Short and Plain Animadversions

Short and Plain Animadversions on M ^r. Dells SERMON. Discovering therein Many passages to be destructive to Church and State, the COVENANT, and Reformation so much desired.

T He distractions and divisions of the times (increased by furious spirits venting their luxuriant opinions) threaten sad things; as if God hath a controversy with the Land, and is writing bitter things against it; or, as if the Troubles we have hitherto undergone, were but the beginning of our sorrows: Fox in his Acts and Monuments reports that the inlet to the eighth Persecution, was the Divisions among the Christians, and want of Discipline; I wish it be not an inlet to as sad a calamity now. I can appeal to heaven, I delight not in bitterness, and breaches among brethren; I had rather bring water to quench, then oil to increase the flame that is kindled among us; I could wish with Jonah I were cast into the Sea, so that the boisterous storms arisen among us might be allayed thereby; or with Curtius (who did cast himself into the Chasma at Rome, that so the breach might be made up and the City not endangered) cast myself into the breach, if so be I could but stop it. I acknowledge to God and the world, I am so sensible of my own infirmities that I would bring nothing into the Press, but that I am pressed thereunto, lest the Truth and my Integrity should suffer by my silence. The truth is, had not Mr. Dell discovered such confidence and boldness in delivering so many unsound and erroneous tenets, I had not expressed a word of dislike in the Pulpit, and had he not since Printed his Sermon with his Reply (and that without order) I should not have gainsaid him now in the Press, as I did then in the Pulpit.

Before I begin to take notice of any clause in his Sermon in particular, I shall advertise the Reader about this in general, that (although as it is Printed, it is justly to be excepted against, yet) he left out some material passages he did preach, and inserted what he did not; so that I may say Mr. Dell dealt with his Sermon as Apelles the Painter did with Antigonus, who painted that part of his face which was comely, but hid most of his deformities. I shall now address myself to give innocent touches on several unsound passages in his Sermon. In the managing whereof I shall endeavor that my pen drop honey, not vinegar, reason against his opinions, not railing against his person. In the first place I cannot but take notice how unhappy my mistaken brother was in the expounding of his Text, which was, Heb. 9.10. Until the time of Reformation. Now this Reformation he described to be The mortifying and destroying and utter abolishing out of the faithful and elect, all that sin, lust, corruption, that did flow in upon them by the fall of Adam. Mr. Dels Sermon, pag. 4. lin. 34.

Now this is not the Reformation intended in the Text, For that reforma • ion which consists in the mortifying and destroying sin, &c. the faithful and elect had under the Law as well as believers under the Gospel, so that the times under the Law might be called in this sense a time of Reformation, as well as the times of the Gospel; for then there was such a kind of Reformation (consisting in the mortifying and destroying sin, &c. in the faithful and elect as well as now. Now Mr. Dell expounding the Reformation in the Text to be the mortifying destroying sin, &c. and likewise affirming (as he doth, p. 3. l. 26.) that this time of Reformation was not til Christ's coming in the flesh, he must of necessity maintain that all the faithful before and under the Law had no such Reformation as the mortifying & destroying of sin; and so lays them under an impossibility of being saved, and so falls in with the Socinians, who hold that neither grace nor anything of the Spirit, not eternal life was enjoyed by the Elect under the Law, until Christ's coming in the flesh. Mr. Dels mistake in expounding his Text, would make one think that he made his Sermon before he chose his Text; some notions about Reformation swimming in his brain, here meeting the with word (though not the thing intended) forced it to serve his purpose; though indeed it is little to the purpose; yet is he not ashamed to say, This the Spirit would have us take notice of in these word, Serm. p. 4. l. 12. Although indeed the Spirit of God intended some other thing in this Text, viz. That Christ changed the Levitical ceremonies and sacrifices by offering himself a sacrifice once for all for the Redemption and justification of the Elect; Now the Priesthood being changed and Christ our High Priest being come, the yearly sacrifices taken away, & Christ sacrificed once for all; there being now a better Priest, a better Sacrifice, a better Tabernacle then was under the Law, this was called a time of Reformation, so that the Text carries a reference to a change in the Jewish services, not in the Christians hearts. Thus having briefly laid down his mistake in expounding his Text, I proceed now to view some passages in his Sermon.

That he might gain attention and belief, he ushers in what he intends to say with this insinuating Preamble. I shall represent in some Gospel-light (to this Honorable Auditory) the true Reformation of the Church of the New Testament, and blessed is he who shall not be offended at it.

What a great flourish doth the man make, what a large promise doth he give? Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. This which he calls Gospels light, when it comes to the trial, will be found a false light to put off counterfeit commodities by, instead of being a true Gospel-light, is it not an Ignis fatuus to bring men out of their way? If by this Gospel-light, about Church-Reformation, he means that secular powers cannot reform the hearts of men, Christ alone must do that, what needs such a triumph and boasting, as if he had got the victory, when as touching this he shall have no adversary? and why should he cry up this to be such a Gospel-light (as if all men should light their candles at his fire) when every eye sees, and all hearts acknowledge, both in the Generations before us, and in this present age, that it is Christ's work alone to reform the heart, and not man's? but if by this Gospel-light about the Reformation of the Church, he means that the Civil Magistrate, seeing he cannot reform the heart, he must not restrain men's exorbitant practices, which was the intendment and scope of the Sermon; this is so far from being Gospel-light, that I shall discover it anon to be grossness of darkness, and yet must the hidden things of darkness go under the name of Gospel-light; and oh how sad is it to consider that so good a term should be a cover for so bad a practice; to be made a Pander to so many wanton and adulterated opinions? but mark further how he is taken with his own fancies, and the conceptions of his own brain, that he pronounceth them blessed who shall not be off • nded at it. 'It is a words he doth not place this blessing of his among the beatitudes in Christ's first Sermon, Mat. 5. He may as well add to Scripture in the New Testament, as he hath added passages of his own to the Ol • , which I shall mention by and by: Behold I beseech you upon what ea •• e terms blessedness is to be had, for not being offended at the ma • er of his Sermon, surely 'tis his blessing, not Christ's, which he is so prodigal of to bestow upon his Disciples that embrace his D • ctrine; And if they be blessed who are not offended at Mr. Dels Sermon, then how far from blessedness in Mr. Dels opinion is the Honorable House of Commons, who are most of them offended at it, and the many thousands in City and Country, who are offended at the Sermon, not blessed ones in his conceit I trow.

If the Law of Moses could not make men perfect as pertaining to the Conscience, much l • sse c • n any new Laws invented now, and if any such Laws should be imposed on the people of God now, the Gospel hath the same strength in itself to make h • m void as the former.

Reader, observe that Scripture phrase used by Mr. Dell, Heb. 9.13, 14. Not to make perfect as appertaining to conscience, is thus interpreted by Exposit • rs, That the Jews could not obtain righteousness, justification or taking away the guilt of sin from their consciences, by any, or all of their Levitical Ceremonies or Sacrifices, but all the spiritual good they enjoyed, was from Christ the true Sacrifice. Now observe, Mr. Dell makes it the reason why the Law of Moses was to be abolished, because it could not make perfect, as pertaining to conscience, as he lays it down p. 3. l. 7. Now by this reason the Moral Law should be abolished as well as the Ceremonial; for the Moral Law and our obedience to it, cannot make us perfect as pertaining to Conscience, i. e. cannot justify us in the sight of God, nor wipe off the guilt of sin from off the Conscience; so that it should seem he pleads against the Moral L • w to have it abolished as well as the Ceremonial, so shows himself to be a gross Antinomian, as well as a rigid Anti-Presbyterian.

All such Laws and Ordinances devised by men that cannot make them that obey and practice them perfect, as appertaining to Conscience, are therefore all to be at an end when this time of Reformation comes.

If all Laws and Ordinances devised by men that cannot make them that obey them and practice them perfect, as pertaining to conscience, are to end in this time of Reformation, then will it follow, all • our Stature Laws, and our Ordinances of Parliament; are to be abolished, for they are devised by men, and cannot make perfect as pertaining to Conscience; but if he say that he means such Laws and Ordinances of men, whereby the Civil Magistrate gives his civil sanction, to confirm and establish certain Laws and Constitutions for external conformity, in outward duties of outward worship and government, as he speaks more plainly in p. 5. l. 26. If he mean that such Laws and Ordinances as these are to be abolished, I demand whether this reflects not on the wisdom and Honor of both the Honorable Houses of Parliament, who have made certain Laws and Ordinances about Church-Government, and confirmed them by their civil sanction, yet these must be abolished; but 'tis not to be doubted but that the Honorable Houses have shown more wisdom and judgment in ratifying those Ordinances, then Mr. Dell can show strength of Argument to abolish them.

But I proceed, Mr. Dell afterward declaring that the time of the Gospel, was the time of this Reformation (which were the words of his Doctrine) hath this passage.

In the time of the Law there were outward duties, and performances, and Ceremonies, and Sacrifices, and strict Laws to enjoin the observation of these things, carrying along with them the severity of death, yet notwithstanding all this, there was no true Reformation. Then he goes on, p. 4. l. 6. Notwithstanding their strict forcing of men to outward duties, and notwithstanding the outward worship of Moses, the people remained inwardly corrupt, filthy, and unclean, and without any true Reformation before God, till Christ, who was God in the fl • sh, came with the ministration of the Spirit, and then indeed was the time of Reformation.

Certainly the man seems to be a little angry, with the directions and Laws of God given to Moses ; and if he had lived in Moses his time, I do verily think he would have pleaded for liberty of Conscience, and exemption from them: he charges the laws of Moses with severity, pag. 3. lin. 35. And that then there was strict forcing of men to the duties of the outward worship of God, pag. 4. lin. 4. which he likes not, neither then nor now; if he blame any, it will reflect on the lawgiver, God himself, who prescribed those laws to Moses. But what hath Master Dell to allege against the compelling of men to the duties of the outward worship of God? I am sure there is much to be said for it, this Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Asa, and Josiah did, else Magistrates are to behold men as indifferent spectator • ▪ not caring what Religion the people be of; in speaking of the Magistrates coactive power, I would be cautiously understood. 1. Tha • the coactive power of a Magistrate is not God's way of planting the Gospel in a heathen nation which never heard of the Gospel before. Procopius in Arc • . histor. saith that Justinian was blamed, because he compelled the Samaritans to embrace the Christian faith. All the Jews, a nation professing the true God, were compelled to the duties of the outward worship of God; but the heathens about them were not so. 2. You must know that there is a great deal of difference twixt an affirmative compulsion, to say I will make you be of my mind; and a negative compulsion, which saith you shall not spread, propagate this Heresy and Blasphemy; thus the Magistrate may compel. 3. The Magistrate may compel to the means and external acts of worship, but cannot compel to internal acts of faith, love, and such like, as having no power over the conscience. I shall have occasion to treat of the Magistrates power more largely, upon some other passages of Master Dels Sermon. But Master Dell goes on and says, that during the time of Moses his law, there was no true Reformation, pag. 3.33. and that the people were without any true Reformation before God, till Christ who was God in the flesh come. page. 4.8. By this Mr. Dell discovers himself a down-right Socinian, he saith there was no true reformation, the Socinians sa • so too in effect; that they who lived before Christ's time, had only temporal and earthly blessings in their knowledge and affections; holding resolutely that Christ and eternal things, though they were promised in the Old Testament, yet they were not enjoyed by any till under the New; whereupon they say, that Grace and Salvation was not till Christ came, as if there had been no eternal life, nor anything of the spirit till Christ came in the flesh: and doth not Mr. Dell say so much in effect; when he saith, til this time of Reformation, the faithful were without true Reformation before God? what a heavy charge is this, that all the Patriarchs before the law, and all the elect of God under the law, were without this true Reformation before God? what is this but to deny that they are not justified, their sins not pardoned, their souls not saved? for this is a certain truth, that none are justified, pardoned, or saved, but such as have this Go • spell Reformation, which he describes to a be mortifying and destroying of sin, if there was no such a Reformation as this, how could any before Christ's coming in the flesh be sav • d?

Master Dell having described what this Gospel Reformation is, to be a mortifying and destroying of sin, &c. he now lays down an exclusive conclusion in these words

This is true Gospel Reformation, and besides this I know no other; but as he preached it was thus; this is true Gospel Reformation, and besides this the New Testament knows no other. He says it in express terms also, Pag. 12. l. 22. the taking away of transgression for us and from us, is the only Reformation of the New Testament.

If it be read as tis Printed, that Master Del • knows no other Gospel Reformation besides heart Reformation, this bewrays his ignorance, if it be read as twas preached, that the New Testament knows no other Reformation besides this, herein he shows his error, to be for the Erastian way. I must needs say, our dissenting brethren who are of the independent judgment have little reason to thank Master Dell for this assertion; it strikes at the foundation of the Independent Reformation and Government as well as at the Presbyterial. Besides, if no Reformation besides an heart Reformation, surely it will follow that both Kingdoms were greatly mistaken in the first Article of our Covenant, wherein we stand bound to endeavor the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, according to the word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches. Surely both Kingdoms did not take this upon them, as if they could reform the hearts of men, (this they know is Christ work, not theirs) but another kind of Reformation in Ecclesiastical discipline, which hath been corrupted by the Prelates: So that if Mr. Dels doctrine pass for currant that there is no other Reformation under the Gospel but a heart Reformation, the first Article of the Covenant must stand either for a nullity or falsity.

And therefore you see how grossly they are mistaken, who take Gospel Reformation (only to consist in the making, so twas preached) to be the making of certain laws and constitutions by the sacred power or clergy, for external conformity in outward duties of outward worship and government, and to have these confirmed by civil sanction, and enforced upon men by secular power.

Master Dell himself, and others of his mind, not anybody else that I know of, are mistaken; for none of a Presbyterian judgment holds that the making of certain laws for conformity in duties of outward worship backed by the civil sanction of the Christian Magistrate to be heart-Reformation: but they say only this, that a visible Church is then in a good readiness for reformation, when there is an external conformity in duties of outward worship and government, when confirmed by civil sanction: Indeed Master Dell says much, but d • oves nothing about this. And to rectify Master Dels mistake, I shall endeavor to prove that tis so far from being a capital crime, that it • s a laudable and warrantable practice in the civil Magistrate, to con •• rme by civil sanction, and enjoin by external penalties, external conformity in outward duties of outward worship and government, which I shall evince by Scripture and reason. 1. By Scripture, did not Darius make a law for external conformity in matters of Religion? Dan. 6.26, 27. I make a decree, that in every dominion of my Kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. Nehemiah made a law, and that under penalty, to bring men in conformity to the observing and Sanctifying of the Sabbath, Nehem. 13.21, 22. yea, Josiah made all that were present in Judah and Benjamin to stand to the Covenant; and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God, 2 Chron. 34.32, 33. And King As • made a law, commanding Judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do the law and Commandments, 2 Chron. 14.4. many instances more of the like nature might be brought. The reasons which evince the warrantableness of Magistrates practice, to enjoin external conformity in outward duties of outward worship and government, and to confirm these by civil sanction, I shall lay down briefly. 1. Because the Magistrate is ordained by God, not only to be a practicer of the law himself, but to be a protector thereof, and to punish the breach thereof in others, this not only the Presbyterians, but Master Burton the vindicator of the Independent Churches saith, a man's practices, if they be against any of God's commands of the first or second Table, it appertains to the civil Magistrate to punish, who is for that cause called custos utriusque tabulae the keeper of both Tables : These be his very words. Now if a Magistrate may protect the law, and punish the open breach of the law of the first Table as well as the second, what should hinder but he may enjoin external conformity to the law I know not. 2. Reason, else a Magistrate in a Common-wealth should behold men as an indifferent spectator, not caring what Religion they be of, whether Papish, Pagans, Arians, Socinians, &c. unless he hath a power to enjoin external conformity, in outward worship. 3. Reason, else the holy Princes and Rulers, as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, with others who are recorded to be zealous in enjoining outward conformity (and that under a penalty) in outward worship, should lie under blame for thus doing, as doing a work not belonging to them; If Mr. Dels assertion were true, that secular power cannot enjoin outward conformity in duties of outward worship. But observe good reader, how Mr. Dell doth endeavor to hinder the Magistrate to countenance and confirm by law (or civil sanction as he calls it) the worship and government of Christ, and external conformity thereto, by this following passage.

After this manner the old Prelates reformed, who were wont to say in the Kings, we will study out the faith, and you shall maintain it; and the faith they studied and brought to the Kings, the Kings must maintain and not question but that it was Jure Divino.

Prithee Reader observe Master Dels reasoning in this place is neither Logical nor Theological; this is the force of what he writes. The Prelates desired their government to be confirmed by Kings to be Iure Divino ; therefore the Assembly (for I know not else who he should mean by that term which he useth ironically, the sacred Clergy) who desire the Parliament to settle their moddell of Church government and confirm it by civil sanction, is not Iure Divino.

If Prelaes entreated Princes to confirm by civil sanction, what was not Jure Divino, shall the Assembly not Petition the Parliament to confirm what is?

But the more to cast dirt on that Ecclesiastical Reformation, which the Presbyterians desire of the Parliament to settle, he doth reproach it with this scandal; that after this manner the old Prelates Reformed, p. 5. l. 33. now observe how unjustly this is charged upon them, for, 1. The Prelates desired the secular power to enjoin conformity to boundless, groundless, burdensome, and superstitious ceremonies; The Presbyterians desired the removal of them all▪ 2. The Prelates desired the King to enjoin a law to profane the Sabbath; the Presbyterians desire laws to be still in force to have it sanctified. 3. The Prelates (saith Master Dell ) brought the faith they studied to the King • and Kings must maintain it, and not question it, but that it was Jure Divino ; but the Presbyterians say not so, They acknowledge that it belongs to the Magistrate to have his Conscience satisfied in the truth of that government of the Church, which he will set up by his Authority. 4. The Prelates desired the civil Magistrates to inflict heavier punishments, fo • not observing a fruitless ceremony, then for gross sins in practice, or errors in judgment; but the Presbyterians do not so. 5. The Prelates had costly courts to pick the purse, and crush the person of him that came under their clutches; the Presbyterians desire none such. Yea, 6. The Prelates desired Princes to settle a government, which had no footing in the Word; the Presbyterians desire such a government settled, as may be most agreeable to the word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches: put these 6 particulars together, then do but judge whether Master Dell spake true, that the Prelat • of old, Reformed after the same manner as the Presbyterians labor for now. Mr. Dell having laid down some differences twixt Heart-Reformation, and Ecclesiastical-Reformation, he hath this passage.

Civil Ecclesiastical Reformation is only outward and busieth it self in reforming the outward man in outward things, and is very industrious and elaborate about outward forms, and outward orders, and outward government, and outward confession, and outward practice, and thinks if these be but put into some handsomenesse and conformity, they have brought about an excellent Reformation, though the heart remain sinful, &c. and so this Reformation is like that Reformation of the Scribes and Pharisees, notorious Hypocrites; who made clean the outside of the cup or platter, leaving them all filthy-and unclean within.

1. In these words observe he runs into 4 mistakes. 1. He joins Civil and Ecclesiastical-Reformation together, as if one and the same, whereas they are clearly distinct: as 1 There are distinct officers, secular rulers in one; Pastors, and Teachers in the other. 2. There are distinct censures; the one may abridge of liberty and life, the other only excommunicate from a Church society, but cannot inflict any bodily censure. 3. Distinct in their ends; Church-Reformation only aiming at the gaining of our brother to God, and preserving the Church from infection and offense: State-Reformation reaching only to the outward practice, aiming at the outward peace; now though they be thus distinct, yet he jumbles them together, as if one and the same.

2. He condemns Ecclesiastical-Reformation, because it busieth it self in Reforming the outward man, when it cannot reform the heart whereas this is rather a commendation to our government, that it can do so much (as by Master Dells own confession, to reform the outward man) then a discommendation to it, that it can do no more.

3. Take notice he is not only an enemy to our government, but to the confession of faith, brought in by the revernd Assembly to the Parliament; and to show how he distastes it, he thinks not one place enough in his Sermon to manifest his dislike; wherefore I observe he hath 3 loose flings at the confession of faith, as in page 7. l. 16. and page 23. l. 28. and here in this place of which I am mentioning, pag. 7. l. 5.

4. He makes tha • Reformation which the godly Presbyterian Ministers and people desire, to be no better then the Reformation of the Scribes and Pharisees, notorious Hypocrites; Though my conscience bears me witness, and his also could testify, would he become a judge of righteous thoughts, that they of a Presbyterian judgment rest not in outward forms and professions, as the Scribes and Pharisees did; but press an inward change as well as an outward conformity: urge men to get into Christ as well as into a Church; and entreat men to endeavor Heart-Reformation, as well as Church-Reformation: how unjust then is Master Dells uncharitable charge against that Church-Reformation which is labored for?

Reader, I thought fit to let thee know, that in page 7. l. 20. he hath added an objection & answer which he did not preach; I am only engaged to answer what he preached, though the answer to the objection in the latter part is unsound, yet I shall pass it over with silence.

I appeal to all that are spiritual, what heart or nature was ever changed by this sort of Reformation ; so tis printed, but 'twas preached otherwise, in these words. I appeal to you all, and to all the Kingdom, and to all the world, what heart was ever changed by this sort of Reformation.

Twere well it could be found what the mystery is, that now Mr. Dell printing his Sermon should appeal to them that are spiritual; but when he preached it, would not vouchsafe the Parliament such an expression, but only say I appeal to you all; truly a man indifferent on both sides would give this reason; as if Master Dell thought the Parliament were not spiritual, but carnal and weak, and not competent judges of the matter, but in his appeal to the people would call them spiritual, as if there were among them more discerning judges. And truly there is a phrase in his reply, pag. 42. lin. 7. that strengthens me in this thought, as if this were his opinion; for he terms them to be but the world that thinks ill of his Sermon: so that if the Parliament should think ill of his Sermon, they should lie under the same condemnation to be but the world; and so not spiritual in his esteem.

But let us look what a braggadocian he is, in making his appeal, as if all the world were not able to control him; as if Goliath -like none durst venture to encounter with him, or gain-say what he affirms. That which he appeals to all, is this, whether by an Ecclesiastical-Reformation any heart or nature was ever changed, if he would hearken to Augustine, he saith quod perplurimi conversi suo tempore fuerunt ob metum paenae. He affirms that many of the Donatists were converted, for fear of Ecclesiastical censures, and civil punishments from the secular powers. And Sibellius on ( Jude v. 23.) these words, others save with fear pulling them out of the fire, expounds them of Church-discipline, that the Church should throw out and excommunicate obstinate and notorious sinners; which should so terrify and affright their consciences, that it should be a means to saves their souls; and Paul saith that the end of Ecclesiastical-discipline is, that the soul might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 5.5. yea, though God might not give such frequent testimonies of conversion by Ecclesiastical-Reformation, yet very often I find the usefulness of it, in a way of conviction, 2 Thes. 3.14. When the Discipline of the Church was so strict that the members thereof kept not company with a scandalous sinner, this was the way to make him ashamed. So Hymenaeus and Alexander being excommunicated, it was for this end, that they might learn not to blaspheme, 1 Tim. 1.20. Mr. Dell then in his appeal to all the world may find some who were in the world, who held that God may so bless Ecclesiastical Reformation that some have been converted, many convinced by it.

Mr. Dell having by five differences distinguished Heart-Reformation from Ecclesiastical Reformation; thinks that by casting a luster on the former (which indeed it deserves▪) he doth blemish the latter, but yet if several passages in his Sermon be well weighed, instead of casting a reproach on Ecclesiastical Reformation, God made the mouth of an adversary to a Regular Government speak what it never meant, and a commendation thereof to be in his expressions, though far besides his intentions; so that instead of giving it a wound, he hath given it a plaster, and done much like that enraged man that Plutarch speaks of, who bearing a grudge against Prometheus the Thessalian, meeting him, drew his sword, thrust him into the body, thought thereby to kill him, but it was so ordered by a divine hand, that the thrust of the sword was into his Imposthume, by which the corruption was let out, his life saved, and his Imposthume cured, which by all the care of friends, and skill of Physicians could not be cured before: As God made Caiaphas prophecy truth concerning Jesus Christ, whom he neither knew nor reverenced, even so hath the Lord made Mr. Dell speak well of that Government which he neither understands nor loves, for observe what he writes of Ecclesiastical Reformation, that it busieth it self in reforming the outward man, Serm. p. 7. l. 2. That it reaches to the body and orders that, yet a • taines not to the soul, p. • . l. 35. That it reforms outward and gross sins. p. 8. l. 14. That it brings men to outward order and conformity, p. 9. l. ult. Now truly me thinks this is a tolerable commendation of our Church-Reformation, that it can do so much (by Mr. Dells own confession) and no ground for the discommendation of it that it can do no more, but leaves heart-Reformation for Jesus Christ, whose work it is.

Master Dell proceeds to make use of the Lord's speech to David, 1 Kings 18.8. Whereas it was in thy heart to build me a house to my Name, thou didst well, it was in thy heart, nevertheless thou shalt not build me a house, but thy son shall, &c. And elsewhere the reason is rendered, because thou hast been a man of War • e, and hast shed blood.

I have nothing to say against the Scripture quoted; I believe it to be unquestionably true (though Mr. Dell was pleased to accuse me, as if this Scripture could not be quiet for me) yet I have something to say against his sense of this Scripture; and his absurd Application thereof. As I apprehend Mr. Dels sense of that Text, he carries it thus far; that it would be absolutely evil in David to build the Temple, because he had had wars and had shed blood; indeed this is the Papists reason, from whence they argue (as Peter Martyr well observes on the book of Samuel ) that Clergy-men must not be in Arms, must not be warlike men, and if this reason should hold good, it would be unlawful for Mr. Dell, being a Minister, to be a Chaplain in the Army; now this could not be the reason simply why David should not build the Temple, because he had shed blood; for this should then have hindered Solomon from building the Temple, for Solomon had shed blood, had a hand in killing Joab and his Brother Adonijah also. The true reason why David should not build God a house, was this: because David had not leisure nor opportunity in regard of continual wars, to set about the work, therefore God indulged him; The Lord considering that during David's seven years and a halfs Reign over Judah, there was a continual war between the house of Saul and David, then after he was King of Israel, he had wars with the Jebusites in Jerusalem, afterwards fought twice with the Philistines, and still set upon by daily assaults; it was inconvenient for him to build the Temple, considering also that there was to be above sevenscore thousand men to be employed about the building of the Temple, which David could not conveniently spare from the war during his Reign, this then was the only reason why God dispensed with David, that he should not build the Temple; not as if it had been evil in him to undertake it, but inconvenient for him, because he had not leisure or time to undertake so long and great a work.

I have something likewise to say against his absurd application of that Text in 1 King. 8.18. He applies it thus to the Parliament.

So I say to You touching this work of Reformation, You did well that it was in Your hearts to reform the Kingdom of God, and the spiritual Church which is Christ's dear body, nevertheless You shall not reform it, for You have been men of War, and have shed much blood, but Christ the Prince of Peace, he shall reform the Church of God: when You understand the Reformation of the Church to be as great as the Work of Redemption, You will acknowledge the Work is too great for You.

Reader observe, there are no less than six absurdities in his Application of the Text, 1 Kings 8.18. to the Parliament.

First, he takes it for granted, that it was in the Parliaments heart, as if they should undertake this work of heart Reformation; which doubtless was never in the thoughts of their heart, they well know and believe it is Christ's work and not theirs to reform the heart.

Secondly, he takes for granted, that this was a good thought in the Parliament to undertake the work of Reformation in men; whereas, if this thought had been in any of their hearts, (which I believe never was) it had been an impious and unwarrantable thought; to think to do that work, which belongs only to Jesus Christ. As 'tis a bad though • t in the Pope to conceive he can give pardons for sin; 'tis as bad in any, if he should think he can give Grace to sinners.

Thirdly, he takes it for granted that the intention in the Parliament to reform was good, but the execution of that intention was evil: wherea • , certainly, if the action or the execution of a thought b • evil▪ the intention to that action must be evil also; if to act murder, adultery, theft, be evil, to intend to act any of these must be evil likewise; so, if the Parliament should make it their work to reform men's hearts, and that be evil, then undoubtedly the thought and intendment of this work, must be evil also; which may evince Mr. Dell, of a third absurdity, in holding that intention in the Parliament to be good, and the execution of this evil.

Fourthly, He makes it the ground or reason why the Parliament shall not make it their work to Reforme the spiritual Church (as he calls it) i. e. why they shall not undertake to reform men's hearts, because they have been men of war, and have shed much blood; so that belike, if the Parliament had not been a warlike Parliament, then it had been their work to undertake to reform the hearts of men; but they having shed much blood, must not now meddle with the Reformation of the Church; well argued Mr. Dell.

Fifthly, by this manner of arguing, because the Parliament have been men of war, and have shed blood, and therefore cannot reform the Church; if this reason stood in force as the impediment, then Jesus Christ himself should not undertake this Work of Reformation (which would be blasphemy to conceive) for Christ is a man of war, and is said to have his vesture dipt in the blood of his enemies, which Brightman expounds to be the Turk in the East, the Beast, and the false Prophet in the West. Now all wars against Turk and Pope, are Christ's wars, done by his Authority and approbation; so likewise the war which the Parliament hath undertaken may be said to be rather Christ's war then theirs, his Cause, his people, his Truth, his glory being concerned therein. Now this Reason would exclude Christ (which God forbid) as well as any other, from setting about Church-reformation.

Sixthly, he lays a blemish on the Honorable House of Commons, as if they did not yet understand the Reformation of the Church; and as if they did not yet acknowledge, that to reform men's hearts is too hard a work for them; I beseech you observe whether his words bring him not into this Absurdity. His words are th • se, pag. 14. l. 13. You did well that you thought to reform the Church, but when you understand the Reformation of the Church, is as great a work as the redemption of it, You will acknowledge the work is too great for You.

Do not these words plainly intimate, as if the Parliament did not yet understand the Reformation of the hearts of men to be as great as the work of Redemption, and as if they did not yet acknowledge this work of Reformation to be too hard for them; Oh the impudence of the man that should cast such a shameless aspersion on so grave and judicious a Council, so intelligent and profound in matters spiritual and civil.

Christ sent his Disciples not forth with any power of swords, or guns, or prisons to reform the World, or with any power of States or Armies, but sent forth poor illiterate and mechanic men, and only armed them with the power of the Word, and behold what Wonders they wrought by that power alone!

1. Presbyterians (as well as Mr. Dell ) grant that fire and sword, prisons, and the co-active power of the Magistrate by inflicting corporal punishments, is not God's way of planting the Gospel in a heathen nation which never heard of the Gospel before: All Protestant Authors acknowledge that it is the Word, not the sword that must propagate the Gospel; let the Pope, Spaniard, Mahomet, propagate Religion by the sword; I know none of a Presbyterian judgment that pleads for that.

2. Those of a Presbyterian way do utterly renounce this practice; acknowledging the power of Church-reformation extends not so far as to reach to estate, liberty, or life, the censures of the Church are only spiritual, such censures that reach to estate, liberty, or life, are committed only to the Magistrates hand; wherefore Mr. Dell is to blame here tacitly to suggest, as if some would have swords, guns, and prisons to be the Churches weapons, and instruments; and what he doth but privately hint at, here he doth openly declare elsewhere, as if some in this age preached that the government of the Church, which hath power over men's estates, bodies and lives, belongs not to King nor Parliament, but to the Ministers and their Elders : Some indeed may preach it, as Mr. Dell hath written it, upon hear-say, and so charge that on the Presbyterians what they never meant; unless he names the men, and proves the words, I shall not believe that any of a Presbyterian judgment should preach thus: read over all the Presbyterian Authors about Ecclesiastical discipline, they unanimously renounce that the government of the Church reaches to men's estates, liberty and lives, but that censures in those regards belong to the secular powers.

3. That because Christ sent out his Disciples without power of swords, States, or Armies, to propagate the Gospel; it will not therefore follow, that States should not employ their outward power to preserve the gospel in safety from open enemies without the Church, and in truth from perverting Heretics within the Church, which is all that Presbyterians desire that Magistrates should do.

Reader, take notice that Mr. Dell in handling the third general, which was, by what means Christ brought about this Reformation; he gives an Orthodox answer, that 'tis brought about by the Word and Spirit, Serm. p. 14. but yet in the explicating and amplifying of these two means, he hath very harsh and unsavory passages against the moral Law, which makes me suspect him to be tainted with the Antinomian error. I will gather up his own words scattered up and down his book, as in pag. 17. lin. 23. he saith, The word by which the Church is Reformed is not the word of the Law, for the Law made nothing perfect, but the word of the Gospel, this, this is the only-word that works Reformation, by which it seems to me he excludes the Law from being any way instrumental for the converting and reforming of a sinner. Then observe further in pag. 18. lin. 5. he saith to the same effect, That the word whereby Christ Reformes, is not the word without us, as the word of the Law is, but the word within us. Then in pag. 19. lin. 3. he saith, That the word of the Gospel is the only reforming word, and if there be never so much preaching, if it be but legal, it will Reforme nobody aright : Now what he means by legal preaching, I cannot tell; for my part I account that only to be legal preathing, either to cry up the observation of the ceremonial Law, or to preach justification by the works of the moral Law; besides this, I know not what is legal preaching: Surely Mr. Dell hath not such cause to tax the godly Ministers of this Kingdom to be legal Preachers, for who goes about to set up the ceremonial Law for the observation thereof, or the moral Law to get justification thereby? I know none: but if Mr. Dell means, that to preach the duties of the moral Law, or the matter contained in the Law, (which to me seems to be his sense) that this cannot be instrumental to reform the heart; in this I am against him, and the Scriptures also gain-say him touching this matter; When the Levites read the Law, and expounded it, the people wept very sore, Nehem. 8.8, 9. A good evidence of the Reformation of some among them; besides the preaching of the Prophets was but an expatiating and explicating the duties commanded in the Law of Moses, and shall we imagine that none were reformed by that way of preaching? besides, to what end doth Christ himself expound and press the Law, Mat. 5. and the Apostles after him urge the duties of the Law, Eph. 6.1, 2. James 2.8.10, 11. If preaching the duties of the moral Law, or the matter contained in it, could be no ways instrumental to reform the hearts of men? I have herein been too large.

I shall only mention one unsavory passage more about the Law, then proceed to what else may be justly excepted against, 'It is in page 19. lin. 14.

In the Law there was letter without the spirit, and so that could do nothing, but in the Gospel the word and the spirit are always joined together.

Here he falls into the Socinian Error again, as if the Spirit did not accompany the Ministry of Moses, as if there was in the Law only the letter without the Spirit, whereas indeed the efficacy of the Spirit was as Really operative then as now, though not so abundantly.

Doth not the Scripture assure us that the Spirit did accompany the Ministry of the Prophets, and did not Christ by his Spirit preach unto the Old World in the Ministry of Noah ? How then dares Master Dell affirm that in the law there was letter without the Spirit ? But then observe he runs into another error, that in the Gospel the Word and Spirit are always joined. If this were true, then certainly none could perish that hear the Gospel, which would be near of Kin to Origen's opinion, that all shall be saved; yea by this tis manifest that in the Gospel the Word and Spirit are not always joined together, in that the Gospel becomes a block of offense to some, and a savor of death unto death, 2 Cor. 2.16. which could not be if in the Gospel the Word and Spirit were always joined together.

Object. Yea but I hope you will allow Secular power too, may not the spiritual Church of Christ be reformed with Worldly and Secular power?

I answer, by no means, and that for these causes. So it is printed, but it was preached thus; I answer by no means, and what I say I shall make good out of the Gospel, if it offend any, we cannot help that the word of God should be a stone of stumbling and rock of offense.

All these words are left out in the printed Copy; and what should be the reason thereof? Oh that the omission of these words did arise from a suspicion of the invalidity and impertinency of his proofs for what he intends: if this did abate his confidence in the Press from what it was in the Pulpit, I should in time hope that he would with Augustine write a book of Retractations, and reclaim his dangerous opinions; I am not in despair as touching this, for he hath turned from Episcopacy to Independency, and now for Anarchy; and who knows whether he may not turn for Presbytery in the end, which is my earnest desire to God for him, since I heard and read what opinions he holds.

There is one thing more I might inquire into, What reason Mr. Dell had to use those words as a Prologue to what he was to say, If it offend any we cannot help that the Word of God should be a stone of stumbling and rock of offense. If he intended only that Magistrates cannot reform the heart, that is Christ's work alone; I do not think there was one in the Congregation that would be, or could be offended at that; wherefore it made me think when he used those words, that something either erroneous (as indeed it was) or controversial would fall from him, else there had been no need of such a Preamble as that was.

I will now address myself to view over those causes or reasons he gives, why he will by no means grant the Spiritual Church of Christ, to be reformed by worldly and Secular power, which if he means in this sense that Secular powers cannot Reforme the heart, he might well spare his pains in alleging reasons; all the Congregation was fully satisfied in that without further reasons; but certainly something else these causes he lays down were intended for, to plead for some such thing as this, that because the Magistrate cannot reform the heart, therefore he must not put to his hand to repress the divulging of Heretical opinions; nor punish those persons that do: I cannot discern at what mark he should aim at but this. I now come to consider of the Causes or Reasons as he lays them down.

His first Reason:

Forcible Reformation is unbeseeming the Gospel, for the Gospel is a Gospel of peace not of force and fury; Civil Ecclesiastical Reformation reforms by breathing out threatenings, punishments, prisons, fire and death.

To strengthen this; he quotes many Authors, in page 21.

Observe 1. If by forcible Reformation he means that a Christian Magistrate should not force by fire and sword, an heathen people to embrace the faith, I shall not contend with him; but if he means that Magistrates must not among people professing the faith, put forth their power to suppress Heresies, and punish the divulgers thereof, this is not unbeseeming the Gospel, but most consonant unto it. For did not Paul in the want of a Christian Magistrate in an extraordinary way do the Magistrates work, inflict a bodily punishment on Elymas the Sorcerer, struck him blind, only because he would have seduced Paulus Sergius from the faith? Acts 13.8, 9, 10, 11. Now what Paul did extraordinarily, the Christian Magistrate may do ordinarily as an ordinary act of his charge. There are a cloud of witnesses that affirm this, that it is the Magistrates duty to suppesse errors, and punish the spreaders thereof.

Zanchi saith, That almost all Divines in his time were of this mind, that Heretics were to be punished with the sword. So is Beza likewise who saith, Docemus Christianis Magistratibus praecipue dandam operam, ut purus ac sincerus Dei cultus vigeat ejusque perturbatores ut res postvlat, authoritate sua legitime juadicatos, capitali quoque paena si necessitas et sceleris magnitudo postulent, coerceant potius, quam ecclesia detrimentum capiat. The Christian Magistrate (saith Beza ) should use his endeavor, that the pure & sincere worship of God might flourish, and that he should restrain and punish, and that with a capital punishment, if need so require, all the disturbers thereof, rather then the Church should receive any damage. Of the same mind is Bullinger, conc. 18. fol. 89. and Aretius in Historia valentini gentilis. Danaus in Ethic. Christi, lib. 2. c. 13. fol. 199. So Junius in defensione, 2. de Trinitate adversus Samosatenianos edita Heidelb. Ann. 1591. p. 40. now lest it might invalidate what these Orthodox Divines assert as being of a Presbyterian judgment; I shall here insert what some of the Independent way do hold, touching the Magistrates power, in suppressing Heresies and punishing the promoters thereof. Mr. John Goodwin in a book, entitled M. S. to A. S. pag. 50. saith that if the Magistrate avoid this danger, that he smite not the truth of God instead of Heresy, and the Worship of God instead of superstition, he professeth, that for his part when the civil Magistrate shall be far enough out of this danger of fighting against God (in opposing truth instead of Heresy) he hath nothing to say against his fighting with superstion, Heresy, Schism, as well as corruptions in manners : He grants what the Presbyterian desire; so doth Mr. Burton likewise in his vindication of the Independent Churches, pag. 70. you must distinguish betwixt men's consciences and their practice, the conscience simply considered is for God, but for man's practices, if they be against any of God's commands of the first or second Table, that appertains to the civil Magistrate to punish, who is for this cause called custos utriusque tabulae, the keeper of both Tables. I shall only instance in one more, the glory of their way; I mean that man of God, Mr. Burroughs, who quotes that text in Deut. 13.6. That the Magistrate must not tolerate, but may inflict death for Idolatry; yea, as he saith, lest any should put off this, saying this is in the Old Testament; he therefore to take this off, doth urge, Zach. 13.3. He that takes upon him to prophecy, to speak lies in the name of the Lord, his father and mother that begat him, shall say unto him, thou shalt not live, and they shall thrust him through when he prophe •• eth. And this Text he affirms to be a prophecy of the times of the Gospel; not as if the paren • s should presently run a knife into him, but that they should be the means that such an erroneous Idolatrous Prophet, or Teacher, should be brought before the Civil Magistrate to receive condign punishment, even to the taking away his life.

2. Observe that the many quotations in pag. 21. prove only that an Heathen people must not be forced by fire and sword to embrace the Faith; but contradicts not this, that a Christian people should not by the Christian Magistrate, be punished for, or restrained from the professing of blasphemous opinions, or damnable Heresies.

3. Observe, 'tis an unjust charge on Ecclesiastical Reformation, as if that did breath out threatenings, punishments, prisons, death. The Church by all its censures can inflict no corporal punishment, 'tis the sword in the Magistrates hand only must do that; thus much in answer to the first cause.

His second reason he lays down, is, That forcible Reformation is unsuitable to Christ's Kingdom ; which if it be meant in the sense mentioned in my Animadversions on the foregoing Reason, 'tis no ways unsuitable to Christ's Kingdom, but is assented to by Presbyterians and Independents also, as consonant to the word. Now under this second cause he hath this groundless assertion, viz. You may as well go about to bring the Angels of Heaven, under an outward and secular power, as the faithful, who being borne of the Spirit, are more spiritual then they, Serm. p. 22. l. 21.

If Mr. Dells assertion should be believed, that the faithful are more spiritual then Angels; then four absurdities would follow:

• 1 Civil Laws must have no more to do with the faithful, then it hath with Angels; (who are above the reach of human laws.)
• 2 If more spiritual then Angels, then must they have no bodies, as Angels have not.
• 3 If more spiritual then Angels, then must they be more free from sin then they are▪
• 4 If more spiritual then Angels, then men whiles they live here, should have a greater degree of grace then Angels have. Considering then that the faithful here on earth are to be subject to human Laws, which Angels are not, seeing they have bodies which Angels have not, and have sin in their natures, and imperfection in their graces, which the Angels of heaven have not, I cannot see reason why Mr. Dell should say, That the faithful and elect were more spiritual then Angels.

His third Reason, by • orcible Reformation, human Institution is set up.

I shall be as brief in my answer, as he is in this Reason; If human Institution should be set up by the Civil Magistrate, (which is not intended by any) as a part of God's worship this would be unjustifiable; but if human Institutions be set up ( circa sacra ) only as a prop to God's worship, by their Civil sanction to give protection for the free and public exercise of the worship of God. Against this there can be nothing justly objected.

His fourth Reason, It brings men into blind obedience.

If Ecclesiastical Reformation brings men into blind obedience, this is but an accidental effect, the fault lies not in the Reformation, but in the ignorance of a man's own mind, or perverseness of will, that will not know or learn.

His fifth Reason: It makes men Hypocrites, and not Saints ; yea, saith afterwards, pag. 24. lin. 13. This Reformation makes no Saints, but all Hypocrites.

If Church-Reformation (confirmed by the Secular Power) makes Hypocrites, this is but an accidental effect as the former was, the fault is not in the Reformation, but in the unsoundness of men's hearts. This would reflect on the sincere powerful preaching of the Word, as well as the Reformation; for by living under it, many are molded into a form of godliness, who yet are hypocrites; shall the word be therefore blamed? Josiah in that glorious Reformation in Judah, caused all Judah to stand to the Covenant, 2 Chron. • 4. 32. yet many of those that did so were but mere hypocrites, as they are charged by Jeremiah, c. 3.6, 10. shall therefore the Covenant he then pressed upon the people be ill thought of; because many did show themselves hypocrites after their taking of it?

His sixth Reason, He saith, it causeth disturbances and tumults in the world.

In laying down my answer to this sixth cause. I shall suggest these four particulars.

1. That this effect is but accidental, as the two former were: disturbance and tumults do not arise from anything in Ecclesiastical Reformation, but from the turbulency and violence of men's spirits, who plead for a lawless liberty, and are loath to be restrained by the golden reins of Discipline.

2. That disturbances and tumults following a Reformation, is no grounded Argument that that Reformation is evil, for then this would condemn Jesus Christ himself, for when he came from the bosom of his Father to reform his Church, 'tis said, That he came not to send peace in the world, but a sword; for I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, &c. Mat. 10.34, 35. Now because these offenses and differences do arise because of Christ; dare any lay the blame on him, as if he were the cause thereof?

3. Where Presbyterial Government is in use protected, and confirmed by the Civil Magistrate, there is most peace, union, and brotherly love, and least divisions and disturbances; should I confirm this by quoting any Author of a Presbyterian judgment, some would not therefore believe it; wherefore that holy man of God, Mr. Burroughs, though he be dead, yet he speaketh, in a Speech of his at Guildhall, on Friday, October 6. 1643. he hath these words, That Scotland is certainly a Nation that God doth love, a Nation that God doth honor, it is a Nation that is united the most firmly under Heaven; we may truly call it a Phiadelthia, had we the like union among us, O what great things had we done before this time: So it should seem in Mr. Burroughs opinion Presbyterian Government was no cause of Disturbance • and Tumults, but a bond to union: yea, Mr. Burroughs was not alone of this mind, but the other fou • e Apologists, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Bridge, Mr. Simpson acknowledge, that Presbyterian Government hath been accompanied with more peace then other forms of Government, see the Apologetical Narration, p. 4. Is not Mr. Dels charge then unjust, that Ecclesiastical Reformation which Presbyterians desire to settle, doth breed disturbances and tumults in the world.

4. Where Errors and Heresies spread, are connived at, or tolerated for want of Ecclesiastical Reformation, there are likely to be • most disturbances and divisions. This generation can give a sighing testimony hereto. Spanhemius in a small Tract, or Narration of the rise and progress of the Anabaptists in Germany, declares that they occasioned many commotions, and the effusion of much blood in those parts of the world; what the Division of the times may do among us, who knows? These particulars considered, Mr. Dell and others of his mind had more ground to lay these brats of Disturbances and Tumults at their own doors, that cry down an Ecclesiastical Reformation, and cry up a Toleration, then father it upon them who desire unity, truth, and order.

His seventh Reason, Christ useth no such outward force, it was foretold of him, That he should not strivel, nor cry, nor lift up his voice in the streets, to call in outward and Secular aide and power. 'It is true, Christ used not outward power, and who saith he should: do not (as I have said before) all Presbyterians hold, that the Word, not the Sword must propagate the Faith; but what then, did not Christ call for outward aide from the Rulers of the world to preserve the Faith? are we not enjoined by Christ to pray for Kings, that they might protect us in the profession of godliness? are not Kings nursing Fathers, appointed by Christ to take care of his Churches safety? Doth not Mr. Dell say as much, that the Magistrate should protect us in godliness. It is worth your notice, that he doth not only corruptly expound, but impudently add to the Scripture. He tells you, That it was foretold that Christ should neither strive nor cry, nor lift-up his voice in the streets, to call in for outward and Secular aide and power. He quotes not the place where this Prophecy is, least the Reader should readily turn to it, and so discern his perverting of the sense, and adding to the words this phrase, To call in for outward and Secular aide, which is not in the Text; yet he would make the world believe, as if it was prophesied of Christ, he should neither strive, nor cry, nor lift up his voice in the streets to call in for Secular aide; that holy Prophecy (which he doth so grossly abuse) is in Isaiah 42.2. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets : which Calvin expounds indeed to be a Prophecy of Christ, (but far from what Mr. Dell intends) signifying, that Christ coming in the flesh, should be without pomp and worldly glory, that he should not be received as the Princes of this world, for when they come through some populous City, they are received in great state, and with loud acclamations from the people. And Musculus saith to the same effect also, that Christ delighteth not in pomp and vain glory, as the Princes of the world do, but would live and lead an obscure life in the world. This I only urge to show his gross mi • takes, and • olly in adding that clause to Isaiah's Prophecy, which overthrows the Prophets intendment in it.

As the Disciples shook off the dust of their feet as a witness against them that received not their Doctrine; this is all that Ministers of the Gospel can do to any that refuse their Doctrine, and not go to the Secular Magistrate to ask p • wer to punish them, or imprison them, &c.

'It is one thing for a man not to receive the Word, and another thing to vent blasphemies and errors against the Word; I grant, that Ministers must not go to the Secular Magistrate to have men punished who do not believe or receive their Doctrine, nor are any punished for this; yet Ministers must go to the Civil Magistrate to have Heretics and Blasphemers punished by his hand; else guilt lies upon them. Now because I perceive the thing which Mr. Dell drives at, is to deny this, as appears by a following passage, pag. 25. line 32. avoid an Heretic, but not imprison him, or kill him, or banish him :) I shall therefore make this good, that 'tis no such new or unheard of thing, that Ministers should call to the Civil Magistrate to have Heretics punished; I may make it evident from the most ancient and general Council. The Nicene Council after they had cast out Arius the Heretic out of the Church of Alexandria, made their addresses unto Constantine the Great that he might be punished: so did the Ephesian Council with Nestorius that grand Heretic, desire Theodosius and Valeminian to banish him, which was done accordingly. Thus did the Constantinopolitan Council with that gross Heretic Macedonius : and the Calcedon Council with the Eutichean Heretics; yea, not only the general Councils, but the Reformed Churches they do the like; yea, in New-England also the Churches did call to the Civil Magistrate to imprison some, and banish others, who were the broachers of damnable Heresies and Errors; and 'tis to be observed, that Gerrard who did much differ both from Lutherans and Calvinists in this controversy about punishing any Heretics with death; yet he grants this that I urge. Quod Magistratus ad fidem Christi conversi auxilium contra Haereticos Orthodoxi implorare possint libenter concedimus, that is, That the Orthodox may lawfully beg the power and help of the Christian Magistrate against Heretics. But it may be objected, why the Apostles and the Church in the Primitive times did not go to the Civil Magistrate to have Heretics punished? Sol. 'Twas not as if they thought they might not warrantably go to the Civil Magistrate, but 'twas because they knew the Magistrate was not then Christian, nor converted to the Faith, so that if they had gone to have him punish others for being Heretics, they had been punished themselves for being Christians; this was the true reason of their forbearance; and yet Historians tell us, that the Primitive Christians did sometimes desire the Heathen Emperors aide against Heretics; in particular, the Christians petitioned Aurelian •• the Emperor to punish Samosatenus that gross Heretic, which accordingly he did, Vide Euseb Hist. Eccl. lib. 7. c. 29.

If men be wicked, is it not misery enough for them to refuse eternal life, except also they inflict on them a temporal death? Then he brings in a saying of Luther's; Quando non invocat brachium seculare? Et morte u • ra{que} terreat mundum.

1. Take notice that Mr. Dell makes the misery of wicked men, which they may endure hereafter, to be an Argument to exemp • them from all corporal punishments here, as if because it is misery enough to be thrust to Hell for Murder, Treason, Theft; therefore the Magistrate must not inflict on them temporal punishment for any of those offenses.

2. Take notice that the quotation of Luther's speech doth not serve his purpose, to prove that Magistrates must not punish Heretics; but Luther's speech tends to this, that the Popish Clergy did call for the Secular powers to terrify Protestants under the notion of Heretics, with both kind of deaths. Now is this a good consequence, because the Popish Clergy did call for the Secular powers against Protestants, under the notion of Heretics, who were not so; therefore godly Ministers must not desire the Secular power against Heretics, who are so?

They that do these things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, but not one word of outward and corporal punishment in all the Gospel.

Here still he harps upon the same string, as if, because a man shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, therefore must have no corporal punishment. Those that shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, are mentioned by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. to be Fornicators, Idolaters, Adulterers, Effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, Thieves, Covetous, Drunkards, Revilers, Extortioners, and such like, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God ; and because of this, by Mr. Dells assertion, they must be exempted from corporal punishment; certainly all the Libertines in the Land would gratify Master Dell, could he but justify this Doctrine.

Christ reproveth his Disciples for discovering such a spirit of Tyranny, as to punish men for not receiving him, Luke 9. when the Apostles of a Prelatical and Antichristian spirit in that particular, desired fire to come down from heaven upon them that would not receive him, Christ did severely rebuke them: then afterwards saith, They were of the spirit of Satan, and of Antichrist, and that this was Antichrist Triumphant.

You need not wonder that Master Dell should call the Reverend Assembly the last prop of Antichrist, and other godly Ministers the Toes of Antichrist; he that cannot afford the Apostles a good word, what can others of inferior endowments expect from him? Oh what a censorious tongue hath this man, to asperse the Apostles for every infirmity, with the foul blot of Antichristianity! 'It is true, the desire of the Apostles was inconsiderate and vindicative, and shall this mole-hill be made a mountain, to be called in them a spirit of Tyranny, a Prelatical and Antichristian spirit? yea, to charge it upon Christ, as if he should say, They were not of his Spirit, but of Satan's, and of Antichrists, and this to be Antichrist Triumphant. Oh what a shameless and senseless aspersion is this! How could Antichrist be said then to be Triumphant, when the Mystery of Iniquity did not begin to work till afterward, nor did Antichrist become Triumphant till long after the Roman Emperors relinquisht Rome, and gave way to the Pope, 2 Thess. 2.6, 7, 8. which was not till many years after the Apostles desired fire to come down from heaven? For my part I shall incline to think they to come nearest the Apostolical practice and spirit, at whom Master Dell casts forth his more bitter invectives.

Object. May a Christian then live as he list?

Ans. No, by no means, for he hath the Word and Spirit in him to keep him from living as he list, and he knows that no man in God's Kingdom may live as he wills, but as God wills.

1. Observe, though he saith that man should not live as he list; yet for anything the Magistrate hath to do with him, he may live as he list.

2. He takes it for granted, as if the Word and Spirit did so keep a man in order, as if that man should not live as it pleaseth himself, but in all things please God.

3. He concludes, because men know they may not live as they will, but as God wills; therefore that they do live as God wills, which is not true.

Object. But would you have no Law?

Ans. No Laws in God's Kingdom, but God's Laws, viz. the Law of the New nature, the law of the Spirit, and the law of Love.

All that I shall say touching this, is to desire Master Dell to look into his heart, and try whether the law of a New nature, the law of the Spirit, and the law of Love, did guide him in preaching this Sermon, and publishing his Epistle: Would the law of Love make him so censorious of the Assembly, to cal them the last prop of Antichrist, and to censure other Ministers to be but the Toes of Antichrist? Would the law of Love make you asperse the Apostles, that they discovered a spirit of Tyranny, Prelacy, and Antichristianity? truly love would keep you from thinking or speaking evil, but out of the abundance of the heart your mouth spake, it may be discovered what was in the heart, by what was heard from the tongue.

Object. But would you have sin suffered?

Ans. No, but more through • y destroyed then any powers in the world can destroy it, even by the spirit of judgment and burning.

It should seem sin must be tolerated (be it what it will) till the Spirit comes to subdue it; till the spirit of judgment comes it must be suffered.

I crave leave to speak a few words in the behalf of two Kingdoms.

When I heard him begin to crave liberty to speak in the behalf of two Kingdoms, I began to listen; I was in hope he had been turned a Scotist, that Scotland should have had one good word from him, but when I heard him out the sentence, I perceived they came not into his thoughts; he is, I believe, as little a friend to their Nation, as he is to their government.

It grieves me to see how the City, Country, Country Towns, Villages, do all rise up, for the most part, against the Ministration of the spirit, for this is a certain sign of the undoing of them all.

When I heard him lash the Assembly, all the godly Ministers and people of the Land who are in the Presbyterian way, I did verily imagine London should not escape his censure: I may say to thee, O City of Renowne, Famous things have been done in thee, and spoken of thee, O thou City of God, thou hast been a little Sanctuary to the banished ones, who were scattered from several quarters of the Land, relieved the needy, hast exhausted thy treasure to save the Nation, countenanced and encouraged a godly and powerful Ministry within thy walls, and is this thy requital, that thou must be put in the front among those that rise up against the Ministration of the Spirit?

But you honorable and beloved Christians, let not your soul enter into those men's secrets, neither yet walk in their open and public ways, for ruin and destruction are in their paths, the way of peace they shall never know, seeing God is to enter into controversy with all flesh, for their rising up against the Ministration of the spirit.

Observe five harsh censures in these words: 1. That the Presbyterians (for I know not whom else he can mean) have some secret plots and contrivements, which he wisheth the Parliament to take heed of. This jealousy springs not from a good root; Nero that was unchaste himself, thought all men else to be so, he guesseth at other men's temper by his own. 2. He seems by his words to suggest, as if the Parliament should not join with Presbyterian Ministers in that public way of worship which is established. I know not what else he should intend by that caution to the Parliament, That they should not walk in our open and public ways. 3. He censures them of a Presbyterian judgment, as if they should ruin and destroy others, or be destroyed themselves, I know not else what he should mean by that phrase, Ruin and destruction are in their paths. 4. That they shall never savingly understand the ways or means pertaining to their salvation, for so doth he pronounce, The way of peace they shall never know. 5. That they do rise up against the Ministration of the Spirit, if such uncharitable censures proceed from him that pretends he is guided by the Law of love, what would he not say or do when he is swayed by a spirit of revenge?

And thus much unto you from the Lord.

Those few grains of truth which were scattered thinly up and down the Sermon, was from the Lord; but those heaps of chaff, and that Mass of Error which thou seest here discovered, was from someone else: The false Prophets when they vented the vanities of their own hearts, would tell the people, the Lord had spoken when he had not, that their falsehoods might be less suspected; undoubtedly there are many things in this Sermon, which God will never own, though it may be confidently told you, all is from the Lord.

A Short ANSWER to an Vnlicensed Pamphlet, entitled, A Reply to the chief Contradictions of Master LOVE'S Sermon.

I Little thought, that you who pretend so much to be guided by the law of Love, and of the Spirit, would have brought forth such fruits of the flesh. The best word you can afford me (who never spake ill word of you in my life) is, Satan, the Old man, the false Prophet, &c. Well, your words shall provoke me to a diligent search in mine own soul, but not to a turbulent passion against your person, what ever you say of me shall not exasperate me to bring a railing accusation against you. The truth is, I am exceedingly unwilling to show your nakedness to the world, for men to see your shame, and were it not that the truth of God is more concerned then myself, I shou • d be silent; I cannot but say with the Philosopher, Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica v • ritas. Before I shall speak to your reply, I cannot but take notice of one passage in the Title of your Book, viz. All published for the good of the faithful at their desire. To which I have Three things to say.

1. That your Sermon, Epistle, and Reply tends directly to the hurt of the faithful, not to their good; for what tends it to? but to pervert men's judgments, alienate men's affections from a Regular Government, and from the orthodox and godly Ministers of the Land; and is this for the good of the faithful? Your Book is stu • ft with self-contradictions, Scripture-mis-interpretations, censorious expressions, and scandalous aspersions on the City, Assembly, and Ministry of the Land; and is this for the good of the faithful? Yea, the publishing your Book is likely to sow more seeds of Discord, and kindle a greater fire of Contention in the Kingdom, then you will be able to quench; and is this for the good of the faithful? I cannot but give you notice of one thing from your name Del, which in the Saxon language signifies Division (from whence our English word deal, to distribute, or divide comes) and how unhappily doth your practice answer your name, and show that Mr. Dell is not only a Dissenting but a Dividing Brother; if so? how can what you publish be for the good of the faithful?

2 If by faithful you mean such of your mind and way, that your Book was published for their good, I can assure you, you miss your end, you could not do your party a greater piece of dis-service then in publishing your Book, wherein there are such weak (yet confident) Assertions, such dangerous positions) such vain-glorious expressions, and rigid censures, which hath made you lose more friends then you have purchased.

Whereas you say it was published at the desire of the faithful; I dare not say they are not faithful, but I will say in this they were not wise, to desire you to publish that in Print which was so much distasted (by the Honorable House of Commons) in the Pulpit. I have no more to say to the Title of your book; I now address myself to answer your Reply: Wherein I must tell you that I have not had fair dealing from you, which I shall demonstrate in three Particulars.

1. You charge me with that which I never mentioned in my Sermon nor ever entered into my heart as if I should say, The Reformation of Jesus Christ which he works by his Word and Spirit in all the faithful, and in all the Churches of the Saints, is no Reformation at all : then you demand, How durst you affirm this Master Love ? See Mr. Dells Reply, page 34. line 10. I may retort upon you, How durst you say this Mr. Dell ? in what you have laid down for my words not a syllable tending to this purpose, is to be found: such a considerable charge against me would neither have been left out by your notary, nor forgotten by you, had I spoken such words as those; it makes me think you cannot confute what I speak, seeing you encounter with that which I spake not, a valiant champion I will assure you.

2. You deal not fairly with me in this, in that you pervert my words, making them to prove that which was not intended by me: that you may acknowledge I do not wrong you, I shall give you two instances in your Reply, the one is in page 35. line 15. where you endeavor to invalidate that saying of the Apostle▪ (The rest I will set in Order when I come) for that purpose I intended it; In your Reply you intimate as if I urged it to prove the power of the Civil Magistrate circa Sacra which I did not; I urged that Scripture in confutation of that exclusive assertion you laid down in your Sermon, page 5. line 2. This is true Gospel Reformation, and besides this I know no other, and elsewhere, that this is the only Reformation of the New Testament, page 12.22. You yourself in writing down my words clear it, that I urged those words in answer to that exclusive assertion; (as you laid it down, page 35. line 10) If no other reformation besides heart-Reformation, then (said I) I wonder how Paul could be • o out, who said, when I come I will set all things in Order; whence I argued this must be Church-Order, in reference to some Reformation of things externally amiss among them; and not an Order about heart-Reformation; for Paul, as I urged, could not order who should have grace, who not; who should not have small measure of grace, who great, this was not in Paul's power to Order; wherefore of necessity it must be an ordering of things by Ecclesiastical discipline, of things externally amiss in the Church of Corinth by their scandalousnesse of life, and unpreparedness of heart, in coming to the Lord's Supper, or something else about external Order, as the scope of the place (being the close of Paul's directions about coming to Sacrament, 2 Cor. 11.34) and the current of Expositors will warrant: Calvin saith expressly the Apostle means only External Order in matters Ecclesiastical, So doth Pareus on the place, seeing (saith he) Paul could not in short Epistles express all things needful about the particular Discipline of each of the Churches: therefore he promised when he came he would set what is amiss in order. So saith Piscator ; the rest I will set in order, that is, saith he, the things pertaining to the Order of Ecclesiastical Government. This text then is pertinent and prevalent enough to gainsay what you affirm; viz. that there is no Reformation but heart-Reformation. The other instance I shall give of your perverting my words, page 39. where you accuse me that the Scripture could not be quiet for me, as if I did deny that speech 1 Kings 8.18. where God said to David twas well it was in his heart to build but should not. Alas, I meddle not with the Scripture; only with your corrupt and absurd application of this to the Honorable House of Commons.

3. You deal not fairly with me in inserting what was most easy for you to cavil at; and omitting the strength of the Arguments I urged: and seeing you could not easily untie the knot, you wovld fairly cut it. And thus having shown wherein you have not dealt ingenously with me, I come now to show wherein you have dealt injuriously with the Truth. I betake my • elf to answer your Reply: & that I might deal fairly with you, I shall lay down (what you say were) my own words, and lay down your Reply so much as is needful; then affix an answer.

The words of mine, with which you begin, are.

Love. Cast your eyes upon the begun Reformation, though peradventure cried down with Confidence, no such thing as the Reformation of the Church. See Reply pag. 33.

Reply. Pag. 34. To which you reply: I taught indeed that the Kingdom of Christ is a spiritual Kingdom, and the Reformation of it is answerable; but little thought that any man would have been so blind or worse, as to have affirmed the preaching of this spiritual and glorious Reformation, was to preach against all Reformation. Is the Reformation of Jesus Christ, which he works by his Word and Spirit in all the faithful, no Reformation at all? How durst you affirm this Mr. Love?

Answ. Mr Dell to clear himself from what I charged him with ( viz. That he c • yed down all Ecclesiastical Reformation) saith, That he little thought any man would be so blind or worse, to affirm that the preaching of this spiritual Reformation, was to preach against all Reformation. To which I must needs confess, to preach of spiritual Reformation, as it should be preached, is not to preach against all other Reformation: but to preach of spiritual Reformation, as Mr. Dell preached it, viz. exclusively, is to preach against all other Reformation. Yet Mr. Dell, to make men believe as if he were not against Ecclesiastical Reformation, saith, That he thinks him mad or worse, that affirms spiritual Reformation excludes all other Reformation : truly I am of his mind. Now that I might turn the edge of this Assertion against Mr Dell I shall reduce it into this Syllogism.

Major. That man that affirms spiritual Reformation, excludes all other Reformation, is either blind or worse.

Minor. But Mr. Dell affirms spiritual Reformation excludes all other Reformation. Concl. Therefore mr. Dell is either blind or worse.

The Major Proposition is evident, Master Del himself confesseth it in the page fore quoted, p. 34.

The Minor is as evident, viz. that Mr Dell affirms spiritual Reformation, and excludes all other Reformation; for he saith expressly, That besides this spiritual Reformation he knows no other, Serm. page 5. line 2. and that this spiritual Reformation is the only Reformation of the New Testament, Serm. page 12. l. 22. what then follows, but that M. Dell is either blind or worse ? And whereas you lay to my charge in your Reply, That I should affirm the Reformation of Jesus Christ by his Word and Spirit in the faithful is no Reformation : Truly Sir, I never durst hold so, its far from my heart, I acknowledge heart-reformation to be the most glorious Reformation, yet not the only Reformation. I had thought you would have answered what I spake, and not unjustly fasten upon me what I spake not, but I perceive your tongue is your own.

Love. As if all were encompassed within the narrow heart of man.

Reply, Yet I said plainly enough when the heart is Reformed, all is Reformed, and Gospel Reformation though it begins in the inward man, ends in the outward, did you Sir, accuse me rightly then or no ?

Ans. 'It is true, you said so in pag. 6. l. 22. and you said the quite contrary in pag. 5. l. 2. Besides heart Reformation I know no other ; and pag. 12. l. 22. Besides heart Reformation, the New Testament knows no other. Now if what you say in one place, you contradict in another, who can help it? And whereas you demand whether I accused you rightly, in laying to your charge that you held only for heart Reformation denying all other. I answer, I did, and I stand to the accusation still, for did not you say, Besides heart▪ Reformation, there is no other Reformation that you know of; and that this is the only Reformation of the New Testament ; Let the Reader judge whether I did not then accuse you rightly.

Love. If this be so, rase out the first Article of the Covenant.

Reply. page 37. I had rather the whole Covenant were rased out, then the least truth contained in the Word of God, though I like the Covenant well enough according to the true intention of it. And again, if the thing be truly considered, it will appear that you are more against the Covenant then I, for the Covenant engageth us to reform according to the Word of God, but you it seems would reform without, yea, against the Word, with outward and secular power, which you will not suffer in t • e Magistrates hands neither, but will needs have it in your own.

Answ. I have laid down all your words in this Reply, that others may discern, and you might be convinced of the impertinency and falsehood thereof; and that in five particulars.

1. In this Reply, you take not off what I urged, viz. If there be only heart Reformation, then must you rase out the first Article of the Covenant, which binds to a Reformation in Worship, Discipline, and Government, which is a Reformation distinct from heart Reformation; but against this you speak not a word in this Reply, then I will conclude that your silence gives consent.

2. You say you like the Covenant well enough according to the true intention of it: truly Sir, you must pardon me, I cannot believe you; and that upon these grounds.

1. The Covenant, according to the true intention of it, tyes to the Preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government; but you like not that: you had rather pull down then preserve the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, it being Presbyterial; yea▪ you call that the carnal Church that calls for the aide of the civil Magistrate for his civil sanction, which Scotland doth; and will you make me believe you would preserve that Church or Government?

2. The Covenant, according to the true intention of it tyes us to endeavor to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms, to uniformity in Religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church-Government, Directory for Worship; but you like not these; you have in Print and Pulpit declared your dislike against most, or all of these: How then dare you say you like the Covenant well enough according to the true intention of it?

3. You do untruly say, that I am more against the Covenant then you. In this I hope I shall easily convince you by an induction of particular passages in the Covenant. 1. I acknowledge the Church of Scotland a Reformed Church, so do not you. 2. I would in my place▪ and calling endeavor to preserve the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, so will not you. 3. I do acknowledge the Covenant holds • orth that Reformation of Church Government or Discipline, mentioned in the first Article, to be a distinct reformation from that mentioned in the end of the Covenant, but so do not you; for you hold that besides heart Reformation there is no other. Yea, 4. I, according to the Covenant, endeavor after uniformity in matters of Religion, but you do not so, unless your mind be changed from what it was when you printed a Book against uniformity. 5. I am for a Confession of Faith; but you had three passages in your Sermon against it. 6. I am for a Form of Church government; but you not so, your Sermon will testify against you. 7. I am for a Directory for Worship and Catechizing; you not so. 8. I acknowledge myself bound in my place and calling to endeavor the extirpation of Schism & Heresy, as well as Popery or Prelacy; but you do not so. These things considered, with what face can you say, that I am more against the Covenant then you? I hope the ingenuous Reader will be a judge of Righteous thoughts about this matter betwixt us both.

4. You accuse me, and many others through my weak sides, as if we would Reform without and against the Word; though the Lord knows the purpose of our hearts, that we desire to make the Word the rule to square all our services by; but because you only say it, but not prove it, 'tis not worth a words speaking more.

5. You most falsely accuse me, and others of the Presbyterian judgment, that we will not suffer Secular power in the Magistrates hands, but will needs have it in our own; we desire none of the Magistrates power in our hands, which I have sufficiently spoken to in my Animadversions on your Sermon. I must needs say you show not plain and Christian dealing, that when you cannot overthrow what Presbyterians say or practice, by convincing arguments, you would endeavor to do it by slanderous reports; this is not fair.

Mr. Love, If this doctrine be true, that Gospel Reformation is only spiritual, then I wonder how Paul was so out, who said, When I come I will set all things in order? surely this was a Church-order.

Reply, Page 35. But pray what outward or secular power had Paul (who suffered not only much from the world, but most from the false Apostles) to set the Church in order? Did Paul think you use any worldly power to set the Church in order, or only the power of the Word and Spirit? But these men think if the Church he set in order by the Word and Spirit only (which were sufficient in Paul's time) it's likely to be out of Order for them.

Ans. Having spoken to this Reply before, I may spare my pains now; yet m • st I let you know that you do me wrong in three particulars.

1. In laying down a part of my words which you thought might best serve your purpose, and leave out the other part of my words, on which the weight of my argument lay, in urging that text, 1 Cor. 11.34. The rest I will set in order when I come : I said this order must be about matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and not ordering about heart Reformation, for Paul could not order anything about this, who should have this Reformation, who should not; who should have grace, who not; who should have small measures of grace, who great: so Paul's words must have reference to external order in matters Ecclesiastical, as Calvin, Piscator, and Pareus expounds it.

4. You do me wrong in laying down my words to some other thing then I intended, as if I urged that Text to prove the power of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion; which I did not (other Scriptures testify that sufficiently I need not wrest this) but only to prove that the New Testament warrants another kind of Reformation besides heart-Reformation; consisting in Ecclesiastical Constitutions for external order; which this Text affirms.

3. In affirming that I (with others) think, if the Church b • e set in order by the Word and Spirit, it is like to be out of order for us. I acknowledge the Church is then best ordered for us, when ordered by the Word; seeing that order allows not such confused disorders, as the want of Church Discipline would bring in.

Love. To cry down all kind of government under heart-government, and all Reformation as carnal, because you have the civil Magistrates hand to it; is against that place in 1 Tim 2 2. pray for Kings and all in authority that we may lead a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Reply. Well argued now indeed. Babes and Sucklings you shall come forth and answer this Master in Israel, the sense of this place is evidently this, that Christians should pray for Kings and Governors, that God would so incline their hearts, that whilst we live in godliness under them, they would suffer us to live in peace, and not make us fare the worse in the world for our interest in the Kingdom of God, and what one drop can Mr. Love squeeze out of this Scripture to cool the tip of his tongue? for the meaning is not that the Magistrate should enforce godliness, but protect us in godliness.

An. To this I have 4 Things to say, 1. 'It is true, you have my sense in the words you laydown for mine, but not my words. I said indeed, To cry down all Government and Reformation as carnal, because it hath the Protection or civil sanction of the Magistrate, doth cross that place, 1 Tim. 2.2. and so I say still; and instead of your calling forth your Babes and sucklings to answer this; you yourself dare not come forth and deny it. 2. You had need call for Babes and Sucklings to answer this; somebody else had need do it, for indeed you do not do it yourself; nay, you grant as much as I affirm, which I shall declare presently. 3. I cannot but take notice what a charitable allusion you have in comparing me to Dives, that I should squeeze a drop to cool the tip of my tongue; excellent good language for you to have in your mouth, what a damned man in Hell spake (if it be not a Parable) where the Law of Love did not bear sway. You that have borrowed this one expression from Dives, have borrowed many other expressions from someone else, not far from him. 4. You grant what I affirm from 1 Tim. 2.2. You say, the Magistrate should not enforce godliness, but protect godliness ; So say I too; if he must protect us, how can this be but by giving his Civil Sanction to allow us the public exercise of that Religion and Government Christ hath set up within his Dominion? • hus instead of denying, you confirm what I said.

Love. To justle out the Magistrates power, is to justle out the first Article of the Covenant; and they that justle out that, will▪ justle out you shortly.

Reply. Good Sir, ascribe not your own work to our hands, the justling out of the Magistrate, have you not made it a chief part of your business now for a long while together? and are you not still so diligent • y acting it every day, that now you think your work is in some forwardness, and are pretty well able to deal with him? and now because you would not be mistrusted yourselves, you pu • likely slander us with it; we see clearly through all your sl • nder disguises.

Answ. To return you an answer to this, I have three things to lay down, viz.

• 1. Here you leave out my words, and vary from the sense that I intended them; indeed I said, that to justle out the Magistrates power, as if he had nothing to do with matters of Reformation, was to justle out them from having anything to do with the first Article of the Covenant, no more then any common man in the Kingdom.
• 2. You ungroundedly say, as if I had made it, (with others) the chief part of our business for a long while together, to justle out the Magistrate: the Lord judge between you and us concerning this thing: Magistrates never flourished more, nor were they an • where more secured, then where the Presbyterial government was established; and never was Magistracy more slighted and opposed, then where Anabaptists and Heretics prevailed.
• 3. You say, that we slander you, that we might not be mistrusted ourselves; I could wish it were a slander, not a truth; as for any mistrust that we would avoid, we fear none; the simplicity of our hearts which we have in Christ Jesus, bears us up against all mistrusts, though we be slanderously reported.

Love. Ezra was of another mind, Ezra. 7.26. Whosoever will not do the Law of thy God and the Law of the King, let judgment be executed speedily upon him; whether it be unto death, or unto banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

Reply. Well Sir, will you stand to this place, and shall this end the controversy? Pray mark then, this was part of the decree of Artaxerxes a King of the Nations touching the Jews, for the rebuilding of the material Temple, that they should have liberty to do it, and not be molested in their doing of it; but should have what assistance the State could afford: the decree was this, Ezra 7.13.21. I make a decree, &c.

Answ. Sir, instead of making a reply to that text, Ezra 7.26. which I quoted, you pass that over with silence, and spend but one line about it, & spend above fifty lines at least in clearing Ezra 7.13.21 which I quoted not: whether this be a pertinent Reply, let the Reader judge.

And whereas you vauntingly boast and triumph, as if you had got the day, daring me to stand to this, which I am not ashamed nor afraid to do, maintaining still that this Scripture doth warrant, that the civil Magistrate hath power to punish with death, banishment or otherwise (as the evil deserves) for transgrefling the Laws of God, as well as the Kings: and to this purpose Mr. Burroughs (with many others) urgeth this text as well as I, and Beza on the place saith, that these heathen Princes thought it equal that a capital punishment should be inflicted on the transgressors of God's Law; and (saith he) the spirit of God would have these decrees of heathen Princes to be exstant to shame Christian Princes, if they should not do so now.

I now come to view over what you lay down in page 38. to be the force of the place, Ezra. 7.26.

1. You say that the force of the place is that the Magistrate may make a decree for all that are minded of their own free will to build the spiritual Temple of Jesus Christ, and to gather up into a Communion of Saints.

To which I have two things to urge, 1. Here you speak for the civil Sanction of the Magistrate in matters of Religion, that he make a decree; but elsewhere you speak against this, as in Serm. p. 5. lin. 28. where you express yourself that the duties of outward worship and government should not be confirmed by civil Sanction; and in page 24. lin. 34. and ult. that Christ called not for outward aid of the Magistrate; why then do you here call in for his aide to make a decree to give you liberty for yourselves, when you deny such a thing to us? 2. The extent of this decree, which you say this place Ezra 7.26. doth in force, that who are minded of their free will to gather into Communion of Saints, should do it; what is this but to say, that this Text doth warrant this, that the Magistrate should give an universal Toleration to any who will call themselves Saints to assemble together, and publicly profess their way; should the Magistrate give this scope, that who will may gather into Communion ; Churches in time would be like that rude multitude (who yet is called a Church as the Greek word signifies) in Ephesus, who raised an uproar against Paul ; could you make this place to enforce this, you would put a weapon into the hands of Papistical, Prelatical, Anabaptistical, Anarchicall and Malignant men, which they never yet used; to plead for gathering together in Communion, as well as you.

2. You say, this is the force of the place, that the Magistrate ought to permit this to be d • ne according to the Law of God in your hands, or rather the Law of the spirit of life in your hearts, and not to enforce upon you any Clergy-Constitutions, page 28▪

Answ. 1. This place warrants the Magistrate to permit the free and public exercise of the truth, not of error; The Magistrate that is enjoined by God to protect the true Religion must not tolerate a false.

2. This place doth rather plead for a Clergy-constitution (as you scoffingly call it) hen any ways deny it; for this decree of Artaxerxes was granted upon the request of Ezra, who was a Priest (compare Ezr. 7.6. with Ez • . 10.10.) which place will warrant what you deny in your Sermon, viz. that Ministers may petition the civil Magistrate to have Idolaters, Heretics; or other gross transgressors of God's Law to be punished with death, banishment, or imprisonment, as the cause shall require; This decree then of banishment, death, &c. being granted upon the request of Ezra a Priest, in that sense it may be somewhat like a Clergy-constitution. I shall say more to your third.

3. In the third place you say, that the force of this text is, that the Magistrate may deter me and the rest of the Kingdom, that are of the like mind, from resisting and hindering you in gathering into Communion, page 38. and a little before you say he may do it upon pain of death and banishment.

Answ. I am glad you speak out, now I know what you mean, and would you stand to anything, I should know where to find you.

1. You grant that the Magistrate may deter me and others of the like mind, that we hinder not your gathering together in a Communion of Saints, and that upon pain of death and banishment: by this I see your spirit, that you would have the Magistrate deter, and that by death and banishment, the Presbyterians who do oppose your gathering into Communion. Oh what juggling Hypocrisy is this, one while to cry down the Magistrates power, when Presbyterians desire his aid against Sectaries and Heretics; anon to cry it up, that he should deter upon pain of death or banishment, those of a Presbyterian judgment? Presbyterians had need look about them, should Mr. Dells Faction prevail▪ this is the best they can expect, th •• the Magistrate should deter them, and that with death, or banishment, should they oppose what Mr. Dell saith is the Communion of Saints.

2. But suppose I should fight with you with your own weapons, and argue by your own Principles; Presbyterians plead their way to be truth and your way to be wrong, and that they are bound to oppose it, (and their consciences rest satisfied therein:) now if they should oppose your way, the Magistrate (by your own Principles) cannot touch them, because they follow their consciences; How then dare you say the Magistrate may deter men by punishments, for opposing you, and yet he must not deter Heretics by corporal penalties for opposing the truth?

Love. If it was good in your hearts to think to reform it's much better to do it.

Reply. Does not God say, it was well that David thought to build a Temple, but yet for all that he should not build it? And do you dare to blame this very thing? Cannot the Scripture be quiet for you?

Answ. I might observe that you do not only leave out much of my words, but also pervert them; 'tis a fault so frequently committed by you, and reproved by me, that I am weary to tell you of it anymore. I come to answer your Interrogatories in your Reply. You demand, doth not God say, it was well that David thought to build the Temple, yet he should not build it ? I say so too, and never said the contrary; I acknowledge, God said, 'twas well that David thought to build him an house, but yet he should not do it, I denied not that, but this I deny, that ever God said to the Parliament, it was well in them to think to reform, but yet they must not do it. I have spoken to this at large in my Animadversions on your Sermon, wherefore I forbear it now; and whereas you charge me that the Scripture cannot be quiet for me, I answer; I meddle not with the Scripture, but only with your corrupt application of it; in which there were six absurdities, as I have evidently demonstrated in my Animadversions on your Sermon.

Love. You need not fear losing a Party.

Reply Yea, but how if God be in that party? What then Sir, Is it not better keeping a little poor despised party that hath God in it, then a great and numerous party without God? Again, did you preach before the Parliament to make or cast off parties; doth this appertain to the Mystery of Christ and the Father? Reader, those men are so over-busy in making and marring parties, that I much fear they will in the end throw the Kingdom into more misery and blood, then their Predecessors have done.

Answer. There are no less then five mistakes, which run through the ve • nes of this Reply.

1. That that party which opposeth Presbyterial government are the peculiar people who have God among them.

2. That the Presbyterian party, though great and numerous, have not God on their side, but are still without God.

3. That I preached before the Parliament to make parties; whereas the Lord knows, I did not intend to preach a word of all this: to which you reply, until I heard the many falsehood that you so confidently delivered.

4. That my preaching did not appertain to the mystery of Christ and the Father, because (as you say) I preached to make parties; but yours must go under the name of Gospel-light, & preaching of Christ, though the scope and intendment; of your Sermon was to make a party what else did you intend in your last address to the Parliament, after you desired a Toleration to assemble together, when and where and how you list; if the Parliament would grant you this Liberty, how did you as the head of a Partie assure the Parliament in these words? We will be willingly contented to do and suffer all things with you, we will cheerfully run through honor and dishonor with you, fame and infamy, gain and loss, trouble and quietness, peace and war, life and death, and that you would desire nothing but this Liberty, to preach and publish the truth. If this was not a party, if you might have a Toleration, I understand not plain English.

5. Your fifth mistake is, in affirming that the Presbyterians will throw the Kingdom into more misery and blood then the Prelates have done: alas, I may return you an answer in your own words, that you ascribe your own works to our hands; if ever the Kingdom be brought into misery and blood (which God forbid) you may thank yourselves for crying up an universal Toleration; for making a causeless separation from Communion with us (whom yet you (at least some of you) acknowledge to be a Churches of Christ) for fostering Divisions, alienating the people from their faithful Pastors, and broaching damnable Heresies, which crying Provocations may prove a grave to all our hopes, and a resurrection to all our former troubles, miseries and bloodshed.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

Love. Reformation is no forcing conscience, it meddles not with conscience, it retains practice; if a Jesuit come from Rome to kill a great person, he does it in conscience, but I meddle not with his conscience, I restrain his practice.

Reply. Doth your Reformation only restrain outward Practice? then to tie up mad Dogs and Bears and Tigers is your most excellent Reformation you that will not meddle with the consciences of men, it is no wonder you are making so many Iron yokes for their necks, and so many snares and fetters to hamper the outward man, the proper subject it seems of your Reformation; and thus taking upon yourselves the Reformation of the outward man, you do indeed put the Magistrates work to an end, and then the Assembly may serve in the place of the House of Commons, and Zion College in the place of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Common-council. See ye not, Oh you Powers of the world, how the Ecclesiastical powers would eat you out? &c.

Answ, In this part of your Reply ('tis so long I cannot write it all) I perceive four bitter invectives, viz.

1. Against Ecclesiastical Reformation, as if it were not worthy the name of Reformation, because it doth only restrain outward practice; whereas 'tis rather a commendation to the Reformation desired, that it can do so much, then a discommendation of it that it can do no more.

2. You inveigh against Reformation, that the excellency of it is to tie up mad-dogs, and Bears, and Tigers: To tell you the truth, I think those that tie up those un • uly creatures, do better then they that let them loose to hurt and to destroy; Presbyterians (as you confess) by their Reformation tie up those savage Beasts, but you by your universal Toleration let loose Heretics, (who in Scripture are compared to hurtful beasts) to have their liberty to vent errors, destroy souls, and make prey of the simple; who then do best, whether they that tie up mad-Dogs, Bears, or Tigers, or those that let them loose, the Reader will judge.

3. You inveigh against the Reformation likewise, as if iron yokes and fetters for the outward man were the proper subject of this Reformation: whereas Presbyterians do unanimously acknowledge the censures of the Church are only spiritual, they reach not the outward man neither in estate, liberty, or life; that belongs only to the civil Magistrate: Mr. Dell, let me tell you 'tis not fit, that when you cannot confute a party, you should belie them; when you cannot overthrow what the Presbyterians hold, to asperse them with what they hold not.

4. You inveigh against the Assembly at Westminster, and the Ministers of London, as if the Assembly would • ome in the place of the House of Commons, and Zion College in the place of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Common-council, p. 40. I see at whom you level your envenomed arrows, you carry an akeing tooth against the Assembly and City Ministers; 'tis your usual way, that those with whom you dare not dispute by arguments, you would disparage by slanders. Time hath been when you would have given better words of the Convocation house, then you can now give the Assembly, and of the lazy Prelates, then you can now of painful Preache • s; I wish you might repent of both.

There are many other unsavory passages in the latter end of your Reply, which hath made your Book to stink before the people, both in vain commendations of yourself, censorious expressions of me, and scandalous aspersions on others. Is not the end of your Reply stuffed with a high conceit of your own Sermon, and a false conceit of mine? Do not you boast that your Sermon savors well to the faithful, and ill to the world, and mine the contrary? Are not you so highly conceited of your Sermon, that it might be preached anywhere, where the gospel hath a free passage, and mine only fit for Rome, or some place else, where the precious Word is under restraint? do not you glory in your own light, which you call sometimes new, other whiles Gospel light, and lay me under this condemnation, that I have but old light, and am but an old Creature still? I will not spend time in my own vindication, I had rather write an hundred lines to vindicate the truth, then one line to vindicate myself. But you rest not here, you are lavish in your censures of others also. Do not you say Ecclesiastical Powers would • ate out the Powers of the world? Do not you say that the Ministers of this Kingdom (if you mean anybody else tell, us so) would exalt themselves in Christ's stead in the Church, and set under their feet the Magistrates power in the World, and that this is so evident, that there is some operation of Satan upon him that sees it not. I need not return answer to these vain-glorious and censorious expressions, the very mention thereof will be a sufficient Confutation to work in the hearts of the people, a detestation of what you preached and printed. I may end this answer as you do (almost) your Reply, concerning me, that there are many other weak, passionate, inconsiderate, and erroneous passages in your Epistles, Sermon, and Reply, neither worth troubling the Reader with, nor myself.

A Post-script, Vindicating the Author from many unjust aspersions cast upon him.

MAster Dell in his Epistle to the Honorable house of Commons, reports that I preached against the Articles at Oxford ; which I did not, for when I desired the Honorable Worthies of Parliament to cast their eyes upon the University to reform it I did Premise this, that in what I should say I would no ways reflect on the Articles at Oxford ? which being made (as I said) stands with the honor and justice of the Parliament to have them kept; was this to preach against the Articles?

2. Mr Dell in his Epistle also chargeth me that I called the Parliament a mongrill Parliament, which I did not; Indeed I said because errors and heresies spread, and the promoters thereof are not punished therefore others accuse them to be so, but I never did.

3. It is reported that Mr Dell should show me his notes before he preached, and that I did approve the matter, yet spent time in study to gain-say what he delivered: the original of this report I find to be one Mr Ireton in Pater-Noster Row ; who saith that his Brother Commissary Ireton did affirm this to be true, which indeed is utterly false; I never saw Mr Dels face until the Monday before the Fast, nor had I anymore words with him then to put to his choice what part of the day he would choose to preach on; I never knew one word of his Sermon until I heard him preach it.

4. I am aspersed for gain-saying what was preached, and that so suddenly and publicly; the truth is, had I consulted with flesh and blood, to consider the greatness of the Assembly, the scantling minute I had for meditation and recollection of what he preached; if I had considered also whom I should likely displease, what censures I should incur, I should have been silent; but overlooking this and well weighing that I could not be true unto my own Principles, nor my inward peace, nor to the truth it self, I was constrained in Spirit to show my dislike in giving some innocent touches on several unsound passages in the Sermon; presuming if one man dare be so bold to publish Error, another may take boldness to Vindicate the truth.

5. I am censured for not Printing my Sermon, as if I were ashamed or recanted of what I said (which I profess I do not;) well I had rather lie under this censure then run into Mr Dells error, to Print a Sermon preached before the Parliament, without their Order.