<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>9-9-08</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Latta</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TEMPHEAD, checked ID, and added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Checked for N=""s. Checked for GROUP tags. Proofed title page; added a P. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, oes, --s, and UNCLEARs. Corrected [dollar]s. Checked for &amp;cs with incorrect spacing. Checked for LBs. Checked for startqs and endqs, qs, abq's, Ae's, and Qs. Checked italic I / J and U / V. Checked for missing page GAPs. Checked for EPIGRAPHs and ARGUMENTS. Checked proofsheets and made corrections. Checked CLOSERs, TRAILERs, SIGNEDs, OPENERs, SALUTEs, BYLINEs. Sample: 2 minutes. Proofing: 25 minutes. Tag review and corrections: 35 minutes. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A86004">
<STC T="W">G755</STC>
<STC T="T">E309_9</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99861178</BIBNO>
<VID>113306</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P><HI>Nihil Re&s;pondes:</HI> OR, A DISCOVERY OF The extream un&s;atisfactorine&s;&s;e of Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> Peece, publi&s;hed la&s;t weeke under the Title of <HI>A Brotherly Examination re-examined.</HI></P>
<P>Wherein, his &s;elf-contradictions: his yeel|ding of &s;ome things, and not an&s;wering to other things Objected again&s;t him: His abu&s;ing of Scripture: His errors in Divinity: His abu&s;ing of the Parliament, and indan|gering their Authority: His abu&s;ing of the A&s;&s;embly: His Calumnies, and namely again&s;t the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> and again&s;t my &s;elfe: The repug|nancy of his Doctrin to the &s;olemne League and Covenant, are plainly demon&s;trated.</P>
<P>By <HI>George Gille&s;pie</HI> Mini&s;ter at <HI>Edenburgh.</HI></P>
<Q><BIBL>1 Tim. 1. 7.</BIBL>
<P>&V;nder&s;tanding neither what they &s;ay, nor whereof they affirme.</P></Q>
<P><HI>Publi&s;hed by Authority.</HI></P>
<P>Printed at <HI>London</HI> for <HI>Robert Bo&s;tock</HI> dwelling in <HI>Pauls</HI> Church-yard, at the &s;igne of the Kings head. 1645.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="treatise">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<HEAD>A Di&s;covery of the extreame un&s;a|tisfactorine&s;&s;e of Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> Peece, publi&s;hed la&s;t week under the Title of, <HI>A Brotherly Examination re-examined.</HI></HEAD>
<P>_AFter that Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> had Preached and Printed &s;uch Doctrine as I was in my con|&s;cience fully per&s;waded was contrary to the Covenant of the three Kingdomes, and de|&s;tructive (if it were put in pra|ctice) to the Reformation of Religion: he having al&s;o flatly and publikely imputed to the Commi&s;&s;ioners from the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> a great part of the fault of hindering union in the A&s;&s;embly here. I thought my &s;elfe obliged in duty and in the tru&s;t which I bear, to give a publike te&s;timony again&s;t his Doctrin, (which others did al&s;o) upon occa&s;ion not &s;ought, but by Divine Providence, and a publike Calling then offered, fir&s;t for Preaching, and after for Printing; in either of which I thinke there did not appeare the lea&s;t di&s;-re&s;pect or bitter|ne&s;&s;e
<PB N="2" REF="3">
towards the Reverend Brother. The Lord knowes my intention was to &s;peake to the matter, to vindicate the truth, and to remove that impediment of Reformation by him ca&s;t in: And if he, or any man el&s;e had in meekne&s;&s;e of &s;pirit, gravely and rationally, for clearing of truth, endeavoured to confute me, I ought not, I &s;hould not have taken it ill; but now when this peece of his again&s;t me, called <HI>A Brotherly Examination re-examined</HI> (I thinke he would or &s;hould have &s;aid <HI>examined,</HI> for this is the fir&s;t examination of it) I finde it more full of <HI>railing</HI> than of <HI>rea&s;oning,</HI> of <HI>gibing</HI> than of <HI>gra|vity;</HI> and when polemicks doe &s;o degenerate, the world is abu&s;ed, not edified. He tells me if I have not worke enough I &s;hall have more; I confe&s;&s;e the an&s;wering of this Peece is no great worke, and the truth is, I am a&s;hamed I have &s;o little to make an&s;wer unto, yet I &s;hall doe my be&s;t to improve even this worke to edification. When other worke comes I wi&s;h it be worke indeed, and not words. <HI>Res cum re, ratio cum ratione concertet,</HI> as the father &s;aid; Arguments Sir, Argu|ments, Arguments, if there be any: you have affirmed great things, and new things which you have not proved. The A&s;&s;ertions of &s;uch as are for a Church Government <HI>in genere,</HI> and for the Presbyteriall Government <HI>in &s;pecie,</HI> are knowne; their Arguments are knowne, but your Solutions are not yet knowne. If Mr. <HI>Prynnes</HI> Booke again&s;t the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of &s;candalous per&s;ons from the <HI>Sacrament</HI> be the worke for the pre&s;ent, which he meanes, I hope it &s;hall be in due time mo&s;t &s;atisfactorily &s;poken unto both by others and by my &s;elfe; I de&s;ire rather &s;olid then &s;ubitane lucubrations: in the meane while, <HI>Let not him that putteth on his armour, boa&s;t as he that put|teth it off.</HI> And let the Brother that puts me in minde of other worke, remember that him&s;elfe hath other worke to doe which he hath not yet done.</P>
<P>I have for better method and clearne&s;&s;e divided this fol|lowing Di&s;cour&s;e into certaine Heads, taking in under every Head &s;uch particulars in his Reply as I conceive to be mo&s;t proper to that point.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="3" REF="3">
<HEAD>That Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> doth not onely prevaricate but contradict him&s;elfe, concerning the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion.</HEAD>
<P>HE tels us often that he doth not deny to Church-officers all power of Church-Government, but onely the cor|rective part of Government: that the doctrinall and decla|rative power is in the Mini&s;tery, &s;ee <HI>Pag.</HI> 11. &amp; 14 He denyeth that he did <HI>advi&s;e the Parliament to take Church Government wholly into their owne hands, I never had it in my thoughts</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>that the Parliament had power of di&s;pen&s;ing the Word and Sacra|ments.</HI> I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e it is to me new language which I never heard before, that the di&s;pen&s;ing of the Word and Sacra|ments is a part of Church Government; &s;ure the word <HI>Go|vernment</HI> is not, nor was never &s;o under&s;tood in the Contro|ver&s;ies concerning Church Government: But if it be, why did the Brother in his Sermon oppo&s;e Doctrine and Go|vernment, <HI>Give us Doctrine,</HI> &s;aid he, <HI>take you the Government.</HI></P>
<P>But behold now how he doth mo&s;t palpaply contradict him&s;elfe, in one and the &s;ame <HI>Page;</HI> it is the 11th. <HI>I know no &s;uch di&s;tinction of Government,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall and Civill, in the &s;ence I take Government for the corrective part thereof; all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall (improperly called) Government, being meerely Do|ctrinall; the corrective or primitive part being civill or temporall.</HI> Againe within a few lines; <HI>I doe acknowledge a Presbyterian Go|vernment, I &s;aid &s;o expre&s;ly in my Epi&s;tle, and doe heartily &s;ub&s;cribe to the Votes of the Hou&s;e.</HI> If he heartily &s;ub&s;cribe to the Votes and Ordinances of Parliament, then be heartily &s;ub&s;cribeth that Elder&s;hips &s;u&s;pend men from the Sacrament for any of the &s;candalls enumerate, it being proved by Witne&s;&s;es upon oath; This power is corrective, not meerly doctrinall. He mu&s;t al&s;o &s;ub&s;cribe to the &s;ubordination of Congrigationall, Cla&s;&s;icall, and Synodicall a&s;&s;emblies in the Government of the Church, and to appeales from the le&s;&s;er to the greater, as likewi&s;e to Ordination by Presbyteries; and I pray, is all this meerly Doctrinall? And will he now &s;ub&s;cribe heartily to all this;
<PB N="4" REF="4">
how will that &s;tand with the other pa&s;&s;ages before cited? or with <HI>Page</HI> 17. where it being objected to him, that he takes away from Elder&s;hips all power of &s;pirituall Cen&s;ures; his Reply neither yeeldeth Excommunication nor Su&s;pention, but Admonition alone, and that by the Mini&s;ters who are a part of the Elder&s;hips, not by the whole Elder&s;hip Con|&s;i&s;torially. Againe, <HI>page</HI> 14. he confe&s;&s;eth; <HI>I advi&s;ed the Par|liament to lay no burthen of Government upon them, whom he, this Commi&s;&s;ioner thinkes Church Officers,</HI> Pa&s;tors and Ruling-Elders. Now I argue thus; he that advi&s;eth the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon Mini&s;ters and ruling Elders, he advi&s;eth the Parliament to doe contrary to their owne Votes and Ordinances, and &s;o is farre from &s;ub&s;cribing heartily thereunto. But Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> by his owne confe&s;&s;ion advi&s;eth the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon Mini|&s;ters and ruling Elders; <HI>Ergo, &amp;c.</HI> how he will reconcile him|&s;elfe with him&s;elfe, let him looke to it.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 11. He takes it ill that one while I make him an ene|my to all Church Government, then onely to the Presbyteri|all; <HI>Onely</HI> is his owne addition. But I had rea&s;on to make him an enemy to both, for &s;o he hath made him&s;elfe; yea, in oppo&s;ing all Church Government he cannot chu&s;e but oppo&s;e Presbyteriall Government: for the con&s;equence is nece&s;&s;ary, <HI>A genere ad &s;peciem,</HI> negatively though not affirmatively. If no Church Government, then no Presbyteriall Government.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>The particulars in my brief Examination, which Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> ei|ther granteth expre&s;ly, or el&s;e doth not reply unto.</HEAD>
<P>MY Argument <HI>Page</HI> 32. proving, that as many things ought to be e&s;tabli&s;hed <HI>Jure divino</HI> as can well be, be|cau&s;e he cannot an&s;wer it, therefore he granteth it. <HI>Pag.</HI> 5.</P>
<P>He had in his Sermon call'd for plaine and cleare in&s;tituti|ons, and <HI>let Scripture &s;peake expre&s;ly.</HI> Now <HI>pag.</HI> 7. he yeeldeth, that it is not onely a Divine Truth (as I call'd it) but cleare Scripture, which is drawne by nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence from Scripture.</P>
<P><PB N="5" REF="4">He hath not yet (though put in minde) produced the lea&s;t exception again&s;t the known Arguments for Excommu|nication and Church Government, drawn from <HI>Mat.</HI> 18. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. he tells the affirmer is to prove; But the affirmers have proved: and their Arguments are known, (yea he him|&s;elfe <HI>pag.</HI> 1. &s;aith; <HI>I have had the opportunity to heare almo&s;t what man can &s;ay in either &s;ide,</HI> &s;peaking of the controver&s;ie of Church Government) therefore he &s;hould have made a bet|ter an&s;wer, then to &s;ay that tho&s;e places did not take hold of his Con&s;cience, yet if he have not heard enough of tho&s;e places he &s;hall I tru&s;t ere long heare more.</P>
<P>He had &s;aid, I could never yet &s;ee how two Coordinate Governments exempt from &s;uperiority and inferiority, can be in one State, <HI>Page</HI> 35. I gave him three In&s;tances, a Generall and an Admirall, a Father and a Ma&s;ter, a Captaine and a Ma&s;ter of a Ship; This <HI>pag.</HI> 8. he doth not deny, nor &s;aith one word again&s;t it; onely he endeavoureth to make tho&s;e <HI>Similes</HI> to run upon foure feete, and to re&s;emble the generall A&s;&s;embly, and the Parliament in every circum&s;tance; but I did not at all apply them to the generall A&s;&s;embly, and the Parli|ament. Onely I brought them to overthrow that generall <HI>The&s;is</HI> of his concerning the incon&s;i&s;tency of two Co-ordinate Go|vernments, which if he could defend; why hath not he done it?</P>
<P>His keeping up of the names of Clergy and Laiety being challenged by me, <HI>pag.</HI> 36. he hath not &s;aid one word in his Re-examination to ju&s;tifie it.</P>
<P>I having <HI>pag.</HI> 37, 38. confuted his Argument drawn from the mea&s;uring of others by him&s;elfe, whereby he did endea|vour to prove that he had cau&s;e to feare an ambitious en|&s;narement in others as well as in him&s;elf, God having fa&s;hio|ned all mens hearts alike; now he quitteth his ground and &s;aith nothing for vindicating that Argument, from my ex|ceptions.</P>
<P>I &s;hewed <HI>pag.</HI> 40. his mi&s;applying of the King of <HI>Sodonus</HI> &s;peech, but neither in this doth he vindicate him&s;elfe.</P>
<P>That which I had at length excepted again&s;t his fourth Rule concerning the Magi&s;trate, and his confirmation there|of,
<PB N="6" REF="5">
he hath not an&s;wered, nor &s;o much as touched any thing which I had &s;aid again&s;t him from the end of <HI>page</HI> 42. to the end of <HI>page</HI> 48. except onely a part of <HI>page</HI> 43. and of <HI>page</HI> 44. concerning 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 28. &s;ome contrarious argumentations he hath <HI>page</HI> 21. (of which after) but no an&s;wer to mine.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 10. He digre&s;&s;eth to other Objections of his own fra|ming, in&s;tead of taking off what I had &s;aid.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>His abu&s;ing of the Scriptures.</HEAD>
<P>MA&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> did ground an Argument upon <HI>P&s;al. 33. 15, Prov.</HI> 27. 29. which cannot &s;tand with the intent of the Holy Gho&s;t, becau&s;e contrary to other Scriptures, and to the Truth, as I proved <HI>pag.</HI> 38. He an&s;wereth in his Re|examination that my &s;ence may &s;tand, and his may &s;tand too; but if my &s;ence may &s;tand, which is contrary to his, then his Argument had no &s;ure ground for it; yea, that which I &s;aid was to prove that his con&s;equence drawne from tho&s;e Scrip|tures did contradict both the Apo&s;tle <HI>Pauls</HI> Doctrine and his owne profe&s;&s;ion, which &s;till lyeth upon him &s;ince it is not an&s;wered.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 14. He citeth 1 <HI>Cor. 10. 33. Give none offence neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Churches of Chri&s;t;</HI> to prove that all Government is either a Jewi&s;h Government, or a Church Government, or a Heatheni&s;h Government, and that <HI>there is no third;</HI> yes Sir, your &s;elfe hath given a third, (for you have told three) but <HI>Tran&s;eat cum caeteris errori|hus.</HI> To the matter. This is a perverting of Scripture to prove an untruth; for the Government of Generalls, Admiralls, Majors, Sheriffes, is neither a Jewi&s;h Government, nor a Church Government, nor a Heatheni&s;h Government. Nei|ther doth the Apo&s;tle &s;peake any thing of Government in that place; he maketh a di&s;tribution of all men who are in dan|ger to be &s;candalized, not of Governments. And if he had applyed the place rightly to the Parliament of <HI>England,</HI> he had &s;aid, They are either of the Jewes, or of the Gentiles,
<PB N="7" REF="5">
or of the Church of God, and this needeth not an an&s;wer. But when he &s;aith; <HI>The Engli&s;h Parliament is either a Jewi&s;h Go|vernment, or a Church Government, or a Heatheni&s;h Government,</HI> I an&s;wer it is none of the&s;e, but it is a Civill Government.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 15. Declaring his Opinion of Church Government, he citeth <HI>Rom. 13. 4. For the puni&s;hment of him that doth evill;</HI> to prove that the punitive part belongs to the Chri&s;tian Magi|&s;trate. But what is this to the punitive part which is in Con|trover&s;ie, &s;pirituall Cen&s;ures, &s;u&s;pention from the Sacrament, depo&s;ition from the Mini&s;tery, Excommunication. The pu|nitive part &s;poken of <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. belongeth to all civill Magi|&s;trates whether Chri&s;tian or Infidell.</P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 18. He maketh this reply to 1 The&s;&s;. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 17. Heb. 13. 7. 17. <HI>Why man! I have found the&s;e an hundred and an hundred times twice told, and yet am I as I was.</HI> Why Sir, was the Argument &s;o ridiculous, I had brought tho&s;e places to prove another Government (and if you will the in&s;titution of ano|ther Government) be&s;ide Magi&s;tracy, which he &s;aid he did not finde in Scripture. Here are &s;ome who are no civill Ma|gi&s;trates &s;et over the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians</HI> in the Lord, 1 <HI>The&s;&s;. 5. 12. Paul</HI> writeth to <HI>Timothy</HI> of Elders that rule well, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5. 17. the Churches of the <HI>Hebrewes</HI> had &s;ome Rulers who had &s;poken to them the Word of God, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13. 7. Rulers that watched for their &s;oules as they that mu&s;t give an account, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 17. Now let the reverend Brother &s;peake out, what can he an&s;wer? Were the&s;e Rulers civill Magi&s;trates? Did the civill Magi&s;trate &s;peake to them the Word of God? If the&s;e Rulers were not Magi&s;trates but Mini&s;ters, I aske next, Is it a matter of indifferency and no in&s;titution to have a Mini&s;tery in a Church or not? I hope though he doe not acknowledge ruling Elders <HI>Jure divino,</HI> yet he will acknowledge that the Mini&s;ters of the Word are <HI>Jure divino;</HI> yet the&s;e were &s;ome of the Rulers mentioned in the Scriptures quoted. Let him loo&s;e the knot, and laugh when he hath done.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 19. 20. He labourerh to prove from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 28. that Chri&s;t hath placed civill Government in his Church, and whereas it is &s;aid, that though it were granted that civill
<PB N="8" REF="6">
Governments are meant in that place, yet it proves not that Chri&s;t hath placed them in the Church: He replyeth; <HI>I am &s;ure the Commi&s;&s;ioner will not &s;tand to this: he that placed Gover|nours was the &s;ame that placed Teachers.</HI> But his a&s;&s;urance de|ceiveth him, for upon &s;uppo&s;ition that civill Governments are there meant, (which is his &s;ence) I deny it, and he doth but <HI>petere principium.</HI> God placed civill Governments, Chri&s;t placed Teachers; God placed all whom Chri&s;t placed, but Chri&s;t did not place all whom God placed. <HI>Next,</HI> whereas it was &s;aid, that Governments in that place cannot be meant of Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trates, becau&s;e at that time the Church had no Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trates; He replyeth, that <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks of Governments that the Church had not, becau&s;e in the enumeration, <HI>ver.</HI> 29, 30. he omits none but <HI>helpes</HI> and <HI>Go|vernments.</HI> I an&s;wer, the rea&s;on of that omi&s;&s;ion is not be|cau&s;e the&s;e two were not then in being (for God had &s;et them as well as the re&s;t in the Church, <HI>ver.</HI> 28.) but to make ruling Elders and Deacons contented with their &s;tation, though they be not Prophets, Teachers, &amp;c. <HI>Thirdly,</HI> I asked how comes civill Government into the Catalogue of Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall and Spiritaall admini&s;trations. His reply is nothing but an affirmation, that Chri&s;tian Megi&s;tracy is an Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|call admiration, and a Quere whether working of Miracles and gifts of Healing be Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> Hence follow|eth, 1. That if the Magi&s;trate cea&s;e to be Chri&s;tian, he lo|&s;eth his admini&s;tration. 2. That though a worker of Mira|cles cea&s;e to be Chri&s;tian, yet it is a que&s;tion whether he may not &s;till worke Miracles. <HI>La&s;tly,</HI> where I objected that he puts Magi&s;tracy behind Mini&s;tery, he makes no an&s;wer, but onely that he may doe this as well as my rule puts the Nobility of <HI>Scotland</HI> behind the Mini&s;tery. No Sir, we put but ruling El|ders behind Mini&s;ters in the order of their admini&s;trations, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle doth &s;o. It is accidentall to the ruling El|der to be of the Nobility, or to Nobles to be ruling Elders: there are but &s;ome &s;o, and many otherwi&s;e. That of placing Deacons before Elders, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 28 is no great matter, &s;ure the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. placeth Elders before Deacons.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="9" REF="6">
<HEAD>His Errors in Divinity.</HEAD>
<P>1. Pag. 21. He admitteth no Church-government di&s;tinct from Civill, except that which is meerly doctrinall. And pa. 14. He advi&s;eth the Parliament to take the corrective power wholly into their own hands, and exempteth nothing of Ec|cle&s;ia&s;ticall power from their hands but the di&s;pencing of the Word and Sacraments. Hence it followeth that there ought to be neither &s;u&s;pen&s;ion from the Sacrament, nor ex|communication, nor ordination, nor depo&s;ition of Mini&s;ters, nor receiving of Appeals, except all the&s;e things be done by the Civill Magi&s;trate. If he &s;ay the Magi&s;trate gives leave to do the&s;e things. I an&s;wer. 1. So doth he give leave to preach the Word, and mini&s;ter the Sacraments in his Dominions. 2. Why doth he then in his Sermon, and doth &s;till in his Re-examination, pag. 14. advi&s;e the Parlament to lay no burthen of corrective Government upon Mini&s;ters, but keep it wholly in their own hands: It mu&s;t needs be far contrary to his mind, that the Magi&s;trate gives leave to do the things above mentioned, they being mo&s;t of them corrective, and all of them more than doctrinall. 3. He gives no more power to Mini&s;ters in Church-government then in Civill govern|ment: for pag. 11. he a&s;cribeth to them a mini&s;teriall, doctri|nall, and declarative power, both in Civill and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Government.</P>
<P>2. Pag. 11. and 14. he holds, that the corrective or puni|tive part of Church-government is Civill or Temporall, and is wholly to be kept in the Magi&s;trates own hands. And in his Sermon, pag. 25. he told us he &s;ees not in the whole Bible any one act of that Church-government in controver&s;ie, per|formed. All which how erroneous it is, appeareth ea&s;ily from 1 <HI>Cor. 5. 12. Put away that wicked Per&s;on from among you:</HI> which Mr. <HI>Prynne</HI> him&s;elf in his <HI>&V;indication,</HI> pag. 2. acknow|ledgeth to be a warrant for Excommunication, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 6. there is a <HI>puni&s;hment or cen&s;ure inflicted by many,</HI> 1 Tim. 5. 19. <HI>Again&s;t an Elder receive not an accu&s;ation but before two or three
<PB N="10" REF="7">
witne&s;&s;es.</HI> Where acts of Church-government or cen&s;ures were neglected, it is extremly blamed. <HI>Rev:</HI> 2. 14, 15. 20. was not all this corrective, yet not civill or temporall?</P>
<P>3. Pag. 9. Whereas I had &s;aid that without Church-go|vernment, Mini&s;ters &s;hall not keep them&s;elves nor the ordi|nances from pollution. He replyeth pag. 9. That he under|&s;tands neither this keeping of them&s;elves from pollution, no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> what this pollution of the ordinances is. I am &s;orry for it, that any Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel is found unclear in &s;uch a point. I will not give my own, but Scripturall an&s;wers to both. The former is an&s;wered, 1 <HI>Tim. 5. 22. Be not partaker of other mens &s;ins, keep thy &s;elf pure.</HI> It is &s;in to di&s;pen&s;e ordinan|ces to the unworthy whether Ordination, or Communion in the Sacrament. For the other the pollution of Ordinances is the Scripture language. I hope he means not to quarrell at the holy Gho&s;ts language, <HI>Ezek. 22. 26. Her Prie&s;ts have vio|lated my Law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane.</HI> Mal. 1. 7. <HI>Ye offer polluted bread, upon mine altar:</HI> ver&s;. 12. <HI>Ye have prophaned it.</HI> Mat. 21. 13. <HI>Ye have made it a den of theeves.</HI> Matth: 7. 6. <HI>Ca&s;t not pearls before &s;wine, le&s;t they trample them under their feet.</HI></P>
<P>4. Pag. 11. Whereas I had objected to him, that he exclu|deth ruling Elders, as well as Mini&s;ters from government: He an&s;wers, that Ruling Elders are either the &s;ame for office and Ordination with the Mini&s;ter (which as he thinks the Independents own, but not I) or they are the Chri&s;tian Ma|gi&s;trate, and &s;o he &s;aith he doth not exclude them. Mark here he excludeth all ruling Elders from a &s;hare in Church-go|vernment, who are not either the &s;ame for office and Ordi|nation with the Mini&s;ter, or el&s;e the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate; and &s;o upon the matter he holdeth that ruling Elders are to have no hand in Church-government. Tho&s;e ruling Elders which are in the votes of the A&s;&s;embly, and in the Reformed Churches, have neither the power of Civill Magi&s;tracy (<HI>qua</HI> Elders and many of them not at all being no Magi&s;trates) nor yet are they the &s;ame for office and ordination with the Mini&s;ter, for their office, and con&s;equently their ordination
<PB N="11" REF="7">
to that office, is di&s;tinct from that of the Mini&s;ter, among all that I know. And &s;o excluding all ruling Elders from Go|vernment who are neither Magi&s;trates nor the &s;ame with Mi|ni&s;ters, he mu&s;t needs take upon him that which I charged him with.</P>
<P>5. Pag. 21. Where he makes reply to what he had &s;aid again&s;t his Argument from <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. three la&s;t ver&s;es. He &s;aith he will blow away all my di&s;cour&s;e with this clear demon|&s;tration. <HI>That which is given to Chri&s;t, he hath it not as God, and Chri&s;t as God cannot be given. But this place (Ephe&s;. 1. three la&s;t ver|&s;es) &s;peaketh both of dignity given to Chri&s;t, and of Chri&s;t as a gift gi|ven. Therefore Chri&s;t cannot be here under&s;tood as God.</HI> This is in oppo&s;ition to what I &s;aid pag. 45. concerning the head&s;hip and dignity of Chri&s;t, as <HI>the naturall Son of God, the Image of the invi&s;ible God.</HI> Colo&s;. 1. 15. And pag. 43. of the dominion of Chri&s;t <HI>as he is the eternall Son of God.</HI> This being premi&s;ed, the Brothers demon&s;tration is &s;o &s;trong as to blow him&s;elf into a bla&s;phemous here&s;ie. I will take the Propo&s;ition from him|&s;elf, and the a&s;&s;umption from Scripture, thus. That which is given to Chri&s;t, he hath it not as God. But all power in heaven and in earth is given to Chri&s;t, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. 18. Life is given to Chri&s;t, <HI>Joh.</HI> 5. 26. Authority to execute judgement is given to Chri&s;t, <HI>Ibid.</HI> ver. 27. All things are given into Chri&s;ts hands, <HI>Joh.</HI> 3. 35. The Father hath given him power over all fle&s;h, <HI>Joh:</HI> 17. 2. he hath given him glory, <HI>Joh:</HI> 17. 22. <HI>Ergo,</HI> by Mr. <HI>Colemans</HI> principles, Chri&s;t hath neither life, nor glory, nor authority to execute judgement, nor power over all fle&s;h, as he is the eternall Son of God con&s;ub&s;tantiall with the Father, but onely as he is Mediator God and Man. As for the giving of Chri&s;t as God, what if I argue thus. If Chri&s;t as he is the eternall Son of God, or &s;econd Per&s;on of the ever ble&s;&s;ed Trinity, could not be given, then the incarnation it &s;elf, or the &s;ending of the Son of God to take on our fle&s;h, cannot be called a giving of a gift to us. But this were impi|ous to &s;ay. <HI>Ergo.</HI> Again, if Chri&s;t as he is the &s;econd Per&s;on of the ble&s;&s;ed Trinity could not be given, then the holy Gho&s;t as he is the third Per&s;on cannot be given (for they are coe&s;|&s;entiall, and that which were a di&s;honour to God the Son,
<PB N="12" REF="8">
were a di&s;honour to God the holy Gho&s;t) But to &s;ay that the holy Gho&s;t cannot be given as the third Per&s;on, were to &s;ay that he cannot be given as the holy Gho&s;t. And what will he then &s;ay to all the&s;e Scriptures that &s;peak of the giving of the holy Gho&s;t? <HI>Act. 15. 8. Rom. 5. 5. 1 Joh:</HI> 4. 13. &amp;c.</P>
<P>Finally, as Mr. <HI>Colemans</HI> demon&s;tration hath blown away it &s;elf, &s;o it could not hurt me, were it &s;olid and good (as it is not) for he &s;hould have taken notice that in my examina|tion I did not re&s;trict the dignity given to Chri&s;t, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 21. Nor the giving of Chri&s;t, ver&s;. 22. to the Divine nature onely. Nay I told pag. 44, 45. that tho&s;e words of the Apo&s;tle hold true even of the humane nature of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>6. Pag. 21. he concludeth with a Syllogi&s;me which he calleth the &s;cope of my Di&s;cour&s;e (I know not by what Lo|gick the Propo&s;ition being forged by him&s;elf, and contrary to my Di&s;cour&s;e) thus it is.</P>
<P>Who&s;oever do not manage their office and authority un|der Chri&s;t and for Chri&s;t, they manage it under the de|vill, and for the devill, for there is no middle, either Chri&s;t or Belial. He that is not with me is again&s;t me.</P>
<P>But according to the opinion of the Commi&s;&s;ioner, Chri|&s;tian Magi&s;tracy doth not manage the Office and Au|thority thereof under Chri&s;t, and for Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Therefore,</P>
<P>He beleeves I &s;hall be hard put to it, to give the Kingdom a clear and &s;atisfactory an&s;wer. Its wel that this is the harde&s;t task he could &s;et me.</P>
<P>The truth is, his Syllogi&s;me hath <HI>quatuor terminos,</HI> and is therefore worthy to be exploded by all that know the Laws of di&s;putation. Tho&s;e words in the Propo&s;ition <HI>under Chri&s;t, and for Chri&s;t,</HI> can have no other &s;ence, but to be &s;erviceable to Chri&s;t, to take part with him, and to be for the glory of Chri&s;t, as is clear by the confirmation added, <HI>He that is not with me is again&s;t me.</HI> But the &s;ame words in the a&s;&s;umption mu&s;t needs have another &s;ence, <HI>under Chri&s;t and for Chri&s;t,</HI> that is, <HI>Vice Chri&s;ti,</HI> in Chri&s;ts &s;tead. For that which I denyed was, that Magi&s;tracy is derived from Chri&s;t as Mediator, or that Chri&s;t as Mediator hath given a commi&s;&s;ion of Vicegerent|&s;hip
<PB N="13" REF="8">
and Deputy-&s;hip to the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate to manage his office and authority under &amp; for him, and in his Name. As is clear in my Examination, pag. 42. Nay Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> him|&s;elf a little before his Syllogi&s;me, pa. 19. takes notice of &s;o much. His words are the&s;e. <HI>The Commi&s;&s;ioner &s;aith, Magi&s;tracy i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> not derived from Chri&s;t: I &s;ay Magi&s;tracy is given to Chri&s;t to be &s;erviceable in his kingdom: So that though the Commi&s;&s;ioners a&s;&s;er|tion be &s;ound (which in due place will be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed) yet it infringeth nothing that I &s;aid.</HI> Now then <HI>qu&acirc; fide</HI> could he in his Argu|ment again&s;t me confound the&s;e two things which he him|&s;elf had but ju&s;t now carefully di&s;tingui&s;hed. If he will make any thing of his Syllogi&s;me, he mu&s;t hold at one of the&s;e two &s;ences. In the fir&s;t &s;ence, it is true that all are either for Chri&s;t or again&s;t Chri&s;t. And it is as true that his a&s;&s;umption mu&s;t be di&s;tingui&s;hed. For <HI>de facto</HI> the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate is for Chri&s;t when he doth his duty faithfully, and is again&s;t Chri&s;t if he be unfaithfull. But <HI>de jure,</HI> it holds true univer&s;ally that the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate manageth his office under and for Chri&s;t, that is, &s;o as to be &s;erviceable for the kingdom and glory of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>In the &s;econd &s;ence (which onely concerneth me) taking under and for Chri&s;t, to be in Chri&s;ts &s;tead as his Deputies or Vicegerents: &s;o his A&s;&s;umption, is lame and imperfect, be|cau&s;e it doth not hold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did and &s;till do hold is this. That the Civill Magi&s;trate, whether Chri&s;tian or Pagan, is Gods Vicegerent, who by ver|tue of that vicegerent-&s;hip is to manage his office and Au|thority under God, and for God, that is in Gods &s;tead, and as God upon earth. But he is not the Vicegerent of Chri&s;t as Mediator, neither is he by vertue of any &s;uch Vicegerent&s;hip to manage his office and Authority under Chri&s;t, and for Chri&s;t, that is, in Chri&s;ts &s;tead, and as Chri&s;t Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (nor mine alone, but of others more learned) and Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> hath not &s;aid &s;o much as <GAP DESC="foreign"> to confute it. So much for the A&s;&s;umption. But in the &s;ame &s;ence I utterly deny his Propo&s;ition as being a great untruth in Divinity, for the &s;ence of it can be no other then this, Who&s;oever do not manage their office and
<PB N="14" REF="9">
authority in Chri&s;ts &s;tead, or as Deputies and Vicegerents of Chri&s;t as he is Mediator, they manage it in the Devils &s;tead, as the devils deputies and Vicegerents. Now I a&s;&s;ume. Pa|gan Magi&s;trates do not manage their office as the Deputies and Vicegerents of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, as he is Mediator: <HI>Ergo</HI> as the devils deputies. Which way was the Authority derived to them from Chri&s;t as Mediator. Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> pag. 19. &s;aith in an&s;wer to this particular (formerly objected) that Chri&s;t is rightfull King of the whole earth, and all Nations ought to receive Chri&s;t, though as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to &s;hew, was that the Pagan Magi&s;trate, even while continuing Pagan, and not Chri&s;tian, doth manage his office as Chri&s;ts Deputy and Vicegerent. If not, then I conclude by his principles, a Pagan Magi&s;trate is the devils deputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to <HI>Pauls</HI> doctrine, who will have us to be &s;ubject for con&s;cience &s;ake, even to Heathen Magi&s;trates as the Mini&s;ters of God for good. <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. fir&s;t 7 ver&s;es. By the &s;ame Argument Mr. <HI>Cole|man</HI> mu&s;t grant that Generals, Admirals, Majors, Sheriffes, Con&s;tables, Captains, Ma&s;ters, yea every man that hath an office, is either Chri&s;ts Vicegerent, or the devils vicegerent: then which what can be more ab&s;urd? I might be&s;ide all the&s;e &s;hew &s;ome other flawes in his Divinity, as namely, pa. 9. and 13. He doth not agree to this Propo&s;ition, that <HI>the admitting of the &s;candalous and prophane to the Lords Table, makes Mini&s;ters to partake of their &s;ins.</HI> And he &s;uppo&s;eth that Mini&s;ters may do their duty, though they admit the &s;candalous. But of this el&s;ewhere.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>His abu&s;ing of the Honorable Hou&s;es of Parlament.</HEAD>
<P>MO&s;t Honorable Senators, I humbly be&s;eech you to look about you, and take notice how far you are abu&s;ed by Mr. <HI>Coleman.</HI></P>
<P>1. While he pretendeth to give you more then his Bre|thren, he taketh a great deal more from you, and (&s;o far as in him lieth) even &s;haketh the foundation of your Authority. The known tenure of Magi&s;tracy is from God, he is the Mi|ni&s;ter
<PB N="15" REF="9">
of God for good, and the powers that are, are ordained of God, &s;aith the Apo&s;tle; The Magi&s;trate is Gods Vicege|rent. But now this Brother &s;eeketh a new Tenure and deri|vation of Magi&s;tracy, which takes away the old. He told in his Sermon, pa. 27. <HI>Chri&s;t hath placed Governments in his Church,</HI> 1 Cor. 12. 28. <HI>Of other Governments be&s;ide Magi&s;tracy I find no in|&s;titution, of them I do.</HI> Rom. 13. 1, 2. <HI>I find all government given to Chri&s;t, and to Chri&s;t as Mediator, (I de&s;ire all to con&s;ider it)</HI> Ephe&s;. 1. three la&s;t&punc; ver&s;. <HI>and Chri&s;t as head of the&s;e given to the Church.</HI> Here you have the&s;e three in &s;ubordination. God, Chri&s;t, and the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate. God gives once all government even civill to Chri&s;t, and to him as Mediator. Well but how comes it then to the Magi&s;trate? Not &s;traight by a deputation from God. Mr. <HI>Colemans</HI> doctrine makes an interception of the power. He holds that God hath put it in Chri&s;ts hands as Me|diator. How then? The Brother holdeth that Chri&s;t as Medi|ator hath in&s;tituted and placed the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate, yea and no other Government in his Church. This was the ground of my An&s;wer, pag. 42. that he <HI>mu&s;t either prove from Scripture that Chri&s;t as Mediator hath given &s;uch a Commi&s;&s;ion of Vicegerent-&s;hip and Deputy-&s;hip to the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate: or otherwi&s;e acknowledge that he hath given a mo&s;t dangerous wound to Magi&s;tracie, and made it an emptie title claiming that power which it hath no warrant to a&s;&s;ume.</HI> I added: <HI>As the Mediator hath not any where given &s;uch a Commi&s;&s;ion and power to the Magi&s;trate, &s;o as Mediator he had it not to give: for he was not made a Judge in civill affairs,</HI> Luk. 12. 14. <HI>and his kingdom is not of this world.</HI> Joh. 18. 36. Now but what reply hath he made to all this? pa. 19. he &s;aith granting it all to be true and &s;ound, yet it infringeth not what he &s;aid. <HI>The Commi&s;&s;ioner</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;aith Magi&s;tracy is not derived from Chri&s;t: I &s;ay Magi&s;tracie is given to Chri&s;t to be &s;erviceable in his kingdom.</HI> But by his good leave and favour he &s;aid a great deal more then this, for he &s;pake of Chri&s;t his being head of all civill Governments, and his placing the&s;e in his Church, as he is Mediator. Yea that fourth rule delivered by him in his Sermon, did hold forth the&s;e a&s;&s;er|tions. 1. That God gave all government even civill to Chri&s;t,
<PB N="16" REF="10">
and to him as Mediator. 2. That Chri&s;t as Mediator hath power and authority to place and &s;ub&s;titute under and for him the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate. 3. That Chri&s;t hath placed and in&s;tituted civill Governments in his Church, to be under and for him as he is Mediator. 4. That the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate doth, and all Magi&s;trates &s;hould manage their office under and for Chri&s;t, (that is, as his Vicegerents) he being as Me|diator head of all civil Government. Now in &s;tead of defend|ing his Doctrine from my ju&s;t exceptions made again&s;t it, he revileth, and having brought the Magi&s;trate in a &s;nare, leaves him there. He endeavours to vindicate no more but this, that Magi&s;tracy is given to Chri&s;t to be &s;erviceable in his king|dom. But if he had &s;aid &s;o at fir&s;t, I had &s;aid with him, and not again&s;t him in that point. And if he will yet hold at that, why doth he pag. 19. refer my A&s;&s;ertion to further di&s;cu&s;|&s;ion?</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> he hath abu&s;ed the Parliament in holding forth that rule to them in his Sermon, <HI>E&s;tabli&s;h as few things</HI> Jure di|vino <HI>as can well be.</HI> And yet now he is made by &s;trength of ar|gument to acknowledge pag. 5. that this is a good rule. <HI>E&s;ta|bli&s;h as many things.</HI> Jure divino <HI>as can well be.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Thirdly,</HI> I having &s;tated the que&s;tion to be not whether this or that form of Church-Government be <HI>Jure divino,</HI> but whe|ther a Church Government be <HI>Jure divino?</HI> whether Chri&s;t hath thus far revealed his will in his Word, that there are to be Church cen&s;ures, and tho&s;e to be di&s;penced by Church|officers. I &s;aid the Brother is for the negative of this que&s;ti|on, pa. 32. This he flatly denieth, pag. 5, 6. Whereby he ac|knowledgeth the affirmative, that there is a Church Govern|ment <HI>Jure divino,</HI> and that Je&s;us Chri&s;t hath &s;o far revealed his will in his Word, that there are to be Church Cen&s;ures, and tho&s;e to be di&s;pen&s;ed by Church-officers. But how doth this agree with his Sermon? <HI>Chri&s;t hath placed Governments in his Church. Of other Governments</HI> (&s;aid he) <HI>be&s;ide Magi&s;tracie I find no in&s;titution, of them I do.</HI> Is Magi&s;tracie Church-Govern|ment? Are Magi&s;trates Church-officers? are the civill puni&s;h|ments Church Cen&s;ures? Is this the my&s;tery? Yes, that it is:
<PB N="17" REF="10">
He will tell us anon that the Hou&s;es of Parliament are Church-Officers; but if that bolt doe any hurt I am much mi&s;taken.</P>
<P><HI>Fourthly,</HI> He profe&s;&s;eth to &s;ub&s;cribe to the Votes of Parlia|ment concerning Church-Government, <HI>page</HI> 11. and yet he &s;till pleadeth that all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Government is meerely Doctrinall, <HI>ibid.</HI> the Parliament having Voted that power to Church-Officers which is not Doctrinall (as I &s;hewed before) And he advi&s;eth the Parliament to keep wholy in their own hands the corrective part of Church-Government, <HI>page</HI> 14. though the Parliament hath put into the hands of Elder&s;hips a power of &s;u&s;pention from the Sacrament, which is cor|rective.</P>
<P><HI>Fifthly,</HI> he did deliver in that Sermon before the Honou|rable Hou&s;e of Commons, divers particulars, which being ju&s;tly excepted again&s;t, and he undertaking a Vindication, yet he hath receded from them, or not being able to defend them, as that concerning two co-ordinate Governments in one Kingdome, and his Argument concerning the feare of an am|bitious en&s;narement in Mini&s;ters; the&s;e being by me enfringed he hath not &s;o much as offered to make them good.</P>
<P><HI>Sixtly,</HI> having acknowledged under his owne hand that he was &s;orry he had given offence to the Reverend A&s;&s;embly, and to the Commi&s;&s;ioners from <HI>Scotland,</HI> he now appealeth to the Parliament, and tells us they are able to judge of a &s;candalous Sermon, and they thought not &s;o of it, <HI>page</HI> 3. I know they are able to judge of a &s;candalous Sermon, that they thought not &s;o of it, its more then I know or beleeve; however I know they have a tender re&s;pect to the offence of others even when them&s;elves are not offended, and &s;o they and all men ought to doe according to the rule of Chri&s;t: for his part after he had acknowledged he had given offence, it is a di&s;-&s;ervice to the Parliament to lay over the thing upon them; for my part, I thinke I doe better &s;ervice to the Parlia|ment in interpreting otherwi&s;e that &s;econd Order of the Hou&s;e, not onely de&s;iring but injoyning Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> to Print that Sermon; as near as he could as he Preached it. This was
<PB N="18" REF="11">
not (as he takes it) one portion of approbation above all its Brethren (for I &s;hall not beleeve that &s;o wi&s;e an Auditory was not at all &s;candalized at the hearing of that which was contrary both to the Covenant, and to their own Votes con|cerning Church-Government; nor at that which he told them out of the Jewi&s;h Records, that <HI>Hezekiah</HI> was <HI>the fir&s;t man that ever was &s;ick in the world, and did recover</HI>) but as I hum|bly conceive it was a reall cen&s;ure put upon him: his Sermon being &s;o much excepted again&s;t and &s;tumbled at, the Honou|rable Hou&s;e of Commons did wi&s;ely injoyne him to Print his Sermon, that it might abide triall in the light of the world, and lye open to any ju&s;t exceptions which could be made a|gain&s;t it abroad, and that he might &s;tand or fall to him&s;elf.</P>
<P><HI>Seventhly,</HI> he abu&s;eth the Parliament by arrogating &s;o much to him&s;elfe as that his Sermon <HI>will in the end take away all dif|ference, and &s;ettle union, page</HI> 3. and that his Modell will be when he is dead <HI>the Modell of</HI> Englands <HI>Church-Government,</HI> as he &s;aith in his Po&s;t&s;cript, whether this be <HI>Prophecying</HI> or <HI>pre|&s;uming,</HI> I hope we are free to judge And what if the Wi&s;e|dome and Authority of the Honourable Hou&s;es upon advice from the Reverend and learned A&s;&s;embly chu&s;e another way than this? Mu&s;t all the Synodicall debates, and all the grave Parliamentary Con&s;ultations re&s;olve them&s;elves into Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> way, like <HI>Jordan</HI> into <HI>Mare Mortuum.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Eightly,</HI> He doth extreamly wound the Authority of Par|liament in making their Office to be a Church Office, and of the &s;ame kind with the Mini&s;ters Office, <HI>page 14. Doe not I hold Mini&s;ters Church-Officers?</HI> And a little after. <HI>I de&s;ire the Parliament to con&s;ider another Presbyterian principle, that excludes your Honourable A&s;&s;embly from being Church-Officers.</HI> If &s;o, then the Offices of the Magi&s;trate and of the Mini&s;ter mu&s;t &s;tand and fall together; that is, if the Nation were not chri&s;tian, the Office of Magi&s;tracy &s;hould cea&s;e as well as that of the Mini&s;tery; and if he make the Magi&s;trate a Church-Officer, he mu&s;t al&s;o give him Ordination, except with the <HI>Socinians</HI> he deny the nece&s;&s;ity of Ordination.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="19" REF="11">
<HEAD>His abu&s;ing the Reverend A&s;&s;embly of Divines.</HEAD>
<P>WHereas I had objected that his Sermon had given no &s;mall &s;candall and offence, he replyeth page 3. <HI>But hath it given offence? to whom? I appeale to the Honourable Audi|ence.</HI> Is this candide or faire dealing when he him&s;elfe knew both that he had given offence, and to whom. I &s;hall give him no other an&s;wer but his owne Declaration which he gave un|der his hand, after he had Preached that Sermon.</P>
<P><HI>For much of what is reported of my Sermon I utterly deny, and re|ferre my &s;elfe to the Sermon it &s;elfe; for what I have acknowledged to be delivered by me, although it is my judgement, yet becau&s;e I &s;ee it hath given a great deale of offence to this A&s;&s;embly, and the Reverend Commi&s;&s;ioners of</HI> Scotland; <HI>I am &s;orry I have given offence in the delivery thereof. And for the Printing, although I have an Order, I will forbeare, except I be further commanded.</HI> Tho. Coleman.</P>
<P>Page 33. I had this pa&s;&s;age: <HI>And where he asketh where the Independents and we &s;hould meet?</HI> I an&s;wer; <HI>In holding a Church Government</HI> Jure divino, <HI>that is, that the Pa&s;tours and Elders ought to &s;u&s;pend, or Excommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) &s;candalous &s;inners. Who can tell but the purging of the Church from &s;candalls, and the keeping of the Ordinances pure (when it &s;hall be actually &s;eene to be the great Worke endeavoured on both &s;ides) may make union between us and the Independents more ea&s;ie then many imagine.</HI> What reply hath he made to this? pag. 6. <HI>Sure I dreame</HI> (Awake then) <HI>But I will tell you newes: The Presbiterians and Independents are</HI> (he &s;hould have &s;aid may be) <HI>united; nay more, the Lutherans and Calvini&s;ts: nay more yet, the Papi&s;t and Prote&s;tant: nay more then &s;o, the Turk and Chri&s;tian.</HI> But wherein? <HI>In holding that there is a Religion wherein men ought to walke.</HI> No Sir; they mu&s;t be united upon the like termes: that is, you mu&s;t fir&s;t have Turkes to be Chri&s;tians, and Papi&s;ts to be Prote&s;tants, and then you mu&s;t have them as willing to purge the Church of &s;candalls, and to keepe the
<PB N="20" REF="12">
Ordinances pure. We will never di&s;paire of an union with &s;uch as are &s;ound in the Faith, holy in life, and willing to a Church-refining and &s;in-cen&s;uring Government in the hands of Church Officers. In the meane while it is no light impu|tation upon the A&s;&s;embly to hint this much, that the harmo|ny and concord among the Members thereof for &s;uch a Go|vernment as I have now named (though in &s;ome other parti|culars di&s;&s;enting) can no more unite them, than Turkes and Chri&s;tians, Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants can be united; and now I will tell you my newes; the Presbiterians and Independents are both equally intere&s;ted again&s;t the Era&s;tian Principles.</P>
<P>He reflecteth al&s;o upon the A&s;&s;embly in the point of <HI>Jus di|vinum,</HI> page 6. But what his part hath been in reference to the proceedings in the A&s;&s;embly is more fully, and in divers particulars expre&s;&s;ed in the <HI>Briefe view of Mr.</HI> Coleman <HI>his new Modell,</HI> unto which he hath offered no an&s;wer.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>His Calumnies.</HEAD>
<P><HI>PAge</HI> 3. He de&s;ireth me with wi&s;dome and humility to minde what Church-refining, and &s;in-cen&s;uring worke this Church-Government with all his activity hath made in <HI>Scotland,</HI> in the point of promi&s;cuous communicating; I &s;hall de&s;ire him with wi&s;dome and humility to mind what charity or con&s;cience there is in &s;uch an a&s;per&s;ion; I dare &s;ay divers thou&s;ands have keen kept off from the Sacrament in <HI>Scotland,</HI> as unworthy to be admitted, where I my &s;elfe have exerci&s;ed my Mini&s;tery, there have been &s;ome hundreds kept off; part|ly for ignorance, and partly for &s;candall. The order of the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> and the Acts of generall A&s;&s;emblies are for keeping off all &s;candalous Per&s;ons, which every godly and faithfull Mini&s;ter doth con&s;cientiou&s;ly and effectually en|deavour; and if here or there it be too much neglected by &s;ome <HI>Archippus</HI> who takes not heed to fulfill the Mini&s;tery which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his Elder|&s;hip
<PB N="21" REF="12">
beare the blame, and an&s;wer for it.</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 4. I having profe&s;&s;ed my unwillingne&s;&s;e to fall upon &s;uch a Controver&s;ie in a Fa&s;t Sermon. He replyeth; <HI>How can you &s;ay, you were unwilling?</HI> But how can you in brotherly cha|rity doubt of it, after I had &s;eriou&s;ly profe&s;&s;ed it? My doing it at two &s;everall Fa&s;ts (the onely opportunities I then had to give a te&s;timony to that pre&s;ently controverted truth is no Argument of the contrary. May not a man doe a thing twen|ty times over and yet doe it unwillingly?</P>
<P><HI>Page</HI> 5. He &s;landereth tho&s;e that did in their Sermons give a publike te&s;timony again&s;t his Doctrine, the occa&s;ion (as he gives out) not being offered, but taken. But had they not a publike calling and employment to Preach as well as him|&s;elfe? And if a Fa&s;t was not occa&s;ion offered to them, how was a Fa&s;t an occa&s;ion offered to him to fall upon the &s;ame controver&s;ie fir&s;t, and when none had done the like before him?</P>
<P><HI>A fourth Calumny is this.</HI> He had fir&s;t blamed two Parties that they came bya&s;&s;ed to the A&s;&s;embly; I an&s;wered, How then &s;hall he make him&s;elfe blamele&s;&s;e who came bya&s;&s;ed a third way, which was the Era&s;tian way; and that for our part we came no more bya&s;&s;ed to this A&s;&s;embly then the forraine Divines came to the Synod of <HI>Dort, Alexander</HI> to the Councell of <HI>Nice,</HI> and <HI>Cyrell</HI> to that of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and <HI>Paul</HI> to the Synod at <HI>Jeru&s;a|lem;</HI> but now <HI>page</HI> 6. 7, in&s;tead of doing us right he doth us greater injury, for now he makes us bya&s;&s;ed not onely by our owne judgements, but by &s;omething adventitious from without, which he denyeth him&s;elf to be, (but how truely I take not on me to judge: beholders doe often perceive the bya&s;&s;ing better then the Bowlers) yea he &s;aith, that I have acknowledged the byas, and ju&s;tifie it. Where Sir, where? I deny it; Its no byas for a man to be &s;etled, re&s;olved, and in|gaged in his judgement for the truth, e&s;pecially when wil|ling to receive more light, and to learne what needeth to be further reformed. Hath he forgotten his owne definition of the byas which he had but ju&s;t now given? But he will needs make it more then probable by the in&s;tances which I
<PB N="22" REF="13">
brought, that <HI>the Commi&s;&s;ioners from</HI> Scotland <HI>came not to this A&s;&s;embly, as Divines by di&s;pute and di&s;qui&s;ition to finde out truth, but as Judges to cen&s;ure all different opinions as errours; for &s;o came forraigne Divines to Dort,</HI> Alexander <HI>to the Councell of Nice,</HI> Cy|rill <HI>to Ephe&s;us.</HI> Is it not enough to &s;lander us, though he doe not for our &s;akes &s;lander tho&s;e worthy Divines that came to the Synod of <HI>Dort, Alexander</HI> al&s;o and <HI>Cyrill,</HI> prime Witne&s;&s;es for the truth in their daies? could no le&s;&s;e content him then to approve the Objections of the <HI>Arminians</HI> again&s;t the Synod of <HI>Dort,</HI> which I had mentioned <HI>page</HI> 33? but he gets not away &s;o; the &s;tronge&s;t in&s;tance which I had given he hath not once touched: it was concerning <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> who were ingaged (not in the behalfe of one Nation, but of all the Churches of the Gentiles) again&s;t the impo&s;ition of the Mo|&s;aicall Rites, and had &s;o declared them&s;elves at <HI>Antioch</HI> be|fore they came to <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI> Finally, whereas he doubts, though not of our willingne&s;&s;e to learne more, yet of our permi&s;&s;ion to receive more: That very paper fir&s;t given in by us (which I had cited, and unto which he makes this reply) did &s;peake not onely of our learning, but of the Church of <HI>Scotlands</HI> receiving; and which is more, there is an actuall experiment of it, the la&s;t generall A&s;&s;embly having ordered the laying a&s;ide of &s;ome particular cu&s;tomes in that Church, and that for the nearer uniformity with this Church of <HI>Eng|land,</HI> as was expre&s;&s;ed in their owne Letter to the reverend A&s;&s;embly of Divines.</P>
<P>A <HI>fifth</HI> calumny there is, <HI>page 9. 6. The Commi&s;&s;ioner is con|tent that</HI> Jus divinum <HI>&s;hould be a</HI> Noli me tangere <HI>to the Parlia|ment, yet blames what him&s;elfe grants.</HI> I was never content it &s;hould be a <HI>Noli me tangere</HI> to the Parliament, but at mo&s;t a <HI>Non nece&s;&s;e e&s;t tangere,</HI> for &s;o I explained my &s;elfe, <HI>page</HI> 32, 33. If the Parliament e&s;tabli&s;h that thing which is agreeable to the Word of God, though they doe not e&s;tabli&s;h it as <HI>Jure divino,</HI> I acquie&s;ce; in the meane time both they and all Chri&s;tians, but e&s;pecially Mini&s;ters ought to &s;earch the Scrip|tures, that what they doe in matters of Church-Government they may doe it in faith and a&s;&s;urance that it is acceptable to
<PB N="23" REF="13">
God. It was not of Parliamentary Sanction, but of Divines doctrinall a&s;&s;erting of the will of God that I &s;aid, <HI>Why &s;hould Ius Divinum be &s;uch a Nolime tangere?</HI></P>
<P>6 It &s;eemes &s;trange to him that I did at all give in&s;tance of the u&s;efulne&s;&s;e of Church-Government in the pre&s;ervation of purity in the Ordinances and in Church-members. He &s;aith for an Independent to have given this in&s;tance, had been &s;ome|thing; but it &s;eemes &s;trange to him that <HI>I &s;hould have given an in&s;tance of the power and efficacy of Government, as it is Pre&s;|byteriall, and contradi&s;tinct to Congregationall.</HI> This is a calumny again&s;t Presbyteriall Government, which is neither privative nor contradi&s;tinct, but cumulative to Congregationall Go|vernment; and the Congregationall is a part of that Govern|ment which is comprehended under the name of <HI>Presbyteriall.</HI> But in ca&s;es of common concernment, difficulty, appeals, and the like, the pre&s;erving of the Ordinances and Church-members from pollution, doth belong to Presbyteries and Synods.</P>
<P>7 He &s;ayth of me, page 9. <HI>He a&s;cribeth this power of purif<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ing men, and means of advancing the power of godline&s;&s;e afterward, to Government.</HI> A calumny. It was only a <HI>&s;ine quo non</HI> which I a&s;cribed to Government, thus farre, that without it Mini&s;ters <HI>&s;hall not keep them&s;elves nor the Ordinances from pollution,</HI> pag. 23. But that Church-Government hath power to purify men, I never thought it, nor &s;aid it. That which I &s;ayd of the power (which he pointeth at) was, that his way can neither pre&s;erve the purity, nor advance the power of Religion; <HI>page</HI> 40. and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e his way provideth no eccle&s;ia&s;ticall effe|ctuall remedy for removing and purging away the mo&s;t gro&s;&s;e &s;candalous &s;innes, which are de&s;tructive to the power of godli|ne&s;&s;e. God mu&s;t by his Word and Spirit purify men, and work in them the power of godline&s;&s;e. The Church-Govern|ment which I plead for again&s;t him, is a meanes &s;ub&s;ervient and helpfull, &s;o farre as <HI>removere prohibens,</HI> to remove that which apparently is impeditive and de&s;tructive to that purity and power.</P>
<P>8 Having told us of the proud &s;welling waves of Presbyte|riall Goverment, I asked upon what coa&s;t had tho&s;e waves done any hurt, <HI>France,</HI> or <HI>Scotland,</HI> or <HI>Holland,</HI> or <HI>Terra incognita?</HI> He replieth page 12. <HI>I confe&s;&s;e, I have had no great experience of
<PB N="24" REF="14">
the Presbyteriall Government.</HI> Why make you bold then to &s;lander it, when you can give no &s;ure ground for that you &s;ay? He tels us, his feares ari&s;e from <HI>Scotland,</HI> and from <HI>London.</HI> The Reverend and worthy Mini&s;ters of <HI>London</HI> can &s;peak for them|&s;elves <HI>aetatem habent.</HI> For my part (though I know not the parti|culars) I am bound in charity not to beleeve tho&s;e a&s;per&s;ions put upon them by a di&s;contented Brother. But what from <HI>Scotland? I my &s;elfe</HI> (&s;ayth he) <HI>did heare the Presbytery of Edingburgh cen|&s;ure a woman to be bani&s;hed out of the gates of the City; was not this an encroachment?</HI> It had bin an encroachment indeed, if it had bin &s;o. But he will excu&s;e me if I an&s;wer him in his own lan|guage (which I u&s;e not) page 3 and 5. <HI>It is at the be&s;t a mo&s;t uncharitable &s;lander.</HI> And, <HI>there was either ignorance or mind|le&s;ne&s;&s;e in him that &s;ets it down.</HI></P>
<P>There is no Bani&s;hment in <HI>Scotland</HI> but by the Civill Ma|gi&s;trate, who &s;o farre aideth and a&s;&s;i&s;teth Church Di&s;cipline, that prophane and &s;candalous per&s;ons when they are found un|ruly and incorrigible, are puni&s;hed with Ban&s;hment or other|wi&s;e. A &s;tranger comming at a time into one of our Presbyte|ries, and hearing of &s;omewhat which was repre&s;ented to or re|ported from the Magi&s;trate, ought to have had &s;o much both circum&s;pection and charity, as not to make &s;uch a ra&s;h and un|true report. He might have at lea&s;t enquired when he was in <HI>Scotland</HI> and informed him&s;elfe better, whether Pre&s;byteries or the Civill Magi&s;trate doe bani&s;h. If he made no &s;uch enqui|ry, he was ra&s;h injudging. If he did, his offence is greater, when after information he will not under&s;tand.</P>
<P>9 He makes this to be a po&s;ition of mine, pag. 13. That <HI>a learned Mini&s;tery puts no black marke upon prophanene&s;&s;e more then upon others.</HI> A calumny. For fir&s;t he makes me to &s;peake Non|&s;ence. Secondly I did not &s;peake it of a learned Mini&s;tery, but of <HI>his way</HI> page 40. How long agoe &s;ince a learned Mini&s;tery was knowne by the name of Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans way?</HI> His way is a Mini&s;tery without power of Government, or Church Cen|&s;ures. Of this his way I &s;aid, that <HI>it putteth no black marke upon prophanene&s;&s;e and &s;candall in Church Members more than in any others.</HI> And the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e the corrective or punitive part of Government he will have to be only Civill or Tempo|rall&punc; which &s;triketh again&s;t tho&s;e that are without, as well as
<PB N="25" REF="14">
tho&s;e within. Put the Apo&s;tle tells us of &s;uch a corrective Go|vernement, as is a judging of tho&s;e that are within, and of tho&s;e only 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 12. And this way (which is not only ours, but the Apo&s;tolicall way) puts a black marke upon prophanene&s;&s;e &amp; &s;candalous &s;ins, in Church members more then in any others.</P>
<P>10. He &s;aith of me page 17. <HI>The Commi&s;&s;ioner is the only man that we &s;hall meet with, that for&s;aking the words, judgeth of the Intentions.</HI> A Calumny. I judged nothing but <HI>ex ore tuo.</HI> But in this thing he him&s;elfe hath tre&s;pa&s;&s;ed. I will in&s;tance but in two particulars. In that very place he &s;aith <HI>Admonition is a &s;pirituall cen&s;ure in the Commi&s;&s;ioners opinion.</HI> Whence knowes he that to be my opinion? Con&s;i&s;toriall or Presbyteriall Ad|monition given to the unruly, may be called a cen&s;ure. And if this were his meaning, then a&s;cribing to Elder&s;hips power of Admonition, he gives them &s;ome power of &s;pirituall Cen&s;ures, and &s;o &s;omething of the corrective part of Government; which were contrary to his owne Principles. But he &s;peaketh it of the Mini&s;ters admoni&s;hing, who are but a part of the Elder&s;hips, as him&s;elfe there granteth. Now where did I ever &s;ay or write, that Admonition by a Mini&s;ter is a &s;pirituall cen&s;ure? Againe page 4. He &s;o judgeth me, that he not only for&s;aketh but con|tradicteth my words, <HI>How can you &s;ay you were unwilling?</HI></P>
<P>11. He &s;aith page 16. <HI>Now the Commi&s;&s;ioner &s;peaks out,</HI> &amp;c&punc; <HI>What! not the Parliament of England meddle with Religion?</HI> A horrid calumny. Where have I &s;aid it. <HI>Dic &s;odes.</HI> I never preached before <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 span"> but I exhorted them to meddle with Re|ligion, and that in the fir&s;t place and above all other things. I &s;hall &s;ooner prove, that Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> will not have the <HI>Par|liament</HI> of <HI>England</HI> to meddle with Civill affaires, becau&s;e he makes them Church Officers. Its a <HI>non-&s;equitur.</HI> Their power is Civill, <HI>Ergo</HI> they are not to meddle with Religion? It will be a better con&s;equence. They are Church Officers. So he makes them, page 14. and <HI>Chri&s;tian Magi&s;tracy is an Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Admini&s;tration.</HI> So he &s;aith, page 20. <HI>Ergo,</HI> they are not to meddle with Civill Government.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>The Repugnancy of his Doctrine to the &s;olemn League and Covenant.</HEAD>
<P>Mr <HI>Coleman,</HI> pag. 13. acknowledgeth that to a&s;&s;ert any
<PB N="26" REF="15">
thing contrary to the &s;olemn League and Covenant, is a great fault in any, in him&s;elfe more then in divers others, if made out: He having for his own part taken it with the fir&s;t, and not only &s;o, but having admin&s;tred it to divers others: Yes, and take this one circum&s;tance more. In his Sermon upon, <HI>Jer.</HI> 30. 21. at the taking of the Covenant, <HI>Septemb.</HI> 29. 1643. He an|&s;wereth this objection again&s;t the extirpation of Prelacy. <HI>But what if the exorbitancies be purged away, may not I notwith&s;tan|ding my Oath, admit of a regulated Prelacy?</HI> for &s;atisfaction to this objection; He an&s;wereth thus, <HI>Fir&s;t, we &s;wear not again&s;t a Government, that is not. Secondly, we &s;wear again&s;t the evils of every Government, and doubtle&s;&s;e many materials of Prelacy mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be retained, as ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary. Thirdly, taking away the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new Government, and no Prelacy.</HI> Let the Brother now deale ingenuou&s;ly; What did he under&s;tand by tho&s;e materials of Prelacy ab&s;o|lutely nece&s;&s;ary to be retained? did he under&s;tand the di&s;pen|&s;ing of the Word and Sacraments, which is common to all Pa&s;tors? Or, did he under&s;tand the Priviledges of Parliament? Were either of tho&s;e two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of the&s;e, Was this the way to &s;atisfie that &s;cruple concerning the extirpation of Prelacy? Again, what was that new Government which he promi&s;ed them, after the taking a|way of the exorbitancies of the old? Was it the Mini&s;ters do|ctrinall part? that is no new thing in <HI>England.</HI> Was it the Parliaments a&s;&s;uming of the corrective part of Church-Govern|ment (as hee improperly di&s;tingui&s;heth) wholy and &s;oly into their own hands, excluding the Mini&s;tery from having any hand therein? This were a new Government I confe&s;&s;e. But &s;ure he could not in any rea&s;on intend this as a &s;atisfaction to the &s;cruples of &s;uch as de&s;ired a regulated Prelacy, who&s;e &s;cruples he then &s;poke to; for this had been the way to di&s;|&s;wade them from, not to per&s;wade them to the Covenant.</P>
<P>But I goe along with his <HI>Re-examination,</HI> pag. 14. He explai|neth him&s;elfe and me thus, <HI>He &s;hould have &s;aid that I advi&s;ed the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon them whom he this Commi&s;&s;ioner thinks Church-Officers, then had hee &s;poken true;</HI> I thank him for his explanation. And I pray who were the Church officers, whom I &s;aid hee excluded from
<PB N="27" REF="15">
Church Government? Were they not Pa&s;tors and ruling El|ders? And doth not him&s;elfe think the&s;e to be Church-offi|cers? Yes, of the Mini&s;ters he thinks &s;o, but of ruling El|ders he &s;eemes to doubt, except they be Magi&s;trates. Well but excluding the&s;e Church-officers from Church-Government he takes with the Charge. Why &s;eeks he a knot in the ru&s;h? But now, how doth he explaine him&s;elfe? He will have the Par|liament to bee Church-officers (of which before) and &s;uch Church-officers as &s;hall take the corrective part of Curch-Government wholy into their own hands; yet not to di&s;pence the Word and Sacraments, but to leave the Doctrinall part to the Mini&s;try, and their power to be meerely Doctrinall as he &s;aith, pag. 11. Thus you have his explanation. But doth this &s;alve the violating of the Covenant? Nay, it makes it more apparent; for the Government of the Church, which the fir&s;t Article of the Covenant &s;peaks of, is di&s;tingui&s;hed from the Doctrinall part, <HI>That we &s;hall endeavour the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, Di&s;cipline, and Government.</HI> So that excluding Pa|&s;tors and ruling Elders from the corrective part of Govern|ment, and from all power which is not meerely Doctrinall, he thereby excludeth them from that Di&s;cipline and Government which the Covenant &s;peaks of, as one &s;peciall part of the Refor|mation of Religion. Come on to the Rea&s;ons.</P>
<P>I had given foure Rea&s;ons: He takes notice but of three. This is the &s;econd time he hath told three for foure, yet even the&s;e three will doe the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>1. <HI>The extirpation of Church-Government is not the reforma|tion of it;</HI> Here the Brother addeth the&s;e words following as mine, which are not mine, <HI>therefore he that finds no Church-go|vernment, breaks his Covenant.</HI> His reply is, <HI>we mu&s;t reforme it according to the word of God: if that hold out none, here is no fai|ling.</HI> He addeth a <HI>&s;imile</HI> of a Iury &s;worn to enquire into the fe|lony of an accu&s;ed per&s;on, but findes nor guilty: and of three men taking an oath to deliver in their opinions of Church-go|vernment (where by the way he lets fall, that I hold the Na|tionall Synod to be above all Courts in the Kingdom; which if he meane of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Courts, why did he &s;peak &s;o gene|rally? if he meane above all or any Civill Courts, it is a gro&s;&s;e
<PB N="28" REF="16">
calumny.) But now if this be the &s;en&s;e (which he gives) of that fir&s;t article in the Covenant, then 1. all that is in the &s;econd article might have been put into the fir&s;t article; for in&s;tance, wee might in Mr <HI>Colemans</HI> &s;en&s;e, have &s;worn <HI>to endeavour the reformation of Prelacy, and even of Popery it &s;elfe, according to the word of God and the example of the be&s;t Reformed Chur|ches:</HI> that is, taking an oath to deliver in our opinions of the&s;e things, according to the word of God, and to enquire into the evills of Church-government by Archbi&s;hops, Bi&s;hops, Deans &amp;c. whether guilty or not guilty. I &s;trengthned my argument by the different nature of the fir&s;t and &s;econd article; I &s;aid, <HI>the &s;econd article is of things to be extirpated, but this of things to be pre&s;erved and reformed.</HI> Why did hee not take the &s;trength of my argument and make a reply? 2. By the &s;ame principle of his we are not tied by the fir&s;t article of our Covenant to have any either doctrine or wor&s;hip, but only to &s;earch the Scrip|tures, whether the Word hold out any; for Doctrine, Wor|&s;hip, Di&s;cipline and Government goe hand in hand in the Co|venant. 3. His owne &s;imile hath this much in it again&s;t him. If a Iury &s;worn to enquire into the felony of an accu&s;ed per&s;on, &s;hould after &s;uch an oath, not only finde the per&s;on not guilty, but further take upon them to maintain that there is no &s;uch thing as felony; &s;urely this were incon&s;i&s;tent with their oath. So he that &s;weares to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, Di&s;cipline, and Government, and yet will not only di&s;like this or that forme of Government, but al&s;o hold that there is no &s;uch thing as Church-Government, he holds that which cannot agree with his oath. 4. This an|&s;wer of Mr <HI>Colemans,</HI> leaving it free to debate whether there be &s;uch a thing as Church-Government, being his only an&s;wer to my fir&s;t argument from the Covenant, mu&s;t needs &s;uppo&s;e, that the Government mentioned in the Covenant (the refor|mation whereof we have &s;worne to endeavour) is under&s;tood even by him&s;elfe, of Church-officers, their power of corrective Government; it being the corrective part only, and not the doctrinall part, which he ca&s;ts upon an uncertainty whether the Word hold out any &s;uch thing.</P>
<P>2. <HI>Church-Government is mentioned in the Covenant as a &s;pirituall, not a civill thing. The matters of Religion are put toge|ther,
<PB N="29" REF="16">
Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, Di&s;cipline and Government. The Pri|viledges of Parliament come after in the third article.</HI> The Reve|rend Brother replies, <HI>What if it be? therefore the Parliament is not to meddle with it, and why?</HI> And here he runs out again&s;t me, as if I held that the Parliament is not to meddle with Re|ligion; an a&s;&s;ertion which I abominate. Princes and Magi|&s;trates their putting off them&s;elves all care of the matters of Re|ligion, was one of the great cau&s;es of the Churches mi&s;chiefe, and of Popi&s;h and Prelaticall tyranny. But is this ju&s;t and faire, Sir, to give out for my opinion, that for which you are not able to &s;hew the lea&s;t colour or &s;hadow of con&s;equence from any thing that ever I &s;aid? That which was to be replied unto, was, whether doe not the materials of the fir&s;t article of the Covenant differ from the materials of the third article of the Covenant? or whether are they the &s;ame? Whether doth the Priviledge of Parliament belong to the fir&s;t article of the Covenant? Whether is that Government mentioned in the fir&s;t article, a civill thing or a &s;pirituall? If civill, why is Di&s;cipline and Government ranked with Doctrine and Wor&s;hip, and all the&s;e mentioned as parts of the reformation of Religion? If &s;pi|rituall, then why doth the Brother make it <HI>civill or temporall</HI> pag. 11. To all this nothing is an&s;wered: but, <HI>what if it bee?</HI> Then is my argument granted.</P>
<P>And to put it yet further out of que&s;tion, I adde other two arguments from that &s;ame fir&s;t article of the Covenant. One is this; In the fir&s;t part of that fir&s;t article we &s;weare all of us to endeavour <HI>the pre&s;ervation of the reformed Religion in the Church of</HI> Scotland <HI>in Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, Di&s;cipline, and Government:</HI> where all know that the words Di&s;cipline and Government (e|&s;pecially being mentioned as two of the principall things in which the Reformed Religion in that Church doth con&s;i&s;t) &s;ig|nifie Church-Government, and Church-Di&s;cipline, di&s;tinct both from Doctrine and Wor&s;hip, and from civill Govern|ment (which, by the way, how Mr <HI>Coleman</HI> endeavoureth to pre&s;erve, I will not now &s;ay, but leave it to others to judge:) Therefore in that which immediately followeth, our endeavou|ring <HI>the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of</HI> England <HI>and</HI> Ireland <HI>in Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, Di&s;cipline and Government;</HI> the words <HI>Di&s;cipline</HI> and <HI>Government</HI> mu&s;t needs be under&s;tood in
<PB N="30" REF="17">
the &s;ame &s;en&s;e thus farre, that it is a Church-Di&s;cipline, and a Church-Government di&s;tinct from the civill power of the Ma|gi&s;trate, and di&s;tinct al&s;o from Doctrine and Wor&s;hip in the Church; for we cannot make the&s;e words <HI>Di&s;cipline and Go|vernment</HI> in one and the &s;ame article of a &s;olemn oath and Co|venant, to &s;uffer two &s;en&s;es differing <HI>toto genere,</HI> (e&s;pecially con|&s;idering that the civill Government is put by it &s;elfe in another article which is the third) unle&s;&s;e we make it to &s;peak &s;o as none&punc; may under&s;tand it.</P>
<P>The other argument which I now adde, is this; In the third part of that fir&s;t article we &s;weare that we <HI>&s;hall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms to the neare&s;t conjunction and uniformity in Religion, confe&s;&s;ion of faith, forme of Church Government, Directory for wor&s;hip and catechi&s;ing;</HI> where 1. Church Government doth agree generically with a con|fe&s;&s;ion of faith, Directory of wor&s;hip, and catechi&s;ing: I mean all the&s;e are matters of Religion, none of them civill matters. 2. It is &s;uppo&s;ed there is &s;uch a thing as Church Government di|&s;tinct from civill Government; and therefore it is put out of all que&s;tion, that &s;o farre there &s;hall be an uniformity between the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms (and otherwi&s;e it were an un&s;wearing of what was &s;worn in the fir&s;t part of that ar|ticle) but it tieth us to endeavour the neare&s;t conjunction and u|niformity <HI>in a form of Church government;</HI> which were a vaine and ra&s;h oath, if we were not tied to a Church government in generall, and that as a matter of Religion. 3 The uniformity in a form of Church-Government which we &s;weare to endeavour, mu&s;t needs be meant of corrective Government, it being clearly di&s;tingui&s;hed from the Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, and Directory of Wor&s;hip. So that Mr <HI>Colemans</HI> di&s;tinction of the Doctrinall part, and of the di&s;pen&s;ing of the Word and Sacraments can|not here help him.</P>
<P>From the&s;e two Arguments (be&s;ide all was &s;aid before) I conclude, that the Covenant doth undeniably &s;uppo&s;e and plainely hold forth this thing as mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary and uncon|trover<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">able, that there ought to bee a Church-Government which is both di&s;tinct from the Civill-Government, and yet not meerely doctrinall. And if &s;o, what <HI>Apollo</HI> can reconcile Mr <HI>Colemans</HI> Doctrine with the Covenant? And now I go on.</P>
<P><PB N="31" REF="17">My la&s;t rea&s;on formerly brought was this: <HI>Will the brother &s;ay that the example of the be&s;t reformed Churches leadeth his way.</HI> For the Covenant tieth us to a reformation of the govern|ment of the Church both according to the Word of God, and the example of the be&s;t reformed Churches: that, as <HI>regula regulans:</HI> this, as <HI>regula regulata,</HI></P>
<P>The Reverend brother replieth: 1. <HI>The be&s;t reformed Church, that ever was, went this way, I meane the Church of I&s;rael.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. Is the Church of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> one of the Reformed Churches which the Covenant &s;peakes of? 2. Was the Church of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> better reformed than the Apo&s;tolicall Churches? why then cals he it the be&s;t reformed Church that ever was? 3. That in the Jewi&s;h Church, there was a Church-government di&s;tinct from civill government, and Church cen&s;ures di&s;tinct from civill puni&s;hments, is the opinion of many who have taken great paines in the &s;earching of the Jewi&s;h antiquities; and it may be he &s;hall heare it ere long further proved both from Scripture, and from the very Talmudicall writers.</P>
<P>2. <HI>I de&s;ire</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the Commi&s;&s;ioner to give an in&s;tance in the new Te&s;tament of &s;uch a di&s;tinction</HI> (Civill and Church go|vernment) <HI>where the &s;tate was Chri&s;tian.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I de&s;ire him to give an in&s;tance in the new Te&s;ta|ment of the&s;e three things, and then he will an&s;wer him&s;elfe. 1. Where was the State Chri&s;tian? 2. Where had the Mini|&s;tery a doctrinall power in a Chri&s;tian State? 3. Where doth the new Te&s;tament hold out, that a Church government di|&s;tinct from civill government may be where the State is not Chri&s;tian, and yet may not be where the State is Chri&s;tian? Shall the Churches liberties be dimini&s;hed, or rather increa&s;ed where the State is Chri&s;tian?</P>
<P>In the third and fourth place, the brother tels us of the opi|nions of <HI>Gualther, Bullinger, Era&s;tus, Aretius.</HI> The que&s;tion is of the examples of Churches, not of the opinions of men. But what of the men? As for that pe&s;tilence that walketh in darkne&s;&s;e through <HI>London</HI> and <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter, Era&s;tus</HI> his booke again&s;t <HI>Beza,</HI> let him make of it what he can, it &s;hall have an Antidote by and by. In the meane while he may take notice
<PB N="32" REF="18">
that in the clo&s;e of the &s;ixth Book <HI>Era&s;tus</HI> ca&s;ts down that which he hath built, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">u&s;t as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> did in the clo&s;e of his five books of ju&s;tification. But as for the other three named by the bro|ther,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gualther Ar|chetyp&punc; in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> Cor&punc; 5. 5. decrevi impurum hunc t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ad<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ndum e&s;&s;e Satanae, id e&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">jiciendum ex Eccle&s;ia, &amp;c Ratio locution<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">s quia extra E<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">|cl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;iam <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">atan Regnat. <HI>In ver. 6.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">a ve<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">o in nuit di&s;ciplinam nece&s;&s;ariam e&s;&s;e, ne contagiu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> peccan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">i &s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">t. <HI>In ver. 9. 10, 11.</HI> Catalogus eorum qui debent excomm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">n ca<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">i, Ibid. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">mo non &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">iunt mini&s;tri ni&s;i publica authoritate juven<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ur. Idco Paulus Corint<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">io<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> tam <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 span"> m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">net, ut Eccle&s;iae di&s;ciplinam instaurent, &amp; &s;ermentum omne expurgent. <HI>In ver. 13.</HI> Tollite, &amp;c. Si Chri|&s;tiani e&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">is &s;i Eccle&s;iam vul<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">abere purem, utin ini jure ve<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">o. Billinger in 1&punc; Cor. 5. v. 3, 4, 5 V<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ri ergo Apo&s;tolici &amp; ve<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">re<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> quoque contum<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ces &amp; Eccle&s;ia&s;tica <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">n&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters"> a digno<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters"> co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">ubernio Sancto|rum a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">jeceru<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">t, excl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">den<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">os &agrave; &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">ris <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 span"> &amp; communione c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">rporl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> &amp; &s;angui<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="3 letters"> my&s;ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">. <HI>And a little after,</HI> Quod &s;ihis quoque addas ordinationem chri&s;ti ex Math<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">, vide<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">is eam huc quoque &s;pecta<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">e, ut publi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">&egrave; mulc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">tur qui&s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">tis <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 span"> in hone&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> per<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">exeri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> vivere. E&s;&s;e enim E<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="3 letters">icum &amp; Publi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="3 letters">um, e&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 span"> &egrave; Catalogo Eccle&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ico &amp; recen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">ri haberique inter <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">cino<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">o&s;os quibus nihil neque o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">icii, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">eque &s;inceri <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">&ograve; commi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">as.</NOTE> they are ours, not his in this pre&s;ent controver&s;ie. <HI>Gual|ther</HI> expounds the fifth chapter of 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> all along of excom|munication, and of the nece&s;&s;ity of Church di&s;cipline, in &s;o much that he expounds the very delivering to &s;atan (the phra&s;e mo&s;t controverted by <HI>Era&s;tus</HI> and his followers) of excommunication; and the not eating with the &s;candalous, <HI>v.</HI> 9, 10, 11. hee takes al&s;o to import excommunication. Hee thinks al&s;o that Mini&s;ters &s;hall labour to little pupo&s;e, except they have a power of government. <HI>Bullinger</HI> is mo&s;t plaine for excommunication, as a &s;pirituall cen&s;ure ordained by Chri&s;t: and &s;o he under&s;tands, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. 17.</P>
<P><HI>Aretius</HI> holds, that God was the authour of excommunica|tion<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aret. Theol. probl. loc. 133. a Deo originem habit, &amp; a Chri&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> confir|mata fuit. <HI>And after,</HI> Su|pra de origine dixi, indicans <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">o in<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">tam &s;u|i&s;&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">anc di&s;ci|plinam, &amp;c. Demum Chri&s;tus filius dei tandem Ecclei<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> commendavit.</NOTE> in the old Te&s;tament, and Chri&s;t in the New. And now, are the&s;e three Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> way? or doth not his doctrine flatly contradict theirs? Peradventure he will &s;ay, yet there is no excommunication in the Church of <HI>Zurik</HI> (where tho&s;e Divines lived) nor any &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of &s;candalous &s;inners from the Sacrament. I an&s;wer, this cannot infringe what I hold, that the example of the be&s;t reformed Churches maketh for&punc; us, and again&s;t him&punc; For fir&s;t, the booke written by <HI>Lavater,</HI> (another of the <HI>Zurike</HI> Divines) <HI>De ritibus &amp; in&s;titutis Eccle&s;iae Tigurinae,</HI> tels us of divers things in that Church, which will make the brother ea&s;ily to acknowledge that it is not the be&s;t reformed Church: &s;uch as Fea&s;tivall daies, <HI>cap.</HI> 8. that upon the Lords daies before the third Bell, it is publi&s;hed and made
<PB N="33" REF="18">
knowen to the people, if there be any hou&s;es, fields or lands to be &s;old, <HI>cap.</HI> 9. They have no Fa&s;ts indicted, <HI>ibid.</HI> nor P&s;almes &s;ung in the Church, <HI>cap.</HI> 10. Re&s;pon&s;ories in their Letany at the Sacrament, the Deacon upon the right hand &s;aith one thing, the Deacon upon the left hand &s;aith another thing, the Pa&s;tor a third thing, <HI>cap.</HI> 13.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Wolphius com. in li. E&s;drae pag. <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="blotted" EXTENT="1 letter">1. Atque hoc exem|plo veteris Te|&s;tamenti di&s;ci|mus quid facto opus &s;it in n<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">vot Nempe ut crebris Synodis ac cen&s;u|ris, in vocationem in Doctriuam, in vitam aec mores Eccle&s;ia&s;tarum in&s;piciatur.</NOTE></P>
<P>2. Yet the Church of <HI>Zurike</HI> hath &s;ome corrective Church Government, be&s;ides that which is civill or temporall, for that &s;ame Booke, <HI>cap.</HI> 23. tells us that in their Synods, any Mi|ni&s;ter who is found &s;candalous or prophane in his life, is cen|&s;ured with depo&s;ition from his office, <HI>ib Officio deponitur.</HI> Then followes, <HI>Finita cen&s;ura, &s;inguli Decani, &amp;c.</HI> Here is a Synodicall cen&s;ure, which I finde al&s;o in <HI>Wolphius</HI> a Profe&s;&s;or of <HI>Zurike.</HI> And the Book before cited, <HI>cap.</HI> 24. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">In Eccle&s;iis <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 word"> Tigurinae, deligantur Seniores, qui un<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> cum pastore vitia corrigant. Po&s;tea Magi&s;tratus de <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 span"> bla&s;phemis, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 span"> &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">mi<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> Tells us of &s;ome corrective power committed to Pa&s;tors and Elders. Which Elders are di&s;tingui&s;hed from the Magi&s;teates.</P>
<P>3. The <HI>zurike</HI> Divines them&s;elves looked upon Excommu|nication<NOTE PLACE="marg">Bullinger in <HI>1. Cor. 5.</HI> Et hac tenus de ca|stigatione &s;cele|r<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">i Eccle&s;ia&s;tica. Hic tamen dili|genter admoni|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">os <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">olo fraires, vigilent, &amp; omni diligenti<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> curent, ut &s;al|viare hoc Phar|macum, &egrave; caetu &s;anctor&ugrave;m Ponti|ficis avaritia eliminatum, reducatur, hoc e&s;t ut &s;celera offendentia plectantur. Hic enim unicu<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> e&s;t Excommunicationis fini<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">, ut mores excolautur &amp; floreant Sancti, prophani ve<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">&ograve; coerceantur, ne mal<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> porro impudentia ac impietate gra&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">tur. No&s;tram e&s;t i&s;ta <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> fratres, &s;umma cum diligen|tia curare. Videmus enim &amp; Paulum ce&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">ntes hoc loco incicare. Aretius ubi &s;upra. Magi&s;tratu<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> jugum non admittunt, timen<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> honoribus, licentium amant &amp;c. Vulgus quoque &amp; plebs d<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="missing" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;olu|tio<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">: major pars corrupti&s;&s;ima e&s;t, &amp;c. Int<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="4 letters"> non <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 word"> e&s;&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">ateor dabit po&s;te|rior aetas tructabiliores for<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="2 letters"> anima<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">, minor<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> pectora, quam no&s;tra habent &s;eculas Lavater in Ne|hem. Homil. 52. Quia pontifices Romani Excommunicatione <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1+ letters">endum <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;uam tyrannidem abu&s;i &s;unt, factum e&s;t ut nulla fer&egrave; ju&s;ta di&s;cipl<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">na amplius in Eccle&s;iis jnstitui po&s;&s;it Ni&s;i autem &s;l<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">g <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">i<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;i coerceantur, omnia ruant in pejus nece&s;&s;e e&s;t.</NOTE> as that which was wanting through the injury of the times, the thing having beene &s;o horribly abu&s;ed in Po|pery, and the pre&s;ent licentiou&s;ne&s;&s;e abounding among people, did hinder the erecting of that part of the Church Di&s;cipline at that time. But they &s;till pleaded the thing to be held forth in Scripture, and were but expecting better times for re&s;toring and &s;etting of Excommunication, which they did approve in <HI>Genevah</HI> and in other reformed Churches, who had received it. I give you their owne words for the war|rant of what I &s;ay.</P>
<P><PB N="34" REF="19">I have beene the longer upon this point, as being the chiefe objection which can bee made by Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> con|cerning that clau&s;e in the Covenant, <HI>the example of the be&s;t re|formed Churches.</HI></P>
<P>Hee hath onely one thing more, which may well pa&s;&s;e for a Paradox. Hee will take an in&s;tance fore&s;ooth, from <HI>Gene|vah</HI> it &s;elfe, though Presbiterian in practice. And why? be|cau&s;e in the <HI>Genevah</HI> Annotations upon, <HI>Mat.</HI> 9. 16. It is &s;aid that, <HI>the externall Di&s;cipline is to be fitted to the capacity of the Church. This is no Scotland Presbytery,</HI> &s;aith the Brother. Nay Sir, nor yet <HI>Genevah</HI> Presbytery, for it doth not at all concerne Presbytery. It is &s;poken in referrence to the choo&s;e|ing of fit and convenient times for Fa&s;ting and Humiliation; that as Chri&s;t did not at that time tie his Di&s;ciples to Fa&s;ting, it being un&s;utable to that pre&s;ent time, &s;o other like circum|&s;tances of Gods Wor&s;hip which are not at all determined in the Word, are to bee accommodated to emergent occa&s;i|ons, and to the Churches condition for the time: which both <HI>Scotland</HI> and <HI>Genevah,</HI> and other reformed Churches doe.</P>
<P>If I have now more fully and convincingly &s;poken to that point of the Covenant, let the Brother blame him&s;elfe that put me to it.</P>
<P>The Lord guide his people in a right way, and rebuke the Spirit of error and divi&s;ion, and give us all more of his Spirit to lead us into all truth, and into all &s;elfe-deniall: and grant that none of his &s;ervants be found unwilling to have the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t to reigne over them in all his Ordinances.</P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>Faults in the Printing.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 3. line 20. <HI>primitive,</HI> r. <HI>punitive,</HI> ib. l. 24. <HI>be</HI> r. <HI>he</HI> p. 8. l. 23. <HI>admiration,</HI> r. <HI>administration,</HI> p. 11. l. 6. <HI>he had,</HI> r. <HI>I had, p.</HI> 16. l. 10. <HI>revileth,</HI> r. <HI>re&s;ileth.</HI> p. 17. l. 17. <HI>being</HI> r. <HI>been,</HI> p. 21. <HI>Cyrell</HI> r. <HI>Cyrill.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
