BRother Baſtwicke, I had reſolved for a time at leaſt (as I have done) to have been ſilent in theſe controverſies, though provoked not a little▪ But now your two Books you lately ſent me as alſo your late triumphing at Weſtminſter, that the man in Friday-ſtreet had not yet anſwered your Booke, as was given out provoked me afreſh in arenam deſcendere, to take them both to taske, and ſo Ʋna fidelia duos parietes. And if the peruſall of them be not enough in lieu of thankes, I have returned you a compendious Anſwer; wherein you have bound me by a double ingagement: the one, for the Cauſe; the other, for my Perſon. But you will ſay, you have not named me in either of your two Books. 'Tis true indeed. But give me leave to tell you, you have vellicated me, plucked me by the very beard. I will not ſay, as Joab 2 Sam. 20. 9, 10. tooke Amaſa by the beard; and, withall ſmote him in the fift rib. What? Uſe a Brother ſo? And a quondam-fellow-ſufferer too? Yea, & to take him ſo diſgracefully by his white beard too, & that with a ſcurrilous Epithet, calling it See the Poſtſcript, pag. 44. a great white ba • ket-hilted beard? Parcius iſta. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (as ſaid the old Poet) pittying his white head, and his white chin. And the wiſe man ſaith, The beauty of old men is the gray head, yea a crowne of glory▪ Prov. 20. 29. & 16. 31. being found-in the way of righteouſneſſe. I remember when the G ••• es by force entred Rome-gates, where they found the grave Senators ſitting in the gate in their ſenatorian robes, And their white ſtaves in their hands, thinking thereby to ſtrike ſome reverence into thoſe harbarous Gaules, and one of them redely taking one of the Senators by his white beard, the good old Senator, (though in that condition) not brooking ſuch an affront, ſtruck the Gaul over the pate with his white rod; though this coſt him, and the reſt their lives, the barbarians inſtantly falling a butchering of them. But for all your provocations throughout your Books, Brother, you ſhall not finde with me ſo much as a white ſtaffe to lift up againſt you, though you charge us (but how juſtly)▪ we have the ſword in our hands. Nor doe I purpoſe to retort, or retaliate your little expected, and leſſe deſerved calumnies, leſt I ſhould therein be like unto you: but I ſhall anſwer you in the words of truth and ſoberneſſe, and in the ſpirit of meekneſſe and love.

But how comes it to paſſe, that my two fellow-ſufferers, and my ſelfe, ſhould fall at this odds? Was it by any divine providence ominated or preſaged, by your two ſtandings on one Pillary, and mine alone in the other, that wee ſhould now come upon one▪ Theatre to become ſpectacles to the world, by mutuall digladiations, as if the one Pillary ſhould contend with the other? Or did the diſtance of the two Pillaries boad any ſuch diſtance in our preſent judgements? But yet, O! O, never be ſuch a diſtance in our affections! But, herein at leaſt ever be we a threefold coard, not eaſily broken. But the will of the Lord be done, who is onely wiſe, and will cauſe all things to co-operate for good to them that love him.

But Brothers, we expected, that (according to your own words, pag. 7.) you would have acted the part of a Moderator between us. But inſtead thereof we find you a Judge, and that a ſevere one too; but how juſtly, I leave to others to judge. For in your promiſed, or rather menaced Poſtſcript, which (to foreſtall your Readers with a prejudicate opinion of us; and old piece of Rhetoricke, as that of Tertullus before Felix, telling him of Paul; Wee have found this man a peſtilent fellow, and a mover of ſedition, &c. which he was not able to prove, his beſt rhetoricall argument being Calumnidre audacter, aliquid haerebit, Calumniate boldly, ſome thing will ſticke) you both prefix, and for ſureneſſe, affix to your Booke; you faſten upon us uncharitable dealing, fraud and jugglings of many of our Paſtors and Miniſters, as miſleaders and troublers of Church and State, &c. all which Jude 5. ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) hard and harſh termes, wee can no leſſe then ſpread before the Lord the righteous Judge.

I now come to your firſt Booke.

And firſt for thoſe two Scriptures which you face your frontiſpice withall, I deſire it may appeare to all men in the concluſion, whether you or I have the better right to them, 2 Cor. 13. 8. and 1 Theſ. 5. 21.

Pag. 6. Brother, that which you intreat of us, you ſhall finde of your Brother; onely give us leave in your owne words to intreat you to lay aſide all paſſion, and all vaine-glory, and bitterneſſe, which not onely this your Booke, but your threatned Poſtſcript breaths out againſt us.

Pag. 7. You methodize and modell your Booke into two Queſtions: Firſt, Concerning the Government of the Church, whether it be Presbyterian Dependent, or Presbyterian Independent: Secondly, Concerning gathering of Churches.

Now for the firſt of theſe, before wee come to your Arguments, give me leave to except againſt your Termes, Dependent and Independent, whereupon as upon a foundation you ſtate your Queſtion. And if the foundation be not ſure, the ſuperſtructure cannot be ſecure. Now Brother, doe you ſet theſe two Termes, Dependent, and Independent, at ſuch odds, as if there were a great gulfe betweene them, never to come together, and become one? You hold of Dependent onely: we hold not onely of Independent, but Dependent alſo. I ſhall make this cleare: Your Church Dependent is ſo called in a two-fold relation: Firſt, Becauſe it depends for its forme of Government upon the lawes of civill States, and ſo (as the Cha •• leon) receives impreſſions of ſundry formes, changeable according to the preſent condition of the Civill Power, whether Proteſtant, or Papiſt, Chriſtian, or Antichriſtian (as our Brother hath ſet forth) ſo as by this meanes, Chriſts Church and Kingdome; his Spouſe, that woman clothed with the Sunne, and having on her head, Rev. 12. 1. a crowne of twelve ſtarres, and the Moone under her feete, ſhould her ſelfe be turned into the Moone, as being ſubject to continuall changes. Secondly, Becauſe your Church Dependent, depends neceſſarily upon a combination of Presbyters of many Churches, as Councels, Synods, Aſſemblies, Claſſes, without whoſe counſell (ſay you) nothing is to be done in any particular Church, of which more hereafterPag. 16. Pag. 18.

On the other ſide; The Churches which you call Independent, are alſo Dependent. Firſt, They are not otherwiſe Independent, then firſt, that they are not, nor ought (in reſpect of Doctrine, Diſcipline, Worſhip, Church-Government) to depend upon humane Lawes, Canons, Decrees, Cuſtomes; but onely upon Chriſt and his Lawes; as wherein they aſſert and hold forth Chriſts Kingly Office and Government over them; and doe affirme, that to ſet up humane formes of worſhip and Church-Government, unto which the conſciences and ſoules of Gods people muſt neceſſarily conforme and be ſubject, is a dethroning of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and a denying him to be the onely King of his Church Secondly, Independent in this reſpect, becauſe every particular viſible Church, rightly conſtituted according to the Word of God, depends not directly and neceſſarily upon any other Church or Churches, as without whoſe juriſdiction (call it Presbyterian, or what you will) it may not exerciſe all that power, which Chriſt hath given to every particular Church, as touching all the Offices and Ordinances thereof, and that in as ample manner, as if there were beſides that one, no other Churches in the World.

And yet ſecondly, This Church thus Independent, is alſo Dependent. For, as it depends abſolutely upon Chriſt, as the onely Head of this Body; ſo as it is a member-church of the Catholick, and a ſiſter-church of all particular Churches, with which it makes up one body, and one Spouſe of Chriſt her Head and Husband: ſo it hath a mutuall dependence upon all true Churches, for communion, for conſociation, for conſultation, for comfort, for ſupport; though alwayes ſaving and retaining to it ſelfe all thoſe Churchpriviledges, which by Chriſts Charter are peculiar to every particular Church, and body of Jeſus Chriſt. And in caſe this particular Church doe any act of cenſure upon any, who thereby ſhall thinke himſelfe wronged, and ſhall addreſſe himſelfe to other Churches, by way of complaint, and they ſhall thereupon deſire of that church an account of their proceedings therein, this church will not refuſe, but as in Chriſtian duty bound, will to thoſe Churches render a reaſon of that, or any other their doings, if queſtioned, and lawfully required. And all this in a ſweet and loving way, with meekneſſe and feare, 1 Pet. 3. 15. ſo as none is debarred of any ſuch appeale. Nor is any well conſtituted Church of Chriſt to be conceived ſo brutiſh, or ſo conceited of her ſelfe, as to thinke ſhee may not erre, or her ſelfe ſo wiſe, as in many difficult caſes not to need the counſell of others, or ſo inflexible, as with the Stoicks, Sententiam mutare nunquam; nullius rei poenitere; never to changeCicer. Orat. pro L. Murena. their minde or judgement, of nothing to repent, when convinced of an error. But what if one particular Church will not, after all due meanes uſed, (which yet no rationall man can imagine will ever come to paſſe) hearken to the unanimous judgement and counſell of the other Churches? What is to be done? Surely they may upon juſt cauſe withdraw communion from that Church, which, in that caſe, is the higheſt cenſure the Churches can proceedAct. 24. 25, 26 Joh. 18. 28. Mat. 10. 17, 18 to. And if the party aggrieved complaine to the civill Magiſtrate, the Church being called is accountable to the power. Thus have I plainely, clearely, and fully, as I conceive, ſtated theſe two Termes Dependent and Independent: whereby is ſufficiently cleared to the view of all unpartiall Judges, not poſſeſſed with prejudice, our Dependent Independency, or Independent Dependency, from your manner of ſtating.

And for your Simile; wherein you propound it for better underſtandingPag. 8. (as you ſay) it halteth down-right of all foure, as being altogether Ab-ſimile, and Heterogeneous, of another nature. There is a vaſt diſproportion between a civill Government, and Eccleſiaſticall: the one eſtabliſhed upon mans lawes, the other on Gods; the one various, and variable, according to ſeverall Civill States, Kingdomes, and Lawes: the other one and the ſame, (or ſhould be, if right) in all the Churches of the Saints, having one1 Cor. 14. 33▪ Rule, one Law to walke by, immutable: And, Brother, for your paralleling of your many ſeverall Congregations in one Citie, or one Diviſion, or Hundred, or within ſuch a Circuit, with a great Corporation, as of London, where is one Lord Major, and Aldermen and Common Councell, and ſo reducing ſo many Churches into one Corporation, as ſo many Companies making upone Citie: I ſuppoſe you meane not that one Provinciall, with his Dioceſans, and Prieſts under them, ſhould make up this Parallel. But this of neceſſitie you muſt doe, if you will have all the Congregations in their ſeverall Diviſions, or Weapontacks, to be governed by their ſeverall Presbyteries reſpectively. Reaſon requires, that firſt you ſet up ſuch Presbyters over every one of your Congregations, as may be for the greateſt part of them good, pious, learned, orthodox: or otherwiſe, if the greater party be Malignant, and ill affected, prophane and haters of the power of Godlineſſe, they will over-vote the good party; and ſo what a hard yoake will you put upon the necks of all ſuch, as be truly godly, when they ſhall be caſt out by a malignant Parochiall Congregation? and going to complaine to your Presbytery, they ſhall finde as cold comfort, as formerly they have done in the Prelates Conſiſtory. But there will be a better care had of placing good Presbyters. But Brother, let us firſt ſee it, that ſo your Presbyterian Government may ſhew us a face the more amiable, and leſſe formidable to all truly godly, and moſt conſcientious men. But if you cannot doe this, whither ſhall the poore ſoules goe, which live under a prophane Presbyter, or one that admits all ſorts tag rag to the Lords Table, with whom godly ſoules can no more converſe, then with Heathen; and much leſſe at that holy Ordinance, where they muſt be made companions with ſuch kinde of Saints, as Job would not ſet with the dogs of his flocke: And if any whoſe conſcience is not ſo ſtrong to digeſt ſuch hard bits, as others of the common multitude are, who either ſee no difference at all between the precious and the vile; (but account all alike Saints at leaſt, when but at the Sacrament) or have ſuch Sepulchre-wide throats, as they can ſwallow a Camell, when a tender and more narrow conſcience is apt to be choaked with every Gnat: What ſhall this poore ſoule doe? Doth he rather withdraw from the Ordinance, then he can endure to ſee it ſo prophaned, and ſo partake with the prophaners? then he heares, A Schiſmaticke. Now if you have not a good Presbytery, where ſhall he goe to complaine? He may goe and appeale higher, you will ſay. And what if the higher the worſe? Good Brother, either provide the people of the Land an honeſt godly Presbytery, that may be as ſo many Angels to gather out of Chriſts Kingdome every thing that offends: or elſe let there be a tender care of tender conſciences, and ſome proviſion made for them, that they may not be ſcandalized, by being forced to be the companions of the ſcandalous. And therefore Brother, you that profeſſe ſo much ſolicitous care to poore bodies, let ſome drops of your charity fall upon their ſoules. And at the leaſt, and laſt extremity, call in that Poſtſcript of yours, and ſuppreſſe it in the Preſſe, that it may never ſee the Sunne; as wherein you proſcribe all thoſe, that are not of your Dependent Presbytery: for you tell us, it is to come forth a fortnight hence, in the which it will be proved, that it is the duty of all chriſtian Magiſtrates, Parents, Maſters of families, and all ſuch as truly feare God, to yeeld their hand for the ſuppreſſing of hereſies, and all novelties in Religion, if they really deſire the glory of God, &c. And what you meane by your hereſies and novelties in Religion, is obvious to all by this your Booke already come forth, Independency is hereſie, and novelty in Religion, and what not, that nought is? Now did ever proceed out of the mouth of a quondam-Martyr, and one newly brought out of a balefull priſon, ſuch a fiery breath as this? Oh Brother, remember thy ſelfe, and repent; and let the world know, that thou haſt made a better uſe of afflictions, then ſo fiercely to run on in ſuch a courſe, as to wreck the malignity of a priſon upon thy beſt friends, the ſeed of whoſe love, ſo liberally ſowne upon thee and thine, expected another-gates harveſt, then nettles, bryars, and thornes.

But you bring the Scripture for you. Come on, Brother, let you and me try it out by the dint of this ſword. And truly, I ſhall by the helpe of my God make no long worke of it. You ſpend above eleven ſheets, wherein you have woven ſundry long threaden Arguments, to meaſure out your Dependent Presbytery, as holding parallell with the line of Scripture. Now you muſt pardon me, if I ſhall aſſay (according to an old Proverbe) with one ſtroake of Phocions hatchet, to cut in two the long thread of your Alcibiadian fluent and luxuriant Rhetorications.

For anſwer. Firſt, let me aske you a Queſtion: Whether thoſe many Congregations you ſo call, you doe not underſtand to be ſo many diſtinct, and particular intire Church-bodies, or Churches reſpectively. If they be, tell us, if each of theſe Churches be 〈◊〉 its prime and proper notion an intire Church, without or before it be united in ſuch a Presbyterian Combination, and Government, as you ſpeake of. And if ſo, whether it be de eſſe, or de bene eſſe, of the being, or onely well-being of each particular Church, ſo to be united, and combined into a Church-collective, of many Churches into one. If you ſay, it is of the being of a Church, to be yoaked with other Churches, as into one, then what being had that Church in Abrahams family, ſeeing there were then no other Churches in the world, but that? And if that were extraordinary, (as perhaps you will ſay) then ſay I, when Churches are multiplied, and combined into one, whether is this Church collective Dependent, or Independent? If Dependent, then not an entire Church, but ſubordinate unto, or depending upon ſome greater Aſſembly. But come we to the higheſt of all, a generall Counſell of all the Churches in the world: is this now, a Church Dependent, or Independent? If Independent, then there may be a Church Independent in the world; and ſo the firſt particular Church in the world, was no leſſe an Independent Church, in reference to other Churches. And if all Churches in one Oecumenicall Councell, as one Church, be Dependent, then whereupon Dependent? Or is it a Dependent on it ſelfe? That were blaſphemy to ſay it. Whereon then? Surely on the Scripture or nothing. All Churches then are Dependent upon the Scripture neceſſarily: not ſo neceſſarily one Church upon another, whether particular or generall. Ergo, all particular Churches being not neceſſarily dependent one upon another, nor one upon many, but abſolutely dependent upon the Scripture for their ultimate or finall reſolutions, are no leſſe Independent upon other Churches; becauſe all the Churches in the world put together, cannot of themſelves give forth an infallible Oracle; as to ſay, this wee command to be beleeved and obſerved. This is Antichriſts voyce, Volumus & jubenius. The Church, or Churches may ſhewPlatina: in vita Bonifacii 3. their reaſons from Scripture, and labour to perſwade, but cannot binde them upon faith or conſcience; this the Holy Ghoſt and Scripture can onely doe.

But I come briefly to your Arguments, whereby you would prove your Claſſicall Presbyterian Government, and ſo upward. The patterne hereof you take from the Chriſtian Church at Jeruſalem. Hereof many arguments, or rather words, and tantologies you multiply, and toyle your ſelfe and vex your Reader withall, which you might have reduced to one. It is in ſumme, this:

In Jeruſalem were many Chriſtian Congregations, and all theſe made but one Church, and ſo were governed by one Presbytery.

But that Church at Jeruſalem, being the prime Apoſtolicke Church, is a patterne for all ſucceeding Churches:

Ergo, all Church-government ought to be regulated by that, and conſequently by a Presbytery over many Congregations.

For as for your indefinite enumeration of thoſe multitudes baptized by John Baptiſt, and by Chriſts Diſciples, we take no notice of them, unleſſe formed into a Church, or Churches: but following the expreſſe Scripture, the firſt formed Church wee finde in Act. 2. which though conſiſting of five thouſand, yet it was one intire particular Church, and not Churches; and they continued daily 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with one accord in one place together, (ver. 2.) and in the Temple, (ver. 44. 46.) growing from a hundred and twenty (Act. 1. 15.) to three thouſand more, (Chap. 2. 41.) and then in all five thouſand (Chap. 4. 4.) and all theſe but one Church, which aſſembled together to heare the word in the Temple; and though they wanted a convenient place ſo ſpacious, as wherein to breake bread, or receive the Lords Supper all together, ſo as they were conſtrained to ſever themſelves into divers companies, in ſeverall private houſes to communicate, yet this ſevering was not a dividing of the Church into ſo many diſtinct formall Churches, or Church-bodies, being but ſo many branches of one and the ſame particular Church; which though you call ſo many Congregations, yet properly ſo many Churches they were not. And therefore you never read, The Churches at or in Jeruſalem, but, The Church at Jeruſalem. And this no Nationall Church neither, witneſſe thoſe Churches in Judea, Gal. 1. 22.

Whereupon I anſwer to your Argument; and firſt to your Propoſition. I deny that thoſe Congregations you name, are ſo many Churches, properly ſo called, having their diſtinct Officers and members, united into one Church-body reſpectively. This I put you to prove. And without proving it, your 11 or 12 ſhee •… ſpent about this Argument prove to be meere waſt paper. And for your Aſſumption, that the Church at Jeruſalem, as being a prime Apoſtolicke Church, is therefore a patterne for all ſucceeding Churches, and therefore for a Claſſicall Presbytery over many Churches▪ you muſt firſt prove your Propoſition, as before, that there were many Churches in Jeruſalem conſtituted in their diſtinct formes, and bodies. Secondly, it being no more, then one entire particular Church (and not any Dioceſan, or Provinciall Church, or the Presbytery thereof Claſſicall, (as you would beare us in hand) it is a patterne for all particular Churches in ſucceeding ages; and yet (by your favour) not ſo perfect a patterne, as no Apoſtolicke Church beſides it ſhould alſo come in, to make up the patterne compleat. For we are neceſſarily to take all the Churches in the New Teſtament together, to make up one entire & perfect Church patterne. For in the Church at Jeruſalem, we finde election of Officers, but we finde not expreſſed that part of Diſcipline; for caſting out of corrupt members, as in the Church of Corinth, and ſo in the reſt. For the Churches were not brought forth to full perfection in one day. Their very conſtitution had a graduall growth. The Church at Jeruſalem had not at firſt Deacons, till there was a neceſſitie; and the largeneſſe of the Church required ſeven Deacons; which is no patterne for every Church to have ſeven Deacons. The ſumme is, to make up a compleat patterne, not onely the Church at Jeruſalem, but that of Corinth, of Epheſus, thoſe of Gal • tia, that of Philippi, and the reſt; are to be conferred together, that each may caſt in its ſhot to make up the full reckoning, that ſo what is not expreſſed in one, may be ſupplied by the reſt, to make one entire platforme. For the Scripture conſiſts of many Books, as ſo many members in one body; one member cannot ſay to another, 1. Cor. 12. I have no need of thee.

Againe, the Church at Jeruſalem, if it muſt be a patterne for all other Churches, then in this, that all other Churches muſt be ſubject to ſome one Church, becauſe (Act. 15.) things in queſtion were there debated, and determined, and ſent to other Churches to be obſerved. But for as much as that Church at that time in thoſe things was infallibly guided by the Holy Ghoſt, wherewith the Apoſtles there were inſpired, in which reſpect their reſolutions were with Authoritie, It pleaſed the Holy Ghoſt and us, (that which no particular Church ſince the Apoſtles could ever ſay) it followeth that the Church then at Jeruſalem remaines not in all things a patterne for other Churches; for a patterne muſt be in all things imitable, and perfect.

Laſtly, for Appeales, ſo much agitated, and preſſed, I have ſaid enough before, and elſewhere (as in my Vindication) to vindicatePage 98. the right uſe of that in point of Church matters. And ſo I paſſe briefly from your firſt Queſtion to your ſecond; which is concerning the manner of gathering of Churches, and admitting members and Officers: Viz:

Whether Miniſters of the Goſpel may, out of already congregatedTo the ſecond Queſtion. Aſſemblies of believers, ſelect and chooſe the moſt principall of them into a Church-fellowſhip peculiar unto themſelves, and admit of none into their ſocietie, but ſuch as ſhall enter in by a private covenant, and are allowed of by the conſent and approbation of all the Congregation.

This is your generall ſtating of your Queſtion; and out of the wombe thereof, there doth iſſue a numerous brood, no leſſe then ſix Queries, or if you will (to uſurpe your owne uſuall expreſſion) ſo many ſucking Queſtions, hanging at the dugs of their damme, your generall Queſtion.

For anſwer to all in their order: But before I anſwer, let meePage 14. premiſe thus much: Brother, I well ſee (and that without ſpectacles) that among all thoſe Independents whom you ſo familiarly hurle ſtones at, and caſt up duſt, yea durt in their faces, I am not the leaſt object in your eye, as by many palpable paſſages in your Booke doth appeare. And therefore I ſhall crave leave, that I may have the favour to repreſent and perſonate all thoſe my Brethren the Miniſters, whom Giantlike you revile and challenge, and warre againſt under the name of Independents, as taking this take upon my ſelfe alone, in anſwering this your Queſtion about gathering of Churches.

Firſt then to your generall ſtating of the Queſtion. You ſay, it concernes the manner of gathering. Do you imply here the lawfulneſſe of the matter of gathering, by queſtioning onely the manner? Your words may ſeeme to import ſo much. But I will not quarrell a word. I come to your Queſtion, viz. Whether Miniſters of the Goſpel, &c. Surely if any, then Miniſters of the Goſpel may gather Churches: and that for two reaſons; firſt, becauſe by the Goſpel, & the Miniſtry thereof, Churches are gathered to Chriſt. Secondly, becauſe we read, that the Apoſtles▪ and other Miniſters of the Goſpel have by their Miniſtry gathered Churches.

Therefore no queſtion, but if any, then Miniſters of the Goſpel may gather Churches to Chriſt.

I, but out of already congregated Aſſemblies of Believers, to ſelect and chooſe the moſt principall of them. Indeed this is ſomething to purpoſe. But tell me, Brother▪ who is it▪ that doth this? You apply it to us all, and to me in particular. But I deny that I ſo doe, and I dare ſay the like for others. And can you prove all thoſe Pariſhes, out of which Churches are ſo gathered, as you ſay, to be Aſſemblies of believers? But they all profeſſe to be Chriſtians. True, ſo doe all Papiſts. Ergo, are all Popiſh Pariſhes, Aſſemblies of Believers? So as if Miniſters of the Goſpel ſhould by their preaching convert ſundry Papiſts of ſeverall Popiſh Pariſhes to become a Church of Chriſt, ſhould they gather ſuch a Church out of ſo many Aſſemblies of believers?

But (ſay you) wee gather Churches out of Aſſemblies of believing Proteſtants. Why Brother, doe you not know this to be a time of Reformation? And have we not all taken the ſolemne Covenant to reform our ſelves and others, according to the word of God? And to endeavour to our power, to extirpate and roote out all Popery, Prelacy, Idolatry and Superſtition out of this Kingdome? And the time of this firſt gathering, was it not then, when the old ſervice and ceremonies were in uſe? And who hath gathered theſe Churches? Wee. Who are we that you ſhould thus charge us? As Peter and John anſwered, Why looke yee ſo on us? So, why doe yee impute that to us, which is onely to be attributed to the Goſpel of the grace of God, whereby our very Proteſtants are wonne from their old ſuperſtitions, and will-worſhip, and from under the yoake of humane formes in the matters of Chriſts Kingdome? So as when they heare, Chriſt is the onely King of his Kingdome, the onely Law-giver of his Church, and his Word the onely law and rule of all Church-government, and all this demonſtrated in the Word of God, which they have taken a ſolemne Covenant in all things to follow: doe you reproach us, for being a people who are ready to obey Chriſt, ſo ſoone as wee heare ofPſal. 18. Acts 3. 22▪ him, who alone is to be heard in all things, whatſoever he ſhall ſay unto us?

And for Churches, doe you, Brother, limit Churches to Pariſhes? What if you finde ſo many hundred Pariſhes in England, whoſe Inhabitants both Miniſters and people are all Malignants, or popiſhly-affected? Will you have thoſe Pariſhes to be ſo many Churches, and thoſe popiſh Malignants, ſo many believers? Were not this to ſet up Eccleſiam malignantium, or Churches malignant, which are no way militant, but againſt the power of Religion, and the peace of the civill State? Or if there be found ſome one or two in each of thoſe Pariſhes, that have the love of Chriſt in them, and are truly godly, and whoſe ſoules are grieved to communicate with Sodome: Will you not allow God to ſend an Angel, his Meſſenger, with a word to call them forth? And doe you not know, that the ancient Church of the Jewes was then a Church, when the ApoſtlesActs 2. by their preaching gathered a Church out of it? A Chriſtian Church out of the Jewes Synagogue?

I, ſay you, but we gather Chriſtian Churches out of Chriſtian Churches. Surely then it is Gods word that calleth Chriſtians to come into a more reformed Church-way, out of wayes more corrupt and leſſe reformed. Nor doe wee ſeparate from the Churches as Chriſtian, as you call them, but from their corruptions, * ſeparating * the precious from the vile, as from ſomething Antichriſtian.

But you will ſay, Now are the Pariſhes and Churches purged, no Service-book now, no Hierarchy, no ſuch thing, and yet wee ſelect and chooſe the moſt principall into a Church-fellowſhip peculiar unto our ſelves. To which I anſwer: Though the Service-book, Hierarchy, &c. be taken away, yet the Pariſhes are not ſo purged of them, but that moſt mens hearts are ſtill hankering after that Egyptian-ſervice and Task-maſters. Again, all thoſe that profeſſe to be come off from thoſe things, yet are not reſolved what Religion to take to, but are ready to take up (as themſelves ſay, and do) what Religion men will ſet up over them, not looking to what the Scripture preſcribes and commands; ſo as it remains, that thoſe who embrace the Word, and preferre Chriſts Decrees before mans, are thoſe principall men, whom not we, but the Word of Chriſt doth call forth, ſelect and chooſe voluntarily to joyn in Church-fellowſhip; and this not ſo peculiar to our ſelves, but that when a right Reformation is ſet up in the ſeverall places where they dwell, they may enjoy the pure Ordinances there, as I have ſhewed in my Vindication. And if you examine who they be that have joyned themſelves unto the Lord, either of this pariſh, or of other, you ſhall findEſa. 56. 3. them to be for their outward eſtate, (in compariſon of others) none of thoſe principall men you ſpeak of.

But ſay you, wee admit of none into our ſociety, but ſuch as ſhall enter in by a private Covenant. Now the very name of Covenant is become a bug-bear to many. But it is mightily miſtaken, as I have ſhewed in my Vindication: For it is nothing elſe, but a declaration of a free aſſent, and voluntary agreement to walk in the wayes of Chriſt with the Church, whereof they are members, and to perform all ſervice of love one to another, ſubmitting themſelves to the Order and Ordinance of Chriſt, in that Church reſpectively. So that it is not the name of Covenant that is ſo terrible, but the Order of Church-communion; and this to thoſe only, that having uſed to walk without a yoak (as the Scripture calls ſons of Belial) love not to come under the yoak of Chriſt, then which to a willing bearer nothing is more eaſie and ſweet.

But laſtly, you ſay, they muſt be allowed of by the conſent and approbation of all the Congregation. And (I pray) what harm in that? Nay, doth it not ſtand with very good reaſon, that they who are to walk together, ſhould firſt be agreed together? As Amos 3. 3. Can two walk together, except they be agreed? If therefore any one of the Congregation can object any thing, as a juſt cauſe of non-admittance of a member, he ought to ſhew it, not only for his own peace, but the peace of the Church. Therefore, to object ſuch things as theſe, doth it argue a ſpirit favouring of ſuch a holy humility, as becomes thoſe who affect the ſociety of Saints? And when the whole church gives approbation in this kind, it is both to the church and the member admitted, a comfort, and withall, a diſcharge of their duty in a provident care for preventing inconveniences and ſcandals;Turpius ejicitur, quàm non admittitur boſpes. ſeeing it is eaſier for a gueſt to be kept out, then to be caſt out. Thus much of your Queſtion in generall; which becauſe I have met with it in the ſeverall branches, I ſhall need to ſay the leſſe to thoſe Queries which you derive from it. And in truth they are rather captions then Queries; and the firſt is anſwered in my former ſtating of the Queſtion. For the ſecond, to know thoſe well, that are to be admitted, Abundans ca • tela non nocet: In things weighty, we cannot be too wary; nor do we ſo much look at circumſtances in converſion, as the ſubſtance. The third, for the conſent of the Congregation, it is anſwered before: So alſo the fourth, about the Covenant. The fifth, for the power of the keys, wee tie it not to womens girdles. The ſixth, and laſt, I anſwer, that thoſe Churches, which are for matter and form, true Churches, and are governed according to Chriſts Word, do ſet up Chriſt as King upon his Throne. And for ſuch as are otherwiſe, let them conſider, whether they do as they ought, ſet up Chriſt as King upon his Throne.

You proceed, I have (ſay you) ſpecified the things without any ſpirit Page 100 of bitterneſſe. In deed, this your firſt book (as we finde by tracing your ſteps in other Tracts) is a ſummary collection of what they have gone before you in, whoſe thread hath led you all the way through this maze: but when you come (as in your Poſtſcript) to miniſter your own Doſis, and to ſhow your ſelf in your own element, there wee finde the main ingredient to be the very gall of bitterneſſe, which yet your firſt book is not altogether free of.

Pag. 101. you ſay, The Apoſtles, and other Miniſters of the Goſpell were to receive all ſuch as believed, and were baptized, and that upon the profeſſion of their faith and repentance, without any further teſtimony of others, unleſſe they had been formerly known to be open enemies, and then they were juſtly to be ſuſpected, till they had given publique evidence by witneſſe to the Apoſtles and Miniſters of their true converſion, as concerning Paul, Acts 9. 26, 27.

Now here I obſerve:

1. A notable contradiction to what you ſay, pag. 115. As Gods command to all Miniſters was, that they ſhould admit all ſuch into the Church, as believed and were baptized, upon their deſiring it, without any confeſſion, either private or publique. Here I leave you to reconcile your own contradiction. Ʋpon their profeſſion, and without any confeſſion.

2. I anſwer, that in theſe dayes of profeſſed, and covenanted-for Reformation, there is required the profeſſion or confeſſion of one ſpeciall point of faith▪ (which in words; none dare, but in practice moſt do deny) touching Chriſts Kingly office, formerly ſuppreſſed by Antichriſtian tyrannie, but now breaking forth from under the cloud in its native light, concerning his abſolute, ſole ſoveraignty over our conſciences and Churches, without dependence upon humane Ordinances, or Nationall Lawes to preſcribe ſuch forms of Church-government, as are moſt ſerviceable to the politicall • nd • of ſeverall States; which point of faith is (though not alwayes explicitly, yet) implicitly confeſſed by all thoſe, which • ender themſelves to be admitted into ſuch Churches, as are of a conſtitution moſt agreeable to the law and rule of Chriſt. And withall, an implicit profeſſion at leaſt of their repentance is included, as having formerly lived under an Antichriſtian government, and inventions of will-worſhip, all which is implicitly profeſſed and repented of, by their very entrance into Church-fellowſhip; and ſo much the more is repentance herein needfull, becauſe many, yea moſt of ſuch Conformiſts, if not all, have had their hands, leſſe or more, either by acting, or aſſenting, or by ſilence and connivence in the perſecution of thoſe godly Miniſters and people, which ſtood out againſt that Antichriſtian uſurpation over their conſciences, refuſing conformity to their Canons. So as in this caſe, you confeſſe, that our people (formerly Conformiſts, and now, for the greater part, but newly crope out of the ſhell of their bondage, being brought off from their old ceremoniall ſervice, and this more by humane authority in generall ſo ordering, then of conſcience) ought not only to approve themſelves by the profeſſion of their faith, and repentance, but to have the teſtimony of others alſo, as having been formerly known to be either preſt and ſworn vaſſals, or voluntiers in the Prelaticall Militia, which what is it elſe, but a continuall war againſt the true Church and Kingdome of Jeſus Chriſt?

But you adde (pag. 102.) that Commiſſion was delivered to the Apoſtles and Miniſters of the Goſpel, as whoſe place only it was by the Keyes to open and ſhut the doors of the Church, and ſo to admit, or refuſe, as they found men fitted or qualified, to be made members; and this you labour to prove by the practice of John Baptiſt.

Now, as for John Baptiſt (about whoſe gathering you have ſo beſtirred your ſelfbefore, and to as little purpoſe) you may obſerve, that thoſe believers in Chriſt then to come, according to the Papiſts Doctrine, were not formed into a Chriſtian Church, or Churches, as after Chriſts reſurrection the believers were. And when you come to viſit thoſe Chriſtian Churches once conſtituted in their Goſpel-form by the Apoſtles, you ſhall finde, that the power of admitting or rejecting, or caſting out of members, was not in the Apoſtles or Miniſters alone, but in the Churches. For1 Cor. 1. 2. this, read 1 Cor. 5. where the whole Church of the Saints in Corinth, to whom Paul wrote, were to caſt out the inceſtuous perſon; as alſo afterward upon his repentance, to re-admit him, 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7. This one inſtance is a ſufficient preſident for all Churches.

But you alledge that of Cornelius ſending to Joppa for Peter, he Page 105. ſent not (ſay you) to the Church of Corinth; true, and what then? Ergo, none but the Miniſter of the Goſpel hath power to admit members. It is one thing to preach, and inſtrumentally to convert ſouls, which chiefly pertains to thoſe that are called thereunto: but in the caſe of Church-government, of admitting▪ or caſting out, it is otherwiſe. And here let Peter himſelf (whoſe words you alledge) reſolve us; Who, when the Holy Ghoſt ſo wonderfully fell on all them that heard the Word, ſaid, Can any man forbid water, that Acts 10. theſe men ſhould not be baptized, &c. Which words imply, that ifany exceptions could have ben made, it was in thoſe Jewes preſent, to give forth their allegations, why thoſe believing Gentiles ſhould not be admitted to become one Church with the believing Jewes. So as your obſervations thereupon fall to the ground; as that, Firſt, Peter was ſent to, and not the Church; and, ſecondly, Peter commanded them to be baptized: Again, this example was extraordinary in all the circumſtances of it; and when you have ſaid all, you can conclude nothing. Your inſtance of the Eunuch, Acts 8. 8. of Lydia, Acts 16. as many other, are meer extravagants. We ſpeak of Churches conſtituted, not of ſingle converts, here and there one, not yet joynted into a particular Church-body.

I paſſe by your impertinent declamatious againſt different opinionsPage 115. in the ſame houſe. Do you reconcile them; for Chriſt himſelf foretold of them, as wee ſhall tell you when wee come to your Poſtſcript; which when I mention here, doth not your minde miſgive you? But of this in due place.

And where you ſay, all that believe, and are baptized, are by Gods command to be admitted, deſiring it, without any confeſſion, or Covenant: But what if they do not believe aright? What if they not only not believe, but deny and diſclaime Chriſts Kingly Prerogative? And ſo, what if they ſtiffly maintain a moſt damnable and deſtructive herefie, which overthroweth a main principall and fundamentall of faith? If ſuch a one, as Dr. Baſtwick with all his • air flouriſhes of holineſſe, ſhould deſire to be admitted into Churchfellowſhip, being known to be an adverſary to Chriſts Kingly government over his Churches, according to the Goſpel: might not the Doctors own words ſatisfie, in caſe of refuſall (pag 102.) as having been formerly known for an open enemy and perſecutor of the Church, and ſo juſtly to be ſuſpected, till publique evidence by witneſſe given? Although it cannot be imagined that the ba • e deſiring of admittance into Church-fellowſhip could ſtand with the deniall, but neceſſarily implies a confeſſion of Chriſts Kingly office in its higheſt degree.

Pag. 116. You tell us, that our gathering of Churches hath no example in Scripture, and as for Chriſts Diſciples, they were all ſent to gather in the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael, they went not to gather in converted amongst converted men, &c. Now wee cannot have a more pregnant and more warrantable example in all Scripture then this, which you here alledge againſt us. Chriſts Diſciples gathered Chriſtian Churches out of the Church of the Jews; nor can you deny, but the Jews were a Church, when the Diſciples gathered churches out of it. Thoſe Churches in Judea (Gal. 1. 22.) were gathered out of the Church of the Jewes; and that Church of the Jewes generally believed that the Meſſias, or Chriſt, was to come. And if they were a Church when many being converted, were gathered out of it, then much more Churches may be gathered out of Nations or Kingdomes of the world, though for their generall profeſſion of Chriſtianity, every ſuch Nation or Kingdome be reſpectively called a church, though the new Teſtament knowes no ſuch church, and then not of divine conſtitution, as that of the Jews was, even when churches Chriſtian were gathered out of it. And brother, prove unto us, that ſuch as you call a Nationall Church, is a church of divine inſtitution; ſhew us an example of a Nationall Church in all the new Teſtament, otherwiſe you do but weave the Spiders web.

But wee (ſay you) gather converted men from among converted men, and ſo pick out of others folds and flocks the beſt and fatteſt ſheep. This you do familiarly caſt in our diſh, and yet it is never the fatter. Now in this wee may juſtly demand of you, to prove, that thoſe whom you call converted men, from among whom wee gather churches, be indeed ſo converted as they ſhould be, when as yet they come not up cloſe to the rule of Reformation, Gods Word, as thereby to endeavour the ſetting up of Chriſt, without waiting on men, as without whom Gods Word is not a ſufficient rule, and as on whom wee muſt neceſſarily depend for the form and law of Reformation: And yet wee deny not but many ſuch may be godly, though otherwiſe they are not as yet throughly convinced of this kingly government of Chriſt, which we endeavour after; nay, let me go a little higher; for as much as this is an undeniable, yea, and prime principle in Divinity, that the Scripture is the only rule of faith, and of worſhip, and Church-government, and this rule is no Monopoly to one man, but that all and every man hath a power and priviledge to repair to this Law and Teſtimony, to do all things according to this Word: And ſeeing wee have all bound our ſelves by ſolemn Covenant to reform our ſelves, and thoſe under our charge, according to the Word of God; yea, and every one to go before other in this Reformation: tell mee now, brother, were it not a matter worth the while, for our reverend and learned Aſſembly, ſeriouſly to take it into debate, whether the generall tying up of men, to wait neceſſarily on the Synod for its finall reſolution about Church-government, be not an uſurpation upon our Chriſtian liberty, and a diminution, at leaſt of the authority and ſufficiency of Scripture, and ſo conſequently be not a trenching upon a fundamentall hereſie; as alſo an inhibition, reſtraining every man in his place, Miniſters, Maſters, &c. from ſetting upon the work of Reformation, and ſo neceſſitating a violation of our Covenant, or a dangerous retarding of the work, bringing in a ſleepy careleſneſſe upon mens ſpirits, to inquire at Gods Oracle, and ſo preparing a way for blind obedience; I leave to the conſideration of the wiſeſt.

But in the interim, to return to your Converts; Do you hold all them to be converts, from among whom churches are gathered? Do you not allow of a difference to be put? Are there not a number of both ignorant and ſcandalous, that are not fit to come to the Lords Table? See the Directory: Or do you take the greateſt number in England to be godly, and truly converted? Or are there not (trow you) many Pariſhes in England, where, perhaps but a few true converts are to be found? And how few (in compariſon) truly godly and faithfull Miniſters are to be found for every Pariſh, under who • e Paſtorall charge, two or three ſheep may ſafely and comfortably feed among ſo many Goats, yea, perhaps, Wolves? Or do you make every pariſh to be a Church? You may do well herein to deal plainly with us, whether you would have ſo many inhabitants as are in every Pariſh, to be ſo many communicants. For ſo it ſeems you would have it: For (pag. 117.) you ſay, in the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Coloſſe, were many that walked diſorderly, taught falſe doctrine and hereſies, and made Schiſmes; yet the Apoſtles did not bid the Chriſtians to ſeparate themſelves from the communion and aſſemblies of the Saints, and from the Ordinances, for theſe mens cauſes, &c. But you may know, thoſe churches, though in part accidentally corrupt, yet were eſſentially, and in their originall conſtitution pure and holy churches; and ſo were never your Parochiall churches, they never had a right divine conſtitution, but meerly humane and politicall. And therefore all your argumentation a diſpari, falls to ground, and beats it ſelf into a meer ſpume.

But (pag. 118.) you plead, ſuch Miniſters and Churches to be true, where the truth of Chriſt is preached, received and profeſſed. If you mean the whole truth of Chriſt, it is well. But do not you know, thatHomily, ſecond Sermon for Whitſunday. there are three ſpeciall viſible marks of a true viſible Church, The Goſpel purely preached, the Sacraments duly adminiſtred, and Diſcipline rightly practiſed? all which marks together, the Church of England (for ought I know) is yet to ſeek.

For (to ſpeak nothing here of the materialls of a true particular viſible Church: as viſible Saints; nor of the form of it, ſo many members united into one Church-body and fellowſhip, according to the Goſpel, which you can handly ſhew us in any of your Parochiall Congregations) I will only ask you, What particular viſible Church you are a member of (you may chooſe what Pariſh you pleaſe in England): Next, I ask you, What Diſcipline you have in that your church; and whether a man complaining of you to your Congregation, or to your Miniſter, for wrongs done by you, and for your ſcandalous walking, he ſhall find ſo much Diſcipline there as to convent you before them, and juſtly charging you for walking ſcandalouſly, to the great offence and ſhame of the very name of Chriſtian Religion, you ſhall thereupon be brought under Eccleſiaſticall cenſure, ſo as to have the ſcandall removed, and the offence ſatisfied? Good now tell me, what church either Parochiall, or Claſſicall, I ſhould go unto? For, ſuppoſe I have a complaint againſt you, for which I demand ſatisfaction, at the leaſt, ſo as by the means of your church-cenſure you may be brought to a contrite acknowledgement of the wrong you have done mee. But if you cannot ſhew me ſuch a church in any of your Pariſhes,Page 118. b •… is it that you affirm * Chriſt to be ſet up as King in his Throne in mens hearts, ſwayed and guided by the Scepter of his Word and Spirit in your Parochiall Congregations: when as you cannot ſhew us (I ſay) in any one of thoſe Congregations 1 Cor. 5. 4. the Name and Power of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt to be ſo ſet up, as authoritatively and judicially to deliver over to Satan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or otherwiſe condignly to cenſure ſuch a one, as whoſe brother complains of to that Congregation, for unſufferable wrongs, and moſt baſe and barbarous uſage, unbeſeeming a naturall Heathen, much leſſe a profeſſed Chriſtian? And here I challenge our Brother for taking Chriſts Name in vain, when in ſtead of finding Chriſt ſet upon his Throne in their congregations, wee finde there no more but an Image, ſuch as Michal had made up in1 Sam. 19. ſtead of King David; or as thoſe, that in mockery, made of Chriſt a Pageant-king, ſtripping him, and putting on him a ſcarlet robe, and on his head a crown of thornes, and in his hand a reed, ſaluting him with, Hail king of the Jewes, with which title over his head they crucified him. And therefore thoſe paſſages which (page 118, 119.) he quotes of his Brother (though not named) will ſtand good againſt their oppoſers▪ The ſumme of which is this: That all that depend upon men for Church-government, and not upon Chriſt and his Word alone, doe deny Chriſts Kingly government over Conſciences and Churches: that all that receive not Chriſts Kingly office in the full extent of it, but after manifeſtation, doe reject it, are at the beſt converted but in part, and ſo in a worſe condition, then thoſe who though they believed, yet they had not ſo much as heard there was a Holy Ghoſt, but hearing, they received him: that ſuch as refuſe to be in Covenant withActs 19. 2. Chriſt, or to make profeſſion or confeſſion thereof before men, want their evidence of their being Gods people, and ſo quantum in ſe, as much as in them lyeth, cut off their children from having intereſt in Baptiſme, the externall ſeale of the Covenant. And therefore ſeeing ſuch things are objected, how doth it concerne both Miniſters and people to looke to their evidences?

To omit his tedious tautologies all along (being the bombaſt of the booke) to pag. 124. there he ſaith, When the Miniſters of England teach this doctrine in their preachings and writings, how can they be truly ſaid to deny, diſclaime, and preach againſt Chriſts Kingly government over mens conſciences and Churches? It were well if they did truly indeed preach it, which few or none of them doe. Or if they doe truly preach it, why doe they not practiſe it, and perſwade the people to depend upon Chriſt for it, and not upon men?

But (pag. 126.) the Miniſters of England ſet up a Presbytery after Gods Word. This you can never yet prove unto us, untill wee may ſee it. But the Independents themſelves are Presbyterians (ſay you) and labour • o ſet up a Presbytery of their own. Thus here, and all along you carry it with a torrent of words, and that is all. Wee ſet up that Presbytery, which wee finde in Gods Word, and none other.

Then (pag. 127.) you fall againe upon the ſtrictneſſe uſed in admiſſion of members, which (ſay you) the Apoſtles uſed not. But wee know, that all thoſe who were admitted by them, did firſt make confeſſion of their faith and repentance, as Mat. 3. 6. Acts. 2. 37. Act. 19 18, 19. Act. 8. 37. And the Apoſtles feared to receiv • Paul, as their fellow-Apoſtle, untill they had examined the truth thereof.

And (pag. 130.) you charge us with making ſchiſmes, &c. Surely we are commanded to ſeparate our ſelves from all corruptions of the world, and humane inventions; as 2 Cor. 6. 16. Acts 2. 40. and this, when a Chriſtian Church began to be gathered out of that of the Jewes.

Pag. 138. you inveigh againſt new truths, and new lights, as you every where nauſeouſly call them: and ſay, Where was it ever heard of, either in the Chriſtian or Pagan world, that it was ever permitted to any Miniſter or Preacher, to have all the Pulpits in any Nation to preach a diverſe doctrine to that whi • h is ſet up by Authoritie, and ſuch as tends to make a faction and diviſion amongst the people? I doe moſt aſſuredly beleeve, that there cannot the like precedent be produced. So you. No? What ſay you of that precedent of the Apoſtles, who in the Temple daily preached a diverſed doctrine, to that of the Phariſees? So of John Baptiſt. So of Chriſt. And this in Judea, which was a Parallel at leaſt to a Nationall Chriſtian Church, onely that was originally founded upon divine inſtitution, but this not ſo. And for the Pagan World, what innumerable precedents are there, of preaching the Goſpel, and conſtituting of Churches, even throughout the Pagan world? And all this divers to that which was ſet up by mans Authoritie, whether Jewiſh, or Paganiſh. And as our Brother here, ſo did the High Prieſts in their Counſells charge the Apoſtles, ſaying, Act. 5. 28. Yee have filled Jeruſalem with your doctrine. A new Doctrine, a new Truth, a new Light. So Act. 24. 5. Tertullus, with his Rhetoricke, being feed by the High Prieſt and the Elders, makes a declamation againſt Paul, ſaying, Wee have found this m • m •… peſtilent fellow, and a mover of ſedition among all the Jewes throughout the world, and a ringleader of the ſect of the Nazarens. And this word Nazarens, ſignifies the ſect of Saparatiſts, of whom the Apoſtle is there maliciouſly marked, as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ the ring-leader. The like out-cry we have, Act. 21. 28. Men of Iſrael, helpe: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where againſt the people, and the Law, and this place, &c. Nor want wee a Pagan precedent, Act. 19. 26 where Diana's ſilver-ſhrine-maker, what a duſt he raiſeth in the whole Citie, ſaying; Yee ſee and heare, that not alone at Epheſus, but almoſt throughout all Aſia, this Paul hath perſwaded and turned away much people, ſaying, that they be no Gods which be made with hands. Thus you ſee Paul, and the other Apoſtles, and Evange iſts, found Pulpits every where, both among the Jewes and Gentiles, though they preached a divers doctrine, to that ſet up by Authoritie. And muſt Chriſt have no other doctrine or Church-government in the world, then that which is ſet up by the worlds authoritie? Surely, this is a new light indeed, if a light at all; a new doctrine, diverſe to that which Chriſt hath ſet up by his divine authoritie. But this doctrine (ſay you) tends to make a faction and diviſion among the people. And did Pauls, and the Apoſtles doctrine eſcape the ſcourge of this whip? Note all the places forecited, with many more throughout the New Teſtament, and all ages, where the Goſpel in its purity and power is preached. But one thing more I muſt not paſſe, without a note. How doth our Brother make good his exclamation: Was it ever beard of either in the Chriſtian or Pagan world, that it was ever permitted to Preachers, to have all the Pulpits in a Nation to preach a divers doctrine, &c? And is it ſo indeed? Have we all the Pulpits in the Kingdome? I hope your Brother T. E. by his pen and preaching, and you by your pen, will take an order for that, that wee ſhall not have all the Pulpits, no nor any at all with your good will Witneſſe that late miſ- • ule at your towne of Colcheſter, upon your Books, and T. E. his preaching. And therefore this may be placed among your Grolleries.

And for the Jewiſh Synagogues tolerated among the Heathen,Ibid. if we may not have the Pulpits, good now envie us not our Synagogues. Be not worſe to us, then the heathen were, and are, as you give us ſundry examples, pag. ibid. 138.

Page 140 you call the people of the Presbyterian Independent Congregation, a company of wild geeſe. But wee are not yet come to your Poſtſcript; Where Pag. 14. you call them ſilly goſlings following the old gooſe. Yet here you acknowledge that the Elders have oftentimes great abilities of wit, and ſcholarſhip, learning and eloquence: which in your Poſtſcript you univerſally ſtrip them of, except onely two for breed.

The reſt of your Booke to the end, being all along overgrowne with nettles, ſtinging upon every touch, and the ſharper ſtill, the neerer it drawes to the Poſtſcript, (as, Worſe then Page 139. Diotrephes, or the Pope▪ Page 144. moſt diabolicall Tyranny, Lording it over Gods Clergies, Page 149. Fellows of Gotham Colledge, not knowing their Prim • r in Politicks, nor their Catechiſme in Divinitie, and the like) we gladly paſſe ove • untouched, as being all prickles, and no pith. Onely one ſharper then all the reſt, I may not be unaware of, which you call, the weapon of Page 149. the left hand, namely, the ſword, which you would have the Magiſtrate to take up to ſuppreſſe our Brethren the Independents (as you ſtyle them) calling that man a Ninny, and a man unworthy to ſit in Counſell in any State, that ſhould ſay with Gamaliel, Refraine from theſe men, for if their worke, or Counſell be of God, yee cannot overthrow it, leſt yee be found fighters againſt God; and ſo let them goe on to doe miſchiefe. For herein (ſay you) Gamaliel ſpake neither as a wiſe man, nor as a Chriſtian. Thus our Brother drawing neere the end of this his Booke, hath drawne it ſo low neere the bottome, that the very lees of it begin to run atilt, and that remaines, is reſerved to be powred forth in the Poſtſcript.