civil form of government they please: to set up a new Independent republic, kingdom, etc.'a by the self-same reason! Surely, by no reason' at all show us a reason' hereof, and take all! And you know that republics, kingdoms,' are Independent, though not of churches' electing, erecting. It is unsatisfiable injury, and extreme irrationality, thus to argue; for hath Christ given the same command to his people as such who are not of this world,' nor their kingdom,' as he hath done to them in spirituals, which he commands them to practise, whosoever forbids? They set up no form, but take what is prescribed; which God hath not done, in civil government, but left it free. "

"The fifth interrogatory: herein you make a comparison between Presbyterial and Independent churches... We desire to enjoy ours, without making comparison with yours... However you make us a conventicle, consisting of inconsiderable, ignorant, members; I believe when you shall have anything to do with the most contemptible of such conventicles as you esteem us, you will not altogether find us such as you are pleased to term us!.. Where you would have them have the same power in a parliament, and synod, that they have in a church, if they be members; it is answered, That all power is restrained to its own sphere and place, so that we may have a greater power in another kind and yet not that; as no parliament-man hath the power of a master of a family, in the parliament, though he have a greater. "The sixth: this interrogatory hath sundry branches: . . I desire brevity, and not to answer all your repetitions and aggravations... "The seventh interrogatory is about the dismissing of members :' to become members of Presbyterial churches; or, of other Independent churches.d I answer, If any will desert their congregation, who can let [hinder] them? . . If any shall repent and fall back;' churches are not more free than Christ himself was. e If any, for conveniency' sake, or necessary occasion, desire to join with some other church, do you think it unreasonable first to acquaint the Church with their desire? And, do you not allow of letters of recommendation when any is to pass to other churches?.. We desire to do all things in love... You twit us again, for respecting the rich more than the poor.' If it be true it is our fault, f and ought not so to be; if not true, it is yours, and that so often as you cast it in our dish.

"The eighth interrogatory: this, is to charge us for not admitting to baptism any infants of such parents who are not members of our churches:'s and, brother, you make this a most heinous and intolerable thing! Why, you know, if we would admit of all, it would be no small benefit to us; especially when we are to deal with rich men's children, such as you say we have in such high estimation?' Therefore, that we do it not for rich men, you may think there is something in it; that covetousness is not so predominant in us as to corrupt our consciences: and, therefore, let some charitable thought take place in you that we do it rather of conscience than of covetousness. And what say you to this, brother; we preach Christ to the parents; we preach him no less a king than a priest and prophet: we preach him the only king of our b 1 Pet. ii.; Rom. xiii.

* P. 6.
e John vi. 66.

f 1 Cor. xi. 22.

© P. 7.
g P. 8.

d P. 7.

conscience, and the only lawgiver and governor of his churches; we exhort them to set up this king in their hearts; we exhort them to become, and profess to be, those saints of whom he is king, for he is 'King of saints ? 'a.. What would you have us to do in this case, baptize the infants of such parents as will not, in this respect, profess nor confess Christ to be their King?.. No infants have any title to baptism that are not within the covenant visibly,.. by virtue of their parents' faith outwardly professed... If, therefore, the parents profess not, yea refuse thus to be in visible covenant, can the children be said to be in visible covenant, and so to have a right to baptism, the external seal of the covenant? Brother, here is ober, a bar put! If you say, 'the child shall not bear the iniquity of the father;' true: .. but now, under the Gospel, those only are accounted Abraham's seed who profess the faith of Abraham, which faith looked upon Christ; and [which faith] embraceth whole Christ in all his offices, and [they in whose hearts it is] profess the same outwardly. b So as the covenant is entailed only to believers now, and so to their children. If, then, the parents, by refusing Christ as their king, as the Jews did, d do hereby cut themselves off from the covenant, they do therewith cut off their children too: and this, not to be recovered in the child, until either the parent be restored or the child coming, in time, to believe and to profess the faith of Christ, do hereby claim his right to the covenant and so to baptism, as being a child of Abraham... All societies require some promise of their members if it be said, we are members of the universal church, by faith and repentance, we reply;.. Christ will not have his people to be wandering sheep when they may have a fold, nor to be individua vaga, when they may be reduced to order.

"The ninth interrogatory lays a charge upon Independents for refusing to admit to the Lord's supper such as are not notoriously scandalous nor grossly ignorant, but profess repentance, etc.;' which, you say, 'is a very uncharitable, arrogant, yea, unchristian practice, contrary to Christ's own example in admitting Judas to the Lord's supper:' also, to that of Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 28, you calling it, also, 'a transcendent strain of tyrannical usurpation over souls, and consciences, and God's ordinances; worse than our most domineering lordly prelates, etc., yea, lording over Christ himself, and more than ever the apostles did but only by their extraordinary calling, etc.' I answer in one word.. that we look further than to a general profession and conversation; namely, to their faith in Christ, that it be sound and whole... And what have they to do with the seals, that refuse by covenant to own Christ for their king? As for Judas, he received the sop, not the supper; for after the sop, he went out immediately,' saith John: so as it appears, the other evangelists relate some other passages by a vorepоV πротερоν, as is not unusual in Scripture story: and none of them saith that he received the supper. And suppose he did, the church's censure had not yet passed upon him: only John, by a secret sign, knew he was to be the traitor: For that of the apostle, 1 Cor. xi. 28, that was a true church, though now disordered; and the apostle refers the redressing of their b Rom. x. 9, 10.

a Rev. xv. 3. e Rom. iv. 11, 16.

c Acts ii. 39. f P. 9.

d Luke xix. 14. John xiii. 30.

abuses to themselves! The case is otherwise here, so as all your accumulated calumniations fall to the ground. And concerning the apostles' extraordinary calling,' if we must expect the like calling we must not, in the mean time, admit of any either to baptism or to the Lord's supper; neither should there be any gathering of churches at all; as some from hence, do gather [logicè]:.. and what lawful gathering, then, have the Reformed churches? For your marginal note of Moses, David, Solomon, about settling religion by God's own direction;' herein you come home to that I said before, alleged against your unlimited law. But in that you now restrain, by their example, all church-government, to the civil magistrates;' you must make it out by holding close to the rule, that is, to settle religion by God's own direction,' as you here confess; and not to elect, erect,' a form of religion and churchgovernment, such as they shall conceive suitable,' etc., as before you told us and Moses, David, Solomon,' were all types of Christ, who put an end to all such. And while you there exclude the priests from having anything to do in reforming or advising,' what will the Assembly say to you? But they may advise, you will say: but the priests might do nothing but according to God's prescript law, no more than 'Moses, David, Solomon.' And if the 'priests,' as you say, 'had no ruling votes,' then, by this reckoning, what votes do you allow the Assembly-men in their mixed committees with the members of Parliament, or in the Assembly itself? Reconcile these, I pray you.

"The tenth interrogatory questions, or rather, as all the rest, concludes, that that text, Matt. xviii. 15-17, is not meant of any ecclesiastical censure, as of excommunication, but only of the 'civil court of justice.' a Brother, if you did speak here as a divine, and not merely as a lawyer, you would not have.. so interpreted this place. What speak I of divines; the text itself is its own clearest interpreter; ver. 18: which is, without controversy, spoken of church-censure, or of the power of the Keys' in exercising church-discipline; as that, Matt. xvi. 19, is spoken of doctrine, as the learned Calvin well observeth : so as this very context cleareth the former to be meant of church-censures, as it was among the Jews... Good brother, I could wish that all this zeal of yours, against Independents, might not arise from any jealousy, as if church-censures should prejudicate or trench upon your pleadings at the bar of civil justice! Far be it, that we should have our motion beyond our own sphere: content yourself with your own orb, and we shall confine ourselves to ours, I dare warrant you. Again; to what purpose do you urge this interpretation of this text against us? Do not all the Presbyterians expound it so? And if this text, which is made the great pillar of Presbyterian excommunication, be taken off, you leave no more to a classis than we [do], scilicet, to consult and advise! And with this foot, you have dashed all the milk you gave them.

"The eleventh interrogatory: This is to persuade us that in that Assembly, or Evangelical Synod,' as you call it, 'Acts xv., the apostles voted not as they were apostles, infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, but rather as they were in their ordinary capacity, as elders and chief members of it.' Whereupon, producing your six reasons for it,

you peremptorily conclude, that this is an undeniable Scriptureauthority for the lawfulness, use, of parliaments, councils, synods, under the Gospel, upon all like necessary occasions; and for their power to determine controversies of religion, to make canons in things necessary for the church's peace and concernment, maugre all evasions, exceptions,' of Independents to elude it.'.. Why the apostles sate not as apostles, but as ordinary elders, etc.; we lay this ground for the contrary, scil., That they sate as apostles; because not [no] ordinary elders, as elders, can say, 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;' but the apostles, as apostles, might say so; because, in any doctrinal point, they had the promise of the Spirit' to be led into all truth,' as upon whom the church was to be built.b If they sate as ordinary elders, then their decrees did no further bind than as they might appear to agree with Scripture; otherwise, elders as elders may bind the conscience, let the decree be never so wicked!.. Though the apostles might have done it alone, yet they would not, but called together the elders and brethren, yea, and 'the whole church' at Jerusalem ;* hereby to give a precedent to all presbyters, or elders of churches, that in cases of difference arising, they call the whole church' together for assistance and counsel therein. In so doing, the apostles diminished nothing of that judicial power and authority which Christ left with them for deciding of controversies, being infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost; while they thought it not fit to do such things, in a corner, which concerned the whole church.'.. But, good brother, for all your punctual quotations of that Scripture, you do not, all this while, tell us -which is the main of all-that which we find in the 28th verse of Acts xv... ... We challenge you to show us any parliament, council, synod,' ever since the apostles, that could or can say thus, 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and us,'-' to determine controversies of religion, to make and impose canons to bind all men, etc.'.. Never let any man press upon us that Scripture, that synod, which hath no parallel in the whole world; and so is no precedent, pattern, for any council, synod, parliaments!.. Bellarmine, upon the same Scripture you allege,das also our late prelates have usually done,-would deduce the same conclusion that you do for human authority in binding men's consciences to which, Chamierus thus answereth, That this consequence holds not; 'because there is not the same authority of the apostles and of other pastors of the church; for, with those the Holy Ghost was extraordinarily present, so as what they propounded did simply proceed of God: but other pastors have no such extraordinary assistance of the Spirit; and, therefore, their decrees are not to be paralleled with the apostles' decrees. Which is a special difference in binding of the conscience, which hath itself for witness and God for the only judge; therefore, when it hath anything commanded of God, it must needs stand bound.' Where-inter cætera- is to be noted, That

a

John xvi. 13.

b Eph. ii. 20.

c Acts xv. 4, 22.

d Acts xv. e Panstratiæ Catholicæ; tom. iii. De libertate Christiana, lib. xv. cap. x. De pohibitis Idolothytis, sanguine, et suffocato. "Illis aderat extra ordinem Spiritus Sanctus, &c."

---

God is the only judge' and binder of the conscience! the great question in controversy at this day. But you will here object, That, although, as before you say of priests,--a council, or synod, have not this authority to make and impose binding decrees, yet a parliament hath! And you deduce it from this synod, Acts xv. Now, truly, brother, by your favour, this doth no way hold proportion, That that which you call a 'synod,'-as a pattern for binding decrees,-should not qualify a synod of divines with the like power; and yet [you] transmit it over to a 'parliament' for binding authority over the consciences of a whole nation! Surely, that apostolic assembly, or church-meeting, was neither a parliament, nor diet, nor senate, nor any such thing; that you should build any such power of " 'parliaments' upon it.. therefore, good brother, be not so peremptory, but take in your top-sail; too high to bear up against so stiff a gale both of Scripture and reason.

"But I come to your twelfth and last interrogatory: this is concerning the lawful coercive power of civil magistrates in suppressing heresies, etc.;' or, 'setters-up of new forms of ecclesiastical government, etc.' For answer hereunto:.. For a man's practices, of which alone man can take cognizance, if they be against any of God's cominandments of the first or second table, that appertains to the civil magistrate to punish; who is, for this cause, called 'custos utriusque tabulæ, The keeper of both tables:' and, therefore, the apostle saith, 'For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.' So as we see, here, what is the object of civil power; to wit, actions, good or bad: not bare opinions, not thoughts, not conscience, but actions: and yourself exempts the preaching of the Gospel and Truth of God, from being restrained by the civil magistrate. But now, brother, the time hath been, and somewhere is, and will be, that 'the Truth' of God hath been withholden 'in unrighteousness; and, by the civil magistrate, punished with death; being condemned for heresy! And you see, in these days, great diversities of men's opinions and judgments... You think my way erroneous; and I may do as much for you: .. but so long as we differ only in opinion, which of us shall be punished first; or which of us is in the error? you write books, I write against them; yet, sub judice lis est, who shall be judge, you or I? Surely, neither! Among other things, you would have the civil magistrate.. to suppress, restrain, imprison, confine, banish, the setters-up of new forms of ecclesiastical government, without lawful authority.'. . But what, if I prove that which you call a 'new' form, to be the old form; and the lawful authority' of setting it up to be of Christ ?.. You may be a civil judge one day; remember then, brother, that, if I come before you, you meddle not with my conscience, nor with me for it... So ends your book; and so my answer! d P. 12.

d

a P. 11.

b Rom. xiii. 3, 4.

c 2 Thess. ii. 12.