The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 31
Page 10, He digresseth to other objections of his own framing, instead of taking off what I had said.
HIS ABUSING OF THE SCRIPTURES.
Mr Coleman did ground an argument upon Psal. x.x.xiii. 15; Prov. xxvii. 29, which cannot stand with the intent of the Holy Ghost, because contrary to other scriptures and to the truth, as I proved, p. 38. He answereth, in his _Re-examination_, that my sense may stand, and his may stand too. But if my sense may stand, which is contrary to his, then his argument had no sure ground for it; yea, that which I said was to prove that his consequence, drawn from those scriptures, did contradict both the apostle Paul's doctrine and his own profession, which still lieth upon him since it is not answered.
Page 14, He citeth 1 Cor. x. 32, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of G.o.d," to prove that all government is either a Jewish government, or a church government, or a heathenish government, and that _there is no third._ Yes, Sir, yourself hath given a third (for you have told three), but _transeat c.u.m caeteris erroribus_. To the matter. This is a perverting of scripture to prove an untruth; for the government of generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, is neither a Jewish government nor a church government, nor a heathenish government. Neither doth the Apostle speak anything of government in that place. He maketh a distribution of all men who are in danger to be scandalised-not of governments; and if he had applied the place rightly to the Parliament of England, he had said, They are either of the Jews, or of the Gentiles, or of the church of G.o.d: and this needeth not an answer. But when he saith, "The English Parliament is either a Jewish government, or a church government, or a heathenish government," I answer, It is none of these, but it is a civil government.
Page 15, Declaring his opinion of church government he citeth Rom. xiii.
4, "To execute wrath upon him that doeth evil," to prove that the punitive part belongs to the Christian magistrate. But what is this to the punitive part which is in controversy,-spiritual censures, suspension from the sacraments, deposition from the ministry, excommunication? The punitive part spoken of, Rom. xiii., belongeth to all civil magistrates, whether Christian or infidel.
Page 18. He maketh this reply to 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. xvii.; Heb. xiii.
7, 17: "Why, man, I have found these an hundred and an hundred times twice told, and yet am I as I was." Why, Sir, was the argument so ridiculous? I had brought those places to prove another government (and, if you will, the inst.i.tution of another government) beside magistracy, which he said he did not find in Scripture. Here are some who are no civil magistrates set over the Thessalonians in the Lord, 1 Thess. v. 12; Paul writeth to Timothy of elders that rule well, 1 Tim. v. 17; the churches of the Hebrews had some rulers who had spoken to them the word of G.o.d, Heb. xiii.
7; rulers that watched for their souls as they that must give an account, ver. 17. Now let the reverend brother speak out, What can he answer? Were these rulers civil magistrates? Did the civil magistrate speak to them the word of G.o.d? If these rulers were not magistrates but ministers, I ask next. Is it a matter of indifferency, and no inst.i.tution, to have a ministry in a church or not? I hope, though he do not acknowledge ruling elders _jure divino_, yet he will acknowledge that the ministers of the word are _jure divino_; yet these were some of the rulers mentioned in the scriptures quoted. Let him loose the knot, and laugh when he hath done.
Page 19, 20, He laboureth to prove from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that Christ hath placed civil government in his church; and whereas it is said, that though it were granted that civil governments are meant in that place, yet it proves not that Christ hath placed them in the church. He replieth, "I am sure the Commissioner will not stand to this: he that placed governors was the same that placed teachers." But his a.s.surance deceiveth him; for upon supposition that civil governments are there meant (which is his sense), I deny it, and he doth but _petere principium_. G.o.d placed civil governments, Christ placed teachers; G.o.d placed all whom Christ placed, but Christ did not place all whom G.o.d placed. Next, whereas it was said, that governments in that place cannot be meant of Christian magistrates, because at that time the church had no Christian magistrates, he replieth, That Paul speaks of governments that the church had not, because in the enumeration, ver. 29, 30, he omits none but _helps_ and _governments_. I answer, The reason of that omission is not because these two were not then in being (for G.o.d had set them as well as the rest in the church, ver.
28), but to make ruling elders and deacons contented with their station, though they be not prophets, teachers, &c. Thirdly, I asked, How comes civil government into the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual administrations? His reply is nothing but an affirmation, that Christian magistracy is an ecclesiastical administration, and a query whether working of miracles and gifts of healings be ecclesiastical. _Ans._ Hence followeth, 1. That if the magistrate cease to be Christian he loseth his administration; 2. That though a worker of miracles cease to be Christian, yet it is a question whether he may not still work miracles. Lastly, Where I objected that he puts magistracy behind ministry, he makes no answer, but only that he may do this as well as my rule puts the n.o.bility of Scotland behind the ministry. No, Sir, we put but ruling elders behind ministers in the order of their administrations because the Apostle doth so. It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the n.o.bility, or to n.o.bles to be ruling elders: there are but some so, and many otherwise.
That of placing deacons before elders, 1 Cor. xii. 28, is no great matter; sure the Apostle, Rom. xii., placeth elders before deacons.
HIS ERRORS IN DIVINITY.
1. Page 21, He admitteth no church government distinct from civil, except that which is merely doctrinal; and, p. 14, he adviseth the Parliament to take the corrective power wholly into their own hands, and exempteth nothing of ecclesiastical power from their hands but the dispensing of the word and sacraments. Hence it followeth that there ought to be neither suspension from the sacrament, nor excommunication, nor ordination, nor deposition of ministers, nor receiving of appeals, except all these things be done by the civil magistrate. If he say the magistrate gives leave to do these things, I answer, 1. So doth he give leave to preach the word and minister the sacraments in his dominions. 2. Why doth he then, in his sermon, and doth still, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, advise the Parliament to lay no burden of corrective government upon ministers, but keep it wholly in their own hands? It must needs be far contrary to his mind that the magistrate gives leave to do the things above mentioned, they being most of them corrective, and all of them more than doctrinal.
3. He gives no more power to ministers in church government than in civil government; for, p. 11, he ascribeth to them a ministerial, doctrinal and declarative power, both in civil and ecclesiastical government.
2. Page 11, 14, He holds that the corrective or punitive part of church government is civil or temporal, and is wholly to be kept in the magistrate's own hands; and, in his sermon, p. 25, he told us he sees not in the whole Bible any one act of that church government in controversy performed. All which how erroneous it is appeareth easily from 1 Cor. v.
13, "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (which Mr Prynne himself, in his _Vindication_, p. 2, acknowledged to be a warrant for excommunication); 2 Cor. ii. 6, There is a "punishment," or censure, "inflicted of many;" 1 Tim. v. 19, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." Where acts of church government or censures were neglected it is extremely blamed; Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. Was not all this corrective? yet not civil or temporal.
3. Page 9, Whereas I had said, That without church government ministers shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution, he replieth, That he understands neither this keeping of themselves from pollution, nor what this pollution of the ordinances is. I am sorry for it, that any minister of the gospel is found unclear in such a point. I will not give my own, but scriptural answers to both. The former is answered, 1 Tim. v.
22, Be not "partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure." It is sin to dispense ordinances to the unworthy, whether ordination, or communion in the sacrament. For the other, the pollution of ordinances is the Scripture language. I hope he means not to quarrel at the Holy Ghost's language: Ezek. xxii. 26, "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane;"
Mal. i. 7, "Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar;" ver. 12, "Ye have profaned it;" Matt. xxi. 13, "Ye have made it a den of thieves;" Matt.
vii. 6, "Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet."
4. Page 11, Whereas I had objected to him, that he excludeth ruling elders as well as ministers from government, he answers, That ruling elders are either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister (which, as he thinks, the Independents own, but not I), or they are the Christian magistrate; and so he saith he doth not exclude them. Mark here, he excludeth all ruling elders from a share in church government who are not either the same, for office and ordination, with the minister, or else the Christian magistrate; and so, upon the matter, he holdeth that ruling elders are to have no hand in church government. Those ruling elders which are in the votes of the a.s.sembly, and in the reformed churches, have neither the power of civil magistracy (_qua_ elders, and many of them not at all, being no magistrates), nor yet are they the same, for office and ordination, with the minister; for their office, and, consequently, their ordination to that office, is distinct from that of the minister among all that I know. And so, excluding all ruling elders from government who are neither magistrates, nor the same with ministers, he must needs take upon him that which I charged him with.
5. Page 21, Where he makes reply to what I said against his argument from Eph. i. 19-21, he saith, He will blow away all my discourse with this clear demonstration, "That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d, and Christ as G.o.d cannot be given. But this place (Eph. i. 19-21) speaketh both of dignity given to Christ, and of Christ as a gift given; therefore Christ cannot be here understood as G.o.d." This is in opposition to what I said, p. 45, concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural son of G.o.d, "the image of the invisible G.o.d," Col. i. 15; and, p. 43, of the dominion of Christ, as he is the "eternal Son of G.o.d." This being premised, the brother's demonstration is so strong as to blow himself into a blasphemous heresy. I will take the proposition from himself, and the a.s.sumption from Scripture, thus: That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. But all power in heaven and in earth is given to Christ, Matt.
xxviii. 18; life is given to Christ, John v. 26; authority to execute judgment is given to Christ, ver. 27; all things are given into Christ's hands, John iii. 35; the Father hath given him power over all flesh, John xvii. 2; He hath given him glory, John xvii. 22: therefore, by Mr Coleman's principles, Christ hath neither life, nor glory, nor authority to execute judgment, nor power over all flesh, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, consubstantial with the Father, but only as he is Mediator, G.o.d and man. As for the giving of Christ as G.o.d, what if I argue thus? If Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, or Second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity, could not be given, then the incarnation itself, or the sending of the Son of G.o.d to take on our flesh, cannot be called a giving of a gift to us. But this were impious to say; therefore, again, if Christ, as he is the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, could not be given, then the Holy Ghost, as the Third Person, cannot be given (for they are co-essential; and that which were a dishonour to G.o.d the Son were a dishonour to G.o.d the Holy Ghost); but to say that the Holy Ghost cannot be given as the Third Person, were to say that he cannot be given as the Holy Ghost. And what will he then say to all those scriptures that speak of the giving of the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 8; Rom. v. 5; 1 John iv. 13, &c.?
Finally, As Mr Coleman's demonstration hath blown away itself, so it could not hurt me were it solid and good (as it is not); for he should have taken notice, that, in my examination, I did not restrict the dignity given to Christ, Eph. i. 21, nor the giving of Christ, ver. 22, to the Divine nature only. Nay, I told, p. 44, 46, that these words of the Apostle hold true even of the human nature of Christ.
6. Page 21, He concludeth with a syllogism, which he calleth the scope of my discourse (I know not by what logic, the proposition being forged by himself, and contrary to my discourse); thus it is:-
Whosoever do not manage their office and authority under Christ, and for Christ, they manage it under the devil, and for the devil; for there is no middle-either Christ or Belial: he that is not with me is against me.
But, according to the opinion of the Commissioner, Christian magistracy doth not manage the office and authority thereof under Christ, and for Christ.
Therefore,-
He believes I shall be hard put to it to give the kingdom a clear and satisfactory answer. It is well that this is the hardest task he could set me.
The truth is, his syllogism hath _quatuor terminos_, and is therefore worthy to be exploded by all that know the laws of disputation. Those words in the proposition, "under Christ, and for Christ," can have no other sense but to be serviceable to Christ, to take part with him, and to be for the glory of Christ, as is clear by the confirmation added, "He that is not with me is against me." But the same words in the a.s.sumption must needs have another sense, "Under Christ, and for Christ;" that is, _vice Christi_, in Christ's stead. For that which I denied was, That magistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator, or that Christ as Mediator hath given a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian magistrate to manage his office and authority under, and for him, and in his name; as is clear in my examination, p. 42. Nay, Mr Coleman himself, a little before his syllogism, p. 19, takes notice of so much. His words are these: "The Commissioner saith, Magistracy is not derived from Christ: I say, Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom; so that, though the Commissioners a.s.sertion be sound (which in due place will be discussed), yet it infringeth nothing that I said." Now then, _qua fide_ could he, in his argument against me, confound these two things which he himself had but just now carefully distinguished? If he will make anything of his syllogism he must hold at one of these two senses. In the first sense it is true that all are either for Christ or against Christ; and it is as true that his a.s.sumption must be distinguished. For, _de facto_, the Christian magistrate is for Christ when he doth his duty faithfully, and is against Christ if he be unfaithful. But, _de jure_, it holds true universally, that the Christian magistrate manageth his office under and for Christ; that is, so as to be serviceable for the kingdom and glory of Christ. In the second sense (which only concerneth me) taking "under and for Christ," to be in Christ's stead, as his deputies or vicegerents, so his a.s.sumption is lame and imperfect, because it doth not hold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did, and still do hold, is this: That the civil magistrate, whether Christian or pagan, is G.o.d's vicegerent, who, by virtue of his vicegerentship, is to manage his office and authority under G.o.d, and for G.o.d; that is, in G.o.d's stead, and as G.o.d upon earth: but he is not the vicegerent of Christ as Mediator, neither is he, by virtue of any such vicegerentship, to manage his office and authority under Christ, and for Christ; that is, in Christ's stead, and as Christ Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (not mine alone, but of others more learned), and Mr Coleman hath not said so much as yo? to confute it. So much for the a.s.sumption. But in the same sense I utterly deny his proposition, as being a great untruth in divinity; for the sense of it can be no other than this: Whosoever do not manage their office and authority in Christ's stead, or as deputies and vicegerents of Christ, as he is Mediator, they manage it in the devil's stead, as the devil's deputies and vicegerents. Now I a.s.sume pagan magistrates do not manage their office as the deputies and vicegerents of Jesus Christ, as he is Mediator, therefore as the devil's deputies. Which way was the authority derived to them from Christ as Mediator? Mr Coleman, p. 19, saith in answer to this particular, formerly objected, that Christ is rightful king of the whole earth, and all nations ought to receive Christ, though as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to show was, that the pagan magistrate, even while continuing pagan and not Christian, doth manage his office as Christ's deputy and vicegerent; if not, then I conclude by his principles, a pagan magistrate is the devil's deputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to Paul's doctrine, who will have us to be subject for conscience' sake, even to heathen magistrates, as the ministers of G.o.d for good, Rom. xiii. 1-7. By the same argument Mr Coleman must grant that generals, admirals, majors, sheriffs, constables, captains, masters, yea, every man that hath an office, is either Christ's vicegerent, or the devil's vicegerent, than which what can be more absurd?
I might, beside all these, show some other flaws in his divinity, as, namely, p. 9 and 13, he doth not agree to this proposition, that "the admitting of the scandalous and profane to the Lord's table, makes ministers to partake of their sins;" and he supposeth that ministers may do their duty, though they admit the scandalous; but of this elsewhere.
HIS ABUSING OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Most honourable senators, I humbly beseech you to look about you, and take notice how far you are abused by Mr Coleman.
1. While he pretendeth to give you more than his brethren, he taketh a great deal more from you, and, so far as in him lieth, even shaketh the foundation of your authority. The known tenure of magistracy is from G.o.d.
He is the minister of G.o.d (for good, and the powers that are, are ordained of G.o.d, saith the Apostle). The magistrate is G.o.d's vicegerent; but now this brother seeketh a new tenure and derivation of magistracy, which takes away the old. He told in his sermon, p. 27: "Christ hath placed governments in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28; of other governments besides magistracy I find no inst.i.tution, of them I do, Rom. xiii. 1, 2. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator (I desire all to consider it), Eph. i. 21-23; and Christ as head of those given to the church." Here you have these three in subordination, G.o.d, Christ, and the Christian magistrate. G.o.d gives once all government, even civil, to Christ, and to him as Mediator. Well, but how comes it then to the magistrate? Not straight by a deputation from G.o.d. Mr Coleman's doctrine makes an interception of the power. He holds that G.o.d hath put it in Christ's hands as Mediator. How then? The brother holdeth that Christ, as Mediator, hath inst.i.tuted and placed the Christian magistrate, yea, and no other government, in his church. This was the ground of my answer, p. 42, that he "must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as Mediator, hath given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian magistrate, or otherwise acknowledge that he hath given a most dangerous wound to magistracy, and made it an empty t.i.tle, claiming that power which it hath no warrant to a.s.sume." I added: "As the Mediator hath not anywhere given such a commission and power to the magistrate, so, as Mediator, he had it not to give; for he was not made a judge in civil affairs, Luke xii. 14; 'And his kingdom is not of this world,' John xviii. 36." Now, but what reply hath he made to all this? Page 19, he saith, Granting it all to be true and sound, yet it infringeth not what he said. "The commissioner (saith he) saith magistracy is not derived from Christ." I say, "Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom." But by his good leave and favour, he said a great deal more than this, for he spake of Christ's being head of all civil governments, and his placing these in his church as he is Mediator. Yea, that fourth rule delivered by him in his sermon, did hold forth these a.s.sertions: 1. That G.o.d gave all government, even civil, to Christ, and to him as Mediator; 2. That Christ, as Mediator, hath power and authority to place, and subst.i.tute under and for him, the Christian magistrate; 3. That Christ hath placed and inst.i.tuted civil governments in his church, to be under and for him, as he is Mediator; 4. That the Christian magistrate doth, and all magistrates should, manage their office under and for Christ (that is, as his vicegerents), he being, as Mediator, head of all civil government. Now instead of defending his doctrine from my just exceptions made against it, he resileth, and having brought the magistrate in a snare, leaves him there. He endeavours to vindicate no more but this, That magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom. But if he had said so at first, I had said with him, and not against him, in that point; and if he will yet hold at that, why doth he, p. 19, refer my a.s.sertion to further discussion?
Secondly, He hath abused the Parliament in holding forth that rule to them in his sermon, "Establish as few things _jure divino_ as can well be." And yet now he is made, by strength of argument, to acknowledge, p. 5, that this is a good rule, "Establish as many things _jure divino_ as can well be."
Thirdly, I having stated the question to be not whether this or that form of church government be _jure divino_, but whether a church government be _jure divino_; whether Christ hath thus far revealed his will in his word, that there are to be church censures, and those to be dispensed by church-officers. I said the brother is for the negative of this question, p. 32. This he flatly denieth, p. 5, 6, whereby he acknowledgeth the affirmative, that there is a church government _jure divino_, and that Jesus Christ hath so far revealed his will in his word, that there are to be church censures, and those to be dispensed by church-officers. But how doth this agree with his sermon? "Christ hath placed governments in his church. Of other governments (said he) beside magistracy I find no inst.i.tution, of them I do." Is magistracy church government? Are magistrates church officers? Are the civil punishments church censures? Is this the mystery? Yes, that it is. He will tell us anon that the Houses of Parliament are church officers; but if that bolt do any hurt I am much mistaken.
Fourthly, He professeth to subscribe to the votes of Parliament concerning church government, p. 11; and yet he still pleadeth that all ecclesiastical government is merely doctrinal, p. 11, the Parliament having voted that power to church-officers which is not doctrinal (as I showed before). And he adviseth the Parliament to keep wholly in their own hands the corrective part of church government, p. 14, though the Parliament hath put into the hands of elderships a power of suspension from the sacrament, which is corrective.
Fifthly, He did deliver, in that sermon before the honourable House of Commons, divers particulars, which being justly excepted against, and he undertaking a vindication, yet he hath receded from them, or not been able to defend them, as that concerning two co-ordinate governments in one kingdom; and his argument concerning the fear of an ambitious ensnarement in ministers, these being by me infringed, he hath not so much as offered to make them good.
Sixthly, Having acknowledged, under his own hand, that he was sorry he had given offence to the reverend a.s.sembly, and to the Commissioners from Scotland, he now appealeth to the Parliament, and tells us they are able to judge of a scandalous sermon, and they thought not so of it, p. 3. I know they are able to judge of a scandalous sermon: that they thought not so of it, it is more than I know or believe. However I know they have a tender respect to the offence of others, even when themselves are not offended, and so they, and all men, ought to do according to the rule of Christ. For his part, after he had acknowledged he had given offence, it is a disservice to the Parliament to lay over the thing upon them. For my part, I think I do better service to the Parliament in interpreting otherwise that second order of the House, not only desiring, but enjoining Mr Coleman to print that sermon,-as near as he could,-as he preached it.
This was not, as he takes it, one portion of approbation above all its brethren (for I shall not believe that so wise an auditory was not at all scandalised at the hearing of that which was contrary both to the covenant and to their own votes concerning church government, nor at that which he told them out of the Jewish records, that "Hezekiah was the first man that was ever sick in the world, and did recover"); but, as I humbly conceive it was a real censure put upon him, his sermon being so much excepted against and stumbled at, the honourable House of Commons did wisely enjoin him to print his sermon, that it might abide trial in the light of the world, and lie open to any just exceptions which could be made against it abroad, and that he might stand or fall to himself.
Seventhly, He abuseth the Parliament by arrogating so much to himself, as that his sermon "will, in the end, take away all difference, and settle union," p. 3; and that his _Model_ will be, when he is dead, "the model of England's church government," as he saith in his postscript. Whether this be _prophesying_ or _presuming_ I hope we are free to judge. And what if the wisdom and authority of the honourable Houses, upon advice from the reverend and learned a.s.sembly, choose another way than this? Must all the synodical debates, and all the grave parliamentary consultations, resolve themselves into Mr Coleman's way, like Jordan into _Mare Mortuum_.
Eighthly, He doth extremely wound the authority of Parliament in making their office to be a church office, and of the same kind with the minister's office. P. 14, "Do not I hold ministers church officers?" And a little after, "I desire the Parliament to consider another presbyterian principle that excludes your honourable a.s.sembly from being church officers." If so, then the offices of the magistrate and of the minister must stand and fall together; that is, if the nation were not Christian the office of magistracy should cease as well as that of the ministry. And if he make the magistrate a church officer, he must also give him ordination, except, with the Socinians, he deny the necessity of ordination.
HIS ABUSING THE REVEREND a.s.sEMBLY OF DIVINES.
Whereas I had objected that his sermon had given no small scandal and offence, he replieth, p. 3, "But hath it given offence? To whom? I appeal to the honourable audience." Is this candid or fair dealing, when he himself knew both that he had given offence, and to whom? I shall give him no other answer but his own declaration which he gave under his hand after he had preached that sermon:-
"For much of what is reported of my sermon I utterly deny; and refer myself to the sermon itself. For what I have acknowledged to be delivered by me, although it is my judgment, yet, because I see it hath given a great deal of offence to this a.s.sembly and the reverend Commissioners of Scotland, I am sorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof. And for the printing, although I have an order, I will forbear, except I be further commanded.-THO. COLEMAN."
Page 33, I had this pa.s.sage: "And where he asketh where the Independents and we should meet," I answer, "In holding a church government _jure divino_; that is, that the pastors and elders ought to suspend or excommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) scandalous sinners.
Who can tell but the purging of the church from scandals, and the keeping of the ordinances pure (when it shall be actually seen to be the great work endeavoured on both sides), may make union between us and the Independents more easy than many imagine." What reply hath he made to this? P. 6, "Sure I dream (awake then); but I will tell you news: The Presbyterians and Independents are (he should have said _may be_) united; nay, more, the Lutherans and Calvinists; nay, more yet, the Papist and Protestant; nay, more than so, the Turk and Christian." But wherein? "In holding that there is a religion wherein men ought to walk." No, Sir. They must be united upon the like terms; that is, you must first have Turks to be Christians, and Papists to be Protestants; and then you must have them as willing to purge the church of scandals, and to keep the ordinances pure. We will never despair of an union with such as are sound in the faith, holy in life, and willing to a church-refining and sin-censuring government in the hands of church officers. In the meanwhile, it is no light imputation upon the a.s.sembly to hint this much, that the harmony and concord among the members thereof, for such a government as I have now named (though in some other particulars dissenting), can no more unite them than Turks and Christians, Papists and Protestants, can be united.
And now I will tell you my news: The Presbyterians and Independents are both equally interested against the Erastian principles.