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
sin and the more inexcuseable are we 15. And if the Parliament should follow your Counsell good M. S. it should be to be feared they should be ill obeyed and that many good men would rather take the Bishops and Cavaliers by the hand and in case of necessity tolerate them both and let themselves be plundered then consent to such an abominable perjury and I am assured the one is much more tolerable then the other is and then what should become of the Parliament and us all 16. But tell me I pray thee M. S. Is it not a Maxime of State laid down as indubitable by those who have written in favour of these Defensive Wars of both the Kingdoms That the King in Temporall and Civill Matters hath not an absolute but a limitted Power and that because that Soveraign Power is originally in the People but subjectivè or quoad usum exercitium in the King If that hold in the King wherefore not also in the Parliament But how much more in matters of Religion that depend not either of King or Parliament but of Gods Will All power here is originally in Christ and quoad exercitium Ministeriale in his Officers but from Christ What Power hath either King or Parliament to intrude and force upon the Kingdom new Religions or a Toleration of all Sects 17. The Parliament assumes no such power to it self wherefore then will Independents be Suiters to them for any such things which they declare themselves they have not power to grant Away with thee M. S. and all thy Independent Sect and all your unhappy Maximes of State so pernitious to all States of the World After all this this M. S. telleth us that they will with Isaac patiently suffer themselves to be bound and offered in Sacrifice if need be A. S. It is easie to offer your selves to be Sacrificed when there is no Priest and when no man offers you any violence but onely prayes you to live amongst us as Brethren and not to trouble the Church State or Kingdom If you be minded to become such a Free-will-offering in good earnest ye would do well all of you in the first place to quit the good fat Benefices ye have in the Church But so long as ye keep them we cannot beleeve that ye speak sincerely Alwayes it is a pretty Compliment and a painted Sacrifice not with red but in white and black And to close up his Reasons he concludes thus Better a thousand times is it that such distempers as these though found in millions of men should suffer were it never so deep then that the least Hair of the Head of one of those men should fall to the ground i. e. Better that millions of us who desire the suppression of all Sects should suffer then that any of them should loose but one yea the least Hair of their Head A. S. To this I can say nothing But if we in your Opinion be so distempered for the desire we have to see Sects suppressed whereby God is offended the Lord be judge betwixt us How precious in your eyes one little Hair of your Head is which ye prefer before the sufferings of so many millions the Reader will do well to take it into his consideration and accordingly to judge of you what a high rate you set by your selves and what an undervalue ye put upon all the World besides I am assured that servatâ proportione one of your lives is better then the Kings and all the Parliaments put together for there is none of them but rather then that one man should dye they would part with the Hair of their Heads and Beards both AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER M S. in the second Chapter of his Book Section 28. hath some Arguments against the Power of the Civill Magistrate to punish Idolaters Heretiques and Schismatiques which seem also to make for a Toleration for these two Questions have a great Affinity together Wherefore I thought it fittest to put off my Answer unto them to the last place The first is God hath anointed his Word and the Ministery thereof For the casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God and for the bringing into captivity every high thought unto the Obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10.5 And he gave some to be Apostles c. Ephes 4.11 12. c. Ergo The Civill Magistrate hath no power to punish Heretiques Schismatiques c. but must tolerate them A. S. 1. I deny the Consequence For the Ministers of the Church are anointed to beat them down by Spirituall means viz. The Word c. whereof alone those Texts speak But the Civill Magistrate is anointed or called to beat them down by other means viz. by Civill Power and Civill Laws which he is bound to make thereabouts and to see observed 2. If this Argument hold the Civill Magistrate cannot beat down by his Civill Authority Sins committed against the second Table as Adultery Murther c. because that the Ministers of God in the Church beat them down spiritually by the Word And this Text is as well to be understood of Sins against the one as the other Table 3. Howsoever the power of the Ministery or Ecclesiasticall Power be able and sufficient to beat down all sin spiritually yet is it not sufficient or able to beat it down politically 4. Neither say these Texts that God hath anointed or ordained the Word and Ministery alone and no other means or Ministers as the Laws of the Kingdom and the Civill Magistrate in a Politicall way for such an effect 5. It is true as M. S. sayes that God gave not some in the Church to be Kings Princes Judges and Justices of Peace Pursevants Jaylors c. For Christ and his Apostles erected not any Civill Government in the State but supposed it already constituted in the Old Testament And that the Civill Magistrate therein was endowed with Civill Authority to punish such as trouble the Peace of the Church 6. Howbeit that in this Text there is no mention made of the Civill Magistrates Power to punish such persons yet is it declared in other Texts as Rom. 13.1 There is no power but of God Ergo It is for God since God is both the first Efficient and the last or ultimate Finall Cause of all things if he be for God Ergo He is to revenge his Cause since he is his Minister Ver. 4. And when he maketh a Politicall Ordinance concerning Gods service Whosoever resisteth his power resists the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselvet condemnation both eternall and temporall Vers 2. if thou do that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the Minister of God as well in the State as the Preacher in the Church a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Here there is no distinction or restriction in the Law Ergo It is
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-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
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
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
viz. One individuall Body actually existent cannot at one time be in divers totall places to be true For the Scripture poseth it not formally but presupposeth it to be true Now I pray you M.S. shew me wherein any Presbyterians contradict these Assertions that I have laid down you name none and therefore I am not bound to answer Only you say I contradict my selfe But wherein Because saith M.S. I say p. 27. § 3. 1. Subordination between superiour and inferrour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories is partim juris Divini partim Natura lis aut mixti 2. This Subordination c. needs not any patterne expresly and formally from Christ It sufficeth that it have one from Nature p. 36. § 2. 3. And yet we can shew a patent for it not only from the Law of Nature which should suffice but also from the Law of Grace in the Old and New Testaments 4. It is only from God that can give power to any man in his Church pag. 48. 5. Only Gods Word is the rule or measure in matter of Ecclesiasticall or Presbyteriall Government p. 61. 6. Combined Presbyteries judge of Points of Doctrine and Discipline already revealed in the holy Scripture and give us new Ecclesiasticall Lawes of things indifferent p. 34. Answ In my second Proposition he putteth Patterne for Patent 2. Here in all these Propositions there is no contradiction neither sheweth M.S. wherein it consisteth here It may be partim juris Divini and partim Humani 1. In respect of its divers parts whereof some may be revealed in Scripture and some proved by Naturall reason 2. In respect of the same parts which may be both known by Nature and by Divine revelation or some supervenient Divine Ordinance So Divines hold that we know God to be both by Naturall Knowledge and Supernaturall Revelation 3. In so far forth as that which is juris Naturalis is also juris Divini when jus Divinum supposeth jus Naturale for in such a case jus Naturale becommeth Divinum not Thetically but Hypothetically not by any formall Divine Position but by some Divine reall Supposition as I shew it cleerly in that passage of my Book that he citeth p. 36. These three last Propositions contradict not the rest For in the 4. Proposition p. 48. of my Book I speak not of the ground of Ecclesiasticall Discipline nor of it all only I say that it is not in Church-Ministers power to transferre the Ecclesiasticall power unto the Civill Magistrate Which contradicteth not the first three In the 5. Only Gods Word c. But 1. Gods Word there must not be taken strictly for that which is Gods Word formally in terminis Theticè but in a more large signification 1. For Gods Word formally or by consequence 2. In terminis aut in sensu 3. Theticè aut Hypotheticè by some Position or Supposition 3. If ye take Gods Word in the last sense then Discipline or Government must be taken for Discipline in its essentiall and principall integrant parts and not in all its accidentall and circumstantiall parts Neither is it needfull that we have any particular rules from Scripture for every circumstance of Doctrine or Discipline As for example That Sermons should be on such or such Week-dayes so long viz. an houre or two houres long in the morning or afternoon That Ecclesiasticall Senates should sit once a day once a week or once a moneth In the 6. Proposition 1. Discipline there must be taken for Discipline quoad Essentialia Substantialia Necessaria and not quoad Accidentalia Circumstantialia Contigentia Indifferentia as appeareth by my words in the last part thereof New Ecclesiasticall Lawes in things indifferent c. 2. Holy Scripture must be taken in a large signification as I have already declared for so only is it taken by our Doctors when we prove against the Papists that it is the only Rule of Faith In the 2. Position when I say Subordination needeth not c. the word needeth must not be taken for necessarium absolutè or quoad esse but secundum quid ad bene esse not to its being but to its well-being for howbeit Christ had not given us any patent of Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories in the Gospel yet the Law of Nature and the Scripture of the Old Testament had been sufficient to direct us therein and had bound the Church of the New Testament to the Presbyterian Government And this M. S. acknowledgeth himselfe howbeit not without some Comedian jeeres more ordinary with him then any apparent Reason and confesseth that the words following in the 3. Proposition declare it But put the case that Presbyterians differed as he saith whether it be juris Divini Naturalis aut Humani as they differ not for any thing I know or have read Yet they agree in this That it is Juris Confesse this and ye may live in a Fraternall communion with us for the Difference viz. If one say it is juris Divini another Naturalis another Ecclesiastici will not breed a Schisme for it is not a Dispute de re sed de modo rei to know whether it proceedeth from God as Author of the Law of Nature or of Grace by a Naturall or a Positive Law Much lesse materiall is it to know whether it be in Scripture explicitè or implicitè formaliter aut per consequentiam in terminis aut in sensu et consequenter Theticè or Hypotheticè CHAP. III. Containing the Arguments whereby we prove the Opinion of the Orthodoxe Churches against the Independents borrowed from the Old Testament THe Arguments that might be brought for the Orthodox Churches against all Sectaries are many whereof I will touch a few some from Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and others from reason founded on Scripture but to proceed more cleerly I intend to prove 1. That in Scripture there is more then a Congregationall Independent Church 2. a Subordination of Churches and that in Authority Whether in Scripture or in Reason we find more then a Congregationall Church We affirme and prove it thus 1. Such a Church and church-Church-government as was amongst the people of God in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New may be admitted amongst his people in the New But a Church and Church Government more then Congregationall and Independent was amongst the people of God in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New Testament Ergo A Church and Church Government more then Congregationall and Independent may be admitted amongst his people in the New Testament As for the first Proposition I beleeve our Adversaries will not deny it for if it was in the Old Testament it was either by Gods Ordinance or by his Approbation If God ordained it how can they abolish it If he approved it how can they reprove it And for the Assumption I prove it 1. For they had a Nationall Church God dealt not so vvith every Nation Psal 147.19 20.
Deut. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.13 14 20.23.33 34.37 Deut. 7.6 7 8 9 10. Deut. 10.12.15.21 Deut. 26.17 18 19. Deut. 28.9 10. Deut. 29.13 14 15. And Deut. 32. vers 8 9. c. When the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance when he seperated the sons of Adam Iacob was the Lot of his Inheritance c. Amos 3.2 You onely have I known of all the Families of the Earth Deut. 39.29 Happy art thou O Israel who is like unto thee O People saved by the Lord the shield of thy help and who is the sword of thy Encellency 2. Because Independents define a Congregationall Church a number of men Covenanted together to participate of Gods Ordinances viz. the hearing of the Word the receiving of the Sacraments c. in some one place every Sabbath day But all the Church of the Jewes could not meet in one place in such a fashion as every man will easily grant Ergo 3. Because the great Sanedrim at Jerusalem judged of all Ecclesiasticall Causes throughout all the Kingdome 4. Because the People of God besides their Assemblyes in the Temple which was an holy place common to all their Nationall Church had their particular Conventions in particular Synagogues And however men may doubt of these Synagogues whether they were exinstituto divino or not and of the time when first they began yet can it not be denied but if they were not divinae institutionis they were at least divinae approbationis 1. For they are no where condemned in Scripture 2. But Christ and his Apostles approved them in that they went ordinarily to them disputed and expounded Scripture in them 3. And submitted themselves unto the order and Discipline established therein Answ But the Independents will say that the Nationall Church is abrogated in the New Testament Iust 1. Then it is their part to point us to the place in the New Testament where it is abrogated 2. It cannot be abrogated in the New Testament for those Ordinances only of the Old Testament are abrogated in the New that belonged unto the Ceremoniall Law But to have a Church or a Church Government more then Congregationall per se or considered in it selfe belong not to the Ceremoniall Law Ergo The Major is certaine I prove the Minor 1. For it might have been even in the State of Integrity without the Ceremoniall Law 2. And so indeed it was after the Fall before ever Moses his Ceremoniall Law was made 3. And that is not meerely Ceremoniall whereof we may evidently give naturall reason or that which is evidently grounded in naturall reason or at least in so far as evidently grounded in naturall reason since it is meerely Positive But supposing that there is a Church of God to have a Church or a Church Government more then Congregationall and Independent is evidently grounded in naturall reason or a thing where evidently we may give Naturall reason c. as wee shall see hereafter Ergo 3. Only those things of the Old Testament are abrogated by the New which were shadows of things to come viz. of Christ Reall or Mistycall But such a Church i. e. more then a Congregationall Independent Church was not a shadow of things to come in Christ c. Ergo The Major is certaine for the things commanded or approved in the Old Testament belonged either to the Morall or to the Ceremoniall or to the Judiciall Law As for the things of the first sort they are juris naturalis and consequently perpetuall which are not abrogated and of themselves were not shadows of things to come As for those of the Judiciall Law of themselves they are not shadows but belong unto Civill Government which Christ abrogated not since his Kingdom was not of this world and if the Jews had submitted themselves to Christ and had been freed from externall oppression it is probable that they should have enjoyed their own Government according to the Judiciall Law so far forth as Judiciall neither was it his aym to overthrow any worldly States Policies or Politicall Laws Christs Kingdom was and is compatible with all the Kingdoms and States of the world if they will not destroy it and he will let them reign over mens bodies and purses if they can let him reign over their Souls These that were commanded in the Ceremoniall Law were indeed shadows but such was not a Church more then Congregationall To all these Reasons some have answered That they would have it proved by Scriptures of the New Testament just 1. But wherefore prove they their opinion by the Old Testament if they will not permit us the same liberty 2. Our former Reasons have sufficiently proved That proofs taken from the Old Testament should hold in all that which is not abrogated in the New 3. If in this Subject they reject the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the Jews in all things that of the New there will be two Errors Diametrically opposite the one to the other theirs and the Jews But to give them more contentment we will prove it likewise by Texts of the New Testament and first from that of the Acts Chapters 1 2 4 and 5. 2. A Church compounded of 8120. is more then a Parishionall or Congregationall Independent Church But the Church of Jerusalem Acts 1.15 Acts 2.41 Acts 4.4 was a Church compounded of 8120. yea of more as appeareth by Acts 5.14 26. Ergo The Church of Jerusalem was more sure then a Parishionall or Congregationall Independent Church The Major Proposition is certain for the Independents define their Church which Christ in his Gospel hath instituted and to which he hath committed the Keyes of his Kingdom the Power of binding and loosing the Tables and Seales of the Covenant the Officers and Censures of his Church the Administration of his publike Worship and Ordinances Caetus a company of Beleevers meeting in one place every Lords day for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God to publike Edification The Way of the Church of Christ in New England The due Right of Presbyteries Chap. 1. Prop. 1. From hence I argue thus The Church whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition because of its multitude is more then an Independent Congregationall Church But a Church compounded of 8120 is a Church whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition c. Ergo. The Major is certain The Minor I prove it for 8120. could not meet together every Lords day in one House c. For in those times Christians had not yet any Temples but gathered together in particular Houses which could not receive them all 1. Because they were not ordinarily spacious as great and rich mens Houses for as the Apostle sayeth There are not many wise men after the flesh nor many mighty nor many noble called but the foolish weak base and despised things of the world 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28. 2. Howbeit they had been spacious as rich mens houses yet could they not have received such
and certaine others of them should goe up to Hierusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about that question Act. 15.2 2. Because the judgment of the Church of Hierusalem is called a Sentence v. 19. A burden To lay no greater burden upon you v. 28. Item Decrees and Ordinances They delivered them the Decrees to keep that were ordained for the Apostles and Elders which were at Hierusalem cap. 16. v 4. 3. Because not only the Church or Churches in Antioch but also all those of Syria and Cilicia were bound to obey them since they were delivered them by the Apostles Evangelists and Disciples to keep cap. 16.4 4. Because the stile of the Epistle and of the Iudgement argueth authority over the Churches As that Act. 15.24 To whom we gave no such commandement Ergo They had power to command them to preach And the Pharises appearingly pretended to have had some such commandement from that Church at Hierusalem as some inferre from this Text. Item It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things Act. 15.25 5. Because they commanded the Churches some things indifferent in themselves as to abstaine from meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled v. 29. What may be answered to this Reason we shall God willing see hereafter Arg. 6. The Church of Antioch is one and yet it is probable that there were many Congregationall Churches there for many of the Jewes and Religious Proselytes at Antioch followed Paul and Barnabas Act. 13. v. 43. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole City together to heare the Word of God v. 44. And the Word of the Lord was published throughout all the Region v. 49. so that there were many that professed Christ So there were certaine Prophets and Teachers as Barnabas Simeon Lucius Manahem Act. 13. v. 1. and sundry others which had come down from Iudea Act. 15. v. 1. Now it is not credible that where there were so many Beleevers and so many Preachers but there must have been many Congregations and yet they are all called one Church Act. 14. v. 27. CHAP. V. The same Doctrine proved by the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2 Cor. 1. Act. 18. and of Ephesus Act. 19. Arg. 7. SO 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 the Church of Corinth is called a Church There Paul reasoned in the Synagogue every Sabbath day and perswaded the Jewes and the Greeks Act. 18.4 And Crispus the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved on the Lord with all his house and many of the Corinthians hearing beleeved and were baptized v. 8. And the Lord spake by vision to Paul saying I have much people in this City v. 10. Paul continued there a yeere and six moneths v. 11. God promised him that no man should set on him to hurt him v. 10. The Iewes that had made an insurrection against him v. 12. were drawn from the Iudgement seat by Gallio the Pro-Consul or Deputy of Achaia v. 18. Sosthenes the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue beaten away by the Greeks v. 17. This Gallio was not Pauls or the Christians enemy as appeareth by all his proceedings v. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. where it is to be observed that Corinth was the Metropolis of Achaia so potent and opulent that it might have disputed the Empire of the World with any other which the Romans reckoned only three in the World fit to do viz. Carthage Corinth and Capua Now since the City was so great so rich so populous and S. Paul by so speciall a manner of Divine providence and promise assisted there so as that Crispus the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue was converted Gallio the Proconsul became Pauls friend and peradventure not far from the Kingdome of Heaven S. Pauls credit so great that the Iewes were drawn from the Tribunall seat and Sosthenes beaten away so many Corinthians converted and that he abode there so long What a number in all probability must have been converted Out of all doubt more then could conveniently meet together in one house to participate of all Christs Ordinances And it was not Pauls custome to stay long in any place where the Gospel was much contradicted or prospered not as we may collect from the 6. verse of this chapter and from chap. 19. v. 9. Arg. 8. We may prove as much from the 19. chapter concerning the City of Ephesus where I pray the Reader to consider how Ephesus was a very potent rich and populous City of Asia minor of great Trading in regard of its situation betwixt the South and West it being the way to saile from Syria and Egypt into Greece and Macedonia For all these reasons it was very famous as also for the Temple of Diana its Idolatry and many curious Arts there professed as Naturall and Diabolicall Magick the profession whereof some Independents as it is related by M. S. use it should seeme now and then to consult about men of Letters and their Books in these calamitous times of Reformation About that time that S. Paul taught there there was one Apollonius Thyanaeus who as it is related of him erected a Schoole of Magick there who by the voice of Birds knew their very imaginations and desires c. This man was Christs and S. Pauls enemy as it is related of him We have also an Adage in Erasmus Ephesiae literae which were some Magick characters and words which made such as caried them victorious in all they undertook See more about them in that Adage in the Title Imposturae Without doubt Paul converted here more then could meet in one Congregation and yet it is called a Church 1. At his first entry by the imposition of his hands he gave the Holy Ghost unto 12 Disciples or rather it was given them by Jesus Christ upon the imposition of his hands so that they spake with Tongues and prophesied v. 6. and so there was now a good number of good Instruments 2. He disputed boldly in the Synagogue for the space of three moneths perswading the things concerning the Kingdome of God v. 8. which he could not have done unlesse he had had many good friends there 3. Afterwards daily in the Schoole of one Tyrannus for the space of two yeeres v. 9.10 which without doubt he had not continued to doe so long if the Gospel had not had great fruits there for so soon as some spake evill of it in the Synagogue the Text sayes He separated his Disciples from it I know that there is some dispute about these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Schola Tyranni cujusdam v. 9. some thinking that Tyrannus is a proper name others that it is a common name signifying some great-man of great credit and authority as some great Lord perchance and Schola may signifie a Schoole is a Hall or place of recreation such as Noblemen use to have But however it be taken this Text proveth plainly that
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
yea if it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost it should seem good to all his Ministers 2. And I pray you M.S. when it seemeth good to an Independent Minister to declare the Doctrine that denieth Christs Divinity hereticall whether think you seemes it not good to God and to the Holy Ghost also and if it seem good to both why may not the Minister say It seemeth good to God and to me also to declare this Hereticall 3. And if that is bound or loosed in Heaven which the Church bindeth or looseth on Earth wherefore when they bind or loose sinners may they not say It seemeth good to God and to me also to loose this sinner To the 10. I answer It is altogether ridiculous for this one particular expression conteineth not all the expressions that are used in Ecclesiasticall Iudgements the Church useth not evermore Comminations in her Iudgements but against such as are disobedient and that after sundry Admonitions Neither is every Iudgement or Law evermore expresly Penall as ye might have learned both out of your Civill and Canon Law CHAP. VIII Wherein the same Doctrine is further confirmed by Reason THis Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories may be likewise proved by the practice of the Old Testament for in the Old Testament there were Synagogicall and Synedriall Iudicatories amongst them there was a Subordination and from the first they appealed to the second neither find we ever that God abrogated it since it was not Ceremoniall as I have shewed 2. It may likewise be proved from the Subordination of Civill Iudicatories in all great Civill States and there is a like reason for them both 3. If it be granted that there are Ecclesiasticall Assemblies greater in Authority one then another as appeareth by all these former Texts either this inequality of Greatnesse or Power is by Co-ordination or by Subordination But it cannot be by Co-ordination for one co-ordinate Power hath no power over the other as that of Hierusalem had over the rest of the Churches in giving them a Pastor Act. 1.2 6. chap. and Lawes and Commands Act. 15. 16. Ergo It must be by Subordination And then the power of the subordinate Church is under that of the superior Church whereunto it is subordinated as in Civill Iudicatories subordinated one to another 4. If there were no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories in matters of Power and Authority or their Authoritative Power then any particular Congregation by an irresistible power in despite of all the Churches of the the World might establish amongst themselves all sort of most damnable Heresies commit all sort of sinne and uncleannesse and so infect all the World with their wickednesse and no Churches or Christians qua tales could hinder them or say to them even as the Pope pretends they cannot say to him Domine quare hoc facis 5. But can our Adversaries risen up of the new shew any such Government as theirs in the Church of God in any time since Christs Incarnation yea from the Creation of the World to this time wherein there was no Subalternation but a meer Independency amongst all Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories We could wish they would shew us the Institution of it in Scripture where any where Christ commanded that all Churches should be altogether Independent and consequently Incorrigible Where at any time he granted them such a Licenciousnesse of power to go irresistably to Hell What an abominable Licenciousnesse is this to plead on this manner for all sort of Independency and of Ecclesiasticall Impunity in doing of all sort of wickednesse and mischief 6. The want of this Subordination taketh away all sort of remedy against the offences of particular Congregations 7. It destroyeth the Unitie of the Militant visible Church both Provinciall Nationall and Universall which cannot appear but in a Provinciall Nationall or Universall Synod or Councell 8. And consequently the visibility of the Church for she is not visible but in her Symbole or Confession of Faith and Canons of Ecclesiasticall Discipline as appeareth by the Symbole of the Apostles 9. To take away such Representative Churches as Synods is to destroy the Externall Church-Communion of Saints or the Communion of Saints amongst divers Churches which cannot so well appear as in Synods where their Reall Communion one with another is best represented for if particular Churches be destroyed by persecution and a little remnant escape as sometimes it falleth out upon the Turks Invasion and the Papists Massacres as wofull experience hath furnished us but too many examples in Germany France England and elsewhere what Externall Union or Communion of Saints can appear amongst you since in such a case ye will neither receive men in age to the Lords Table nor the children of such Martyrs to Baptism and so all the recompence they can have amongst you for all their sufferings for the Name of Christ is That they are like to be utterly excluded from all Church-Communion whatsoever 10. So this is a very poor comfort for Martyrs who having suffered much in their own persons lost their wives children and goods for the good Name of Christ shall no more now be esteemed Christians after all their sufferings whereas they were thought to be of the very best before that time 11. Such a Subordination of Representative Churches in matter of Government is a means very necessary to conserve the Churches for by the Authoritative power thereof Churches are kept in Order Unitie and Union and so preserved as we see in France Holland Scotland and elsewhere ever since the beginning of the World whereas by the contrary Independent way consisting of dis-union they may easily be destroyed as we see in the innumerable number of Sects that in a short space of time have sprouted out of the Independent Sect no lesse opposite one to another then to us 12. If there be no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies but every one be Independent and every member of the Church have a vote in all Ecclesiasticall matters and be made acquainted with all that passeth as amongst the Independents hardly can the Counsels and the Resolutions that are taken for mutuall conservation be kept secret but they will every houre be betrayed and so the Church given up to her Enemies which appearingly cannot so easily fall out in the Synodicall way wherein 20. 30. or 40. only and those of the best sort and the wisest men are acquainted with the businesse for in all morall probability it is not credible but 20. 30. or 40. may better keep a businesse secret then 20000. or 30000 whereof the Churches that they represent may be compounded 13. Since Christ ordained Universall Ministers to rule over the whole Militant Church and all the particular Congregations thereof wherefore should there not be some unity of Government amongst them and wherefore may they not all depend on one Councell as well as on one man certainly there is the same reason for both for as the Apostles
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
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
that therefore that Government which is more generally established and practised in the World should be that specificall Government whereby it ought to be governed A. S. Neither intended I to inferre or conclude any such thing Only I say that whatever the Assembly conclude or the Parliament establish in the State yet according to Gods Word Pluralitie of Ecclesiasticall Disciplines or Governments can no wayes be concluded or established and consequently ye goe against Gods Word in pleading for it And therefore all is lost that you build thereupon I cannot better answer your comparing of me with Herod then to slight it with the rest of the overflowings of your Call One good Argument would help your Cause more then a hundred Injuries Is this the Independent Power of Pietie you talk so much of Unto M. S. his 2. Answer I grant him That before he and his Colleagues be sufficiently informed of the lawfulnesse of any Government that in Gods mercy shall be established they are not bound to obey much lesse ought they to be scourged as he speaketh But when they are sufficiently informed of the lawfulnesse of it I meane sufficientiâ morali which is all that Men can furnish them but not Physicâ which is only in Gods hands they must obey and no wayes plead with all Hereticks and Schismaticks non-Conviction and pretended Conscience and Toleration and want of Authority in the Civill Magistrate to punish them They must obey as well as the false Prophets and Schismaticks of the Old Testament M.S. 3. Answ The servants of Christ should not fall foule for uniformitie in Discipline and the greater eat up the lesse God hath provided other meanes A. S. If divers Disciplines be established by Law the good Ministers must tolerate that which they cannot mend and serve themselves of all the means they can according to Gods Word to reduce their Brethren to the right way But if they be not yet established none but one should be approved by the servants of God and the Civill Magistrate in imitation of Moses or rather of God is bound in duty only to admit one and that the most conform to Scripture unlesse he will bring in Factions and Schismes both into Church and Commonwealth and that principally when any of them may be dangerous for both as Independencie which may prove more dangerous then seven Heresies But in all this M.S. answereth not my Argument formally but most ridiculously grants the Premisses and denieth the Conclusion A. S. 15. Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted any Toleration to divers Sects and Governments in the Church Wherefore then will ye be Suiters for that which they never granted M. S. here neither denieth the Antecedent nor the Consequence of this my Argument but singeth his old song That neither Christ nor his Apostles did ever grant a power to a major part of Profossours in a Kingdom or Nation to grind the faces of their Brethren either because they could not conform their Judgements with them or because they kept a good Conscience A. S. 1. We grant you all that 2. Neither are your faces grinded 3. Much lesse grinded for non-conformitie of your Judgements with theirs or keeping of a good Conscience 4. Your Conscience is very ill that will not be informed of the Truth 5. We have told you that Anabaptists Separatists and others like unto you pretend the same thing 6. Ye furnish us here an Argument against New-England men in their proceedings with Godly Ministers here 7. Live quietly and trouble not the Church nor the State and ye may live here a peaceable life without any trouble to your Consciences 8. But it is a foolery in you to think that your faces are grinded because your Brethren will not consent that ye erect a Sect have Pulpits allowed you to beat down the Truth They are bound in Conscience to resist you as ye take your selves bound to resist them 9. If you think your faces grinded here you may be gone and live in contentment there from whence ye came 10. And yet howbeit your Brethren of the Ministeris take not upon themselves any thing but to resist you with the Arms of the Spirit yet must you thinke that the Civill Magistrate hath no lesse power over you here then your Civill Magistrate hath over Sectaries in New-England 11. But it were better for you Brethren to take a resolution to live with us in unitie under such a Discipline as may be concluded and setled in the feare of God But cannot you live in this World unlesse you give a Law to all the World What you say of Presbyterians in assuming of something imperious c. is but a Calumny M.S. 2. answers my Argument with a Question Whence we have a Toleration of our Presbyterian Discipline A. S. 1. It is a Maxime in Philosophie that Questio questionem non solvit one Question solves not another 2. I answer That we have its institution from God in his Word as we have already demonstrated it and He in instituting of it hath ordained that it be not only tolerated but also received and preached through all the World as I have already proved 3. In France it was brought in by Christs Ministers established by a Protestant King and some others before him who had some taste of the Gospel 4. It hath been there established by the Law of the Kingdome and the Protestant Armies which God blessed under a Protestant King against the Pope the Papists and Jesuites who would have pulled the Crown off his head to set it upon Don Philips that so fighting for his Crown he might also fight for that of Christ Iesus and establish it gloriously in his Kingdome And all this may be easily confirmed by the French History and sundry Edicts in favour of Protestants It is an untruth that ever it was tolerated by the Romish Church for they imployed all their endeavours to oppresse it yea against all Law They are bound to their King who is also bound to them for fighting for his Cause In England it is established as I have sundry times told you in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches by the Kings and Parliaments Authority And how it hath been established in Scotland it is better known then I can declare it viz. by Civill and Ecclesiasticall Authority M. S. his 3. Answer or Objection against my Reason commeth to this That by the same Reason Papists will not tolerate Protestants whom they hold for Schismaticks A.S. 1. This is only said but not proved 2. They neither tolerate Hereticks nor Schismaticks when they can hinder them 3. The Papists hold not us simply for Schismaticks but also for Hereticks 4. And consequently if your Argument hold That we must tolerate whatsoever they tolerate since they tolerate us in quality of Hereticks in their judgement we must also tolerate Hereticks yea Iewes also and permit them Synagogues as they doe yea we must tolerate an hundred Religions as
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
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
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
publick conscience which he is bound to have as a publick person conforme to Law for he sitteth not upon the Tribunall as a private but as a publick Person not as Iames or Charles but as King Iames or King Charles So in this there is no policy as this malignant spirit calumniateth I omit here his deepe policy in comparing the Civill Magistrate 1. King Parliament c. with a Dogge 2. And the Presbytery with an Ape whether this be not prophanation and impiety at least and that in a pretty high degree I submit to the judgement of those whom it so nearely concerneth if they be Apes I wonder you will call them Brethren VVhat brother Ape and so Apes your selves according to your Tenet so let the Conclusion hold for you but we deny the Antecedent in so far forth as applyed to Presbyterians M. S. Obj. 3. Surely the frame and constitution of Presbyterie is exactly calculated for the Meridian of this present World And indeed A. S. himselfe is somewhat ingenuous in acknowledging that this Government hath little or no relation unto or compliance with the World which is to come professing p. 13. the externall peace of the Church to be the adequate end thereof The Argument will be thus That Government whose adequate end is the externall peace of the Church hath no compliance with the world to come but is calculated for the Meridian of this world But Presbyterian Government is a Government whose adequate end is the Externall peace of the Church as A. S. confesseth p. 13. Ergo The Presbyterian Government hath no compliance c. A.S. To be short here Note when I say that the peace of the Church is the adequate end of church-Church-Government 1. That by the Church-Government I meane not the Church according to her essentiall but to her accidentall or visible forme 2. And consequently that by Government I meane not the internall Government which belongeth to her in respect of her essentiall but the externall which belongeth to her by reason of her accidentall or visible forme the first is proper to Christ or God in Christ who only hath a domination over our soules But the second he exerciseth by the Ministery of men 3. That by the peace of the Church I meane not a worldly but a spirituall peace or quietnesse voyd of Ecclesiasticall trouble by corruption of Doctrine Discipline or manners for in the midst of wordly troubles and persecutions this peace may be had neither can there one word of all this be denyed since our dispute here is only about the visible Church 4. That by the word end I mean't not 1. Finem ultimum simpliciter sed in suo genere i. e. not the ultimate end absolutely but in its owne kind nor 2. Finem operantis Artificis or operis but Artis Operationis not the end of the Agent of the Artist or of his worke but of the Art or Habitude whereby he operateth and of his Operation Nor 3. the externall end of Government such as is the World to come or eternall life but the internall end which is her peace and quietnesse which however it be an externall accident of the Churches Essence yet it is the intrinsecall end of her externall Government Nor 4. the common end of Government which is the end of other things also as the World to come which is the end of our Faith Charity of all Christian vertues of Discipline and Government also but the proper and particular end thereof 5. Non finem obtinendum solum but producendum And I could not nor should have taken it otherwise as this man most impertinently would have me to doe for things are defined notified and distinguished by their internall proper ultimate ends in suo genere and that are to be wrought and not by their extrinsecall common absolutely ultimate ends c. as the Philosophers doe teach us So I answer that the Proposition is false for Church-Government may have the Externall peace of the Church for its adequate Intrinsecall proper ultimate end in sno genere and for the end of Government and Discipline which is finis producendus And the World to come for its Extrinsecall common absolutely ultimate end for the end that is to be obteined and end of the Agent and of his worke And if it be objected that the adequate end of Church-Government should containe in it selfe all its ends and consequently the life to come I answer that that is most false for it containeth only its partiall ends 2. If it be the Internall end it containeth not the Externall end thereof If it be the proper end it cannot containe the common end but the common end containeth it neither is it needfull that it containe the mediate and ultimate ends or the ultimate absolutely and the ultimate in its own kind or sort for only it containeth in it the partiall ends such as are not subordinate as the mediate and ultimate end or as the ultimate absolutely and in its own kind or sort And the reason of it is this because as partes and compartes so partiall ends are coordinate and opposed one to another and not subordinate as the mediate and ultimate end or as the ultimate absolutely and in its own kind as the Externall peace of the Church and the VVorld to come Object 4. The sum of M.S. his discourse p. 33. § 5. and p. 34. commeth to this If the civill Magistrate hath not a Directive power in the Church but the Church-Assemblies have it alone then the Church-Assembly must have the gift of Infallibility A.S. This is a Papisticall Argument whereby the Iesuites prove that the Romish Church cannot erre But I answer him and Papists both Ans 1. I deny this connexum for a Directive power may be where there is no infallibility 2. The Independents arrogate to their Congregationall Churches and Presbyteries a Directive power without any gift of infallibility 3. They grant a Directive power unto the Civill Magistrate whom they grant to be fallible 4. And howbeit the Civill Magistrate be fallible yet they will not grant that the Presbyterie may or should iudge over him no more can the Civill Magistrate judge over the Presbyterie however it be fallible 5. For by the same reason any man might judge them both since they are both fallible 6. Howbeit any Iudge either Secular or Ecclesiasticall be fallible yet must they be obeyed till judicially they be convicted of error otherwise controversies should never be ended since wee have no infallible Iudge or Iudgement in this life unlesse God extraordinarily should reveale it to us Object 5. After such stuffe as we have seen M. S. p. 34. § 2. guesses what I meane by a Directive power and brings three acceptions of it but all short of what I meane The first is that it may signifie a liberty or power of considering advising and proposing of what may be expedient to be done in matters of Religion and for the
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
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.
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.
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
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
rejected it then the Iudgement at Antioch which they did not but acquiesced therein for any thing we know to the contrary 6. Some may peradventure prove it in this manner That if it had not been a Synod and a superior Iudicatory in respect of Antioch those of Antioch had not sent the two Parties but had done better to have sent some indifferent Person for indifferent Persons are more proper to consult a businesse then the Parties 7. If it had been judged at Hierusalem by way of Counsell only this Counsell had likely been only given to the Church of Antioch for counsell ordinarily is only given to those who desire and crave it But so it is not here for the Church of Hierusalem not only judged so concerning the Church of Antioch alone but also of all others and the Apostles and their Disciples urged this Iudgement upon all the rest of the Churches where they passed Some New-England Preachers answer That this Assembly at Hierusalem cleer up the truth dogmatically for the word translated Decrees is in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 16.4 but imports not to Censure Item that they cannot see why the ultimate power of Censures may not reside in the Congregation as well as in the Synod Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall A.S. Answ This cannot hold 1. For whoever have a Dogmaticall power they have also a power to Censure for he who may judge that this must be believed and according to Gods Word meriteth such an Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall punishment wherefore may he not also sentence the Delinquents who merit to be so censured 2. Because in giving a Dogmaticall power to some and a Corrective power unto others they divide the Keyes and give one unto one Assembly and another unto another and so make one Assembly see with the others eyes 3. These Powers were not separated in the Church or Church-Assemblies in the Old Testament Ergo No more should they be separated in the New since the union of these two Powers proceeds not from any Ceremoniall Law but either from the Law of Nature or the Politicall Ecclesiasticall Law in so far forth as grounded on the Law of Nature 4. Because such a way were as M.S. speaketh to make the one Iudex and the other Carnisex the one to be the Iudge and the other the Executioner 5. Because in all States and Civill Governments Iudges or Senates who have the Dogmaticall power have also the Corrective or Coercive power and there is the same reason for both 6. The Text conteineth no such thing neither can they shew us in any part of Scripture any ground for any such division of these two Powers Neither can that silly Grammaticall observation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve them for the Apostle serveth not himselfe of this word in the whole latitude of all its Grammaticall significations that it may have according to its Etymologie and Derivation but in a Legall way as it is taken in Law for Placitum Statutum Institutum Decretum Edictum as in the Civill Lawes wherein these words signifie Lawes or Ordinances and Calvin telleth us in Lexico Iuridico that Dogma est lex docens scientiam fidei l. 2. F. F. ad Senatus-con Vellejan Decretum Senatus-consultum significat pro quo Modestinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 F. F. de excus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixit Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing else but Decretum Scitum Plebiscitum The cause wherefore the Apostle taketh it in a Court or Law-signification is because that they were making Ecclesiasticall Lawes and so took it ratione subjectae materiae 7. And this may be confirmed because they are not only called dogmata but it is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text i. e. quae decreta fuerunt ab Apostolis that were decreed by the Apostles 8. And what else is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to dogmatize or to bring in a new Opinion Custome or Ceremony Col. 2.20 which here was not done by any private man but by authority of a Councell 9. Neither can the Authors of this Evasion ever shew us that Dogma in Law is taken for a power meerly dogmaticall separated from all coercive or corrective power And moreover if this will not satisfie them we have Act. 15. v. 24. To whom we commanded no such thing Ergo Those of Antioch supposed that that Councell at Hierusalem had power to command and the Councell denieth not that they had Power to command but the Act of the Power viz. that they had commanded any such thing v. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things Ergo they laid a burden but no greater burden upon them 2. It was laid upon them 3. It was necessary necessitate praecepti But they who had such a power had they not think we power also to censure 12. Beza telleth us also that in his Codex in chap. 15. v. 41. this is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in some Latine codex Praecipiens custodire praecepta Apostolorum Seniorum which argueth that they had not only a Directive but also an Imperative power over the Churches in vertue of that Decree of the Councell 13. The Dogmaticall power is like unto the Legislative power and whoever hath a Legislative power hath also a Corrective power 14. This Councell had not only a Dogmaticall but also a Legislative power about things of themselves indifferent as appeareth here in making a Law that the Christians should abstaine from meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled 4. Some it may be will finde out this Evasion and say That it was not a Councell nor an ordinary Decree of Ecclesiasticall Iudges but of Arbiters Rep. But 1. the Text hath no such thing 2. Arbiters are either given by the ordinary Iudge ordinarily called Iudices pedanei or chosen by the Parties themselves otherwayes called Compromissarii If ye grant me the first then particular Churches are subject unto Superiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories that give them such Arbiters which is all we look for If the second then if the Word of God hath granted an Independent liberty unto the Church she ought not to quit it in making her self subject and dependent for we cannot dispose of our own liberty granted to us by Christ to make our selves servants or subject to men in Matters of Religion 3. We cannot submit Gods Cause to others then to whom he hath submitted it himself How could they accept them for Iudges who had no vocation of God to judge them 5. Arbitrary Iudges that are given have a Superiour power over the Church that they judge and so ye acknowledge that the Church of Ierusalem had power over that of Antioch if that of Ierusalem was an Arbiter datus aut delegatus 2. These given Arbiters are given by a Iudge or Superiour Ergo They presuppose some Superiour Iudge over the
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
the contrary appeareth by our Reasons 6. Yet is it something that I have reason for me and he none yea nothing but his Independent will M. S. will not make good the Reasons brought for this Opinion by the Apologists which I have abundantly resuted but proveth as followeth That a withdrawing of Christian Communion from persons walking inordinately is an Ordinance or meanes appointed by God for the reducing and reclaiming of them 2. Thes 3.6.14 We warn you Brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye withdraw your selves from every Brother that walketh inordinately A. S. I adde the rest Vers 7. For we behaved not our selves inordinately among you Vers 8. Neither did we eate any mans bread for nought but wrought with labour and travell night and day that we might not be chargeable to any of you Vers 10. This we commanded you that if any would not worke neither should he eate Vers 11. For we heare that there are some which walke among you inordinately working not at all but are busie-bodies Vers 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed Vers 15. Yet count him not as an Enemy but admonish him as a Brother A. S. But this proofe is no better then that of the Apologists and to Answer it I will not serve my selfe with the Answer that some men bring here viz. That this Testimony of Scripture is not to be taken of the great Excommunication which onely you seeme to acknowledge for Excommunication nor of the lesser which you seeme to call non-Communion or with the Apostle here withdrawing of Christian Communion 2. Or that it is a Commandement onely given to particular persons to forbear such persons who were idle and yet busie-bodies running from house to house living upon other mens charges under pretext peradventure of Piety But not to the Church to excommunicate them and that because the Apostle addeth v. 15. Yet count him not as an Enemy but as a Brother for this Reason is weak and an Excommunicate person if he be Excommunicated Excommunicatione minori yea and sometimes majori may be accounted as a Brother so long as there is any hope of his Repentance I had rather say 1. That here the Apostle speaketh of Excommunication 1. Because he sayes Note him i. e. that he may be discerned from others 2. He sayes Have no company or meddle not with him Now what is Excommunication but to have no Communion or company with a man 2. I say that he speaketh not of the greater but of the lesser Excommunication 1. Because that it is not for any great crime but for an ordinary sinne viz. Idlenesse 2. Because this note of Excommunication is only that he may be ashamed 3. Because he is not to be reputed for an enemy of the Church but as a Brother 4. Because the Apostle biddeth onely Note him and admonish him which is lesse then to be given over to Sathan yea it is credible that it was only a private Suspension from the Lords Table not in publique in face of the whole Church but before the particular Presbytery 3. He seemeth not to speake directly of whole Churches but of particular persons 1. Since he sayes From every Brother vers 6. 2. Because he sayes that there are some among you that walke inordinately Now the whole Church cannot be said to be among the Church or some of the Church but particular persons only 3. Because he sayeth If any man obey not let that man be noted but if the whole Church were such there should be none there to note him 4. That man cannot signifie that Church 5. Because the Apostle vers 15. commandeth to admonish him as a Brother but a Brother is not a Church 4. And neverthelesse howsoever the Apostle speakes principally directly and formally of the Excommunication of Persons yet must he consequently and directly meane also the Excommunication of Churches and that for the Reasons that I brought else where viz. in the Observations and Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration page 43. § 2. 1. For Churches Offences may deserve it 2. The Scripture hath nothing to the contrary of Excommunication of Churches 3 Because there is the same reason for the Excommunication of whole Churches as of particular Persons viz. The taking away of Scandall and the conversion of sinners 1 Cor. 5.5 2 Cor. 2.7 2. Thes 3.14 1 Tim. 1.20 and that such a contagion infect not others 1 Cor. 5.6 7. And this reason M. S. very wisely borrowed from me in this place saying There is the same reason of Churches in this behalf which there is of persons M. S. to A. S. page 76. Onely this I note here that if there be the same reason of Churches Ergo As a Particular person may be Excommunicated Excommunicatione minori by a publike or a particular sentence of non Communion for a lesser fault so may a whole Church And consequently as a particular person may be Excommunicated Excommunicatione majori for a very great sin and wickednesse so may a whole particular Church which the Independent Sect will no wayes grant And this I pray the Reader to observe and to presse it against them for I am assured they cannot here escape unlesse M. S. escape them 4. Because 7000. Churches may as well Excommunicate one compounded of seventeen Persons as that one may Excommunicate seven of its Members 5. Because an Hereticall Church is Excommunicated in Heaven Wherefore then shall she not be Excommunicated by Christs Ministers here upon Earth when they learn it by Scripture Must not the Churches here upon Earth concur as well with Gods Sentence in Heaven as God with theirs here upon Earth Matth. 18 6. Because the Church of Jerusalem Excommunicated that of the ten Tribes M. S. his second Answer to this Argument Suppose there were no such sufficient or satisfactory remedy for the inconveniency mentioned in the way of the Apologists yet Lawyers have a saying That a mischief is better then an inconveniency c. and afterwards Now then much better is it to want a remedy against such an evill which possibly may not fall out within an age though it be greater when it doth fall then it is to expose our selves to continuall droppings I mean to those daily inconveniencies which we lately shewed to be incident to the Classique Government A. S. 1. I accept of your Supposition viz. That there is no sufficient or satisfactory remedy c. as it appeareth cleerly by my Reasons 2. To your Maxime of Law I grant you willingly That ye have no remedy against mischiefs but your Churches must necessarily suffer them and are exposed to them Praised be God that Presbyterians serve themselves with no mischievous but with very holy Remedies 3. I deny that it is better to want a Remedy against such a mischief viz. If a Church Apostatize become Hereticall c. then to accept
of the New Now answer me What if the great Sanedrim had miscarried in the Old Testament as some times it did or the Parliament and the Kings Counsell in the State what should be be done in such a Case And then I shall answer you the other It is a foolery to dispute against Gods Ordinance 6. I answer That in such an extraordinary Case which goeth beyond all particular Laws and Orders established in the Church viz. When all the ordinary Seers become blinde or mislead the Flock there being no ordinary we must have recourse to such extraordinary remedies as are most convenient or at least not repugnant to Gods Word and attend upon Gods extraordinary Providence The Provinciall Synods may refuse to put in execution the Acts of the Generall Assembly so may particular Churches for they are not bound to be Actors for the generall Assembly in any thing against Gods Word 7. But what if in your petty Congregations of seven or eight persons four persons or peradventure all the Congregation miscarry What shall be done You will happily say 1. Seck Counsell But if all the Congregation be corrupted none of them will ask counsell but they will all rather lurk and hide their Tenets as the Independents do here at the Synod If you say again Other Churches that are offended may complain to Neighbour Churches But what if they know not their Tenets What if the Delinquent Church will not own them but Iesuitically elude all Interrogatories as the Antinomians the Independents and all other Sectaries do here What if they own them What can the Churches offended do for M. S. will tell you they cannot be Iudge since they are Parties or if they judge they can but judge as so many Lackeys or Foot-Boyes They have no more Authority to command that Delinquent Church then that Delinquent Church hath to command them all Object But they will pronounce a Sentence of non-Communion against Her Answ So will she against them and what then What remedy for all this disorder that is not taken away by all this but still increaseth It may be yet said they may go to the Civill Magistrate A. S. But that is no Ecclesiasticall remedy and M. S. will tell you 1. as well as I have done that so the last resolution of Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Judgements should be in the secular power which he holds impossible 2. Yea in the power of a Pagan or Antichristian Christian 3. And I must say That things are never resolved but into their own Principles and such is not Politicall Authority in respect of Ecclesiasticall 4. So you have not entirenesse of jurisdiction as M. S. and the rest of the Independents pretend in his first Reason 5. So you are put to trouble and charges which is against your other Reason So 6. you are subject to Strangers which destroyeth your other Reason for you hold for Strangers all such as be not of your particular Congregations as your Reasons hereafter following fully declare 7. You are not ruled within your selves which destroyes your other Reason So 8. you shall not be judged by your own Pastour which is another of your Reasons 9. You shall be judged by one who appearingly cannot fall in the same Case and so it destroyes your other Reason 10. The party being tender Foreheaded might be changed into a stone before Medusa's Head as you say in presence of strange Faces and of his Betters which destroyeth again another of your Reasons I might bring many more Inconveniences against him which he bringeth against us as destructory to the sweet Liberties and Priviledges of the Church But I must be short Onely I adde that to speak morè humano it is not credible That all Inferiour Iudicatories will or dare be so impudent as to miscarry in any thing so manifestly contrary to the common Tenets or Practises of the whole Nationall Church for the Inferiour Iudicatories will evermore fear in case of their unjust Iudgement to be condemned and censured in the Superiour and the Supreme it self may fear That if they judge any thing amisse their Iudgements will not be approved and put in execution in Particular Churches and in all humane probability they are like to be crossed M. S. asketh what if an Occumenicall or Generall Counsell erre A. S. His suppositions are so extraordinary that they cannot belong but to Independent M. S. And yet what I have already said may satisfie this also Onely this man intends to defame Gods Ordinances and his Word as insufficient to rule the Church and so he may take the Bishops and Papists by the hand And I ask what if a Parliament erre What if the great Sanedrin had erred in the Old Testament What if the Councell at Jerusalem had erred Answer me this and then I shall answer you The rest of this Section p. 77. containeth nothing but Repetitions big Words but no Reason CHAP. IV. The justification of A. S. his Reason How Presbyteriall Government is not subject to such Inconveniences as the Independencie VVHereas in my ninth Reason I shew That the Presbyteriall Government is subject to none of these Inconveniences c. Here M. S. answereth 1. Here is a remedy indeed against some inconveniences A. S. I willingly accept of this your confession M. S. But whether the inconveniences be not much better then the remedy adhuc sub judice lis est A. S. So it is a doubt in M. S. his conceit Whether it be not much better to tolerate yea to admit and permit a thousand Heresies and Blasphemies and to let whole Churches go to Hell then to submit to Presbyteriall Government such as we have defined it 1. To let a Church be Hereticall then to be reduced to Christ by any Ecclesiasticall power meerly Spirituall and Ministeriall or any other such as was in the Old Testament or as is in the State M. S. What if your combined Eldership hath neither footing or foundation in the Word of God A. S. What if it have foot and foundation on the Word of God What if we have proved it already What if it had no foot in Gods Word but were no way repugnant unto it Yet were it not in such a case to be rejected but by a thousand fold to be preferred before Independency whereupon follow so many abominable absurdities so repugnant to Gods Word yea unto Naturall Reason M. S. It is not the serviceablenesse of it against a thousand such inconveniencies as were mentioned that will justifie it and this he proveth by the examples of Sauls offering Sacrifice 1 Sam. 23.9 13 14. Of Vzzah in putting forth his hand to the Ark. Peters zeal in drawing his sword And addeth That the Popes absolute Authority is as Soveraign a Remedy against all these Inconveniencies as Classique Authority A. S. 1. I argued not from meer inconveniences but from conveniences and the want of inconveniences and repugnancy to Gods Word to justifie our Government and from inconveniences
to refuse yours Neither can a Negative Thesis be otherwayes proved but by a Medium that is repugnant either to the Attribute or to the Subject of the Question So this your Censure is very ridiculous absurd and impertinent 2. I have proved it to be conform to Gods Word 3. It is not credible but that Government is most convenient to Gods Word which is most convenient and commensurate unto the end That God commands us to intend and to tend into neither can I beleeve that God hath ordained us any means that are not fit and proper for the end that he intends or commands us to intend for that were repugnant to his Soveraign Wisedom 4. And as for your Examples they are not to the purpose for all these facts of Saul Vzzah c. were contrary to Gods expresse command neither were they convenient to the end intended by God or that we should tend unto viz. Filiall Obedience to the command and the Typifying of Christ and his Benefits The example of Saint Peter was 1. a manifest breach of the sixth Commandment in killing a man without publike Authority 2. It implyed an act of diffidence and of too great confidence as if Christ had had no other means to deliver himself but his sword in this Peter trusted too much to his own sword and too little to Gods Providence 3. It contained an act of Precipitation and too great boldnesse and rashnesse in drawing his sword in his Masters presence without yea against his Masters will and command 4. It was repugnant to the end for which Christ came into the Word viz. Christs death and the Redemption of mankinde by it whereof Peter before that time had been so oft advertised c. So is it not in Presbyteriall Discipline Neither is there any damnable Errour or Heresie in Consistoriall Government as in the Papacy We say not that any of our Assemblies are Infallible as the Pope pretends himself and his Generall Councell to be neither pretend we That our Assemblies have any despoticall or lordly domination over the Church as the Pope doth we say not That our Assemblies are above Gods Word as they do These comparisons of M. S. are no lesse then blasphemous And here I must advertise the Reader That all the Presbyteriall Assemblies together take no greater Authority over the Church then six or seven Independent Tinkers an Hangman with them together with one of their Ministers do over the flock The Independent Preacher with his six or seven persons are liker to the Pope and the Consistory of his Cardinalls because of their Independency then any of our Churches which are all Dependents and subject to Superiour Authority M. S. pag. 79. § in his second Answer telleth me That he cannot inform himself 1. What A. S. means by Authoritative power 2. Or from whence our Churches have it A. S. I have 1 fully declared in my Annotations and here above what it is 2. And from whence it proceedeth It is a Ministeriall power to command such as are subject thereunto which bindeth or obligeth them to obedience and whereby in case of disobedience they may inflict Spirituall punishments It is of God or from God and therefore lawfull Now whether it be of God as Author of Nature or of Grace by the Law of Nature or any Positive Law Naturall or Supernaturall it is not a Question de re sed de modo rei not of the thing it self but of the manner thereof Grant me either that it is lawfull or deny it If it be a lawfull power it is of God for there is no lawfull power but of God Rom. 13.2 Grant me the thing and afterwards I shall dispute with you de modo rei They have it not of the Parliament nor of the State as you pretend for secular men cannot give any Spirituall power into the Church they have it of God and by Gods Word directè or per consequentiam and in some things per non repugnantiam It is an untruth in M. S. in his third Answer whereas he sayeth that I seem to imply That the Church hath this power from the Law of the State for howbeit the Civill Magistrate by his Laws put a Politicall Obligation upon Christians to obey the Churches Spirituall Authority which is from God yet is not his Civill Authority the cause of the Churches Spirituall Authority or of the Obligation whereby a Christian is bound to obey the Church for howbeit there were no Civill Magistrate or howbeit he should dissent from such an Obedience yet should the Church have Spirituall power and all the Members of the Church in a Spirituall way should be bound to Obedience But what then doth the Civill Magistrates Law Answ It puts a new Bond or Obligation upon the Members of the Church and bindes them again by a Civill Authority Extrinsecall to the Church to a Spirituall Obedience who heretofore were onely bound by a Spirituall Obligation so he bindes them to a Spirituall Obedience but not spiritually as the Church Authority doth but onely materially and that by Civill Authority So the Ministers of the Gospel or rather God by them oblige and binde the Subjects in the State in a Spirituall way by Gods Word to obey the Civill Magistrate or Politicall and Civill Obedience but not Politically or Civilly but Spiritually so it followeth not That the Civill Magistrate hath power to form Ecclesiasticall Government onely it followeth That in a Politicall way he may oblige or binde men to obey it No more followeth it that I resolve Church Government into the humors wills and pleasures of the World c. Onely it followeth That the Civill Obligation laid upon men to obey the Church so far forth as Civill must be finally resolved into the Civill Magistrates power and not into his humours as M. S. most contemptuously speaketh of him M. S. his fourth Answer is in retorting my Arguments 1. What if a Particular Congregation under the jurisdiction of your Eldership reflecting upon the Oath or Covenant it hath taken for subjection thereunto as likewise upon all other ingagements that way as unlawfull shall peremptorily refuse to stand to the awards or determinations of it what will you do in this Case Will you Excommunicate this Church The Apologists in their way do little lesse or will you deliver them brachio seculari To be hampered and taught better then it seemeth you can teach them by Prisons Fines Banishments c. Churches had need take heed how they chuse men for their guardians that will so dispose of them if they please them not 2. And what if in the Session of your combined Eldership there be no such thing as Pluralitie of Votes concerning the Excommunication of such a Church Is not the remedy you speak of now in the dust A. S. To the first Quaere I answer That we must do by Spirituall power in the Church that that the Civill Magistrate doth by the secular power in the
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
part of a Classe and so receiveth in part a Classicall power of jurisdiction whereby the Parochiall power which formerly she had is more sure and made lesse subject to aberration then it was before So her jurisdiction is not impaired but improved neither in it self should it be a temptation to you not to pray or to pray faintly as you say since such an Improvement to every good Christian ought to be matter of Thanksgiving M. S. But entirenesse of Government or subjection onely to those that are of the same society is a speciall mercy And their Nobles shall be of themselves saith God speaking of that great Goodnesse he meant to shew unto his people after their return from Babylon and their Governours shall proceed from the midst of them Jer. 20.21 So as it is made a Character of the prosperous Estate of Tyrus That her wise men that were in her i. e. of her own Nation were her Pilots Ezek. 27.8 2. Subjection unto Strangers is still spoken of as matter of punishment and sorrow Give not thine Inheritance to reproach that the Heathen should reign over it Joel 2.17 The Nation of the Iews were expresly forbidden to set strangers to rule over them A.S. What follows Ergo Entirenesse of Government i. e. An Independent Government in every particular Congregation compounded of seven or eight silly Fellows whereof many of them are tender Foreheaded and bashfull as M. S. telleth us pag. 74. is a mercy and blessing of God A. S. The Antecedent is not universally true 1. For it is good for Families Republikes and Kingdoms that cannot rule themselves that they be ruled by some others and there are some people as Aristotle tels us that are naturally servile Ergo They have need to be ruled by others And the Polonians sometimes chuse Forraign Princes to rule over them The Ragusians in Slavonia to entertain perfect equality amongst themselves chuse evermore a Stranger for their Bishop and therefore hold it not evermore best to be ruled by one of themselves So do they in sundry Elective Kingdoms 2. Howbeit I should grant that it is absolutely best yet should it not follow that it is best for every sort of Society every where and evermore for then it should follow 1. That it is not good much lesse best for us that Iesus Christ who according to his Manhood or the Apostles who were Iews should have been Universall Ministers over all the whole World since they were not chosen of every particular Kingdom much lesse of every Province but least of all of every particular Independent Congregation compounded of seven or eight weak Fore-headed men as M. S. stiles them 2. It should not be a blessing of God that the Crown of France should be subject to the Crown of England for so it should not be subject to a French man so we loose our right to the Crown of France 3. It should have been a punishment to the people of God to have been ruled by a King of one Tribe viz. of Benjamine as by Saul or of Iudah as by David Solomon Rehoboam c. for they were not of all the Tribes much lesse of every particular Congregation of seven or eight persons 4. This Maxime cannot stand with the State of our three Crowns for so it else should be a blessing to Ireland to be ruled by one of the Irish Rebels and a punishment to be subject to the Crown of England 5. By that same reason the Kingdom of Scotland and England could not without some punishment or curse of God upon the one or the other subsist in an Union together unlesse the King were both an English and a Scotchman 6. The Parliament could not be a blessing but a curse of God since the Members thereof are from divers Provinces Shires and Burroughes as the Members of our Nationall Synods So let the World consider how Traiterous how Hereticall and blasphemous this most abominable Maxime is tending to the totall subversion of the Church King Parliament State and Kingdoms 7. Yea it overthroweth even their own Maximes for their Synods are gathered of Members of different Churches as ours are 8. And finally Howbeit I should grant him his Maxime yet as I have said particular Congregations by the increase and multiplication of Churches and their combination in Synods loose not their entirenesse of jurisdiction which they had before viz. their Parochiall Congregationall or simple Presbyteriall power but retain it as formerly As for those Texts of Scripture 1. not one of them sayes that entirenesse of Government within themselves is evermore best and a mercy of God 2. Much lesse that entirenesse of Government within a petty Independent Church compounded of seven or eight weak Foreheaded Fellows is best for it For if it were so we must have as many little Popes in the Church and as many Kings in the State as there can be Independent Churches or particular Iudicatories in the Kingdom 3. The passage cited out of Ierem. 30.21 speaketh of Christ as appeareth by the Text for it is added And I will cause him to draw neer and he shall approach unto me For who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me saith the Lord Now who is this but Iesus Christ 1. But Christ was not a Governour of one particular Independent Church onely but of them all so this place concludeth an Universall Church instead of an Independent Congregation 2. Neither can it be expounded of the people of the Iews after the Captivity for after it they had no King from amongst themselves at least ordinarily For after the Captivity of Babylon Zerobabel and Nehemiah were as it were Vassals to the King of Persia even till Esdras obtained of Artaxerxes Longimanus that they should set it up again in form of a Republike Afterwards Alexander the Great being pacified towards the lews by the Intercession of Jaddus the High Priest they obtained liberty to live after their own Laws Afterwards Ptolomaeus son of Lagus King of Egypt having taken the City used them hardly No better usage got they afterwards under Antiochus Epiphanes the eight King of Syria Hitherto the Government was Ducall and all their Dukes of the House of David to the number of fifteen from Zerobabel to Ianna Afterwards the Royall and Ecclesiasticall power was in the hands of the Priests in the Assamoneans Family of the Tribe of Levi the which Government was extraordinary if not unlawfull and then the division about the Royall and Sacerdotall power betwixt the two Brethren viz. Aristobulus and Hircanus who had recourse to Pompey some sixty yeers before the coming of Christ made them to be reduced under the power of the Romans so that this great blessing of so great a Governour as is mentioned here cannot be interpreted of any worldly Prince or if it be so it is liker to the Presbyterian then to the Independent Government for the great Sanedrim was as it were our Nationall Synod both taken
from amongst their Brethren So were the Rulers over Thousands Hundreds Fifties and Tens answerable to our Provinciall Synods Classes and simple Presbyteries Under Augustus the Senate of Rome made Herod an Idumean King of the Iews And he as afterward some of the Governours and Proconsuls of Syria made and deposed the High Priests according to their pleasure so that all this time almost the Government of the Iews was ever Tyrannicall and so a punishment rather then any mercy of God here promised As for the Text Ezek. 27.8 it is not said That all things that are here related are mercies of God but that Tyrus gloried in them Vers 3. 2. Neither were they Governors of one Independent Consociation as amongst the Independents but here there were Superior and Inferior Iudicatories as amongst the Protestant Churches To that Text Ioel 2.17 Give not thine heritage to reproach that the Heathen should rule over them Wherefore should they say among the people Where is their God I answer This is only a Prayer that the Heathen rule not over Gods people and if there had been any of them tolerated among the people of God as M. S. pretends this Prayer would as well hold as if they had not been amongst them but had lived as strangers in other Countries and it appeareth cleerly by the Reason that is added Wherefore c. i.e. lest thy Name be dishonoured by such reproaches as if our God could not deliver us or as if we had not a God to deliver us And howbeit it were so great a blessing evermore to have Government within themselves yet can it not be meant of Independent Government in every Colledge or Consociation without any subordination to superior Iudicatories as M.S. hath to prove To the Text Deut. 17.15 One from amongst thy Brethren thou shalt set King over thee thou mayest not set a Stranger over thee which is not thy Brother I answer 1. That this is not a Morall but a Positive Law for in Elective Kingdomes they choose Strangers to be Kings and in so doing they sinne not against the Morall or the Law of Nature 2. That this Commandement is only conditionall grounded upon the condition conteined in the beginning of the Verse viz. That only they should establish him for King over them whom the Lord their God should choose 3. Neither was this Government independent in every Town or particular Congregation or without subordination as among the Independents but according to the Law of Nature and Grace with some subordination and dependence of inferior Iudicatories upon some superior 4. By a stranger here I beleeve that he meanes principally a stranger in Religion and consequently by habitation because it is added that is not thy Brother item because he was to have a copy of the Law to read it and learn to feare the Lord his God to keep all the words thereof which the Heathens could not doe Or 5. The reason may be because God was minded to tye the Crown to one Family viz. to that of Iudah 6. Neither was it lawfull for them to choose any Brother or Countryman of theirs but him only that was of the Tribe of Iudah at least after the Promise made unto David and that for a speciall Reason viz. to the end wee may know CHRISTS Descent c. After these silly Objections that this M.S. hath brought he objects to himself But Pastors and Elders of neighbour Churches are not to be looked upon as Strangers but as Brethren And he might have confirmed it for there is no distinction betwixt the Iew and the Greek Rom. 10.12 and answers That they are Brethren in respect of the unbelievers and yet have more of the relation of Strangers to them then those that were as it were of the same domestique Society with them and therefore subjection unto them must have lesse of the Blessing and more of the Curse then Subjection to their own A. S. I answer 1. in matter of Argumentation to prove a Categoricall and Absolute Proposition we use not these as it were or Metaphoricall termes for they are termini diminuentes and if it be only as it were Ergo it is not really 2. I pray you M.S. tell me if a man that is not of your Congregation and hath more Faith or at least professeth more then one of your Congregation What reason that he should rather be a stranger unto you or lesse your Brother in Christ then he who hath lesse Faith 3. Should not he that hath a greater union with Christ which undoubtedly he hath by his greater Faith have a greater union with you I see that he shall be least beloved of you who is most beloved of Christ and of whom Christ is most beloved 4. And so you esteem it a greater curse to be subject to those who have more Faith and a greater blessing to be subject to such as have lesse Faith and haply none at all Siccinè soles beare Amicos M. S. 3. Reason The Grant of Government and Rule within themselves unto Townes and Corporations was ever esteemed a matter of speciall Grace and favour from Princes and hath sometimes been purchased with great sums of money by the Inhabitants A. S. What followeth Ergo so must it be in the Church if ye conclude any thing at all 1. So you are the Disciples of Simon Magus 2. That Grant of Government within themselves was no Independent Government as amongst the Independent Churches for then they must have been Soveraigns 3. I retort the Argument In all such Priviledges of Incorporations there is evermore a Subordination of Government as among the Protestant Churches Ergo so should it be among you if you will imitate them or will have this Argument to make any thing at all for you 4. Neither could it be a speciall Grace if it be independent for Grace is only amongst the superior and the inferior dependent upon his superior 5. Such a Grace should take away the Subjects subjection and so of a Prince make no Prince for no man is Prince but he upon whom the Subjects depend CHAP. VII M. S. his fourth Reason answered M. S. FOurthly and lastly Reason it selfe faith he demonstrates Entirenesse of Government to be a sweet Priviledge and Benefit to a Particular Church A. S. Ans 1. As if all he had said hitherto were without Reason he now commeth to his Reasons which are very irrationall 2. It is sweet to the Flesh but not to the Spirit if a man be lead by the Spirit of God 3. If it be only a Priviledge Ergo it s a cleer case you have it not by Law M.S. 1. Reason to confirme this Assertion First in case a man be questioned he saves a proportion both of time and labour in respect of what he must undergoe if he were to make his Answer at a Consistorie further off A. S. Ans 1. He answers first in his own Parish in his own particular Consistorie and so saves his time
2. But in case he be there oppressed it is unjust that he should not have liberty to desend himselfe before another viz. a Classe which happily may be holden in his own Town or within one two or three miles of it which is more tolerable to him then to be oppressed by Factions as sundry times men are amongst the Independents as appeareth by Mr. Edwards Relation of the businesse touched in the Apologeticall Narration 3. What if there fall out sixe or seven such differences among your Churches and that particular persons desire some redresse of their Grievances before a Synod amongst you can ye not hold one Synod for five or sixe such Complaints Then in such a case they must all goe to the Synod out of their own Churches and then even amongst your selves ye find the same inconvenience that ye object to us If ye cannot but for every such Grievance there must be a particular Synod and your Messengers of other Churches must goe to the place then many in stead of one lose their time and labour 4. This Reason beats down as well the Government of the State And 5. the Government of the Church of the Iewes which was established by God himselfe And 6. the Proceedings of the Church of Antioch as of Ours Secondly saith M.S. the Proceedings against him in his own sociaty shall be regulated managed and ordered by his own Pastor who is a Father unto him in the Lord and who in all reason and according to the course of almost all constant experience is more tender affectionate and compassionate towards him then the Pastors of other Fhocks and those that are strangers to him Ergo every man should be judged in his owne particular Congregation A.S. This Argument destroyeth no lesse the Civill then the Church-Government for so it may be said that a man being judged by the Iudge of his own sown shall be more tenderly dealt with then before the Kings Councell 2. The Government of the Church of the Old Testament as I have already declared 3. The proceedings of the Church of Antioch that sent its Controversie to be judged at Hierusalem 4. That of the Independents themselves who in their Synods pretend to determine matters of Doctrine 5. I deny the Antecedent for when either the whole Church or any member thereof hath any debate with their own Pastor or two Pastors of one Church amongst themselves or two persons or two Pastors of different Congregations or two Churches are at odds one with another that will not hold 6. The Paster of the Congregation may affect more one of his own Congregation then another and so out of too much affection he may miscary 7. Things must not be carried by tender affection but by equity 8. If his own Pastor be more tender-hearted towards him he of another Congregation may be more indifferent which of the two is more necessary in a Iudge that judgeth between two parties 9. Pastors of other Flocks in a Synod are not altogether strangers to him since they are his Brethren and his Fathers in so far forth as they represent all the Churches of that Province or Nationall Synod The Example of Pharaoh that knew not Joseph is very impertinent for he was not a Pastor and know there is to acknowledge and affectionate a man but all the Pastors of the Church as I declared in my Observations have power to preach in all the militant Church and therefore are Fathers in the whole Church according to their generall Vocation so was none of those Pharaohs 10. In first Instance a man hath all that you desire before his Pastor Thirdly M.S. in substance saith that he shall be tryed and sentenced by those who may be tryed and sentenced by him againe which will teach them more moderation then a Consistory of standing Iudges Ergo he must be onely judged in his owne Congregation A. S. This Argument concludeth 1. against the Subordination of Iudicatories in the State 2. Against all sorts of Courts wherein he that is sentenced cannot sentence his Iudges againe 3. Against the Ecclesiasticall proceedings in the Old Testament wherein he that was sentenced had not evermore power to sentence his Iudge again 4. Against the proceedings of the Church of Antioch 5. Against that of the Independents 6. Such a proceeding of mutuall judgement out of feare to be judged againe will make the Iudgements partiall whereas they should be neutrall and it is no better then if one should say Sir looke you favour me this day otherwise expect no favour from me another day 7. We have no Consistory of standing Iudges but the simple Presbytery as you have 8. In our way we are judged by those who if they doe us wrong may be judged not by us who are parties but by higher and more impartiall Iudges viz. a simple Presbytery by a Classe a Classe by a Provinciall Synod and a Provinciall by a Nationall Synod And as for that Maxime Nunquam satis fida potentia ubi nimia it is very true if it be applyed to your Independent Authority in particular Congregations 4. M. S. fourth Reason is because it is a great encouragement to a man that is accused if he be tender fore-headed before those with whose person he is well acquainted and the contrary is a kind of oppression of such a man Ergo he must only be judged in his owne Congregation and Independently A. S. 1. In first instance he may be judged as you say 2. But if he will not stand to the sentence of his owne particular Presbytery and afterward be changed as you say into a stone he getteth no wrong but what he hath procured unto himselfe 3. But if his party acquiesce not but appeale yet may he have his owne Pastor at the Classe or Provinciall Synod to lay open his businesse and it is the duty of the particular Presbytery Session or Consistory to make good their Iudgement so as he needs not to feare 4. And it is the custome of our Presbyteries Classes and Synods in such a ease to have a care of such persons that they receive no wrong 5. This Reason as the rest striketh at the Kings the Parliaments and all Civill Magistrates Authority as well since they are not familiar with every Cobler 6. At the Ecclesiasticall proceedings in the Old Testament 7. And that of Antioch 8. I deny the consequence for these Reasons alleadged M. S. his 5. Reason is because in this Congregationall Government private Christians may see the judiciall proceedings in the Churth which will be a Schoole of wisdome and Experience But it is not so in remote Consistories A. S. What conclude you Ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Such an opportunity may be found in the Presbyteriall way in their Parochiall Iudicatories in such matters as require not silence 2. Neither is it fit that all sorts of Persons as women especially young Damosells and young men should heare all sort of businesses that may
be discussed in those Iudicatories 3. They have more in our way for they have our Confession of Faith and our Discipline written or in Print and may study it every day at home which is not usuall amongst the Independents who are never resolved neither in their Confession of Faith nor in their Government neither will they have any one common to all their Churches If private Christians desire more then this they may goe to the Universities 4. This Argument striketh at the Government of the State that of the Old Testament and at the proceedings of the Apostles Act. 15. and 16. M. S. his 6. Arg. in substance is that the Premisses whereupon Conclusions are grounded cannot be so well known and examined in Classes and Synods as in an Independent Congregation wherein the matter is passed Ergo it should be judged there and not in Classes Synods c. A. S. 1. This Argument as the rest concludes as well against the proceedings in Civill Iudicatories that of the Church of the Old Testament that at Antiochia and at Hierusalens as against the Presbyterian way 2. Amongst us the businesses are first examined before the Parochiall Presbytery or Session where all the Premisses may be as well tryed as in the Independent Congregation and in case of Appeale they may be carried to the Classe or Synod 3. What if the difference be betwixt two divers Churches or two persons of divers Churches and the premisses be Actions or Offences committed out of both the Churches then in such a case the businesse cannot be proved in any of the Churches what if the businesse need no proofe but be some scandalous Doctrinc M. S. addeth that for brevities sake he would not strengthen his Arguments as he might A. S. And in this we praise his prudence in publishing unto the world such frivolous Arguments yea that have not so much as any apparent probability in them Whether an Independent Government ought to be tolerated in this Kingdom TO the end we may proceed cleerly in this Question it is to be noted That by this Kingdom I mean the Kingdom of England wherein this Government hath never yet been received 2. It is to be noted That a Toleration is either positivè whereby Positively by Law Actuall Consent Approbation or otherwayes we receive or give way to any thing or negativè when neither by any Posicive Act Law Actuall Consent or Approbation we give way to any thing but onely actually we oppose it not make no Law against it dissent not reprove it not c. Again Both the one and the other is either of particular men or of Churches And again That of particular men either simply to enjoy their Consciences in not obliging them to be Actors in any thing against the light thereof or to give them leave freely to discourse upon all occasions with others concerning their Tenets yea though it were to seduce them 3. It it is again to be noted That by Independent Government I mean that whereby every particular Congregation is so governed that every Member thereof hath an hand in it and all the parts of it and so as not to acknowledge any Ecclesiasticall Power in this World above it The State of the Question then is Whether such Independents should have any Positive or Negative but principally a Positive Toleration not onely for their Persons but also for their Churches in this Kingdons wherein they are not yet admitted M. S. with the rest of his Sect the Brownists Anabaptists Antinomians Familists Arminians Servetists Socinians and other Sects in this Kingdom maintain the affirmative But the Orthodoxes stand for the negative The Reasons for the Orthodox Part may be these that follow 1. Such a Toleration cannot but open a door to all sorts of erroneous opinions M. S. denieth this Assumption for saith he by the same Reason he that receiveth one discreet Servant into his House must receive all Prince Ruperts Troops to rack and manger with him A. S. But M. S. understands not or takes upon him that he understands not my Argument for my meaning is not as he misconstrueth it That by the same Reason all other Sects must be admitted which is my fourth Reasonâ—â— a pari but that Independency being once received into the State it will per se and naturâ suâ of it self open a door to all sorts of erroneous Opinions which is an Argument not a pari as the other but a causâ ad effectum for if the Independent Churches acknowledge no superiour Ecclesiasticall Power and that the Civill Magistrate in good conscience cannot punish them then in case any or many of them fall into Heresie it will open a door to Heresie 2. M. S. answereth That a Toleration of Independency will be an effectuall means of chasing away of erroneous opinions A. S. This is but a strong imagination of M. S. which may as easily be denied by us upon our Reason here above alleadged as it is boldly asserted by him without any Reason at all As for that which he citeth out of my Book that I acknowledge them for men of Abilities sufficient enough to dispute their Opinions A. S. I have answered this sundry times 1. It is but a judgement of one man 2. But a judgement of Charity which howbeit it be Practically true yet oftentimes it proveth Speculatively false 3. It is not a certain but a probable judgement whereof he doth not well to brag so much 4. Howbeit they may not want Abilities to dispute probably yet may they want Abilities to demonstrate their opinions Theologically Yea neither all they nor ten thousand such as M.S. with them shall ever be able to bring any strong Argument for any one of their Tenets that they hold against us 5. If they have so great Abilities to dispute their opinions the Devill hath yet greater Cannot able Lawyers dispute very well a very ill Cause Know ye not what is said of a very able man Vbi benè nemo meliùs ubi malè nemo pejùs Truely ye dispute with such heat and ardency for the Independent learning and godlinesse that it seemeth almost the onely quarrell ye have against us whether ye be the learnedst and godliest men in this Kingdom or not You and they seem to maintain the affirmative at least concerning the last part of this Thesis if not both and scarcely see we any Book of Independency set forth wherein we see not great complaìnts that their Abilities are not high enough prized And what they say of their pretended piety all the World knoweth whereas your pretended Adversaries speak never a word but of the Cause unlesse they be provoked by the vain and exorbitant praises that ye ever and anon undeservedly bestow upon your selves 6. But how able soever you or they be yet for them it is cleer the Assembly hath divers times put them to a non-plus 7. And if they be so able what other reason can there be that they plead no
better their Cause fave onely that it is naught It is truely a strange thing that men of so great abilities should be able to say no more for themselves 8. And since you M.S. and they are so able will you or they I pray condescend to some private meeting with some of the Presbyterians that it may be seen who hath the best Cause and whether or no all your deep learning and great skill in Sophistications wherein ye so excell can set any probable shew or face of reason upon your opinions which ye hold to be no lesse then Gods revealed Word M. S. Answer 3. Better a door opened to all sorts of erroneous opinions yea and to many other inconveniencies greater then this then that the guilt of any persecution or of any evill entreatings of the Saints and people of God should cleave unto the people or State A. S. this M. S. supposeth 1. That the Independents are the Saints 2. And that in case they be not tolerated in establishing publikely their Church Government and other Tenets in despight of Church and Parliament both in the Church and State that it is no lesse then the guilt of persecution against the Saints drawn upon the State 3. That it were better that all the Heresies of the World and worse should creep into the Church then that they should not be tolerated but chastised in case they trouble the peace of either Church or state I answer That all that M. S. here sayeth are damnable untruths and that it were better that all the Independents of this World were in America and that ten thousand times worse should befall them then that the good Name of God should be dishonoured by filthy Heresies And if the Independents had any fear of God before their eyes and loved not themselves better a great deal then Gods glory they would rather desire with Moses to be scrap't out of the Book of life or with Paul to be separated from Christ then that Christs Church should so suffer or Gods blessed Name be so dishonoured A. S. 2. Reason It is dangerous for the State it may breed Factions and Divisions betwixt all Persons of whatsoever relation betwixt the Magistrate and the Subject the Husband and the Wife the Father and the Son Brethren and Sisters the Master and the Servant when the one is of one Religion or Ecclesiasticall Government and the other of another as ye yea to your no very great advantage have experimented it severall times The Son may refuse to receive any Communion with the Father and the Brother with the Brother to the utter dissolution of all naturall civill and domesticall bonds of Societie And the reason of this may be because the one may Excommunicate the other as daily Experience testifies M. S. The shadows of the Mountains seem Men unto you Judg. 9.36 A. S. So said Zebul the servant of Abimelech the son of the Concubine who by a conspiracy with the Schichemites was made King and afterwards murthered his Brethren and yet they were men viz. Wicked Abimelech with his Army and no shadows of Mountains M. S. would have us live in security and would rather tolerate Socinianism Arminianism yea Iudaism and Mahumetanism then that his own Sect should not be tolerated Of so large a conscience is he A.S. It may breed Factions c. M.S. But A. S. his may may possibly not come in an Age no nor in many Generations and would he have so many Thousands of the deare People of God as do Apologize to eat their bread in darknesse And he said heretofore that May commeth but once a yeere A.S. It is subtilly argued M.S. of you with your May but it is too much that such a May come once a yeere or once in an Age and better were it ten thousand of you should perish then God be so offended for it is a Maxime in Divinity Quodvis malum Paenae etiam maximum eligendum potius quà m minimum malum Culpae nam quaevis Culpa pejor quavis Poenâ 2. But I pray you learne of me that as impossibile morale in morall matters such as this whereof we dispute is not that which never but which rarely or hardly falleth out so is possibile morale idem quod facilè which easily and oftentimes falleth out and not that falleth out but once in an Age And that it falleth out so very oft we may prove it by the Divisions in France the Netherlands Germany Poland Transilvania c. What I pray transported the Crown of Swede from the Nephew to the Vnkle What moved a King of Spaine to consent to his own Sons death What is the cause of so great a War betwixt the Turk and the Persian And finally what is the cause of this our present War but the favouring of Popery the Negotiations with Rome our Agents there Father Con and the Popes Nuncio here 2. Ye are not so many Thousands as ye brag of save in London and a few miles about it your Sect I think may easily be counted by Hundreds and as for the remoter parts of the Kingdome they are unknowne Creatures to them 3. If they be so deare to God they can never qua tales suffer for so wicked a cause as for all Licentiousnesse in Religion 4. They need not to suffer if they will not be turbulent but quiet and submit unto the Lawes of the Kingdome and such an Ecclesiasticall Government as in Gods mercy shall be established in the Church What a sawcinesse is this that they will be content with nothing unlesse in despight of Church and State they may doe what they will 5. As for his Rhetorications in telling me that I am bred of Rocks and suck'd the milk of Tygers All that shall not hinder me to maintaine that the Independents must be subject to Order and Authority both Civill and Ecclesiasticall as other men are or else suffer for their turbulent humour M. S. I would know of him whether he deemeth himselfe to be of another Religion then the Apologists If so Candorem tuum A.S. in that malignant expression c. A.S. As for my Religion you may know it M.S. It is that which is declared in the Confessions of the Churches of Scotland England the Netherlands France c. But as for yours Sed vos qui tandem quibus aut venistis ab eris Quovè tenetis iter that I know not and consequently whether I be of your Religion or not Ye will have no Confession of Faith or Discipline but what you may change Fidem diariam aut ad summum menstruam such as you may change with every Moon But to come more neere to the Point I pray you set forth a Confession of Faith in the name of all the Independent Churches and subscribe all of you that ye will stand to it and then I will answer your Question If ye will not here I will give you the best satisfaction I can and it is this viz.
That not long since I heard one of the Ringleaders of the Independent Sect deliver this Doctrine in a Sermon at the Abby of Westminster viz. That to a saving knowledge of God it sufficeth not to know him in the Book of Nature or 2. as revealed in the holy Scriptures but that we must also know him as abstract from his Mercy and all his Attributes Now if this be a common Tenet of your Religion I must confesse I am none of yours My Reasons are 1. Because that if it be so rude people that know nothing of so refined Abstractions must be damned 2. Because to be saved it is most necessary to know God as concrete with his Mercy or as mercifull towards us in Christ 3. If I know God evermore under this refined abstraction from Mercy I must be damned 4. Because if I know God abstracted from his Mercy I know him out of Christ and out of the Gospel for God in Christ and in the Gospel is not abstract but concrete with Mercy 5. Because the knowledge of God as revealed in Scripture is sufficient to salvation Ergo it is not needfull to know him any otherwayes in this life 6. Because if I know God out of Scripture and abstract from Mercy it is a Knowledge without Faith for Faiths formall Object is God in Christ as revealed in Scripture and therefore it is a knowledge of God in Christ as revealed in Scripture and therefore there must be some saving knowledge of God without Faith 7. If a saving knowledge of God be of God as abstract from all his Attributes it must be a knowledge of God without any Simplicity and so of God as abstract from a pure Act. 8. As abstract from all his Perfections i.e. without all his Perfections 9. E. of God as abstract from his Goodnes and so as without his Goodnes 10. Of God as without Insinitie 11. Without Omnipresence 12. Without Immutability 13. Without Eternity 14. Without Life without Knowledge Science or Wisdome 15. Without any Will 16. Without any Love towards Mankind 17. Without Hatred of Sin or Sinners 18. Without Power or Omnipotencie 19. Without any Decree of Predestination or Reprobation 20. Without any Providence or care of his Creatures 21. Without Creation and so not as Creator For to know God as abstract from these Attributes is to know God as without them Now who dare say that to know God as abstract from all those Attributes or without them is a saving knowledge This is indeed an Independent saving knowledge independent on Gods Word on Christ on Faith and all Grace and consequently most gracelesse 23. To know God as abstract from all his Attributes is to know God as abstract from his Essence and so to know God as without himself or his own Essence or Being for Gods Attributes are not only eadem cum Essentid ut personae sed de Essentia de quidditativo ejus conceptu praedicatae ejus essentialiae and some of them quasi de specifico ejus conceptu from which God can no wayes be abstracted 24. If God be considered as abstract from all his Attributes it is no more a knowledge of God but some Idol of the Independents brains sicque habes meum candorem vestrum pariteratrorem Now let the Reader judge which of our two expressions is most Malignant M. S. his third Answer comes to this Grant them their desires i. e. A full liberty and they will bray no more then the wilde Asse doth when he hath Grasse A. S. 1. All Hereticks say as much yea the Devill would be glad to agree with God upon such terms 2. But God hath forbid the Church to tolerate you 3. In New England they of your Party will tolerate no Sects 4. And such a Toleration here cannot but breed all sorts of Divisions Whereas if there be one onely Discipline or Church Government established we shall have no Distractions at all 5. But how can I pray unriddle it me a Liberty granted to contest and quarrell one with another ever take away contestations and quarrells 6. If the Presbyterians be the cause of Divisions because they tolerate not you as you say so was Moses and Aaron for not tolerating Core Dathan and Abiron Your Simile of him who murthered the Duke of Burgundie will hold if it be applyed to your Sect otherwayes it is altogether impertinent and beside the present purpose M. S. his fourth Answer cometh to this That in case one Government were established it would breed as great or more Factions and Divisions then if a Toleration were granted A. S. This Argument concludeth as well against Moses in favour of Core Dathan and Abiron as against us for if Moses had granted such a Toleration to them and their Sect as the Independents are now Suitors for it would not have bred such Divisions And if the non-Toleration of it breed as great Divisions as the Toleration of it would have done what is the cause that this Toleration of your Sect breedeth so many injurious and calumnious Expressions against the Presbyterians What would ye not say and do had ye once gotten a Toleration To M. S. his fifth Answer That sundry persons of one Family in the City hear divers Ministers without any Division A.S. I answer That those Ministers are not of divers Sects or if they be without doubt it breedeth many Divisions and alienates their mindes one from another Neither can any Godly good man who is bound by duty to have a care of his Family but be grieved when he seeth his Children his Wife and Servants separated in affection from him and the Church wherein he serveth God and to eat at his Table in his House when they will not eat at the Lords Table with him in the House of God What ye say of a House of bondage if we were all under one Government it is most false For by the same Reason the People of God should have been in an House of bondage when they came out of Egypt and were brought into the Land of Canaan because that there they had but one Government So with you it must be an House of bondage in every State that hath but one sort of Civil Government I will not answer his vain vaunting in extolling his own Sect Onely I wonder that he is offended at us that we desire but one good Government what ever it be Is it ill to have but one good Government Wherefore does he plead for many ill Governments Wherefore will not those of New England admit many if it be so good If it be want of Mercy not to tolerate others how mercilesse were the Mercies of New England that would not tolerate Presbyterians no not in a corner of their Countrey when their Necks were put in the Pillories their Noses slitted their Ears cut and their persons imprisoned What M. S. sayeth of distractions of mindes under Episcopall Government it was not for want of a Toleration of all
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
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.
Communion 2. If you cannot shew any materiall difference in Doctrine and other things yea ye confesse your selves that it is not great ye cannot separate your selves from us in Sacramentall Communion and Discipline 3. Neither hitherto have ye shewn any practise in Sacramentall Communion wherein ye differ from us for we have no Idolatry among us and men openly vicious are not admitted to the Lords Table among us Neither can any particular man abstain from Sacramentall Communion in a Church upon pretext that this or that man is vicious for it belongeth not to him but to the Rulers of the Church to judge of particular mens lives whether they be in a State to Communicate or not No more appertains it to one particular Church to judge of the Members of another particular Church Wherefore that not being their Act it cannot be imputed to them and consequently they have no Reason in such a Case to be so scrupulous M. S. his second Answer is Howbeit they be bound to one Communion and Discipline yet would they be led to it by light and not by fear A. S. 1. There is light enough shewn you if ye wil open your eyes to see it And we desire you not to joyn in this Unity out of any fear of men but of God 2. Howbeit you cannot see the Light yet no Approbation Consent or Positive Permission or Toleration should be granted you to live in Darknesse much lesse to erect Schools and Synagogues of Darknesse 3. The Parliament and all good men I am confident will tolerate you in your Darknesse till Jesus Christ enlighten you if ye can be content to live in quality of private men and not erect Churches and Schools to blinde others Neither can they grant you any thing more for howsoever they cannot compell your Consciences yet mast they hinder you to undo other mens Consciences in sowing of your Tares and wilde Oats M. S. 3. Answer That duty which lieth upon all Christians to have but one Communion and Discipline among them is no Dispensation unto any Party or number of them to smite their Brethren with the fist of uncharitablenesse or to dismount them from their Ministeriall standings in the Church because they will not or rather cannot knit and joyn in the same Communion and Discipline with them A. S. 1. You are very ingrate unthankfull unto the Parliament and your Brethren of the Assembly Ye have experimented no uncharitablenesse from any of them Hitherto they have dealt with you in all meeknesse and brotherly affection 2. None of you have been put out of your Ministery for your Opinions howbeit many of you have merited it for your insolency and malepertnesse in erecting of new Churches and Sects against your own Tenets for ye maintain that a Church cannot be erected without the Magistrates Consent and the Right hand of Association of Neighbour Churches which ye have not had in your Churches here in Old England 3. But wherefore may not Sectaries be dismounted who mount so high at their own hand 4. If ye will not joyn with the rest the Churches of this Kingdom and submit to the Parliament and the Church of God here but be Eus per se Ens independens and have particular Priviledges beyond the rest of the Subjects ye may be gone and stay there from whence ye came ye may goe to New-England and mount as high as pleaseth you there Only trouble not the Church and Kingdome here and the Church and Kingdome will not trouble you there 4. The Church here doth you no wrong only she mainteineth that your Tenets are contrary to Gods Word and confesseth That if the Parliament will tolerate you it may but that in so doing their Iudgement is since they are commanded to give it that it is flatly against Gods Word And I may say such a thing might breed ill blood of Friends make Enemies and peradventure undoe the State and who knoweth if it should please God in his mercy to end this War but it might make a Sacrifice of all such as should have hand in it All Christians are bound in Conscience to oppose such Licentiousnesse and Libertinisme in Religion M. S. his 4. Answer is that those of his Sect are kept under Hatches and oppressed A. S. Unto this we have answered and in this they do as Children that weepe before they be whipt A. S. 14. If visible Churches have Disciplines or Government different in their Species then the Churches must be different in their Species also But the consequent is false Ergo So is the Antecedent So Churches have not different Disciplines and Governments The Connexion in my Argument is proved because all collective Bodies that are governed are differenced in their Species by their specificall Governments as we see in Civill Government in the Constitution of States Kingdoms and Republicks The Assumption is proved because the visible Church is but one Church in its Species M.S. jeeres jeasts and flouts this Argument he makes as though he helpt it but it is strong enough without his help the matter being sound enough and the Syllogisme in forme M. S. His first Answer is that from hence cannot be gathered that the Apologisme is not tolerable A. S. This is not the Conclusion that I have to prove for I never reade in Scripture or else where of any Ecclesiasticall Discipline or Government named Apologisme Away then with your new coyned tearmes of Apologisme and Quinque Ecclesian Ministers c. The Conclusion that I have to prove is this Presbyterians and your Independent Churches have not according to Gods word or should not have different Disciplines which any Neophyt in Logick can easily deduce by the power of Syllogismes For it is known in Logick that a Syllogisme that can inferre an universall Conclusion may inferre all the particulars of that universall Conclusion as when I conclude that all men have reasonable soules I conclude that Peter Paul and John have reasonable soules so then when I conclude here universally that no Church hath or should have different Disciplines Ergo Presbyterians Independents and other Churches should not have different Disciplines or Government I conclude there must be but one Church and one Government what ever it be If the Lord be God then follow him But if Baal then follow him So if Presbyterian Discipline or Government be Gods follow it if Independents Discipline be Gods follow it and no other Let not the Child be devided in two as the false Mother that had stolen the Child would have had it but let it live as the true Mother desired No more Pluralities I pray of Disciplines then of Benefices Let no man bargain about Government Let Gods Ordinance hold what ever it be and whereever Independent Government be whether in Aries Taurus Cancer or Capricorne ye may goe there and enjoy it peaceably We only speak of the Discipline of Christs Church in England what it should be M. S. It followeth not from hence
S. It is more like that learned men of great abilities should do so then ignorants that have not the abilities The Devill is learneder then they all and yet susteineth as absurd Opinions Divine Plato as learned as they defended the Community of Wives of Children and Goods Zeno did maintaine that there was no moving at all So did sundry great Philosophers maintaine great Errors and great Divines as Origine and sundry of the Fathers strangely mistooke sundry things If-they be so Learned I may say of them what an other said of a very Learned man Vbi bene nemo meliùs ubi malè nemo pejùs where they do well no men do better where they do ill no man doeth worse For Optima cum degenerant fiunt pessima as the Philosophers tell us If formerly I gave them so great praises it was out of Charity which they should not take in rigore justitiae And I must tell you that I have been grievously censured for that my Charitable judgement and that by very learned and godly Divines both here by word of mouth and by some others abroad by Letters which I could easily shew if occasion required What if my Charity gave them as great praises as they were capable of However it be great men may have great Errours what if there be a great Pride with great Learning since it is most certain that Scientia inflat Neither for all their Plea for the power of godlinesse amongst them above all the World and that they do what Flesh and Bloud can do in any juncture of time to come must they pleade that they are without sin I thought not that such praises would so have puffed them up as to have made them thus bragging in their Writings For if they answer not my commendations of them they affront me and then I shall pray them not to be proud of my praises but to merit them And I shall intreat others to pardon my mistaken Charity Bring not my Charity by any meanes for an Argument against me Beleeve I pray you that praises signifie rather the vertue that should be and that we expect of men then that that evermore is If you and they will not be such as I take you to be you must give me leave to take you for such as ye are As for the Protostants in France their example of Suing for a toleration of their Religion serves you nothing 1. For they have obtained it as I told you by the sword in fighting for their Protestant Prince against Papists 2. And their Discipline opens not a gate to all Heresies and Licenciousnesse as yours 3. And if they had had no greater difference with the Papists then the Independents say they have with us they had never been so mad as to have either fought or sued so long for it 4. They were compelled to Idolatry and to be Actors in the damnation of their own souls against the light of their Consciences but ye can say no such thing for your selves neither is it more reason that such Protestants as ye are should be rather tolerated by Protestants for your Discipline as I have sundry times said openeth a door to all Heresies and Corruptions that Satan can invent it is worse by consequence a hundred times then either Popery or Arminianism are formally As for your eminent deserts and merits 1. I know them not 2. As some Independents may merit and deserve well of the State so may others demerit as much 3. But no man can merit a licentiousnesse to be wicked and to bring a mischief upon the State and Church both such as a Toleration of all Sects and Heresies would bring If you cannot submit unto a common Government of the Church as others and live more humano it is against all reason that ye should be tolerated neither must Religion be framed according to your Accommodation as you pretend but your Accommodation rather according to Religion To your Demand about those that are of my Iudgement they needed not to be suiters for a Toleration for the Discipline that they suffered for was already established by Law As for the rest of this Section it containeth onely his proud Iudgement of my Reasons and some fooleries which I hold it not worth the while to take notice of To your secondly I answer that those of whom I say that sundry of themselves could not deny it c. are not the five Apologists but others Independent Ministers and some of the ablest among them whom I did entertain upon that discourse And M. S. himself telleth us Suppose that course or means which the Apologists insist upon be not in the eye of reason or humane conjecture a mean sufficient for such a purpose yet if it be a means which God hath authorized for the effecting it will do the deed Here he mistrusteth the reason and appealeth to Gods Word whereof we see nothing here 3. M. S. saith that they have shewn it from Gods Word but God and men it seems are not yet agreed to have it so generally seen as is to be desired A. S. Neither is it shewn neither can it appear Nam non entis nulla sunt accidentia things that are not have no Accidents neither can they be seen And what men can agree unto I know not for some times they dream that they see things that are not But sure I am that God will never agree that it be according to his Word And what you say of your hope all the Kings of the World cannot hinder you to hope for no man is without all hope but the damned souls in Hell Onely this I say That of your hope you may say O spes inanes M. S. To that where I say the refusall of a toleration will help to confirm the Churches and the people in the Truth He answers That he knoweth not in what truth Therefore I tell him that I mean the Truth of our Discipline and the Truth how intolerable is a toleration of Sects and of so dangerous a Sect And the reason is because that if ever the rest of the Churches or the People see so venerable and learned an Assembly condescend to such an absurd Opinion and Demand they will not beleeve that it is so absurd as it is For many men are led by Authority and take many things upon the trust of great men or when they see such an Assembly condescend unto such errours they will not be so diligent to enquire for the Truth as otherwayes they might be A. S. 21. Argument Neither can it viz. Toleration but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiasticall Government for a man being censured in one Church may fly to an other and being again suspended in that other fly from thence to another and so scorn all the Churches of God and their Censures and so this Order by necessary consequence will breed all sort of disorder M. S. Answereth 1. That he joyeth that I Prophesie that the Independent Government
I know not what M. S. meaneth by his strength here for he seemeth to say That it is strength of reason and then we deny the Antecedent for if they had any they should do well to shew it and not to vaunt of it 2. He is not confident to call it evident Ergo It is inevident and obscure Ergo It is uncertain if these reasons or strength be taken from Nature for in Nature all Reasons that are inevident are uncertain if he meaneth Reasons taken from divine Authority then he needed not to doubt in saying if not in evidence for all Arguments taken from divine Authority are inevident And the meanest Logicians know that Argumentum ab Authoritate ductum est inevidens inartificiale And Faith which is evermore inevident is such because that it is grounded upon Authority Heb. 11.1 M. S. 2. They i. e. Independents have a like if not a more considerable strength against that way of Government which they cannot submit unto A. S. Ergo What followeth They must be tolerated A. S. 1. Is this to argue to assume the Antecedent in both these Arguments so peremptoriously without any proof Truely a Midwife might have argued every jot as well I deny it and let the Reader judge of both our Reasons 2. I deny the Consequence for howbeit they had as considerable a strength of Reasons as the other way yet should not their way be admitted for if the other be already approved by Authority and the Independent way not yet admitted the old way which is as probable as theirs is not to be put away for yours For all Changes in Church and State are very dangerous unlesse some urgent necessity presse it 3. And there is something in their way which may easily overthrow all States and Churches wherein it may be admitted M. S. 3. They are by their fiercest Adversaries and Opposites themselves acknowledged ten times over for very pious godly and learned men Ergo They must be tolerated A. S. These men are almost mad in praising and in hearing of others praise their Piety Godlinesse and Learning as if this were the finis ultimus of this Sect Neither ever heard I of any Sect so foolish as this that is ever more trumpeting abroad its own praises We are holy we are pious we have the power of piety And all the World acknowledges us for holy men And there is none that have the power of piety or like to have it in any juncture of time to come as we have it These seem rather the Expressions of some distempered brain or at least of a man very vain then of any wise or godly Christian Wherefore instead of sparing of you and concealing some of these weaknesses of yours which I thought to have passed over in silence since I am put to it hear what I say to the Argument 1. I deny then the Consequence for howbeit some acknowledge you for such yet they are but very few who acknowledge you such 2. And yet it is but Tostimonium humanum which is onely a Topick or probable and no certain or necessary Argument 3. It is but the Testimony of one man viz. of A. S. whereof for any thing I know ye make little esteem 4. I deny That if A. S. commend you for some good Ergo Ye should be tolerated in your foolish and pernicious practises which cannot but in all morall probability overthrow the State and the Church of God There must onely be one Government admitted in the Church what ever it be whether yours ours or any other and that for fear of Divisions 2. As for the Antecedent indeed it was my judgement of Charity which suffereth long and is kinde envieth not vaunteth not it self as ye do is not puffed up as ye are that is not easily provoked thinketh not evil beareth all things beleeveth all things hopeth all things endureth all things 1 Cor. 13.4 5 7. But since that time having read M. S. his Book licenced doubtlessely by some Independent or some other disguised person so stuffed with these his impious Maximes against the Church the State and all Piety and with mine own ears heard some very dangerous Expressions of the Sectaries who passe under the name of Independents I have at least changed much or suspended my former judgement of them For Charity rejoyteth not in Iniquity but rejoyceth in the Truth I will not speak ill of your persons but if Master Edwards have such things under the Independents hands as his Book mentions as in Charity I am bound to beleeve he hath I am bound to think otherwayes then I have done of your Opinions And howbeit I had never heard or read any such things of the Independents yet it is too much for you Sir so proudly to insult upon a bare judgement of Charity Know you not that praises and great commendations of vertues are rather to shew what men should be then alwayes what they are Wise and godly men rest not so much upon other mens Testimonies as upon that of a good Conscience M. S. 4. Argument Independents have been at least the generality of them and so continue men of the most affectionate and with all the most effectuall activity and forwardnesse to promote the great cause of Religion Parliament and Kingdom Ergo Without all doubt they must be tolerated A. S. 1. It is a wonder how this man is not ashamed bringing so little reason for his Conclusion so to vaunt 2. This Antecedent is odious containing nothing else but a proud and impertinent comparison I should be sorry to go on upon this foolish way with him God knoweth who have most advanced the businesse or retarded it Truely it is the common speech of wise men that none but the Independent Faction retards Businesses in the Assembly 3. If the way to promote the businesse be to plead for impunity in favour of Gods Enemies of all Heretiques and Schismatiques this M. S. indeed then promoteth it as much as any man 4. As for the activity of your Faction ye are all but too active in those things wherein your pains were a great deal better spared M. S. his fifth Argument Independents are as deep in or if you will as much out of their Estates rateably for the support of this Cause as any other sort of men whatsoever Ergo They must be tolerated in their Religion and practises A. S. 1. And yet will he continue as the Pharisees did to publish with sound of Trumpet the Works of Supererogation of the Independent Sect. 2. Yea but what if many say that many of them have bettered their Estates by this War 3. I will not enter into contestation with this man about mens disbursements in this Cause for I never reckoned with them what was in their purses or how much they are now out of purse But it seemeth that M. S. hath calculated to a Farthing every mans Estate and what he hath laid out in this War If so I pray
That Conscientia erronea ligat sed non obligat an erroneous Conscience bindes a man so up that it hindereth him to do the good but it obliges him not to do the ill that it dictateth Neither is this the Question Whether an Heretick is bound to beleeve what the Magistrate willeth him to beleeve But whether he should have power to erect Churches against the Orthodox Religion as the Independents would And whether or no the Civill Magistrate can hinder him by his Civill Power from so doing Now the Argument proveth not the Negative part neither doth the Civill Magistrate compell private men to beleeve but not to trouble the peace of the Church in setting up of others without his permission M. S. his fifth Reason If the Civill Magistrate hath an actuall Coercive power to suppresse Schisms and Heresies c. because he is truely a Christian then Christianity changeth the propertie and tenour of his Magistracy and that for the worse for in vertue thereof he acquireth a power to crush his Subjects for the exercise of their Conscience yea to persecute the Saints which he had not before If so Christians have little reason to pray for his Conversion But the Consequent is false Ergo. A. S. 1. I deny the Consequence of the Proposition for both the Christian and Unchristian Magistrate have the actuall Coercive power howbeit they have not both actually the act of that Power for both the one and the other hath that Morall power in actu signato or the Remote power but the Christian Magistrate onely hath it in actu exercito i. e. The immediate Authority to exercise it because he hath or should have or is supposed morally to have all things requisite to the exercise thereof So is it not in a Pagan for he hath not the knowledge of the Gospel whereby he should exercise it nor the will to exercise it justly which is presupposed to it so he hath as it were potestatem sed caret usu potestatis as a Childe that hath a reasonable Soul and all the reasonable Faculties that a man hath but he hath not the use of Reason or of those reasonable Faculties he hath facultatem quasi ligatam as he who cannot see for a tye that he hath in his eye 2. I deny that Christianity changeth his power to worse for it is not as you say to crush good but to mend and reform ignorant and ill men and to chastise them Nulla enim potentia ad malum the Apostle telleth you that he is the Minister of God to thee for good Rom. 3.4 Rulers are not a terrour to good works Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power Do that which is good Vers 3. M. S. his sixth Argument That power is very dangerous to a Magistrate to own in the exercise whereof he may very easily run an hazard at least in fighting against God or in plucking up that which God hath planted or in pulling down that which God hath built But such is that power of suppressing Schisms Heresies c. Ergo. The Assumption he proveth it because the Opinions that he sees by other mens eyes to be schismaticall may be the wayes of God 1. Because the judgements of these men are not Apostolicall 2. Frequent experience shews that a Minor part yea an inconsiderable number of godly Persons in a Church may have the minde of God in some particularities before the Major part have it 3. It seldom or never falleth out that any truth which hath for a long time been under Hatches and unknown to the generality of Ministers in a Church hath been at the first and on the sudden revealed either to the Generality or to the Major part of them Ergo. A. S. I answer 1. to the first It is no more dangerous then the Magistracy it self so as if it be dangerous to own the Magistracy so is it likewise to own that part of it whereby in vertue of his Civill Power he ruleth the Church civilly and so all the Argument may be granted and the greater that the danger is to own it the greater a great deal should his circumspection be 2. If this Argument hold it will conclude no lesse against the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Government of the Old Testament and that of the Civill Magistrate of New England also 3. I may deny the Major for if he accept of the Magistracy it is a far greater danger not to accept this part of the charge for there is a necessity laid upon him in vertue of the Magistracy to accept it as the principall part thereof 4. The greater that the danger and difficulty be so much the greater is the vertue in exercising of it and the greater will the retribution be for it 5. It is not very dangerous to own the charge but not to exercise it faithfully 6. To the Assumption I Answer That it is but one of M. S. his may be 's quod nihil ponit in re The Confirmations of it also contain but may be 's Their judgements I grant you are not Apostolicall 1. But no more are the judgements of your particular Congregations 2. Or those of the King and Parliament or of any mortall men at least ordinarily and yet notwithstanding they are lawfull 3. Neither is it needfull that they be infallible but without fault onely To the second proof 1. It is but a may be which yet may not be 2. And it is extraordinary 3. And howbeit it were so ordinarily yet followeth it not that your Independents are such 4. If it were so Gods truth Ordinarily should not prevail 5. All Schismaticks and Hereticks who are few in number may say as much So Mistresse Hutchinson in New England I le warrant you said no lesse To the third 1. I deny that the truth whereof we dispute hath been under the Hatches as ye pretend 2. All Hereticks and Schismaticks say the same 3. And in all these his Reasons he argueth evermore a facto ad jus from the Fact to the Law and from that which is to that which should be and from that which may be to that which is The Authority of Gamaliel Act. 4. is but of a prophane Politician who would rule the Church and Religion according to Politicall Ends. M. S. 7. Reason That Power which was never attributed to the Civill Magistrate by any Christians but onely by those that had very good assurance that it should be used for them appertaineth not to him by divine right But that Coercive Power in matters of Religion for the suppressing of Errours Schisms Heresies c. was never attributed to the Civill Magistrate by any Christian but onely by those that had very good assurance that it should be used for them Ergo. A. S. I answer That if the word Power in the Major and Minor be taken for an Ecclesiasticall Power which is intrinsecall to the Church I grant you all the Argument neither concludes it any thing against us But if it
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