Independency accused By nine several ARGUMENTS: Written by a godly learned Minister, to a Member of Mr. JOHN goodwin's CONGREGATION, AND Acquitted by several REPLIES to the said ARGUMENTS by a Member of the same CHURCH.  
In both which, sweetness of spirit, and soundness of Arguments have been endeavoured.  GALAT. 6.1. 
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.  
Published according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed for Henry Overton in Popes-head Alley 1645.   

To the Reverend, my dear and loving Pastor, Mr JOHN GOODWIN, Pastor of the Church in Colemanstreet.  
Dear and reverend Sir,  
YOur favourable acceptance of my present pains, and candid construction of engaging myself therein, is my humble request by my present address, whereof, though mine own insufficiency might beget my suspicion; yet the knowledge of your love (which thinketh no evil) gives me satisfaction; for although the piety and parts of my ingenious Antagonist did challenge an opponent of suitable endowments; and renders me presumptuous for my attempt therein, (unworthy to be named in competition with him) yet the perfect knowledge of your pressing pains of several kinds in the work of the Lord, stopping the mouth, which otherways would have begged your own labours in this present business, together with the requests of some of our friends, pressed me hereunto, wherein, if I have not prejudiced the Cause I plead for; distasted you, nor dishonoured God, but (though in the least measure) have furthered the truth, it is the highest ambition, and greatest reward of  
The unworthiest to be numbered amongst your flock, J. P.   

To the Reader.  
Christian Reader,  
Unity in judgement amongst the Saints, is the promised blessing of another age, but Unity in affection is our present duty confessed by all, though the practice hereof be the care of few; witness the bitter pens, and railing lines of men professing the fear of God, each against his brother, i'th' faith, to the scandal of Religion, and scorn of Profession, dishonour of God, and disgrace of the Gospel, the joy of the Jesuit, and hazard of the kingdom, the stumbling of others coming into the paths of life, seeing them traced with Lions, and Bears, and Wolves, and Tigers, in stead of Lambs and Doves, the meek Saints of the most high God, as if they had gotten a special dispensation in this present age, to slander the persons, traduce the actions, reproach the names of their dearest brethren, to fight the Lords battles with the Devils weapons, and to trample under foot that royal Law of their liege Lord, This is my commandment, that you love one another. 
●oh. 13.33.  In this present Discourse thou shalt not observe (allowance afforded to humane frailty) the least tincture of that unchristian strain, the mind of the Lord, and truth of Christ being the mutual design of my opponent and myself: I have not altered one word of his Letter, only whereas he writ it entire, I have presented thee with each Argument, and immediate Replies, with a different character between the one and the other, for thy more distinct apprehension of both. I say no more, but prove, and approve, and the Lord direct thy heart into the knowledge and love of the truth.  
I. P.   

My dear Friend,  
YOu are not ignorant, how respectful and reverend I have carried myself towards the congregational Way, almost ever since you knew me, and daily am, both praying and reading, that I may be fully persuaded in mine own heart whether that, or the other Way, called Presbyterian, b● the Way of God. For this end, I have given myself to the perusal of Mr. goodwin's Theomachia, and his justification of it against Mr. Prynne, and so fare as my judgement reaches, he gets the better of him; but yet some doubts I have, to which I cannot pick answers out of both his books. I dare not be guilty of that which he so much pleads against, blind obedience, implicit faith. I must not take up Religion by the lumps (as once Mr. Thomas Goodwin said) I must not pin my faith upon the sleeve of any person or persons upon earth, though never so holy or learned, as not knowing whither they may carry it; the best of men are but men at best: both God and men will expect from me, that I be able to render a scriptural Reason of my faith and conscience, and therefore I request you earnestly, to improve your interest in some friend (you know I have no acquaintance with any Divine of that Way) to communicate their light to me in the following particulars, and doubtless, it will be an addition to my charitableness towards that Way, if not quite pull me into't; for 'tis my full purpose of heart, to shall down before the truth when I meet it, and know it; I will be theirs (what ere come on't) that I find to have not the strangest hand, but argument.   

Dear Sir,  
THe spirit of sobriety and Christian moderation doth so sweetly look through your lines, casting such a gracious aspect of meekness, humility, with all lovely and Christian ingenuity and modesty, that upon the first reading thereof, I desired to engage myself into your Christian acquaintance, and to return an answer (being desired hereunto) according to my judgement unto your Letter, being much encouraged by the spirit of your writing, which promiseth me a candid and an ingenuous interpretation of my mean endeavours, and as the first fruits thereof, I shall humbly desire these things of you.  
First, That you will please to pass by what you observe weak, and wanting, (whereof you may find more then enough) and to bestow your more serious considerations upon any thing (if such a thing can be found) which you may judge more valid; the purest gold may be found in the grossest earth; and arguments for truth are oftentimes like neighbours in their vicinity: the poor, weak, and insufficient, have the rich, able and more sufficient for their support and comfort: truth is welcome to a gracious heart, though evidenced but by one or two sound arguments, when many shall say, Lo, it is here, or there, and cannot show it.  
Secondly, That you would be a Midwife to any argument which you judge pregnant, and which hath truth in the belly thereof, having strength to conceive, but not to bring forth; surely the sons of truth cannot but help the truth in straits, which often suffers through the great insufficiency of the abettors thereof; the hearts of the Saints sometimes can better defend the truth discovered then their tongues or pens; a nimble wit, and learned head prove not always the truth's friend; but Sir, I do not prejudge you.  
Thirdly, That if we cannot agree in this truth, yet we may love one another in the truth; let this be written in letters of gold upon the foreheads of all the Saints, HOLINESS TO THE LORD, AND LOVE TO THE BRETHREN: Faith and Love are the golden pillars, supporting the hearts of the Saints together in the spirit of which love, I come to your arguments.  
Fourthly, That no case is so clear, but some question may be raised about it, to which present satisfaction may not be given; it is sufficient if the main things things be justified.  

ARGUMENT I.  
LEt it be granted that the Churches in the Apostles time were congregational, (for all national profession in the world was either Jewish or Heathenish) yet if they were to be the precedent of the form of Church-ordering and government for ever under the Gospel, how could all the Churches the Apostles had constituted up and down the world; yea, and all particular Christians be so corrupted, as to suffer the government and worship of God to be taken from them so easily, as that none (that I can hear of) are found upon record, to have stood up for Christ, and the truth, but Nationall-Church-government was brought in? and we cannot learn that there was any scuffle on contestation against it. I do not think there can be named one truth of God that Antichrist, or any other Heretic fought against, but 'tis possible with a little search or study to name those pe●sons that disputed, or w●it, on suffered in the defence of it, and stood in the gap to keep out the error, only in this, all the Christian Churches in the world suffered the government of Christ (which is so dear to the heart of a Saint) to be destroyed, and a false Antichristian government and worship to be obtruded on them, and all sides are silent in the business; Where is the Scribe? is there no Disputer, no Martyr to be found? what, not one that retained any spark of zeal for Christ, that after ages could speak of, either o●th approbation or detestation, for willingly suffering shame, spoiling of goods, banishment, death, rather than Christ should be pulled down in his worship, and a Nationall false Church-government set up in the room of it? I cannot but wonder that all Christian Churches should fall at once into such a dead sleep, to suffer the evil One thus to pluck up, and thus to plant; or else, if their eyes were open, I cannot but call it the greatest piece of cow ardise that ever the Churches of Christ were guilty of, to stand idle, speechless spectators by; where was the valour of their faith? Heb. 11.33, 34. Or if they did dispute and suffer for it, I cannot but think it the greatest unfaithfulness and oversight the Churches were ever guilty of, not to transmit the story to posterity.  

REPLY.  
FIrst, this Argument impleadeth Presbytery as well as congregational government; for where read we of sufferers for Presbytery?  
Secondly, To come more directly to the point, you grant the Churches constituted by the Apostles congregational; now if we show this practice of theirs was intended, as a pattern for us, and so taken by the most Primitive Churches, we hope your demand will be satisfied, though we could not distinctly show you why none appeared in the defence of it— of which anon.  
First, God and nature do nothing in vain, was the saying of the ancient Naturalists; the Spirit of God did so distinctly set down the manner of the constitution of the Jewish Church by Moses, that posterity may have a distinct pattern as well as a rule to walk by, the Holy Ghost hath to some purpose surely, so punctually noted the manner of gathering and governing the Churches planted by the Apostles, and what can this purpose be, but our imitation in things lawful and possible? for all in the new, as well as in the old Testament, are written for our learning, and follow me, saith the Apostle, and that by way of forbearing, and negatively, as by way of doing, and affirmatively; that is, we may not do what they did not, when they might, and the nature of the thing seemed to require it, (as the subjecting particular Churches to a combination of Elders, which should have ordinary authority over the several Congregations) which they might have done, as well as to keep up the government in one city, which they did; and as well as the Church of France at this day, though under persecution, yet keep their government; and when by reason of the paucity of believers, and the temptation of persecution, they had much need of the help of government, and no hindrance why they might not, seeing though by reason of persecution they might have been hindered for a time, and in some places, yet the rule of such a government, if it had been the will of God, had been useful, and though they had been disturbed in one place, yet it would have been exercised in some other; this was a sufficient argument for God to use, Jer. 7.31. they did— which I commanded them not: and for the Apostle, Heb. 7.14. of which Moses spoke nothing, Ergo, God intended it not. And so affirmatively, what they did for substance, we must: Hence Gualther in the end of his Comment on the Acts, says they are not to be listened unto that tell us the way and practice of the Apostles in constituting Churches, is not a pattern for us to follow.  
Secondly, The Churches in the first and second hundred years after Christ, did take the Apostles practice for their pattern, and therefore every Church did transact all their ordinary affairs within themselves, as admission of members, choice and ordination of officers, excommunication of scandalous persons, deposition of their officers, where just cause was; in difficult cases indeed, they used the counsel and help of other Churches, but as being engaged thereunto only out of the bond of mutual love and fellowship; not of necessity or subjection; and where any Church was more famous for gifts, numbers, Ministers, etc. to these they gave the greater respects, and did more depend upon their guidance; till this voluntary and occasional office of love became a custom, viz. for the lesser and obscurer Churches, to do nothing without the greater; and for the greater, to exercise inspection, and some kind of jurisdiction towards the lesser, by way of charge and office, till in the third Century it was by the Council of Nice— established by a Canon for a Church-law; at which time Antichrist had made much progress towards his usurpation: For proof of all which, I shall show you some of the words of the Centurie Writers touching this Argument; and first of the constitution of Churches planted by the Apostles: 1. C●nt. lib. 2. cap. 7. the gubernation Ecclestitul. de consociatione, etc. If it be said these consisted of many congregations, and so were Presbyterial, I answer, it cannot be proved they were so; secondly, nor disproved, that they were one congregation; because we read so often, both in scriptural and Ecclesiastical story that they had one Eldership, not several over them, and that they all met upon one great occasion together, as upon the choice or deposition of Ministers, excommunication of members, etc. and if they did meet in several places, yet having one Eldership over them, and not several Elderships for the several companies, and not being tied any of them to come to any one place more than another; it doth no more argue they were many congregations, or hinder their being one (though inconvenient to be governed by reason of its vastness) than it doth in Holland, where the case is so, or then in some great parishes in and about London; where, though they meet in one place, yet cannot meet all together, by reason of the multitude, being above 10000 in some parishes, unless at several times, if it were so, that they had been Presbyterial in a city, yet it is far different from that government that makes many towns & cities one Church, and draws them to subjection to one common Presbytery, and that in ordinary, against which many Reasons might be given, though the other were admitted.  
Thirdly, If the Churches of those times had not so judged that the Way the Apostles left Churches in was to be their pattern, as it had been easy for them to order it; (as afterward their posterity did into Episcopacy) so had it been more advantage and ease to them, to have united many Churches together into one body, and to set one Council and Precedent over it, for the suppressing of Heresies, Schisms, etc. which yet they did not, till times grew more corrupt, and which at this day is the state of the Papacy.  
Fourthly, Though this might suffice, yet I shall now show you how it might come to pass, that this received truth might be lost, and no notice left of any contending for it.  
First, greater truths than this of government have been stolen from the Church without any great reluctancy: As far as appears; as the reading of the Scriptures by the people, transubstantiation of the bread in the Sacrament, adoration of the Host, the Mass itself, taking the cup from the people, etc. which the subtlety of men taking advantage by the negligence and cowardice of the people, brought in without much opposition till long after.  
Secondly, the monuments of antiquity in this kind, are very defective; first, by the notable carelessness of Writers in those times, of which, Ludovicus, apud Illyricum, in Refutat. Brin. pag. 15. an Author of no mean credit, complains, It is a singular grief to me (saith he) when I call to mind, how diligently the actions of Alexander, Scipio, Annibal, Pompey, Cesar, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other Captains and Philosophers, have been noted, that there is no peril of their perishing, but the do of the Apostles (except such as are set down in sacred Scripture) Martyrs and Saints of our Religion; yea, and of the Church itself, whether growing up, or at full age, are covered in deep silence; for these things which are written, excepting a few only, are corrupted with feigned inventions, etc. thus he a man by profession a Papist. Secondly, because of the prevalency of the Romish faction, whereby all monuments, almost, that seemed to oppose the intended usurpation (as the ancient government of the Churches especially did) were either spupressed, or some way violated, as (amongst many others) Dr. James hath discovered at large in his book entitled, The Corruption of Fathers, etc. But,  
Lastly, to give you a more direct answer, there have not been wanting defendants of the liberties of the Churches in this particular; for seeing it is evident by the first, second and third particular in this answer, that both in the Apostles times, and next ages after, the Churches were governed each by themselves (as in respect of authority out of their own body) if there were any that resisted those that invaded that liberty, those are the examples of suffering (or at least contesting) for this government, but the Bishops were the first that usurped the power of many Churches, in ordinary, and these were often resisted by word, writing and fact, as appears, not only by Aerius (who was counted an Heretic for his labour) but also by Jerom, who saith, that Bishops were brought in to prevent Heresies and Schisms, but that the Churches were anciently governed by the joint counsel of the Elders. Now this was either by the Elders of the same Church, or if with others, it was a conjunction by way of Christian fellowship and society, not by jurisdiction, authority, and necessity, (as we saw before) I add, that the sufferings of so many in opposition to Papal government even in the ancient times, is an argument in a negative sense, that there hath been sufferings for Church-government, because they would not submit to a false government: To conclude this argument, I shall endeavour at better leisure to give you some particular instances out of the story, which maymore fully satisfy this Querie.  
Insigniores Ecclesiae, etc. They which were more eminent Churches (say they) were in some honour because of the Apostles that taught in them, and because of their Ministers that were more excellent for learning and constancy, and likewise of the benefits that those Churches did afford to other neighbour Churches, but they had no other power over other Churches, then by mutual offices in things belonging to the edification of the whole Church, to afford them their help: and then instances in particular Churches.  
2. The Churches in the next age after the Apostles, Cent. 2. cap. 7. titul. de consociatione Ecclesiarum. Caeterum si quis probatos autores, etc. If (say they) any man look into the approved Authors of this age, he shall find, that the form of government was almost like a popular government; for every Church had equal power, to preach the Word of God purely, to administer the Sacraments, to absolve and excommunicate heretics, and wicked men,— to elect, call and ordain Ministers, and upon sufficient grounds to depose them, to call assemblies and Synods,— in doubtful things, and that were controversal, to require the opinions of others, to judge and determine them. Further, the neighbour Churches for charity and edification sake, not for any superior jurisdiction, but for the command of Christ concerning mutual love, in their necessity craved the help of their neighbour Churches, and also afforded theirs to them.— in more weighty questions, all the Churches or Elders of that Province, or else the most of the Teachers came together, and determined by common advice what was to be done; for the faithful in Asia (saith Eusebius, quoted by them in that place) came often from many places together, and examined the new doctrines, and pronounced them wicked, and rejecting the heresy, they cast and excommunicated it out of the Church.  
The Churches that were farther off, in other Provinces, consult with other Churches by letters, which they did generally, or by common consent subscribe; this new prophecy (saith Serapin in Euseb. cited by the Cent.) is refuted and rejected by all the brotherhood which is in all the world.  
Tit. de Synodis private. each Church (that things might be better ordered) had their Synod or assemblies or Church-meetings, in which the Rector (or Pastor) the Elders, the Deacons, and also the people did deliberate and determine of things belonging to the government of the Church.  
3. The Churches in the third hundred year, Cen. 3. cap. 7. Tit. de Synodis privatis in principio. Now that the jurisdiction of the great Churches over the less was established, and the authority of metropolitanes determined by the Nicene Council; yet, if any business happened, which could not be perfected without the rest, both Ministers & people, than they came together and dispatched them with common advice, without the calling of the Churches of the same Province: So Cyprian (cited by them) Epist. l. 3. cap. 10. From the beginning of my being Bishop, (or Pastor) I determined to do nothing without your counsel (he speaks to the Elders and Deacons) nor without the consent of the people, by my own private opinion.— In these assemblies in other Churches, there were few orders made by the Bishops or Pastors, and afterwards approved by the Church, unless it was in Rome, according to the efficacy of the mystery of Iniquity. (they are the Author's words) some Bishops made decrees as Damasus, Galixtus, etc. By all which it appears, that the Churches most Primitive were ignorant of any necessity or law lying on them, to be governed by one Church, or more, or of associating with any, but as they saw cause, and by the law of charity, neither understood there was any Provincial, much less Nationall or universal and ministerial and governing Church, which must by way of authority dispose of all the affairs of the particular Churches.  
Object. But they excommunicated in their Assemblies of many Churches?  
Answ. 1. So did they in each particular Church, as of their own right, and consulted not with others, unless the cause was difficult.  
2. The excommunication was rather of the opinion by damning and condemning of it, then of persons.  
3. If there were such excommunication of persons, yet it was done by the willing consent of the Churches, or else for themselves; those Churches that met not for others, unless by consequent, that he who is excommunicated out of one Church, if it be duly performed, is excommunicated out of all.    

ARGUMENT II.  
WHy hath not the civil Magistrate a power to set up and establish by a law such a worship as an Assembly of godly Divines shall present to them to be according to the Word of God, as well as they had a power to pull down false worship, Popery, Episcopacy, Arminianism, and such gross errors and innovations as had justled out the true servants and service of God? and this they did with the approbations and acclamations of all those that professed the power of godliness, of what Way or Sect soever they were; I never heard of any such, that accused them for stretching beyond their line therein. If the subject matter of Political administration be merely humane matters, why did not congregational Divines inform them as much, but were silent while they had their hands thrust deep into Church-affaires, and things spiritual? Why did not their jealousy over the Parliament break out when they saw them begin to dash the foot against that stone, but gave thanks to God for them & their doing; but now when they have come to set up, and it proves aworship against their judgement and conscience, they are reproved, and have no power at all in things Ecclesiastical, but every man must enjoy his conscience, worship and way? If they once had a power to pull down, why have they not now power to pull down in the like case, with the like proportioned approbation? and if in things Ecclesiastical they have a power to pull down, why not to set up too? That the civil Magistrate shall have a power in things spiritual, and yet no power, is a mystery unto me.  

REPLY.  
1. THe government the Magistrate hath pulled down, was erected as a Law of the kingdom, and by that power was enabled to the persecution of the Saints, and disturbance of the State, which was the defection of the Magistracy of these times. Now when the Magistrates shall not only withdraw their power, but also prohibit the further exercise thereof in the persecution of the Saints and disturbance of the State; we suppose it is no more than according to their just power, and therefore do rejoice therein.  
2. The Magistrates just doing any thing according to the joint consent, desire, approbation, and congratulatory acclamations of all the Saints, is no good argument to prove a lawful power in the Magistrate to do things contrary to the joint consent, desires, etc. of all the Saints. Herod and Pilate, Felix and Agrippa, had a just power to release Christ and Paul, etc. but that doth not argue that their power was just in delivering them up unto whipping, imprisonment, death, etc. it was indeed potentia, but not potestas, might, but not right, and it is the latter, I suppose, that you mean.  
3. We did never deny the Magistrate a lawful power to intermeddle with that kind of Church-government or doctrine, (opinion or practice) which shall most dangerously intermeddle with the State itself; and thereby prove evidently hurtful, and apparently destructive thereunto, and so did the government whereof you speak, which was the ground of that act of abolishing the same. When congregational or Presbyterial government, or the professors thereof be found in their principles and general practices, underminers of the peace and welfare of the kingdom, raising up wars and trouble to maintain the same, it is high time for the Magistrate, who is mainly to mind salutem populi, to pull them down, and no longer to tolerate the same, and such is the instance which you speak of.  
4. Those Christian or unchristian Magistrates may have a lawful power and authority to destroy Antichrist, which may have no lawful authority to appoint laws and rules for the government of the Churches of Jesus Christ, and to enforce the same contrary to their judgements and consciences; Cyrus may have a just warrant from God for the ruining of Babylon; but not for the compulsion of Zion to worship God according to his thoughts of the will of God therein, all Magistrates may, and aught to assist and preserve the Churches of Jesus Christ from those that would ruin and destroy them, but that any magistrate hath power to compel the Saints of God what to believe in matters of faith, and what to practise in matters of immediate worship (especially in things that are of an intricate and deep cognizance, and controversal among the godly learned) (which is the main business in hand, between the Presbyterian and Independent party) is beyond any ground that I can yet perceive from the Scriptures; but we shall meet with this again in another of your Arguments.    

ARGUM. III.  
Why do not our congregational Divines writ to the Brethren of New-England, and convince them of their error, who give (as some say) the civil Magistrate a power to question doctrines, censure errors? sure we are, some have been imprisoned, some banished, that [pleaded] Religion and mere conscience, and were not otherwise disturbers of the civil peace, than the congregational Way is like to be here: So that if our Magistrates and Presbyters must be ruled by Gamaliels' advice, and suffer all opinions till God disclaim and fight against them from heaven, why is not his advice sent over to them, lest they should fight against any Way that calls God father? If Old-England be said to persecute, for suppressing Sects and Opinions, because threatening the truth, and civil peace, why may not the same name be put upon New-England, who are found in the same work and Way? and if both he guilty, 'twere wisdom and piety for our congregational Divines to east the first stone at themselves, I mean, their congregational Brethren, to convince and persuade them to suffer all Opinions amongst them, this would be an argument that they walk in all simplicity and sincerity of spirit preferring Gods will and the naked truth, above any ends of their own, (whereof some suspect them, how justly, God the searcher of hearts knows) and next their arguments and persuasions would be more easily received at home.  

REPLY.  
THis is an Argument, or rather an Insinuation to the accusing of our Brethren, then to the finding out the truth; but to this I answer:  
First, in relation to our brethren's practice in New-England, I answer you in this case, as the father of the blind man answered the Pharisees about the manner of procuring his son's sight, Job. 9.21. He is of age, ask him; so say I, they are able to answer for themselves, if not, they stand or fall to their own Master; But,  
Secondly, I suppose it is easier to affirm then to prove that any were imprisoned or banished merely for their consciences, we have a common Proverb, That untruths lose nothing by distance of place, and by often reporting, some affirm it hath been so, as you say; others deny the same; for my part, because I have more reason to believe the one than the other (because the Magistrates themselves deny any persecution merely for a man's private conscience, in the case of Mrs. Hutchison, See the book [the rise and end of Antinomianism in New-England, p. 46. of the first Edition;) I had rather look unto these things that do concern us at home, then to go so far to accuse our brethren abroad.  
Thirdly, I humbly suppose it is out of your certain knowledge that the congregational Divines have not at all written unto their Brethren of New-England about this business, and have not received satisfaction herein, I suppose likewise, I have as much reason, if not more, to affirm that they have, as you that they have not; But,  
Fourthly, suppose they have not written, this will prove but the remissness of their duty at the most, and will not facilitate and ease the business in the least; doubtless the Presbyterian party in other parts of the world not all things according to the mind of God, even in the judgements of the Brethren-Presbyterians of this Nation; and if so, may not the same thing be retorted upon them which you do here upon these?  
Fifthly, As for those jealousies which you say are in some about the congregational brethren's simplicity and sincerity of spirit in preferring Gods Will and the naked Truth above any ends of their own, as Gods royal Prerogative in searching all hearts, should stifle such misprisions, and quit all such unworthy surmisings, till better proof appear; so any man's reasons (not mastered with prejudice and discontent) should fully discharge all such vain, unworthy, and uncharitable imaginations concerning their Brethren; for except men's ends and aims should be sorrow, trouble, reproach and contempt, perplexity and misery, penury and want, what other ends can they have? Are not some of these for the present, and all of them for the future, the threatened issues, products and consequences of their ways and practices? Surely men should make a better use of their own personal weaknesses, viz. their own sinful ends and aims, and by-respects in their own hearts, then to make them the measure and rule to judge of their brethren's hearts by; every man should think better of his brother then of himself; surely the men of their jealousies are not usually steered up and down from one place to another, by the golden lure of an hundred, or two or three hundred a year, as many of their censorious Judges are, but it is worthy our observation; the Saints of our most high God, many times are chief charged for those things whereof they are least guilty, and where they are most innocent, and therefore most able to bear the same: Thus Joseph for incontinency; Elisha for the troubler of Israel, (though indeed the horsemen and chariots of Israel;) thus David for seeking saul's life, whose heart smote him for but cutting off one of the skirts of his garment; thus Jesus Christ for a deceiver (who was the truth itself,) and for a familiar with the Prince of the Devils, who was indeed the great enemy to him and his works: and as it was from the beginning, so it is now, the humble, the meek, the simple-hearted, the peaceable, the most forward for reformation; yea, when their zeal therein cast them into imprisonments, sorrows, troubles, etc. these men (I say) are under jealousies, nay, evident and express censures of being proud, perverse, deceitful, disturbers of the peace of the State, hinderers of Reformation, with many such like and unworthy reproaches, but the faithful Witness and Judge of all hearts will one day bring forth their innocency as the light, and in the mean while support their spirits under all those hard speeches, thoughts and calumnies of this world.    

ARGUM. IU.  
Titus' 1.10, 11. There are many unruly talkers, and deceivers, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, whose mouths must be stopped: But Church-censure or sentence of non-communion, will not stop their mouths; for (as 'tis in the Apologetical Narration) they being of another way and judgement, it binds not their conscience, and so dare pish at the sentence of Non-communion of Excommunication, let the Presbyterians pronounce a sentence against congregational Churches; or let congregational Churches pronounce any sentence against Presbyterians, Antinomians, Anabaptists, who will teach things, as they think, which they ought not, and see when this sentence stops their mouths: But Paul says, Their mouths must be stopped, Church-censure does it not; therefore, if they must be stopped, the civil Magistrate must strike in to stop them, else they will ever be open to subvert whole houses. In the Apostles times, what Church-censure could not reach to, was left to the power and providence of God to subdue and master, and supply the office of a Magistrate; but now when God has blest a Christian Commonwealth with a Christian Magistrate, if Church-censure will not stop deceivers mouths, but still they will subvert men's precious souls, the Magistrate must exercise his power, for they must be stopped.  

REPLY.  
FIrst, whereas the Apostle tells Titus, that such unruly talkers and deceivers mouths must be stopped, it is clear, that it is Titus that must stop them, for otherways the Apostle writes unto him to no purpose, and he directs him likewise which way he should stop their mouths, viz. vers. 13. Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, and in the first verse of the next Chapter, but speak thou the things which become sound doctrine; and verse the 8th, he saith of sound speech that it cannot be condemned. Surely, in that sense that Titus may be said to hinder them from condemning sound speech, he may be said to stop their mouths; you know in Scripture language, a man's mouth is said to be stopped, when he is not able to gainsay the power of reason and arguments that are opposed unto him: So Luke 21.15. Christ promiseth his Disciples to give them a mouth and wisdom, which all their adversaries should not be able to gainsay nor resist; that is, which shall stop their mouths, viz. argumentatively: So Acts 6.10. Stephen so spoke, that the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke; So Matth. 22.34. Christ is said to put the Sadduces to silence, that is, to stop their mouths, and vers. 46. the Pharisees likewise were not able to answer him a word, and (to name no more places) 1 Pet. 2.5. the will of God is, that by well doing we should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. You know there is nothing doth more open their mouths, than the well doing of the Saints; but they open not their mouths like men: so here their mouths must be stopped, viz. by Titus his sound words: this I humbly conceive is as clear as the day; and to make it so, you have the same phrase, Rom. 3.19. that every mouth must be stopped.  
Secondly, whereas you say, that that which Church-censure could not do was left to the power and providence of God to subdue and master, and supply the office of a Magistrate, I answer, that though it was left to the power and providence of God to subdue and master, yet that this was to supply the office of a Magistrate is but petitio principii, and therefore your inference, that now when God hath blest a Christian Commonwealth with Christian Magistrates, he must stop their mouths, is likewise taken before given.  
Thirdly, if by stopping their mouths, you mean directly according to the literal sense of the words, the Magistrate neither can stop their mouths, except he will cut out their tongues, or sow up their lips, etc. for they will be speaking where ever they are.    

ARGUM. V.  
GAlat. 5.11, 12. There were some that preached circumcision and Christ together; this hotch potch much prevailed, exceedingly troubled the Churches, and Paul sighs and grooms out this wish; I would they were cut off that trouble you. The question is, what kind of cutting off he means, is it by Church-censure? then he might soon have eased himself and the Churches of them, himself might have excommunicated them, as he did Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Time 1.20. or commanded the Churches, when they had been gathered together, and his spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to have delivered such up unto Satan, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. but this he did not, on if he did, it would not serve his and the Churches turn, he and they still groan under the misery of false Teachers; therefore it must be meant of a cutting off by some special extraordinary providence of God, their destruction by the divine hand of justice. Whence I think this note may genuinely be collected, The Church of God may be pestered with false Teachers, which no Church-censure will so cut off, as that they can be freed of them, and therefore the civil Magistrate by his power (God having left off extraordinary manifostations of justice against his and his Church's enemies) must cut them off, and not suffer the Churches to be troubled and soured with the leaven of their doctrine.  

REPLY.  
I Answer, by cutting off there, you suppose, not to be meant Church-censure, and you give reasons for it, but you think it was some special, extraordinary providence of God in bringing to pass their destruction, and I think so too, though it may be meant also of Church-censure, which the Apostle could have wished, might have been done, but the state of those Churches could not bear it; but for that you infer that because now Church-censure cannot reach them, therefore the civil Magistrate by his power (God having left off extraordinary manifestations of justice against his and his Church's enemies) must cut them off, and not suffer the Churches to be leavened and soured with such leaven of their doctrine. But, Sir, I humbly deny your inference; for if Magistrates have a lawful power to supply the extraordinary instances of justice, which God hathgiven in the punishment of sin, if, I say, Magistrates have a power thus to do in your sense, why then the Magistrate should kill and destroy liars, because God by an extraordinary stroke of justice did kill Ananias and Saphira, Acts 5. for telling a lie, the Magistrate should destroy men for sleeping at hearing the Word, because Eutychus by an extraordinary hand of divine justice fell down dead from an upper loft where he was sleeping when he should be hearing the Word of God, Acts 20. Nay, which is more absurd, Magistrates should then omit the execution of justice upon more notorious sinners, and destroy the less guilty sinners; yea, and should be at an uncertainty herein, because God's justice hath reached some, and spared others guilty of the same sins; yea, much greater, which I presume you will judge absurd; for the Magistrate is to execute justice according to a known just law, and not according to the example of God, who may destroy for an idle thought, if he pleaseth.    

ARGUM. VI  
REv. 2. God has something to say against the Church in Pergamos, because she had those that taught the doctrine of Balaam, and these also that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (i) they had them still, their mouths open, teaching these doctrines, not suppressed, not taken out of the way. And something he had against the Churches in Thyatira, because they suffered that woman Jezabel to teach and seduce his. servants, either those that actually were his servants, or those that possibly (for aught they knew) might have been his servants; her they should not have suffered to have taught and spread her infectious errors, though. doubtless, she being a Prophetess was able to have said much for her, Way, and would have pleaded conscience too, yet 'tis a charge drawn up against them, that she is suffered, and to me it seems by the Antithesis, to run thus; vers. 22. Behold (as if he had said) though you have failed in the execution of justice upon her, yet behold, I will cast her into great tribulation, and will kill her and her children with death; I will not suffer her, I will not fail in doing justice upon her and her children, as you sinfully have done. Church-censure only would not have bindered her from teaching, but she was not to have been suffered to teach, therefore a further power ought to have come in for the suppression of her and her followers.  

REPLY.  
FIrst, I humbly conceive, that Church-censures, if duly and timely performed, would have prevented this reproof, both to the one Church and the other, and the neglect hereof, or (which is worse) the not suppressing these false doctrines by a powerful preaching against the same, was the ground of these sharp and bitter reproofs, and my Reason is this; it is evident they had not the help of the Magistrate therein: for in respect of the political state, it is said of the Church of Pergamus that she dwelled where Satan had his seat, or throne, and where Antipas (God's faithful servant) suffered martyrdom; so that they had no help in that respect from the Magistrate, and if so, I suppose you will not say the Church could imprison, banish, etc. so that I presume their neglect must be of something which was in the power of the Church; And,  
Secondly, whereas you say, Church-censures would not have hindered these proceed in the Church, I humbly conceive the contrary, because, if the Church officers and members had examined these doctrines as they ought, and upon the finding of them erroneous, had proceeded to censure them, in case they would not forbear the promulgation thereof, from that time the Church was not to permit them to preach any more amongst them, neither should they give them any more hearing.  
Thirdly, If a means sanctified by God to an end, do not always effect it, we may not therefore devise another, Magistracy doth not suppress all vice.    

ARGUMENT VII.  
MOst evident it is, that the civil Magistrate in the Commonwealth of Israel was supreme in things Ecclesiastic ill, 1 Chro. 15. David assembles all Israel to Jerusalem, gives the Priests and Levites their charge, orders the things of the Ark of God, vers. 1. to 18. 2 Chron. 15. It's said, King Asa took courage, and put away the abominable Idols, and renewed the Altar of the Lord, and made a Covenant, and whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether great or small, man or woman. Now let it be shown, where God took this power from the civil Magistrate under the new Testament; why the Magistrate has not as much power, or the same power in matters Ecclesiastical, as than he had? 'Tis true, the Apostles were very silent, and close in giving the civil Magistrate his just power in things spiritual, but I conceive this closeness of theirs was their prudence, and that in these two respects.  
1. There was no Magistrate then, but Heathonish or Jewish, and so understood not Gods will in his worship; and so had any thing been commanded, it had been but a oarnall commandment, humane, which Christians must have refused, and therefore 'twas not their wisdom to speak or write much to this point, lest it had proved a snare.  
2. Had they spoken much of a Christian Magistrate, that should have power in things civil and Ecclesiastical, and be able to defend Christianity against all its enemies, this would have bred jealousies in the Roman State, and Christian Churches would have been looked upon as a conspiring traitorous generation, and persecutions would have soon been raised up against them; It was the Apostles wisdom to keep Caesar's head free from jealousies, that so the Churches might enjoy Christ, and their consciences the better, therefore they spoke so little of the Christian Magistrate in things civil and Ecclesiastical, well knowing, that after-ages would not be at a loss, or stand in this point, but might look upon the examples of the godly Kings of Israel for their imitation, (never being repealed) and in David, Josiah, Asa, might see what was their right and just power in matters both of Church and State.  

REPLY.  
FIrst, it is not to be denied, but that the civil Magistrates in the Commonwealth of Israel were supreme in things Ecclesiastical, but upon such grounds and reasons as were peculiar unto them; and therefore not presidential for Christian Magistrates under the Gospel, except upon the same or the like grounds; For,  
First, the godly Kings of Israel and Judah were types of Christ: thus David, whom you instance, it is said of him, Psal. 75.3. The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved; I bear up the pillars thereof, which is true only of Jesus Christ the antitype, who laid the foundations of the earth, Heb. 1.10. and upholdeth all things by the word of his power, vers. 3. Now, when the antitype is come into the world, Jesus Christ in the room of his father David; the law henceforth is to proceed from his lips, and the government is to be upon his shoulders, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end, Isa. 9.6, 7. So Moses was a chief magistrate unto Israel, unto whom they were to hearken, until Christ, whom he did typify, was come, and of him he saith himself, Deuter. 18.15. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me, him shall you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not hear that Prophet, that soul shall be destroyed from among the people, Acts 3.22, 23. The Kings of Israel and Judah whom you mention, are types of Christ's kingly office, Christ therefore being come, the types are gone; for though kings of Commonwealths may be of a moral consideration, and so perpetual; yet kings as the head of the Church in things Eccelesiastical were types, and therefore abolished; and by the same argument, as you will maintain the power of Christian kings over the Churches of God in things merely Ecclesiastical, from the examples of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were types of Christ, by the same arguments may the Pope maintain a chief Priesthood under the Gospel after the example of Aaron, and the rest of that order successively.  
Secondly, the godly kings of Israel and Judah were directed by the infallible mouth of God, and guidance of his Spirit, even in these Ecclesiastical businesses; and thus David, whom you in stance to give the Priests and Levites their charge, 1 Chron. 15. if you look into 1 Chron. 28.12. he had his direction from the Spirit of God, and vers. 19 David professeth, that the Lord made him understand all the work of this pattern. When you can prove such an infallible guidance and direction by the Spirit of God in matters of Church-government to be the portion of Christian kings under the Gospel, there may be some colour in this argument.  
Thirdly, The kings of Israel were Elders of one ministerial congregation; for the whole Church and State were so, as is evident, and what they did, unless upon express, either Text or revelation, was done with the consent of the congregation, 1 Chron. 13.2, etc.  
Fourthly, I do not remember that ever they did banish, or otherways punish all strangers from among them, that were not of their own Religion, or had such a commission so to do, and that these severe laws about Church-government did belong unto any but their own nation and people, or those that joined themselves to them; all that acknowledged the seven precepts of Noah they tolerated, Ainsworth on Gen. 17.12.  
Fifthly, Most evident it is, that they did suffer several Sects, and differing Opinions among them, and that of a more dangerous consequence than is the difference that is the difference that is between the Presbyterian and Independent, as the Sadduces, the Pharisees, the Herodians, Alexandrians, etc. And therefore you may after their example plead for the like toleration, or rather for the toleration of those that are of less danger.  
Sixthly, But if any thing must be added, for conclusion, we say as the Christians of old, leaving the dispute of the Magistrates power, in general, we say this Way being of God, at least in great probability, the Magistrate hath no power to suppress it, (which I desire you to take as a full answer) those kings of Israel commanded nothing but the express will of God, and that without infringing the liberties of the Congregation, whose consent they had, which two things, if our Magistrates shall do, all that we shall say, will be, Go on and prosper.  
Seventhly, Whereas you say, Let it be shown where God took this power from the civil Magistrate under the new Testament, etc. I answer, where we find types and ceremonies taken away, there we find this power in matters of Church-government taken away, which (though it be not expressed in so many plain words (as many other cermonies (granted on all hands to be taken away) are not) yet this, with others, is to be understood (as I humbly conceive) in that general expression of the Apostle, Gal. 3.24, 25. The law was a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, etc. but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster; these things being shadows of good things to come, but the body is Christ, Col. 2.17. And until it can be proved that the civil government of the Jews had nothing typical as well as the Church, and that the kings of Israel and Judah were not typical, in this particular, I humbly conceive it a sufficient answer to that part of your Argument.  
Eighthly, As for the Reasons which you give of the Apostles closeness (for so your word is) in declaring the power of Christian Magistrates at that time, they are but conjectural not scriptural, and therefore may as well be denied by me, as affirmed by you, and that upon as probable grounds.  
Your first Reason is, There was no Magistrate then, but Heathonish or Jewish, and so understood not Gods will in his worship, and so had any thing been commanded, it had been but a carnal commandment, humane, which Christians must have refused, and therefore it was not their wisdom to speak or write much to that point, lest it had proved a snare.  
I answer, that men's not understanding Gods will in his worship (whether Jewish or Heathonish, Magistrate or not Magistrate) could be no just ground why the Apostles should not teach them; (their work being to teach such things which were not before understood) and if any thing had been commanded by them (though Heathonish or Jewish) according to the will of God, their commanding the same had not made the commandment carnal, for I suppose it is not the person commanding, but the nature of the thing commanded, that renders it carnal: For if a Heathen commands that which is the will of God, and a Christian Magistrate that that is net the will of God, it is the Heathens command that must be obeyed, and the Christian Magistrates command that must be disobeyed, because it must be the will of God, and not the authority of man that must be the growd of warranted obedience, and they might have taught it without peril, by showing, that though he had power in Church-affaires, yet not against their profession, as being of God, which was the only argument they defended it by.  
Your second Reason is— Had the Apostles spoken much of a Christian Magistrates power in things civil and Ecclesiastical, and be able to defend Christianity against all its enemies, (what you mean by this last clause I know not) this would have bred jealousies in the Roman State, and Christian Churches would have been looked upon as a conspiring traitorous generation, and persecutions would soon have been raised up against them; it was the Apostles wisdom to keep Caesar's head from jealousies, that so the Churches might enjoy Christ and their consciences. the better, etc.  
I humbly answer, though it be true, the Saints should be as wise, as Serpents, yet as innocent as Doves; and herein the Apostles snewed their innocency, in that they kept back nothing of the will of God that was profitable, Acts 20.20. I suppose this could not be unprofitable; and although every truth must be preached seasonably, yet at one time or another, (your asserting the Apostles supposition of the Saints sufficient understanding the will of God about Christian Magistrates, from Gods will revealed therein, by the example of the Kings of Israel, being only your own conjecture, as I said before, and not Scripture; doth not at all ease this business) for that must first be proved before we can grant it you: and moreover, it is evident the Apostles did not balk or forbear to preach such truths as were every whit as exasperating the Roman Magistrate as this particular you speak of: as that Jesus was both Lord and Christ, Acts 2.36. and that he should put down all rule and all authority, and power, yea, and that he should reign until he hath put down all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15.24. yea, and the more they were forbidden to preach, the more they went about preaching, not regarding the command of the Magistrate, when it was beyond the line of his just authority, and many other Scriptures of this nature may be given; and these things (I conceive) may be sufficient answers unto your 7th Argument.    

ARGUM. VIII.  
I Desire to know if Gamaliel had given the Council this advice of refraining and letting alone, concerning Theudas or Judas of Galilee, I say, whether the Council, being able to have demonstrated them and their ways erroneous, they ought to have consented to him or no; for this is the true state of the Question, and not whether the Ministers and truths of Christ may be suppressed, we all know this would be fight against God, to run a hazard no less than death, but whether a Council finding a generation of Teachers erring from the truth, and wilful in their errors, must then let them alone, and expect that God should fight against them from heaven before they would sentence or smite. I am sure Gamaliel seems to approve of rejoicing in the destruction of those two forementioned, with their followers, when once they were destroyed; and doubtless, they were destroyed in an ordinary course of providence, by the Jews, God making no extraordinary or remarkable revelations from heaven against them or their errors, and therefore I conclude, it had been better to have sentenced and quite crushed them in the shell, which had prevented all the mischiefs that were done, the troubles of the State, the subversion of souls not a few. Me thinks, through the spectacles that I look upon the place, Gamaliel seems clearly to imply, that if the Council could have discovered by any means, them and their doctrine not to have been of God, (as before they had done Thendas and Judas) finding them so peremptory as they did, they might have passed their own sentence upon them, and neither God nor Gamaliel would have reproved them for it, but good service they had done. So that had I been to have spoken to that Text, these three points I should have insisted upon:  
1. It is a most dangerous thing to sentence and persecute the servants and truths of God; 'tis no less than fight against God.  
2. God sometimes over-powers wicked men (as he did Gamaliel to advise, and the rest of the Council to submit to his advice) to make way for the servants and truths of God, that they may stand and prosper.  
3. As to oppose the truth of God is to fight against God, so to sentence and oppose doctrines which by the clear light of Scripture, are from men, or of a worse descent, is to fight for God, and do him service: this is implied. I would gladly know, how did God disclaim or renounce from heaven, Theudas and Judas of Galilee, with their errors, that after the Counsels forbearing, might be a warrant for their destruction; what contrariety unto God was discovered in their Ways when they fell upon them, that was not apparent when first they shown their heads? their opinions catching and kindling in the hearts of many, might have stumbled the Council into a longer forbearance of them, as being easily of this Interpretation, that God owned them, and they went on in the power of God, and therefore now more dangerous to resist them then before, it consequently must never have parted the value of the least hair of their heads against them, till they had seen fire and darts come down from heaven amongst them. But doubtless, their destruction was not otherwise but thus; the Council finding their Ways thwarting Moses and the Prophets were sorry for their thus long forbearance of them, sent out forces, slew and scattered them, notwithstanding their consciences, notwithstanding their errors claimed, doubtless, a glorious and high descent. How has God disclaimed the Church of Rome? any otherwise then he has done Antinomianism, Anabaptism? he has clearly written their condemnations with his finger in his Word, that all of them stand in enmity and opposition unto him and his providence [seemingly] never owned any Religion more under the Gospel, than it has done Popery, and therefore why must not their consciences and Ways be refrained from, as well as the others? I cannot yet see, how upon Gamaliels' words can be grounded the forbearance, letting alone, any Way, that is once discovered to be not according to the rule, the Analogy of the faith of the Scripture, etc.  

REPLY.  
THat question concerning the Counsels duty to proceed against Theudas and Judas, in case it was demonstrated unto them their doctrines were erroneous (notwithstanding gamaliel's advice to the contrary) cannot I conceive be rationally answered, except there had been a certain knowledge of the nature of those errors, and upon supposition that those errors were gross and dangerous, as it is like they were, even unto insurrection and sedition, I answer, that they ought not to have harkened unto his advice, but to have proceeded according to rules of justice made in that behalf; and it is not denied, but that the Christian Magistrate hath a coercive power in matters of Religion, in things that are of a moral and capital consideration, such as are profane swear, curse, blasphemies, and such things; that first are against the light of nature and conscience; yea, secondly, of cursed apostasy from Christ, professedly denying him to be God, or come in the flesh, or wickedly blaspheming him, teaching men so; and thirdly, such as are turbulent, violent, mutinous and factious in raising up parties to the disturbance of the peace of the State, as the late Bishops did; Neither hath Mr. Goodwin, in my best observation, said or writ any thing to the contrary in his Theomachia, or elsewhere; for I cannot see any such thing in any of his doctrines raised from his Text of that Sermon; and the main point which he prosecuted, and which was (as it were) the spirit and life of all those particular instructions therein contained, was, that, For any man to endeavour or attempt the suppression of any Doctrine, Practice or Way, that is from God, is to fight against God.  
This point is proved, and cleared and confessed on all hands to be a truth of God, and if you look into application, he renders those obnoxious to the wrath of God, who shall exercise any high handed apposition or contestation against any Way, Doctrine or Practice whatsoever, UNTIL they have proof upon proof, demonstration upon demonstration, evidence upon evidence; yea, all the security that men in any ordinary way (at least) can have, that such Ways or Doctrines only pretend God to be the author of them, and that in truth they are not at all from him, but either from man or of a base parentage. What is this against the just power of a Magistrate in matters of Religion, and no more power than this can you prove, even from the example of the kings of Israel and Judah; 
☞  and therefore, if you will reduce the Christian Kings and Magistrates unto them as a pattern and example of their power in things spiritual, and make the case directly as it is, you must bring in some instance or other of a difference between the holy and godly Prophets and people of God themselves, and that in a case very difficult and intricate, and hard to be found out from the Scriptures or any of those ways wherein God did usually reveal his mind, and that in such a case the magistrate did determine the business according to his judgement, and compel the dissenting party to submission thereunto, and that according to the approbation of God; and therefore an example for Magistrates under the Gospel: such is the very case in hand, as might be evidently declared. Moreover, there were those that did differ in many things of a very deep and serious consideration (provided they made profession of the Jewish Religion and government they were tolerated) as is very clear (as I said before;) Sadduces, Pharisees, and several other sorts were permitted; neither do I remember where they were compelled against their judgements, either in matter of Profession or Practice, except (as being members of that Church) to the main doctrines, worship and government expressed in the Word; and surely there is far more, and better reasons for the toleration and permission of the Independent, then can be given for the toleration of such persons as the Jews did tolerate, for these agree with Presbyterians in the main grounds of Religion, and principles of the Gospel; these are confessed by their Brethren to be holy, godly and learned, and of singular use and benefit, both in Church and Commonwealth, etc. and the toleration of none others are pleaded for in Mr. goodwin's Theomachia, from that Sermon which you mention. But we will not stand on this particular, because it may be one of the corruptions of those times, to suffer such Sects, especially the Sadduces, who though (for reasons) not reproved by our Saviour, as some other corruptions were not mentioned by him. We have said enough before to this Argument: As for those Doctrines which you say you would raise from that Text, if you were to preach upon it, I conceive the two first you mention are indeed very natural, but how you will draw the third from thence as natural from that Text I cannot see; but it would be a digression for me to meddle with that, and therefore I leave it to your own further consideration.    

ARGUMENT IX.  
I Desire to know whether that law, Deut. 13. of putting a false Prophet to death, or any one that should entice men from the Way of the true God, there be not moral equity in it, and therefore bind the Magistrate and Chuches of God to the end of the world? Calvin and the Church uf Geneva burned a blasphemer, they looked upon the moral equity of that law, Levit. 24.16. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, all the Congregation shall stone him; Why should not Christians be as tender of the name of God as the Jews were? Is not his name as great and glorious, that it may be more securely blasphemed now then it might then? But a Presbyterian precedent will have but little authority with congregational Churches, therefore I desire that Mr. Cotton (one of your own, upon whose learning and judgement the well-willer to Mr. Prynne (he that put forth the first answer to his twelve Queries) would have men much to rely) may be heard speak in the point, in his book, entitled Pouring out the seven Vials, on Rev. 16.4, 5, 6, 7. Verses. His very doctrine is this; Upon the discovery of the deadly corruption of the Sea of Rome, it was a righteous judgement of God, and such as argued him unchangeable, ever like himself, that the Priests and Jesuits, who carried that Religion up and down the Nations, should be adjudged or condemned to a bloody death. His meaning is evidently this, not because enemies to the civil State, but because they carried Ordinances, Doctrines up and down the world which were no better than the blood of a dead man, and every soul that drank of them died, therefore they themselves must drink blood. Within a few lines after his doctrine, he quotes Zach. 13.2, 3. (spealing of the times under the Gospel, 'tis clear from the first verse, and so doth Mr. Thomas Goodwin interpret it in his trial of the growth of Grace) God will out off the false Prophet, and if any false Prophet shall arise, his Father and Mother shall thrust him therow, because he speaks lies in the name of the God of truth, be shall not live. Upon which Text, he thus glosses, It is not spoken of his typical death (i) of his death by Church-censure or banishment, which have a kind of death in them, but of such a death as that he was not worthy to live, because he cast a lie upon the God of Truth, the Oracle of Truth. In his first Reasons of his point he affirms, that no Magistrate ought to have put Paul to death for his errors and blasphemies, because be did all ignorantly, 1 Tim. 1.14. had the truth been made known to him, he would not have done as he did, but such as blaspheme and teach errors wilfully after admonition twice or thrice, the glorious light of the Gospel shining round about them, those he affirms, aught to be looked upon with another eye, aught to drink blood.  
His first objection is this, In the new Testament we must look for a spiritual death (i) Church-censure only: He answers, his Text is in the new Testament, not in the old, the new Testament says such are worthy to drink the blood of their own hearts; the holy Ghost says, he will have it true according to the Letter; and further answers, that 'twas one of Moses his moral laws of perpetual equity, thrusting men away from God is as odious now as then.  
In his fifth Use he has these very words, Heresy is no more pleasing to him, nor blasphemy, nor seducing, nor to change the Way of God's worship, and to draw men to Ways wherein they cannot enjoy God in peace; murder of souls is no more welcome to God now then of old, and therefore if there were a law to punish such with capital punishment, it is a like justice in God to enjoin such laws in every Christian Commonwealth.  
His second Objection is this, Conscience must not be forced, men must not be put to death for their conscience. He answers, Heretics were as conscionable in the old Testament as now; and if any man have a conscience to turn men from God, God would have men have as much conscience to cut them off; glozing upon Tit. 3. 10, 11. thus: He that will not be admonished is rejected, given up to the civil Magistrate to be punished, or put to death, not for his conscience, but because he sins against his conscience, the clear shining light of the Gospel. Whereupon I think it follows, that any error whatsoever, though not fundamental, if it be wilfully held and taught against instructions and admonitions, especially if it make Sects and Factions, let them be never so conscionable in their Ways, profess never so much of God to be in them, the Magistrate may and aught to punish them according to the nature of their errors, and their mouths must be stopped, that their teaching do no more subvert.  

REPLY.  
FIrst, if that law, Deut. 13. of putting a false Prophet to death, or any one that shall entice men from the true God be moral equity, and still binding the Magistrates and Churches of God unto the end of the world, is to be understood (as it there follows) of inducing to Idolatry, wherein notwithstanding there is something peculiar to that nation, as in the 15th verse of that Chapter, If a City should turn away from the true God, to serve other gods, that they should smite the inhabitants thereof, and the cattle thereof with the edge of the sword, and that they should gather all the spoil thereof into the midst of the streets thereof, and should burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, and that it should be an heap for ever, and that it should be never built again, vers. 16. But this, because it is circumstantial, I will not insist upon. Now how far the moral equity of this law may extend in other cases, I will not now dispute; because whether it reach further or not, no way concerns the law fullness of congregational Churches.  
Secondly, as for your instancing Calvin, and the Churches of Geneva's burning a blasphemer, and grounding their act upon the moral equity of that law, spoken of Leu. 24.16. I shall say nothing, but refer you to what Calvin hath written of it, a Tract entitled Explicatio perfidiae Valentin Gentilis, and to God's 〈…〉 of it one day in the sight of heaven and earth, it is notoriously evident to be meant of a profane, wilful, wicked blasphemer and curser of God; if that Heretic were such, as Galvin endeavours to show, Explicat perfidiae Valent. Gentil, he is condemned in the very Text; but it is not meant of one that through ignorance misconceiveth of God, either in respect of his Attributes, or in respect of the Trinity; and surely, if such kind of mistake should not be atoned but by such sacrifices, we should have hot work amongst Christians; yea, and with such sacrifices God would be pleased after the manner as he would be pleased with the sacrificing of the fruit of our body for the sin of our souls; yea, for any thing that I know, and they that shall deal so with men for such mistakes in such things (I think) are in a great error, as well as the mistaken themselves; and my reason is, because men have been in many places but meanly instructed and educated in the right understanding thereof, but oftentimes notions of the deepest cognizance are handed over unto men from father to father, in a traditional manner, without a clear debating, evincing and confirming the truth thereof, and liberty given to declare one's doubts herein; insomuch, that meeting with a deceiver, many are so soon led away with his error, which is one great cause of the so many woeful divisions, and errors that are now amongst us, and (by the way) this indeed would be a business worthy the endeavours of our godly and learned men of our age, to take pains in businesses of this nature) viz. the great things of the Law and Gospel of God, to establish men in the right understanding of the grounds of their Religion, to the rectifying of their judgements, and the reformation of their lives and conversation, and not thus unhappily always to wrangle about things of more inferior consideration.  
Thirdly, suppose that Law, Deut. 13. and that also Levit. 24.16. be moral? what is this to the business in hand? Mr. Goodwin in his Theomachia, nor elsewhere (that I know of) did ever plead for the toleration, either of such a false Prophet spoken of, Deut. 13. or such a blasphemer spoken of, Levit. 24.16. And yourself brings in Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Thomas Goodwin, (men of the same Way and opinion with Mr. Goodwin, in matters of Church-government) to clear the Independent party from any such opinion, which (notwithstanding) is insinuated into men's thoughts to be their darling, when, alas, it is nothing so; and therefore why are they charged herewith? Surely want of love in the accusers, and not guilt in the accused, is the ground of their accusation; But the Question is about the Magistrates compelling men, even in matters of a difficult and hard finding out the mind of God therein, and which indeed oftentimes, is out of the cognizance and clear knowledge of the very Magistrate himself. But can this follow, the Lord commanded a false Prophet that turneth away people from the Lord to be put to death? Deut. 13. Will it therefore follow, that that Prophet that shall teach any thing at all contrary to the supposed and disputable mind of God, that he also must be dealt withal after such a manner? is there not great difference between men's pleading for this and that kind of government of the Churches of Christ, and the turning away men from the faith of Christ? do you not all confess, that the Independent men are holy, godly, learned men; and useful unto the begetting unto, and building men up in the knowledge of Jesus Christ? and doth not God seal unto their Ministry as well as unto any others Ministry? And so for the other Text, Levit. 24.16. A blasphemer must be stoned to death; will it therefore follow, that an Independent must not be suffered to live in a Christian Commonwealth? surely this conclusion never grew on that Scripture, nor in any other that I have yet seen.  
You say, That any error, though not fundamental, if it be wilfully held, and taught against instructions and admonitions, especially if it make Sects and Factions, let them be never so conscionable in their Way, profess never so much of God in them, the Magistrate may, and aught to punish them according to nature of their errors, etc.  
Answ. 1. It is not sufficient a point be cleared, but that it be cleared to the persons we would persuade; else they are to be born with till that be done, as appears in the weaker Jews about ceremonies, and some of the Corinthians about the resurrection.  
2. It is confessed, that obstinacy and wilfulness, and that after instructions & admonitions, is justly punishable by the Magistrate, where ever it be found; but, Quid inde? where will you fasten this obstinacy and wilfulness, that you may bring your supposition to the business in hand? upon the Independent? May they not as well recharge it upon them from whence it came? have there not been instructions and admonitions on both fides? and is not satisfaction as far off from many godly and learned men it the one as in the other? Must nomen multitudinis determine the business? No, certainly, yourself hath proposed a better rule, and that is, the making of Sects and Factions; and for this, quit you the one party, the other quits itself: As, first, for the making of Sects: surely it is not the trial of doctrines before received, but the receiving of doctrines (if compelled by authority) before the trial thereof that makes Sects, it is not the mutual binding of men together in the bond of love, and the mutual engagements unto watch fullness, instructions, exhortations one unto another (which the Apostle prescribes, as means against men's being tossed up and down by every wind of doctrine, Ephes. 4.14.15, 16.) it is not these things I say, that makes Sects, but the want of these things; it is true, there are several Sects that profess these Ways, so there are several Sects that profess the Gospel and the Protestant Religion, in so much, that Father said, The Devil was let lose, when he saw the Saints that sprung up under his Doctrine, is the Gospel or Protestant Religion the worse therefore? An ●as for the other part of your rule of trial (the making of Factions,) let the Magistrate spare none where it is found, no, upon his peril, and as he will answer it before the Lord, let him not spare any; for this indeed is the main end of his authority, to keep the people committed unto him in peace, and to be a nursing father unto the Church, if any be in his dominion: but who are these Faction-makers? surely not the meek in the earth, the weapons of whose warfare are arguments, reasons and Scripture, and who would have men be at peace with all men, not men that are gentle, sofe, striving only with the cords of a man (viz.) reason and understanding, and not with the whips of Horses, and the goads of Oxen. Were not the Bishops a factious generation? And wherein did it appear? was it not by their insinuations into the Magistracy, to have their Ways maintained, urged and pressed upon men by a law, by fines, imprisonments, banishments, whips and pillories, by procuring Laws, and Canons, Decrees and Injunctions, to press men against the truth, their judgements and consciences unto obedience thereof? and hath not this State-troubling generation, raised up and kindled that consuming fire, that is like now to devour the kingdom? Well, if this evil spirit of distraction, contention and faction be found in the congregational party, let not the eye of the Magistrate spare them, but let him take heed, that he do not condemn the innocent, and justify the guilty. Now the Lord in mercy conjure that spirit of Faction where ever it be found, and give the Magistracy of this poor kingdom wisdom to observe where it is, and prevent all dangers thereby, that this distressed Nation may flourish in truth and peace.    

The Conclusion.  
THese are the Arguments or doubts that for the present I desire some satisfaction in, that my judgement and conscience may be settled; Let it not be thought that I am making a party against them; or that I think my Arguments cannot be answered, I am better persuaded of their holiness and abilities then to think they will take up any opinions, but they can satisfy any equal minded man that asks them a reason of such their faith; nor yet let it be thought that I have followed these objections with a spirit that intends not to receive satisfaction; I call him to witness, before whose Tribunal I and all the purposes of my heart must stand naked one day for to be judged, my very heart (if I understand mine own heart) stands open to receive all the truths of God, whoever brings them, with what external inconveniences soever they come accompanied, I have urged my doubts, it may be thought, with somewhat too much earnestness and heat, I am sure with all singleness of heart, aiming at nothing but to know more of the mind and Way of God, that God may be more glorified in me. Grace be with us all.  
Your true friend to love and serve you and yours in Christ Jesus, etc.   

REPLY.  
THese are the Answers which for the present I humbly return unto your Arguments, which (I must confess again) have been tendered with more sweetness and candidness of language, phrase, and expression, than ever yet I did read any arguments of this nature before, wherein, if I have showed, that which is indeed. mine own, viz. weaknesses, insufficiencies and mistakes, I hope the power of Christ in you (viz. the spirit of love) will cover them all; and here again I must renew my former request, viz. the letting slip, if any thing be weak, and your more serious thoughts upon that which is more valid and considerable; to presume your satisfaction, would be too great ambition, though to assure myself of your acceptation is my perfect confidence; Sir, I leave what I have here tendered, unto your prudent consideration, desiring the Almighty to lead us all into the ways of truth and peace, knitting our hearts together in love, and so guiding us by his counsels to bring us to his glory, which is the hearty prayers, Sir,  
Of yours in all Christian love and sincerity, J. P.   
FINIS.