Reply.

Your Question was accordingly put by you, and accordingly answered by me. And for my appearing for Truth not all at once in my Treatises, you may see I was not hasty to beleeve, nor to write in the behalfe of a Truth before I saw it, nor to plunge my selfe into any Way till I had ex­amined it. The Apostles waited for the full revelation of all Truth by the Spirits comming. The Bereans searched daily to see whether the things were Acts 1 & 17. 1 Iohn 4. 1. 1 Thes 5. 21. so, or no. Apollos preached not Christ clearly till he was instructed in the way of God more perfectly. We are bidden to try the spirits, and prove all things: So as I appeared in those degrees but by Scripture warrant. And I could name to you examples of another sort; Augustine, Luther, both finding truth but in degrees; and the latter sweetly acknowledging how he was enligh­tened by beam after beam. Angels, who lie more naked towards God, and take in the things they know, by way of Vision; yet see not any of that will of God which gives Laws to them, but as he reveales: Much lesse such as we who dwell in houses of clay, and whose foundations are in the dust, and who come by the sight of things discoursively, and by spirituall reasoning; God giving in the revelation of his Truths, in a naturall, yet supernaturall way.

But for that Notion of Independency you speake on, I dare not owne it, [Page 25] because I account my selfe both under a spirituall and civill Supremacy; under Jesus Christ and the Magistrate severally, and exempt from neither. We are not of those that despise Governments, and speak evill of Dignities; nor are we under any such singular Notion that I know on, to be called Independents, &c. We all hold of the Body of Christ, and of the Communion of Saints below; and we hold one upon another, but not one over another. We dare not be Classicall, Provinciall, Nationall; these are no formes of wholsome words to which we are commanded, nor know we any such po­wer; but that of Brethren, and Ministery, and fellowship. We dare not take out a Copy either from the States of the world, or the State of Israel, to obey or rule by under the Gospell. And if you can the Churches or Christ Independent for this, we must suffer till the Lord bring forth our righteous­nesse as the noon-day. Yet this you and we both know, that when Truth would not embody or mingle at any time with corruptions, it had present­ly the name of Sect, Schisme, Faction (all which are implyed in the name Independency) put upon it. Thus were the Reformed Nations of England, Germany, France, &c. scandalized by Popish Writers, and the old Noncon­formists by the Prelaticall; the Jews formerly by the Nations, & the Chri­stians by the Jews. We have heard enough of Independency and Presby­tery, such notes of distinction are now become names of reproach: and so I lay them downe.

And whereas you say, you will not entertaine me as an enemy; It is more likely then in the end, both you and I may prove a better friend to the Truth. It is possible many in this Age might have seen more, had they not east so much dust in one anothers eyes by their strivings: It were well such a Gospell spirit would walke more abroad, and that spirit which casts men sometimes into the fire, and sometimes into the water, were not so stirring. Well, since you will be no enemy to me, I shall not, I hope, contend with you, though I dare not but contend earnestly for the Truth. And the Truth it self which I write for, may (I hope) at length find you no more an enemy to it then you are to me. I cannot [...]ut wish, one of your experience and abi­lities, like Pant, to preach for that Truth which before he destrayed. Our hearts desire and prayer should be for any of Israel.

And for that you say of me in your Observation, that I am rather opini [...] ­native then passionate, I cannot take it so ill from you that will needs be no enemy to me: I interpret any thing from such a one on the better side of it. But I shall allow you your liberty as my self: And if the truth of God may [...] more abound through my opinion (as you take it) unto his glory, I have e­nough. [...]

Answer.

For some things in my Book of Policy, I praise the Lord I can looke on them as on part of the darknesse I was in: And I can freely joyne with any in censuring any unregenerate part in me, as I esteem much of my carnall reason to be. When I was a childe, I spake as a childe; neither have I any fruit now (as the Apostle sayes) of some of those things. Nor would I have any goe thither for direction, but so far as they find Scripture or sound Rea­son. I cannot but give a Caution concerning this Booke, because I would have Readers to looke on any thing from me, as Luther speaks of himself, as I receive in light. And me thinks I scarse doe any thing which I could not, with Augustine, when it is done, find something to retract in it: either somthing is too dead, or too darke, or too carnall. Thus you see I willingly help you against my selfe; and I account it a part of my condition here, not to see all at once.

For the unseasonablenesse of my Quere, you alleadge the Declaration of Parliament, and the Covenant in Art. 1. wherein they are ingaged to en­deavour Reformation; and the Ordinances, &c.

Now, where is my unseasonablenesse? The Parliament is endeavouring, &c. May I contribute my moneyes, my vote, my paines my informations to the Civill ingagements, and not my notions to the Spirituall? Are we not to bring in all our disbursements, either Naturall, Civill, or Spirituall, into that publike Treasury? Though you of the Assembly▪ cast in of your abun­dance, may not the poore ones cast in their mite? Are we not by the same Covenant bound to discover any thing against God and the State, and the glory and peace of both? And if I find my conscience perswading me such or such a thing is not accordingly, ought I not by all the Obligatious that are upon me, of Gospell, Parliament and Countrey, peaceably and meekly to speak a word? May we discover any thing to the State we conceive of ma­lignity or danger in Civill things, and not in Spirituals▪ Is not the Spiri­tuall or soul-liberty▪ the more glorious liberty of the Subject? We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard, saith the Apostle: And▪ What Acts 4. 20. you heare in the eare, that speake you on the house top, saith Christ. We know who it was that said, Prophesie not here; for it is the Kings Chappell. And Amos 2. 13. for things of a Spirituall nature, we are allowed almost the fulnesse of time for season: Be instant in season and out of season, saith Paul.

But, What better season could I come in, then such a one, wherein things [Page 27] were but ripening and moving towards establishment? Where nothing is setled▪ there can be nothing disturbed. Where nothing is concluded, there can be nothing repelled. Where nothing is established, there can be nothing disordered. But since you put me to a further account, I shall give it. My Spirit was not my own so wholly then, but his (I hope) whose motion I obeyed, the Lords. Such breathings of Heaven who dare safely quench? It is as fire in the bones, saies the Prophet: and like that of Mordecai, If thou altogether hold thy peace at this time, &c.

And whereas you say, that the Parliaments determinations are finall, That holds better for me, who might have spoken to much lesse purpose, had I stayed till all had been done, and the determinations ended, and be­come finall; sure it was time then to speak before determinations were final, or never, and by your own account too; for you are pleased to reckon up the proceedings of State in the businesse of Religion; which are such, as had I stayed, I had had a worse season; however, as the Prophet saies, I have delivered my soule: they were, you know, the foolish virgins that came not with their oyle till the doore was shut. Whatever my Oyle or my Lamp was, yet I think it not agreeable to the wisdom of that Parable, to come and knock only when the doore is not open.

Reply.

I have gathered up into one bundle your pieces of a lighter concern­ment: I would not stay tything Annise and Cummin, but I hasten to the weightier matters of the Law. A word only to each.

For baiting my Quere with Truth and Peace, you allude to Christ's alle­gory, that we are fishers of men: and if I have no worse things to bait with then these two, Truth and Peace, none need, I hope, be afraid of the hooke. And for the proof of them both, argument and time will evidence.

For me, a private Divine, to put a Quere of State and Religion. What were John Hus, Wickliff, Luther, Paphnutius, who in their severall ages gave out their testimonies? They were but single men, compared with Councels and Synods. Not that I would compare with them, who am lesse then the least of all the mercies of God; yet they were but single, though sin­gular men. And what if a private Divine? Jesus Christ may bid a private man stand and speake to the people. There is a Law of the Spirit commands to speake as well as the Law of a State; and though you speak by the later [Page 28] Law, another may speak by the former. And what though a Quere both of Religion and State? Is not our Covenant mixt accordingly of Religion and State? Doth not the State it self mix with Religion where Churches are Nationall? And how can I speake properly but to both, where both are in interest?

For my suggestion of a suspition of haste; you know; words and phrases are not the same to all: one may interpret thus, another thus. I had no thought of Jehu's driving, as you imply, when I wrote. I must lay the sup­posed crime at your owne doors, for it is none of mine; nor have I (nor any) reason to tax that Honourable Senate, whose Counsels are grave, and seri­ous, and deliberate. Had I lookt for Jehu, I should have lookt to another coast and quarter, where they drive more furiously. Why deale you not more candidly? Why are you not more faithfull in your interpretation to the Originall?

For that of my taxing the Ministers for desiring power; none have rea­son to speak but the guilty, it concernes not the innocent. It is not strange for some Ministers to affect Government, or rather ruling: we have so much of Prelacie yet left, and working in the Countrey with us; and if not in the City too I refer you to Master Coleman.

For the word rendred from the Originall metaphorically, I quoted only the Text, to my remembrance, to the Printers hand; and how he came by the metaphor, I know not; but I find fault as well as you: However, to make the best of it now; translations of Scripture are not all Grammaticall, as you know; nor to the letter, as I could wish them with you.

For Artificiall Colours, or Rhetorioall; &c. You make me guilty of such vernish as I have not laid on, to my knowledge; nor have much to lay on, if I would: Truth and Peace, which were my subjects, are faire enough of themselves, without any colour of mine: And I desire not to bring forth either, but in the evidence and demonstration of the spirit; and if there be any thing of their own beauty there, call it not artificiall, put not suspitions▪ and jealousies into any, that such things as they see are not so, to make men Scept [...]call. It is as much injury to Truth and Peace to misreport them, as to counterfeit them.

And for your logicall marshalling my reasons, I thank you, you took more pains with them then I would doe. Notionall order I received them in. Nor dare I be too logicall and notionall in things divine. Systems and formes▪ of art, have done our Divinity some harm: Such Classes and methods of rea­son have been found too strait for the more spirituall enlargements of truth. Yet I honour your Learning, though I▪ thus speake.

Reply.

Since you will help me to prove you are welcome: You have furnished me with one Argument more: You are a fair enemy, to lend out your own weapon. And now you have made your Argument half for me, I shall make the other half my self. You say,

What the imposers of Government cannot doe in Faith, is sin: This is your half Argument. But you take it for granted, Our imposers of Government are not such, but such as are fully perswaded, and can set up the Government in faith; and you prove it thus, from those of their Counsellors so near them, and from their Scripture-discussions.

First, I know not what Counsellors you mean; but they are too wise a Senate to be carried by any interest but their owne; and I wish them no other Counsellors then Truth and Peace: nor doe I know that they are so fully perswaded of any such Government. I beleeve some of them are not so fully principled for your way, and then they all are not perswaded so of the Government: nor have you yet been able to make out the evidence of every truth you presented them from cleare Scriptures, saving your Art of deductions, and consequences, and prudence: and if all cannot be perswa­ded that State-conscience, or Publike conscience, is not so wholly nor fully per­swaded: then, as you imply, a State or Publike conscience is like a Particular conscience; which if it doth not wholly consent, is doubtfull, or weake; for it is not in Spirituall things as in Civill: Votes of major parts make laws, and they stand good from any such forms of Policie: but I never yet saw that rule in the Gospell for any such proceedings in spirituall things: but that is a Law in Christs Kingdome, not that which is voted so, but that which is so in the truth of it: For else Popery were the best, for it hath most voices and coun­sels. So as unlesse you can prove the Parliament to be of one minde in it, how can you prove a Parliament so fully perswaded in minde as you imply? Let them prove a Truth by most voices that please or can; but I wish the businesse of a State-conscience, in a thing of this nature, were more enqui­red into then yet it hath been.

But if the Parliament were fully perswaded of the truth of the Govern­ment, yet there would be a new question, yea▪ and is very learnedly discus­sed by our worthy Brethren, Master Coleman and the Commissioner, how they could be perswaded of the imposing, and power of setling. For my part, if there must be an imposing of Government (for I would have the State­consciences left to their liberty as well as Particular, and yet Truth to have [Page 30] the liberty of accesse unto them) I would have the power of the Parlia­ment laid up there: we have had too sad experience when it hath been given out from thence, and trusted too far. Paul referred himselfe thither, ( I stand, saies he, at Cesar's Judgement-seat) rather then to the Councell of the Priests and Elders. Christ had more favour from Pilate a Roman Go­vernor, then from Caiaphas the Priest.

One word more. How can the Parliament properly be said to be fully perswaded, &c. unlesse they could freely signe it with a Jus divinum, or di­vine Right? Nothing but Scripture and the Word, can properly fully per­swade. Now if they cannot find so much Scripture as to warrant it for Christ's Goverment, how can there be a purely Gospell-warrantable, a full perswasion, or faith, where there wants a word of faith to secure it?

And now I shall forme your Argument, you halfe made to my hand thus, and return another with usury.

Your Argument is this:

Those that set up a Government which they cannot be fully perswaded on, cannot but sin.

But, the Parliament cannot be fully perswaded of this Government:

Therefore, if they set it up they cannot but sin.

My proofe is this in behalfe of your Argument.

That conscience which is not wholly consenting, is not fully perswaded.

But, such is the State or Publike conscience, viz. not fully consenting at this time:

Therefore, the State-conscience is not fully perswaded.

Reply.

Some of this might have been spared. Let us have as much reason, and as little reviling as may be. Your reason is, because then neither Protesta­tions nor Covenant of State can be administred; for some will alwaies scruple. So as here is the force of your reason; Because Protestations and Covenants in the State are put upon a people unwilling and malignant, there­fore Government should.

First, a truth of Government, and the establishment of it, is but indirect­ly, unsutably, and disproportionably proved from Oaths and Covenants. Indeed, under the Old Testament, and in the State of Israel, Covenants were more agreeable to the way of that Church; they were part of the Worship then; and it was a way of obligation and engagement, fitted more to the Policie of that Nation: They were a People or Nation of them­selves, singled out from the world, and marked by a carnall Ordinance: And their Discipline was fitted to the whole Nation by God himselfe; and so Covenants, &c. gathered them up from the world into their Nationall way of Worship, &c. But now, the way of Church and Worship changing, and the Laws of such kind of externall Pedagogie ceasing, and a more inward and spirituall Law comming in, you might have done well, [...]re you took things thus for granted, to cleere the way of Covenants under the Gospell, and not to prove one probable thing by another. Those of your way are against a little Church Covenant, and why not a great one?

For the imposing of Protestations now, &c. It is not my work here to discusse; nor am I against any way of State-security, that may consist with [...]ound Prudence: and for the spirituall part of them, wherein men covenant in the things of God▪ let every one be fully perswaded in his own mind: That is the Apostle's rule, I am sure, what ever any say to the contrary, and will stand. In civill things, I would have any way or designe of assurance that is fairly and justly Politick: in spirituell things, only such waies of assurance as are Gospell-waies, and may sure with the New Testament-beleevers.

And now you are to prove more then perhaps you thought on; that is, to cleare a Church-covenant, which many of your Way are against: for though you condemne it in some Churches, not of your Way; yet a Nati­onall Church-covenant you plead for. And how can this be both true and false, that a great Church-covenant is lawfull, and a little one unlawfull? A Nationall Church-covenant lawfull, and a Particular or Congregationall Church-covenant unlawfull? This only by the way: To shew you how one may mistake his way in a mist: you were proving a Government, and now you are engaged to prove Church covenants, which you are both for and against.

And yet, after all this of Protestations and Covenants, there is no faire proofe of establishing a Government, or imposing it in your way and designe [Page 32] from these. It is not safe going to the State for a Paterne for the Church. If the State in certain seasons of unfaithfulnesse and unsettlement, con­trive any way of security and assurance (necessity is often a law maker in States, yet not so in the Church) will you from hence argue for a liberty in the Church? Will you make necessity your Gospell, your Law-giver there? Necessity is sometimes a suspender of laws in the Gospell, but no law-maker.

Reply.

These are good words; and I hope you shall have no worse then you bring: Yet we must speak truth.

Reply.

You grant then that the Government is but in some parts warrantable by the Word; So was Episcopacie and Prelacy in some parts of it. There is not any false Worship or Way, but it hath some parts of truth in it. The great Image had a head of gold. &c. The Mystery of iniquity sits in the Temple of God, &c. The Whore of Babilon sits in Skarlet decked with gold, and preci­ous stones, and Pearles. Truth must be all one and the same, and homogeneal, not in parts. The Jews had not the Law, but then their own traditions mingled. There is one Lord, one Faith; not two.

Reply.

But, Why of lesser moment? All things are of moment of spirituals. In­deed, if they be such as be not the Gospel▪s, they are then, as you say, of les­ser moment: and yet of moment too, in another sense; for, Traditions of men make void the Commandements of God.

Nor are the grounds of Prudence any Scripture-grounds to rule by. Prudence hath let in more Will-worship then any thing. Prelacy had its Pru­dence for every New additionall in Worship and Government: And if Pres­bytery take Prudence too, let the Reader judge what may follow.

And what is that, Not directly from Scripture, yet not repugnant? Sure­ly Christ's rule is not such; he opposes any Tradition to the Commande­ments of God. Not directly from Scripture, is repugnant to Scripture: Such is the onenesse, entirenesse, indivisibility, and essentiality of the Truth. He that is not with me, is against me.

[Page 33]And for the Reformed Churches as a rule; that is to set the Sun by the Dyall, and not the Dyall by the Sun. We must set the Churches by the Word, and not Church by Church, and the Word by the Church.

Reply.

To your first, It belongs not to the people, &c. It seems then the people must be kept out from all intermedling. But I would have the people mark well what kind of Government that is that sits upon the waters or people: I am sure Christ's Government takes in the people: and being once in a Church-way, they lose their old capacity for a new, and are raised up from People to Brethren, Act. 15. It is a worthy saying of Master Goodwyn and Master Nye, That the Clergie got the golden ball of Government a­mongst them; and I censure it is not much mended in the Presbytery.

But you say, The people must be instructed, that is, they must only know that they must obey. But they are called, and consulted with, and owned, as the Scripture holds forth, where ever there is any Church spoken of? But what though instructed? They are only to be instructed and taught that this is the Government to which they must submit. So the people under Popery, Prelacy, &c. were instructed, with that limitation and restriction. But shall they be thus instructed and taught in it? People, here is a Government which to some of us seemeth to be a Government according to the Word; take it and examine it: if you be so perswaded, and that the Word holds it forth clearly, embrace it; if not, do not obey anything in blind and implicite obedience. This were faire dealing with Conscience; thus the Churches of Christ had their Government among them.

To that of the peoples compliancy you speak on, it is not my work here to dispute the Interests of Elders and People distinctly▪; but to make answer, that the complyancy and submission which are the duties you set out for [Page 34] the people, are such as they may easily see the Interest you allow them: viz. an Interest of compliance only, and submission or obedience to what is done al­ready not any liberty to examine and refuse.

And when people are instructed, still your work remaines to prove your Presbytery over Congregations, or a Church gathered out of a Church to be over a Church; which may upon the Presbytery more justly be recriminated then where you do so often recriminate, upon gathered Churches. And me thinks to me it is unreasonable to taxe any for church-gathering, when your very Presbytery is maintained by such a kind of principle. What is your Classicall, your Provinciall, your Nationall Presbytery, but a Church gathered out of the rest, call it a virtuall, or representative, or what you please?

For that of Meeknesse; how meek it will prove, and how meekly they shall be dealt with under it, we are not to judge by any promises of Meek­nesse, but by Principles. Are the Principles such as naturally bring forth Meeknesse, or rather such as invest the Ministers and Elders with a power supreame and of dominion? But what if such as your self, and some other god­ly meek of your Way, may propound nothing but waies of meeknesse to your selves? Can you undertake to secure the people for hereafter, and for all of the Way, and for the Way in its own nature?

There are things of meek appearances, as the Presbytery may be, yet prove not so. The Lamb in the Revelation had two horns, though a Lamb. Hazael could say▪ Am I a dog, that thou shouldest think so harshly of me, that I should kill the children in the womb, 2 King. 8? He as little suspected his own cruelty, which the Prophet foresaw in his nature would come to passe as you do in your Presbytery, which some, seeing into the nature of it, can­not but prophesie accordingly. You know Episcopacy began in meeknesse, and Bishops were brought in first for good and for Peace: But how proved they? Tyranny had ever a countenance of Meeknesse and Love, till it got sea­ted in the Throne. So Absolon was very faire spoken in the Gate; but how was he in the Throne?

For that of my Dilemma of sin and misery, which you say people shall not be put upon; it may be some in your or another Classis may find more meeknesse, a spirit of more love and ingenuity: But what is this to the nature of the Government, that some in it are well natured?

And for that of sin and misery; surely if the Presbytery be set on with power, many a one will be in that snare, partly in feare, and partly in an ea­sie complyancy: For there are whole Parishes and Counties of this constitu­tion: And you your self say, The wilfully weak must have the rod. And who will this be? Such as are so in the judgement and interpretation of the Classis? or how? I would this were well cleared.

And for your Scriptures of 1 Cor. 4. 21. 2 Tim. 2. 25. Shall I come to you with a rod, &c. and in meeknesse instructing, &c. These are full Scriptures for [Page 35] ordering any Church government: These are good Laws; but then men must be rightly in Commission for ruling by them, and people rightly ordered and disposed for such rules, as in all other Laws and Kingdoms. But what is this to your purpose, till your Government appeare to be all Christs?

To that of the ignorance of the people, which you would have for a reason of expedition rather then susponsion, that they may practically know it; I answer:

In practicall godlinesse, the Scripture-way is not so: Things must first be known, before practically known, or else the obedience can be but mixt, blind, and Popish. Who can practically obey, taking practically in a Scripture-sense, that is, with knowledge, till they know and be perswaded? Indeed in things civill, &c, or morall, practice may bring in knowledge; habits may be acqui­ [...]ed and gotten by Acts; a man may grow temperate by practising tempe­rance, and civilly obedient practising civill obedience: But it is not so in Spi­rituals, there, habits go before acts, spirituall infusions before practices.

And for the amiablenesse of it, look into other Reformed Kingdoms, and see what power of godlinesse is there by reason of it. Do we not see the huge bodies of Nations very sinfull, corrupt, formall? For Scotland, our Brethrens preaching and watchfulnesse, it may be more powerfull in a Reformation up­on them, then their Government. And further, I deny not but a Government of that nature may much reforme the outward man: So may a meer pruden­tiall Government, a meer civill Government, if sincerely executed. The Ro­mans had a very moral people under their Yoke, when their laws were well executed. Prelacy and Bishops had a Government which was Antichristian, yet by an exact execution, could chastise the outward man in some measure.

For your other reason: That my Texts make against not only the sus­pending for a time, but for ever; I answer.

It is true, Principles and circumstances considered: For if neither the Government be Christs, nor the people Nationally a Church, when can you settle it? And if there be no Gospell-promises, that people shall fall in so na­tionally as the Iews did, excepting some that concerne the world in general, as Isai. 49. 22. then how or when will you settle, or what will you settle, or upon whom?

And for the Texts you commend to me for preaching, 1 Thes. 5. 12. &c. they all concern peoples obedience to their Elders and Rulers; they are very materiall and pertinent to that: And I shall in requitall commend some o­ther backe to you; as those of not lording it over the Heritage: Against pre­eminence; as helpers of your faith; of service, and ministery: We are your ser­vants; we entreat you, and beseech you, not seeking our own things, not for fil­thy lusre, but of a ready mind, &c.

We must consider, Scripture must be taken in the wholenesse and entire­nesse of it; and we must not only mind people of their obedience, but Elders [Page 36] and Ministers of their service, duty, Ministery, humility, self-deniall, &c. And thus in a just distribution, deale out both to Ministers and people their measure.

Reply.

Not so strange as you make it; for we are covenanted to endeavour a setting up the Government, not a Government; that is, as it is expounded in the Article, the Government, or Reformation according to the Word of God, &c. not a Government or Reformation of any other sort. So as I plead for a delay only in setting up a Discipline, not the Discipline: or more plainly, that the Discipline be such, that the covenanters may not violate that Ar­ticle, wherein they are bound to do every thing according to the Word, and so prove unfaithfull in their covenant, while they are most zealous for it. There was such a kind of mistake in the Jews, who would have stoned the Lord of the Sabbath in zeale to the Sabbath, and following after righteous­nesse, yet did not attain to the righteous­nesse of God.

And for the title of Popery which I put upon such obedience; which you say cannot be, because discovered in the next Article of the Covenant: I ans­wer, The Popery is not in the covenant, but in the Interpretations upon it, and the mistaken practice of it, which is the thing I only aver. O! How soon may we be Popish under a Covenant against it! What are the main­tenance of Ministers by Tythes? Jewish and Popish undeniably, and yet no notice of this at all. I had as great a Tythe once as another, but I could not hold it so, neither by Covenant nor Gospell. Nor do I taxe the Parlia­ment, but those who are betrusted to commend Spirituall grievances to their Senate, &c. Brethren, let us lay down these grievances: Countries and Famalies are burdened: Let not the Ministers have their hooks abroad in every thing of the peoples, like Elies sons. We know the Kingdoms of Scotland and the Netherlands take their Tythes to maintain their wars, and will not let their preachers live by decimation, bur by pension. And methinks you that professe ingenuity, should be so candid to distinguish where you see I distinguish, and not to force on constructions of this na­ture, which neither any thing of mine nor the Covenant will beare.

And for what you say concerning the composers and penners of the Cove­nant, I am willingly silent: I would not aggravate any thing against a Bro­ther, as you are, which might be only a failing in your Pen.

Reply.

To your first, That instructions must go before, I have answered to this before, as you expounded it before: One word more will suffice. What kind of instruction is it you mean, but authoritative compulsive instruction, such as the Schoolmasters, even your own instance, and here most pertinent, who teaches and whips every one of those that will not understand as well as he? Something an unreasonable way of correction in matters of pure be­leefe and conscience, and best amongst boys, as your instance implies: Men of Scripture-consciences cannot beare it.

And for that you say it makes against Doctrine as well as Discipline: Yea, in some sort it is granted; for neither Doctrine nor Discipline ought to be forced but in a Gospell-way.

And for that you say it makes against the Parliament, because they make Statutes: I answer, Nothing makes against a Legislative power, which reduces it to ruder, and clearer, and free▪ Principles. And thus the Parliament very justly argues in all their Remonstrances touching the King, while they go about to reduce him to his just Rights, from those exorbitances he suf­fers himselfe to be brought into. For instance: He that wishes the Parlia­ment might only proceed in a way, not grieving the Spirit nor hazzarding the persecution or Truth, nor oppressing any Gospell-principle, to which they are covenanted, not keeping on in any sin of former Parliaments, of severe imposing in matters of Religion so controvertible: Is not he, I say, that so wishes, a better friend to Parliaments, Laws and Statutes, then those of contrary Principles? Nay, I must professe that to me that very one Article of Reforming to the Word of God, most providentially inserted, is an Article of Caution, both against imposing and punishing, lest through want of a cleare discerning, we be found▪ violaters of that we covenant to maintain, and ought to be sadly considered by all.

Reply.

To your first, That the fault was in the choyce of a wrong Government, &c. I answer: That is the feare now, least there should be a choyce of a wrong Government, and so the same fault should be committed again: And this very Government hath no Image of Divine Right upon it, nor hath it warrant in all things from the Word, as your self acknowledge.

To your second: That Doctrine and Discipline go together, &c. Yea, pure Doctrine and pure Discipline go rightly together; and if either be impure or unsound, there is so much the more danger: So as this is an Argument rather against you, because where Doctrine opens the conscience, and lets in any thing of Discipline but that of the pure Word, there is one evill on­ly mended with another.

And for your instance of a Schoolmaster, who both teaches and corrects: You know we are not to prove but to illustrate by similitudes: And that of a Schoolmaster is a fitter illustration for the Pedagogie of the Law, and that Discipline then the Gospels: You know the Apostle uses it only to that; The Law was our Schoolmaster, &c. Gal. 3.

To that of your description of the Government, that it is a curb, a goad, &c. I answer; There is nothing you say of Government in these words, but may be said of any civill Government, nay, of Prelacy, when it was in its primitive form. But that only which you ought to say, and that which only differences it from all devised forms of men, as your Covenant binds you, and ought to be your only reason for erecting and setting it up, is this: Is it the Scriptures form or model? Is the people so in the exercise and capacity of it as in the Gospell times? If so, then you prove something. And further: All this you say is true in a kind too of Christs Government; but yet, in some sort communicable with devised Governments. The only distinguishing and essentiall marks are not to be a curb and goad, but the Scriptures only mark and image, and some spirituall operations, &c. which no other devised form of man hath.

To your other, of the blessings and blessed fruits in Scotland that there is no Heresie nor Schism there, Let Master Coleman (our learned and pious [Page 39] Brother) speak for us both, from his experiences. And for that Kingdom, time will shew whether it will prove to be a blessing or no, to want that which you call Heresie or Schism. Surely to be free from Heresie and Schism, in a Scripture sense, it is such a blessing as the whole Gospell can­not patern. What? No Heresie in a whole Kingdom? No Schism in a whole Kingdom? Never such a pure Church heard on? Corinth, Ephesus, Colosse, Jerusalem, Antioch, all not comparable? The worst I wish our Bre­thren there, is, that all were so pure as we heare on. Indeed Scotland had the honour to awaken us first in the work of Reformation and Liberty; but lest Scotland should be puffed up, England shall have the glory (I hope) to improve that liberty to a fuller light, which some would close up too soon, in the narrownesse of a Presbytery.

Methinks there is something of this nature considerable in the Luthe­rans, who though they follow the first Light in Germany, yet the Lord hath suffered them to stick there without a fuller Reformation, that the first may be last, and the last be first; For if a State be covenanted so close to the Word, they had need be favourable and free to all that are accord­ingly covenanted; for each mans conscience is the Interpreter in himself of what makes for or against the Covenant he takes; and by this very Co­venant, you are all to be tender to consciences, because the Spirit of God (not power of men) can intterpret the Will of God; but in their civill and prudentiall things only, they may interpret themselves.

To that of Job, That with the ancient, is wisdom and with the gray-head­ed; which you apply in way of reproach to the younger, whom you call as it were green-heads: I answer, That the elder I esteem as fathers, and the younger we know are such in whom the Lord speaks more gloriously, as he himselfe saith; Your young men shall see visions, and upon your sons and daughters I will powre out my Spirit, your old men shall dream dreams. Now whether is it more excellent to dream dreams, or to see visions? The Lord delivered Israel by the young men of the Provinces. Surely we may more safely hearken to the younger that see visions of Reformation, then to the elder that dream dreams of it only.

Reply.

To that of the disproportion (you speak on) of times, and conversion, &c. I answer:

[Page 40]The Apostle's and Primitive times are the times we are to looke at for a patern and modell. 'Tis true, there is great disproportion; for they were Apostles who gave the government then; yet are but private Divines, as you say by me, if you be compared with them.

For that of the conversion from Paganism to Christianity:

There is no such disproportion there neither, but that very proportion which our Saviour hath himself foretold, and set forth: For how doth a Iewish and Antichristian State differ? Nay, how doth a Heathenish or Paga­nish State, differ from an Antichristian or Parochiall State, as Parochiall or Parish is in that notion? Christ hath put them that are out of the Church under that very notion, Matth. 19. 17. and the spirit in the Revelation makes the Antichristian State to be as unlawfull as a Paganish, and cals out equally from that as from the other, as by comparing, 2 Cor. 6. 17. Rev. 18. 4. toge­ther will appeare.

So, as speaking of things and notions, I cannot but speake in a Scripture way nor am I uncharitable in this neither, though I thus speak; I looke on thousands in this State as godly beleevers: It is not the Pastors I write against, but the way. There may be a Moses in Pharaohs Court; a Ioseph in Po [...]phar's house; a Cornelius, or devout man, though out of the Church; a Luther even in Rome, till the Lord enlighten.

So as government and discipline is a Churches right, and priviledge, not the worlds and Nations priviledges, as so and then. Where are all your quoted Texts which are applied? Surely that of Corinth, is the Churches; and that of Ezekiel, and Proverbs, makes not for the discipline of a Church at all.

Reply.

To that of the similitudes:

I fully agree with you, they illustrate better then they prove.

To that of not carrying a conformity betwixt materials and spirituals too high:

I agree with you in that too, yet not so fully; for Iesus Christ the great Prophet of the Gospell preached the glory of the Kingdome in materiall com­parisons, in salt, water, leven, mustard-seed, sowers, husbandmen, vines, vine­yards, &c.

To that of spirituall buildings, which you say are to be made up only of squa­red living stones:

I agree with you, and here the controversie might be ended: If your Temples shall be of living stones, the controversie is granted: But because I will not seem to mistake you, I beleeve the spirituall building you mean, and I, are not the same here: You mean as it appears, the invisible spirituall, or Church mysticall; and yet there, all is not so Homogeneall, and of the same kind neither: The head of the body is both God and man, and one member like one star differs from another in glory.

But, we are speaking of the spirituall building or Church here, which is the Image of the Church above; and as that is of true, reall, essentially spiri­tuall living stones: so the Church below is to consist at least of such as visibly and formally appeare so; and therefore the Apostle cals them in his Epistles Saints, and called to be Saints.

And to that of your peeces of Rubbish in the materiall building:

It is true; But what is that to Salomons Temple, which my comparison drives up to? How much Rubbish can you prove in that type, nay, square stones, pure Cedar, gold, &c. to figure out the Gospell-building or Temple, as in Heb. 9. So as your rubbish is only in your owne allusion, not in mine.

To that of your unpolished stones in your Parishes which may fit the Temple now; I answer:

It must be then only such a building as the materiall one you speake on, which is made up of rubbish and broken peeces: and if that be according to 1 Cor. 19. Eph 2. 19, 20, 21, 22. Christs patern, let these Scriptures in the margin, with many more, deter­mine.

And for their submitting indeed, there is a nationall, blinde, traditionall obedience in them, I cannot call it Gospell submission.

To that of the best stones not to be taken out to make up a building, I answer:

I am sure we are to take in no ill, unhewne, unpolished; and the Scripture cautions and practise are cleare, &c. then judge you what the stones must be.

Nor doe we so picke and chuse as if all stones were to be square alike, or equally polished; that is, not in any materiall building: Though we would take in no rubbish, yet we take in stores differently squared. As in the body one [Page 42] member differs from another; the eye, and hand, and foot, &c. and members lesse honourable, 1 Cor. 12. so in the body of the Church, every one according to his measure, and as every one hath received.

Nor do we stand so for the first polishing as you pretend. You make as if we set up such degrees of perfection as were only the degrees of the in­visible or mysticall body, when it is meerly in the degrees of visible Gospell­perfection. By this you would make the carnall to abhor, and the weaker to stumble and be offended; as if the doore of our Churches were not open for any such whom you imply, were of a temper meerly Spirituall, and of a size of our owne, not the Scriptures. Let the doores of our Churches be as strait as you imply, I am sure your doors are set open, or rather cast off the hinges: but a pure Gospel-entrance is neither too wide nor too narrow. We know there is smoaking flax, and bruised reeds, measures of grace: If they can willingly submit to Iesus Christ their Law-giver, and walk as members of the body; here they may receive polishing, and have honour, and building up, and many other degrees of perfection which the Saints of God obtaine when they are in fellowship with the Father and the Son.

To that of your challenge, that I should shew any such example in the New [...]stament of taking out the best, when there was a mixture of holy and prophane; I answer: Those were Gospel-Churches gathered by the Word and Spirit into Gospel-fellowship: and when you make your Parishes to ap­peare such Churches, then I shall tell you more: till then, I suspend your challenge. The world, and an Antichristian Nation, are both under Christs fan for gathering them out.

To that of a mysterious truth you speak on in the Axes and Hammers, I agree with you in that; and because of the mystery, I therefore quoted it. And whereas you summe up all the mystery into the soft whisperings and motions of the Spirit, you can hardly warrant us, or secure us that your inter­pretation is the whole mind of the Spirit, and that very interpretation of yours is part of it the very same I aime at, viz. to shew how the Gospel-building is softly gathered and made up by the Ministery of the Word and Spirit, and not with Axes and Hammers, tools of a compulsive, forcing, sharp, and autho­ritative nature, as &c.

Reply.

To that, If against a speedy Government, then against a Government at any time; I answer:

How doe you infer that? Nothing of those makes against the Govern­ment of Christ rightly constituted, and ordered and setled upon those called to be Saints. Indeed they make against any other Government at all times as well as now. Nor will there be alwayes such a people under Christs yoke as you thinke on. But you look further abroad then I, and in that we mi­stake one another. You looke that whole Kingdomes and Nations should submit, and I look only for one of a Tribe, two of a City, &c. Your Horiz [...]n and the Scripture's, for Government, are not equall.

To that of Christs nature and Government differing so much, and there­fore my Text proves nothing; I answer:

Every thing of Christ's bears the Image of Christ. Every Truth of His hath something of Himself in it, who is Truth it self by way of excellency: I am the Truth, saith he. Every beam of light is light: Then how can Christ and his Government differ so as you pretend?

Surely, if we observe well, there is not any Truth but it partakes of Him who is The truth, and is a beam or sparkle of him. Truth is Homogeneal, and not so unlike and contrary dispositioned and natured as you pretend.

And for your expounding the Text, He shall not strive, &c. as a Prophe­cye, you doe well in part; but you know Prophecyes have a latitude, and Scriptures have not only one main and principall, but many subordinate aims: so as though this Scripture concerne his sufferings principally, yet it doth in a latitude set forth the nature of Him who is Truth; & in Him we may see how those things which are pretended for Truth hold proportion.

To that of Christ the Head, and taking the Government of his Body, &c. I answer:

It is true, Christ is a Head, but he is not a Head to every Body. He will have a Body proportionable to his Head. Is a Nation of all sorts a fit Body for such a Head? Is he not a pure, holy glorious Head in his Gospell-dispen­sation? and is a Body so leprous, so wicked, so formall, so traditionally and [Page 44] Antichristianly corrupted, a fit Body? Shall I take the members of my body, saith Paul, and joyn them to an harlot, to make one flesh? God forbid. What then shall the Head do with such Members?

To that of His Ruling with a Rod of Iron as well as a golden Scepter, Psa. 2. Esth 5. I answer.

And doth He rule any in his Church with his Rod of Iron, who were not called in first by his Golden Scepter?

And for that of his Iron Rod in Psal. 2. that is spoken of Christ, not as King of his Church, but of Nations.

And that of Esth. 5. what is that Golden Scepter to Christs? unlesse you bring a Text only to prove that there is such a thing as a Golden Scepter in the Scriptures.

For your other Texts of Christs, being a servant and a Lord, a Lambe and terrible; you only prove what I grant, that he is more a King, and a Lord in his Government, then in any other of his Gospel-dispensations: But all this will not prove the Lordship of such a Presbytery or Government. Certainly you intend it a terrible Government, because you bring in those Texts that have all the judgement and severity in them which Christ threatens to the Nations and Kings of the earth, not to his Churches. Will you make Christ rule in his Church as he doth in the world? well, let your Presbytery enjoy the Iron Scepter, while the Churches of Christ enjoy the Golden; and try if you ruine not more then you rule, and break not more then you bow.

To that of Mat. 12. 19. 1 Iohn 5. 3. The yoke easie, &c they make not against a speedy, but a grievous Government; I answer:

I cannot expresse my selfe better then in your owne words; They make against a grievous Government, which is all I aime at in the Quotation. And whereas you say the yoke is not easie to flesh and bloud; so say I too, it is very burdensome, and the Commandements grievous to the unregenerate; and ther­fore I prove from hence, that it is only a fit and sutable yoke for the Saints, and a Commandement for them. And there is the same proportion of the out­ward government to the outward man, that there is of the other spirituall Laws in the Gospell to the inward man, and none but the Saints can delight in either. Men are to be spiritually moulded and framed to the Law of Gospel-discipline: that kind of Discipline is not like your civill Discipline: this way of Discipline you would have, is too Politick and Nationall; it takes in a people to subdue as the Laws of Civill Policie, which finding a people unsubdued▪ subdues them: So doth not Christ as we reade of; the dispensation of the Word (not the government) subdues.

And thus with much ado, you only prove them to be as I intended them, no Commandements for the mixed and unregenerate, or in a word, Christs go­vernment no Nationall government.

To that where you say, Nor hath his place any sober sense in it, Mat. 9. 17. [Page 45] The new wine will be alwayes new, and the longer delayed, the older the bottles will be; I answer:

I wonder that one of your experience in the Majesty of the Word, should be so pleasant with a Scripture allegory, because the Scripture is of wine. You jest on it, as if it had made the sense lesse sober: I am sorry my younger pen should reprove the aged for jesting, which the Apostle sayes is not conveni­ent. And truly it is not comely for the servants to play upon the Master of the Feast, or any thing in his house, especially upon his wine, which alludes so to his bloud, and which he hath promised to drink with us new in his Fa­thers Kingdome.

Nor will the wine be alwayes new to those that are renewed as they ought to be indeed; for your Parishes which you call old Bottles, I am sure the wine, or pure government, is too new for them.

Nor will the Bottles be older, as you say, the longer the government is delayed, if the power of the Word be there for renewing them.

But you say, What sense is this? What logicall connexion?

I answer, that shall appear there is sense enough, and connexion enough; and Logike enough, though I had rather have more Scripture and lesse Lo­gike; for all I aim at, is what the Scripture aims at, that the bottles should be fit for the wine, the necks for the yoke, and the subjects for the commands.

Reply.

All your proof reaches but to this:

1. That God dealt variously with his Church. They had first no written Word, and after, a written Word.

2. That Christ could have setled his Government by miracle, but did not.

3. That Christs delay of Government must be no more our example then his Baptisme.

[Page 46]My proofe was to shew there was no such morall necessity of the setling, because it was not setled. Now, what have you overthrown here? Not that Christ suspended his Government, and the se [...]ling of it; for, that you grant with me, and prove it more at large then I did: so as all your rest will be answered in two particulars.

1. To that of Gods Church and Government before his Word, &c. which you would insinuate as some advantage to your serling, &c.

What is that to Gods dispensation now, if there wanted a Word, there was a supplement of vision and dreams, &c. And I hope you will not goe before the Law, so much as you doe for a Patern: You goe too far when you goe to the times of the Law: You have a Prophet now to hear in all things, Act. 3. 22

2. To that of Baptism to be delayed as well as Government from Christs ex­ample:

I cannot dispute that here. Master Tomes will satisfie you at large in his learned Examen, where he hath made work for a whole Assembly; That he knowes not but it may be delayed till they be of years.

But, to answer you in your scope:

You bring this to prove, That Christ is not to be imitated in all things. I grant it. But what is that to prove that Christ setled not his Government when he began his Ministery, or Iohns? For the businesse on your part is to find out, either that the Government was setled before, or with the Mini­stery, or there was as much necessity of it as of the Word; but for some reason, and not from any thing in the nature of the Government, but some other ex­trinsicall reason it was delayed: Which ought not to take place now.

And this is yet to prove; all your proof summed up, reaches not to this.

But you imply, The will of God in his dispensations was the cause: But the will of God in his dispensations carries a rule of righteousnesse along with it, and of spirituall reason. And in Gospell dispensations and extrinsicall procee­dings of Gods will, you will find a rule and golden reed of righteousnesse mea­suring the Temple; and every dispensation, and even this of suspending Go­vernment hath its rule in the Gospell, that a word of obedience must precede and go before a forme of obedience, and a word of faith before the obedience of faith, and living stones before a living Temple.

Reply.

You prove here:

1. That Christ gave gifts when he ascended, and▪not any longtime in all his ministration and sending gifts.

2. That he qualified [...]s. Apostles for government and preaching.

3. That the government of Christ now so old, should be seen set up as in other Kingdomes.

4. That it proceeded by degrees in its setting up here.

Now all this thus gathered up, proves not any thing against my asser­tion, that Christ proceeded by degrees in his Ministery, and giving out his government; but rather strengthens my assertion.

And for your Arguments for setling, implyed in these particulars:

1. That Christs government was but a while in bringing forth, the years con­sidered.

2. That the government in the Gospel being now so old, might to be soone executed.

3. That the Paterns of it are in other Reformed Churches.

I answer to all these in as few words:

1. Prove your Argument first to be Christ [...], the particulars, and entire­nesse accordingly, and then I shall allow you your Argument; but you grant it to be but partly Christs, and partly the Assemblies, or of Prudence.

2. You must prove but the same againe, that the government you have, is the government, there withall Gospel-necessaries take in; else, though the Gospel-government be never so old, yours is but new; and this Argument is no better then the first.

3. Prove the other Reformed Kingdoms to be Reformed Churches, as Churches are taken in the Gospel, and their Paterns pure Gospel-paterns, which by your owne you acknowledge to be in part prudential or humane as well as Evangelical and Divine; and then your reason may have some force in it. Till then, you see with all you can doe, you cannot prove but Christs government was divers years in bringing forth by himself and his Apostles; and so by your owne account, you ought not to be before them, unlesse you assume fuller Revelations of truth then they did.

Let the Reader judge whether any of these makes for the setting up your government, or the taking down my reasons.

[Page 48]To your last; That this Reformation hath proceeded by slow pa [...]es and degrees.

What? Would you prove it by its slow proceedings to be Christs Go­vernment, and therefore to be setled? That were a strange kind of reason­ing: Because Christ proceeded by degrees in giving out the glory of his Kingdom here, therefore every thing that proceeds by degrees, is Christs Government. Here is some kind of Logick indeed, as you say, but no Scrip­ture: as for instance; He that saies such a one is a living creature, saies truly; He that saies such a one is a beast, saies he is a living creature: There­fore will it follow, He that saies such a one is a beast, saies truly; So, He that saies Christs Government proceeded slowly, saies truly; He that saies your government proceeded slowly, saies truly; Therefore, He that saies your government is Christs government, saies truly. What have you got now by your Logick?

Whereas you say in your second, Christ gave gifts and qualifications for government: I answer; If you and your Parishes have such gifts and quali­fications as in Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12. set it up when you please; if not what haste?

Reply.

You prove against me:

1. That people ought to be ruled rather then tried, &c.

[Page 49]2. That sometime is to be allowed for triall.

3. That the government hath been fluttering too long at West­minster.

4. That there is no danger to feare the Presbyteriall government, which hath abjured Popery &c. Dominion by Covenant.

5. That some of this is refuted already.

6. That my designe is to debarre it for ev [...].

7. That a new Star is a misleading star▪

To your first I reply;

It is true in civill government, rule there rather then trie: But what is that to Church-government, or Discipline? The rule there, is the will of God, which is the only rule in government, and legislative power in the Church; and that is, Trie all things before either you rule or be ruled.

To your second;

Some time you will allow (I see) for triall; but you ought not to measure and deale out time but by the Standard of the Word; and before you call for such quick obedience as you do, and as the Apostles did, prove your po­wer, and truth, and conclusions, and by such Apostolicall and infallible evi­dence, and then it is our sin if we submit not. And let the time you deale out not be like that of States and Armies in their Treaties, who are finall and peremptory in the seasons they set: You cannot set such time; the Spirit breaths when and were it listeth.

To your third;

What is that to the present Discipline what the Covenant abjures? Co­venant and Discipline are two distinct things; a Covenant may abjure in word, what yet a government may practice indeed.

Nor is it enough to abjure Popery in grosse, but in every part & parcell. And now having abjured, it is not enough to sit down in that satisfaction that we have sworn against Popery; but to search out, lest we be forsworn in the practice of it. Such a duty begins from the time of abjuring; and it lies not only upon the State to find out Popery; but every one in his own particu­lar is ingaged, you and I, and every Covenanter: and therefore seeing you have ingaged thousands by conscience against Popery, and to endeavour &c. you are bound to give the same conscience liberty to bring in its result and enquiry; else you make it a snare and trouble to Israel, and not a Covenant. And now I professe here a just and undeniable liberty by Covenant to bring forth all of Popery, Prelacy, or truth they know.

To your other;

Why should ye speak of governments fluttering on a lime-twig at West­minster?

Sure the State or Parliament may deserve better of any of the Assem­bly▪ then to be thought their retarders or l [...]me twigs: How have they ho­noured [Page 50] them above their Brethren, printing their ingagements to the world before every Sermon, calling them into so neere a capacity with them­selves? though Divines have been unfortunate before, and their Prede­cessours raised in the curtesie and piety of former States and Parliaments into a Law and power above their Brethren; which I hope our Brethren will remember and beware of.

But because I would not wholly interpret you into so dangerous a sense against the State, it may be you may call your dissenting Brethren the lime­twig; which if you do, you are contrary to your own Argument, for you argued but lately the slow proceeding into a very warrantable and Scrip­ture-way: and will you now mar [...]all, and defile your Argument with a lime­twig, and bewray rather your slow proceeding to have been of constraint then conscience?

To your other; That this is already refuted:

I say no more; but as you have formerly refuted, so I have formerly answered,

To your other;

That my designe by that of Moses is to debarre it for over; I answer:

Yea, forever would I debarre a government not clear from the Word, and not one haire would I debarre a government that had the name of Christ in Scripture-letters engraven upon it, pure Gospell-principles and proceedings.

To your other; That a new-star is to prepare for a misguider, and your story of Barchochebas upon it, it hath more light somnesse then light in it. But why should you be so pleasant with my expression of truth by a Star? It is the very allegory of the Spirit. Christ cals himselfe the morning star, the light which springs from above. The Spirit is called the day-star arising in our hearts; and the Spouse is attired in a crown of twelve stars.

Nor do I call to any to look for a new created star of truth, but an old, yet new appearing star to us, one of those stars in the Gospell-firmament, which the Clouds of Tradition and Ignorance hinder us from seeing; And now, what of your story?

But what way is most likely to mislead? That which b [...] you prove and try all things and accordingly follow? or that which saith, This is the way, compell them to come in, not only as the Gospell compels in the Para­ble by a Spirit of power but by a civill power; not a power of word only, but of State too: and so tw-sting the Gospell with the Law, and humane au­thority with divine?

Reply.

You prove against my reason the compliance and nearnesse of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall power, occasioning motions in each other.

1. By the authority I assume of a Politick Dictator. But what doth my assuming prove against the complyaney and motions of the two Powers? This is no proofe against the two Powers of Church and State, but against use. I hope you conceive not they are concentred in me a private Divine, as you call me; nor would I give any thing out in way or Magistrality, but evidence: you and I, and Assemblies of men, are not infallible.

2. By my aiming at the perpetuall prohibition. But what doth this prove against the compliancy and motions in the two powers? This is still against me, not against my reason. And further, because I suggest a reason of not em­bodying the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Powers too suddenly, therefore, saith he, I aime a [...] perpetuall prohibition. How doth this follow? I aime to pro­hibit it, rebus sic stantibus, therefore for ever? I aime to prohibit it, because as yet, neither the Discipline appears to be all Christs, nor the Parishes fit matter for Churches; therefore I prohibit it for ever. Is this good reason­ing? They that do over-desire the enjoying any thing, do measure time by eternity, and weeks by Ages, and take a little deferring for everlasting. Why is his Charets, saith Siferah's mother, so long in comming?

3. Because they reciprocate Interests, therefore is every Congregation to be left at liberty? Yea, at liberty in Spiritualls? and not as they will, but as the Gospell perswades the will. Yea, and because they reciprocate Interests, [Page 52] therefore to be left at liberty, say you. Rather, because they reciprocate In­terests, to be cautious how they mingle and incorporate Interests too soon. And if any just liberty may arise to the people of God from such State­pauses, why not such a liberty? Should the Churches be ever persecuted, and have no rest? It was not so under the first Persecution, Then had the Churches rest.

Because, say you disturbances are communicated, therefore settle the Ec­clesiasticall, that the civill may enjoy peace.

But can you secure the Civill from the Ecclesiasticall in peace? ought you to have a State-being, or a Church-being first? Is this good reasoning? Because disturbances are communicated, therefore order it so that the Ci­vill may be within the Line of communication, or of Ecclesiasticall distur­bances, by clasping and incorporating them together. So as it follows bet­ter thus: Because they reciprocate Interests, therefore take heed how you establish, because the State cannot but establish a way something of its own, in the Ecclesiasticall.

To that of Henry the fourth's humanity which you presse, because the Pro­testants helpt him by arms; I answer:

Let but the same humanity be copied out by the State here, and presse for it here as you do there, and we are agreed. Surely you have the same and greater ingagements. Your Brethren whom you call Schismeticks and Hereticks, have not been sparing of Arms and Bloud in the high places of the field, and in a Cause more glorious, with successe more admirable, with courage as gallant: And sure they have been found as trusty friends to this State, as the Protestants to the State of France.

You say, That State is rather free in indulgence, as the Bloudy Tenet, then free from commotions, &c.

For the freedome contended for by The bloudy Tenet, when I undertake to prove his freedom at large, then put us together; till when, deale fairly. I could as easily draw something of yours under the Line of Prelacie; but I would not force any mans notions, much lesse yours.

You see of what stamp the Liberty is I contend for. And for Commoti­ons, let the world judge if all the broyles and combustions kindled not from the Coales on the Alia, and from the flame of an Ecclesiasticall. Inte­rest, such as you contend for.

For that of the Tares and Wheat, &c. where you charge us with mixture tollerated, or rather with plucking up Wheat from the Tares &c. in Church­gathering: I answer:

We tollerate no mixture, but in the world where Christ himselfe tolle­rates, as in the same Pa [...]able; not in the Church.

And for our plucking, it is not plucking, but gathering and calling out: Your words are of more violence then the Word will beare; that is, more [Page 53] properly plucking, which is a destructive pulling out a bloudy Separation, a plucking of Persecution; such a plucking as some contend for, and would requite our gathering with plucking, and take us all not for a mixture of Tares and Wheat, but all for Tares.

You say we gather out the Wheat; it is well you observe that we have Wheat amongst us, which some of your Brethren will searce allow us; and you very hardly.

Reply.

To your first, That we must not claspe in the Camp, and divide in the city.

You say well; we are to agree, or clasp both in Camp and Citie, and to divide in neither.

To your second, Mr. Saltmarsh in his Politikes, I told you before, I dare not allow my selfe the priviledge of an Aphorism of light then, when it was rather night than day with me as I told you. You know Pauls regene­rate part or law of his mind, quarrelled with the law of his Members; so doth mine; so Luther, Augustine, &c.

To that of delaying occasioning Heresies, Whether may not your setling [Page 54] things thus, be as great an Heresie as you complaine against? Be sparing. You may call these Truths, which you now call Heresies; Paul preached that Doctrine after, which before he destroyed.

To that of many heightning their spirits into contempt.

Do not aggravate against your Brethren; remember your own profes­sed ingenuity, in these words, I would not excite Authority to needlesse severitie.

To that of the Brethrens politike advantage on your slow pace, and amica­ble carriage, as you say.

Give not over your amicablenesse for that, their policie is no warrant a­gainst your dutie; and if they be politike, blame them in print: For my part, I hate to see in any too much of man in the businesse of God; but if some of the Brethren be politike, what is that to the rest, who waite for the Spirit in the simplicity of their own?

But it may be you mistake the advantages, and put their encreasing up­on Brethrens policie, which is the power of the Gospell. You know in Christs time many beleeved on him, and the people went after him; and yet not policie, but his power gathered them.

To that of your fire and drie wood, and that your setling a Government would be no bellows.

Who are the dry wood you meane? and what fire? and what by the bel­lows? I fit be this, that the setling a Government will quench our conten­tions; yea, and it may quench more then it ought, even something of the Spirit may be quenched by it: Persecution may put out many a Candle of the Lords lighting, and many a coale kindled from his Altar: But take heed there be not more fire in the bellows then in the wood.

To that of the Anabaptists and Sectaries, quenched by Luthers me­diation:

I dare not beleeve your Historian, nor take all against them from the Pen of an enemie. He that takes the Parliaments battells from an Oxford Pen shall read nothing but Rebellion, rather than Religion, And me thinks I ob­serve much here in your observation to the contrary: We may rather think that Germany is a field of bloud to this day for shedding the bloud of so many consciences for some points of difference. And for Luthers media­tion against them; Look well, and tell me how much the Lutheran there have advanced in the Reformation: Have they not rather stood like Joshua's Sun, where he left them? Let England take warning by Germany.

To that of the Brethrens contentions, which are like bars of a Castle; and must not then be let alone (you say) as in our Wars:

Yea go on, take these offended Brethren, these Castles, in your military way; but then, let your Warfare be spirituall, your weapons not carnall put on the armour of light, &c. and take them by a Gospel-siege, and we are satisfied.

[Page 55]But it you take them with the power of the Magistrate, with swords and staves, as they took Christ; if you come in this Gospel-Controversie to to take them as the Parliament takes in their Towns and Cities, by force of Arms and compulsive Artillery, as your instance seems to imply; take heed lest you shed more spirituall bloud to that under the Altar, that never cea­ses to cry, How long, Lord, how long?

Reply.

So as you will have an hazard run both in State and Church for a new experiment upon the Ministers: but sure your Statists will tell you, it is not safe trying experiments with State; they are too vast bodies for that. What thinke you of that Physician that will cast his Patent into a disease, to try a cure on him? You know the old morall adagie, Turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur hospes: One is sooner kept out, then cast out.

Reply.

These are faire promises. It is pitty that government should ever be set up, that cannot tell before hand how well it will carry it selfe. Oh I saith Absolon, If I were a King, it should not be thus.

But, what is a qualified Government that is not Christs? I can never hope to gather grapes of thornes, or figs of thistles. Sure it can never be well for for the Trees of the Forrest when the Bramble will reigne.

Reply.

I would there were more such of that minde; I am sure it is safest and soundest. It is safest, there is no such danger in that of crucifying Christ in ignorance of fighting against God. And soundest, for so they die out most na­turally by their owne unsoundnesse, without noise and commotion. Sometimes the cure makes the greater disease, when the cure is not naturall but vio­lent. For that of Pauls withstanding Peter to the face, I allow you all such Gospel-wayes of contention, so you only withstand them to the face, and doe [Page 56] not as the High-Priest did command them to be smitten on the face. Op­pose with words as Paul did, but not with swords, taking and turning the Edge of Authority against us.

Reply.

You criticise on words; I cannot take time to do so; I wonder you (an Assembly-man) have leisure for that; this is logomac ice, or word-fighting: and why not We experience? You know our times have found out such ways of elegancy in the English, though I thought not any such thing when I wrote. But why doe I triffle too? To your matter.

Reply.

Yea, and it is not too suddenly if done at all, and not done as it ought, or in Christs way: I am for any thing of Christs, when, and where, and how soone you will.

Reply.

But how come you by such plenty of the better sort? It is not thought by most of your way; I am sure some of your way were taking care how to furnish their Presbytery. their 10000 Parishes. And this I know, that if there were such plenty, Why doe you make shift with so many of the Epis­copall stamp, who keep their Parishes, and resolve while they live, to try out all turns of government, rather then turne off a tythe of two hundred per annum? But I beleeve the English Presbytery and Prelacy are well agreed in that.

Reply.

Not so directly neither: It is rather directly according to the prudentiall designe of your Assembly, as you say: so as all yet is but So you say, and we say the contrary; there is You say, and We say, Authority not Scripture and evidence, carries it on your side; And let the Reader judge bet wixt us. Indeed you are able to prove by the Magistrate, that your Presbytery is some of it Christs way: That is an Argument of power, not of Scrip­ture.

Reply.

You say, The Controversie may be hottest, yet no fault in those that are for it, but against it.

But, is all the heate in those that oppose it? Nay sure: Witnesse the impor­tunity, the petitioning of your party, &c. we silent all the time.

You say, The difference is not so equall, but betwixt government and no go­vernment; Parliament and all Orthodox Divines against an inconsiderable party.

Indeed it is unequall: It is betwixt a government of man of Prudence, as you confesse, and a Scripture government; betwixt an huge Nationall Go­vernment, and Christs little flocke, or Church. Nor is it a Controversie with the High Court of Parliament; we contend not with them, but humbly pe­tition and represent the truth unto them: but this is the old way to winde in under the wing of Authority, and to engage them. But they are wise to dis­cern, and not to be engaged as their Predecessors were by the Church­men as they called them; there are too many sad stories.

But what of our inconsiderable party? We had rather be a few with truth, then a multitude against it. And how inconsiderable soever we are in num­ber, the stone cut out without hands may fill the earth: the Kingdome of [Page 58] Christ, and the worlds, are not so one as you would make them▪ Unus homo totius orbis impetum fustinuit; It was said of Euther; He was but one a­gainst a world. Your non-conformists were but inconsiderable to the King­dom of Prelacy almost. A pebble in the band of David may do more then a mighty speare in the hand of Goliah.

You say, The Bishops had a better prescription even by Law for their go­vernment then we.

But how is this? Is a legall prescription better hold then a Gospell pre­scription? Is it more priviledge to be founded upon a Statute, or Act of Parliament then Scripture?

You say, If too much of man be in this Controversie, it is in those that op­pose and despise Government.

But what is that to our Controversie? We are not of those that speake evill of d [...]g [...]i [...]ies, or desp [...]se government, unlesse you count your Presbyterie to be that government and dignitie spoken on by the Spirit; and that re­maines to be proved: That which cannot be proved to be a Scripture-go­vernment, cannot challenge a Scripture-law to defend or secure it.

You say, If the Byas run most towards government, it is but as it should be: Yea, if towards a Scripture-government; else it is as it should not be▪ and not as it should be.

You say, The Bishops government's put down, some must be set up; and that is Presbytery.

But there is one set up already, a civill Parliament arie government; and will you set up another above that? or cordinate with that? Will you set up one government to rule another? or tutour another? And must you needs set up as large a Dominion as the eiv [...]ll Power hath? Must our Presby­tery be full as ample, as high, and supream, as our Parliament? Will no lesse territory or Kingdom serve it but all England? Whole Nations? Must Christs government be just as broad and long as the worlds? You find not the golden Read for the Temple of that length. Now Reader, judg, which government affects Dominion? Which brings in whole Nations under the Scepter of it? Poore Scripture-government can be content to sit down in a Village; To the Church in thy house, saith the Spirit; In a City as Corinth, and over but a few there, the Saints only in fellowship; to the Church in Co­rinth: In a Countrey not over a Countrey: so the seven Churches in Asia, not to the Church of Asia, or the Church Asia, a Church taking in halfe part of the world. Sure if Christ would have had such a Nationall compre­liensive Church, he could have converted King▪ and Princes first, and they should have given up their Scepter [...] and Kingdoms to Jesus Christ, in the way of a Presbyterian: Nay▪ it ought to have been so; Jesus Christ was bound in the way of righteousnesse, to have be un the practice and modell [...] to us over whole Kingdoms, having not left it in precept in the whole Go­spell; [Page 59] and we ought either to have had practice or precept to order and com­mand us in what we obey.

You say▪ If other Truths be set by, it is by those that so oppose Government, and not by the Presbyteriall.

I see the Presbytery must be in no fault: Happy men! that have nothing but Truth on their side.

You wish I had more caution in my mind and paper, and [...] shorter Refu­tation had served.

Cautions are not amisse both for you and me; and I think you had need of more caution of the two, by how much more vast and nationall the Go­vernment is, you manage. You that put yokes upon whole Nations in a day, had need to have the cautions of a yeers provision laid in before hand.

And for your Refutation of my paper; do not beare witnesse of your [...]selfe; let Truth judge bet wixt us, and let the Reader pray for a spirit of discern­ing to judge both what is Truth and which is Truth; that which you, or I, affirme. Nor will I say I have made here a Refutation of yours. If I have done well, What have I that I have not received? And if I have not, the Lord enlighten and enable me to refute my selfe.

Reply.

You say, I would not seem to side with Sanballat and Tobljah.

You say true, I would not. But every building is not Temple-work. And though I would not with knowledge hinder the Temple of the living God, yet if another kind of frame were in building, I would do my best to hinder and be no Sanballat neither. But they are Sanballats, not whom man, but whom the Lord counts so. But surely they hinder more, that set up an­other kind of Temple then Christs, then he that advises to look well that [Page 60] all be right and Temple-worke that is set up.

To the difference I made of the materiall and Gospell-paterns, you say nothing; and that is the only considerable. It may be as you said by me, you are best able to deale with the other.

You say, I should set a time then for the setting it up.

Yea, I shall set you a time, yet not in mine own authority but Christ's: When your Patern is all Gospell, and your people all qualified in that Gospell­patern, then is my time for setting up, and then is Christ's time too.

Nor would I stay you for a materiall building, as you say. You know I call you on to the Gospell▪ I am very far from turning you back to the Law; I call you on to Christ; I would not turn you back to Solomon.

And for the inspired Prophets you tell me I stay for, and would have you stay too:

Is not that a very Gospell-way to stay for the Spirit's coming into the servants of the Lord? Take heed of denying inspired Disciples. You know it is part of the f [...]l [...]illing of the great Prophecie, Acts 2. Indeed some of the Prelates, many of them being uninspired themselves, and having little of the Spirit, or none, would needs say therefore, All inspirations and Spirituall enlightnings, &c. were ended in the Church, because ended in them: and because they were so carnall themselves, they thought none was Spi­rituall. And you remember how they made Laws even against the Spirit in Prayer.

I speake thus, only to remember you who spoke most against inspirati­on and the Spirit, lest you may let fall some words which may be taken up by some of that way, to countenance them in their Invectives. Not but that I esteem of you as one inspired your selfe in a measure, and having the Spi­rit of God in you; therefore I know the Spirit will be very tender in op­posing the Spirit.

You say, you ought to dispatch the Government, because you have fol­lowed the dictates of the Holy Ghost, of the Assembly, and Parliament.

Then let me put one Question; Why is it not called Christs Govern­ment? Why hath it not a Jus divinum, a Divine Right put upon it, if all be of the Holy Ghost in it? But I would not mistake you; you say only that all is by the dictate of the Holy Ghost, of the Assembly and Parlia­ment. So it is but part then, by your own confession, of the Holy Ghost; the rest is of the Assembly and Parliament.

You say, The builders have had speciall regard to Jesus Christ the Foun­dation.

I will not suspect the Counsels and Debates of any of the builders. I know the Disciples of Christ were true Disciples, though they had not all of the Spirit at one time which they had at another; I hope and I pray, that the Lord will make up to the builders what of the Spirit he hath not [Page 61] given them▪ that they may both see to build right, and see where they have builded wrong; and so pull down againe, as well as set up.

And whereas you say, The building may go on▪ by Master Saltmarsh his own consent:

I say, your building will go on it seems, whether Master Saltmarsh con­sent or no. Master Ley, in his capacity, is better able to put it on at this time then Master Saltmarsh is to put it off to another time, unlesse the Lord who is above all, and hath the mighty, even the Princes of the earth to com­mand, work for his own glory above all that we can or think.

Reply.

You say first, Why begin I for Hereticks and Schismaticks from John's first Sermon?

I begin there, because there began the mystery of the Gospell. And yet I shew you that no Government began with that Gospell manifestation▪ by which I made appeare, that if Government had been of such morall necessi­ty, why was it not given out with the Gospels first giving out.

Now you prove in a chronologicall discourse the space of time from Johns Sermon to Pauls Epistle, to make the time appeare for Government. And, after you have summed up all the time and periods, and find it no two or three yeers work, you conclude People of that age could not be so easily gathered as now: Nor the long establishing then to be an hasty establishing now.

And now, after all this discourse and ravellings out of time from Johns Sermon, &c. What have you gained? Not that the Government was soon setled. Then you have proved (much to my advantage, and in a clearer and fuller computation then I did) the contrary. So as you have only been taking some learned paines, if you well observe, and the Reader well [Page 62] observe you, to prove that the Government at first was not suddenly cast in­to modell, nor brought forth in practise, which is the very thing I aimed at; and truly your pains in it have been more exact then mine; and I thank you for it.

But you say, It ought not to be so now; nor can it be said to be hastily done now, that was done so long ago.

You say true in that: But you know the same Spirit must reveale it that formed it; and it formed it at first by degrees: and the way of Revelation hath been more year's then the first farming; reckon but your Antichristian years as exactly as you have done your first Christian and Primitive yeares, and you may be more satisfied▪ So as all, both the first Revelation of it from Pro­phesies, and the latter from Antichristianism, makes all for the not hasten­ing, which I aimed at.

Indeed, if you can as infallibly assure us this forme and modell is the very forme then given out, it were very true that you say, That it cannot be said to be hastily done now, what was done so long agoe: viz. If it be that very one which was done so long ago.

For your exception against me concerning my placing the giving of the Spirit so late, if you interpret sense by the strict order of words, you will lose many a Scripture truth in the words, as you well know.

Reply.

You say, What? If here [...]ies stir not up, they poyson souls.

If they poyson, let the Gospel-antidote be applied then and no other way which the Gospell will not beare no [...] allow; there is the sword of the Spirit, and weapons not carnall, but mighty and spirituall.

For that of old Elies indulgences which you speak on you are still look­ing [Page 63] upon Moses, though you tell us of Christ. Make the Kingdome of Israel and of England the same; a Iewish and Christian State the same; and then we shall allow you both Elies sin, and his sons maintenance by tythes & offerings.

You say, Truth is more precious then peace; yet there is a peace precious as well as Truth, even the Peace of Christ, as well as the Truth of Christ.

But to the businesse; You would prove Truth to be precious, to the dis­advantage of Peace; and therefore you bring in the Fathers against the Ar­rians, and us against the Papists, and Christ against Peace: But what would you prove? Would you prove that truth ought to be established against peace, and peace to be no way to truth? Surely truth and peace doe meet to­gether; nay, they are so much one, as there is even a truth in peace. He that was Truth it self could say, My Peace I leave with you.

But, What of the contention spoken on of the Fathers and [...], &c. If there be any quarrelling for Truth either by the Fathers or us; but in a Go­spel-way, we are not excusable▪ neither doth Christ speak of truths drawing swords, but of swords drawn against truth; which is no Argument for you. When Peter would draw a sword in the defence of truth, Christ bid him put it up. So far is he against your way of defending truth.

You say, By whom should Magistrates be set on, and that you cannot speak in such disparaging words?

By whom be set on? By the legislative power, by the Parliament▪ The Parlia­ment can set on their respective Committees, Iustices▪ &c. and is this any disparagement? I speak of subordinate Magistrates, not of the supream.

You say, There will be worke for the Magistrate enough, to punish the con­tumacious▪ &c.

That is in English, the Presbytery will keep the Magistracy doing: and now who disparages the Magistrate? Who set them on work? Who makes them their Deputy-punishers? Nay, Who is the Satan to whom the excom­municate are delivered? It is an expression not much besides your princi­ples: and who disparages the Magistrate in that?

Reply.

You say you cannot divide Discipline from his assistance, who can make it effectuall.

That is, from the Magistrates. This is a signe without further Argument, that you do not hold your government for Christs, because it cannot be effe­ctuall of it self, without help from below, and the world, and to another power then its own; nor is the sword of God, and Gideon any faire and just proof for joyning Presbytery and Magistracy; it joynes only God and the Magistrates.

You say, Your godly jealousie will set up as many securities as may be.

But then they are warrantable and Gospel-wayes of security. That is no godly jealousie which sets up other wayes; as Herod killing all the children to secure his Kingdome; David dissembling to escape; Iacob to get a blessing: there is jealousie, but no godly jealousie nor warrantable security: So to secure any way, though of truth, by a power not allowed on in the Gospell, as no such compulsive power is in your way, is not to be jealous with a godly jealousie; though I deny not but some of those may be godly who are so jea­lous, but not in that.

You say, that some fear▪ Gods anger for their communion with Hereticks, &c.

You know all such feare is only warrantable in the Church not in the world: It is not so with the Nations now as with the Iews. Now if we have not communion with them in the Nation, we must goe out of the world. But, What communion is this you meane that will bring Gods anger? You have your liberty to withdraw, to separate as they from you: If it be nationall or civill communion, then you pluck up the tares before the time of harvest.

But whom you esteem Hereticks, they it may be think they have as good Scriptures to esteem you so; and this is Heretick for Hereticks, interpretation against interpretation. And since there is only a sufficiency, but no infallibility now as before; since there is no Apostles for interpretation as at first, for Re­velation, why do we thus cry out, Hereticks, Hereticks; the Sword, the Sword? Let me put one Question here.