That Maſter Coleman doth not onely prevaricate but contradict himſelfe, concerning the ſtate of the Queſtion.

HE tels us often that he doth not deny to Church-officers all power of Church-Government, but onely the corrective part of Government: that the doctrinall and declarative power is in the Miniſtery, ſee Pag. 11. & 14 He denyeth that he did adviſe the Parliament to take Church Government wholly into their owne hands, I never had it in my thoughts ſaith he, that the Parliament had power of diſpenſing the Word and Sacraments. I muſt confeſſe it is to me new language which I never heard before, that the diſpenſing of the Word and Sacraments is a part of Church Government; ſure the word Government is not, nor was never ſo underſtood in the Controverſies concerning Church Government: But if it be, why did the Brother in his Sermon oppoſe Doctrine and Government, Give us Doctrine, ſaid he, take you the Government.

But behold now how he doth moſt palpaply contradict himſelfe, in one and the ſame Page; it is the 11th. I know no ſuch diſtinction of Government, ſaith he, Eccleſiaſticall and Civill, in the ſence I take Government for the corrective part thereof; all Eccleſiaſticall (improperly called) Government, being meerely Doctrinall; the corrective or primitive part being civill or temporall. Againe within a few lines; I doe acknowledge a Presbyterian Government, I ſaid ſo expreſly in my Epiſtle, and doe heartily ſubſcribe to the Votes of the Houſe. If he heartily ſubſcribe to the Votes and Ordinances of Parliament, then be heartily ſubſcribeth that Elderſhips ſuſpend men from the Sacrament for any of the ſcandalls enumerate, it being proved by Witneſſes upon oath; This power is corrective, not meerly doctrinall. He muſt alſo ſubſcribe to the ſubordination of Congrigationall, Claſſicall, and Synodicall aſſemblies in the Government of the Church, and to appeales from the leſſer to the greater, as likewiſe to Ordination by Presbyteries; and I pray, is all this meerly Doctrinall? And will he now ſubſcribe heartily to all this; how will that ſtand with the other paſſages before cited? or with Page 17. where it being objected to him, that he takes away from Elderſhips all power of ſpirituall Cenſures; his Reply neither yeeldeth Excommunication nor Suſpention, but Admonition alone, and that by the Miniſters who are a part of the Elderſhips, not by the whole Elderſhip Conſiſtorially. Againe, page 14. he confeſſeth; I adviſed the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon them, whom he, this Commiſſioner thinkes Church Officers, Paſtors and Ruling-Elders. Now I argue thus; he that adviſeth the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon Miniſters and ruling Elders, he adviſeth the Parliament to doe contrary to their owne Votes and Ordinances, and ſo is farre from ſubſcribing heartily thereunto. But Mr. Coleman by his owne confeſſion adviſeth the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon Miniſters and ruling Elders; Ergo, &c. how he will reconcile himſelfe with himſelfe, let him looke to it.

Page 11. He takes it ill that one while I make him an enemy to all Church Government, then onely to the Presbyteriall; Onely is his owne addition. But I had reaſon to make him an enemy to both, for ſo he hath made himſelfe; yea, in oppoſing all Church Government he cannot chuſe but oppoſe Presbyteriall Government: for the conſequence is neceſſary, A genere ad ſpeciem, negatively though not affirmatively. If no Church Government, then no Presbyteriall Government.

The particulars in my brief Examination, which Mr. Coleman either granteth expreſly, or elſe doth not reply unto.

MY Argument Page 32. proving, that as many things ought to be eſtabliſhed Jure divino as can well be, becauſe he cannot anſwer it, therefore he granteth it. Pag. 5.

He had in his Sermon call'd for plaine and cleare inſtitutions, and let Scripture ſpeake expreſly. Now pag. 7. he yeeldeth, that it is not onely a Divine Truth (as I call'd it) but cleare Scripture, which is drawne by neceſſary conſequence from Scripture.

He hath not yet (though put in minde) produced the leaſt exception againſt the known Arguments for Excommunication and Church Government, drawn from Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. he tells the affirmer is to prove; But the affirmers have proved: and their Arguments are known, (yea he himſelfe pag. 1. ſaith; I have had the opportunity to heare almoſt what man can ſay in either ſide, ſpeaking of the controverſie of Church Government) therefore he ſhould have made a better anſwer, then to ſay that thoſe places did not take hold of his Conſcience, yet if he have not heard enough of thoſe places he ſhall I truſt ere long heare more.

He had ſaid, I could never yet ſee how two Coordinate Governments exempt from ſuperiority and inferiority, can be in one State, Page 35. I gave him three Inſtances, a Generall and an Admirall, a Father and a Maſter, a Captaine and a Maſter of a Ship; This pag. 8. he doth not deny, nor ſaith one word againſt it; onely he endeavoureth to make thoſe Similes to run upon foure feete, and to reſemble the generall Aſſembly, and the Parliament in every circumſtance; but I did not at all apply them to the generall Aſſembly, and the Parliament. Onely I brought them to overthrow that generall Theſis of his concerning the inconſiſtency of two Co-ordinate Governments, which if he could defend; why hath not he done it?

His keeping up of the names of Clergy and Laiety being challenged by me, pag. 36. he hath not ſaid one word in his Re-examination to juſtifie it.

I having pag. 37, 38. confuted his Argument drawn from the meaſuring of others by himſelfe, whereby he did endeavour to prove that he had cauſe to feare an ambitious enſnarement in others as well as in himſelf, God having faſhioned all mens hearts alike; now he quitteth his ground and ſaith nothing for vindicating that Argument, from my exceptions.

I ſhewed pag. 40. his miſapplying of the King of Sodonus ſpeech, but neither in this doth he vindicate himſelfe.

That which I had at length excepted againſt his fourth Rule concerning the Magiſtrate, and his confirmation thereof, he hath not anſwered, nor ſo much as touched any thing which I had ſaid againſt him from the end of page 42. to the end of page 48. except onely a part of page 43. and of page 44. concerning 1 Cor. 12. 28. ſome contrarious argumentations he hath page 21. (of which after) but no anſwer to mine.

Page 10. He digreſſeth to other Objections of his own framing, inſtead of taking off what I had ſaid.

His abuſing of the Scriptures.

MAſter Coleman did ground an Argument upon Pſal. 33. 15, Prov. 27. 29. which cannot ſtand with the intent of the Holy Ghoſt, becauſe contrary to other Scriptures, and to the Truth, as I proved pag. 38. He anſwereth in his Reexamination that my ſence may ſtand, and his may ſtand too; but if my ſence may ſtand, which is contrary to his, then his Argument had no ſure ground for it; yea, that which I ſaid was to prove that his conſequence drawne from thoſe Scriptures did contradict both the Apoſtle Pauls Doctrine and his owne profeſſion, which ſtill lyeth upon him ſince it is not anſwered.

Page 14. He citeth 1 Cor. 10. 33. Give none offence neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Churches of Chriſt; to prove that all Government is either a Jewiſh Government, or a Church Government, or a Heatheniſh Government, and that there is no third; yes Sir, your ſelfe hath given a third, (for you have told three) but Tranſeat cum caeteris errorihus. To the matter. This is a perverting of Scripture to prove an untruth; for the Government of Generalls, Admiralls, Majors, Sheriffes, is neither a Jewiſh Government, nor a Church Government, nor a Heatheniſh Government. Neither doth the Apoſtle ſpeake any thing of Government in that place; he maketh a diſtribution of all men who are in danger to be ſcandalized, not of Governments. And if he had applyed the place rightly to the Parliament of England, he had ſaid, They are either of the Jewes, or of the Gentiles, or of the Church of God, and this needeth not an anſwer. But when he ſaith; The Engliſh Parliament is either a Jewiſh Government, or a Church Government, or a Heatheniſh Government, I anſwer it is none of theſe, but it is a Civill Government.

Pag. 15. Declaring his Opinion of Church Government, he citeth Rom. 13. 4. For the puniſhment of him that doth evill; to prove that the punitive part belongs to the Chriſtian Magiſtrate. But what is this to the punitive part which is in Controverſie, ſpirituall Cenſures, ſuſpention from the Sacrament, depoſition from the Miniſtery, Excommunication. The punitive part ſpoken of Rom. 13. belongeth to all civill Magiſtrates whether Chriſtian or Infidell.

Pag. 18. He maketh this reply to 1 Theſſ. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 17. Heb. 13. 7. 17. Why man! I have found theſe an hundred and an hundred times twice told, and yet am I as I was. Why Sir, was the Argument ſo ridiculous, I had brought thoſe places to prove another Government (and if you will the inſtitution of another Government) beſide Magiſtracy, which he ſaid he did not finde in Scripture. Here are ſome who are no civill Magiſtrates ſet over the Theſſalonians in the Lord, 1 Theſſ. 5. 12. Paul writeth to Timothy of Elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5. 17. the Churches of the Hebrewes had ſome Rulers who had ſpoken to them the Word of God, Heb. 13. 7. Rulers that watched for their ſoules as they that muſt give an account, verſe 17. Now let the reverend Brother ſpeake out, what can he anſwer? Were theſe Rulers civill Magiſtrates? Did the civill Magiſtrate ſpeake to them the Word of God? If theſe Rulers were not Magiſtrates but Miniſters, I aske next, Is it a matter of indifferency and no inſtitution to have a Miniſtery in a Church or not? I hope though he doe not acknowledge ruling Elders Jure divino, yet he will acknowledge that the Miniſters of the Word are Jure divino; yet theſe were ſome of the Rulers mentioned in the Scriptures quoted. Let him looſe the knot, and laugh when he hath done.

Page 19. 20. He labourerh to prove from 1 Cor. 12. 28. that Chriſt hath placed civill Government in his Church, and whereas it is ſaid, that though it were granted that civill Governments are meant in that place, yet it proves not that Chriſt hath placed them in the Church: He replyeth; I am ſure the Commiſſioner will not ſtand to this: he that placed Governours was the ſame that placed Teachers. But his aſſurance deceiveth him, for upon ſuppoſition that civill Governments are there meant, (which is his ſence) I deny it, and he doth but petere principium. God placed civill Governments, Chriſt placed Teachers; God placed all whom Chriſt placed, but Chriſt did not place all whom God placed. Next, whereas it was ſaid, that Governments in that place cannot be meant of Chriſtian Magiſtrates, becauſe at that time the Church had no Chriſtian Magiſtrates; He replyeth, that Paul ſpeaks of Governments that the Church had not, becauſe in the enumeration, ver. 29, 30. he omits none but helpes and Governments. I anſwer, the reaſon of that omiſſion is not becauſe theſe two were not then in being (for God had ſet them as well as the reſt in the Church, ver. 28.) but to make ruling Elders and Deacons contented with their ſtation, though they be not Prophets, Teachers, &c. Thirdly, I asked how comes civill Government into the Catalogue of Eccleſiaſticall and Spiritaall adminiſtrations. His reply is nothing but an affirmation, that Chriſtian Megiſtracy is an Eccleſiaſticall admiration, and a Quere whether working of Miracles and gifts of Healing be Eccleſiaſticall. Anſw. Hence followeth, 1. That if the Magiſtrate ceaſe to be Chriſtian, he loſeth his adminiſtration. 2. That though a worker of Miracles ceaſe to be Chriſtian, yet it is a queſtion whether he may not ſtill worke Miracles. Laſtly, where I objected that he puts Magiſtracy behind Miniſtery, he makes no anſwer, but onely that he may doe this as well as my rule puts the Nobility of Scotland behind the Miniſtery. No Sir, we put but ruling Elders behind Miniſters in the order of their adminiſtrations, becauſe the Apoſtle doth ſo. It is accidentall to the ruling Elder to be of the Nobility, or to Nobles to be ruling Elders: there are but ſome ſo, and many otherwiſe. That of placing Deacons before Elders, 1 Cor. 12. 28 is no great matter, ſure the Apoſtle, Rom. 12. placeth Elders before Deacons.

His Errors in Divinity.

1. Pag. 21. He admitteth no Church-government diſtinct from Civill, except that which is meerly doctrinall. And pa. 14. He adviſeth the Parliament to take the corrective power wholly into their own hands, and exempteth nothing of Eccleſiaſticall power from their hands but the diſpencing of the Word and Sacraments. Hence it followeth that there ought to be neither ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, nor excommunication, nor ordination, nor depoſition of Miniſters, nor receiving of Appeals, except all theſe things be done by the Civill Magiſtrate. If he ſay the Magiſtrate gives leave to do theſe things. I anſwer. 1. So doth he give leave to preach the Word, and miniſter the Sacraments in his Dominions. 2. Why doth he then in his Sermon, and doth ſtill in his Re-examination, pag. 14. adviſe the Parlament to lay no burthen of corrective Government upon Miniſters, but keep it wholly in their own hands: It muſt needs be far contrary to his mind, that the Magiſtrate gives leave to do the things above mentioned, they being moſt of them corrective, and all of them more than doctrinall. 3. He gives no more power to Miniſters in Church-government then in Civill government: for pag. 11. he aſcribeth to them a miniſteriall, doctrinall, and declarative power, both in Civill and Eccleſiaſticall Government.

2. Pag. 11. and 14. he holds, that the corrective or punitive part of Church-government is Civill or Temporall, and is wholly to be kept in the Magiſtrates own hands. And in his Sermon, pag. 25. he told us he ſees not in the whole Bible any one act of that Church-government in controverſie, performed. All which how erroneous it is, appeareth eaſily from 1 Cor. 5. 12. Put away that wicked Perſon from among you: which Mr. Prynne himſelf in his Ʋindication, pag. 2. acknowledgeth to be a warrant for Excommunication, 2 Cor. 2. 6. there is a puniſhment or cenſure inflicted by many, 1 Tim. 5. 19. Againſt an Elder receive not an accuſation but before two or three witneſſes. Where acts of Church-government or cenſures were neglected, it is extremly blamed. Rev: 2. 14, 15. 20. was not all this corrective, yet not civill or temporall?

3. Pag. 9. Whereas I had ſaid that without Church-government, Miniſters ſhall not keep themſelves nor the ordinances from pollution. He replyeth pag. 9. That he underſtands neither this keeping of themſelves from pollution, no • what this pollution of the ordinances is. I am ſorry for it, that any Miniſter of the Goſpel is found unclear in ſuch a point. I will not give my own, but Scripturall anſwers to both. The former is anſwered, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Be not partaker of other mens ſins, keep thy ſelf pure. It is ſin to diſpenſe ordinances to the unworthy whether Ordination, or Communion in the Sacrament. For the other the pollution of Ordinances is the Scripture language. I hope he means not to quarrell at the holy Ghoſts language, Ezek. 22. 26. Her Prieſts have violated my Law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane. Mal. 1. 7. Ye offer polluted bread, upon mine altar: verſ. 12. Ye have prophaned it. Mat. 21. 13. Ye have made it a den of theeves. Matth: 7. 6. Caſt not pearls before ſwine, leſt they trample them under their feet.

4. Pag. 11. Whereas I had objected to him, that he excludeth ruling Elders, as well as Miniſters from government: He anſwers, that Ruling Elders are either the ſame for office and Ordination with the Miniſter (which as he thinks the Independents own, but not I) or they are the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, and ſo he ſaith he doth not exclude them. Mark here he excludeth all ruling Elders from a ſhare in Church-government, who are not either the ſame for office and Ordination with the Miniſter, or elſe the Chriſtian Magiſtrate; and ſo upon the matter he holdeth that ruling Elders are to have no hand in Church-government. Thoſe ruling Elders which are in the votes of the Aſſembly, and in the Reformed Churches, have neither the power of Civill Magiſtracy (qua Elders and many of them not at all being no Magiſtrates) nor yet are they the ſame for office and ordination with the Miniſter, for their office, and conſequently their ordination to that office, is diſtinct from that of the Miniſter, among all that I know. And ſo excluding all ruling Elders from Government who are neither Magiſtrates nor the ſame with Miniſters, he muſt needs take upon him that which I charged him with.

5. Pag. 21. Where he makes reply to what he had ſaid againſt his Argument from Epheſ. 1. three laſt verſes. He ſaith he will blow away all my diſcourſe with this clear demonſtration. That which is given to Chriſt, he hath it not as God, and Chriſt as God cannot be given. But this place (Epheſ. 1. three laſt verſes) ſpeaketh both of dignity given to Chriſt, and of Chriſt as a gift given. Therefore Chriſt cannot be here underſtood as God. This is in oppoſition to what I ſaid pag. 45. concerning the headſhip and dignity of Chriſt, as the naturall Son of God, the Image of the inviſible God. Coloſ. 1. 15. And pag. 43. of the dominion of Chriſt as he is the eternall Son of God. This being premiſed, the Brothers demonſtration is ſo ſtrong as to blow himſelf into a blaſphemous hereſie. I will take the Propoſition from himſelf, and the aſſumption from Scripture, thus. That which is given to Chriſt, he hath it not as God. But all power in heaven and in earth is given to Chriſt, Matth. 28. 18. Life is given to Chriſt, Joh. 5. 26. Authority to execute judgement is given to Chriſt, Ibid. ver. 27. All things are given into Chriſts hands, Joh. 3. 35. The Father hath given him power over all fleſh, Joh: 17. 2. he hath given him glory, Joh: 17. 22. Ergo, by Mr. Colemans principles, Chriſt hath neither life, nor glory, nor authority to execute judgement, nor power over all fleſh, as he is the eternall Son of God conſubſtantiall with the Father, but onely as he is Mediator God and Man. As for the giving of Chriſt as God, what if I argue thus. If Chriſt as he is the eternall Son of God, or ſecond Perſon of the ever bleſſed Trinity, could not be given, then the incarnation it ſelf, or the ſending of the Son of God to take on our fleſh, cannot be called a giving of a gift to us. But this were impious to ſay. Ergo. Again, if Chriſt as he is the ſecond Perſon of the bleſſed Trinity could not be given, then the holy Ghoſt as he is the third Perſon cannot be given (for they are coeſſentiall, and that which were a diſhonour to God the Son, were a diſhonour to God the holy Ghoſt) But to ſay that the holy Ghoſt cannot be given as the third Perſon, were to ſay that he cannot be given as the holy Ghoſt. And what will he then ſay to all theſe Scriptures that ſpeak of the giving of the holy Ghoſt? Act. 15. 8. Rom. 5. 5. 1 Joh: 4. 13. &c.

Finally, as Mr. Colemans demonſtration hath blown away it ſelf, ſo it could not hurt me, were it ſolid and good (as it is not) for he ſhould have taken notice that in my examination I did not reſtrict the dignity given to Chriſt, Epheſ. 1. 21. Nor the giving of Chriſt, verſ. 22. to the Divine nature onely. Nay I told pag. 44, 45. that thoſe words of the Apoſtle hold true even of the humane nature of Chriſt.

6. Pag. 21. he concludeth with a Syllogiſme which he calleth the ſcope of my Diſcourſe (I know not by what Logick the Propoſition being forged by himſelf, and contrary to my Diſcourſe) thus it is.

Whoſoever do not manage their office and authority under Chriſt and for Chriſt, they manage it under the devill, and for the devill, for there is no middle, either Chriſt or Belial. He that is not with me is againſt me.

But according to the opinion of the Commiſſioner, Chriſtian Magiſtracy doth not manage the Office and Authority thereof under Chriſt, and for Chriſt.

Therefore,

He beleeves I ſhall be hard put to it, to give the Kingdom a clear and ſatisfactory anſwer. Its wel that this is the hardeſt task he could ſet me.

The truth is, his Syllogiſme hath quatuor terminos, and is therefore worthy to be exploded by all that know the Laws of diſputation. Thoſe words in the Propoſition under Chriſt, and for Chriſt, can have no other ſence, but to be ſerviceable to Chriſt, to take part with him, and to be for the glory of Chriſt, as is clear by the confirmation added, He that is not with me is againſt me. But the ſame words in the aſſumption muſt needs have another ſence, under Chriſt and for Chriſt, that is, Vice Chriſti, in Chriſts ſtead. For that which I denyed was, that Magiſtracy is derived from Chriſt as Mediator, or that Chriſt as Mediator hath given a commiſſion of Vicegerentſhip and Deputy-ſhip to the Chriſtian Magiſtrate to manage his office and authority under & for him, and in his Name. As is clear in my Examination, pag. 42. Nay Mr. Coleman himſelf a little before his Syllogiſme, pa. 19. takes notice of ſo much. His words are theſe. The Commiſſioner ſaith, Magiſtracy i • not derived from Chriſt: I ſay Magiſtracy is given to Chriſt to be ſerviceable in his kingdom: So that though the Commiſſioners aſſertion be ſound (which in due place will be diſcuſſed) yet it infringeth nothing that I ſaid. Now then quâ fide could he in his Argument againſt me confound theſe two things which he himſelf had but juſt now carefully diſtinguiſhed. If he will make any thing of his Syllogiſme, he muſt hold at one of theſe two ſences. In the firſt ſence, it is true that all are either for Chriſt or againſt Chriſt. And it is as true that his aſſumption muſt be diſtinguiſhed. For de facto the Chriſtian Magiſtrate is for Chriſt when he doth his duty faithfully, and is againſt Chriſt if he be unfaithfull. But de jure, it holds true univerſally that the Chriſtian Magiſtrate manageth his office under and for Chriſt, that is, ſo as to be ſerviceable for the kingdom and glory of Chriſt.

In the ſecond ſence (which onely concerneth me) taking under and for Chriſt, to be in Chriſts ſtead as his Deputies or Vicegerents: ſo his Aſſumption, is lame and imperfect, becauſe it doth not hold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did and ſtill do hold is this. That the Civill Magiſtrate, whether Chriſtian or Pagan, is Gods Vicegerent, who by vertue of that vicegerent-ſhip is to manage his office and Authority under God, and for God, that is in Gods ſtead, and as God upon earth. But he is not the Vicegerent of Chriſt as Mediator, neither is he by vertue of any ſuch Vicegerentſhip to manage his office and Authority under Chriſt, and for Chriſt, that is, in Chriſts ſtead, and as Chriſt Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (nor mine alone, but of others more learned) and Mr. Coleman hath not ſaid ſo much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to confute it. So much for the Aſſumption. But in the ſame ſence I utterly deny his Propoſition as being a great untruth in Divinity, for the ſence of it can be no other then this, Whoſoever do not manage their office and authority in Chriſts ſtead, or as Deputies and Vicegerents of Chriſt as he is Mediator, they manage it in the Devils ſtead, as the devils deputies and Vicegerents. Now I aſſume. Pagan Magiſtrates do not manage their office as the Deputies and Vicegerents of Jeſus Chriſt, as he is Mediator: Ergo as the devils deputies. Which way was the Authority derived to them from Chriſt as Mediator. Mr. Coleman pag. 19. ſaith in anſwer to this particular (formerly objected) that Chriſt is rightfull King of the whole earth, and all Nations ought to receive Chriſt, though as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to ſhew, was that the Pagan Magiſtrate, even while continuing Pagan, and not Chriſtian, doth manage his office as Chriſts Deputy and Vicegerent. If not, then I conclude by his principles, a Pagan Magiſtrate is the devils deputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to Pauls doctrine, who will have us to be ſubject for conſcience ſake, even to Heathen Magiſtrates as the Miniſters of God for good. Rom. 13. firſt 7 verſes. By the ſame Argument Mr. Coleman muſt grant that Generals, Admirals, Majors, Sheriffes, Conſtables, Captains, Maſters, yea every man that hath an office, is either Chriſts Vicegerent, or the devils vicegerent: then which what can be more abſurd? I might beſide all theſe ſhew ſome other flawes in his Divinity, as namely, pa. 9. and 13. He doth not agree to this Propoſition, that the admitting of the ſcandalous and prophane to the Lords Table, makes Miniſters to partake of their ſins. And he ſuppoſeth that Miniſters may do their duty, though they admit the ſcandalous. But of this elſewhere.

His abuſing of the Honorable Houſes of Parlament.

MOſt Honorable Senators, I humbly beſeech you to look about you, and take notice how far you are abuſed by Mr. Coleman.

1. While he pretendeth to give you more then his Brethren, he taketh a great deal more from you, and (ſo far as in him lieth) even ſhaketh the foundation of your Authority. The known tenure of Magiſtracy is from God, he is the Miniſter of God for good, and the powers that are, are ordained of God, ſaith the Apoſtle; The Magiſtrate is Gods Vicegerent. But now this Brother ſeeketh a new Tenure and derivation of Magiſtracy, which takes away the old. He told in his Sermon, pa. 27. Chriſt hath placed Governments in his Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Of other Governments beſide Magiſtracy I find no inſtitution, of them I do. Rom. 13. 1, 2. I find all government given to Chriſt, and to Chriſt as Mediator, (I deſire all to conſider it) Epheſ. 1. three laſt▪ verſ. and Chriſt as head of theſe given to the Church. Here you have theſe three in ſubordination. God, Chriſt, and the Chriſtian Magiſtrate. God gives once all government even civill to Chriſt, and to him as Mediator. Well but how comes it then to the Magiſtrate? Not ſtraight by a deputation from God. Mr. Colemans doctrine makes an interception of the power. He holds that God hath put it in Chriſts hands as Mediator. How then? The Brother holdeth that Chriſt as Mediator hath inſtituted and placed the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, yea and no other Government in his Church. This was the ground of my Anſwer, pag. 42. that he muſt either prove from Scripture that Chriſt as Mediator hath given ſuch a Commiſſion of Vicegerent-ſhip and Deputy-ſhip to the Chriſtian Magiſtrate: or otherwiſe acknowledge that he hath given a moſt dangerous wound to Magiſtracie, and made it an emptie title claiming that power which it hath no warrant to aſſume. I added: As the Mediator hath not any where given ſuch a Commiſſion and power to the Magiſtrate, ſo as Mediator he had it not to give: for he was not made a Judge in civill affairs, Luk. 12. 14. and his kingdom is not of this world. Joh. 18. 36. Now but what reply hath he made to all this? pa. 19. he ſaith granting it all to be true and ſound, yet it infringeth not what he ſaid. The Commiſſioner (ſaith he) ſaith Magiſtracy is not derived from Chriſt: I ſay Magiſtracie is given to Chriſt to be ſerviceable in his kingdom. But by his good leave and favour he ſaid a great deal more then this, for he ſpake of Chriſt his being head of all civill Governments, and his placing theſe in his Church, as he is Mediator. Yea that fourth rule delivered by him in his Sermon, did hold forth theſe aſſertions. 1. That God gave all government even civill to Chriſt, and to him as Mediator. 2. That Chriſt as Mediator hath power and authority to place and ſubſtitute under and for him the Chriſtian Magiſtrate. 3. That Chriſt hath placed and inſtituted civill Governments in his Church, to be under and for him as he is Mediator. 4. That the Chriſtian Magiſtrate doth, and all Magiſtrates ſhould manage their office under and for Chriſt, (that is, as his Vicegerents) he being as Mediator head of all civil Government. Now in ſtead of defending his Doctrine from my juſt exceptions made againſt it, he revileth, and having brought the Magiſtrate in a ſnare, leaves him there. He endeavours to vindicate no more but this, that Magiſtracy is given to Chriſt to be ſerviceable in his kingdom. But if he had ſaid ſo at firſt, I had ſaid with him, and not againſt him in that point. And if he will yet hold at that, why doth he pag. 19. refer my Aſſertion to further diſcuſſion?

Secondly, he hath abuſed the Parliament in holding forth that rule to them in his Sermon, Eſtabliſh as few things Jure divino as can well be. And yet now he is made by ſtrength of argument to acknowledge pag. 5. that this is a good rule. Eſtabliſh as many things. Jure divino as can well be.

Thirdly, I having ſtated the queſtion to be not whether this or that form of Church-Government be Jure divino, but whether a Church Government be Jure divino? whether Chriſt hath thus far revealed his will in his Word, that there are to be Church cenſures, and thoſe to be diſpenced by Churchofficers. I ſaid the Brother is for the negative of this queſtion, pa. 32. This he flatly denieth, pag. 5, 6. Whereby he acknowledgeth the affirmative, that there is a Church Government Jure divino, and that Jeſus Chriſt hath ſo far revealed his will in his Word, that there are to be Church Cenſures, and thoſe to be diſpenſed by Church-officers. But how doth this agree with his Sermon? Chriſt hath placed Governments in his Church. Of other Governments (ſaid he) beſide Magiſtracie I find no inſtitution, of them I do. Is Magiſtracie Church-Government? Are Magiſtrates Church-officers? are the civill puniſhments Church Cenſures? Is this the myſtery? Yes, that it is: He will tell us anon that the Houſes of Parliament are Church-Officers; but if that bolt doe any hurt I am much miſtaken.

Fourthly, He profeſſeth to ſubſcribe to the Votes of Parliament concerning Church-Government, page 11. and yet he ſtill pleadeth that all Eccleſiaſticall Government is meerely Doctrinall, ibid. the Parliament having Voted that power to Church-Officers which is not Doctrinall (as I ſhewed before) And he adviſeth the Parliament to keep wholy in their own hands the corrective part of Church-Government, page 14. though the Parliament hath put into the hands of Elderſhips a power of ſuſpention from the Sacrament, which is corrective.

Fifthly, he did deliver in that Sermon before the Honourable Houſe of Commons, divers particulars, which being juſtly excepted againſt, and he undertaking a Vindication, yet he hath receded from them, or not being able to defend them, as that concerning two co-ordinate Governments in one Kingdome, and his Argument concerning the feare of an ambitious enſnarement in Miniſters; theſe being by me enfringed he hath not ſo much as offered to make them good.

Sixtly, having acknowledged under his owne hand that he was ſorry he had given offence to the Reverend Aſſembly, and to the Commiſſioners from Scotland, he now appealeth to the Parliament, and tells us they are able to judge of a ſcandalous Sermon, and they thought not ſo of it, page 3. I know they are able to judge of a ſcandalous Sermon, that they thought not ſo of it, its more then I know or beleeve; however I know they have a tender reſpect to the offence of others even when themſelves are not offended, and ſo they and all men ought to doe according to the rule of Chriſt: for his part after he had acknowledged he had given offence, it is a diſ-ſervice to the Parliament to lay over the thing upon them; for my part, I thinke I doe better ſervice to the Parliament in interpreting otherwiſe that ſecond Order of the Houſe, not onely deſiring but injoyning Mr. Coleman to Print that Sermon; as near as he could as he Preached it. This was not (as he takes it) one portion of approbation above all its Brethren (for I ſhall not beleeve that ſo wiſe an Auditory was not at all ſcandalized at the hearing of that which was contrary both to the Covenant, and to their own Votes concerning Church-Government; nor at that which he told them out of the Jewiſh Records, that Hezekiah was the firſt man that ever was ſick in the world, and did recover) but as I humbly conceive it was a reall cenſure put upon him: his Sermon being ſo much excepted againſt and ſtumbled at, the Honourable Houſe of Commons did wiſely injoyne him to Print his Sermon, that it might abide triall in the light of the world, and lye open to any juſt exceptions which could be made againſt it abroad, and that he might ſtand or fall to himſelf.

Seventhly, he abuſeth the Parliament by arrogating ſo much to himſelfe as that his Sermon will in the end take away all difference, and ſettle union, page 3. and that his Modell will be when he is dead the Modell of Englands Church-Government, as he ſaith in his Poſtſcript, whether this be Prophecying or preſuming, I hope we are free to judge And what if the Wiſedome and Authority of the Honourable Houſes upon advice from the Reverend and learned Aſſembly chuſe another way than this? Muſt all the Synodicall debates, and all the grave Parliamentary Conſultations reſolve themſelves into Maſter Colemans way, like Jordan into Mare Mortuum.

Eightly, He doth extreamly wound the Authority of Parliament in making their Office to be a Church Office, and of the ſame kind with the Miniſters Office, page 14. Doe not I hold Miniſters Church-Officers? And a little after. I deſire the Parliament to conſider another Presbyterian principle, that excludes your Honourable Aſſembly from being Church-Officers. If ſo, then the Offices of the Magiſtrate and of the Miniſter muſt ſtand and fall together; that is, if the Nation were not chriſtian, the Office of Magiſtracy ſhould ceaſe as well as that of the Miniſtery; and if he make the Magiſtrate a Church-Officer, he muſt alſo give him Ordination, except with the Socinians he deny the neceſſity of Ordination.

His abuſing the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines.

WHereas I had objected that his Sermon had given no ſmall ſcandall and offence, he replyeth page 3. But hath it given offence? to whom? I appeale to the Honourable Audience. Is this candide or faire dealing when he himſelfe knew both that he had given offence, and to whom. I ſhall give him no other anſwer but his owne Declaration which he gave under his hand, after he had Preached that Sermon.

For much of what is reported of my Sermon I utterly deny, and referre my ſelfe to the Sermon it ſelfe; for what I have acknowledged to be delivered by me, although it is my judgement, yet becauſe I ſee it hath given a great deale of offence to this Aſſembly, and the Reverend Commiſſioners of Scotland; I am ſorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof. And for the Printing, although I have an Order, I will forbeare, except I be further commanded. Tho. Coleman.

Page 33. I had this paſſage: And where he asketh where the Independents and we ſhould meet? I anſwer; In holding a Church Government Jure divino, that is, that the Paſtours and Elders ought to ſuſpend, or Excommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) ſcandalous ſinners. Who can tell but the purging of the Church from ſcandalls, and the keeping of the Ordinances pure (when it ſhall be actually ſeene to be the great Worke endeavoured on both ſides) may make union between us and the Independents more eaſie then many imagine. What reply hath he made to this? pag. 6. Sure I dreame (Awake then) But I will tell you newes: The Presbiterians and Independents are (he ſhould have ſaid may be) united; nay more, the Lutherans and Calviniſts: nay more yet, the Papiſt and Proteſtant: nay more then ſo, the Turk and Chriſtian. But wherein? In holding that there is a Religion wherein men ought to walke. No Sir; they muſt be united upon the like termes: that is, you muſt firſt have Turkes to be Chriſtians, and Papiſts to be Proteſtants, and then you muſt have them as willing to purge the Church of ſcandalls, and to keepe the Ordinances pure. We will never diſpaire of an union with ſuch as are ſound in the Faith, holy in life, and willing to a Church-refining and ſin-cenſuring Government in the hands of Church Officers. In the meane while it is no light imputation upon the Aſſembly to hint this much, that the harmony and concord among the Members thereof for ſuch a Government as I have now named (though in ſome other particulars diſſenting) can no more unite them, than Turkes and Chriſtians, Papiſts and Proteſtants can be united; and now I will tell you my newes; the Presbiterians and Independents are both equally intereſted againſt the Eraſtian Principles.

He reflecteth alſo upon the Aſſembly in the point of Jus divinum, page 6. But what his part hath been in reference to the proceedings in the Aſſembly is more fully, and in divers particulars expreſſed in the Briefe view of Mr. Coleman his new Modell, unto which he hath offered no anſwer.

His Calumnies.

PAge 3. He deſireth me with wiſdome and humility to minde what Church-refining, and ſin-cenſuring worke this Church-Government with all his activity hath made in Scotland, in the point of promiſcuous communicating; I ſhall deſire him with wiſdome and humility to mind what charity or conſcience there is in ſuch an aſperſion; I dare ſay divers thouſands have keen kept off from the Sacrament in Scotland, as unworthy to be admitted, where I my ſelfe have exerciſed my Miniſtery, there have been ſome hundreds kept off; partly for ignorance, and partly for ſcandall. The order of the Church of Scotland, and the Acts of generall Aſſemblies are for keeping off all ſcandalous Perſons, which every godly and faithfull Miniſter doth conſcientiouſly and effectually endeavour; and if here or there it be too much neglected by ſome Archippus who takes not heed to fulfill the Miniſtery which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his Elderſhip beare the blame, and anſwer for it.

Page 4. I having profeſſed my unwillingneſſe to fall upon ſuch a Controverſie in a Faſt Sermon. He replyeth; How can you ſay, you were unwilling? But how can you in brotherly charity doubt of it, after I had ſeriouſly profeſſed it? My doing it at two ſeverall Faſts (the onely opportunities I then had to give a teſtimony to that preſently controverted truth is no Argument of the contrary. May not a man doe a thing twenty times over and yet doe it unwillingly?

Page 5. He ſlandereth thoſe that did in their Sermons give a publike teſtimony againſt his Doctrine, the occaſion (as he gives out) not being offered, but taken. But had they not a publike calling and employment to Preach as well as himſelfe? And if a Faſt was not occaſion offered to them, how was a Faſt an occaſion offered to him to fall upon the ſame controverſie firſt, and when none had done the like before him?

A fourth Calumny is this. He had firſt blamed two Parties that they came byaſſed to the Aſſembly; I anſwered, How then ſhall he make himſelfe blameleſſe who came byaſſed a third way, which was the Eraſtian way; and that for our part we came no more byaſſed to this Aſſembly then the forraine Divines came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander to the Councell of Nice, and Cyrell to that of Epheſus, and Paul to the Synod at Jeruſalem; but now page 6. 7, inſtead of doing us right he doth us greater injury, for now he makes us byaſſed not onely by our owne judgements, but by ſomething adventitious from without, which he denyeth himſelf to be, (but how truely I take not on me to judge: beholders doe often perceive the byaſſing better then the Bowlers) yea he ſaith, that I have acknowledged the byas, and juſtifie it. Where Sir, where? I deny it; Its no byas for a man to be ſetled, reſolved, and ingaged in his judgement for the truth, eſpecially when willing to receive more light, and to learne what needeth to be further reformed. Hath he forgotten his owne definition of the byas which he had but juſt now given? But he will needs make it more then probable by the inſtances which I brought, that the Commiſſioners from Scotland came not to this Aſſembly, as Divines by diſpute and diſquiſition to finde out truth, but as Judges to cenſure all different opinions as errours; for ſo came forraigne Divines to Dort, Alexander to the Councell of Nice, Cyrill to Epheſus. Is it not enough to ſlander us, though he doe not for our ſakes ſlander thoſe worthy Divines that came to the Synod of Dort, Alexander alſo and Cyrill, prime Witneſſes for the truth in their daies? could no leſſe content him then to approve the Objections of the Arminians againſt the Synod of Dort, which I had mentioned page 33? but he gets not away ſo; the ſtrongeſt inſtance which I had given he hath not once touched: it was concerning Paul and Barnabas who were ingaged (not in the behalfe of one Nation, but of all the Churches of the Gentiles) againſt the impoſition of the Moſaicall Rites, and had ſo declared themſelves at Antioch before they came to Jeruſalem. Finally, whereas he doubts, though not of our willingneſſe to learne more, yet of our permiſſion to receive more: That very paper firſt given in by us (which I had cited, and unto which he makes this reply) did ſpeake not onely of our learning, but of the Church of Scotlands receiving; and which is more, there is an actuall experiment of it, the laſt generall Aſſembly having ordered the laying aſide of ſome particular cuſtomes in that Church, and that for the nearer uniformity with this Church of England, as was expreſſed in their owne Letter to the reverend Aſſembly of Divines.

A fifth calumny there is, page 9. 6. The Commiſſioner is content that Jus divinum ſhould be a Noli me tangere to the Parliament, yet blames what himſelfe grants. I was never content it ſhould be a Noli me tangere to the Parliament, but at moſt a Non neceſſe eſt tangere, for ſo I explained my ſelfe, page 32, 33. If the Parliament eſtabliſh that thing which is agreeable to the Word of God, though they doe not eſtabliſh it as Jure divino, I acquieſce; in the meane time both they and all Chriſtians, but eſpecially Miniſters ought to ſearch the Scriptures, that what they doe in matters of Church-Government they may doe it in faith and aſſurance that it is acceptable to God. It was not of Parliamentary Sanction, but of Divines doctrinall aſſerting of the will of God that I ſaid, Why ſhould Ius Divinum be ſuch a Nolime tangere?

6 It ſeemes ſtrange to him that I did at all give inſtance of the uſefulneſſe of Church-Government in the preſervation of purity in the Ordinances and in Church-members. He ſaith for an Independent to have given this inſtance, had been ſomething; but it ſeemes ſtrange to him that I ſhould have given an inſtance of the power and efficacy of Government, as it is Preſbyteriall, and contradiſtinct to Congregationall. This is a calumny againſt Presbyteriall Government, which is neither privative nor contradiſtinct, but cumulative to Congregationall Government; and the Congregationall is a part of that Government which is comprehended under the name of Presbyteriall. But in caſes of common concernment, difficulty, appeals, and the like, the preſerving of the Ordinances and Church-members from pollution, doth belong to Presbyteries and Synods.

7 He ſayth of me, page 9. He aſcribeth this power of purif • ing men, and means of advancing the power of godlineſſe afterward, to Government. A calumny. It was only a ſine quo non which I aſcribed to Government, thus farre, that without it Miniſters ſhall not keep themſelves nor the Ordinances from pollution, pag. 23. But that Church-Government hath power to purify men, I never thought it, nor ſaid it. That which I ſayd of the power (which he pointeth at) was, that his way can neither preſerve the purity, nor advance the power of Religion; page 40. and the reaſon is, becauſe his way provideth no eccleſiaſticall effectuall remedy for removing and purging away the moſt groſſe ſcandalous ſinnes, which are deſtructive to the power of godlineſſe. God muſt by his Word and Spirit purify men, and work in them the power of godlineſſe. The Church-Government which I plead for againſt him, is a meanes ſubſervient and helpfull, ſo farre as removere prohibens, to remove that which apparently is impeditive and deſtructive to that purity and power.

8 Having told us of the proud ſwelling waves of Presbyteriall Goverment, I asked upon what coaſt had thoſe waves done any hurt, France, or Scotland, or Holland, or Terra incognita? He replieth page 12. I confeſſe, I have had no great experience of the Presbyteriall Government. Why make you bold then to ſlander it, when you can give no ſure ground for that you ſay? He tels us, his feares ariſe from Scotland, and from London. The Reverend and worthy Miniſters of London can ſpeak for themſelves aetatem habent. For my part (though I know not the particulars) I am bound in charity not to beleeve thoſe aſperſions put upon them by a diſcontented Brother. But what from Scotland? I my ſelfe (ſayth he) did heare the Presbytery of Edingburgh cenſure a woman to be baniſhed out of the gates of the City; was not this an encroachment? It had bin an encroachment indeed, if it had bin ſo. But he will excuſe me if I anſwer him in his own language (which I uſe not) page 3 and 5. It is at the beſt a moſt uncharitable ſlander. And, there was either ignorance or mindleſneſſe in him that ſets it down.

There is no Baniſhment in Scotland but by the Civill Magiſtrate, who ſo farre aideth and aſſiſteth Church Diſcipline, that prophane and ſcandalous perſons when they are found unruly and incorrigible, are puniſhed with Banſhment or otherwiſe. A ſtranger comming at a time into one of our Presbyteries, and hearing of ſomewhat which was repreſented to or reported from the Magiſtrate, ought to have had ſo much both circumſpection and charity, as not to make ſuch a raſh and untrue report. He might have at leaſt enquired when he was in Scotland and informed himſelfe better, whether Preſbyteries or the Civill Magiſtrate doe baniſh. If he made no ſuch enquiry, he was raſh injudging. If he did, his offence is greater, when after information he will not underſtand.

9 He makes this to be a poſition of mine, pag. 13. That a learned Miniſtery puts no black marke upon prophaneneſſe more then upon others. A calumny. For firſt he makes me to ſpeake Nonſence. Secondly I did not ſpeake it of a learned Miniſtery, but of his way page 40. How long agoe ſince a learned Miniſtery was knowne by the name of Maſter Colemans way? His way is a Miniſtery without power of Government, or Church Cenſures. Of this his way I ſaid, that it putteth no black marke upon prophaneneſſe and ſcandall in Church Members more than in any others. And the reaſon is, becauſe the corrective or punitive part of Government he will have to be only Civill or Temporall▪ which ſtriketh againſt thoſe that are without, as well as thoſe within. Put the Apoſtle tells us of ſuch a corrective Governement, as is a judging of thoſe that are within, and of thoſe only 1 Cor. 5. 12. And this way (which is not only ours, but the Apoſtolicall way) puts a black marke upon prophaneneſſe & ſcandalous ſins, in Church members more then in any others.

10. He ſaith of me page 17. The Commiſſioner is the only man that we ſhall meet with, that forſaking the words, judgeth of the Intentions. A Calumny. I judged nothing but ex ore tuo. But in this thing he himſelfe hath treſpaſſed. I will inſtance but in two particulars. In that very place he ſaith Admonition is a ſpirituall cenſure in the Commiſſioners opinion. Whence knowes he that to be my opinion? Conſiſtoriall or Presbyteriall Admonition given to the unruly, may be called a cenſure. And if this were his meaning, then aſcribing to Elderſhips power of Admonition, he gives them ſome power of ſpirituall Cenſures, and ſo ſomething of the corrective part of Government; which were contrary to his owne Principles. But he ſpeaketh it of the Miniſters admoniſhing, who are but a part of the Elderſhips, as himſelfe there granteth. Now where did I ever ſay or write, that Admonition by a Miniſter is a ſpirituall cenſure? Againe page 4. He ſo judgeth me, that he not only forſaketh but contradicteth my words, How can you ſay you were unwilling?

11. He ſaith page 16. Now the Commiſſioner ſpeaks out, &c▪ What! not the Parliament of England meddle with Religion? A horrid calumny. Where have I ſaid it. Dic ſodes. I never preached before 〈…〉 but I exhorted them to meddle with Religion, and that in the firſt place and above all other things. I ſhall ſooner prove, that Maſter Coleman will not have the Parliament of England to meddle with Civill affaires, becauſe he makes them Church Officers. Its a non-ſequitur. Their power is Civill, Ergo they are not to meddle with Religion? It will be a better conſequence. They are Church Officers. So he makes them, page 14. and Chriſtian Magiſtracy is an Eccleſiaſticall Adminiſtration. So he ſaith, page 20. Ergo, they are not to meddle with Civill Government.

The Repugnancy of his Doctrine to the ſolemn League and Covenant.

Mr Coleman, pag. 13. acknowledgeth that to aſſert any thing contrary to the ſolemn League and Covenant, is a great fault in any, in himſelfe more then in divers others, if made out: He having for his own part taken it with the firſt, and not only ſo, but having adminſtred it to divers others: Yes, and take this one circumſtance more. In his Sermon upon, Jer. 30. 21. at the taking of the Covenant, Septemb. 29. 1643. He anſwereth this objection againſt the extirpation of Prelacy. But what if the exorbitancies be purged away, may not I notwithſtanding my Oath, admit of a regulated Prelacy? for ſatisfaction to this objection; He anſwereth thus, Firſt, we ſwear not againſt a Government, that is not. Secondly, we ſwear againſt the evils of every Government, and doubtleſſe many materials of Prelacy muſt of neceſſity be retained, as abſolutely neceſſary. Thirdly, taking away the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new Government, and no Prelacy. Let the Brother now deale ingenuouſly; What did he underſtand by thoſe materials of Prelacy abſolutely neceſſary to be retained? did he underſtand the diſpenſing of the Word and Sacraments, which is common to all Paſtors? Or, did he underſtand the Priviledges of Parliament? Were either of thoſe two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of theſe, Was this the way to ſatisfie that ſcruple concerning the extirpation of Prelacy? Again, what was that new Government which he promiſed them, after the taking away of the exorbitancies of the old? Was it the Miniſters doctrinall part? that is no new thing in England. Was it the Parliaments aſſuming of the corrective part of Church-Government (as hee improperly diſtinguiſheth) wholy and ſoly into their own hands, excluding the Miniſtery from having any hand therein? This were a new Government I confeſſe. But ſure he could not in any reaſon intend this as a ſatisfaction to the ſcruples of ſuch as deſired a regulated Prelacy, whoſe ſcruples he then ſpoke to; for this had been the way to diſſwade them from, not to perſwade them to the Covenant.

But I goe along with his Re-examination, pag. 14. He explaineth himſelfe and me thus, He ſhould have ſaid that I adviſed the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon them whom he this Commiſſioner thinks Church-Officers, then had hee ſpoken true; I thank him for his explanation. And I pray who were the Church officers, whom I ſaid hee excluded from Church Government? Were they not Paſtors and ruling Elders? And doth not himſelfe think theſe to be Church-officers? Yes, of the Miniſters he thinks ſo, but of ruling Elders he ſeemes to doubt, except they be Magiſtrates. Well but excluding theſe Church-officers from Church-Government he takes with the Charge. Why ſeeks he a knot in the ruſh? But now, how doth he explaine himſelfe? He will have the Parliament to bee Church-officers (of which before) and ſuch Church-officers as ſhall take the corrective part of Curch-Government wholy into their own hands; yet not to diſpence the Word and Sacraments, but to leave the Doctrinall part to the Miniſtry, and their power to be meerely Doctrinall as he ſaith, pag. 11. Thus you have his explanation. But doth this ſalve the violating of the Covenant? Nay, it makes it more apparent; for the Government of the Church, which the firſt Article of the Covenant ſpeaks of, is diſtinguiſhed from the Doctrinall part, That we ſhall endeavour the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline, and Government. So that excluding Paſtors and ruling Elders from the corrective part of Government, and from all power which is not meerely Doctrinall, he thereby excludeth them from that Diſcipline and Government which the Covenant ſpeaks of, as one ſpeciall part of the Reformation of Religion. Come on to the Reaſons.

I had given foure Reaſons: He takes notice but of three. This is the ſecond time he hath told three for foure, yet even theſe three will doe the buſineſſe.

1. The extirpation of Church-Government is not the reformation of it; Here the Brother addeth theſe words following as mine, which are not mine, therefore he that finds no Church-government, breaks his Covenant. His reply is, we muſt reforme it according to the word of God: if that hold out none, here is no failing. He addeth a ſimile of a Iury ſworn to enquire into the felony of an accuſed perſon, but findes nor guilty: and of three men taking an oath to deliver in their opinions of Church-government (where by the way he lets fall, that I hold the Nationall Synod to be above all Courts in the Kingdom; which if he meane of Eccleſiaſticall Courts, why did he ſpeak ſo generally? if he meane above all or any Civill Courts, it is a groſſe calumny.) But now if this be the ſenſe (which he gives) of that firſt article in the Covenant, then 1. all that is in the ſecond article might have been put into the firſt article; for inſtance, wee might in Mr Colemans ſenſe, have ſworn to endeavour the reformation of Prelacy, and even of Popery it ſelfe, according to the word of God and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches: that is, taking an oath to deliver in our opinions of theſe things, according to the word of God, and to enquire into the evills of Church-government by Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans &c. whether guilty or not guilty. I ſtrengthned my argument by the different nature of the firſt and ſecond article; I ſaid, the ſecond article is of things to be extirpated, but this of things to be preſerved and reformed. Why did hee not take the ſtrength of my argument and make a reply? 2. By the ſame principle of his we are not tied by the firſt article of our Covenant to have any either doctrine or worſhip, but only to ſearch the Scriptures, whether the Word hold out any; for Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government goe hand in hand in the Covenant. 3. His owne ſimile hath this much in it againſt him. If a Iury ſworn to enquire into the felony of an accuſed perſon, ſhould after ſuch an oath, not only finde the perſon not guilty, but further take upon them to maintain that there is no ſuch thing as felony; ſurely this were inconſiſtent with their oath. So he that ſweares to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline, and Government, and yet will not only diſlike this or that forme of Government, but alſo hold that there is no ſuch thing as Church-Government, he holds that which cannot agree with his oath. 4. This anſwer of Mr Colemans, leaving it free to debate whether there be ſuch a thing as Church-Government, being his only anſwer to my firſt argument from the Covenant, muſt needs ſuppoſe, that the Government mentioned in the Covenant (the reformation whereof we have ſworne to endeavour) is underſtood even by himſelfe, of Church-officers, their power of corrective Government; it being the corrective part only, and not the doctrinall part, which he caſts upon an uncertainty whether the Word hold out any ſuch thing.

2. Church-Government is mentioned in the Covenant as a ſpirituall, not a civill thing. The matters of Religion are put together, Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government. The Priviledges of Parliament come after in the third article. The Reverend Brother replies, What if it be? therefore the Parliament is not to meddle with it, and why? And here he runs out againſt me, as if I held that the Parliament is not to meddle with Religion; an aſſertion which I abominate. Princes and Magiſtrates their putting off themſelves all care of the matters of Religion, was one of the great cauſes of the Churches miſchiefe, and of Popiſh and Prelaticall tyranny. But is this juſt and faire, Sir, to give out for my opinion, that for which you are not able to ſhew the leaſt colour or ſhadow of conſequence from any thing that ever I ſaid? That which was to be replied unto, was, whether doe not the materials of the firſt article of the Covenant differ from the materials of the third article of the Covenant? or whether are they the ſame? Whether doth the Priviledge of Parliament belong to the firſt article of the Covenant? Whether is that Government mentioned in the firſt article, a civill thing or a ſpirituall? If civill, why is Diſcipline and Government ranked with Doctrine and Worſhip, and all theſe mentioned as parts of the reformation of Religion? If ſpirituall, then why doth the Brother make it civill or temporall pag. 11. To all this nothing is anſwered: but, what if it bee? Then is my argument granted.

And to put it yet further out of queſtion, I adde other two arguments from that ſame firſt article of the Covenant. One is this; In the firſt part of that firſt article we ſweare all of us to endeavour the preſervation of the reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline, and Government: where all know that the words Diſcipline and Government (eſpecially being mentioned as two of the principall things in which the Reformed Religion in that Church doth conſiſt) ſignifie Church-Government, and Church-Diſcipline, diſtinct both from Doctrine and Worſhip, and from civill Government (which, by the way, how Mr Coleman endeavoureth to preſerve, I will not now ſay, but leave it to others to judge:) Therefore in that which immediately followeth, our endeavouring the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline and Government; the words Diſcipline and Government muſt needs be underſtood in the ſame ſenſe thus farre, that it is a Church-Diſcipline, and a Church-Government diſtinct from the civill power of the Magiſtrate, and diſtinct alſo from Doctrine and Worſhip in the Church; for we cannot make theſe words Diſcipline and Government in one and the ſame article of a ſolemn oath and Covenant, to ſuffer two ſenſes differing toto genere, (eſpecially conſidering that the civill Government is put by it ſelfe in another article which is the third) unleſſe we make it to ſpeak ſo as none▪ may underſtand it.

The other argument which I now adde, is this; In the third part of that firſt article we ſweare that we ſhall endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms to the neareſt conjunction and uniformity in Religion, confeſſion of faith, forme of Church Government, Directory for worſhip and catechiſing; where 1. Church Government doth agree generically with a confeſſion of faith, Directory of worſhip, and catechiſing: I mean all theſe are matters of Religion, none of them civill matters. 2. It is ſuppoſed there is ſuch a thing as Church Government diſtinct from civill Government; and therefore it is put out of all queſtion, that ſo farre there ſhall be an uniformity between the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms (and otherwiſe it were an unſwearing of what was ſworn in the firſt part of that article) but it tieth us to endeavour the neareſt conjunction and uniformity in a form of Church government; which were a vaine and raſh oath, if we were not tied to a Church government in generall, and that as a matter of Religion. 3 The uniformity in a form of Church-Government which we ſweare to endeavour, muſt needs be meant of corrective Government, it being clearly diſtinguiſhed from the Confeſſion of Faith, and Directory of Worſhip. So that Mr Colemans diſtinction of the Doctrinall part, and of the diſpenſing of the Word and Sacraments cannot here help him.

From theſe two Arguments (beſide all was ſaid before) I conclude, that the Covenant doth undeniably ſuppoſe and plainely hold forth this thing as moſt neceſſary and uncontrover • able, that there ought to bee a Church-Government which is both diſtinct from the Civill-Government, and yet not meerely doctrinall. And if ſo, what Apollo can reconcile Mr Colemans Doctrine with the Covenant? And now I go on.

My laſt reaſon formerly brought was this: Will the brother ſay that the example of the beſt reformed Churches leadeth his way. For the Covenant tieth us to a reformation of the government of the Church both according to the Word of God, and the example of the beſt reformed Churches: that, as regula regulans: this, as regula regulata,

The Reverend brother replieth: 1. The beſt reformed Church, that ever was, went this way, I meane the Church of Iſrael.

Anſw. 1. Is the Church of Iſrael one of the Reformed Churches which the Covenant ſpeakes of? 2. Was the Church of Iſrael better reformed than the Apoſtolicall Churches? why then cals he it the beſt reformed Church that ever was? 3. That in the Jewiſh Church, there was a Church-government diſtinct from civill government, and Church cenſures diſtinct from civill puniſhments, is the opinion of many who have taken great paines in the ſearching of the Jewiſh antiquities; and it may be he ſhall heare it ere long further proved both from Scripture, and from the very Talmudicall writers.

2. I deſire (ſaith he) the Commiſſioner to give an inſtance in the new Teſtament of ſuch a diſtinction (Civill and Church government) where the ſtate was Chriſtian.

Anſw. I deſire him to give an inſtance in the new Teſtament of theſe three things, and then he will anſwer himſelfe. 1. Where was the State Chriſtian? 2. Where had the Miniſtery a doctrinall power in a Chriſtian State? 3. Where doth the new Teſtament hold out, that a Church government diſtinct from civill government may be where the State is not Chriſtian, and yet may not be where the State is Chriſtian? Shall the Churches liberties be diminiſhed, or rather increaſed where the State is Chriſtian?

In the third and fourth place, the brother tels us of the opinions of Gualther, Bullinger, Eraſtus, Aretius. The queſtion is of the examples of Churches, not of the opinions of men. But what of the men? As for that peſtilence that walketh in darkneſſe through London and Weſtminſter, Eraſtus his booke againſt Beza, let him make of it what he can, it ſhall have an Antidote by and by. In the meane while he may take notice that in the cloſe of the ſixth Book Eraſtus caſts down that which he hath built, • uſt as Bellarmine did in the cloſe of his five books of juſtification. But as for the other three named by the brother,Gualther Archetyp▪ in • Cor▪ 5. 5. decrevi impurum hunc t • ad • ndum eſſe Satanae, id eſt • jiciendum ex Eccleſia, &c Ratio locution • s quia extra E • cl • ſiam • atan Regnat. In ver. 6. •• a ve • o in nuit diſciplinam neceſſariam eſſe, ne contagiu • peccan • i ſe • p • t. In ver. 9. 10, 11. Catalogus eorum qui debent excomm • n ca • i, Ibid. • mo non ſu •• i • iunt miniſtri niſi publica authoritate juven • ur. Idco Paulus Corint • io • tam 〈…〉 m • net, ut Eccleſiae diſciplinam instaurent, & ſermentum omne expurgent. In ver. 13. Tollite, &c. Si Chriſtiani eſ • is ſi Eccleſiam vul • is • abere purem, utin ini jure ve • l • o. Billinger in 1▪ Cor. 5. v. 3, 4, 5 V • ri ergo Apoſtolici & ve • re • quoque contum • ces & Eccleſiaſtica •• nſ •• a digno •• co •• ubernio Sanctorum a • jeceru • t, excl • den • e • • os à ſ •• ris 〈…〉 & communione c • rporl • & ſangui ••• myſti •• . And a little after, Quod ſihis quoque addas ordinationem chriſti ex Math •• , vide • is eam huc quoque ſpecta • e, ut publi • è mulc •• tur quiſp •• tis 〈…〉 in honeſt • per • exeri • vivere. Eſſe enim E ••• icum & Publi ••• um, eſt 〈…〉 è Catalogo Eccleſi • ſ • ico & recen •• ri haberique inter •• cino • oſos quibus nihil neque o •• icii, • eque ſinceri • u • ò commi •• as. they are ours, not his in this preſent controverſie. Gualther expounds the fifth chapter of 1 Cor. all along of excommunication, and of the neceſſity of Church diſcipline, in ſo much that he expounds the very delivering to ſatan (the phraſe moſt controverted by Eraſtus and his followers) of excommunication; and the not eating with the ſcandalous, v. 9, 10, 11. hee takes alſo to import excommunication. Hee thinks alſo that Miniſters ſhall labour to little pupoſe, except they have a power of government. Bullinger is moſt plaine for excommunication, as a ſpirituall cenſure ordained by Chriſt: and ſo he underſtands, Matth. 18. 17.

Aretius holds, that God was the authour of excommunicationAret. Theol. probl. loc. 133. a Deo originem habit, & a Chriſt • confirmata fuit. And after, Supra de origine dixi, indicans • •• o in • i • tam ſuiſſe • anc diſciplinam, &c. Demum Chriſtus filius dei tandem Ecclei • • u • commendavit. in the old Teſtament, and Chriſt in the New. And now, are theſe three Maſter Colemans way? or doth not his doctrine flatly contradict theirs? Peradventure he will ſay, yet there is no excommunication in the Church of Zurik (where thoſe Divines lived) nor any ſuſpenſion of ſcandalous ſinners from the Sacrament. I anſwer, this cannot infringe what I hold, that the example of the beſt reformed Churches maketh for▪ us, and againſt him▪ For firſt, the booke written by Lavater, (another of the Zurike Divines) De ritibus & inſtitutis Eccleſiae Tigurinae, tels us of divers things in that Church, which will make the brother eaſily to acknowledge that it is not the beſt reformed Church: ſuch as Feaſtivall daies, cap. 8. that upon the Lords daies before the third Bell, it is publiſhed and made knowen to the people, if there be any houſes, fields or lands to be ſold, cap. 9. They have no Faſts indicted, ibid. nor Pſalmes ſung in the Church, cap. 10. Reſponſories in their Letany at the Sacrament, the Deacon upon the right hand ſaith one thing, the Deacon upon the left hand ſaith another thing, the Paſtor a third thing, cap. 13.Wolphius com. in li. Eſdrae pag. • 1. Atque hoc exemplo veteris Teſtamenti diſcimus quid facto opus ſit in n • vot Nempe ut crebris Synodis ac cenſuris, in vocationem in Doctriuam, in vitam aec mores Eccleſiaſtarum inſpiciatur.

2. Yet the Church of Zurike hath ſome corrective Church Government, beſides that which is civill or temporall, for that ſame Booke, cap. 23. tells us that in their Synods, any Miniſter who is found ſcandalous or prophane in his life, is cenſured with depoſition from his office, ib Officio deponitur. Then followes, Finita cenſura, ſinguli Decani, &c. Here is a Synodicall cenſure, which I finde alſo in Wolphius a Profeſſor of Zurike. And the Book before cited, cap. 24. In Eccleſiis 〈◊〉 Tigurinae, deligantur Seniores, qui un • cum pastore vitia corrigant. Poſtea Magiſtratus de 〈…〉 blaſphemis, 〈…〉 ſ • mi • . Tells us of ſome corrective power committed to Paſtors and Elders. Which Elders are diſtinguiſhed from the Magiſteates.

3. The zurike Divines themſelves looked upon ExcommunicationBullinger in 1. Cor. 5. Et hac tenus de castigatione ſceler • i Eccleſiaſtica. Hic tamen diligenter admoni • os • olo fraires, vigilent, & omni diligenti • curent, ut ſalviare hoc Pharmacum, è caetu ſanctorùm Pontificis avaritia eliminatum, reducatur, hoc eſt ut ſcelera offendentia plectantur. Hic enim unicu • eſt Excommunicationis fini • , ut mores excolautur & floreant Sancti, prophani ve • ò coerceantur, ne mal • porro impudentia ac impietate graſſ • tur. Noſtram eſt iſta • fratres, ſumma cum diligentia curare. Videmus enim & Paulum ceſſ • ntes hoc loco incicare. Aretius ubi ſupra. Magiſtratu • jugum non admittunt, timen • honoribus, licentium amant &c. Vulgus quoque & plebs d • ſſolutio • : major pars corruptiſſima eſt, &c. Int •••• non 〈◊〉 eſſe 〈◊〉 • ateor dabit poſterior aetas tructabiliores for •• anima • , minor • pectora, quam noſtra habent ſeculas Lavater in Nehem. Homil. 52. Quia pontifices Romani Excommunicatione •… endum • ſuam tyrannidem abuſi ſunt, factum eſt ut nulla ferè juſta diſcipl • na amplius in Eccleſiis jnstitui poſſit Niſi autem ſl • g • i • ſi coerceantur, omnia ruant in pejus neceſſe eſt. as that which was wanting through the injury of the times, the thing having beene ſo horribly abuſed in Popery, and the preſent licentiouſneſſe abounding among people, did hinder the erecting of that part of the Church Diſcipline at that time. But they ſtill pleaded the thing to be held forth in Scripture, and were but expecting better times for reſtoring and ſetting of Excommunication, which they did approve in Genevah and in other reformed Churches, who had received it. I give you their owne words for the warrant of what I ſay.

I have beene the longer upon this point, as being the chiefe objection which can bee made by Maſter Coleman concerning that clauſe in the Covenant, the example of the beſt reformed Churches.

Hee hath onely one thing more, which may well paſſe for a Paradox. Hee will take an inſtance foreſooth, from Genevah it ſelfe, though Presbiterian in practice. And why? becauſe in the Genevah Annotations upon, Mat. 9. 16. It is ſaid that, the externall Diſcipline is to be fitted to the capacity of the Church. This is no Scotland Presbytery, ſaith the Brother. Nay Sir, nor yet Genevah Presbytery, for it doth not at all concerne Presbytery. It is ſpoken in referrence to the chooſeing of fit and convenient times for Faſting and Humiliation; that as Chriſt did not at that time tie his Diſciples to Faſting, it being unſutable to that preſent time, ſo other like circumſtances of Gods Worſhip which are not at all determined in the Word, are to bee accommodated to emergent occaſions, and to the Churches condition for the time: which both Scotland and Genevah, and other reformed Churches doe.

If I have now more fully and convincingly ſpoken to that point of the Covenant, let the Brother blame himſelfe that put me to it.

The Lord guide his people in a right way, and rebuke the Spirit of error and diviſion, and give us all more of his Spirit to lead us into all truth, and into all ſelfe-deniall: and grant that none of his ſervants be found unwilling to have the Lord Jeſus Chriſt to reigne over them in all his Ordinances.