of the Christian Church 2. Because a Pagan qua talis knoweth not the Principles of Christian Religion and consequently wants the Directive power without the which he can never well or justly use the Imperative or Executive power 3. Because without the knowledge of our Religion he can neither direct nor act any thing about the Church or for the Church but by conjecture or guessing at it 4. Because God never ordained any such Externall power for Pagans about the Church 5. To end my answer to this Argument Where learned M. S. to desire him that denieth any thing to prove his negation Nonne Affirmantis est probare The Scripture conteineth not formall rules or testimonies of meere Negations or of things that are not but of Affirmations and things that are Now M.S. that affirmeth a thing to be might more easily have found authorities for it in Scripture if any such had been then we for things that are not It is enough for me to say that the Scripture that conteineth all things needfull to salvation conteineth no Extrinsecall power in actu exercito for Civill Magistrates that are not Christians M.S. But hath not then an Heathen or Heterodox Magistrate power to doe good to the Church A.S. Ans 1. The Heathen Magistrate hath a Naturall but not a Morall publique power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to doe good to the Church 2. Or if he hath it he hath it not in actu exercito as I have already proved 3. Or if he hath it so he hath it not to doe good to the Church in quality of a Church for neither can he know or love the Church in quality of a Church but of men or members of the State for the Church in quality of a Church is no wayes the object of his Knowledge or Will He may doe it as an Asse that carrieth the corne to the Mill or as Caiaphas who judged that one man must dye for the People but knew not what he said He cannot doe it by any power Intrinsecall to the Church as M.S. pretends And howbeit I should grant unto a Iew or a Pagan a Civill power to doe good to the Church both in actu signato and exercito yet from thence cannot be concluded an Intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall power belonging to a Iew a Pagan or to an Antichristian to rule the Church Internally M. S. p. 48. § 13. of this Chapter durst not answer A.S. what he meaneth by the Civill Magistrate upon whom he would seem to bestow such a power but in stead of Answer racketeth it back to him with jeering and babling But I answer him 1. that Quaestio Quaestionem non solvit one Question satisfieth not another 2. I answer that the Magistrate who I beleeve should have such a power in actu exercito must be such as is not a professed Enemy to the true Religion at least in quality of a Magistrate or in his Lawes And so it is false that M.S. saith of the King for in quality of King he hath professed Presbyterian Discipline in Scotland in as much as he confirmed it by his Authority so hath he done in England in favour of the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches so did King James by his Divines approve the Presbyterian Discipline at the Synod of Dort So M. S. sees how much he hath deceived himselfe in looking for 20 Distinctions of me to answer him to this Question We answer him candidè in all simplicity and feare not to declare to the World what we hold as the Sectaries doe M.S. p. 49. § 15. Was it not lawfull for them i. e. unchristian Kings to interpose with their Authority that the Churches of Christ in their Dominations might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie If not then was that exhortation 1 Tim. 2.2 to be laid up in Lavender for some hundreds of yeers after it was given or else the benefit and blessing the obtaining whereof by prayer is made the ground of the exhortation must have been made over in the intentions of those that had so prayed unto their posterities after many generations A.S. 1. This Argument proveth not that any Magistrate either Christian or other hath any Intrinsecall power in the Church either Directive or Executive 2. It proveth not that an unchristian Magistrate hath any power in actu exercito in the Church 3. As for that Text 1 Tim. 2.2 the sense of the Text is that we should pray for the conversion of Kings to the Gospel which appeareth evidently by the Apostles reason v. 3. 4. For saith he this is good and acceptable in the sight of God v. 4. who will have all men saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth And another reason v. 6. For Christ gave himselfe for all men And another v. 7. Because the Apostle is a Preacher of the Gospel to all men Now these words That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and Piety expresse finem intentum sed non eventum not the Event but the End intended by the Christians who prayed for they obteined not in those times a quiet or a peaceable life under the Heathen Kings 2. Neither prayed they here that any Nero should have had the Government of the Church in his hand for they obeyed him not neither in Doctrine nor in Discipline M.S. p. 50. § 17. doth nothing but repeat what he hath said viz. That the Civill Magistrate in taking away Superstition and Heresie had need of some other security then the Synod can give him A.S. The Civill Magistrate as a Christian man must learne Gods will by all the meanes that God hath appointed him viz. 1. By reading of Scriptures 2. Comparing one Scripture with another 3. Conferring in private about Scriptures of any difficulties he hath with other Christians of whom he may learn any thing 4. Hearing of Sermons 5. As a Magistrate he must have a Politicall prudence and knowledge of Scriptures to direct him in judging about Superstition Heresie and matters of Religion 6. He must serve himselfe of prayer and all the rest of the meanes that God hath ordained him 7. Neither say we that he must be directed by a Synod alone This is one of the meanes that God hath ordained him in his Providence but not all as this M. S. falsely would perswade the Reader if he be not altogether impertinent Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be any Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories CHAP. I. Containing the State of the Question TO the end we may the better and more easily resolve this Question it will not be amisse to note concerning the word Church 1. That we mean not here the Triumphant Church in Heaven but the Militant upon Earth 2. That it is not meant touching the invisible Church viz. The Church of Beleevers compounded of men and women endowed with Justifying Faith which is invisible to us but of the visible Church
Ecclesiasticall persons can preach or excommunicate Neither can the Civill Magistrate or any other exercise such acts Or Extrinsecall i. e. about the Church but not in the Church in quality of a Church as when the Civill Magistrate maketh Lawes concerning the Church in confirming or ratifying her lawes in making them to be received as well in the State as in the Church So Justinian declared that according to the Evangelicall doctrine and Apostolicall discipline all men should be called Christians otherwayes that they should be declared distracted and infamous persons and that they that were punished spiritually by the Church should afterwards be punished civilly by the civil Magistrate as we may see in the first book of the Codex tit de summa Trinitate tit de sacrosanctis Ecclesiis tit de Episc Cler. Orphanotroph And through all the first thirteen Titles of that book and elswhere in the Civill Lawes But this power to judge command and punish is not Ecclesiasticall but Civill CHAP. II. The first Conclusion about the Intrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate in the Church THis being presupposed I put my first Conclusion thus The Civill Magistrate qua talis or under the notion of a Civill Magistrate hath no intrinsecall power in the Church 1. Because the Scripture which Independents acknowledge for the only rule of Church-Government conteineth no such thing 2. Because his authoritie qua talis is not Ecclesiasticall but Politicall or Civill Ergo qua talis it is not intrinsecall to the Church 3. Because such must be his power or authoritie in the Church as the acts thereof at least in genere morum or morally But the acts of his power as to punish refractorie persons in a Civill way by imprisonment pecuniary mulcts c. are not intrinsecall yea no wayes Ecclesiasticall Ergo no more is his power or authority 4. Because the authority that is intrinsecall unto the Church must be exercised by Ecclesiasticall persons But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate The Minor is certaine because it is only to be exercised by the Civill Magistrate or his officers and not by Elders of the Church as when he imprisons any man for his disobedience unto the Church or puts Apostates or some abominable Hereticks to death as Servet c. And it is a certaine maxime that Ecclesia nescit sanguinem as may appeare by sundry Canons of the Canon Law Ergo The Major is indubitable because the power and the exercise thereof belongeth unto the same sort of persons 5. Because the Civill Magistrate himselfe qua talis is no Ecclesiasticall person or Intrinsecall unto the Church since he may be a Pagan how then can his authority be Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall unto the Church since the authority of a person out of the Church qua talis must be Extrinsecall or out of the Church 6. Because the object of the intrinsecall power of the Church is principally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things that are spirituall or for spirituall ends But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate since oftentimes he knoweth him not as when he is a Turk or a Pagan 7. Because this opinion confounds the Kingdome of this World with that of Christ in granting unto the Civill Magistrate the Intrinsecall power of the Church which Christ only granted unto the Ministers therof viz. unto Preachers Teachers and ruling Elders But so should it not be for Christ distinguished these powers when he commanded to give unto God that which is Gods and unto Caesar that which is Caesars Mat. 22.21 8. Because the immediate rule of the intrinsecall power of the Church is only Gods Word formally by consequence or presupposition so is it not in respect of the Civill Magistrates power which is immediately and formally ruled by the Lawes of the State Ergo the Civill Magistrates power is not intrinsecall unto the Church 9. The intrinsecall power of the Church is only Ministeriall no wayes Despoticall Imperiall Regall Majesticall or Majestie So is not that of the Civill Magistrate in taking the word in a large signification as it is sometimes for the supreme and subalterne Magistrate For the power of the Civil Magistrate at least in the Supreme or Prince is not Ministeriall but sometimes Despoticall or Lordly sometimes Imperiall sometimes Regall sometimes Aristocraticall sometimes Democraticall and evermore Majesticall Ergo The Assumption is certaine so is the Proposition for they who have this intrinsecall power in the Church are only Christs Ministers and Servants 10. Because as we said heretofore not only the Civill Magistrate sometimes is not a member of the true Church of Christ but is a member of the Antichristian Church yea sometimes not so much as Christned or a Christian by name as the Tuck the Emperor the French King and some others who by maxime of State have made some Edicts in favour of true Christians for the exercise of their Religion But how shall he that is not in the Church that is no true Christian yea that is an Antichristian Christian yea not so much as a Christian by name but an open Enemy to the name of Christ as Herod Nero Dioclesian Julian the Apostate that are externall unto the Church have any intrinsecall power in the Church 11. Because the Civill Magistrate hath no intrinsecall power either directive or executive in common Trades as that of Brewers Shoemakers Carters Watermen c. whose trades are within the reach of Nature and which he directeth only extrinsecally Neither knoweth the King how to brew how to make shooes c. neither can he brew or make shooes How much lesse then is it needfull that he have any interne power either directive or executive in Ecclesiasticall matters which are altogether spirituall and supernaturall above the reach of all naturall prudence and quite out of the sphere of his activitie 12. By the same reason the Civill Magistrate should have an internall power both directive and executive over all Oeconomicall Societies under him viz. over the Husband and the Wife the Father and the Son the Master and the Servant He might direct them in their duties and execute their charges intrinsecally and so doe the duty of a Husband of a Father and Master in all things in every mans familie which could not but be found very absurd impious and altogether intolerable Heretofore the Independents did as much as any men complaine of such an absolute and independent power in the King How then is it that now they grant it 13. If such an intrinsecall power in Ecclesiasticall matters be a part of all civill Magistrates power then the Magistrates who have it not are not compleat and perfect Magistrates since they want one of the principall parts of the civill Magistrates power viz. The intrinsecall directive and executive power in Ecclesiasticall matters But the consequent is untrue yea criminall and trayterous for many Pagans Antichristians yea in concreto and in sensu composito have a full
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
we bring passages of Scripture to prove our Opinion that they answer us that they are of Extraordinary things and practises unlesse the Scripture â—â—clare them to be such or that they go beyond the generall Rules commanded in Scripture 3. Because here the proceedings are conforme to those that we have in other Scriptures as in the Old Testament c. As for the Reasons to the first I answer that it cannot be proved that it was extraordinarily gathered 2. And howbeit it had been extraordinarily gathered yet the proceedings therein might have been and were ordinary 3. Because the gathering or indicting of an Assembly is Extrinsecall unto an Assembly and antecedent to it and therefore cannot make it Intrinsecally extraordinary in its proceedings 4. It is onely circumstantiall which cannot make it extraordinary quoad substantiam sed quoad modum and that modus also is Extrinsecall and not so much a manner of being of the Assembly as of him or them who indict or gather it To the 2. Extraordinary Persons who gather an Assembly are not sufficient to make an Assembly extraordinary 1. For then all the Churches gathered by the Apostles had been extraordinary which is most false 2. If they made it extraordinary they must have imparted unto it some extraordinary quality which they did not or at least which appeareth not from Scripture and so it must be holden as if it were not for Scripture is onely a Rule to us in that which it sayeth and not in that which it sayeth not To the 3. Because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons viz. Apostles This answer satisfieth not the Argument 1. It is ridiculous to call all extraordinary that maketh against them 2. Because it was not compounded of the Apostles alone but also of the Elders vers 2.3 3. Because not onely the Apostles but also the Elders judged the businesse v. 2.3 4. Howbeit this Appeale was to the Apostles yet was it not to them in quality of Apostles neither are we bound to beleeve it since the Scripture hath no such thing of it 5. If it had been to the Apostles in quality of Apostles or men who were infallible then could they not have appealed from Paul at Antioch to the Apostles at Hierusalem since he was as infallible at Antioch as they all at Jerusalem 6. The judgement of the Elders had been superfluous for the judgement of the Apostles alone and their Letter alone had sufficed as Canonicall Scripture to direct them at Antioch in their Proceedings What needed they adde a fallible judgement to that that was infallible or mans judgement to Gods and yet they contented not themselves with that of the Apostles alone 7. If this Assembly at Jerusalem had been extraordinary and infallible because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons viz. of Apostles Ergo. so was that of Antioch because there was St. Paul an Apostle 8. By the same reason it must have been ordinary and fallible because it was compounded of ordinary and fallible persons viz. the Elders 9. If the Apostles had been there in quality of Apostles and infallible Ministers what needed they so long to consult and dispute in the Assembly v. 10 A simple Decision without any Consultation might have sufficed for Disputes and Consultatioâ—â— amongst men are not of things which they hold altogether certain and out of doubt but of things uncertain and doubtfull 10. I deny the Consequence viz. That if a Councell or Assembly be compounded of extraordinary Persons Ergo it is extraordinary for by the same reason if there were seven or eight Apostles dineing or sleeping together it should be an extraordinary and Apostolicall dinner or sleeping 11. Neither are all things that are done by extraordinary Persons extraordinary for the Apostles did eate drinke and sleepe neither yet was that Extraordinary Eating Drinking or Sleeeping but ordinary as in other men 12. Because the Apostles were materiall parts or members of the Assembly their gifts as infallibility and offices were personall and denominated themselves onely and not every Assembly wherein they were or might be for as the Forme that denominateth their persons belongeth onely to them so doth the denomination proceeding from it 13. Because the parts of Assemblyes and Consociations may have contrary Formes and denominations secundum entiatem as we see in Republicks for the whole Republick may be rich and potent and the members thereof very poore because of the great Tributes they pay to the State and the Statepoor and the members or Subjects rich because of the Subjects great Trading and profit and their small Contributions to the State So in the Church in an Ecclesiasticall Assembly of Prophets as that of Achab there may be one Prophet infallible yea if there had been 400. yet that Councell had been as it was fallible because of the Plurality of the votes of the false Prophets so an Army of 40000000. of Pigmees and Dwarfs is a great Army and every one of them a little man To the 3. I have already answered To the 4. Answ 1. It was not to the Apostles in quality of Apostles as I have proved it 2. Because it was also to the Elders 3. I deny the consequence for by the same reason it should be ordinary since it was to the Elders who were ordinary Ministers To the 5. 1. I deny the consequence for all things that were in the begining of the Church were not extraordinary since many of them continue now as ordinary 2. Because if it be extraordinary because it was in the beginning of the Church Ergo all that we have in Christian Religion must be Extraordinary since there is no thing in it but it had a Beginning so Faith Justification the Sacraments and all the Ordinary Ministers of the Church should be extraordinary since they have a beginning with the Church 3. Howbeit it was Extraordinary in respect of Time as all things at their first Beginning yet was it not Extraordinary in respect of Gods Law which ordains it to be ordinary Answ 3. This Argument may be other wayes eluded in saying that this businesse was not judged at Hierusalem by way of Appeale but by way of Councell not by Judges but by Friends and Brethren Rep. But this Evaston is no better then the rest 1. Because the Text conteineth no such thing and we cannot take it upon their word no more then they will take it upon ours unlesse we prove it as we here doe 2. Because heretofore we have shewn many yea almost all the conditions necessary to an Appeale whereof the rest may be inferred by necessary consequence 3. Because S. James who as some Divines conceive was the Moderator or Praeses of the Assembly saith not My Counsell is but My Sentence is which is not the stile of a Counsellour to a friend but of a Judge 4. The Judgement in the Text is called a Decree 5. If it had been but a Councell the Pharisees might as well yea more easily have
he sayes in the next § of my feare it is a just feare grounded upon experience But M. S. Replyeth 1. That some Independents hold that all Sects and Opinions are to be Tolerated as A. S. relateth Ergo In that case his Sect may be secured also A. S. I Answer to the Antecedent And that We feare also viz. That ye would Tolerate all Sects which we will not Tolerate 2. VVe cannot be secure among all Sects for there be some that will not Tolerate us 3. Ye speak so but for the present but if ye had power we know not what ye would do It were better not to Tolerate Sects when we can hinder them then to bring them in amongst us to tolerate us and to give us so just a cause of feare 4. I said onely that there be some of you who would Tolerate all Sects who peradventure are the far lesser part and should not prevaile in their Voices 5. And we know not upon what tearmes they would tolerate us if they were the strongest 6. Neither can your pretended probity secure us we see the Examples and have the experience of your mercilesse Pitty in New England ye are all ejusdem farinae and Caelum non animum mutat qui trans mare currit And what I said of your Piety it can serve you little 1. For I spake but of a few of you viz. of the 5. Apologists 2. Because it was but a judgement of Charity wherein I may be deceived yea wherein I have been deceived 3. Good men sometimes may for want of light be dogged enough to use your own tearmes as ye grant your selfe of your New England Independents Unto his 3. Reply That a poore Toleration is far from Superiority it is true But from a Toleration it is to be feared ye goe further And if ye can get the Civill Magistrate drawn into your Faction as in New-England ye may be as dogged in a short time as they are To the 4. Reply That he thinketh not that I know any such Island It is a wonder that he knoweth it not as well as I but it is little to purpose No more is his Answer for it is but a currish jeere and toucheth not the Argument at all He puts in 5. a Jeere for a Reason God have mercy on the silly Argumenter A. S. My 17. Argument was That the Scripture forbiddeth all Toleration of Sects Revel 2.20 1 Cor. 1.12 3.3 11.16 18 19 20. Heb. 10.25 Gal. 5.12 M. S. his 1. Answer The Scripture doth not forbid all nor any such Toleration as the Apologists desire And remitteth us to his Answer unto my 15. Reason And I remit the Reader to my Reply To the Text of the Revelation 2.20 he saith That by the Toleration of Jezabel is not meant ◠Civill or State-toleration but an Ecclesiastique or Church toleration A. S. Howbeit formally there only be meant an Ecclesiastique Toleration yet by Consequence it reaches to a State Toleration 1. For whatsoever the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the Church that the Civill Magistrate or Senate is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the State since he is a Nurse of the Church and a Keeper of the two Tables 2. And so did the Judges and the Kings of Gods people 3. And so doe the Christian Independent Magistrates in New-England 4. Neither is the Christian Magistrate lesse bound to put it out of the State then the Presbytery to put it out of the Church 5. And I would willingly know of the five Apologists their judgement upon this Point neither beleeve I that they dare say or at least doe beleeve that he is not bound to suppresse all sort of Sects that creep in into the Church when the whole Kingdome professeth the true Religion and Discipline 6 However M. S. say that they desire only a toleration for themselves and their Churches in the State yet he pleadeth for a toleration for all Schismaticks Hereticks and Idolaters that may spring up either in their own or any other Church 7. Neither can the Civill Magistrate if he follow Gods Word grant a Toleration without the consent of the Church if he judge it is not corrupted 8. And a Magistrate should be worse then mad that should permit a Sect to come into the Kingdome to preach down the Gospel which he beleeveth 9. Neither can he be Orthodox and tolerate a new Sect unlesse he tolerate us to believe that he is either corrupted by monies or some other way so to doe M.S. his 2. Answer p. 105. is That since only the Church of Thyatira is here charged with this Toleration evident it is that the power of redressing emerging enormities in a Church in every kind is committed by Christ to every particular Church respectively within it selfe and so that they must be cut off only by the particular Church which is troubled by them if there be no remedy otherwise A.S. 1. At least then thus much I gaine by this Argument as you confesse That a particular Church must cut off such as trouble her and consequently is bound not to tolerate them 2. For the same reason other Churches must not tolerate them since they are all sister-Churches Ergo no Church must tolerate them Ergo no member of the Church must tolerate them If no member Ergo the Civill Magistrate in quality of a member of the Church must not tolerate them or he must tolerate them against his Conscience And what he cannot tolerate in the Church as a member of the Christian Church that can he not tolerate in quality of a Christian Magistrate in a Christian State if he can hinder it And if he hath power to punish such as trouble one particular Church how much more hath he power to punish such as trouble all the Churches in the Kingdome as Schismaticks and Hereticks The Civill Magistrate then by consequence may cut them off from the State As for that Question which M. S. moveth here about the Independent power of particular Congregations it is not to the purpose and we discusse it more at large in its own place A.S. There must be no such speeches among us as I am of Paul I of Apollos c. M.S. We joyn heart and hand with you A. S. And I with you so they must not be tolerated when they can be hindred M. S. addeth here a But 1. Every man that saith I am of Paul or I am of Apollos is not to be taught to speak better by fining imprisoning un-Churching or the like but by soundnesse of Conviction A. S. I answer as I have sundry times done Sinners according to the Doctrine of our Churches are 1. To be heard 2. To be sufficiently convicted 3. After sufficient conviction if they be pertinacious to be punished condignely by Ecclesiasticall Censures viz. suspension from the Lords Table or Excommunication And afterward the Civill Magistrate is to doe his duty
they have entred into the same Covenant stand equally obliged to reform Religion according to their power Now God hath given them the power to reforme it in punishing Hereticks and Schismaticks according to their demerits which if either We or They doe not we are forsworne and God one day will call us to an account CHAP. IV. Containing our Adversaries Evasions NOw what sayes M. S. to all this who was so desirous of some proofes from Scripture His first Answer is That A. S. bringeth those Examples for want of better Arguments A. S. Rep. 1. And so he jeereth Gods Word 2. Wherefore are not Arguments drawne from Gods Word good enough in matter of Religion 3. These Examples are approved in Scripture and therefore may very well have the force of a Command M. S. 2. His second Answer is that none of the good Kings of Iudah ever offered any violence to the true Prophets of the Lord. A. S. Repl. Neither say I any such thing only I say they had a Royall or Politicall Power which was extrinsecall unto the Church or of another nature as your Apologists speake to conserve the true Religion and in case of corruption to reforme it M. S. his third Answer proves nothing for the persecuting annoying crushing disgracing banishing fining the Apologists whom himselfe more then once or twice acknowledgeth for very Pious Godly and Learned men A. S. Neither bring I them to prove any such thing I hope they shall prove no false Prophets Hereticks Schismaticks to be so dealt with 2. Only I bring these Passages to prove that the Civill Magistrate may and is bound in duty to punish all false Prophets Hereticks and Schismaticks whoever they be And howbeit they could perchance finde favour enough to establish themselves in one time by a Princes Authority yet notwithstanding all that another or the very same Prince upon better information yea or a subsequent Parliament may nay ought to revoke any such favour so granted them and to punish the Sectaries as those good Kings did Whereas he saith that I acknowledge the Apologists for Pious Persons I Answer Heretofore I judged so of them by a judgement of Charity which beleeveth all things but I would pray him and them both under pretext of such a charitable Iudgement of mine not to be too licentious in broaching or publishing of erronious Opinions least they make me to write some Booke of Retractations which he and they will certainly force me to doe if they continue Neither shall I be ashamed if they deceive me but I hope better things of them And God forbid that they should goe on upon his violent course rather to sufferdeath then to change God change his heart and I hope in his Mercy he shall doe it M. S. 4. He saith Neither did any of those Kings ever compell any man to the Iewish Religion nor yet to professe the Iewish Religion against their judgements A. S. They could not compell their heart or will but at leastwise they hindred them from the Externall Acts of idolatry and other Religions so far forth as death could hinder them as appeared from all those Texts They could also compell their externall actions read the members of their body to give no offence unto the Church of God If they could not cut off an ill will yet could they cut away an ill tongue M. S. 5. Answereth It was permitted to Persons of other Nations to live amongst them without being Circumcised yea or without smarting for want A. S. But he bringeth no Text of Scripture to prove that when the Iewes were a free people and had good Rulers they then permitted any such uncircumcised men to live amongst them 2. Neither doth this any thing against my Argument which only proveth a Politicall Power in the Civill Magistrate who is Extrinsecall to the Church whereby he might punish Idolaters false Prophets and Priests for their Idolatries false Doctrine and Worship 3. If he did it not he sinned against the Covenant 4. However such might live amongst them for some time uncircumcised yet could they not be Inhabitants or true Denizens without Circumcision 5. Much lesse was the Religion of uncircumcised Persons tolerated amongst them in the times of good Judges or Kings as appearech by all those Texts 6. But least of all had they power to write Bookes against their Religion as the Independents doe here in face of the Parliament and the Assembly against ours 7. Yea they could not so much as take a stranger to their Wife as we read Ezra chap. 9. and 10. and in the Covenant Neh. 10. ver 30. and 13.23 24 25. where it is said that Nehemiah smote them for such Marriages and pluckt off their haire v. 27 28. And Ezra chap. 10. made them to put away their strange Wives and such as were borne of them Wherefore then may not the Christian Magistrate doe as much M. S. 6. Answ Nor doe we ever read that ever they attempted any thing against any Sectaries or Schismaticks as A. S. would call them which yet abounded in great variety and numbers amongst them as Scribes or Pharisees or Herodians or Persons of any other Sect in the Profession of the Iewish Religion that lived peaceably in their State Idolatry and Idolaters were as it seemes the adequate Object of their coercive power in matters of Religion A. S. Repl. But we read that they attempted something against false Prophets if death be any attempt against them as all the Texts cited by me shew evidently 2. I deny your Consequence we read it not Ergo it was not for we cannot argue à testimonio negativè yea not of Scripture unlesse it be in things necessary to salvation such as are not Histories of particular facts 3. The cause wherefore we read it not is because under good Iudges or Kings they were never tolerated ill Kings would not punish them but their examples are not to be drawne in Consequence 4. As for the Scribes Pharisees and Herodians no wonder if they were not punished 1. For these Sects begun very late not long before the comming of Christ when the Religion was mightily corrupted which Christ came to reforme 2. Because the Iewes were not then a free people neither had they the Civill Power absolutely in their owne hands 3. They had no good Rulers 4. No more were the Sadduces punished who denyed Gods Providence the Resurrection of the Body the Immortality of the Soule and all spirituall natures as some testifie of them and yet they were more punished by Gods Law then Idolaters since their errour was greater so should the Herodians have been punished since they tooke Herod to be the Messias and that he should come againe after that he had been strucken by the Angell and yet they were not punished 5. The Idolaters were to be punished and yet they lived in profession of the Iewish Religion for they apostatized not It is false that the Idolatry was the adequate Object
Ecclesiasticall matters even no more then to the meanest of the people Truely they are much beholden to you for your great liberality And if so ride on in despite of King and Parliament to your beloved Conventicles Neither can I finde in these passages Deut. 7.5 and 12.2 3. or Deut. 13. any such thing viz. that it was the generality of the Church or Nation of the Iewes that were invested with it for God never invested the confused multitude in any judiciall or authoritative power CHAP. V. Wherein the same Conclusion is further proved by Reasons NOw after these Testimonies out of Holy Writ I bring these Reasons following grounded upon it and 1. That power which the Civill Magitrate had in the old Testament and is not abrogated in the New may yet continue in the New or the Civill Magistrate may have it in the New But the power to punish Hereticks and Schismaticks is a Power which the Civill Magistrate had in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New Testament Ergo the power to punish Hereticks and Schismaticks is a such a Power he may Civill Magistrate may have in the New and so in vertue of Power which the punish them The Major is certaine for there is no other true way to make it not to continue but only the abrogation As for the Minor the first part of it is certaine as appeareth by the Texts of Scripture already alleadged The second Part may easily be proved because only the Ceremoniall Law which contained the shadow of things to come was abrogated in the New Testament The Morall Law was not abrogated so farre forth as it is a Rule of obedience nor as it bindes us thereunto No more is the Politicall Law in quality of Politicall for by the same reason Christ should have over-thrown and abrogated all the Politicall Lawes and policies of the world But that is false for Christs Kingdome was not of this world and he submitteth himselfe unto the Politicall Law of the Jewes yea unto that of the Romans also established amongst the Jewes So did Paul and the Apostles who pleaded their causes before Heathen Magistrates I appeale unto Caesar saith Paul Non auferet mortalia qui regna dat Coelestia 2. Yea if the Jewes had received Christ for their Messias I doubt not but the Politicall Law of Moses in quality of Politicall should have continued amongst them and the Civill Magistrate amongst them should have punished Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters c. in the New Testament as they did in the Old Neither is there any reason wherefore Christ or his Apostles should have hindred him by his Politicall power to maintaine the Christian Religion in the New Testament as before he did in the Old 3. And it may be further confirmed because the greater the favours be that the Civill Magistrate hath received of God in the New Testament then in the Old so much the greater obligation is laid upon him by his Power to maintaine Gods Cause and Religion 4. And the holier our Covenant is and the further it surpasses the Old so much the greater should the Civill Magistrates care be to maintaine it by his Civill Power 5. If it were not so the State of the Church in regard of the Civill Magistrate should be worse in the New then in the Old Testament for then he maintained it by his Civill Power and by the sword and now he doth it not nor yet hath the power to doe it 6. Is not this plaine Anabaptisme to approve the authority of the Civill Magistrate in the Old Testament and to reject it in the New for as the Anabaptists reject it wholly in the New Testament so doe the Independents in part yea in a great part viz. in that which concerneth the defence of the Church in punishing Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters c. 7. He who should be a Nurse and a Tutor of the Church in the New Testament should defend her by all his power But Kings and Princes and good Magistrates should be such as we may see in all the Examples heretofore alleadged and in Pharaoh and Esay 1.49.22 where it is promised that Kings shall be Nurses of the Church 8. What if forraigne Princes would invade the Church of God may not godly Princes in such a case justly defend it and represse them by the sword wherefore then may they not doe the like to their owne Subjects who will trouble her peace and by so doing compell them to their duty 9. Doth not the Civill Magistrate this in New England wherefore then may he not doe it in Old England unlesse forsooth the Majestaticall presence of five or six Independent Ministers here be capable to dazle and discountenance him here whereas they receive all their lustre and influence from him there or that as Monkes and Friers yee plead pro immunitate Clericorum or that the ridiculous thunder-bolts of Master Goodwins pretended Judgements of God be capeable to dash it all in pieces here 10. If the Civill Magistrate have not a sufficient Power to punish Idolaters Hereticks and Schismaticks for Religion then all the Roman Lawes in the Code made against Hereticks and those of this Kingdome made against Iesuites Monkes and Priests must be unjust yea the Iudgements given out against them since this Parliament begun are unjust and if so you would doe well to tell them of it If we beleeve these American Christians the Parliaments Lawes are little lesse then tyrannicall 11. That for which all Princes are commended in Scripture that all good Princes should doe and for which they are discommended that should they not doe But for punishing of Idolaters Schismaticks Hereticks c. all Princes that did so in Scripture are commended and for sparing of them are discommended Ergo all good Princes should punish Hereticks c. and not spare them The Major is certaine the Minor is sufficiently proved by the Examples of all the good Kings of Juda and of Iehu 12. They are bound to punish all such as trouble the peace of the State Ergo they are likewise bound to punish such as trouble the peace of the Church for who ever troubleth the peace of the Christian Church troubleth also the peace of the State when the State is Christian 13. If the Civill Magistrate be not bound by his Office to punish Hereticks Schismaticks c. he is bound to tolerate them all and so to tolerate all Independents all Brownists Anabaptists Familists Socinians c. yea some who deny the Immortality of the Soule that hold a generall Resurrection of all Beasts as well as of men yea of all that ever have been since the Creation of the world or shall be to the day of Iudgement peradventure of Lice Flyes VVormes c. and so he shall doe well to Licence the Bookes of such subjects till Master Goodwin alias M. S. resute them for he findes no other remedy in Gods Word but to refute such Bookes If we beleeve this new
Gospeller yee shall have in a short time as many Religions as dayes yea as houres in a yeare yea without all doubt I tremble to say it the Lord preserve us from it as many Gods as ever the Greakes and Remans had Wherefore in the name of God take heed yee all most Honourable Worthies of the two Houses of Parliament to this most damnable Tenet 14. Princes Kings and Iudges in Scripture are called Deliverers or Saviours of the people because they defend the Church from her Oppressors Iudg. 2.16 such as be Hereticks Schismaticks c. If therefore yee be our Iudges most Honourable and worthy Senators it is your part to defend Gods people the Religion which he hath established in his Word and to destroy Oppressors and the Enemies thereof I meane not their Bodies but their Oppressions their Heresies and Schismes 15. Masters have power to put Hereticks and Schismaticks out of their houses in case they be pertinacious Ergo Princes and Magistrates have the same power in the State for there is the same reason for both viz. not to suffer God to be offended so far forth as in us lyeth 16. What power is juris naturalis is to be exercised in all times and places according to our power But the power to punish Hereticks c. is Iuris naturalis Erge it is to be exercised in all times and places The first Proposition is certaine for that which is juris naturalis changeth not but is the same in all times and places because it is not grounded in any inconstant or voluntary institution of our will but in the immutable ordinance of Nature which dictates the same thing to all Persons in all times and in all places The second I prove because it is a Dictate of the Law of Nature that such as trouble the true Religion are to be punished and Moses gives you a naturall reason of it viz. for they will turne thy heart away from the Lord thy God Deut. 7.4 and 13.5 the reason will be thus who ever in all Morall probability will turne the peoples heart away from God it is the Civill Magistrates duty to punish him But Hereticks c. are such Ergo it is the Civill Magistrates duty to punish them it is Moses argument 17. If the Civill Magistrate punish not Hereticks he should become a partaker of other mens sins because he hindereth them not so farre forth as in him lyeth by his Civill Power viz. in punishing them neither carrieth he the sword in vaine neither can it be better employed then in punishing pertinacious sinners such as are Hereticks and Schismaticks But he should not become a partaker of other mens sins as the light of Nature and Scripture teacheth us 1 Tim. 5.22 18. If he punish not Hereticks then every man in the Kingdome shall have power to mould himselfe a new Religion according to his owne heart as the Israelites did their golden Calfe and doe what should seeme right in his owne eyes But the Consequent is absurd Deut. 13.8 Neither was it permitted amongst the Heathens themselves that any man should bring in new Gods or new Religions by their owne private authority We read how the Athenians sentenced Diagoras Anaxagoras and Socrates for their new Opinions in matter of Religion and Philastrius telleth us how the Audiani were condemned for Hereticks because that they commended all Sects and Heresies why not also the Independents for commending and defending the toleration of them all 19. Because we pray to God for Kings and for all that be in Authority that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honesty 1 Tim. 2.2 By their conversion to Christ v. 3 4 5. to the end that being converted they may defend Religion in punishing Hereticks and Schismaticks and so in repressing of Schisme and Heresie 20. Because in a State wherein all men professe the truth the peace of the State cannot be otherwayes preserved nor the safety of the Kingdome which is the ultimate end of the Civill Magistrate qua talis and the supreme Law of the Republike be obtained for how shall peace safety and unity be procured amongst Orthodox Subjects but by unity in Truth and how can the bond of unity be any wayes so soon and so easily broken as by diversity of Religions And this the Ecclesiasticall History fully sheweth us for what miseries cannot these Schismes breed when the Husband is of one Religion and the wife of another the Father of one and the Sonne of another Brethren and Sisters of divers Religions the King of one and the Subjects of another How many Families hath it dissolved how many Cities hath it destroyed Have we not Examples fresh and bleeding before us in Ireland c It hath cost some Kings their Crowns some their lives and endangered others of their life and Kingdome both Yea what is one of the principall causes of our present divisions betwixt the King and the Subjects Is not Arminianisme Socinianisme the Archiepiscopall I know not what Religion Some call it Popery some Socinianisme others Arminianisme others Lutheranisme others some mixture of Religion not much unlike to Samaritanisme But be it what it will diversity of Religion and not punishing of Hereticks and Schismaticks is the principall cause of all these our miseries and confusions 21. The Civill Magistrate is to punish such as marry with those of a contrary Religion and that because they are of contrary Religions as appeareth by the texts of Scripture already alleadged Deut. 7.2.3 How much more those who are of contrary Religions nam propter quod unumquodque tale id magis tale for it is a greater sin to be an Idolater or an Heretick then to be married to them 22. Those with whom we cannot enter into Covenant cannot be tolerated among us but must be at least exiled by the Civill Magistrate for to live amongst us they must at least enter into Covenant with us for an offensive and defensive warre against forraigne Enemies But with Idolaters Hereticks c. we cannot enter into Covenant Deut. 7.2 so Esdras and Nehemiah above quoted Ergo 23. Because God hath promised to destroy our Enemies if we destroy his wherefore rather then God should not destroy ours were it not policie to labour the destruction of his 24. The man who will not hearken to the Ministers of the Church and the Civill Magistrate the Civill Magistrate must punish him But Hereticks and Schismaticks are the men who will not hearken unto the Ministers of the Church and to the Civill Magistrate Ergo the Civill Magistrate must punish them The first Proposition is cleere The man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge even that man shall dye Deut. 12.12 Neither know I what can be answered save only that that must be understood of the Priest of the Old Testament But there is the same reason for the Ministers of the New Testament viz. 1.
Sects and all sort of Ecclesiasticall Governments Neither have I ever heard of any Petition made about it much lesse for any Independent Government M. S. And where Conscience is tender a little violence is a great torment to it A. S. It hath been told you twenty times 1. That no man violateth or forceth your Consciences 2. And all Sects bring the same pretext of tender Consciences 3. And we tell you again That your wayes are not wayes of tender but of turbulent Consciences A. S. 3. Argument No State in Christendom where there is one onely Religion established will admit the publike exercise of any other or endure a Schism in that which is already received Wherefore then should it be done here M. S. his third Reason 1. Supposeth that malignant Supposition viz. That Presbytery and Apologism make two differing Religions 2. That there is no State in Christendom c. 3. That Apologism in case it be tolerated must needs become a Schism in that Religion which is established in the Land A. S. To the first I answer 1. That neither I do suppose nor yet can suppose any such thing For we see no common Confession of Faith of the Apologism neither will the Apologists be known or declare their Tenets but are evermore in the Synod and out of the Synod observing what is there said or done taking their advantage upon all occasions and shaping their Tenets according to the current of the times 2. If the word Religion be taken in a large signification as it containeth in it self both doctrine and Discipline then the Independents are of a different Religion from us since their Discipline is altogether different 3. If it be taken for a potentiall part of Justice which inclineth the will to honour God then the Independents differ from us in very many acts of Religion both in those that it exerciseth whether they be internall or externall and in those that it commands to other vertues and consequently in Religion it self For they have much superstition in the Acts of their Religion 1. In respect of the persons in that they make every man a Minister to Preach and to Rule 2. In their Sacraments in that they take their selves to be so holy that no Protestant yea though he so live as that he give no offence to any man is yet worthy of their Communion c. If it be taken for the Doctrine of Faith We know not the Doctrine of their Churches since they are all Independent one upon another but as for that of particular Independent Persons Master Goodwins Religion of Coalmanstreet who is thought to be an Independent and matriculated into the Independent Society is a Religion different from ours as appeareth by his Books which are blamed by the best Ministers of London whereof some of them have written against him So is that of that other most famous Independent who preached not long ago at Westminster of some of whose Doctrines I gave you a short relation but even now As for the second Supposition M. S. he saith that it is manifestly untrue as it is notoriously known in France the Low-Countries c. A. S. But it is notoriously known in France that it is against the will of the State and of all Papists that Protestants are tolerated there as it appeareth evidently 1. By so many bloody Massacres and Butcheries of the Protestants there 2. By so many Wars whereby they obtained a Liberty of Conscience 3. They had many Princes of the Royall Blood for them who were Protestants many Officers of the Crown many of the Parliament in Paris and finally King Henry the fourth who in the beginning was a Protestant to whom by Succession belonged the Crown for whose right they sought very stoutly in sundry Battels furnished him with men and moneys for the War And he after his externall revoult remaining evermore a Protestant in his heart as it is commonly beleeved and fearing the Jesuiticall Faction in recompence of their good service granted them Liberty of their Consciences Free Exercise of their Religion and Towns of surety and security therefore they obtained then their Liberties by the Sword And afterward they were confirmed by Law but sore against the State and the Papists will And all this notwithstanding the Papisticall Sect evermore undermines them and by little and little against all Law cuts them short of those Liberties so deerly purchased by them But if you take France for such a Refuge for Libertinism you would do well to try whether ye can settle a Colony of yours there I beleeve you would quickly experiment it how little favour ye should receive there in respect of that you have already received of your own Countrey-men As for the Netherlands if there were but one Religion there they would not tolerate any other And what they have done in tolerating many it is not so much will as necessity that hath forced them to do so And the History testifies how unwilling they were in the beginning to grant any Toleration at all to the Papists where they were already established If yours of late have been tolerated there 1. It was because ye taught not there in their Language but in English to English men 2. And there ye professed not for any thing we know that Presbyteriall Government was Episcopall or contrary to Gods Word as ye do here 3. They beleeved that if ye could have gotten the Exercise of Presbyteriall Government in England ye would not have been so averse from it as ye are 4. We know not whether your Religion was tolerated by the States Generall or whether it was tolerated Positive or Negativè The third Supposition is true But M. S. replieth or rather answereth That every difference in judgement doth not make a Schism in that Religion which is professed on both sides A. S. Neither said I any such thing But M. S. here giveth himself much to do with many long and idle discourses without any reason at all If he desire to know what Independency is whether an Heresie or a Schism I have evermore dealt fairly with him I have given a Definition of both Heresie is an errour in part in matters of Faith in him who once professed it whereof he being sufficiently convicted yet he continueth and pertinaciously perseveres in it But Schism is a breach of Christian Charitie onely whereby men separate themselves from the Communion of the true Church and after sufficient Conviction pertinaciously persevere in the same Here I take Heresie and Schism in a strict signification as they are taken by Divines both Protestants and Schoolmen when they distinguish them one from another If he admit these Definitions which are ordinarily approved of in the Schools we may examine thereby the Independency and see whether it be a Schism or an Heresie or not If he reject it I would pray him to give us some better one I say not that Independency is a Schism or that the Independent
reference to the Particular Church then if the Particular Church be considered Absolutely they may be Extrinsecall unto Her since neither Excommunication nor Citation are exercised by Her Absolutely at least Ordinarily 4. If we consider a Particular Church in reference to the more Generall Church viz. under the notion of a part of the more Generall Church then we may consider Her either 1. According to Her first Consent and Covenant Reall or Virtuall whereby She joyned together in one Consociation with many other Particular Churches to make up together one Classe or Synod the which Consent preceded the Act of Citation or Excommunication and whereby the Classe or Synod received Power to cite or excommunicate particular Persons Or 2. according to Her Consent in sending Her Commissioners to the Classe or Synod Or 3. according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent to the Act of Excommunication or Citation 4. If then She be considered according to Her first Covenant and consent or in the second i. e. in sending Her Commissioners the Act of Citation and Excommunication is voluntary and Intrinsecall to that Particular Church notwithstanding Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent for that Act of Citation and Excommunication is done in vertue of such precedent Consents which are Her Deeds and very Legall 5. If the Particular Church be considered according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent these Acts are involuntary and Extrinsecall to that Particular Church But such a Dissent is not properly and formally an Ecclesiasticall Act since it is not ruled by any Ecclesiasticall Rule of Discipline but by private interest or passion which must ever give place to the Weal of the whole Church for as Naturall bodies may be considered either Absolutely or under the notion of a Part which is for the whole and in the first notion they have their Particular Inclinations and Motions whereby they decline whatsoever is hurtfull unto them as when the hand flyeth from a blow of a Sword but under the second they are not led by their own particular but by the generall Inclination and Interest of the whole since parts are not so much for themselves as for the whole and so it neglecteth its own particular good or interest for the weal or interest of the whole as when the hand for fear least the head should be cut off whereof might ensue the destruction of the whole man exposeth it self to the danger in receiving the blow it self to save the whole So in Politicall or Ecclesiasticall Consociations particular Towns or Churches may be carried by their own Interests to some particular Dissent in some Cases but if they move Regularly sometimes against their own Interests they must Consent against themselves according to the generall Inclination of the whole Consociated body or Church Classicall Synodall c. 6. If this Argument hold it will conclude 1. Against that which is done by Plurality of Votes in their particular Congregations For that which is concluded is against the Consent of the Minor part 2. Against that which is done in their Synods by their Messengers if they conclude against or without the Consent of the Churches whereof they are Messengers And 3. Against the Parliament if they conclude any thing against the particular Consent of particular Towns for they Consent not thereunto And so what they conclude or do against them shall not be done by Consent of the Kingdom And so this man shall destroy the Parliament and the pretended Order of Independents as well as that of Protestant Presbyteries But M. S. telleth us that so the Classis is like to the Magistrate who is a Bishop without and about the Church Answ 1. I deny your Simile for the Magistrates Power and Act being onely Politicall and Civill has no Internall reference to Citation or Excommunication in quality of Ecclesiasticall Acts as that of the Church and Church Officers which is Ecclesiasticall and this your Quinqu ' Ecclesian Ministers acknowledge themselves when they tell us that the Civill Power is of another nature then the Ecclesiasticall Obj. But if the Civill Magistrate have this Externall coactive power they must all have it as well Pagans as Christians But so it is not for A.S. will not grant it to Pagans Ergo none of them have it Answ The Assumption is false for I grant it to them all but not in the same manner To a Pagan only in actu signato but to a true Christian in actu exercito I expound it in my Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration M. S. scratches at this distinction 1. as not good for saith he I never heard of any thing belonging to a Person in actu exercito but that belonged to him and that per prius in actu signato He to whom the principle or power of acting doth not belong cannot stand ingaged for the exercise of acting such a power A. S. Sir If you heard it not others yea of the best sort and ablest both Divines and Philosophers may have heard it for we have learned in the Category of Substantia that Substantiae primae maximè propriè Substantiae dicuntur whereupon they ground this other Maxime Prima Substantia magis est Substantia quam Secunda and they say that it is magis Substantia in actu exercito sed non in signato sed contra secunda est magis substantia quam Prima in actu signato as all the Philosophers who serve themselves with this distinction in the explication of that propriety of Substance declare in that place 2. It is also an error in you to think that in actu signato and exercito is nothing else but actu potentia 3. Put the case it be so and that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu signato belongeth to it in actu exercito what is that to the purpose is not that enough to found a distinction upon Wherever there is prius and posterius is there not there some distinction at least formall or modall if not reall 4. Yea put the case the one part were really included in the other yet should there ever be distinctio includentis inclusi 5. And howsoever it be that what belongeth to a person in actu exercito belongeth to him in actu signato yet what belongeth to a Thing in actu signato belongeth not to it in actu exercito Neither said I that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu exercito belongeth not to it also in actu signato Where said I it I pray you or if I said it not wherefore beg you here a needlesse quarrell with me about it 2. M. S. desires to know wherefore a power about the Church and for the Church should not belong actually and in effect in actu exercito and jure in re as well to a Magistrate not yet truly Christian as to him that is such i. e as well to a Pagan as a Christian A.S. Answ 1. Because being not yet a Christian he is not a member