Full Answer to Apologetical Narration, Text (3 of 8)

Full Answer to Apologetical Narration · Text (3 of 8)

p. 801. Had you found principles enough superstructorie for the welbeing of your Churches, and those cleare and certaine, and such as might well serve to preserve your Churches in peace and from offence, and would comfortably guide you to heaven in a safe way. How came it to passe that you made no better a use of them, for the well-being of your Churches to have preserved them in peace and from offence, but that in so short a time so many offences and differences should fall out, and you go so uncomfortably to heaven, doubting whether you were in the right way for Church-government and order.

2. If you had found out principles enough superstructorie, why did you not name them, at least some of them? you might have done well to have given the Reader a taste of them, it would have given good content, especially in such a Narration: I am of opinion both upon your totall silence and upon some search into these points, that besides the fundamentall and essentiall principles to the being of a visible Ministeriall Church you found not many superstructories laid downe particularly in the Primitive Churches either in practise or precept (namely ordinary, perpetuall, &c.) And I doe desire you (setting aside Fundamentall essentiall and substantiall principles) that for the superstructories upon them, and your deductions, you would give me proofes from the Scripture for many of your practises (setting aside generall rules of the word and common rules of reason and prudence.) And whereas you p. 81make the observation of so many of those particulars laid forth in the word, to become a more certain evidence and cleare confirmation that there were the like rules and ruled cases for all occasions whatsoever, if you were able to discerne them. Had you exprest any of those particulars, the Reader might have gained somewhat, and I could have better told from your instances, what to have answered you; and might have shewne you the dissimilitude, how they might not have inferr'd the rest; but here, as in other passages of your booke, you find it safest to be in the clouds, and to lie hid in generals. But grant it for once you observed many particulars. It followes not therefore from many to all. But this is a point and principle wherein weake arguments will become certain evidence and cleare confirmation to you. But let me hint only some things to you now (because this discourse is but the answer of a Narration, not of all arguments that may be brought) you are mistaken both in your Observation and your cleare confirmation of what followes, for you shall find that in the superstructories of the government of the Church, there are but few particulars laid downe in the patterne and example of the Primitive Churches, and those primitive practises are not such a rule given by God in matters of that nature, as that all things then practised must be so in all after times, or that nothing afterwards might be practised, but what is found there. For, besides meere circumstances, and the rules of the law of nature, there are in severall Churches, other things tending to the better edification of those Churches, to comelinesse, decencie, outward reverence, order, peace, (grounded upon generall rules of the word) which in other Churches are not so, by reason of the different customes of such countries, and the diversities of times and places wherein they were. (For that is comelinesse and reverence in one country, which is not in another.) So that my observation of so few particular superstructories recorded in the Primitive Churches, namely of common, ordinary, perpetuall order, with the different practises in the severall Churches, recorded in the new Testament, and sometimes in the same Church, in many things of the outward administration of externall order are sound proofes to me, there are not rules nor ruled cases for many superstructories in externall p. 82Government. And as to that clause which followes next in this Section, for all such cases wherein you saw not a cleare resolution from Scripture, example or direction, you still professedly suspended, untill God should give you further light, not daring to eeke out what was defective in your light in matters divine with humane prudence, &c. For answer, I must tell you, you either saw that in the Scripture, that we cannot see by all search, or else you practised many things that have no cleare resolution from Scripture, neither in example or direction, and pray in your Reply to this answer, shew me what cleare Resolution you saw from Scripture for your Church-covenant. If it be so cleare shew it us. What▪ came the word of God out from you, or came it to you only, hath God given us eyes to see and know the mysteries of his kingdome, to see such things as no glorious hypocrite in the highest forme can see, and can we not see what is common to hypocrites as well as Mr Tho: Goodwins answer to a letter with a Qu…re concerning the Church-covenant. Confident we are (is considence it selfe can make us) that there is no commandement given to the Churches for exacting any such covenant of those that are to be admitted into Church-fellowship with them. Quere concerning the Church-covenant.to true Saints: Certainly had M^r Goodwin had such cleare resolution from Scripture for the Church-covenant, he would never have returned such an answer after so long a time of receiving M^r Iohn Goodwins letter, written with such Giant-like confidence against the Church-covenant, as to desire after many weeks, longer day to give satisfaction, in regard Church-covenant lay so deepe and remote amongst the fundamentals of Church-fellowship, which debt I beleeve was never yet paid to this day. I should be loath for my part in any thing I practise or hold to have a cleare resolution from Scripture, to put off my Brother for proofe of it till to morrow. Give me an Apostolicall example or rule (if you can) where ever the people alone made Ministers; why did you not here suspend, how durst you be made Ministers in this way by the people alone, and either be Ministers without Imposition of hands at all, or if any Imposition, not by the laying-on of the hands of the Presbyterie, but the hands of the people, both which are not onelyonly without any example of Scripture, but against the Primitive patterne and example. Give me a Primitive patterne wherein baptized persons professing the faith of Christ, and walking so, may not be admitted to Fellowship and communion in the Lords Supper, without professing their membership of some particular Congregation. Give me a word, either of precept or p. 83example, where ever the lay-Elders did examine persons professing the faith, whether they were fit for Church-fellowship, and thereupon did propound their names in the Congregation, with many such particulars; so that you have dared to eeke out divine matters with your owne inventions, not indeed with humane Prudence, but against humane Prudence and reason (as that instance in the way of your making Ministers by the people clearely shewes:) And I desire that you and others would consider what I say upon this occasion, that this is so preposterous and irrationall a rule, that had you indeed, or should others observe it, to practise nothing in matter of externall order, unlesse you have a cleare resolution from Scripture in an example or direction, you had never met together in a Church-way, nor can any society or company of men meet to those ends of constituting a Church and Government and walking in the practise of it, but that some things must be done not particularly mentioned in the Scriptures. As for your calling humane prudence, the fatall errour to Reformation, I judge that the want of it in Reformation hath still proved fatall, as amongst the Anabaptists, Brownists, and in New-England also, till humane prudence eeked out what was defective in the way of their gathering Churches at the first, and till humane prudence punished by banishment and imprisonment (under the name of disturbers of the civill peace) many members of their Churches for Familisme, Anabaptisme, &c. without which courses, and others or the like kinde, their Churches and Common-wealth had beene long ago… ruined. And I much wonder you stile humane prudence, the fatall errour to Reformation, and make Reformation of the Church and humane prudence so opposite, especially you your selves knowing and expressing in the 28^th page of your Apologie, the calling of this Assembly of Divines, The way of God wisely assumed by the prudence of the State. I suppose you call it not the way of God, as holding there is a cleare resolution from Scripture in any Apostolicall primitive patterne of the Churches erected by the Apostles of an A…embly so chosen by the Magistrates to draw up a gov…ment and direction in worship for so many Ch…s, (many of which Church… have not so much p. 84as any one of their members there) but onelyonly, a way of God according to generall rules and Prudence, and so, wisely assumed by the Parliament, and yet I hope you and your party will not afterwards, if the Assembly should determine against Independencie, stile that the fatall errour to Reformation. But how ever we gaine thus much from your being members of the Assembly, voting in it, and calling your selves by that name, Members of the Assembly of Divines, namely a cleare answer, (that humane prudence is not alwayes a fatall errour to Reformation, and, that a man needs not alwaies suspend his practise, though he have not a cleare resolution of example or direction from the Primitive Churches (witnesse the acceptance of your being chosen to the Assembly.) As to that Metaphoricall expression of yours, the ground of your judging humane prudence so fatall to Reformation, Least by sowing any peece of the old garment to the new, you should make the rent worse. I answer, if that be not understood aright and soberly, it hath been and will be the ground of great deformation in the Church, and of running into errours on the right hand: Thus the Anabaptists, least they should sow any peece of the old garment unto the new, renounce their Baptisme, and the Brownists will have the materiall Churches pull'd downe, and our Ministers and Congregations quite made null, and all our Ministers and Congregations newly ordained and constituted. The ground of which mistakes ariseth from not considering the difference between the gathering and planting a Church out of Iudaisme and Heathenisme, and the purging and building up a Church corrupted and fallen. As for that promise of encouragement made to such a suspension (which you say) in your publike Assemblies was for your comfort often mentioned, you should have done well to have quoted the text, and then I might have examined the place, whether there had been a foundation for any such promise to a few persons in a particular Congregation, withdrawing from the fellowship of other Churches, and forbearing all things in matter of externall order (though agreed upon by other Churches) without a cleare resolution from Scripture example, or direction, that in so doing they should know more in the matter of order and government.

p. 85A second Principle we carried along with us in all our resolutions, Apolog.was, not to make our present judgement and practise a binding law unto our selves for the future, which we in like manner made continuall profession of upon all occasions. We had too great an instance of our own frailty in the former way of our conformity; and therefore in a jealousie of our selves, we kept this reserve, (which we made open and constant professions of) to alter and retract (though not lightly) what ever should be discovered to be taken up out of a mis-understanding of the rule: Which principle we wish were (next to that most supreame, namely, to be in all things guided by the perfect will of God) enacted as the most sacred law of all other, in the midst of all other laws and Canons Ecclesiasticall in Christian States and Churches throughout the world.

This is a dangerous principle to goe by in the Church of God, excellent for unstable men, and wanton wits fitted for libertins, and running heads that love no fixed nor setled government, and serves well to the humour of a few particular persons, but pernitious and sad for Nationall Churches and Kingdomes, a reserve indeed and a good back doore to go out at from Brownisme to Anabaptisme, and from Anabaptisme to Sebaptisme, and from thence to Famialisme and Socinianisme; It is a ready prepared way for those that would draw men into errours under the pretence of new light, to worke upon, and so to lead men from one errour to another till there be no end. Which kind of principle of uncertainty in matters of religion, the Remonstrants did hold forth in those sad times of the troubles of the Churches in the Netherlands, that so they might overturne all formes and harmonies, whereby the Churches both within themselves and one towards another might be setled and associated: that was one of the scepticall rules of the Arminians, dies diem docet: But this principle of yours so carried all along in your resolutions, seemes to crosse that first principle of the Scriptures, the supreame rule and perfect for Church government; for in effect it is as much as to hold that the government and way of the Church visible is so uncertaine and doubtfull, as that little or none may be positively laid downe and concluded as Iure Divino. Now according to this second principle and profession of yours, why doe you make such p. 86outeries and tragedies in the Church, forsaking all Churches for you know not what, even for that which you made open and constant professions upon all occasions you would not be bound to; and pray how doth this agree with your principle of Church government, that it is in all particulars perpetuall and unchangeable, whenas you will be changing it so often; But certainely when you first fell to your Church-way and took up this principle, you were not resolved what way to follow, but thought that in some yeares by adding now and then, and forsaking this and the other, you might attaine to something in the end: But let me aske you, ought men in the matters of Religion, and in things of the Kingdome of Christ to be Scepticks and so irresolved, or ought not men to be perswaded in their consciences? But I hope the Parliament will observe this great principle you were first acted by, and still are in all your Church-way, and will see how dangerous the tolerating of your way will be; for though you should for present hold nothing much different from the established rule, yet being allowed what may you not come to; according to this principle, how shall any State be sure of you long what you will hold: What if you should bring in community of goods, baptizing in rivers, the holy Kisse into your Assemblies at the beginning and ending of your Ordinances, annointing sick persons with oyle? it is but according to your principle: And we see you make so much of this principle and are so in love with it, that you wish it next to your first principle, enacted as the most sacred Law of all other, to live and walke by it in Christian States and Churches throughout the world; and I am perswaded if you would speake out, you wish it instead of all other Laws and Canons …: You are not content your selves to be Scepticks and loose in the government of the visible Church, but you would have all others to be li… unto you, not to make their present judgement and practise a binding law for the future, but to make continuall professions upon all occasions of altering. But let us consider what may be the reasons of such a passionate desire that this principle were enacted in all Churches, I conceive these following; 1. That others changing and altering as well as you, the imputation of inconstancy and lightnesse might not stick upon you. 2. That so you might gai… p. 87more to your way and Church, by possessing them with this principle, (having this advantage to worke upon, and this engine to draw the people with:) There is nothing you have concluded on but you are free and at choice still to take what seemes most probable to you, (whereas if men be set downe and resolved they are not so apt to change.) 3. That so you might not, as you pretend, block up the way to further light, but keep alive that principle of New light, and New truths, and that men must not content themselves with old truths and the old light, but they must seeke out after New light; whereas establishment and setling of points (upon serious debates and disputes) both in points of doctrine with the fundamentals and substantials of discipline, as the truths of God and the way for men to walke in upon such Scriptures and reasons, will shut out such search (as you conceive;) but this is a mistake to imagine that if any evident light from Scripture should come in afterwards (especially considering that reformed Churches in their confessions and Articles, hold that particular Churches may erre and may receive increase of knowledge, and for matters of Discipline declare particularly, that in the accessaries, accidentals, circumstantials, Churches have liberty to change upon inconveniences and different occasions that may arise) that they are ever the further off from it. But this principle of irresolution and uncertainty in matters of Religion upon the ground of New light and New truths, as it is commonly laid downe and drunke in now by men of the Church-way, makes men unsatisfied, restlesse, doubtfull in their present practise, and upon searching when they can find none, the Devill and their own corruptions will make some, and brings them old errors for New truths, and men being possest by some that principles are to be new studied, and that there are New truths and New light never known before, Satan is not wanting to raise up one or other to vent errors under those notions (as we see at this day in the Antinomians and the Anabaptists) their great argument wherby they take so many, being that of New light and New truths which God hath revealed in these times. 4. I hope this principle so rooted in you, and your frailty in the former way of conformity, may be a reserve for you to come off from Independencie to Presbyterie upon the debates of the Assembly, p. 88and from your Church-way to the way of the reformed Churches, which I heartily pray may be the fruit of this principle so openly and constantly profest, and am not wholly out of hope (especially of some of you.)

Thirdly, We are able to hold forth this true and just Apologie unto the world, That in the matters of greatest moment and controversie, Apolog.we still choose to practise safely, and so, as we had reason to judge that all sorts, or the most of all the Churches did acknowledge warrantable, although they make additaments thereunto.

To this third great principle of yours I answer:

1. To it generally as you lay it downe here generally, and afterwards more particularly to the instances and particulars brought by you to make it good. In this principle you labour to cast an odium upon all the reformed Churches who differ from you, dealing by them in such a medium and way as the Protestants doe by the Papists, wheras we alleadge against the Papists that the Protestant Religion is via tuta, and what we practise they themselves cannot but allow, only they hold and practise over and above; as namely they adde to Christs Righteousnesse their own in the point of Justification, to Christs intercession, the intercession of the Virgin Mary and Saints, to prayers unto God prayers to Angels and Saints, to the Scriptures the traditions of the Church, to our Sacraments (confest by themselves) five others, &c. So here you say that you chose to practise safely, and so as you had reason to judge other Churches did acknowledge warrantable; but they make additaments, and this you weave in all along in the particular instances under this head, and it lyes upon them to prove what they adde over and above: Now besides the great dissimilitude and difference of additaments in the things themselves between the Protestants and Papists, and you and the reformed Churches, the Papists additaments being in matters of faith and substance of worship, but the matters excepted against by you being about outward government and order, and that not so much about the things themselves, the officers, parts of worship, but about the different manner and way of them (as you acknowledge in your eighth pages) and so you had no such cause to insinuate such matters against the reformed Churches, yet consider that what you doe hold p. 89forth and take as your medium, you have no good ground for, which will appeare in three particulars, and so your Apologie held forth unto the world is neither true nor just.

1. I will demonstrate that in many matters of greatest moment and controversie you did not still choose to practise safely, and so as you had reason to judge that all sorts or most of the Churches did acknowledge warrantable.

2. That the reformed Churches practised more safely then you and did not make additaments as you charge them.

3. That you in many Church practises have made additaments and superadditions, and that in more materiall things then in such circumstances wherein you tax the reformed Churches.

For the first of these three: Take these three Instances for the present. 1. It is a matter of great moment and controversie to forsake the publike Assemblies (which you confesse are true Churches and the body of Christ) and to set up separated assemblies without and against the leave of the Magistrate, Ministers and Churches: This is, by the judgment of all the godly and learned Divines of note, both in other Churches and in our own, condemned as unlawfull, by Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Bullinger, Iunius, Pareus, Morneus, Arnesius, Voetius, &c. with Whitakers, Brightman, Perkins, Cartwright, Parker, Banes, Hildersham, Ball. &c. I could fill a booke with the testimonies of these and many others, and I doe challenge the Separatists of all sorts, whether them of the head-forme the Anabaptists, or of the middle-forme the old Brownists, or the lowest-forme the Semi-Separatists, to give me any precept or allowed example of such a practise out of the Primitive patterne, shew it me and I will yeild the cause: As for that place Rev. 18. 4. you professe against that in your 6^t page, of having any thoughts of our Churches or Ministers to be Antichristian and Babilonish; I could alledge many Scriptures against this practise, Iude v. 19, &c. The Apostles who were sent by Christ into the world to make Disciples, and to bring men from Judaisme and Heathenisme to beleeve in Christ, and to plant Churches of such, yet they never taught nor practised to gather and separate some Christians from the rest, one part of the Church from the other, to goe constitute a purer Church, neither in p. 90Corinth, Philippi, &c. Although there were many corruptions, and many loose persons: But Paul taught and practised to censure and cast out evill persons (but in case those who had power neglected their duty) he never taught the godly to separate from the Lords Supper celebrated in the publike Assemblies, much lesse for a few to withdraw from their Pastours and other brethren, and to set up new Churches of themselves: You are Schollers and well read in the Scriptures; shew me but any such direction from the Apostles and I am yours. 2. It is a matter of moment and controversie, the right making and calling of the Ministers of the Gospell, now all the reformed Churches according to the examples of Scripture, hold Ministers are not to be made by the people alone, and that the people have not power of Ordination and Imposition of hands but the Presbyters, and yet you have practised the being cal'd and made Ministers by the people, without the Imposition of hands of the preaching Presbyters. 3. It is a matter of great moment and controversie, whether private Christians who were never trained up in Arts and learning, nor intended the Ministery, may in the publike Congregation Prophesie, which Prophesying as it is not practised by the Reformed Churches, so by most of them it is not counted warrantable, and yet you allowed it in your Churches, to which I might adde more instances, but that the book would swell into too great a volume.

To the second head, it is evident the r…formed Churchs practised more safely as in declining your way, in the last mentioned Instances, in not permitting such as are Lay-men to preach or prophesie, in not forsaking true Churches or true Ministery for the mixture of wicked men, but rather casting out such, who after admonition continue impenitent; so in other practises practising as the Apostles, receiving men into their fellowship without any such curious inquirie and long detention, sending men from one to another, and requiring such preparatives and conditions to Church-fellowship (as your Churches have done.) The wayes and practises the reformed Churches walked in, were the good old way, knowne and beaten for some score of yeares, in which so many great lights and godly people have walkt, and so more safe then bie and new wayes that a few men but of yesterday have taken up, and have p. 91not yet well aired much lesse digested: And in the name of other reformed Churches, France, Holland, Scotland, I deny the things you charge them with to be additaments, or to be properly so called; for if the particulars instanced in by you, will be found to have a footing in the Scriptures and practised in the Primitive Apostolicall Churches, then they will be no additaments, or if some of those things alleadged by you be of the nature of circumstances in the point of government and order, or according to the rules of the law of nature and the rules of common prudence, agreeable also to the generall rules of the word, then they are not truly by you called additaments and super-additions; for it is one thing to adde to the word of God and his worship, and another thing from generall …rules of the word and common principles of the light of nature and prudence, considering the differences of times, places, persons, dispensations of guifts, to explicate and determine of many things in the administration of the visible Church: Now of things of this kind something must be which the word of God presupposes, or else you can have no setled government in the Church; and you may as well stile set Catechismes, confessions of Faith, reading of Chapters translated by others, singing of Psalmes between Chapters and after Sermons, preaching constantly upon Texts of Scripture, giving thanks after eating meat, &c. additaments, as some of the things instanced in by you. And let me hint this to you (which I know you understand well enough) but forget it often to paralell it with other passages, that in your practise of the administration of the Sacraments, and in other parts of worship you adde severall things besides what is recorded of Christ or the Apostles practise, or given particularly in any precept, (which I speake not to blame such practises) but to minde you such things are not fitly stiled additaments.

To the third, that you have made additaments and superadditions, and that in more materiall things then the reformed Churches, being your selves guilty of what you accuse them, this being the strongest plea, and the only plea to speake of in all your book by way of Argument, the rest being bare narrations, I shall make good against you by particular instances: the prooving of which practises of yours from Apostolicall directions must rest upon you p. 92who doe them, and in so doing have departed from your selves and other reformed Churches; amongst many particulars take these following: To the Ministeriall preaching and dispensation of the word, you subjoyned prophesying by the people. 2. To the power of government by the Officers of the Church, you have added the power of the people. 3. In joyning in particular Congregations you did super-adde the Church-covenant. 4. To the Pastour you super-adde the Teacher, as a necessary distinct Officer from him, and so necessary, as in one of your Churches you had two Teachers, and have been some yeares without a Pastour at all, (which is a sad condition for people to be without a Sheapheard.) 5. To the Deacon you added the Church-widdow as a distinct Officer, and as necessary for the perpetuall government of the Church. 6. To our Parochiall Assemblies in England, which you call in the sixt page the true Churches and body of Christ, and abhorre the thought of counting them Antichristian; where you say you hold communion as with true Churches, you have super-added and erected new-Churches. 7. To our Ministery of the Parochiall Assemblies (which is true also by your own confession and not Antichristian) you have superinstituted and superinducted another Ministery, any one of which particulars to be laid downe in the Primitive patterne I professedly deny, and it rests upon you who allow what reformed Churches practise, but in the particulars instanced and many more, doe practise over and above what the reformed Churches doe, to make evident and demonstrate upon cleare grounds, especially when men set up a new way, and leave the practise of all reformed Churches, (double light being required for separation in any kind, whereas single light sufficeth for any man continuing in his standing.) And certainly of all other things in the matter of practise in the visible Church, the medling with the keyes of the kingdome of God, I. G. Letter to T. G.both in doctrine and discipline, with the withdrawing and forsaking the true Churches of Christ, and the Ministerie thereof, wherein men have been converted and built up, and have converted and built-up so many, with the setting up of new Churches against the leave and will of the civill Magistrate, without the consent of those Churches departed from, and to the scandall and p. 93griefe of so many godly Ministers and Christians, nay the scandall of all Reformed Churches, and all this under pretence of spirituall power and liberty purchased for them by Christ, had need have a cleare and full proofe, and not be built only upon such weake and slight grounds, as flattering similitudes, witty allusions, remote consequences, strained and forced Interpretations from hard and much controverted Scriptures: And now by what I have alreadie answered to this Principle in these three particulars, let the indifferent Reader and your owne consciences be judge, whether you or the Reformed Churches practise most safely, and doe that which most Churches acknowledge warrantable, and who is most guilty of making additaments, when as you and all of your way allow that which they practise in the seven particulars instanced in, but you practise many things which all Churches condemne, excepting the Churches of the Independent way; and if one thing be considered to what I have said that you put the weight and stampe of divine Institution, and of necessitie upon your additaments, making them parts of worship and essentiall, as upon prophecying, as upon the office of teachers distinct from Pastours, &c. but the Reformed Churches in what you call their additaments, even in some of them instanced in by you, put not so great an authoritie, but only an allowance and lawfulnesse of set-formes of prayer prescribed, not a necessity, but a lawfulnesse of mixtures in Congregations, so as not to leave the Church for that; and in other practises, you count additaments in matters circumstantiall of time, place, manner and way of doing things, which upon good reasons may be changed, so that here is a wide difference between that which you call their additaments, and yours truly so called, and let me adde this that the great pinch of a conscience and the poyson in Ecclesiasticall matters concerning outward Government and order (wherein the Scripture hath not laid downe a particular rule for) lyes in the stampe of putting a necessitie and a divine Institution upon them, and unto such and of such is that Scripture spoken so frequently in the mouthes of men of your way. In vaine doe you worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandements of men.

For instance: whereas one great controversie of these times is p. 94Apolog.about the qualification of the Members of Churches, and the promiscuous receiving and mixture of good and bad; therein we chose the better part, and to be sure, received in none but such as all the Churches in the world would by the ballance of the Sanctuarie acknowledge faithfull. And yet in this we are able to make this true and just profession also, that the rules which we gave up our judgements unto, to judge those we received in amongst us by, were of that latitude as would take in any member of Christ, the meanest, in whom there may be supposed to be the least of Christ, and indeed such and no other at all the godly in this kingdome carry in their bosomes to judge others by. We tooke measure of no mans holinesse by his opinion, whether concurring with us, or adverse unto us; And Churches made up of such, we were sure no Protestant could but approve of, (as touching the members of it) to be a true Church, with which communion might be held.

And having answered generally, I come now to the particulars brought to make this third principle good, and shall shew how little there is in them to make good that they are brought for.

To your first instance of chusing the better part, and to be sure receiving in none for members of Churches, but such as all Churches in the world would by the ballance of the Sanctuarie acknowledge faithfull.

1. To speake nothing now of that, how in Churches there may be a receiving to some of the ordinances (and so to be under the care of the Ministers) a receiving of others, that is, there may be members to a part, and there are members as to all the ordinances, and so according to the first there may be a promiscuous receiving and mixture, for which I can give good reasons and instances as in children, catechumenists, but must not handle at large every point now which your Narration hints a….

2. In your admission of members you chose not the better part, nor the safer: To goe on the hand of charitie and love is the better part, and safer hand, which charitie if you looke into the 1 Cor. 13. hopes the best, thinkes no evill, &c. And a man had better receive some of whom there may be some doubt and feare, then discourage and refuse any of Christ little ones, which both p. 95your principle and practise hath done abundantly in New-England and in England: But here in your Narration you deale fallaciously in stating the question. For the question is not about receiving in none, but such as all Churches in the world would acknowledge faithfull, but about receiving in all and refusing none whom the Churches had no reason, but to acknowledge faithfull; For according to your words laid downe, and as you would carry it to deceive the Reader with, of receiving none, but such as all Churches would acknowledge faithfull, you might receive in, but a few of high forme Christians, whom also all the Churches in the world would not (as some hold the ballance) acknowledge to be faithfull; and so you might receive in, but a very few: And it is evident by your practise that many whom all the Reformed Churches hold fit to be received, having a competent knowledge of God, Christ and themselves, and live free from all scandalous and grosse sins, and outwardly practise duties both to God and man, even multitudes of these you will not admit, nor doe not into your Churches. And as to that just and true profession you are able to make, That the rules you gave up your judgements unto, to judge those you received in amongst you by, were of that latitude to take in any member of Christ, &c. I must tell you this is like some of your just and true professions before, namely, unjust and untrue & this is neither the first nor the last unjust and untrue profession in your Narration, and I shall make it good both by your practises, & by some rules laid down by some of your selves. M^r Goodwins letter in answer to M^r Iohn Goodwin grants, they require of men to admission into their Churches, that they know what belongs to Church-fellowship, and doe acknowledge the same, and approve thereof, with other things of that nature: now whether this be a rule of that latitude, that will take in any member of Christ, the meanest, in whom there may be supposed to be the least of Christ, and indeed such and no other, as all the godly in this kingdome carry in their bosomes to judge others by: I appeale to your owne consciences. That holy Martyr Bradford with many more, not only the least, but great starres in the firmament of the Church, never knew nor dreamt of what belong'd to your Church-fellowship, and I am confident that M. Goodwin, p. 96M. Bridge, my selfe, with many others, many yeares after wee were members of Christ, and conversed together in Cambridge as Saints, yet understood not what belonged to this Church-covenant and Church-fellowship: and this is such a rule that multitudes of the godly in this kingdome, carry not in their bosomes to judge others by, nor would not themselves be judged by, nor never heard of such things till your times: And if your rules were of such a latitude as would take in any members of Christ the meanest, whence came it to passe that in New-England so many men (in whom the godly have presumed to be something of Christ) and who are you to judge the contrarie, have not yet been admitted, and amongst many other instances that might be given in your owne Churches, I will name one: Mistris Symonds, a modest, humble woman, many years well reputed of in England, of godly Parents, wife to a godly Minister, who though her husband was received a member of M. Sympsons Church, and then chosen the Pastour, yet his wife could not be received into the Church along time, and whether yet she be I know not: I have been told also from one who lived in those parts, that after M. Sympson upon rending from M. Bridge had set up a new Church, one who was upon his tryall for admission into M. Sympsons Church, was openly asked by a prime man (who had a hand in that rent) what his judgement was of the Brethrens libertie to prophecie; and if the man had not been right in that point, it might have hazarded his Membership. And that the Reader may not be abused nor amused with such kind of passages, but that it may appeare what ever here you say you have other rules, and require other things of men to communion with you, pray satisfie us: What was the reason, and what is the matter that when M. Iohn Goodwin fell to your principles and way, so many godly persons of his owne Parish could not be received in by him as Church-members, nor accounted so, without yeelding to some rules and conditions, which they being members of Christ (and some of them n…ne of the meanest) could not condescend unto. As to that you say, You tooke measure of no mans holinesse by his opinion, whether concurring with you or adverse unto you. I appeale to your consciences, if my selfe or some others whom you p. 97have accounted godly should have declared their opinions adverse to your Church-covenant, and other of your Church principles, and yet being in Holland should have desired for the time to have been a…itted to fellowship with you in the Lords Supper, whether would you have admitted us? Now to that passage of yours in the close of this first instance: and Churches made up of such we were sure no Protestant could but approve of, &c. This goes upon the mistake observed by me before, That the question in controversie about Church-members is not, nor cannot be meant, Whether Churches made up of such members, as all account faithfull, be by all Protestants approved of to be true Churches, with whom communion may be held: But whether communion may not be held with such Churches, and such received into communion and fellowship of Churches, whom many Churches (especially yours and those of the Church-way) doe not upon your principles acknowledge true and fit matter. And in this I am sure all Protestants of note are against you, and for us, accounting such visible Churches (as you here instance in) an Utopia, holding it Donatisme, and Anabaptisme, and when the Papists doe in their writings father upon them such a visible Church as you dreame of, and such principles as you hold, they disclaime it (as learned Whitakers) it being the constant opinion of all the great Protestant Divines, Calvin, Luther, Zanchius, Iunius, &c. Whitaker. d… Eccles.That the visible Church of Christ consists of good and bad, resembled therefore to a field, net, floore, where chasse as well as good graine, &c.

Againe, concerning the great ordinance of publike Prayer, and the Liturgie of the Church, whereas there is this great controversie Apolog.upon it about the lawfulnesse of set-formes prescribed; we practised (without condemning others) what all sides doe allow and themselves doe practise also, that the publicke prayers in our Assemblies should be framed by the meditations and studie of our owne Ministers, out of their owne gifts (the fruits of Christs Ascension) as well as their Sermons use to be. This we were sure all allowed of, though they super-added the other.

To this 2^d Instance concerning the great ordinance of publicke prayer, and the Liturgie of the Church, I shall give you one Answer p. 98after another, following you according to your expressions upon it, wherein I finde you like your selves in the other precedent parts, in generals and in the darke, so as few Readers can tell by your Narration here what you hold and practise about publike prayer.

1. Wheras you say, There is this great controversie upon it about the lawfulnesse of set-formes prescribed. I must tell you this great controversie upon it is raised onelyonly by your selves and the Brownists, there being no Divines, nor no Reformed Churches that I know of, but doe allow the lawfull use of set-formes of prayer, composed and framed by others (as by Synods and Assemblies) and doe make use of such sometimes, as the Churches of France and Holland in the administration of Sacraments usually doe, and those who practise them not so much, yet at least hold them lawfull. And I challenge you in all your reading to name one Divine of note and Orthodox that ever held set-formes of prayer prescribed unlawfull, excepting only Independents.

2. What understand you by set-formes prescribed, whether prayers onelyonly made and framed by others: As suppose by an Assembly or Synod, but yet not imposed, or whether prayers composed by others, and then prescribed and required by authoritie to be used: Now if you say you understand it in the second sence, that you question the lawfulnesse of that, but not in the first: I aske you whether you will practise, and doe hold it lawfull to use in your Assemblies, Prayers made and framed by others? As suppose a directory for worship, which I the rather aske you, because your words afterwards hinted as the ground for your owne practise, and against the practises of the Reformed Churches, speake against all set-formes of prayer composed by others (That the publike prayers in our Assemblies should be framed by the meditations and studie of our owne Ministers out of their owne gifts) which reacheth to all prayers framed by other men, though they be left at libertie to use or not use them: And further this argument of yours speakes only against formes of prayer, as in the first sence, but speaks not at all to it, as imposed and enjoyned; but let your expressions of set-formes of prayer prescribed be taken in the second sence, yet I am readie to maintaine against you p. 99that set-formes of Prayer, lawfull for their materials, and establisht by a lawfull power to be used in the publick Assemblies, may lawfully be practised by Ministers, and the people safely joyne in them.

3. As I askt of you in what sence you tooke set-formes prescribed, so I desire to know whether in the questioning of the lawfulnesse of set-formes of prayer, you understand onelyonly formes of prayer framed by men and Ministers in the Church, or whether not also prayers recorded in the Scriptures (as for instance the Lords prayer) whether ever you practise the use of that in your Assemblies (which question I make, because I never heard that any of you five ever used the Lords prayer, either in your owne Assemblies, or in ours, nor indeed that any of your way did, it being now made by many a note of a Formalist) Now if you account the use of it lawfull, considering the great offence, the totall disuse of it gives to many, and how it hinders the word to many, considering that Scripture with other like, 1 Cor. 10. 32. I wonder how you dare neglect it (and by the way let me tell you that 1 Cor. 10. 32. is stronger to command you the use of the Lords prayer, then for what it is alleadged by you in the 17. page, namely, for your principle of submission of Churches, &c. And I propound to you further, whether if some other prayers word for word recorded in the Scriptures should be put into a directorie, you would use them? As also, whether you would practise the reading of set Psalmes and Chapters appointed out for you?

4. As for the practising your owne prayers without condemning others. I answer, that is not so, 1. Because you bring many arguments against set-formes of prayer, framed by others and prescribed that amount to a condemnation in a high nature, terming such prayers will-worship, inventions of men, as is evident both by Manuscripts and by printed Discourses of M^r Davenports, M. Cottons, Manuscr. Arg. of M. Nye against setformes of prayer prescribed.M. Nyes. 2. You with-drew from our Sacraments and publicke Assemblies upon this ground and have drawne many away with you, and have set up new Churches.

But it may be you will in this Narration have this evasion, that though you condemne the practise, yet not all the persons that use them, you doe not condemne them as ungodly. I answer, no p. 100more doe the rigid aaM. Williams answer to Mr Cottons letter. Queries proposed upon occasion of an Apologeticall N…ration. Robinsoni Apolog. cap. 12. de Eccles. Anglic.Brownists nor Anabaptists, who yet condemne sufficiently our Churches and our prayers, and yours too, for they acknowledge both you and us to have eminent personall graces.

5. As to that Argument brought by you for conceived prayers, but against set-formes made by other men, I briefly suggest these following things to you and the Reader. 1. That by your owne concession set formes of prayer are not unlawfull, because they be set and framed before hand, and not conceived suddenly, wherein you grant, that the publicke prayers in the Assemblies may be premeditated, framed and studied before hand, as well as Sermons, which concession takes off one of the strongest Arguments used against set-formes of prayer. 2. I answer, it is not against the fruites of Christs ascension into Heaven, and of giving gifts unto men for the Ministery, that they doe not alwayes in all their prayers exercise their own gifts of invention and composall of prayer, for so the using of the Lords prayer should be unlawfull at any time for the Ministers (which is no prayer framed out of their owne meditations and studie, and their owne gifts.) 3. I answer, there is a great dissimilitude in many respects, betweene Sermons and prayers, so that it will not hold, though Sermons ought to be framed alwaies out of our owne gifts, that therefore prayers alwayes should be. And this I will demonstrate in a Discourse of the lawfulnesse of using set-formes of prayer composed by others. 4. It is not against the fruit of Christs ascension, nor the gifts given then for Ministers, in some instructions and teachings of the people to make use of some thing sometimes in publike, either doctrinall or practicall, not framed out of their owne gifts, but by others. As suppose the reading in the Congregation to the people often some confession of faith, or some exhortation about maine things of use to them, having still the free use of their giftsto preach besides. 5. Suppose you five should joyne together out of your owne meditations and studies, exercising your owne gifts to frame publicke prayers of maine petitions needfull for the state of all your Churches, whether might they be used by you in your publick Assemblies. 6. Whether each of you by your selves framing upon meditation and studie a set-forme of p. 101prayer, may not use that often in your Assemblies without sinne, having also your liberty to adde conceived prayers at the same time.

But to put all out of question about the second instance, I judge that set formes of prayer prescribed taken in both senses, that is neither made nor framed out of the gifts of the persons who use them, nor left at liberty, but by publike consent agreed upon to be used, are not unlawfull to be practised: but the Scriptures give us examples for such prayers, as in 2 Chron. 29. 30. Moreover Hezekiah the King, and the Princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord, with the words of David, and of Asaph the Seer: and they sang praises with gladnesse, and they bowed their heads and worshipped. And therefore the use of set formes of prayer, framed and composed by others and prescribed, having example in Scripture (as well as conceived) are no additament nor superaddition; but the reformed Churches in practising both, practise most safely, according to Scripture patternes, and your Churches using only one sort and not the other, leave to follow examples recorded in Scripture; and we may more justly cast upon you the taking away from Scripture (taking away being a like branded by Scripture as adding;) But you doe unjustly cast upon the reformed Churches adding to the word, the Scriptures holding out examples for both: And for the further clearing your mistakes in this great ordinance of publike prayer, I shall only adde this, all that God hath commanded either in the old Testament or new about publike prayer, is, that prayers be made in the publike Assemblies, and that those prayers be of petitions for their matter and kind lawfull, according unto the will of God, directed unto God alone in the Name of Christ, with humility, fervency, faith and such like; but that God hath required, that as oft as Ministers pray, they must put up prayers framed by their own meditations and studies out of their own gifts, and that the words and phrases must be various and diversified or else their prayers are not lawfull, there is never such a sillable to proove it in the Scripture; But we have examples of both, namely set and conceived, and Gods servants used both indifferently, and we may use both according as we see occasion, and as we find may make p. 102most for edification and Gods glory. And I desire you in your Reply to this Answer to give any instance to the contrary and I shall thanke you, for I seek truth and peace, and not victory nor contention; And let me mind you whilst you goe about in this instance to cleare your selves of additaments; you are in this and other instances guilty of taking away from the Word, falling short, as in other things, practising above what is written, besides your different way of practising in some things.

So likewise for the government and discipline in the Churches, however the practise of the reformed Churches is in greater matters Apolog.to governe each particular Congregation by a combined Presbytery of the Elders of severall Congregations united in one for government; yet so, as in their judgments they allow, especially in some cases, a particular Congregation, an entire and compleate power of jurisdiction to be exercised by the Elders thereof within it selfe; Yea and our owne M^r Cartwright, holy Baynes, and other old Non-conformists, place the power of excommunication in the Eldership of each particular Church with the consent of the Church, untill they doe miscarry, and then indeed they doe subject them to such Presbyteriall and Provinciall Assemblies as the proper refuge for appeales and for compounding of differences amongst Churches, which combination of Churches others of them therefore call Ecclesiae ortae, but particular Congregations Ecclesiae primae, as wherein firstly the power and priviledge of a Church is to be exercised. And withall we could not but imagine, that the first Churches planted by the Apostles, were ordinarily of no more in one City at first then might make up one entire Congregation, ruled by their own Elders, that also preached to them; for that in every City where they came, the number of converts did or should arise to such a multitude as to make severall and sundry Congregations, or that the Apostles should stay the setting up of any Churches at all, untill they rose to such a numerous multiplication as might make such a Presbyteriall combination, we did not imagine. We found also those non-conformists (that wrote against the Episcopall government) in their answer to the arguments used for Episcopall government over many Churches, brought from the instances of the multitude of believers at Ierusalem, p. 103and other places and Cities mentioned in the new Testament, to assert that it would not be infallibly proved that any of those we read of in the Acts and elsewhere; were yet so numerous, as necessarily to exceed the limits of one particular Congregation in those first times. We found it also granted by them all, that there should be severall Elders in every Congregation, who had power over them in the Lord; and we judged that all those precepts, obey your Elders, and them that are over you, were (to be sure, and all grant it) meant of the Pastors and Teachers, and other Elders that were set over them in each particular Congregation respectively, and to be as certainely the intendment of the holy Ghost, as in those like commands, Wives obey your own husbands, Servants your own Governours, to be meant of their severall families respectively. We could not therefore but judge it a safe and an allowed way to retaine the government of our severall Congregations for matters of discipline within themselves, to be exercised by their own Elders, whereof we had (for the most part of the time we were abroad) three at least in each Congregation, whom we were subject to: yet not claiming to our selves an independent power in every Congregation, to give account or be subject to none others; but only a full and entire power compleate within our selves, untill we should be challenged to erre grossely; such as Corporations enjoy, who have the power and priviledge to passe sentence for life and death within themselves, and yet are accountable to the State they live in. But that it should be the institution of Christ or his Apostles, that the combination of the Elders of many Churches should be the first compleate and entire seate of Church power over each Congregation so combined; or that they could challenge and assume that authority over those Churches they feed and teach not ordinarily by vertue of those fore-mentioned Apostolicall precepts, was to us a question, and judged to be an additament unto the other, which therefore rested on those that allowed us what we practised over and above, to make evident and demonstrate: (and certainely of all other the challenge of all spirituall power from Christ had need have a cleare pattent to shew for it:) Yea we appeale further unto them that have read books, whether untill those later writings of the p. 104two Reverend and Learned Divines of Scotland, set forth after our returne, nor much more then two yeares since, and others of no elder date from Holland, and one of our own Divines more lately Written with much learning and ingenuity; there hath been much settly and directly, or with strength insisted on to prove that government, and although assert and inculcate it they doe as their opinions, yet the full strength and streame of our non-conformists Writings and others, are spent rather in arguments against, and for the overthrowing the Episcopall government, and the corruptions that cleave to our Worship, and in maintaining those severall Officers in Churches Which Christ hath instituted in stead thereof (in which we fully agree with them) then in the proofe of a combined classicall Presbyteriall government as it is authoritatively practised in the most reformed Churches.

Before I give a full answer to your third and last instance of the government and discipline in the Churches. I premise this; that in all the differences between you and us in the principles and practises of the visible Church and government of it, you give but three instances only, wherein you practise more safely then the reformed Churches (although you make such a great principle and matter of it in the eleventh page,) yet there are many things besides these three, wherein you practise differently from all reformed Churches; as in the way of gathering and constituting Churches, in the way of making Ministers, in the power you give the people in Church government, cum multis alijs: why did you in this Narration passe by these? Is it not either because you were not willing to tell all you hold and practise, (the time being not yet come to open all your way and principles, which is one of the things I blame you for, your reservednesse in keeping back so great a part, shewing us only the fairest side of that wherein you differ,) or else if you had thought fit to have related them; you in your own wisedomes questioned, whether those other particulars wherein you differ would bare so faire a glosse as of practising most safely, and of fastning the odium of additaments so well upon the reformed Churches, as these three instances you give; And I might here take an occasion to shew further how the reformed Churches practised more safely on both hands then you, neither p. 105adding not taking away, and so I might strongly retort this whole third principle of yours back upon you, but that may suffice I have already hinted of it.

Now for this third and last instance of your walking safely, but fastning additaments in government and discipline on the reformed Churches, this being laid downe so largely as that it is a third part of your book within a very little, beginning in the twelfth page, and continuing to the end of the one and twentieth page, containing in it many various things: I must therefore because of the intermixture of persons and things in this part of your Narration more then in any other, going forward and backward, up and downe, that I may let nothing escape of moment, I shall endeavour to draw out the severall ends of these twined threds and entangled discourse, and to wind them up upon their severall bottomes, by reducing this part of your Narrative to these following heads; whereon I may more distinctly fasten my answers, both for yours and the Readers better satisfaction.

1. You relate what the reformed Churches doe practise and allow, as also what our old non-conformists granted, and what your selves allow and grant about a Church and the government of it.

2. You relate what you disallow and are not satisfied in.

3. You couch some arguments and reasons for your own way and practise, and against the practise of the reformed Churches.

4. You answer a common objection brought against your way, by laying down the principles that you hold in such a case, as also by relating your practise occasioned upon an offence committed in one of your Churches.

5. Upon this answer you make a comparison between the effectualnesse of your way in what you hold and practise, and what the Presbyterians hold, to reduce Churches and to compose differences: in which comparison you make the scales to fall on your side rather.

Now the Reader must expect here as in other passages of this Narration, generall, doubtfull, darke, partiall and reserved relations with mistating the questions which, in my answers I shall observe and point at all along.

To the first of these five heads, (wherein also are three particulars;) p. 106To the first of these concerning the reformed Churches, namely what they practise and allow: I answer, you should have done well to have instanced their practises, what were the greater matters governed in common by the Presbyterie of severall Congregations, and what were the lesser matters wherein each particular Congregation was governed by their particular Elders; As also what were those cases wherein the reformed Churches allow particular Congregations such an entire and compleate power to be exercised by the Elders within themselves, and wherein not; such a particular Narration would have carried in the face of it some ground for the defference of their practise and allowance, & might have served to have pointed out the differences between your way and theirs. But secondly, As you relate the way and discipline of the reformed Churches, it sounds somewhat harsh and strange that their practise should be one way and their judgements another, their practise to governe each particular Congregation by a combined Presbyterie of the Elders of severall Congregations united in one for government, and yet in their judgements to allow, especially in some cases a particular Congregation and entire and compleate power of jurisdiction within it selfe: Doe they practise one way and allow another way, or doe they hold both wayes the wayes of God, or what is it you meane in this Narration of those Churches, or can it be meant in the same sense and acception to practise one thing and yet allow another, or will you make the lesser matters practised in their particular Churches by their own Elders to be the same with some cases, wherein they allow particular Congregations an entire and compleate power of jurisdiction within themselves: Now the latter, namely in some cases, cannot be meant, for then this last part is no more then the first, neither can your words of an entire compleate power of jurisdiction in the particular Congregations be meant of smaller matters, but of the greatest matters in some cases: You shall doe well in your reply, to english these lines about the difference of the reformed Churches practises in greater matters, and their different judgements in some cases, and shew us in what sense they meane it, and whether it can be properly and truly alledged for your case of entire and compleate power in your Congregations. Thirdly, p. 107This which you here relate of the reformed Churches practise and allowance is fallaciously set downe and for your own advantage, meerely to make out this third principle, that you still chose to practise safely, namely, what the reformed Churches allowed and acknowledged warrantable, onelyonly they superadded Presbyteriall combinations, whereas the reformed Churches doe not, as you well know in the case and question controverted between them and you allow particular Congregations in a Kingdome and nation, conceiving the reformed Religion to have an entire and compleate power of jurisdiction within themselves, what may be in some of their books in extraordinary or speciall cases, where there is but one particular Congregation in a Countrey or the like, that is nothing to the point in hand, it being laid for a common ground by them all, that every particular Church in a Nation or Kingdom is not to be left to it selfe, but that there is a necessity of a common nationall government to preserve all the Churches in unity and peace; And to cleare the reformed Churches of France, Holland, Reform. of Ch. government in Scotland, cleared, pag. 18.Scotland from what you say they allow, I doe not find in their books of discipline and platformes of Church government (by which we must judge of their judgements) nor in their practises, that they doe allow an entire and compleate power to be exercised by the Elders of every Congregation alone, either in the making or ordaining of Ministers, or in deposing their Ministers, or in drawing up a forme of doctrine, worship and discipline for themselves, they allow power of admonition, suspension from the Lords Supper, and of taking up lesser differences by the particular Eldership; and if I forget not, the Churches of France only, practise excommunication by the Elders in particular Congregations, without carrying it at first higher; but then if we consider that in those Churches of France their Elderships goe upon certaine fixed rules in there excommunications laid down in their books of discipline (who if they proceed otherwise are liable to censure themselves) and their being appeales to Synods and Assemblies, and all being carried in reference and dependance to Assemblies, the case is very different: now if the Churches of your way and communion in old England and in New, would yeeld to have a government fixt and setled by Synods and Assemblies; establisht also by p. 108the Magistrates, upon which Rules and Orders they should proceed in the way of making Ministers, and that such errors in doctrine and such evill manners, ought to be the subject of excommunication, and then agree upon appeales to Synods and Assemblies, then there would be lesse dang…r in such an entire and compleate power in particular Congregations.

To the second particular under this first head, namely what some of the old non-conformists grant, placing the power of excommunication in the Eldership of each particular Church untill they doe miscarry, and then indeed subj…cting them to Presbyt…riall and Provinciall Assemblies, and that it could not be infallibly prooved that any of the Churches recorded in the new Testament, were so numerous as necessarily to exceed the limits of one particular Congregatïon: And that both the Ministers of the reformed Churches and our non-conformists, all granted that there should be severall Elders in every Congregation, who had power over them in the Lord: I answer as followes; For M^r Cartwright, you not quoting which of his books you have reference to, and so not knowing which to turne to, to find out what you assert of him, I shall not deny it; but as for M^r Baynes Diocesans Tryall, (which is the only booke I ever heard of, wherein he handles these points) he doth in the third question give the Ecclesiasticall power and the exercise of it to a united multitude of Presbyters, in which booke, howsoever as intending his booke against Diocesan Bishops and Diocesan Churches, to whom all Presbyters and Churches stand in subjection and subordination, he pleads against them for the power of the particular Elders in the severall Congregations, yet as against the reformed Churches practise, namely of a Presbyteriall Church consisting of many particular Congregations and ruled by the Elders of severall Congregations combined, he pleadeth not, but expressely in answer made to those two objections from the Churches and Elders where there is a co-ordination and a communi…y in government, as in the Low Countries and at Géneva, he grants the thing contended for against your Congregationall way (even before miscarrying,) and shewes th… great difference between the Diocesan government and the Presbyteriall in severall particulars, and answers your objections which p. 109you commonly make of a forraigne extrinsicall power: And for your better satisfaction, reade and compare together the passages in these pages of M^r Baynes Diocesans Tryall, page 21, page 11. What is meant by a Diocesan Church, and in the 12^th page, two first conclusions agreed in, and in the 16^th page: And for the non-conformists in their writings against the Episcopall government and Diocesan Churches, though they put the Bishops their adversaries all they could to it, to make them proove infallibly and necessarily a particular Church to exceed the limits of one particular Congregation, yet they never intended it as against the reformed Churches: Now you know the saying, Authoris aliud agentis parva est auth…ritas: But shew us where ever the old non-conformists as against the reformed Churches held so: It will appeare by Gerson Bucerus▪ and by the practise of the reformed Churches in Geneva Dissert. de Gub. Ecclesiae, pag. 11. Robins. Apol. cap. 1. de Eccles. amplitudin….and Holland, (for which M^r Robinson so objects against them in his Apologie) that though they were against the government of Bishops and Diocesan Churches (that is of a head Church over many Congregations united to it) yet not of a particular Church of such a City, consisting of many particular Congregations: And as for that you take for granted by all, that there should be severall Elders in every Congregation, it is denied you: For some Divines, as Danaeus and Cartwright (as I remember) hold it not necessary for every small Congregation in villages, but for Cities and more populous places to which the lesser villages being conjoyned, have the benefit and support of all the Elders and Ministers in the exercising of government. As for that you say, Others of them calling the combination of Churches Ecclesiae ortae, but particular Congregations Ecclesiae primae, as wherein firstly the power and priviledge of a Church is to be exercised (that others was aaPolit. Ecclesiast. l. 3. c. …. &c. …2.M^r Parker, who in his Politia Ecclesiastica, gives us this distinction)▪ and was the first who brought it up (as ever I read of) who differing from M^r Baynes and other non-conformists, and most Divines of the reformed Churches in the subject of the power of the keyes, giving it to the bbPolit. Eccles. l. …. c. 1.Sir 50body of the Church, agreeing therein too much with you, no wonder he called particular Congregations Ecclesiae primae: But as he was mistaken in the first receptacle and subject of the power of the p. 110keyes, so he might be in his distinction of Ecclesiae primae and ortae. For the first Churches, namely that of Ierusalem, Rome, Ephesus, with others were not particular Congregations, but Churches consisting of many Congregations, severall meeting places, some preaching in one place, and others in other places, but governed by the Elders in common, which City Churches were the first Churches still first planted by the Apostles, and particular Congregations in villages were Ecclesiae ortae (the City Churches in this sence being the mothers, and the particular Congregations rather the daughters) the full proofe and demonstration whereof I referre to a tractate I intend about the nature of the visible Church. But by what I have answered upon this head the Reader … Balls friendly tryall of separation.may observe there is not all granted, which you tooke for granted from the Reformed Churches, and the Non-conformists, and what is yeelded slowes from another spring, and is upon another ground writing against Diocesan Bishops (quite another controversie) but otherwise even when Non-conformists have come to write against the separation, and upon the nature of a visible Church (as M^r Ball^a) they hold the contrary: And for learned men of other Churches (even when they writ against Episcopacie) yet they were farre from holding that a particular visible Church was only a particular Congregation **Gersom Bucerus Dissert, de Gub. Eccles. p. 11. Nos particularem Eccle siam intelligimus quemlibet credentium c… tum in unam vocationem divinam Evangelij praedicatio…e sacrarum que institutionum observatione adunatum, ac uni Presbyterio subjunctum, sacros vero conventus uno out pluribus locis agit…ntem. Nam Paraeciarum in quibus convenitur numerus accidentaria res est, nihil ad Ecclesiae particularis essentiam pertinens.(as Gersom Bucerus in his answer to D^• Downham) A particular Church is any companie of beleevers conjoyned in the observation of holy ordinances and united to one Presbyterie, keeping their meetings in one or more places: For the number of Parishes in which they meet is a thing accidentall being nothing at all to the essence of a particular Church. And even the Non-conformists you speake of, as it appeares by the wary expressions your selves use of them, namely infallibly and necessarily doe even give the cause: For that is (as you imply) the Non-conformists in their answers could not denie but probably the number of beleevers were so numerous as to exceed the limits of one particular Congregation in those first tim…s, though not infallibly and rationally, though not necessarily: Now in points of externall order and government which depend upon the story; and circumstances of time and place, how many things are there practised, but of presumption▪ p. 111though not of certainty, and though they cannot be infallibly and necessarily proved, so as to stop all mouthes, and all that the wit of man can possibly finde out, yet if the things asserted can be but probably proved upon better reasons then the contrary, we may encline to that as to the safer part: How many practises and tenents have you in your Church-way that cannot be infallibly and necessarily proved, but stronger answers may be and are given to the reasons you bring for them, then any the Non-conformists could give to that instance of the Church of Ierusalem, and yet you hold to your principles for all that; and it is a rule hath been pleaded by some of you, that in things of that nature where the Scripture is not expresse, but holds them out most probably though not infallibly and necessarily, yet we ought to encline to that: As for M^r Baynes answer (though directed against Diocesan Bishops and Diocesan Churches) to that instance of the Church of Ierusalem, it is no whit satisfactorie nor concluding to any man, who is of another judgement, as the Reader may reade in the 15. and 16. page of the Dioces. Tryall.

To the 3^d particular under the first head, namely what you allow and grant about a Church and the Government, that you could not but imagine that the first Churches planted by the Apostles, were ordinarily of no more in one Citie at the first then might make up one entire Congregation, ruled by their owne Elders that also preached to them, and that you could not but judge it a safe and an allowed way to retaine the government of your severall Congregations for matter of discipline within themselves to be exercised by their owne Elders, &c. In way of answer I must first complaine of your old fault, the slippery and uncertaine expressions used in the relation of what you owne and allow about a Church in those phrases, the first Churches ordinarily and at first. I demand the reason of you, why you put in ordinarily and at first, was it not because you fore-saw the Church of Ierusalem and some few others recorded in the New Testament, though not in the first Chapter of the Acts, and at the beginning yet would at last by the 8. of the Acts and Acts 21. amount to more then could meet in one Congregation, and therefore you exprest it so. Is this faire dealing, or what other reason can you p. 112give for using such doubtfull expressions: the question is not betweene you and us, whether all the Churches and most of the Churches, or whether at first, and in the beginning of them they consisted of no more in one City, then to make up one Congregation, but whether the Scriptures in the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, be it first or last, sooner or later gives any patterne or example of a particular Church, exceeding the number of them, who may ordinarily meet together in one place for the worshipping of God, and the sanctification of the Lords-day, which if it can be proved, overthrowes M. Robinsons, M. Cottons definitions of Churche… and your principles, who all keepe to this as to a foundation upon which is built many of your other practises: For we know at first the Church of Ierusalem, and other Churches were not more numerous then to exceed the limits of one particular Congregation, neither could it be expected that all should come in at first, and we know for many other Churches the Scriptures doe not so particularly relate the growth and accessions of them: But if any one instance can be given, it is not materiall whether first or last, sooner or later, whether in the beginning, middle, or end of the story, for then your Positions and assertions of a particular visible Church are overthrowne, for one affirmative overthrowes a universall negative. And I aske of you whether you take ordinarily here as opposed to extraordinary, or take ordinarily, for commonly as opposed to rarely and seldome; now if you meane it in the first sence, that the Church of Ierusalem and other Churches that may be instanced in, their case was extraordinary, and though the Apostles suffered them to grow so ranke and numerous, yet we may not doe so now: I desire to know of you then, what is become of your first generall rule the Primitive patternes of Churches erected by the Apostles, and I desire to know what r…le you walke by, and whether the first constituted Church of all were not likely to be the patterne for constituted Churches, seeing Primum in unoquo que genere est regula & mensura reliquorum. But if you meane ordinarily in the second sence, as that there is but one only instance, the most if not all other Churches were otherwise; that you see will not by what I have above written helpe you, besides what ever you can probably p. 113alleadge that the Churches of these times should be conformed to such Churches, which consisted of no greater number then to make one particular Congregation, I will give more and better why the Churches of a Nation and kingdome should be conformed to that of Hierusalem; As for those phrases of yours, which you bring in by way of caution and clearing the way of your government within your selves, that you claime not an Independent power to give no account or be subject to none others, but onelyonly a full and entire power compleate within your selves, untill you shall be challenged to erre grossely. Whilest in these first lines you denie Independent power in words, yet in your latter words you grant it, claiming a full and entire power compleate within your selves, which is Independent power, and is the full sence of that which hath been fasten'd on you by us; and I will shew it more fully in the proper place; when I come to the 23. page (especially if you take upon you to enjoy it so long, untill you shall be challenged to erre grossely) I had thought it had been enough upon your being challenged to erre to have given an account, but belike it must be erring grossely (I suspect something lyes under this, as under many other of your phrases, whereby you evade and hide your selves, stating points wrongfully) Pray what doe you account erring grossely, and whether doe you judge any thing erring grosly in your particular Churches, but such kinds of sins in manners, and such kind of opinions as are against the Churches knowne light, and the common received practises and principles of Christianitie professed by the Churches themselves and universally acknowledged in all the rest of the Churches, and no other sinnes to be the ground of giving an account (as they are not of Excommunication with you, page 9.) (both being of equall latitude, sins of particular persons to a Church, and the sins of a particular Church to a Communitie of Churches) and if that be your meaning you shall be Independent enough. And then further I demand of you, how you can use those phrases of not claiming a power to be subject to none others: I confesse you may better use those words of giving account, holding, counselling and advising by sister-Churches, but as for that phrase of subjecting to none others; I understand it not, what censure will your Churches p. 114subject unto from other Churches, will they yeeld to the deposition of their Ministers, Excommunication of their members, &c. or how can there be any subjection to other Churches in your principles (the phrase being taken properly and usually) when as all along you pleade against authoritative Presbyteriall power, so oft exprest in page 15, 16. and is the great point in controversie in this instance betwixt you and the Presbyterians: How oft doe you denie the subjection of a particular Church to all other Churches, and are against all subjecting to censures, yea to be subjected as to counsell and advices from the other Churches. As to that phrase, your owne Elders, whereof you had three at least in each Congregation whom you were subject to, in which you seeme to hold out the government and power of the Church to lie in the Elders, and not in the body of the Congregation, I desire you to satisfie me in this point, whether all of you hold the power and authoritie to be in the Elders or in the Church, and whether by goe tell the Church is meant, tell the Elders or the bodie M. Bridges letter to M. To…, M. Smith, M. Henry King, &c. The Keyes were given to the whole Church; unles we say they were given to Peter only and his successours: search the Scriptures and see if you can find any place, where any body or particular Church is subiect to one man or officer.of the Congregation, and whether according to the principles of the Church-way in M. Robinsons workes, and the bookes of New-England, and M. Bridges owne letter (unlesse some of you have lately seene another light) you might have truly written three Elders at least in every Congregation to whom the Congregations were subject, or else three Elders who were subject to their owne Congregations: and this shall suffice for answer to the first head of the five concerning the third Instance.

To the second head under this third instance, what you are not satisfied in nor cannot allow. 1. About particular visible Churches, That you could not imagine in every City where the Apostles came, the number of the converts did or should arise to such a multitude as to make severall and sundry Congregations.

2. About the government of it, that it should be the institution of Christ or his Apostles, that the combination of the Elders of many Churches should be the first compleate and entire seat of Church power over each Congregation so combined, or that they could challenge and assume that authoritie over those Churches they teach not, &c. In both these you deale fallaciously and relate the controversie to your advantage and our disadvantage. For the p. 115first, whereas had you dealt ingenuously your words should have been these, for that in any Citie, where the Apostles came the number of converts did or should arise to such a multitude as to make severall and sundry Congregations, you put it in every Citie, which we affirme not, nor need not to carry the cause against you, for if we can prove it in some Cities, or in any Cities that the number of Converts did arise to such a multitude, as to make severall and sundry Congregations, then we prove the Scripture holds out a Presbyteriall Classicall Church, and overthrow your grand principle about a particular Church: And Reader observe the fallacie of these Apologists, how in the manner of their expression, and as they propound it, though the thing may be true, yet they alter quite the state of the Question. For though in every Citie, where the Apostles came, you could not imagine the number of Converts should be so great nor we neither, yet in some Cities you might have well imagined it, as in Ierusalem and Rome. But Brethren, why will you who are Schollers, and without question weighed well all your words and manner of expressions, having so many heads in the framing this Apologie, deale thus with the Reader in a Narration: speake truly, though you did not imagine the number of Converts were so many in every City, yet did not you imagine the number might be so great in some Cities, as in Ierusalem; and if still you will not imagine it, for the helping of your imagination, consider whether you have not more reason (if not infallible and necessary, yet probable and rationall) to imagine the Church of Hi…rusalem consisting of so many thousands of people, and having so many Ministers to preach unto them, as 12. Apostles besides the seventy Disciples, and they meeting in so many distinct houses, and not having the power and command of any publicke large place or liberty (through those times) to fit it for such multitudes to heare the word, joyne in prayer, and Sacraments, should have severall and sundry Congregations rather then to imagine all those should make but one standing Congregation to meet in one place and roome.

2. It is stated otherwise, carried higher then need be granted, and that in all your expressions of it, for the Scriptures may hold forth a combination of the Elders of many Churches for government p. 116and yet not be the Institution of Christ or his Apostles: It may be allowed and agreeable to the word, have a jus divinum, permissivum upon generall rules of the word, and according to the rules of the law of nature and of Prudence, yea and may have some examples of it, and yet not amount to a divine Institution, many who hold the thing will not in those phrases owne it.

2. These Elders of many Congregations may have a power of Government in common over all, and yet not be the first seat of Church-power; for it is not denied but some particular Congregations, having a competent number of Presbyters, both have and may exercise Church-power, before any such combination is, or can be.

3. These Elders combined may have Church-power to rule these Congregations so combined, and yet not have a compleate and entire seat of Church-power, but a power liable to appeales unto Synods and generall Assemblies. The question betweene you and us is whether Classes or Presbyteries have power in Ecclesiasticall matters, as Ordination, Excommunication, &c. within the number of Congregations so combined, or may by warrant from the word exercise any power in Church matters, but in their owne particular Congregations; the question is not, whether it be the Institution of Christ or his Apostles that the combination of the Elders of many Churches should be the first compleate and entire seat of Church, power: As you state it, you strangely mistate the question to lay it downe in these words, That the combination of the Elders of many Churches should be the first seat of Church-power over each Congregation so combined, whereas the opinion of the Reformed Churches is quite contrary, not holding Classes and Synods to be the first subject of Church-power, from whence it is consequently derived and conferred upon particular Churches, but that particular congregations having power in themselves and amongst themselves equall power, doe in Classes and Synods conferre and execute in common their owne power, even as those who are colleagues and equall members of some politicall societie.