Chapter 69

THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH STILL CONTRADICT HIMSELF IN THE STATING OF THIS PRESENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT CHURCH GOVERNMENT.

It was before both denied and yielded by Mr Coleman, that there is a church government which is distinct from the civil, and yet not merely doctrinal. He did profess to subscribe heartily to the votes of Parliament, and yet advised the Parliament to do contrary to their votes, as I proved in _Nihil Respondes_, p. 3. He answereth now, in his _Male Dicis_, p. 4, “I deny an institution; I assent to prudence; Where is the self-contradiction now?” and, p. 5, “The advice looks to _jus divinum_; the Parliament votes to prudence.” Sir, you have spoken evil for yourself; you have made the self-contradiction worse. Will you acknowledge your own words, in your sermon, p. 25, “Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them; have no more hand therein than the Holy Ghost clearly gives them. The ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man,” &c.; “I fear an ambitious ensnarement,” &c.; and, in your _Re-examination_, p. 14, “He should have said, I advised the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon them whom he (this Commissioner) thinks church officers, then had he spoken true.” Now let the reverend brother take heed to checkmate, and that three several ways (but let him not grow angry, as bad players use to do). For, 1. _Eo ipso_ that he denies the institution, by his principles he denies the prudence; for he that denieth the institution, and adviseth the Parliament to lay no more burden of government upon ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them, is against the settling of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not instituted. But Mr Coleman denies the institution, and adviseth the Parliament to lay no more burden of government upon ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them; therefore Mr Coleman is against the settling of the thing in a prudential way, because it is not instituted. And how to reconcile this with his denying of the institution and yielding of the prudence, will require a more reconciling head than Manasseh Ben Israel Conciliator himself. 2. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon ministers, because they have other work to do which will take up the whole man, and because of the fear of an ambitious ensnarement, is against the laying of any burden of corrective government upon ministers, so much as in a prudential way. But Mr Coleman adviseth the Parliament, &c.; therefore the consequence in the proposition is necessary, unless he will say that it is agreeable to the rules of prudence to lay upon them more work besides that which will take up the whole man, or to commit that power unto them which is like to prove an ambitious ensnarement. 3. He that adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden at all of corrective government upon ministers and other officers joined with them in elderships, but to keep that power _wholly_ in their own hands, is against the prudence of the thing, as well as against the institution of it. But Mr Coleman adviseth the Parliament to lay no burden at all of corrective government upon these, but to keep that power _wholly_ in their own hands; therefore the proposition is proved by that which himself saith, The Parliament votes look to prudence. So that the Parliament, having voted a power of suspension from the sacrament unto elderships, for so many scandals as are enumerate in the ordinance (which power is a part of that which he calls _corrective_), he that is against this power in elderships is both against the prudence and against the ordinance of Parliament. The assumption I prove from his _Re-examination_, p. 14, where, after his denial of the power to those whom we think church officers, being charged with advising the Parliament to take church government _wholly_ into their own hands, his answer was, “If you mean the corrective power, I do so.”

And now, after all this, I must tell the reverend brother that he might have saved himself much labour had he, in his sermon to the Parliament, declared himself (as now he doth) that he was only against the _jus divinum_, but not against their settling of the thing in a parliamentary and prudential way. Did I not, in my very first examination of his sermon, p. 32, remove this stumbling block?

And, withal, seeing he professeth to deny the _jus divinum_ of a church government differing from magistracy, why doth he hold, p. 19, that the Independents are not so much interested against his principles as the Presbyterians? Did he imagine that the Independents are not so much for the _jus divinum_ of a church government and church censures as the Presbyterians? But, saith he, “The Independents’ church power seems to me to be but doctrinal.” But is their excommunication doctrinal? and do they not hold excommunication to be _jure divino_? Either he had little skill in being persuaded, or some others had great skill in persuading him that the Independents’ church power is but doctrinal, and that they are not so much interested against the Erastian principles as the Presbyterians are; as if, forsooth, the ordinance of excommunication (the thing which the Erastian way mainly opposeth) and a church government distinct from magistracy, were not common to them both.

Lastly, If the reverend brother deny the institution of church censures, but assent to the prudence, why doth he allege the Zurich divines to be so much for him? _Male Dicis_, p. 23; for it was upon prudential grounds, and because of the difficulty and (as they conceived) impossibility of the thing, that they were against it, still acknowledging the scriptural warrants for excommunication, as I shall show, yea, have showed already; so that, if Mr Coleman will follow them, he must rather say, “I assent to an institution; I deny a prudence.”