A REPLY of two of the Brethren TO A. S.  
WHEREIN YOU HAVE OBSERVATIONS ON HIS CONSIDERATIONS, ANNOTATIONS, etc.  
Upon the Apologetical Narration.  
WITH A Plea for Liberty of Conscience for the Apologists Church way; Against the Cavils of the said A. S.  
Formerly called M. S. to A. S.  
Humbly submitted to the judgements of all rational, and moderate men in the world.  
With a short survey of W. R. his Grave confutation of the Separation, and some modest, and innocent touches on the LETTER from ZEALAND, And Mr. PARKER'S from New-England.  
The second Edition, corrected, and enlarged.  Nec Imperiale est dicendi libertatem negare, nec Sacerdotale, quod sentias non decere. Ambr. Ep. 17. 
Licenced and Entered according to Order.  
London, Printed by M. Simmons, for H. Overton. 1644.   

A Word to the READER, showing the Causes of this second Edition, VIZ.  
NOt mere importunity of friends (though many) but 1. To undisplease (if it may be) some of the contrary judgement, by blotting out some sharp expressions; though extorted, forced and wrung forth by the violent hammering and inculcating provocations of A. S. as may be seen in several passages of his Observations, etc. 2. To please the Author in rectifying the accidental leaving out; as also the inserting in of some things, that gave not that self-content as some may deem. 3. For the explanation of some things to the Reader. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio: haste causeth brevity, brevity obscurity. The want, or change of an and, the, not, or that, etc. ofttimes makes a Sentence go heavy and harsh. 4. To set right some material mistakes in printing. 5. And lastly, to tell A. S. why no names at length were put to their book; viz. because he did not put his name at length to his, nor hath he any wherein print owned it that we know of. Therefore have the two brethren (who only for dispatch, joined in this Reply to A. S.) forborn also in this second Edition to subscribe their names, though they doubt not by God's grace to make good any thing they have written.  
Farewell.   

A. S. SOME OBSERVATIONS AND ANNOTATIONS UPON THE APOLOGETICAL NARRATION, Humbly submitted to the Honourable Houses of PARLIAMENT, the most Reverend and learned DIVINES of the Assembly, and all the Protestant Churches here in this Island and abroad.  
M. S. IF A. S. his heart be rend with discontent in two pieces (as he saith in his Epistle) at the innocent bleat of that wronged Lamb the Apology; surely our hearts more justly may be rend in twenty pieces to hear and see this roaring Lion-like Reply, with his many claws of Observations, Annotations, Considerations, & Notes, renting and tearing that modest and innocent thing, and no man saying to him, Why dost thou so? Is this the use men make of pressing Sermons, and printed Considerations to stay and wait what the Assembly would do; that some preach, & others print for their own way, on the one side, whilst the other stand still to be beaten, muffled and bound up from speaking by Pen and Press without much striving? The Apology did but tell men with as gracious words & as much sweetness as a thing could speak, how fare they did recede from, and disclaim Separation and Brownism; and how near they did close with the present reformed Churches, even beyond expectation, & see how many stinging flies are, and about to a light upon this youngling newly eaned. One buzzing to the other, as one Raven inviting another, at this lambing-time of the year, that the young brood at the same minute may see the light and lose their eyes.  
How many Replies in a few weeks, appearingly have turned the world, if not the Church, upside down; most men seeming to be resolved before the Arguments are solved.  
Believe it, it works more upon the spirits of the best men, than ever any thing yet that befell this Kingdom. Things before were irregular enough, but now preposterous; before resolute enough, now violent; before the body of the Kingdom, the Commonwealth, was sore sick, now the soul, the Church.  

THE TITLE OF THE BOOK.  
The Title of the Book in the Title page and the first page is, Some Observations, Annotations, and General Considerations upon the Apologetical Narration, humbly submitted to the Honourable Houses of Parliament, the most reverend and learned Divines of the Assembly, and all the Protestant Churches here in this Island, and abroad.  
A title carrying a great breadth with it, and soaring high, as if A. S. were confident that in his book he speaks learnedly, as a Scholar, truly, as an honest man, gravely, as a serious man, and lovingly, as a Christian man; and that all these ways he did make good that title, which if it be shaped to the book, and read according to the road thereof, I speak it seriously and with a sad heart (these being no times nor things for jesting or jeering, which is the fault of A. S.) 
* A. P. M. said A. S. jeered. Another Gentleman said, he liked not the spirit of the man, yet neither of them Independents.  may most justly be read thus: In Observations and in Considerations simply committed against the Honourable Houses of Parliament, the reverend Assembly of Divines, and the Protestant Churches at home and abroad.  
For this one single simple A. S. now starts up by himself, peremptorily to state, and determine the Questions, for the resolution whereof the Parliament thought the Assembly of Divines few enough to undertake; and therefore called all them together for that purpose, who are now most intent upon the pin of the controversy; yet as if A. S. would take the work out of their hands, he will anticipate, and fore-judge the five Ministers as utterly erring throughout (for he sifts them corn after corn) which if true, the dispute is at an end. Go then A. S. and carry, if you dare, your platform to the Parliament, and entreat the learned Assembly to dissolve.  
But, A. S. will go his own way, and thereby he hath given great offence to the Protestant Churches, to charge them all of dissenting from the five Ministers, & awakening men's spirits into replies, when before they were drowsing with long expectation these two years of a public determination, and I wish this might have been the last Reply, before all things were sweetly composed. How ever this intends only to take off aspersions, not to lay down assertions. We will but barely answer A. S. who hath so lashed the five Ministers with so much sharpness of spirit, for telling the world how far off they are from Brownism and Separation, and how close they come to the more reformed Churches in Scotland and England. Many very good men have wondered that the five Ministers closed so much; yet A. S. is bitterly angry they close no more, before the point be disputed. O, it was a fault of the Cynic Philosopher in his high shoes so to dance on the Platonic Philosopher's Bed and Arras Coverlet, with boasting, that he danced on his brother Philosopher's pride, as that the patiented Philosopher could justly reply, yea, saith he, Thou dancest on my pride with thy greater pride.  
How much of this is A. S. I say not; but sure it was the unseasonablest, if not the most unsavoury book to multitudes of spiritual palates, as ever wise man put forth.  
Yet james Cranford is quoted by the Printer in the page before the Title, as approving it and the book with a licentious approbation, in these words; These judicious Observations and Annotations, etc. as being at this time necessary and seasonable for the vindication of all Protestant Churches, defending the authority of Parliaments and Synods, and prevention of division amongst ourselves, (though I reverence the persons of the Apologists, yet) I approve to be impressed.  
Mr. Cranford, if the Printer hath dealt faithfully with you, let me entreat you (and the Lord help you) to see yourself, ask your conscience, ask your reason, ask the book itself, whether there be one true clause in all that you have said?  
Are these Observations, etc. of A. S. judicious, that are extrajudicial and prejudicial to the public peace and order, and ordinance for dispute, prejudging and adjudging them, who jointly with the grave Assembly, A. S. acknowledgeth the Arbitrator in the matters in question? Are they at this time necessary, when the grave Commissioners of Scotland had with fare more prudence and solidity then A. S. said by way of reply so much to the Apology, Nemine reclamante, none replying till A. S. was abroad? Is there any need to bring a great printing Press, to squeeze to death a poor worm trodden on before? Or to bring many levers to break an egg, that makes small resistance? The truth is, A. S. his Observations are like a man with a Pole-axe, knocking a man on the head to kill a fly lighting on his beard.  
For though he saith, He humbly submitteth to the Protestant Churches, yet he lays about him as if he would knock them all down unto a submission to A. S. whosoever they be that will not stoop to his book. For though he thinks that all Protestant and Christian Churches are for him rather than for the five Ministers, as he intimates in the beginning of his Epistle, and therefore in all likelihood professeth a submission to them, yet he will find many Churches in London (he would wonder if we should name how many) that will not submit to his book, and yet come to the public Ordinance, do not separate, but are most willing to submit to the truth, regularly discussed, cleared, and brought down to them. Yet still James Cranford stands fixed in the licence page, in black and not blush, for asserting that A. S. his Observations, etc. are judicious and necessary; when as they are neither, unless preposterousness, abuse of good men, and the disturbance of the people, be judicious and necessary. For though the ensuing answer will prove them evil, yet they will never be proved necessary evils. They are not so much as civilly necessary, either necessitate praecepti, as commanded by Parliament, or Assembly, or necessitate medii, as useful to compose, but indispose the minds of men, to embrace things prejudiced with the violence of private spirits. Men will not be so easily whipped and compelled by one inferior.  
Again, are the Observations seasonable, which do but interstrepere, make a noise, whilst the Divines are disputing, drawing the people together in heaps, there taking up their parts, to defend one against another, and preingage themselves before they come to hear what the Assembly will say? For such a book cannot come forth, but it makes a thousand dispute in a week, every one then contending for his own, when it is so irregularly and illegally taken from him. Are they for the vindication of all Protestant Churches, when as in condemning the Apology, they condemn many, very many Churches in England, many in Holland, generally all in New-England, notwithstanding some private Letters and Manuscripts sent over, to which we shall answer afterwards. Are they for the defence of the authority of Parliament, in opposition to the Apology? Doth the Apology touch one hair of the honourable heads of the Parliament? Are not the five Ministers chidden some where in print, for saying, They allow more to the civil 
R. ●.  Magistrate, than they think others principles can? Doth not A. S. snib them too for going (as he thinks in their Apology) to the civil Magistrate? 
Pag. 4.  Doth not A. S. in his Book give a negative vote against the civil Magistrates directive power in matters of Religion? Let me 
Pag. 5.  say what I think, seeing I think no harm, viz. If the resolutions of the Divines be not digested by the reason and graces of the Houses of Parliament, and so made as their own sense, for aught I know they will never be turned into a Statute.  
If the Parliament have no directive power in matters of Religion, or Ecclesiastical, under any notion; then A. S. will condemn them for voting down the new Canons, and prescribing the Oath or Covenant.  
Are these Observations for the defence of the autboritie of Synods, in opposition to the Apology? What Synods? Scripture-Synods? Where doth the Apology whimper against them? or do you mean Classical ones? If so, that's the question. And so you proclaim a defence of that which yet hath no existence. The question is not resolved. Lastly, are these Observations for prevention of sad division amongst ourselves?  
Well. Mr. Cranford, you have by this endeavoured to set Divines together by the ears More Ecclesiastico, your licentiating hath enabled men to give the second blow, upon which the Common Law layeth the breach of the peace. And notwithstanding you licence these Annotations, yet you say you reverence the persons of the Apologists. A pin for such compliments; Love me, and love the truth. Let us measure your respects to them, whilst the advantage of the higher ground whereon it stands be removed. Away with your dare verba, your frothy words; This is the truth, so much you respect them, as A. S. respects them. And so much have you spoken judiciously, truly, and seasonably, as A. S. hath spoken, and no more. If he be cast, you will be condemned. Stand by Mr Cranford, and hear A. S. tried, and in him yourself.   

THE EPISTLE.  
A. S. To the right reverend Divines, the Authors of the Apologetical Narration.  
M. S. The Authors of the Apologetical Narration desire more of your right, though they have less of your reverence. Had I written a book with so much unreverence, I would either have blotted out my title Right Reverend, or else I should never have put in that Episcopal stile, Most Reverend, and Right Reverend, seeing the Bishops are going. For to stroke in the title, and to strike in the book, is but flattery, if not gross dissimulation. Or as to say, Art thou in health my brother? and in the mean while to strike under the fift rib.  
A. S. The high esteem I have ever had of your persons, etc. except only in your particular opinions, wherein the dissent from all Protestant, yea all Christian Churches in the world.  
M. S. Now let the Protestant Churches (to whom you say you submit) judge whether in these words, there be not a notorious untruth. For wherein do the five Ministers and their Churches differ from many Churches in England, divers in Holland, and generally all within the Patent of New-England, if you account these places Protestant?  
It may be you will object, Mr. Parker's Letter and some Manuscripts from New-England, and the Letter from Zealand. To Mr. Parker his Letter we need say little, the Letter will answer for us, though Mr. Parker little thought when he wrote it, to find an A. S. in England, or that his brother Bayly would have printed his Letter seemingly to anticipate the disputation of the Assembly, as if he meant to beg the question, though but with shows and shadows.  
1. Mr. Parker saith not one word for a Classical Presbytery, (the main difference in hand) but for a congregational, that he would have in some things more managed by the Presbyteries of every Congregation, without putting every thing to the vote of the people of the Congregation▪ because some confusion hath followed upon it. Doth in necessaries abuse take away the use? There was confusion in the Church of Corinth. Or is there any mention of this in the Apology, that all businesses of the Church must be put to the vote of the Congregation?  
2. That in that thing only there hath been an arguing on both sides. M. Parker & Mr. Noise only are mentioned in the letter, to be on the one side & all the other Churches on the other, against Mr. Parker and Mr. Noise. And 3ly. Mr. Parker doth not say he won the day, but as he answered their Arguments (as he saith) so he confesseth they answered his Arguments, and the thing is left to consideration. Yea a godly man of New-England told me that the Churches of New-England did conceive that Mr. Parker had received full satisfaction from them in that point. How ever it were, all amounts but to a private letter subscribed by one man, yet Imprimatur saith 1 C. as if much to the purpose. But look but a little afterward to our answer to a Letter from Zealand, and you shall find the judgement of New-England in Letters newly come over.  
To any private copies or Manuscripts from New-England, one Mr. Rutherford hath answered, as too much jumping with the Apology and opposite to Classical Presbytery. Another, if it had come forth, would have been keener against A. S. then the Apology is. So that if ●he apology do differ from that, it's only because the Apology more agrees with the reformed Churches of this Island. And for the third, it hath nothing at all for Classical Presbytery, but some things touching the ordering of congregational Presbyteries, and all these are but private intelligencers, and mutual advisers, not determination, or national No more then, I suppose, Mr. Cranford or A. S. will account the strange Queries on the Apology and Scotch Commissioners Reply, to be the sense of New-England, though made by one of that Country.  
As for the letter of Zealand, I cannot tell how to speak all the truth, & not offend some, whom by my will I would not in the least displease. Sure this will not offend to tell A. S. that in Holland, if not in Zealand, are some Churches that are fully with the five Ministers, unto which some of them do relate. And to speak these things to the Letter itself, being matters of fact, I hope cannot justly offend. 1. That that Letter came admirably punctual upon the very nick after the first reply to the Apology was out. 2. That a Scottish Knight (as it was informed) nine or ten days before it was known abroad, that the letter was to come, said, What if ye receive a Letter from Zealand, disliking the Apology? or to that effect. 3. That there is a Scottish Church (of which one Spang is a very busy agent) at Trevere hard by Middleborough, whence the letter came. 4. That there are in it many high passages seeming to some so prejudicial to our worthy Magistracy, that it justifies that of the Apology, saying, That the five Ministers, etc. give more to the Civil Magistrates, than the principles of some Presbyterians do. The said letter giving so too little to the Magistracy, that the State of England, I think, cannot approve it here among us. Verbum sapientisat est. More may be thought, upon evident grounds, but not spoken here. 5. Most happily by almost a miraculary providence, in this nick of time, came two letters from New-England to countermand Mr. Parker's Letter thence, and the other from Zealand.  
The first from Mr. Winthorp Governor of New England, To his reverend and very good brother, Mr. Hugh Peter's Minister of the Gospel, these deliver in London. Our late Assembly of about forty Elders met, wherein the way of our Churches was approved, and the Presbytery disallowed.  
Winthorp Governor. Decemb. 10. 1643.  
The second from another of New-England, to another Minister in Old-England about the same time, wherein we have these passages. We have had, saith he, a Synod lately in our College, wherein sundry things were agreed on gravely, as, That the votes of the people are needful in all admissions and excommunications, at least in way of consent; all yielding to act with their consent. 2. That those that are fit matter for a Church, though they are not always able to make large and particular relations of the work and doctrine of faith, yet must not live in the commission of any known sin, or the neglect of any known duty. 3. That consociation of Churches in way of more general meetings yearly, and more private monthly or quarterly, as Consultative Synods, are very comfortable and necessary for the peace and good of the Churches. 4. It was generally desired that the exercitium of the Church's power might only be in the Eldership in each particular Church, unless their sins be apparent in their work. 5. That Parishes, Churches in old England, could not be right without a renewed Covenant at least, and the refusers excluded. And were not New-England so fare, the Churches of New-England would soon send a third, punctually to approve the Apology, unless it be for their nearer compliance with them who notwithstanding have written against them.  
We have been the longer in answer to this clause, because we find A. S. to be but the Text of other men's Commentary-discourses; who say, That the five Ministers will oppose all the visible Christian Churches in the world. If they did, it were not such a wonder, as for one Wickliff in one age, one hus in another, and Luther in a third to oppose all the world.  
The truth is, all Churches generally, partly by tyranny, and partly by Security, are grown so corrupt, that to apologise for a through reformation, seems to reprove all, and so all are ready to be offended, that are less reform. We have heard of sad stories of late, but true, (not teld in a corner) of the lamentable overspreading of Popery, Atheism, drunkenness in some kingdoms, and adultery, formality, etc. in others. If we reform but in part, by halves, imitating Hen. 8. towards the Pope, cutting off the head of Prelacy, and sitting down in their Chair (similia non sunt contraria) as Mr Davenport meeting with a Classical Presbytery in his way to New-England, said they were but thirteen Bishops for one) the cry of the sin against our light and opportunity, will call back our reeling Reformation (like will hasten to like) an unblessed posture will leave us unhealed of our sins, and our sins will make us become any thing. Had not the Abbeys been pulled down, the Priories since had had opportunity to have risen. Therefore Moses grinds the Idol to powder, that it might be quite abolished. I speak all this by way of supposition, what shall upon full debate be found to be the Idol, the nest of Popery, the Chair of Prelacy, the half-reformation.  
Thus of your charging the five Ministers with dissenting from all Protestant Churches. The expression that follows, is a most gross one. That they differ from all Christian Churches. I say gross, in two things: 1. To call them Churches, and Christian, that are not Protestant (and ergo are Popish) now since the Council of Trent wherein they gave Christ a bill of divorce (as the learned assert) anathematising most of his main truths. The Popish (notwithstanding a few Saints in secret here and there) are in a dependence on Antichrist. 2. To charge it as a crime on the five Ministers to differ from them, when as it is a sin and shame not to descent from them. If you descent not from them, you will never kindly descent from the entitled Mo. R. A. BB. and Rt. Rev. BB. I observe that men in their Replies, secretly afore they are ware, 
☜  run to the Popish marks of a Church, viz. Visibility, Succession, Universality.  
A. S. You as myself are but men, yet ye know but in part, and consequently may err.  
M. S. Yet this one man thinks he hath more knowledge to his part, than the other five Ministers, or else sure he would not so boldly condemn them of erring, in a point which all the Assembly have not yet determined; and so peremptorily acquit himself.  
A. S. I thought this which is the question between you and all the Churches in the Christian world.  
M. S. This untruth comes thick upon us, that the Apol. differs from all the Christian world. It is intimated in the title. It is expressed in the very beginning of the Epistle, and here again, and once more in 3. pag. of the Epist. and once in Consid. 5. and how oft more in the book I do not yet know, till I find as I go. We have answered it once for all in the threshold of this Epistle.  
A. S. I esteemed it no less a part of my duty and Christian liberty, as a man to oppose myself to five men: then for five men to oppose five hundred thousand, etc.  
M. S. Hear ye, O all ye men on earth, that A. S. saith it is his Christian liberty to oppose the five Ministers: but the whole scope of his book is to rebuke them upon supposition that they do oppose others. whiles they tell them wherein they agree with them. One instance follows at the he●l of his Christian liberty; to which by and by. Mean while, Reader, observe how this man's words do smell popishly (though I think the man to be a real Protestant) as if they came from Rome, intimating as if visibility, universality, and so plurality of voices of learned men, might be an unerring, or very certain argument. He speaks as if he had forgot or never heard of Wickliff, many years after him hus, long after him Luther justly opposing the whole world, as we all religiously maintain at this day. And that one Paphnutius opposed a whole Council (mistaken in a point) which is upon record of History, to his great honour to this day.  
A. S. Five men to oppose so many learned men, so many holy Divines, hundreds, and thousands for one of you, no way inferior to the learnedest and best among you, and not only to particular men and Divines, but to so many; yea, and those the most pure, and most reformed Churches of the world, amongst whom there have been found so many thousands who have sealed Christ's truth with the loss of their goods, imprisonment of their bodies, by exile of their persons, yea with their dearest blood, and lives, who if they wrote not miracles, yet God declared his almighty power in working miracles about them, etc.  
M. S. Here we have in form (and I will not say how much more) a Popish argument, I will not say a mopish argument; I abhor flying on men instead of matter. To this I will speak, and then they that will be deceived, let them be deceived. First, you 
* Doctrines and practices prove men good, not men, doctrines and practices good  dub such a number of men and people Saints, most reformed, learned, no way inferior to the learnedst, and best among the five Ministers, as if you knew perfectly all men's spirits, men's lives in all places in the world, and the five Ministers parts, etc. intus & incute. Then secondly, as before you came, what R. Reverend and most Reverend (I desire to speak it no other way then with a Christian grief and anger against such Sophisms) so now you Cant to us as it were the Popish Prelatical Litany, and Te Deum, As if by the temptations and fastings, by the passions, by the deaths and burials of suffering Christians; The noble army of Martyrs praising the holy Church throughout all the world acknowledging, you would conjure us to yield any thing upon plurality of voices, or topic arguments, that may & are turned every way, and used by all sorts good and bad for their own ways.  
1. Men living in a notorious sin of gross usury, unjust enclosures, monopolising, etc. First, They will tell you of several Ministers, etc. very holy men; and then secondly, They will tell you that those Ministers do approve of those things.  
2. The Malignants now cry, that so many good Lords, so many Parliament men, most of two Kingdoms are for the King, Ergo, the King doth well; believe it who so will.  
The Papists proclaim, that they have plurality of voices, Martyrs, etc. Ergo, they are in the right.  
So the Prelacy tell us, that of Bishops were many Martyrs (to which Sm●ctymnuus answers) by them was composed the Liturgy, and they have a thousand for one of them, (so they had formerly) and most of the learned Doctors, etc. Scholars, Divines and Lawyers were for them, therefore they were in the right.  
Then some of our respected brethren of the reputed godly Non-Conformists come in a title of a Book thus, A most grave and modest Confutation 
A touch on W. R. his book, called The grave Consutation, etc.  of the errors of the sect commonly called (as W. R. saith) Brownists or Separatists (so his skill writes it for Separatists) agreed upon long since by the joint consent of sundry godly and learned Ministers of this Kingdom, then standing out and suffering in the cause of inconformity, and now published in a time of need 
* What now all, or the greatest part of them, come to our public meetings, and the Apol. disclaims Separation, and Brownism? unless you would drive them to corners again.  etc. against that pernitions evil. Published by W. R. As if their sufferings were a seal of the just length of reformation, how fare we must go, and no further. When as the most of them stood only upon the negative part, What they would not have, but only a few declared positively, of which some for a congregational presbytery or Churchway, be it, or be it not, a pernicious evil, as W. R. calls it. God forbidden, that if we have suffered for Christ, in the behalf of any piece of truth, that therefore we should pride up ourselves as having done so much; or stint ourselves from proceeding further in knowledge, or affright ourselves from suffering more, if more truths be to be contended for, as the Apostle speaks; or least of all through the sides of Brownism or Separation, to wound the truth & Saints of Jesus Christ, just in the nick of such reproachings cast upon them that disclaim in words and practise all pernicious Brownism, etc. It cannot be forgotten that the choicest doctrines held in England, have been called pernicious heresy. And therefore it is an high peremptoriness in a general title to call all those things pernicious evils, some of which are truths. We have, and do disclaim Separation and Brownism, properly so called.  
But if the Pope or the Devil 
* Mar. 1. 24.  confess Christ, we will not therefore call that truth, a pernicious evil. I suppose all that W. R. book sets forth in heads, and Chapters, as to be confuted, are some of those things he means are pernicious evils. As, 

1. That pag. 8. Many Parish-Churches are not rightly gathered.  
2. That p. 11. That they Communicate in a false and idolatrous worship, as stinted prayers, Homilies, Catechisms.  
3. That p. 17. They want that Discipline and order which Christ in his Testament hath appointed for the government of his Church.  
4. That p. 50. That it is objected against them, that the ignorant and profane multitude are admitted to all privileges of the Churches.    
Are these (we give but a taste) pernicious evils? Then you condemn Smectymnuus for writing, the Parliament and Assembly for removing and about to remove these exceptions; And most presbyterian Ministers in London for forbearing to give Communions to such multitudes. Mr. Calamy said that an imposed, Liturgy was idolatry. And our worthy brethren of Scotland justly stood up against these enormities. No wonder therefore if W. R. book abound with weaknesses and impertinencies; in stead of Confutation of such thing as these. For I patronage not any false or unadvised speeches of Barrow, or etc. there used.  
3. A. S. Saying, That the Apologists differ from the most reformed Churches in the world. Some of which he knows are in Holland, more in England, most in New-England, all public Churches, if he speaks not falsely, or ignorantly; yet begging the Question, whether the Churches named, or the Classical Presbyterian are most reform?  
To close our answer to this, tell us no more of your multitudes, the Lord keep us all from the broad way that leadeth to destruction, though many there be therein. One Phinees, one Elijah left alone in the eye of the world, two against thousands, viz. Caleb and Josuah in the truth are more to be honoured, than swarms of swarvers (I judge none.) The time is at hand, that ten men shall take hold of one Jew 
* Zech. 8. 23. , and so on one true christian. Godly men may be hunted out of a Kingdom, not of the truth, mean while such a Kingdom may be without them, but near the more without judgements. England was never quiet, but worse & worse, since it hunted away almost a little Nation of Saints to New-England, though W. R. joining issue with A. S. will follow them, with a blotting pen in print, even to that Kingdom too. Yea and take in his way many Churches in old England, and some that are and lately were in Holland, and then have at New-England, none comes amiss that have gone an inch in reformation beyond W. R. his non-conformity. Like him who would strike all that were next him, who e'er they were that injured him. And all this work he cuts out for himself in his book he calls a Narration of some Church courses in New-England.  
☞ O that all Readers that will not be wilfully blind, would by the way observe, how A. S. condemns the Apologists, as guilty of dissenting from the Churches in New-England. And W. R. condemns them for agreeing with the Churches of New-England. So that A. S. and W. R. do not agree between themselves. But you shall have an Answer to that book of W. R. in a distinct treatise by itself, ere long God permitting. Mean while we go forward with A. S.  
A. S. I am persuaded in my conscience, that your opinion of Independency, etc. if it were admitted (pardon my expression till I be better instructed) could not but prove the root of all sorts of Schism and Heresy, and consequently the utter overthrow of Christ's universal militant Church.  
M. S. If you speak cordially, as supposing indeed that you may be better instructed, it had been best for you to have stayed for the Assemblies determination, or to have conferred with some of them you writ against, before you had written and printed that desperate speech, lest the ink seem letters of blood to you at your dying pillow. I warrant you, if what one, or many say only, would make an argument, a multitude would say, that a coactive classical Presbytery would be the root of couched Prelacy, and Ecclesiastical tyranny. But I will not be one of them to say so. Probatum est; in New-England, that which you call Independency, hath not procured, but cured, or purged out heresies, schisms, formality, profaneness, more than some other Kingdoms that so hate and hit at miscalled Independency.  
A. S. You sue for a Toleration, and consequently for a Separation.  
M. S. So then, where Papists are tolerated, there they are Separatists too. It's but the Noun of multitude between, but that the Independents in England might tolerate, and the Presbyterians might be tolerated, would they then be Separatists? Who desires separation? but rather union in the truth. If any hold the truth, and stumble, though of weakness, at some smaller matters, (as you count them) it is your duty to suffer them, and to bear with the weak, and not offend the consciences of Brethrens; or God's woe is by him pronounced against you.  
A. S. I may add to all these, your undervaluing of the Parliaments great favour towards you. For ye know, brethren, how they, notwithstanding your former separation from all other Churches, etc. invited you to be members of this Assembly, had they not given you the capacity, ye had been altogether incapable. And not only that, but they honoured one of you with the high favour of sending one of you with their Commissioners to Scotland.  
M. S. O abominable accusation, O sycophantising insinuation! Who art. A. S. Cujas. Can an Englishman, unjesuited, or any Minister unprelatised, or any man honestised, say thus? I am distressed how to put home to this, and yet prudently. I tell thee, A. S. Thy accusation is a gross falsehood. For their respect to the Parliament, and their respect from the Parliament, let many of the choice members of both Houses speak, they will soon prove thee a gross—. Thy probation a silly fantasy. Did ever any Vote of the Parliament, or of the Assembly, accuse the Apology of undervaluing the Parliaments favours? None but he that hath A. S. as part of his name, would say so. For all discreet men see plainly, that as the form and stile of the Apology is most sweet; so the matter now in hand so much as is there intimated, is the Question. Can that be an offence to the Parliament, for the five Ministers to propound that of the things they are to debate (by Ordinance of Parliament) which is to them the question, making it ready, and leaving it for debate in the Assembly? Yea, whether the whole draught of the Apology be to be condemned or commended by the Parliament, that is also a question yet unresolved, by Parliament, Assembly, and a considerable part of City and Kingdom. Therefore why doth one A. S. presumptuously make it a crime against the Parliament? Since the thrice worthy Parliament had it in debate in the House, being put on 
March. 13. 1643.  by the Letters from Middleborough in Zealand, and upon the speech of learned Mr. Selden, and others, they resolved with a general acclamation, that the Apology was to be left as it was found, unblamed. The God of heaven in much mercy bless the Parliament, as for all the good they have done, so for their uprightness therein, They joy of the Churches is now as high as their sorrows would have been deep, had it been condemned. For it would to them have been not only a doleful ante, or anti, but-anticipating-presage. But blessed be our Parliament-guiding God; that as they had no hand in the Apology, so they would have no hand against it. Therefore away A. S. Operam & oleum perdidisti (as the Starling said to the Emperor, having saluted him in vain with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) you have lost your labour. The Parliament despise sycophantising colloguing; (Are you as wise as that Bird to see that, it said?) And on the other side they do not repent of what honour they conferred on Mr. Nye, and through him on his brethren of the same 
For the Parliament in wisdom chose some Episcopal men to be of the Assembly, to plead their own cause if they could. Some of which since cast out themselves, and others were cast out.  judgement. They could not but think (what ever you dream) but that the five Ministers were in as near a capacity to be of the Assembly, etc. being native Englishmen, and against Episcopacy, as either those of other Nations, or those of our own, in judgement holding for Episcopacy; and standing for the just and lawful authority of Magistracy as either.  
A. S. The Apol. Narration containing (how ever you name it) a singular desire of separation from them, that so cherish you, with some unworthy nicknames put upon them, who style you by no worse names than Brethren.  
M. S. What ever names A. S. puts upon this his Book, as Annot. Consid. Notes sure enough (Nigro carbone notandus. Hic Niger est, hunc tu Romane caveto,) it is not candid, but holds forth A. S. his singular desire of making division, if he could, either between the Parliament and the Brethren, or between them and our dearest brethren of Scotland, if M. S. do rightly divine what he means by them. God and man hates this thy design (O A. S.) Six things the Lord bats, yea, seven are abomination to him: A proud look, a lying tongue, an heart that deviseth wicked 
Prov. 6. 16.  imaginations, a false witness, that speaketh lies, him that soweth discord among brethren, etc. (for I have named enough for A. S. to make his choice.) And I am informed, that the worthy Commissioners of Scotland (nobly done) do utterly dislike A. S. his Book. From whom we have far more evident and effectual symptoms of their cordial love, then ●he word Brethren. Which with A. S. in his Book is nothing but Complemental dissimulation; For his Epistle gins, as it were, with kissing, viz. Right reverend and dear Brethren. And his book is biting. So that as he useth the word Brethren, it is much to the same sense, as a parasitical Minister being to preach an odd fellows funeral, did use the words of that deceased man's Will, viz. In the name of God, Amen: (this story is proper for A. S. if he hath any skill in the law, for I cannot yet be certain what he is:) saith the Priest (being put to it for matter for his Trental Panegyric) See the devotion of this deceased brother; he gins his Will, with In the name of God, Amen. A silly Goose; for it's as common for all good and bad to begin their Wills so (as A. S. knows if a Lawyer) as for A. S. to call Brethren, and to bawl forth reviling all along his book.  
As for the Nicknames A. S. chargeth upon the five Ministers, with which they should nickname, I know not whom, he names them not; which makes me think, he hath no skill in Law. He knows that Dolus latet in universalibus, or to use his own words, p. 47. Sermons generales non movent, we cannot answer to generals; nor can he find them in the Apology. What a Pharisee may fantasy, that will not have men's defects intimated as they stand in the crowd of all Christendom, I am sure the worthy Commissioners piously confess their Churches may be yet further reform; and what religious men will not sigh forth the same, touching their own native Countries?  
A. S. What else have ye done, but erected one Assembly in the Assembly, by private authority against public; taking private resolutions against public?  
M. S. O gross! yet he will follow Machiavels counsel that said, Calumniare audacter, aliquid adhaerebit, If men must not speak, writ, or preach any thing that may relate to something in debate in the Assembly, then, (as it was excellently spoken in Parliament,) Ministers may write and say nothing at all. Divers print and preach for the Presbytery, yet of the Assembly. Are they all a private particular Assembly?  
A. S. Sundry reasons made me to suspect, that ye would say more than ye say.  
M. S. And what then? Did you think by this your Reply, to hush them? No readier way to make them or their friends to say more then either they intended, or you would willingly hear. Yet confess one truth; That there hath been two replies to them already, yet they have printed no reply (that we know of) for that you mean (I suppose) by saying more. Else, God forbidden, but they should speak, and speak in the Assembly too; though one said, He had much ado to forbear moving to have one of them to be cast out of the Assembly, for propounding his Reason to the Question, to which he was called by order of Parliament.  
But for you, A. S. you would make a stone speak (as they say.) If you believe not the Poet, Si natura negat, facit indignatio versum; yet believe the Scripture: Oppression would make a wise man mad. 
Eccles. 7. 7. M. R.   
But let me tell you now of one that is of your judgement for the Presbytery, but by far a more solid and discreet man then yourself, that said, There was this good by the Apology, that therein the five Ministers had wrapped up themselves, that they could not say more in substance oftener then was therein expressed. Nor could they recede from that compliance with you they had therein professed. So you see you Presbyterians may differ among yourselves, no wonder therefore, if from the five Ministers.  
A. S. I love you all from my heart.  
M. S. Good Reader, compare this man's book with his heart. And good Writer, (if I do not miscall thee) judge whether in your book you act the part of a loving Physician, were your potion never so cordial, in that you administer it scalding hot, though you flatter till it's poured down the throat.  
A. S. The will is but a blind faculty.  
M. S. Now, where is your Philosophy? Is there an unreasonable faculty in the reasonable soul, that hath no light but by participation? This is news to considerate Philosophers, that do not take things upon trust, by tradition, of speculative untried principles.  
A. S. My main aim hath been, God's glory, and the edification of weak brethren, who may have been misled by your most learned Discourse.  
M. S. Yet this man in his 1 Annot. pag. 4. saith, It comes very short, is weak and slender, and no way satisfactory. The man makes nothing of contradictions, upon contradictions; for even here also is a contradiction or two more. Are the five Ministers discourse most learned, and yet error too, as you said in the beginning of your Epistle? And are they most learned, and yet less learned than you?  
But indeed (saith one) He makes a great noise of learning in his book, rattling his Sophistry-terms, so that though he hath failed in his Divinity, Physic, and Philosophy hitherto, yet he will make us know that he is a notable Logician; or he will make our ears ring with unenglished Ergoes, with A genere ad speciem affirmatiuè, with A posse ad esse non valet consequentia; Non possibile est esse, possibile est non esse, totum, totaliter, materialiter, 
Page of his book, 53, 54.  dispositiuè; with his modifications, assumptions, etc. and multitudes of such lumber to the weak brethren. O, said one, that some body would earnestly entreat him to speak seriously, whether he thinks in his conscience this to be his direct way to that end he here professeth, namely, to edify weak Brethren? Alas, such things to them, if Englished, are but gibberish, and as charms.  
A. S. Esteeming that during the rest of my pilgrimage, which cannot be long, having no other thing to do, I shall do well to do this.  
M. S. I'll tell you what one said to this. Would God he had rather no patiented, than he should have no patience, than the Church should be his patient (seeing he hath no more skill in her grief;) that he had no client, then that he should be a treacherous Advocate; that he would rather do nothing, then evil. For it is a sad thing, said he, that good men near their end should write some sorry piece, to be a monument of their declining in their last days, and of their disgrace before they are buried. As a worthy man a little afore his death, wrote in defence of ceremonies, for which formerly he had suffered. A warning to A. S. and all good men, that their good works should be more at last, and so to leave that character to the hypocrites, as one observes, to live smoothly, towards his end to do sorily, and then to die suddenly.   

A. S. HIS CONSIDERATIONS.  
M. S. Truly called Interrogatories which A. S. puts to the five Ministers, as if he were already gotten into the Chair, etc.  
A. S. His first Consideration. Whether in any Ecclesiastical or Politic Assembly of the Christian world, wherein things are carried by plurality of voices, it be ordinary for any inconsiderable number thereof to join in a particular combination among themselves, and therein to take particular resolutions?  
M. S. We have heard of some Parliaments in Europe, that the House of Peers is so constitute, that if a vote pass where sums consciences amongst them cannot yield to, they may modestly enter in the House their dissent from it. But whether this be so or not, the five Ministers did not take particular resolutions and publish them in print, to cross the proceed and Disputes of the Assembly; or state a question yet unresolved by the Assembly, but only told the Kingdom de facto, what they had held and practised, and therefore in the Apology speak in the past time, with some very few and short touches upon what ground.  
Wherein they declare themselves to close nearer with the Assembly, were they all Presbyterian (as we know the contrary) then thousands ever thought they would.  
And withal they do profess themselves so unwedded to their former 
See Apol. p 10. It is their second golden rule by which they walked.  practices, and so far from overweening their present judgements, that upon discovery of more light, they are most willing to open their eyes upon it, and let it in. And therefore you A. S. have done very ill, to discourage them as much as in you is, from that sweetness of spirit, that hath appeared in all their writings and carriages.  
But our main answer to this your Consideration (which makes it a gross inconsideration, if not untrurh) is this, That the Assembly of themselves are not to conclude things by a mere plurality of votes, if you dare bele●ve t●e Ordinance of Parliament, whose words are, To confer and treat amongst themselves of such matters and things touching and concerning the Liturgy, Discipline, and Government of the Church of England, or the vindication 
Ordin. for the calling of the Assembly. Page. 4. 5.  and clearing of the doctrine of the same, from all false aspersions, and misconstructions, as shall be proposed unto them, by both or either of the said Houses of Parliament, and no other, and to deliver their opinions and advices of our touching the matters aforesaid, as shall be most agreeable to the word of God, to both or either of the said Houses from time to time, in such manner and sort, as by both or either of the said Houses of Parliament shall be required. And in case of difference of opinion among the said Divines, they shall present the same, together with their reasons thereof, to the Houses of Parliament.  
Which words, besides confutation of your plurality of voices, do more than allow so much as is done in the Apologetical Narration, that being but a narration of past things.  
A. S. his second Consideration, Whether in taking such resolutions, they should not consequently resolve themselves to quit the Assembly, and to appear as parties.  
M. S. The antecedent was denied before on the first Consideration: therefore the consequence is destroyed. And for the consequence or Proposition itself, of the five Ministers quitting the Assembly, and to appear as parties, for setting forth the Apology; I utterly dislike your motion, as striking at the worthy Commissioners of Scotland, as if they likewise should quit the Assembly for replying to the Apology. Men of a far better spirit than you are. And though they be somewhat engaged in a settled Presbytery, yet carry themselves more sagely and moderately, than many of our own men; an honour for them, and a shame for us.  
A. S. His fourth Consideration (and for the third vanisheth upon our answer to the first and second) Whether this Apologetical Narration was necessary, when ye found the calumnies, mistakes, misapprehensions of your opinions, and mists that had gathered about you, or were rather cast upon your persons in your absence, begin by your presence again, and the blessing of God upon you, to scatter and vanish, without speaking a word for yourselves and cause?  
M. S. Yea it was: For look but to the next full period afore; and you shall find that this you repeat as touching that scattering and vanishing of mists, doth but relate to the people, and only to some of them, viz. Those that profess or pretend the power of godliness. These men's serene spirits only were the beams that began to scatter the mists. And therefore the Apologists speak distinctly and punctually (and not indefinitely as you) in the words you seem to quote; viz. they say that they found many (mark) many of those mists, not all; and did but begin to scatter, as you yourself repeat. The Apologists say, They did but begin to scatter. For in the apprehension of the Apologists, their motion was like the lowrings of an inconstant morning, the mists ascend, and anon descend, and by and by ascend, and turn into a Scottish-mist, as the Englist Proverb is, That will wet an Englishman to the skin. The mist went up by the hills; but (as the other Proverb is) down by the Mills, they turned into rain. What mean else those words of the 
Apo. pag. 1  Apology; Our ears have been so filled with a sudden and unexpected noise of confused exclamations, in the interpretation of most reflecting on us, that awakened thereby, we are enforced to anticipate a little that discovery of ourselves, which we otherwise resolved to have left to time.  
And those words of the Apology: Whereas your silence upon all the forementioned 
Apol. p. 27.  grounds, hath been by the ill interpretation of some, imputed either to our consciousness of the badness and weakness of our cause, or to our inability to maintain what we assert in difference from others, etc.  
And those words of the Apology; Since the change of times from our exile, 
Apol. p. 31.  we have endured that which to our spirits is no less grievous; the opposition and reproach of good men, even to the threatening of another banishment. No doubt but the Apologisers know what they say, and what they can say, if called to speak out. Besides, if the people had let them alone, should seem some Ministers would not. O, it was an unhappy Anticipation (O, if the will of God had been to have prevented it) that in the very nick, before the Assembly met, that two Books should forestall the Market, the one penned by a learned Scot, and the other by a learned Englishman, that set the tongues of men so a wame.  
First, to vomit out upon the five Ministers Tenet, and next to asperse their persons, before the Assembly had made one Syllogism, Hinc illae lachrymae. Hence the Apology (poor meek thing) was forced to speak; and thereupon A. S. so fiercly breathed (I had almost said brayed) out against it so many bitter words.  
A. S. tells us in this his 4th Consideration, of the honour the Parliament shown the Apologists, in calling them to be members of the Assembly, which was enough to justify their persons from all aspersions, without any Apology.  
M. S. To this we answer; That they and their friends will ever acknowledge the Honourable Parliaments great respect to them. And so much the more, in these times wherein great A. S. and little, etc. do so labour to render them odious. But I think I should not cross the sense of the Parliament if I should not make it an universal major proposition: That all whom the Honourable Parliament shall call to be members of the Assembly, are ipso facto vindicated from all aspersions; and so to conclude, that all Episcopal Prelatical men that in life and practice have been— if they should be called to be of the Assembly, were eo nomine vindicated from all aspersions. I am sure de facto that some very learned men were called by the sweet indulgence of the honourable Parliament for the common good to be Members of the grave Assembly, who since upon better knowledge of them, are by the Parliament purged out of the Assembly (a good rid, the Assembly is the better for their absence) and some are at Oxford, see how terse they be; and some in prison, see how their membership of the Assembly have vindicated them. Be sure of it, that the choice of men for the Assembly was to find men good, not to make them so. And two worthy Parliament men of a County may not know at first all the faults in every Town, or the lint on every black coat. And therefore since that, the worthy Parliament hath well brushed some.  
If the Parliament put never so much honour upon the five Ministers in calling them to the Assembly; yet since many have aspersed them, or some laboured how to make them odious to Kingdoms and Nations, and who but the order of A. S. mainly instigating? And therefore this fully answers to your last Quere in your fourth Consideration. Whether this Apology was necessary after the first cloud was near over? every night must be cleared by a new rise of the Sun.  
A. S. his 5th Consideration, saith, That the five Ministers do blame all Protestant Churches as not having the power of godliness, and the profession thereof, with difference from carnal and formal Christians, advanced and held forth among them as among you, which is commonly thought to be particularly intended against the Scots.  
M. S. Sure it is no otherwise commonly thought to be particularly intended against the Scots; and generally to blame all Protestant Churches, then in or by your common sense deriving species, vain seem to your fantasy, from your outward senses an evil eye ill affected. For the Apology calls our dear brethren the Scots, the more reformed Churches. And for the words all, and among you, whereby you would present them setting themselves as an opposite member of distinction to all Protestant Churches, and blaming them all as undistinguished from carnal and formal Christians, in comparison of them and their five Churches; the words all and you, are forged and foisted in by yourself, and so must go for very falsehoods charged upon them. The words of the Apology are, 1. That 
Apol. p. 4.  they, and many others had but observed touching the non-advance of the power of godliness, etc. among some, what themselves had generally acknowledged. The five Ministers do not charge it, but repeat it as confessed by themselves. 2. It is not said it was confessed, and they observed there was no power of godliness, but i● was not advanced. 3. Nor is it said it was not advanced, but not advanced as in this our Island. This Island being a common phrase, yea, and your phrase too in the title of your Book, to signify Scotland and England both.  
And then where is that particular intendment against Scotland; or the five Ministers laying their Churches in the balance against other Churches?  
Fourthly and lastly, they speak but indefinitely in a contingent matter, and therefore can be construed but of some particulars; and therefore did not aim at all. You know how highly they esteem of New-England, and therefore that is not excluded from the advance of the power of godliness, as in this Island of great Britain English and Scots are included. However, as no man that is a knowing man either by hearsay or travel over the next Sea, will accuse Scotland as most carnal and formal (it were well for the world if in that, etc. others had not fare exceeded them) so none of us, except Pharisees, will excuse our Nations of remissness in advancing the power of godliness in apparent view above carnality and formality.  
You see by our answer to the Apology, that not that Apology but your will caused you to speak that which is not by wise men once to be mentioned at this time, as if the Apologists intended to say any the least thing to grieve our brethren the Scots.  
A. S. his seventh Consideration (for the sixth is nonsense, unless we put the interrogatory point at Anabaptists, and so A. S. to take unto him and them, he ranks himself with all, calling them us, I say, to take to him and them the Brownists and Anabaptists to be of his party. Reader, view his sixth Consideration, whether you can make sense of it, I cannot, nor any thing of consequence; therefore answer not unto it) his seventh Consideration, I say, interrogates thus: Many are desirous to know whether this Apologetical Narration published by you five alone, be in the name of your five alone, or of all those also, or apart of those whom ye pretend to hold your tenets: if in the name of you five only, whether ye five can arrogate a power unto you selves to maintain these tenets as the constant opinion of all your Churches; having no general confession of their faith thereabouts. If in the name of all the rest, we desire you would show your Commission from all your Churches, etc.  
M. S. Good Reader do but turn about these interrogatories, and put them to A. S. and put A. S. in stead of the five Ministers, and you may kill Goliath with his own sword; if five Ministers have arrogated in the Apol. one A. S. much more in his Reply. If A. S. doth not like the conversion; we answer positively.  
1. It's no arrogating for any Christian upon just occasion to make his confession of faith.  
2. The confession of faith in doctrine that is in all the best reformed Churches is theirs; For one touching pure Discipline, it was not found in Scotland whiles the tyranny of the Bishops prevailed. Whiles things are in fieri, a wise man will not expect them in facto esse. Faith may be when confession dares not appear. A. S. is angry with that confession of faith in the Apology, and hath opened the mouths of many others (as we hear) ready to bark too at it, they do but stay their turns, why then doth he call for more confession?  
3. The godly learned Fathers, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, etc. produced no authority from men to Apologise for the truth; the Scripture they Apologized for, bore them out.  
4. The Parliament allow the five Ministers more, viz. to show their reasons; therefore the less, to show their opinion.  
5. A thousand and a thousand good Christians were glad to hear how the five Ministers dissented from the rigid Separation, and closed with the best reformed Churches (the sole business of the Apology in effect) and thought that no good Protestants would have been sorry for them.  
A. S. His eight Consid. interrogates the five Ministers thus; Whether ye desire a toleration for you five alone in your (mark your) Religion, for all the rest? Item, if a toleration in public, in erecting of Churches apart? or to live quietly without troubling of the State? As for the last, appearingly ye may have it unsought. But for the rest, the Parliament is wise enough, and knoweth what is convenient for the Church of God.  
M. S. An Apology for the Apologists Churchway. Toleration, properly so called, is (saith learned Capel) of things unlawful: His words are, The Law I know permitted usury to the Jews, to the stranger, what of that? It follows the rather, yet it is of itself a sin, because permission is of sins, not of duties. Cap. Tempt. of Usury. We are not, friend A. S. come to that yet. To yield the one, or beg the other. We challenge it as your duty that are Protestants, to allow us our liberty that are Protestants, and hold with you, in Doctrine and Discipline, also in substance; the difference being an accident. 1. The quantity; you would have it extended to Colloquies, provincial Classes, etc. over every Church, which appears not in Scripture, either name or thing. We would have it bounded within every particular Church made up to competent hundreds, with a sufficiency of Church Officers for parts and number. And 2. Necessity of constraint, for in appeals you would cite and constrain men to appear before the said Colloquies & Classes, etc. For which there is not the least in the Scriptures; we would have a free voluntary recourse out of conscience to the brotherly advice of neighbour Churches, or a Synod, dogmatically to declare Christ's mind unto us, and in case of refusal to submit to their judgement, having no ground in Scripture to refuse; the Advising Churches to renounce communion with the offending Church; and the particular Church to pronounce excommunication against their offending brother. So that the difference is not in ente, sed modo: not in the thing, but the manner rather. We say therefore, it is your duty to give us our own, our liberty, as much (if not more) as we to let you alone, whiles both parties avouch that they are unconvinced as yet, of a possibility of a nearer agreement. We know not of the least clause of a sentence, or piece of an example in all the Scriptures, for any to constrain men's consciences by outward violence, positively to act contrary to their principles conscientiously held, or for any to yield thereunto. We have many passages to the contrary in Scripture.  
The Amorites gently entreated Abraham and his family, and were confederate with them, Gen. 14. 13. So did the Philistines, or men of Gerar, Gen. 20. And before both, the Egyptians, Gen. 12. 19 So did the men of Gerar deal with Isaac, Gen. 26. The Sechemites said they would kindly entreat Jacob and his sons, because they were peaceable, Gen. 34. 20, etc. The Egyptians appoint Goshen for the Israelites, to dwell peaceably in the midst of Egypt. The Chaldeans or Babylonians at length allow the Jews the liberty of their religion, with all accommodations thereunto, Nehem. and Ezra throughout. Compare 2 Chron. 36. The Romans likewise bare with the Jews, and their Judaisme for many years both before and after Christ's time. How much more therefore should Protestants bear with Protestants, who have spent their estates and blood in winning their joint liberty from the common enemy, Atheists, Papists, Neuters, Prelates, etc. Christ's rule is to win men by instruction, and not to force men with destruction in matters of religion, Matth. 10. 14, 15. & v. 27, 28. Luke 9 54. 1 Cor. 7. 23. 2 Tim. 2. 24, 25. & 2 Tim. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. with infinite more places. Nor do we find in Scripture persecution to be raised by the jewish Church against Religion, but only when the divinely instituted ceremonies, which had got such esteem in the jews hearts, were about to be taken down by the preaching of the liberty of the Gospel, and a spiritual worship, unknown as yet to the whole world. For in the jewish Church before, and in Christ and the Apostles times, 1. were the Sadduces, Matth. 16. 1. who denied the resurrection, Angels and Spirits, Acts 23. 8. 2. The Pharisees, Matth. 23. who (though they confessed those) held Fate, , and humane Traditions. 
See joseph. lib. 3. and Chem. in exam. Conc. Trident. part. p. 20. on 1 Tim. 5. 23. 1 Tim. 4. 3. Coloss. 2.  3. The Assideans, Chasidim, or Good men, Rom. 5. 7. (which Assideans mentioned in the Apocrypha, 1 Maccab. 7. 13. are translated by Joseph, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Good men, lib: 12. cap. 16.) who studied to add to the Scriptures, and professed to be holy above the law. 4. The Essenes', who held it unlawful to drink wine, forbade marriage, and commanded those dogmata, (therefore Coloss. 2. the Apostle useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being the Esseans words) Touch not, taste not, handle not; because the junior Esseans might not touch the Elders or Seniors, nor might taste, save only bread, salt, water, and hyssop. 5. The Pythagoreans, who held that the soul of the last departed, risen in the body of the next that was born. Herod seems to be of this opinion, Mat. 14. 1, 2. See the Geneva notes on that place; yet we find no public persecution raised by the Jewish Church against these, or of these one against another. So in the Church of Corinth were divers odd, and some dangerous opinions, as doubting of the resurrection to come, conceiving it to be passed already, yet no persecution moved against them. So in the Church of Galatia, so in the 7. Churches of Asia. The Churches force not them that are without, by persecution, but are rebuked for not excommunicating, or neglect of convincing and reproving them that are within. For later times, if the Turks allow Christians that are peaceable, the liberty of their conscience, both Greeks, English, etc. and the Spaniards, Germans, etc. permit the Jews; no wonder if the Low-countrey-men permit several opinions of Protestants among them. We are worse than the Indians, if we should not deal kindly with orthodox Christians.  
We justly abhor the ten persecutions, against the injustice whereof Aristides, Justinus, Mileto Sardensis, Apollinaris, Athenagoras, Tertullianus, and others wrote Apologies in behalf of Christian religion. And we justly abhor the Spanish inquisition, the English Marian persecutions, and the Bishop's high Commission; against all which many worthy men have writ learnedly. And we have seen the event of endeavouring to force conscience in matter of opinion or worship. On the one side, in England it made many thousands of hypocrites, Church-papists, time-servers, etc. And on the other side, in Holland and Scotland it justly caused State-insurrections; and for the same reason we also are legally now up in arms to obtain assurance that we shall have the liberty of conscience and law.  
I speak not this as if on the one hand I did now charge this upon the intentions of the State, God forbidden. His meliora spear. But only I seasonably answer A. S. and prevent what I can any's turning A. Ssians in their opinions or instigations. I hope it shall never be known in the world, that ever any persecuted the miscalled - Separatists or Independents, that are sound in opinion, pure in discipline, and holy in practice, save only Papists and Prelatical men. These were the first, and I hope shall be the last that ever persecuted the Saints of the most high. Nor on the other hand do I speak this as to intimate that I a prove a toleration of the broaching of all opinions, or any toleration of some practices.  
1. The least venting of any opinion against fundamentals; as Judaisme, denying Christ to be the true M●ssi●s; Arrianisme and Socinianism, opposing the Deity of Jesus Christ; Arminianism, that questions the person of the Holy Ghost: Papism, holding Justification by works; or that Anabaptism that denies the derivation of Adam's original corruption to us, and the power of Christ's grace to be conveyed to us without any spiritual power of our free will, (falsely supposed to be in us) or of the like opinions, aught to be suppressed by due proportion, to that rule That no man, or Prophet, etc. might entice his kindred, friend, or neighbour to Idolatry, on pain of death, Deut. 13. 1. to 12. much less is the practice of Idolatry or any impiety by proportion to the prohibition of blasphemy on pain of death, Levit. 24. 11. to be tolerated. Yet to prevent Idolatry, the sword may be taken up, Josh. 22. 11. Negatively, the outward act, either of speaking such evil opinions, or doing such evil facts, may be restrained, and yet no violence done to the conscience to act contrary to its inward dictates and persuasion, being not yet convinced they are evil. This being only a suspension and intermission of the outward man from acting towards others, not a coaction or subversion of the inward acts of judgement and understanding in himself. And so Jew's, or &c. may be permitted among Christians; so as they do not manifest their errors and defiance against the fundamental truths; that so they may hear, and believe, and be converted, or how else shall they be won to the truth; and the promise of God fulfilled touching their call?  
2. The spreading and practising of opinions that apparently tend to Libertine-licencious ungodliness, ought not quietly to be permitted. They cannot be suffered, but with sin and reproof from Christ to the sufferers of them, Rev. 2. v. 14. to v. 21. where two Churches, viz. Pergamos, and Thyatir●, are charged with sin, and reproved by Christ for having among them and suffering Balaamines, Nicolaitans, and Jezabellians to vent such opinions, viz. 1. That under pretence of liberty and charity, wives were to be common. 2. Under pretence of avoiding scandals and perils, it was lawful for Christians to be present at the the sacred things, Idolatries and jovial banquet of Pagans, as 
Vide Port. in 2 Revel  things indifferent. These in the Churches ought to have been excommunicated (if refractory) out of the Churches. These, not of any Church (if they will not be convinced by conference with the Churches) ought to be restrained from their evil practices by the Magistrate, according to the examples of the pious Kings reforming abuses, upon the ground of Moses penning of politic laws to punish them that could not be accounted me●t members of a Church, for their lewd lives.  
3. For those opinions that are neither against fundamentals, nor tend to licentiousness; but strive to beat out truths, thereby to creep closer to the rule, to walk more evenly, in the path, both of Doctrine and Discipline; and will in both by a strict bond amongst themselves walk as exactly as by any power Ecclesiastical without them, set above them a (their own will shall be in stead of others laws) I say, such opinions are not to be restrained, either from all divulging or practising, that we can find by any Scripture. We wave the question now; Which is the only true form of Discipline? and put the case in general, What opinions and practices that are conscientiously taken up aught to be left unrestrained? To which our answer is, that this sort here are they; or else how shall there be a trying all things, a trying of the spirits, a discovery of new light and present truths prophesied to be revealed in their several periods of times? If any be contrary-minded, we shall be glad to hear their grounds; till they produce those, and make them clear to the Churches, we ask our due, a quiet permission to enjoy that liberty which Christ hath bought, and the Gospel brought; and not to be jeered by any A. S. as here; who tells the five Ministers that to live quietly without troubling the State, they may have it appearingly unsought. Let the world judge, whether here be not a saucy jeer, both in matter and form of speech. I would A. S. had made use of that toleration, and then he had not so intolerably troubled a Kingdom. Or else if he had no stomach at first to be quiet, if for some days he had but had somewhat appearingly allowed him to by't upon, somewhat appearingly to quench his thirst, he would have had a stomach rather to eat and drink, then by't and jeer. He is so passionate, that he doth not remember what he says in one page, so as it may be reconciled to another. Here he saith, the Parliament is wise enough, and knoweth what is convenient for the Church of God: (you may perceive his meaning by reading his Interrogatory) yet in his Annotation upon the inscript of the Apology, pag. 5. He supposeth that the Parliament should arrogate, if it should take upon it any directive power in matters of Religion. If he hath any Scholastic quillet to reconcile this within himself, it is more than the common people and weak brethren he writes to know of.  
M. S. Note that A. S. bath one Consideration more; But were it not that it it did answer itself, I should have been too weary of his former inconsiderate considerations to have stayed here, being eager to come to his book.  
1. He saith, that they aim at separation (he means the five Ministers, though they disclaim it in their Apology, unless to separate as our brethren the Scots did from Prelatical coaction) should tolerate some small pretended defects (they are but pretended) yet he saith not approved by those from whom they desire to separate.  
2. He saith, the Church (from which the five Ministers would separate) testifies a great desire to reform defects, yet those defects, saith he, are but pretended to be in it.  
3. He thinks that the five Ministers should do better to stay in the Church, to reform abuses, then by separation to let the Church perish in abuses. Now he supposeth, destroying abuses; and would have the five Ministers stay to help reform; yet he is angry with their Apology, that doth but sigh forth an intimation of need of reformation. And so angry that he would (as ye heard in his second consideration, it's so long since that he hath forgotten it) have the five Ministers quit the Assembly.   

A. S. his Annotations upon the inscription of the Apologists Narration.  
M. S. If I thought A. S. had any skill in Physic, I would ask him whether by Annotations, he means, as the Physicians speak, Annotationes incompressas, becticarum febrium indicia, violent annotations are signs of an hectic fever in his vital parts.  
A. S. All Apologies suppose some accusation, which here appears none.  
M. S. Not to meddle with your English, which is scarce grammatical, you are entreated to speak true. Doth not the Apology begin and end with sad complaints? Remember our answer to your fourth Consideration.  
A. S. If intended for an Answer to that which hath been written against your opinions, it comes very short, weak, and slender.  
M. S. Why then would you fight with a fly? The Mouse told the Elephant, that he would never get honour in killing a silly Mouse. Why did you bestow so much Oratory and Logic, to clap it and fisticuffe it?  
A. S. Neither is it a mere Apologetical Narration, but also a grievous accusation against all our Churches, as destitute of the power of godliness.  
M. S. This indeed is a false accusation, as we have cleared it in our Answer to your fift Consideration.  
A. S. The Apology saith, humbly submitted etc. So humbly submitted to the honourable Houses of Parliament, as if they submit not themselves to your desires, etc. for any thing I can see, ye seem no ways minded to submit yourselves to theirs.  
M. S. I am sorry your eyes should be so dim, or yourself so to dote. All indifferent men can see in the Apology abundance of propensity to submit to them according to truth; fare more than there is in one A. S. to submit to five Ministers, whose holiness you admire, and whose learning you extol.  
A. S. You being Divines, ye should rather first have consulted with the Assembly of Divines, your brethren, than so ex abrupto gone to the Civil Magistrate, that arrogates not to himself any directive power in matters of Religion, this is more convenient to the spirit and power of godliness, that the spirit of the Prophets in such matters should be subject to the Prophets, then unto the spirit of the Civil Magistrate.  
M. S. Mark how this fellow A. S. 1. supposeth it arrogancy in the Parliament to have any directive power in matters of Religion, in case the Assembly (which God forbidden) should mistake. Surely by this bold expression he would not have the Parliament judge of the reasons of the Assembly in case of dissent. Lest of all doth A. S. consider that the Parliament are Members of many excellent Churches; That they laid down the Common Prayer book in their houses before some Presbyterians could see reason to do so. That the Parliament so looked on the Assembly chosen by them, as not to take things merely upon trust, but see with their own eyes.  
2. He dreamingly supposeth that either our Assembly is like the Assembly of Scotland for breadth and strength; or else he takes them for a Church, and in the act of prophesying; which last I wonder A. S. being a rank Presbyterian should in the least allow of, and call the five Ministers to the rule thereof.  
3. A. S. supposeth that it is less convenient to the power of godliness for the wronged five Ministers to appeal to the Civil Magistrate in Parliament.  
4. A. S. supposeth, that because the Parliament have chosen the Assembly, that therefore some men in some cases at least, should wave the Parliament, and go to the Assembly. This is A. S. his fine intimation prompted to all scandalous and false teaching erroneous Ministers, to take up and learn, in their cases relating to Religion, to wave the Parliament, and to go to the Assembly.  
5. A. S. supposeth that the Assembly would be so unwise (see what a silly fellow A. S. is) as to go beyond their Ordinance, to judge one another. When as they will take upon them no such thing, not so much as to cast out, or take in one member, without the Parliament: much less will they judge persons that shall wrong the five Ministers that are not of the Assembly.  
The rest of his Annotations on the Inscription are but mere paper blots, and therefore I omit them.   

A Preface to the READER, by way of Introduction, to the ensuing part of the Discourse, which respecteth the Book itself.  
READER,  
HAving diligently perused the Cacologeticall or rough commentaries of A. S. upon the smooth Apologetical Narration of the five Ministers, I find the greatest difficulty, that he is like to encounter, who by a sober Answer shall desire to make the world amends for that injury, which that writing hath done it, is this, how to make his answer soft ' enough. For the truth is, that here is much more anger or passion, than reason, to turn away, and the Wiseman informs us, that it is A soft Answer that turneth away wrath, Prov. 15. 1. If A. S. could be but redeemed out of the hand of that great jealousy, wherewith he burns over his present apprehensions in re Presbyterali, though all the arguments, and strength of discourse, wherewith his judgement is supported therein, were left entire to him, he would be found in a sufficient posture himself, to do himself the right of giving satisfaction unto the world, for the wrong he hath done it, in that discourse, and to make his atonement with his own pen. Though in many cases Anger is able to do more than reason can undo; yet in matter of argument or writing, the little finger of a man's reason is commonly able to pull down what the loins of his passion hath in a tumultuary way and method built up. Any man that shall but diligently observe the endless variety and multitude of keen expostulations, imperious interrogations, the importune, peremptory, and insulting charges, criminations and aspersions, the wriggling, wring, wrest, wranglings, the strainings, stretchings, stingings, stingling, the captious, crooked, and cross-grained Interpretations of things, wherewith that piece is farced in an unreasonable proportion to the bulk of it, cannot lightly but conclude, that Indignation was the chief Oracle consulted with, about the framing of it.  
But because I would willingly decline all occasions of heat and recrimination, as far as a sober and just vindication, not so much of the persons, as of the cause so evill-intreated therein, will bear, I shall chief confer with A. S. about his Reals, and leave men of common civility to determine and judge of his personals; unless (possibly) somewhat in this kind shall now and then occasionally fall in. I make no question but that the Apologists will be well able to bear it, that the cause which they maintain, should have the preeminence of their persons, in point of defence; nor are they so scanted in the consciousness of their own worth and innocence, but that they are very well able to be out, and bear the want of so much of their reputation for a time, as the Observations and Annotations of, I know not who, have unjustly taken from them; especially, in case they shall see it bestowed by their friends upon the accommodation of that honourable cause wherein they are engaged and declared.  
Since the former impression of this Discourse, I perceive there is yet more anger and indignation broke forth into the world against that harmless, gall-less and Dovelike Apologetical Narration; concerning which, that may be truly said (though in a different sense) which Ausonius said of none of the worst Emperors in his Epitaph: 
Marcus Antonius. Auson. de duodecim Caesaribus, etc.   Hoc solo Patriae, quòd genuit, nocuit. 
All the harm it hath done to the World or its Country, only is this, it hath begotten, and that not in its own likeness, children of sweet, sober, and temperate spirits, but rough blustering Borean Observations and Annotations, 
Aelian. lib. 1. cap. 29.  ghastly Anatomies, with some such other Heterogeneal fiery impressions. Aelian makes report of a strange prodigy once happening in a Grecian Island, viz. That a Sheep brought forth a Lion; This Lion brought forth with this remarkable and eminent contrariety to the course of nature, presaged (as the same Author relateth) tyranny. I had much rather be a benefactor to the world by the communication of my hopes to it, when I have any that may befriend it; then to draw any man into pain or trouble with myself, by imparting my fears. But when Sheep bring forth Lions, and Doves Serpents, and calm Christianlike spirited discourses, invective, bitter, and high rising raging Answers and Replies, Difficile est prophetiam non scribere; Who can but prophesy? God of his mercy destroy the sign, and make the prediction vain.  
As for the Author of the black Observations and Annotations, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath his wages well paid into his bosom for his work, in the precedent and subsequent of this Discourse:  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉!  
As for Levi the Anatomist, who hath joined himself with his brother 
Anatomy of Independency, etc.  Simeon the Annotator, to massacre the innocent Narration, though for the present he hath taken sanctuary under the shadow of the Figure Anonymi, and for fear of the worst, I mean dishonour and disgrace, (for fear of authority in this case, swimming with the Presbyterian stream, he could have none) plays least in fight with his name, yet I make no question but his day also is in coming, wherein his false translation of straight actions into crooked reports, will be corrected and amended according to the original, and the mystery of his intentions in that translation, truly translated into the knowledge and understanding of all men. This anatomical or cutting Discourse, according to my A. S. his calculation, wants nothing of a perfect libel, but only that it hath the formality of an Imprimatur to cover that nakedness of it; otherwise, as well in the Privatives of it, as Positives, I mean, as well in respect of the want of the Author's name, as of the matter and content of it, quantus quantus est, sapit libellum eúmque famosum. Suppose his Narrative of Independent infirmities and miscarriages, would abide the touchstone; yet was it a grand oversight in a man pretending to so much knowledge and wisdom, as he seems to do in this piece, not to consider, whether the dunghills of Princes as well as of Peasants do not afford rags to them that will rake in them: whether the independent story, though written by an adversary, yields that proportion in weakness, which the Presbyterian Commentaries, if but unpartially penned, would do in wickedness. I am not afraid to refer it to the conscience of the Anatomist himself to judge and say, under which of the two governments, the throne of Satan is lift up the higher; and whether thefts, rapines, murders, drunkenness, blasphemies, sorceries, witchcrafts, etc. reign (and are like to continue reigning) more in the Independent, then Classic territories. But I trust the men, upon whose faces that dirt is cast, will wipe themselves clean in due time, and wrest the dissecting knife out of the Anatomist's hand. I hear a bird sing, that the bird in their breasts sings a note of innocence from those aspersions: For the present, I shall leave this Author to the reward of those that intent to do God service in persecuting his Saints.  
There is another Advocate for the Presbyterian cause stepped forth lately upon the Stage, who adventures his name upon the confidence (it seems) which he hath of his work: 'Tis entitled, A Confutation of the Anabaptists by T. B. This man with a party of his discourse, faces the Anabaptists, whilst with the main body of it he falls in upon the quarters of the Independents; in which respect, though I cannot justify him in his intentions, yet, as touching matter of execution, I judge him innocent: Animum nocentem, calamum innocentem gerit, Independency (if I mistake not very much) will never fall by the edge of his sword.  
But (Reader) when shall we see an end of these disputes in the world? and when shall the names of Presbyterian & Independent (with all others of the like troublesome and jarring importance) cease from amongst us?  
I cannot prophesy unto thee the justness of the time, when this great wonder shall be; but some few signs of this time approaching (if ever it shall approach) I conceive I am able to inform thee.  
First, when men shall begin to grow to a clearness, singleness, honourableness and Christianlike greatness in their ends, making themselves and their own interests, their footstool, and the glory of God, and the public accommodation of the world, their throne; this is one great sign that that golden age we speak of, is at the door. The reason is, because there is no hope (scarce a possibility) of a general accord amongst men in any degree conscientious, but in the truth, or mind of God revealed in the Scriptures. No other band is like ever to gather them all, or hold them longer fast together. The reason of this is, because in a great society or communion of men, worshipping God aright, (I mean with uprightness of heart) it is seldom or never sound, but that some of them, fewer or more, have the truth of God revealed to them, some in one point, and others in another, and that with such assurance, or evidence of understanding, that no arguments or reasonings to the contrary whatsoever are able to remove them, or alter their judgements therein. So that except all the rest shall come over unto them, and join with them in such particulars as these, there is no possibility of a thorough union in judgement between them. Now there is no way, means, or method more probable and hopeful to bring men to the knowledge of the truth, or (which is the same) of the mind of God delivered in the Scriptures, in all things, than that simplicity or Christian nobleness of spirit (which we spoke of) in their ends. The reason is, because the tenor, frame and constituting principles of the Scriptures are cast, moulded and ordered by him that is the great Author of them, on purpose to comport and fall in with such ends, as were mentioned, viz. his own glory, and the public accommodation of men from every particular: and on the contrary, to oppose, thwart, and cross every man in all his personal and particular ends whatsoever, which have not a perfect & entire consistence with those other. So that he that is inspired, acted, and led by those high and noble ends, the magnifying of God, and doing good to the community of men, can have no occasion or tentation at any time upon him to bow, strain, force, or wrest any Scripture, because in their native and proper sense and tendency, they comply with him, and (as the Hebrew phrase is) speak to his heart; whereas on the contrary, if men be engaged in self-ends and aims, which are incompliant with the glory of God, and the general good of men, as when they make these their footstool, and their own honour or greatness, their throne, they have a strong tentation, amounting to little less than a necessity upon them, to deal violently with the Scriptures, to bend and strain, and force them out of their own rectitude and straightness, because otherwise they will not countenance or comply with them in their crooked ends, but condemn them.  
He that intends to make hoops of a clean streight-bodies tree, must in the working of it altar the comely shape and straightness of it, wherein it grew, and bend, and crook, and bow quite round, all that he employeth of it to such a purpose, whereas he whose Art and intent is to make Javelins, Lances, Pikes, or the like, of such a tree, hath no occasion to alter the native shape or figure of it in point of straightness, because Nature itself had fitted it to his hand in this respect for such uses and purposes as these; nay, this man should do against himself, if he should alter them: In like manner, they who seek themselves in ways and ends which contradict the lawful peace and comforts of other men, if withal they desire to have their proceed countenanced and attested by the Scripture for just and good, they must of necessity suborn them, and make them speak what the holy Ghost never meant they should speak; whereas those men who value not, regard not themselves but in their order and due subordination, and are willing to gird themselves and serve, till God and men have first eaten, and can be content with the reversions and broken meat of their table, be they never so mean; these men (I say) need not solicit or importune the Scriptures for their testimony or compliance with them in their way, because their native inspiration from God, leads them willingly, yea rejoicingly, yea triumphantly hereunto. Such men should but prevaricate with themselves and their own ends, if they should go about to make one hair of the head of the Scripture, either black or white, which the holy Ghost hath not made such to their hand. Therefore whiles some men shall seek to adorn their own names and reputations with the plunder and spoils of other men's, and lay the foundations of their own greatness in the rulnes of the lawful comforts and peace of others, there is no hope of a general or through accommodation in matters of religion. It is impossible that such men should comport with the truth in their way, and consequently with those who embrace the truth. Nor will any method of violence, as either imprisoning, fining, crushing, suppressing, banishing cutting off by death, or the like, be able to advance that unity and accord which we all lust after, though some in God's way, others in their own: the very ghosts, and shadows, and memories of those that shall suffer in any of these kinds, for conscience towards God, will be as so many spirits of divisions, dissensions, and distractions amongst those that will choose no other Arbitrators to compromise, their differences, but the Sword and Blood.  
Another signe of those Halcyon days approaching, so much desired by us all, wherein all gusts, and winds, & storms of contrary doctrines, opinions, and Sects in religion, shall be turned into a sweet calm of an universal unity and accord, is this: when Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, shall be no more turned into Counsels, Synods, and secular Arms: I mean, when men shall be freely permitted, without fear or danger of molestation, to consult with the Apostles, Prophets, etc. of what religion it were best for them to be, without having their judgements emancipated, forestalled and overawed by the definitive, and compulsory determinations, and allowances of other men▪  
The reason hereof is, because the writings of the Apostles, Prophets, & Evangelists, with the Ministry of faithful Pastors and Teachers, are sanctified and set apart by God, for this very end and purpose, namely, the perfecting the Saints, etc. till they all come into the unity of the Faith, etc. Therefore whilst Counsels, Synods, etc. shall intrude, or step in, as new Apostles, 
Ephes. 4 13.  Prophets and Evangelists, of another order, between those Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists, and those Pastors and Teachers, which Christ hath given for the settling of an universal peace and unity throughout all the Churches of his Saints, in due time, to interrupt & intercept them in their work and way, so that they can never have the judgements & consciences of men in their native ingenuity and freedom to work upon, but still upon the disadvantage of Synodical impressions and forestallments, partly with fear, partly with favour, partly with hope and conceit of the truth, there is little hope of seeing the vision of joy and glory in the world, I mean the Saints and Servants of Jesus Christ universally kissing and embracing one another in the arms of unity, truth and peace. It is in vain to wash in Abanah or Pharphar, when only the waters of Jordan are sanctified for the cure. To commit adultery, is not the way to increase, though flesh and blood should determine for it. They shall eat (saith God) and not have enough: they shall commit adultery and not increase, because they have left off to take heed unto the Lord, that is, because they had substituted their own wisdom and inventions in stead of his, for bringing their desires and ends to pass, Hos. 4. 10.  
Thirdly (and last) when the generality of men professing godliness and religion, shall be content to furnish themselves with religion (I mean with knowledge in religion) by smaller parcels, as the stock of their own judgements and understanding shall be able from time to time to accommodate them, and shall make scruple of taking it up by whole sale from Synods, Counsels, and Books, only for ease and cheapness sake: this also is as the putting forth of the Figtree, which shows the Summer of an universal accord amongst the Saints, to be at hand. The reason is, because God hath promised (and will perform accordingly) that if men shall apply their heart to understanding, and shall cry after knowledge, and seek her as silver, and search for her as for hid treasure, they shall then understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God, Prov. 2. 2, 3, 4. But there is no promise made, that they who to favour themselves, and to gratify the flesh, and to save the labour of seeking and searching after knowledge, shall take in the dictates and resolutions of men, and call them knowledge and understanding, without any more ado, shall either find the fear of the Lord, or true knowledge of God. Now till men shall generally find the fear of the Lord, and the true knowledge of God, (which is not like to be out of that way, which the promise of God mentioned hath sanctified thereunto) there will be little hope of the general meeting of men in the bond of peace, as was formerly argued in another of these signs.  
Fourthly and lastly, when Christian States, and men of soundest judgement, greatest learning, parts and abilities therein, shall give free liberty to men looked upon as opposite in judgement to the truth, to publish and openly declare the grounds & reasons of their judgements in each particular, and not compel them either to keep them burning or glowing in their own breasts, or else to propagate and vent them privately, and amongst persons that have neither learning nor abilities in any kind, to encounter or oppose them; this is another hopeful sign that the days of a general accommodation in matters of religion, are coming upon the world.  
The reason of this is plain, because till truth reign among the Saints, Peace is not like to reign, (the reason whereof hath been already given) nor will Truth ever reign like unto herself, till all her enemies (I mean errors and misprisions in matters of Religion) be subdued and brought under her feet. Nor is there any likelihood in a way of reason or ordinary providence, that such enemies of the truth should ever be subdued, till they come to look those sons of Truth in the face, who are anointed by God with a spirit of wisdom and understanding, for the confutation and utter abolishment of them. Doubtless one main reason why errors, and fond and foul opinions do still propagate & prevail with so high an hand amongst us, is, because these Ministers and Teachers are suffered to have none other vent for them, but only amongst people that are children in understanding, and not furnished with strength of knowledge, or parts of learning to withstand them. The common proverb hath somewhat in it to this purpose; Inter eaecos etiam luscus potest regna●e, A man with one eye will make a goodly King over those that are blind.  
Reader, the Preface hath done with thee, and recommends thee to the Book, where it wisheth a happy greeting between thy judgement and the truth.   

Chap. 1.  
Concerning the directive power in matters Ecclesiastical, and which concern Religion; whether, how, or in what sense, it may be conceived to reside, in the civil Magistrate, Synods or other men.  
Sect. 1. A. S. Pag. 5. hath this lefthanded expression concerning the civil Magistrate, That he arrogates not to himself any directive power in matters of Religion The Reader must do him a courtesy in finding him out a very soft sense for the word arrogate; otherwise, he will be found in a misprision of a foul insinuation against the Civil Magistrate, as, viz. that he arrogates, i. (in the ordinary construction of the word) proudly assumes to himself, when he claims or exerciseth that executive, coercive, & external power, in and about matters of Religion, which yet A. S. himself in the very next page, knowing on which side to butter his own bread, ascribes unto him: For, as he that should say of A. S. by way of commendation, that he never corrupted a matron, or woman in marriage, should yet hereby reflect a shrewd suspicion upon him, that his innocency in this kind could not so well be avouched, in respect of Virgins, or others of that sex, out of matrimonial relation: in like manner, A. S. himself intending an honourable purgation or vindication of the civil Magistrate in these words, That he arrogates not to himself any directive power in matters of Religion, doth he not by the same rule of Antithetical relation (or implication) imply that he doth arrogate another power, which stands in a Relative opposition to it, which (according to his own distribution) is an executive, coercitive, & external power, in & about matters of religion? but I marvel, that the man should here so cleanly wipe the civil Magistrate of a directive power in matters of Religion, when as but a few pages before, in his 8. Observe. he had pleaded wisdom enough in the Parliament to know what is convenient for the Church of God. If the Parliament be wise enough to know what is convenient for the Church, I know no reason why that Directive power here spoken of, should be derogated, or taken from them, especially by those, who (it is much to be feared) are much straitened in respect of a spirit of that wisdom themselves. Surely A. S. in saying that the Parliament is wise enough to know what is convenient for the Church, hath sifted the Synod or Assembly, with a sieve of vanity, and broke the head of the necessity thereof; & so is guilty of a far higher misdemeanour against it, than the Apologists are in any thing that they have done, or said, yea or then himself layeth to their charge; which yet is his rod of scorpions to scourge them from place to place.  Turpe est Doctori, cum culpa redarguit ipsum. 
Sect. 2. But let us consider a little more narrowly, whether A. S. hath quited himself like a Doctor of the Chair, in stripping the civil Magistrate of a Directive power in matters of Religion, and putting on him in stead thereof, the purple robe of an executive, coercitive and external power only. pag. 6.  
1. By such an umpirage and decision as this between the civil Magistrate, and himself, with his fellow Presbyters, hath he not made the one Iudex, and the other Carnifex: the one must give the sentence, the other must do the execution? The Civil Magistrate is much beholding to the Presbyter, for giving of him a consecrated sword to fight the Presbyterian battles; and for persuading him to pull out his own eyes, upon this presumption, that he shall see better with his. I perceive Presbytery is policy in the highest: and seeks to put the Magistrate between itself, and the envy and discontent of the people; and yet nevertheless, hopes to gain from the hand of the Magistrate such an interpretation of this practice, as thereby to be esteemed the best and faithfullest friend it hath in all the world. This cunning of the spirit we now speak of, puts me in mind of the Ape, that took the Spaniel's foot to pull the Chess-nut out of the fire. Surely the frame and constitution of Presbytery is exactly calculated for the meridian of this present world; but whether it will indifferently serve for that which is to come, totus dubito, I am in doubt all over. And indeed, A. S. himself is somewhat ingenuous in acknowledging, that this government hath little or no relation unto, or compliance with, the world which is to come, professing, p. 13. the external peace of the Church, to be the adequate end thereof.  
2. I would gladly be informed, whether A. S. thinks it reasonable, Sect. 3 meet, or Christian, that the civil Magistrate, should immediately, hand over head, without distinction, without searching (for his own satisfaction) into the equitableness, and lawfulness of what a Presbytery or Synod shall commend unto him for execution, interest himself in the execution of whatsoever shall be so recommended and presented unto him? I presume A. S. will not arrogate unto himself, nor to his Assembly, an infallibility, though (in some places) I find him very loath to abate this in the reckoning (if it would be allowed;) and the truth is, that the whole fabric (well-nigh) of his discourse, to make it rational, and any thing to purpose, requires such a supposition for the bottom and foundation of it, as this. Yet pag. 8. he condescendeth so low, as to number himself amongst those, who know that they know but in part: and pag. 9 amongst those that are conscious of their own infirmity: which principle if he would please to follow home, it would teach him to cast away the greatest part of his discourse with indignation, and to say unto it, get thee hence. If he grants a possibility of error or unrighteousness in the results and awards, whether of his Presbytery or Assembly, which are supposed to be transmitted to the Magistrate for execution; he cannot, speaking like a man, deny him a lawfulness of power, no nor yet a necessity by way of duty, to examine and judge them, whether they be lawful or meet to be put in execution, or no. And he that hath a power to judge and to determine, what is meet to be done, or not done, executed, or not executed, in matters of Religion, may be said to have a Directive power in such things (at least in the common sense and notion of a Directive power) as well as an Executive. But  
3. A. S. should be friend my intellect very much, to tell me plainly Sect. 4 and distinctly, what he means by a Directive power in matters of Religion; being (as it should seem) a dainty morsel, which he would feign compliment away from the Parliament and civil Magistrate, and snatch away from all others, for himself and his friends (Presbyterial ecclesiastics) to make merry with. 1. If by a Directive power, he means a liberty or power of considering, advising, and proposing of what may be expedient to be done in matters of Religion, and for the good of the Church; I know no man but is interessed in such a power: As when the Tabernacle was to be built, every man had power to bring and offer what he had, and what his heart served him to part with for such a purpose, towards the edification and furnishing of it. But why this liberty or power should be denied unto the Parliament or Civil Magistrate, upon whom principally the charge lieth to provide quietness and peace for the Churches within the verge of their temporal jurisdiction; reason (doubtless) on this side the Moon there lieth none; and A. S. must be very Seraphical to find any.  
2. If by a Directive power, he means an authoritative power, to conclude, Sect. 5 say, and set down, what shall, must, or aught to be done, against all contradiction, in matters of Religion, I know no subject capable of such a power, but only he that is above all the Predicaments in Logic, or he to whom all power is given, both in Heaven and on earth. Certain I am, that neither the one nor the other can be invested with any greater power, than this. If the Presbyterians demand such a Directive power as this, let them ask the Crown, Throne, and Kingdom of Christ also.  
3. If by a Directive power he means, a prudential faculty or ability, Sect. 6 to direct, order, or prescribe, whether unto a man's self or others, what in a way of reason, humane conjecture, or probability, is best and fittest to be done, followed, or embraced in matters of Religion, as I would not deny this power (and that in somewhat a more excellent degree) to A. S. his Presbytery or Synod, (always provided that the constituting members of either, be of a sound constitution, as well for spiritual wisdom, as for meekness and humility) so is it not by A. S. to be denied to many private members of particular Churches; daily experience teaching us, that God gives of this prudential faculty unto many of these, by the Ephah, whereas to many Pastors it is given but by the Omer. And if this be the Directive power which he means, though he seeks to allure the Parliament from the claim of it, by fastening a complemental commendation of modesty upon them, by way of exchange for it, proclaiming it unto the world, that they do not arrogate it to themselves; yet they do claim it, yea, and exercise, act, and make use of it, from day to day, as occasion requireth. 1. In contriving and publishing their Ordinance for calling the Assembly (formerly mentioned) they exercised such a power, as we now speak of. 2. In limiting those that were to be of the Assembly, to the subject or Argument, on which it was permitted unto them to debate and treat (as appears by the Ordinance they did) they did no less. 3. In appointing and ordering them not to determine or conclude of things as they pleased by plurality of votes, but to deliver their opinions and advices as should be most agreeable to the word of God (another proviso in the Ordinance) they did the same. 4. In enjoining them, in case of difference of opinions between them, to present the same, together with the reasons thereof, unto both Houses (another member of that Ordinance) they did every whit as much. 5. In their nomination and calling such and such Ministers or Divines by name, and not others, to be of the Assembly, they acted the same power. 6. In framing the temper and constitution of the Assembly, allaying it with such and such members of their own, they steered the same course. 7. And lastly (to omit many other particulars of like consideration) in their messages or directions sent unto them from time to time, how to proceed, what particulars to wave for the present, what to fall upon, and to debate, to hasten the issue of their consultations, with the like, what do they else but claim and exercise such a Directive power in matters of Religion, as we last distinguished?  
If A. S. hath any other notion of his Directive power in matters of Sect. 7 Religion, besides these three, my soul hath not yet entered into that his secret; but waits for his opening a door unto me by which it may. He taxeth the Apologists once and again for generalities, and obscurities in their expressions: But he that saith, A man should not steal, commits sacrilege himself.  
4. Whereas harping still upon the same string, (the sound whereof Sect. 8 is so melodious in his own ears, how harsh soever in other mens) he chargeth the Apologists, for going against the Parliaments intention, in case they think, that they should judge of questions in debate between them and their brethren; surely he speaks rather as he would have it, then as he hath any ground to speak. If he had ploughed with their Heifer, consulted with their expressions of themselves in reference to their intentions in this kind, he would have assoiled their riddle fare otherwise. For to what purpose should they enjoin the Assembly (as we lately heard they do in the Ordinance mentioned) in case of difference of opinions between them, to present the same, together with the reasons thereof, unto both Houses of Parliament, if they had no intention to umpire or judge between them? Have they a desire to look upon such differences as some rare sight, or pleasant spectacle, only to solace and delight themselves with them? And why doth the tenor of their delegation of power to the Assembly, run in this strain, To deliver their opinions and advices, as should be most agreeable to the word of God? Does any man desire the opinion and advice of another in any matter that concerns him, without any intention of considering or judging of them?  
But A. S. is as cunning as A. C. and would fain commend his care Sect. 9 and tenderness over the Parliament, in the things of their honour and peace, by insinuating unto them a non-vocation from God, to do any thing with their judgements and understanding in matters of Religion, but all things (without exception) with their hand and power, that the Assembly, whether out of their judgements or affections, shall propose or dictate unto them. A. S. (I believe) is a brother of the stronger side of the Assembly; otherwise it is every whit as much to be feared, that he would have Arminianized as much, if not far more than the Apologists have done. But if the Parliament hath no calling from God, to judge of matters between the Apologists and their Brethren (the Assemblers) I would willingly know who hath? or whether it be reasonable, that the Apologists matters yet remaining undecided, and unjudged between them and their Brethren, should suffer as men convicted, only because their adversaries and accusers (the Brethren ye wots of) are more in number than they, and will needs continue adversaries to them? Our Saviour's testimony concerning himself and his own cause, was a thousand times more authentic and valid than the testimony of never so many men, take the best of the whole generation, is in theirs; and yet he said, If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true, (Joh. 5. 31.) That is, it is not formally, or in a legal interpretation, true; it is not true upon any such terms, but that you may reasonably wave it, if you apprehend that you have grounds to do it. But (saith he) there is another that beareth witness of me, etc. The testimony of a thousand men in a case which equally (or though it be with some inequality) concerns themselves, is of no more validity or authority, then of a particular man, in a case relating only to himself. Yea, a good man's conscience, in matters relating unto himself, is never in more danger of suffering, then in a crowd, concerned in the same manner with him. It is the saying of one, that etiam ex timidissimis animalibus acris multitudo cogi potest, that is, you may make a fierce company of the fearfullest creatures that are, if you put enough of them together; so frequent experience showeth, that etiam ex aequissimis hominibus iniqua multitudo cogi potest; you may make a bad assembly, of the best men.  
Besides, A. S. himself affirms, p. 38. That to be both Judge and Party in Sect. 10 one cause cannot be granted to those that have no authoritative power one over another: and that Par in Parem non habet imperium. Therefore why should the Apologists fall in judgement by the hand of those that are parties, and but equal to them? Again, It is his own reasoning, pag. 45. If all Churches were equal (as for aught I know, or that A. S. allegeth to the contrary, they are) there can neither be superiors nor inferiors, and consequently no obedience or disobedience. And if Justice consisteth not in an Arithmeticalls but Geometrical, proportion (which is his own saying, pag. 70. and somewhat more rational and less Presbyterial, than most of its fellows are) then is there no reason, that peremptoriness of vote, how Arithmetically so ever privileged, but weight and worth of argument, should carry it against them. Which how it may fall, when God shall cancel or reverse the Scriptures that now are, and make a new revelation of himself unto the world, I know not; but whilst these stand, confident I am, that they will never so fall.  
But why the man should deny the Parliament a calling to judge of Sect. 11 matters between the Apologists & their Brethren, when as every other man in the Kingdom hath a calling, yea, and somewhat more than a calling, a special and weighty necessity to do it, (though not after the same manner in respect of the consequence of their judgement) I see as little reason, as I do for twenty and ten things more asserted by him. Would A. S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and submission to the Assembly without their understandings? Alas, they could make no melody in their hearts unto God with such a singing. Nor would the song be either honourable or comfortable to the Assembly itself, if themselves and others would but please to bestow a few serious thoughts upon it. The glory of a Synod lies not so much in the strength of their conclusions, as of their premises: nor is it any thing worthy to be presumed, in comparison of what it is to be known, to be wise and upright men. Me thinks an Assembly of conscientious and learned men, should rather count it a profanation of their conclusions and resolves, than otherwise, to have them swallowed without chewing; to have them subscribed and consented unto only in such a way, and upon such terms, as fools are wont to believe, subscribe, and consent unto all things: But,  
5. To make the Apologists out of love with so much as looking towards Sect. 12 the Parliament for any relief from them against the severe devotion of their Brethren, in case they vote contrary to them (under which hope A. S. enjoys himself with much contentment) he tells them, that by such a course or expectation, they will join themselves with the Arminians, of whom he is pleased to tell this Story. That hoping the civil Magistrate would have been for them, they gave this Directive or Decisive power unto him; and afterwards repent themselves when they found him against them. Leaving the truth of the Story upon the credit. of the Relator; I answer:  
1. That Jesus Christ was never the more a sinner, for being numbered by the Jews amongst transgressors, or for being crucified btween two thiefs. Nor are the Apologsts, or men of their judgement ever the more culpable or blame-worthy for being bound up in the same bundle of condemnation with Delinquents, by their adversaries. Quis enim laudaverit hostem?  
2. Neither did Paul count it any disparagement to him, to preach Sect. 13 that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, because the Devil had preached the same Doctrine before him. Nor doth A. S. himself think himself ever the more a Papist, because the Papists (as himself confesseth afterwards, pag. 18.) believe all that he believeth (though for my part I think any man as good a Protestant as himself, that believeth as much as he) And pag. 64. in his 18th reasonless Reason against a toleration of men better than himself, he insinuates this as a choice commendation of his Presbyterial Government, that in it their Churches are not exposed unto the calumnies of the Papists, who pretend to be nothing but one Church; meaning, that a compliance with them in unity and uniformity, will be an exemption to them from their calumnies.  
3. It is an old piece of subtlety of the old Serpent, to oppose God in Sect. 14 his Saints, and in his ways, by teaching his Prophets and Agents to make parallels between, to sort and to suit God's servants with his, and Gods ways or works with his, that so the foolish and inconsiderate world might be brought to think, that God and he are but one, and that there is little or no difference between them. How did Jannes and Jambres withstand Moses, but by doing the same things in appearance by the help of the Devil, which Moses did by the finger of God? By this they hardened Pharaoh and the Egyptians with this confidence and conceit, that God was no more with Moses then with them. A. S. parallels the Apologists with the Arminians, hoping to catch the foot of the simple in this snare, to make them think that they are both baptised into one and the same spirit: you shall find a further strain of this malignity in him, pag. 22.  
Fourthly (and last) if the Arminians gave that power to the Civil Sect. 15 Magistrate which they are here charged to have done, upon hope they would have been for them, they are no Antipodes to A. S. and his fraternity, who deny this power to the Civil Magistrate, for fear they should not be for them, if they were left free to judge of their own actions. All the lineaments in the face of Presbytery demonstrate this to be in the heart of it; a willingness to confer all, and all manner of power whatsoever upon the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion, which they may be secured will be used to serve their turns, and not to the prejudice or disturbance of them in their way. And so A. S. after he had laboured in the very fire, and had engaged himself to the uttermost to prove the negative, he falls off with this glozing close at the last, (pag. 51.) that if the King and Parliament should find [any thing contrary to what he had delivered] expedient, he had nothing to say against it. Therefore of the two, Arminians are more charitably affected towards the Civil Magistrate, in casting a power upon them, out of an hope they would use if for their good, than the Presbyterians are in denying this power unto them, out of fear they will use it to their damage.  
6. (And last, for conclusion of this first Chapter) concerning such Sect. 16 a Directive power in matters of Religion, as A. S. (it seems) would here sequester for the honour and service of his Presbytery, when Jesus Christ had declared himself willing to divest himself, and make a delegation of it unto them, I shall as willingly acknowledge and adore their patent, as any other. In the mean time, (God supporting me) I shall with the utmost of my power, and in the presence of all discouragements, dangers, deaths, vindicate the rights and prerogatives belonging to the crown of my great Lord and Master: what shall become of me in so doing, ipse viderit. As for such a Directive power, which with the honour and safety of the rights of Heaven, is attributable unto men, whose character and cognizance is this, not to be compulsory unto men by any external violence, whether directly or indirectly, to subscribe against their judgements and consciences to it, I can freely allow as much of it to A. S. and his Presbyterial Assemblies, as will stand with their peace with God, with their honour in the sight of unpartial and intelligent men, with the peace and edification of the Churches of God: if they would have more (let them look to it) this desire of theirs will in time find them out and slay them.   

Cap. 2.  
Concerning that executive, coercitive, and external power in matters of Religion, which A. S. ascribes unto the Civil Magistrate. pag. 6.  
A. S. in this sixth page, to persuade with the Parliament and Civil Magistrate, that they shall do God good service to resign up their eyes patiently into the hands of his Presbytery, feeds them with the commendations of Constantine the Great, in refusing an unjust and exorbitant power, which the Council gave to him. Where (by the way) it is somewhat observable, that it is a thing incident to Counsels and Synods, to give unjust & exorbitant power unto Civil Magistrates. So that it stands the Parliament & civil Magistrate in hand, before they part with their eyes upon such terms, to look about them, and to consider twice over, what power they receive and accept of from the hand of Council and Synods, especially in reference to matters of Religion, and the Churches or servants of Christ. It is a terrible saying of Christ, enough to make both the ears of Kings and Princes, and Parliaments, (yea, and of Synods and Assemblies too) to tingle. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea, Matth. 18. 6. It is dangerous meddling with Saints in any other way, then of tenderness and love, be they never so few in number, never so weak in power, or otherwise (one of these little ones, saith Christ); All the 21. Reasons, with 41. more put to them, whereby A. S. incites the Parliament against a toleration of the Apologists, with men of their judgement, in the sequel of his discourse; will not deliver either the King or Parliament out of the hand of that threatening, if they come under the dint of it, by offering any violence (shall I say?) yea, any offence to the least of these little ones. The Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 15. 24.) prophesieth of the putting down of all rule, and all authority and power by Christ: the reason thereof, in the words immediately following, he showeth to be, their enmity unto him; for he must reign, (saith the Apostle, Vers. 25.) till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The truth is, that it is a very hard matter, even for the best of men, in places of rule, authority and power, to move regularly in their own orb, and not to mistake, or strain beyond the tenor of their commission, to intermeddle in the affairs of Christ, considering, first, that they are compassed about with their own infirmities, as well as other men: secondly, in respect of their callings, they are compassed about with more tentations this way, than other men: thirdly, (and last) which is as much, or more than both the former, (if they be Christians) what between the insinuations and flatteries of the base, and the inconsiderate affections and favour of the better sort of Teachers, they are taught to dash their foot against this stone, as if it were another crown of glory to them.  
But let us first see, what that executive, or coercive (if it be lawful to Sect. 2 cut A. S. a syllable shorter) power is, which the man with both hands, and an importune bounty, will needs bestow upon the Civil Magistrate. 2 By what authority, and upon what grounds he doth it.  
For the first, he describes and states this power, after this manner, (pag. 6.) The Parliament pretends no Directive power in matters of Religion— nor any executive power that is intrinsecall to the Church— but only an executive, coercitive, and external power, which is not in, but about the Church, and for the Church, whereby it compelleth refractory men to obey the Church. And this authority belongs actually and in effect, in actu exercito, (as they say) to true Christian Magistrates; but to others potentially, in actu signato; and jure in rem only, till they become true Christians, etc.  
In this description the man is to me a Barbarian (his own phrase to Sect. 3 the Apologists) in the word, Church. I have bestowed thoughts more than a few to be partners with him in his notion of the word; but quanto plus cogito, eo minus capio. For shame A. S. out with the beam of obscurity from your own eye, before you tiffle again to pull the moat of obscurity out of your brother's eye. A man in reason would think, that the same word, being used four or five times (and that without the least intimation of any variety or difference of signification) almost within the compass of so many lines, were still meant, and to be taken in one and the same sense. If so, then ha' with you. The Parliament, by that coercitive power, which you are pleased here to bestow upon it, by way of compensation for that directive power which you take from it, compelleth (say you) refractory men to obey the Church: I presume that by the Church here, you do not mean all the particular Churches and Congregations in the kingdom in the folio of their respective members, but in the decimo sexto of their Synod, representative Assembly. If you take the word in the former sense, you only say, that the Parliament hath power to compel the refractory to obey all the particular Churches, with their several members in the Kingdom; which is a sense (I conceive) at as much defiance with your ends, as with your and our understandings. If you take it in the latter (which I doubt not but is your beloved sense) than your meaning is, that the use and intent of that executive coercive power in matters of Religion, which you put into the Parliaments hands, is to compel the kingdom, in case it be refractory, or tot quot, to obey the Presbytery, and Presbyterial assemblies in all their Canons, Determinations, and Decrees whatsoever, without bail or mainprize, without mercy or compassion, whether a man finds sap, sense, savour, reason or Religion in them or no.  
But yet secondly, I know not well how you should mean the Sect. 4 Church contracted in her Grand Presbytery or General Assembly neither; first, because you affirm in this coercive power in the Parliament, to be not in, but about the Church, and for the Church. And I doubt your meaning is not that the Parliament should, either only, or chief work or act with this their coercive power, upon your Ecclesiastic Assemblies, to restrain and keep them within compass; though I confess, if it should move only or chief in this sphere, it would be more for the Church, i. for the good and benefit of the Church in general, then to suffer such assemblies to fit and impose oaths upon men to obey their acts, orders, and decrees, (which you tell us, glorying in your shame, pag. 42. is done in your Presbyterial Government) and to punish or crush those that shall have more conscience, then to enslave themselves unto them in such a way.  
And 2. if by Church you should here mean the Church representative (as it is more commonly, then properly called) in her general Assembly, you would be a little more open, than (I conceive) will well stand with your principles in such cases. For than your meaning is plainly this, That the Parliament hath that executive coercive power, which you ascribe to it, not for the Church, i. the benefit of the Saints and servants of God throughout the kingdom, but for the benefit and behoof of the Ecclesiastic Presbyteries and Assemblies only. Now however, I can easily believe, that thus you would have it, yet I conceive it somewhat eccentrical to your other motions to profess it.  
And yet 3. when you immediately add; that in virtue of this authority, when parties pretend to be effended by the Church, or if the Church judge any thing amiss, he (the civil Magistrate) may command the Church to revise and examine its judgement, etc. You must needs mean your transcendent Church of Presbyters; otherwise you should prevaricate, and grant a judiciary power to particular Congregations.  
4. (And last) in the very next page (pag. 7.) to represent the voluntary Sect. 5 exile of the Apologists, with as hard-favoured an aspect in the eyes of men as he could, his indignation against it utters itself in this Pathetical strain over the poor Church of God in this Kingdom. And if they all had fled away, what might have become of the poor Church of God in this Kingdom? etc. Here, by the Church of God in this Kingdom, he cannot mean the Ecclesiastic Church of representing Presbyters, because, if these had all fled away, there had been no Church of God (in such a sense) in this Kingdom. By the Church of God in this place, if he means any thing like a man, he must needs mean the godly part in the Kingdom, and that considered, without their Presbyters or Pastors. And oh that he, and his coopinatory party would but grant that that executive coercive power which is in the civil Magistrate, is for this Church; I mean, for the benefit and peace of this Church of God. But in the mean time you see, that his Trumpet in the Description he gives of his executive, coercive, external power in the Magistrate, gives no distinct sound; perhaps he blew wild on purpose, lest an enemy should know how to prepare to battle against him.  
But is there never a blessing, of reason, or truth, in all this cluster? Come and see.  
In virtue of this authority (saith he) when parties pretend to be offended Sect. 6 with the Church, or the Church judge any thing amiss, he (the Civil Magistrate) may command the Church to examine its judgement, etc. In these few words he hath plainly plundered and undone a very considerable party of his own beloved notions elsewhere. For,  
1. What reason hath he to be so invective against the Apologists (as he is pag. 49. and 50.) for holding that Kings or civil Magistrates are above the Church, when as himself here professeth, that they may command the Church; especially his own Maxim elsewhere, being this, that Par in parem non habet imperium; and that Where there is no Superior or Inferior, there can be no obedience or disobedience.  Non huc, non illuc exemplo nubis aquosae. 
2. If the civil Magistrate hath power to command the Church to revise Sect. 7 her judgement, when she judgeth any thing amiss, surely he hath power to examine and judge of her proceed, whether they be regular, equal, and just, or no; except you will say, that he comes to the knowledge of your it regular and undue proceed in your Presbyteries, by immediate revelation. Suppose either the one or the other, what reason have you to deny him part and fellowship with you in that Directive power in matters of Religion, which you engross and appropriate to yourselves, as we have formerly seen?  
3. If so, than your Presbyterial Assembly, or judging Church, may determine and judge amiss. And if so, 1. how dare ye compel or make the people under your government to swear obedience or subjection unto your orders, which yet by your own confession (pag. 42) ordinarily you do? 2. Why are you not satisfied with that subjection to your Presbyterial Decisions, which pleadeth no exemption, but only in the case of non-satisfaction, about the lawfulness or truth of them? You give men a good foundation, a liberty to believe that you may err; but you will not suffer them to build upon it, to refuse you, when they think in their souls and consciences that that you do err. They that will separate between such premises and such conclusions, will hardly make good Christians themselves, or suffer others so to be. And if you be but ingenuously willing to go along with this your own principle, That you may err, as fare as it would gladly lead you, me thinks I durst undertake that the Apologists and you shall compromise before to morrow next.  
4. (And last) if parties may have cause to be offended, and not Sect. 8 only pretend to be offended (as A. S. would mind it) with the Church (as out of all question they may, if the Church may judge amiss) then have they power to judge of their actions, as well as they of theirs. No man is justifiable in his complaint or offence taking, but he that hath a power to examine and judge of that which gives the cause, or ministers the occasion of the offence. And if a single party, which is no Presbyter or Prophet (in your sense) hath a lawful power to examine and judge of the acts and orders of a Presbyterial or Prophetical Assembly; and may possibly by means of such an examination, take them tardy; do not so far magnify the spirits of your Prophets against the spirits of our Saints, as to think these good for nothing but to swear homage and vassalage unto them.  
But A. S. (surely) pleaseth himself highly with a parcel of distinctions, Sect. 9 which he presents us within the prementioned Description; and hopes (perhaps) to make an atonement with them for his confusion's otherwise.  
First, He distinguisheth of that executive, coercive power, wherewith he invests the civil Magistrate, as not being in, or intrinsecall unto the Church▪ but external, and about the Church. Secondly, he distinguisheth the subject capable of this power, the civil Magistrate, into truly Christian, and not truly Christian. Thirdly, upon this distinction, he builds a third distinction, concerning the manner of the competency of this power, to the one kind of subject and the other; telling us, that this power or authority belongs actually and in effect, in actu exercito, & jure in re to true Christian Magistrates; but to others potentially, in actu signato, and jure in rem only, till they become true Christians.  
The man (you see) hath much ado to find, or come at that power, Sect. 10 wherewith he would so fain gratify the civil Magistrate, in matters of Religion: He adjures three unclean spirits of distinctions, to tell him what, and where it is; and yet they do but peep and matter in their answer and make no man the wiser by it. Here he seeks for the coercive power of the civil Magistrate in matters of Religion, in the same black sea of darkness and confusion, wherein he seeks (and would make the world believe he finds) the Presbyterian government afterwards. But if the one and the other be closed up in such an ammunition of rocks of distinctions, as A. S. represents them in his story, certainly they are inaccessible to the judgements and consciences of persons of mean capacity; and much more inaccessible to the judgements and consciences of more understanding and considering men. The very darkness itself of the distinctions which he is necessitated to use, to make his way to come at the one and at the other, is a light sufficient to discover, that neither the one nor the other is any where to be found within the territories either of reason or of truth. But let us see the distinctions play a little before us, for their Master's credit.  
For the first: The Magistrate's power (saith he) viz. in matters of Religion (for so he must necessarily be understood, by the Antithesis in the former clause or member of this Distinction, where he denies a Directive power unto him, in matters of Religion) is not in, or intrinsecall to the Church, but extrinsecall and about the Church. Is it in, i. intrinsecall to matters of Religion; and but extrinsecall in respect of the Church? So then (it seems) A. S. his Presbyterial Church, is somewhat more inward, intimate, and intrinsecall, than the religion of this Church; otherwise, how should the power of the Magistrate penetrate into the Religion thereof, and yet not reach into, but only unto the Church itself? By this distinction he hath utterly disgraced his Presbyterial Government, by making the Churches under it, more internal and inward, than the religion that is to be found in them. If the Apologists had but whispered one tittle of such a saying, though at never such a distance, it had been enough to have produced seven reasons more (at least) against their toleration, then are yet levied or brought forth into the world.  
But 2ly, though you seem to deal very bountifully with the Magistrate Sect. 11 in giving him a power extrinsecall and about the Church, and to content yourself and your compresbyters with an intrinsical power only; yet by somewhat that hath been lately printed, it appears, that you mean to eat at the same Table with him, which you pretend to spread for him alone. For hath not the Press very lately been delivered of this piece of Presbytery, that the Classical Presbytery hath 
Reformation cleared, p. 23.  the authoritative power of Citation, just as the Bishops had? And is not such a power external, and which is not in, but about the Churches? For if a Classis shall cite or excommunicate a member of a Church, against the judgement and consent of the Elders of that Church, let all the world judge whether that be not an act of external power without the Church.  
If it be replied, No; because that Church did implicitly consent in yielding their Elders for members of that Presbytery; We reply, That if either your public Law constrains that Church upon penalty, 
Invitum dicitur, quod quis vel coactus, vel per ignorantiam admittit. Arist. Eth. l. 3. c. 1. Kecker. Praecog Syst. Eth.  against their light, to suffer their Elders to sit in the Classical Presbytery, than that Church doth not freely consent; or if that Church without constraint doth consent for want of light (as it must be supposed, if a Classis upon debate be found to be besides the word) this ignorant act of that Church, is an unwilling or involuntary act, and so no free consent. And so the Classis, according to A. S. his distinction, is like a Magistrate, which is a Bishop without, and about that Church.  
But good A. S. we know it is an easy matter to distinguish the Magistrate Sect. 12 into such an executive, coercitive, external power as you speak of; but we would fain see you demonstrate him into it: and then A. S. and M. S. should be no more two, but one S. We know not how to transform distinctions into demonstrations.  
His second Distinction, is of the Subject of this power, the Magistrate, whom he makes twofold, truly Christian, and not truly Christian. But,  
1. I would feign know by what Touchstone A. S. will try his gold in this case; I mean judge of the truth of Christianity in a Magistrate. It appears (from page 50. of his discourse) that he hath no mind to grant his truth of Christianity unto a Magistrate that is either Lutheran, Anabaptist, Socinian, or Papist. Any of these misprisions in Christianity, are as sufficient in A. S. his judgement, as in ours, to keep the sword of that power we speak of, out of the Magistrates hand. And as for a Magistrate whose judgement shall be infected (perfected, reason and truth would say) with Apologisme, (or the great hatred of his soul) independency) I make no question but he (in the Comic term) should be exclusissimus from this capacity or right above all the rest.  
But let us go on with the man in the terms of his own address to Sect. 13 the Apologists, in the same place. If he saith that by a Magistrate truly Christian, he understand an orthodox Magistrate; what if he had one or two errors? would he yet permit him to be orthodox, and truly Christian, or not? Till A. S. here specifies, Sermons generales non movent (his own rule) for myself, until I shall be otherwise informed by himself, I shall make use of my reason to believe, that by a Magistrate truly Christian, A. S. only mean● a Magistrate, who in his judgement is Presbyterial: and that this qualification of Presbyterialisme, and truth of Christianity in a Magistrate, are against all contradictions, and counter-poysings whatsoever, termini aequipollentes in his Logic. And if this be his meaning, the king (to be sure) hath none of his power as yet, in actu exercito, and jure in re; nor hath the Parliament (at least for aught A. S. or the kingdom knoweth) any whit more of it then the King. And whatsoever it hath done hitherto, by any executive, coercive, external power about the Church or Church-affairs (in which kind it hath done very much) depends as touching the validity and justifiableness of it upon this supposition, that it Presbyterializeth. Whence it followeth, that he that cannot, or doth not believe that the Parliament is of a Classic inclination, cannot (with the leave of A. S. his distinction) judge them to have done lawfully or warrantably any thing that they have done hitherto, about, or for the Church.  
The truth is, that till A. S. will please to define, what manner of Magistrate he must be, that shall pass the test of his distinction, for truly Christian, we are constrained to suspend our bounty in conferring that executive, coercive, external power about the Church upon any man. Nor do I make much question, but that we shall have twenty Distinctions more, before we shall obtain that Definition.  
But of all the three distinctions here upon the stage, the best dancer Sect. 14 is yet behind. This Power or Authority (saith he) belongs actually and in effect, in actu exercito, & jure in re (it's very long, me thinks, ere we hear, to whom it belongs) to true Christian Magistrates: but to others potentially, in actu signato, & jure in rem only, until they become truly Christian.  
1. Though I have many times heard of the distinction, in actu exercito, & in actu signato, yet I never heard of any thing belonging to a person in actu exercito, but that belonged to him, and that per prius, in actu signato. He to whom the principle or power of acting doth not belong, cannot stand engaged for the exercise or acting of such a power.  
2. My soul longs for the Summer fruit of a good reason from A. S. Sect. 15 why any power about the Church, and for the Church should not belong, actually, and in effect in actu exercito, & jure in re, (and with as many other, proper, unproper, necessary, unnecessary, sober, ridiculous expressions as he pleaseth) as well to a Magistrate not yet truly Christian, as to him that is such. Hath not an Heathen or Heterodox Magistrate a lawfulness of power, to do presently, this day, this hour, to morrow, and so forth, toties, quoties, as much good to and for the Church or Churches of Christ within his jurisdiction or dominion, as he could have, if he were truly Christian? Do acts of justice, bounty, grace towards the Churches of Christ, any whit more defile a Magistrate how far from truly Christian soever, then acts of the same nature performed unto his other subjects? The Kings, and those that were in authority in Paul's days, were generally (all the kings without exception) far from being truly Christian; and yet was it not lawful for them to interpose with their Authority or Power, that the Churches of Christ in their dominions, might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty? If not, then was that exhortation of his, 1 Tim. 2. 2. to be laid up in Lavender for some hundreds of years after it was given; or else the benefit and blessing, the obtaining whereof by prayer is made the ground of the exhortation, must have been made over in the intentions of those that had so prayed, unto their posterities after many generations. A. S. may choose which of the two he will believe: for my part, I shall not be his corrival in either.  
Ye have heard A. S. his Distinctions for a coercive power about the Church in a Civil Magistrate: Demonstrationes autem ubi? But where are his proofs?  Quas non invenio usquam, esse puto nusquam. What I find not any where, I believe to be no where. 
I have searched, and that somewhat narrowly, throughout the Sect. 16 whole volume of his Discourse, to find something, that with any indulgence of imagination might be conceived to look like a proof of this his opinion, and can find none, save only that poor one, of the examples of the Kings of Juda (pag. 63) inforc'd after this manner; It is the Civil Magistrates part to take away Heresies, Superstitions, and corruptions in manners after the examples of the Kings of Juda. Wherefore then is it not his duty likewise to take away all Schisms which are the high way to (and sometimes from) Heresy, and consequently to deny Toleration, which is a way to both?  
Reader, neither you nor I, must be offended, to have a molehill of proof given us for a mountain of conclusion. You must know it is the manner of the Presbyterian School, to hang great weights upon small wyars. For what need Dictator's argue? But,  
1. If it be the Magistrates part to take away Superstitions, Heresies, etc. Sect. 17 sure it is his part also to make himself able to discern superstitions and heresies from the true worship and truths of God. He is to serve God in such a practice, with his own understanding, and not by the Proctorage of Presbytery (as you tell the Apologists, pag. 48. that they must not serve God by a Proctor) and if so, you must untruss, and deliver back again to him that Directive power in matters of Religion, which you lately took from him.  
2. When the Magistrate takes away Superstition, Heresy, etc. he Sect. 18 had need have better security than a Synod can give him, to save him harmless, in case he should mistake, and smite the truth of God, in stead of Heresy, and the true worship of God in stead of Superstition. Gamaliel 
Act 5. 24. 28. 38, 39  might have had the full Vote of a Synod or Council, for persecuting the Superstition, Schism and Heresy of the Apostles; but this was not security enough to him; he was afraid of fight against God, this notwithstanding. And for my part, when the civil Magistrate shall be far enough out of this danger of fight against God, I have nothing to say against his fight with Superstition, Heresy, Schism, corruptions in manners, etc. Only my prayer for him unto God is, that he would give him a wife and understanding heart, to consider and discern, whether usurpation over the judgements and consciences of the Saints of God, in matters of Religion, be not as grand a corruption in manners as a Church or Kingdom is lighly incident unto.  
3. Because the examples of the Kings of Judah for want of better Sect. 19 arguments, are so much importuned to speak a good word for that executive coercive power in the Civil Magistrate, with which A. S. would truk with him for that Directive power (before spoken of) let us consider with a little more freedom and ingenuity, what they contribute thereunto.  
1. We do not read that any of the good Kings of Judah ever offered any violence to the true Prophets, or people of the Lord, except it were in passion, as a Chron. 16. 10. where Asa is said to have been wroth with the Seer, that admonished him, and to have put him in prison. Which fact of his I think A. S. himself will be ashamed to present either to Kings or Parliaments for imitation. Therefore whatsoever besides may be proved from the example of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion, towards the rearing up of a Presbytery in the perfection of its glory; certain it is, that nothing can be proved, for the persecuting, annoying, crushing, disgracing, banishing, fining the Apologists, whom himself (more than once or twice) acknowledgeth for very pious, godly, and learned men.  
2. Neither did any of these Kings ever compel any man to be of the Jewish Religion; nor yet to profess the Jewish Religion against their judgements. It was permitted to persons of other Nations to live amongst them, without being circumcised, yea, or without smarting for want of it.  
3. Nor do we read, that ever they attempted any thing against any Sect. 20 Sectaries or Schismatics (as A. S. would call them) which yet abounded in great variety and numbers amongst them. We do not find, that ever they find imprisoned, banished, put to death, either Scribes, or Pharisees, or Herodians, or persons of any other Sect in the profession of the Jewish Religion, that lived peaceably in their State. Idolatry and Idolaters were (it seems) the adequate object of their coercive power in matters of Religion.  
4. Nor did they, nor were they to inflict any outward punishment, Sect. 21 upon every kind of Idolater, though of the Jewish both Nation and Religion; as first, not upon covetous persons, who yet are a kind of Idolater, Epbes. 5. 5. Nor secondly, upon those that worshipped the true God of Israel, though with some violation of the second Commandment, as when they sacrificed in the high places, etc. But, first, upon such only, who apostatised from the God of Israel, to serve strange gods, the gods of other Nations: And yet secondly, not upon such neither, simply as such, but as attempting to entice and draw away other of the people of God unto the same Idolatries with them, Deut. 13. 5, 8, 9  
5. There are two reasons very considerable, why the Kings of Judah Sect. 22 might be invested by God with a larger power in matters of Religion, than Kings or Magistrates under the Gospel have any ground or warrant to claim from them. First, they were types of Christ, which no King under heaven at this day is; Secondly, not the people only, but the very Land over which they ruled, were typical also; the one of the spiritual Church of Christ, the other of the heavenly inheritance of that Church: both of them holy and consecrate in special manner unto God. If Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel can plead either these reasons, or any other of equal consideration with these, I shall not scruple an acknowledgement of an equality of power in them. But otherwise, to allege the power of the Kings of Judah in matters of Religion, for an investiture of Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel, with the like, justifies the arguing of the Prelatical School, which pleads the order of the aaronical Priesthood, to demonstrate the necessity of a Metropolitical sovereignty.  
6. It not where appears that any of the godly Kings of Judah ever Sect. 23 had, or exercised any power to suppress, banish, imprison, trample upon, crush or grind the faces of any godly persons among them, were they few or many, only because they were for a while tender in point of conscience to concur with the major part of the Priests, Scribes, or Levites in some things disputable between them, and others in the Land. Until A. S. shall dig such a treasure as this out of the Scriptures, he will never have sufficient wherewith to finish that tower of a magistratical coercive power in matters of Religion, which he hath begun to build.  
7. If A. S. (or any other) will needs make the Kings of Judah tributaries Sect. 24 to his opinion, concerning that coercive power we speak of in the Civil Magistrate, he must first prove, that these Kings were invested with that power which they exercised in matters of Religion, by a moral Law, and which is of perpetual obligation and engagement upon other Nations. For such a weak man as I, will rather incline to think, that it was conferred upon them by a Law Politic and Judicial; and which no more concerneth or obligeth Kings and Magistrates of other Nations, than that Law mentioned in the same place with it, (and which indeed is part of it) (Deut. 13.) which enjoineth the slaying of the Inhabitants of the Idolatrous City with the edge of the sword, and the destroying of it utterly with all that is therein, and the cattles thereof, with the edge of the sword; and the gathering of all the spoil thereof into the midst of the street thereof, and the burning of the City with fire, and all the spoil thereof every whit; and the making it an heap for ever, and the not building it again. I think A. S. himself doth not conceive Christian Kings or Magistrates engaged in conscience to observe all the particulars in this Law.  
8. (And last) if you consult with those passages in the Law Sect. 25 where that power which the Kings of Judah exercised about Idolatry and Idolaters, (for they went no further; they meddled not with the crushing of Sects or Schisms, as we heard) you will find, that it was the generality or entire body of the Church or Nation of the Jews, and not their Kings, that was invested with it by God: See Deut. 13. from the beginning to the end: and again, Deut. 7. 5. and Chap. 12. 2, 3. with many of like consideration. So that what they did in this kind, they did it, or were to have done it, in the Name, and with the consent of the Body of their people.  
But the grand Pillar and supporter of this coercive power in Magistrates, is this angry and discontented argument. What? Would you have all Religions, Sects and Schisms tolerated in Christian churches? Should Jew's, Turks, (and Papists especially,) be suffered in their Religions? What a confusion must this needs breed, both in Church and State? Give me leave to demulce and pacify this argument; and then we advance to a new subject. I answer by distinguishing.  
1. If by a toleration, the argument means either an approbation, or Sect. 26 such a connivance which either takes no knowledge of, or however no ways opposeth such Religions, Sects, or Schisms, as are unwarrantable, they are not to be tolerated. But first, orthodox and able Ministers ought in the course of their public Ministry, and otherwise upon occasion in a grave, sober, and inoffensive manner, sound from the Scriptures to evince the folly, vanity, and falsehood of all such ways. Secondly, others also that have an anointing of light and knowledge from God, are bound to contribute occasionally the best of their endeavours towards the same end. Thirdly, in case the Minister shall be negligent, or forgetful of his duty in this kind, the Magistrate may and aught from time to time to admonish him, that he fulfil his Ministry in that point also. Fourthly, if a person, one, two, or more, being members of a particular Church, shall be infected with any heretical or dangerous opinion, and after two or three admonitions, with means of conviction used to regain him, shall continue obstinate, he ought to be cast out from amongst them by that Church. Fifthly and lastly, if it be a whole Church that is so corrupted and infected, the rest of the neighbour Churches, in case it hath any, aught to admonish it, and to endeavour the reclaiming of it. If it be refractory after competent admonition, and means used for the reducing of it, they may and aught to renounce communion with it: and so set a mark or brand of heresy and obstinacy in the forehead of it. But,  
Secondly, if by a toleration the argument means a non-suppression Sect. 27 of such Religions, Sects and Schisms by a strong hand, as by fining, imprisoning, disfranchising, banishment, death, or the like; my answer is, that they ought to be tolerated, only upon this supposition, that the professors or maintainers of them, be otherwise peaceable in the State, and every way subject to the Laws, and lawful power of the civil Magistrate. My reasons are,  
First, because God hath anointed and sanctified his word, and the Sect. 28 Ministry hereof, for the casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and for the bringing into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10. 5. The Apostle in this place, v. 4. affirms, that the weapons of his warfare (meaning the knowledge which he had of God, and of Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and his abilities of utterance and preaching) were mighty through God, for those ends and purposes. When God hath appointed a means, and that of so much efficacy and power, either to prevent an inconvenience, or to accomplish any end or effect whatsoever, for men to wave this means, and to interest another of their own, is both to put an affront upon God, and to consult frustration and disappointment to themselves. And for my part, I am all thoughts made, that the true and adequate reason why those Sects and Schisms, and wild opinions which are lately started amongst us, gather so much strength and head, and grow so fast upon us as they do daily, is this; that we reject the wisdom and counsel of God for the opposing and suppressing of them, and have recourse to our own arm, hoping by disgracing, displacing, waylay, impoverishing, suspending, imprisoning▪ and other weapons and ways of the flesh, to ease ourselves of the burdensomeness and trouble of them. Besides the Scripture mentioned, there is a passage of full importance this way, Ephes. 4. 11, 12, etc. And he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all come into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, etc. We see here that God's design and desire, as well as ours, is unity, and perfect agreement amongst the Saints, in all matters of faith and knowledge. But how, or by what means, or by whom hath he projected and purposed the obtaining of this his desire? Mark, he doth not say, that he gave some Kings, and some Princes, and some Judges, and Justices of the Peace, some Pursuivants, and some Jailers, etc. to bring us into the unity of the faith; No, but he gave some Apostles, & some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, to bring this desirable end of his to pass. And if we would make more use of these agents and instruments of God, of the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, of Pastors and Teachers, and less of those other (which are our own) for the quenching of those flames of divisions and dissensions that are amongst us in matters of Religion, we might in all likelihood see our desires in this behalf, many years sooner than by any other course we are like to do. The word of God, especially in the hand of an able Minister (among other ends) is given by God on purpose for the conviction and stopping of the mouths of gainsayers, Tit. 1. 9, 11. And therefore this will do it, when a thousand other means, not having this anointing oil upon them, though never so plausible, and promising in the eye of humane wisdom, will rather open them yet wider, than otherwise.  
2. It is the express order and command of God to Ministers of the Sect. 29 Gospel, upon whom chief it lies, by way of office and duty, to instruct and convince gainsayers, and men contrary-minded to the 
The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth. 2 Tim. 2, 24. 25.  truth, to perform these offices unto them with meekness; and therefore not to threaten them with delivering them over to the Secular powers, or to incite the civil Magistrate against them. And if it be not lawful for the Minister to encourage or put on the civil Magistrate to use any external violence or compulsion against such, certainly it is not lawful, much less any point of duty for him to proceed in any such way against them. And if such meekness be to be used towards those that are professed enemies to Christian Religion in the main (of which the Scripture in the margin evidently speaketh) much more is it to be showed towards those, who it may be are as cordially affected to this Religion, as ourselves, only dissenting from us in some apices or iotas of this Religion.  
3. Repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth, being (as we see) a special gift of God, and no man capable of it by his own industry or seeking, it is very unreasonable that the want of it, being in itself a judgement upon a man from God, and withal no ways prejudicial or hurtful unto others, (at least not necessarily or unavoidably hurtful Sect. 30 unto any) should expose him to further punishment and misery from men. I conceive a reasonable man will think it very hard and unreasonable to punish a man for not doing of that, which is only proper and in the power of God to do.  
Externall compulsion in matters of Religion, is of a proper and Sect. 31 direct tendency to make men twofold more the children of sin (and so of wrath) than they were before, or would be otherwise. Now that which directly tends to increase sin and iniquity in a Land, cannot be lawful, or from God. Suppose the State-Religion, and manner of worshipping God, which the Magistrate practiseth and professeth, be agreeable to the truth; yet if I, having no such faith of either, but judging in my soul and conscience, that both State and Magistrate, are polluted in both, should make profession of either as the truth, I should be a notorious hypocrite and dissembler before God and men, wounding my conscience, and condemning myself in what I allow in this case. And yet such a profession as this, is that which the compulsive power of the Magistrate seeks to extort from me. In which case I must suffer, because I will not sin to the ruin and destruction of my soul.  
If it be objected, That the intent of the Magistrates compulsion in this case, is not to extort a profession from me against my judgement and conscience, but to engage me to rectify and reform my judgement according to the truth, and so to make profession accordingly.  
I answer, First, that I stand already engaged by a fare greater band hereunto, viz. my peace with God, and the safety of my soul, then suffering temporally from the Civil power. Nor can it reasonably be here replied to me, that many will do more for fear of a present temporal punishment, then of the future loss of their souls; because they that will do this, will be ready enough to comply with the Magistrate in his Religion, what ever it be, without compulsion. Secondly, if the intent of the temporal compulsion bend against me, be my engagement to rectify my judgement according to the truth, & then to profess accordingly, why is it discharged upon me before it be known whether I have not discharged such my engagements to the uttermost of my power, and yet am not able to call that truth, which the Magistrate would have me so to call? Many (saith 
Pro. 29. 26.  Solomon) seek the face of the Ruler: and who would not gladly second the Magistrate in his Religion, if he had his judgement and conscience in his own hand or power?  
5. If the civil Magistrate hath an actual coercive power to suppress Sect. 32 Schisms, Heresies, etc. because he is truly Christian, which he had not before, then truth of Christianity altars the property and tenor of Magistracy, and that for the worse, in respect of those that are in subjection to it; yea, and (possibly) in respect of the best of those that are in such subjection. Before he was truly Christian, he had (saith A. S. and Presbyterians generally) no power to punish, fine, imprison, banish, crush any of his Subjects for the exercise of their conscience towards God: but by virtue of that great mercy vouchsafed unto him by God, in giving him part and fellowshship with the Saints in Jesus Christ, he is invested with a new power to persecute the Saints, and to make them pay dearly for having consciences better (it may be) than his own, at least better then to comply outwardly with what they cannot inwardly digest and approve. If this be the case between a Christian, and the Civil Magistrate under whom he lives, he hath small encouragement to pray for the conversion of such a Magistrate to the truth, in case he were for the present, Heterodox, or Pagan; it being fare better for him to live under such a Magistracy, which hath no power to mis-use him for his conscience sake, then under that which hath; yea, and is made to believe, that it ought to use it accordingly.  
6. That power is very dangerous for a Magistrate to own, in the exercise whereof, he may very easily (and commonly doth) run an hazard (at least) of fight against God, or of plucking up that which God hath planted, or of pulling down that which God hath built up. But is that power of suppressing Schisms, Heresies, etc. which A. S. Cum multis aliis, are very earnest to fasten upon him. Ergo, The Proposition (I conceive) is too much every man's sense and consent, to be A. S. his dissent. The Assumption I demonstrate by this reason: Because those practices and opinions in Religion, which the Magistrate is born in hand by those, with whose eyes he sees in such cases, are schismatical, erroneous, and contrary unto God; may very possibly be the ways of God, and truths of God (such men's judgements of them notwithstanding.) For first, the judgements of these men are not Apostolical, or infallible. A. S. himself, who makes his demands for Presbyterian sovereignty, as high as another, yet dares not lay claim to this crown. Therefore it's possible for them to be in a misprision about some Question, or controversal point in Religion. Secondly, frequent experience shows, that a minor part (yea, a party for number inconsiderable) of godly persons in a Church or State, may have the mind of God and of Christ among them in some particulars, before the generality or major part of this Church, comes to be enlightened or interessed in it. For a proof whereof ad hominem, we need go no further, then to that party of godly persons in the Land, who stood up in Queen Elizabeth's & King James his days, for Presbyterial Government, when as the far greater part, both of Magistrates and Ministers in the Kingdom, were in their judgements opposite hereunto, and wholly Episcopal. So that had that Queen or King, or any Parliament under them, gone about to suppress that party, which yet was then looked upon as schismatical, factious, and erroneous, they had (according to A. S. his judgement, touching the judgement of those men) fought against God, and sought to pluck up that which he hath planted. Yea, thirdly, (and last) it seldom or never falls out, that any truth which hath for a long time been under hatches, and unknown to the generality of Ministers and other learned men in a Church or State, hath been at the first, and on the sudden, discovered by God, either unto the generality, or major part of them, but unto some few only, yea, and sometimes but unto one (for a season) by, and from whom, he is pleased to propagate the light and knowledge of it unto more afterwards. If then the Magistrate should rise up to suppress this truth, or those that hold it forth unto the world, because it hath few friends and many enemies amongst the Masters in his Israel, and is generally looked upon as a schismatical and erroneous opinion, should he not (in Gamaliel's sense) fight against God? The householder in the Parable forbade the plucking up of the Tares out of his field, for fear of plucking up the Wheat with them, Matth. 13. 29.  
7. That power which was never attributed to the civil Magistrate, Sect. 34 by any Christians, but only by those that had very good assurance that it should be used for them, and on their side, is not like to be a power appertaining to them by divine right, or conferred upon them by God. The reason of this Proposition is, because it is no ways credible, that within the compass of so many ages as are bygone, no one man of that conscientious generation of Saints, which hath been wont so frequently to deny itself even unto death, should acknowledge such a power in the civil Magistrate, as did by divine right belong unto him, only because such an acknowledgement was like to make against himself. Therefore I assume: But that coercive power in matters of Religion, for the suppressing of errors, schisms, heresies, etc. was never attributed to the civil Magistrate by any Christian, but only by those that 
See for the further proof of the minor Proposition, Mr Io. Robinson's Essays, p. 49. 50, etc.  were very confident, that it would be used for their turns, and to effect their desires. Ergo, A. S. himself is wary and tender above measure in conferring it upon him; distinguishing once and again, and the third time also upon it (as we heard) before he dares let him have it; yea, and in the close, doth as much (in effect) as tell him, that except he be Presbyterian right down, and will accommodate him and his party with it, he ought not to claim it.  
8. That power which in the exercise of it, directly tends to prevent, Sect. 35 hinder, or suppress the growth and increase of the light of the knowledge of God, and Jesus Christ in a Church or State, and the Reformation of such things, whether in Doctrine or Discipline, as are unwarrantable therein, is not (questionless) of any Divine right or Institution. If A. S. deny this Proposition, at the peril of his modesty and reputation be it. So then I assume; But such a power in the civil Magistrate as we speak of, directly tends to all the mischief and inconvenience mentioned. Ergo, The evidence of the assumption is this: when men are obnoxious to the stroke of the civil power, and in danger of suffering deeply from the Magistrate, for any thing that they shall hold or practise in Religion contrary unto him, it must needs be a great tentation and discouragement upon them, from searching and ●nquiring into the Scriptures, after a more exact knowledge of the good and holy, and perfect will of God in things; because in case he should discover any thing contrary to what the Magistrate professeth, he must run the hazard, either of withholding the truth he so discovers, in unrighteousness, and so of having both God and his own conscience his enemy, or else of having his bones broken by the iron rod of the civil Magistrate, for making profession of any thing contrary to that which he professeth.  
9 That power which in the use of it plainly and palpably tends to Sect. 36 the gratification of Satan, carnal and profane men, is not (certainly) derived from God. To prove this Proposition, would be but the lighting up of a torch to see the Sun. I assume; But that power in matters of Religion, to crush schisms, heresies, etc. which is by A. S. and many others, pinned upon the Magistrate's sleeve, is a power of this tendency and importance in the use of it. Ergo. This latter Proposition shines clear enough with this light. First, a very great part (if not far the greatest) of those that are like to suffer by it, are men of good conscience, and truly fearing God. This is manifest in the Apologists and men of their judgement, whom A. S. himself, over and over (though condemning himself, toties quoties) acknowledgeth for very pious and godly men. Nor is it like that (ordinarily) men of lose or no conscience, should delight to swim against the streams, either of greatness or plurality, in matters of Religion. Now than it cannot but be conceived to be matter of solemn gratification to Satan, who is a murderer, and blood● enemy to the Saints, to see them disgraced, crushed, trodden and trampled upon, especially by those, whom God hath appointed to be their protectors, and most of all, that this grievous measure should be measured out unto them for the goodness of their consciences towards God.  
Secondly, It is the impatient and importune desire of all ignorant, lose, lukewarm and carnal professors, to have all Religions, (as they call them) all ways, sects, opinions, and practices in Religion, wholly silenced, suppressed, and abolished where they live, excepting only that one way and practice, which shall be authorised and practised by the State. Because by this means, they hope they shall not be distracted about their Religion, nor be put upon that sore trouble of seeking it they know not where, or amongst whom; but shall have it put into their mouths by the hand of Authority; which they hope likewise will stand between them and harm, in case it should not prove a Religion of that purity and goodness, which God requireth.  
10. (And last) That power which in the use of it, directly tends Sect. 37 to defile and pollute the consciences of men, either by destroying the softness, tenderness, and ingenuity of them, or by disturbing the lawful peace and comfort of them, or by both, is a power from beneath, not from above. (This Proposition also, a conscience any whit ingenuous, cannot lightly deny) But such is the coercive power in matters of Religion, wherewith A. S. would fain befriend himself, in the civil Magistrate. Ergo. The truth of the Assumption appears in this consideration: When the conscience of a man hath once broke the bands and tie of its own light, and prostituted itself to the desires and pleasures of men, against the grain of its own judgement and inclination (whereunto it is sorely tempted and urged, when the man is threatened deep, in case he shall not comply with the State in their Religion, his judgement and conscience being wholly averse to it) one of these two great evils or miseries commonly befalls him. Either 1. God takes no more pleasure in such a conscience afterwards, but withdrawing himself from it, leaves it unto itself, whereupon secretly (as it were) resenting the departure of God from it, it falls upon a course of hardening itself, and by degrees contracts a boldness, impudence, and desperateness in sinning; as a woman by suffering a breach to be made upon her modesty or chastity once, often becomes facile and prone to that kind of sinning afterwards; or else, 2. by reflecting upon what it hath done in such a case, and feeding night and day upon the sad thoughts of its own act, and casting it up between God and itself, how grievous a sin it is, to trample upon its own light, for any man's sake, or upon any consideration whatsoever, it brings itself into grievous agonies of perplexity, and horror, out of which it never recovers afterward.  
Thus I have given A. S. an account of my present thoughts, touching that coercitive power in matters of Religion, which he is so importune to put into the civil Magistrates hand, with both his own; making it as strange and uncouth a matter, as a new Independency amounts unto (pag. 60.) that any man should not give the right hand of fellowship to his conceit herein. Which yet notwithstanding I shall be most willing and ready to do, if the man will but do me the courtesy solidly and theologue-like, by reason, and not by vote, that is, unanswerably to answer the ten arguments propunded. For I profess ingenuously, there is nothing separates between me and his judgement in the point in hand, but only those ten reasons, with their fellows; and if I were able to answer them myself, I would abate the condition required to the bargain, and purchase my agreement with him by mine own labour.   

Chap. 3.  
Concerning Presbytery, or Classic Government of Churches, whether it be founded upon the Scriptures, or what foundation it hath otherwise.  
IT is easy to observe (and yet well worth the observing) how A. S. his hand trembleth and shaketh in drawing the line of the descent and pedigree of his Presbyterial Government; he knows not well where to find the source, first spring, or original of it. He is between the Scriptures on the one hand, and the law of nature on the other; as the Poet describes a fierce Tiger between two droves or herds of cattles.  Nescit utrò potius ruat, & ruere ardet utroque. 
He knows not which he had best fall upon, but hath a great mind to fasten upon both. When he hath occasion to skirmish with the Apologists upon this point, me thinks I see him traversing his ground, as if he trod upon hot Irons; he treads daintily and tenderly, and shifts his step to and again, off and on, as if he felt no ground under him, but that whereof he was jealous. And it seems, that for the whole family itself of persons engaged in A. S. his judgement about Church-government, though they be but one, resolutely enough agreed for the government itself; yet there are great divisions of heart amongst them concerning the parentage and descent of it. Some out of a desire to have it the more adored and reverenced in the world, will needs have it to be of the house and lineage of John's Baptism, viz. from heaven, from the Scriptures; Others of them, fearing that genealogy to be so perplexed and intricate, that it is fit to make strife and questions of, than demonstration and satisfaction, think it better to wave that title, and claim, and to content themselves with a Meropean, in stead of a Phoebean parentage for it; to rise no higher than the liberty or power of the Church itself, to seek its original. Which cloven in the house considered, it was a very prudent spoke put into the wheel of the Apologists, by him that gave counsel (if all tales be true) at no hand to have it put to vote, whether Presbyterial Government could be proved from the Scriptures, or no. Such a vote as this might very possibly have proved of as interruptory a consequence to the bvilders of this Government, as the confusion of tongues sometimes did to bvilders of another fabric.  
But A. S. is A pierce A, for aught that ever yet I could hear (save only Sect. 2 from his own pen) in making subordination, between superior and inferior Ecclesiastical Judicatories, i. (in plain English) Presbyterial Government, to be partim juris divini, partim naturalis aut mixti; partly of divine right, partly of natural or mixed: which yet is his Decision, pag. 27. When he affirms pag. 36. that his Presbyterial power needs not any pattern formally, and expressly from Christ, it sufficeth that it hath one from nature; would not a man think that he waves the Scriptures in the question, as being completely furnished otherwise to make good his standing? And yet within a few lines after, he glories too in the superfluous and over-abounding contributions of the Scriptures to him: And yet (saith he) we can show a patent for it, not only from the Law of Nature, which should suffice, but also from the Law of Grace, in the old and new Testament. In other places, he seems wholly to decline the Law of Nature, as if men by their prudentials or power in any kind, had nothing to do to institute or set up any power in the Church, but by express order and warrant from God in the Scriptures. It is only in God (saith he pag. 48.) who is a King in this spiritual Kingdom, a Master in this House, a Father in this Family, who can give power therein unto any man; we dare not be so bold, etc. and pag. 61. Verity consisteth not in the middle of this or that, which ye imagine, but in a conformity of our conceptions with their object, and due measure, which in this matter is only God's word revealed in the Scriptures: and according to this rule I take Presbyterian government rather, etc. And yet one more, page 34. Combined Presbyteries (qua tota, sed non qua totaliter considerata, i. no man can tell how or which way) judge of points of doctrine, and discipline already revealed in the holy Scriptures, and give us new Ecclesiastical Laws of things indifferent, and so teach and rule the Churches, etc. Come A. S. let you and I confer lovingly of these affairs before we part.  
1. I wonder much, that having two Nations (at least, if not more) Sect. 3 in your own bowels, such material differences as have been touched in your Presbyterian Tribe; nay, that having line against line, page against page, leaf against leaf in your own book, you should be no more compassionate towards your brethren the Apologists, then to bebrand them with differences amongst themselves, as you do more than once, and that with much bitterness, pag. 69. and elsewhere.  Si variâsse vocas crimen, variavimus ambo. 
2. The differences that are amongst the Apologists and men of their Sect. 4 judgement, about the way of their government, are nothing considerable in respect of yours. They differ but in their hair, and you in your heads. They differ among themselves, but as one star differeth from another; you differ between yourselves as much as heaven & earth. They all as one man unanimously affirm, that their way of government is Canonical, and of Divine assertion; you are divided about the authority of your way, some making it Canonical, others Apocryphal, some fetching it from the stars, others from the dust.  Hinc caput atque illinc, humero ex utroque pependit. 
By the way, the ingenuous dissent of that party amongst you, who cannot say that they see any lineament of Heaven in the face of your Government, being yet wellwillers, and friends of affections large enough unto it, is unto me as little less than a demonstration as may be, that your way is but from men, and not from God. For as the saying is, Quid non sentit amor? If there were any thing in the Scriptures that did but look merrily, or cast a plausible glance upon your way, would not they that are so entirely devoted both in their judgements and affections to it, find it out? yea and double and triple the sympathy and strength of it with their imaginations? As it is the property of Love, to cover a multitude of sins or trespasses, that are, (Prov. 10. 12.) so is it a property likewise of the same affection to discover a multitude of pleasing accommodations which are not.  
Besides, it is somewhat more than a mote in the eye of your unity, that in some Churches (of your Presbyterial calculation) particular or Parochial Senates or Consistories, have power to suspend from their communion, those that be members thereof; yea also to excommunicate them, etc. This is your own bounteous acknowledgement, p. 26. I thought that such a misdemeanour as this in the State Presbyterial, had been of Classic vindication, at the least.  
3. If Presbyterian government needeth no formal or express pattern from Christ, then either it hath none such from him, or this pattern Sect. 5 wheresoever it is found, is but a superfluity or impertinency of Scripture. But that there is nothing superfluous or impertinent in the Scriptures, is a glory asserted unto them by the holy Ghost himself, 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable▪ etc. Therefore by A. S. his own confession, his government hath no formal or express pattern from Christ. In one sense it may be granted, that Presbyterian government needeth no formal, nor yet material pattern from Christ, viz in such a sense, as it may truly be said, that Castles in the air need no reparation. But,  
4. If your government needs no formal or express pattern from Christ, Sect. 6 we would gladly know whether it needs any material or implicit pattern from him, or what it needs from him, whether something or nothing. But if you understood, or would please but to consider the necessities of it, I verily believe you would confess that it did stand in need of that formal and express pattern from him, which you speak of. You see that for want of such a pattern it drives but heavily, and is long in 
Ptou. 8. 12.  getting up into its throne; it hath lost many a merry day already, & yet daily meets with such contestations, oppositions, contradictions, from sober, wise, learned & religious men, that it is like to reign but in the fire of contention, and with the sorrow and sadness of many such hearts as Christ would not have made sad. And all this calamity befalls it for want of a formal and express pattern from Christ: And yet hath it no need hereof? Surely it is very magnanimous, and high-spirited, to be able to bear all this heavy pressure of misery upon it, and yet profess that it stands in no need of that which would ease it.  
5. If it needs no formal express pattern from Christ, we would willingly Sect. 7 be informed, what pattern it is, which (you boast) you can show from the Law of Grace for it in the Old and New Testament. We suppose that it stands in need of all that you can show for it, either from the Law of Nature, or of Grace, either from the Old Testament, or from the New, and much more. You tell us, you can show pattern upon pattern, but show none. Surely you would be thought to do very nobly; Posse & nolle, nobile. You do not show us, but only tell us, (p. 41.) that if we will, we may see it in the ordinary practice of the Church of the Jews in the Old Testament. It seems that sight you have of your Presbyterial Government, either in this practice of the Jewish Church, or in any other passage, or part of Scripture, depends upon your wills: you are willing to see it, and therefore you see it. Otherwise, why should you tell us that we may see it, if we will? you are happy men, who have your eyes dependant upon your wills, and so can see what you please, or have a mind to see: Nobis non licet esse tam disertis; our wills depend upon our eyes; we dare not will any thing, but what we first see, to be the will and mind of God. It is no marvel, that you cast it as a sore aspersion upon the Apologists (p. 4.) that you saw them no ways minded to submit themselves (in these matters of conscience) to the desires of the Parliament. I verily believe, that did their judgements depend upon their wills, as it seems yours do, they would have been as freely willing to have submitted in all things, unto the desires of the Parliament, as you are. But,  
6. If our wills be weak, and thereby are hindered from seeing that Sect. 8 goodly vision of Presbyterian Government in the practice of the Jewish Church, which you see, what do you contribute or afford us towards the healing and strengthening of them? Nay, do you not rather occasion that which is weak in this kind, to be quite turned out of the way? For when you tell us (as you do pag. 13.) 1. that the adequate end of your Presbyterial government, is the external peace of the Church. And 2. that the power thereof consists, first, in the creation, suspension and deposition of Church-officers: secondly, in determining matters of Doctrine: thirdly, in making Ecclesiastical laws concerning things indifferent, etc. (all which you tell us on a heap, pag. 42.) you both make us very loath and unwilling to find your government there; and withal very confident that there it is not to be found. For,  
First, was the adequate end of the government of that Church, the Sect. 9 external peace of the Church? Had it nothing in design, for the spiritual good, for the edification of the members of it in knowledge, faith, and holiness? Was the power of the high Priest given him only to keep the Church in external peace? I thought that to provide for the external peace of the Church, had rather appertained to the civil Magistrate and government, then to the Ecclesiastic; and it is the Apostle himself that thus thoughteth me, 1 Tim. 2. 2. where he enjoineth; that supplications, prayers, etc. be made for Kings and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty.  
Secondly, neither do I find in the practice of that Church, any power given to the combined rulers and governor's thereof, for the creation, suspension, deposition of Church-officers. I read of the deposition of a Church-officer (and no mean one neither) by the Civil Magistrate, 1. King. 2. 27. So Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord, etc. but of any such deposition by the combined rulers of that Church, I remember not that I have read. But,  
3. As for any power of determining matters of Doctrine, this is further Sect. 10 out of my ken in the practice of that Church, than any thing else. I know not well what A. S. means by his phrase of Determining matters of Doctrine; but in my notion, and in the Grammatical and proper sense of the word, Determine, the claim of such a power riseth up as a high partition-wall between me and his Government. If by a power of determining matters of doctrine, he means nothing else but a liberty or ability of discussing and arguing such matters, and of recommending the issues and results of such discussions, unto the Churches, as consonant (in their judgements) to the truth, with a proposal of their desires unto the Churches, to consider well of them, and to embrace them, if they can so judge and conceive of them, I have nothing to oppose against this power. But if by his power to determine matters of Religion, he means a power of concluding or defining, what men shall be bound in conscience to receive and believe for truth, and shall be looked upon as sinning, in case they do it not, whether they see sufficient ground for what is so concluded, and obtruded upon them, or not, (which I partly believe to be A. S. his sense, I am sure is the proper sense of the word) such a power is, (and I think ever will be) the firstborn of the abhorrings of my soul. I confess I cannot be over-confident that A. S. intends the residence of such a power as this, in his Presbyterian Assemblies; partly, because he speaks somewhat like a man in this behalf elsewhere, supposing it to be safe even for a few men to descent from all the world, in case they have very strong reasons for their 
Paget Defence of Church government. pag. 29.  dissent, pag. 22. and requires no subjection in particular Congregations unto the judgement of Senates or Assemblies, but according to God's word, pag. 28. (I trust he means, so apprehended by the congregation; without this there is no subjection according to God's word.) And again, pag. 68 acknowledgeth it as an undoubted maxim, that the church hath no absolute power in her judgements, etc. with many savoury expressions in this kind; partly also, because I find this indulgence generally subscribed with Presbyterian pens, That the authority which Classes and Synods exercise, is not absolute, nor their Decrees held to be infallible, but to be examined by the word of God, and not to be received further than they do agree herewith. And yet on the other hand I confess, that I cannot conceive, or comprehend how A. S. his government can hold up her head like herself, if this Iron-mace be taken out of her hand. For my part, if this one Article of a liberty to wave Presbyterial Injunctions and Decisions, in case of a non liquet from the word of God, to him, to whom they are tendered, will be but assented unto, and candidly kept and performed, it would be the best Mediator I know to reconcile my thoughts and judgement to it.  
4. Nor can I in the practice of the Jewish Church, find either vola or Sect. 13 vestigium of a power granted unto the Rulers thereof, to make Ecclesiastical laws concerning things indifferent; I rather find a prohibition served upon them for making any such laws; Ye shall put nothing unto the word which I command you, nor shall you take aught therefrom, etc. Deut. 4. 2. So again, Chap. 12. 32. If A. S. can but produce one example of any such Law or Constitution made by them, he shall be a good benefactor to the penury of my notions; and in consideration thereof, I will bestow upon him a dashing out of this piece of his charge.  
5. And lastly, in the practice of the Jewish Church, the Prelatical Sect. 12 School sees a vision or platform of her government also. And A. S. by your leave, the Highpriest as well in his Authority as in his robes and holy accoutrements, did fare more plausibly sympathise with Metropolitical state and greatness, then with Presbyterial. For my part, I am not able to discern in all the practice of the Jewish Church, from the one end of it unto the other, any piece, strain, or vein of such a pattern as A. S. speaks of. Surely the vision is so conditioned, as not to be seen but upon Presbyterian ground. The man did wisely in granting that he had no formal or express pattern for his government either from the Old or New Testament: but he should have done more ingenuously to have added, no nor yet any material or implicit pattern neither. For if he hath any material pattern, it is so purely material, that it may contend with materia prima itself for the prize of invisibility. If he hath any implicit, it is wrapped up under so many folds and plights of obscurity, that no seeing eye is able to pierce through to it.  
But do we not give sentence too soon? It may be his pattern from the New Testament will carry it, though that from the Old refused to meddle with it. But where shall we seek this? He tells us, pag. 41. That we may see it in the History of the New Testament, in the judgement given out at the Synod (either truly or untruly so called) of Jerusalem, concerning the business of Antiochia. What possibly we may see in length and time, is not easy to determine for the present; but I have both more hope and fear of seeing a thousand other things (which yet I cannot certainly say, that I shall see) than I have of either, ever to see Classical proceed demonstrated out of that passage of Scripture. Nor doth A. S. so much as put forth his little finger towards such a Demonstration, but contents himself (for the present) to threaten us with his own hope, of seeing the business clearly demonstrated to us by a better hand ere long. Clear demonstrations of any thing from the Scriptures, shall be very welcome to us at any time; but me thinks I see such insuperable difficulties in the way, that I fear that Demonstration will never come out clear. Yet because I would help forward the clearness of it what I can, I shall make bold to propound unto him that either is, or shall be the undertaker thereof, a few particulars, which (I humbly conceive) must be substantially proved to make the Demonstration clear, at least to me, and many others.  
1. It must be proved, that the Apostles in that meeting at Jerusalem, Acts 15. 6. sat there only in the capacity of ordinary Elders, or Presbyters, and not as Apostles. i. that they waved or silenced the spirit of infallibility which was given them, and fell to work with the weak and fallible spirits of other men; which is, as if a man should pull out his eyes to see with the holes.  
2. It must further be proved, that this Council at jerusalem had their state and set times of meeting, as weekly, monthly, yearly, or the like, and that they did not assemble occasionally only. For this is one of the high characters of Presbytery by A. S. his own calculation, pag. 39  
3. It must yet be proved, that they had Authoritatem citationis, an authoritative power to cite and call before them whom they pleased within the pale of Apostolical jurisdiction, that is, within the compass of the whole world.  
4. It must also be made clear, that the Apostles and Elders that were members of this Synod, were sent hereunto, by those particular Churches, over whom they had right to claim Jurisdiction, or intended to include in their determinations.  
5. The Demonstration will never be clear, till it be substantially proved, that there was none authorized to sit in that Council, but only Church-Officers and Ecclesiastical men; the contrary hereof seeming (at least) very apparent, from ver. 22. & 23.  
6. That like wise must not be left unproved, that this Council had power, as well to make new Laws of indifferent things, as to impose things necessary upon the Churches. ver. 28.  
7. The Demonstrator to make his work clear and clever, must prove that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, had their Commissioners or Delegates, fitting authoritatively in this Synod, because they are included in the Determination, ver. 23.  
8. It must be proved likewise, that Paul and Barnabas sat as Commissioners upon the same terms for the Church of Antioch in this Synod.  
9 It must be made to appear, either that this Synod or Council would have proceeded as now they did, whether they could have said, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, or no, or that ordinary Synods or Assemblies may lawfully proceed as they did, though they have no such assurance of a concurrence of the Holy Ghost with them, as they had.  
10. And lastly, Proof must be made, that those words in the close of the Epistle (sent from this Council to the respective Churches) ye shall do well, ver. 29. are fulminative, & import some such threatening or intimation as this, that if they did not submit, some further course must be taken with them.  
If all these particulars shall be substantially cleared and proved, I shall freely acknowledge that there is a plausible pattern for A. S. his Government, in the new Testament, but Hic labour, hoc opus est. I shall not pre-judge any man's abilities; but for the present, I do as much expect the fulfilling of that Poetical Prophecy,  Vnda dabit flammas, & dabit ignis aquas, 
as I do ever to see that fifteenth of the Acts, safely delivered of the manchild called Presbytery.  
Therefore A. S. must pardon us if as yet we be not able to see any pattern at all of his Government, neither formal, nor material, neither explicit, nor implicit, either in the old or new Testament.  
Well, but yet the man hath one string to his bow more; though Grace will not relieve him, it may be nature will. He hath (as he saith) a pattern in the Law of Nature which will suffice. They must (I believe) have very good appetites to Presbytery, that will be sufficed with this pattern. The Law of nature is a very vast volume, and A. S. hath not quoted either page, leaf, or section of the book, so that I know not whither to turn, or where to look for his pattern. But me thinks the man himself hath given ample testimony to the Law of Nature, that it is no ways guilty of, or accessary to his Presbyterian Government. For that which cannot be made out, to the judgements and consciences of men, without the help of such an host of scholastic, intricate, (if not inexplicable) distinctions, as A. S. is fain to leavy, and muster together, p. 29. 30. 31. 32. etc. before he can make either head or foot of his business, what other original or descent soever it may claim, I know not, but (questionless) the Law of Nature will not own. The Law of nature saith with one of nature's sons; Odi difficiles nugas: she meddles not with subtleties, niceties, or curiosities of distinctions. A man that is unlearned, and but of ordinary capacity, that shall read the pages last quoted, may very possibly take his odd and uncouth distinctions for names of unclean spirits, and think that the man conjur's for his Government.  
But will you please to hear the names of his beagles, with which he follows his game, and hunts classic Law out of those deep and dark caverns & tullians of the earth where Nature had hid it, stygiisque admoverat umbris. The first couple, Actus primus, senior, and Actus secundus, senior. The second couple; Actus primus, junior, and Actus secundus junior. The third, Actus primus, tertius; and Actus secundus, tertius. The fourth, Actus signatus, senior; and Actus exercitus, senior. The fift, Actus signatus, junior; and Actus exercitus, junior. The sixth, collectiuè and distributiuè. The seventh, formerly, and materially. The eight, Totum simpliciter, and totum & totaliter. The ninth, Omne simpliciter per omne, and pro omni & omnino vel omnimodo. The tenth Totum, totaliter, and totum modificatum. The eleventh, Divisim & conjunctim. The twelfth, per se, and per accidens: The thirteenth and last, Totum confusum, and totum ordinatum. Can any reasonable man imagine, that that conclusion or practice, which cannot be justified or cleared to the understanding and conscience of learned, pregnant and apprehensive men (for these are no lettuces for illiterate lips) but by the contributions and engagements of all these distinctions (and some others not listed) should be sufficiently contained in the Law of nature? The Law of nature is a book for every man's reading and understanding; but this volume of distinctions is scarce for any man's. If A. S. and his party would but spare the vulgar and common sort of men (as there is neither reason, nor Religion but why they should) from putting their necks under the yoke of Classic Government, until they can plough with these heifers, I mean till he or they have made them capable of all these distinctions, for my part I should not fear much danger or inconvenience from it, except it were the intercepting or suspending of such a Government, as might be a benefit and blessing to them, whilst they are in preparing for the other.  
In the mean time we clearly see that all A. S. his foundations for his Presbyterial building, fail him: neither the old Testament, nor the New, nor yet the Law of Nature, will consent to bear or to support any such fabric. Nor is all that hath been here said by way of contest with him about his Government, any whit more than a first fruits of what is further opposeable to it.   

Chapt. 4  
Concerning the form of Church-government maintained by the Apologists, commonly called (nomine ad invidiam comparato) by the nickname of Independency; by themselves congregational: and whether A. S. his exceptions against it, be material, or of that moment, that it should give place to its Competitor.  
FOr the justification of this Government in a cataskevastique or assertive way, I shall plead nothing further (for the present) than what the Presbyterian School itself grants, conceiving that to be a ground impregnable, especially quoad homines, to found the lawfulness of it upon. I shall rather address to my Antagonist A. S. and try whether he be any whit more dexterous at pulling down, than we lately found him at building up; it may be he is better at hiding, then at finding.  
But first, towards the building up of the congregational Government, 
See M●st●r 〈…〉 H●●le Independency etc. p. 2.  th●s cornerstone is given us by our Adversaries, that where there is no neighbourhood of Congregations, or single Churches, whereby they may with conveniency be aiding each to other, there a single Congregation must not be denied entireness of jurisdiction.  
If we cannot upon this advantage of ground, make good this government against all opposition, it is very ill bestowed on us, and we deserve to be punished with that, which lifts up itself against it. But,  
First, if entireness of Government or jurisdiction be not to be denied to a single Congregation, when it is solitary, and without neighbours, then certainly it hath a lawful right, title, or claim to such a Jurisdiction. For whatsoever doth not in a way of equity or right belong unto any man, aught to be denied unto him. If then a single Church in this case, hath a right to an entireness of rule and government within itself, I would gladly know, by what right any other Church or churches, be they never so many, can take away this right or privilege from it. Those whom God hath put together (saith our Saviour, in the case of marriage) let not man put asunder. Doubtless, if a single Church, under the circumstance mentioned, hath a right to an entireness of jurisdiction within itself, it hath this right conferred upon it by God, or Christ himself, there being no other fountain or foundation thereof imaginable. And if so, than who ever shall take away, or deny this right of Jurisdiction unto it, must show a commission from heaven to do it, or otherwise be guilty of putting those a sunder whom God hath joined together.  
Secondly, if a Church yet single, be invested with a power of Jurisdiction within itself, and should be cashiered of this power, by the rising up of more Churches near unto her, then that which is intended by God as a table, should become a snare unto her; she should suffer l●ss, and have sorrow from those, by whom she ought to be comforted.  
Thirdly, If a single Church should suffer loss of so considerable a privilege, as entireness of Jurisdiction is, by the multiplication of Churches near unto her, then cannot this Church pray for the propagation of the Gospel in places near to it, but she must pray against her own comfort and peace; which is a sore temptation upon her, either to pray very faintly, or not to pray at all, for such a thing.  
If it be objected and said, that entireness of Jurisdiction is no benefit or privilege to a single Church, but rather an inconvenience, or a diminutive privilege at best, and that her condition shall be improved, not impaired, by combining herself in point of government with other Churches: I answer,  
First, that the Scripture itself makes entireness of government, or subjection only unto those that are of the same society or body, a special mercy, favour, and blessing from God. And their Nobles shall be of themselves (saith God, speaking of that great goodness he meant to show unto his people after their return from Babylon) and their Governor shall proceed from the midst of them▪ etc. Jer. 30. 21. So it is made a character or sign of the prosperous estate of Tires, that her wise men that were in her, (i. of her own Nation) were her pilots, Ezek. 27. 8.  
Secondly, subjection unto strangers, is still spoken of as matter of punishment and sorrow: Give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should reign over it, Joel 2. 17. The Nations of the Jews were expressly forbidden to set strangers to rule over them, Deut. 17. 15.  
If it be objected; But Pastors or Elders of neighbour Churches ought not to be looked upon as strangers, but as Brethren: I answer, (in a word) though they be brethren in comparison of the unbelieving party of the world, and in respect of their spiritual descent from the same Father with them; yet have they more of the relation and consideration of strangers to them, than those that are (as it were) of the same domestic society with them. And therefore subjection to them, must needs have less of the blessing, and more of the curse in it, than subjection to their own.  
Thirdly, the grant of Government and Rule within themselves unto Towns and Corporations, were ever esteemed matters of special grace and favour from Princes: and have sometimes been purchased with great sums by the Inhabitants.  
Fourthly and lastly, reason itself demonstrates entireness of Government, to be a sweet privilege and benefit to a particular Church. First, in case a man be questioned, he saves a proportion both of time, and labour of travel in respect of whath must undergo, if he were to make his answer at a Consistory further off. Secondly, proceed against him in his own society shall be regulated, managed and ordered by his own Pastor, who is a Father unto him in the Lord, and who in all reason, and according to the course of (all most) all constant experience, is more tender, affectionate, and compassionate towards him, than the Pastors of other flocks, and those that are strangers to him. The Pharaoh that knew Joseph, dealt well by him, his kindred, and seed: but (saith the Text) There arose another Pharaoh that knew not Joseph, and he evil entreated our Fathers, etc. Thirdly, he shall be tried, and sentenced by those, who know not how soon it may be their own case to be tried and sentenced by him again; which in reason cannot but teach them moderation and equity, in whatsoever they shall act or suggest against him; whereas, a Consistory of standing Judges, whose fair necks have little or no cause to fear any yoke of being judged themselves, are in far more danger, through a confident and constant use of the Sceptre, of having their hand hardened, and their little finger soon made as heavy as their loins. It is a good rule which A. S. himself prompteth us withal in this case, pag. 10. Nunquam satis fida potentia, ubi nimia est; power seldom yields any good fruit, where it is too rank and luxuriant. Fourthly, it is a great encouragement and confirmation of face, to a man that is accused, and is called to answer for himself, especially, if he be any thing tender foreheaded and bashful, as many of inferior breed and education are, to answer before those, whose faces are familiar to him, and with whose persons he is well acquainted; and the contrary is a kind of oppression to such a man. Such an advantage or disadvantage as this, may easily amount to as much, as either a man's standing, or falling in this cause. A Consistory of strange faces, especially the persons being all of superior rank and quality to him, may be to a plain man, of as bad a consequence, a● the seeing of Medusa's head was (among the Poets) it may turn him into a stone, and make him able to say little for himself; whereas, if he be to make answer at home, the knowledge and interest he hath, of, and in those persons before whom he is to speak, will be a sovereign antidote unto him against such fears, as otherwise might betray him in his cause. Fifthly, in this Government we speak of, by the Congregation, private Christians have the opportunity of seeing and hearing from time to time, all the carriages, debates, and judiciary proceed in the Church, which will be not only matter of much satisfaction, but also as a school of wisdom and experience unto them daily; whereas, if these transactions be negotiated at a remote Consistory, the private Christian loseth his portion and interest in them. Sixthly (and last) Conclusions many times are very offensive and hard to be digested, for want of the knowledge of the premises, that should allay and sweeten them. Classic determinations and awards, especially when they rise high, the reasons and grounds of them being (for the most part) unknown to the generality of men, and of hard construction with them: whereas the issues and awards that are brought forth in a Congregation, the whole series and story of all proceed, à capite ad calcem, being known unto all, must needs be much more satisfactory, and of a far better resentment with men. These reasons might have been enlarged with much more strength and weight, and many others likewise added to them; but for the present, desirous we are that brevity should have the casting voice.  
Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government? That can I (quoth A. S. in effect, p. 38, 39) I have sixteen reasons or objections against it. Yea, but A. S. your sixteen Reasons (or at least the greatest part of them, as far as I can see) have all but one head; and if that be struck off, all those reasons are but as so many dead corpses. You allege against the Apologists, that the remedy in their way of Government, for the reducing of whole Congregations or Churches, in case they miscarry or be irregular, is not sufficient nor satisfactory. This you prove by laying pen upon paper, until you had sixteen reasons (so called) in black and white. I shall not spend time in transcribing these your Reasons, but shall desire the Reader (though it may be some discourtesy unto you) to take your book into his hand, and to consider of them with what is reponed in Answer to them.  
And first, for that defectiveness you charge upon the congregational Government, for the reduction of whole Churches, under errors, miscarriages, etc. I answer:  
First, Suppose that course or means which the Apologists insist upon, a withdrawing, and renouncing all Christian communion with such Churches, until they repent, be not in the eye of reason or humane conjecture a means sufficient for such a purpose, and that not only sixteen, but six and twenty reasons, and those more plausible then A. S. his sixteen, could be levied against it, yet if it be a means which God hath authorized for the effecting it (as I verily believe it is, neither doth A. S. nor any of his, that yet I have met with, prove the contrary) it will do the deed, and prosper, when as seven other means that are greater of flesh, and more promising, will but beat the air, and do little of what was intended and projected to have been done by them. How many reasons may we probably conceive, that the disputers of this world in Paul's time, were able to bandy against preaching, whereby to prove it foolishness? yet this was, and still is, and ever will be, maugre all the opposition of ten thousand disputations and reasons against it, the wisdom of God, and the power of God, to save those that believe. The strength and power of sacred Ordinances do not lie in their natures, but in their relations or institutions. Now, that a withdrawing of Christian communion from persons walking inordinately, is an Ordinance or means appointed by God, for the reducing and reclaiming of them, is evident, 2 Thes. 3. 6. with the 14. We warn you Brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately, etc. and vers. 14. If any man obey not this our saying in this letter note him, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Clearly implying, that to withdraw communion, and to deny Christian fellowship unto Christians walking inordinately, is both a means of Divine institution, and otherwise proper and commodious in itself, to reclaim and bring them to Repentance. There is the same reason of Churches in this behalf, which there is of persons; Churches being nothing else but persons embodied.  
Secondly, suppose there were no such sufficient or satisfactory remedy for the inconvenience mentioned in the way of the Apologists, as A. S. conceives to be in his (which yet there is, as hath in part already, and will afterwards further appear) yet Lawyers have a saying, that a mischief is better than an inconvenience. A man had better run the hazard of a greater loss, then expose himself to a daily wasting and consuming of his estate. A man had better be wet through and through with a soaking shower once a year, then be exposed in his house to continual droppings all the year long. The Delinquency of whole Churches, (such I mean, as is matter of public scandal or offence to their neighbour Churches) is not an every day's case, no more in the way of congregational then of Presbyterial Government: you acknowledge the rarity of it in your Government, and we affirm it in ours. Now then much better it is, to want a remedy against such an evil, which possibly may not fall out within an age, though it be greater when it doth fall, than it is to expose ourselves to continual droppings, I mean, to those daily inconveniences which we lately shown to be incident to the Classic Government.  
Thirdly, they that implead the congregational way, for being defective, as touching the matter in hand, seem to suppose, that God hath put a sufficiency of power into the hands of men, to remedy all defects, errors, and miscarriages of men whatsoever. Else why should it be made matter of so deep a charge and challenge against the way of the Apologists, that it affords not a sufficient and satisfactory remedy either to prevent or heal all possible miscarriages in all churches? I would willingly know, in case your Church transcendent, your supreme Session of Presbyters, should miscarry, and in your Doctrinal determinations, give us hay, stubble, and wood, in stead of silver, gold, and precious stones, (a misprision, you know, well-near as incident to such Assemblies, yea, and to those that are more general and oecumeniall then so, as obstinacy in error is to particular Congregations) what remedy the poor Saints and Churches of God under you have, or can expect against such a mischief; or what remedy you now have in the way of your government, for the recovering of yourselves out of such a snare, more than what the congregational way affordeth, for the reclaiming of particular Churches. Nay, the truth is, your Government in such a case is at a greater loss in respect of any propable or hopeful remedy against such an evil (which yet is an evil of a most dangerous consequence) than the other way of Government is for the reduction of particular Churches. That hath the remedy of God (as hath been showed) though not the remedy of men, and yet that remedy of God which it hath, is appliable by men, and those known who they are, viz. the Churches of Christ near adjoining; but if your great Ecclesiastic body be tainted or infected, though never so dangerously, 
Corpora morbis majora patent. Sen.  God must have mercy on you, and that in a way somewhat (at least) more than ordinary, if ever you be healed. For that Directive power in matters of Religion, which, had you left it in other men's hands, might in this case, through the blessing of God, have healed you, being now only in your own, hath not only occasioned that evil disease that is upon you, but also leaves you helpless and cureless by other men. A. S. makes the greatest part of his arguments against that way of Government which he opposeth, of what iffs, I mean, of lose and impertinent suppositions, and cases, that are not like to fall out, till ursa major, and ursa minor meet (unto which kind of arguments, every whit as much as enough hath been answered already) but he shall show himself a sovereign Benefactor indeed to the Presbyterian cause, if he can find out a remedy satisfactory and sufficient against that sore evil we speak of incident to his Government in the case mentioned: which is a case both of a far worse consequence than the obstinacy of a particular Church in some error; and (I fear) of a far more frequent occurrence then the world is willing to take notice of.  
Fourthly, let us ponder a little, how sufficient and satisfactory that remedy against the evil now in consideration, is, which the Classic polity, under the protection of A. S. his pen, so much glorieth in; let us compare the two remedies, of the two corriving polities together, as A. S. hath done, after this manner.  
But the Presbyterial Government (saith he, p. 39) is subject to none of these inconveniences: For the collective or combined eldership having an Authoritative power, all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves thereunto: Every man knoweth their set times of meeting, wherein sundry matters are dispatched, and all things carried by plurality of voices, without any schism or separation. Not to be troublesome to the man about his Grammaticals, (wherein his pen slips oftener than Priscian will tolerate in such a piece) because in these he opposeth nothing but a man's conceit either of overmuch scholarship, or overmuch care, in him.  
Here is a remedy indeed against some inconveniences; but whether the inconveniences be not much better than the remedy, adhuc sub Judice lis est. But what are the inconveniences?  
The first is, that Churches being equal in authority, one cannot bind another to give any account, in case of offence given. Well, what is the remedy for this in Classic constitution? The combined Eldership having an authoritative power, all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves, etc. What is another inconvenience? In case other churches were offended in the proceed of a particular church, they could not judge in it; for than they should be both judge and party in one cause, etc. Well, what is the remedy in Presbyterian polity? The combined Eldership having an authoritative power, all men and Churches, etc. What is a third inconvenience? That congregational Government giveth no more power or authority to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker, yea to the Hangman over a thousand, etc. What is the Presbyterian remedy for this? The combined Eldership having an Authoritative power, etc. The combined Eldership with their Authoritative power together with a Law or Covenant whereby all men and Churches under them, are bound to submit unto them, are as bars of iron and gates of brass to keep out all those inconveniences, irregularities, defilements, pollutions, out of the Presbyterian Temple, whereunto (it seems) the congregational temple, for want of such stoure and tied provisions, lies open. But,  
First, what if your combined Eldership hath neither footing nor foundation in the Word of God? It is not the serviceableness of it against a thousand such inconveniences as were mentioned, that will justify it. Souls offering sacrifice was a means to prevent the scattering of the people from him; yet Samuel told him that he had done foolishly in it; and it cost him his Kingdom. 1 Sam. 13. 9 13. 14. So the putting forth of Vzz●h's hand to stay the Ark, was a means to keep it from being shaken; but yet the doing of it cost him his life. Peter's valour and zeal in drawing his sword, and laying about him, was a likely means of rescuing his Master; but the Lord Christ preferred the imminent danger of his life before such a rescue, and checked the sword that was drawn for him again into the sheath. That Law and constitution in the Papacy, whereby all men & all Churches thereof, are bound to submit their judgements in matters of Faith to the decision of the Papal Chair, is as sovereign a remedy against all those inconveniences named, as that for which Classic Authority is so much magnified by you; and yet it is never the less abominable in the eyes both of God and men. The Question is not, which Government will serve most turns; but which is most agreeable to the will and Word of God. If that of Presbytery be defective this way, as there is extreme cause to fear it is, this defect cannot be recompensed or redeemed by any other commendation whatsoever.  
Secondly, neither can we with any tolerable satisfaction inform ourselves out of all your discourse, either what you mean by that Authoritative power, which you claim to your combined Eldership, nor yet how, or by what, or whose Authority, they come to be invested with it. As for the power, sometimes you deny it to be Magisteriall, or such, which may not lawfully be declined, when a man cannot submit unto it without disobedience to God; otherwise, you make it so irrefragably sacred, as if it were no lesser sin than perjury itself, to detract it. Again, for the investiture of your Eldership with this power, whether they arrogate it unto themselves and are their own carvers, or whether the Civil State and Parliamentary Law, or whether the free and joint consent of those over whom this power is exercised, do confer and derive it upon them, you inform us not, but count an ignoramus, better than a verdict. But till you do resolve us by what Authority or power this Authoritative power comes into the hand of your combined Eldership, we shall think it safer to stand to the hazard and damage of all the inconveniences spoken of, then to subject to it.  
Thirdly, if the Law of the State, be the first and most considerable band or tie upon men to submit unto the power of your combined Eddership (as you seem here to imply, in saying that all men & all Churches thereof are bound by Law, etc.) then 1. you must acknowledge that the root and base of your Government is potestas secularis, secular authority; and then how is it Ecclesiastic or spiritual? A man may as well bring a clean thing out of an unclean (in Jobs expression) as make a spiritual extraction out of a secular root. Secondly, it will rest upon you to prove, that the Civil State hath a power to form and fashion the government of the Churches of Christ. Yea, thirdly (and last) it will be demonstratively proved against you, that you resolve the government of the Churches of Christ (in the last resolution of it) into the humours, wills, and pleasures of the world, yea of the vilest and most unworthy of men. But,  
Fourthly (and last) the Authoritative power of your combined Eldership being granted unto you, we do not see how the inconveniences you find in the congregational way, will be much better solved in yours. For first, what if a particular Congregation under the jurisdiction of your Eldership, reflecting upon the Oath or Covenant it hath taken for subjection thereunto, (as likewise upon all other engagements that way) as unlawful, shall peremptorily refuse to stand to the awards or determinations of it, what will you do in this case? How will your combined Eldership remedy this inconvenience? What? will you excommunicate this Church? The Apologists in their way do little less; (and that by a power fare less questionable than yours) nay in your interpretation they do every whit as much: Or will you deliver them over Brachio seculari? to be hampered and taught better than it seems you can teach them, by prisons, fines, banishment, etc. O A. S. remember you tarred the Apologists, for comporting in a very small matter (in comparison) with the Arminians (in case it had been true) and will you comply with the Papists in a matter of this high nature? Churches had need take heed how they choose men for their Guardians, that will so dispose of them if they please them not. Besides, you know what was said in the second chapter, touching the power of the Magistrate in this case. And what if in the Session of your combined Eldership there be no such thing as plurality of votes concerning excommunication of such a Church, (as it is very possible that in such a meeting the truth may find just as many friends as error hath, and no more) is not the remedy you spoke of, now in the d●st?  
Again secondly, (to touch upon the second inconvenience mentioned) when your combined Eldership proceeds against a particular Church amongst you, upon offence taken, is not this Eldership as well Party as Judge? If you think you have every whit the better of it, because your Eldership, though it be both Party and Judge, yet hath an authoritative power over those whom it judgeth: I answer first, that as our Saviour told Pilate, He could have no power against him, except it were given him from above; no more can your Eldership have over those whom it judgeth in this case. Now how uncertain and faint the probabilities are, that they have any power over them given them from above, hath been formerly showed at large. And if that power which your Eldership claimeth, and exerciseth over the Church arraigned, be not from above, than the Apologists remedy is fare better and safer than yours. Secondly, to hold and maintain, that all those that have an Authoritative power over men, may lawfully by virtue of such power, be both parties and Judges, is to exalt all manner of tyranny, violence and oppression by a Law. Upon such a supposition, men invested with authority and power, whether in Church or State, may be their own carvers, and serve themselves of the estates, liberties and lives of those that are under them, how, and when, & as oft as they list. And why do you not submit to the decisive judgement of the King in all controversies depending between you and him, if that be your doctrine?  
For the third inconvenience (so called) I shall be your debtor to tell me plainly and distinctly, what power more your government giveth to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker, or the Hangman, over a thousand. I do not remember where either yourself, or any of your party, have calculated the proportion; but I well remember a saying in Charron, That every humane proposition hath equal authority, 
Tout proposition human a autant d'authorite quel' autre, si la raison n'on fait la difference. Charron de sag●sse. Plus credend● est assertioni alicujus simplicis & non authorizati excellenter in Scriptures eruditi, quam declarationi Papae.  if reason make not the difference: and another of Gerson (much commended by Protestant Authors, though the Author of it Pontificial) The saying of a simple man, and no ways authorised, if he be well seen in the Scriptures, is rather to be believed, than the Popes own determination. But A. S. what makes you think (for I can easily guess what makes you say) that the government of the Apologists gives no more power to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker or Hangman over a thousand? Vbi, ●uando, quibus testibus, did this government, or any son it hath, ever make any such comparison, or so fare honour either your Tinker or Hangman, as to make them equal in power to a thousand Churches. And yet I suppose, if a man should say, that the dust in the balance hath as much life in it as the Sun, it would be no disparagement to this excellent and glorious creature; because the excellency of it doth not stand in any degrees or superiority of life above any other creature, but in the abundance of light which it hath, and the height of its situation, and the serviceableness of it to the world by means of both. In like manner if it be supposed (which I think, upon what hath been delivered, may very reasonably be supposed) that the glory and excellency of Churches doth not stand in any power or authority that one hath over another, or many over one, but in other fare more rich, and holy, and honourable endowments, relations, and qualifications, it can be no prejudice or disparagement unto ten thousand of them, to say they have no more authority over one, than A. S. his Tinker or Hangman hath over them. Therefore if A. S. his admired piece of church-policy, hath no greater commendation, then to serve for preventing such Inconveniences as this, the world needs make no great lamentation over it, though it were in the condition of Rachel's children, when she wept for them, and would not be 
Matth. 2. 18.  comforted.  
Some other inconveniences there are, wherein A. S. finds the Government which he opposeth, tardy, and thinks he sets a crown of glory upon the head of his Presbytery, in vindicating the innocence of it in respect of such guilt; But, alas! he washeth off this guilt with blood, or with water fouler than it (as hath been showed) and condemneth his government in that wherein he mainly alloweth it. The guilt is innocence, in respect of the purgation. There is one inconvenience (formerly opened and insisted upon in this chapter) very incident to Presbytery, the conscience whereof (me thinks) should make all the sons of that way, rather to cover and compassionate, then to complain or cry out of any inconvenience they either see, or rather think they see in another.   

Chap. 5.  
Whether the Apologists and men of their judgement, may lawfully and without danger or prejudice to the State, be tolerated: and whether A. S. his reasons to the contrary, be of sufficient weight to persuade either to the banishment, erushing, or suppressing of them in any kind.  
HE that hath read the precedent part of this discourse, and doth, though but with the lowest degree of impartiality, consider what hath been argued between the two ways, Presbytery and Apologisme, cannot lightly but mourn over the title of this chapter; and think him to be a man of iron entrails that should give occasion to such a Question as is there propounded.  
Suppose the opinion maintained in the latter part of the second Chapter, were waved, and such a coercive power in matters of Religion as A. S. contends for, allowed in the Magistrate's hand, yet that any man should plead for the drawing of this sword against those men, who first, have such a considerable strength, if not of evidence, yet of reason, for what they practise and profess: secondly, have a like (if not a more) considerable strength against that way of government which they cannot submit to. Thirdly, are by their fiercest adversaries and opposites themselves, acknowledged ten times over for very pious, godly, and learned men. Fourthly, have been (at least the generality of them) and so continue, men of the most affectionate, and withal the most effectual activity and forwardness to promote the great cause of Religion, Parliament, and Kingdom. Fifthly, are as deep in, or (if you will) as much out of their estates rateably, for the support of this cause, as any other sort of men whatsoever. Sixthly, have (many of them) such as were meet for such a service, adventured their persons and lives, in the face of the rage and fury of the common enemy, continuing still in the same engagements. Yea, seventhly (and last) have (some of them) exposed themselves to more danger, and harder terms from the adverse party, then ordinary (in case they should prevail) by a public vindication of the cause of the Parliament in print from the Scriptures, and that before any man of differing judgement from them in Church affairs, appeared in the cause upon such terms; that any man (I say) on this side of malignancy, should consult the sorrow, trouble, disgrace, suppression, ruin of men, so holy, so harmless, of such eminent desert in the cause of Religion, State, Kingdom, me thinks should exceed the line of humanity, and be thought some inspiration or suggestion from the great enemy of mankind.  
Nevertheless, if either God, Reason, the peace or safety of the Kingdom, require the sorrows or sufferings of these men, I make no question but they will be willing to dispense with all considerations whatsoever that stand up to plead their immunity, and will with Isaac patiently suffer themselves to be bound, yea and to be offered up in sacrifice also, if need be. Only their humble request and suit is, that they may not be sacrificed upon the service of the ignorance, vain surmises, needless jealousies, bitter suggestions, whether of a few, or of many. Better a thousand times is it, that such distempers as these, though found in millions of men, should suffer, were it never so deep, then that the least hair of the head of one of those men should fall to the ground.  
One A. S. (it seems) is come forth with a band of one and twenty Reasons, to attach the liberty of these men, and to seize the freedom of their consciences, and comforts for the use of the Presbytery, though his word be, For God and his Country. But let us give him an unpartial hearing of what he hath to say: If the Presbytery hath right either to the liberties or comforts of these men, God forbidden that any man should deny them unto it.  
We shall take the Allegations into consideration, in that order that himself presents them, in p. 61. 62, 63▪ 64, 65. of his Discourse; desiring the Reader once more, to read the tenor of them more at large from his own pen, because I intent my Answer with as little transcribing as may be.  
To the first we answer: first, that we are no ways able to comprehend, 
A. S. his first Reason against Toleration, Answered.  why, or how the toleration of the Apologists and theirs, should open any door to all sorts of erroneous opinions, any whit more than A. S. his entertaining of a sober and discreet servant to wait upon him, should open a door to all the King's guard to become his household attendants: or then an allowance of provender to his friend's horse, should open a door to all Prince rupert's troops to rack and manger with him. Nay, secondly, we are verily persuaded (and that upon good grounds) that the granting unto the Apologists a free exercise of their Ministry, will (under God) be an effectual means both of chase away of many erroneous opinions, which are (for the present) fight against the truth of God amongst us; as also of preventing the coming on of further supplies from Hell unto them. A. S. himself gives them this testimony, pag. 70. that whoever knows them, knows well they want no abilities to dispute their opinion in any Assembly in Europe. Men of their abilities, being sound and orthodox in their judgements withal, are Carpenters prepared (as it were) on purpose by God, for the cutting down of the horns of false doctrines and opinions, if they be suffered to work.  
Thirdly, (and last) if the worst should come to the worst (as the saying is) better a door opened to all sorts of erroneous opinions, yea, and to many other inconveniences greater than this; then that the guilt of any persecution, or of any evil entreatings of the Saints and servants of God should cleave unto a people or State.  
To your second Alledgement, why no Toleration for the Apologists, 
Answer to his second Reason.  we answer; first, that the very constitution of it is but superstitiousness of fear: The shadow of the mountains seem men unto you. It may breed factions and divisions between persons of whatsoever relation, etc. 
Judg. 9  May (the country Proverb saith) comes but once a year; but that May this Proverb speaks of, must come so oft; but A. S. his May, may possibly not come in an age, no nor in many generations. And would he have so many thousand of the dear children and servants of God, as do Apologise in the Land, actually and out of hand, be compelled to eat their bread in darkness, to be filled with heaviness, and many of them (it is like) to perish by hunger, nakedness, etc. for the honour and exaltation of his May be?  
Non Dea te genuit, set duris cautibus horrens  
Caucasus, Hyrcanaeque admorunt ubera tigers.  
The man speaks as if he had been bred of rocks, and sucked the milk of Tigers.  
Doth he not deserve to be beaten with his own rod? and because his writing books may cause many troubles and distractions amongst us, not to be tolerated to have pen, ink, or paper any more?  
Secondly, I would know of him, whether he deemeth himself to be of another Religion than the Apologists, because he dissents in judgement from them about Church-government. If so, he must deem himself either Arminian, Papist, Socinian, or worse; if not, then Candorem tuum A. S. in that malignant expression, whereby you would make simple people believe, that the father and the son, and so the husband and wife, are of different Religions, when they do not walk in the same way of Church Discipline.  
Thirdly, why should such a difference as this, at least a liberty thus to differ, without smarting on either side, breed factions or divisions between persons in relation? Doth the wild Ass bray (saith Job) when he hath grass? or loweth the Ox over his fodder? Surely persons are never 
Job 6. 5.  upon better terms of advantage to agree, then when contentment is enjoyed on every side. Or in case of such a difference as we speak of, if it be matter of discontent to one party, that the other is not of the same practice with him, you may confidenly believe that the miscarriage in this kind rests on the Presbyterian side; the spirit thereof inordinately lusting after unity in practice, viz. whether either there be any unity in judgement or no, yea, or whether there be any ground for it or no, on the dissenting side. You may prophesy of troubles and distractions likely to arise in families and other relations, with somewhat the less danger of miscarrying in your predictions, if you animate or encourage those that are, or shall be of your party, to make the fray. As I have read a story of a Wizard in France, who foretold the death of the Duke of Burgundy upon a certain day; and to make himself a true Prophet, when the day came, murdered him himself.  
4. Suppose A. S. should have the Apples given him which his soul lusteth after, and no toleration granted, would there not be as much, if not more, reason to fear factions and divisions between Magistrate and Subject, Husband and Wife, etc. as otherwise? If God should not incline the judgement, or not satisfy the conscience of the one of these parties in relation, concerning the lawfulness of that Government Presbyterial, which we suppose (for argument sake) to be established without a toleration of any other, would not the party aggrieved and burdened in this kind, be (in all likelihood) worse company for the other, more troubled, more discontented, and every whit as much divided, both in judgement and practice from him; yea, and more divided in affection, discontentment being one of the greatest enemies that are, to love, union, and peace? Were it not a thousand times better, and more conducing unto unity in affection and peace, rather to suffer the discontented party to marry then to burn, I mean, to enjoy the freedom of their conscience, rather than to be perpetually kept in an iron chain of spiritual discontent? We cannot but know that relations were encumbered with such factions and divisions, as A. S. speaks of, even whilst the mountain of Samaria stood, I mean, when Episcopacy reigned, when yet there was no toleration of Pluralities of Church-government (though of Church-livings there was.)  
5. Nothing is more frequent in and about the City, then for members of the same family, to address themselves to several Ministeries from time to time, the husband to hear in one place, the wife in another, the child in a third, for their better spiritual accommodations respectively, yea, and sometimes to communicate with several Ministers, without the least breach or touch of discontentment on any side.  
6. And lastly, It can hardly be expected, especially in this Kingdom, where the godly and understanding party have so long suffered, and that in extremity, from a peremptory imposed State-government, without any relaxation or mitigation, and have lately tasted the unexpressible sweetness of ease, peace, and liberty of conscience, that they should without extreme discontent be brought back into another house of bondage, where the furnace of peremptory subjection is like to be heat every whit as hot, as in the other. Excellency of teaching, and that abundant light of the knowledge of God, which hath shined from the Ministry amongst us, into the hearts of many thousands, have made the conscience very soft and tender in many. And where conscience is tender, a little violence is a great torment to it.  
To A. S. his third reason, to prove the intolerableness of a Toleration, 
His third Reason Answered.  we answer, that the inward parts of it are but vanity and falsehood. For, 1. It supposeth that malignant supposition we spoke of, viz. that Presbytery and Apologisme, make two differing Religions. 2. That there is no State in Christendom, where there is one only Religion established, that will admit the public exercise of any other; which is manifestly untrue, as is notoriously known in France, the Low-Countries, etc. 3. And lastly, it supposeth, that Apologisme, in case it be tolerated, must needs become a Schism in that Religion which is established in the Land. We conceive, that every difference in judgement doth not make a Schism in that Religion which is professed on both sides; we shall then find abundance of the weed growing in the Presbyterian field itself. I myself know differences not a few amongst that party; and some not of the lightest consequence. Or, if his meaning be, that the practice of it, in case of a Toleration, should become a Schism from the Presbyterian Church or Government, we answer, 1. That as yet we have no Presbyterian Church or Government amongst us; and so, if the toleration be granted before such a Government be established, it is apparently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of the reach of such an imputation for ever. 2. If it be not a Schism before, and without a toleration, I do not apprehend what influence or aspect a Toleration should have upon it, to make it one. 3. And lastly, I conceive him to be an incompetent Judge, uncapable of knowing or determining what a Schism is, who acknowledgeth his ignorance or non-knowledge of what a Church is, which is a A. S. his Profession or confession (which you will) pag. 21. And in this also we confess our ignorance, that we know not wherein consisteth its essence or being (speaking of a Church) I cannot believe that he should perfectly know the nature of darkness, that is ignoranant of what belongs to light; nor that he should know what death is, who is ignorant wherein life consisteth; nor that he should know what a schism or rend means, that knows not what belongs to the unity and entireness of the body. The rule among the sons of Reason, in all such cases as these, is this; Rectum est index sui & obliqui; And again, that en●ia privativa cognoscuntur ex suis positivis. etc.  
Your 4th Reason, is rather somewhat else then a Reason; a confession 
His fourth Reason Answered.  of the dimness or weakness of your sight. I cannot see (say you) how (a Toleration) can well be denied to other Sects, if it be granted to our Brethren: But,  
1. Do you remember, how you quip your Brethren (as here you call them) for a like expression used by them, pag. 41. If ye see no Scripture for it, yet others (you tell them) may see. So here we tell you, that though you cannot see how a Toleration can well be denied to other Sects, if it should be granted unto your Brethren, yet others may see how very well it may. Bernardus non videt omnia.  
2. It is much that you should not be able to see such a thing as this, who have such command over your eyes (as was noted formerly) as to see what you will. Is it a matter of such profound and difficult speculation, to conceive, how he that hath the keeping of a door with lock and key, and bolts to it, should let in one man that knocks, without letting in all comers?  
3. Whereas you determine it to be a Question inextricable, to expound clearly, what sects and what opinions are to be tolerated, and what not, do you not prevaricate with your own cause and confidence, and put the Magistrate to a stand, whether he should tolerate your opinion for Presbyterian government, or not? Nay, do you not put him out of all hope of ever coming to a clear resolution of what is his duty to do in this kind? For what patent can you show from heaven, why this opinion of yours should not abide the test and trial of that law, which here you impose upon others? I believe there are very few, either Sects or Opinions amongst us (in both which notwithstanding we abound more than is for our comfort) that either are liable to more considerable and material exceptions, or that have been dealt with by an higher hand of opposition and conviction, than this of yours. And why any one opinion which is in the same or greater condemnation of unsatisfactoriness and ambiguity, than others, should magnify itself to rule all others with a rod of iron, and to break them in pieces like a Potter's vessel, equity or reason, (for my part) I know none: and I fear A. S. himself is as poor in this commodity, as I.  
4. If it be so inextricable a Question, to expound clearly, what sects and opinions are to be tolerated, and what not, how will you do to sway your Presbyterian Sceptre with judgement and equity? How will you know what opinions donare Ecclesiâ, to make free denizens of your Church, and what to disfranchise? By your own rule it is an inextricable Question, clearly to determine what opinions are to be tolerated, and what not. And if the Question be so difficult above measure, to determine what opinions are to be tolerated, and what not, it must needs be yet of a fare more difficult and weighty consideration, to resolve what are fit to be countenanced, to be established, yea, and yet more, to be imposed, to be enforced upon the judgements and consciences of men, and what not; toleration being an act of a fare lighter importance, then either an establishment, or an enforcement.  
5. And lastly, whereas he adds (in the close of this reason) that the less the difference be, the greater is the schism, and adds no more; I marvel who he thinks will entertain such a saying, the old Writ of Ipse dixit being out of date long ago: yet the saying somewhat confirms me in what I said before, viz that the man knows not what belongs to a schism. For doth he here by a schism understand any thing that is sinful? Then he makes the lesser difference from the truth, to be a greater sin, than a greater would be. If his meaning be, that the less material the ground or reason of any man's dissenting from a major part be, the greater is his fault, or sin, in dissenting; We answer, that his Argument proceeds, not only a non concessis, but also a non concedendis: for to descent from a major part, though the grounds of a man's dissent be no matters of deep consequence, yet if they be such wherein his judgement and conscience are not satisfied, his dissent is no sin at all, and consequently cannot be the greater sin. Gnats must not be swallowed for any man's sake more than Camels.  
To his fifth Reason we answer. First, that suppose God in the Old 
His 5 reason answered.  Testament granted no toleration of divers Religions, or disciplines, doth it follow from hence, that you should grant none neither? Dare you say in matters of knowledge, authority and power, Ero similis Altissimo, you will be like the Highest? Remember the fall of the son of the morning. Will you set your threshold by Gods, and compare with him for excellency of knowledge, or infallibility of discerning? If you could assure us, after the rate of a divine assurance, that that Religion and Discipline which you would impose on us, are in all points sound, and justifiable in the sight of God, we could much better bear the height of your indignation against a toleration of any discipline or opinions but your own.  
Secondly, though God granted no such toleration (as you speak of) in terminis, yet he straightly prohibited all manner of violence, oppression, and hard measure among his people one towards another; and in special manner charged it upon the consciences of the rich, not to take any advantage of the poverty of their brethren, to exact upon them, enslave them, and the like. Though such Laws as these, in the letter of them, respected only civil transactions and deal between men, yet the equity and spirit of them extends to spirituals also, men being every whit as liable to violence, oppression, and hard measure from men for their conscience sake, as in any other respects, or upon any other grounds whatsoever. Therefore in case there had been a minor party in that Nation, that had been of a peculiar judgement by themselves, about the sense and meaning of such or such a Law, relating unto practice (as Laws generally do in one kind or other) and so had dissented in this practice from the major part of their brethren in their Nation; in case this major part had taken the advantage of their brethren's weakness, and because they were fewer in number, should have forced them, against the light of their judgements, to alter their practice, or if they refused, should have trodden and trampled upon them, or any ways evil entreated them, it had been as apparent a breach of the Laws we spoke of, as any oppression or violence in civil proceed. And the truth is, that for men that are truly conscientious, civil liberty (as it is called) i. freedom from illegal taxes, impositions, exactions, imprisonments, without liberty of conscience, is an accommodation of little value; yea, without this, such men are not capable of much ease or benefit by the other. They are still in danger of being in trouble and molestation from the State, for their conscience sake.  
3. Though God gave no such toleration (as you speak of) by a law, yet he did actually tolerate for a long time together with much patience, not only a minor, but a major part of the Jewish Nation, in a manner the whole Nation, and that not only in some opinions or practices, which were disputably false or sinful, but even in such which were notoriously and unquestionably such. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith Paul, Act. 13. 18.) He suffered (or tolerated) their manners in the wilderness forty years; and afterwards in the land of Canaan, many and many a year longer, even till there was no remedy (as the Scripture somewhere speaketh. So then, if you be willing to follow the practice and example of God (an honour whereunto you seem to pretend in this Reason) you must tolerate your brethren, not only in some opinions and practices which are dialectically and topically evil, but even in those which are demonstratively such.  
4. And lastly, whereas you add, that the New Testament requireth no less union among Christians, than the old did amongst the Jews, we acknowledge the truth of what you say, but the pertinency of it to your purpose, we yet desire. Though the New Testament requires union amongst Christians, and that very ardently and pressingly, yet it doth not require him that is stronger to cudgel him that is weaker into the same opinion with him. If you be of a better growth and stature in knowledge than we, and comprehend such truths as we do not yet understand, we are most willing, as fare and as fast, as meat and nourishment will do it, to grow up unto you; only we would not be racked or stretched to the same stature or proportion with you. We shown in our second Chapter, what means the New Testament hath appointed and sanctified, for the effecting of the unity amongst the Saints, which it requireth of them.  
For your sixth Reason (so called) we can scarce see the face of a 
His 1. Reason answered.  Reason in it. You say that if your brethren do assent to your Doctrine, and are resolved likewise to assent to your Discipline, which shall be established by common consent, they need no other toleration than the rest. If your meaning be, that in case they assent to your Doctrine, and are resolved to assent to your Discipline, viz. immediately and out of hand, as soon as it comes from under the hammer, and hath but the stamp of Presbyterial Authority set upon it, we are clearly of your mind, and do not conceive, how or why they should need any other alteration, than what others have. Only we somewhat marvel that you should so fare forget yourself, as to imply (by this your expression) that even your Presbyterian party itself standeth in need of a toleration, as well as ours. Jam sumus ergo pares. Truth (I see) is sometimes too quick and cunning for her adversaries. But if your meaning be, that a resolution in your Brethren (the Apologists) to assent to your Discipline, viz. when, and assoon as they can possibly satisfy themselves touching the lawfulness of it, will exempt them from a necessity of a Toleration, both they (we suppose) and ourselves shall be very glad to hear such tidings from your pen. We make no question but they are as throughly resolved to assent to your Discipline upon such terms, as you can desire them.  
That you add, is very incongruous. It would first be discussed (say you) wherein they are resolved to descent. First, we marvel who you mean should discuss that wherein they should be resolved to descent: especially considering, Secondly, that they do not use to take up their resolutions beforehand, not so much as to descent at all, much less wherein or about what they shall descent. Thirdly, how should they resolve beforehand, wherein, or whereabout to descent, except they could prophesy of your future thoughts and resolutions?  
You would further have it considered (but you tell us not here neither by whom) whether it be of so great importance, that in consideration thereof, they dare not, in good conscience entertain communion with you. We scarce understand your English, or meaning, here; and therefore if we answer besides your mind, your words are in fault. We grant that other men of good abilities, consciencee and learning, may draw up a very satisfactory resolution concerning such or such a case, or practise, about which I am scrupled; but it will not follow from hence, that therefore this resolution will be satisfactory unto me, or that I with a good conscience may walk by it. Though the particular reason or reasons, one or more, upon which the Apologists shall refuse to entertain such a communion with you, as you mean (or at least should mean, if you speak any thing to purpose) should be by never so many, and upon never so much consideration, adjudged as insufficient, or inconsiderable to cause any such refusal in them; yet this will not impose a necessity upon them to join in communion with you, except you can make them capable of a sufficiency of reason in such a resolution why they may with a good conscience submit unto it.  
To your seventh Reason we answer, First, that though the Apologists 
His 7. Reason answered.  should not be pressed to be actors in any thing against their consciences, yet there is a necessity lying upon them to be suitors for a toleration, (I mean, in case it will not be granted them without suing for, which would be a greater honour to your Presbytery, than the contrary peremptoriness is like to be) viz. that so they may be actors of good, according to their consciences. Suppose A. S. had bread and water, wherewith to subsist, but withal had a good sum of money due to him, and that from one that was very well able to make payment, or otherwise had an opportunity to prefer himself to some place of profit, credit, or the like, if he would but become a suitor for it, would he think that he had no need either to require his money of him in whose hand it lies, or to sue for such preferment? The Apologists conceive there is a necessity upon them, to save the souls of others, yea of as many as they can lawfully purchase an opportunity to save, as well as their own. But,  
Secondly, we know not by what authority or interest you undertake to secure them, that they shall not be pressed to be actors in any thing against their consciences. It may be you are but of the ordinary Presbyterian stature and pitch; and so your mercies, though somewhat severe, yet possibly may not be very cruel: But (saith the Scripture) in those days there were Giants in the earth, as well as men of the common 
Gen. 6. 4.  standard; so we fear a party amongst you of Hyper-presbyterian spirits, whose Springtides may swell beyond your Low-water marks. But,  
Thirdly (and last) we conceive this promise of yours to them, that they shall not be pressed to be actors, etc. to be broken by yourself seven times over in your discourse, and by others of your party from time to time. To consent unto your government, is (doubtless) to act against their conscience; otherwise they had no reason to descent from it. And whether to threaten them with a non-toleration, together with all the evils and miseries attending thereon, yea with paying for it in their purse and persons, in case they will not consent unto it, (as some others of your party have done) be not a pressing of them unto it, we leave unto men, whose judgements are not wholly swallowed up in the gulf of Presbyterian zeal, to determine.  
To your eighth reason, we answer, that we find very little heart 
His 8. Reason answered.  or face of reason in it. The strength of it (whatever it is) lies in this hypothetical proposition: If it be against the nature of the communion of Saints to live in Sects apart, without communicating at the Lords table, then ought not the Apologists to be tolerated. But, etc. But good A. S. do you conceive the men would under a toleration, live without communicating at the Lords table? I know not what communion you have with their intentions of spirits, more than I: but for the present, I am no man of your belief herein. Toleration or no Toleration, I believe they will communicate at the Lords Table, and that oftener than twice a year.  
Secondly, if living in Sects apart be so offensive to your zeal over the communion of Saints, why do you not rather mediate a Toleration for them, then oppose it? If you shall suffer them to work with you, they will be so much the more free to eat and drink with you, and to exercise all manner of Christian friendship and familiarity with you. But if you shall thrust them into holes and corners, and judge them unworthy of all part and fellowship with you in the public Ministry of the Gospel, you impose little less than a necessity upon them to live apart, and to enjoy themselves amongst themselves; and besides represent yourselves unto them as no ways desirous of communion with them. Therefore in this reason your premises and conclusion are at utter defiance the one against the other  
As for your ninth reason, it is every whit as wild, and wide from 
His 9 Reason answered.  the purpose as the former. For what if the Scripture exhorts us evermore unto unity, and this unity cannot be easily procured by a Toleration of Sects; doth it therefore follow, that godly, learned, and orthodox men, such as being encouraged, though at an underrate, are (as was formerly showed) both able and likely to do as good service against Sects, as any men, are to be barr-hoysted, quashed, crushed, only because they cannot say, A vision, where other men say it? The Scripture exhorts unto many things, which are not to be procured by every thing that is lawful, no nor yet by every thing that is otherwise necessary and fitting to be done. Were not this a ridiculous reasoning, The Scripture exhorts to live godlily in this present world; but this cannot be procured by eating and drinking: Therefore eating and drinking are not to be tolerated. Apagecruentas nugas!  
Whereas you add, that a Toleration of Sects cannot but daily beget new Schisms and divisions. We answer, first, that this allegation we have answered already once and again: yet secondly, we add, that many inconveniences, sicknesses, diseases, come by eating and drinking, yet are these to be tolerated in the world. Thirdly, we plead for no toleration of any Sect, (nor of any thing so called) but which may stand with the utmost that either A. S. with his pen, or his whole party with theirs, can do against them to suppress them. Fourthly, we hav● 〈…〉 proved, that Apologisme is neither Sect nor Schism, no more then A. Ssisme is. Fifthly and lastly, whereas you say, That a Toleration of Sects cannot but daily beget new Schisms, etc. We answer, first, that God's toleration, or long-suffering towards sinners, doth not only lead all sinners to repentance, but also bring many thereunto. And why should not man's toleration expect an effect answerable hereunto? Secondly, the disciples in the ship were as much afraid, that their dear Lord and Master had been a foul spirit, and would have sunk them in the Sea, as A. S. is afraid of a Toleration, that it must needs beget new Schisms and divisions daily. But as the feared Destroyer proved the experienced preserver of that ship and m●n, so may A. S. his feared propagator of Schisms and Divisions, be found an experienced destroyer and dissolver of them. That means of all other, which hath God in it, is likest to do the deed: And God (we know) was neither in the tempest nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in the still voice.  
His tenth reason, being helped, riseth up in this form, If there was a 
His 10 Reason answered.  greater difference amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, in the time of S. Paul, and yet they communicated together, and that by the Apostles exhortation, then ought not the Apologists to be tolerated. But true is the former, therefore the latter also. We answer, first, that the fabric of your Argument is built upon a false foundation, or supposition, viz. that the reason, why the Apologists refuse communion with you (you mean, I suppose, in your sacramental actions) is, because of the latitude, weight or degree of the differences in judgement between you and them: whereas the reason of their refusal in this kind, is the nature or particularity of the difference, together with your practice depending upon your opinion in opposition unto theirs, not the height, weight, or importance of either. A difference in judgement about the lawfulness of stinted forms of prayer, is nothing so material or weighty, as a difference about the nature of Faith, Justification, etc. yet the lighter difference in this case, makes persons so differing, uncapable of joining together in Communion, in the use of such prayers; whereas the greater difference would not.  
Secondly, if there were so many and great differences amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, as you speak of; and yet Paul not ways persuaded or encouraged the predominant or major party amongst them, either to cast out, cut off, or suppress the underling parties, but exhorted them unto mutual communion, etc. Why do not you content yourself with the line of the same process, and in stead of disgracing, quashing, crushing, trampling on, only exhort the Sects and Schisms amongst you unto mutual communion; and to the forbearance of Sects and Divisions? a practice which you do well to take notice of in the Apostle, but do ill to think that your own of club-law is better.  
Thirdly (and last) nor do we know any ground or good bottom you have for your assumption, wherein you affirm, that there was greater difference amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, then is between the Apologists and you. Old Ipse dixit is made to carry this burden alone.  
Your eleventh Reason is very corpulent, but less active; the chief 
His 11. Reason answered.  ingredients of it being Abbots and Priors, Convents and Monasteries amongst the Papists, St Francis, St Dominick, and the Donatists, with whose opinion and practice, you say, the opinion of your Brethren too much symbolizeth. We answer, first, that Theologia symbolica non est argume tativa. Angels and Devils agree in something: yet this agreement is no impeachment, either to the holiness or happiness of the 
Qui ut uni haresi suae ad●tum ●●●fac●r●t, cunctarum haeres ●● bl●sph●m●as ●●●ctabatur, Vincent. Lyr. cap. 16.  Angels. A. S. himself symbolizeth with Nestorius the Heretic in one property; of whom Vincentius Lyrinensis reporteth, that to make way for his own heresy [or opinion] he fell heavy upon all heresies beside. Secondly, whereas he affirmeth, that the opinion of his Brethren is not unlike to the Convents and Monasteries amongst the Papists; certainly the unlikeness between them is far greater, then that between an Apple and an Oyster. We cannot but wonder, how, or in what respect, the man should conceive, that an inward, spiritual and notional thing, as an opinion is, should be like a great building made of lime and stone, or a pack of die fellows in a fat Fraternity. Thirdly, whereas he insinuates a hateful similitude between his Brethren and the Donatists, who (he tells us) separated themselves from other Churches, under pretext that they were not so holy as their own; We answer, first, that this insinuation will not so much as in show touch all the Apologists however, because some of them (we believe) have no Churches of their own; and therefore they cannot pretend more holiness in them, then in others. Secondly, that neither in substance or truth doth it touch any of them, or their opinion. For, first they do not separate from other Churches, but only in such opinions and practices wherein they cannot get leave of their consciences to join with them; the one half (at least) of which separation, is made even amongst their Churches themselves, one from another; one dissenting from another, not only in many opinions, but in some material practices (as before was touched, and that from A. S. his own pen, no ways partial you may think in such a case.) Secondly, we would know whether A. S. himself and his party, doth not as much symbolise with the Donatists in that critical property or practice we speak of, as the Apologists. For under what pretext do they separate from the Church of Rome, and from Episcopal Churches, but only this, that they think not their Churches, to be as holy as their own? If they separate from them upon any other grounds, it were not much material, though they held communion with them still. Yea, thirdly, if they do not think their Presbyterial Churches more holy than the congregational, they are far more guilty of Schism and Separation, than their Brethren here spoken of. For than they are at liberty in point of conscience, to come over and join with them; when as the other are in bands and fetters of conscience, and cannot pass unto them. Their Brethren would gladly come over unto them, but cannot: they can come over unto these but will not. It is the will, not the act, that makes Schism and Separation. Fourthly, we do not see, as deep as you have laid the charge, wherein the Apologists do any whit more symbolise with Convents, Monasteries, or Orders, amongst the Papists, than you and your friends. You tell them, that all their Churches believe one Doctrine together with you, and that every one of these Churches hath one Minister, as the Popish Convents a particular Abbot or Prior. We pray you, do not all your Churches believe one Doctrine together? and hath not every one of your Churches one Minister? Wherein then lies the difference between you and them? or wherein do they symbolise more with Convents or Monasteries, than yourself? Nay, (fifthly and lastly) as if you had quite forgotten your rhomb, you tacitly couple yourself with those Popish Convents, Monasteries, and Orders, in one ignoble consideration, from which you acquit your Brethren. They only differ (say you to them) in this, that ye have no General, or any thing answerable thereunto, to keep you in unity and conformity; plainly implying, that your Presbyterians have, viz. their sovereign Judicatory. So that if this your reason should but take place, and be held valid, it is your Presbyterian party, not the party Apologizing, that aught to suffer the non-toleration you speak of; it being they, not these, that are the great symbolizers with St Francis, and St Dominick.  
To your twelfth Reason, we have given answer upon answer formerly; 
His 12. Reason answered.  as first, where we considered of the examples of the Kings of Judah, and shown how little they contribute to the claim of coercive power in the Magistrate, to take away Heresies, Schisms, Superstitions, etc. Secondly, where we argued against such a power by several demonstrations. Thirdly, where we gave an account also, how Toleration is no way either to Schism, Heresy, etc. So that that there is not one apex or ieta of this Reason remaining unanswered.  
The Logico-Divinity of your thirteenth Reason, consisteth in this 
His 13. Reason Answered.  Enthymeme. If we have but one God, one Christ, and one Lord, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism, (whereby we enter into the Church) and are one Body, we ought to have one Communion, whereby to be spiritually fed, and one Discipline to be ruled by: and if so, then ought not the Apologists to be tolerated. We answer, that neither doth your inference or conclusion here at all follow from your premises. We have all you speak of, one, one, and one; and in regard of that multiplied unity, we ought (as you say) to have one Communion, and one Discipline; But first, not necessarily that Communion, or that Discipline, which are of Classic inspiration, no more than those which are either of Papal, or Episcopal recommendation; because, though we judge these two latter spirits more sphalmaticall, erroneous and dangerous than the first, yet we cannot think, that either the Pope or Bishops, or both together, have so engrossed the spirit of erreour and fallibility, but that they have left of that anointing more then enough to initiate all other Orders, Societies, and Professions of men in the world. Secondly, though we ought to have one Communion and Discipline, yet ought we to be led into this unity, by the hand of an Angel of light, not to be frighted into it by an evil angel of fear and terror. Thirdly, that duty which lies upon all Christians, to have but one Communion and Discipline amongst them, is no dispensation unto any party or number of them, to smite their Brethren with the fist of uncharitableness, or to dismount them from their ministerial stand in the Church, because they will not, or rather cannot knit and join in the same Communion and Discipline with them. Nay, fourthly, that very tie of duty which lies upon all Christians to have but one and the same Communion and Discipline amongst them, carries this engagement upon them all along with it, to show all love, to use all manner of gentleness and long suffering towards those that are contrary minded to them either in the one or in the other, since love is not only a sodering and uniting affection, but further commends the person in whom it is found, as one to whom God hath appeared, and who hath been taught by him. Therefore fifthly (and last) to make the engagement that lies upon all Christians to have but one Communion and Discipline, a ground and reason why such as differ from others about these, should be evil entreated, suppressed, kept under hatches, or the like, is as if a man should plead that natural affection which a parent owes unto his children, for a ground and motive why he should sharply scourge them when they are sick and weak.  
His fourteenth Reason is of an unknown strength (at least to me) 
His 14. Reason answered.  If I were a Magistrate, I should never the more know how to prepare to battle against the Apologists or any other godly person, for the sound of this trumpet. Surely, of all the rest, this Reason will never be accessary to the undoing of these men. However, let a poor man be heard in his cause. The Reason then with all the help it is capable of, rises up but thus. If Churches have Disciplines or Governments different in their species, than the Churches must be different in their species also. But the consequent is false, since there is but one Church: Ergo, Apologisme is intolerable. They that can gather this conclusion out of the premises, may very well hope to gather Grapes of Thorns, and Figs of Thistles. The consequent in this argument, which the Disputer saith, is false, is this, Churches must be different in their species. If the meaning of this consequent be, that there is an absolute necessity, that Churches should differ specie one from another, the Disputant is in the truth, in saying the consequent is false. Or if the meaning be, that Churches ought to differ specie one from another, the same verdict may still pass upon it. But upon that supposition which is made in the Antecedent of this argument, viz. that these Churches have Disciplines or Governments different in their species, the consequent is not only true, but necessarily true: and that upon the Disputants own ground, which is, that all collective bodies that are governed, are differenced (specie) by their different governments. But be the Consequent, or be the Antecedent, or be the Consequence, be any thing, be nothing, or be every thing in the premises, either true or false, why sho●●d not the Apologists be tolerated, notwithstanding? Be the Sun in Aries, or be it in Taurus, or be it in Capricorn, why should not A. S. be tolerated to write more books for the cause Presbyterian notwithstanding? I hear that upon the applause and approbation of this by his party, he hath since put forth his hand to another; as Herod seeing that his butchery upon James pleased the people, put forth his hand to 
Acts 12. 2, 3.  take Peter also.  
But is there nothing more in the Reason then this? Truly, if A. S. hides the treasure of his mind so deep another time, dig for it who will for me. For this once I have taken pains to find it; and have found somewhat which I conceive is like to it, if not Identically it. The man (I take it) would be here conceived to reason after this manner: If the Church of Christ ought to be ruled or governed, only with one species or kind of government, then ought not they to be suffered, who go about to pluralize this government, or to set up a kind of government in the Church, specifically differing from the government more generally practised and established. Sed verum prius: Ergo & posterius: and consequently the Apologists being men that would do such a thing as this, are not to be tolerated. If this be the argument, this is the Answer. First, the consequence is lame, and halts right down; because, though the Church of Christ ought to be governed with one and the same kind of government throughout the world, yet it no ways follows from hence, that therefore that government which is more generally established and practised in the world, should be that specifical government whereby it ought to be governed. If this consequence were good, it would highly be friend the government Pontifician, but dissolve and destroy the government Presbyterian; because the Pontifician government, is, (or at least not long since was) far more ecumenical, and comprehensive, than the Presbyterian either is, or is like to be. Therefore in framing this consequence, the man hath given sentence against himself and his own beloved opinion touching Church-Discipline; and hath put a sword into the Pope's hand to smite as well the Consistorian, as the congregational government. And,  
Secondly, suppose the government more generally practised in the world, be that very kind of government, whereby the Churches of Christ ought to be governed; yet, except this government, both as touching the lawfulness and necessity of it, be sufficiently cleared to the judgement and consciences of those, from whom submission to it is required (an honour whereunto A. S. his government hath not yet been preferred by all his great friends) they ought not to be scourged with ●●s Scorpions, if they demur a while about their submission thereunto; and in the mean season, desire to live under such a government, wherein they have double and triple satisfaction, both in point of lawfulness and necessity, above the other. Thirdly, and lastly, though unity and uniformity in government be very fitting and necessary throughout the Churches of Christ, yet that the servants of Christ should fall foul one upon another, and the greater eat up the less for this uniformity sake, is no ways necessary; especially considering that God (as hath been formerly showed) hath provided other means far more gracious, honourable and proper, for the bringing of the blessedness of this uniformity upon his Churches in due time. So that if there be any thing in this Reason, it is altogether with, and not at all against the Apologists.  
To your fifteenth, we answer, first, be it supposed, (which yet 
His 15. Reason answered.  we shall presently oppose) that neither Christ, nor his Apostles ever granted any toleration to divers Sects and Governments in the Church; yet did he or they ever grant a power to a major part of Professors in a Kingdom or Nation, to grind the faces of their Brethren, partakers of like precious faith and holiness with them, either because they could not in all points jump with them in their judgements, or because they endeavoured to keep a good conscience toward God, for following the ducture and guidance of their present light? If you will take without ask that, which neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted you, you may very well bear it at the hands of your Brethren, if they humbly sue and entreat for what they never granted; especially considering that that which you take is imperious and high, tending to the annoyance and trouble of many; whereas that which they sue for, is moderate and low, only a peaceable standing amongst you, that they may be able to do good unto many. Secondly, if neither Christ nor his Apostles (as you say) ever granted any toleration to divers Sects and Governments in his Church, how come you and your Government to be tolerated, your Government being specifically diversified from that of the Papacy (as is before observed) which is more general and extensive than yours? If you have not a toleration for your government, either from Christ or his Apostles, we are doubtful from whom, or whence you have it. Thirdly, do you not by this reason build up the walls of Babylon, and strengthen the Papists in their bloody error, against the reformed Churches, upon which they look as schismatical from their Mother, and in that respect think them no ways fit to be tolerated, but to be suppressed both in their doctrine and government, yea and in case they will not be reduced to the principles of Rome, to be wholly extirpated and rooted out of the world? What can be spoken more to the heart of such apprehensions, and counsels, and resolutions as these, then that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted any toleration to divers Sects and Governments in the Church? Fourthly, whereas you say, that they granted no toleration to divers Sects, do you not imply, that they did grant a toleration to some one Sect at least, if not to more. And how know you whether the Sect of Apologisme (in your improperating stile) be not that Sect, or one of those Sects, to which Christ and his Apostles (it seems) granted a toleration? Is it not (I appeal to your judgement and conscience) as like to be this as any other? Fifthly, we willingly grant your conclusion in this Reason, sensu sano; that there is no reason why the Apologists should sue for a toleration, no nor yet properly, why they should be tolerated (toleration in propriety of signification, as was formerly noted, being rei malae, appliable only to that which is evil) but rather why they should be countenanced and encouraged. Therefore if you think that they shall sin in suing for a toleration, you shall do well to prevent that sin in them (and perhaps shall withal prevent a greater of your own) by declaring them persons worthy not of a toleration, but of encouragement; or at least by procuring them a toleration, that they may not be put upon the tentation of suing for it. But sixthly and lastly, to the main frame of your Reason: what do you think of Sinite utrunque crescere, Let both grow together until the Harvest, Matth. 13. 30. Is not here the toleration granted which you deny to be granted? Non laclacti, nec ovum ovo similius; If it be not this toleration, certainly it is somewhat as like to it as like may be. You know who the Housholder is, that gave this order, laid this restraint upon his servants; otherwise the 37. verse will inform you. And who do you think should be meant by the tares? You will not say, the good sons of the Church, at least so acknowledged by their Mother. You cannot say (with reason) the lose, vicious, etc. morally disordered sons of the Church, because these were sown in the field before the Housholder sew that good seed therein (spoken of v. 24. and 38.) whereas the tares, which must be let grow to harvest, are expressly said to have been sown after, v. 25. And besides such wicked and vicious persons as these, at least as the danger and degree of their wickedness may be, aught to be gathered out of the State (and then they cannot grow in the field till harvest) by the hand of the civil Magistrate. Therefore thirdly (and last) you must by the tares, of necessity understand, such in the Church as you call Sectaries, Schismatics, Heretics, such as corrupt the purity of the doctrine of the Gospel, by erroneous and false opinions, or at least are looked upon by the greater part of the respective Churches of Christ, as such. Which yet appears further, by the reason which the Housholder renders unto his servants, why he would not have them plucked up, but grow until the harvest, lest (saith he) whilst ye go about to gather the tares, ye pluck up the wheat also. There is no danger of hurting or plucking up the wheat, i. the children of the Kingdom, v. 38. by punishing civil or moral misdemeanours of men; but if Magistrates or others shall be busy about plucking up Sectaries, Heretics, etc. they will be in continual danger of plucking up the wheat. First, because many truly pious and conscientious men, children of the Kingdom, may soon be drawn into some unwarrantable Sect and opinion: And secondly, such opinions as are sentenced by the generality or major part of a Church, as erroneous or heretical, and so expose those that hold them to the reproachful names of Sectaries, Schismatics, Heretics, very often fall out to be the sacred truths of God, and the persons holding them forth unto the world, the best and faithful est of his servants.  
For your sixteenth reason, it concerneth others more than the Apologists, 
His 16. Reason answered.  to answer; the frame of it being an indignabund relation (whether true or no, caveat lector) of what hard measure the New-Englanders offered to some that desired to sit down amongst them, because they differed a little from them in point of discipline. The men here charged, are of age to speak for themselves; and besides, want no abilities otherwise. I make no question, but if they had but the correcting of A. S. his Relation, they would be able to make more reason and equity of it, then without some correction or other, I am able to do. But (to leave our brethren in New-England to their own Apology) I would fain know of A. S. what he means to do with his story; or how he intends to bring it under contribution to his cause. For first, he doth not only not approve of those proceed, which he relateth, but is very passionate and intemperate in the very relation.  Delicti fles idem reprehensor, & Author? 
Is the man so full of the spirit of reprehension against such practices, and yet so full of the spirit of imitation also? Or what? Is his desire so great, to appropriate or engross the power and practice of persecuting for difference in religion to himself and his own party, that he is not able patiently to bear the sight of either in others? If your brethren in New-England stumbled at the stone you speak of, persecuted (as you say) those that were approved by themselves both for their life and doctrine, merely because they differed a little from them in point of discipline, you have a fair warning; take heed that you do not stumble at the same stone also. They (its like) justified themselves in themselves, in those proceed, though they did not so in the fight of God; but if you, having condemned them in what they did, shall nevertheless run the same course, you will be both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both self-condemned, and God-condemned also, and so have no cloak nor shelter for your sin.  
But you think it no ways reasonable, that the Apologists, being of the same profession, (as you speak) should be suitors for a toleration in Old-England. We answer, first, if you speak with reference to those proceed immediately before reported by you, you are more of the same profession with them, than your brethren the Apologists. These do not profess persecution merely for a little difference in point of Discipline; the world knows who they are that do little less. Secondly, what though men of the same profession with them, miscarried for want of such light, as should have directed them in a better way; must this be a band of conscience upon them, to bow down their backs without any more ado, and to suffer Presbyterian greatness to go over them, as the stones in the street? Nay thirdly, they have the more reason and necessity, in regard of such a miscarriage of their brethren, to sue for a toleration here; because by that miscarriage of theirs, they are awakened to expect and fear yet far harder measure from you and your party, if they do not bestir themselves by some means or other to prevent it. He that feels the smart of rods to be grievous, hath the more reason, not the less, to take heed of being beaten with Scorpions. Fourthly (and last) why should you any ways be against your brethren suing for a toleration, when as there lies a necessity upon you to grant it or consent to it, unless you mean to steer that New-England course, which you have with so high a hand of indignation contested with, in this very reason? Except (haply) you have this ingenuous reach in it, for your reputations, that you would honest is precibus occurrere, prevent all honest and reasonable requests with the early forwardness of your bounty. If I could reasonably think this to be your design, I would seriously persuade with the Apologists to wave their suit for a toleration, and so to gratify you with an honourable opportunity of doing good, before you were provoked by any man's suit or motion to it.  
But men that are subject to fears, are seldom sons of bounty. The bottom (it seems) of all that A. S. hath pleaded throughout his Discourse, against the Toleration of Apologisme, is a solemn fear that possesseth him, of being sent he and all his party into some Isle of Dogs, if the congregational men had but the upper hand over them. Omne timidum natura querulum. But I can hardly believe that the man is really afraid of what he here pretendeth; (in which case he were rather to be pitied, then roundly dealt with) first, because himself confesseth, that some of his brethren hold, that all Sects and opinions are to be tolerated, p. 6. So that in case these men should have the upper hand, he is assured of a party at least among them, to secure him and his in that kind. Secondly, he confesseth again and again, that his brethren are very pious and holy men; and therefore certainly will not be so dogged as to send him and his into any Isle of Dogs. Thirdly, a poor toleration is as far from a superiority of power, as rags are from the robe, or the dunghill from the throne. Fourthly, I do not think that he knows any such Isle as he speaks of, whereinto he fears to be sent, by the men of his indignation. Fifthly and lastly, if he should be sent into some Isle of Dogs, the soil and climate might probably agree well with him; he hath learned (it seems) to bark and by't too, against his sending thither.  
To conclude, for this Reason, Whereas fear indeed ordinarily makes men cruel, it is much to be feared, A. S. only pretends fear, that so he may have a colour to be cruel.  
To his seventeenth Reason we answer. First, that the Scripture doth 
His 17. Reason answered.  not forbid all, nor any such Toleration as the Apologists desire. This was sufficiently showed before in our answer to the fifteenth Reason. His proof from Revel. 2. 20. holds no intelligence at all with his purpose; yea, it makes sore against himself and his Synedrion. For first, by the toleration or suffering of Jezabel, which is there charged as a sinful neglect upon the Church of Thyatira, is not meant a Civil or State-toleration, but an Ecclesiastic or Church-toleration. This Church suffered false Doctrines to be taught in her very bosom, and her members to be corrupted and endangered thereby, from day to day, without laying it to heart being a matter of that sad consequence) and without calling those to an account that were the sowers of such tares, broachers & spreaders of such opinions; yea without using any means, to have the truth sound taught in opposition to such Doctrines. Both Pastor and people (it seems) slept together, whilst the envious man, by his Agent and Factress Jezabel, sowed these tares in their field. Such a toleration as this we formerly shown to be sinful; and the Apologists are as much against it as you; so far are they from desiring it, or suing for it. They desire a Toleration for themselves and their Churches in the Civil state; not that the errors which spring up in their Churches, should be suffered to fret like gangrenes, without being opposed by them, or be protected by the State. Secondly, whereas that particular Church alone is charged by Christ, with this toleration or sufferance of Jezabel, and not any more Churches, whether neighbours or not neighbours to her, nor any combined Eldership, or state Ecclesiastical, made of the consociation of the seven Churches, much less any state civil, evident it is, that the care and power of redressing emerging enormities or evils in a Church in every kind, is committed by Christ to every particular Church respectively, within itself. And so they that trouble the Church must (as you say) be cut off. But by whom? not by the civil Magistrate (if the trouble be spiritual) nor by the combined Eldership, but by the particular Church itself, which is troubled by them, in case there be no remedy otherwise. Secondly, when you say, that there must be no such speeches among us, as I am of Paul, I am of Apollo's, etc. nor that some are Calvinians, some Independenters, some Brownists, etc. And again, that we must all be Christ's, we must all think and speak the same thing, otherwise men are carnal, etc. (with some other good words to like purpose) we join heart and hand with you in all these things, and are ready to contribute the best of our endeavours unto yours, if ye will suffer us, to make the Tabernacle of God amongst us, according to this pattern which you show unto us. Such expressions, I am of Paul, I of Apollo's, etc. together with the names of Calvinians, Independents, Brownists, etc. are as un●un●able in our ears, as in yours, etc. But,  
First, every man that saith, I am of Paul, or, I am of Apollo's, is not to be taught by Thorns and Briars, (as G●deon taught the men of Succoth) to speak better, by fining, imprisoning, unchurching, or the like; but by soundness of conviction, and wholesomeness of instruction from the Word of God. The German● have a saying, That etiam in introne puniendo potest peccari. A man may sin in punishing him that most of all deserves it. It is not enough for us to correspond with God in his ends, but we must keep as close to him in his means also. Secondly, whereas you say, we must all be Christ's; surely there is none of those Sects you speak of, but are willing to join with you in being his, and in being called by his Name, rather than by any other. We fear, these unhappy sounds, of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, etc. are more frequently made of your breath, then of the breath of any other sort, or sect of men amongst us. Thirdly, whereas you add, Neither hath the Church of God a custom to be contentious; the Apostle indeed saith, 1 Cor. 11. 16. that the Churches of God have no such custom; but he doth not say, that these Churches of God had any custom, to erect a Presbyterian throne, or a combined eldership amongst them, to keep them from contentions. Fourthly, whereas you tell us, that neither permitteth the Apostle Schisms; we tell you, that we have already told you (and that once and again) both in what sense he permitteth them, and in what not, and have showed you our concurrence with him in both. Fifthly (and last) in that you tell us, that we must not quit our mutual meetings, as others do, and as must (you say) be done in a public Toleration, we neither well understand the sense of your words, much less any purport in them to your purpose. We do not know what quitting of meetings there is like to be more, under a public toleration, then is for the present.  
Your eighteenth Reason is so Atheological, and unworthy your 
His 18. Reason Answered.  cause, that the very naming of it might be Answer sufficient. A toleration (say you) cannot but expose your Churches unto the calumnies of Papists, who evermore object unto Protestants the innumerable number of these Sects, whereas they pretend to be nothing but one Church. Will you redeem yourself out of the hand of Popish calumnies, by symbolising with them? will you turn Turk, that you may not suffer Turkish insolences and thraldom? Surely you forget your argument insisted upon in your eleventh Reason: There you make symbolising with Papists, a reason against your Brethren and their Opinions, why they should not be tolerated; and here you make a defect or want in them of symbolising with them, a reason likewise why they should not be tolerated. It seems contradictions, inconsistences, impertinences, unintelligibilities, sense, nonsense, any thing, nothing, will serve to make reasons against the poor Independenters (as you call them) why they must not be tolerated. Was not the consideration of your own, pag. 14. that the Devil evermore assaults more the true Church, the true Doctrine, and true Discipline, than the corrupted Church, her corrupted Doctrine or Discipline, a far better sanctuary for your Churches against those Popish calumnies you speak of, than a correspondence with them, to keep you in unity and conformity? But this Reason we have answered formerly.  
Your nineteenth Reason, is very concise. In this you only say, that 
His 19 reason answered.  of such a Toleration follows all you formerly deduced out of Independency. And so it may without putting the world to much damage, or sorrow. When we cast up your deductions of inconveniencies out of Independency, we found them counterballanced to the height with the exits from Presbytery. If you poise your wallet well, you will the end that hangs at your back the heavier. But for answer to this Reason, I refer the Reader to the former Chapter.  
His twentieth Reason, is somewhat of a differing strain from the 
His 20. reason answered.  rest. The ground and bottom of it seems to be, a desire of a plausible insinuation with the Assembly, under a pretence of jealousy over them, lest they should suffer in point of honour, in case his Brethren should obtain a Toleration. But first, good A. S. why must it needs be thought, in case it should be granted unto them, that it was extorted by force of Reason, or that all the Assembly were not able to answer your Brethren? This suggestion smells of worse blood about the heart, than all the Reasons hitherto; Fearing (it seems) that all engagements upon the Assembly in point of conscience to deny the Apologists a Toleration, might fail, and prove ineffectual that way; he seeks here to engage them in point of honour, by way of reserve; telling them (in effect) that howsoever their consciences might favour the Independenters in point of Toleration, yet their credits and reputations would suffer by it. Yet let the suggestion be but a little looked into, and it will be found to reflect no great matter of grace or commendation upon the Assembly itself. For if no favour or courtesy can be thought to come from them, but that which is extorted by reason, and the denial whereof they cannot answer, it is a sign that they are not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, which yet the Holy Ghost makes the standing characters of that wisdom which is from above. 
James 3. 17.   
Whereas he adds, that their opinion and demands are against all reason, and that sundry of them could not deny as much, and had nothing to say, but that it was God's Ordinance. We answer, first, that what A. S. his standard is, whereby he measures Reason, we are not so well acquainted with him, as to know, but according to ours, this assertion of his opens seven times wider against all reason, then either the opinion or demands of his Antagonists. First, for their opinion, we believe that somewhat more than nonsense or irrationalities, hath been argued by themselves in the Assembly for it: Is it like, that very learned men, and of abilities to dispute their opinion in any Assembly in Europe (which are A. S. own letters of recommendation on their behalf) should rise up to defend an opinion that is contrary to all reason? And somewhat like unto reason (at least so called, amongst our vulgar apprehensions) hath been said for it in the preceding part of this Discourse. And secondly, for their Demands; though A. S. doth not inform us what they are, or wherein that fiery contestation against all reason, which he finds in them, consists, yet we suppose, he means their suing for a Toleration, that high misdemeanour, for which he hath judged them now these ten times. Was it, or is it, or would it be against all reason, for the poor Protestant Churches in France, to sue for a Toleration in the state, if it were not granted unto them without suing? Or is it not much more agreeable to reason, that Protestant Churches should be tolerated in a Protestant State, then in a State Pontificial; especially in such a Protestant State, of which they have so eminently deserved, as the Apologists and their Churches, and men of their judgement have done of this, as was briefly touched in the beginning of this Chapter? Or is it against all reason, that those persons in the Low-countrieses, between whose judgements there is that known variety of differences in matters of Religion, and which concern the worship of God, being not able so well to accommodate themselves for livelihood and subsistence in any other State, with the freedom of their consciences should desire a Toleration in that? Suppose those men of your judgement, of whom you speak, pag. 10. who were (as you there say) condemned to death for their Discipline, ready to be executed, and were afterwards exiled into foreign countries; Suppose (I say) these men had desired a Toleration in their own country, of those who thus unreasonably dealt with them, had they violated all Rules and Principles of Reason by such a desire? But the truth is, that the assertion is so notoriously against all reason, that it is scarce consistent with reason to bestow so much pen in answer to it. There is but one only supposition to make either reason or truth of it; if it be granted, it may pass for both. If the desires of some Presbyterians be All Reason, and nothing reason but they, than both the Opinion and Demands of the Apologists, must be acknowledged to be against all Reason. But otherwise I know no principle or rule of reason at all so much as discourtesied by either.  
Secondly, whereas you say, that sundry of themselves could not deny it, and had nothing to say, etc. First, certain I am, that some of them have absolutely denied any such confession. Secondly, the acknowledgement itself looks no more like any of the rest, than a mere fiction doth the Relator. I believe that upon inquiry it will be found a misprision of truth. For doth it not sound aloud incredibility, that men of sufficient abilities to dispute their opinion in any Assembly in Europe, should confess their Opinion and Demands to be against all reason? But such stones as these are fit for A. S. his building.  
Thirdly, whereas you say, that they could never show (their opinion) out of God's word; we answer, that they have often shown it; but God and men (it seems) are not yet agreed to have it so generally seen, as is to be desired: but our hope is, that the agreement will be concluded between them in due time.  
Fourthly and lastly, you conclude this reason, with this undertaking, that if it (your brethren's opinion we suppose you mean, though it's hard both here and in twenty places more, to know your meaning clearly) be refused, it will help to confirm the Churches, and the people in truth. We desire to know in truth of what? It will indeed confirm both marvellously, in the truth of Presbyterian fastness to their own cause; but in what other truth it should confirm either the one or the other, we wait for our intelligence from you to know.  
Your 21. and last reason (save only those which you say you omit) 
His last Reason answered.  is but a slip of your ninteenth, being somewhat that follows out of Independency. But here you tell us, that the Government so called, cannot but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiastical Government. Is Saul also among the Prophets? Haec verba loquentis ab ore, Gaudens arripio, & st●●●● factus Numine, adoro. I joy over these words, and reverence them so ●hat I conceive to be of God in them. We know who prophesied when he was not ware of it. Indeed, by the beauty and perfect consonancy of this government with the word of God, it may very reasonably (yea and upon higher terms then of reason) be thought that in time it cannot but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiastical government, and stand up itself in their stead. F●xit Deus, & festinet.  
But that which you add in the close of this Reason, plainly showeth, that you had no mind to prophesy, though God had, or might have b● you: for here you say, that this order, by necessary consequence, will breed all sort of disorder. No, first, it will not breed the disorder of oppressing conscientious men for conscience sake: nor secondly, of discouraging men from searching the Scriptures more narrowly; not thirdly, of having recourse unto the word for the setting up of the government of Christ's Kingdom; nor fourthly, of making men walk sundry miles for what they might have upon as good or better terms at home, besides a thousand other disorders, which the order of your Independency will never breed by any consequence at all, necessary or unnecessary, being of a very sovereign importance to prevent them. And for your premises (in the body of your Reason) by which you would fain make the match, between the order of Independency, and all sort of disorder, they are but false brokers. The Independent Churches (as you call them) have no such custom, as for one to give entertainment or admission to any person, that hath been censured by another, without the censure first relaxed by that Church which inflicted it, or without the consent of this Church. This is their reproach, not their practice.  
And thus we see that amongst A. S. his 21. Reasons, there is not one that will stand by their Master, when they are but a little put to it; there is none of them but with a little persuasion and debate, will willingly enough consent to a Toleration for the Apologists. If the Disputant himself, with his party, were but as tractable as his reasons, there need no more words be made about the business.  
As for his afterbirth of Reasons, (p. 65.) since he professeth himself that he omits them, we shall comport with him herein, and omit them also; I hope he will think himself a debtor to us for this compliance. It seems that himself placeth no great confidence in them, in that he mentions them as if he mentioned them not, and thought them not worthy to be numbered amongst his firstborn. His Horsemen (you see) have been overcome, and yielded themselves: his Infantry knows the manner of the field, and will, no question, surrender without encounter. Nor is there any thing for weight or substance in this Tail of Reasons, but what hath been broken already in the Head.   
FINIS.