to refuse yours Neither can a Negative Thesis be otherwayes proved but by a Medium that is repugnant either to the Attribute or to the Subject of the Question So this your Censure is very ridiculous absurd and impertinent 2. I have proved it to be conform to Gods Word 3. It is not credible but that Government is most convenient to Gods Word which is most convenient and commensurate unto the end That God commands us to intend and to tend into neither can I beleeve that God hath ordained us any means that are not fit and proper for the end that he intends or commands us to intend for that were repugnant to his Soveraign Wisedom 4. And as for your Examples they are not to the purpose for all these facts of Saul Vzzah c. were contrary to Gods expresse command neither were they convenient to the end intended by God or that we should tend unto viz. Filiall Obedience to the command and the Typifying of Christ and his Benefits The example of Saint Peter was 1. a manifest breach of the sixth Commandment in killing a man without publike Authority 2. It implyed an act of diffidence and of too great confidence as if Christ had had no other means to deliver himself but his sword in this Peter trusted too much to his own sword and too little to Gods Providence 3. It contained an act of Precipitation and too great boldnesse and rashnesse in drawing his sword in his Masters presence without yea against his Masters will and command 4. It was repugnant to the end for which Christ came into the Word viz. Christs death and the Redemption of mankinde by it whereof Peter before that time had been so oft advertised c. So is it not in Presbyteriall Discipline Neither is there any damnable Errour or Heresie in Consistoriall Government as in the Papacy We say not that any of our Assemblies are Infallible as the Pope pretends himself and his Generall Councell to be neither pretend we That our Assemblies have any despoticall or lordly domination over the Church as the Pope doth we say not That our Assemblies are above Gods Word as they do These comparisons of M. S. are no lesse then blasphemous And here I must advertise the Reader That all the Presbyteriall Assemblies together take no greater Authority over the Church then six or seven Independent Tinkers an Hangman with them together with one of their Ministers do over the flock The Independent Preacher with his six or seven persons are liker to the Pope and the Consistory of his Cardinalls because of their Independency then any of our Churches which are all Dependents and subject to Superiour Authority M. S. pag. 79. § in his second Answer telleth me That he cannot inform himself 1. What A. S. means by Authoritative power 2. Or from whence our Churches have it A. S. I have 1 fully declared in my Annotations and here above what it is 2. And from whence it proceedeth It is a Ministeriall power to command such as are subject thereunto which bindeth or obligeth them to obedience and whereby in case of disobedience they may inflict Spirituall punishments It is of God or from God and therefore lawfull Now whether it be of God as Author of Nature or of Grace by the Law of Nature or any Positive Law Naturall or Supernaturall it is not a Question de re sed de modo rei not of the thing it self but of the manner thereof Grant me either that it is lawfull or deny it If it be a lawfull power it is of God for there is no lawfull power but of God Rom. 13.2 Grant me the thing and afterwards I shall dispute with you de modo rei They have it not of the Parliament nor of the State as you pretend for secular men cannot give any Spirituall power into the Church they have it of God and by Gods Word directè or per consequentiam and in some things per non repugnantiam It is an untruth in M. S. in his third Answer whereas he sayeth that I seem to imply That the Church hath this power from the Law of the State for howbeit the Civill Magistrate by his Laws put a Politicall Obligation upon Christians to obey the Churches Spirituall Authority which is from God yet is not his Civill Authority the cause of the Churches Spirituall Authority or of the Obligation whereby a Christian is bound to obey the Church for howbeit there were no Civill Magistrate or howbeit he should dissent from such an Obedience yet should the Church have Spirituall power and all the Members of the Church in a Spirituall way should be bound to Obedience But what then doth the Civill Magistrates Law Answ It puts a new Bond or Obligation upon the Members of the Church and bindes them again by a Civill Authority Extrinsecall to the Church to a Spirituall Obedience who heretofore were onely bound by a Spirituall Obligation so he bindes them to a Spirituall Obedience but not spiritually as the Church Authority doth but onely materially and that by Civill Authority So the Ministers of the Gospel or rather God by them oblige and binde the Subjects in the State in a Spirituall way by Gods Word to obey the Civill Magistrate or Politicall and Civill Obedience but not Politically or Civilly but Spiritually so it followeth not That the Civill Magistrate hath power to form Ecclesiasticall Government onely it followeth That in a Politicall way he may oblige or binde men to obey it No more followeth it that I resolve Church Government into the humors wills and pleasures of the World c. Onely it followeth That the Civill Obligation laid upon men to obey the Church so far forth as Civill must be finally resolved into the Civill Magistrates power and not into his humours as M. S. most contemptuously speaketh of him M. S. his fourth Answer is in retorting my Arguments 1. What if a Particular Congregation under the jurisdiction of your Eldership reflecting upon the Oath or Covenant it hath taken for subjection thereunto as likewise upon all other ingagements that way as unlawfull shall peremptorily refuse to stand to the awards or determinations of it what will you do in this Case Will you Excommunicate this Church The Apologists in their way do little lesse or will you deliver them brachio seculari To be hampered and taught better then it seemeth you can teach them by Prisons Fines Banishments c. Churches had need take heed how they chuse men for their guardians that will so dispose of them if they please them not 2. And what if in the Session of your combined Eldership there be no such thing as Pluralitie of Votes concerning the Excommunication of such a Church Is not the remedy you speak of now in the dust A. S. To the first Quaere I answer That we must do by Spirituall power in the Church that that the Civill Magistrate doth by the secular power in the
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.
procure her peace and to put all the Churches of God in confusion rather then in order 21. Is it credible that God should have given his Son to death to purchase us an Order whereby all Churches might live in Peace and Unity and yet make them to quit all Sacramentall Communion one with another having no common Confession of Faith nor any common plat-forme of Ecclesiasticall Government among them Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be an Jndependency of Churches CHAP. I. The Question Stated AS M. S. of the first Question made two so doth he here of the second other two viz. his third Question for Presbyteriall Government whereof he treated in the former chap. and his 4. Question of Independency whereof he treateth in this his 4. chap. but they are not two Questions but two divers Opinions about one and the same Question so having committed this fault he commits againe another much worse for he goeth on very confusedly in the beginning of his Dispute and without ever stating the Question or declaring what he meaneth by Independency he goeth about to justifie his Independent government in a Cataskevastique or assertive way wherefore to the end that the Reader may the better judge both of his Cataskevastique and of my Anaskevastique way I will state the Question and shew what he hath to prove and I to refute 1. Note therefore I pray thee courteous Reader that Independency is a sort of Ecclesiastical Government whereby every particular Church is ruled by its Minister its Doctor some Ruling Elders and all those who are admitted to be Members thereof who how Heterodox and Haereticall soever they be in Doctrine and how wicked and damnable soever they be in their Lives will not yet submit to any Ecclesiasticall power whatsoever yea not to that of all the Churches of the world were they never so Orthodox and holy in their lives 2. Note that the reason wherefore they will not submit to any Ecclesiasticall authority according to their opinion is not out of any disobedience in themselves as they pretend but for want of authority in the Churches for they beleeve that howbeit any particular Church or any of her members should fal into never so damnable Heresies or wickednesse that yet God hath not ordained any authoritative power to judge her but that her power is as great as that of all the Churches in the world and that all that they can do in such a case is no more but only to Counsell her as she may do them and in case she will not follow their Counsell that they ought to do nothing else but onely declare that they will have no more communion with her as she may likewise do to them in the like case viz. if they will not follow her Advice when she is offended with their Doctrine Government Life or Proceedings The Question then betwixt us and them is whether God hath established any such Independent Government in his Church or not We deny it M. S. affirmeth it and argueth as followeth M. S. Page 75. of his Book Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government That can I quoth A. S. in effect page 38 39. c. I have 10. Reasons or Objections against it A. S. I confesse that M. S. braggeth of this his Independent Government as his words expresse but it is a manifest untruth that ever I bragged of 16. Reasons as M. S. most foolishly representeth me here It is A. S. his custome to bring Reasons and not to boast of them as it is M. S. his manner to boast and bragg with high words without any reason at all And for answer to this I say there is no one such word or expression in all my Booke It is but M. S. his words and fiction M. S. I shall not spend time in transcribing these your Reasons but shall desire the Reader though it may be some discourtesie unto you to take your Booke into his hand A. S. I am bound to your courtesie good Sir that will not let my weake Reasons appeare in Front against your strong Answers But since it is not M. S. his pleasure that they appeare in his most worthy Booke I hope that the courteous Reader shall not be offended if I make them together with his Answers and A. S. his Duplyes appeare here in mine My Arguments then were such as follow CHAP. II. Reasons against the Independency of Particular Congregations 1. THe Independent Churches have no sufficient remedy for miscariages though never so grosse no reliefe for wrongfull Sentences or Persons injured by them no Powerfull or Effectuall meanes to reduce a Church or Churches that fall into Heresie or Schisme c. All that they can doe is only to pronounce a Sentence of Non-Communion against Delinquent Churches as on the other side Delinquent Churches may doe against them 2. This Remedy is new neither was it known to the Independent Congregations before that emergent Case in Holland related in the Apologeticall Narration for if that Church offending had known so much it is not credible that she would against all charity and the common Order of all Churches have committed so great a Scandall 3. This Remedy is not sufficient nor satisfactory because all Churches according to your Tenets are equall in Authority independent one of another and Par in parem non habet imperium None hath power or authority over his Equall How then could any Church binde another to any such Account but out of its free will as a Party may doe to its Party 4. Because the Churches that are or that pretend to be offended by a Delinquent Church cannot judge her for then they become both Iudge and Party in one cause which cannot be granted to those who have no Authoritative power one over another as when a Private man offendeth the State and We our God 5. What if many Churches yea all the Churches should offend one should that one Church gather all the rest together judge them all and in case of not submitting themselves to her judgement separate her selfe from them all If so we should have Separations and Schismes enough which should be continued to all Posteritie to come 6. What if Churches were so remote one from another that they could not so easily meet together upon every occasion Then there should be no Remedy at least no easie Remedy 7. What if the Offence were small Should so many Churches for every trifle gather together and put themselves to so great cost and trouble 8. What if the Churches should differ in their Iudgements one from another In such a case should they all by Schismes separate themselves one from another 9. This sort of Government giveth no more Power or Authority to a thousand Churches over one then to a Tinker yea to a Hangman over a thousand for he may desire them all out of charitie to give an account of their Iudgement in case he be offended
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
of the Presbyterian Remedy against such mischief or of the mischief it self for we must never in any Case accept of malum culpae such as is the acceptation of Apostasie or Heresie in a whole Church 4. Neither is there any nor have you yet shewn any Inconveniency in the Presbyteriall way But we have shewn many as Reall in the Independent way as those are imaginary that you attribute to the Presbyterian way 5. All the Inconveniency that this man pretends to be in the Presbyterian way is Dependency of particular Congregations upon Superiour Assemblies viz. Classes Synods c. Or Subordination amongst Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories for this Sect must be altogether Independent and every one in their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Judges and their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories be they never so Hereticall or prophane But this Inconveniency may be pressed home again 1. For there is Subordination among their particular Congregations and their Synods onely they hate the Authority of Synods 2. There was a Subordination of Authority in the Old Testament 3. So is there in Civill Government And whatsoever Inconveniency they presse against us it will hold in all the rest as we shall see hereafter God willing 4. If such a Dependency or Subordination be any Inconveniency then God is the cause of it as we have heretofore fully demonstrated it M. S. Delinquency of whole Churches is not an every dayes Case no more in the way of Congregationall then of Presbyteriall Government A. S. 1. It may be as ordinary a Case in the Church as that of Inferiour Iudicatories in the State 2. And it fell out amongst the Arminians and us 3. So did it amongst your Churches in Holland 4. So doth it betwixt you and us since ye are become Sectaries 5. So doth it among all Churches that become Hereticall or Schismaticall and the Orthodox Church and the Apostle telleth us that there must be Heresies 1 Cor. 11.19 So it is not so extraordinary a Case as you M. S. make it And therefore there must be an Ecclesiasticall Ordinance for it as well in the Church as in the State 1. Unlesse you say That God is more provident for the State then for the Church or more negligent in his care of the Church then of the State 2. There was a remedy for such Cases in the Old Testament as I shewed you in my Annotations wherefore not also in the New Testament 3. Howbeit it be not an every dayes Case yet the Independents have a remedy for it viz. The Sentence of non-Communion whereof I may say as much as he sayes of Excommunication for the Independent Churches could not pronounce such a Sentence unlesse they had or pretended to have an Authoritative power to do it for it belongeth to the power of the Keyes 4. It is or may be more ordinary amongst the Independent Churches then among ours 1. Because of their Independency and want of Superiour Ecclesiasticall power to keep them in order 2. Because they tye the Members of their Churches never to quit them without the Churches consent whereof they are Members which may breed quarrels betwixt two Churches if a Member of the one without her consent joyn himself to the other 3. And this may be confirmed by the Examples of those most bitter quarrels betwixt two of your Churches and their Pastors in Holland as it is related by Master Edwards in his Antapologia but according to ordinary Providence no such thing can fall out among our Churches and if it should fall out we have a present remedy viz. a Classe which may be gathered within the space of four or five dayes if that do not the businesse we may gather a Synod or a Superiour power which cannot Morally be contemned among us by any Inferiour power as the equall power of Independent Churches may by their equall If it fall out extraordinarily amongst us we have an ordinary remedy for such an extraordinary Case And howbeit it were extraordinary and very rare yet should there be a remedy provided for it so soon as once it falleth out for it is a Case that bringeth a very great mischief with it viz. The revoult of a Church or many Churches that is an inconvenience yea a mischief a thousand times worse howbeit it should fall out but once in an Age then all the droppings of Master Goodwin or all the inconveniencies that can be alleadged against a constant remedy were they as reall as they are fictitious and imaginary Thirdly M. S. answereth my first Argument They that implead the Congregationall way for being defective suppose that God hath put a sufficiency of power into the hands of men to remedy all possible defects errours and miscarriages of men whatsoever But that is untrue Ergo. A. S. I answer They suppose not that God hath put into their hands a sufficiency of power to remedy all defects and miscarriages whatsoever or all possible absolutely but ex suppositione finis obtinendi i. e. that may conduce to obtain the end that God hath commanded us to intend and to tend unto for since his will is that spirituall diseases be cured it must consequently be to give the remedies necessary or sufficient to obtain such an end or cure 2. I suppose not that God hath given us all means sufficient Physicè but moraliter i. e. that are morally sufficient and whereby morally we may be convicted of sin if we use them not as cured of our ill if we use them 3. I suppose that they must be sufficient according to Gods ordinary providence whereby he governeth ordinarily his Church and not absolutely 4. As sufficient as in the Civill State or as in the Old Testament at least since the Government in the New Testament is as perfect as in the Old and not simply or absolutely And so the Assumption is false M. S. proveth that this inconveniency presseth as well the Presbyterians as the Independents If your Supreme Session of Presbyteries should miscarry saith he and give us Hay Stubble and Wood instead of Silver and Gold what remedy A. S. This is a very extraordinary Case yea the most extraordinary that can be imagined viz. That all the Churches both in Superiour and Inferiour Judicatories should so miscarry and yet if a man have used all possible means and this miscarry also which is more then any ordinary Case we may say 1. that we have had all means that are morally possible and that no more can morally be desired 2. We have had all the means and if we served our selves of them all till we came to this extraordinary Case we are excusable 3. We have had all the means possible according to Gods ordinary Providence 4. All means that they had in the Old Testament or that they have in the State 5. I answer that this Supposition may as well be propounded against Gods Providence in the Government of the State and of the Church of the Old Testament as against that
differences but evermore by their Externall Causes or by their Accidents and sometimes by their Opposites and Negations of some other things The very Apprentices in Logick know thus much 4. But if we know the Essences of things in themselves as this M.S. pretends if he say any thing to purpose how is it that there is so great debate about them as 1. about the soule of a man whether it be spirituall or corporall 2. About the totall Essence of a man whether it be the Soule alone his Soule and Body the Soule and its materia prima the union of both the image of God Religion or some other thing And to urge this more home upon your Example of the Light If we know the Essences of things distinctly and in themselves as I said what is the cause of so great a diversity yea of so great a contrariety of opinions about its Essence or Nature How is it that some Philosophers hold it to be in some Predicament others to be in none some to be a Substance others an Accident some to be a spirituall substance others to be a Body others neither viz. neither to be a corporeall nor a spirituall but a spiritalis substantia others the presence of a luminous body others a reall colour others an apparent colour others a spirituall Quality some a naturall power others a sensible quality If we knew it essentially and distinctly in it self and not meerly accidentally we could not so doubt of its Essence wherein it consists But it seems that this Man Doctor Holmes and some of that Sect are as Hereticall in Philosophie as Schismaticall in Divinitie and so they have conspired with as little successe against Naturall as against Divine truth M.S. sayes that my meaning may be that if a Toleration be granted for Independencie the Practice of it should become a Schisme from the Presbyterian Church A.S. No such thing but I maintain that Independencie is already at least materially yea Formally ratione Formae essentialis in foro Conscientiae interno a schisme from all the true Churches in the World since they willingly have separated themselves from them all in matter of Sacramentall Communion as also in that of Discipline And you should have done well to have answered this which no doubt you met with in my former Book and not oblige me to repeat it here It will also be a Schisme ratione Formae Accidentalis externae in fore externo from the Church of England if in Gods mercy any other Discipline then Independent be established in it So is it also in respect of the Presbyterian Church which is already established in France Holland c. yea and here in England in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches So is it in respect of the Church of Scotland the Discipline whereof is approved by the King which ye have all sworne to maintain But sayes he we have no Presbyterian Church among us and so if a Toleration be granted before such a Government be established it is apparently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the reach of such an imputation for ever A. S. 1. It is false that we have no Presbyterian Church among us We have it in the French Dutch and other Churches wherewith the Church of England professed evermore a Sacramentall Communion which the Independents break 2. Whether it be granted by the Parliament or not that hinders it not from being a Schisme for the Toleration of the Parliament is altogether extrinsecall to Schisme and there were Schismes in the Primitive Church without any Toleration of the Civill Magistrate 3. His Supposition is impious and ridiculous for Toleration according to M.S. his judgement is evermore of some reall or at least of some apparent Evill Now can the Parliament or the Assembly of Divines in good Conscience tolerate an ill Government before that they establish any good one Is not that to begin with the Devill to serve him before that we serve God Should not the Parliament begin with You as the most considerable Party A. S. his 4. Reason If a Toleration be granted to our Brethren I cannot see how it can be well denied to other Sects M.S. answereth that Bernardus non videt omnia A.S. But I pray you then Father Epistemon that sees all things make me by some Reason or other to see how it can be denyed to other Sects for there is the same Reason for a Toleration of them all M.S. bringeth this Reason He saith he that keepeth a doore with lock and key and bolts to it may let in one man that knocks without letting in all commers A.S. But if the other knocketh also wherefore will he not open to him and let him in as well as the other If he open not there is no Reason but Will that keeps him out so there is the same Reason but not the same Will for both it is a meere Prosopolepsiia or Acceptation of persons which is not well done If it be said that other Sects differ more from us then the Independents Ans 1. It is all one Magis minus non mutant speciem in matter of Toleration 1. For then all must be tolerated howsoever some more some lesse 2. And some of our Brethren viz. M. S. grants all the Argument 3. And if we distinguish so they must declare and expound cleerly what Sects and what Opinions are to be tolerated and what not which will be a Question inextricable which no mortall man appearingly is able distinctly to determine M. S. answereth not to any of my Reasons only he is offended that I say it is a Question inextricable c. He sayes then 1. That I prevaricate with my own Cause but wherein here altum silentium 2. He saith that I put the Magistrate to a stand whether he should tolerate Presbyterian Government or not But I have already answered 1. That it is already approved here in England in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches 2. That the English Divines in the name of all this Kingdom approved it in Holland 3. That the Kings Majestie confirmed it in Scotland 4. That we entertain Sacramentall Communion with all the Protestant Reformed Churches and that the Independents alone do quit it 5. That all the three Kingdoms and the Independents with them by their Covenant and Oath are bound to maintain Presbyteriall Government in Scotland 6. And they are bound to Reform the Church of England according to the example of the best Reformed Protestant Churches and namely that of Scotland which all have onely Presbyterian Government 7. And we have sufficiently confirmed it by sundry Testimonies of Scripture and other Arguments grounded on Scripture 8. Neither is this his Question to the purpose for quaestio quaestionem non solvit I ask him what Sects are to be tolerated in a Kingdom wherein the true Doctrine and true Discipline according to the publike Judgement both of the State and of the Church are established
not for us to distinguish or restrain it He is the Minister of God for good Vers 4. Ergo For this good viz. to have a care of Religion and to punish such as trouble it by their Schisms and Heresies And therefore 6. I deny the Consequence For Posito uno Medio non negantur reliqua It followeth not That if God serve himself of some means in the Church Ergo He serveth himself of any other means viz. of Civill Authority about the Church and out of the Church That were as if I should say The internall Causes as Materia Forma are necessary to the Generation of a man Ergo The Externall as the Efficient and Finall viz. God and man are not necessary M. S. 2. The Ministers of the Church must perform their Office with meeknesse 2 Tim. 2.24 Ergo They must not threaten men with delivering them over to the Civill Magistrate A. S. I answer to the Antecedent They must perform their duty not onely with meeknesse but also with severity when necessity requireth it as we see in Saint Paul 2. The Text 2 Tim. 2.24 speaketh onely of meeknesse in teaching In meeknesse saith the Apostle instructing those that oppose themselves if peradventure God will give them repentance 3. It onely saith that they must use meeknesse when men are docilo when there is any hope of Repentance and not with pertinacious Heretiques and Schismatiques of whom we cannot expect Repentance 4. I deny the Consequence When the Ministers of the Church threaten them to deliver them over unto the Civill Magistrate they may do that also with meeknesse Neither is such a proceeding contrary to meeknesse for the meekest man of the World may accuse his Party before the Civill Magistrate and yet not be thought inhumane or cruell 5. Thus All being beaten down all that he builds upon this ruinous Foundation must needs fall to ground M. S. his third Reason That which is a speciall gift of God and whereof no man is capable by his own industry the want of it being in it self a judgement of God and withall no wayes prejudiciall or hurtfull unto others should not expose him to further punishment and misery But Repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth is a speciall gift of God and the want thereof a judgement of God c. Ergo. A. S. 1. I deny the first Proposition For if he be bound to have it and had the faculty and sufficient means to have had it and to keep it after that he had it or might have it and if by his own fault he want it he cannot excuse himself neither from the Obligation to have nor from the Punishment due to him for the want of it as our Divines teach against the Arminians 2. I deny the Assumption for it is prejudiciall to others by the ill example he gives and by the malice proceeding from thence that induces others to the same sin to false Doctrines Schisms and Heresies 3. This Argument proveth not M. S. his Thesis viz. That the Civill Magistrate should not punish Heretiques and Schismatiques or that they should be tolerated in the State And therefore 4. we may grant him all the Argument Neither doth the Civill Magistrate punish any man for want of Repentance or for his ignorance which are in the minde and will and consequently unknown to him but for the pertinacious Externall Profession of them in so far forth as they trouble the peace of the Church and the State Neither refuseth he to tolerate ignorance or want of repentance yea if there be nothing worse in them both the Civill Magistrate and the Ministers of Christ must pitty them and travell for their instruction and amendment This is far from proving either a Toleration of the Publike Exercise of Hereticall Doctrines or of Schisms or that the Civill Magistrate hath not power to punish them M. S. his fourth Reason being put in Form will be thus That which maketh men worse and Hypocrites to professe outwardly what they beleeve not in their Consciences is not lawfull But Externall Compulsion of Hereticks Schismaticks c. in matters of Religion made by the Civill Magistrate is such Ergo It is unlawfull and consequently not to be tolerated A. S. I answer to the first Proposition If it make men worse per Accidens not of it self but in vertue of some Accident annexed to the person that becometh worse it is false If it do it per se by its own vertue and efficacy it is true But then the Assumption is false for the Civill Magistrate in punishing Hereticks and Schismaticks c. maketh them not worse per se for neither is it finis Operantis or Operationis since neither he intends to make them worse but better nor tends his Operation i. e. his Iudgement and Command to make them at all ill much lesse to make them worse since the effect of it per se is onely to imprison their bodies to fine them or if they merit it to exile them or take their lives which produceth no morall ill but a great good viz. a hinderance of them to vent abroad their Heresies and Schisms So it maketh them not Hypocrites per se but onely they per se make themselves Hypocrites They are bound to suffer themselves to be taught the Truth so to beleeve it and so they shall not be Hypocrites M. S. replieth That he stands already engaged in a greater band hereunto viz. His peace with God and the safety of his Soul then suffering temporally from the Civill Power A. S. Your erroneous Conscience can breed no true and reall Obligation or Engagement against God 1. For you are bound and obliged to God to cast away your Ignorance and ill Conscience 2. What if your Erroneous Conscience dictate you that you must kill the King as that of Ravalliack did to him in France to kill Henry the fourth and that of the Jesuites and Priests in England did them to blow up the Parliament and many Papists of their own Religion Must you I pray obey the dictate of such a Conscience 3. Away with such wicked Consciences and to the Law and Prophets if you be a Protestant 4. Either that band is laid upon you by God or the Devill But it cannot be laid upon you by God for he cannot lay a band upon you to serve the Devill or to despight himself for so he should be the Author of sin nor by the Devill for then the band laid upon you to serve him should be greater then that which God hath laid upon you in his Word to serve him It may be said That so long as my Erroneous Conscience lasteth I must obey it A. S. I answer you must obey it as he who is captive under sin must obey sin being a slave unto sin that hath voluntarily rendered him such but he unjustly rendered himself a slave to sin and unjustly in vertue thereof remaineth a sinner and obeyeth it Some will Answer 7.