Moderate Answer to Dr Bastick

A Moderate ANSWER UNTO Dr. BASTWICKS Book; CALLED, Jndependencie not God's Ordinance.

P Assing by many things less considerable, because I intend brevity; In the 7th. page of the Doctors book, There is a twofold Question between them called PRESBYTERIANS and their Brethren who are termed INDEPENDENTS; The first is, concerning the Government of the Church, viz. Whether it be Presbyterian-Dependen, or Presbyterian-Independent? The second Question is, concerning the Gathering of CHURCHES.

Touching the former Question concerning the Government of the Church, the Doctor acknowledgeth in the same 7th. page, that the Brethren on both sides agree, that the Government of the church is a Presbyterian-Government, both acknowledging a Presbyterie. But whether it be Dependent, or Independent is the main thing in the question, which the Doctor doth determine, and saith in the Title page of his book he hath evidently Proved. ' That the Presbyterian-Government-Dependent is God's Ordinance, and not the byterian-Government-Independent.

I intend not to strive with the Doctor about words, and therefore touching the two Termes, to wit, Dependent, and Independent; I shall only say this at present: That if by Independent the the Doctor indeed mean (as it doth appear so to my understanding by many passages in his book, he doth intend) a Presbyterian-Government, which hath not Dependencie upon any in matters merely Ecclesiastical (but upon the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Head of the Church) And if by Dependent he also indendeth (as in many other passages in his book seemeth to me to be his meaning) a Presbyterian-Government, which hath a Dependencie upon a supreme Judicature of a Common-council of Presbyters, and who must in matters Ecclesiastical be subject unto the Decrees, Sentences, Constitutions, and Commandments of a Common-council, College or Consitory of Classical, Provincial, or Synodical Presbyters; Then I do conceive the Doctor hath not proved, (nor will he ever be able to prove) That the Presbyterian-Government-Dependent is God's Ordinance; And I hope to make the contrary plainly appear both from clear Texts of Scripture, and the Doctors own books. And seeing that the Doctor hath in the 6th. p. of his Book desired all his Christian Brethren in the Deciding of this Question to take the Word of God into their Hands, and with the Noble Bereans to sit down and examine, whatsoever shall be said on either side according to the Scriptures: I willingly make the same request, as most desirous, that this short Answer may abide the like trial, and be weighed in the other balance of the Sanctuary against the Doctors Book.

Now that all things may be handled in good order, and in a Methodicall way, the Doctor hath reduced the whole disputation concerning this first Question into four Propositions, page. 11.

• The first, that there were many Congregations and several assemblies of Believers in the church of Jerusalem, in the which they enjoyed all acts of Worship, and all the Ordinances amongst themselves, and did partake of all acts of Church-fellowship, especially of preaching, and in the Administration of the Sacraments, and prayer, and that before the Persecution we read of, Act. 8.2.
• The second, That all these congregations, and several assemblies made but one church.
• The third, That the Apostles and Elders governed, ordered, and ruled this church jointly, and by a Common-council, and Prebsytery.
• The fourth, that this church of Jerusalem, and the government of the same is to be a pattern for all several congregations and assemblies in any City or Vicinity to unite into one Church, and for the Officers of those congregations to govern that Church jointly in a College or Presbyterie.

These are his four Propositions.

But before he comes to the proof of these particulars he saith it will not be amiss in general to take notice, That all the Churches we read of in the New Testament, were Aristocratically and Prestbyterially governed, and were all Dependent upon their several Presbyters, and produceth divers places of Scripture to prove the same, and two sheets are spent wholly in proving thereof from the 12. page to the 29. All which (should it be granted) only proves. First, That in every City or Church there was a Presbiterie, Acts. 14.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cumque per suffragia statuissent illis per singulas Ecclesias seniores, that is, When they had ordained them Elders in every Church by the Suffrage or stretching forth of Hands, also Titus 1.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & constituas oppidatim seniores, that is, And thou mayest Ordaine Elders town by town, or city by city, or village by village.

Secondly, that as there were Apostles and Elders in the Church of Jerusalem, Act. 15.2,4. So there were Elders in the Church of Ephesus, Act. 20.17,28. And in the Church of Corinth, and in the Church of Galatia, and in Philippie, &c.

Thirdly, that these several Churches were Dependent upon their several Presbyters, and were to obey them who had the rule over them, Heb. 13.7,17,24. Or who were their Guides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Obedite ducibus vestris, that is Obey your Guides.

Fourthly, that this Presbyterian-Church-Government, God hath hath appointed as his Ordinance, to be continued to the end of the world, the which whosoever resisteth, resisteth the Ordinance of God, but it doth not prove, That this Presbyterian-Church-Government is Dependent upon a supreme Judicature of a Common-counsel of Presbyters, or that they must submit, and subject them themselves and their churches unto the Decrees, Sentences, Constitutions, and Commandments, of a Common-council, college, and court of classical, or Synodal Presbyters, which the Doctor should have proved, for such a Presbyterian-Government he intends, as may appear by the Doctors own words, pag. 17.18. As for the Presbyterian Government (in the sense that I understand it) there is nothing more clear to me in all the Scripture: Yea the very word and name of Presbytery signifieth, a Magistracy, or Aristocracy, or Signory, or court. And as the word is taken in the civil Polity and Government, so in the Ecclesiastical, by a Presbytery we understand (saith the Doctor) page 18. A Religious, Grave, Sollid, Learned, and Wise Council of Divines, Ministers, &c. Without whose joint and mutual accord, or agreement and common-consent nothing ought to be done or transacted of public concernment. And to make this good, to wit, That the Presbyters of particular congregations or assemblies of Believers, and their Churches ought to be subject to a Common-council or Court of Presbyters. The Doctor urgeth that Scripture, the third Epistle of John, the 9.10,11. verses, as an invincible Argument.

You shall find it thus expounded by the Doctor pag. 15.

Now let the Reader judge, whether the Dr. be not much mistaken in his Commentary-exposition and application of this place of Scripture. And let me give you to understand, that St. John saith verse 9. I wrote unto the Church. Or as Beza upon that verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Scripsi nonnihil Ecclesiae, that is, I have written something to the Church. But seeing no mention is made of any particular Congregation, how can the Dr. so confidently affirm that it was his particular Congregation? Now the Reader may see plainly, That the Dr. can expound those Brethren and their Elders or Presbyters, which the Scripture calls a Church, to be a particular Congregation. And what it was which St. John had written to the Church is not in this Epistle, nor any other Scripture, declared, except it was, to receive those Brethren, which he saith verse 8. ought to be received, and verse 10. whom Diotrephes would not receive, how then doth the Doctor say? That Diotrephes assumed that power to himself, which belonged unto the College and council of Presbyters; without whose joint and mutual agreement, and common-consent nothing ought to be done or transacted of public concernment. Is the receiving of Brethren, or casting out of Brethren a power which belongs to a College of Presbyters, and neither the one nor the other may be transacted by the Elders and Brethren of a particular congregation, unless the court or common-council of Presbyters conjointly consent unto it? Let it be also considered, That Diotrephes opposed the Brethren and forbade them, that would have received those, who St. John saith verse 8. we ought to receive, yea and cast them ought, verse. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & volentes (admittere) prohibit& de Ecclesia dejicit. That is, and forbiddeth them, that would (or are willing to admit them) and casteth them out of the church, to wit, excommunicates them. Doth it hereby appear that Diotrephes would have his congregation Independent? and have an absolute jurisdiction within itself. No, but Diotrephes would Lord it over the church, and have the pre-eminence above his brethren, whether fellow Elders or fellow Saints, verse • . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sed amans primatum gerere in eos Diorephes, that is, But Diotrephes loving the primacy amongst them. He would be the Primate and Metropolitan of the church, and have the Pre-eminence of all the Presbyters in it, and Brethren of it. The Doctor could have urged this Scripture against the domineering Prelates, and why should he marvel, that his Brethren should now urge it against the court of Presbyters. It is confessed Diotrephes did that which was evil in usurping Authority over the church, and those Brethren, whom he cast out of the church; But that he was the first that opposed the Presbyterian Government, or that he did affront a Court and common-council of Presbyters, is more then I know, or the Doctor can prove. For had Diotrephes done so, why was he not convented before them, surely the Apostle and Elder St. John would rather have written to the college of Presbyters (if there were any such) then to the Church, or in writing to the Church, would rather have sent him a summons to appear at some consistory before the Court and common-council of Presbyters, then to warn them to take heed of his evil, that they did not follow it: And doubtless St. John would have written thus, Diotrephes loves to be a Primate among you, wherefore when the Presbyterie that is to say, the Magistracy or Signory of grave, solid, learned, religious, and wise Divines and Ministers come to keep order, and met together in a Court and common-council, I will remember his deeds, and inform, or complain to the Court and common-council of Presbyters, that he prates against us (the Presbyters) with malicious words. But the Apostle St. John (did not know any Court or common-council of Presbyters, neither Classical, nor Synod call, to appeal unto) [Nor can the Doctor make good those Appeales he mentioneth pag. 10. to be according to the Scripture of Truth, to wit; That every particular man, as well as any Assembly or Congregation, may have their appeal to the Presbyterie of their Precinct, hundred, or devision under whose jurisdictions they were; And if they find themselves wronged there, then they have appeals to some other higher Presbytery or Council of Divines for relief and justice. I only ask the Doctor how he can prove these appeals by Scripture; and if he could, whether that higher Presbytery or Council of Divines, (especially if they may say the Holy Ghost and we) be not as Independent as these Brethren and their Churches, against whom the Doctor hath written: And if so, then such a high Presbytery or Council of Divines, is not God's Ordintnce, by the Doctors own confession and Affirmation.] Therefore the Apostle writes to the Church or particular Congregation whereof Diotrephes was a Member and an Elder, whom he knew had power to judge him, as well as the Church or particular Congregation of Corinth had power to judge them that were Members therein. 1 Cor. 5.12.13. And therefore might as warrantably admonish Diotrephes, as the Church of Colossae might Arckippus: Coloss. 4.17.

John the Presbyter would not have transgressed so far, as to take upon himself this Authority over Diotrephes to tell the Church of his faults, and to say he would remember him and sharply reprove him, and teach him to prate against the Presbyterie with malicious words, which belonged to the Court and Common Council of Presbyters: But I shall have a just occasion to say more touching this matter in the answer unto the third Question, and therefore passing by the objection with its answer mentioned page 19. to the 29. unto its due place. I shall desire seriously to consider the Doctors proof of his first proposition, which he laboreth first by producing such Scriptures, as he conceiveth make for the manifestation of the Truth, and from thence frames and formeth his Arguments. And divers other Scriptures, which you have at large set down in the Doctors Book with his Arguments framed from thence, pag. 29. to 82. where this first proposition endeth. The sum of all which, I shall give the Reader to understand as briefly as I can, to wit; I do deny the Minor proposition of this Argument. Neither hath the Doctor proved, That there was an infinite number of Believers, nor a very City of Believers in the Church of Jerusalem. The Scriptures quoted by the Doctor speaks no such thing; those places in Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us of very many who were baptized by John, and by Christ's Disciples, but do not declare how many of these baptized persons were of the Church in Jerusalem; and the Scripture witnesseth Acts 9.31. that there were Churches throughout all Judea, as well as in Jerusalem, and for ought I know, or the Doctor either, many of those baptized persons might be in these Churches, yea the most of them, and but a few, it may be no more but those 120. mentioned Acts 1.13,14,15. To whom were added about 3000. souls, who continued in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers. Acts 2.41.42.44.46. And as for the world of Believers mentioned in another argument drawn from Joh. 12.19. behold the world is gone after him. That Scripture doth not say they believed in him, much less that there was a world of Believers in the Church in Jerusalem. Neither is there mention in any Scripture quoted by the Doctor of 8000. new Converts besides women and children. Neither doth that Scripture produced Acts 4.4 prove any such thing: For the Reader may consider that the number of them there mentioned are but 5000. And albeit the Doctor make them up 8000. by saying those 5000. men were added to the Church, and joined to the formers Believers pag. 57. Yet there is a twofold mistake in the Doctors Addition, to wit; First, that some of the 3000. (may be) were women, and how then can the Doctor say, there were 8000. new converts besides women. Secondly, these 5000. are only called men and not converts, not believers. For howbeit many of them hearing the Word believed, yet it is not said the 5000. men believed: And the truth is the Text well considered only holds forth, that, the number of men was made up five thousand.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & factus est numerus virorum, quasi millia quinque, and the number of men was made about five thousand, not 8000. And as for the many 10000s. mentioned Acts 21.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 infinitus (and though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do sometimes signify numerum decem millium, yet not always, but for some great number which cannot suddenly be told) as Luke 12 1. And Beza both according to the old and new version of the Greek into Latin, reads it millia 1000s. not decem millia 10000s. and so we have it in our English Bibles translated thousands. And the following verse 22. will make it probable that there were not many 10000s. for there we thus read; The multitude must needs come together, so that I say its probable, that they were not so many 1000s. but they could, yea must assemble together. Neither can the Dr. make good from those Scriptures he produceth

The 12. are named indeed in Act. 6.2.4. but not 100. besides, no nor any one Preacher but them 12. And as for the other two places Acts 1.21.22. and Acts 8.1. there is not any word concerning Preachers or Ministers, only some directions touching the choice of Matthias, who was one of the 12. mentioned Act. 6.2. And although they who were scattered preached the Word Acts 8.4. yet the Scripture doth not declare that they were Preachers or Ministers of the Church in Jerusalem.

But the Doctor hath one Argument, which is more to the purpose then all the other, which I desire the Reader seriously to consider, pag. 64. he thus further argueth.

That, which the Holy Scripture in express words, and in divers places hath declalred unto us, that every Christian is bound to believe. But the Scripture in express words, and in diverse, places hath declared unto us, that there were divers assemblies, and Congregations of Believers in the Church of Jerusalem, and that the Apostles, and all the Believers in Jerusalem, did continue daily with one accord in the Temple, and that they brake bread from house to house: and that daily in the Temple, and in every house, they ceasad not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Ergo, There was diverse congregations, and several assemblies, of Believers in the CHURCH of Jerusalem, where they did duly partake in all the Ordinances, and enjoyed all the acts of Worship.

Now I do desire the Reader to consider how the Doctor Proves his Minor, which he saith is manifest from Acts 2.46. and chap. 5.12,42. and chap. 3.11.12. and many more places, that might be produced, pag. 64.65.66. In all which discourse, the Dr. gives you nothing, but his own suppositions, and conclusions, for the proof of his Minor proposition which is his manner of discour-throughout his book.

This argument I answer; First, by denying the Assumption, or Minor proposition, and the reason of my denying all, is because the Scriptures produced by the Doctor, do not in express words declare, that there were diverse assemblies, and Congregations of believers in the Church of Jerusalem, The Scriptures quoted do in express words declare the contrary to what the Doctor would prove; For, Acts 2.44,46. All that believed were together, and they continued daily with one accord in the Temple. and Acts. 3.11,12. It is expressly said; That all the people ran together to them, in the porch, which is called Solomon's. Act. 5.12. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. So that these Scriptures produced by the Doctor to prove, that there were divers assemblies and Congregations of Believers in the Church of Jerusalem, who met together in several places, at one and the same time, to wit, upon the first day of the week, where they did partake daily in all Ordinances, doth expressly prove the contrary, to wit, that the Apostles, and all the Believers in the Church of Jerusalem, met together with one accord, in one place, to wit,the Temple, and in Solomon's Porch, and brake bread from house to house, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Domatius, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 per singulas domos, and thus they did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quotidie, day by day, and they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, and all that believed were together, Acts. 2.42,44,46. Yea, the Doctor himself saith in his Minor Proposition, the latter part of it. That the Apostles and all the Believers in Jerusalem did continue daily with one accord in the Temple, and that they brake bread from house to huse: And this shall suffice for refutation of What the Docter hath Written touching the first Proposition.

The second now follows page 81. viz. That all the Congregations and several Assemblies made but one Church. And to this the Doctor saith, the Brethren themselves acknowledge, that all Believers in Jerusalem were all members of that Church, and they accord further, that it was but one Church. And it is manifest out of the Holy Scripture, Acts 2.3.45.46. chapters. To which I also consent; But the Brethren have not acknowledged, neither hath the Doctor by Scripture proved, that in this one Church of Jerusalem there were averse Congregations and several Assemblies of Believers; and therein I must mnnifest my dissent from the Doctors opinion, promising him, that whensoever he shall soundly prove it by express Words of Scripture (which he hath undertaken) I will acknowledge it.

The third proposition, which the Doctor comes next to prove, is, That thee Apostles and Elders, or Presbyters governed, and ordered, and ruled this Church jointly and by a common council and Presbytery, pag. 82. Which the Doctor saith is evident by these places following: Acts 11.27. to the end. The words of this Sccripture which the Doctor makes use of, to prove his Assertion, are these, Verse 30. And sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas, and Saul. Here in these last words (saith the Doctor) We see, that the Presbyters, and none but the Presbyters received the Alms, which sufficiently proveth, that the Presbyters in all Churches were, the men of Government: pag. 82. It is not denied by the Brethren, that the Presbyters in all Churches were the men in the Government of the Churches in which they are Elders. But this I conceive (by the Doctors favor) doth not prove it, to wit; Because the Alms was sent to the Elders. Much less doth that Scriptureprove, that the Apostles and Presbyters governed and ruled the Church in Jerusalem by a Common-council and Presbyterie, which is the Assertion that the Doctor undertakes to prove. But in the 15. Chapter verse 2.4.6.22. and in chap. 16.4. And in Acts 21.17,18. The Presbyters of Jerusalem by name (saith the Doctor pag.) 83. are expressed. Out of which places of Scripture before the Doctor frame his Arguments, he pleaseth to make a digression from page 48. to 90. Wherein he highly extols the Presbyters, making them equal with the Apostles in all the Acts of Church-Governement, (as appears by the Doctors own words, pag. 88. I do verily believe (saith the Doctor) that the Presbyters did act as authoritively as the Apostles: and that the Presbyters might as well conclude, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, as well as the Apostles, and not only the presbyters, who sat in Counsel with the Apostles, and other presbyters, who were Ordained Elders by the Apostles; And the Assemblie now of Divines, or any other, may congregate and meet together in someone place, for the deciding of controversies, and differences of opinions in Religion, to state the Questions, and debate them from Scripture, or warrantable authority and evidence of reason deduced from thence, and may determine the question by joint consent, or by the most voices, and may say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and us. pag. 87.88. And that Presbyters have their authority as well grounded in the Word of God, as Kings and States have theirs, page. 89. And the Doctor doth more especially extol the Presbyters of this kingdom in these our dais, telling what they have deserved from the Church, Parliament, and Kingdom more then any of their Predecessors, having ended his Digression, he gives you his Argument, pag. 90. To wit:

I know not that the Brethrenever denied, That the Church of Jerusalem was Presbyterianly governed; And although the Dr. be pleased to make that his conclusion, yet (under Reformation be it spoke) that conclusion doth not follow upon the premises. For if the Dr. please to review his Argument, He shall find, First; that the subject of his Major proposition is left out both in his Minor, and in his Conclusion: The first part of the Doctors Minor should have been this, to wit, But the Apostles in the holy Scripture are called Presbyters, and whoever denied this; Also the first part of the Doctors conclusion should have been this, from these two premises, to wit; Ergo, The Apostles acted as Presbyters which Conclusion is not the thing in Question. Secondly, that from the second part of the Doctors two propositions (to wit, They that acted and Ordered things in a joint body and Common-council, which the Presbyters, acted as Presbyters; But the Apostles in governing the Church of Jerusalem acted and Ordered things in a joint body, and Common-council with the Presbytery, (or Presbyters either) of that Church: Ergo, the Apostles acted as Presbyters.) This should have been the Doctors conclusion.

Now the truth is, though the Apostles were called Presbyters in the Scripture, yet it followeth not, that they acted as Presbyters, but as Apostles Acts 15. And they cannot therein be a pattern and president for Presbyters; First, because the Apostles had the care and charge of and over all Churches. 2 Cor. 11.28. But the Presbyters had the care and oversight of someone Church only, as Ephesus Acts 20.28. or Philippi, Phil. 1.1. and this the Dr. often inserts in his Book. That all the Churches we read of in the New Testament (though they were Presbyterially governed) were dependent upon their several Presbyters, pag. 12. And secondly, because this would make the Presbyters Independents indeed, for so the Apostles were in the Government of all the Churches; The Presbyters of Jerusalem, of Ephesus, and of all the Churches were dependent upon the Apostles, and the Apostles only depended on Christ, by whose holy spirit, they were all always guided in the government of their Churches, and therefore they said Acts 15.28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. And though the Doctor say the Presbyters might say so, as well as the Apostles because the Elders or Presbyters are mentioned there: The Dr. might have also considered that the Brethren, even the whole church, the multitude (how many soever the D. can make of them) were present as well asthe Presbyters. Acts 15.4.12.22.23.25.27.28. And so have made the Brethren, the multitude, even the whole Church Independent also; and the Dr. might as well have affirmed, that the Brethren even the whole Church might say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.

To the fourth proposition;

And for the proof of this fourth Proposition, the Doctor saith; But the Dr. knows, that the Brethren deny that the Church of Jerusalem consisted of divers Congregations and several assemblies under a Common-council, Consistory, College, or Court of Presbyters. And this they have not granted, neither hath the Doctor proved. And this may be sufficient to be said in answer to the four Propositions touching the first question.

And now I come to the second Question, which is concerning the manner of gathering of Churches, and admitting of Members and Officers pag. 98. which Question the Dr. thus states, viz.

but such as shall enter in by a private Covenant, and are allowed by the consent, and approbation of all the Congregation? And this Question the Doctor brancheth into six Queries pag. 98.99. Wherein the judicious Reader may perceive the Doctor (through mis-information I conceive) hath mistaken the stateing of the Question, which he partly acknowledgeth pag. 100.

Out of these several Scriptures the Doctor observes these three things, pag. 101. and 102. To wit, First,

Hence the Doctor observes, that the Apostles propounded no other condition or terms for the making all and everyone of them members of the Church, but Repentance and Baptism, The which, when the people had accepted of (saith the Doctor) They were forthwith admitted, &c. page. 104. For another proof the Doctor produceth, Acts 10.44,47,48. Where the Doctor affirmeth, page 106. That those Brethren who came with Peter did not intermeddle in that business, to wit, of their admittance (by Baptism) into the Church. Now I conceive the reason, why those Brethren did not intermeddle to hinder their admittance to that Ordinanceof Jesus Christ, (to wit, Baptism in water) and so to an entrance into the Church; was, not because they had not such Liberty, but because the Brethren had no just objections or kindrance to declare to Peter.

That the Brethren had a liberty to have declared anything, which might justly have hindered the administration of that Ordinance of Baptism unto them, doth appear by the Question which the Apostle expounded. verse 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized?

and there produceth a plain instance to prove this page 102. Acts. 9.26,27,28. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tentabat jungi) he assayed to join himself to the Disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a Disciple, &c.

Now this liberty have all the disciples in the like case, because Jerusalem the Mother church is the pattern of all other the Daughter Churches, as the Doctor confesseth, yea affirmeth, page 97. And saith, all men acknowledge, That the Mother Church must give an example of government to all the Daughter churches. And this is also by the Doctor acknowledged, page 102. to be a part of the power of the Keys, to open and shut the doors of the Church; that is, to admit such as are for their Faith, Knowledge and Repentance sufficiently qualified, and fitted to be made members, and to refuse such, as are not fit to be recived into the fellowship of the church; either for their Ignorance or other sins and offenses, &c. Now, then when it doth evidently appear. That the Disciples or Brethren (not to say Sisters, though they are Disciples also) of the Church in Jerusalem (in her most flourishing condition) had this liberty to declaretheir fears, and the ground thereof against Paul, who was at that time a Believer, a Baptized person, & a Preacher, or minister of the Gospel, so that although, he came, and assayed, to be joined to the Disciples, and be admitted a member among them, that he might have fellowship with them in the worship, and ordinances of the Gospel: Yet was thereby hindered from admittance until Barnabas witnessed his condition and conversation to the Apostle, and then he was with them coming in & going out at Jerusalem. How can the Doctor make good, that

For further proof hereof:

I answer, that PHILIP had a special command from God for what he did herein, and so had Ananias, Act. 9.15. touching Saul, which is the next Instance which the Doctor brings in this same 106. pag. And albeit the Doctor affirm;

And so be received and admitted.

Yet if the Reader look back into the 102. page of his Book, The Dr. there makes an exception from the power which he a little before had affirmed the Presbyters have to admit Members, by virtue of Christ his commission, upon the profession of their faith and repentance, and receiving baptism, without any further Testimony; To rehearse all the Scriptures alleged to prove this method of God and practice of the Apostles were needless. But passing by such as are not so plain and clear for the proof thereof, and also omitting, what the Doctor hath said touching the Brethren, in comparing their practice with the Apostles: Because the Dr. is mistaken in stateing the Question, and also in his Queries, as before I mentioned in the 14 page of this my answer, and the Reader may see pag. 98 99. and 100. of the Doctors Book. I shall give the Reader the result of all, that the Dr. hath written from pag. 100. to the end of his Book, touching God's method, and the Apostles practice in gathering of Churches and admitting Members, viz. This being the sum and result of that method and practice, which the Dr. conceives should be done in gathering Churches and admitting Members, which the Scriptures will warrant, and Christ Jesus approve of as his fathers will, I shall now take liberty to declare, what I know by mine own experience to be the practice of some Churches of God in this City. That so both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near the Saints, who walk together in the Fellowship of the Gospel do come in their practice, to these Apostolical rules and practice propounded by the Dr. as God's method in gathering Churches, and admitting Members. I say, that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) That they were thus gathered; viz. Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the Ministry, being driven out of the Countries, where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates, came to sojourn in this great City, and preached the Word of God both publicly, and from house to house, and daily in the Temples and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ: and some of them have dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came in unto them, preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things, which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many sinners were converted by their preaching of the Gospel, some of them that believed, consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which those Preachers both publicly and privately propounded to the people, unto whom they Preached, upon which they were to be admitted into the Church was Faith, Repentance, and Baptism;and none other. And whosoever (poor as well as rich, bond as well as free, servants as well as Masters) did make a profession of their Faith in Christ Jesus, and would be baptized with water into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the Church; but such as did nor believe, and would not be baptized they would not admit into Church-communion. This hath been the practice of some Churches of God in this City, without urging or making any particular covenant with Members upon admittance, which I desire may be examined by the Scriptures cited in the Margent, and then compared with the Doctors three conclusions from the same Scriptures, whereby it may appear to the judicious Reader, how near the Churches some of them come to the practice of the Apostles rule, and practice of the primitive Churches, both in gathering, and admitting Members. And my humble request to the Doctor is; That he will use all means, that the method of God, and practice of the Apostles in gathering of Churches, and admitting Members, may be conscionably practiced by his Brethren of both sides according to the revealed Word and Will of the Father.