COurteous Reader, it being expected by some, that I should (upon se­cond thoughts) render) a more particular account of my disapproba­tion of the Independent Platforme, then I have lately done in my Twelve considerable serious Questions touching Church­government, wherein I propounded my Reasons against the same, but in a generall manner: I shall for thy further satisfaction, and our Churches peace (most necessary and desirable in these dangerous times) propose by way of Interrogation, my more particular Exceptions, against this New form of govern­ment, with all ingenuity and freedome, without reflection upon any particular persons, or just disgust (unlesse Gal. 4. 16. truth displease) to those who are contrary-minded: My only aim being to convince, reconcile, not irritate or disaffect them. The reason why I thus write by way of Question, not Descision, is, because (for ought I finde) the Indepen­dents have not yet dogmatically, in direct termes▪ discovered to the world the ful truth of what they assert, but politikely conceale the principall grounds, and more deformed parts of their Church-platforme, till a further opportunity, for feare their very discovery at the first should cause their new building to miscarry. Whereupon I have rather chosen to pump out their determinations by the ensuing Questions to avoid mistakes then to refute them upon ba [...]e conjectures; following the Apostles seaso­nable advise, 1 Thes. 5. 21. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.

1. Whether the Independent former of Church-government, now so much contended for as the Reply of two of the bre­thren to A. S. p. 66. only Church-government of divine institution, which all (say they) are bound to submit unto, be any where to be found in the Old or New Testament? What Texts or Presidents (if so essentiall and necessary as it pretended) doe either directly prescribe or delineate it unto us? Vnder what dark cloud or vaile hath it layn totally obscured, for hundreds yea thousands of years that it never appeared in any Church Nation, Republike in the world from Adams dayes till ours? And whether it be yet so clearly revealed to those who pretend best knowledge of it, as to be positively resolved on amongst them what it is, or what the benefits or mischiefes of it may prove to be? If not, I shall conclude of this New-government, as our Saviour doth in his parabolicall speech concerning New-wine, Luk. [...]. 37. No man having drunke old Wine streightway desireth new for he saith, THE OLD IS BETTER: Old Presbytery, old unlordly Episcopacy, are (no doubt) far better for us then New Independency.

2. Whether some Independents do not extraordinarily eclipse, impeach, if not absolutely deny and subvert the lawfull power of Civill Magistrates, all for­mer Parliaments▪ and the present too, in all matters of Church-goverment and Potlesiasticall affaires, contrary to their solemne Covenant and Protestations, [Page 3] [...]o defend the ancient Priviledges & authority of Parliament, and even quite blow [...]p all their ecclesiastick authority (by a new kinde of Gun-powder) at one breath: yea lay most foul, scandalous, uncharitable censures upon the honourable Mem­bers of this Parliament, who deserve far better language from them▪ Witness this most observable dangerous passage, lately dropped from their pens, in A Reply of two of the brethren to A. S. (newly printed) pag. 81, 82. ‘Third­ly, if the Law of the State be the first and most considerable band or tye upon men, to submit unto the power of your combined Eldership, (as you seeme here to imply, in saying, that all men and all Churches thereof are bound by Law, &c.) then you must acknowledge, that the root and base of your Government is I pray in­forme me why an whole Par­liament and Assembly of godly Christi­ans and Di­vines, wherein are many of your owne chiefe Inde­pendent Mini­sters, mem­bers, should be more secu­lar, unclean, filthy, or unable to make a spiri­tuall extracti­on of Church­government, then one of your Indepen­dent Chur­ches or Con­venticles? Potestas secularis, secular authority: and then how is it Ecclesiastick or Spiri­tuall? A man may as well bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane (in Jobs expres­sion) as make a spirituall extraction out of a secular root. Secondly, it will rest upon you to prove, that the Civill State hath a power to forme and fashi­on the government of the Churches of Christ. Yea, thirdly and lastly, it will be demonstratively proved against you, that you resolve the government of the Churches of Christ (in the last resolution of it) into the humours, wills, and pleasures of the world,’yea of the vilest and most unworthy of men. Brethren, bona verba quaeso: Is this your printed, publike, avowed language of Parliaments and the Members of it, even to the very face of the most religi­ous, best-deserving Parliament that ever sate, which hath been most indulgent to you hitherto? Is this your so much boasted A Reply to A. S. p. 85. preaching, writing, figh­ting for the priviledges and rights of Parliaments, which ever since the first plan­ting of Religion among us to this present, haue framed and fashioned the go­vernment of our Churches in all ages, as I can demonstratively manifest by good Antiquities? Certainly this language of yours (with sundry other like passages in this your much-applauded Page 42. to 65. Reply) cause intelligent men to suspect, that the designe of some of your party is, to hugge embrace the Parliament, in shew, just as the Yvie doth the Tree, thereby to advance your selves (the onely abso­lute Ecclesiasticall Dictators, law-givers) and your independent Churches by de­grees above the Parliament, and then to over-top, suppresse its power in the end; or else to ruine it & us for the present, by endeavouring to raise schismes among us, both in Parliament, City, Country, and our Armies, because they now dis­cerne the major part of both Houses and the Synod inclined against your In­dependent novelties. If this be the accursed project of any of you, (for I dare not harbour so ill a thought of the greatest part) the Lord will both discover and avenge it to their infamy, in due season: In the meane time, to answere the sub­stance of this most derogatory scandalous passage against Parliaments; I sadly referre it to all rationall mens judgments in the world, Whether a Parliament of the most eminent, religious, learned, grave, zealous wisest Peeres and Commons of this Realme (the representative body and grand Councell of the Kingdom) assisted with the advice judgment of an Assembly of the most ortho­doxe pious consciencious▪ learned Ministers in our Church, specially selected for this purpose, & of the chiefest of your Independent party▪ be not more fit to form, & fashion the government of the Churches of Christ, and better able to resolve, [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4] determine upon long and serious debate, what Church-government is most a­greeable to the Word of God, and fittest for every particular Parish-church throughout this Island, for the advancement of Gods glory, the peoples salvati­on, the generall peace and tranquillity of Church and State then any one or two Independent Ministers, with five or sixe of their illiterate, impolitick, and perchance inconsiderate Members (to use no harsher epithite) assembled in a private Conventicle, can doe in two or three houres space? And whether it bee meeter that these should prescribe a church-government, discipline to themselvs the Parliament, Synod, and whole Kingdome to boot; or the Parliament and Assembly to them, who deeme themselves Pro. 2 [...]6 cap. 30. 1 [...]. [...] 65. 5. [...]. 18. 10. to 16. wiser, holier in their owne vaine conceits, then a thousand Parliaments, Synods put together? I doubt not they wil all confesse, that in their Congregationall debates about any point of order, discipline government or doctrine, in any of their Independent Churches, the 1 Chron. 13. 4, 5. Act. 15. 22, 23 &c. major voice or party ought to over-rule and binde the lesse; And if so, let them yeeld me a solid reason, when they are able, why the Ecclesiasticall constituti­ons, Resolutions, Orders, Edicts of the greatest part of an whole Nationall Par­liament, Synod, Kingdome, should not much more binde both them and all their Independent Churches as well as others, as they have ever hitherto done? And why a combined Presbytery, of many, learned Ministers, Lawyers, Gentle­men of best judgment, quality, should not be fitter to decide all Church-con­troversies and affaires of moment within their prefixed limits, by generall Laws and Canons setled in Parliament by common consent, then any Independent or popular Tribunall of lesser judgement and experience, by their owne arbi­trary privat edicts? Else they must deny what the holy Ghost informs us, Eccles. 4. 9, 10, 11: That two are better then one; Pro. 11. 14 that in the multitude of Counsellours there is safety: or that the pious 1 Chro. 13 3, 4, 5. &c. 28. [...] 29. 2 Chro. [...]. 5 & 6. & 7. c. 23 2, 3. c. 30. 10. to 27. c. 31 [...]. [...]isth. 9, 20. [...] 31. Ezra 3. 1. c. 10. 1. &c, [...]eh. 8. 1, &c. Kings in the old Testament, or a Nationall Coun­cell, or Parliament of their Princes, Nobles, Elders, Captaines, and people of best quality, had any lawfull power to reforme or settle all weighty Ecclesiasticall Church-affaires; as they ever did by Gods owne command and approbation.

3. Whether it be not the Independents professed Tenet, if truely and posi­tively laid downe, that They should [...]owell to de­fine, 1. Of how many members, eve­ry Indepen­dent Congre­gation should consist? 2. Within what precincts they should live? 3. What set stipends they shall allow them, and how raised when ascertained? 4. When and where their Churches should assem­ble? 5. Who shall prescribe extraordinary [...] of fa­sting or thans­giving to them upon just oc­casions? 6. Who shall rectifie their Church-covenants, Discipline, Censures, Government, if erronious or unjust? 7. Shew us a suffi­cient satisfactory Commission from Gods Word for all they doe or desire, before they gather any Churches. every Minister hath a divine right and liberty, to gather to himselfe an Independent Church, not of Pagans, Infidels conver­ted by himselfe alone, but of all the eminentest Christians formerly conver­ted, and regenerated by the Ministry of others (especially if rich or po­tent persons, able to give them large contributions and support) who shall vo­luntarily submit themselves to his Ministry, and such a Church-government as he shall dictate to them: though by our established lawes and customes, (which our solemne Vow and Covenant obligeth us to maintaine) they be Pa­rishioners to twenty other godly Ministers, by whose Ministry they were first regenerated and built up in grace? That every Christian hath a free liberty, by the Law of God, to unite himselfe to what Independent Congregation hee pleaseth; the husband to one Congregation, the wife to another, the children to a third, the servants to a fourth; nay, every distinct person in a family to a severall Church, (and that not onely without, but against the consents of their [Page 5] owne Magistrates, Ministers, Husbands, Parents, Masters, who have no ju­risdiction (as some say) over their consciences herein; so as one great family shall be divided into members of twenty or thirty severall Independent Chur­ches, if they please, and those perchance different one from another in their go­vernment, opinions, discipline, ceremonies? That those whose consciences or judgments will not permit them to joine with their Independent Churches, (which they Reply of two of the Bre­thren 64, 65, 66, &c. professe to be canonicall (though guided by no canons) and of di­vine assertion, denying all other Church-government to be so) must be wholly ex­cluded (as Heathens and Reprobates) from being members of any Church; or rather (by the self-same Christian liberty as Independents plead for) they may unite themselves into Presbyteriall or Hierarchicall Churches, or what other forme they please to elect: and so we shall have an Independent Church-go­vernment in one part of a Family, Parish, Town, County, Kingdom; a Pres­byteriall in another; an Episcopall in a third: and by this means if the husband bee a great stickler for Episcopacy, and member of a Prelaticall Church; the wise a fierce zealot for Independency, and a member of such a congregation; the children or servants stout champions for Presbytery, and members of such assemblies, what confusion distraction, implacable contestations, 1 Cor. 1. 11. 12. 13. cap. 3. 3, 4. schismes, Mat. 12. 51. 52. 53. tu­mults this Licentiousnesse (for I cannot stile it Freedome of conscience) would soone inevitably engender in all Families, Villages, Cities, Counties, King­domes, to their utter ruine and desolation, the meanest capacity may with ease divine; without the help of an Oracle. However, it would unavoidably subvert all ancient bounds of Parishes, all setled maintenance for the Ministry by tithes or otherwise and put all Ministers into the condition of Friars mendicants, to live (as Independents do) upon the Almes or voluntary contributions of their severall congregations, to whose humours, errours, opinions, they must either readily conforme, or else starve for want of subsistence, in case of their displea­sure, being subject to casheering upon every small dislike.

4. Whether Independents must not necessarily grant from their owne prin­ciples, that as every Minister hath free liberty to congregate what Church hee pleaseth, of men suitable to his own opinions, practise; so also particular persons have a like liberty to unite themselves together into a Church, to elect what Minister they thinke best, and prescribe to themselves what government they shall conceive to be most sutable to the Scriptures? And if so, then every man will 2 Tim. 4. 3; 4 A proplaesse which con­cerns our pre­sent times. heap to himselfe Teachers, and erect Churches after his own lusts: meer Papists▪ and Popishly affected persons, will set up Popish Churches and Priests; Arminians, Arminian Churches and Preachers; Anabaptists, Anabaptisticall Mi­nisters and Assemblies; Arrians, Anti-Trinitarians, such conventicles and Pastors; Libertines, a licentious Church and Ministry; yea, every Heretick, Sectary, or guidy-pated Enthusiast, upon pretext of new Revelations and disco­veries of concealed Evangelicall truths, (though when exactly scanned they may oft times prove old errors or meer diabolicall delusions) will erect new Indepen­dent Churches of their own (and that for succession and perpetuity to the per­verting of infinit soules), uncontroulable, unsuppressible by any Ecclesiasticall or Civill authority: And thus in few moneths, or yeares space at least, through Satans instigations, our owne depraved judgments, (a verse to unity, piety, pu­rity, but Gal. 5, 20, 21. c. 2. 11, 12, 14. Act. 15. 39. [...] Thes. 2. 11. Rom. 1. 29. 31 c. 16. 17. 1 Tim 6. 5, 6. Tit. 3 9. prone to Errour, Heresie, Schismes, lyes yea lying phantasies) and [Page 6] through defect of a severe coercive power, in Ecclesiasticall Synods-Parliaments, temporall Magistrates, (who as Reply of two of the bre­thren pag. 52. [...]0 61. some new Independent Lights informe us, have no coercive power to suppresse these springing heresies, but onely by a non-com­munion with or refuting them by the word to which they will obstinatly 2 Tim 4 6. refuse to hearken, as deeming their own opinions most divine:) we shall have almost as many severall heresies, sects, Churches, as there are families, persons; (Quot ho­mines tot sententiae, tot Ecclesiae:) Yea, if they thus admit every Minister, or secular person, to have a divine right, freedom, to set up such an independent Church and government as he pleaseth; then by the self-same reason, they must have a like liberty to elect erect, what civill forme of government they please; to set up a new Independent Republike, Corporation Kingdome, Magistracy, in eve­ry family, parish, city, county, and to cast off all former civill Governours, Governments, Lawes at pleasure, as well as Ecclesiasticall; there being the selfe-same grounds both of obligation, obedience to, and exemption from the one as other. And if men by their Christian liberty shall thus be wholly exemp­ted at their pleasure, as well from all temporall as ecclesiasticall Lawes and formes of government, (as grant me but the one, they must of necessity yeeld the other; the same Texts, Reasons obliging us equally in both, and See 1 Chro. 13. 1 to 7. 2 Chro. 5. & 6, & 7. c. 15. 8. to 16 c. 30. 1 to 7. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 31, 32, 33, 34. Ezra 7. 26. cap. 10. 1 to 7. Esth. 9. 20. to 32. Kings, Parliaments having the self-same jurisdiction in and over all 25. H. 8 c. 19 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17, 26. H. 8. c. 1 27. H. 8. c. 16. 28. H. 8. c. 10. 1. E. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1, 2. 8. Eliz. c. 1. 31. H. 8. c. 10, 14. 32. H. 8. c. 22, 24, 28. 33. H. 8. c. 29, 34. & 35. H. 8. c. 17. 19. 35. H. 8. c. 1. 3. ecclesiasticall matters, which are not positively of divine institution and injunction, as in and over temporall) what an Anarchy and Ataxy this will suddenly introduce, to turn all Kingdomes, Republikes, Nations, Corporations, Churches, Families, and the World it self, quite upside down, and ruine them by schisms; I tremble to imagine.

5. Whether the Minister alone, or the Congregation without the Mini­ster, or both conjoined, have power in their Independent Churches to make and prescribe particular formes of Church-covenants, orders, conditions, to all who are or shall be admitted members of their new erected congregations? If the Minister alone, without the people, (which I suppose they grant, because he is the principall actor in gathering their new Churches to himselfe, and the sole person who must first admit them to be members of his Flock, upon his own conditions:) I would then demand; whether every Independent Minister arro­gates not as much or more power to himselfe, in making, prescribing lawes and covenants to his congregation by his own inherent authority, without consent of King, Parliament, Synod, or People, as the Pope himselfe usurpeth, and farre more power, authority, then Independents either do or dare ascribe to Christian Princes, Magistrates, Councels, or the Parliament? to all and every of which they absolutely Reply of two of the bre­thren p. 52. to 69. deny any power of making or prescribing ecclesiasticall lawes, covenants, canons, to binde them, or their independent Churches or any mem­bers of them; yea any sufficient coercive power to restrain or punish Hereticks, Schismaticks, or Broachers of heterodox novell opinions, to disturb the Churches or Republikes tranquillity. If the people alone without the Minister, or both conjoyned, then you invest every Independent Conventicle, consisting of never so few inconsiderable ignorant members, with a greater legislative pow­er, and ecclesiasticall authority, then you allow to whole Nationall Parlia­ments, Councels, consisting of most eminent, learned, pious persons of all sorts; [Page 7] who by your New doctrine have no jurisdiction at all to make or enjoyne any forme of church-government, covenant, ecclesiasticall lawes or canons, to any particular churches: as if the eminentest Ministers and members of churches, by becomming members of Parliaments or Councels, did thereby forfeit and lose the right or exercise of that power, in those great representative bodies of the whole Kingdome and church of England, which you readily allow both them and others in every private church or Conventicle: A most strange and senselesse whimsie.

6. Whether it be lawfull or justifiable by the Word of God, for any Inde­pendent Minister of England, contrary to the Lawes of the Realme and In­hibitions of Parliament, of his owne bare authority to congregate and erect an independent congregation; or to prescribe a particular forme of church-go­vernment, together with a church-covenant (in nature of a solemne Oath) to which euery particular member of his new congregation must subscribe before admission into his Church? Whether there bee any the least precept, pre­sident in Scripture, or Antiquity to warrant such an irregular usurped autho­rity and power among Christians; which the verie Apostles themselves never claimed? Whether all the particular churches in any Nation, Kingdome, city, Republike professing the same orthodox Faith, though divided (for more con­veniency) into severall congregations, be not all members of, and constitute but As one and the same City, Kingdom, Na­tion, encreased with new hou­ses, parishes, streets, terri­tories, and ge­nerations of people, conti­nue still but one and the self-same City, Kingdom, Na­tion: So the first Christian Church plan­ted in any Ci­ty, Kingdome, Nation, when spread over all that City, Kingdome, Nation, and distributed into severall particular con­gregations, continues but one and the self-same ge­nerall Church of which all particular Churches are members, and not Indepen­dent absolute in themselves, divided from, or vnsubjected to the intire common nati­onall Church. 1 Cor. 12. 12, to 22. Ep [...]. 2. 19, 20, 21. c. 1. 3, to 17. Acts 2. 47. one intire Nationall church, or common christian Society, as they did at first, before thus multiplied, augmented? (even as all the particular houses, pa­rishes, societies in London are members of and make but one city and corpora­tion; all the families, parishes, townes, counties in England, but one Kingdome or Republike; and as all particular and Nationall churches in the world, make up but one entire catholike militant church:) whence both in Scripture phrase, and common speech in all Authors. Languages whatsoever, they are com­monly called by the name of One Church, in the singular number; as, the Church of England, France, Scotland, Ireland; the Eastern, Westerne, Greeke, La­tine Church; the Church of the Jewes, Gentiles, &c. And if so, then let our In­dependents shew me, if they can, the least colour of Scripture or reason, why the Parliament and Assembly (chosen to assist them by publike consent) repre­senting our whole church, State, may not as lawfully set up and prescribe a new church-government, discipline, lawes and canons, agreeable to and not discre­pant from Gods Word, to binde all particular churches and persons within our Realme, as well as pull downe and demolish the old, or make temporall lawes and ordinances to binde all persons, societies, members of the Realm, (and In­dependents too as well as others) both to obedience and punishment; or else for ever disclaim their new-minted government, their declamations, arguments against the power of nationall Synods Parliaments in Ecclesiastical matters and church-government, as most ridiculous and absurd.

7. Whether the members of every Independent Church, may at their owne free liberty, when ever they please, desert their owne particular Church, and be­come members of other Independent or Presbyteriall Congregations, with­out the licence or dispensation of their owne Church or Minister first obtained? [Page 8] If yea, then why oblige they them to the contrary by particular Church-cove­nants; or refuse to admit any members of one Independent Church into an­other, without such consent or licence first obtained; or at least repute it a grand injury in that Church or Minister who admits them? (especially if they be wealthy members, for some say poore ones, and persons of meaner condition, are not much regarded by Independents, no more then poore or contemptible offices.) If nay, then by what law or conscience doe, or can they congregate their Independent Churches out of twenty or thirty severall parishes and con­gregations, not onely without any authority of the State, or licence of the Mi­nisters or whole Churches in those Parishes; but even against their expresse wills and desires; yet thinke they doe God good service; these Ministers, Pari­shes, no injustice by it, though it be directly contrary to their owne Principles, and these common dictates of God and Nature; Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne feceris: and, Matth 7. 12. [...] c. 6. 31. All things whatsoever ye would that men should doe unto you, doe yee even so unto them, for this is the Law and the Prophets?

8. Whether Independents peremptory refusall, to admit any to be member, of their Churches, to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, or to have their children baptized among them, unlesse they will first subscribe to such particular Church-covenants; Orders as they shall prescribe; and their rigid Excommunication, rejection of such members who have taken their Covenants, in case they subscribe not to all their further dictates and opinions, without any re-admission, till they shall promise an universall conformity in opinion and practice to whatever is required by their Independent Minister or congregati­ons; be not an usurpation of as great yea greater coercive power over the con­sciences, persons of Christians, as Presbyterians, Parliaments claime, or as the Bishops themselves in the height of their pride and tyranny (as Bishops) ever challenged or usurped? Notwithstanding Christian liberty of conscience, in opinions, practice, (which they pretend to leave arbitrary to every mans free election) be the principall pillar to support, the sweetest inescating bait to en­tice men to embrace their Independency? If they say, they imprison enforce no mans person or conscience, but leave all persons, consciences free: I answer, that the excluding men from their church-assemblies, sacraments, christian com­munion, yea their very innocent infants from baptisme itselfe in their indepen­dent Churches, unles they will conforme to their arbitrary Church-covenants, dictates, prescriptions (warranted by no Scripture or divine examples) is a farre greater Psal. 34. 1. to 11. Psal. 120. 3 Psal. 42. 1, 2. Psal. 27: 4. greivance, violence, coertion to the persons, conscience of Christians, then all imprisonment, Racks and corporall tortures in the world: yea an unjust exclusion of them from that undoubted right to the ordinances and Church of Christ wherewith God himselfe hath invested them.

9. Whether Independents refusall to admit such Christians, who are not no­toriously scandalous in their lives, nor grossely ignorant in the Principles of Religion, to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, when they earnestly desire to receive it, or professe a cordiall present remorse of all their former sinfull cour­ses, with an unfained resolution to live a pious holy life for the future, onely upon this suspicion or apprehension, that they are but carnall men, not truly re­generated [Page 9] or sanctified by Gods Spirit, (though they cannot certainly judge of their present spirituall conditions, 2 Chro. 6. 30. Ier 17. 19. 20. Act. 1. 24 infallibly known to God alone) be not a ve­ry uncharitable, arrogant, yea unchristian practice, contrary to our Saviours owne immediate example, who at the first institution of this Sacrament admit­ted M [...]. 26. 20 to 32. Mark 14. 10, &c. Luke 22. 3. to 24. Iohn 6. 70, 71. Judas to his last Supper as well as his fellow-disciples, though he certainly knew him to be both a Traitor and Devill; opposite to the injunction of 1 Cor. 11. 17. to 34. Paul himselfe, who though he disswades unworthy Receivers from eating and drin­king the Lords Supper without due preparation and examination, for feare of eating and drinking damnation or judgment to, and drawing downe temporall diseases on themselves; yet he simply excludes none from receiving it, at their owne perils, who are willing, or desirous to participate of it, nor gives any authority to Ministers absolutely to seclude them from it, unlesse excommu­nicated and notoriously scandalous. And whether their present deniall to ad­minister the Sacrament in their churches to those who are truely religious, ear­nestly longing even frequently to receive it for their spirituall comfort, accor­ding to Christs own institution, only for fear lest some unregenerate persons should communicate with them, and depriving their whole congregations of this most comfortable necessary ordinance for sundry months, nay yeares, (as some have done) upon this groundlesse, unwarrantable reason [...], refuted by Christs owne example, who administred the Sacrament to the other Disciples though there were a Judas amongst them; by the practice, doctrine of Paul himself 1 Cor. 11. 17. to 34. and the usage of all Christian churches throughout the Vniverse, be not an over-rigid, uncharitable, unjust (that I say not im­pious) action, injurious to Christ himself, to the soules and spirituall estates of those good Christians secluded from the Sacrament, and a more transcendent strain of tyrannicall usurpation over the soules, the consciences of Christians, and ordinances of God himself, than ever our most domineering Lordly Pre­lates exercised, or any Presbyterians have hitherto pretended to lay claim unto? If this proceed not from a domineering spirit, and be not an excessive 1 Pet. 5. 3. Lor­ding of it over the Lords inheritance, yea over Christ himself in this his or­dinance, I professe I am much mistaken: Yea, I feare this spirituall pride and excessive uncharitablenesse of some, who take upon them by their owne inhe­rent power to erect new Congregations, and set up new formes of church-go­vernment, Discipline, &c. in Christian States, Churches, already planted, with­out, yea against their Parliaments, or Moses the chief temporal Magistrate un­der the Law, together with David, Solo­mon, and other godly kings, did by Gods owne direction, and approbation, direct, order, and settle all particulars in and about the Altar, Taber­nacle, Arke, Temple, con­secrating both them and the Priests too, ap­pointing all Officers about them, together with the cour­ses of the Priests, Sin­gers; & that by cōmon advice of the Prin­ces, Captains, Elders of the people, & not by the votes or directions of the Priests, who had no ruling voice herein: which authority being no where revoked nor denied Christian Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, under the Gospel, they no doubt enjoy it still. And therefore these Ministers who thus erect new Churches usurp on their authority. Christian Magistrates authority, when as the very Apostles did never by their owne ordinary jurisdiction, as private Mini­sters, but onely by their extraordinary calling, as Apostles; or in and by their Ca­nonicall Epistles, dictated by Gods Spirit prescribe any matters of church-govern­ment, Discipline, Rites, or order to the particular Churches first gathered and planted by themselves alone, as is evident by Acts 7, 1. to 8. c. 14. 22, 23. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Cor. c. 7. & 11. & 12. & 14. c. 16. 1. 2. Jam. 2. 2. 3. c. 5. 13. 14. 15. 16. except in and by a publike Synod, Acts 15.) and thus debarre others from the Sacra­ment, as unmeet Receivers, upon such unwarrantable grounds, do make them­selves far more uncapable, unmeet to receive it, than those they thus exclude.

[Page 10] 10. Whether that noted Text of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. If thy brother shall tres­passe against thee, goe tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he will heare thee, then thou hast gained thy brother: But if he will not heare, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every thing may be establi­shed. And if he shall neglect to heare them, TELL IT TO THE CHVRCH; but if he neglect TO HEARE THE CHVRCH, let him be to thee as an hea­then man and a Publican; be meant of any Independent or ecclesiasticall Consi­storie, excommunication, or church-censures properly so called? or not rather of the Iewish Synedrium, Councell, or civill court of justice, and of a civill excom­munication, like to an Outlawry at the common Law, as De Anno ci­vili, &c Pr [...] ­satio p. 6. [...] &c 18. p 83, 84 And D jure Natura & Gent [...]um l. 4. c. 8. Mr Selden with others more t [...]uely interp [...]t [...]t? Since our Saviour speaks there, 1. of a private trespasse done to a private person, of which no church, classes, or ecclesiasticall consistorie, hath proper conusance; not of a publike scandal to the congregation, or any scan­dalous crime or vice as is evident by the very first words, and by Luk. 17. 3, 4. compared with [...]n▪ 50. 17. 1 King 8. 31. 2. Of a demand of private satisfaction, first personally, next in presence of witnesse, before any complaint to the church or councell. 3. Of no censure or judgment passed, but barely of an admoni­tion given by the church to the partie offending; which if neglected and not heard, then 4. Not the church, councell, and all other persons, but onely the partie offended was to repute (but not excommunicate out of the church or con­gregation) him as an heathen, and a publicane, (which were both odious to the Iewes, who had no civill conversation with them, and were no members of the Iewish church except Proselites) as the expresse words, let him be TO THEE (not any others) as an heathen and a pulican, (that, is converse no more with him, but avoid his company, 2 Thes. 3. 14.) resolve, Which Reasons, compared with Matth. 5. 22, 25. c. 10. 17. c. 12. 14. c. 22. 15. c. 27. 1, 7. Acts 18. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. c. 16. 20, 21. c. 17. 6. c. 23. 1. 14, 15. c. 24. 1. to 7. c. 25. & 26. infallibly evidence, the Church or Assembly in this Text to be meant onely of the Temporall court, Councell, or Sanhedrin of the Iewes, not of any Ecclesiasticall or Church-Iudi­catory, or excommunication, as Papists anciently, with some others now deter­mine.

11. Whether the Apostles and members of the first evangelicall Synode, we read of Acts 15. sate and voted in it as Apostles onely, indued with a spirit of infallibilitie (which was a peculiar priviledge to them alone,) or else in their or­dinary capacity, as Elders and chief members of it? If as Apostles only, and in that extraordinary capacitie, as Reply to A. S. p 70, 71. Independents assert: then 1. Paul and Barnabas being Apostles as well as they, might have decided that controversie at An­tioch, without sending to Jerusalem to determine it: 2. The church at Antioch would have sent to none but the Apostles to resolve their doubts, and not to the Elders at Jerusalem as well as to the Apostles, as they did vers. 2. Thirdly, Paul and Barnabas would have put the question to the Apostles onely, not to the Elders and church as well as to them, which they did vers. 4, 5, 6. Fourthly, the Apostles would not have called a Synod of all the Apostles Elders and Bre­thren at Jerusalem to consider of or consult about this thing vers. 6. but have de­termined it presently by their infallible spirit without consultation, or a Synods assistance. Fifthly, Peter and James would not have argued the case so largely, [Page 11] and proved it by arguments and Scriptures as they did, one after another, vers. 17 to 23. but have peremptorily resolved it without dispute, had they sate and de­termined it by their extraordinarie infallible power. Sixtly, the finall resoluti­on, letters, and canons of this Synod had run onely in the Apostles names, had they proceeded onely by their Apostolicall infallible authoritie, and not in the names of the Elders and Brethren too, (coupled together with theirs both in the letters and canons, vers. 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28. c. 16. 4. c. 21. 18. 25.) who were not all endued with the self-same infallibility and power as the Apostles were, for ought can be proved; Therfore their assembling in this councell, not in their ex­traordinary capacity as Apostles only, but as Elders, Ministers; and the Elders, Brethrens sitting together in Councel with them, upon this controversie and oc­casion, is an undeniable Scripture-authority for the lawfulnesse, use of Parlia­ments, Councels, Synods under the Gospel, upon all like necessarie occasions; and for their power to determine controversies of Religion, to make Canons in things necessary for the churches peace and government, (there being no one place in Scripture against it, but many Texts in the old Testament to backe it, elsewhere quoted) mauger all evasions, exceptions to elude it.

12. Whether the temporall Magistrate, Parliament, and civill State, have not a lawfull coercive power, though Mat. 10. 17, 18 Mar. 9. 10, 13 Acts 4. 16. to 23. c. 5. 17. to the end. not to restraine the preaching of the Gospel and truth of God, yet to suppresse, restraine, imprison, confine, banish the broachers of any heresies, schismes, erronious seditious doctrines, enthusiasmes, or setters up of new formes of Ecclesiasticall government without lawfull au­thoritie, to the endangering of the peoples soules, or disturbance of the Chur­ches, Kingdomes peace, as well as Ministers and particular Churches Christians, power to 1 Tim. 1. 19, 20. 2 Cor. 6. 14. to 18. Rom. 16. 17. Tit. 3. 10, 11. 2 Ioh. 10, 11. reprove, refute, avoid, excommunicate or anathematize them, notwith­standing Reply of two of the brethren p. 51. to 63. some Independents new-minted objections against it: and that by virtue of Deut. 13. 1. to 12. Lev. 24. 11. to 17. Num. 26. throughout, Josh. 7. 25. 26. c. 22. 11. to 34. Psal. 101. 4 5, 8. 4, 5, 8. 1 King. 18. 40. 2 King. 10. 21, to 29. c. 23. 5. 20. 2 Chro. 34. 4. 5. Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Gal. 5. 12. Rev. 2. 20. c. 19. 20. 21. cap. 17. 16. And the ten hornes (interpreted to be ten Kings v. 12.) shall hate the whore (with all her Panders) and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burne her with fire: for God hath put it into their hearts TO FVLFILL HIS WILL, Ezra 7. 26. And whosoever will not doe the Law of thy God, let judg­ment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or unto banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment, with sundry Matt. 10. 17, 18, 21. c. 26. 47, to 74. c. 27. 1, to 60. Acts 4. 1, to 24 c. 5 17, to 40. c. 6. 12, 13. c. 9. 1, 2, 3. c. 11. 2, 3, 4. c. 16. 20, to 40. c. 18. 12. &c. c. 23, & 24 & 25, & 26, & 27. rightly un­derstood. other Texts. Hence Iustinian. Codic. l. 1. Tit. 8. 10. and our Lawes against Iesuits, Priests and Recusants. Chri­stian Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, in all ages and churches in the world have made severe temporall Lawes, Edicts against, and inflicted corporall punishment, banishment, confiscation of goods, (and in some cases death it selfe) upon He­reticks, Schismaticks, disturbers of the churches peace with erronious or seditious doctrines: which lawfull power of theirs hath ever bin asserted by the most See the Har­mony of Con­fessions sect. 19. or­thodox Churches, Writers in all ages, and never oppugned by any but Anabap­tists, who deny all civill Magistrates, or such licencious Hereticks, Schismaticks, or false Teachers, who would spread their pestilent errours, and seditious novell po­sitions without restraint; or durst never suffer Martyrdome for, or seale them with the losse of their Liberties, Lives, Estates, which godly orthodox Martyrs [Page 12] and Christians have cheerfully undergone, under Pagan, Hereticall, and Popish Kings, Magistrates. And if we either deny, abolish, eclipse, diminish, or suspend this necessary coercive power (the principall meanes under God to suppresse, extirpate all growing errours, schismes, which disturbe the churches tran­tranquilitie, seduce unstable soules) our church and realmes will be soone over­growne with dangerous errours, heresies, schismes, and brought to speedy de­solation; the contemptible sword of excommunication, or non-communion, and the bare preaching of Gods Word to obstinate Hereticks, Papists, Schismaticks, (who will Psal. 58. 4, 5. Ier. 30. 19. c. [...]. 33. Isa 30. [...], 10. 2 Tim. 4▪ 3, 1. contemn the Word, and excommunicate all other churches dissen­ting from them, as hereticall, schismaticall, as fast as they excommunicate or discommon them, and so propagate, perpetuate their heresies, schismes, with­out redresse) being unable to suppresse such peremptory offendors, without the temporall Magistrates sword of justice added to them; Who having a lawfull jurisdiction derived to them in the Gospel, Rom. 13. 1, [...] 7. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 15. Tit. 3. 1. to punish and suppresse all evill do­ers, without distinction, have doubtlesse an unquestionable authority to punish obstinate Heretickes, Schismaticks, false Teachers, with temporall censures, who are the greatest malefactors, sinning against the Word and Truth of God, disturbing the peace of Church, State, seducing and destroying peoples soules; a far greater crime then to murder their bodies, or rob them of their estates. In briefe, all Protestant Churches whatsoever, in their publike See Harmo­ny of Confes­sions Sect. 19. Confessions acknow­ledge, that the care of preserving, propagating true Religion; of suppressing, extir­pating htresies, errours, schismes, superstition, idolatry, and the fautors of them, by temporall punishments and censures of all sorts, doth principally belong to Christian Magistrates, Kings, Princes: (Which duty they can in no sort execute, if now (with the Anabaptists) ou deny them this most just coercive power:) That all lawfull civill Magistrates and Powers whatsoever, though instituted by men, are even in the new Testament expresly resolved, to be the Rom. 13. 1, to 8. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 15. Tit. [...], 1, 10, 11. [...] Pet. 2. 10, 11 Iude 8, 9 Ordinan­ces of God, and all their just commands, Lawes, Edicts, (not repugnant to Gods Word) readily to be obeyed and submitted to, EVEN FOR CONSCIENCE, and FOR THE LORDS SAKE, under paine of sinne and condemnation: Therefore what ever our pious Parliament, the supreme power, by advice of the Assembly, after much Fasting, Prayer, Disputes, Advice, and serious con­sultation, shall order, decree touching Church-government or discipline, as most consonant and not repugnant to Gods Word, ought in point of conscience to be submitted to by Independents and all others, as to a Government, Disci­pline, Ordinance approved of by God; and if any Heretickes, false Teachers, Schismaticks obstinately refuse conformity after due admonition, and all good means used to reclaim them the Poets Divinity and Policy must then take place, as well in Eclcesiasticall as civill and naturall maladies: