A PLEA FOR congregational Government: OR, A DEFENCE OF THE Assemblies Petition, AGAINST Mr. JOHN SALTMARSH.  
Wherein is Plainly discovered, that in his Reasons against the Divine Right of Presbytery, under pretence of opposing the Assemblies Petition, he doth as much oppose the congregational Way, and goes about utterly to overthrow all Church-Government, ministry, baptism, and all Church-Ordinances whatsoever; and wholly to subvert the Authority of the Civill Magistrate in all matters of Religion.  
AND, The Assemblies Petition vindicated from his Exceptions, by principles common both to the Presbyterian and the congregational Way; there being nothing in that Petition but what is agreeable to the Principles of both ways.  Phil. 3. 16. Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same thing. 
Published according to Order.  
LONDON: Printed for Tho: Underhill at the Bible in Woodstreet. 1646.   

SIR,  
MEeting with several of your books abroad, and finding therein many things which you popose against the Presbyterians not to be so warily penned as might be wished; I cannot but wonder to see your grounds and arguments so laid, that they wound your friends of the Congregationall-way, as well as the Presbyterians whom you do oppose; and that so apparently that it can-be dissembled: And though it may be thought not seasonable for them who( with you) pled for Liberty, to oppose you in that plea, yet you must not think that they do in their consciences join with you in the Arguments that you produce, but look upon them as being no less destructive to their way then to the way of the Presbyterians, and indeed to savour of such a spirit as is against all Church Government, Church Censures, Church Officers, Church Ordinances, even Baptism itself, and must needs think by the Arguments here produced, that you do not believe there is any constituted Church, or Ministry, or Ordinances in the word at all, or that any at all, either Infants, or others should ever be baptized. Give me leave therefore to examine your grounds you go on, least under pretence 〈…〉 opposing the Assemblies Petition, you overthrow the very Foundations, which all, both of the congregational & Presbyterian way, and whoever maintain a visible Church and Ministry, are equally engaged to maintain, and do unanimously agree in, though in other things there may be differences.  
You first make a furious assault upon the Ministry, that they are but pretended Presbyters because ordained by Bishops, p. 1. Because their Ordination is personal and successive, p. 2. Because not gifted as the Apostles and Primitive Elders were, p. 4. because Elderships then were infallible, &c. p. 5. 6. and the same things repeated, p. 15. 16. 17. And this is the main drift of your whole book.  
Sir, these are things which we must disclaim; principles that the congregational way can no more brook then the Presbyterian. It was a solemn profession before God and all the world, by the Brethren, the Authors of the apologetical Narration, p. 6. that not any of them had any other thought, much less opinion, but that mu●titudes of the Assemblies and parochial Congregations of England were the true Churches and Body of Christ, and the ministry thereof a true ministry; much l●sse did it ever enter into their hearts to judge them Antichristi●n; and this notwithstanding the defilements which did then cleave to the true wors●ip of God, or the unwarranted power of Church-Governours exercised therein. And they always disclaim that tenant as brownism( which upon all occasions they profess against) of holding the Presbyterian Churches, or even the parochial Congregat●ons of England, to be no true Churches, and their ministry no true ministry; And therefore cannot join with you either in this charge, or in the grounds. And Mr. Cotton, in his W●y of the Churches of Christ in New-England, p. 111. affirms the like, We cannot but conceive, saith he, the Churches of England were rightly gathered, and planted according to the rule of the Gospel, &c. so that all the work now is, not to make them Churches which were none before, but to reduce and restore them to their primitive Institution.  
Your ground for it, because they received Ordination from Bishops, or from those ordained by Bishops, will not hold. For 1. many of the Ministers of the congregational way, were ordained by Bishops( and have not all of them disclaimed that Ordination, though perhaps some have) unless therefore you will deny all those to be true Ministers or Presbyters, because so ordained, you cannot urge this as a sufficient argument against the others, which may, notwithstanding such an ordination, be true Ministers. And yourself, I suppose, being so ordained, will not think it any hindrance but that you may yet be a Preacher of the Gospel, as you style yourself; and( if there be any true Presbyters at all) a true Presbyter. 2. If this do not Hinder but that they may be true Presbyters; though it should not be enough to make them so, yet what more have yourself to make you such, then what they have, or those of the congregational way who are not ordained anew? For if a Minister may be a true Minister merely by inward gifts without any outward Call, what hinders, but they may be such, whom you cannot deny to be no way inferior to yourself either in gifts or graces? Or, if Election by a company of godly persons consenting to choose or accept a person( so gifted) to be a Minister to them, may serve without Ordination; no question but many godly Presbyterian Ministers, have had such Election, and general approbation of the godly persons within their charge, to be Pastors to them.  
And for that great ado about proving a certain perpetual personal derivation of power from the Apostles, and so, through ●he Antichristian Church, without which you conceive they can be no true Ministers: Sir, you do by that as much oppose all Ministry, as theirs. For if it be necessary to the essence of a Minister that there be such a successive derivation of Power, then it doth as much concern the congregational Ministers, and yourself too, to make it out; and if it cannot be done, there can be no Ministers at all: If it be not necessary, why is it insisted on? they may be true Ministers notwithstanding that there be no such succession.  
Secondly, by the same Argument we must reject our baptism; for how will it appear that those who baptized us were themselves baptized, more then that these who ordained Presbyters are themselves ordained; unless we prove a succession of baptism in the Antichristian state: and if so, then must there be a perpetual visibility of a Church, a truth of Church ministry, and ordinances of Jesus Christ in the Antichristian State, which is the great inconvenience you feared: If there be need of a perpetual succession in the one, there is need in the other, and if it may be made out in the one, it may be made out in the other. And if your Argument be good against the one, it will be as good against the other.  
But if your meaning be, that there is therefore now no ministry, baptism, Ordinances, because there hath not been a perpetual lineal succession as you suppose, and that for the same reason there can be none for the time to come, for as much as we have no Commission now for persons unbaptised to baptize others, and therefore( as you say) if the succession be false and interrupted any where, it must needs be all false from such a point where the first interruption was made; I say: if this be your meaning, speak it out, that the world may have a full sight of that your new light; and that they cannot be Mr. Saltma●shes Disciples, unless they will renounce, not their ministry onely, or episcopal Ordination, but their baptism also, and all Church Ordinances, and that not onely for the present, but for ever hereafter, till we have a new Christ, or at least new Apostles to restore it again.  
But you add, their Ordination is personal, and therefore must be successive, and their Power derived from a personal and lineal succession, and your opinion is, that there must be no personal Ordination.  
But Sir, is not baptism personal, as well as Ordination, and therefore doth as much require a personal succession? 2. Is not the Ordination of Ministers in the congregational way as personal? yea in all ways personal, as well as the Presbyterians, whom yet you would appear onely to oppose? Must there not be persons ordaining, and persons ordained? do not the Dissenting Brethren, in the 7. Propositions given in to the 
See Asse●blies Answ: to the Copy of a Remonst.  Assembly, affirm, that Church Officers must be designed to their several offices by imposition of hands and prayer; and this they call Ordination. But 3. neither do those dissenting Brethren, nor those from whom they dissent, affirm as you charge them, that their power is derived from those that ordain them, but ●rom Jesus Christ, whatever the persons be by whom they be outwardly called. But it's like your meaning is, that there should be no outward calling at all, that one is no more a Minister then another, but as more or less gifted; and when you speak against making a distinction between Laity and Clergy, you mean, between Officers and others out of Office. Yet yourself add by and by, that men may be Saints, but not sent, or ministerially Saints; good men, but not good Presbyters, p. 2. 15. which you must mean either of Some, or of All; if of all, then is there no ministry in the world at all,( which I believe is your meaning). If, of some onely, I ask what makes the difference between those that are Saints and Presbyters too, and those that are Saints but not Presbyters? And when you have  told me, I am confident, that those whom you censure as no true Presbyters or Ministers, will( at least many of them) pled as good evidence even by your own Rules, as yourself can.  
You add, pag. 16. Though Christs promise is enough to ground a perpetuity of Church and Christs presence, yet not of his promise made good to such particular men: We accept your grant,( that there shall therefore always be a Church with which Christ will be present; you might have added, in his Ordinances; for it is such a presence Christ promiseth.) Your exception is frivolous; for if you intend, that therefore no particular men may pled that promise; you conclude as much against all ministry and all Ordinances wheresoever or by whomsoever administered: Yea against the Covenant of grace and salvation by Christ, which is no more made to particular men, then the promises of Christs presence in his Ordinances; yet particular men( though their names be not written particularly in the Scripture) may apply the promises to themselves, and obtain( notwithstanding the Papists objections to the contrary, upon that ground which you here pretend) a certainty of salvation.  
You argue further pag. 3. from the Assertions of the Assembly in their humble advice, as inconsistent: Because( say you) they aclowledge the divine right to be in the congregational presbytery, That this is the first and immediate subject of the Divine Right of presbytery, that this is onely of Divine Right: and for this you several times city their Humble Advice, as if some such things were to be found there. But here, Sir, you must give me leave to tell you, that you do most grossly abuse the Assembly with manifest untruths; for there is no such thing to be found in their Humble Advice, which I have purposely perused upon this occasion. But say you, How can these things stand together, that Divine Right is in the congregational Presbytery, and yet that there is a classical provincial and national Presbytery? Very well,( according to their Principles) for why may not the one be by Divine Right as well as the other? Those of the congregational way, or( as you call them) Independents, assert a Divine Right in a congregational Presbytery, and yet assert withall( in their writings, and discourses frequently) that Synods are an holy Ordinance of God; and yet do not think that they contradict themselves: yourself assert that the Magistrate is unqu●stionably a power of God, pag. 11. 19. and city for it Rom. 13.( The powers that are, are ordained of God) and by Magistrate, I suppose you mean both supreme and subordinate( according to the distinction implied 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14.) and hold both the one and the other to be an Ordinance of god; yet will any rational man hold it a good exception, that if one be a power of God, or Ordinance of God, therfore the other cannot be so? But say you, THE Divine Right is in the congregational presbytery, as they aclowledge, how then can it be any where else? And the Classical, Provincial, and National Presbyteries are but Prudential and human, or mixed Judicatures. Sir, they ●cknowledge neither the one nor the other; the most that they aclowledge in the congregational Presbytery is but A Divine Right, viz. The same that they assert likewise to be elsewhere( as by their words appears) not the Divine Right, as if there were all, and none elsewhere. Much less do they aclowledge the other to be but Prudential or human &c. But do as much assert a Divine Right in the one as in the other.  
You add, that the Congregational presbytery is the first and immediate subject of the Divine Right of presbytery, as they themselves aclowledge: Sir, they do not aclowledge any such thing; but rather assert the contrary: Produce any words of theirs to that ●ense if you can. Though yet I will not deny the some Presbyterians may be of that Judgement.  
You add, And now whether do not their own principles control that pretended Right they pled for and set up; a presbytery of Charity and Prudence, ●ver the Presbytery in the particular Congregation, which they say is ●nely of Divine Right. If their principles and assertions were as you relate them, you might have some cause to speak as you do, and to judge the Assembly to be men of very little Reason; but if they be not so, they may as well believe you to be a man of very little Truth, or Conscience, who so boldly assert it. You tell us, The Presbytery in the particular Congregation, They say is onely of Divine Right: Sir, where do they say, that this onely is of Divine Right? You city in the Margin, See their Humble, &c. to the Parl. Manuser. pag. 4. Sir, I have seen their Humble Advice, and I have seen the 4th p. of it; but find not either in that page. or in any other, that this onely is of Divine Right. That which they assert is this.  
It i● lawful and agreeable to the Word of God, that the Church be governed by several sorts of Assemblies; which are Presbyteries and Synods; or Assemblies congregational, classical, and synodical.  
The Scripture doth hold o●● a Presby●ery in a Church,( and this Presbytery they afterwards assert may be over many Congregations. The Scripture doth hold forth, that many particular Congreg●tions may be under one presbyterial Government: and this was asserted on this ground, because in the Scripture we find it was so.)  
The Scripture doth also hold out another sort of Assemblies for the Government of the Church, besides classical and congregational; which we call synodical.  
These are their assertions in this point. And now let the Reader judge thereby whether the Assembly do assert, That the Divines is in the congregational Presbytery, and that this onely is of Divine Right, and that others be but Presbyteries of Charity and Prudence, but prudential and human or mixed Judicatures; or whether they do not as fully assert the Divine Right of the classical and synodical Assemblies as of the congregational. And thus I have answered according to their judgement whom you mis-recite.  
Your next Argument, p. 3. &c. How can that Presbytery whose constitution is so questionable, challenge such a Divine Right? Sir, we must not grant, that nothing is of Divine Right but what to Mr. Saltmast is unquestionable: For I believe baptism to be of Divine Right; yet I believe Mr. Saltmarst doth not think it unquestionable; but rather thinks there ought to be no baptism at all.  
Your exceptions against their Presbyters because ordained by Bishops, as the Bishops were Presbyters, hath been considered before: And though that Ordination should be null, yet you cannot allege any thing which yourself thinks necessary to make a man a Preacher of the Gospel, but that they have it.  
You add, Their Ruling 〈…〉 rs( are ordained) by a power as questionable, viz. by a Rule of Ordinance of Parliament, &c. not by that very Apostolical Scripture Rule or institution of Jesus Christ. Ans. The Rule and Institution of their Ruling Elders, they fetch not from Ordinance of Parliament, but from the Word of God; and their commission from Christ: & assert as much, that Christ hath instituted a Government and Governors ecclesiastical in his Church; And to that purpose the Apostles did immediately receive the keys from the hands of Jesus Christ, and did use and exercise them in all the Churches of the world upon all occasions; And Christ hath from time to time furnished some in his Church with gifts for Government, and with Commission to exercise the same when called thereunto. And that Christ hath furnished some in his Church beside Ministers of the Word with gifts for Government, and with Commission to execute the same when called thereunto; who are to join with the Minister in the Government of the Church; which Officers Reformed Churches commonly call Elders. And in this point there is no difference between the Presbyterians and those you call Independents. The one do no more fetch their Authority for Ruling Eelders from the Authority of Parliament then the other.  
Their Congregations( you say) are not congregational,( And why not?) but parishional, and of politic constitution. You mean, that their Congregations are divided, and bounded according to the bounding and division of Parishes, which is of politic constitution. But is it not so in New-England, who yet are reputed as the pattern of the Congregational government? Are not the divisions and boundings of their Towns and Parishes( Cambridge, New-Plimouth, Boston, &c.) as much of political Constitution as these of Old-England. Yet are their Congregations divided and bounded accordingly, not some of Plymouth, some of Cambridge, some of Boston, and some of a fourth and fifth place, to make up one Congregation; and other some of all those places to make up a second Congregation; and other some of all those places to make up a third, fourth ▪ and fifth Congregation: but the Church Members in such a Town, belong to such a Church; those of another Town to another Church; those of Cambridge to the Church of Cambridge, those of New-Plymouth to t●● Church of New-Plymouth, &c. And those who in any of the●e places are not fit to be owned as Church-members, are either to be kept out, or cast out of the Church Communion. And so is it in the Presbyterian way. So that neither is here any point of difference. But if( suppose) at Boston one be thought fit to be admitted as a Church Member, who if he had lived at New-Plimouth, would not by that Church be so esteemed, or one thought fit at plymouth, be not so thought at Boston; this makes no alteration in the rule of their constitution, but onely in the particular application of that rule to a present case.  
And thus in the Primitive times; The bounding and dividing of Cities and Countries were as much of political constitution then as they are now, yet the Churches were bounded accordingly: The Christians at Jerusalem were of the Church of Jerusalem, those at Antioch of the Church of Antioch, those of Corinth of the Church of Corinth; and so the seven Churches of Asia, were distinguished according to the seven Cities of Asia where they were seated; yet none will question, but that the bounding and parting of those Cities and towns, Ephesus, Pergamus, Thiatira, Philadelphia, &c. were as much of political constitution as our Parishes now.  
As for what you next find fault with, the constituting the present Presbytery extraordinary by such an Assembly. If by the present Presbytery, you mean, the Government as it is established by the late Ordinances of Parliament, and affirm that to be a Presbytery extraordinary, without Precept or example for such a way in the whole new Testament, &c. I say onely this to it, that you take a great deal of liberty to speak your pleasure of their Ordinances; less then which might in others be interpnted a breach of their privileges. But if by the present Presbytery, you mean, what the Assembly advised; they did not advice it as a Presbytery extraordinary, nor yet as grounded onely by way of Analogy on some practices of the Old Testament, as you intimate; but as the ordinary way for the Government of the Church, and as consonant both to the Precept and practise in the New Testament. And if what they advice be such, there is no reason why you should except against it because thus constituted( you should have said, advised) by such an Assembly. For even those who do not approve of all things that they have advised,( the dissenting Brethren, I mean,) do not therefore except against it, because by them advised; but do profess( some of them, with whom I have had some acquaintance, have said it often in my hearing) not onely the Synods are an holy Ordinance of God, but particularly of this Assembly, that they believe this Assembly so to be, and look upon it as such. But if yourself think that neither this, nor any other either Synod or Pre●bytery, may at all be accounted an Ordinance of God, or of Divine Right, because( as your next exception is) they have not apostolical and infallible gifts; you must not think that either Presbyterians or Independents can allow such Principles, as being equally destructive to both. But whether the Assembly be or be not an Ordinance of God; yet if the thing they advice be an Ordinance of God, it's never the worse for being so advised.  
The next exception against these Presbyters, because not immediately and infallibly gifted as the Apostles and primitive Elders were; strikes as much against all ministry and Ordinances in any Church-way whatever, except those of Seekers, a late Generation new start up, which no age before these two or three last yeares did ever know; And tr●ely, by the description yourself give of them,( in your smoke, p. 16. and what Principles you here assert, I cannot judge you to be any other then one of them; yea, of the grosser sort of Seekers.  
Therefore( say you) these present Presbyters( you should have added, nor any others of what Church-way soever) cannot challenge the same Power for Church Censures;( you may add, or administering any Church Ordinances) without the same Spirit gifting them, and anointing them to such a power and Administr●●ion in the Church: which you interpret p. 5. to be certain constitutions and practices, and not fallible; and p. 16. a gift Divine and Infallible, and again, ibid. They who were Elders or Presbyters in the Churches &c. were gifted ●y a Spirit which taught the very Infallible Word which is now written, or Scripture, and so they did constitute, advice, and counsel in the place of this written word, &c.  
If therefore there may be no Presbytery or Eldership now pleaded as of Divine Right, unless such as be as miraculously, and infallibly gifted as the Apostles were, or as the Papists pretend their Pope to be, yea, as the Scripture itself; who doth not see that this concludes against all Presbyteries, all Governments whatsoever,( as well as against those of the Presbyterian way) for none can govern so infallibly; against all ministerial Preaching( as well as ruling) for none can preach so infallibly; against all baptism( either of Infants or of grown Christians,) and all Ordinances whatsoever, for none can administer them so infallibly:( which is, I believe, that which you aim at:) for no such thing can be said of any Eldership or Presbytery of men now, as yourself acknowledged, p. 16. Yea, against all Magistracy, especially intermeddling in church-affairs, as baptism, Presbytery, Church-Order, &c ▪ from which you wholly exclude him, as having nothing to do either to enjoin, or punish, in your Groans for Liberty, p. 17. 19. Consid. 1. 4. For you there confine his power to bee onely so far as concerns any good, or evil either of the Law of Nature, or of Nations. But will not allow it, or the Texts that assert it, Rom. 13. 4. 1. Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. to extend to a good or evil purely spiritual, and of mere Revelation in the Gospel, as things of gospel light and Mystery, and notions of heresy and schism: and persuade him to be contented to walk only according to those general Rules there laid down( and thus expounded) not DARING to draw bimself to revenge any misbelief of particular Scripture Mysteries; forcing either side, either for Presbytery, Independency, or baptism: Which the gospel hath no where warranted him in special, or in any clear consequence to d●. And not onely against their meddling with Church affairs, but against their Authority in civill matters also. For the Magistrate cannot( either in ecclesiastic or Civill affairs) act so Infallibly; and yet say you, They that challenge a Divine Right to the power they act by( as surely the Magistrate may, from Rom. 13. 4. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14.) must act by a gift as Divine and Infallible as their right and power; But( say you) no such thing can be affirmed of any Eldership or Presbytermy( I add, nor of any Magistrate or Senate) of men now.  
But I wonder you should add that which follows, that they ought to be content merely with a mixed and partly pruden●iall power; especially seeing you direct it against all that pled for a Divine Right in any way whatsoever, and yet have not an infallible Spirit, which you call a setting up of a Government for Christs which is not all Christs. For is not this quiter contrary to what you do so frequently insist upon, against interposing the Civill Power? May not the Magistrate command the observing of Christs Laws, and punish the breach of them,( as in the place but now alleged;) and yet may he now intermix his own prudence in making laws? In your groans for liberty, Epist. to Parliament: consid. 2. you are of opinion that in the kingdom of Christ no other sceptre should be lifted up but that golden one of his own, &c. no other Power should rule, no other sceptre, no other Law, &c. and city to that purpose in the end of the book, pag. 36. a large Testimony of Master Ruterfords, against the Magistrates encroaching on Christs Prerogative. And in your smoke pag. 60. 61. you have a large discourse against Prudence and Scripture Consequences; Once let Prudence open a door, and then will more of man crowd in then the Law of God can keep out.— That which is not direct from Scripture is indirect and repugnant.— Nothing is agreeable to the will of Christ, but the very will of Christ.— Nothing is agreeable to his will but what he wills, and every thing is repugnant to his will but what wills. Christs Rule opposeth any Tradition to the Commandements of God, &c. But if any thing of Prudence is to be let in, then something of Tradition ▪ &c. and much there to that purpose. I wonder therefore( if you be now the same man you were then) that you should persuade them to be content with a mixed and partly prudential Rule, because of the mixture of their anointing, and gifts, that is, because they have not infallible gifts.  
But further; It is but your supposition,( you have no proof for it) that the Primitive Elders were all infallible; much less that the Scripture or written word of God, was but the Institutions, forms, and Rules of these Elderships. It's true that the Apostles in writing and dictating of the Holy Scriptures, and some other Acts that were merely apostolic, had an infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost; But we must not think that in all their Acts they were thus infallible; nay we know they did err; Peter was in an error, not only in denying his Master three times( which perhaps you will say, was before the receiving of the Holy Ghost) but long after, Gal. 2.( And Barnabas drawn in to the same dissimulation) and for that error withstood to the face by Paul. vers. 11, 12, 13. And Paul at Antioch, though he were in the right, in the case of Circumcision and the Law of Moses, Acts 15. yet they do not rest in his apostolic Spirit, but sand to Jerusalem to have the controversy adjudged; And as for other Elders who were not Apostles, we have no intimation at all of their infallibility, no more then we have of the infallibility of yourself, or Ministers now: Yea, we are sure they did err, and( some of them) fall away; for not onely Judas proved a traitorous Apostle; but Demas afterward forsook Paul to embrace the present world: And Nicholas the Deacon, Acts 7.( though ordained by laying on the Apostles hands, which you conceive to confer an infallible gift of the holy Ghost.) Is, at least supposed to be, the Author of the Nicolaitans which God hates, Rev. 2. And others that pretended to the Apostles Rev. 2. 2. came under trial and were found liars.  
Yea, Paul and Barnabas so far differed, not onely in point of Judgement,( in which they could not both judge aright) but in matter of affection too, that upon a hot contention about a third person John Mark, for a former miscarriage( who it seems was not infallible) that they partend the one from the other in dislike, Acts 15. 39. in which carriage they could not both be in the right: which parting, you know( I believe) that the dissenting Brethren make their ground of Non-Communion of Churches, which is the highest censure they judge any Church for the greatest error to be capable of; and therefore if these Apostles did the one Non-Communicate the other, certainly the one or the other was in an error. And Paul, Acts 20. tells the Elders of Ephesus, that even of themselves should men arise speaking perverse things; So that these Elders of Ephesus, though Primitive Elders were not infallible. Yea the Angells of the seven Churches, Rev. 2. & 3. had their errors; The Angel of the Church of Ephesus,( the Eldership there) had left their first love, Rev. 2. 4. and are threatened with removal of the Candle-stick unless they repent: And the like threatened to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, for having these that held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, and the Doctrine of Balaam: And the Angel of the Church of Laodicea threatened to be spewed out for being neither hot nor could; and so of the rest. By all which appears, that neither the Elders nor the Elderships were then infallible.  
And therefore, to tell us that the word of the gospel was partly in the gifts of those Elderships, and that those Elderships did constitute, advice, and counsel in the place of the written Word; and that for any to assume such a power as they did, is to sit down in the Throne of Scripture or very word of God, and that a power of Divine Right,( which you say the Magistrate hath undoubtedly) without a sure and infallible Spirit for Church-censures, or the execution of such a power, is to join such with the infallible word or Scripture, and to control the pure word of Truth●y an Interpretation less then Truth; is little less then blasphemy: making the constitutions, Advice and Councells of the Elders and Elderships then,( for some of which Christ threatens to spew them out of his mouth, to remove the Candlestick, &c. to be equal with the Scripture and written word of God, and to have a Power to control the pure word of Truth. For if they had not such infallibility and such a Power then, they who assume the same power which they did, do not assume this now.  
As for what you add of Ordination, that the present Presbyters are not ordained by christ himself, by the Apostles, or such as immediately received their power from the Apostles; is but to delude the world, whom you would have to think that you onely oppose the present Presbytery, as you call it, but do indeed oppose all Presbytery,( and indeed, all Church-Government that ever was, in any of the ages of the Church since the Apostles times) for none are so ordained; And whereas you add, nor by a power in the Church or Congregation, preceding such a power and accompanying such a power; as if you would approve of such an Ordination as in some Churches of the congregational way, is performed by the People; is but further to delude: For I ask you seriously, whether you think such Presbyters rightly ordained, and to be of Divine Right? If so, then by your grounds, they must have a Divine and infallible Gift, If not rightly ordained, then do you as much oppose those of the congregational way, yea, and all of whatever way, as you do those for the present Presbytery: For the things which you say are requisite to Presbyters by Divine Right, are not( you aclowledge, to be said of any Eldership or Presbytery of men now. Yea and though you here seem to approve of such an Ordination, and such a power in the Church; yet you know it is one of your exceptions against Independency( in your smoke, pag. 10.) That there is not such a power radically or fundamentally in the Church to make Pastors and Elders, because there is first no such practise in the word, but rather an apostolical or ministerial Power, which made or gathered Churches first, not Churches them: And that which is called Ordination, was by the Apostles, and a power established in the Presbytery, not in the Church, as mere believers. So that still your dri●t is to oppose all things, and establish nothing.  
Your last Engine of opposing a Divine Right in Presbytery, is, a fear least all the magistracy and State power in the Kingdom and the Parliament of England may fall under their cognizance, if they assume a spirit of judging and discerning ●●n●; and how dangerous this would be to the State, Histories will show. But this is but the language of those Ezra. 4. against the building of Jerusalem and the house of God in it, because it was a rebellious city, hurtful to Kings and Provinces, and of those against Christ, Joh. 19. He that maketh himself a King speaketh against Caesar, though( he had  told them before that His Kingdom was not of this world.) But you who are else where so much against carnal reason, consulting with flesh and blood, human prudence and the wisdom of the flesh; might have spared such an Argument. If( in your Groans) you do not think it fair for them to charge schism on you, you should not here insinuate Sedition in them: At least, unless your Histories which you speak of, could have shewed you that either the Presbiterians in France, though under a Popish King, or those in Scotland, in the Netherlands, in Geneva, or in some other places had thus imbrolyed States and Countries.  
Again, you are to consider that the question at present in hand, is not about the power of a national Assembly, but the congregational presbytery; at least if that be true which you affirm so confidently( p. 3. and elsewhere) that they say, this is onely a Divine Right. For if they hold this onely to be of Divine Right, then the Divine Right which they pled for must beonely the Divine Right of the congregational, not the national, presbytery. But, say you, shall not this national presbytery take cognizance of States, if sinning, Ecclesiastically as well as others. Sir, If by taking cognizanc●●, you mean admonishing them of their duty, and showing the danger of Gods displeasure if they fail of it; I grant that they may thus take notice of it: The Prophets did so of old in the Kingdom of Israel, and every Minister called to preach to one or both Houses of parliament, may and ought so to do; for else were it a mocking of God and of his Ordinances, to require his servants to speak to them in his Name, if they may not deliver his message: If by taking Cognizance, you mean, censuring o● excommunicating; you know 1. that the subject of the Petition, and the Divine Right there pleaded, is not about Excommunication at all, much less the Excommunication of a State, but about keeping scandalous and ignorant persons from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; now States nad Kingdoms, do not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, but persons; and consequently States and Kingdoms are not debarred from it, but persons; and thus if a person that is member of such a State be unfit to be admitted, he may and ought to be kept away.  
2. If the question had been about Excommunication( which is also of Divine Right, and so asserted by these Petitioners, though not in that Petition, there being no occasion to speak of it there) yet you know that the Reformed Churches do not Excommunicate Kingdoms, or Parliaments, but persons; For if they should do so, they should excommunicate the Innocent together with the Nocent, for a minor part may be wholly innocent of what by a mayor part is overruled: as for instance, the twelve Judges in the Chequer chamber in the case of Shipmoney, are reputed to have given Judgement for it, because the mayor part was for it; yet had it been injustice for that Court to have censured all( either Ecclesiastically or civilly) when some of them( though not a mayor part) gave judgement against it; nor did the Parliament in that case censure them all, but those onely who were offenders. Much less can it be imagined that a Parliament or Kingdom can be the subject of Excommunication: because they cannot be all presumed nocent; nor is the Parliament, as a Parliament, or a Magistrate as a Magistrate, a Church Member, no more then a Magistrate as a Magistrate is a Church Officer, and therefore cannot as such be excommunicated. But if those persons that be Members of Parliament, be, in their personal capacity, guilty of such crimes as may deserve excommunication, I know not that Christ hath more exempted them from it, then he hath exempted other persons. 3. And I add withall, that this is not a Tenet of the Presbyterians onely, but of us all, whether Presbyterian, or congregational; For if a Member of Parliament be a Member of an Independent or congregational Church( as it is called) no question but they have the same power over him, that they have over the rest of the Members.( Nay further, though the Presbyterians do not excommunicate Societies, but onely persons, yet those of the congregational way do Non-communicate not onely persons, who are their own Members, but whole Societies and Churches.) And therefore that fear of excommunicating Parliaments and Kingdoms, which you speak of, is but a bugbear.  
You conclude at last, that when the Parliament is persuaded of no Divine Right, the Assembly of a Divine Right, and the Dissenting Brethren of another Divine Right,( you should have added, The An●baptists of a third Divine Right, the Seekers of a fourth, the Papists of a fifth, the Jews of a sixth, the Turks of a seventh, &c.) the way is to let the Parliament have their liberty of Conscience to settle no Divine Right( nor is it desired; they are desired onely to settle the thing, not to settle the Divine Right of it) and the Assembly to use their Liberty in a Divine Right,( but this is that will not be granted, but they are required to act thus, and not otherwise, which Independents can no more approve of in their Consciences then Presbyterians) and the other Brethren as peaceably to enjoy their other Divine Right:( you should have added, and so for all the rest, every one to enjoy their own supposed Divine Right.) But Sir, what if it be the Parliaments Conscience, that they ought not to suffer all these to enjoy and practise their supposed Divine Rights, but think themselves bound to su●presse them, or some of them; must the Parliament in this strait( as you speak) enjoy their Liberty of Conscien●e to suppress them? If not, tell us why all others must be suffered to practise according to their own Consciences, though erron●ous; and yet the Parliament not to practise thus if it be their Conscience?  
And thus much for your Reasons, and the Principles extracted from them.  
I Come next to examine your Inferences on the last Petition of the Assembly, for Divine Right in their present Presbytery: Sir, they did not Petition for a Divine Right; that which they petitioned is this, and only this, that the several Elderships may be sufficiently enabled to keep back all such, as are notoriously seandalous from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: And in this we all agree; for this is a tenant common to Presbyterians and Independents, as they are called, yea more insisted upon by the latter, That this power of keeping from the Lords Table all Ignorant, and scandalous persons doth of Divine Right, belong to the Eldership and this( say those of the congregational way) without appeal, much less can they allow of the Commissioners there provided: but do in their Consciences fully believe them to be unlawful, and contrary to the word of God. And the Divine Right asserted in the Petition,( not petitioned for) is no more but what both parties do agree in.  
If you object, that Independents have been great Promoters of these Commissioners, and pleaders for them; &c. I confess some of them, many of them, have so;( But I thank God, I am not to answer for that.) This I know, that they cannot in their Congregations admit of such Commissioners to be Judges, to determine who shall, and who shall not, come to their Sacraments; But how they can consent to the setting up of what themselves judge unlawful, I know not; nor will I undertake to give an account, let them answer for themselves; perhaps it is according to their Liberty of Conscience so to do. But I proceed.  
The Preface of the Petition you omit, and say nothing to; wherein the Assembly show, That they cannot but with joy remember the marvelous goodness of God, in calling, and continuing this Parliament, in the time of this Nations greatest trouble and danger, and in making it singularly useful towards the saving of these three Nations, from the bondage of Tyranny and Idolatry, by taking off many yokes and burdens, both in matters of Religion and of Civill Government; by laying the foundations and beginnings of a positive Reformation; and by engaging this kingdom in that solemn and sacred League and Covenant, which with our hands lifted up to the most High God we have sworn. And add further, That as they esteem themselves, always bound to aclowledge these, and many other blessings, which the God of Heaven hath made this Honourable Parliament, his Instruments to convey unto these poor kingdoms, with all affectionate thankfulness to God, and to the Honourable Houses, so they profess themselves the more obliged thereby, to show all active readiness to promote all the Commands of Parliament, tending to Reformation of Religion; and that nothing but Conscience of their duty to God, to the Parliament themselves, and the souls of the rest of their Brethren the People of the Lord, could excuse in them any seeming backwardness, to act according to the Votes, and Ordinances of Parliament leading thereunto.  
The next Part of the Petition, and that which you take notice of, contains the particulars wherein they desire redress, as thinking themselves aggrieved in them, and being unsatisfied in their Consciences about them. viz. That the enumeration of scandals is yet defective; and the Commissioners are Officers of which they cannot approve. Yet are we( say they) to our grief constrained at this time, in all Humility and faithfulness, to represent to the Honourable Houses, That there is still a great defect in the enumeration of scandalous sins; very many scandalous sins ordinarily committed in all places, and formerly presented by your Petitioners, being still omitted. Which, it's like, they added, because of that aspersion cast upon them abroad, as if they had onely desired an indefinite power of keeping away scandalous persons, and had never given instance in any particulars; or at least, that they had not instanced in any other then those enumerated in the several Ordinances of Parliament, and that if they would have instanced in any other they should have been inserted. The next particular you repeat, And that the Provision of Commissioners to judge the scandals not enumerated, appears to our Consciences to be so contrary to that way of Government, which Christ hath appointed in his Church. And then infer from it, That the Assembly do suppose the Parliament, and Commissioners to be far below the Ministers and Eldership, in spiritual gifts and discerning; and that this is, to set up the old aistinction of Laity and Clergy; but seeing the gifts( of the Ministers and Magistrates) are not so distinct; you ask why the Offices should be so distinct. Sir, the Assembly do suppose, and more then suppose( and others beside the Assembly too) that Ministers and Elderships may do something, which neither the Commissioners nor Parliament may do. That the Parliament and Commissioners may not administer the Word and Sacraments, is granted by all,( what ever become of Church-Censures;) and it is as much granted, that Ministers may: It's granted by all( except See●ers) that Ministers may ordain Ministers, but I never heard that a Parliament may ordain Ministers: And yet this hath not been accounted hitherto a setting the Minister upon a higher form then the Magistrate, as you now charge it: And why should it be thought more unreasonable, to say the same of Church-Censures? For those who do aclowledge Church-Censures at all, aclowledge that they are to be inflicted by Church Officers, yet do not deny the Authority of the Parliament or Civill Magistrate; to whom the Sword is committed, but not the Keys. But, what ever become of Church-Censures, yet the distinction will remain still( though not between Clergy and Laity, as you speak, yet) between Church-Officers, and other Church Members, and between Ministers and Magistrates. For else you must say, that a Magistrate by being a Magistrate is made a Minister, and a Minister by being a Minister is made a Magistrate; and you can no more say the one then the other. And if alike question to that of yours, concerning a distinction of Offices without a distinction of Gifts,( as you suppose) should be put in another case; seeing the Gifts of a Justice of Peace, or a Judge, are not so distinct from the Gifts of other men, why should there be a distinction of Office? or, seeing the gifts of Parliament men are not so distinct from the gifts of other men, why should their Office be distinct? It would easily be answered, that it is not Gifts, but Commission, and a lawful Calling, that makes a Justice, a Judge, a Parliament man; And in like manner, not Gifts, but Commission from Christ, and a lawful Call that makes a Minister.  
You proceed next to their next words, In that it giveth a Power to judge of the fitness of persons to come to the Sacraments, unto such persons as our Lord Christ hath not given that power unto. Against which you object, That the Magistrate who is unquestionably the power of God, may more lawfully judge of sins, and Gospel Rules, then they who are a questionable Ministry and Eldership. But Sir. You cannot affirm this or that Magistrate to be a Power of God, more then this or that Minister: and Ministers( indefinitely) are as much undoubtedly an ordinance of God a● Magistrates. 2. Though the Magistrate be unquestionably a Power of God, and a Judge of good and evil, yet he is not unquestionably a Judge of sins, and Gospel Rules; for yourself, question it, yea deny it, in the places even now alleged out of your Groans for Liberty, p. 17, 18, 19. where you confine the Good and evil of which he is Judge, onely to what is good or evil of the Law of Nature or Nations, and exclude him from meddling with a good or evil purely spiritual, and of mere revelation in the Gospel, and amongst these you reckon things of Gospel Light and Mystery; and Notions of heresy and schism; particulars of Truth and heresy; the several ways of practices in things of outward cognizance and Order, as baptism, Church Order, &c. Gospel Mysteries, such as Presbytery, Independency, or baptism,( you might as well have added, the Lord Supper;) the misbelief of such particular Scripture Mysteries; and in general things of spiritual cognizance: in these things you would not have him DARE to interpose his power, as being that which the Gospel hath no where warranted him in special, or in any clear consequence to do; and such a latitude of interpretation of the general Rules in the Gospel concerning Magistracy,( Rom. 13. 4. 1. Tim. 2. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14.) as to extend it to things of this nature, you cannot approve of. And in the Epist: you would have no sceptre lifted up in Christs kingdom, but that golden one of his own. And therefore the Magistrate, according to your Principles is not in these things an unquestionable power of God. Nay further; if your other Principle be good( That they who challenge a Divine Right to the power they act by, must act by a gift as Divine and infallible as their right and power,) he will not be an unquestionable power of God in any thing; For if in any thing he be unquestionably a power of God, or ordained by God, he must therein act by a gift unquestionably Divine and infallible: which seeing he cannot do, he must, by your Principles, disclaim any Divine Right at all to the power he acts by, either in ecclesiastical or Civill affairs, and must no longer pretend to be a power of God, or Ordinance of God, till he can attain at such infallible Gifts. And now how good a friend you are to the Magistrate, when you do( in terms) deny his power in all things of spiritual cognizance, and( by consequence) in things of a Civill cognizance too; is easy to see. But, Sir, as I doubt not to allow the Magistrate a power,( which you would not have him DARE to take,) notwithstanding that you think it questionable; so neither do I doubt, but that Ministers and Elderships may in these dayes be the Ministry and Eldership of Jesus Christ, though it be to ●o● Questionable. For if every thing must be presently Disclaimed, as soon as Mr. Saltmarsh begins to think it Questionable, we shall soon bring Religion to a narrow compass.  
The next words of the Petition ( And also layeth upon us a necessity of admitting some scandalous person to the Sacrament even after conviction before the Eldership;) you say nothing to; but proceed to repeat those that follow, And to be so differing from all example of the best reformed Churches, and such a real hindrance to the bringing the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and Uniformity, and in all these respects so disagreeable to our Covenant, that we dare not practise according to that provision. And from hence you infer, That if all do not believe as one believes, it is pretended, that all are in breach of Covenant: No Sir, you cannot infer so much; but this you may infer, That those who do not endeavour to bring the Churches of God in the three Kingdoms to the nearest Conjunction and Uniformity, are in a bre●ch of Covenant;( and this cannot be denied, for it is the very Letter of the Covenant) and therfore they conceiving this( as they affirm) to be a real kinderance to that which they had covenanted to endeavour, conceived themselves bound to petition the removal of it. And you who( in your Smoke, &c. p. 24, 25, 26. In your Argument from the Covenant for Liberty of Conscience,) allow the Magistrate to be the Interpreter of the Covenant, in things moral, Civill, or secular cognizance only, and do exclude his interpretation in gospel mysteries, in things immediately Divine and spiritual; and hold that in the things of God, in all things of spiritual cognizan●●, as every Scripture Truth, or Truth in the word is, there is no other Judge and Interpreter to each mans Conscience, but the Lord Jesus, and the Spirit of Jesus Christ; and that each man standing engaged in his own particular, and in his own proper Conscience by a Covenant recommended and imposed, each is bound to bring forth the Evidences of their Consciences in particular, concerning this to which they are covenanted; and every one stands bound by their own private Consciences to reveal to the State, what their Consciences interpret, &c. I say, you who hold thus, cannot blame the Assembly for revealing to the Parliament, that this provision of Commissioners, &c. appears to their Consciences, to be— a real hindrance to the bringing of the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunctions and uniformity. Especially when they say withall, not only that think it in their Conscience thus to be, but also that they dare not in Conscience hold their peace; as appears in the following words, And we do evidently foresee, that such Commissioners will not onely be offensive to the Reformed Churches abroad, but a discouragement to those amongst ourselves, who either are or shall be chosen Elders, and a stumbling block to very many of our best, and most conscientious people, who have long waited for Reformation, and are in danger to be cast upon the snare of separation, and no way left to reduce them, or others who are already fallen into it: Insomuch as we cannot forbear to profess our fears of Gods sad displeasure if this should be continued; and the just imputation of sin unto us, if we who have been held worthy by the Honourable Houses, to be called to give them advice in matters of Religion, should altogether hold our peace at this time. But why the word Uniformity should so much displease, as it seems it doth, I cannot tell; There is a Uniformity in the congregational way in New-England, as well as in the presbyterial way in Scotland; and to what you say, that the Uniformity in the Covenant is the Uniformity with the word, not with one another; That it is a Uniformity with the word is very true; but why not with one another? Surely if we must endeavour to bring all to a Uniformisy with the word, the other is included; for if all be uniform to the word, and the word uniform to itself, there will be a Uniformity one with another. But the thing you pled for, is not that every one should be uniform to the word, but that every one should follow their own way; telling us, that Unity in the Spirit makes up Uniformity in the Letter, that Communion in Unity is a glorious supplement to the rent of Uniformity, p. 12. 19 and thereupon like not the pressing of the Covenant for Uniformity: As if when you had taken the Covenant, you had not covenanted to endeavour a Uniformity, but to endeavour something instead of Uniformity, as a glorious supplement for the want of it; and this something, had been, a liberty for every one to practise what they thought good: A principle which the congregational Churches in New-England, disavow, as well as the Presbyterian Churches in France, Scotland, and the Netherlands.  
The next words you touch at, are those in the Petitory part of the Petition, which runs thus, Wherefore your Petitioners in discharge of their fidelity to God, to his Church, and to your Honours, humbly pray, that the several Elderships may be sufficiently enabled to keep back All such as are notoriously scandalous from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Hence you infer, that they endeavour to raise up the interest of the Eldership, and Presbytery, into a distinct, sole, and independent body and power. No Sir, not a sole and Independent Power; for that is the great question between them and the dissenting Brethren, whether the power of particular Elderships be Independent: But they pled for a sufficiency of Power, to keep from the Sacrament all scandalous persons; which is no more then( yea not so much as) the Protestant Churches in France do enjoy under a Popish King; nor more then Christian Churches practised both under Christian, and Heathen Emperours: Nor more then every gathered Congregation amongst us at this day, do take to themselves without asking leave, admitting to, and keeping from their Congregations whom they think good; you should not therefore under pretence of opposing the Assemblies Petition, cast dirt upon your friends, and all the godly party; who have many of them left the Churches of England, and Communion with them, merely upon this ground, of mixed Communi●n. Yea, Sir, I wonder with what Conscience you can oppose this as an unreasonable demand; when yourself do frequently speak so broadly against the Magistrates power, to intermeddle, or engage his Sword in matters of Religion, things of Worship, particulars of Scripture Truth, baptism, Chur●● Order, &c. which for my part, I dare not do, because I doubt not of the Magistrates power to interpose his Civill Authority: Nor do they whom you here tax for craving too much; who in express terms ascribe it to him: And those whom you would perhaps be thought to pled for( though indeed you pled against them) the dissenting Brethren, who in their apologetical Narration, p. 19. profess themselves to give to the Civill Magistrate, as much, and( as they think) more, then the Principles of the presbyterial Government will suffer them to yield. And therefore neither one nor other can approve of the Anti-Magistraticall Tenets, in denying the Magistrate not onely a power of ecclesiastical, but of Civill a Censures too, in matters of Gospel Truths, and of spiritual cognizance: though both the one, and the other, believe that to be due to the Elderships, which is here asked; and yourself( according to your Principles) must say, the Magistrate hath nothing to do with it.  
You infer further; that Petitioning a power from the State to complete, and make up an Eldership, doth, either imply an ecclesiastical power in the State( for the State cannot give what itself hath not) or else 'tis a 〈◇〉 contradiction to pray for that from the State which it cannot give. But your inference will not hold: They ask not of the State an ecclesiastical power, but a Liberty to exercise hat Power, which( they say here) they receive from other hands, by Divine Right, and the appointment of Jesus Christ; and this is no more then the State may give, though yet they have not that themselves: the State may, and doth authorize and enable( by their Civill Authority) a Minister to preach the word, and administer the Sacraments in their Dominions; but doth not give him that ecclesiastical Power where by he is a Minister, but only a Liberty to exercise that power which he received in his Ordination. When yourself, by the Committee for plundered Ministers, was put into the Sequestration of Brasted; you were by the● enabled and authorised to Officiate there, and all required to permit you so to do; yet this was not an ecclesiastical but a Civill power which they exercised, in giving you leave, to exercise an ecclesiastical Power( of administering the word and Sacraments,) which ecclesiastical Power though they might give you leave to exercise,( supposing you then to be a Minister, for you had not then disclaimed your Ordination) yet had not power to exercise it themselves. And so when you afterwards obtained an Order from the Committee of Examinations, to keep a Lecture at a place near adjoining. A King by his political Power may authorize and enable a Master, a Father, a Husband to exercise their respective domestical duties, which himself( though he may give them leave to do it) may not do. And so he may as a Magistrate give leave to another, to exercise his ministerial power; though yet he can neither make him a Minister, nor exercise that power himself. And if the State with us should give leave, and authorize Churches of the congregational way to exercise their own way, according to their own judgements, they would not refuse to accept of it; nor yet think that they did thereby make the State power to be ecclesiastical.  
From their next words ( Of which we must( as formerly we have done) say expressly, It belongs unto them by Divine Right, and by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ. Which with help of superio●r Assemblies in cases of appeal, or in Mal-administrations therein, will prevent( through the blessing of God) all the feared inconveniences, You infer, That the Presbytery and Eldership; of a Congregation i● of Divine Right. Their word was Elderships; and no question but the Assembly holds Elderships to be of Divine Right, and so do you too, if you be of the congregational way.  
But you infer further, That this Divine Right is perfected and completed, by that which is not of as pure Divine Right as itself, viz. Superior Assemblies. What you mean by perfected and completed, I cannot tell; but that they may receive help from superior Assemblies,( which is all the Petition asserts) is without controversy in the Judgement, both of Presbyterians and Independents: who both agree, that Synods are an Ordinance of God; and that they may afford much help to inferior Presbyteries or Elderships. See Mr. Cottons Keys of the kingdom of Heaven, chap. 6. per totum: and the Epistle to it, by Mr. Th: Goodwin, and Mr. nigh, witness also the Apologet, Narrat: p. 21. That it is a most abhorrid maxim, that any Religion hath ever made profession of, and therefore of all other the most contradictory, and dishonourable unto that of Christianity, that a single and particular society of men, professing the name of Christ, and pretending to be endowed with a power from Christ to judge them that are of the same body and Society with themselves, should further arrogate unto themselves an exemption from giving Account, or being Censurable by any other, either Christian Magistrate above them, or neighbour Churches about them. And whosoever shall peruse the several Uses of Synods mentioned by Mr. Cotton in his keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and published by two of those Brethren the Apologists; cannot doubt, but that in their Opininions, Synods may be very helpful to Elderships: And when ●oth by Mr. Cotton, and by the Dissenting Brethren, Synods are owned and asserted to be an Ordinance of God, I know no reason why you should not judge them of ●● pure Divine Right as the other. For though they do not believe, that a Synod may excommunicate, yet they never make question, but that a Synod is an holy Ordinance of God. Nor do I well understand your meaning in those words; that the Synod is not of as pure Divine Right as the Eldership: You cannot assert it as your own Judgement, for, I believe, you do not hold either of them to be of Divine Right: Nor can you mean it of the Assemblies Judgement, for they affirm, that both are of Divine Right. And therefore, what will become of of this Inference I cannot tell.  
You proceed to repeat their next words, And the Magistrate, to whom we profess the Church to be accountable for their proceedings in all their Elderships, and Church Assemblies, and punishable by him with Civill Censures for their miscarriages, may be so abundantly satisfied of the righteousness and equity thereof; as we still hope God will inspire the Honourable Houses with such wisdom and zeal, as by their Authority to strengthen the hands of his Officers in their duties herein, and even to command them to act zealously and faithfully therein. And your Petitioners, &c. Hence you infer, That the Magistrate is neither over the Presbytery, for Commissioners are contrary to the word, nor under the Presbytery, for the Presbytery is accountable to him: and where to place him by this Petition you cannot tell. But surely Sir, you are not so ignorant in this matter, as you would seem to make yourself. You know that both the Presbyterian, and the congregational Principles deny the Magistrate to be a Church Offi●er, or to have Power to administer the Word, or Sacraments, or Church-Censures, and for this reason cannot approve of the Commissioners; But do not deny him, as a Civill Officer, a power to exercise Civill Censures, upon ecclesiastical Persons as well as others, even for their miscarriages in their ecclesiastical employments: And this is that the Petition asserts. yourself, it's true, deny both, and allow the Magistrate in gospel Truths, and things of spiritual Cognizance, no power at all, either of ecclesiastical or Civill Censure: but those you oppose, though they cannot grant to the Magistrate the exercise of the Keys, yet they never denied him the power of the Sword.  
But you urge again, p. 21( for you had said it at least five or six times in substance before) that they are but pretended Officers, Ministers Elders, that it is not a Church in Gospel-Order, that they must prove the truth both of their very Church, Ministry, and Eldership, that the Magistrate may more lawfully rule then any other pretended Officer, Minister, or Elder, that they cannot exclude the Civill Power from governing with them according to the unsound Constitution of their Churches, &c. It seems then, that if their Churches were ▪ soundly constituted, you allow an excluding of the Civill Power. 2. I ask whether you think, that the Magistrates exercising Church Censures, do make the Church to be of a more sound Constitution? and, if so, I ask by what Scripture you prove, that this is necessary to their sound Constitution. 3. Your opinion is( if you remember what you have said formerly) that, be the Constitution sound or unsound ' the Magistrate is not to meddle at all with matters of spiritual cognizance, with particulars of Truth and heresy, with baptism, Church Order, &c. as before is shewed. 4. They do not deny but that the Magistrate may rule amongst them, they do not exclude the Civill power from governing, nay, they positively affirm it in this Petition; onely they say, he should do it by Civill Censures, not by Church Censures; but yourself( as you may remember) deny both the one and the other. 5. If you had said, that because the Constitution of the Church is unsound, therefore there should be no administering of the word, the Sacraments or Church-Censures at all, you had said something, and spoken like yourself; but how doth it appear that the Magistrate must do it? That the Magis●rate may punish with civill Censures is very true; but that he may do be their Constitution sound or unsound; but how comes it to pass that he hath thereby a power of Church Censure more then he had before? Hath Christ hath said that the Keys shall be used in a sound Church by the Ministers and Elderships, but in an unsound Church by the Magistrate? that the word or Sacraments shall be administered in a sound Church by the Ministers, in an unsound Church by the Magistrate? That in a sound Church the Church Officers shall excommunicate, but in an unsound Church the Magistrate shall do it? If he have said it, pray tell us the place, that we may know where, he hath said it. But doubtless the Parliament of England doth not proceed upon this Principle, That because the Churches of England are no true Churches, and the Ministry of England no true Ministry, therefore they may not be trusted with Church Censures: And therefore if you have no other ground to go upon, you do not pled their cause, nor will they own that Principle under what disguise soever. And for the thing itself, whether they be true Churches or no; you must bring a better Argument to overthrow them, then what at present you insist upon ▪( That they have not an infallible Spirit) unless you mean at once to deny all Churches, Ministers, Ordinances, the either are, or have been in the world since the Apostles time. And if that be your meaning, you may do well to speak it out, that the world may know what you are.  
What you insinuate in your Epistle, As if the Assembly had entrenched upon the privileges of the Parliament, or at least gone beyond their own bounds; I have nothing to say to. I am no Judge of the Assemblies Bounds, or the Parliaments privileges: neither do I undertake to defend it against the Parliament, but against Mr. Saltmarsh; and that I think is sufficiently done. But what you complain of afterwards, that since Truth hath had its lot in the world to live upon voices in Assemblies, and Synods, where that is only Truth which is voted so; and not in its ●wn glory and evidence, where that is only Truth that is so; the Mystery of Iniquity hath been more advanced then the Mystery of godliness; is no complaint of the Assemblies Exorbi●cancy, but of the being of Assemblies: and( by consequence) against the being of Senates or civill Ju●icatures: For I shall not wonder to see the same pen say as much of the Parliament,( for there will be the same reason for both) especially if they shall do that which he would not have them DARE to do, that is, meddle with Gospel Truths, particulars of Truth and heresy, baptism, Church-Order, &c. or such other things as he hath exempted not only from their ecclesiastical, but from their Civill Censure too: For the Parliaments voting a thing to be Truth, will no more make it a truth, if it be not so in itself, then the Assemblies voting it so to be. And perhaps he may in time,( for he doth not reveal all his light at once) say as much of Justice, as he doth now of Truth: that since Justice hath had its Lot in the world to live upon voices in Assemblies and Senates, where that is onely Equity which is voted so; and not in its own glory and evidence, wbere that is onely Equity which is so: the Mystery of Iniquity hath been advanced, &c. For, that latent Principle( because the mayor part of men are nought) will serve h●m in as good stead for the one as the other.  
And thus I have done with that other part of your Book, in examining what you say against the Assemblies Petition. Of which Petition I must add this for a close, that there is nothing that I can find in it, but is fully consonant to the Principles both of the Presbyterian, and the congregational way: and what you allege against it, is equally destructive to both.  
FINIS.