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

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

I intend not to strive with the Doctor about wordes, and there­fore touching the two Termes, to wit, Dependent, and Indepen­dent; I shall onely say this at present: That if by Independent the the Doctor indeede mean (as it doth appear so to my under­standing by many passages in his booke, he doth intend) a Pres­byterian-Government, which hath not Dependencie upon any in matters meerly Ecclesiasticall (but upon the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Head of the Church) And if by Dependent hee also indendeth (as in many other passages in his booke seemeth to me to be his meaning)Pag. 8.10. Pag. 14.15.17.18. a Presbyterian-Government, which hath a De­pendencie upon a supream Judicature of a Common-councell of Presbyters, and who must in matters Ecclesiasticall be subiect un­to the Decrees, Sentences, Constitutions, and Commandments of a Common-councell, Colledge or Consistorie of Classicall, Provin­ciall, or Synodicall Presbyters; Then I do conceive the Doctor hath not proved, (nor will he ever be able to prove) That the Presby­terian-Government-Dependent is Gods Ordinance; And I hope to make the contrary plainly appear both from cleere Texts of Scripture, and the Doctors owne bookes. And seeing that the Doctor hath in the 6th. p. of his Book desired all his Christan Bre­thren in the Deciding of this Question to take the Word of God into their Hands, and with the Noble Bereans to sit downe and examine, whatsoever shall be said on either side according to the Scriptures: I willingly make the same request, as most desirous, that this short Answere may abide the like triall, and be weighed in the other ballance of the Sanctuary against the Doctors Booke.

Now that all things may be handled in good order, and in a [Page 3]Methodicall way, the Doctor hath reduced the whole disputation concerning this first Question into four Propositions, page. 11.

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

These are his four Propositions.

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

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

Thirdly, that these severall Churches were Dependent upon [Page 6]their severall Presbyters, and were to obey them who had the rule over them, Heb. 13.7,17,24. Or who were their Guides, [...], Obedite ducibus vestris, that is Obey your Guides.

Fourthly, that this Presbyterian-Church-Government, God hath hath appointed as his Ordinance, to be continued to the end of the world, the which whosoever resisteth, resisteth the Ordi­nance of God, but it doth not prove, That this Presbyterian-Church-Government is Dependent upon a supreame Judicature of a Common-counsell of Presbyters, or that they must submit, and subject them themselves and their churches unto the Decrees, Sentences, Constitutions, and Commandements, of a Common-councell, colledge, and court of classicall, or Synodall Presbyters, which the Doctor should have proved, for such a Presbyterian-Government he intends, as may appeare by the Doctors owne words, pag. 17.18. As for the Presbyterian Government (in the sence that I understand it) there is nothing more cleare to me in all the Scripture: Yea the very word and name of Presbytery sig­nifieth, a Magistracy, or Aristocracy, or Signory, or court. And as the word is taken in the civill Polity and Government, so in the Ec­clesiasticall, by a Presbytery wee understand (saith the Doctor) page 18. A Religious, Grave, Sollid, Learned, and Wise Councell of Divines, Ministers, &c. Without whose joynt and mutuall accord, or agreement and common-consent nothing ought to be done or transacted of publicke concernment. And to make this good, to wit, That the Presbyters of particular congregations or assemblies of Beleevers, and their Churches ought to be subject to a Common-councell or Court of Presbyters. The Doctor urgeth that Scripture, the third Epistle of John, the 9.10,11. verses, as an invincible Argu­ment.

You shall finde it thus expounded by the Doctor pag. 15. ‘'And therefore when Diotrephes assumed to himself, and his particular congregation a power and authority to rule according to his will and pleasure, without the consent of the Presbyterie, and opposed Iohn the Presbyter, He sharply reproves his proceedings, and sig­nifies to the Church; That when he came he would remember[Page 5]his words, and teach him how to prate against the Presbytery with malicious words; Which is an evill thing in him saith St. Iohn. It was evill in him to assume unto himself, and his parti­cular congregation, that power that belonged unto the colledge or councell of Presbyters, and was to be moderated and exercised onely by the conjoynt, and common-consent of the Presbytery. For God hath appointed, that the Church should be governed by a Presbytery; and Diotrephes would have his congregation In­dependent, and have an absolute jurisdiction within it self, which saith St. Iohn is an evill thing.’

Now let the Reader judge, whether the Dr. be not much mis­taken in his Commentary-exposition and application of this place of Scripture. And let me give you to understand, that St. Iohn saith verse 9. I wrote unto the Church. Or as Beza upon that verse, [...] Scripsi nonnihil Ecclesiae, that is, I have writ­ten something to the Church. But seeing no mention is made of any perticular Congregation, how can the Dr. so confidently af­firm that it was his particular Congregation? Now the Reader may see plainly, That the Dr. can expound those Brethren and their Elders or Presbyters, which the Scripture calles a Church, to be a particular Congregation. And what it was which St. Iohn had written to the Church is not in this Epistle, nor any other Scrip­ture, declared, except it was, to receive those Brethren, which he saith verse 8. ought to be received, and verse 10. whom Diotrephes would not receive, how then doth the Doctor say? That Diotre­phes assumed that power to himself, which belonged unto the Colledge and councell of Presbyters; without whose joynt and mutuall agree­ment, and common-consent nothing ought to be done or transacted of publike concernment. Is the receiving of Brethren, or casting out of Brethren a power which belongs to a Colledge of Presbyters, and neither the one nor the other may be transacted by the Elders and Brethren of a particular congregation, unlesse the court or common-councell of Presbyters conjoyntly consent unto it? Let it be also considered, That Diotrephes opposed the Brethren and forbade them, that would have received those, who St. Iohn saith verse 8. we ought to receive, yea and cast them ought, vers. 10. [...] & volentes (admittere) pro­hibet[Page 6]& de Ecclesia dejicit. That is, and forbiddeth them, that would (or are willing to admit them) and casteth them out of the church, to wit, excommunicates them. Doth it hereby appear that Dio­trephes would have his congregation Independent? and have an absolute jurisdiction within it self. No, but Diotrephes would Lord it over the church, and have the pre-eminence above his brethren, whether fellow Elders or fellow Saints, verse [...]. [...], sed amans primatum gerere in eos Dio­rephes, that is, But Diotrephes loving the primacie amongst them. He would be the Primate and Metropolitan of the church, and have the Pre-eminence of all the Presbyters in it, and Brethren of it. The Doctor could have urged this Scripture against the domineer­ing Prelates, and why should he marvail, that his Brethren should now urge it against the court of Presbyters. It is confessed Diotre­phes did that which was evill in usurping Authority over the church, and those Brethren, whom he cast out of the church; But that he was the first that opposed the Presbyterian Government, or that he did affront a Court and common-councell of Presbyters, is more then I know, or the Doctor can prove. For had Diotrephes done so, why was he not convented before them, surely the Apo­stle and Elder St. Iohn would rather have written to the colledge of Presbyters (if there were any such) then to the Church, or in writing to the Church, would rather have sent him a summons to appear at some consistorie before the Court and common-councell of Presbyters, then to warne them to take heed of his evill, that they did not follow it: And doubtlesse St. Iohn would have writ­ten thus, Diotrephes loves to be a Primate among you, wherefore when the Presbyterie that is to say, the Magistracy or Signory of grave, solid, learned, religious, and wise Divines and Ministers come to keep order, and met together in a Court and common-councell, I will remember his deeds, and inform, or complain to the Court and common-councell of Presbyters, that he prates against us (the Presbyters) with malicious words. But the Apo­stle St. Iohn (did not know any Court or common-councell of Presbyters, neither Classicall, nor Synod call, to appeal unto) [Nor can the Doctor make good those Appeales he mentioneth pag. 10. to be according to the Scripture of Truth, to wit; [Page 7] That every particular man, as well as any Assembly or Congregation, may have their appeal to the Presbyterie of their Precinct, hundred, or devision under whose jurisdictions they were; And if they finde them­selves wronged there, then they have appeales to some other higher Presbytery or Councell of Divines for relief and justice. I onely ask the Doctor how he can prove these appeales by Scripture; and if he could, whether that higher Presbytery or Councell of Divines, (especially if they may say the Holy Ghost and we) be not as Inde­pendent as these Brethren and their Churches, against whom the Doctor hath written: And if so, then such a high Presbytery or Councell of Divines, is not Gods Ordintnce, by the Doctors own confession and Affirmation.] Therefore the Apostle writes to the Church or perticular Congregation whereof Diotrephes was a Member and an Elder, whom he knew had power to judge him, as well as the Church or perticular Congregation of Corinth had power to judge them that were Members therein. 1 Cor. 5.12.13. And therefore might as warrantably admonish Diotrephes, as the Church of Colosse might Arckippus: Coloss. 4.17. ‘'And if no­thing of publike concernment ought to bee done or transacted without the joynt and mutuall accord or agreement, and common consent of the Presbytery;’ Iohn the Presbyter would not have transgressed so farre, as to take upon himself this Authority over Diotrephes to tell the Church of his faults, and to say he would remember him and sharply reprove him, and teach him to prate against the Presbyterie with malicious words, which belonged to the Court and Common Councell of Presbyters: But I shall have a just occasion to say more touching this matter in the answer unto the third Question, and therefore passing by the objection with its answer mentioned page 19. to the 29. unto its due place. I shall desire seriously to consider the Doctors proof of his first proposi­tion, which he laboureth first by producing such Scriptures, as he conceiveth make for the manifestation of the Truth, and from thence frames and formeth his Arguments. ‘'His Scriptures are these, viz. Matth. 3. vers. 1.2.5.6. Mark. 6.20.21. Matth. 14.5. and Luk. 20.4.6.’ And divers other Scriptures, which you have at large set down in the Doctors Book with his Argu­ments framed from thence, pag. 29. to 82. where this first propo­sition endeth. The summe of all which, I shall give the Reader to understand as briefly as I can, to wit; ‘'Where there was an infinite[Page 8]multitude of Beleevers, or a very City of Beleevers, so that they kept a tyrannicall King in awe, and all the Magistrates and Elders in whose hands was all the power and Authority, even a world of Beleevers, with many Rulers and men of great place and and Office, with such an increase of multitudes of Beleevers, 8000 new Converts besides women and children, yea many 10000, of Beleevers, and where there were almost an hundred Preachers and Ministers, besides the 12. Apostles, and all these continually taken up in Prayer and Preaching, There must of necessitie be ma­ny Congregations and Assemblies. But in the Church of Jerusa­lem there was an infinite multitude of Beleevers, and a very City of Beleevers (which kept Herod himself, the tyrant in awe, and all the Magistrates and Elders) even a world of Beleevers, with many Rulers and men of great place and Office, with an increase of multitudes of Beleevers, and 8000. new Converts besides wo­men and children, yea and many 10000. after all the persecutions, and almost an hundred Preachers and Ministers besides the 12 A­postles, and all these were continually taken up in Prayer and Preaching; Ergo, they must of necessitie be dispiersed into many Congregations and severall Assemblies.’ I do deny the Minor pro­position of this Argument. Neither hath the Doctor proved, That there was an infinite number of Beleevers, nor a very City of Be­leevers in the Church of Jerusalem. The Scriptures quoted by the Doctor speakes no such thing; those places in Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us of very many who were baptized by Iohn, and by Christs Disciples, but do not declare how many of these baptized persons were of the Church in Jerusalem; and the Scripture wit­nesseth Acts 9.31. that there were Churches throughout all Judaea, as well as in Jerusalem, and for ought I know, or the Doctor ei­ther, many of those baptized persons might be in these Churches, yea the most of them, and but a few, it may be no more but those 120. mentioned Acts 1.13,14,15. To whom were added about 3000. souls, who continued in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellow­ship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers. Acts 2.41.42.44.46. And as for the world of Beleevers mentioned in another argu­ment drawn from Joh. 12.19. behold the world is gone after him.Pag. 37 and 40. That Scripture doth not say they beleeved in him, much lesse that there was a world of Beleevers in the Church in Ierusalem. Neither is there mention in any Scripture quoted by the Doctor of [Page 9]8000. new Converts besides women and children. Neither doth that Scripture produced Acts 4.4 prove any such thing: For the Reader may consider that the number of them there mentioned are but 5000. And albeit the Doctor make them up 8000. by say­ing those 5000. men were added to the Church, and joyned to the formers Beleevers pag. 57. Yet there is a twofold mistake in the Doctors Addition, to wit; First, that some of the 3000. (may be) were women, and how then can the Doctor say, there were 8000. new converts besides women. Secondly, these 5000. are onely cal­led men and not converts, not beleevers. For howbeit many of them hearing the Word beleeved, yet it is not said the 5000. men beleeved: And the truth is the Text well considered only holds forth, that, the number of men was made up five thousand.

[...], & factus est numerus viro­rum, quasi millia quinque, and the number of men was made about five thousand, not 8000. And as for the many 10000s. mentioned Acts 21.20. [...] comes of [...] infinitus (and though the word [...] do sometimes signifie numerum decem millium, yet not alwayes, but for some great number which cannot suddenly be told) as Luke 12 1. And Beza both according to the old and new version of the Greek into Latine, reads it millia 1000s. not decem millia 10000s. and so we have it in our English Bibles translated thousands. And the following verse 22. will make it probable that there were not many 10000s. for there we thus read; The multi­tude must needs come together, so that I say its probable, that they were not so many 1000s. but they could, yea must assemble toge­ther. Neither can the Dr. make good from those Scriptures he produceth ‘'pag. 62. to wit, Acts 1. vers. 21.22. cap. 6. vers. 2.4. and cap. 8. vers. 1. That there was almost a hundred Preachers and Ministers besides the 12. Apostles in the Church of Jerusalem.’ The 12. are named indeed in Act. 6.2.4. but not 100. besides, no nor any one Preacher but them 12. And as for the other two places Acts 1.21.22. and Acts 8.1. there is not any word con­cerning Preachers or Ministers, onely some directions touching the choise of Matthias, who was one of the 12. mentioned Act. 6.2. And although they who were scattered preached the Word Acts 8.4. yet the Scripture doth not declare that they were Preachers or Ministers of the Church in Jerusalem.

But the Doctor hath one Argument, which is more to the pur­pose [Page 10]then all the other, which I desire the Reader seriously to consi­der, pag. 64. he thus further argueth.

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

Ergo, There was diverse congregations, and severall assemblies, of Beleevers in the CHURCH of Ierusalem, where they did duly pertake in all the Ordinances, and injoyed all the acts of Worship.

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

This argument I answer; First, by denying the Assumption, or Minor proposition, and the reason of my denying all, is because the Scriptures produced by the Doctor, doe not in expresse words declare, that there were diverse assemblies, and Congregations of beleevers in the Church of Jerusalem, The Scriptures quoted do in expresse words declare the contrary to what the Doctor would prove; For, Acts 2.44,46. All that beleeved were together, and they continued daily with one accord in the Temple. and Acts. 3.11,12. It is expressely said; That all the people ranne together to them, in the porch, which is called Solomons. Act. 5.12. And they were all with one accord in Solomons Porch. So that these Scriptures produced by the Doctor to prove, that there were divers assemblies and Congregations of Beleevers in the Church of Jerusalem, who met together in severall places, at one and the same time, to wit, upon the first day of the week, where they did partake daily in all Ordinances, doth expresly proove the con­tray, to wit, that the Apostles, and all the Beleevers in the Church of Jerusalem, met together with one accord, in one place, to wit,[Page 11]the Temple, and in Solomons Porch, and brake bread from house to house, [...], Domatius, not [...] per singulas domos, and thus they did [...], quotidie, day by day, and they con­tinued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, and all that beleeved were to­gether, Acts. 2.42,44,46. Yea, the Doctor himselfe saith in his Minor Proposition, the latter part of it. That the Apostles and all the Beleevers in Ierusalem did continue daily with one accord in the Temple, and that they brake bread from house to huse: And this shall suffice for refutation of What the Docter hath Written touching the first Proposition.

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

The third proposition, which the Doctor comes next to prove, is, That thee Apostles and Elders, or Presbyters governed, and or­dered, and ruled this Church joyntly and by a common councell and Presbytery, pag. 82. Which the Doctor saith is evident by these pla­ces following: Acts 11.27. to the end. The words of this Sccripture which the Doctor makes use of, to prove his Assertion, are these, Verse 30. And sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas, and Saul. Here in these last words (saith the Doctor) We see, that the Presbyters, and none but the Presbyters received the Almes, which sufficiently proveth, that the Presbyters in all Churches were, the men of Government: pag. 82. It is not denied by the Brethren, that the Presbyters in all Churches were the men in the Govern­ment of the Churches in which they are Elders. But this I con­ceive (by the Doctors favour) doth not prove it, to wit; Be­cause the Almes was sent to the Elders. Much lesse doth that Scrip­ture[Page 12]prove, that the Apostles and Presbyters governed and ruled the Church in Jerusalem by a Common-councell and Presbyterie, which is the Assertion that the Doctor undertakes to prove. But in the 15. Chapter verse 2.4.6.22. and in chap. 16.4. And in Acts 21.17,18. The Presbyters of Ierusalem by name (saith the Doctor pag.) 83. are expressed. Out of which places of Scripture before the Doctor frame his Arguments, he pleaseth to make a di­gression from page 48. to 90. Wherein he highly extols the Pres­byters, making them equall with the Apostles in all the Acts of Church-Governement, (as appeares by the Doctors owne words, pag. 88. I doe verily beleeve (saith the Doctor) that the Presbyters did act as authoritively as the Apostles: and that the Presbyters might as well conclude, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, as well as the Apostles, and not onely the presbyters, who sate in Coun­sell with the Apostles, and other presbyters, who were Ordained El­ders by the Apostles; And the Assemblie now of Divines, or any other, may congregate and meet together in some one place, for the deciding of controversies, and differences of opinions in Religion, to state the Que­stions, and debate them from Scripture, or warrantable authority and evidence of reason deduced from thence, and may determine the qestion by joynt consent, or by the most voyces, and may say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and us. pag. 87.88.Pag. 88. And that Presbiters have their authoritie as well grounded in the Word of God, as Kings and States have theirs, page. 89. And the Doctor doth more especially extoll the Presbyters of this kingdom in these our dais, telling what they have deserved from the Church, Parliament, and Kingdome more then any of their Predecessors, having ended his Digression, hee gives you his Argument, pag. 90. To wit: ‘'They that in the holy Scripture are called Presbyters, and acted and ordered things in a joynt body, and Common-counsell with the Presbyters, and exercised that ordinary power committed to them in the 18. of Mattew, they acted as Presbyters. But the Apostles in governing the Church of Jerusalem, consisting of many Congregations and Assemblies, acted and ordered things in a joynt body and Com­mon councell with the Presbytery of that Church, as Presbyters. Ergo, the Church of Jerusalem was Presbyterianly governed, and by a Common councell of Presbyters. The Major, and Mi­nor of this Sillogisme being proved (saith the Doctor) the conclusion will necessarily ensue.’ I know not that the Brethren[Page 13]ever denied, That the Church of Jerusalem was Presbyterianly go­verned; And although the Dr. be pleased to make that his conclu­sion, yet (under Reformation be it spoke) that conclusion doth not follow upon the premises. For if the Dr. please to review his Ar­gument, He shall finde, First; that the subject of his Major propo­sition is left out both in his Minor, and in his Conclusion: The first part of the Doctors Minor should have beene this, to witt, But the Apostles in the holy Scripture are called Presbyters, and who ever denyed this; Also the first part of the Doctors conclusi­on should have been this, from these two premises, to witt; Ergo, The Apostles acted as Presbyters which Conclusion is not the thing in Question. Secondly, that from the second part of the Doctors two propositions (to wit, They that acted and Ordered things in a joynt body and Common-councell, which the Presbyters, acted as Presbyters; But the Apostles in governing the Church of Ieru­salem acted and Ordered things in a joynt body, and Common-councell with the Presbytery, (or Presbyters either) of that Church: Ergo, the Apostles acted as Presbyters.) This should have been the Doctors conclusion.

Now the truth is, though the Apostles were called Presbyters in the Scripture, yet it followeth not, that they acted as Presbyters, but as Apostles Acts 15. And they cannot therein be a pattern and president for Presbyters; First, because the Apostles had the care and charge of and over all Churches. 2 Cor. 11.28. But the Pres­byters had the care and oversight of some one Church onely, as Ephesus Acts 20.28. or Philippi, Phil. 1.1. and this the Dr. often inserts in his Book. That all the Churches we read of in the new Testament (though they were Presbyterially governed) were de­pendent upon their severall Presbyters, pag. 12.Pag. 12. And secondly, because this would make the Presbyters Independents indeed, for so the Apostles were in the Government of all the Churches; The Presbyters of Jerusalem, of Ephesus, and of all the Churches were dependent upon the Apostles, and the Apostles onely depended on Christ, by whose holy spirit, they were all alwayes guided in the go­vernment of their Churches, and therefore they said Acts 15.28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. And though the Doctor say the Presbyters might say so, as well as the Apostles because the Elders or Presbyters are mentioned there: The Dr. might have also considered that the Brethren, even the whole church, the multitude (how many soever the D. can make of them) were present as wel as[Page 14]the Presbyters. Acts 15.4.12.22.23.25.27.28. And so have made the Brethren, the multitude, even the whole Church Independent also; and the Dr. might as well have affirmed, that the Brethren even the whole Church might say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.

To the fourth proposition; ‘'That the Church of Jerusalem and the Government of the same, is to be a pattern for all Congregations and Assemblies in any City or vicinity to unite into one Church, and for the Officers and Presbyters of those congregations to go­vern that Church joyntly in a Colledge or Presbytery. pag. 97.’ And for the proof of this fourth Proposition, the Doctor saith; ‘'That all men acknowledge, that the mother Church must give an example of Government to all the Daughter Churches. Neither do the Brethren deny (saith the Dr.) but the Government of the Church of Jerusalem must be the pattern of Government to all Churches.’ But the Dr. knowes, that the Brethren deny that the Church of Ierusalem consisted of divers Congregations and severall assemblies under a Common-councell, Consistory, Colledge, or Court of Presbyters. And this they have not granted, neither hath the Doctor proved. And this may be sufficient to be said in answer to the four Propositions touching the first question.

And now I come to the second Question, which is concerning the manner of gathering of Churches, and admitting of Members and Officers pag. 98. which Question the Dr. thus states, viz. ‘'Whether Ministers of the Gospell may, out of already gathered assemblies of Beleevers, select and chuse the most principle of them into a Church-fellowship peculiar unto themselves, and ad­mit of none into their society,’ but such as shall enter in by a pri­vate Covenant, and are allowed by the consent, and approbation of all the Congregation? And this Question the Doctor brancheth into sixe Queries pag. 98.99. Wherein the judicious Reader may perceive the Doctor (through mis-information I conceive) hath mistaken the stateing of the Question, which he partly acknow­ledgeth pag. 100.

‘'But now I shall set down (saith the Dr. pag. 100) Gods me­thod and the Apostles practice in gathering of Churches, and the manner they used in making Members in every Church, and com­pare it with the method our Brethren (the Independents) use, &c. [Page 15]And to this purpose the Doctor begins with Christs commission, Matth. 28.19,20. and Mark. 16.15,16. and Acts 26.15,16.17,18,19,20.’

Out of these severall Scriptures the Doctor observes these three things, pag. 101. and 102. To wit, First, ‘'That they should teach no other things but what Christ commanded them, and appeared to them in, and for which thy had his Word and war­rant. Secondly, the condition, which they were to pro­pound unto all nations and people, upon which they were ad­mitted into the Church, was Faith, Repentance, and Baptisme. And thirdly, that this commission was delivered onely to the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel, that they should admit whosoever beleeved, and were baptized; And they that beleeved not would not be baptized, were not to be admitted. These are the Doctors owne words, page 102. and page. 103. The Doctor for proofe quotes the third Chapter of Matthew, and Luke 3.7. And the sum of Iohns preaching (saith the Dr.) is mentioned, verse 3. It was the baptisme of Repentance for the Remission of sinnes. Also he there cites Luke 7.29. That all the people that heard him, and the Publicans justified God, being Baptized with the Baptisme of Iohn; But the Pharisees and the Lawyers re­jected the councell of God against themselves, being no Bap­tized of him. page 103.104. But now to go on (saith the Dr. pag 104.) after the Resurrection and Assension of Christ, &c. Where he quotes, Acts 2.37,38. Then they that gladly recei­ved the Word were Baptized, and the same day were added unto them about three thousand soules.’

Hence the Doctor observes, that the Apostles propounded no other condition or termes for the making all and every one of them members of the Church, but Repentance and Baptisme, The which, when the people had accepted of (saith the Doctor) They were forthwith admitted, &c. page. 104. For another proofe the Doctor produceth, Acts 10.44,47,48. Where the Doctor affirm­eth, page 106. That those Brethren who came with Peter did not intermeddle in that businesse, to wit, of their admittance (by Baptisme) into the Church. Now I conceive the reason, why those Brethren did not intermeddle to hinder their admittance to that Ordi­nance[Page 16]of Jesus Christ, (to wit, Baptisme in water) and so to an en­trance into the Church; was, not because they had not such Liber­tie, but because the Brethren had no just objections or kindrance to declare to Peter.

That the Brethren had a liberty to have declared any thing, which might justly have hindred the administration of that Ordi­nance of Baptisme unto them, doth appeare by the Question which the Apostle expounded. verse 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized? ‘'And the Dr. himselfe acknowledg­ed, pag. 102. That the Brethren or Disciples of the Church of Jerusalem (who must be a patterne (saith the Dr.) of all churches) had this libertie to except against some sorts of persons, and hin­der their admittance into the church, though baptized according to Christs Commission, and Preachers chosen and sent by Christ himselfe. And that in case such persons have been formerly known to be open Enemies, and persecuters of the church, and then they are justly to bee suspected (saith the Dr. page. 102.) untill they have given publike Evidence by witnesse to the Ministers of their true Conversion,’ and there produceth a plaine instance to prove this page 102. Acts. 9.26,27,28. And when Saul was come to Ierusalem ( [...] tentabat jungi) he assayed to joyne him­selfe to the Disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and beleeved not that hee was a Disciple, &c.

Now this liberty have all the disciples in the like case, because Ie­rusalem the Mother church is the pattern of all other the Daughter Churches, as the Doctor confesseth, yea affirmeth, page 97. And saith, all men acknowledge, That the Mother Church must give an example of government to all the Daughter churches. And this is also by the Doctor acknowledged, page 102. to be a part of the power of the Keyes, to open and shut the doores of the Church; that is, to ad­mit such as are for their Faith, Knowledge and Repentance sufficiently qualified, and fitted to be made members, and to refuse such, as are not fit to be recived into the fellowship of the church; either for their Ignorance or other sins and offences, &c. Now, then when it doth evidently appear. That the Disciples or Brethren (not to say Si­sters, though they are Disciples also) of the Church in Jerusalem (in her most flourishing condition) had this libertie to declare[Page 17]their feares, and the ground thereof against Paul, who was at that time a Beleever, a Baptized person, & a Preacher, or minister of the Gospell, so that although, hee came, and assayed, to be joy­ned to the Disciples, and be admitted a member among them, that he might have fellowship with them in the worship, and or­dinances of the Gospell: Yet was thereby hindered from admit­tance untill Barnabas witnessed his condition and conversation to the Apostle, and then he was with them coming in & going out at Jerusalem. How can the Doctor make good, that ‘'The Presby­ters alone without the consent of Brethren may admit members, and cast out members, and that the Brethren or the congregation hath nothing to doe to hinder any such thing, page 102.106.’

For further proof hereof: ‘'The Doctor urgeth Act. 8.35. to 40. The example of the Eunuch, to whom Philip being sent preached Jesus, and Baptisme in his Name, and it is related, That when they came to a certaine water the Eunuch said unto him; See here is Water? What doth hinder me to be Baptized? And Philip said, If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou mayest, [...] licet, And he answered and said, I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: And he commanded the Charet to stand still; And they went downe both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him. Here we set (saith the Doctor) that PHI­LIP admits him into the number of beleevers, and makes him a member of the Church. But the Doctor saith, this was without consulting with the Congregation, by his owne authority, and upon the Eunuch his own testimonie, pag. 106.’

I answer, that PHILIP had a speciall command from God for what he did herein, and so had Ananias, Act. 9.15. touching Saul, which is the next Instance which the Doctor brings in this same 106. pag. And albeit the Doctor affirme; ‘'That ANANIAS did not say to SAUL, I will consult with the Church to see whither they will admit thee to be a member, for thou hast greatly wast­ed the Church, and made havock of the Saints, and therefore I will have their approbation, and consent, and thou shalt give in evidences of thy true Conversion, &c.’ And so be received and admitted.

[Page 18] ‘'But without all this ado (saith the Dr. pag. 107.) he baptized Paul, and admitteth him into the number of Beleevers, and makes him a Member of the Church.’ Yet if the Reader look back into the 102. page of his Book, The Dr. there makes an exception from the power which he a little before had affirmed the Presbyters have to admit Members, by vertue of Christ his commission, upon the profession of their faith and repentance, and receiving bap­tisme, without any further Testimony; ‘'Unlesse (saith the Dr.) they had been formerly known to be open enemies, and persecu­tors of the Church, and then they were justly to be suspected, till they had given publike evidence by witnesse of their true con­version: And gives an instance in Paul, who for a time the Dis­ciples feared Acts 9.26.27. till they had better information, and proof, that he now preached the faith, that he had once persecu­ted, and had suffered for it, pag. 102.’ To rehearse all the Scriptures alledged to prove this method of God and practise of the Apostles were needlesse. But passing by such as are not so plain and clear for the proof thereof, and also omitting, what the Doctor hath said touching the Brethren, in comparing their practise with the Apostles: Because the Dr. is mistaken in stateing the Question, and also in his Queries, as before I mentioned in the 14 page of this my answer, and the Reader may see pag. 98 99. and 100. of the Doctors Book. I shall give the Reader the result of all, that the Dr. hath written from pag. 100. to the end of his Book, touching Gods method, and the Apostles practice in gathering of Churches and admitting Members, viz. ‘'First, That Christ having given a Commission to his Apostles to teach all Nations, and baptize them, Matth. 28.19.20. Mark. 16 15 16. the Apostles practised accordingly. Acts 2.37.38. Acts 10.44.45.46.47.48. and so did Philip Acts 8.35.36.37.38. and Ananias Acts 9.10.18. Secondly, That the condition or tearmes, which they were to propound unto all Nations and people upon which, they were to be admitted into the Church, were Faith, Repentance, and Bap­tisme. Mark. 16.15,16. For the commission was delivered to the Apostles, that they should admit whosoever beleeved, and would be baptized, and they, that beleeved not, and would not be bap­tized, were not to be admitted, pag. 102. and pag. 104. The Apo­stles[Page 13](saith the Dr.) propounded no other condition or tearmes for making all and every one Members of the Church but Repen­tance, and Baptisme, Acts 2.37.38. Thirdly, that the Apostles and all succeeding Ministers of the Gospell should admit whoso­ever beleeved, and were baptized, to be Members of the Church, and teach them to observe no other things but what Christ com­manded them, and for which they had his Word and warrant: pag. 101. and 102. Matth. 28.19.20. And this (saith the Dr.) the Apostles did practice, without requiring them to take a pri­vate covenant, or enter into the Church by way of a particular covenant, pag. 105. Acts 2.37.38.’ This being the summe and result of that method and practice, which the Dr. conceives should be done in gathering Churches and admitting Members, which the Scriptures will warrant, and Christ Jesus approve of as his fathers will, I shall now take liberty to declare, what I know by mine own experience to be the practice of some Churches of God in this City. That so both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near the Saints, who walk together in the Fellowship of the Gospell do come in their practice, to these Apostolicall rules and practice propounded by the Dr. as Gods method in gathering Churches, and admitting Members. I say, that I know by mine own experi­ence (having walked with them) That they were thus gathered; viz. Some godly and learned men of approved guifts and abilities for the Ministerie, being driven out of the Countries, where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates, came to sojourn in this great City, and preached the Word of God both publikely, and from house to house, and daily in the Temples and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ: and some of them have dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came in unto them, preaching the Kingdome of God, and teaching those things, which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. Matth. 28.18.19.20. Mark. 16.15. Act. 8.4. [...]ap. 1 [...].19 20.21.22. Act. 10.20.21. Act. 5.42. Act. 28.23.30.31. Acts 17.1.2,3,4,5. Acts 17.5.11,12. Acts 2.38.40,41,42. And when many sinners were converted by their preaching of the Gospell, some of them that beleeved, consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which those Preachers both publikely and privately propounded to the people, unto whom they Preached, upon which they were to be admitted into the Church was Faith, Repentance, and Bap­tisme;[Page 20]and none other. And whosoever (poor as well as rich, bond as well as free, servants as well as Masters) did make a profession of their Faith in Christ Jesus, and would be baptized with water into the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Spirit, were admit­ted Members of the Church; but such as did nor beleeve, and would not be baptized they would not admit into Church-com­munion. Act. 16.30,31,32,33. Acts 8.35.37.38,39. Acts 8.12. Acts 18.8. This hath been the practice of some Churches of God in this City, without urging or making any particular covenant with Members upon admittance, which I desire may be examined by the Scriptures cited in the Margent, and then compared with the Doctors three conclusions from the same Scriptures, whereby it may appear to the judicious Reader, how near the Churches some of them come to the practice of the Apostles rule, and practice of the primitive Churches, both in gathering, and admitting Mem­bers. And my humble request to the Doctor is; That he will use all meanes, that the method of God, and practice of the Apostles in gathering of Churches, and admitting Members, may be con­scionably practised by his Brethren of both sides according to the revealed Word and Will of the Father.