Reply to Observations and Anti-Queries

A full Reply to certain brief Observations and Anti-queries to Mr Prynne's Twelve Questions about Church-Government.

O F all the vanities and vexations of spirit, enumerated by the royal Preacher, this is one of the principal, That for all travel, and every right work, 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 evil, by many; though (blessed be God) approved, yea gratefully accepted by the best-affected to the felicity, tranquilliry of 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 cordial 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 rectify 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 may 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, Luk. 2. 46, 47. Matth. 11. 1, to 20. c. 12. 3, to 13. 26. 27. 29. c. 21. 23, to 43. c. 22. 18, to 23. c. 16. 26. Presidents from Philosophers, Fathers, School-men, and all sorts of Writers, ancient▪ modern, over-tedious 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: and therefore I conjectured such Queries to be the only means to discover and refute their concealed Platforme. 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 BVT OVERTHROW ALL SORTS OF ECCLESIASTICALL GOVERNMENT, (and I fear civil too by the self-same-reason) AND STAND VP IT SELFE IN THEIR STEAD; which they close up with a, Faxit Deus & festinet: and, that writing 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 defery 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; that nothing herein is, or can be left free to human prudence: 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 impertinent 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 see 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, are 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, Josiah, 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 and 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 and Laws both for our faith and lives, either in a general or special manner; but that Christ hath punctually and 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 Independent 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.

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, Revelat. 11. 1. (referring only to the Jewish not Christian Church, which hath no Temple nor Altar:) Ergo we ought to have an Altar, yea and one 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. consonant 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 it 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 preseript 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 Synods 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 Laws 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.

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) but to all particular 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 congregations 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. 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 politick considerations of men to be governed by; If he means it only of matters of Faith, or of 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, and 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] 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 passively 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 fellow-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, yea 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: Yea, Independent Ladies and 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 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. As 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 not 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 Pre • byterian 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] 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 Separatist) from whom the Apologists profess their dissent in some things. As for any reverend godly persons who now contend for this new Model, though I reverence their persons, judgments too in other things, yet I cannot subscribe to them in this new dangerous By-path, which 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.

[ 7] 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, (since all cannot possibly assemble) yet in their deputies, Knights, Burgesses, or selected Commissioners: and though it be true 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 independeut 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 were 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.

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 its 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.

[ 8] 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 public 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-tunner) 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 show 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 Informes 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 till the harvest, at the end of the world, to wit the day of judgment) & good fish mixed with the bad in the churches Not. 2. I find a Judas, a Devil, among the Apostles, many gross sinners idolaters, and corruptions in the Jewish church; many abuses, Epicures, Drunkards, Whoremasters, Libertines, unclean persons, and false Teachers, in the churches of Galatia, Ephesus, Colossae, Pergamos, Smynna, Thyatira, and Laodicea; yet the Scripture expressly stiles them the body and churches of Christ and rep • tes 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 such members in them, is to unchurch all churches both in the old and New Testament and the 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.

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 Antiech 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 Hierusalom, 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 assembled was not to prove the false Apostles liars, (as he assirmeth) but to debate and consider THIS QUESTION AND MATTER, whether the Gentiles ought to be circumcised? To his fourth, I say, that though this meeting was occasional, yet it i • a sufficient warrant for general meetings, which are usually 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 one and 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 mere shifts or obstinacy of spirit against public government, order, and authority) to control it. If any pretend they do it only out of conscience, if they will but seriously gage their own deceitful hearts, I fear their conscience will prove but willfulness, having neither precept, president, nor reason to direct it: So as I may truly retort 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 ages 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, Orders, 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 Ancient of days, who hath neither infancy nor perfection, as the Church hath.

To his second, that I would needs make a National Church, State, more perfect, understanding, and wise, th • n a congregational: I fear not to aver it, since your selves must grant, that the Church under the Law was more perfect then that before it; the Church under the Gospel more perfect then that 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 preach: 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, expetienced, grown Minister; Christian, is more complete and perfect theu 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, nor a Family as a County, nor a Consistory as a Synod, nor a court of Aldermen as a common-council, nor 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 fine, 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 Bishops, Elders, Deacons, Widows, Evangelists, Doctors, Pastors, Teachers (which some distinguish from Presbyters, and define 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 Quere he willfully misrecites, as he doth the rest; else he had not the least shadow of exception against it, as I propounded it, and then returns 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 cheerful 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 practice 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 are 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 Lordly 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 Churchgovernment, 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 Processe in 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, extrajudiciall 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 Intrusted with this care.

[ 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 Pupists) 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 fantie, 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 those 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 or weal) 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 every of your own private congregations, a complete absolute corporation, exempted 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, while • you maintain such Paradoxes both in opinion and practice as justly appropriate it 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, then 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, or correction? 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, 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, and submit thereto; who now earnestly dissuade 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 fancies, 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 u • ed more personal unchristian betternesse then I am guilty of. You wish indeed, O that a spirit of love were 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, one 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 refuse 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.