods to be instituted to last for ever in the Church, and from that precept 1 Cor. 14.29, 32. where we have a constant rule drawn from the law of nature and common equity, that a Prophet be judged by Prophets, a Preacher by Preachers, and not by the people, as their practise is. Having then these with many more clear patents for presbyterial Government, we answer in the second place, that this supposed, even these apostolical precepts, Obey your Elders, and them that are over you, though they be immediately understood of these Governours of a particular congregation, who ordinarily feed and teach them, yet they include that equity which will furnish an argument and precept both, of obeying all other Governours over us. Besides these( supposing I say) that these other Governours have first another ground of their authority over us, even as Honour thy father and thy mother, could not be extended to other superiors besides fathers and mothers if there were no other grounds nor precepts for other superiorities, but that precept; but supposing other superiors have their authority warranted from other grounds then this precept, enjoined us by the unanimous consent of Divines, to honour them as well as father and mother, to whom it is immediately directed.  
Thirdly, this supposition of theirs is false also, that these precepts Obey your Elders, and them that are over you are exclusive, as being so to be understood, as enjoining them to obey them only and none besides them; even as a command enjoining the members of a particular Corporation to obey those who are over them in that Corporation, doth not exclude obedience, or command disobedience in them to the King or Parliament:( I know not what they may give to civill Magistrates more then we, but sure I am, civill Magistrates had need to look to the consequence of such arguments) neither can the like precepts of wives obedience to their own husbands, &c. enforce this; for though that precept enjoin them to obey them, and them alone as their husbands; yet not simply to obey them alone, so as to obey none but them:( but because it is usual with those of their would to stick too close to that comparison, and think the relation of a Pastor to his people to be of the like nature with that between man and wife; I wish all such to be wary in this and consider, first, that we are but Stewards in Christs family, Christ himself being the only husband to the Church; and so secondly, one congregation may have divers Pastors, as a family may have divers stewards whereas a wife can have but one husband:) for suppose the relation were the same between the Pastor and people, as between man and wife; yet many, yea all acts which a husband doth to his wise as his wife( that one excepted whereby they become one body) he may do to others also, though not as to his wise: a husband doth ordinarily teach his wife, entertain and seed her, provide for her and all as his own wife, yet he may do all this to others also, though not as to his wife. A governor of a particular corporation governs them of that corporation ordinarily as his ordinary charge; may he not therefore be delegate by that corporation to be a member of Parliament, and so govern the whole Kingdom. If what ever a man doth, as a Pastor to his own flock, may not be done by him to any besides them; then how come our brethren to celebrate the Communion to members of other Churches, to baptize their children in the congregations of England, to preach and pray to other congregations upon occasion: if preach, pray, administer Sacraments to their own congregations be not so to be understood, as that this is to be done to them alone, then why must, govern your own congregations, be so understood as to govern none else, especially since I think they will not affirm communion in government to be equivalent to adultery, more then communion in the Sacraments, though indeed there be no act in a Pastor to any others besides his own people equivalent to adultery, their relation between him and his people not being such as is between man and wife. Here we would know of our brethren, what they conceive to be the ground of all visible communion, between the visible Churches of Christ, is it not their visible union? Let them then examine this visible union, and see whether it be not such( as it must be) a ground of communion in Government, as well as in Sacraments, and other Ordinances. It hath been found and esteemed such in the judgement of all Divines and Churches unanimously hitherto, and the sole foundation of Synods of all sorts, which is the cause there hath been so little written of this subject; because it was held as a principle not to be controverted, which is an argument for our brethren, rather to be convinced by, then to make use of for their advantage.  
Fourthly, if these precepts must be understood exclusively, and so as Governours of Churches are to govern none but their own particular congregations, or the people to obey none but their own Rulers, then all Church-government shall be confined within the bounds of a particular congregation; and so first exclude the Apostles themselves, 1. from having any power to govern other congregations whom they seed not, nor teach not ordinarily; nay the Apostle must here exclude himself, and enjoin this precept without any power so to do: for if the meaning of, Obey your own Rulers, be, obey them alone, then the Apostle had as much as in direct terms said. Obey not me nor any Apostle. 2. Then the Apostles should also have been excluded from being subject to government, since I think our brethren will not say they were to be governed, or censured as members of a particular congregation, by the particular Rulers of any one such congregation.  
In this discourse we are not so to be understood, as though we taught, that any Pastor of one congregation might as freely, and by the same pastoral power, go and govern another congregation as he may preach and administer the Sacraments therein being desired; and therefore it is to be noted that when ever we speak of any power the Pastor of one congregation hath to govern another, and the obligation that the members thereof have to obey him, it is meant of his joint power as a member of a Presbytery or Synod; we grant then, that the same power which may warrant a man to preach and administer the Sacraments in another congregation, doth not warrant him to govern there also, but to that end, he must have some authority superadded to his former power, and that in relation to them whom he is thus to govern; and so may in some sense be called their governor, though not as he is their Pastor, ordinarily to feed and teach them: for men do not govern in Synods by virtue of their ordinary pastoral authority, but only in so far as that authority may be and is by Divines called Fundamentum remotum of that government; but by virtue of that power and authority wherewith they are invested by commission and delegation from their respective congregations, and by virtue of this delegation it is, that the respective congregations are obliged to obey the decrees of the Synod, as Parker observeth de Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 26. p. 370. whence it appeareth, that as no particular Congregation is obliged to obey a Synod but such as hath its Delegates there; so also, that our synodal and presbyterial Government differs toto coelo from hierarchical Government, where one Cathedrall Church, or rather one Bishop, domineers it over the rest; whereas ours is nothing else but a fraternal and collateral combination of the power of many Churches in their Delegates, representing their several Congregations, whereby they mutually govern themselves, as the Elders of a particular Congregation do that Congregation. Hence the same Parker de Polit. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 23. pag. 350. telleth us, that the subjection of a particular Congregation to a presbytery, is no hierarchical subjection; nay, no subjection at all, unless( saith he) one may be said to be subject to himself; neither( saith he) is there any subjection where all are equal.  
That all this may be the clearer, and that stumbling-block whereon many stumble( wondering how a man may perform a pastoral act, as administer the Sacrament to another Congregation whereof he is no Pastor) may be removed, we are to consider, 1. that in a Pastor there is, first, his order or degree, as a Physician hath his degree of a Doctor. Secondly, there is his relation to his People in the discharge of that office. 2. To do a pastoral act may be understood two ways; first, so as to do any thing by virtue of that order or degree, as a Physician administers physic by virtue of that authority he hath as a Graduate Doctor: and in this respect a Pastor may administer Sacraments to others then his own People, yea though for the time he have no Flock, being ordained a Preacher, and not suspended or deposed. Secondly, to do a pastoral act may be understood so, as to do any thing by virtue of that Relation, wherein we are engaged to any People as a Pastor: and in this respect a Pastor is onely to preach, administer Sacraments and exercise discipline, to his own People. Thirdly, there may be a twofold jurisdiction in a Pastor; the first, pastoral properly so called, by ordination: the second delegatorie by deputation: by the former, a Pastor is onely to govern his own People; the second may be extended to others also even as a governor of a Corporation is to govern that Corporation onely, by virtue of that his relation thereunto; but as he may be delegated by that corporation to be a member of the Parliament, he hath a jurisdiction which is to be extended through the whole Kingdom.  
After they thought they had by these objections sufficiently shaken the foundation of our presbyterial Government, and fenced their own; in the next place, in stead of many objections, they might have mentioned against their opinion and practise, and having as much reason to mention them as this, they pick out one sa a matter of common prejudice against them, and that is, that in their way, there is no sufficient, nor allowed remedy for miscarriages, wrongful sentences, heresy, schism, &c.  
Here, first, I observe our Bretherns policy, in telling the world, this apology only containeth a naked Relation of their ways, without a scholastical declaration thereof, as if there were no arguments to bee found in it; that the world may believe they have yet reserved their strong weapons; whereas wee here see both an offensive and a defensive war, and are assaulted with such shafts as they have hitherto, for ought I have ever observed, esteemed the best in their quiver; and here we see they choose this objection, as the main and common matter of prejudice against them to answer too. But to the particular, this( say they) is a matter of common prejudice against them; We Answer, they might have found it as common if not a more common prejudice against them, that there is in their way, no sufficient means to prevent all these evils; if they may at their pleasure form Churches, call and ordain Pastors of what stamp they think fit, Turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur hospes, they know the old rule, principiis obsta sero medicinae paratur cum convaluere morbi, preventions then are better then remedies: but how shall these be used in their way? other Churches may be and are many times ignorant of their actions, till they be done, as wee saw in that act of deposing their Pastor; how then can these be prevented? they have good reason not to frame any objection of this nature against themselves, for it can hardly be answered by these who challenge an exemption from all kind, even of consultative dependence on any, till they be challenged to err grossly, which sheweth us that that which they affirm to the contrary pag 16. That matters of concernment, are not to bee attempted without consulting with sister Churches may pass pro forma, the former being their main tenet as themselves have stated the controversy between them and us, this being but at most a public profession of those others, who were offended at that act; but suppose this were a solemn statute among them; yet we see they did attempt a matter of that concernment without consulting with others; whereas if they had been under our Government, this could not have been. It is hard for a mixed Multitude to keep within bounds, when they have the reins of Government in their own hands, and have no bound to restrain them, but that inward bond of conscience; we have sound by experience among them, that even when conscience urgeth a thing should bee done, yet corruption will keep it back, unless an outward authority put in withall: For conscience hath been long urging the taking away of that scandal occasioned at Rotterdam by that schism, where divers members left the one Church, and joined to the other, so disorderly, wherein even the Rulers of the one Church had a deep share; yet as that could not then be prevented; so there had been many meetings, Sermons, and all means used to press the conscience of taking it off by a re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and command sound it. Secondly, small matters may bee as great an occasion of schism, &c. in such a Government as theirs, as great matters, as many experiences have shewed among those of the Separation.  
But how do they answer this Objection? their answer is large, and confirmed by a large Relation of an instance: the sum of the remedy for these evils amounts to this, that if a Church offend any other Church or Churches, the Church or Churches offended shall agitate the matter with the Church offending, and if they will not give satisfaction, then the offended shall pronounce a sentence of Non-communion against them, as unworthy of the Name of a Christian Church.  
Wee answer, first, this remedy may prove worse then the disease, when the Church or Churches offended shall be both party offended, and judge, to call the offending to an account, and pronounce a sentence against them: doth not reason and experience teach, that when there is none to go between the Accuser and the Accused, the debate ends rather in more strife then in a making up the former breach? Secondly, this is a way of very dangerous consequence: for from these grounds, our brethren lay down for this practise, one Church being offended at never so many, may, nay is but bound to call them to an account, and not receiving satisfaction must pronounce a sentence of Non-communion against them. Thus one Independent Church may scrape all the Reformed presbyterial Churches in England, out of the role of the true Churches of Christ. Brethren this is no good plea for liberty. Thirdly, how will our Brethren make it good that the Law of the Communion of Churches, and for the vindication of the glory of Christ, the Church offending is bound to submit themselves to the Churches offended, as they affirm, pag. 17. doth either Gods Law, or mans Law bind any to submit themselves to their party and Accusers? doth not Christs Law teach us the clean contrary, that if the offended brother cannot gain the offending, he shall not presently judge him himself, but first take two or three with him, and yet if he will not hear them; he nor they are to pass sentence, nor is he to submit himself to them, but the Church must Authoriratively decide it: And therefore fourthly, What reason can our Brethren show in equity, why controversy between Church and Church may not, yea, must not be decided by Authority, as well as those between man and man. Is there not as great, yea more necessity of an Authoritative decision in the one as in the other and therefore is not this to tax Christ, either of negligence or want of wisdom and power to have provided, as well for whole Churches, as members of Churches. Fifthly, what ground have they to pronounce a sentence of Non-communion against whole Churches upon every offence, wherein they receive no satisfaction, this savoureth somewhat more of prelatical usurpation of one collateral Church over another, then presbyterial Government doth. Sixthly, since our Brethren call this sentence no Excommunication, by what rule can they break off total Communion from Churches not Excommunicated. Their rule they give us pag, 17. to be the Law of not partaking with other mens sins: But here first, doth not their admonition sufficiently free them of this participation without withdrawing from them. Secondly, these are the men who in their search of truth, were forewarned by the fatal miscarriages, and shipwrecks of the separation, to avoid these rocks and shelves they run upon, and who made such an inquiry into their principles, the causes of their divisions, pag. 5. and will by no means own that odious name of brownism. Now I pray you is not this miserable principle( that to communicate with wicked men or such as uphold any sinful course, even in the good and lawful ordinances of God, doth pollute us, and make us partakers of their sins, the main rock whereon they have made shipwreck in their Separation from the Church of England.  
This remedy they confirm to be effectual by an instance of an Assembly of two Churches in a case of offence here, first, pag. 20. they call this a solemn Assembly, the solemnity whereof left a deep impression in their hearts of Christs dreadful presence. Whereas this Assembly consisted only of the Church offending, and four Members of the Church offended? what an impression then might the solemnity of such grave Assemblies of other Churches leave in their hearts, if they were as well acquainted with their number, gravity, learning, and pious proceedings.  
Secondly, in that same page., they tell us they were desired to yield a full and public hearing before all the Churches of their Nation, or any other whomsoever, which( say they) they submitted unto: and pag. 21. they tell us it was openly before all comers of all sorts, whereas it was in a private upper chamber before none but the parties interressed for ought I can learn, and where no others could in civility come.  
But what concerneth the efficacy of this instance. I answer, first, that the remedy was not so full as the disease; for though the Pastor was restored yet the rent and division, which was occasioned by that business was not taken away, but those members who disorderly left the Church, and joined to another, continued so until of late that the two Churches united. Secondly, suppose the plaster had been as large as the sore; yet all the plea they can draw from thence, for all the flourish they make of it, is as though a man would urge that all Authoritative Judicatories were both needless and unlawful because one difference between two parties was taken away by themselves.  
Another pretty argument they have to prove the efficacy of this their way, and that comparatively; wee have it pag. 19. from a supposition, which they make: suppose( say they) that other principle of an Authoritative power, in combining Churches to Excommunicate other Churches to be the ordinance of God, yet( say they) unless it do take upon mens consciences, the offending Churches will slight it, as much as that other way. On the other side( say they) let this way of ours, bee but as strongly entertained as that which is the way of Christ, &c. And it will awe mens con●ciences as much, &c. To which I shall give no other answer, but that this is a way of arguing, which is sure to carry the cause, for if they may suppose that though our way be the command of Christ, yet will not take with mens consciences, and that theirs is the way of Christ, and will bee entertained as such, they may suppose also the conclusion will be on their side.  
Finding nothing more much material to take notice of in this apology, I shall close with a note on our Brethrens closure in a desire of liberty; this liberty they call pag. 25. that peaceable practise of their consciences, where they put the word( consciences) in an other character, as intimating that word to bee causal, and so by this rule there must be liberty of consciences, here all may see what that reformation is, which they profess to have such respect unto; but( say they) they are but lesser differences, wherein they differ from us. Brethren government we know is in the Church a wall to preserve her in Doctrine, and therefore a small breach there even by small differences, may make way for greater, even in Doctrine; Wherefore I beseech you and all others seriously to consider what you affirm pag. 24. that you found the spirits of those in England, that profess or pretend to the power of godliness( they finding themselves to be so much at liberty and new come out of bondage) ready to take any impressions and to be cast into any mould, that hath but the appearance of a stricter way; and then judge yourselves what must needs bee the issue, if such a people were left to that farther liberty, which you pled for by consent of Authority, and whether this were not a more certain way to lose Religion in a crowd of Sects, by breaking down this Wall of Government, then to advance that Re●ormation in England which all sincere and pious hearts breath after, which I beseech God in his own time to establish.  
FINIS.