PAge 1. It hath ever been observed, that diversity of judge­ment and opinion bath made a difference in affection. Answ. But you prove not that to be other then the fruit of Corruption; therefore throw the stone at Corruption, Solomon sayes, only through pride (there­foreProv. 14. 10. not through difference) comes Contention. There is an Antipa­thy between the Hound and the Hare, but was it so from the be­ginning? Or, must one of them be destroyed?

2. We see many a husband and wife, neighbour and neighbour, friend and friend of severall judgements, that yet live very amicably and friendly together, therefore the observation is not universally true: And if a few do, and may do so, all might, had they the same grace, and were there the like mortification of pride. And as for your instance, of the Disciples animosity against the Samaritans, Luke 9. whereby this grave Sentence is exemplyfied: Doth not Christ re­prove his Disciples instead of contriving the ruine or removall of the Samaritans, though it was not difference in Religion, but incivi­lity and inhumanity against the very person of Christ himself, thatVers. 53. so stird the Disciples choler? but whatsoever it was for, will you humour, justifie and make provision for such a passion, whichVers. 55. Christ so sharply condemnes in his Disciples?

Pag. 2. Therefore should all care and diligence among brethren be used to get a right understanding of one another.

Answ. 1. If by a right understanding one of another, you mean properly, viz. a calling of every thing by its right name, aggravating nothing, nor looking through multiplying glasses upon the incon­veniences [Page 2] of each others opposite opinion I am for you, and shal call you a man of peace: Or, if you speak Metonymically, using the Cause for the Effect, and by right understanding, mean an incorporation into one opinion; yet if you carry this impartially, and beg not the Question, but put them into an equall ballance, resolving your self, as well as desiring others to imbrace whatsoever shall appeare to be the truth, you do well: But if you will anticipate and forestall the judgement of your Reader, and nothing will please you but a com­ing over to your opinion, what singular thing, or what new Inven­tion towards an agreement do you offer more then the rigidest Pres­byterian confident of his own Way, and abounding in his own sense, hath done before you? Certainly, if wee could turn Presbyterians, wee question not but the strife were ended: But here were a part worthy of a man of parts, in case we cannot be of one minde, to find out a Way of peace and love, and to move brethren to beare with one another, as you say, contiguously with the former, but have little endeavoured it yet, and not a little the contrary.

Pag. 3. The honour of the Church, for which you professe you contend, is an unsavory expression, too much symbolizing with the stile of the Papists, as doth the practice of some men with theirs also. And whereas you say [the honour of that Church] you speak ve­ry ambiguously, and improperly, not determining where, or who that Church is, whether in England or Scotland, or elsewhere, or every where, whether Catholike or Nationall, tell us, that we may honour it with you.

Pag. ead. Some few lines below, where you undertake to reckon all the undeceiveable marks of the true Church, saying expressly, these are all those undeceiveable marks, &c. Yet having named only three, you eeke them out with an [all other requisites] not naming the rest, like the Bishops Et caetera; who juggles now?

And whereas you say contiguously, From such a Church as hath the Gospel purely preached and believed, the Sacraments rightly admini­stred, and in the which there is the true invocation of God and all other requisites, &c. there is no just separation.

I answer, There is a whole Category of Amphibolies in your speech; For neither by all the Requisites, do you say whether you mean Es­sentialls or Integralls: Nor by separation, whether you mean abso­lute and totall separation, or partiall; from Communion ordinary or [Page 3] from all communion; from internall or externall; therefore I might justly take no notice of this, till you speak plainer; yet to un­deceive the world, we give this account and answer: An internall communion there is, and ought to be acknowledged between all the members of the body mysticall, whether they be in bodies mini­steriall or no: an externall communion in all the common duties of Religion; as praying, hearing, conference, admonition, may not be de­nyed with all Christians, and with all men occasionally to edifica­tion: An externall communion in Church-ordinances, as sacraments and censures, may not be substracted or withdrawn from a Church right for the essentialls, as if it were no Church, or under such a no­tion, but as from an imperfect Church, if it want integralls; or a corrupt, if it be redundant with superstitions, &c. so it may: Lastly, an occasionall communion even in the Lords Supper, may be ad­mitted with a Church that walks up to their light, with whom yet, perhaps, we cannot with comfort sit down ordinarily.

As for your Apologie for the non-dedication of your Book, in regard of your sufferings for your former, I say only this upon it: It was far better with you when you suffered for Presbyterie in opposition to Prelaticall tyranny, then now, if you would make others suffer by Presbytery, in opposition to the Congregationall government; only I doubt, in the sequele of your Discourse you will not be found to in­title the Lord Jesus to your book, (as in terms you professe.) If so, I hope there will be no quarrell between us; for all wee contend for, is that the Government may be left where it is laid by the Fa­therIsai. 9. 6. even upon his shoulders.

As for God and Faith, which you joyn together, pag. 5. saying, You have learned to believe God and Faith upon their word and bond: I know not what that Faith should mean; we ordinarily take faith for that whereby we believe, and not that which we believe: or if you take it so (metonymically objectively) what is it other then God, or the will of God, which I suppose you mean the Word of God? For God, or his will in its Essence is not immediately objected to us, but hee reveales his will in his Word; but to the substance of this boast, and that that followes (if there be any substance in it) if you will believe God and the sufficiency of his institutions, without the sure­ties of humane reason and authority, as you do here equivalently pro­fesse, you will not be offended at the Congregationall Way for [Page 4] that inconsistency and deficiency that is carnally objected against it.

As for that you say, pag. 6. That this is no new opinion of yours, it is no more then the Papists may say for their Mysterie of Iniquity.

And as for your sufferings for it, which you boast of; alas, suf­ferings are subject to the same vanity and bondage of corruption as doings; yea, and the whole creation are (i.) to be applyed to ill things, and graffed with an ill cause, though I say not it was ill as opposing Prelacie, or as it was a graduall recidivation from that tyranny.

And as for the acceptance of your endeavours and sufferings, in that cause, and your inference thereupon, That therefore you see no good Pag. eadem. reason why a truth then should not be counted a truth now; You beg the Question: Prove first it was a truth, otherwise 'tis no wonder if that which seemed to be a truth six or seven yeers ago, finde not the same acknowledgement now, as might be instanced in many par­ticulars.

Next you come to state the Question, pag. 7. and immediately you give that which you call a simile of it, but if it be, it is 1. a carnall one, and I had rather heare, and it would better become a spirituall man to compare spirituall things with spirituall: for Christs institu­tions1 Cor. 2. 13. must not be exacted by the Last and Rule of humane or­dinances. God gave Moses the pattern of the Tabernacle in the Mount, he doth not send him to take a pattern for it from anyExod 25. 40. 26. 30. earthly frame or fabrick, though there were far more costly and curious, but the Tabernacle was to have, and had a fashion by it self that differed from all: When we know the true nature of spi­rituall things, of the devices of God, as I may call them, wee may finde a resemblance of them in things here below, which are made after them, but wee cannot fetch the knowledge of heavenly com­posures from these earthly things.

2. Yet neither is this bed of your simile large enough for the tall Isai. 28. 20. and proper limbs of your Presbytery to stretch themselves upon: For though the severall Companies in each city, as you say, (though wee have not many such cities in England, except you have more of them in Scotland, wherein there are such severall Companies that have all their severall halls, (e. g.) Merchant Taylors, Grossers, &c. for to yeeld the matter of this simile) are not independent, but as­sociate and combined in a common councell, &c. yet there are Cor­porations [Page 5] as small as these Companies in the Kingdome, that are Independent, and doe not act in association or coordination. So that if the Churches in the Citie must, to hold correspondence with the forme of Civill Government, be in association and act in a Presbytery, yet this Simile will not carry any such thing to an or­dinary understanding, that in the Countrey (where they live three or foure, or more miles asunder, and act their Civill affaires inde­pendently) they must doe so. Nay then, we will argue from the Simile: If the Townes in the Countrey be independent in their Ci­vill Government, that is, act singly and independently (in respect of any other Townes intermedling) their own businesses and con­cernments, as they doe, why should not the Churches in those Townes doe so too? then at least the Churches in the Countrey must be exampted from Presbytery.

But 3. I answer to your simile, That as it is shorter then that Presbytery, as you would be willing to extend it in the praxis, may stretch it selfe upon, so it is abs re, farre from illustrating the sense you intend. For your simile in the true resolution of it pro­poses no other then whether Inferiors may act independent of their Superiors. For all those appeales, whereof you speake, are still re­solved into a higher notion, power, and authoritie, (e. g.) The Lord Major, Court of Aldermen, and Common Councell, are su­perior to any Company or Companies of the Citie, in degree as their rulers, or amount to a superioritie in value and summe, as the representative of the Citie, the whole, which is better then any part: therefore your simile is not fit for this purpose. But now if you would propose a proper simile, it should be thus; Whether Compa­nies or Corporations, equall and coordinate, may not and doe not act their owne proper affaires and concernments independently in respect of one another? (i.) Whether if a Citizen of Merchant-taylors Compa­ny, be aggrieved by the carriage of any thing in that Company, he can so appeale to the Company of the Stationers, and the Company of the Vintners, and two or three more, or the Heads of these, as to subject the Company of Merchant-taylors to the jurisdiction and arbitrament of those Companies? for this is the case here.

As suppose there be no imparity (i.) superioritie or inferioritie in the Churches, but all are coordinate, all are one Spouse to Je­sus [Page 6] Christ, and he intrusts one Congregation as well and as much as another, and gives them as large a share of common interest in spirituall government, or managing the matters of his Kingdome, one Church as another, and hath made no Common Councell, no Court of Aldermen, no Lord Major in his Church, nor no Officers or distinctions answering to these. And suppose further, that as neither male nor female, bond nor free, so such a distincti­on of whole and part, have no place in this matter, but Christ Je­sus the quickening Spirit be, as in all, so all in all, and each of these particular bodies; and as a whole Christ went for the ransome of each particular Beleever, and a whole Christ is in every beleever, (as the soule tota in toto) so the whole and intire glory of Jesus Christ be intrusted with every particular Congregation, (i.) an intire and perfect administration of all government be committed to them, and the intire Rev. 1. 4. spirit of government be in each such Congregation. Suppose, I say, it be thus (as I conceive it will be found to be,) that each part be to Christ as the whole; Christ be­ing indivisible, and recollecting his whole selfe in himselfe, and in every part of himselfe (which the spirit of humane power, order, and authority cannot doe) and so we cannot weigh Christ against1 Cor. 1. 13. Christ, Christs power against Christs power, nor many Congre­gations against one. I say, Suppose these things be so, then is it any Question, whether such Congregations may act independent­ly? When as wee know that Companies doe act independent of their fellow-Companies, and Corporations in the Countries doe act independent of other neighbour-Corporations: indeed they act not independently incontroulably of the higher names above them; but a Company is not indicted by a Company, a Corporation by a Corporation. Untill therefore you shall prove that Churches are not coordinate, or that there are higher names then Churches and Church-Presbyters, or that the same persons are in higher place and office in a Classis, then in their owne particular spheares and Congregations, (which if it were so, then why should they not have suteable names, that might import the superiority of the Relation (even as the Common-Councell-Men, though they be Masters and Members of the severall Companies, yet when joy­ned in a Common Councell, they are not called the Masters of the Companies of the Citie, but by a distinct name of interest and ho­nour, [Page 7] the Court of Aldermen, and Common Councell) untill, I say, you prove these, your simile will lye in the dirt. I know wee have such names, as Classes and Synods, adapted and adopted to this Ec­clesiasticall Hierarchy, but they being onely jure humano, will not passe with us for grounds of Authority or superiority in the things that are called by them.

Next after your Simile you come to your Question, and to divide your position into foure Branches, which yet you fall off from again by a digression of sixteen or seventeen pages long, to prove, viz. That all the Churches we read of in the New Testament, were pregnant Churches, or accumulated of many, govern'd by a Common Presbytery: Which labour you might have saved, if you had hopes to make good the foure Branches propounded, (two of which are, That the Mother-Church was such a Church, and so govern'd; and secondly, That all other Churches are to be govern'd as that was:) at least you might have kept this for a reserve, if they had failed. But besides that, you prove neither part of your Assertion, viz. Either that they were aggregated Churches, or that the Presbytery to which they were committed, was a joynt Presbytery, and not each Church to its par­ticular, (for those many Scriptures you quote, do neither of them­selves sound so, nor for ought I see, doe you put such a twang into them:) you commit these errors by the way.

1. You impose upon your Reader, without any authoritie or reason, that Diotrephes was an Independent, and that was the quar­rell3 Epist. Joh. John had against him; and that his Church was in the facti­on with him, when as wee have no mention of his Church at all, nor of his prating against the Presbytery. And for the crime obje­cted, of seeking the preheminence, if the Lord keepe us that the world be never able to charge us with a likelier fault, we shall not be afraid to make our Accusers our Judges; Alas, our offence is, that we are against preheminence.

2. You confidently exclude the people from having any hand in the Government, (in which you account the solving of difficulties in doctrine, as well as other matters to be a part) when yet in the places quoted, especially and most expresly, Act. 15. 22. the inte­rest of the Brethren and the whole Church is spoken of, not in actu signato onely, but in actu exercito.

3. Pag. 18. You make the names of Pastors and Shepheards, when [Page 8] applyed to Church-Officers, to import that Authoritie, power, and go­vernment, as they doe when applyed to Magistrates: at least you make the symbolizing of Church-Officers with Civill Magistrates in those Names an Argument of communicating with them in such a kinde of power as they have, though not the same degree; but how weak­ly, let all men judge.

4. Pag. 19. You exact the wayes of God by the line and rule of humane reason, and will give no more to an Institution, then it will goe for in that Market.

5. In the same page you put such an Objection upon the Inde­pendents about requiring Miracles, as the condition and qualification of Elders now adayes, els not to be acknowledged Elders, as I am confident the Congregationall judgement will not, nor ever did they owne, what ever some other Independents (for it is a genericall name, appliable to whomsoever the inventers of it please, and more properly to some others, then they that are commonly called by it) may doe; but that it might be a scandall to all of the Name, you doe very wisely, and take the right course, not to name the booke or Author, where you finde that Objection.

Pag. 29. You lure after your reader (who might very well be turning his back upon your discourse) that now you come in order to prove the foure propositions, but you keepe not this order long. The first proposition is; That there were many Congregations and severall Assemblies in the Church of Jerusalem, &c. For the proofe whereof you bring the multitudes of Converts to Johns Baptisme; The peo­ple of Jerusalem, all of them, and all Judea, &c. Whereby (say you,) they all became Christians, or Members of the Christian Church: For (say you,) Johns Baptisme was into Jesus Christ, and the very same with that of the Apostles.

Wee answer to your Reason;

1. Johns Baptisme was into Christ, but it was in Christum mo­riturum, not in Christum mortuum.

2. To say it was the same with Christs and the Apostles, is flatMat. 21. 25. Act. 18. 25. contrary to the Assertion of John himselfe, and the Apostles; I bap­tize you with water (sayes he) but there comes one after me, who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

3. Therefore now by Johns Baptisme they were not all made Christians, no more then the body of the Jewes before John were [Page 9] turn'd Christians by being baptized in the red Sea, &c. for they were baptized into Christ by their Baptismes. I deny not but this bap­tisme1 Cor. 10. 3. of John was to prepare men for Christ, and did beare a more immediate relation to such a worke, then any Ordinance before, but it did not make them absolute Christians; It did not absolve and perfect the new Church, I meane not so farre as that Ordi­nance of Baptisme was to doe afterwards.

4. The learned and judicious know, that John was but the Messenger before Christs face, and his Baptisme was but as theMal. 3. 1. streamings of light in the Heavens before the day, and he did one­ly bring and restore all things to their legall perfection by water, the Element of the Law; but Christ Jesus he comes and baptizes with fire, Consummates all things with this transforming power­full Element, even his Spirit.

5. So farre was it that all that were baptized by John, were made Christians, that even Johns owne Disciples (who had the best and frequentest instruction,) not onely hesitated, but were downright Joh. 3. 26. scandalized at the true Messias; and others did under that forme of Johns baptisme, fight against the true Baptisme and baptizer the Lord Jesus: so that I conceive this Argument (were it granted that all the people received Johns Baptisme) will stand in little stead to prove the Conclusion, viz. That they were made Christians, much lesse cast into a Church-mould, according to the New Testament forme, and least of all that they were all members of one Christian Church at Jerusalem.

But note an absurdity in the sequell of the discourse, where the Doctor having got a multiplying glasse in his hand, goes on to make strange discoveries of the increase of Christian Beleevers, Pag. 36. he tells us, That Christ made many more Disciples and beleevers then John, and added daily to the Church that was then in Jerusalem, such as should be saved. Here's two Paradoxes. First, That Christ made more Disciples then John: Out of whom should he make them, when as John had swept all along with him, as you affirme before, pag. 32. med. not taking it synecdochically, (what­ever you determine of it here.) Secondly, That Christ should adde daily to the Church that was then in Jerusalem, is not this a mar­vailous anticipation and mistake, to apply that which was done by the Disciples after Christs ascension, Act. 2. last, unto the Ministry [Page 10] of Christ himselfe, and yet in the sequell you reckon this to the A­postles also expresly, pag. 56. Judge if here be not false Musters. And let me tell you, you give us occasion shrewdly to suspect your ignorance (to say no worse) to talke of a Church in Jerusalem, besides the Nationall Church of the Jewes in the life-time of our Saviour.

And thus farre I have taken notice of most of the Materiall Ex­cipienda in your Booke: I had thought to have bestowed as much time on the rest, but that other Considerations forbad me, there­fore I shall onely briefly examine the maine Propositions that fol­low, omitting the Amplifications and Collaterall Notions that fall in the handling thereof. And so I shall leave this Proposition, without taking any further Exceptions to it, or any more passages in the asserting of it, and the rather, because there are, and those so able, already ingaged in the dispute thereof; and come to the se­cond Proposition, viz. That all these Congregations and severall As­semblies To the second Proposition. made up but one Church: Which Proposition, except the former stand good, is to little purpose, as the Doctor foreseeing is therefore very briefe in the manifestation of it, I shall not therefore be long in the Examination of it, though in that little compasse of lines he gives cause of manifold Exceptions. For first whereas you say, The Brethren themselves acknowledge, that all the Beleevers in Jerusalem were all members of that Church: If you meane the Church spoken of Act. 15. 4. I deny, and say, it is a grosse pre­sumption, and begging of the Question, to say, that wee acknow­ledge all the Beleevers in Jerusalem to be Members of that one mi­nistring Church, especially if you reckon all Johns Disciples and Converts to these Beleevers: For as there was a good space of time after there were multitudes of Beleevers, ere there was such a Church, so for any thing hath yet been brought to the contrary, it is probable enough that the true Beleevers, (which were not so many after you have cut off Johns Converts, I meane those that did stick in Johns Baptisme, which were multitudes, and tempo­rary Beleevers, which ceased to walke with Christ, which were not a few, and strangers, which did afterwards disperse themselves into severall Countries) those that did remaine at Jerusalem, did gradually grow up unto Church-fellowship. And it amounts to no lesse then the former begging and presumption, that which [Page 11] followes, viz. That this Proposition is manifest out of the Scripture, viz. that they that were convented, are said to be added to the Church. For what if that be to be understood of the Church Catholick, and not a particular Church? It may not be denyed, that the word Church, is often so used in the New Testament, and it is suspicious that the three thousand converted at once, were not so soone in­structed in Church-followship as converted. As for that which followes, that they continued in the Churches Communion, and the A­postles doctrine: The Doctor hath moulded the Text for his own advantage, and indeed hath falsified it; for 'twas in the Apostles Act. 2. 42. doctrine and fellowship, not in the Churches fellowship, except you are content it should be understood in the communion of the Church Catholicke, which is no more then in Christian Communi­on in generall: and for ought I know, that is all that is meant there: And tell me any act wherein the multitude of beleevers did communicate, that can bespeake it necessarily to be any more then a Christian Communion in generall, or what Christians may have together, though not of the same Church; and the Doctor him­selfe says before, The chiefe publique Ordinance they communicated in was preaching.

To the third Assertion or Branch, Pag. 82. which is, That the Apostles and Presbyters, governed, ordered, and ruled this Church of Je­rusalem, consisting of many Congregations and Assemblies, by a Common Councell and Presbytery.

I answer; First, I am not satisfied by any thing hath been al­ledged, that that Church consisted of many Congregations and Assemblies, and that upon the scruples before instanced.

Secondly, In asserting that the Presbyters did rule that Church, and ordinarily other Churches, whom doe you hit? Sure not the In­dependents, as you call them; We grant, 'tis their part to rule: but we distinguish between Authority and jurisdiction on the one hand, and power and interest on the other: this latter belongs to the peo­ple; the other is proper to the Officers, which yet they exercise in the name of the Church: So they, (i.) the Officers ordaine, they ex­communicate, (i.) pronounce Excommunication, they lead and di­rect in all Government and disputes, they have the executive power, as you demand pag. 93. But the people have a power and interest too, as those places alledged by your selfe shew expresly, Act. 15. For tho [Page 12] ver. 2. Paul and Barnabas are said to be sent to the Apostles and El­ders only, yet ver. 4. they are said to be received of the Church, and Apostles, and Elders, therefore they were sent to the Church also; and that word [...] with one accord, ver. 25. imports a multi­tude met together; and this to be the result of that multitude, els it were no great commendation of the resolution that it was con­vened about and issued forth [...]. And though onely the A­postles and Elders are mentioned, as coming together to consider of the Question, ver. 6. yet it is said, ver. 22. that it pleased (not one­ly the Apostles and Elders) but the whole Church also, therefore the Church also came together to consult; or the Apostles and Elders▪ as a Committee, first prepared the dispute, as not counting it so safe perhaps to admit the weake to the same, while it was intricate, and then reported it, and had their assistance and concurrence; and the Letters of resolution run in the name of the Brethren (i.) the Church as well as the Apostles and Elders, ver. 23. And so in Ordination [...], (i.) Election by lifting up of the hand, belongs to the Bre­thren, Act. 6. 5, 6. though [...], (i.) Imposition of hands, be proper to the Officers, where there are Officers, as in a Church constituted and compleat.

3. That where the whole Church is written to and exhorted to a part of discipline, that the Officers onely should be intended, as in confirma­tion of your Assertion you afterwards affirme by the instance of the Church of Corinth, we can no way admit. Rather on the o­ther hand, Christ many times writes and directs his Commands to the Officers, when they appertaine to the whole Church, and are so to be understood, onely written and sent to them, as being princi­pall parts of the Churches, by and from whom they are ex Officio, to be communicated to the whole. And for your Simile of Kings di­recting their Mandats to a Citie or Corporations, which are to be execu­ted by the Majors, Sheriffes, &c. I conceive it doth ire in contrarium, it is contrariously framed to the manner, which is rather to direct to the Sheriffe or Major, what doth concerne the Corporation, and is required of the whole: and so we finde Christ to doe in the Epistles to the seven Churches.

For that anticipating assertion, That the Apostles ruled this Church▪ aggregate, not by vertue of their Apostleship, but by vertue of its union. I shall referre it to the next head, viz. That the Church of Jerusalem, [Page 13] 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 Presbyterie, which is your fourth and last branch of your first Question, pag. 97.

Answ. 1. They are not an example of uniting or aggregation, except it be found that there were many churches aggregated, which a very facile and swasible reader may well doubt of, for any thing that hath yet been said to make it good.

2. If this were granted that many Churches did aggregate and unite in the beginning, yet would not this example be bindingly pre­sidentiall: For as many things were done out of that ordinary course that was after setled, in the creation, and in a singular way by themselves, as the enlightening of the world without a Sun, the watering of the earth with a mist before it rained, the produ­cing of fruits ex tempore; which things afterwards ceased, being digested into orderly rules and courses; so might it be in the first plantation of churches: Many things might pro tempore be ta­ken up, which might not afterwards be continued. (e. g.) The Apostles did Act. 6. 2. serve Tables at first, but afterwards an office was in­stituted for that on purpose: So suppose there were in the Church of Jerusalem a greater multitude then could meet in one place, and yet all one church, and ruled joyntly by the Apostles and Elders thereof, (which yet wee do not admit) yet could not this from hence be drawne into president, because, that howsoever the Acts of government which the Apostles exercised, together with the El­ders, in and over this Church, were common and ordinary and done after the ordinary manner (as the Doctor contends) yet I shall make bold to remember him again of that which it seemes hee re­members very well to have been answered in this case formerly (though he make not so good an use of it) viz. That the extent of their power in the exercising of these Acts there and elsewhere was extraordinary as was their persons and calling to Apostleship. And we do not so [...] by this distinction, that hee should not know where to have us, for 'tis easily apprehended what we say is imitable, and what not imitable in these Apostles.

And now for that cavill; That the Apostles did not this by vertue of their Apostleship, but by vertue of the union of those assemblies.

[Page 14]I answer, that in asserting it thus exclusively of their Apostleship, you suppose the Apostles to have been the officers ordinary, or at leastwise extraordinary of this Church of Jerusalem only, and so that they could not elsewhere exercise the like power, or not otherwise then by vertue of an union of churches, which is no greater prerogative then you will grant to ordinary officers now; and so the Apostles shall have no greater a Commission then we, which is as to say, their persons were no more extraordinary, nor their office, then common Presbyters now adayes.

But thirdly, to abound in the answer of this same matter, if that many churches in Jerusalem did unite and transact their af­faires, or some of them joyntly, and that therefore we may do so, yet it followes not that wee must, whether we will or no, for this is to urge us beyond the pattern. The churches in Jerusalem (admit) vo­luntarily, spontaneously through the opportunity and advantage of the Apostles help, and through the strength of the spirit of love and confidence which they had one to, and towards another, and for other good causes and considerations, did act many things (that concern'd the churches) in an associated way, therefore all chur­ches, will they nill they, have they the same grounds, reasons and incouragements, yea or no, must do so: Is this good Logick? And that you may not think here is prevarication or jugling in this bu­sinesse, I for mine owne part must ingenuously grant and confesse, that I am not very solicitous concerning the answer of this matter; for whether it were so, or it were not so then, that they did, or did not associate, I think it might be so now; I mean, some kinde of aggregation and union might be, though wee might tread more confidently, having the steps of the Primitive Churches before us, that is, to speak more plainly, The Churches of Christ now, though pos­sessed of an entire independent Church-power in each body; yet may, when, and where, and with whom, and in what cases or things God shall perswade them, transact such affaires as they shall think fit joyntly and sociously; provided, that hereby they devest not themselves of, nor prejudice themselves in any priviledge of an entire, sole, and and single administration, or the like, which Christ hath given them, but retain that power of resuming and recollecting themselves to themselves, when they shall see o [...]casion. And if the churches in Jerusalem [Page 15] did so, wee have cause to think this was all they did; and if the Brethren of Antioch did appeale (Asts 15.) we have cause to judge it was a free and voluntary appeal, and they were not call'd and compell'd thereto. And that they, and wee in imitation of them, might do this, is no wave of the sea, but stands upon this bottome and foundation, viz. That no priviledge is a hinderance in that thing wherein it is ordained for a priviledge: and so the intirenesse of a Congregation whereby it is able to recollect it self, as having the whole spirit of government in it, is not to be made a barre to a church or churches, that shall finde it convenient, and for edifica­tion to joyn with other churches (where God shall knit their hearts reciprocally) in the common transaction of such affaires as they shall think fit and consent unto: But this cannot be prescribed and injoyn'd upon them by man, but is to be done electively by them, as flowing indeed, from a speciall love and pleasure, which those churches take in one another, and beare to one another.

This we say in their ordinary affaires they may do, we speak not of cases extraordinary for difficulty and moment; wherein, if their own means suffice not, they are bound to seek the help of other Churches.

Briefly, to shut up all, Had we a Collegde of Apostles, or Aposto­licall men, wee should make as much use of them, and reference to them as they did; and were there more churches of such a temper and quality as they ought, (that might be the foundation of such a mutuall dearnesse, pleasure and confidence) wee might do more in this Way of associating then we do; but wee hold it our right, li­berty, and priviledge, to do what wee do in this kinde freely, and not to be compelled thereto; nor indeed would it be any other then a meere formall association did it arise otherwise. Win us therefore to an association by the beauty of your fellowships, and you shall not need to compell us.