CHAP. I.

THE Bloody Tenet (I meane the booke stiled by that name, tending to discusse an holy & whole­some truth of God, slanderously stiled the Bloudy Tenet) was put forth against the Royall Law of the love of the Gospel. Mr. Williams sent me about a dozen yeares agoe (as I remem­ber) a letter, penned (as he wrote) by a Prisoner in Newgate, touching persecution for Conscience sake: and in­treated [Page 2]my judgement of it for the satisfaction of his friend. I wa not willing to deny him any office of Christian love, and gave him my poore judgement in a private letter. This private letter of mine he hath published in Print after so many yeares, and there with a Resuration of it. If my letter was Orthodoxall and tending to satisfaction, and edification, why did he refute it? If corrupt, and erronious (especially if bloudy) why did he publish it?

The letter, and so the error contained in it, (if it was an error) it was private, and so private, that I know no man that hath a cop­py of it, no not my selfe who penned it (for ought I could find) but himselfe onely, if I did offend him by the writing of such an error to him (though by himselfe intreated to expresse my judgement) let him remember, he pleadeth for libertie of conscience: I wrote my conscience and the truth of God according to my conscience, in the sight of God. Why should he punish me with open pennance, and expose me (as much as in him lieth, before the world) to open shame, as a man of bloud, for the liberty of my conscience? How will it stand with his owne principles, to plead for liberty of con­science and yet to punish it? Besides let him remember, if I did offend him with such an error, it was but a private offence, and the rule of the Gospel required, he should first have convinced and admo­nished me privately of it, and so have proceeded upon my contu­macy, at length to have told the Church, before he had published it to the world. But such as seeke for new Apostles, must seeke also for new Gospel, before this manner of dealing can be justified, by the Gospel of Christ. That booke of his therefore being thus be­gun against the rule of the Gospel, no marvell if it swarve from the truth of the Gospel all a long. He that setteth forth out of his way in the first entrance of his journey, no marvell if he wander all the day after.

CHAP. 2. Of the title he prefixeth to my answere of the prisoners letter.

IN printing my answer to the prisoners Letter, he prefixeth thi­title The answer of Mr. John Cotton of Boston in New-Englands [Page 3] professedly maintaining Persecution for cause of Conscience.

This Title trespasseth not onely against the Creator of Christi­an love, which is wont to take even doubtfull things in the fairest sense: but even against the Law of truth. For in the whole pur­port of my Answer to the Letter, both in stating the Question, and in answering Objections, I expresly professe, 1. That no man is to be persecuted at all (much lesse for Conscience sake:) because all perse­cution is oppression for Righteousnesse sake. 2. I Professe further, That none is to be punish [...]d for his Conscience sake, though Erroneous, unlesse his Errors be Fundamentall, or seditiously, and turbulently promoted, and that after due conviction of Conscience: That it may appeare, he is not punished for his Conscience, but for sinning against his Conscience.

Thus whilest he pleadeth for Liberty of Conscience, he taketh Liberty to his Conscience openly to publish, That I do professedly maintaine Persecution for cause of Conscience, When I doe in ex­presse tearmes professedly Renounce it. This Liberty of Consci­ence setteth the Conscience at Liberty Calumniandi audacter.

Object. But it may be, by consequence, I doe maintaine Perse­cution for cause of Conscience, though in expresse tearmes I pro­fessedly Renounce it.

Ans. 1. What if such a thing might be inferr'd by consequence? mens judgements and professions are not to be taken up from every unwary consequence, against their owne positive and expresse Declarations, and Professions. It is iustly taxed in Bellarmine as a slanderous Calumny, that he bringeth in Luther, Calvine, Martyr Bucer, makeing God the Authour of sinne, which all of them in expresse tearmes doe auoyde; yet he would fasten such a blasphe­mous Tenet upon them (forsooth) by consequences. In like sort by the like consequences is the Bloudy Tenet fastened upon me. When the eyes are bloud-shotten, or looke through a red glasse, all things about them will appeare red and bloudy. But if this Tenet have any appearance of blood in it, It is because it is washed in the Bloud of the Lambe, and sealed with his bloud. And then though it may seeme Bloudy to men of corrupt mindes destitute of the truth, (as Paul seemed to such to be a Pestilent fellow) yet to faithful and up­right soules, such things as are washed in the Bloud of the Lambe, are wont to come forth white, as did the followers of the Lambe, who washed their Robes white in the Bloud of the Lambe, Rev 7.14.

CHAP. 3. A reply to the third Chapter of the Bloudy Tenet discust, what is a cause of Conscience in generall.

IN stateing of the Question I propounded some distinctions for clearing of the Point. The 1. was this in mine Answer to the Letter of the Prisoner.

By Persecution for cause of Conscience, I conceive you meane, either for professing some point of Doctrine, which you beleive in Conscience to be the Truth: or for practising some worke, which you beleive in Conscience to be a Religious duty.

Discusser.

This distinction is not full and compleate. For besides both these, a man may be persecuted for cause of Conscience, because he dare not be con­strained to yeild obedience to such Doctrines and worships, as are by men Invented, and Appointed; As the three famous Jewes were cast into the fiery Furnace (in a non-conformity to the whole conforming world) be­fore the Golden Image, Dan. 3.21. &c.

Defender.

Thus a man may find a knot in a Bulrush, yea thus a man that were disposed might find fault with the Comforts of God for not being full and Compleate: with the Affirmative Comforts, be­cause they doe not expresse the Negative; and with the Negative, because they doe not expresse the Affirmative. He that maketh it persecution for cause of Conscience, when a man is punished for professing such Doctrine, which he beleiveth in Conscience to be the truth, he maketh it (a Pari) Persecution for cause of Consci­ence, when a man is punished for Renouncing such Doctrines, which he beleiveth in Conscience to be Erroneous. And he that maketh it Persecution for cause of Conscience, when a man is punished for practising such a worke, which he beleives in consci­ence to be a Religious duty, He maketh it no lesse Persecution for cause of Conscience, when a man is punished for not practising such a worke, which he beleiveth in Conscience to be a sin.

CHAP. 4. A Reply to his fourth Chapter touching the distinction of Doctrines, Some fundamentall others circumstantiall and lesse Principall.

IN points of Doctrine (I said in my Answer to the Prisoners Letter) some are Fundamentall, without right beleife whereof, a man cannot be saved: others are circumstantiall, and lesse Principall, wherein one man may differ from another in judgement, without prejudice of salva­tion on either part,

Discusser.

To this distinction (He saith) Truth dare not subscribe, for then thousands ten thousands should everlastingly be condemned, yea the whole Generation of the Righteous, who since the falling away, have and doe erre fundamently concerning the true matter, Constitution, Gathering, Governing of the Church. And yet farre be it from any pious Breast, to Imagine that they are not saved &c.

Defender.

Fundamentall Doctrines are of two sorts: Some hold forth the foundation of Christian Religion, as the Doctrines of salvation by Christ, and of faith in his Name, Repentance from dead workes, Resurrection from the dead; and the like. Others concerne the Foundation of the Church, as the matter and forme of it, and the proper Adjuncts accompaning the same: The Apostle speaketh of both these sorts of Foundations together, Heb. 6.1.2.

I speake of the former sort of these onely, namely the Founda­tion, or fundamentall points of Christian Religion, which who so subverteth, and Renounceth, he renounceth also his owne salva­tion. The other sort I looke at as lesse principall, in comparison of these, though some of them have a fundamentall vse in Church order. It was pertinent to the Question propounded in the Pri­soners Letter, to expresse how farre I allowed Toleration even in such fundamentall Errors, as subverted the Foundation of [Page 6]Christian Religion. And in other Errors lesse dangerous, such as neither subverted Religion, nor Salvation, It would easily be con­ceived, that Toleration, might more easily be allowed.

How farre New English Churches partake with the Old Eng­lish Parish Churches in any of the Ordinances of God, and upon what ground, hath been declared in the Reply to the Answer of the other Letter. Where also it hath been cleared, how farre off the Churches here have been from persecuting, or oppressing any of their Brethren for presenting light to them about this point: which may prevent and still the lamentation of peace, in the be­ginning of this fith Chapter.

CHAP. 5. A Reply to his fifth Chapter Concerning a distinction of Points of Practise.

IN Answer to the Prisoners Letter, I said in points of Practise, some concerne the weightier Duties of the Law, as what God we wor­ship, and with what kinde of Worship: whether it be such, as if it be right, Fellowship with God is held: If false, Fellowship with God is lost.

Discusser.

It is worth the Inquiry, what kinde of worship he intendeth, whether in generall acceptation the Rightnesse or Corruptnesse of the Church, or the Ministery of the Church, or the Ministrations of the Word, Prayer Seales &c.?

And because it pleaseth the Spirit of God to make the Ministery one of the foundations of Christian Religion (Heb. 6.1.2.) and also to make the Ministery of the Word and Prayer, in the Church, to be two speciall workes (even of the Apostles themselves. Acts 6.2.) I shall desire, it may well be considered in the feare of God.

1. Concerning the Ministery of the Word, If their new Ministery, and ordination be true, then the former was false: And if false, then will it not follow according to this distinction, that fellowship with God was lost?

2. Concerning Prayer, the New English Ministers have disclaimed and written against that Worship of God by Common or set formes of Prayer, which yet themselves practised in England.

And though they were faithfully admonished for vseing the Common Prayer, yet at that time they satisfied their hearts with the practise of the Author of the Councell of Trent &c. But now I aske, whether or no, fel­lowship with God in such Prayers was lost? &c.

3. Gods People may live and die in such kinde of worship notwith­standing light presented to them able to convince yet not reaching to a conviction, and to forsakeing of such wayes, which is Contrary to his Conclusion, That Fundamentalls are so cleare, that a man cannot but be convinced in Conscience after once or twice Admonition: And therefore such a person not being convinced, he is condemned of himselfe, and may be persecuted for sinning against his Conscience.

4. I Observe here that Mr. Cotton herein measureth to others, that which himselfe when he lived in such practises, would not have had mea­sured to himselfe. As 1. That it might have been affirmed of him, that in such practises he did sin against his Conscience, having sufficient light shinning about him. 2. That he should or might have been cut off by death, or Banishment, as an Hereticke sinning against his Consci­ence, &c.

Defender.

1. It needs no inquiry what worship I meanes, whether Church, and Minister, or Ministrations of the Word, Prayer, Seales &c. For I meane none of these, as they are dispenced in the Churches of England. Though there have been corruptions in the order and dispensations of these things amongst them, (especially in the times when we lived there) yet neither their Churches, nor Mini­stry, nor Ministrations were such, or so false that fellowship with God could not be held of them, not onely inwardly and secretly, but also outwardly and visibly: not onely in inward conversion and conviction, but also in outward and visible Reformation ac­cording to light received. Take my words as I wrote them, and as he relateth them, and my meaning is plaine enough: I speake of such worship, which if false, fellowship with God is lost: which cannot truly be avouched of any part of the Worship of God in England.

It is not truly said, that the Spirit of God maketh the Ministry one of the Foundations of Christian Religion, Heb. 6.1.2. for it is onely a foundation of Church Order, not of faith, or Religion, the Apostle puts an expresse difference between faith, and Church Order, Colos. 2.5. Nor is it a true and safe speech, to call the Fellowship or blessing of God vouchsafed to corrupt Churches, or Ministers, or Ministrations to call it, I say, unpromised, or to be be­yond a word, or promise of God. For it is a large and yet an expresse promise of the Covenant of Grace, that God will be mercifull to our iniquities, Ier. 31.34. That he will be mercifull to every one that prepar­eth his heart to seeke God, though he be not cleansed according to the Purification of the Sanctuary, 2 Chron. 30.18, 19, 20. with many more such like. And therefore there wants not Promises of Grace and blessing to the People of God, notwithstanding some defects and impurities found in their Administrations. Neither will it follow, that if our Ministery, and Ordination here be true, that then the former which we had in England was false, especially so false, as that according to visible Rule, Fellowship with God was lost.

For the Rite of Ordination we doe not looke at it as any Essenti­all Part of our vocation to the Ministry, no more then Coronation is an Essentiall Part of the Office of the King. And though we doe not justly sundry things found in our Ministry, yet Jehoshuah the High Preist did not loose his Fellowship with God, though he was cloathed with filthy Garments, Zach. 3.3, 4.

2. Concerning Prayer, though the New English Ministers have witnessed against the Common set-Forme thereof, which yet our selves in our ignorance have somtimes used, and have therefore seen just cause to judge our selves since: yet we did not thereby loose fellowship with God by such sinnnes of Ignorance, no more then the People of God did in the dayes of Hezekiah, by sacrifice­ing to God in the High places, when yet they did it to the Lord their God onely, 2 Chron. 33.17.

I know no such faithfull Admonishers, as presented to us in England, Arguments against the Common Prayer, which then seemed weake, but now are acknowledged to be sound, though such a thing pos­sibly may be true, howsoever forgotten. But this I am perswaded to be ut­terly false, that any of us satisfied our hearts with the Practise of the Author of the Councell of Trent, who used to read some of the choysest [Page 9]select Prayers out of the Mass-Booke. The Spirit of a childe of God, though upon occasion he may receive such a Practise, yet he can never satisfie himselfe with the Practise of any godly man for the warrant of his Imitation without some further light (or at least apprehension of light) from the word.

3. It is readily graunted, (that which is observed in the third place) That Gods people may live and die in such kindes of Worship, though light from the Word, whether publickly or privately hath been presented to them able to convince,

Neverthelesse, that will not weaken the Conclusion (formerly mentioned, and afterwards further discussed) That Fundamentalls are so cleare, that a man cannot but be convinced in Conscience of the Truth of them after two or three Admonitions: and that therefore such a Person as still continueth obstinate, is condemned of himselfe: and if he then be punished, He is not punished for his Conscience, but for sinning against his owne Conscience. For both these may well stand toge­ther, and are farre of from crossing or contrarying one another. A set forme of Prayer, though it be unlawfull, yet it is not such a Fundamentall Error either in judgement or practise, as cutteth off from fellowship with God: That is onely a resolute Assertion of the Discusser, but a vouched without all colour or pretence from the Scripture. There is some resemblance and proportion betweene Praying and Prophesying; Moses used an unwarranted way and Forme of Prophesying, when God Commaunding him to speake to the Rock before the Congregation of Israel, He spake not to the Rock, but stroke it with his Rod, (for which he had no Com­maundement) and spake to the People and that in a Passion (and (and both without a Commaundament) Numb. 20.8.11. And yet this did not cutt off his Fellowship with God, nor Gods graci­ous Presence with him in giving water to the People, no not at that time, God knoweth how to be present with his People, in blessing their Administrations, and forgiving their iniquities, though he doe take vengeance of their Inventions, Psal. 99.8.

4. Though I doe maintaine (as the Apostle doth) a Clearnesse of Fundamentall Points of Religion and Worship (such Funda­mentalls I say, without which, Fellowship with God cannot be had) and though I graunt, that in subserting such Fundamentall Points, and persisting therein after once or twice Admonition, a [Page 10]man sinneth against his owne Conscience, and is therefore censurable by the Church, yea and by the Civill Magistrate also, if after Conviction he continue to seduce others unto his Damnable Heresie; yet I doe not herein measure to others, that which my self, when I lived in such practises, would not have measured to my selfe.

For I thank God, God never left me to live in any such Practises, as to fall into any Fundamentall Error, much lesse to Persist there­in after Conviction and Admonition, and least of all to seduce o­thers thereinto. If God should leave me so farre, as to fall so feare­fully into this three-fold degree of Hereticall wickednesse, what am I better then other men? better my selfe cut off by death, or Banishment, then the Flock of Christ to be seduced and destroyed by my Hereticall wickednesse.

CHAP. 6. A Reply to his sixth Chapter Discussing Civill peace, and the Disturbance of it.

IN this Chapter, the Discusser undertaketh to declare what Civill peace is, and to shew, that the Toleration of different Religions, is no Disturbance of Civill Peace.

First, for Civill peace, what is it, saith he, but Pax Civitatis, whether English, or Irish, Spanish or Turkish City.

Reply.

Be it so, and if the Civill State, or Common-wealth containe many Citties, or Townes, and so become a whole Countrey or Common-wealth, let Civill Peace be the peace of the Countrey, or of the Common-wealth. But what is then the peace of the Citty, or Countrey? Is it not Tranquillitas Ordinis the tranquility of order in every Society, wherein the Publicke Weale of the Citty, or Countrey is concerned? And is it not the proper worke of the Civill Magistrate to preserve the Civill Peace, and to prevent or reforme the disturbance of the Tranquility or Peace of any such Societyes, in whose Peace, the Peace or Weale of the Citty or So­ciety is concerned? Suppose a Society of Merchants or Cloath­yers, [Page 11]or Fishmongers, or Drapers, or the like: If the Weale of the Citty or Countrey be concerned in these, (as it is much concerned in them all): It is not for the safety of the Civill Sate to suffer any of these so to be disturbed, as wholely to breake up, and to be dis­solved.

No matter ( saith the Discusser) though they doe wholly breake up into peices and dissolve into nothing. For neverthelesse the Peace of the Citty is not thereby in the least measure impaired or disturbed: because the Essence or being of the Citty is Essentially distinct from those particular Societyes &c. The Citty was before them, and standeth absolute and Entire, when they are taken downe &c.

Reply.

If by Peace be meant (as in Scripture Language it is) all welfare, It would argue a man that liveth in the world, to be too much Ig­norant of the state of the world, to say that in the breaking up and dissolving of such perticular Societyes, the Peace of the Citty or Countrey is not in the least measure impaired, or disturbed.

For 1. Though such Societyes of Merchants and other Trades, be not of the Essence of the Citty; yet they be of the integrety of the Citty. And if the defect of one Tribe in Israel was a great trouble to all the Common-wealth of Israel ( Judges, 21.2, 3.) then sure the breaking up and dissolving of so many particular usefull Soci­etyes cannot but much impaire and disturbe the Peace and well­fare of the Citty and Countrie.

2. Though these Societyes of Trades be not of the Essence of the Citty, yet they are amongst the conservant causes of the Citty: as without which the Citty cannot long flourish, no nor well sub­sist. Common sense will acknowledge so much.

Now then if all these particular Societyes and severall Com­panyes of Trades, they and their peace and wellfare doe much concerne the wellfare and peace of the Citty and Countrey, and therefore it behooveth the Civill Government to provide for their peace and wellfare: I demand, whether the Church also, (which is a particular Society of Christians) whether, I say, the Peace and wellfare of it, doe not concerne the Peace and wellfare of the Citty or Countrey where they live?

If it be denyed it is Easily proved:

First, David saith they shall prosper that love the Peace of Jeru­salem, and seeke the good of it; Psalm. 122.6. &c. And Solomon saith, where the Righteous rejoyce there is great Glory, Pro. 28.12. And what is the Church, but a Congregation of Righteous men? If the Rejoycing of the Church be the glory of a Nation, surely the disturbing, and distracting, and dissolving of the Church, is the shame and Confusion of a Nation.

2. Consider the Excellency and Preheminence of the Church above all other Societyes. She is the fairest amongst women, Cant. 1.8. and 6.1. She is the Citty and House of God, Revel. 21.2. Psal. 48.1.1. Tim. 3.15. The world and all the Societyes of it, are for the Church, 1 Cor. 3.21, 22. The world would not subsist, but for the Church: nor any Countrey in the world, but for the ser­vice of the Church. And can the Church then breake up, into peices, and dissolve into nothing, and yet the Peace and wellfare of the Citty, not in the least measure impaired or disturbed?

3. It is a matter of just displeasure to God, and sad greife of heart to the Church, when Civill States looke at the estate of the Church, as of little, or no concernment to themselves. Zach. 1.15. Lament. 1.12.

Object 1. Many glorious and flourishing Cittyes of the world main­taine their Civill Peace: yea the very Americans, and wildest Pagans, keep the Peace of their Townes, and Cittyes, though neither in the one, nor in the other can any man prove a true Church of God in these places.

Answ. It is true, where the Church is not, Cittyes and Townes may enjoy some measure of Civill Peace, yea and flourish in out­ward prosperity for a time, through the Patience and Bounty and Long-sufferance of God. The times of Jgnorance God winketh at Act. 17.30. But when the Church cometh to be Planted amongst them, If then Civill States doe neglect them, & suffer the Churches to corrupt, and annoy themselves by pollutions in Religion, the the staffe of the Peace of the Common-wealth will soone be bro­ken, as the Purity of Religion is broken in the Churches. The Common-wealth of Rome flourished five hundred yeares before the Kingdome of God in his Church came amongst them: and the decayes of the Common-wealth occasioned by the persecuti­ons of the Church, were Repaired by the Publick establishment of [Page 13]the Churches peace in Christian Emperors. But when the Churches begun to pollute themselves by the Idolatrous worship of Images, and the Christian Emperors tooke no care to reforme this abuse in Churches, the Lord sent in (amongst other barberous nations) the Turkes to punish, not onely degenerate Churches, but also the Civill State for this wickednesse. And therefore the Holy Ghost upbraideth them for their continuance in Image worship, though the Turke were let loose from the River Euphrates, to scourge them for it, Rev. 9.14.20. Goe now, and say, the estate of the Church whether true, or false, (pure or corrupt) doth not concerne the Civill Peace of the Sate.

Object. 2. The Peace of the Church (whether true or false) is spiritu­all, and so of an higher and farre different nature from the peace of the Countrey, or People, which is meerely and Essentially Civill and hu­mane.

Ans. 1. Though the inward peace of the Church be spirituall and heavenly: yet there is an outward peace of the Church due to them (even from Princes and Magistrates) in a way of godli­nesse and honesty, 1. Tim. 2.1.2. But in a way of ungodlinesse, and Idolatry, it is an wholesome faithfulnesse to the Church if Princes trouble the outward peace of the Church, that so the Church finding themselves wounded and pricked in the house of their friends, they may repent, and returne to their first Husband, Zach. 13.6. Hosea. 2.6.7.

Ans. 2. Though the peace of the Countrey or Common-wealth be Civill and humane, yet it is distracted and cutt off, by disturb­ing the spirituall purity, and peace of the Church. Jehu cutting short his Reformation, God cutt short the coasts of the Civill State. 2 King. 10.31.32.

Ans. 3. Civill Peace (to speake properly) is not onely a peace in civill things, for the Object; but a peace of all the persons of the Citty, for the Subject. The Church is one Society in the Citty, as well as is the Society, of Merchants, or Drapers, Fish­mongers, and Haberdashers, and if it be a part of Civill Justice, out of regard to Civill Peace, to protect all other Societyes in peace according to the wholesome Ordinances of their Company, is it not so, much more to protect the Church-Society in peace, ac­cording to the wholesome Ordinances of the Word of Christ?

CHAP. 7. A Reply to his seventh Chapter: Discussing what it is to hold forth a Doctrine or Practise in an Arrogant and impetuous way tending of it selfe to the disturb­ance of the Civill Peace.

HERE 2. Things he complaineth of, 1. That I have not declared what this Arrogant and impetuous way is: 2. That he cannot but expresse his sad and sorrowfull observation, how it pleaseth God to leave me, to take up the Common Reproachfull Accusation of the Accuser of Gods Children, That they are arrogant and impetuous.

Defender

I did not thinke it needfull to declare what an Arrogant and Impetuous way was, seeing his Request was, not that I should compile a discourse of mine owne: but that I should returne an Answer to the Letter of his friend. And it is an Answerers part not to Expatiate into declarations, but distinctly and closely to remove Objections. Besides himselfe is not ignorant of this point, nor needeth to be taught, what an Arrogant, and impetuous way is. For he himselfe telleth us (in his 8 ^th Chapter) That the Civill Peace may be broken by holding forth a Doctrine or practise, with ray­ling or reviling, daring or challenging speeches (which is a way of Arro­gancy:) or with force of Armes, Swords, Gunns &c.; which is a way of Impetuousnesse.

But if it be desired that I should declare my self herein, thus brei­ly take it. He holdeth forth an erronious Doctrine, or Practise, in an Arrogant and Impetuous way, not onely who carrieth it in a reviling and daring way (which is a disturbance to Civill Peace:) But also he who refuseth to subject his spirit to the spirit of the Prophets in a holy Church of Christ (contrary to 1 Cor. 14.32.) which is a disturbance to the peace of the Church. And withall, he that shall oppose such as dissent from his Errors, either by violent meanes (as the Circumcellians did by Clubbs, and Swords, and as [Page 15] Zedekiah did Micajah with Fists, 1 Kings, 22.24.) or by censo­rious reproaches, and by rejecting Communion with them even before conviction, or admonition, all these are wayes of Arro­gance, and Imperuousnesse, and tend to the disturbance either of civill, or of Church Peace, or of both.

But for the 2. His sad and sorrowfull Observation, that God hath left me to take up the common reproachful Accusation of the Children of God, as if they were Arrogant, and Impetuous in their way, upon what ground the Discusser taketh this up, I con­fesse I cannot Imagine, unlesse, ‘Conscius ipse sibi, de se put at omnia dici.’

There is not the least jot or tittle in my Letter, that applyeth this Accusation of Arrogance, or impetuousnesse to any of the Children of God at all. Nor had I the least thought of himselfe, when I wrote that Letter, who (for ought I can remember) did then keepe communion with all his Brethren, and held loving ac­quaintance with my selfe.

As for these six Cases he speaketh of (or rather, wayes) wherein the Children of God have opposed the streame of the times, and have there upon been taxed as Arrogant and impetuous Troublers of the State, & yet were none such, I willingly allow them to stand good, save onely they might as well be reduced to 2. or 3. Heads, as branched out into 6. But howsoever, they are nothing perti­nent to the Point in hand: none of them being wayes of Arrogan­cy, nor Impetuousnesse, but of well Ordered, and Christian faith­fulnesse, and Magnanimity. If any of them did put forth acts of Impetuous violence, (as Elijah did in putting the Prophets of Baall to death 1 King. 18.40.) It was done by vertue of an extraordi­nary calling, or else by the consent of the King and people then present.

Besides as none of the fix wayes wherein the Messengers of God walked against the streame of the times, were wayes of Arrogance, and impetuousnesse, so much lesse were these holy men of God Impetuous, in holding forth any Error, or evill practise, which is the Point in hand.

CHAP. 8. Some what more of holding forth Error in a way of Arro­gance, and Impetuousnesse.

Discusser.

The Distinction now in Discussion concerneth not Truth and Error, but the manner of holding forth, or divulging.

Defender.

The distinction doth expresly speake of holding forth things Erroneous and unlawfull, either in a meeke and peaceable way, or with such Arrogance and Impetuousnesse, as tendeth and reacheth (even of it selfe) to the disturbance of Civill Peace. And therefore it cannot be said with truth, that the distinction concerneth not Truth and Error; The distinction expresly concerneth both the sinfull matter held forth [things erroneous and unlawfull] and the sinfull man­ner of holding them forth, with such Arrogance and impetuous­nesse, as tendeth to the disturbance of Civill Peace.

Discusser.

I Acknowledge such may be the way, and manner of holding forth (either with railing or reviling, daring or challenging, speeches, or with force of Armes, Swords, Gunns, Prisons &c.) that it may not onely tend to breake, but may actually breake the Civill Peace.

Defender.

Then the distinction is acknowledged to have a reall Truth in it. what lacketh it yet, but that it may stand?

Discusser.

Yet those instances (to wit those 6. mentioned in Chap. 7.) are Cases of great Opposition and Spirituall Hostility, and Occasions of the breach of the Civill Peace: yet the matter and manner pure, holy, peaceable and inoffensive.

Defender.

Then these six instances doe nothing concerne the distinction [Page 17]in hand, which speaketh of holding forth for the matter things Erroneous, and unlawfull: and for the manner in a disturbant way to Civill Peace. But it seemeth if something, if any thing, (though nothing to purpose) be said in the Discussion of a di­stinction, it may goe for a Discussion.

Discusser.

Moreover I answer, That it is possible, and common for Persons of soft and gentle nature and spirits, to hold out falshood with more seeming meeknesse, and Peaceablenesse, then the Lord Jesus or his servants did or doe hold forth the everlasting Gospel; So that the Answerer would be requested to explaine, what he meaneth by this Arrogant and Impetuous holding forth of any Doctrine, which very manner of holding tendeth to break the Civill Peace, and cometh under the Cognisance, and Correction of the Civill Magistrate &c.

Discharge.

Himselfe hath said it, and done it already in this Chapter, and I have done the same, (somewhat more largely) in the Chapter next foregoing.

CHAP. 9. A Reply to his ninth Chapter, Touching the Causes of Civill Dissensions, and uprores about Matters of Religion.

Discusser.

Whence then arise Civill Dissensions and uprores in matters of Reli­gion? I Answer, 1. When a State liveth and lieth in the guilt of a false God, false Christ, false Worship: then no wonder, if soare eyes be troubled at the appearance of light,—whereas good eyes are not troub­led at the Light. Ʋigilant and watchfull Persons, Loyall and Faithfull are not so troubled at the true, no nor at a false Religion of Jew or Gentile.

Discharge.

This is as little to the purpose, as that which went before. The distinction spake of holding forth Erroneous and unlawful things, in a way tending of it selfe, to the disturbance of Civill Peace. This Discussion holdeth forth another way tending to the disturbance of Civill Peace, not of it selfe, but by occasion or by Accident, to wit, when the holding forth of Light and Truth disturbeth the sore Eyes of a corrupt State. If per se, and per Accidens (of it selfe, and by occasion) be all one: If the holding forth of Truth, and Error be all one, then this Discussion hath shaken the distinction of holding forth Error, not in an humble and meeke way, but in a way of Arrogance and Impetuousnesse. But when he saith, vigilant and faithfull Persons are not so troubled, no not at the false Religion of Jew or Gentile: If he meane not so much troubled at the false Re­ligion, as corrupt Sates be at the true Religion: there may be truth in the speech, but it onely argueth, That corrupt nature is more zealous in the defence of its owne will-worship, then the faithfull be in the defence of the Truth. But surely the faithful are called to contend Earnestly for the Faith, ( Jude 3.) and have as much cause to be troubled at the holding forth of the Worship of Baal, as corrupt States be at the holding forth of the Worship of Jeho­vah. If his meaning be, that vigilant and faithfull Persons, are not so troubled at the false Religion of Jew or Gentile, but that they can Tolerate them to live amongst them in a Civill Body, we say so too: And therefore the Indians, who have submitted to the Government of this jurisdiction, are not compelled to the Profession or acknowledgement of our Religion, either by Force of Armes, or Poenall Lawes. But yet if Christians should seduce Christians to turne Apostates from the Faith, and to imbrace Judaisme, or Paganisme: Or if Jewes or Pagans living amongst us should openly blaspheme the God of heaven, & draw away Christi­ans to Atheisme, or Judaisme, I should not account them either vi­gilant, or faithfull Christians, that were not troubled at such a destroying of the true Religion, and propagating of the false. Paul blamed the false Teachers to be the Troublers of the Churches of Galatia, Gal. 5.10, 12. Acts 15.24.

Discusser.

2. Breach of Civill Peace may arise when false and Idolatrous practises [Page 19]are held forth, and yet no Breach of Civill Peace from the Doctrine, or Practise, or the manner of holding them forth, but from the wrong and preposterous way of Suppressing, and preventing and extinguishing such Errors by weapons of wrath and Bloud, Whips, Stocks, Imprisonment, Banishment, Death, by which men are commonly perswaded to convert Heretickes, and to cast out uncleane spirits, which onely the finger of God can doe, that is, the mighty Power of the Spirit of the Word. It is light alone that is able to dispell and scatter such mists and foggs of darknesse in the soules and Consciences of men.

Hence the Sonnes of men disquiet themselves in vaine, and unmerci­fully disquiet others.

Defender.

Then it seemeth, that if the Mariners of the Ship wherein Jonah sayled when he fled from the Presence of God, if they I say did cast Jonah over board into the Sea, this preposterous way of theirs in suppressing the Error of his way, was it which raised the storme and Tempest, whereby the Ship was tossed to and fro, & disturbed, yea & in jeopardy to be sunk and destroyed. But the Text speakes to the contrary, when they had cast Jonah forth into the Sea, the Sea ceased from his raging, Jonah 1.15.

But what was the sinne of Jonah? was it not some sinne against the second Table, some act of unrighteousnesse against his Neigh­bour? It was a direct and immediate breach of a rule of his Pro­pheticall Office, a sin against the second Commandement of the First Table. But was not the Sea, in which this tempest arose a­gainst Jonah, and against the whole Ship for his sake, was it not the Sea of Tiberias, which being within the Confines of the Holy Land, the Sea also was Holy, and would not suffer such a sin un­punished? No, the Sea of Tiberias is within the Confines of Gali­lee, and other parts of the Land of Israel; But this was the Medi­terranean Sea, between Joppa and Tarshish, Jonah 1.3. But were not these Mariners, Israelites, who might have some speciall charge from God, to roote out all Idolatry and false Worship from amongst them, which bindeth not us Gentiles? No, they were Pagans and Gentiles, as appeareth in that every one of them cryed out, unto his own God.

But why did not God send out the tempest to punish those Pa­gan [Page 20]Mariners rather, for their Idolatry then Jonah for his Erro­neous Practise in running away from the true God?

God in times past suffered all Nations to walke in their owne wayes Acts, 14.16. And so did his Vicegerents the good Kings of Israel doe the like: David did not compell the tributary Nations to worship the God of Israel. No more doth our Colony here com­pell the tributary Indians to worship our God. But if an Israelite forsake God, he disturbeth not onely the Common-wealth of Israel, but the Barks of Pagans, and Heathen states as Jonah did this Ship, by his departure from God. Therefore a Christian by de­parting from God, may disturbe a Gentile civill State. And it is no preposterous way for the Governours of the State, according to the quality of the disturbance raised by the starting aside of such a Christian, to punish both it and him by civill censure.

Nor doth the Civill State in such punishments attend so much, how to procure the conversion of Heretickes, or Apostates, or such like scandalous turbulent offenders: as how to prevent the perversion of their sounder people (Gangraenam amoveas, ne pars sincera trabatur:) or else to worke the subversion of such, as doe subvert both truth and peace.

And yet as legall terrours are ordinary meanes blessed of God to prepare hard and stout hearts to conversion: so such legall punish­ments God is in like sort pleased to blesse to the confusion, and re­formation of false Prophets, as was foretold by Zacharie, it should come to passe in the dayes of the new Testament, Zach. 13.4, 5, 6.

Object. Yea, but it is light alone that is able to dispell and scatter such mists and foggs of darknesse in the soules and Consciences of men.

Ans. True: But yet the judgements of God are as the Light that goeth forth, Hosea 6.5. And the judgements of men executed ac­cording to the Word, are sanctified of God to prevent the spread­ing of Idolatry and seducement to it; All Israel shall heare and feare, and doe no more presumptuously, Deut. 13.11. Nor is the righteous proceeding in Civill States a disquieting of themselves, or any unmercifull disquieting of others. For it is no disquieting to a just man to doe Justice: and the disquieting of men in sinne, it is no unmercifull dealing, but a compassionate healing either of them­selves or others. The false Prophet reclaimed by stigmatizing with [Page 21]wounds in his hands, will freely acknowledge, thus was I woun­ded in the House of my friends ( Zach. 13.6.) Friends are not un­mercifull disquieters.

Object. The Judgements of God which goe forth as the light are not of the Judgements of his hand, but of his mouth, for so he ex­plaineth himselfe in that place of Hosea, I have hewen them by the Prophets, I have slaine them by the words of my mouth: And thy Judgements were as the light that goeth forth.

Ans. The Judgements of God, whether of his mouth or of his hand, doe both of them goe forth as light. For when the Judge­ments of God are upon the earth, (and he speaketh of the judgments of his hands,) the Inhabitants of the world shall learne righteousnesse, Isai. 26.9. And that whereby we learne righteousnesse, is light. Besides when the Lord is said to have hewen, and slaine his Apo­state people by his Prophets, and by the words of his mouth; He doth not onely meane the spirituall hewing, and slaying of their soules, but also the temporall judgements, Famine, Warre, and Pestilence, which the Prophets threatned, and the Hand of God, and Hazael executed in the hewing and slaying of them.

CHAP. 10. A Reply to his tenth Chapter, wherein he discusseth the last Distinction.

PErsecution for Conscience, is either for conscience rightly informed, or a blind and erroneous conscience.

Discusser.

Both these Consciences are indeed persecuted: but lamentably blinde and erroneous will those consciences shortly appeare to be, which out of zeale to God (as is pretended) have persecuted either, &c.

Defender.

This whole Chapter may stand for us, without Impeachment. We approve no persecution for conscience, neither conscience rightly informed, (for that we account the persecuting of Christ:) nor conscience misinformed with errour: unlesse the errour be [Page 22]pernicious, and unlesse the conscience be convinced of the errour and perniciousnesse thereof, that so it may appeare, the erroneous party suffereth, not for his conscience, but for his sinning against his conscience.

And though it be true, there is a seared conscience in some, to which God hath in his judgement, given them up, that they may never see light, how cleare soever, both in Scripture and nature: and though this seared conscience doe not extenuate, but aggra­vate sinne; and though a man by this seared conscience may com­mit some notorious capitall crime, (as he that in Ireland burnt his owne sonne in the fire, in the imitation of Abraham, and called in his Neighbours to rejoyce in beholding the power of his faith:) and though such a man was justly put to death: yet it may not be said, he was punished for his conscience, but for that unnaturall barbarous cruelty and murther, which he committed, and which his conscience could never have blinded him to commit, out of any naturall humane ignorance, or infirmity, but out of poenall and judiciall blindenesse, which God never leaveth men unto, but up­on habituall and customary sinning against light of conscience.

CHAP. 11. A Reply to his eleventh Chapter touching Persecution for Conscience rightly informed.

Discusser.

AFter explication of the Point in these former Distinctions, the Answerer of the Letter giveth his Resolution to the Question in foure particulars.

1. It is not lawfull to persecute any for Conscience sake rightly infor­med, for in persecuting such, Christ himselfe is persecuted, Acts 9.4.

A man may as soone finde darkenesse in the bright Beames of the Sunne, as in this cleare Beame of Truth, that Christ Jesus in his Truth must not be persecuted.

Yet this I must aske, (for it will be admired by all sober men) what should be the Cause or Inducement to the answerers minde to lay downe [Page 23]such a Position or Thesis as this is, It is not lawfull to persecute the Lord Jesus.

Search all Scriptures, Histories, Records, Monuments, consult with all experiences; Did ever Pharaoh, Saul, Ahab, Jezebel, Scribes and Pharisees, the Jewes, Herod, the bloudy Neroes, Gardiners, Bonner, Pope or Devill himselfe professe to persecute the Sonne of God, Jesus as Jesus, Christ as Christ, without Maske or Covering?

Defender.

It may seeme though the Truth be as cleare as the Beames of the Sunne, yet the Discusser can espie a moate of admirable weake­nesse in the delivering of such a Position, though never so true or cleare. But let him cease his Admiration, unlesse it be to admire his owne Fancy.

For I doe not lay it downe as a Position, that it is not lawfull to persecute the Lord Jesus: or that Christ in his Truth must not be persecuted. But my Position was, It is not lawfull to persecute any for Conscience sake, rightly informed: And for a reason hereof, I give this Principle, for in persecuting such, Christ is per­secuted: Is it now become an admirable strange thing to give a Principle of Religion, not for a Position, (and yet if it were so, what strange thing were it?) but for the proofe of a Position? Let me give you a like instance, Gamaliel layeth it downe for a Position, that the Doctrine of the Apostles, if it be of God, the Priests and Elders cannot overthrow it: and he gives this princi­ple for a reason of it, lest in so doing, ye be found (saith he) to fight against God, Acts 5.38, 39. Now is this such a matter as will be admired of all sober men, that so wise a man as Gamaliel should lay downe this as a Position, That men should not be found figh­ters against God? May not a man rather admire and adore the strange hand of God, that shall leave a man soberly to admire at such a thing, and to thinke all sober men will in like sort wonder at the same? But the truth is, Neither Gamaliel, nor my selfe, laid downe that Principle for a Conclusion, nor for a Position: nor if we had, had we done any thing for sober men to admire at.

2. Though it were true, (which the Discusser makes the Ground of his Admiration,) That no Pharaoh, or Herod, or Nero, did ever professe to persecute the Sonne of God, Christ as Christ, &c. [Page 24]yet it will not make it an admirable Point, that Christ as Christ is not to be persecuted. For though they doe not professe to per­secute Christ as Christ: yet they doe it. And it is no admirable matter for all sober men to admire at, to tell men that perfecute the Lord Jesus, That it is not lawfull for them so to doe: Did not Christ himselfe (the wisedome of the Father) tell Saul as much? Acts 9.5.

3. It is as cleare, (to use his phrase) as the Sunne beames, both in Scripture and other histories, and frequent experience, That Tyrants and Apostates have often persecuted Jesus as Jesus, Christ as Christ. The Scribes and Pharisees they knew that Christ was the Sonne of God, the Lord, and Heire of the Church: And therefore they said among themselves, This is the Heire, come let us kill him, Matth. 21.38. Nor could they be said, in persecuting Christ, to have sinned against the Holy Ghost: if they had not beene enlightened to know him who he was, and yet leavened with such malice, as to persecute him, as they did. Histories tell us, that Julian the Apostate persecuted Jesus as Jesus, and Christ as Christ, yea and professed so to doe. And experience telleth, That if a Christian shall in Turkey seeke to gaine Turkes from the service of Mahomet, to the Faith of Jesus: they will persecute such a Christian to death, and in him Jesus, as Jesus.

4. Let Tyrants and Persecutours professe what they will, that they doe not persecute Jesus as Jesus, but under some other pre­tence: yet that varieth not the Truth, nor impeacheth the wise­dome of this Position, That it is not lawfull to persecute any for Conscience rightly informed, or to persecute any for professing the Truth of Christ.

Discusser.

One thing I see apparently in the Lords overruling of the pen of this Answerer, viz. a secret whispering from Heaven to him, That yet he hath never left the Tents of such who thinke they doe God good service in kil­ling the Lord Jesus in his servants, and yet say if we had been in the dayes of our Fathers in Queen Maryes dayes, we would never have consented to such Persecution &c.

Defender.

Verily this is a strange sight indeed, (and which all sober minds [Page 25]may well wonder at) to see apparently, That he who layeth downe this for a Position, That it is not lawfull to persecute any for Conscience right­ly informed, hath had a secret whispering from Heaven, that himselfe never yet left the Tents of Persecutors.

Surely it must needs be a strange and strong sight, even the fight of such as make themselves equall with God; that can see a man hath not left the Tents of Persecutors, (that is, the Communi­on with Persecutors) when he openly professeth it, to be utterly unlawfull to Persecute any for the Truths sake. It is true, God may see that in a mans heart which is contrary to the Profession of his mouth and Pen. And so may this Discusser see as much, if he be equall with God. But yet herein I dare be bold to say, he exalteth himselfe, not onely equall with God, but above God, to see one contradictory in another, which God himselfe cannot see. It is contradictory to Persecution, to beleive it unlawfull to persecute any for the Truths sake. He then that can see, yea & see apparently, & that out of the Faith & Profession of this truth, that it is unlaw­full to persecute any for the Truth, he that can see (I say) fellow­ship with persecution in the faith, or Profession of the unlawful­nes of Persecution, verily he can see darknesse in light, evill in good, Falshood in Truth, which God himselfe (Such is the perfection of his Truth) cannot doe.

Discusser.

Let me also add a second, So farre as the Answerer (by Preach­ing for Persecution) hath been a guide to others in persecuting any of the Servants of Christ witnessing to his Truth, so farre his own mouth and hands shall judge (I hope not his person, but) his acti­ons, that the Lord Jesus hath suffered by him.

Defender.

If any Doctrine Preached by me have Guided any to persecute any of the Servants of Christ for witnessing to any Truth of Christ, then I confesse I must lay my hand upon my mouth, and acknow­ledge that the Lord Jesus hath suffered by me. But if the Disousser can never be able to produce any such Doctrine broached by me that hath guided any to persecute any of Gods Servants for wit­nessing to any Truth of his, (as I trust in the grace of Christ, he shall never be able) then the Discusser may know (and the Lord [Page 26]help his spirit to know it) that his own mouth and hands, shal one day judge (if not his person, yet) his actions, that the Lord Jesus hath suffered in his poore Servants, even bitter persecutions by his unjust slanders.

CHAP. 12. A Reply to his twelueth Chapter Entring upon the Dis­cussion of the unlawfulnes to Persecute an Erroneous and blinde Conscience.

Discusser.

The second Conclusion lay'd downe by the Answerer, is: It is not lawfull to persecute an Erroneous and blinde Conscience, Even in Fundamentall, and weighty Points, till after Admonition once, or twice Tit. 3.10, 11. And then such Consciences may be persecuted; because the Word of God is so cleare, in Fundamentall and weighty Points, that such a person cannot but sinne against his Conscience, and so being condemned of himselfe, that is of his Conscience, he may be persecuted for sinning a­gainst his own Conscience.

Defender.

They are the words of the Discusser, not mine, That such as erre in Fundamentall and weighty Points, after once or twice Admo­nition, such Consciences are then to be persecuted.

No, my words will cleare themselves if they be truly related, even as himselfe hath printed them. Thus they stand.

Secondly, For an erroneous and blinde Conscience, even in Fundamen­tall and weighty Points, It is not lawfull to persecute any, till after Ad­monition once or twice. And so the Apostle directeth Tit. 3.10. and giveth the reason, That in Fundamentall & principall Points of Doctrine and worship, The Word of God in such things is so cleare, that he cannot but be convinced in conscience of the dangerous Error of his way, after once or twice Admonition, wisely and faithfully dispenced. And then if any one persist, It is not out of Conscience, but against his Conscience, as the Apostle saith, ver. 11. He is subverted and sinneth being condem­ned of himselfe, that is, of his owne Conscience, so that if such a man after such Admonition, shall still persist in the Error of his way, and be [Page 27]therefore punished, He is not persecuted for cause of Conscience, but for sin­ning against his Conscience.

Where though I say, That it is not lawfull to persecute any, though erring in Fundamental and weighty Points, till after once or twice admonition: I doe not therefore say, (as the Discusser reporteth me) that after once or twice admonition, then such Con­sciences may be persecuted: But that if such a man after such Admo­nition shall still persist in the Error of his way, and be therefore punished, He is not persecuted for cause of Conscience, but for sinning against his own Conscience.

Object. But he that sayeth, It is not lawfull to persecute any Heretick till after once or twice admonition, He doth as much as say, that after once or twice admonition, It is then lawfull to per­secute any Heretick.

Ans. Not so neither, neither every Heretick, nor in every Court. Not in every Court or Judicature. But the same Church that followed an Heretick, with once or twice admonition, was further to pursue him, if he remaine obstinate, with excommuni­cation; my words doe expresse two things:

1. That an Heretick till after once or twice admonition, may not be pursued, no not with the Church-censure of Excommuni­cation: but after once or twice admonition, It was then lawfull for the Church to proceed to his Excommunication.

2. My words hold forth this also, That if such an Heretick so convinced and admonished, be afterwards punished by any Cen­sure, whether of Church or Court, It cannot be said, he is pu­nished for his Conscience, but for sinning against his Conscience.

But it was no part of my words or meaning, to say, that every Heretick, though erring in some Fundamentall and weighty Points; and for the same excommunicated, shall forth with be punished by the Civill Magistrate: unlesse it doe afterwards ap­peare, that he breake forth further, either into Blasphemy, or I­dolatry, or seducement of others to his Hereticall pernicious wayes.

Discusser.

This third of Titus, which through fearefull Prophanations hath so many hundred yeares bin the pretended Bulwarke of all the bloudy wolues, Dens of Lyons, Mountaines of Leopards hunting and devouring the [Page 28]witnesses of Jesus. He that can but see men as Trees, may easily discerne, It shall now be the Refuge and Defence (as I hope) of the Lamb's and little ones of Jesus.

Defender.

It is out of doubt, That this Text is, (as all the Texts in Scrip­ture be) the just Refuge and safe defence of the Lambes, and little ones of Jesus. But all the wit and skill of the Discusser, can never so farre wrest it, or darken it, as to make it a Refuge and defence for Heretickes, which is the Point in hand.

CHAP. 13. A Reply to his thirteenth Chapter, what is meant by this Heretick in Titus.

Discusser.

What is this Heretick? I find him commonly defined to be, such an one as is obstinate in Fundamentalls. And so the Answerer seemeth to Resent him, saying, the Apostle rendereth this reason, why after once or twice Admonition, he ought to be Persecuted, because, in Fundament ill and Principall Points of Doctrine and Worship, the Word of God is so cleare, that the Heretick cannot but be convinced in his owne Consci­ence. But of this Reason I find not one Tittle mentioned in this Scrip­ture: for so he saith, such an one is condemned of himselfe, yet he saith not, nor will it follow, that Fundamentalls are so cleare, that after first and second Admonition, a Person that submitteth not to them, Is condem­ned of himselfe, more then in lesser Points.

This word then an Heretick is no more, then an obstinate and willfull person in the Church of Creet striving and contending about unprofitable Questions & Genealogies. What is to be done with such an one? Let him be once and twice Admonished. What if once and twice Admonition prevaile not? The Apostle seemeth to Answer, [...], that is, the man that is willfully obsti­nate, after once or twice Admonition, Reject him.

Defender.

The Discusser is so farre from weakening what I said from this Text in Titus, that he rather confirmeth it, yea and graunteth a [Page 29]larger allowance to proceed against erroneous Persons, then I did. For,

1. Whereas I had said, The Apostle directeth the Church to proceed against an Heretick, that is against one obstinately erro­neous in Fundamentalls, The Discusser saith, yea and against such as erre though not in Fundamentalls, but in lesser points, and continue ob­stinate in striving about unprofitable Questions, and Genealogies.

2. He that graunteth (as the Discusser doth) that the Word of God is so cleare even in lesser Points, that he that persisteth in his error after once or twice Admonition, is willfully obstinate: he surely will not sticke to acknowledge, that the word of God is much more cleare in Fundamentall and Principall Points, that he that shall persist in Errors against the Foundation, after once or twice Admonition, he cannot but be much more justly accounted willfully obstinate, and to sinne against the light of his owne Con­science.

3. Though he saith he findeth no one Tittle in the Text, that in Fundamentall and Principall Points of Doctrine and Worship, the Word of God is so cleare, that after once or twice Admoni­tion, the Heretick cannot but be convinced in his owne Consci­ence: Yet he might easily find it, and cannot but find it, if he were pleased to ponder the words of the Text: yea and he doth find it, though he be pleased to deny it. For the Heretick (whom the Text speaketh of) himselfe expoundeth to be a man willfully obstinate: An Evidence, that he erreth not through want of light, or weak­nesse of knowledge, but through strength of will. Whence also he is said to be condemned of himselfe, of his owne Conscience: An Evidence that the Points about which he erreth, are so clearely de­livered in Scripture, that after once or twice Admonition, the Heretick cannot but be convinced in his owne Conscience. And if this hold in sundry lesser Points, how much more doth it hold in Fundamentalls and Principalls? Unlesse he thinke the Holy Ghost be more darke, & obscure in delivering Principles and milke to Babes, then in delivering lesser Points to men of riper growth. If the word be so cleare as to make Fundamentals clear, (though not any more cleare, as he saith, then lesser Points) yet then it follow­eth, It maketh them both so cleare, that he that submiteth not to them after once, or twice Admonition is condemned of himselfe.

4. When the Apostle saith, an Heretick is subverted, [...], it is as much as if he had said, he is as an house subverted, o [...] tur­ned upside downe, or inside outward, as an house turned off from the Foundation: It is too dilute, and loose an Interpretation of the word [...], (which the Discusser maketh, Chap. 14.) [...], he is turned Crooked, a word opposite to streightnesse, or rightnesse. For he is not ignorant, that is not the meaning of [...], but of [...], which he joyneth with the other, meane, turned-crooked: for that is not subverted, but perverted. And if Paul say, that the Heretick is subverted, or turned off from the Foundation, and gives that as a reason, why he should be censured, how then can the Discusser say, he findeth not one tittle of this rea­son in this Scripture?

5. Take the Discussers own Interpretation of an Heretick, for an obstinate and willfull striver or contender about unprofitable Questions and Genealogies:

Those Questions and Genealogies, are expresly described by the Apostle, not onely to be unprofitable and vaine, but also to tend to the subversion of whole houses, Tit. 1.10, 11. which may seeme evidently to argue, that their disputings about the Genealogies of Christ, tended to cut off the Line of Christ, or at least to make it doubtfull, whether he were the lineall Heire of David, according to the flesh, and so whether he were the true Messiah or no. And thus, if the Discussers owne meaning of an Heretick may stand, still an Heretick is he, who is willfully obstinate in holding forth such Errors as subvert the Foundation of Christian Religion.

CHAP. 14. A Reply to his foureteenth Chapter, Explaining what it is to be subverted and selfe condemned.

Discusser.

Subverted is not here intended to be spoken of Heretickes in Funda­mentalls onely, but of men obstinate in the lesser Questions.

1. Subverted, [...], Crooked, a word opposite to rightnesse or streightnesse.

2. He sinneth wandering from the wayes of Truth:

3. He is [...], and condemned of himself, that is, by the secret checks and whisperings of his owne Conscience, which will take Gods part against a mans selfe, in accusing, smiting &c.

Defender.

All this so farre as Error is found in it, is spoken to, & discharged in the former Chapter.

Onely 2. Things more remaine in this Chapter which may not passe without some touch.

1. That he saith Gods People in all their awakenings acknowledge how sleightly they have listned to the checks of their owne Conscience. This the Answerer pleaseth to call sinning against Conscience: for which he may lawfully be persecuted, to wit, for sinning against his owne Consci­ence.

Wherein there is found a double falshood: 1. That he saith, I call the sleight listnings of Gods People to the checks of their Conscience, their sinning against Conscience. For I speake not of the sinning of Gods People against Conscience, but of an Heretick subverted tur­ned off from the Foundation: much lesse doe I call their sleight listnings to Conscience, to be Hereticall sinning against Consci­ence.

2. Least of all doe I say, that for such sleight listnings to the checks of Conscience, he may lawfully be persecuted, to wit, as for sinning against Conscience. Thus men that have time and leasure at will, will set up Images of clouts, and then shoot at them.

The 2. Thing in this Chapter (which I said might not passe without some touch) is, that having fastned upon me a conclusion, (which is none of mine, but an invention of his owne) He addeth, howsoever it be painted over with vermillion &c. yet he hopeth to mani­fest it to be the overturning and rooting up of the roote of all true Christi­anity, and absolutely denying the Lord Jesus to be come in the flesh.

Whereto I Reply no more but this: If he doe manifest that which Magnanimously he undertaketh, It may happyly be also manifested (by the helpe of Christ) that it will overturne no conclusion of mine. But howsoever, let him remember it was a proverb in Israel, Let not him that girdeth on his Armour, boast himselfe, as he that putteth it off 2 Kings 20.11.

CHAP. 15. A Reply to his fifteenth Chapter touching the admo­nition and rejection of an Heretick.

THe first and second Admonitions in the place of Titus were not Civill or corporall punishments on mens persons, or purses: But they were the reprehensions, convictions, exhortations, and perswasions of the word of the Eternall God, charged home to the Conscience, in the Name and Presence of the Lord Jesus in the midst of his Church. Which being despised, and not hearkened unto, in the last place followeth rejection, which is not a cutting off by heading, hanging, burning, nor an expel­ling out of the Countrey, and coasts: but the dreadfull cutting off from the visible head and body, Christ Jesus, and his Church—Spirituall cutting off by Excommunication.

Defender.

All this, & the proofes of this, in this Chapter, I willingly con­sent and subscribe unto: nor doth this touch any conclusion of mine at all, much lesse Discusse, or shake it. For though I said in­deed, that for an erroneous and blinde Conscience (even in Funda­mentall and weighty Points) It is not lawfull to persecute any, till after Admonition once or twice, according to Tit. 3.10.11.

Yet in alledging that place, to prove that Conclusion, I inten­ded no other persecution, but the Churches prosecution against such an Heretick by excommunication: no syllable in my con­clusion looketh at more.

If it be said, but Excommunication or any other Church-pro­secution, cannot fitly be called persecution: Yes verily, excommu­nication is a persecution, and a lawfull persecution, if the cause be just offence, (as the Angell of the Lord is said to persecute the wicked Psalm. 35.6.) But the Excommunication is a cruell and bitter persecution, If it be without just cause and due order: yea and the more greivous persecution, by how much the more grei­vous it is to a Christian man, to be excluded from the Communi­on of the Saints, then to be banished from a civill Society, sure it is, the Lord Jesus accounteth it a persecution to his Disciples, to be delivered up unto the Synagogues, and to be cast forth out of the Synagogues Luk. 21.12. with Joh. 16.2.

CHAP. 16. A Reply to his sixteenth Chapter touching To leration in Points of lesse moment.

Discusser.

For a third Position, or Conclusion, the Answerer gave this, that in things of lesse moment (whether Points of Doctrine or Worship) If a man hold them forth in a spirit of Christian meeknesse and love, (though with zeale and constancy) he is not to be persecuted, but tolerated, till God may be pleased to manifest his truth to him.

This conclusion I acknowledge to be the Truth of God; yet 3. things are very observeable in the manner of laying it downe.

1. That such a Person may be tolerated, till God may be pleased to re­veale his truth to him: upon the same ground the Apostle calleth for meek­nesse and Gentlenesse towards all men, and towards such as oppose them­selves; 2. Tim. 2. because it may be, God may give them repentance. Hence a soule that is lively and sensible of Gods mercy, cannot but be pa­tient, and gentle towards the Jewes— towards the Turkes— yea to all the severall sorts of Anti-Christians, yea to the Pagans, and to the wildest sort of the Sonnes of men, who have not heard of the Father and of the Sonne, &c. Yea not onely be patient to such, but also to pray for such, yea and to endeavour their participation of the same grace and mercy.

Defender.

This nothing shaketh, no nor so much as toucheth our cause, or defence; we thinke it unlawfull for the Church, to censure such, as are out of the Church. And for the Civill State, we know no ground they have to persecute Jewes, or Turkes, or other Pagans for cause of Religion, though they all erre in Fundamentalls. No nor would I exempt Anti-Christians neither, from Toleration, not­withstanding their Fundamentall Errors, unlesse after conviction they still continue to seduce simple soules into their damnable, and pernicious Heresies: as into the Worship of false Gods, into confidence of their owne merits for Justification, into seditious conspiracyes against the lives and States of such Princes, as will not submit their Consciences to the Bishop of Rome. Which if the [Page 34]Discusser shall in the sequell pluck off as the silken covering of an Image (as he calleth it) we shall further attend him.

Discusser.

2. I observe from the Scriptures he quoteth for this Toleration ( Phil. 3. Rom. 14.) how closely (yet I hope unadvisedly) he maketh the Churches of Christ at Philippi, and Rome, all one with the Cities of Philippi, and Rome &c.

Defender.

No such matter: I never thought these Scriptures to belong at all to the Cities of Philippi or Rome, Paul writeth to both the Churches not only to tolerate, but to receive their weake brethren, who dissent from them in matters of lesse moment: but to the Cities, I never read any Epistle of his. Who would ever imagine, the Discusser should be so farre transported beyond all bounds, ei­ther of reason, or truth, or candor, as to surmise the Answerer should conceive, That what those Churches must not tolerate in their holy communion, that the Cities of Philippi and Rome must not tole­rate within the compasse of the City, State, and Jurisdiction.

Discusser.

3. From this Toleration of persons holding but lesser errors, I observe the unmercifulnesse of such Doctrines and Hearts, that he, that is sleight­ly and but a little hurt shall be suffered, & meanes vouchsafed for his cure: but the deep-wounded sinner, the Leprous, and Vlcerous &c. must not be suffered, untill peradventure God may give them Repentance &c.

Defender.

And why doth he not aswell observe the unmercifulnesse of such States and Lawes, as suffer petty theives, and liars to live in their Townes & Cities: but will not suffer willful murtherers, & violent robbers to live amongst them? such as are tainted with lesser Errors, and it may be, whet them upon others, they are but as petty theives, and lyars: but such as after conviction doe goe on to subvert the Foundation of Christian Religion and to subvert and destroy the soules of Gods People, and stoutly robb them both of the meanes of Grace here, and of the inheritance of glory here­after, they are worse then willfull murderers, or violent robbers. The Holy Ghost speaketh of false Teachers, as bringing in damna­ble Heresies, 2 Pet. 2.1. as overthrowing the faith of some 2 Tim. 2.18. as subverting their soules, Acts 15.24. making merchan­dize [Page 35]of Gods People 2 Pet. 2.3. which being so, me thinkes, such as do more mischiefe, are lesse tolerable, then they that doe lesse. It is true, they that are more deeply wounded-sinners, are more to be pittied, suppose the depth of their wounds reach none but them­selves; but if they be infectious, and Leprous, and have Plague sores running upon them, and thinke it their glory to infect others; It is no want of mercy, and charity, to set such at a distance: It is a mercilesse mercy, to pitty such as are incureably contagious, and mischeivous, and not to pitty many scores or hundreds of the soules of such, as will be infected and destroyed by the toleration of the other.

CHAP. 17. A Reply to his seventeenth Chapter: touching the hold­ing forth of Error with a boisterous and arrogant Spirit.

Discusser.

It is said by the Answerer, He that holdeth forth Error with a boiste­rous and arrogant spirit to the disturbance of the Civill Peace, he ought to be punished.

To this I have spoken too, confessing that if any man commit ought of those things, which Paul was accused of Acts 25.11. He ought not to be spared: yea he ought not in such cases to refuse to die.

Defender.

I would not say, That every man that holdeth forth Error in a a boisterous and arrogant spirit to the disturbance of Civill Peace, ought to be punished with death. This is too Bloudy a Tenet, un­lesse the boisterous Arrogancy were such as did disturbe the Civill Peace to the destruction of the lives and soules of men.

Discusser.

But if the matter be of a Spirituall and Divine nature, I have written before, in many cases, and might in many more, that the worship which a State professeth, may be contradicted and preached against, and yet no breach of Civill Peace, &c.

Defender.

There is no Error, that can be a matter of divine nature, though it may be spirituall; no such Points as are of a divine nature, fall within the compasse of this dispute of persecution. The many ca­ses, which the Discusser before wrote of are all of them allowed, but none of them concerne holding forth of Errors, which is the Point in hand.

Yet true it is, that if a man hold forth Truth in some boisterous and arrogant way, not with the Armour of the Spirit, but with the Arme of flesh, He may in so doing disturbe the Civill Peace, and for such disturbance be justly punished, according to the quality of the disturbance raised by him.

It is easily graunted what the Discusser further avoucheth, that they doe break the Cities or Kingdomes Peace, who cry out for Prisons, and Swords, against such who crosse their Judgements, or Practise in Religion: to wit unlesse their Religion be of God, and the crossing of it be such as destroyeth and subverteth the Religion of God.

But when he saith, such onely breake the Cities or Kingdomes Peace, as call for Prisons and Swords against Hereticks. It is too vast an Hy­perbole; as if Murderers Seditious Persons, Rebells, Traytors were none of them such, as did breake the Cities or Kingdomes Peace at all: but they onely who are too sharpe against corrup­tions in Religion.

It is also further easiely graunted, which he alledgeth, that many complaine most, who are most in fault themselves, as Josephs Mistresse of him. The Lord helpe the Discusser to reflect upon his own way.

CHAP. 18. A Reply to his Eighteenth Chapter, Examining the first Argument for Toleration from Mat. 13.30, 38.

Discusser.

First, Mat. 13.30, 38. Christ Commaundeth to let alone the Tares, to grow up together with the wheat, untill the Harvest.

Ʋnto which he Answereth,

That Tares are not Bryars and Thornes, but partly Hypocrites like un­to the Godly, but indeed carnall (as the Tares are like to the wheat, but are not wheat) or partly such corrupt Doctrines and Practises, as are in­deed unsound, but yet such as come very neere the Truth (as Tares doe to the wheat) and so neere that good men may be taken with them, and so the Persons in whom they grow, cannot be rooted out, but good wheat will be rooted out with them. In such a case, Christ calleth for Peaceable Tole­ration, not for poenall Prosecution according to the third Conclusion.

But alas here is no evidence or demonstration of the Spirit, nor argu­ment from the place it selfe, or from the Scriptures of Truth, to prove such an Interpretation.

Defender.

Ans. The Letter (to which the Answer was given) gave no rea­son of his exposition: and who ever required more reason of an Answerer, then of a Replyer?

2. The Exposition I gave was consistent with that which the Letter gave. [Tares and wheat, saith he, some understand to be those that walke in the Truth, and those that walke in lyes] now when I say, the tares are Hypocrites, and some kind of corrupt Do­ctrines and Practises, and such as walke in them, are not these co­incident with such as walke in lyes? what need had I to give a rea­son of the exposition, which he himselfe (to whom the Answer was written) acknowledgeth?

Discusser.

But those three Persons, Doctrines and Practises, are as a threefold cord, and so a threefold strong snare to catch the feet of some or other.

Defender.

What hurt doe they get by being caught? Hypocrites, and cor­rupt Doctrines, and Practises, if they be found like unto good Christians, or sound truthes, what hurt doe they catch, when I say such are to be tolerated to the end of the world? But to pre­vent his feare of a threefold cord, I shall easily acknowledge that which I meant, that by Tares are meant such kinde of evill persons, as are like unto the good, whether they be Hipocrites, men of un­sound heartes, or men of unsound Doctrines, and Practises yet such as come neere the Truth.

CHAP. 19. A Reply to his nineteenth Chapter.

Discusser.

That the Lord intendeth not Doctrines, or Practises in this Parable, It is cleare: For,

1. The Lord Jesus expresly interpreteth the good seed to be Persons, & those the children of the Kingdome: The Tares also to signify men, and those the children of the wicked one ver. 38.

Defender.

If the Discusser had cast his eye a little lower, he might have found, that Christ interpreteth the Tares, not onely to be Persons, but things [...] all things that offend, as well as those that doe iniquity ver. 41. But I shall not stick upon that at all, let the Tares be Persons, whether Hypocrites, like unto true Christi­ans, or holders forth of scandalous, and corrupt, Doctrines and Practises like unto sound.

Discusser.

2. Such corrupt Doctrines and Practises are not to be tolerated now (as those Jewish observations were for a while, Rom. 14.) nor so long till the end of the world. For can we think, that though the Lord tendered the tender conscience of the Jews, in the observa­tion of the difference of meates and drinks (which were sometimes his owne Ordinances) that therefore Persons must be now tolera­ted in the Church (for I speake not of the Civill State) in super­stitious forbearing and forbidding of flesh in Popish Lents and superstitious Fridayes? &c.

Defender.

Who can tell what this Discusser would have? The Tares he would have to be Persons; not corrupt Doctrines, and Practises. And yet when he commeth to prove, that corrupt Doctrines and Practises are not to be tolerated, he proveth it from the unlawful­nesse of tolerating corrupt persons: for can we thinke (saith he) that persons must be now tolerated in the Church, in the superstitious forbear­ing or forbidding of flesh in Popish Lents and Fridayes? Such is the in­constancy of the spirits of men, whose hearts are not stayed, and [Page 39]steered by the Spirit of Truth, that sometimes Tares must not be corrupt Doctrines and Practises, but persons, because Tares, and so persons must be tolerated till the Harvest, not so corrupt Doctrines and Practises: And yet all the reason given, why cor­rupt Doctrines and Practises must not be tolerated, is this, because Persons that hold them forth must not be tolerated.

CHAP. 20. A Reply to his twentieth Chapter what is meant by Tares?

Discusser.

The Originall word [...], signifying all those weeds which spring up with the Corne, as cockle darnell, Tares &c. seemeth to imply such a kinde of people, as are commonly and generally knowne to be manifestly differing from, and opposite to, the true Worshipers of God &c.

Defender.

1. It is not true, that [...], signifyeth all those weeds that grow up with the Corne. For they be a speciall weed, growing up cheifely amongst the wheat: but when it commeth to the earing, it groweth more like to Barley, yet having a narrower leafe, fatter, and rougher, and a leaner seed in a prickly barke, bearing a purple flower: as Dioscorides testifyeth. Now this is farre from a descrip­tion of all sorts of weeds, that grow up with Corne.

2. Neither is it true, that Tares are commonly and generally known assoone as they appeare. For Hierom, who for a time lived in Jury, testifyeth, that Inter triticum et zizania, quod nos appellamus lolium, quamdiu herba est, et nondum culmus venit ad spicam, grandis similitudo est, et in discernendo aut nulla aut perdifficilis distantia. Comment. Mat. Cap. 13.

Yea the Text it selfe (though the Discusser deny it) holdeth forth as much. For the servants of the Husbandman (in whose Feild the Tares were sowen by the enemy) did not discerne the tares from the wheat, till the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit: for then it was, and not till then, that the Tares appeared to be Tares, Mat. 13.26. what though the Text holdeth forth no such time, [Page 40]wherein the servants doubted, or suspected what they were? It is like enough, they did not suspect them at all by reason of (the grandis similitudo) the great likenesse that was between them, whilest they were both in the blade. Which still maketh good the Exposition, that Tares are not bryars and thornes, but so like to the wheat, that till they come to earing, the one cannot be discerned from the other

Discusser.

The one appeared as soone as the other, and when the wheat put forth its blade, and fruite, the Tares were as early, they put forth themselves, and appeared also.

2. There is such a dissimilitude and unlikenesse between them, that as soone as Tares and wheat sprung up to blade and fruite, every husband­man could tell, which is wheat, and which is Tares.

Defender.

Its true, the Tares put forth their blade, assoone as did the wheat, and appeared above ground, one as early as the other: but they were so like one to an other, that the husbandmen could not tell, which was wheat, and which Tares, till the blade was grow­en up, and they both brought forth their fruite. And though when they both brought forth their fruite, there was no apparent dimissilitude: yet still it is evident, that at first the dimssilitude did not appeare. The Tares may therefore still stand for Hypocrites, who are so like at first unto good Christians, that they cannot easily be discerned one from another, till in processe of time, the difference of the fruite discover them.

Discusser.

But when was it that the House-holder gave charge to let them alone? was it not after they appeared, and were knowne to be Tares? which should imply by this interpretation of the Answerer, that when men are discovered and knowne to be Hypocrites, yet still such a generation of Hy­pocrites in the Church must be let alone, and tolerated untill the Harvest, or end of the world: which is contrary to all Piety, order and safety in the Church of the Lord Jesus, as doubtlesse, the Answerer will graunt.

Defender.

If the Answerer know his owne minde as well as the Discusser doubtlesse the Answerer will not graunt, that it is contrary to all [Page 41]piety, and order, and safety, that hypocrites (knowne hypocrites) be tolerated in the Church till the end of the world. For though it be against the safety of the Church, when the Officers, or body of the Church prove hypocrites, (for that threatneth a dis-churching, Rev. 2.5.) yet till the fruits of hypocrisie grow notoriously scanda­lous, and ripe for Church-Censure, it is not contrary to all piety, and order, & safety, to suffer them: but rather more safety to suffer them, least some of Gods own Saints, (true wheat) who for a time may degenerate and bring forth like fruit with the Tares, be pluck­ed up with them. If foolish Virgins be cast out of the Church, the wise Virgins may be sometime found sleeping, as well as they, Mat. 25.5.

CHAP. 21. A Reply to his Chap. 21. VVhat is meant by the world; and more of the Tares.

Discusser.

2. The Tares cannot signifie hypocrites in the Church; for the field wherein they both grow is interpreted by Christ himselfe to be the world, which lieth in wickednesse, and is a wildernesse of wilde Beasts, Fornica­tors, Covetous, Idolators, &c. In this world as soone as the Lord Jesus hath sowen the good seed, (the Children of the Kingdome, true Christia­nitie, or the true Church) the enemy Satan presently in the night of Se­curitie, Ignorance, and Error, soweth the Tares, which are Antichristi­ans, or false Christians. Those the Ministers and Prophets of God would straight runne to Heaven for fiery Judgements, from thence to consume them. But the Sonne of man commandeth a Permission of them, till the end of the world, when Goats and Sheep, Tares and Wheate, shall be eter­nally separated, &c.

Defender.

Answ. 1. It is true, Christ expoundeth the Field to be the world, ver. 38. But he meant not the wide world, but (by an usuall Trope) the Church scattered throughout the world: as Christ is said to have loved the world, Joh. 3.16. and to be the Propitiation of the sinnes of the world, 1 Joh. 2.2.

Reas. 1. Else there had been no place for the servants wonder [Page 42]at the appearing of the Tares. Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it Tares? ver. 27. Did ever any of the servants of Christ wonder, or saw any cause to wonder, that the world should be full of Fornicators, Idolaters, Murderers, Rob­bers, &c? Was it ever otherwise since the world was replenished with Inhabitants?

Reas. 2. What calling had the Ministers, or Prophets of Christ, to offer to pluck up all such notorious vicious persons out of the world? Did ever any Ministers of Christ demand such a Question of Christ; Wilt thou have us goe, and gather up all notorious vici­ous Persons out of the world? As they doe indeed demand the like concerning these Tares in Christs field, ver. 28.

Reas. 3. The Discusser himselfe reckoneth up Goats and Sheep, as parallell with Wheat, and Tares, as generally Interpreters doe. Now evident it is, that Goats were cleane Beasts, as well as Sheep; cleane for food, yea and cleane also for sacrifice; and yet they were tolerated not onely to live in the same world, but in the same Church. For after the destruction of Antichrist, when purest times of the Church shall come, the Members of the Church shall all of them be Virgins, (none Idolaters) though some wise, and some foolish; all of them servants, though some thristie, some unprofi­table: all of them cleane, though some Goats, some Sheep. And therefore the Kingdome of Heaven (that is, the Church) is at that time resembled to such a mixt state (after the ruine of Antichrist, and conversion of the Jewes) untill the coming of Christ to Judge­ment, Mat. 25.1. &c.

Answ. 2. If the Field should be the world, and the Tares Anti­christians and false Christians; it is true, Satan sowed them in Gods Field, but he sowed them in the Church. The mystery of their Iniquitie did secretly work in the very bosome of the Church, till in processe of time, it grew so ranck and grosse, as transformed the Churches that drunke it up, into spirituall Babylon. But if An­tichrist be an Apostate, and Antichristianitie Apostasie, then it was first sowen in the field of the Church, and not of the wide world.

Answ. 3. It is not the will of Christ, that Antichrist and Anti­christians, and Antichristianitie should be tolerated in the world, untill the end of the world. For God will put it into the hearts of faithfull Princes, (as they have given their Kingdomes to the Beast, [Page 43]so) in fulnesse of time to hate the whore, to leave her desolate and naked, and to burne her flesh with fire, Rev. 17.16, 17. And after this we reade of a visible state of a new Hierusalem, which shall flou­rish many yeares upon Earth, before the end of the world, Revel. Chap. 20. Chap. 21. Chap. 22.

Neverthelesse, I willingly grant that the first fruits of Antichri­stians, and false Christians may be reckoned up amongst the Tares, which Satan sowed in the field of the Church, which afterwards grew to be Briars and Thornes, and so destructive to the wheate, that the wheat could not be suffered (if discerned) to live amongst them.

Discusser.

But Christ (the wisdome of the Father) would never in opening this Parable, so farre obscure it, or to call the Church, the world: Nor doth it agree with the nature of the Church, or Garden of Christ, to be styled the world.

Defender.

It is no impeachment to the wisdome of Christ to call his Elect Churches and Saints throughout the world, by the Name of the world; Else Paul spake not by the wisdome of Christ, when he said, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himselfe, 2 Cor. 5.19.

And though the Church within it selfe be a Garden, and severed from the world; yet all the Churches being scattered and dispersed throughout the world, it is no more an improper speech, to call the Church the world, then to speake of Christ as dying for the world, when he dyed for his Church.

CHAP. 22. A Reply to his 22. Chapter: more of Tares.

Discusser.

In the former Parable, the Lord Jesus compared the kingdome of Heaven to the sowing of seed. The true Messengers of Christ are sowers, who cast the seed of the word of the Kingdome upon 4. sorts of ground; which 4. sorts of grounds, or hearts of men, cannot be supposed to be of the Church; nor [Page 44]will it ever be proved, that the Church consisteth of any more sorts or na­tures of ground properly, but one, to wit, the honest and good ground. And the proper work of the Church concerneth the prosperitie and flourishing of this sort of ground, and not of the other three sorts.

In the field of the world then are all those sorts of grounds, High-way­side, stony, thorney Hearers, as well as the honest and good ground. And I suppose it will not be said by the Answerer, that these three sorts of bad grounds were Hypocrites or Tares in the Church.

Defender.

Answ. 1. But what if the Answerer will say so? It may be con­trary to his supposall, but not to the Truth. For I demand, did not Christ himselfe (who was the chiefe Sower) did not he Preach, and sow the seed of the word to all those foure sorts of Hearers? And yet he was the Minister of Circumcision, ( Rom. 15.8.) and Preached seldome to any, but to Church-Members, Members of the Church of Israel.

Answ. 2. It's an error to say, The Church consisteth of no more sorts of Hearers, but one, the honest and good ground: for if the children of Church-members be in the Church, & of the Church, till they give occasion of rejection, then they growing up to yeares, become some of them like the High-way-side, others like the sto­ny, others like the Thorney, as well as others like the honest and good ground.

Answ. 3. Though it be not the proper work of the Church to attend the prosperitie and flourishing of the three sorts of bad ground, to wit, whilest they remaine bad: yet it is their worke to seek the changing of the bad into good ground, that so they may come to prosper and flourish. For is it not the proper work of the Church, to bring on their children to become the sincere People of God, as well as to keep themselves in that estate? Is it not a maine Branch of their Covenant with God, that as God giveth himselfe to be a God to them, and to their seed, so they should give up them­selves and their seed to be his People? Besides, hath not God given Pastours and Teachers, as well for the gathering together of the Saints, as for the edification of the body of Christ? And hath he not given the Church, and the Gospel Preached in the Church, to lye like Leaven in three Pecks of Meale till all be Leavened? Mat. 13.33.

Answ. 4. There is not such resemblance between High-way-side ground, and good ground, as is between Tares and Whea; nor would the servants of the Husbandman ever wonder that weeds should grow in the high-way-side ground, as they do at the grow­ing of Tares in the Field. Nor would they ever aske the Question, whether they should pluck up weeds out of the High-way-side, or stones out of the stony ground, or pluck up Thornes out of the Thorney.

CHAP. 23. A Reply to his Chapt. 23. Still touching the Tares.

Discusser.

These Tares I shall evidently prove to be Idolaters, and in particular, properly Antichristians. For first, these Tares are such sinners, as are op­posite, and contrary to the Children of the Kingdome, visibly so declared and manifest, ver. 38.

Defender.

Answ. 1. These Tares are not such sinners as are contrary to the children of the Kingdome; for then none should be opposite to them but they. For contraries are such, quorum unum uni opponitur. But evident it is, there be more wicked ones opposite to the children of the Kingdome, then Idolaters, and Antichristians, to wit, those notoriously scandalous wicked ones, whom the Discusser nameth in the next Chapter, Drunkards, Thieves, uncleane Persons.

Answ. 2. It is a [...], a begging of the Question, to say that ‘these Tares are such sinners, as are opposite and contrary to the children of the Kingdome, visibly so declared and manifested;’ For the Tares were not discerned at first, (as hath been shewed a­bove) till the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit.

Discusser.

These Tares are the Children of the wicked one; which wicked one I take to be, not the Devill; for the Lord Jesus seemeth to make them distinct. The Tares (saith he) are the Children of the wicked one, or wickednesse: the Enemy that sowed them is the Devill.

Defender.

Answ. 1. The Devill and the wicked one, may well meane one and the same Person. For if the Devill sowed these Tares, then these Tares were the seed (and so the children) of the Devill. Why should they be called the seed of one, and the children of another?

Answ. 2. Suppose, [...], be translated (the children) of the wicked one, or wickednesse; that style will agree to hypocrites, as well as to other Persons. Sure it is, the Lord Jesus often calleth the Scribes and Pharises, Hypocrites, ( Mat. 23.) and he calleth them also a wicked and adulterous Generation, Mat. 16. And therefore still these Tares will not appeare to be others then Hypocrites.

CHAP. 24. A Reply to his 24. Chapter, Still touching the Tares.

Discusser.

Though all Drunkards, Thieves, uncleane Persons, &c. be opposite to Gods Children, yet the opposition of the Tares here against the Children of the Kingdome, is such an opposition as fights against the religious state and Kingdome of the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. It is manifest, the Lord Jesus intendeth no other sort of sinners in this Parable, (then Antichristians) unto whom here he saith, let them alone, in Church or State. For then he should contradict other holy and blessed Ordinances, for the punishment of Offenders, both in Christian and Civill State.

For 1. In the Civill State, God hath armed Parents, Masters, Magi­strates, to punish evill doers, Murderers, Quarrellers, uncleane Persons, stealers, extortioners: such ought not to be let alone, neither in lesser nor greater Families, Townes, Cities, Kingdomes, Rom. 13. but seasonably supprest, &c.

2. In the Kingdome of Christ, (whose Officers, Lawes, punishments, weapons, are all Spirituall and of a Soule-nature) he will not have An­tichristian Idolaters, Extortioners, Covetous, &c. to be let alone, but the uncleane Lepers to be thrust forth, &c.

Therefore if neither the Offenders against the Civill Lawes, State, and Peace, ought to be let alone, nor the Spirituall State, the Church ought to beare with them that are evill, Rom. 2.

I Conclude, that these Tares are sinners of another nature, Idolaters, false Worshippers, Antichristians, who without discouragement to true Christians, must be let alone, and permitted in the world to grow up un­till the great Harvest.

Defender.

Answ. 1. As all wicked Persons be opposite to Gods children, (for the children of the Kingdome of Light, and the children of the Kingdome of darknesse, cannot but be opposite;) so the oppo­sition that is in all the wicked against the children of God, doth ‘fight against the religious state and Kingdome of the Lord Jesus.’ For such as stand for the Kingdome of Satan, (as all wicked men doe) they stand in opposition to the Kingdome of Christ. No man can serve two Masters; If he cleave to the one, he standeth in en­mitie to the other, Mat. 6.24.

Answ. 2. It followeth not, that because Christ biddeth his Mi­nisters, Let the wicked alone in Church or State, That therefore he intendeth no other then Antichristian Idolaters: Neither should Christ contradict any Ordinance of his own for the punishment of Offenders, both in Christian and Civill State, though he should command other offenders to be let alone besides Antichristians. For no Ordinance or Law of God, nor just Law of man, com­mandeth the rooting out of hypocrites, either by Civill, or Church-censure, though the Church be bound to endeavour as much (as in them lyeth) to heale their hypocrisie.

Answ. 3. Neither is it true, that Antichristians are to be let a­lone by the Ordinance of Christ, till the end of the world. For what if the members of a Christian Church shall some of them Apostate to Antichristian Superstition and Idolatry, (as often fal­leth out by the seduction of the Emissaries of Babel) doth the Or­dinance of Christ binde the hands of the Church (of which they are Members) to let them alone? In chapter 19. The Discusser himself would not have the superstitious observation of Lent-Fasts to be let alone; And surely, Christ ordained by his blessed Apostle Paul, that if any Brother proved an Idolater, (whether Pagan, or Antichristian) such an one should be cast out by excommunica­tion, 1 Cor. 5.11.

Besides, What if any Antichristian Persons out of zeale to the Catholick Cause, and out of conscience to the command of their [Page 48]Superiours, should seeke to destroy the King and Parliament, (as hath more then once or twice been attempted;) should such an one by any ordinance of Christ be let alone in the Civill State? More­over, if Popish Priests and Jesuites be rightly expounded to be the Rivers and Fountaines of water which drive the dead Sea of Anti­christian pollution up and downe all Nations in Europe: and if they by the Ordinance of Christ, be (in some cases) to drinke bloud, (for they are worthy) then they are not to be let alone, but duely supprest, and cut off from conveying up and downe their Idolatrous, Hereticall, and Seditious wickednesse, Rev. 16.4. to 7.

CHAP. 25. A Reply to his 25. Chapter; Still discussing the meaning of the Tares.

THirdly, The Tares cannot be hypocrites, is as cleare as the Light, because they, when they are discovered, and seene to be Tares, are not to be let alone to the Angels in the end of the world, but are to be purged out by the Governours of the Church, with the whole Church.

Defender.

This objection hath been answered above, and let it be againe denied (till the Discusser prove the contrary, which will never be) That hypocrites when they appeare to be hypocrites, (and yet no worse then Tares) are to be purged out by the Government of the Church. It is true, if Hypocrites having a forme of Godlinesse, and yet denying the power thereof, doe breake forth into such no­torious scandalous Fruits of Hypocrisie, as tend to the leavening of the whole lumpe, they may then justly be proceeded against by the Government of the Church. But otherwise, if the Church pro­ceed against an Hypocrite, as such, meerely for his hypocrisie, for want of life and power of Godlinesse in his duties, they may soone roote out, sometime or other, the best wheate in Gods Field, and the sweetest Flowers in his Garden, who sometimes loose their fatnesse and sweetnesse for a season.

Discusser.

Every Brother that walketh disorderly is to be with-drawen; and se­parated from.

Defender.

True: But who is a Brother that walketh disorderly? Not every Hypocrite, but onely such, who either walke inordinately without a calling ( [...],) or idely and negligently in his calling. For so the context carrieth it, in the words alluded to 2 Thess. 3.6. But that is not the case of every Hipocrite: of whom their are many that follow their callings, and are so farre from being burthensome to others by their idlenesse, that they are even choaked with the cares and businesses of this world, and yet are not behinde in liberall contributions to pious uses.

CHAP. 26. A Reply to his Chap. 26. Touching the danger of letting alone Anti Christians.

Discusser.

If any imagine, that the Antichristians being let alone may doe a world of mischiefe before the worlds end, by the infection of others.

I Answer, 1. The Civill State keepeth it selfe with a Civill sword: let Civill offences be punished: and yet let their worship and Consciences be tolerated.

2. The Church hath a thousand bucklers and weapons, able to break downe the strongest hould (2 Cor. 10.) and so to defend it selfe against the gates of earth or hell.

3. The Lord knoweth who are his: his chosen cannot finally be decei­ved

Lastly the Lord Jesus himselfe in this Parable giveth 2. Reasons able to content and satisfie our hearts.

First, least the good wheat be pluckt up out of the feild of the world. Gods People, the good wheat are generally pluckt, and persecuted, as well as the vilest Idolaters, whether Jewes or Antichristians, which the Lord Jesus seemeth here to foretell.

Second reason is, when the world is ripe in sinne, in the sinnes of Anti­christianisme, those mighty Angells of God will come with their sharpe [Page 50]sickles, and downe with them, and buildle them up for everlasting bur­nings, then shall the man of sin be consumed by the breath of the mouth of the Lord Jesus &c.

Defender.

Reply, 1. To his first Answer: It is true, the Civill State keep­eth it selfe with a Civill sword, if Civill offences be punished. But when he would have their worship & Consciences tolerated, what if their worship and Consciences incite them to Civill offences? How shall then the Civill State keepe it selfe safe with a Civill Sword.

As suppose a man that worshippeth the Beast, and maketh Con­science of obeying his commandements, shall thinke himselfe bound to subvert the Civill Prince, or State, who is excommuni­cated by the Beast? If such a man must be tolerated in his worship, and Conscience, what sword can provide for the safety of such a Prince or State?

Reply.

2. To his second Answer, It is true, the Church wanteth no Armories to defend it self, and amongst others, excommunication. But if their members be leavened with Antichristian Idolatry and superstition, and yet must be tolerated in their Idolatrous and su­perstious worship, will not a little leaven (so tolerated) leaven the whole lumpe? And how then is the safety of the Church guarded?

Reply.

3. To his 3. Answ. It is true the Lord knoweth who are his: and none of his Elect shall perish. But neverthelesse, Is it not a tempting of God, to presume upon Gods Election for our salva­tion, and to neglect the meanes of our preservation? In like case, Paul knew by revelation, that all his fellow passengers in the ship should be saved: but yet he professed that if the Marriners went out of the ship, they could not be saved Acts, 27.24, with 31. So is it here, The Elect of God shall be saved: but yet if Idolaters, and Seducers be tolerated (as Jezabell was in Thyatira) to seduce the servants of Christ to pollution and Apostacy, the Church will stand guilty before God of the seduction and corruption of the people of God.

Reply.

4. To his 4 Answer (the 2. Reasons alledged by him out of the Text:) To the first: There is no feare of plucking up the wheat, by rooting out Idolaters, and Seducers. If any of Gods People should fall into Idolatry, and Apostacy, yea and should prove an instrument to seduce others also into the like wickednesse: yet the censures inflicted on them, would be blessed of God to their re­covery, & healing: yea and if they were cut off by the Civill sword, yet the example and terrour of their punishment, would be blessed of God to preserve their brethren: who would all of them heare and feare, and doe no more such wickednesse. Neither is the just punishment of such, any just pretence to punish the innocent lambs of Christ.

Reply.

To the Second Reason out of the Parable, It may justly be Re­plyed, that the charge given to the Angells to execute vengeance at the last day upon such Idolaters, if that were sufficient to plead for the toleration of Idolaters, It would as well plead for the tole­ration of Murtherers, Robbers, Adulterers, Extortioners &c. for all these will the holy and mighty Angells of God gather into bun­dles at the last day, and cast them into everlasting burnings.

The place in 2 Thess. 2. doth not say, that the man of sin shall then be consumed with the breath of the mouth of the Lord Jesus: for he shall begin to be consumed long before, by all the seven vials of the wrath of God, Revel. 16. which have bin, and will be in powring out, many ages, before the great Harvest, of the end of the world. Yea I beleive also, He shall be destroyed many ages be­fore then: as the Apostle John foretelleth in Chap. 20.21.22. of the Revelation. And though it be translated, (in 2 Thess. 2.8.) The Lord shall destroy him with the brightnesse of his coming: yet the word is, [...]; and [...] doth as well, and more firstly signifie Presence, then comming. The Lord will destroy Antichrist with the brightnesse of his Presence in his sacred and Civill Ordinances, sundry ages before the brightnesse of his comming to Judgement. Otherwise we should set John & Paul at variance, who spake by one and the same Spirit of Truth.

CHAP. 27. A Reply to his 27. Chap. Discussing a doubt, how Ministers may be bidden to let Antichristians alone in the Civill State.

Discusser.

If it be objected, These servants, whom the Householder commaundeth to let the Tares alone, seeme to be Ministers or Messengers of the Gospell: How shall it belong to them to plucke up the Tares, or to let them alone, if by the Feild be meant the world?

Ans. The Apostles, and in them all that succeed them, received from the Lord a threefold charge.

1. To let them alone, and not to pluck them up by Prayer to God for their present temporall destruction.

2. Not to prophecy or denounce a present destruction, or extirpation of all false Professours of the Name of Christ. Tis true many soare and fearefull plagues are powred out upon the Roman Emperors, and Roman Popes, yet not to their utter extirpation untill the Harvest.

3. Not to pluck them up, by stirring up Civill Magistrates and powers, to punish and persecute all such persons out of their dominions, as worship not the true God according to his revealed will in Christ Jesus.

Tis true, Elijah thus stirred up Ahab to kill all the Preists and Pro­phets of Baal: but that was in the figurative state of the Land of Cana­an, not to be matcht or paraled by any other State, (but the Spirituall State, or Church of Christ) in all the world, putting the false Prophets Spiritually to death, by the two-edged sword, and power of the Lord Jesus, as that Church of Israel did corporally.

Defender.

These 3. Interpretations of, Let them alone, are all of them so many evasions, (slippery evasions) sought out by the subtile wit of man, to winde out from under the Authority of the Truth, and word of Christ,

For 1. Why should not the Ministers of Christ Pray, either to pluck them up out of their Antichristian Idolatryes, or else to pluck them up, as the Plantations which our Heavenly Father hath not planted? He that may Pray daily for the comming of [Page 53]Christs Kingdome, He may, and doth, and ought to pray for the comming downe of all opposite Kingdomes. The Saints under the Altar that prayed against the delay of vengeance on the Roman Emperors, ( Revel. 6.10.) may more justly pray against the delay of vengeance on the Roman Antichrists.

What though the State of the Roman Antichristians was to con­tinue for sundry ages before their finall extirpation? Yet they were to expect vialls of Gods indignation to roote them out by a gradu­all extirpation in sundry of their cheife branches, and pillars, long before the extirpation of their whole Kingdome.

And what though the Saints in old Babell were to pray for the Peace of the City, as wherein themselves—might finde Peace? Yet the Saints that live not in such An [...]ichristian Territoryes; they may safely pray for the hastning of the redemption of their bre­thren out of the Antichristian bondage, and there withall pray for the hastning of the ruine, and desolation of the Antichristian Kingdome

Besides, Certaine it is from the Word of Truth, that the Anti­christian Kingdome shall be destroyed, and rooted up by Christi­an Princes and States long before the great Harvest of the end of the world, as hath been shewen a bove. And either such Princes must performe this great worke without Prayer (and then it were not sanctified to God 1 Tim. 4.4, 5.) Or if it be a sacrifice sanctified to God, they must pray for their desolation before they inflict it. And all the seven Angells, who powre out their vialls on the Anti­christian State, tending to the rooting of it out by degrees, They either pray for the successe of the vengeance of their vialls, or else they doe not powre them out in faith: which were contrary to the spirit of such holy Saints, who come out of the Temple opened in Heaven, and are cloathed with pure and white linnen, and have their breasts girded with golden girdles, Rev. 15.6.

2. If John the Apostle have Prophecied and denounced the de­struction and extirpation of Antichristian Idolaters, and their whole State, why may not a Minister and Messenger of Christ (ac­cording to the measure of light received) open those Prophecyes, and apply them with severe threatnings, against thme and their State?

Yea, but they may not apply, or denounce them to their present destructi­on or extirpation.

Yes to the present destruction of some or other Antichristian Idolaters in every age, though the State may continue (wasting) till the time appointed. It might as truely be said, the Ministers of Christ are forbidden to denounce present or speedy destruction to any murtherers, whoremongers, Tyrants, extortioners, because though some of them, may fall under many sore and feareful pla­gues: yet there will never want a company of such wicked doers, till the Great Harvest, the end of the world.

Besides what if a messenger of Christ should not denounce pre­sent destruction, yet he cannot be said to let them alone, who is hewing at them to bring them to destruction many yeares before. It is not every stroake with an Axe that felleth an Oake: it may be not an hundred, not a thousand stroakes; yet no stroake is lost that maketh way for the felling of it at the last. Neither can he be said to let the Tree alone, that striketh and heweth at it every day. So he that heweth at the Antichristian State every day by Prayer, and Preaching. He doth not let it alone, though it may stand many a yeare after. It will fall the sooner, and with more—facility for every stroake.

3. Nor can it be the meaning of Christ, in commanding his Ministers to let the Tares alone, to forbid them to stirr up Princes and States, to the rooting out of Antichristian Idolaters, and all such false worshippers, as destroy the Truth and Religion of the Lord Jesus. For amongst all the Angells, that powred out their vials upon the Antichristian State, it is not credible, that none of them should be Messengers of the Gospell. And when the ten Kings shall burne the City of Rome, and leave it desolate and naked, It is not credible that they will doe it without some excitement from the Angells, no more then the Angells powred out their vialls, till they were stirred up by a great voice out of the Temple, Revelations, 16.1.

It is an evasion as groundlesse as the former, that Elijahs stirring up of Ahab to kill all the Preists and Prophets of Baal, was figura­tive.

For all Figures in the old Testament have their Accomplishment [...]n the New. Now evident it is, Ahab (an Apostate Idolater) was no Type of Christ: nor was Israel (after their Apostacy) a Type of the true Church of Christ: A Tabernacle it was, but not a Taber­nacle [Page 55]of Christ: Aholah but not Aholibah. To make this act in Israel a Type of Christs act in Christian State, or Church, is to make darknesse a type of light. Ceremoniall Lawes were generally Ty­picall: not so Moses his Judicialls, especially those which had in them morall equity.

It is Morall equity, That Blasphemers, and Apostate Idolaters, seducing others to Idolatry, should be put to death, Levit. 24.16. Deut. 13.5. Ahab forfited his owne life because he did not put Ben­hadad to death for his blasphemy. 1 Kings, 20.23, 28. and ver. 42. yet Benhadad was no Israelite, nor was his blasphemy bleched out in the Land of Israel: but the externall equity of that Judiciall Law of Moses was of morall force, and bindeth all Princes to expresse that zeale, and indignation, both against blasphemy, in such as fall under their just power, which Ahab neglected; and against seducti­on to Idolatry, which Ahab executed, or else Elijah, or some o­thers, by his consent.

But before I leave this dispute, touching the meaning of those words, Let them alone, let me add another Interpretation, which I see doth rather more satisfie others, and it may wel stand. Let them alone, is not a word of precept by way of Ordinance: But a word of permission by way of Providence. God in his Providence will permit some or other Tares ever to be found in his Church to the last Judgement. Which yet he would not have his servants offen­ded at: For them he will pluck up by his Angells at the last Har­vest.

CHAP. 28. A Reply to his 28 ^th Chapter: VVhich is a Recaptulation of what Points the Discusser supposeth, He hath proved in opening this Parable.

Defender.

The Discusser in this Chapter, is onely a Rehearser of what he conceiveth himselfe to have evidently demonstrated to the Consci­ence, from Chap. eighteene, to this Chapter twentieight: Five Points Negatively: and Five Points Affirmatively. But because [Page 56]what he rehearseth hath been reversed in the Reply to those seve­rall Chapters, I will not Actum Agere, nor Dictum dicere.

CHAP. 29. A Reply to his twentininth Chapter, Discussing the Text in Matth. 15.14.

Letter.

The second Scripture brought against such Persecution for Cause of Con­science, is Matth 15.14. where the Disciples being troubled at the Pha­rises cariage towards the Lord Jesus, and his Doctrine, and relating how they were offended at him, The Lord Jesus commaundeth his Disciples to Let them alone, and giveth this Reason, that the blinde lead the blinde, and both should fall into the ditch.

Answ. of the Letter.

Christ speaketh not there to publick Officers, whether in Church or Common-wealth, but to his private Disciples concerning the Pharises, over whom they had no power.

And the command he giveth to Let them alone is spoken in regard of troubling themselves, or regarding the offence which they tooke at the wholesome Doctrine of the Gospel. As who should say, Though they be offen­ded at this wholesome saying of mine, yet doe not you feare their feare, nor be troubled at their offence, which they take at my Doctrine, not out of sound Judgement, but out of blindnesse. But this maketh nothing to the cause in hand.

Discusser.

To passe by this Assertion of the privacy of the Apostles, in that the Lord Jesus, commanded to Let them alone, that is, not onely to be offen­ded themselves, but not to meddle with them, It appeareth it was no Or­dinance of God, nor of Christ, for his Disciples to have gone further, and have complained to, and excited, the Civill Magistrate to his duty. Which if it had been an Ordinance of God, and Christ, either for the vindica­ting of Christs Doctrine, or the recovering of the Pharises, or the preser­ving of others from infection, the Lord Jesus would never have comman­ded them to omitt that, which should have tended to these holy ends.

Defender.

Reply 1. To passe by the Assertion of the Privacy of the Apo­stles, It is not an Act of courtesie, and loathnesse to strive, but out of defect of just pretence to make any colourable exception a­gainst it. For though the Apostles were called to a publique Mi­nistery, Math. 10. yet it seemeth, not as then to a constant of­fice, but to a transient Administration pro illa vice, for that time. Their constant calling required to attend continually upon Christs Ministry, to prepare and ripen them for the publique constant of­fice which they were to be called to, after Christs Resurrection, Acts 1.21, 22.

Besides in that transient Administration they were not sent to the Scribes and Pharises, (who were no bitter then Wolves and Foxes,) but to the lost sheepe of the House of Israel, Matth. 10.6. And therefore the Apostles not being sent to the Scribes and Pha­rises, they had no power over them, but stood as private men to them.

Reply 2. And as they had no calling, nor power to correct or censure them themselves: so neither had they a calling to excite the civill Magistrate against them. For first it was no just cause for the civill Magistrate to punish the Pharises, for that they tooke un­just offence against Christs wholesome doctrine.

For neither was the doctrine it selfe a fundamentall truth: nor was their offence against it, a fundamentall errour, though it was dangerous. Besides the civill Magistrates had no Law established about doctrines, or offences of that nature. And therefore they could take no judiciall cognizance of any complaint presented to them about the same.

Moreover our Saviour who sent forth his Apostles to preach to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel, gave them a charge of caution to beware how they medled with Scribes and Pharises, Behold, (saith he) I send you forth as sheepe among wolves: Be ye therefore wise as serpents, & innocent as doves, Beware of men, &c. Mat. 10.16, 17.

The Apostles therefore having received this caution could not meddle with the Scribes and Pharises, but trespasse against this rule of serpentine prudence: as much as for a flocke of lambes to complaine to a kennell of wolves, of the wolves out-rage. Yea, Christ himselfe was sparing to reprove them himselfe (though cal­led [Page 58]to a publicke Ministery,) till the last yeare of his Ministery, when his houre was comming of departure out of the world; as knowing, they would not be able to beare it, and their exaspera­tion might have been some hinderance to the free passage of his Ministery, before his houre was come.

CHAP. 30. A Reply to his Chap. 30.

Discusser.

IF it be said, neither the Roman Caesar, nor Herod, nor Pi­late, knew ought of the true God, or of Christ: and it had been in vaine to have made complaint to them, who were not fit, and compe­tent, but ignorant, and opposite Judges.

Answ. 1. This removeth the stumbling blocke of Pauls appeale to Caesar: which since he could not doe in common sence, as to a competent Judge in such cases, &c. It must needes follow, his appeale was meerely in respect of his civill wrongs, &c.

Answ. 2. If it had been an Ordinance of God: that all civill Ma­gistrates were bound to judge in causes spirituall, and Christian, (as to suppresse Heresies, to defend the Faith of Jesus:) although that Caesar, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, were ignorant, wicked and opposite Jud­ges: yet Christ and his Disciples should have gone as farre as lay in their power for redressing of evill, and left it in the Magistrates hands.

Answ. 3. If it had been the holy will of God to have established the Doctrine and Kingdome of his Sonne this way, he would have furni­shed Kingdomes and Common-wealths with many good and gracious Magistrates, to have fitted them for it.

Defender.

Reply 1. to Ans. 1. Pauls appeale to Caesar, was about the wrongs done unto the Jewes, Acts 25.10. The wrongs to them were not onely civill, but Church-offences, which Paul denied: Neither against the Law of the Jewes (saith he) nor against the Temple, nor against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all, ver. 8. Festus demanded if he would goe up to Hierusalem, there to be jud­ged of these things? ver. 9. These things were matters of Religi­on, as well as civill offences. To offend against the Law of the Jewes, and against the Temple, were offences against Religion: to offend against Caesar was a civill offence. To be judged of these things, Paul [Page 59]declineth the Court at Hierusalem, (as being unjustly prejudiced against him:) But professing his owne innocency, and subjection to just judgement, He appealeth to Caesars judgement seate, ver. 10, 11. wherein three or foure things doe evidently appeare.

1. That a man may be such an offender in matters of Religion (against the Law of God, against the Church, as well as in civill matters against Caesar) as to be worthy of death.

This Paul presupposeth, ver. 8, 9, 10.

2. That Paul, or any other such like servant of Christ, If he should commit any such offence, he would not refuse judgement unto death, ver. 11.

3. That for the Judgement of his person in these causes, (whe­ther ecclesiasticall or civill,) It is lawfull in some cases to appeale, to a civill, though a Pagan Magistrate. In some cases I say, as where both these concurre, to wit. 1. That Church-officers, are maliciously prejudiced against a man, and inferiour civil Courts incline to them. 2. That a man be called in question amongst them in capitall causes, which concerne his life.

But a fourth thing which appeareth from Pauls appeale is this, That the civill Magistrate, whether Christian, or Pagan, may and ought to be so well acquainted, not onely with civill causes, but also with causes of Religion, especially such as concerne life, as to be able to judge, though not of all questions, yet of capitall of­fences, against Religion, as well as against the civill State.

Reply 2. to Ans. 2. The Marginall Note, seemeth to imply a contradiction to it selfe, for thus it speaketh, Civill Magistrates were never appointed by God, Defenders of the Faith of Jesus. And a­gaine, Every one is bound to put forth himselfe to his utmost power in Gods Businesse: Surely, if every one be bound to put forth himselfe to his utmost power in Gods Businesse, then civill Magistrates are bound to put forth their civill power, in defending the Faith of Jesus.

Neither will it henceforth follow, That either Christ, or his Disciples were bound to complaine to Caesar, or to Herod, or to Pontius Pilate, against the Heresies of the Pharises. For though all Magistrates, even Pagans ought to informe themselves in the matters of Faith and of Christian Religion, (that they may ob­serve and preserve it) and it will be a destructive sinne to them and [Page 60]their States, if they doe neglect it, ( Psal. 2.10, 11, 12.) Yet it may be safer for a Christian man being oppressed in inferiour Courts of hereticall malignant Judges to appeale from them unto Pagan Princes in his owne just defence, then to make complaint to ma­lignant hereticall Judges, or to Pagan Princes, against heresies, or hereticall false Teacliers. Christ sent out his Disciples, as sheepe amongst wolves: and therefore instructed them, to be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves, Matth. 10.16. Now it is no part of wisedome for a sheepe of Christ to complaine to a kennell of wolves, That amongst the wolves, there be some of their com­pany doe make havocke of the sheepe, leading them aside into damnable heresies. If a poore sheepe should attempt such a thing, would not the whole kennell of wolves arise up against him, as a troubler of their State, that when he enjoyeth peace himselfe, (they trouble not him,) yet he will needes be so busie as to trou­ble them?

And therefore we deny, that it had tended to the defence of the Faith of Jesus, or to the suppressing Herisies, for Christ and his Disciples to have complained to Herod, Pilate, Caesar, of the heresies of the Pharises. It had rather tended to the disturbance and suppression of the Faith of Jesus, by provoking the malice of the Pharises, and by disquieting civill Thrones with feares and jealousies of a new Kingdome springing up amongst them. Be­sid [...], it had been altogether preposterous, to make use of the civill power, for the first publishing of the Gospell of peace. It was necessary the Gospell should first be knowne, and received, and beleeved, and professed, before any could be complained of, for Apostacy from it into Heresie, or seducement of others into such wickednesse.

Reply 3. to Ans. 3. We doe not say, It is the holy Will and Purpose of God, to establish the Doctrine and Kingdome of his Sonne (our Lord Jesus) onely this way, to wit, by the helpe of civill Authority. For it is his Will also, to magnifie his Power, in establishing the same, by a contrary way, even by the sufferings (patient sufferings) of his Saints, and by the bloudy swords of persecuting Magistrates, Revel. 12.11. So that Christ need not to send good and gracious Magistrates, as if for want of them, the Christian Faith and Religion would fall to the ground: for it [Page 61]hath spread and flourished under fiery and cruell persecution. But yet this hindreth not, but that it is the duty of Magistrates to know the Sonne, and to kisse him, to acknowledge his Kingdome, and submit their Thrones and Crownes to it, to love his truth, and to be nursing Fathers to his Church, Isai. 49.23. which how they can doe, and yet not be Defenders of the Faith of Jesus, I doe not understand.

CHAP. 31. A Reply to his thirteenth Chapter, discussing by the way, the Text in Isai. 49.23.

Discusser.

1. THat place of Isaiah 49.23. will appeare to be farre from proving such Kings and Queenes Judges of Ecclesiasticall causes. And if not Judges, they may not punish.

2. In spirituall things, themselves are subject to the Church, shall licke the dust of the Churches feet, as is there exprest. How then shall those Kings and Queenes be Supreame Governours of the Church?

3. Gods Israel of old being earnest for a King, an Arme of flesh, God gave them Saul in his anger, and tooke him away in his wrath. So God will take away such Princes in his wrath; that so as David succeeded Saul, so Christ Jesus in his spirituall Power may for ever be advanced.

Defender.

Reply 1. We doe not alledge that place in Isaiah, to prove Kings and Queenes to be Judges of Ecclesiasticall causes: but to be providers for the Churches well-being, and protectours of it. For so much the very phrase of nursing Fathers, and Mothers, doth necessarily import. But if they be Protectours of the Church, and providers of the well-being of it, then are they also Defenders of the faith of it: so farre as their defence (in a way of God) is dispensable. So Magistrates are also called Shepheards of the peo­ple (as well as Ministers) Ezec. 34. Now it is a part of a Shepheards protection of his sheepe, to drive away wolves from sheepe-folds. And it is the like part of good Magistrates to drive away false Prophets from the Churches, whom our Saviour calleth ravening wolves, Matth. 7.15.

But (saith he) Magistrates are not Judges of Ecclesiasticall causes: and if not Judges, they may not punish.

Answ. There is a three-fold Judgement. 1. A Judgement of private spirituall Discretion: and so a spirituall man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2.15. and so may a Magistrate judge also, if he be a spirituall man.

2. There is Judicium Propheticum, A propheticall Judgement, whereby the Prophets having received a greater gift of spirituall discerning of the things of God, and an office to declare the same, doe judge of Doctrins with Authority. Let the Prophets judge, 2 Cor. 14.29.32. And this the Ministeriall Judgement of the Church: but here the Magistrates Judgement doth not interpose, as a Magistrate, but as a Brother.

3. There is Judicium Politicum, the Judgement of civill power, whereby a Magistrate being called of God to provide, that his people may lead a peaceable life in godlinesse and honesty, he therefore is called to discerne, not onely what is honesty or righ­teousnes before men, but what is godlinesse also before the Lord, & accordingly judgeth of godly & ungodly doctrines & practises, so far as tendeth to the upholding of publicke Peace. For it is evident in the Scriptures of the New-Testament, that when Magistrates were so blindly devout, and superstitious, as to give their King­domes unto the Beast, (as Rev. 17.12, 13.) and so to tolerate the publicke worship of Images, and other Idolls, they thereby over­threw the civill Peace of their Common-wealth. For to punish their ungodlinesse, it was, that God opened a way for the Turkes to breake out and destroy the 3 ^d part of Christendome, Rev. 9.14. to 21.

Reply 2. Both these may well stand together, that Magistrates may be subject to the Church, and licke the dust of her feet, & yet be supreame Governours of the Church also. In spirituall mat­ters, and in the right administration of them, the Magistrates are subject to the Church. But in civill matters, and in corrupt admi­nistration of Church-Affaires, (so farre corrupt, as tendeth to the disturbance of civill Peace, there the Magistrates are supreame Governours even over Churches also, in their owne Dominions.

Reply 3. It was no sinne in Israel of old to aske a King, but to aske him before the time appointed, and to aske him in a tumul­tuous manner, (with rejection of Samuel, and to aske him for [Page 63]carnall and prophane ends, that they might be like to all other Nations, whom God did not approve they should affect to be like unto. Otherwise had they tarried Gods time, God had ap­pointed to give them a King out of the Tribe of Judah, Gen. 49.10. It is true, God tooke away Saul in his wrath, but not for exerci­sing civill Power against spirituall wickednesse; for he did justly exercise it against Witches: but for other well-knowne notorious wickednesse. And as for David, we doe not reade, that he did ex­ercise any spirituall Power, as a King, but as a Prophet.

CHAP. 32. A Reply to his Chap. 32.

Discusser.

THough for the present, the punishment of corrupt Teachers (as the Scribes and Pharises were) be deferred: yet their waiteth for them an higher pitch of punishment, then any Corporall can reach unto.

• As 1. Starke Blindnesse, &c.
• 2. Incurable Blindnesse, &c.
• 3. Their end is the Ditch, &c.
• 4. The Leaders of others into the ditch shall find their owne ruine horrible, and the ruine of their followers eternally galling & tormenting.

Defender.

The Discusser himselfe knoweth, and accordingly expresseth himselfe in his next words, That it is the like case of all sinners, and of all malefactours: their punishment in hell will be more horrible and full of torment, then can be inflicted in this world. And yet the State is often bound to punish them, and in many cases by death it selfe.

Discusser.

Be it so: But what is this to a blind Pharisee, resisting the Do­ctrine of Christ? who hapily may be as good a Subject, and as peaceable, and profitable to the civill State as any, &c.

Defender.

But what is this to the question in hand? we doe not hold it lawfull for a Christian Magistrate, to compell by civill sword ei­ther Pharisee, or any Jew, or Pagan, to professe the Religion, or Doctrine of the Lord Jesus, much lesse doe we thinke it meet, for a private Christian to provoke either Jewish or Pagan Magistrates [Page 64]to compell Pharises to submit to the Doctrine or Religion of Christ Jesus. And therefore all these Chapters from 29. to 35. (se­ven Chapters in all) tending to prove that Christs Disciples were to let the Pharises alone in this way, are but so many empty flouri­shes, beating the aire, & playing with a shadow. And yet the rest of the Chapters which remaine must not passe without some Adver­tisement of such passages in them, as doe corrupt the truth of Christ. How the Pharises can be as good subjects, and as peaceable, and profitable to the civill State as any, who yet destroyed the civill State, by destroying Christ; let any but a blind conscience judge.

CHAP. 33.

Discusser.

IT is truth, The mischiefe of a blind Pharises blind guidance, is greater then if he acted treasons, murders, &c. And the losse of one soule by his seduction, is a greater mischiefe, then if he blew up Parliaments, or cut the throats of Kings and Emperours, &c.

And therefore a firme justice, that requires an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, life for life, calleth also soule for soule. But that no civill sword can inflict, but the Lord Jesus onely.

Defender.

Reply 1. But he that corrupteth a soule with a corrupt religion, or worship, layeth a spreading leaven, which corrupteth the State. The Idolatry began in the House of Micah, corrupted Laish, Judges chap. 17. and chap. 18. And that was the beginning of sinne to the Daughter of Zion, Micah 1.13. And that Apostacy was the captivity of the Land. As in the New-Testament, the worship of Images was the advancement of the Turkes, and the ruine of Christian States, Rev. 9.14. to 21. When therefore the corrupti­on, or destruction of soules, is a destruction also of lives, liberties, estates of men, lex talionis calleth for, not onely soule for soule, but life for life.

Reply 2. False Prophets in the Old-Testament did but corrupt the soules of some, and it may be did not corrupt them neither, but attempted it onely. And yet amongst Gods people, where lex talionis was much attended, the Law was, Thine eye shall not spare [Page 65]him, Deut. 13. The reason of which execution is not fetched from any typicall holinesse of the Land: but from the dangerous wicked­nesse of the attempt, to thrust away a soule from God, which is a greater injury, then to deprive a man of bodily life.

Discusser.

But dead men cannot die, nor be infected. Naturall men, the civill State, the world, are dead in sinne, &c.

Defender.

Reply 1. Dead men may be made worse, by corrupt Teachers, two-fold more the children of hell then before, Matth. 23.15. And therefore such as so corrupt them, are worthy in a way of due proceeding of a two-fold death.

Reply 2. Such as professe the truth of the Doctrine and Wor­ship of Christ, they live a kind of spirituall life, though not such as accompanieth salvation. Else how are false Teachers, and such as are led by them, said to be twice dead, plucked up by the roots? Jude ver. 12. And therefore it is not true, that such as being in a na­turall state, are dead in sinne, annot be infected, nor die againe.

Discusser.

As in the common infection of the plague, so in the infection of heresie, none can be strucke deadly, but whom God hath thereunto ordained, &c.

Defender.

Reply 1. No more can any man be murthered, but whom God hath ordained thereunto. But it is a prophane sacriledge to ex­cuse, or alleviate the punishment of sinne by Gods eternall prede­stination. Was the sinne of Herod, or the Jewes, or of Pontius Pi­late any whit the lesse, because they did nothing against Christ, but what the hand of God and his Counsell had fore-determined to be done? Acts 4.29. Sure it is, Christ aggravateth the sinne of Judas, and of the High-Priests, and Elders of the Jewes by this Argument, that Pilate could doe nothing against him, but as it was given him from above. Therefore (saith he) he that delivered me to thee, hath the greater sinne, John 19.11.

Reply 2. The Discusser himselfe acknowledgeth, That though in a common plague or infection, none are smitten, or die, but such as are ordained thereunto: yet it is not onely every mans duty, but the common duty of the Magistrates to prevent infection, and to pre­serve the common health of the place, by removing infectious per­sons into solitary tabernacles.

Discusser.

True: but the meanes, God hath appointed for preservation from spi­rituall infection and perdition, are spirituall, such as God directeth to Rev. 2. Tit. 3.10, 11. Rom. 16.17. But the Lord Jesus never ap­pointed the civill sword for either Antidote, or Remedy, as an addition to those Spirituals. The Remedy which God preseribed to the Angell of the Church of Pergamus, It were a Babylonish confusion to inter­pret it, as sent to the Governour of the City of Pergamus.

Defender.

Subordinata, and so Coordinata non pugnant. It is true, Christ hath appointed spirituall meanes for the avoiding and preventing the infection of heresies; so hath he also for the preventing and avoiding all offences in Church-members. But that hindreth not the lawfull and necessary use of a civill sword for the punishment of some such offences, as are subject to Church-censure. If indeed the Ordinances of Christ in the Church doe prevaile to the avoi­ding and healing of heresies, there is no need of the civill sword for that end. But it often falleth out otherwise: as

1. That when the Church hath cast out an Heretick, yet he still remaineth obstinate, and proceedeth to seduce, and destroy the faith of some, (it may be of many:) as did Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. If the Magistrates sword doe here rust in the scabberd, such leaven may leaven the whole Masse of a City, or Countrey; As by this meanes Arrianisme leavened the world by the indulgence of Constantius; Ingemuit Orbis Christia­nus, & miratus est factum se esse Arrianum.

2. It may be the Heretick was never any member of the Church, and then though the Church may lay in some Antidotes, and Purges, to preserve, or recover their Members: yet how shall they succour such as are not subject to their censures? Or how shall they prevent the spreading of this noisome leprofie in private Conventicles?

But the Lord Jesus never appointed the civill sword for an Antidote, or Remedy in such a case.

Answ. It is evident the civill sword was appointed for a remedy in this case, Deut. 13. And appointed it was, by that Angell of Gods presence, whom God promised to send with his people, as being unwilling to goe along with them himselfe, Exod. 33.2, 3. [Page 67] And that Angell was Christ, whom they tempted in the wildernesse, 1 Cor. 10.9. And therefore it cannot truely be said, that the Lord Jesus never appointed the civill sword for a remedy in such a case. For he did expressely appoint it in the Old-Testament: nor did he ever abrogate it in the New. The reason of the Law, (which is the life of the Law) is of eternall force and equity in all Ages. Thou shult surely kill him, because be hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, Deut. 13.9, 10. This reason is of morall, that is, of universall and perpetuall equity to put to death any A­postate seducing Idolater, or Heretick, who seeketh to thrust a­way the soules of Gods people, from the Lord their God. If Ma­gistrates be the Ministers of God in the New-Testament, (as Paul calleth them, Rom. 13.4.) And Ministers of God to execute venge­ance on him that doeth evill, surely either this is no evill, (to seeke to thrust away Gods people from him) or the Magistrate beareth not the sword in vaine, to execute vengeance on such an evill doer. Yea but such an evill, is evill onely to the inner man, not to the civill State

Answ. But if a man imagine evill against the Lord, it is a de­structive evill to a whole City, yea to a Pagan City: and God will visit such an evill with such an affliction, as shall be no lesse then utter destruction to such a City: It shall not rise up the se­cond time, Nahum 1.9.11.

Discusser.

But the eivill Magistrate hath his charge of the bodies and goods of the Subject; as the Spirituall-Officers of Christs City or Kingdome, have the charge of their soules, and soule-safety.

Defender.

Reply 1. If it were true, That the Magistrate hath charge one­ly of the bodies and goods of the Subject: yet that might iustly excite to watchfulnesse against such pollutions of Religion as tend to Apostacy. For if the Church and People of God, fall away from God, God will visit the City and Countrey with publicke calamity, if not captivity for the Churches sake. The Idolatry and Image-worship of Christians, brought in the Turkish captivi­ty upon the Cities and Countryes of Asia, and upon some of Europe also, as hath been shewed above.

Reply 2. It is a carnall and worldly, and indeed, an ungodly [Page 68]imagination, to confine the Magistrates charge, to the bodies, and goods of the Subiect, and to exclude them from the care of their soules. Did ever God commit the charge of the body to any Go­vernours, to whom, he did not commit (in his way) the care of soules also? Hath God committed to Parents the charge of their childrens bodies, and not the care of their soules? To Masters the charge of their servants bodies, and not of their soules? to Captaines the charge of their souldiers bodies, and not of their soules? shall the Captaines suffer false worship, yea idolatry, pub­lickly professed and practised in the campe, and yet looke to pros­per in the Battell? The Magistrates to whom God hath commit­ted the charge of bodies, and outward man of the Subiect, are they not also to take care to procure faithfull Teachers to be sent amongst them? Jehosaphat tooke faithfull care for the soules of his people in this kind, 2 Chron. 17.7, 8, 9. Neither did he this as a Type of Christ, but as a Servant of Christ. Those things are said to be done as Types of Christ, which being ceremoniall duties, were afterwards done by Christ in his owne Person, and so were in him accomplished, and abolished: And it would be sacriledge to performe the same after him. But let the conscience of any sin­cere Christian iudge, whether it would be sacriledge in a godly Magistrate, to procure the sending forth of godly Preachers into all the blind corners of his countrey? The truth is, Church-Governous, and civill-governours doe herein stand paralell one to another. The Chuch-Governours though to them be chiefely committed the charge of soules, as their adaequate obiects: yet in order to the good of the soules of their people, to dehort from idlenesse, negligence, from intemperancy in meates and drinkes, from oppression, and deceit, and therein provide both for the health of their bodies, and the safety of their estates. So civill-governours though to them be chiefely committed the bodies and goods of the people (as their adaequate obiect:) yet in order to this, they may and ought to procure spirituall helpes to their soules, and to prevent such spirituall evills, as that the prosperity of Religion amongst them might advance the prosperity of the civill State.

Reply 3. I cannot but with griefe observe the sinfull guile of the Discusser: who whilest he taketh off all charges of soules from [Page 69]the civill Magistrates, and layeth it upon Church-Governours, he taketh it off from Church-Governours too, that so the whole charge of precious soules (for whom Christ dyed) might utterly fall to the ground. For how shall Church-Governours take the charge of soules upon them, if there be no Church-Governours? And how shall there be Church-Governours, where there be no Churches? If Churches be all dissipated and rooted out from the face of the Earth by the Apostacy of Antichrist, and none to be gathered againe, till new Apostles or Evangelists be sent abroad for such a worke, then there be now neither Churches, nor Church-Governours, nor Church-censures, either to censure He­reticks, or to fetch in those stray soules whom they have scatter'd. And then rejoyce yee Hereticks, and all yee Idolaters, and Seducers, and goe on, and make havock of the sheep of Christ like ravenous Wolves: you may now doe it (impunè) without feare or danger; It is neither for Civill Governours, nor Church-Governours to meddle with you; Not for Civill Governours, for they are not to judge nor punish in matters of Religion: Nor for Church-Go­vernours, for there are neither Churches, nor Church-Gover­nours extant now upon the face of the Earth. But woe be to you poore sheepe and Lambes of Christ Jesus: you are now indeed truly become the sheep of the slaughter, your Possessours may slay you, and plead themselves not guilty, ( Zach. 11.4, 5.) not guilty before the Civill Barre: for their crime is exempted from civill cogni­zance: not guilty before the Churches Tribunall: for there be no Churches to call them to account.

CHAP. 35. A Reply to his 35. Chap.

Discusser.

IF it were the Magistrates duty or office, to punish Hereticks, then is he both a Temporall and Ecclesiasticall Officer.

Defender.

It followeth not: unlesse the Magistrate were to punish them with Ecclesiasticall censures, which he neither doth, nor may doe. The punishments which he inflicteth on them, are meerely Civill, whether imprisonment, banishment, or death.

Discusser.

That Doctrine and distinction, that a Magistrate may punish an He­retick civilly, will not here avayle. For what is Babell, if this be not? con­fusedly to punish Corporall, or Civill offences, with spirituall, or Church-censures (the offender not being a member of it:) or to punish soule or spirituall offences, with Corporall or Temporall weapons proper to Delin­quents against the Civill State.

Defender.

It is no Babell, or Babilonish confusion to punish corporall, or civill offences, with Spirituall or Church-censures. What if a Brother be a striker, an oppressour, a murderer, a fornicator, or Adulterer? all these are corporall, and civill offences. But shall not therefore the Church punish these with spirituall, and Church-censures? Then the Apostle was mistaken, who directeth so to doe, 1 Cor 5.11. why the Discusser putteth in that parenthesis (the offender not being a member of it:) I cannot tell: sure I am, it is nothing to the purpose. For as the Church cannot punish any of­fendor, unlesse he be a member of the Church, so neither may the Civill Magistrate punish an Heretick or other spirituall offendor, unlesse he be a member of his Common-wealth.

And if it be no confusion to punish civill offences with Church-censures, it is no confusion to punish spirituall offences with civill censures. And the reason of both these is the same, there be sun­dry civill offences, which are also transgressions of the Rule of the word, and so offences to the Consciences of the Church, and so justly subject to Church-censure. There be also offences to the Order and peace of the Church, which tend likewise to provoke wrath against a Civill State. As the King of Persia said, Whatsoe­ver is commanded by the God of Heaven for the House of God, let it be­diligently done: for why should there bewrath against the King and his Sonnes? Ezra 7.3. If offences to the Church doe provoke wrath against the Civill State, it is no confusion in the Civill State to pu­nish such.

Discusser.

Woe were it with the Civill Magistrate, if together with the com­mon care and charge of the Common-wealth, the bloud of every soule that perisheth, should cry against him, unlesse he should say with Paul, Acts 20. I am cleare from the bloud of all men, &c.

Defender.

It is not the bloud of every soule that perisheth, that can cry a­gainst a Magistrate, unlesse the soule perish by some such neglect of duty in the Magistrate, which God requireth of him for the good of the soules of his people. Of which Duties there be two sorts.

1. To seeke out and procure meanes of Grace for them so farre as they are capable in Gods way.

2. To remove meanes of their corruption and pollution, such as Idolls openly erected, and Idolatrous false Teachers perverting the people. If in both these, the Magistrate be faithfull, though thousands of soules may perish under his Government, yet he is innocent from the bloud of them all, and may so professe with Paul.

Discusser.

I acknowledge the Magistrate ought to cherish (as a Foster Father) the Lord Jesus in his Truth, in his Saints, to cleave unto them himselfe, to countenance them unto the Death, yea also to breake the Teeth of the Lyons, who offer civill violence and injurie unto them. But to see all his Subjects, Christians, to keep such a Church, or Christi­ans in the purity of worship, and see them doe their duty, this belongeth to the head of the body the Lord Jesus, and such spirituall Officers, as he hath to this purpose deputed.

Reply. 1. What is said of Spirituall Officers deputed by Christ to see the Church to doe her Duty, is but a pretence, when he ac­knowledgeth no Church, nor spirituall Officers in the Church de­puted by Christ, extant upon the face of the Earth.

Reply. 2. What Reason can the Discusser give why the Magi­strate should breake the teeth of the Lyons, who offer civill vio­lence to the Church and Saints, and not breake the teeth of the ravenous wolves (false Prophets) who offer violence to their soules? Doubtlesse those ravenous wolves, that make havock of their soules, are farre more mischievous then the Lyons be, that offer violence to their bodies. The Romane pagan Emperours (who like Lions persecuted the Church, 2 Tim. 4.17.) they by persecution increased it, though against their wills. But the Ro­mane Popish Bishops, that like ravenous wolves devoured their soules, left the Church of Christ scarce visible, (though visible) and them, a very small remnant, though a remnant. It may be [Page 72]matter of just wonderment, why Antichrist should find more fa­vours in the Discussers eyes, then an ignorant Pagan, when the one hateth Christ more bitterly, and maketh farre more waste of the Church, and Saints of Christ, then doth the other. Is it because his owne Spirit doth more symbolize with Antichrist then with Caesar? Rather in secret supplanting, then in open persecuting the Churches and Ordinances of Christ?

Beply. 3. We doe not say that it is a part of the Magistrates du­ty, to see all his Subjects to become Christians, if they were Pa­gans before: though wee say, it is his Duty to neglect no good meanes to help them onward to the knowledge and faith of Christ Jesus. But why doth the Discusser shake this duty out of the Ma­gistrates, to see that the Church, and the Christians under his Govern­ment, should walke in purity of worship, at least not so farre to dege­nerate and apostate as to provoke Christ to depart from them? Can he hope that such Christians will be faithfull and loyall to their Prince, whom he seeth to grow false and disloyall to their God? Surely the Land of Ismael though it had some peculiar and and typicall Holinesse belonging to it, yet no other then what did prefigure the Holinesse of the Church, which is as holy to Christ, and ought to be as holy to us, as the Land of Israel was to them. If therefore it was the duty of Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, and Isaiah, to reduce the people of Israel from their backslidings, because they were an holy people, (2 Chron. 19.4.) Surely the like Duty lyeth upon all Godly Christian Princes, to reduce their backsliding Churches to their Primitive Purity.

Let no man say, that as the Holy Land of Israel, was a Type of Holy Church: So these Princes were Types of the Lord Jesus, to whom alone it belongeth to see Churches and Christians to doe their du­ty in Purity of worship.

For though David and Solomon were Types of Christ, (and so the Scripture holdeth them forth:) yet the Scripture giveth no hint, that the other Kings either of Israel, or Judah were Types. Not of Israel, for they were all Apostates: nor of Judah, for if the Kings of Judah (as Kings of Judah, to wit, in respect of their Regall Estate over the Church) if they were all of them Types of Christ, then Apostates from Christ, were Types of Christ. For many of the Kings of Judah were Apostates from Christ as well as the Kings of Israel.

Yea, if they were all Types of Christ, then Christ is the Anti­type, and by accomplishing such types, hath abolished them all: so that now it were sacrilegious and Antichristian usurpation for any Kings to be set over Christians, or the people of God. For the Body being come, Types and shadowes vanish.

But what if they were all types of Christ in respect of their Kingly office over the Church alone? were they therefore types of Christ in all the Kingly Offices which they performed? Then it was typicall in Solomon to put Joab a Murderer to death, and Adonijab a Traytor. And then it will be unlawfull for Chri­stian Princes to put Murderers or Traitors to death.

Or if you say these were civill crimes: But Idolatry and Heresie, which Asa, Joash, and Josiah punished with death, were spirituall crimes, and therefore the Kings of Judah in punishing these lat­ter, were types of Christ, not so in the former: this is spoken gra­tis. For whatsoever the Kings of Judah did, as types of Christ, Christ, being the Antitype, might more full, and lively performe it in his owne person. But certaine it is, he put no man to death in his owne person, all the dayes of his flesh. Why therefore may it not rather be said, that whatsoever the Kings of Judah lawfully did, whether against the Transgressours of the first or second Ta­ble, they did it not as types of Christ, but as servants of Christ, be­trusted with the care of the welfare both of Church and Com­mon-wealth, and therefore as patternes and examples to Christi­an Magistrates?

And indeed many of the Kings of Israel, as they were Kings over a Common-wealth, which was also a Church, so they were Kings also over sundry Pagan Nations round about them, as were David and Solomon, Asa and Jehosaphat, Joash and Josiah. And though none of them compelled the Pagan Nations, to become Proselites to the Church of Israel (no more then Christian Kings may compell Pagans to become Christians, or men without to become Church-members) yet Ahab, though King over an Apo­state Church, having gotten Pagan Benhadad by conquest under his Dominion, because he put him not to death for his blasphe­my, forfeited his owne life for his, 1 Kings 20.23. with 42.

CHAP. 36 A Reply to his Chapter 36. Discussing the Text in Luke 9.54, 55.

Discusser.

THe next Scripture brought by the Letter against such Persecution, is Luke, 9.54, 55. where the Lord Jesus reproved his Disciples, who would have fire come downe from Heaven, to have devoured those Sama­ritans, that would not receive him, in these words, You know not of what spirit you are, the Sonne of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them.

With this Scripture Mr. Cotton joyneth the next, and answereth both in one, which is this, 2 Tim. 2.24. The servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be gentle towards all men, proving if at any time, God will give them Repentance, &c. unto both these Scrip­tures, he giveth this Answer.

Both these are directions to Ministers of the Gospel, how to deale, (not with obstinate offenders in the Church, but) either with men without, as the Samaritans were, and many unconverted Christians in Creete, whom Titus (as an Evangelist) was to seeke to convert.

Or at best, with some Jewes or Gentiles in the Church, who though carnall, yet were not convinced of the Errours of their way. And it is true, it became not the Spirit of the Gospel, to convert Aliens to the Faith, (Such as the Samaritans were) by Fire and Brimstone, nor to deale harshly in publick Ministry, or private conference, with all such severall-minded men, as either had not yet entred into Church-fellowship, or if they had, did hitherto sinne of Ignorance, not against Conscience. But nei­ther of both these Texts, doe hinder a Minister of the Gospel to proceed in a Church way against Church-members, when they become scandalous, either in life, or Doctrine: much lesse doe they speake at all to the Civill Magistrate.

Defender.

The matter of this Answer, it is likely enough was given by me: for it suiteth with mine owne apprehensions, both then and now. But some expressions in laying it downe, I doe not owne, nor can I finde any Copie under my owne hand-writing, that [Page 75]might testifie, how I did expresse my selfe, especially in a word or two, wherein the Discusser observeth (in chap. 38.) some haste, and light, and sleepy attention. But if the Discusser can shew the same under mine owne hand, (as it is not impossible) I shall be willing (by Gods help) both to acknowledge it, and my haste in it.

CHAP. 37. A Reply to his Chap. 37.

Discusser.

THis perplexed and ravelled Answer, wherein so many things, and so doubtfull are wrapped up and entangled together, I shall take in pieces.

1. That the Lord Jesus in rebuking his Disciples rash and bloudy zeale against the Samaritans, did not hereby hinder the Ministers of the Gospel, to proceed in a Church-way against scandalous offenders, is not here questioned.

Defender.

Well then, this Point is none of those many doubtfull things here wrapped: much lesse is it perplexed, or ravelled, but a plaine, and confessed Truth. But whether the Author of that Letter sent to me, did take it for a certaine and unquestioned Truth, I did not know: nor doe I yet know, unlesse the Discusser speake his mind herein, as well as his owne. Sure I am, Prosecution in a Church­way, (if the cause be not just) is as odious and dreadfull a Perse­cution, as Prosecution in a Court of civill Justice, as hath been proved above.

Discusser.

Secondly, when the Answerer saith, much lesse doth this Text speake at all to the civill Magistrate: here I observe, that he implyeth, that beside the censure of the Lord Jesus in the hands of his spirituall Gover­nours, for any spirituall evill, in Life or Doctrine, the civill Magistrate is also to inflict corporall punishment.

Defender.

This observation I may truly say is ravelled out of my Answer, and that so perplexedly, that it cannot be wound up out of my An­swer without breaking the threed, both of my words, and mea­ning. It is a plaine and certaine Truth, that as the Disciples were not civill Magistrates, so neither doth Christ speake to them in [Page 76]this Reproofe as to such. But it is farre from me to say, that it is lawfull for civill Magistrates to inflict corporall punishment up­on men contrary minded, standing in the same state the Samari­tans did. No such thought arose in my heart, nor fell from my pen, either in my Answer to the Letter, or in any writing of mine, that it is lawfull for a Civill Magistrate (though he had domi­nion over Pagans, much lesse if he have none) to inflict corporall punishments upon such as are contrary minded in matters of Reli­gion. No, these are ravellings of a loose and ungirt disputer, not the Inferences of a serious and solid Discusser. And therefore the Reasons which he bringeth in the Sequele of this chapter, that the Magistrates should not lay violent hands upon any (such as the Samaritanes) for not receiving of the Lord Jesus, might well have been spared: for they fight not against me, but against a shadow of his owne fancy.

But when he maketh the Fire that fell downe from Heaven, Rev. 13.13. to be the fiery Judgements and persecutions, which the second Beast perswaded the civill Powers, to destroy the Saints withall, as if they were Gods just Judgements from Heaven upon Hereticks.

This is such an Interpretation, as ravelleth the Text, and will not stand with the Context. For the Text speaketh of it, as a great wonder, that the Beast should make Fire to come downe from Heaven upon Earth in the sight of men, ver. 13. But this was no won­der to cause civill Powers to inflict fiery Judgements of Imprison­ment, Banishment, Death upon Hereticks; for Constantine had done as much before.

And the Arrian Bishops had caused Constantius to doe as much against the Orthodox Saints. Besides in the Context, ver. 15. It is expressely there declared as a distinct matter from the former, that he had Power to cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the Beast, should he killed. This is a different effect (and recorded as different) from the former of causing fire to come downe from Heaven, and that, not upon the Saints, but upon Earth.

CHAP. 38. A Reply to his Chap. 38. Discussing the place in Ti­mothy. 2 Tim. 2.25, 26.

Discusser.

I Acknowledge, this Instruction, to be meeke and patient to all men, &c. is properly an Instruction to the Ministers of the Gospel.

Defender.

Then hitherto the Answer is not perplexed and ravelled.

Discusser.

Yet divers Arguments will from hence be truly and fairely collected, to manifest and evince, how farre the civill Magistrate ought to be, from dealing with the civill Sword in spirituall cases.

But first by the way, I desire to aske, what the Answerer meaneth by his unconverted Christian in Creete? An unconverted Christian, is as much as an unconverted Convert, untamed tamed, unholy holy, Christi­ans Antichristians.

How sad an evidence is this, that the soule of the Answerer, hath ne­ver yet heard the call of the Lord Jesus to come out from those uncon­verted Churches, from that unconverted Antichristian-Christian world? &c.

Defender.

Reply. 1. When we come to those Arguments truly, and fair­ly collected out of this place of Timothy (which is not till the next chapter) we shall, (God willing) consider what Truth and fair­nesse they hold forth: which if it be found, wee shall consider, whether they be of force against the Truth witnessed by me.

In the meane time, for Answer to his demand, what I should meane, by the unconverted Christian in Creete?

Answ. I must take it upon his credit, that I spake at all of any unconverted Christian in Creete. Mine owne copy is not extant with me. And the Transcript, which with much seeking, I found, hath it, instead of unconverted Christians in Creete, unconverted persons in Ephesus. As indeed Timothy was left at Ephesus when Paul wrote to him his first Epistle, as is evident, 1 Tim. 1.3. and Titus it was, who was left at Creete, Tit. 1.5. But whether Timo­thy [Page 78]was then at Ephesus, when Paul wrote his second Epistle to him, is not so certaine. But wheresoever he was (as being an Evange­list, he was not limited to a certaine place) doubtlesse there wan­ted not unconverted persons, amongst whom the Members of the Church lived.

Yea, but they were not unconverted Christians, for it is as much, as unconverted Converts, &c.

Answ. It must lye upon the Discussers credit, whether I used at all such a phrase or no: sure I am, I cannot hitherto (after much seeking) find mine owne hand-written copy, which might cleare the mistake, both of Creet for Ephesus, and unconverted Christians for unconverted Persons.

But let it not seeme strange to him, to heare tell of unconverted Christians, or unconverted Converts. There is no contradiction at all in the words. When the Lord saith, that Judah turned unto him, not with all her heart, but fainedly, (Jer. 3.10.) Was she not then an unconverted Convert? converted in shew and profession, but unconverted in heart and Truth? Let him then consider his own phrase here misapplyed, whether this be the Language of Canaan, or the Language of Ashdod. Jeremies Language is the Language of Anathoth, not of Ashdod.

Reply. 2. If the Discusser looke at it as a true, but sad experience of my unconverted estate, from unconverted Churches, and that the Lord Jesus never yet called me to come out of them, because I speake (if I doe so speake) of unconverted Christians living amongst them.

I must be contented still to lie under that imputation from him. I never knew that Church yet, nor ever read of it, in which there was not, (or at least might not) be found, some unconverted Christians, unconverted Converts. Judas was found in Christs Family: Ananias and Sapphira, in the Apostolick Primitive Church: Balaam and the Nicholaitans were found in Pergamus, and Jesabel in Thyatira.

Besides I have not yet learned, (nor doe I thinke, I ever shall) that the children of beleiving Parents borne in the Church, are all of them Pagans, and no Members of the Church: or that be­ing Members of the Church, (& so holy) that they are all of them truly converted. And if they be not alwayes truly converted, then let him not wonder, nor stumble at the phrase of unconverted Christians.

But if the Discusser doe sadly observe it, that my soule hath not yet heard the call of the Lord Jesus to come out of unconverted Churches: truly I have just cause (not without sadnesse and mourning) to consider, and to pray, that he might con­sider, what call of the Lord Jesus his soule hath heard to come out, not onely out of unconverted Churches, but converted too, yea out of all Churches?

Discusser.

Againe, I observe the haste and light attention of the Answerer, to these Scriptures (as commonly the Spirits of Gods children in matters of Gods Kingdome, are very sleepy:) for these persons here spoken of were not unconverted Christians in Creete, whom Titus as an Evnngelist was to convert, but they were such Opposites, as Timothy ( to whom Paul writeth this Letter at Ephesus) should not meet withall.

Defender.

Whether such words be found in the copy of my Answer to the Letter, I leave it to the Discussers credit. As I said even now, mine owne copy I cannot (after much diligent search) finde: the Tran­script which I have found hath it otherwise, the unconverted Persons in Ephesus, whom Timothy as an Evangelist was to seeke, to convert. But if my copy doe speake as he reporteth:

Then, 1. I doe not deny, but have just cause to acknowledge mine owne haste, and light attention, and sleepinesse in the mat­ters of Christs Kingdome, not onely in this passage: but fre­quently else in the race of my Christian course of life. The Disci­ples themselves Christ found sleepy, Matth. 26.40. how much more may he find me sleepy?

2. The Discusser might have imputed it as well, to my hast to gratifie his earnest desire to Answer his friends Letter, and to my confidence in his love, that for hast to satisfie him, mistooke one place and person for another, and was not so attentive to peruse and examine the copy sent by me to him, as I would have been, had I sent it to an Adversary.

3. The case is all one in the matters of Christs Kingdome, whether I had named Timothy, or Titus, Ephesus, or Creete: For the persons were both of them Evangelists, and the places of them both such, as had unconverted persons in them, and (like enough) un­converted Christians too: Ephesus had evill persons amongst [Page 80]them, whom they could not beare, ( Rev. 2.2.) as well as Creet had amongst them such as were alwayes lyars, evill Beasts, slow bellies, Tit. 1.12.

4. The Discusser, that observeth haste, and light attention, and sleepinesse in another, one would thinke, would be more vigilant, and attentive himselfe. He that saith (as the Discusser doth in his parenthesis) that Paul wrote this Letter, (to wit, his second Epi­pistle) to Timothy at Ephesus, taketh it for granted, that which without some hasty lightnesse, even the same, which he blameth in my selfe, he cannot beleive, that Paul wrote his second to Timo­thy at Ephesus. There is no word in the Epistle, that speaketh of Timothies being at Ephesus, when Paul wrote that second Epistle. His calling of an Evangelist did not permit him to tarry long in a place: and the first Epistle to Timothy, is thought by the Learned to have been written one of the first of all Pauls Epistles, next af­ter those of the Thessalonians. But the second Epistle to Timothy was written last of all the Epistles, when Pauls time of departure was at hand, 2 Tim. 4.6. And when Paul writeth 2 Timothy 4.12. that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus, It is not likely, he would have written so to Timothy, if Timothy then had been at Ephesus. For Timothy would have knowne, that Tychycus had been at Ephesus: or if Tychicus had been then but on his way to Ephesus (which is a narrow point of time) it is more then propable, if Timothy had been then at Ephesus, he would have said, Tychicus have I sent to thee to Ephesus.

CHAP. 39. A Reply to his 39. Chap.

Discusser.

BƲt from this place in Timothy (2 Tim. 2.25.) in particular, I argue thus

1. If the Civill Magistrates be Christians or Members of the Church, able to prophesie to the Church of Christ; then they are bound by this command of Christ, to suffer opposition to their Doctrine, with meeknesse and gentlenesse, waiting if God peradventure will give them Repen­tance.

So also it pleaseth the Answerer to acknowledge in these words: It be­cometh [Page 81]not the spirit of the Gospel to convert Aliens to the Faith (such as the Samaritans and unconverted persons, whether in Ephesus, or Creete) with Fire and Sword.

Defender.

The Answerer is still of the same mind, though he might strike in upon the advantage, that if the Magistrate be also a Prophet, he may doe some things as a Magistrate, which he may not doe as a Prophet: yet he willingly acknowledgeth, that if a Magi­strate be also a Prophet (yea, whether he be a Prophet, or no) he ought not to seeke to subdue, and convert Aliens to the Faith, by Fire and Sword.

Discusser.

Secondly, if the Oppositions be within, and the Church-members be­come scandalous in Doctrine (I speake not of scandalls in the Civill State, which the civill Magistrate ought to punish.) It is the Lord onely ( as the Scripture in Timothy implyeth) who is able to give them Repentance, and to recover them out of Satans snare, &c. It is true, the civill Sword may make a whole Nation of Hypocrites, as the Lord complaineth, Isay 10. and as befell our Native Country in a few scores of yeares, in the severall Reignes of Henry 7. Henry 8. King Edward, Queen Mary, Queene Elizabeth; under whom our Nati­on was as ready to change the fashion of their Religions, as of their Suits of Apparell, which hath been their sinfull shame.

Defender.

If Opposition rise from within, from the Members of the Church, I doe not beleive it to be lawfull for the Magistrate to seeke to subdue, and convert them to be of his mind by the civill Sword: But rather to use all spirituall meanes for their con­viction, and conversion. But if the Opposition still continue in Doctrine and Worship, and that against the vitals, and Funda­mentalls of Religion (whether by Heresie of Doctrine, or Ido­latry in Worship) and shall proceed to seeke the Seduction of o­thers, I doe beleive the Magistrate is not to tolerate such opposi­on against the Truth in Church-members, or in any Professours of the Truth after due conviction from the word of Truth. Nor is it an Objection of any weight, that neither the Magistrate, nor his Sword can give Repentance unto such.

For neither can he give Repentance unto such persons as are [Page 82]scandalous to the civill State, whom yet notwithstanding the Discusser himselfe acknowledgeth the civill Magistrate ought to punish. Though the civill Sword should not make the opposers Hypocrites, yet better tolerate Hypocrites and Tares, then Bry­ars and Thornes. In such cases the civill Sword doth not so much attend the conversion of wicked Seducers, as the preven­tion of the seduction of honest minds by their meanes.

What the Kings and Queens of England have done in former, or later times, either by violent Persecution of the Truth, or in preposterous maintenance of the Truth, we have cause rather to bewaile it: (and so hath the Discusser too, if he be an English man) then to justifie it: as also bewaile the like vanity justly complai­ned of in sundry of our English Nation, to be as ready to change the fashion of their Religion, as of their Rayment. And yet he cannot be ignorant, that the Lord hath chosen to himselfe sun­dry faithfull witnesses out of that Nation, who have continued stedfast unto the death in the Profession of the Truth, and have not been carried away, either with the feare of civill Sword, or with the deceitfull insinuations of unstable but seducing Teachers, to depart from the simplicity and Truth of the Gospel. But how­soever wofull, and wonderfull changes have been made of Religi­on in England, in the Reigne of foure or five Princes, yet it is no more then befell the Church of Judah, in the dayes of Ahaz and Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah; yet the Prophets never upbrai­ded them with the civill Magistrater Power in causes of Religion, as the cause of it. Better some vicissitudes in Religion, then a con­stant continuance in Idolatry, and Popery, by Princes referring all causes of Religion to Church-men. The Prophecie of Eng­lands Revolt againe to Popery, wanteth Scripture Light.

CHAP. 40. A Reply to his Chap. 40.

Discusser.

BƲt it hath been thought and said, shall Oppositions against the Truth escape unpunished? will they not prove mischievous? I an­swer as before, concerning the blind Guides, their case being incurable is rather to be lamented, since none but the right hand of the Lord, in [Page 83]the meeke and gentle Dispensing of the word of Truth; can release them, &c.

Defender.

So it is with all scandalous offenders against the civil State: none can give them healing Repentance, but the right hand of the Lord Jesus, in the dispensing of the word of Truth: yet that doth not restraine Magistrates from executing just Judgement up­on them. So neither doth it restraine them from executing the like just Judgement against these, though not to procure the Re­pentance of incurable obstinate Hereticks, and Idolaters: yet to prevent the seduction and subversion of others. What though a dead soule, though changed from one Worship to another, (like a dead man shifted into severall suites of Apparell) cannot please God? Heb. 11.6. And what though Faith be that gift, which proceedeth alone from that Father of Lights? Phil. 1.29.

Yet better a dead soule be dead in body, as well as in Spirit, then to live, and be lively in the flesh, to murder many precious soules by the Magistrates Indulgence. And better he die without Faith, then to live to seduce many honest minds to depart from the Faith.

Discusser.

I adde, a civill Sword hardneth the followers of false Teachers, by the sufferings of their false and Antichristian Seducers.

And secondly, it begetteth in them an Impression of the falshood of that Religion, which cannot uphold it selfe, but with such Instruments of violence, and wanteth the soft, and gentle commiseration of the blind­nesse of others.

Defender.

A civill Magistrate ought not to draw out his civill Sword a­gainst any Seducers (Whether Hereticks, or Idolaters) till he have used all good meanes for their conviction, and thereby clearely manifested the bowels of tender commiseration and compassion towards them.

But if after their continuance in obstinate Rebellion against the Light, he shall still walke towards them in soft and gentle com­miseration, his softnesse and gentlenesse is excessive large to Foxes, and wolves: But his bowels are miserably straitned and hardned against the poore sheepe and Lambs of Christ. If any be hardned [Page 84]by the just and faithfull severity of Magistrates in this case, it is meerely accidentall, from the extreme perversnesse of the deceit­full and corrupt heart of man, not from any corruption found in such dealings of Magistrates. Yea, Experience speaketh the contrary, not onely in the instance of the Donatists, who were many of them reclaimed, by the just severity of the civill Magi­strate in Augustines time: But also in our owne memory. Let the Discusser speake his conscience, whether Popery or Papists did more swarme and abound in Queen Elizabeths dayes, then in the dayes of King James?

Discusser.

Antonius Pius, the Emperour of Rome, upon this occasion, wrote to all the Governours of his Provinces, to forbeare the Persecution of Chri­stians, because such dealing was so farre from converting Christians from their way, that it rather begat in their mindes an opinion of their Cruelty.

Defender.

No marvell: for first the Pagan Religion was not of God, but palpable and grosse Idolatry: But the Religion of Christians came downe from Heaven, in the Gospel of Truth. It is cruelty in a Magistrate and it will beget in the minds of indifferent men, an opinion of his cruelty, to murther Innocents (and that indi­ctâ cau [...]â:) when it will never be found guilty, nor beget in equall minds an opinion of the cruelty of such, as shall put to Death Murderers, and obstinate destroyers of the life of Soules.

Secondly, It is evident, the persecuting Emperours, and their Governours of Provinces under them, attended not at all, to the conviction of Christians, nor did they indeavour to make it ap­peare, that the Christians sinned against the Light of their owne consciences: And therefore we marvell, if it bred in the people, a just opinion of the cruelty of Persecutors, and of the Innocency of Christians.

3. It is an untrue Intimation of the Discusser, that Antonius forebad the persecution of Christians upon any such grounds, as if he affected rather their conversion (which harsh dealing might alienate them from: or as if by reason of hard dealing with them, it bred in the Christians an opinion of the cruelty of their Per­secutors: which he was desirous to avoyd. Read both the Re­scripts [Page 85]of Antonius Pius, both to the men of Asia, and to the Se­nate of Rome: and he giveth other just Reasons of forbidding the persecution of them: as in respect of their confidence on God in times of danger, above Pagans: and in respect of his Fathers favourable grant to them: and cheifly in that by their Prayers they had saved his Army in great distresse in Germany, and de­stroyed their Enemies. But he was so farre from seeking their conversion to his Paganisme by lenity towards them, that he straitly chargeth his Officers, [...], not to draw any such to Repentance, and bondage. Both his Rescripts are extant in the end of Justin Martyrs second Apologie for Christians.

CHAP. 41. A Reply to his Chap. 41. Discussing the Texts, Isay 2.4. with Mica. 4.3.

Discusser.

THe next Scripture against Persecution, is that of the Prophet Isaiah 2.4. together with Micah 4.3. They shall breake their Swords into Plowshares, and their Speares into pruning hookes: And Isa. 11.9. There shall none hurt or destroy, in all the Mountaine of my Holi­nesse.

Ʋnto which Mr. Cotton answereth, 1. That these Predictions doe onely shew with what weapons Christ will subdue the Nations to the Faith of the Gospel.

2. They shew also what the meeke and peaceable temper will be of all true Converts to Christianity: not Lions, nor Leopards, nor cruell Op­pressours, nor Malignant opposers, and biters one of another: but doth not forbid them to drive ravenous wolves from the sheepfold, nor to re­straine them from devouring the sheep of Christ.

This first Answer is truely Christian: but me thinks the Answerer might heare a voyce from Heaven, out of thine owne mouth will I judge thee: for that which he addeth is as evill and bitter, as the former words were good and sweet; But this doth not forbid them to drive ra­venous wolves from the sheepfold, and to restraine them from devouring the sheep of Christ.

But this fighteth against the former Truth; to wit, that Christ by spirituall weapons will subdue the Nations of the Earth to the obedience of the Gospel. For by driving away these Wolves, he intendeth not one­ly the Resistance or violence, which the Shepheards of Christ ought spi­ritually to make: but the civill Resistance of the materiall Swords, staves, Guns, &c. whence I argue, that same power forceth the evill (the Wolves) out, forceth the good (the sheep) in: for of the same things, is the like and same Reason, &c.

Defender.

He should say, for of contrary things, is a contrary Reason: for sheep and wolves are not the same things: nor are force in, and force out the same things. But howsoever, his Argument is of the like force, as if he should reason, a man may witha staffe or a Sword drive away dogs, that might by the way bite, or worrey his children in going to Schoole: therefore a man may with astaffe, or a Sword drive his children to goe to schoole: for there is the same Reason of both. But doth he speak in good earnest, that there is the same Reason of both? Are Wolves to be driven away, and sheep brought into the fold by the same Instruments? Yes, saith he, the same arme that with a staffe beateth off the Wolfe, with a rod and hooke bringeth in the sheep: the same Dogg that assaulteth and teareth a Wolfe, frighteth and forceth in the stragling sheep. But the Dog that is taught to assault and teare the Wolfe, if he assault and teare the sheep also, will finde a halter for his labour. And though the same Arme may with a staffe beate a Wolfe, yet it will not with the same staffe beat a sheep. The same Shepheards staffe, that knocketh downe a Wolfe on the head, hooketh in the sheep gent­ly by the legg. The same voyce from Heaven, that calleth the sheep by Name into the sheep-fold, and leadeth them by still wa­ters, the same voyce hath said, that Antichristian Wolves and Seducers shall drink of bloud, for they are worthy, Revel. 16.6.

CHAP. 42. A Reply to his Chap. 42.

Defender.

IN this Chapter the Discusser maketh himselfe worke to dis­course upon the Wolves, which Paul foretold to the Elders of [Page 87] Ephesus) should come in amongst them, not sparing the flock, Acts 20.29. A place which I quoted not, nor did apply to the cause in hand. (But he as a full vessell) abounding and running over in wit, and words, (and it seemeth in leasure) he propoun­deth, and discusseth three Questions about these Wolves in this Chapter: and two more in the next.

Discusser.

As 1. What Wolves were those Paul warneth of? not literally meant: nor Persecutors of the Flock, such as the Romane Emperours: But such as brought in other Religions and Worships, such as amongst themselves should speake perverse things, as many Antichrists did. And I aske whether or no such as may hold forth other Worships, or Religions, (Jewes, Turkes, Antichristians) may not be peaceable and quiet Subjects, loving and helpfull neighbours, faire and just dea­lers? &c. It is cleare, they may, in all experience, and yet in spiritu­all and Mysticall Account, they are ravenous, and greedy Wolves.

Defender.

It hath been declared above, that we doe not hold it lawfull, to constraine by Civill Sword, Jewes, or Turkes, or Antichristians to be of our Religion, whether they be good Subjects, loving Neighbours, faire dealers, yea or no. Nor doth the Apostle in that Text, (which the Discusser hath in hand) speake of men out of the Church, Jewes, Turkes, or Antichristians, but of such as enter into the Church, and are of themselves.

Now if Church-members should Apostate from Christ, and of Christians become Jewes, and Turkes, and Antichristians, and draw away Disciples after them, I would demand of any man (whose Conscience is not past feeling of the danger of damnable Heresies) whether such Members may goe for peaceable and quiet Subjects, for loving and helpfull Neighbours, for faire and just dealers, for true and Loyall to the civill Government? If those be peaceable, and quiet Subjects, that withdraw Subjects from Subjection to Christ: if they be loving and helpfull Neighbours, that help men on to perdition: If they be faire and just dealers, that wound the soules of the best, and kill and destroy the soules of many, if such be true and loyall to Civill Government, that subject it to the Tyranny of a forraine Prelate, then it will be no advantage to civill States, when the Kingdomes of the Earth shall become the [Page 88]Kingdomes of our Lord: and they may doe as good service to the civill State, who bring the wrath of God upon them by their Apostacie, as they that bring downe blessings from Heaven by the Profession and Practise of the true Religion in Purity.

Discusser.

I querie secondly, to whom Paul gave this charge, to watch against them? ver. 31.

They were not the Magistrates of the City of Ephesus, but the El­ders of the Church of Ephesus.

Defender.

Who doubteth of it?

Discusser.

Many of these charges and Exhortations given by Christ to the Shep­heards and Ministers of the Churches, be commonly attributed and di­rected (by the Answerer in this Discourse) to the Civill Magistrate.

Defender.

Cujus contrarium verumest. For looke the Answer through, and you shall find, not one of these charges or Exhortations, given to Ministers, were ever directed by the Answerer, to civill Ma­gistrates: the falshood of the Discusser in this charge upon the Answerer, is palpable and notorious. And this exhortation in this place, the Answerer doth not so much as mention at all ei­ther as directed to Magistrates, or to Elders.

Discusser.

I desire it may be inquired into, whether in all the will, or Testament of Christ, there be any such word of Christ by way of Command, Pro­mise, or Example, countenancing the Governours of the Givill State to meddle with these wolves, if in civill things peaceable and obedient.

Defender.

This Condition if (in civill things peaceable and obedient) im­plyeth a contradiction to the nature and practice of wolves. How can Wolves be peaceable, and obedient, unlesse they be restrained? and how can they be restrained, and not medled with? What Peace (said Jehu) so long as the whoredomes of Jezabel, and her witch­crafts are so many, 2 Kings 9.22.

Yes: may not spirituall whoredomes and witch-crafts stand with Civill Peace?

No verily: the whoredomes and witch-crafts of the Jezabel of [Page 89] Rome, tooke away civill peace from the earth, and brought in the Turks to oppresse the peace both of Christian Churces and Common-wealths, as hath been shewed above, Revel. 9.15.21. That dreadfull example of Gods vengeance upon Civill States for tolerating and practising Image-worship, is a serious and loud warning to all Christian States to beware of such seducing spirits, as beare them in hand, they shall have peace, though they tolerate Idolatrous and false worships in their Territoryes.

Besides for another example, and that approved, you find in the Lords Testament, Revel. 16.4, 5, 6, 7. of which before. And for a word of command from Christ, to meddle with wolves, that grand charter, whereby Magistrates are established in the new Testament, may abundantly suffice, The Magistrate is the Minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Rom. 14.4.

If the wolfe be an evill doer, let him looke at the Magistrate as appointed of God to be an avenger, and executor of wrath up­on him. Say not, yea, if the wolfe be an evill doer against the second Table, but not so, if against the first Table: or if an evill doer against the bodies and estates of men, not so, if against their soules.

For who gave any man commission so to limit the word of God, or the power of the Magistrate? Besides it hath been often said, that he that goeth about to subvert Religion, and to de­stroy soules, is an evill doer against the peace of the Civill State.

Discusser.

If God had given charge to Magistrates to punish evill doers in matters of Religion, he would have given to Magistrates in the world, ability to discerne, and determine, who are sheep, and who are wolvish oppressors, whom he is bound to punish and suppresse. Yea they must be able to discerne this, not with others mens eyes, but with their owne &c.

Defender.

It hath been declared above, that Magistrates ought to be so well accquainted with matters of Religion, as to discerne the Fundamentall Principels thereof, and the evill of chose heresies and Blasphemies, as doe subvert the same. Their ignorance there­of, is no discharge of their duty before the Lord. Such wolvish [Page 90]oppressors, and Doctrines, and practises as they cannot discerne with their own eyes, It will be their sin either to suppresse them, because they cannot doe it of faith: or to tolerate them, because they are destructive to the soules of the people, and enemies to the common salvation. Gallio is justly censured as a prophane man, not because he refused to be a Judge in matters concerning the Jewish worship, and Religion: (for he had noe Law of Caesar, whose Deputy he was, to judge of it:) but because he re­jecteth the cognizance of such causes of Religion, as a Question of words and Names. Which made him so [...]ame regardlesse of causes of Religion, that though the Civill peace was broken by the Jewes (in pursuite of Paul) the Jewes laying violent hands upon Sasthenes, and that before the judgement Seate, yet Gallio cared for none of those things, Acts 18, 15.16.17.

Discusser.

In the third place I Quere, Whether the Father who gave the sheep, and the Sonne who keepeth them, be not greater then all? And who can plucke the Elect out of his hand? which Answereth the common objection of the danger of devouring soules.

Defender.

It doth not Answer that Objection. For the Father, and Sonne were greater then all in the old Testament, as well as in the New: And none could then pluck his Elect out of their hands, no more then now: yet the attempt to pluck them out of Gods hand was a Capitall crime then Deut. 13.5.10. For speaking to turne away a soule from God. ver. 5. and seeking to thrust away a soule from God, are but attempts. Besides God putteth no difference of Elect and Reprobate in matter of murder either of foule, or Body. But the respect, which God hath in this case, is to his Covenant, which God made with the visible members of his Church.

Now. if a man shall so farre violate his Covenant as to Apo­state from God, and to draw others away to Apostate from him, the Lord avengeth this quarrell of his Covenant upon the lives of such And therefore the hainousnesse of this crime is expressed, in that he spake, or sought to turne away any of the people of God from the Lord their God, Deut. 13.5.10.

CHAP. 43. A Reply to his Chap. 43.

Discusser.

FOurthly, I aske; were not these Elders and Ministers of the Church of Ephesus sufficiently furnished from the Lord Jesus, to drive away these spirituall, and mysticall wolves?

Defender.

They were furnished with sufficient power to cast them out of the Church, but being cast out, they had not sufficient power to drive them away from conferring with, and corrupting the members of the Church, or other Godly ones out of the Church. It is no dishonor to Christ, nor impeachment to th sufficiency of the Ordinances left by Christ, that in such a case, his Ministers of Justice in the Civill State, should assist his Ministers of the Gospel in the Church-State

Discusser.

Fiftly, lastly I Aske, whether (as men deale with wolves) these wolves at Ephesus were intended by Paul to be killed, their braines dasht out with stones, staves, Halberts, Gunns &c. in the hands of the Elders of Ephesus?

Defender.

No: nor was it alledged by me for any such end, nor indeed alledged by me at all: but onely the Discusser is pleased to set up a marke, to shoot at for his owne recreation. Elders must keepe within the bounds of their calling: But killing, and dashing out of Braines (which is all one with stoning) was expresly com­manded, in such a case, to the People of God (by order from the Judges:) Deut. 13.10.

Discusser.

But comparing spirituall things with spirituall things, spirituall & mysticall wolves, should be spiritually and mystically slaine.

Defender.

So they should be by the spirituall Officers, and members of the Church. But in destroying Religion they are also disturbers of the Civill State, and accordingly are to be dealt withall by [Page 92]Civill Justice. Achan disturbed the Common-wealth, as well as the Church of Israel, by bringing a Babylonish garment into the Tents of Israel: and was therefore troubledhimselfe, for troub­ling the People of the Lord, Josh. 7.25.

Discusser.

It is a most bloudy Doctrine, The wolves (Hereticks) are to be dri­venaway, their braines knockt out, and killed, the poore sheep to be per­secuted for whom Christ died.

Defender.

Belike it is a milkey, and peaceable, and Gospel like Doctrine, The wolves (Hereticks) are to be tolerated, not an haire to be struck off from their heads, but for the poore sheep, for whom Christ died, let them perish, unlesse Christ mean to preserue them himselfe alone, with his own immediate hand: no care of pre­serving them belongeth to the Civill Magistrate.

Discusser

Is not this to take Christ, and to make him a temporal King by force? Joh. 6.15. Is not this to make his Kingdome of this world? to set up a Civill and Temporall Israel? to bound out new earthly holy lands of Canaan? yea and to set up a Spanish Inquisition in all parts of the world, to the speedy destruction of millions of soules, and to the frustrating of the sweet end of the comming of the Lord Jesus, which was to save mens soules (and to that end, not to destroy their bodyes) by his owne bloud?

Defender.

Now of all these: when the Kingdomes of the earth become the Kingdomes of the Lord ( Rev. 11.15.) It is not, by making Christ a temporall King, but by making temporall Kingdomes nursing Fathers to his Church. In the dayes of Christs Flesh it was Incompatible to his Ministery to make him a King (as they went about to doe Joh. 6.15.) Christ hath injoyed (even as Me­diator) an everlasting Kingdome, not onely in the Church, but in the Government of all the Kingdomes of the earth, by his glori­ous power, and righteousnesse. But the Kingdomes of the earth are then said to be the Kingdomes of our Lord, when they sub­mit their lawes to the lawes of his word. But that neither maketh him a temporall King, nor his Kingdome in the Church to be a Kingdome of this world. The Church and Common-wealth are still distinct Kingdomes, the one of this world, the other of [Page 93]Heaven: and yet both of them from Christ; unto whom the Fa­ther hath committed all Judgement, Iob. 5.22.

Neither will this set up a Civill and temporall Israel, an holy Canaan, unlesse all the members of the Common-wealth were called to be members of the Church, and subject to all the cere­moniall, and all the judiciall Lawes of Moses (not onely those of Morall, and perpetuall equity,) but peculiar to that State, as the Brother to marry his deceased Brothers wife.

Nor is it a Spanish Inquisition, to preserve the sheep of Christ from the raven of wolves: but this rather, (such is the practise of the Discusser) to promote the principal end of the spanish In­quisition, to advance the Romish tyranny, Idolatry, and Aposta­cy, by proclaiming impunity to all their whorish and wolvish Emissaries.

Nor is it a frustrating of the sweet end of Christs comming, which was to save soules, but rather a direct advancing of it, to destroy (if need be) the bodies of those wolves, who seeke to destroy the soules of those, for whom Christ died, and whom he bought with his owne bloud.

CHAP. 44. A Reply to his Chap. 44. Discussing 2 Cor. 10.4.

Discusser.

The next Scripture produced against such persecution was 2 Cor. 10.4. The weapons of our warfare are not carnall, but mighty through God &c.

To which it is Answered, Paul speaketh of the weapons of Apostles, and Church-Officers, which are not carnall, but spirituall: and mighty through God. But this denieth not, Civill weapous of Justice to Civill Magistrates. But I here observe, that the Scripture holdeth forth a two-fold State, a Civill State, and a Spirituall: Civill Officers, and spirituall: Civill weapons, and spirituall: Civill vengeance, and spirituall: though the Spirit speaketh not here expresly of Civill Magi­strates, and their Civill weapons: yet these States being of different na­tures and considerations (as farre differing as flesh and spirit) there­fore Civill weapons are most improper and unfitting in matters of the [Page 94]spirituall Kingdome and State, though in the Civill State most proper and suitable.

Defender.

The Discusser, as often throughout his Discourse, so here he looseth himselfe, and the truth, in ambiguityes. Civill weapons are indeed improper, and unfitting in spirituall matters, to wit, in the dispencing, and pressing of spirituall matters for the im­mediate producing of spirituall ends, as for a Magistrate to draw his sword to compell all his Subjects to the obedience of the faith if Christ, and to the profession of it. But this is not unfitting nor improper, That a Magistrate should draw his sword, though not in matters spirituall, yet about matters spiritual to protect them in peace, and to stave off the disturbers, and destroyers of them. It were improper and unfitting, for carpenters to bring their Axes and Hammers to build up the spirituall Kingdome and Church of Christ: But yet their tooles are fitting to build up scaffolds, that the people may draw neere to heare the Word, & by hearing, be brought on to faith and salvation.

CHAP. 45. A Reply to his 45. Chap.

Discusser.

TO Batter and take a strong Hold, or Fort, men bring not a first and second Admonition, and after obstinacy, Excommunication: But they bring Canons, Culverings, Sakers, Bullets, Powder, Mus­quets, Swords, Pikes, weapons suitable and proportionable. On the other side, to batter downe Idolatry, false worship, Heresy out of the soule and spirit, It is vaine, Improper, unsuitable to bring the usuall weapons of persecutors, Stocks, Whips, Prisons, Swords, Gibbtts, Stakes: But against these spirituall sirong holds in the soules of men, spirituall Artillery, and weapons are proper, and mighty through God to subdue every thought to obedience.

Defender.

Let this stand (as it shall for me:) It nothing toucheth the Question in hand. It is farre from me to allow the Civill Magi­strate to make use of his Civill weapons to batter downe Idola­try, [Page 95]and Heresy in the soules of men: but for this end, he is to use spirituall weapons, and all Lenity and wisdome in the improve­ment thereof: But if the Idolater or Heretick grow obstinate & as the Apostle saith, waxe worse and worse deceiving himselfe and others, to the destroying or corrupting and disturbing of o­thers, now the Magistrate maketh use, not of Stocks, and Whipps (for these doe not remove, but exasperate the malady:) but of Death, or Banishment, that may cut him off from opportunity of spreading the leaven, and Gangerne of his pernicious wayes, whether in Doctrine, or practise. It is one thing to speake o [...] Heresie and Idolatry in the Abstract: another in the Concrete. Heresie, Idolatry and all spirituall wickednesse, cannot be rooted out of the hearts of the sonnes of men, but by spirituall weapons. But Hereticks, and Idolaters may be restrained from the open practise, and profession of their wickednesse by the Sword of Justice, and such weapons of Righteousnesse.

Discusser.

But though these weapons were proper: yet they are unnecessary. For if spirituall weapons in the hand of Church Officers, be able, & mighty, and sufficient, and ready for the Lords worke, either to save, or to kill the soule &c. How doth the Magistrate come in to help, but as if the Lord had no power?

Defender.

This is a meere pretence in the mouth & pen of the Discusser: For he having cut off all the Churches of Christ, and all Church Ordinances, and Church-weapons from off the face of the earth for these many ages past, and I know not for how many yeares yet to come: If Civill weapons be debarred from defending Re­ligion, upon pretence, that Church-weapons are sufficient, and and then no Churches nor Church weapons to be found upon the face of the earth, then let all Seducers to Apostacy, Idolaters, & Hereticks, let them all rejoyce in an open doote of liberty, & safety, which the Discusser hath set wide open before them. If Civill States must not, and Churches cannot, come in to helpe the Lord, shall the curse of Meroz be so avoided, because the Lord wanteth not power to help himselfe? But I might reply further, that though spiritual weapons are mighty through God, and sufficient to those ends, for which the Lord appointed them: [Page 96]which are to purge out leaven from their holy communion, and to mortify the flesh of offendors: yet that is not supersedeas to Ci­vill Magistrates, to neglect to punish those sins, which the Church hath censured, if the persons censured do proceed to subvert the truth of the Gospel, or the peace of the Church, or the salvation of the people. The rest of the Discussers discourse in this chapter are (as Jude speaketh) clouds without water, words without matter.

CHAP. 46. A Reply to his Chap. 46. Discussing Rom. 13.

Discusser.

This Scripture Rom. 13. which it pleaseth the Answerer to quote, how hath both himselfe, and many excellent servants of God, wrested (not as Peter writeth of the wicked to their eternall, yet) to their owne and others tempor all destruction by civill warres, and combustions in the world?

Defender.

This charge is a greivous crime, if it be truly proved: a grei­vous slaunder, if it be not proved.

The rest of the Chapter proveth it not, but that onely which I willingly graunt, that this 13th Chapter to the Romans exhort­eth unto subjection to Magistrates, & unto love to all men: which are duties partaining to the second Table. Howbeit though sub­jection to Magistrates, and love to all men be duties which con­cerne the second Table (a point which needed no proofe:) yet this inference will not here follow, That therefore Magistrates have nothing to doe to punish any violation, no not of the wei­ghtiest duties of the first Table. It is a cleare case, amongst the du­ties of the second Table, people may be exhorted to honor their Ministers, and children may be exhorted to honor their Parents. But will it thence follow, that therefore Ministers have nothing to doe with matters of Religion in the Church, or parents in the Family?

CHAP. 47. A Reply to his Chap. 47.

Discusser.

THere be excellent and precious servants of God in their time, who have absolutely denyed the 13. of the Rom. to concerne any matter of the first Table.

Defender.

I will not stand upon the last use in that Chapter, put you on the Lord Jesus Christ: which I hope the Discusser himselfe will not deny, much lesse say, that any Excellent and precious servants of God, doe absolutely deny, that such a Duty concerneth the first Table. But what is it that the servants of God say?

Discusser.

Calvin saith, this whole Discourse concerneth Civill Magistrates: and therefore in vaine doe they who exereise Power over Consciences, goe about from this place to establish their sacrilegious Tyranny.

Defender.

Calvins Judgement herein (as generally in other points) is sound and agreeable to the Text: but not at all favouring the Discussers Imagination. This whole Disputation (saith he) is of Civill Governments: whereupon this inference is (according to his owne true meaning and scope) therefore it doth nor concerne Church-Government. Therefore such Church-Governours as upon pretence of this Text doe make Lawes, without the word, and besides the word, to bind Conscience, and to usurp power over Consciences, they in vaine goe about to establish their sa­crilegious Tyranny from this place. But what is this to the point in hand? Church-Governours doe in vaine goe about from this place to establish their Sacrilegious Tyranny by giving Lawes without the word, and beside the word to bind Conscience: Therefore Civill Magistrates, (of whom this whole Discourse is) shall exercise a sacrilegious Tyranny over the Conscience, and in vaine goe about to establish it from this place, when from the word of God, they establish true Religion, and goe about to pu­nish the Fundamentall subverters of the same. But how farre off Calvins Judgement was to restraine Civill Magistrates from med­ling in matters of Religion, let him interpret himselfe in his own [Page 98]words (in his opuscula) in his Answer to Servetus, who was put to Death for his Heresies at Geneva by his procurement. Hoe uno (saith he) contentus sum, Christi adventû; nec mutatum esse Ordi­nem Politicum, nec de Magistratuum officio quicquam Detractum.

A gedùm quod Paulus docet, Rom. 13.4. Non frustra ah ipsis Gladium gestari, an ad speciem unam restringi debet? Fatentur isti, quibuscum nunc Discepto ad alia crimina plectenda Judices divini [...]ùs esse amatos, mo [...] â Religione abstineani, ut libera, ipsis tacentibus, Impietas lasciviat: verirm reclamat innumeris locis Spiritus Sanctus, &c. This one thing (saith he) sufficeth me, that by the coming of Christ, neither was the State of Civill Government changed: nor any thing ta­ken away from the Magistrates Office. Goe to then, that which Paul teacheth (Rom. 13.4.) that he beareth not the Sword in vaine, ought it to be restrained unto one kind onely? they themselves confesse with whom I have to deale, the Magistrates are armed of God to punish other crimes, so that they abstaine from matter of Religion, that so ungodly­nesse may runne riot by their connivance. But the Holy Ghost crieth out against this in many places, &c.

Discusser.

Againe, Calvin speaking of sulfilling the Law by Love, writeth thus on the same place, Paul hath not respect vnto the whole Law, he speaketh onely of those duties, which the Law commandeth us to­wards our neighbours. And after Paul only mentioneth the second Table, &c. And that he repeateth, Love is the fulfilling of the Law, under­stand it as before, of that part of the Law which concerneth humane Society: for the former Table of the Law, which is of the worship of God, is not here touched.

So Beza upon the word [...], (if there be any other Com­mandement, it is summed up in this, thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy selfe) the whole Law, (saith he) commandeth nothing, but the love of God, and our Neighbour: but since the Apostle in this place dis­courseth of the mutuall Duties of men one to another, I thinke this Terme, Law, ought to be restrained to the second Table.

Defender.

And so think I too, yet without the least prejudice to the cause in hand. For if the Question be of the dutyes which Subjects owe to Magistrates, they pertaine to the second Table: or if the Questi­on be of the vertu eof love one to another, That it is the fulfilling [Page 99]of the whole Law, It is meant cheifely of the second Table: though withall it be true, the second Table cannot be fulfilled without ful­filling of the first Table also. These things are out of controversie. But what is all this to the point in hand? The Apostle in calling love the fulfilling of the Law, speaketh of the Law of the second Table. Ergo, the Magistrate (who is spoken of in the same chap­ter) hath no power to punish the crimes against the first Ta­ble? or thus further, in the 13. of the Romans, the Apostle spea­keth of the Duties of Subjects to Magistrates (which is a Duty of the second Table:) therefore Magistrates have no power to punish their Subjects for crimes against the first Table?

The Discusser might as well argue, that the duties of Subjects to Magistrates, are duties of the second Table: therefore it is not the Dutie of Subjects to pray for their Magistrates, which is a Duty of the first Table? The Truth is, though Prayer be a Duty of the first Table; yet to pray for Magistrates, is a Duty of the second Table. In like sort, though Idolatry, and Blasphemy, and Heresie be sinnes against the first Table: yet to punish these with civill penalties is a Duty of the second Table. For let it be consi­dered in the feare of God, are not all Duties of Righteousnesse to man commanded in the second Table, as well as all Duties of Holinesse to God, commanded in the first Table? If so, I demand againe, whether it be not a Duty of Righteousnesse belonging to the people of God, to enjoy the free passage of Religion, Truth of Doctrine, Holinesse of worship, Purity of Church-Govern­ment? I demand yet further, if it be not an injurious dealing to the people of God, to disturb the Truth of Doctrine with Here­sie? the holinesse of worship with Idolatry? the Purity of Go­vernment with Tyranny? If all these be granted, then it una­voydably followeth, that all these wayes of unrighteousnesse are justly punishable by the second Table. Let not therefore the Dis­cusser please himselfe in deluding himselfe, and the world, that Beza, and Calvine did absolutely denie the 13. of the Romans to concerne any matter of the first Table. For though the Du­ties of Loyalty to Magistrates, and of love to all, concerne the second Table, yet it was neither the word nor Judgement of Cal­vine, or Beza, so to interpret Rom. 13. As to exempt Magistrates from Power of punishing Heresie, and Idolatry. Calvines Inter­pretation [Page 100]of Rom. 13.4. and his Argument from thence against Servetus, is declared above in this chapter. Heare now how Beza interpreteth the same Text in his Booke entituled De Haereticis, â Magistratu puniendis. Testatur Paulus Magistratum esse Dei Mini­strum qui Gladium gerat ad eas ulciscendas, qui malè agunt, Rom. 13.4. Quamobrem alterutrum necesse est, si in Haereticos Magistra­tus jus nullum habet, vel ipsos malè non agere (quod Refutatione in­digere non puto) vel, quod in genere Paulus ait, ad certum maleficio­rum genus revocandum, eorum videlicet, quae corporalia peccata vocant, de quo malificiorum discrimine, copiosius, ut spero, posteà, suo loco Disse­ram. That is, Paul witnesseth saith he, that the Magistrate is. Gods Minister, who beareth the Sword to take vengeance on them that doe evill, Rom. 13.4. wherefore one of these two must needs be, If Ma­gistrates should have no just power over Hereticks, either that Here­ticks are not evill doers (which is so grosse, that I thinke, it needs no Re­futation) or else that Pauls speech is to be restrained to a certaine sort of evill deeds, to wit, such as they call corporall sinnes: of which distin­ction of evill deeds, I shall dispute more largely, I hope in his due place hereafter. So Beza.

CHAP. 48. A Reply to his Chap. 48.

Discusser.

THe higher powers in this Rom. 13. were (amongst others) the Ro­man Emperours, and subordinate Magistrates under them. But they all were strangers from the life of God, yea most averse and opposite, yea cruell, and bloudy Persecutors of the Name and followers of Jesus: and yet unto these is subjection commanded.

Now then I argue, If Paul had commanded this subjection to Romane Magistrates in spirituall causes to defend the Truth, to punish Hereticks, (neither of which they could discerne nor judge of, but by Trust from others, as Pilate condemned Jesus) he must in the Judge­ment of all men, have put out the eye of Faith, and Reason, and sense at once.

Defender.

Not in the Judgement of all men, for besides Calvin and Beza (whose Judgement you have heard) all those Interpreters, who [Page 101]expound this place in the Romans, of the Magistrates power in punishing spirituall evill doers, as well as corporall, they, none of them doe so judge, that Paul in commanding the Churches to yeild subjection unto civill Magistrates in matters of Religi­on, did put out the Eye of Faith, and Reason, and sense at once.

For first, it is one thing to yeild subjection to the unrighteous Decrees of Ignorant, and Pagan Magistrates: another thing to obey their Ordinances in matters of Faith, and worship, and Go­vernment of the Church. The former of these, Christians did yeild unto the Romane Magistrates, even subjection unto the Death: the other, they neither did, nor ought to yeild: as know­ing God was to be obeyed rather then men.

Secondly, though it be true, whilst the Romane Emperours and Magistrates were Pagans and Persecutors, they were incom­petent Judges, to discerne and give Sentence in the spirituall mat­ters of Christian Religion: yet the word of Christ, who commandeth a Duty, commandeth all the necessary meanes, which tend to that Duty. And therefore in giving them a Power and charge to execute vengeance on evill doers, (and that in matters of spirituall unrighteousnesse against the Church, as in matters of Civill unrighteousnesse against the Common-wealth) It be­hoved them to enquire and listen after true Religion, to heare and trie all, and upon serious, deliberate, and just scruting to hold fast that which is good, and so prevent the disturbance thereof by the contrary. It was no vaine charge of the Holy Ghost, Psal. 2, 10, 11, 12. If Christ have an Iron Scepter in his hand (to crush all States, and Kingdomes, Emperours, and Princes, as well as private persons) Be wise now therefore ô yee Kings: be instructed yee that are Judges of the Earth, serve the Lord with feare, rejoyce un­to him with trembling. Kisse the Sonne least he be angry, and yee perish in the way.

Thirdly, the cases of Religion, wherein we allow Civill Ma­gistrates to be Judges, are so fundamentall, and palpable, that no Magistrate studious of Religion in the feare of God, but, if he have any spirituall discerning (as all truly Christian Magistrates have, and even Pagans have discerned between innocent Christians, and turbulent Seducers) he cannot but judge of such grosse corrupti­ons [Page 102]as are unsufferable in Religion, as hath been opened above. Though we reserve to the Prophets and Churches Judicium Pro­pheticum, as hath been said above: yet we allow Judicium Politi­cum, to Civill Magistrates studious of Truth (as all ought to be) and the Judgement of Discretion unto all Christians. But as for such Magigistrates as are meerely naturall and Pagan, though Christians be bound to subject themselves unto them with pati­ence: yet such Magistrates ought to forbeare the exercise of their Power, either in protecting, or punishing matters of Religion, till they have learned so much knowledge of the Truth, as may enable them to discerne of things that differ.

But this forbearance of theirs is not for want of Authority in their callings, nor for want of Duty in their Consciences, but for want of evidence to them in the cause. In which Case, Magistrates are wont to forbeare their exercise of their Power, and to respit Judgement even in Civill causes, not for want of Authority, or Duty, to doe Justice: But for want of ripe and full cognizance of the Cause.

CHAP. 49. A Reply to his Chap. 49.

Discusser.

VVHy then did Paul himselfe appeale to Caesar (Acts 25.) un­lesse that Caesar (though he was not yet, yet he) ought to have been a fit Judge in such matters?

Answ. Paul appealed to Caesar, not to judge the cause of his Reli­gion: but to defend him from civill violence, and slanderous accusati­ons about sedition, mutiny, civill Disobedience, &c. From which Cae­sar (as a supreme civill Magistrate) ought to defend him.

Defender.

This appeale of Paul to Caesar doth evidently hold forth three things.

1. That there is a lawfull and needfull use of civill Magistra­cy unto Christians.

2. That Church Officers (even of highest ranck) the Apostles themselves, and other Ministers are subject to civill Authority, as well as private Christians.

3. That Paul did submit to Caesars Judgement-seate: the tryall of his innocency, as well in matters of Religion, as in civill con­versation. For he pleadeth his innocency, that he was guilty in none of those things whereof they did accuse him, and for tryall hereof he appealeth to Caesar, ver. 11. Now the things whereof they did accuse him, were offences against the Law of the Jewes, and against the Temple, as well as against Cae­sar, ver. 8. And offences against the Law of the Jewes, and against the Temple, were matters of Religion. And yet even in these Paul appealeth to Caesars Judgement-seat for tryall of his innocency.

Discusser.

But if Paul in this Appeale to Caesar, had submitted his Religion (which was the cause of Christ) his Ministery, and Ministration, to the Romane Emperours Tribunall, he had sinned. First, against the light of Reason. Secondly, against the cause of Religion. Thirdly, against the holy Calling of a Christian. Fourthly, against his owne calling of Apo­stleship. Fifthly, against the holy name of God, &c.

Defender.

All these sinnes might with some colour have been charged up­on Paul, if he had appealed to Caesar, to Judge, whether his Re­ligion, or Ministery, or Ministration were of God, or no. But that was no point of his Appeale: But whether his Religion, or Ministery, or Ministration were guilty of any capitall crime against the Law of the Jewes, or against the Temple, or against Caesar. Now in this case Paul might safely appeale to Caesar, and that to the Honour of God, of his Apostolick and Christian Calling, and to the glory of his Religion. The Reasons against Pauls Ap­peale in this case are but bul-rushes.

CHAP. 50. A Reply to his Chap. 50.

Discusser.

HAving dispatched two Arguments (against the founding of the civill Magistrates power in spirituall causes, in Rom. 13. First, from the Testimony of Calvin and Beza: the second from Caesars incompetency and insufficiency to Judge of spirituall mat­ters.)

I come now to the third Argument, taken from the nature of the Ma­gistrates weapons: he hath a Sword, and that Sword is a civill Sword, a Sword of civill Justice which being of a materiall and civill nature, serveth for the defence of Persons, Estates, Families, Liberties of a Ci­ty, or civill State, and for the suppressing of uncivill and injurious Persons, or Actions by civill punishment. And therefore this Sword can­not extend now (as it did in Israel of old) to spirituall and soule causes, to spirituall and soule punishments.

Defender.

I easily hold with the Discusser, that the civill Sword doth not extend to spirituall and soule punishments. But if the civill Sword ought to extend to the defence of civill men in civill Liberties, then why not also to the like defence of Churches, and spirituall persons in their spirituall Liberties? It is the Office of the civill Magistrate to governe his people in righteousnesse. And if spiritu­all Liberties be in righteousnesse due to spirituall persons, as well as civill Liberties to civill persons, doubtlesse the Magistrate is defective in Rules of righteousnesse, if he onely attend the defence of the civill people, in their civill Rights, and neglect to defend his spirituall people in their spirituall Rights.

What though the Sword be of a materiall and civill nature? so it was in the Old Testament, as well as in the new. It can there­fore reach no further, either then or now, then unto the punish­ment of men, in bodily life, or civill Liberties: But it can reach to punish in these things not onely the offenders in bodily Life, and civill Liberties, but also the offendors against spirituall Life and soule Liberties.

What though it be called a civill Sword in common speech? It is not a Scripture-phrase, so to call it: It may as fitly be called the Sword of God, as well as the Sword of warre is so called (Judges 7.20.) which the Discusser (guilefully, or else unskilfully) distinguisheth in this chapter from the civill Sword. Now if the Sword of the Judge, or Magistrate, be the Sword of the Lord, why may it not be drawne forth, as well to defend his Subjects in true Religion, as in civill Peace?

And as Magistrates are called (in common speech) civill Ma­gistrates: so are they called also in the Language of the Sanctu­ary) Gods, Psal. 82.1.6▪ If civill Magistrates are to attend to [Page 105]civill matters: are not Gods to attend to Gods matters? It was wont to goe for a good Argument â conjugatis, homo sum, humani nihil â me alienum puto. But now (by the Discussers Doctrine) the Magistrate may say, Ego (dignatione Divinâ) Deus sum (Psal. 82.) quatenus autem Deus sum; Divina omnia â me aliena puto. Now farre be all such reasonlesse, and Paganish, yea worse then Pa­ganish, Atheology from us. Worse then Paganish I say, for Pagan Princes accounted their Religion their chiefe care, prima cura sa­crorum. And can a Christian forbid the care of Religion to Magi­strates, I say not, without blushing, but without trembling?

Object. But Magistrates were called Gods in the Old Testa­ment, not so in the New. Now under Christ all Nations are meerely Civill, without any such Typicall holy respect upon them as was upon Israel a Nationall Church.

Ans. It is written in the New Testament, the Kingdomes of the world are become the Kingdomes of the Lord, and of Christ, Rev. 17.15. And if the Kingdomes be Gods Kingdomes, and the King­domes of Christ, then the Kings of those Kingdomes, are Gods Kings, and Christian Kings and what Title is there in all the New Testament that either derogateth from the Titles, or Office of Kings?

Though the Nations now have not that Typicall holinesse, which the Nation of Israel had: yet all the Churches of the Saints, have as much Truth and reality of holinesse, as Israel had. And therefore what holy care of Religion lay upon the Kings of Israel in the Old Testament, the same lyeth now upon Christi­an Kings in the New Testament, to protect the same in their Churches.

CHAP. 51. A Reply to his Chap. 51.

Discusser.

A Fourth Argument from this Scripture (Rom. 13.) I take (in ver. 6.) which is a meerely civill reward for the Magistrates worke. Now as the wages be, such is the worke, but the wages are meere­ly Civill, Custome, Tribute, not the contributions of the Saints or Churches of Christ, &c.

Defender.

The Contributions of the Saints and Churches, are truly cal­led by the Apostle carnall things, Romans 15.27. and againe, 2 Cor. 9.11. But shall a man therefore thus reason, as the wages be, such is the worke: But the wages are carnall things: therefore such is the worke of the Ministers of the Gospel, to whom such wages are paid? It is true the contributions of the Saints, may be called Holy, because they are given to God, and (by his appoint­ment) to the maintenance of such as minister in his house about his holy things: But these are mentall relations, no reall dif­ferances in the thigns given to Magistrates, and Ministers: The wages given to them both, are carnall things. And consider them both in their proper ends: as the rewards given to Ministers, are given for their service about holy things: so the rewards given to Magistrates are given for their service about righteous things. Now if the Purity of Doctrine, worship, and Government be righteous priviledges of all the Churches in the Common-wealth, surely Magistrates doe not well deserve all their wages, that suf­fer the Churches to be bereaved, and dispoyled of their spiritu­all priviledges, which is the greatest and best part of their Birth­right.

Besides, the Apostle commandeth the Churches, and Saints not onely to pay to Magistrates, Tribute, and Custome, (which are civill things:) but also to poure out all manner of Prayers, and Supplications, Intercessions, and given of thanks for them, 1 Tim. 1.1, 2. And surely these are spirituall dues, and not Earth­ly. And therefore Magistrates owe to the Churches, and Saints some Spirituall recompences, which the Apostle also there na­meth, that we may live a quiet and peaceable Life in all godlinesse and honesty, ver. 2. If therefore the Churches and Saints be not suffered to live a quiet and peaceable Life in. Godlinesse and ho­nesty: or if they be suffered to live a quiet and peaceable life in ungodlinesse and dishonesty, the Magistrates fall short of re­turning spirituall recompence for the spirituall Duties and ser­vices performed for them.

Discusser.

Lastly, that the Spirit of God never intended to direct or warrant the Magistrate, to use his power in spirituall affaires and Religions, I [Page 107]argue from the Terme, or Title given by God, to such civill Officers, to wit, Gods Ministers, ver. 6.

Defender.

One would thinke the Argument would rather evince the con­trary. For what is a Minister, but a Servant? and what is a ser­vant, but he that is at his Masters command (for his efficient cause:) and for his Masters ends, as his finall cause? How shall then a Magistrate carrie himselfe, as a Minister of God, and yet fall short (and intended so to doe) both of Gods Commande­ments in his Lawes? and of Gods worship, and glory in the exe­cution of them?

Discusser.

But at the very first blush, any man will acknowledge a double Mi­nistery: the one appointed by Christ in his Church, to order the affaires thereof, Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12. The other a Civill Ministery or office, meerely humane and Civill, which men agree to constitute, (therefore called an humane Creation, 1 Pet.) and is as true and lawfull in those Countries, that never heard of the true God, and his holy Sonne Jesus, as in any part of the world, where the Name of Christ is not taken up.

Defender.

If Magistrates be the Ministers of God (as Paul calleth them) then their Ministery or office is not meerely humane, but as the Apostle saith, it is of God, and ordained of God, Rom. 13.1. And if it be of God, it must also be for God: or else he is a Minister and servant not of God, but of the world. It is true, men agree to constitute it, to wit, this or that forme of it (in respect of which influence of men, it is called an humane Creation:) but the Truth is, Government it selfe is of God, and ordained by God, and every lawfull forme of Government (whether Monar­chy, Aristarchy, or Democracy, or some mixt of these, according to the State of the People) they are all of God, and so acknow­ledged, and authorized by God in his word, and though they be as true and lawfull in those Nations that never heard of the true God, or of his holy Sonne Jesus: yet it was from the gui­dance and appointment of God in the very light of Nature, that such Nations did erect such and such Governments, and Govern­ments for the good of humane society, and that not onely in worldly matters, But in matters also of Religion.

Whence it is, that in all civill Nations, whose Acts are recor­ded, either in sacred or prophane Authors, their Magistrates have had not onely a due care of Justice and honesty, but a re­verend care of Religion also: Joseph in Egypt provided for the preservation of the Lands of the Priests without Impeachment, and that not out of respect to their superstition (which he could not but dislike:) but out of regard to the Aegyptian Lawes, & Cu­stomes, to preserve their Religion, and the maintenance thereof, inviolate, Gen. 47.22. In Babell, Nebuchadnezzar being convin­ced of the soveraigne Divinity of the God of Israel, made a capi­tall Law against the blasphemers of his Name, Dan. 3.29. Darius of the Medes and Persians enacted a Royall Law to like purpose, Dan. 6.26. The like did Artaxerxes, Ezra. 7.26. and Darius be­fore him, Ezra. 6.11. In Athens they had a Law against [...], Irreligion, upon which suffered three famous Philosophers, So­crates, Theodorus, and Protagoras. Socrates, as Laertius reporteth in his Life, was accused by Melitus [...], who commenced his Action against him in these words [...].

Theodorus was firnamed [...], and as Socrates was condemned to death by poyson, so was this man also, as Laertius reporteth out of Amphicrates in the life of Aristippus. Protagoras, (as Tully reporteth of him, de Natura Deorum Lib. 1.) having thus expres­sed himselfe in the beginning of his Booke, concerning the Gods (I have not to say, whether they be, or whether they be not) his Bookes were publickly burnt, and himselfe banished out of Ci­ty and Country. How the Ephesians stood affected to the destroy­ers of their Religion, appeareth by the excuse which the Towne-Clarke made for Paul and his Companions, you have brought these men hither saith he, which are neither robbers of Churches, nor yet blasphemers of your Goddesse, Acts 19.37. The Ro­mans how zealous they were in defence of their Religion, the slaughter of many thousand Christians will be a perpetuall Mo­nument to all Ages. All which things I recite not to justifie the misapplying of their zeale to the maintenance of false Gods, but to make it appeare, that as the Pagan Nations who never heard of the true God, and of his Sonne Jesus, did erect by instinct of Nature, Governments, and Magistrates: so by the same instinct, [Page 109]their Lawes and Magistrates tooke care of the maintenance of that Religion, which they tooke to be of God. What a shame were it, that Pagan Magistrates should be more carefull and zea­lous of the honour of their Idols, then Christians of the Honour of the knowne true God, the Lord our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier?

CHAP. 52. A Reply to his Chap. 52.

Discusser.

MAny object out of ver. 4. of Rom. 13. that the Magistrate is to avenge evill: and therefore Heresies, false Christs, &c. But I answer, First, that the word is generally opposed to civill goodnesse, or vertue in a Common-wealth, and not to spirituall good.

Secondly, I have proved, here as not intended evill against the spiri­tuall or Christian State ( handled in chapter 12.) But evill against the Civill State, handled in this 13. chapter.

Defender.

What is meant by [...], evill, no man (that I meet with) Interpreteth more fully then Pareus. There is, saith he, a foure-fold evill, of which the Magistrate is the Avenger: contrary to the foure-fold good, whereof the Magistrate is the Preserver. A naturall good, a Morall good, a Civill good, a spirituall good. A naturall good, as Life, and safety of our bodies: A morall good, as Temperance, Chastity: a Ci­vill good, as our goods and Lands, and civill Liberties: A spirituall good, as the free passage of the Ordinances of God, and pure Religion. In opposition to these there is a foure-fold Evill: Naturall, as the kil­ling, and wounding, and beating of our bodies: morall as Drunken­nesse, and whoredome: Civill, as stealth, and robbery, and oppression: Spirituall, as Heresie, Idolatry, and disturbance of the free passage of Gods Ordinances. As the Magistrate is bound by his office to preserve the good of the Subject in all these kinds: so is he to avenge the evill done against the Subject in any of these.

What the Discusser hath proved to the contrary (as he saith) hath been Answered already in his place.

Discusser.

The Elders of New-England grant, the Magistrate may not [Page 110]punish some evill, as the secret sinnes of the Soule: nor sinnes handled in the Church in a private way: nor such sinnes as are private in Fa­milies. As the complaints of Children against Parents, Servants a­gainst Masters, Wives against Husbands: nor such sinnes as are be­tween the Members, and Churches themselves. From whence I observe,

1. That the Magistrate is not to punish all evill.

2. I observe, how they take away from the Magistrates that which is proper to his cognizance, as the complaints of Children, servants, Wives, against their Parents, Masters, Husbands, &c.

Defender.

When wee say, the Magistrate is an Avenger of evill: we meane of all sorts, or kindes of evill: not every particular of each kinde: secret evills, in thought, or affection, yea in action too: but nei­ther confessed, nor proved by due witnesses: the Magistrate can­not punish.

Discusser.

The distinction of secret, or private, and publick evill, will not here availe: because such as urge the Terme evill (viz. that the Magi­strate is to punish evill) they urge it strictly, eo nomine, because Here­sie, Blasphemy, &c. is evill, &c.

Defender.

But not simply because it is evill, unlesse it be also notorious, and evident, and convicted by sufficient witnesses, and held forth with publick offence, and disturbance. Neither doe the Elders take away from the Magistrates, the cognizance of the complaints of Chil­dren, Servants, wives, against Parents, Masters, Husbands.

Unlesse they be meerely private, and easily healed in a private way, by Domesticall Government, what need houshold Govern­ment, if every Family-offence should be brought to the cogni­zance of the publick Magistrate? one Ordinance of God doth not swallow up another.

CHAP. 53. A Reply to his Chap. 53, 54, and 55.

Discusser.

THe Author of the Letter proceeded to a last Reason from Scripture, to prove that the Disciples of Christ should be so farre from persecu­ting, that they ought to blesse them that curse them, and pray for them that persecute them: and that because of the freenesse of Gods grace, and deepnesse of his Counsels, calling home them that be Enemies, persecutors, no people, yea some at the last houre.

Ʋnto this Reason the Answerer is pleased thus to Reply.

First, in generall, we must not doe evill that good may come thereof.

Secondly, in particular, he affirmeth that it is evill to tolerate sediti­ous evill doers, seducing Teachers, scandalous livers; and for proofe of this, quoteth Christs Reproofe of the Angels of Pergamus, and Thy­atira, for tolerating Balaam, and Jezabel, to teach, and seduce, Revel. 2.14.20.

Defender.

The Discusser forgetteth himselfe, through Incogitancy, (if not through guile) when he maketh this to have been my first Re­ply, that we must not doe evill that good may come thereof. For he is not ignorant, that I gave two Answers, (or Replyes as he calleth them) before, in the same place.

First, when Christ commandeth his Disciples to blesse them that curse them, and persecute them, he giveth not therein a Rule to publick Offi­cers, whether in Church, or Common-wealth, to suffer notorious sin­ners, either in Life or Doctrine, to passe away with a Blessing: but to private Christians, to suffer persecution patiently, yea and to pray for their Persecutors.

Againe, it is true, Christ would have his Disciples to be farre from persecuting, (for persecution is a wicked oppression of men for Righte­ousnesse sake:) but that hindereth not, but that he would have them execute upon all Disobedience, the Judgement and vengeance required in the Word, 2 Cor. 10.6. Rom. 13.4.

Both these Answers the Discusser passeth over in silence. For looke, as Children where they cannot read, thinke it best to skip [Page 112]over: so men of riper yeares, when they are loath to stoop to the Authority of the Truth, they thinke it best to passe it over in si­lence. But what is it, the Discusser is pleased to answer to?

Discusser.

In this Proposition, [that it is evill to tolerate notorious evill doers, seducing Teachers, scandalous livers:] I observe two evills.

First, that this Proposition is too large and generall, because the Rule admitteth of exception, and that according to the will of God.

Defender.

And to prove that this generall Proposition admitteth some ex­ception, the Discusser spendeth the rest of this 53. chapter: as al­so the 54 ^th. chapter, and 55 ^th.

But because I would not spend time, nor weary the Reader with following the Discusser in impertinent, and copious digres­sions, I returne briefly this Reply.

First, it is wholly impertinent, whatsoever the Discusser is plea­sed to discourse of Gods permission, or toleration of any evill.

For first, God is his owne Rule, and what he doth is good, be­cause he doth it. Not his Act, but his word, is a Rule to us. He may tolerate Cain, a Murtherer to live; but that is no precedent to a Civill Magistrate.

Secondly, I willingly grant, it may be lawfull for a Civill Ma­gistrate, to tolerate notorious evill doers in two cases, under which, all the Examples will fall, which the Discusser alleadgeth in any word of Truth.

As first, in regard of the efficient cause of punishing; when the Magistrates hand is too weake and feeble, and the offendors Ad­herents so great and strong, that Justice cannot be done upon him, without manifest perill to the whole State, there the Magi­strate may tolerate a notorious evill, even murther it selfe, as Da­vid upon this ground did tolerate in Joab and Abishai, the murther of Abner. 2 Sam. 3.39.

And secondly, in regard of the finall cause, an evill may be to­lerated to prevent other greater evills: As Moses tolerated di­vorce of unpleasing Wives, to prevent the murder, or other hard and cruell usage of them.

In either of these cases, I would not deny but a murderer may be tolerated: if either the Magistrate want sufficient Power, with [Page 113]safety of the State, to cut him off: or if a forraine State be so af­fected and addicted to the Murderer, that in case the Magistrate here cut off him, they will cut off sundry of our innocent and ne­cessary members, whom they have gotten into their custody in re­venge of him.

And if either of these be the case, I easily grant that it is not evill to tolerate a notorious seducing false Teacher, or other scan­dalous liver: But such an extraordinary doth not hinder the due largenesse, and generality of the Proposition, that it is evill to to­lerate seditious evill doers, seducing Teachers, scandalous Livers. As in a paralell case, this Proposition is not too large, nor too ge­nerall, it is evill to tolerate a bloudy murderer: notwithstanding in some cases (such as have been named, but those are extraordi­nary) it may be lawfull to tolerate him.

Now that in ordinary cases, it is not lawfull to tolerate a sedu­cing false Teacher, the Commandement of God is cleare, and strong, Deut. 13.8, 9. Thine eye shall not pity him, neither shalt thou spare him, neither shalt thou conceale him, but thou shalt surely kill him.

If the Discusser shall except, that strict Commandement was in force in Israel, because their Land was typically holy, or their Magistrates were Types of Christ.

The Reply is plaine and just, God himselfe alledgeth no such reason of his Law: But another quite different, but common with them to all Nations, professing the worship of the true God, Thou shalt put him to death, because he sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, ver. 10.

Neither can any instance be given of any Capitall Law of Mo­ses, but is of Morall, (that is of generall, and perpetuall) Equi­ty, in all Nations, in all Ages, Capitalia Mosis Politica sunt aeterna.

CHAP. 54. A Reply to his Chap. 56.

Discusser.

I Come now to the second Evill, which I observe in the Answerers for­mer Position, that it would be evill to tolerate seducing Teachers, scan­dalous Livers.

In two things, I shall discover the great evill of this joyning and coup­ling [Page 114]seducing Teachers, and scandalous Livers, as the proper and adaequate object of the Magistrates care and worke to suppresse and punish.

Defender.

I no where make it the proper and adaequate object of the Magi­strates care and worke, to suppresse, and punish seducing Teachers, and scandalous livers. For I have expresly said it, and proved it be­fore, that it is, and ought to be the care and worke of the Church also to suppresse and punish seducing Teachers, and scandalous li­vers, in a Church-way, as well as the Magistrate, in a civill way.

Discusser.

First, this joyning of things of such different kindes, is not an ho­mogeneall, but heterogeneall commixture of things most different in kinds.

Defender.

But these different kinds, they agree in one common kind: they are both of them evills, and evills destructive in their severall wayes to the common good of Gods people, which ought to be preserved both in Church and Common-wealth. The Termes of Homogene­all and Heterogeneall, are in this case only words of noyse, and of an empty sound, fit to take with simple people, that know not the mea­ning, nor use of them.

Discusser.

Who knoweth not, that many seducing Teachers of the Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian Religion, may be cleare and free from scandalous offences in their lives, and from disobedience to the civill Lawes of the State?

Defender.

Now you may see the Discusser was willing to make use of foun­ding words, which himselfe (it seemeth) knew not well the use of. For what if there were many seducing Teachers of all Religions, that may be cleare from scandalous offences? the distinguishing therefore of evills into these two sorts, into seditious Teachers, and scandalous offenders, is so much the more allowable, and accurate. If a man shall say the worke of the Creation on the sixt day, was either of man, or of Beast: shall a man goe about here to observe a great evill, that here is not an homogeneall, but an heterogeneall commixture of things most different in kind? For who knoweth not that there are many Beasts, Lyons, Leopards, Wolves, Beares, that never were men, but are cleare and free from all humane nature?

Such a like reasoning is that of the Discusser here. What if many [Page 115]seducing Teachers, whether Jewish, Paganish, Turkish, Antichristi­an, were never scandalous livers, but obedient to the civill State? yet are they not all of them evill? and accordingly to be restray­ned by lawfull Authority? And is the joyning of them together the great evill of an heterogeneall commixture?

Againe, let the Discusser be pleased to observe (that which hath been often touched afore) that we looke at it, as more tolerable, for seducing Teachers to seduce those who are already in the same gall of bitternesse with themselves, as Pagans to seduce Pagans, Jewes to seduce Jewes, Turkes to seduce Turkes, and Antichristians to seduce Antichristians. Though this also ought to be prevented by wise and wholsome meanes, by a Christian Magistrate in all those that are under his dominion, so far as there is power in his hand, without the hazard of the publick State.

Lastly, let me adde this Reply to the rest, that it will be hard for the Discusser to finde Antichristian seducers cleare and free from Disobedience to the civill Lawes of a State, in case that Antichrist (to whom they are sworne) shall excommunicate the civill Magi­strate, and prescribe the civill State to the invasion of Forrayners.

Discusser.

Again, who knoweth, not that a seducing Teacher properly sinneth against the Church, & against the Spirituall State and Lawes of it? and therefore ought most properly and onely to be dealt withall in such a way.

Defender.

These twise-sod Coleworts, the Discusser hath often set them be­fore us heretofore: but with as little savour now, as before. For what if a seducing Teacher having sinned against the Church, be cast out by the Church, and still continue seducing? yea what a weake and guilfull evasion, would this prove for the Discusser, to referre a seducing Teacher to a Church-way, when himselfe doth not acknowledge any Church of Christ extant upon the face of the Earth?

Discusser.

A second evill, which I observe in coupling seducing Teachers with scan­dalous livers, is a silent and implicit Justification of all unrighte us and cruell proceedings of Jewes, and Gentiles against all the Prophets of God, the Lord Jesus himselfe, and all his messingers and witnesses, whom their Accusers, have ever so coupled and mixed with notorious evill doers, and scandalous livers, &c.

Defender.

Is this a silent and implicite Justification of all the injurious and cruell handlings by wicked men of the Lord Jesus, and his witnes­ses, to say, that seducing Teachers, and scandalous livers are to be punished by Authority, because the Lord Jesus himselfe, and his witnesses have suffered under those names? What if the wicked Jewes, and Gentiles did injuriously and blasphemously put those names upon the Lord Jesus, and his faithfull witnesses, and upon pretence of such evils put them to death? doth it therefore justifie such proceedings, to say, that seducing Teachers, and scandalous livers are to be punished by Authority? If those who are indeed se­ducing Teachers, and scandalous livers ought to be punished, will it therefore justifie the like proceedings against them who are no such persons, but falsly so called? if a man should say, a murderer is to be punished with death, will it therefore justifie the Islanders of Me­lita, to put Paul to death, because amongst them he was so reputed, doubtlesse a murderer? Acts 28.4. yea let the Discusser seriously con­fider, whether this kind of reasoning of his, doe not more then si­lently and implicitely testifie, that the Lord Jesus and his witnesses, were seducing Teachers and scandalous livers.

CHAP. 55. A Reply to his Chap. 57.

Discusser.

THe Scripture alleaged by the Answerer, to prove that it would be an evill, to tolerate notorious evill doers, whether seducing Teachers, or scandalous livers, is written, Rev. 2.14.20. Where Christ hath some­thing against the Church of Pergamus, for tolerating them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam: and against the Church of Thyatira, for tolera­ting Jezebel, to teach and seduce.

Ʋnto which I may answer with some admiration and astonishment, how it pleased the Father of Lights, and most Jealous God, to darken and vaile the eyes of such a man, as not to seeke out, and propose some Scrip­tures (in the proofe of so weighty an assertion) as at least might have some colour for the influence of the civill Magistrate in such cases. For these Texts concerne neither the City, nor the civill Magistrates of Pergamus, and Thyatyra, but the Churches, and Elders, &c.

Defender.

It was no part of my meaning, to alledge those Scriptures, to prove it unlawfull for Magistrates to tolerate seducing Teachers, but unlawfull for Churches.

If the Discusser say there needed no proofe of that, that was out of Question.

I may truly tell him, that was more then I knew. For the Letter which he intreated me to Answer) so stated the Question, as in generall to argue against persecution for cause of Conscience. And if the Question be put in such generall Termes, I knew the Church might as well be complained of for persecution for cause of Con­science, as the civill Magistrate. For if persecution be taken pro­perly for affliction or oppression for righteousnesse sake I knew it was out of Question, all persecution was unlawfull, whether by the Church, or the Magistrate: an unjust excommunication is as true persecution, as an unjust Banishment. But if persecution be taken more largely, and loosely, (as it is by the Author of the Let­ter, and by the Discusser, for any affliction, or persecution for cause of Conscience (whether good Conscience, or evill, whether rightly informed, or erroneous) If that be the intent of the Letter (as it see­med to me) to beare witnesse against that, then any testimony of Scripture, that justifieth a lawfull censure of false and erroneous Teachers, doth evince the scope of the Letter to be erroneous, which is against all persecution for cause of Conscience. Let therefore the Discusser admire at his owne admiration, and be astonished at his owne astonishment, that wondereth to see an universall negative argued against by a particular affirmative.

The Letter denyeth the lawfulnesse of all persecution in cause of Conscience, that is, in matter of Religion: I seek to evince the fals­hood of it, by an instance of lawfull Church-prosecution in case of false Teachers.

Discusser.

But if the Churches and Angels thereof had sufficient power to sup­presse Balaam, and Jezabel, then all power of Magistrates and Gover­nours in Pergamus and Thyatira (though they had been Christian) must needs fall to the ground, as none of Christs appointment.

Defender.

The power of the Churches and Angels, of Pergamus, and Thya­tyra, were sufficient for those ends, for which Christ ordained [Page 118]Church-power: to wit, for the healing of the soules of such sedu­cers, (if they belonged to Christ) as also for keeping those Chur­ches pure from the fellowship of the guilt of their Act (in teaching false Doctrines) whom they had duly censured. But the power of those Churches and Angels was not sufficient to prevent the fur­ther spreading of the Leaven of their false Doctrines, both in such as were out of the Church, and in private, amongst the members of the Church, who might adhere to them. Much lesse was the put­ting forth of the Church-power against them sufficient to cleare the Magistrates of a Christian State from the guilt of Apostasie, in suffering such Apostates amongst them, who would be ready to so­licite many simple soules, either to with-hold and with-draw them­selves from the Fellowship of the Churches, or in the Churches to withdraw from the Lord Jesus.

Discusser.

Lastly, from this perverse wresting of what is writ to the Church, and the Officers thereof, as if it were writ to the Civill Officers, and State thereof, all may see how since the Apostacie of Antichrist the Christian world (so called) hath swallowed up Christianity, how the Church, and Civill State, that is, the Church and the world are now become one flock of Jesus Christ, &c.

Defender.

Here is no wresting, much lesse perverse wresting of any Scrip­ture at all, from the Church, to the Civill State. I intended to ap­ply the Scripture written to the Churches, and to the Officers thereof, no further then to other Churches, and their Officers. The Scriptures upon which we call in the Magistrate to the punishment of Seducers, are such as are directed to civill States, and Mag­strates, of which divers have been mentioned, and applyed before.

CHAP. 56. A Reply to his Chap. 58, and 59. Discussing the Testimony of some Princes.

Discusser.

I Proceed to the second Head of Reasons (against persecution for cause of Conscience) taken from the profession of famous Princes, King James, Stephen of Poland, King of Bonemia.

Ʋnto whom the Answerer returneth a treble Answer.

1. Wee willingly acknowledge, (saith he) that none is to be persecuted at all; no more then any may be oppressed for righteousnesse sake.

Again, we acknowledge, that none is to be punished for his Conscience, though misinformed, unlesse his errour be fundamentall, or seditiously and turbulently promoted, and that after due conviction of his Conscience, that it may appeare, he is not punished for his Conscience, but for sinning against his Conscience.

Furthermore, we acknowledge, none is to be constrained, to believe or professe the true Religion, till he be convinced in Judgement of the truth of it: but yet restrayned he may be from blaspheming the Truth, and from seducing any into pernicious errours.

This first Answer, I believe, I have sufficiently cleared the weaknesse of the Foundations thereof in the former discourse.

Defender.

And I doubt not, but by the help of Christ, I have formerly de­clared and convinced the feeblenesse of the opposition made a­gainst them, and what firme foundations those Answers are built upon, from the Scriptures of Truth.

Discusser.

His second Answer is this, what Princes professe and practise is not a Rule of Conscience. They many times tolerate that in State Po­licy, which cannot justly be tolerated in point of true Christi­anity.

Againe, Princes many times tolerate Offendors out of very necessity, when the Offenders are too many, or too mighty for them to punish. In which respect David tolerated Joab and his murder, but against his will.

It may be here observed, how the Answerer dealeth with Princes, one while, they are nursing Fathers to the Church, not onely to feed, but al­so to correct; and therefore consequently, bound to judge, what is true feeding and correcting: and consequently all men are bound to submit to their feeding and correcting.

Defender.

The Discusser doth partly falsly, and partly fraudulently fasten upon me this dealing with Princes. That I make them [Page 120]nursing Fathers of the Church, I therein follow the footsteps of the Holy Ghost before me, teaching what Princes should be, and foretelling what they shall be in the latter dayes, Isaiah 49.23. In which place, It was not the intent of the Holy Ghost, (nor mine) to threaten the Church with a red of Correction: But to comfort the Church with a double blessing: First of the Fatherly provision and protection of Princes for the Church: Secondly, of their subjection to the Church, in respect of their spirituall Estate. What Princes may doe, in case the Church should Apostate, and become no Church: or in case they should breake forth into Sedition, and Rebellion against the Civill State, It is another Question which I have not medled with, in all this Discourse. Neither have I spoken of Princes, as bound to Judge, what is true feeding, or correcting: least of all have I said, that all men are bound (especially in Conscience) to their feeding, and correcting. These are calumnies devised by the Discusser.

All I have said (to my remembrance) this way, is, that Princes are bound to be wise, and Learned with holy know­ledge that they may kisse the Sonne, and be subject to him, Psal. 2.10.11. And therefore able to discerne of such cor­rupt feeding, as destroyeth the Foundation of Religion, and the soules of Gods people, that they may be able to restraine such, and to preserve the Church from such ravenous Wolves: and I deny not that their Subjects are to submit to them here­in; when they judge according to the Word; or howsoe­ver patiently to suffer for well-doing, without resistance, in a way of Hostility, notwithstanding any Church-power. If ought be unsound in this dealing with Princes, I am willing to heare of it.

Discusser.

Another while, when Princes crosse Mr. Cottons Judgement, and Practise, then it matters not, what the Profession and Practise of Princes is: for, (saith he) their Profession and Practise is no Rule to Conscience.

Defender.

If Princes swerve from the rule of the word, either in profession, or [Page 119]practise, their owne profession, or practise is no rule either to themselves, or others. Princes ought not to rule the word, but are to be ruled by it. But see the notorious calumny, of the Dis­cusser, so representing M ^r Cottons dealing with Princes, as if he made his owne judgement and practise the rule of the proceeding of Princes. Men whose tongues are their owne, may speake any thing: But yet such as feare the Lord, would tremble at such speeches, as neither expresse Truth, nor Love.

Discusser

I aske then, unto what Princes or Magistrates, will themselves, or any so perswaded, submit to, as unto keepers of both Tables, and nursing Fathers, and Mothers, to the Church?

First will it not evidently follow by these Tenents, That they ought not to submit to any Magistrates in the world, in these cases, but to Magistrates just of their owne Conscience?

Defender.

We subject our selves to all sorts of Magistrates of the Coun­tries where we live, or whether we come, whether Christian, or Pagan, Orthodox, or erroneous, just of our Consciences, or un­just against them. Subject our selves, I say, either in active sub­mission, and obedience, when they command according to God: or in passive submission, of our bodyes, and goods, lives, and liberties, when they command against God. Since the Discusser concludeth, it will evidently follow, that wee will submit to no Magistrates, but just of our owne Consciences let him make that evident, which he saith, is evident, or else, let him say, he is evi­dently mistaken, né quid dicam gravius.

Discusser.

Secondly, will it not also follow, that all other Consciences in the world, (except their owne) must be persecuted by such their Maistrates?

Defender.

This will no wayes follow, unlesse all mens Consciences in the world did erre Fundamentally, and obstinately after just con­viction, against the very Principles of Christian Religion, or at least, unlesse they maintained, and held forth other errors (though not Fundamentally subverting Religion, yet Fundamentally sub­verting Church-Order, and civill order) and that in a turbulent, [Page 120]and Factious manner. For in these cases only we follow Magi­strates to punish in matters of Religion.

Discusser.

And Lastly, Is not this to make Magistrates, but stepps, and stirrops for themselves, to ascend and mounte into their rich, and honorable Seats, and Saddels? I meane, great and setled maintenances, which neither the Lord Jesus, nor any of his first Messengers, the true Patterns did ever know.

Defender.

How this power ascribed to Magistrates, not by me, but by the body almost, of all Faithfull Ministers, yea by the Prophets and Apostles themselves, should make Magistrates staires, and stirrops, for our selves to mount up so high, let him that can dis­cerne it, make it appeare. To allow them power over our selves in case of Hereticall Delinquency, is not to make them staires, or stirrops of our advancement, but Swords, and staves (if need be) for our punishment.

Besides, I wonder what fancy came into the Discussers minde, to dreame of rich and honorable Seates, and Saddels of our Ma­gistrates? When as he need not beignorant, how farre short they themselves, fall, of rich and honorable Seates and Saddels, which himselfe, interpreteth, great and settled maintenances.

Lastly, I suppose, he is not ignorant, that my selfe against whom he is pleased by Name to write this invective, liveth not upon great and settled maintenance, but according to that which he calleth, the true patterne of the first Messengers of the Lord Jesus.

CHAP. 57. A Reply to his Chap. 60.

Discusser.

IN the second place, the Answerer saith, that Princes out of State-Policy, doe sometime Tolerate, what suiteth not with Christianity: and out of State-necessity Tolerate ( as David did Joab) against their wills.

But then the Answerer must acknowledge with me, That there [Page 121]is a necessity sometime of State-Toleration, as in the case of Joab. And so his former affirmation, generally lay'd downe, [viz, That it is evill to Tolerate seducing Teachers, and Scandalous Lives.] Was not duely weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, and is too light.

Defender.

I easily acknowledge sometime a necessity of State Tolerati­on. As I have formerly expressed (in Chap. 53.) especially in two cases, whereof that of Joab is one.

But that will nothing impeach the Truth of my former affir­mation delivered in generall termes, especially, if it be weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary. For the holy writings of the Sanctuary doe expresly deliver the like position, in like generall termes. As Moses saith, who so sheddeth mans bloud, by man shall his bloud be shed. This Law is delivered in generall termes: and yet though Joab was a murderer, he was tolerated to live all the Reigne of David: yet I hope the Discusser wil not say, that generall Law of Moses was not duely weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary, and is too light.

Discusser.

I affirme Secondly, That that State-Policy, and State-necessity which permitteth Consciences of men, will be found to agree most punctually with the Rules of the best Politition, that ever the world saw, the Lord Jesus himselfe, who commanded the permitting of the Tares, to wit, Antichristians, or false Christians with true Christians, as I have dis­coursed above.

Defender.

That discourse hath bin examined above, and found too light, so farre as it crosseth the Truth returned in Answer to the Letter. To permit some Antichristians, or false Christians, The Answer to the Letter did allow: unlesse they maintained Fundamentall Heresies against the Foundation of Religion, and that obstinate­ly, after conviction, and did withall seduce others, into the same Apostacy.

But as for such Hereticks, and seducing Teachers, I hope, it hath been cleared, they are none of those Tares, of which Christ saith, Let them alone.

Besides, it is an Interpretation of Christs words formerly gi­ven, and not to be reversed, That if by Tares were meant, such [Page 122]grosse offendors, then the speech of Christ. Let them alone, is not a word of command in way of an Ordinance, but a word of Permission, and prediction, what will be, in way of Providence. Like that in Luk. 22.36. He that hath no sword, let him sell his Garment and buy a sword, It is not a word of command, or di­rection, what the Disciples should doe; But a word of predicti­on, what times of tryall they should meet withall.

CHAP. 58. A Reply to his Chap. 61.

Discusser.

His Third Answer is this.

FOr those three Princes named by you, who Tolerated false Religion, wee can name more and greater, who have not Tolerated Hereticks and Schismaticks, notwithstanding their pretence of Conscience, and Arrogating the crowne of Martyrdome to their sufferings.

Constantine the great at the Request of the generall Councel of Nice, Banished Arius, with some of his fellowes, Ecclesiast. Histor. l 1. Cap. 19.20.

The same Constantine made a severe Law, against the Donatists: & the like proceedings against them were used by Valentinian, Gratian, & Theodosius, as Augustine reporteth in Epist. 166. onely Julian the Apostate graunted liberty to Hereticks as well as to Pagans, that he might by Tolerating all weeds to grow, choake the vitalls of Christi­anity: Which was also the practise and sinne of Ualens the Arian.

Queene Elizabeth, as famous for her government, as most of the former, It is well knowne what Lawes she made, and executed against Papists: Yea and King James (one of your owne Witnesses) though he was slow in proceeding against Papists (as you say) for Conscience sake; yet you are not ignorant, how sharply and severely he punished those, whom the Malignant world calleth Puritans, men of more Conscience & better Faith, then the Papists, whom he Tolerated.

Discusser.

First, for mine owne part, I would not use an Argument from the number of Princes, witnessing in profession, or practise, against persecu­tion [Page 123]for cause of Conscience, &c. Truth, and Faith, must not be recei­ved with respect of persons: pretious pearles are found in muddy shells. The most High chooseth the poore of this world, to be witnesses to his Truth: and Buchanan dying was going thither, whether few Kings were comming.

Defender.

This Chapter then might have been spared: for it neither maintaineth his cause, nor refuteth my answer to his friends Argument: but yeeldeth up the invalidity of the Argument from such a Topick place, As from the number and votes of Princes. But by his leave, the answer which I gave to his argument is not taken from the like number of Princes, but from the greater piety, and presence of God with those Princes, who have professed and practised against Toleration. It is truly said, Suffragia non sunt numeranda, sed ponderanda. Heroicall wisdome, magnanimity and zeale, is not the lesse to be esteemed, because it is found in the spirit, and counsel, and practise of Princes.

CHAP. 59. A Reply to his Chap. 62.

Discusser.

Secondly, I observe, how inconsiderately (I hope not willingly) the Answerer passeth by the reasons and grounds, urged by these three Princes.

In King James his speech, he passeth by that golden Maxime, that God never loved to plant his Church by bloud.

Defender.

The Discusser is mistaken, when he saith I passed over their reasons and grounds inconsiderately, though he hopeth, not wil­lingly: for indeed I passed them over willingly, but not incon­siderately. For I well considered, either the reasons wanted weight, or else did not impugne the cause in hand. For instance, this speech of King James (That God never loved to plant his Church by bloud) though it be a Truth of weight: yet it doth not touch this cause. It is farre from us, to defend the planting of [Page 124]Churches by bloud: that is, to compell men to yeeld themselves to the fellowship of the Church by bloudy Lawes, or poenalties: the Church of Christ admitteth no members, but a willing peo­ple, Psal. 110.3. Neverthelesse that hindereth not, but as the Church was purchased and planted by the bloud of Christ: so he that shall goe about to supplant, and destroy the Church of Christ, his bloud may justly fall upon his owne head.

Discusser.

Secondly, That civill obedience may be performed by Papists: this was another reason of King James passed over by the Answerer.

Defender.

No marvell, that I passed it over: for I did not finde it in the Letter. For though the King say (as the Letter reporteth him, I onely declared, to be secured for civill obedience: which for Con­science cause, they were bound to performe:) yet the King do­eth not say, That civill obedience may be performed, by Papists, standing stedfast to the rules of their owne Religion. For if the Bishop of Rome, upon pretence of hereticall pravity, shall excom­municate a Protestant Prince, dissolve the Subjects Oath of Alle­giance to him, depose him, dispose of his Kingdome: In this case (which often falleth out) how can civill obedience be perfor­med by the Papists?

Discusser.

Thirdly, The Kings third ground is his observation in Revel. 20. That persecution is a true & certaine note of a false Church: The wicked are Beseigers, the faithfull Beseiged.

Defender.

I subscribe to the King that persecution (properly so called, that is, the oppression of any for righteousnesse sake) is a note of a false Church: but nor a certaine note. For againe, I say, that persecution properly so called, may be sometime found, in the true Church. For which of all the Prophets did not the Church of the old Testament persecute? Acts 7.52.

And yet that persecution was not the true and certaine note of a false Church: For then God had left no true Church upon the face of the earth. But this I graunt, That such persecution, where ever it is found, It is a degree of falshood and A postacy in that Church. But what a vast distance is there between the just censure [Page 125]of Apostasticall, and Hereticall seducers, and disturbers of the Churches peace and truth, and between persecution?

As for the other speech [The wicked are beseigers, the faith­full are beseiged] It may well be said of the seige spoken of in that 20. of the Revelation: But if it should be put for a universall Maxime, Royall Authority cannot make it good Divinity. When the ten Christian Kings shall hate the Whore of Rome, and eate her flesh, and burne her with fire. ( Rev. 17.16.) I suppose the Discusser will not say, the wicked are Beseigers, the faithfull are beseiged.

Discusser.

In King Stephens speech of Poland, he passeth by the true difference, between a civill, and a spirituall Government. I am ( said Stephen) a civill Magistrate over the bodyes of men, not a spirituall over their soules.

Defender.

King Stephens speech may well stand, and the cause still un­touched. The Magistrate is a Ruler over the Bodies of men, not over their soules: He cannot command their soules, nor binde their Consciences, nor punish their spirits. It is the Lord alone can reach them. That which the King or Magistrate can doe, or doeth in this case, is to punish the bodyes of men for destroying, or disturbing Religion.

Discusser.

To confound these, is Babel: and Jewish to seeke for Moses and bring him from his Grave, &c.

Defender.

It is Babel indeed, for civill Magistrates, to make Lawes to binde Conscience, and to excommunicate transgressors of those Lawes: But to punish false Prophets, and Seducers of Gods peo­ple to Idolatry, was never the practise of Babel: but it was, and is their practise, not onely to Tolerate them, but to advance, and encourage them.

If it were a Jewish seeking of Moses, and a bringing him from his Grave, to punish Seducers for Idolatry, then after Moses was buried, that Law ( Deut. 13.) was abrogated. But his buryall, and Gods hiding of the place thereof, was rather a confirmation, and establishment of it, then any Abrogation, or Impeachment [Page 126]of it. For may it not justly be conceived. That the Lord there­fore hid the place of his buriall, least the Children of Israel know­ing it, might goe a whoring after his Sepulchre, and it may be offer sweet incense upon it: and so such false worship against the law of Moses might come to be Tolerated, for honor to the body of Moses?

But Christ hath abolished a Nationall State, or Church, which Moses set up in Canaan

Though Christ abolished a Nationall Church-State, and instead thereof set up a Congregationall Church: yet Christ never abolished, a Nationall Civill State, nor the Judiciall Lawes of Moses, which were of Morall equity, but established them rather, in their place and order. He that shed his own bloud to plant his Church, did never abolish that Law, which enacted, that his bloud should be upon him, who should supplant his Church. If Christs bloud goe to plant it, let the false Christs bloud goe for supplanting it.

Discusser.

In the King of Bohemias speech, the Answerer passeth by that Foun­dation in grace and Nature, that Conscienee ought not to be violated, and forced, it is a spirituall Rape.

Defender.

This was not passed by, but prevented in stating the Questi­on, where it was said, it is not lawfull to censure any, no not for error in Fundamentall points of Doctrine or Worship, till the Con­science of the offendor, be first convinced (out of the word of God) of the dangerous error of his way, and then if he still persist, It is not out of Conscience, but against his Conscience (as the Apostle saith Tit. 3.11.) & so he is not persecuted for cause of Conscience, but punished for sinning against his Conscience.

Discusser.

The King observeth that most lamentably true experience of all ages, That persecution for cause of Conscience, hath ever proved pernicious, &c.

Defender.

No experience in any age did ever prove it pernicious, to punish seducing Apostates, after due conviction of the error of their way. Wherein did the burning of Servetus prove pernici­ous [Page 129]to Geneva? or the just execution of many popish Preists to Queene Elizabeth, or to the english State?

But the Kings speech may passe, if it be meant of persecution properly so called, to wit, Oppression of the faithfull, for the Truths sake: yea if it be the punishment of any for error, If not Fundamentally pernicious either to Religion, or Church-order, and that after conviction of Conscience, persisted in with obsti­nacy.

Discusser.

Lastly, the Kings observation of his owne time, that Persecution for cause of Conscience, was practised most in England, and such places, where Popery reigned: Implying (as I conceive) such practises common­ly proceed from the great Whore, whose Daughters are like their Mo­ther, all of a bloudy nature, as commonly all wolves be.

Defender.

It is no marvell, if I passed by this observation in the Kings speech: For there is no such observation there to be found. If the Discusser had well observed it himselfe, he would have found, it was not the speech of the King, but of the Prisoner.

And the persecution, he speaketh of, was not of Antichristians, or Hereticks, or Idolaters, but onely of such as the world nick­named Puritans, or the like, and of them too, without convicti­on of the error of their way.

But in that the Discusser maketh England a Daughter of the great Whore, and of a bloudy nature, like her Mother: he speaketh as some other of the rigid Seperation have done before him. But I could never yet see awarrant (from the rule either of Truth, or Love) for such a speech. Did ever the holy Scripture, call any Church an whore, that worshipped the true God, onely in the Name of Jesus, and depended on him alone for righteousnesse and salva­tion? Is it not the part of a base childe, or at least, a base pare of a childe, to call his Mother whore, who bred him, and bred him to know no other Father but her lawfull Husband, the Lord Jesus Christ?

CHAP. 60. A Reply to his 63. Chap.

Discusser.

NOw Thirdly, In that the Answerer observeth, that amongst the Romane Emperors, they that did not persecute were Julian the Apostate, and Valens the Arian: Whereas the good Emperors, Con­stantine, Gratian, Valentian, and Theodosius, they did persecute the Arians, and Donatists.

Let it be for an Answer, It is no new thing for godly, and eminently godly men to performe ungodly actions: nor for ungodly persons, for wicked ends, to act what in it selfe is good and righteous, &c.

Defender.

This may goe for a truth, but not for an Answer. The Letter would Justifie Toleration of Religion from the judgement and speeches of three Kings. I Answered that was no Argument, for I could bring him Kings more in number, and greater in the sight of God and man, who judged it meet not to tolerate Hereticks, nor turbulent Schismaticks,

To this the Discusser Answereth, sometimes the Godly doe that which is evill, and the wicked, that which is good. This I say is a Truth, but doth not take away my Answer, but by a Petitio Principij, a begging of the Question, That Kings alledged by him did that which was good, but the Kings alledged by me, though better persons, did that which was evill.

CHAP. 61. A Reply to his Chap. 64.

Discusser.

THe unknowing zeale of Constantine and other Emperors did more hurt to Christ Jesus, his Church and Kingdome, then the raging fury of the most bloudy Neroes. In the persecution of those wicked Emperors, Christians were sweet and fragrant, like spice pounded in Morters: But those good Emperors persecuting some erroneous persons, and advancing the Professors of some truthes, and maintaining their [Page 131]Religion by the materiall Sword, by this meanes Christianity was eclip­sed, The Professors of it fell asleepe (Cant. 5.) Babel was usher'd in, and by degrees the Churches of the Saints were turned into the Wilder­nesse of whole Nations, (Rev. 12.13.) untill the whole world, became Christian, or Christendome. Those good Emperors intending to exalt Christ, but not attending to the command of Christ Jesus, to permit the Tares to grow in the Field of the world, they made the Garden of the Church, and Field of the world, all one &c.

Defender.

If the unknowing zeale of Constantine, & other Christian Empe­rors did more hur [...] to the Church, then the raging fury of bloudy Neroes: It was not because the raging fury of those Persecutors was more accepted of God, then this unknowing zeale of the good Emperors. For though the unknowing zeale of the one was finfull, yet it was the friut of humane frialty, Error Amoris: But the rage of the others was divelish fury, Amor Erroris. Besides the unknowing zeale of the good Emperors, lay not in punishing notorious Hereticall Seducers; nor will the Discusser be ever able to shew, that the Church of Christ suffered any hurt at all by that meanes. The contrary is evident, Constantius, and Valens by Tolerating and favoring the Arians, the whole world became Arian; Ingemuit orbis Christianus, et miratus est factum se esse Ari­anum. Now whether be the greater mischeife the whole world to become Arian, or to become Christian, Let Christians judge. The Discusser indeed speaketh of it, as a soliscisme in Religion, that the whole world should become Christian, and quoteth for it, Rev. 12. and 13. But Rev. 12. speaketh nothing to the purpose: and Revel. 13. speaketh of it, as a marveilous evill, that the whole world should wonder after the Beast, ver. 3. But their won­dering after the Beast, not a becoming Christian (for they were that before) nor did it spring onely from the un­knowing zeale of Christian Emperors in persecuting Apostate Hereticks: But rather from their sinful Indulgence in the Tolera­tion of Hereticks in Doctrine, and Idolaters in Worship. For had they been zealous, and watchfull against such, how is it possible, that ever Antichrist should have been hatched up, to carry the world after him into such a notorious Apostacy? It was not per­secution, that made the world, Christian: but Toleration, that [Page 132]made the world, Antichristian. Furthermore, the hurt of the un­knowing zeale of good Emperors did to the Church, came in also another way, by advancing Church-Officers to Mountaines of high preferments, and settled indowments, Rev. 8.8, 9. The Church never tooke hurt by the punishment of Hereticks. More­over, when God advanced Constantine and other good Emperors to sit on the Throne, It is true, the Church soone became a wil­dernesse: but that came not to passe because those Emperors forced Pagans into Church-Fellowship by the materiall Sword (as the Discusser intimateth, but untruly) But because the com­mon sort are willing to follow the example of great ones, Regis ad exemplum totus componitur Orbis: as also because of the sleepi­nesse of the watchmen (the Elders of the Churches) who should not have suffered such store of Tares to come into the communi­on of the Church. Had the world renounced their Paganisme, and professed Christ to be the Sonne of God, but yet had been kept out of the Fellowship of the Church, till they had approved their profession by a sincere Christian conversation. It had been no soliscisme at all (howsoever the Discusser judge of it) though the whole world had been come—Christian, and stiled Christen­dome. But it is too grosse and palpable a mistake, to make this the cause why the Garden of the Church, and the Field of the world became all one, because the zeale of Christian Emperors intending to exalt Christ, did not attend to the command of Christ, to permit the Tares to grow in the Field of the world.

For they did permit them to live in the Field of the world, they seldome or never put any to death for Hereticall pravity (though it had bin better they had so done with some of them:) But onely exiled them from such Cities and Countryes as were most Populous, where if they had continued, they might have had too great an opportunity of spreading their leaven, which (as the Apostle speaketh fretteth like a Gangrene, 1 Tim. 2.17.

CHAP. 62. A Reply to his Chap. 65.

Discusser.

I Desire you to glance your eye on this not unworthy observation, how fully this Answere hath learned the Language of Lyon like Persecution &c. for thus he writeth, more and greater Princes then these you mention, have not Tolerated Hereticks, and Schismatiks, not­withstanding their pretence of Conscience, and their Arrogating the Crowne of Martyrdome to their sufferings.

Tis true, these termes Hereticks (or wilfully obstinate) and Schisma­ticks, are used in holy writ: tis true also, that such pretend Conscience, and Arrogate the Crowne of Martyrdome to their sufferings. But this is the common clamour of Persecutors against the witnesses of Jesus in all ages, you are Hereticks, Schismaticks, factious, Seditious, rebellious.

Defender.

If it be true, that these be Scripture termes, and by his owne ac­knowledgement truly applyable to Hereticks and Schismaticks, then, it seemeth, the Discusser hath learned this Language of Ash­dod, that the Scripture it self, and Truth it selfe speaketh the roaring Language of Lyon-like Persecution. For he acknow­ledgeth, the Scripture useth the same termes, and Truth verefieth the same things. In Summe, It is as much to say, as Paul had learned the roaring and railing Language of Lyon-like Pharoah: Pharoah told the Children of Israel, yee are idle, yee are idle, Exod. 5.17. And Paul had learned to say as much to the Cretians by his Letter to Titus, The Cretians are alwayes liars, evill beasts, and flow bellyes Tit. 1.12. But is it so indeed? may not the same reproofe unjustly cast upon Gods servants, be justly applyed to Gods enemies, w [...]en (by the Discussers owne confessi [...]n) it may be applyed truly? If Persecutors misapply Scripture Termes, & rebukes to Christs Witnesses falsely, may not a servant of God apply the same truly, as the Scripture applyeth them, but he shall be thought to learne to speake not the Language of Scrip­ture, but the Language of persecutors?

Discusser.

Ob it is hard for Gods Children to fall to Opinion and practise of [Page 134]Persecution, without ready learning the Language thereof. And doubt­lesse that soule, that can so readily learne Babels Language, hath cause to feare that he hath not yet in Point of Worship left the gates or suburbs of it.

Defender.

If this Language used by me be the Termes of Scripture, and by the acknowledgement of Truth rightly applyed, then it is the Language of Canaan, and not of Babel. What Language they have learned, who in point of Worship, have left Zion, but not the gates and Suburbs of Babel, (for they set up Bulwa [...]ks of Im­punity, to secure them) Let themselves (in the feare of God) con­fider.

But what Language is it to speake of me, as having learned the opinion & practise of persecution, I desi [...]e the God of Truth to teach him to know, It is the Language of him that stood not in the Truth, and of such also, as call evill good, and good evill.

Discusser

Againe in blaming Julian the Apostate, and Valens the Arian for Tolerating all weeds to grow, he noteth their sinfull end, that thereby they might choake the vitalls of Christianity: and seemeth herein to consent (on a speech of Jerome) That the weeds of false Religions to­lerated, have a Power to kill true Christianity in the Church.

But when Christianity began to be choaked, It was not when Christi­ans lodged in cold Prisons, but Downe-Beds of ease, and Persecuted others.

Defender.

I noted indeed the sinfull end of Julian the Apostate in tole­rating all Religions and Heresies, to aime at the choaking of the vitalls of Christianity. Of Valens I noted the like finfull practise of Tolerating all Religions: but did not expresse his end. But what I spake of the end, concerned Julian: and I sp [...]ke of it not of mine owne imagination, (though he that shall read the stories of his Apostacy, and malignity against the Name of Christ, and Christians, might easily beleive and speake it without rashnesse:) but I speake it out of a grave and judicious Authour, who lived neere those times, I meane Aligustine, who in his 166, Epistle, thus exp [...]esseth Julians both practise, and end. Julianus deserter [Page 135]Christi, et Inimicus, Haereticis libertatem perditionis permisit, et tum Basilicas Haereticis reddidit, quando Templa Daemonijs; Eo modo putáns, Christianum Nomen posse perire, de Terris, sivanitati Eccle­siae, de qua lapsus fuerat, invideret, et sacrilegas Dissensiones liberas esse permitteret, that is, Julian, the forsaker, and enemy of Christ, Permitted to Hereticks liberty of perdition: and at the same time restored Pallaces (or royall meeting-houses) to Hereticks, when the Temples to Divells; thinking by this meanes, the Christian Name might perish from the earth, if he should envy that unity to the Church, from which himselfe fell, and permit Sacrilegious Dissensions to enjoy their liberty.

What the Discusser subjoyned, as weakning this end, that Christiaaity began to be choaked, not when Christians lay in cold Prisons, but Beds of ease, and persecuted others: This doth not at all weak­en the right apprehension of Julians end, For 1. Julian might ayme at that end, though he might not have attained it.

Secondly, evident it is, that Toleration of bryars and thornes, (and such are Heresies and Blasphemies) doe choake the life of Christianity. For beside experience, the Text in Rev. 8.10.11. Declareth, that by the fall of a Starre, (called wromewood) into the waters, the third part of the watters were embittered by it, and many men dyed that drunk of those warters. And what was that Starre, but Arius and Constantius?

Thirdly, Though Beds of ease have been one meanes of choak­ing Christianity, yet that hindereth not, but the Toleration of all weeds to grow with the good seed, is another.

Fourthly, when he saith, Their persecuting of others was a meanes of choaking Christianity: It is a plaine contradiction of his former speech, that Constantine did more hunt to Christs Church and King­dome, then the raging fury of the most bloudy Neroes.

CHAP. 63. A Reply to his Chap. 66.

Discusser.

HE ends this passage with approbation of Queene Elizabeth for Persecutiag the Papists, and a reproofe to King James for Per­secuting the Puritans.

Defender.

I neither did in termes approve the persecution of the one, nor reprove the persecution of the other. The words I spake of them are recited above. Chap. 58. which containe an Historicall Narration of the Res gestas in this case of both the Princes, but neither approvement, nor reprovement of them. It was enough to answer the Prisoners Argument, that as great Princes as the three named by him for Toleration, might be named against Toleration: As Queene Elizabeth for one, and King James for another, who persecuted Puritans though he Tolerated Papists.

Discusser.

But if Queene Elizabeth did well to persecute the Papists according to her Conscience: King James did not ill in persecuting others accor­ding to his.

Defender.

It followeth not. For Queene Elizabeth might doe well in punishing seditious, or seducing Papists according to Conscience rightly informed, and King James doe ill according to Consci­ence misinformed. Besides, It may be the worse, when a man persecuteth those, whom he knoweth to be innocent, against his own Conscience. Or suppose Conscience by often sinning against the light & cheks of it, be (by the just Judgement of God) blinded and seared, In such a case to doe a wicked act according to Con­science, doth not extenuate, but aggravate a sin: in that such a man sinneth not only in doing a corrupt act, but (which is worse) with a corrupt Conscience. But with what Conscience King James did persecute Puritans, I judge not: the judgement of such things is with the Lord.

Discusser.

But then M ^r. Cotton must graunt, that if King James did ill in persecuting Puritans according to his Conscience, then either King James was not fit to be King, and had not the essentiall qualifications of a King (in not being able rightly to judge, who are to be pers [...]cuted, who not:) or else, He must confesse, that King James, and all Magi­strates must persecute such, whom in their Conscience they judge worthy to be pe [...]secut [...]d,

Defender.

None of these things will follow. For though King James did evill to persecute godly Ministers, and other good Christi­ans, [Page 137]studious of Reformation: yet he was fit to have been a King, and wanted not the essentiall Qualifications of a King. For he was by lawfull Succession the next heire of the Crowne, and was besides endued with many royall guifts of wisdome, and Know­ledge, both of Scripture and Policy, which if he did not alwayes attend to, in his Administrations, the defect was not for want of Essentiall Qualifications, but for want of employing his Qualifi­cations according to the right Rule of the word of God. For by the Rule of the word, those (whom they called) Puritans ought not to have been persecuted, no though they had been erroneous in their way, which they were not. For though they consented not to the State-Government of the Church; yet neither did they tumultuously and seditiously resist it. But suppose Princes and Ma­gistrates doe want some Qualifications meet for their calling (as this for one, Knowledge and Judgement rightly to discerne, who may be punished for matters of Religion, who not:) yet such Qualifications are not of the Essence of the calling of a King, or Magistrate, but belong onely to the Integrity of it. Yea such Kings or Magistrates as want such cleare discerning of this point, they have a just Call to forbeare all execution of civill Censures in matters of Religion, till they be better informed. Or else (as the Discusser saith truly) they may persecute the Sonne of God in stead of the sonne of Perdition.

CHAP. 64. A Reply to his Chap. 67.

Discusser.

IN the second place, I aske, what glory to God, what good to the soules and bodies of their Subjects, did these Princes bring, in persecu­ting?

Defender.

Persecution of Innocents never brought good to Princes, or Subjects, but accidentally: as the Discusser said above, that Nero in persecuting, made the hearts of Christians, more sweet, and fragrant like pounded Spices. But such evill ought not to have been done, that such good in such a way might come of it.

But the good that is brought to Princes and Subjects by the [Page 138]due punishment of Apostate Seducers, and Idolaters, and Blasphe­mers, is manifold.

First, it putteth away evill from the people, and cutteth off a Gangreene, which would spread to further ungodlinesse, Deut. 13.5. 2 Tim. 2, 16, 17, 18.

Secondly, it driveth away Wolves from worrying, and scatte­ring the Sheep of Christ. For false Teachers be Wolves, ( Matth. 6.15. Acts 20.29.) And the very name of Wolves holdeth forth what benefit will redound to the sheep, by either killing them, or driving them away.

Thirdly, such Executions upon such evill doers causeth all the Country to heare and feare, and doe no more such wickednesse, Deut. 13.11.

Yea, as these punishments are preventions of like wickednesse in some: so are they wholsome Medicines, to heale such as are curable of these evills, Zach. 13.4, 5, 6.

Fourthly, the punishments executed upon false Prophets, and seducing Teachers, doe bring downe showers of Gods blessings, upon the civill State, 1 Kings 18.40, 41.

Fifthly, it is an honour to Gods Justice, that such Judgements are executed, Rev. 16.5, 6, 7.

Discusser.

But such Executions in Queen Elizabeths dayes had raysed al­most all Europe in combustion; the warres of 88. the Spanish Invasi­on had speciall respect to this. And had not the Lord borne witnesse to his owne Law, and to his people herein, (by defeating the Intendments of their Enemies) it might have been the ruine, both of England and the Netherlands, which are the words of Mr. Cotton himselfe on the third Viall.

Defender.

The words Answer for themselves. The Devill and his Instru­ments raged against such Lawes, and such Executions, but God bare witnesse to both, by mightily defeating the Invasions and Conspiracies of Enemies.

Discusser.

It is no Argument that God bare witnesse to his people in such Delive­rancies and Victories: For,

1. Events and Successes come alike to all, and are no Arguments of Love, or Hatred.

Defender.

Events and successes are indeed no Arguments of a mans spiritu­all Estate, of the Love or hatred of God, to a mans person, in which sense Solomon speaketh, Eccles. 9.1, 2. But otherwise they are ordinary witnesses, good Events of a good cause if it be well handled: ill events of an ill cause, or at least of the ill handling of a good cause, Psal. 1.3, 4. Jer. 22.15, 16, 17.

Discusser.

Secondly, Papists in their warres have ever yet had both in Peace and warre, victory and Dominion. And therefore (if successe be the mea­sure) God hath borne witnesse to them: as in the Warres between Charles the fift: and some Germane Princes, where the successe was various, between Philip of Spaine, and the Low-Countries; the King of France, and his Protestant Subjects, sometimes winning, sometimes loosing.

But most memorable is the History of the Waldenses, who fought many Battles against three succeeding Popes, with various successe: But the finall successe and Victory fell to the Popedome, and Romish Church, in the utter extirpation of those Waldensian witnesses.

Defender.

Reply. 1. I will not inquire of the meaning of the words, how the Papists in their warres have had both in Peace and Warre Vi­ctory and Dominion. But this I cannot excuse from contradiction, that the Papists in their Warres ever had the Victory: and yet have often fought with various successe, sometime winning, sometime loo­sing.

Nor can I tell, how it standeth with Truth, that Papists in their Warres ever had the Victory: since Queen Elizabeth ever had the Victory over them.

Reply. 2. Though Papists have fought with various Successe, it is Gods manner to nurture his people with some crosses, that they might at length learne to fight not in their owne strength, but in the Lords.

Reply. 3. The story is evident, that the Waldenses never lost Battell, but when they complyed with the Papists, and trusted more in their false pretences, then in the Lord. Neither is it true, that the finall successe ef the Victory fell to the Romish Church to the utter ex­tirpation of those Waldensian witnesses.

For it never came to an utter Extirpation of them, but only to a dispersion into sundry Countries of Europe, as Bishop Ʋsher shew­eth in the last words of his Booke De successione Christianarum Ec­clesiarum. But dispersion is one thing; utter exterpation is ano­other. Seed is dispersed, and the more multiplyed: but exterpa­tion tendeth to withering, and destruction. Certaine it is, the Waldenses long after those warres, and that dispersion, wrote Let­ters to Luther, and Calvin, which are extant to this day.

Discusser.

It is most true, what Daniel in his 8.11, and 12. Chapters, and John Rev. 11, 12, and 13. Chapters, write of the great successe of Anti­christ against Christ Jesus for a time appointed.

Defender.

Not against Christ Jesus: for who ever warred against him, and prevailed? Job. 9.4. But true it is, against his servants Antichrist prevailed for a time appointed: but it was when either the Saints suffered for the Truth: (and then the Saints were the true Con­querours:) or else when they complyed with the corruptions of the times, and then though their cause was good, yet they hand­led it ill.

Discusser.

Gods servants are all Conquerours, when they warre with Gods wea­pons in Gods cause and worship: as in Rev. 2. and 3. Chapters, and in Rev. 12. they overcome the Dragon in the Romane Emperours by three weapons, the bloud of the Lamb, the word of their Testimony, and not loving their lives unto the death.

Defender.

It is true, those are the weapons of the Ministers of the Gospel, and those are also the weapons of private Christians: but if the Magistrate be the Minister of God in bearing his sword, then the Sword also is a weapon of God, which when it is drawne out in Gods cause and worship, according to God, with confidence, not in the arme of flesh, but in the Lord of Hosts, it goeth forth Con­quering to conquer, Rev. 17.14. with Rev. 19.14.19, 20. Gide­ons Sword was the Sword of the Lord, Judg. 7.20.

CHAP. 65. A Reply to his Chap. 68. Discussing the Testimo­nies alledged from Ancient and later writers: and first, that of Hilary.

Discusser.

THe last Head of Arguments produced by the Author against perse­cution, was from the Judgement of Antient and later Writers: to some of which, the Answerer pleaseth to answer.

Defender.

Some of which? as if any of them were omitted? or as if all of them were not answered? compare the Prisoners Letter, and my Answer together, and see if I have balked any one of them.

Discusser.

If it be a marke of the Christian Church to be persecuted, and of the Antichristian or false Church, to persecute, then the Churches cannot be truly Christian (according to the first Institution) which either actu­ally themselves, or by the civill Power of Kings and Princes given to them (or procured by them to fight for them) doe persecute such as discent from them, or be opposite against them.

Defender.

I say againe, if persecution be properly taken for the punish­ment of the Innocent for Truth, or Righteousnesse sake, it ought not to be found in a Christian Church, but is usually found in a false and Antichristian Church, but I cannot (as the Discusser doth) make it a marke of the Christian Church, to be persecuted, and a marke of a false Church to persecute. For a Marke is such a signe as belongeth, omni, soli, & semper, as a marke of the Church must agree to every Church, and at all times to the Church, and onely to the Church. But to be persecuted, is not found in every true Church, at least not at all times: For after the conversion of Paul unto the Faith of Christ, the Churches had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, Acts 9.31. shall we say they were then no true Christian Churches, because they wanted this marke of the Church, to be persecuted? Againe, wee read, that after the destruction of Antichrist, the Churches of the Saints [Page 142]shall have rest and rule a thousand yeares, Revel. 20.4. Shall their freedome from persecution, be a dissolution of the Church-Estate? The like may be said of the New Jerusalem (the Churches of the Jewes, after the destruction of Gog, and Magog) when God shall wipe away all teares from their eyes, and take away Death (violent Death) sorrow, crying, and paine, ( Rev. 21.4.) shall they then cease to be Churches, when persecution ceaseth?

Beside, to persecute is not alwayes a marke of a false Church: for then it would be a marke of a false Member of a Church, or a marke of a Member of a false Church: but the contrary appea­reth in the example of Asa, who persecuted the Prophet of God for his holy Message sake, 2 Chron. 16.10. And it hath been shewed above, that Stephen complaineth of the persecution of all the Prophets, Acts 7.51. And if they were persecuted, it was by the Church of the Old Testament: and if therefore the Church of the Old Testament was false, God had then no Church extant upon the face of the Earth.

It is therefore a begging of the Question, to affirme, that those

Churches cannot be truly Christian, who by themselves, or by the Ci­vill power of Kings, doe punish such as dissent from them or are opposite against them.

And indeed a double begging of the Question, it is: For,

1. It beggeth that for the Question, which is not the Question: for it is no Question, but out of Question, that it is not lawfull for a Christian Church, to punish men for dissenting from them, or being opposite to them. But the Question is, whether Christi­an Magistrates may not punish Apostate Hereticks and Seducers, not for dissenting from the Church, but for seducing from Christ, and blaspheming against his Name. And (if you will) whether the Church may not stirre up the Christian Magistrate, (after all mil­der helps used without a vaile) to doe his Duty in such a case.

2. It is another begging of the Question, to take that for granted (which is not yet proved) that it is a marke of no true Christian Church to procure the civill punishment of incurable obstinate Hereticks and Seducers.

Discusser.

When the Answerer saith, that to Excommunicate an Heretick is not to persecute.

I answer, If the Answerer were throughly awaked from the Spouses spirituall slumber (Cant. 5.) and had recovered from the Drunkennesse of the great Whore (who intoxicateth the Nations, Rev. 17.) It is im­possible, that he should so answer.

For who questioneth, whether to excommunicate an Heretick be to persecute? Excommunication being of a spirituall nature, a sentence de­nounced by the word of Christ Jesus (the spirituall King of the Chureh:) and a spirituall killing by the two edged Sword of the Spirit, in delive­ring up the person Excommunicate unto Satan. Therefore who seeth not this Answer cometh not neere the Question?

Defender.

I must still professe my selfe to be one of them that see it not. For first the Author of the Letter did no where expresse himselfe to put any difference, neither between Church and Court, in point of censure for cause of Conscience: nor between causes of Religion, whether true, or false. If it be unlawfull to banish any from the Common-wealth for cause of Conscience, it is unlaw­full to banish any from the Church for cause of Conscience. The Church ought to be more tender of the Liberty of Conscience, then the Court, as being more acquainted with the tendernesse of Conscience.

Secondly, if the censure of a man for cause of Conscience by the civill Sword, be persecution, it is a farre greater persecution to censure a man for cause of Conscience, by the Spirituall Sword, by how much the more sharp and keen the spirituall Sword is a­bove the civill. Sure I am, Christ Jesus reckoneth Excommunica­tion for persecution, Luke 21.12. They shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the Synagogues, and into Prisons. To deliver up into Synagogues is as much persecu­tion, as to deliver into Prisons. And will the Discusser then say, that if Christ had been awakened from his spirituall slumber, and from the Drunkennesse of the great Whore, it had been impossible, he should have accounted Excommunication a persecution?

Me thinks, if a soule were awakened unto spirituall sobriety, he should judge it a sorer and a deeper affliction, to be bound with spirituall chaines, both in Earth and Heaven, then to be bound in materiall chaines on Earth onely.

Discusser.

But Hilary his complaynt, speaketh not to Excommunications, but to civill censures.

Defender.

Therefore my Answer was to him partly by proportion, part­ly by concession. Hilary said, the Christian Church did not per­secute, but is persecuted. Whereto I Answered,

1. That Excommunication of an Heretick is no persecution: and therefore by proportion neither is the civill punishment of an Heretick persecution; And the Reason in my words following reacheth both: for to persecute is to punish an Innocent: But an Heretick is not an Innocent, but a culpable and damnable person.

2. I answered by concession of Hilaryes words in Hilaries meaning, it is true, what Hilary saith, neither did the Apostles, nor may wee propogate Christian Religion by the Sword, &c.

Discusser.

But a Christian Church doth no more persecute, then a Lilly doth scratch thornes, or a Lamb pursue and teare the Wolves, or a Turtle Dove doth hunt the Hawkes, or Eagles, or a chast modest virgin fight, and scratch like Whores and Harlots.

Defender.

If by persecution, the Discusser meaneth (as it seemeth he doth) the infliction of the civill punishments, his speech is true, and the proportion holdeth, civill punishments are as improper for Chri­stian Churches to inflict, as for Lillies to scratch Thornes, or Lambes to teare Wolves, &c.

But if the Lambes he speaketh of in his comparison, were as rea­sonable, as the Lambes of Christ be, though they would not them­selves pursue and teare the Wolves, yet they would runne to their Shepheards (and civill Magistrates are the shepheards of all their people) to send out their dogs after the Wolves, to pursue and teare them. I see no reason, why the chast and modest eye of a Christian Church should any more spare, and pity a spirituall Adulterer, that seeketh to withdraw her from her spouse to a false Christ, then the eye of an Holy Israelite was to spare and pitie the like Tempters in dayes of old, Deut. 13.8.

CHAP. 66. A Reply to his Chap. 69.

Discusser.

THe Answer by concession to Hilaryes words may surther be discussed. It is true (saith the Answerer) as Hylary speaketh, that neither the Apostles, nor we, may propagate Christian Religion by the Sword: But if Pagans cannot be wonne by the word, they are not to be compelled by the Sword. Neverthelesse this hindreth not, but if they, or any other should blaspheme the true God, and his true Religion, they ought to be severely punished: and no lesse doe they deserve who seduce from the Truth to damnable Heresie and Idolatrie.

In which Answer, I observe, First, his Agreement with Hilary, that Christian Religion may not be propagated by the civill Sword.

Ʋnto which I Reply, what meaneth then this passage in his first Answer to the former speeches of the Kings, viz. We acknowledge, that none is to be constrained to believe or professe the true Religion, till he be convinced in Judgement of the Truth of it.

Defender.

If it be observed, my Agreement with Hilary, then let it be ob­served, that the Discusser in whetting the words of the Authors of the Letter against us, layeth a false charge upon us, as if we main­tained such persecution for cause of Conscience, as is condemned by the Ancient Writers. Of whom Hilary is named for one, and for the first: and yet in the Discussion it is found that we agree with him.

In that Answer to the speeches of the Kings, when I acknow­ledged, that none was to be constrained to beleive, or professe the true Re­ligion, till he be convinced of the Truth of it.

I did not meane, that after he was convinced, he might then be constrained with civill censfures: for neither beleiving nor profes­sing to beleive, is to be constrained with civill censures.

But yet thus farre he may be constrained, by withholding such countenance and favour from him, such encouragement, and em­ployment from him, as a wise and discerning Prince, would o­therwise grant, to such as beleive the Truth, and professe it, so far as they are convinced of it in Judgement and Conscience. For such as will not walke according to their Light, are neither trusty servants to God, nor man.

Discusser.

That Answer to the speech of the Kings implyeth two things.

1. That the civill Magistrate, who is to constraine, must judge of all the Consciences of their Subjects, whether they be convinced or no.

2. That when the civill Magistrate discerneth that his Subjects Con­sciences are convinced, then he may constraine them vi & armis, hostile­ly. And accordingly, who knoweth not what constraint lyeth upon all Consciences in Old and New-England, to come to Church, and to pay Church-Duties? which is upon the point (though with a Sword of a finer gilt and trim in New-England) nothing else, but that which he confesseth, Hilary saith, should not be done, to wit, a Propagation of Religion by the Sword.

Defender.

Neither of both these things are implyed in that Answer. Not the first, (that the civill Magistrate must then Judge of all of the Consciences of their Subjects, whether they be convinced, or no:) For it implyeth no more then that he is not to constraine them, till he see they be convinced. If he never see them convinced, he is to see, they be never constrained. But how far the Magistrate may discerne, and judge in matters of Religion, hath been spoken above. Nor the second: For the constraint I spake of, was not by positive meanes, vi, & Armis, but negative, withholding such trust and em­ployment from such, as he seeth are not faithfull and trusty to their God, of whose Truth they are convinced, and yet withhold it in unrighteousnesse. I know no constraint at all, that lieth upon the consciences of any in New-England, to come to Church: neither doe I know that any scruple lyeth upon any Conscience in New-England, that withholdeth any from hearing the word amongst us. But least of all doe I know, that any are constrayned to pay Church-duties in New-Englād. Sure I am, none in our own Town, neither Church-members, nor other, are constrained to pay any Church-duties at all. What they pay, they give voluntarily, each one with his owne hand, without any constraint at all, but their owne will, as the Lord directs them.

Discusser.

Againe, although he confesseth, that Propagation of Religion ought not to be by the Sword; yet he maintaineth the use of the Sword, when persons (in the Judgment of the Civill State, for that is implyed) shall blaspheme the true God, and the true Religion, and also seduce others to damnable Heresie and Idolatry.

Defender.

True: but this is not the Propagation of Religion but the pre­servation of it; or if it doe conduce to Propagation, it is onely re­movendo probibens.

CHAP. 67. A Reply to his Chap. 70. Discussing the Testimony of Tertullian.

Discusser

TO Tertullian, the Answerer giveth the like Answer. Tertullians Intent (saith he) is onely to restraine Scapula, the Romane Gover­nour of Africa) from persecuting the Christians, for not offering Sacri­fice to their Heathen Gods: and for that end fetcheth an Argument from the Law of Naturall Equity, not to compell any to any Religion, but to permit them to beleive, or not to beleive at all.

Which we acknowledge: we judge, the English may permit the In­dians to continue in their unbeliefe. Neverthelesse, it will not therefore be lawfull to tolerate the publick worship of Devils, or Idols, in a Chri­stian State, or the seduction of any from the Truth.

In this passage, he agreeth with Tertullian: but it is well known, that in New-England, they not onely permit the Indians to continue in their unbeleife, (which they cannot help) but they also permit or tole­rate them in their Paganish worship, which cannot be denyed to be a worshipping of Devils.

And therefore consequently according to the same practise, did they walke by Rule, and impartially, not on [...] the Indians, but their Coun­trymen, French, Dutch, Spanish, Per [...], Turkes, Jewes, should also be permitted in their Worships, if correspondent in civill obedience.

Defender.

It is not true, that the New-English doe tolerate the Indians (who have submitted to the English protection, and Government) in their worship of Devils openly. What the Indians doe, that are not under the English Government, the English have no warrant from God, or Law of Nations to restraine them; nor is it in the power of the English to restraine the private Worship, which some of the Indians under the English Government may possibly adhere unto the this day. What courses have been used to bring them on [Page 148]to Civility, and to the knowledge of our Religion, by faire meanes, are not pertinent to the present controversie to relate. It hath been an Article of the Covenant between such Indians as have submitted to our Government, that they shall submit to the ten Commandements, which they thought reasonable. Some of their Sachims young children are brought up with us, and trained up to knowledge. Such of them as come to our Houses are fed with curtesie, and care taken often to instruct them, as farre, yea further then they are greatly willing to heare. Some of them of late, frequent our markets, to get mony, by selling Fish, Baskets, whortleberries, Cramberries, which taketh them off from some idlenesse; Some English are studious of the Indian Language, to deale with them in their owne Tongue. Of late some of our Mi­nisters have preached to a Congregation of them, whil'st o­thers at first interpreted what was preached: but since one of our Ministers preacheth to them in their owne Language. The other day, whil'st I was at the Colledge with other Elders, an Indian from Plimmouth side, (an hopefull youth) was received into some employment in the Colledge, that he might be trained up to knowledge for the help of his Country-men. But no violent course taken with them at all, to constraine them to the Faith, or Profession of Christianity. The time is hastning (we hope) when all the vials of Gods wrath will be poured out on the Antichri­stian State: and then we looke for the fulnesse of the Gentiles to come in, and with the Jewes, multitudes of Pagans. But till the seven plagues of the seven Angels be fulfilled, wee cannot easily hope for the entrance of [...]. New multitudes of men into the Church according to the word of the Lord, Rev. 15.8. No man (that is, no man out of the Temple, no Pagan) was able to enter into the Temple, till the seven plagues of the seven Angels were ful­filled.

But to returne to our Discusser, he speaketh at randome, when he intimateth, that we walke not by Rule but partially, as if we permitted not the like liberty of worship to our Country-men, nor to the French, Dutch, Spanish, Persians, Turkes, Jewes, which wee doe to the In­dians.

For we Neither constraine them to worship God with us, nor restraine them from worshipping God in their owne way. Persians, [Page 149]Turkes and Jewes, come not amongst us: those of other Nations of Europe, when they doe come amongst us, their manner of Wor­ship is not taken notice of amongst us. Our Country-men wor­ship God with us for the most part, if some of them come not to our Assemblies by reason of the distance of their dwellings from us, they have Liberty of publick prayer and preaching of the word a-amongst themselves, by such as themselves choose, without distur­bance.

Discusser.

The Answerer addeth a further Answer to Tertullian, for whereas Tertullian had said, that one mans Religion doth neither hurt, nor profit another: the Answerer saith, it must be understood of private Worship, or of Religion professed in private. Otherwise a false Religion professed in publick, by the Members of the Church, or by such as have given their Names to Christ, will be the ruine and Desolation of the Churches, Rev. 2.

Whereto I Answer, 1. Those that are Members of the Church, and those that have given their names to Christ, are all one: the distinction therefore is unsound.

Defender.

The Discusser must excuse me, though I doe not take them for all one. For men of yeares must give up their names to Christ, be­fore they can be received Members into the Church, as is evident, Isaiah 56.6, 7. Therefore they are not all one: the one precedeth the other.

Discusser.

I answer secondly, that Tertullian doth not there speake of private, but of publick worship, and Religion,

Defender.

Tertullians speech may possibly be meant of either publick or private But as I said, to make the speech true, it must ei­ther be understood of private, or if of publick profession of Religion, it must be understood not of Christian, but of Pa­gan: and of Pagan during the time of Gods Patience, and their ignorance. But after God revealed the Truth of the Gospel-Religion to them, it was not safe to continue a publick Professi­on of Pagan-Religion: for after the White-Horse hath revealed the Gospel, a Red, and Black, and pale-horse follow, to avenge [Page 150]the rejection of it upon the Romane-Pagan-Empire, Revel. 6.2. to 8.

Discusser.

I answer thirdly; although it be true in a Church of Christ, that a false Religion, or Worship permitted will doe hurt according to those Threats of Christ, Rev. 2. yet in two cases, I beleive a false Re­ligion will not hurt (which is most like to have been Tertullians mea­ning.)

1. A false Religion out of the Church will not hurt the Church: no more then weeds in the Wildernesse will hurt the inclosed Gardens: nor poyson hurt the body, when it is not touched, or taken, yea and Antidotes are received against it.

2. A false Religion and worship will not hurt a Civill State, in case the worshippers breake no civill Law. And the Answerer elsewhere ac­knowledgeth, that the civill Peace is not broken, where the civill Lawes are not broken. And this onely is the point in Question.

Defender.

If this onely be the point in Question, where then lyeth the controversie? for if I say (as the Discusser saith I doe) that the Ci­vill Peace is not broken, when the Civill Law is not broken; and if a false Religion or worship doe not hurt the civill State, unlesse the Worshippers breake some civill Law, then where lyeth the pinch of the controversie?

But I would not have the Discusser mistake himselfe; I doe not remember, that I have any where said, that the civill Peace is not broken, where the civill Law is not broken. He saith, I say so else­where: If he meane, that I say so in the Modell drawn up by my Brethren (the Elders of those Churches) he wrongeth and pollu­teth himselfe much (Crimine falsi) when he saith that Mr. Cotton with the rest of the Ministers of New-England composed that Mo­dell of Church and civill power. It is no new thing with him, to say I did that, which I did not: that Modell was drawen up by some other fellow-Brethren, but not by me. There is a Truth in the speech which they speak, rightly understood, but not as the Discusser here taketh it.

For first, what if no civill Law be made for the establishment of Religion, nor against the violation of the Fundamentalls of it? this very defect of so needfull a Law, may bring the wrath of God [Page 151]upon the civill State: as did the defect of a King in Israel, Judg. 21.25.

Againe secondly, there may be a Law made for the establishing of true Religion: and it though it be violated, yet the Discusser will say, no civill Law is violated, because no Law concerning the second Table is violated. But that is his mistake, to thinke the civill Lawes concerne onely the outward Estate of the People, and not their Religion.

That is a civill Law whatsoever concerneth the good of the Ci­ty, and the propulsing of the contrary. Now Religion is the best good of the City: and therefore Lawes about Religion are truly called civill Lawes, enacted by civill Authority, about the best good of the City, for the promoting, and preserving of that good of the City. But having thus spoken to his second case first (wherein he saith, a false Religion will not hurt a civill State.)

I come now to his first: which was, that a false Religion will not hurt, if it be out of the Church, no more then weeds in the wildernesse will hurt the inclosed Garden.

But what if the Garden be inclosed in the midst of a wilder­nesse? what if the weeds grow so neere the inclosure (or hedge) round about the Garden, that they easily creep into the Garden? what if every blast of wind blow the seeds of the weeds into the Garden, which are ready to overspread the Garden, and to choak the good herbes? The Discusser will say, they that keep and dresse the Garden should weed them out.

True, so they ought, to their best endeavour. But were it not also needfull, that the Lord of the soyle, who hath his Officers both to dresse his Garden & to keep his wildernes, should provide, that the keepers of his wildernesse should suffer no venomous weeds to grow neere his garden, hedge, or pale, least the seeds thereof should annoy his Garden, and poyson those within the Garden that feed on them?

It is true, which the Discusser saith, poyson will not hurt the body, unlesse it be taken, or touched, yea and Antidotes taken against it.

But who shall prevent the Members of the Church from touch­ing or taking poyson? or who shall provide, that all the Mem­bers shall take the Antidotes which are prepared for them? Here will be needfull the faithfull vigilancy of the Christian Magistrate, [Page 152]to assist the Officers of the Church in the Lords worke: the one to lay in Antidotes to prevent infection: the other to weed out infectious noysome weedes, which the sheep of Christ will be touching and taking, when they will sometime neglect their An­tidotes. It is a very unlikely thing which the Discusser saith (is most likely) that Tertullian meant one of these two cases.

For doubtlesse his meaning was, to plead for the Innocency and impunity of his owne Religion, which was indeed the Truth of God. And he might safely plead, that if the Pagan Religion did not hurt their civill Government, (as the Romane Governours doubted not of that) he biddeth them to be secure of the Christi­an Religion, it will never hurt them at all. When therefore he speakes of Religion indefinitely, that one mans Religion will not hurt another, it is Argumentum ad hominem, let not Scapula suspect hurt from Christian Religion to the Romane State. If the Romane Religion be the preservation of the Romane Empire (as Scapula thought) Christian Religion (though tolerated, yea though recei­ved, and advanced) will never be their destruction, nor disturbance.

CHAP. 68. A Reply to his Chap. 71. Discussing the Testimony of Ierome.

Discusser.

I Erome (saith the Answerer) confesseth not the Truth, nor advan­tageth your cause: for wee graunt, what he saith, That Heresie must be cut off by the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. But this hindereth not, but that being so cut downe, if the Hereticke doe still persist in his Heresie to the seduction of others, he may be cut off also by the civill Sword, to prevent the perdition of others.

And that to be Jeromes meaning, appeareth by his Note upon that of the Apostle (Gal. 5.) A little Leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe. Therefore saith he, a sparke, as soone as it appeareth, is to be ex­tinguished, and the Leaven to be removed from the rest of the dough: Rotten pieces of flesh are to be cut off, and a scabbed Beast is to be dri­ven from the sheepfold: least the whole house, body, masse of dough, and Flock, be set on fire with the sp [...]rke, be putrified with the rotten flesh, sowred with the Leaven, perish with the scabbed Beast.

But to this I Answer, 1. He granteth to Tertullian, that Here­sie must be cut off with the Sword of the Spirit: yet with all he main­taineth a cutting off by the second Sword, the Sword of the Magistrate, and conceiveth that Tertullian, so meaneth, because he quoteth that of the Apostle, a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe.

Ans. 2. It is no Argument to proue that Tertullian meant a civill Sword, by alledging, 1 Cor. 5. or Gal. 5. which properly and onely ap­prove a cutting off by the Sword of the Spirit, and purging out of leaven in the Church.

And if Tertullian should so meane, as the Answerer doth: yet 1. The cutting off of Heresie by the Sword of the Spirit implyeth an abso­lute sufficiency in the Sword of the Spirit to cut it downe, according to 2 Cor. 10.4.

2. It is cleare to be the meaning of the holy Spirit and of the Apostle in the words alledged by him, a little Leaven &c.

Defender.

Reply 1. This Testimony of Jerome, which the Authour of the Letter alledgeth against persecution for Conscience, I might just­ly refuse to spend time about it, till either the Author or the Discusser doe make it appeare to be the words of Jerome. For though I at first gave Answer to it, as presuming the Letter had not forged it: yet now looking into the place of Jerome, whence it is quoted, I finde no such matter. The Letter quoteth it out of Hieroms Proaeme upon the fourth Booke of his Com­mentaryes upon Jeremy. But perusing the place, I finde no such words, neither in that Proaeme on his fourth Booke on Jeremy, nor in any other Proaeme of any other of his Bookes on Ieremy which are six in all,

Reply. 2. I might here observe, (if I should deale with him, as he doth with me, in his Chap. 38) the like failings in the Dis­cusser, in putting Tertullian fouretimes in this passage instead of Ierome, whom he hath in hand. When I had once named Titus for Timothy, he observeth the hast, and light attention, and sleepinesse of the Answerer. But I will not make such an observation upon his misnaming of an Author, which might easily slip from his pen, or from his Scribe, or from the error of the Printer.

Reply 3. In this he doth me wrong, to pu [...] upon me that for a Reason, which hath no reason in it, to wit, that I should conceive, [Page 154]that Te tullian (lerome, he would say) meaneth a civill Sword because he quoteth that of the Apostle, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe.

For I gather it, not from his quotation of those words of the Apostle (which I easily graunt, doe clearly speake of Church cen­sure, not of civill censure:) But I gather it partly from his expo­sition of the parralell words in the same Chapter: and partly from the words he useth in opening that very Text. The parra­lell place in the same Chap. is ver. 12. I would (saith the Apostle) they were cut off that trouble you. This cutting off, (or [...]) He expoundeth the cutting off of their virility which no man­will say is a Church-Censure. I spake not here of the true mea­ning of the Text (which doubtlesse, speaketh of a Church-Cen­sure) but of the true meaning of Ieromes words.

Againe, when Ierome would have the spark, assoone as it ap­peareth, to be extinguished, and the leaven to be removed from the rest of the Dough &c. though it be true (which the Dis­cusser speaketh) that the Apostle intendeth a Church-Censure: yet doubtlesse Ierome aymed at more in those comparisons, even to a civill censure also. For to these comparisons, he immediately subjoyneth these words, Arius in Alexandriâ una scintilla fuit: sed quia non statim oppressa est, totum orbem, eius flamma de populata est. Arius (saith he) was but one sparkle: yet because he was not speedily executed (or supprest) his flame depopulated all the world. Where by the extinguishing of that spark, he doth not meane, by excommunication: for he was not ignorant, that Arius had been speedily excommunicate, once and againe out of the Church of Alexandria; once whist he was Deacon, as Sozomene reporteth in Lib. 1. Ecclesiast Historia, Chap. 14. And though after­wards, he got into the Church againe, yet he was againe excom­municated, when he was Presbyter, and cast out of his Presbytery, as Socrates reporteth in his lib. 1. Ecclesiast Hastoria, Cap. 6. of the Greek Edition; Chap. 3. of the latine. So that Hierome com­plaining, of the great hurt, which the sparke of Arius did, because he was not timely put out, he did not meane, of putting out of the Church (which was done timely enough, and twice for failing) but because he was not put out either out of the world, or at least, out of the Confines of Neighbour Churches.

Say not: yet Paul doubtlesse spake of putting out of the Church. For though that be true: yet now the Question is not of Pauls judgement in this place, but of Hieromes judgement, which the Author of the Letter alledgeth as a witnesse for himselfe, and the Discusser would maintaine it: though Ieromes words will not beare it. It argueth, men are more led by will, then judgement to uphold a cause, when the witnesses which themselves produce, beare witnesse against them. Neither let any man say, That this graunt of his, That Heresie must be cut off with the Sword of the spirit, doth imply an absolute sufficiency in the Sword of the Spirit to cut it downe, according to 2 Cor 10.4, 5.

For though Spirituall weapons be absolutely sufficient to the end for which God hath appointed them (as hath been opened above) to wit, for the conviction, and (if he belong to God) for the conversion of the offender, for the mortifying of his flesh, & for the saying of his soule, and for the cleansing of the Church from the fellowship of that guilt: yet if an Hereticke still con­tinue obstinate, and persist in seducing, creepe into Houses, lead captive silly soules, and destroy the faith of some, (it may be, of many) such Gangrenes would be cut off by another Sword, which in the hand of the Magistrate is not borne in vaine.

Discusser.

But the eye of this Answerer could never be so obscured, as to run to a Smiths shop, for a Sword of Iron, and steele, to help the Sword of the Spirit, if the Sunne of righteousnesse had once been pleased to shew him; That a Nationall Church (which elswhere he professeth against) a State-Church, (whether explicite, as in Old England, or implicite, as in New) is not the Institution of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Nationall Typicall-State-Church of the Jewes, necessarily called for such weapons: But the particular Churches of Christ in all parts of the world, consisting of Jewes and Gentiles, is powerfully able to defend it selfe, and offend men, and Divells, although the State and Kingdome (wherein the Churches be) had neither carnall Sword, nor Speare, as once it was in the Nationall Church in the Land of Canaan; 1 Sam. 13.

Defender.

I should think mine eye were very obscure indeed, if I should run to a Smiths shop to fetch the Authority of the civill Magi­strate from thence: or if I should thinke his Authority could not [Page 156]be put forth against all evill doers (and amongst others, against Hereticks) without a Sword of Iron or Steele. If their be stones in the streets, the Magistrate need not fetch a Sword from the Smiths shop, nor an Halter from the Ropers, to punish an Here­tick. A pleasant wit can play with a feather of every flying Fan­cy, and yet (which is to be lamented) bring in such light conceits into grave Discourses, and Disputes about the holy things of God.

But two things let the Discusser understand, 1. That the Lord (through his grace) hath opened mine eye many a yeare agoe, to discerne, that a Nationall Church is not the Institution of the Lord Jesus. And himselfe confesseth, that elswhere I have pro­fest against such a Church State: nor will he ever be able to make it good, that the Church in New-England is implicitely any Na­tionall, or State-Church.

2. Let him understand further, that I should thinke mine eye not onely obscured, but the sight of it utterly put out; if I should conceive, as he doth, That the Nationall Church State of the Jewes did necessarily call for such weapons to punish Hereticks, more then the Congregationall State of particular Churches doth call for the same, now in the dayes of the New-Testament. For was not the Nationall Church of the Iewes as compleately furnished with spirituall Armour to defend it selfe, and to offend men: and Divells, as the particular Churches of the New-Testa­ment be? Had they not power to convince false Prophets, as Elijah did the Prophets of Baal? Had they not power to seperate all evil doers from the fellowship of the Congregation? what power have our particular Churches now, which their Nationall Church wanted? or what efficacy is their found in the exercise of our power which was wanting to them?

If it be said, Their Nation was an holy Nation, and an uncleane person might not live amongst them:

Ans. It is true, he might not enter into the Congregation with the rest of the Israelites, to worship the Lord: but he was permitted to live in the Common-wealth of Israel, men uncer­cumcised both in heart, and flesh.

It is therefore a Sophystical imagination of mans Braine, to make a mans selfe, or the world believe, that the Nationall. Church-State of the Iewes, required a civill Sword, whereas the parti­cular [Page 157]Church-State of the Gospel needs no such help.

Why not I pray you? Because particular Churches are powerfully able, by the Sword of the Spirit, to defend themselves, and to offend men, or Divells?

And was not the Nationall Church of Israel as powerfully able, by the same Spirit to doe the same? Surely it was both spoken and meant of the Nationall Church of the Iewes, Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hostes? Zach. 4.6. And doth not the Discusser himselfe observe, that time was in the Nationall Church of the Land of Canaan, when there was neither carnall Speare, nor Sword to be found? 1 Sam. 13. And was not then the Nationall Church powerfully able (by the Spirit of God) to defend it selfe, and to offend men, and Divells, aswell as particular Churches now?

CHAP. 69. A Reply to his Chap. 72. discussing the Testimony of Brentius.

Discusser.

BRentius upon 1 Cor. 3. saith, no man hath power to make or give Lawes to Christians, whereby to binde their Consciences. For wil­lingly, freely, and uncompelled, with a ready desire, and chearfull minde, must those that come, run unto Christ.

To this the Answerer returneth, Brentius (saith he) speaketh not to your cause. Wee willingly graunt you, that man hath no power to binde Conscience: but this hindereth not, that men may see the Lawes of God observed, which doe binde Conscience.

But the graunting this, That men have no power to make Lawes to binde Conscience, overthroweth such his Tenent, and practise as re­straine men from their worship, according to their Conscience, and be­leife, and constraine them to such worships, which their own soules tell them, they have no satifaction, nor faith in.

1. It is an untruth, that either we restraine men from wor­ship according to Conscience, or constraine them to worship a­gainst Conscience: or that such is my Tenent and practise.

2. Though it were true that wee did both: yet this did not [Page 158]make Lawes to binde Conscience, but the outward man onely: nor would we thinke it meet, to binde the ontward man against Conscience.

Discusser.

Againe, where as the Answerer affirmeth, That men may make Lawes to see the Lawes of God observed.

I Answer, As God needs not the help of a materiall Sword of Steele to assist the Sword of the Spirit in the affairs of Conscience: so those men, those Magistrates, yea the Common-wealth which makes such Magistrates must needs have power and Authority from Christ Iesus to sit Iudge, and to determine in all the great Controversies concerning Doctrine, Worship, Government &c.

Defender.

God needeth not the help of a materiall Sword of Steele, to assist the Sword of his Spirit of righteousnesse in the dutyes of the second Table, no more then to assist the Sword of the Spirit of holynesse in the dutyes of the first Table. The Law of Righte­ousnesse is as fully and plainly written by the Spirit of God in the hearts and Consciences of men, as is the Law of holynesse: yea and more too. And yet the Discusser doth not (for ought I know) make it a needlesse matter for God to accept the helpe of the materiall Sword to assist the Spirit of Righteousnesse in the affaires of Conscience, which pertaine to the second Table. The truth is, God needeth not the Arme of flesh to help him, that is, he needeth not any help, which the wisdome or strength of the creature can invent, or bring forth, which himselfe appointed not. But yet God thinkes it no dishonour to himselfe, to make use of his owne Ordinances, in their owne bounds, to his owne ends; Nor doeth he then need them, when he useth them, but wee need such helps for the performance of our duty both to God, and man. Which made it a cursed sin in Meroz, not to come out to help the Lord, Iudge. 5 23.

Nor will it hence follow, that such Magistrates as are chosen to help forward the work of God in matters of Religion, that either themselves, or the Common-wealth that chooseth them, must needs have power, and Authority from Christ, to sit Iudge, and to determine in all great controversies of Religion, in Doctrine, Discipline and Government:

It is enough that they are called of God to be wise and learned in the service of Christ, and in the wayes of his Kingdome. Psal. 2.10, 11, 12. which if they have learned, they ought to rule with him, and for him: or else how shall it be fulfilled, which is written of them, The Kingdomes of the world, are become the King­domes of the Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reigne for ever? Rev. 7.15. Yea in this case, it is learning enough, if they know the Principles and Foundations of Religion, and can discerne the Arrogancy of a tumultuous spirit after conviction For such want not judgement; to censure Apostacy, to Heresie in doctrine, to Idolatry in worship, to Tyranny in Government.

Discusser

But then I aske, whether upon this ground, it must not evidently follow, that then either there is no Common-wealth, nor Civill State of men in the world, that is not qualified with this discerning: (and then the Common-wealth hath more light concerning the Church, then the Church it selfe:) Or that the Common-wealth and Magistrates thereof must judge and punish as they are perswaded in their owne beleife and Conscience (be their Conscience, Paganish, Turkish, or Anti­christian:) And what is this, but to confound Heaven and Earth together? and to take away not onely the being of Christianity out of the world, but all civility, yea the world out of the world, and to lay all up­on heaps of confusion?

Defender.

See what strange effects, a strong fancy can produce? would you not think, it must be some strange, and strong paradox, that if it be graunted shall produce such strange and strong effects, as to take away the being of Christianity out of the world, yea and all civility, yea and the world out of the world?

But when men have slept a while, and strong fancyes are evaporated, the world will stand where it is, and civility stand in the world, and Christianity in civility.

I say therefore (that which no sober minde can contradict) that though Magistrates be bound to become wise and learned, to know Christ, and to establish the Religion of Christ yet it will not (as the Discusser saith) evidently follow, no nor follow at all, That then there is no law full Commonwealth nor Civill State of men in the world, which is not qualified with this spirituall discerning.

For though it be the duty of Civill States, thus to be qualified: yet their want of such qualifications, doth not make them un­lawfull States. Many due qualifications are required in Husbands, Wives, Children, Servants, Magistrates, Churches, the want of which maketh them defective, and sinfull, but doth not make them unlawfull. This will need no proofe to any sober minde.

Muchlesse will it follow upon the former Premises, that the very Common-wealth hath then more light concerning the Church of Christ, then the Church it selfe.

For it is a weake Church, that knowes no more light, then Principles: And what light the Common-wealth hath, it may have received from the Church. Howsoever, the Magistrates power to establish the Religion of Christ doth no way inferre. That he that establisheth that Religion, which is professed in the Church, hath more light concerning that Religion, or any part of it, then the Church it selfe. Albeit, it is not impossible, nor is it absurd that sometime the Magistrate may have more light in matters of Religion, then the Church it selfe. David (for ought wee read) was the first that discerned the disorder in Carting the Arke of God, 1 Chron. 15.2. And Hezekiah was the first, that prevented the Preists and Levits, and the whole Church, in the worke of Reformation, from the Apostacy of Ahaz, 2 Chron. 29.4, to 11.

But there is no colour of consequence, that because Magistrates are bound to discerne, and know the will of Christ, and to serve him with their power, That therefore such as have no discerning of Christ, nor of his holy will, That they should punish and de­stroy Christ, and Christians, and seeke only to advance their owne Religion, which is but Idolatry and Superstition.

CHAP. 70. A Reply to his Chap. 73. Discussing the Testimo­ny of Luther.

Discusser.

LUthers Testimony, saith the Answerer, reacheth to two things, nei­ther of which we deny.

First, that the Government of the civill Magistrate reacheth no fur­ther, then to the bodies and goods of their Subjects, not over their soules: and therefore they may not undertake to give Lawes to the soules and Con­sciences of men.

Secondly, that the Church of Christ doth not use the Arme of secular power, to compell men to the true profession of the Truth. For this is to be done with spirituall weapons, whereby Christians are to be exhorted, and compelled.

But this (saith he) hindereth not,

That Christians sinning against the Light of Faith, and Conscience, may justly be censured of the Church, by Excommunication, and of the civill Magistrate also, in case they shall corrupt others to the perdition of their soules.

This Joynt-confession of the Answerer with Luther (to wit, that the Government of the civill Magistrate extendeth no further then over the bodyes and goods of their Subjects, not over their soules) who seeth not, that hereby is given a cleare Testimony, that either the spirituall and Church Estate, the preaching of the word, Baptisme, Ministery, Govern­ment thereof, belongeth to the civill body of the Common-wealth, (that is, to the bodies and goods of men, which seemeth monstrous to Imagine:) or else, that the civill Magistrate cannot (without exceeding the bounds of his Office) meddle with those spirituall Affaires.

Defender.

A man that is willing to open his eyes, may easily see, that though the Government of the civill Magistrate doe extend no further then over the bodies and goods of his Subjects, yet he may and ought to improve that power over their bodies and goods, to the good of their soules: yea and by promoting the good of their soules, he may much advance the good of their [Page 162]outward man also. The bodies, and goods, and outward Estates of men may expect a blessing, when their soules prosper. Though God may keep his Saints low in outward Estate, that grow fastest in Godlinesse: yet sure Godlinesse hath the Promises of this life, and of a better, 1 Tim. 4.8. And such as first seeke the Kingdome of God, may expect all these outward things to be cast in upon them. If it seeme a monstrous thing in the eyes of the Discusser, to imagine, that the good Estate of the Church, and the well-or­dering of the Ordinances of God therein, should concerne the civill good of the Common-wealth, it may well seeme monstrous to him, to imagine that the flourishing of Religion is the flouri­shing of the civill State, and the decay of Religion is the decay and ruine of the civill State. But such Virgine soules, as follow the Lamb, wheresoever he goeth ( Rev. 14.4.) would be loath to goe to live in such a Common-wealth, to whom it should seeme mon­strous, that the things of God should belong to them.

And therefore the Magistrate need not to feare, that he should exceed the bounds of his Office, if he should meddle with the spi­rituall affaires of the Church in Gods way. It is true, if he shall meddle with the execution of a Ministers Office, as Ʋzziah did or if he shall set up humane Inventions in Doctrine, Worship, Go­vernment, in stead of Christs Institutions, as David brought the Arke of God upon Oxen, instead of the shoulders of the Levites: Or if he shall thrust in Jeroboams Priests upon the Church, and cast out faithfull Ministers: or if he shall make Lawes to bind Conscience, in all these, or any such Like, he exceedeth the bounds of his Office. But if he shall diligently seeke after the Lord, and read in the word of the Lord all the dayes of his life ( Deut. 17.19.) that he may both live as a Christian, and rule as a Christi­an, if he shall seeke to establish and advance the Kingdome of Christ more then his owne: If he shall incourage the good in a Christian course, and discourage such as have evill will to Sion: and punish none for matter of Religion, but such as subvert the Principles of saving Truth (which no good Christian, much lesse good Magistrate can be ignorant of) or at least such as disturbe the Order of the Gospel in a turbulent way, verily the Lord will build up and establish the House and Kingdome of such Princes, as doe thus build up his.

Discusser.

Againe necessarily it must follow that these two are contradictory to themselves (which yet both of them are Mr. Cottons Positions) the Magistrates Power extends no further then to the bodyes and goods of the Subject: and yet.

The Magistrate must punish Christians for sinning against the Light of Faith and Conscience, and for corrupting the soules of men.

Defender.

If the Christian Faith, and a good Conscience be a part, and a great part, a chiefe part of the good of Christians, then these two are so farre from contradicting one another, that they establish one another. For if a Magistrates power extend to the preserving of the Goods of the Subject, and to the punishment of the Im­peachers or purloyners thereof: then he falleth short of his duty, if he suffer their Faith and good Conscience to be corrupted or dispoyled without revenge. Againe, this I say further (which al­so will easily avoyde appearance of Contradiction) suppose by Goods were meant onely outward Goods, and that the Magi­strates power extended no further then the bodies and goods of the Subjects: yet though he have no power over Faith and Con­science, he hath neverthelesse lawfull power to punish such evill doers in their Bodies and goods, as doe seduce his people to make shipwrack of Faith, and a good Conscience. For in seeking Gods Kingdome and Righteousnesse, men prosper in their outward Estates, Matth. 6.33. otherwayes they decay. Besides, I doe not remember, that this Proposition is any of mine (which yet the Discusser fastneth upon me) that the Magistrates power extendeth no further then the bodies and Goods of his Subjects.

I doe not deny the Truth of it, rightly understood, but it see­meth to me somewhat too loose, and confused, for me to owne it as mine own. For the Magistrates power may be said to extend no further then the bodyes and Goods of his Subjects, either as the Subject of his power, or as the end of his power. If Goods be meant outward Goods, and the Magistrates power be said to ex­tend no further then to the body and Goods of his Subjects, as to the Object of his power, the Position is true. But if it be meant of the end of his power, as if a Magistrates power reached no fur­ther then to the preservation of their bodyes, and outward Goods, [Page 164]it is false For the Adequate end of the Magistrates power, is [...], benè administrare Rempublicam, well to governe the Common-wealth. Now can it be well with a Common-wealth, that liveth in bodily health, and worldly wealth, but yet with­out Church, without Christ, without God in the world? But though God for a time may preserve a civill State in health and wealth, through his Patience, and bounty, especially till meanes of Grace be offered to them: yet after meanes of Grace be offe­red, they cannot long expect bodily health, or wealth to be con­tinued to them, if they neglect, or despise, or depart from so great salvation. Witnesse the Romane Empire, which though it abounded in worldly blessings, till the Lord Jesus came riding forth amongst them upon a White Horse of the Gospel of his Grace: yet after they neglected so great Salvation, then follow­ed a Red Horse of Warre, and a black Horse of Famine, and a Pale Horse of Pestilence and other Judgements, which much im­peached both the health, and wealth of that State, and would have ruined it, had it not cast away her Idolls, and advanced the Scepter of the Lord Jesus.

Now the God of all Grace be pleased at length to shake the heart of this Discusser, that he may not thus delight to seduce himselfe and others against the Light of Grace, and Conscience, against Reason and Experience.

Discusser.

Againe, in the Answerers Joynt-confession with Luther, that the Church doth not use the secular power to compell men to the Faith, and Profession of the Truth, he condemneth (as before I have observed.)

1. His former implication, that they may be compelled, when they are convinced of the Truth of it.

Defender.

This implication where it was formerly observed, it hath been formerly cleared from implication of Contradiction. I have ne­ver said, that after men be convinced of the Truth, they may be compelled to the Profession of it, by any penalties, but onely by withdrawing such favours as are not comely or safe for faithlesse persons.

Discusser.

2. He condemneth their owne Practise, who suffer no man of any dif­ferent Conscience and worship to live in their Jurisdiction, unlesse he depart from the Exercise of his owne Religion, and worship, differing [Page 165]from that allowed of in their civill Estate, yea and also actually submit to come to their Church.

Defender.

This charge of the Discusser, let him consider, if it be not contra­dictory to his owne Relation, chap. 60. where he saith, wee permit and tolerate the Indians in their Paganish worship, which wee might restraine. Yet here he saith, we suffer no man of any different Conscience, or worship to live in our Jurisdiction.

Neither is it true, that we suffer no man of any different Con­science or worship to live in our Jurisdiction. For not to speake of Presbyterians, who doe not onely live amongst us, but exercise their publick Ministry without disturbance, there be Anabaptists, and Antinomians tolerated to live not onely in our Jurisdictions, but even in some of our Churches. Yea saith the Discusser, but they must actually submit to come to our Church.

I cannot say, nor doe I beleive, that any man is compelled to come to our Church, against his Conscience. Nay we are so farre from that, (and that the Discusser is not ignorant of) that our Churches doe not expostulate with our Members who heare in England, no not then, when there was more difference from us in manner of worship, then (through the mercy of God) now there is. The which the Discusser himselfe hath declared to have been no little Offence unto himselfe. Which maketh me the more to mar­vell, that he should now charge it upon us, that we compell all to come to heare in our Churches, against their Consciences: when he is wont to be offended, that we suffer them to heare in any true Church (though polluted) according to their Consciences.

Discusser.

Howsoever they cover the matter with this varnish, that none are com­pelled further unto their Churches, then unto the hearing of the word, unto which all men are bound: yet it will appeare, that Teaching, and being taught in a Church Estate is a Church-worship, as true-and pro­per a Church-worship, as is the Supper of the Lord, Acts 2.46.

I cannot call to mind, that either upon that colour, or any other, any man in this Country was ever compelled to heare the word of God, in any of our Churches, in this Country. But there is indeed some colour for the varnish he speaketh of: but not that which he pretendeth (our compulsion of any man for to heare:) but a con­troversie with himselfe upon another occasion, as I remember.

The Discusser sometimes endeavoured to draw away the Church of Salem (whereof he was sometime Teacher) from holding Com­munion with all the Churches in the Bay, because wee tolerated our Members to heare the word in the Parishes of England. Wee to satisfie him in that, held forth (that which here he calleth a varnish) that hearing was a common Duty lying upon all men, where the word of God was truly taught. He replyed, as he doth now, that Teaching and hearing in a Church-Estate is Church worship, Acts 2.46. To which we gave Answer (as now againe) That though Teaching and being taught in a Church-Estate be Church-worship (according to Acts 2.46.) yet it is not a Church-worship, but to such as are in a Church-Estate. To all it is an holy Ordinance of Gods worship, and a Christian Du­ty. And though Teaching and hearing doth imply a Relation, yet not a Church-relation. There is a relation between a Tea­cher, and a Learner, in any Art, or Knowledge: and there may be a nearer relation between a Preacher and an Hearer, in case the Hearer be begotten to God by such a Sermon (even the same re­lation as is between a spirituall Father, and Sonne:) but this doth not amount to Church-relation, and Communion, till there passe some mutuall profession of Covenant (explicit or implicit) between them. A Pagan Infidell may come into a Christian Church-Assembly to heare the word, and may be convinced and converted by it, (as suppose he in Corinth, 1 Corinthians 14.24, 25.) yet is he not therefore joyned in Church-Estate, and Fellow­ship with them, without profession of acknowledgement, and ac­ceptance.

Discusser.

Secondly, all persons (Papist, and Protestant) that are Conscientious have alwayes suffered upon this ground especially, that they have refu­sed to come to each others Church, or meeting.

Defender.

It is too large an Hyperbole, to affirme, that all persons that are Conscientious (whether Papist, or Protestant,) have alwayes suffered upon this ground. Are no men conscientious but such as have suffered upon this ground? are there not many that were ne­ver put upon this Tryall? and are not many conscientious, that never scrupled this point? and are there not many conscientious, [Page 167]that have suffered upon other points, that never suffered upon this point?

Besides though many conscientious Protestants and Papists doe refuse to heare in each others Assembly, or Church, it is not be­cause such hearing doth implant them into their Church-State: but out of feare to be leavened with their corrupt Doctrine, or polluted with some other part of false worship.

CHAP. 71. A Reply to his Chap. 74. Touching the Testimony of the Papists against Persecution.

Discusser.

AS for the Testimony of the Popish Booke (saith the Answerer) wee veigh it not: as knowing what ever they speake for toleration of Religion, where themselves are under Hatches: yet when themselves come to sit at Sterne, they Judge and practise quite contrary: as both their writings, and judiciall proceedings have testified to the world these many yeares.

But (for Answer to him) though both their writings and practises have been such: yet the Scriptures, and expressions of Truth alledged by them, doe speake loudly and fully for them, that where they are under the Hatches they should not be smothered, but suffered to breath and walk upon the Decks in the aire of civill Liberty.

Defender.

Reply. 1. When the Author of the Letter calleth that Popish Booke (out of which he quoteth that Testimony) a wicked Book, why may not that Testimony be a wicked Testimony, (as by his owne Judgement) the Booke, a wicked Booke?

Reply. 2 It is true, which they say, the meanes which Almigh­ty God appointed for the conversion of Kingdomes, was Humili­ty, Patience and Charity: neither doe wee allow any meanes of rigour for Conversion of soules, but onely the power of Spiritu­all Armour.

It is true also which they alledge out of Matth. 10.16. That Christ sent his Apostles as sheep into the midst of Wolves: He did not [Page 168]send Wolves amongst sheep, to kill, imprison, spoyle, &c. But this one­ly sheweth, what the condition and Commission, and worke of Ministers is, when they are sent among Pagans, and Persecutors. But this is no prohibition to Ministers, when they live in a Church of Christ, to drive away Wolves from the Sheepfolds of Christ, as knowing they come to kill and to destroy. And drive them away they may, not onely by Church-censures, if they be of the Church ( Tit. 3.10, 11.) but also if they be out of the Church, by miraculous vengeance, (in case they have such a gift, as Paul had, and used it against Elymas, Acts 13.9, 10, 11.) or by their Prayers, (though the Discusser deny it, chap. 27. as Paul did against Alexander, 2 Tim. 4.14. or by stirring up the civill power against them, as Elijah did Ahab and the people, against the Prophets of Baal, 1 Kings 18.40.

Reply. 3. That which they alledge out of Matth. 10.7. (they meane 17.) is as farre wide from the purpose, as the former. It is true, the Apostles ought not to deliver the People (whom they are sent to convert) unto Councels, or Prisons, or to make their Religion Felony, or Treason.

But what is this to such as being converted to the Profession of the Faith, doe Apostate from the Faith, and seeke to subvert the Faith, which they have professed? Or what is this to such, as doe seeke also to subvert the civill State, to kill Kings, or dethrone them, and to dispose of their Kingdomes? may not such (Religi­on shall I say, or Rebellion:) be made Felony or Treason? But see here the partiality both of the Letter, and of the Discusser: if a Christian King set not up the Popish Religion, but make Lawes for the establishment of the Truth, this shall be condemned in him as Hereticall pravity, himselfe prescribed, dethroned, killed, and his Kingdome alienated to a stranger. And this shall passe with Toleration. But if a Prince shall make Lawes for the security of himselfe and his Kingdome, and condemne such seditious, and rebellious Attempts for Felony and Treason, this shall be taxed as unchristian Persecution, and contrary to the way of Christ, and his Apostles.

Reply. 4. It is true likewise, what they quote out of verse 32. When ye enter into an House Christ had them salute it, saying, Peace be to the House; he doth not say, send Pursevants, to ransack and spoile it.

For Christ sent not his Apostles with civill power: nor doth he allow Princes, to send Pursevants to ransack Houses, that so they might convert the Housholders, or sojourners therein. But if Seducers to Idolatry be found there, and Rebels, and Conspi­rators against the civill State be found there, though that Com­mission to the Apostles speake not to such case: yet it is enough, the Magistrates Commission from God, Rom. 13.4. Armeth him to take vengeance on evill doers.

Reply. 5. To John, 10. verse 10, 11. The Answer is as easie as to the former. The Pastor giveth his Life for the sheep: he cometh not to kill, or to destroy the sheep. But what if he see the Wolfe coming? or what if he see the Thiefe coming? both of them, to steale, and kill, and to destroy? Shall the Pastor now sit still, and not ha­zard his life in their defence, contrary to verse 11, 12, 13? Or shall he betake himselfe onely to spirituall censures, when it may be they are not capable of such stroakes? Or shall it be an hainous and unchristian carriage in him, to seeke ayde a­gainst such Thieves and Wolves from them who should see that the sheep of Christ may lead a quiet, and peaceable Life in all God­linesse and Honesty? 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. The Apostles themselves, and the Churches planted by them, they doe not so much as desire it of God from their Magistrates, that they may live a quiet and peaceable life in a way of ungodlinesse, no more then a way of dis­honesty. So Paul himselfe professeth, Acts 25.8.11. But in a way of Godlinesse and Honesty, they desire of God, they may find by the protection of their Magistrates, a quiet and peaceable life, in that Text of Timothy.

Thus to satisfie the Discussers mind, and to prevent any pretence of exception, I have runn [...] over the Scriptures, and expressions of Truth alledged in the Popish Booke, which he saith, speake loudly, and fully for their Toleration: but how truly, let the servants of God judge.

Discusser.

But Protestants herein shew themselves partiall, and practise that themselves which they taxe in Papists. For though they cry out of Perse­cution when themselves are under Hatches, yet when they come to sit at Helme, they runne the same course both in Doctrine and Practise.

When Mr. Cotton and others have formerly been under Hatches, [Page 170]what sad and true complaints have they poured out against Persecution? But coming to the Helme, how doe they themselves both by Preaching, Writing, Printing, practise unnaturally, and partially expresse towards other, the cruell Nature of such Lyons, and Leopards, as some of them have opened out of Cant. 4.8.

Defender.

What we have opened out of Cant. 4.8. against Persecution, when (as he saith) wee were under the Hatches, amounted to this, That it was lawfull for the sheep of Christ, to follow Christ, and and to come along with him, and flye away from persecution. Did any of us then teach, that it was unlawfull for Magistrates to pursue with just revenge Apostate Seducers unto Idolatry, He­resie, or blasphemy? or turbulent subverters of civill or Church-Order? And since we are come hither, where he is pleased to ho­nour us with sitting at Helme (which is farre from us) what have we taught or practised more, then our selves allowed in times of our owne restraint? But men that can allow themselves a Liber­ty of calumny, it may well become them to plead for a Liberty of impunity for all Religions.

We keep not a weight and a weight (as he calumniateth) a mea­sure and a measure: what we measure out to others, wee should never thinke it hard measure to have the same returned to our selves in the like case, Onely this measure we desire of all hands to be kept (that which Abraham the Father of the faithfull, and God the Judge of all the Earth, thought equall, Gen. 18.25.) that the Righteous should not be as the wicked: nor that Truth, and Fidelity, should suffer as Heresie and Apostacy.

Discusser.

Yea, but it is not confidence of being in the Truth (which they judge the Papists and others are not in) no nor the Truth it selfe that can pri­viledge them to persecute others, and to exempt themselves from perse­cution, for three Considerations.

First, because it is against the nature of true sheep, to persecute, or hunt the Beasts of the Forrest, no not the Wolves, who have persecuted themselves.

Defender.

It is a feeble kind of reasoning, from a similitude in some things, to presse a resemblance in every thing: Sheep doe fitly resemble Christians in many proprieties: but he that shall therefore presse [Page 171]them to be like in all, shall not suffer a Magistrate (if he be a sheep of Christ) to punish Robbers, Adulterers, Murderers: why? for it is against the Nature of true sheep, to persecute any Beasts of the Forrest.

Besides, I demand, whether Paul was a sheep, or a Wolfe, when he smote Elymas with blindnesse? If he were a Wolfe, how is he then said, to be filled with the Holy Ghost; Acts 13.9. If he were a sheep, why did he strike such a Beast of the Forrest? ver. 10, 11.

Furthermore, when the Wolfe runneth ravenously upon the sheep, is it against the nature of the true sheep, to run to their Shepheard? And is it then against the Nature of the true Shep­heard to send forth his Dogs to worry such a Wolfe, without in­curring the reproach of a persecutor?

Discusser.

Secondly, if it be a Duty and charge upon all Magistrates in all parts of the world to judge and persecute, in, and for spirituall Causes, then either they are no Magistrates, who are not able to judge in such cases: or else they must judge according to their Consciences, whether Pa­gan, Turkish, or Antichristian.

Defender.

This hath been againe, and againe Answered above, though it be the Duty of all Magistrates in the world, to judge and punish Blasphemers, Idolaters, and Seducers: yet not in sensu composite, whilst they are ignorant of the Truth, and cannot judge of such causes: but in sensu diviso, they are bound to be wise, and instru­cted in the knowledge, and worship of Christ, ( Psal. 2.10.11, 12.) and then to judge accordingly.

But in the meane time, it doth not follow, that they are no Magistrates, who are not able to doe all the Duties of a Magistrate. Neither will it follow, that they must judge according to their Consciences, when their Consciences are blind, and erroneous, Pagan, Turkish, Antichristian. Let them first cast Beames out of their owne eyes, and then they will better discerne between Beame, and motes in other men.

Discusser.

Thirdly, the Experience of our Fathers errours, and of our owne mi­stakes and ignorance, the sense of our owne weaknesses, and blindnesse in the depths of the Prophecies and mysteries of the Kingdome of Christ, [Page 172]and the great professed Expectation of the Light to come, which wee are not now able to comprehend, may abate the edge and sheath up the Sword of Persecution against any, especially such as differ not from them in Do­ctrines of Repentance, or Faith, or Holynesse of heart, and life, but one­ly in the way, and manner of the Administration of Jesus Christ.

Defender.

I say, as Augustine sometime said in another case, Nunquid negandum quod certum est, quia comprehendi non potest, quod occultum est? There are depths of sundry Prophecies, which we yet com­prehend not: but shall we therefore be alwayes babes, and igno­rant of the Fundamentall Principles of Christian Religion? yea and suffer them to be shaken, and ruined, because there are some Prophesies, and Mysteries, which wee yet understand not? shall the expectation of greater Light so dazle our eyes before wee see it, that we cannot be able to see, what wee doe see? It is not Light, but darknesse, that cloudeth the Light already revealed. Nor is it darknesse onely, but blacknesse of darknesse, that putteth Light for darknesse, and darknesse for Light, and would have both to­lerated to live together in the same Hemispheare, because some blinde Christians cannot yet tell, which is whether?

It is true, the Experience of former Errours, and sense of pre­sent weaknesses, may justly abate the edge, and sheath up the Sword of persecution against any, that differ onely in errours of weakenesse, and differ not in Doctrines of Faith, Repentance, and Holinesse of heart, and life. Yea wee willingly grant more, then the Discusser requireth in such a case. For though there should bee some Difference in Doctrines of faith, or Repentance, or Holinesse; Yet wee should not approve the unsheathing of the Sword against such, unlesse the Doctrine were fundamentally subversive to faith, or Repentance, or Holinesse, and that obstinately maintained a­gainst light, and conviction: and broached, and dispersed to the Infection, and Seduction of others.

If the Difference be only in the way and manner of Administra­tion of Christ Iesus, and that Difference held forth in a Christian and Peaceable way. God forbid a staffe should be shaken against such, much lesse a Sword unsheathed.

CHAP. 72. A Reply to his Chap. 75 ^th. Discussing a Testimony of Augustine.

Discusser.

TO begin with Augustine, They murther (saith Hee) Soules, and themselves are afflicted in Body. They put men to everlasting Death, and yet they complaine when themselves are put to a temporall Death.

This Rhetoricall perswasion of humane wisdome seemeth very reason­able in the Eye of flesh, and bloud: but one Scripture more prevaileth with faithfull and obedient soules, then thousands of plausible, and Elo­quent speeches.

Defender.

Neither this Testimony, nor the rest of those Ancients that follow, were alledged to prevaile with the Faith of any, further then Light of Scripture might shine forth in them: but onely to counterpoyse the Testimonies of the Ancients alledged in the Let­ter against the Truth. And the Discusser in his entrance into this chapter, is forced to acknowledge, that the cause wee maintaine hath more number of Votes (and I may adde, weight of Voters) then the contrary Tenent: onely he putteth it off with this eva­sion: that Antichrist is too hard for Christ at Votes, and Num­bers.

Which yet is the more to be marvelled at, that when the cause is about the Toleration of Hereticks, and Antichristians, that An­tichrist should procure more Votes against Antichristians, and Christ to procure any Votes, though fewer for them. And it is but another evasion, whereby he here putteth off Augustines speech, as if it were but a Rhetoricall evasion. Whereas indeed the weight of the speech lyeth not in the Rhetorick, which is little, or none: but in the Logick, in an Argument taken from the Excellency of the soule above the body, and thence inferring the equity of kil­ling the bodies of such, as kill the soules of Gods people, and the iniquity of such, as think this unequall.

But to weaken the force of this Argument, the Discusser bestir­reth himselfe to draw up sixe Answers.

1. From the large extent of soule-killing, which may reach to many sinnes, that are not capitall, 1 Cor. 8.11.

2. From the dissimilitude of bodily, and spirituall Death. A body being killed can dye but once: but a soule killed may recover.

3. From the different punishment, which Christ hath provided for soule-killers: to wit the two edged Sword, which cometh out of his mouth, which is able to cut downe Heresie, and to kill the soules of Hereticks everlastingly.

4. From the toleration, which Christ himselfe giveth to such soule-killers, or soule-wounders, in the Parable of Tares, Matth. 13.

5. From the impossibility of killing any soule by any Heretick: not the soules of naturall men: for they are dead already: nor can false Teachers so much prevent the meanes of spirituall Life, as doth the force of a materiall Sword, either imprisoning the soules of men in a Natio­nall-State-Religion: or cutting them off immediately without any lon­ger meanes of Repentance. Nor can there be a killing of the soules of men alive in Christ, partly by reason of the sufficiency and power of Spirituall Ordinances to preserve that Life in them against all Ene­mies.

Partly, from the Immortality of the spirituall Life in Christ, which can no more dye then Christ himselfe who is alive for ever.

6. From the possbility of a false Teachers, and a Wolves recovery from the Estate of a soule-killer, to become a soule-saver, as it was in the case of Paul.

For a just Reply to all these, let me first premise foure things: and then speake to the Arguments in Order.

1. It is not every murther of the body, that is a capitall crime, but murder executed in some grosse Attempt. For he that hateth his brother is a man-slayer, or murderer (1 Joh. 3.15.) and yet not for that to be put to death.

2. Murder unadvisedly committed, when the Act done was not intended, is not a capitall crime: there were Cities of Refuge provided in such a case, Ezod. 21.13.

3. The very Attempt of murder, in the abuse of an Ordi­nance of God, is a capitall crime. As in a case, a man shall rise up before a Court of Justice to beare false witnesse against his Neighbour, of some capitall offence, this very attempt of killing his Neighbour by the abuse of publick Justice, is a capitall crime, Deut. 19.18. to 21.

4. The murther of the soule is not the onely Formalis Ratio (as they call it) the onely proper cause of an Hereticks capitall Crime, but chiefly his bitter roote of Apostacie from God, not onely falling off himselfe from God, but seducing others to fall a­way from him.

These foure things being premised, come wee now to consider of the severall Answers given by the Discusser to Augustines Ar­gument.

His first Answer reacheth not the point: for as every killing of the body is not a capitall crime, so neither is every killing of the soule, but such as is more voluntary, and presumptuous, and joy­ned with some grosse and murderous attempt.

His second Answer falleth short in this respect, that though a soule wounded and killed may recover againe, yet the very mur­derous Attempt of killing a soule, in abusing an Ordinance of God, in corrupting Religion, is a capitall crime, whether the soule dye of that wound or no: or if it dye whether it be reco­vered, or no. Thine eye shall not spare him, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, Deut 13.10. Though hee did not thrust thee away, yet because he sought to doe it hee shall dye.

His third Answer hath been removed above. Church-censures are sufficient to heale the Heretick, if he belong to God, and to remove the guilt of his wickednesse from the Church: but not sufficient, to prevent his further spreading of the Leaven of his corruption: nor sufficient to cleanse the Common-wealth from the guilt of such Rebellion, as hath been taught by him against the Lord.

His fourth Answer taken from Christs toleration of the Tares hath be en largely, and (as I conceive) fully refelled above.

His fifth Answer hath also been cleared already. If the Answer were good, it would evacuate not onely Augustines Argument, but Pauls also, 1 Cor 8.11. Paul disswadeth from eating things sacrificed to Idols in Idols Temples. The Argument to disswade it, is from the offence thereby given to the Conscience of the weake: and that backed and strengthned from the haynousnesse of the sinne of offence to Conscience: It is the murder, or peri­shing of a weake Brothers soule. Now if this Answer of the Dis­cusser [Page 176]might stand, it would make the Argument of the Apostle of none effect. For either this weake Brother is a naturall man, dead in sinne already, and then no man can kill him: or else he is in Christ, and then his Life is immortall, and Christ hath provided Or­dinances powerfully sufficient to prevent or heale such deadly Dangers,

It is an high presumptuous tempting of God, and wanton treading under foote the precious soules of men for whom Christ dyed, to wound and (as much as in us lyeth) to kill the soules of men, upon pretence, the Lord can save them, and raise them a­gaine by his all-sufficient Grace. It is a putting of feare, where none is, that the punishment of obstinate seducing Hereticks with the materiall Sword, is the imprisoning of the soules of men to a Nati­onall Religion: for if the Religion of the Nation be good, it is no Imprisonment: if naught, there should be no punishment. And it is a like causlesse Feare, that, the cutting off of Hereticks, will cut off men immediately without any longer meanes of Repentance: for if they belong to God, God will give them Repentance before they goe hence: but whether they belong to God, or no, the re­vealed will of God is fulfilled in their just Execution.

The last Answer falleth as short of strength, as any of the for­mer. For if men be such Wolves, and Blasphemers as Paul was, before his Conversion, neither the Law of God or man would put such an one to Death, who sinned of ignorance, and walked (as himselfe professeth) with all good Conscience, even in his former evill times, Acts 23.1. But as for such as Apostate from the known Truth of Religion, and seeke to subvert the Foundation of it, and to draw away others from it, to plead for their Toleration in hope of their Conversion, is as much as to proclaime a generall pardon for all malefactors, (save such onely as sinne against the Holy Ghost:) for he that is a wilfull murderer, and Adulterer now, may come to be converted and dye a martyr hereafter.

CHAP. 73. A Reply to his Chap. 76. discussing the Testimony of Optatus.

Discusser.

THe Answerer alledgeth from Optatus his third Booke, that he justified Macarius, who had put some Hereticks to death, for that he had done no more herein, then what Moses, Phincas, and Elias had done before him.

But these are shafts usually drawen from the Quiver of the Cere­moniall and Typicall State of the Nationall Church of the Jewes, which vanished at the appearing of the Body, and substance of the Sun of Righteousnesse, who set up another Kingdome, or Church (Heb. 12.) Ministery, and Worship: In which wee finde no such Ordinance, Pre­cept, or Precedent of killing men for Religion sake.

Defender.

Whether these shafts be taken from the Quiver of the Cere­moniall and Typicall State of the Nationall Church of the Jewes, or no: Sure this Answer is taken from no Law of God, nor any Scripture ground: but from the Topicks of humane invention.

Did ever any Apostle or Evangilist, make the judiciall Lawes of Moses concerning life and death, Ceremoniall, or Typicall? Time was, when humane inventions in Gods Worship, were ac­counted Superstition: but now humane inventions in Doctrine, may passe for current Evangelicall Divinity.

It is true the Sunne of Righteousnesse hath set up another Church, Ministery, and Worship: But did he ever set up another civill Righteousnesse? or a M gistracy to walke by another rule of Righteousnesse, then that which God gave by Moses? If it be true, that Christ gave no expresse Ordinance, Precept, or Prece­dent of killing men by materiall Swords for Religion sake: It is as true that neither did he for any breach of civill Justice, no not for murder, nor adultry. Which maketh it therefore evident, that seeing he hath expresly authorized civill Magistracy in the New-Testament, and hath given no expresse Lawes or Rules of Righteousnesse for them to walke by in Administration of civill Justice, therefore either he leaveth them to act and rule without [Page 178]a Rule (which derogateth from the perfection of Scripture:) or else they must fetch their rules of Righteousnesse from the Law of Moses, and from the Prophets, who have expounded him in the Old-Testament.

Discusser.

More particularly, concerning Moses, I Querie what Commande­ment, or practise of Moses, either Optatus, or the Answerer here inten­d [...]th. Probably that of Moses, Deut. 13. If so I shall particularly Reply to that, in Answer to the reasons here under mentioned.

Defender.

When Optatus speaketh, that Macarius in putting Hereticks to death had done no more, then Moses had done before him: It appeareth he meant not that passage of Deut. 13. but of Exod. 32. where he put to death Idolaters: and that of Levit. 24. where he put the Blasphemer to death. For Optatus speaketh of what Moses had done, not what Moses had commanded to be done. But I shall (God willing) consider his Answer, if it come in my way.

Discusser.

Concerning Phinehas his zealous Act.

1. His flaying the Jsraelitish man and woman of Midian, was not for spirituall, but corporall filthynesse.

Defender.

Was it for bodily or corporal filthinesse? Surely for spiritual. For the Israelites that committed whoredome with the daughters of the Land, they were invited to the Sacrifices of their God: And being invited they did eat and bowed downe to their Gods, and so joyned themselves to Baal Peor: this is plaine in the text Numb. 25.1, 2, 3.

Now I doe not know, that corporall filthynesse betweene a young man and single woman was any Capitall Crime, by the Law of Moses. But the Discusser contenteth himself, if any thing be said, it may goe for an Answer.

Discusser.

2. No man will produce this fact as Precedentiall to any Minister of the Gospel, so to act in any Civill State &c.

Defender.

It is true, it is no Precedent for Ministers: but the fact so cleare­ly acknowledged, and approved, and rewarded of God, is doubt­lesse an act of righteousnesse to have been done by some in their ordinary calling (to wit, by Moses and the Princes of Israel:) which Phinehas did by an extraordinary motion. God is not wont to approve any act of holynesse, or righteousnesse (though never so extraordinary) which doeth not fall under the ordinary Rule of holynesse, and righteousnesse, in the ordinary calling of some or other Function, which himselfe hath ordained. There­fore though Phinehas his fact be no Precedent for Ministers of the Gospel: yet it is Precedentiall to such as beare not the Sword in vaine, but for the punishment of evill doers.

Discusser.

Concerning Elijah, There were two famous acts of Elijah of a kil­ling nature.

1. That of slaying 850. of Baals Prophets, 1 Kings. 18.

2. Of the two Captaines, and their fiftyes by Fyre.

For the first, It cannot figure or Type out any materiall slaughter of the many thousands of false Prophets in the world by any materiall Sword of Iron, or steele: for as that passage was miraculous: so wee finde not any such Commission given by the Lord Jesus to the Ministers of the Gospel.

Defender.

It will doe the Discusser no hurt to take notice, that he that is forward to take hold of any slip of Pen, or memory, is subject to the like slips himself. The number of the false Prophets, which he saith, were slayne by Elijah exceedeth the Truth by halfe in halfe: the Text numbreth them 450. and he numbreth them 850. Againe, it is a vaine thing to inquire what this fact of Elijah should figure or Type out. Acts of Morall Justice, though they may sometimes be extraordinary: yet they are never accounted Typicall, or Figurative: but by such as would transforme all the Scripture into an Allegory.

Besides, why should he call the fact Miraculous? Is it a mi­racle for Elijah with the aide of so many thousand people of Israel [...]o put to death 450. men, whose spirits were discouraged being convinced of their forgery and Idolatry?

Moreover, Though Christ gave no such Commission to Mini­sters of the Gospel to put false Prophets to death, as Elijah did: yet the same Answer holdeth here which was given to the fact of Phinehas: though the hand which executed Justice was extra­ordinary: yet the act of Justice, was an ordinary duty of Morall Righteousnesse, belonging to such as beare the Sword.

Discusser.

Lastly, such a slaughter must not onely extend to all the false Pro­phets in the world, but (according to the Answerers grounds) to the many thousands of thousands of Idolaters, and false worshippers in the Kingdomes and Nations of the world:

Defender.

Such a slaughter being onely made of the false Prophets in Israel (a people in Covenant with the true and living God) the example of it will onely extend to the like execution of all the false Prophets in the Church of God, who have turned the hearts of the People of God from Jehovah to an Idol. What hath any Officer in the Church, or Magistrate in the Common-wealth to doe, to censure or punish all the false Prophets in the world, when many hundreds of them (if not thousands) are exempt from their jurisdiction? muchlesse will this example extend to the floughter of many thousands of thousands of Idolaters, and false worshippers in the Kingdomes and Nations of the world.

For 1. many thousand thousands of them are exempt from the civill Magistracy of Christians.

2. They were never in Covenant with God to whom onely the Law of Moses (concerning the punishment of Idolaters) extendeth.

3. Though the Israelites were Idolaters, yet Elijah spared them, as having bin lead aside from the dayes of their Fathers, in their simplicity, and Ignorance, by these false Teachers. And for sins of Ignorance God hath appointed other expiatory Sacrifices, then the slaughter of the off [...]nders. Nor hath the Answerer any grounds, or thoughts to the contrary.

As for the other fact of Elijah in slaying the Captaines of their fiftyes, as it is not pertinent to the punishment of false Prophets, nor of Idolaters (as such:) so I doe not finde it alledged by any in this cause, but only by the Discusser, to make himself worke.

But when the Discusser is pleased to glory in his Answers to Augustine, before, and to Optatus here, That if Augustine were now living, he would be of his minde, and Optatus, and the Answerer him­selfe might rest satisfied.

Let the Discusser revise againe what he hath written, and see if he can satisfie himselfe (muchlesse the Answerer, and least of all Augustine, and Optatus) in such Cobweb Evasions.

CHAP. 74. A Reply to his Chap. 77.

Discusser.

AS for. Calvine, Beza, and Aretius, mine Answer is, since mat­ter of fact and opinion are barely related by the Answerer with­out their grounds, (whose grounds notwithstanding, in this Booke are Answered) If Paul himselfe were joyned with them, yea or an Angel from Heaven, bringing any other Rule, then what the Lord Jesus hath once delivered, wee have Paules Conclusion, and Resolution, peremptory, and dreadfull, Gal. 1.8.

Defender.

That I onely quoted the Names of those blessed men of God, It was partly because it was enough to counterpoise the Names of Authors alledged by the Letter against the Truth, by the Names of greater and more holy men of God, for the Truth: partly also, because if I had quoted their grounds, I must have transcribed their whole Bookes of the Argument. Calvines dis­course about it, against Servetus, is bound up in his Opuscula. Beza his. Booke de Haceticis a Magistratù puniendis, is bound up also in his Opuscula: but both of them too large by me to be cop­pyed, and to strong and accurate, by them of the adverse part to be refuted. Aretius, a like solid writer, may sooner be shifted off, then sifted to Branne. But it seemeth, if Paul himselfe had joyned with them in the like fulnesse of expressions, himselfe should rather have been accursed by the Discasser, then his Doctrine accepted. Which seemeth to me a strange both preju­dice, and prefidence met together. For since God layd his charge upon Magistrates in the Old-Testament, to punish Se­ducers, & the Lord Jesus never tooke this charge off in the New-Testament, [Page 182]who is this Discusser, that he should account Paul himselfe, or an Angell from Heaven accursed, that should leave this charge still upon Magistrates, which God layed on, and Christ never tooke off? That Argument from the Parable Let both grow together to the Harvest is not at all expounded in the Interpretation, Let Seducers be suffered to live in the world till the last Judgement. And how weake a Foundation that is, to cast a curse upon a chosen Apostle, or upon an holy Angell, I hope hath been cleared in discussing that Text.

Discusser.

Let me finish the whole, by proposing one Conclusion of the Author of the arguments in the Letter, viz. It is no prejudice to the Common­wealth, if Liberty of Conscience were suffered to such, as feare God indeed.

Abraham abode a long time amongst the Canaanites: though con­trary to them in Religion &c. So did Isaac: so did Jacob twentie yeares with his Ʋncle Laban.

So the People of Israel were about foure and thirty yeares in Aegypt: and afterwards seventie in Babylon, differing from Religion in both States.

Come to the time of Christ, Israel lived under the Romans, and divers Sects in Israel, besides Christ, and his Apostles &c. All these lived under Caesars Government, being nothing hurtfull to the Com­mon-wealth, giving to Caesar, that which was his. And for their Reli­gion, he left them to themselves, as having no Dominion over their soules and Consciences. And when the enemies of the Truth raised up any tu­mults, the wisdome of the Magistrates most wisely appeased them, Acts. 18.14. and 19.35. Ʋnto this, the Answerer returneth thus much:

It is true, That without prejudice to the Common-wealth, Liberty of Conscience may be suffered to such as feare God indeed: as knowing they will not persist in Heresie, or turbulent Schisme, when they are con­vinced in Conscience of the sinfulnesse thereof

But the Question is whether an Heretick after once or twice Admo­nition (and so after conviction) or any other scandalous and heynous Offender, may be Tolerated either in the Church, without Excommuni­cation: or in the Common-wealth without such punishment, as may pre­serve others from dangerous and damnable infection

CHAP. 75. A Reply to his Chap. 78.

Discusser.

BƲt here I observe the Answerers partiality, That none but such as truly feare God should enjoy Liberty of Conscience &c.

Defender.

But here I Observe the Discussers both partiality and fashood. Partiality, for I did but repeate the very words of the Author of the Letter, and graunt them to be good. The Letter had said (as himself repeateth it, It is no prejudice to a Common-wealth if Liberty of Conscience were suffered to such as feare God indeed: whereto I subjoyne my Attestation, It is true, that without prejudice to the Common­wealth, Liberty of Conscience may be suffered to men that feare God indeed.

Here the Discusser in me observeth Partiality: but in the Let­ter the very same speech passeth for Currant, and approveable. But the Lord help him to remember Divers weights, and divers measures are abomination to the Lord, Prov. 20.10. But I truly ob­serve in his speech, not onely partiality, but falshood also. For it is a very falshood, that I should say, None but such as truly feare God should injoy Liberty of Conscience. I say no more then the Let­ter saith: It saith, That it is no prejudice to the Common-wealth, if Liberty of Conscience were suffered to such as feare God indeed. I say, It is true, without prejudice to the Common-wealth, Liberty of Conscience may be suffered to such as feare God indeed. Now if a man should gather the same Observation out of the Letter, That none but such as truly feare God should injoy Liberty of Consci­ence, I beleive the Discusser would observe notorious falshood in such dealing. And justly he might: for it is one thing to say, liberty of Conscience may be suffered to men that truly feare God, without prejudice to the Common-wealth: another thing to say, it may be suffered to none else.

I easily grant, nor did I ever deny it, that the Inhabitants of the world, though they never come into the estate of men fear­ing God, yet they may and ought to be suffered to live in the [Page 184]world, unlesse they disturbe the Countries of the world where they live, with some Capitall Crimes. And if they doe disturbe the Countries where they live, they stand and fall to the Lawes, and Governments of the Countries where they inhabite.

And therefore all the dangerous consequences, which the Dis­cusser gathereth from my speech (but indeed not my speech, but his owne) as if I should drive the world out of the world, or turne the world upside downe, or leave it to men that have not Gods feare, to judge who feare God, and who not, and the rest that follow, they are all of them consequences without an Anticedent, or an Anticedent without exsistence in any speech of mine, but onely in his owne imagination.

Neither hath it any better ground, that passionate exclamation of his, with which he endeth this Chapter.

Heare (saith he) O Heavens, and give eare O Earth, yea let the Heavens be astonished, and the Earth tremble at such an Answer.

What Answer, thinke you, might this be, that might provoke not the Discusser onely, but the Heavens and earth to such atten­tion, admiration, trembling, astonishment?

The Answer (forsooth) is that which he calleth a wonderfull An­swer, which the Ministers of New-England gave to the third Questi­on sent to them by some Ministers of Old-England, to wit, that although they confessed them to be such persons whom they approved of, farre above themselves, yea who were in their hearts to live and die together: yet if they or other godly people with them, comming over to them, should differ in Church-Constitution, they then could not approve their civill Co­habitation with them and consequently could not advise their Magi­strates, to suffer them to injoy a civill being within their juris­diction.

Now sure, if there were any such Answer to be found in that Booke sounding to such a purpose, I my selfe should joyne with him in the like exclamation, and wonderment. But when I came to search for that speech, and neither finde it in the Answer which he quoteth to the third Question, nor in that, which I rather thinke he meant, the 31. I cannot but admire and adore the righteous Judgement of God, who having left the Discusser (in this Booke, and some other) to write against the Truth in point of Doctrine, hath herein left him to breake forth in his owne [Page 185]hand-writing, into notorious impudent falshood in matter of fact: which any man that readeth that Booke cannot but discerne in this Allegation. The Answer is too large for me to transcribe, but who so will may reade it, and when he compareth the Answer in that Booke, with the Answer in this, he may well wonder with what heart and forhead, the Discusser could so expresse it.

CHAP. 76. A Reply to his 79. Chap.

Discusser.

Yea, but say they, they doubt not if those Ministers of Old-England should come over to them, and were here with them, they should agree. For, say they, either you will come to us, or shew us light to come to you: for wee are but weake men, and dreame not of perfection in this life.

Alas who knoweth not what lamentable differences have been be­tweene the same Ministers of the Church of England? &c.

Let none now thinke, that the passage to New-England by Sea, or the nature of the Countrie can doe, what onely the Key of David can doe, to wit, open and shut the Consciences of men.

Defender.

I did not thinke that any man in Old-England, or New, had been so ignorant, or uncharitable, as to think, the Pen-man of the Answer to these Questions had conceived, that either the voyage by Sea, or the change of the aire from Old England to New, could change the judgements or Consciences of men. Nature could tell, Coelum, non animum mutant, qui trans mare Currunt. But yet no Christian man is ignorant that mutual conference between God­ly, ingenuous, and selfe-denying Christians is a notable meanes sanctified of God for the instruction & edification one of another, till wee all come to be of one minde in the Lord. Else how shall therebe mutuall convictions without mutuall conferences? It is the Key of David onely, that can open and shut the Consciences of men: but that Key ordinarily doth it in the dispensation of Or­dinances, whereof Conference is one.

Discusser.

Besides, how can this be a faithfull and upright acknowledgement of their weaknesse, and imperfection, when they Preach, Print, and practise such violence to the soules and bodyes of others? And by their Rules and grounds ought to proceed to the killing of those, whom they judge so deare unto them, and in respect of godlynesse farre above them­selves?

Defender.

This violence to the souls & bodyes of men is often charged up­on us by the Discusser: But he hath not yet given us an instance of any one soule or body, which hath undergone this violence from us. Si Accusasse fufficiat, quis innocens exit? It is no new practise to be an Accuser of the Brethren: neither is their any slaunder so false or scurrilous, but findeth ready, yea and greedy intertain­ment even of many professors, especially such, whose best Reli­gion lyeth in the observing and censuring the wayes of others. How welcome to such, are evill reports of them, that dare not allow themselves in any knowne evill?

This acknowledgement of our weaknesse and imperfection would then truly appeare to be neither faithfull nor upright, if wee Preached or practised violence against such, in comparison of whom we acknowledge our own weaknesse and imperfection. Meane while we may well stand and wonder, what rules and Grounds of ours those be, by which wee ought to proceed even to the killing of those, whom wee judge so deare unto us, and in respect of Godlynesse far above us?

Are any of them whom wee so respect, such as subvert the Foundation of the Christian Faith, and persist therein obstinately after conviction? are any of them presumptuous Blasphemers of the great Name of God? Or Idolaters themselves, and Seducers of others to Idolatry?

CHAP. 77. A Reply to his Chap. 80.

Discusser.

VVHat though, they say, the Godly will not persist in Heresie, or turbulent Schisme, when they are convinced thereof in Con­science? If the civill Court and Magistrates must judge, and those civill Courts, are as lawfull, consisting of naturall men, as of Godly persons, then what consequences will follow, I have before mentioned.

Defender.

Mentioned, indeed, but not proved: I hope (by the helpe of Christ) the inconsequence of them hath been cleared.

Discusser.

And I adde, according to this Conclusion it must follow, that if the most godly persons yeeld not to once or twice Admonition (as is main­teyned by the Answerer) they must necessarily be esteemed obstinate per­sons: for if they were godly, they would yeeld.

Defender.

Here againe the Discusser misreporteth my words: For I did not say, that if persons be godly, they would yeeld to once or twice Admonition: and if they did not yeeld to once or twice Admonition, they must necessarily be esteemed obstinate persons. But my words were, The godly will not persist in Heresie or turbulent Schisme, when they are convinced in Conscience of the sinfulnesse there­of.

Here is then a three-fold wresting of my words, & accordingly so much false dealing. For 1. Admonition is one thing: Con­viction in their owne Conscience, is another. For though Ad­monition ought not to be dispensed till after conviction: yet it may fall out, that the Church (through mistake) proceedeth to Admonition, before the Offender be convinced in his own Con­science of the sinfulnesse of his way.

2. He carrieth my words, as if they who yeeld not to once or twice Admonition must needs be esteemed obstinate persons: whereas I onely say, they will not persist in Heresie, (that is, in obstinacy of Fundamentall Error) nor in turbulent Schisme, when they are convinced in Conscience of the sinfulnesse thereof.

3. He propoundeth my words generally, as if I had said that godly persons (in whatsovever Error they hold) if they yeeld not to once or twice Admonition, they must needs be esteemed obstinate. whereas I spake not of every Error, but of persisting in Heresie and turbulent Schisme.

But you may see how farre the love of an Error, and desire of contention, will transport the minde and spirit!

The two stories that he telleth, upon this occasion (in his next words) because he nameth neither time, nor persons, nor occasions of the speeches (which he representeth as odious) a short Answer will serve to them. 1. I have too much experience of the Discussers mistakes of permanent Printed words, and there­fore am affraid to credit every report of transient words spoken, without further Testimony. 2. The words might be spoken by some persons, concerning others, upon such occasions, as I will by no meanes excuse, or justifie: but they might be spoken up­on such weights, as might justly hold weight in the Ballance of the Sanctuary.

The latter part of my Answer which he saith, cometh not neere the Question, I now understand so much by the Discusser: but it did not so appeare to me by the Author of the Letter.

Discusser.

Mr. Cotton concludeth with a consident perswasion, of having re­moved the grounds of that great Error, viz. that persons are not to be persecuted for cause of Conscience.

Defender.

How hard a thing is it, to write against the Truth, and yet to speake with a lip of Truth? Compare the words of my conclusion with the Discussers relation or representation thereof. The words of my conclusion were these

Thus much I thought needfull to be spoken for the avoyding of the grounds of your Error.

1. Then, let him speake, what words of mine doe expresse the confidence of my perswasion? It is true, I bel [...]ive, and therefore speake what I have written: but wherein did I blow up my be­leife to a confident perswasion? I thank God: I doubt not of the truth of what I have written: but it is one thing, what I con­ceive in my minde: another thing what I thinke meet to expresse.

2. I doe not say in this conclusion, that I have removed the grounds of his Error: but that I have spoken so much for that end: but whether I have done it or no (according to the helpe of Christ received) I leave others to judge.

3. The name of a great Error is foisted in by himselfe, ad exaggerandam gloriationis invidiam et indignitatem: but though the Error be indeed great: yet I did not so stile it, when I spake of mine owne endeavour to remove the grounds of it.

4. It is an evident falshood that I should conclude, This to be that great Error, That persons are not to be persecuted for cause of Conscience.

For it is that which in stating the Question, I did in expresse termes deny, that any was to be persecuted for cause of Consci­ence: no not an Heretick, no not in a Church-way, much lesse in a civill way till being convinced in his owne Conscience of his wickednesse, he do stand out therein, not only against the Truth, but against the light of his owne Conscience, that so it may ap­peare, he is not persecuted for cause of Conscience, but punished for sinning against his Conscience.

Onely this, I now further adde, which I know not, whether I had not occasion to speake to in this Discourse hitherto (un­lesse in a touch) that sometime it may be an aggravation of sinne both in judgement and practise, that a man holdeth it, or commit­teth it in Conscience. But that is onely in case, when a man hath been wonted to sin so oft against his light, and against the cleare Principles of Truth, and godlinesse, that it may appeare, the just curse of God hath given him up to a reprobate-blinded-minde, and seared Conscience. But of that wee have not had occasion to dispute in this Discourse.

Discusser.

But I beleive it shall appeare, That the charge of Error Reboundeth backc, even such an Error as may be called the Bloudy-Tenent.

Defender.

I hope, It hath by this time appeared, in the former dispute, (through the blessing of Christ) That, that which he calleth the Bloudy-Tenent is washed white in the bloud of the Lambe: and tendeth both to the ends, for which the Prince of peace dyed, viz. To the saving of his sheep from devouring to the dissolving [Page 190]of the cursed works of Satan, to the maintenance of his Truth, and to the preservation of sacred and civill peace, both in Chur­ches, and Common-wealth.

CHAP. 78. A Reply to his Chap. 81.

Defender.

TO the last Chapter of the Discusser, I thinke it not worth the while to speake any thing: it consisting cheifly of the Discussers selfe-applauses and vaine-glorious Triumphs; As that he knoweth, That the God, the Spirit, and Prince, the Angells of peace, and that all the true awaked sonnes of peace will call the Truth (be mea­neth this Doctrine of Toleration held forth by himselfe) blessed:

That the contemplations thereof are sweet and pretious: but Ob how sweet the actions, and Fruitions!

That these lips of Truth (to wit, distilling in his Pen) drop as the honey Combe: Honey and milke are under her Tongue: and oh that these drops, these streames might flow without interruption?

Onely one passage of his glorious boasting, I may not let passe, without some Animad version because the Name of Christ is interested in it, and dishonoured by it.

Discusser.

Were I (saith he) beleived in this, That Christ is not delighted with the bloud of men, (but shed his owne bloud for his bloudyest enemies:) That by the word of Christ, No man for gainsaying Christ, or joyning with his enemy Antichrist, should be molested with the Civill sword: were this foundation laid, and the Magna Charta of highest Liberties, and good security given on all hands for the preservation of it, How soone would every Brow and House be stuck with Olive Branches?

Whether this be not to Conclude with confident perswasion (the same, and farre greater then that which he noted in me, even now) I matter not. Let him reserve conclusions with confident perswasions to himselfe alone. Had he ground (from the eternall word of Truth) for such confidence, It would never trouble me, nor hurt him,

But this is not, pleasing to Christ, nor to the Spirit of his wis­dome and Truth, that the Disousser should publish the delights of Christ in a confussed way, without distinguishing things that differ, and so not dividing the Word aright. It is true, that Christ delighteth not in the bloud of men, but shed his owne for his bloudiest enemies, and gainsayers: to wit, whilst they gainsaying him, and bloudily persecute him, or his out of ignorance. In this case indeed, he prayeth for them, and dieth for them, Father forgive them, they know not what they doe, Luk. 23.34. whilest wee were enemies Christ died for us, Rom. 5.8, 10.

But to say that Christ delighteth not in the bloud of men, who after the acknowledgement of his Truth doe tread the bloud of his Covenant under foote, and wittingly and willingly reject him from reigning over them: To hold it forth, that Christ delighteth not in the bloud of such men, or that he would not have such molested by the civill Sword, who gainsay Christ known and professed, and joyn with his enemy Antichrist, in blaspheming and persecuting Christ and his Saints, This the Dis­cusser can never make good to be the word of Christ. It is indeed, to publish the glad Tidings of the Gospel, not to the humble and meeke Lambes of Christ, but to the seed of the Serpent, to sow pillowes under all elbowes: to make the hearts of the righteous sad, whom God would not make sad: and to strengthen the hands of the wicked in their Apostacy from the truth, and malig­nity against it. Christ hath pronounced it upon earth, and rati­fyed it in Heaven, Those mine enemies, that would not that I should reigne over them, bring them hither and slay them before my face, Luk. 19.27. Are these the words of him, that delighteth not in the bloud of his bloudyest enemies, and gainsayers? when the Lord Jesus sendeth forth his servants to powre out bloudy vengeance upon Antichristian emissaries, and openeth the hearts & mouthes of his Saints to praise him for thus judging ( Rev. 16.4,—7) Is this to proclaime a Magna-Charta of highest libertyes, even to his gainsayers, and to such as joyn with his enemy Antichrist?

Time was, when Jehu justly demanded, What peace (what hast thou to doe with peace) so long as the whor domes of thy Mother Jezebel, and her witcherafts are so many? 2 Kings, 9.22. And are the times now so farre changed, that the Sword of Jebu shall proclaime [Page 192]peace to Jezebel, and peace to all that call her mother, and peace to her whoredomes, and peace to her witchcrafts: and then to blesse our selves with a glorious expectation, That soone shall every Brow and house be stucke with O live branches?

The Lord keepe us from being bewitched with the Whores cup, lest whilst wee seeme to detest and reject her with open face of profession wee doe not bring her in by a back doore of Tole­ration, and so come at last, to drink deepely of the cup of the Lords wrath, and be filled with the cup of her plagues.

Amen.

CHAP. 79. Touching the Modell of Church and civill Power, composed by Mr. Cotton and the Ministers of New-England, and sent to the Church of Salem &c. Examined (by the Discusser) and Answered.

THis Title or Inscription (which the Examiner setteth up of this Modell) holdeth forth to the world a double falshood.

1. That the Modell was composed by Mr. Cotton, and other Ministers of New-England.

This is one falshood. What other Ministers of New-England did in it, themselves know: But for Mr. Cotton, I know, that he was none of them that composed it.

2. That this Modell was sent to the Church of Salem, if he meane, sent by those Ministers (as the following words imply, for the confirmation of their Doctrine) that is another falshood. The Ministers themselves, that composed the Modell, doe deny it; Howsoever the Modell came to Salem, the Ministers say, it was not sent by them. But see, when men are left of God, openly, and boldly to write against the truth in matter of Doctrin, how readily and freely, they can write and speake falshood in matter of fact?

It is therefore lesse marvell, that in Answer to the preface of the Modell, he breaketh forth into such vast hyperboles, That the Modell awakeneth Meses from his unknowne Grave: and denyeth Jesus yet to have seen the earth. A speech as devoid of reason, as of truth. The observation of Moses Lawes doth not awaken Moses out of his grave, nor is there any reason it should. The validity of Lawes doth not (in reason) depend upon the life or resurrection of the Lawgiver: the Examiner himselfe (I suppose) would not doubt, but the Lawes of Moses were of force to the Israelites in the Land of Canaan, when yet Moses was dead and buried before their entrance into the Land. Neither did their observation of them awaken Moses out of his grave, but argued his Lawes to be in force as well after his death, as whilst he was yet living. If it be said, That Christ at his coming in the flesh when he was buried himselfe, buried also the Lawes of Moses with him in his grave.

Then the Examiner should not have said, that the Modell raised up Moses out of his grave, but that it raised up Christ out of his grave.

If it be said againe, the Examiner saith, It denyed Christ to have seen the earth, which was of as ill consequence. Be it so: but yet still, this maketh nothing to the rasing up of Moses out of his grave.

I Answer further, Neither doth it at all deny, Christ to have seen the earth. For Christ came not to destroy the Law of Moses, Mat. 5.17. Neither the Morall Law: for in the sequele of that Chapter, he doth at large expound it, and establish it:

No, nor did he come to destroy the judiciall Lawes, such of them as are of Morall equity. Or else, the Conscience of the civill Magistrate could never doe any act of civill justice out of faith, because he should have no word of God to be the ground of his action, if the Lawes of judgement in the Old-Testament were abrogated, and none extant in the New. As for the exception, which the Examiner taketh against the Preface. It is as easily avoided, as Objected.

If (saith he) the civill Magistrate (even the highest) being a Mem­ber of the Church, be subject to Church-Censure, how can this stand with their common Tenent, that he must keepe the first Table, Reforme the [Page 194]Church, be Judge and Governor in all causes, as well ecclesiasticall as Civill?

Secondly, how can a Magistrate both sit on the Bench, and stand at the Bar of Christ Jesus? Is it not as impossible, as to reconcile east and west together? Yea, is not the Text in Isa. 49, 23. Lamentably wrested to prove both these?

Reply.

One Answer may easily remove both Exceptions: And that one Text doth expresly hold forth both these Points, which the Exa­miner conceiveth to be so irreconcilable.

For if Princes be nursing Fathers to the Church (as that Text speaketh) then they are to provide, that the children of the Church be not nursed with poison in stead of milke. And in so doing, they keepe the first Table. Reforme the Church, & judge in causes Ecclesiasticall,

Againe, If the the same Princes shall bow down to the Church with their faces towards the earth, and lick the dust of her feet (as the same Text expresseth) then they being members of the Church, shall be subject also to Church-Censure. In one word, Princes sit on the Bench over the Church in the offensive Go­vernment of the Church: & yet may themselves (being members of the Church) be subject to Church-Censure in the offensive Government of themselves against the Rules of the Gospel.

The Examiner himselfe contesseth, that in severall respects, He that is a governor may be also a Subject.

Behold here are severall respects, to wit, severall objects of Judicature; In the Mal-Administration of the Church, the Ma­gistrate sitteth as Judge, and Governor: in the Mal-Admini­stration of a Church-Member-Magistrate contrary to the ex­presse rules of the Gospel, he is subject to the power of Christ in the Church. If it be said, nay rather, The Church is subject to the Magistrate in civill causes: and the Magistrate is subject to the Church in spirituall causes:

I Answer, That easeth not the difficulty, no more then the other. For suppose the Magistrate (a Church member) live in Incest, breake forth into murder, and notorious oppression: these are all civill causes, belonging to the second Table. If the Magi­strate sit as Judge and supreme Governor in this case, then must [Page 195]the Church tolerate him herein, to the dishonour of the great Name of Christ, to the leavening of the Church, and to the per­dition of his soule. If it be granted, that in such a case though civill, the Church is bound to deale faithfully with the Magistrate, and not to suffer sinne upon him: let the like power be granted to the Magistrate to deale faithfully with the Church in the no­torious transgressions of the first Table, as is granted to the Church to deale with the Magistrate in the notorious transgressions of the second Table, and the controversie is ended.

If any further matter be claimed in making the Supreme Ma­gistrate, the Supreme Judge and Governor in all causes, aswell Ecclesiasticall, as civill, I doe not understand, that the Ministers or Churches of Christ are called to acknowledge such a meaning. Sure I am, the Interpretation of that high stile, which godly learned Reynolds made of it in the 10. Chap. of his Conference with Hart, It was accepted of the State in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth. And the same Interpretation (if no more be intended by that stile) doth well stand with our defence.

But wherefore doe I put my Sicle into the Harvest of my Bre­thren? my Brethren, who penned that Modell, are richly fur­nished by Christ with ability to defend it. I therefore leave it to them, whom it cheifly concerneth, to maintaine the Truth, which themselves have witnessed in that Modell.

And the Lord Jesus Christ himself (the God of Truth) who came into the world, that he might beare witnesse to the Truth, be pleased to beare witnesse from Heaven to his owne Truth and bl [...] that peace (a fraudulent and false peace) which the Exami­ner proclaimeth to all the wayes of falshood in Religion, to He­resie in Doctrine, to Idolatry in worship, to blasphemy of the great Name of God, to Pollution, and prophanation of all his holy Ordiannces.

Amen, Even So, Come Lord Jesus.

To his CHAP. I.

MY Letter to M ^r. Williams, (which he undertaketh to Exa­mine, and Answer) began (it seemeth) with this Compel­lation of him, Beloved in Christ. For I considered, he had been not onely a member, but an Officer of the Church at Salem: and though from thence he was then Excommunicate; yet I took the Apostles Commandement for a Rule, Account him not as an enemy, but Ad­monish him as a Brother, 2 Thes. 3.14. If a Brother of the Church, (though cast out of the Church, yet not cast out of Christ) then in Christ, at least in judgement of charity. And if in Christ (though but in judgement of charity, yet) in charity to be Beloved.

But (saith M ^r. Williams) how can it be well-pleasing to Christ, that one beloved in Christ, should be so afflicted, and persecuted by himselfe, and others, (for such causes) as to be denyed the common ayre to breath in, and a civill cohabitation upon the same common earth, yea and also without mercy, and humane compassion, be exposed to winter miseries in an howling Wildernesse?

Answ. If M ^r. Williams may be Judge in his own cause, himselfe hath been persecuted without mercy, and without humane com­passion: And which the more concerneth my selfe to enquire into, he hath been so persecuted by me, and some others; but chiefly (it should seeme) by me; for I onely am charged herewith by name: and those others, who ever they were, are not so much as de­scribed, much lesse expresly named. But such Priests, and Persons, as be thus partiall in the Law, the Holy Ghost threatneth to make them base, and contemptible in the eyes of all the People, Mal. 2.9. Which the Lord give him to foresee, and feare, that he may timely prevent such a Judgement.

But to weigh his words particularly: Persecution is the affliction of another for Righteousnesse sake. Now two things it will be re­quisite for M ^r. Williams to prove, to make good his charge. 1. That the cause for which he suffered, was a cause of Righteousnesse. 2. That he suffered this Persecution, which he complaineth of, by me. And to make this latter charge good in such manner as he lay­eth it upon me, it were further requisite that he should prove two things more. 1. That my selfe was the principall mover and actor [Page 14]in this his Persecution, (for I onely am singled out by name;) 2. That this hath been evidenced to him by two, or three witnesses at least, if he account me for an Elder of a Church, 1 Tim. 5.19. But whether he account me for an Elder, or no Elder, (I claime no priviledge of Office;) yet I require attendance to an eternall Law of morall Righteousnesse; One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any Iniquity, or for any sinne: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall every word be established, Deut. 15.15. But on the contrary, if it doe appeare, that the cause for which he suffered was not for Righteousnesse sake: and that the affliction which he did suffer was not put upon him by me at all much lesse in any eminent, and singular manner, then it will behoove M ^r. Willi­ams in Conscience to understand, that himselfe is the Persecutor, as of other servants of God, so of my selfe especially. For it is a case judged by the Holy Ghost, that he who mocketh, or reproacheth any of the least of Christs little ones, for walking in his way, he is a Persecutor, Gal. 4.29. It hath been the lot of the faithfull of old to be tryed by cruell mockings, Heb. 11.36. If a man be publickly accused to the world as a Persecutor, in case the accusation be pro­ved true, Persecution is a cruell, and crying sinne: but if it be not proved, nor true, the false accusation is a grievous Persecution, even a cruell mocking. But I shall referre the tryall of his accusation to the place himselfe appointed, where he giveth Instance of the cause of his sufferings.

Meane while, let him suspend his Marginall note, That it is a monstrous Paradox, that Gods children should Persecute Gods children, and they that hope to live eternally with Christ Jesus in Heaven, should not suffer each other to live in this common ayre together.

For though Gods children may not persecute Gods children, nor wicked men neither, for well-doing: yet if the children of God be found to walke in the way of the wicked, their sinne is the grea­ter, because they sinne against greater light, and grace: and their Brethren (in Place) may justly afflict them for it: to deprive them, in some cases, not onely of the common ayre of the Countrey by banishment, but even of the common ayre of the world by death: & yet hope to live eternally with them in the Heavens with Christ Jesus. Yea what if a child of God were infected with a plague-sore, or some other contagious disease, may not their Brethren exclude [Page 15]them the common ayre, both of their religious, and Civill Assem­blies, and yet hope to live eternally with them in the Heavens? Truely there be some unsound, and corrupt opinions, and practi­ses, (and that of him too) which are more infectious, and conta­gious, then any plague-sore.

That other Marginall note of his, (What Christ Persecute Christ in New-England?) calleth for another Answer.

Christ doth not persecute Christ in New-England: For Christ doth not persecute any at all, (to speake in the proper sence of Per­secution;) much lesse doth Christ persecute Christ. For though Christ may and doth afflict his own members; yet he doth not af­flict (much lesse persecute) Christ in them, but that which is left of old Adam in them, or that which is found of the seed of the Ser­pent in them. For even Satan may fill the heart of Church-mem­bers, Acts 5.3. Yea breathe and act in an Elect Apostle, Mat. 16.22, 23. And then the Lord Jesus may afflict in his members, that which he seeth in them nor of his own.

But he proceeds, and asks further, ( Since M ^r. Cotton expecteth farre greater light then yet shineth) whether upon the same grounds, and practise, if Christ Jesus in any of his servants shall be pleased to hold forth a farther light, shall he himselfe find the mercy, and humanitie of a Civill, and temporall life, and being with them?

Answ. The greatest light that I expect is not above the Word, much lesse against it: nor is it destructive to the Church, and Or­dinances of Christ, established according to the Word, but instru­ctive of them in the way of the word. If therefore Christ Jesus shall come in any of his servants, holding forth a further light to us, we trust, that he that offereth us light, will give us (as hitherto he hath done) eyes to see it, and hearts to follow it. Light is discernable (through the Grace of the Father of Lights) by the children of light: The Spirit of the Prophets is discerned, and judged by the Prophets: Wisdome is just fied of her Children: When Judgement returneth to Righteousnesse, all the upright in heart shall follow it: The Sheep of Christ that see his face, will see his Light, and heare his voyce: his Spirit of Truth will lead them into all truth. And yet because we all know in part, and Prophecy in part, we are taught of God in meeknesse of wisdome to instruct one another, (till light of Instruction be obstinately rejected;) and to suffer [Page 16]one another in differences of weaknesse, till weaknesse prove wil­fulnesse, and will not suffer Truth to live in Peace.

But what is all this to M ^r. Williams? Hath he therefore not found the mercy, and humanity of Civill, and temporall life, and being amongst us, because Christ Jesus held forth by him a further light unto us?

So it should seeme, or else his Quaere is nothing to the purpose; surely if it be a further light which is held forth by him, it is such a transcendent light, as putteth out all other lights in the world besides: as (they say) Majus lumen extinguit minus. The Churches of Christ have been wont to be counted lights, the Ministery, lights, the Sacraments, and Censures, lights. But this new light held forth by M ^r. Williams, hath put out all these lights, yea and all possibili­tie of their shining forth againe, till the Restitution of new Apo­stles. And yet if he had held forth any light from the word of light to manifest this great new light to us, truly I hope the Lord would give us hearts, not to shut our eyes against the light, but to follow the Lambe whithersoever he goeth, and to follow the light of his word whithersoever it leadeth us. Christian Magistrates, they also have been wonted to be counted the light of Israel: and Oaths likewise have been thought to give light to discerne the end of all Controversies: But by this new light, we may not accept from the Patents of Princes any light or direction where to sit downe, with their warrant, and leave, in forreine Plantations: Neither may we make use of the light of Oaths between Magi­strates, and people, to discerne of the fidelity and constancy of the one to the other in times of danger. Where then shall his Margi­nall Note appeare?

M ^r. Cotton (saith he) expecting more light, must (according to his way of Persecution) Persecute Christ Jesus, if he bring it.

Doth M ^r. Williams hold me so farre forsaken of common sence, as to frustrate, and destroy mine own expectations? If I expect more light, must I (according to mine own way) needs Persecute him that brings it, yea persecute Christ himselfe, if he bring it? But thus when a mans head runneth round, he thinketh all the House runneth round about him.

But what is my way of Persecution, according to which, I ex­pecting more light, must needs persecute him that brings it? It is but a few dayes agoe, since there came to my hand a book, publi­shed [Page 17](as is said) by M ^r. Williams, and entituled, The Bloudy Tenent. In which M ^r. Williams (without my privity) published a private Letter of mine, and therewith a Confutation of it, touching Per­secution for cause of Conscience. In my stating of that Question, (which he relateth in the 7 ^th Page of that Book) he declareth my Judgement to be so farre from persecuting any for cause of Consci­ence, that he layeth it downe for my first Conclusion; That it is not lawfull to persecute any for Conscience sake rightly informed [that is to say, bringing more, and true light.]

2. For an erroneous and blind Conscience, (even in fundamentall, and weighty Points) it is not lawfull to persecute any, till after Admo­nition once or twice, according to the Apostles direction, Tit. 3.10, 11. That so such a man being convinced of the dangerous error of his way; if he still persist (being condemned of himselfe, ver. 11.) it may appeare, he is not persecuted for Cause of Conscience, but for sinning against his own Conscience.

3. In things of lesse moment, whether Points of Doctrine or worship, if a man hold them forth in a spirit of Christian meeknesse and love, (though with zeale and constancy) he is not to be persecuted, but tolera­ted, till God may be pleased to manifest his Truth to him, Phil. 3.17. Rom. 14.11, 12, 13, 14.

4. But if a man hold forth or professe any error, or false way, with a boysterous, and arrogant spirit, to the disturbance of Civill Peace, he may justly be punished according to the measure of the disturbance caused by him.

This is that way of Persecution which M ^r. Williams expresseth to be mine. In all which I durst appeale to M ^r. Williams his own Conscience, (were it not Leavened with over-deepe prejudice) whether in all this way there be any crevise opening a doore for the Persecution of Christ himselfe bringing further light?

Let no man take it amisse, that (in the Parenthesis) I intimate, the Conscience of M ^r. Williams in this case to be leavened with o­vermuch prejudice. For if extreme prejudice were not predomi­nant in him in this case, I should stand amazed how a man of un­derstanding could out of such Conclusions make up this Inference, which he gives in the Title of the Chapt. pag. 7. That I doe profes­sedly maintaine Persecution for Cause of Conscience. I that doe expresly, professedly deny Persecution of any, even of Hereticks, unlesse it be [Page 18]when they come to persist in heresie, after conviction, against con­science: how can I be said to maintaine Persecution for Cause of Conscience? But oh the wofull perversenesse and blindnesse of a Conscience, when it is left of God, to be so farre transported with prejudice, as to judge a Cause of Conscience, and a cause against Conscience to be all one.

For the shutting up of his Chapter, he is pleased to Comment upon a phrase in my Letter, wherein I styled my selfe a man of un­circumcised lips. And he doth acknowledge it to be an holy Cha­racter of an heavenly Spirit, to make an ingenuous, and true acknow­ledgement of an uncircumcised lip. Yet (saith he) that discerning Spi­rit, which God graciously vouchsafeth to them that tremble at his Word, shall finde, that not onely the will-worships of men may be painted, and varnished over with the glittering shew of Humilitie, Colos. 2. but even Gods dearest servants (eminent for humility, and meeknesse) may yet be troubled with a swelling of spirituall pride, out of the very sence of their humilitie, &c. Humilitie is never in season to set up superstition, or per­secute Gods children.

Answ. I could intreat some or other of M ^r. Williams his ac­quaintance (whose words may finde better acceptance with him, then mine doe) to perswade him, not to attribute too much to his own Spirit of discerning; which though he truely saith, God doth vouchsafe to them that tremble at his word: yet I never read, nor heard, that God did vouchsafe a Spirit of discerning to any that are so farre from trembling at the word, that they doe not vouch­safe to heare the word from the mouth of so many thousand faith­full Ministers of the Gospel. As for me, I desire not to neglect any word from the mouth of M ^r. Williams, (upon what pretence soe­ver spoken) that putteth me in minde of spirituall pride, arising out of the very sence of humilitie. Such smiting shall not breake my head.

But when he concludeth with this Aphorisme; Humilitie is ne­ver in season to set up superstition, or to persecute Gods children.

I desire it may be considered, what is Superstition? what is Per­secution? and whether my Letter unto him tended to set up the one, or to set forward the other?

Superstition is properly cultus supra statutum, which I speake not from the Etymology of the word, (for I know Latinists doe other­wise [Page 19]derive it) but from the nature of the thing. And what is Per­secution? It hath been answered above, the affliction of any for their Righteousnesse sake. If it appeare in the sequele, that my Let­ter tended either to set up any worship of God, which he hath not appointed, or to afflict any for their Righteousnesse sake, then I will confesse it tended to set up Superstition, and Persecution: And the humilitie which he acknowledgeth to be expressed in my Let­ter, I shall acknowledge to be out of season: Meane while, Affir­manti incumbit Probatio.

To CHAP. II.

His second Chapter is spent in answering to a double charge, which he saith, he observeth, I laid against him. Though in very Truth, I layd neither of them downe as charges against him, but as discharges to my selfe from expecting that He should vouch­safe to hearken to my voyce, who had refused to hearken both to the voyce of the body of the whole Church of Salem (whereof he was a member) and to the voyces of so many Elders, and brethren of other Churches.

But suppose I did charge him with a double sinne in refusing to hearken to this double voyce, (though I did not say it was a sinne:) how doth he discharge himselfe? For neglect of the former, he excuseth himselfe by the charge of his Office, which lay upon him, on a Fast-day to discover to them eleven publick sinnes, as causes of the present, and publick calamities. Which most of the Church seemed at first to assent unto, un­till afterwards, the greater part of the Church (whether for feare of Per­secution, or otherwise) was swayed, and bowed to practise such things, which with sighes and groanes many of them mourned under.

But will this indeed discharge an Elder of the Church before the Lord, from coming into the presence of the Church, when they send for him, because the greater part of them, are bowed, and sway­ed for feare of Persecution, to slip, and slide, and to say and practise that, which with sighes and groanes they mourned under? Why then, if the Wolfe come, and scatter the sheepe, and they slip out of the way, let the Shepheard fly, and leave them; that the word of the Lord Jesus might be fulfilled; He that is an Hireling, and not the Shepheard, [Page 20]whose own the sheepe are not, he seeth the Wolfe coming, and leaveth the sheepe, and fleeth, and the Wolfe catcheth them, and scattereth the sheepe, Joh. 10.12.

Or will it goe for currant Doctrine before the Lord, that if the greater part of a Church fall (through feare, or otherwise) into sinne, and such a sinne, which they mourne under with sighes, and groanes, and which in it selfe is not hainous, that then they doe ipso facto, cease to be a Church, and utterly to be cast out? Why then let the Covenant between the Lord and his Church be no more reputed any branch of the Covenant of Grace, but let it stand and fall as a Covenant of workes.

But surely if the greater part of the Church were gone astray, I should think it would well become the faithfulnesse of a Church-Elder, to hasten to them, (specially when he is lovingly and re­spectively sent for) and to convince them of the errour of their way before the Lord, and to seek to bring them back againe to the Bishop and Shepheard of their soules. Sure I am, that in a case of greater defection of the Churches of Galatia, then M ^r. Williams imagined was found in the Church of Salem. Paul did not reject them, but professed; I desire (saith he) to be present with you now, and to change my voyce, for I stand in doubt of you, Gal. 4.20.

M ^r. Williams acknowledgeth in the next Paragraph, That the Church of Colosse might say to Archippus; Take heed to thy Ministery, and that Archippus might negligently, and proudly refuse to hearken to them: but for his case, his faithfulnesse, and uprightnesse to God, and the soules of the people will witnesse for him, when his soule shall come to Hezekiahs case on his death-bed, and in the great day approaching.

I do not know but that Archippus might as justly refuse to hear­ken to the Church of Colosse, as M ^r. Williams to the Church of Salem. What though Colosse was more eminent in gifts then Sa­lem, yet the mutuall power, and subjection of Pastor and people, dependeth not upon eminency of gifts, but upon the Institution of Christ, and their mutuall Covenant, and Relation. If it had been a negligent and proud part in Archippus (as M ^r. Williams confes­seth) to refuse to hearken to the lawfull voyce of the Church of Colosse, admonishing him of his slacknesse in his Ministery: I know not but it might be such a like part in M ^r. Williams to refuse to hearken to the voyce of the Church of Salem, admonishing him to [Page 21]take heed of deserting his Ministery. Whether is a greater sinne in a Minister, not to fulfill his Ministery, or to desert his Ministery? Neither doe I know but that Archippus might have pretended the like evasions with M ^r. Williams, if not fairer. For he might plead there were amongst them, such as spoyled them through Philoso­phy, and vaine deceit, after the Traditions of men, and Rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, ( Col. 2.8.) that beguiled them also in a voluntary humilitie, and worship of Angels, not holding the Head, ( ver. 18, 19.) Yea so farre that themselves come to be dogmatized with the Traditions of men, ver. 20, 21, 22. And why might not then Archippus as justly refuse to heare the Church of Colosse, as M ^r. Williams refuse to heare the Church of Salem?

Let not M ^r. Williams please himselfe in suiting his faithfulnesse, and uprightnesse to Hezekiahs case. Hezekiah faithfully, and up­rightly endeavoured, and (through grace) procured the reforma­tion of the Apostate Church of Hierusalem in the dayes of his Fa­ther Ahaz: But M ^r. Williams in stead of reforming one Church, renounceth all.

For his neglect of hearkening to the second voyce, the voyce and testimo­ny of so many Elders, and Brethren of other Churches; He saith (because he truely esteemeth the Persons) he will not answer the Argument of numbers, and multitudes against one, as our men are wont to answer the Popish universalitie, that God stirreth up sometimes one Elijah against eight hundred of Baals Priests, &c. But this he saith that David him­selfe, and the Princes of Israel, and 30000. of Israel carrying up the Arke, were not to be hearkened unto in their holy intentions of rejoy­cings, and triumphs, when the due order of the Lord was wanting to them. In which case one Scripture in the mouth of a Mechanick, is to be preferred before a whole Councell.

Answ. I will not here observe (as M ^r. Williams doth in a like case, in Chap. 38. of his Bloudy Tenent) his hast and light attenti­on to the Scriptures which himselfe alledgeth. The Text speaketh but of 450. of Baals Priests, 1 Kings 18.19. Now for him to mul­tiply them to 800, is to fetch in also the Prophets of the Groves, (the Prophets of Jeroboams Calves) whom the Text expresly di­stinguisheth from the Prophets of Baal.

But to let that passe, as not materiall to the Argument, (no more then the misquotation, which he observeth of Titus for Timo­thy) [Page 22]we will not reply as the Papists doe against single witnesses, let him call for fire from Heaven as Eliah did, and we will submit the testimonies of many to one single witnesse: No we call not for Miracles at his hand: but let him produce one testimony of holy Scripture (rightly understood, and applyed) against the advice, and voyce of those Elders, and Brethren, and then though he be but one (yea though that one were but a Mechanick too) we shall gratifie his demand, and (by the Grace of Christ) be ready rather to hearken to him, then require that he should hearken to us.

Meane while, we answer him as the Apostle did to the Corinthi­ans, (1 Cor. 14.36.) What, came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you onely?

It is true, David and the Princes, and the 30000. of Israel, were not to be hearkened unto, nor followed in their disorderly carry­ing of the Arke; because the word of the Lord had given expresse order to the contrary, requiring that the Kohathites should beare the Arke upon their shoulders, and not touch it, least they dye, Num. 4.15. Let him shew us the like order violated by us, and we shall freely excuse him (yea and justifie him) in not hearkening to us, nor following of us.

But suppose some one Prophet, or Brother of Israel, had discer­ned the disorder of David, and of the whole Congregation of the 30000. of Israel, and had therefore not onely refused to follow them, but had proceeded further (as many of Christs Disciples did with him, Joh. 6.66.) to goe back from them with an utter Apo­stasie, and to walke no more with them, no not though they were willing to reforme their disorder, if any were made knowne to them? Would Perez Ʋzzah have justified that? Or did that disor­der of David, and of that Congregation of Israel, dischurch them all from fellowship with God, or discharge their Brethren from having any fellowship with them, as with the Church of God?

TO CHAP. III.

HIs third Chapter is taken up in answering to a Phrase in my Letter, in which I had said, I endeavoured to shew him the sandinesse of those grounds, upon which he had banished himselfe from the fellowship of all the Churches in this Countrey.

The summe of his Answer is, That his grounds were the firme rocke of the Truth of Jesus, and that my endeavours to prove them sandy, are but the weake, and uncertain sand of mans Invention, which shall there­fore perish, and burne like hay, or stubble; And the Rocky strength of his grounds shall appeare in the Lords season, and that my selfe also may yet confesse so much, as I have ( since I came to New-England) confest the sandinesse of the grounds of many of my Practises in Old England: and the rockinesse of their grounds that witnessed against me, and them: for Instance, that himselfe had discovered to me, and other servants of God, his grounds against the use of the Common Prayer Booke: which though they then seemed sandy to me, yet since I have acknowledged to be rocky, and have seene cause so to publish to the world in my Discourse to M ^r. Ball, against set formes of Prayer.

For a reply, let me begin where he leaveth; How ready he is to build upon sandy grounds, may appeare by this very Passage, where he maintaineth his rockinesse. For here he avoucheth, I have seene cause to publish to the world, the rockinesse of his grounds in a Dis­course to M ^r. Ball against set Formes of Prayer.

What rocky ground doe you thinke this Assertion of his stand­eth upon? I know no other but this; He findeth such a Discourse published to the world: and he thence concludeth (for other Grounds he hath none) that I published that Discourse, and that I saw cause to publish it: both which hang upon that ground like ropes of sand. The truth is, I did not publish that Discourse to the world, much lesse did I see cause to publish it upon the Grounds he speak­eth of. A briefe Discourse in defence of set formes of Prayer was penned by M ^r. Ball, much briefer then that which since is put forth in Print. That briefe Discourse a religious Knight sent over, (whe­ther to my selfe, or to a Gentleman of note then dwelling in my house, I remember not) but with desire to heare our judgement of it. At his request I drew up a short Answer, and sent one Copie of it to the Knight, and another to M ^r. Ball, divers yeares agoe. How it came (in processe of time) to be published to the world, or by whom, I doe not know. And yet M ^r. Williams doubteth not to affirme it, that I published that Discourse to the world, and saw cause to doe it. Rocky spirits can expresse all their conceits, in rocky firmnesse, though upon sandy conjectures.

Besides, when he saith, That himselfe discovered to me, and to other [Page 24]servants of God, his grounds against our using of the Common Prayer; which then seemed sandy to us, but now in New-England, I have ac­knowledged to be rocky in my Discourse to M ^r. Ball. I could have wished he had expressed, what grounds those were, which he discovered to us; For my selfe I can call to minde no such matter, that ever I heard, or received from him, either by word, or writing, any so­lide grounds against that Practise. But this I am sure of, that the grounds of altering my judgement touching that practise, did chiefly stand upon the exposition of the second Commandement; which if I should say, I received from him, I should greatly feare my forehead were more rocky then his grounds were. I thinke it no disgrace to change either my judgement or practise upon better grounds then I formerly discerned. Nor would I thinke it a dis­grace to learne any grounds of truth, and to professe that I had learned them from himselfe, if so I had done. But sure I am, it hath not been wont to be the manner of the servants of God to upbraid their Brethren, with their Retractations of their former Aberra­tions.

I have read of the Churches of Judea, that when they heard Paul now preached the Faith, which once he destroyed, they glo­rified God for him, ( Gal. 1.23, 24.) but I never read, that any of the Churches of Christ, or any sincere member of the Churches, did ever upbraid Paul for his former Persecution, or for his pre­sent change.

The other part of the Chapter, he spendeth in relating the grounds of the sentence of his Banishment, and in the avouchment of his confidence of the firmenesse of them.

The grounds of the sentence of his Banishment, some whereof He saith I am pleased to discusse in the Letter, and others not to mention; He saith were rightly summed up by one of the Magistrates after his pub­lick Tryall, and Answers.

M ^r. Williams (said that publick Person) holdeth forth these foure particulars.

1. That we have not our Land by Patent from the King, but that the Natives are the true owners of it; and that we ought to repent of such a receiving it by Patent.

2. That it is not lawfull to call a wicked Person to sweare, to pray, as being actions of Gods worship.

3. That it is not lawfull to heare any of the Ministers of the Parish-Assemblies in England.

4. That the Civill Magistrates Power extends onely to the bodies, and goods, and outward state of men, &c.

These particulars he hopeth, that as he maintained the rockie strength of them to his own, and other Consciences satisfaction: So (through the Lords assistance,) he shall be ready not onely to be bound, and banished, but to dye also in New-England, as for most holy Truths of God in Christ Jesus.

It was not my intent in that Letter which he examineth, to dis­cusse the Grounds of his Civill Banishment at all, neither did I dis­cusse one or other of them. And it is a preposterous shifting of the State of the Question, to put it upon me to give account of the causes of his Banishment, who neither did banish him, nor provo­ked the Court to banish him out of the Countrey. The Magistrates and Deputies of the Common-wealth (who were then the Mem­bers of that Court) are all of them of age, and able themselves to give account of their own actions. To them or some of them he should in reason have addressed himselfe for satisfaction in this case (if any were due) and not to me, who am as seldome present at any Civill Court, (if not more seldome) then any man of our calling in Towne or Countrey, where the Courts are kept. It were more then Aegyptian bondage to me, and more then Pharaonicall tyran­ny in him, to exact of me, an account of all the capitall, or notable sentences of Judgement, which passe in all the Civill Courts of Ju­stice in the Countrey, unlesse I had a calling to sit amongst them.

But why did I then endeavour in my Letter to shew him the san­dinesse of those grounds, upon which he had banished himselfe, &c. If I did not meane to declare, and discusse the causes of his Banishment?

He doth very well, and wisely to expresse the Grounds upon which I said he banished himselfe with an, &c. For he knows that if he had related my whole sentence in my own words, he had cut off himselfe from all opportunitie of pleading with me the causes of his Civill Banishment.

My words are plaine, — I endeavour to shew you the sandinesse of those grounds, upon which you have banished your selfe from the fellowship of all the Churches in these Countreyes.

It is one thing to banish ones selfe (or to be banished) out of the [Page 26]fellowship of all the Churches in the Countrey; another thing to banish ones selfe (or to be banished) out of the Countrey. There be at this day that banish (and separate) themselves from all the Churches in the Countrey, and yet are not banished out of the Countrey: and there be that are banished out of the Countrey, and yet are not banished out of the fellowship of all the Churches in the Countrey. Himselfe hath separated (and so banished him­selfe) from the fellowship of all the Churches in the world: and yet he hath not banished himselfe out of the world.

But though it be impertinent to my Letter to discusse the grounds of his Civill Banishment: yet since he is pleased (by hook or crook) to draw it in, I referre the Reader for Answer to a full Treatise of that Argument, penned by a reverend faithfull Brother, (the Teacher of the Church at Rocksbury;) and withall as I have tou­ched somewhat of it above in Answer to his Preface, so I shall speak a word or two more unto it here.

Whom that eminent Magistrate was, that so summed up the grounds of M ^r. Williams his Banishment in those foure Particulars above mentioned, M ^r. Williams doth wisely conceale his name, lest if he were named, he should be occasioned to beare witnesse against such fraudulent expression of the Particulars: whereof some were no causes of his Banishment at all, and such as were causes, were not delivered in such generall Tearmes. For in universalibus latet Dolus. It is evident the two latter causes which he giveth of his Banishment, were no causes at all, as he expresseth them. There are many knowne to hold both these Opinions, That it is not law­full to heare any of the Ministers of the Parish-Assemblies in England, and that the Civill Magistrates power extendeth onely to the bodies, and goods, and outward estates of men: and yet they are tolerated not onely to live in the Common-wealth, but also in the fellowship of the Churches.

The two former, though they be not so much noysed, yet there be many, if not most, that hold, That we have not our Land, meerly by right of Patent from the King, but that the Natives are true owners of all that they possesse, or improve. Neither doe I know any amongst us, that either then were, or now are of another minde.

And as for the other Point; That it is not lawfull to call a wicked Person to sweare, or pray.

Though that be not commonly held, yet it is knowne to be held of some, who yet are tolerated to enjoy both Civill, and Church-liberties amongst us.

To come therefore to Particulars: Two things there were, which (to my best observation, and remembrance) caused the Sentence of his Banishment: and two other fell in, that hastened it.

1. His violent and tumultuous carriage against the Patent.

By the Patent it is, that we received allowance from the King to depart his Kingdome, and to carry our goods with us, without offence to his Officers, and without paying custome to himselfe.

By the Patent, certain select men (as Magistrates, and Freemen) have power to make Lawes, and the Magistrates to execute Justice, and Judgement amongst the People, according to such Lawes.

By the Patent we have Power to erect such a Government of the Church, as is most agreeable to the Word, to the estate of the Peo­ple, and to the gaining of Natives (in Gods time) first to Civility, and then to Christianity.

To this Authority established by this Patent, English-men doe readily submit themselves: and foraine Plantations (the French, the Dutch, and Swedish) doe willingly transact their Negotiations with us, as with a Colony established by the Royall Authority of the State of England.

This Patent, M ^r. Williams publickly, and vehemently preached against, as containing matter of falshood, and injustice: Falshood in making the King the first Christian Prince who had discovered these parts: and injustice, in giving the Countrey to his English Subjects, which belonged to the Native Indians. This therefore he pressed upon the Magistrates and People, to be humbled for from time to time in dayes of solemne Humiliation, and to returne the Patent back againe to the King. It was answered to him, first, That it was neither the Kings intendment, nor the English Plan­ters to take possession of the Countrey by murther of the Natives, or by robbery: but either to take possession of the voyd places of the Countrey by the Law of Nature, (for Vacuum Domicilium cedit occupanti:) or if we tooke any Lands from the Natives, it was by way of purchase, and free consent.

A little before our coming, God had by pestilence, and other contagious diseases, swept away many thousands of the Natives, [Page 28]who had inhabited the Bay of Massachusets, for which the Patent was granted. Such few of them as survived were glad of the com­ing of the English, who might preserve them from the oppression of the Nahargansets. For it is the manner of the Natives, the strong­er Nations to oppresse the weaker.

This answer did not satisfie M ^r. Williams, who pleaded, the Na­tives, though they did not, nor could subdue the Countrey, (but left it vacuum Domicilium) yet they hunted all the Countrey over, and for the expedition of their hunting voyages, they burnt up all the underwoods in the Countrey, once or twice a yeare, and there­fore as Noble men in England possessed great Parkes, and the King, great Forrests in England onely for their game, and no man might lawfully invade their Propriety: So might the Natives challenge the like Propriety of the Countrey here.

It was replyed unto him. 1. That the King, and Noble men in England, as they possessed greater Territories then other men, so they did greater service to Church, and Common-wealth.

2. That they employed their Parkes, and Forrests, not for hun­ting onely, but for Timber, and for the nourishment of tame beasts, as well as wild, and also for habitation to sundry Tenants.

3. That our Townes here did not disturb the huntings of the Natives, but did rather keepe their Game fitter for their taking; for they take their Deere by Traps, and not by Hounds.

4. That if they complained of any straites wee put upon them, wee gave satisfaction in some payments, or other, to their con­tent.

5. We did not conceive that it is a just Title to so vast a Con­tinent, to make no other improvement of millions of Acres in it, but onely to burne it up for pastime.

But these Answers not satisfying him, this was still pressed by him as a Nationall sinne, to hold to the Patent, yea, and a Natio­nall duty to renounce the Patent: which to have done, had subver­ted the fundamentall State, and Government of the Countrey.

2. The second offence, which procured his Banishment, was occasioned as I touched before. The Magistrates, and other mem­bers of the Generall Court upon Intelligence of some Episcopall, and malignant practises against the Countrey, they made an order of Court to take tryall of the fidelitie of the People, (not by impo­sing [Page 29]upon them, but) by offering to them an Oath of Fidelitie: that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not betrust them with place of publick charge, and Command. This Oath when it came abroad, he vehemently withstood it, and disswaded sundry from it, partly because it was, as he said, Christs Preroga­tive, to have his Office established by Oath: partly because an oath was a part of Gods worship, and Gods worship was not to be put upon carnall persons, as he conceived many of the People to be. So by his Tenent neither might Church-members, nor other god­ly men, take the Oath, because it was the establishment not of Christ, but of mortall men in their office; nor might men out of the Church take it, because in his eye they were but carnall. So the Court was forced to desist from that proceeding: which practise of his was held to be the more dangerous, because it tended to un­settle all the Kingdomes, and Common-wealths in Europe.

These were (as I tooke it) the causes of his Banishment: two other things fell in upon these that hastened the Sentence. The for­mer fell out thus: The Magistrates discerning by the former passa­ges, the heady and turbulent spirit of M ^r. Williams, both they, and others advised the Church of Salem not to call him to office in their Church; neverthelesse, the major part of the Church made choice of him. Soone after, when the Church made suit to the Court for a parcell of Land adjoyning to them, the Court delayed to grant their Request (as hath been mentioned before) because the Church had refused to hearken to the Magistrates, and others in forbearing the choice of M ^r. Williams. Whereupon M ^r. Williams took occasion to stirre up the Church to joyne with him in writing Letters of Admonition unto all the Churches, whereof those Ma­gistrates were members, to admonish them of their open transgres­sion of the Rule of Justice. Which Letters coming to the severall Churches, provoked the Magistrates to take the more speedy course with so heady, and violent a Spirit.

But to prevent his sufferings, (if it might be) it was mooved by some of the Elders, that themselves might have liberty (according to the Rule of Christ) to deale with him, and with the Church also in a Church-way. It might be, the Church might heare us, and he the Church; which being consented to, some of our Chur­ches wrote to the Church of Salem, to present before them the of­fensive [Page 30]Spirit, and way of their Officer, (M ^r. Williams) both in Judgement, and Practise. The Church finally began to hearken to us, and accordingly began to addresse themselves to the healing of his Spirit. Which he discerning, renounced communion with the Church of Salem, pretending they held communion with the Churches in the Bay, and the Churches in the Bay held commu­nion with the Parish-Churches in England, because they suffered their members to heare the word amongst them in England, as they came over into their native Countrey. He then refusing to resort to the Publick Assembly of the Church. Soone after sundry began to resort to his Family, where he preached to them on the Lords day. But this carriage of his in renouncing the Church upon such an occasion, and with them all the Churches in the Countrey, and the spreading of his Leaven to sundry that resorted to him; this gave the Magistrates the more cause to observe the heady unrueli­nesse of his spirit, and the incorrigiblenesse thereof by any Church-way, all the Churches in the Countrey being then renounced by him. And this was the other occasion which hastened the Sentence of his Banishment, upon the former Grounds.

If upon these Grounds M ^r. Williams be ready, (as he professeth) not onely to be bound, and banished, but also to dye in New-England; let him remember, (what he knowes) Non poena, sed causa facit Martyrem; No Martyr of Christ did ever suffer for such a cause.

When he feareth not to professe, that he did in open Court main­taine the rocky strength of his grounds, to the satisfaction of his own, and (as he saith) of other mens Consciences.

I can but wonder at the rocky flintinesse of his selfe-confidence: To give a taste of the rocky strength of his maintenance of these things; He made complaint in open Court, that he was wronged by a slanderous report up and downe the Countrey, as if he did hold it to be unlawfull for a Father to call upon his childe to eate his meate. Our reverend Brother M ^r. Hooker, (the Pastor of the Church, where the Court was then kept) being mooved to speake a word to it, Why, saith he, you will say as much againe, (if you stand to your own Principles) or be forced to say nothing. When M ^r. Williams was confident he should never say it: M ^r. Hooker re­plyed, If it be unlawfull to call an unregenerate person to take an Oath, or to Pray, as being actions of Gods worship, then it is un­lawfull [Page 31]for your unregenerate childe, to pray for a blessing upon his own meate. If it be unlawfull for him to pray for a blessing upon his meate, it is unlawfull for him to eate it, (for it is san­ctified by prayer, and without prayer unsanctified, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5.) If it be unlawfull for him to eate it, it is unlawfull for you to call upon him to eate it, for it is unlawfull for you to call upon him to sinne.

Here M ^r. Williams thought better to hold his peace, then to give an Answer.

But thus have I opened the grounds, and occasions of his Civill Banishment; which whether they be sandy, or rocky, let the ser­vants of Christ judge. Howsoever, my Letter gave him no occasion at all to put me upon this Discourse; for in my Letter I intended only to shew him the sandinesse of those grounds upon which he banished himselfe from the society (not of the Common-wealth, but) of all the Churches in these Countreyes.

But whether I intended the one, or the other, he giveth an An­swer for both; If M ^r Cotton meane (saith he) my own voluntary withdrawing from all these Churches resolved to continue in those evills, and in persecuting the witnesses of the Lord, presenting light unto them. I confesse it was mine own voluntary act: yea I hope the act of the Lord Jesus sounding forth in me (a poore despised Rams-horne) the blast which shall in his own holy season cast down the strength, and confidence of the Inventions of men in the worship of God: and lastly his act in ina­bling me to be faithfull in any measure to suffer such great, and mightie Tryalls for his Names sake.

Reply, That I meant onely his own act in withdrawing himselfe from these Churches, doth plainly enough appeare both from my expresse words, and fro mthe Reasons which I expresly assigne of that act of his, which I called the sandy grounds, upon which he built his Separation. My expresse words are, He had banished him­selfe from the society of all the Churches in this Countrey. The society of the Church is one thing, the society of the Common-wealth, is another. And the Grounds upon which he built his Separation, were not the causes of his banishment, but of his withdrawing from the society of the Churches.

But if I so meant, He confesseth it was his own voluntary act; and professeth also, it was a double act of the Lord Jesus in him.

The ground which he giveth of his own voluntary act, was be­cause these Churches were resolved to continue in those evills, and perse­cuting the witnesses of the Lord Jesus, presenting light to them.

Reply; Those evills? What were those evills, which wee were resolved to continue in? He expresseth none: but sure meet it had been, that as his voluntary withdrawing from these Churches was publickly known; so the evills in which we resolved to continue, and for which he withdrew himselfe, should in like manner have been publickly knowne also. It is an unrighteous thing to passe publick known acts, upon private unknowne evills. But whatsoe­ver those unknown evills were, I suppose he conceiveth them to be such wayes, either of Judgement, or Practise, wherein wee walke according to the light of our Consciences. And then by his Rule he should have allowed us the like liberty of conscience, which him­selfe requireth. And surely by the Royall Rule of the Lord Jesus, no Brother may be so much as admonished, (much lesse separated from) till he be convinced, ( [...]) Mat. 18.15.

And as for persecuting the witnesses of the Lord, presenting light to us; himselfe (for ought I know) was the first in this Countrey, that ever pretended suffering for bearing witnesse in any matter of Religion true or false: And for him to withdraw himselfe from the society of all the Churches for their persecution of him, before he had suffered from them any thing but conference, and conviction, is to make them sufferers for well-doing, and to choose suffering, that he might have cause to complaine of sufferings. Let him, if he be able, name any one in this Countrey of the witnesses of the Lord, (for he speaketh of witnesses) that ever did so much as pretend be­fore himselfe to suffer Persecution, for presenting light to us.

Thus he maketh that the ground of his withdrawing, which was not then in Rerum naturâ, (no not in pretence) till after his with­drawing. As a furious School-master will beate a childe for no­thing till he cry, and then beate him for crying.

But he further presumeth to affirme; That his withdrawing was the act of the Lord Jesus in him, sounding forth that Blast, which shall one day cast downe the strength, and confidence of the Inventions of men in the worship of God.

Reply. If a particular visible Church, consisting of visible Saints, and united by holy Covenant into one Congregation, to worship [Page 33]the Lord, and to edifie one another in all his holy Ordinances; If such a Church be an Invention of man; If Elders called, and or­dained by them for Administration of these Ordinances, be an in­vention of man; If the Covenant of Grace between the Lord, and his Church, and the Seales thereof, and the Censures dispensed a­gainst the violation thereof; If all these be the Inventions of man, then indeed the Lord hath sounded a blast in M ^r. Williams his horne, to cast down the Inventions of men in the worship of God. But if all these be the holy Institutions of the Lord Jesus, then let M ^r. Williams know, that this speech of his is a blast of blasphemy against the Lord Jesus, to put upon him that which is the proper worke of Satan, to blast all the Churches, and Ordinances of Christ. And whereas it was wont to be the worke of Antichrist to defile all the Ordinances of Christ, it is now the worke of this ex­aminer to deface, and abolish them all from the face of the earth. Whether of these workes are the more Antichristian? It may be he will be ready to say, (as the Prophet said in another case of Sena­cherib, Isai. 10.7.) he meaneth not so, nor doth his heart thinke so: and as Hazael said to the Prophet, Is thy servant a dog, that he should doe this great thing? (2 King. 8.13.) Sed quid verba audiam, cùm facta videam? Why doth he separate from all Churches under Heaven, and refuse to gather into any Church where himselfe li­veth, if he did not in these times look at all Church-Estate, and Fellowship, and Ordinances, as not to be found in the Land of the Living?

Lastly, He looketh at it, as an act of Christ enabling him to be faith­full in any measure, to suffer such great and mightie Tryalls for his Names sake.

But if the Spirit of the Apostle John had in some measure rested upon him, he would no more have mentioned (much lesse have magnified) his great, and mighty Tryalls, till he had seene John goe before him in such a like predication of his sufferings, who doubtlesse had lesse deserved it, and yet suffered more great, and mighty Tryalls, Revel. 1.9. But full vessels make least sound.

Againe, He recoyleth to his civill Banishment, and observeth, That if by banishing himselfe I meant his Civill Banishment, then 1. He discerneth the language of the Dragon in a Lambes lip; to put the suffer­ings of the Saints upon themselves, and the Devill.

2. That I silently confesse, that the frame and constitution of our Chur­ches is implicitly Nationall. Else if the Common-wealth, and Church were not one, how could he that is banished from the one, be necessarily banished from the other also?

Reply. It was farre from my meaning, and words, when I spake of his banishing of himselfe from the Fellowship of all the Chur­ches in the Countrey, to intend his civill banishment. I knew his civill banishment was not meerly his own Act. I knew also that he might have been banished from the Common-wealth, and yet have retained (as some others have done) Fellowship with some Chur­ches, if not with all the Churches in the Countrey. And therefore both his observations are but empty flourishes, and vanish like Bub­bles. It is the wilinesse of the Spirit of the Serpent, to hide his head under fig-leaved evasions.

But suppose I had meant by his banishment of himselfe, his civill banishment, and had meant, that by exposing himselfe deservedly to that censure, he had deprived himselfe of enjoying all the spiri­tuall liberties of the Churches in the Countrey: might I not so have said, and yet not have spoken the language of the Dragon? What if the Dragon use such language to the Saints suffering innocently? may not the Spirit of God use the same words to a guilty person suffering deservedly? The language of the Dragon lyeth not al­wayes in the words or meaning, but in the application, and intent of them. The Dragon said to Christ, I know who thou art, the holy One of God, Mar. 1.24. Peter might say the same, or the like words, Mat. 16.16. And yet in his mouth, it was not the language of the Dragon, but of the Holy Ghost.

Neither will it imply, That the Church, and Common-wealth, are all one, because he that deservedly is banished from the Com­mon-wealth, banisheth himselfe also from the communion of the Churches; For the same sinnes which may be offensive civilly to the Common-wealth, may be also spiritually offensive to the Church, and both proceed to censure the same person in their own way, severally.

TO CHAP. IV.

IN his fourth Chapter the Examiner answereth to a speech of mine, wherein to prevent his prejudice against my person, (which might weaken the fruit of my counsell to him) I told him, I had not hasted forward the sentence of his Civill Banishment: and that what was done by the Magistrates in that kinde, was neither done by my Counsell, nor consent.

Whereto he answereth, first, That he observeth, I cannot but con­fesse, that it is hard for any man to doe good, or to speake effectually to the soule, or Conscience of any, whose body he afflicteth, and persecuteth, and that onely for their soule and Conscience sake.

Reply. All that can truely be observed from my words is, That it is hard for any to take good from those, against whom they have conceived a prejudice, whether justly, or unjustly. But when he subjoyneth a Serpentine, that is, a subtile, and venomous insi­nuation, as if I had afflicted, and persecuted his body, and that onely for his soule, and Conscience sake.

Answ. I have been so farre from afflicting, or persecuting his bo­dy, (especially for his soule, or conscience sake) that in very truth, whilest I had any hope of prevailing for him, I may say, as David said for himselfe, against a like slander, Psal. 7.3, 4. I have sought to deliver him who without cause reproacheth me.

Let not M ^r. Williams please himselfe (as he doth in this Para­graph) in comparing the dealing of the Elders with him here, to the Persecutions of the Bishops against the godly Preachers in Eng­land. If the Bishops had dealt no worse with the godly Preachers there, and upon no more unjust causes, then the Elders dealt with him here, they might with good conscience, and good countenance have looked with comfort, and confidence, both God, and man in the face, even now when God hath laid their carnall pompe, and worldly honour in the dust.

Neither let him please himselfe (as he doth in the next Para­graph) in his undoubted Assertion; That what M ^r. Cotton, and others did in procuring his sorrowes, was not without some regret, and reluctancy of Conscience, and affection, (as David in procuring Uriah's death, or Asa in imprisoning the Prophet.)

For neither was he so innocent, as was Ʋriah, and that Pro­phet: nor had my selfe the like hand in his sufferings, as David and Asa had in the other: nor did I ever see cause of regret, and reluctancy of conscience, for any act of mine own about his suffer­ings. Onely I confesse I had (as he saith) some regret, and relu­ctancy of affection, and of compassion, to see one who had received from God, stirring and usefull gifts, to bestirre himselfe so busily, and eagerly to abuse them, to the disturbance of himselfe, his fami­ly, the Churches, and the Common-wealth.

That I consented not to his Banishment, he in part admitteth; For what need was there (saith he) of that, being not one of the Civill Court?

As if I might not have consented to it, though I needed not to have done it. I might have drawn up Articles against him, I might have come in as a witnesse against him, I might have solicited, and stirred up the body of the Magistrates against him, to rid the coun­trey of him: and then I had consented before-hand to what was done by the Magistrates in that kinde, though my selfe had been none of the Court; but none of all these acts, nor any such like were done by me.

But be it that I consented not, yet I counselled it, (and so con­sented) and to prove that he saith, He will produce a double, and un­answerable Testimony for it.

First, That I publickly taught, (and still doe Teach, except lately Christ hath taught me better) that body-killing, soule-killing, and State-killing Doctrine of Persecuting all other Consciences, and wayes of wor­ship but mine own, in the Civill State, and consequently in the whole world, if the Power, or Empire thereof were in mine hand.

Reply. Were it not that I have learned from the word of truth, that when men are cast out of the Church of Christ, they are deli­vered up unto Satan, and so neither their wits, nor their tongues are their own. I could not easily have beleeved that M ^r. Williams could so confidently and openly have avouched such a notorious slander. Since the Lord taught me to know any thing, what con­science, or the worship of God meant, it hath been my constant judgement, and doctrine, and practise to the contrary. Besides, To teach the killing of the bodies of all such Consciences, and wayes of wor­ship, as are not mine own, is to make mine own conscience, and way [Page 37]of worship, the infallible Rule, and soveraigne Standard, by which all consciences, and wayes of worship throughout the world, were to be regulated: yea, and as if this were a light measure of arrogan­cy, and usurpation, I make it a capitall crime, (a body-killing of­fence) for any man to swerve from my conscience, and way of wor­ship, even in such Points wherein the Holy Ghost hath given ex­presse charge, that we should not judge, nor condemne one ano­ther, Rom. 14.3. But I durst appeale even unto the conscience of M ^r. Williams himselfe, (if it were now in the gracious keeping of Christ, or of himselfe, as in former times) that himselfe knoweth, I doe not thinke it lawfull to Excommunicate an Heretick, much lesse to persecute him with the civill Sword, till it may appeare, even by just and full conviction, that he sinneth not out of consci­ence, but against the very light of his own conscience. Sure I am, such a Point he reporteth is received from me, to the very same purpose, (and he reporteth it truely) in his Bloudy Tenent, pag. 8. This Answer may suffice to his first (as he calleth it) unanswerable Testimony.

His second unanswerable Testimony is, That some Gentlemen that did consent to his Sentence, have solemnly testified, and with teares since confessed to himselfe, that they could not in their soules have been brought to have consented to the Sentence of his Banishment, had not M ^r. Cotton in private given them advice, and counsell, proving it just, and warran­table to their Consciences.

Reply. I might here justly plead the equitie of the Romane Custome, to excuse my selfe from this accusation, untill the accu­sers come before me face to face: And truely, if Apocryphall wit­nesses may goe for unanswerable Testimonies, it is an easie matter to oppresse any innocency: I might also plead the incompetency of such a witnesse, as (haply lying under some censure from our Church, and removing himselfe from our fellowship) might take more liberty to speake against me in a pang of passion, what he would be loath to justifie in cold bloud.) I might likewise alledge that one or two Magistrates makes not a Court, nor was his Sen­tence cast by the vote of one, or two: So that if I had counselled one or two to it, it would not argue that the act of the Magistrates, and of the Deputies, (which is the body of the Court) had been done by my counsell or consent. And indeed it was the very true [Page 38]meaning of my speech, that for the hastening of the Sentence of the Court against M ^r. Williams, that act of the Court (which was the act of the body of the Magistrates, and of the Deputies) it was neither done by my counsell, nor consent. For the body of them neither required my counsell, nor received my consent. What one of them did (for I remember but one that consulted with me about it) was not the act done by the Magistrates, whereof I spake. And let the occasion, and scope, and matter of that speech be remem­bred, and it will be found to tend to that purpose, and no other. About a yeare before the Sentence in Court passed against M ^r. Wil­liams, the Governour, and other Magistrates having understood of the disturbances put upon the Civill State by M ^r. Williams, (which have been declared above) they sent for the Elders of the Churches in these parts, to acquaint us therewith, and to declare thereupon, the just grounds which they had to proceed against him: yet willing to conferre thereof with us, because he was an Elder of a Church. I doe not love to predicate mine own good of­fices to any: but his importunitie forceth me to utter it; when I heard the motion, I presented (with the consent of my fellow El­ders and Brethren) a serious Request to the Magistrates, that they would be pleased to forbeare all civill prosecution against him, till our selves (with our Churches) had dealt with him in a Church way, to convince him of sinne: alledging, that my selfe, and bre­thren hoped, his violent course did rather spring from scruple of conscience, (though carried with an inordinate zeale) then from a seditious Principle. To which the Governour replyed, That wee were deceived in him, if we thought he would condescend to learne of any of us: And what will you doe (saith he) when you have run your course, and found all your labour lost? I answered for the rest, we hoped bet­ter things: if it fell out contrary to our hopes, we could not helpe it, but must sit downe, and quiet our conscience in the Lords ac­ceptance of our will, and endeavour for the deed.

This interceding of my selfe, and other Elders in his behalfe, gave me just occasion of that profession above-mentioned, That I had sought to deliver him, who without cause reproached mee.

The issue was when the Church of New-Towne, with our owne, and others had endeavoured to convince both M ^r. Williams of these offences, and the Church of Salem of their indulgent tolera­tion [Page 39]of him therein; it pleased the Lord to open the hearts of the Church to assist us in dealing with him: but he in stead of hear­kening, either to them, or us, renounced us all, as no Churches of Christ: and therefore not at all to be hearkened unto.

Whereupon the Magistrates being to assemble to the next Gene­rall Court at New-Towne, intending (as appeared by the event) to proceed against him: And one of the Magistrates of our Towne being to goe thither, acquainted me that it was likely M ^r. Williams his cause would then be issued, and asked me what I thought of it. Truely (said I,) I pitie the man, and have already interceded for him, whilest there was any hope of doing good. But now he having refused to heare both his own Church, and us, and having rejected us all, as no Churches of Christ before any conviction, we have now no more to say in his behalfe, nor hope to prevaile for him. Wee have told the Governour, and Magistrates before, that if our labour was in vaine, wee could not helpe it, but must fit downe. And you know they are generally so much incensed against his course, that it is not your voyce, nor the voyces of two, or three more, that can suspend the Sentence. Some further speech I had with him of mine own marvell at the weaknesse, and slendernesse of the grounds of his opinions, motions, and courses, and yet carried on with such vehemency, and impetuousnesse, and prefidence of Spirit.

To this purpose was my speech to him, nor can I call to minde that I spake so much as this to any man else; nor can I remember at all, that further then so, I gave him any grounds to prove the sentencing of him to Banishment, to be just and warrantable to his Conscience. Nor would it infringe the truth of my speech if I had so done, seeing it is not one mans vote (nor two, if there had been two) that denominateth the sentence of the Court, or the act to be done by the Magistrates, much lesse done by the Magistrates with my counsell, and consent: but though I looked at the Sen­tence of the Court, as neither hastened nor done by my counsell, and consent, yet I did never intend to say, that I did not consent to the justice of the Sentence when it was past. Not that I withdrew my selfe out of the Court (as he is pleased to construe it) out of some reluctation; or that I meant it, I neither counselled nor consented in the very time of the sentence passing: but that I did not before-hand either give counsell, or consent to the body of the Magistrates, or Depu­ties, to passe that Sentence against him.

TO CHAP. V.

I see I have been so large in answering the former foure Chapters of this Examination of my Letter, that if I should proceed in the like sort in a particular search of the other twenty-foure Chapters which remaine, I should take up more time then were meet about the personall concernments of him, or my selfe. Who are wee, that we should publickly invite the servants of Christ (who are em­ployed in more weighty affaires of their Lord and ours) to attend unto personall Transactions between him, and me? Where any thing shall occurre tending to more publick edification, I shall in­sist with more attention thereupon, and passe over other lighter Discourses, with a lighter touch. Yet who so can spare so much time, and leisure, as to compare each Chapter of his, with each Chapter of this Discourse, he shall finde (if I be not mistaken) no passage of weight passed over without returning due Answer to each particular. That Text in Prov. 11.26. (He that withholdeth the Corne, (which is the staffe of life) from the people, the multitude shall curse him:) I alledged to prove that the people had much more cause to separate such from amongst them, (whether by Civill, or Church-Cen­sure, as doe withhold, or separate them from the Ordinances, or the Ordi­nances from them, which are (in Christ) the bread of life. Let not the Reader be so farre mis-led by the Examiner his mis-information, as to thinke, that this Scripture was produced against him, to justi­fie either a false Ministery, or an unfit people to choose and enjoy a true Ministery. The Ministery, and people, are the Ministery and people of this Countrey: of which, the people he acknow­ledgeth to be Saints: and the Ministers of the Churches (chosen by them) not to be destitute of such qualifications, as Christ re­quireth, save onely that we doe not forbid the people when they goe over into England, to heare the word of God preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches. Now for this cause, because we doe not separate these English hearers from us, he separated himselfe, and withdre others from hearing the word in our Churches with us: which I accounted as great, and as unsufferable an injury to the soules of Gods people, as it would be to their bo­dies to withhold the Corne from them, or them from the Corne: and for that end I produced this Scripture.

That I produced this Scripture alone to justifie the Sentence of the Court, it was not for want of others, (if that had been the Question;) but because the scope of my Letter was, not to con­firme the equitie of his Banishment, but to convince the iniquitie of his Separation. The mention of the cause of his civill Banishment fell in onely upon the by, to remove an objection out of the way, that because I denied the act of the Court to be done by my coun­sell, or consent, therefore it might seeme I disallowed the sentence. To prevent that mistake I acknowledged the righteousnesse of the Sentence, and for that end produced that Scripture, as that which might give both some just reason before God of his Civill Banish­ment: and also make way for the discovery of his sinne of ground­lesse Separation. Let no man be so farre mistaken, as to thinke, that his Separation from the Churches, was either the chiefe dif­ference between the Court and him, (though it was the chiefe be­tween him and me in my Letter;) or that it was the chiefest of­fence for which he suffered, though he so pretended.

What though neither corporall nor spirituall food may lawfully be sold or bought, but with the good will, and consent, and authoritie of the owner? &c.

Let him make it appeare, that Christ hath not committed the Ministery of the Gospel to us; and wee shall give place to others whom Christ shall send: Meane while, if the budding, and blos­soming, and fruit-bearing of Aarons rod was a witnesse from Hea­ven, that the Lord approved his Ministery against all the murmur­ings of the Children of Israel, Num. 17.5. to 8. We must leave him, and others to their murmurings against us, and quiet our consci­ces in an humble blessing of the Lord for his gracious blessing upon our weake labours in that holy Ministery wee have received from him.

What though the Apostles were to turne away, and to shake off the dust of their feete, against scorners, contradictors, despisers, persecutors?

It was not till they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, and scorned, and persecuted the convincing light of the Gospel, Acts 13.45. to 51.

Otherwise the Jewes were scorners, and persecutors of Christ himselfe, and of all that confessed his Name, Joh. 9.22. yet still the Apostles ceased not to Preach to them, and pray with them, [Page 42] Acts 3.1. &c. to wit, whilest their Persecutors sinned of ignorance, ver. 17.

What though the Apostles were forbidden to Preach to some places?

He wisely quoteth no Text for it, lest the quoting might be the confuting of himselfe. He knoweth, it was but for a time that o­thers (according to the good pleasure of Christs will) might be served before them.

What if M ^r. Cotton saw just cause to refuse to sell spirituall Corne in a mis-hallowed Surplice? Is it safe therefore for M ^r. Williams to shut up his sacks mouth, and to refuse to sell corne in his ordinary apparrell?

What if M ^r. Cotton forbeare to administer the Lords Supper to all beleevers, or Baptisme unto their children, untill the beleevers professe their Faith, and Repentance before the Church? Is it safe therefore for M ^r. Williams to refuse to Breake the Bread of Life unto the Church of Salem, whereunto their Election, and Ordination of him, and his own voluntary acceptance thereof, had engaged him unto stu­wardly office?

What though in all Civill Transactions, and in all the present distur­bances of England, principall respect is had unto a right Commission, and right Order? Let him shew wherein our Commission, or Or­der is defective, and reason would we should hearken to him.

But see the warinesse, and slinesse of the Examiner: I judge it not (saith he) seasonable here, to entertaine the Dispute of the true Power, and call of Christs Ministery. An handsome evasion. Now when the grounds of his Separation are questioned, now when he standeth upon his open justification, now in Print before the eyes of all men, now he thinketh it not seasonable, to entertaine any dispute of such things at all. Thus Foelix would heare Paul when he had a more convenient time: and yet that was the very time and houre of his visitation, Acts 24.25.

His evasion of this Text in Prov. 11.26. (by comparing it with Deut. 17.12.) doth but adde a delusion to an evasion. [ Deut. 17. I suppose he meaneth, though his printed copie say Deut. 15.] For it is a delusion to make the capitall punishment prescribed a­gainst the presumptuous rejection of the Sentence of the chiefest Court in Israel, a figure of Excommunication in the Church of Christ.

For first, no Scripture of old or new Testament giveth any in­timation of any such figure in this Law. And to make a judiciall Law a figure without some light from some Scripture, is to make a mans selfe, wise above that which is written.

2. That law is of morall equitie, that is of universall and per­petuall equitie, in all Nations, in all Ages: He that shall presump­tuously appeale from, or rise up against the sentence of the chiefest and highest Court in a free State, is guilty Laesae majestatis publicae, and therfore as a capitall offender to be censured in any free Com­mon-wealth.

3. This Law in Deut. 17. provided an effectuall punishment a­gainst such presumptuous offenders, and an effectuall remedy a­gainst all such like presumption in others, that all Israel might heare, and feare, and doe no more presumptuously, ver. 13. But so doth not Excommunication. For what if an Excommunicate person pre­sume against the sentence of Christ in his Church, (as M ^r. Williams doth against the Sentence of the Church of Salem?) doth the power of the Church provide, that all the Israel of God may heare, and feare, and doe no more presumptuously? Is the figure become more powerfull, and effectuall, then the substance? the shadow, then the body? the type, then the Antitype?

From this mistaken Figure, the Examiner would inferre, The withholding of the Corne presumptuously to be death in Israel: but not so in every State of the world: much lesse the pleading against a false Mini­stery to be a capitall crime: for as for Banishment never such a course was heard of in Israel.

Answ. That law in Deut. hath nothing to doe with the with­holding of Corne presumptuously, unlesse there had first passed some sentence of the Soveraigne Court against the withholding of Corne. But otherwise ordinary sinnes of presumption, doe fall under the Judicature of another Law, Num. 15.30, 31.

Neither hath this Text in Solomons Proverbs any thing to doe with that Law in Deut. 17. nor with capitall punishment. Solomon doth not say, that every man that withholdeth his corne, shall be put to death in Israel: nor doe I say that he is to be put to death in any State of the world: least of all doe I say that Pleading against a false Ministery is a capitall crime: These are all but excursions, and evaporations of the superfluity of wit. But this I say, (and not [Page 44]I but Solomon) He that withholdeth the Corne, the people shall curse him, Prov. 11.26. And cursing implyeth Separation. He there­fore that shall withdraw, or separate, the Corne from the people, or the people from the Corne; the people have just cause to sepa­rate either him from themselves, or themselves from him. And this proportion will hold as well in spirituall Corne as bodily: the Ar­gument still standeth unshaken.

What though we never read of Banishment in Israel? we read of something proportionable: what else meaneth that Decree? Let Judgement be executed to death, or to Banishment, Ezra. 7.27. And Ezra. 10.8? Let all his substance be forfeited, and himselfe separated from the Congregation of those that had been carried away. And in Mo­ses, frequent mention is made of, Cutting off from the people; which though in Israel, it may sometime signifie, cutting off by Gods hand, sometime by the sword of the Magistrate, and sometime cutting off from the fellowship of Gods House: yet in Abrahams Family, The cutting off (in Gen. 17.14.) may very well reach, cutting off from their civill Cohabitation: as for a like offence Ish­mael, and his mother were cut off from cohabitation in the Tents of Abrahams people, Gen. 21.9. to 14.

Also he that had unawares slaine a man, was banished, though not out of all Israel, yet from his own House, and Towne, and Tribe, till the death of the High Priest, and that was as much as Banishment out of any Society of Christs people now, whether in Church, or Civill Fellowship. For though out of Israel, there was no full Banishment legally enjoyned, because there was then no o­ther Church extant in the world, (and so to banish a man out of Israel, was as much as to say, Goe, and serve other Gods, 1 Sam. 26.19) yet now when Church-fellowship in the true Religion may be had in so many places, to banish a man out of his Countrey, is no more then it was then to banish an Israelite into a Citie of Re­fuge. But though banishment be now a lawfull punishment in some case, yet I goe not about to prove that every wilfull withholding of corne, in every State is banishment, much lesse death. But he that shall withhold his own corne, and goe about to perswade all o­thers that have corne lying by them, to shut up their sacks mouths, and not to bring forth their corne for the nourishment of the peo­ple, (which is, if we speake of spirituall corne, the very case of the [Page 45]Examiner) I doe not see but such an one may be justly accounted as Hostis Reipublicae, a publick enemy of the Countrey, and, as such an one, in due order, to be cast out of it.

In due order I say; for if such an one be detained from bring­ing forth his corne by some scruple of Conscience, (as suppose a man able to Preach Christ, and so able to dispense spirituall corne, yet doubting of the true way of the Ministery since the Apostasie of Antichrist, dare not practise the Ministery.) Such an one should not be sodainly cast out of the Countrey, till he be first convinced, that the Apostasie of Antichrist, did never so farre prevaile against the Church of Christ, as to roote it out from off the face of the earth. The woman (which is the Church of Christ) was still nou­rished in a Wildernesse, even during all the Reigne of Antichrist, Rev. 12.14, 15, 16. The Temple of God, (which is his Church) together with the Altar, and them that worship therein, were still measured, and that by John (by Apostolick measure) all the time, when Antichrist trod downe the outward Court of the holy City, Rev. 11.1, 2. The Golden vessels of the Temple still continued in the middest of the Babylonish Captivitie. And if spirituall Babylon have now so farre prevailed against the Church of Christ, as that they have rooted it up from the face of the earth, then what is be­come of the promise of Christ; The gates of Hell shall never prevaile against it? Mat. 16.18. Surely the Promise is given to a particular Congregationall Church, that it shall never faile, but shall alwayes be extant in some Countrey, or other; for he speaks of such a Church, to whom the keyes of the Kingdome are committed, ver. 19. It will be vaine to look for new Apostles to replant Chur­ches out of the ruines of the Antichristian Apostasie. For the new Testament acknowledgeth Paul and Barnabas to be the last Apo­stles, 1 Cor. 4.9. If any Apostles rise up after them, then Paul and Barnabas will not be the last. And when the New Hierusalem comes downe from Heaven, yet shee shall not be builded by any new Apo­stles, but built upon that foundation which the Lambes twelve A­postles have already laid, Rev. 21.14.

As for those many excellent, and worthy Gentlemen, Lawyers, Physici­ans, and others, whom the Examiner commendeth to be as well gifted in the knowledge of the Scripture, and furnished with gifts, of tongues, and utterance, as most that professe the Ministery, and yet are not perswaded [Page 46]to sell spirituall Corne, as questioning their true calling, and Commis­sion.

In such a case I would first seeke (by the helpe of Christ) to re­move the scruples upon which they question their calling, and Commission.

Secondly, I would thinke it meet, to put a difference between such as never received a lawfull calling and commission to the Mi­nistery, and them that have received it. But if any of them have re­ceived a lawfull calling into the Ministery, and yet will neither Preach themselves, nor suffer them that would, I suppose that both Church, and Common-wealth, may justly account them unwor­thy of any Christian society; and as such unprofitable servants re­fuse to minister themselves, or to suffer others to minister spirituall things; so others should refuse to minister to them carnall things.

But (saith he) the selling, or withholding of spirituall Corne, are both of a spirituall nature: and therefore must necessarily in a true Paralell beare Relation to a spirituall Curse.

Answ. If they that minister spirituall good things may duely reape carnall good things, (1 Cor. 9.11.) then they that hinder the ministring of spirituall good things, may justly reape the hin­derance of enjoyment of carnall good things. What if spirituall, and carnall good things be not paralell? Are there no Arguments but a Pari? Is it not lawfull reasoning a majori ad minus? If men hinder the enjoyment of spirituall good things, may they not be hindred from the enjoyment of that which is lesse, carnall good things? It would weary a sober minde to pursue such windy fan­cies: though I hope the Lord will helpe me not to count it weari­some, either to satisfie a tender Conscience, or to convince a Gain­sayer.

TO CHAP. VI.

THough my Letter expresseth, That it may be the Court passed that sentence against M ^r. Williams, not upon that ground, (from Prov. 11.26.) but for ought I know, for his other corrupt Doctrines (suitable to his Practises) tending to the disturbance of Civill, and holy Peace: Yet I doe not therefore question (as he saith I seeme to [Page 47]doe) the sandinesse of such a ground (as that place of Seripture) to war­rant such proceedings; nor doe I therein confsesse that my selfe had no di­stinct knowledge of the causes of his Banishment.

For I did not alledge that place of Scripture, as a ground upon which the Court proceeded to his Banishment: and therefore I said in my Letter, it may be they passed Sentence not upon that ground. But I alledged it as a reason, which provoked the Lord to moove the Court to proceed against M ^r. Williams, for such other offensive, and disturbant Doctrines, and Practises against the Pa­tent, and against the oath of fidelitie, and against the Magistrates delay of the Petition of Salem, which he himselfe knoweth, I had distinct knowledge of before, which maketh me the more to mar­vell at his wonder, Where was my waking care in his behalfe; Where­as he knoweth I spent a great part of the Summer in seeking by word and writing to satisfie his scruples in the former particulars: untill he rejected both our callings, and our Churches. And even then I ceased not to follow him still, with such meanes of con­viction, and satisfaction in that Point also, as God brought to my hand: whereof this very Letter, (which he examineth, and an­swereth) is a pregnant, and evident demonstration.

What though in this Letter I did not name his other corrupt Doctrines and Practises, nor any Scriptures to prove them corrupt? His heart know­eth full well both the Points, and the Scriptures, that were charged upon him all that Summer. And to have rehearsed them againe in this Letter, it had been but actum agere, neither was it the worke in hand. For having done it before, wee looked for some satisfactory answer: but in stead thereof wee received onely a rejection of our callings, and Churches: so that there was nothing now left, but to endeavour to satisfie his Conscience in the sandinesse of those grounds, upon which he rejected communion with us.

TO CHAP. VII.

IN the 7 ^th Chapter M ^r. Williams examineth those words of my Letter, wherein I say, that were my soule in his soules stead, I should accept it as a mercy of God, to banish me from the Civill Society of such a Common-wealth, where I could not enjoy holy Fellowship with any Church of God amongst them without sinne. For what should the daughter of [Page 48]Zion doe in Babel? Why should shee not hasten to flee from thence?

To this the Examiner answereth, that though his love bids him to hope, that M ^r. Cotton herein intended him a Cordiall, yet if the In­gredients be examined, there will appeare no lesse then dishonour to the Name of God, danger to every Civill State, a miserable comfort to him, and a contradiction within it selfe.

Reply. It is true, what I wrote was in love to his soule: but I intended not a cordiall of consolation to him, (for I did not con­ceive his Spirit at the present prepared for it;) but I intended one­ly a conviction, to abate the rigour of his indignation against the dispensation of divine Justice: And therefore presented before him the mercy of God in that Administration.

But he beginneth with the last, first, to shew me the evill of these Ingredients.

And first for the contradiction to my selfe, in that I speake of the daughter of Zion in Babel: If he call (saith he) the Land Babel, how can it be Babel, and the Church of Christ also?

As if Zion cannot be in Babel, but it must be Babel? or as if the Church cannot be in the world, but it must be the world? Or as if when I call the Land Babel, I speake of it as it is in it selfe, and not rather as it is in his apprehension? the Churches (in his ima­gination) still holding communion with Antichristian Babylon.

Secondly, He maketh it a dangerous Doctrine to affirme it, a misery to live in that State where a Christian cannot enjoy the fellow­ship of the publick Churches of God without sinne.

Reply. 1. Though I doe affirme it to be a mercy to be delivered out of such a State, yet I doe not affirme it to be a misery to live in it. It is a mercy to be translated, not onely from misery to happi­nesse, but from a lesse good to a greater. It is a mercy to a faithfull soule to be translated from a Saint to a Minister; and yet Saintship is no misery.

2. It is some degree of misery, and no small one to a spirituall minde, for a Christian to live where he cannot enjoy the fellow­ship of Churches: or else David complained without cause; Woe is me, that I am constrained to dwell in Meshek, Psal. 120 5. & 42.4.

What if there be many famous States, wherein no Church of Jesus Christ is knowne? Is it not a mercy to be dismissed from such a State to a Land of more liberty, and piety?

What if God commanded his people to Pray for the Peace of materiall Babel, whilest they were forced to abide in it?

Was it not therefore a mercy from God, for Cyrus to deliver them out of Babel?

What if Sodom, Aegypt, Babel, be spiritually understood, Rev. 11.8. & 14.8.

Is it not therefore a mercy when God calleth his People out of such Dungeons, and sinkes of abomination?

What if there were a true Church in materiall Babel? 1 Pet. 5.13.

Let him remember what he spake a little before; That if I speake not of Babel mystically, I speake not to the Point: Let him apply it to himselfe.

Wherefore doth he tell us againe of his being driven into the mise­ries of an howling Wildernesse?

1. It was no howling Wildernesse when he came to it, as hath been said above.

2. He might have gone to other English Plantations Eastward, Pascato (que), and Agaminticus.

3. Solomon telleth us, It is better to live in a Wildernesse, then with a contentious, and angry woman, Prov. 21.19. And such he account­eth all our Churches, and Courts to be.

Thirdly, saith he, M ^r. Cotton himselfe would have counted it a mercy, if he might have Practised in Old-England, what he doth in New-England, with the enjoyment of Civill Peace, &c.

Reply. True; but what is that to the purpose? The Question is if I could not enjoy the Fellowship of publick Churches without sinne, (as in those dayes I could not) whether then I would ac­count it a mercy to be removed? Verily, I doe so account it, and blesse the Lord from my soule for his aboundant mercy in forcing me out thence, in so fit a season.

But further, (saith he) what if M ^r. Cotton should dissent from the new English-Churches, and joyne in worship with some other, (as some few yeares since, he was upon the Point to doe, in a separation from the Churches there, as Legall) would he count it a mercy to be pluckt up by the rootes, him, and his, and to endure the losses, distractions, miseries, that doe attend such a condition?

Reply. The Examiner is falsly, and foully mis-informed, when he saith, I was about to separate some few yeares since from the new Eng­lish [Page 50]Churches as Legall. For I never counted them as Legall Chur­ches; nor was I ever about to separate from them as Legall, or o­therwise so uncleane, that a good conscience might not hold com­munion with them without sinne.

The truth is, There was a Generation of Familists in our own, and other Townes, who under pretence of holding forth, what I had taught, touching union with Christ, and evidencing of that union, did secretly vent sundry corrupt, and dangerous errors, and heresies, denying all inherent righteousnesse, and all evidencing of a good estate thereby in any sort, and some of them denying also the Immortalitie of the soule, and Resurrection of the body. When they were questioned by some Brethren about those things, they carried it as if they held forth nothing but what they had received from me. Whereof when I was advertised, to cleare my selfe, I pub­lickly Preached against these errors. Then said the Brethren to the erring party, See, your Teacher declares himselfe clearely to differ from you. No matter (say the other) what he saith in publick, we understand him otherwise, and we know what he saith to us in private. Yea and I my selfe could not easily beleeve that those er­ring Brethren, and Sisters were so corrupt in their Judgements, as they were reported, they seeming to me forward Christians, and utterly denying unto me any such Tenents, or any thing else but what they received from my selfe. All which bred in sundry of the Countrey a jealousie that I was in secret a Fomenter of the Spirit of Familisme, if not leavened my selfe that way. Which I discern­ing, it wrought in me thoughts, (as it did in many other sincerely godly Brethren of our Church) not of a Separation from the Churches, as Legall, (whom we truely embraced, and honoured in the Lord) but of a Remoovall to New Haven, as being better knowne to the Pastor, and some others there, then to such as were at that time jealous of me here. The true Ground whereof was, an inward loathnesse to be troublesome to godly mindes, and a feare of the unprofitablenesse of my Ministery there, where my way was suspected to be doubtfull, and dangerous. I chose therefore rather to meditate a silent departure in Peace, then by tarrying here to make way for the breaking forth of Temptations. But when at the Synod I had discovered the corruption of the Judge­ment of the erring Brethren, and saw their fraudulent pretence of [Page 51]holding forth no other, but what they received from me, (when as indeed they pleaded for grosse errors, contrary to my judgement;) and thereupon bare witnesse against them; and when in a private conference with some chiefe Magistrates, and Elders, I perceived that my purpose of removall upon such differences was unwelcome to them, and that such Points needed not to occasion any distance (neither in place, nor in heart) amongst Brethren, I then rested satisfied in my abode amongst them, and so have continued by the Grace of Christ unto this day.

But now to returne to M ^r. Williams his Question; In the time of this Difference, would I count it (saith he) a mercy to be pluckt up by the rovtes, me, and mine, and to endure the losses, distractions, and mise­ries, that doe attend such a condition?

Answ. Yea truely, if those jealousies, and differences had still held, I should have accounted it, and then did account it a mercy to see a doore open for remoovall. And therefore in my heart chose it, and purposed it, as a way of wisdome, and mercy.

But whereas he talketh of plucking up by the rootes, the Meta­phor is too Catachresticall. An old Tree pluckt up by the rootes is not like to grow againe: but neither he, nor I, was exposed to such an Eradication: we might have remooved (with our selves) whatsoever mooveables we had; and what we could not remoove, we might put it off (sooner, or later) unto others for a valuable consideration. So that though wee had been plucked up by the rootes, our rootes had not been dried up, but would have sprung forth againe to our comfortable supportance.

It is a question altogether impertinent, which the Examiner put­teth in the next place, Whether if the Inhabitants in New-England were permitted to enjoy in Old-England their Congregationall way, whether then M ^r. Cotton himselfe (if be were seated in Old England againe) would count it a mercy to be banished from the Civill State?

For that is not at all the Question in hand, but this: whether if there were no Congregationall Churches in Old-England, unto which we might joyne without sinne, whether then it were a mer­cy to be thrust out? And verily for my selfe (and I doubt not for many a thousand more) I should account is a mercy, to be haste­ned out, yea, (if I lingred) to be thrust out in such a case. If many thousand godly persons in this Countrey did not make the same [Page 52]account, how came we to dwell here, as we doe this day?

Neither yet doe I make God the Author of such cruell mercy, in them that were the causes of our casting out, as he calumniateth.

For the Instruments of any unjust dealing with the servants of God may be cruell: when yet the hand of God in ordering such a worke may be most mercifull. The hand of God was most merci­full to Joseph in casting him out of his Fathers house into Aegypt, when yet the hand of his brethren was defiled with bloud-guiltie cruelty.

When the Examiner concludeth, that if I had been exposed to the miseries, poverties, necessities, wants, debts, hardships of Sea and Land, in a banished Condition, he presumeth I would reach forth a more merci­full Cordiall to the afflicted; and therefore looketh at himselfe afflicted, as a Lampe despised in the eyes of him that is at ease, Job 12.5.

I desire the Lord might be pleased to open his eyes by such af­flictions, wisely to consider whether he be not out of his way, when he meeteth with such miseries, poverties, debts, hardships? Surely when God hedgeth in the way of his people with thornes, he cal­leth them to returne to their first husband, for then it was better with them, then now, Hos. 2.6. His banishment was doubtlesse no cause of such afflictions: Divers others have been cast out of the Countrey, as well as he, and yet God hath generally rescued them from affliction, & prospered their estates before his eyes. But when he chooseth rather to betake himselfe to merchandise by Land and Sea, (unto which he was never brought up) then to serve the Lord, and his People in dispensing spirituall food to them in a Church­way, no marvell if the Lord doe not shine upon his way, but ex­pose him to debts, necessities, poverties, miseries, hardships by Sea and Land. It is farre off from me to despise his afflicted condition: but the truest mercifull cordiall to his afflicted estate, would be to perswade him that he is out of his way, and still blesseth himselfe (though God both crosse his estate, and blast his spirit) in such a way.

As for my being at ease, (as he calleth it) had he been a little longer acquainted with the faithfull discharge of a Ministers of­fice, he would not judge it such a state of ease. If I durst allow my selfe to seeke, and take mine ease, I should sooner choose a private solitary condition in his Wildernesse, then all the throng of em­ployment in this numerous society.

TO CHAP. VIII.

IN his 8 ^th Chapter M ^r. Williams rehearseth, and examineth those words of my Letter, wherein to helpe him to a serious sight of his sinne, I said that it pleased the Lord Jesus to fight against his cor­rupt wayes with the sword of his mouth, in the mouths and testimonies of the Churches, and Brethren. Against whom, when M ^r. Williams o­ver-heated himselfe in reasoning, and disputing against the light of his Truth, it pleased the Lord to stop his mouth, by a sodaine disease, and to threaten to take his breath from him. But he in stead of recoyling (as even Balaam offered to doe in the like case) chose rather to persist in his way, and to protest against all the Churches, and Brethren that stood in his way, &c.

In these lines, the Examiner telleth us, an humble, and discern­ing Spirit may espie, first, a glorious justification, and boasting of my selfe, and others concurring with me: secondly, an unrighteous, and uncharita­ble Censure of the afflicted.

Reply. Whether is it a more glorious boasting, to challenge to a mans selfe, an humble, and discerning Spirit, (as the Examiner doth here, and elsewhere in this Treatise) or to ascribe the glory to Christ in fighting with the sword of his mouth, in the testimonies and labours of the Churches, and Brethren against his corrupt wayes?

Surely when our glorying is not in our selves, but in the Lord Jesus, we are allowed so to doe by the Holy Ghost, Isa. 45.25. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

Object. But is it not a glorious boasting of our selves, when as wee make the sword in our mouths, and testimonies, to be the sword of the mouth of Christ; when as the holy Scripture putteth the sword of Christ in the mouths of such witnesses, as himselfe, and some others, who in meek­nesse, and patience, testifie the truth of Jesus against Antichrist, and a­gainst all false Callings of Ministers? And whether is M ^r. Cotton, swimming with the streame of outward credit, and profit, and smiting with the fist, and sword of Persecution: or himselfe, and such other the witnesses of Christ, most like unto Balaam?

Reply. 1. The quicknesse of the Examiners wit over-runneth his judgement; for I did not compare him to Balaam as like, much lesse [Page 54]as most like; but as unlike. For that which Balaam would have done, I said, he would not doe.

2. Let the light of the holy word of God discover, and judge, whether the sword of the mouth of the Lord Jesus be found in his mouth, and his fellowes, or in the mouths of the Churches, and Brethren here: and let the tryall be upon this very Point, whether witnesseth for Christ, or for Antichrist?

1. We witnesse that Christ was never so farre overthrowne, and overcome by Antichrist, but that still the Lord Jesus hath preser­ved a Congregationall Church, one or more, especially since the Reformation of Religion, by the Ministery of Luther, and Calvin, and other Ministers of Christ in the dayes of our Fathers.

The Examiner witnesseth, that since the Apostasie of Antichrist, Antichrist hath so farre prevailed against Christ, and his King­dome, that he hath no Church, nor Church-Officers left upon the face of the earth to this day.

2. Wee witnesse the godly persons, visible Saints, confessing their knowne sinnes, and professing their faith, are fit materialls for Church-fellowship.

The Examiner witnesseth, that the Churches (which consist of such visible Saints) are nullities, unlesse they discerne every spot, and pollution of Antichrist, and forsake it: (for Instance) unlesse they see the Antichristian pollution of the Ministery in England, and doe refuse to heare the word from it.

3. We witnesse, that Persons qualified with a convenient mea­sure of spirituall gifts, fit to lead Gods people; and chosen, and elected by a Congregation of visible Saints, and ordained, and set apart unto the worke of the Ministery, have received a lawfull cal­ling from Christ to that office.

The Examiner witnesseth against this as a false Calling, upon what pretence himselfe better knowes then I.

4. We witnesse, that it is lawfull for the King of England, to give a Patent to a certain number of his Subjects, to transplant them­selves out of England into America, and to possesse such Lands as the Providence of God layeth open before them, between such, and such Degrees of the Horizon. Provided that his Subjects adventure not upon such acts as the Patent never intended, as to murther the Natives, or to dispossesse them by violence or fraud of their lawfull [Page 55]Possessions: but either to plant themselves in a vacuum Domicilium, or if they sit downe upon the Possession of the Natives, to receive the same from them by a reasonable Purchase, or free Assigne­ment.

The Examiner witnesseth against all such Patents, and Preach­eth it to be unlawfull for Magistrates to execute Justice upon the English by them, and that it is necessary to repent of receiving such Patents, and to returne them back againe into the hands of those Princes, or of their Successors, from whom they received them.

5. We witnesse, that it is lawfull for Magistrates (especially in time of danger) to offer to the Subjects under them an Oath of Fidelity, whether they be regenerate, or unregenerate.

M ^r. Williams witnesseth it to be utterly unlawfull so to doe: an Oath for confirmation of Office being peculiar to Christ: and an Oath being a worship of God not meete for unregenerate Persons to take into their mouths.

6. Wee witnesse, that if a Church refuse to hearken to the voyce of Magistrates in delaying the Election, or ordination of such an one to Office, whom they finde to be troublesome to the State, then it may be lawfull for Magistrates to delay the granting of the Petition of such a Church for Lands that lie convenient for them.

M ^r. Williams witnesseth, that in such a case the Church, whose Petition is so delayed, may write Letters of Admonition to all the Churches, whereof such Magistrates are members, to require them to grant without delay such Petitions, or else to Proceed against them in a Church-way.

Now let the Churches of Jesus Christ, and all the Saints on earth judge, in whether sort of these witnesses, the word, and Spirit of Christ, or Antichrist breatheth. As for the deciphering which the Examiner maketh of M ^r Cotton, as swimming with the streame of out­ward credit, and profit, and smiting with the fist, and sword of Persecu­tion of such as doe not joyne in worship with him. I cannot say that I have sworn, but I thanke God I have waded through credit, and discredit, through evill report, and good report, as a deceiver, and yet true. And for profit, I have neither abounded in superfluities, nor (through mercy) have been long destitute of necessaries: but whether this be a badge of Antichrist, and not compatible to the witnesses of Christ, I have not yet learned.

And for smiting with the fist, and sword of Persecution, if Per­secution be affliction for Righteousnesse sake, I would willingly learne of the Examiner, whom of all the Righteous I have smitten with the fist, or wounded with the sword? I speake according to his own meaning, meaning (as I suppose himselfe doth) neither bodily fist, nor materiall sword; but let him then Instance in some one, or other, that hath felt the heavinesse of my fist, or the keen­nesse of my sword, or else let him remember what the Spirit of God hath said ( Psal. 31.18.) concerning such, as speake bitter things proudly, and contemptuously, (and I also adde) injurious­ly, and falsely against those whom himselfe in the next line styleth holy, and beloved.

To the second, the Censure which he calleth unrighteous, and un­charitable; He confesseth, it pleased God to bring him neere unto death: But his Answer he returneth in two things. 1. By deriving the cause of his sicknesse, not from his excessive heate in disputing against the testi­monies, and writings of the Churches, and Elders, but from his excessive Labours on the Lords dayes, and thrice a weeke at Salem, by labours day and night in the field with his own hands, by travels day and night also to goe, and returne from the Court.

Reply. The Court being held within twelve or fourteene miles distance from Salem, travell to, and fro, was no likely cause of such distemper. And whatsoever his Labours were in Towne or Field, on the Lords Dayes, or weeke dayes, (I detract not from them;) but this is all I would say, That that sodaine distemper fell not upon him, neither in the field at his labour, nor on the weeke dayes, or Lords dayes in his Preaching: but in his vehement publick arguing against the writings, and testimonies of the Chur­ches, and Brethren sent to him, and to the Church of Salem, against his corrupt wayes. Wherein though I know, All things fall alike to all: yet if Moses himselfe (as well as Balaam) meet with a check in his journey from the hand of God, I beleeve it is a just call to consider; Is there not a lye in my right hand? Or is there not an Idol in my heart? or doe I goe about the worke of God, in a way of God? Howsoever, it was farre from me to upbraide your sick­nesse, (as your marginall note taxeth;) but rather to call you to consider of your unprofitable, and perverse use of it.

The second part of his Answer is a Recrimination of the Officer [Page 57]of Justice, by whom in this time he was unmercifully driven from his Chamber to a winters flight.

Reply. When he saith, in this time; if he meane (as the words foregoing expresse) the time wherein he was neere unto death, it is a manifest untruth. James Bonne For the Officer of Justice (who then was) is a man fearing God, and of a tender Conscience, and who dare not allow that liberty to his tongue, which the Examiner often useth in this Discourse: He testifieth, he then spake with M ^r. Willi­ams, and that he discerned no signe of sicknesse upon him, much lesse of neernesse unto death▪ He testifieth further, that upon the mourning complaint of some of M ^r. Williams his neighbours, who did adhere to him, he left onely the Warrant with him, but left him in his house to take the time for his departure limited in his warrant, which was not that night, though he doe not well re­member how many dayes were set him. But this I have been given to understand, that the increase of concourse of people to him on the Lords dayes in private, to the neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances, and to the spreading of the Leaven of his corrupt ima­ginations, provoked the Magistrates rather then to breed a win­ters spirituall plague in the Countrey, to put upon him a winters journey out of the Countrey. Gangraenam amoveas, no pars sincera trahatur.

TO CHAP. IX.

TO his 9 ^th Chapter, I shall not need to returne any large Re­ply. Let him read over my words againe, which he examineth, and answereth in this Chapter, and they may serve for a just Re­ply unto his Answer, so farre as it is needfull.

Onely let me touch a Passage, or two. When he saith, That af­ter the first manifestation of the countenance of God, reconciled in the bloud of Christ unto his soule, it hath been with him, as with one whom he saith, I told him off, his Questions, and Troubles have not been con­cerning his Reconciliation, and Peace with God, but concerning Sancti­fication, &c.

I would it might please the Lord to perswade his heart, that, that one of whom I spake to him, was but one to whom the Lord [Page 58]dispensed himselfe in that manner; and he a man, though he suf­fered much, and wrote much, yet no where magnified his suffer­ings, nor vilified the Authors of his sufferings: A man that cleaved to the Ordinances, and Saints of God, and not willing to mani­fest his dissent from his Brethren, no not there where he did dis­sent, as willing to attribute more to the judgements of other ser­vants of God, then to arrogate to himselfe.

But surely the ordinary manner of Gods dispensation of him­selfe to his servants, is otherwise; even to those that have been most precious in his sight. Job hath sometimes complained, that God tooke him for his enemy, Job 13.24.26. David sometimes com­plaineth, that he was cut off from before Gods eyes, Psal. 31.22. And that God sometimes hid his face from him, Psal. 30.7. That his soule was also sore vexed with the sence of Gods anger, and hot dis­pleasure, Psal. 6.1. 3 Asaph also complaineth of the same, in Psal. 77. and Heman the Ezrahite in Psal. 88. and Hezekiah in Isai. 38. If the Lord have dealt more indulgently with M ^r. Williams, he hath the more cause to walke humbly, and circumspectly, and fruitfully before the Lord, which is the worst that I wish him. And let him also consider, that whilest he liveth under the Sunne, himselfe is not exempted from the dangerous Inmate of a deceitfull heart. As for Master Smith he standeth, and falleth to his own Master: whilest he was Preacher to the Citie of Lincolne, he wrought with God then: what temptations befell him after, by the evill work­ings of evill men, and some good men too, I choose rather to tremble at, then discourse of. If I had made use of his Principles, and Arguments, (as this Examiner saith I have) it is more then my selfe know: for I have not been acquainted with sundry of his writings, as being discouraged with that one, wherein he maketh Originall sinne an idle name. Albeit, I refuse not to learne from any man, as being conscious to my selfe of mine own emptinesse.

But (saith the Examiner) whatsoever M ^r. Smiths Temptations, and Falls have been: yet that opinion of M ^r. Cotton, or any, is most grie­vous to God, and man, and not comparable to any that ever M ^r. Smith could be charged withall: nor is any sinne comparably so grievous in Gods Davids, as a treacherous slaughter of the faithfull, whom wee are forced to call, Beloved in Christ.

Reply. This is one of the Instances amongst many others, upon [Page 59]which I was mooved to speake even now, that the Examiner al­loweth more liberty to his tongue, then the Messenger of Justice, a man of a tender Conscience, (of whom I spake) durst use. But when a man is delivered up to Satan, and neither his minde, nor conscience, nor tongue, nor pen, are his own, no marvell if he cast forth fire-brands, and arrowes, and mortall things, which I sup­pose a Publican, or Pagan would hardly utter, without some more colourable pretence then the Examiner hath to say, That M ^r. Cot­ton is of opinion, that it is lawfull to commit a treacherous slaughter of the Saints, whom we are forced to call, Beloved in Christ.

To the accusation I shall (God helping) make further Answer in his Place: Meane while, let the Examiner know, that I was not forced to call him, Beloved in Christ. That I did so style him, it was out of indulgence of charitie, not out of any necessitie of dutie.

TO CHAP. X.

THe residue of my Letter to M ^r. Williams was taken up in re­mooving two stumbling blocks out of his way, which turned him off from fellowship with us. The former was, the want of fit matter of our Churches. The latter, our disrespect to the separate Churches in England. Our want of fit matter he acknowledged stood, not in this, that we wanted godly persons to be the visible mem­bers of our Churches, (for with joy, he acknowledgeth that:) but in this, that all godly persons are not matter fit to constitute a Church, no more then Trees, or Quarries are fit matter proportioned to a Building.

This exception of his seemed to me to imply a contradiction: for if the matter of our Churches were (such as himselfe acknowledged) godly persons, they were not then as Trees unfeld, nor as stones in the Quarry unhewen: for godlinesse cutteth men downe from their former roote, and heweth them out of the Pit of corrupt Nature, and fitteth them for fellowship with Christ, and with his People.

The summe of his Answer is (though delivered in other words obscurely and confusedly, yet in sence) thus much; That he ac­counteth our members, as Trees or Quarries, not for that they are not yet cut our of the pit or roote of naturall corruption, but for that they are not yet removed and clensed from actuall and Anti­christian [Page 60]pollution. In which case, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Sampson, Job, David, Peter, in their drunkennesse, lying, whoredomes, cursings, murders, Perjuries, though they were godly persons: yet not fit members for Church estate. And so our Church-members, howsoever godly otherwise, yet through ignorance, and negligence, lying under Antichristian polluti­ons, ever since the Apostasie, are not fit members for Church-estate.

Reply. 1. I doe willingly allow him to be the Interpreter of his own meaning: and doe easily grant him, that with that distin­ction, he salveth his contradiction. But yet let him remember, his words were very unproper, to account godly Persons fallen into any actuall Pollution, to be matter fitted for a Church, no more then Trees or Quarries are fit matter proportioned to a Building.

Wee are not wont, neither in common speech, nor in proper speech, to account such persons, as have been already cut off from the roote and pit of naturall corruption, to be no more then Trees and Quarries, though they have since fallen into actuall pollution; but we rather account them like Timber and Stones, cut out, and hewen, yet fallen into some mire by the breach of the Axeltree of their Carriage, and therefore fit to be washed before they be layed in the Building. But leave that, as it please him.

Reply. 2. He may doe well to consider, that the most of those Saints he nameth, were not as rude Trees and Quarries unpro­portioned to the Building, but as Trees of Righteousnesse, and li­ving Stones, layed by God himselfe in the Building of his Church. But I easily grant him, that according to the Discipline of the Churches of Christ in the dayes of the Gospel, it were meete that godly persons falling into any grosse, and scandalous, and notori­ous pollution, they should first give satisfaction to the Church by profession of their Repentance, before they be received into holy fellowship with the Lord, and his People, in Church-communion. In which respect, if Christ be considered as head of the visible Church, he who is a member of the Church, (and so a member of Christ) may fall so foully into grosse sinne, and be so enthralled to it, as to be separate from the Church, yea and from Christ too, considered as the visible head of it. And therefore the Examiner mis­took himselfe, and me too, when he writeth, that I affirmed, that godly per­sons cannot be so enthralled to Antichrist, as to separate them from Christ. For I never denied, that godly persons may fall, as into other grosse [Page 61]and notorious sinnes; so also into grosse and notorious Antichristian Pollutions, so as to separate them from Church-Communion, yea and from Christ himselfe, as he is the Head of the visible Church.

Reply. 3. But to cleare the point more fully and plainly; Put the case, that the Saints whom the Examiner setteth forth in their pol­lutions, (as Noah, Abraham, Lot, Sampson, Job, David, Peter,) sup­pose, I say, they had openly professed their Repentance for their o­pen scandalls, of drunkennesse, lying, incest, murder, &c. and all their other knowne scandalls, but had neither discerned nor be­wayled the sinne of Polygamy: yea, suppose the Church with which they might joyne, did neither discerne the necessitie, nor du­tie of acknowledging that sinne, whether such Saints were to be re­fused from Church-communion, (as rude Trees and Quarries?) or if they were received as members into the Church, whether was such a Church to be separated from? If yea, we must look for new Rules for it out of a new Gospel. If no, then will the Examiner want a Rule for his separation from all the Churches in New-England.

For this is the very state of the Question, as the Examiner him­selfe rehearseth it, in this Chapter. For he having objected, that a necessitie lieth upon godly men, before they can be fit matter for Church-fellowship, to see, bewaile, repent, and come out of the false Churches, wor­ship, Ministery, Government, ( according to Scriptures, Isai. 62.11. 2 Cor. 6.17.) And this to be done, not by a locall remoovall, but by a deliverance of the soule, understanding, will, judgement and affection, &c.

He subjoyneth my Answer out of my Letter in these words;

1. We grant, that it is not locall remoovall from former pollution, nor contrary practise, that fitteth us for fellowship with Christ, and his Church: but that it is necessary also, that we doe repent of such former Pollutions, wherewith we have been defiled and enthralled.

2. We grant further, that it is necessary to Church-fellowship, that we shou'd see and discerne all such pollutions, as doe so farre enthrall us to Antichrist, as to separate us from Christ. But this we professe unto you, that wherein we have reformed our practise, therein we have endeavou­red unfainedly to humble our soules for our former contrary walking. If any through hypocrisie are wanting herein, the hidden hypocrisie of some will not prejudice the sinceritie, and faithfulnesse of others, nor the Church­estate of all.

This though the Examiner doe rehearse it here in this Chapter: [Page 62]yet here he answereth nothing to it, though it be the very hinge of the Controversie. If we meet with any Answer to it in the se­quele, we shall (God willing) consider of it in its place.

Onely let me adde this third thing to cleare the state of the con­troversie more fully, That to this day we doe not see nor discerne, that it is any Antichristian pollution at all, for a member of any of our Churches, going over into England, to heare the word Preach­ed by a well-gifted Minister in the Parish Assemblies.

TO CHAP. XI.

IN this Chapter, the Examiner propoundeth a second, third, fourth, and fifth Reason, to prove that, (which I deny not) to wit, That a necessitie lyeth upon godly men, before they can be fit matter for Church-fellowship, truely to see and humbly to bewaile their spirituall bondage under Antichristian pollution, and withall to obtaine some power and strength from Jesus Christ to bring them out of it.

This I say, I deny not, nor ever did. But this necessitie I conceive to be Necessitas praecepti, (as they call it, or officii) as that which is the commandement of God, and the duty of godly men to doe: But not Necessitas medij ad finem, such a necessitie, as without which a godly person cannot be a member of the Church, unlesse the spi­rituall bondage under Antichristian pollution, doe so farre en­thrall him to Antichrist, as to separate him from Christ as he is the Head of the visible Church. Which what it is, we shall have fitter occasion to speake of in the sequele.

To his second Argument I would therefore Answer, that as an holy Altar and Temple to God, could not have been built to God in the midst of Babylon, but the Builders must come locally out of Babel to build it in Hierusalem: So a Church of Christ cannot be built to God, but by such Builders as spiritually come out of Anti­christian pollutions and inventions, at least out of such pollutions as keepe them still in Babel, and detaine them under Antichrist, and separate them from Christ.

To his third Argument, I would grant all that he saith in it to be true: But how he applieth it to inferre his conclusion, he nei­ther expresseth, nor is it easie for me to gather. If his meaning be, [Page 63]that Luther, and other godly persons, might not be received into Church-fellowship in those dayes, because they saw not the bot­tomlesse gulfe of all those Antichristian corruptions, which the Lord hath since discovered; It is a conclusion that I durst not in­ferre, nor will he be ever able to make good. It is not alwayes full Moone in respect of spirituall light with every Church of God in all ages alike.

To his fourth Argument, taken from my own Practise; In that I doe not receive all Persons, eminent for Grace and godlinesse, forthwith to the fellowship of the Lords Supper, till upon their entrance into Cove­nant, with a Confession of faith, &c.

I would answer, it is not because I thinke such persons are not fit matter for Church estate; but because they yet want a fit Forme, requisite to Church-estate.

His last Argument, is taken from a famous Passage (as he calls it) of a solemne Question put to me, and to the other New-English Elders, unto which I with the rest did answer Negatively, That if godly persons coming over hither did refuse to submit to our way of worship and Go­vernment, that then they could not onely not enjoy Church-fellowship to­gether, but not be permitted to breath and live in the same common ayre and Common-wealth together.

To which I answer; 1. That it is suitable to his wonted bold­nesse, to affirme that of me which is more then he knoweth, and in­deed more then is truth. For though he say, that M ^r. Cotton, and the New English Elders returned that Answer: yet the answer to that Question, and to all the other thirty-two Questions, were drawne up by M ^r. Mader, and neither drawne up nor sent by me, nor (for ought I know) by the other Elders here, though publish­ed by one of our Elders there. Howsoever, the substance of that Answer (not which M ^r. Williams rehearseth, but which M ^r. Mader returned) doth generally suite with all our mindes, as I con­ceive.

2. In particular; The Answer which our reverend and beloved brother M ^r. Mader did returne unto that Question, I have read it, and did readily approve it (as I doe the substance of all his An­swers) to be judicious, and solide. But this I must needs professe, that his Answer to this Question is notoriously slandered, and a­bused by the Examiner.

For 1. There is no word at all in that Answer, that denieth per­mission to such godly persons to live and breath in the same ayre of the Common-wealth. Let the Answer be perused; It is too long for me to transcribe; the Book is publiquely extant, and obvious: and see if there be a syllable sounding that way.

2. In that Answer he distinguisheth (out of M ^r. Cartwright, and M ^r. Parker) touching matters of Church Discipline, and maketh some to be the substantiall and immutable, others of a more acci­dentall and circumstantiall nature.

In the former, he doubteth not but that we and all the godly Mini­sters in England should accord (if they were here;) as beleeving, that either we should satisfie them in our way, or they us in theirs; so as there would never be Question, whether we should embrace one another as Si­ster-Churches.

In the latter, to wit, in matters circumstantiall, we are all taught of God, Placide ferre aliud sentientes.

3. When the Examiner maketh it his own case, not to be per­mitted to live and breath in the same ayre and Common-wealth, though M ^r. Cotton, and others, most incensed, gave him a testimony of godli­nesse, &c.

Let him be pleased to look back, to what hath been formerly laid open, and he will finde this Instance of himselfe wholly im­pertinent. For the casting of him out of the Common-wealth, sprung not from his difference in matters of Church Discipline. It was well knowne that whilest he lived at Salem, he neither ad­mitted, nor permitted any Church-members, but such as rejected all Communion with the Parish Assemblies, so much as in hearing of the Word amongst them. And this libertie he did use and might have used to this day, without any disturbance to his Civill or Church-Peace, (save onely in a way of brotherly disquisition;) but it was his Doctrines and Practises which tended to the Civill disturbance of the Common-wealth, together with his heady and busie pursuite of the same, even to the rejection of all Churches here. These they were that made him unfit for enjoying Commu­nion either in the one state, or in the other. When he reckoneth me, and me onely by name, (as one of the most incensed against him) I reckon it as one of his usuall exorbitant Hyperboles: unlesse by Incensed, he meane one that with some others, were most kind­led, [Page 65]and stirred up to endeavour his satisfaction. And then his terme Incensed, though it be not an Hyperbole, yet it is an Acu­rology.

Neither doe I remember, that he hath any cause to say, that I gave him a Testimony of godlinesse.

For his godlinesse, I leave it to him who is the searcher of hearts: I neither attested it, nor denied it.

Every brother in the Church, though he may be called a bro­ther in Christ, as Christ is the Head of the visible Church: and be­ing cast out of the Church, though he may be admonished as a Brother, and so have some reference still to Christ, yet godlinesse requiteth a Participation of the Divine Nature, (I speake in Peters sence, 2 Pet. 1.4.) by the power of the Spirit of Grace, conform­ing us to fellowship with Christ, and his Churches: the which things have not so evidently appeared to me, (I speak it with griefe) either in his spirit, or in his way these many yeares. And yet I de­ny not, others may discerne more Power of Godlinesse in him, then I doe, and may speake of him accordingly. But it was no uncha­ritable speech of Paul, to tell the Galatians, and that before all the Churches, that he stood in feare of them, Gal. 4.10. The life of faith (from whence springeth both the truth, and the Power of Godlinesse) is very repugnant to Self-fulnesse, [...]; Faith emp­tieth a man of self-confidence, and maketh him apt to acknow­ledge with Agur, Truely I am more foolish then any man, Prov. 30.2. But the Lord help us to tremble before him: If he leave us (though but a while) to our selves, we can soone learne to reigne as Kings, (like the Corinthians) without Church-Officers, or the Ordinan­ces of Christ, 1 Cor. 4.8.

TO CHAP. XII.

HIs 12 ^th Chapter is taken up in Examining and Answering a speech of mine, That godly persons are not so enthralled to Anti­christ, as to separate from Christ: Else they could not be godly persons.

His Answer is, That this cometh not neere the Question, which is not concernign personall godlinesse, or Grace in Christ, but the godlinesse or Christianitie of worship.

Whereupon he distinguisheth of Christ, as considered two waies: 1. Personally, as God-man, &c. 2. As Head of his Church. In the former sence (he acknowledgeth) they cannot be so enthralled to Antichrist, as to be separate from Christ: in the latter they may.

Reply. This distinction of Christ is inconveniently expressed, as was the like once before. For the membra dividentia, the parts of the division are coincident. Christ as God-man is the Head of the vi­sible Church. But his meaning I apprehend, and accept. Christ God-man is Head both of the invisible Church, and of the visible; As he is Head of the invisible Church, so he is received by faith: As he is head of the visible, so he is received by profession of the true faith, both of the grace of faith, and of the Doctrine of faith. The proper fruit whereof is holy worship, and professed subjection to the Rule of the Gospel.

Now for his application of his Distinction, in the generall I doe approve it, and doe willingly acknowledge, that a godly person may be (through ignorance, or negligence) so farre enthralled to Antichrist, as to be separate from Christ, taking Christ as Head of the visible Church. For he may fall into such fundamentall Anti­christian corruption, in Doctrine, or Worship, or Government, as either may justly prevent his admission into the Church, or be­ing in the Church, and yet (through pang of Temptation) conti­nuing obstinate in his corruption after conviction, he may justly be excommunicate out of the Church. But lest I may seeme to ho­ver (and so to vanish) in Generalities, whilest I onely speake of Antichristian corruptions in generall: I shall willingly Instance in some Particulars, which may give light to others of like nature. It is an Antichristian corruption in Doctrine, to accept any Propitia­tory Sacrifices for our reconciliation, but the death of Christ only.

It is a like corruption, to look for Justification from sinne in the sight of God by our own works.

It is an Antichristian corruption in worship, to worship Angels, or Saints, or Images.

It is an Antichristian corruption in Government, to take the Pope to be the Head of the Church: and such an Head as hath Power to make Laws to binde the Conscience, to authorize Scrip­ture to be Canonicall, to adde other Books to Scripture with like Authoritie, to be himselfe the onely Authenticall Interpreter of Scripture, and Judge of Controversies.

These and the like corruptions are such as make Antichrist a Sonne of Perdition, and them that are led by him to fall into like Perdition with him. Of one of these Points Paul saith, They that hold it, hold not the Head, Col. 2.18, 19. Of another of these Paul saith, They that hold it are abolished from Christ, Gal. 5.4. The like wee may say of all the rest. Yet in times of former darknesse, some of the faithfull members of Christ, might and were for a time entangled with a yoke of Bondage, in some, or most, or all of these Particulars: out of which the Lord at length rescued them by va­riety of Temptations, and by some breaking forth of light in the mouths of some of his witnesses in every age.

But whilest any of them walked in these, or like corruptions, they might justly be debarred from admission into Church-fellow­ship: or standing fast in them after conviction, they might justly be cast forth out of Church-fellowship.

But there be other corruptions, and Antichristian corruptions too, which because they doe not subvert the Foundation, neither of faith, nor of Church-order, I would not say that they separate from Christ, no not as he is the Head of the visible Church. For then if some whole Church were leavened with them, they might soone cease to be a Church. But we see the contrary in Scripture, the High Places were tolerated in Judah, and yet Judah ceased not to be a Church: And by like proportion some more high and emi­nent Power may be given by some Churches to their Officers, (ac­cording to an Antichristian Patterne in some measure) and yet they not cease to be a Church. David and all the Congregation of Israel might bring up the Arke of God in a Cart, (after the man­ner of the Philistims) and yet not disanull their Church-estate: And by like proportion, so may a Church of Christ take up some orders, (as the carting of some part of their worship upon a Book) after the manner of Antichrist, and yet not forthwith evacuate their Church-estate.

But this let me further adde, that a godly person may have some kinde of communion, so farre as hearing the word from a Minister well gifted by Christ, to whose calling some corruption may cleave, both in his Church-estate, and in his Ordination: And yet neverthelesse, no Antichristian Pollution at all may cleave or redound to the hearer by his hearing of him. And this being the [Page 68]Principall Exception w ^ch the Examiner taketh against some of the members of our churches, & against all the churches for their sakes, we shall further (God willing) cleare when the Examiner putteth it upon us in the sequele. Meane while, we professe as we doe beleeve, that such an action is not any Church-cōmunion with Antichrist, nor doth so enthrall the People of God unto Antichrist, as to se­parate them from Christ, no not as he is Head of the visible Church.

The Answer which (upon occasio of this Point) the Examiner giveth to the Papists Question, (Where was your Church before Lu­ther?) though it seeme to him well and good: yet it gratifieth the Papists, and straitneth the holy Counsell of God in Scripture. The Question, saith he, is thus well answered, to wit, That since the Apostasie of Antichrist, Truth, and the holy Citie, (according to the Prophecy, Rev. 11. & 13.) have been troden under-foot, and the whole Earth hath wan­dered after the Beast; yet God hath stirred up witnesses to Prophecy in sackcloth against the Beast, during his 42 moneths Reigne. Neverthelesse, these witnesses have in their times more or lesse submitted to Antichrist, and his Church, Worship, Ministery, &c. And so consequently have been ignorant of the true Church, that is, Christ taken for the Church in the true Profession of that holy way of worship, which he himselfe at first ap­pointed. This Answer giveth away the cause to the Papists. They de­mand, Where was your Church before Luther? This Answer giveth it for granted, that since the Apostasie there was no particular church extant in the world. This fully satisfieth their desire, and expectati­on: for if there were no Church of Christ in the world, for so many Centuries of yeares till Luther, then they readily conclude, That their Church of Rome was (before Luther) the onely Church in the world. For they urge it, (and I know not how we can fairely deny it) that the Church of Christ, even that Church to which the keys of the kingdome are committed, (which is the visible Church) is that against which the Gates of Hell shall not be able to prevaile, and so not all the Power of Antichrist. If then the visible Church of Christ shall never cease, and yet during all that time of the Apostasie of Antichrist, no Church was extant in the world, but the Church of Rome, then during all that time (which is not yet expired) the Church of Rome is, and hath been the onely Church of Christ these many ages. Besides, as this Answerer gratifieth the Papist, and ma­keth the promise of Christ ( Mat. 16.18, 19,) of none effect: so it [Page 69]straitneth the Counsell of God in the very Texts of Scripture alled­ged by himself. For in that Text ( Rev. 11.) where the outward Court is given to the Gentiles, (that is, Ecclesiasticall Courts, given to An­tichrist & his Clergy) v. 2. There also a rod or reed is given by the Angel unto John, to measure the Temple of God, and the Altar, and them that worship therein, v. 1. Which evidently holdeth forth that even then there was somewhere extant the Temple, that is, the visi­ble Church of Christ, which had communion with Christ as Head of the Church, there called The Altar, and the Temple, was furnished with true worshippers, and all measured according to the Patterne of Apostolicall Rule. What if Ecclesiasticall Stories be deficient in telling us the times and places of their Church-Assemblies? Is there­fore the Word of God deficient, or the Church deficient, because humane Stories are deficient? Great hath been the industry and vigilancy of Satan and Antichrist, to blot out (as much as in them lay) all Monuments and Records of such holy Assemblies: but yet sometimes their own Inquisitors confesse, that the Churches of the Waldenses, or men of that way, have been extant a tempore Aposto­lorum.

Furthermore, evident it is, that when the Dragon persecuted the woman, (that is, the Church) the Church fled into the Wildernes, and was there nourished for a time, and times, and halfe a time, (Rev. 12.14.) which is all the time, wherein the Beast reigned, Rev. 13.5. And wherein the Gentiles, having obtained Rule in the Court, trod downe the holy Citie under-foote, Rev. 11.2.

Moreover, evident also it is, that all the Angels (or Ministers) of Gods wrath that poured out their Vialls upon the Antichristian State, did all of them issue forth out of the Temple, and out of the Temple as then opened, Rev. 15.5, 6▪ Which argueth that the Tem­ple or Church was not onely then visible, but openly visible: not visible onely to the secret Assembly of the true worshippers, but openly conspicuous to them that had not seene it before. Now how all those seven Angels should come out of the Temple, and it openly visible, and all of them poure out their Vialls upon the An­tichristian State by seven Degrees, to the utter desolation of it: and yet no Church extant, either before Luther, or since Luther, till the utter extirpation of Antichrist, passeth all my compre­hension.

TO CHAP. XIII.

HIs 13 ^th Chapter is taken up in Examining and Answering a second Answer, which I gave to his Objection propounded above in Chap. 10. The Answer was this, as he setteth it downe.

Secondly, we deny that it is necessary to Church-fellowship, (that is so necessary, that without it a Church cannot be) That the members ad­mitted thereunto, should all of them see, and expresly bewaile all the pol­lutions which they have been defiled with in their former Church-fellow­ship, Ministery worship, Government, &c. If they see and bewaile so much of their former pollutions, as did enthrall them to Antichrist, so, as to se­parate them from Christ: and withall be ready in preparation of heart, as they shall see more light, so to hate more and more every false way. This we conceive to be as much, as is necessarily required to separate them from Antichrist unto fellowship with Christ, and his Churches, &c.

For Answer hereunto, the Examiner desireth three things to be observed:

1. M ^r. Cottons own Confession of that two-fold Church-estate, wor­ship, &c. The former false: or else why to be so bewailed and forsaken? The second true, to be embraced and submitted to.

Reply. This observation is more then is intended, or can justly be gathered from my words: For even a true Estate of a Church, Worship, Ministery, &c. may be bewailed, though not in regard of the falshood of the estate, yet in regard of the pollutions that cleaved to it, which were as so many false wayes in the Admini­stration of it.

2. The second thing, which he would have to be observed, is my own confession of that which a little before I would make so odious in him to hold, to wit, That Gods People may be so farre en­thralled to Antichrist, as to separate them from Christ. For these were my words; If they see and bewaile so much of their former pollutions, as did enthrall them to Antichrist, so as to separate them from Christ.

Reply. 1. His expressions of himselfe in that Point were so in­commodious, as that a plaine Reader, (such as my selfe, unwonted to heare such language, in his sence) could not easily conceive, that he speaking of godly persons, no lesse unfit for Church-fellowship, then Trees and Quarries unfit for a Building.

I say, I could not easily conceive, that by Trees and Quarries should be meant any other persons then unregenerate: and it seem­ed to me, to imply a contradiction, to call them ungodly, who were unregenerate.

Reply. 2. The Examiner wrongeth himselfe and me, to say, That I would have made it odious in him, to say that godly persons cannot be so enthralled to Antichrist, as to-separate them from Christ. The odi­ousnesse he speaketh of is a contradiction: And it was himselfe, not I, that forged that contradiction, as hath been shewed above.

Reply. 3. My words out of which he gathereth this observation, are misreported: and the contradiction ariseth from his misreport, not from my words. For Gods People, and godly persons are not all one. Any Church-members may be called Gods People, as be­ing in externall Covenant with him, ( Psal. 81.11.) and yet they are not alwayes godly persons. Gods People may be so enthralled to Antichrist, as to separate them utterly from Christ, both as Head of the visible, and invisible Church also. But godly persons cannot be so enthralled to Antichrist, as to separate them from Christ, as the Head of the invisible Church: though, as I said before, they may be separated from him, as the Head of the visible Church.

3. The third thing which the Examinen would have to be ob­served in my words, is, How easily a soule may wander in his generalls: for thus I write, though they see not all the pollutions, wherewith they have been defiled in their former Church-fellowship: Againe, if they did see so much as did enthrall them to Antichrist, and separate them from Christ. And yet (saith he) he expresseth nothing of that, all the pollu­tions, nor what so much is, as will separate them from Christ.

Reply. 1. Though these words might seeme generall to a stranger, who knew nothing of the occasion of them: yet to the Examiner himselfe, (to whom in private I writ them) it was easie and obvi­ous to poynt with the finger, at the particular I intended in these. He knoweth the Question was; Whether the hearing of the Ministers of the Parishes in England, was such an Antichristian pollution, as ei­ther to cut off such persons from Church-fellowship, or the Churches them­selves from Christ. Our Answer was; 1. That it was no Antichristi­an pollution at all: 2. If it were, it was more then either our mem­bers, or our Churches yet saw, or were convinced of: and then ge­nerall confessions, and generall repentance would serve for un­knowne [Page 72]knowne sinnes. To the same purpose, is this generall Answer fra­med here: which himselfe well knoweth upon what particular oc­casion it grew, and to what particular case it had reference.

Reply. 2. Besides, why should we count the Answer as wandring in Generalities, when it was fitted to his generall Objection? His Objection was Chapt. 10. That a necessitie lay upon, godly men, before they can be fit matter for Church fellowship, to see, bewaile, repent, come out of the false Churches, Worship, Ministery, Government.

Now here are onely generall words: no particular mention of the falshoods that lye in the Churches, Worship, Ministery, Go­vernment. Why should he blame wandring in Generalitie in the Answer, when his own Objection wandereth in the like Genera­lities.

Reply. 3. If he please to look back to the Reply given in his 12. Chapter, he may finde me plaine and punctuall in Instancing in particulars. But thus having passed over his Observations upon my former Answer, he now cometh to returne Answer to me, by demanding a Question or two, to wit, 1. Whether if a godly person remaine a member of a salsely constituted Church, and so consequently (in that respect) of a false Christ, whether in visible worship he be not sepa­rate from the true Christ?

Answ. That I may not delude neither him, nor my selfe, by answering to obscure and ambiguous termes, I would know (by some that understand his speech) what he meaneth by a falsely con­stituted Church: or else give me leave to explaine the termes my selfe. There be but two things intrinsecally necessary to the constitution of any thing, & so of a Church, to wit, a fit matter, and a fit forme. The matter of a Church are visible Saints, Pro [...]essors of the faith of Christ. The forme, is an holy Covenant, or Agreement, (either explicite or implicite) to joyne together in one Congregation, to worship the Lord, and to edifie one another in the Administration of his holy Ordinances. Now if in stead of visible Saints professing the Name of Christ, there be a company of prophane persons, I­dolaters, Hereticks, that shall covenant, or agree together to joyne in a Congregation to worship Idolls, and to build up one another in Heresie, and Apostasie; This is Ecclesia Malignantium, a false constituted Church: And consequently, the Head of this Church is a false Christ, and every member of this Church, who joyneth [Page 73]with them in this way, is in visible worship, separate from the true Christ.

In this sence, I would answer to the Examiners first Question, Affirmatively.

His second Question then is, Whether it be not absolutely necessary to a godly persons uniting with the true Church, (that is, with Christ in true Christian worship) that he see and bewaile, and absolutely come out from that former false Church, or Christ, and his Ministery, Worship, &c. before he can be united to the true Israel?

Answ. I would readily answer this Question, Affirmatively also, unlesse there be a fallacy in the latter absolutely. For his Question is, Whether it be not absolutely necessary unto uniting with a true Church, to see, and bewaile, and come out absolutely from the false Church, or Christ, or Ministery, or Worship, &c. This latter absolutely, if it im­ply no more then coming out altogether from all that separateth from true Christ, I grant it absolutely: but if he meane coming out from every thing of theirs, say from every good gift, yea from eve­ry error amongst them, which doth not separate from Christ, and then I deny that it is absolutely necessary, either to see or be­waile all, or in that sence absolutely to come out of all.

His similitudes brought to the contrary, may perswade a selfe-pleasing fancy, but will not convince nor satissie any solid Judge­ment. Might not the Israelites that came out of Aegypt, borrow Jewells of silver and gold from the Aegyptians, yea and carry up also a mixed multitude of People, and yet build a Tabernacle to the Lord in the Wildernesse? Exod. 12.35. to 38. Might not the Jewes come out of Babel, and accept from all the People, where they had sojourned, vessells of silver, and gold, with goods and beasts, and other precious things, and yet build a Temple at Hie­rusalem? Ezra 1.4, 5, 6. May not a soule be married to Christ, and yet his former husband (his corrupt nature) not be so abso­lutely dead, as the husband of a wife must be, before shee can be lawfully married to another?

The Graft cut off from one tree, may be engrafted to another: and yet carry forth his old leaves with him. The kingdome of Christ that is cut off from the Romane Monarchy, may yet for a time have some entercourse with the Romane Monarchy.

The Corinthians, though united with Christ, and washed from [Page 74]their former Idolatry, as well as from other sinnes: yet still were defiled with communion in Idols Temples, and with Fornication.

The Thessalonians turned from their former Idolls, to serve the living and true God: yet they had some amongst them, that walk­ed inordinately after their entrance into Church-estate, as well as before, 2 Thes. 3.6. Besides, for a further answer to his similitudes, the Examiner may remember, that though Israel came out of Egypt locally, before they could sacrifice to God in the Wildernes, yet in their hearts and soules they were still for Aegypt, Exod. 14.11, 12. Yea and for Aegyptian Idolls, Act. 7.39. Ezek. 20.7, 8. which is more then we doe allow to our selves.

TO CHAP. XIV.

HIs 14 ^th Chapter is spent in Examining and answering a Rea­son that I gave of my second Answer to his Objection, which was propounded and cleared in the former Chapter. The Reason was this. The Church of Christ received many thousand Jewes, who be­leeved on the Name of Christ, although they were still zealous of the Law, and saw not the beggarly emptinesse of Moses his Ceremonies, Act. 21.20. And the Apostle Paul directeth the Romans to receive such unto them, as were weake in the faith, and saw not their liberty from the ser­vile difference of Meats and Dayes, but still lay under the bondage of the Law. Yea he wished them to receive such upon this ground, because Christ had received them, Rom. 14.1. to 6. And lest it should be objected, there was not the like danger of lying under bondage to Moses, as to An­tichrist; It was said, that even the bondage under Moses was such, as that if it were continued in, after instruction and conviction, it would separate them from Christ, (Gal. 5.2.) and bondage under Antichrist could doe no more.

For Answer hereto, the Examiner would have two things to be carefully minded:

1. That the Ordinances of Moses were sometimes the Ordinances of God: and when they were to vanish, they were to be taken away with so­lemnity. The Ordinances of Antichrist were the Inventions of Satan, and from first to last never to be received, nor submitted to, no not for a moment.

2. He would have the difference of times to be observed, (which saith he, M ^r. Cotton himselfe confesseth) after instruction and conviction, Moses Law was deadly, and would separate from Christ. Therefore there was a time, when they were not deadly, and did not separate from Christ, to wit, untill Moses was honorably fallen asleep, &c. To apply then, Paul observed a vow, and the Ceremonies of it, Circumcised Timothy, &c. May there­fore a Messenger of Christ now (as Paul) goe to Masse, Pray to Saints, performe Pennance, keepe Christmasse, and other Popish Feasts, and Fasts? &c.

Reply. 1. I never heard or read till now, that Paul ever went to Masse, Prayed to Saints, kept Christmasse, or the like: nor did I ever imagine, that any ingenuous minde would thinke that ever it came into my heart to plead for such things now, or for the retain­ing of any Popish Rite at all. But the wit and lip of man being let loose, and left to it selfe, may inferre quodlibet ex quolibet.

If it be said, his Parenthesis (as Paul) had reference onely to a Messenger of Christ, (as Paul) not to any such like act of Paul, then his Argument is no more conclusive then a Baculo ad Angulum. What colour were there that any man now should plead Pauls example, to doe that now, which Paul never did, nor any thing like it?

Reply. 2. The Examiner requireth two things here to be care­fully minded: In answer whereto, I desire but one thing to be care­fully minded: to wit, to what end, I alledged the ignorance of the Jewes in the Primitive times, and the indulgence of the Christian Churches, for receiving them into Church-fellowship, notwith­standing such ignorance: And then see, if it doe not inferre that which I brought it for.

If in the Primitive times, the ignorance of the Jewes in many waighty Points of Religion, and some of them fundamentall, did not hinder their receiving into Christian Church-fellowship, nor disanull their Church-estate (who so received them) then it is not so necessary to Church-fellowship, as that without it a Church cannot be, that the Members admitted thereunto, should all of them see and expresly bewaile, all the pollutions, wherewith they have been defiled in their former Church-fellowship, Ministery, Worship, Government, &c. But the former is true, as hath been opened from Acts 21.20. Rom. 14.1. to 6. Gal. 5.2. To which [Page 76]may be added, Acts 15.5. with 24. Where it appeareth some of the members of the Church and of the Synod, held forth such Do­ctrine and Worship, touching the necessitie of Circumcision, and observation of the Law, as tended to the subversion of soules: and yet neither their membership, nor the Estate of the Church was thereby disanulled.

The Conclusion is evident from these Premises.

It is a vaine thing now to alledge, that the Ordinances of Moses were sometimes the Ordinances of God, but so the inventions of Antichrist ne­ver were: and there is not the like honourable respect and tendernesse to be shewed to the inventions of Antichrist, as to the vanishing Ordinances of God; For though this were of weight, in case I had pleaded for the practise of any Antichristian inventions, (which indeed was farre off, both from my meaning and words:) yet in this case it is wholly impertinent. For that which I pleaded for, was, the capa­blenesse of godly Persons of Church-estate, notwithstanding their ignorance of some weighty and necessary truths: and the sound­nesse of their Church-estate, notwithstanding their admission and toleration of such ignorant members: unto which the difference of the severall objects of their ignorance maketh nothing at all. For the ignorance of weighty Truths (of one sort as well as another) necessary to salvation, is a sinne of like destructive nature, of what kinde soever the Truths be.

Besides, there is no need, either for the clearing of our members, or of our Church-estate, to plead for the capablenesse of godly per­sons of Church-estate, notwithstanding their ignorance of the Truths of God, whether more or lesse necessary: For wee doe not look at it as any point of ignorance at all, for our members to be­lieve, they may partake in the gifts of the godly Ministers in Eng­land, in hearing the word of God from them. I know the Exami­ner is vehement and peremptory in pleading for an absolute neces­sitie, that godly persons before they doe joyne to a true Church, and Mini­stery, should see and bewaile so much as may amount to cut off the soule from a false Church, (whether Nationall, Parishionall, or any other falsly constituted Church) Ministery, Worship, and Government of it.

But the voyce of God is not alwayes in every vehement and mightie winde, that rendeth mountaines, and breaketh rockes, 1 Kings 19.11. The Examiner is not ignorant, that we have seene, [Page 77]and bewailed Nationall, and Parishionall Church-estate, and have cut off our selves (by the Grace of Christ) from any invented wor­ship or government of it: yea and from such entrance into the Ministery or Administration of it, as was corrupt either by Natio­nall or Parishionall Relation. But this is that which he requireth further, (He I say, but not the Lord) that wee should cut off our selves from hearing the Ministery of the Parishes in England, as be­ing the Ministery of a Nationall, or Parishionall Church, whereof both the Church-estate is falsly constituted, and all the Ministery, Worship, and Government thereof false also.

But two things here may suffice to answer this clamour.

1. Suppose all this were true, that he clamoureth, but prooveth not: yet this would I faine learne, wherein lieth the sinne of our members in hearing the godly Ministers in the Parishes? Why, saith he, in that they doe not cut off themselves from a false Ministery.

Now by the Ministery may be meant, either the office of the Ministery, or the exercise of the office, and gifts of the Ministery. From the office, and from the exercise of the office, our members have cut off themselves, partly by submitting themselves to a Mini­stery of their own Election in these Churches, and partly by sub­mitting themselves to no act of their Ministeriall office in England, but what an Indian, or any Pagan might partake in, who yet is cut off farre enough from fellowship in their office.

Cutting off, is an act of disunion, and somewhat more violent, and keene, then (it may be) the Examiner requireth. The sinne he chargeth upon our members in hearing such Ministers, is union, or communion with them. And what shall wee say, is there no Communion between our members, and the Ministers in England, whom they doe heare?

Yes doubtlesse: For 1. There is a naturall communion between the speaker and the hearer: the one giveth counsell, or instruction, or reproofe, or comfort; and the other receiveth it.

2. There is a morall Communion between a Teacher and a learner: and doubtlesse, our hearers may learne many precious Truths from them.

3. What shall I say further; Is there not also a spirituall Com­munion between the Preacher and the Hearer, when the Preacher communicateth many spirituall and heavenly Points, and the Hea­rer receiveth them?

Answ. 1. Some would say; It is not necessary, that this should breed a spirituall Communion between the Preacher and the Hea­rer: No more then it maketh a Mathematicall Communion be­tween a reader of the Mathematicks, and the learner of some Prin­ciples, or Conclusions from him.

But 2. I would rather answer otherwise. For suppose a member of our Churches, though a visible Saint here, yet indeed an hypo­crite, should occasionally heare a Minister in England, and by the Power of the Spirit of Grace breathing in his Ministery, be effectu­ally brought home to Christ, and by lively faith united to him: Here is a spirituall Relation and Communion wrought between them: the one is a spirituall Father; the other a naturall Sonne in the Faith.

Neverthelesse, this I would say, that this spirituall Communion is not between this Hearer and this Minister, in respect of his Of­fice, but in respect of his Gifts, and of the Power of the Spirit of Grace breathing in the dispensation of his Gifts. In which respect this Communion doth not amount to Church-communion: Any stranger might enjoy as much. Any Pagan Corinthian might come in, and heare in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. and reape a blessing thereby, who yet had not Ecclesiasticall Communion with their Office. Also the Prophet Jeremy heard the false Prophet Hanani, yea (and in some sence) said Amen to his Prophecy: yet had he no communion with his false Office, Jer. 28.1. to 6. If he still urge, that we have not yet cut off our selves from communion, no not with the false office of the Ministery of England, and with their false Church-estate, in as much as we still retaine their Bap­tisme, wherein we subjected our selves to their Office, and to their Church-estate, (which are both false:) as well as their Worship, and their Government.

Answ. This is a further Objection, then he held forth whilest he continued with us: and therefore no marvell, if my Letter spake nothing to it. But therefore let me now propound another Point, which may suffice both for an Answer to this Objection, as also for a second Answer unto the former clamour, and exception against hearing of the godly Ministers in England. The Point is this; That I doe not see, how the Examiner can justifie his grievous charge, that their Church is falsly constituted, (whether Nationall or Pa­rishionall) [Page 79]and accordingly, that their Ministery, Worship, and Government are all of them false. Foure things he chargeth to be false. 1. Their Church constitution, Parishionall and Nationall. 2. Their Ministers. 3. Their Worship. 4. Their Government.

For the first, touching the constitution of their Parishionall Churches, let it be considered what I said before, that where there be visible Saints, there is the true matter of the Church; and where there is a Covenant or Agreement (whether explicite or implicite) to assemble together in one Congregation, to worship the Lord, and to edifie one another in the Ordinances of Christ, there is (for substance) the true forme of a Church. And where there is the true matter, and true forme of a Church, it cannot be truely said, that such a Church is falsly constituted. For there being but two causes of which a thing is constituted, matter and forme: whatsoever hath true matter, and true forme, is truly constituted.

Against this, what he will accept I doe not know: and therefore know not how to prevent him with a fit and just defence. But by others, two things are wont to be objected.

Object. 1. From the matter of the Church. Object. 2. From the efficient cause of the Church.

From the matter of the Church, it is objected, that there be not onely visible Saints in the English Parishes, but with them are min­gled many ignorant, and scandalous persons, drunkards, whore­mongers, despisers and persecutors of them that are good, Prophane swearers, that have not so much as a forme of godlinesse, but doe utterly deny and deride the power of it.

Answ. This is indeed just matter of mourning and lamentation to all the Saints of Christ, and may be also (in due order) just war­rant of some degree of separation from them, as from a corrupt Church. It cannot but offend and deeply grieve the spirit of a Christian, to sit downe at the Lords Table, and drinke the bloud of the Lord with such, who may be ready the next day to spill the bloud of sincere Communicants as Puritan Round-Heads.

But whilest the Saints of Christ continue amongst them, the mixt fellowship of ignorant and prophane persons doth not eva­cuate or disanull their Church estate. The store of malignant and noysome humours in the body, yea the deadnesse and rottennesse of many members in the body, though they may make the body [Page 80]an unsound and corrupt body, yet they doe not make the body no body. When the Prophet Isaiah complained, that in the Church of Judah, from the soale of the foote to the crowne of the head, there was no soundnesse in it, but wounds, and bruises, and putri­fying sores; yet whilest there was a Remnant amongst them of faithfull Saints, they were not yet no Church, they were not yet Sodome and Gomorrha, though but for that Remnant, they had been as Sodome, and like unto Gomorrha, Isa. 1.6. with 9. Say not though Hierusalem and Judah were at that time degenerate, yet they had been at first an holy Nation, a faithfull Citie, ( Isa. 1.21.) and so had a true constitution: which the Churches of England never had.

For 1. I might answer, That though in regard of some prime members, Hierusalem was counted a faithfull Citie, and the Nati­on Holy, by Priviledge of their Covenant: yet for the body of the people, Hierusalem was alwayes a City of the provocation of Gods wrath from the day they built it, Jer. 32.31, 32. And for the bo­dy of the Nation, Moses charged them; Yee have alwayes been re­bellious against the Lord, since the day that I knew you, Deut. 9.7.24. And Stephen protesteth against them; They had alwayes wont to re­sist the Holy Ghost, they and their fathers, Act. 7.51.

2. I doe not understand, but that (according to Scripture) those corruptions which doe not destroy a Church constituted, the same do not destroy the constitution of a Church. The Church is constituted, and continued by the same Grace.

3. The estate of the Churches of England was not corrupt in their first constitution. Baronius himselfe confesseth, that England received the Gospel ten yeares before Rome; and that from the Ministery of the Apostles, and Apostolick men: who doubtlesse constituted the English Churches:) not after the manner of Rome, (which was then Pagan;) but after the Apostolick Rules and Patternes.

This may suffice touching the matter of the English Churches. Now touching the second thing objected, which was from the ef­ficient cause of their constitution; It is said, they were gathered not by the preaching of the Gospel, (by which Churches should be planted and constituted) but by the Proclamation of Princes.

Answ. 1. The efficient cause of a Church is a thing without the [Page 81]Church, and so no essentiall cause of the Constitution of a Church. The Proclamation of King Hezekiah, and of the Princes, drew on multitudes of Apostate Israelites to the Communion of the Church at Hierusalem, and many of them in much pollution: yet neither their own pollution, nor the Proclamation of the King and Prin­ces did evacuate their Church-estate, but encourage them rather in their Church-worke, 2 Chron. 30.5. to 9. and verses 11, 12.17, 18, 19, 20. It was no pollution to the second Temple at Hierusalem, that it was built by the encouragement of the Proclamation of Cy­rus, Ezra 1.

Answ. 2. Wheresoever there be visible Saints gathered into a Church, they were first gathered by the Ministery of the Gospel. For Proclamations cannot make Saints, but the word of the Go­spel onely. If any hypocrites, or time-servers, doe for feare joyne themselves with the Saints in such a worke; though their fellow­ship may weaken and blemish the worke, yet it doth not de­stroy it.

Thus much touching the constitution of their Parishionall Chur­ches: Now touching their Nationall Constitution, it standeth part­ly in their Nationall Officers, Archbishops, Bishops, and their Ser­vitors; partly, in their Nationall Synods and convocations; and partly also in their Nationall Ecclesiasticall Courts.

The Examiner is not ignorant, that (by the Grace of Christ) we have withdrawen our selves, and our Churches also from this Nationall Constitution, and from all Communion with them.

If it be said; But we still keepe Communion with the Parish-Churches, (in hearing the Word there) who doe subject them­selves to these Nationall Officers, Convocations, and Courts.

Answ. 1. Though the Parish-Churches were lately subject to them, it was a burden (which as they did discerne the iniquitie thereof) they groaned under, and now by the mightie Power of the gracious Redemption of the Lord Jesus, they have shaken off through the helpe of the Honorable, and Religious Prudence and Piety of the Parliament.

2. Though those Nationall Courts in their Officers, did for many yeares tread downe the Parish-Churches, yet they did not extinguish their Church-estate. The Text is plaine, The Gentiles (that is, men of Gentile-like prophanenesse, and malignitie, and [Page 82]iniquitie, who had the keeping of the Church-Courts) they did tread downe the Holy City, Rev. 11.2. Tread downe (I say) but not destroy the Holy City. Yea though the Translation reade it, They did tread it downe, or, Tread it under-foote: yet the Originall word may be rendred somewhat more mildly: [...], may expresse their walking upon it, or else the Peripateticks were a more vio­lent sect then either their Principles, or their Practise did declare them.

I come now to speake of the second Falshood, which the Exa­miner chargeth upon the English Churches, which was the false­nesse of their Ministery: which wherein it lyeth, he should have done well to have told us: for himselfe disliketh it in me, to wander in Generalities.

But for our selves, we are farre from that supercilious, and Pha­risaicall arrogancy, as to condemne such for false Ministers, in whom we finde Truth of Godlinesse, Truth of Ministeriall Gifts, Truth of Election and acceptance unto Office by true Churches of Christ, Truth of sound, & wholesome, and soule-saving Doctrine, and Truth of holy and exemplary Conversation. And such are all the Ministers whom either the members of our Churches affect to Heare, or our Churches doe allow them ordinarily for to Heare. And when I say Truth, I speake it not in opposition to Eminency, (for sundry of them excell in Eminency of sundry of these things:) but in opposition to the falshood which the Examiner objecteth.

I know not what exception lyeth against their Ministery, to ar­gue it of falshood, (save what hath been excepted and answered already touching the constitution of their Parishionall Churches) but onely the falsenesse of the Power from whence their Ministery is derived, to wit, from Episcopall Ordination.

But the Examiner is much mistaken, if he take us to conceive, or if he himselfe conceive, that the Power of the Ministeriall calling is derived from Ordination, whether Episcopall or Presbyteriall, or Congregationall. The Power of the Ministeriall Calling is de­rived chiefly from Christ, furnishing his servants with Gifts fit for the Calling; and nextly, from the Church, (or Congregation) who observing such whom the Lord hath gifted, doe elect and call them forth to come and helpe them. For from that ground, Paul and Silas (to use the words of the Text) assuredly gathered that [Page 83]the Lord had called them to preach the Gospel to the Macedoni­ans, Acts 16.9, 10. to wit, because a man of Macedonia (in the name of the rest) had called unto them to come into Macedonia and helpe them. Pastor and flock are Relatives: and Relatives doe consist ex mutuâ alterius affectione, Their mutuall acceptance of one another is the essentiall cause of their Relation. Ordination is but adjunctum consummans (as D ^r. Ames rightly observeth) of the Mini­sters Calling: the Relation between him and the people was truly wrought before. As the Coronation of the Prince is not that which giveth the Essency of his Princely Calling, but Election by the Peo­ple, (where the Government is Elective:) so neither is Ordination that which giveth Essence to the Ministers Calling, but the peoples choice. Ordination by Imposition of Episcopall hands, doth pol­lute an Adjunct of the Ministers calling, (to wit, the solemnitie of it:) but doth not destroy the essence, or nature of it, much lesse derive a false power to it, to evacuate the true.

The third Falshood, which the Examiner chargeth upon the English-Parish-Churches, is the False worship. And truly whatso­ever hath been corrupt in their worship, whether Prescript, Litur­gies, or undue Honour put upon Saints or Angels, in denomina­ting Dayes or Temples after them, and such times and places dedi­cated to God, which he never required, and what ever other De­vices of like nature, I had rather bewaile before the Lord, then ex­cuse or justifie before men. And I should thinke it had been a bet­ter service to God, and his Churches, and a greater comfort to the soule of the Examiner, to have expressed particularly what the false worship had been which he beareth witnesse against, and to have cleared wherein their falshood lyeth, rather then to have re­sted in condemning all false worships in overly Generalities: and especially at such a time when (through mercy) the State is set upon Reformation, and calleth for light. He that shall cry out against all false wayes in Travels by Land, and exclaime against all Rocks and Quick-sands by Sea, and give no particular notice where they lye, what helpe doth he afford to the carefull Passen­ger or Marriner, either by Land or Sea? When Trumpets give such an uncertain and obscure sound, who shall prepare themselves to avoyd the danger on the one hand, or on the other?

But for the present, two things would I say, touching the point in hand.

1. It is not every corruption in worship, that denominateth the worship to be false worship. It was doubtlesse a corrupt worship to Sacrifice in the High Places: yet God doth not call it a false worship, but rather seemeth to accept it, as done to himselfe, 2 Kings 33.17. False worship (to speake properly) is as good as no worship: nor is the God of Truth wont to accept that which is false. But there may be many aberrations in the manner of wor­ship, when yet both the object of the worship is the true God, and the substance of the worship is true worship: and God may accept that which is Truth, from an honest and true heart, and passe by many aberrations, (as infirmities) and not reject all as falsities.

The second thing I would say, is, That whatsoever we have dis­cerned to be corrupt, or irregular in the worship of God, we have beleeved it to be our duty, both to judge our selves for it before the Lord, and to reforme it in our practise. If any shall discover any further failings in our worship, or in the worship of those Chur­ches whom wee communicate with, I hope the Lord will not shut our eyes against the light.

The fourth Falshood, which the Examiner chargeth upon the English-Churches, is false Government, which if he meane the Go­vernment of the Parishes, by the godly Ministers, (with whom our people communicate in hearing;) that Government is chiefly ad­ministred by the publick Preaching of the Gospel, and by private admonition. Which he that shall challenge it to be a false Govern­ment, (though it may be defective in some Directions;) verily the spirit of Truth and Grace in those who are governed and led by it, from darknesse to light, from the Power of Satan unto God, from a state of Grace to assured hopes of eternall Glory in Christ Jesus, will convince all such slanderous tongues of notorious falshood.

But if he speake of the Nationall-Church-Government, we must confesse the Truth, there indeed Truth is fallen, and falshood hath prevailed much. For whether we speake of the Hands, by which that Government hath been administred, or of the Ecclesiasticall Courts, in which it is administred, or of the Rule, according to which it is administred, or of the End for which it is administred; All of them are forsaken of Truth, and can challenge no warrant of Truth but falsly.

The Hands by which that Government hath been administred, are the Prelacy, and their Servitors: who though they have of late challenged Institution by Divine Right: yet the claime is utterly false. The Divine Authoritie hath none to attend upon Rule and Government in the Church, but such as are inferior to Pastors and Teachers in Congregations, who labour in Word and Doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.17. Diocesan Bishops in the dayes of the Gospel, are like Kings in Israel in the dayes of the Judges, both of them wanting Di­vine Institution. What a pity is it, that some men eminent for Pie­ty and Preaching, and others for learning and moderation, should come to be (as Jothams Parable speaketh) advanced over their Brethren, and so leave their fatnesse, and sweetnesse, and fruitful­nesse, wherewith they had been wont to serve both God and man?

The Ecclesiasticall Courts in which that Government is admini­stred, are like the Courts of the High Priests, and Pharisees, which Solomon (by a spirit of Prophecy) styleth, Dens of Lyons, Moun­taines of Leopards, (Cant. 4.8.) And those who have had to doe with them, have found them Markets of the sinnes of the People, the Cages of uncleannesse, the forgers of Extortion, the Taberna­cles of Bribery.

The Rule according to which the Government is administred, is not the word of God, (which alone is able to make a Church-Governour perfect to every good worke, 2 Tim. 1.17.) but in stead thereof the Canon Law, the Decretalls of Antichrist, and most un­worthily and falsly applyed to the Government of the Spouse of Christ.

The End also for which this Government now for many yeares hath been administred, hath not onely been contrary to the ends of Church-Government, (which is to order the people in holi­nesse, and love) but even contrary to the end of Civill Government, which is the punishment of evill doers, and the praise of them that doe well, Rom. 9.4. But here the very edge of Government, hath been bent and sharpened chiefly against holinesse and puritie. No malefactors so hainous, (drunkards, whoremongers, prophane persons) but might expect the approach of Courts with lesse ter­ror, and passe from under their hands, with more favourable Cen­sure then the sheepe of Christ, and the faithfull Shepheards of them.

This Government therefore being administred with false Hands, on false Thrones, by false Rules, for falle Ends, I blame not the Examiner, though he style it, (as justly he may) a false Govern­ment.

But to conclude therefore this 14 ^th Chapter, the Examiner tel­leth us, He beleeveth it is absolutely necessary to see and bewaile so much as may amount to cut off the soule from a false Church, (whether Natio­nall, or Parishionall, or any other falsly constituted Church) together with the Ministery, Worship, and Government of it.

Now in that which hath been spoken, wee have given account, how farre we have seene any of these things to be false in the Chur­ches, which his charge hath respect unto. And so farre as we have seene, the Lord knoweth how farre we have bewailed, and cut off our selves from the Fellowship thereof. Yea not onely from the fellowship of that which we discerne to be false, but also from what we have discerned to be unsound and corrupt. If we doe not dis­cerne all those things to be false, which he accounteth to be false; we have given the grounds thereof from the Scriptures of Truth. If we doe not follow him in all his imaginations, it is no marvell: The sheepe of Christ know the voyce of their Shepheard: a stran­ger they will not follow. His charges of Falshood upon Churches have been vehement, and peremptory, and in a manner sorbonicall, without any touch of Scripture-grounds, as if he had learned not onely from them, but from the Conclave of Antichrist, to obtrude upon the Churches of Christ, his unwritten imaginations and cen­sorious Decrees, as the very Oracles of God.

Proceed we now therefore to his next Chapter, wherein there is some mention of some Texts of Scripture, and let us see, whether they will speake more to his purpose in that which remaineth.

To CHAP. XV.

THe Texts of Scripture which M ^r. Williams alledged, not to prove the Churches of England to be false in their Constituti­on, Ministery, Worship, Government, (for to that end he alled­geth no Scriptures at all) but to urge upon us a separation from them, (even from hearing in their Assemblies) were three, Isai. 52.11. [Page 87]2 Cor. 6.17. Rev. 18.4. Whereof I certified him in my Let­ter, That two of them (to wit, the first and last) made nothing to his purpose. For that of Isaiah, and the other of the Revelation speake of locall separation, which he knew we had made: and which neither he, nor indeed our selves apprehended to be sufficient, though sufficient to an­swer, in part, the literall sence of those Places.

To which he answereth, That he could not well have beleeved that M ^r. Cotton, or any other, would have made that coming forth of Babel in the Antitype, Rev. 18.4. to be locall and materiall also. For what Civill State, or Nation, or Countrey in the world, in the Antitype could now be called Babel? If any, then surely Babel it selfe properly so called: but there we finde a true Church of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 5. Second­ly, If Babel be locall now, whence Gods People are called, then must there be a locall Judea, a Land of Canaan also, into which they are called, &c.

Reply. If the Examiner had been pleased to have read M ^r. Bright­man on Rev. 18.4. He might finde, I was not the first that Interpre­ted, either that place in Isaiah, or this in Revelation, of a locall se­paration. For as there was in old Babel, sundry of Gods Israel, In­habitants then when the Medes and Persians were about to take it, and destroy it: so will there be in new Babel sundry of Gods cho­sen people still inhabiting amongst them, even then when the ten Kings will be ready to take the Citie, and to burne it with fire. Unto whom as the Lord sent his Angels to hasten Lot out of So­dome, when he was about to destroy it: so he hath sent and will send the voyce of his Messengers to hasten his people, as well out of new Babel, (as he did out of old) before that sodaine destructi­on fall upon the City, and upon them in it.

He need not make it so strange, What Civill State, or Nation, or Countrey in the world shall be called Babel now? As if the very exp [...]esse letter of the Text had not clearely enough deciphered the City of Rome, the great City, which in Johns time reigned over the Kings of the Earth, to be the Babylon, (the Antitype of Babel in Chaldea,) whom the Lord would destroy, and out of whom he calleth his people to depart? Why doth he tell us of Babel in Peter, (Babel in Chaldea,) as if the Type and the Antitype were literally the same place? Or as if he were altogether a stranger in the Booke of the Revelation, and never understood Rome to be called Babylon?

But secondly, saith he, If Babel be locall now, then there must be a locall Judea, a Land of Canaan also, into which the Saints are cal­led.

Reply. 1. It followeth not; for the Angel that calleth them out of Babel, doth not call them into Judea, or Canaan. There is no mention of such places in that call at all.

2. There be, and will be, when Rome is destroyed, and before it be destroyed, visible Churches of Christ, (as was Judea and Ca­naan of old;) into which these Saints who are called to depart out of Rome, have a just calling to come and to joyne themselves. For it is out of the Temple, and out of the Temple open in Hea­ven, out of which those Angels come, who powre out the vialls of Gods wrath, both upon the Antichristian State, and upon the Ci­tie of Babylon it selfe, Rev. 15.5, 6. with Chap. 16.19.

The Examiner need not here aske, Whether M ^r. Cotton can sa­tisfie his own soule, or the soules of other men, in making a locall depar­ture from old England to New, as if therein we had obeyed that voyce of the Angel, Come out of Babylon my People, partake not of her sinnes, &c.

For 1. I doe not count England, literally to be Babel, nor mysti­cally neither. I beleeve a man may live and dye in England, and yet obey that Commandement of the Angel in all the parts of it. Some other godly men might finde more favour and exemption from Babylonish corruptions in the midst of England, then I was suffered to doe, without locall departure.

2. Though I thinke, that in those words, Come out of Babel my People, locall separation be intended, yet when he addeth, Lest yee be partakers [...] her sinnes, I beleeve, spirituall separation is much more required: and locall separation as a meanes the better to at­taine that end of spirituall separation from partaking in her sinnes.

Which may also cleare the meaning of the Text, and the fraud of the Examiner. For the words are not (as he alledgeth them) Come out of Babel, my people, Partake not of her sinnes: For so the lat­ter part might be an [...], or explanation of the former: Com­ing out of Babel, might be all one with, Partake not of her sinnes. But the words of the Text be, Come out of her, my People, that yee be not partaker of her sinnes. Which plainly argueth, that coming out [Page 89]of Babel locally, is a meanes to prevent partaking in her sinnes spiritually.

It is true which he saith, The Lord Jesus hath broken downe all difference of Places, (Joh. 4.) and all difference of Persons, Acts 10. To wit, in regard of ceremoniall pollution, or ceremoniall holi­nesse. But if he thinke, there is no difference between one Citie, or Countrey more then another in morall pollutions of Idolatry, & superstition, unrighteousnesse and uncleannesse, he maketh himselfe a greater stranger both to the Word and to the world, then I did thinke he had been.

The two causes of Gods Indignation against England, which he suggesteth, are worthy due consideration and attention. I would rather say Amen to them, then weaken the weight of them. Onely I should so assent to the latter, as not to moove for a Toleration of all Dissenters, Dissenters in Fundamentalls, and that out of ob­stinacy against conscience, and Seducers, to the perdition of soules, and to the disturbance of Civill and Church-Peace: but onely of such Dissenters, as vary either in matters of lesse weight, or of fun­damentall, yet not out of wilfull obstinacy, but out of tendernesse of Conscience.

As for the Controversie, which the Examiner saith, He hath with me, Whether false worship be not onely locall, but a spirituall Guilt, and not onely a Guilt, but also an Habit, &c.

I doe acknowledge no such controversie between us: I wholly consent with him in the Point. Onely I doe not beleeve, all that to be either a Guilt, or an Habit of false worship, which he doth imagine: but in his termes I accord.

TO CHAP. XVI.

HIs 16 ^th Chapter is taken up in Examining and Answering the Exposition which my Letter gave of that Text formerly al­ledged, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. Of which I said,

1. That the Text onely requireth Coming out from Idolaters in the fellow­ship of their Idolatry: No Marriages were they to make with them: No Feasts were they to hold with them in the Idolls Temples: No intimate Familiaritie were they to maintaine with them: Nor any Fellowship [Page 90]were they to keepe with them in the unfruitfull workes of Darknesse.

And this is all which the place requireth. But what maketh all this to proove, that we may not receive such Persons to Church-fellowship as our selves confesse to be godly, and who doe professedly bewaile and re­nounce all knowne sinne, and would renounce more, if they knew more? Although, it may be, they doe not see the utmost skirts of all that polluti­on they have sometimes been defiled with: as the Patriarchs saw not the pollution of their Polygamy?

In Answer to this, the Examiner telleth us;

1. That if the regenerate and prepenting English did come thus farre forth, it would availe much to the sanctifying of the Name of the Lord Jesus, to the pacifying of his jealousie, &c.

Reply. But this is no Answer at all, unlesse he did assume that our repenting English did not come thus farre forth. Therefore he gi­veth for another Answer, (that which is indeed but a part of this) That according to the former Distinction of Godly Persons, who possibly may live in ungodly practises (especially of false worship:) And then according to M ^r. Cottons Interpretation, they come not forth.

Reply. That former Distinction hath been considered above and weighed; but hath been found impertinent to the case in hand. The Examiner neither doth, nor ever will make it good, That the Godly persons amongst us doe live in any ungodly practises of false worship. Nor doe they take his Affirmation (without any mention of Scripture-ground) for a sufficient conviction.

But (saith he) if there be any voyce of Christ in the mouths of his witnesses against these sinnes, they are not then of ignorance, but negli­gence, and spirituall hardnesse against the wayes of Gods seare, Isai. 63. &c.

Reply. If there be (saith he) any voyce of Christ in the mouths of his witnesses against these sinnes, &c. If there be: he doth not say, there be. And if there were, how doth it appeare, that their voyce is the voyce of Christ, or that they be the witnesses of Christ, in whose mouths this voyce is? How easie had it been for the Examiner, if he himselfe knew any such voyce of Christ in the mouths of any of his witnesses against these sinnes of false worship which our god­ly Brethren doe live in, to have alledged the same, and the word of Christ, which might have been witnesse to the voyce of those witnesses? But these Ifs and Overtures will neither convince nor edifie others, nor justifie himselfe.

Besides, what if there be some witnesses have testified against the false worship in England, and against the hearing of those Mini­sters, by reason of that false worship? What if the Godly Persons (of whom he speaketh) here, are not so ignorant, but they know what those witnesses have said, nor so negligent, but they have du­ly considered and pondered the same, and weighing it in the Bal­lance of the Scriptures, have found it too light? Is it spirituall hardnesse, to choose, rather to feare God, and his Word, then to feare the false Interpretations and Applications of it by the spirit of Error? The word of the Lord wee reverence and acknowledge, Come not yee to Gilgall, neither goe yee up to Bethaven: But doe wee come to Gilgall, or goe up to Bethaven, when we heare the word of the Lord from the godly Preachers in the Parishes in England? If such alledgements of Scripture may goe for the voyce of Christ in the mouths of his witnesses, we shall soone forget the Counsell of Solomon; Cease my Sonne to heare the Instruction, which causeth to erre from the words of knowledge, Pro. 19.27. The Apostle John hath long since directed us, Hereby know we the spirit of Truth, and the spi­rit of Error: He that knoweth God, heareth us, (that is, the Apostles, and those that preach their Doctrine;) He that is not of God, heareth us not, 1 Joh. 4.6.

But for another Answer, the Examiner proceedeth; Moreover, (saith he) the Question is not of the utmost skirts of pollution, but the substance of a true and false Bed of worship, Cant. 1.16. In respect of coming out of the false, before the entrance into the true.

Reply. I said indeed, that Godly Persons repenting of all knowne sinnes, may be received to Church-fellowship, although they doe not see the utmost skirts of all the pollution they have sometimes been defiled with.

But, saith he, the Question is not of utmost skirts, but of the substance of a true and false Bed of worship.

What he meaneth by the Bed of worship, I know not If he meane the Church, to be the Bed of worship; and the Churches of England to be false Churches, that Point hath been cleared above: that no voyce of Christ hath declared the Churches of England to be false Churches.

But yet further, the Examiner answereth, That if there were but filthinesse in the skirts of an Harlot, he beleeveth M ^r. Cotton would [Page 92]not receive an Harlot, infamous for corporall whoredome, without sound repentance, not onely for her actuall whoredomes, but also for her whorish speeches, gestures, appearances, provocations. And why should there be a greater strictnesse for the skirts of common whoredome, then for spirituall and soule-whoredome, against the chastitie of Gods worship?

Reply. 1. There may be the greater strictnesse about the skirts of bodily whoredome, not because it is a greater sinne, but be­cause it is more easily discernable, and convinceable by ordinary light.

2. Where any speeches, gestures, appearances, provocations of spirituall whoredome shall discover themselves, we beleeve there ought to be as great strictnesse about them, as about the like who­rish appearances of bodily whoredome. But when will the Exami­ner discover to us, what those spirituall whorish gestures or spee­ches be, wherein we shew lesse strictnesse, then the chastitie of Gods holy worship requireth?

Touching the Polygamy of the Fathers, the Examiner answe­reth, three wayes.

1. By observing what great sinnes Godly Persons may be subject to, notwithstanding Godlinesse in the Roote.

Wee consent to that, especially in case of ignorance.

2. He demandeth, If any godly Persons should now beleeve, and maintaine, that he ought to have many wives, and accordingly did so Practise, whether M ^r. Cotton would receive such a godly Person to Church-fellowship?

Yea whether the Church of the Jewes (if they had seene the evill of it) would ever have received such a Proselyte into fellowship with them?

The same Answers may serve to both the Demands.

1. Neither would I receive them, nor doe I thinke the Church of the Jewes would, in case the sinne had appeared so plaine and palpable, as by the light of the Gospel it hath been discovered.

2. This is not the case in hand, what my selfe or a Church ought to doe, about receiving a member living in knowne sinne: but when he that liveth in no knowne sinne, (none knowne either to him­selfe, or the Church) whether the Church if they receive him, doth thereby evacuate their Church-estate? Or whether the Church, and every member thereof, be so farre bound to a distinct knowledge of all appearances of spirituall whoredome, that if they [Page 93]be ignorant of any one or two of them, they are utterly uncapable of Church-estate?

For a third Answer to the case of Polygamy, the Examiner de­mandeth what was this personall sinne of Polygamy in the godly Patri­archs? Was it any matter of Gods worship, any joyning with a false Church, Ministery, Worship, Government, from whence they were to come, before they could constitute his true Church, and enjoy his Worship, Mini­stery, Government, &c.

Reply. 1. Polygamy if it had been knowne to be as great a sinne amongst the Israelites, as it is now knowne to be by the Doctrine of the Lord Jesus, it is of so hainous a nature now, that every god­ly person guilty of it, must come out of it, before he could lawfully be received into a pure Church of Christ.

2. If a Church were now ignorant of such a knowne case, and should in their ignorance admit sundry members living in that sinne, into fellowship with them, though it would much defile them: yet I doe not conceive it would evacuate their Church-estate.

3. The Examiner will never proove, that the estate of the Chur­ches in England is false, their Ministery false, nor their worship false. And as for their Episcopall Government, he is not ignorant we have come out of it both in place and heart. Neither will he ever be able to prove, that any of our Churches partake in the communion of any such knowne sinne, either in Church-estate, Worship, Ministery, Government, as Polygamy is.

But touching that place in 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. urged by the Ex­aminer, that I might give a further Answer then before, I adde fur­ther in my Letter; That the place was wrested besides the Apostles scope, when M ^r. Williams argued from it, That such Persons are not fit matter for Church-fellowship, as are defiled with any remnants of Antichristian Pollution: nor such Churches any more to be counted Churches, as doe re­ceive such amongst them: For were there not at that time in the Church of Corinth, such as partaked with Idolaters in their Idolls Temples? And was not this the touching of an uncleane thing? And did this sinne reject members from Church-fellowship before Conviction? Or did it eva­cuate their Church-estate for not casting out such members?

To this Argument the Examiner giveth (as he calleth it) an An­swer in foure Paragraphs: whereof the three former hold not forth so much as the face, or shape, or colour of an Answer.

For in the first Paragraph, saith he, This was indeed an uncleane thing, from which God calleth his People: and M ^r. Cotton confesseth, that after conviction any member obstinate in these uncleane Touches ought to be rejected.

But what is this to the Argument?

Againe, In the next Paragraph, Ʋpon the same ground, (saith he) that one obstinate Person ought to be rejected out of Church-estate, upon the same ground, if a greater company or a Church were obstinate in such uncleane touches, ought every sound Christian Church to reject them, and every sound member to withdraw from them.

But is this any more to the Argument?

In the third Paragraph, Further (saith he) it is cleare, that if such uncleane Touches obstinately maintained, (as M ^r. Cotton professeth and practiseth) be a ground of a rejection of a Person in a Church, questi­onlesse, it is a ground of rejection when such Persons are to joyne unto the Church. And if obstinacy in the whole Church after Conviction be a ground for such a Churches rejection, questionlesse, such a Church or num­ber of persons obstinate in such evills, cannot congregate, nor become a true constituted Church of Christ.

But still the Argument is where it was, not onely unshaken, but untoucht. Neither is the Text in 2 Cor. 16. any whit at all cleared by these discourses, to argue them to be no true constituted Chur­ches who live in such uncleane touches, without conviction, with­out obstinacy. For the Text speaketh nothing of obstinacy, nor conviction: but onely implieth, that such uncleane Touches were found in the Church of Corinth, and yet that did not evacuate their Church-estate.

His last Paragraph holdeth forth some more shape of an Answer, but as little substance.

The greatest Question here (saith he) would be whether the Corin­thians in their first Constitution were separate or no from such Idols Tem­ples? And this M ^r. Cotton neither doth nor can deny; A Church estate being a state of marriage unto Christ Jesus; and so Paul professedly saith, He had espoused them as a chaste Virgin unto Christ, 2 Cor. 11.

Reply. 1. To put any substance into this Answer, or any force pertinent to the cause in hand, it must be no great Question, but cleare out of Question, that these Corinthians in their first consti­tution were cleane, and absolutely separate from such Idolls Tem­ples: [Page 95]and that not onely locally, but in their soule and iudgement, minde and heart, utterly cut off from such uncleane Touches, so that they both undoubtedly saw the evill thereof, and from their hearts abhorred it, and forsooke it. For all these Acts of coming off in a way of separation from the Churches of England, he requi­reth from us, as absolutely necessary to enter into a true Church­estate. Now if he thinke that M ^r. Cotton (to use his words) neither doth nor can deny, that in their first constitution they were thus separate from Idolls Temples.

I must professe, though not to him, yet to all that love and seek the Truth without prejudice, that I both can and doe deny it, that in their first constitution, they were locally separate from I­dolls Temples, it is likely enough; or else I suppose the Apostle­would have admonished them thereof in their first Plantation. But that in their minde and judgement, they saw the evill there­of, and did in heart and soule bewaile it, and confesse it before the Apostle and their Brethren, and so enter into solemne Covenant, expresly against it; this is altogether incredible to me: For would not the Apostle then (out of his faithfulnesse) have reproved them as well for their Apostacy, as for their Fellowship in Idolatry? Would he not as well have rebuked the prevarication of their Co­venant, as their pollution of their communion with Pagans?

What though a Church-estate be a state of Marriage unto Je­sus Christ? May not a married Spouse of Christ be ignorant of some part of her marriage-dutie towards him? And what though Paul professe, He had espoused them as a chaste Virgin to Jesus Christ? May not he call them a chaste Virgin, who had seene and bewailed their former worship of Idolls, though they neither bewailed nor saw the evill of feasting with their neighbours in Idolls Temples?

Reply. 2. Though the Examiner make it a great Question whe­ther a Church can be truely constituted, that in her first constitu­tion is not seperate from all uncleane Touches, so as both to see them, and come out of them, howsoever they may fall into such sinnes afterwards: yet I looke at it as an ungrounded distinction, to require more purity to the being of a Church in her first con­stitution, then is necessary to the being of it, after it is constituted. I should thinke the longer a Church hath enjoyed communion with the Lord Jesus Christ, the more shee ought to grow both in [Page 96]knowledge and purity. Where more hath been given, the more will be required of the Lord. Yea I conceive it more agreeable to the word of Truth, that God will sooner separate from a Church constituted, for their whorish pollutions, then deny them Church­estate for the like pollutions in their first constitution. The people of Israel were not constituted a Nationall Church till the Lord gave them Nationall Ordinances, and Nationall Officers, and en­tered them together into a Nationall Covenant, Exod. 19.5, 6. Their Church-estate before, was rather domesticall, dispersed in­to severall Families. When they were thus constituted a Nationall Church, and afterwards fell into an Idolatrous crime, the Lord directed Moses to breake the Tables of his Covenant between them, and did also seperate his Tabernacle from them, till upon their re­pentance he renewed communion with them, Exod. 32.19. with Exod. 33.3. to 7. But yet the like Idolatry (if not worse) being found in the same People, when they dwelt in Aegypt, it did not hinder the Lord from accepting them unto a Nationall Constitu­tion of a Church-estate.

TO CHAP. XX.

THe maine Objection which M ^r. Williams made against the Estate of our Church-members, was chiefly this; That though he acknowledgeth them to be godly, yet not sufficiently separate from Antichrist. And that he endeavoured to prove, 1. From the Texts that call for separation from Babylon, Isa. 52.2 Cor. 6. Rev. 18.2. From the confession of sinnes made by Johns Disciples, Mat. 3. and the Proselyte Gentiles, Acts 19. To both these we have re­turned Answer already.

His third Objection followeth from Haggai 2.13, 14, 15. where the Prophet telleth the Church of the Jewes, That if a Person un­cleane by a dead body, doe touch holy things, those holy things become un­cleane to him. And so (saith he) is this Nation, and so is every worke of their hands, and that which they offer here is uncleane. And from hence he argueth; That even Church-Covenants made and Ordinances practised by persons polluted through spirituall deadnesse, and filthinesse of Communion, they become uncleane to them, and are prophaned by them: which he solemnely desireth might be advisedly weighed.

Whereto my Answer was; That if he had well weighed this place himselfe, he would never have alledged it to his purpose. His purpose was to prove, that Churches cannot be constituted of such members, as are un­cleane by Antichristian pollutions: or if they be so constituted, they are not to be Communicated with, but separated from. To prove this, you alledge (said I) this place, where the Prophet acknowledgeth the whole Church to be uncleane, and yet neither denieth them to be a Church truely consti­tuted, nor stirreth up himselfe, or others to separate from them. If you say, why, but they were uncleane.

I answered; Be it so. But were they therefore no Church truely Con­stituted? Or to be separated from? Did not Haggai, and Zachary them­selves Communicate with them? And did they not call others also to come out of Babel to Communicate with them, even whilest Joshua the High Priest was still polluted with his uncleane Garments? Zach. 2.6, 7. with Chapt. 3.8.

Whereupon I tooke occasion to cleare up to him the occasion, and scope, and true sence of the words at large, as may appeare in the Letter, which having gathered up I said, That if he did apply it to the Point in hand, it would reach nothing neere to his purpose. Hypo­crites in the Church, yea and godly sincere Christians themselves, whilest they attend to the world more then to the things of God, (as at that time the Jewes did) both their persons, and their labours, and their Civill Ob­lations are uncleane in the sight of God:

Therefore the Church of Christ cannot be constituted of such: or if it doe consist of such, the People of God must separate from them. You might well have gathered

Therefore the Church of Christ, and the members thereof must separate themselves from their hypocrisie and inordinate love of this world, or else they and their duties will still be uncleane in the sight of God, notwith­standing their Church-Estate.

This Collection tendeth to edification; the other to dissipation, and de­struction of the Church, and wresteth Bloud instead of Milke from the Breasts of holy Scripture.

This Text is so evident, and pregnant, and full against himselfe, that I could not but marvell, why he should alledge it, and especi­ally why he should desire it might be throughly weighed, and the Lord to hold the scales himselfe. How doe you then thinke, that he will hence inferre his Conclusion; That Godly persons, if uncleane, [Page 104]cannot constitute a true Church? or if they doe, they are to be se­parated from? Surely not from the words of the Text, nor from the sence, which I make of it: nor from any sence, which himselfe can give of it. How then? Onely from his mistake of my words, and that surely either through a drousie Oscitancy, or a sleighty Precipitancy.

What (saith he) have I spoken more then M ^r. Cotton himselfe hath uttered in his Explication and Application of this Scripture; As,

1. That Godly persons may become defiled, and uncleane, by hypocrisie and worldlinesse.

2. While they lye in such a condition of uncleannesse, all their offerings, persons, labours are uncleane in the sight of God, notwithstanding their Church-estate.

3. The Church cannot be constituted of such worldly Persons (though otherwise godly and Christian.)

Or 4. If they doe, the People of God must separate from them. These be (saith he) M ^r. Cottons own expresse words.

Reply. He might as well say, these be the expresse words of Christ, Hang all the Law, and the Prophets, because Christ saith, ( Mat. 19.40.) upon these two Commandements, Hang all the Law and the Prophets. So these be my expresse words; The true and ge­nuine meaning of the place, if you doe apply to the Point in hand, it will reach nothing neere to your purpose. Hypocrites in the Church and godly Christians themselves, whilest they attend to the world more then to the things of God, their persons, their labours, their Civill Oblations are all uncleane in the sight of God. Ergo. The Church of Christ cannot be con­stituted of such: or if it doe consist of such, the People of God must separate from them.

Who seeth not that attendeth to what he seeth, that in these words I expresse not mine own meaning or reasoning, but his: and that I expresly say, The true meaning of the Text will nothing neere reach to his purpose, and so bring in his reason, in forme of an Enthymeme, which he draws from it? But if I had made that Enthymeme the expression of mine own meaning, and of the meaning of the Text, it had sully and closely reached his own purpose.

The next words following might also plainly have cleared my meaning to him: when in stead of that false collection which he [Page 105]gathered, I tell him, you might well have gathered: therefore the Church of Christ, and the members thereof must separate themselves from their hypocrisie, and their inordinate love of this world: Or else they and their duties will he still uncleane in the sight of God, notwithstanding their Church-estate.

This Collection tendeth to edification: the other to the dissipation, and destruction of the Flock, and wresteth bloud instead of milke from the Breasts of holy Scripture.

Doe I not here plainly expresse two severall, and contrary Col­lections from the Text, the one his, the other mine own; the one tending to edification, the other to destruction? And yet this false collection, and misapplication of the Text, which is his own, and a manifest Perverting both of the Text, and of my words, he will needs force upon me, contrary to my meaning, and contrary also to my expresse words above in the entrance of mine Answer to this Text. Where I say,

Your purpose was to prove, That Churches cannot be constituted by such persons as are uncleane by Antichristian pollutions: or if they be so constituted, they are not to be communicated with, but separated from. To prove this, you alledge this place where the Prophet acknowledgeth the whole Church of the Jewes to be uncleane: and yet neither denieth them to be a Church truely constituted, nor stirreth up himselfe or others to se­parate from them.

What by the way he discourseth of the Excommunication in the Nationall Church of the Jewes, somewhat hath been spoken to it above. When he saith, That their Ceremoniall Excommunicati­on was either putting to death in Canaan, or Captivitie out of Canaan. If he meane this was all their Excommunication, I cannot assent to it. King Ʋzziah was neither put to death in Canaan, nor car­ried captive out of Canaan, and yet he was Excommunicated both from Temple-worship, Synagogue-worship, and all familiar com­munion of the Saints.

Againe, when he maketh it an Excommunication from God, in case God sell his Church into spirituall Captivitie, to confused Babylonish Lords, and worship, and that so he driveth them out of his sight: He might remember, that God sometime sold his people under the Bondage of Babylonish Lords, even in the Land of Canaan, (Jer. 40.9. & 42.10, 11, 12.) And yet he had not straight way driven them out of his sight.

TO CHAP. XXI.

IT was my serious and unfeigned endeavour, in my Letter which the Examiner hath answered, to have removed those two stum­bling blocks out of his way, which I perceived had turned him off, from holding fellowship with these Churches. The former was, The want of fit matter of our Churches: The latter, Our dis-respect to the separate Churches in England, under affliction, when neverthelesse our selves practise separation in peace.

From the beginning of his tenth Chapter, he hath endeavoured to fasten the former of these stumbling blocks, that it may still lie in his way, and stand (as an everlasting wall of partition) between us. Which neverthelesse I have (as you see) through the helpe of Christ endeavoured to dig through the sandinesse thereof, that if it were the holy will of God, it might fall downe (like the walles of Jericho) before the Arke of the Lord, and neither detaine him, nor others, from Communion with us.

The latter stumbling block, he goeth about to re-establish in this, and the following Chapters to the end of his Booke; Come we therefore to consider, whether there may be any hope, of re­moving this stumbling block also, and the establishment thereof by the same helpe. The stumbling block lieth somewhat broader, then at first was propounded. The Examiner takes it as a great offence; That we walke between Christ and Antichrist.

1. In practising separation here, and not repenting of our preaching, and printing against it in our own Countrey.

2. In reproaching himselfe at Salem, and others, for separation.

3. In particular, that my selfe have conceived and spoken, That sepa­ration is a way, which God hath not prospered: as if (saith he) the truth of the Churches depended upon the countenance of men, or upon out­ward peace and libertie.

To the first of these I answered in my Letter, That in stead of hal­ting betwixt Christ, and Antichrist, the Lord hath guided us to walke with an even foote between two extreames: so that we neither defile our selves with the remnants of pollution in other Churches; nor doe we for the remnants of pollution, renounce the Churches themselves, nor the holy things of God amongst them, which our selves have found powerfull to [Page 107]salvation. This moderation so farre as we have kept it in preaching or printing, we have seene no cause to repent of it; But if any shall shew us cause, why we should repent of it, we shall desire to repent of it, yea and to repent, that we repented no sooner.

The Examiner here undertaketh to prove this middle walking to be no lesse then-halting, of which we have cause to repent. And this he endeavours to prove to me, out of mine own Confessions.

First, saith he, M ^r. Cotton himselfe confesseth, that no Nationall, Provinciall, Diocesan, or Parish Church, wherein some truely godly are not, are true Churches.

Secondly, He practiseth no Church-estate, but such as is constituted onely of godly persons, nor admitteth any unregenerate, or ungodly per­sons.

Thirdly, He confesseth, that a Church of Christ cannot be constitu­ted of such godly persons, who are in bondage to the inordinate love of the world.

Fourthly, That if a Church consist of such, Gods people ought to sepa­rate from them.

Reply. If these (which he calleth confessions of M ^r. Cotton) have been stumblings to him, I shall (by the helpe of Christ) soone re­move them out of his way. For I doe professe, that I never made any such Confessions, but looke at them all as contrary to my judgement, both in former times and to this day.

For the first, Though there were no truely godly persons in a Church, yet if there be such as professe godlinesse (such as they call visible Saints) to meete together in a Congregation to wor­ship the Lord, and to edifie one another in the administration of his holy Ordinances, I doe beleeve there is truth of Church-estate.

It is true, I doe beleeve, and confesse, that God requireth more then profession of godlinesse, even sinceritie of holinesse in Church-members, and it is no small sinne in them, if it be wanting; But what if some, if most, if all beleeve not? Shall their unbeliefe make the faith of God of none effect? God forbid? Rom. 3.3, 4. If an hypo­criticall Church were no Church, then an hypocri [...]call Minister were no Minister, and his administrations nullities. Cultus institu­tus, in the whole latitude of it, as Churches, Min;isteries, Seales, Censures, &c. they are all ordained for the Elects sake. And the [Page 108]Elect God would have them to be [...], without carefull scru­ples and distractions. If truth of Churches, and Ministeries, and Ordinances, depended upon the personall sincerity of the godli­nesse of the dispensers, the Elect of God would ever be intangled with inextricable scruples, touching their cōmunion here or there, with this or that Church, or the administrations of the Officers thereof. But God hath called us in peace.

For the second part (which he maketh) of my Confessions, he had said true, if he had said, I endeavour such a thing, that our Church should be constitute of godly persons: but I doe not say I have attained it; for God seeth not as man seeth: man looketh at the outward appearance, but the Lord regardeth the heart, 1 Sam. 16.7. And sure I am, we looke at Infants as members of our Church, (as being foedurally holy) but I am slow to beleeve that all of them are regenerate, or truly godly.

As for the third and fourth point (which he maketh) of my Confession; That a Church of Christ cannot be constituted of godly per­sons, taken with the inordinate love of the world: or that a Church con­sisting of such, ought to be separated from: These are onely his own palpable mistakes of those words of mine, which I expressed as the summe of his words, which he (through hast) conceived to be mine, whereof we have spoken in the 20 ^th Chapter.

Let him not say (as he doth) that when I would not have Pa­rish Churches to be separated from, for the remnants of pollutions, I mean onely, Ceremonies, and Bishops: neither let him say, that I doe extenuate and mince the roote, masse, and substance of the matter of Nationall Churches, (though for the greater part unregenerate) by naming onely a remnant of pollutions.

For he knoweth we wholly avoyde Nationall, Provinciall, and Diocesan Government of the Churches by Episcopall Authority: He knoweth also, we avoyde their prescript Liturgies, and Com­munion with openly scandalous persons in any Church-order; He knoweth likewise, (or at least may know) that it is a continu­all sorrow of heart, and a mourning of our soules, that there is yet so much of those notorious evills (which he nameth) still conti­nuing in the Parishes, worldlinesse, ignorance, superstition, scof­fing, swearing, cursing, whoredome, drunkennesse, theft, lying, I may adde also murther, and malignity against the godly, suffered [Page 109]to thrust themselves into the fellowship of the Churches, and to sit downe with the Saints at the Lords Table.

But yet I count all these but remnants of pollution, when as the substance of the true estate of Churches abideth (as I opened a­bove) in their Congregationall Assemblies. And in so speaking, I follow the holy patterne of the Prophet Isaiah, who acknow­ledging a great forsaking (or Apostacy) in the midst of the Land, yet resembleth the estate of the Church to an Oake, whose sub­stance is in it, (when the leaves fall off) and maketh the holy seed to be that substance, Isai. 6.12, 13.

TO CHAP. XXII.

THe second offence which the Examiner tooke at our neglect of the Churches of the separation, Was the reproach of himselfe and others at Salem, for their separation.

To which I answered in my Letter, That I knew no man who re­proached Salem for their separation, nor did I beleeve, that they did se­parate. Howsoever, if any did reproach them for it, I did thinke it a sinne meete to be Censured, but not with so deepe a Censure, as to excommuni­cate all the Churches, or to separate from them, before it doth appeare, that they doe tolerate their members in such their causlesse reproachings. The errors of men are to be contended against, not with reproaches, but with the sword of the Spirit. But on the other side, the failings of the Churches are not forthwith to be healed by separation. It is not Chirur­gery, but Butchery, to heale every sore in a member, with no other but Abscission from the body.

Whereto the Examiner answereth, That the Church of Salem was knowne to professe separation, and publickly reproached (yea he could men­tion a Case wherein shee was punished) for it, implicitely.

Reply. This answer is so implicit, that I cannot make an expli­cite answer to it. That which I said, was, I knew no man that re­proached Salem for their separation: nor did I beleeve, that they did se­parate. His answer is, That the Church of Salem was knowne to pro­fesse separation: which crosseth not what I said; for it might be so, and yet I knew not of it, unlesse the profession had been more pub­lick. Nor did I ever perceive, that they refused communion with [Page 110]us, when any of them came over to us. If they were publickly re­proached for separation, it was more then I heard of, till I read it in his Booke. And for any publick punishment that Salem suffered for it, I may well say, it was implicitly, if at all; for surely there is no Law of the Countrey, that punisheth such an offence, it her ex­plicitly, or implicitly. But since he is pleased to conceale it, I see no cause of giving account of it.

Nextly, He takes up from me a Confession of two things, which he leaveth to me to reconcile: 1. That I say, if any reproach them for Seperation, it is a sinne meete to be Censured. 2. That Churches them­selves may be separated from, who tolerate their members in such causelesse reproachings.

Reply. It is true, that I doe not account reproaches, (which are a worke of the flesh) a meete remedy to heale an error: And there­fore the reproacher meete to be delt withall, either by private ad­monition, if it were publick. But the latter of the two things which he saith I confesse, I am farre from either confessing it, or beleeving it; to wit, That the Churches themselves may be separated from, who tolerate their members in such causelesse reproachings.

I said indeed, that a causelesse reproach is a sinne meete to be censured: But I said withall, it is not to be censured with so deepe a Censure, as ex­communication, especially of all the Churches, and that too, before that it doe appeare, that they doe tolerate their members in such their causelesse reproachings.

But it may be, he will say, doth it not imply, that if it doth ap­peare, that they doe tolerate their members in such causelesse re­proaches, that then I thinke they are to be separated from?

Answ. No verily: Put it in a like case: Suppose a childe should miscall and revile his Mothers Sister, I might say, it is a fault meete to be corrected, yet not with so deepe a correction, as to be dis­inherited: or that his Mother should be dispossessed of her inheri­tance, before it doe appeare, that she doe tolerate her childe in such revilings. Would such a speech inferre, that in case it did appeare, his Mother did tolerate him, that then his Mother were to be dis­possessed of her inheritance? The true meaning of my speech, was to expresse, that such a sinne, as reproaching of a Church for a sin, might deserve a Censure: yet not forthwith excommunication: [Page 111]much lesse the Church to be excommunicated, whereof such an one is a member, and least of all, before it did appeare, that the Church knew of it, or did tolerate it: The scope of my speech was, not to hold forth the grievous desert of a reproach, but the groundlesse proceeding unto separation for a reproach, both against a mem­ber, and against the Church that tolerated him, without any fur­ther conviction, or obstinacy, which was the case in hand of M ^r. Williams. Some body, he saith, reproached the Church of Salem for separation, some member of some Church. But what member of what Church, he saith not? And yet this is one of the stumbling blocks that turned him out of the way of communion with all the Churches in the Countrey, who (for ought I know) never heard of it unto this day. Let him now say, that mine owne confessions are sufficient Answers to my selfe, as if I granted, that in case the member had been knowne, who so reproached Salem, and the Church knowne whereof he was a member, That then there were a lawfull separation from the Church that doth but tolerate her member in a causelesse reproach, yea and from all other Churches too, that hold Com­munion with that Church.

For he is not ignorant, more goeth to a separation then so, un­lesse he hath forgotten the principles and rudiments of Church-Government.

He confesseth that to be true which I said, That it is not Chirurge­ry but Butchery, to heale every sore with no other medicine, but with Ab­scission from the body: But yet as if he could make mine own expres­sions, confutations of my selfe, he saith that I have confessed (that which indeed is not my confession, but my collection of his Argu­gument;) That Churches of godly persons must be separated from, for in­ordinate worldlinesse.

If this be a Contradiction, it is his, and not mine, as I shewed above; neither doe I own any such confession, as mine, which he subjoyneth; That Churches may be separated from, when they tolerate their members in their causelesse reproaches.

It seemeth, he thinketh, I neither remember mine own words, nor know any Church-Censure, but Excommunication.

He proceedeth to tell us his judgement in so waighty a case as excommunication or separation is: It is not (saith he) every sore of infirmitie, or ignorance, but an Ʋlcer or Gangreene of obstinacy, for [Page 112]which I maintained, that a person ought to be cut off, or a Church separated from.

I know not how this judgement of his may satisfie his neigh­bours; but a good Conscience willing to walke by rule, would still inquire, (where it was meete) First, whether every obstinacy, even before conviction, and that in a sinne lesse hainous, be such an ul­cer, or Gangrene, for which either a person ought to be cut off, or a Church separated from? For there is an obstinacy against a good way, as there is a scorning of a good way, which is before convi­ction, even of ignorance: and to these Wisdome communicateth good Counsell, Prov. 1.20.22. But there is a scorning, and so an obstinacy, after conviction, and to such, Wisdome refuseth to com­municate any wholesome words, Prov. 9.8, 9.

If he meane the former, why did he refuse communion with us upon such an obstinacy of ignorance? By what rule did he pro­ceede?

If he meane the latter, let him produce his cause, and bring forth all his strong reasons, whereby he did so much as offer to convince us of our obstinacy in any crime, and we will acknowledge his se­paration to be just, and our sinne to be great in not hearkening to him.

If he tell us againe, (as he doth in the next words, as indeed the mouth is most full of the aboundance of the heart) if he tell us a­gaine of our guiltinesse of cruelty, both against consciences and bodies, in persecuting of them, wee must needs tell him againe, that neither himselfe, nor any others, (that I can heare off) did ever suffer any Censure, (which he calleth cruelty to consciences and bodies) till after his separation from all the Churches in the Countrey. And though he saith in the next words, He separated Conscientiously and peaceably: Yet did ever peaceable Conscience (before him) separate from Churches for an offence before it was committed?

If he tell us, he separated, for our communion with the Chur­ches of England, in hearing the word in the Parishes there, let all that feare God (whose hearts are not forestalled with prejudice or partiality) judge whether his reasons alledged to convince us of such a sinne, (the strongest whereof were answered in my Letter to him, and have been againe refuted in this Reply) have been of [Page 113]such convincing power, as that wee for not hearkening to him must needs lie under the guilt of an ulcer, or Gangrene of obsti­nacy, and that after conviction. I may therefore well call it, not Chirurgery but Butchery, to cut off not onely so many members of Christ, but also so many Churches of Christ from fellowship with Christ, before any ulcer or Gangrene of obstinacy was dis­covered to us; Nay, I feare I might speake a further word, (and yet I would be loath to speake any doubtfull thing;) but surely (my memory much faileth me or else) he broke forth into this se­paration, before he gave us any grounds of his separation at all, or of our conviction of any such sinne, as might deserve such a Censure. And whether that be Butchery or Chirurgery, let the upright judge.

But, saith he, if it be Butchery to separate conscientiously and peace­ably from the spirituall communion of a Church, or Saints, what shall it be called by the Lord Jesus, to cut off persons, them, and theirs, branch, and roote, from any Civill being in their Territories, &c. Because their Consciences dare not how domne to any worship, but what the Lord Je­sus hath appointed, and being also otherwise subject to the Civill estate, and Lawes thereof?

Here be many extenuations, and mincings of his own carriage, and as many false aggravations of Guilt upon his sentence of Ba­nishment, and the Authors of it.

As, 1. In that he was cut off, he and his, branch and roote, from any Civill being in these Territories, because their Consciences durst not bow downe to any worship, but what they beleeve the Lord had appointed: Whereas the truth is, his Banishment pro­ceeded not against him, or his, for his own refusall of any worship, but for seditious opposition against the Patent, and against the Oath of fidelitie offered to the people.

2. That he was subject to the Civill estate, and Lawes thereof, when yet he vehemently opposed the Civill foundation of the Ci­vill estate, which was the Patent: And earnestly also opposed the Law of the generall Court, by which the tender of that Oath was enjoyned: and also wrote Letters of Admonition to all the Chur­ches, whereof the Magistrates were members, for deferring to give present Answer to a Petition of Salem, who had refused to hearken to a lawfull motion of theirs.

3. That he did but separate from the spirituall society of a Church, or Saints: whereas he both drew away many others al­so, and as much as in him lay, separated all the Churches from Christ.

4. In that he maketh the cutting off of persons, them and theirs, branch and rush, from civill Territories, a farre more hainous and odious offence in the eyes of the Lord Jesus, then himselfe to cut off, not onely himselfe and his, branch and rush, but many of his neighbours (by sedition) from spirituall Communion with the Churches, and all the Churches from Communion with Christ. As if the cutting off persons, them and theirs, branch and rush, from the Covenant, and spirituall Ordinances in the Church. were a matter of no account in respect of cutting off from Civill Liberties in the Territories of the Common-wealth.

5. In that, what himselfe did, he predicateth as done consci­entiously and peaceably, as if what the Court had done against him, they had not done conscientiously also, and with regard to publick peace, which they saw he disturbed, and stood stiffly in his own course, though he was openly convinced in open Court (as I shewed before) that he could not maintaine his way, but by sinning against the light of his own Conscience. As for his Marginall note, wherein he chargeth M ^r. Cotton to be deeply guilty of Cruelty, both a­gainst Consciences and bodies, in persecuting of them.

I will onely Answer thus much, (partly from David, partly from Job,) If the Lord have stirred him up thus to reproach me, (as Shimei did him) I hope the Lord will looke upon mine affliction, and requite me good for all his slander, this day, or this yeare, 2 Sam. 16 12. But if he himselfe (who without cause is mine ad­versary) hath whet his tongue like a sword, and his bow to shoot out his arrowes, even bitter words, ( Psal. 64.3. as he frequently doth in his Booke) surely I shall take his booke upon my shoulder, and bind it as a Crowne to me, Job 31.36.

TO CHAP. XXIII.

HIs 23. Chapter examineth a speech of mine which might tend to the dishonour of the Separation, as the reproach against [Page 115] Salem had done before. My Speech was, That God had not prospered the way of Separation: which least it should be mistaken, I interpreted, not in respect of outward prosperitie: for they found more favour in our native Countrey, then those who walked in the way of Reformation, which is commonly reproached by the name of Puritanisme. The meet­ings of the Separatists might be knowne to the Officers in the Courts, and winked at, when the Conventicles of the Puritans (as they call them) are hunted out with all diligence, and pursued with more violence, then any Law can justifie. But I said, that God had not prospered the way of Separation, in that he had not blessed it, either with peace amongst them­selves, or with growth of grace, such as erring through simplicitie, and tendernesse of Conscience, have growne in grace, have growne also to dis­cerne their lawfull libertie, to returne to the hearing of the Word from English Preachers.

To give Answer to this, the Examiner bestoweth many Chap­ters. His first Answer is, (that which is not unworthy to be atten­ded to, by all whom it concerneth,) That doubtlesse the Lord hath a great Controversie with the Land for their such violent pursuit and perse­cution of both. For both of them have borne witnesse to severall truths of the Lord Jesus. Albeit, I deny not, the one party might have borne witnesse to more points of Truth: the other might have borne wit­nesse to fewer, and so have lesse exceeded bounds of Truth. To make the English Churches, and their Ministeries, and their Wor­ship, and their Professors, either nullities, or Antichristian, is a wit­nesse not onely beyond the truth, but against the Truth of the Lord Jesus, and his word of Truth.

But for their sufferings; The Puritans (saith he) have not suffered comparatively to the other, (as but seldome Congregating in separate As­semblies from the common:) And none of them suffering unto death for the way of Non-Conformitie. Indeed (saith he) the worthy witnesse M ^r. Udall was neere unto death for his witnesse against Bishops, and Ceremonies; But M ^r. Penry, M ^r. Barrow, M ^r. Greenwood followed the Lord Jesus, with their Gibbets, and were hanged with him, and for him, in the way of separation. Many more have been condemned in dye, banished, and choaked in Prisans, whom I could produce upon occasion.

Reply. Paul accounteth it a folly to make boasts in comparisons, even of sufferings: And therefore I choose to be sparing and briefe in this Argument: wherein otherwise I could be copious, there be­ing [Page 116]another Volume of the Booke of Martyrs (as I heare) extant in the Countrey, (though not in print) of the sufferings of the godly Ministers and people, beginning where M ^r. Fox left. When he saith, Their witnesses against Bishops and Ceremonies, (whom he cal­leth Puritans) have seldome met in separate Assemblies from the common: It seemeth he never read the story of the Classes in Northampton­shire, Suffolk, Essex, London, Cambridge, discovered by a false bro­ther to Doctor Bancroft (Chaplain then to Lord Chancellor Hat­ton, afterwards Bishop of London, and after that Archbishop of Canterbury;) nor that he ever tooke notice of Doctor Bancrofts Booke against them, entituled, Dangerous Positions and practises a­gainst Religion and State; neither doth it seeme, that he doth ac­knowledge their frequent and continuall meetings to duties of hu­miliation, as any separate meetings from the common. But I doubt not, the Lord tooke notice of both, and hath now rewarded their sighes and groanes, prayers and teares in private with an open re­compence and deliverance in the view of all men.

Besides, though he pleased to confine the witnesse of these he calleth Puritans, unto Testimony against Bishops and Ceremonies: yet I did not thinke, he had been such a stranger in Israel, (if by his leave I may call it Israel) as to be ignorant, how farre both the Admonitions to the Parliament have reached to beare witnesse be­yond Bishops and Ceremonies. To say nothing of M ^r. Deerings Sermon before the Queene, or M ^r. Chadertons at Pauls Crosse, or M ^r. Parkers Ecclesiastica Politica, or M ^r. Baines his Diocesans Try­all.

Though he say, None of them suffered unto death, onely M ^r. Ʋdall was neere it: Yet the truth is, he dyed by the annoyance of the Prison, which he might as well have acknowledged as he doth of some of the Separatists in this very Paragraph, that they were choaked in Prison. This I have understood by faithfull witnesses, that when the Coroners Jury (according to the Law of England) came (as the manner is in such cases) to survey the dead body of M ^r. Ʋdall in Prison, he bled freshly (though cold before) as a te­stimony against the murderous illegall proceedings of the State against him: for so the godly did apprehend it; judicious Perkins acknowledgeth such a kinde of bleeding to be a part of the accom­plishment of that Scripture in Heb. 11. That the bloud of Abel still speaketh.

In like sort, for the same cause (choaked in the prison) suffered M ^r. Randall Bates (an heavenly Saint) nor could he be released, though Doctor Hering (a learned and beloved Physician) earnest­ly solicited Bishop Neale for his enlargement as he tendred his life, but the suite of the Physician was repulsed with reproaches: And the life of his patient spilt by that rigor. He is therefore much mis­taken, when he saith, None of them suffered unto death. And it is alike mistake, when he maketh M ^r. Penry one of his witnesses unto the death for Separation. I have received it from M ^r. Hildersom (a man of a thousand) that M ^r. Penry did ingenuously acknowledge before his death, That though he had not deserved death for any disho­nour put upon the Queene, by that Booke (which was found in his study, and intended by himselfe to be presented to her own hand:) nor by the compiling of Martin Marprelate, (of both which he was falsly charged;) yet he confessed, he deserved death at the Queenes hand, for that he had seduced many of her loyall Subjects to a separation from hearing the Word of life in the Parish Churches. Which though himselfe had learned to discerne the evill thereof, yet he could never prevaile to recover divers of her Subjects, whom he had sedu­ced: and therefore the bloud of their soules, was now justly required at his hands.

Let the Examiner consider, whether he will own this M ^r. Penry for one of his faithfull witnesses hereafter; If he doe, let him endea­vour to doe as he did, seeke to reduce those soules whom he hath seduced from hearing the word of life: or else, let him confesse (as M ^r. Penry did) the bloud of those soules may justly be required at his hands, if M ^r. Penries witnesse be of waight with him.

Touching his other witnesse, to the death of M ^r. Barrow, this I can say, from the testimony of holy and blessed M ^r. Dod, who speak­ing of this M ^r. Barrow, God is not wont (saith he) to make choice of men, infamous for grosse vices before their calling, to make them any no­table instruments of Reformation after their Calling. M ^r. Barrow whi­lest he lived in Court, was wont to be a great Gamster, and Dicer, and of­ten getting much by play, would boast, Vivo de die, in spem noctis, no­thing ashamed to boast of his hopes of his nights lodgings in the bosomes of his Courtizens. As his spirit was high and rough before his reformati­on, so was it after, even to his death. When he stood under the Gibbet, he lift up his eyes, and Lord (saith he) if I be deceived, thou hast decei­ved [Page 118]me: And so being stopt by the hand of God, he was not able to pro­ceed to speake any thing to purpose more, either to the glory of God, or to the edification of the people.

M ^r. Greenwood (the Examiners last witnesse unto death) he indeed of all the rest was the more to be lamented, as being of a more ten­der, and conscientious spirit: but this have I heard reported of him by the same credible hands, That if he could have been sundred from M ^r. Barrow, he was tractable to have been gained to the truth. But when the Examiner goeth on to make comparisons between the Sufferings of the Separatists, and of (those he styleth) Puri­tans, in his Margent, and in his Booke. No comparison will hold from the Separatists to them, but a Minori. What compulsory ba­nishments have been put upon those blessed and glorious lights, M ^r. Cartwright, Parker, Ames? To say nothing of those in Scot­land, or New-England: When have the Prisons been vacant of some or other godly Ministers, and Professors? When will the Exami­ner shew forth alike company of his witnesses, to those 300. Mini­sters (whom M ^r. Parker compareth to the 300. Souldiers of Gide­on) who in one storme of persecution, were some suspended, some excommunicated, some imprisoned, all of them deprived of their Ministery, and of their maintenance? And provision made, that none might practise Phyficke, or teach Schoole, unlesse they would accept a Licence with subscription? So that of necessicie (had not the Lord been wiser, and stronger then men) they must in reme­dilesse misery, they and theirs, have either begged, or starved; But that with the Lord there be bowells of mercy, and fatherly com­passions, and with him are plenteous redemptions, and provisions, and protections, when men faile.

The Examiner proceedeth (in his Answer) to tell us further, That he beleeveth there hath hardly ever been a Conscientious Separa­tist, who was not first a Puritan. For (as M ^r. Can hath unanswera­bly proved) the grounds and principles of the Puritans against Bishops, and Ceremonies, and prophanesse of people professing Christ: and the ne­cessitie of Christs flock and discipline, must necessarily (if truly followed) lead on to, and enforce a separation.

Reply. 1. If there were hardly ever any conscientious Separatist, who was not first a Puritan, then it seemeth, that if there be any Conscience in the Separatists, it was first wrought in them by the Ministers of those whom he calleth Puritans.

2. Say it were true, that he pretendeth, That the principles and grounds of Puritanisme, did enforce Separation:) yet I doe not understand, what it maketh to the point in hand.

3. Neither doe I understand, how it suiteth with the Exami­ners profession who is wont to renounce all communion with An­tichristian inventions, so frequently to take up into his mouth and pen the Nickname of Puritans: which was at first devised by San­ders the Jesuite, to cast a reproach upon the persons and way of re­formers, to render them suspicious and odious to the State. The righteous hand of the Lord struck him with madnesse who inven­ted the name: nor doth he delight in them that delight to take up a reproach against the innocent.

4. How unanswerably M ^r. Can hath proved the necessity of Se­paration from their grounds and principles, I will not judge, be­cause I have not seene his Booke. But to separate from the Chur­ches of England, as no Churches, or false Churches, from their Ministery, as a false Ministery, from their Sermons as false worship, from their professors as no visible Saints. And to prove all this out of the Principles and grounds of those holy Saints of God, whom he misnameth Puritans, will require a strong efficacy of delusions, to make it appeare probable to a sad and judicious spirit, that is not sorestalled with prejudice, or partialitie.

But the Examiner proceedeth in his Answer to enquire, What should be the Reason, why the Separatist (who witnesseth against the Roote of the Constitution it selfe) should finde more favour then the Pu­ritan, or Non-conformist?

And he telleth us,

Doubtlesse the reasons are evident: 1. Because most of the Separatists have been poore and low, and not such gainfull Customers to the Bishops, their Courts, and Officers. M ^r. Ainsworth himselfe (though a worthy instrument of Gods praise) lived upon nine pence in the weeke with roots boyled, &c.

Reply. In part I will not deny some truth and weight in this rea­son; But take it for granted, and it doth but confirme what I said, that the Separatist found more favour then the Non-conformist, whatsoever the reason was.

The second reason that he giveth is, That it is a principle in na­ture to preferre a professed enemy, before a pretended friend. The Separa­tists [Page 120]have been looked at by the Bishops, and their adherents, as knowne and professed enemies: whereas the Puritans have professed subjection, and submitted to the Bishops, their Courts, their Officers, their Common Prayer, and worships: And yet (the Bishops have well knowne) with no greater affection, then the Israelites bore the Aegyptians cruell task­masters.

Reply. 1. What the Non-conformists did beare, it was no more then they thought they might beare with a good Conscience, ac­cording to the light they had received. If they did beare more, then what in Conscience they judged lawfull to be borne, they had no reason to beare with themselves in so doing.

But if the Bishops bore the lesse with them in such their sub­jection, it was because they looked at them not as pretended friends, but as more dangerous enemies: as knowing both that the Lord was with them, (which made Saul the more afraid of David, 1 Sam. 18.28, 29.) as also that the grounds which they gave of their judgement and practise, were more agreeable to Scripture, and to the judgement of all reformed Churches, and therefore more likely in time to prevaile, to the utter overthrow of their u­surped Hierarchy. But as for the Separatists, the Bishops did not discerne, either the Lord going forth in like sort with them, or their grounds so likely to subvert their freehold. Though the Se­paratists struck at the roote of the Constitutions of their Chur­ches, (which was indeed a greater blow then to strike at the roote of Episcopacy:) yet because the Episcopacy saw that the Separa­tists struck at the things of Christ, together with themselves, they knew such stroakes would not much hurt their standing.

The next word which the Examiner answereth, is unto that I said; God hath not prospered the way of Separation, neither with peace amongst themselves, nor with growth of grace.

His answer is; 1. That want of peace may befall the truest Churches of the Lord Jesus, as them at Antioch, Corinth, Galatia.

Reply. The distraction at Antioch was soone healed by the Counsell of the Synod at Hierusalem, which is a way of peace which the Churches of the rigid Separation have not knowne, nor will condescend unto: which makes their dissentions destitute of hopes of reconciliation without separation one from another. The like may be said of the Churches of Galatia and Corinth. I [Page 121]doe not read their differences were healed by Separation, but by listning to Apostolicall Counsell.

2. His second Answer is, that it is a common Character of a false Church (maintained by the Smiths and Cutlers shop) to enjoy peace, none daring for feare of civill punishment to question, or differ, &c.

Reply. Though it be a common Character of a false Church, to enjoy a forced and violent peace: yet it is a peculiar Character of a true Church, to enjoy holy peace with God, and one with another, which where it is wanting, there is something else wan­ting, either in their Faith or Order.

3. His third Answer is, That Gods people in that way have some­times long enjoyed sweet peace, and soule contentment, in England, Hol­land, New-England, and other places, &c.

Reply. The Answer had been more cleare and evident, if he had named those Churches, who have long enjoyed such peace in that way: in that way I say, of rigid Separation, separating from the Churches of England, as altogether false, in their Constituti­on, Ministry, worship, and therefore refusing to heare the word in the best of the Parish Assemblies. It is a wise Proverb of a wiser then Soloman, The back slider in heart (from any Truth or way of God) shall be filled with his owne wayes. They that separate from their brethren further then they have just cause, shall at length find cause (or at least thinke they have found cause) just enough to separate one from another. I never yet heard of any instance to the contrary, either in England, or Holland. And for New-England, there is no such Church of the Separation at al that I know of. That separate Church (if it may be called a Church) which separated with Mr. Williams, first broke into a division a­bout a small occasion (as I have heard) and then broke forth in­to Anabaptisme, and then into Antibaptisme, and Familisme, and now finally into no Church at all.

But whereas I said, God had not prospered the way of the Sepa­ration, as not with peace amongst themselves, so neither with growth of Grace,

He answereth, for growth of Grace, though some false brethren have crept in, yet Satan himselfe cannot but confesse that multitudes of Gods witnesses (reproached with the names of Brownists, and Ana­baptists) have kept themselves from the errours of the wicked, and doe [Page 122]grow in Grace, and knowledge of our Lord Jesus, &c.

Reply. It is an unwelcome Subject to goe about to convince o­thers of want of growth in Grace, especially, when wee speake of Churches, and that before wee have in a more private manner dealt with them. I looke at it as more seasonable to provoke our owne Churches to more growth of Grace at home. For even true Churches (as that of Ephesus, Revel. 2.) may decay in their first love.

Onely thus much I would say, the first Inventor of that way which is called Brownisme, from whom the Sect tooke its name, it is well knowne that he did not grow in Grace, but fell back first from his owne way, to take a Parsonage of a Parish-Church in England in Northamptonsheire, called a Church: God so in a strange (yet wise) providence ordering, that he who had utterly renounced all the Churches in England, as no Church should after­wards accept of one Parish-Church amongst them, and it called a Church, and from thence he fell to Organs, in the Temple of his owne Church (as I have been credibly informed) and from thence to discord with his best hearers, and bitter persecution of them at the last. It is not Gods usuall manner of dealing to leave any of the first publishers or restorers of any Truth of his to such fearefull Apostacy from his Grace, though I Judge not his finall Estate.

I will not rehearse what I read in printed Books of the unkind, and ungracious, and unbrotherly dealings of some of note in that way, whilst they maintained the rigor of it. That which the Ex­aminer himselfe hath rehearsed in this very chapter, may suffice to shew what growth of Godlinesse was found in that Church, the Officer whereof himselfe styleth a worthy Instrument of Gods prayse: and surely he was a man that deserved well of the Church, for sundry of his Learned, and painfull, and profitable labours. One would hope, that where the Lord blesseth a people with growth of godlinesse, the people would grow best under the best Ministers of that way. Mr. Aynsworths name is of best esteeme (without all exception) in that way, who refused Communion with hearing in England. And if his people suffered him to live up­on nine pence a week, with roots boyled (as the Examiner told us) surely either the people were growne to a very extreme, low [Page 123]Estate, or else the growth of their godlinesse was growen to a very low ebb.

TO CHAP. XXIIII.

IN his 24. and 25. Chapters, the Examiner giveth Answer to that speech in my Letter, That such (of the Separation) as erring through simplicity and tendernesse, have growne in Grace, have growne also to discerne their lawfull Liberty for the hearing of the word from the English Preachers. This I speake with respect to Mr. Robinson, and to his Church, who as he grew to many excellent gifts both of Grace and nature: so he grew to acknowledge, and in a Judici­ous, and godly discourse to approve and defend the lawfull Liber­ty of hearing the word from the godly Preachers of the Parishes in England.

But in this 24. Chapter the Examiner answereth nothing a­gainst the truth of my speech. Onely he telleth of foure sorts of Backsliders from sundry Truthes of God, whom he hath observed to be left of God to sad and exemplary spirituall Judgements.

But because he speaketh of such as have decayed in grace, and I speake of such as grow in grace, his instances come not neere the point in hand. I easily beleive that Hypocrites may grow from evill to worse deceiving and being deceived: 2 Tim. 3.13. But a sincere humble Christian, though he may start aside for a season, yet Christ is not wont to leave him so: but seeketh up every stray­sheep of his, and bringeth them to heare and know his voyce in the mouthes of his Shepheards.

TO CHAP. XXV.

IN this 25. chapter, because I had said, as they have growne in Grace, they have growne in discerning their lawfull Liberty to heare the word from the English Preachers.

He tels us, he might here engage himselfe in a controversie with me, but that neither the Treatise will permit: nor is there need, since it hath pleased the Father of Lights to stirre up the spirit of a faithfull [Page 124]witnesse of his Truth, in this particular, Mr. Canne, to make a large and faithfull Reply to a Booke printed in Mr. Robinsons name, ten­ding to prove such a lawfull Liberty.

Reply. Mr. Cann is unknowne unto me, and his Booke also: which I have not had the Liberty to get, in these remote ends of the world. I shall willingly bestow the reading of them if they come to my hands, and God give opportunity, especially if I see the spirit of a faithfull witnesse in them, which the Examiner ex­tolleth. Onely I am apt to thinke, as young men grow in yeares, and gifts, they will also grow up to the mellow-mildnesse, and softnesse and moderation of riper age as Mr. Robinson in many things did.

Now from the name of English Preachers (which I used in my speech) the Examiner though he seeme to decline the engaging of himselfe in a controversie about hearing of them, yet he taketh oc­casion to enter into a threefold discourse about them.

The first in (this chapter) concerning this title, English Preachers. Secondly, concerning hearing them in chapter 26. Thirdly concer­ning their calling in chap. 27.

The summe of his discourse about the title of these Preachers, standeth in these particulars.

First, that Mr. Cotton acknowledgeth, the ordinary Ministers of the Gospel, to Pastors, Teachers, Bishops, Overseers, Elders: and that their proper worke is, to feed and governe, a truly converted, holy, and godly people, gathered into a flock or Church-Estate.

And not properly Preachers, to convert, beget, make Disciples, which the Apostles, and Evangelists properly were: so that according to Mr. Cottons confessions, English Preachers are not Pastors, Teachers, Bi­shops, Elders, but Preachers of glad newes (Evangelists) men sent to convert and gather Churches, (Apostles,) &c.

Secondly, yet the Examiner confesseth, that at the Pastors fee­ding his flock, and at the Prophets prophecying in the Church, an un­beleiver coming in may be convinced, &c. but this is accidentall, &c.

Thirdly, the Examiner acknowledgeth that it pleased God to worke personall Repentance in the hearts of thousands in Germany, England, Low-Countries, France, Scotland, Ireland, &c. Yea, and who knoweth but in Italy, Spaine, and Rome, also, &c. but all this hath been under the notion of Ministers feeding their flocks, [Page 125]not of Preachers sent to convert the unconverted, and unbeleiving.

Reply. 1. Though I acknowledge the ordinary Ministers of the Gospel, to be Pastors and Teachers: yet it is farre from me to thinke (howsoever the Examiner against my mind reporteth my mind otherwise) that they are not properly Preachers, to converts beget, or make Disciples, &c.

For first though the worke of ordinary Ministers were not to convert, but to feed soules: yet their act of feeding is properly exercised by preaching the word. Timothy (as a Minister) is taught of Paul how to behave himselfe in the house of God which is the Church of God, 1. Tim. 3.15.

And this he gave him in charge (as one great part of his worke) to preach the word in season and out of season, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. Be­sides they were neither Evangelists, nor Apostles, surely (for then they could not have been so miscarried) but the ordinary Mini­sters of the Gospel, (Pastors, and Teachers of Churches) of whom Paul speaketh, ( Phil. 1.15, 16.) Some preach Christ saith he, even of envie, and strife, and some of good will: The one preach Christ of contention not sincerely: the other of Love.

Againe, Paul saith the Lord hath ordained, that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.14. Speaketh he that on­ly of Apostles, and Evangelists onely, and not of ordinary Church-Officers? of all doubtlesse, according to Gal. 6.6.

Moreover, what are Preachers but publishers of the Gospel, or glad tydings of the word of God? for so saith the Apostle, preach the word, 2 Tim. 4.2. And what is preaching the word, but explication and application of it? and is not the explication and application of the word, as fit to feed soules, as to convert them?

Secondly, when he makes it to be not the proper worke of Pa­stors, and Teachers, to preach for conversion, but accidentall onely, and counteth and calleth it a most preposterous worke for ordinary Ministers to preach for conversion, &c.

He must needs give me leave to dissent from him, my Reasons be 1. from the institution and worke of the Ministery to the worlds end, whereof one is, to make Disciples, Matth. 28.19, 20.

Say not, that is a peculiar Act of the Apostolick Office: for the Lord Jesus speaketh of three Acts: making Disciples, Baptizing, [Page 126]Teaching: and in the exercise of these he promiseth to be with his Apostles, and their successours unto the end of the world, ver. 20. Successours I say, for the Apostles themselves were not to con­tinue themselves in the exercise of those Acts to the end of the world, in their owne persons, but in their successors, the ordina­ry Ministers of the Gospel.

Secondly, from the end why Christ gave Pastors, and Teachers, as well as Apostles and Evangelists: which was for the worke of the Ministery, for the gathering together of the Saints, as well as for the building of them up to a perfect man, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13.

Thirdly from the Estate of the Church, wherein it seldome or never falleth out, but some Hypocrites are found: and besides them, many Infants, and these had need of converting Grace.

Fourthly, from the ordinary way of Conversion, which is by hearing the word, and the word preached by a Minister sent, Rom. 10.14. to 17. either therefore there must be no conversion of soules after the decease of the Apostles and Evangelists: or those who are to be converted, must be converted by private Chri­stians, or by the ordinary Ministers of the Gospel, the succes­sors of the Apostles; but surely not the first: for God will have in every age some or other converted to his Grace to praise his name throughout all Generations.

Not the second: for they shall not be ordinarily converted by private Christians, for the Apostle saith, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by a Preacher, and him sent. Therefore the third way remaineth, that Faith is intended of God to be wrought from age to age by the ordinary Ministery of the Gospel.

If the Conversion of soules were accidentall to the worke of the Minister, it were then praeter scopum efficientis, besides the intent of the worker. But it is neither beside the intention of the principall worker, God ( for he worketh all things according to the Counsell of his owne will, Ephes. 1.11.) nor besides the intention of the Mini­ster, for as hath been said, it is one maine intent and end of his Office, to make Disciples, and gather Saints; and Solomon maketh it an act of wisdome, and therefore not an act of accidentall ca­sualty to winne soules, Prov. 11.30.

If it be said why are they called Pastors, if they be also Fa­thers? Pastors are for feeding: not for begetting.

Answ. Pastors are also Fathers: and though they be called Pastors, yet the ordinary Ministers of the Gospel have other Ti­tles also, which imply more then feeding: as they are called Tea­chers, and Teachers of the ignorant, Rom. 2.20. (to minister sa­ving knowledge to them) as well as of men of understanding. And Elders in the greek Language have their name from Embassadors, [...] an Elder, from [...] an Embassador, and it is one worke of heavenly Embassadors to beseech men to be reconciled unto God, 2 Cor. 5.20. yea and Pastors themselves (whose worke is properly to feed) their feeding is with the word of Life, which is able to quicken dead soules to life, as to nourish living soules to growth in Christ Jesus. The whole worke of Peters Apostolicall calling was wrapped up in a Pastorall name, and worke, John 21.15, 16, 17.

Those two Reasons therefore are voyd of true and sound rea­son, which moved the Examiner to enter upon this passage. First, because (saith he) so many excellent and worthy persons mainly preach for Conversion, and yet account themselves fixed and constant Mini­sters to particular Congregations, &c.

Secondly, that in these great Earth-quakes of all Estates civill and spirituall, such a Ministry might be sought after, whose proper worke might be preaching for converting of soules to Christ.

For by that which hath been said may plainely appeare that those constant Ministers who mainly preach for Conversion (so be it they attend, not to that onely, but to building up also) they doe herein attend to a proper worke of their calling: and now to looke for another new Ministry (say of Apostles or Evange­lists) to attend conversion of soules onely, is to looke for a bles­sing which the Lord hath not promised: and besides himselfe hath ordained sufficient ordinary meanes for that end, as hath been shewed both here, and in some former passages of this Treatise.

TO CHAP. XXVI.

IN this Chapter the Examiner falleth upon the second part of discourse, about English Preachers, to wit, about the lawful­nesse of hearing of them, and though he said before in the former [Page 128]chapter, he would not engage himselfe in this Controversie: yet here he giveth a double Argument against it.

His first Argument is, from my testimony, which how much he weighteth, is better knowne to himselfe then to me.

Mr. Cotton (saith he) himselfe maintaineth, that the dispensing of the word in a Church-state, is Christs feeding of his flock, Cant. 1.8. Christs kissing of his Spouse, Cant. 1.2. Christs embracing of his Spouse in the marriage bed, Cant. 1.16. Christs nursing of his Children at his wives breasts, Cant. 4. And is there no communion between the Shepheard and his sheep? the Husband and the wife in chaste kisses and embraces? the Mother and the child at the breasts?

Answer. 1. The dispensing of the word in a Church-State (that is by Church-Officers to Church-members, united toge­ther in Church-State) it is indeed an expression of familiar and deare Communion between Christ and his Church, as between the husband and his spouse, between the nursing mother and the child, and between the shepheard and his flock: But suppose Pa­gans and Indians should ordinarily frequent our Church Assem­blies (as they are wont to doe in hearing the word) doth he think, I would maintaine, that there is the like spirituall and familiar Communion between Christ, and them, as between Christ, and his Church?

Answer, 2. Besides, the question is not what communion Christ may have with a stranger in the hearing of the word in the As­sembly of his Church: but what communion there is between the Officer of the Church, who preacheth the word and the stranger. Christ out of his soveraigne grace may dispense himselfe to the stranger in what relation he pleaseth; hee may make the word both as spirituall seed, and as food to him, and so may de­clare himself both a father, and a Pastor, and husband, and a mo­ther to him; and yet no such Church-relation passe between the Church-Officer, and the stranger.

A [...]swer. 3. Suppose there did grow some spirituall relation be­tween the Church-Officer, and the stranger, (as God might so blesse his Ministery, as to make him a spirituall Father, and feeder to the stranger:) yet this Relation is not between the Preacher and the stranger in respect of his Office, but in respect of his gif, as I declared above.

The reason of the difference is evident:

1. Church-relation, between a Church-Officer, and Church­member, is constant, and permanent, and not to be dissolved, but by consent of the Church: but this relation between the Preacher and stranger is transient, and the intercourse of the exercise of their relation easily changeable, at the discretion of the stranger, without the consent, or cognizance of the Church.

2. Church relation between an Officer and a member, carrieth on the duties of Church-worke between them unto full accom­plishment. If any offence grow between an Officer, and a member, the one hath power to deale with the other in a Church-way un­to a perfect healing: but there is not the like power or liberty, ei­ther in preacher, or stranger, so to proceed one with another, in case of any such offence.

The Examiners second Argument is taken also from mine own confession, as if there were no waighty Argument to be found in this case, but what might be gathered up from the weaknesse, or unwarinesse of my expressions. But thankes be to God, that hath so guided my words, that no such advantage can justly be taken from them, as to countenance so ungodly an error.

M ^r. Cotton (saith he) confesseth, that the fellowship in the Go­spel, (Phil. 1.5.) is a fellowship or Communion in the Apostles doctrine, Community, breaking of bread, and prayer, in which the first Church continued, Acts 2.46. All which overthroweth the doctrine of lawfull participation of the word and prayer in a Church-state, where it is not lawfull to communicate, in the breaking of bread, or seales.

Answ. If this be all the Conclusion that he striveth for, that par­ticipation of the word and prayer, is not lawfull in a Church­estate, where it is not lawfull to communicate in the seales, I shall never contend with him about it. I should never thinke it lawfull there to enter into a Church-estate, where I thought it lawfull onely to partake in hearing, and prayer, and not in the seales also. But this is that I deny, A man to participate in a Church-estate, where he partaketh onely in hearing and prayer, before and after Sermon; and joyneth not with them, neither in their Covenant, nor in the seales of the Covenant.

To CHAP. XXVII.

THe third part of the Examiners discourse touching English Preachers, taketh up this 27. Chapter: and it is concerning the calling and commission of the English Preachers.

M ^r. Cotton himselfe (saith he) and others most eminent in New-England, have freely confest:

First, That notwithstanding their profession of Ministery in Old Eng­land: yet in New-England (till they received a Calling from a parti­cular Church) that they were but private Christians.

Secondly, That Christ Jesus hath appointed no other Calling to the Ministery, but such as they practise in New England, and therefore con­sequently, that all other, which is not from a particular Congregation of godly persons, is none of Christs.

As first, a Calling and Commission from the Bishops.

Secondly, From a Parish of naturall and unregenerate persons.

Thirdly, From some few godly persons, yet remaining in Church-fel­lowship after the Parish way.

Fourthly, That eminent gifts and abilities are but qualifications fit­ting or preparing for a Call to an Office, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.

All which premises duly considered, he desireth that M ^r. Cotton, and all that feare God, might try what will abide the fiery Triall in this particular, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed in flaming fire, &c.

Reply. It is a weake cause that is maintained onely by the testi­monies of adversaries, and them either mistaken or falsified.

It is in him either a mistake, or a fraudulent expression of our mindes, to say, That notwithstanding our former profession of Mini­stery in Old England, yet (till we received a Calling from a particular Church) we were but private Christians.

This speech may be so conceived, as if notwithstanding our for­mer profession of Ministery in Old England: yet indeed we confest, our Ministery there was no Ministery: and this is a false expression of our mindes.

It may be also conceived, that we confest, we had no calling from a particular Church, till we came to New-England. And this is al­so a false expression of our mindes likewise.

Or it may be conceived, that notwithstanding our former pro­fession [Page 131]and exercise of Ministery in Old England: yet being cast out from thence by the usurping power of the Prelacy, and dismissed (though against their wills) by our Congregations, (save onely such as came along with us) we looked at our selves as private members, and not Officers to any Church here, untill one or other Church might call us unto Office. This sence of our profession is true, but nothing availeable to the Examiners intendment.

Secondly, It is in him another mistake, or else a fraudulent ex­pression of our mindes, when he saith, Wee hold and freely confesse, that Christ Jesus hath appointed no other Calling to the Ministery, but such as we practise in New-England: And that any other Calling to the Ministery, which is not from a particular Congregation of godly persons, is none of Christs.

Though we doe beleeve and professe the calling which we have received to the Ministery in New-England, to be of Christ: yet

1. It is an insolent phrase that savoureth of more arrogancy, then either we dare use, or allow in our selves or others, to seeme to make our calling to the Ministery in New-England, a Rule, and patterne, and precedent to all the Churches of Christ throughout the world. Did ever any man meete with such an expression in any of our writings? That Christ Jesus hath appointed no other Calling to the Ministery, but such as we practise in New-England? Such language doth neither become the lips of M ^r. Williams, nor of any Minister in New-England.

2. Though we beleeve our calling to be of God, yet we doe nei­ther beleeve nor professe, that every difference from us which other Churches may use in the calling of their Ministers, doth straight way make their callings no callings, or no callings of Christ. Though it be our manner (and as wee beleeve according to the word) that every Church chooseth and calleth their own Mini­sters, and ordaineth them by the Presbytery of the same Church: yet if the Presbytery of other Churches commend a Minister to a vacant Church, and upon the acceptance of the Church, if the presbyters of those Churches doe ordaine him with the consent of the Church, we doe not professe that this is no calling of Christ, or that these are no Ministers of Christ. The f [...]ee choice of the Church is preserved (for ought we know) in their free acceptance of a Minister commended to them. And whether the Minister be [Page 132]ordained by imposition of hands, at all, or no, and if by impositi­on of hands, by the hands of fellow-Elders of other Churches with the consent of the Church: We neither put so much waight in such a Rite, though Apostolicall; nor doe we so farre restraine the li­bertie of communion of Churches, that if they shall communicate such entercourse of Church-actions one to another, then all their callings and administrations to be of none effect. Wee are not so masterly and peremptory in our apprehensions: And yet (with sub­mission) we conceive, the more plainly and exactly all Church­actions are carried on according to the letter of the rule, the more glory wee shall give unto the Lord Jesus, and procure the more peace to our Consciences, and to our Churches, and reserve more purity and power to all our Administrations.

3. Though we doe beleeve, and professe, that a Church (by rule) ought to be a Congregation of godly persons, or at least of such as professe godlinesse: yet if (through neglect of the power of doctrine) few godly persons be left in a Congregation, & (through neglect of discipline) few of those who professe godlinesse be found so blamelesse, as the purity of the Sanctuary requireth: yet we doe not straight way professe that such Congregations are no Chur­ches, or that a Ministery chosen by such a Congregation, are none of Christs.

It is true, Gods chiefest regard is of his chosen Saints, godly persons. To them, and for them, he hath given Church-estate, Church-Covenant, and seales, Church-Officers, with all the power of the administrations of the holy things, the ordinances of Christ, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. But yet that his holy Saints might be preser­ved, [...], without scruples and distracting perplexities in their Church-Communion, the Lord is pleased for their sakes to tolerate much hypocrisie, and many aberrations in Church-matters, before he reject Churches as no Churches, Ministery as no Ministery of Christ, callings as no callings.

To speake then a word to the inferences, which the Examiner gathereth from the two former mistaken confessions of ours.

As, 1. That a Calling or Commission received from the Bishops is none of Christs.

Reply. 1. We doe not beleeve nor professe, that the Ministers of England, who received Ordination from the Bishops, did receive [Page 133]their calling from the Bishops; their Episcopall ordination is no part of their vocation to the Ministery. Their vocation or calling is from Christ by the Election or at least acceptation of the Con­gregation: The ordination is onely Adjunctum Consummans of the solemnity of their calling, as hath been shewed above.

Reply. 2. Episcopall ordination, though it be an aberration from the institution: yet we doe not conceive, that it maketh an abrogation of the calling of a Minister. Extrinsecall pollutions, though they defile the calling, yet they doe not destroy it.

His second inference is; That a Calling from a Parish of naturall and unregenerate persons, is none of Christs.

Reply. 1. It is an hard saying, to say that all of the Parish are na­turall and unregenerate Persons. Such as are swift to judge them­selves, are slow to judge others.

Reply. 2. Suppose they were all naturall and unregenerate per­sons; yet they professing Christianitie, and meeting together every Lords day, for the worship of the Lord Jesus, and desiring to have a Minister to instruct them therein, their calling is not a nullitie. I cannot say, that the worshippers of God at Philippi, (whereof Lydia was one) (who met together for prayer every Sabbath day) were any of them better then unregenerate persons, before Paul and Sylas came amongst them. And yet if a man of Macedonia come and call Paul and Sylas, to come and helpe them, they assuredly gather, that the Lord had called them to preach the Gospel to them, Acts 16.9, 10.

His third infer [...]nce is; That a Calling from some few godly persons, yet remaining in Church fellowship after the Parish way, is not of Christ.

Reply. Then it would follow, that a remnant of godly persons is not sufficient to constitute and denominate a Church, if the greater part be corrupt and uncleane. But the Prophet Isaiah was of another minde, and hath taught us by the Holy Ghost to judge otherwise: Except (saith he, Isai. 1.9.) the Lord of Hosts had left us a very small Remnant, wee should have been as Sodom, wee should have been like unto Gomorrah; In his judgement, it is not a multitude of hypocrites and prophane persons, that maketh a Church (where a remnant of godly persons are found) to become as Sodom or Go­morrah: But it is a remnant, a very small remnant, that preserve the Church from becoming as Sodom, or Gomorrah.

His fourth and last inference is; That eminent gifts and abilities, are but qualifications fitting and preparing for a Call, or Office, accord­ing to 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.

Reply. We readily acknowledge it: but yet if a few godly per­sons shall call for the employment of these gifts to their spirituall edification: The men who are qualified with these gifts, are not onely fitted and prepared for a call, or office, but actually called unto office; at least, to preach the word unto them, though not to administer the Covenant, or seales of the Covenant, but onely to them and their seed, who yeeld professed subjection to the Go­spel of Christ Jesus. If any through ignorance or infirmitie pro­ceed further in their administrations, I doe beleeve the repentance of the Ministers, (for sinnes knowne and secret) and the faith of the godly party, is more able to sanctifie the corrupt and uncleane sort to their Communion; then the corruption of the uncleane sort is able to corrupt the Minister, and Worship, and Church-estate of all.

To CHAP. XXVIII.

IN this last Chapter of his, though he doe repeate some passages of the close of my Letter; yet I doe not discerne how his An­swer is fitted at all to those passages. Neverthelesse, because he is pleased to gather from those passages, That I have not duly considered sundry particulars: I am willing to take up the consideration of them, for a Conclusion: The first particular is, The necessitie of Se­paration between the garden of the Church, and the wildernesse of the world: As the Church of the Jewes under the old Testament was sepa­rate from the world; so ought the Church of the New Testament to be.

Reply. 1. Of this particular I have considered, not in a confused generalitie (as he delivereth it) but in a distinct apprehension, thus; The world is taken in Scripture more wayes then one, and so is separation: The world is taken sometimes for the frame of hea­ven and earth, and all the hosts of them, man and beast, &c. as when God is said to have made the world, Act. 17.24. Sometimes for the state of the world; as when Christ is said to have redeemed us from this present evill world, Gal. 1.4. Sometimes for the Civill Go­vernment [Page 135]of this world; as when the Apostle exhorteth the Ro­mans, not to conforme their Church-bodies according to the plat­forme of the Romane Monarchy, into Oecumenicall, Nationall, Provinciall, Diocesan Bodies, Rom. 12.2. Sometime for the wicked of the world; as when it is said, The world loveth his own, Joh. 15.19. And the whole world lyeth in wickednesse, 1 Joh. 5.19. Sometimes likewise, for the corruption that is in the world, 2 Pet. 1.4. The lusts of the world, 1 Joh. 2.16.

In like manner, there be more wayes of Separation then one; As, first, there is a separation in affection, Love not the world, 1 Joh. 2.16. Jam. 4.4. Secondly, there is a separation in habitation, which is part of the meaning of Isai. 52.11. Revel. 18.4. Thirdly, there is a separation of Communion, 2 Cor. 6.14. to 17 ^th. Besides, there be diversities likewise of Communion: for there is a Civill Com­munion; and there is a religious Communion. And of either sort, there is a confederate Communion: And there is a Communion without confederacy: And of confederate Communion, there is a confederacy in matters of common civilitie; and there is a confe­deracy in matters of more intimate friendship, societie, and fami­liaritie.

To apply these different considerations of the world, and of Separations, according to the due and right apprehension thereof in the word of truth.

First, It is lawfull to have civill peace, and loving corresponden­cy with neighbours in the world, yea even with Idolaters, and In­fidels, so as not onely to trade with them, but to feast with them, yea and to succour them in their distresses, Rom. 12.18. 1 Cor. 10.27. Luk. 10.34.

Secondly, It is lawfull to make leagues of peace with all men in the world, (even with Idolaters and Infidels) to wit, for free com­merce, for trade, and inoffensive neighbourhood, Gen. 31.44. to 53. Judg. 4.17.

Thirdly, It is lawfull for the Subjects of the same State, to enter into confederacy amongst themselves, and with their Princes, to submit to the same Civill Government, and Lawes, and to assist one another in mutuall defence against a common enemy, 2 Sam. 5.3. Eccles. 8.3.

But on the other side, this consideration I have had of Separa­tion [Page 136]from the world: which the Examiner may consider, whether it be due or no.

First, That from the world (as taken for the creatures of the world) we are to separate in affection, to wit, from the inordinate love thereof, Jam. 4.4.

Secondly, From the world, as taken for the carnall malignant estate of it, we are to separate both in our affection, and in our conversation, Gal. 1.4. Phil. 3.20.

Thirdly, From the world, as taken for the Civill Government of it, we are to separate our Church-bodies, and the government thereof in frame and constitution, Rom. 12.1, 2.

Fourthly, From the world, as taken for the Cities and Coun­treys thereof, which are fit to pollute us with their prevalent pol­lutions, we are to separate in our habitations; which is part of the meaning of Isai. 52.11. Rev. 18.4.

Fiftly, From the world, as taken for the corruptions and lusts thereof, their evill examples, corrupt worship, Idolatries, supersti­tions, vaine fashions, and the worldly persons addicted to these things, we are to separate, both in affection, and in Communion, whether we speake of religious Communion, or of Civill Confede­rate Communion in matters of intimate friendship, society, and fa­miliaritie. As we may not partake in Idolatrous feasts, or worship, nor enter into marriage-Covenant with Idolaters, 2 Cor. 6.14. to 17. Nor may we confederate with them in leagues of amitie, to have friends and enemies in common, 1 Kings 20.4. nor to have partnership in trade and commerce, 2 Chron. 20.35, 36, 37.

Sixtly, There is yet another separation whereby the Church and people of God, doe separate from the scandalous offenders of their own body, 2 Thes. 3.6. 1 Cor. 5.11. This, though it be in a speci­all manner aymed at here by the Examiner, yet is it by him most improperly and confusedly called separation from the world. The Apostle doth most expresly contradistinguish these, the one from the other: I wrote unto you (saith he) in an Epistle, not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with Idolaters, for then must yee needs goe out of the world. But if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, with such an one, no not to eate, 1 Cor. 5.9, 10, 11. As who should say, a fornicator or Idolatrous [Page 137]brother of the Church is one thing; a fornicator and Idolater of the world is another, from a fornicator or Idolatrous brother, you are to be separate: from a fornicator or Idolater of the world, in some kinde you need not to separate; In as much therefore as the Churches of England doe not separate sundry notorious scan­dalous persons from their Church-Communion, though it be a leavening corruption: yet their sinne is not want of Separation from the world, but want of purification of the Church. In the meane time, they are separated from the world of Pagans, and In­fidels, as the Church of Israel notwithstanding their toleration of all sorts of offenders, Idolaters, murderers, adulterers, they were yet separated from Pagans by profession of a different Religion, and the ordinances thereof.

The second particular which the Examiner saith M ^r. Cotton hath not duely considered, is, That all the grounds and principles leading to oppose Bishops, Ceremonies, Common Prayer, prostitution of the Ordinances of brist to the ungodly, and the true practise of Christs own Ordinances, doe necessarily conclude a separation of holy from un­holy, penitent from impenitent, godly from ungodly. And that to frame any other building upon such grounds and foundations, is no other then to raise the forme of a square house upon the keele of a Ship, which will never prove a soule saving true Arke or Church of Christ Jesus according to the patterne.

Reply. I cannot acknowledge what he saith, that I have not due­ly considered, that all the grounds and principles leading to oppose Bi­shops, and Ceremonies, &c. doe necessarily conclude a separation of holy from unholy, &c. For I have considered, and well weighed (after my slender measure) that they doe indeed conclude a three-fold sepa­ration of holy from unholy.

1. Doctrinall, that the Minister of Christ, whilest he liveth a­mongst such dissolute and scandalous persons, he is to separate them in the application of his doctrine, between the holy and un­holy, between the precious and the vile: so as to make sad the hearts of the wicked, whom God would have to be made sad, and to strengthen the heart and hands of the righteous, whom God would have to be comforted.

Secondly, A practicall separation in a mans own person, that what a man findeth upon those grounds and principles to be un­warrantable [Page 138]and sinfull, he doe forbeare the same in his own pra­ctise, and disswade others from the same by his doctrine and ex­ample.

Thirdly, An Ecclesiasticall separation, that when a man cannot continue in fellowship with such a Church, but that he shall be compelled to the practise of some sinne, or of necessitie to commu­nicate with the sinnes of others, then (after all good means used, in vaine, to redresse those evils) meekly to separate and withdraw himselfe from fellowship with them in Church-Communion, as one that cannot enjoy the good which is found amongst them, without partaking in sundry evils that cleave to them.

Thus farre I have considered the grounds and Principles of Re­formation, (of which the Examiner speaketh) and doe finde that they doe necessarily conclude, a separation of holy from unholy thus farre. But I confesse, I have not considered, nor can I finde out, by any further due consideration, that the principles and grounds of Reformation doe necessarily conclude a separation from the English Churches, as false Churches, from their Mini­stery, as a false Ministery, from their worship as a false worship, from all their professors, as from no visible Saints. Nor can I finde, that they doe either necessarily or probably conclude, a separation from hearing the word preached by godly Ministers in the Parish-Churches in England: Nor can I finde, that the building of our Churches in these ends of the world is the raising up of a square house upon the keele of a Ship, unlesse it be the Arke of Noah: for as the soules in the Arke were saved from water; so we finde by ex­perience, and good evidence from the word, that the Lord blesseth our Church-Communion and administrations with soule-saving efficacy, through his grace in Christ.

Thirdly, The third particular, which the Examiner saith, I have not duely considered, is, The multitudes of holy and faithfull men and women, who have witnessed this truth from Queene Maries dayes, by writing, disputing, and suffering, farre above what the Non-conformists have done, &c.

Reply. This particular hath been considered above in Answer to Chapter 23.

Fourthly, The fourth particular, which he desireth might be better considered, Is our own practise, and profession. Our practise, in [Page 139]constituting our Churches of none but godly persons, and uniting them in­to a body by voluntary mutuall Covenant, and adding none to them, but persons carefully examined and approved, and entering by way of confessi­on, both of their sinnes, and of their faith. Our practise also, in suppres­sing other English, who have attempted to set up a Congregation in a Pa­rishionall way. Our profession in the late Answer we gave to many wor­thy persons, (whom yet we account godly Ministers and people) that we could not permit them to live in the same Common-wealth together with us, if they should set up any other Church and Worship, then what our selves practise.

Reply. 1. Our practise in the constituting and ordering our own Churches here, holdeth forth, what matter, and forme, and order of the Church, we doe beleeve to be most agreeable to the patterne set before us in the Gospel of Christ. And our not receiving all commers unto the Communion of the Lords Table, and other parts of Church-fellowship, (saving onely, unto the publick hear­ing of the Word, and presence at other duties) it argueth indeed, that such persons, either thinke themselves unfit materialls for Church-fellowship, (and so they never offer themselves to us) or else that we our selves conceive them to be as stones standing in need of a little more hewing and squaring, before they be layed, as living stones in the walls of the Lords house. All which amount­eth onely to this, That we doe consider and bewaile the defects of the Churches of England, in receiving ignorant and scandalous persons to all the liberties of the Lords Table, and of his house, as other wayes. But it doth not at all argue (neither is it our minde it should argue) their Churches, and worship, and Ministery, and members, should all of them be separated from as false, or none at all.

Our practise in suppressing such as have attempted to set up a Parishionall way, I never heard of such a thing here to this day. And if any such thing were done, before my coming into the Countrey, I do not thinke it was done by forcible compulsion, but by rationall conviction.

But as for our profession, that wee should answer many worthy Ministers and people in England, that wee could not permit them to live in the same Common-wealth with us, if they varied from us.

I have cleared it above (in Answer to Chapt. 11.) to be a noto­rious [Page 140]falshood: and but that I know the Devill is able to create slander of nothing, (as God is able to create truths of nothing) I should thinke it incredible, that any man who hath been in New-England should be able to say, (as the Examiner here doth) that we persecute the Parishes in New-England, and yet frequent the Parishes in Old England.

Fiftly, The fift particular which he thinks I have not duely con­sidered is, That in the Parishes (which M ^r Cotton holdeth but in­ventions of men) how ever they would have liberty to frequent the worship of the Word, yet they separate from the Sacraments: And yet (according to our own Principles) there is as true Communion in the ministration of the Word, as in the Seales. What mystery (saith he) should be in this, but that here, (to wit, in Old England) the Crosse of Christ may be avoyded, if persons come to Church?

Reply. 1. It is an untruth, that M ^r. Cotton holdeth the Parishes to be but inventions of men; for though I hold, that the receiving of all the Inhabitants in the Parish, into the full fellowship of the Church, and the admitting of them all unto the liberty of all the Ordinances, is an humane corruption, (and so if he will, an hu­mane invention;) yet I doe not hold, nor ever did, that their Pa­rishes were onely an humane invention. For I beleeve, the Lord Jesus hath the truth of his Churches, and Ministery, and worship in them, notwithstanding the inventions of men superadded to them.

Reply. 2. Though I doe beleeve, there is as true Communion in the ministration of the Word in a Church-estate (to wit, to such as are in Church-estate) with the Minister of the Word, as in the Seales. Yet it is farre from me to hold, and from any principle of mine to in­ferre, that there is as true Communion in the ministration of the Word to every hearer, as in the Seales; for then we might as easily admit our Indians to the Seales, as we doe admit them daily to the ministration of the Word.

Reply. 3. It is a malignant and Satanicall misconstruction of the intentions of such godly persons, who (out of sincere affection to spirituall growth) doe heare the Ministry of the Word from god­ly Preachers in England, to accuse them before God, and Angels, and men, that they doe it to avoyd the Crosse of Christ, (to wit, persecution) which may be avoyded in a great measure, if persons come to Church.

It is well knowne, that sundry of them are so sincere and con­stant in their profession, that as they have suffered much for the cause of Christ, against humane corruptions in Gods worship: so they would be ready to suffer yet more, for neglecting to come to Church, if they suspected any humane corruption at all in it.

Againe, It is well knowne, that any stranger in London, (by re­moving now and then his lodging) may escape not onely persecu­tion, but observation, for a longer time, then any of our hearers are ordinarily wont to sojourne there: Besides, in this time of uni­versall freedome from all persecution during this long Parliament, why doe not our members of these Churches forbeare to heare the Word in the Parishes now, when there is no feare nor danger at all of persecution, for not coming to Church?

His sixt and last particular consideration is, That how ever M ^r. Cotton saith, He hath not found such presence of Christ and evidence of the Spirit in such (separate) Churches, as in the Parishes: What should be the reason of their great rejoycings and boastings of their own separations in New-England, in so much, that some of the most eminent amongst them have affirmed, that even the Apostles Churches were not so pure? Surely if the same new English Churches were in Old England, they could not meete in Old England without persecution: which there­fore in Old England they avoyde, by frequenting the way of Church-worship in the Parishes, which in New-England they persecute.

Reply. 1. The Examiner might easily have satisfied himselfe in this consideration, if he had been willing to understand that which he knoweth to be our meaning. He knoweth very well, and hath often told us of it before, that we our selves in our Churches doe practise some kinde of separation here, to wit, separation, not from the Churches in Old England, as no Churches, but from some cor­ruptions found in them. In such Churches as so separate, wee ne­ver speake of them, that we had not found the presence of Christ, or evidence of the Spirit in such Churches. But I speake of such ri­gid Separatists Churches, as renounce the Churches, and Mini­stery, and worship, and Saints of England, as if they were all false, or none at all, and therefore utterly doe refuse to heare the word in their Assemblies, which is such a way of separation, as I told him in my Letter, the Lord Jesus never delivered, nor any of his Apostles af­ter him, nor any of his Prophets before him. Of which he taketh no [Page 142]notice, nor giveth any ground either from Christ, or his Apostles, or Prophets, for such practise; but putteth us off, that we practise separation our selves, and rejoyce therein, as if our separation and theirs were both of one nature, and measure: which indeed differ as much (as I said before) as Chirurgery, and Butchery.

Reply. 2. When he telleth us, We boast of our separations in New-England, yea so farre, as that some of our most eminent have said, that even the Apostles Churches were not so pure.

I must needs professe, I never heard, nor read of such a speech, but onely in this Examiners Booke. The speech it selfe savoureth, I know not whether of more ignorance, or arrogancy, or blas­phemy. The broadest speech in this kinde, that ever I heard to fall from the lips of any in this Countrey, was that of M ^r. Williams himselfe, who whilest he lived at Salem (as I am credibly informed) would say, That of all the Churches of Christ in the world, the new English were the most pure, and of all the new English, the Church of Salem. I am so well acquainted with the liberty and boldnesse of the Examiners tongue in calumniations, that untill I know the name of that eminent person, whom he reproacheth to have so spoken, he must give me leave to feare, either a mistake, or that which is worse.

Reply. 3. It is a double calumny, (but suitable to many other of the former) that wee in New-England doe persecute the way of se­paration, whether the one kinde of separation, or the other. It is true of neither, for we practise the one, and tolerate the other.

And againe, that we frequent the Parish-Churches in Old England, to avoyd persecution.

Unlesse mens tongues were their own, I wonder, how they can allow themselves to speake so excessively at random.

These his six Considerations, having so little considerable truth, or waight in them, I justly said, That he in withdrawing the people of God from hearing the voyce of Christ in so many Congregations, both in New-England, and in Old, did not helpe Jehovah against the migh­ty, but Satan against Jehovah, and against the mighty Ordinances of his Word, and Ministry.

But he answereth, that he helpeth the zealous soules of the Separa­ti [...]n, and he helpeth us to seeke the Lord Jesus without halting.

How he helpeth them I know not, unlesse it be by depriving [Page 134]them of many precious meanes of grace, which they might enjoy by hearing the Word in either England: or unlesse by his own ex­ample he now helpe them, Proficere in peius, to separate further from all instituted worship of the Lord, to cast off their own Churches, Ministery, Worship, as they have cast off others before, that so they might seeke (for that which will never be found un­der the Sunne) new Apostles to make all things new. And as little doe I know, how he helpeth us to seeke the Lord Jesus without halting, unlesse it be to seeke him, as he himselfe doth without Church-Ordinances.

For the Conclusion of his Booke, he is willing to take up the conclusion of my Letter; That whosoever will not kisse the Sonne, (that is, will not heare and embrace the words of his mouth) shall perish in their way, Psal. 2.12.

This word is established in heaven, and will take place in the earth throughout all generations.

But least this word might profit himselfe, (as selfe-love is apt to apply a word of threatening to any rather then to it selfe) he applieth it to M ^r. Cotton, and to every soule, (to whom these lines of his may come) seriously to consider, in this Controversie, if the Lord Je­sus were himselfe in person in Old, or New-England, what Church, what Ministery, what Worship, what Government he would set up, and what persecution he would practise toward them that would not re­ceive him.

For Answer, let me say in a word, this point hath been serious­ly considered already: and let it be still considered and pondered in the Ballance of the Sanctuary, and doubtlesse, for the first of these points, it will be found, that if the Lord Jesus were here himselfe in person, he would set up no other Church, nor Mini­stery, nor worship, nor government, then what himselfe hath ap­pointed in his Word: which though the Examiner, and many others, have sought and searched what enormities they might finde in it, yet they have wearied themselves, and found nothing. So true is the faithfull promise of the Lord Jesus, that he hath built his Church upon a Rock, and the gates of Hell shall not pre­vaile against it, nor against the Ordinances thereof.

And for the latter point; What persecution the Lord Jesus if he were on earth, would practise against those who would not receive him.

The Answer is neere at hand, and is written for the warning of all gain-sayers; Those mine enemies which would not that I should reigne over them, bring them hither, and slay them before my face, Luk. 19.27. And yet I would not be so understood (in alledging this Scripture) as if Christ did allow his Vicegerents to practise all, that himselfe would practise in his own person. For not all the practises, or acts of Christ, (as the Examiner seemeth to inti­mate) but the Lawes of Christ, are the Rules of mans Admini­strations. But of that more distinctly in due time, if the Lord shall give libertie to enquire further into the Examiners Bloudy Te­nent.

To the Lord Jesus, be the kingdome, power, and glory.

Amen.