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
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
Services that those never sufficiently commended Princes of Your Illustrious House have done for the Cause of God they could not but prove very unthankfull both to God and to Your Highnesse And yet in such a case must not Your Highnesse for all that loose courage Your Cause is his Cause who is All-Sufficient And therefore Your Highnesse will do well to cast Your Self wholly upon him attending his good pleasure and I am assured that Your deliverance shall come in his good time which that he would be pleased to hasten So prayeth so hopeth so earnestly desireth he who is wholly resolved in all sincerity all his life long to remain Your Highnesse's most Humble most Obedient and most Faithfull Servant Adam Steuart How great is and wherein consisteth the Civill Magistrates power in matters Ecclesiasticall or concerning Religion CHAP. I. The State of the Question IT is an old trick of Hereticks and Schismaticks that when the Orthodox Churches oppose their novelties what they cannot get of the Church they travell to obtaine it at Court and therefore to arrive at their aymes they flatter the Princes of the earth and the Civill Magistrate in crying up the Civill and decrying the Ecclesiasticall Power and thus did the Arrians in former and the Arminians in latter times in whose foot-steps our Brethren the Independents at this present doe seem to tread and for this end they confound all things yea what ever is well said as may be seene by this their scratching and biting at my words travelling as they doe every where to confound what I have most clearely written Wherefore the better to shew this Authors fraud and guile and mine owne sincerity I will here set down what I said and what he opposeth Apol. Narr in speaking to the Parliament nameth it The Supreame Iudicatory severe Tribunall the most Sacred refuge and Asylum for mistaken and misjudged innocence A. S. The Parliament indeed is all this in Civill Causes but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion by Teaching or Preaching or Iudgeing of controversies of Religion nor any executive power that is intrinsecall unto the Church as in the Vocation Deposition and Suspension of Ministers in Ecclesiasticall Censures in Excommunication c. which are meerly spirituall but only an executive coercive and externall power which is not in but about the Church and for the Church whereby it compelleth refractory men to obey the Church And this Authority belongeth actually and in effect In actu exercito as they say jure in re to true Christian Magistrates but to others potentially in actu signato jure in rem till they become true Christians My Adversary here carpeth first at the word arrogate as if it were evermore taken in ill part and signified to assume proudly to a mans selfe A. Stewart But he might know that being a stranger and having lived the most part of my life abroad I am now and then constrained to take the words upon truâ—t yet for this word since he hath put me upon the perusall of my Dictionary I must tell him I finde no such thing as he saith there indeed I finde the words arrogant arrogantly and arrogancie to be taken as he such but not the word arrogate for it is turned in French S'arroger S'attribuer S'appropriâ—r and in Latine arrogo all which were taken in good part before ever Independency was in rerum natura but I will not let my selfe be caption fly drawne from the question by this mans Grammaticall sophistications If any thing were here amisse as there is nothing it will I hope be sufficient that I here declare that that was never my meaning I confesse they have more and better Language then I but I am content that my Reasons goe as farre beyond theirs as their Language beyond mine Afterwards in the same page he accuseth me of contradicting my selfe in following Propositions The Parliament has no directive Power by teaching Preaching c. The Parliament is wise enough to know what is convenient for the Church I answer and answered againe That every young boy that learnes his rudiments in Logick knowes that a Contradiction is only betwixt two Propositions which have the same Attributes which is not to be found here for the Attribute in the first is having no directive Power c. but in the second wise enough c. 2. Neither is it credible that every man who is wiâ—e enough to know what is convenient for the Church has a Directive Power therein in Preaching Teaching c. for the Independents have many amongst them in their Churches who have as much Learning three or foure daies before they be received to be members of their Church as three or foure daies after and yet before they were received members into their Church howsoever they knew well enough what was convenient for the Church had yet no Directive Power in it to teach c. 3. A little after viz. p. 34. § 2. this judicious Observator of Contradictions declareth ingeniously that he knoweth not what I meane by a Directive Power and yet here he telleth me that I contradicted my selfe but how is it possible that he should know that I contradicted my selfe in that that he himselfe understands not He knoweth not what things I pose and yet he findeth them opposed one to another I finde him here opposed to himselfe and in finding out a contradiction in my words he contradicteth himselfe and so taketh away this pretended contradiction Because he knoweth not what is a directive Power wherein he founds this imaginary contradiction he saith A. S. should befriend my intellect to tell me plainly and distinctly what he meaneth by a Directive Power in matters of Religion A. S. Wherefore if I cannot befriend your Will I will travell to befriend your Intellect not only in declaring you what is a Directive Power c. but also in expounding all the termes of this question learne therefore I pray you 1. That the Civill Magistrate qua talis is he who governeth the State qua talem I say qua talis and qua talem for it may fall out that he who is a Civill Magistrate to governe the State may also be chosen to governe the Church in quality of a Ruling Elder c. but that he doth not in quality of a Civill Magistrate for then he should not need to be chosen to be a Ruling Elder for in quality of a Civill Magistrate already he should have had that power 2. Learne that by the word Church I understand the Visible Militant Church both reall and representative in Church Officers viz. 1. In Sessions or Presbyteries 2. In Classes 3. In Provinciall and 4. In Nationall and 5. in Oecumenicall Synods but so that it must be taken sometimes for the reall Church alone as when we say The Presbytery ruleth the Church sometimes for the representative alone as when we say Tell the Church and evermore ratione subjectae materiae 3.
but to live together as Moses and Aaron both looking to one end but each one of them with their owne eyes the one with a Politicall the other with a Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall eye And this appeareth by those words of the Ordinance during this present Parliament or untill further order be taken Now if this Order were full what needed the Synod attend for a further Order Neither is there any man of judgement that can blame the Parliament in all this yea howbeit it should extraordinarily doe more in this extraordinarily miserable estate of Religion when now Sathan hath so manifest and palpable an entrance into the Church of God under so many ill-portending shapes as of Independents Brownists Anabaptists Socinians c. they had need take upon them for the defence of the Church more then in ordinary cases they doe 7. Only I adde a word viz. that these words as they pleased by plurality of Votes are not in the Ordinance but are an addition of M. S. in contempt of the Synod as if the Members thereof voted not according to Scripture but as pleased themselves And 8. that in case of difference in Opinion it is not ordained that they represent their Opinions and the reasons thereof to either or both the Houses to the end that they may judge of the matter but that they may finde out some further direction whereby the Assembly may judge it 9. Yea there is another Ordinance since the printed Ordinance whereby it is ordained that all things agreed upon and prepared for the Parliament should be openly read and allowed in the Assembly and then offered as the judgement of the Assembly if the Major part consent see how the judgement of the Major part of the Assembly is here declared by the Parliament to be acknowledged as the Decision of the Assembly which M. S. will not stand unto Object 9. In enjoyning them in case of difference of opinions between them to present the same together with the reasons thereof to both Houses they did every whit as much A.S. Answ 1. I deny that they who enjoyne in case of difference c. have an Internall power in the Church much lesse an internall Directive power 2. This injunctiō was not in reference to the Intrinsecal power of the Church which is evermore within the Church but to the Extrinsecall power about the Church i.e. to that of the Magistrate whose power is without the Church howsoever within the State and in so far forth as the Parliament by Civill Law intended to approve and confirme the Ecclesiasticall Law 3. Item it was to see if by any meanes and wayes of meeknesse it could perswade a few men of your Sect to submit themselves unto the Order and Government that God hath established in his Church as they have done you many other favours which you too much undervalue arguing from this favour as from a Law to that which is or should be ordinary Iustice And yet they ordained that what is caried by plurality of Votes in the Assembly should passe as the judgement of the whole Assembly Object 10. M.S. In their nominating and calling such and such Ministers and not others to be of the Assembly they acted the same power A.S. Answ That is also Extrinsecall since it was not in but out of and before the Assembly 2. And extraordinary 3. And yet very ordinate and ordinary for this extraordinary state of the Church in this Kingdome when such a swarme of Sects are crept in some comming from New England others from the Netherlands and others from other places For if every one of them should have had entry into the Assembly what should have become of us 4. Neither doth this prove any Directive power in the Church in teaching c. as I said that should belong unto the Magistrate M.S. Ob. 11. In framing the temper and constitution of the Assembly allaying it with such and such Members of their own they steered the same course A.S. Answ 1. This cannot conclude any Directive Ecclesiasticall power that belongeth unto the Parliament 2. These Members of their own who did sit in the Assembly if they had any Vote did not sit there in quality of Members of the Assembly for then every Member of the Parliament might have sate there but in quality of extraordinary Ecclesiasticall persons according to this extraordinary state and exigence of the Church 3. If they had no Vote at all and yet sate they were not Members of the Assembly but this was a speciall priviledge granted unto the Members of the House which in other places likewise is granted unto persons of meaner rank yea unto Strangers as we may see in the Church of Scotland in their Generall Assemblies 4. Or rather they sit there in name of the Parliament to procure by their Civill power the Externall order that should be in such Assemblies But this is no Ecclesiasticall or Internall power in the Church but Externall about the Church such as the French Kings Commissioners who are sometimes Papists have in our Protestant Nationall Synods in France and yet are not Members of our Synods there neither Vote they neither pretend they to have any Intrinsecall power there for then they should professe themselves thereby to be Protestants only they have power to oppose things that they beleeve to be prejudiciall to the King or the State 5. Neither beleeve I that they vote in points of Doctrine 6. And if they vote in matter of Government they doe it in quality of Ruling Elders either extraordinary or ordinary in vertue of some virtuall election made by the Synod or by the Synods toleration or approbation for no man can rule the Church intrinsecally but he that is intrinsecally a Church-Ruler or Officer as I have proved it heretofore M.S. Object 12. Lastly in their messages or Directions sent unto them from time to time how to proceed what particulars to wave for the present what to fall upon and debate To hasten the issue of their Consultations with the like What doe they else but claime and exercise such a Directive power in matters of Religion A.S. Answ To proceed to wave particulars to debate things and consult of them in the Assembly argueth an intrinsecall directive power proper unto the Church but to send Messages proveth it not at all to be in the Parliament but in the Church and that the Magistrate by his Civill power can command the Church to use its Ecclesiasticall power 2. For the Magistrate may command the like thing to every Guild or Common-Hall in the City touching their own professions Neither can it thereupon be inferred that he hath an Intrinsecall Directive power in such Trades CHAP. VIII Wherein are answered his 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. Arguments M.S. p. 37. § 1. Ob. 13. BUt if the Parliament have no calling from God to judge of matters between the Apologists and their Brethren the Assemblers I would willingly know who hath
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.
State in such a Case 2. The Ministers in the New Testament must proceed spiritually against all Delinquent and Impenitent persons as the Ministers in the Old Testament did against theirs according to Gods Word unlesse such a proceeding be abrogated in the New Testament 3. They must do as M. S. hath taught us as they do against particular persons in commensurating the punishments to the sins i. e. They must proceed by particular Admonitions and Censures against lesser sins in private or before the Presbytery by suspension from the Lords Table against greater sins by publike suspension or lesser Excommunication against greater sins and by the great Excommunication against the greatest sins 4. M. S. confesseth That the Apologists in their way do little lesse A. S. If so then they do a little worse then the Presbyterians and so they quit a little M. S. his own rule whereby he willeth them to proceed as against particular Persons 5. If all this suffice not it is the Civill Magistrates part to proceed against them as Troublers of the Peace of the Church and consequently of the Christian State and not to permit them to erect a new Sect as it is ordinarily practised amongst the Independents of New England 6. They must be punished for their Perjury and for the breach of their Covenant but none of those punishments can be inflicted but after sufficient conviction at least Morally in foro externo And such punishments are the fittest for them after such a conviction when they pertinaciously resist the Spirit of God for such men fear more the Gibbet then Hell-fire What you say of your second Chapter it is sufficiently answered What you say of Churches That they had need to take heed how they chuse men for their Guardians c. If by those Guardians you mean the Civill Magistrate it is not wisely said of you If Church-Ministers they must choose such as will delate pertinacious sinners to the Civill Magistrate To your second Question What if in the Session c. Answ 1. What if it be so in your Assemblies or Synods 2. If it be any inferior Ecclesiasticall Iudicatory they must remit it to a superior ever till they come to some wherein the Votes may preponderate And if in the supreme Iudicatory viz. in a Nationall Assembly the Votes preponderate not concerning the Excommunication of such a Church which is very extraordinary she cannot be excommunicated and yet if her opinion or sin be condemned the combined Eldership may inflict some lesser Spirituall punishment and if such a Church continue still pertinacious the Civill Magistrate may proceed against her in a Civill way as we have said Neither is this a compliance with Papists in quality of Papists but in so far forth as they agree with Scripture 1. For so proceeded the Church of the Old Testament 2. So proceeded the Church of the New Testament in the times of good Emperours as under Constantine the Great Theodosius c. 3. So proceed they at Geneva 4. So in the Netherlands 5. So the Independents of New-England 6. So should M.S. rather doe then to tolerate open Blasphemers of the blessed Name of God 7. Darest thou M. S. so openly plead in favour of Paganisme of all sorts of Heresies and mischiefs and for all sort of impunitie for them all 8. The Truth falleth not to the dust in such a case but sinne is punished but not in such a degree as it should be To the second Inconveniency that I object against the Independents § 4. viz. That the Independent Churches offended if they judge the offending Church they should be both Judge and Party M. S. replieth p. 80. § 3. When your combined Eldership proceedeth against a particular Church amongst you upon offence taken is not this Eldership as well Party as Judge A.S. My Argument implieth the Solution of this Objection viz. That the combined Eldership cannot be Party in such a cause because it hath an Authoritative power over the particular Church howbeit Spirituall and Ministeriall as the Parliament over particular Judicatories in the Kingdome but Parties look one to another as par parem and not as superior inferiorem 2. Neither can any man or Consociation take his ordinary Judge to Party unlesse he have some particular Exceptions against him 3. I propound you the same Question concerning the particular Tribes and the Synagogicall Judicatories amongst the people of God in the Old Testament when the great Sanedrim took offence at them or at their Iudgements whether the great Sanedrim was not both Iudge and Party Or rather whether under the notion of Offence taken it was not to be considered as a Party and under the notion of Authoritative power as a Iudge 4. I propound it of the State whether the Parliament may not be considered as Party being offended at any particular Consociation and as Judge in quality of the Representative Body of the whole Kingdome or if it be evermore needfull that some particular Person or Persons compeare in quality of Party against particular Consociations or Townes 5. In your particular Congregations may not your Church under divers notions be considered as Judge and Party or may every Delinquent take your whole Presbytery or Congregation to Party 6. Did not the Arminians serve themselves of this Independent Argument against the Synod of Dort to decline the Synods power and were not both they and this their Argument condemned by the judgement of the Synod as very absurd and unapt 7. This Argument concludeth against all the superior Powers of this World Again M.S. 1. telleth us that this Authoritative power of combined Presbyteries over Congregations is not from above A. S. But we have proved it to be from above and from God as Author of Nature and of Grace See the Question concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories 2. Core Dathan and Abiram objected no lesse against Moses and Aaron yea as much may be objected against God himselfe who is Iudge and Party and Iesus Christ who is Party and yet shall judge the quick and the dead For if Criminals may so escape they will not faile to take their Iudges evermore for Party M. S. To hold that all those that have an Authoritative Power over men may lawfully in vertue of such a Power be both Iudges and Parties is to exalt all manner of Tyranny c. by Law for so in Church and State men invested with such a power may be their own carvers and serve themselves of the estates liberties and lives of those that are under them how and when and as oft as they list Adde But the Consequence is false Ergo so is the Antecedent A.S. I deny the Consequence for they have not an absolute but a limited power according to Law and not to their own particular but publike will or in quality of publike persons whose wills are declared in or restrained according to Law Neither commandeth Carolus the Kingdome qua Carolus but