Partie judged 6. The Compromissory Arbiter judgeth not according to the Law but according to equity but in all Ecclesiasticall judgements he that judgeth must judge according to the Law or Gods Word Ergo He that judgeth in Ecclesiasticall judgements cannot be a Compromissory Arbiter who onely properly is an Arbiter in so far as an Arbiter is distinguished from a Iudge 7. The Iudgement of a Compromissory Arbiter cannot hold nor oblige me to obedience since it is not grounded on publike Authority but on the will of the Parties who qua tales are private persons But the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem can and must hold and oblige all the Churches of that time to obedience according to that which the Councell intended by the Iudgement 8. Compromissory Arbiters onely judge of the Parties which compromise to submit themselves to their judgement But the Church Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem judged not onely of the Parties that compromissed to submit unto them but of all the Churches as the Text telleth us 9. In Arbitrary judgements ordinarily they are the Parties that make choice of their Arbiters and not a third that ordaineth them as the Church of Antioch did in this Case in sending this Message or Ambassage to Ierusalem 10. Whether it was an extraordinary Counsell or judgement of Arbiters yet followeth it not that such judgements of themselves are ill or against Gods Word since God never ordained nor the Apostles ever made choice of any breach of Gods Law or of any disorder to establish any order in his Church by for God needeth not the Devils help to do his Work he can do it himself without him 11. If they were Compromissorii Iudices then particular or Parishionall Congregations may combine themselves together in a consociation and give power to Classes and to Synods to be their Iudges which is the practice of all the Reformed Churches 5. It may yet be answered That in all this proceeding there was no Reference or Appeal no Arbitrary judgement nor any Counsell concerning the Church of Antioch but onely an examen of a Message sent or pretended to have been sent from Jerusalem viz. Of some Pharisees Members of the Church of Jerusalem who pretended to have had charge from the Apostles to urge the Circumcision and the Observation of the Ceremoniall Law as may be collected from verse 24. Rep. 1. This is not true 1. Because all this is said without Scripture 2. And vers 24. it is not said That these Pharisees pretended to have had any such charge from the Apostles but the Apostles say That they gave them no such command But this Argument may seem somewhat weak for howsoever the Text have it not in terminis yet seems it to follow of the Text by a Morall necessity for that expression To whom we gave no such commandment seemeth to presuppose some pretention of a commandment on the Pharisees part 3. And howbeit it is said That they went out from the Apostles yet is it not said they were Members of the Church of Ierusalem 4. Neither read we That there was any dispute about their Message or Commission but about their Doctrine 5. Because the Sentence or Decree is onely about their Doctrine 6. Because in that Decree not onely the Pharisees are sentenced but all the Churches upon which the Observation of the Canons of the Apostles is enjoyned onely there is a word in passing said of the Pharisees but however it be that was no way the principall Question Finally here cometh in M. S. in an ordinary Independent way never proving any thing Positively that they beleeve for in this point they shew themselves the weakest of all Sectaries but ever more denying what we prove which requires no great abilities as is known and confessed amongst all men that do but pretend to learning neither can they do otherwayes for they will not be tyed in time to come to any Positive Doctrine no not so much as to that they hold at this present for any thing I can collect from the Apologeticall Narration onely they stand stoutly to some Nego's and will that we prove all and they nothing at all He telleth us then in the third Chapter of his Book that before this Argument of ours Acts 15. can hold we have ten Particulars to prove 1. That the Apostles sate here in quality of Apostles 2. That this Councell had their state and set times of meeting 3. That they had Authoritatem Citationis 4. That the Members of this Synod were sent hereunto by the particular Churches over whom they claimed jurisdiction 5. That onely Church-men had power to sit there 6. That it had as well power to make Laws of things indifferent as to impose things necessary 7. That the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had their Delegats sitting there 8. That Paul and Barnabas sate as Commissioners for the Church of Antioch 9. That ordinary Synods may proceed as they did in saying It seemed good c. 10. That these words in the close of the Epistle ye shall do well verse 29. did import some intimation That if they did not submit some further course must be taken with them Item In this Chapter he telleth us That Presbyterians agree not about the Pedigree of their Government and to tell us all this he imployeth no lesse then ten Pages in Quarto in a very small Print As for the first we have already proved it sufficiently and attend his reply As for that ridiculous demand of his that we prove That the Apostles waved and silenced the Spirit of Infallibility Answ They might have it and not wave it howbeit they sate not there in quality of men that had it for the Elders that had it not sate there in the same quality with them Some dispute also 1. Whether the Apostles in all times and in all places and upon all occasions yea sleeping and sick had the gift of Infallibility in actu secundo so that their will could not hinder the Externall Act. See the Example of Nathan S. Peter Thomas c. who had the gift of Infallibility in actu primo but sundry times they had it not in actu secundo 2. Some doubt also what is the gift of Prophesie or Infallibility Whether it be liker unto an Habitude which is a Permanent quality or to a Passion or Afflatus which is not Permanent but suddenly flies away To the second 1. It is but a circumstance of time which followeth necessarily of the substance of the thing 1. For if Councells sit they must sit in some time but in what time whether once twice or thrice a yeer that depends upon other Circumstances as of Church opportunities and exigences of the Civill Magistrates Permission c. 2. In things Circumstantiall Discipline depends on the Law of Nature according to the Apologists own Confession To the third It may be necessarily inferred of the Authoritative power for where there is an Authoritative power to judge and censure
I maintain that no other according to Gods Word should be tolerated The Independents maintain that theirs should be tolerated I reply if so why not others also To this M. S. can say nothing but will is the cause of it and that Presbyterianism according to this Reason cannot be tolerated I have proved the contrary and am ready to grant that if it be a Sect as theirs is or if the Church and State judge it to be repugnant to Gods Word it should not be tolerated but so have they not done yea they have declared the contrary the Parliament in their Covenant and the Assembly in giving thanks to the Scots Commissioners for their Book 9. And to be short I adjure thee M. S. by the reliques of thy Conscience and pray all men fearing God to declare whether or not in taking of the Covenant and in swearing so solemnly according to their power to put down Popery Prelacy and all Schisms they intended to tolerate them all as M. S. maintaineth they should do M. S. asks me what Opinions donandae sint Ecclesiâ A. S. If the Question be what Opinions are to be approved in the Church in foro externo my Answer is onely such as are approved by publike Ecclesiasticall Authority according to Gods ordinary Providence If the Question be what Opinions are to be tolerated then either you mean to be tolerated in the Church by publike Ecclesiasticall Authority or in private persons If the first I answer None but such as Gods Word tolerateth and the Church judgeth to be true or not repugnant to the Word If the second I answer That that depends upon the Circumstances of Time Persons Place and other c. 1. No false Opinions are to be tolerated by any positive Toleration Consent or Approbation 2. If men erre for want of light much may be tolerated negativè i. e. In not proceeding severely against them till they be sufficiently convicted in case they give no offence to the Church of God but if they give offence they must be punished condignly and after a sufficient morall Conviction they may be punished condignly both by the Church and the Civill Magistrate if they continue and become pertinacious And because I adde That the lesse the difference be the greater is the Schism M. S. pag. 89. Answer 5. telleth us That the man speaking of me knoweth not what Schism is A. S. It a strange thing that having given so cleer a Definition of Schism he should so doubt M. S. Either grant my Definition to be true and so grant that I know it or deny it and I shall God willing make it good But it is but a small matter what I know or know not whether I be ignorant or not for that is no wayes materiall or to the purpose The lesse I know and the more ignorant I am the more easie is it for such an Epistemon as M. S. is to refute me Come to the point I pray thee good M. S The reason of this my Assertion is this viz. The lesse the difference be betwixt Independency and the true Discipline that is to be established whether it be Presbyteriall Government or any other the greater is the breach of Charity and Ecclesiasticall Communion in making so great a Schism and Separation from the true Church of God for so small a matter If it be so ye your selves must make a Separation among your selves for every trifle wherein ye differ in judgement either in Doctrine Discipline or Holinesse of life one from another which ye do not or if ye be minded to do so ye must make all men in your Churches of your minde in every Opinion ye have or else I pray tell me for what Opinions ye are minded to make a Schism and what not A. S. his third Reason God in the Old Testament granted no Toleration of divers Religions or Disciplines Ergo It is not to be granted in the New since the New Testament requireth no lesse Union among Christians then the Old among Jews M. S. p. 89. Answ 1. 1. denyeth the Consequence and the Proof brought by me he granteth So my Conclusion must hold Onely he saith it is ill applyed but it is applyed by way of Argumentation whereof he would have done well to have shewn the defect M. S. pag. 90. and 91. Answ 4. yet doth it not require That he that is stronger should cudgell him that is weaker A. S. God be thanked ye need not much complain of any cudgelling that ye have yet received since this Parliament neither need ye to fear it in time to come if ye force not a new Religion upon the Kingdom against their will or if ye will submit unto lawfull Authority and not make your inconsiderable number the Judges of all this businesse against the Laws of the Kingdom And what you said in your second Chapter we have shewn how absurd it is and how horrible impieties will follow upon your Tenets M. S. p. 89. in his 1. and 2. Answers to the Consequence is That it followeth not Dare you say in matters of knowledge authority and power Ero similis Altissimo remember the fall of the Son of the morning A. S. We pretend not to be like unto God in these considerations in going against the Command as Lucifer but in holinesse as he is holy which cannot be without obedience as in the good Angels Now ye confesse your selves That God hath onely commanded one Discipline and Government in the Church under the New Testament how are we then Lucifers in desiring this onely and no other to be admitted of in the Church How do ye then plead for the Introduction of any other then the true Discipline If Baal be God serve him but if Jehovah be God serve him So if Independency be the Ordinance of God let it be admitted and no other and so of Presbyteriall and all other Government We impose none but desire that the true Discipline may be sought for and afterwards imposed by the Parliament and the Church by each of them according to their Vocation M. S. his second Answer p. 89. is That he denyeth the Antecedent of my Argument or rather distinguishes it viz. That in the Old Testament it was not granted in terminis but in sensu or by consequence for this must be the other part of his Distinction because he prohibited all manner of violence and oppression and charged the rich not to enslave the poor A. S. Reply 1. This is no Law of Ecclesiasticall Government or of Toleration of Heresies Schisms or divers Disciplines in the Church but a Morall Law and a part of the sixth Commandment in not offering violence to the weaker And of the eighth Thou shalt not steal forbidding all sort of Extortion against the poor Now ye are not poor neither is there any man either of the Parliament or Synod about to take your Purse M. S. Yet the Equity and spirit of such Laws extend to spiritualls A.
he sayes in the next § of my feare it is a just feare grounded upon experience But M. S. Replyeth 1. That some Independents hold that all Sects and Opinions are to be Tolerated as A. S. relateth Ergo In that case his Sect may be secured also A. S. I Answer to the Antecedent And that We feare also viz. That ye would Tolerate all Sects which we will not Tolerate 2. VVe cannot be secure among all Sects for there be some that will not Tolerate us 3. Ye speak so but for the present but if ye had power we know not what ye would do It were better not to Tolerate Sects when we can hinder them then to bring them in amongst us to tolerate us and to give us so just a cause of feare 4. I said onely that there be some of you who would Tolerate all Sects who peradventure are the far lesser part and should not prevaile in their Voices 5. And we know not upon what tearmes they would tolerate us if they were the strongest 6. Neither can your pretended probity secure us we see the Examples and have the experience of your mercilesse Pitty in New England ye are all ejusdem farinae and Caelum non animum mutat qui trans mare currit And what I said of your Piety it can serve you little 1. For I spake but of a few of you viz. of the 5. Apologists 2. Because it was but a judgement of Charity wherein I may be deceived yea wherein I have been deceived 3. Good men sometimes may for want of light be dogged enough to use your own tearmes as ye grant your selfe of your New England Independents Unto his 3. Reply That a poore Toleration is far from Superiority it is true But from a Toleration it is to be feared ye goe further And if ye can get the Civill Magistrate drawn into your Faction as in New-England ye may be as dogged in a short time as they are To the 4. Reply That he thinketh not that I know any such Island It is a wonder that he knoweth it not as well as I but it is little to purpose No more is his Answer for it is but a currish jeere and toucheth not the Argument at all He puts in 5. a Jeere for a Reason God have mercy on the silly Argumenter A. S. My 17. Argument was That the Scripture forbiddeth all Toleration of Sects Revel 2.20 1 Cor. 1.12 3.3 11.16 18 19 20. Heb. 10.25 Gal. 5.12 M. S. his 1. Answer The Scripture doth not forbid all nor any such Toleration as the Apologists desire And remitteth us to his Answer unto my 15. Reason And I remit the Reader to my Reply To the Text of the Revelation 2.20 he saith That by the Toleration of Jezabel is not meant ◠Civill or State-toleration but an Ecclesiastique or Church toleration A. S. Howbeit formally there only be meant an Ecclesiastique Toleration yet by Consequence it reaches to a State Toleration 1. For whatsoever the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the Church that the Civill Magistrate or Senate is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the State since he is a Nurse of the Church and a Keeper of the two Tables 2. And so did the Judges and the Kings of Gods people 3. And so doe the Christian Independent Magistrates in New-England 4. Neither is the Christian Magistrate lesse bound to put it out of the State then the Presbytery to put it out of the Church 5. And I would willingly know of the five Apologists their judgement upon this Point neither beleeve I that they dare say or at least doe beleeve that he is not bound to suppresse all sort of Sects that creep in into the Church when the whole Kingdome professeth the true Religion and Discipline 6 However M. S. say that they desire only a toleration for themselves and their Churches in the State yet he pleadeth for a toleration for all Schismaticks Hereticks and Idolaters that may spring up either in their own or any other Church 7. Neither can the Civill Magistrate if he follow Gods Word grant a Toleration without the consent of the Church if he judge it is not corrupted 8. And a Magistrate should be worse then mad that should permit a Sect to come into the Kingdome to preach down the Gospel which he beleeveth 9. Neither can he be Orthodox and tolerate a new Sect unlesse he tolerate us to believe that he is either corrupted by monies or some other way so to doe M.S. his 2. Answer p. 105. is That since only the Church of Thyatira is here charged with this Toleration evident it is that the power of redressing emerging enormities in a Church in every kind is committed by Christ to every particular Church respectively within it selfe and so that they must be cut off only by the particular Church which is troubled by them if there be no remedy otherwise A.S. 1. At least then thus much I gaine by this Argument as you confesse That a particular Church must cut off such as trouble her and consequently is bound not to tolerate them 2. For the same reason other Churches must not tolerate them since they are all sister-Churches Ergo no Church must tolerate them Ergo no member of the Church must tolerate them If no member Ergo the Civill Magistrate in quality of a member of the Church must not tolerate them or he must tolerate them against his Conscience And what he cannot tolerate in the Church as a member of the Christian Church that can he not tolerate in quality of a Christian Magistrate in a Christian State if he can hinder it And if he hath power to punish such as trouble one particular Church how much more hath he power to punish such as trouble all the Churches in the Kingdome as Schismaticks and Hereticks The Civill Magistrate then by consequence may cut them off from the State As for that Question which M. S. moveth here about the Independent power of particular Congregations it is not to the purpose and we discusse it more at large in its own place A.S. There must be no such speeches among us as I am of Paul I of Apollos c. M.S. We joyn heart and hand with you A. S. And I with you so they must not be tolerated when they can be hindred M. S. addeth here a But 1. Every man that saith I am of Paul or I am of Apollos is not to be taught to speak better by fining imprisoning un-Churching or the like but by soundnesse of Conviction A. S. I answer as I have sundry times done Sinners according to the Doctrine of our Churches are 1. To be heard 2. To be sufficiently convicted 3. After sufficient conviction if they be pertinacious to be punished condignely by Ecclesiasticall Censures viz. suspension from the Lords Table or Excommunication And afterward the Civill Magistrate is to doe his duty
Ecclesiasticall persons can preach or excommunicate Neither can the Civill Magistrate or any other exercise such acts Or Extrinsecall i. e. about the Church but not in the Church in quality of a Church as when the Civill Magistrate maketh Lawes concerning the Church in confirming or ratifying her lawes in making them to be received as well in the State as in the Church So Justinian declared that according to the Evangelicall doctrine and Apostolicall discipline all men should be called Christians otherwayes that they should be declared distracted and infamous persons and that they that were punished spiritually by the Church should afterwards be punished civilly by the civil Magistrate as we may see in the first book of the Codex tit de summa Trinitate tit de sacrosanctis Ecclesiis tit de Episc Cler. Orphanotroph And through all the first thirteen Titles of that book and elswhere in the Civill Lawes But this power to judge command and punish is not Ecclesiasticall but Civill CHAP. II. The first Conclusion about the Intrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate in the Church THis being presupposed I put my first Conclusion thus The Civill Magistrate qua talis or under the notion of a Civill Magistrate hath no intrinsecall power in the Church 1. Because the Scripture which Independents acknowledge for the only rule of Church-Government conteineth no such thing 2. Because his authoritie qua talis is not Ecclesiasticall but Politicall or Civill Ergo qua talis it is not intrinsecall to the Church 3. Because such must be his power or authoritie in the Church as the acts thereof at least in genere morum or morally But the acts of his power as to punish refractorie persons in a Civill way by imprisonment pecuniary mulcts c. are not intrinsecall yea no wayes Ecclesiasticall Ergo no more is his power or authority 4. Because the authority that is intrinsecall unto the Church must be exercised by Ecclesiasticall persons But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate The Minor is certaine because it is only to be exercised by the Civill Magistrate or his officers and not by Elders of the Church as when he imprisons any man for his disobedience unto the Church or puts Apostates or some abominable Hereticks to death as Servet c. And it is a certaine maxime that Ecclesia nescit sanguinem as may appeare by sundry Canons of the Canon Law Ergo The Major is indubitable because the power and the exercise thereof belongeth unto the same sort of persons 5. Because the Civill Magistrate himselfe qua talis is no Ecclesiasticall person or Intrinsecall unto the Church since he may be a Pagan how then can his authority be Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall unto the Church since the authority of a person out of the Church qua talis must be Extrinsecall or out of the Church 6. Because the object of the intrinsecall power of the Church is principally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things that are spirituall or for spirituall ends But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate since oftentimes he knoweth him not as when he is a Turk or a Pagan 7. Because this opinion confounds the Kingdome of this World with that of Christ in granting unto the Civill Magistrate the Intrinsecall power of the Church which Christ only granted unto the Ministers therof viz. unto Preachers Teachers and ruling Elders But so should it not be for Christ distinguished these powers when he commanded to give unto God that which is Gods and unto Caesar that which is Caesars Mat. 22.21 8. Because the immediate rule of the intrinsecall power of the Church is only Gods Word formally by consequence or presupposition so is it not in respect of the Civill Magistrates power which is immediately and formally ruled by the Lawes of the State Ergo the Civill Magistrates power is not intrinsecall unto the Church 9. The intrinsecall power of the Church is only Ministeriall no wayes Despoticall Imperiall Regall Majesticall or Majestie So is not that of the Civill Magistrate in taking the word in a large signification as it is sometimes for the supreme and subalterne Magistrate For the power of the Civil Magistrate at least in the Supreme or Prince is not Ministeriall but sometimes Despoticall or Lordly sometimes Imperiall sometimes Regall sometimes Aristocraticall sometimes Democraticall and evermore Majesticall Ergo The Assumption is certaine so is the Proposition for they who have this intrinsecall power in the Church are only Christs Ministers and Servants 10. Because as we said heretofore not only the Civill Magistrate sometimes is not a member of the true Church of Christ but is a member of the Antichristian Church yea sometimes not so much as Christned or a Christian by name as the Tuck the Emperor the French King and some others who by maxime of State have made some Edicts in favour of true Christians for the exercise of their Religion But how shall he that is not in the Church that is no true Christian yea that is an Antichristian Christian yea not so much as a Christian by name but an open Enemy to the name of Christ as Herod Nero Dioclesian Julian the Apostate that are externall unto the Church have any intrinsecall power in the Church 11. Because the Civill Magistrate hath no intrinsecall power either directive or executive in common Trades as that of Brewers Shoemakers Carters Watermen c. whose trades are within the reach of Nature and which he directeth only extrinsecally Neither knoweth the King how to brew how to make shooes c. neither can he brew or make shooes How much lesse then is it needfull that he have any interne power either directive or executive in Ecclesiasticall matters which are altogether spirituall and supernaturall above the reach of all naturall prudence and quite out of the sphere of his activitie 12. By the same reason the Civill Magistrate should have an internall power both directive and executive over all Oeconomicall Societies under him viz. over the Husband and the Wife the Father and the Son the Master and the Servant He might direct them in their duties and execute their charges intrinsecally and so doe the duty of a Husband of a Father and Master in all things in every mans familie which could not but be found very absurd impious and altogether intolerable Heretofore the Independents did as much as any men complaine of such an absolute and independent power in the King How then is it that now they grant it 13. If such an intrinsecall power in Ecclesiasticall matters be a part of all civill Magistrates power then the Magistrates who have it not are not compleat and perfect Magistrates since they want one of the principall parts of the civill Magistrates power viz. The intrinsecall directive and executive power in Ecclesiasticall matters But the consequent is untrue yea criminall and trayterous for many Pagans Antichristians yea in concreto and in sensu composito have a full
the Magistrates authority can be no more intrinsecall unto the Church then the Magistrate himselfe is And if it be said that the Civill Magistrates authority is intrinsecall unto the Church but not the Civill Magistrate I answer That then the Church hath the civill Magistrates authority and not his person so the Church hath the Magistracy and not the Magistrate and so the Church has civill viz. Imperiall Royall or Despoticall authority over the subjects But that cannot be said for it is Treason Christs Kingdom is not of this world and the Church beareth no materiall sword 39. The Intrinsecall way to governe Christs Church is convenient unto Gods wisdome since it is an act of wisdome and divine providence But an Intrinsecall power granted to Heathen and Antichristian Christians and Magistrates to govern Christs Church is not convenient unto his wisdome but repugnant unto it for it is as if he should choose a Wolfe to keepe the Lambs and a Kite to shelter the Chickens which are not meanes convenient unto such ends 40. Such a sort of Government is repugnant unto Gods mercy towards his Church for how is it credible that he who has given Christ his onely Sonne for his Church to redeeme her should give her Antichrists and Pagans to leade her away from Christ to Antichrist yea to the Devill and Hell it selfe from which he hath redeemed her 41. I might here aske what Magistrate has this Intrinsecall power whether the Supreame or the Subalterne If the Supreame then he has such an authority in the Church as in the State viz. Monarchicall Despoticall Imperiall Royall c. Aristocraticall or Democraticall so the Government of the Church is not one but manifold and may change and be diversified as the governments of this world If the Subalterne has it also then it must be derived unto him from the Prince or Soveraigne Nulla enim potestas nisi in Principe aut a Principe there is no power but in the Prince or from the Prince so Ecclesiasticall charges shall be venall or saleable as Subalterne Magistracies in some Kingdomes are where the only way to be preferred unto them is that notable Maxime of old Judas Quantum mihi dabitis CHAP. III. The second Conclusion about the Extrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall matters proved by Scripture Conclus II. THe Civill Magistrate hath an extrinsecall both Directive and Executive power about the Church whereby not onely he may rule it by Politicall Lawes as Pagan but also as Christian because he is or should be a Nursing Father of the Church Esay 49.23 who 1. is bound to admit in his Kingdome the true Church and true Religion 2. He has power not to admit it to reject it yea when it is not received or approved and confirmed by his secular and civill authority to reject it and exile it however he do it not as a Nurse of the Church 3. If the Church be corrupt and Church Officers negligent in their charge and will not reforme it he may command yea compell them to do it Or if they will not he may extraordinarily do it himselfe 5. When the Church is Reformed he may command them when they are negligent to be diligent in their charge 6. If they oppresse any man in their Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures against the Lawes of the Kingdome he may desire them yea command them to revise their judgements and in case they reforme them not command them yea compell them by his civill power to give him satisfaction according to the Lawes of the Kingdome if they derogate not from the Law of God 7. He may yea he is bound to provide sufficient maintenance for the Ministers of the Churches and to take a care that their meanes be not delapidated and that they be not Sacrilegiously robbed of them 8. And what here I say of the Church I say also of Universities and Schooles that are the Seminaries of able men for the Church 9. He may grant unto the Church some Liberties Priviledges or Immunities as sundry Princes have done and confirme them by Law as we see in the Civill Law 10. He is bound with his Civill power to maintaine the Order and Discipline of the Church and consequently 11. To hinder all disorder in it And 12. By his Civill Authority to compell all refractory persons to obey the Church And 13. To banish and exile all Sects Schismes and Heresies as we may see by sundry of the Roman Lawes and especially in the first 13. Titles of the first booke of Instinians Codex in the Pandects and else where All this we grant to the Civill Magistrate and if the Quinq Ecclesian Ministers with the rest of that Sect contest it not we need not to prove it only we say that he doth all this by a Civill and Secular Supreame Imperiall Royall Aristocraticall or Democraticall Legislative and coactive Power armed with the sword howsoever extrinsecall to the Church but more Absolute Independent and Potent in suo genere then any Ecclesiasticall Power whatsoever which is Intrinsecall to the Church which is no waies Absolute nor Independent but Dependent no waies Coactive by Externall force but Spirituall meerly Ministeriall howsoever imperative in the name of God that cannot make any Lawes but of things meerely Circumstantiall much lesse abrogate the Lawes concerning the constitution and Government of the Church already made by God in his Word Now that the Magistrate hath an extrinsecall Power over the Church in compelling all refractory persons to submit themselves to her just commands since M. S. seemeth to question it and desireth a proofe of it I am ready to satisfie his desire herein Wherefore I prove it 1. From sundry examples of the Iudges and Kings of the people of God in the old Testament Exod. 32.27 Moses commanded the Levites to kill about three thousand of the Ring-leaders or principalls of those that adored the golden Calfe in the performance of which service the Text saith that they consecrated themselves unto the Lord verse 29. 2. Deut. 22.11 to the end of the Chapter we read how the rest of the Tribes of Israel resolved to warre against Reuben Gad and the halfe Tribe of Manasseh for building of an Altar as they believed in transgression against the Lord which they would not have done had they not conceived it to be just 3. Iudg. 6.31 Ioash ordained thus He that will plead for him i. e. Baal let him be put to death 4. 1 Kings 15.12 Asa removed all the Idols that his fathers had made 13. And also Maachah his mother even her he removed from being Queene because she had made an Idoll in a Grove and Asa destroyed her Idoll and burnt it by the brooke Kedron Here Asa punisheth his owne Mother for Idolatry and destroyeth her Idoll so no doubt may the Civill Magistrate doe with all false Doctrine Worship and Discipline false Doctors Worshippers and Church Governours he may abolish them and
they have entred into the same Covenant stand equally obliged to reform Religion according to their power Now God hath given them the power to reforme it in punishing Hereticks and Schismaticks according to their demerits which if either We or They doe not we are forsworne and God one day will call us to an account CHAP. IV. Containing our Adversaries Evasions NOw what sayes M. S. to all this who was so desirous of some proofes from Scripture His first Answer is That A. S. bringeth those Examples for want of better Arguments A. S. Rep. 1. And so he jeereth Gods Word 2. Wherefore are not Arguments drawne from Gods Word good enough in matter of Religion 3. These Examples are approved in Scripture and therefore may very well have the force of a Command M. S. 2. His second Answer is that none of the good Kings of Iudah ever offered any violence to the true Prophets of the Lord. A. S. Repl. Neither say I any such thing only I say they had a Royall or Politicall Power which was extrinsecall unto the Church or of another nature as your Apologists speake to conserve the true Religion and in case of corruption to reforme it M. S. his third Answer proves nothing for the persecuting annoying crushing disgracing banishing fining the Apologists whom himselfe more then once or twice acknowledgeth for very Pious Godly and Learned men A. S. Neither bring I them to prove any such thing I hope they shall prove no false Prophets Hereticks Schismaticks to be so dealt with 2. Only I bring these Passages to prove that the Civill Magistrate may and is bound in duty to punish all false Prophets Hereticks and Schismaticks whoever they be And howbeit they could perchance finde favour enough to establish themselves in one time by a Princes Authority yet notwithstanding all that another or the very same Prince upon better information yea or a subsequent Parliament may nay ought to revoke any such favour so granted them and to punish the Sectaries as those good Kings did Whereas he saith that I acknowledge the Apologists for Pious Persons I Answer Heretofore I judged so of them by a judgement of Charity which beleeveth all things but I would pray him and them both under pretext of such a charitable Iudgement of mine not to be too licentious in broaching or publishing of erronious Opinions least they make me to write some Booke of Retractations which he and they will certainly force me to doe if they continue Neither shall I be ashamed if they deceive me but I hope better things of them And God forbid that they should goe on upon his violent course rather to sufferdeath then to change God change his heart and I hope in his Mercy he shall doe it M. S. 4. He saith Neither did any of those Kings ever compell any man to the Iewish Religion nor yet to professe the Iewish Religion against their judgements A. S. They could not compell their heart or will but at leastwise they hindred them from the Externall Acts of idolatry and other Religions so far forth as death could hinder them as appeared from all those Texts They could also compell their externall actions read the members of their body to give no offence unto the Church of God If they could not cut off an ill will yet could they cut away an ill tongue M. S. 5. Answereth It was permitted to Persons of other Nations to live amongst them without being Circumcised yea or without smarting for want A. S. But he bringeth no Text of Scripture to prove that when the Iewes were a free people and had good Rulers they then permitted any such uncircumcised men to live amongst them 2. Neither doth this any thing against my Argument which only proveth a Politicall Power in the Civill Magistrate who is Extrinsecall to the Church whereby he might punish Idolaters false Prophets and Priests for their Idolatries false Doctrine and Worship 3. If he did it not he sinned against the Covenant 4. However such might live amongst them for some time uncircumcised yet could they not be Inhabitants or true Denizens without Circumcision 5. Much lesse was the Religion of uncircumcised Persons tolerated amongst them in the times of good Judges or Kings as appearech by all those Texts 6. But least of all had they power to write Bookes against their Religion as the Independents doe here in face of the Parliament and the Assembly against ours 7. Yea they could not so much as take a stranger to their Wife as we read Ezra chap. 9. and 10. and in the Covenant Neh. 10. ver 30. and 13.23 24 25. where it is said that Nehemiah smote them for such Marriages and pluckt off their haire v. 27 28. And Ezra chap. 10. made them to put away their strange Wives and such as were borne of them Wherefore then may not the Christian Magistrate doe as much M. S. 6. Answ Nor doe we ever read that ever they attempted any thing against any Sectaries or Schismaticks as A. S. would call them which yet abounded in great variety and numbers amongst them as Scribes or Pharisees or Herodians or Persons of any other Sect in the Profession of the Iewish Religion that lived peaceably in their State Idolatry and Idolaters were as it seemes the adequate Object of their coercive power in matters of Religion A. S. Repl. But we read that they attempted something against false Prophets if death be any attempt against them as all the Texts cited by me shew evidently 2. I deny your Consequence we read it not Ergo it was not for we cannot argue à testimonio negativè yea not of Scripture unlesse it be in things necessary to salvation such as are not Histories of particular facts 3. The cause wherefore we read it not is because under good Iudges or Kings they were never tolerated ill Kings would not punish them but their examples are not to be drawne in Consequence 4. As for the Scribes Pharisees and Herodians no wonder if they were not punished 1. For these Sects begun very late not long before the comming of Christ when the Religion was mightily corrupted which Christ came to reforme 2. Because the Iewes were not then a free people neither had they the Civill Power absolutely in their owne hands 3. They had no good Rulers 4. No more were the Sadduces punished who denyed Gods Providence the Resurrection of the Body the Immortality of the Soule and all spirituall natures as some testifie of them and yet they were more punished by Gods Law then Idolaters since their errour was greater so should the Herodians have been punished since they tooke Herod to be the Messias and that he should come againe after that he had been strucken by the Angell and yet they were not punished 5. The Idolaters were to be punished and yet they lived in profession of the Iewish Religion for they apostatized not It is false that the Idolatry was the adequate Object
subjection unto their Order for Compulsion is a principio externo contra inclinationem agentis it proceedeth from an Externall principle against the Naturall inclination of the Agent viz. that is compelled to produce the action and so is exercised only against the Body over which the Church taketh no authority but the Civill Magistrate alone 2. Neither said I to my knowledge any such thing 3. Neither cite you the place 4. Only I remember that in my Observations and Annotations upon the Apologie p. 39. § 4 I said That the combined Eldership having an Authoritative power all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves thereunto viz. in a Spirituall manner since the power is Spirituall Never a word here of compulsion or violence Our Churches neither compell mens bodies nor have they any Prisons or any pecuniary mulcts but if any man will trouble the Church and be disobedient it is the duty of the Christian Civill Magistrate to use his power to hinder such a disorder If we have not a Christian and an Orthodox Magistrate in some places as in France and in some parts of Germany or if the Christian Magistrate will not doe his duty he who will not submit unto our Church-Government is cast out and punished Spiritually by simple Censure Suspension or Excommunication according to the quality of his sin 5. Learne also I pray you M.S. that it is not fallibility but actuall failing or ignorance that may excuse him who is subject unto any Government or Authority from obedience Nor yet all failing in judgement or error but only that which is antecedent to all the acts of our Will which morally we cannot shun and is invincible 6. Neither is it evermore expedient that Subjects know certainly whether their Governours judge or doe right in what they doe for Subjects in some cases must obey in virtue of a probable knowledge or conjecture that their Governours command justly and especially when they are not compelled to be Actors in that which they believe to be unlawfull for them to doe For I put the case that the King and Parliament take a resolution to make War against any Foraigne Prince and presse some men to serve in such a War It is not for every pressed man to call the King and Parliament to an account about the equity of the War neither are they bound to discover to every Souldier all the secrets and particularities of State thereupon M.S. Ob. 28. Why are you not satisfied with that subjection to your Presbyterial Decisions that pleadeth no exemption but only in case of non-satisfaction about the lawfulnesse or truth of them A.S. Ans 1. We are content with it 2. And in case of non-satisfaction our Churches give them sufficient satisfaction 3. But if they will not be satisfied when many thousands are satisfied we maintaine that it is not equitable that when 20000. or 30000. are satisfied two or three under pretext of non-satisfaction or twenty or thirty pertinacious fellowes should have liberty to trouble all the Churches of God in the World 4. We say moreover that the Church in disputing and conferring with them and afterward in judging that she hath given them sufficient satisfaction hath given them sufficient satisfaction morally and that wise men should judge it sufficient in foro Externo and thereupon that they are to be condemned by the Church in foro Externo for there is no other way to proceed to sentence either in foro Civili or Ecclesiastico 5. If this will not satisfie them yet if they will be quiet and not trouble the Church of God with their Conventicles we can in Christian charity tolerate them in their weaknesse yea in their malice if there be any till God impart unto them more grace But this serveth nothing for Independents who are come over the Sea to beg a quarrell of us and to erect Churches in despite of the Civill Magistrate against all Lawes yea against their own Tenets if they write as they believe for they pretend that Churches cannot be erected without the Civill Magistrates consent 6. If all this content them not and their Conscience will not permit them to doe otherwise the Ports are free for them they may be gone and live in all liberty of Conscience in New England and trouble no more the Country here then the Country shall trouble them there 7. Or if this will not content them wherefore will they have more liberty here then they will grant us in New-England M.S. Ob. 29. If Parties may have cause to be offended with the Church then have they power to judge of their actions as well as they of theirs But the first is true Ergo the second also A.S. I distinguish the Consequent of the Proposition They may judge by a publick Judgement It is false for every particular or private man hath not a publike power to judge nor consequently a Publike judgement they may judge by a private power which properly is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestas authoritas or Authoritative power or judgement but a judgement of Discretion so it is true but such a Judgement is not sufficient to exempt him from obedience I meane not an active but a passive or rather a permissive obedience for howsoever his erronious judgement may excuse and dispence him from an act wherein he is Actor against his Conscience yet can it not excuse him from suffering the judgement of the Church for if he will not doe what they will according to Gods Word they may doe and he must suffer and permit them to doe what he willeth not and what they will according to Gods Word whereof he hath no Publike power to judge he must no way oppose activè the publike Judgement and Authority of the Church since he hath no publike power he must not set up a new Church but deal with the Church according to his vocation and if he cannot prevail in conferring with the Church he may appeal from a Parish Presbytery to a Classe if there he be likewise oppressed he may appeal to a Provinciall Synod if there again he be wronged by their Judgement he may appeal unto a Nationall Synod if there he be oppressed which probably will not ordinarily fall out in all these Judicatories rather then in first and last instance in an Independent Church compounded peradventure of seven or eight idle Fellows or pretend to be offended he must sit down patiently And if he have any scruple of Conscience he may consult forraign Divines and if those satisfie him not in this singularity of his opinion I then propound my question Whether it be more equitable That all the Churches of the World submit to this particular mans opinion or he to theirs Object But what if they erre all and he be right Answ When God hath not given you any ordinary remedy you must have patience there must be Offences yea Heresies But woe unto him that is the Cause
professing the true Faith 3. Nor of every visible Church of Beleevers but of that which is compounded of all its Organicall Parts viz. Preachers Teachers Ruling Elders Deacons and Flock 4. It is to be observed That this Church is either Reall or Representative We call Reall Churches those wherein such Church Officers and Flocks are really as in every Parish Provinciall or Nation Church But a Representative Church is that wherein the Reall Church is represented in Her Church Officers as a Presbytery Session or Consistory consisting of the Preachers and Ruling Elders or the Deacons also of a Parish Church gathered together for ordering of Church businesse in Doctrine Government or otherwayes who altogether represent the Church of a Parish A Classe that representeth that of a Classe and judgeth of all the Church businesse of one Classe A Provinciall Synod which consisteth of the Ministers and a certain number of Ruling Elders of one Province representing all the Reall Churches of such a Province in judging of Church Affairs in that Province and a Nationall Synod compounded of a certain number of Ministers and Ruling Elders deputed from all the Provinces of the Nation to judge of the Church businesse in Doctrine Discipline c. which concerneth the whole Church of such a Nation or Kingdom 2. Concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories it is to be observed 1. That an Ecclesiasticall Judicatory is nothing else but a certain number of men gathered together and endowed with an Authoritative power according to Gods will to judge of Church businesse for Gods glory and the Weal of the Church or in a word the Representative Church of one Parish Classe Province Nation or of all the World 2. That Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories is a Relation of Order betwixt a Superiour and an Inferiour Judicatory or Representative Church whereby the Iudgement and Authority of the Inferiour depends upon the Iudgement and Authority of the Superiour Such we conceive to be betwixt Presbyteries and Classes Classes and Provinciall Provinciall and Nationall Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods 3. Here it would be noted That this Subordination is grounded upon the Authoritative power of Superiour Iudicatories over their Inferiours or Subordinated and therefore here is to be noted first That this Power of the Church is not Naturall that floweth from the Nature or Essence of the Subject such as are the Faculties of the Soul nor Habituall or an Habitude either Naturally acquired by Custome or Supernaturally infused by Grace for men may have all the Naturall Faculties of the Soul and many Naturall and Supernaturall Habitudes yea all those that are necessary for this Authoritative power and yet not have it as any one may easily see in many learned and godly Divines who are not Ministers of the Church and consequently have no Authoritative power in the Church But it is a Morall power ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or potestas whereby in vertue of Gods Ordinance the Superiour Church hath power over the Inferiours or other Churches subordinated unto Her to rectifie their Iudgements in case of Aberration or to enjoyn them any thing according to Gods holy Ordinance So when particular Churches judge any thing amisse either in Doctrine or Discipline a Classe or a Provinciall Synod may judge of that Iudgement and in case it finde it have need may in the Name of God command it to reform its Iudgement and in case of disobedience command the people not to obey their Pastors or Presbyteries commands or if there be any thing that concerneth the Weal of all the Churches in the Kingdom the Nationall Synod hath an Authoritative power to judge it and enjoyn it upon the Churches in the Name of God so may a Provinciall Church do in things concerning all the Churches of a Province I call an Authoritative power that which may command and in vertue of its command enjoyn an obligation of Obedience upon all those that are subject thereunto and in case of Disobedience inflict Spirituall punishments according to the quality of the Disobedience viz. Simple Censure the lesser or greater Excommunication If ye inquire further what is this Morall power or wherein it consists I answer It is no Reall but a Morall being it is no Reall quality in the Subject that hath it and consequently it is no Reall or Naturall power but as 〈◊〉 were a Naturall power for as our Naturall powers and faculties do flow from the Essence of the Subject or from our Essentiall Forms so doth this Morall power flow from the consent and will of them who give it and his will who consents to accept it and this consent producing such a Morall power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no lesse forma internè vel externè denominans efficaciter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 producens quà m forma essentialis is forma informans potentiam naturalem a se in se vel in subjecto profundens And as naturall powers are for the Weal of their Subjects in accomplishing and perfecting of them in their operations convenient to their nature so it s this Morall power for the Weal of its Morall Subject or of the consociation in perfecting it in its operations convenient to its Morall being Domesticall Politicall or Ecclesiasticall in Nature or in Grace Wherefore Amesius and sundry Independents that follow his opinion are mightily mistaken whilest they think it floweth from the Essence of the Church 1. For it hath not its being from the Essence of the Church but ex instituto divino 2. Because it is not produced necessarily as Naturall proprieties but freely and willingly not as depending upon Nature but upon Will 3. If it did flow from the Essence of the Church God could not change it And yet howsoever this Morall power hath no Reall being in it self yet may it be called Reall 1. In consideration of its Cause viz. Of the Reall destination of the Will from which it s produced 2. Of its Foundation viz. Because it presupposeth some Reall qualities in him or those who have it viz. Naturall faculties and some naturall or supernaturall Abilities to exercise it 3. Of its Effects that are Reall for howsoever the power of a Magistrate be not a Reall quality yet it is able to produce very Reall Effects in Subjects in remunerating such as deserve well of the State and in punishing Delinquents as by imprisoning their persons or cutting off their Heads if the crime be of that nature Again it must be observed That this Morall power is 1. either meerly Directive which onely sheweth what is to be done or Imperative that cannot onely shew or discern what is to be done but also commands and in vertue of such a command bindes those that are subject to such a Power to Obedience and in case of Disobedience inflicts condign punishments 2. That this Morall power is either Civill or Ecclesiasticall the first belongs to the Civill Magistrate the second to Ecclesiasticall persons 3.
by them Neither see I what more our Brethren grant to all the Churches of the World over one But the Presbyteriall Government 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 caried by Plurality of Voyces without any Schisme or Separation 10. This Government viz. Iedependency is a Power wherein the Party is judged if he will and so the Iudgement of the Iudges suspended upon the Iudgement of the Party judged which is most ridiculous without any example in Civill or Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories a Iudgement not very unlike to that which is related of a merry man who said That he had the best and most obedient Wife in the World because saith he she willeth nothing but what I will And as all men wondred at it knowing her to be the most disobedient yea saith he but I must first will what she willeth else she wills nothing that I will 11. This sort of Government is unjust and unreasonable for not only the Party judgeth its Party but also inslicteth the same punishment viz. Separation upon all offending Churches whatever the offence be great or small in case of non-satisfaction whereas all Punishments should be commensurable unto the severall Offences 12. And so ye seem to approve the Opinion of the Stoicks who held all sinnes to be equall since ye inflict the same punishment upon them all 13. Not only this Discipline cannot be easily put in execution in great Kingdomes as England wherein all the Churches offended cannot so easily meet together But also 14. Because the person offended after he hath represented his grievances unto the Church and that Church hath received satisfaction he may goe to another and so continually in infinitum to the Worlds end evermore taking those Churches for the Party that judge it which is most absurd and foolish 15. What if the Party offended be poore and have not the meanes to post up and down from neigbour-neigbour-Church to neighbour-neighbour-Church to pray them to make the offending Church to give an account of her Iudgement Much lesse to attend upon their uncertain conveniencie Here will be found true Pauper ubique jacet Whereas in Presbyteriall Government the Party offended may be easily redressed and get satisfaction as not having need so to post up and down to be at so great charges or to attend their conveniencie for by a simple Appeale he may binde the Church offending to appeare at the day appointed 16. What if there should fall out an hundred such offences in a short time Must so many Churches evermore gather together for every one of them apart 17. What if Churches be poore and cannot be at so great expence Then in that case it should seem there is no Order to meet with Offences I may adde these following Reasons 18. This Independencie maketh all the Churches of Christ like so many Scopae dissolutae loose Broomes that have no tye or band to hold them together and so destroyeth the unity of the Militant Church 19. The very word Independencie applied to men how much more the thing signified thereby should be odious to all Christian ears as being proper to God Almighty How proud abominable is this expression We seven men who constitute this Church we will not depend on all the Churches of this World We will not depend on any create Ecclesiasticall power yea not upon all the Angels in Heaven and men upon Earth but will be Independents and have others to depend upon us 20. If so what is the cause that ye oppose the Kings Majesties Absolute or Independent power in State matters Truly this being only Secular cannot be so dangerous as the other viz. as Yours for this only may be prejudiciall to our Bodies or States but Yours may kill millions of Soules neither is the Kings Authority more limited in the State then yours is in the Church 21. What will ye that where-ever there is 7. or 8. of you combined together to make up a Church ye shall depend on no man but have an independent and absolute power to bring into the Kingdome whatever Heresie ye please to blaspheme God and so vi irresistibili with the Arminians to goe to Hell If so God have mercy on you But it may be said that the Civill Magistrate may hinder them But M.S. will answer 1. That he should not punish any man for Religion 2. That the Civill Power is of another sort then Ecclesiasticall 3. What if the Civill Magistrate be not a Protestant or what if he be a profane man 4. Howbeit he were a Protestant and a good Christian yet should it follow that the Church-power is neither sufficient nor perfect in suo genere since it must have recourse unto the Civill Magistrates power which is of another nature and extra hoc Genus CHAP. III. M.S. his Evasions refuted and my Arguments made good and first those that he bringeth against the third Argument M.S. answereth not all nor any considerable number of my Arguments as he confesseth himselfe but scratcheth at a few of them whereby he weakens them not but overthroweth the Government of all States That of the Church of the Old Testament the Practice of the Apostles and Apostolike Churches and the fundaments of Independent Government it self as God willing we shall see hereafter The first of my Reasons that he snaps at is the 3. viz. This Remedy viz. of non-Communion is not sufficient nor satisfactory because all Churches according to your Tenets be equall in authority Independent one of another and par in parem non habet imperium none hath power or authority over his equall How then could any Church binde any other to any such accompt but out of its freewill as a party may doe to its party M. S. 1. Suppose that course which the Apologists insist upon be not in the eye of reason a means sufficient to such a purpose yet if it be a meanes which God hath authorized for the effecting it it will do the deed A.S. It seemth that M.S. would fain enter into the Lists against Reason it self but he must know that Gods Ordinance and Reason are not opposite one to another since he who is the author of Nature is the Author of Grace also neither as Author of Nature sights he against himself as Author of Grace 2. It is a Maxime of Popery and Lutheranisme to oppose Nature Grace 3. Christ and the Apostles served themselves of Naturall Reason in Scripture 4. And out of the case of supernaturall revelation above it which cannot be contrary unto it it must be beleeved 5 He supposeth that Independency and withdrawing and renouncing all Christian Communion with such Churches untill they repent is a sufficient meanes authorized by God which hitherto appeareth not yea
differences but evermore by their Externall Causes or by their Accidents and sometimes by their Opposites and Negations of some other things The very Apprentices in Logick know thus much 4. But if we know the Essences of things in themselves as this M.S. pretends if he say any thing to purpose how is it that there is so great debate about them as 1. about the soule of a man whether it be spirituall or corporall 2. About the totall Essence of a man whether it be the Soule alone his Soule and Body the Soule and its materia prima the union of both the image of God Religion or some other thing And to urge this more home upon your Example of the Light If we know the Essences of things distinctly and in themselves as I said what is the cause of so great a diversity yea of so great a contrariety of opinions about its Essence or Nature How is it that some Philosophers hold it to be in some Predicament others to be in none some to be a Substance others an Accident some to be a spirituall substance others to be a Body others neither viz. neither to be a corporeall nor a spirituall but a spiritalis substantia others the presence of a luminous body others a reall colour others an apparent colour others a spirituall Quality some a naturall power others a sensible quality If we knew it essentially and distinctly in it self and not meerly accidentally we could not so doubt of its Essence wherein it consists But it seems that this Man Doctor Holmes and some of that Sect are as Hereticall in Philosophie as Schismaticall in Divinitie and so they have conspired with as little successe against Naturall as against Divine truth M.S. sayes that my meaning may be that if a Toleration be granted for Independencie the Practice of it should become a Schisme from the Presbyterian Church A.S. No such thing but I maintain that Independencie is already at least materially yea Formally ratione Formae essentialis in foro Conscientiae interno a schisme from all the true Churches in the World since they willingly have separated themselves from them all in matter of Sacramentall Communion as also in that of Discipline And you should have done well to have answered this which no doubt you met with in my former Book and not oblige me to repeat it here It will also be a Schisme ratione Formae Accidentalis externae in fore externo from the Church of England if in Gods mercy any other Discipline then Independent be established in it So is it also in respect of the Presbyterian Church which is already established in France Holland c. yea and here in England in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches So is it in respect of the Church of Scotland the Discipline whereof is approved by the King which ye have all sworne to maintain But sayes he we have no Presbyterian Church among us and so if a Toleration be granted before such a Government be established it is apparently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the reach of such an imputation for ever A. S. 1. It is false that we have no Presbyterian Church among us We have it in the French Dutch and other Churches wherewith the Church of England professed evermore a Sacramentall Communion which the Independents break 2. Whether it be granted by the Parliament or not that hinders it not from being a Schisme for the Toleration of the Parliament is altogether extrinsecall to Schisme and there were Schismes in the Primitive Church without any Toleration of the Civill Magistrate 3. His Supposition is impious and ridiculous for Toleration according to M.S. his judgement is evermore of some reall or at least of some apparent Evill Now can the Parliament or the Assembly of Divines in good Conscience tolerate an ill Government before that they establish any good one Is not that to begin with the Devill to serve him before that we serve God Should not the Parliament begin with You as the most considerable Party A. S. his 4. Reason If a Toleration be granted to our Brethren I cannot see how it can be well denied to other Sects M.S. answereth that Bernardus non videt omnia A.S. But I pray you then Father Epistemon that sees all things make me by some Reason or other to see how it can be denyed to other Sects for there is the same Reason for a Toleration of them all M.S. bringeth this Reason He saith he that keepeth a doore with lock and key and bolts to it may let in one man that knocks without letting in all commers A.S. But if the other knocketh also wherefore will he not open to him and let him in as well as the other If he open not there is no Reason but Will that keeps him out so there is the same Reason but not the same Will for both it is a meere Prosopolepsiia or Acceptation of persons which is not well done If it be said that other Sects differ more from us then the Independents Ans 1. It is all one Magis minus non mutant speciem in matter of Toleration 1. For then all must be tolerated howsoever some more some lesse 2. And some of our Brethren viz. M. S. grants all the Argument 3. And if we distinguish so they must declare and expound cleerly what Sects and what Opinions are to be tolerated and what not which will be a Question inextricable which no mortall man appearingly is able distinctly to determine M. S. answereth not to any of my Reasons only he is offended that I say it is a Question inextricable c. He sayes then 1. That I prevaricate with my own Cause but wherein here altum silentium 2. He saith that I put the Magistrate to a stand whether he should tolerate Presbyterian Government or not But I have already answered 1. That it is already approved here in England in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches 2. That the English Divines in the name of all this Kingdom approved it in Holland 3. That the Kings Majestie confirmed it in Scotland 4. That we entertain Sacramentall Communion with all the Protestant Reformed Churches and that the Independents alone do quit it 5. That all the three Kingdoms and the Independents with them by their Covenant and Oath are bound to maintain Presbyteriall Government in Scotland 6. And they are bound to Reform the Church of England according to the example of the best Reformed Protestant Churches and namely that of Scotland which all have onely Presbyterian Government 7. And we have sufficiently confirmed it by sundry Testimonies of Scripture and other Arguments grounded on Scripture 8. Neither is this his Question to the purpose for quaestio quaestionem non solvit I ask him what Sects are to be tolerated in a Kingdom wherein the true Doctrine and true Discipline according to the publike Judgement both of the State and of the Church are established
M. S. In his second Answ denieth the Antecedent of my Argument or doubteth of it and asketh by what Authority I undertake to secure them A. S. 1. It is an untruth that I undertake to secure them I undertake nothing but tell a truth 2. And if I lye I pray M. S. to shew me where ever the Parliament or Assembly hath pressed them to be Actors against their Conscience 3. And yet however I have no Authority to secure them yet have I Reason sufficient enough to prove it For if their Consciences be weake or tender the Parliament declareth and hath declared their care and resolution not to suffer weake or tender Consciences to be wronged or pressed to be Actors against the Dictats thereof And if yee cannot beleeve or trust them how can they or shall they trust you 4. Because it is an ordinary Maxime amongst Presbyterians Not to persecute men for their Consciences nor to accuse them to the Civill Magistrate unlesse they be turbulent and trouble the peace of the Church or State As for your jeeres and injurious speeches here against Presbyterians we pardon Mr. Goodwins temperament for it is not Reason nor the Man but the Humour of the Man that speaketh M. S. p. 93. bringeth his 3. Answer to the Antecedent That this Promise is broken by A. S. seven times in his Discourse and by sundry others of his Party A. S. 1. The Antecedent of my Argument conteined no Promise but a simple Enunciation and therefore I could not break any Promise therein conteined for Non Entis nulla sunt Accidentia and what never was could never be broken 2. Put the case it were a Promise made by me How or wherein have I ever or could I presse any of you to be Actors against your Consciences 3. As much may I say of others 4. But to say it is against your Consciences is an old shift an hundred times made use of and as oft answered 5. We have never heard of any that threatned you and therefore we cannot answer this accusation We know of sundry extraordinary favours put upon you by this Parliament but nothing of so many threatnings of miseries against you unlesse you account it your misery to receive good fat Benefices and to be well paid for many Lectures up and down by very many whom it is well known you scarce own for members of your Church and so doe clip the wooll off the sheeps backs that are not of your flocks A.S. Arg. 8. It is against the Nature of the Communion of Saints to live in Sects apart without communicating at the Lords Table which very hardly will be avoyded if a Toleration be granted M. S. reduceth this my Argument unto this Hypotheticall Proposition viz. 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 c. A.S. But M.S. is not so good an Analyser of Arguments as I took him to be he faileth here 1. in reducing it unto an Hypotheticall Proposition which poseth nothing absolutely as this my Argument doth 2. He maketh the Antecedent the Consequent and the Consequent the Antecedent for who seeth not that in reducing of it to an Hypotheticall Proposition that must be the Antecedent which is joyned with the Hypotheticall Conjunction if viz. If Toleration be granted and that the Consequent that is inferred upon it viz. It will be against the nature of the Communion of Saints 3. But to help him and to make him to see its face I will reduce it into a Syllogisme which is such What is against the Communion of Saints is not to be granted But Toleration viz. of Independencie is against the Communion of Saints Ergo Toleration is not to be granted The Major is certaine neither will M.S. deny it The Minor is proved thus To live in Sects apart without Communicating at the Lords Table is against the Communion of Saints Toleration is to live in Sects apart without Communicating at the Lords Table Ergo Toleration is against the Communion of Saints M.S. answereth denying the Minor of the second Argument But A. S. saith he doe you conceive that men would under Toleration live without communicating at the Lords Table A.S. But good Mr. M.S. 1. Howbeit they live not without communicating at the Lords Table absolutely in so far forth as those of one Congregation communicate or may communicate together yet live they without communicating at the Lords Table secundum quid in some respect viz. in so far as according to the Maximes of Independency those of one Congregation amongst you can have no right to communicate in another Congregation much lesse will ye admit the members of our Churches to communicate in yours or ye your selves comunicate in ours whom ye take up on you to reckon in the number of your Sister-Churches Now we conceive that according to Scripture it is a part of the Communion of Saints that all the members of the visible Church here upon Earth have right in vertue of their spirituall fraternitie in Christ to communicate one with another at the Lords Table when occasion is offered It is not true that the Communion at the Lords Table is all the breach of the Communion of Saints that Toleration breedeth for it is also against the Communion in Discipline and in Christian Conversation at least per se or of it selfe His 2. Answer is If living in Sects apart be so offensive saith he to your zeale over the Communion of Saints why doe you not rather mediate a Toleration for them then oppose it A.S. 1. My credit is but small as you confesse your self 2. Howbeit were it as great as it is small yet hope I I should never so far abuse it as to turne a Mediator for the setting up of Sects 3. To your Quaere I answer It should be wickedly done to mediate for the setting up of Sects because to mediate for it were to mediate for the overthrow of the Communion of Saints M. S. If you shall suffer them to work with you they will be so much the more free to eat and drink with you A.S. We are not so carefull for your eating and drinking for ye may eat and drink with Epicures Pagans as well as with us but for your spirituall Communion which cannot be maintained if ye have a Toleration to be separated from us and one of you from another into particular Conventicles A. S. Arg. 9. Because the Scripture exhorts us evermore unto Vnity which cannot be easily procured by a Toleration of Sects and cannot but beget new Schismes and Divisions M. S. denieth the Consequence and supposeth that the force of my Reason consisteth in this viz. That if the Unitie whereunto the Scripture exhorts us cannot be procured by Toleration Toleration is not to be granted A. S. But he is deceived or rather treacherously deceiveth others for he should have added
Hereticall and go to the Devill But I answer 1. The Assumption is false for the Externall Coactive Power that A. S. grants unto the Civill Magistrate is onely to represse Hereticks and Schismaticks after that they are sufficiently convicted by the Church in an ordinary way or by others in an extraordinary way when the Church is negligent in her duty 2. Neither doth M. S. his Confirmation or Case of Conscience conclude any thing against that which A. S. sayes And as for his Supposition either that Conscience whereof he speaketh is right or erroneous If it be right the Civill Magistrate should not presse it against its light or if he happen to do so it is not by Power but by abuse of Power And in such a case he who hath his Conscience well informed must resolve himself to be quiet in case the Civill Magistrate oblige him not to be Actor in any thing against it But if such a man any other or others with him will rise up within the Kingdom or come from Forraign Countries and urge their Religion upon the State and establish it without permission of the Magistrate or against his Laws then their Consciences cannot be right for wherefore should the King Parliament and State be rather bound to admit such mens Religion without sufficient conviction then they to admit his Religion And in such a Case the Civill Magistrate so long as such persons as urge their Religion upon him convict not sufficiently his Conscience may with a good Conscience punish them severely yea with good Conscience cut off their Heads If such a mans Conscience be erroneous the Civill Magistrate doth him no wrong to endeavour that he who hath it be sufficiently convicted and if after sufficient conviction he will not be quiet especially when he is not obliged to be Actor in any thing against his pretended Conscience but will still trouble both Church and State wherefore on Gods Name should he not be punished 2. Is it not better that such a man should perish then that he should make thousands to perish 3. Ravalliack in France and the Monks and Fryers that kill Kings pretend evermore Conscience as the Independents do and yet the Civill Magistrate puts them to death 4. If any mans Conscience which God forbid should dictate him to kill the King and blow up the Parliament should such a man be tolerated under pretext of his tender Conscience 5. Is it not a sin to have an erroneous Conscience And is not he that hath it bound to reform it and to suffer for it in case he reform it not when he hath sufficient means to do it 6. But must every man that doth ill be presently believed when he saith that he hath such a Conscience 7. All this long Sermon of M. S. proveth not that the Magistrate directly and per se but rather that the man himself hardeneth his own Conscience for there is no created Power that directly per se and Physically can work upon a mans Conscience it can onely move it morally in propounding of Objects to it or in Reasoning and yet every true Christian hath a sufficient power to resist such motions which is sufficient to make him in-excusable 8. Neither can his erroneous Conscience excuse him unlesse that its Errour be Invincible Antecedent and he no wayes the cause of it but if it be Vincible Concomitant or Subsequent and he himself the cause of it then it excuseth him not but is a sin and aggravates the sin that proceedeth of it at least extensivè if not intensivè For in such a case it is not his erroneous Conscience that is the cause of the sinfull action of his Will but his sinfull Will that is the cause of his erroneous Conscience 9. The Civill Magistrates threatning per se and directly maketh not his Conscience erroneous but found it such 10. Neither is it the cause that he goes against it For whether ye consider the Civill Magistrates Intention his Iudgement or the Execution of it in such a case they cause no ill but good for his Intention is onely that they be gained to Christ and that they seduce not others His Iudgement condemneth onely their Opinion and commands a punishment answerable to their Sin whereby onely they are hindered to continue in their Heresies or Schisms or to seduce others No more doth the Execution of his Iudgement Ergo. 11. And I pray this new Casuist to tell me whether in some Cases it were not a lesser Sin for a man to go against his erroneous Conscience then to follow its Dictates Whether it were not better for him to sit at home against the Dictate of his Conscience then to go to a Pagan Church and there to adore a Crocodile or a Toad according to the Dictates of it So we see how licentious and detestable this Conscience is that Independents plead so much for that thinketh that it cannot sufficiently enjoy its liberty unlesse that all Schismaticks Hereticks Jews Mahumetans and Idolaters have a free liberty of their erroneous Consciences to adore a thousand Gods yea a thousand Devils a Jupiter a Bacchus a Venus a blinde Fortuna and to Preach such Abominations and that the Civill Magistrates power be ever curtaled or rather altogether taken away in matters in Religion I will not call this a madnesse but I am well assured that many are recommended to the Churches Prayers that are not half so sick either in Soul or Body as these men are in their Consciences Wherefore all that I have more to say unto them shall be onely this The Lord have mercy upon them Christian Reader HAving been desired by some Friends to give a short Discourse of the Independent Government I am resolved to present thee with this following Epitome which sundry have oftentimes required of me The Independent Church is so called because that no particular Congregation amongst them how small how Hereticall and vicious soever it be will depend upon or submit to the Judgement of any other Church yea not to that of all the Churches of the World how Orthodox and holy and how true and just soever their Judgement be They define it Coetus Fidelium a Company of Beleevers meeting in one place every Lords Day for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God to publike Edification So according to this Definition neither the Catholike Church which we beleeve in the Creed nor any Nationall Church can be a true Church since they cannot meet together every Lords Day in one place In the Efficient Cause of the Church I see no great Difference betwixt us and them save onely this That they hold it necessary to the Constitution of a Church and of every Member thereof that they all joyn in a particular Church-Covenant as they call it different from that of Grace revealed in Scripture wherein they all swear to live in the Faith and in subjection to all the Ordinances of God cleaving one to another as Members
Services that those never sufficiently commended Princes of Your Illustrious House have done for the Cause of God they could not but prove very unthankfull both to God and to Your Highnesse And yet in such a case must not Your Highnesse for all that loose courage Your Cause is his Cause who is All-Sufficient And therefore Your Highnesse will do well to cast Your Self wholly upon him attending his good pleasure and I am assured that Your deliverance shall come in his good time which that he would be pleased to hasten So prayeth so hopeth so earnestly desireth he who is wholly resolved in all sincerity all his life long to remain Your Highnesse's most Humble most Obedient and most Faithfull Servant Adam Steuart How great is and wherein consisteth the Civill Magistrates power in matters Ecclesiasticall or concerning Religion CHAP. I. The State of the Question IT is an old trick of Hereticks and Schismaticks that when the Orthodox Churches oppose their novelties what they cannot get of the Church they travell to obtaine it at Court and therefore to arrive at their aymes they flatter the Princes of the earth and the Civill Magistrate in crying up the Civill and decrying the Ecclesiasticall Power and thus did the Arrians in former and the Arminians in latter times in whose foot-steps our Brethren the Independents at this present doe seem to tread and for this end they confound all things yea what ever is well said as may be seene by this their scratching and biting at my words travelling as they doe every where to confound what I have most clearely written Wherefore the better to shew this Authors fraud and guile and mine owne sincerity I will here set down what I said and what he opposeth Apol. Narr in speaking to the Parliament nameth it The Supreame Iudicatory severe Tribunall the most Sacred refuge and Asylum for mistaken and misjudged innocence A. S. The Parliament indeed is all this in Civill Causes but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion by Teaching or Preaching or Iudgeing of controversies of Religion nor any executive power that is intrinsecall unto the Church as in the Vocation Deposition and Suspension of Ministers in Ecclesiasticall Censures in Excommunication c. which are meerly spirituall but only an executive coercive and externall 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 belongeth actually and in effect In actu exercito as they say jure in re to true Christian Magistrates but to others potentially in actu signato jure in rem till they become true Christians My Adversary here carpeth first at the word arrogate as if it were evermore taken in ill part and signified to assume proudly to a mans selfe A. Stewart But he might know that being a stranger and having lived the most part of my life abroad I am now and then constrained to take the words upon truâ—t yet for this word since he hath put me upon the perusall of my Dictionary I must tell him I finde no such thing as he saith there indeed I finde the words arrogant arrogantly and arrogancie to be taken as he such but not the word arrogate for it is turned in French S'arroger S'attribuer S'appropriâ—r and in Latine arrogo all which were taken in good part before ever Independency was in rerum natura but I will not let my selfe be caption fly drawne from the question by this mans Grammaticall sophistications If any thing were here amisse as there is nothing it will I hope be sufficient that I here declare that that was never my meaning I confesse they have more and better Language then I but I am content that my Reasons goe as farre beyond theirs as their Language beyond mine Afterwards in the same page he accuseth me of contradicting my selfe in following Propositions The Parliament has no directive Power by teaching Preaching c. The Parliament is wise enough to know what is convenient for the Church I answer and answered againe That every young boy that learnes his rudiments in Logick knowes that a Contradiction is only betwixt two Propositions which have the same Attributes which is not to be found here for the Attribute in the first is having no directive Power c. but in the second wise enough c. 2. Neither is it credible that every man who is wiâ—e enough to know what is convenient for the Church has a Directive Power therein in Preaching Teaching c. for the Independents have many amongst them in their Churches who have as much Learning three or foure daies before they be received to be members of their Church as three or foure daies after and yet before they were received members into their Church howsoever they knew well enough what was convenient for the Church had yet no Directive Power in it to teach c. 3. A little after viz. p. 34. § 2. this judicious Observator of Contradictions declareth ingeniously that he knoweth not what I meane by a Directive Power and yet here he telleth me that I contradicted my selfe but how is it possible that he should know that I contradicted my selfe in that that he himselfe understands not He knoweth not what things I pose and yet he findeth them opposed one to another I finde him here opposed to himselfe and in finding out a contradiction in my words he contradicteth himselfe and so taketh away this pretended contradiction Because he knoweth not what is a directive Power wherein he founds this imaginary contradiction he saith A. S. should befriend my intellect to tell me plainly and distinctly what he meaneth by a Directive Power in matters of Religion A. S. Wherefore if I cannot befriend your Will I will travell to befriend your Intellect not only in declaring you what is a Directive Power c. but also in expounding all the termes of this question learne therefore I pray you 1. That the Civill Magistrate qua talis is he who governeth the State qua talem I say qua talis and qua talem for it may fall out that he who is a Civill Magistrate to governe the State may also be chosen to governe the Church in quality of a Ruling Elder c. but that he doth not in quality of a Civill Magistrate for then he should not need to be chosen to be a Ruling Elder for in quality of a Civill Magistrate already he should have had that power 2. Learne that by the word Church I understand the Visible Militant Church both reall and representative in Church Officers viz. 1. In Sessions or Presbyteries 2. In Classes 3. In Provinciall and 4. In Nationall and 5. in Oecumenicall Synods but so that it must be taken sometimes for the reall Church alone as when we say The Presbytery ruleth the Church sometimes for the representative alone as when we say Tell the Church and evermore ratione subjectae materiae 3.
and perfect civill power over their Subjects and yet are destitute of all such intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall power either directive or executive since neither they know nor will know the word of God which is the only directive or regulative principle in Ecclesiastical matters Government neither ever do they or will they exercise any of these powers yea they renounce them both Now morally he is not said to have power to exercise an Act who never exercises nor will exercise it but renounces it and all power unto it Ergo 14. If the civill Magistrate in qualitie of civill Magistrate hath any such intrinsecall power or authority about the Church Church businesse and Religion then must it not be called only a politicall civill or secular but also an Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power Yea the civill Magistrate and his power must as well be defined by spirituall and Ecclesiasticall actions of direction and Government and by spirituall and Ecclesiastiall matters as by civill actions and matters for it is ordinary to define all faculties habitudes and all naturall or morall powers and authorities by their acts and objects whereunto they have any intrinsecall reference as visum per visibile auditum per audibile Logicam per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phisicam per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But so is it not of the civill Magistrates power for neither is it called Ecclesiasticall Religious or Spirituall neither is it the custome of any learned Politician who ever defined it exactly to define it in such a manner Ergo 15. If it were so the civill Magistrate could not be a good Magistrate unlesse he ruled the Church well for in omitting this he should omit the principall part of his office so not being skilled in Divinity he should be unworthy of his charge and worthy to be deposed which I beleeve none but Independent Magistrates will grant 16. Yea to be a true Magistrate and acquit himselfe of his charge he must be an Independent for to acquit himselfe of the charge of a civill Magistrate he must rule the Church well to rule the Church well he must rule it in the Independent way for Episcopall Government is naught not being so much as essentially Ecclesiasticall Government and Presbyterian Government if they be beleeved is nothing else but Episcopall Government to rule it in the Independent way he must be an Independent Ergo a primo ad ultimum to be a true or lawfull Magistrate he must be an Independent This for any thing I can see falleth very little short of Treason for howsoever happily they intend it not yet they tend as fast as they can to it 17. That morall power whereof the externall acts are morally impossible is morally impossible But such is that intrinsecall power in the civill Magistrate about Spirituall matters in the Government of the Church Ergo That intrinsecall power c. must be morally impossible The Major proposition is certain for neither God nor Nature nor men in their right wits ever ordained any morall power whereof the act is morally impossible for active powers are only for their acts as for their ends now if the end be impossible so must that which is for that end be impossible and if it were impossible to saile we should never build ships to saile with I prove the Minor for I put the case there were an Oecumenicall Councell as hath been seen in former times and may be in times to come then should it not be possible for any Christian Magistrate to put in execution any such power over an Oecumenick Councell unlesse he were an Oecumenick Magistrate to whose authority it could submit But such a Magistrate morally is not like to be found E. 18. If the King and Parliament or any civill Magistrate be judge betwixt us and the Independents then must the Independents submit to their judgement and command If so how is it that against the Lawes of the Kingdom and their own Tenets they erect so many Independent Churches without their permission and consent and that the Independent Ministers of the Synod in printed bookes have divulged their judgments upon the matters in debate in the Synod and brought in so many novelties in Religion and all this against the formall Ordinance of both the Houses of Parliament to which they pretend so much submission 19. This opinion maketh all Ecclesiasticall power unnecessary and superfluous for since the civill Magistrate has an intrinsecall power both directive and executive to govern the Church as this M. S. would make us beseeve what need is it that the Ministers of the Church have any such power for the civill Magistrate has power enough to govern both the State and the Church But the Ecclesiasticall power is not unnecessary or superfluous since God hath ordained Presbyteries and some in the Church to be Rulers and others to be ruled For it is a Maxime both in Nature and in Grace that Deus et Natura nihil faciunt frustra Ergo the Independents opinion whereof these absurdities follow must be false 20. Because the Evangelists Prophets Pastors Doctors and other Christians of the Primitive Church would never acknowledge any such authority in the civill Magistrates or obey them as we see throughout all the History of the Acts and of the Primitive Church 21. If Kings Parliaments and the civill Magistrates have any internall Directive Imperative or Executive power over the Church either it should be Supream and Soveraign or Subaltern if Supreame or Soveraign then we have Kings in the Church yea some higher Offices and Officers in the Church then that of the Apostolate and the Apostles which is contrary to St. Paul 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Eph. 4. If Subalterne then the King and Parliament and all Magistrates are subject to some Ecclesiasticall power and are not supreame Iudges in the Church 22. If the Magistrate have any such power either the Supreame or Subaltern Magistrate has it But the supreame has it not as we have seene nor the Subaltern for what reason that every Justice of Peace yea be he never so ignorant in Divinity or never so vicious in his life should have power over a whole Nationall or Oecumenicall Synod It is not possible for he has no power over all the Churches that they represent neither did ever all the Churches send their Commissioners to the Synod upon any such tearmes neither has it ever been acknowledged by any Synod how ridiculous were it to think that every Justice of Peace who has not so much liberty as to enter in to this present Synod should notwithstanding rule it or domineer over it Neither did ye grant so much authority as I beleeve to the civill Magistrate in your Synod in the Netherlands But what reason is it that the subalterne Magistrate of one Towne should rule over the Synod rather then the Magistrate of the Towne from whence is sent an other Commissioner 23. If the civill Magistrates or any
King qua talis be a Ruler of the Church or have any intrinsecall authoritative power to rule it he should have the same right to it that he hath to the State or Kingdome so some Kings as in Hereditarie Kingdoms should be Kings and rulers of the Church by birth 24. Some by Warre Invasion or usurpation which is a pretty way to obtain power in the Church 25. By money in buying of a Principallity and so by direct Simony 26. By trooquing and exchange 27. A Woman since she may be Queen might be a Church Ruler and so speake in the Church which St. Paul directly prohibiteth them 28. A Prince being a known Atheist or a Magician should have an internall power to rule the Church and so be a member thereof for his Atheisme and Magick could no more hinder him from being a Ruler in the Church then in the State Neither is it possible that the Ruler of a Church or of any other Society should not be a member thereof if so the Church should be very well guided and have holy members But this is against the principles of Independency for they will acknowledge no man for a Member of their Church unlesse it appeare that he have the power of Piety and of Sanctifying Grace 29. Children and Babes who may be Kings should be Rulers of the Church So they who have not the use of reason should rule the Church without reason And if it be replied that they might guide the Church by their Counsell and other Officers Answ 1. God is not served by Commissioners and Proctors in the Church as in the State Whatever charge God layeth upon Church-men they must carrie their own burden themselves and not lay it upon others 2. By the same reason other Ministers of the Church might doe the like and so they likewise might be born Gods Ministers as the King and so have need of no vocation at all but every man according to his phantasie might exercise his gift of Prophecy just for all the world as they doe amongst the Independents 30. Yea mad men might rule the Church since their madnesse hinders them not to be Kings when they have right to the Crowne so might mad men be Preachers also for if madnesse hinder not a Prince or a King to be a Ruler in the Church or any other to rule the Church no more should it hinder any other Minister to be a Preacher since there is the same reason for them all 31. It is a commandement of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. That no man be admitted a Iudge in Christ Church but after due examination viz. of their life and Doctrine But Magistrates and especially the supreme Magistrate in taking the word in a large signification are not so admitted and some of them cannot be so admitted as Princes who are Infants mad c. 32. Whosoever hath any Ecclesiasticall power must be called of God as Aaron Heb. 5.4 and Christ took not this honour but after a lawfull vocation But Princes and Magistrates are not so called of God as Aaron 33. He who hath any intrinsecall power in the Church must first accept of it and have some internall vocation before that he have it But many Magistrates accept not of it nor have they any internall vocation as Papists who will not accept of it neither have they any vocation to it 34. If the Civill Magistrate have any such power either he hath it as a Magistrate as a Christian or as a Christian Magistrate But he hath it not as a Magistrate for as a Magistrate only he ruleth the State and not the Church and if he had it as a Magistrate all Magistrates yea Nero Julian the Apostate should have it as we have proved Not as a Christian for then every Christian should have that power yea a Cobler as well as a King nam quod convenit alicui qua tali convenit omni Nor finally as a Christian Magistrate for as a Christian Magistrate he hath no more then as a Magistrate and a Christian Now he hath it not as a Magistrate and a Christian for Christianity augmenteth not the power of a Magistrate since it is not of the same kinde for if it should augment it or increase it it should be some part or degree of Magistracie which is false Neither if it could be augmented or increased could it receive any increase but either extensive or intensive in its parts or quantity or in its degrees But since Christianity is not a part or a degree of Magistracy nor Magistracy of Christianity the one cannot increase or augment the other 35. If we should have a Toleration of all sorts of Religions put the case of 365. as M. S. wisheth and that the King were Iudge in all then he must have an intrinsecall power in all those Religions and all the severall Churches that professe them and consequently he must be a member of every one of them and so of 365 Religions For whosoever hath an intrinsecall power in the Church or is a Governour of it must be a member yea the principall member of it But the King must not be of so many viz. 365 Religons Ergo 36. If the King be not of all those Churches Religions then either he must be of one or none of them If of one of them only then he shall be partiall in judging and ruling them all and so an incompetent Iudge If of none so indeed he shall be indifferent and impartiall but a very dangerous man of no Religion at all and so cannot be a competent Iudge unlesse he be of no Religion at all But it were better to quit such a power then to have it upon such termes 37. We have examples of Kings punished for interposing themselves in matters of Religion which cost some of them no lesse then their Crowns as we read of Saul 1 Sam. 13.8 9 c. Others were strucken with leprosie as Vzziah for undertaking to sacrifice And howbeit that before he had been a glorious and a triumphant King yet for that act was he strucken with leprosie by God and opposed by Azariah with fourscore Priests valiant men who thrust him out from thence so dwelt he severall in a house being a Leper for he was cut off from the house of the Lord. All this saith the Text and no lesse 2 King 15.5 2 Chron. 26.16 17 c. 38. The Civill Magistrate may be received unto the Magistracy before he be a member of the Church for the Independents receive no man yea not the Kings Majesty and the Parliament to be members of their Church but after a long tryall Yea however they professe the Orthodox Religion and live Christianly not giving offence to any man Ergo in such a case the civill Magistrate is out of the Church and so must his authority be and consequently neither he qua talis nor his authority is intrinsecall unto the Church so long as he is out of the Church for
represent any Civill authority in Christ since his Kingdome was not of this World 4. It may be doubted how they were types of Christ whether in respect of their Civill authority over the Church or over the State or otherwise 5. It may be doubted if they were all types of Christ as Athalia Manasseh Ammon who destroyed Gods service and the order of the Church item Herod who persecuted Christ was sure no type of Christ and yet was King 6. If so then the King of Egypt of Syria of the Philistims yea the Romans who domineered over them were types of Christ At least the Kings of Israel were not types of Christ since they were all apostatized from the Ceremoniall Law that ordained all the types for a type whether it be a thing a person persons action effect or event it must signifie something to come 2. It must signifie by Gods institution or ordinance and therefore neither was the Nazareate or all the Nazarites types of Christ as some Divines hold 1. Because the Nazareate was not a ceremony ordained by God but voluntarily vowed 2. Because it prefigurated not Christ to come or his benefits and therefore say they Christ drank wine and touched the dead only they vowed it to bring under their flesh and for a pious exercise 7. Howbeit they had been types of Christ in regard of their authority about the Church yet will it not follow that Christian Princes cannot have it for that which was typicall might be taken away and that which was politicall may remaine 8. And I put the case that the Iewes had received Christ as absolutely they might have done who can doubt but their Politicall Government might have continued and their Kings ruled as well the Church externally as they did before his comming since Christs Kingdome was not of this World and that he came not to abolish or to diminish the power of Kings but to save their soules they were no wayes losers by Christs comming but rather gainers He might as well have said they had a Civill power about the Church because they had their noses betwixt their eyes Many were types of Christ that had not this authority about the Church and many had this authority about the Church who were not types of Christ Ergo this reason of his is false and ridiculous No more were the people of the Iewes types of the Christian Church in respect of the Civill but of the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Government by Church-officers and the People subject thereunto So also was their Land a type of the Celestiall Hierusalem not as it conteined the State but the Church otherwise it should have been a type of Heaven before that the people of God had any right to it And finally types are not ordained by the Politicall or Morall Law as Magistrates and their Authority at least qua tales but only by the Ceremoniall Law True it is that God may serve himselfe of a thing instituted by the Morall Law to be a type but he must make it a type by some subsequent Ceremoniall Law What he saith against all this p. 52. §. 23 that good Kings never oppressed godly persons when they were for a while tender in conscience it is not to the purpose We only say here that they may punish Idolaters Seducers Hereticks and Sectaries who are never such till they be sufficiently convicted and after that remain pertinacious But no wayes good people under the notion of good people but so far forth as they doe amisse And what reason if he who heretofore by the judgement of Charity was thought a good man if he become an Heretick or a Murtherer should not be punished according to Law since the Magistrate punisheth him not for his good but for his ill § 24. He saith that I must prove that the Kings of Iudah had such a power by a Morall law which is of a perpetuall obligation and engagement upon other Nations A.S. Answ It suffices that I have proved it by a Politicall Law and that the same reason obliges Christian Princes vâ—z B. cause they will turne thee from the Lord thy God Deut. 13.5.10 â—â— Thus Politicall law is grounded upon the fifth Commandement which is Iuris naturalis It must be so since it is grounded in naturall reason 4. And our Reasons God willing hereafter shall make it appeare 5. In the mean time take for an example Nebuchadnezzar who since he was no leâ—â— could not doe it in vertue of any Politicall law of the Iewes for he was no Subject of the Kingdome of Iuda only he could doe it in vertue of the Morall or some Politicall law grounded on the Morall or the law of Nature M. S. It was no more Morall then that of the staying of the inhabitants of the idolatrous City and the cattell thereof c. A. S. I deny it for the one is grounded upon Naturall and Divine reason as we have seene and God willing shall see more fully by our following reasons but so is not the other P. 52 53. § 25. Answ 8. M. S. Answers 1. That the Kings of Iuda only exercised their power about Idolatry and Idolaters A. S. I deny it 1. For they exercised it also in beating downe of the High Places wherein there was not Idolatry as having been permitted before the building of the Temple 2. Because there is the same reason binding them to exercise it against the transgressions of the first Commandement the violation whereof is more directly against Gods Honour for sacrificing in High Places is but a circumstance of the second Commandement violated but Heresie and Schisme are formall breaches of the first Commandement the one of faith the other of charity therein commanded and the false Prophet was to be put to death 2. In the same Section he saith that it was the generality of the Church or Nation of the Jewes and not their Kings that was invested with it by God Deut. 13. and 7.5 and 12.2 3. A. S. Here is Anabaptisme in devesting the Magistrate of his Power and vesting the people with it What had every one the power of the Sword amongst the people of the Iewes 2. Was their Government Democraticall or rather Anarchicall Had women children and servants this Power I grant you that in vertue of the Law and their Covenant they had all an hand in in the matter but not absolutely but every man according to his Vocation the King and Magistrate as Judges but the people only to execute according to their Commands Neither is it credible that when a false Prophet or an Idolater was to be punished every one of the people was to judge him at his pleasure or to stone him to death Neither containe these Passages that you cite any such thing and therefore you did very cunningly not to quote the words themselves whereupon you ground this conclusion And is this all the power and respect you give to the Parliament and Civill Magistrate in
The taking away of evill the conservation of order and unity and to avoyd Schisme 2. Neither did Christ by his death obtaine for us an immunity from all obedience or an independent licentiousnesse to doe ill 3. And this is the Holy Ghosts reason in that same place And thou shalt put away the evill from Israel And all the people shall heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously ver 12.13 which obligeth us as well unto obedience under the New Testament as those of the Old Testament 25. So we have an Example of Corah Dathan Abiram and On who were Independents and for their independency and not subjection unto the authoritative power of Moses and Aaron were severely punished by Moses and perished miserably We might bring many reasons of the Holy Ghost himselfe wherefore the Civill Magistrate must punish Idolaters false Prophets or Hereticks c. 26. Because Gods people is an holy people to the Lord. 27. Because they know that God is faithfull and keepeth his Covenant Deut. 7. and 13. Neither can any man blame such Arguments but those who will blame the Holy Ghost his Arguments for they are not mine but His. CHAP. VI. Wherein are answered M.S. his Reasons that he hath Chap. 1. And first the first sixe NOw I will propound M.S. his Objections whereof many conclude that this Intrinsecall power not only doth belong to the Civill Magistrate but also to all the members of the Church M.S. then p. 33. § 2. argueth 1. thus By such an umpirage and decision as this between the Civill Magistrate and himselfe viz. A.S. with his fellow Presbyters hath he not made the one Judex and the other Carnifex the one i. e. the Civill Magistrate must give the sentence the other must doe execution Answ A.S. 1. There is no decision at all between the Civill Magistrate and A. S. for A. S. is but a private man neither Magistrate nor Church-Officer 2. Neither are the Presbyters his fellow-Presbyters since he is no Presbyter These then in the beginning are manifest untruths 3. Neither can this decision in granting an Intrinsecall povver both directive and executive to the Church and an Extrinsecall to the Civill Magistrate viz. which is extrinsecall in respect of Ecclesiasticall povver but intrinsecall to Civill povver make the Church or Ecclesiasticall Assembly a Judge and the Parliament or Civill Magistrate a Hangman to remember his most humble respects unto the King Parliament and all the Iudges of this Kingdome For the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies as it is the common opinion of all our Divines cannot judge of the Civill Magistrate his duty 2. Neither have they ever been so foolish as M. S. most passionately and impudently calumniateth them here to command him any thing 3. They acknowledge most willingly that the Church being materially a part of the State is subject to Civill Government 4. That the Church which is the Kingdome of Christ hath no Civill power since it is not of this World Joh. 18.26 5. That the Civill Magistrate commanding and compelling such as be refractory and disobedient to the Church must not see with the Churches eyes but with his own Civill or Politicall eyes 6. And that in so doing he obeyeth not the Church or any Ecclesiasticall power but God whose power he exerciseth in the State as the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies doe exercise Christs power in the Church 7. Yea more that sometimes the Civill Magistrate may not punish those who are disobedient to the Church viz. if thereupon may follow the undoing of the State c. 8. For the same reason it is most untrue that the one giveth out the sentence and the other must doe execution 9. And moreover because they are two severall Iudicatories they are both independent one upon another howsoever both divers wayes subject one to another for the Civill Magistrate is subject in a spirituall way to the Church He must learne Gods will by the Ministers of the Church who are Gods Ambassadours sent unto him He must be subject unto Ecclesiasticall Censures as we see by the Examples of the Kings in the Old Testament and Theodosius the Emperour in the New So the Church againe is subject not in a Spirituall but in a Civill way to the Government of the Civill Magistrate as all Protestants and Ministers themselves confesse and plead for it against the Romane Clergie in favour of the Civill Magistrate 10. The Civill Magistrate hath power not to receive into the State all that which the Church judgeth fitting He may irresistably hinder it if he will 11. If he be Carnifex because that he commands it to be put in execution he should be Carnifex when ever he should command his own judgements to be put in execution 12. So should Independents be Carnifices when either the Civill Magistrate or the Church commands them to doe their duty 13. The Carnifex or Executioner pronounceth not a sentence as the Magistrate M. S. Obj. 2. pag. 33. The Civill Magistrate is much beholding to the Presbyter for giving him a Consecrated sword to fight the Presbiterian battels and for perswading of him to pull out his own eyes upon this presumption that he shall see better with his A. S. As able as this man is in jeering and calumniating as unable is he in arguing against this truth especially if he have no better arguments in his Budget by way of Reserve then what he brings here all he saith is utterly false 1. The Presbyterians have none but spirituall battels to fight 2 Cor. 10.3 4. the weapons of their warfare are not carnall 2. They doe not warre after the flesh neither wrastle they against flesh and bloud but against the Rulers of the darknesse of this world against spirituall wickednesse in High Places their sword is the sword of the spirit Eph. 6.12 And therefore they cannot nor pretend they to give him this spirituall sword they cannot quit it much lesse can they give him the materiall sword which is none of theirs to give for he hath it of God he is the Minister of God Rom. 13.4 avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill 2. It is false that the Presbyterians perswade him to pull out his ovvn eyes or to see vvith theirs 1. For they teach him to learne the Gospell by reading the Word and hearing it Preached by the Ministers thereof according to Gods Word and not by every Cobler as amongst Independents in exercising their gifts 2. And afterwards to see and judge by his owne eyes 3. They say and Preach that it is a great sin in him if he judge with any other then his owne eyes 4. He must judge according to the Lawes of the State otherwise he doth not the part of a Iudge 5. Yea if his judgement dissent from the judgement of the Law we know well enough he ought to quit both his owne judgement and that of the Church and to judge against his owne private conscience according to the Law and his
good of the Church which he would have to belong to the Parliament and all others 2. An Authoritative power to conclude say and set down what shall must or ought to be done against all contradiction in matters of Religion and this he grants to God alone and addeth If the Presbyterians demand such a Directive power let them ask the Crown Throne and Kingdome of Christ also To this A. S. saith that all men may grant it to be true if they claimed any soveraigne Royall authoritative power But if they claime only a Ministeriall power it is as great a sacrilege to deny them it as blasphemy in them to arrogate the other since they are Gods Ministers and Ambassadors for Christ 3. A prudentiall faculty or ability to direct order or prescribe whether to a mans selfe or to others what in a way of reason humane conjecture or probability is best and fittest to be done followed or imbraced in matters of Religion and this he grants to the Parliament to many private Members of particular Churches and to Presbyteries and Synods also howsoever with a restriction But in all these his Conjectures he hath no waies guessed at my mind for by a Directive power however I meane a prudentiall Prudence yet meane I not a private prudentiall Prudence which may be found in Midwives Maid-servants and VVater-men for in granting such a Power to the Parliament and Ecclesiasticall Senates he grants them no more then to the meanest of the people but I meane an authoritative publick and Ecclesiasticall prudentiall power not Soveraign Imperiall Royall or Despoticall or Magisteriall but Ministeriall such as may belong to Ministers and Ambassadours of Christ And as I have said it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof Aristotle speaketh in the Category of Quality but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no naturall power no naturall or supernaturall Habitude but Potestas or Morall Power depending upon will and not upon Nature or that is the work of will and not of Nature CHAP. VII Wherein are dissolved his 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. Reasons borrowed from the Parliaments Ordinance Ob. 6. AFter all his guessing so little to purpose p. 35. § 6. he endeavoureth to prove by the Ordinance of the Parliament for the calling of the Assembly that the Civill Magistrate doth claime yea and exercise act and make use of such an authority from day to day as occasion requireth Because the Parliament published their Ordinance for calling the Assembly A. S. Ansvv I deny the consequence for that contrivance and publishing of their Ordinance is not a directive power intrinsecall to the Church whereof we speake for neither directs it them intrinsecally in Doctrine Discipline or manners but extrinsecally 1. because the Ecclesiasticall Assembly may be and hath sundry times been convocated without it as in the Primitive Church 2. Because it was before ever the Synod began and without any Ecclesiasticall act Now what is before a Synod beginneth and without any Ecclesiasticall Act cannot be intrinsecall to the Synod or to the Church 3. Because the Directive power whereof I speake was in Iudging of Controversies of Religion c. but the publishing of an Ordinance for calling the Assembly is no such thing Ergo 4. Because that calling of the Assembly by Civill Authority alone was extraordinary howbeit very just and conforme unto Gods Word Neither could this be an Ecclesiasticall Assembly unlesse it were vertually called by the Church Officers in vertue of their subsequent consent thereunto and all these Answers must be taken conjunctly and not severally 5. Because this Assembly is not Ecclesiasticall in vertue of the Ordinance of the Parliament but of the virtuall consent of the Church The vertuall indiction of it by Church Authority contributeth to make it intrinsecally Ecclesiasticall But the Ordinance of the Parliament is extrinsecall unto it in so farre forth as Ecclesiasticall howsoever it be very just and necessary but it is intrinsecall to it accidentally and in so farre as is to be received in the State which absolutely is extrinsecall to the Church Ob. M. S. In limiting those that were to be of the Assembly to the subiect or Argument on which it was permitted them to debate they did no lesse i. e. they exercised a directive power A. S. Answ 1. But this is no intrinsecall directive power whereof I speake viz. in Teaching Preaching judgeing of Controversies of Religion c. 2. This was no Ecclesiasticall but a Civill Power 3. In so doing the Parliament judged not what was to be beleeved or practised in the Church but ordained them to judge which is the true intrinsecall directive power 4. And this was extraordinary in respect of Gods particular howbeit not in respect of his generall Providence in the Government of his Church M. S. Ob. 8. In appointing and ordering them not to determine or conclude of things as they pleased by Pluralities 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 A.S. 1. M.S. would here seem to give some great power unto the Parliament in matters of Religion yet it is nothing else but that which he grants to too many private Members of particular Churches So that if the King and Parliament will become Members of this M. S. his Church and He please to admit them it may be that he will grant them as much power as to other private Members thereof 2. Note that he saies not that it belongs unto them but that they claime it exercise act and make use of it but quo jure quave injuriâ he telleth not 3. In all this there appeareth no intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall Power they did it not by a Spirituall but by a Secular Power 4. And if the Church had not a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Power to determine and to conclude what needed the Parliament to forbid it the Synod rather then ordinary Tradesmen who have no such power to determine such matters 5. Neither by this command is it the Parliaments mind as I beleeve to take away from the Church the directive and intrinsecall Power that God hath granted her but only to desire her to put off her Determinations till it see how farre it can prevaile by faire meanes to gaine pertinacious men who may oppoâ—e it and happily also till it receive full satisfaction it selfe before it confirme such Determinations by an Act of Parliament and so make them to be received by their authority in the State for the Parliament hath no lesse Civill and Secular Authority to receive or not receive it by a Civill Law into the state then any Synod hath spirituall authority to establish or not establish it by an Ecclesiasticall Law in the Church Wherefore in this the Parliament intended not to crosse the Church Government nor to be crossed in their Civill Government by the Church as in former times
but to live together as Moses and Aaron both looking to one end but each one of them with their owne eyes the one with a Politicall the other with a Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall eye And this appeareth by those words of the Ordinance during this present Parliament or untill further order be taken Now if this Order were full what needed the Synod attend for a further Order Neither is there any man of judgement that can blame the Parliament in all this yea howbeit it should extraordinarily doe more in this extraordinarily miserable estate of Religion when now Sathan hath so manifest and palpable an entrance into the Church of God under so many ill-portending shapes as of Independents Brownists Anabaptists Socinians c. they had need take upon them for the defence of the Church more then in ordinary cases they doe 7. Only I adde a word viz. that these words as they pleased by plurality of Votes are not in the Ordinance but are an addition of M. S. in contempt of the Synod as if the Members thereof voted not according to Scripture but as pleased themselves And 8. that in case of difference in Opinion it is not ordained that they represent their Opinions and the reasons thereof to either or both the Houses to the end that they may judge of the matter but that they may finde out some further direction whereby the Assembly may judge it 9. Yea there is another Ordinance since the printed Ordinance whereby it is ordained that all things agreed upon and prepared for the Parliament should be openly read and allowed in the Assembly and then offered as the judgement of the Assembly if the Major part consent see how the judgement of the Major part of the Assembly is here declared by the Parliament to be acknowledged as the Decision of the Assembly which M. S. will not stand unto Object 9. In enjoyning them in case of difference of opinions between them to present the same together with the reasons thereof to both Houses they did every whit as much A.S. Answ 1. I deny that they who enjoyne in case of difference c. have an Internall power in the Church much lesse an internall Directive power 2. This injunctiō was not in reference to the Intrinsecal power of the Church which is evermore within the Church but to the Extrinsecall power about the Church i.e. to that of the Magistrate whose power is without the Church howsoever within the State and in so far forth as the Parliament by Civill Law intended to approve and confirme the Ecclesiasticall Law 3. Item it was to see if by any meanes and wayes of meeknesse it could perswade a few men of your Sect to submit themselves unto the Order and Government that God hath established in his Church as they have done you many other favours which you too much undervalue arguing from this favour as from a Law to that which is or should be ordinary Iustice And yet they ordained that what is caried by plurality of Votes in the Assembly should passe as the judgement of the whole Assembly Object 10. M.S. In their nominating and calling such and such Ministers and not others to be of the Assembly they acted the same power A.S. Answ That is also Extrinsecall since it was not in but out of and before the Assembly 2. And extraordinary 3. And yet very ordinate and ordinary for this extraordinary state of the Church in this Kingdome when such a swarme of Sects are crept in some comming from New England others from the Netherlands and others from other places For if every one of them should have had entry into the Assembly what should have become of us 4. Neither doth this prove any Directive power in the Church in teaching c. as I said that should belong unto the Magistrate M.S. Ob. 11. In framing the temper and constitution of the Assembly allaying it with such and such Members of their own they steered the same course A.S. Answ 1. This cannot conclude any Directive Ecclesiasticall power that belongeth unto the Parliament 2. These Members of their own who did sit in the Assembly if they had any Vote did not sit there in quality of Members of the Assembly for then every Member of the Parliament might have sate there but in quality of extraordinary Ecclesiasticall persons according to this extraordinary state and exigence of the Church 3. If they had no Vote at all and yet sate they were not Members of the Assembly but this was a speciall priviledge granted unto the Members of the House which in other places likewise is granted unto persons of meaner rank yea unto Strangers as we may see in the Church of Scotland in their Generall Assemblies 4. Or rather they sit there in name of the Parliament to procure by their Civill power the Externall order that should be in such Assemblies But this is no Ecclesiasticall or Internall power in the Church but Externall about the Church such as the French Kings Commissioners who are sometimes Papists have in our Protestant Nationall Synods in France and yet are not Members of our Synods there neither Vote they neither pretend they to have any Intrinsecall power there for then they should professe themselves thereby to be Protestants only they have power to oppose things that they beleeve to be prejudiciall to the King or the State 5. Neither beleeve I that they vote in points of Doctrine 6. And if they vote in matter of Government they doe it in quality of Ruling Elders either extraordinary or ordinary in vertue of some virtuall election made by the Synod or by the Synods toleration or approbation for no man can rule the Church intrinsecally but he that is intrinsecally a Church-Ruler or Officer as I have proved it heretofore M.S. Object 12. Lastly 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 debate To hasten the issue of their Consultations with the like What doe they else but claime and exercise such a Directive power in matters of Religion A.S. Answ To proceed to wave particulars to debate things and consult of them in the Assembly argueth an intrinsecall directive power proper unto the Church but to send Messages proveth it not at all to be in the Parliament but in the Church and that the Magistrate by his Civill power can command the Church to use its Ecclesiasticall power 2. For the Magistrate may command the like thing to every Guild or Common-Hall in the City touching their own professions Neither can it thereupon be inferred that he hath an Intrinsecall Directive power in such Trades CHAP. VIII Wherein are answered his 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. Arguments M.S. p. 37. § 1. Ob. 13. BUt if the Parliament have no calling from God to judge of matters between the Apologists and their Brethren the Assemblers I would willingly know who hath
A.S. Answ The Parliament hath power and a calling to judge Politicè about the Church and Church matters What Decisions and Constitutions of the Church Assemblies they will approve or disapprove what Religion Doctrine and Discipline they will admit or tolerate in the State But they have no calling or Directive Authoritative power in the Church to judge this or that to be the true Doctrine or Discipline this belongeth to Church-Officers Yet they have a private judgement of Discretion about such matters as other Christians and a publique Politicall Authoritative judgement and a coactive Politicall power to compell the Subjects to admit in the State such or such a true Doctrine or Discipline of the Church howbeit not to beleeve it or to love or approve it in their judgement or will M. S. Ob. 14. asketh 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 know of are more in number then they and will needs continue Adversaries to them A.S. Answ 1. Though yee vaunt evermore of your sufferings we have never seen them 2. These whom ye unjustly call your Adversaries have suffered much more then you and yet publish it not unto the World 3. It is absolutely false that ye suffer 4. And yet much falser that ye suffer as men convicted 5. And yet falser that ye suffer because your Adversaries are more in number And 6. falsest of all that only ye suffer for that 7. Men that suffer are not honoured as ye are neither receive they so great favours Presents and Benefices as ye doe 8. It is a great sufferance to the Church of God to be calumniated and upbraided by so contemptible a number of Ministers and to see so many Libels printed against her by those of your Sect. 9. It is false that ye are not condemned for the Church of England and all other Protestant Churches in approving the Presbyterian Government as we said heretofore could not but disprove and condemne you all who condemn it 10. Neither doth all this prove a Directive Ecclesiasticall power belonging to the Civill Magistrate 11. Ye have no Adversaries here but your False Opinions 12. Neither are your Brethren Adversaries to you but to your erronions Opinions which are a thousand times more your Adversaries then they 13. And both ye and any of us must legally suffer according to our demerits when we are sufficiently convicted and condemned by plurality of Votes in foro externo as ye are already in very many things for this is the way of all Civill and Ecclesiasticall Judicatories Neither can Independents change it 15. Ibid. M.S. reasoneth thus If our Saviours testimony concerning himselfe in his own cause was not valid how much lesse the testimony of any other yea of a thousand in any matter that concerneth themselves and consequently that of our Brethren in the Synod But the first is true Joh. 5.31 If I beare witnesse of my selfe my witnesse is not true i. e. it is not in a formall and Legall interpretation true but you may reasonably wave it A.S. Ans 1. Either Christ here speaking of his own testimony speaketh of himselfe according to his Divine to his Humane or according to both his Natures Item 2. Either he speaketh of its validity in it selfe or in respect of the Iewes to whom he did speak and who should have admitted of it Item 3. Either of his publique and judiciall or of his private testimony 1. If in the first Proposition we take our Saviour according to his Divine nature or according to both viz. as Mediator the Assumption is false for there Christ speaketh not of himselfe according to his Divine Nature or to both or as Mediator for under that notion he is Iudge of quick and dead and Christ sayes Ioh. 8.14 that if he testifie of himselfe his testimony is true 2. Or if he speak of himselfe under this notion then he speaketh not of his testimony as it is in it self but as it is in respect of them who received it not viz the Iewes and unbeleevers who received it not as the testimony of God or of the Mediator however it was such for they knew him not Ioh. 8.15.19 but they judged according to the flesh neither knew they him nor his Father And if they had known the King of Glory they had never crucified him And then the Proposition is false for it followeth not that if Christs testimony who is God was not acknowledged as valid by those who knew it not Ergo the testimony of a Presbytery or Synod should not be acknowledged by such as are subject thereunto and know it for by the same reason two or three idle fellowes should not beleeve the testimony of your Presbytery or Assembly 3. I retort then the Argument If Christs testimony was not legally valid in his own cause Ergo Yours in your Presbyteries and Assemblies is not legally true or valid in your own cause when ye judge in matters of Faith and and Discipline But the first is true Ergo the second also 4. If Christ be here taken according to his Humane Nature then either he is taken according to his Humane nature as it is in it selfe without sinne or as it was in the Pharises estimation If in the first way the Assumption is false for there the Pharises took Christ for a sinfull man and who can deny but that the testimony of a man in the state of integrity is valid 5. If it be taken in the second way I deny the first Proposition for the testimony of Iudges in judging according to Law in things that concerne not so much their persons as the Society that they represent in judgement as the Assembly and all Ecclesiasticall Iudges doe is to be preferred before the testimony of any particular man 6. And if this Maxime of the Independents hold the judgement of no Civill Magistrate yea not of the Parliament it selfe shâ—ll hold if any of them or any Dâ—linquent take the Parliament to party in any businesse The Parliament will doe well to take notice of such Independent Maximes 7. But this was the Arminians way at the Synod of Dort to the end they might decline the judgement of the Synod and he is an Arminian who propounds this Argument who of late is become an Independent I â—eare they mean to unite the two Sects in one 8. Christ was not here speaking of himselfe how far forth his testimony and judgement might hold in a judiciall way whereof we speak here but in a private way for this action was not judiciall but a particular discourse 9. Neither are the businesses now in hand at the Synod of particular but of publike concernment viz. the Church wherein the Church that is Iudge cannot be taken to party however ye call her a crowd wherein many particular persons are concerned M. S. Ob. 16. p. 37.
§ 2. They who are Party cannot be their Parties Judge since they are all equals Et par in parem non habet imperium and to be both Iudge and Party in one cause cannot be granted to those that have no authoritative power one over another as A.S. himselfe affirmes But the Assembly are those who are Party to the Independents and nothing else but their equals Ergo the Assembly cannot be their Judges A. S. Ans A Party cannot judge a Party I distinguish for either this Party is only pretended and so I deny the Major or reall and then this reall Party either compeareth in some personall or reall actions of his owne alone or in some cause of publick concernment if he compeare under the first notion the Major is true but the Minor is false for the Members of the Assembly compeare not in the Assembly for any personall or reall action of their owne alone or of particular concernment if he compeareth under the second notion the Major is false unlesse yee have sufficient cause to forsake him for Iudge 2. Item If it be a Party that hath no power over the Party in such a cause the Major is true but the Minor is false for the Assembly in matters of Discipline hath power over all the Independents in England viz. to condemne their Tenets according to Gods VVord If it be a party that hath power over the Party in such a cause as a Iudge the Major is false and so it was reasoned and this your Tenet judged and condemned in the Arminians as I hope it shall be in this Arminian and the Independents in this Assembly 3. It is false that parties are equals when the one hath power over another or when the one that is pretended to be party judgeth not in a matter concerning himselfe but the publick 4. For if that should hold the parties of the Independent Churches might reject the judgement of whole Churches yea of all the Churches of the world pretending them to be parties 5. Yea for the same reason they might reject the Iudgement of the Parliament 6. This Argument proveth not the question viz. that the Parliament hath an intrinsecall directive power in matters of Religion or an Ecclesiasticall power to judge in matters of Religion 7. It is a very proud and Independent expression of yours when you say that the Synod and all the Churches in the Christian world are but the Apologists equals you will finde them I hope in God their Judges and yet they are put in authority by the Parliament to represent the whole Church of England which is more then such an inconsiderable number of Independents M. S. Ob. 17. p. 37. § 2. If all Churches vvere equall as for ought I know or for any thing A.S. alledgeth to the contrary they are there can be neither superiours nor inferiours and consequently no obedience or disobedience But the first is true A. S. Ans 1. This proveth not that the Parliament hath any intrinsecall povver in the Church much lesse any directive intrinsecall povver 2. Only it pretendeth to prove an Independent Povver in the Church which taketh away their directive povver of the Civill Magistrate and the Parliament for if their Churches depend not of any superiour how can they depend upon the Parliament or any other Civill Magistrate I deny the Assumption viz. that all Churches are equall but he proveth it because they are such for ought he knoweth or that A. S. alleadgeth to the contrary Ansvv 1. This is but to confesse your ignorance 2. I deny the Consequence for it may be otherwise howbeit he be ignorant of it 3. Neither is his knowledge the measure of divine or naturall verity but to be measured by them 4. Howbeit A. S. should say nothing to the contrary yet the contrary may be for A. S. hath not said all things that may be said upon this or any other subject and there be thousands who can say more and better then he yea many have said more and better 5. It is an untruth also that he hath said nothing to the contrary for he might have seene something to the contrary in his Observations and in his Answers to a Libell and if that be not enough he hath more in this Booke 6. When he saith that A. S. argueth so it is an untruth for neither hath A. S. the Assumption nor the Conclusion in the 38. page of his Observations cited by him for he destroyeth the Consequent to destroy the Antecedent whereas M. S. poseth the Antecedent to infer the Consequent M. S. Ob. 18. If Iustice consisteth not in an Arithmeticall but Geometricall proportion then is there no reason that peremptoriousnesse of Vote how Arithmetically soever priviledged but weight and worth of Arguments should carry it against them But the first is true Ergo the second also A. S. Ansvv This Argument with its peremptorious censure of a pretended peremptoriousnesse of Votes Arithmetically priviledged seemeth to censure the Parliament which ordained that that should be offered unto them as the Iudgement of the Assembly vvhich the major part assented unto i. e. that that was judged by Plurality of Votes 2. If by peremptoriousnesse of Vote he meaneth Plurality of Votes I deny the consequence or connexion for when things are fully ballanced by reason in any Assembly it is more probable that that is most true that is carried by plurality of votes and that Geometricall proportion wherein consisteth distributive Iustice may be more easily found out by Plurarity of votes then by fewer votes otherwise it were a folly to vote any thing for wherefore vote they any thing in any Assemblies but that it may be judged by plurality of votes 3. And the Apostle willeth that the spirit of Prophets be subject to the Prophets Neither is it credible that the Major part will submit unto the lesser part 4. And we would willingly know of you Sir how things are ordinarily carried in your Assemblies whether things being debated and every mans Reasons heard the Major part submitteth to the lesser or the lesser to the Major or whether that is thought truth that the Major or Minor part Voteth 5. If by peremptoriousnesse of votes you mean a bold and imperious carrying of things by plurality of votes without reason I shall readily grant you such Assemblies are unlawfull neither is there any such established amongst us neither hath the Parliament established any such Ecclesiasticall Assembly here neither doth the Assembly arrogate unto it selfe any such unjust power if this Argument hold it shall beate downe as well the proceedings of the Parliament and all Civill Iudicatories wherein things are carried by Plurality of votes as those of the Assembly wherefore all the Civill Powers in the world will doe well to take notice of this peremptorious censure of them all for if it stand they must fall and doe homage to the Independent Churches Besides this I know not what he meaneth by Arithmetically
must know whether he doth well or ill at least by a particular judgement if in the second it is true that men are bound sometimes to sing a permissive obedience without their understanding because in so doing they doe nothing themselves but permit other men to doe as when there is a Minister called by the Church to preach it may be that some ordinary Mechanick will judge his Sermons to be too sublime more speculative then practicall happily also he will think them not methodicall in such a case the Mechanick hath no power to hinder the Preacher from preaching or preaching so he must obey in permitting and not opposing him in preaching for what is unsavory to his palate is savory to anothers 4. If this Argument hold it shall presse no lesse the Parliament then the Assembly for I put the case that the Assembly judge and that all the Assembly and Independents goe one way and the Parliament another which I trust in God shall never happen I frame the Argument thus If the meanest of men have not a calling to judge betwixt the Parliament and the Assembly then they must sing obedience and submission to the Parliament without their understanding But the Consequent is false Ergo And so your Independents shall neither obey Parliament nor Assembly And the Parliament would doe well to note this 5. I say more that sometimes Subjects are bound to obey their Rulers when they know not distinctly the equity of the Command for put the case a Prince undertake a Warre against his neiâ—â—bour-Prince every Cobler knoweth not the true cause of the Warre or 〈◊〉 it be just or not for he cannot penetrate into his Princes secret Counsells and yet if the Prince lay Assizes upon the people or presse Souldiers they must in all this obey howbeit they know not the secrets of his Counsels yea howbeit they suspect the Warre to be unjust they must obey for it is not expedient that every Independent Cobler be admitted into the Counsell of State or if that be not granted that presently he resist his Prince and raise a Rebellion in the Kingdome 6. I pray this man to tell me whether in New England amongst the Independents every man be not bound to obey what is judged in their Assemblies however he be of a contrary judgement 7. And whether it be Morally possible that every man be of the same judgment in things that are resolved or to be resolved in all Civill or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies And if not what can be the force of this Argument What here he addeth The glory of a Synod lyes not so much in the force of their Conclusions as of their premises is impertinent for the force of the premises and conclusions are not to be opposed one to the other but to be composed one to another for the conclusion followeth necessarily of its premisses Things are sufficiently discussed in the Assembly and their Conclusions evidently enough inferred out of their premisses but this is an incurable sicknesse in these men that they never thinke any Conclusion well inferred unlesse it be for themselves Obj. 22. He telleth us afterwards his judgement that the conclusions of the Assembly should not be swallowed without shewing c. which the Parliament and Assembly will both grant him Obj. 23. M. S. In his Sect. 12. he bringeth in quality of an Argument as it seemeth an Answer unto one of mine taken ab exemplo or a simili which I have answered and afterwards Sect. 16. he hath an Argument the summe whereof is this Obj. 24. Christ hath not divested himselfe nor made a delegation of such a directive power in matters of Religion as A. S. would sequester for the honour of the Presbyterie Ergo he will not acknowledge it A. S. Ansvv 1. I deny the Consequence for to acknowledge such a Ministeriall power as we grant unto the Ministers of the Assembly or our Presbyteries it is not needfull that Christ divest himselfe of it or make a delegation but a donation of it for Christ was never vested with such a Ministeriall and subordinate power for he is Lord and supreame Judge in the Church and therefore could never divest himselfe of it 2. If he meane the supreame power proper to Christ we neither desire him to beleeve nor beleeve we that Christ hath divested or could divest himselfe of it to give it to the Church for he kept to himselfe his owne supreame or Royall Power but gave unto his Ministers subalterne and Ministeriall power which derogateth no waies from his Royall power since this is subordinate unto that 3. However he takes it this Argument is captious and is nothing else but a plain petitio principii and proving the same thing by the same or a Conclusion by a Premisse as uncertaine as it selfe After this petty Argument he maketh his Testament resolving himselfe to dye a Martyr amongst good men whom he hath most highly offended and who professe that they compell no man to professe any truth much lesse untruth against the light of their Conscience how ridiculous a Martyr is this They professe that they may undergoe a voluntary exile for feare of persecution if you sir feare any such thing you may be gone according to the Principles of your owne Divinity And then he telleth us that he will allow any directive power of man so it be not compulsory unto men by any externall violence whether directly or indirectly to subscribe against their judgements and consciences to it A. S. Answ 1. Our Presbyteries attribute not to themselves any directive power that is compulsory unto men by externall violence to subscribe against their judgements 2. But if a few men differ in their judgements from all the rest of the Church or will needs bring in new Religions or novelties against the common Tenets of the Church then indeed they will cast them out of the Church or excommunicate them according to their demerits neither is it equitable that they abide in a Church or enjoy a Church consociation who will not submit unto her Iudgement and Discipline Neither will his Quinque Ecclesian Ministers admit unto or receive any man into their Church who differs in judgement from them or who will not submit unto their judgement But howbeit the Church compell you not to subscribe yet the Civill Magistrate after sufficient conviction may compell you to subscribe or to be gone for after sufficient conviction Morally it is and should be supposed that yee know the Truth or should know it or if yee know it not that nothing can have hindred you but your owne pertinaciousnesse which cannot excuse but rather now accuses and aggravates your sinne since one sinne formally and per se cannot excuse another Neither have our Churches ever gone further as may appeare by our Confessions of Faith and Covenants of the Churches of Scotland France the Netherlands Geneva c. M. S. hath some more poore Reasons in his 2. Chap. about the
executive power of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion Here he imployeth neare upon foure pages in quarto in a very small Print about things that are nothing at all to the purpose 1. In threatning the Parliament with Gods most heavy judgements in case they meddle themselves with any executive or coercive power against his new canonized Independent Saints He supposeth them 1. to be Saints 2. Those little ones Matth. 18.6 He telleth them is were better a Milstone vvere hanged about their necke then to meddle vvith one of these little ones and that because the Holy Ghost prophesieth of the putting dovvn of all rule and all authority and povver by Christ for he must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet 1 Cor. 15.24 25. this argumentation will hold if ye suppose the Independents to be Christs little Saints and the King and Parliament to be his Enemies in case they meddle with them in hindring them to set up their Sect but to the contrary Gods Saints as themselves in case they suffer not Presbyterians or any others no more then the Independents doe in New England so the Independents shall reigne over us all 2. In guessing what I meane by the word Church whether a Church in folio or in decimo sexto I have fully expounded it howbeit not in so chosen new Divinity termes in folio and decimo sexto So I come to the rest of his Reasons CHAP. VIII Wherein are answered M. S. his Objections 25 26 27. Ob. 25. M.S. VVHen Parties pretend to be offended with the Church or the Church judge any thing amisse the Civill Magistrate may command the Church to re-examine its judgement c. What reason then hath he to be so invective against the Apologists p. 49. 50. for holding that Kings or Civill Magistrates are above the Church A.S. Answ 1. The question is not whether the King and the Civill Magistrate be above the Church or not VVe grant that the Civill Magistrate is above the Church as having a supreame Politicall or Civill power Imperiall Regall Aristocraticall or Democraticall yea altogether independent upon all the Powers of this World and only dependent upon God according to the Lawes of the State wherein he ruleth yet not Spirituall Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall to the Church but Secular and Extrinsecall In his Office he is not subordinate or Vicegerent unto Christ as Christ but as God not in his Royall or Divine office whereby he ruleth his Church but in his Divine Nature or Power whereby he ruleth the World not in his particular Providence about his Saints but in his generall about all men and States not according to the Covenant of Grace if he be considered only as a Magistrate for then only they who are in this Covenant should be Magistrates but of Nature for if Adam had continued in the state of innocencie we should have had Magistrates without any Mediator or Covenant of Grace A. S. will easily grant you that the Civill Magistrate is above the Church only he denies that he is above the Church by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power as Independents hold but by his Civill and secular Authority which is not subordinate to Christ as Mediator as King or Head of his Church His power over the Church is not intrinsecall as ye hold but extrinsecall as we confesse 2. It is also false that I inveigh against the Apologists p. 49. 50. unlesse Reasons be Invectives I pray the Reader to look the place to the end he may see how little Conscience these men make of untruths and if there be any Invectives there I am ready to suffer 3. This Argument being put in forme will be thus They who may command the Church are above the Church The Civill Magistrate may command the Church Ergo The Civill Magistrate is above the Church Answ If the words command and to be above be taken for to command and to be above Externally and Politically I grant you all the Argument viz. That the Civill Magistrate is above the Church extrinsecally and Politically But if ye take both the words viz. command for an an internall and Ecclesiasticall command that is within the Church and the word above for above Internally and Ecclesiastically in a Church-way I deny your Minor If ye take the one word one way and the other another way I deny your first Proposition M.S. Ob. 26. p. 44. § 7. If the Civill Magistrate hath power to command the Church to revise her judgement when she judgeth any thing amisse surely he hath power to examine and judge of her proceedings and consequently hath a Directive power in matters of Religion But the first is granted by A.S. his concession Ergo so must the second A.S. Answ 1. I answer to your Proposition that in the same way the Civill Magistrate hath power to judge or a Directive power in matters of Religion he hath power to command Now his power to command as I have said is only Politicall Civill and Extrinsecall Ergo such also must be his power to judge or Directive power in matters of Religion viz. Civill Politicall and Extrinsecall to the Church howsoever Intrinsecall to the State for as he hath a Civill Royall Imperiall or Aristocraticall power to command so hath he a Civill Royall Imperiall or Aristocraticall power c. to judge and to direct him in his Commands unlesse he command without judgement But I deny that this concludeth that he hath any Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power that is Intrinsecall to the Church or Church-Officers who governe the Church 2. This Argument concludeth not an Executive power which is the Title of the Chapter and that which he intendeth to prove This is like to Montagnes Discourses who sundry times hath one thing in the Title and another in the Chapter M. S. Obj. 27. p. 44. sect 7. § 3. being put in forme will be thus They who may determine and judge amisse should not compell or make the people under their Government to sweare obedience or subjection unto their Orders which yet by your owne confession they doe But your Presbyteriall Assembly may determine and judge amisse Ergo. A.S. Answ 1. The Proposition is false 2. Or if it be true I subsume But the Civill Magistrate both in Ecclesiasticall and State matters may judge amisse Ergo the Civill Magistrate should not compell the people under his obedience unto his Order Ergo the Parliament should not compell or make any man to sweare the Covenant Ergo The Independents should not have taken the Covenant because that the Parliament might determine and judge amisse 3. By this reason a man must be tolerated in rejecting all Confessions or Faith because they who contrive them may erre 4. In New-England since they may erre they can compell no man to your Religion but must tolerate them which ye will never grant 5. I deny the Assumption 1. For our Churches compell not the people to sweare obedience or
There was no other way in the Old or in the New Testament there is no other in Civill Judicatories there can be no other found in this world And to end this Argument I ask you What if a man be oppressed in one of your Churches as it is possible a man may be as well as in one of ours unlesse ye have the power of Piety in a more Independent degree yea beyond all flesh and blood in any juncture of time to come and afterward he complains to Neighbour Churches and they oppresse him by their Judgements What other remedy can he have but patience and to appeal to the Judge of quick and dead or else acquiesce to the sentence or at least suffer it For a man cannot sin in meer sufferance for actuall sin materially is ever more an action of the will or a voluntary omission of some action M. S. Ob. 30. p. 46. sect 2. What power is Intrinsecall to Religion it is Intrinsecall to the Church But the Civill Magistrates Power is Intrinsecall to Religion for A. S. sayeth That the Parliament pretends no Directive power in matters of Religion but an Executive power onely viz. In matters of Religion Ergo The Civill Magistrates power is Intrinsecall to the Church A. S. Answ What ever may be said of the Proposition I deny the Assumption and to the confirmation thereof I answer 1. That when I say the Civill Magistrate hath power in Religion the word in signifies about for Religion signifieth the object of the Civill Magistrate and so we speak ordinarily as when we say A rich mans heart is in his Money and Riches so in here signifieth not an Intrinsecall but an Extrinsecall Denomination as when I say The Sun is seen the Attribute in this Affirmative Proposition is said to be in the Subject not by any Intrinsecall Inherence or Denomination but by an Extrinsecall Adherence Attribution or Denomination This little Childish Sophistication is more worthy of some young smatterer in Logick then of a Divine or any Conscientious man It is not possible that M. S. could be ignorant of this and therefore in this Dispute if he have any power of Piety I desire more Conscience and Sincerity in him I may also say That the Civill Magistrate hath an Extrinsecall power in the Church if the word in there signifie a bare Attribution or Extrinsecall Denomination as it is ordinary amongst Divines Philosophers and common people and yet I confesse it is more properly said about Religion and about the Church as Apollonius observeth and as I have expressed my self but then there should have been a concurrence of in 's which would have made my Expression obscure for then I must have said The Civill Magistrate about matters of Religion hath an Extrinsecall power as also about the Church as this Professor of Eloquence would have me to speak which kinde of Expression I beleeve few or none could have understood If the Independent cause depend upon such ridiculous puntillio's and be so Independent upon good reason I know not of the two which is better Dependency or Independency M. S. Ob. 31. p. 46. sect 11. The power of Citation is Extrinsecall to the Church The power of Citation is Ecclesiasticall Ergo Some Ecclesiasticall power is Extrinsecall to the Church A. S. I distinguish the word power of Citation for it is either Ecclesiasticall which is proper unto the Church viz. In Church Officers gathered together in an Ecclesiasticall Assembly And this is both in and about the Church or Civill which is proper to the Christian and in some way to a non-Christian Magistrate where by his Civill power he maintaineth the Church and this is out of the Church in the Magistrate and yet about the Church which is its object And so I answer to this silly Argument That it is captious and grounded on an Equivocation for it taketh the power of Citation in one signification in the Major viz. For a Politicall power of Citation and in an other in the Minor viz. For an Ecclesiasticall power of Citation 2. Or if it be taken in both for an Ecclesiasticall power then the Major is false for Christ gave it to the Church to which it is Intrinsecall and not to the Civill Magistrate 3. Or if it be taken in both for a Civill power then the Minor is false for the Civill power of Citation is not in the Church but in the Magistrate neither ever gave Christ it as Mediator either to the Church or to the Civill Magistrate but God by Christ as God gave it onely to the Civill Magistrate And the Peece whereof the Presse as M. S. sayeth hath been lately delivered sayeth no other thing then I say if M. S. his Diana of Ephesus can permit him to understand it or he do not willingly dissemble his understanding of it M. S. 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 Externall power without the Church A. S. This Argument is ridiculous 1. For it proveth not that which is in question viz. That the Civill Magistrate hath an Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall power in the Church 2. Onely it proveth that the Church hath an Authority that in some respect may be called Extrinsecall 3. But to take away this Equivocation and many others and to explain more fully this question note again 1. That the Church may be considered either according to its Reall and Naturall or according to its Morall being 2. That the Church according to its Morall being I speak of the Representative is either Particular of one Parish or Congregation or more Generall as a Classicall or Synodall Assembly 3. Note that the particular Church may be considered either Absolutely and in it self alone without any reference to a Classe or a Synod whereof it is a part or Relatively with a reference to the more Generall Church viz. a Classis or Synod whereof it is a part or in quality and under the notion of a part in so far forth as by some formall or virtuall Assent it hath once Covenanted to be a part of such a Classis or Synod and Stipulated to send its Commissioners to such Classicall or Synodall Meetings 1. If then we consider Citation or Excommunication with reference to the Church either more Generall or Particular according to its Naturall being it may be Extrinsecall to them both for the Act of Citation or Excommunication is not really produced or pronounced according to its Naturall being by the Church considered under the notion of its Reall being but by one man as all wise men will grant 2. If they be taken morally according to their Morall being grounded on some Covenant then the Acts of Excommunication and Citation are not Extrinsecall to the more Generall Church since they are exercised by Her power and consent 3. If they be considered with
reference to the Particular Church then if the Particular Church be considered Absolutely they may be Extrinsecall unto Her since neither Excommunication nor Citation are exercised by Her Absolutely at least Ordinarily 4. If we consider a Particular Church in reference to the more Generall Church viz. under the notion of a part of the more Generall Church then we may consider Her either 1. According to Her first Consent and Covenant Reall or Virtuall whereby She joyned together in one Consociation with many other Particular Churches to make up together one Classe or Synod the which Consent preceded the Act of Citation or Excommunication and whereby the Classe or Synod received Power to cite or excommunicate particular Persons Or 2. according to Her Consent in sending Her Commissioners to the Classe or Synod Or 3. according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent to the Act of Excommunication or Citation 4. If then She be considered according to Her first Covenant and consent or in the second i. e. in sending Her Commissioners the Act of Citation and Excommunication is voluntary and Intrinsecall to that Particular Church notwithstanding Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent for that Act of Citation and Excommunication is done in vertue of such precedent Consents which are Her Deeds and very Legall 5. If the Particular Church be considered according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent these Acts are involuntary and Extrinsecall to that Particular Church But such a Dissent is not properly and formally an Ecclesiasticall Act since it is not ruled by any Ecclesiasticall Rule of Discipline but by private interest or passion which must ever give place to the Weal of the whole Church for as Naturall bodies may be considered either Absolutely or under the notion of a Part which is for the whole and in the first notion they have their Particular Inclinations and Motions whereby they decline whatsoever is hurtfull unto them as when the hand flyeth from a blow of a Sword but under the second they are not led by their own particular but by the generall Inclination and Interest of the whole since parts are not so much for themselves as for the whole and so it neglecteth its own particular good or interest for the weal or interest of the whole as when the hand for fear least the head should be cut off whereof might ensue the destruction of the whole man exposeth it self to the danger in receiving the blow it self to save the whole So in Politicall or Ecclesiasticall Consociations particular Towns or Churches may be carried by their own Interests to some particular Dissent in some Cases but if they move Regularly sometimes against their own Interests they must Consent against themselves according to the generall Inclination of the whole Consociated body or Church Classicall Synodall c. 6. If this Argument hold it will conclude 1. Against that which is done by Plurality of Votes in their particular Congregations For that which is concluded is against the Consent of the Minor part 2. Against that which is done in their Synods by their Messengers if they conclude against or without the Consent of the Churches whereof they are Messengers And 3. Against the Parliament if they conclude any thing against the particular Consent of particular Towns for they Consent not thereunto And so what they conclude or do against them shall not be done by Consent of the Kingdom And so this man shall destroy the Parliament and the pretended Order of Independents as well as that of Protestant Presbyteries But M. S. telleth us that so the Classis is like to the Magistrate who is a Bishop without and about the Church Answ 1. I deny your Simile for the Magistrates Power and Act being onely Politicall and Civill has no Internall reference to Citation or Excommunication in quality of Ecclesiasticall Acts as that of the Church and Church Officers which is Ecclesiasticall and this your Quinqu ' Ecclesian Ministers acknowledge themselves when they tell us that the Civill Power is of another nature then the Ecclesiasticall Obj. But if the Civill Magistrate have this Externall coactive power they must all have it as well Pagans as Christians But so it is not for A.S. will not grant it to Pagans Ergo none of them have it Answ The Assumption is false for I grant it to them all but not in the same manner To a Pagan only in actu signato but to a true Christian in actu exercito I expound it in my Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration M. S. scratches at this distinction 1. as not good for saith he 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 ingaged for the exercise of acting such a power A. S. Sir If you heard it not others yea of the best sort and ablest both Divines and Philosophers may have heard it for we have learned in the Category of Substantia that Substantiae primae maximè propriè Substantiae dicuntur whereupon they ground this other Maxime Prima Substantia magis est Substantia quam Secunda and they say that it is magis Substantia in actu exercito sed non in signato sed contra secunda est magis substantia quam Prima in actu signato as all the Philosophers who serve themselves with this distinction in the explication of that propriety of Substance declare in that place 2. It is also an error in you to think that in actu signato and exercito is nothing else but actu potentia 3. Put the case it be so and that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu signato belongeth to it in actu exercito what is that to the purpose is not that enough to found a distinction upon Wherever there is prius and posterius is there not there some distinction at least formall or modall if not reall 4. Yea put the case the one part were really included in the other yet should there ever be distinctio includentis inclusi 5. And howsoever it be that what belongeth to a person in actu exercito belongeth to him in actu signato yet what belongeth to a Thing in actu signato belongeth not to it in actu exercito Neither said I that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu exercito belongeth not to it also in actu signato Where said I it I pray you or if I said it not wherefore beg you here a needlesse quarrell with me about it 2. M. S. desires to know wherefore a power about the Church and for the Church should not belong actually and in effect in actu exercito and jure in re as well to a Magistrate not yet truly Christian as to him that is such i. e as well to a Pagan as a Christian A.S. Answ 1. Because being not yet a Christian he is not a member
a number 3. Howbeit they could have received such a number yet could not such a number have all heard a Minister Preaching yea though he had the voice of a Stentor such as were not all the Apostles for St. Paul had his voice very weak His Letters say they i. e. his Adversaries are weighty and powerfull but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible 2 Cor. 10.10 5. Howbeit they could have all met together to hear the Word yet could they not meet together to participate of the Lords Holy Table for in those times the Custome was to Communicate at Table sitting according to the Custome of other Orientall people in circle every one having his hand upon his fellows breast and their feet without which 8120. could not so conveniently do in one room 6. Put the case they could have all heard the Word and Communicated at the Lords Table together yet could they not so conveniently have voted in Ecclesiasticall Senates or Iudicatories as they pretend every Member of the Church hath power to do and as they do actually in case of Appeal from the Presbytery unto the people For I put the case that those 8120. should have gathered together to judge in some matter of Doctrine or Censure and that every one of the people should have employed one fourth part of an hour in delivering of his judgement whereas I le warrant you some of them might employ a whole day and at night say little to purpose this voting would take up 20. or 30. hours Put the case again they should sit four hours every day which hardly every Trades-man can spare it should amount to 507. dayes which is almost two yeers omitting the Lords dayes so in gathering their votes once onely there would be spent nigh upon two yeers But what if there should fall in many put the case ten or twelve incidents and that some of this Reverend Synod would protract the businesse as some do here to spin out time as we understand When should these businesses be decided Again What if some of the people peradventure some considerable number should be absent for appearingly they could not ever all be present could any judgement given in their absence binde them to condescend unto it If it could it should be but a very blinde obedience if not there must of necessity be matter of Schisme which per se would ordinarily fall out in such a Constitution of an Independent Church Many things will happily here be replied about divers compendious wayes of gathering of suffrages as in divers Senates as amongst the Romans Athenians the Parliaments in France in Venice c. but to no purpose for this extravagant fashion of voting of so great multitudes wherein every one pretends a liberty or licentiousnesse rather in prophecying whereunto such wayes of gathering of suffrages can no wayes be applyed Some will answer 1. That this Church Acts 1. was an extraordinary Church compounded of Apostles who were extraordinary Ministers Inst The Text sayeth not that it was extraordinary or compounded of Apostles alone 2. The Apostles were onely twelve but this Church was of ten times twelve i. e. of one hundred and twenty Acts 1.15 and eight thousand more 3. The twelve Apostles could not make it extraordinary in number in such a manner as that they could not meet together in one place for they were but twelve who might have been received in as small rooms as other men Some will answer 2. It may be said That the Church Acts 1. was but of one hundred and twenty persons Inst I reply But that of one hundred and twenty persons and that of 8120. persons was all one formally and they differed onely in their matter as an Infant and a Man of fourty yeers 2. That it sufficeth that a Church according to Gods Ordinance may be compounded of so many persons as are incompatible with the Constitution of an Independent Church 3. And howbeit it be not Acts 1. yet Scripture Acts 2. and 4. is no lesse Canonicall then Acts 1.4 and yet that passage Acts 1. doth the businesse for that Church provided a Minister for all the Churches of the World which is more then any Independent or Congregationall Church can do And whosoever calls this Assembly or the Acts thereof extraordinary yet may not the Independents do so since that from this place some of them as Robinson Insti p. 168 169. proves an ordinary power in the Church to ordain and depose Her Officers the which proof should be very ridiculous and impertinent if from an extraordinary Church or an extraordinary Act they should infer an ordinary Church or an ordinary Act of an ordinary Church It should be all one as if they should prove That Independents have power to raise the dead because the Apostles had such a power 3. Arg. Act. 5. After that visible judgement of God that befell Ananias and Saphira vers 5 10. Beleevers were the more added unto the Lord multitudes both men and women vers 14. The number of the Disciples were much more multiplied cap. 6. v. 1. in Hierusalem greatly and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the Faith ver 7. who could not all meet together Arg. 4. Act. 6. v. 1. When the number of the Disciples was multiplied there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrewes because their widowes were neglected in the dayly ministration whereupon there were appointed 7 Deacons for all the Churches of Iudaea and sundry others for the Church was compounded of people of divers Countries Act. 2.9 10 11. This Argument proveth very probably that at Hierusalem there was more then an Independent Church since it ordained Church-Officers for sundry Congregations or at least for a Church which could not meet in one place CHAP. IV. The same Doctrine proved from Act. 13.14.15 and 16 chap. of the Church of Hierusalem and Antioch Arg. 5. SO Act. 15. in that dispute of S. Paul and Barnabas with some Pharises converted to the Faith about Circumcision and the Observation of the Ceremoniall Law at Antioch it was resolved that the question should be determined by the Church that was at Hierusalem as it was From whence I argue thus That Church to whose judgement other Churches submitted themselves and which gave out Decrees or Sentences to be obeyed by other Churches was more then an Independent Congregationall Church But the Church that was gathered at Hierusalem was a Church to whose judgement other Churches submitted themselves or to which they were bound to submit and which gave out Decrees or Sentences to be obeyed by other Churches Ergo The Church that was gathered at Hierusalem was more then a Congregationall Independent Church The Major is certaine for no simple Congregationall Church can give out Decrees and Sentences to be obeyed by other Churches nor will other Independent Congregationall Churches submit thereunto The Minor is certaine 1. For The Church of Antioch determined that Paul and Barnabas
further confirmed by sundry other Texts of Scripture and 9. by Act. 20.7 8 9. There was such a throng at St. Pauls Sermon which he made in an upper Chamber in the night upon occasion of his departure from Troas that Eutychus and doubtlesse also some others were forced to sit in the windows note that this was in the night what a throng might there have been had it been on the Day time out of all doubt the Chamber would not have held them all but certainly they could not meet every Lords-day in any one Roome such as were their places of meeting in those times and consequently there must have been there more then one of the Independent Congregationall Churches 10. We have also cleer Texts of Scripture to prove that the Church is taken for a greater then for any Independent Congregation as Act. 8.1 And at that time there was a great persecution against the Church that was at Hierusalem This Persecution was not against one onely Independent Congregationall Church but against the whole Churches of Iudea 11. So in the same Chap. vers 3. Saul made havocke of the Church And chap. 9.1 breathing out threatnings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord now of this Church some members were in Damascus v. 2. so he sayes of himselfe I persecuted the Church 1. Cor. 15.9 Phil. 3.6 from whence I argue thus The Church that Saul persecuted was greater then a particular Congregation or an Independent Church But the Church here meant is that which Saul persecuted Ergo The Church here meant is greater then a particular Congregation The Minor is certain the Major I prove it for he persecuted not one onely particular Congregation but that wherever there were Disciples of the Lord chap. 9.1 in Hierusalem chap. 8. vers 1.3 and in Damascus chap. 9. v. 1.2 12. And Act 12.1 Herod the King stretched out his hand to vex certaine of the Church Here the word Church must signifie more then a particular Congregation for Herod did it to pleasure the Iewes which he could not have done in vexing the members of one particular Church alone 2. Because here must be meant the Church whereof Peter was a Member v. 3. which was not one particular Church alone but that of all Judea since Peter and John had a particular Vocation Mission or Commission to teach there as Paul to the Gentiles Gal. 2.7 or rather of the whole Militant Church of their time since they were Apostles or Vniversall Ministers of the Gospel 3. Because if the Church here signifie a particular Church whereof Peter and Iames were Members then that Church might have deposed them of their Ministery For the Independents grant this Authority to their Churches over their Pastors And if it be said that they have it over particular but not over universall Pastors as the Apostles Ergo. If they acknowledge them to be universall Pastors they must have universall Flocks or Churches so there was an universall Militant Church upon Earth whereof they were Pastors in their time which is more then a particular Congregation 4. Put the case they had been but Ministers of particular Churches or Congregations yet must the word Church there signifie a Church whereof they were both Members for such a Church is meant here v. 7.2 3. But such a Church must be more then a particular one for it must containe both their Churches and Persons since they are called some of the Church i. e. of one Church 13. So vers 5. But Prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for him i. e. for Peter who was in Prison And out of all doubt this was not one onely Independent Church but all the Churches that knew of Peters imprisonment and depended upon him as upon their Pastor 14. Give no offence neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God 1 Cor. 10.32 which cannot be a simple Independent Church but all the Churches we converse with 1. for Charity bindeth us to give no offence to all or any of them 2. Because this Church is called the Church of God which cannot be restrained to one particular Church if they be all the Church of God 3. Because it is opposed to the Iewes and the Gentiles 15. Because the Church wherein God did place Apostles and Evangelists 1. Cor. 12.28 was not an Independent Congregation but more for they were universall Ministers of the Militant Church of their time now if there be an universall Militant Church through all the world how much rather may we admit a Provinciall or Nationall Church 16. I had rather speak five words saith St. Paul with my understanding in the Church then c. 1. Cor. 14.19 This Church wherein the Apostle desires to speake is more then an Independent Congregation for he was not tyed to any particular Congregation 17. The Apostle willeth women to keepe silence in the Churches 1. Cor. 14.38 and these Churches are called the Church It is a shame for a Woman to speake in the Church vers 35. which cannot be a particular Congregation for he willeth them not to speake in any Church We may bring many other Passages of Scripture and Reasons but because they serve both for this and the next Conclusion therefore to decline repetitions we remit them unto that Conclusion CHAP. VII The Second Conclusion concerning the Subordination of Authority in the Church SEcondly I say Conclus that betwixt the Churches of God there should be some Subordination in authority i. e. such as wherein the judgements of inferior Churches and their proceedings may be subject unto the judgement of the Superiour Church whereunto they are Subordinate And this may be proved sufficiently from all the Testimonies of Scripture aleadged for the former Conclusion For if there be a Church more then a particular Congregationall viz. Provinciall or Nationall out of all doubt the particular Congregations must be subject to them 1. because a part is subject unto the whole as the hand unto the whole body nam pars magis sui totius quam sui item because the part is for the whole as a medium for its end now the Mediums must be subject unto their Ends and not the Ends unto their Mediums and Media commensurantur finibus non fines Mediis neither shape we the horse back for the saddle but the saddle for the horse his back so the government of particular Churches must not be shaped or framed according to their particular exigencies and conveniencies alone but according to that of the whole Provinciall Nationall and Universall Militant Church here upon Earth in such a manner that it hinder it not 2. Particularly it may be proved from the Custome of the Old Testament which is not abrogated in the New for therein the Iudgements of Synagogicall Assemblies were subject unto that of the middle Sanedrim and that of the middle to that of the Supreme or if there were onely two that of the
lesser Sanedrim unto that of the great one as has been proved by Mr. Rutherford Gillispy Hearl c. Art 1. and 2. 3. The Representative Church or first Generall Councell at Jerusalem had Power and Authority over all the Churches of the world since it gave them a Minister viz. Mathias Ergo All other Churches in their Iudgements and Power of creating such a Minister were subject unto it Object If it be said That it was an extraordinary Councell 1. Because it was indicted and convocated by Christ 2. Because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons 3. Because the Persons received extraordinary gifts there 4. Because it was in the birth and beginning of the Church Reply The Scripture saith not That it was Extraordinary As for the the Proofs I answer to the first 1. That howbeit it was indicted and convocated by Christ yet was it not indicted and convocated in an extraordinary way 2. That a Councell may be extraordinarily indicted and convocated and yet be ordinary in its proceedings 3. That the Indiction and Convocation of a Councell is Extrinsecall and Antecedent to a Councell because that it is before that the Councell be and therefore cannot make it Intrinsecally extraordinary when it is existent So Adam was made in an extraordinary way of Earth and by creation and Eva of Adams Rib and yet they were not extraordinary persons in their nature existence conservation or accidents 4. Neither read we that it was convocated in an extraordinary way 5. Neither can it be extraordinary because it was convocated by Christ for by the same reason all that ever Christ did to men should have been extraordinary To the second I have already answered To the third I answer 1. That the extraordinary gifts were personall only and belonged unto the materiall parts of the Councell and not to the form thereof and therefore could not make it formally extraordinary in quality of a Councell for formall denominations are not taken from the matter but from the form so if there be six or seven Ecclesiasticall persons assembled to dinetogether we call it not an Ecclesiastical Assembly 2. I answer That these extra ordinary gifts were subsequent unto the Councell or at least to that Ecclesiasticall proceeding in the election of Mathias Now that which is subsequent to any thing cannot denominate it formally or at least in the time precedent when the Subject precedeth such a subsequent Adjunct or Circumstance See more concerning this Argument heretofore To the fourth I answer 1. That all that which was in the birth and infancie of the Church was not Extraordinary for by that reason the Preaching of the Gospel and the Administration of the Sacraments should have been Extraordinary 2. Things that are Ordinary must have a beginning 3. And howsoever at their beginning they be Extraordinary in respect of time because before their beginning they were not Ordinary but out of the precedent order yet they are Ordinary in respect of Gods Ordinance or Law which is ordinatio rationis that should be ordinary in Gods Church Object If it be yet said That Mathias was an Extraordinary Minister and his Vocation Extraordinary I answer That all that is true and yet in this Extraordinary Vocation there was something Ordinary viz. The Nomination and Election or Admittance of him to be a Minister of the Church according to the Independents opinion otherwayes their Argument should be very impertinent in proving from hence the power of the people in choosing their Ministers That which there was Extraordinary was not done by the Councell and therefore could not make the Councell Extraordinary As much may be said of that Councell that created seven Deacons for many Churches 5. But principally we will urge that businesse of Antioch in that difference betwixt St. Paul and Barnabas on the one part and some Pharisees converted to the Christian Faith on the other Hereupon it was resolved that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jernsalem unto the Apostles and Elders about that question v. 2. they were sent by the Church of Antioch v. 3. they were received by the Church and by the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem v. 4 the Assembly being gathered at Jerusalem the Cause was heard v. 4.5 considered v. 6. discussed v. 7. voyced v. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 judged v. 22. the Iudgement or Decree of the Councell or Assembly sent to Antioch from the 22. v. to the 30. read and obeyed by the Church at Antioch c. v. 31. Here is the Church of Antioch judged by a superiour Church at Ierusalem an Appeal formed or interjected from the one to the other received by the other judged and obeyed And therefore it cannot be denyed but there was some Subordination betwixt these two Churches and that the one had authority over the other To this Argument some answer 1. That if it prove any thing it can only conclude an Appeal from one Parish Church or particular Congregation unto another since the Church of Antioch and of Hierusalem were no other then Parish Churches Rep. 1. This Answer cannot hold 1. Because no such thing can probably be collected out of this Text or of any other in Scripture and therefore it may be as easily rejected by us as it is alleadged by them 2. Because hardly can it be proved that in those times Churches were divided into Parishes 3. Because an Appeale cannot be from one Parish or Congregationall Church unto another since their authority is equall but only from an inferior to a superior Church or Judicatory 4. Because if it was from one particular Congregation to another then that Congregation from which it was appealed was not compleat in its Judgement but had need of some Extrinsecall power which is against the Tenets of Independents themselves 5. Because if we might appeale from one particular Congregation to another how much more from a particular Congregation unto a Synod wherein the Spirit of God and especially that of Prophecie doth more abound 6. Because the Apostles in Hierusalem were not members of any particular Church 7. Because if the Assembly at Hierusalem had been a particular or Congregationall Church it could not have given out a Decree which should have bound so many Churches to obedience viz. those of Antioch Syria and Cilicia v. 23. 2. It may be otherwayes answered That it was an Appeale but not to any Ordinary but an Extraordinary Church viz. to that of the Apostles and that for these Reasons 1. Because it was Extraordinarily gathered 2. By Extraordinary persons 3. It was compounded of Extraordinary persons viz. the Apostles 4. Because this Appeale was to the Apostles who were infallible and Extraordinary Ministers 5. Because it was in the birth and beginning of the Gospel Rep. 2. This Answer cannot hold 1. Because the Scripture declareth not that this Church or Assembly was Extraordinary 2. Neither is it a satisfactory Answer whenever
under the notion of Apostles and Church-Ministers endowed with extraordinary gifts and namely of Infallibility governed the whole Church extraordinarily so doe Generall Councels endowed with ordinary gifts govern it ordinarily 14. I would willingly enquire of the Independents to what Church were added so many thousands that were baptized by the Apostles and added unto the Church in one day Whether to a Particular Congregation or to a greater Ecclesiasticall Consociation It could not be to a Particular Congregation 1. For the Reasons I have already produced 2. Because the Apostles were not Particular but Universall Ministers set over the Universall Militant Church and therefore in vertue of their charge admitted them to be Members of all the Churches whereof they were Ministers 3. Because they were of divers and sundry Countries neither is it credible that to be a Member of the Church they were bound to quit their Countries and to stay at Hierusalem howsoever so long as they did stay there they might participate as well of all the rest of Gods Ordinances as of Baptisme Ergo they were added to some greater Consociation viz. to that and to all those whereof the Apostles were Ministers for out of all doubt the Apostles who baptized them could not refuse to admit them unto the Lords Table wherever they celebrated the Sacrament If it be answered That this Argument only proveth a greater Reall but not a greater Representative Church I reply That directly only it proveth a greater Reall viz. an Vniversall Militant Church but yet by consequence it proveth also a Representative Church of the same extent for every Reall Church may be represented in its Commissioners or Messengers as ye call them that meet in a Synod If it be yet answered that this may prove a greater Representative Church but not endowed with any Authoritative power I reply It is a power of Iudging which must be Authoritative and cannot be meerly Consultative such as is that of every Tinker who may give counsell to a Church and that of one Church which hath power to give counsell to a thousand yea to ten thousand represented in a Synod for particular Churches being parts of the whole Provinciall Nationall or Universall Militant Church must be subject to the whole for it is a Maxime in Philosophie that Totum non subjicitur parti sed pars toti Item Totum non regitur motu partis sed Pars Totius And they distinguish between the Universall and Particular Inclination of things and tell us That a part doth sometimes quit its Particular Inclination to be ruled according to the Inclination of the whole as when water which according to its Particular Inclination descends yet to avoid the vacuum whereof might ensue the overthrow of the world against its Particular Inclination but according to its Universall Inclination as it is for the Totall it ascends And so it is or should be in Politicall and all Spirituall Consociations for the parts cannot be conserved but in the whole The Politicians also tell us that Lex paerticularis cedit generali so Laws that concern Particular Cases or Consociations must give place to the generall Law of more generall Cases and Consociations for the generall good of Consociations is to be preferred before the Particular good of Particular Persons or Particular Consociations 15. All the Churches here upon Earth make up one Republike tyed together by Faith Charity and other Particular Christian vertues as that in Heaven another Now it is a Maxime in Politicks Salus Reipub. suprema Lex esto Ergo There must be one Law common to this whole Christian Republike If so Ergo There must be some visible Iudges to judge according to this Law otherwayes in vain should we have it Now this visible Iudge can be no other but a Synod For if ye say it is Christ then we cannot be legally Iudged according to this Law till the day of Iudgement when Christ shall Iudge the quick and the dead which is most ridiculous 16. C. C. acknowledgeth That by Baptism we are made Members of the Universall Militant Church and consequently Subjects of some Christian Republike Ergo There are some Iudges to judge such Subjects But those Iudges are not in one Particular Church for by Baptism as he sayeth They are not admitted to the societie of any Particular Church Ergo They must be judged by some greater Representative Church which must be either Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall 17. It is a generall Rule of S. Paul in matter of Church Government That the Spirits of Prophets be subject to Prophets 1 Cor. 14 32. Which cannot at all or at least cannot easily and commodiously be obtained in the Independent Opposition or Coordination as in some Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies or Iudicatories for when all are equall there is no subjection of one to another 18. This Doctrine of Subordination of Inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories to their Superiours with a Coordination of Inferiour Iudicatories or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies amongst themselves is most convenient to the nature of the Sacraments in receiving unto them all such as are our Brethren in Christ whereas a meer Opposition Independency or at most a Coordination of Churches founded on a meer will and charitie without any Law is repugnant to it in so far forth as it debarreth from them such as are worthy to be received 19. The Apostle commands That all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 And telleth us That God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace Vers 33. Now where there is no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories When none of them is subject one to another but they are all equall when one Church be she never so corrupted in life and Doctrine hath as great Authority over all the Churches of the World represented together in a Synod be they never so sound in their life and Doctrine as they all have over her What can be done decently and in order I adjure you all tell me in Conscience Whether ye think that God can be the Author of any such order or rather of so abominable a confusion 20. I could shew how that this Subordination is most convenient and the contrary Independency Opposition or Coordination of Churches founded on mans meer will is most repugnant 1. unto the perfection that appeareth in all Gods Works both in those of Nature and of Grace 2. To Gods Truth and Wisdom in giving no better means for redressing of Offences 3. To his Iustice in making of Laws that cannot suppresse Heresies and all sort of wickednesse in disordered Churches 4. To his Mercy that in furnishing us so graciously so many means and helps to Salvation he should have given us this Independent Anarchy to crosse them all yea to lead us irresistibly to Hell 5. To his Providence in providing of means so disproportionate and incommensurated for so excellent an end viz. for the peace of the Church means more fit to trouble then to
procure her peace and to put all the Churches of God in confusion rather then in order 21. Is it credible that God should have given his Son to death to purchase us an Order whereby all Churches might live in Peace and Unity and yet make them to quit all Sacramentall Communion one with another having no common Confession of Faith nor any common plat-forme of Ecclesiasticall Government among them Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be an Jndependency of Churches CHAP. I. The Question Stated AS M. S. of the first Question made two so doth he here of the second other two viz. his third Question for Presbyteriall Government whereof he treated in the former chap. and his 4. Question of Independency whereof he treateth in this his 4. chap. but they are not two Questions but two divers Opinions about one and the same Question so having committed this fault he commits againe another much worse for he goeth on very confusedly in the beginning of his Dispute and without ever stating the Question or declaring what he meaneth by Independency he goeth about to justifie his Independent government in a Cataskevastique or assertive way wherefore to the end that the Reader may the better judge both of his Cataskevastique and of my Anaskevastique way I will state the Question and shew what he hath to prove and I to refute 1. Note therefore I pray thee courteous Reader that Independency is a sort of Ecclesiastical Government whereby every particular Church is ruled by its Minister its Doctor some Ruling Elders and all those who are admitted to be Members thereof who how Heterodox and Haereticall soever they be in Doctrine and how wicked and damnable soever they be in their Lives will not yet submit to any Ecclesiasticall power whatsoever yea not to that of all the Churches of the world were they never so Orthodox and holy in their lives 2. Note that the reason wherefore they will not submit to any Ecclesiasticall authority according to their opinion is not out of any disobedience in themselves as they pretend but for want of authority in the Churches for they beleeve that howbeit any particular Church or any of her members should fal into never so damnable Heresies or wickednesse that yet God hath not ordained any authoritative power to judge her but that her power is as great as that of all the Churches in the world and that all that they can do in such a case is no more but only to Counsell her as she may do them and in case she will not follow their Counsell that they ought to do nothing else but onely declare that they will have no more communion with her as she may likewise do to them in the like case viz. if they will not follow her Advice when she is offended with their Doctrine Government Life or Proceedings The Question then betwixt us and them is whether God hath established any such Independent Government in his Church or not We deny it M. S. affirmeth it and argueth as followeth M. S. Page 75. of his Book Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government That can I quoth A. S. in effect page 38 39. c. I have 10. Reasons or Objections against it A. S. I confesse that M. S. braggeth of this his Independent Government as his words expresse but it is a manifest untruth that ever I bragged of 16. Reasons as M. S. most foolishly representeth me here It is A. S. his custome to bring Reasons and not to boast of them as it is M. S. his manner to boast and bragg with high words without any reason at all And for answer to this I say there is no one such word or expression in all my Booke It is but M. S. his words and fiction M. S. I shall not spend time in transcribing these your Reasons but shall desire the Reader though it may be some discourtesie unto you to take your Booke into his hand A. S. I am bound to your courtesie good Sir that will not let my weake Reasons appeare in Front against your strong Answers But since it is not M. S. his pleasure that they appeare in his most worthy Booke I hope that the courteous Reader shall not be offended if I make them together with his Answers and A. S. his Duplyes appeare here in mine My Arguments then were such as follow CHAP. II. Reasons against the Independency of Particular Congregations 1. THe Independent Churches have no sufficient remedy for miscariages though never so grosse no reliefe for wrongfull Sentences or Persons injured by them no Powerfull or Effectuall meanes to reduce a Church or Churches that fall into Heresie or Schisme c. All that they can doe is only to pronounce a Sentence of Non-Communion against Delinquent Churches as on the other side Delinquent Churches may doe against them 2. This Remedy is new neither was it known to the Independent Congregations before that emergent Case in Holland related in the Apologeticall Narration for if that Church offending had known so much it is not credible that she would against all charity and the common Order of all Churches have committed so great a Scandall 3. This Remedy is not sufficient nor satisfactory because all Churches according to your Tenets are equall in Authority independent one of another and Par in parem non habet imperium None hath power or authority over his Equall How then could any Church binde another to any such Account but out of its free will as a Party may doe to its Party 4. Because the Churches that are or that pretend to be offended by a Delinquent Church cannot judge her for then they become both Iudge and Party in one cause which cannot be granted to those who have no Authoritative power one over another as when a Private man offendeth the State and We our God 5. What if many Churches yea all the Churches should offend one should that one Church gather all the rest together judge them all and in case of not submitting themselves to her judgement separate her selfe from them all If so we should have Separations and Schismes enough which should be continued to all Posteritie to come 6. What if Churches were so remote one from another that they could not so easily meet together upon every occasion Then there should be no Remedy at least no easie Remedy 7. What if the Offence were small Should so many Churches for every trifle gather together and put themselves to so great cost and trouble 8. What if the Churches should differ in their Iudgements one from another In such a case should they all by Schismes separate themselves one from another 9. This sort of Government giveth no more Power or Authority to a thousand Churches over one then to a Tinker yea to a Hangman over a thousand for he may desire them all out of charitie to give an account of their Iudgement in case he be offended
of the Presbyterian Remedy against such mischief or of the mischief it self for we must never in any Case accept of malum culpae such as is the acceptation of Apostasie or Heresie in a whole Church 4. Neither is there any nor have you yet shewn any Inconveniency in the Presbyteriall way But we have shewn many as Reall in the Independent way as those are imaginary that you attribute to the Presbyterian way 5. All the Inconveniency that this man pretends to be in the Presbyterian way is Dependency of particular Congregations upon Superiour Assemblies viz. Classes Synods c. Or Subordination amongst Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories for this Sect must be altogether Independent and every one in their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Judges and their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories be they never so Hereticall or prophane But this Inconveniency may be pressed home again 1. For there is Subordination among their particular Congregations and their Synods onely they hate the Authority of Synods 2. There was a Subordination of Authority in the Old Testament 3. So is there in Civill Government And whatsoever Inconveniency they presse against us it will hold in all the rest as we shall see hereafter God willing 4. If such a Dependency or Subordination be any Inconveniency then God is the cause of it as we have heretofore fully demonstrated it M. S. Delinquency of whole Churches is not an every dayes Case no more in the way of Congregationall then of Presbyteriall Government A. S. 1. It may be as ordinary a Case in the Church as that of Inferiour Iudicatories in the State 2. And it fell out amongst the Arminians and us 3. So did it amongst your Churches in Holland 4. So doth it betwixt you and us since ye are become Sectaries 5. So doth it among all Churches that become Hereticall or Schismaticall and the Orthodox Church and the Apostle telleth us that there must be Heresies 1 Cor. 11.19 So it is not so extraordinary a Case as you M. S. make it And therefore there must be an Ecclesiasticall Ordinance for it as well in the Church as in the State 1. Unlesse you say That God is more provident for the State then for the Church or more negligent in his care of the Church then of the State 2. There was a remedy for such Cases in the Old Testament as I shewed you in my Annotations wherefore not also in the New Testament 3. Howbeit it be not an every dayes Case yet the Independents have a remedy for it viz. The Sentence of non-Communion whereof I may say as much as he sayes of Excommunication for the Independent Churches could not pronounce such a Sentence unlesse they had or pretended to have an Authoritative power to do it for it belongeth to the power of the Keyes 4. It is or may be more ordinary amongst the Independent Churches then among ours 1. Because of their Independency and want of Superiour Ecclesiasticall power to keep them in order 2. Because they tye the Members of their Churches never to quit them without the Churches consent whereof they are Members which may breed quarrels betwixt two Churches if a Member of the one without her consent joyn himself to the other 3. And this may be confirmed by the Examples of those most bitter quarrels betwixt two of your Churches and their Pastors in Holland as it is related by Master Edwards in his Antapologia but according to ordinary Providence no such thing can fall out among our Churches and if it should fall out we have a present remedy viz. a Classe which may be gathered within the space of four or five dayes if that do not the businesse we may gather a Synod or a Superiour power which cannot Morally be contemned among us by any Inferiour power as the equall power of Independent Churches may by their equall If it fall out extraordinarily amongst us we have an ordinary remedy for such an extraordinary Case And howbeit it were extraordinary and very rare yet should there be a remedy provided for it so soon as once it falleth out for it is a Case that bringeth a very great mischief with it viz. The revoult of a Church or many Churches that is an inconvenience yea a mischief a thousand times worse howbeit it should fall out but once in an Age then all the droppings of Master Goodwin or all the inconveniencies that can be alleadged against a constant remedy were they as reall as they are fictitious and imaginary Thirdly M. S. answereth my first Argument They that implead the Congregationall way for being defective suppose that God hath put a sufficiency of power into the hands of men to remedy all possible defects errours and miscarriages of men whatsoever But that is untrue Ergo. A. S. I answer They suppose not that God hath put into their hands a sufficiency of power to remedy all defects and miscarriages whatsoever or all possible absolutely but ex suppositione finis obtinendi i. e. that may conduce to obtain the end that God hath commanded us to intend and to tend unto for since his will is that spirituall diseases be cured it must consequently be to give the remedies necessary or sufficient to obtain such an end or cure 2. I suppose not that God hath given us all means sufficient Physicè but moraliter i. e. that are morally sufficient and whereby morally we may be convicted of sin if we use them not as cured of our ill if we use them 3. I suppose that they must be sufficient according to Gods ordinary providence whereby he governeth ordinarily his Church and not absolutely 4. As sufficient as in the Civill State or as in the Old Testament at least since the Government in the New Testament is as perfect as in the Old and not simply or absolutely And so the Assumption is false M. S. proveth that this inconveniency presseth as well the Presbyterians as the Independents If your Supreme Session of Presbyteries should miscarry saith he and give us Hay Stubble and Wood instead of Silver and Gold what remedy A. S. This is a very extraordinary Case yea the most extraordinary that can be imagined viz. That all the Churches both in Superiour and Inferiour Judicatories should so miscarry and yet if a man have used all possible means and this miscarry also which is more then any ordinary Case we may say 1. that we have had all means that are morally possible and that no more can morally be desired 2. We have had all the means and if we served our selves of them all till we came to this extraordinary Case we are excusable 3. We have had all the means possible according to Gods ordinary Providence 4. All means that they had in the Old Testament or that they have in the State 5. I answer that this Supposition may as well be propounded against Gods Providence in the Government of the State and of the Church of the Old Testament as against that
qua Rex or qua Carolus Rex Lex viva and under this notion he is not his own carver but the Law carveth for him and us both neither can he serve himselfe of other mens Estates c. but in so far as the Law permitteth him But how much the Law permitteth him it is not for every particular person nor for every particular and inferior Iudicatory to define it for Inferiors qua tales cannot judge their Superiors at least ordinarily and in such a case they remaine no more Inferiors but become Superiors To the 3. Inconveniencie which I note § 9. M.S. retorteth it in this manner 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 A.S. Answ When they are represented in a Representative Church they have a spirituall Authoritative power over all the Churches that they represen both Collectivè and every one of them Distributivè which no Tinker or Hangman hath either over many or any one of them for they have no Authoritative power at all But amongst the Independents a thousand Churches whether they be taken Distributivè or Collectivè representing all their particular Congregations have no Authoritative power at all and consequently no more then a Tinker or a Hangman M.S. What makes you think 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 quando quibus testibus did this Government or any Son it hath ever make any such comparison A.S. 1. I say not that you make any such comparison but only I deduce it out of your Tenets by necessary consequence 2. Neither doe you deny my consequence you grant it freely and tell me that it is no disparagement for a thousand Churches that a Tinker or a Hangman have as much Authoritative power over them all as they have all over any particular Church And to confirme it you bring me no Reason nor Scripture but two Testimonies the first of Charron who saith That every Humane Proposition hath equall authority if Reason make not the difference To which I answer 1. That this is but an Humane Authority 2. Of a Papist 3. And as many in France think of an Atheist 4. And yet it may be granted in this sense viz. That it hath as much Naturall but not so much Morall authority for these be Maximes in Nature and in Reason Magis credendum pluribus quà m paucioribus testimonio publico quà m privato sapientibus quam insipientibus peritis quam imperitis videntibus quà m audientibus Plus valet oculatus testis unus quà m auriti decem 5. I answer that every Humane Proposition hath equall authority according to the species of its authority but not according to the degrees thereof as all white colours are equally white according to their species since the definition of white belongeth equally to them all unlesse you say that Album est genus analogum respectu hujus istius magis minus albi which no true Philosopher to my knowledge ever granted But not according to the graduall latitude of perfection conteined within the species of Whitenesse 6. And here I ask of M.S. whether he thinketh that a Proposition of Indas and of S. Peter or Adam before his fall be all of equall authority Item Whether a Proposition of Adam before his fall and after his fall be of equall authority Item Whether a Proposition of Christ qua homo or as proceeding from his Humane Nature be of no more authority then that which proceeds from Simon the Magician If I had leasure here to dispute about the foundation of Authority I might shew many absurdities and impertinencies in this Proposition in M. S. his sense but I must be briefe The second Authority is of Gerson and is this The saying of a simple man and no wayes authorized if he be well seen in the Scriptures is rather to be believed then the Popes own determination But this Proposition is not against me for a man well seen in Scriptures qua talis speaketh according to Gods Word and is some wayes authorized by it but the Popes Determination without Gods Word is meerly Humane yea ordinarily passionate M. S. confesseth ingenuously that I propound many more Inconveniencies against Independencie but out of modesty he will not answer them Only here I note that M.S. in all this his Discourse answereth very little to my Arguments and objecteth rather against our Doctrine then justifieth his own And to elude my Arguments pretends evermore ignorance of things that are most easie and obvious to all men which neverthelesse I expound most cleerly sometimes he contemneth them as unworthy of any Solution which is a very odde and new Independent way a la mode CHAP. V. M. S. his first two Reasons for Independency with the Solutions thereof M. S. with other Independents prove their Independent Government of every particular Congregation by some frivilous Reasons The first is this If a single Congregation being solitary and without Neighbours hath entirenesse of Jurisdiction Ergo every single Congregation hath it But the first is true according to the Presbyterians Confession Ergo so must the second be also A. S. I deny the first Proposition or rather distinguish it in this manner If a single Congregation have entirenesse of Iurisdiction absolutely it is true but then the Assumption or second Proposition is false If a single Congregation have it secundum quid viz. In case of Solitarinesse as it is expressed in the first Proposition or in case of any other necessity that hindereth its consociation with Neighbour Churches as distance of place persecution c. then all other particular Churches must have it in the same case it is true But I deny that such is the case of all single Congregations for they are not all remote from all Neighbourhood of other Churches nor are they all hindered by persecution c. M. S. But when a solitary Congregation hath an entire Jurisdiction then certainly it hath a lawfull right title or claime to it Ergo She hath it evermore A.S. 1. She hath a lawfull right by a generall Law of necessity whereby it is ordained that when we have not all the best helps that are necessity to do the best we are then to serve our selves with the best we can and such as we have at hand to serve God by So if we have not Wine to celebrate the Lords Supper with we may celebrate it with some other liquour most usuall for drinke and there is an Article in the French Discipline whereby it is permitted to any man that cannot drinke wine to communicate in participating only of the Bread So if men be cast upon any Island very remote from the Continent and have none amongst them endowed with sufficient abilities to preach or teach them they may chuse the ablest howbeit he be not
absolutely able enough to preach rather then to live without Gods Ordinances altogether So David wanting Bread did eate of the Shew-bread and a man in case of necessity may take other mens meate and eate it rather then starve 2. I distinguish the Consequent she hath it evermore in such a cause i. e. in case of necessity when she can have no help of Neighbour Churches I grant it all otherwayes I deny it M. S. desireth to know by what right Neighbour Churches by their presence can take such a right from her A. S. Neighbour Churches by their presence take no right from her but by their Neighbour-hood give her or rather adde unto her a new right to Rule her selfe more perfectly and to help to Rule Neighbour Churches also which she could not do before so it is not Jurisdictionis diminutio sed ampliatio it is no diminution but an augmentation of power intensivè or in certitude within her selfe and extensivè in respect of other Churches so it is a Blessing of God added to that Church and no power or abilitie but a lacke of power a weakenesse an unpowerfulnesse as I may so say and infirmity taken away it is not to take away what she had but to give her a power or helpe that she had not being alone Even so as when two or three Regiments coming to joyn with one or two others against their common Enemy these two or three Regiments take no power or force from the one or the two precedent Regiments but help them and make them more able to beate the Enemy M. S. Those that God hath put together let not man put asunder But God put together a single Congregation and an entire Iurisdiction Ergo A. S. That Text in the first Proposition is to be expounded of those onely that are put together by Marriage but if you take it Universally it will be found false for God hath put a Tree and the Branches thereof together and yet I trow you will not say a man may not cut a Branch off from a Tree 2. I answer if God hath put them together in all cases it is true but the Minor is false If God hath onely put them together in some particular Case then they may be separated in an other Case 3. I answer to the Minor If by an entire Iurisdiction be meant a supreme Ministeriall Jurisdiction absolutely such as should be in Synods to the well-being of the Church it is false for it wants a Synodall Jurisdiction If by an entire Iurisdiction be meant entire secundum quid in suo genere per accidens in some way in its own kind and by Accident it is true for such a Iurisdiction is onely Congregationall or Consistoriall and so perfect in that kinde and supreme by accident for want of Neighbour Churches so it is entire in that kinde but not absolutely as it should be in Case of Neighbour Churches Master Mather and Master Thomson in their Answer to Master Herle argue thus The power that floweth immediately and necessarily from the very Essence of a Church cannot be separated from the Essence of a particular Church But such an entire power of Iurisdiction floweth from the very Essence of a Church Ergo A. S. 1. I deny the Minor for that which belongeth to any thing ex instituto floweth not from its Essence But so it is of the entirenesse of Jurisdiction it belongeth not to the Church by nature but by will and Law viz. by Gods Ordinance 2. If it flowed necessarily from the very Essence of every Church then could not God change it for God cannot destroy nor change the proper Accidents or take them away from their subjects But the consequent is false for since Iurisdiction belongs to the Church by Gods freewill he may as freely take it away from the Church and change it as he bestowed it upon the Church 3. Yea God hath actually changed it for all the Militant Churches since the fall of Adam viz. Before the Law under the Law and under the Gospel are of the same nature and Species or the same in substance and onely differ in Circumstances and yet they have had divers sorts of Iurisdiction and Governments which could not be if it flowed immediately and necessarily from its Essence 4. Put the Case it flowed from its Essence as it doth not yet this entirenesse of jurisdiction should onely be entirenesse of Consistorian or Parochiall jurisdiction which is entire in its own kinde but not of Synodall jurisdiction yea not so much as of your Synodall power in defining dogmatically the points of Doctrine M. S. his second Argument If a Church yet single be invested with a power of jurisdiction within it self and should be cashiered of this power by the rising up of more Churches neer unto her then that which is intended by God as a Table should become a snare unto her she should suffer losse and have sorrow from those by whom she ought to be comforted But the first is true Ergo. A. S. I deny the Consequence neither hath M. S. proved it The Reason of this my Negation is because she is not ensnared but drawn out of the snare by the rising of such Churches which can help her and counsell her and reform her Iudgements conjunctly with her self in case of aberration neither should this be any just matter of sorrow unto her if she should sorrow at it her sorrow should be unjust and wicked and at Gods Ordinance 2. I deny the Assumption for the Consistorian power that such a single Church had before the rising of such Neighbour Churches is not cashiered by their rising but a more eminent viz. A Classicall or Synodall Power which she had not is superadded unto her Consistorian or Parochiall power whereby it is mightily perfected CHAP. VI. M. S. his third Reason answered M. S. THirdly If a single Church should suffer losse of so considerable a priviledge as entirenesse of Jurisdiction is by the multiplication of Churches neer unto her then cannot this Church pray for the Propagation of the Gospel in places neer to it but she must pray against her own comfort and peace which is a fore temptation upon her either to pray very faintly or not to pray at all for such a thing But the consequent is false Ergo. A. S. I deny the consequence of the first Proposition for the rule and measure of our Prayers is not our priviledge and jurisdiction but Gods glory and the Salvation of our souls revealed in Scripture which may be very well obtained without any power of jurisdiction as we see in Women and it seems that M. S. will not pray for the prosperity of Jerusalem unlesse God grant him an Independent power of jurisdiction therein 2. I deny the Assumption for by the multiplication of Neighbour Churches that single Church suffers no losse of the Parochiall jurisdiction that she had for she retains it but she receiveth more power in becoming a
Churches are Schismaticall for some diversity of Opinion for that belongeth rather to Heresie then to Schism Nor 2. that it is a Schism because that it is tolerated or not tolerated for Toleration is a Consequent of Schism and Extrinsecall to it The true Reason wherefore it is a Schism and they Schismaticall is because it is a breach of Charity in that they separate themselves from the Communion of the true Church yea and from all the true Churches in the World both in Sacramentall Communion and that of Discipline Neither is it a Schisme because that it is a separation from Presbyteriall Churches precisely under the notion of Presbyteriall but of true and Orthodox Churches which presse them no wayes to be Actors in any thing against their Consciences But M. S. in despite of all reason will prove that I cannot convict the Independents of Schisme and that by this his most seriall Argument which here I put in forme with all the force it can have He that knoweth not what is Schism cannot convict the Independents of Schism But A. S. knoweth not what is Schisme Ergo A. S. cannot convict the Independents of Schisme The Major is certain The Minor he proveth thus He that knoweth not what is the Church knoweth not what is Schisme or a rent of the Church For Rectum est Index sui et obliqui and entia privativa Cognoscuntur ex suis positivis c. But A. S. knoweth not what is the Church for he sayeth we know not wherein consists its Essence p. 21. Ergo A. S. I answer to the first Argument that the Minor is false as appeareth by the Difinition that I have given of it both in my Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration in my Answer unto a Libell of C. C. and he retofore somewhere in this Booke against the which M. S. had nothing to reply To the confirmation of the Minor I answer that if by the word knoweth M. S. meaneth a distinct knowledge of the Essentiall parts of the Church the Major is false for Schisme is not a renting of the Essentiall parts of the Church or of its transcendentall or Metaphysicall Vnity but of its integrant parts and integrant Vnity for the first cannot be destroyed so long as it is a true Church And Schismaticall Churches may have their transcendent unity verity and goodnesse howsoever they loose their integrant unity verity and goodnesse If by the word knoweth he meane any knowledge of the Church either confused or distinct whereby we may know the Church by her externall Causes her integrant parts her Accidents c. The Minor is false for not onely A. S. but little Children at Schoole have such a knowledge of the Church which they learn in their Catechismes And by any such confuse or distinct knowledge of the Church by her Causes Accidents or Effects c. we may confusedly or distinctly know what is Schisme howbeit not Essentially As for the Confirmation of the Minor By my words I sayd not there that I knew not what the Church is confusedly or distinctly by her Causes integrant parts her Accidents c. But that we know not distinctly the Essences of things as distinguished from their Accidents as the Reader may see if he looke in my Booke for there in that page 21. I speake in formall termes of that which is Essentiall to the Church Now if M. S. pretend to any such profound knowledge of things we must confesse him to be an other Epistemon Doctor du Molin Professor in Divinity at Sedan holds the same Tenet in his Thesis de Summo Bono So did the other Professors of Divinity there for they say that no Creature neither in this life nor in the life to come yea not the very Angels know the Essence of any thing And from thence they conclude that we shall not see the Essence of God in the life to come The which Assertion howsoever I confesse it to be true de hominibus viatoribus yet can I not beleeve it to be true de Angelis viatoribus and much lesse de Angelis aut hominibus comprehensoribus M. S. should have done better to have Answered my Reasons that I bring there pag. 21. then so against the light of his Conscience to scratch at a known truth Neither can I beleeve him to be so ignorant as not to know and acknowledge the truth of it in himselfe however out of desire of Contestation he manifests the contrary But M. S. to the end he seeme not altogether impertinent proveth it by an Argument taken ab Exemplo or by an imperfect Induction if it be not a Pari or from them altogether I cannot beleeve saith he that he should perfectly know the nature of darknesse that is ignorant of what belongeth to the nature of light Nor that he should know what a Schisme or Rent meanes that knowes not what belongs to the nature of Vnity and Entirenesse of the Body for Rectum est index sui obliqui and Entia privativa cognoscuntur ex suis positivis A.S. We know not perfectly the nature of Light and consequently we know not perfectly the nature of Darknesse if to know perfectly be taken for a distinct knowledge of its Essence as distingnished from its Accidents onely we know light imperfectly by its externall causes by its effects by its subject adjuncts c. and not essentially And as for your first Maxime Rectum est index sui obliqui it is true sed non per distinctum aliquem conceptum sui essentialem as Philosophers say Your second Maxime whomsoever you imitate in that Expression is improper for Privations are not properly Entia privativa but Entium privationes not Essences or Beings but negations of Being neither is Darknesse any thing but a negation of something viz. of Light so Poverty is not a thing but a want of some thing viz. of Riches 2. But I will pardon him this mistake howbeit it were true yet followeth it not that if I know a Privation by the Positive Forme which it destroyeth that I know that Forme essentially by its Essence and in it selfe I know the Forme only accidentally or by its extrinsecall causes or by its Existence 3. Item So we conceive Privations under the notion of Negations or destructions of the Existences rather then of the Essences of things or at most as destructions of the Existence primario and of the Essence secundariò if they be destroyed by Privations Neither can I beleeve that the Fire burneth and destroyeth immediately the Essence of a Man or any part thereof for the Reasonable soule is spirituall and cannot be burnt so is the other part of his Essence viz. his materia prima incombustible yea naturally incorruptible and as for the Physicall essence of the whole man when M. S. shall declare wherein it consists I shall dispute with him But silly man with this babling Logick knows he not that Accidents are never defined by their Essentiall
non-Communion or Schism So your Supposition is false viz. That I suppose that the ground of such a refusall of Communion consisteth onely in difference of Iudgement for I suppose that the ground of it may be a breach of Charity and in particular persons a vicious life 2. M. S. should have done well to declare us here in particular what is the nature or particularity of this difference betwixt us and them for we cannot in practicis dispute accurately upon Generalities so abstract from all Particularity If it be replyed That it is because we admit vicious persons unto our Communion I have answered it in my Annotations whereunto he pretends to answer He should have refuted my Reasons here as also sundry others in Master Rutherfords Book whereby he demonstrates how ridiculous and frivolous this pretext is Neither is it needfull that I should repeal them to swell up a Book with them M. S. his second Answer If there were so many and great differences amongst the Members of the Church of Corinth as you speak of and yet Paul no wayes perswaded the Major part amongst them to cast our cut off or suppresse the Vnderling Parties but exhorted them to mutuall Communion why do not ye the like A. S. We cast you not out nor off but ye run away we exhort you but ye will not obey ye slight and contemn your Mother that begot you and when the House of God is to be Reformed ye will have all things according to your fancy or ye will be gone and renounce your Mother O what sort of Children and Domesticks of the Faith are ye M. S. his third Answer He denyeth the Assumption viz. That there was greater difference amongst the Members of the Church of Corinth then betwixt the Independents and our Churches A. S. I prove it for both they differed in Articles of Faith some of them denying the Resurrection the Doctrine of the Law and Sacraments some of them joyning the Law with the Gospel and Circumcision with Baptism And in Charity some crying up some Apostles and Pastors and rejecting of others others of the same Church being of contrary mindes and wills without any Separation in Externall Communion either in Sacraments or Government for any thing we read in Scripture A. S. 11. Reason in Substance is this That the Opinion of our Brethren symbolizeth much jumpeth in conceit and that they sympathize with the Donatists who separated themselves from other Churches under pretext That they were not so holy as their own neither is their Discipline unlike to that of the Convents and Monasteries amongst the Papists which professe all one Doctrine but are independent one upon another c. M. S. Answer 1. Symbolisa Theologia non est Argumentativa A. S. But this Argument is taken a Simili and holds quia similium eadem est ratio viz. In eo in quo similia sunt Now they are blamed in separating themselves from the rest of those that professe the same Doctrine as if they were holier then the rest Ergo so are the Independents to be blamed for the same Reason His Instances are childish and fond for Angels and Devils agree not in that which is blameable in Devils for that agreement should be an impeachment both to their Holinesse and Happinesse 2. Neither agreeth A. S. with Nestorius in making way to any Heresie of his own as Nestorius wherein he was blameable 3. No more is it to the purpose that ye are not like to Monks for their Paunches idlenesse or in their Buildings howbeit some of them be as lean and as busie in their own way as any of you Independents can be in yours Neither is it a sin to be fat Onely I compare you with them in that wherein we all blame them viz. In separating themselves from others under pretext of greater holinesse To his Answer to the third point I reply That I make not this comparison betwixt the Donatists and the Apologists as M. S. sayeth here but betwixt them and all those that are of the Independents opinion And so to his first Answer I reply That however some of the Apologists of whom alone I speak not have not Churches yet have they the same opinion concerning the Separation of their Churches from others that professe the same Doctrine and that under pretext that they are holier then the rest Secondly M. S. answereth That neither in substance nor truth doth it touch any of them or their opinion 1. For they do not separate from other Churches but onely in such opinions and practises wherein they cannot get leave of their Consciences to joyn with them A. S. I have proved that it touches them in truth and as for his proof the Donatists did just so Whereas M. S. saith That they of the Presbytery differ in Opinions and practises one from another A.S. 1. It is true but that is in things that are not very materiall 2. Or if they be materiall they are particular Opinions of particular men that are not known not of whole Churches nor approved by whole Churches 3. And howbeit some of them though very few differ in some practises which are not materiall yet is it not so much they that make these differences as that they are compelled by others to suffer them as they have declared themselves in their Letters sent to the Assembly 4. That small difference breeds no Schism or Sects among them but they entertain mutuall communion together both in Sacrament and Government and they admit one another unto their Synodall and Sacramentall Communion so do not Independent Churches amongst themselves nor with ours M. S. 2. Argument for this his Assertion is because A. S. himself and his Party do separate themselves from the Church of Rome because they think not that Church to be so holy as their own A. S. 1. We separate not our selves from the Romish Church because of greater or lesse holinesse in our Church or in particular Persons then in theirs but because we conceive that the Romish Church erreth in Fundamentalls 2. Not onely committeth but also 3. Teaches Idolatry and 4. compelleth men against their Conscience to commit and professe it 5. Neither did we separate from the Papists but they separated from us and did cast us out of their Church and persecuted us to death so that neither could we entertain Communion with them without loosing both body and soul 6. Neither yet separate we from any Church that holds the same Doctrine with us 7. Neither beleeve we that any Church holding the same Doctrine with us can morally fall into Idolatry or urge us to be Actors against our Consciences in any Idolatrous Act And this Liberty of Conscience Independents may have in our Churches 8. We pray you also to declare unto us what Heresie Idolatry or great vice you see taught or approved of amongst us that should compell you to quit our Churches as we found amongst the Papists and then your Argument
of one Body and not to depart from the said particular Church whereof they become Members without the consent thereof The Antecedents of this Covenant are 1. Sundry Meetings together of such as are to joyn in it till such time as they may all have a sufficient proof and tryall of the spirituall estate one of another 2. The Civill Magistrates Consent to set up their Church 3. The Consent of Neighbour Churches 4. They ordain a solemn Fast and after Prayers and Sermons one in the name of all the rest propounds the Covenant 5. And they all take it The Consequents of it are 1. The Right hand of Fellowship which is given them by the Neighbour Churches 2. Those who joyn in Covenant are exhorted to stand fast in the Lord. 3. Followeth a Prayer made to God for pardon of their Sins and acceptance of the People We condemn not all Church-Covenants but we cannot approve this of the Independents 1. Because it is not commanded in Scripture 2. We finde no example of it in Scripture 3. And therefore it is nothing else but an humane Tradition 4. Because all or almost all the Covenants concerning Religion that we read of in Scripture are of those that are already and not of those that are to be Members of the Church 5. Because we are in Covenant with God before ever we come to be of Age I shall be thy God and of thy Seed Gen. 17.7 Item Be baptized for to you and your Children the Promise is made Acts 2.38 And from hence all Protestants prove the Baptism of Infants against Anabaptists 6. Because those that were Circumcised in the Old and that are Baptized in the New Testament are Members of the Vniversall Church without any vocall Covenant as double C who is one of these M. S. ses as I hear confesseth freely Ergo They must be Members of some Particular Church for how can they be in the Vniversall Church and out of all Particular Churches So a man might be in the World and in no part of it or out of all the parts of it 7. Because if Children Circumcised or Baptized were not in the Church their condition should be no better then that of Jews and Pagans which can be no great Consolation to any Christian Parents 8. If a man of one Church should take to Wife one of another a hundred miles distant from him she must adhere to her Husband live with him and so quit her own Church and be out of all Churches like a Pagan for she cannot be admitted to the Church whereunto she goeth but after a long tryall So to be married she becometh as a Pagan 9. Such an Oath or Promise is not lawfull for a man may have just Causes which are not evermore to be declared to a whole Church that may oblige him to go and live elsewhere in an other Church 10. Because the Apostles Evangelists and their Followers could not lawfully enter into any such Covenant since they were Vniversall Ministers consequently Members of all the Churches of the World 11. Neither could they make such a tryall of three thousand persons that in seven or eight houres time were added unto the Church Acts 2.12 Such a Covenant includeth a tacite Schism and Separation from all the Churches of the World 13. Neither did the Apostles and other Ministers of the Church for the first three hundred yeers require the Civill Magistrates Consent to set up their Churches 14. Neither is it necessary to the Internall Constitution or Conservation of it since it is Extrinsecall to the Church 15. And some times it is impossible to be had as when he is a Pagan or an Antichristian Christian The Finall Cause of their Church they pretend to be 1. Gods glory 2. The Salvation of the Church and every Member thereof 3. The Internall and Externall Acts of mutuall Communion in Faith and Charity The Matter of their Church they hold to be such Persons as can give some particular Evidences of saving Grace and of their Election and who enter into Church-Covenant together such as may be Arminians as Master Goodwin alias M. S. And as for the Members of other Churches whether they be Dependents or Independents they will not admit them to the Lords Table nor Baptize their Children upon any Letters of Recommendation that they can bring from other Churches yea howbeit they give a sufficient account of their Faith and live without giving any offence at all to any man and so they hold them little better then Pagans The Integrant p rts of this Church are the Flock or People and the Rulers viz. Preachers Teachers Ruling Elders and Deacons They admit none to be Ruling Elders but such as Preach yea to the People they give liberty to Preach also and so quite confound the Offices of Preachers and Ruling Elders which the Apostle distinguishes Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. 1 Tim. 5. Matth. 18. So they confound the charge of the Pastor with the duty of the Sheep and a Ruler with him that is ruled The Form of their Church seemeth to consist in their Church-Covenant The Accidents of it are 1. The number viz. the smallest seven Persons and the greatest as many as can conveniently meet in one place for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God 2. Their Doctrine which may be Arminian as appeareth by M. S. alias Master Goodwin who holds very many Arminian Tenets as Justification by Faith as it is an Act or Quality c. Item As some testifie of him A sleeping of the Soul 3. They have no common Confession of Faith or Platform of Discipline in their Churches neither will they have any yea they will not have any constant Confession of Faith or Platform of Discipline in any Particular such is the Liberty or rather the Licenciousnesse of their Faith and Discipline 4. The power to Teach which they gram as I have already said not onely to Preachers but also to Ruling Elders and some of the People 5. The power of the Keyes which they put in the hands of the People yea of the most ignorant impertinent and insufficient of them who have power to create their own Ministers to examine their Doctrine and sufficiency and afterward to admit them to the Charge But whether they have 1. Abilities 2. And prudence enough to do it 3. Whether Christ have committed the Keyes unto them 4. Whether they can do it without confusion 5. Whether they had it in the Old Testament I leave it to any judicious Readers consideration 6. Yea some of them in the Synod grant unto Women some sprinkling I beleeve as some corrected them there they would have said the gingling of the Keyes but of this spinking sprinkling or gingling of the Keyes we read nothing in the Word of God 7. They hold the Object of Excommunication onely to be errours of the Minde against the common and uncontroverted Principles and of the Will against the common and universall practises of Christianity and both against the Parties known light So hardly can any man be Excommunicated 1. For we cannot well know when a man goeth against the common Principles of Christianity since no man can well define them 2. Muchlesse when he goeth against the light of his Conscience or 3. against the common practises of Christianity which are not well known 4. According to this Tenet we cannot Excommunicate Socinians Arminians and other Hereticks and therefore M. S. is admitted to be a Minister in one of their Churches 5. Howbeit they acknowledge no man in their Parish to be a Member of their Church yet can they very well and in good Conscience take a Benefice were it never so great yea of 300 400 or 500 l. a yeer 6. They beleeve that the Civill Magistrate should not and consequently hath no power to punish Idolaters or Hereticks were their Heresie never so great And first so be it said without Blasphemy God should have been in the wrong in commanding it in the Old Testament Secondly And it were very strange that a man should be punished for offending a man and not for blaspheming the good Name of God Thirdly So he should be punished for calling some Independents Knaves but not for calling Jesus Christ the Sun of God and the Redeemer of our Souls a Knave FINIS
of the Christian Church 2. Because a Pagan qua talis knoweth not the Principles of Christian Religion and consequently wants the Directive power without the which he can never well or justly use the Imperative or Executive power 3. Because without the knowledge of our Religion he can neither direct nor act any thing about the Church or for the Church but by conjecture or guessing at it 4. Because God never ordained any such Externall power for Pagans about the Church 5. To end my answer to this Argument Where learned M. S. to desire him that denieth any thing to prove his negation Nonne Affirmantis est probare The Scripture conteineth not formall rules or testimonies of meere Negations or of things that are not but of Affirmations and things that are Now M.S. that affirmeth a thing to be might more easily have found authorities for it in Scripture if any such had been then we for things that are not It is enough for me to say that the Scripture that conteineth all things needfull to salvation conteineth no Extrinsecall power in actu exercito for Civill Magistrates that are not Christians M.S. But hath not then an Heathen or Heterodox Magistrate power to doe good to the Church A.S. Ans 1. The Heathen Magistrate hath a Naturall but not a Morall publique power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to doe good to the Church 2. Or if he hath it he hath it not in actu exercito as I have already proved 3. Or if he hath it so he hath it not to doe good to the Church in quality of a Church for neither can he know or love the Church in quality of a Church but of men or members of the State for the Church in quality of a Church is no wayes the object of his Knowledge or Will He may doe it as an Asse that carrieth the corne to the Mill or as Caiaphas who judged that one man must dye for the People but knew not what he said He cannot doe it by any power Intrinsecall to the Church as M.S. pretends And howbeit I should grant unto a Iew or a Pagan a Civill power to doe good to the Church both in actu signato and exercito yet from thence cannot be concluded an Intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall power belonging to a Iew a Pagan or to an Antichristian to rule the Church Internally M. S. p. 48. § 13. of this Chapter durst not answer A.S. what he meaneth by the Civill Magistrate upon whom he would seem to bestow such a power but in stead of Answer racketeth it back to him with jeering and babling But I answer him 1. that Quaestio Quaestionem non solvit one Question satisfieth not another 2. I answer that the Magistrate who I beleeve should have such a power in actu exercito must be such as is not a professed Enemy to the true Religion at least in quality of a Magistrate or in his Lawes And so it is false that M.S. saith of the King for in quality of King he hath professed Presbyterian Discipline in Scotland in as much as he confirmed it by his Authority so hath he done in England in favour of the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches so did King James by his Divines approve the Presbyterian Discipline at the Synod of Dort So M. S. sees how much he hath deceived himselfe in looking for 20 Distinctions of me to answer him to this Question We answer him candidè in all simplicity and feare not to declare to the World what we hold as the Sectaries doe M.S. p. 49. § 15. Was it not lawfull for them i. e. unchristian Kings to interpose with their Authority that the Churches of Christ in their Dominations might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie If not then was that exhortation 1 Tim. 2.2 to be laid up in Lavender for some hundreds of yeers 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. 1. This Argument proveth not that any Magistrate either Christian or other hath any Intrinsecall power in the Church either Directive or Executive 2. It proveth not that an unchristian Magistrate hath any power in actu exercito in the Church 3. As for that Text 1 Tim. 2.2 the sense of the Text is that we should pray for the conversion of Kings to the Gospel which appeareth evidently by the Apostles reason v. 3. 4. For saith he this is good and acceptable in the sight of God v. 4. who will have all men saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth And another reason v. 6. For Christ gave himselfe for all men And another v. 7. Because the Apostle is a Preacher of the Gospel to all men Now these words That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and Piety expresse finem intentum sed non eventum not the Event but the End intended by the Christians who prayed for they obteined not in those times a quiet or a peaceable life under the Heathen Kings 2. Neither prayed they here that any Nero should have had the Government of the Church in his hand for they obeyed him not neither in Doctrine nor in Discipline M.S. p. 50. § 17. doth nothing but repeat what he hath said viz. That the Civill Magistrate in taking away Superstition and Heresie had need of some other security then the Synod can give him A.S. The Civill Magistrate as a Christian man must learne Gods will by all the meanes that God hath appointed him viz. 1. By reading of Scriptures 2. Comparing one Scripture with another 3. Conferring in private about Scriptures of any difficulties he hath with other Christians of whom he may learn any thing 4. Hearing of Sermons 5. As a Magistrate he must have a Politicall prudence and knowledge of Scriptures to direct him in judging about Superstition Heresie and matters of Religion 6. He must serve himselfe of prayer and all the rest of the meanes that God hath ordained him 7. Neither say we that he must be directed by a Synod alone This is one of the meanes that God hath ordained him in his Providence but not all as this M. S. falsely would perswade the Reader if he be not altogether impertinent Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be any Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories CHAP. I. Containing the State of the Question TO the end we may the better and more easily resolve this Question it will not be amisse to note concerning the word Church 1. That we mean not here the Triumphant Church in Heaven but the Militant upon Earth 2. That it is not meant touching the invisible Church viz. The Church of Beleevers compounded of men and women endowed with Justifying Faith which is invisible to us but of the visible Church