Male Audis, Treatise

Male Audis · Treatise

p. 1MALÈ AUDIS.

CHAP. I.

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

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

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

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

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

CHAP. II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 17CHAP. 3.

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

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

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

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

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

CHAP. IIII.

Maſter Coleman and Maſter Huſſey their errors in Divinity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAP. V.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 41CHAP. VI.

Maſter Coleman's wronging of the Church of Scotland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 47CHAP. VII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAP. VIII.

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

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

Declaration.

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

THO. COLEMAN.

Interpretation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Errata.

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

FINIS.

End of the text · George Gillespie, Male Audis (1646)