things. I shall sooner prove that Mr Coleman will not have the Parliament
of England to meddle with civil affairs, because he makes them church
officers. It is a _non sequitur_. Their power is civil, therefore they are
not to meddle with religion. It will be a better consequence: They are
church officers: so he makes them, p. 14; and "Christian magistracy is an
ecclesiastical administration," so he saith, p. 20, therefore they are not
to meddle with civil government.

THE REPUGNANCY OF HIS DOCTRINE TO THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.

Mr Coleman, p. 13, acknowledgeth, that to assert anything contrary to the
solemn league and covenant, is a great fault in any, in himself more than
in divers others, if made out; he having, for his own part, taken it with
the first, and not only so, but having administered it to divers others.
Yes; and take this one circumstance more: In his sermon upon Jer. xxx. 21,
at the taking of the covenant, Sept. 29, 1643, he answereth this objection
against the extirpation of Prelacy: "But what if the exorbitances be
purged away, may not I, notwithstanding my oath, admit of a regulated
Prelacy?" For satisfaction to this objection he answereth thus: "First, We
swear not against a government that is not; Secondly, We swear against the
evils of every government, and doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of
necessity be retained as absolutely necessary; Thirdly, Taking away the
exorbitances, the remaining will be a new government and no Prelacy." Let
the brother now deal ingenuously. What did he understand by those
materials of Prelacy absolutely necessary to be retained? Did he
understand the dispensing of the word and sacraments, which is common to
all pastors? Or did he understand the privileges of Parliament? Were
either of those two materials of Prelacy? And if he had meant either of
these, was this the way to satisfy that scruple concerning the extirpation
of Prelacy? Again, What was that new government which he promised them
after the taking away of the exorbitances of the old? Was it the
minister's doctrinal part? That is no new thing in England. Was it the
Parliament's assuming of the corrective part of church government, as he
improperly distinguisheth, wholly and solely into their own hands,
excluding the ministry from having any hand therein? This were a new
government, I confess. But, sure, he could not, in any reason, intend this
as a satisfaction to the scruples of such as desir