THE Preface to the Reader.

AS I did not beginne this present Controversie, so I doe not desire to hold up the Ball of contention: yet having appeared in it (neither alone nor without a calling and op­portunity offered) I hold it my du­ty to vindicate the truth of Christ, the solemne League and Covenant, the Ordinances of Parlia­ment, the Church of Scotland, and my selfe; for this end was I borne, and for this end came I into the world, that I might beare witnesse to the truth. Wher­unto I am so much the more encouraged, because it appeareth already in this debate, that magna est vis veritatis, great is the force of truth, and so great, that my Antagonists (though men of parts [Page] and such as could doe much for the truth, yet) while they have gone about to doe somewhat a­gainst the truth, they have mired themselves in fowle errors; yea (so farre as in them lieth) have most dangerously shaken and endangered the autho­rity of Magistrates, who are Gods Vice-gerents, and particularly the authority of Parliament, and of Parliamentary Ordinances; they have stumbled and fallen, and shall not be able to rise, but by the acknowledgement of the truth.

In this following Reply, I have not touched much of the argumentative part in Master Hussey his plea for Christian Magistracy, reserving most of it to an other worke, unto which this is a Prodromus. (howbeit much of what he saith, is the same with what I did confute in my Nihil respon­des, and his Booke comming forth a moneth after, takes no notice of that second peece of mine, but speaketh onely to the first) Meane while, let him not believe that his bigge-looking Title can like Gorgons head, blockify or stonify rationall men, so as they shall not perceive the want or weakenesse of Argument: It hath ever beene a trick of Adversa­ries to calumniate the way of God and his Servants, as being against authoritie. But, I will by Gods [Page] assistance) make it appeare to any intelligent man, that the Reverend Brother hath pleaded very much against Magistracy, and so hath fallen himselfe in­to the ditch which hee hath digged for others, whiles I withall escape.

But now what may be the meaning of Master Math. Mar­tinius in lexi philol. Male­dico, malum loquor sive juste sive in­juria. Colemans Cabbalisticall Title, male dicis male­dicis: Great philologs will tell him, that maledico is taken in a good sense, as well as in a bad, accor­ding to the difference of matter and circumstances. If any kind of malediction be justifiable, it is ma­ledicere maledicis, to speake evill to evill spea­kers; for as he loved cursing, so let it come un­to him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be farre from him. But, he doth worse, and his Title with a transposition of letters, will more fitly reflect upon himselfe male dicis de amicis: you Sir speake evill of your friends, and of those that never wronged you: For my part, I have not shared with him in evill speaking, nor rendred re­vilings for revilings. I am sorry that he is so ex­treamly ill of hearing, as to take reason to be rai­ling, and good sayings to be evill sayings. He ap­plyeth to himselfe the Apostles words, Being revi­led, we blesse. But where to finde these blessings of [Page] his, those unwritten verities, I know not. I am sure he had spoken more truly, if he had said, being not reviled, we doe revile.

For the matter and substance of his Reply, there are divers particulars in it which serve rather to be matter of Mirth, then of Argument, as, that a Parliament parasite cannot be called an abuser of the Parliament, and that passage; How can a clause delivered in a post script concerning my opinion of my way, be abusive to the Par­liament? A great priviledge either of post-scripts, or of his opinions, that they can not be abusive to the Parliament. Many passages are full of acrimo­ny: many extravagant and not to the point in hand: many void of matter; concerning such Lactantius Lib 2. c. 4. gives me a good rule, otiosum est persequi singu­la; It is an idle and improfitable thing to prosecute every particular. And much more I have in my eye the Apostles rule, let all things be done to e­difying; 1 Cor. 14. 26 I have accordingly endeavoured to avoid vaine jangling, and such debates as are unprofitable and unedifying, making choice of such purposes as may edifie, and not abuse the Reader.

Peradventure some will think I might have wholly saved my selfe this labour; I confesse I doe [Page] not looke upon that which I make Reply unto, as if it were like to weigh much with knowing men, yet the Apostle tells mee that some mens mouths must be stopped, and Hierome tells me, there is nothing Hieron. Eustochio. written without skill, which will not find a Rea­der with as little skill to judge, and some men grow too wise in their owne eyes, when they passe unan­swered. Besides all this, a vindication and clearing of such things as I mentioned in the beginning, may by Gods blessing anticipate future and further mis­takes. Reade therefore and consider, and when thou hast done, I trust thou shalt not think, that I have lost my labour. I pray the Lord that all our contro­versies may end in a more cordiall union, for prose­cuting the ends expressed in the Covenant, and espe­cially the Reformation of Religion, according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches, and more particularly the practicall part of Reformation, that the Ordinances of Jesus Christ may be kept from pollution, prophannesse and scandals shamed away, and pietie commended and magnified.

MALÈ AUDIS.

CHAP. I.

That Master Coleman doth still contradict himself in the stating of this present Con­troversie about Church-government.

IT was before both denied and yeelded by M r Coleman, that there is a Church­government which is distinct from the Civil, and yet not meerly Doctrinal. He did professe to subscribe heartily to the Votes of Parliament, and yet ad­vised the Parliament to do contrary to their Votes, as I proved in Nihil Re­spondes, pag. 3. He answereth now in his Maledicis, pag. 4. I deny an Institution; I assent to Pru­dence; Where is the self-contradiction now? and pag. 5. The advice looks to Jus Divinum; The Parliament votes to Pru­dence. [Page 2] Sir, you have spoken evil for your self; you have made the self-contradiction worse. Will you acknowledge you own words in your Sermon, pag 25. Lay no more burthen of Government upon the shoulders of Ministers then Christ hath plainly laid upon them; have no more hand therein then the holy Ghost clearly gives them. The Ministers have other work to do, & such as will take up the whole man, &c. I fear an ambitious en­snarement, &c. and in your Re-examination, p. 14. He should have said, I advised the Parliament to lay no burthen of Govern­ment upon them whom he this Commissioner thinks Church-offi­cers, then had he spoken true. Now let the Reverend Brother take heed to check-meat; and that three several wayes (but let him not grow angry as bad players use to do;) For 1. Eo ipso, that he denies the Institution, by his principles he de­nies the Prudence; For he that denieth the Institution, and adviseth the Parliament to lay no more burthen of Govern­ment upon Ministers then Christ hath plainly laid upon them, is against the setling of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not instituted. But Master Coleman denies the Institution and adviseth the Parliament to lay no more burthen of Go­vernment upon Ministers then Christ hath plainly laid upon them. Ergo, Master Coleman is against the setling of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not instituted. And how to reconcile this with his denying of the Institution, and yeeld­ing of the Prudence, will require a more reconciling head then Manasseh Ben Israel Conciliator himself. 2. He that ad­viseth the Parliament to lay no burthen of Government upon Ministers, because they have other work to do which will take up the whole man▪ and because of the fear of an ambiti­ous ensnarement, is against the laying of any burthen of cor­rective Government upon Ministers, so much as in a pruden­tial way. But Master Coleman adviseth▪ the Parliament▪ &c. Ergo, The consequence in the proposition is necessary, unlesse he will say that it is agreeable to the rules of Prudence, to lay upon them more work besides that which will take up the whole man, or to commit that power unto them, which is like to prove an ambitious ensnarement. 3. He that adviseth [Page 3] the Parliament to lay no burthen at all of corrective Govern­ment upon Ministers and other Officers joyned with them in Elderships, but to keep that power wholly in their own hands, is against the Prudence of the thing, as well as against the Institution of it. But Master Coleman adviseth the Par­liament to lay no burthen at all of corrective Government upon these, but to keep that power wholly in their own hands. Ergo. The Proposition is proved by that which him­self saith, The Parliament Votes look to Prudence. So that the Parliament having voted a power of Suspension from the Sacrament, unto Elderships, for so many scandals as are enu­merate in the Ordinance (which power is a part of that which he calls corrective) he that is against this power in Elderships, is both against the Prudence and against the Ordi­nance of Parliament. The Assumption I prove from his Re­examination, pag. 14. where after his deniall of the power to those whom we think Church-Officers, being charged with advising the Parliament to take Church-government wholly into their own hands, his answer was, If you mean the cor­rective power, I do so.

And now after all this, I must tell the Reverend Brother that he might have saved himself much labour, had he in his Sermon to the Parliament declared himself (as now he doth) that he was onely against the Jus Divinum, but not against their setling of the thing in a Parliamentary and prudential way. Did I not in my very first Examination of his Sermon pag. 32. remove this stumbling block?

And withall, seeing he professeth to deny the Jus Divinum of a Church-government differing from Magistracy, why doth he hold p. 19. that the Independents are not so much interest­ed against his Principles as the Presbyterians? Did he ima­gine that the Independents are not so much for the Jus Divi­num of a Church-government and Church-censures as the Presbyterians? But, saith he, The Independents Church-power seems to me to be but doctrinall. But is their excommunication doctrinall? and do they not hold excommunication to be Ju­re Divino? Either he had little skill in being perswaded, or [Page 4] some others had great skill in perswading him that the Inde­pendents Church-power is but doctrinall, and that they are not so much interested against the Erastian Principles as the Presbyterians are, as if forsooth the Ordinance of Excom­munication (the thing which the Erastian way mainly op­poseth) and a Church-government distinct from Magistracy, were not common to them both.

Lastly, If the Reverend Brother deny the Institution of Church-censures, but assent to the Prudence, Why doth he al­ledge the Zurick Divines to be so much for him? Maledicis p. 23. for it was upon prudentiall grounds, and because of the difficulty and (as they conceived) impossibility of the thing, that they were against it, still acknowledging the Scripturall Warrants for excommunication, as I shall shew, yea have shewed already. So that if Master Coleman will follow them, he must rather say, I assent to an Institution, I deny a Prudence.

CHAP. II.

A confutation of that which Master Coleman hath said against Church-government; shew­ing also that his last Reply is not more but lesse satisfactory then the former, and for the most part is but a tergiversation and fleeing from Arguments brought against him, and from making good his own Assertions and Ar­guments, concerning the distinction of Civill and Church-government.

1. THe Reverend Brother said in his Sermon, I could ne­ver yet see how two coordinate Governments exempt from superiority and inferiority can be in one State. To overthrow [Page 5] this general Thesis, I brought some Instances to the contrary, as the Governments of a General and an Admiral, of a Ma­ster and a Father, of a Captain and a Master in a Ship. He being put to his Vindication, replyeth, The Commissioner ac­knowledgeth he did not apply them to the Assembly (I said the General Assembly) and Parliament; yet that was the contro­versie in hand, Male dicis pag. 5. But by his favour, that was not the controversie, for he was not speaking particularly against the distinction of the Government of the General Assembly, and of the Government of the Parliament (nei­ther had he one syllable to that purpose) but generally against the distinction of Church Government, and Civil Govern­ment, and particularly against Excommunication, in all which, he excluded Presbyteries as well as General Assem­blies. Wherefore he doth now recede not onely from de­fending his Thesis, but from applying it against the power of Presbyteries. And so far we are agreed.

2. I having confuted his Argument grounded on Psal. 33. 15. Prov. 27. 19. He shifteth the vindication of it, and still tells me he grounded no Argument on those places, but spake by way of allusion, Male dicis p. 6. Now let the Reader judge. His words to the Parliament were these, Might I measure others by my self, and I know not why I may not, (God fashions mens hearts alike; and as in water, face answers face, so the heart of man to man:) I ingenuously professe I have a heart that knows better how to be governed, then govern; I fear an ambitious ensnarement, &c. This Argument there largely prosecuted, hath no other ground but the parenthesis using the words (though not quoting the places) of Scripture. And now forsooth▪ he hath served the Parliament well▪ when being put to make good the sole confirmation of his Argument, he tells it was but an allusion. But this is not all▪ I confuted the whole Argument, drawn from his own heart to the hearts of others, and gave several Answers: but nei­ther before nor now, hath he offered to make good his Ar­gument.

3. The Reverend Brother cited 1 Cor. 10. 33. to prove that [Page 6] all Government is either, a Heathenish Government, or a Jewish Government, or a Church Government. This I denyed, Because the Government of Generals, Admirals, Ma­jors, Sheriffs, is neither a Jewish Government, nor a Church Government, nor a Heathenish Government. What saith he to this? I deny it, a Jewish General is a Jewish Government, &c. Male dicis p. 6. Deny it: No Sir, you must prove (because you are the Affirmer) that a Christian General, a Christian Admiral, are Church Governments. For I deny it: You tell us Pag. 7. you are perswaded it will trouble the whole world to bound Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the one from the other. You shall have them bounded and distin­guished ere long, and the World not troubled neither. Mean while you have not made out your assertion from 1. Cor. 10. 33.

4. The Reverend Brother had cited Rom. 13. 4. to prove that the corrective part of Church Government belongs to the Christian Magistrate. And now he brings in my Reply thus, that I said he abuseth the place, Because spiritual cen­sures belong not to the Civil Magistrate: Which saith he, begs the Question, Male dicis p. 7. I replyed no such thing upon this Argument: Look my words again. How can the Brother answer it, to shape Answers of his own devising, as if they were mine. My Answer was, That the Punitive part Rom. 13. 4. belongs to all Magistrates, whether Christian or In­fidel, which he takes notice of in the second place, and bids me prove That Scripture-Commands belong to Infidels: Not observing that the Question is not of Scripture-Commands, but whether a Duty mentioned in this or that Scripture, may not belong to Infidels. There are two sort of Duties in Scripture, Some which are duties by the Law of God, writ­ten in mans heart at his Creation, some Principles and No­tions whereof remain in the hearts of all Nations, even In­fidels by nature; Other Duties are such by vertue of special Commands given to the Church, which are not contained in the Law of Nature. The first sort (of which the punish­ing of evil doers mentioned, Rom. 13. 4. is one) belongs to [Page 7] those that are without the Church, as well as those within. The other onely to those that are within.

5. The Reverend Brother had said in his Sermon; Of other Governments besides Magistracy, I finde no Institution. I cited 1 Thes. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13. 7, 17. to prove another Government (yea, the Institution of another Go­vernment) besides Magistracy. And in my Nihil Respondes, I told he had laughed, but had not yet loosed the knot. Now hear his two Answers, Male dicis p. 8. First, for the Insti­tution, for the Commissioner affirms so much. Had he said that these Texts hold out an Office or Officer already instituted, the words would have bourn him out, &c. But the Institution in this place I cannot see. See the like in Master Hussey, p. 19. 22. I thank them both. That Scripture which supposeth an In­stitution, and holds out an office already instituted, shall to me (and I am confident to others also) prove an Institution; for no Text of Scripture can suppose or hold out that which is not true: Nay, hath Master Coleman forgotten that him­self proved an Institution of Magistracy from Rom. 13. 1, 2? Yet that Text doth but hold out the office of Magistracy al­ready instituted: But the Institution it self is not in that place.

Secondly, Master Coleman answereth to all these three Texts. To that 1 Thes. 5. 12. Them which are over you in the Lord, he saith that these words prove not that it is not meant of Magistracy. But he takes not the strength of the Argu­ment. My words were, Here are some who are no Civil Ma­gistrates set over the Thessalonians in the Lord. This the Re­verend Brother must admit to be a good proof, or otherwise say, that the Civil Magistrates set over the Thessalonians, though they were Heathens, yet were set over them in the Lord.

For that of 1 Tim. 5. 17. He saith it doth not hold out Ruling Elders: Whether it doth hold Ruling Elders or not, doth not at all belong to the present Question. It is easie to answer something, so that a man will not tie himself to speak to the point. The place was brought by me to prove another [Page 8] Government beside Magistracy, which he denyed. Now suppose the place to be meant onely of Preaching Elders, yet here is a Rule or Government, Elders that rule well; and these are no Civil Magistrates, but such as labour in the Word and Doctrine. Come on now. But I will deal clearly, saith the Brother, these Officers are Ministers, which are instituted not here but elsewhere, and these are the Rulers here mentioned. And so have I loosed the knot. Now Sir, you shall see I will not male dicere, but bene dicere. My blessing on you for it. You have at last loosed the knot so perfectly, that you are come to an agreement with me, in this great point: Which I thus demonstrate. He that acknowledgeth Ministers to be instituted Rulers, acknowledgeth another instituted Govern­ment, beside Magistracy. But Master Coleman acknowledgeth Ministers to be instituted Rulers. Ergo, Master Coleman ac­knowledgeth another instituted Government beside Magi­stracy.

To the other Texts, Heb. 13. 7. 17. He saith nothing against my Argument, onely expounds the Rulers to be guides, as Master Hussey also doth, of which, more elsewhere. Mean while it is certain, that [...] is usually taken for a name of highest Authority, yea, given to Emperours, for which, see learned Salma [...]ius in his Walo Messalinus, pag. 219, 220. It is Josephs highest title to expresse his Government of Egypt, Acts 7. 10. It must the rather be a name of Government, and Authority in this place, Heb. 13. 17. because subjection and obedience is required. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves. When the word signifieth [...] sen viae ducem (and it is very rarely so used by the Septuagints, but frequently and almost in innumerable places, they use it for a name of Rule and Authority) obedience and subjection is not due to such a one qua talis; For obedience and sub­jection cannot be correlata to the leading of the way, when it is without Authority and Government.

6. I having charged Master Colemans doctrine with this consequence, That there ought to be neither Suspension from the Sacrament, nor Excommunication, nor Ordination, nor [Page 9] Deposition of Ministers, nor receiving of Appeals, except all these things be done by the Civil Magistrate: Which things I said, are most of them corrective, and all of them more then Doctrinal. In stead of making answer, the Reverend Brother expresseth the er­ror which I objected to him thus, That here are no Church-Cen­sures, which is the Quaesitum saith he, Male dicis, pag. 10. Here again he brings an imagination of his own, both for matter and words, in stead of that which I said, and doth not take the Argu­ment right. If the Ministers power be meerly Doctrinal, and Government wholly in the Magistrates hands, then all the par­ticulars enumerated, for instance, Suspension from the Sacrament, and the receiving of Appeals (which he must not bring under the Quaesitum, except he bring the Ordinance of Parliament under the Quaesitum) shall be wholly in the Magistrates hand, and El­derships may not suspend from the Sacrament, Classes and Synods may not receive Appeals, which yet by the Ordinance they have power to do. One of the particulars (and but one) the Reverend Brother hath here touched, and it is thus; For Ordination of Mi­nisters, I say it is within the Commission of Teaching, and so apper­tains to the Doctrinal part. This is the effect of his zeal to main­tain, that all Ecclesiastical Ministerial power is meerly Doctrinal. But mark the consequence of it. He that holds Ordination of Ministers to be within the Commission of Teaching, and to ap­pertain to the Doctrinal part, must hold by consequence▪ that the power of Ordination is given uni as well as unitati, that is, That every single Minister hath power to ordain, as well as the Classis. But Master Coleman holds Ordination of Ministers to be within the Commission of Teaching, &c. The reason of the Pro­position is clear, because the Commission of Teaching belongs to every single Minister; so that if the power of Ordination be within that Commission, it must needs belong to every single Minister, Quid Respondes?

7. The Reverend Brother having brought an odious Argument against me, which did conclude, the Magistrate to manage his Of­fice for and under the Divel, if not for and under Christ. I shew his Syllogism to have four terms, and therefore worthy to be ex­ploded. I get now two Replies.

First, This is an errour (if one) in Logick, not Divinity; is it [Page 10] an errour in Divinity to make a Syllogism with four terms? Male dicis, pag. 15. See now if he be a fit man to call others to School, who puts an If in this businesse. If one; Who did ever doubt of it? And if it be an errour in Divinity to be Fallacious, and to deceive, then it is an errour in Divinity to make a Syllogism with four terms, yea, as foul an errour as can be.

Secondly, He admitteth not my distinction▪ of those words under Christ, and for Christ. I said the Christian Magistrate is un­der Christ, and for Christ, that is, he is serviceable to Christ: But he is not under Christ, nor for Christ, as Christs Vicegerent vice Christi, in Christs stead as Christ is Mediator. The Reverend Brother saith, He foresaw that this would be said (the greater fault it was to make his Argument so unclear and undistinct) but he rejecteth the distinction, as being distinctio sine differentia. If a Magistrate, saith he, be thru far a servant of Christ as Mediator, that he is to do his work, to take part with him, to be for his glory; then he doth it vice Christi: He addes the simile of a servant: Hence it follows, by the Reverend Brothers Principles, That the Kings Cook, because he doth work and service for the King, there­fore he doth it vice Regis, and as the Kings Vicegerent: Likewise, that a servant who obeyeth his Masters Wife, and executeth her commands, because it is his Masters will, and for his Masters honour, doth therefore obey his Masters Wife vice Domini, as his Masters Vicegerent; and by consequence, That the duty of obe­dience to the Wife, doth originally belong to the Husband; for the capacity of a Vicegerent, which he hath by his Vicegerentship, is primarily the capacity of him whose Vicegerent he is. These and the like absurd consequences will unadvoidably follow, upon the Reverent Brothers Argumentation, That he who doth Christ service, doth it vice Christi, as Christs Vicegerent; and that to be a mans Vicegerent, and to do a mans work or service (which I made two different things) are all one. But further observe his Tergiversation. I had Pag. 13. proved my distinction out of these words of his own. The Commissioner saith Magistracy is not de­rived from Christ: I say, Magistracy is given to Christ to be service­able in his Kingdom. So that though the Commissioners Assertion be sound (which in due place will be discussed) yet it infringeth nothing that I said. I asked therefore, quâ fide he could confound in his [Page 11] Argument brought against me, those two things which himself had so carefully distinguished. There is no Reply to this in Male dicis. When the Brother thought it for his advantage, he denied that the Magistrate his being serviceable to Christ, doth infer the de­rivation of his power by a Commission of Vicegerentship from Christ (for that was the derivation spoken of) and yeelded that the Magistrate may be said to be serviceable to Christ, though his power be not derived from Christ. Now he denyeth the very same distinction for substance.

8. Whereas the Reverend Brother had told the Parliament, that he seeth not in the whole Bible any one act of that Church Go­vernment which is now in controversie. I brought some Scrip­tural Instances against his Opinion, not losing either the Argument from Matth. 18. (concerning which, he asketh what is become of it) or other Scriptural Arguments, which I intend by Gods assistance to prosecute elsewhere. Now hear what is replyed to the Instances which were given: First to that 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away that wicked person from among you; His answer is, I say, and it is sufficient against the Commissioner, If this be a Church censure, then the whole Church joyntly, and every particular person hath power of Church censure, Male dicis pag. 10. I hope Sir, it is not sufficient against me, that you say it, so long as you say nothing to prove it. I told you that Master Prynne himself (who holds not that every particular person hath power of Church censure) acknowledgeth that Text to be a warrant for Excommunication. And when you say every particular person, you say more then the Independents say; and I am sure, more then the Text will admit; for the Text saith, Put away from among you: Therefore this power was given not uni▪ but unitati. And this unitas was the Presbytery of Corinth, the sentence was inflicted [...] by many, 2 Cor. 2. 6, it is not said by all. I might say much for this; but I will not now leave the Argument in hand; for it is enough against Master Cole­man, that the place prove an act of Church Government, flow­ing from a power, not Civil, but Ecclesiastical. To whom the power belonged, is another Question.

To the next Instance from 2 Cor. 2. 6. (which is coincident with the former) a punishment or censure inflicted by many. It is onely a reprehension, saith he, [...], which by all the places in the New [Page 12] Testament, [...]an amount no higher then to an objurgation, and so it Doctrinal. Answ. 1. He made it even now an act of the whole Church joyntly, and of every particular person. Why did he not clear himself in this, How the whole Church, Men, Women, Children, and all did doctrinally reprehend him? 2. If the Ob­jurgation must be restricted, to whom? Not to a single Minister (yet every single Minister hath power of Doctrinal Objurgation) but to the Presbytery, it was an act of those [...] I spake of; and this is a ground for that distinction between Ministerial and Presbyterial admonition which Master Coleman, pag. 22. doth not admit. 3. If it were granted that [...] in this Text amount­eth to no more but an Objurgation. Yet our Argument stands good; for the Apostle having in his first Epistle required the Co­rinthians, to put away from among them that wicked person, which they did accordingly resolve to do (which makes the Apo­stle commend their obedience, 2 Cor. 2. 9.) No doubt either the Offender was at this time actually excommunicated and cast out of the Church, or (as others think) they were about to Excom­municate him, if the Apostle had not by his second Epistle pre­vented them, and taken them off with this Sufficit; Such a de­gree of censure is enough, the party is penitent, go no higher. 4 When the Reverend Brother appealeth to all the places in the New Testament, he may take notice that the word [...] is no where found in the New Testament, except in this very Text. And if his meaning be concerning the Verb [...], he may finde it used to expresse a Coercive power, as in Christs rebuking of the windes and waves, Matth. 8. 26. Mark 4. 39. His rebuking of the Fever. Luke 4. 39. His rebuking of the Divel (which was not a Doctrinal, but a Coercive rebuke) Mark 1. 25. and 9 25. Luke 4. 35. and 9. 42. Sometimes it is put for an Authoritative charge, laying a restraint upon a man, and binding him from liberty in this or that particular, as Matth. 12. 16. Mark 3. 12. and 8. 30. Luke 9. 21. The word [...] I finde in the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom, Chap. 3. [...]0. it is said of the wicked [...] they shall have correction or punishment. The whole Chapter maketh an opposition between the godly and the wicked, in reference to punishments and judgements. The Hebrew [...] (which if the Observation hold which is made by Arias Montanus, and divers [Page 13] others following Kimchi, when it is construed with [...] signifieth [...]bjurgavit, duriter reprehendit; when without [...], it signifieth corru­pit, perdidit, or maledixit) the Septuagints do most usually turn it [...], and that in some places where it is without [...], as Psal. 119. 21. Thou hast rebuked the proud, that are cursed; [...]. Pagnin, disperdidisti, thou hast destroyed, so the sence is, it is rebuke with a judgement or a curse upon them: the second part of the verse in the Greek is exegetical to the first part. Thou hast rebuked the proud: [...], cursed are they, &c. So Zech. 3. 2. The Lord rebuke ( [...]) thee O Satan. (The same phrase is used in Jude vers. 9.) [...]. Quod propemodum va­let ac si dicas, [...]acite ut pondu [...] & auctoritatem habeat charitas erga illum. Le­quitur enim vel­ut ad Judices & concienem, quo­rum suffragiis velit absolvi eum, qui tradi­tus fuerat Sata­nae. Nam [...] concionem signi­ficat, in qua cre­antur Magistra­tus, quae Latini vocant comitia, & diem alieujus rei causa praesti­tutum, & jus aliquod agendi. Quin & [...] Graeci dicunt scriptum authen­ticum, authori­bus Hesychio & Suida. Mihi videtur & ea sententia quae vi­cissetin suffragiis dicta fuisse [...]. Which must needs be meant of a coercive efficacious divine power restraining Satan. The same original word they render by [...], (which signifieth to separate and to excommunicate) Mal. 2. 3. Behold I will corrupt your seed &c. In the preceeding words God told them that he would curse them. The same word they render by [...], extermino, Isa. 17. 13. a place which speaks of a judgement to be inflicted, not of a doctrinall reproof. Yet Aquila readeth there [...]. Likewise the word which the Septuagints render [...], perdition, Prov. 13. 1. and [...], wrath, Isa. 51. 20. in other places they render it [...], as Psal. 76. 6. At thy rebuke O God of Jacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep. Psal. 80. 16. They perish at the rebuke of thy coun­tenance. These are reall rebukes, that is, judgements and punish­ments.

4. What saith Master Coleman to Pasor, who expounds [...] to be the same with [...], mulcta, and that 2 Cor. 2. 6. it is meant of excommunication, which he proves by this reason, Because in the same place the Apostle exhort the Corinthians to forgive him. Adde hereunto Erasmus his Observation upon the word [...], (vers. 8. to confirm your love towards him) that it implies an au­thoritative ratification of a thing by judiciall suffrage and sentence. Which well agreeth to the [...] vers. 6. that is, that they who had judicially censured him, should also judicially loose him and make him free. Now therefore the circumstances and context being observed, and the practice 2 Cor. 2. 6. compared with the precept 1 Cor. 5. 13. I conclude that whether this [...] was Excommu­nication already inflicted, or whether it was a lesser degree of Cen­sure tending to Excommunication; a Censure it was, and more [Page 14] then ministeriall objurgation. And it is rightly rendred by the Hesych▪ [...]. Julius Pollux lib. 8. cap. [...]. [...], &c. Clemens A­lexandrinus Paedag. lib. 1. cap. 10. useth promiscuously [...] and [...] in one and the same sentence to expresse punishment: [...]. Which Gentianus Hervetus his Interpreter readeth thus: Cum peccatorum poe [...]as, & facilem & tanquam ven [...]is perflabilem eorum dissipationem ostendisset Paedagogus, per poenam a causa dehortatus est. Again, Pae­dag. lib. 3. cap. 2. ad finem: [...]. The Interpreter thus: Quin etiam Sichimitae puniuntur, qui lapsi sunt, sanctae Virgini probrum inferen [...]es. Sepulchrum eis est supplicium, & poen [...] monimentum nos ducit ad salu­tem. English Translators punishment or censure. Which well agreeth with the signification of the Verb [...], given us by Hesychius, and by Julius Pollux who makes [...] to punish or chastise, and [...] punishment or chastisement. Clemens Alexandrinus useth [...] as well as [...] pro poena vel supplicio. So Stephanus in Thes. Ling. Gr. From all which it may appear that the Text in hand holds forth a corrective Church-government, in the hands of Church-officers; the thing which Master Coleman denieth.

To the next instance from 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses: The Reverend Brother answereth, It is either in relation to the judgement of chari­ty, or ministeriall conviction, as the verses following. Answ. 1. That of two or three witnesses, is taken from the Law of Moses, where it is referred onely to a forensicall proceeding. But in relation ei­ther to the judgement of charity, or ministeriall conviction, it is not necessary that there be two or three witnesses. If a scandalous sin be certainly known to a Minister, though the thing be not cer­tified by two or three witnesses, yet a Minister upon certain know­ledge had of the fact, may both beleeve it, and ministerially con­vince the offender. But there may not be a Consistoriall proceed­ing without two or three witnesses. 2. Since he appealeth to the following verses, let vers. 22. decide it: Lay hands suddenly on no man. To whom the laying on of hands or ordination did belong, to them also it did belong to receive an accusation against an El­der: But to the Presbytery did belong the laying on of hands or ordination, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Ergo, to the Presbytery did belong the receiving of an accusation against an Elder. And so it was not the act of a single Minister, as ministeriall conviction is.

[Page 15]To the last instance from Rev. 2. 14, 15, [...] the Reverend Bro­ther answers that he had striven to find out how Church-censures might be there grounded, but was constrained to let it alone. But what is it in his opinion which is there blamed in the Angels of those Churches? Doth he imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for their holding fast of his Name and of the true Faith, did not so much as doctrinally or ministe­rially oppose the foul errours of the Balaamites and of Jezebel? No doubt but this was done: but Christ reproves them because such scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the Church, and were not cast out. I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam: and vers. 20. Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel. And why was the very having or suffering them in the Church a fault, if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the Church? Which casting out could not be by banish­ment, but by excommunication. It did not belong to the Angell to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos: but he might and ought to have cast them out of the Church in Pergamos.

9. Master Coleman hath another passage against the distinction of Church-censures and Civill punishments. But what are Eccle­siasticall Censures, saith he, (let us take a taste) is deposition from the Ministery? This Kings have done &c. Maledicis p. 7. Now similia l [...]bra lactucis. But for all that, the taste is vitiated, and doth not put a difference between things that are different. Deposition is sometimes taken improperly for expulsion, as Balsamon in Conc. Nicae [...]. Can. 19. doth observe. And so the Christian Magistrate may remove or put away Ministers when they deserve to be put away; that is, by a coercive power to restrain them, imprison or banish them; and in case of capitall crimes, punish them with capitall punishments. King James having once heard a Dispute in Saint Andrews about the deposition of Ministers, was convinced that it doth not belong to the Civill Magistrate; Yet, said he, I can depose a Ministers head from his shoulders. Which was better Divinity then this of Master Coleman. If we take deposition pro­perly, as it is more then the expelling, sequestring, or removing of a Minister from this or that place, and comprehendeth that which the Councel of An [...]yra Can. 18. cals [...], The honour of Presbytership to be taken away; or a privation [Page 16] of that Presbyteratus the order of a Presbyter, and that [...] the authority and power of dispensing the Word, Sacraments, and Discipline, which was given in Ordination: so none have power to depose who have not power to ordain. It belongeth not to the Magistrate either to make or unmake Ministers. Therefore in the Concil. Antioch. sub Constantio Can. 4. Si quis Episcopus a Sy­ [...]do dep [...]situs, vel Diaconus a proprio Episco­po, sac [...]um cele­brate a [...]sus fue­rit &c. Concil. Hispal. 2. Can. 6. ut nullus nostrum sine concilij ex­amine, dejicere quemlibet Pres­byterum vel Di­aconum audeat. Episcopus enim Sacerdotibus & Ministris solus honorem dare potest: au [...]erre solus non potest. Vide etiam Conc. Afric. Can. 20. Conc. Carthag. 4. Can. 23. ancient Church, the Bishops had power of the deposition as well as of the ordination of Presbyters: yet they were bound up that they might not depose either Presbyter or Deacon, without the concurrence of a Presbytery or Synod in the businesse. Mark of the Synod, not of the Magistrate. As for the Testimonies brought by Master Coleman, he doth both here and in diverse other places name his Authors, without quoting the places. It seems he hath either found the words cited by others, but durst not trust the quotations, or else hath found somewhat in those places which might make against him. However all that he can cite of that kinde concerning deposition of Ministers by Emperors, i [...] meant of a coercive expulsion, not of that which we call properly De­position. And to this purpose let him take the Observation of Salmas. appar. ad lib. de primat. pag. 298. 299. Non enim potestatem quam in ordinatione acce­pit per impositionem manuum, potest [...]ripere Princeps, cum nec eam possit dare. Si Princeps igitur velit Ministrum aliquem ob sua peccata prorsus degradari & [...], & Ministerium simul cum ejus functione amittere, per Pastores ipsos id faciendum debet curare, qui Judices veri ipsius sunt, & aufer­re soli possunt quod per ordinationem dederunt. Imperatores Romani quos per vim ejicerent, quia intelli­gebant potestatem Ministerij fungendi non aliter iis adimere posse, in exili [...]m eos mittebant. Quod posse­mus infinitis testimoniis demonstrare. Relegatus hoc modo Episcopus remane [...]at nihilominus Episcopus, non ordine excideba [...] Episcopali, nec ad laicorum ordinem redigebatur. a great Antiquary.

And withall he may take notice that Protestant Writers do Gerhard. loc. Com. Tom. 6. pag. 201. Pro­ [...]ari nequit illo­rum Pseudopoli­ [...]icorum opinio, qui ad jura re­ [...]alia Magistra­tes rem [...]tionem Ministrorum pertinere censent. See Fr. Junius Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 3. & Animad. in Be [...]. Co [...]r. 4. [...]b. 1. cap. 20. not. 8. [...]alduin. de cas. conscient. lib. 4. cap. 5. cas. 12. disclaime the Magistrates power of deposing Ministers; and hold that deposition is a part of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction: Ministers being alwayes punishable (as other Members of the Common­wealth) according to the Law of the Land, for any offence com­mitted against Law.

CHAP. 3.

That Master Colemans and Master Husseys opposing of Church-Government, nei­ther is, nor can be reconciled with the solemne League and Covenant.

MAster Colemans Doctrine was by me charged to be a violation of the solemne League and Covenant. This he acknowledged in his Re-examination, page 13. 17. to be a very grievous charge, and a greater fault in him then in divers others, if made out: and he desired seriously, yea challenged it by the right of a Christian, and by the right of a Minister, that I should prosecute this charge; where­upon I did in my Nihil Respondes prosecute it so farre, that by five strong Arguments I did demonstrate the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the Covenant. About a Moneth after­ward comes out Master Husseys Booke, wherein the charge it selfe (before desired to be prosecuted) is declined ex­presly by Master Coleman in the few lines by him prefixed (which are ranked together with the Errata) in which he desires that the argumentative part may be so prosecuted, as that the charge of Covenant-breaking may be laid aside, which if it be taken up, he lets me know before-hand it shall be esteemed by them a Nihil Respondes. It is also decli­ned by Mr. Hussey, page 15. The Argument of the Covenant is too low to be thought on in this Discourse: we are now in an higher region then the words of the Covenant, &c. A Tenent lookt upon by the reformed Churches, as proper to those Vide apud Sy­nod Do [...]d [...]a [...] Sess. 2 [...]. con­ditione [...] Syn [...] legit [...]im [...] insti­tuendae quas Remonstra [...]tes &c, con [...]it. 9. that are inspired with the Ghost of Arminius, for the Re­monstrants both at and after the Synod of Dort, did cry downe the Obligation of all Nationall Covenants, Oaths, &c. in matters of religion, under the colour of taking the Scripture onely for a rule. Well, we see the charge declined as nothing; but this is not all: almost two moneths after [Page 18] my proofe of the charge, Mr. Coleman comes out with his Maledicis, and declines both the charge it selfe (which he calls An impertinent charge, pag. 22.) and my five Arguments too, without so much as taking notice of them, or offering replies to them; yea all that I said in my Nihil Respondes, pag. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. in prosecution of this Argument concerning Covenant-breaking, the Reverend Brother hath skipped over sicco pede in the halfe of one page, viz. pag. 23. all that followes is new and other mat­ter, wherein he did not minde his owne Answer to the learned Viewer, pag. 33. I will keepe you to the Lawes of Dis­putation, and will not answer but as it is to the matter in hand, I leave it to be Judged by men of knowledge and piety, whe­ther such a one, doth not give them some ground to appre­hend that he is [...], that is self-judged, who first calleth so eagerly for making out a charge against him, and then when it is made out doth decline the charge, and not answer the Arguments; and such as esteeme the charge of Covenant-breaking to be a Nihil Respondes, and the Argument of the Covenant too low to be thought on in a controversie about Church-Government, O my Soule, come not thou into their secret, unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united. It is in vaine for them to palliat or shelter their Covenant-breaking, with appealing from the Covenant to the Scripture, for subordinata non pugnant. The Covenant is norma recta, a right rule, though the Scripture alone be nor­ma recti, the rule of right. If they hold the Covenant to be unlawfull, or to have any thing in it contrary to the Word of God, let them speake out. But to professe the breach of the Covenant to be a grievous and great fault, and wor­thy of a severe censure, and yet to decline the charge and proofes thereof, is a most horrible scandall; yea, be asto­nished O yee Heavens at this, and give eare O Earth! how small regard is had to the Oath of God, by men professing the Name of God.

As for that little which the reverend Brother hath re­plyed unto, First he takes notice of a passage of his Sermon [Page 19] at the taking of the Covenant, which I had put him in minde of, but he answereth onely to one particular, viz. concerning that clause, Doubtlesse many materialls of Prelacy must of necessity be retained as absolutely necessary. I asked what he understood by this clause? Now observe his answer. I answer ingenuously, as he desires, and fully, as I conceive, these mate­rialls of Prelacy are Ordination. Remember you said, many ma­terialls of Prelacy. I beseech you Sir, how many is Ordinati­on? Ordination, Ordination, Ordination; tell on till you thinke you have made many materialls; and withall tell us (if this be the meaning, that Ordination should be retained without any power of Ecclesiasticall Government in the Ministery:) how was it imaginable that he could hereby satisfie that scruple which then he spoke to, viz. the scruple about the purging away of the exorbitancies of Prelacy, and retaining a regulated Prelacy? And after all this, I shall desire him to expound that other clause (which I desired before, but he hath not done it) taking away (said he) the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new Government, and no Prelacy. Either he meanes this of a new Church-Govern­ment distinct from the Civill, so that the Ministery should have new power of Government; or he meant it of the way which now he pleads for. If the former, I have what I would. Master Coleman himselfe as well as other men took the Covenant, with an intention to have an Ecclesiasti­call Government distinct from the Civill. If the latter, then let him answer these two things. 1. What good sence there was in applying such an Answer to such a Scruple, as if the Erastian way, or the appropriating of all Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction wholly to the civill Magistrate, could be the way to satisfie those who scrupled the totall abolition of Prelacy. 2. How will he reconcile himselfe with himselfe, for here pag. 22. he saith, That his way was in practice be­fore I was borne, and the constant practice of England alwaies. This, as it is a most notorious untruth (for the constant pra­ctice of England hath granted to the Clergy (as he calls them after the Popish Dialect) a power of Deposition and [...] [Page 18] [...] [Page 19] [Page 20] Excommunication, whereas his way denies all corrective power, or Church-censures to the Ministery) so if it were a truth, it is utrerly inconsistent with that which he said of the remaining part, namely, that it will be a new Govern­ment. If it be his way, how will he make it the con­stant practice of England alwaies, and a new Govern­ment too?

In the next place the Reverend Brother makes short work of my five Arguments, to prove the repugnancy of his Do­ctrine to the solemne League and Covenant. They were too hot for him to be much touched upon, All is but this much, saith he, The Covenant mentioneth and supposeth a distinct Church-Government. It is hard when Arguments are neither repeated nor answered. He repeats a Point which was pro­ved (and but a part of that) but not the proofes. And so he answereth (rather to the conclusion then to the Argu­ments) these two things. First, saith he, the expressions in the Covenant are according to the generall apprehensions of the times, which tooke such a thing for granted; yet I beleeve Master Gillespie cannot make such a supposition obligatory. Now you yeeld Sir what before you eagerly contended against, viz. That the Covenant doth suppose a Church-Government. Remember your Simile of the Jury sworne to enquire into the felony of a Prisoner, which Oath doth not suppose the Prisoner to be guilty of felony, but he is to be tried, Guilty or not Guilty. We are now so farre agreed, that the Cove­nant doth suppose a Church-Government distinct from the civill Government, and yet not meerly Doctrinall, for that was the point which I proved, and which here he yeelds. As for the obligation of an Oath sworne upon such sup­position, I answer. 1. It is more then supposed, the words and expressions of the Covenant doe plainly hold out the thing as I proved, and as the Reverend Brother seemes here to yeeld. 2. That which an Oath doth necessarily sup­pose, if the Oath be lawfull, and the thing supposed law­full, is without all controversie obligatory. Now the Reve­rend B [...]other doth acknowledge both the Covenant it selfe, [Page 21] to be a lawfull Oath, and that which the Covenant sup­poseth, namely a Church-Government distinct from the Civill Government, and yet not meerly Doctrinall to be a lawfull thing, for he professeth to yeeld it (though not Jure divino, yet) in prudence, which he cannot doe, if he make the thing unlawfull. 3. That which an Oath doth suppose is sometimes supposed Vi materiae, or consequentiae, that is, the words of the Oath doe necessarily imply such a thing, though it be not intended by the swearer; and here I will tell Master Coleman one Story of Alexander for another. When Alexander was comming against a Towne to destroy it, he met Anaximenes, who (as he understood) came to make intercession and supplication for sparing the Towne, Alexander preventeth him with an Oath, that he would not doe that thing which Anaximenes should make petition for, whereupon Anaximenes made Petition that he would destroy the Towne, Alexander found himselfe bound by the plaine words of his Oath to doe what he in­tended, and so did forbeare. And to adde a divine Story to an humane, Joshua, and the Princes of Israel did sweare to the Gibeonites upon a supposition that was not true, yet they found themselves tyed by their Oath. So he that swea­reth to his owne hurt must not change, the Oath being otherwise lawfull, Psal. 15. 4. yet that selfe hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his Oath was not intended in swearing. Sometimes againe, that which is supposed and implyed in an Oath lyeth also in the thoughts and intention of those that sweare. Now where those two are co-incident; that is, where the thing supposed in an Oath is both im­plyed necessarily in the words of the Oath, and is also ac­cording to the apprehensions of those that sweare (which is the case here in the Covenant, and is acknowledged by the Reverend Brother) I should thinke it most strange how any Divine can have the least doubt concerning the obliga­tion of such a thing, except he conceive the thing it selfe to be unlawfull.

His second Answer is this, In my way, saith he, the Govern­ments [Page 22] Civill and Ecclesiasticall, are in the subject matter clearly di­stinct; When the Parliament handles matters of Warre it is a Military Court; when businesse of State, it is a Civill Court; when matters of Religion, it is an Ecclesiasticall Court. If this hold good, then it will follow. 1. That the Parliament when they deliberate about matters of Warre, or matters of Re­ligion, are not (at least formally and properly) a Civill Court; else how makes he these so clearly distinct? 2. That Ministers may be called Civill Officers; for consider his words in his Re-examination, pag, 11. I doe not exclude Mini­nisters, neither from Ecclesiasticall nor Civill Government, in a Mi­nisteriall way, doctrinally and declaratively. Compare this with his present Answer, it will amount to thus much, That diffe­rent denominations being taken from the different subject matter, Ministers when they handle Doctrinally matters of Religion, are Ecclesiasticall Ministers; and when they han­dle Doctrinally matters of Civill Government, (which him­selfe alloweth them to doe,) they are Civill Ministers. But now to apply his Answer to the Argument; How doth all this salve the repugnancy of his Doctrine to the Covenant? If he had examined my Arguments, he had found that most of them proove from the Covenant, a Church-Government distinct from Civill Government, Suctjective as well as Obje­ctive, that is, another Government besides Magistracy; diffe­rent Agents, as well as different Acts; different hands, as well as handling of different matters: I know the Christian Ma­gistrate may and ought to have a great influence into matters of Religion; and whatsoever is due to him by the Word of God, or by the Doctrine either of the Antient or Reform­ed Churches; I doe not infringe, but doe maintaine and strengthen it. But the point in hand is, That the Cove­nant doth undeniably suppose, and clearly hold forth a Government in the Church, distinct from Magistracy, which is proved by these Arguments; (which▪ as they are not yet answered, so I will briefly apply them to the proofe of that point which now Master Coleman sticks at,) 1. The Church Government mentioned in the Covenant, is as distinct from [Page 23] the Priviledges of Parliament, as the first Article of the Co­venant is distinct from the third Article. 2. The Church-Government in the first Article of the Covenant, the Refor­mation wherof we are to endeavour, differeth from Church-Government by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. mentioned in the second Article, as much as a thing to be reformed differeth from a thing to be extirpated; so that the Church-Govern­ment formerly used in the Church of England, is looked up­on two waies in the Covenant, either qua Church-Govern­ment, and so we sweare to endeavour the Reformation of it, (which I hope was not meant of reforming that part of the Priviledges of Parliament, whereby they meddle with Reli­gion in a Parliamentary way,) Or, qua Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. and so we sweare to endeavour the extirpation of it. This difference / betweene the first and second Articles, between Reformation and Extirpation, pro­veth that the Covenant doth suppose, that the Church-Go­vernment formerly used in the Church of England, in so far as it was a Church-Government, is not eatenus, to be aboli­shed, but in so far as it was a corrupt Church-Government, that is, Prelaticall, 3. Church-Government in the Cove­nant is matched with Doctrine, Worship, and Catechising; Now these are subjectively different from Civill Government for the Civill Magistrate doth not act doctrinally nor cate­chistically, neither can he dispence the Word and Sacraments as Master Coleman acknowledgeth. 4. In the first part of the first Article of the Covenant, concerning The preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine Worship, Discipline, and Government, It is uncontroverted, that Discipline and Government are Ecclesiasticall, and subje­ctively different from Civill Government, that is, though divers who have a hand in the Civill Government are ru­ling Elders; yet it is as true that divers Members of Parlia­ment, and inferiour Civill Courts, are not Church Officers [...]; and of the Ministery none are Civill Governours, which makes the two Governments clearly distinct subjective. Now the second part of that Article concerning the Reformation of [Page 24] Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, cannot so farre differ from the first part of that Article in the sense of the words, Disci­pline and Government, as that the same words in the same Arti­cle of the same Covenant should signifie things differing t [...]to genere, which will follow, unlesse Discipline and Government in the second branch, and forme of Church-Government in the third branch, be understood of the power of Church Offi­cers, and not of the Magistrate. 5. We did sweare to endea­vour the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdomes of England and Ireland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, ac­cording to the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches. Now the Word of God holds forth another Go­vernment besides Magistracy; for Master Coleman himselfe hath acknowledged, that he findes in the New Testament Ministers to be Rulers, yea instituted Rulers. And the exam­ple of the best Reformed Churches (without all doubt) lea­deth us to an Ecclesiasticall Government, different from Ma­gistracy. Neither hath the Reverend Brother so much as once adventured to alledge the contrary, except of the Church of Israel, which as it heterogeneous, (being none of the Reformed Churches mentioned in the Covenant) so it shall be discussed in due place. From all which reasons I conclude, that the wit of man cannot reconcile Master Colemans Doctrine with the Covenant. I adde, 6. A confu­tation of him out of himselfe thus. No such Church-Go­vernment as Master Coleman casts upon an uncertainty, whe­ther the Word hold out any such thing, can be by his Prin­ciples the power of Magistracy in things Ecclesiasticall, but another Government beside Magistracy. But the Church-Government mentioned in the first Article of the Covenant, is such a Church-Government as Master Coleman casts upon an uncertainty, whether the Word hold out any such thing. Ergo, the Church-Government mentioned in the first Arti­cle of the Covenant, cannot be by his Principles the power of Magistracy, but another Government beside Magistracy; [Page 25] The Proposition he will easily admit, unlesse he alter his as­sertions; the assumption is cleare from his Re-examination, pag. 15.

CHAP. IIII.

Master Coleman and Master Hussey their er­rors in Divinity.

MAster Hussey all along calls for Divinity Schoolrs; I confesse himselfe hath much need of them, that he may be better grounded in his Divinity; and that if he will plead any more for Christian Magistracy, he may not involve himselfe into such dangerous heterodoxies as have fallen from his pen in this short Tractate. I instance in these:

First, In his Epistle to the Parliament, he hath divers pas­sages against Synodicall Votes, he will have no putting to the Vote; For Votes, saith he, pag. 6 are of no other use but to gather parties, and ought no where to be used but by those that have the power of the Sword. And pag. 3. he will have the businesse of Assemblies to be only Doctrinall, and by dispute to finde out truth; their Disputes ought to end in a brotherly accord, as in Act. 15. much disputing, but all ended in accord, no putting to the Vote. And pag. 5. he will have things carried with strength, of Argument and unanimous consent of the whole Clergy. Behold how he joyneth issue with the Remonstrants against the Contra-Remonstrants, to introduce not onely an Accade­micall, Ʋt de contro­versis articulis non [...]ia [...] decisio, sed accmodatio­oni studeatur: cujus tamen via & ratio rata non ha [...]eatur, nisi accedente [...]tri [...]que partis consensu. but a Scepticall and Pyrrhonian Dubitation and un­certainty, so that there shall never be an end of controversie, nor any settlement of truth and of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, so long as there shall be but one tenacious Disputer to hold up the ball of contention. One egge is not liker another, then Master Husseys Tenent is like that of the Armi­nians, for which see the Synod of Dort Sess. 25. It was the nin [...]h condition which the Arminians required in a lawfull and well constituted Synod, that there might be no decision [Page 26] of the controverted Articles, but onely such an accommo­dation as both sides might agree to. And generally they hold that Synods ought not to meet for decision, or deter­mination, but for examining, disputing, discussing. So their Examen Censurae, cap. 25. and their Vindiciae, lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 131. 133.

Secondly, In that same Epistle to the Parliament, pag. 4. he hath this passage; Will-worship is unlawfull, I meane in matters that are essentiall to Gods Worship, which are matters of duty, as for circumstantials of time and place (except the Sabbath) which are matters of liberty, in these the Common-wealth may Vote, &c, and this is your christian liberty, that in matters of liberty yee make Rules and Lawes to your selves, not crossing the ends that you are tyed to in duty. And is the Sabbath onely a circumstan­tiall of time contra-distinct from matters of duty? It seemes he will cry downe not onely the Jus divinum of Church­censures with the Erastians, but the Jus divinum of the Sab­bath with the Canterburians. And if Will-worship be un­lawfull onely in the essentialls of Gods Worship, why was the Argument of Will-worship so much tossed, not onely between Prelates and Non-Conformists, but between Pa­pists and Protestants, even in reference to Ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr. Hussey here ingaged himselfe to hold it free and lawfull to the Christian Magistrate, yea to private Christians (for he calls it Christian liberty, not Parlia­mentary liberty: now Christian liberty belongs to all sorts of Christians) to make Lawes to themselves for taking the Sacrament anniversarily on Christmasse, Good-Friday, and Easter, or to appoint a perpetuall Monethly Fast, or Thanksgiving: yea another Parliament may (if so it should seeme good to them) impose againe the Surplice and Crosse in Baptisme, Fonts, Railing of Communion Tables, the reading of divers passages of Apocrypha to the Congrega­tion, Doxologies, Anthems, Responsories, &c. as heretofore they were used: or they may appoint all and every one to sit in the Church with their faces toward the East, to stand up at the Epistles and Gospels, &c. yea what Ceremonies, Jewish, Popish, Heathenish, may they not impose, provided [Page 27] they onely hold the foundation, and keepe to those essen­tials which he calls matters of duty: by restraining the unlawfulnesse of Will-worship to the essentialls, he leaves men free to doe any thing in Religion, pr [...]ter verbum, so that it appeare not to them to be c [...]ntra verbum; any thing they may adde to the Word, or doe beside the Word, so that the thing cannot be proved contrary to the Word.

Thirdly, Mr. Hussey, ibid. pag, 4. 5. saith, That the Parlia­ment may require such as they receive for Preachers of truth, to send out able men to supply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or dis-allowance of the people. Where in the first part of that which he saith, there is either a Hete­rodoxie, or a controdiction. A heterodoxie, if he meane that Ministers are to be sent out without Ordination: a contradiction, if he meane that they must be Ordained; for then he gives Classes, a worke which is not meerly Doctri­nall. But most strange it is, that he so farre departeth from Protestant Divines in point of the Churches liberty in chu­sing Ministers, He tells us, pag. 14. that Mr. Herle for want of skill and Theologicall Disputations hath granted to people a right to chuse their Minister. Master Herles skill both Lo­gicall and Theologicall is greater then it seemes he can well Judge of: neither can this bold arrogant censure of his derogate from Mr. Herles but from his owne reputation. For the matter it selfe, it is one and not the least of the Contro­versies between the Papists and Protestants, what right the Church hath in the Vocation of Ministers, Read Bellarmine de cleric. and those that writ against him, and see whether it be not so. The Helvetick confession tells us that the right chusing of Ministers is by the consent of the Church, and the Belgick confession saith, We beleeve that the Ministers, Seniors and Deacons, ought to be called to those their Functions, and by the lawfull elections of the Church to be advanced into those roomes. See both these in the Harmony of Confessions, Sect. 11. I might here (if it were requisite) bring a heape of Testimonies from Protestant Writers, the least thing which they can admit of is, that a Minister be not obtruded renitente Ecclesia, Factum valet, fieri non debet. It may be helped after it is done, without making null or void the Ministery: [Page 28] but in a well constituted Church there ought to be no in­trusion into the Ministery, the Churches consent is requisite, for which also I might bring both Scripture and Antiquity: but that is not my present businesse. One thing I must needs put Mr. Hussey in minde of, that when the Prelates did in­trude Ministers without any regard to the dis-allowance of the people, it was cried out against as an oppression and usurpation: And we are often warned by Mr. Prynne, by Mr. Coleman, and by my selfe, to cast away the Prelates usurpation with themselves. But who Lords it now over the Lords inheritance, the Presbyterians or the Erastians? Nay he who will have Ministers put in churches without any regard to the allowance or dis-allowance of people, falls farre short of divers Prelaticall men, who did much commend the an­tient primitive forme of calling Ministers, not without the churches consent. See Dr. Field of the Church, lib. 5. cap. 54. Bilson de gubern Eccl. cap. 15. pag. 417. The Author of the History of Epic [...]pacy, part 2. pag. 360.

Fourthly, Master Hussey, Epist. pag. 7. saith, That upon further consideration he found the Minister charged onely with Preaching, and Baptizing. The like he hath afterwards, pag. 39. Let any man prove that a Minister hath any more to doe from Christ then to teach and baptize. And againe, pag. 44. he pro­pounds this Quaere, Whether Christ gave any more Government, (he should have said any more to doe, for Preaching and Baptizing are not acts of Government) then is contained in Preaching and Baptizing, and he holds the negative. If only Preaching and Baptizing, then not praying, and reading in the Congregation, ministring the Lords Supper, visiting the Sick and particular families.

Fifthly, He holdeth, pag. 20. that a Heathen Magistrate is unlawfull, and for his government, if sinne be lawfull, it is law­full. A grosse heterodoxie. The Apostle exhorteth to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates, Rom. 13. (for there were no other at that time) and to pray for them, 1 Tim. 2. so that by Mr. Hu [...]sseys Divinity the Apostle would have men to be subject untoa and to pray for an unlawfull Govern­ment. It is an An baptisticall Tenent that an Heathen Ma­gistrate is not from God: which Gerhard de Magistratu po­sition, pag. 498. 499. fully confutes.

[Page 29] Sixthly, he saith of Christ, pag. 40. He doth nothing as Mediator, which he doth not as God, or as man. It is a dange­rous mistake; for take the worke of Mediation it selfe, he neither doth it as God, nor as man, but as God-man.

Seventhly, He saith, pag. 35. Nothing can be said of Christ as second Person in Trinity in opposition to Mediator, but in oppo­sition to man there may. So that he will not admit of this op­position; Christ as the second Person in the Trinity is equall and consubstantiall to the Father, but as Mediator he is not equall to his Father, but lesse then his Father, and subject and subordinate to his Father; a distinction used by our Divines against the Antitrinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not admitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence myre himselfe in Socinianisme, for Christ as Mediator is the Fathers servant, Isa 42. 1. and the Fa­ther is greater then he, Joh. 14. 28. and as the head of the man is Christ, so the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11. 3. If therefore it cannot be said of Christ as he is the second Person in the Trinity, that his Father is not greater then he, and that he is not subordinate to God as his head, then fare-well Anti-Socinianisme. I dare boldly say, it is impossible to confute the Socinians, or to assert the eter­nall God-head of Jesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the second Person of the Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something be denied of him as he is the second Person in the Trinity, which must be affirmed of him as he is Mediator.

Eighthly, He saith, pag. 36. That Christ by his Media­tion hath obtained from the Father that he shall not Judge any man according to rigor, but as they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of Judgement from the wicked is in and for Christ, which otherwise the Justice of God would not allow. Then Christ did thus farre make satisfaction to the Justice of God in the behalfe of the wicked, and dye for them, that Judge­ment might be deferred from them: and thus farre performe Acts of Mediation for the Savages, and Mahume­tans, and for them that never heard the Gospell, that by such Mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they [Page 30] shall be Judged not according to rigour, but by the Gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath taken away all their sinnes against the Law, so that all men shall now goe upon a new score, and none shall be condemned or Judged by the Law, but by the Gospell onely; for if Christ have not taken away their sinnes against the Law, the Justice of God will [...]udge them according to the rigour of the Law. Must not every jot of the Law be fulfilled? and is there not a necessity that every one underlye the cusre and rigour of the Law, o [...] el [...]e that the Mediator hath underlyed it for them.

Ninthly, He propounds this Quere, pag. 44. Whether Mi­nisters have any right to those Priviledges which are given to the Church, more then another Christian; and he holds the ne­gative. Now the Preaching of the Word, and the admini­stration of the Sacraments, the power of the Keyes are Pri­viledges given to the Church, that is for the Churches good, For all things are yours, saith the Apostle, whether Paul, or Apollo, &c. c. 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22. Therefore by Mr. Husseys Divinity, any other Christian hath as much right to admi­nister Word, Sacraments, Keys, as the Minister.

Come on now to Mr. Colemans errours in Divinity, not to repeat what was expressed in my Nihil Respondes, but to take off the Maledicis in the maine points.

The tenth, Heterodoxie shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not as the eternall Son of God. Into this ditch did Mr. Coleman first fall, and then Mr. Hussey, pag. 25. after him. I said this Tenent lea­deth to a blasphemous Heresie. For the better understanding whereof let it be remembred what I did premise in my Ni­hil Respondes, pag. 11. in reply to his Proposition, That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, pag. 45. concerning the Headship and Dignity of Christ, as the naturall Son of God, the Image of the inv [...]sible God, Colossians, 1. 15. and pag. 43. of the dominion of Christ, as he is the eternall Sonne of God. This being pre­mised, &c. Mr. Coleman without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and plainly premise, begins [Page 31] to speake of God essentially, and that if something ma [...] be given to Christ as God, then something may be given to God, and then God is not absolutely perfect, &c Maledicis, pag. 13. 14. Thus he turneth over to the Essence and Nature of God, what I spake of the second Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternall Son of God. Was not the Question between him and me, Whether the Kingdome and Dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ, as he is the eternall Son of God? This is the point which he did argue against, because it takes off his Argument first brought to prove that all Government even civill is given to Christ, as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning I spake of Christ as the second person in Trinity, or the eternall Sonne of God. Thus therefore the case stands; The Reverend Brother to prove that an Univer­sall Soveraignty and Government over all things is given to Christ, as he is Mediator; and to confute my Assertion, that it is given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God, doth frame this Argument against me, That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. But here dignity is given to Christ. Therefore not here to be taken as God. Where there is more in the conclu­sion then in the Premisses, for the conclusion which naturally followes had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dig­nity as God. It seemes he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premisses which inferre the conclusion. But this by the way. I speake to his Proposition; That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. These words, as God, either he un­derstands [...] essentially, or [...] personally, that is, either in regard of the nature and essence of God, which is common to the Sonne of God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one, or in regard of the person of the Word, as Christ is the second Person in the Trinity, and personally distinct from the Fa­ther and the Holy Ghost. If in the former sense, then he must lay aside his whole Argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all against my Theses, which affirmed that an Universall Dominion and Kingdome over all things is given to Christ, not as he is Mediator, (in which capacity [Page 32] he is onely King of the Church,) but as he is the Eternall Sonne of God. In opposing of which Assertion, as the Re­verend Brother was before Nihil Respondens, so now he is twice nought. But if in the other sense he understands his Proposi­tion, (which I must needs suppose he doth, it being in oppo­sition to what I said,) then I still averre his Proposition will inferre a blasphemous heresie, as I proved before by a cleare demonstration. That which is given to Christ, he hath it not as God. But life, glory, &c. is given to Christ; Ergo, Christ hath not life, glory, &c. as God. The Reverend Brother saith, I acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the Major is mine owne, and the Minor is the very Scripture. Yet he denies the conclusion, and cleares himselfe by this simile, That which was given this poore man, he had not before, but a shilling was given this poore man: Ergo, He had not a shilling before. Where both Propositions are true, yet the conclusion is false, saith he, con­trary to the axiome, Ex veris nil nisi verum. You are extreamly out Sir, your Syllogisme of the poore man is fallacia ab am­phibolia. The Major of it is ambiguous, dubious, and fallaci­ous, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you acknowledge the Major of my Argument to be your owne, and so not fallacious in your opinion. You acknowledge the Minor to be Scripture. You have not found foure termes in my Premisses, nor charged my Ma­jor or Minor with the least fault in matter or forme, and yet forsooth you denie the Conclusion, and doe not ad­mit that uncontrovertible Maxime in Logick, Ex veris nil [...]stem. l [...]g. lib. 3. cap. 5. nisi [...]rum, or as Kekerman hath it. Ex veris praemiss [...]s fal [...] conclusionem colligi est impossibile; It is impossible that a false Con­clusion s [...]uid be gathered from true Premisses. Now let us heare what he would say against my Conclusion; it is concerning the sense of the word hath, For hath, saith he, by me is used for receiving or having by vertue of the gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally. You are still out Sir; I take it just as you take it; for though the Sonne of God, as God essentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of God, which is common to all three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of himselfe a Kingdome [Page 33] and Dominion over all, yet as he is the second Person in Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the Kingdome and Dominion over all, not of him­selfe, but by vertue of the gift of his Father. So that the Reverend Brother is still Nihil Respondens, and therefore he shall be concluded in this Syllogisme. He who holds that whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not by vertue of the gift, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or second Per­son in the Trinity, but onely as Mediator; he holds by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers gift, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or second Person in the Trinity. But Master Coleman holds the former, Ergo, Master Coleman holds the latter. The consequence in the Proposition is proved from Joh. 7. 22. The glory which thou gavest me. The assumption he will owne, or else quit his ar­gument against my distinction of the double Kingdome gi­ven to Christ, as the eternall Sonne of God, and as Media­tor. The conclusion which followes is hereticall; for wher­as the Nicen Creed said that Christ in regard of his eternall generation, that he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, God of God, Light of Light; Master Colemans argument will infe [...]e that he is not onely ex seipso Deus, but ex seipso filius; and so denie the eternall generation of the Sonne of God, and the communication of the Godhead, and the Soveraignty, Glo­ry, and Attributes thereof, from the Father to the Sonne. For if Christ, as he is the eternall Sonne of God, hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers Gift, then he hath it not by vertue of the eternall generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally of himselfe.

As for the other branch of Master Colemans Argument, tending to prove, that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God cannot be given, which he indeavours to vindicate, pag. 14. 15. I answer these two things:

First, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me, for I did from the beginning expound those words, Eph. 1. 22. And gave him to be the head over all things to the church, in this sence, that Christ as Mediator is given on­ly to the Church, to be her head, but he that is given as Me­diator [Page 34] to the Church, is over all. So that the giving of Christ there spoken of, is as Mediator, and he is given to the Church only, which I cleared by the Syriak, And him who is over all, he gave to be the head to the church. But his being over all, there spoken of, if understood of glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator, (yea in regard of the exaltation of his humane nature,) and this helpeth not Ma­ster Coleman, who intends to prove from that place, That all Government, even Civill, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a Kingdome and Government, over all, so he is over all as he is the eternall Sonne of God, or second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.

Secondly, The Question which the Reverend Brother fals upon, concerning the personall inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from any thing which I said, more then Gods giving of his Sonne to us, will inferre a personall inhabitation of the Sonne of God in us. That which I said was to this intent, That both the Sonne of God and the Ho­ly Ghost are given, not as God essentially; that is, in respect of the Godhead it self, or as they are one in nature with the Fa­ther, (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy Ghost which is given, could not be distinguished) but the Sonne is given as the Sonne proceeding from the Father; and the Ho­ly Ghost is given as the Holy Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Sonne; whether he be given to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations onely, is another question, which hath nothing to doe with the pre­sent argument, and therefore I will not be led out of my way.

The Eleventh Heterodoxy is this, I see an absurdity to hold that every man in authority is either Christs Vicegerent, or the Di­velo Maledicis, pag. 16. Here I make this inference; Heathen and Infidell Magistrates, either they are not men in authori­ty; or 2. They are Christs Vicegerents; or 3. They are the Divels Maledicis. If he say they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the Apostle Paul, who cals them Higher Pow­ers, Rom. 13. 1. and men in activity, 1 Tim. 2. 2. speaking in reference even to the Magistrates of that time, which were [Page 35] Infidels. If he say they are Christs Vicegerents, Then 1. I must say, that Christ as Mediator reignes without the Church, and is a King to those to whom he is neither Priest nor Prophet. 2. He must finde a Commission given by Christ to the Infidell Magistrate. 3. Whom in authority will he make to be the Divels Vicegerents, if Infidell Magistrates be Christs Vicegerents? If he say that they are the Divels Vice­gerents, then it followes, 1. That they who resist the Divels Vicegerent, resist the Ordinance of God, for they that resist an Infidell Magistrate and doe not submit to his lawfull au­thority, (which his Infidelity takes not away,) is said Rom. 13. v. 2. to resist the Ordinance of God. 2. That the Apostle Paul bade pray for the Divels Vicegerent, 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. The Reverend Brother doth but more and more winde himselfe into a lab erinth of errors, while he endeavours to take away the distinction of the two fold Kingdome, and the two fold Vicegerentship of God and of Christ.

The twelfth Heterodoxy followeth; Now it is true, that Christ being God as well as man, hath of himselfe originally as God, whatsoever he hath by vertue of gift as Mediator Maledicis, pag. 13. Now subsume, Christ hath by vertue of gift, as Mediator, the Priestly office. Ergo, By Master Colemans Principles, Christ hath of himselfe originally as God, the Priestly office. And if Christ hath it of himselfe originally as God, then the Fa­ther and the Holy Ghost hath it also; so that by his Doctrine the Father and the Holy Ghost shall be the Priests of the Church as well as Christ, for Christ hath nothing of himself originally as God, which the Father and the Holy Ghost have not likewise.

The thirdteenth & last errour concerneth the office of Dea­cons. Not onely a Widow but a Deacon is denyed to be a Church-Officer, or to have any warrant from Scripture. I hold not a Widow a Church-Officer, saith he: no more doe I a Deacon; both having a like foundation in Scripture, which truly is none at all. Maledicis, pag. 9. If this was his opinion for­merly, why did he not in so maine a point enter his dissent from the Votes of the Assembly concerning Deacons, to­gether with his Reasons? Well, his opinion is so now, [Page 36] whereby he runneth contrary not onely to the reformed Churches (which it seemes weigh not much in his bal­lance) but to the plaine Scripture which speakes of the Of­fice of a Deacon, 1 Tim. 3. 10. and this could be no civill Office, but an Ecclesiasticall Office, for the Deacons were chosen by the Church, were ordained with Prayer, and laying on of hands, and their charge was to take speciall care of the poore, all which is cleare, Act. 6. If he had gi­ven us the grounds of his Opinion, he should have heard more against it.

CHAP. V.

The Prelaticall way and Tenents of Master Coleman, and Master Hussey: Repug­nant also in divers particulars to the Votes and Ordinances of Parliament.

1▪ MAster Coleman in his Re-examination, page 14 makes the Parliament to be Church-Governours, and Church-Officers to the whole Kingdome. It was an Argument used against the Prelates that Ecclesiasticall and civill Government, Spirituall and Secular administrations are inconsistent in the same Persons, either of which requi­reth the whole man. It was another exception against the Prelate that he assumed the power of Church-Government, and Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction over the whole Diocesse, which was much more then he could discharge. How will Master Coleman avoid the involving the Parliament into Pre­laticall guiltinesse, by his Principles, which we avoyd by ours?

2▪ The Prelates sought great things for themselves ra­ther then to purge the Church of scandalls. What other thing was it when Master Coleman in his third Rule, instead of exhorting to the purging the Church, called onely for learning and competency, and told it out, that this will [Page 37] get us an able Ministery, and procure us honour enough. Master Hussey in his Epistle to my selfe tells me, that our attending on reading Exhortation and Doctrine (without Govern­ment) will obtaine the Magistrates love, more honour, more maintenance: something for shame he behooved to adde of the punishing of sinne, (yet he will not have the Minister called from his Study to be troubled or to take any paines in Discipline) but behold the love of the Magistrate, more honour, and more maintenance are strong ingredients in the Erastian Electuary.

3 Master Hussey will have Ministers placed without any re­gard to the allowance or dis-all [...]wance of the people. Epist. to the Parliament. This is Prelaticall, or rather more then Pre­laticall.

4 The Prelates were great enemies to ruling Elders. So are Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Hussey who acknowledge no war­rant from the Word of God for that calling, nor admit of any ruling Elders who are not Magistrates. A distinction which was used by Saravia and Bilson in reference to the Jewish Elders, and by Bishop Hall in reference to the Elders of the ancient Church, who were not Preaching Elders. Assert. of Episcop. by divine right, pag. 208, 209, 221. And now forsooth Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to the Parliament doth earnestly beseech them to set up Classes consisting onely of Ministers, whose worke should be onely to Preach the Word, &c. Such Classes I dare say the Prelates themselves will admit of. Sure the Scottish Prelates, when they were at their highest yeelded as much.

5 Master Coleman and Mr. Hussey hold that ruling Elders and a Church-Government distinct from the civill Go­vernment in the times of Persecution and under Pagan Ma­gistrates, can be no warrant for the like where the State is Christian. This plea for Christian Magistracy was Bishop Whitgifts plea against the ruling Elders. Answ. to the Ad­mon. pag. 114.

6 Master Hussey, pag. 22. saith, that granting the incestu­ous Corinthian to be Excommunicated, the decree was Pauls, and not the Corinthians, and that it no way appertained to [Page 38] them under the notion of a Church. This is Saravia his answer to Beza, De tripl. Epist. genere, pag. 42, 43: yea the Papists answer to Protestant Writers, by which they would hold up the Authority and sole Jurisdiction of the Prelates (as the Apostles successors) to Excommunicate.

They doe not more agree with the Prelaticall Principles, then they differ from the Votes and Ordinances of Parlia­ment, which is the other point that I have here undertaken to discover; and I shall doe it by the particular instances following:

First, The Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assem­bled in Parliament for the calling of an Assembly of Di­vines beginneth thus: Whereas among the infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this Nation, none is, or can be more deare un­to us then the purity of our Religion, and for that as yet many things remaine in the Liturgie, Discipline, and Government of the Church, which doe necessarily require a further and more perfect Reformati­on then as yet hath been attained: And whereas it hath been decla­red, and resolved by the Lords and Commons as [...]embled in Parliament, that the present Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. is evill and justly offensive, &c▪ and that therefore they are resol­ved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a Government shall be setled in the Church, as may be most agreeable to Gods holy Word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scot­land, and other reformed Churches abroad. Afterward it was resolved and Voted in both the Honourable Houses of Par­liament, and sent as one of the Propositions to the Treaty at Ʋxbridge, That many particular Congregations shall be under one Presbyteriall Government. Now therefore what can be more contrary to the Votes and Ordinances of Parliament, then that which Mr: Coleman and Mr. Hussey hold, that there ought to be no Ecclesiasticall Government, beside ci­vill Magistracy, except we please to take Preaching and Baptisme under the name of Government, as if forsooth the Parliament had meant by Presbyteriall Government, Parliamentary Government; or as if by the purity of Re­ligion in point of the Discipline of Government of the [Page 39] Church they had intended nothing but their civill rights and priviledges, or as if the wise and Honourable Houses had understood themselves no better then to intend that for a nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other reformed Churches, which is the widest difference from them, to wit, the Erastian way.

Secondly, In the same Ordinance of Parliament for the calling of an Assembly of Divines, it is Ordained, that the Assembly after conferring and treating among themselves touching the Lyturgie, Discipline, and Government of the Church, or vindication and clearing of the Doctrine of the same, shall deliver their opinions or advices of or touching the matters aforesaid to both or either of the Houses of Par­liament, yet Mr. Hussey Epist. to the Parliament, pag. 3. 6. will not have Classes and Assemblies to put any thing to the Vote, but to hold on the Disputes till all end in accord, and in unanimous consent of the whole Clergy. But how can the Assembly after Disputes, expresse their sence, and deliver their opinions and advice to the Parliament, as they are required, except they doe it by putting to the Vote. Mr. Coleman himselfe hath consented, yea sometime called to put things to the Vote. And as for Classes, will any man imagine that when both Houses of Parliament did Vote that many particular Congregations shall be under one Presbyteriall Go­vernment, their meaning was that the Classicall Presbitery shall onely Schoole-wise Dispute, and put nothing to the Vote: Or that the Classicall Presbitery shall in common dispence the Word and Sacraments to many Congregati­ons, and that either the Classicall Presbitery shall goe to the severall Congregations successively, or the many Congre­gations come to the Classicall Presbitery, for Preaching and Baptizing? I admire what opinion Mr. Hussey can have of the Parliamentary Vote concerning Presbyteriall Govern­ment.

Thirdly, Mr. Hussey, Epist. to the Parliament, pag. 4, 5. will have Ministers placed without any regard to the allowance and dis-allowance of the people, yet the Ordinance of Parliament for giving power to Classicall Presbyteries to ordaine Mini­sters, [Page 40] doth appoint that he who is examined and approved by the Presbitery shall be sent to the Church or other place where he is to serve (if it may be done with safety and conveniency) there to Preach three severall daies, and to converse with the people, that they may have triall of his gifts for their edification, and may have time and leasure to enquire into, and the better to know his life and conversation: after which the Ordinance appointeth publike notice to be given, and a day set to the Congregation, to put in what exceptions they have against him,

Fourthly, Mr. Hussey in that Epistle to the Parliament, pag. 5. saith, Oh that this Honourable Court would hasten to set up Classes consisting onely of Ministers, whose worke should be onely to Preach the Word, and weekly meet in Schooles of Divinity. Here's a double contradiction to the Ordinances of Parlia­ment, for in the directions of the Lords and Commons for chusing of ruling Elders, and speedy setling of Presbyteriall Government, it is appointed that ruling Elders shall be Members both of Classes and Synodicall Assemblies, toge­ther with the Ministers of the Word. Againe, the Ordinance about suspension of scandalous Persons from the Sacrament appointeth other work to Classes, beside Preaching and dispu­ting, namely the receiving and judging of appeales from the Congregationall Eldership. Mr. Coleman in Maledicis, pag. 12. professeth that he excludeth ruling Elders from Church Government, yet he can hardly be ignorant that as the Par­liament hath Voted, That many particular Congregations shall be under one Presbyteriall Government; so their Votes doe com­mit that Government to Pastors and ruling Elders jointly.

I will not here repeat the particulars wherein I shewed in my Nihil Respondes that Mr. Coleman hath abused the Hono­rable Houses of Parliament, unto which particulars he hath answered as good as nothing. The Honourable Houses in their wisedome will soone observe, whether such men, whose avou [...]hed Tenents are so flatly repugnant to the Parliamen­tary Votes and Ordinances, are like to be good Pleaders for Christian Magistracy.

CHAP. VI.

Master Coleman's wronging of the Church of Scotland.

MAster Coleman ends his Maledicis with a resentment of accusations charged upon him by a stranger, a Commissioner from another Church. The lot of strangers were very hard, if when they are falsely accused to Authori­ty, they may not answer for themselves. He may remember the first accusation was made by himself, when in his Ser­mon to the Parliament, he did flatly impute to the Commis­sioners from the Church of Scotland, a great part of the fault of hindering Union in the Assembly of Divines, as having come byassed with a Nationall determination: his Doctrine also at that time being such, as did not onely reflect upon the Government of the Church of Scotland, but tend to the subversion of the Covenant in one principall Point, with­out which there can be small or no hopes of attaining the other ends of the Covenant▪ Since that time he did in his Re-examination, and now again in his Maledicis fall foully upon the Church of Scotland, not onely by grosse mistakes and misrepresentations of our way, but by most groundlesse aspersions, and most uncharitable and unjust calumnies. I am sure I am not so much a stranger to his Doctrine as he is to the Church of Scotland, of which notwithstanding he boldly speaks his pleasure, in divers particulars which he will never be able to make good.

First, He hath aspersed that Church in the Point of pro­miscuous communicating. This I confuted in my Nihil Re­spondes, and told him both of the order of the Church, and practice of conscientious Ministers to the contrary. Now [Page 42] what replieth he? First, This refining work, I think, is not one yeer old in Scotland, or much more; I was lately informed that in Edinbrugh it is begun: whether anywhere else I know not. Maledicis pag. 20. Are not these now good grounds of censuring and aspersing a Reformed Church, (whose name hath been as precious ointment among other Churches abroad) I think, I was informed, whether it be otherwise I know not? He will sit in Cornhill, and tell the world what he imagines or hears of the Church of Scotland, and that for­sooth must be taken for a truth. Yet there was both Rules and Practice in the Church of Scotland, for debarring igno­rant and scandalous persons from the Sacrament, before he was born: though all was put out of course under the Pre­lats.

Secondly, saith the Reverend Brother, It is not a very ef­fectuall, sin-censuring, and Church-refining Government, under which after fo [...]rscore yeers constant practice, divers thousands in the Kingdom, and some hundreds in one particular Parish, because of ignorance and scandall, are yet unfit to communicate. Maledicis pag. 20. Answ. 1. It is notoriously false that there hath been fourscore yeers constant practice of Presbyteriall Government in Scotland: for the Prelats there, were above thirty yeers standing. 2. Shall the Earth be made to bring forth in one day, or shall a Nation be born at once? saith the Prophet, Isa. 66. 8. It is no easie matter to get a whole Na­tion purged of ignorant and scandalous persons. 3. He may take notice that the Apostle Paul almost in all his Epistles, maketh mention of scandalous persons among those to whom he wrote, warning them not to have fellowship with such, to note them, to avoid them. If the Apostolick Churches were not free of such, what great marvel if we be not? 4. Before he objected promiscuous communicating. This being cleared to be a calumny, now he objecteth that there are such as are unfit to communicate. But while he thus seeketh a quarrel against Church-government, he doth upon the matter quarrel the preaching of the Gospel it self. For [...]e that imputeth it as a fault to the Church-government [Page 43] that there are still divers thousands, who by reason of igno­rance or scandal, are unfit to communicate, doth by con­sequence, yea much more, impute it as a fault to the Preach­ing of the Gospel in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, the Low-Countreys, Switzerland, Swede, Poland, that in all these and other Reformed Churches after four­score yeers constant Preaching of the Gospel (which is ap­pointed of God to turn unconverted and unregenerate per­sons, from darknesse to light, and from the power of Satan to God) there are not onely divers thousands, but divers millions who by reason of ignorance or scandal, are yet un­fit to communicate. If the Word do not open the eyes of the ignorant, and convert the scandalous, what marvel that Church-Government cannot do it? Church-Government is not an illuminating and regenerating Ordinance as the Word is. But this Church-Government can and will do, yea hath done where it is duly executed; It is a most blessed means for keeping the Ordinances from visible and known pollution, which doth very much honour God, shame sin, and commend piety. It putteth a visible difference between the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean, the silver and the drosse; and may well be therefore called a Church­refining Ordinance.

The second Calumny was this, I my self, said he, did hear the Presbytery of Edinbrugh censure a woman to be banished one of the gates of the City. I answered him in his own language, It is at the best a most uncharitable slander. And told him, there is no banishment in Scotland, but by the Civil Magistrate; and that he ought to have enquired and inform­ed himself better.

Now he doth neither adhere to his Calumny, or offer to make it good, nor yet quit it, or confesse he was mistaken; but propoundeth three new Queres (Male dicis, pa. 21.) still forgetting his own rule of keeping to the Laws of Disputa­tion and Matter in hand. For the particular in hand, he one­ly saith thus much, I did make enquiry, and from the Presby­tery it self, I received information; but not satisfaction. He [Page 44] tells not what information he received. If he will say, that he received information that the banishment was by the Magistrate, how could he then report that it was by the Presbytery. If he say, that the information he had from the Presbytery gave him any ground for the report which he hath made, let him speak it out, and the world shall know the untruth of it. He may remember withall, that by his principles an accusation may not be received against an Elder (much lesse against an Eldership) in reference either to the judgement of charity, or to ministerial Conviction, except under two or three Witnesses. If therefore he would have his accusation beleeved, let him finde two or three Witnesses.

Thirdly, Whereas I had rectified a great mistake of the Reverend Brother, when I told him It is accidental to the ruling Elder to be of the Nobility, or to Nobles to be ruling Elders; there are but some so, and many otherwise: He is not pleased to be rectified in this, but replyeth, I say, first, it is continually so. Secondly, The Kings Commissioner in the General Assembly, is his presence accidental? Male dicis, pag. 10. See now here whether he understandeth what he saith, or whereof he affirmeth. That which he saith is con­tinually so, is almost continually otherwise, that is, there are continually some Ruling Elders who are not Nobles, and there are continually some Nobles who are not Ruling Elders: So that if any thing be accidental, this is accidental, that an Elder be of the Nobility, or Nobles be Elders; they are neither Nobles qua Elders, nor Elders qua Nobles. It is no lesse accidental, that the Kings Commissioner be present in the General Assembly; for there have been General Assemblies in Scotland, both before the erection and since the last casting out of Prelacy, in which there was no Com­missioner from the King. And when the King sends a Commissioner, it is accidental that he be of the Nobility; for the King hath sent Commissioners to General Assemblies, who were not of the Nobility.

A fourth Injury, not to be passed in silence, is this, Master [Page 45] Coleman hath endeavoured to make the world beleeve, that the Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, came to the Assembly, byassed with something adventitious from without, which he calls a National determination, and that we are not permitted by those that sent us, to receive any further light from the Word of God. I shall say no more of the byas, because as I told him before, the standers by see well enough which way the byas runs. But most strange it is, that after I had confuted his Calumny, not one­ly from our Paper first presented to the Grand Committee, but from the General Assemblies own Letter to the Assembly of Divines, shewing that they had ordered the laying aside of some particular Customes in the Church of Scotland for the neerer uniformity with the Church of England, so much endeared unto them; yet he still adhereth to his for­mer Calumny ( Male dicis, pag. 20.) without taking notice of the Evidence which I had given to the contrary. And not content with this, he still qua [...]relleth with my allegation of certain parallel examples, which are by him so far dis­esteemed, that he hath not stuck to passe the very same cen­sure upon the forrain Divines who came to the Synod of Dort, which the Arminians did: The same he saith of Alexander his coming to the Councel of Nice; and of Cyril his coming to the Councel of Ephesus. All these (I say) he still involveth under the same Censure with us; for whereas he had alleaged that I justified the byas, this I denyed and called for his proof; his Reply now is thus, Is not the alle­gation of examples of the like doing, a justification of the act done? Male dicis, pag. 20. This Reply can have no other sence but this, That I justified the thing which he thinks our byas, because I justified those other Divines who (as he holds) came also byassed in like manner. I am perswaded this one particular, his joyning with the Arminians in their Exceptions against the Synod of Dort, would make all the Reformed Churches, if they could all speak to him uno ore, to cry Male audis. And I am as firmly perswaded, that the Confession which I have extorted from him in this place, [Page 46] That he knoweth no adventitious ingagements those Divines had, makes him irreconcileably to contradict himself; for he made them but just now byassed in the same manner as he thinks us, and made my allegation of their examples to be a justification of the byas charged by him upon us: As there­fore he doth most uncharitably, and untruly judge us to be byassed with adventitious engagements, so doth he judge of them. Neither can he assoil them, while he condemneth us; for the Articles concerning Predestination, the death of Christ, grace, freewill, and perseverance, were determined before the Synod of Dort, by most (if not by all) of those Reformed Churches who sent Commissioners thither, as much as Presbyterial Government was determined in the Church of Scotland, before the Reverend Assembly of Di­vines was called. And this Preingagement and Predeter­mination of those Reformed Churches, was the main ob­jection of the Arminians, against the forrain Divines who came to the Synod of Dort. To conclude this point, Master Coleman himself in his Reexamination, pag. 7. avouch­eth roundly, That the forrain Divines came to Dort, not as Divines by dispute and disquisition to finde out truth, but as Judges to censure all different Opinions as Erroneous.

CHAP. VII.

Calumnies confuted, and that Question briefly cleared, Whether the Magistrate be Christs Vice-gerent.

MAster Hussey in his Title page tels us he hath prosecu­ted the argumentative part without any personall re­flections; yet I could instance divers personall reflections in his Book which any moderate impartiall man will ex­tremely dislike; but what should this be to the edifying of my Reader, the end which next to the glory of God and the promoting of Reformation, I have proposed to my self? Yet I must needs take notice of some calumnies.

First, In his Epistle pag. 8. he offereth it to be examined whether I was not beside my Text, Mal. 3. 2. when I pressed from it Reformation by Ecclesiasticall Discipline? whether that refiners fire and fullers sope, doth not point at another, and a nearer operation upon the souls and spirits of men by the Blood, Word, Spirit, and Grace of Christ? and whether such handling of a similitude in a Text be to preach the mind of God, or mens own fancy? It is no discontent to me but I shall rejoyce in it, that men of piety and judgement exa­mine my Doctrine by the Word of God, and hold fast what they finde agreeable to the Scriptures, and no more. But i [...] this brotherly, or fair, or conscionable dealing, to offer my Sermon to be examined under such a notion, when he hath not onely said nothing, to confute any of my Doctrines, as not arising from my Text, or any of my applications, as not arising from my Doctrines; but hath also untruely repre­sented my Sermon, as coming short of, or not expressing [Page 48] that which indeed it hath most principally and most ex­pressely in it? That of Reformation was but a part of my Sermon: and that of Church-censures against scandalous sinners was but the least part of that part. And why should not the fullers sope in the House of God, take off those spots in our feasts? Why should not the refiners fire purge away the wicked of the Earth like drosse, so David calls them? That Reformation is one part of the holy Ghosts intend­ment in that Text, is Gualther's opinion as well as mine, yet he thinks Gualther his own. Nay, I proved it from compar­ing Scripture with Scripture, which is the best way that I know to clear Scripture. Why did he not answer my proofes? But beside all that I said of Reformation, had I not other three Doctrines out of that Text, comprehending all that which Master Hussey hinteth as omitted by me and yet intended in the text? Dare he say that I did not take in purgation by the Word? (though I confesse he doth not well prove it from the words which he citeth, Is not my word an hammer? but it is proved by the words which he citeth not▪ Is not my word like as a fire?) Did I not ex­pressely say that Christ is to us as a refiners fire and as fullers sope, three wayes, by reformation, by tribulation, by mor­tification? Did I not handle the last two as well as the first? Oh let no more any such grosse calumnies be found among those who professe to be Brethren.

Secondly, Master Hussey in his Epistle to my self gives it out that I say We have leave from the Civill Magistrate to preach the Gospel, which he interprets, as if I denied that we preach the Word with Authority from Christ. It was de facto, not de Jure, that I spake it. The Magistrate hath power in his hand to hinder both Doctrine and Discipline, if he be an adversary: though it be the will of Christ that there be both Doctrine and Discipline, and the Authority of both is from Christ. When the Magistrate assisteth or coun­tenanceth, or so much as he doth not hinder the preaching of the Gospel, then he gives leave to it.

Thirdly▪ Master Coleman in his Maledicis pag. 1. saith, I [Page 49] am confident, the Church of Scotland sent this Commissioner to dispute down our reasons, not to revile our persons. Maledicis Maledicis pag. 1. Why did he not (if he could) give instance of some reviling word written by me against his person. I have not so learned Christ. The Lord rebuke every railing and reviling Spirit. I have given him reason against railing; he hath given me railing against reason, I spake to his doctrine, he speakes to my place and relation, which is both the Alpha and Omega of his Maledicis.

Thirdly, ibid. Knowledge saith he is onely with Mr. Gillespie, o­thers understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirms. He will sooner bring water out of flint, then prove this consequence out of my Title page. Although I confesse himselfe hath affirmed divers things of the Church of Scotland, which he doth not un­derstand, as I have made plainely to appeare. If he take a review of the Title page of his re-examination, he gives more ground for this consequence, that Mr. Coleman is the onely man that denies himselfe: others seeke great things for themselves. Or from the Title page of his Maledicis, this consequence will be as good that Mr. Coleman is the onely man that blesseth, others are re­vilers.

Fourthly, Thus saith Mr. Coleman, O y [...]e Honourable House of Parliament, Take you notice that you manage that great place of yours under Christ and for Christ: He is your head and you are his servants. And take you notice withall that Mr. Gillespy accounts this your reproach. Maledicis Maledicis, pag. 17. But O ye Honourable House of Parliament, be pleased to take notice of my owne plaine expression of my minde in my Nihil respondes, pag. 13. The Chri­stian Magistrate manageth his Office under and for Christ, that is, so as to be serviceable for the Kingdome and Glory of Christ. And now judge whether it be sutable to the sincerity and candor of a Minister of the Gospell, to endeavour to make me odious to au­thority, by imputing to me that which not onely I did not say, but the contrary whereof I did plainly expresse? The thing which I charged his doctrin with was this, that by holding all government to be given to Christ as Mediatour, and from him as Mediatour derived to the Magistrate as his Vicegerent, he shaketh the foun­dation of Magistracy. I am sure that which I hold, that all law­full Magistrates are Powers ordained by God▪ and are to be ho­noured [Page 50] and obeyed as Gods Vicegerents, is a firme and strong foundation for Magistracy. But that which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey hold, viz. That the Christian Magistrate holdeth his Of­fice of, under, and for Christ as he is Mediator, and doth act vice Christi, as Christs Vicegerent, gives a most dangerous wound to Christian Magistracy, which I can demonstrate in many particu­lars: I shall now give instance onely in these few. First, They must prove from Scripture that Christ as Mediator hath given a Commission of Vicegerentship to Christian Magistrates, and ap­pointed them not onely to be seviceable to him and to doe his worke: (for that they must serve Christ, and be for his Glory, is not controverted, nay can never enough be commended to them) but also to governe vice Christi, in Christs stead, and that not only as he is God (which is not controverted neither,) but as he is Mediator. This (I say) they must prove, (which they will never be able to doe) or otherwise they doe by their doctrine leade the Magistrate into a snare; and leave him in it. For how shall he be acknowledged for a Vicegerent who can shew no Commission nor warrant for his Vicegerentship? Secondly, Their doctrine tendeth to the altering of the surest and best knowne tenure of Magistracy, which is from God: for they hold that God hath put all Government and all authority civill, and all into the hands of Christ as Mediatour; if the tenure from Christ faile, then by their doctrine the tenure from God shall faile too. Thirdly, The Vicegerent cannot act in that capacity nor assume that power which his Soveraigne whose Vicegerent he is, ought not to as­sume if he were personally present. So that by their principles it will follow that the Christian Magistrate can act no further, nor assume any other power of Government, then Christ himselfe might have assumed when he was on earth, or might now assume and exercise as Mediatour if he were on earth. But Christ himselfe when he was on earth neither did exercise nor was sent to exercise civill Judgement, Luke 12. 14. and the temporall sword. John 18. 36. nor externall observation and State. Luk. 17. 20, 21. and he declined to be an earthly King. John 6. 15. Therefore by their principles the Christian Magistrate ought to forbeare and avoide all these.

A fifth Calumny is this, Mr. Coleman descanting upon the Go­vernments [Page 51] mentioned. 1 Cor. 12. 28. chargeth me with a circular argumentation: he circularly argues saith he: They are civill be­cause God placed them there, and God placed them there, because they are civill. Maledicis Maledicis. pag. 9. I neither argued the one nor the other: they are both Sir of your owne forging. But this is not your first allegation of this kind. I sometime admire what oscitancy or supine negligence (to judge it no worse) this can be, to fancy to your selfe that I have said what you would, and then to bring forth your owne apprehensions for my arguments.

CHAP. VIII.

That Mr. Coleman doth great violence both to his owne words, and to the words of others whom he citeth.

THE Reverend Brother hath offered extreme violence to his own Declaration; of which let the Reader now Judge, com­paring his Declaration with his Interpretation.

Declaration.

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

THO. COLEMAN.

Interpretation.

It is a truth, and a Scrip­ture truth which I have delivered, and because I see a Scripture truth hath given offence to the Commissioners of Scot­land, &c. I am sorry. This must needes be the sence; I am sure this was the sence intended. Ma­ledicis, Maledicis, pag. 18.

Surely if such Orleance Glosses be admitted upon mens Decla­rations signed with their hands; and if he who hath subscribed himselfe sorry that he hath given offence in the delivery of such a doctrine, shall be allowed to expound himselfe thus; that he meant he was sorry others had taken offence at a Scripture truth, [Page 52] that is, he was sorry for our fault not for his owne: I know not how men shall trust one anothers Declarations: or how we can practically as well as doctrinally confute the Jesuiticall aequivoca­tions and mentall reservations. And if this must needes be the sence which now the Reverend Brother gives; and was the sence intended, Why saith he that he did publickly recall that Declara­tion? He might make a revocation of it, in the sence wherein I understood it: but how could he make a revocation of it, as him­selfe understood it, and as he faith the sence must needes be? Was this his sorrow for our taking offence at a Scripture truth, a sorrow to be sorrowed for? Why did hee not rather make a second Declaration the next day, interpreting the former? And whereas he thinks that his Revocation ought to have beene mentioned together with his declaration, because the whole truth is to be told as well as the truth, his owne heart knowes that he himselfe hath not told the whole truth, for he could tell much more, if he pleased; how he was brought upon the busi­nesse, and particularly upon that Revocation. Why will he chal­lenge others for not telling the whole truth, when himselfe doth it not? I should have thought, that this Revocation was neither here nor there, as to the point of scandall, for proofe whereof his Declaration was brought: and that as it was not to the businesse in hand, so it might rather, serve for impairing his credit then for any thing else. But seeing himselfe thinks it more for his credit, to tell the world of his saying and unsaying, decla­ring and undeclaring, let him be doing.

In the next place will you see how much violence he offereth to Divines whom he citeth? I had cited plaine and full Testimo­nies of the Zurick Divines, shewing that Gualther expounds I Cor. 5. all along of Excommunication: that Bullinger holds ex­communication to be instituted by Christ, Matth. 18. That Aretius saith God was the Author of excommunication in the Old Testament, and Christ in the New; all which see in Nihil re­spondes, pag. 32.

The Reverend Brother notwithstanding of their plaine Te­stimonies speaking for me and against him in the maine Controversie betweene him and me, doth still alledge that they are for him, not for me, Maledicis, pap. 23. yet he doth not so much as offer any answer to their Testimonies by me cited: onely he [Page 53] bringeth three other passages of theirs, intimating that there may be a true Church without Excommunication: that they thought it not necessary where they lived: that they thought it hard yea impossible: arduum nec non impossible, to introduce Excommuni­cation in those parts. By which citations the Brother hath proved nothing against me, but confirmed what I said. Let him remem­ber, first, he himselfe makes the maine controversie betweene him and me, about the Scripturall warrants of Church censures: now in that, they are clearely against him. Next Aretius who thought it hard, yea impossible, to bring in Excommunication at that time, saith also, dabit posterior at as tractabili [...]res forte animas, peradven­ture the following age shall bring forth more tractable soules: and thereupon he adviseth, not to despaire of the restitution of Ex­communication. I cited also other Testimonies to shew that the Zurick Divines did endeavour and long for the discipline of Ex­communication, though as things stood then and there, they did prudentially supersede the restoring of it where they lived, be­cause of the difficulty and apprehended impossibility of the thing. If Mr. Coleman will follow the Zurick Divines, he must change his tone, and quite alter the state of the Question, and make it thus: Whether as things now stand it be expedient to settle Ex­communication in the Church of England? Now, if he make this the state of the Question, then he must make a Revocation of that word, I deny an Institution, I assent to a Prudence. For the Tables were turned with the Zurick Divines: they assented to an Insti­tution, they denyed a Prudence; they held an affirmative pre­cept for Excommunication, but that it doth not bind ad semper, that the thing is not at all times, nor in all places necessary; that weighty inconveniences may warrant the superseding of it.

The Reverend Brother brings another Testimony out of Areti­us against Suspension from the Sacrament; And further saith he, for this grand desired power, Suspension from Sacrament, these are his words, &c. A Testimony three wayes falsified. 1. Aretius speaks not at all in that place of the power or duty of Church-Officers, of which Suspension is a part: but he speakes of private Christi­ans, and what is incumbent to them. 2. He speakes of Separati­on (not of Suspension) from the Sacrament; that a man is not bound to withdraw and lie off from the Sacrament, because eve­rie [Page 54] one who is to communicate with him is not in his opinion a Aret. probl. Theol. loc. 8. Privatis satis est ferre utrinque u­trosque (infir [...]s & p [...]am s [...]l ra­tos) emendare autem quotie▪ fort ex mplo & do­ctrina. Si parum vel nihil etiam proficiat, non ha­bet ob id causam seced [...]di. Nec est quod centamina­tionem m [...]uat, modo no [...] consin­tist seel ribus &c nihil ad me atti­net in Communi­o [...]oen [...] Domi i, in caeu public [...] [...]um audio ver­bum Dei, (which last clause Mr. Coleman leaves out without so much as &c) quales singuli sint mecum participantes. Saint. 3. He speaketh against Separation from both Word and Sacrament, because of the mixture of good and bad in hearing and in communicating: but scandalous sinners are invited to, not sus­pended from the hearing of the Word. Wherefore take Aretius his words as they are, and then let the Reverend Brother consider what he hath gained.

What hath this now to doe with Church-Officers their power of suspension from the Sacrament?

Observe another Testimony which he addeth out of Augustine lib. de fide, Excommunicatio debet supplere locum visibilis gladii, which he Englisheth thus, Excommunication comes in onely to supply the want of the civill sword. But how comes in your onely Sir? Augustines saith no such thing. And when I have expunged that word, I must tell you further, that I can find no such passage in Augustines Book de fide: But I find somewhat to this purpose in another Book of his, which is entituled de fide & operibus, a Book which he wrote against the admission of such persons to Baptisme, as being instructed in the faith, are notwithstanding still scandalous in their lives (which by the way will hold [...] fortiori for the exclusion of notorious scan­dalous sinners from the Lords Supper: for they who ought not to be admitted to the Sacrament of initiation, ought much lesse to be admitted to the Sacrament of Confirmation) Now because divers Scriptures speake of a mixture of good and bad in the Church, Augustine takes there occasion to reprove those who a­bused these Scriptures against the exercise of Discipline and Church censures: the necessity whereof he sheweth to be the greater, because the Magistrate doth not punish by death all such crimes as under the Law were punished by death: as namely a­dultery, (the scandall chiefly by him insisted upon) As for that Aug. de fide & operibus cap. 2. Et Phi [...]es sacer­dos adulteros simul inventos fer­ro ultore consixit. Quod utique degradationibus & excommunicati­onibus significa­tum est esse f [...]endum in his tempore, cum in Ecclesie Disciplina visibilis fuerat gledius cessaturus. passage concerning Excommunication its supplying the place of the sword, it plainely holds forth Excommunication under Chri­stian Emperors and Magistrates, (for such they were at that time) so farre it is from making against us. For these are the words which say no such thing as Mr. Coleman would make them say. And Phine [...]as the Priest did thrust through the adulterous persons found together, with the avenging sword. Which was signified that it [Page 55] should be done by degradations and excommunications in this time, when in the discipline of the Church the visible sword was to cease.

If the Reverend Brother had let me know where to finde his other Testimonies of Origen and Chrysostome: peradventure I had given him as good an account of them. Tertullians words which Tert. apologet. cap. 39. Ibidem etiam exhortatio­nes, castigationes, & censura divi­na. Nam & ju­dicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de De [...] conspectu: summumque fu­turi Judicii prae­judicium est, si quis ita delique­rit, ut a commu­nicatione oratio­nis, & conventus, & [...]m is sancti commerc [...]i relege­ [...]ur. Praesident probati quique Seniores, bono­rem i, iu [...] non pretio sed testime­nio adepti. he citeth, Praesident probati seniores, I know very well where to find; and I know also, that if there be a passage in all Antiquity a­gainst the Erastians, that is one. Which therefore I here offer as it is to be considered.

One Instance more of his mis▪alledging and perverting of Te­stimonies. In the close he citeth a passage of Mr. Case his Sermon August 22. 1645. He (Christ) is King of Nations and King of Saints. As King of Nations he hath a temporall Kingdome and Go­vernment over the world, &c. and the rule and regiment of this King­dome he hath committed to Monarchies, &c. Here is Erastia [...]isme, (saith Mr. Coleman pag. 38.) a steppe higher then ever I or Erastus himselfe went. And I desire to know of Mr. Gillespy, if he will owne this as good divinity. Yes Sir I owne it for very good divinity, for my Reverend Brother Mr. Case, saith not that Christ as Mediator it King of Nations, and hath a temporall Kingdome in the world, and hath committed rule and regiment to Monarchies or other lawfull Magistrates, (which is the point that you and Mr. Husses contend for, being a great Heterodoxy in Divinity) but he saith of the Sonne of God, that he is King of Nations, and hath com­mitted Rule to Monarchies, which I owne with all my heart. The distinction of the twofold Kingdome of Christ, an universall Kingdome, whereby he raigneth over all things as God: and a speciall Oeconomicall Kingdome, whereby he is King to the Church onely, and ruleth and governeth it, is that which being rightly understood, overturneth, overturneth, overturneth the E­rastian principles. Let Mr. Coleman but owne this distinction and that which Mr. Case addeth concerning the Kingdome which Christ as King of Saints (and so as Mediator) doth exercise both invisibly in the conscience, and visibly in the Church, First, by con­quering a people and visible Subjects; Secondly, by giving them Laws distinct from all the Lawes and Statutes of all the King­domes and Republicks in the world Isai. 33. 22. Thirdly, By constituting speciall Officers in the Church not onely to promul­gate [Page 56] these Lawes, Math. 28. 19. but to governe his people ac­cording to them, Acts. 20. 28. Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Cro. 14. 32. Fourthly, In that he hath commanded all his people to obey these Ecclesiasticall Officers. Heb. 13. 7. 17. Fifthly, And hath appointed Censures proper to this Government. Math. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 13. I say let Mr. Coleman but owne this Doctrine of Mr. Case, which was printed by Order of the Honourable House of Commons, as well as his was: then we are agreed. And so much for this time.

Errata.

Pref. pag. 4. marg. lib. [...]. 3. 2. read lib. 2. cap. 4. p. 7. l. 12. bourn r. b [...]ne. p. 13. l. 28. exhort r. exhor [...]eth. p. 21. l. 18. to do [...] r. not to doe. p. 25. l. 4. Sch [...]llrs r. Sch [...]lrs. p. 30. l. 9. cusre r. curse. p. 32. l. 28. falsum r. falsa [...]. p. 33. l. 19. that r. of. p. 34. l. 29. [...]nabsurdi [...]y r. [...]o absurdity. Ib. l. 30. Div [...]ll r. Divells. Ib. l. 36. activity r. [...]. [...]. 35. l. 1. I [...]. H [...]. p. 48. l. 35. [...] he doth r. as doth. The smaller typographicall faults the Reader will pardon

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.