Light for Smoke

SECT. I. Of the Title Independent, in what sense it is disclaimed, in what acknoweldged; and of subordination idenied by M ^r . S. and purity in the Church held necessary by him.

Light.

Your pretended dependency on the Magistracy will not exempt you from the name or notion of Independency, (a title diversely entertained by the Anti-Presbyterial party, while some own and honor it, some disclaim and abhor it, as I have formerly shown) for you give the Magistrate so little power in matter of Religion, that you would have all left to a liberty of conscience science therein; cnceiving that, as though the ways be divers to the City of London, some travelling from the North, some from the South, some from the East, and some from the West, yet all come thither, though there may be some mistaking of the way in each, so is the gathering of the Saints into heaven. Which if you mean of so many several Sects of believers as in this Book, and some other of your Pamphlets you plead for, you mean it of some who are as far out of the way to heaven, as if a man at Lichfield should travel not Soth-ward but North-ward to go to London, or as if at Barwicke he should travel not North-ward but South-ward to come to Edinburgh.

Light.

The gradual subordination of Assemblies against the Independency of Congregational meetings is made good by the large and learned Book of M ^r . Samuel Rutherford, so that it is needless to take up their defense in this place, at least with you, who (as I have observed your genius) are not fit to be taken for an Antagonist in any Polemicall point.

And for that you say, they are no forms of wholesome words, it is no more then the Arians said of the words Trinitas, Essentia, Hemoeusios, & Persona, because they found them not in the Scripture; And if you were not swayed by a spirit of Libertinism, you would think them very wholesome words, as signifying sovereign remedies against the ruptures of Schism, and uleers or gangrenes of Heresy.

Light.

Do you not know S ^r . that that which is Ministry and service in respect of God, may be rulel and authority in respect of men? are there not Officers in the Church called Elders? and are not those Elders Rulers? and those Elders and Rulers Fathers? and is there not a spiritual fatherhood and begetting through the Gospel? 1 Cor. 4.15. and must not these by the fifth Commandment be honored and obeyed under that Title above the relation of Brotherhood, and Fellowship? and are there not children in the Church as well as Fathers? and may not the father, as the child gives him cause, use both the rod and the spirit of meekness? if not, surely the Apostle would not have put this Question to the Corinthians, Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? verse. 21. of the same Chapter.

Light.

If I were worthy to give a Name to the Churches of Christ, I would call them Dependent, for the most of them are subordinate to Classical, Provincial and National Assemblies; not Independent, as the fewest are, and of those few some of them are so unsound in doctrine that they deserve not the title of Churches to be put upon them; and if you profess yourself Independent in that sense you have acknowledged, and for that be so called, I pray you S ^r . what suffering do you complain of? is it any suffering to you to be called by your Name M ^r . Saltmarsh, which you own? and foro the bringing forth of your righteousness as the noon day; I must tell you S ^r . your dawnings of light are come to this noon days discovery, that all may see, (but those whose eyes are darkened with your Smoke ) that the unrighteousness of those Sectaries, whom you embrace as Independent Brethren, in broken forth as the smoke of the bottomless pit, Revel. 9.2. with great danger to corrupt the air into an Epidemical contagion.

SECT. II. The Objection of unseasonableness of M ^r . Saltm. his Quare justified, and his gross mistake or willful falsification of my words detected.

Light.

In the Title page of my Examination I said your Quaere was unseasoanble, and gave reasons thereof, pag. 4, 5. and among others I reckoned up four particulars of the subordination, and exercise of the Presbyterial Discipline, set out already by Authority of Parliament, in respect whereof your Quere and determination upon it came too late; and it might have been more seasonable either while the matters were in debate of the Assembly of Divines, or when first the votes of the Assembly were presented to the Parliament; but when both Parliament and Assembly, after much debate, were so far, and so publicly engaged for the Presbyterial Government, it was too late for such a novice as you by so poor and trifling a paper as you put forth to offer to oppose it; which was not like (being of so little worth) to be of any great weight with the Parliament, (though some Independents who will have all their Geese to be Swans, said of it, it was a very rational piece, whose fond opinion of it advanced it to the reputation to be thought worthy of a refutation) all the mischief it was like to do (for no good could reasonably be looked for from it) was to interpose betwixt the command of the Magistrate, and the obedience of the people, and to prepare such as are silly and perverse to a prejudice, and to make them refractory against reformation intended; and this is one part of the Independents good service they do to the civil Authority.

Light.

In the second Section of my Book having set down the Title of your loose sheet, A new Quere, &c. I say thus; He knew well enough the humor of listening after news prevaileth with our people of all sorts, and therefore being to fish in troubled waters he putteth upon his hook that bait at which it was like many would be nibbling. Where it is plain as may be, my meaning was that your bait was Novelty, not Truth and Peace, where with I begin a new sentence, and speak distinctly of them afterwards, and therefore I may well come upon you with your own Quere, (misapplied to me) Why deal you not more candidly? why are you not more faithful in your interpretation to the Original?

SECT. III. Rom. 14.23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, no bar to the establishment of the Prosbyteriall Government; M ^r . Saltm. his distinction of a State and public conscience and a personal conscience.

Light.

I shown you should frame your Argument, according to the scope of your Quere, rather against the establishment of a government by the Magistrate, then against submission to a government by the people; and you seem to take this as a courtesy from me, but you ill deserve it, for you repeat it so imperfectly as to obscure the light of it, and to impair the strength of it; for you bring it in thus: What the Imposers of Government cannot do of faith they sin; whereas in my Book, out of which you should fairly, nd faithfully have transcribed, the argument hath it more dearcly and fully in these words: Those that set up a Government whereof they are not fully persuaded in their mind, and which they cannot do in faith, do sin. To this major you add a minor and conclusion, as followeth.

Light.

Those that set up a Government, &c. This you call my Argument, but it is yours; for I deny your minor proposition, and consequently your conclusion, wherein you impute sin unto the Parliament, if they set up Presbyterial Government. And you tell us of a State or public conscience, and of that you say in the last page of your book, it is with a public or State conscience as it is with a personal and particular conscience, what is done must be done in faith, or else there is weakness, doubting, and sin; now where there is not a full consent, and persuasion from the Word of faith, there cannot be faith properly — if the laws of truth were founded, as the laws of civil States, in a mere legislative power, then Popery hath had as good assurance as any, they have had most voices, most councols. I wonder S ^r . how you that so contract the Church into a particular Congregation, and who will not endure to hear of a Church of such a latitude, as to be called National, can allow of such a large conscience as a State and public conscience: and you reduce it to the same rule that you do a personal, and a particular conscience, and of both you say, they cannot have a full consent and persuasion but from the word of faith; and do you mean thereby, that whatsoever the State alloweth must have a particular warrant from the word of God? and that the civil Sanction must be set on nothing but that which hath the stamp of a Jus Divinum upon it? if so, you so much pinion the civil power, as to make it of little use for Government, either of Church or State.

Although again you be as much too loose (as here you are too nice) in that to the Magistrate you give liberty to different Religions, all pretending to the word of God, though in many points repugnant one to another.

For that of the Apostle, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14.23. it imports (as some expound it) that all the works of Infidels are sins, that it belongeth also to believers, and boundeth them so in their Christian practice, that they must do nothing against conscience, nothing with a doubting conscience, nothing at all which hath not warrant from the Word either in general principles, or particular conclusions; and it serves likewise to shut out mere human inventions from the worship of God, and the luxuriant fruitfulness of human fancy, against which the Ancient and Orthodox Doctors have given many cautions, which Protestant Writers pertinently bring in against Popish Traditions, and additions thereto. But makes nothing either against the States establishing of the Presbyterial Government, nor against the people's yielding to it for want of faith, since for a great part of it, it is grounded on the Word of God, and is in no part of it repugnant to it.

SECT. IIII. M ^r . Saltm. his unequal dealing in distributing his own and his adversaries work: The Presbyterie not like Prelacie in unwarrantablenesse by the word of God. Of Prudence how for of lawful use in Religious matters.

Light.

By what law would you put me to clear a Church-covenant? it is no part of my work in the task I undertook, and if you may decline discussing the imposition of Protestations (as you do in the next precedent paragraph) though mentioned by me as a proof against you, and as you do the objection made from the deferring of our Savior's Baptism till he was about thirty years of age, as you do likewise in the further prosecution of your Reply, why should you take upon you to appoint me an impertinent work, and which is more, that which is repugnant to my judgment? for you say it is to clear a Church-covenant, which is rather your office then mine, who think it fitter to be accused then cleared.

Light.

You allow yourself too much liberty in changing my words, which have their weight and pertinency, from whence if you vary, you mar the matter; I said not the Government is but in some parts warrantable by the word of God, but in the chief parts, which you will not say of Prelacy, for that consisteth in being chief, in assuming a Lordly preeminence over their brethren of the Ministry; but the chief parts of the Presbyterial Government have their warrant in the word, and why not the rest? Besides, it is not enough to have some parts, or the chief parts of government warrantable by the word of God, but it must be in no part contrary to the word of God; and so we may say of Presbytery, not so of Prelacie. You say truth must be all one and the same, homogencall in all parts, that is, if you speak to the point, all truth must be only Scripture truth; but hath not the light of nature taught the heathens many truths who never saw the Scripture? and is any government reduced to practice without some prudential supplies, in divers particulars wherein the Scripture is silent? as for the Elders in a Congregation, how many they should be, whether perpetual or annual, and what their qualifications should be for the measure of knowledge, and other abilities, and whether they should be maintained at the charge of the Church, and there are many Queries concerning the particulars of the Deacons office, which cannot be resolved by any direction of the written word.

Light.

There is prudence which in the habit is an endowment from God, in the exercise a duty from man, Matth. 10.16. whereby every ordinance of God is to be ordered to the best advantage for his honor, and the edification of his people. Opposite to this on the one hand is the corrupt and pragmatical policy of such, as when they profess themselves wise they become fools, Rom. 1.22. and such are they who pretend to perfect the Church of God by their inventions and traditions; and there is on the other hand a neglect and contempt of prudence, which hath brought a contemptible confusion upon the profession of Religion, and this is most found among the sects most opposite to Presbytery.

Light.

Not directly from Scripture (say you) is repugnant to Scripture; if you mean it universally, it is false, (as the precedent particulars do evince) if you mean it of the substantials of faith and practice, you say true, but not to the purpose; of such as these is the authority of our Savior, He that is not with me is against me, Matth. 12.30. but of circumstantials it is sound, he that is not against me is with me, Mar. 9.40. And though it be for the honor of the word to be received for a rule of Religion both affirmatively and negatively, yet to wring it and wrest it to serve all turns, where God meant to leave men to prudential accommodation of times, persons, places, and occasions, is to abuse and dishonor it, and so do most of those who pretend most to magnify the majesty of the word.

Light.

The Reformed Churches are not only as the Diall to the Sun, but as the clock to the Diall, and the word as the Sun to both; when the Sun doth not shine, nor the dial give a shadow, the clock must be heeded for the hour of the day; and sometimes one clock may be a direction to another: and though one individual person or Church hath not power over another, yet many may have power over one, for the spirit of the Prophets is subie • t to the Prophets, 1 Cor 14.32. and whether they have rule & power over each other or no, one Church may be a pattern to another so far as the word of God is a pattern to it, as Paul said to the Corinthians, Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.1. or (where it is silent) so far as the light of reason directeth.

SECT. V. Whether Classical, Provincial, and National Presbyteries be like the Independents gathering of Churches.

Light.

Still your work remains? You are still putting work upon me (as I told you before) which was no part of my undertaking, when I examined your Quere; and as unwilling to perform your own, for you say in the next precedent paragraph; it is not your work to dispute the Interest of Elders and people distinctly, and yet you have taken upon you a Discourse of Church order in the opening of M ^r . Prinnes Vindication; I did not so, nor was it needful in the thing it self, being fully done by others, nor directly incident to my Answer to your paper; Nor if I thought it fit to argue and to discuss that controversy, would I do it in a debate with you, for the reasons fore-alleged.

And for your recrimination, that Classical, Provincial, and National Presbyteries are gatherings of Churches out of Churches, which the Presbyterians condemn in your party, it is a very impertinent and perverse comparison; wherein there are many considerable differences, (that make it criminal in your Church, and commendable in Classical, Provincial, and National Assemblies) which besides many other are these;

First, These subordinate gatherings are not made out of any conceit favoring of singularity, disdain, or contempt of entire communion with those out of whom they are gathered, as in your gatherings of Churches, but out of care and compassion to them to consult and provide for their good, as the gathering of the principal Patriots out of the country to be united in the House of Commons, is not for making of a Schism from their country, but for meeting in counsel and care for their country.

Secondly, This gathering into Classes, &c. is with consent and free choice of those Societies out of which they are gathered, as it is in the choice of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses for the Parliament: not so in your Church gatherings, for those who are left out, when you admit of Members in your selected choice for Church-way, are displeased with your neglects of them, and refusal to administer all the ordinances of God unto them.

Thirdly, Those who you call out as Members of your new gathered Churches, might more conveniently join together in the administration of holy things, as they are by God's providence disposed of in Parishonal dwellings, then your covenanted members, who are many times in their habitations as far distant as London and Dover, yea, sometimes as far as London and Amsterdam, Raterdam, Arnhem, or New England: But the gathering of Pastors and Elders into Classical Assemblies, is made with much conveniency, and withal in a kind of necessity, because the Churches whom they represent cannot possibly all of them convene in one place, or if they could, they would be too many to be drawn from their dwellings, too many to be admitted to counsel and censure.

Fourthly, Gatherings of Ministers and Elders into Classes, &c. makes much for preservation of truth and peace in Parochial congregations, but your gatherings of Churches are, and have proved the means to broach e •• ours, and breed schisms.

Fifthly, The gathering of Elders for consultation and provision for the welfare of other particular Churches, as it hath sure ground of religious reason, so hath it the honor of most ancient and honorable prescription from the fourteenth year after the resurrection of Christ, Act. 15. to this day, whereas your gathering of Churches out of Churches in a State, and a time of reformation, is a new device, never practiced, or approved by the godly in former ages.

Sixthly, The gathering of Ministers and Elders into Assemblies Classical, &c. is authorized by the Parliament, the supreme Judicatory of the Kingdom, whereas your Church gathering is not allowed by authority, but taken up without it, and against it.

SECT. VI. It is unreasonable to require an undertaking, that the best government in constitution should he faultless in execution; tyrannic more to be feared in Independency then in Presbytery.

Light.

It is a most unreasonable thing that you should require such a security of those who have the greatest authority in their hands, much less should you look for it from any private man, Minister or other; since no government how warrantable so ever, if managed by sinful man, can be secured from all abuse, either by falling short of duty, by remisenesse, or overshooting it by rigor; But Sir any rational man that knoweth the regular constitution of the Presbyterial Government, and the experimental execution of it in the Churches where it is established, may be more bold to undertake for it, both for the government it self, and for the most probable consequences of it, then any may engage for the way of Independency, and the manifold evil effects and fruits of it, whereof see M ^r . Bayly his Dissuasive from errors.

Light.

Episcopacy began at such a time as this wherein we live, and upon occasion of such an evil as now is much complained of, viz. the turning of Religion into Faction, and it was taken up as a remedy against it; but when instead of an Antidote against contention, it became an Engine of oppression, by the slothfulness of some, as well as by the ambition of others, (for if some had not been willing to do too little, others had not been able to usurp too much) Presbytery was by the Reformed Churches restored, and the presidencie which before was perpetual, (for fear of the return of tyranny) was made so mutable, that none might be ambitious of it, or injurious by it. And if tyranny have (as you say) a countenance of meekness, and love until it get to be seated on the throne, it may be probable that Independency is preparing for a tyranny, for it pretends much meekness and love, and if it could prevail, it is like it would soon set up the tyranny which now it disclaimeth in others; For the observation of Machiavell would in all probability prove true in many of those who meet in Independency, Men (saith he) grow more and more ambitious, for first, they see to themselves that they be not oppressed, but afterwards their endeavors are to oppress others; So it was with the Anabaptists in Germany, and so it would be in many of the same spirit, especially such as are hardened by the wars in all kinds and degrees of inhumane hostility; and if we may judge of their spirit by the spiteful, disdainful, and wrathful writings, and threats, and facts of many of them who sort themselves under Independency, and their opposites under the name of Popish, Antichristian, and profane, we can expect no moderation or mercy from them, if their might were matchable to their Malignity.

SECT. VII. Of the power of the Presbytery for reformation of manners, compared with Prelacy; the evil effects of Independency; the difference betwixt a discipline; and the discipline, M ^r . Saltm. his precipitancie in writing, and in divulging what he hath written of Popery in the Covenant, or under the Covenant.

Light.

In granting that you do, I shall not need to trouble myself with what you deny; it is enough for the present point, which you yield, that the Government may much reform the outward man; and for the inward, you acknowledge preaching and watchfulness may be more powerful, (as in the Kingdom of Scotland ) and so do I; and for that you say of the Presbyterial Government, if it be Antichristian, as you say, it is not like it should be blessed with so good success as the Christian Government of the Presbytery; and if that be deficient to reformation (as no power put into the hands of man is every way perfect in any Kingdom) the defects may be referred to some other requisites to such a purpose, rather then to Presbytery it self; but where other Ordinances are not wanting, either in a right rule, or in a regular practice, there Presbyterie formed up to such directions and examples as are found in Scriptures, and the best reformed Churches, is a better means to make men both Civil and Religions, then any Discipline or Government which hath been ordained and observed in the Church, since Popery and Superstition were excommunicated out of it.

As for Independency, which is your darling on which you dote, and in zeal unto it, hate the Presbyterial Government, we see by sad experience that as it hath prevailed, heresies, schisms, and all manner of licentious exorbitancies have increased, though it have not been set up by Authority, but suffered by connivences what might be expected from it, if (which God forbid) the solicitations and endeavors for it should advance to a toleration of it?

Light.

For your other reason, that my Texts make against not only the suspending for a time, but forever: S ^r . in these words (though they be but few) as spoken in my name there be two great 〈◊〉 , for they are contrary both to your meaning and mine; to yours, because there is your misprision of one word for another, yea for a contrary, for you should say for, and you say against the suspending, &c. but as to me it may be thought my corruption, for you make me to allow of your Texts, as making for your purpose, whereas I say, For those two Texts which he alledgeth for the deferring of the Government, (and if there be any weight in them as to that purpose they make against it, not for a time only, but forever) I commend to his consideration, &c. but you leave out the parenthesis, which intimates my mind to be, that those Texts do not make for your purpose. And whereas you demand how, and when can you settle it, or what will ye settle, or upon whom? these are no Questions meet to be propounded to me, (who take not upon me to settle any government) but to the Parliament, who in part have really answered them already, and will do it I hope more speedily and more fully then you would have them.

Light.

And the Presbyterians plead not for a Discipline in common, but for the Discipline in special, which is most agreeable to the word of God, against which they will admit of nothing; and if to it they add something (wherein the word leaves them to make out by prudence, and exemplary conformity what is of necessary practice, and not prescribed in the Scriptures) they are not to be charged with doing anything either against the Word, or against the Covenant.

Light.

This passage, as the last but one, to which I might add many more, shows your precipitancie in sending forth your fancies to public view; you glory in the quick dispatch of your Pen, and that there may be no delay at the Press, one Printer will not serve your turn for your Book, though of no great bulk, but two at the least must be employed for expedition in it; and when it is Printed, though there be very many and gross escapes, it must not stay to be revised, that anything mistaken by a Catalogue of the Errata may be corrected; so all things concur for application of the Proverb to your Dictates, Festinans canis caecos parit catules; and so do you put discovered for disavowed in the next Article; betwixt which words there is so great difference, that discovered is for your opinion, disavowed for mine; but you have your discovery, and it is of Popery, not in the Covenant, but in the interpretation upon it, and the mistaken practice of it; but whose interpretation is this? to me it appears to be yours, by your next words.

Light.

And may we soon be Popish under a Covenant against it? very soon; (for so much your pathetic interrogation imports) then S ^r . comfort yourself, as you are a Patron of Heretics and Schismatics, (pleading for indulgency to them, and toleration of them, though you know the Covenant is made expressly against them) for how soon may Heresy and Schism increase under a Covenant against them?

SECT. VIII. Tythes not Jewish and Popish, as M ^r . Saltm. pretendeth.

Light.

How? Jewish and Popish undeniably? as undeniably as the Sabbath was Jewish when the Prelates so called it, or the Doctrine of the Trinity Popish as Valentinus Gentilis took it when he disliked the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches in that Article, because they agreed with the Papists therein. You are grossly mistaken S ^r . in the tenure of Tythes; for though there be a clamour taken up against them, by such as make no scruple either of slander, or of sacrilege, and some would change the Ministers portion, which is their Masters wages for his own work, and reduce them to voluntary pensions of the people, because they would have a liberty to beggar them, who will not humor them in their fond, and false opinions, and licentious practices, but oppose them as of conscience they are bound to do, neither you nor all your party can prove them either Jewish, or Popish, as they are allowed, and received for the maintenance of the Ministers of England; And because you are so confident in your opinion of M ^r . Nye, whom with M ^r . Goodwin you cite for a worthy saying touching the Golden Ball of Government, I refer you for satisfaction to him, who will tell you as he hath done divers others, that Ministers of the Gospel may hold, and receive Tythes for their maintenance, by a right and title, which is neither Jewish nor Popish, but truly Christian; and there is nothing Jewish or Popish in Tythes but the Assignation of the decima decimarum from the Levitical Priests to the high Priest, from the high Priest to the Pope, and from the Pope to the King; when first Pope Urbane gave them to Richard the Second, to aid him against Charles the French King, and others that upheld Clement the Seventh against him, as Polydore Virgil relateth. And King Henry the Eighth taking from the Pope the title of Head of the Church to himself by Act of Parliament, took from him the Tenths, and other profits annexed to that title, which were settled upon the Crown by Statute in the twenty sixth year of Henry the Eighth; so that the Jewish high Priesthood being expired, the Papal Lordship abolished, the Tythes paid under those Titles may be called Jewish and Popish, but not that which is assigned for the maintenance of Ministers, because they are yet to do service to their Master, and so to receive the maintenance of his allowance for his work, which fellow servants cannot take upon them to take away without presumption; their door neighbor will not allow them a power to appoint the wages of their servants, much less may they usurp upon the Right of God, and his Ministers, to alienate them from the support of his service and worship; for that is rather Popish, for the Pope hath translated the Tenure from the Ministers to the Monasteries, to Nunneries, and to what purpose he thought fit to assign them, and thence came in the translation of titles from the incumbent Ministers, the making of Leases by the Bishop, Patron and Incumbent, without stint and term of years to Lay persons, until they were restrained by the State in the 1. of Eliz. 13. so that if you have given up your tithes to your Parishioners of Brasteed, and told the Committee of Examinations so, (as you imply in the passage repeated) you are more Popish therein then other Ministers of the Gospel, who retain them and officiate to the people that pay them in all the Ordinances of Christ, which you refuse to do; and as I hear, you have renounced your Ordination to the Ministry; if so, there is no reason you should have them, whether they be lewish, Popish, or Christian.

You will say perhaps I make this plea of the tenure of Tythes for my profit, whereas it would be more for the security of my conscience, and support of my credit against the imputation of covetousness, to give them up as antiquated Coremonies, as you have done; and truly S ^r . if I had ever thought them either Jewish or Popish, I should rather have set you an example of resilling them, then (being your Senior, as I am) have suffered you to be before me as my pattern for a conscientious recusancie of such a revenue; But I never read in any Book, much less in yours, (wherein in case of Tythes you play not the Disputant, but the Dictator ) which could make me suspect them to be Anti-Evangelical; nor hath any respect to advantage made me of a better opinion of their title then yours, since I have rejected the offer of thrice as much benefit by Tythes as now I have. And if Tythes were taken away, I am confident I should be no loser by another allowance; though it may be I may fall under a misrepresentation, as if I argued for them as Demetrius for the honor of Diana, when I mind •••• ing more then the gain of Tythes, as he did the gain of her silver Shrines; and I may the rather suspect it from some of your side, (though not from you) because I find the like charge laid upon M ^r . Edw. by M ^r . W.W. in his Whisper in his care: wh • as he is like Luther in the vigor and freedom of his spirit, so is he, as Luther said of himself, of all sins the freest from covetousness; and on my knowledge, whereas he hath had the offer of many good Benefices, he resused them, and hath no Tythes at all for his maintenance, but a voluntary pension, which is not competent for his charge, or pains either in an answerable preportion, or a seasonable payment; and yet is he contented with it, minding much more the doing of the work he undertook, then the receiving of the wages.

SECT. IX. Of M ^r . Colemans observation of the Church of Scotland.

Light.

I 〈◊〉 by this passage you have not read the Book you pretend to answer; for M ^r . Colemans experience was not of Heresy, and Schism in the Church of Scotland, but (as he gave instance) of the Presbyteries usurpation of the power of banishment; and if you mean M ^r . Colemans charge for that, (as I suppose you do) you might have taken notice of an Answer to it in the seventh Section of mine Examination of your New Quere, p. 21. which, though it were in part but conjectural, is confirmed by a more certain Answer of the Reverend Commissioner M ^r . Gillespie in these words, What from Scotland? I myself (saith M ^r . Coleman) did hear the Presbyterie of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of the City; was not this an encroachment? It had been an encroachment indeed if it had been so. But he will excuse me if I answer him in his own Language (which I use not ) p. 3. & 5. It is at the best a most uncharitable slander, and there was either ignorance or mindlesnesse in him that sets it down.

There is no banishment in Scotland but by the Civil Magistrate, who so far aideth and assisteth Church Discipline, that prefane and scandalous persons, when they are found unruly and incorrigible, are punished with banishment, or otherwise. A stranger coming at a time into one of our Presbyteries, and hearing of somewhat which was represented to, or reported from the Magistrate, ought to have so much circumspection and charity as not to make such a rash and untrue report. He might have at least inquired when he was in Scotland, and informed himself better, whether Presbytery or the Civil Magistrate do banish. If he made no such inquiry, he was rash in judging: if he did, his offense is greater, when after information he will not understand. And if you put your cause to the arbitration of M ^r . Coleman, you will find cause by the sentence to conceive him to be no more an Independent, then we have to take him to be a Presbyterian; and I suppose I may say he is more ours then yours, since he hath put himself into the Association of a Classical Assembly, in the Province of London; howsoever whether he prove a Participle, or a Neuter, I know you will not be concluded by his either opinion, or practice, no more shall we.

SECT. X. A Comparison of young men and old, for prudence and counsel. Of visions and dreams, where the second of Joel verse. 28. and Act. 2.17. are vindicated from M ^r . Saltm. his mistaking and misapplication of them.

Light.

Instead of acknowledgement of your misapplication of Job 32. verse. 6, 7. where with I charge you, Sect. 4. pag. 14. of my Book, you lay a charge upon me, for reproaching the younger with the name of green-heads. That the impartial Reader may be the better able to judge betwixt us both, I will set down first my words to you, then yours to me; my words are these.

For his Epiphonema with the words of Elihu forementioned, which are taken out of Job 32. verse. 6, 7. Why do not days speak, and multitude of years teach knowledge? they make nothing for his purpose; for the meaning of them is not, that Government, or Discipline, or any other useful thing should not be with all convenient speed established, but that the ancient with whom is wisdom, Job 12.12. the gray-headed and very aged men, Chap. 15.10. who have had the experience of many days and years, should be heard, and heeded in matters of advise, and consultation, before such green-headed Counselors as Rehoboam followed to his ruin, 1 Kings 12.13, 14.

Light.

I spake no more either in praise of old men, or disparagement of young then conduced to clear the Text in question betwixt us, yet thence you have taken occasion to magnify young men, and to vilify the old, alleging the saying of the Prophet Joel, Your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions, and thereupon demanding, whether is more excellent to dream dreams, or to see visions: you resolve the Question yourself thus; Surely, we may more safely hearken to the younger that see visions of Reformation, then to the elder that dream dreams of it only.

And do all, or only, or most young men see visions of Reformation? and all, or only, or most old men but dream dreams of it? If there be not such an Antithesis betwixt them, your comparative thesis is an error of youth, a slander of age, and I shall not doubt, if you take up a duel with me in this quarrel, with the old man's crutch (bring what weapons you will or can) to beat you out of the field, or at least to give you the foil.

But besides your disparagement of old men, I have some what to say to you for mistaking and misapplying the words of the Prophet, Joel 2.28. brought in by the Apestle, Act. 2.17. first, for the defense of old men; you make as if it were safer to hearken to young men then to them, as if the young men were wiser counselors then the old.

I grant beforehand that sometimes there may be young men, (as Joseph, Daniel, and Samuel, ) who may have a spirit of wisdom, and thereby may be fit to give counsel, and to govern the ways of the aged; but setting aside singular and extraordinary examples, compare age & youth in the general, and the resolution of reason and example will be, that old men are fitter to direct and guide the young, then contrariwise; for in old men the passions and perturbations of the mind (which give great impediment to prudence, (for they are to reason as fumes and vapors about a candle, which dim the light thereof) are more subdued then in young men. Besides experience (which is both the parent of wisdom, of which it is begotten, and the nurse which bringeth it on to a further growth and proficiency) falls not within the fathom of a young man's reach, but of the old man; hence is it that Solomon saith; The hoary head is a • rowne of glory if it be found in the way of righteousness, Prov. 16.31. and that by the law, the younger sort were to rise up before the hoary head, and to honor the face of the old man, Levite. 19.32. For with the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days understanding, Job 12.12.

And hence it is, that the Counselors and Governors of Common-weals, are called Senators, and their Assembly Senatus, from age: and in the Old Testament they are called the Elders of Israel, and in the New those whose function requireth of them a wisdom of the best kind, and highest degree, (for it must be such a wisdom as must go beyond his subtlety who deceiveth all the world, Rev. 12.6.9.) are called Presbyters, a word in Greek of the same signification with Elders in English. And for example you cannot be forgetful of the Story of R • h • boams old and young Counselors, 1 King. 12. nor what prelation is given to the old above the young in that Story; and while you remember it, you should not sway the preeminence on the young men's side against the old men, as you have done.

Besides the Scriptures, there be manifold instances against your fence in the difference of age and youth, I will mind you of some, as that of Bernard counseling Eugenius to call to him Counselors (as Moses did) that were old men, not young men; and of the Lacedemonians, of whom Cicero saith, that they who are the chief Magistrates, whose authority is of most ample extent, as they are, so they are called old men.

And among the Romans aged prudence was so much honored, that in the College of Sages, Sentences were partly valued by senioritie. And there is good ground for this great estimation of old men, for great Common-weals, as he showeth, which have been ruined by young men, have been repaired and restored by old men. Such as Agesilaus was, whom (though among the vulgar Egyptians, (when he came into their Country, and they saw no stately train about him, but an old gray beard laid on the grass by the seaside,) a little man that looked simply on the matter, in a thread bare gown fell a laughing at him) yet the chief Captains and Governors of King Tachis honourably received, and were marvelously desirous to see him, for the great fame that went abroad of him and he was famous for his wisdom both Military and Civil, as Plutarch reporteth in the Story of his life. To him I could add many examples of later time, and nearer home; I will name only one, and that is my Reverend brother M ^r . Tho. Gataker, who though he have been an old man a great while, hath given (of late since his sickness, and secession from the Assembly) such a specimen of a pregnant apprehension and faithful memory, as may assure a judicious Reader, that albeit his body be weak, his brain is not so; though his head have been long gray, his wit is yet green and flourishing.

Secondly, Now for mine other exception against your comparison; In it you not only give preeminence to young men before old, but prefer them in this, that young men see visions of reformation, and old men dream dreams of it only; wherein you wrap up three particulars, which you take for granted, but it will be an harder task then you imagine to prove any one of them.

First, That Revelations by visions are more excellent then those that come by dreams.

Secondly, That visions ascribed to young men are denied to old men.

Thirdly, That young men have visions of reformation, old men only dream of it; whereas

First, some learned men have resolved that visions are not more excellent then dreams, and the reasons may be; First, because in Scripture they are brought in as Revelations, though different, yet without prelation of the one before the other, as Numb. 12. If there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and speak unto him in a dream, Num. 12.6. Secondly, as great matters are represented in dreams as in visions, as the affliction of the children of Israel in Egypt, and their deliverance was revealed to Abraham in a dream, Gen. 15.12. and the intercourse betwixt heaven and earth, in the ministry of Angels was represented to Jacob in a dream, Gen. 28.12. It was in a dream that Solomon had the singular wisdom imparted to him, 1 King. 3.5. By a dream was the conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost revealed to Joseph, Matth. 1.20. and the plot of perdition against him, with the way to prevent it, Matt. 2.13.

Thirdly, as for the matter, so for the manner, Revelation by a dream is as clear, and as sure as by a vision; as in that of Abraham, of Jacob, of Solomon, of Joseph forementioned; to which we may add that of Abimelech, Gen. 20.3. and out of human Authors; the dream of Jerome, wherein he was brought before the Tribunal of Christ, and denied to be a Christian, because he was too much a Ciceronian, and was adjudged to be scourged, and was so, and in the morning he found his shoulders blew with his beating; and the dream of Zwingli against the Masso, had an evidence of the matter very clear (though for the Author he was uncertain.)

But we may say further that dreams have an excellency above visions, and the reason is this: That which hath more of God, and less of man, is more excellent then that which contrariwise hath more of man and less of God: now in dreams there is more of God, and less of man; because in sleep the senses are bound up, and so there is more communion betwixt the spirit of God, and the soul of man, and less interruption in that communion then to men awake; so that in dreams there is no disturbing of the Revelation by the concurrence of sensual objects, no denying or suspending of assent by examination of reason, as D ^r . Rivet well observeth. And the reason is ratified by natural Philosophy, for the mind (saith Cicere ) in dreams is vigorous, being free from senses, and from all interruption of cares, the body, the while being in a manner dead. And elsewhere he saith, that the minds of men asleep declare their divinity, for when they are relaxed and free, they foresee many future things, whence it may be gathered what they will be hereafter, when they are wholly released from bonds of the body.

The second Particular which your comparative speech implieth is, that visions ascribed to young men are denied to old men; whereas old men have their visions as well as young; as John the Evangelist though he were young when he came first to be a Disciple of his and our great Master, had his Revelations by vision in the Isle of Pathmus when he was old, viz. in the 96. year of Christ, which must be at least the 80. year of Johns age, if we suppose him to be but 14. years old at the entrance of his attendance on him, and younger we cannot reasonably imagine him to have been at that time.

A third thing which in your comparison of young men and old for visions and dreams. I may not admit of, is, that you bring it to the matter of reformation, and make it as if the young men had seent a vision, and that old men had but some dark notions of it, like unto a nightly dream; which is so presumptuous and groundless a conceit that your most waking thoughts cannot make it seem otherwise to any sound understanding, then a vapor of a young man's brag, or the vanity of a sick man's dream.

SECT. XI. M ^r . Saltm. his insufficient answer and figurative trifting unworthy of an Answer.

Light.

If the indifferent Reader will turn to the place, pag. 15. of my Book, he shall perceive your Answer to my Text (which you do not faithfully repeat) is very insufficient, and if he read your words first, and mine after, he will take them for a confutation of yours, not yours for a confutation of mine; and the like hath been said by a judicious Reader for a great part of your Reply.

Light.

In this and many other passages of your Book you are rather typical in representation, then topicall in proof; you follow your Allegory so far, that to follow you therein is rather to dally then to dispute; Besides, the result of your exception either closeth with my sense, or strayeth from the question in difference betwixt us; and if in such particulars I do not trace your steps, think not I could not answer you, but that I would not trouble myself, nor tire the Reader with trifling impertinencie.

SECT. XII. A comparison of Presbyterians and Independents in point of strictness and looseness in admission of members; of the mixture in the Church of Corinth.

Light.

That the doors of our Churches are no straiter may be partly imputed to some of your party, who have no mind of such a through reformation as would deprive them of an opportunity and occasion of gathering of Churches; which could have no pretence, if the Reformation were wrought up to such a pitch as the Presbyterians desire.

And if our doors be set too open, or cast off the hinges, it is in permitting Independents such a liberty of Lecturing in our Churches, to preach against Presbytery, as they would never yield to Presbyterians, were it in their power to prohibit them.

But S ^r . I believe, in some respects neither commendable, nor warrantable, your doors are more open then ours, your hinges more loose then ours, your walls much more wide, or rather you have neither doors, nor hinges, nor walls to bound your membership; for if you had, how could people of London, Holland, New England, be members of the same particular Church, as before hath been objected unto you? but this is not cardo controversiae betwixt you and me.

Light.

By this Reply I see (though you take time to answer a challenge) you will rather foil yourself, then seem to be foiled by your Antagonist; for if Gospel Churches, gathered by the Word and Spirit into Gospel fellowship, as you state the case, may consist of such godly and ungodly members, as were in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11.21. then for all your pretence of your Gospel way you have no warrant for such a separation as you take upon you to make. Besides, S ^r . the separation of people is not to be varied in regard of the Church way of gathering into fellowship, which is extrinsical, but in regard of the difference of persons as they are holy or profane; but with you, it seems, if the manner of gathering be such as you call a Gospel way, it matters not much whether the matter of the Church be holy or unholy; and indeed, though you exclude from coming into your Churches some kind of wicked ones, you admit of those whom without repentance God will never account of the communion of Saints, such as are notoriously covetous, proud, slanderous, and malicious, who have no more visible interest in Christ then a fornicator, or drunkard, a swearer, or Sabbath-breaker.

SECT. XIII. To whom Christ is an Head, and how; of his rod of Iron and his Golden Scepter, and of his being a Lord and a servant; gentle, yet terrible.

Light.

It is true, Christ is an head, and not an head to everybody, but is he not an head to his own integral members, because the wicked mingle with them in an outward profession? have hypocrites anymore consanguinity with the pure blood of Christ then profane persons have? yet Christ is head of that Church where reprobates are reputed to be members; and are there not some branches of the Vine which bear no fruit, and are to be taken away? Joh. 15.2. who cannot for all that hinder the vital influence into other branches, as in the example of the Church of Corinth.

And for that you say of a body so leprous, so wicked; as applied to our Reformation in furi, or in fact, it is very falsely reprod chfull, and savors of ungratitude to God, and of Pharisaical disdain of purer Churches then those you stand for; wherein you grossly digress from the moderation whereto you protend.

Light.

By this Answer you seem to forget your own Argument, which was to prove an unsuitableness of the Presbyterial Government to the Person of Christ; and when I have shown that the Person of Christ is not only amiable as a Savior, but formidable to offenders as a Lord, having an iron Rod, as well as a golden Seepter, you say by way of distinction that he hath his iron scepter as King of the Nations, not as King of the Church; but if his Church consist of golden Saints and gilded Hypocrites, (for you say it consists at least of such as visibly and formally appear so, and hypocrites appear so, and the appearance of Saintship is the most that is in them) he hath and useth an iron rod to drive away, and to crush, as well as a golden Scepter to invite and call to his presence; for were not Ananias and Sapphira members of the Church after a Gospel dispensation? and were they not ruined as well as ruled, when they were both of them suddenly smitten dead for their hypocritical profession? what could an iron rod have done more, if they had taken up heathenish hostility against the Church? and was not this exemplary punishment laid upon them that the Church might fear Christ as a Lord, as well as love him as a Savior of his Church, that they might fear his iron rod, as well as love his golden Scepter? sure I am it wrought that effect upon Christians in general, for fear came upon all the Church, and upon at many as heard these things, Act. 5.11.

Light.

In this particular you give me occasion to return a piece of your own Rhetoric upon you, and to call you as you do me, a fair enemy, for you repeat my proofs so fully here (though else-where you miserably maim and mangle them) that you may be thought to have done as Bellarmine is said to do in his Controversies, viz. to bring in more of the Protestants Objections then he is able to answer; But when you say that I prove only what you grant, that he is more a King and Lord in his Government, then in any other of his Gospel dispensations; you invert the order of the words you should observe; for you should have rather said, You now grant what I have proved, for I never knew so much of your mind in this matter before; and you grant so much as might have spared a great part of your Reply to me; for the Lordship of his Government was the matter in question, and that being granted by you, the Presbyterial Government is not so inconsistent or unsuitable with the condition of Christ's description of himself as you would make it.

SECT. XIV. The Presbyterial Government not unsuitable to the condition of Christ; the prevailing of Independents, and of the Sects that meet in Independency, much more terrible then the Presbyterial Government can be.

Light.

These proofs were not brought to prove a Presbyterial Government, but dato sed non concesso, that it was severe, it was not sounsutable to the condition of Christ as you pretended. And for that you say, certainly you intend a terrible Government, though you speak to me, you do not mean it of me, for you have said before, What if such as yourself, and some other godly meek of your way propound nothing but ways of meekness to yourselves, can you undertake, &c. whereby you seem to acquit me from the accusation of such rigor as you suspect in others; and if that be your meaning, you are not mistaken in my spirit, for if I know anything of it, it is far from that height of heat against any opposers whatsoever which was in the Disciples of our Savior against the Samaritans, when they received him not, Luk. 9.54.

And I confess, in the presence of God who knoweth the hearts of all men, that if a spirit of meekness, and sweetness, and of all affectionate and fair insinuations would prevail with the most perverse and blasphemous heretic to win him to be cordially Christ's, I could wish the golden Scepter held out to invite him into the communion of the Church, rather then the iron rod to bruise, or break, or to affright him from the Church. And though you mean this of others, who show themselves Zealots for the Presbyterial Government, you are too inconsiderate, too uncharitable, too confident in your charge; for how can you be so certain as you make yourself, when the thing they move for hath no terror in it; It is true, that according to the French Proverb, He that would have his neighbors dog hanged gives out that he is mad; so your party that would have the Presbyterial Government literally suspended, and made away as a mad dog, as if it would (as Paul was before his conversion) be mad against the Saints, Act. 26.11. and breathe out nothing but threatenings and slaughters against them, Act. 9.1. give out that it is an intolerable Tyranny, and ten times worse then the Prelatical Domination: When indeed if men will lay aside all prejudice, partiality, and passion, they shall find the spirit of Independency more terrible then that of Presbyterie. For,

First, that which is so much stuck at as an encroachment upon Christian liberty, and a means of the Ministers domineering over the people, the suspensiō from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are not the Independents more rigid then the Presbyterians are? for they generally suspend whole Parishes from the Sacrament (except some few of their covenanted disciples) for divers years together, without any law or rule at all; the Presbyterians generally do not so; or if some do forbear communions for a time, it is not upon such principles as the Independents maintain; and they do all they can to expedite the removal of all scandals from the Sacrament, wherein the Independents refuse to join with them.

Secondly, the Independents deny not only the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as hath been said, but they deny the Sacrament of Baptism to all such as are not the children of their covenanted members; the Presbyterians accept of them for a federal holiness professed by their parents; and if there were no more but these two differences betwixt them, it were enough (if men would not give up themselves to be grossly befooled by flattery and calumny) to cry out upon the Independents for their injurious invasions upon Christian liberty, and to love the Presbyterians for their mildness and charity in these particulars: but further,

Thirdly, The Independents Government (though to speak properly, Independency is rather Anarchy then Government ) is more terrible then the Presbyterian; because under it are united all sorts of sectaries, among whom many are of furious spirits, men of blood and Belial, and such as have made many bloody massacres in Germany, and have threatened if otherwise they may not have their will, (their liberty they call it) that they will have it by the sword; for have they not an Independent army to force their way against the Presbyterians? I quoted to this purpose M ^r . Prinnes fresh Discovery, and D ^r . Bastw. Preface to his second part of Independency, but I quoted not their words, now I will, became since M ^r . Edw. put forth his last Book, some of that sect have spoken bloody words against his person; and (though he be so confident in the goodness of his cause, and the integrity of his intentions, that he believes he should less fear to be killed, then any to kill him) yet since I find the Independents deal with the Presbyterians as Ahab did with Elijah, charging him with his own fault, 1 King. 18.17. and that like the beast in the Revelation, they speak like a dragon, Revel. 13.11. and are horned rather like a ram then a lamb, I think it fit that their spirit be better known, that they may be less trusted; especially, where they pretend more meekness then they find among Presbyterians; their words are these,

Two Predicant Captains apprehended, and questioned for preaching in Newport Pannell against the Ordinance of Parliament of the 26. of April, 1645. among other speeches averred, That if the godly and well affected party were thus persecuted, they should be forced to make a worse breach then what was yet, when they had done with the Kings party; telling one Ensign Ratford and his Soldiers that they were worse then Cavaliers; and that when they had made an end of the war with the Cavaliers, they should be forced to raise a new Army to fight with them. And in D ^r . Bastwicks Preface to his second part of his Independency not God's Ordinance, he saith thus; Among those they think they may confide in, they affirm they will not be beholding to the Parliament nor anybody else for their libertia, for they will have it, and ask them no leave; they have the sword now in their hand, and they think their party strong enough to encounter any adverse and opposing party; and they profess they care not how soon they come to outting of throats, and speak of nothing but the slaughtering and butchering of the Presbyterians.

And though I confess there may be many Independents (and some I know to be such as yourself) of a meek and gentle disposition, yet as Peter Du Moulin said of many of the Priests in France, that they were for their loyaltis not beholding to the maxim •• of Italy, so I say, for their mooknesse they are not beholding to the Principles of Independency; for where they most prevail they puff men up in pride, self-conceit, and disdain of their Christian brethren, though in gifts and graces far better then themselves, many of them being Anabaptists, and of the spirit of that ins • lent heretic, who, when Calvin had conference with him, and entertained him with terms of humanity, vouchsafed him none other language then if Calvin had been no better then a dog; and he shown the arrogancy of his mind by his carriage, and behavior, as well as by his words, offering to sit next to the prime Syndick of the Senate of Geneva, and upon the repulse, by the motion of his head, and eyes, signifying great weath, he took upon him a Prophetical Majesty. And albeit some take it for a proof of the goodness of their cause, that they have engaged many great and rich men in it, which makes them, as is truly observed, Though the smallest of all the sects of the time for their number, yet the greatest for worth of their followers, yet that in a true Christian consideration makes rather against it; for by getting so many rich and great men unto their party, and aiming so much at such disciples (with such neglect of others as is observed) shows that they are not minded as the Apostle was, when he said to the Corinthians; I seek not yours but you, 2 Cor. 12.14. but rather contrariwise; so that if they would say, what many by their actions speak, they should tell their converts; I seek not you but yours, or rather yours then you. And secondly, when rich and great men embrace Independency, it may give great cause of suspicion that they do it, because, as rich, they are apt to be high-minded, 1 Tim. 6.17. and all high-minded men are the most legitimate sons of lapsed Adam, who would be Independent upon God, and be a God of himself, and so they are apt to take up Independency, rather out of an humor of pride, then out of conscience towards either pictie, or truth.

Fourthly, It is apparent to all how ambitious many Independents are of all places of honor, of power, and profit, of being Members in the Parliament, prime Officers in the Army, Committee men; and if any cross them, what ways they find out to be meet with them, sending them tickets, and calling them in question, when they know there is no just cause of exception against them, of purpose to cast an awe upon all men, as if the authority of the State were at their service, to secure their credits against all complaints how just so ever, and to discountenance those who in an ingenuous and generous spirit oppose their usurpations, which are now so visible to the view of all that are not willfully blind, that it is matter of great wonder, that the Presbyterians (who are more in number, and dignity, then any sect whatsoever, and if they were as active as they, might much overtop them in power) are so dull and indulgent towards them, as to suffer them still to carry on their design as they do; which in some Presbyterians for the time past may be imputed to their patience, and meekness of mind, being loath to offend such; but if it should be so general hereafter as it hath been, it might be ascribed to a negligence, and coldness in that cause which they should endeavor to promote with all their might in all warrantable ways of zeal, of industry, circumspection, and prudence.

Fifthly, Though you assign the iron Scepter to the Presbytery, the golden to your Churches, the truth is, if the Independents were once as Independent as they would be, they would be Masters of both metals, both gold and iron; and some of their party brag they have both the purse and the sword in their power; if so, (and in such a degree as they would have it, but it is true but in part, though too much) they that now renounce appeals to Classical, Provincial, and National Assemblies, would appeal to the sword, and then they would be ready to ruin those that would not be ruled by them, to break those that would not bow unto them.

Sixthly, You cannot find anything in the Presbyterians principles, nor in their practice, as they are Presbyterians, which may be matter, I say not of conviction, but of suspicion of such a terrible government, as you take upon you, with so much confidence, to charge upon them.

SECT. XV. A pleasant reproof of a misapplication of Scripture is no offense, against the majesty of the word; how, and in what cases a taunting speech may be allowed.

Light.

Here you impute unto me that, which (if truly objected) would require a penitential confession on my part; if untruly, no less on yours; that it may be more manifest, it will be meet to take notice how my words come in upon yours, and yours upon mine. Upon your misapplication of Matth. 9.17. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles, my words are these. Conceiving the Penner to be a sober man, I must think in this passage the Printers brain was troubled with the fume of new wine, to conclude with non-sense for a rational consequence; and I believe no new wine and old bottles, how new or old so ever, can worse agree together, then the foregoing evidence and the final sentence of this paragraph. Upon my words your Comment is,

Light.

To which I answer; First, That the Apostle, Eph. 5.4. forbidding jesting under that word, which in Moral Philosophy is the title of a virtue, doth not forbid all kind of jests, towards all persons, and in all cases; for what was the Irony of God to Adam, Gen. 3.22. and of Elijah to the Priests of Baal, 1 King. 18.27. but a jesting reproof?

Secondly, There is a great difference betwixt jesting at Scripture, and at a misapplication of Scripture; this may be taunted without any relish of irreverence at all to the other; for example, a man may give all religious respect due to the words of our Savior, John. 21.16. Feed my sheep, but when Bellarmine abuseth them, by wresting them and inferring from them the proof of the Supremacy of the Pope over the universal Church, I may deride the absurdity of his sequel, without any impeachment of the antecedent allegation. The like may be said of Psal. 91.13. as brought in by Pope Alexander, to prove his proud usurpation over Princes, when at Venice, Anno 1159. he set his foot upon the neck of the Emperor Frederick Barborosse; the Story whereof, though Binius say it was feigned by Henetiques, is set out and is to be seen in a Table at Venice; and of the inference which some make of the ubiquitie of the body of Christ from the vision of Jacob's ladder, Gen. 28.12. And what resolution can be made of a Popish gloss on Gen. 1.10. (according to the Latin Translation, Congregationem aquarum vecavit maria, applying it to the praise of the Virgin Mary ) without such a scoff as may expose the Authors ridiculous descant to scorn and laughter? which repeated by a learned Hebrician he begins the report with hear Reader and laugh. And if I thought your quotation of Matth. 9.17. were as wide from the scope, and as weak for the proof of that for which it was produced by you, as some of these now mentioned allegations are, (wherein there are divers judicious and religious Readers concurring with me) I might (reserving all due respect to that sacred Text) entertain your misapplication of it, rather with a jesting correction, then a serious conviction.

You will say perhaps, (as in another place you have done) that mis-application is a word sooner written then proved, and you would have the Reader judge (so would I, if he be neither imprudent nor partial) whether it be your misapplication or my misinterpretation; and let him judge also whether mis-interpretation be not a word sooner written then proved, as well as misapplication is; and let him further judge whether these words of yours [I am sorry my younger pen should reprove the aged for is sting, which the Apostle faith is not convenient] should have been uttered by you in a jesting or jeering way, as they are; and whether now you should not be sorry in good earnest, that your younger pen was so forward to blet the face of the aged with such a black aspersion, as uncomely jesting at the Scripture, and (being but a servant) playing upon the Master of the Feast, or anything in his hause, especially upon his wine which alludes to his blood, and which he hath promised to drink new with us in his Fathers Kingdom.

It would better have becomed you (especially professing such respect to me as you do in your Letter and else-where) to have taken my jesting, as I meant it, with a candid acceptation; as the laughter of John was received by younger men then himself; If I laughed (faith he) they believed it not, and the light of my countenance they cast not down, Job 29.24. that is, (as the Last Annotations expound it) they thought a man of my gravity would not be so familiar with them, or as Grotius makes the note: They thought some serious matter lay laid under my jesting, and my familiarity did not cause them to grieve, be angry, or contemn me, or my authority suffered no diminution by that means, or upon that occasion.

You frame the like objection against me for being too pleasant with your expression of the truth by a star, because it is the very allegory of the spirit, and so was that which Barchoche has alluded unto, Numb. 24.17. yet was his misapplication of it justly entertained with a taunt, and his name with derision turned into Be •• bozba, the son of a lie, for which I quoted two grave Authors in mine Examination of your Quere. You say there was more lightsomeness then light in that passage, and I believe there was more light also then in most parts of your Book, which you have smoked in every page; you will say perhaps that here again I am too pleasant with your Scripture evidence, but let me tell you S ^r . without offense, you are observed to play upon the Sacred ground-work with too much boldness, and wanto • nesse of wit, to make many allusions which are but illusions of your own misinformed sancie; and they take the Title of your Book to be very fantastical, and (besides many jests which have passed upon it by some ingenuous Readers, which I forbear, lest I should make you angry with that which made them merry) while I was writing this, there came to my hands a Latin Letter form a very learned and religious Divine, with whom I have a commerce of Letters in that Language, wherein he takes your Answer (which you call a full answer unto me) to have none other fullness in it then a fume and vapor, which will easily vanish into nothing.

SECT. XVI. Of the Presbyterial and Independent Government how affected; the slow proceeding of the Church Government made no Argument for it, nor mentioned to the disparagement of the Parliament; M ^r . Saltm. brings the Parliaments Authority under popular liberty; of the wheat in Independent Congregations.

Light.

It is no part of mine undertaking to prove the Presbyterial Government to be Christ's Government, nor is it needful so to do; for I have told you where it is done already, which no man hath refuted nor can do; nor is it needful to assert every part of it by express Scripture; and if the Independent platform be according to the pure Gospel pattern, as you phrase it, why have not your Brethren cleared that doubt all this while, having been engaged thereto by promise, and often called upon for performance thereof?

Light.

I see it is not strange with you to mistake, or pervert a plain truth; for did not you plead against the speedy settling of the Presbyterian Government by the example of Christ? and was not mine Answer to this purpose, Christ was not so long in settling of his Government, nor the Parliament and Assembly so hasty as you pretended. Is this a proof of mine opinion, I pray you, or a confutation of yours?

Light.

Here you make as if I spake without due respect, or rather with terms of reproach unto the State or Parliament, for bringing in the Government as fluttering upon the limetwigge at Westminster; and thereupon you say, Sure the State or Parliament may deserve better of any of the Assembly then to be thought their Retarders or limetwigs: and you strive to strain up the words to an higher degree of guilt, by an aggravation of ingratitude, in that they have honored them above their Brethren.

To which I answer: First, that my words, Sect. 9. p. 26. are these; It hath been, if not the fault, yet the ill hap of our Church and State, to have the Government fluttering upon the limetwig of deliberation at Westminster, when it should be upon the wing of actual execution all over the Kingdom.

Secondly, that if I had mistaken terms of diminution of the dignity of the Parliament, for terms of honor, and grateful acknowledgement, there is no reason that for my fault the Assembly should be involved in the imputation of an offense; since I did not write by any either command from them, or consultation with them.

Thirdly, confining the charge to myself, I may challenge you for a failing in charity, and memory. First, in charity, in that you make so ill a construction of my words both really, and personally; really interpreting the limetwig in a sense of defilement, whereas I meant it only as a let and impediment; (which may befall the deliberations of the best and wisest men) and personally, in turning the term upon the State or Parliament, in an offensive signification towards them, whom I never meant, nor mentioned with a thought or expression of disparagement. Secondly, in memory, in that you forgot a precedent passage in my Book, which might (had you remembered it) have prevented such a sinister surmise of the metaphor I used; my words which manifestly hold out a confutation of your corrupt gloss on these now in question, are these,

Yet they cannot make that speed with the Government which by most is desired, and very much desired by themselves (as we of the Assembly can witness who have often been sent to by that Honorable Senate to quicken our work, and to ripen our debates to a full resolution) because as with us the liberty of speaking (wherein everyone is frce to propose and prosecute any doubt) prolonged the Government in our hands; so the like liberty in the Honorable Honses (or rather our liberty is like theirs, it being the prototypon) longthens the debates, and delays the votes of that most Honorable Senate; and so much the more, because they are more in number then we in our Synod, and because their determinations are final as ours are not.

But when you have made the worst sense you can of them, you come in with this allay; it may be you call your dissenting Brethren the limetwigs. I do not that neither, for I do not so confound persons and things as to mean men to be the limet wigs, but their deliberations, objections, and obstructions that step in, and keep out deciding votes, and resolutions of debates; wherein if I mean your Independent Brethren had their part, and fault, I do them no wrong; but then you make as if I wronged myself, defiling my argument with a limetwigge and be wraying our slow proceeding to have been rather of constraint then conscience; which is a me are inconsequence, for we neither endeavored, nor desired such a precipitation of conclusions as should not admit of necessary or competent consideration, and discussion beforchund; nor such a slowness of proceeding as should wiredraw a dispute for a week or a fortnight, which would not have taken up one whole day, if there had not been some such among us as Jerome tax • th for cavilling a clear truth into abscuritie.

And now I have cleared myself of your imputation of disrespect to the State, or Parliament, I may rooriminate some contempt in you towards that most Honorable Assembly.

For, First, you seem to think it a matter of praise to your partic, that you are more on the Magistrates side then the Magistrate on yours; as if the Magistrate were bound to tolerate your way against law, and the pence and union of Church and State, as much as you are bound to allow them their power, and authority for preservation of the public welfare.

Secondly. In your design for Pence, (as far as you dare) you project a way to decline the Magistrates Authority about religious matters, which an advised Reader may perceive, though your terms be very cunningly chosen, and covertly couched together, where you say, Let not abose believers who have the advantage of the Magistrate, strive to make any unwarrantable use of it one against another, because Scripture principles are not so clear for it.

Thirdly, you for your part cast a notorious calumny upon the Parliament; calling the maint enance of the Ministers by Tythes undeniably Jewish and Popish, which are confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament, whereof you cannot be ignorant; and it cannot be avoided if Tythes be of that nature, but that you make the Parliament Patrones of Judaism and Popery, and that is such a notorious reproach, as you should not have entertained in your most secret thoughts, nor whispered in the care of any friend, much less have proclaimed it in Print, in such peremptory terms as you have done.

Fourthly, you give up the Magistrates Authority to the people's liberty, leaving it in their choice to receive, or refuse Church-government, as they like or dislike it; for thus you would have it propounded unto them, People, here is a Government, which to some of us seemeth to be a government according to the Word of God, take it and examine it, if you be so persuaded, and if the Word of God hold it forth clearly, embrace it; if not, do not obey anything in blind and implicit obedience; this were fair dealing with conscience. But it were foul dealing with the Magistrate, yea and the people too, for it would bring all to Anarchy and confusion, as Judge. 17.6. If you say, you mean it in respect of the Assembly or Ministers, they present it not to the people until the Parliament have ratified it by their Authority; and so your meaning must be, that they should put that to the people's choice, which the Parliament hath concluded in their Votes, and imposed both on Ministers, and people by their civil Sanction; and what is this but to subject the Supreame Authority to the popular liberty?

Light.

Truly S ^r . if you came truly by your wheat I would allow it you; but though I allow that you have wheat in fact, I say you have not that wheat in right, which you have gathered out of other Churches; for your gatherings are upon the grounds of Brownism, with injury and calumny of the Churches from whence your covenanted members are collected.

SECT. XVII. The settling of Government falsely suggested to be heretical, with an implicit reproach upon the Parliament. Of the truth of Sleidans story of the Anabaptists in Germany. A rash censure of Luther, and the Lutherans in Germany for opposing them. A caveat to England to take warning by Germany. The Ministers practice slandered, and the Magistrate dishonored by M ^r . Saltm.

Light.

What settling do you mean? the debates, and votes, and advice of the Assembly to the Parliament, (which is all they do) are no settlings of anything; for when they are presented to them, they come under their examination again; but nothing is settled in Government, until, after their discussion and resolution, their civil Sanction be set upon it; and how should this be an heresy, as great an heresy as we complain of? we complain of all heresies, what will be the consequence of this implicit charge? can the Parliament settle heresy and not be heretics? nay worse then so, for it is far worse to settle an heresy, and to authorise it to so many thousands as are under the power of the Parliament, then for any, or many particular persons to hold an heresy. And whereas you intimate a change of my mind, so far as that I may be like, after the example of Paul, to preach for that Doctrine which now I destroy, I trust (not in myself, but in the support of Divine grace) that I shall always be so far opsite or adverse unto you, until you be settled, as to be constant to the truth I have believed, and professed, while you run yourself giddy in the circle of erroneous, or heretical opinions.

Light.

You say you dare not believe my Historian against the Anabaptists, more then an Oxford Pen concerning the Battels of the Parliament, from whence you shall read nothing but Rebellion rather then Religion; as if the war of the Anabaptists were as warrantable as that of the Parliament, or John Sleydan as contemptible, and incredible a Writer as Mercurius Aulicus, or Mercurius Academicus; which makes me think you have not read Sleydan, for if you had, you would observe and acknowledge in him as many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a true Historian as in most, whether of the ancient or latter Ages, and so the most judicious Protestants esteem of him; The Papists I confess undervalue him as you do, and some of them vilify him, as if he partially inclined to the Lutheran party against the Popish; yet some of them give him the praise of a good Historian, as John Bodine in his Method of history; and for the story of the Anabaptists and their fanatic fancies, and furious uprores, they are not only recorded by Sleydan, but by others, as by Philip Lonicerus, and by Bullinger in his Book against that Sect; by Spanhemius, by Conradus Heresbachius, Theodorus Strachius, and by Lambertus Hortensius.

Light.

This again showeth that you have not read, or not well considered of the principles and practices of the Anabaptists; which were such both against God and man, as could not consist with the safety either of the Church or State; and therefore your censure of the sin and judgment of Germany, and of the Lutherans, is a presumptuous perching into God's Tribunal.

Light.

Good counsel I confess, but not in your sense, in favor of such Sects, or fear of opposing their fancies, or stopping their proceedings; but let England take warning by Germany for being too indulgent to them, upon their illusive pretences of more illumination, and spiritual communion with God, then other men enjoy.

Light.

If you speak this to the Ministers, their warfare is none other then spiritual; nor is the Magistrate their minister, to take Sectaries with swords or staves if their transgressions deserve it, since therein they do their own work, whereto by their office they are obliged; and when they do so, you should not so disparage the Magistrates as to match them with such wicked Officers as set upon our blessed Savior, and with violent hands violated the Majesty and Piety of his Person; nor so honor such heretical Incendiaries, and slaughter men as those Anabaptists were, as to compare them to Christ. And for your caveat against shedding of spiritual blood, if you mean by that phrase the blood of Sectaries, or Heretics, whom some take to be more spiritual then other men, they are many of them very carnal Gospellers; and if spiritual, rather such as are led by a wicked spirit, the suggester of heretical untruths, and tempter to diabolical blasphemies, and outrages, then such as are guided by the Spirit of truth and holiness: and if by spiritual blood you mean (as the most judicious commonly use and understand the phrase) the blood of souls; it is that which engageth the Magistrates to repress heretical Teachers, for by drawing others to heresy they are guilty of the blood of souls; and they are all guilty of that blood who do not all they can, according to their place and power, to prevent the shedding of it by seducing Doctors; for zeal in this cause I have cited some lively and vigorous sayings of the Ancients in my former Book, to which I remit you.

light.

To your exception we have not yet any experience of our new Clergy, my Answer was, Then they cannot yet be charged with misgovernment of the people; and how can there be experience of them, if there be no Government to try them withal? but we have experience of much evil for want of Government, as I told you before. And for that you say, your Statists will tell you it is not safe trying experience with States, which you illustrate by a similitude of a Physician casting his Patient into a disease to try a cure on him: I like it very well in those, and being rightly applied it makes much against you, and the toleration you plead for, for we have found it by woeful experience, that some politick Mountebankes have made a perilous experiment upon our State by connivence at, and pressing for a toleration of many erroneous, and some very heretical Sects; the cure whereof the longer it is delayed will be more difficult and more dangerous to the souls of the people, in whom error and heresy spread, and eat like a canker, or gangrene as in the Greek, 2 Tim. 2.17.

SECT. XVIII. The Toleration desired by M ^r . Saltm. neither safe nor sound, opposite to the mind of Paul, 1 Cor. 1.10. Gal. 5.10.12. Of the comparison of the two ambitious Brethren to ten more humble and moderate; The Presbytery not proved by Magistrates, though approved by them; Of the pretended truth of Sectaries, and of the prescription of Bishops and Independents.

Light.

In this you have delivered a most unsafe, and unsound paradox, which is disproved by the experience of former ages, and foreign parts; but most of all by that of our own Kingdom within these four years last past: witness M ^r . Edwards his last Book the Gangrene, which if you were so unpatiall and patient, as to read without prejudice or passion, you could not patiently review your own writing in this particular.

light.

In this you are opposite to Paul and yourself both; to Paul, who expressly presseth to union in mind, in judgment, in speech; 1 Cor. 1.10. and wisheth them cut off who trouble the Church, Gal. 5.12. whereas you would have sects to be left to themselves: and to yourself; whereas before you would have them let alone, to die out most naturally without noise, now you would have them opposed with words, as Paul did; but can there be words of opposition without any noise? And for that you say against the coercion or execution by the sword, it is impertinently proposed to the Presbytery, who take not upon them to turn the edge of authority any way; and prejudicial to the prudence and power of Magistrates, as if they knew not when to use it, unless they were admonished and moved by others unto it, or might not use it against disturbers of the public peace of Church and State.

Light.

There meeds none other answ, to this quest. then to repeat your words and mine aright: Your self said I question not but some Presbyterians may be like the ten, yet there are others like the two brethren, who strive who should be the greatest. To which mine Answer is, If we keep the proportion you brought in, and make application accordingly, we may say, for two ambitious Presbyterians it is like there may be ten that are more modestly and humbly minded, then to affect such a preeminence above their brethren.

Light.

How far the Presbyterial government is Christ's way is sufficiently set forth by the forecited Author, who hath professedly handled it; but who I pray you offers to prove by the Magistracy that the Presbytery is Christ's way? they may prove it to the Magistrate, but to do it by the Magistrate, is neither undertaken, nor required by any.

Light.

If that were your mind, you would rather close with Presbyterians, whom you cannot deny to be sound and Orthodox in all matters of faith, and godliness, then with so many extravagant Sectaries, who are so contradictory both to the Scripture, and to themselves, in their opposite Tenets, that there must needs be very much untruth in their Tenets.

Light.

In this and some lines next following you take that for granted, which we cannot yield, nor can you ever prove, viz. that your Independency is purely Evangelical; which if you can make good (but the Texts you have crowded together at the end of your opening of M ^r . Prinnes Vindication will not do it) you shall make me of your Religion, when you let me know which it is you will choose, and stand to when you have chosen.

SECT. XIX. Of the pretended modesty and humility of the Independents, by way of comparison with the Presbyterians.

Light.

And if your Independent Government were set up, which you accompt an Evangelical and Scripture Government, Christ's golden Scepter, Christ upon his Throne, should that Government be above the Civil Government, or coordinate with it? would you set up this government to rule the other, or tutor the other? when you have answered these Queries put upon Independency, you will see it will not be difficult to answer the like concerning Presbytery; yet it is evident to all that make any serious observation on both ways, that the Presbyterial Government is more moderate, more subordinate to the Parliamentary Government then the Independent, because that is humbly submitted to the debate of the Parliament for approbation of it, and waiteth for their Civil establishment before any part of it is put into execution and practice, the Independent Government (in this respect Independent on the Parliament, as well as on Classical, Provincial, and National Assemblies) comes under no such trial of them, but is set up without any authority from them.

Light.

Here is a great deal of aggravating Rhetoric, to bring in a suspicion of a vast, and unlimited domination of the Presbytery; and I pray you, S ^r , if Independency were the Parliaments darling, as you desire it, would nor you wish it, and, if you could, procure it to be set up in every City and Town in England? would not you that think it a good government, the best government, advance your good opinion of it, & well-wishings to it, according to the maxim, Bonum que communius, comelius? Every good thing the more common, the more commendable? We observe your sedulitie in spreading your opinions into remote regions, and cannot but conceive, by your zeal and activity for your cause, that you are ambitious, like the Spaniard, to enlarge your Religion, as he his Dominions; whereof Myraeus saith, that the Sun never sets, but always shines in some place or other where he reigns.

Light.

And let the Reader judge how much of roving fancy and fond affection, how little judgment is in this paragraph. Which Government, say you, affects dominion? &c. speak properly Sir, and the truth will better appear, and be more ready for sentence and judgment, and then your question will be; which sort of those that stand for Government (for the government as abstracted from them hath no affections at all) affect dominion more? You say poor Scripture government can be content to sit down in a village, to the Church in thy house, &c. where you assume and presuppose (which I deny) that Independency is a government either poor or pure according to the Scriptures. And for Independent Ministers when you see them so placed in the City, in the chief City of the Kingdom, culling out of men's charges the fairest and fattest of their flocks to be the materials and members of their newgathered Churches, and so ordering their Sermons, and covenanting with their hearers, that they have the most populous congregations, all sects coming to hear them, and adhering to them as to their Patrons, who will not come to the Sermons of the most Orthodox and able Preachers of the Presbyterial way;

When you know, or may know that most of them are eminently richer then other Ministers, how can you, how dare you brag of the humility, and poverty of Independency sitting down contented with a village? especially, when none of those who set up Independency in England planted themselves in a village, except in vicinitie to some great City where they might have the profit, and comfort, and the best accommodations of City and Country?

And for the small Church in a house, or a particular City, in a Country, not over a Country, in Asia, not the Church of Asia; This makes no more for Independency then for Presbytery, when there were too few professing the faith to be sorted into Congregations Classical, Provincial and National Assemblies; and so your instance cannot be a fit pattern for these times, wherein the profession of the Gospel is received all over the Kingdom.

SECT. XX. Whether Christ, if he would have a national comprehensive Church, was bound to have begun the practice of it over whole Kingdoms, as M ^r . Saltm. saith; and whether importeth more pride, to desire a subordination of Assemblies, Parochial, Classical, &c. then to be adverse to it.

Light.

To this I oppose your own words, both in your Query and in your Smoke, in both which places, you tell your Reader that the publication of the Gospel and the proposal of Church government were brought in at distance: heresies, say you, might have grown from John's first Sermon to Paul's Epistles, and the sending of the Spirit, but you see there was no government settled till afterwards upon the people of God's and in your last you tell me, that you shown me that no government began with the Gospel manifestation, by which (say you) I made it appear, that if government had been of such moral necessity, why was it not given out with the Gospels first giving out?

Albeit then the Gospel began not with the conversion of Kings and whole Kingdoms, yet the progress of it hath been so prosperous as to prevail so far, and with the extent of it, may the government of the Gospel be extended also, and it may be set up after it, by your own confession rather then with it.

Light.

What? ought Christ, or was he bound in the way of righteousness to begin the Gospel with conversion of Kings, and whole Kingdoms, if he meant to have such a National and comprehensive Church as the Presbyterians plead for? was he not free to begin the publication of it where he pleased, in the wilderness of Judea, rather then in the City Jerusalem? and to whom he pleased, to Shepherds in the field, rather then to Augustus in the Court?

If it had begun there; First, It might have been suspected as a Politic devise, like that which Machiavel commends in Romulus and Numa, setting up religion by feigned revelation.

Secondly, Then the Doctrine of the Gospel, condemned as folly by supercilious and secular wise men, 1 Cor. 1.23. had not appeared so wise and powerful as it was, verse. 18, 19, 20. of the same Chapter; nor,

Thirdly, Had it had so many illustrious confirmations, both by miracles, and martyrdoms, as we find upon record both in the Scriptures, and Ecclesiastical Histories.

And was it not in his own choice to make his own pace for the proceeding both of Gospel and Government? If you will so confine Christ to your ways of working, you make him Dependent, while you claim an Independent privilege to yourself.

And for that you say, for practice or precept, to order and command us in what we obey, we have both in the Gospels of our Savior, and Epistles of the Apostles, and the History of their Acts, (according to which the Assembly have given up their advice to the Parliament) warrant for Church Government, and so we hope it will come down from them by a Parliamentary approbation, and constitution for the establishment thereof throughout the whole Kingdom. And yet is not the Presbyterial Government more ambitious, or domineering then the Independent; Nay, let the Indifferent Reader observe, and consider the difference, and let him then resolve, whether the Presbyterian or Independent be more affected to preeminence, or more willing to come under rule and government.

First, The Presbyterians carnestly desire the union, whereto the Apostle emphatically exhorteth the Christian Corinthians; Now I beseech you brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, 1 Cor. 1.10.

Secondly, This union cannot be without a rule of consent; the rule of consent cannot be of any force, unless it have the power and obligation of a law; this law requireth, as well subordination, as union; and this subordination is agreeable not only to reason, but to Religion and Scripture, for the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.32.

Thirdly, The Presbyterians, who yield to this subordination, especially to the Superior Assemblies, not knowing, and the most of them not expecting to be members either of Provincial, or National Assemblies, do all of them in their allowance of gradual appeals submit themselves to the consures of others, which is an act not of dominion, but of subjection. But the Independents will be as diffusive in their Church-way, and grow on from Cities to Countries, from Countries to Kingdoms, and will be like little Kings, or Free States in their own Congregations, and will admit of no subordination, or submission to any Ecclesiastical Assembly whatsoever, though there be many cases which reach, beyond the limits of their covenanted meetings, to occasions of common concernment to many Churches; yea some of them are so comprehensive, as to belong to all the Churches of a Kingdom, which can neither be sufficiently considered, nor ordered for the general good, without a more general convention and consultation of Church governors.

The Pope, though hated and scorned by you as an Antichristian Caiaphas, is a great, and I may say the supreme Independent in the Christian world; and his Independency consisteth in this, that he will be judged of none; and herein truly S ^r . you symbolize too much with the Papal ambition; in that as much as you can you free yourselves from all Ecclesiastical subjection; and this being a chief part of his Antichristian exaltation, Independency is rather Antichristian, then Presbyterie.

There is another part of the Papal pride, which is to require that all be subject unto him that he may censure and judge of all; and if I should strain your words, as you sometimes do mine. I should say you are flown so high in your fancy, as to be got above the high pitch of the Popes Mitre; for he took not upon him to judge, or give laws to Christ (though to all Christians) as you do, where you say that Christ ought, and was bound in the way of righteousness to have begun the practice and model to us over whole Kingdoms, &c.

SECT. XXI. M ^r . Saltm. his mistake touching the building of the Temple. Of the difference of the pattern of the Temple and the pattern of the Government of the Gospel. M ^r . Saltm. confusedly jumbleth them together.

Light.

I confess I passed over somewhat in your Quere, more in your last Book, but nothing in either wherein I conceived there was anything of weight, or pertinencie to the cause in difference betwixt us. Yet to that difference I said something in its proper place, and referred you to another Section where I observed more differences then you brought in; and whether I owe you anything for that particular, the Reader shall judge; and if he find I was in your debt, he shall see I shall make ready payment of what is behind; and it may be by that time I have done with your objection, you will think it better you had taken no notice of this omission, then occasioned me to make such an amends for it as now I must do.

In the last lease of your Quere, when you had brought in your reasons for retarding the Governement, you bring in two objections, and make Answers to them; the former is this, But the Temple was built with all speed in Nehemiah's time, and Haggai calls to the building, Is it time, &c. Hag. 1.4.

Before I bring in my Reply to your Answer, I must mind you of a mistake in your single sheet; which though it be but short is liable to a very just exception for an error in Story; and you should have heard of it sooner from me, but that I observed it not myself until I found I was misguided by your allegation; for I took it upon trust from you, because I did not suspect you would misalledge anything, which did no way conduce unto your cause, as the time of the building of the Temple doth not; now though the error were originally yours, the correction may be mine, which you may better receive from me, then I might take misprision from you; you say the Temple was built in Nehemiah's time, but the truth is it was not, as you affirm, built in, but before Nehemiah's time, for the foundation of it was laid in the second year of Darius, Hag. 2.10.17. (i.) in the year of the world 3452. 519 years before the Incarnation of Christ; and it was finished in the sixth year of Darius, Ezra 6.15. that is, in the year of the world 3456. 515 years before Christ's Incarnation; but that building of Nehemiah was the building of the walls of Jerusalem, Nehem. 2.17, 18, 19. and this was in the year of the world, 3527. about 444. years before the birth of the Messias; this work about the walls was a work but of 52. days, Nehem, 6.15. the former about the Temple lasted about 4. years, as from the Scriptures forealledged may be inferred.

Now for your Answer it is this, Yea but the material pattern was more clearly left, and known then the Gospel patterns, the other were more in the letter, and these more in the spirit; now there must be a proving of all things, else there may be more haste then good speed, as the Temple may be built by a false pattern as well as by a true; and then better no building then no right Cedar to build withal.

This is all for which you challenge my silence; and whereas you intimate some solidity in it, which I was not so well able to deal with, as with the other part of your Answer: Truly S ^r . I neither had, nor have any such opinion of it; it seemed to me at first, and it doth so now upon the review, to be an intricate, perplexed, and confused jumbling of Metaphoricall, and literal expressions together; and not more dark for lack of light, then weak for want of strength to that purpose for which it was framed: and therefore I thought it more fit for a tacit preterition, then for an express examination. But if you will have this rather, you shall have it; and so I say unto it,

First, that if the pattern were more clear for building the Temple, then the Gospel pattern for the setting up of a Church-Government, why are you so confident, and peremptory, and punctual for your Gospel pattern?

Secondly, Why tell you us of Gospel patterns in the plural number? is there anymore then one pattern of Government in the Gospel? if so, though the Independent pattern be yielded to be a Gospel pattern, (which cannot be proved) the Presbyterian may be so too, for if there be more then one, that rather then any other may be allowed to be another.

Thirdly, when you say the other were more in the letter, these more in the spirit, what is your meaning by these words? were there more forms and patterns of the Temple then one? if there were, why do you not speak more clearly to the point of difference, betwixt them? if not, why say you they were more in the letter? and when you say these Gospel patterns are more in the spirit; I would know whether they be written, or not written; if they be written, they are as much in the letter as the other; if they be not written, how can you tell they be Gospel patterns?

Fourthly, whereas you say, The Temple may be built by a false pattern, if you mean it of the material Temple, you deny the clearness of the pattern which before you professed. And,

Fifthly, When you say, The Temple may be built by a false pattern, as well as by a true, if you mean it of the material Temple in Ezra's time, what is that to the Gospel Government, in, or since our Savior's time? or if anything, it is to contradict yourself, who make the Temple pattern so clear that there is no danger of a false pattern of misguidance. If you mean it of the Government of the Gospel, why do you so confound what in the beginning of your Answer to the Objection you pretend to distinguish, to wit, the material Temple and the Evangelical order of the Church?

Lastly, whereas you say, Better no building at all then no right Cedar to build withal, what's your meaning by this metaphor? Cedar was the matter to build with, not the pattern whereby the building was to be formed, and set together; which was the thing, whereof you would make the Reader believe you made a fit comparison, and shown a material difference why the building of the Temple might be hastened in Ezra's time, and yet the setting up of Government should be delayed in our time; for which you have said nothing either to declare, or assure what you took upon you to illustrate, and make good unto your Reader, whom I require now again to judge betwixt us, whether this passage of your Quere were not better omitted by me, then remembered by you, to put me to make such an Answer unto it as I have done.

SECT. XXII. Of staying for the Spirit to give light of instruction to the reformation of the Church.

Light.

First, I confess it is a Gospel way to stay for the spirits coming into the servants of the Lord; the Apostles were commanded by our Savior not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father, Act. 1.4. and they did so, and there the Holy Ghost came upon them, Act. 2.3. And so the Prophecy of Joel of pouring out the spirit in the last days, Joel 2.28. was fulfilled, and is so implied by Peter, Act. 2. verse. 16, 17.

Secondly, by the last days is not to be understood our present Age, 1645 years after our Savior's first coming, and God knows how many before his second coming; by the last days may be understood not precisely those which are next to the worlds end, but after times; as in the prophecy of Jacob, Gen. 19.1. which sometimes may be further, as in that of Jacob and Joel, sometimes nearer hand, as the Prophecy of Peter that there should come in the last days scoffers, 2 Pet. 2.3. which was fulfilled, and so is recorded in the last of the Apostolical Epistles, for in the 17. & 18. verses of Jude’s Epistle, saith he, Beloved remember the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that they told you there should be mockers in the last times, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts; but the days of the Gospel are called the last times, because after that is brought forth we must look for no more changes of Religion, and the manner of God's worship, as there was before in Moses time from what was in use before with the Patriarchs, and since Christ's time from the Ceremonials of Moses.

Thirdly, though I do not nor dare put limits to the Spirit, which is free as the wind that bloweth where it listeth, John. 3.8. and do acknowledge and bless God for it that there is 〈◊〉 spirit of grace and supplications, Zach. 1 • .10. poured out upon many of God's people; and not only upon Preachers, but also upon divers others which are not: and that it was a wicked part in divers of the Prelates (for all on my knowledge were not guilty of it) to stint the Ministers of the Gospel, as they did by the 〈◊〉 form in their Conan, which was rather a bidding invitation to prayer, then a prayer it solfe.

Yet fourthly, since the Apostle Paul foretells of the later times, that there shall be 〈◊〉 spirits, and dectrines of Devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, 1 Tin • . 4.1.12. and John the Apostle gives a caveat against credulity in this case, Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God, 1 John. 4.1. and that Christians are admonished to try all things, 1 Thes. 5.21. and the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying those who said they were Apostles and were not, and found them lyors, Revel. 2.2. and the trial is to be made by the law, and by the testimony of the Scripture; and if they speak not according to this, it is because there is no light in them, Esa. 20.8. And since I have read of many horrid and abominable things committed upon pretence of revelation of the spirit;

Lastly, since the Government of the Church is not a matter of private inspiration, but of public direction, and use to the whole Church, and that the Word of God, as a standing ru • e, is to give us directions in Gospel dispensations, I dare not expect where that speaks nothing, that the defect will be made out, or made up with the whisperings of a private spirst, especially against the concurrent judgment of the most Orthodox Divines of the Reformed Churches.

SECT. XXIII. Of expedition or delay in setting up of Government; Whether Moses and Christ, the Jewish and Christian state be so contrary, that there is no conformity between them.

Light.

I must recall you to our former intercourse to give light for the clearing this exception; you bring in a second Objection against the delay of it thus: But vica, beresies and sehismes grew too fast, and you answer it thus: so they might have done from John's first Sermon to Paul's Epistles, and the sending of the Spirit, but yet you see there was no Government till after settled upon the people of God. And not showing how long after, I calculated the time for you; and you are pleased in the end of the precedent Paragraph to commend my pains as more exact then yours, and to thank me for it; but yet withal you make as if I had ravelled into time to prove your Tenet against mine own, wherein I shall easily disprove you. For you brought in the putting off the government from John Baptists time until Paul's Epistles, and the sending of the Spirit; (where you confusedly shuffle things together, which should be carefully distinguished) and if you mean it of the time from John's preaching to the pouring out of the Spirit at the Feast of Pentecost, it is but five years; if to the first of Paul's Epistles, but 21; if to the last, 29 years; and before the end of that Epistle that Government was written which we find in Scripture. Now take which of these times you will, and compare it to our time and State, and it will not serve for any cause or ground of adjournment, or putting off the Church Government to a further Date, as you would have it.

For, if that Government which the Scripture hath laid down be offered to acceptation, and establishment, shall we take 29 years time, or 21 years time, or 5 years time before we will admit of it? especially since we have been for many years together conversant in the Scriptures, where it is founded, and have had the practice of it exemplified unto us in many Reformed Churches for 100 years together; so that though 5, or 21, or 29 years, were to be taken for a long time in respect of the first age of the Church, before the government of it was settled upon the people of God, (and yet it was but a while, the progress of the Gospel duly weighed) it makes nothing for the delay of Government you drive at: and so disappointing your purpose, which was out of that instance to make some show for the slackness in Government which you desire, I pleaded not your cause, but the truths, and mine own in prosecution of it against your exception. I shall be willing in some other way to do you a courtesy, and to deserve your thanks, but expect not I should be so unfaithful, or fickle, or simple, as to desert the defense I have undertaken, or so to manage it, as to give mine adversary advantage by it.

Light.

Having cited the example of old Eli, against indulgence to such as reproach and scandalize Religion, especially against toleration of blasphemers, as Paul Best, who made blasphemous verses against the Trinity; you tell me, I am still looking upon Moses, though I tell you of Christ; you mean by like that I am still upon mine Annotations on the Pentateuch, but they are printed a good while since; and I do not think you have often found me looking upon Moses, since I had occasion to look upon you as an adversary; but if you looked upon him oftener, and understood him better, I believe you would be a more sound and Orthodox Divine then as yet I can accompt you.

It is the manner of the Antinomians (of whose impious and pernicious opinions, some of your writings have a strong savor) to show their slightings of Moses upon all occasions; But Sir, though his Ceremonials be abolished, his Indicials not established in Christian Common-wealths, (yet for some penal laws, I think we should be better governed if they were more Mosaical) yet his face still shines, and shall do to the end of the world, in the piety, equity, regularitie, and utility of the Moral Law, which he brought from the Mount.

After your reproof of me you appoint me a task, and make me a promise; the task is, that I must make the Kingdom of Israel and of England the same, a Jewish and a Christian State the same; Why I pray you, Sir, must I make them all one, because I bring an example of Caution out of the Old Testament? neither upon that ground, nor your command do I find myself obliged to such an undertaking; nor is it any man's work so to compare or resemble them as to make them the same, since they do, and of necessity must differ in many things; and though they differ much, yet in divers things they do agree likewise, as the Apostle showeth in part, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3; 4. and that their sins and punishments should be warnings to us (for which purpose I cited old Eli’s case) he showeth by many examples out of the Old Testament, from verse. 5. to the 11; was it the Apostles duty (having so done) to undertake a proof of the paritle or identity of the Corinthian or Christian and the Jewish State?

Now if I make good this, you promise to allow me both Eli’s sin, and his sons maintenance by tithes and offerings; but I will not take you at your word, for this liberal offer; keep Eli’s sin to yourself if you please; and since I know you are displeased with Tythes, put them upon me, and I will either prove them lawful, and I think I have done it already; or give them up as you have done.

SECT. XXIIII. Truth not to be parted with for peace, the Magistrate dishonored, and the Presbyterians slandered by M ^r . Saltm.

Light.

In your exception against the example of Eli; you play the Antinomian, in this and the next ensuing paragraph you take up the Tenet of the Anabaptists against the lawfulness of war, though not theirs only, for some of the Fathers, and some famous Papists have been of that opinion, but I find you not much versed in the writings of the Fathers, and very averse from the opinions of the Papists, and but too kind and complying in conceit with Anabaptists, therefore I suppose a symbolizing rather with them then with either of the other Sects; whereto I would make a return, and that return should be a refutation of that fancy, but that I have done it in print already, in my Sermon before the Honorable House of Commons, April. 26. 1645.

Light.

A little before you pleaded too much for peace, and now you would break the peace, and play the make-bate betwixt the Magistracy and the Presbytery, and to that purpose you make crooked consequences from right words, and upright intentions, that you may at last put the name of Satan upon the Magistrate in the name of a Presbyter; but take heed Sir, lest some say (though I do not) you deserve the other name of that Arch-malignant, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be returned upon you, which is a fit title for a false accuser, and so used by the Apostle, 2 Tim. 3.3. For how could you with truth, ingenuity, or charity, make such deductions as you do from my words, in Answer to yours? you say, (to make the Presbyterial Government needless,) If moral transgressions stir, let the Magistrate be set on in every place. I ask, set out by whom? and how? Doth he mean that the Magistrate is as a shepherds dog, to be set on the wolf that cometh to make spoil of the flock? we cannot have so mean a thought of the Magistrate, as to make mention of him in such terms of disparagement. Neither dare we take upon us, either so much interest in all Magistrates, or so much power in any, as to give them the watch-word when to draw the sword, and to expect that they should wield it as we would have them. And not withstanding the preaching of the Presbyters, and exercise of the Presbytery, there will be work enough for the Magistrate to bring them under a civil trial, &c.

Are these words capable of such a gloss as you make of them, that the Presbytery will keep the Magistracy doing, and now who disparages the Magistrates? who sets them a work? Not the Presbyterians, but you, and your party rather; for your words are, Let them be set on. Who makes them Deputy punishers? Not the Presbyterians, who take no such power upon them as to appoint them to punish any one; nor (if they do punish) accompt them Deputies to any, but doers of their own work. Nay, who is the Satan, to whom the excommunicate are delivered? The Magistrate, as you imply, and impose that reproach upon Presbyterians; For you say, it is an expression not far beside your principles, and who disparages the Magistrate in that? But stay good Sir, what Presbyterians expound those words of delivery unto Satan, 1 Corinth. 5.5. 1 Tim. 1.20. with an application to the Magistrate? neither Calvin, Beza, Marl • rat, Piscator, Deodate, nor M ^r . Rutherford, nor any Presbyterian that ever I read, make the Magistrate the Devil in these Texts; no nor Vatablus nor Aquinas, of the Popish Church; and I think it will be hard for you to find any Author of note, of what Religion so ever, that so takes, or rather mis-takes the words as you do; and impossible to produce any Presbyterian principles, which with any color or probability may be drawn, or by any violence and importunity be dragged to such a sense of disparagement of the Magistrate, as you have suggested; and so the calumny and contempt of their calling must be laid at your door, to father it as an ill-favored brat of your own begetting.

SECT. XXV. The Magistrates assistance to the Ecclesiastical Government, no argument to prove it no Gospel Government; the sword of God and of Gideon, of Church Discipline, and civil severity, how lawful and useful; zeal against toleration of evil commended connivence at it blameable.

Light.

Here as in many other places you show little ingenuity in repeating my words, which are not as you cite them; but thus, We cannot think it meet to divide subservient means from the supreme power, nor the exercise of Discipline, and government from his Assistance who can make it effectual, that is, (say you) from the Magistrate; and that is, say I, your maledicta glossa which corrupts the Text; my words import not the inferior efficacy of the Magistrate, but the superior of God; and therefore your inference upon it is a second injury, and violence you commit against my saying and sense; and yet though the Discipline be Christ's, we must crave the consent and sanction of the Civil Magistrates, that we may put it in practice, as the Presbyterians of the Dutch and French Churches in London; and with their assistance it may be more effectual then without it it can be, as the Magistrates antheritie may have a more awful operation upon the people if assisted by the Ministers in their Sermons, and popular exhortations; and yet you will not deny but that Magistracy is the ordinance of God, Rom. 13.1.

Light.

I join the sword of God and Gideon, not as a proof for uniting Presbytery and Magistracy, but as an illustration of association of different means to the same end, or of concurrent operations to the same purpose; and yet if the cause of God in the hands of the Presbytery do need, and have aide in the hand of the Magistrate to help it forward, there the sword of the Spirit, which is the sword of the Lord, in the mouth of his Ministers, and the sword of Gideon, that is, the sword of the Magistrate, may be said to be joined.

Light.

To that you said; It is the Papists and Prolates jealousy to keep up their supposed truths by suspecting everything that appears for an enemy: My Answer was; There is a jealousy which the Apostle cal • godly jealousy, and such a one is that which would set up as many securities as may be against heresy, and impiety; among them Church-government is one; of which, they that stand for it are not afraid to let it go • abread, but have made it public, and exposed it to the view of all eyes. To this you put in a Reply with a condition of warrantable and Gospel ways of security, and an exception of wicked ways, such as Herod's killing all the young children, &c. I instanced only in the Church-government, which the Presbyterians propound, and plead for as a Gospel way; you bring in Herod's bloody business, as if there were near consanguinity betwixt the Presbytery and his barbarous cruelty; this is (though not to slay innocents as he did yet) to wound and blast innocence, as much as may be, and to bring it under an evil suspicion to make it odious; this is no Gospel way M ^r . Sa •• m. but a very wide aberration from it.

Light.

You still give me cause to complain of your unfaithful dealing with my words, by such alteration, or omission of them as may make them more obvious to your exception, then as I set them down, for they are thus in my Book; But there is it fear which we profess, and I hope without offense, it is a fear of God's anger, and of imminent danger for communion with, and connivence towards heretical and wicked men; and I brought examples, and sayings of John the Evangelist, of Polycarp, Hilary, and Jerome to that purpose, which you take no notice of at all; but say, such fear is only warrantable in the Church, not in the world; but for that there is a remedy that men may separate from Church-Communion; but what if many will not, as the weaker and looser sort are as ready to run to heretical Teachers, where they exercise, as the people of Israel to the Idolamous worship of the golden Calves; and shall such be suffered to 〈◊〉 them that through the ignorance of their minds, or unruliness of then lusts are willing to be seduced? Will your conscience with the Papists tolerate the Stews, not in the Church, but in the City? it is not so broad, nor loose I hope; no more should it be so indulgent as to allow of inducements to spiritual whoredom, which is as dangerous to men, and more dishonorable to God: The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, I am sure, is commended by the Holy Ghost because he could not bear them which were evil, Revel. 2.2. and for h • ting the deeds of the Nicolaitans, verse. 6. as on the contrary the Angel of the Church of P •• ga ••• is blamed for suffering such as held the Doctrine of Bala • m, and those that held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, verse. 12.14, 15. and so is the Angel of the Church of Thyatir • for suffering the woman J ••• bal, which •• lleth her self a Prophetess, to teach and seduce the servants of the Lord, verse. 18.20. and if such seducement may be as dangerous to many where heretics teach in corners, as where they are admitted to officiate in public Churches, that must be no more endured then the other.

And for that you say of plucking up the tares before the harvest, it makes nothing against the caution I mean, which is not to extirpate all heretics out of the world, but to put such a restraint upon them, that they may not have power to seduce simple souls to such pernicious errors as may endanger them upon eternal damnation; and yet I hope you do not mean but some wicked men may be so wicked, and so destructive in their principles and practices to Religion, and States, that it may be lawful not only to keep, or put them out of all Church-Communion, but to take them quite out of all communion in the world, by capital punishment, else you will have the Civil Magistrate to bear the Sword for naught, against the determination of the Apostle, Rom. 13.

SECT. XXVI. M ^r . Saltm. his dangerous supposition of equality of Number and power, with diversity of Religion; of incorporation of two powers; and what may be expected should the Sectaries prevail.

Light.

What cause or need in this difference betwixt you and me to take up such a terrible supposition as you make? for there would have been no ground of suspicion, if there had not been too much indulgence shown to heretical, and schismatical seducers; and what do you mean by supposing equality in number, power, and spirit for contestation about contrary opinions? is it to make the Presbyterians believe that the party they take to be heretical is, or is like to be so many and masterfull, that they will not suffer the Church Government to be settled without clashing of swords, and bloody doings? Truly your courting of military men as you do, and others solicitations of them, and brags of their power and purpose may be a just ground of suspitiō of so bad an intention in some of your side, which now plead for liberty of conscience, that if they had might to their minds they would assert it with other instruments, and would secure it with circumscription, if not prescription, of the Civil power; as the King of Spain did the liberty of election of the Emperor at Frankford (against King Francis the first King of France his competitor for the Empire) who sent thither an Army of 30000 men, that the choosers might be free and not forced, whereby he so overawed them that they durst not make their choice but in the family of the house of Austria.

Light.

Now truly S ^r . you are a very sorry image-maker, that draw your picture so imperfectly, so grossly, like the rude Painters of old, who were fain to their misshapen pourtraitures to add an Inscription, this is a man, and this is an horse, or else a man could tell no more then a horse what the pictures resembled. If you had not told your Reader this is an image of your Incorporation, &c. he would never have thought you meant any such thing by what you have said; and now you have made your description, and set your subscription to it, it is yet so smokie and obscure, that I doubt he cannot understand it, I am sure I cannot perceive any truth or sense in it: for what incorporation of powers do we make and plead for? you should have shown what powers you mean, what incorporation of them we make, where and by what arguments we plead for it; till you do this, I shall think your image a mere imagination, and a fantastical Chimera.

Light.

What principles of persecution do Presbyterians hold, set which they have not warrant from the word of God? all with you is persecution which in any sort opposeth your lavish toleration of all Religions, though never so dishonorable to God, and damnable to man; the godly party in the time of the Prelates cried out upon pluralities, and soul-murdering Non-residencie, accounting it an high and heinous crime in those who withheld spiritual food from the souls of the people, and held that the State was bound to do them right, to see them supplied with necessary provision for their salvation; and is there not a soul murdering by poisoning the people's souls with pernicious principles, as well as by withholding from them found and salutary Doctrine? and is not the State bound to provide against this spiritual peril, as well as the other? which if it may be done without drawing of a drop of blood, it is so much more pleasing to conscientious Presbyterians, as it is less grievous to heretical seducers; the wild beast may be kept and fed within the grate, and the Fox confined to the length of a chain, though they be not suffered to range abroad, and make havoc on the flock. And how are they armed for persecution of their adversaries, when they not only live, but thrive and flourish, and are advanced to places of honor and trust all over the Kingdom.

If the Presbyterians were so spirited, and so armed with power as you pretend, how came the Independents to enjoy such a prosperous condition as they do? And for the persecution of the Tongue and Pen, (for there may be words as keen and cutting as very swords) was there ever any so sharp and bitter as theirs, who, pretending to hate and persecute persecution, jeer and revile Presbyterie and Presbyters with so much virulence that all the scoffing Ishmaelites, Lucians, Martin Marprelates (of which last Josiah Nichols a godly Nonconformist said he was stirred up by Satan to hinder the work of Reformation) put together make not up the measure of their malignity who plead for toleration of all Religions, as you do, and whose spirit appears to be so furious (though yours be more calm) that could they advance to the height of their hopes, and aims, it is manifest by their own written words, that they would not tolerate a Presbyterian, but would bring him under intolerable slavery; for they would have the Presbyterian Tribe led in a string from Westminster to Algate in leatherne jackets, and mattocks on their shoulders, and the words that follow presently after, and close up the Paragraph are, they would do the State better service with their Canonical girdles (which very few of them wear) were the knot tied in the right place, the words are no such Riddle as to need an Oedipus to expound them; Sir, I will return you your own words again, and let the Reader judge whether they were more fitly objected by you, or retorted by me. If we were equally principled and armed for persecution, and acted by your spirit (yours who breath out such threatenings and slaughters from Toleration street against Presbyterians) ab what a Kingdom would here be?

SECT. XXVII. The Authority of the Parliament not pleaded by the Presbyterians as a supplement of Scriptures, as M ^r . Saltm. suggesteth; nor slighted by them as by M ^r . Saltm. it is; of the pretended danger of the Magistrates engagement with the Ministers; of the pretended tenderness of consciences in Sectaries.

Light.

You had made it a matter of Popish and Prelatical jealousy, to keep up their supposed truths by suspecting everything that appears for an enemy; Whereupon I shown that there were other motives for opposing of Heresy and Schism, (besides such a jealousy) and I shown it by instances of zeal against Heretics in divers of the Ancients, and concluded with an Ordinance of Parliament of the 20. of October, 1645. wherein they endeavor for the complete establishment of purity and unity in the Church of God; hereupon you say, you are afraid these are such proofs as we intend most in our Presbyterie; proofs for what? If you take it for constitution of a Presbyterie, we have proved that by Scripture before it was offered to the Parliament; if for execution, you must either intend it of an Ordinance of Parliament, to enable us to set up the Presbyterie, or for the particular proceedings in the Presbyterie; If you mean it of the former, we must urge the Ordinance of Parliament for it; if any one question it in a Civil Title, we must plead it by such a warrant as the Ordinance; if for the particular proceedings, they must have such profess and evidence as in other cases of difference, by personal contestation.

Light.

Do you hope then that the Parliament will not establish the Presbyterie by their Authority? or if they do, that we will make no use of their Ordinance, to maintain the purity and unity which that Honorable Senate intended, against the confusion of Heresy and Schism? If so, I doubt not but you will be deceived in both; and yet Sir the Presbyterian cause will be made good against the whole circumference of Sects, who Center in Independency, for toleration of multiplicity of professions in matter of Religion.

Light.

But I have not to do with an Ordinance of Parliament, say you, you might have let it alone; I laid no such weight of Argument upon it, as did engage you to answer it. Now whereas you say, you submit to them in every Ordinance, it is but a complement, for were you serious and sincere in this you profess, would you do as you, do cry down Tythes as Antichristian, which the Parliament by Ordinance hath established? or cry up such a liberty of conscience, and Preaching without Ordination, as they by Ordinance have forbidden? I could put the same Quere upon other particulars, wherein you make no more scruple in practice to go cross to the Parliament, then in your words to contradict me.

Yet you say, you dare not undervalue them as to make them parties but Judges in our difference: Then their Authority must decide the difference; and if the decision stick on your side, will you not accept, or make use of it to countenance your cause against us? you will not, you cannot deny it; why then should you say in your next words, It is no fair proof of truth to draw the Magistrates sword out of the scabbard: If they be Judges, as you call them, and appeal be made unto them, (as by you it is) why should you impute it as a faulty drawing of the Magistrates sword out of the scabbard to produce their sentence, or make use of their Authority?

Light.

You wonder? I said, If you had well considered who were engaged for the establishment of Church Government, and how far, before you published your New Quere, you would not sure have so far undervalued their piety and prudence, as to compare them with Papists and Papal Prelates.

Of these words you have made a wonder; you have not only much freedom of fancy, but a great liberty of conscience to amplify, or extenuate, or exchange the words of your adversary as you please; and you do it so often, as to make your credulous Reader, who doth not examine whether you have cited my Examination aright, to conceive that you have answered, yea conquered in the Controversy; when you have but slandered my Text, declined the strength of it, smoked the light of it, and confounded the order of it, and gotten the victory only of your own abusive allegation, or interpretation thereof.

Light.

Not so far as to oppose, retard, and reproach the Church Government, wherein they were so far, so publicly engaged; is this to value them, to value them highly? if such be the price you set upon such Honorable Patriots, I shall never be ambitious of your good acceptation, nor solicitous of your estimation of me, whether the rate you set upon me be precious or vile.

Light.

If the Ministers engagements in Religion be right, it is a happiness that Magistrates be engaged with them, and therefore on the one side promised as matter of great joy, and glory to the Church, that Kings should be unto it as nursing Fathers, and Queens as nursing Mothers, Isa. 49.23. and on the other required as a duty to pray for Kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet life in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2.2. and in all Ages to this day the orthodox party have much desired the Patronage of Princes and civil States in their Religious ministrations, as a means to propagate the Gospel in the power and purity of the Ordinances of Christ; and if the Parliament should (which the Lord forbid) yield to such a toleration of Religions as you propound, I would know whether you would not desire the security of State for that license you lust after, if any should oppose you therein; and would you not have the power that granted it engage so far, as to make it good unto you, and to suppress those who would debar you of the liberty allowed you? We know the spirit of your party by their speeches, and some practices so well, that we doubt not of this, and we have cause rather to believe that you would not wait upon the Magistrates leisure, to right you in such a case, if you had power for more speedy remedy in your own hands.

Light.

In what Nation do you mean? if in England, as I suppose you do, either only or chiefly, I confess that in the time of Popish Tyranny there was much blood poured out of the ve •• es of such as had tender consciences, so tender that they could endure death more willingly then Idolatry. And I deny not but the domination of the Starchamber, and the High Commission were very Tyrannicall, and injurious to tender consciences, and very bloody (especially the Starchamber) to the porsons of such as came under their censure; for I have read the reports of the cruel usager of M ^r . Prim •• , D ^r . Bastwick • , and M ^r . Burton; and truly Sir, I could not but be affected with compassion towards M ^r . Lilburne, and with indignation towards his persecutors (though he have often bewrayed a bitter spirit by many disdainful contumelies against them) upon the reading of the late Relation of his sufferings proved before the Right Honorable the House of Peers, Feb. 13. 1645. wherein it is testified that he was whipped from Fleet bridge to Westminster so cruelly, that the cords bruised his shoulders, and made them swell as big as a penny leaf, and wheales on his back bigger then a Tobacco-pipe; and that the Warden of the Fleet caused him to be gagged in such a cruel manner as if he would have torn his jaws in pieces.

But did not the Parliament so far abominate the Tyranny of these Courts as utterly to depose them, and to exclude the Bishops out of the House of Peers? and will you compare their engagements for the purity and unity of a reformed Religion, and Government, with the intolerable-Tyranny of such merciless oppressors?

And for the tender consciences so much, so plausibly pleaded for by you, and your party, many who had good means to know Sectaries, and no bad minds to mis-report of them, find that for a few tender consciences among them, there are many leprous, ulcerous, blinded, hardened, and cauterized consciences; to which if the State should be so tender as you would have them, it would be cruel to far better Christians.

SECT. XXVIII. What a Trumpeter M ^r . Saltm. is; his reproach of the Parliament plain enough, though rather implied then expressed; A challenge of him to prove his insinuated suggestions of Treason, Blasphemy, &c. in my Examination of his New Quere.

Light.

The premises considered, your Trumpet is as the Trumpet of Sheba the son of Bichri sounded to sedition, a Sam. 20.1.

Light.

For my comparison of Papists and Prelates, If you compare Papists and Prelates, it is not so great a reproach to Prelates for the most part to be matched with Papists, as for the Presbyterians to be likened to the worst of either, as you make the comparison; but you should have said further, for my resemblance of such as desire and endeavor the speedy setting up of Government to Papists and Prelates (for so you made it in your Quere, p. 8.) I appeal (not to the world, that is too wide a compass for a Judicatory as well as for a Church, but) to the ingenuous and impartial Reader, whether the Parliament, making as much haste as they can to finish the Governement, that they may establish it by their civil Sanction, be not implicitly taken into that imputation; and let him judge also whether the reproach be in the Author or in the Interpreter.

Light.

If it be lawful? why should you doubt of it, but that it is lawful? If I have any premises which you can make parents to bring forth such corrupt and criminal conclusions, spare me not Sir; nay I challenge you to lay down your antecedent in my words, and bring in your consequent of Treason, Blasphemy, Idolatry. Atheism, &c. out of them; which if you can do by any fair and unforced deduction, I will take you for an unerring Oracle, and follow you with an implicit faith, with punctual observance and imitation of you whithersoever you go, through all your vatiations of Heresy, and Schism, though you ramble all over the Catalogue of them, as Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Brixlensit, and Augustine of old, or any later Haeresiographers have set them forth; but if you cannot do this, (as I know you cannot) with what conscience do you give out a suspicion, or insinuation of such abominable guilt? what an ungodly guile is this? how far from the Christian charity of a man pretending the spirit of meekness, and moderation, as you do? Let a spirit of meekness (say you) run in the Artery of Preaching and Printing; how far from finceritie, to raise such a smoke of infamy and reproach upon the reputation of him whom you style sometimes a Friend, sometimes a Brother, and to whom you profess a threefold respect for his age, learning, and place, in your Letter unto him? this s • rely is the beam in your eye you spake of, while you are curious to take out the mote in mine eye; and for that you say of Independency worse thought of then Treason, Blasphemy, Idolatry, Atheism, &c. I know no Presbyterian that thinks so of Independency, ut sic, abstractively, but considering the concurrence of many dangerous and damnable opinions with it, and their protection and propagation by it, it may perhaps be truly said, that Independency extensively, comprehensively, and effectively, though not formally, or intensively may be worso then other errouts, or heresies, forced under that supposed golden head, or embraced in its •• ver 〈◊〉 , though they be at the best but as the belly and thighs of brass; and at the worst as legs of iron, and feet in part of iron, in part of clay, as in Nebuchadnezzar's Image, Dan. 2. verse. 32, 33.

I should require and expect your ingenuous acknowledgement of this injurious and uncharitable charge, but that you have directed me to another remedy of the wrong you do me; where you say in your Epistle to me, If you find any passions in my Book, charge them upon mine unregenerate part, for I find that when I would do good evil is present with me.

According to this distinction a female disciple of some Antinomian Teacher (who would be thought too good a Christian to be a member of any Congregation that met in a Steeple-house) made her evasion from an accusation of these; for when her Mistress charged her for stealing her linnens, and other things, which she found in her chest, or trunck, she denied that she stole them; and when she asked how came they to be laid and locked up there, Did not you do this? No, said she. It was not I, but sin that dwelleth in me.

That this is no tale feigned, or taken up on trust to reproach such professors as pretend to an extraordinary strain of Evangelical perfection, but a true story, will be made good by evidence beyond exception to such as shall question the truth thereof: But whether true, or false, you will haply say, what is this to you? Truly so much as her excuse for her theeverie hath the more conformity with your excuse for your calumny; but I bring it in but occasionally, and it is more pertinent I confess to mind you of your own faults then of others.

SECT. XXIX. The charge of misapplication of Revel. 18.1. justified against M ^r . Saltm. his denial. The expectation of new lights which some Sectaries teach, Papistical, fallacious, and dangerous.

Light.

If you would clear the Scripture from misapplication, you must show how it came in with a for, as a reason of the precedent passage: your next words before it are, The Gospel dares walk abroad with boldness, and simplicity, when traditions of men like melancholy people fear everything they meet will kill them; and then immediately (not a word between) you say, For the Angel that comes down from heaven hath great power, and the earth is lightened with his glory.

If this be not a misapplication of Scripture, I add further, if it be not an absurd one, and your defense of it ridiculously vain, and your appeal to the Reader a presumption, that you take him to be very stupid, or so fond as to follow you in all you say with an implicit faith, let the judicious and impartial Reader judge.

Light.

You said before your reasons were rather crowded then ordered, (though I know not why you should put yourself into such a precipitation of haste) If so, it is not strange they should be misplaced, and those cast behind which should come before, as in a crowd it falleth out. And truly for this testimony, and the reason of it, with what went afore it, it comes in a great deal too late to be pertinently applied; for you had ended your reasons, (such as they were) for the delay of Government a good while before, and now were at the end of your second Objection, where there was room enough, before you loosed your Pen from Paper, to have made a reference of that Text to its proper place, and to have told your Reader what you meant by it as now you do; and then I should have told you that that Text is as much misapplied for want of truth, had it come in where it might seem to be most certain, as here for want of sense and suitableness to the precedent words. For,

The Government of the Church is, (as you have acknowledged before) a Scripture Government; and unless you wait for an Angel from heaven to bring another Gospel, who by the doom of the Apostle, should he come, should be welcomed with a curse, Gal. 1.8. you must not look for another Gospel Government; if you refuse the Scripture light in expectation of Evangelical Revelations, take heed you comply not with the Papists, (whom you pretend to abhor) making Prophetical light or revelation a note of the Church, and pretending Revelations from Angels. And if you say your Brethren the Anabaptists have their revelations, and many others besides them talk of new lights. I doubt they are for the most part but like your Book, which offers Smoke for light, and some of them very destructive illusions of Satan; as that of the Anabaptist of Sangalli a Town of Helvetia, who cut off his own Brothers head in his parents presence, telling them it was revealed to him, and commanded him of God, he should do so; and none of them such as may be a rule of direction to any society of pious, and prudent men, much less to those by whose Authority the Government is to be set up, and settled throughout the whole Kingdom.

Light.

The Angel whereof John prophecy was to come after his time, but now about sixteen hundred years are passed since he had that vision, and how can you say he is yet to come, in respect of the time wherein we have this debate? what Angel or Spirit hath stood by you, as by Paul, and told you that we must yet expect such an Angel to come, and when he will come? that when he comes he will bring a revelation of Church Government with him, which hath been kept all this while in the dark? if you have any warrant, any good ground for such a vision, and revelation from heaven, show it; it is a matter of too great moment to be taken upon trust, upon your bare word, or of any man's alive; and it may be Sir you may wait for this Angel as long as the Jews have done for another Messias, and at last fail of your expectation as they have done, and forever must do.

Light.

You sent forth your Dawnings of light the last year, but instead of fair day light next to follow, you present us with a Smoke; what Gospel-light you mean is too dark to me, and it may be also to yourself; If you mean the new lights that Sectaries brag of, they are, and I bele • ve all Scripture-learned Christians will take them but for the glimmerings of an ignis fatuus, some illusive flashes from the shining of Satan, when he puts on his holy-day habit, and presents himself as in the apparition of an Angel of light, 2 Cor. 11.14.

To me they represent the juggling imposture of a Popish Priest, of whom Erasmus writes in one of his Epistles, that he got together many Crab-fishes, and tied pieces of Wax candles lighted at their claws, who crawling up and down in the Church-yard in the night, made the lights moveable to and fro; and the simple people seeing them at distance, (for they durst not come near them) the Priest made them believe they were souls come from Purgatory, which needed and craved the prayers of good people for their release. As many as have not their eye sight hurt by your Smoke (for Solomon showeth, Prov. 10.26. and experience complains of it as ill for the eyes,) will take many of the new lights, so much talked and boasted of by divers of your party, rather for such false illusions, then for true illuminations.

Light.

That we might not be shut up too long in the dark, I have brought all this light of truth to dispel your vapor of error, and slander; and now I may, I doubt not, the premises considered, and judiciously weighed, conclude, as you do, with an address to the Reader, but with a necessary transmutation of your terms, Now Reader judge whether mis-interpretation be not a word sooner said then proved, as well as mis-application, and whether it be my mis-interpretation, or his mis-application. Here he ends his exceptions against me; and here I fixe my period of Apology against them.

1. Of Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.

Y Our allegation out of the excellently learned Salmasius is liable to manifold exceptions.

First, In that you make him a German Writer, whereas he is not a German, but a Frenchman borne; nor is he a Writer in Germany, for he is an honorarius professor at Leyden in Holland, where you say, he is employed by the State to write.

I suppose (you are so addicted to novelty) you will not for your defense have recourse to a record of Antiquity, which Salmasius citeth out of Marcellinus, wherein both Germanyes and Belgium were comprehended under the name of France.

Secondly, But to come from the man to the matter, your allegation out of him consisteth of two particulars; the first whereof is of the manner of Baptism, for that you cite Salmasius thus.

First, That the Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is not the way of Baptism practiced by the Apostles.

Secondly, The Baptism of Apostolical use and institution is in the rivers, not with invocation of the three persons, seeing the Apostles baptized only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ; the later of these you set down in the words of Salmasius in Latin; wherein three things are to be considered.

1. The form of Baptism, In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.

2. The matter of it, River water.

3. The scope of Salmasi •• in these assertions of Baptism.

First, For the form of Baptism, Salmasius doth not, as you do, Except against that form of Baptism at all, much less for this reason, because Jesus Christ left it not made up to the hands of the Apostles; for if the Apostles baptized only in the Name of the Lord Jesus, it doth not appear they had any form for that left unto them by Christ, no more then of the other, In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. And if the Apostles used that form, it was not because the other was unlawful, but because it was that wherein the practice of Baptism began in the Ministry of John the Baptist. Act. 19.4. and yet from your own Exposition of Baptizing In the Name of Jesus Christ in your next word 〈◊〉 will follow, that it is as lawful to baptize In the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, as in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

Secondly, For the matter of Baptism, River-water, you differ much from Salmasius, for he takes it literally, you figuratively.

Thirdly, For the scope, Salmasius his aim in what he said of the manner of Baptism, and other Rites, was to show the diversity of them, and various use of them, for confutation of the superstitions of Papists; but you bring it in to plead for the presumption, and countenance the continuacy of Antipopish Sectaries.

Your other Testimony you bring in thus, Salmasius his Testimony against the present Presbyterial way.

You might have added, (as you English it afterwards) for the Independency of Churches. If he write for Independency of Churches against the Presbyterial way, he is an Independent, and then I may retort the Testimony upon you, and make the Title thus, The Testimony of Salmasius 〈◊〉 Independent for the The Presbyterial way, against Independency; For I can bring as good evidence for the Presbyterial way out of Salmasius, as you can do against it; and yet is not Salmasius a Saltmarshius, mutable in his Tenets, inconstant and contradictory to himself, as you are.

His words that seem to make for you, you •• t down first in Latin, which you so cite, as he that taketh you for a faithful Scribe, must take him for a very poor Scholar, and ignorant of Grammar, (who is acknowledged by competent Judges of his abilities, abundantly witnessed in works, to be a man eminently furnished with all kind of knowledge) for in fourteen lines you set down no fewer then seventeen errors, which must imply either gross ignorance, or supine negligence in yourself, or in those whom you employed in the printing of your book, as he that diligently compareth his original, and your transcript will acknowledge: and secondly in English, thus,

This Independency of Churches may be taken two ways; either as not having respect to any neighbor Churches, or as not depending on the authority of some Churches, that are joined in some Classes, or Synod, of which the Churches themselves may make a part; The former way is found to be more like the practice, custom, and use of the Primitive Church, whereby this voluntary communion was among the Churches. The latter way doth more agree with the institution which afterwards was introduced by a human authority. By this latter way the liberty of particular Churches seems to be less (more, you should say) diminished then by the former. But that which from the beginning was arbitrary, afterwards is made necessary [as a law.] This law truly is positive, and Ecclesiastical, and human, not divine. 'It is by a divine law that the Church of Christ should be one, but the unity of it doth not consist in the union [or collection] of many that are of the same flock or body, but in the unanimous consent, agreement in faith and doctrine.

In this saying of Salmasius, you have not a word against the lawfulness of the subordination of Churches in the Presbyterial Government; and that which sounds in favor of Independency, is but this;

First, That the States of Churches by themselves, without respect, or relation to any neighbor Churches, are more like the practice, custom, and use of the Primitive Church, where a voluntary communion was among the Churches. He doth not say our Savior did institute that Government, nor that the Apostles gave any order for it, nor that it was the same that was in the Primitive Church, but that it was like the practice, custom, and use of the Primitive Church.

And so we say of Baptizing in rivers, of receiving the Sacrament at night, of the love feasts, greetings with an holy kiss, and community of goods, and many other particulars; but it will not follow that in our time, and State it is better to Baptize in rivers then in Churches, to receive the Sacrament at night then in the morning, and to continue those love feasts, and kisses of love, which for the abuse of them were left off by the religious many hundred years ago; nor that community of goods is better then the propriety of them, as in the present age.

Secondly, He saith, The later way, that is, of union of Churches in Classes, and Synods, doth more agree with the institution which afterwards was introduced by human authority. To which I answer, that the Institution of it might be before, and the practice of it according to the Institution come in afterwards; or if it were but instituted afterwards by human authority, it doth not follow that it was without, much less against authority divine; for he saith, as you cite him, it is by a divine law that the Church of Christ should be one; if so, it is a dictate of natural prudence, which is a beam of divine light, (though not an express and positive law of God) that all just and fit means to preserve this union, so far as the State and condition of the Church, and time will permit, be made use of it; and that is an union in Classical, and Synodical Assemblies.

Thirdly, That by this later way, that is, the way of association, and subordination in, and to both Classes, and Synods, the liberty of particular Churches seems to be more diminished; where he speaketh cautelously, saying, it seemeth to be more diminished; it may seem, and yet not be as it seems; but if the liberty be more diminished, the safety of it by that means is more assured, and the authority of it the more strengthened, while it governeth aright, in that if the censures of it be slighted, while they are just, they will be ratified by the superior Assembly, and the contumacy of offenders the more kept down.

Fourthly, That what from the beginning was Arbitrary, afterward was made necessary as a law, this law truly is Positive, Ecclesiastical, and Human, not Divine. It might be arbitrary from the beginning, while there were few Christians for Churches, few Churches for union, and those perhaps not so situate that they could with convenience, or safety come under such a combination, or subordination as was requisite for the Churches security against heresy and schism; but if after the beginning (how long, or little a while is hard to know) it were thought so necessary, as to be formed up into a law, (though it were not divine but human, positive, and Ecclesiastical) and coming under no complaint for impiety against God, or injury to man, and withal conducing directly to such ends as but now I noted, it is more for subordinate Presbytery, then that which hath been alleged for the Independency, w ^ch you and your party so importunately plead for.

All this considered that you have produced in the name of Salmasius for the Independent, and against the Presbyterial way, will do you little good, especially if it be known what he writeth against Independency, of which, since you silently smother it, I will make some supply.

An express and clear Testimony of Salmasius against Independency.

— Which notwithstanding makes nothing for them, who think every Church hath an Independent power, and approve not the uniting of many Churches under the direction of Classes or Synods. And a little after he saith; Their total Independency upon any other Church is neither worthy of praise, nor of acceptation.

And again he saith, If the Churches were not Independent at that time when the Spirit of Christ by his Apostles ruled and governed them, how much less in this last colluvies of ages, when the whole Church is p • stered with so much cockle, and tares of heresies, should this absolute self-ruling of all Churches be admitted • according to which, if they meet with a knotty difficulty, they may not refer it to their neighbouring conventions, nor will they be governed by an Assembly of divers Churches, which vicinitie hath commodiously united. The unity of all the Churches dispersed through the world, under one Shepherd Christ, and consenting to one Doctrine cannot stand without communion, nor that communion without communica • ation, which can be none where all are Independent on each other.

And that this is the mind of Salmasius, without imposing anything upon him, or wresting his words to any other sense then he in • ended, (as you do) I am assured by the Testimony of a godly, and learned Divine, of great integrity and reputation with those that know him, who had conference with Salmasius in Holland, while his Book was at Press (and where, counting the time of printing and accidental pawses it continued five years together) and told me that his scope in that Book was to oppose the extremes, Popery on the one side, and Independency on the other, and to assert the middle and moderate way of Presbyterial Government.

These two quotations out of Salmasius, the one a little before, the other the next page after the Testimony produced by you, may give just cause of suspicion, that you meant to delude your Reader with a maimed allegation; omitting what made against you, by a fraudulent Apharesis, and Apocope of the precedent, and subsequent words; unless it be more like that you never saw the Book, but had the Testimony sent you in some piece of paper, which contained no more then you have made use of. Which we may the rather believe, because the mistakes were so many in Salmasius his Text, as could hardly have been if you had taken your Testimony at the first hand.