Chap. 1.

Sect. 1. A. S. Pag. 5. hath this left-handed expression concerning the civill Ma­gistrate, That he arrogates not to himself any directive power in matters of Religion The Reader must do him a courtesie in finding him out a very soft sense for the word arrogate; otherwise, he will be found in a misprision of a foul insi­nuation against the Civill Magistrate, as, viz. that he arrogates, i. (in the ordina­ry construction of the word) proudly assumes to himself, when he claims or exer­ciseth [Page 36] that executive, coercive, & externall power, in and about matters of Religion, w ^ch yet A. S. himself in the very next page, knowing on which side to butter his owne bread, ascribes unto him: For, as he that should say of A. S. by way of commenda­tion, that he never corrupted a matron, or woman in marriage, should yet hereby re­flect a shrewd suspition upon him, that his innocency in this kind could not so well be avouched, in respect of Virgins, or others of that sex, out of matrimoniall rela­tion: in like maner, A. S. himself intending an honorable purgation or vindicatiō of the civil Magistrate in these words, That he arrogates not to himself any directive power in matters of Religion, doth he not by the same rule of Antithetical relation (or im­plication) imply that he doth arrogate another power, which stands in a Relative op­position to it, which (according to his own distribution) is an executive, coercitive, & external power, in & about matters of religion? but I marvel, that the man should here so cleanly wipe the civil Magistrate of a directive power in matters of Religion, when as but a few pages before, in his 8. Observ. he had pleaded wisdome enough in the Parlia­ment to know what is convenient for the Church of God. If the Parliament be wise e­nough to know what is convenient for the Church, I know no reason why that Directive power here spoken of, should be derogated, or taken from them, especi­ally by those, who (it is much to be feared) are much straitned in respect of a spi­rit of that wisedome themselves. Surely A. S. in saying that the Parliament is wise e­nough to know what is convenient for the Church, hath sifted the Synod or Assembly, with a sieve of vanity, and broke the head of the necessity thereof; & so is guilty of a far higher misdemeanour against it, then the Apologists are in any thing that they have done, or said, yea or then himself layeth to their charge; which yet is his rod of scorpions to scourge them from place to place.

Sect. 2. But let us consider a little more narrowly, whether A. S. hath quited him­self like a Doctor of the Chaire, in stripping the civill Magistrate of a Directive power in matters of Religion, and putting on him in stead thereof, the purple robe of an executive, coercitive and externall power only. pag. 6.

1. By such an umpirage and decision as this between the civill Magistrate, and himself, with his fellow Presbyters, hath he not made the one Iudex, and the other Carnifex: the one must give the sentence, the other must do the execution? The Civil Magistrate is much beholding to the Pres­byter, for giving of him a consecrated sword to fight the Presbyterian battells; and for perswading him to pull out his own eys, upon this presumption, that he shall see better with his. I perceive Presbyterie is policy in the highest: and seeks to put the Magistrate between it self, and the envie and discontent of the people; and yet nevertheless, hopes to gain from the hand of the Magistrate such an interpretation of this practice, as thereby to be esteemed the best and faithfullest friend it hath in all the world. This cunning of the spirit we now speak of, puts me in minde of the Ape, that took the Spaniels foot to pull the Chess-nut out of the fire. Surely the frame and constitution of Presbyterie is exactly calculated for the meridian of this present world; but whether it will indif­ferently serve for that which is to come, totus dubito, I am in doubt all over. And indeed, A. S. him­self is somwhat ingenuous in acknowledging, that this government hath litle or no relation unto, or compliance with, the world which is to come, professing, p. 13. the externall peace of the Church, to be the adaequate end thereof.

[Page 37] 2. I would gladly be informed, whether A. S. thinks it reasonable, Sect. 3 meet, or Christian, that the civill Magistrate, should immediately, hand over head, without distinction, without searching (for his owne satisfaction) into the equitablenesse, and lawfulnesse of what a Pres­byterie or Synod shall commend unto him for execution, interesse himselfe in the execution of whatsoever shall be so recommended and presented unto him? I presume A. S. will not arrogate unto himselfe, nor to his Assembly, an infallibilitie, though (in some places) I find him very loath to abate this in the reckoning (if it would be allowed;) and the truth is, that the whole fabrique (well-nigh) of his discourse, to make it rationall, and any thing to purpose, requires such a suppo­sition for the bottom and foundation of it, as this. Yet pag. 8. he con­descendeth so low, as to number himselfe amongst those, who know that they know but in part: and pag. 9. amongst those that are conscious of their owne infirmity: which principle if he would please to follow home, it would teach him to cast away the greatest part of his discourse with indignation, and to say unto it, get thee hence. If he grants a possi­bility of errour or unrighteousnesse in the results and awards, whether of his Presbytery or Assembly, which are supposed to be transmitted to the Magistrate for execution; he cannot, speaking like a man, deny him a lawfulnesse of power, no nor yet a necessitie by way of duty, to ex­amine and judge them, whether they bee lawfull or meet to bee put in execution, or no. And he that hath a power to judge and to determine, what is meet to be done, or not done, executed, or not executed, in matters of Religion, may bee said to have a Directive power in such things (at least in the common sense and notion of a Directive power) as well as an Executive. But

3. A. S. should be friend my intellect very much, to tell me plain­ly Sect. 4 and distinctly, what he means by a Directive power in matters of Reli­gion; being (as it should seeme) a daintie morsell, which hee would faine complement away from the Parliament and civill Magistrate, and snatch away from all others, for himselfe and his friends (Presbyteri­all Ecclesiastiques) to make merry with. 1. If by a Directive power, he meanes a liberty or power of considering, advising, and proposing of what may be expedient to be done in matters of Religon, and for the good of the Church; I know no man but is interessed in such a power: As when the Tabernacle was to be built, every man had pow­er to bring and offer what hee had, and what his heart served him to part with for such a purpose, towards the edification and furnishing of it. But why this liberty or power should be denied unto the Parlia­ment [Page 38] or Civill Magistrate, upon whom principally the charge lyeth to provide quietnesse and peace for the Churches within the verge of their temporall jurisdiction; reason (doubtlesse) on this side the Moone there lyeth none; and A. S. must be very Seraphicall to finde any.

2. If by a Directive power, he meanes an authoritative power, to con­clude, Sect. 5 say, and set down, what shall, must, or ought to be done, against all contradiction, in matters of Religion, I know no subject capable of such a power, but onely he that is above all the Predicaments in Lo­gique, or he to whom all power is given, both in Heaven and on earth. Cer­tain I am, that neither the one nor the other can be invested with any greater power, then this. If the Presbyterians demand such a Directive power as this, let them ask the Crowne, Throne, and Kingdome of Christ also.

3. If by a Directive power he means, a prudentiall faculty or ability, Sect. 6 to direct, order, or prescribe, whether unto a mans selfe or others, what in a way of reason, humane conjecture, or probability, is best and fittest to be done, followed, or imbraced in matters of Religion, as I would not deny this power (and that in somewhat a more excellent degree) to A. S. his Presbytery or Synod, (alwayes provided that the constituting members of either, be of a sound constitution, as well for spirituall wisedome, as for meeknesse and humility) so is it not by A. S. to be denied to many private members of particular Churches; daily experience teaching us, that God gives of this prudentiall facul­tie unto many of these, by the Ephah, whereas to many Pastors it is given but by the Omer. And if this be the Directive power which he meanes, though he seeks to allure the Parliament from the claim of it, by fastening a complementall commendation of modesty upon them, by way of exchange for it, proclaiming it unto the world, that they doe not arrogate it to themselves; yet they doe claim it, yea, and exer­cise, act, and make use of it, from day to day, as occasion requireth. 1. In contriving and publishing their Ordinance for calling the Assem­bly (formerly mentioned) they exercised such a power, as we now speak of. 2. In limiting those that were to be of the Assembly, to the subject or Argument, on which it was permitted unto them to debate and treat (as appeares by the Ordinance they did) they did no lesse. 3. In appointing and ordering them not to determine or conclude of things as they pleased by plurality of votes, but to deliver their opini­ons and advices as should be most agreeable to the word of God (another pro­viso in the Ordinance) they did the same. 4. In injoyning them, in case [Page 39] of difference of opinions between them, to present the same, together with the reasons thereof, unto both Houses (another member of that Ordinance) they did every whit as much. 5. In their nomination and calling such and such Ministers or Divines by name, and not others, to bee of the Assembly, they acted the same power. 6. In framing the temper and constitution of the Assembly, allaying it with such and such members of their own, they steer'd the same course. 7. And lastly (to omit many other particulars of like consideration) in their messages or di­rections sent unto them from time to time, how to proceed, what par­ticulars to wave for the present, what to fall upon, and to debate, to ha­sten the issue of their consultations, with the like, what doe they else but claim and exercise such a Directive power in matters of Religion, as we last distinguished?

If A. S. hath any other notion of his Directive power in matters of Sect. 7 Religion, besides these three, my soule hath not yet entred into that his secret; but waits for his opening a doore unto me by which it may. He taxeth the Apologists once and again for generalities, and obscu­rities in their expressions: But he that saith, A man should not steal, com­mits sacriledge himself.

4. Whereas harping still upon the same string, (the sound whereof Sect. 8 is so melodious in his own eares, how harsh soever in other mens) he chargeth the Apologists, for going against the Parliaments intention, in case they think, that they should judge of questions in debate between them and their brethren; surely he speaks rather as he would have it, then as he hath any ground to speake. If he had plowed with their Heifer, consulted with their expressions of themselves in reference to their in­tentions in this kind, he would have assoyled their riddle farre other­wise. For to what purpose should they injoyne the Assembly (as we lately heard they doe in the Ordinance mentioned) in case of difference of opinions between them, to present the same, together with the reasons therof, unto both Houses of Parliament, if they had no intention to umpire or judge between them? Have they a desire to look upon such differen­ces as some rare sight, or pleasant spectacle, onely to solace and delight themselves with them? And why doth the tenour of their delegati­on of power to the Assembly, run in this strain, To deliver their opini­ons and advices, as should be most agreeable to the word of God? Do's any man desire the opinion and advice of another in any matter that con­cerns him, without any intention of considering or judging of them?

But A. S. is as cunning as A. C. and would fain commend his care Sect. 9 and tendernesse over the Parliament, in the things of their honour and [Page 40] peace, by insinuating unto them a non-vocation from God, to doe any thing with their judgments and understanding in matters of Religion, but all things (without exception) with their hand and power, that the Assembly, whether out of their judgments or affections, shall pro­pose or dictate unto them. A. S. (I believe) is a brother of the stronger side of the Assembly; otherwise it is every whit as much to be fea­red, that he would have Arminianiz'd as much, if not far more then the Apologists have done. But if the Parliament hath no calling from God, to judge of matters between the Apologists and their Brethren (the Assemblers) I would willingly know who hath? or whether it be reasonable, that the Apologists matters yet remaining undecided, and unjudged between them and their Brethren, should suffer as men con­victed, only because their adversaries and accusers (the Brethren yee wot of) are more in number then they, and will needs continue ad­versaries to them? Our Saviours testimony concerning himselfe and his own cause, was a thousand times more authentique and valid then the testimony of never so many men, take the best of the whole gene­ration, is in theirs; and yet he said, If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true, (Joh. 5. 31.) That is, it is not formally, or in a legall interpretation, true; it is not true upon any such termes, but that you may reasonably wave it, if you apprehend that you have grounds to do it. But (saith he) there is another that beareth witness of me, &c. The te­stimony of a thousand men in a case which equally (or though it bee with some inequality) concernes themselves, is of no more validitie or authoritie, then of a particular man, in a case relating onely to him­selfe. Yea, a good mans conscience, in matters relating unto himselfe, is never in more danger of suffering, then in a crowd, concern'd in the same manner with him. It is the saying of one, that etiam ex timidissi­mis animalibus acris multitudo cogi potest, that is, you may make a fierce company of the fearfullest creatures that are, if you put enough of them together; so frequent experience sheweth, that etiam ex aequissi­mis hominibus iniqua multitudo cogi potest; you may make a bad assembly, of the best men.

Besides, A. S. himself affirms, p. 38. That to be both Judge and Party in Sect. 10 one cause cannot be granted to those that have no authoritative power one over another: and that Par in Parem non habet imperium. Therefore why should the Apologists fall in judgement by the hand of those that are parties, and but equall to them? Again, It is his own reasoning, pag. 45. If all Churches were equall (as for ought I know, or that A. S. alledgeth to the contrary, they are) there can neither be superiours nor [Page 41] inferiours, and consequently no obedience or disobedience. And if Justice consisteth not in an Arithmeticalls but Geometrical, proportion (which is his own saying, pag. 70. and somewhat more rationall and less Presbyte­riall, then most of it's fellows are) then is there no reason, that perem­ptoriness of vote, how Arithmetically so ever priviledged, but weight and worth of argument, should carry it against them. Which how it may fall, when God shall cancell or reverse the Sciptures that now are, and make a new revelation of himself unto the world, I know not; but whilest these stand, confident I am, that they will never so fall.

But why the man should deny the Parliament a calling to judge of Sect. 11 matters between the Apologists & their Brethren, when as every other man in the Kingdome hath a calling, yea, and somewhat more then a calling, a speciall and weighty necessity to do it, (though not after the same manner in respect of the consequence of their judgement) I see as little reason, as I do for twenty and ten things more asserted by him. Would A. S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and submission to the Assembly without their understandings? Alas, they could make no melodie in their hearts unto God with such a sing­ing. Nor would the song be either honourable or comfortable to the Assembly it self, if themselves and others would but please to bestow a few serious thoughts upon it. The glory of a Synod lies not so much in the strength of their conclusions, as of their premisses: nor is it any thing worthy to be presumed, in comparison of what it is to be known, to be wise and upright men. Me thinks an Assembly of conscientious and learned men, should rather count it a prophanation of their con­clusions and resolves, then otherwise, to have them swallowed without chewing; to have them subscribed and consented unto only in such a way, and upon such terms, as fools are wont to believe, subscribe, and consent unto all things: But,

5. To make the Apologists out of love with so much as looking to­wards Sect. 12 the Parliament for any relief from them against the severe de­votion of their Brethren, in case they vote contrary to them (under which hope A. S. injoyes himself with much contentment) hee tells them, that by such a course or expectation, they will joyn themselves with the Arminians, of whom he is pleased to tell this Story. That ho­ping the civill Magistrate would have been for them, they gave this Directive or Decisive power unto him; and afterwards repented themselves when they found him against them. Leaving the truth of the Story upon the credit. of the Relator; I answer:

1. That Jesus Christ was never the more a sinner, for being numbred [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page 42] by the Jews amongst transgressours, or for being crucified btween two thieves. Nor are the Apologsts, or men of their judgement ever the more culpable or blame-worthy for being bound up in the same bundle of condemnation with Delinquents, by their adversaries. Quis enim laudaverit hostem?

2. Neither did Paul count it any disparagement to him, to preach Sect. 13 that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, because the Devill had preached the same Doctrine before him. Nor doth A. S. himself think himself ever the more a Papist, because the Papists (as himself confesseth after­wards, pag. 18.) believe all that he believeth (though for my part I think any man as good a Protestant as himself, that believeth as much as he) And pag. 64. in his 18 ^th reasonless Reason against a toleration of men better then himself, he insinuates this as a choice commendation of his Presbyterial Government, that in it their Churches are not exposed unto the calumnies of the Papists, who pretend to be nothing but one Church; mean­ing, that a compliance with them in unity and uniformity, will be an exemption to them from their calumnies.

3. It is an old piece of subtilty of the old Serpent, to oppose God in Sect. 14 his Saints, and in his wayes, by teaching his Prophets and Agents to make parallels between, to sort and to suit Gods servants with his, and Gods wayes or works with his, that so the foolish and inconsiderate world might be brought to think, that God and hee are but one, and that there is little or no difference between them. How did Jannes and Jambres withstand Moses, but by doing the same things in appearance by the help of the Devill, which Moses did by the finger of God? By this they hardened Pharaoh and the Egyptians with this confidence and conceit, that God was no more with Moses then with them. A. S. pa­rallels the Apologists with the Arminians, hoping to catch the foot of the simple in this snare, to make them think that they are both bapti­zed into one and the same spirit: you shall finde a further strain of this malignity in him, pag. 22.

Fourthly (and lastly) if the Arminians gave that power to the Civill Sect. 15 Magistrate which they are here charged to have done, upon hope they would have beene for them, they are no Antipodes to A. S. and his fra­ternitie, who deny this power to the Civill Magistrate, for feare they should not be for them, if they were left free to judge of their owne actions. All the lineaments in the face of Presbyterie demonstrate this to be in the heart of it; a willingness to conferre all, and all manner of power whatsoever upon the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion, which they may be secured will be used to serve their turnes, and not [Page 43] to the prejudice or disturbance of them in their way. And so A. S. af­ter hee had laboured in the very fire, and had ingag'd himselfe to the uttermost to prove the negative, he fals off with this glozing close at the last, (pag. 51.) that if the King and Parliament should finde [any thing contrary to what he had delivered] expedient, he had nothing to say against it. Therefore of the two, Arminians are more charitably af­fected towards the Civill Magistrate, in casting a power upon them, out of an hope they would use if for their good, then the Presbyteri­ans are in denying this power unto them, out of feare they will use it to their damage.

6. (And lastly, for conclusion of this first Chapter) concerning such Sect. 16 a Directive power in matters of Religion, as A. S. (it seemes) would here sequester for the honour and service of his Presbyterie, when Je­sus Christ had declared himselfe willing to divest himselfe, and make a delegation of it unto them, I shall as willingly acknowledge and adore their patent, as any other. In the meane time, (God supporting me) I shall with the utmost of my power, and in the presence of all discou­ragements, dangers, deaths, vindicate the rights and prerogatives be­longing to the crowne of my great Lord and Master: what shall be­come of me in so doing, ipse viderit. As for such a Directive power, which with the honour and safety of the rights of Heaven, is attributa­ble unto men, whose character and cognizance is this, not to be compul­sorie unto men by any externall violence, whether directly or indirectly, to sub­scribe against their judgements and consciences to it, I can freely allow as much of it to A. S. and his Presbyterial Assemblies, as will stand with their peace with God, with their honour in the sight of unpartiall and intelligent men, with the peace and edification of the Churches of God: if they would have more (let them looke to it) this desire of theirs will in time finde them out and slay them.

Cap. 2.

A. S. in this sixth page, to perswade with the Parliament and Civill Magistrate, that they shal do God good service to resigne up their eyes patiently into the hands of his Presbyterie, feeds them with the commendations of Constantine the Great, in refusing an unjust and exorbi­tant power, which the Councell gave to him. Where (by the way) it is some­what observable, that it is a thing incident to Councels and Synods, to [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44] give unjust & exorbitant power unto Civil Magistrates. So that it stands the Parliament & civil Magistrate in hand, before they part with their eyes upon such terms, to look about them, and to consider twice over, what power they receive and accept of from the hand of Councel and Synods, especially in reference to matters of Religion, and the Chur­ches or servants of Christ. It is a terrible saying of Christ, enough to make both the ears of Kings and Princes, and Parliaments, (yea, and of Synods and Assemblies too) to tingle. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, that believe in me, it were better for him that a milstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea, Matth. 18. 6. It is dangerous medling with Saints in any other way, then of tenderness and love, be they never so few in number, never so weak in power, or otherwise (one of these little ones, saith Christ); All the 21. Reasons, with 41. more put to them, whereby A. S. incites the Parliament against a toleration of the Apologists, with men of their judgement, in the sequele of his discourse; will not deliver either the King or Parliament out of the hand of that threatning, if they come under the dint of it, by offering any violence (shall I say?) yea, any offence to the least of these little ones. The Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 15. 24.) prophesieth of the putting down of all rule, and all authority and power by Christ: the reason thereof, in the words immediatly following, hee sheweth to be, their enmity unto him; for hee must reign, (saith the Apostle, Vers. 25.) till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The truth is, that it is a very hard matter, even for the best of men, in places of rule, authority and power, to move regularly in their own orb, and not to mistake, or strain beyond the tenour of their commission, to in­termeddle in the affairs of Christ, considering, first, that they are com­passed about with their own infirmities, as well as other men: second­ly, in respect of their callings, they are compassed about with more ten­tations this way, then other men: thirdly, (and lastly) which is as much, or more then both the former, (if they be Christians) what be­tween the insinuations and flatteries of the baser, and the inconsiderate affections and favour of the better sort of Teachers, they are taught to dash their foot against this stone, as if it were another crown of glory to them.

But let us first see, what that executive, or coercive (if it be lawfull to Sect. 2 cut A. S. a syllable shorter) power is, which the man with both hands, and an importune bounty, will needs bestow upon the Civill Magi­strate. 2 By what authority, and upon what grounds he doth it.

For the first, hee describes and states this power, after this manner, [Page 45] (pag. 6.) The Parliament pretends no Directive power in matters of Religi­on—nor any executive power that is intrinsecall to the Church—but only an executive, coercitive, and externall power, which is not in, but about the Church, and for the Church, whereby it compelleth refractory men to obey the Church. And this authority belongs actually and in effect, in actu exercito, (as they say) to true Christian Magistrates; but to others potentially, in actu signato; and jure in rem only, till they become true Christians, &c.

In this description the man is to me a Barbarian (his own phrase to Sect. 3 the Apologists) in the word, Church. I have bestowed thoughts more then a few to be partners with him in his notion of the word; but quan­to plus cogito, eo minus capio. For shame A. S. out with the beam of ob­scurity from your own eye, before you tiffle again to pull the moat of obscurity out of your brothers eye. A man in reason would think, that the same word, being used four or five times (and that without the least intimation of any variety or difference of signification) almost within the compasse of so many lines, were still meant, and to be taken in one and the same sense. If so, then ha with you. The Parliament, by that coercitive power, which you are pleased here to bestow upon it, by way of compensation for that directive power which you take from it, compelleth (say you) refractory men to obey the Church: I presume that by the Church here, you do not mean all the particular Churches and Congregations in the kingdome in the folio of their respective mem­bers, but in the decimo sexto of their Synod, representative Assembly. If you take the word in the former sense, you only say, that the Parlia­ment hath power to compell the refractory to obey all the particular Churches, with their severall members in the Kingdome; which is a sense (I conceive) at as much defiance with your ends, as with your and our understandings. If you take it in the latter (which I doubt not but is your beloved sense) then your meaning is, that the use and in­tent of that executive coercive power in matters of Religion, which you put into the Parliaments hands, is to compell the kingdome, in case it be refractory, or tot quot, to obey the Presbyterie, and Presbyteriall assemblies in all their Canons, Determinations, and Decrees what­soever, without bail or mainprise, without mercy or compassion, whether a man findes sap, sense, savour, reason or Religion in them or no.

But yet secondly, I know not well how you should mean the Sect. 4 Church contracted in her Grand Presbyterie or Generall Assembly neither; first, because you affirm in this coercive power in the Parliament, to be not in, but about the Church, and for the Church. And I doubt your [Page 44] [...] [Page 45] [...] [Page 46] meaning is not that the Parliament should, either only, or chiefly work or act with this their coercive power, upon your Ecclesiastique Assemblies, to restrain and keep them within compass; though I confess, if it should move only or chiefly in this sphere, it would be more for the Church, i. for the good and benefit of the Church in generall, then to suffer such assemblies to fit and impose oaths upon men to obey their acts, orders, and decrees, (which you tell us, glory­ing in your shame, pag. 42. is done in your Presbyteriall Government) and to punish or crush those that shall have more conscience, then to inslave themselves unto them in such a way.

And 2. if by Church you should here mean the Church representa­tive (as it is more commonly, then properly called) in her generall Assembly, you would be a little more open, then (I conceive) will well stand with your principles in such cases. For then your meaning is plainly this, That the Parliament hath that executive coercive power, which you ascribe to it, not for the Church, i. the benefit of the Saints and servants of God throughout the kingdome, but for the benefit and behoof of the Ecclesiastique Presbyteries and Assemblies only. Now however, I can easily believe, that thus you would have it, yet I conceive it somewhat eccentricall to your other motions to profess it.

And yet 3. when you immediately adde; that in vertue of this au­thority, when parties pretend to be effended by the Church, or if the Church judge any thing amiss, hee (the civill Magistrate) may command the Church to revise and examine its judgement, &c. You must needs mean your transcendent Church of Presbyters; otherwise you should pre­varicate, and grant a judiciary power to particular Congregations.

4. (And lastly) in the very next page (pag. 7.) to represent the vo­luntary Sect. 5 exile of the Apologists, with as hard-favour'd an aspect in the eyes of men as he could, his indignation against it utters it self in this Patheticall strain over the poor Church of God in this Kingdome. And if they all had fled away, what might have become of the poor Church of God in this Kingdome? &c. Here, by the Church of God in this King­dome, he cannot mean the Ecclesiastique Church of representing Pres­byters, because, if these had all fled away, there had been no Church of God (in such a sense) in this Kingdome. By the Church of God in this place, if he means any thing like a man, hee must needs mean the godly part in the Kingdom, and that considered, without their Presbyters or Pastours. And oh that hee, and his coopinatory party would but grant that that executive coercive power which is in the civil Magistrate, is for this Church; I mean, for the benefit and peace of this Church of [Page 47] God. But in the mean time you see, that his Trumpet in the Descrip­tion he gives of his executive, coercive, externall power in the Magi­strate, gives no distinct sound; perhaps he blew wild on purpose, lest an enemy should know how to prepare to battaile against him.

But is there never a blessing, of reason, or truth, in all this cluster? Come and see.

In vertue of this authoritie (saith he) when parties pretend to be offended Sect. 6 with the Church, or the Church judge any thing amisse, he (the Civill Ma­gistrate) may command the Church to examine its judgement, &c. In these few words he hath plainly plundred and undone a very considerable partie of his owne beloved notions elsewhere. For,

1. What reason hath he to be so invective against the Apologists (as he is pag. 49. and 50.) for holding that Kings or civill Magistrates are above the Church, when as himselfe here professeth, that they may command the Church; especially his own Maxime elsewhere, being this, that Par in parem non habet imperium; and that Where there is no Su­periour or Inferiour, there can be no obedience or disobedience.

2. If the civill Magistrate hath power to command the Church to re­vise Sect. 7 her judgment, when she judgeth any thing amisse, surely he hath power to examine and judge of her proceedings, whether they be regular, e­quall, and just, or no; except you will say, that he comes to the know­ledge of your it regular and undue proceedings in your Presbyteries, by immediate revelation. Suppose either the one or the other, what reason have you to deny him part and fellowship with you in that Di­rective power in matters of Religion, which you ingrosse and appropri­ate to your selves, as we have formerly seen?

3. If so, then your Presbyteriall Assembly, or judging Church, may determine and judge amisse. And if so, 1. how dare yee compell or make the people under your government to sweare obedience or sub­jection unto your orders, which yet by your own confession (pag. 42) ordinarily you doe? 2. Why are you not satisfied with that subjecti­on to your Presbyteriall Decisions, which pleadeth no exemption, but only in the case of non-satisfaction, about the lawfulnesse or truth of them? You give men a good foundation, a liberty to beleeve that you may erre; but you will not suffer them to build upon it, to refuse you, when they think in their souls and consciences that that you doe erre. They that will separate between such premisses and such conclusions, [Page 48] will hardly make good Christians themselves, or suffer others so to be. And if you be but ingenuously willing to goe along with this your own principle, That you may erre, as farre as it would gladly lead you, me thinks I durst undertake that the Apologists and you shall com­primize before to morrow next.

4. (And lastly) if parties may have cause to be offended, and not Sect. 8 onely pretend to be offended (as A. S. would minde it) with the Church (as out of all question they may, if the Church may judge amisse) then have they power to judge of their actions, as well as they of theirs. No man is justifiable in his complaint or offence taking, but he that hath a power to examine and judge of that which gives the cause, or ministers the occasion of the offence. And if a single partie, which is no Presbyter or Prophet (in your sense) hath a lawfull power to ex­amine and judge of the acts and orders of a Presbyteriall or Propheti­call Assembly; and may possibly by means of such an examination, take them tardie; do not so far magnifie the spirits of your Prophets against the spirits of our Saints, as to think these good for nothing but to swear homage and vassalage unto them.

But A. S. (surely) pleaseth himselfe highly with a parcell of di­stinctions, Sect. 9 w ^ch he presents us within the prementioned Description; and hopes (perhaps) to make an atonement with them for his confu­sion [...] otherwise.

First, He distinguisheth of that executive, coercive power, wherewith he invests the civill Magistrate, as not being in, or intrinsecall unto the Church▪ but externall, and about the Church. Secondly, he distinguish­eth the subject capable of this power, the civill Magistrate, into truly Christian, and not truly Christian. Thirdly, upon this distinction, he builds a third distinction, concerning the manner of the competencie of this power, to the one kind of subject and the other; telling us, that this power or authority belongs actually and in effect, in actu exercito, & jure in re to true Christian Magistrates; but to others potentially, in actu signato, and jure in rem onely, till they become true Christians.

The man (you see) hath much adoe to find, or come at that power, Sect. 10 wherewith he would so fain gratifie the civill Magistrate, in matters of Religion: He adjures three unclean spirits of distinctions, to tell him what, and where it is; and yet they doe but peep and matter in their answer and make no man the wiser by it. Here he seeks for the coer­cive power of the civill Magistrate in matters of Religion, in the same black sea of darknesse and confusion, wherein he seekes (and would make the world beleeve he finds) the Presbyterian government after­wards. [Page 49] But if the one and the other be cloz'd up in such an ammuniti­on of rockes of distinctions, as A. S. represents them in his story, cer­tainly they are inaccessible to the judgements and consciences of per­sons of mean capacity; and much more inaccessible to the judgments and consciences of more understanding and considering men. The ve­ry darknesse it selfe of the distinctions which he is necessitated to use, to make his way to come at the one and at the other, is a light suffici­ent to discover, that neither the one nor the other is any where to be found within the territories either of reason or of truth. But let us see the distinctions play a little before us, for their Masters credit.

For the first: The Magistrates power (saith he) viz. in matters of Re­ligion (for so he must necessarily be understood, by the Antithesis in the former clause or member of this Distinction, where he denies a Directive power unto him, in matters of Religion) is not in, or intrinsecall to the Church, but extrinsecall and about the Church. Is it in, i. intrinsecall to matters of Religion; and but extrinsecall in respect of the Church? So then (it seems) A. S. his Presbyteriall Church, is somewhat more inward, intimate, and intrinsecall, then the religion of this Church; otherwise, how should the power of the Magistrate penetrate into the Religion thereof, and yet not reach into, but onely unto the Church it selfe? By this distinction he hath utterly disgrac'd his Presbyteriall Government, by making the Churches under it, more internall and inward, then the religion that is to be found in them. If the Apolo­gists had but whispered one tittle of such a saying, though at never such a distance, it had been enough to have produced seven reasons more (at least) against their toleration, then are yet levied or brought forth into the world.

But 2 ^ly, though you seem to deale very bountifully with the Magi­strate Sect. 11 in giving him a power extrinsecall and about the Church, and to content your selfe and your compresbyters with an intrinsecall power onely; yet by somewhat that hath been lately printed, it appeares, that you mean to eate at the same Table with him, which you pretend to spread for him alone. For hath not the Presse very lately been de­livered of this peece of Presbytery, that the Classicall Presbytery hath Reformation cleared, p. 23. the authoritative power of Citation, just as the Bishops had? And is not such a power externall, and which is not in, but about the Churches? For if a Classis shall cite or excommunicate a member of a Church, a­gainst the judgement and consent of the Elders of that Church, let all the world judge whether that be not an act of externall power with­out the Church.

If it be replied, No; because that Church did implicitly consent in yeelding their Elders for members of that Presbytery; We reply, That if either your publick Law constrains that Church upon penalty, Invitum dici­tur, quod quis vel coactus, vel per ignoranti­am admittit. Arist. Eth. l. 3. c. 1. Kecker. Praecog Syst. Eth. against their light, to suffer their Elders to sit in the Classicall Presbyte­ry, then that Church doth not freely consent; or if that Church with­out constraint doth consent for want of light (as it must be supposed, if a Classis upon debate be found to be besides the word) this ignorant act of that Church, is an unwilling or involuntary act, and so no free con­sent. And so the Classis, according to A. S. his distinction, is like a Ma­gistrate, which is a Bishop without, and about that Church.

But good A. S. we know it is an easie matter to distinguish the Ma­gistrate Sect. 12 into such an executive, coercitive, externall power as you speake of; but we would fain see you demonstrate him into it: and then A. S. and M. S. should be no more two, but one S. We know not how to trans­form distinctions into demonstrations.

His second Distinction, is of the Subject of this power, the Ma­gistrate, whom he makes two-fold, truly Christian, and not truly Chri­stian. But,

1. I would faine know by what Touchstone A. S. will try his gold in this case; I mean judge of the truth of Christianitie in a Magi­strate. It appeares (from page 50. of his discourse) that he hath no mind to grant his truth of Christianity unto a Magistrate that is either Lutheran, Anabaptist, Socinian, or Papist. Any of these misprisions in Christianity, are as sufficient in A. S. his judgement, as in ours, to keep the sword of that power we speake of, out of the Magistrates hand. And as for a Magistrate whose judgement shall be infected (per­fected, reason and truth would say) with Apologisme, (or the great hatred of his soule) independencie) I make no question but he (in the Comique terme) should bee exclusissimus from this capacitie or right above all the rest.

But let us goe on with the man in the termes of his own addresse to Sect. 13 the Apologists, in the same place. If he saith that by a Magistrate tru­ly Christian, he understand an orthodox Magistrate; what if he had one or two errors? would he yet permit him to be orthodox, and truly Christian, or not? Till A. S. here specifies, Sermones generales non movent (his own rule) for my selfe, untill I shall be otherwise informed by himselfe, I shall make use of my reason to beleeve, that by a Magistrate truly Christian, A. S. onely mean [...] a Magistrate, who in his judgement is Presbyteriall: and that this qualification of Presbyterialisme, and truth of Christianitie in a Magistrate, are against all contradictions, and [Page 51] counter-poysings whatsoever, termini aequipollentes in his Logique. And if this be his meaning, the king (to be sure) hath none of his power as yet, in actu exercito, and jure in re; nor hath the Parliament (at least for ought A. S. or the kingdom knoweth) any whit more of it then the King. And whatsoever it hath done hitherto, by any execu­tive, coercive, externall power about the Church or Church-affairs (in which kinde it hath done very much) depends as touching the validity and justifiableness of it upon this supposition, that it Presbyterializeth. Whence it followeth, that he that cannot, or doth not believe that the Parliament is of a Classique inclination, cannot (with the leave of A. S. his distinction) judge them to have done lawfully or warrantably any thing that they have done hitherto, about, or for the Church.

The truth is, that till A. S. will please to define, what manner of Magistrate hee must be, that shall pass the test of his distinction, for truly Christian, wee are constrained to suspend our bounty in confer­ring that executive, coercive, externall power about the Church upon any man. Nor do I make much question, but that wee shall have twenty Distinctions more, before we shall obtain that Definition.

But of all the three distinctions here upon the stage, the best dancer Sect. 14 is yet behind. This Power or Authority (saith he) belongs actually and in effect, in actu exercito, & jure in re (it's very long, me thinks, ere wee hear, to whom it belongs) to true Christian Magistrates: but to others potentially, in actu signato, & jure in rem only, untill they become truly Christian.

1. Though I have many times heard of the distinction, in actu exer­cito, & in actu signato, yet I never heard of any thing belonging to a person in actu exercito, but that belonged to him, and that per prius, in actu signato. Hee to whom the principle or power of acting doth not belong, cannot stand ingaged for the exercise or acting of such a power.

2. My soul longs for the Summer fruit of a good reason from A. S. Sect. 15 why any power about the Church, and for the Church should not belong, actually, and in effect in actu exercito, & jure in re, (and with as many other, proper, unproper, necessary, unnecessary, sober, ridiculous ex­pressions as he pleaseth) as well to a Magistrate not yet truly Christian, as to him that is such. Hath not an Heathen or Heterodox Magistrate a lawfulness of power, to do presently, this day, this hour, to morrow, and so forth, toties, quoties, as much good to and for the Church or Churches of Christ within his jurisdiction or dominion, as he could have, if he were truly Christian? Do acts of justice, bounty, grace to­wards [Page 52] the Churches of Christ, any whit more defile a Magistrate how far from truly Christian soever, then acts of the same nature performed unto his other subjects? The Kings, and those that were in authority in Pauls dayes, were generally (all the kings without exception) far from being truly Christian; and yet was it not lawfull for them to interpose with their Authority or Power, that the Churches of Christ in their dominions, might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty? If not, then was that exhortation of his, 1 Tim. 2. 2. to be laid up in Lavender for some hundreds of yeers after it was given; or else the benefit and blessing, the obtaining whereof by prayer is made the ground of the exhortation, must have been made over in the intentions of those that had so prayed, unto their posterities after many gene­rations. A. S. may choose which of the two hee will believe: for my part, I shall not be his corrivall in either.

Yee have heard A. S. his Distinctions for a coercive power about the Church in a Civill Magistrate: Demonstrationes autem ubi? But where are his proofs?

I have searched, and that somewhat narrowly, throughout the Sect. 16 whole volume of his Discourse, to finde something, that with any indulgence of imagination might be conceived to look like a proof of this his opinion, and can finde none, save only that poor one, of the examples of the Kings of Juda (pag. 63) inforc'd after this manner; It is the Civill Magistrates part to take away Heresies, Superstitions, and corruptions in manners after the examples of the Kings of Juda. Where­fore then is it not his duty likewise to take away all Schismes which are the high way to (and sometimes from) Heresie, and consequently to deny Toleration, which is a way to both?

Reader, neither you nor I, must be offended, to have a mole-hill of proof given us for a mountain of conclusion. You must know it is the manner of the Presbyterian School, to hang great weights upon small wyars. For what need Dictators argue? But,

1. If it be the Magistrates part to take away Superstitions, Heresies, &c. Sect. 17 sure it is his part also to make himself able to discern superstitions and heresies from the true worship and truths of God. Hee is to serve God in such a practice, with his own understanding, and not by the Proctorage of Presbyterie (as you tell the Apologists, pag. 48. that they must not serve God by a Proctor) and if so, you must untruss, and [Page 53] deliver back again to him that Directive power in matters of Religion, which you lately took from him.

2. When the Magistrate takes away Superstition, Heresie, &c. hee Sect. 18 had need have better security then a Synod can give him, to save him harmless, in case he should mistake, and smite the truth of God, in stead of Heresie, and the true worship of God in stead of Superstition. Ga­maliel Act 5. 24. 28. 38, 39. might have had the full Vote of a Synod or Councell, for per­secuting the Superstition, Schisme and Heresie of the Apostles; but this was not security enough to him; he was afraid of fighting against God, this notwithstanding. And for my part, when the civill Magistrate shall be far enough out of this danger of fighting against God, I have nothing to say against his fighting with Superstition, Heresie, Schisme, corruptions in manners, &c. Only my prayer for him unto God is, that hee would give him a wife and understanding heart, to consider and discern, whether usurpation over the judgements and consciences of the Saints of God, in matters of Religion, be not as grand a corruption in manners as a Church or Kingdom is lighly incident unto.

3. Because the examples of the Kings of Judah for want of better Sect. 19 arguments, are so much importun'd to speak a good word for that exe­cutive coercive power in the Civill Magistrate, with which A. S. would truk with him for that Directive power (before spoken of) let us consider with a little more freedome and ingenuity, what they con­tribute thereunto.

1. We do not read that any of the good Kings of Judah ever of­fered any violence to the true Prophets, or people of the Lord, except it were in passion, as a Chron. 16. 10. where Asa is said to have been wroth with the Seer, that admonished him, and to have put him in prison. Which fact of his I think A. S. himself will be asham'd to present ei­ther to Kings or Parliaments for imitation. Therefore whatsoever besides may be prov'd from the example of the Kings of Judah in mat­ters of Religion, towards the rearing up of a Presbyterie in the perfecti­on of its glory; certain it is, that nothing can be proved, for the per­secuting, annoying, crushing, disgracing, banishing, fining the Apologists, whom himself (more then once or twice) acknow­ledgeth for very pious, godly, and learned men.

2. Neither did any of these Kings ever compell any man to be of the Jewish Religion; nor yet to profess the Jewish Religion against their judgements. It was permitted to persons of other Nations to live amongst them, without being circumcised, yea, or without smar­ting for want of it.

[Page 54] 3. Nor do we reade, that ever they attempted any thing against any Sect. 20 Sectaries or Schismatiques (as A. S. would call them) which yet aboun­ded in great variety and numbers amongst them. We do not finde, that ever they finde imprison'd, banished, put to death, either Scribes, or Pharisees, or Herodians, or persons of any other Sect in the profession of the Jewish Religion, that lived peaceably in their State. Idolatry and Idolaters were (it seems) the adaequate object of their coercive power in matters of Religion.

4. Nor did they, nor were they to inflict any outward punishment, Sect. 21 upon every kinde of Idolater, though of the Jewish both Nation and Religion; as first, not upon covetous persons, who yet are a kinde of Idolater, Epbes. 5. 5. Nor secondly, upon those that worshipped the true God of Israel, though with some violation of the second Com­mandement, as when they sacrificed in the high places, &c. But, first, upon such only, who apostatiz'd from the God of Israel, to serve strange gods, the gods of other Nations: And yet secondly, not upon such neither, simply as such, but as attempting to intice and draw away other of the people of God unto the same Idolatries with them, Deut. 13. 5, 8, 9.

5. There are two reasons very considerable, why the Kings of Judah Sect. 22 might be invested by God with a larger power in matters of Religi­on, then Kings or Magistrates under the Gospel have any ground or warrant to claim from them. First, they were types of Christ, which no King under heaven at this day is; Secondly, not the people only, but the very Land over which they ruled, were typicall also; the one of the spirituall Church of Christ, the other of the heavenly inheritance of that Church: both of them holy and consecrate in speciall manner unto God. If Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel can plead either these reasons, or any other of equall consideration with these, I shall not scruple an acknowledgement of an equality of power in them. But otherwise, to alledge the power of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion, for an investiture of Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel, with the like, justifies the arguing of the Prelaticall School, which pleads the order of the Aaronicall Priesthood, to demonstrate the necessity of a Metropoliticall soveraigntie.

6. It no where appears that any of the godly Kings of Judah ever Sect. 23 had, or exercised any power to suppress, banish, imprison, trample up­on, crush or grinde the faces of any godly persons among them, were they few or many, only because they were for a while tender in point of conscience to concurre with the major part of the Priests, Scribes, [Page 55] or Levites in some things disputable between them, and others in the Land. Vntill A. S. shall dig such a treasure as this out of the Scrip­tures, hee will never have sufficient wherewith to finish that tower of a Magistraticall coercive power in matters of Religion, which he hath begun to build.

7. If A. S. (or any other) will needs make the Kings of Judah tri­butaries Sect. 24 to his opinion, concerning that coercive power we speak of in the Civill Magistrate, he must first prove, that these Kings were in­vested with that power which they exercised in matters of Religion, by a morall Law, and which is of perpetuall obligation and ingage­ment upon other Nations. For such a weak man as I, will rather in­cline to think, that it was conferr'd upon them by a Law Politique and Judiciall; and which no more concerneth or obligeth Kings and Ma­gistrates of other Nations, then that Law mentioned in the same place with it, (and which indeed is part of it) (Deut. 13.) which injoyneth the slaying of the Inhabitants of the Idolatrous City with the edge of the sword, and the destroying of it utterly with all that is therein, and the cat­tell thereof, with the edge of the sword; and the gathering of all the spoil thereof into the midst of the street thereof, and the burning of the City with fire, and all the spoil thereof every whit; and the making it an heap for ever, and the not building it again. I think A. S. himself doth not conceive Christian Kings or Magistrates ingag'd in conscience to observe all the particulars in this Law.

8. (And lastly) if you consult with those passages in the Law Sect. 25 where that power which the Kings of Judah exercised about Idolatry and Idolaters, (for they went no further; they meddled not with the crushing of Sects or Schismes, as we heard) you will finde, that it was the generality or entire body of the Church or Nation of the Jewes, and not their Kings, that was invested with it by God: See Deut. 13. from the beginning to the end: and again, Deut. 7. 5. and Chap. 12. 2, 3. with many of like consideration. So that what they did in this kinde, they did it, or were to have done it, in the Name, and with the con­sent of the Body of their people.

But the grand Pillar and supporter of this coercive power in Magi­strates, is this angry and discontented argument. What? Would you have all Religions, Sects and Schismes tolerated in Christian churches? Should Jewes, Turks, (and Papists especially,) be suffered in their Religions? What a confusion must this needs breed, both in Church and State? Give me leave to demulce and pacifie this argument; and then we advance to a new subject. I answer by distinguishing.

[Page 56] 1. If by a toleration, the argument means either an approbation, or Sect. 26 such a connivence which either takes no knowledge of, or however no ways opposeth such Religions, Sects, or Schismes, as are unwar­rantable, they are not to be tolerated. But first, orthodox and able Ministers ought in the course of their publick Ministery, and other­wise upon occasion in a grave, sober, and inoffensive manner, soundly from the Scriptures to evince the folly, vanity, and falshood of all such wayes. Secondly, others also that have an anointing of light and knowledge from God, are bound to contribute occasionally the best of their endevours towards the same end. Thirdly, in case the Minister shall be negligent, or forgetfull of his duty in this kind, the Magistrate may and ought from time to time to admonish him, that he fulfill his Ministery in that point also. Fourthly, if a person, one, two, or more, being members of a particular Church, shal be infected with any hereticall or dangerous opinion, and after two or three ad­monitions, with means of conviction used to regain him, shall conti­nue obstinate, he ought to be cast out from amongst them by that Church. Fifthly and lastly, if it be a whole Church that is so corrup­ted and infected, the rest of the neighbour Churches, in case it hath a­ny, ought to admonish it, and to endevour the reclaiming of it. If it be refractory after competent admonition, and meanes used for the reducing of it, they may and ought to renounce communion with it: and so set a mark or brand of heresie and obstinacie in the forehead of it. But,

Secondly, if by a toleration the argument means a non-suppression Sect. 27 of such Religions, Sects and Schismes by a strong hand, as by fining, imprisoning, disfranchising, banishment, death, or the like; my an­swer is, that they ought to be tolerated, onely upon this supposition, that the professors or maintainers of them, be otherwise peaceable in the State, and every way subject to the Laws, and lawfull power of the civill Magistrate. My reasons are,

First, because God hath anointed and sanctified his word, and the Sect. 28 Ministery hereof, for the casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts it selfe against the knowledge of God, and for the bringing into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10. 5. The A­postle in this place, v. 4. affirms, that the weapons of his warfare (mea­ning the knowledge which he had of God, and of Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and his abilities of utterance and preaching) were mightie through God, for those ends and purposes. When God hath appointed a means, and that of so much efficacy and power, either to prevent an [Page 57] inconvenience, or to accomplish any end or effect whatsoever, for men to wave this means, and to interesse another of their own, is both to put an affront upon God, and to consult frustration and disappoint­ment to themselves. And for my part, I am all thoughts made, that the true and adequate reason why those Sects and Schismes, and wild opinions which are lately started amongst us, gather so much strength and head, and grow so fast upon us as they doe daily, is this; that we re­ject the wisedome and counsell of God for the opposing and suppres­sing of them, and have recourse to our owne arm, hoping by disgra­cing, displacing, way-laying, impoverishing, suspending, impriso­ning▪ and other weapons and ways of the flesh, to ease our selves of the burthensomnesse and trouble of them. Besides the Scripture men­tioned, there is a passage of full importance this way, Ephes. 4. 11, 12, &c. And he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the Ministery, for the edifying of the body of Christ, untill we all come into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God, &c. We see here that Gods designe and desire, as well as ours, is unitie, and perfect agreement amongst the Saints, in all matters of faith and know­ledge. But how, or by what means, or by whom hath hee projected and purposed the obtaining of this his desire? Mark, he doth not say, that he gave some Kings, and some Princes, and some Judges, and Justices of the Peace, some Pursevants, and some Jaylors, &c. to bring us into the unitie of the faith; No, but he gave some Apostles, & some Pro­phets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, to bring this desirable end of his to passe. And if we would make more use of these agents and instruments of God, of the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, of Pastors and Teachers, and lesse of those other (which are our owne) for the quenching of those flames of divisions and dissentions that are amongst us in matters of Religion, we might in all likelihood see our desires in this behalfe, many years sooner then by any other course we are like to do. The word of God, especially in the hand of an able Minister (among other ends) is given by God on purpose for the convi­ction and stopping of the mouths of gain-sayers, Tit. 1. 9, 11. And therfore this will doe it, when a thousand other meanes, not having this a­nointing oyle upon them, though never so plausible, and promising in the eye of humane wisedome, will rather open them yet wider, then otherwise.

2. It is the expresse order and command of God to Ministers of the Sect. 29 Gospel, upon whom chiefly it lies, by way of office and duty, to in­struct [Page 58] and convince gainsayers, and men contrary-minded to the The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, in meeknesse in­structing those that op­pose them­selves, if God peradventure wil give them repentance to the acknow­ledgement of the truth. 2 Tim. 2, 24. 25. truth, to performe these offices unto them with meeknesse; and there­fore not to threaten them with delivering them over to the Secular powers, or to incite the civill Magistrate against them. And if it bee not lawfull for the Minister to encourage or put on the civill Magi­strate to use any externall violence or compulsion against such, cer­tainly it is not lawfull, much lesse any point of duty for him to pro­ceed in any such way against them. And if such meeknesse be to be u­sed towards those that are professed enemies to Christian Religion in the main (of which the Scripture in the margine evidently speaketh) much more is it to be shewed towards those, who it may be are as cordially affected to this Religion, as our selves, onely dissenting from us in some apices or iota's of this Religion.

3. Repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth, being (as we see) a speciall gift of God, and no man capable of it by his own industry or seeking, it is very unreasonable that the want of it, being in it selfe a judgement upon a man from God, and withall no wayes prejudiciall or hurtfull unto others, (at least not necessarily or unavoidably hurt­full Sect. 30 unto any) should expose him to further punishment and mise­ry from men. I conceive a reasonable man will think it very hard and unreasonable to punish a man for not doing of that, which is onely pro­per and in the power of God to doe.

Externall compulsion in matters of Religion, is of a proper and Sect. 31 direct tendencie to make men twofold more the children of sin (and so of wrath) then they were before, or would be otherwise. Now that which directly tends to increase sin and iniquity in a Land, cannot bee lawful, or from God. Suppose the State-Religion, and manner of wor­shipping God, which the Magistrate practiseth and professeth, be a­greable to the truth; yet if I, having no such faith of either, but judging in my soule and conscience, that both State and Magistrate, are polluted in both, should make profession of either as the truth, I should be a notorious hypocrite and dissembler before God and men, wounding my conscience, and condemning my selfe in what I allow in this case. And yet such a profession as this, is that which the compulsive power of the Magistrate seekes to extort from me. In which case I must suffer, because I will not sin to the ruine and destru­ction of my soule.

If it be objected, That the intent of the Magistrates compulsion in this case, is not to extort a profession from me against my judge­ment and conscience, but to ingage me to rectifie and reforme my [Page 59] judgment according to the truth, and so to make profession accor­dingly.

I answer, First, that I stand already ingaged by a farre greater band hereunto, viz. my peace with God, and the safety of my soule, then suffering temporally from the Civill power. Nor can it rea­sonably be here replied to me, that many will doe more for feare of a present temporall punishment, then of the future losse of their soules; because they that will doe this, will be ready enough to com­ply with the Magistrate in his Religion, what ever it be, without com­pulsion. Secondly, if the intent of the temporall compulsion bent a­gainst me, be my engagement to rectifie my judgement according to the truth, & then to profess accordingly, why is it discharged upon me before it be known whether I have not discharged such my engage­ments to the uttermost of my power, and yet am not able to call that truth, which the Magistrate would have me so to call? Many (saith Pro. 29. 26. Solomon) seek the face of the Ruler: and who would not gladly second the Magistrate in his Religion, if he had his judgement and conscience in his own hand or power?

5. If the civill Magistrate hath an actuall coercive power to sup­presse Sect. 32 Schismes, Heresies, &c. because he is truly Christian, which he had not before, then truth of Christianity alters the property and tenour of Magistracie, and that for the worse, in respect of those that are in subjection to it; yea, and (possibly) in respect of the best of those that are in such subjection. Before he was truly Christian, he had (saith A. S. and Presbyterians generally) no power to punish, fine, imprison, banish, crush any of his Subjects for the exercise of their conscience towards God: but by vertue of that great mercy vouch­safed unto him by God, in giving him part and fellowshship with the Saints in Jesus Christ, he is invested with a new power to persecute the Saints, and to make them pay dearly for having consciences better (it may be) then his own, at least better then to comply outwardly with what they cannot inwardly digest and approve. If this be the case between a Christian, and the Civill Magistrate under whom he lives, he hath small incouragement to pray for the conversion of such a Magistrate to the truth, in case he were for the present, Heterodox, or Pagan; it being farre better for him to live under such a Magistracie, which hath no power to mis-use him for his conscience sake, then un­der that which hath; yea, and is made to beleeve, that it ought to use it accordingly.

6. That power is very dangerous for a Magistrate to own, in the [Page 60] exercise whereof, he may very easily (and commonly doth) run an hazard (at least) of fighting against God, or of plucking up that which God hath planted, or of pulling down that which God hath built up. But is that power of suppressing Schismes, Heresies, &c. which A. S. Cum multis aliis, are very earnest to fasten upon him. Ergo, The Pro­position (I conceive) is too much every mans sense and consent, to be A. S. his dissent. The Assumption I demonstrate by this reason: Be­cause those practices and opinions in Religion, which the Magistrate is born in hand by those, with whose eys hee sees in such cases, are schismaticall, erroneous, and contrary unto God; may very possibly be the ways of God, and truths of God (such mens judgements of them notwithstanding.) For first, the judgements of these men are not Apo­stolicall, or infallible. A. S. himself, who makes his demands for Pres­byterian soveraignty, as high as another, yet dares not lay claim to this crown. Therefore it's possible for them to be in a misprision about some Question, or controversall point in Religion. Secondly, fre­quent experience shews, that a minor part (yea, a party for number in­considerable) of godly persons in a Church or State, may have the minde of God and of Christ among them in some particulars, before the generality or major part of this Church, comes to be inlightened or interessed in it. For a proofe whereof ad hominem, we need go no further, then to that party of godly persons in the Land, who stood up in Queen Elizabeths & King James his days, for Presbyteriall Govern­ment, when as the far greater part, both of Magistrates and Ministers in the Kingdome, were in their judgements opposite hereunto, and wholly Episcopall. So that had that Queen or King, or any Parliament under them, gone about to suppress that party, which yet was then look'd upon as schismaticall, sactious, and erroneous, they had (ac­cording to A. S. his judgement, touching the judgement of those men) fought against God, and sought to pluck up that which he hath planted. Yea, thirdly, (and lastly) it seldome or never falls out, that any truth which hath for a long time been under hatches, and unknown to the generality of Ministers and other learned men in a Church or State, hath been at the first, and on the sudden, discovered by God, either unto the generality, or major part of them, but unto some few only, yea, and sometimes but unto one (for a season) by, and from whom, he is pleased to propagate the light and knowledge of it unto more afterwards. If then the Magistrate should rise up to suppress this truth, or those that hold it forth unto the world, because it hath few friends and many enemies amongst the Masters in his Israel, and is generally [Page 61] look'd upon as a schismaticall and erroneous opinion, should he not (in Gamaliel's sense) fight against God? The housholder in the Parable for­bad the plucking up of the Tares out of his field, for fear of plucking up the Wheat with them, Matth. 13. 29.

7. That power which was never attributed to the civill Magistrate, Sect. 34 by any Christians, but only by those that had very good assurance that it should be used for them, and on their side, is not like to be a power appertaining to them by divine right, or conferr'd upon them by God. The reason of this Proposition is, because it is no wayes credible, that within the compass of so many ages as are by-gone, no one man of that conscientious generation of Saints, which hath been wont so frequent­ly to deny it self even unto death, should acknowledge such a power in the civill Magistrate, as did by divine right belong unto him, only because such an acknowledgement was like to make against himself. Therefore I assume: But that coercive power in matters of Religion, for the suppressing of errours, schismes, heresies, &c. was never attri­buted to the civill Magistrate by any Christian, but only by those that See for the further proof of the minor Proposition, M ^r Io. Robin­sons Essayes, p. 49. 50, &c. were very confident, that it would be used for their turns, and to effect their desires. Ergo, A. S. himself is wary and tender above measure in conferring it upon him; distinguishing once and again, and the third time also upon it (as wee heard) before he dares let him have it; yea, and in the close, doth as much (in effect) as tell him, that except hee be Presbyterian right down, and will accommodate him and his party with it, he ought not to claim it.

8. That power which in the exercise of it, directly tends to pre­vent, Sect. 35 hinder, or suppress the growth and increase of the light of the knowledge of God, and Jesus Christ in a Church or State, and the Re­formation of such things, whether in Doctrine or Discipline, as are unwarrantable therein, is not (questionless) of any Divine right or In­stitution. If A. S. deny this Proposition, at the perill of his modesty and reputation be it. So then I assume; But such a power in the civill Magistrate as we speak of, directly tends to all the mischief and incon­venience mentioned. Ergo, The evidence of the assumption is this: when men are obnoxious to the stroke of the civill power, and in dan­ger of suffering deeply from the Magistrate, for any thing that they shall hold or practise in Religion contrary unto him, it must needs be a great tentation and discouragement upon them, from searching and [...]nquiring into the Scriptures, after a more exact knowledge of the good and holy, and perfect will of God in things; because in case hee should discover any thing contrary to what the Magistrate professeth, hee [Page 62] must run the hazard, either of with-holding the truth hee so discovers, in unrighteousness, and so of having both God and his own conscience his enemy, or else of having his bones broken by the iron rod of the civill Magistrate, for making profession of any thing contrary to that which he professeth.

9. That power which in the use of it plainly and palpably tends to Sect. 36 the gratification of Satan, carnall and prophane men, is not (certainly) derived from God. To prove this Proposition, would be but the lighting up of a torch to see the Sun. I assume; But that power in mat­ters of Religion, to crush schismes, heresies, &c. which is by A. S. and many others, pinn'd upon the Magistrates sleeve, is a power of this tendencie and importance in the use of it. Ergo. This latter Propositi­on shines clear enough with this light. First, a very great part (if not far the greatest) of those that are like to suffer by it, are men of good conscience, and truly fearing God. This is manifest in the Apologists and men of their judgement, whom A. S. himself, over and over (though condemning himself, toties quoties) acknowledgeth for very pious and godly men. Nor is it like that (ordinarily) men of loose or no conscience, should delight to swim against the streams, either of greatness or plurality, in matters of Religion. Now then it cannot but be conceived to be matter of solemn gratification to Satan, who is a murtherer, and blood [...] enemy to the Saints, to see them disgraced, crushed, troden and trampled upon, especially by those, whom God hath appointed to be their protectours, and most of all, that this grie­vous measure should be measured out unto them for the goodness of their consciences towards God.

Secondly, It is the impatient and importune desire of all ignorant, loose, luke-warm and carnall professors, to have all Religions, (as they call them) all wayes, sects, opinions, and practices in Religion, wholly silenc'd, suppress'd, and abolished where they live, excepting only that one way and practice, which shall be authorised and practised by the State. Because by this means, they hope they shall not be distracted about their Religion, nor be put upon that sore trouble of seeking it they know not where, or amongst whom; but shall have it put into their mouths by the hand of Authority; which they hope likewise will stand between them and harm, in case it should not prove a Religion of that purity and goodness, which God requireth.

10. (And lastly) That power which in the use of it, directly tends Sect. 37 to defile and pollute the consciences of men, either by destroying the softness, tenderness, and ingenuity of them, or by disturbing the law­full [Page 63] peace and comfort of them, or by both, is a power from be­neath, not from above. (This Proposition also, a conscience any whit ingenuous, cannot lightly deny) But such is the coercive power in matters of Religion, wherewith A. S. would fain befriend himself, in the civill Magistrate. Ergo. The truth of the Assumption appears in this consideration: When the conscience of a man hath once broke the bands and tie of its own light, and prostituted it self to the desires and pleasures of men, against the grain of its own judgement and incli­nation (whereunto it is sorely tempted and urged, when the man is threatned deep, in case he shall not comply with the State in their Religion, his judgement and conscience being wholly averse to it) one of these two great evils or miseries commonly befalls him. Either 1. God takes no more pleasure in such a conscience afterwards, but withdrawing himself from it, leaves it unto it self, whereupon secret­ly (as it were) resenting the departure of God from it, it falls upon a course of hardening it self, and by degrees contracts a boldness, im­pudence, and desperateness in sinning; as a woman by suffering a breach to be made upon her modestie or chastity once, often be­comes facile and prone to that kinde of sinning afterwards; or else, 2. by reflecting upon what it hath done in such a case, and feeding night and day upon the sad thoughts of its own act, and casting it up between God and it self, how grievous a sin it is, to trample upon its own light, for any mans sake, or upon any consideration whatsoever, it brings it self into grievous agonies of perplexity, and horrour, out of which it never recovers afterward.

Thus I have given A. S. an account of my present thoughts, touching that coercitive power in matters of Religion, which hee is so importune to put into the civill Magistrates hand, with both his own; making it as strange and uncouth a matter, as a new Independencie a­mounts unto (pag. 60.) that any man should not give the right hand of fellowship to his conceit herein. Which yet notwithstanding I shall be most willing and ready to do, if the man will but do mee the courtesie solidly and theologue-like, by reason, and not by vote, that is, unanswerably to answer the ten arguments propunded. For I profess ingenuously, there is nothing separates between mee and his judgement in the point in hand, but only those ten reasons, with their fellows; and if I were able to answer them my self, I would abate the condition required to the bargain, and purchase my agree­ment with him by mine own labour.

Chap. 3.

IT is easie to observe (and yet well worth the observing) how A. S. his hand trembleth and shaketh in drawing the line of the descent and pedegree of his Presbyteriall Government; hee knows not well where to finde the sourse, first spring, or originall of it. Hee is be­tween the Scriptures on the one hand, and the law of nature on the other; as the Poet describes a fierce Tygre between two droves or herds of cattell.

He knows not which he had best fall upon, but hath a great minde to fasten upon both. When he hath occasion to skirmish with the Apolo­gists upon this point, me thinks I see him traversing his ground, as if he trod upon hot Irons; he treads daintily and tenderly, and shifts his steppings to and again, off and on, as if he felt no ground under him, but that whereof he was jealous. And it seems, that for the whole fami­ly it self of persons ingaged in A. S. his judgement about Church-government, though they be but one, resolutely enough agreed for the government it self; yet there are great divisions of heart amongst them concerning the parentage and descent of it. Some out of a desire to have it the more adored and reverenced in the world, will needs have it to be of the house and lineage of Johns Baptisme, viz. from heaven, from the Scriptures; Others of them, fearing that genealogie to be so perplexed and intricate, that it is fitter to make strife and questions of, then demonstration and satisfaction, think it better to wave that title, and claim, and to content themselves with a Meropean, in stead of a Phoebean parentage for it; to rise no higher then the liberty or power of the Church it self, to seek its originall. Which cleft in the house considered, it was a very prudent spoke put into the wheel of the Apo­logists, by him that gave counsell (if all tales be true) at no hand to have it put to vote, whether Presbyteriall Government could be pro­ved from the Scriptures, or no. Such a vote as this might very pos­sibly have prov'd of as interruptory a consequence to the builders of this Government, as the confusion of tongues sometimes did to buil­ders of another fabrick.

But A. S. is A perse A, for ought that ever yet I could hear (save on­ly Sect. 2 from his own pen) in making subordination, between superiour and in­feriour [Page 65] Ecclesiasticall Judicatories, i. (in plain English) Presbyteriall Government, to be partim juris divini, partim naturalis aut mixti; part­ly of divine right, partly of naturall or mixt: which yet is his Deci­sion, pag. 27. When he affirmes pag. 36. that his Presbyteriall power needs not any pattern formally, and expressly from Christ, it sufficeth that it hath one from nature; would not a man think that he waves the Scrip­tures in the question, as being compleatly furnished otherwise to make good his standing? And yet within a few lines after, he glories too in the superfluous and over-abounding contributions of the Scrip­tures to him: And yet (saith he) we can shew a patent for it, not onely from the Law of Nature, which should suffice, but also from the Law of Grace, in the old and new Testament. In other places, hee seemes wholly to decline the Law of Nature, as if men by their prudentials or power in any kind, had nothing to doe to institute or set up any power in the Church, but by expresse order and warrant from God in the Scrip­tures. It is onely in God (saith he pag. 48.) who is a King in this spirituall Kingdome, a Master in this House, a Father in this Family, who can give power therein unto any man; we dare not be so bold, &c. and pag. 61. Veritie consisteth not in the middle of this or that, which yee imagine, but in a confor­mity of our conceptions with their object, and due measure, which in this mat­ter is onely Gods word revealed in the Scriptures: and according to this rule I take Presbyterian government rather, &c. And yet one more, page 34. Combined Presbyteries (qua tota, sed non qua totaliter considerata, i. no man can tell how or which way) judge of points of doctrine, and discipline already revealed in the holy Scriptures, and give us new Ecclesiasticall Laws of things indifferent, and so teach and rule the Churches, &c. Come A. S. let you and I conferre lovingly of these affaires before we part.

1. I wonder much, that having two Nations (at least, if not more) Sect. 3 in your own bowels, such materiall differences as have been touched in your Presbyterian Tribe; nay, that having line against line, page against page, leafe against leafe in your own book, you should be no more compassionate towards your brethren the Apologists, then to bebrand them with differences amongst themselves, as you doe more then once, and that with much bitternesse, pag. 69. and elswhere.

2. The differences that are amongst the Apologists and men of their Sect. 4 judgement, about the way of their government, are nothing conside­rable in respect of yours. They differ but in their haire, and you in your heads. They differ among themselves, but as one starre diffe­reth [Page 66] from another; you differ between your selves as much as heaven & earth. They all as one man unanimously affirm, that their way of go­vernment is Canonicall, and of Divine assertion; you are divided a­bout the authority of your way, some making it Canonicall, others A­pocryphall, some fetching it from the starres, others from the dust.

By the way, the ingenuous dissent of that party amongst you, who cannot say that they see any lineament of Heaven in the face of your Government, being yet wel-willers, and friends of affections large e­nough unto it, is unto me as little lesse then a demonstration as may be, that your way is but from men, and not from God. For as the saying is, Quid non sentit amor? If there were any thing in the Scrip­tures that did but look merrily, or cast a plausible glance upon your way, would not they that are so entirely devoted both in their judg­ments and affections to it, find it out? yea and double and treble the sympathy and strength of it with their imaginations? As it is the propertie of Love, to cover a multitude of sinnes or trespasses, that are, (Prov. 10. 12.) so is it a property likewise of the same af­fection to discover a multitude of pleasing accommodations which are not.

Besides, it is somewhat more then a mote in the eye of your unitie, that in some Churches (of your Presbyteriall calculation) particular or Parochial Senats or Consistories, have power to suspend from their communi­on, those that be members thereof; yea also to excommunicate them, &c. This is your own bounteous acknowledgment, p. 26. I thought that such a misdemeanour as this in the State Presbyterial, had been of Classick vindication, at the least.

3. If Presbyterian government needeth no formall or expresse patterne from Christ, then either it hath none such from him, or this patterne Sect. 5 wheresoever it is found, is but a superfluitie or impertinencie of Scrip­ture. But that there is nothing superfluous or impertinent in the Scriptures, is a glory asserted unto them by the holy Ghost himselfe, 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profi­table▪ &c. Therefore by A. S. his own confession, his government hath no formall or expresse pattern from Christ. In one sense it may be granted, that Presbyterian government needeth no formall, nor yet materiall pat­tern from Christ, viz in such a sense, as it may truly be said, that Ca­stles in the aire need no reparation. But,

4. If your government needs no formall or expresse pattern from Christ, Sect. 6 [Page 67] we would gladly know whether it needs any material or implicite pat­tern from him, or what it needs from him, whether something or no­thing. But if you understood, or would please but to consider the neces­sities of it, I verily beleeve you would confesse that it did stand in need of that formall and express pattern from him, which you speak of. You see that for want of such a pattern it drives but heavily, and is long in Ptov. 8. 12. getting up into its throne; it hath lost many a merry day already, & yet daily meets with such contestations, oppositions, contradictions, from sober, wise, learned & religious men, that it is like to reigne but in the fire of contention, and with the sorrow and sadnes of many such hearts as Christ would not have made sad. And all this calamity befalls it for want of a formall and expresse pattern from Christ: And yet hath it no need hereof? Surely it is very magnanimous, and high-spirited, to be able to beare all this heavie pressure of misery upon it, and yet pro­fesse that it stands in no need of that which would ease it.

5. If it needs no formall express pattern from Christ, we would wil­lingly Sect. 7 be informed, what pattern it is, which (you boast) you can shew from the Law of Grace for it in the Old and New Testament. We suppose that it stands in need of all that you can shew for it, either from the Law of Nature, or of Grace, either from the Old Testament, or from the New, and much more. You tell us, you can shew pattern upon pat­tern, but shew none. Surely you would be thought to doe very nobly; Posse & nolle, nobile. You do not shew us, but only tell us, (p. 41.) that if we will, we may see it in the ordinarie practice of the Church of the Jewes in the Old Testament. It seems that sight you have of your Presbyteriall Government, either in this practice of the Jewish Church, or in any other passage, or part of Scripture, depends upon your wills: you are wil­ling to see it, and therefore you see it. Otherwise, why should you tell us that we may see it, if we will? you are happy men, who have your eyes dependant upon your wills, and so can see what you please, or have a mind to see: Nobis non licet esse tam disertis; our wills depend upon our eyes; we dare not will any thing, but what wee first see, to be the will and mind of God. It is no marvell, that you cast it as a sore aspersion upon the Apologists (p. 4.) that you saw them no wayes minded to submit themselves (in these matters of conscience) to the de­sires of the Parliament. I verily beleeve, that did their judgements de­pend upon their wills, as it seems yours doe, they would have been as freely willing to have submitted in all things, unto the desires of the Parliament, as you are. But,

6. If our wills be weak, and thereby are hindred from seeing that Sect. 8 goodly vision of Presbyterian Government in the practice of the Jewish [Page 68] Church, which you see, what doe you contribute or afford us towards the healing and strengthening of them? Nay, doe you not rather oc­casion that which is weak in this kind, to be quite turned out of the way? For when you tell us (as you doe pag. 13.) 1. that the adaequate end of your Presbyteriall government, is the externall peace of the Church. And 2. that the power thereof consists, first, in the creation, suspension and de­position of Church-officers: secondly, in determining matters of Doctrine: thirdly, in making Ecclesiasticall lawes concerning things indifferent, &c. (all which you tell us on a heap, pag. 42.) you both make us very loth and unwilling to find your government there; and withall very confi­dent that there it is not to be found. For,

First, was the adaequate end of the government of that Church, the Sect. 9 externall peace of the Church? Had it nothing in designe, for the spiri­tuall good, for the edification of the members of it in knowledge, faith, and holinesse? Was the power of the high Priest given him on­ly to keep the Church in externall peace? I thought that to provide for the externall peace of the Church, had rather appertained to the civill Magistrate and government, then to the Ecclesiastick; and it is the Apostle himselfe that thus thoughteth me, 1 Tim. 2. 2. where he enjoyneth; that supplications, prayers, &c. be made for Kings and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all god­linesse and honesty.

Secondly, neither doe I find in the practise of that Church, any power given to the combined rulers and governours thereof, for the creation, suspension, deposition of Church-officers. I read of the de­position of a Church-officer (and no mean one neither) by the Civill Magistrate, 1. King. 2. 27. So Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord, &c. but of any such deposition by the combined ru­lers of that Church, I remember not that I have read. But,

3. As for any power of determining matters of Doctrine, this is fur­ther Sect. 10 out of my ken in the practice of that Church, then any thing else. I know not well what A. S. means by his phrase of Determining mat­ters of Doctrine; but in my notion, and in the Grammaticall and pro­per sense of the word, Determine, the claim of such a power riseth up as a high partition-wall between me and his Government. If by a power of determining matters of doctrine, he meanes nothing else but a liberty or ability of discussing and arguing such matters, and of recom­mending the issues and results of such discussions, unto the Churches, as consonant (in their judgements) to the truth, with a proposall of their desires unto the Churches, to consider well of them, and to em­brace [Page 69] them, if they can so judge and conceive of them, I have nothing to oppose against this power. But if by his power to determine matters of Religion, he means a power of concluding or defining, what men shall be bound in conscience to receive and beleeve for truth, and shal be look'd upon as sinning, in case they doe it not, whether they see suf­ficient ground for what is so concluded, and obtruded upon them, or not, (which I partly beleeve to be A. S. his sense, I am sure is the proper sense of the word) such a power is, (and I think ever will bee) the first-born of the abhorrings of my soul. I confesse I cannot be over­confident that A. S. intends the residence of such a power as this, in his Presbyterian Assemblies; partly, because he speakes somewhat like a man in this behalfe elsewhere, supposing it to be safe even for a few men to dissent from all the world, in case they have very strong reasons for their Paget De­fence of Church go­vernment. pag. 29. dissent, pag. 22. and requires no subjection in particular Congregations unto the judgment of Senats or Assemblies, but according to Gods word, pag. 28. (I trust he means, so apprehended by the congregation; without this there is no subjection according to Gods word.) And again, pag. 68. acknowledgeth it as an undoubted maxime, that the church hath no ab­solute power in her judgments, &c. with many savoury expressions in this kind; partly also, because I find this indulgence generally subscribed with Presbyterian pens, That the authority which Classes and Synods ex­ercise, is not absolute, nor their Decrees held to be infallible, but to be exami­ned by the word of God, and not to be received further then they do agree here­with. And yet on the other hand I confesse, that I cannot conceive, or comprehend how A. S. his government can hold up her head like her selfe, if this Iron-mace be taken out of her hand. For my part, if this one Article of a liberty to wave Presbyteriall Injunctions and Deci­sions, in case of a non liquet from the word of God, to him, to whom they are tendered, will bee but assented unto, and candidly kept and performed, it would be the best Mediator I know to reconcile my thoughts and judgement to it.

4. Nor can I in the practice of the Jewish Church, find either vola or Sect. 13 vestigium of a power granted unto the Rulers thereof, to make Ecclesia­sticall laws concerning things indifferent; I rather find a prohibition ser­ved upon them for making any such laws; Ye shall put nothing unto the word which I command you, nor shall you take ought therefrom, &c. Deut. 4. 2. So again, Chap. 12. 32. If A. S. can but produce one example of any such Law or Constitution made by them, he shall be a good benefactor to the penury of my notions; and in consideration thereof, I will be­stow upon him a dashing out of this peece of his charge.

[Page 70] 5. And lastly, in the practice of the Jewish Church, the Prelaticall Sect. 12 Schoole sees a vision or platforme of her government also. And A. S. by your leave, the High-Priest as well in his Authoritie as in his robes and holy accoutrements, did farre more plausibly sympathize with Metropoliticall state and greatnesse, then with Presbyteriall. For my part, I am not able to discern in all the practice of the Jewish Church, from the one end of it unto the other, any peece, straine, or veine of such a patterne as A. S. speaks of. Surely the vision is so condition'd, as not to be seen but upon Presbyterian ground. The man did wisely in granting that he had no formall or expresse patterne for his govern­ment either from the Old or New Testament: but he should have done more ingenuously to have added, no nor yet any materiall or implicit patterne neither. For if he hath any materiall patterne, it is so purely ma­teriall, that it may contend with materia prima it selfe for the prize of Invisibilitie. If he hath any implicit, it is wrapt up under so many folds and pleights of obscurity, that no seeing eye is able to pierce through to it.

But doe we not give sentence too soon? It may be his pattern from the New Testament will carry it, though that from the Old refus'd to meddle with it. But where shall we seek this? He tells us, pag. 41. That we may see it in the History of the New Testament, in the judgement given out at the Synod (either truly or untruly so called) of Hierusalem, concerning the businesse of Antiochia. What possibly we may see in length and time, is not easie to determine for the present; but I have both more hope and feare of seeing a thousand other things (which yet I cannot certainly say, that I shall see) then I have of either, ever to see Classicall proceedings demonstrated out of that passage of Scripture. Nor doth A. S. so much as put forth his little finger towards such a Demonstration, but contents himselfe (for the present) to threaten us with his own hope, of seeing the busines clearly demonstrated to us by a bet­ter hand ere long. Clear demonstrations of any thing from the Scriptures, shall be very welcome to us at any time; but me thinks I see such in­superable difficulties in the way, that I feare that Demonstration will never come out cleare. Yet because I would help forward the clearnes of it what I can, I shal make bold to propound unto him that either is, or shall be the undertaker thereof, a few particulars, which (I humbly conceive) must be substantially prov'd to make the Demonstration clear, at least to me, and many others.

1. It must be prov'd, that the Apostles in that meeting at Jerusa­lem, Acts 15. 6. sate there onely in the capacitie of ordinary Elders, [Page 71] or Presbyters, and not as Apostles. i. that they wav'd or silenc'd the spirit of infallibilitie which was given them, and fell to worke with the weak and fallible spirits of other men; which is, as if a man should pull out his eyes to see with the holes.

2. It must further be prov'd, that this Councell at Ierusalem had their state and set times of meeting, as weekly, monthly, yearly, or the like, and that they did not assemble occasionally onely. For this is one of the high characters of Presbytery by A. S. his owne calculation, pag. 39.

3. It must yet be prov'd, that they had Authoritatem citationis, an au­thoritative power to cite and call before them whom they pleased within the pale of Apostolicall jurisdiction, that is, within the com­passe of the whole world.

4. It must also be made cleere, that the Apostles and Elders that were members of this Synod, were sent hereunto, by those particular Churches, over whom they had right to claime Jurisdiction, or inten­ded to include in their determinations.

5. The Demonstration will never bee cleare, till it be substantially prov'd, that there was none authorized to sit in that Councell, but onely Church-Officers and Ecclesiasticall men; the contrary hereof seeming (at least) very apparent, from ver. 22. & 23.

6. That like wise must not be left unprov'd, that this Councell had power, as well to make new Laws of indifferent things, as to impose things necessary upon the Churches. ver. 28.

7. The Demonstrator to make his worke cleere and clever, must prove that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, had their Commissio­ners or Delegates, fitting authoritatively in this Synod, because they are included in the Determination, ver. 23.

8. It must be prov'd likewise, that Paul and Barnabas sate as Com­missioners upon the same terms for the Church of Antioch in this Synod.

9. It must be made to appeare, either that this Synod or Councell would have proceeded as now they did, whether they could have said, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, or no, or that ordinary Sy­nods or Assemblies may lawfully proceed as they did, though they have no such assurance of a concurrence of the Holy Ghost with them, as they had.

10. And lastly, Proofe must be made, that those words in the close of the Epistle (sent from this Councell to the respective Churches) [Page 72] yee shall do well, ver. 29. are fulminative, & import some such threat­ning or intimation as this, that if they did not submit, some further course must be taken with them.

If all these particulars shall be substantially cleered and proved, I shall freely acknowledge that there is a plausible patterne for A. S. his Government, in the new Testament, but Hic labor, hoc opus est. I shall not pre-judge any mans abilities; but for the present, I doe as much expect the fulfilling of that Poeticall Prophecie,

as I doe ever to see that fifteenth of the Acts, safely deliver'd of the man-child cal'd Presbyterie.

Therefore A. S. must pardon us if as yet wee be not able to see any patterne at all of his Government, neither formall, nor materiall, nei­ther explicit, nor implicit, either in the old or new Testament.

Well, but yet the man hath one string to his bowe more; though Grace wil not relieve him, it may be nature will. He hath (as hee saith) a patterne in the Law of Nature which will suffice. They must (I beleeve) have verie good appetites to Presbyterie, that will bee suffic'd with this pattern. The Law of nature is a very vast volume, and A. S. hath not quoted either page, leaf, or section of the book, so that I know not whither to turne, or where to look for his patterne. But me thinks the man himselfe hath given ample testimonie to the Law of Nature, that it is no ways guiltie of, or accessarie to his Presbyterian Govern­ment. For that which cannot be made out, to the judgements and consciences of men, without the helpe of such an host of scholastique, intricate, (if not inexplicable) distinctions, as A. S. is fain to leavie, and muster together, p. 29. 30. 31. 32. &c. before he can make either head or foot of his businesse, what other originall or descent soever it may claim, I know not, but (questionlesse) the Law of Nature will not owne. The Law of nature saith with one of natures sons; Odi difficiles nugas: she meddles not with subtilties, niceties, or curiosities of distinctions. A man that is unlearned, and but of ordinarie capaci­tie, that shall read the pages last quoted, may very possibly take his odde and uncouth distinctions for names of unclean spirits, and thinke that the man conjur's for his Government.

But will you please to heare the names of his beagles, with which he follows his game, and hunts classique Law out of those deep and dark caverns & tullians of the earth where Nature had hid it, stygiis (que) admoverat umbris. The first couple, Actus primus, senior, and Actus secun­dus, [Page 73] senior. The second couple; Actus primus, junior, and Actus secundus junior. The third, Actus primus, tertius; and Actus secundus, tertius. The fourth, Actus signatus, senior; and Actus exercitus, senior. The fift, Actus signatus, junior; and Actus exercitus, junior. The sixt, collectivè and distributivè. The seventh, formerly, and materially. The eight, To­tum simpliciter, and totum & totaliter. The ninth, Omne simpliciter per omne, and pro omni & omnino vel omnimodo. The tenth Totum, totaliter, and totum modificatum. The eleventh, Divisim & conjunctim. The twelfth, per se, and per accidens: The thirteenth and last, Totum con­fusum, and totum ordinatum. Can any reasonable man imagine, that that conclusion or practise, which cannot be justified or cleared to the understanding and conscience of learned, pregnant and apprehen­sive men (for these are no lettuces for illiterate lips) but by the con­tributions and engagements of all these distinctions (and some others not listed) should be sufficiently contained in the Law of nature? The Law of nature is a book for every mans reading and understanding; but this volume of distinctions is scarce for any mans. If A. S. and his partie would but spare the vulgar and common sort of men (as there is neither reason, nor Religion but why they should) from putting their necks under the yoke of Classique Governement, untill they can plough with these heifers, I meane till he or they have made them capable of all these distinctions, for my part I should not feare much danger or inconvenience from it, except it were the intercepting or suspending of such a Governement, as might be a benefit and blessing to them, whilest they are in preparing for the other.

In the mean time we clearly see that all A. S. his foundations for his Presbyteriall building, fail him: neither the old Testament, nor the New, nor yet the Law of Nature, will consent to beare or to support any such fabrique. Nor is all that hath been here said by way of con­test with him about his Government, any whit more then a first fruits of what is further opposeable to it.

Chapt. 4

FOr the justification of this Government in a cataskeuastique or as­sertive way, I shall plead nothing further (for the present) then [Page 74] what the Presbyterian School it self grants, conceiving that to be a ground impregnable, especially quoad homines, to found the lawfulness of it upon. I shall rather address to my Antagonist A. S. and try whe­ther he be any whit more dexterous at pulling down, then we late­ly found him at building up; it may be he is better at hiding, then at finding.

But first, towards the building up of the Congregationall Govern­ment, See M [...]st [...]r [...] H [...]le Independen­cy &c. p. 2. th [...]s corner-stone is given us by our Adversaries, that where there is no neighbourhood of Congregations, or single Churches, whereby they may with conveniency be aiding each to other, there a single Congregation must not be denyed [...]ntireness of jurisdiction.

If wee cannot upon this advantage of ground, make good this go­vernment against all opposition, it is very ill bestowed on us, and wee deserve to be punished with that, which lifts up it self against it. But,

First, if entireness of Government or jurisdiction be not to be denyed to a single Congregation, when it is solitary, and without neighbours, then certainly it hath a lawfull right, title, or claim to such a Jurisdiction. For whatsoever doth not in a way of equity or right belong unto any man, ought to be denyed unto him. If then a single Church in this case, hath a right to an intireness of rule and government within it self, I would gladly know, by what right any other Church or churches, be they never so many, can take away this right or priviledge from it. Those whom God hath put together (saith our Saviour, in the case of mar­riage) let not man put asunder. Doubtless, if a single Church, under the circumstance mentioned, hath a right to an intireness of jurisdiction within it self, it hath this right conferred upon it by God, or Christ himself, there being no other fountain or foundation thereof imaginable. And if so, then who ever shall take away, or deny this right of Jurisdicti­on unto it, must shew a commission from heaven to do it, or otherwise be guilty of putting those a sunder whom God hath joyned together.

Secondly, if a Church yet single, be invested with a power of Juris­diction within it self, and should be cashiered of this power, by the rising up of more Churches neer unto her, then that which is inten­ded by God as a table, should become a snare unto her; she should suff [...]r l [...]ss, and have sorrow from those, by whom shee ought to be comforted.

Thirdly, If a single Church should suffer loss of so considerable a priviledge, as entireness of Jurisdiction is, by the multiplication of Churches neer unto her, then cannot this Church pray for the propa­gation of the Gospel in places neer to it, but she must pray against her [Page 75] own comfort and peace; which is a sore temptation upon her, either to pray very faintly, or not to pray at all, for such a thing.

If it be objected and said, that intireness of Jurisdiction is no be­nefit or priviledge to a single Church, but rather an inconvenience, or a diminutive priviledge at best, and that her condition shall be im­prov'd, not impaired, by combining her self in point of government with other Churches: I answer,

First, that the Scripture it self makes intireness of government, or subjection only unto those that are of the same society or body, a spe­ciall mercy, favour, and blessing from God. And their Nobles shall be of themselves (saith God, speaking of that great goodness he meant to shew unto his people after their return from Babylon) and their Go­vernour shall proceed from the midst of them▪ &c. Jer. 30. 21. So it is made a character or sign of the prosperous estate of Tyres, that her wise men that were in her, (i. of her own Nation) were her pilots, Ezek. 27. 8.

Secondly, subjection unto strangers, is still spoken of as matter of punishment and sorrow: Give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should reigne over it, Joel 2. 17. The Nations of the Jews were expresly forbidden to set strangers to rule over them, Deut. 17. 15.

If it be objected; But Pastours or Elders of neighbour Churches ought not to be looked upon as strangers, but as Brethren: I answer, (in a word) though they be brethren in comparison of the unbelieving party of the world, and in respect of their spirituall descent from the same Father with them; yet have they more of the relation and con­sideration of strangers to them, then those that are (as it were) of the same domestique society with them. And therefore subjection to them, must needs have less of the blessing, and more of the curse in it, then subjection to their own.

Thirdly, the grant of Government and Rule within themselves un­to Towns and Corporations, were ever esteemed matters of speciall grace and favour from Princes: and have sometimes been purchased with great summes by the Inhabitants.

Fourthly and lastly, reason it self demonstrates intireness of Go­vernment, to be a sweet priviledge and benefit to a particular Church. First, in case a man be questioned, he saves a proportion both of time, and labour of travell in respect of whath must undergo, if hee were to make his answer at a Consistory further off. Secondly, proceedings against him in his own society shall be regulated, managed and ordered by his owne Pastour, who is a Father unto him in the Lord, and who in all reason, and according to the course of (al most) all constant expe­rience, [Page 76] is more tender, affectionate, and compassionate towards him, then the Pastors of other flocks, and those that are strangers to him. The Pharaoh that knew Joseph, dealt well by him, his kindred, and seed: but (saith the Text) There arose another Pharaoh that knew not Joseph, and he evill intreated our Fathers, &c. Thirdly, he shall be tried, and sentenced by those, who know not how soon it may be their own case to be tried and sentenced by him again; which in reason cannot but teach them moderation and equity, in whatsoever they shall act or suggest against him; whereas, a Consistory of standing Judges, whose fair necks have little or no cause to fear any yoke of being judged them­selves, are in far more danger, through a confident and constant use of the Scepter, of having their hand hardened, and their little finger soon made as heavie as their loins. It is a good rule which A. S. himself prompteth us withall in this case, pag. 10. Nunquam satis fida potentia, ubi nimia est; power seldom yeelds any good fruit, where it is too rank and luxuriant. Fourthly, it is a great incouragement and confirmation of face, to a man that is accused, and is call'd to answer for himselfe, especially, if he be any thing tender foreheaded and bashfull, as many of inferiour breed and education are, to answer before those, whose faces are familiar to him, and with whose persons he is well acquain­ted; and the contrary is a kind of oppression to such a man. Such an ad­vantage or disadvantage as this, may easily amount to as much, as either a mans standing, or falling in this cause. A Consistory of strange faces, especially the persons being all of superiour rank and quality to him, may be to a plain man, of as bad a consequence, a [...] the seeing of Medusa's head was (among the Poets) it may turn him into a stone, and make him able to say little for himself; whereas, if he be to make answer at home, the knowledge and interest hee hath, of, and in those persons before whom he is to speak, will be a soveraign antidote unto him against such fears, as otherwise might betray him in his cause. Fifthly, in this Government we speak of, by the Congregation, private Christians have the opportunity of seeing and hearing from time to time, all the carriages, debates, and judiciary proceedings in the Church, which will be not only matter of much satisfaction, but also as a school of wisdom and experience unto them daily; whereas, if these transactions be negotiated at a remote Consistory, the private Christian loseth his portion and interest in them. Sixthly (and lastly) Conclusions many times are very offensive and hard to be digested, for want of the know­ledge of the premisses, that should allay and sweeten them. Classique determinations and awards, especially when they rise high, the reasons [Page 77] and grounds of them being (for the most part) unknown to the gene­rality of men, and of hard construction with them: whereas the issues and awards that are brought forth in a Congregation, the whole series and storie of all proceedings, à capite ad calcem, being known unto all, must needs be much more satisfactory, and of a far better resentment with men. These reasons might have been inlarged with much more strength and weight, and many others likewise added to them; but for the present, desirous wee are that brevity should have the casting voyce.

Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government? That can I (quoth A. S. in effect, p. 38, 39.) I have sixteen reasons or objections against it. Yea, but A. S. your sixteen Reasons (or at least the greatest part of them, as far as I can see) have all but one head; and if that be struck off, all those reasons are but as so many dead corpses. You alledge against the Apologists, that the remedy in their way of Government, for the reducing of whole Congregations or Churches, in case they miscarry or be irregular, is not sufficient nor satisfactory. This you prove by laying pen upon paper, untill you had sixteen rea­sons (so called) in black and white. I shall not spend time in transcri­bing these your Reasons, but shall desire the Reader (though it may be some discourtesie unto you) to take your book into his hand, and to consider of them with what is repon'd in Answer to them.

And first, for that defectiveness you charge upon the Congregati­onall Government, for the reduction of whole Churches, under er­rours, miscarriages, &c. I answer:

First, Suppose that course or means which the Apologists insist up­on, a with-drawing, and renouncing all Christian communion with such Churches, untill they repent, be not in the eye of reason or humane con­jecture a means sufficient for such a purpose, and that not only sixteen, but six and twenty reasons, and those more plausible then A. S. his sixteen, could be levied against it, yet if it be a means which God hath authorized for the effecting it (as I verily believe it is, neither doth A. S. nor any of his, that yet I have met with, prove the contrary) it will do the deed, and prosper, when as seven other means that are greater of flesh, and more promising, will but beat the air, and do little of what was intended and projected to have been done by them. How many reasons may we probably conceive, that the disputers of this world in Paul's time, were able to bandie against preaching, whereby to prove it foolishness? yet this was, and still is, and ever will be, maugre all the opposition of ten thousand disputations and reasons [Page 78] against it, the wisdome of God, and the power of God, to save those that be­lieve. The strength and power of sacred Ordinances do not lie in their natures, but in their relations or institutions. Now, that a with-drawing of Christian communion from persons walking inordinately, is an Ordi­nance or means appointed by God, for the reducing and reclaiming of them, is evident, 2 Thes. 3. 6. with the 14. We warn you Brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that yee withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh inordinately, &c. and vers. 14. If any man obey not this our saying in this letter note him, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Clearly implying, that to with-draw communion, and to deny Christian fellowship unto Christians walking inordinately, is both a means of Divine institution, and otherwise proper and com­modious in it self, to reclaim and bring them to Repentance. There is the same reason of Churches in this behalf, which there is of persons; Churches being nothing else but persons embodied.

Secondly, suppose there were no such sufficient or satisfactory remedy for the inconvenience mentioned in the way of the Apologists, as A. S. conceives to be in his (which yet there is, as hath in part already, and will afterwards further appear) yet Lawyers have a saying, that a mis­chief is better then an inconvenience. A man had better run the hazard of a greater loss, then expose himself to a daily wasting and consuming of his estate. A man had better be wet through and through with a soaking showre once a yeer, then be exposed in his house to continuall droppings all the yeer long. The Delinquencie of whole Churches, (such I mean, as is matter of publique scandall or offence to their neigh­bour Churches) is not an every dayes case, no more in the way of Congregationall then of Presbyteriall Government: you acknowledge the rarity of it in your Government, and we affirm it in ours. Now then much better it is, to want a remedy against such an evill, which possibly may not fall out within an age, though it be greater when it doth fall, then it is to expose our selves to continuall droppings, I mean, to those daily inconveniences which wee lately shewed to be incident to the Classique Government.

Thirdly, they that implead the Congregationall way, for being de­fective, as touching the matter in hand, seem to suppose, that God hath put a sufficiency of power into the hands of men, to remedy all defects, errours, and miscarriages of men whatsoever. Else why should it be made matter of so deep a charge and challenge against the way of the Apologists, that it affords not a sufficient and satisfactory remedy either to prevent or heal all possible miscarriages in all churches? [Page 79] I would willingly know, in case your Church transcendent, your su­preme Session of Presbyters, should miscarry, and in your Doctrinall determinations, give us hay, stubble, and wood, in stead of silver, gold, and precious stones, (a misprision, you know, wel-neer as incident to such Assemblies, yea, and to those that are more generall and oecumeni­all then so, as obstinacy in errour is to particular Congregations) what remedy the poor Saints and Churches of God under you have, or can expect against such a mischiefe; or what remedy you now have in the way of your government, for the recovering of your selves out of such a snare, more then what the Congregationall way affordeth, for the re­claiming of particular Churches. Nay, the truth is, your Government in such a case is at a greater loss in respect of any propable or hopefull remedy against such an evill (which yet is an evill of a most dangerous consequence) then the other way of Government is for the reduction of particular Churches. That hath the remedy of God (as hath been shewed) though not the remedy of men, and yet that remedy of God which it hath, is appliable by men, and those known who they are, viz. the Churches of Christ neer adjoyning; but if your great Ec­clesiastique body be tainted or infected, though never so dangerously, Corpora mor­bis majora patent. Sen. God must have mercy on you, and that in a way somewhat (at least) more then ordinary, if ever you be healed. For that Directive power in matters of Religion, which, had you left it in other mens hands, might in this case, through the blessing of God, have healed you, being now only in your own, hath not only occasioned that evill disease that is upon you, but also leaves you helpless and cureless by other men. A. S. makes the greatest part of his arguments against that way of Government which hee opposeth, of what iffs, I mean, of loose and impertinent suppositions, and cases, that are not like to fall out, till ursa major, and ursa minor meet (unto which kind of arguments, every whit as much as enough hath been answered already) but he shall shew himself a soveraign Benefactour indeed to the Presbyterian cause, if he can find out a remedy satisfacto­ry and sufficient against that sore evill we speak of incident to his Go­vernment in the case mentioned: which is a case both of a far worse consequence then the obstinacy of a particular Church in some error; and (I fear) of a far more frequent occurrence then the world is willing to take notice of.

Fourthly, let us ponder a little, how sufficient and satisfactorie that remedie against the evill now in consideration, is, which the Classique politie, under the protection of A. S. his pen, so much glorieth in; let [Page 80] us compare the two remedies, of the two corriving polities together, as A. S. hath done, after this manner.

But the Presbyteriall Government (saith he, p. 39.) is subject to none of these inconveniences: For the collective or combined eldership having an Au­thoritative power, all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Cove­nant to submit themselves thereunto: Every man knoweth their set times of meeting, wherein sundrie matters are dispatched, and all things carried by pluralitie of voyces, without any schisme or separation. Not to be trouble­some to the man about his Grammaticals, (wherein his pen slips oftner then Priscian will tolerate in such a piece) because in these he opposeth nothing but a mans conceit either of overmuch scholarship, or overmuch care, in him.

Here is a remedie indeed against some inconveniences; but whether the inconveniences be not much better then the remedie, adhuc sub Judice lis est. But what are the inconveniences?

The first is, that Churches being equall in authoritie, one cannot binde another to give any account, in case of offence given. Well, what is the re­medie for this in Classique constitution? The combined Eldership having an authoritative power, all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves, &c. What is another inconvenience? In case other churches were offended in the proceedings of a particular church, they could not judge in it; for then they should be both judge and partie in one cause, &c. Well, what is the remedie in Presbyterian politie? The combined Eldership having an authoritative power, all men and Chur­ches, &c. What is a third inconvenience? That Congregationall Govern­ment giveth no more power or authoritie to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker, yea to the Hangman over a thousand, &c. What is the Presby­terian remedie for this? The combined Eldership having an Authorita­tive power, &c. The combined Eldership with their Authoritative power together with a Law or Covenant whereby all men and Churches under them, are bound to submit unto them, are as bars of iron and gates of brasse to keep out al those inconveniences, irregularities, defilements, pollu­tions, out of the Presbyterian Temple, whereunto (it seems) the Congregationall temple, for want of such stoure and tight provisions, lies open. But,

First, what if your combined Eldership hath neither footing nor foundation in the Word of God? It is not the serviceablenesse of it a­gainst a thousand such inconveniences as were mentioned, that will justifie it. Souls offering sacrifice was a means to prevent the scattering of the people from him; yet Samuel told him that he had done foolishly in [Page 81] it; and it cost him his Kingdom. 1 Sam. 13. 9. 13. 14. So the putting forth of Vzz [...]h's hand to stay the Ark, was a meanes to keepe it from being shaken; but yet the doing of it cost him his life. Peters valour and zeale in drawing his sword, and laying about him, was a likely meanes of rescuing his Master; but the Lord Christ preferred the im­minent danger of his life before such a rescue, and check'd the sword that was drawne for him againe into the sheath. That Law and consti­tution in the Papacie, whereby all men & all Churches thereof, are bound to submit their judgements in matters of Faith to the decision of the Papall Chair, is as soveraigne a remedie against all those inconvenien­ces named, as that for which Classique Authoritie is so much magnified by you; and yet it is never the lesse abominable in the eyes both of God and men. The Question is not, which Government will serve most turnes; but which is most agreeable to the will and Word of God. If that of Presbyterie be defective this way, as there is ex­treame cause to feare it is, this defect cannot be recompenced or re­deemed by any other commendation whatsoever.

Secondly, neither can we with any tolerable satisfaction informe our selves out of all your discourse, either what you meane by that Au­thoritative power, which you claime to your combined Eldership, nor yet how, or by what, or whose Authoritie, they come to be invested with it. As for the power, sometimes you deny it to be Magisteriall, or such, which may not lawfully be declin'd, when a man cannot sub­mit unto it without disobedience to God; otherwise, you make it so irrefragably sacred, as if it were no lesser sin then perjurie it selfe, to detract it. Again, for the investiture of your Eldership with this po­wer, whether they arrogate it unto themselves and are their own car­vers, or whether the Civill State and Parliamentarie Law, or whether the free and joynt consent of those over whom this power is exercised, do conferre and derive it upon them, you informe us not, but count an ignoramus, better then a verdict. But till you do resolve us by what Authoritie or power this Authoritative power comes into the hand of your combined Eldership, we shall thinke it safer to stand to the hazard and dammage of all the inconveniences spoken of, then to subject to it.

Thirdly, if the Law of the State, be the first and most considerable band or tye upon men to submit unto the power of your combined Ed­dership (as you seeme here to imply, in saying that all men & all Chur­ches thereof are bound by Law, &c.) then 1. you must acknowledge that the root and base of your Government is potestas secularis, secular [Page 82] authoritie; and then how is it Ecclesiastick or spirituall? A man may as well bring a clean thing out of an unclean (in Jobs expression) as make a spirituall extraction out of a secular root. Secondly, it will rest up­on you to prove, that the Civill State hath a power to forme and fa­shion the government of the Churches of Christ. Yea, thirdly (and lastly) it will be demonstratively proved against you, that you re­solve the government of the Churches of Christ (in the last resolution of it) into the humors, wills, and pleasures of the world, yea of the vilest and most unworthy of men. But,

Fourthly (and lastly) the Authoritative power of your combined El­dership being granted unto you, we doe not see how the inconveni­ences you find in the Congregationall way, will bee much better solv'd in yours. For first, what if a particular Congregation under the jurisdiction of your Eldership, reflecting upon the Oath or Cove­nant it hath taken for subjection thereunto, (as likewise upon all o­ther engagements that way) as unlawfull, shall peremptorily re­fuse to stand to the awards or determinations of it, what will you do in this case? How will your combined Eldership remedy this incon­venience? What? will you excommunicate this Church? The A­pologists in their way do little lesse; (and that by a power farre lesse questionable then yours) nay in your interpretation they doe every whit as much: Or will you deliver them over Brachio seculari? to be hamper'd and taught better then it seems you can teach them, by pri­sons, fines, banishment, &c. O A. S. remember you tar'd the Apo­logists, for comporting in a very small matter (in comparison) with the Arminians (in case it had been true) and will you comply with the Papists in a matter of this high nature? Churches had need take heed how they chuse men for their Guardians, that will so dispose of them if they please them not. Besides, you know what was said in the second chapter, touching the power of the Magistrate in this case. And what if in the Session of your combined Eldership there be no such thing as plurality of votes concerning excommunication of such a Church, (as it is very possible that in such a meeting the truth may find just as many friends as error hath, and no more) is not the remedy you spake of, now in the d [...]st?

Again secondly, (to touch upon the second inconvenience mentio­ned) when your combined Eldership proceeds against a particular Church amongst you, upon offence taken, is not this Eldership as well Party as Judge? If you think you have every whit the better of it, because your Eldership, though it be both Party and Judge, yet hath [Page 83] an authoritative power over those whom it judgeth: I answer first, that as our Saviour told Pilate, He could have no power against him, except it were given him from above; no more can your Eldership have over those whom it judgeth in this case. Now how uncertain and faint the probabilities are, that they have any power over them given them from above, hath been formerly shewed at large. And if that power which your Eldership claimeth, and exerciseth over the Church ar­raigned, be not from above, then the Apologists remedy is farre better and safer then yours. Secondly, to hold and maintain, that all those that have an Authoritative power over men, may lawfully by vertue of such power, be both parties and Judges, is to exalt all manner of ty­ranny, violence and oppression by a Law. Upon such a supposition, men invested with authority and power, whether in Church or State, may be their own carvers, and serve themselves of the estates, liber­ties and lives of those that are under them, how, and when, & as oft as they list. And why doe you not submit to the decisive judgment of the King in all controversies depending between you and him, if that be your doctrine?

For the third inconvenience (so called) I shall be your debtour to tell me plainly and distinctly, what power more your government gi­veth to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker, or the Hangman, o­ver a thousand. I doe not remember where either your selfe, or any of your party, have calculated the proportion; but I well remember a saying in Charron, That every humane proposition hath equall authoritie, Tout propositi­on humaine a autant d'au­thorite quel' autre, si la rai­son n'on fait la difference. Charron de sag [...]sse. Plus credend [...] est assertioni alicujus sim­plicis & non authorizati excellenter in Scripturis e­ruditi, quam declarationi Papae. if reason make not the difference: and another of Gerson (much commen­ded by Protestant Authors, though the Author of it Pontificiall) The saying of a simple man, and no wayes authoriz'd, if he be well seen in the Scriptures, is rather to be beleeved, then the Popes own determination. But A. S. what makes you thinke (for I can easily guesse what makes you say) that the government of the Apologists gives no more power to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker or Hangman over a thousand? Ʋbi, [...]uando, quibus testibus, did this government, or any son it hath, ever make any such comparison, or so farre honour either your Tin­ker or Hangman, as to make them equall in power to a thousand Chur­ches. And yet I suppose, if a man should say, that the dust in the bal­lance hath as much life in it as the Sunne, it would be no disparage­ment to this excellent and glorious creature; because the excellencie of it doth not stand in any degrees or superiority of life above any o­ther creature, but in the aboundance of light which it hath, and the height of its situation, and the serviceablenesse of it to the world by [Page 84] means of both. In like manner if it be supposed (which I think, upon what hath been delivered, may very reasonably be supposed) that the glory and excellencie of Churches doth not stand in any power or au­thority that one hath over another, or many over one, but in other farre more rich, and holy, and honourable endowments, relations, and qualifications, it can be no prejudice or disparagement unto ten thousand of them, to say they have no more authority over one, then A. S. his Tinker or Hangman hath over them. Therefore if A. S. his admired peece of Church-policie, hath no greater commendation, then to serve for preventing such Inconveniences as this, the world needs make no great lamentation over it, though it were in the condition of Rachels children, when she wept for them, and would not be Matth. 2. 18. comforted.

Some other inconveniences there are, wherein A. S. findes the Go­vernment which he opposeth, tardie, and thinkes he sets a crown of glory upon the head of his Presbytery, in vindicating the innocencie of it in respect of such guilt; But, alas! he washeth off this guilt with blood, or with water fouler then it (as hath been shewed) and con­demneth his government in that wherein he mainly alloweth it. The guilt is innocencie, in respect of the purgation. There is one inconve­nience (formerly opened and insisted upon in this chapter) very inci­dent to Presbytery, the conscience whereof (me thinks) should make all the sons of that way, rather to cover and compassionate, then to complain or cry out of any inconvenience they either see, or rather think they see in another.

Chap. 5.

HE that hath read the precedent part of this discourse, and doth, though but with the lowest degree of impartialitie, consider what hath been argued between the two wayes, Presbytery and Apo­logisme, cannot lightly but mourne over the title of this chapter; and think him to be a man of iron entrails that should give occasion to such a Question as is there propounded.

Suppose the opinion maintained in the latter part of the second Chapter, were wav'd, and such a coercive power in matters of Religion [Page 85] as A. S. contends for, allowed in the Magistrates hand, yet that any man should plead for the drawing of this sword against those men, who first, have such a considerable strength, if not of evidence, yet of reason, for what they practise and professe: secondly, have a like (if not a more) considerable strength against that way of government which they cannot submit to. Thirdly, are by their fiercest adversaries and opposites themselves, acknowledged ten times over for very pious, godly, and learned men. Fourthly, have been (at least the generali­tie of them) and so continue, men of the most affectionate, and withall the most effectuall activitie and forwardnesse to promote the great cause of Religion, Parliament, and Kingdome. Fifthly, are as deep in, or (if you will) as much out of their estates rateably, for the sup­port of this cause, as any other sort of men whatsoever. Sixthly, have (many of them) such as were meet for such a service, adventur'd their persons and lives, in the face of the rage and furie of the common e­nemie, continuing still in the same engagements. Yea, seventhly (and lastly) have (some of them) exposed themselves to more danger, and harder termes from the adverse party, then ordinary (in case they should prevaile) by a publick vindication of the cause of the Parlia­ment in print from the Scriptures, and that before any man of differing judgment from them in Church affairs, appeared in the cause upon such termes; that any man (I say) on this side of malignancie, should consult the sorrow, trouble, disgrace, suppression, ruine of men, so holy, so harmlesse, of such eminent desert in the cause of Religion, State, Kingdome, me thinkes should exceed the line of humanity, and be thought some inspiration or suggestion from the great enemy of mankind.

Neverthelesse, if either God, Reason, the peace or safety of the Kingdome, require the sorrows or sufferings of these men, I make no question but they will be willing to dispense with all considerations whatsoever that stand up to plead their immunitie, and will with Isaac patiently suffer themselves to be bound, yea and to be offered up in sacrifice also, if need be. Onely their humble request and suit is, that they may not be sacrificed upon the service of the ignorance, vain sur­mises, needlesse jealousies, bitter suggestions, whether of a few, or of many. Better a thousand times is it, that such distempers as these, though found in millions of men, should suffer, were it never so deep, then that the least hair of the head of one of those men should fall to the ground.

One A. S. (it seems) is come forth with a band of one and twentie [Page 86] Reasons, to attach the liberty of these men, and to seize the fredome of their consciences, and comforts for the use of the Presbytery, though his word be, For God and his Countrey. But let us give him an unpar­tiall hearing of what hee hath to say: If the Presbyterie hath right either to the liberties or comforts of these men, God forbid that any man should deny them unto it.

Wee shall take the Allegations into consideration, in that order that himself presents them, in p. 61. 62, 63▪ 64, 65. of his Discourse; de­siring the Reader once more, to reade the tenour of them more at large from his own pen, because I intend my Answer with as little transcribing as may be.

To the first we answer: first, that we are no wayes able to compre­hend, A. S. his first Reason a­gainst Tole­ration, An­swered. why, or how the toleration of the Apologists and theirs, should open any doore to all sorts of erroneous opinions, any whit more then A. S. his entertaining of a sober and discreet servant to wait upon him, should open a door to all the Kings guard to become his houshold at­tendants: or then an allowance of provender to his friends horse, should open a door to all Prince Ruperts troops to rack and manger with him. Nay, secondly, wee are verily perswaded (and that upon good grounds) that the granting unto the Apologists a free exercise of their Ministery, will (under God) be an effectuall means both of chasing away of many erroneous opinions, which are (for the present) fighting against the truth of God amongst us; as also of preventing the coming on of further supplies from Hell unto them. A. S. himself gives them this testimony, pag. 70. that whoever knows them, knows well they want no abilities to dispute their opinion in any Assembly in Europe. Men of their abilities, being sound and orthodox in their judgements withall, are Carpenters prepared (as it were) on purpose by God, for the cutting down of the horns of false doctrines and opinions, if they be suffered to work.

Thirdly, (and lastly) if the worst should come to the worst (as the saying is) better a door opened to all sorts of erroneous opinions, yea, and to many other inconveniences greater then this; then that the guilt of any persecution, or of any evill intreatings of the Saints and servants of God should cleave unto a people or State.

To your second Alledgement, why no Toleration for the Apolo­gists, Answer to his second Rea­son. we answer; first, that the very constitution of it is but super­stitiousness of fear: The shadow of the mountains seem men unto you. It may breed factions and divisions between persons of whatsoever relation, &c. Judg. 9. May (the countrey Proverb saith) comes but once a yeer; but that May [Page 87] this Proverb speaks of, must come so oft; but A. S. his May, may pos­sibly not come in an age, no nor in many generations. And would he have so many thousand of the dear children and servants of God, as do Apologize in the Land, actually and out of hand, be compelled to eat their bread in darkness, to be filled with heaviness, and many of them (it is like) to perish by hunger, nakedness, &c. for the honour and exaltation of his May be?

The man speaks as if he had been bred of rocks, and suck'd the milk of Tygres.

Doth he not deserve to be beaten with his own rod? and because his writing books may cause many troubles and distractions amongst us, not to be tolerated to have pen, ink, or paper any more?

Secondly, I would know of him, whether hee deemeth himself to be of another Religion then the Apologists, because he dissents in judge­ment from them about Church-government. If so, he must deem him­self eithe Arminian, Papist, Socinian, or worse; if not, then Candorem tuum A. S. in that malignant expression, whereby you would make simple people believe, that the father and the son, and so the husband and wife, are of different Religions, when they do not walk in the same way of Church Discipline.

Thirdly, why should such a difference as this, at least a liberty thus to differ, without smarting on either side, breed factions or divisions between persons in relation? Doth the wilde Ass bray (saith Job) when he hath grass? or loweth the Ox over his fodder? Surely persons are ne­ver Job 6. 5. upon better terms of advantage to agree, then when contentment is injoyed on every side. Or in case of such a difference as we speak of, if it be matter of discontent to one party, that the other is not of the same practice with him, you may confidenly believe that the mis­carriage in this kind rests on the Presbyterian side; the spirit thereof inordinately lusting after unity in practice, viz. whether either there be any unity in judgement or no, yea, or whether there be any ground for it or no, on the dissenting side. You may prophecie of troubles and distractions likely to arise in families and other relations, with some­what the less danger of miscarrying in your predictions, if you ani­mate or incourage those that are, or shall be of your party, to make the fray. As I have read a story of a Wizard in France, who foretold the death of the Duke of Burgondie upon a certain day; and to make [Page 86] [...] [Page 87] [...] [Page 88] himself a true Prophet, when the day came, murthered him himself.

4. Suppose A. S. should have the Apples given him which his soul lusteth after, and no toleration granted, would there not be as much, if not more, reason to fear factions and divisions between Magistrate and Subject, Husband and Wife, &c. as otherwise? If God should not incline the judgement, or not satisfie the conscience of the one of these parties in relation, concerning the lawfulness of that Go­vernment Presbyteriall, which wee suppose (for argument sake) to be established without a toleration of any other, would not the party agrieved and burthened in this kinde, be (in all likelihood) worse company for the other, more troubled, more discontented, and every whit as much divided, both in judgement and practice from him; yea, and more divided in affection, discontentment being one of the grea­test enemies that are, to love, union, and peace? Were it not a thou­sand times better, and more conducing unto unity in affection and peace, rather to suffer the discontented party to marry then to burn, I mean, to injoy the freedom of their conscience, rather then to be per­petually kept in an iron chain of spirituall discontent? We cannot but know that relations were incumbred with such factions and divisi­ons, as A. S. speaks of, even whilst the mountain of Samaria stood, I mean, when Episcopacy reigned, when yet there was no tolera­tion of Pluralities of Church-government (though of Church-livings there was.)

5. Nothing is more frequent in and about the City, then for mem­bers of the same family, to address themselves to severall Ministeries from time to time, the husband to hear in one place, the wife in ano­ther, the childe in a third, for their better spirituall accommodations respectively, yea, and sometimes to communicate with severall Mini­sters, without the least breach or touch of discontentment on any side.

6. And lastly, It can hardly be expected, especially in this King­dom, where the godly and understanding party have so long suffered, and that in extremity, from a peremptory imposed State-government, without any relaxation or mitigation, and have lately tasted the un­expressible sweetness of ease, peace, and liberty of conscience, that they should without extreme discontent be brought back into another house of bondage, where the furnace of peremptory subjection is like to be heat every whit as hot, as in the other. Excellency of teaching, and that abundant light of the knowledge of God, which hath shined from the Ministery amongst us, into the hearts of many thousands, have made the conscience very soft and tender in many. And where [Page 89] conscience is tender, a little violence is a great torment to it.

To A. S. his third reason, to prove the intolerableness of a Tole­ration, His third Rea­son Answerd. wee answer, that the inward parts of it are but vanity and falshood. For, 1. It supposeth that malignant supposition we spake of, viz. that Presbyterie and Apologisme, make two differing Reli­gions. 2. That there is no State in Christendome, where there is one only Religion established, that will admit the publike exercise of any other; which is manifestly untrue, as is notoriously known in France, the Low-Countries, &c. 3. And lastly, it supposeth, that Apologisme, in case it be tolerated, must needs become a Schisme in that Religion which is established in the Land. Wee conceive, that every difference in judgement doth not make a Schisme in that Religion which is pro­fessed on both sides; we shall then finde abundance of the weed grow­ing in the Presbyterian field it self. I my self know differences not a few amongst that party; and some not of the lightest consequence. Or, if his meaning be, that the practice of it, in case of a Toleration, should become a Schisme from the Presbyterian Church or Govern­ment, wee answer, 1. That as yet wee have no Presbyterian Church or Government amongst us; and so, if the toleration be granted be­fore such a Government be established, it is apparently [...], out of the reach of such an imputation for ever. 2. If it be not a Schisme before, and without a toleration, I do not apprehend what influ­ence or aspect a Toleration should have upon it, to make it one. 3. And lastly, I conceive him to be an incompetent Judge, uncapable of knowing or determining what a Schisme is, who acknowledgeth his ignorance or non-knowledge of what a Church is, which is a A. S. his Profession or confession (which you will) pag. 21. And in this also we confess our ignorance, that wee know not wherein consisteth its essence or being (speaking of a Church) I cannot believe that he should perfectly know the nature of darkness, that is ignoranant of what be­longs to light; nor that he should know what death is, who is igno­rant wherein life consisteth; nor that he should know what a schisme or rent means, that knows not what belongs to the unity and intire­ness of the body. The rule among the sons of Reason, in all such cases as these, is this; Rectum est index sui & obliqui; And again, that en [...]ia privativa cognoscuntur ex suis positivis. &c.

Your 4 ^th Reason, is rather somewhat else then a Reason; a confes­sion His fourth Reason An­swered. of the dimness or weakness of your sight. I cannot see (say you) how (a Toleration) can well be denyed to other Sects, if it be granted to our Brethren: But,

[Page 90] 1. Do you remember, how you quip your Brethren (as here you call them) for a like expression us'd by them, pag. 41. If yee see no Scrip­ture for it, yet others (you tell them) may see. So here wee tell you, that though you cannot see how a Toleration can well be denyed to other Sects, if it should be granted unto your Brethren, yet others may see how very well it may. Bernardus non videt omnia.

2. It is much that you should not be able to see such a thing as this, who have such command over your eyes (as was noted formerly) as to see what you will. Is it a matter of such profound and difficult spe­culation, to conceive, how hee that hath the keeping of a door with lock and key, and bolts to it, should let in one man that knocks, with­out letting in all comers?

3. Whereas you determine it to be a Question inextricable, to expound cleerly, what sects and what opinions are to be tolerated, and what not, do you not prevaricate with your own cause and confidence, and put the Ma­gistrate to a stand, whether he should tolerate your opinion for Presby­terian government, or not? Nay, do you not put him out of all hope of ever coming to a cleer resolution of what is his duty to do in this kind? For what patent can you shew from heaven, why this opinion of yours should not abide the test and triall of that law, which here you impose upon others? I believe there are very few, either Sects or Opinions amongst us (in both w ^ch notwithstanding we abound more then is for our comfort) that either are liable to more considerable and materiall exceptions, or that have been dealt with by an higher hand of opposi­tion and conviction, then this of yours. And why any one opinion which is in the same or greater condemnation of unsatisfactoriness and ambiguity, then others, should magnifie it self to rule all others with a rod of iron, and to break them in pieces like a Potters vessell, equity or reason, (for my part) I know none: and I fear A. S. him­self is as poor in this commodity, as I.

4. If it be so inextricable a Question, to expound cleerly, what sects and opinions are to be tolerated, and what not, how will you do to sway your Presbyterian Scepter with judgement and equity? How will you know what opinions donare Ecclesiâ, to make free denizens of your Church, and what to disfranchise? By your own rule it is an inextri­cable Question, cleerly to determine what opinions are to be tolerated, and what not. And if the Question be so difficult above measure, to deter­mine what opinions are to be tolerated, and what not, it must needs be yet of a farre more difficult and weighty consideration, to resolve what are fit to be countenanced, to be established, yea, and yet more, [Page 91] to be imposed, to be inforced upon the judgements and consciences of men, and what not; toleration being an act of a farre lighter impor­tance, then either an establishment, or an enforcement.

5. And lastly, whereas he addes (in the close of this reason) that the lesse the difference be, the greater is the schisme, and addes no more; I mar­vell who he thinks will entertain such a saying, the old Writ of Ipse dixit being out of date long agoe: yet the saying somewhat confirms me in what I said before, viz that the man knows not what belongs to a schism. For doth he here by a schism understand any thing that is sinful? Then he makes the lesser difference from the truth, to be a greater sin, then a greater would be. If his meaning be, that the lesse materiall the ground or reason of any mans dissenting from a major part be, the greater is his fault, or sin, in dissenting; We answer, that his Argu­ment proceeds, not onely a non concessis, but also a non concedendis: for to dissent from a major part, though the grounds of a mans dissent be no matters of deep consequence, yet if they be such wherein his judge­ment and conscience are not satisfied, his dissent is no sin at all, and con­sequently cannot be the greater sin. Gnats must not be swallowed for any mans sake more then Camels.

To his fifth Reason we answer. First, that suppose God in the Old His 5 reason answered. Testament granted no toleration of divers Religions, or disciplines, doth it follow from hence, that you should grant none neither? Dare you say in matters of knowledge, authority and power, Ero similis Altissi­mo, you will be like the Highest? Remember the fall of the son of the morning. Will you set your threshold by Gods, and compare with him for excellencie of knowledge, or infallibilitie of discerning? If you could assure us, after the rate of a divine assurance, that that Religion and Discipline which you would impose on us, are in all points sound, and justifiable in the sight of God, we could much better beare the height of your indignation against a toleration of any discipline or opinions but your own.

Secondly, though God granted no such toleration (as you speak of) in terminis, yet he straightly prohibited all manner of violence, op­pression, and hard measure among his people one towards another; and in speciall manner charged it upon the consciences of the rich, not to take any advantage of the povertie of their brethren, to exact upon them, enslave them, and the like. Though such Lawes as these, in the letter of them, respected onely civill transactions and dealings be­tween men, yet the equitie and spirit of them extends to spirituals al­so, men being every whit as liable to violence, oppression, and hard [Page 92] measure from men for their conscience sake, as in any other respects, or upon any other grounds whatsoever. Therefore in case there had been a minor party in that Nation, that had been of a peculiar judge­ment by themselves, about the sense and meaning of such or such a Law, relating unto practice (as Lawes generally doe in one kinde or other) and so had dissented in this practice from the major part of their brethren in their Nation; in case this major part had taken the advan­tage of their brethrens weaknesse, and because they were fewer in number, should have forc'd them, against the light of their judgments, to alter their practice, or if they refused, should have troden and trampled upon them, or any wayes evill intreated them, it had been as apparent a breach of the Laws we spake of, as any oppression or vio­lence in civill proceedings. And the truth is, that for men that are tru­ly conscientious, civill liberty (as it is called) i. freedome from ille­gall taxes, impositions, exactions, imprisonments, without libertie of conscience, is an accommodation of little value; yea, without this, such men are not capable of much ease or benefit by the other. They are still in danger of being in trouble and molestation from the State, for their conscience sake.

3. Though God gave no such toleration (as you speak of) by a law, yet he did actually tolerate for a long time together with much pati­ence, not onely a minor, but a major part of the Jewish Nation, in a manner the whole Nation, and that not only in some opinions or pra­ctises, which were disputably false or sinfull, but even in such which were notoriously and unquestionably such. [...] (saith Paul, Act. 13. 18.) He suffered (or tolerated) their manners in the wildernesse four­tie yeares; and afterwards in the land of Canaan, many and many a yeare longer, even till there was no remedy (as the Scripture somewhere speaketh. So then, if you be willing to follow the practice and exam­ple of God (an honour whereunto you seem to pretend in this Rea­son) you must tolerate your brethren, not onely in some opinions and practises which are dialectically and topically evill, but even in those which are demonstratively such.

4. And lastly, whereas you adde, that the New Testament requireth no lesse union among Christians, then the old did amongst the Jewes, we ac­knowledge the truth of what you say, but the pertinencie of it to your purpose, we yet desire. Though the New Testament requires union a­mongst Christians, and that very ardently and pressingly, yet it doth not require him that is stronger to cudgell him that is weaker into the same opinion with him. If you be of a better growth and stature [Page 93] in knowledge then we, and comprehend such truths as wee doe not yet understand, we are most willing, as farre and as fast, as meat and nourishment will doe it, to grow up unto you; onely we would not be rack'd or stretch'd to the same stature or proportion with you. We shewed in our second Chapter, what meanes the New Testament hath appointed and sanctified, for the effecting of the unitie amongst the Saints, which it requireth of them.

For your sixt Reason (so called) wee can scarce see the face of a His 1. Reason answered. Reason in it. You say that if your brethren do assent to your Doctrine, and are resolved likewise to assent to your Discipline, which shall be established by common consent, they need no other toleration then the rest. If your meaning be, that in case they assent to your Doctrine, and are resolved to assent to your Discipline, viz. immediately and out of hand, as soone as it comes from under the hammer, and hath but the stamp of Presbyteriall Au­thoritie set upon it, we are clearly of your mind, and doe not conceive, how or why they should need any other alteration, then what others have. Onely we somewhat marvell that you should so farre forget your selfe, as to imply (by this your expression) that even your Presbyteri­an partie it selfe standeth in need of a toleration, as well as ours. Jam su­mus ergo pares. Truth (I see) is sometimes too quick and cunning for her adversaries. But if your meaning be, that a resolution in your Bre­thren (the Apologists) to assent to your Discipline, viz. when, and as­soon as they can possibly satisfie themselves touching the lawfulnesse of it, will exempt them from a necessitie of a Toleration, both they (we suppose) and our selves shall be very glad to heare such tydings from your pen. We make no question but they are as throughly resol­ved to assent to your Discipline upon such termes, as you can desire them.

That you adde, is very incongruous. It would first be discussed (say you) wherein they are resolved to dissent. First, we marvell who you meane should discusse that wherein they should be resolved to dissent: especially considering, Secondly, that they do not use to take up their resolutions beforehand, not so much as to dissent at all, much lesse wherein or about what they shall dissent. Thirdly, how should they resolve beforehand, wherein, or whereabout to dissent, except they could prophecie of your future thoughts and resolutions?

You would further have it considered (but you tell us not here nei­ther by whom) whether it be of so great importance, that in consideration thereof, they dare not, in good conscience entertain communion with you. We scarce understand your English, or meaning, here; and therefore if we [Page 94] answer besides your mind, your words are in fault. We grant that o­ther men of good abilities, consciencee and learning, may draw up a very satisfactory resolution concerning such or such a case, or pra­ctise, about which I am scrupled; but it will not follow from hence, that therfore this resolution wil be satisfactory unto me, or that I with a good conscience may walk by it. Though the particular reason or reasons, one or more, upon which the Apologists shall refuse to enter­tain such a communion with you, as you mean (or at least should mean, if you speak any thing to purpose) should be by never so many, and upon never so much consideration, adjudged as insufficient, or in­considerable to cause any such refusall in them; yet this will not im­pose a necessity upon them to joyn in communion with you, except you can make them capable of a sufficiencie of reason in such a resolu­tion why they may with a good conscience submit unto it.

To your seventh Reason we answer, First, that though the Apolo­gists His 7. Reason answered. should not be pressed to be actors in any thing against their consciences, yet there is a necessity lying upon them to be suiters for a toleration, (I mean, in case it will not be granted them without suing for, which would be a greater honour to your Presbytery, then the contrary pe­remptorinesse is like to be) viz. that so they may be actors of good, according to their consciences. Suppose A. S. had bread and water, wherewith to subsist, but withall had a good sum of money due to him, and that from one that was very well able to make payment, or otherwise had an opportunitie to preferre himselfe to some place of profit, credit, or the like, if hee would but become a suitor for it, would he thinke that he had no need either to require his money of him in whose hand it lies, or to sue for such preferment? The Apolo­gists conceive there is a necessity upon them, to save the souls of o­thers, yea of as many as they can lawfully purchase an opportunity to save, as well as their own. But,

Secondly, we know not by what authority or interest you under­take to secure them, that they shall not be pressed to be actors in any thing against their consciences. It may be you are but of the ordinary Presby­terian stature and pitch; and so your mercies, though somewhat severe, yet possibly may not be very cruell: But (saith the Scripture) in those dayes there were Giants in the earth, as well as men of the common Gen. 6. 4. standard; so wee feare a partie amongst you of Hyper-presbyte­rian spirits, whose Spring-tides may swell beyond your Low-water marks. But,

Thirdly (and lastly) we conceive this promise of yours to them, [Page 95] that they shall not be pressed to be actors, &c. to be broken by your selfe seven times over in your discourse, and by others of your party from time to time. To consent unto your government, is (doubtlesse) to act against their conscience; otherwise they had no reason to dissent from it. And whether to threaten them with a non-toleration, toge­ther with all the evils and miseries attending thereon, yea with paying for it in their purse and persons, in case they will not consent unto it, (as some others of your party have done) be not a pressing of them un­to it, we leave unto men, whose judgments are not wholly swallowed up in the gulfe of Presbyterian zeal, to determine.

To your eighth reason, we answer, that wee finde very little heart His 8. Reason answered. or face of reason in it. The strength of it (whatever it is) lies in this hypotheticall proposition: If it be against the nature of the communion of Saints to live in Sects apart, without communicating at the Lords table, then ought not the Apologists to bee tolerated. But, &c. But good A. S. doe you conceive the men would under a toleration, live with­out communicating at the Lords table? I know not what communi­on you have with their intentions of spirits, more then I: but for the present, I am no man of your beliefe herein. Toleration or no Tolera­tion, I beleeve they will communicate at the Lords Table, and that oftner then twice a yeare.

Secondly, if living in Sects apart be so offensive to your zeal over the communion of Saints, why do you not rather mediate a Toleration for them, then oppose it? If you shall suffer them to work with you, they will be so much the more free to eat and drink with you, and to exercise all manner of Christian friendship and familiarity with you. But if you shall thrust them into holes and corners, and judge them unworthy of all part and fellowship with you in the publick Ministe­ry of the Gospel, you impose little lesse then a necessitie upon them to live apart, and to enjoy themselves amongst themselves; and besides represent your selves unto them as no wayes desirous of communion with them. Therefore in this reason your premisses and conclusion are at utter defiance the one against the other

As for your ninth reason, it is every whit as wilde, and wide from His 9. Reason answered. the purpose as the former. For what if the Scripture exhorts us ever­more unto unity, and this unitie cannot be easily procured by a Toleration of Sects; doth it therefore follow, that godly, learned, and orthodox men, such as being encouraged, though at an under-rate, are (as was for­merly shewed) both able and likely to doe as good service against Sects, as any men, are to be barr-hoysted, quash'd, crush'd, onely be­cause [Page 96] they cannot say, A vision, where other men say it? The Scrip­ture exhorts unto many things, which are not to be procured by eve­ry thing that is lawfull, no nor yet by every thing that is otherwise necessary and fitting to be done. Were not this a ridiculous reasoning, The Scripture exhorts to live godlily in this present world; but this cannot be procured by eating and drinking: Therefore eating and drinking are not to be tolerated. Apagecruentas nugas!

Whereas you adde, that a Toleration of Sects cannot but daily beget new Schismes and divisions. We answer, first, that this allegation we have answered already once and againe: yet secondly, we adde, that many inconveniences, sicknesses, diseases, come by eating and drink­ing, yet are these to be tolerated in the world. Thirdly, we plead for no toleration of any Sect, (nor of any thing so called) but which may stand with the utmost that either A. S. with his pen, or his whole par­tie with theirs, can doe against them to suppresse them. Fourthly, we hav [...] [...] prov'd, that Apologisme is neither Sect nor Schisme, no more then A. Ssisme is. Fifthly and lastly, whereas you say, That a Toleration of Sects cannot but daily beget new Schismes, &c. We answer, first, that Gods toleration, or long-suffering towards sinners, doth not onely lead all sinners to repentance, but also bring many thereunto. And why should not mans toleration expect an effect answerable hereunto? Secondly, the disciples in the ship were as much afraid, that their dear Lord and Master had been a foule spirit, and would have sunk them in the Sea, as A. S. is afraid of a Toleration, that it must needs beget new Schismes and divisions daily. But as the feared Destroyer proved the experienced preserver of that ship and m [...]n, so may A. S. his feared propagator of Schismes and Divisions, bee found an experienced destroyer and dissolver of them. That means of all other, which hath God in it, is likest to doe the deed: And God (we know) was neither in the tempest nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in the still voice.

His tenth reason, being help'd, riseth up in this forme, If there was a His 10 Reason answered. greater difference amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, in the time of S. Paul, and yet they communicated together, and that by the Apostles exhortation, then ought not the Apologists to be tolerated. But true is the former, therefore the latter also. We answer, first, that the fabrick of your Argument is built upon a false foundation, or suppo­sition, viz. that the reason, why the Apologists refuse communion with you (you mean, I suppose, in your sacramentall actions) is, be­cause of the latitude, weight or degree of the differences in iudgment [Page 97] between you and them: whereas the reason of their refusall in this kinde, is the nature or particularity of the difference, together with your practice depending upon your opinion in opposition unto theirs, not the height, weight, or importance of either. A difference in judge­ment about the lawfulness of stinted forms of prayer, is nothing so ma­teriall or weighty, as a difference about the nature of Faith, Justifica­tion, &c. yet the lighter difference in this case, makes persons so dif­fering, uncapable of joyning together in Communion, in the use of such prayers; whereas the greater difference would not.

Secondly, if there were so many and great differences amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, as you speak of; and yet Paul no wayes perswaded or incouraged the predominant or major party amongst them, either to cast out, cut off, or suppress the underling parties, but exhorted them unto mutuall communion, &c. Why do not you content your self with the line of the same process, and in stead of dis­gracing, quashing, crushing, trampling on, only exhort the Sects and Schismes amongst you unto mutuall communion; and to the forbearance of Sects and Divisions? a practice which you do well to take notice of in the Apostle, but do ill to think that your own of club-law is better.

Thirdly (and lastly) nor do wee know any ground or good bot­tome you have for your assumption, wherein you affirm, that there was greater difference amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, then is between the Apologists and you. Old Ipse dixit is made to carry this burthen alone.

Your eleventh Reason is very corpulent, but less active; the chief His 11. Rea­son answered. ingredients of it being Abbots and Priors, Convents and Monasteries amongst the Papists, S ^t Francis, S ^t Dominick, and the Donatists, with whose opinion and practice, you say, the opinion of your Brethren too much symbolizeth. We answer, first, that Theologia symbolica non est ar­gume tativa. Angels and Devils agree in something: yet this agree­ment is no impeachment, either to the holiness or happiness of the Qui ut uni haresi suae a­d [...]tum [...]fa­c [...]r [...]t, cuncta­rum haeres [...] bl [...]sph [...]m [...]as [...]ctabatur, Vincent. Lyr. cap. 16. Angels. A. S. himself symbolizeth with Nestorius the Heretique in one property; of whom Vincentius Lyrinensis reporteth, that to make way for his own heresie [or opinion] hee fell heavie upon all heresies be­side. Secondly, whereas he affirmeth, that the opinion of his Brethren is not unlike to the Convents and Monasteries amongst the Papists; certain­ly the unlikeness between them is far greater, then that between an Apple and an Oister. We cannot but wonder, how, or in what respect, the man should conceive, that an inward, spirituall and notionall [Page 98] thing, as an opinion is, should be like a great building made of lime and stone, or a pack of die fellows in a fat Fraternity. Thirdly, where­as hee insinuates a hatefull similitude between his Brethren and the Donatists, who (hee tels us) separated themselves from other Churches, under pretext that they were not so holy as their own; We answer, first, that this insinuation will not so much as in shew touch all the Apo­logists however, because some of them (we believe) have no Churches of their own; and therefore they cannot pretend more holiness in them, then in others. Secondly, that neither in substance or truth doth it touch any of them, or their opinion. For, first they do not sepa­rate from other Churches, but only in such opinions and practices wherein they cannot get leave of their consciences to joyn with them; the one half (at least) of which separation, is made even amongst their Churches themselves, one from another; one dis­senting from another, not only in many opinions, but in some ma­teriall practices (as before was touch'd, and that from A. S. his own pen, no wayes partiall you may think in such a case.) Secondly, we would know whether A. S. himself and his party, doth not as much symbolize with the Donatists in that criticall property or practice we speak of, as the Apologists. For under what pretext do they se­parate from the Church of Rome, and from Episcopall Churches, but only this, that they think not their Churches, to be as holy as their own? If they separate from them upon any other grounds, it were not much materiall, though they held communion with them still. Yea, thirdly, if they do not think their Presbyteriall Churches more holy then the Congregationall, they are far more guilty of Schisme and Separation, then their Brethren here spoken of. For then they are at liberty in point of conscience, to come over and joyn with them; when as the other are in bands and fetters of conscience, and can­not pass unto them. Their Brethren would gladly come over unto them, but cannot: they can come over unto these but will not. It is the will, not the act, that makes Schisme and Separation. Fourth­ly, we do not see, as deep as you have laid the charge, wherein the Apologists do any whit more symbolize with Convents, Monasteries, or Orders, amongst the Papists, then you and your friends. You tell them, that all their Churches believe one Doctrine together with you, and that every one of these Churches hath one Minister, as the Popish Convents a particular Abbot or Prior. Wee pray you, do not all your Churches believe one Doctrine together? and hath not every one of your Churches one Minister? Wherein then lies the difference between [Page 99] you and them? or wherein do they symbolize more with Convents or Monasteries, then your self? Nay, (fifthly and lastly) as if you had quite forgotten your rhomb, you tacitely couple your self with those Popish Convents, Monasteries, and Orders, in one ignoble consi­deration, from which you acquit your Brethren. They only differ (say you to them) in this, that yee have no Generall, or any thing answerable thereunto, to keep you in unity and conformity; plainly implying, that your Presbyterians have, viz. their soveraign Judicatory. So that if this your reason should but take place, and be held valid, it is your Presbyterian party, not the party Apologizing, that ought to suffer the non-toleration you speak of; it being they, not these, that are the great symbolizers with S ^t Francis, and S ^t Dominick.

To your twelfth Reason, we have given answer upon answer for­merly; His 12. Rea­son answered. as first, where we considered of the examples of the Kings of Judah, and shewed how little they contribute to the claim of coer­cive power in the Magistrate, to take away Heresies, Schismes, Super­stitions, &c. Secondly, where we argued against such a power by se­verall demonstrations. Thirdly, where we gave an account also, how Toleration is no way either to Schisme, Heresie, &c. So that that there is not one apex or ieta of this Reason remaining unanswered.

The Logico-Divinity of your thirteenth Reason, consisteth in this His 13. Rea­son Answered. Enthymeme. If we have but one God, one Christ, and one Lord, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptisme, (whereby we enter into the Church) and are one Bo­dy, we ought to have one Communion, whereby to be spiritually fed, and one Discipline to be ruled by: and if so, then ought not the Apologists to be tolerated. We answer, that neither doth your inference or conclusion here at all follow from your premisses. We have all you speak of, one, one, and one; and in regard of that multiplied unitie, we ought (as you say) to have one Communion, and one Discipline; But first, not necessari­ly that Communion, or that Discipline, which are of Classique inspira­tion, no more then those which are either of Papall, or Episcopall re­commendation; because, though wee judge these two latter spirits more sphalmaticall, erroneous and dangerous then the first, yet wee cannot think, that either the Pope or Bishops, or both together, have so ingrossed the spirit of erreour and fallibility, but that they have left of that anointing more then enough to initiate all other Orders, Societies, and Professions of men in the world. Secondly, though wee ought to have one Communion and Discipline, yet ought wee to be led into this unity, by the hand of an Angel of light, not to be frighted into it by an evill angel of fear and terrour. Thirdly, that duty which [Page 100] lies upon all Christians, to have but one Communion and Discipline amongst them, is no dispensation unto any party or number of them, to smite their Brethren with the fist of uncharitableness, or to dis­mount them from their ministeriall standings in the Church, because they will not, or rather cannot knit and joyn in the same Commu­nion and Discipline with them. Nay, fourthly, that very tye of duty which lies upon all Christians to have but one and the same Commu­nion and Discipline amongst them, carries this ingagement upon them all along with it, to shew all love, to use all manner of gentleness and long suffering towards those that are contrary minded to them either in the one or in the other, since love is not only a sodering and uniting affection, but further commends the person in whom it is found, as one to whom God hath appeared, and who hath been taught by him. Therefore fifthly (and lastly) to make the ingagement that lies upon all Christians to have but one Communion and Discipline, a ground and reason why such as differ from others about these, should be evill intreated, suppressed, kept under hatches, or the like, is as if a man should plead that naturall affection which a parent ows unto his children, for a ground and motive why he should sharply scourge them when they are sick and weak.

His fourteenth Reason is of an unknown strength (at least to me) His 14. Rea­son answered. If I were a Magistrate, I should never the more know how to prepare to battell against the Apologists or any other godly person, for the sound of this trumpet. Surely, of all the rest, this Reason will never be accessary to the undoing of these men. However, let a poor man be heard in his cause. The Reason then with all the help it is capable of, riseth up but thus. If Churches have Disciplines or Governments different in their species, then the Churches must be different in their species also. But the consequent is false, since there is but one Church: Ergo, Apologisme is intolerable. They that can gather this conclusion out of the premisses, may very well hope to gather Grapes of Thorns, and Figs of Thistles. The consequent in this argument, which the Dispu­ter saith, is false, is this, Churches must be different in their species. If the meaning of this consequent be, that there is an absolute necessity, that Churches should differ specie one from another, the Disputant is in the truth, in saying the consequent is false. Or if the meaning be, that Churches ought to differ specie one from another, the same verdict may still pass upon it. But upon that supposition which is made in the Antecedent of this argument, viz. that these Churches have Di­sciplines or Governments different in their species, the consequent is not [Page 101] only true, but necessarily true: and that upon the Disputants own ground, which is, that all collective bodies that are governed, are dif­ferenced (specie) by their different governments. But be the Consequent, or be the Antecedent, or be the Consequence, be any thing, be nothing, or be every thing in the premisses, either true or false, why sho [...]d not the Apologists be tolerated, notwithstanding? Be the Sunne in Aries, or be it in Taurus, or be it in Capricorn, why should not A. S. be tolerated to write more books for the cause Presbyterian notwith­standing? I heare that upon the applause and approbation of this by his party, hee hath since put forth his hand to another; as Herod see­ing that his butchery upon James pleased the people, put forth his hand to Acts 12. 2, 3. take Peter also.

But is there nothing more in the Reason then this? Truly, if A. S. hides the treasure of his minde so deep another time, digge for it who will for mee. For this once I have taken pains to finde it; and have found somewhat which I conceive is like to it, if not Identically it. The man (I take it) would be here conceived to reason after this man­ner: If the Church of Christ ought to be ruled or governed, only with one species or kinde of government, then ought not they to be suffered, who go about to pluralize this government, or to set up a kind of government in the Church, specifically differing from the government more generally practised and established. Sed verum prius: Ergo & posterius: and consequently the Apologists being men that would do such a thing as this, are not to be tolerated. If this be the argument, this is the Answer. First, the con­sequence is lame, and halts right down; because, though the Church of Christ ought to be governed with one and the same kinde of go­vernment throughout the world, yet it no wayes follows from hence, that therefore that government which is more generally established and practised in the world, should be that specificall government whereby it ought to be governed. If this consequence were good, it would highly be friend the government Pontifician, but dissolve and destroy the government Presbyterian; because the Pontifician govern­ment, is, (or at least not long since was) far more oecumenicall, and comprehensive, then the Presbyterian either is, or is like to be. There­fore in framing this consequence, the man hath given sentence against himself and his own beloved opinion touching Church-Discipline; and hath put a sword into the Popes hand to smite as well the Con­sistorian, as the Congregationall government. And,

Secondly, suppose the government more generally practised in the world, be that very kinde of government, whereby the Churches of [Page 102] Christ ought to be governed; yet, except this government, both as touching the lawfulness and necessity of it, be sufficiently cleered to the judgement and consciences of those, from whom submission to it is required (an honour whereunto A. S. his government hath not yet been preferred by all his great friends) they ought not to be scourged with [...]s Scorpions, if they demurre a while about their submission thereunto; and in the mean season, desire to live under such a govern­ment, wherein they have double and treble satisfaction, both in point of lawfulness and necessity, above the other. Thirdly, and lastly, though unity and uniformity in government be very fitting and ne­cessary throughout the Churches of Christ, yet that the servants of Christ should fall foul one upon another, and the greater eat up the less for this uniformity sake, is no wayes necessary; especially con­sidering that God (as hath been formerly shewed) hath provided other means far more gracious, honourable and proper, for the bring­ing of the blessedness of this uniformity upon his Churches in due time. So that if there be any thing in this Reason, it is altogether with, and not at all against the Apologists.

To your fifteenth, wee answer, first, be it supposed, (which yet His 15. Reason answered. wee shall presently oppose) that neither Christ, nor his Apostles ever granted any toleration to divers Sects and Governments in the Church; yet did he or they ever grant a power to a major part of Professours in a Kingdom or Nation, to grind the faces of their Brethren, partakers of like precious faith and holiness with them, either because they could not in all points jump with them in their judgements, or because they endeavoured to keep a good conscience toward God, for following the ducture and guidance of their present light? If you will take without asking that, which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted you, you may very well bear it at the hands of your Brethren, if they humbly sue and intreat for what they never granted; especially considering that that which you take is imperious and high, tending to the annoyance and trouble of many; whereas that which they sue for, is moderate and low, only a peaceable standing amongst you, that they may be able to do good unto many. Secondly, if neither Christ nor his Apostles (as you say) ever granted any toleration to divers Sects and Governments in his Church, how come you and your Government to be tolerated, your Government being specifically di­versified from that of the Papacy (as is before observed) which is more generall and extensive then yours? If you have not a toleration for your government, either from Christ or his Apostles, we are doubtfull [Page 103] from whom, or whence you have it. Thirdly, doe you not by this reason build up the walls of Babylon, and strengthen the Papists in their bloody errour, against the reformed Churches, upon which they looke as schismaticall from their Mother, and in that respect think them no wayes fit to be tolerated, but to be suppressed both in their doctrine and government, yea and in case they will not be redu­ced to the principles of Rome, to be wholly extirpated and rooted out of the world? What can be spoken more to the heart of such ap­prehensions, and counsels, and resolutions as these, then that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted any toleration to divers Sects and Go­vernments in the Church? Fourthly, whereas you say, that they granted no toleration to divers Sects, do you not imply, that they did grant a to­leration to some one Sect at least, if not to more. And how know you whether the Sect of Apologisme (in your improperating stile) be not that Sect, or one of those Sects, to which Christ and his Apostles (it seems) granted a toleration? Is it not (I appeale to your judgement and conscience) as like to be this as any other? Fifthly, we willingly grant your conclusion in this Reason, sensu sano; that there is no rea­son why the Apologists should sue for a toleration, no nor yet properly, why they should be tolerated (toleration in propriety of signification, as was formerly noted, being rei malae, appliable onely to that which is evill) but rather why they should be countenanced and encouraged. Therefore if you think that they shall sin in suing for a toleration, you shall doe well to prevent that sin in them (and perhaps shall withall prevent a greater of your owne) by declaring them persons worthy not of a toleration, but of encouragement; or at least by procuring them a toleration, that they may not be put upon the tentation of suing for it. But sixthly and lastly, to the main frame of your Reason: what doe you think of Sinite utrunque crescere, Let both grow together untill the Harvest, Matth. 13. 30. Is not here the toleration granted which you deny to be granted? Non laclacti, nec ovum ovo similius; If it bee not this toleration, certainly it is somewhat as like to it as like may be. You know who the Housholder is, that gave this order, laid this re­straint upon his servants; otherwise the 37. verse will informe you. And who doe you think should be meant by the tares? You will not say, the good sons of the Church, at least so acknowledged by their Mother. You cannot say (with reason) the loose, vicious, &c. mo­rally disordered sons of the Church, because these were sown in the field before the Housholder sew that good seed therein (spoken of v. 24. and 38.) whereas the tares, which must be let grow to harvest, are ex­presly [Page 104] said to have been sown after, v. 25. And besides such wicked and vicious persons as these, at least as the danger and degree of their wic­kednesse may be, ought to be gathered out of the State (and then they cannot grow in the field till harvest) by the hand of the civill Magi­strate. Therefore thirdly (and lastly) you must by the tares, of necessity understand, such in the Church as you call Sectaries, Schismaticks, He­retickes, such as corrupt the purity of the doctrine of the Gospel, by erroneous and false opinions, or at least are look'd upon by the greater part of the respective Churches of Christ, as such. Which yet ap­pears further, by the reason which the Housholder renders unto his servants, why he would not have them pluck'd up, but grow untill the harvest, lest (saith he) whilest yee goe about to gather the tares, yee pluck up the wheat also. There is no danger of hurting or plucking up the wheat, i. the children of the Kingdome, v. 38. by punishing civill or morall misdemeanours of men; but if Magistrates or others shall be busie about plucking up Sectaries, Heretiques, &c. they will be in continuall danger of plucking up the wheat. First, because many truly pious and conscientious men, children of the Kingdome, may soon be drawne into some unwarrantable Sect and opinion: And secondly, such opinions as are sentenced by the generality or major part of a Church, as erroneous or hereticall, and so expose those that hold them to the reprochfull names of Sectaries, Schismatiques, Here­tiques, very often fall out to be the sacred truths of God, and the per­sons holding them forth unto the world, the best and faithfull est of his servants.

For your sixteenth reason, it concerneth others more then the A­pologists, His 16. Rea­son answered. to answer; the frame of it being an indignabund relation (whether true or no, caveat lector) of what hard measure the New-Englanders offered to some that desired to sit downe amongst them, because they differed a little from them in point of discipline. The men here charged, are of age to speak for themselves; and besides, want no abi­lities otherwise. I make no question, but if they had but the correct­ing of A. S. his Relation, they would be able to make more reason and equity of it, then without some correction or other, I am able to doe. But (to leave our brethren in New-England to their own Apo­logie) I would fain know of A. S. what he means to do with his story; or how he intends to bring it under contribution to his cause. For first, he doth not onely not approve of those proceedings, which he rela­teth, but is very passionate and intemperate in the very relation.

Is the man so full of the spirit of reprehension against such practises, and yet so full of the spirit of imitation also? Or what? Is his desire so great, to appropriate or ingrosse the power and practice of perse­cuting for difference in religion to himselfe and his own party, that he is not able patiently to beare the sight of either in others? If your brethren in New-England stumbled at the stone you speak of, persecu­ted (as you say) those that were approved by themselves both for their life and doctrine, meerly because they differed a little from them in point of disci­pline, you have a faire warning; take heed that you doe not stumble at the same stone also. They (it's like) justified themselves in themselves, in those proceedings, though they did not so in the fight of God; but if you, having condemned them in what they did, shall neverthelesse run the same course, you wil be both [...] and [...], both self-condemned, and God-condemned also, and so have no cloak nor shel­ter for your sin.

But you think it no wayes reasonable, that the Apologists, being of the same profession, (as you speak) should be suiters for a toleration in Old-England. We answer, first, if you speak with reference to those pro­ceedings immediatly before reported by you, you are more of the same profession with them, then your brethren the Apologists. These doe not professe persecution meerly for a little difference in point of Discipline; the world knowes who they are that do little lesse. Secondly, what though men of the same profession with them, miscarried for want of such light, as should have directed them in a better way; must this be a band of conscience upon them, to bow down their backes without any more adoe, and to suffer Presbyterian greatnesse to go over them, as the stones in the street? Nay thirdly, they have the more reason and ne­cessitie, in regard of such a miscarriage of their brethren, to sue for a toleration here; because by that miscarriage of theirs, they are awake­ned to expect and feare yet far harder measure from you and your par­tie, if they doe not bestirre themselves by some means or other to pre­vent it. He that feeles the smart of rods to be grievous, hath the more reason, not the lesse, to take heed of being beaten with Scorpions. Fourthly (and lastly) why should you any wayes be against your brethren suing for a toleration, when as there lies a necessity upon you to grant it or consent to it, unlesse you mean to steere that New-Eng­land course, which you have with so high a hand of indignation con­tested with, in this very reason? Except (haply) you have this ingenu­ous reach in it, for your reputations, that you would honest is precibus oc­currere, prevent all honest and reasonable requests with the early for­wardnesse [Page 106] of your bountie. If I could reasonably thinke this to bee your designe, I would seriously perswade with the Apologists to wave their suit for a toleration, and so to gratifie you with an honourable opportunitie of doing good, before you were provoked by any mans suit or motion to it.

But men that are subject to feares, are seldome sons of bounty. The bottome (it seems) of all that A. S. hath pleaded throughout his Discourse, against the Toleration of Apologisme, is a solemne fear that possesseth him, of being sent he and all his partie into some Isle of Dogs, if the congregationall men had but the upper hand over them. Omne ti­midum natura querulum. But I can hardly beleeve that the man is re­ally afraid of what he here pretendeth; (in which case he were rather to be pitied, then roundly dealt with) first, because himselfe confes­seth, that some of his brethren hold, that all Sects and opinions are to be tolerated, p. 6. So that in case these men should have the upper hand, he is assured of a partie at least among them, to secure him and his in that kind. Secondly, he confesseth again and again, that his brethren are very pious and holy men; and therefore certainly will not be so dog­ged as to send him and his into any Isle of Dogs. Thirdly, a poore tole­ration is as far from a superioritie of power, as rags are from the robe, or the dunghill from the throne. Fourthly, I doe not think that he knowes any such Isle as he speaks of, whereinto he fears to be sent, by the men of his indignation. Fifthly and lastly, if he should be sent in­to some Isle of Dogs, the soyle and climate might probably agree well with him; he hath learned (it seems) to bark and bite too, against his sending thither.

To conclude, for this Reason, Whereas feare indeed ordinarily makes men cruell, it is much to be feared, A. S. onely pretends feare, that so he may have a colour to be cruell.

To his seventeenth Reason we answer. First, that the Scripture doth His 17. Rea­son answered. not forbid all, nor any such Toleration as the Apologists desire. This was sufficiently shewed before in our answer to the fifteenth Rea­son. His proofe from Revel. 2. 20. holds no intelligence at all with his purpose; yea, it makes sore against himselfe and his Synedrion. For first, by the toleration or suffering of Jezabel, which is there charged as a sinfull neglect upon the Church of Thyatira, is not meant a Civill or State-toleration, but an Ecclesiastick or Church-toleration. This Church suffered false Doctrines to be taught in her very bosome, and her members to bee corrupted and endangered thereby, from day to day, without laying it to heart being a matter of that sad [Page 107] consequence) and without calling those to an account that were the sowers of such tares, broachers & spreaders of such opinions; yea with­out using any means, to have the truth soundly taught in opposition to such Doctrines. Both Pastour and people (it seems) slept together, whilst the envious man, by his Agent and Factress Jezabel, sowed these tares in their field. Such a toleration as this wee formerly shewed to be sinfull; and the Apologists are as much against it as you; so far are they from desiring it, or suing for it. They desire a Toleration for themselves and their Churches in the Civill state; not that the errours which spring up in their Churches, should be suffered to fret like gangrens, without being opposed by them, or be protected by the State. Secondly, whereas that particular Church alone is charged by Christ, with this toleration or sufferance of Jezabel, and not any more Churches, whether neighbours or not neighbours to her, nor any com­bined Eldership, or state Ecclesiasticall, made of the consociation of the seven Churches, much less any state civill, evident it is, that the care and power of redressing emerging enormities or evils in a Church in every kinde, is committed by Christ to every particular Church re­spectively, within it self. And so they that trouble the Church must (as you say) be cut off. But by whom? not by the civill Magistrate (if the trouble be spirituall) nor by the combined Eldership, but by the par­ticular Church it self, which is troubled by them, in case there be no remedy otherwise. Secondly, when you say, that there must be no such speeches among us, as I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, &c. nor that some are Calvinians, some Independenters, some Brownists, &c. And again, that we must all be Christs, wee must all think and speak the same thing, otherwise men are carnall, &c. (with some other good words to like purpose) we joyn heart and hand with you in all these things, and are ready to con­tribute the best of our endeavours unto yours, if yee will suffer us, to make the Tabernacle of God amongst us, according to this pattern which you shew unto us. Such expressions, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, &c. together with the names of Calvinians, Independents, Brownists, &c. are as un [...]un [...]able in our eares, as in yours, &c. But,

First, every man that saith, I am of Paul, or, I am of Apollos, is not to be taught by Thorns and Briars, (as G [...]deon taught the men of Succoth) to speak better, by fining, imprisoning, unchurching, or the like; but by soundness of conviction, and wholesomness of in­struction from the Word of God. The German [...] have a saying, That etiam in introne puniendo potest peccari. A man may sin in pu­nishing him that most of all deserves it. It is not enough for us [Page 108] to correspond with God in his ends, but we must keep as close to him in his meanes also. Secondly, whereas you say, we must all be Christs; surely there is none of those Sects you speak of, but are willing to joyn with you in being his, and in being called by his Name, rather then by any other. We fear, these unhappie sounds, of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, &c. are more frequently made of your breath, then of the breath of any other sort, or sect of men amongst us. Third­ly, whereas you adde, Neither hath the Church of God a custome to be con­tentious; the Apostle indeed saith, 1 Cor. 11. 16. that the Churches of God have no such custome; but he doth not say, that these Churches of God had any custome, to erect a Presbyterian throne, or a combined eldership a­mongst them, to keep them from contentions. Fourthly, whereas you tell us, that neither permitteth the Apostle Schismes; we tell you, that we have already told you (and that once and again) both in what sense he permitteth them, and in what not, and have shewed you our concur­rence with him in both. Fifthly (and lastly) in that you tell us, that we must not quit our mutuall meetings, as others do, and as must (you say) be done in a publique Toleration, we neither well understand the sense of your words, much less any purport in them to your pupose. We do not know what quitting of meetings there is like to be more, under a publique toleration, then is for the present.

Your eighteenth Reason is so Atheologicall, and unworthy your His 18. Rea­son Answered. cause, that the very naming of it might be Answer sufficient. A to­leration (say you) cannot but expose your Churches unto the calumnies of Papists, who evermore object unto Protestants the innumerable number of these Sects, whereas they pretend to be nothing but one Church. Will you redeem your selfe out of the hand of Popish calumnies, by symbolizing with them? will you turne Turk, that you may not suffer Turkish inso­lencies and thraldome? Surely you forget your argument insisted up­on in your eleventh Reason: There you make symbolizing with Papists, a reason against your Brethren and their Opinions, why they should not be tolerated; and here you make a defect or want in them of sym­bolizing with them, a reason likewise why they should not be tole­rated. It seems contradictions, inconsistences, impertinences, un­intelligibilities, sense, nonsense, any thing, nothing, will serve to make reasons against the poor Independenters (as you call them) why they must not be tolerated. Was not the consideration of your own, pag. 14. that the Devill evermore assaults more the true Church, the true Doctrine, and true Discipline, then the corrupted Church, her cor­rupted Doctrine or Discipline, a far better sanctuary for your Churches [Page 109] against those Popish calumnies you speak of, then a correspondence with them, to keep you in unity and conformity? But this Reason we have answered formerly.

Your nineteenth Reason, is very concise. In this you only say, that His 19. reason answered. of such a Toleration follows all you formerly deduced out of Independen­cie. And so it may without putting the world to much damage, or sorrow. When we cast up your deductions of inconveniencies out of In­dependency, wee found them counterballanced to the height with the exits from Presbyterie. If you poyse your wallet well, you will the end that hangs at your back the heavier. But for answer to this Reason, I refer the Reader to the former Chapter.

His twentieth Reason, is somewhat of a differing strain from the His 20. reason answered. rest. The ground and bottome of it seems to be, a desire of a plausible insinuation with the Assembly, under a pretence of jealousie over them, lest they should suffer in point of honour, in case his Brethren should obtain a Toleration. But first, good A. S. why must it needs be thought, in case it should be granted unto them, that it was extorted by force of Reason, or that all the Assembly were not able to answer your Brethren? This suggestion smels of worse blood about the heart, then all the Reasons hitherto; Fearing (it seems) that all ingagements up­on the Assembly in point of conscience to deny the Apologists a Tole­ration, might fail, and prove ineffectuall that way; hee seeks here to ingage them in point of honour, by way of reserve; telling them (in effect) that howsoever their consciences might favour the Inde­pendenters in point of Toleration, yet their credits and reputations would suffer by it. Yet let the suggestion be but a little look'd into, and it will be found to reflect no great matter of grace or commenda­tion upon the Assembly it self. For if no favour or courtesie can be thought to come from them, but that which is extorted by reason, and the deniall whereof they cannot answer, it is a sign that they are not, [...], i. easie to be intreated, full of mer­cy and good fruits, which yet the Holy Ghost makes the standing cha­racters of that wisdome which is from above. James 3. 17.

Whereas hee adds, that their opinion and demands are against all rea­son, and that sundry of them could not deny as much, and had nothing to say, but that it was Gods Ordinance. Wee answer, first, that what A. S. his standart is, whereby he measures Reason, we are not so well acquainted with him, as to know, but according to ours, this assertion of his opens seven times wider against all reason, then either the opi­nion or demands of his Antagonists. First, for their opinion, we be­lieve [Page 110] that somewhat more then non-sense or irrationalities, hath been argued by themselves in the Assembly for it: Is it like, that very learned men, and of abilities to dispute their opinion in any Assembly in Europe (which are A. S. own letters of recommendation on their behalf) should rise up to defend an opinion that is contrary to all reason? And somewhat like unto reason (at least so called, amongst our vulgar ap­prehensions) hath been said for it in the preceding part of this Dis­course. And secondly, for their Demands; though A. S. doth not in­form us what they are, or wherein that fiery contestation against all reason, which he findes in them, consists, yet we suppose, he means their suing for a Toleration, that high misdemeanor, for which he hath judged them now these ten times. Was it, or is it, or would it be against all reason, for the poor Protestant Churches in France, to sue for a Toleration in the state, if it were not granted unto them without suing? Or is it not much more agreeable to reason, that Protestant Churches should be tolerated in a Protestant State, then in a State Pontificiall; especially in such a Protestant State, of which they have so eminently deserved, as the Apologists and their Churches, and men of their judgement have done of this, as was briefly touched in the beginning of this Chap­ter? Or is it against all reason, that those persons in the Low-countreys, between whose judgements there is that known variety of differences in matters of Religion, and which concern the worship of God, be­ing not able so well to accommodate themselves for livelihood and subsistence in any other State, with the freedome of their consciences should desire a Toleration in that? Suppose those men of your judge­ment, of whom you speak, pag. 10. who were (as you there say) condem­ned to death for their Discipline, ready to be executed, and were afterwards exiled into forrain countreys; Suppose (I say) these men had desired a Toleration in their own countrey, of those who thus unreasonably dealt with them, had they violated all Rules and Principles of Reason by such a desire? But the truth is, that the assertion is so notoriously against all reason, that it is scarce consistent with reason to bestow so much pen in answer to it. There is but one only supposition to make either reason or truth of it; if it be granted, it may passe for both. If the desires of some Presbyterians be All Reason, and nothing rea­son but they, then both the Opinion and Demands of the Apologists, must be acknowledged to be against all Reason. But otherwise I know no principle or rule of reason at all so much as discourtesied by either.

Secondly, whereas you say, that sundry of themselves could not deny it, [Page 111] and had nothing to say, &c. First, certain I am, that some of them have absolutely denied any such confession. Secondly, the acknowledge­ment it selfe looks no more like any of the rest, then a meer fiction doth the Relator. I beleeve that upon inquirie it will be found a mis­prision of truth. For doth it not sound aloud incredibilitie, that men of sufficient abilities to dispute their opinion in any Assembly in Europe, should confesse their Opinion and Demands to be against all reason? But such stones as these are fit for A. S. his building.

Thirdly, whereas you say, that they could never shew (their opinion) out of Gods word; we answer, that they have often shewed it; but God and men (it seems) are not yet agreed to have it so generally seen, as is to be desired: but our hope is, that the agreement will be concluded between them in due time.

Fourthly and lastly, you conclude this reason, with this underta­king, that if it (your brethrens opinion we suppose you mean, though it's hard both here and in twenty places more, to know your meaning clearly) be refused, it will help to confirm the Churches, and the people in truth. We desire to know in truth of what? It will indeed confirme both marvellously, in the truth of Presbyterian fastnesse to their owne cause; but in what other truth it should confirm either the one or the other, we wait for our intelligence from you to know.

Your 21. and last reason (save onely those which you say you omit) His last Rea­son answered. is but a slip of your ninteenth, being somwhat that follows out of In­dependencie. But here you tell us, that the Government so called, cannot but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiasticall Government. Is Saul also among the Prophets? Haec verba loquentis ab ore, Gaudens arripio, & st [...] factus Numine, adoro. I joy over these words, and reverence them so [...]hat I conceive to be of God in them. Wee know who prophesied when he was not aware of it. Indeed, by the beauty and perfect consonan­cie of this government with the word of God, it may very reaso­nably (yea and upon higher termes then of reason) be thought that in time it cannot but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiasticall government, and stand up it selfe in their stead. F [...]xit Deus, & festinet.

But that which you adde in the close of this Reason, plainly shew­eth, that you had no mind to prophesie, though God had, or might have b [...] you: for here you say, that this order, by necessary consequence, will breed all sort of disorder. No, first, it will not breed the disorder of oppressing conscientious men for conscience sake: nor secondly, of discouraging men from searching the Scriptures more narrowly; not thirdly, of having recourse unto the word for the setting up of the go­vernment [Page 112] of Christs Kingdome; nor fourthly, of making men walk sundry miles for what they might have upon as good or better termes at home, besides a thousand other disorders, which the order of your In­dependencie will never breed by any consequence at all, necessary or unnecessary, being of a very soveraign importance to prevent them. And for your premisses (in the body of your Reason) by which you would fain make the match, between the order of Independencie, and all sort of disorder, they are but false brokers. The Independent Churches (as you call them) have no such custome, as for one to give entertainment or admission to any person, that hath been censured by another, without the censure first relaxed by that Church which inflicted it, or without the consent of this Church. This is their reproach, not their practice.

And thus we see that amongst A. S. his 21. Reasons, there is not one that will stand by their Master, when they are but a little put to it; there is none of them but with a little perswasion and debate, will wil­lingly enough consent to a Toleration for the Apologists. If the Dispu­tant himselfe, with his party, were but as tractable as his reasons, there need no more words be made about the businesse.

As for his after-birth of Reasons, (p. 65.) since he professeth him­selfe that he omits them, we shall comport with him herein, and omit them also; I hope he will think himselfe a debtor to us for this com­pliance. It seems that himselfe placeth no great confidence in them, in that hee mentions them as if hee mentioned them not, and thought them not worthy to be numbred amongst his first-born. His Horsemen (you see) have been overcome, and yeelded themselves: his Infantery knows the manner of the field, and will, no question, surrender with­out incounter. Nor is there any thing for weight or substance in this Tail of Reasons, but what hath been broken already in the Head.