Reply to Observations and Anti-Queries 2

O F all the vanities and vexations of spirit, enumerated by the royal Preacher, this is one of the principal, [a] That for all travel, and every right works, a man is envied (yea, many times hated, oppugned) by his neighbor. This hath been always my condition heretofore and now; my best actions and public services for the common good, have been misconstrued, traduced, nay censured in an high degree, as •… vill, by many; though (blessed be God) approved, yea gratefully accepted by the best-affected to the Church and State.

The importunity of some Reverend friends, lamenting the deplorable distractions of our Church, which threaten disunion, and so ruin to us, in these unhappy times of intestine wars, prevailed so far as to induce me to compile and publish Twelve considerable serious questions touching Church-government; out of a córdial desire (as much as in me lay) to close up, not widen our divisions. Which though they have given ample satisfaction to many truly religious, of all ranks and qualities, who have returned me special thanks; yet they have found very harsh entertainment from others, who of Friends are become my professed Antagonists (if not enemies) in print, because I have told them the truth: to whom I should have returned no Reply but silence (there being naught in these Observations worthy answer) but only to rectisie some mistakes therein and show the opposite party those common errors whereby they deceive themselves and others.

The first thing this nameless Respondent quarrels with, is For my writing by way of Quere; To which I answer, that I had both Presidents and Reasons for it.

Presidents, from our Savior himself, who both instructed, refuted, convinced his opposites and auditors by demanding Questions only. Presidents from Philosophers, Fathers, School-men, and all sorts of Writers, ancient, modern, overtedious to recite.

Reasons: 1. I conceived the Questions touching church-government were not rightly stated by most; and that the right stating of them by way of Question, would be the best and speediest means to decide them. 2. The Independent party had neither then, nor since (to my knowledge) dogmatically resolved or discovered in print, what that church-government is they so eagerly contend for, and pretend to be so plainly set down in the Word of God (being not y •… t all agreed what they hold, or should desire, except it be this, to be left at free liberty to do what they please) and therefore I conjectured such Queries to be the only means to discover and refute their concealed Platform. 3. The controversies concerning church-government, were then and now in agitation in the Synod and high Court of Parliament, the properest Judges of them; therefore I thought it better became me in point of modesty and good manners, to express my opinion of them by way of Question, then Decision. Finally, I found all Independents guilty of Petitio principii, in their Writings, Sermons, Discourses, peremptorily concluding their form of church-government, to be the only Government instituted by Christ, the only way of God, which hath more of God and Christ in it then any other; the Kingdom, Scepter, and Throne of Christ himself, and no other way beside it; That by the beauty and perfect consonancy of this Government with the Word of God, it may very reasonably (yea and upon higher terms then of reason) be thought, that in time it cannot but overthrow all 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiastical government (and I fear civil too by the self-same reason, & stand up itself in their stead, which they closeup with a Faxit Deus & festinet •… : and, that writi •… g or disputing against this Government, or opposing it in any kind, yea in thought, is no less then A FIGHTING AGAINST GOD, which will bring certain ruin on our Realm in general, and all private, open opposers of it: yet not one of them (nor this Respondent) hath hitherto fully discovered to us, what this WAY or Government is; nor produced any one Scripture or Reason to warrant these superlative Encomiums of it, but we must take all they say as Gospel, upon their own bare words, without examination or dispute: And therefore I proposed these, with 12 other subsequent Questions to them, to induce them to make good these transcendent (that I say not arrogant) Positions touching their Way; since I seriously profess before God, Angels, and men, that I could never yet discover the least footsteps of it in Scripture, or Antiquity, nor descry this their Pattern in the Mount, which no age till ours had ever the happiness to behold, if it be worth the viewing, when unveiled by them to us.

Having thus given this Respondent the true grounds of my writing by way of Question, I shall briefly answer all his material Observations and Anti-queries upon my twelve Questions, pretermitting his Impertinencies.

1. To the first Question the Respondent gives no Answer at all to the things demanded, but only misrecites the Question, without my limitations; and then seems to refute, what himself propounds, not I: He should have demonstrated by direct Scriptures, That Christ hath prescribed one set immutable form of Government to all Christian Nations, Churches in the World, from which none must vary in the least degree, without sin, schism, or being no true Churches of Christ, with whom good Christians may with safe conscience communicate; and that nothing herein is, or can be left free to human prudence, (though themselves most stiffly plead, that Christ hath prescribed no set form of praying or preaching to Ministers, people, but left all men free to use their liberty and several gifts in both; on which grounds they condemn all set forms of public (if not private) prayers, (and some of them the use of the Lord's own prayer) together with there ading of set Homilies; upon which very grounds they must also deny all set forms of church-government, as well as of Prayer and Preaching:) And then have positively delineated, exactly proved the model of this pretended Government, Discipline, in every particle thereof, by Gospel-Texts, so far as to satisfy men's erroneous judgments, consciences herein, that so they might either submit thereto without dispute, or propound their objections against the same. But in this main point (whereon the hinge of the controversy turns) the Respondent is wholly silent, and I shall expect his answer ad Graecas Calendas. Only lest he might seem to say nothing, he endeavors to prove, that there is a set form of Church-government prescribed by Christ in the Gospel, not by direct Texts, but from pretended absurdities of his own fancying, (for which he can produce no Text nor Reason) wherein he hath prevaricated, and shows himself absurd.

First, (writes he) if this were granted (that there is no such set form of Church-government prescribed to all) the Gospel would be straiter then the Law, Christ more unfaithful then Moses. If we deny these absurd consequences, you shall have these sound proofs of both subjoined; God set a pattern to * Moses of a carnal Temple, (you mistake good Sir, it was a Tabernacle, and that not carnal) which he charged him not to vary from in a tittle: (well, I grant it, because you produce two full Scriptures for it) Ergo, he hath prescribed a set pattern of Church-government and Discipline to all Christian Nations, Churches in the New Testament, from which they must not vary in one tittle. If he (or any other) can show me such a pattern as he contends for, so clearly delineated to us in the New Testament, as that pattern of the Tabernacle God shown Moses was in the old, and then produce as direct precepts enjoining all Christians, Republics, Churches, not to vary from it in one tittle, as Moses had not to vary from his, I shall believe his sequel; till then I shall deem it a true Independent argument, and as gross a Non-sequitur as this, which necessarily follows upon the concession of it.

God shown and prescribed to Moses the express pattern or fashion of Aaron's and his Sons garments, ornaments, under the Law, Exod. 28. Ergo he hath likewise shown and prescribed the express pattern, fashion, and color, of all Bishops, Presbyters, Ministers garments, ornaments under the Gospel, (most likely in the Roman Ceremonial and Pontifical.) If the one consequence be ridiculous, the other must needs be so.

But to quell this your principal Argument, First, the pattern in the mount was meant only of the materials, form, vessels and utensils of the Tabernacle, not of the Government and Discipline of the Jewish church; therefore very imp •… tinent to prove a settled Church-government, Discipline, under the Gospel. Secondly, it was shown only to Moses, the temporal Magistrate and chief Ruler of the Israelites; not to Aaron, or any private Independent Priest or Synagogue of the Jews; yea Moses (not they) was to make, or s •… e all things made according to the pattern in the mount; Ergo (if there be any consequence from this pattern) not the Independent Minister or congregation, but Kings, chief temporal Magistrates, and Parliaments (the supreme civil Powers, Councils, •… e likewise (under the Gospel) to prescribe and set up such a church-government as is agreeable to God's Word: as Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Joshiah, Nehemiah, and other godly Princes, Governors, with their Parliaments or general Assemblies did under the Law: And then what becomes of your Independent Ministers, Congregations claims to this Sovereign temporal jurisdiction, (a part of Christ's Kingly office, delegated only to Kings, and highest temporal powers) which was never conferred on them? In fine, if there be any such express unalterable divine pattern of church-government under the Gospel, I pray inform me, why it was not as punctually, as particularly described in the New Testament, as the form of the Tabernacle, of its materials with all the services, ornaments, appurtenances of it, and of the Temple were under the Law? Nay, why was the Tabernacle altered into a Temple, different from it? and why did the second Temple vary from the first, and that in the self same Church and Nation? If these were patterns of the church-government under the Gospel, and yet varied, altered successively in this manner; then by consequence the Government, Discipline under the Gospel is variable, alterable too, and so not fixed, nor immutable.

His second Argument. That Christ should neither be faithful as a husband, head, nor King of his Church, if he should give others power to order it as they pleased to their own civil Government not setting down his own Laws for them to walk by, is both a fallacy & absurdity. There is no man doubts but that Christ in the Scriptures (which some of you refuse to hear read in our Churches, though * public reading of them be God's own ordinance) hath prescribed to us all necessary Rules Laws both for our faith lives either in a general or special manner which a •… l must pursue. But that he hath punctually or particularly set down any exact unalterable form of church-government, for all Christian Nations, Churches to follow, under pain of being unfaithful in all the former respects; and that the Independens Model alone is that very pattern (the only point in question) remains on your part to make good. A man may be a faithful husband, King, Master, Father, though he prescribe not distinct particular Laws, to regulate each particular action of his Wife, Subjects, Servants, Children: Let all things be done decently and in order, (a general rule for church-government) is sufficient to excuse Christ from these your presumptuous reproaches, and regulate all particulars, though left indefinite, as well as this general Rule for our Christian conversation, Phil. 1. 27. Let your conversation be as becometh the Gospel of Christ: and this other for our speech, Eph. 4. 29. Let no corrupt communication come out of your mo •… , but that which is good to the use of edifying. You may as well charge Christ with unfaithfulness, for not prescribing to us a general Liturgy, or every particular action we should do, every word we should speak, or Ministers preach upon any occasion, as for not prescribing a particular form of church-government.

His third Argument, that Rev. 11. 1, 2. we read of a measuring of the Temple; and Rev. 21. 1, 2. of the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; Ergo there is a settled divine church-government universally prescribed to all Christians in the New Testament; is no better a proof of this assertion, then the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, is of our Prelates Lordly hierarchy jure divino. He might as well, yea more properly have concluded thence, That the Altar was measured as well as the Temple, Rev. 11. 1. (referring only to the Jewish not Christian Church, which hath no Temple nor Altar:) Ergo we ought to have an Altar, yea one divine set form of Altars in all Christian Churches under the Gospel: which I hope you dare not aver.

After these three Independent Arguments, he pretends my third Quere contradicts the first, because I suppose a church-government may be consonant to God's Word in the general, which is not particularly prescribed in it: A pretty fancy! As if nothing could be consonant to God's Word, which is not particularized or verbally enjoined in it: Are not our material churches, garments, temporal Magistrates, Majors, Corporations, Parliaments, Courts of justice, Laws of all sorts, yea Festivals, Covenants, monthly Fasts, &c. agreeable to God's Word, because not literally prescribed in it? Are your private church-covenants, unmixed Communions (as you phrase them,) erections of Independent congregations without the license of temporal Magistrates, not consonant to the Word in your own opinions, though nowhere extant in it? If not, then all your divine pretences for them vanish, and you yield your cause: If yea, you must then recant this pretence of a contradiction, till you are able to prove 〈◊〉 better then yet you have done.

Having played the Logicians and contradictors part so well, he next betakes himself to his Anti-queries to prove a set church-model: which are three.

1. If no prescript form (of church-government) in the Word, why not Episcopacy (especially regulated and moderated) as well as Presbytery?

I answer, if you mean it of Lordly Episcopacy, there are abundant pregnant Texts against it, to prove it opposite to God's Word. If of moderated or regulated Episcopacy, the same with Presbytery: if the Parliament by the Synod •… advice unanimously establish it, as most consonant to the Scriptures, and most agreeable to the civil Government, I shall readily submit unto it without opposition, and why not you and all others?

2. If church-government be suited to States, whether Politicians are not more fit to consult about establishing it? Why is an Assembly of Divines called to search the Word about it?

I answer, that my position is, That every church-government ought to be suitable to God's Word, as likewise to the civil State; Therefore Politicians and States-men are fit to be consulted with, to suit it best to the civil State; and an Assembly of Divines, to square it likewise by and to the Word: the true reason why in this our Realm, and all other Christian States (as I can abundantly manifest if need be) Ecclesiastical Law •… and forms of government have ever been settled by Parliaments, with the advice of Synods, Councils, wherein States-men and Church-men have jointly concurred in their deliberations and votes, using both the Bible and the Law to settle it, and not throwing either of them aside, as incompatible, as ignorant or lawless persons deem them, but joining both together: True civil or ecclesiastical Policy, skill in Government, Arts, wholesome Laws, boing God's gift, as well as spiritual graces.

To his third Anti-query I answer, That it is more reasonable the State should be subject to Christ's rule, then Christ to its direction: But this Quere is quite besides the Question, till you prove infallibly, That Christ hath prescribed a set unalterable divine government, to which all churches, Nations, States, must necessarily conform; and clearly manifest what this Government is in all its particulars. Till this be done the sole question is, Whether Christian Princes, Parliaments, States, Synods, under the Gospel, have not a lawful power to prescribe Ecclesiastical Laws and forms of Government, not repugnant to the Word, not (to Christ himself, as you pretend, who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's, above the reach or command of human power) but to all particular Christian churches, congregations, subjects under their respective jurisdictions? and whether the whole representative Church and State of England in Parliament, have not sufficient authority by God's law to over-rule and bind all, or any particular members or congregatious of it, as well as the major part of an Independent congregation, power to over-vote and rule the lesser part, and to order, yea bind any of their particular members? A truth so clear, that no rational man, good Christian or Subject can deny it: Your prime argument then, wherewith you deceive poor silly people, That Kings, Parliaments, cannot prescribe Laws and Canons to Christ himself, the Sovereign Lord and King of his Church; Ergo, they cannot prescrib them to their Christian subjects and Churches, who by Christ's own ordinance are subject to their lawful sovereign authority, is pure Independent Non-sense; much like this; A Master, Father, cannot prescribe Laws, Rules to the King or Parliament, who are paramount him: Ergo not to his servants, children, who are subject to him. As for the latter part of this Query, That the Saints think CHRIST is King alone over his Churches, and hath not left them to substitutes, and the political considerations of men to be governed by; If he means it only of matters of Faith, or of mere internal government over the souls of men, it may pass as tolerable; but if he intends it of external Ecclesiastical Government, Discipline, or order in the Church, or State as Christian, he must renounce his Oath of Allegeance, his late Protestation, National Vow and Covenant, and make Rom. 13. 1, to 6. 1. Pet. 2. 13, 14. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. to be Apocryphal; the Confessions of all Protestant Churches heterodox; and deny Christian Kings, Magistrates, highest civil powers, to be Christ's substitutes, Vicars, in point of Government, (to whom Christ hath delegated his Kingly power) as truly as Ministers are his deputies in point of instruction, admonition, to whom he hath bequeathed his Prophetical office.

2. In his answer to my second Quere, he first willfully misrecites it, then infers a blind obedience from it to all superiors commands, be they never so unjust or contrary to God's Word; whereas my Question speaks only of lawful decrees, &c. consonant to God's Word, and to the civil Laws, Government, and manners of the people; to which every Christian in point of conscience is bound to submit, (without any danger of blind obedience) by the express resolution of Rom. 13. 1, to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14, 15. Tit. 3. 1. Ezra 7. 26. Josh. 1. 16, 17, 18. Heb. 13. 17. If any man deny this verity, he must renounce not only his Christianity, but his Allegeance and Humanity too. But suppose (saith he) the whole Parliament and Synod should err in commanding a Government that is erroneous or untrue, must we then submit unto it? I answer, first, such an oversight is not to be presumed before it be actually committed; and it is neither Christian, charitable, nor any way of Christ, thus to prejudge their resolutions. Secondly, if the Decrees or Government they establish be not directly against God's Word, nor pernicious to our souls, though not altogether such as we could wish, yet we ought contentedly to submit unto it without opposition: If contrary to the Word, we must then 〈◊〉 submit thereto for the present, and expect a redress in God's due time. But if it be such a Government and Discipline under which we may freely enjoy the sincere and powerful preaching of the Word, the due administration of the Sacraments, and all other Ordinances of God necessary for our salvation and edification, (as we may doubtless do under a Presbytery, and that government our pious Parliament intends to settle) we ought cordially and cheerfully to submit thereto; yea thankfully to embrace and bless God for it, and can neither waiwardly oppugn nor refuse submission to it, without arrogancy, contumacy, and apparent schism. As for his question concerning my own and follow-brethren's sufferings, (which we deem our Honor, not our Shame) I answer, that none of us suffered for opposing, writing, or speaking against the Bishops legal authority, or any ceremonies established in our Church by Act of Parliament; but only against their pretended divine right to their Episcopal Lordly power, diametrally contrary to Scripture, Fathers, Councils, the best Protestant and Popish Authors, the Statutes of our Realm; and against their Innovations in doctrine, discipline, ceremonies, canons, &c. contrary to the Laws of the land, Articles, and Homilies of our Church (as the Parliament hath resolved them) as all our Books demonstrate, and Dr Bastwicke in direct terms, in the Preface of his Flagellum: And therefore it could be neither pride, arrogance, nor schism, but mere conscience and duty in us, to oppose them in these their usurpations and innovations only contrary to the Laws of God and the Realm: If he and his would contain themselves within these our bounds, our Church should enjoy more peace, their persons more honor, then now they are likely to gain, by opposing prejudicating both the Parliaments and Synods proceedings, though never so pious, conscientious, religious.

3. His pretended contradiction of the third Quere to the first is formerly answered; I shall only add, that things may be consonant to the general Rules of God's Word, though not precisely, prescribed in it: All Independent Ladies Gentlewomen, (and you I hope) will grant, that their different fashions, habits, colors, attires, are all agreeable to God's Word, (if modest) and warranted by this general precept 1 Tim. 2. 9. Let women adorn themselves in modest apparel, though not particularized in the Text: So may a church-government or Dresse be consonant to Scripture, though not precisely delineated or enjoined by it.

4. To the fourth he gives no answer at all, but bids me prove it; which I have done already in my Independency examined, till it be disproved.

5. To the fifth, he grants that Independency will overthrow all National Churches and Synods; and the two Independent Brethren assure us in their Reply to A. S p. 111 that in time it cannot but overthrow all other sorts of Ecclesiastical governments: Is it not then a turbulent, dangerous, schismatical, unquiet (that I say not insufferable) Government, by your own confessions, which will admit no equal nor corrival; nor yet any National Church, Synod, Parliament, Prince, or temporal Magistrate, to exercise any Ecclesiastical, Legislative, or Magisterial authority over any of their Conventicles, members, persons, liberties, estates, much less over their consciences, as they are Christians? Will any Parliament, State, or Nation, (think you) suffer such a Government to take root among them, which will un-King, un-Parliament, un-church, un-Nation them altogether, and make each several congregation an absolute Monarchy, Church, Republic, Nation, within it self, depending on, subordinate wholly to it self, as if it and they were no part or members of the public? The Lord preserve us from such a dividing and overturning Government. As for his invectives against the Formality, Tyranny, and enslaving of men's judgments in the Presbyterial way, as inconsistent with spiritual liberty and State privileges; they are mere groundless calumnies, to draw an odium on it, (some of your male-contented party professing they would rather set up Lordly Episcopacy, which they have abjured, then it) whereas these aspersions suit better with your independent model, which is more rigid, uncharitable, unsociable, Papal, tyrannical, Anti-monarchical, Anti-synodicall, yea Anti-parliamentall, (as I have elsewhere manifested) then any other church-government whatsoever. For my pretended bitter expressions, they are so suitable to the effects and real consequences of this New way, (as you style it) that I could not express myself in other language, without injury to the truth: and if any of my best Friends, who stood by me in my sufferings, deem themselves injured or reproached by them, (as you pretend, though none of them have yet complained to me) it is (I hope) only scandalum acceptum, non datum; and I presume my Friends are so ingenuous, as not to be offended with me for reproving only their errors with ingenuous freedom, in which I manifest myself their greatest Friend, because I neither spare nor flatter them in their mistakes: However, though I really honor all my Christian Friends, as well Independent as Presbyterial (whom you most scandalously traduce as Episcopal and time-servers heretofore) yet I prefer the truth of God, the peace and safety of my Native, bleeding, dying Church and Country, (now much endangered by our unhappy divisions) before all Friends or earthly comforts whatsoever. As for your pretended unsubjection of Presbyterian Synods and Churches to the Parliament in settling Ecclesiastical matters, I neither know nor plead for any such; and our present Assembly being both appointed, directed by, and submitting all their determinations wholly to the Parliament, (as they are obliged both by Orders, Protestation, Covenant, and profess they ought to do) arms me sufficiently against any such improbable untrue surmise.

6. To the sixth Quere he returns no answer, but plainly yields, that there was never any Independent Church in any age or Nation whatsoever, totally converted to the Christian faith, till this present; nor any one Author that maintained it, till Mr Ainsworth (a Separarist) from whom the Apologists profess their dissent in some things. As for any reverend godly persons, who now contend for this new Model (whose piety, eminecy make their errors not less false but far more dangerous, & infectious) though I reverence their persons, yea judgments: too in other things, yet I cannot subscrib to them in this new dangerous Bypath, w ^ch is not yet so beaten as to deserve the name of Christ's Road-way. For the new supposed light, discovered in these days, touching church-government, if you mean it only of your Independency, (which you borrowed from the Brownists, or Low-country Anabaptists, the first inventors of this Government) I doubt when brought out to the light, and examined by the word of light, it will for the most part prove but twilight, if not darkness: If you mean it of any other light, that is truly such, we bless God for it, and desire to walk brotherly and unanimously in it.

In the seventh he grants, that the Law of Nature, which instructs men to unite themselves into one National State, or civil Government, doth likewise teach them to join themselves into, subject themselves unto one National Church, and to National Synods, Parliaments, in point of church-government; in which every particular man hath his Vote though not in proper person (which he objects is necessary, but I deny, since all cannot possibly assemble) yet in their deputies, Knights, Burgesses, or selected Commissioners: and though it be t • ue, that Christ hath not given Magistrates such absolute authority over men's consciences as bodies, (as you object) yet he hath enjoined us to be subject to the higher powers, and to every lawful ordinance of man (not repugnant to his Word) EVEN FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, and THE LORD'S SAKE too. For my passage, That there is no example of gathering independent Congregations, not of Infidels but of men already converted to, and settled in the Christian Faith, unless derived from the private conventicles of Arians, Novatians, Donatists, and other Heretics, who yet w • re not independent among themthemselves; it is not a bitter speech, (as you phrase it) but a true one and only bitter to you because undeniable: For as it was the common practice of those seducing Heretics, Sectaries to gather private Conventicles of their own, and labor to draw other orthodox Christians from their proper Ministers to incorporate themselves into their private separated congregations, as Historians inform us: So no such practice of alluring and stealing away other Pastors sheep from their proper Shepherd who first coverted them to, and edified them in the faith and grace of Christ can be produced, but only in these Heretics and Sectaries whose practice your Independents imitate. As for those private conventicles (as he phraseth them) for which he saith I may bless God, that I was remembered in them with tears, when others durst not name me; as I do really bless God for them and those who remembered me effectually in them, so I dare not style them Conventicles in an ill sense, since not such by Law, being only lawful Assemblies of private Christians to seek unto God by prayer & fasting upon extraordinary occasions, which all good Christians cannot but approve: But all these meetings were far from being then styled, reputed Independent Churches, or having any affinity with them; so as they make nothing for his cause.

8. To the eighth Quere he gives a negative Answer, First in general next in particular to some instances. First he grants, that there was a National Church (yea National assemblies, Parliaments, determining church-affairs) of the Jews, but these (saith he) cannot be a pattern for us now, because the covenant of the Gospel is not made with any one particular Nation, as with the Jews, but to all Nations that embrace the Gospel, and believe in Christ; you have no promise nor prophesy of any Nation to be holy to God but the Jews Nation, when they shall be called again.

To which I reply, first, That Independents have not the least precept or example for any solemn Covenant made betwixt God and men, to walk in the ways of God, &c. but only in the Old Testament, and Church of the Israelites, and that no private congregational, but publ •… ke National covenant, prescribed by the supreme temporal Magistrate and Assembly, not by the Priests or private Synagogues; yea the principal precepts, presidents for public or private fasts, sanctifying the Sabbath, &c. you likewise derive from the Old Testament and that Church; why then should not their National Church be a pattern for us, and you to imitate, as well as their National covenant, fasting, Sabbath-keeping; the Church of God being all one, (as it is a Church) both under the old Testastament and new; and the pattern of it under the Law a better pesident for the Church under the Gospel, (of which it was a type and fore-runner) then the pattern of the Tabernacle shown in the Mount (so frequent in your Lips and Books) a president for your Independent Model, to which it hath no analogy. 2. This reason is most absurd and false, the Covenant of the Gospel extending not only to particular persons, but to all Nations and people whatsoever, who are both prophesied and promised to become Christ's own inheritance, possession, people, spouse, church and to be an HOLY NATION, A PECVLIAR PEOPLE &c. to the Lord, in infinite Texts both of the old and New Testament, which I wonder the Respondent should either not see, or forget, being ten thousand fold more clear and visible then his Independent platform, which few or none can yet espy in Scripture, History, or Politics.

2. He adds, that I cannot sh •… w any Nation, every member whereof is qualified sufficiently to make up a church, which is Christ's body, unless I will take in Drunkards, Whore-masters &c. to be members of a church, whereas the Word saith, they must be visible Saints, and this cannot be avoided in a National church.

I answer, that I dare not be wiser then my Master Christ, who informs me, that there will, and must be always in the visible church on earth (be it National, parochial, presbyterial, or congregational) goats among the sheep, chaff among the wheat (which must grow together •… ill the harvest, at the end of the world, to wit the day of judgment; & good fish mixed with the bad in the churches Net. 2. I find a Judas, a Devil, among the Apostles, many gross sinners, idolaters, and corruptions in the Jewish church; many abuses, Epicures, Drunkards, Wh •… re-masters, L bertines, unclean •… persons, and false Teachers, in the churches of Galatla, Ephesus, Colossae, Pergamos, Smyrna, Thyatira and Laodicea; yet the Scripture expressly stiles them the body and churches of Christ, and reputes such, members (though corrupt ones) of those Churches; who do not actually cease to be members when excommunicated or suspended for a season, after they are baptized, and profess the Christian faith: nor did any separate from these churches, though they had some corruptions and evil members. For you therefore to separate from, and unchurch such National or Parochial churches, which have some such members in them, is to unchurch all churches both in the old, the New Testament, and world itself, yea your own churches too. 3. The Scripture is express, that many are called, but few chosen and saved; that all must be compelled to come into the church, though they want the wedding-garment: There never was, nor shall be here on earth, any one visible church compacted wholly of real elected Saints, without any mixture of Reprobates,; such a church we shall meet with only in heaven, I am sure you can gather none such on earth. 4. Are there no corrupt or drunken members in your independent churches, but only real visible Saints? are there no usurers, oppressors, corrupt dealers, covetous, proud, malicious, uncharitable, censorious persons; no apparent hypocrites or dissemblers? yea, are there not many sins and corruptions in the best, the choicest of all your members; (who cannot depart away, or quite separate themselves from their own bosom corruptions,) as there is and will be in the best of men during their mortality? If your Independent congregations consist of such members as these, of men subject to like passions, sins, infirmities as others in Presbyterial churches, what then is become of this your reason and principal ground of Independency, or rather, Separation, or Brownism, its ancient proper title? you may lay it up in Lavander for another world, but can make no use of it in this, where you cannot so much as dream of a church of real Saints, without any mixture of corruption: And therefore rather then separate, or leave us in a P •… lt, because you cannot have your wills in all things, you should with blessed Paul (as tender-conscienced no doubt as any of you, and a lawful pattern for your imitation, to the Jew become as Jews that you might gain the Jews, to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that you might gain them that are under the Law: to them that are without Law, as being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ, that you might gain them who are without law. To the weak you should become as weak, that you might gain the weak: yea be made all things to all men, that you might by all means gain some. Which how far you in your new way are from, let all men Judge.

3. For his answers to that of Acts 15. all ages, churches, till this present, have held it both an express warrant and president for the lawfulness, usefulness of National and Provincial Synods to determine differences in Religion, (which particular churches, persons cannot decide) and making necessary Canons for church-affairs; neither can all his shifts elude it: To his first and second reasons or rather evasions I answer, it is clear by Act. 15. 2. that the church of Antioch it self could not decide the question, nor Paul nor Barnabas satisfactorily determine it, so far as to quiet all parties; and therefore they sent Delegates to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, there to decide it: None is so ignorant but knows, that there are many controversies now on foot concerning doctrine, discipline, and church-government, which no particular congregations, (nay hardly an whole Synod and Parliament together) are sufficient to settle and determine; therefore there is a kind of necessity of National Synods as well as of Parliaments, whence all ages, churches, have used them. To his third reason I reply, that it is evident by express words verse. 2. 5. 6. 7. 10. 19. 20. 24. that the principal end why the Apostles went up to Jerusalem, and why this Synod ass •… mbled, was not to prove the false Apostles liars, (as he affirmeth) but to debate and consider THIS QUESTION AND MATTER, wheth •… r •… he Gen •… les ought •… o bec •… rcumci s •… d? To his fourth, I say, that though this meeting was occasional, yet it i •… a sufficient warrant for general meetings, which are usua •… lie called, only upon special occasions of moment: In it there was a general assembling of all the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren at Jerusalem, (where there were then divers particular congregations, as our Assembly long since resolved from Acts 2. 6. 41, 42 46, 47. c. 4. 4. c. 5. 14 15, 16, 42. c. 6. 1. to 9. c. 8. 2, 3, 4. c. 11. 1, 2. c. 12. 12, 13. c. 21. 17, 18 23, 22. which if Independents deny, then they must prove, that all the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem were Pastors but of oneand the self-same individual congregation; and then what becomes of their Independent churches; which have no Apostle, and only one Pastor, but scarce any Elders in them) who upon this special and some other public occasions met all together, and that not to advise only but determine and resolve, as is evident by verse. 6. to 32. c. 16. 4. c. 21. 25. which compared with the Texts of the Old Testament in the Margin of my Quere,, where we find frequent National general Assemblies, Synods, or Parliaments (if I may so style them) among the Israelites (prescribed, appointed by God, and no ways contradicted, revoked under the Gospel) determining all Ecclesiastical controversies settling, ordering all churchaffaires, matters concerning the Ark, Temple, Sacrifices, Passover, Priests, National covenants, Fasting-days, Festivalls, suppressions of Idolatry, false-Worship, Relics of Idolatry, and the like; are an impregnable evidence of the lawfulness of National Synods, Parliaments, Assemblies, in all Christian Kingdoms, Republics, upon the like occasions, and that they are endued with equivalent authority; there being no one Text in the old or New Testament, nor any shadow of reason, (but me •… shifts or obs •… inacy of spirit against public govetment, order, and authority) to control it. If any pretend they do it only out of consci •… nce, if they will but seriously gage their own deceitful hearts, I fear their conscience will prove but willfulness, having neithe •… precept pre •… dent, nor right reason to direct it: So as I may truly 〈◊〉 his own calumny against me on him and his, that his and their own name, will, or opinion, is their only argument against this shining truth, which all ages, Churches, have acknowledged, ratified, practiced, without the least dispute.

9. To my ninth Quere, and arguments in it he returns nothing worthy Reply, but upon this Petitio principii, or begging of the thing disputed; that the Scripture and Apostles have prescribed a set form of Government in all after •… ges for the Churches of Christ, which he neither can, nor endeavors to prove; and that Churches in the Apostles days were Independent though doubtless all Churches were then subject to the Apostles Laws Orde •… s, Edicts, Decisions, though no immediate Ministers or Pastors of them. (as appears by their Epistles to them) therefore not Independent: so as my arguments hold firm, and his answers weak. As for his retorted argument: That the Scriptures were writ in the infancy of the Church: Therefore wiser and better Scriptures may be writ now; it is a blasphemous and absurd conclusion they being all writ by the spirit and inspiration of God himself the very A •… cient of days, who hath neither infancy nor imperfection, as the Church hath. To his second objection that I would needs mak a National Church, State, more perfect, understanding, and wise, then a congregational: I f •… are are not to aver it •… since warranted by direct Scriptu •… e and since yourselves must grant, that the Church under the Law was more perfect then that before it; the Church under the Gospel more perfect then under the Law; and the Churches under the Gospel, at the end of the Apostles days, when furnished with more divine knowledge, Scriptures, Gospels, Officers, and rules of Faith, Manners, Discipline, more complete and perfect then at their beginning to pre •… : No man doubts, that though a new-born infant and Christian have all the parts and members of a man and Saint, yet they have not so much perfection, understanding, knowledge, judgment, strength of grace, or spiritual wisdom, as grown men and Christians. An aged, experienced, grown Minister, Christian, is more complete and perfect then a new converted Novice, or Babe in grace; Ergo a grown and National Church, then one but in the Embryo. Your Independent Churches, in their primitive infancy, when they had but two or three members only in them, and wanted both Elders, Deacons, and other necessary church-officers (as Mr Sympsons church first did) I am certain in your own opinion were not so complete and mature as you intended to make them afterwards by degrees: a Village is not so complete a Republic or Corporation as a City, nor a City as a Kingdom, not a Family as a County, not a Consistory as a Synod, nor a cou •… t of Aldermen as a common-cou •… cell, not that as a Parliament: Therefore an Independent singular congregation not so complete as a National church, being oft enforced to pray in the aid of other churches for advice, assistance &c. (as yourselves confess) which an whole National Church need not to do. In 〈◊〉 himself confesseth, that the Apostles made new rules for government and discipline as occasion served; and that as God fitted occasions, so he made known new rules successively by degrees, not at once; and added new Officers, as Evangelical B •… shops, Elders, Deacons, Widows, Evangelists, Doctors, Pastors, Teachers (which some distinguish from Presbyters, and d •… fine to be several offices:) Therefore the infant Church in the Apostles days was not so complete, perfect in all parts as the multiplied and grown churches afterwards.

10. My tenth Q •… re he will •… ully misrecites as he doth the rest, else he had not the least shadow of exception against it, a •… propounded it, and then 〈◊〉 an answer by way of dilemma to it: To which I reply, That if the Parliament and Synod shall by public consent establish a Presbyterial church-government, as most consonant to God's Word, the Laws and Reiglement of this Kingdom, Independents and all others are bound in conscience to submit unto it under pain of obstinacy, singularity, &c. in case they cannot really prove it diametrally contrary to the Scriptures, and simply unlawful in point of conscience, not by fancies, or remote inconsequences, but by direct Texts and precepts (which they can never do;) and that because it is thus commanded; established by the higher powers, to which in all lawful or indifferent things we are bound to render all •… eatfull obedience, without resistance, even for conscience sake, by express Gospel Texts, Rom. 13. 1, to 7. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2 14, 15. which I wish you would p •… actise better, and make make more conscience of then now you do. As for his cross Interrogatories, I answer, 1. That if the Popes Councils command lawful things to those who a •… e subject to their power, they are as well to be obeyed as the commands of heathen Emperors, Magistrates, Parents, Husbands, by Christian Subjects, Wives, Servants, living under them, are. 2. That there is a great difference between matters of opinion only, and of practice; That his instanced points, Whether Lo •… Episcopacy be jure divino; or their making out Processe under their own Names and Seals be agreeable to the Law of the Land are matters only of opinion simply in themselves; and if a Synod and Parliament should have determined the first, and the Judges resolved the last, affirmatively, their resolutions could not bind my judgment absolutely, so far as to subscribe their opinions as undoubted truths, unless they could satisfy my arguments and authorities to the contrary; but yet they should & ought to bind me for the present so far as to submit to their authority & Processe in their own names in things within their legal cognizance: So if the Parliament and Assembly shall establish any Church-government, as most agreeable to the Scriptures and our Laws, though this binds not all Independents to be simply of their opinion, unless the reasons and arguments produced for it be sufficient to convince their judgments, yet it binds them in point of practice and obedience, outwardly to submit thereto, and not to separate from it, under pain of arrogancy, faction, schism, unless they can clearly manifest it to be absolutely unlawful and repugnant to the Scripture. As for my own objected challenge to the Bishops & Judges, about the jus divinum of Lordly Prelacy and Bishops Processein their own names; when I made it, I was certain I had both Scripture, Fathers, Councils, Acts of Parliament, the suffrages of all foreign Reformed Churches, Writers, and our own learnedest Bishops, Authors in all times against the first; and direct Acts, Resolutions of Parliament, Patents, unanswerable Law-authorities, and Reasons against the latter: Therefore a few Lordly Prelates opinions in their own case, or the subitane, forced, extra judicial resolution of the Judges (not then published) could no more conclude my judgment, nor make me guilty of arrogancy, obstinacy, or schism then, than their forced judgments for the lawfulness of Loanes and Ship-money, against express Acts and judgments of Parliament, oblige me or others, then or now, not to deem that tax illegal: and when you can produce as many good authorities, Reasons from Scripture, Antiquity, Acts of Parliament, Writers of all sorts, against the lawfulness of Presbytery, as I have done against Lordly Episcopacy by divine right, Bishops making out Processe under their own Names, Seals, and Ship-money, neither of which were ever settled by any former Parliament, and have all been expressly voted against in this; I shall then excuse you from arrogancy and schism, but till this be done, (as I presume it will never be) the guilt of both these will stick fast upon you, if you readily conform not in outward practice to that Government the Parliament shall establish. If they should settle Independency, I am certain you would then write and preach for universal obedience to it, (which you now publicly call for so eagerly without authority or proof of its Divinity) because thus settled, without dispute: therefore by like reason you ought to submit to a Presbytery, or such other Government as shall be resolved on by those entrusted with this care; notwithstanding anything you have said, or this New Independent senseless argument of Mr I. G. which some of your party much rely on: The Saints shall judge the world (at the day of Judgment) 1 Cor. 6. 2. Ergo, the Parliament (chosen by the rifraffe of the World) and the Synod, may not make any Laws in matters of Discipline, Worship, or Government, to regulate or oblige Saints now: They might better have concluded, Ergo the Parliament, or any secular Magistrate, cannot judge them now for any secular matter; since the Apostle useth this expression only to blame them for going to Law before Heathen (not Christian) Judges, for secular matters, verse. 1. 6, 7. Such Independent arguments will but ill support your Independent fabric.

11 To my 11. Quere he gives only a negative answer, and then declaims against Presbytery without ground or reason: But because I have proved the truth of what he denies in my Independency examined, and in some following pages, I shall not trouble you with any further proof, except these two particulars: 1. That Independency is in reality mere Separation and Brownism, lately christened with this new title, to take off its odium: and if so, I doubt not but it is a nursery of schisms, Sectaries, &c. 2. That we find by woeful experience, what bloody divisions, wars schisms, the toleration but of one Religion and Sect in our Realms contrary to that established, (to wit Popery and Papists) hath produced in all our Dominions, to their imminent danger, and almost utter ruin; what then will the free permission of many Independent different forms of Churches, Sectaries do? will it not produce many more troubles, dangers, wars, schisms, then we have hitherto felt? Yea, if every man ought to have freedom of conscience, to vent what opinions, & set up what Governments he deems most conformable to the Word in his own private fancy, you must indulge Papists this liberty as well as others: and then how soon will they over-run us for the future, how justly can we take up arms to suppress them for the present? Consider seriously of these and other public mischiefs of your way, and that liberty of conscience you so much contest for, (which in truth is nothing but mere lawlesnesse, or licentiousness, to do what seems good in your own eyes, as if there was no King in Israel, without respect to the public peace, weal, or glory of God) and then happily you may in time discern, recant your error.

12 To my twelfth Quere he only answers, that I fall a jeering of my brethren, (a palpable untruth) and that I put a nick-name on them, to make them odious; to wit, the title of Independents, which they disclaim; not answering one syllable to the substance of the Question. To which I reply: First, that the title of Independency (of which you are now ashamed) was at first assumed, approved by yourselves, and many of your party do still own, though some disclaim it, of purpose to evade the titles of Separatists and Brownists, with whom you really concur in practice: Besides, you very well know that this title was imposed on, and owned by you long before I writ; therefore I could not father this brat upon you: But if you be offended with this name, I desire you in your next Pamphlet to discover to us your own Christian name, with the true title of your party, and the government you plead for as the only way of Christ's institution, (all which you have hitherto concealed) and then (God willing) I shall give you a further answer to this cavil, or retract this title; till then, I must inform you, that it most proper for your party, who will have everyone of your own private congregations, a complete absolute corporation, exempred from, unsubjected to, independent on any other, be it a National, Synodal, Provincial, Parochial assembly, Parliament or Kings themselves in any Church-affairs: You must therefore still retain this Title, whiles you maintain such Paradoxes both in opinion, practice, (and that by mere Independent inferences) as justly appropriated to you; Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis, being never more exactly verified then in this your suitable name.

But you object, first, That you are accountable for your actions to every neighbor Church, that shall in the name of Christ require it. Secondly, That you stand not independent from, but hold communion with all other Churches, both in the Ordinances, and in asking counsel and advice mutually.

To the first I answer, 1. That if you are accountable for your actions to every particular neighbor Church, t •… n why not much more to a Synod or Parliament, whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction over you or your Churches is denied by you? Secondly, if you are thus accountable to every neighbor Church, do you intend it of Parochial. Episcopal, or Presbyterial Churches, as well as Independent; or of Independent only? If of Independent only, as I suppose you do, then you appeal only to Churches of your own party, frame, judgment, and make one of them subordinate, accountable to another, but not to any other Church; which is an apparent schism, separation from all other Churches, and contradicts your second objection: If of all other sorts of Churches as well as Independent, you must either grant them true Churches of Christ, and then you have no ground to sever from them; or if false, or no true Churches of Christ, (as you in truth repute them) then by your own principles they are no competent Judges of Ecclesiastical affairs, nor you accountable to them. Thirdly, How (I pray) do you hold yourselves accountable to every neighbor Church? by way of subordination, correction or just appeal? that I am certain you will deny: or only by way of voluntary information and satisfaction, when required, which I conceive you mean? If so only, then this is properly no account at all, or but arbitrary at most, which you may deny if you please; and if you err, or prove faulty, or refractory, this neighbor Church can but admonish, not enforce you to correct your errors or injustice: and so this will prove but a mere mockery instead of an account.

To the second I answer, That if you stand not Independent from other Churches, but hold communion with them in Ordinances, and in mutual counsel and advice, Then 1. why do you separate from them as no true Churches, and oppose their way of Government with so much bitterness? Secondly, why do you refuse to administer Baptism and the Lord's Supper to those who are their members, in your Churches, unless they be professed members of some Independent Congregation? Thirdly, why do you not follow their advice counsel, or the Parliaments Synods admonition, and submit thereto; who now earnestly persuade you from your way of separation, division, in these distracted times? the end of demanding good counsel and advice being but to follow, not reject it, where there is humility, ingenuity, or sincerity in those who ask it. You must therefore either disclaim these objected concessions, or become more tractable for the future. 4. You tell us in the next succeeding lines, That neither I; nor Synods, nor this Synod, are infallible, but as subject to errors as others; and that never more dangerous errors have been confirmed then by Synods: and therefore men are not bound in conscience to their decrees upon penalty of sin, arrogancy, &c. But pray Sir may not you and your Independent Ministers, Churches err as well as others? Is infallibility annexed only to your private Chaires, conventicles? If not, then why may not your new-minted Way be a mere erroneous By-path, and no way of Christ as well as other ways, and you err herein as well as Synods in other things? Why will you have the major vote in your congregational decisions to over-rule and bind the rest to obedience, (as your practice and opinions intimate) since the major part may possibly be mistaken, as well as the less dissenting? Shall nothing bind in any Churches, but what is unanimously voted nemine contradicente? or shall one or two dissenting voices over-rule the rest or not be bound by the most? or where all consent, may not all yet be in an error, and not discern it, through self-love to their own ways and opinions, till others of contrary judgments discover and convince them of their error? Away then with this fond argument and evasion; Synods and Parliaments may err in some things, Ergo they must bind us in nothing: Is this good Logic or Divinity? Good Ministers may and do err sometimes in some points of Divinity, Ergo we will believe them in none, no not in those things in which they do not err. Will you throw away all the Apple because one part of it only is rotten? or reject Communion with the best of men because they have some infirmities? Deal then with the Ecclesiastical decrees of Synods and Parliaments as in wisdom, in conscience you are bound to do: Where they are just, equal, not opposite to the word, embrace, submit unto them; when erroneous or contrariant to the express word (not to your own sa •… s, inferences or opinions) you may differ from them in judgment, but you must patiently suffer under them in point of practice & obedience (if merely practical) till a further season, and not disturb the Churches peace by opposition or schism: which is as good, as seasonable Christian advice, as that you conclude with unto me, which I heartily wish yourself had first followed, who have more defamed the ways of Christ and used more personal unchristian bitterness then I am guilty of. You wish indeed, O that a spirit of love wore maintained among those that are brethren: though they differ in judgment, must they needs differ in affection? I say the same. But O then why separate you from us, yea pass uncharitable censures on us as if we were not your Brethren? One Kingdom, one City, House, doth now, on •… heaven shall hereafter contain us both: why not then one church, government, one Church Militant, as well as one Triumphant? If you deem not your selves more holy then your brethren, or be not swelled up with spiritual pride (as your styling yourselves Men of rich anointing from God, the most religiously affected, and best conscienced people of the land, the most precious men, &c. with your separation from us, and harsh censures of us, make most men suspect) then why resuse you to close with us now, as you have done heretofore? Could our Ministers, Churches, when more corrupt, convert, regenerate, edify, save you, and yet not now so much as hold you, when more refined and reformed? If yea, then let us both shake hands without anymore encounters; if nay, then fairly chalk out your yet concealed independent way and platform in all its several lineaments, and beautiful native colors; produce your several punctual Scriptures, Arguments, to maintain it, (there being none of them extant in these your Observations for ought I can find) that so I may see the frame and grounds of this new Fabric, in as large or narrow a Model as you please: and then doubt not but an Answer shall be given to what ever you modestly set forth, (if worthy answer) in case it be not satisfactory; or else a friendly embrace thereof, if agreeable to the Spirit and Word of truth, by him who hath learned Paul's peremptory resolution, 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth; in which resolution (God assisting) I resolve to live and die.

Certain brief Animadversions on Mr John Goodwin's Theomachia, in Iusti •… ion of some passages in My Independency, Examined, Unmasked &c. and of the Parliaments Ecclesiastical power.

IT is not my intention to repeat or refute all the unseasonable offensive passages in the Epistle or Body of this Treatise, which tacitly reflect upon the present Religious Parliament and Assembly, raising needless fears and jealousies of them both (in matters of RELIGION and Church-Government) as if they really intended to increase our misery and bondage, by rejecting and oppressing truth; to conjure all men's gifts, parts industry into a Synodical Circle; and that there is almost as little hope of gathering grapes from thorns, or figs of Thistles, as of having the joy of our faith holpen, or increased, or any decrease, but rather increase of evils by them; the resolutions of Councils, and Synods themselves upon the matter and just account, being but the fruits, or puttings forth of the learning and judgment of a very few men, not always of the most conscientious &c. I shall only select some few particulars worthy consideration; to fill up my vacant Pages.

First, it may be justly questioned, whether the main doctrine prosecuted in it

1. First, because it opens a wide gate to the reviving of all old, the spreading and propagating of all new Heresies. Errors, Schisms, Sects and opinions whatsoever, without the least timely opposition or prevention, to the endangering of infinite souls, and disturbance of the Churches, Kingdoms peace. For there is no Heretic, Schismatic, or Sectary whatsoever (though never so pernicious, gross or detestable) but pretends his way, doctrine, practice, opinions to be the way and truth of Christ, claiming their origination and descent from God, yea, producing perverting the Scripture it self to justify them, as the Devil cited and wrested Scripture to tempt Christ: yea, our Savior and the Scripture inform us, that many false Teachers shall arise, and do great Miracles, Signs and Wonders, insomuch that they shall deceive many, yea the greatest part of the World, and if it were possible the very Elect; * That Satan and his Ministers also transform themselves into Angels of Light: That false Teachers usually come to seduce men in sheep's clothing, with all deceiveablenes and craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; and advise us frequently to beware of such, and not admit them into our houses, &c. And must we therefore not speedly oppose, resist, avoid, suppress them or any of them now, because they thus pretend they are of and from God Himself; but stay •… ll we see their condemnation written with a beam of the sun by the finger of God himself, and till he hath disclaimed, renounced them from Heaven, by some visible judgment or destruction? If A •… rianisme, 〈◊〉 , Socinianism, Anabaptism, or any anciently exploded Heresies, or Schisms should revive and sprout up among us (as some have lately done) should we use such indulgence as this towards them, because they pretend their origination and descent from heaven; and their opinions not disputable only, but warranted by the Scripture? Alas what confusion, what inundation of heresies, schisms, and monstrous opinions would this presently introduce into our Church to its destruction, ruin, if such a Paradox were once admitted?

2 Secondly, Because it is contrary to these express precepts and presidents both of the Old and New Testament, which you may peruse at leisure, Deut. 13. 1. to 18. Levite. 19. 17. Joshua. 22. 9. to 24. Psalm. 119. 104. 128. 2 Kings. 22. 8. to 27. Ier. 4. 30. 31. (a pregnant place) c. 14. 14. to 18. cap. 23. 13. to 23. cap 27. 15. to 19. c. 29. 8, 9. Ezra. 13. throughout Matthew 7. 15. cap. 24. 11. 23. 24. 25. 26. Mark. 13. 5, 6. 22, 23, 24. Acts 13. 6. to 14. cap 15. 1. to 33. cap. 17. 11. Rom. 16. 17. 18. 2 Cor. 11. 13. 14, 15. Galath. 1. 6. 7, 8, 9 10. c. 2. 4. to 18. (a noted place) c. 3. 1, 2. 3. Ephes. 4. 14, 15. Phil. 3. 1. 2. 3. Coloss. 2. 8. 18. to the end, 1 Thes. 5. 21. 2 Thes. 2. 1. to 16. c. 3. 6. 7. 1 Tim. 4. 1. to 7. chap. 1. 20. chap 5. 20 21, 22. 2 Tim. 2. 16. 17, 18. 23, 24, 25, 26. c. 4. 1. to 6. Titus. 1. 9. to 15. chapter 3. 9. 10, 11. 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2, 3. c. 3. 17. 18. 1 John. 4. 2. 3. 2 John 10. 11. Jude 3. 4. &c. Revel. 2. 14. 15. 20, 21. compared together. Paul would not give way to false Apostles NO NOT FOR AN HOURE, that the truth of the Gospel might continue among the Galatians, and resisted Peter to his face, as soon as ever he walked disorderly, and gave the least countenance to false Teachers, though a chief Apostle; and did not demur upon the matter; yea the Churches of Pergamos, and Thyatira, are sharply blamed for suffering some among them to hold the doctrine of Balaam, and the Nicolaitans; and to suffer Jesabell the Prophetess to teach and seduce: And shall we permit them, now, without restraint?

3 Thirdly, Because it is contrary to these received unquestionable Maxims of Divinity, Policy, and Morality. Principijs obstare: Venienti occurrere morbo, to withstand the very beginnings of Errors, Heresies, Mischiefes; Schisms: to crush these Cockatrices in the shell; rather to keep then cast them out, Turpius ejicitur quàm non admittitur hostis. All wise men hold preventing Physic best for their bodies, states, and why not for their souls and Churches? since, Sero medicina paratur, cum mala per longas invaluere moras.

4 Fourthly, Because contrary to the Policy, practice of most Godly Magistrates, Princes, Ministers, Churches in all Ages, Nations, which never indulged such liberty to opinions, new ways, practices, especially to new Church-governments, Schisms, and Conventicles, (which he here pleads for) set up only by private spirits in opposition to the public established Church-regelment. Indeed in some matters mearly of opinion which are not dangerous or schismatical, some latitude may and must be left to men; but matters of Government are such tender things, as differences & varieties therein cannot be tolerated in one and the self same Church and State without infinite inconveniencies and disturbances, especially where every Church shall be Independent, subject to no other Canons, rules, but its own peculiar arbitrary Dictates.

2 It may be questioned, whether the Independent way he there so earnestly pleads for, be the way of Christ, or not? since he neither discovers to us what it is, nor produceth any one text to prove it Christ's own way, nor one example to warrant it in any age: but gives us good grounds to suspect it none of his without much scrutiny.

1 For first, he confesseth, that this way is everywhere spoken against, even by some that would be thought prime men and pillars in the temple of God; and insinuates; that the Parliament, Assembly and generality of the Ministers and people of the Realm, are bent against it; Therefore being a new way, never yet heard off in the world in any age, or Church of Christ, and thus generally opposed by our whole Church and State even in these times of Reformation; we may justly suspect it is no way of Christ, till we see its approbation written in a beam of the Sun with the finger of God himself, and till he hath justified and owned it as his, from heaven.

2 He tacitly acknowledgeth, it a Government set up by a few private men, not only without but against the authority & commands of the Parliament and supreme temporal Magistrates: yea, which not only denies but oppugnes the temporal Magistrates, Parliaments, Synods directions or coercive power in Ecclesiastical affairs; directly contrary to the Scriptures, as I have largely proved by many Texts, in my (o) Independency examined. Only I shall add, that not only the Kings and temporal Magistrates of the Israelites; but even heathen Kings and Princes (as Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Nebuchadnezzar, the King & Nobles of Nineveh &c.) enacted good and wholesome Laws, for the worship, honor and service of the true God, and to further his people in the building of his temple; who thereupon were enjoined to * pray for their prosperity, as the marginal Scriptures evidence. Yea, Paul himself even in matters of Religion pleaded his cause before Festus, Felix, King Agrippa, and at last appealed unto Caesar an heathen Emperor, herein; yea he enjoins all Christians to pray even for heathen Kings. Magistrates, and to submit to all their lawful commands for conscience sake, to whose judicature and tribunals, Christ himself and his Apostles willingly submitted themselves upon all occasions when brought before them, without demurring to their jurisdictions. Therefore Christian Princes & Magistrates who were long since predicted to become nursing Fathers to the Church under the Gospel, have much more power and jurisdiction in Church-government and affairs within their own Dominions.

3 For that it appears to be away that will breed infinite confusions, disorders, by confounding the bounds of parishes, renting Congregations, families, and most relations asunder; & giving way to every sect to choose Ministers, erect Churches of their own without control, in point of position (though their practice be quite contrary where they have power, they admitting no other kind of government but Independency in New-England, and excommunicating, or banishing those who will not submit unto it:) a government inconsistent with Royalty, and the civil government; and so none of Christ's, who never erected any Church-government to clash with or control the civil.

4 Whereas he pretends, that persons of one family or parish may be members of several Churches, without any inconvenience, schism, or distraction; as well as members of several companies and trades; and therefore Independency is no occasion of divisions.

I answer, 1. That two cannot walk peaceably and lovingly together unless they are agreed, especially in matters of Religion; and those who in point of conscience cannot communicate or agree together in one Church, will never questionless accord well together in one family, bed, parish, kingdom, as experience manifests.

2. There is a great difference between several trades and Halls in one City, parish, kingdom, and several forms of Church-government, in these particulars which occasion unity in the one, but schisms in the others 1. All trades societies hold one another lawful, useful, necessary, agreeable to the laws of God and the Realm without dispute; & so they breed no contrariety of opinions or disaffection: but each different Church deems the other unlawful, & in no way of Christ, so as they cannot with safe conscience join or communicate together: and thereupon they sever one from another. 2. Every several trade and society, even in their very trade is subject to the general Government, Laws of the City & Realm wherein they are, to which they appeal and have recourse upon all occasions of difference, none craving an exemption or Independency from the whole Corporation, Parliament or supreme Magistrate in matters which concern their government, but deriving their Corporations, Charters, Laws and privileges from them: which subordination keeps them all in peace and unity. But Independent Churches deny any subordination, subjection to the Ecclesiastical Laws and Edicts of Parlements, of temporal Magistrates or Synods, and will be regulated, obliged only by their own peculiar Edicts: which must needs occasion infinite Schisms, and disorders: therefore the cases are far different from one the other.

Thirdly, Christians, as Christians, are all of one and the self-same society and profession, as those of one Trade or Calling are; therefore they should have all but one common Church and government, as these Trades have: To set then the comparison upright, we must state it thus; If some of one Fraternity in London (suppose the Merchant-tailors, Sadlers, Mercers, or the like) should fall out among themselves, and one would have one form of government, another another, and thereupon divide themselves into several conventicles and petty meetings in corners, not at their common hall, and one choose one Government, Master, or Warden, another another, and so sever the company, and continue independent; this (no doubt) would prove an apparent schism, and seminary of infinite divisions, to the distraction, destruction of the whole Company and Fraternity. This is the true state of your Independency; yea Mr Goodwin's present case in his own Parish, miserably divided, disordered by his Independent way: which hath induced him to refuse to administer the Lord's Supper, (yea Baptism to some children of Parishioners) for a years space or more, though they offer to be examined by him; esteeming them none of his Flock, (preaching but seldom to them, though he receive their tithes:) and instead thereof to gather an Independent congregation to himself, out of divers Parishes and his own, to whom he prescribes a Covenant ere they be admitted members of it; preaching, praying, administering the Sacrament to them alone in private conventicles, neglecting his Parishioners: which hath engendered such discontents and rents in his Parish, even among the well-affected and truly religious, that he must either desert it or his Independent way. What schisms and discords this New way hath raised in other Parishes, is so well known to the World, that I need no other evidence to prove it a schismatical By-path, and so no way of Christ the Prince of peace, who prescribes naught else but precepts of peace and unity to his Churches, and is most offended with their schisms.

Finallie, I cannot think this way a way of Christ, because I find it a Pioner and underminer of Parliamentary authority, devesting Parliaments of all manner of jurisdiction in matters of Religion and church-government; witness the passage of the Two independent Brethren recited in my Independency examined p. 3. (which certainly wears a Maske as yet, since she never appeared bare-faced to the world, not one of her Patrons hitherto presenting us with her in her native colors, or lineaments) whose guilt this Author by his explanation, to make it good, rather aggravates then extenuates. He writes,

The sum of this large passage is, that there is not only an improbabilitie, but absolute impossibility, that the Parliament should have any power at all to enact Laws and Statutes in matters of Religion, church-government, God's worship or service, because the people who elect them have no such power, and so an impossibility of deriving any such authority to them; and to affirm the contrary, is not only to awake the eyes of jealousy upon them, but exceedingly destructive to, and undermining of not only their power, but honor, peace, and safety also. Whether this be not directly to undermine the authority of Parliaments and temporal Magistrates in all church-affairs and matters of Religion, contrary to your late Covenant and Protestation, and that in the most; transcendent manner that ever any have hitherto attempted in print, let all wise men judge: I am sory such ill passages should fall from so good a pen.

But to give a short Answer to this extravagant discourse: First, this objection might be made against the general Assemblies, Parliament: Kings of the Israelites, who were chosen by the people, yet they made Laws and Statutes concerning Religion, and God's worship, with his approbation, without any such exception, as I have elsewhere proved. Secondly, God himself (as I formerly •… uched) used the ministry, assistance of Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Durius, with other heathen Princes and Magistrates, for the building of his Temple, and advancement of his worship, for which they made Decrees, Statutes; notwithstanding this objected reason reflects more upon them and their electors, then on such who are Christians by external profession. Thirdly, most Christian Kings and Magistrates in the World, (even those who claim to be hereditary, as the yet continued forms of their Coronations and instalments manifest) come in by the people's election, as well as such members of Parliament who are eligible, yet you cannot without disloialty and absurdity, deny them authority in matters of Religion and Churchgovernment. Fourthly, yourself do not only grant, but argue, That every private man hath, yea ought to have power to elect and constitute his own Minister: and no doubt you will grant, that private men have power likewise to set up independent Congregations, which have authority to prescribe such Covenants, Laws and Rules of Government, Discipline, Worship, as themselves think most agreeable to the Word: If then they may derive such an Ecclesiastical authority to independent Ministers and Churches, why not as well to Parliaments and Synods likewise by the self-same reason? Fi •… hly, it is clear by sundry instances in Scripture, and your own Text, that God doth oft times make use of unsanctified persons, and the rude multitude, (whom you so much under-value) to advance his glory, propagate his Gospel, promote his Worship, vindicate his Truth, and edify his Church: He can pour a spirit of prophesy upon a Balaam, a Saul, a Gamaliel, a persecuting High Priest; he can make a Judas an Apostle, yea send him to preach and build his Church, as well as a Peter: We read in the Evangelists, that none were so forward as the vulgar multitule to believe, follow, profess Christ, and embrace the Gospel, though many of them did it out of sinister ends. Therefore they may well have power to choose such persons who shall and may make Laws to promote the Gospel, and Government of the Church of Christ. Sixthly, those who have no skill at all in Law, Physic, or Architecture, have yet judgment and reason enough to make choice of the best Lawyers, Physicians, Architects, when they need their help. Those who are unfit, or unable to be members of Parliament themselves, (as most of the electors are) have yet had wisdom enough in all ages, and especially at this present, to elect the most eminent & ablest men for such a service: Those who are unmeet to be Kings, Magistrates, Commanders, or Ministers, have yet skill enough to choose able persons for such offices, & power to delegate to them such Parliamentary, Royal, Magisterial, Pastoral authority, as is necessary for their several offices, which those who elected them never had actually, but only originally or virtually in them, not to use, but derive them unto others: why then may not our free-holders, who have voices in electing the members of our Parliaments, and the Commonalty of the Land, (whom you scandalously term, the vilest and most unworthy of men, though there be a degree of vulgar people viler and unworthier then they in all respects, who have no votes in such elections) have sufficient authority in them to elect and nominate such fit persons, who by virtue of such nomination or election shall have right and power to enact Laws, Statutes, in matters of Religion, Worship, and Church-government, not dissonant from God's Word, to which themselves and others by God's own ordinance must submit? If the common people, who neither are nor can be Parliaments, Emperors, Kings, Judges, Magistrates, Ministers have yet a lawful power to make others such by their bare election, & to give them such authority and power as themselves never actually were or can be possessors of, then why by the self-same reason may they not likewise delegate a lawful Ecclesiastical legislative authority in church-affairs, to their elected Parliamentary and Synodal Members, which was never actually in themselves, as well as Mr Goodwin delegate the power of determining who should be fit persons to receive the Sacrament, and to become members of his independent Congregation, to eight select substitutes, which was never actually vested in himself, nor transferrible thus to others by any Law of God or man? why may not a man bring an ecclesiastical or spiritual extraction out of a secular root, (contrary to your Paradox) as well as a R •… gall, Magisterial, Parliamentall, Ministerial extraction, out of a mere popular or servile root? or the best strong waters out of the vilest Lees; the richest Minerals out of the coarsest earth? the most orient Pearls out of the basest Oisters? In one word, the very choice these your vilest and most unworthy of men have made this Parliament, may forever refute this childish reason, the corner-stone of your Independent fabric, fastened together with independent crochets, unable to abide the test. Therefore notwithstanding this your reason, our present Parliament may and ought in point of right & duty, to make binding Laws for regulating church-government, restraining heresies, schisms, innovations, erroneous doctrines, unlawful conventicles, and for settling the purity of God's worship and Religion, notwithstanding this objection; and with as much reason, justice, raise, and establish a new churchgovernment, suitable to God's Word and the civil State, as reform or repeal the old, (which grew to burdensome and offensive) till Independents can show us better grounds against it then any yet produced: and inform us, why our whole representative Church and State should not o •… right enjoy and exercise as great o •… greater ecclesiastical jurisdiction, over all particular persons and Churches who are Members of our Church and Realm, as any independent Minister or Congregation challenge or usurp unto themselves, over their own Members (this being the true state of the question, and not whether one particular Church, or parish, hath superiority or Jurisdiction over another? as some mist •… it) without, yea against both Law & Gospel for ought they yet have made appear? I shall say no more in so clear a case, but refer the Author to the high Court of Parliament, (whose undoubled privileges he hath presumptuously undermined by the very roots) to crave their Pardon, or undergo their justice for this and other his Anti-parliamentary passages, diametrally contrary to his, o •… , their late National Vow and Covenant, which they cannot without highest Perjury permit any willfully thus to violate in the most public manner.