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 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 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 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 't was in the Apostles 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 't is 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 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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
Flagellum Flagelli OR Doctor BASTWICKS Quarters Beaten up in two or three POMERIDIAN EXERCISES by way of ANIMADVERSION upon his first Booke intituled Independency not Gods Ordinance By J. S. M. A. Published by Authoritie LONDON Printed by Matthew Simmons dwelling in Aldersgate-streete 1645. To Doctor Bastwick SIR WHen I first tooke your book in hand it was to read not to write but finding it easie and advantage enough I fell on I had thought to have scand the particulars as I began but the course I was in at the Wells for my health forbad me and I presume I should have been no otherwise advised by your selfe whose judgement in such matters might be worthy of more account I therefore quarterd your Book and tooke hold of the pillars of your discourse which if I have shaken how can your building stand If some few hands more would doe but as much as this to what parts or passages rather are omitted you might perhaps come to know all the faults of your book in time which is the worst wish of The truths friend and yours J. S. Flagellum Flagelli OR Dr. Bastwicks quarters beaten up c. 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 therefore 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 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 that so stird the Disciples choler but whatsoever it was for will you humour justifie and make provision for such a passion which 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 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 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 Father 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
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 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 quarrell 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 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 flat 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 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 baptisme 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 the 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 * scandalized at the true Messias and others did under that forme of Johns