<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>7-8-08</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. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure; changed TABLE to two Q TEXT BODY DIV1s. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, oes, --s, and UNCLEARs. Corrected $s and $Word$s. Checked for &amp;cs with incorrect spacing. Checked for LBs. Checked for startqs and endqs, q;s, 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: 45 minutes. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A86003">
<STC T="W">G754</STC>
<STC T="T">E317_16</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99861262</BIBNO>
<VID>113393</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<PB REF="1">
<HEAD>THE Preface to the Reader.</HEAD>
<P>_AS I did not beginne this pre&s;ent Controver&s;ie, &s;o I doe not de&s;ire to hold up the Ball of contention: yet having appeared in it (neither alone nor without a calling and op|portunity offered) I hold it my du|ty to vindicate the truth of Chri&s;t, the &s;olemne League and Covenant, the Ordinances of Parlia|ment, the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> and my &s;elfe; for this end was I borne, and for this end came I into the world, that I might beare witne&s;&s;e to the truth. Wher|unto I am &s;o much the more encouraged, becau&s;e it appeareth already in this debate, that <HI>magna e&s;t vis veritatis, great is the force of truth,</HI> and &s;o great, that my Antagoni&s;ts (though men of parts
<PB REF="2">
and &s;uch as could doe much for the truth, yet) while they have gone about to doe &s;omewhat a|gain&s;t the truth, they have mired them&s;elves in fowle errors; yea (&s;o farre as in them lieth) have mo&s;t dangerou&s;ly &s;haken and endangered the autho|rity of Magi&s;trates, who are Gods Vice-gerents, and particularly the authority of Parliament, and of Parliamentary Ordinances; they have &s;tumbled and fallen, and &s;hall not be able to ri&s;e, but by the acknowledgement of the truth.</P>
<P>In this following Reply, I have not touched much of the argumentative part in Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> his <HI>plea for Chri&s;tian Magi&s;tracy,</HI> re&s;erving mo&s;t of it to an other worke, unto which this is a <HI>Prodromus.</HI> (howbeit much of what he &s;aith, is the &s;ame with what I did confute in my <HI>Nihil re&s;pon|des,</HI> and his Booke comming forth a moneth after, takes no notice of that &s;econd peece of mine, but &s;peaketh onely to the fir&s;t) Meane while, let him not believe that his bigge-looking Title can like <HI>Gorgons</HI> head, blockify or &s;tonify rationall men, &s;o as they &s;hall not perceive the want or weakene&s;&s;e of Argument: It hath ever beene a trick of Adver&s;a|ries to calumniate the way of God and his Servants, as being again&s;t authoritie. But, I will by Gods
<PB REF="2">
a&s;&s;i&s;tance) make it appeare to any intelligent man, that the Reverend Brother hath pleaded very much again&s;t Magi&s;tracy, and &s;o hath fallen him&s;elfe in|to the ditch which hee hath digged for others, whiles I withall e&s;cape.</P>
<P>But now what may be the meaning of Ma&s;ter<NOTE PLACE="marg">Math. Mar|tinius in lexi philol. Male|dico, malum loquor &s;ive ju&s;te &s;ive in|juria.</NOTE> <HI>Colemans</HI> Cabbali&s;ticall Title, <HI>male dicis male|dicis:</HI> Great philologs will tell him, that <HI>maledico</HI> is taken in a good &s;en&s;e, as well as in a bad, accor|ding to the difference of matter and circum&s;tances. If any kind of malediction be ju&s;tifiable, it is <HI>ma|ledicere maledicis,</HI> to &s;peake evill to evill &s;pea|kers; for <HI>as he loved cur&s;ing, &s;o let it come un|to him: as he delighted not in ble&s;&s;ing, &s;o let it be farre from him.</HI> But, he doth wor&s;e, and his Title with a tran&s;po&s;ition of letters, will more fitly reflect upon him&s;elfe <HI>male dicis de amicis:</HI> you Sir &s;peake evill of your friends, and of tho&s;e that never wronged you: For my part, I have not &s;hared with him in evill &s;peaking, nor rendred re|vilings for revilings. I am &s;orry that he is &s;o ex|treamly ill of hearing, as to take rea&s;on to be rai|ling, and good &s;ayings to be evill &s;ayings. He ap|plyeth to him&s;elfe the Apostles words, <HI>Being revi|led, we ble&s;&s;e.</HI> But where to finde the&s;e ble&s;&s;ings of
<PB REF="3">
his, tho&s;e unwritten verities, I know not. I am &s;ure he had &s;poken more truly, if he had &s;aid, <HI>being not reviled, we doe revile.</HI></P>
<P>For the matter and &s;ub&s;tance of his Reply, there are divers particulars in it which &s;erve rather to be matter of Mirth, then of Argument, as, that a Parliament para&s;ite cannot be called an abu&s;er of the Parliament, and that pa&s;&s;age; <HI>How can a clau&s;e delivered in a po&s;t &s;cript concerning my opinion of my way, be abu&s;ive to the Par|liament?</HI> A great priviledge either of po&s;t-&s;cripts, or of his opinions, that they can not be abu&s;ive to the Parliament. Many pa&s;&s;ages are full of acrimo|ny: many extravagant and not to the point in hand: many void of matter; concerning &s;uch <HI>Lactantius</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Lib 2. c. 4.</NOTE> gives me a good rule, <HI>otio&s;um e&s;t per&s;equi &s;ingu|la;</HI> It is an idle and improfitable thing to pro&s;ecute every particular. And much more I have in my eye the Apo&s;tles rule, <HI>let all things be done to e|difying;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 14. 26</NOTE> I have accordingly endeavoured to avoid vaine jangling, and &s;uch debates as are unprofitable and unedifying, making choice of &s;uch purpo&s;es as may edifie, and not abu&s;e the Reader.</P>
<P>Peradventure &s;ome will think I might have wholly &s;aved my &s;elfe this labour; I confe&s;&s;e I doe
<PB REF="3">
not looke upon that which I make Reply unto, as if it were like to weigh much with knowing men, yet the Apo&s;tle tells mee that &s;ome mens mouths mu&s;t be &s;topped, and <HI>Hierome</HI> tells me, there is nothing<NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieron. Eu&s;tochio.</NOTE> written without skill, which will not find a Rea|der with as little &s;kill to judge, and &s;ome men grow too wi&s;e in their owne eyes, when they pa&s;&s;e unan|&s;wered. Be&s;ides all this, a vindication and clearing of &s;uch things as I mentioned in the beginning, may by Gods ble&s;&s;ing anticipate future and further mi&s;|takes. Reade therefore and con&s;ider, and when thou ha&s;t done, I tru&s;t thou &s;halt not think, that I have lo&s;t my labour. I pray the Lord that all our contro|ver&s;ies may end in a more cordiall union, for pro&s;e|cuting the ends expre&s;&s;ed in the Covenant, and e&s;pe|cially the Reformation of Religion, according to the word of God, and the example of the be&s;t reformed Churches, and more particularly the practicall part of Reformation, that the Ordinances of Je&s;us Chri&s;t may be kept from pollution, prophanne&s;&s;e and &s;candals &s;hamed away, and pietie commended and magnified.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="treatise">
<PB REF="4">
<PB N="1" REF="4">
<HEAD>MAL&Egrave; AUDIS.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>That Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> doth &s;till contradict him&s;elf in the &s;tating of this pre&s;ent Con|trover&s;ie about Church-government.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>_IT was before both denied and yeelded by M^r <HI>Coleman,</HI> that there is a Church|government which is di&s;tinct from the Civil, and yet not meerly Doctrinal. He did profe&s;&s;e to &s;ub&s;cribe heartily to the Votes of Parliament, and yet ad|vi&s;ed the Parliament to do contrary to their Votes, as I proved in <HI>Nihil Re|&s;pondes,</HI> pag. 3. He an&s;wereth now in his <HI>Maledicis,</HI> pag. 4. <HI>I deny an Institution; I a&s;&s;ent to Pru|dence; Where is the &s;elf-contradiction now?</HI> and pag. 5. <HI>The advice looks to</HI> Jus Divinum; <HI>The Parliament votes to Pru|dence.</HI>
<PB N="2" REF="5">
Sir, you have &s;poken evil for your &s;elf; you have made the &s;elf-contradiction wor&s;e. Will you acknowledge you own words in your Sermon, pag 25. <HI>Lay no more burthen of Government upon the &s;houlders of Ministers then Christ hath plainly laid upon them; have no more hand therein then the holy Gho&s;t clearly gives them. The Mini&s;ters have other work to do, &amp; &s;uch as will take up the whole man,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>I fear an ambitious en|&s;narement,</HI> &amp;c. and in your <HI>Re-examination,</HI> p. 14. <HI>He &s;hould have &s;aid, I advi&s;ed the Parliament to lay no burthen of Govern|ment upon them whom he this Commi&s;&s;ioner thinks Church-offi|cers, then had he &s;poken true.</HI> Now let the Reverend Brother take heed to check-meat; and that three &s;everal wayes (but let him not grow angry as bad players u&s;e to do;) For 1. <HI>Eo ip&s;o,</HI> that he denies the In&s;titution, by his principles he de|nies the Prudence; For he that denieth the In&s;titution, and advi&s;eth the Parliament to lay no more burthen of Govern|ment upon Mini&s;ters then Chri&s;t hath plainly laid upon them, is again&s;t the &s;etling of the thing in a prudential way, becau&s;e it is not in&s;tituted. But Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> denies the In&s;titution and advi&s;eth the Parliament to lay no more burthen of Go|vernment upon Mini&s;ters then Chri&s;t hath plainly laid upon them. <HI>Ergo,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> is again&s;t the &s;etling of the thing in a prudential way, becau&s;e it is not in&s;tituted. And how to reconcile this with his denying of the In&s;titution, and yeeld|ing of the Prudence, will require a more reconciling head then <HI>Mana&s;&s;eh Ben I&s;rael Conciliator</HI> him&s;elf. 2. He that ad|vi&s;eth the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon Mini&s;ters, becau&s;e they have other work to do which will take up the whole man&punc; and becau&s;e of the fear of an ambiti|ous en&s;narement, is again&s;t the laying of any burthen of cor|rective Government upon Mini&s;ters, &s;o much as in a pruden|tial way. But Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> advi&s;eth&punc; the Parliament&punc; &amp;c. <HI>Ergo,</HI> The con&s;equence in the propo&s;ition is nece&s;&s;ary, unle&s;&s;e he will &s;ay that it is agreeable to the rules of Prudence, to lay upon them more work be&s;ides that which will take up the whole man, or to commit that power unto them, which is like to prove an ambitious en&s;narement. 3. He that advi&s;eth
<PB N="3" REF="5">
the Parliament to lay no burthen at all of corrective Govern|ment upon Mini&s;ters and other Officers joyned with them in Elder&s;hips, but to keep that power <HI>wholly</HI> in their own hands, is again&s;t the Prudence of the thing, as well as again&s;t the In&s;titution of it. But Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> advi&s;eth the Par|liament to lay no burthen at all of corrective Government upon the&s;e, but to keep that power <HI>wholly</HI> in their own hands. <HI>Ergo.</HI> The Propo&s;ition is proved by that which him|&s;elf &s;aith, The Parliament Votes look to Prudence. So that the Parliament having voted a power of Su&s;pen&s;ion from the Sacrament, unto Elder&s;hips, for &s;o many &s;candals as are enu|merate in the Ordinance (which power is a part of that which he calls <HI>corrective</HI>) he that is again&s;t this power in Elder&s;hips, is both again&s;t the Prudence and again&s;t the Ordi|nance of Parliament. The A&s;&s;umption I prove from his <HI>Re|examination,</HI> pag. 14. where after his deniall of the power to tho&s;e whom we think Church-Officers, being charged with advi&s;ing the Parliament to take Church-government <HI>wholly</HI> into their own hands, his an&s;wer was, <HI>If you mean the cor|rective power, I do &s;o.</HI></P>
<P>And now after all this, I mu&s;t tell the Reverend Brother that he might have &s;aved him&s;elf much labour, had he in his Sermon to the Parliament declared him&s;elf (as now he doth) that he was onely again&s;t the <HI>Jus Divinum,</HI> but not again&s;t their &s;etling of the thing in a Parliamentary and prudential way. Did I not in my very fir&s;t Examination of his Sermon pag. 32. remove this &s;tumbling block?</P>
<P>And withall, &s;eeing he profe&s;&s;eth to deny the <HI>Jus Divinum</HI> of a Church-government differing from Magi&s;tracy, why doth he hold p. 19. that the Independents are not &s;o much intere&s;t|ed again&s;t his Principles as the Presbyterians? Did he ima|gine that the Independents are not &s;o much for the <HI>Jus Divi|num</HI> of a Church-government and Church-cen&s;ures as the Presbyterians? But, &s;aith he, <HI>The Independents Church-power &s;eems to me to be but doctrinall.</HI> But is their excommunication doctrinall? and do they not hold excommunication to be <HI>Ju|re Divino?</HI> Either he had little skill in being per&s;waded, or
<PB N="4" REF="6">
&s;ome others had great skill in per&s;wading him that the Inde|pendents Church-power is but doctrinall, and that they are not &s;o much intere&s;ted again&s;t the Era&s;tian Principles as the Presbyterians are, as if for&s;ooth the Ordinance of Excom|munication (the thing which the Era&s;tian way mainly op|po&s;eth) and a Church-government di&s;tinct from Magi&s;tracy, were not common to them both.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, If the Reverend Brother deny the In&s;titution of Church-cen&s;ures, but a&s;&s;ent to the Prudence, Why doth he al|ledge the <HI>Zurick</HI> Divines to be &s;o much for him? <HI>Maledicis</HI> p. 23. for it was upon prudentiall grounds, and becau&s;e of the difficulty and (as they conceived) impo&s;&s;ibility of the thing, that they were again&s;t it, &s;till acknowledging the Scripturall Warrants for excommunication, as I &s;hall &s;hew, yea have &s;hewed already. So that if Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> will follow them, he mu&s;t rather &s;ay, <HI>I a&s;&s;ent to an In&s;titution, I deny a Prudence.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>A confutation of that which Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> hath &s;aid again&s;t Church-government; &s;hew|ing al&s;o that his la&s;t Reply is not more but le&s;&s;e &s;atisfactory then the former, and for the mo&s;t part is but a tergiver&s;ation and fleeing from Arguments brought again&s;t him, and from making good his own A&s;&s;ertions and Ar|guments, concerning the distinction of Civill and Church-government.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>1. THe Reverend Brother &s;aid in his Sermon, <HI>I could ne|ver yet &s;ee how two coordinate Governments exempt from &s;uperiority and inferiority can be in one State.</HI> To overthrow
<PB N="5" REF="6">
this general <HI>The&s;is,</HI> I brought &s;ome In&s;tances to the contrary, as the Governments of a <HI>General</HI> and an <HI>Admiral,</HI> of a <HI>Ma|&s;ter</HI> and a <HI>Father,</HI> of a <HI>Captain</HI> and a <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> in a Ship. He being put to his Vindication, replyeth, <HI>The Commi&s;&s;ioner ac|knowledgeth he did not apply them to the A&s;&s;embly</HI> (I &s;aid the General A&s;&s;embly) <HI>and Parliament; yet that was the contro|ver&s;ie in hand, Male dicis pag.</HI> 5. But by his favour, that was not the controver&s;ie, for he was not &s;peaking particularly again&s;t the di&s;tinction of the Government of the General A&s;&s;embly, and of the Government of the Parliament (nei|ther had he one &s;yllable to that purpo&s;e) but generally again&s;t the di&s;tinction of Church Government, and Civil Govern|ment, and particularly again&s;t Excommunication, in all which, he excluded Presbyteries as well as General A&s;&s;em|blies. Wherefore he doth now recede not onely from de|fending his <HI>The&s;is,</HI> but from applying it again&s;t the power of Presbyteries. And &s;o far we are agreed.</P>
<P>2. I having confuted his Argument grounded on <HI>P&s;al. 33. 15. Prov.</HI> 27. 19. He &s;hifteth the vindication of it, and &s;till tells me he grounded no Argument on tho&s;e places, but &s;pake <HI>by way of allu&s;ion, Male dicis p.</HI> 6. Now let the Reader judge. His words to the Parliament were the&s;e, <HI>Might I mea&s;ure others by my &s;elf, and I know not why I may not, (God fa&s;hions mens hearts alike; and as in water, face an&s;wers face, &s;o the heart of man to man:) I ingenuou&s;ly profe&s;&s;e I have a heart that knows better how to be governed, then govern; I fear an ambitious en&s;narement, &amp;c.</HI> This Argument there largely pro&s;ecuted, hath no other ground but the parenthe&s;is u&s;ing the words (though not quoting the places) of Scripture. And now for&s;ooth&punc; he hath &s;erved the Parliament well&punc; when being put to make good the &s;ole confirmation of his Argument, he tells it was but an allu&s;ion. But this is not all&punc; I confuted the whole Argument, drawn from his own heart to the hearts of others, and gave &s;everal An&s;wers: but nei|ther before nor now, hath he offered to make good his Ar|gument.</P>
<P>3. The Reverend Brother cited 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 33. to prove that
<PB N="6" REF="7">
all Government is either, a Heatheni&s;h Government, or a Jewi&s;h Government, or a Church Government. This I denyed, <HI>Becau&s;e the Government of Generals, Admirals, Ma|jors, Sheriffs, is neither a Jewi&s;h Government, nor a Church Government, nor a Heatheni&s;h Government.</HI> What &s;aith he to this? <HI>I deny it, a Jewi&s;h General is a Jewi&s;h Government, &amp;c. Male dicis p.</HI> 6. Deny it: No Sir, you mu&s;t prove (becau&s;e you are the Affirmer) that a Chri&s;tian General, a Chri&s;tian Admiral, are Church Governments. For I deny it: You tell us <HI>Pag.</HI> 7. you are per&s;waded it will trouble the whole world to bound Civil and Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Juri&s;diction, the one from the other. You &s;hall have them bounded and di&s;tin|gui&s;hed ere long, and the World not troubled neither. Mean while you have not made out your a&s;&s;ertion from 1. <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 33.</P>
<P>4. The Reverend Brother had cited <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. 4. to prove that the corrective part of Church Government belongs to the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate. And now he brings in my Reply thus, that I &s;aid he abu&s;eth the place, <HI>Becau&s;e &s;piritual cen|&s;ures belong not to the Civil Magi&s;trate:</HI> Which &s;aith he, begs the Que&s;tion, <HI>Male dicis p.</HI> 7. I replyed no &s;uch thing upon this Argument: Look my words again. How can the Brother an&s;wer it, to &s;hape An&s;wers of his own devi&s;ing, as if they were mine. My An&s;wer was, That the Punitive part <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. 4. belongs to all Magi&s;trates, whether Chri&s;tian or In|fidel, which he takes notice of in the &s;econd place, and bids me prove <HI>That Scripture-Commands belong to Infidels:</HI> Not ob&s;erving that the Que&s;tion is not of Scripture-Commands, but whether a Duty mentioned in this or that Scripture, may not belong to Infidels. There are two &s;ort of Duties in Scripture, Some which are duties by the Law of God, writ|ten in mans heart at his Creation, &s;ome Principles and No|tions whereof remain in the hearts of all Nations, even In|fidels by nature; Other Duties are &s;uch by vertue of &s;pecial Commands given to the Church, which are not contained in the Law of Nature. The fir&s;t &s;ort (of which the puni&s;h|ing of evil doers mentioned, <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. 4. is one) belongs to
<PB N="7" REF="7">
tho&s;e that are without the Church, as well as tho&s;e within. The other onely to tho&s;e that are within.</P>
<P>5. The Reverend Brother had &s;aid in his Sermon; <HI>Of other Governments be&s;ides Magi&s;tracy, I finde no In&s;titution.</HI> I cited 1 <HI>The&s;. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb.</HI> 13. 7, 17. to prove another Government (yea, the In&s;titution of another Go|vernment) be&s;ides Magi&s;tracy. And in my <HI>Nihil Respondes,</HI> I told he had laughed, but had not yet loo&s;ed the knot. Now hear his two An&s;wers, <HI>Male dicis p. 8. First, for the Insti|tution, for the Commi&s;&s;ioner affirms &s;o much. Had he &s;aid that the&s;e Texts hold out an Office or Officer already in&s;tituted, the words would have bourn him out, &amp;c. But the In&s;titution in this place I cannot &s;ee.</HI> See the like in Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey, p.</HI> 19. 22. I thank them both. That Scripture which &s;uppo&s;eth an In|&s;titution, and holds out an office already in&s;tituted, &s;hall to me (and I am confident to others al&s;o) prove an In&s;titution; for no Text of Scripture can &s;uppo&s;e or hold out that which is not true: Nay, hath Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> forgotten that him|&s;elf proved an In&s;titution of Magi&s;tracy from <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. 1, 2? Yet that Text doth but hold out the office of Magi&s;tracy al|ready in&s;tituted: But the In&s;titution it &s;elf is not in that place.</P>
<P>Secondly, Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> an&s;wereth to all the&s;e three Texts. To that 1 <HI>The&s;. 5. 12. Them which are over you in the Lord,</HI> he &s;aith that the&s;e words prove not that it is not meant of Magi&s;tracy. But he takes not the &s;trength of the Argu|ment. My words were, <HI>Here are &s;ome who are no Civil Ma|gi&s;trates &s;et over the The&s;&s;alonians in the Lord.</HI> This the Re|verend Brother mu&s;t admit to be a good proof, or otherwi&s;e &s;ay, that the Civil Magi&s;trates &s;et over the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians,</HI> though they were Heathens, yet were &s;et over them in the Lord.</P>
<P>For that of 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5. 17. He &s;aith it doth not hold out Ruling Elders: Whether it doth hold Ruling Elders or not, doth not at all belong to the pre&s;ent Que&s;tion. It is ea&s;ie to an&s;wer &s;omething, &s;o that a man will not tie him&s;elf to &s;peak to the point. The place was brought by me to prove <HI>another
<PB N="8" REF="8">
Government be&s;ide Magi&s;tracy,</HI> which he denyed. Now &s;uppo&s;e the place to be meant onely of Preaching Elders, yet here is a Rule or Government, <HI>Elders that rule well;</HI> and the&s;e are no Civil Magi&s;trates, but &s;uch as <HI>labour in the Word and Doctrine.</HI> Come on now. <HI>But I will deal clearly,</HI> &s;aith the Brother, <HI>the&s;e Officers are Mini&s;ters, which are in&s;tituted not here but el&s;ewhere, and the&s;e are the Rulers here mentioned. And &s;o have I loo&s;ed the knot.</HI> Now Sir, you &s;hall &s;ee I will not <HI>male dicere,</HI> but <HI>bene dicere.</HI> My ble&s;&s;ing on you for it. You have at la&s;t loo&s;ed the knot &s;o perfectly, that you are come to an agreement with me, in this great point: Which I thus demon&s;trate. He that acknowledgeth Mini&s;ters to be in&s;tituted Rulers, acknowledgeth another in&s;tituted Govern|ment, be&s;ide Magi&s;tracy. But Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> acknowledgeth Mini&s;ters to be in&s;tituted Rulers. <HI>Ergo,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> ac|knowledgeth another in&s;tituted Government be&s;ide Magi|&s;tracy.</P>
<P>To the other Texts, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13. 7. 17. He &s;aith nothing again&s;t my Argument, onely expounds the Rulers to be guides, as Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> al&s;o doth, of which, more el&s;ewhere. Mean while it is certain, that <GAP DESC="foreign"> is u&s;ually taken for a name of highe&s;t Authority, yea, given to Emperours, for which, &s;ee learned <HI>Salma<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ius</HI> in his <HI>Walo Me&s;&s;alinus, pag.</HI> 219, 220. It is <HI>Jo&s;ephs</HI> highe&s;t title to expre&s;&s;e his Government of <HI>Egypt, Acts</HI> 7. 10. It mu&s;t the rather be a name of Government, and Authority in this place, <HI>Heb.</HI> 13. 17. becau&s;e &s;ubjection and obedience is required. <HI>Obey them that have the rule over you, and &s;ubmit your &s;elves.</HI> When the word &s;ignifieth <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&s;en viae ducem</HI> (and it is very rarely &s;o u&s;ed by the <HI>Septuagints,</HI> but frequently and almo&s;t in innumerable places, they u&s;e it for a name of Rule and Authority) obedience and &s;ubjection is not due to &s;uch a one <HI>qua talis;</HI> For obedience and &s;ub|jection cannot be <HI>correlata</HI> to the leading of the way, when it is without Authority and Government.</P>
<P>6. I having charged Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> doctrine with this con&s;equence, <HI>That there ought to be neither Suspen&s;ion from the Sacrament, nor Excommunication, nor Ordination, nor
<PB N="9" REF="8">
Depo&s;ition of Mini&s;ters, nor receiving of Appeals, except all the&s;e things be done by the Civil Magi&s;trate:</HI> Which things I &s;aid, <HI>are mo&s;t of them corrective, and all of them more then Doctrinal.</HI> In &s;tead of making an&s;wer, the Reverend Brother expre&s;&s;eth the er|ror which I objected to him thus, <HI>That here are no Church-Cen|&s;ures,</HI> which is the <HI>Quae&s;itum</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>Male dicis, pag.</HI> 10. Here again he brings an imagination of his own, both for matter and words, in &s;tead of that which I &s;aid, and doth not take the Argu|ment right. If the Mini&s;ters power be meerly Doctrinal, and Government wholly in the Magi&s;trates hands, then all the par|ticulars enumerated, for in&s;tance, Su&s;pen&s;ion from the Sacrament, and the receiving of Appeals (which he mu&s;t not bring under the <HI>Quae&s;itum,</HI> except he bring the Ordinance of Parliament under the <HI>Quae&s;itum</HI>) &s;hall be wholly in the Magi&s;trates hand, and El|der&s;hips may not &s;u&s;pend from the Sacrament, Cla&s;&s;es and Synods may not receive Appeals, which yet by the Ordinance they have power to do. One of the particulars (and but one) the Reverend Brother hath here touched, and it is thus; <HI>For Ordination of Mi|ni&s;ters, I &s;ay it is within the Commi&s;&s;ion of Teaching, and &s;o apper|tains to the Doctrinal part.</HI> This is the effect of his zeal to main|tain, that all Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Mini&s;terial power is meerly Doctrinal. But mark the con&s;equence of it. He that holds Ordination of Mini&s;ters to be within the Commi&s;&s;ion of Teaching, and to ap|pertain to the Doctrinal part, mu&s;t hold by con&s;equence&punc; that the power of Ordination is given <HI>uni</HI> as well as <HI>unitati,</HI> that is, That every &s;ingle Mini&s;ter hath power to ordain, as well as the Cla&s;&s;is. But Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> holds Ordination of Mini&s;ters to be within the Commi&s;&s;ion of Teaching, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The rea&s;on of the Pro|po&s;ition is clear, becau&s;e the Commi&s;&s;ion of Teaching belongs to every &s;ingle Mini&s;ter; &s;o that if the power of Ordination be within that Commi&s;&s;ion, it mu&s;t needs belong to every &s;ingle Mini&s;ter, <HI>Quid Re&s;pondes?</HI></P>
<P>7. The Reverend Brother having brought an odious Argument again&s;t me, which did conclude, the Magi&s;trate to manage his Of|fice for and under the Divel, if not for and under Chri&s;t. I &s;hew his Syllogi&s;m to have four terms, and therefore worthy to be ex|ploded. I get now two Replies.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, <HI>This is an errour (if one) in Logick, not Divinity; is it
<PB N="10" REF="9">
an errour in Divinity to make a Syllogi&s;m with four terms? Male dicis, pag.</HI> 15. See now if he be a fit man to call others to School, who puts an <HI>If</HI> in this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e. <HI>If one;</HI> Who did ever doubt of it? And if it be an errour in Divinity to be Fallacious, and to deceive, then it is an errour in Divinity to make a Syllogi&s;m with four terms, yea, as foul an errour as can be.</P>
<P>Secondly, He admitteth not my di&s;tinction&punc; of tho&s;e words <HI>under Chri&s;t, and for Chri&s;t.</HI> I &s;aid the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate is un|der Chri&s;t, and for Chri&s;t, that is, he is &s;erviceable to Chri&s;t: But he is not under Chri&s;t, nor for Chri&s;t, as Chri&s;ts Vicegerent <HI>vice Christi,</HI> in Chri&s;ts &s;tead as Chri&s;t is Mediator. The Reverend Brother &s;aith, He fore&s;aw that this would be &s;aid (the greater fault it was to make his Argument &s;o unclear and undi&s;tinct) but he rejecteth the di&s;tinction, as being <HI>di&s;tinctio &s;ine differentia. If a Magi&s;trate,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>be thru far a &s;ervant of Christ as Mediator, that he is to do his work, to take part with him, to be for his glory; then he doth it vice Chri&s;ti:</HI> He addes the <HI>&s;imile</HI> of a &s;ervant: Hence it follows, by the Reverend Brothers Principles, That the Kings Cook, becau&s;e he doth work and &s;ervice for the King, there|fore he doth it <HI>vice Regis,</HI> and as the Kings Vicegerent: Likewi&s;e, that a &s;ervant who obeyeth his Ma&s;ters Wife, and executeth her commands, becau&s;e it is his Ma&s;ters will, and for his Ma&s;ters honour, doth therefore obey his Ma&s;ters Wife <HI>vice Domini,</HI> as his Ma&s;ters Vicegerent; and by con&s;equence, That the duty of obe|dience to the Wife, doth originally belong to the Husband; for the capacity of a Vicegerent, which he hath by his Vicegerent&s;hip, is primarily the capacity of him who&s;e Vicegerent he is. The&s;e and the like ab&s;urd con&s;equences will unadvoidably follow, upon the Reverent Brothers Argumentation, That he who doth Chri&s;t &s;ervice, doth it <HI>vice Christi,</HI> as Chri&s;ts Vicegerent; and that to be a mans Vicegerent, and to do a mans work or &s;ervice (which I made two different things) are all one. But further ob&s;erve his Tergiver&s;ation. I had <HI>Pag.</HI> 13. proved my di&s;tinction out of the&s;e words of his own. <HI>The Commi&s;&s;ioner &s;aith Magi&s;tracy is not de|rived from Chri&s;t: I &s;ay, Magi&s;tracy is given to Chri&s;t to be &s;ervice|able in his Kingdom. So that though the Commi&s;&s;ioners A&s;&s;ertion be &s;ound (which in due place will be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed) yet it infringeth nothing that I &s;aid.</HI> I asked therefore, <HI>qu&acirc; fide</HI> he could confound in his
<PB N="11" REF="9">
Argument brought again&s;t me, tho&s;e two things which him&s;elf had &s;o carefully di&s;tingui&s;hed. There is no Reply to this in <HI>Male dicis.</HI> When the Brother thought it for his advantage, he denied that the Magi&s;trate his being &s;erviceable to Chri&s;t, doth infer the de|rivation of his power by a Commi&s;&s;ion of Vicegerent&s;hip from Chri&s;t (for that was the derivation &s;poken of) and yeelded that the Magi&s;trate may be &s;aid to be &s;erviceable to Chri&s;t, though his power be not derived from Chri&s;t. Now he denyeth the very &s;ame di&s;tinction for &s;ub&s;tance.</P>
<P>8. Whereas the Reverend Brother had told the Parliament, that he &s;eeth not in the whole Bible any one act of that Church Go|vernment which is now in controver&s;ie. I brought &s;ome Scrip|tural In&s;tances again&s;t his Opinion, not lo&s;ing either the Argument from <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. (concerning which, he asketh what is become of it) or other Scriptural Arguments, which I intend by Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance to pro&s;ecute el&s;ewhere. Now hear what is replyed to the In&s;tances which were given: Fir&s;t to that 1 <HI>Cor. 5. 13. Put away that wicked per&s;on from among you;</HI> His an&s;wer is, <HI>I &s;ay, and it is &s;ufficient again&s;t the Commi&s;&s;ioner, If this be a Church cen&s;ure, then the whole Church joyntly, and every particular per&s;on hath power of Church cen&s;ure, Male dicis pag.</HI> 10. I hope Sir, it is not &s;ufficient again&s;t me, that you &s;ay it, &s;o long as you &s;ay nothing to prove it. I told you that Ma&s;ter <HI>Prynne</HI> him&s;elf (who holds not that every particular per&s;on hath power of Church cen&s;ure) acknowledgeth that Text to be a warrant for Excommunication. And when you &s;ay <HI>every particular per&s;on,</HI> you &s;ay more then the Independents &s;ay; and I am &s;ure, more then the Text will admit; for the Text &s;aith, <HI>Put away from among you:</HI> Therefore this power was given not <HI>uni&punc;</HI> but <HI>unitati.</HI> And this <HI>unitas</HI> was the Presbytery of <HI>Corinth,</HI> the &s;entence was inflicted <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>by many, 2 Cor.</HI> 2. 6, it is not &s;aid <HI>by all.</HI> I might &s;ay much for this; but I will not now leave the Argument in hand; for it is enough again&s;t Ma&s;ter <HI>Cole|man,</HI> that the place prove an act of Church Government, flow|ing from a power, not Civil, but Eccle&s;ia&s;tical. To whom the power belonged, is another Que&s;tion.</P>
<P>To the next In&s;tance from 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 6. (which is coincident with the former) a puni&s;hment or cen&s;ure inflicted by many. <HI>It is onely a reprehen&s;ion,</HI> &s;aith he, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>which by all the places in the New
<PB N="12" REF="10">
Te&s;tament, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">an amount no higher then to an objurgation, and &s;o it Doctrinal. An&s;w.</HI> 1. He made it even now an act of the whole Church joyntly, and of every particular per&s;on. Why did he not clear him&s;elf in this, How the whole Church, Men, Women, Children, and all did doctrinally reprehend him? 2. If the Ob|jurgation mu&s;t be re&s;tricted, to whom? Not to a &s;ingle Mini&s;ter (yet every &s;ingle Mini&s;ter hath power of Doctrinal Objurgation) but to the Presbytery, it was an act of tho&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign"> I &s;pake of; and this is a ground for that di&s;tinction between Mini&s;terial and Presbyterial admonition which Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman, pag.</HI> 22. doth not admit. 3. If it were granted that <GAP DESC="foreign"> in this Text amount|eth to no more but an Objurgation. Yet our Argument &s;tands good; for the Apo&s;tle having in his fir&s;t Epi&s;tle required the <HI>Co|rinthians,</HI> to put away from among them that wicked per&s;on, which they did accordingly re&s;olve to do (which makes the Apo|&s;tle commend their obedience, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 9.) No doubt either the Offender was at this time actually excommunicated and ca&s;t out of the Church, or (as others think) they were about to Excom|municate him, if the Apo&s;tle had not by his &s;econd Epi&s;tle pre|vented them, and taken them off with this <HI>Sufficit;</HI> Such a de|gree of cen&s;ure is enough, the party is penitent, go no higher. 4 When the Reverend Brother appealeth to all the places in the New Te&s;tament, he may take notice that the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> is no where found in the New Te&s;tament, except in this very Text. And if his meaning be concerning the Verb <GAP DESC="foreign">, he may finde it u&s;ed to expre&s;&s;e a Coercive power, as in Chri&s;ts rebuking of the windes and waves, <HI>Matth. 8. 26. Mark</HI> 4. 39. His rebuking of the Fever. <HI>Luke</HI> 4. 39. His rebuking of the Divel (which was not a Doctrinal, but a Coercive rebuke) <HI>Mark</HI> 1. 25. and 9 25. <HI>Luke</HI> 4. 35. and 9. 42. Sometimes it is put for an Authoritative charge, laying a re&s;traint upon a man, and binding him from liberty in this or that particular, as <HI>Matth. 12. 16. Mark</HI> 3. 12. and 8. 30. <HI>Luke</HI> 9. 21. The word <GAP DESC="foreign"> I finde in the Apocryphal Book of <HI>Wi&s;dom,</HI> Chap. 3. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">0. it is &s;aid of the wicked <GAP DESC="foreign"> they &s;hall have <HI>correction</HI> or <HI>puni&s;hment.</HI> The whole Chapter maketh an oppo&s;ition between the godly and the wicked, in reference to puni&s;hments and judgements. The <HI>Hebrew</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> (which if the Ob&s;ervation hold which is made by <HI>Arias Montanus,</HI> and divers
<PB N="13" REF="10">
others following <HI>Kimchi,</HI> when it is con&s;trued with <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifieth <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">bjurgavit, duriter reprehendit;</HI> when without <GAP DESC="foreign">, it &s;ignifieth <HI>corru|pit, perdidit,</HI> or <HI>maledixit</HI>) the Septuagints do mo&s;t u&s;ually turn it <GAP DESC="foreign">, and that in &s;ome places where it is without <GAP DESC="foreign">, as <HI>P&s;al. 119. 21. Thou ha&s;t rebuked the proud, that are cur&s;ed; <GAP DESC="foreign">. Pagnin, di&s;perdidi&s;ti,</HI> thou ha&s;t de&s;troyed, &s;o the &s;ence is, it is rebuke with a judgement or a cur&s;e upon them: the &s;econd part of the ver&s;e in the Greek is exegetical to the fir&s;t part. <HI>Thou ha&s;t rebuked the proud: <GAP DESC="foreign">, cur&s;ed are they,</HI> &amp;c. So <HI>Zech. 3. 2. The Lord rebuke (<GAP DESC="foreign">) thee O Satan.</HI> (The &s;ame phra&s;e is u&s;ed in <HI>Jude</HI> ver&s;. 9.)<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Quod propemodum va|let ac &s;i dicas, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">acite ut pondu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> &amp; auctoritatem habeat charitas erga illum. Le|quitur enim vel|ut ad Judices &amp; concienem, quo|rum &s;uffragiis velit ab&s;olvi eum, qui tradi|tus fuerat Sata|nae. Nam <GAP DESC="foreign"> concionem &s;igni|ficat, in qua cre|antur Magi&s;tra|tus, quae Latini vocant comitia, &amp; diem alieujus rei cau&s;a prae&s;ti|tutum, &amp; jus aliquod agendi. Quin &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign"> Graeci dicunt &s;criptum authen|ticum, authori|bus</HI> He&s;ychio <HI>&amp;</HI> Suida. <HI>Mihi videtur &amp; ea &s;ententia quae vi|ci&s;&s;etin &s;uffragiis dicta fui&s;&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">.</HI></NOTE> Which mu&s;t needs be meant of a coercive efficacious divine power re&s;training Satan. The &s;ame original word they render by <GAP DESC="foreign">, (which &s;ignifieth to &s;eparate and to excommunicate) <HI>Mal. 2. 3. Behold I will corrupt your &s;eed</HI> &amp;c. In the preceeding words God told them that he would cur&s;e them. The &s;ame word they render by <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>extermino, I&s;a.</HI> 17. 13. a place which &s;peaks of a judgement to be inflicted, not of a doctrinall reproof. Yet <HI>Aquila</HI> readeth there <GAP DESC="foreign">. Likewi&s;e the word which the Septuagints render <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>perdition, Prov.</HI> 13. 1. and <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>wrath, I&s;a.</HI> 51. 20. in other places they render it <GAP DESC="foreign">, as <HI>P&s;al. 76. 6. At thy rebuke O God of Jacob, both the chariot and hor&s;e are ca&s;t into a dead &s;leep. P&s;al. 80. 16. They peri&s;h at the rebuke of thy coun|tenance.</HI> The&s;e are <HI>reall</HI> rebukes, that is, judgements and puni&s;h|ments.</P>
<P>4. What &s;aith Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> to <HI>Pa&s;or,</HI> who expounds <GAP DESC="foreign"> to be the &s;ame with <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>mulcta,</HI> and that 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 6. it is meant of excommunication, which he proves by this rea&s;on, Becau&s;e in the &s;ame place the Apo&s;tle exhort the <HI>Corinthians</HI> to forgive him. Adde hereunto <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> his Ob&s;ervation upon the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, (ver&s;. 8. <HI>to confirm your love towards him</HI>) that it implies an au|thoritative ratification of a thing by judiciall &s;uffrage and &s;entence. Which well agreeth to the <GAP DESC="foreign"> ver&s;. 6. that is, that they who had judicially cen&s;ured him, &s;hould al&s;o judicially loo&s;e him and make him free. Now therefore the circum&s;tances and context being ob&s;erved, and the practice 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 6. compared with the precept 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 13. I conclude that whether this <GAP DESC="foreign"> was Excommu|nication already inflicted, or whether it was a le&s;&s;er degree of Cen|&s;ure tending to Excommunication; a Cen&s;ure it was, and more
<PB N="14" REF="11">
then mini&s;teriall objurgation. And it is rightly rendred by the<NOTE PLACE="marg">He&s;ych&punc; <GAP DESC="foreign">. Julius Pollux <HI>lib. 8. cap. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">. <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.</HI> Clemens A|lexandrinus Paedag. <HI>lib. 1. cap.</HI> 10. u&s;eth promi&s;cuou&s;ly <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> in one and the &s;ame &s;entence to expre&s;&s;e puni&s;hment: <GAP DESC="foreign">. Which <HI>Gentianus Hervetus</HI> his Interpreter readeth thus: <HI>Cum peccatorum poe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">as, &amp; facilem &amp; tanquam ven<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">is perflabilem eorum di&s;&s;ipationem o&s;tendi&s;&s;et Paedagogus, per poenam a cau&s;a dehortatus e&s;t.</HI> Again, Pae|dag. <HI>lib. 3. cap. 2. ad finem:</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. The Interpreter thus: <HI>Quin etiam Sichimitae puniuntur, qui lap&s;i &s;unt, &s;anctae Virgini probrum inferen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">es. Sepulchrum eis e&s;t &s;upplicium, &amp; poen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> monimentum nos ducit ad &s;alu|tem.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Tran&s;lators <HI>puni&s;hment</HI> or <HI>cen&s;ure.</HI> Which well agreeth with the &s;ignification of the Verb <GAP DESC="foreign">, given us by <HI>He&s;ychius,</HI> and by <HI>Julius Pollux</HI> who makes <GAP DESC="foreign"> to puni&s;h or cha&s;ti&s;e, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> puni&s;hment or cha&s;ti&s;ement. <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus</HI> u&s;eth <GAP DESC="foreign"> as well as <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>pro poena vel &s;upplicio.</HI> So <HI>Stephanus in The&s;. Ling. Gr.</HI> From all which it may appear that the Text in hand holds forth a corrective Church-government, in the hands of Church-officers; the thing which Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> denieth.</P>
<P>To the next in&s;tance from 1 <HI>Tim. 5. 19. Again&s;t an Elder receive not an accu&s;ation but before two or three witne&s;&s;es:</HI> The Reverend Brother an&s;wereth, <HI>It is either in relation to the judgement of chari|ty, or mini&s;teriall conviction, as the ver&s;es following. An&s;w.</HI> 1. That of two or three witne&s;&s;es, is taken from the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> where it is referred onely to a foren&s;icall proceeding. But in relation ei|ther to the judgement of charity, or mini&s;teriall conviction, it is not nece&s;&s;ary that there be two or three witne&s;&s;es. If a &s;candalous &s;in be certainly known to a Mini&s;ter, though the thing be not cer|tified by two or three witne&s;&s;es, yet a Mini&s;ter upon certain know|ledge had of the fact, may both beleeve it, and mini&s;terially con|vince the offender. But there may not be a Con&s;i&s;toriall proceed|ing without two or three witne&s;&s;es. 2. Since he appealeth to the following ver&s;es, let ver&s;. 22. decide it: <HI>Lay hands &s;uddenly on no man.</HI> To whom the laying on of hands or ordination did belong, to them al&s;o it did belong to receive an accu&s;ation again&s;t an El|der: But to the Presbytery did belong the laying on of hands or ordination, 1 <HI>Tim. 4. 14. Ergo,</HI> to the Presbytery did belong the receiving of an accu&s;ation again&s;t an Elder. And &s;o it was not the act of a &s;ingle Mini&s;ter, as mini&s;teriall conviction is.</P>
<P><PB N="15" REF="11">To the la&s;t in&s;tance from <HI>Rev.</HI> 2. 14, 15, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 span"> the Reverend Bro|ther an&s;wers that he had &s;triven to find out how Church-cen&s;ures might be there grounded, but was con&s;trained to let it alone. But what is it in his opinion which is there blamed in the Angels of tho&s;e Churches? Doth he imagine that tho&s;e who are &s;o much commended by Chri&s;t him&s;elf for their holding fa&s;t of his Name and of the true Faith, did not &s;o much as doctrinally or mini&s;te|rially oppo&s;e the foul errours of the <HI>Balaamites</HI> and of <HI>Jezebel?</HI> No doubt but this was done: but Chri&s;t reproves them becau&s;e &s;uch &s;candalous per&s;ons were yet &s;uffered to be in the Church, and were not ca&s;t out. <HI>I have a few things again&s;t thee becau&s;e thou ha&s;t there them that hold the doctrine of</HI> Balaam: and ver&s;. 20. <HI>Thou &s;uffere&s;t that woman</HI> Jezebel. And why was the very having or &s;uffering them in the Church a fault, if it had not been a duty to ca&s;t them out of the Church? Which ca&s;ting out could not be by bani&s;h|ment, but by excommunication. It did not belong to the Angell to ca&s;t out the <HI>Balaamites</HI> out of <HI>Pergamos:</HI> but he might and ought to have ca&s;t them out of the Church in <HI>Pergamos.</HI></P>
<P>9. Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> hath another pa&s;&s;age again&s;t the di&s;tinction of Church-cen&s;ures and Civill puni&s;hments. <HI>But what are Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall Cen&s;ures,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>(let us take a ta&s;te) is depo&s;ition from the Mini&s;tery? This Kings have done</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Maledicis</HI> p. 7. Now <HI>&s;imilia l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">bra lactucis.</HI> But for all that, the ta&s;te is vitiated, and doth not put a difference between things that are different. Depo&s;ition is &s;ometimes taken improperly for expul&s;ion, as <HI>Bal&s;amon in Conc. Nicae<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">. Can.</HI> 19. doth ob&s;erve. And &s;o the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate may remove or put away Mini&s;ters when they de&s;erve to be put away; that is, by a coercive power to re&s;train them, impri&s;on or bani&s;h them; and in ca&s;e of capitall crimes, puni&s;h them with capitall puni&s;hments. King <HI>James</HI> having once heard a Di&s;pute in <HI>Saint Andrews</HI> about the depo&s;ition of Mini&s;ters, was convinced that it doth not belong to the Civill Magi&s;trate; <HI>Yet,</HI> &s;aid he, <HI>I can depo&s;e a Mini&s;ters head from his &s;houlders.</HI> Which was better Divinity then this of Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman.</HI> If we take depo&s;ition pro|perly, as it is more then the expelling, &s;eque&s;tring, or removing of a Mini&s;ter from this or that place, and comprehendeth that which the Councel of <HI>An<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">yra Can.</HI> 18. cals <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>The honour of Pre&s;byter&s;hip to be taken away;</HI> or a privation
<PB N="16" REF="12">
of that <HI>Pre&s;byteratus</HI> the order of a Presbyter, and that <GAP DESC="foreign"> the authority and power of di&s;pen&s;ing the Word, Sacraments, and Di&s;cipline, which was given in Ordination: &s;o none have power to depo&s;e who have not power to ordain. It belongeth not to the Magi&s;trate either to make or unmake Mini&s;ters. Therefore in the<NOTE PLACE="marg">Concil. Antioch. &s;ub Con&s;tantio Can. 4. Si quis Epi&s;copus a Sy|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">do dep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;itus, vel Diaconus a proprio Epi&s;co|po, &s;ac<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">um cele|brate a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;us fue|rit &amp;c. Concil. Hi&s;pal. 2. Can. 6. ut nullus no&s;trum &s;ine concilij ex|amine, dejicere quemlibet Pres|byterum vel Di|aconum audeat. Epi&s;copus enim Sacerdotibus &amp; Mini&s;tris &s;olus honorem dare pote&s;t: au<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">erre &s;olus non pote&s;t. Vide etiam Conc. Afric. Can. 20. Conc. Carthag. 4. Can. 23.</NOTE> ancient Church, the Bi&s;hops had power of the depo&s;ition as well as of the ordination of Presbyters: yet they were bound up that they might not depo&s;e either Presbyter or Deacon, without the concurrence of a Presbytery or Synod in the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e. Mark <HI>of the Synod,</HI> not <HI>of the Magi&s;trate.</HI> As for the Te&s;timonies brought by Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman,</HI> he doth both here and in diver&s;e other places name his Authors, without quoting the places. It &s;eems he hath either found the words cited by others, but dur&s;t not tru&s;t the quotations, or el&s;e hath found &s;omewhat in tho&s;e places which might make again&s;t him. However all that he can cite of that kinde concerning depo&s;ition of Mini&s;ters by Emperors, i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> meant of a coercive expul&s;ion, not of that which we call properly De|po&s;ition. And to this purpo&s;e let him take the Ob&s;ervation of <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Salma&s;. appar. ad lib. de primat. pag. 298. 299. Non enim pote&s;tatem quam in ordinatione acce|pit per impo&s;itionem manuum, pote&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ripere Princeps, cum nec eam po&s;&s;it dare. Si Princeps igitur velit Mini&s;trum aliquem ob &s;ua peccata pror&s;us degradari &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp; Mini&s;terium &s;imul cum ejus functione amittere, per Pa&s;tores ip&s;os id faciendum debet curare, qui Judices veri ip&s;ius &s;unt, &amp; aufer|re &s;oli po&s;&s;unt quod per ordinationem dederunt. Imperatores Romani quos per vim ejicerent, quia intelli|gebant pote&s;tatem Mini&s;terij fungendi non aliter iis adimere po&s;&s;e, in exili<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">m eos mittebant. Quod po&s;&s;e|mus infinitis te&s;timoniis demon&s;trare. Relegatus hoc modo Epi&s;copus remane<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">at nihilominus Epi&s;copus, non ordine excideba<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> Epi&s;copali, nec ad laicorum ordinem redigebatur.</HI></NOTE> a great Antiquary.</P>
<P>And withall he may take notice that Prote&s;tant Writers do<NOTE PLACE="marg">Gerhard. loc. Com. Tom. 6. pag. 201. Pro|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ari nequit illo|rum P&s;eudopoli|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">icorum opinio, qui ad jura re|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">alia Magi&s;tra|tes rem<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">tionem Mini&s;trorum pertinere cen&s;ent. <HI>See</HI> Fr. Junius Eccle&s;ia&s;t. lib. 3. cap. 3. &amp; Animad. in Be<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">. Co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">r. 4. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">b. 1. cap. 20. not. 8. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">alduin. de ca&s;. con&s;cient. lib. 4. cap. 5. ca&s;. 12.</NOTE> di&s;claime the Magi&s;trates power of depo&s;ing Mini&s;ters; and hold that depo&s;ition is a part of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Juri&s;diction: Mini&s;ters being alwayes puni&s;hable (as other Members of the Common|wealth) according to the Law of the Land, for any offence com|mitted again&s;t Law.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="17" REF="12">
<HEAD>CHAP. 3.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>That Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> and Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;eys</HI> oppo&s;ing of Church-Government, nei|ther is, nor can be reconciled with the &s;olemne League and Covenant.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>MA&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> Doctrine was by me charged to be a violation of the &s;olemne League and Covenant. This he acknowledged in his <HI>Re-examination,</HI> page 13. 17. to be a very grievous charge, and a greater fault in him then in divers others, if made out: and he de&s;ired &s;eriou&s;ly, yea challenged it by the right of a Chri&s;tian, and by the right of a Mini&s;ter, that I &s;hould pro&s;ecute this charge; where|upon I did in my <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondes</HI> pro&s;ecute it &s;o farre, that by five &s;trong Arguments I did demon&s;trate the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the Covenant. About a Moneth after|ward comes out Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;eys</HI> Booke, wherein the charge it &s;elfe (before de&s;ired to be pro&s;ecuted) is declined ex|pre&s;ly by Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> in the few lines by him prefixed (which are ranked together with the <HI>Errata</HI>) in which he de&s;ires that the argumentative part may be &s;o pro&s;ecuted, as that the charge of Covenant-breaking may be laid a&s;ide, which if it be taken up, he lets me know before-hand it &s;hall be e&s;teemed by them a <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondes.</HI> It is al&s;o decli|ned by Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey,</HI> page 15. <HI>The Argument of the Covenant is too low to be thought on in this Di&s;cour&s;e: we are now in an higher region then the words of the Covenant,</HI> &amp;c. A Tenent lookt upon by the reformed Churches, as proper to tho&s;e<NOTE PLACE="marg">Vide apud Sy|nod Do<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> Se&s;&s;. 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">. con|ditione<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> Syn<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="3 letters"> legit<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">im<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> in&s;ti|tuendae quas Remon&s;tra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">tes <HI>&amp;c,</HI> con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">it. 9.</NOTE> that are in&s;pired with the Gho&s;t of <HI>Arminius,</HI> for the Re|mon&s;trants both at and after the Synod of <HI>Dort,</HI> did cry downe the Obligation of all Nationall Covenants, Oaths, &amp;c. in matters of religion, under the colour of taking the Scripture onely for a rule. Well, we &s;ee the charge declined as nothing; but this is not all: almo&s;t two moneths after
<PB N="18" REF="13">
my proofe of the charge, Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> comes out with his <HI>Maledicis,</HI> and declines both the charge it &s;elfe (which he calls An <HI>impertinent charge,</HI> pag. 22.) and my five Arguments too, without &s;o much as taking notice of them, or offering replies to them; yea all that I &s;aid in my <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondes,</HI> pag. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. in pro&s;ecution of this Argument concerning Covenant-breaking, the Reverend Brother hath skipped over <HI>&s;icco pede</HI> in the halfe of one page, <HI>viz.</HI> pag. 23. all that followes is new and other mat|ter, wherein he did not minde his owne An&s;wer to the learned Viewer, pag. 33. <HI>I will keepe you to the Lawes of Di&s;|putation, and will not an&s;wer but as it is to the matter in hand,</HI> I leave it to be Judged by men of knowledge and piety, whe|ther &s;uch a one, doth not give them &s;ome ground to appre|hend that he is <GAP DESC="foreign">, that is &s;elf-judged, who fir&s;t calleth &s;o eagerly for making out a charge again&s;t him, and then when it is made out doth decline the charge, and not an&s;wer the Arguments; and &s;uch as e&s;teeme the charge of Covenant-breaking to be a <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondes,</HI> and the Argument of the Covenant too low to be thought on in a controver&s;ie about Church-Government, <HI>O my Soule, come not thou into their &s;ecret, unto their a&s;&s;embly, my glory, be not thou united.</HI> It is in vaine for them to palliat or &s;helter their Covenant-breaking, with appealing from the Covenant to the Scripture, for <HI>&s;ubordinata non pugnant.</HI> The Covenant is <HI>norma recta, a right rule,</HI> though the Scripture alone be <HI>nor|ma recti, the rule of right.</HI> If they hold the Covenant to be unlawfull, or to have any thing in it contrary to the Word of God, let them &s;peake out. But to profe&s;&s;e the breach of the Covenant to be a grievous and great fault, and wor|thy of a &s;evere cen&s;ure, and yet to decline the charge and proofes thereof, is a mo&s;t horrible &s;candall; yea, be a&s;to|ni&s;hed O yee Heavens at this, and give eare O Earth! how &s;mall regard is had to the Oath of God, by men profe&s;&s;ing the Name of God.</P>
<P>As for that little which the reverend Brother hath re|plyed unto, Fir&s;t he takes notice of a pa&s;&s;age of his Sermon
<PB N="19" REF="13">
at the taking of the Covenant, which I had put him in minde of, but he an&s;wereth onely to one particular, <HI>viz.</HI> concerning that clau&s;e, <HI>Doubtle&s;&s;e many materialls of Prelacy mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be retained as ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary.</HI> I asked what he under&s;tood by this clau&s;e? Now ob&s;erve his an&s;wer. <HI>I an&s;wer ingenuou&s;ly, as he de&s;ires, and fully, as I conceive, the&s;e mate|rialls of Prelacy are Ordination.</HI> Remember you &s;aid, <HI>many ma|terialls of Prelacy.</HI> I be&s;eech you Sir, how many is Ordinati|on? Ordination, Ordination, Ordination; tell on till you thinke you have made many materialls; and withall tell us (if this be the meaning, that Ordination &s;hould be retained without any power of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Government in the Mini&s;tery:) how was it imaginable that he could hereby &s;ati&s;fie that &s;cruple which then he &s;poke to, <HI>viz.</HI> the &s;cruple about the purging away of the exorbitancies of Prelacy, and retaining a regulated Prelacy? And after all this, I &s;hall de&s;ire him to expound that other clau&s;e (which I de&s;ired before, but he hath not done it) <HI>taking away</HI> (&s;aid he) <HI>the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new Government, and no Prelacy.</HI> Either he meanes this of a new Church-Govern|ment di&s;tinct from the Civill, &s;o that the Mini&s;tery &s;hould have new power of Government; or he meant it of the way which now he pleads for. If the former, I have what I would. Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> him&s;elfe as well as other men took the Covenant, with an intention to have an Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|call Government di&s;tinct from the Civill. If the latter, then let him an&s;wer the&s;e two things. 1. What good &s;ence there was in applying &s;uch an An&s;wer to &s;uch a Scruple, as if the Era&s;tian way, or the appropriating of all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Juri&s;diction wholly to the civill Magi&s;trate, could be the way to &s;atisfie tho&s;e who &s;crupled the totall abolition of Prelacy. 2. How will he reconcile him&s;elfe with him&s;elfe, for here pag. 22. he &s;aith, That his way was in practice be|fore I was borne, <HI>and the con&s;tant practice of</HI> England <HI>alwaies.</HI> This, as it is a mo&s;t notorious untruth (for the con&s;tant pra|ctice of <HI>England</HI> hath granted to the Clergy (as he calls them after the Popi&s;h Dialect) a power of Depo&s;ition and
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page"><PB N="18" REF="14">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page"><PB N="19" REF="14">
<PB N="20" REF="15">
Excommunication, whereas his way denies all corrective power, or Church-cen&s;ures to the Mini&s;tery) &s;o if it were a truth, it is utrerly incon&s;i&s;tent with that which he &s;aid of the remaining part, namely, that it will be a new Govern|ment. If it be his way, how will he make it the con|&s;tant practice of <HI>England</HI> alwaies, and a new Govern|ment too?</P>
<P>In the next place the Reverend Brother makes &s;hort work of my five Arguments, to prove the repugnancy of his Do|ctrine to the &s;olemne League and Covenant. They were too hot for him to be much touched upon, <HI>All is but this much,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>The Covenant mentioneth and &s;uppo&s;eth a di&s;tinct Church-Government.</HI> It is hard when Arguments are neither repeated nor an&s;wered. He repeats a Point which was pro|ved (and but a part of that) but not the proofes. And &s;o he an&s;wereth (rather to the conclu&s;ion then to the Argu|ments) the&s;e two things. <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>the expre&s;&s;ions in the Covenant are according to the generall apprehen&s;ions of the times, which tooke &s;uch a thing for granted; yet I beleeve Ma&s;ter</HI> Gille&s;pie <HI>cannot make &s;uch a &s;uppo&s;ition obligatory.</HI> Now you yeeld Sir what before you eagerly contended again&s;t, <HI>viz.</HI> That the Covenant doth &s;uppo&s;e a Church-Government. Remember your <HI>Simile</HI> of the Jury &s;worne to enquire into the felony of a Pri&s;oner, which Oath doth not &s;uppo&s;e the Pri&s;oner to be guilty of felony, but he is to be tried, Guilty or not Guilty. We are now &s;o farre agreed, that the Cove|nant doth &s;uppo&s;e a Church-Government di&s;tinct from the civill Government, and yet not meerly Doctrinall, for that was the point which I proved, and which here he yeelds. As for the obligation of an Oath &s;worne upon &s;uch &s;up|po&s;ition, I an&s;wer. 1. It is more then &s;uppo&s;ed, the words and expre&s;&s;ions of the Covenant doe plainly hold out the thing as I proved, and as the Reverend Brother &s;eemes here to yeeld. 2. That which an Oath doth nece&s;&s;arily &s;up|po&s;e, if the Oath be lawfull, and the thing &s;uppo&s;ed law|full, is without all controver&s;ie obligatory. Now the Reve|rend B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">other doth acknowledge both the Covenant it &s;elfe,
<PB N="21" REF="15">
to be a lawfull Oath, and that which the Covenant &s;up|po&s;eth, namely a Church-Government di&s;tinct from the Civill Government, and yet not meerly Doctrinall to be a lawfull thing, for he profe&s;&s;eth to yeeld it (though not <HI>Jure divino,</HI> yet) in prudence, which he cannot doe, if he make the thing unlawfull. 3. That which an Oath doth &s;uppo&s;e is &s;ometimes &s;uppo&s;ed <HI>Vi materiae,</HI> or <HI>con&s;equentiae,</HI> that is, the words of the Oath doe nece&s;&s;arily imply &s;uch a thing, though it be not intended by the &s;wearer; and here I will tell Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> one Story of <HI>Alexander</HI> for another. When <HI>Alexander</HI> was comming again&s;t a Towne to de&s;troy it, he met <HI>Anaximenes,</HI> who (as he under&s;tood) came to make interce&s;&s;ion and &s;upplication for &s;paring the Towne, <HI>Alexander</HI> preventeth him with an Oath, that he would not doe that thing which <HI>Anaximenes</HI> &s;hould make petition for, whereupon <HI>Anaximenes</HI> made Petition that he would de&s;troy the Towne, <HI>Alexander</HI> found him&s;elfe bound by the plaine words of his Oath to doe what he in|tended, and &s;o did forbeare. And to adde a divine Story to an humane, <HI>Jo&s;hua,</HI> and the Princes of I&s;rael did &s;weare to the <HI>Gibeonites</HI> upon a &s;uppo&s;ition that was not true, yet they found them&s;elves tyed by their Oath. So he that &s;wea|reth to his owne hurt mu&s;t not change, the Oath being otherwi&s;e lawfull, P&s;al. 15. 4. yet that &s;elfe hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his Oath was not intended in &s;wearing. Sometimes againe, that which is &s;uppo&s;ed and implyed in an Oath lyeth al&s;o in the thoughts and intention of tho&s;e that &s;weare. Now where tho&s;e two are co-incident; that is, where the thing &s;uppo&s;ed in an Oath is both im|plyed nece&s;&s;arily in the words of the Oath, and is al&s;o ac|cording to the apprehen&s;ions of tho&s;e that &s;weare (which is the ca&s;e here in the Covenant, and is acknowledged by the Reverend Brother) I &s;hould thinke it mo&s;t &s;trange how any Divine can have the lea&s;t doubt concerning the obliga|tion of &s;uch a thing, except he conceive the thing it &s;elfe to be unlawfull.</P>
<P>His &s;econd An&s;wer is this, <HI>In my way,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>the Govern|ments
<PB N="22" REF="16">
Civill and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, are in the &s;ubject matter clearly di|&s;tinct; When the Parliament handles matters of Warre it is a Military Court; when bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of State, it is a Civill Court; when matters of Religion, it is an Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Court.</HI> If this hold good, then it will follow. 1. That the Parliament when they deliberate about matters of Warre, or matters of Re|ligion, are not (at lea&s;t formally and properly) a Civill Court; el&s;e how makes he the&s;e &s;o clearly di&s;tinct? 2. That Mini&s;ters may be called Civill Officers; for con&s;ider his words in his <HI>Re-examination, pag, 11. I doe not exclude Mini|ni&s;ters, neither from Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall nor Civill Government, in a Mi|ni&s;teriall way, doctrinally and declaratively.</HI> Compare this with his pre&s;ent An&s;wer, it will amount to thus much, That diffe|rent denominations being taken from the different &s;ubject matter, Mini&s;ters when they handle Doctrinally matters of Religion, are Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Mini&s;ters; and when they han|dle Doctrinally matters of Civill Government, (which him|&s;elfe alloweth them to doe,) they are Civill Mini&s;ters. But now to apply his An&s;wer to the Argument; How doth all this &s;alve the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the Covenant? If he had examined my Arguments, he had found that mo&s;t of them proove from the Covenant, a Church-Government di&s;tinct from Civill Government, <HI>Suctjective</HI> as well as <HI>Obje|ctive,</HI> that is, another Government be&s;ides Magi&s;tracy; diffe|rent Agents, as well as different Acts; different hands, as well as handling of different matters: I know the Chri&s;tian Ma|gi&s;trate may and ought to have a great influence into matters of Religion; and what&s;oever is due to him by the Word of God, or by the Doctrine either of the Antient or Reform|ed Churches; I doe not infringe, but doe maintaine and &s;trengthen it. But the point in hand is, That the Cove|nant doth undeniably &s;uppo&s;e, and clearly hold forth a Government in the Church, di&s;tinct from Magi&s;tracy, which is proved by the&s;e Arguments; (which&punc; as they are not yet an&s;wered, &s;o I will briefly apply them to the proofe of that point which now Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> &s;ticks at,) 1. The Church Government mentioned in the Covenant, is as di&s;tinct from
<PB N="23" REF="16">
the Priviledges of Parliament, as the fir&s;t Article of the Co|venant is di&s;tinct from the third Article. 2. The Church-Government in the fir&s;t Article of the Covenant, the Refor|mation wherof we are to endeavour, differeth from Church-Government by Archbi&s;hops, Bi&s;hops, &amp;c. mentioned in the &s;econd Article, as much as a thing to be reformed differeth from a thing to be extirpated; &s;o that the Church-Govern|ment formerly u&s;ed in the Church of <HI>England,</HI> is looked up|on two waies in the Covenant, either <HI>qua</HI> Church-Govern|ment, and &s;o we &s;weare to endeavour the Reformation of it, (which I hope was not meant of reforming that part of the Priviledges of Parliament, whereby they meddle with Reli|gion in a Parliamentary way,) Or, <HI>qua</HI> Church-Government by Arch-Bi&s;hops, Bi&s;hops, &amp;c. and &s;o we &s;weare to endeavour the extirpation of it. This difference / betweene the fir&s;t and &s;econd Articles, between Reformation and Extirpation, pro|veth that the Covenant doth &s;uppo&s;e, that the Church-Go|vernment formerly u&s;ed in the Church of <HI>England,</HI> in &s;o far as it was a Church-Government, is not <HI>eatenus,</HI> to be aboli|&s;hed, but in &s;o far as it was a corrupt Church-Government, that is, Prelaticall, 3. Church-Government in the Cove|nant is matched with Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, and Catechi&s;ing; Now the&s;e are &s;ubjectively different from Civill Government for the Civill Magi&s;trate doth not act doctrinally nor cate|chi&s;tically, neither can he di&s;pence the Word and Sacraments as Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> acknowledgeth. 4. In the fir&s;t part of the fir&s;t Article of the Covenant, concerning <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> It is uncontroverted, that Di&s;cipline and Government are Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, and &s;ubje|ctively different from Civill Government, that is, though divers who have a hand in the Civill Government are ru|ling Elders; yet it is as true that divers Members of Parlia|ment, and inferiour Civill Courts, are not Church Officers<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">; and of the Mini&s;tery none are Civill Governours, which makes the two Governments clearly di&s;tinct <HI>&s;ubjective.</HI> Now the &s;econd part of that Article concerning <HI>the Reformation of
<PB N="24" REF="17">
Religion in the Kingdomes of</HI> England <HI>and</HI> Ireland <HI>in Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, Di&s;cipline, and Government,</HI> cannot &s;o farre differ from the fir&s;t part of that Article in the &s;en&s;e of the words, <HI>Di&s;ci|pline and Government,</HI> as that the &s;ame words in the &s;ame Arti|cle of the &s;ame Covenant &s;hould &s;ignifie things differing <HI>t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">to genere,</HI> which will follow, unle&s;&s;e <HI>Di&s;cipline and Government</HI> in the &s;econd branch, and <HI>forme of Church-Government</HI> in the third branch, be under&s;tood of the power of Church Offi|cers, and not of the Magi&s;trate. 5. We did &s;weare to <HI>endea|vour the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of</HI> England <HI>and</HI> Ireland, <HI>in Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, Di&s;cipline and Government, ac|cording to the Word of God, and the example of the be&s;t Reformed Churches.</HI> Now the Word of God holds forth another Go|vernment be&s;ides Magi&s;tracy; for Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> him&s;elfe hath acknowledged, that he findes in the New Te&s;tament Mini&s;ters to be Rulers, yea in&s;tituted Rulers. And the exam|ple of the be&s;t Reformed Churches (without all doubt) lea|deth us to an Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Government, different from Ma|gi&s;tracy. Neither hath the Reverend Brother &s;o much as once adventured to alledge the contrary, except of the Church of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> which as it heterogeneous, (being none of the Reformed Churches mentioned in the Covenant) &s;o it &s;hall be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed in due place. From all which rea&s;ons I conclude, that the wit of man cannot reconcile Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> Doctrine with the Covenant. I adde, 6. A confu|tation of him out of him&s;elfe thus. No &s;uch Church-Go|vernment as Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> ca&s;ts upon an uncertainty, whe|ther the Word hold out any &s;uch thing, can be by his Prin|ciples the power of Magi&s;tracy in things Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, but another Government be&s;ide Magi&s;tracy. But the Church-Government mentioned in the fir&s;t Article of the Covenant, is &s;uch a Church-Government as Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> ca&s;ts upon an uncertainty, whether the Word hold out any &s;uch thing. <HI>Ergo,</HI> the Church-Government mentioned in the fir&s;t Arti|cle of the Covenant, cannot be by his Principles the power of Magi&s;tracy, but another Government be&s;ide Magi&s;tracy;
<PB N="25" REF="17">
The Propo&s;ition he will ea&s;ily admit, unle&s;&s;e he alter his a&s;|&s;ertions; the a&s;&s;umption is cleare from his <HI>Re-examination, pag.</HI> 15.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IIII.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> and Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> their er|rors in Divinity.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>MA&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> all along calls for Divinity Schoolrs; I confe&s;&s;e him&s;elfe hath much need of them, that he may be better grounded in his Divinity; and that if he will plead any more for Chri&s;tian Magi&s;tracy, he may not involve him&s;elfe into &s;uch dangerous heterodoxies as have fallen from his pen in this &s;hort Tractate. I in&s;tance in the&s;e:</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> In his Epi&s;tle to the Parliament, he hath divers pa&s;|&s;ages again&s;t Synodicall Votes, he will have no putting to the Vote; <HI>For Votes,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>pag. 6 are of no other u&s;e but to gather parties, and ought no where to be u&s;ed but by tho&s;e that have the power of the Sword.</HI> And <HI>pag.</HI> 3. he will have the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of A&s;&s;emblies to be only Doctrinall, and <HI>by di&s;pute to finde out truth; their Di&s;putes ought to end in a brotherly accord, as in Act. 15. much di&s;puting, but all ended in accord, no putting to the Vote.</HI> And <HI>pag.</HI> 5. he will have things carried <HI>with &s;trength, of Argument and unanimous con&s;ent of the whole Clergy.</HI> Behold how he joyneth i&s;&s;ue with the Remon&s;trants again&s;t the Contra-Remon&s;trants, to introduce not onely an Accade|micall,<NOTE PLACE="marg">&V;t de contro|ver&s;is articulis non <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ia<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> deci&s;io, &s;ed accmodatio|oni &s;tudeatur: cujus tamen via &amp; ratio rata non ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">eatur, ni&s;i accedente <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">tri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">que partis con&s;en&s;u.</NOTE> but a Scepticall and Pyrrhonian Dubitation and un|certainty, &s;o that there &s;hall never be an end of controver&s;ie, nor any &s;ettlement of truth and of the Ordinances of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, &s;o long as there &s;hall be but one tenacious Di&s;puter to hold up the ball of contention. One egge is not liker another, then Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;eys</HI> Tenent is like that of the <HI>Armi|nians,</HI> for which &s;ee the Synod of <HI>Dort Se&s;&s;.</HI> 25. It was the nin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">h condition which the <HI>Arminians</HI> required in a lawfull and well con&s;tituted Synod, that there might be no deci&s;ion
<PB N="26" REF="18">
of the controverted Articles, but onely &s;uch an accommo|dation as both &s;ides might agree to. And generally they hold that Synods ought not to meet for deci&s;ion, or deter|mination, but for examining, di&s;puting, di&s;cu&s;&s;ing. So their <HI>Examen Cen&s;urae,</HI> cap. 25. and their <HI>Vindiciae,</HI> lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 131. 133.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> In that &s;ame Epi&s;tle to the Parliament, pag. 4. he hath this pa&s;&s;age; <HI>Will-wor&s;hip is unlawfull, I meane in matters that are e&s;&s;entiall to Gods Wor&s;hip, which are matters of duty, as for circum&s;tantials of time and place (except the Sabbath) which are matters of liberty, in the&s;e the Common-wealth may Vote, &amp;c, and this is your chri&s;tian liberty, that in matters of liberty yee make Rules and Lawes to your &s;elves, not cro&s;&s;ing the ends that you are tyed to in duty.</HI> And is the Sabbath onely a circum&s;tan|tiall of time <HI>contra</HI>-di&s;tinct from matters of duty? It &s;eemes he will cry downe not onely the <HI>Jus divinum</HI> of Church|cen&s;ures with the Era&s;tians, but the <HI>Jus divinum</HI> of the Sab|bath with the Canterburians. And if Will-wor&s;hip be un|lawfull onely in the e&s;&s;entialls of Gods Wor&s;hip, why was the Argument of Will-wor&s;hip &s;o much to&s;&s;ed, not onely between Prelates and Non-Conformi&s;ts, but between Pa|pi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants, even in reference to Ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> here ingaged him&s;elfe to hold it free and lawfull to the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate, yea to private Chri&s;tians (for he calls it Chri&s;tian liberty, not Parlia|mentary liberty: now Chri&s;tian liberty belongs to all &s;orts of Chri&s;tians) to make Lawes to them&s;elves for taking the Sacrament anniver&s;arily on Chri&s;tma&s;&s;e, Good-Friday, and Ea&s;ter, or to appoint a perpetuall Monethly Fa&s;t, or Thank&s;giving: yea another Parliament may (if &s;o it &s;hould &s;eeme good to them) impo&s;e againe the Surplice and Cro&s;&s;e in Bapti&s;me, Fonts, Railing of Communion Tables, the reading of divers pa&s;&s;ages of Apocrypha to the Congrega|tion, Doxologies, Anthems, Re&s;pon&s;ories, &amp;c. as heretofore they were u&s;ed: or they may appoint all and every one to &s;it in the Church with their faces toward the Ea&s;t, to &s;tand up at the Epi&s;tles and Go&s;pels, &amp;c. yea what Ceremonies, Jewi&s;h, Popi&s;h, Heatheni&s;h, may they not impo&s;e, provided
<PB N="27" REF="18">
they onely hold the foundation, and keepe to tho&s;e e&s;&s;en|tials which he calls matters of duty: by re&s;training the unlawfulne&s;&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip to the e&s;&s;entialls, he leaves men free to doe any thing in Religion, <HI>pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ter verbum,</HI> &s;o that it appeare not to them to be <HI>c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ntra verbum;</HI> any thing they may adde to the Word, or doe be&s;ide the Word, &s;o that the thing cannot be proved contrary to the Word.</P>
<P><HI>Thirdly,</HI> Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey,</HI> ibid. pag, 4. 5. &s;aith, That the Parlia|ment may require &s;uch as they receive for Preachers of truth, <HI>to &s;end out able men to &s;upply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or di&s;-allowance of the people.</HI> Where in the fir&s;t part of that which he &s;aith, there is either a Hete|rodoxie, or a controdiction. A heterodoxie, if he meane that Mini&s;ters are to be &s;ent out without Ordination: a contradiction, if he meane that they mu&s;t be Ordained; for then he gives Cla&s;&s;es, a worke which is not meerly Doctri|nall. But mo&s;t &s;trange it is, that he &s;o farre departeth from Prote&s;tant Divines in point of the Churches liberty in chu|&s;ing Mini&s;ters, He tells us, pag. 14. that Mr. <HI>Herle for want of skill and Theologicall Di&s;putations</HI> hath granted to people a right to chu&s;e their Mini&s;ter. Ma&s;ter <HI>Herles</HI> skill both <HI>Lo|gicall</HI> and <HI>Theologicall</HI> is greater then it &s;eemes he can well Judge of: neither can this bold arrogant cen&s;ure of his derogate from Mr. <HI>Herles</HI> but from his owne reputation. For the matter it &s;elfe, it is one and not the lea&s;t of the Contro|ver&s;ies between the Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants, what right the Church hath in the Vocation of Mini&s;ters, Read <HI>Bellarmine de cleric.</HI> and tho&s;e that writ again&s;t him, and &s;ee whether it be not &s;o. The <HI>Helvetick</HI> confe&s;&s;ion tells us that the right chu&s;ing of Mini&s;ters is by the con&s;ent of the Church, and the <HI>Belgick</HI> confe&s;&s;ion &s;aith, <HI>We beleeve that the Mini&s;ters, Seniors and Deacons, ought to be called to tho&s;e their Functions, and by the lawfull elections of the Church to be advanced into tho&s;e roomes.</HI> See both the&s;e in the <HI>Harmony of Confe&s;&s;ions, Sect.</HI> 11. I might here (if it were requi&s;ite) bring a heape of Te&s;timonies from Prote&s;tant Writers, the lea&s;t thing which they can admit of is, that a Mini&s;ter be not obtruded <HI>renitente Eccle&s;ia, Factum valet, fieri non debet.</HI> It may be helped after it is done, without making <HI>null</HI> or void the Mini&s;tery:
<PB N="28" REF="19">
but in a well con&s;tituted Church there ought to be no in|tru&s;ion into the Mini&s;tery, the Churches con&s;ent is requi&s;ite, for which al&s;o I might bring both Scripture and Antiquity: but that is not my pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;&s;e. One thing I mu&s;t needs put Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> in minde of, that when the Prelates did in|trude Mini&s;ters without any regard to the di&s;-allowance of the people, it was cried out again&s;t as an oppre&s;&s;ion and u&s;urpation: And we are often warned by Mr. <HI>Prynne,</HI> by Mr. <HI>Coleman,</HI> and by my &s;elfe, to ca&s;t away the Prelates u&s;urpation with them&s;elves. But who Lords it now over the Lords inheritance, the Presbyterians or the Era&s;tians? Nay he who will have Mini&s;ters put in churches <HI>without any regard to the allowance or di&s;-allowance of people,</HI> falls farre &s;hort of divers Prelaticall men, who did much commend the an|tient primitive forme of calling Mini&s;ters, not without the churches con&s;ent. See Dr. <HI>Field of the Church, lib. 5. cap. 54. Bil&s;on de gubern Eccl. cap. 15. pag.</HI> 417. The Author of <HI>the Hi&s;tory of Epic<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">pacy,</HI> part 2. pag. 360.</P>
<P><HI>Fourthly,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey, Epi&s;t.</HI> pag. 7. &s;aith, That upon further con&s;ideration he found <HI>the Mini&s;ter charged onely with Preaching, and Baptizing.</HI> The like he hath afterwards, pag. 39. <HI>Let any man prove that a Mini&s;ter hath any more to doe from Chri&s;t then to teach and baptize.</HI> And againe, pag. 44. he pro|pounds this Quaere, <HI>Whether Chri&s;t gave any more Government,</HI> (he &s;hould have &s;aid any more to doe, for Preaching and Baptizing are not acts of Government) <HI>then is contained in Preaching and Baptizing,</HI> and he holds the negative. If only Preaching and Baptizing, then not praying, and reading in the Congregation, mini&s;tring the Lords Supper, vi&s;iting the Sick and particular families.</P>
<P><HI>Fifthly,</HI> He holdeth, pag. 20. that a Heathen Magi&s;trate is unlawfull, <HI>and for his government, if &s;inne be lawfull, it is law|full.</HI> A gro&s;&s;e heterodoxie. The Apo&s;tle exhorteth to be &s;ubject even to Heathen Magi&s;trates, Rom. 13. (for there were no other at that time) and to pray for them, 1 Tim. 2. &s;o that by Mr. <HI>Hu<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;eys</HI> Divinity the Apo&s;tle would have men to be &s;ubject untoa and to pray for an unlawfull Govern|ment. It is an An bapti&s;ticall Tenent that an Heathen Ma|gi&s;trate is not from God: which <HI>Gerhard de Magi&s;tratu po|&s;ition,</HI> pag. 498. 499. fully confutes.</P>
<P><PB N="29" REF="19"><HI>Sixthly,</HI> he &s;aith of Chri&s;t, pag. 40. <HI>He doth nothing as Mediator, which he doth not as God, or as man.</HI> It is a dange|rous mi&s;take; for take the worke of Mediation it &s;elfe, he neither doth it as God, nor as man, but as God-man.</P>
<P><HI>Seventhly,</HI> He &s;aith, pag. 35. <HI>Nothing can be &s;aid of Chri&s;t as &s;econd Per&s;on in Trinity in oppo&s;ition to Mediator, but in oppo|&s;ition to man there may.</HI> So that he will not admit of this op|po&s;ition; Chri&s;t as the &s;econd Per&s;on in the Trinity is equall and con&s;ub&s;tantiall to the Father, but as Mediator he is not equall to his Father, but le&s;&s;e then his Father, and &s;ubject and &s;ubordinate to his Father; a di&s;tinction u&s;ed by our Divines again&s;t the Antitrinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not admitting of this di&s;tinction, he doth by con&s;equence myre him&s;elfe in Sociniani&s;me, for Chri&s;t as Mediator is the Fathers &s;ervant, I&s;a 42. 1. and the Fa|ther is greater then he, Joh. 14. 28. and as the head of the man is Chri&s;t, &s;o the head of Chri&s;t is God, 1 Cor. 11. 3. If therefore it cannot be &s;aid of Chri&s;t as he is the &s;econd Per&s;on in the Trinity, that his Father is not greater then he, and that he is not &s;ubordinate to God as his head, then fare-well Anti-Sociniani&s;me. I dare boldly &s;ay, it is impo&s;&s;ible to confute the Socinians, or to a&s;&s;ert the eter|nall God-head of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, except &s;omewhat be affirmed of him as the &s;econd Per&s;on of the Trinity, which mu&s;t be denied of him as he is Mediator, and &s;omething be denied of him as he is the &s;econd Per&s;on in the Trinity, which mu&s;t be affirmed of him as he is Mediator.</P>
<P><HI>Eighthly,</HI> He &s;aith, pag. 36. That Chri&s;t <HI>by his Media|tion hath obtained from the Father that he &s;hall not Judge any man according to rigor, but as they are in or out of Chri&s;t; all deferring of Judgement from the wicked is in and for Chri&s;t, which otherwi&s;e the Ju&s;tice of God would not allow.</HI> Then Chri&s;t did thus farre make &s;atisfaction to the Ju&s;tice of God in the behalfe of the wicked, and dye for them, that Judge|ment might be deferred from them: and thus farre performe Acts of Mediation for the Savages, and Mahume|tans, and for them that never heard the Go&s;pell, that by &s;uch Mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they
<PB N="30" REF="20">
&s;hall be Judged not according to rigour, but by the Go&s;pel. Which intimateth that Chri&s;t hath taken away all their &s;innes again&s;t the Law, &s;o that all men &s;hall now goe upon a new &s;core, and none &s;hall be condemned or Judged by the Law, but by the Go&s;pell onely; for if Chri&s;t have not taken away their &s;innes again&s;t the Law, the Ju&s;tice of God will <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">udge them according to the rigour of the Law. Mu&s;t not every jot of the Law be fulfilled? and is there not a nece&s;&s;ity that every one underlye the cu&s;re and rigour of the Law, o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> el<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">e that the Mediator hath underlyed it for them.</P>
<P><HI>Ninthly,</HI> He propounds this <HI>Quere, pag. 44. Whether Mi|ni&s;ters have any right to tho&s;e Priviledges which are given to the Church, more then another Chri&s;tian;</HI> and he holds the ne|gative. Now the Preaching of the Word, and the admini|&s;tration of the Sacraments, the power of the Keyes are Pri|viledges given to the Church, that is for the Churches good, <HI>For all things are yours,</HI> &s;aith the Apo&s;tle, <HI>whether</HI> Paul, <HI>or</HI> Apollo, &amp;c. c. 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22. Therefore by Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;eys</HI> Divinity, any other Chri&s;tian hath as much right to admi|ni&s;ter Word, Sacraments, Keys, as the Mini&s;ter.</P>
<P>Come on now to Mr. <HI>Colemans</HI> errours in Divinity, not to repeat what was expre&s;&s;ed in my <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondes,</HI> but to take off the <HI>Maledicis</HI> in the maine points.</P>
<P>The <HI>tenth,</HI> Heterodoxie &s;hall therefore be this, That what&s;oever is given to Chri&s;t, he hath it not as the eternall Son of God. Into this ditch did Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> fir&s;t fall, and then Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey,</HI> pag. 25. after him. I &s;aid this Tenent lea|deth to a bla&s;phemous Here&s;ie. For the better under&s;tanding whereof let it be remembred what I did premi&s;e in my <HI>Ni|hil Re&s;pondes, pag.</HI> 11. in reply to his Propo&s;ition, <HI>That which is given to Chri&s;t he hath it not as God. This</HI> (&s;aid I) <HI>is in oppo&s;ition to what I &s;aid, pag. 45. concerning the Head&s;hip and Dignity of Chri&s;t, as the naturall Son of God, the Image of the inv<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ible God, Colo&s;&s;ians,</HI> 1. 15. and pag. 43. <HI>of the dominion of Chri&s;t, as he is the eternall Sonne of God. This being pre|mi&s;ed,</HI> &amp;c. Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> without taking the lea&s;t notice of that which I did purpo&s;ely and plainly premi&s;e, begins
<PB N="31" REF="20">
to &s;peake of <HI>God e&s;&s;entially,</HI> and that if &s;omething ma<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> be given to Chri&s;t as God, then &s;omething may be gi+ven to God, and then God is not ab&s;olutely perfect, &amp;c <HI>Maledicis,</HI> pag. 13. 14. Thus he turneth over to the E&s;&s;ence and Nature of God, what I &s;pake of the &s;econd Per&s;on in the Trinity, or of Chri&s;t as he is the eternall Son of God. Was not the Que&s;tion between him and me, Whether the Kingdome and Dominion over all things may be &s;aid to be given to Chri&s;t, as he is the eternall Son of God? This is the point which he did argue again&s;t, becau&s;e it takes off his Argument fir&s;t brought to prove that all Government even civill is given to Chri&s;t, as he is Mediator. And &s;till from the beginning I &s;pake of Chri&s;t as the &s;econd per&s;on in Trinity, or the eternall Sonne of God. Thus therefore the ca&s;e &s;tands; The Reverend Brother to prove that an Univer|&s;all Soveraignty and Government over all things is given to Chri&s;t, as he is Mediator; and to confute my A&s;&s;ertion, that it is given to Chri&s;t as he is the eternall Sonne of God, doth frame this Argument again&s;t me, <HI>That which is given to Chri&s;t he hath it not as God. But here dignity is given to Chri&s;t. Therefore not here to be taken as God.</HI> Where there is more in the conclu|&s;ion then in the Premi&s;&s;es, for the conclu&s;ion which naturally followes had been this, Therefore Chri&s;t hath not here dig|nity as God. It &s;eemes he was a&s;hamed of the conclu&s;ion, yet not of the premi&s;&s;es which inferre the conclu&s;ion. But this by the way. I &s;peake to his Propo&s;ition; <HI>That which is given to Chri&s;t he hath it not as God.</HI> The&s;e words, <HI>as God,</HI> either he un|der&s;tands <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>e&s;&s;entially,</HI> or <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>per&s;onally,</HI> that is, either in regard of the nature and e&s;&s;ence of God, which is common to the Sonne of God, with the Father and the Holy Gho&s;t, and in re&s;pect whereof they three are one, or in regard of the per&s;on of the Word, as Chri&s;t is the &s;econd Per&s;on in the Trinity, and per&s;onally di&s;tinct from the Fa|ther and the Holy Gho&s;t. If in the former &s;en&s;e, then he mu&s;t lay a&s;ide his whole Argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all again&s;t my <HI>The&s;es,</HI> which affirmed that an Univer&s;all Dominion and Kingdome over all things is given to Chri&s;t, not as he is Mediator, (in which capacity
<PB N="32" REF="21">
he is onely King of the Church,) but as he is the Eternall Sonne of God. In oppo&s;ing of which A&s;&s;ertion, as the Re|verend Brother was before <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondens,</HI> &s;o now he is twice nought. But if in the other &s;en&s;e he under&s;tands his Propo&s;i|tion, (which I mu&s;t needs &s;uppo&s;e he doth, it being in oppo|&s;ition to what I &s;aid,) then I &s;till averre his Propo&s;ition will inferre a bla&s;phemous here&s;ie, as I proved before by a cleare demon&s;tration. That which is given to Chri&s;t, he hath it not as God. But life, glory, &amp;c. is given to Chri&s;t; <HI>Ergo,</HI> Chri&s;t hath not life, glory, &amp;c. as God. The Reverend Brother &s;aith, <HI>I acknowledge the conclu&s;ion un&s;ound, and I deny not but that the Major is mine owne, and the Minor is the very Scripture.</HI> Yet he denies the conclu&s;ion, and cleares him&s;elfe by this <HI>&s;imile, That which was given this poore man, he had not before, but a &s;hilling was given this poore man:</HI> Ergo, <HI>He had not a &s;hilling before. Where both Propo&s;itions are true, yet the conclu&s;ion is fal&s;e,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>con|trary to the axiome, Ex veris nil ni&s;i verum.</HI> You are extreamly out Sir, your Syllogi&s;me of the poore man is <HI>fallacia ab am|phibolia.</HI> The Major of it is ambiguous, dubious, and fallaci|ous, and cannot be admitted without a di&s;tinction. But here you acknowledge the Major of my Argument to be your owne, and &s;o not fallacious in your opinion. You acknowledge the Minor to be Scripture. You have not found foure termes in my Premi&s;&s;es, nor charged my Ma|jor or Minor with the lea&s;t fault in matter or forme, and yet for&s;ooth you denie the Conclu&s;ion, and doe not ad|mit that uncontrovertible Maxime in Logick, <HI>Ex veris nil</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;tem. l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">g. lib. 3. cap. 5.</NOTE> <HI>ni&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">rum,</HI> or as <HI>Kekerman</HI> hath it. <HI>Ex veris praemi&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">s fal<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="3 letters"> conclu&s;ionem colligi e&s;t impo&s;&s;ibile; It is impo&s;&s;ible that a fal&s;e Con|clu&s;ion &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">uid be gathered from true Premi&s;&s;es.</HI> Now let us heare what he would &s;ay again&s;t my Conclu&s;ion; it is concerning the &s;en&s;e of the word <HI>hath, For hath,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>by me is u&s;ed for receiving or having by vertue of the gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally.</HI> You are &s;till out Sir; I take it ju&s;t as you take it; for though the Sonne of God, as God e&s;&s;entially, or in re&s;pect of the nature and e&s;&s;ence of God, which is common to all three Per&s;ons in the ble&s;&s;ed Trinity, hath originally of him&s;elfe a Kingdome
<PB N="33" REF="21">
and Dominion over all, yet as he is the &s;econd Per&s;on in Trinity, begotten of, and di&s;tinct from the Father, he hath the Kingdome and Dominion over all, not of him|&s;elfe, but by vertue of the gift of his Father. So that the Reverend Brother is &s;till <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondens,</HI> and therefore he &s;hall be concluded in this Syllogi&s;me. He who holds that what&s;oever is given to Chri&s;t, he hath it not by vertue of the gift, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or &s;econd Per|&s;on in the Trinity, but onely as Mediator; he holds by con&s;equence, that Chri&s;t hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers gift, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or &s;econd Per&s;on in the Trinity. But Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> holds the former, <HI>Ergo,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> holds the latter. The con&s;equence in the Propo&s;ition is proved from <HI>Joh. 7. 22. The glory which thou gave&s;t me.</HI> The a&s;&s;umption he will owne, or el&s;e quit his ar|gument again&s;t my di&s;tinction of the double Kingdome gi|ven to Chri&s;t, as the eternall Sonne of God, and as Media|tor. The conclu&s;ion which followes is hereticall; for wher|as the <HI>Nicen</HI> Creed &s;aid that Chri&s;t in regard of his eternall generation, that he is <HI>Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, God of God, Light of Light;</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> argument will infe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">e that he is not onely <HI>ex &s;eip&s;o Deus,</HI> but <HI>ex &s;eip&s;o filius;</HI> and &s;o denie the eternall generation of the Sonne of God, and the communication of the Godhead, and the Soveraignty, Glo|ry, and Attributes thereof, from the Father to the Sonne. For if Chri&s;t, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers Gift, then he hath it not by vertue of the eternall generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally of him&s;elfe.</P>
<P>As for the other branch of Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> Argument, tending to prove, that Chri&s;t as he is the eternall Sonne of God cannot be given, which he indeavours to vindicate, <HI>pag.</HI> 14. 15. I an&s;wer the&s;e two things:</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> Granting all that he &s;aith, he concludes nothing again&s;t me, for I did from the beginning expound tho&s;e words, <HI>Eph. 1. 22. And gave him to be the head over all things to the church,</HI> in this &s;ence, that Chri&s;t as Mediator is given on|ly to the Church, to be her head, but he that is given as Me|diator
<PB N="34" REF="22">
to the Church, is <HI>over all.</HI> So that the giving of Chri&s;t there &s;poken of, is as Mediator, and he is given to the Church only, which I cleared by the Syriak, <HI>And him who is over all, he gave to be the head to the church.</HI> But his being over all, there &s;poken of, if under&s;tood of glory, dignity, excellency over all, &s;o Chri&s;t is over all as Mediator, (yea in regard of the exaltation of his humane nature,) and this helpeth not Ma|&s;ter <HI>Coleman,</HI> who intends to prove from that place, That all Government, even Civill, is given to Chri&s;t as Mediator. But if under&s;tood of a Kingdome and Government, over all, &s;o he is over all as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or &s;econd Per&s;on of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> The Que&s;tion which the Reverend Brother fals upon, concerning the per&s;onall inhabitation of the Holy Gho&s;t, will never follow from any thing which I &s;aid, more then Gods giving of his Sonne to us, will inferre a per&s;onall inhabitation of the Sonne of God in us. That which I &s;aid was to this intent, That both the Sonne of God and the Ho|ly Gho&s;t are given, not as God e&s;&s;entially; that is, in re&s;pect of the Godhead it &s;elf, or as they are one in nature with the Fa|ther, (for &s;o the Father that giveth, and the Holy Gho&s;t which is given, could not be di&s;tingui&s;hed) but the Sonne is given as the Sonne proceeding from the Father; and the Ho|ly Gho&s;t is given as the Holy Gho&s;t proceeding and &s;ent from the Father and the Sonne; whether he be given to dwell per&s;onally in us, or by his gracious operations onely, is another que&s;tion, which hath nothing to doe with the pre|&s;ent argument, and therefore I will not be led out of my way.</P>
<P>The <HI>Eleventh</HI> Heterodoxy is this, <HI>I &s;ee an ab&s;urdity to hold that every man in authority is either Chri&s;ts Vicegerent, or the Di|velo Maledicis, pag.</HI> 16. Here I make this inference; Heathen and Infidell Magi&s;trates, either they are not men in authori|ty; or 2. They are Chri&s;ts Vicegerents; or 3. They are the Divels <HI>Maledicis.</HI> If he &s;ay they are not men in authority, he &s;hall contradict the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul,</HI> who cals them Higher Pow|ers, <HI>Rom.</HI> 13. 1. and men in activity, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2. 2. &s;peaking in reference even to the Magi&s;trates of that time, which were
<PB N="35" REF="22">
Infidels. If he &s;ay they are Chri&s;ts Vicegerents, Then 1. I mu&s;t &s;ay, that Chri&s;t as Mediator reignes without the Church, and is a King to tho&s;e to whom he is neither Prie&s;t nor Prophet. 2. He mu&s;t finde a Commi&s;&s;ion given by Chri&s;t to the Infidell Magi&s;trate. 3. Whom in authority will he make to be the Divels Vicegerents, if Infidell Magi&s;trates be Chri&s;ts Vicegerents? If he &s;ay that they are the Divels Vice|gerents, then it followes, 1. That they who re&s;i&s;t the Divels Vicegerent, re&s;i&s;t the Ordinance of God, for they that re&s;i&s;t an Infidell Magi&s;trate and doe not &s;ubmit to his lawfull au|thority, (which his Infidelity takes not away,) is &s;aid <HI>Rom. 13. v.</HI> 2. to re&s;i&s;t the Ordinance of God. 2. That the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> bade pray for the Divels Vicegerent, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2. 1, 2. The Reverend Brother doth but more and more winde him&s;elfe into a lab erinth of errors, while he endeavours to take away the di&s;tinction of the two fold Kingdome, and the two fold Vicegerent&s;hip of God and of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>The <HI>twelfth</HI> Heterodoxy followeth; <HI>Now it is true, that Chri&s;t being God as well as man, hath of him&s;elfe originally as God, what&s;oever he hath by vertue of gift as Mediator Maledicis, pag.</HI> 13. Now &s;ub&s;ume, Chri&s;t hath by vertue of gift, as Mediator, the Prie&s;tly office. <HI>Ergo,</HI> By Ma&s;ter <HI>Colemans</HI> Principles, Chri&s;t hath of him&s;elfe originally as God, the Prie&s;tly office. And if Chri&s;t hath it of him&s;elfe originally as God, then the Fa|ther and the Holy Gho&s;t hath it al&s;o; &s;o that by his Doctrine the Father and the Holy Gho&s;t &s;hall be the Prie&s;ts of the Church as well as Chri&s;t, for Chri&s;t hath nothing of him&s;elf originally as God, which the Father and the Holy Gho&s;t have not likewi&s;e.</P>
<P>The thirdteenth &amp; la&s;t errour concerneth the office of Dea|cons. Not onely a Widow but a Deacon is denyed to be a Church-Officer, or to have any warrant from Scripture. <HI>I hold not a Widow a Church-Officer,</HI> &s;aith he: <HI>no more doe I a Deacon; both having a like foundation in Scripture, which truly is none at all. Maledicis,</HI> pag. 9. If this was his opinion for|merly, why did he not in &s;o maine a point enter his di&s;&s;ent from the Votes of the A&s;&s;embly concerning Deacons, to|gether with his Rea&s;ons? Well, his opinion is &s;o now,
<PB N="36" REF="23">
whereby he runneth contrary not onely to the reformed Churches (which it &s;eemes weigh not much in his bal|lance) but to the plaine Scripture which &s;peakes of the Of|fice of a Deacon, 1 Tim. 3. 10. and this could be no civill Office, but an Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Office, for the Deacons were cho&s;en by the Church, were ordained with Prayer, and laying on of hands, and their charge was to take &s;peciall care of the poore, all which is cleare, Act. 6. If he had gi|ven us the grounds of his Opinion, he &s;hould have heard more again&s;t it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. V.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The Prelaticall way and Tenents of Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman,</HI> and Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey:</HI> Repug|nant al&s;o in divers particulars to the Votes and Ordinances of Parliament.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>1&punc; MA&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> in his <HI>Re-examination,</HI> page 14 makes the Parliament to be Church-Governours, and Church-Officers to the whole Kingdome. It was an Argument u&s;ed again&s;t the Prelates that Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall and civill Government, Spirituall and Secular admini&s;trations are incon&s;i&s;tent in the &s;ame Per&s;ons, either of which requi|reth the whole man. It was another exception again&s;t the Prelate that he a&s;&s;umed the power of Church-Government, and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Juri&s;diction over the whole Dioce&s;&s;e, which was much more then he could di&s;charge. How will Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> avoid the involving the Parliament into Pre|laticall guiltine&s;&s;e, by his Principles, which we avoyd by ours?</P>
<P>2&punc; The Prelates &s;ought great things for them&s;elves ra|ther then to purge the Church of &s;candalls. What other thing was it when Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> in his third Rule, in&s;tead of exhorting to the purging the Church, called onely for learning and competency, and told it out, that this will
<PB N="37" REF="23">
<HI>get us an able Mini&s;tery, and procure us honour enough.</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> in his Epi&s;tle to my &s;elfe tells me, that our attending on reading Exhortation and Doctrine (without Govern|ment) will obtaine the Magi&s;trates love, <HI>more honour, more maintenance:</HI> &s;omething for &s;hame he behooved to adde of the puni&s;hing of &s;inne, (yet he will not have the Mini&s;ter called from his Study to be troubled or to take any paines in Di&s;cipline) but behold the love of the Magi&s;trate, more honour, and more maintenance are &s;trong ingredients in the Era&s;tian Electuary.</P>
<P>3 Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> will have Mini&s;ters placed <HI>without any re|gard to the allowance or di&s;-all<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">wance of the people.</HI> Epi&s;t. to the Parliament. This is Prelaticall, or rather more then Pre|laticall.</P>
<P>4 The Prelates were great enemies to ruling Elders. So are Mr. <HI>Coleman,</HI> and Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> who acknowledge no war|rant from the Word of God for that calling, nor admit of any ruling Elders who are not Magi&s;trates. A di&s;tinction which was u&s;ed by <HI>Saravia</HI> and <HI>Bil&s;on</HI> in reference to the Jewi&s;h Elders, and by Bi&s;hop <HI>Hall</HI> in reference to the Elders of the ancient Church, who were not Preaching Elders. <HI>A&s;&s;ert. of Epi&s;cop. by divine right,</HI> pag. 208, 209, 221. And now for&s;ooth Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> in his Epi&s;tle to the Parliament doth earne&s;tly be&s;eech them to <HI>&s;et up Cla&s;&s;es con&s;i&s;ting onely of Mini&s;ters, who&s;e worke &s;hould be onely to Preach the Word, &amp;c.</HI> Such Cla&s;&s;es I dare &s;ay the Prelates them&s;elves will admit of. Sure the Scotti&s;h Prelates, when they were at their highe&s;t yeelded as much.</P>
<P>5 Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> and Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> hold that ruling Elders and a Church-Government di&s;tinct from the civill Go|vernment in the times of Per&s;ecution and under Pagan Ma|gi&s;trates, can be no warrant for the like where the State is Chri&s;tian. This plea for Chri&s;tian Magi&s;tracy was Bi&s;hop <HI>Whitgifts</HI> plea again&s;t the ruling Elders. <HI>An&s;w. to the Ad|mon. pag.</HI> 114.</P>
<P>6 Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey,</HI> pag. 22. &s;aith, that granting the ince&s;tu|ous Corinthian to be Excommunicated, <HI>the decree was</HI> Pauls, <HI>and not the Corinthians,</HI> and that it no way appertained to
<PB N="38" REF="24">
them under the notion of a Church. This is <HI>Saravia</HI> his an&s;wer to <HI>Beza, De tripl. Epi&s;t. genere, pag.</HI> 42, 43: yea the Papi&s;ts an&s;wer to Prote&s;tant Writers, by which they would hold up the Authority and &s;ole Juri&s;diction of the Prelates (as the Apo&s;tles &s;ucce&s;&s;ors) to Excommunicate.</P>
<P>They doe not more agree with the Prelaticall Principles, then they differ from the Votes and Ordinances of Parlia|ment, which is the other point that I have here undertaken to di&s;cover; and I &s;hall doe it by the particular in&s;tances following:</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> The Ordinance of the Lords and Commons a&s;&s;em|bled in Parliament for the calling of an A&s;&s;embly of Di|vines beginneth thus: <HI>Whereas among the infinite ble&s;&s;ings of Almighty God upon this Nation, none is, or can be more deare un|to us then the purity of our Religion, and for that as yet many things remaine in the Liturgie, Di&s;cipline, and Government of the Church, which doe nece&s;&s;arily require a further and more perfect Reformati|on then as yet hath been attained: And whereas it hath been decla|red, and re&s;olved by the Lords and Commons a&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">embled in Parliament, that the pre&s;ent Church-Government by Arch-Bi&s;hops, Bi&s;hops, &amp;c. is evill and ju&s;tly offen&s;ive, &amp;c&punc; and that therefore they are re&s;ol|ved that the &s;ame &s;hall be taken away, and that &s;uch a Government &s;hall be &s;etled in the Church, as may be mo&s;t agreeable to Gods holy Word, and mo&s;t apt to procure and pre&s;erve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of</HI> Scot|land, <HI>and other reformed Churches abroad.</HI> Afterward it was re&s;olved and Voted in both the Honourable Hou&s;es of Par|liament, and &s;ent as one of the Propo&s;itions to the Treaty at <HI>&V;xbridge, That many particular Congregations &s;hall be under one Presbyteriall Government.</HI> Now therefore what can be more contrary to the Votes and Ordinances of Parliament, then that which Mr: <HI>Coleman</HI> and Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> hold, that there ought to be no Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Government, be&s;ide ci|vill Magi&s;tracy, except we plea&s;e to take Preaching and Bapti&s;me under the name of Government, as if for&s;ooth the Parliament had meant by Presbyteriall Government, Parliamentary Government; or as if by the purity of Re|ligion in point of the Di&s;cipline of Government of the
<PB N="39" REF="24">
Church they had intended nothing but their civill rights and priviledges, or as if the wi&s;e and Honourable Hou&s;es had under&s;tood them&s;elves no better then to intend that for a nearer agreement with the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> and other reformed Churches, which is the wide&s;t difference from them, to wit, the Era&s;tian way.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> In the &s;ame Ordinance of Parliament for the calling of an A&s;&s;embly of Divines, it is Ordained, that the A&s;&s;embly after conferring and treating among them&s;elves touching the Lyturgie, Di&s;cipline, and Government of the Church, or vindication and clearing of the Doctrine of the &s;ame, &s;hall deliver their opinions or advices of or touching the matters afore&s;aid to both or either of the Hou&s;es of Par|liament, yet Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey Epi&s;t. to the Parliament, pag.</HI> 3. 6. will not have Cla&s;&s;es and A&s;&s;emblies to put any thing to the Vote, but to hold on the Di&s;putes till all end in accord, and in unanimous con&s;ent of the whole Clergy. But how can the A&s;&s;embly after Di&s;putes, expre&s;&s;e their &s;ence, and deliver their opinions and advice to the Parliament, as they are required, except they doe it by putting to the Vote. Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> him&s;elfe hath con&s;ented, yea &s;ometime called to put things to the Vote. And as for Cla&s;&s;es, will any man imagine that when both Hou&s;es of Parliament did Vote <HI>that many particular Congregations &s;hall be under one Presbyteriall Go|vernment,</HI> their meaning was that the Cla&s;&s;icall Presbitery &s;hall onely Schoole-wi&s;e Di&s;pute, and put nothing to the Vote: Or that the Cla&s;&s;icall Presbitery &s;hall in common di&s;pence the Word and Sacraments to many Congregati|ons, and that either the Cla&s;&s;icall Presbitery &s;hall goe to the &s;everall Congregations &s;ucce&s;&s;ively, or the many Congre|gations come to the Cla&s;&s;icall Presbitery, for Preaching and Baptizing? I admire what opinion Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> can have of the Parliamentary Vote concerning Presbyteriall Govern|ment.</P>
<P><HI>Thirdly,</HI> Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey, Epist. to the Parliament, pag.</HI> 4, 5. will have Mini&s;ters placed <HI>without any regard to the allowance and di&s;-allowance of the people,</HI> yet the Ordinance of Parliament for giving power to Cla&s;&s;icall Presbyteries to ordaine Mini|&s;ters,
<PB N="40" REF="25">
doth appoint that he who is examined and approved by the Presbitery &s;hall be <HI>&s;ent to the Church or other place where he is to &s;erve (if it may be done with &s;afety and conveniency) there to Preach three &s;everall daies, and to conver&s;e with the people, that they may have triall of his gifts for their edification, and may have time and lea&s;ure to enquire into, and the better to know his life and conver&s;ation:</HI> after which the Ordinance appointeth publike notice to be given, and a day &s;et to the Congregation, to put in what exceptions they have again&s;t him,</P>
<P><HI>Fourthly,</HI> Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> in that Epi&s;tle to the Parliament, pag. 5. &s;aith, <HI>Oh that this Honourable Court would ha&s;ten to &s;et up Cla&s;&s;es con&s;i&s;ting onely of Mini&s;ters, who&s;e worke &s;hould be onely to Preach the Word, and weekly meet in Schooles of Divinity.</HI> Here's a double contradiction to the Ordinances of Parlia|ment, for in the directions of the Lords and Commons for chu&s;ing of ruling Elders, and &s;peedy &s;etling of Presbyteriall Government, it is appointed that ruling Elders &s;hall be Members both of Cla&s;&s;es and Synodicall A&s;&s;emblies, toge|ther with the Mini&s;ters of the Word. Againe, the Ordinance about &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of &s;candalous Per&s;ons from the Sacrament appointeth other work to Cla&s;&s;es, be&s;ide Preaching and di&s;pu|ting, namely the receiving and judging of appeales from the Congregationall Elder&s;hip. Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> in <HI>Maledicis,</HI> pag. 12. profe&s;&s;eth that he excludeth ruling Elders from Church Government, yet he can hardly be ignorant that as the Par|liament hath Voted, <HI>That many particular Congregations &s;hall be under one Presbyteriall Government;</HI> &s;o their Votes doe com|mit that Government to Pa&s;tors and ruling Elders jointly.</P>
<P>I will not here repeat the particulars wherein I &s;hewed in my <HI>Nihil Re&s;pondes</HI> that Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> hath abu&s;ed the Hono|rable Hou&s;es of Parliament, unto which particulars he hath an&s;wered as good as nothing. The Honourable Hou&s;es in their wi&s;edome will &s;oone ob&s;erve, whether &s;uch men, who&s;e avou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">hed Tenents are &s;o flatly repugnant to the Parliamen|tary Votes and Ordinances, are like to be good Pleaders for Chri&s;tian Magi&s;tracy.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="41" REF="25">
<HEAD>CHAP. VI.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI>'s wronging of the Church of <HI>Scotland.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>MA&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> ends his <HI>Maledicis</HI> with a re&s;entment of accu&s;ations charged upon him by a &s;tranger, a Commi&s;&s;ioner from another Church. The lot of &s;trangers were very hard, if when they are fal&s;ely accu&s;ed to Authori|ty, they may not an&s;wer for them&s;elves. He may remember the fir&s;t accu&s;ation was made by him&s;elf, when in his Ser|mon to the Parliament, he did flatly impute 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 of Divines, as having come bya&s;&s;ed with a Nationall determination: his Doctrine al&s;o at that time being &s;uch, as did not onely reflect upon the Government of the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> but tend to the &s;ubver&s;ion of the Covenant in one principall Point, with|out which there can be &s;mall or no hopes of attaining the other ends of the Covenant&punc; Since that time he did in his <HI>Re-examination,</HI> and now again in his <HI>Maledicis</HI> fall foully upon the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> not onely by gro&s;&s;e mi&s;takes and mi&s;repre&s;entations of our way, but by mo&s;t groundle&s;&s;e a&s;per&s;ions, and mo&s;t uncharitable and unju&s;t calumnies. I am &s;ure I am not &s;o much a &s;tranger to his Doctrine as he is to the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> of which notwith&s;tanding he boldly &s;peaks his plea&s;ure, in divers particulars which he will never be able to make good.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, He hath a&s;per&s;ed that Church in the Point of pro|mi&s;cuous communicating. This I confuted in my <HI>Nihil Re|&s;pondes,</HI> and told him both of the order of the Church, and practice of con&s;cientious Mini&s;ters to the contrary. Now
<PB N="42" REF="26">
what replieth he? <HI>Fir&s;t, This refining work, I think, is not one yeer old in</HI> Scotland, <HI>or much more; I was lately informed that in</HI> Edinbrugh <HI>it is begun: whether anywhere el&s;e I know not. Maledicis</HI> pag. 20. Are not the&s;e now good grounds of cen&s;uring and a&s;per&s;ing a Reformed Church, (who&s;e name hath been as precious ointment among other Churches abroad) <HI>I think, I was informed, whether it be otherwi&s;e I know not?</HI> He will &s;it in <HI>Cornhill,</HI> and tell the world what he imagines or hears of the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> and that for|&s;ooth mu&s;t be taken for a truth. Yet there was both Rules and Practice in the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> for debarring igno|rant and &s;candalous per&s;ons from the Sacrament, before he was born: though all was put out of cour&s;e under the Pre|lats.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> &s;aith the Reverend Brother, <HI>It is not a very ef|fectuall, &s;in-cen&s;uring, and Church-refining Government, under which after fo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">r&s;core yeers constant practice, divers thou&s;ands in the Kingdom, and &s;ome hundreds in one particular Pari&s;h, becau&s;e of ignorance and &s;candall, are yet unfit to communicate. Maledicis</HI> pag. 20. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. It is notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e that there hath been four&s;core yeers con&s;tant practice of Presbyteriall Government in <HI>Scotland:</HI> for the Prelats there, were above thirty yeers &s;tanding. 2. <HI>Shall the Earth be made to bring forth in one day, or &s;hall a Nation be born at once?</HI> &s;aith the Prophet, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 66. 8. It is no ea&s;ie matter to get a whole Na|tion purged of ignorant and &s;candalous per&s;ons. 3. He may take notice that the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> almo&s;t in all his Epi&s;tles, maketh mention of &s;candalous per&s;ons among tho&s;e to whom he wrote, warning them not to have fellow&s;hip with &s;uch, to note them, to avoid them. If the Apo&s;tolick Churches were not free of &s;uch, what great marvel if we be not? 4. Before he objected promi&s;cuous communicating. This being cleared to be a calumny, now he objecteth that there are &s;uch as are unfit to communicate. But while he thus &s;eeketh a quarrel again&s;t Church-government, he doth upon the matter quarrel the preaching of the Go&s;pel it &s;elf. For <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">e that imputeth it as a fault to the Church-government
<PB N="43" REF="26">
that there are &s;till divers thou&s;ands, who by rea&s;on of igno|rance or &s;candal, are unfit to communicate, doth by con|&s;equence, yea much more, impute it as a fault to the Preach|ing of the Go&s;pel in <HI>England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany,</HI> the <HI>Low-Countreys, Switzerland, Swede, Poland,</HI> that in all the&s;e and other Reformed Churches after four|&s;core yeers con&s;tant Preaching of the Go&s;pel (which is ap|pointed of God to turn unconverted and unregenerate per|&s;ons, from darkne&s;&s;e to light, and from the power of Satan to God) there are not onely divers thou&s;ands, but divers millions who by rea&s;on of ignorance or &s;candal, are yet un|fit to communicate. If the Word do not open the eyes of the ignorant, and convert the &s;candalous, what marvel that Church-Government cannot do it? Church-Government is not an illuminating and regenerating Ordinance as the Word is. But this Church-Government can and will do, yea hath done where it is duly executed; It is a mo&s;t ble&s;&s;ed means for keeping the Ordinances from vi&s;ible and known pollution, which doth very much honour God, &s;hame &s;in, and commend piety. It putteth a vi&s;ible difference between the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean, the &s;ilver and the dro&s;&s;e; and may well be therefore called a Church|refining Ordinance.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Calumny was this, <HI>I my &s;elf,</HI> &s;aid he, <HI>did hear the Presbytery of Edinbrugh cen&s;ure a woman to be bani&s;hed one of the gates of the City.</HI> I an&s;wered him in his own language, <HI>It is at the best a mo&s;t uncharitable &s;lander.</HI> And told him, there is no bani&s;hment in <HI>Scotland,</HI> but by the Civil Magi&s;trate; and that he ought to have enquired and inform|ed him&s;elf better.</P>
<P>Now he doth neither adhere to his Calumny, or offer to make it good, nor yet quit it, or confe&s;&s;e he was mi&s;taken; but propoundeth three new <HI>Queres (Male dicis, pa.</HI> 21.) &s;till forgetting his own rule of keeping to the Laws of Di&s;puta|tion and Matter in hand. For the particular in hand, he one|ly &s;aith thus much, <HI>I did make enquiry, and from the Presby|tery it &s;elf, I received information; but not &s;atisfaction.</HI> He
<PB N="44" REF="27">
tells not what information he received. If he will &s;ay, that he received information that the bani&s;hment was by the Magi&s;trate, how could he then report that it was by the Presbytery. If he &s;ay, that the information he had from the Presbytery gave him any ground for the report which he hath made, let him &s;peak it out, and the world &s;hall know the untruth of it. He may remember withall, that by his principles an accu&s;ation may not be received again&s;t an Elder (much le&s;&s;e again&s;t an Elder&s;hip) in reference either to the judgement of charity, or to mini&s;terial Conviction, except under two or three Witne&s;&s;es. If therefore he would have his accu&s;ation beleeved, let him finde two or three Witne&s;&s;es.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Whereas I had rectified a great mi&s;take of the Reverend Brother, when I told him <HI>It is accidental to the ruling Elder to be of the Nobility, or to Nobles to be ruling Elders; there are but &s;ome &s;o, and many otherwi&s;e:</HI> He is not plea&s;ed to be rectified in this, but replyeth, <HI>I &s;ay, fir&s;t, it is continually &s;o. Secondly, The Kings Commi&s;&s;ioner in the General A&s;&s;embly, is his pre&s;ence accidental? Male dicis, pag.</HI> 10. See now here whether he under&s;tandeth what he &s;aith, or whereof he affirmeth. That which he &s;aith is con|tinually &s;o, is almo&s;t continually otherwi&s;e, that is, there are continually &s;ome Ruling Elders who are not Nobles, and there are continually &s;ome Nobles who are not Ruling Elders: So that if any thing be accidental, this is accidental, that an Elder be of the Nobility, or Nobles be Elders; they are neither Nobles <HI>qua</HI> Elders, nor Elders <HI>qua</HI> Nobles. It is no le&s;&s;e accidental, that the Kings Commi&s;&s;ioner be pre&s;ent in the General A&s;&s;embly; for there have been General A&s;&s;emblies in <HI>Scotland,</HI> both before the erection and &s;ince the la&s;t ca&s;ting out of Prelacy, in which there was no Com|mi&s;&s;ioner from the King. And when the King &s;ends a Commi&s;&s;ioner, it is accidental that he be of the Nobility; for the King hath &s;ent Commi&s;&s;ioners to General A&s;&s;emblies, who were not of the Nobility.</P>
<P>A fourth Injury, not to be pa&s;&s;ed in &s;ilence, is this, Ma&s;ter
<PB N="45" REF="27">
<HI>Coleman</HI> hath endeavoured to make the world beleeve, that the Commi&s;&s;ioners from the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> came to the A&s;&s;embly, bya&s;&s;ed with &s;omething adventitious from without, which he calls a National determination, and that we are not permitted by tho&s;e that &s;ent us, to receive any further light from the Word of God. I &s;hall &s;ay no more of the byas, becau&s;e as I told him before, the &s;tanders by &s;ee well enough which way the byas runs. But mo&s;t &s;trange it is, that after I had confuted his Calumny, not one|ly from our Paper fir&s;t pre&s;ented to the Grand Committee, but from the General A&s;&s;emblies own Letter to the A&s;&s;embly of Divines, &s;hewing that they had ordered the laying a&s;ide of &s;ome particular Cu&s;tomes in the Church of <HI>Scotland</HI> for the neerer uniformity with the Church of <HI>England,</HI> &s;o much endeared unto them; yet he &s;till adhereth to his for|mer Calumny (<HI>Male dicis, pag.</HI> 20.) without taking notice of the Evidence which I had given to the contrary. And not content with this, he &s;till qua<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">relleth with my allegation of certain parallel examples, which are by him &s;o far di&s;|e&s;teemed, that he hath not &s;tuck to pa&s;&s;e the very &s;ame cen|&s;ure upon the forrain Divines who came to the Synod of <HI>Dort,</HI> which the <HI>Arminians</HI> did: The &s;ame he &s;aith of <HI>Alexander</HI> his coming to the Councel of <HI>Nice;</HI> and of <HI>Cyril</HI> his coming to the Councel of <HI>Ephe&s;us.</HI> All the&s;e (I &s;ay) he &s;till involveth under the &s;ame Cen&s;ure with us; for whereas he had alleaged that I ju&s;tified the byas, this I denyed and called for his proof; his Reply now is thus, <HI>Is not the alle|gation of examples of the like doing, a ju&s;tification of the act done? Male dicis, pag.</HI> 20. This Reply can have no other &s;ence but this, That I ju&s;tified the thing which he thinks our byas, becau&s;e I ju&s;tified tho&s;e other Divines who (as he holds) came al&s;o bya&s;&s;ed in like manner. I am per&s;waded this one particular, his joyning with the <HI>Arminians</HI> in their Exceptions again&s;t the Synod of <HI>Dort,</HI> would make all the Reformed Churches, if they could all &s;peak to him <HI>uno ore,</HI> to cry <HI>Male audis.</HI> And I am as firmly per&s;waded, that the Confe&s;&s;ion which I have extorted from him in this place,
<PB N="46" REF="28">
That he knoweth no adventitious ingagements tho&s;e Divines had, makes him irreconcileably to contradict him&s;elf; for he made them but ju&s;t now bya&s;&s;ed in the &s;ame manner as he thinks us, and made my allegation of their examples to be a ju&s;tification of the byas charged by him upon us: As there|fore he doth mo&s;t uncharitably, and untruly judge us to be bya&s;&s;ed with adventitious engagements, &s;o doth he judge of them. Neither can he a&s;&s;oil them, while he condemneth us; for the Articles concerning Prede&s;tination, the death of Chri&s;t, grace, freewill, and per&s;everance, were determined before the Synod of <HI>Dort,</HI> by mo&s;t (if not by all) of tho&s;e Reformed Churches who &s;ent Commi&s;&s;ioners thither, as much as Presbyterial Government was determined in the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> before the Reverend A&s;&s;embly of Di|vines was called. And this Preingagement and Predeter|mination of tho&s;e Reformed Churches, was the main ob|jection of the <HI>Arminians,</HI> again&s;t the forrain Divines who came to the Synod of <HI>Dort.</HI> To conclude this point, Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> him&s;elf in his <HI>Reexamination, pag.</HI> 7. avouch|eth roundly, That the forrain Divines came to <HI>Dort,</HI> not 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 Erroneous.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="47" REF="28">
<HEAD>CHAP. VII.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Calumnies confuted, and that Que&s;tion briefly cleared, Whether the Magistrate be Chri&s;ts Vice-gerent.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>MA&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> in his Title page tels us he hath pro&s;ecu|ted the argumentative part without any per&s;onall re|flections; yet I could in&s;tance divers per&s;onall reflections in his Book which any moderate impartiall man will ex|tremely di&s;like; but what &s;hould this be to the edifying of my Reader, the end which next to the glory of God and the promoting of Reformation, I have propo&s;ed to my &s;elf? Yet I mu&s;t needs take notice of &s;ome calumnies.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, In his Epi&s;tle pag. 8. he offereth it to be examined whether I was not be&s;ide my Text, <HI>Mal.</HI> 3. 2. when I pre&s;&s;ed from it Reformation by Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Di&s;cipline? whether that refiners fire and fullers &s;ope, doth not point at another, and a nearer operation upon the &s;ouls and &s;pirits of men by the Blood, Word, Spirit, and Grace of Chri&s;t? and whether &s;uch handling of a &s;imilitude in a Text be to preach the mind of God, or mens own fancy? It is no di&s;content to me but I &s;hall rejoyce in it, that men of piety and judgement exa|mine my Doctrine by the Word of God, and hold fa&s;t what they finde agreeable to the Scriptures, and no more. But i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> this brotherly, or fair, or con&s;cionable dealing, to offer my Sermon to be examined under &s;uch a notion, when he hath not onely &s;aid nothing, to confute any of my Doctrines, as not ari&s;ing from my Text, or any of my applications, as not ari&s;ing from my Doctrines; but hath al&s;o untruely repre|&s;ented my Sermon, as coming &s;hort of, or not expre&s;&s;ing
<PB N="48" REF="29">
that which indeed it hath mo&s;t principally and mo&s;t ex|pre&s;&s;ely in it? That of Reformation was but a part of my Sermon: and that of Church-cen&s;ures again&s;t &s;candalous &s;inners was but the lea&s;t part of that part. And why &s;hould not the fullers &s;ope in the Hou&s;e of God, take off tho&s;e &s;pots in our fea&s;ts? Why &s;hould not the refiners fire purge away the wicked of the Earth like dro&s;&s;e, &s;o <HI>David</HI> calls them? That Reformation is one part of the holy Gho&s;ts intend|ment in that Text, is <HI>Gualther</HI>'s opinion as well as mine, yet he thinks <HI>Gualther</HI> his own. Nay, I proved it from compar|ing Scripture with Scripture, which is the be&s;t way that I know to clear Scripture. Why did he not an&s;wer my proofes? But be&s;ide all that I &s;aid of Reformation, had I not other three Doctrines out of that Text, comprehending all that which Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> hinteth as omitted by me and yet intended in the text? Dare he &s;ay that I did not take in purgation by the Word? (though I confe&s;&s;e he doth not well prove it from the words which he citeth, <HI>Is not my word an hammer?</HI> but it is proved by the words which he citeth not&punc; <HI>Is not my word like as a fire?</HI>) Did I not ex|pre&s;&s;ely &s;ay that Chri&s;t is to us as a refiners fire and as fullers &s;ope, three wayes, by reformation, by tribulation, by mor|tification? Did I not handle the la&s;t two as well as the fir&s;t? Oh let no more any &s;uch gro&s;&s;e calumnies be found among tho&s;e who profe&s;&s;e to be Brethren.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> in his Epi&s;tle to my &s;elf gives it out that I &s;ay <HI>We have leave from the Civill Magistrate to preach the Go&s;pel,</HI> which he interprets, as if I denied that we preach the Word with Authority from Chri&s;t. It was <HI>de facto,</HI> not <HI>de Jure,</HI> that I &s;pake it. The Magi&s;trate hath power in his hand to hinder both Doctrine and Di&s;cipline, if he be an adver&s;ary: though it be the will of Chri&s;t that there be both Doctrine and Di&s;cipline, and the Authority of both is from Chri&s;t. When the Magi&s;trate a&s;&s;i&s;teth or coun|tenanceth, or &s;o much as he doth not hinder the preaching of the Go&s;pel, then he gives leave to it.</P>
<P><HI>Thirdly&punc;</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Coleman</HI> in his <HI>Maledicis</HI> pag. 1. &s;aith, <HI>I
<PB N="49" REF="29">
am confident, the Church of</HI> Scotland <HI>&s;ent this Commi&s;&s;ioner to di&s;pute down our rea&s;ons, not to revile our per&s;ons. Maledicis Maledicis</HI> pag. 1. Why did he not (if he could) give in&s;tance of &s;ome reviling word written by me again&s;t his per&s;on. I have not &s;o learned Chri&s;t. The Lord rebuke every railing and reviling Spirit. I have given him <HI>rea&s;on</HI> again&s;t <HI>railing;</HI> he hath given me <HI>railing</HI> again&s;t <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> I &s;pake to his doctrine, he &s;peakes to my place and relation, which is both the <HI>Alpha</HI> and <HI>Omega</HI> of his <HI>Maledicis.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Thirdly,</HI> ibid. <HI>Knowledge</HI> &s;aith he <HI>is onely with Mr.</HI> Gille&s;pie, <HI>o|thers under&s;tand neither what they &s;ay, nor whereof they affirms.</HI> He will &s;ooner bring water out of flint, then prove this con&s;equence out of my Title page. Although I confe&s;&s;e him&s;elfe hath affirmed divers things of the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> which he doth not un|der&s;tand, as I have made plainely to appeare. If he take a review of the Title page of his <HI>re-examination,</HI> he gives more ground for this con&s;equence, that Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> is the onely man that denies him&s;elfe: others &s;eeke great things for them&s;elves. Or from the Title page of his <HI>Maledicis,</HI> this con&s;equence will be as good that Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> is the onely man that ble&s;&s;eth, others are re|vilers.</P>
<P><HI>Fourthly,</HI> Thus &s;aith Mr. <HI>Coleman, O y<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">e Honourable Hou&s;e of Parliament, Take you notice that you manage that great place of yours under Chri&s;t and for Chri&s;t: He is your head and you are his &s;ervants. And take you notice withall that Mr.</HI> Gille&s;py <HI>accounts this your reproach. Maledicis Maledicis,</HI> pag. 17. But O ye Honourable Hou&s;e of Parliament, be plea&s;ed to take notice of my owne plaine expre&s;&s;ion of my minde in my <HI>Nihil re&s;pondes,</HI> pag. 13. <HI>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 Kingdome and Glory of Chri&s;t.</HI> And now judge whether it be &s;utable to the &s;incerity and candor of a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pell, to endeavour to make me odious to au|thority, by imputing to me that which not onely I did not &s;ay, but the contrary whereof I did plainly expre&s;&s;e? The thing which I charged his doctrin with was this, that by holding all government to be given to Chri&s;t as Mediatour, and from him as Mediatour derived to the Magi&s;trate as his Vicegerent, he &s;haketh the foun|dation of Magi&s;tracy. I am &s;ure that which I hold, that all law|full Magi&s;trates are Powers ordained by God&punc; and are to be ho|noured
<PB N="50" REF="30">
and obeyed as Gods Vicegerents, is a firme and &s;trong foundation for Magi&s;tracy. But that which Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> and Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;ey</HI> hold, <HI>viz.</HI> That the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate holdeth his Of|fice of, under, and for Chri&s;t as he is Mediator, and doth act <HI>vice Christi,</HI> as Chri&s;ts Vicegerent, gives a mo&s;t dangerous wound to Chri&s;tian Magi&s;tracy, which I can demon&s;trate in many particu|lars: I &s;hall now give in&s;tance onely in the&s;e few. Fir&s;t, They mu&s;t prove from Scripture that Chri&s;t as Mediator hath given a Commi&s;&s;ion of Vicegerent&s;hip to Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trates, and ap|pointed them not onely to be &s;eviceable to him and to doe his worke: (for that they mu&s;t &s;erve Chri&s;t, and be for his Glory, is not controverted, nay can never enough be commended to them) but al&s;o to governe <HI>vice Chri&s;ti,</HI> in Chri&s;ts &s;tead, and that not only as he is God (which is not controverted neither,) but as he is Mediator. This (I &s;ay) they mu&s;t prove, (which they will never be able to doe) or otherwi&s;e they doe by their doctrine leade the Magi&s;trate into a &s;nare; and leave him in it. For how &s;hall he be acknowledged for a Vicegerent who can &s;hew no Commi&s;&s;ion nor warrant for his Vicegerent&s;hip? Secondly, Their doctrine tendeth to the altering of the &s;ure&s;t and be&s;t knowne tenure of Magi&s;tracy, which is from God: for they hold that God hath put all Government and all authority civill, and all into the hands of Chri&s;t as Mediatour; if the tenure from Chri&s;t faile, then by their doctrine the tenure from God &s;hall faile too. Thirdly, The Vicegerent cannot act in that capacity nor a&s;&s;ume that power which his Soveraigne who&s;e Vicegerent he is, ought not to a&s;|&s;ume if he were per&s;onally pre&s;ent. So that by their principles it will follow that the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate can act no further, nor a&s;&s;ume any other power of Government, then Chri&s;t him&s;elfe might have a&s;&s;umed when he was on earth, or might now a&s;&s;ume and exerci&s;e as Mediatour if he were on earth. But Chri&s;t him&s;elfe when he was on earth neither did exerci&s;e nor was &s;ent to exerci&s;e civill Judgement, <HI>Luke</HI> 12. 14. and the temporall &s;word. <HI>John</HI> 18. 36. nor externall ob&s;ervation and State. <HI>Luk.</HI> 17. 20, 21. and he declined to be an earthly King. <HI>John</HI> 6. 15. Therefore by their principles the Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate ought to forbeare and avoide all the&s;e.</P>
<P>A <HI>fifth</HI> Calumny is this, Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> de&s;canting upon the <HI>Go|vernments</HI>
<PB N="51" REF="30">
mentioned. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 28. chargeth me with a circular argumentation: <HI>he circularly argues</HI> &s;aith he: <HI>They are civill be|cau&s;e God placed them there, and God placed them there, becau&s;e they are civill. Maledicis Maledicis.</HI> pag. 9. I neither argued the one nor the other: they are both Sir of your owne forging. But this is not your fir&s;t allegation of this kind. I &s;ometime admire what o&s;citancy or &s;upine negligence (to judge it no wor&s;e) this can be, to fancy to your &s;elfe that I have &s;aid what you would, and then to bring forth your owne apprehen&s;ions for my arguments.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VIII.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>That Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> doth great violence both to his owne words, and to the words of others whom he citeth.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>THE Reverend Brother hath offered extreme violence to his own Declaration; of which let the Reader now Judge, com|paring his Declaration with his Interpretation.</P>
<Q><TEXT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="declaration">
<HEAD>Declaration.</HEAD>
<P>For much of what is reported of my Sermon I utterly deny, and referre my &s;elfe to the Sermon it &s;elfe; for what I have acknowledged to be delivered by me, al|though 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 <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ff<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">nce in the delivery thereof: And for the Printing, although I have an Order, I will forbeare, except I be further com|manded.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>THO. COLEMAN.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="interpretation">
<HEAD>Interpretation.</HEAD>
<P>It is a truth, and a Scrip|ture truth which I have delivered, and becau&s;e I &s;ee a Scripture truth hath given offence to the Commi&s;&s;ioners of <HI>Scot|land,</HI> &amp;c. I am &s;orry. This mu&s;t needes be the &s;ence; I am &s;ure this was the &s;ence intended. Ma|ledicis, Maledicis, <HI>pag. 18.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>Surely if &s;uch <HI>Orleance</HI> Glo&s;&s;es be admitted upon mens Decla|rations &s;igned with their hands; and if he who hath &s;ub&s;cribed him&s;elfe &s;orry that he hath given offence in the delivery of &s;uch a doctrine, &s;hall be allowed to expound him&s;elfe thus; that he meant he was &s;orry others had taken offence at a Scripture truth,
<PB N="52" REF="31">
that is, he was &s;orry for our fault not for his owne: I know not how men &s;hall tru&s;t one anothers Declarations: or how we can <HI>practically</HI> as well as <HI>doctrinally</HI> confute the Je&s;uiticall aequivoca|tions and mentall re&s;ervations. And if this mu&s;t needes be the &s;ence which now the Reverend Brother gives; and was the &s;ence intended, Why &s;aith he that he did publickly recall that Declara|tion? He might make a revocation of it, in the &s;ence wherein I under&s;tood it: but how could he make a revocation of it, as him|&s;elfe under&s;tood it, and as he faith the &s;ence mu&s;t needes be? Was this his &s;orrow for our taking offence at a Scripture truth, a &s;orrow to be &s;orrowed for? Why did hee not rather make a &s;econd Declaration the next day, interpreting the former? And whereas he thinks that his Revocation ought to have beene mentioned together with his declaration, becau&s;e the whole truth is to be told as well as the truth, his owne heart knowes that he him&s;elfe hath not told the whole truth, for he could tell much more, if he plea&s;ed; how he was brought upon the bu&s;i|ne&s;&s;e, and particularly upon that Revocation. Why will he chal|lenge others for not telling the whole truth, when him&s;elfe doth it not? I &s;hould have thought, that this Revocation was neither here nor there, as to the point of &s;candall, for proofe whereof his Declaration was brought: and that as it was not to the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e in hand, &s;o it might rather, &s;erve for impairing his credit then for any thing el&s;e. But &s;eeing him&s;elfe thinks it more for his credit, to tell the world of his &s;aying and un&s;aying, decla|ring and undeclaring, let him be doing.</P>
<P>In the next place will you &s;ee how much violence he offereth to Divines whom he citeth? I had cited plaine and full Te&s;timo|nies of the <HI>Zurick</HI> Divines, &s;hewing that <HI>Gualther</HI> expounds I <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. all along of Excommunication: that <HI>Bullinger</HI> holds ex|communication to be in&s;tituted by Chri&s;t, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. That <HI>Aretius</HI> &s;aith God was the Author of excommunication in the Old Te&s;tament, and Chri&s;t in the New; all which &s;ee in <HI>Nihil re|&s;pondes,</HI> pag. 32.</P>
<P>The Reverend Brother notwith&s;tanding of their plaine Te|&s;timonies &s;peaking for me and again&s;t him in the maine Controver&s;ie betweene him and me, doth &s;till alledge that they are for him, not for me, <HI>Maledicis,</HI> pap. 23. yet he doth not &s;o much as offer any an&s;wer to their Te&s;timonies by me cited: onely he
<PB N="53" REF="31">
bringeth three other pa&s;&s;ages of theirs, intimating that there may be a true Church without Excommunication: that they thought it not nece&s;&s;ary where they lived: that they thought it hard yea impo&s;&s;ible: <HI>arduum nec non impo&s;&s;ible,</HI> to introduce Excommuni|cation in tho&s;e parts. By which citations the Brother hath proved nothing again&s;t me, but confirmed what I &s;aid. Let him remem|ber, fir&s;t, he him&s;elfe makes the maine controver&s;ie betweene him and me, about the Scripturall warrants of Church cen&s;ures: now in that, they are clearely again&s;t him. Next <HI>Aretius</HI> who thought it hard, yea impo&s;&s;ible, to bring in Excommunication at that time, &s;aith al&s;o, <HI>dabit po&s;terior at as tractabili<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">res forte animas, peradven|ture the following age &s;hall bring forth more tractable &s;oules:</HI> and thereupon he advi&s;eth, not to de&s;paire of the re&s;titution of Ex|communication. I cited al&s;o other Te&s;timonies to &s;hew that the <HI>Zurick</HI> Divines did endeavour and long for the di&s;cipline of Ex|communication, though as things &s;tood then and there, they did prudentially &s;uper&s;ede the re&s;toring of it where they lived, be|cau&s;e of the difficulty and apprehended impo&s;&s;ibility of the thing. If Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> will follow the <HI>Zurick</HI> Divines, he mu&s;t change his tone, and quite alter the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, and make it thus: Whether as things now &s;tand it be expedient to &s;ettle Ex|communication in the Church of <HI>England?</HI> Now, if he make this the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, then he mu&s;t make a Revocation of that word, <HI>I deny an In&s;titution, I a&s;&s;ent to a Prudence.</HI> For the Tables were turned with the <HI>Zurick</HI> Divines: they a&s;&s;ented to an In&s;ti|tution, they denyed a Prudence; they held an affirmative pre|cept for Excommunication, but that it doth not bind <HI>ad &s;emper,</HI> that the thing is not at all times, nor in all places nece&s;&s;ary; that weighty inconveniences may warrant the &s;uper&s;eding of it.</P>
<P>The Reverend Brother brings another Te&s;timony out of <HI>Areti|us</HI> again&s;t Su&s;pen&s;ion from the Sacrament; <HI>And further</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>for this grand de&s;ired power, Su&s;pen&s;ion from Sacrament, the&s;e are his words, &amp;c.</HI> A Te&s;timony three wayes fal&s;ified. 1. <HI>Aretius</HI> &s;peaks not at all in that place of the power or duty of Church-Officers, of which Su&s;pen&s;ion is a part: but he &s;peakes of private Chri&s;ti|ans, and what is incumbent to them. 2. He &s;peakes of Separati|on (not of Su&s;pen&s;ion) from the Sacrament; that a man is not bound to withdraw and lie off from the Sacrament, becau&s;e eve|rie
<PB N="54" REF="32">
one who is to communicate with him is not in his opinion a<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aret. probl. Theol. loc. 8. Privatis &s;atis e&s;t ferre utrinque u|tro&s;que (infir<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">s &amp; p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">am &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">l ra|tos) emendare autem quotie&punc; fort ex mplo &amp; do|ctrina. Si parum vel nihil etiam proficiat, non ha|bet ob id cau&s;am &s;eced <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">di. Nec e&s;t quod centamina|tionem m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">uat, modo no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> con&s;in|tist &s;eel ribus &amp;c nihil ad me atti|net in Communi|o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="3 letters">oen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> Domi i, in caeu public<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">um audio ver|bum Dei, <HI>(which la&s;t clau&s;e Mr.</HI> Coleman <HI>leaves out without &s;o much as &amp;c)</HI> quales &s;inguli &s;int mecum participan+tes.</NOTE> Saint. 3. He &s;peaketh again&s;t Separation from both Word and Sacrament, becau&s;e of the mixture of good and bad in hearing and in communicating: but &s;candalous &s;inners are invited to, not &s;u&s;|pended from the hearing of the Word. Wherefore take <HI>Aretius</HI> his words as they are, and then let the Reverend Brother con&s;ider what he hath gained.</P>
<P>What hath this now to doe with Church-Officers their power of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion from the Sacrament?</P>
<P>Ob&s;erve another Te&s;timony which he addeth out of <HI>Augu&s;tine lib. de fide, Excommunicatio debet &s;upplere locum vi&s;ibilis gladii,</HI> which he Engli&s;heth thus, <HI>Excommunication comes in onely to &s;upply the want of the civill &s;word.</HI> But how comes in your <HI>onely</HI> Sir? <HI>Augu&s;tines</HI> &s;aith no &s;uch thing. And when I have expunged that word, I mu&s;t tell you further, that I can find no &s;uch pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Augu&s;tines</HI> Book <HI>de fide:</HI> But I find &s;omewhat to this purpo&s;e in another Book of his, which is entituled <HI>de fide &amp; operibus,</HI> a Book which he wrote again&s;t the admi&s;&s;ion of &s;uch per&s;ons to Bapti&s;me, as being in&s;tructed in the faith, are notwith&s;tanding &s;till &s;candalous in their lives (which by the way will hold <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> fortiori</HI> for the exclu&s;ion of notorious &s;can|dalous &s;inners from the Lords Supper: for they who ought not to be admitted to the Sacrament of initiation, ought much le&s;&s;e to be admitted to the Sacrament of Confirmation) Now becau&s;e divers Scriptures &s;peake of a mixture of good and bad in the Church, <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> takes there occa&s;ion to reprove tho&s;e who a|bu&s;ed the&s;e Scriptures again&s;t the exerci&s;e of Di&s;cipline and Church cen&s;ures: the nece&s;&s;ity whereof he &s;heweth to be the greater, becau&s;e the Magi&s;trate doth not puni&s;h by death all &s;uch crimes as under the Law were puni&s;hed by death: as namely a|dultery, (the &s;candall chiefly by him in&s;i&s;ted upon) As for that<NOTE PLACE="marg">Aug. de fide &amp; operibus cap. 2. Et Phi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">es &s;acer|dos adulteros &s;i+mul inventos fer|ro ultore con&s;ixit. Quod utique de+gradationibus &amp; excommunicati|onibus &s;ignifica|tum e&s;t e&s;&s;e f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="3 letters">endum in his tempore, cum in Eccle&s;ie Di&s;ciplina vi&s;ibilis fuerat gledius ce&s;&s;aturus.</NOTE> pa&s;&s;age concerning Excommunication its &s;upplying the place of the &s;word, it plainely holds forth Excommunication under Chri|&s;tian Emperors and Magi&s;trates, (for &s;uch they were at that time) &s;o farre it is from making again&s;t us. For the&s;e are the words which &s;ay no &s;uch thing as Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> would make them &s;ay. <HI>And Phine<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">as the Prie&s;t did thru&s;t through the adulterous per&s;ons found together, with the avenging &s;word. Which was &s;ignified that it
<PB N="55" REF="32">
&s;hould be done by degradations and excommunications in this time, when in the di&s;cipline of the Church the vi&s;ible &s;word was to cea&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>If the Reverend Brother had let me know where to finde his other Te&s;timonies of <HI>Origen</HI> and <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome:</HI> peradventure I had given him as good an account of them. <HI>Tertullians</HI> words which<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tert. apologet. cap. 39. Ibidem etiam exhortatio|nes, ca&s;tigationes, &amp; cen&s;ura divi|na. Nam &amp; ju|dicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de De<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> con&s;pectu: &s;ummumque fu|turi Judicii prae|judicium e&s;t, &s;i quis ita delique|rit, ut a commu|nicatione oratio|nis, &amp; conventus, &amp; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">m is &s;ancti commerc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">i relege|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ur. Prae&s;ident probati quique Seniores, bono|rem i, iu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"> non pretio &s;ed te&s;time|nio adepti.</NOTE> he citeth, <HI>Prae&s;ident probati &s;eniores,</HI> I know very well where to find; and I know al&s;o, that if there be a pa&s;&s;age in all Antiquity a|gain&s;t the <HI>Era&s;tians,</HI> that is one. Which therefore I here offer as it is to be con&s;idered.</P>
<P>One In&s;tance more of his mi&s;&punc;alledging and perverting of Te|&s;timonies. In the clo&s;e he citeth a pa&s;&s;age of Mr. <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> his Sermon <HI>Augu&s;t 22. 1645. He</HI> (Chri&s;t) <HI>is King of Nations and King of Saints. As King of Nations he hath a temporall Kingdome and Go|vernment over the world, &amp;c. and the rule and regiment of this King|dome he hath committed to Monarchies, &amp;c. Here is Era&s;tia<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">i&s;me,</HI> (&s;aith Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> pag. 38.) <HI>a &s;teppe higher then ever I or Era&s;tus him&s;elfe went. And I de&s;ire to know of Mr.</HI> Gille&s;py, <HI>if he will owne this as good divinity.</HI> Yes Sir I owne it for very good divinity, for my Reverend Brother Mr. <HI>Ca&s;e,</HI> &s;aith not that Chri&s;t <HI>as Mediator</HI> it King of Nations, and hath a temporall Kingdome in the world, and hath committed rule and regiment to Monarchies or other lawfull Magi&s;trates, (which is the point that you and Mr. <HI>Hu&s;&s;es</HI> contend for, being a great Heterodoxy in Divinity) but he &s;aith of the Sonne of God, that he is King of Nations, and hath com|mitted Rule to Monarchies, which I owne with all my heart. The di&s;tinction of the twofold Kingdome of Chri&s;t, an univer&s;all Kingdome, whereby he raigneth over all things as God: and a &s;peciall Oeconomicall Kingdome, whereby he is King to the Church onely, and ruleth and governeth it, is that which being rightly under&s;tood, overturneth, overturneth, overturneth the <HI>E|ra&s;tian</HI> principles. Let Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> but owne this di&s;tinction and that which Mr. <HI>Ca&s;e</HI> addeth concerning the Kingdome which Chri&s;t as King of Saints (and &s;o as Mediator) doth exerci&s;e both invi&s;ibly in the con&s;cience, and vi&s;ibly in the Church, Fir&s;t, by con|quering a people and vi&s;ible Subjects; Secondly, by giving them Laws di&s;tinct from all the Lawes and Statutes of all the King|domes and Republicks in the world <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 33. 22. Thirdly, By con&s;tituting &s;peciall Officers in the Church not onely to promul|gate
<PB N="56" REF="33">
the&s;e Lawes, <HI>Math.</HI> 28. 19. but to governe his people ac|cording to them, <HI>Acts. 20. 28. Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Cro.</HI> 14. 32. Fourthly, In that he hath commanded all his people to obey the&s;e Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Officers. <HI>Heb.</HI> 13. 7. 17. Fifthly, And hath appointed Cen&s;ures proper to this Government. <HI>Math. 18. 17. 1 Cor.</HI> 5. 13. I &s;ay let Mr. <HI>Coleman</HI> but owne this Doctrine of Mr. <HI>Ca&s;e,</HI> which was printed by Order of the Honourable Hou&s;e of Commons, as well as his was: then we are agreed. And &s;o much for this time.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>Errata.</HEAD>
<P>Pref. pag. 4. marg. <HI>lib.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">. 3. 2. read <HI>lib. 2. cap.</HI> 4. p. 7. l. 12. <HI>bourn</HI> r. <HI>b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">ne.</HI> p. 13. l. 28. <HI>exhort</HI> r. <HI>exhor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">eth.</HI> p. 21. l. 18. <HI>to do<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> r. <HI>not to doe.</HI> p. 25. l. 4. <HI>Sch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">llrs</HI> r. <HI>Sch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">lrs.</HI> p. 30. l. 9. <HI>cu&s;re</HI> r. <HI>cur&s;e.</HI> p. 32. l. 28. <HI>fal&s;um</HI> r. <HI>fal&s;a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters">.</HI> p. 33. l. 19. <HI>that</HI> r. <HI>of.</HI> p. 34. l. 29. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">nab&s;urdi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">y</HI> r. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">o ab&s;urdity.</HI> Ib. l. 30. <HI>Div<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">ll</HI> r. <HI>Divells.</HI> Ib. l. 36. <HI>activity</HI> r. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 span">.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">. 35. l. 1. I<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">. H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="1 letter">. p. 48. l. 35. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="apex" EXTENT="2 letters"> he doth</HI> r. <HI>as doth.</HI> The &s;maller typographicall faults the Reader will pardon</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
