Full Answer to Apologetical Narration, Text (4 of 8)

Full Answer to Apologetical Narration · Text (4 of 8)

p. 1164. The power which particular officers, and Presbyters of combined p. 117congregations may have over particular members of those Churches they teach not ordinarily, doth not amount to the challenging and assuming an authority over those Churches they feed and teach not; your expression is a mistake, it is not an assuming a power and authority by some over other Churches, but it is a power of the whole, and of themselvs too, even those particular Churches in their officers over particular members; as in the Parliament no member hath power over another, more then another over him, but the whol hath power over all the particulars; for the clearing of which, the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland speake fully in their Reformation of Church government in Scotland cleared, page 24, 25. And for the close of this second head, wherein you stand upon what you are not satisfied in but disallow, if you would impartially consider that the Scriptures in the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, doe as well hold out grounds, yea and more indubitable (as I shall make evident in a particular Tractate of the visible Church) that the first particular Churches planted by the Apostles consisted of more Congregations, and distinct meeting places, then of one only Congregation, you will acknowledge that where there are many Presbyters to feed and rule, and many more Christians living in a vicinity, then can meet in one place, it is not the most safe and allowed way to retaine the government of each Congregation thus within themselves, neither that it is an additament in the reformed Churches to practise so, but rather an additament on their part, who living in a City where the number of beleevers are so numerous as to make many meeting places, there to make these places and persons such distinct Churches as to manage all things each one within themselves, and not to grow into one for government. And I am so farre versed in these controversies, that I challenge you five to give me an example of any City where it is probable the multitude of beleevers were so numerous as to make many meeting places, that ever they were governed and ruled but in common, or ever called Churches but Church, still called the Church of Corinth, and the Church of Ierusalem: I foresee only one instance that can be probably alledged, that in Rom. 16. 1. of the Church which is at Cenchrea, which Cenchrea was a part of Corinth and neare to Corinth, p. 118yet named a Church as well as the Church of Corinth, but the insufficiencie of that ground I shall at large shew in that Tractate of the visible Church; which Primitive practise hath so farre wrought with some of the reformed Churches, as those of Holland, that in great Cities where the number of their people are so many as they cannot meet in one place, but have more meeting places, yet in imitation of the Scriptures (giving that ground to some who have askt them a reason) they make City Churches but one, and the Ministers are Ministers in common of them all, preaching in their courses in the severall meeting places, and governed in common, and this they doe to keep nearest to Apostolicall practise; whereas now in the Countrey where villages are, and the meetings are scattered, they doe not all preach to all: And to adde this further, to shew your unsafe way of practising in the way of your particular Congregations, over the reformed Churches and our Churches in England, your Congregations (as in London) where the meeting place is, and the Ministers reside, is made up of members, as of some living in London, so of some in Surrey, Middlesex, Hartfordsheire, Essex, where they have fixum domicilium being twenty miles asunder, and many members meeting but sometimes in a MonethMonth, where neither Ministers can oversee them, nor members watch over one another, not knowing what the conversation of each other is (which yet are brought as the maine grounds for your Church-fellowship) which non-residencie of the members from one another, and of the officers from so many of the members, whether it overthrow not and be not point blank against many of your principles of the Church-way, I leave to your selves to judge? besides that it is without any Primitive patterne and example of the Churches erected by the Apostles, the Churches being still stiled according to the places where they lived and met, as in Rom. 1. 7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints: And so in the Epistles to the Corinthians: To the Church of God which is at Corinth. And I desire you to give me any Primitive patterne of any who belonged to the Church of Rome, Corinth, Ierusalem, (that is, were standing members of those Churches) who lived and inhabited ten miles, twenty, five miles, &c. round about those Cities, so that we find here in this p. 119third instance, namely in the government and discipline of the Churches, as well as in the first instance in the qualification of your members, that the additament is on your sides and not on the reformed Churches.

To the third head, namely the reasons couched and hinted for your own practise and against the practise and way of the reformed Churches: to the first reason I answer, as the relating of the state of the questions was not proper, so this argument hinted here is not properly expressed, for their might be such a Presbyteriall Church and government as is maintained against you, namely but two or three distinct meeting places, and yet not Churches, rising to such a numerous multiplication, nor Apostles staying to the setting up of Churches untill they rose to such a numerous multiplication: But pray what doe you meane by those expressions? We did not imagine, but might you not? or could you not have imagined it, though you did not nor would not: and what by this, that the Apostles should stay the setting up of any Churches at all, untill they rose to make such a numerous multiplication as might make such a Presbyteriall combination. Doe you carry the words in reference only to that numerous multiplication? or simply and positively, that the Apostles did not stay so long in any City as to set up any Churches at all? Now if you will have your words interpreted in the first sense, then judge how improper the speech and narration of your mind is, for then it should have gone thus, that the Apostles should stay the setting up of so many Churches untill they rose to such a numerous multiplication, for the denying the setting up of any Churches and at all, agree not with the following words, untill they rose to such a numerous multiplication; the former being a diminitive nay a negative, and cannot agree to such an augmentative as the latter, besides your first words carried in reference to the following, have no strength to proove what you bring them for, namely what you allowed and practised, or what you disallowed; for though the Apostles should not stay so long as the setting up so many Churches as might arise to such a numerous multiplication of severall and sundry Congregations, yet there might be such a Presbyteriall classicall Church, a Church consisting of more then could meet in one place, which is p. 120the controversie between us: But if you understand your words simply and positively, that the Apostles did not stay the setting up of any Churches at all, I desire you to remember your own principles and expressions in many books and discourses of your way, that the Apostles were the founders of the first Churches, as at Corinth, Rome, and for Ierusalem especially, (which is the particular Church we most stand upon) the Apostles staid long enough there, to set up not onelyonly any Churches at all, but many to make such a Presbyteriall combination as is stood for, as will appeare, both by Acts 8. Acts 15. Acts 21. and it is the judgement of M^r Robinson, that Ierusalem was never without some of the Apostles there (which the two first chapters of the Galathians give a strong ground for,) besides the many Presbyters that belonged thereunto; And so for the Church of Ephesus, Paul stayed at one time in those parts three yeares together, long enough to make so many Churches as might make a Presbyteriall combination: which that of the Acts, chap. 20. vers. 17, 18, 25, 28, 29, 31. doe give hints enough for, if the nature of an answer to a Narration would permit to draw them out at length. To the second reason hinted, that those precepts, Obey your Elders and them that are over you, were to be sure meant of the Pastours and teachers set over them in each particular Congregation respectively, and to be as certainely the intendment of the Holy Ghost, as in those commands, Wives obey your own husbands, &c. I answer, that in Scripture a particular Church consisting of more Congregations then one, and the Ministers and Elders feeding them and governing them in common (as at Ierusalem, and as it is in the Low Countries, in Cities there, as at Amsterdam, &c.) all the Ministers and Elders are their own Ministers and Elders, as the husbands are the owne of their wives, and those Scriptures are to be understood of all their Pastors and Ministers, and not of some only, or in respect of some, and not of the rest, and it is as certainely the intendment of the Holy Ghost (as in that command, Wives obey your owne husbands,) that obey your Elders, &c. be meant not of some but of them all. 2. In Churches by their combination consisting of many Congregations where ordinarily some Pastors and teachers feed some Congregations and not the rest, Ministers being p. 121fixed, some to that Congregation, and others to other Congregations, yet there being a government in common by all the Presbyters of those Congregations in all weighty matters and greater cases that fall out, those precepts of obey your Elders and them that are over you, reach to all the Elders as well as to those that particularly and ordinarily preach to them, and however it is true such places are especially understood of them, yet not of them only, and alone, as excluding others, as your argument carried it, but including others who are over them too: And to answer you by your own instance given of servants, obey your own governours, as by vertue of that text, particular servants are to obey their own Masters, so by the same text each particular servant and all of them together of such a Company and Hall, in the things and rules of their calling (for the publike good of that Societie) they are to obey and be subject to the whole Company, namely the particular masters of other servants as to their own masters, yea and to submit to the common Orders and good Rules of such a Hall and Corporation though their particular Masters doe not vote for but against them. 3. Those Rulers who are of the Presbytery are not forraigne nor extrinsicall to the Congregations, but intrinsicall and naturall as well as their particular Elders, so that another without themselves doth not beare rule over them, but all of them together by common consent doe rule every one, which is a most mild and free forme of Church government, for the proofe of which I shall not enlarge but referre you for satisfaction to what is said to this point, both by the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland, and by some Churches from beyond the Reform. of Ch. government cleared, p. 25.seas, in their Letters upon occasion of your Apologie. 4. It is a fallacious way of reasoning from the oeconomicall relations and government of husbands over wives, and fathers over children, and masters over servants, and their subjection and obedience to husbands, &c. unto the Ecclesiasticall and Politicall, because it is not to speake ad idem, for in each of these the way of government is different: for instance in those oeconomicall relations a woman can have but one husband, one man can be but her husband, and one man a father, and the wife and child cannot Pelinquish them, di…avow them though very bad, nor deny those duties p. 122they owe them in those relations though censured by the Church, but they are to obey them, which yet holds not in the members of a particular Congregation to Elders and Ministers that are unworthy and excommunicated, that the members must be subject to them. The Royalists that argue so from that subjection and obedience which children owe their fathers, to subjects subjection and obedience to Princes; and the Hierarchicall men, that argue from what children owe to natural parents though wicked and ungodly, to what the people owe to wicked ministers, are answered at large, and you know what M^r Robinson and many of your way say to that: Now the same will serve to answer your comparisons, that the places hold not alike between the people and the Elders, and the wives and their husbands: M^r Baynes answers in the last page of his Diocesans Tryall, that which is objected touching Pastors and Fathers: That the similitude holds not in all things, parents and sheapheards, are absolutely parents and sheapheards, be they good or evill; but spirituall parents are no longer so then they doe accordingly behave themselves. 5. The very instances you give of wives obey your own husbands, and servants your own governours, doth not therefore only tye them to civill subjection and obedience to husbands and Masters, exempting them from subjection to any others, but they are subject to the Magistrates in the Common-wealth and to common-Lawes notwithstanding, so neither doth the Scriptures, obey your Elders, &c. (supposing the full latitude of those Scriptures were of the Elders of particular Congregations) forbid or exempt men from that Ecclesiasticall subjection and obedience which concernes them as they stand in relation to the community.

To the third Reason hinted for your selves, and against the reformed Churches, that the Elders of other Congregations should have power and rule over Churches, which they doe not teach and feed ordinarily, by vertue of those forementioned precepts, was to you a question, &c. I answer, Suppose three or foure Congregations in one great Towne, should have Ministers in common to teach and feed them ordinarily (as in Holland,) would you in such a case yeeld to a Presbyteriall combination; if you say you would, then the case is determined for us, and thus I p. 123judge it was in the Acts of the Apostles in Primitive Churches, but if you answer you would not yeeld to such a classicall government, then I reply, 'tis not for want of such Ministers teaching you and feeding ordinarily that you will not obey, but upon some other ground, and then this argument is lost: Secondly, I answer, your ruling Elders doe not feed nor teach you ordinarily, but only governe you, and yet by vertue of those forementioned precepts you obey them, and are subject to them, so that this is no good argument against the lawfulnesse of having power and authority over those whom men teach not ordinarily; for then what becomes of the Ruling Elders in the Church, who are neither Pastors nor Teachers.

To the fourth Reason drawn from Corporations, who have the power and priviledge of life and death within themselves, which kind of power you would have. I answer, you cannot frame a good argunment from Corporations and civill power, to bodies Ecclesiasticall, and spirituall power, and I might give you the many differences alledged by your selves between civill power, and Ecclesiasticall, and the different manner of dispensation, but I must not enlarge here, only referre you for this to aaRobins. Justif. of separat.M^r Robinson, bbMr Burroughs on Hosea, seventh Lecture, p. 174. If we consider the difference between Ecclesiasticall power and civill power, we shall see it cleare that there cannot be a ministe…ll head of the Church.M^r Burroughs, and ccAmes. Med. Theol.D^r Ames. 2. Corporations goe according to the Lawes of the Land, and to their Charters agreed upon, and made in Parliaments, they make not themselves a Corporation, nor goe not according to private rules and orders to passe sentence of death, &c. but are ruled (though they have Officers, as Major and Aldermen) by the Laws of the Land, and so going, they may more safely have a power within themselves: but your particular Congregations set up your selves without leave of Magistrates or Ministers, not proceeding upon common rules of government in sentences of Excommunication, &c. agreed by Synods, but only upon your own wills, and private rules which you have fancied are laid down in Scripture. 3. Corporations though they judge their members, and passe sentence of life and death within themselves, yet sometimes, nay often in greater cases and offences, their inhabitants are tried, and sentences passed upon them in other Courts of Justice, and that when they would proceed against them, yet the matter is carried higher to be tried; If you p. 124would grant this in the Corporations to your Congregations, that Assemblies and Synods might judge and passe sentence upon your members (as oft as they see just ground) the controversie were at an end. 4. The Corporations (that is those in place and power) if they proceed unjustly, are accountable to the State they live in, that is to a higher civill power, and adjudged themselves in cases of wrong, condemning the innocent, suffering delinquents to escape, but your Corporations of particular Congregations even in case of reall Administration, are against all judging and all Ecclesiasticall Authoritative power out of your own Congregations.

To the fifth Reason hinted by you to strengthen your practise that it was safe and allowed, and the Reformed Churches more questionable, namely appealing to them who have read books, whether much hath been written with strength, setly and directly to prove that government, but rather to overthrow Episcopall, and to maintaine those severall Officers in Churches which Christ hath instituted, and therefore you inferre you might have more ground to question this government of combined classicall Presbyteriall government. I answer, the ground of that is fully laid down in the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, page 17 and 18. with an account of what hath been written and done by the reformed Churches in France for the Presbyteriall way, and against the popular Independent way (which is more then you once in this Reason hinted) but suppose that in former writings of Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Peter Martyr; Danaeus, Iunius, Zepp…rus, Gersom Bucerus, Dr Reynolds, Parker, there hath not been much setly and directly insisted on, and with strength to prove the government of Synods and Classes (though in some of these more especially, as against the Church of Rome, and Episcopall government, much strength is brought for the government by Synods and Classes) yet that which those Divines of Scotland, Holland, England, have written of late against the Independent congregationall government, might have been enough to have satisfied you, and thats not materiall that no more have written, seeing out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established; and if these books had not strength to satisfie you, why have not p. 125you all this while answered them? but I must mind you of forgetting one of your own Divines, for besides the learned Licensers booke against Independencie, another booke was written, cald Reasons against the Independent government of particular Congregations, and the Toleration of them in this Kingdome: which booke in your seeming to take no notice of, I beleeve you remember above the rest, and in the 25 page of your Apologie, it appeares you remember it, but the Authour of it belike is none of your Divines. And in the close now of this answer to your Reasons hinted about the government and discipline of the Church, why you in your Congregationall way should be in the truth, but the Presbyteriall government was a question to you and judged an additament, because the Presbyterians allowed you what you practised, and granted what you held, but themselves held and practised over and above; I answer, this is no Argument at all, for by the same reason the Samaritans should have worshipped God truly, but the Iewes falsely, and the Samaritans might have Iohn 4 10, 22.John 4:10John 4:22said to the Iewes as you doe to the Presbyterianns; the five books of Moses which we owne to be sure they are from God, you acknowledge them, but for the books of the Prophets, thats a question which rests upon you that allow what we hold, to make evident and demonstrate: and so the Iews may now by the same reason speake against the Christians, and say, we are in the safer way, to be sure we practise safely, for you Christians confesse what we hold, namely Moses and the Prophets to be the Scriptures, but for the new Testament that is to us a question and an additament, which therefore rests upon you Christians to make good, who beleeve and practise over and above us.

And whereas the common prejudice and exception laid into all Apolog.mens thoughts against us, and our opinions is, that in such a Congregationall government thus entire within it selfe, there is no allowed sufficient remedy for miscarriages, though never so gross…; no reliefe for wrongfull sentences or persons injured thereby; no roome for complaints: no powerfull or effectuall meanes to reduce a Church or Churches that fall into heresie, schisme, &c. but every one is left and may take liberty without controule to doe what is good in their own eyes; we have (through the good providence p. 126of God upon us) from the avowed declarations of our judgements among our Churches mutually during our exile, and that also confirmed by the most solemne instance of our practise, wherewith to vindicate our selves and way in this particular, which upon no other occasion we should ever have made thus publike.

God so ordered it that a scandall and offence fell out between those very Churches whilst living in this banishment (whereof we our selves, that write these things, were then the Ministers) one of our Churches having unhappily deposed one of their Ministers, the other judged it not only as too sudden an act (having proceeded in a matter of so great moment without …nsulting their sister Churches, as was publikely professed we should have done in such cases of concernment) but also in the proceedings thereof as too severe, and not managed according to the rules laid downe in the word. In this case our Churches did mutually and universally acknowledge and submit to this as a sacred and undoubted principle and supreame law to be observed among all Churches, that as by vertue of that Apostolicall command, Churches as well as particular men are bound to give no offence neither to Iew nor Gentile, nor the Churches of God they live amongst; So that in all cases of such offence or difference, by the obligation of the Common Law of communion of Churches, and for the vindication of the glory of Christ, which in common they holdforth, the Church or Churches challenged to offend or differ, are to submit themselves (upon the challenge of the offence or complaint of the person wronged) to the most full and open triall and examination by other neighbour Churches offended thereat, of what ever hath given the offence: And further that by vertue of the same and like law of not partaking in other mens sins, the Churches offended may and ought upon the impenitencie of those Churches, persisting in their errour and miscarriage to pronounce that heavy sentence against them, of with-drawing and renouncing all Christian communion with them untill they doe repent; And further to declare and protest this, with the causes thereof, to all other Churches of Christ, that they may doe the like.

p. 127And what further authority, or proceedings purely Ecclesiasticall, of one, or many sister Churches, towards another whole Church, or Churches offending, either the Scriptures doe holdforth, or can rationally be put in execution (without the Magistrates interposing a power of another nature, unto which we upon his particular cognisance, and examination of such causes, professe ever to submit, and also to be most willing to have recourse unto) for our parts we saw not then, nor doe yet see. And likewise we did then suppose, and doe yet, that this principle of submission of Churches that miscarry unto other Churches offended, together with this other, that it is a command from Christ enjoyned to Churches that are finally offended, to pronounce such a sentence of noncommunion and withdrawing from them whilest impenitent, ac unworthy to hold forth the Name of Christ, (these principles being received and generally acknowledged by the Churches of Christ to be a mutuall duty, as strictly enjoyned them by Christ as any other) that these would be as effectuall meanes (through the blessing of Christ) to awe and preserve Churches and their Elders in their duties, as that other of claime to an authoritative power Ecclesiasticall to excommunicate other Churches or their Elders offending; For if the one be compared with the other, in a meere Ecclesiasticall notion, that of Excommunication pretended hath but this more in it, That it is a delivering of whole Churches, and their Elders offending unto Satan, (for which we know no warrant in the Scriptures, that Churches should have such a power over other Churches.) And then as for the binding obligation both of the one way and the other, it can be supposed to lye but in these two things; First, In a warrant and injunction given by Christ to his Churches, to put either the one or the other into execution: And secondly, That mens consciences be accordingly taken therewith, so as to subject themselves whether unto the one way or the other: For suppose that other principle of an authoritative power in the greater part of Churches combined to excommunicate other Churches, &c. to be the ordinance of God, yet unlesse it doe take hold of mens consciences, and be received amongst all Churches, the offending Churches will steight all such excommunications as much, as they may be supposed to p. 128doe our way of protestation and sentence of non-communion. On the other side, let this way of ours be but as strongly entertained, as that which is the way and command of Christ, and upon all occasions be heedfully put in execution, it will awe mens consciences as much, and produce the same effects. And if the Magistrates power (to which we give as much, and (as we thinke) more, then the principles of the Presbyteriall government will suffer them to yeeld) doe but assist and back the sentence of other Churches denouncing this non-communion against Churches miscarrying, according to the nature of the crime, as they judge meet, and as they would the sentence of Churches excommunicating others Churches in such cases, vponupon their owne particular iudgement of the cause; then, without all controversie this our way of Church proceeding will bee every way as effectuall as their other can be supposed to be; and we are sure, more brotherly and mor… suited to that liberty and equality Christ hath endowed his Churches with, But without the Magistrates interposing their authority, their way of proceeding will be as ineffectuall as ours; and more liable to contempt, by how much it is pretended to be more authoritative; and to inflict a more dreadfull punishment, which carnall spirits are seldome sensible of. This for our judgements.

And for a reall evidence and demonstration both that this was then our judgements, as likewise for an instance of the effectuall successe of such a course held by Churches in such cases, our own practise, and the blessing of God thereon, may plead and testifie for us to all the world. The manage of this transaction in briefe was this. That Church which (with others) was most scandalized, did by Letters declare their offence, requiring of the Church (supposed to be) offending in the Name and for the vindication of the honour of Christ, and the relieving the party wronged, to yeeld a full and publike hearing before all the Churches of our Nation, or any other whomsoever offended, of what they could give in charge against their proceedings in that deposition of their Minister, and to subject themselves to an open triall and review of all those forepassed carriages that concerned that particular; which they most chearfully and readily (according to p. 129the forementioned principles) submitted unto, in a place, and State where no outward violence or any other externall authority either civill or Ecclesiasticall, would have enforced them thereunto: And accordingly the Ministers of the Church offended with other two Gentlemen, of much worth, wisedome and piety, members thereof, were sent as messengers from that Church; and at the introduction and intrance into that solemne assembly (the solemnity of which hath left as deepe an impression upon our hearts of Christs dreadfull presence as ever any we have been present at,) it was openly and publikely prosessed in a speech that was the preface to that discussion, to this effect, that it was the most to be abhorred maxime that any religion hath ever made profession of, and therefore of all other the most contradictory and dishonourable unto. that of Christianity, that a single and particular society of men professing the Name of Christ, and pretending to be endowed with a power from Christ to judge them that are of the same body and society within themselves, should further arrogate unto themselves an exemption from giving account or being censurable by any other, either Christian Magistrates above them, or neighbour Churches about them. So farre were our judgements from that independent liberty that is imputed to us, then, when we had least dependency on this Kingdom, or so much as hopes ever to abide therein in peace. And for the issue and successe of this agitation, after there had been for many dayes as judiciary and full a charge, tryall and deposition of witnesses openly afore all commers of all sorts, as can be expected in any Court where authority enjoynes it, that Church, which had offended, did as publikely acknowledge their sinfull aberration in it, restored their Minister to his place againe, and ordered a solemne day of fasting to humble themselves afore God and men, for their sinfull carriage in it; and the party also which had been deposed did acknowledge to that Church wherein he had likewise sinned.

In this part of your Apologie are contained the fourth and fifth of those five forementioned heads, unto which I referred all I should answer to what you say upon your third and last instance about the government and discipline in the Churches: The scope p. 130of which fourth head is, to answer and take off a common objection brought against your way, the strength of which answer is made up of those parts, and stands in these particulars. First, In laying downe your own principles which you hold in such a case. Secondly, Your practise according to those principles, occasioned upon an offence committed in one of your Churches (which story you briefly relate.) Thirdly, The successe and effectualnesse of your practise according to your principles, illustrated by an instance.

Now for that common exception laid into all mens thoughts against your Congregationall way, it's both a just and strong Argument against it, and that which many of your way, when it hath been, objected to them have confessed, there is no remedy nor help in such cases, but advice and counsell, all must be left to Christ, Christ will take care of his own way, they had not found out this allowed sufficient remedy for miscarriages which you have here propounded, but I shall labour to make evident, that all you bring by way of answer in declaration of your judgements and practise doth not satisfie this objection. And first for your judgements in the principles you hold and lay downe, I shall endeavour to prove, that you have no Scripture grounds, nor Primitive patterns for such principles, and such a way in such cases. Secondly, Besides that these principles have no footing in Scripture, and so they are no allowed remedy for miscarriages, &c. are not nor will not be a sufficient remedy for miscarriages, nor reliefe for wrongfull sentences, nor powerfull effectuall meanes to reduce a Church, &c. For the first I shall take it for granted, you being wise men, that in such a point as this (being the maine point of difference betwen you and the Presbterians) and at such a time as this you would bring the strongest Scriptures and grounds you had for your sacred principle and supreame law to be observed among all Churches, namely of submission of Churchrs, and for that other principle of pronouncing that heavy sentence of noncommunion against a Church or Churches; and if I can shew the invalidity and weaknesse of these brought by you, a man may conclude ther's no feare of whats behind: Now a man would wonder that wise men as you are should except against a government received so generally amongst the reformed Church…s, and p. 131blessed so from Heaven in the effectualnesse of it, for the space of so many yeares, as a sufficient remedy not only to reduce men from heresies and schisme, but to prevent Churches from falling into heresie, schisme, &c. (which is more) and goe set up a new way so different and so distastfull to the reformed Churches; and all upon pretences of no sound proofe in Scripture for such a government, because there is not an Apostolicall direction either in example or precept for it, and in the meane time to contend for such a government wherein yourselves cannot deny but hath fallen out strange miscarriages, (and you tell us an unhappy story for proofe, and yet the way and course you have substituted for remedy, hath neither example nor precept in the word of God to practise any title of all that you relate to us, and besides that the course prescribed by you is not commanded in the word, it is no whit so rationall, nor conducible to the ends you appoint it for, as we will shew presently: Now for the Scriptures brought by you, the first is, 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give none offence neither to the Iewes nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God: where first the Reader may observe you alter the text, putting Churches of God instead of Church of God; and then you adde they live amongst: The alteration (I suppose) you make upon this ground, for feare this text in the reading of it should hint that truth, how the visible Church in Scripture is taken for more then one particular Congregation: the addition they live amongst, to make it a seeming ground for Churches in a vicinitie: whereas the Apostle speakes of the Church of God generally, all the Churches, whether we live amongst them or farre from them, and the scope of the Apostle in this place, is upon the occasion of that particular offence which might arise to some Corinthians, from eating meat sacrificed to Idols, having been told that this is sacrificed to Idols, to lay down a generall rule to all Christians against giving offence to any, whether Jewes, Gentiles or Christians, (under which three ranks all men then in those times were comprehended:) Now pray tell me how will you make this text to prove, that Churches offending and distering among themselves, must submit themselves to the most full and open triall and examination of other neighbour Churches offended? and how will you from this place draw ou… p. 132a power for neighbour Churches to send unto and require this of the Churches who have offended them; This Scripture (if all Interpreters understand it that I have consulted with) layes downe a rule, that every particular Christian, and so all Christians must so walke as to become all things to all men, to please all men in all things lawfull, as the 33 verse interprets it, and to give none offence; But where doth this Scripture speake, and how doth it affirme, that if either Churches or particular Christians doe practise things that offend other Churches, they who are offended have power and authority to send to them, and to call them to the most full and open triall and examination, and that such who are challenged to offend, must submit to such a judiciall and open triall before all commers? In this text there is no more said of the Church of God then of the Jews and Gentiles, who must not be offended neither, and will you allow Jewes and Gentiles offended by things done in your Churches, to call your Churches to an account and you must submit: This text reaches to Churches that live in other Countries, and unto particular Christians, though they be not members of any such instituted Church as you speake of, so that by vertue of this text we ought to give them no offence; but will you grant that Churches of other Countries and Kingdomes may call Churches in another Kingdome to an open triall and examination, and send their messengers to question them, and thereupon pronounce sentence of renouncing all Christian communion with them, or that every particular man offended may call Churches to an account, and they are bound to submit to hearing and tryall? I will give you one instance; I am much offended at the great rent and difference that was betwixt M^r Bridge and M^r Simpson, and at M^r Simpsons setting up a new Church, and at all that great bitternesse betwixt those Churches; and I am much offended at the Church of Arnheim, for letting passe that schisme and all those differences, never questioning it, especially questioning Mr Bridges Church: Now have I a power by vertue of this precept, to call both you and your Churches to an account, and to require of you a most full and open tryall before all commers, and are you bound to submit to it? answer me this question in your Reply, and you shall see what I will say to you in my p. 133Rejoinder. For that other Scripture, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Neither be partakers of oth… mens sinnes; that is spoken to Timothy in regard of his authoritative power in the Church of God, as the scope of the chapter, and the immediate precedent words shew, (which is not your case denying authoritative power;) but if you say this text is meant secondarily of all Churches and Christians, though they have not authoritative power; I grant it, but then it is in wayes suitable which the word of God gives warrant and allowance for; as in reproving, mourning for the sin, &c. which must be shewne in some other Scriptures; For else the Presbyterians may pretend by vertue of this text, that they ought not to be partaker of other mens sins; that they may censure, depose, excommunicate members of other Churches who are suffered to goe on in sin, better then you can draw from this text, that you may call not only particular members, but whole Churches to an account, examine them and pronounce that heavy sentence of noncommunion against them: But in a word bretheren let me tell you, if such generall texts as these, that may be applied to any course and way conceived by men in their own braines, to hinder sin and reduce from offences, will serve turne for Church government, and for remedies to reduce Churches, then we can give you besides your own two texts quoted here for your principle of submission of Churches and non-communion, many other such and more probable too, for the authoritative power of Presbyteries and Sinods, as that in 1 Cor. 14. 22. And the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets; but we are not so hard put to it, there being particular instances and examples (if the nature of an Answer to such a Narration would permit me to insist at large) that proove the points in difference, namely of acts of power exercised by Churches in common, as in elections, determinations, and impositions upon differences and controversies, as Acts 15. 2. 4, 6, 7, 13, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29. Acts 16. 4, 5. 2 Corinih. 8. 18, 19. But let the indifferent reader judge by this which hath been said, whether the reformed Churches or the Independent practise most safely, there being a ground as your selves confesse for the sentence of excommunication, such a sentence you acknowledge in particular Churches, and practise it, and such a sentence hath been p. 134decreed and past upon members of Churches, by those who were not members of those Churches, as the Scriptures are cleare for it, 1 Tim. 1. 19, 20. But on the other hand it is not granted, that the Scriptures give any ground of pronouncing the sentence of noncommunion against whole Churches, or doe allow any such practise of declarations and protestations unto all Churches against whole Churches, this I utterly deny, and your Scriptures prove them not; and I wonder how you dare call it the command of Christ, and the way of Christ, as you doe in page 18, 19. And brethren, besides that, the Scriptures give neither precept nor example for your way of non-communion, consider whether the Scriptures give not grounds rather to the contrary, namely against a particular Churches withdrawing and renouncing all Christian communion with whole Churches upon an errour and miscarriage, for let me aske you, may not such a Church or Churches be true Churches for all this, continue in their offices upon mistaken partiality, and notwithstanding all the light a particular Church can give them be unsatisfied? now if a particular man may not separate nor withdraw Christian communion from a true Church, though upon his counsell and advise she redresse not, but 'tis a schisme, then for one Church upon counsell and advice given to more Churches (though not taken) to separate formally from many Churches by pronouncing that heavy sentence of withdrawing and renouncing all Christian communion cannot be justified: Paul did not renounce nor cast-off Churches for many things amisse, though upon his counsell they were not mended, (as appeares in the Church of Corinth that had been twice admonished, 2 Cor. 13. 1, 2. and …t repented not, and now Paul doth it the third time,) and yet refusing Pauls counsell and power being so infallible and authoritative, deserved more the sentence of noncommunion, then the often rejecting the counsell and power of any particular Church can doe. But I will answer you in your own language, that your sacred and undoubted principles, and supreame laws of submission of Churches, and of the power of Churches offended to pronounce the heavy sentence of non-communion against the Churches offending, and of Declarations and Protestations to all other Churches of Christ that they might doe p. 135the like, with your own practise exprest in the 20 and 21. page, are to me Apocriph…, and judge it to be an additament, which therefore rests on you who allow the sentence of excommunication, to make evident and demonstrate that of non-communion, Protestations, Declarations, &c. And thus it often falls out whilst men will oppose that which hath long been received in the Church of God upon pretence of the want of Scripture grounds, and bring in new wayes, they practise novelties upon lesse ground and foundation from Scriptures then they rejected the old (as is to be seen in this instance.)

2. As these principles of your… have no footing in Scripture, so it will appeare they are no sufficient remedies for miscarriages and evills, which fall out in particular Churches by reason of their compleate and entire power within themselves: first, because there are more acts of power then your principle of submission of Churches and the instances you give upon it reach unto, so that granting all you say of it, yet it would but reach to that particular case, or some such like cases, but would be no way sufficient either for preventing or remedying other evills and mischiefs which d…e and would arise upon a Congregationall government thus entire within it selfe: So that here lies the fallacy in the question between you and the reformed Churches in point of government, you speake to some points of government but not to all, and instead of laying down principles that should answer all cases, they only serve but to some, and so your principles that should be simpliciter, are only secundum quid: For in the government of the Church there are many other acts of power, as of making and ordaining Ministers, of receiving in Members, of agreeing upon a government, doctrine and worship, &c. which this full compleat entire power of particular Congregations takes upon them to doe, of which many great mischiefes doe arise and are like errours in the first concoction, which your principle of submission of Churches reacheth not unto, nor doth not help. But secondly, besides this, the principle of submission of Churches that miscarry unto the other Churches offended, with that practise of Churches finally offended to denounce such a sen…ence of Non-communion, doth not answer the case alleadged in heresies, p. 136schisme, or persons injured, nor is not a sufficient remedie, like that of combination of Elders, and for the making good of that I shall examine the way, and course prescribed by you, in your principles here laid downe of Submission, Non-communion, Declarations and Protestations; and though as comming out in such a juncture of time, wherein the strife is betweene Presbyteriall government and Independent for preeminence, and comming from so many heads laid together, it cannot be imagined, but it should come forth doubly refined, and in the most plausible advantagious way, and in the best edition that 'tis possible such wits, and so many could set it out in (an Utopia indeed rather then what it can be in common practise) (this being the third Edition, the first that of the Brownists, the second of New-England, and now this the third) yet the Reader may observe into what uncertainties, labirinths, tediousnesse, delayes, nay absurdities and contrarieties these principles doe leade them that follow them.

1. Whereas in Presbyteriall government each part and every particular is ruled by the whole and in common, the lesse by the greater, in your way an equall part must take upon them cognizance and call to an account an equall.

2. Not only so, but suppose two or three Churches fall out and have a difference among themselves, and there be but one Church free, who yet is offended at the others, then one must order two or three, the lesse the greater, and what a rule is this.

3. This principle of submission being voluntary amongst the Churches, we may well suppose sometimes the Churches challenged to offend or differ will submit, and sometimes they will not, or at least not yet, and when they know themselves faulty, they may pretend many things to put it off and to delay the time (which time will be both very prejudiciall to the persons wronged, and to the spreading of the heresie and schisme) and if by delayes they see they cannot have their ends, what if for all their principle of submission, they flie of, and refuse to yeeld to such a full and open tryall before all commers, and shall denie other Churches that power of examining, deposing Witnesse…, &c. upon pretence of conscience, that there is no primitive patterne for p. 137it (as you do deny the power of determination and imposition) how will you bring them to it; whereas in Presbyteriall government times of meeting being fixt, and agreed upon, men cannot evade, but matters will be quickly heard and remedied.

4. As in reason and by experience amongst wise men it is held a vaine course which no publicke company of men will yeeld to (but such practises are rather accounted ridiculous) to raise such dust and make such … doe to call others to account, to depose Witnesses, spending many daies in a judiciarie way, and yet have no power to end things, to be never the nearer, but that Delinquents may doe neverthelesse what they please, so it cannot be conceived that the wise God hath ordered in the Government of his Churches such a kind of way for Churches who are of a publike capacitie, and have a power (as you grant) to call Churches thus to an account, &c. and yet nothing to be done to the offenders: Churches offended either have not power to doe thus much as you grant, or else they have a greater power, namely to bring about the ends, which these meanes tend unto, namely determination and decision, the righting persons injured, and the censuring the offending parties: But it will be said by you, that if the Churches offending take not the counsell and advice of their sister Churches about them, but persist in their errour and miscarriage, that censure of the sentence of Non-communion will be a sufficient remedie and an effectuall meanes to reduce them, and remedie all, as well as that of the Presbyterians. I will not here enter into comparison between these two, but do reserve it to it's proper place.

The 5^t and last generall head, though besides Excommunicaon there are other things in the Classicall Synodicall way both to preserve and reduce Churches (which are not in the Independent way.) But I answer this is no likely meanes nor way, for which I shall give these following reasons. 1. One Church may not be able to convince another of their errour or evill, much lesse one Church two or three Churches offending and differing. 2. The Church offending may stand upon it, that what they doe is according to their light, it is according to their conscience to hold such an opinion, or to doe such a fact, as to depose their Minister, because he hath no better gifts of preaching, and whether p. 138may another Church passe the sentence of Non-communion against whole Churches, and declare and protest this to all other Churches of Christ, that they may doe the like for opinions or practises that are not against the Churches knowne light? For if no other kind of sins then may evidently be presumed to be perpetrated against the parties knowne light may be the subject of excommunication in particular persons, may they be the subject of Non-communion of whole Churches? 3. In reason this seemes not a powerfull meanes or probable way, for if this one Church offended shall renounce the Churches challenged to offend, they may and will renounce that Church also, passing the sentence of Non-communion, &c. against that, and how shall the matter now be healed and remedied. 4. That Church or Churches thus sentenced (may be) care not for the Communion of this Church that cast them off, nor of no others, as long as they can have communion amongst themselves; These kind of Churches that hold such principles of entire compleate power within themselves, with that principle of sufficiencie of all gifts, and all ordinances within themselvs, will goe on in their errours and sinfull practises for all that. 5. The Churches renounced and cast out may challenge the Churches casting them out for injuring of them, and thereupon both Churches may declare and protest against each other to all other Churches of Christ, which will prove as great a rent-difference, nay worse then the first, and this will produce a great deale of defending and proving; for if the Churches on both sides doe declare against one another unto the other Churches, which of them now shall be beleeved, and what if the Churches protested and declared unto, will not upon the Protestations withdraw and renounce all Christian communion with them, must they then protest against them also, and what the Churches protesting may account matter of Non-communion, other Churches declared and protested unto may not judge so, so that here will be worse matter of difference and divisions in the Church of God then before, and I suppose you would not have those Churches declared and protested unto to condemne the rest sentenced without a hearing (especially where there is but one to one, or where one may declare and protest against two or three) so that then there p. 139must be sending for all these Churches, and meetings appointed for the Churches protested unto, to heare the Churches on both sides, and what now if the Churches declared unto upon the hearing the Churches on both sides, both censuring and censured, shall acquit the Churches condemned and censured, and shall condemne and judge those Churches for renouncing communion as too severe and declaring thus to all other Churches against them: what must be done in these cases? will these Churches censuring now acknowledge their offence, and revoke their sentence of Non-communion, or if they will not, what must these Churches protested unto doe in this case? must not they passe the sentence of Non-communion against them? and if they doe so, what if these Churches censuring shall also pronounce the heavie sentence of Non-communion even against these Churches protested and declared unto? Now that these things and worse may not and will not fall out cannot be denied, which things as to the neighbour Churches among themselves will be great occasion of schismes and continuall differences, so will they minister matter of great scandall to all other Churches, and of tryumph and evill speaking unto enemies, all which will be easily prevented and remedied in the Presbyteriall government. Sixthly, Two or three Churches or more of your Independent way living amongst other Churches, (as you did in Holland) or if your Congregations should be tolerated in England according to your desire, you may hold this principle of submission to one another, and yet all agree in holding some errours, with which errours you may infect many of the members of the Presbyteriall Churches, for which you will not question one another, what remedie or meanes is there now to reduce your Churches or preserve ours? Seventhly, Some of your Churches by vertue of this principle, that Church or Churches challenged to offend or differ, are to submit themselves upon the challenge of the offence to the most full and open triall and examination by other neighbour Churches, may be ever and anon unjustly calling upon some of the Churches to submit, and challenging them first with being offended by them, least themselves should be challenged to have offended, and so (as we speake) call whore first, and also they who are challenged to p. 140offend, to be even with them, will challenge them againe, and what must be done in this case, and who shall interpose to determine these differences, or may both parties judged thus by each other to be offenders, determine against one an other. Eightly, If Churches must thus submit to trials and examinations, these being the acts of whole Churches, here will be nothing but trials and examinations and censures one upon another, and this instead of a sufficient remedy is like to proove a continuall vexation and molestation to neighbour Churches. Ninethly, What must be done in case one Church or more take offence unjustly at others, and trouble them thus to call them to open examination, &c. what satisfaction must be given to the Church troubled and examined. Tenthly, In this principle of submission of Churches, suppose that upon a hearing, the Church offending will not redresse the grievance or relieve a person injured: But goe on, and slight communion with other Churches, the persons injured in the meane time are debarred from the ordinances, and cannot remove their dwellings without manifest ruine of their families, how doth this help such persons injured, or is a sufficient remedy for wrongfull sentences, &c. Whereas now in the Presbyteriall way if such a Minister or officers who are the cause of this may be deposed, and acts passe against them, and others placed in their roomes, this will remedy and redresse it: And so suppose a Minister of note fall into heresie and errour, and draw the most of his people after him, so that he cannot be deposed by the Church, what good will the noncommunion pronounced against this Church by other Churches do for reducing them, but now if this Minister may be deposed, and an orthodox Minister put in to preach the truth, here is a powerfull meanes to reduce and preserve. Eleventhly, Let me aske you, and pray determine it from the Scriptures, in case two or three Churches offended doe challenge a Church or Churches offending, who yet upon submitting to a hearing will not yeild to the counsell and advice of those Churches, who? how? where? after what time, and how many meetings? and after what manner must this sentence of non-communion be denounced against this Church or Churches? whether must it be denounced in and upon the place where they meet to heare and examine? or in the meeting p. 141place of each of these Churches offended? or must these Churches offended meet in one of their meeting places to pronounce it together? and who must be the mouth? and who by warrant out of the Scriptures hath the power to pronounce that heavy sentence of non-communion? and how must it be made known unto the offending Churches, with other things of this like nature? To say no more now, this principle of non-communion is so farre from being a sufficient remedy for miscarriages, or a reliefe for wrongfull sentences, or a powerfull means to reduce a Church or Churches, &c. that 'tis a remedy worse then the disease, and if it should be practised would be the ground of many schismes, separations, mischiefes in the Church of God and that amongst whole Churches, so that it were farre better particular persons should suffer wrong, or particular persons fall into schisme and be left to their liberty, then whole Churches suffer those evils which your principles of non-communion, Declarations, Protestations would undoubtedly produce (as the Reader may judge by what is here written.) For the second, your practise according to this principle, occasioned upon an offence that fell out in your Churches; I shall shew that as insufficient as your principles, and shall animadvert upon the most solemn instances of your practise: As for the Introduction into your relation of the scandall and offence, I readily assent unto you, had you not judged it for the advantage of your selves and way you would upon no other occasion have made it thus publike; for you are good at concealing of all your principles and practises, but when and where you may further and propagate your way; For the story it selfe (as it is related by you) it is very short and generall, neither expressing the Ministers name deposed, nor the causes of his deposition, nor the first occasion of the differences, nor the way the Church took before they deposed him, nor the manner how they proceeded, nor how long he stood so deposed; so that the Reader cannot well tell what to make of it for want of a more full particular relation, or how to judge whether your principle of submission of Churches, and your practise here laid downe upon it was so proper, and so sufficient a remedy, and so effectuall a course as you boast of in page 20, 21. I must therefore of necessity in reference p. 142to the disprooving and weakning of what you would inferre from your sacred principle and supreame law of submission, and the more solemne instance of your practise wherewith to vindicate your selves and way in this particular, and that it may appeare it was but a halfe, slight, late and partiall remedy to the offences and scandall, relate the story more at large, and then make some queries upon it, and your solemne practise thereupon, and then I shall leave it to the Reader to judge whether your principle of submission be comparable to the way of the combined classicall Presbyteriall government. The Church in which this offence fell out was at Roterdam, of which M^r Bridge and M^r Ward of Norwich, old loving friends, and both flying upon the same cause, Bishop Wrens Innovations, were the Ministers, and the Minister deposed by the Church was this M^r Ward, who for appearing and siding against M^r Bridge in some particulars, and for his preaching of Sermons in the Church at Roterdam, which he had preacht before in his Church at Norwich, and for his giving too much heed to the reports of simple people and old wives tales, was thus deposed; but I cannot so fully cause the Reader to understand matters without relating the first difference between M^r Bridge and M^r Simpson; the true ground and rise of this latter offence. M^r Simpson one of the Authours of this Apologeticall Narration, after some time of beholding the order and way of this Church at Rotterdam, desired to be admitted a member, and was upon his confession, &c. received in, but not long after (what were the true reasons he best knows) he disliked some persons and things in that Church, and he stood for the ordinance of prophesying to be exercised in that Church, that the people on the Lords dayes should have l…berty after the Sermons ended, to put doubts and questions to the Ministers, &c. and he was troubled at a ruling Elder in that Church brought in by M^r Bridge (which belike had more power and bore more sway then himselfe) who as M^r Simpson in a Letter to a Minister in London, complaining of the difference between him and M^r Bridge, writ how that Elder was in that Church over all persons and over all causes; but M^r Bridge opposed M^r Simpsons prophesying upon so the rationall grounds of inconveniencits (as himselfe told me the story, which p. 143were too long to relate,) yet he yeelded so farre that the Church should meet on a weeke day, and then they should have that liberty, but this would no way satisfie M^r Simpson, whereupon the difference increased and there were sidings, but M^r Bridges power was the greater to carry things in the Church, and so M^r Simpson would abide no longer, but quitted that Church, (though he had no Letters of dismission from that Church) and with the help of a woman (whom M^r Bridge called, telling me the story of things between them, the foundresse of M^r Simpsons Church) set up a Church against a Church, consisting but of five persons at the most in the beginning, whereof the woman and her husband were two, but this Church of M^r Simpsons increased, as being extolled for a purer Church and for more ordinances, but M^r Bridges Church was cried downe for ould rotten members, and for the want of prophecie, and so the fire of contention and difference grew more and more between M^r Bridge and M^r Simpson, and their Churches: Now M^r Ward, M^r Bridges colleague sided with M^r Simpson, stood for prophesying, and though M^r Simpson had left that Church, yet M^r Ward in that Church was for M^r Simpsons way; whereupon by occasion of that and for exercising his gifts no better, but to preach his old Sermons he had formerly preacht at Norwich, and believing of tales, giving so much way to reports, he was deposed by that Church: Amongst 17 or 18 Reasons of M^r Wards deposition, a godly learned Minister who had seen them in writing, told me these were the most materiall: And now upon M^r Simpsons rending from the Church, and setting up a Church against a Church under M^r Bridges nose, and upon M^r Wards deposition from his Ministery, and M^r Simpsons Church increasing in fame and number, but M^r Bridges decreasing and some others rending themselves away, and upon wicked reports raised about M^r Bridge, there grew that bitternesse, evill speakings, deep censurings, deadly feauds amongst these Ministers and their Churches, as never was more betwixt the Iews and the Samaritans: M^r Bridge confessed to me, there were no such sharpe tongues nor bitter divisions as these: Letters from all three were sent into England both into City and Countrey against each other, M^r Simpson dispacht many Letters into England against M^r p. 144Bridge, as to M^r M. M^r B. M^r H. M^r R. &c. and M^r Bridge against M^r Simpson. M^r Bridge and M^r Ward writ many Letters one against the other, particularly to Norwich, and among other, many sharpe Letters were sent to a D of Physick about the differences, and upon their comming over into England, they told sad stories for themselves, and each against other: M… Bridge laid these bitter differences and reports so to heart, that they were a great meanes of her death, and whether M^r Bridges weaknesses and distempers were not occasioned by the divisions and the wicked scandalls unjustly (I beleeve) raised upon him as well as by the aire of Rotterdam, M^r Bridge knowes best; And thus much for the particular relation of the scandall and offence that fell out in that Church of Rotterdam, as it hath been related to me from good hands, from some who have lived in Holland, and as I had part of it from M^r Bridges own mouth, and some of it from Letters of M^r Simpsons written into England, and from other men of credit who have seen Letters and relations written from thence: Now from the relation of this story and your practise upon it, I shall propound these queries, which will give some light to judge whether there was any sufficiency in your course, to remedy and redresse things amisse in Churches, and betwixt persons offending.

1. Whether your Churches did agree upon and tye your selves to this principle of submission, and the sentence of non-communion at your first setting up and comming into that place of exile, or did you first acknowledge it, and were willing to submit upon the occasion of the scandall of M^r Wards deposing, and that great clamour upon it both in Holland and England?

2. Whether did you then, or doe you now acknowledge that principle of submission to all other neighbour Churches, as well as to them of your own way, as namely to the Presbyterian Churches, those English Churches at Amsterdam, Hague, Utrich; &c. and would you have submitted to those Churches to have so proceeded upon offences, and differences amongst you?

3. How long was it, was it not for the space of betweene a yeare and two that M^r Ward stood deposed and laid aside from his Ministery and maintenance, before he was restored, and if so p. 145was not this a late remedie, and i… it so in Presbyteriall government.

4. When, and at what time was this principle of s…bmission and your solemne practise both of …equiring the Church offending to give an account, with their ch…arfull submitting and restoring M^r Ward agreed upon? was it not upon the newes of the Parliament, and the probability of the revolution of things? And I propound this question, because M^r B…rroughs who came in M. Wards place after his deposition, came backe to England, but at the beginning of the Parliament, and till he came or was resolved to come, it is not probable M. Ward was restored, and if so, that it was done when all was like to breake up, and they to come f… England, may we not suspect it was done for an instance to vindicate your way with, and to serve your turne, as in this Apologie, rather then from any necessitie of righting a person …jured, or correcting a Church offending?

5. Why did not the Church of Arnheim take offence as well at M. Sympsons Church, and at his schisme in setting up another Church, and at all that bitternesse, evill speaking betweene those two Churches (the ground indeed and foundation of that unhappy businesse about M. Ward, and of all the evill committed therein) and accordingly have required M. Sympsons Church to have submitted, but here is not a hint of this in all the relation of your practise. I have a letter out of Holland by me that concerning this businesse writes thus, That though M. Sympson with s…me f…w mor… r…t themselves from M. Bridges Church, to the great offence thereof, yet M. Goodwin and his Associates when they came to heare the businesse about M. Ward, never questioned that scandall, I meane of their schisme from the same Church. Now if it were so, was not this a partiall remedie, not reaching to all the offence, no… to the bottome of it, why did you not summon both these Churches in the matter of scandall and difference to submit as well as one of the Churches? will not your principles serve in difference betweene Churches, as for difference in one Church, or was it that there was no complaint of neither side? or was it because you are tender of questioning the multiplication of Churches? (though by seperation and schi…me) p. 146Or what was the reason you questioned not that?

6. Whether were the other Churches of our Nation or any of them (who could not but be offended) as them of Amsterdam, Hague, Utrich, Leyden, Delph, cal'd in by Arnheim, or by the Church at Roterdam to joyne in the hearing, trying of that businesse, and deposing Witnesses, or did they send Messengers, or was it onelyonly agitated by two Ministers …nd two Messengers of t… Church of Arnheim, one Church onelyonly, … to …, one to one, both equall? and whether there can be the like majesty and solemnity of a meeting where they are equall, …ay an inferiority, (in as much as a representative Church consisting of foure is below a Church represented,) as in a Presbyteriall ass… bly? I have a Letter from Holland by me, wherein a godly Minist…r writes thus, I was desired by M^r Ward to be present at that meeting, but when the time came, neither I, nor any other English Ministers but they of Arnheim were call…d.

7. To what or to how much did your practise (who were the Church offended) amount unto upon M^r Bridges Church submission, and your full hearing and finding both sides to be in an errour? did you injoyne and draw up an order, that the Church offending should publikely acknowledge their sinf… abe…ation before you and the commers of all sorts? and restore their Minister againe? and that they should keep a solemne day of fasting to humble themselves for their sinfull carriage? and that the Minister deposed should acknowledge to the Church wherein he had likewise sinned? or did you leave them to themselves, upon your finding the offence, to doe what they thought fitting, both Church and Minister, as being against your principles for one Church to decree and impose any thing upon another, and so they …ooke up this way voluntarily, would you would speake out, and once tell us plainely what you hold, and what you wo…ld … that so the Reader might judge of the effectualness… of your ….

8. I aske of you whether M^r Bridge with the offending Church at Rotterdam did sit as Judges with them o… …, in their own cause to examine, depose, &c. or else … by a… delinquents, to be charged, tried, &c.

9. I de…e to know of you, … … … … he was r… stored, p. 147did as formely officiate in that Church, and how long? and whether Mr Bridge and he continued there as fellow Ministers? and whether both between them two, and between the Church and Mr Ward, there was that mutuall carriage as before, and ought to be between fellow Ministers, and Ministers and people?

10. How can a Church representative be a sufficient and allowed remedy to take up great offences in a Church at a great distance? and whether this implies not an implicit faith in the represented, to let the representers upon hearing put a finall determination and conclusion to great offences and differences without returning back the businesse to the Church represented, or so much as ever acquainting them with the businesse before all was ended, (as was in this particular case) and whether **Robi…s. Justif. of separat. Robi…s. Catech. A representative Church in a case of faith and conscience without the consent of the represented in the particular decree, establisheth the popish doctrine of implicite faith.M^r Robins…s arguments against the Presbyterians …bout the power of their Elders be not strong against your principles and practises here related? and what ground is there from t…e Scripture, that foure men of another Church should have power to call unto and insist upon a judiciarie charge against them who were greater then themselves, namely against a whole Church consisting of officer… and people.

11. Suppose the Church of Ar…m (who sent two Minister… and two Gentlemen …s messengers of their Church, upon their returne back to the Church and giving an account of all the proceedings, and issue of that businesse) had disliked the determinations, and judged some of the proceedings unjust, other… unsatisfactory, and not according to the rules of the word, (as the Church of … might well have done, there being just ground for it, as I will shew in the second particular under the next head.) What must have been done in this case? must the messengers themselves have been now questioned by the Church for managing matters no better? or must the sentences agreed upon both for the Church and Mr Ward be reversed? or must other messengers be sent to heare matters againe, and to change, or adde what was amisse? and what if the Church would not alter that which upon so full a hearing and triall was agreed upon? now I aske of you, and appeale to the Reader, considering that the Church or Churches themselves may probably (and it cannot but be expected) … and p. 148vary in their judgements from their messengers about the determination of offences and differences, whether this be a likely meanes and sufficient remedy to end all strifed, or rather will not be as the beginning of new strife, and an occasion of endlesse contentions.

12. In this way of submission of Churches, and your practises upon occasion of offences and differences, what if the messengers of the Churches upon hearing and examining differ among themselves about the differences and offences in the Church …ending, and about the sentences to be agreed upon to be commended to the offending parties? yea and what if the Churches themselves upon returne made by the messengers how they find matters, differ also, one of the Churches offended being of one mind, and the other Church offended of another mind, what remedy is there now for miscarriages? what reliefe for a person injured? or what effectuall and powerfull meanes to reduce a Church or Churches?

13. In your sentence of non-communion against Churches, and in your Declarations and Protestations to all other Churches of Christ …hat they may doe the like, what shall become of some innocent godly persons in that Church renounced and protested against, must they be renounced communion with? what will you doe in the case where some in a Church may be free from the errours and evils which the greater number are guilty of (which you account the Church,) must (they be debarred of all Christian communion with the Church offended, and all other Churches of Christ protested to? (you speake nothing here in this case, nor take no care for them, but wrap up all alike in your sentence of non-communion) must the innocent party now in this Church offending separate and withdraw from their own Church, and renounce communion too, as well as the Church offended? what if all their maintenance and livelihood depends in living in that place, so that if they withdraw from them, they must either live without publike ordinances and communion, or else if they come away, ruine themselves and families? what also if in this Church offending the wife be one of the innocent persons in that Church, but the husband of the number of them that persist in their errour and miscarriage? the sonne and daughter among the innocent, the p. 149fathers and mothers among the offenders, what must the wives and children renounce communion with their husbands and parents, and now either live without the ordinances there, or else goe away from their husbands and pare…ts to some other Churches … And in your drawing up your Declarations and Protestations against those Churches persisting in their errours and miscarriages, will you in the grosse doe it, or will you signifie and declare all the names of those who remaine obstinate and impenitent in such Churches, with the names of those who are free from those errors and offences, least you should bring all the Churches of Christ protested unto into sin and a snare? pray resolve these cases with many such (which by these now hinted) you may fore-see will fall out in your principle of non-communion of Churches and Protestations.

Thirdly, For the successe and effectualnes of your practise, I answer. 1. Supposing the particular instance of your practise, according to the principle of submission of Churches that miscarry, to have had a good effect (as you relate in your two Churches of Arnheim and Rottendam) yet it followes not, it is a powerfull and effectuall meanes to reduce Churches; for a course may prevaile in one and take with one, and yet have no rationality to carry it in others, for though this Church at Rotterdam did submit to them of Arnheim who were of note for parts, quality, &c. yet it is a question whether these would to some other particular Churches who had challenged them, and whether these men would also at all times, had there not been something cast in the ballance before hinted.

2. Take the best that came of the issue and successe of this agitation between the Church of Arnheim and that of Rotterdam (namely that Church which had offended, acknowledging their offence in deposing Mr Ward and restoring him to his place againe) it was but a slender satisfaction for the losse of his Ministery and maintenance for so long a time, and for all the suffering of him and his family: If the Church offending had been enjoyned, or had ordered themselves to have paid him the profits of his place, or to have given him a good summe of money on their fast day, this had been some reliefe for a wrongfull sentence, and a person injured p. 150thereby, and might have been a meanes to have preserved them from doing the like for time to come, but for a Minister and his family to be so long in a sad condition without all maintenance in a strange Land, and in the issue for them who did this to acknowledge only their sinfull aberration, and the Minister thus suffering to acknowledge his sin too, and both of them to be humbled for it alike; here was a poore remedy, …ay as you relate it your selves it is very unjust and injurious, for in some passages of your Narration, you acknowledge the fault on the Churches side, as in page 16. and in page …0. and that Mr Ward was wronged, and yet they were both equally ordered to a publike confession of sin and solemne fasting, the Delinquent and the Innocent alike deale with, is this the fruit of your principle of submission of Churches and non-communion? is this the reall evidence and demonstration of the effectuall successe of such a course held by Churches in such a case? and was this the issue of all that sending to and solemne assembly, and the agitation of so many dayes, publike hearing by deposition of witnesses, so largely and formally related in page 20, 21? I wonder wise men (as you pretend to be) should not see into the weaknesse and folly of your own practise in this case, but tell such a story so to shame your selves, you should never have troubled your selves to have come so many dutch miles, not the Church at Rotterdam, nor made so great adoe for many dayes of deposing witnesses, &c. (as your selves relate in page 20, 21.) to have put together the Innocent and Delinquents. And let me here put you this dilemma, either Mr Ward was unjustly deposed from his Ministery, both materially and formally upon unsufficient causes, as the matter for such a censure, and for the way and manner of it, as being too suddaine before admonition, and before fasting and prayer preceding, &c. … was justly deposed by the Church? if unjustly in both these respects (as your Narration implies, page 16.) why was Mr. Ward put upon acknowledging his sin to the Church, and put in the same condition with them who had dealt so unjustly both materially and formally? and whether this was not a meanes to hinder the Churches repentance and humiliation for their sin, when they should be put but to doe as Mr Ward? But if Mr Ward were justly doposed, why was the Church then put p. 151upon publike acknowledgement, and ordered a solemne day of fasting to humble themselves before God and man? and whether was Mr Bridge as well as the Church injoyned to confesse his sinfull aberration in it, in that he did not interpose his authority and interest in the Church, nor speake a word to hinder the deposing of Mr Ward, and so to have prevented so great a scandall and offence as this was?

To the fifth and last generall head, the comparison you make between the effectualnesse and powerfulnesse of your way of submission and non-communion, and that of the Presbyterians, to awe and preserve Churches and Elders in their duties, and to reduce Churches miscarrying, where you make the s…ales fall on your side rather. I answer, Besides some considerable things already hinted under some of the former heads (especially under the fourth head) which doe shew a wide difference of the effectualnesse and successe which the Presbyterian principles and way hold out over your Congregationall, th…e are many other to … the s…les, which I shall now speake of, according as 'tis laid downe here by you in the 17, 18, and 19, pages.

1. That you may render your way the more specious and probable, you beg the question, and take for granted things denied, supposing that also which never hath fallen out in the reformed Churches; and you speake but to a part of the way and remedie, (namely excommunication) an… from all these false premises you make your conclusion. You lay downe your way of submission and noncommunion … that …ch is the … and way of Christ, and to be strictly enjoyned by Christ …d that it is a command from Christ enjoyned to Churches that are …ly offended, to denounce such a sentence of non-communion; which is a meere device of your own brains, and sound out to give a colourable answer to that common and … reason against the Church-way … you make that … … in Presbyteries, to be an excommunicating of whole Churches, and …s delivering of whole Churches and their Eldere offending unto Sa…n, (which is a scandalous charge laid to tho Presbyterian government) and never yet was …rd of in any of the reformed Churches for the space now of a hundred yeares past: You lay you give more to the Magistrates power then p. 152the principle of the Presbyteriall government will suffer them to yeeld, whereas in some things, I shall show the contrary, and in other things you may out of policie at this time give more then the Scriptures allow: You speake only of excommunication, a part of their way, whereas in combined classicall government there are many other meanes and ways from first to last to preserve and reduce from errors and offences.

2. The comparison made by you between the Presbyterians and Independents stands in two things: First, In the Ecclesiasticall proceedings and power; Secondly, In the civill Magistrates power: 1. For the Ecclesiasticall, you make that principle of submission of Churches that miscarry: and that of non-communion as effectuall as excommunication, which supposing they were (as I shall shew they are not) yet 'tis a fallacious reasoning by comparing the whole with a part, for a whole of one kind may be better and more excellent then some part of another kind, and yet not comparable to the whole: now there are many things in Presbyteriall government besides excommunication, excellent to preserve and keep the Churches: Their reformation and constitution being setled by Synods and Assemblies, their Ministers being ordained by Presbyteries and classes, their Doctrine, worship, government and discipline, upon serious debate, and by common content drawn up, then rules being fixt, known and certaine, their classicall meetings frequent and constant, with higher Assemblies for appeales, their number and abilities great, their remedies and censures more solemne, and more in number, as deposition, suspension, &c. all which are wanting in the Church way (as I could shew at large, but that this answer would be too great a volume:) But to come to particulars, the Presbyterian is more effectuall then your Independent way: 1. Because it doth prevent and preserve from those many errours, divisions, evils which fall in your way (as is evident by experience, and is founded upon good reason will fall out) now how much better and more effectuall a way 'tis to play the fore-game then the after-game, all men know: 'tis better to prevent the plague and taking in poyson then to expell it; government is for prevention as well as recovering, if your way were as effectuall to compose differences and reduce Churches, p. 153yet not so to prevent, which is one of the great ends of Church government. 2. Your way wraps in whole Churches in sin and guilt, and you have no remedy but it must come to non-communion of whole Churches, but in Presbyteriall 'tis not so, no example being extant among them of excommunicating whole Churches, so that if an errour take one or two, they are presently dealt with, and the errour spreads not to a whole Church. 3. In the Presbyteriall way, the persons offending and sinning in Congregations are proceeded with and punished, every man beares his own sin, but the innocent persons suffer not; but here in the way of non-communion, some who are good in the Church suffer also many wayes, and here is no difference made by you, but all involved in the same condition. 4. In your way, as if all sins were equall, and all offenders alike, all are punished with the same sentence of non-communion; but 'tis not so in the Presbyteriall way. 5. Your submissions and meetings are accidentall, uncertaine, free and at choice, they may be, and may not be, there are many wayes to evade and put them off; whereas the combinations and consociations of Churches, are fixed, set, certaine. Amongst your Churches in Holland, in three or foure yeares there was but one act of submission, and one meeting, which is here related: In that difference between those two Churches at Rotterdam, there was no submission, but each Church blew the trumpet of defiance against each other; and so about the differences at Arnheim which the Church could not end in so long a time, no Church interposed; but in the classicall government there is such a subordination and dependencie, such stated and fixed meetings, that if men should escape one, they do not all: now in government and order there is a materiall difference between what men may doe, or not doe, and what they have tied themselves unto and must stand to: In matters of civill difference referred to Arbitratours, 'tis one thing to submit to hearing, and to counsell upon it, and another thing to be bound to stand to the determination. There are many will doe justly, and performe such trusts whilest bound, who left at liberty will doe just nothing; now in your submission of Churches, though you submit to a hearing, yet you doe not submit to their determinations unlesse it like you, p. 154you doe not submit to doe what they enjoyne, but you will order your selves according to their counsell (as you see occasion) now men being partiall in their own cause, and still their own judges, what a remedie is this? 'tis one thing when men know they are at liberty, and may doe, or not doe as they see good, and another thing when they must; we find it so in all, converse with men, and good men are men; there's a great deale of difference between authority and obedience, and only perswasion on the one part, and free will on the other, no man will deny but in civill matters there is a great difference in such cases; were it in the power of particular members in your Churches to submit or not submit, as they please, there would be much adoe to remedy any thing, as will be betwixt Churches differing: But particularly for excommunication and non-communion, excommunication may upon these grounds awe mens consciences more, and be more effectuall then non-communion; 1. Because there is something positive in it, it is a delivering of the offenders up unto Satan, but your non-communion is a privative depriving only of communion; now there's more efficacie in a positive then in a privative and negative. Secondly, Excommunication doth deprive the persons offending, or the Churches of all communion among themselves as well as the communion of other Churches, whereas the sentence of noncommunion doth but take other Churches off from communion with them, but meddles not to debar them of communion among themselves in their own particular Churches, but still they enjoy the word, prayers, Sacraments, &c. which is a great difference. Thirdly, Your selves make excommunication the greater censure, as appeares by your own phrases, calling it an authoritative power, &c. and not practising that against other Churches, whereas you doe exercise the sentence of non-communion, and we know 'tis the highest censure in the Church; now certainely the greatest censures and more dreadfull punishments according to Christs institution and intention, are more effectuall and powerfull to awe and to remedie things amisse then the lesser and lower censures. And so much for the comparison in the Ecclesiasticall proceedings.