strain of the Pamphlets Answered by that Book And yet he giveth a Decreet on the testimony of particular Witnesses tho' he hath no personal knowledge of the matter of Fact And why may not one who vindicateth others from false Imputations disown the one way of procedure and yet make use of the other It must likeways be a Contradiction with this Learned Author That we do not interpose in the Affairs of the Church of England tho' some of them have medled with ours beyond their Line and yet we call them Superstitious Popish c. Hath he so little Witt as that he cannot distinguish between telling our Opinion of a Way and medling in the Affairs of them of that Way the one is matter of Opinion the other of Practice We think the Popish Way is wrong but we manage no Intrigues to pull down the Triple Crown we leave that to them who are called by God for that work Some of the Church of England have Consulted and Contrived with our Enemies in Scotland how to disquiet and over-turn us We have done no such thing toward them His Construction on our asserting That the Covenant only Bindeth us to concurr with England when called by them in the Reformation of the Church is his own none of ours And will be despised by impartial Readers He maketh it also a Contradiction That King James Abdicated the Government and that The Nation took away His Royal Authority It is just such a Contradiction as to say That a Man deserteth his Wife and will not dwell with her and therefore she obtaineth a Divorce by Course of Law but these high Points I unwillingly medle with That the Book he Refuteth sayeth any where That we owe no Allegiance to King William but in so far as he supporteth Presbytry is denied I wish he had cited the Page where such words were to be found This will no way follow from what is cited out of the Acts of the Convention of Estates For Episcopacy may never he restored and yet Presbytry not supported What he is angry with as reflecting on Heredetary Monarchy the Estates of the Nation must answer for it not the Ministers of the Gospel Another Contradiction he fancieth P. 79. it is said in that Book P. 36. Parag. 11. Most of the Episcopal Ministers the words are most of them who went out For very many Episcopal Ministers neither went out nor were put out were put out by their own Consciences for they deserted their Charges without threatning sentence or Compulsion And yet P. 26. it is owned the Presbyterian Rable did persecute and drive them away A Child could tell him that there is no incoherency for some left their charges the one way and some the other way But what most angereth him is that it is said these things were in an Interegnum Which he saith is impossible in an heredetary Kingdom where the King never Dyeth Whether the Author of the 2d Vindication spake properly in this let Lawyers determine I will not judge in such matâ—ers But I am sure there was then no exercise of Government either in the State or in Church which could take course with what was amiss and if the King cannot Die in Law how another could be set up let the Estates of the Nation inform this bold Asserter by defending their own Deed in a way suitable to their place If our Foundations may be thus shaken Impune at the pleasure of Private Persons and K. â—'s Interest so plainly and publickly pleaded for under King W. the Government is in no safe Condition It is said 2d Vindication P. 26 the oppressed people having Potentiam tho' not Potestatem it was not to be wondred at that they relieved themselves Whence our Author very wisely observeth it is no new thing for Presbyterians to think power a sufficient Call to Act Illegally As if these were Equivalent Terms it is not to be wondred at if such a thing be done And there is a sufficient Call to do it The one importeth no more but that there was Provocation which we affirm that the Rable had The other that they had warrant and that they did well in what they did Which was never Asserted in the Book that he Refuteth but often and expresly disowned He doth indeed make a real Contradiction which it seems he behooved to do for he could find none whereas he alledgeth that P. â—61 it is said in Galloway the Incumbents were generally driven away And yet elsewhere they deserted without Threatning or Compulsion The strength of this Contradiction lyeth in his leaving out half of the Sentence that he citeth by the like means he might make the Scripture speak Blasphemy And so the Devil cited it when he tempted Christ to cast himself Headlong the Authors words are in Galloway the Incumbents were generally driven away or Deserted We have next P. 80 a horrible Contradiction it is said P. 34 That the Rable went away from Mr. Skinners House after they had Eaten and P. 27. they took the Poors Box by force out of the House of Mr. Russel and yet it is said P 29 that they are misrepresented when it is said that they did Eat and Drink at the Expence of them whom they Rabled And that all the Reports of them give account of their not laying their hands on the Prey Est. 2. 15. A. At Mr. Skinners House they did Eat at the Invitation of the Mr of the Family Neither did they any violence to that Family both which are expressed in the place that our Author citeth But it was not fit to take notice of these Circumstances for it would have spoiled the designed Contradiction If he can instance where they took Meat or Drink by force than may be Glory in a Contradiction at lest a Falsehood For taking the Poors Box it was not laying hand on the Prey for they offered Security that the Box and Money and other Utensils of the Church should be safely kept and restored to them who should be concerned in that Church But this also must be overlookt for the former Reason If he can make it appear that they put any of these Goods to any other than the proper use or disposed of them to themselves he should say somewhat to the purpose Yet another Contradiction P. 80 it is said 2 Vind P 145. it is better that England and Scotland be not united than that the Institutions of Christ should be thwarted And yet it is said may not two Nations Trade together and be Governed by the same Laws And yet bear with one another as to Church ways I confess my shallow wit cannot reach a Contradiction in these two Assertions The Author is there Answering an Argument brought why Episcopacy should be the Church Government of Scotland because without it we can not have a National Union with England and he bringeth these two Answers either of which is sufficient If he think that the Author of the 2d
Vindication meant that England and Scotland might be united in Trade and Civil Government and yet not so united Then certainly either that Author or this must be a very Dunse On this occasion he asketh may not the West of Scotland and the other parts of that Kingdom Trade together and be Governed by the same Laws And yet the West not impose their Kirk ways on the rest of the Kingdom And here he Triumpheth with a Responde Gilberte Some will think this fine Notion no great matter of triumph but rather it exposeth the meanness of the Authors understanding I hope he will accept of a rational Answer tho' it be from another hand then Mr. Rules whom he there insulteth over I say first there were no inconsistency nor would imply both parts of a Contradiction if Presbytry should be in the West and Episcopacy in other parts of the Nation tho' it might breed much breed much Confusion and were an irrational setlement Scotland being one National Church 2. The Reason why the same Government should be setled all the Nation over is because there is but one Government instituted or warranted in Scripture If our Rulers had other grounds for this determination these do not weaken but strengthen this 3. It is false that the West imposeth on the rest of the Nation The Law hath setled the same Church Government through the whole Nation and it is not in the West only that that Government is desired by Ministers and People Amidst his pretended Contradictions he findeth P. 81. some other faults with this Book that it saith P 151 Presbyterian Government was setled by Christ And this he doubteth whether it be an Oath or not but saith that it is an Oath is most natural to the words An intelligent Reader will wonder how such a Construction could be put upon such words by one whose witt is not a wool-gathering But his wonder shall be increased if he shall Read the whole passage out of the Book it self which is we desired to meet for other ends than setling the Presbyterian Government we know it was setled long before by Christ as his institution But fain he would disprove the truth of this assertion which he endeavoureth by two Topicks well suited to the size of his Learning The former is he setteth down a most Ridiculous parcel of Arguments against Episcopacy which he saith is our ordinary Cant Can he produce any Author among us that ever used such a way of a Reasoning And this he is obliged to do seing that which he professeth to be now on is to give some expressions out of their Printed Books as the Title of this his second Section beareth If the meannest of our party should talk at that Rate we would sharply Rebuke them If there be not on our side found stronger Arguments against Episcopacy we shall yeild the cause If he cannot tell us where these passages are to be found as he hath not done I leave to the World to pass a Judgement on his Conscience and Honesty I take notice of two things that he observeth before I come to his other mighty Argument One is we never call the Apostle St. Paul because he never Swore the Solemn League and Covenant This is to talk Ridiculously I will give him better Reasons for this our Practice tho' we can bear with them that do otherwayes than we do one is we usually give that Glorious Instrument in the work of the Gospel a more peculiar Title than that of Saint the Apostle Paul Every Good Man is a Saint and every one Canonized is called Saint But every one is not called an Apostle Again the Title of Saint before the name of any person doth in the Popish Church from whence we derive this Custom absolutely depend on the Popes Canonizing that person as that of Sir prefixed to ones name on the Kings Knighting of him They do not call a Man Saint only because he lived a Holy Life on Earth and is now in Heaven For then Moses Aaron David c. should have this Title prefixed to their Name which the Men I now debate with will not allow nor do they practise it Farther it may be made appear that the Primitive Church did not thus Saint Men but when she also Worshiped them and their Relicts As the Learned Mede Comment in Clav Apocalâ—pt sheweth out of Surios in T 6. No 28. That when from Council Constant under Comstantin Iconomach Some were sent to convince Stephen the Monk he accused them that they had banished the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saint and would have these Holy Men called only Apostles and Martyrs And Cedrenus telleth us That the same Constantine made an universal Law which saith Mede was no doubt according to the Sentence of the Council that none of the Servants of the Lord should be called Saint but that their Relicts if found should be neglected Hence some will inferr that the use of this Praenomen began with St. Worship though afterwards it was confirmed by Canonization as St. Worship also was by the Pope and therefore they ought to be laid aside together It is true Mr. Mede laboureth to appropriate this Prohibition to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying the honour of Intercession But I would gladly know what other Epithete which can betranslated St. they put in the stead of it Neither do I find ground from any good Author that ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified an Intercessor But enough of this Digression which is sufficient to excuse Presbyterians in this matter Another thing I note on this first Argument of our Author that he saith the Author of the 2d Vind. from these viz. the senseless Discourse that he had framed for us and such like Arguments Allows no Church but the Presbyterian to be of Divine Institution and unchurcheth all the Episcopal Churches while yet he denyeth not Papists to be lawful Ministers The absurdity of this Allegation is manifest to any that have Read the Book he mentioneth for from the beginning to the end of it neither any of these Arguments nor any such Arguments are mentioned if he can point to the place where they are to be found I shall bear what blame he pleaseth to affix upon me on this account The Conclusion also that he draweth from these and such like Arguments is falsely and Disingeniously ascribed to that Author For no such Conclusion is to be found in his Book we ever acknowledged Episcopal Churches to be true Churches and their Ministers to be true Ministers His other Argument is if he can but refure the Learned Dr. Pearsons Defence of Ignatius Epistles or shew us any authentick record or received Antient History that Presbytry was ever the Government of the Church than we shall yeild the Cause If he will not be of our Opinion without this condition let him even enjoy his own For all that can be demanded that way having been abundantly done by several
I have never heard such words from any nor have I heard by Report that any did speak them and I assure the World that if any among us were heard to utter such words they could not escape a severe Censure He saith the Creed is not mentioned at Baptism This we deny not but was it ever forbidden by our Church or were any ever Censured for using it We take Parents bound to Educate their Children in the Knowledge of the Chief Truths contained in the Scriptures And do often mention the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing a more full and plain System of Scripture Doctrine than the Creed doth though not differing in any Point from it For our National Engagements they are rarely mentioned at Baptism and but by few But if they were I know no Hurt in it except it be offending some tender Ears who love not to hear of the Ties which they have so little regarded after they had taken them on What he imputeth to Mr. Rule in denying this we regard not I am guilty of the same Dishonesty in saying what he or who ever that Writer is saith in the place cited by our Author For these other honester Presbyterians whatever be their Honesty we are not of their Opinion Nor are the Sentiments of Presbyterians to be judged of by what they say who had lest the Presbyterians and stood in opposition to them when the Papers he mentioneth were written His Imputation on Mr. Dickson that He called the Lords Prayer Creed and Ten Commandments rotten Wheel-barrows to carry Souls to Hell I am not foreward to believe it having nothing for it but this Author's Word But if he said so it was ill worded at best And if he meant any more than to express the danger of Peoples resting on having these by Heart as if that were to be Religious He deserveth to be Censured None of us disswade People from Learning them but do seriously press it and labour to make them understand them That we have abolished Publick Reading of Scripture is a Calumny It is true in stead of Reading by a private Person we have the Scripture Read and Expounded by the Minister and that a Chapter or Psalm at once And if any Read but two or three Verses it is an Abuse not allowed by us That the Precenter Readeth a Sermon in stead of Reading Scripture is two Falsehoods in one Breath one is that this is done I have heard indeed that one hath Read a written Sermon while the people were conveening But that this is either commonly or alwayes done I never heard also that this is in stead of Reading the Scriptures is false For as hath been said the Minister Readeth and expoundeth Scripture in stead of what had wont to be Read without Exposition by a private person who hath no Authority to teach publickly The Doxology we use not because we think Scripture Songs fittest to be sung as the publick Worship of God And this is not such though the matter of it be consonant to Scripture The Idle Story that he telleth of Maggy twitting a Minister with this is probable enough to be one of his Inventions But if it were true we think the Minister was undiscreet in calling it a Malignant Song We confess the matter of it is sung in Heaven If he will prove that the words are so too we shall use it They talk much of the Antiquity of this Hymn which I am not now at leasure to enquire into One of their Divinity Professors Mr. William Douglas at Aberdeen a diligent searcher into Antiquity Psalmâ—d Eccles. vindicata Q. 13. P. 69. bringeth testimonies for it out of Tertul Basil. c. who speak not of that Formula but Glorifying the Father Son and Holy Ghost And he citeth Baronius asserting it to have been used from the Apostles time But his Authority in such things hath little weight with Protestants Pope Damasus in the 4 Century enjoined it And it is probable that it was invented as a Testimony against Arianism But so was the Trina Immersio which the Episcopal Church doth not think fit to retain I Assent to the Author now cited Who after an heap of Authorities that he had collected saith it is no defect of Worship where it is left out And that none should be offended with these Churches that use it We constantly do the same thing materially naming the Father Son and Holy Ghost in the Conclusion of our Prayers Another quarrel he hath with Presbyterian Ministers is they have no distinguishing Garb from the lay Men I hope this is no singularity What Churches except these of Rome and England do distinguish their Clergy by their Garb Our Ministers wear a Grave and Decent Habit and are mainly distinguished from the People by the Gravity and Edifyingness of their Conversation which is a better Characteristick than a close sleeved Gown on a Drunken and Swearing Priest That they reproved the King's Commissioner for appearing among them in a Scarleâ— Cloak is a notorious Falsehoood to call it no worse His saying They did it seemeth to make it a publick Rebuke in the Assembly or that it was done by the consent of all We do not know that ever any did so much as reprove his Grace privatly for this and if any did they were impertinent in so doing I never heard that any so much as whispered against it among themselves nor do I know a Reason why the Kings Commissioner is obliged to use another Garb than other persons of his Rank The long Story that he bringeth in about Mr. Lesks call for the sake of a quible used by my Lord R. to the Presbytry is a silly piece of impertinency only I take notice that he alledgeth that Mr. Lesk had for him the Elders which is false for none in the sense of the Law of Scotland are Elders but such as are received by the Presbyterians so as these men were not and for the Episcopal Church they own no Ruling Elders and the Law that set up that party having abolished all Presbyterian Judicatures did only allow Ministers to chuse such of the People as they thought fit to assist them Which can be no true notion of a Ruling Elder nor did ever such Elders sit or vote in their Synâ—ds His denying us to be Ministers is an impudent Assertion which he doth not attempt to prove and how it consisteth with the Catholick Charity which he blameth us for the want of I cannot apprehend That we are called by the People we think it more sutable to the Gospel way than to be imposed on the People by a Patron that we are sent by the people or our fitness judged of and determined by them is an impudent Falsehood Our Ministers are tryed and sent or ordained by the Presbytry who hath better warrant for so doing than a Bishop hath But if I should enlarge on every controverted point which this Pamphletteer starteth in his Rambling Discourse
this Paper should swell to a Volume He chargeth them P 16 with Preaching still on the Government and the times and that they call their Kirk Government Christ the Crowâ— the Scepter and Government of Christ. I deny not but that there was a time when these controverted points were too much the subject of the Sermons of some and there may be need that they should be more insisted on at one time than at another but that this is now so practised is most false I am affraid we are rather defective that way though I would not have these controversies made either the whole or the main part of Sermons In comparison we should know nothing among the People but Christ and him crucified And I am sure that this is the strain of the Presbytorian Preachings that I have occasion to hear that they call the Government of the Church Christ and that is was not the design of their Sermons nor ever is like to be to Preach up Christ and Eternity which he asserteth P. 17. is most false and calumnious He pretendeth to trace them in their Politicks Morals Mysticks and Metaphysicks a distinction of his own coyning and he saith they are selfish singular full of nonsensick Rapsodâ—es which is a false and wicked Calumnie He beginneth with their Politicks he saith no Government could tolerat them whereas we know that the Government and Governours of Scotland have tolerated and owned them many ages and there is now as happy a Government as ever Scotland saw which doth not only tolerat them but hath setled them by Law To prove his assertion he bringeth an instance of Mr. Donald Cargill a Hill Preacher whom yet he confesseth to have been disowned by the sober Presbyterians which maketh this instance wholly impertinent but somewhat he must have to fill up his Paper The sober Presbyterians are foully by him misrepresented that they disowned the Hill Men on account of their refusing to thank K. J. for his Tolleration Whereas it is known that they disowned them on account of their wild Principles inconsistent with the Government both of the State and of the Church and that this they did long before K. J. came to the Crown or gave Indulgence It is also false that none but Cameronians suffered any thing and that all the Sober Presbyterians were setled by the Indulgence For many of the Soberest were put to hard Sufferings both for Preaching and for not complying with the way then set up And when the Indulgence came which freed some who had suffered before it was at first granted but to a few and when it was enlarged by K. Charles some were permitted to enjoy it but a short time it is unfair dealing that when the Review of Hist. of Indulgence which he citeth doth condemn and refute these Principles he should yet charge us with them If Mr. D. did so condemn as this Author alledgeth paying Cess to the K. the truth of which I know not his Brethren with whom he now joineth did never approve of such Doctrine He telleth us of Acts of Assemblies and Covenants which prove our unpeaceableness such of them as have been cited in other places by his party have been Answered We cannot Answer such general alledgances but by denying that either the Acts of the Assemblies or the Covenants contain any thing that prove what he asserteth The Book he mentioneth which I have not seen it is like may have an Answer if it deserve it If it assert that Presbyterians renounce Monarchy and all Power save that of the Kirk so absurd a position is to be despised being abundantly refuted by our due subjection to our present Rulers which Sober Presbyterians payed also to them under whose heavy hand they groaned For farther proof of this imputation he mentioneth Murthers committed in 3 Rebellions But he must know that his own party gave the rise to all these by their horrid cruelty and injustice which forced people beyond the bounds of that patience that was fit He blameth their flying to Arms in the time of the late Revolution but doth not tell his Reader that it was by publick Authority and for defence of the States of the Nation against them who were ready to destroy them or hinder their meeting All this hath been alledged and Answered in other Papers The men who he alledgeth did last year endeavour to have the Solemn League and Covenant by force renewed and imposed were none of the Presbyterians Though they call themselves such nor can this be charged on us more than all the practices of the Anabaptists in Germany can be rationally imputed to the Protestants which yet his Friends the Papists do and that from the same Spirit by which this Man is acted He considereth P. 19 the Learning of the Presbyterians which he is pleased to confine to two heads Antiarminian Metaphisick and practical Divinity which they pretend to draw from the heads of Election and Reprobation whereby they Preach Men out of their Wits and very often into Despair and self Murther Nothing can be more falsely more disingenuously nor more Maliciously uttered The former he barely asserteth We acknowledge that Scotch Presbyterians are generally Antiarminians but that they bring no Arguments against that way but from the Metaphysicks which may be useful in the controversies about Predetermination Free will and scientia media is false altho' it is a wonder that he will allow so much Learning to be among us We can and do disprove all the Arminian Doctrines from the Scripture and sound Reason as Augustine Bradwardine and others before us had refuted the Pelagians their Ancestors On the other Calumny he insisteth at length but with weak and Ridiculous proofs The design of his Discourse seemeth to be to Ridicule all Soul-trouble and Fears and doubts about ones Souls case and about Salvation as Melancboly and Distraction What Service some Men of his Atheistical temper have done to the Kingdom of Satan by thus skarring People from serious considering the state and danger of their Souls is too well known Our Opinion and practice in this matter I shall briefly declare and then consider what he bringeth against either We believe that the Lord hath of his own Soveraign Pleasure chosen some from Eternity to obtain Salvation by Jesus Christ in the way of Repentance and believing in Christ and perseverance in Holy walking and we believe also that he hath passed by others and from Eternity Decreed not to give them Grace and Decreed to Damn them because of the Sins that he foresaw would follow on this preterition or on their not getting Grace from him These deep Mysteries of the Divine Providence we do not often nor without necessity insist on in Sermons though we think we ought not to be wholly silent where the Lord hath spoken in his word Far less is it our practice to draw consequences from these Decrees to frighten People or to lead them to Despair But on the contrary
which once was intended He saith P. 147. That a Synod of the Presbyterians in Scotland met I suppose he meaneth of the General Assembly which was indicted by Royal Authority with consent of the former Assembly which begun at Edinburgh January 15. 1690 that they came to some Heats in that Assembly so that the Earl of Lothian finding their Heats increase dissolved the Synod Here are two palpable Falsehoods in one Breath One is That they came to Heats in that Assembly and that these Heats increased Nothing could be affirmed with less semblance of Truth I believe seldom have so great a body of Men met about so weighty and difficult Affairs among whom less did appear that could be called Heat They had no Heat with the Episcopal Men who made Address to them but treated them with all Respect and Civility which they themselves did publickly acknowledge tho' they could not yield to what they demanded for good and weighty Reasons which they gave for their determination Neither was there any Heat among themselves but did Brotherly debate Matters in the Committee and concluded on what Course should be taken In the Assembly it self the Matter was not so much as debated The Opinion of the Committee not being brought in before they were dissolved The other Falsehood is That the Earl of Lothian dissolved the Assembly on account of their Heats This is so far from Truth that his Grace never complained of any Heats nor mentioned any such cause of his dissolving them but only that they had sat long and had not brought their Business to a period There was indeed some confusion at the dissolution of the Assembly by a Cry that was raised in the House but that was the effect of the Dissolution or rather of the manner of it not the moving Cause The Mercury doth farther Injure the Church of Scotland in the Remarks that he maketh on his own false History Calling the Presbyterians A Terrible sort of People that for the most part we find nothing in their Assemblies but Disunion Discord and a Spirit of Persecution No Answer is fit for such an indefinite Charge against a whole Church but to deny the truth of it and bid defyance to her Adversaries whose Tool this Man was to prove what they lybel against her Every one will see that this pitiful Historian hath brought nothing that can bear such a Conclusion It is also too great Impudence and Petulancy for a Stranger to talk at this rate against a Church so much honoured by all Learned and Good Men who have known her or her Principles and Way and that on so slender Ground as the Information of her sworn Enemies And when even what Account he hath given which is wholly false if true could not amount to what deserveth such a Censure What if they had unreasonably refused Communion with a sort of Men who had stept out of the way and who generally had so heavily persecuted them Is this the whole of their Actings in their Assemblies Make they no good Acts Do they nothing for bearing down Sin and advancing of Holiness He next compareth them to the Priests of Spain and saith They would erect an Inquisition Tribunal if they were not restrained If the Tongue and â—en be let loose at this raâ—e the best of Men shall be made as black as Hell by such scandalous Libellers Can he tell us what is in our way that is like the Inquisition Tribunal Whom have we Imprisoned Whom have we Burnt or Fined or Banished What Civil Punishments have we inflicted Or have we Censured any person for Truth Or forced any to tell the secret Thoughts of their Heart and then taken their Lives for them But why do I take so much notice of his spite against us It is also spued out against Protestants in general and these in other places as well as Scotland What Religion he was of for his Principles I know not but I am sure in this Narrative and Censure he hath not shewed a Christian Spirit How odiously doth he compare the Presbyterians in Scotland and them who adherâ—d to the Synod of Dâ—rt in the Netherlands with the Bishops and Clergy of France Did ever either of these endeavour the extirpation of them who differed from them and that by so Bloody and Barbarous Means as was the French Dragooning The Scots Presbyterians and the Reformed in Hollandâ— must also be like the Jesuites who keep up the War between the Emperour and the Pope But wherein I pray you lyeth this Similitnde do any of us medle in the Affairs of State or in the making of Peace or War Do also the Ministers of Holland intermix in these Affairs The design of all this Clamour is evident to be that the Church as well as the State should give a vast Toleration and that of all kind of Opinions and Church Practices that the Presbyterians should allow them who are for the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy to Govern the Presbyterian Church and suffer Arminians to Teach and spread their Doctrine in the Congregations which are intrusted to the care of the Presbyterians and of whose Souls they must give an account And the Ministers of Holland should allow Arminians to be Ministers and Elders to Teach and Rule their Flocks And that it is not enough that they do not trouble them while they seduce their own followers but they must incorporate with them as one Body both for Teaching and Ruling And nothing will please this Man but the Magistrates persecuting the Church unless she will take Vipers into her Bosom We plead not that Ministers may be suffered to do what they please as he invidiously representeth the Matter If Ministers transgress the Laws let them be punished If they oppress their Neighbours let them be restrained But it is no good service to the interest of Religion to stir up the Magistrat to restrain the Church from exercising that Government and Discipline that Christ hath instituted and the Law doth allow It may rather be said That it will not be well with the Reformed World if one of this Man's Temper be suffered to write what he pleaseth and that as the publick Intelligence FINIS This was written long before his â—eath