the Magistrates authority can be no more intrinsecall unto the Church then the Magistrate himselfe is And if it be said that the Civill Magistrates authority is intrinsecall unto the Church but not the Civill Magistrate I answer That then the Church hath the civill Magistrates authority and not his person so the Church hath the Magistracy and not the Magistrate and so the Church has civill viz. Imperiall Royall or Despoticall authority over the subjects But that cannot be said for it is Treason Christs Kingdom is not of this world and the Church beareth no materiall sword 39. The Intrinsecall way to governe Christs Church is convenient unto Gods wisdome since it is an act of wisdome and divine providence But an Intrinsecall power granted to Heathen and Antichristian Christians and Magistrates to govern Christs Church is not convenient unto his wisdome but repugnant unto it for it is as if he should choose a Wolfe to keepe the Lambs and a Kite to shelter the Chickens which are not meanes convenient unto such ends 40. Such a sort of Government is repugnant unto Gods mercy towards his Church for how is it credible that he who has given Christ his onely Sonne for his Church to redeeme her should give her Antichrists and Pagans to leade her away from Christ to Antichrist yea to the Devill and Hell it selfe from which he hath redeemed her 41. I might here aske what Magistrate has this Intrinsecall power whether the Supreame or the Subalterne If the Supreame then he has such an authority in the Church as in the State viz. Monarchicall Despoticall Imperiall Royall c. Aristocraticall or Democraticall so the Government of the Church is not one but manifold and may change and be diversified as the governments of this world If the Subalterne has it also then it must be derived unto him from the Prince or Soveraigne Nulla enim potestas nisi in Principe aut a Principe there is no power but in the Prince or from the Prince so Ecclesiasticall charges shall be venall or saleable as Subalterne Magistracies in some Kingdomes are where the only way to be preferred unto them is that notable Maxime of old Judas Quantum mihi dabitis CHAP. III. The second Conclusion about the Extrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall matters proved by Scripture Conclus II. THe Civill Magistrate hath an extrinsecall both Directive and Executive power about the Church whereby not onely he may rule it by Politicall Lawes as Pagan but also as Christian because he is or should be a Nursing Father of the Church Esay 49.23 who 1. is bound to admit in his Kingdome the true Church and true Religion 2. He has power not to admit it to reject it yea when it is not received or approved and confirmed by his secular and civill authority to reject it and exile it however he do it not as a Nurse of the Church 3. If the Church be corrupt and Church Officers negligent in their charge and will not reforme it he may command yea compell them to do it Or if they will not he may extraordinarily do it himselfe 5. When the Church is Reformed he may command them when they are negligent to be diligent in their charge 6. If they oppresse any man in their Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures against the Lawes of the Kingdome he may desire them yea command them to revise their judgements and in case they reforme them not command them yea compell them by his civill power to give him satisfaction according to the Lawes of the Kingdome if they derogate not from the Law of God 7. He may yea he is bound to provide sufficient maintenance for the Ministers of the Churches and to take a care that their meanes be not delapidated and that they be not Sacrilegiously robbed of them 8. And what here I say of the Church I say also of Universities and Schooles that are the Seminaries of able men for the Church 9. He may grant unto the Church some Liberties Priviledges or Immunities as sundry Princes have done and confirme them by Law as we see in the Civill Law 10. He is bound with his Civill power to maintaine the Order and Discipline of the Church and consequently 11. To hinder all disorder in it And 12. By his Civill Authority to compell all refractory persons to obey the Church And 13. To banish and exile all Sects Schismes and Heresies as we may see by sundry of the Roman Lawes and especially in the first 13. Titles of the first booke of Instinians Codex in the Pandects and else where All this we grant to the Civill Magistrate and if the Quinq Ecclesian Ministers with the rest of that Sect contest it not we need not to prove it only we say that he doth all this by a Civill and Secular Supreame Imperiall Royall Aristocraticall or Democraticall Legislative and coactive Power armed with the sword howsoever extrinsecall to the Church but more Absolute Independent and Potent in suo genere then any Ecclesiasticall Power whatsoever which is Intrinsecall to the Church which is no waies Absolute nor Independent but Dependent no waies Coactive by Externall force but Spirituall meerly Ministeriall howsoever imperative in the name of God that cannot make any Lawes but of things meerely Circumstantiall much lesse abrogate the Lawes concerning the constitution and Government of the Church already made by God in his Word Now that the Magistrate hath an extrinsecall Power over the Church in compelling all refractory persons to submit themselves to her just commands since M. S. seemeth to question it and desireth a proofe of it I am ready to satisfie his desire herein Wherefore I prove it 1. From sundry examples of the Iudges and Kings of the people of God in the old Testament Exod. 32.27 Moses commanded the Levites to kill about three thousand of the Ring-leaders or principalls of those that adored the golden Calfe in the performance of which service the Text saith that they consecrated themselves unto the Lord verse 29. 2. Deut. 22.11 to the end of the Chapter we read how the rest of the Tribes of Israel resolved to warre against Reuben Gad and the halfe Tribe of Manasseh for building of an Altar as they believed in transgression against the Lord which they would not have done had they not conceived it to be just 3. Iudg. 6.31 Ioash ordained thus He that will plead for him i. e. Baal let him be put to death 4. 1 Kings 15.12 Asa removed all the Idols that his fathers had made 13. And also Maachah his mother even her he removed from being Queene because she had made an Idoll in a Grove and Asa destroyed her Idoll and burnt it by the brooke Kedron Here Asa punisheth his owne Mother for Idolatry and destroyeth her Idoll so no doubt may the Civill Magistrate doe with all false Doctrine Worship and Discipline false Doctors Worshippers and Church Governours he may abolish them and
but to live together as Moses and Aaron both looking to one end but each one of them with their owne eyes the one with a Politicall the other with a Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall eye And this appeareth by those words of the Ordinance during this present Parliament or untill further order be taken Now if this Order were full what needed the Synod attend for a further Order Neither is there any man of judgement that can blame the Parliament in all this yea howbeit it should extraordinarily doe more in this extraordinarily miserable estate of Religion when now Sathan hath so manifest and palpable an entrance into the Church of God under so many ill-portending shapes as of Independents Brownists Anabaptists Socinians c. they had need take upon them for the defence of the Church more then in ordinary cases they doe 7. Only I adde a word viz. that these words as they pleased by plurality of Votes are not in the Ordinance but are an addition of M. S. in contempt of the Synod as if the Members thereof voted not according to Scripture but as pleased themselves And 8. that in case of difference in Opinion it is not ordained that they represent their Opinions and the reasons thereof to either or both the Houses to the end that they may judge of the matter but that they may finde out some further direction whereby the Assembly may judge it 9. Yea there is another Ordinance since the printed Ordinance whereby it is ordained that all things agreed upon and prepared for the Parliament should be openly read and allowed in the Assembly and then offered as the judgement of the Assembly if the Major part consent see how the judgement of the Major part of the Assembly is here declared by the Parliament to be acknowledged as the Decision of the Assembly which M. S. will not stand unto Object 9. In enjoyning them in case of difference of opinions between them to present the same together with the reasons thereof to both Houses they did every whit as much A.S. Answ 1. I deny that they who enjoyne in case of difference c. have an Internall power in the Church much lesse an internall Directive power 2. This injunctiō was not in reference to the Intrinsecal power of the Church which is evermore within the Church but to the Extrinsecall power about the Church i.e. to that of the Magistrate whose power is without the Church howsoever within the State and in so far forth as the Parliament by Civill Law intended to approve and confirme the Ecclesiasticall Law 3. Item it was to see if by any meanes and wayes of meeknesse it could perswade a few men of your Sect to submit themselves unto the Order and Government that God hath established in his Church as they have done you many other favours which you too much undervalue arguing from this favour as from a Law to that which is or should be ordinary Iustice And yet they ordained that what is caried by plurality of Votes in the Assembly should passe as the judgement of the whole Assembly Object 10. M.S. In their nominating and calling such and such Ministers and not others to be of the Assembly they acted the same power A.S. Answ That is also Extrinsecall since it was not in but out of and before the Assembly 2. And extraordinary 3. And yet very ordinate and ordinary for this extraordinary state of the Church in this Kingdome when such a swarme of Sects are crept in some comming from New England others from the Netherlands and others from other places For if every one of them should have had entry into the Assembly what should have become of us 4. Neither doth this prove any Directive power in the Church in teaching c. as I said that should belong unto the Magistrate M.S. Ob. 11. In framing the temper and constitution of the Assembly allaying it with such and such Members of their own they steered the same course A.S. Answ 1. This cannot conclude any Directive Ecclesiasticall power that belongeth unto the Parliament 2. These Members of their own who did sit in the Assembly if they had any Vote did not sit there in quality of Members of the Assembly for then every Member of the Parliament might have sate there but in quality of extraordinary Ecclesiasticall persons according to this extraordinary state and exigence of the Church 3. If they had no Vote at all and yet sate they were not Members of the Assembly but this was a speciall priviledge granted unto the Members of the House which in other places likewise is granted unto persons of meaner rank yea unto Strangers as we may see in the Church of Scotland in their Generall Assemblies 4. Or rather they sit there in name of the Parliament to procure by their Civill power the Externall order that should be in such Assemblies But this is no Ecclesiasticall or Internall power in the Church but Externall about the Church such as the French Kings Commissioners who are sometimes Papists have in our Protestant Nationall Synods in France and yet are not Members of our Synods there neither Vote they neither pretend they to have any Intrinsecall power there for then they should professe themselves thereby to be Protestants only they have power to oppose things that they beleeve to be prejudiciall to the King or the State 5. Neither beleeve I that they vote in points of Doctrine 6. And if they vote in matter of Government they doe it in quality of Ruling Elders either extraordinary or ordinary in vertue of some virtuall election made by the Synod or by the Synods toleration or approbation for no man can rule the Church intrinsecally but he that is intrinsecally a Church-Ruler or Officer as I have proved it heretofore M.S. Object 12. Lastly in their messages or Directions sent unto them from time to time how to proceed what particulars to wave for the present what to fall upon and debate To hasten the issue of their Consultations with the like What doe they else but claime and exercise such a Directive power in matters of Religion A.S. Answ To proceed to wave particulars to debate things and consult of them in the Assembly argueth an intrinsecall directive power proper unto the Church but to send Messages proveth it not at all to be in the Parliament but in the Church and that the Magistrate by his Civill power can command the Church to use its Ecclesiasticall power 2. For the Magistrate may command the like thing to every Guild or Common-Hall in the City touching their own professions Neither can it thereupon be inferred that he hath an Intrinsecall Directive power in such Trades CHAP. VIII Wherein are answered his 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. Arguments M.S. p. 37. § 1. Ob. 13. BUt if the Parliament have no calling from God to judge of matters between the Apologists and their Brethren the Assemblers I would willingly know who hath
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
Partie judged 6. The Compromissory Arbiter judgeth not according to the Law but according to equity but in all Ecclesiasticall judgements he that judgeth must judge according to the Law or Gods Word Ergo He that judgeth in Ecclesiasticall judgements cannot be a Compromissory Arbiter who onely properly is an Arbiter in so far as an Arbiter is distinguished from a Iudge 7. The Iudgement of a Compromissory Arbiter cannot hold nor oblige me to obedience since it is not grounded on publike Authority but on the will of the Parties who qua tales are private persons But the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem can and must hold and oblige all the Churches of that time to obedience according to that which the Councell intended by the Iudgement 8. Compromissory Arbiters onely judge of the Parties which compromise to submit themselves to their judgement But the Church Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem judged not onely of the Parties that compromissed to submit unto them but of all the Churches as the Text telleth us 9. In Arbitrary judgements ordinarily they are the Parties that make choice of their Arbiters and not a third that ordaineth them as the Church of Antioch did in this Case in sending this Message or Ambassage to Ierusalem 10. Whether it was an extraordinary Counsell or judgement of Arbiters yet followeth it not that such judgements of themselves are ill or against Gods Word since God never ordained nor the Apostles ever made choice of any breach of Gods Law or of any disorder to establish any order in his Church by for God needeth not the Devils help to do his Work he can do it himself without him 11. If they were Compromissorii Iudices then particular or Parishionall Congregations may combine themselves together in a consociation and give power to Classes and to Synods to be their Iudges which is the practice of all the Reformed Churches 5. It may yet be answered That in all this proceeding there was no Reference or Appeal no Arbitrary judgement nor any Counsell concerning the Church of Antioch but onely an examen of a Message sent or pretended to have been sent from Jerusalem viz. Of some Pharisees Members of the Church of Jerusalem who pretended to have had charge from the Apostles to urge the Circumcision and the Observation of the Ceremoniall Law as may be collected from verse 24. Rep. 1. This is not true 1. Because all this is said without Scripture 2. And vers 24. it is not said That these Pharisees pretended to have had any such charge from the Apostles but the Apostles say That they gave them no such command But this Argument may seem somewhat weak for howsoever the Text have it not in terminis yet seems it to follow of the Text by a Morall necessity for that expression To whom we gave no such commandment seemeth to presuppose some pretention of a commandment on the Pharisees part 3. And howbeit it is said That they went out from the Apostles yet is it not said they were Members of the Church of Ierusalem 4. Neither read we That there was any dispute about their Message or Commission but about their Doctrine 5. Because the Sentence or Decree is onely about their Doctrine 6. Because in that Decree not onely the Pharisees are sentenced but all the Churches upon which the Observation of the Canons of the Apostles is enjoyned onely there is a word in passing said of the Pharisees but however it be that was no way the principall Question Finally here cometh in M. S. in an ordinary Independent way never proving any thing Positively that they beleeve for in this point they shew themselves the weakest of all Sectaries but ever more denying what we prove which requires no great abilities as is known and confessed amongst all men that do but pretend to learning neither can they do otherwayes for they will not be tyed in time to come to any Positive Doctrine no not so much as to that they hold at this present for any thing I can collect from the Apologeticall Narration onely they stand stoutly to some Nego's and will that we prove all and they nothing at all He telleth us then in the third Chapter of his Book that before this Argument of ours Acts 15. can hold we have ten Particulars to prove 1. That the Apostles sate here in quality of Apostles 2. That this Councell had their state and set times of meeting 3. That they had Authoritatem Citationis 4. That the Members of this Synod were sent hereunto by the particular Churches over whom they claimed jurisdiction 5. That onely Church-men had power to sit there 6. That it had as well power to make Laws of things indifferent as to impose things necessary 7. That the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had their Delegats sitting there 8. That Paul and Barnabas sate as Commissioners for the Church of Antioch 9. That ordinary Synods may proceed as they did in saying It seemed good c. 10. That these words in the close of the Epistle ye shall do well verse 29. did import some intimation That if they did not submit some further course must be taken with them Item In this Chapter he telleth us That Presbyterians agree not about the Pedigree of their Government and to tell us all this he imployeth no lesse then ten Pages in Quarto in a very small Print As for the first we have already proved it sufficiently and attend his reply As for that ridiculous demand of his that we prove That the Apostles waved and silenced the Spirit of Infallibility Answ They might have it and not wave it howbeit they sate not there in quality of men that had it for the Elders that had it not sate there in the same quality with them Some dispute also 1. Whether the Apostles in all times and in all places and upon all occasions yea sleeping and sick had the gift of Infallibility in actu secundo so that their will could not hinder the Externall Act. See the Example of Nathan S. Peter Thomas c. who had the gift of Infallibility in actu primo but sundry times they had it not in actu secundo 2. Some doubt also what is the gift of Prophesie or Infallibility Whether it be liker unto an Habitude which is a Permanent quality or to a Passion or Afflatus which is not Permanent but suddenly flies away To the second 1. It is but a circumstance of time which followeth necessarily of the substance of the thing 1. For if Councells sit they must sit in some time but in what time whether once twice or thrice a yeer that depends upon other Circumstances as of Church opportunities and exigences of the Civill Magistrates Permission c. 2. In things Circumstantiall Discipline depends on the Law of Nature according to the Apologists own Confession To the third It may be necessarily inferred of the Authoritative power for where there is an Authoritative power to judge and censure
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
represent any Civill authority in Christ since his Kingdome was not of this World 4. It may be doubted how they were types of Christ whether in respect of their Civill authority over the Church or over the State or otherwise 5. It may be doubted if they were all types of Christ as Athalia Manasseh Ammon who destroyed Gods service and the order of the Church item Herod who persecuted Christ was sure no type of Christ and yet was King 6. If so then the King of Egypt of Syria of the Philistims yea the Romans who domineered over them were types of Christ At least the Kings of Israel were not types of Christ since they were all apostatized from the Ceremoniall Law that ordained all the types for a type whether it be a thing a person persons action effect or event it must signifie something to come 2. It must signifie by Gods institution or ordinance and therefore neither was the Nazareate or all the Nazarites types of Christ as some Divines hold 1. Because the Nazareate was not a ceremony ordained by God but voluntarily vowed 2. Because it prefigurated not Christ to come or his benefits and therefore say they Christ drank wine and touched the dead only they vowed it to bring under their flesh and for a pious exercise 7. Howbeit they had been types of Christ in regard of their authority about the Church yet will it not follow that Christian Princes cannot have it for that which was typicall might be taken away and that which was politicall may remaine 8. And I put the case that the Iewes had received Christ as absolutely they might have done who can doubt but their Politicall Government might have continued and their Kings ruled as well the Church externally as they did before his comming since Christs Kingdome was not of this World and that he came not to abolish or to diminish the power of Kings but to save their soules they were no wayes losers by Christs comming but rather gainers He might as well have said they had a Civill power about the Church because they had their noses betwixt their eyes Many were types of Christ that had not this authority about the Church and many had this authority about the Church who were not types of Christ Ergo this reason of his is false and ridiculous No more were the people of the Iewes types of the Christian Church in respect of the Civill but of the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Government by Church-officers and the People subject thereunto So also was their Land a type of the Celestiall Hierusalem not as it conteined the State but the Church otherwise it should have been a type of Heaven before that the people of God had any right to it And finally types are not ordained by the Politicall or Morall Law as Magistrates and their Authority at least qua tales but only by the Ceremoniall Law True it is that God may serve himselfe of a thing instituted by the Morall Law to be a type but he must make it a type by some subsequent Ceremoniall Law What he saith against all this p. 52. §. 23 that good Kings never oppressed godly persons when they were for a while tender in conscience it is not to the purpose We only say here that they may punish Idolaters Seducers Hereticks and Sectaries who are never such till they be sufficiently convicted and after that remain pertinacious But no wayes good people under the notion of good people but so far forth as they doe amisse And what reason if he who heretofore by the judgement of Charity was thought a good man if he become an Heretick or a Murtherer should not be punished according to Law since the Magistrate punisheth him not for his good but for his ill § 24. He saith that I must prove that the Kings of Iudah had such a power by a Morall law which is of a perpetuall obligation and engagement upon other Nations A.S. Answ It suffices that I have proved it by a Politicall Law and that the same reason obliges Christian Princes vâ—z B. cause they will turne thee from the Lord thy God Deut. 13.5.10 â—â— Thus Politicall law is grounded upon the fifth Commandement which is Iuris naturalis It must be so since it is grounded in naturall reason 4. And our Reasons God willing hereafter shall make it appeare 5. In the mean time take for an example Nebuchadnezzar who since he was no leâ—â— could not doe it in vertue of any Politicall law of the Iewes for he was no Subject of the Kingdome of Iuda only he could doe it in vertue of the Morall or some Politicall law grounded on the Morall or the law of Nature M. S. It was no more Morall then that of the staying of the inhabitants of the idolatrous City and the cattell thereof c. A. S. I deny it for the one is grounded upon Naturall and Divine reason as we have seene and God willing shall see more fully by our following reasons but so is not the other P. 52 53. § 25. Answ 8. M. S. Answers 1. That the Kings of Iuda only exercised their power about Idolatry and Idolaters A. S. I deny it 1. For they exercised it also in beating downe of the High Places wherein there was not Idolatry as having been permitted before the building of the Temple 2. Because there is the same reason binding them to exercise it against the transgressions of the first Commandement the violation whereof is more directly against Gods Honour for sacrificing in High Places is but a circumstance of the second Commandement violated but Heresie and Schisme are formall breaches of the first Commandement the one of faith the other of charity therein commanded and the false Prophet was to be put to death 2. In the same Section he saith that it was the generality of the Church or Nation of the Jewes and not their Kings that was invested with it by God Deut. 13. and 7.5 and 12.2 3. A. S. Here is Anabaptisme in devesting the Magistrate of his Power and vesting the people with it What had every one the power of the Sword amongst the people of the Iewes 2. Was their Government Democraticall or rather Anarchicall Had women children and servants this Power I grant you that in vertue of the Law and their Covenant they had all an hand in in the matter but not absolutely but every man according to his Vocation the King and Magistrate as Judges but the people only to execute according to their Commands Neither is it credible that when a false Prophet or an Idolater was to be punished every one of the people was to judge him at his pleasure or to stone him to death Neither containe these Passages that you cite any such thing and therefore you did very cunningly not to quote the words themselves whereupon you ground this conclusion And is this all the power and respect you give to the Parliament and Civill Magistrate in
The taking away of evill the conservation of order and unity and to avoyd Schisme 2. Neither did Christ by his death obtaine for us an immunity from all obedience or an independent licentiousnesse to doe ill 3. And this is the Holy Ghosts reason in that same place And thou shalt put away the evill from Israel And all the people shall heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously ver 12.13 which obligeth us as well unto obedience under the New Testament as those of the Old Testament 25. So we have an Example of Corah Dathan Abiram and On who were Independents and for their independency and not subjection unto the authoritative power of Moses and Aaron were severely punished by Moses and perished miserably We might bring many reasons of the Holy Ghost himselfe wherefore the Civill Magistrate must punish Idolaters false Prophets or Hereticks c. 26. Because Gods people is an holy people to the Lord. 27. Because they know that God is faithfull and keepeth his Covenant Deut. 7. and 13. Neither can any man blame such Arguments but those who will blame the Holy Ghost his Arguments for they are not mine but His. CHAP. VI. Wherein are answered M.S. his Reasons that he hath Chap. 1. And first the first sixe NOw I will propound M.S. his Objections whereof many conclude that this Intrinsecall power not only doth belong to the Civill Magistrate but also to all the members of the Church M.S. then p. 33. § 2. argueth 1. thus By such an umpirage and decision as this between the Civill Magistrate and himselfe viz. A.S. with his fellow Presbyters hath he not made the one Judex and the other Carnifex the one i. e. the Civill Magistrate must give the sentence the other must doe execution Answ A.S. 1. There is no decision at all between the Civill Magistrate and A. S. for A. S. is but a private man neither Magistrate nor Church-Officer 2. Neither are the Presbyters his fellow-Presbyters since he is no Presbyter These then in the beginning are manifest untruths 3. Neither can this decision in granting an Intrinsecall povver both directive and executive to the Church and an Extrinsecall to the Civill Magistrate viz. which is extrinsecall in respect of Ecclesiasticall povver but intrinsecall to Civill povver make the Church or Ecclesiasticall Assembly a Judge and the Parliament or Civill Magistrate a Hangman to remember his most humble respects unto the King Parliament and all the Iudges of this Kingdome For the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies as it is the common opinion of all our Divines cannot judge of the Civill Magistrate his duty 2. Neither have they ever been so foolish as M. S. most passionately and impudently calumniateth them here to command him any thing 3. They acknowledge most willingly that the Church being materially a part of the State is subject to Civill Government 4. That the Church which is the Kingdome of Christ hath no Civill power since it is not of this World Joh. 18.26 5. That the Civill Magistrate commanding and compelling such as be refractory and disobedient to the Church must not see with the Churches eyes but with his own Civill or Politicall eyes 6. And that in so doing he obeyeth not the Church or any Ecclesiasticall power but God whose power he exerciseth in the State as the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies doe exercise Christs power in the Church 7. Yea more that sometimes the Civill Magistrate may not punish those who are disobedient to the Church viz. if thereupon may follow the undoing of the State c. 8. For the same reason it is most untrue that the one giveth out the sentence and the other must doe execution 9. And moreover because they are two severall Iudicatories they are both independent one upon another howsoever both divers wayes subject one to another for the Civill Magistrate is subject in a spirituall way to the Church He must learne Gods will by the Ministers of the Church who are Gods Ambassadours sent unto him He must be subject unto Ecclesiasticall Censures as we see by the Examples of the Kings in the Old Testament and Theodosius the Emperour in the New So the Church againe is subject not in a Spirituall but in a Civill way to the Government of the Civill Magistrate as all Protestants and Ministers themselves confesse and plead for it against the Romane Clergie in favour of the Civill Magistrate 10. The Civill Magistrate hath power not to receive into the State all that which the Church judgeth fitting He may irresistably hinder it if he will 11. If he be Carnifex because that he commands it to be put in execution he should be Carnifex when ever he should command his own judgements to be put in execution 12. So should Independents be Carnifices when either the Civill Magistrate or the Church commands them to doe their duty 13. The Carnifex or Executioner pronounceth not a sentence as the Magistrate M. S. Obj. 2. pag. 33. The Civill Magistrate is much beholding to the Presbyter for giving him a Consecrated sword to fight the Presbiterian battels and for perswading of him to pull out his own eyes upon this presumption that he shall see better with his A. S. As able as this man is in jeering and calumniating as unable is he in arguing against this truth especially if he have no better arguments in his Budget by way of Reserve then what he brings here all he saith is utterly false 1. The Presbyterians have none but spirituall battels to fight 2 Cor. 10.3 4. the weapons of their warfare are not carnall 2. They doe not warre after the flesh neither wrastle they against flesh and bloud but against the Rulers of the darknesse of this world against spirituall wickednesse in High Places their sword is the sword of the spirit Eph. 6.12 And therefore they cannot nor pretend they to give him this spirituall sword they cannot quit it much lesse can they give him the materiall sword which is none of theirs to give for he hath it of God he is the Minister of God Rom. 13.4 avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill 2. It is false that the Presbyterians perswade him to pull out his ovvn eyes or to see vvith theirs 1. For they teach him to learne the Gospell by reading the Word and hearing it Preached by the Ministers thereof according to Gods Word and not by every Cobler as amongst Independents in exercising their gifts 2. And afterwards to see and judge by his owne eyes 3. They say and Preach that it is a great sin in him if he judge with any other then his owne eyes 4. He must judge according to the Lawes of the State otherwise he doth not the part of a Iudge 5. Yea if his judgement dissent from the judgement of the Law we know well enough he ought to quit both his owne judgement and that of the Church and to judge against his owne private conscience according to the Law and his
good of the Church which he would have to belong to the Parliament and all others 2. An Authoritative power to conclude say and set down what shall must or ought to be done against all contradiction in matters of Religion and this he grants to God alone and addeth If the Presbyterians demand such a Directive power let them ask the Crown Throne and Kingdome of Christ also To this A. S. saith that all men may grant it to be true if they claimed any soveraigne Royall authoritative power But if they claime only a Ministeriall power it is as great a sacrilege to deny them it as blasphemy in them to arrogate the other since they are Gods Ministers and Ambassadors for Christ 3. A prudentiall faculty or ability to direct order or prescribe whether to a mans selfe or to others what in a way of reason humane conjecture or probability is best and fittest to be done followed or imbraced in matters of Religion and this he grants to the Parliament to many private Members of particular Churches and to Presbyteries and Synods also howsoever with a restriction But in all these his Conjectures he hath no waies guessed at my mind for by a Directive power however I meane a prudentiall Prudence yet meane I not a private prudentiall Prudence which may be found in Midwives Maid-servants and VVater-men for in granting such a Power to the Parliament and Ecclesiasticall Senates he grants them no more then to the meanest of the people but I meane an authoritative publick and Ecclesiasticall prudentiall power not Soveraign Imperiall Royall or Despoticall or Magisteriall but Ministeriall such as may belong to Ministers and Ambassadours of Christ And as I have said it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof Aristotle speaketh in the Category of Quality but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no naturall power no naturall or supernaturall Habitude but Potestas or Morall Power depending upon will and not upon Nature or that is the work of will and not of Nature CHAP. VII Wherein are dissolved his 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. Reasons borrowed from the Parliaments Ordinance Ob. 6. AFter all his guessing so little to purpose p. 35. § 6. he endeavoureth to prove by the Ordinance of the Parliament for the calling of the Assembly that the Civill Magistrate doth claime yea and exercise act and make use of such an authority from day to day as occasion requireth Because the Parliament published their Ordinance for calling the Assembly A. S. Ansvv I deny the consequence for that contrivance and publishing of their Ordinance is not a directive power intrinsecall to the Church whereof we speake for neither directs it them intrinsecally in Doctrine Discipline or manners but extrinsecally 1. because the Ecclesiasticall Assembly may be and hath sundry times been convocated without it as in the Primitive Church 2. Because it was before ever the Synod began and without any Ecclesiasticall act Now what is before a Synod beginneth and without any Ecclesiasticall Act cannot be intrinsecall to the Synod or to the Church 3. Because the Directive power whereof I speake was in Iudging of Controversies of Religion c. but the publishing of an Ordinance for calling the Assembly is no such thing Ergo 4. Because that calling of the Assembly by Civill Authority alone was extraordinary howbeit very just and conforme unto Gods Word Neither could this be an Ecclesiasticall Assembly unlesse it were vertually called by the Church Officers in vertue of their subsequent consent thereunto and all these Answers must be taken conjunctly and not severally 5. Because this Assembly is not Ecclesiasticall in vertue of the Ordinance of the Parliament but of the virtuall consent of the Church The vertuall indiction of it by Church Authority contributeth to make it intrinsecally Ecclesiasticall But the Ordinance of the Parliament is extrinsecall unto it in so farre forth as Ecclesiasticall howsoever it be very just and necessary but it is intrinsecall to it accidentally and in so farre as is to be received in the State which absolutely is extrinsecall to the Church Ob. M. S. In limiting those that were to be of the Assembly to the subiect or Argument on which it was permitted them to debate they did no lesse i. e. they exercised a directive power A. S. Answ 1. But this is no intrinsecall directive power whereof I speake viz. in Teaching Preaching judgeing of Controversies of Religion c. 2. This was no Ecclesiasticall but a Civill Power 3. In so doing the Parliament judged not what was to be beleeved or practised in the Church but ordained them to judge which is the true intrinsecall directive power 4. And this was extraordinary in respect of Gods particular howbeit not in respect of his generall Providence in the Government of his Church M. S. Ob. 8. In appointing and ordering them not to determine or conclude of things as they pleased by Pluralities of Votes but to deliver their Opinions and advices as should be most agreeable to the Word of God another proviso in the Ordinance they did the same A.S. 1. M.S. would here seem to give some great power unto the Parliament in matters of Religion yet it is nothing else but that which he grants to too many private Members of particular Churches So that if the King and Parliament will become Members of this M. S. his Church and He please to admit them it may be that he will grant them as much power as to other private Members thereof 2. Note that he saies not that it belongs unto them but that they claime it exercise act and make use of it but quo jure quave injuriâ he telleth not 3. In all this there appeareth no intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall Power they did it not by a Spirituall but by a Secular Power 4. And if the Church had not a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Power to determine and to conclude what needed the Parliament to forbid it the Synod rather then ordinary Tradesmen who have no such power to determine such matters 5. Neither by this command is it the Parliaments mind as I beleeve to take away from the Church the directive and intrinsecall Power that God hath granted her but only to desire her to put off her Determinations till it see how farre it can prevaile by faire meanes to gaine pertinacious men who may oppoâ—e it and happily also till it receive full satisfaction it selfe before it confirme such Determinations by an Act of Parliament and so make them to be received by their authority in the State for the Parliament hath no lesse Civill and Secular Authority to receive or not receive it by a Civill Law into the state then any Synod hath spirituall authority to establish or not establish it by an Ecclesiasticall Law in the Church Wherefore in this the Parliament intended not to crosse the Church Government nor to be crossed in their Civill Government by the Church as in former times
subjection unto their Order for Compulsion is a principio externo contra inclinationem agentis it proceedeth from an Externall principle against the Naturall inclination of the Agent viz. that is compelled to produce the action and so is exercised only against the Body over which the Church taketh no authority but the Civill Magistrate alone 2. Neither said I to my knowledge any such thing 3. Neither cite you the place 4. Only I remember that in my Observations and Annotations upon the Apologie p. 39. § 4 I said That the combined Eldership having an Authoritative power all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves thereunto viz. in a Spirituall manner since the power is Spirituall Never a word here of compulsion or violence Our Churches neither compell mens bodies nor have they any Prisons or any pecuniary mulcts but if any man will trouble the Church and be disobedient it is the duty of the Christian Civill Magistrate to use his power to hinder such a disorder If we have not a Christian and an Orthodox Magistrate in some places as in France and in some parts of Germany or if the Christian Magistrate will not doe his duty he who will not submit unto our Church-Government is cast out and punished Spiritually by simple Censure Suspension or Excommunication according to the quality of his sin 5. Learne also I pray you M.S. that it is not fallibility but actuall failing or ignorance that may excuse him who is subject unto any Government or Authority from obedience Nor yet all failing in judgement or error but only that which is antecedent to all the acts of our Will which morally we cannot shun and is invincible 6. Neither is it evermore expedient that Subjects know certainly whether their Governours judge or doe right in what they doe for Subjects in some cases must obey in virtue of a probable knowledge or conjecture that their Governours command justly and especially when they are not compelled to be Actors in that which they believe to be unlawfull for them to doe For I put the case that the King and Parliament take a resolution to make War against any Foraigne Prince and presse some men to serve in such a War It is not for every pressed man to call the King and Parliament to an account about the equity of the War neither are they bound to discover to every Souldier all the secrets and particularities of State thereupon M.S. Ob. 28. Why are you not satisfied with that subjection to your Presbyterial Decisions that pleadeth no exemption but only in case of non-satisfaction about the lawfulnesse or truth of them A.S. Ans 1. We are content with it 2. And in case of non-satisfaction our Churches give them sufficient satisfaction 3. But if they will not be satisfied when many thousands are satisfied we maintaine that it is not equitable that when 20000. or 30000. are satisfied two or three under pretext of non-satisfaction or twenty or thirty pertinacious fellowes should have liberty to trouble all the Churches of God in the World 4. We say moreover that the Church in disputing and conferring with them and afterward in judging that she hath given them sufficient satisfaction hath given them sufficient satisfaction morally and that wise men should judge it sufficient in foro Externo and thereupon that they are to be condemned by the Church in foro Externo for there is no other way to proceed to sentence either in foro Civili or Ecclesiastico 5. If this will not satisfie them yet if they will be quiet and not trouble the Church of God with their Conventicles we can in Christian charity tolerate them in their weaknesse yea in their malice if there be any till God impart unto them more grace But this serveth nothing for Independents who are come over the Sea to beg a quarrell of us and to erect Churches in despite of the Civill Magistrate against all Lawes yea against their own Tenets if they write as they believe for they pretend that Churches cannot be erected without the Civill Magistrates consent 6. If all this content them not and their Conscience will not permit them to doe otherwise the Ports are free for them they may be gone and live in all liberty of Conscience in New England and trouble no more the Country here then the Country shall trouble them there 7. Or if this will not content them wherefore will they have more liberty here then they will grant us in New-England M.S. Ob. 29. If Parties may have cause to be offended with the Church then have they power to judge of their actions as well as they of theirs But the first is true Ergo the second also A.S. I distinguish the Consequent of the Proposition They may judge by a publick Judgement It is false for every particular or private man hath not a publike power to judge nor consequently a Publike judgement they may judge by a private power which properly is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestas authoritas or Authoritative power or judgement but a judgement of Discretion so it is true but such a Judgement is not sufficient to exempt him from obedience I meane not an active but a passive or rather a permissive obedience for howsoever his erronious judgement may excuse and dispence him from an act wherein he is Actor against his Conscience yet can it not excuse him from suffering the judgement of the Church for if he will not doe what they will according to Gods Word they may doe and he must suffer and permit them to doe what he willeth not and what they will according to Gods Word whereof he hath no Publike power to judge he must no way oppose activè the publike Judgement and Authority of the Church since he hath no publike power he must not set up a new Church but deal with the Church according to his vocation and if he cannot prevail in conferring with the Church he may appeal from a Parish Presbytery to a Classe if there he be likewise oppressed he may appeal to a Provinciall Synod if there again he be wronged by their Judgement he may appeal unto a Nationall Synod if there he be oppressed which probably will not ordinarily fall out in all these Judicatories rather then in first and last instance in an Independent Church compounded peradventure of seven or eight idle Fellows or pretend to be offended he must sit down patiently And if he have any scruple of Conscience he may consult forraign Divines and if those satisfie him not in this singularity of his opinion I then propound my question Whether it be more equitable That all the Churches of the World submit to this particular mans opinion or he to theirs Object But what if they erre all and he be right Answ When God hath not given you any ordinary remedy you must have patience there must be Offences yea Heresies But woe unto him that is the Cause
professing the true Faith 3. Nor of every visible Church of Beleevers but of that which is compounded of all its Organicall Parts viz. Preachers Teachers Ruling Elders Deacons and Flock 4. It is to be observed That this Church is either Reall or Representative We call Reall Churches those wherein such Church Officers and Flocks are really as in every Parish Provinciall or Nation Church But a Representative Church is that wherein the Reall Church is represented in Her Church Officers as a Presbytery Session or Consistory consisting of the Preachers and Ruling Elders or the Deacons also of a Parish Church gathered together for ordering of Church businesse in Doctrine Government or otherwayes who altogether represent the Church of a Parish A Classe that representeth that of a Classe and judgeth of all the Church businesse of one Classe A Provinciall Synod which consisteth of the Ministers and a certain number of Ruling Elders of one Province representing all the Reall Churches of such a Province in judging of Church Affairs in that Province and a Nationall Synod compounded of a certain number of Ministers and Ruling Elders deputed from all the Provinces of the Nation to judge of the Church businesse in Doctrine Discipline c. which concerneth the whole Church of such a Nation or Kingdom 2. Concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories it is to be observed 1. That an Ecclesiasticall Judicatory is nothing else but a certain number of men gathered together and endowed with an Authoritative power according to Gods will to judge of Church businesse for Gods glory and the Weal of the Church or in a word the Representative Church of one Parish Classe Province Nation or of all the World 2. That Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories is a Relation of Order betwixt a Superiour and an Inferiour Judicatory or Representative Church whereby the Iudgement and Authority of the Inferiour depends upon the Iudgement and Authority of the Superiour Such we conceive to be betwixt Presbyteries and Classes Classes and Provinciall Provinciall and Nationall Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods 3. Here it would be noted That this Subordination is grounded upon the Authoritative power of Superiour Iudicatories over their Inferiours or Subordinated and therefore here is to be noted first That this Power of the Church is not Naturall that floweth from the Nature or Essence of the Subject such as are the Faculties of the Soul nor Habituall or an Habitude either Naturally acquired by Custome or Supernaturally infused by Grace for men may have all the Naturall Faculties of the Soul and many Naturall and Supernaturall Habitudes yea all those that are necessary for this Authoritative power and yet not have it as any one may easily see in many learned and godly Divines who are not Ministers of the Church and consequently have no Authoritative power in the Church But it is a Morall power ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or potestas whereby in vertue of Gods Ordinance the Superiour Church hath power over the Inferiours or other Churches subordinated unto Her to rectifie their Iudgements in case of Aberration or to enjoyn them any thing according to Gods holy Ordinance So when particular Churches judge any thing amisse either in Doctrine or Discipline a Classe or a Provinciall Synod may judge of that Iudgement and in case it finde it have need may in the Name of God command it to reform its Iudgement and in case of disobedience command the people not to obey their Pastors or Presbyteries commands or if there be any thing that concerneth the Weal of all the Churches in the Kingdom the Nationall Synod hath an Authoritative power to judge it and enjoyn it upon the Churches in the Name of God so may a Provinciall Church do in things concerning all the Churches of a Province I call an Authoritative power that which may command and in vertue of its command enjoyn an obligation of Obedience upon all those that are subject thereunto and in case of Disobedience inflict Spirituall punishments according to the quality of the Disobedience viz. Simple Censure the lesser or greater Excommunication If ye inquire further what is this Morall power or wherein it consists I answer It is no Reall but a Morall being it is no Reall quality in the Subject that hath it and consequently it is no Reall or Naturall power but as 〈◊〉 were a Naturall power for as our Naturall powers and faculties do flow from the Essence of the Subject or from our Essentiall Forms so doth this Morall power flow from the consent and will of them who give it and his will who consents to accept it and this consent producing such a Morall power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no lesse forma internè vel externè denominans efficaciter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 producens quà m forma essentialis is forma informans potentiam naturalem a se in se vel in subjecto profundens And as naturall powers are for the Weal of their Subjects in accomplishing and perfecting of them in their operations convenient to their nature so it s this Morall power for the Weal of its Morall Subject or of the consociation in perfecting it in its operations convenient to its Morall being Domesticall Politicall or Ecclesiasticall in Nature or in Grace Wherefore Amesius and sundry Independents that follow his opinion are mightily mistaken whilest they think it floweth from the Essence of the Church 1. For it hath not its being from the Essence of the Church but ex instituto divino 2. Because it is not produced necessarily as Naturall proprieties but freely and willingly not as depending upon Nature but upon Will 3. If it did flow from the Essence of the Church God could not change it And yet howsoever this Morall power hath no Reall being in it self yet may it be called Reall 1. In consideration of its Cause viz. Of the Reall destination of the Will from which it s produced 2. Of its Foundation viz. Because it presupposeth some Reall qualities in him or those who have it viz. Naturall faculties and some naturall or supernaturall Abilities to exercise it 3. Of its Effects that are Reall for howsoever the power of a Magistrate be not a Reall quality yet it is able to produce very Reall Effects in Subjects in remunerating such as deserve well of the State and in punishing Delinquents as by imprisoning their persons or cutting off their Heads if the crime be of that nature Again it must be observed That this Morall power is 1. either meerly Directive which onely sheweth what is to be done or Imperative that cannot onely shew or discern what is to be done but also commands and in vertue of such a command bindes those that are subject to such a Power to Obedience and in case of Disobedience inflicts condign punishments 2. That this Morall power is either Civill or Ecclesiasticall the first belongs to the Civill Magistrate the second to Ecclesiasticall persons 3.
Deut. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.13 14 20.23.33 34.37 Deut. 7.6 7 8 9 10. Deut. 10.12.15.21 Deut. 26.17 18 19. Deut. 28.9 10. Deut. 29.13 14 15. And Deut. 32. vers 8 9. c. When the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance when he seperated the sons of Adam Iacob was the Lot of his Inheritance c. Amos 3.2 You onely have I known of all the Families of the Earth Deut. 39.29 Happy art thou O Israel who is like unto thee O People saved by the Lord the shield of thy help and who is the sword of thy Encellency 2. Because Independents define a Congregationall Church a number of men Covenanted together to participate of Gods Ordinances viz. the hearing of the Word the receiving of the Sacraments c. in some one place every Sabbath day But all the Church of the Jewes could not meet in one place in such a fashion as every man will easily grant Ergo 3. Because the great Sanedrim at Jerusalem judged of all Ecclesiasticall Causes throughout all the Kingdome 4. Because the People of God besides their Assemblyes in the Temple which was an holy place common to all their Nationall Church had their particular Conventions in particular Synagogues And however men may doubt of these Synagogues whether they were exinstituto divino or not and of the time when first they began yet can it not be denied but if they were not divinae institutionis they were at least divinae approbationis 1. For they are no where condemned in Scripture 2. But Christ and his Apostles approved them in that they went ordinarily to them disputed and expounded Scripture in them 3. And submitted themselves unto the order and Discipline established therein Answ But the Independents will say that the Nationall Church is abrogated in the New Testament Iust 1. Then it is their part to point us to the place in the New Testament where it is abrogated 2. It cannot be abrogated in the New Testament for those Ordinances only of the Old Testament are abrogated in the New that belonged unto the Ceremoniall Law But to have a Church or a Church Government more then Congregationall per se or considered in it selfe belong not to the Ceremoniall Law Ergo The Major is certaine I prove the Minor 1. For it might have been even in the State of Integrity without the Ceremoniall Law 2. And so indeed it was after the Fall before ever Moses his Ceremoniall Law was made 3. And that is not meerely Ceremoniall whereof we may evidently give naturall reason or that which is evidently grounded in naturall reason or at least in so far as evidently grounded in naturall reason since it is meerely Positive But supposing that there is a Church of God to have a Church or a Church Government more then Congregationall and Independent is evidently grounded in naturall reason or a thing where evidently we may give Naturall reason c. as wee shall see hereafter Ergo 3. Only those things of the Old Testament are abrogated by the New which were shadows of things to come viz. of Christ Reall or Mistycall But such a Church i. e. more then a Congregationall Independent Church was not a shadow of things to come in Christ c. Ergo The Major is certaine for the things commanded or approved in the Old Testament belonged either to the Morall or to the Ceremoniall or to the Judiciall Law As for the things of the first sort they are juris naturalis and consequently perpetuall which are not abrogated and of themselves were not shadows of things to come As for those of the Judiciall Law of themselves they are not shadows but belong unto Civill Government which Christ abrogated not since his Kingdom was not of this world and if the Jews had submitted themselves to Christ and had been freed from externall oppression it is probable that they should have enjoyed their own Government according to the Judiciall Law so far forth as Judiciall neither was it his aym to overthrow any worldly States Policies or Politicall Laws Christs Kingdom was and is compatible with all the Kingdoms and States of the world if they will not destroy it and he will let them reign over mens bodies and purses if they can let him reign over their Souls These that were commanded in the Ceremoniall Law were indeed shadows but such was not a Church more then Congregationall To all these Reasons some have answered That they would have it proved by Scriptures of the New Testament just 1. But wherefore prove they their opinion by the Old Testament if they will not permit us the same liberty 2. Our former Reasons have sufficiently proved That proofs taken from the Old Testament should hold in all that which is not abrogated in the New 3. If in this Subject they reject the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the Jews in all things that of the New there will be two Errors Diametrically opposite the one to the other theirs and the Jews But to give them more contentment we will prove it likewise by Texts of the New Testament and first from that of the Acts Chapters 1 2 4 and 5. 2. A Church compounded of 8120. is more then a Parishionall or Congregationall Independent Church But the Church of Jerusalem Acts 1.15 Acts 2.41 Acts 4.4 was a Church compounded of 8120. yea of more as appeareth by Acts 5.14 26. Ergo The Church of Jerusalem was more sure then a Parishionall or Congregationall Independent Church The Major Proposition is certain for the Independents define their Church which Christ in his Gospel hath instituted and to which he hath committed the Keyes of his Kingdom the Power of binding and loosing the Tables and Seales of the Covenant the Officers and Censures of his Church the Administration of his publike Worship and Ordinances Caetus a company of Beleevers meeting in one place every Lords day for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God to publike Edification The Way of the Church of Christ in New England The due Right of Presbyteries Chap. 1. Prop. 1. From hence I argue thus The Church whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition because of its multitude is more then an Independent Congregationall Church But a Church compounded of 8120 is a Church whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition c. Ergo. The Major is certain The Minor I prove it for 8120. could not meet together every Lords day in one House c. For in those times Christians had not yet any Temples but gathered together in particular Houses which could not receive them all 1. Because they were not ordinarily spacious as great and rich mens Houses for as the Apostle sayeth There are not many wise men after the flesh nor many mighty nor many noble called but the foolish weak base and despised things of the world 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28. 2. Howbeit they had been spacious as rich mens houses yet could they not have received such
lesser Sanedrim unto that of the great one as has been proved by Mr. Rutherford Gillispy Hearl c. Art 1. and 2. 3. The Representative Church or first Generall Councell at Jerusalem had Power and Authority over all the Churches of the world since it gave them a Minister viz. Mathias Ergo All other Churches in their Iudgements and Power of creating such a Minister were subject unto it Object If it be said That it was an extraordinary Councell 1. Because it was indicted and convocated by Christ 2. Because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons 3. Because the Persons received extraordinary gifts there 4. Because it was in the birth and beginning of the Church Reply The Scripture saith not That it was Extraordinary As for the the Proofs I answer to the first 1. That howbeit it was indicted and convocated by Christ yet was it not indicted and convocated in an extraordinary way 2. That a Councell may be extraordinarily indicted and convocated and yet be ordinary in its proceedings 3. That the Indiction and Convocation of a Councell is Extrinsecall and Antecedent to a Councell because that it is before that the Councell be and therefore cannot make it Intrinsecally extraordinary when it is existent So Adam was made in an extraordinary way of Earth and by creation and Eva of Adams Rib and yet they were not extraordinary persons in their nature existence conservation or accidents 4. Neither read we that it was convocated in an extraordinary way 5. Neither can it be extraordinary because it was convocated by Christ for by the same reason all that ever Christ did to men should have been extraordinary To the second I have already answered To the third I answer 1. That the extraordinary gifts were personall only and belonged unto the materiall parts of the Councell and not to the form thereof and therefore could not make it formally extraordinary in quality of a Councell for formall denominations are not taken from the matter but from the form so if there be six or seven Ecclesiasticall persons assembled to dinetogether we call it not an Ecclesiastical Assembly 2. I answer That these extra ordinary gifts were subsequent unto the Councell or at least to that Ecclesiasticall proceeding in the election of Mathias Now that which is subsequent to any thing cannot denominate it formally or at least in the time precedent when the Subject precedeth such a subsequent Adjunct or Circumstance See more concerning this Argument heretofore To the fourth I answer 1. That all that which was in the birth and infancie of the Church was not Extraordinary for by that reason the Preaching of the Gospel and the Administration of the Sacraments should have been Extraordinary 2. Things that are Ordinary must have a beginning 3. And howsoever at their beginning they be Extraordinary in respect of time because before their beginning they were not Ordinary but out of the precedent order yet they are Ordinary in respect of Gods Ordinance or Law which is ordinatio rationis that should be ordinary in Gods Church Object If it be yet said That Mathias was an Extraordinary Minister and his Vocation Extraordinary I answer That all that is true and yet in this Extraordinary Vocation there was something Ordinary viz. The Nomination and Election or Admittance of him to be a Minister of the Church according to the Independents opinion otherwayes their Argument should be very impertinent in proving from hence the power of the people in choosing their Ministers That which there was Extraordinary was not done by the Councell and therefore could not make the Councell Extraordinary As much may be said of that Councell that created seven Deacons for many Churches 5. But principally we will urge that businesse of Antioch in that difference betwixt St. Paul and Barnabas on the one part and some Pharisees converted to the Christian Faith on the other Hereupon it was resolved that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jernsalem unto the Apostles and Elders about that question v. 2. they were sent by the Church of Antioch v. 3. they were received by the Church and by the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem v. 4 the Assembly being gathered at Jerusalem the Cause was heard v. 4.5 considered v. 6. discussed v. 7. voyced v. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 judged v. 22. the Iudgement or Decree of the Councell or Assembly sent to Antioch from the 22. v. to the 30. read and obeyed by the Church at Antioch c. v. 31. Here is the Church of Antioch judged by a superiour Church at Ierusalem an Appeal formed or interjected from the one to the other received by the other judged and obeyed And therefore it cannot be denyed but there was some Subordination betwixt these two Churches and that the one had authority over the other To this Argument some answer 1. That if it prove any thing it can only conclude an Appeal from one Parish Church or particular Congregation unto another since the Church of Antioch and of Hierusalem were no other then Parish Churches Rep. 1. This Answer cannot hold 1. Because no such thing can probably be collected out of this Text or of any other in Scripture and therefore it may be as easily rejected by us as it is alleadged by them 2. Because hardly can it be proved that in those times Churches were divided into Parishes 3. Because an Appeale cannot be from one Parish or Congregationall Church unto another since their authority is equall but only from an inferior to a superior Church or Judicatory 4. Because if it was from one particular Congregation to another then that Congregation from which it was appealed was not compleat in its Judgement but had need of some Extrinsecall power which is against the Tenets of Independents themselves 5. Because if we might appeale from one particular Congregation to another how much more from a particular Congregation unto a Synod wherein the Spirit of God and especially that of Prophecie doth more abound 6. Because the Apostles in Hierusalem were not members of any particular Church 7. Because if the Assembly at Hierusalem had been a particular or Congregationall Church it could not have given out a Decree which should have bound so many Churches to obedience viz. those of Antioch Syria and Cilicia v. 23. 2. It may be otherwayes answered That it was an Appeale but not to any Ordinary but an Extraordinary Church viz. to that of the Apostles and that for these Reasons 1. Because it was Extraordinarily gathered 2. By Extraordinary persons 3. It was compounded of Extraordinary persons viz. the Apostles 4. Because this Appeale was to the Apostles who were infallible and Extraordinary Ministers 5. Because it was in the birth and beginning of the Gospel Rep. 2. This Answer cannot hold 1. Because the Scripture declareth not that this Church or Assembly was Extraordinary 2. Neither is it a satisfactory Answer whenever
under the notion of Apostles and Church-Ministers endowed with extraordinary gifts and namely of Infallibility governed the whole Church extraordinarily so doe Generall Councels endowed with ordinary gifts govern it ordinarily 14. I would willingly enquire of the Independents to what Church were added so many thousands that were baptized by the Apostles and added unto the Church in one day Whether to a Particular Congregation or to a greater Ecclesiasticall Consociation It could not be to a Particular Congregation 1. For the Reasons I have already produced 2. Because the Apostles were not Particular but Universall Ministers set over the Universall Militant Church and therefore in vertue of their charge admitted them to be Members of all the Churches whereof they were Ministers 3. Because they were of divers and sundry Countries neither is it credible that to be a Member of the Church they were bound to quit their Countries and to stay at Hierusalem howsoever so long as they did stay there they might participate as well of all the rest of Gods Ordinances as of Baptisme Ergo they were added to some greater Consociation viz. to that and to all those whereof the Apostles were Ministers for out of all doubt the Apostles who baptized them could not refuse to admit them unto the Lords Table wherever they celebrated the Sacrament If it be answered That this Argument only proveth a greater Reall but not a greater Representative Church I reply That directly only it proveth a greater Reall viz. an Vniversall Militant Church but yet by consequence it proveth also a Representative Church of the same extent for every Reall Church may be represented in its Commissioners or Messengers as ye call them that meet in a Synod If it be yet answered that this may prove a greater Representative Church but not endowed with any Authoritative power I reply It is a power of Iudging which must be Authoritative and cannot be meerly Consultative such as is that of every Tinker who may give counsell to a Church and that of one Church which hath power to give counsell to a thousand yea to ten thousand represented in a Synod for particular Churches being parts of the whole Provinciall Nationall or Universall Militant Church must be subject to the whole for it is a Maxime in Philosophie that Totum non subjicitur parti sed pars toti Item Totum non regitur motu partis sed Pars Totius And they distinguish between the Universall and Particular Inclination of things and tell us That a part doth sometimes quit its Particular Inclination to be ruled according to the Inclination of the whole as when water which according to its Particular Inclination descends yet to avoid the vacuum whereof might ensue the overthrow of the world against its Particular Inclination but according to its Universall Inclination as it is for the Totall it ascends And so it is or should be in Politicall and all Spirituall Consociations for the parts cannot be conserved but in the whole The Politicians also tell us that Lex paerticularis cedit generali so Laws that concern Particular Cases or Consociations must give place to the generall Law of more generall Cases and Consociations for the generall good of Consociations is to be preferred before the Particular good of Particular Persons or Particular Consociations 15. All the Churches here upon Earth make up one Republike tyed together by Faith Charity and other Particular Christian vertues as that in Heaven another Now it is a Maxime in Politicks Salus Reipub. suprema Lex esto Ergo There must be one Law common to this whole Christian Republike If so Ergo There must be some visible Iudges to judge according to this Law otherwayes in vain should we have it Now this visible Iudge can be no other but a Synod For if ye say it is Christ then we cannot be legally Iudged according to this Law till the day of Iudgement when Christ shall Iudge the quick and the dead which is most ridiculous 16. C. C. acknowledgeth That by Baptism we are made Members of the Universall Militant Church and consequently Subjects of some Christian Republike Ergo There are some Iudges to judge such Subjects But those Iudges are not in one Particular Church for by Baptism as he sayeth They are not admitted to the societie of any Particular Church Ergo They must be judged by some greater Representative Church which must be either Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall 17. It is a generall Rule of S. Paul in matter of Church Government That the Spirits of Prophets be subject to Prophets 1 Cor. 14 32. Which cannot at all or at least cannot easily and commodiously be obtained in the Independent Opposition or Coordination as in some Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies or Iudicatories for when all are equall there is no subjection of one to another 18. This Doctrine of Subordination of Inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories to their Superiours with a Coordination of Inferiour Iudicatories or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies amongst themselves is most convenient to the nature of the Sacraments in receiving unto them all such as are our Brethren in Christ whereas a meer Opposition Independency or at most a Coordination of Churches founded on a meer will and charitie without any Law is repugnant to it in so far forth as it debarreth from them such as are worthy to be received 19. The Apostle commands That all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 And telleth us That God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace Vers 33. Now where there is no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories When none of them is subject one to another but they are all equall when one Church be she never so corrupted in life and Doctrine hath as great Authority over all the Churches of the World represented together in a Synod be they never so sound in their life and Doctrine as they all have over her What can be done decently and in order I adjure you all tell me in Conscience Whether ye think that God can be the Author of any such order or rather of so abominable a confusion 20. I could shew how that this Subordination is most convenient and the contrary Independency Opposition or Coordination of Churches founded on mans meer will is most repugnant 1. unto the perfection that appeareth in all Gods Works both in those of Nature and of Grace 2. To Gods Truth and Wisdom in giving no better means for redressing of Offences 3. To his Iustice in making of Laws that cannot suppresse Heresies and all sort of wickednesse in disordered Churches 4. To his Mercy that in furnishing us so graciously so many means and helps to Salvation he should have given us this Independent Anarchy to crosse them all yea to lead us irresistibly to Hell 5. To his Providence in providing of means so disproportionate and incommensurated for so excellent an end viz. for the peace of the Church means more fit to trouble then to
procure her peace and to put all the Churches of God in confusion rather then in order 21. Is it credible that God should have given his Son to death to purchase us an Order whereby all Churches might live in Peace and Unity and yet make them to quit all Sacramentall Communion one with another having no common Confession of Faith nor any common plat-forme of Ecclesiasticall Government among them Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be an Jndependency of Churches CHAP. I. The Question Stated AS M. S. of the first Question made two so doth he here of the second other two viz. his third Question for Presbyteriall Government whereof he treated in the former chap. and his 4. Question of Independency whereof he treateth in this his 4. chap. but they are not two Questions but two divers Opinions about one and the same Question so having committed this fault he commits againe another much worse for he goeth on very confusedly in the beginning of his Dispute and without ever stating the Question or declaring what he meaneth by Independency he goeth about to justifie his Independent government in a Cataskevastique or assertive way wherefore to the end that the Reader may the better judge both of his Cataskevastique and of my Anaskevastique way I will state the Question and shew what he hath to prove and I to refute 1. Note therefore I pray thee courteous Reader that Independency is a sort of Ecclesiastical Government whereby every particular Church is ruled by its Minister its Doctor some Ruling Elders and all those who are admitted to be Members thereof who how Heterodox and Haereticall soever they be in Doctrine and how wicked and damnable soever they be in their Lives will not yet submit to any Ecclesiasticall power whatsoever yea not to that of all the Churches of the world were they never so Orthodox and holy in their lives 2. Note that the reason wherefore they will not submit to any Ecclesiasticall authority according to their opinion is not out of any disobedience in themselves as they pretend but for want of authority in the Churches for they beleeve that howbeit any particular Church or any of her members should fal into never so damnable Heresies or wickednesse that yet God hath not ordained any authoritative power to judge her but that her power is as great as that of all the Churches in the world and that all that they can do in such a case is no more but only to Counsell her as she may do them and in case she will not follow their Counsell that they ought to do nothing else but onely declare that they will have no more communion with her as she may likewise do to them in the like case viz. if they will not follow her Advice when she is offended with their Doctrine Government Life or Proceedings The Question then betwixt us and them is whether God hath established any such Independent Government in his Church or not We deny it M. S. affirmeth it and argueth as followeth M. S. Page 75. of his Book Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government That can I quoth A. S. in effect page 38 39. c. I have 10. Reasons or Objections against it A. S. I confesse that M. S. braggeth of this his Independent Government as his words expresse but it is a manifest untruth that ever I bragged of 16. Reasons as M. S. most foolishly representeth me here It is A. S. his custome to bring Reasons and not to boast of them as it is M. S. his manner to boast and bragg with high words without any reason at all And for answer to this I say there is no one such word or expression in all my Booke It is but M. S. his words and fiction M. S. I shall not spend time in transcribing these your Reasons but shall desire the Reader though it may be some discourtesie unto you to take your Booke into his hand A. S. I am bound to your courtesie good Sir that will not let my weake Reasons appeare in Front against your strong Answers But since it is not M. S. his pleasure that they appeare in his most worthy Booke I hope that the courteous Reader shall not be offended if I make them together with his Answers and A. S. his Duplyes appeare here in mine My Arguments then were such as follow CHAP. II. Reasons against the Independency of Particular Congregations 1. THe Independent Churches have no sufficient remedy for miscariages though never so grosse no reliefe for wrongfull Sentences or Persons injured by them no Powerfull or Effectuall meanes to reduce a Church or Churches that fall into Heresie or Schisme c. All that they can doe is only to pronounce a Sentence of Non-Communion against Delinquent Churches as on the other side Delinquent Churches may doe against them 2. This Remedy is new neither was it known to the Independent Congregations before that emergent Case in Holland related in the Apologeticall Narration for if that Church offending had known so much it is not credible that she would against all charity and the common Order of all Churches have committed so great a Scandall 3. This Remedy is not sufficient nor satisfactory because all Churches according to your Tenets are equall in Authority independent one of another and Par in parem non habet imperium None hath power or authority over his Equall How then could any Church binde another to any such Account but out of its free will as a Party may doe to its Party 4. Because the Churches that are or that pretend to be offended by a Delinquent Church cannot judge her for then they become both Iudge and Party in one cause which cannot be granted to those who have no Authoritative power one over another as when a Private man offendeth the State and We our God 5. What if many Churches yea all the Churches should offend one should that one Church gather all the rest together judge them all and in case of not submitting themselves to her judgement separate her selfe from them all If so we should have Separations and Schismes enough which should be continued to all Posteritie to come 6. What if Churches were so remote one from another that they could not so easily meet together upon every occasion Then there should be no Remedy at least no easie Remedy 7. What if the Offence were small Should so many Churches for every trifle gather together and put themselves to so great cost and trouble 8. What if the Churches should differ in their Iudgements one from another In such a case should they all by Schismes separate themselves one from another 9. This sort of Government giveth no more Power or Authority to a thousand Churches over one then to a Tinker yea to a Hangman over a thousand for he may desire them all out of charitie to give an account of their Iudgement in case he be offended
by them Neither see I what more our Brethren grant to all the Churches of the World over one But the Presbyteriall Government is subject to none of these inconveniences for the collective or combined Eldership having an Authoritative power all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves thereunto Every man knoweth their set times of meeting wherein sundry matters are dispatched and all things caried by Plurality of Voyces without any Schisme or Separation 10. This Government viz. Iedependency is a Power wherein the Party is judged if he will and so the Iudgement of the Iudges suspended upon the Iudgement of the Party judged which is most ridiculous without any example in Civill or Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories a Iudgement not very unlike to that which is related of a merry man who said That he had the best and most obedient Wife in the World because saith he she willeth nothing but what I will And as all men wondred at it knowing her to be the most disobedient yea saith he but I must first will what she willeth else she wills nothing that I will 11. This sort of Government is unjust and unreasonable for not only the Party judgeth its Party but also inslicteth the same punishment viz. Separation upon all offending Churches whatever the offence be great or small in case of non-satisfaction whereas all Punishments should be commensurable unto the severall Offences 12. And so ye seem to approve the Opinion of the Stoicks who held all sinnes to be equall since ye inflict the same punishment upon them all 13. Not only this Discipline cannot be easily put in execution in great Kingdomes as England wherein all the Churches offended cannot so easily meet together But also 14. Because the person offended after he hath represented his grievances unto the Church and that Church hath received satisfaction he may goe to another and so continually in infinitum to the Worlds end evermore taking those Churches for the Party that judge it which is most absurd and foolish 15. What if the Party offended be poore and have not the meanes to post up and down from neigbour-Church to neighbour-Church to pray them to make the offending Church to give an account of her Iudgement Much lesse to attend upon their uncertain conveniencie Here will be found true Pauper ubique jacet Whereas in Presbyteriall Government the Party offended may be easily redressed and get satisfaction as not having need so to post up and down to be at so great charges or to attend their conveniencie for by a simple Appeale he may binde the Church offending to appeare at the day appointed 16. What if there should fall out an hundred such offences in a short time Must so many Churches evermore gather together for every one of them apart 17. What if Churches be poore and cannot be at so great expence Then in that case it should seem there is no Order to meet with Offences I may adde these following Reasons 18. This Independencie maketh all the Churches of Christ like so many Scopae dissolutae loose Broomes that have no tye or band to hold them together and so destroyeth the unity of the Militant Church 19. The very word Independencie applied to men how much more the thing signified thereby should be odious to all Christian ears as being proper to God Almighty How proud abominable is this expression We seven men who constitute this Church we will not depend on all the Churches of this World We will not depend on any create Ecclesiasticall power yea not upon all the Angels in Heaven and men upon Earth but will be Independents and have others to depend upon us 20. If so what is the cause that ye oppose the Kings Majesties Absolute or Independent power in State matters Truly this being only Secular cannot be so dangerous as the other viz. as Yours for this only may be prejudiciall to our Bodies or States but Yours may kill millions of Soules neither is the Kings Authority more limited in the State then yours is in the Church 21. What will ye that where-ever there is 7. or 8. of you combined together to make up a Church ye shall depend on no man but have an independent and absolute power to bring into the Kingdome whatever Heresie ye please to blaspheme God and so vi irresistibili with the Arminians to goe to Hell If so God have mercy on you But it may be said that the Civill Magistrate may hinder them But M.S. will answer 1. That he should not punish any man for Religion 2. That the Civill Power is of another sort then Ecclesiasticall 3. What if the Civill Magistrate be not a Protestant or what if he be a profane man 4. Howbeit he were a Protestant and a good Christian yet should it follow that the Church-power is neither sufficient nor perfect in suo genere since it must have recourse unto the Civill Magistrates power which is of another nature and extra hoc Genus CHAP. III. M.S. his Evasions refuted and my Arguments made good and first those that he bringeth against the third Argument M.S. answereth not all nor any considerable number of my Arguments as he confesseth himselfe but scratcheth at a few of them whereby he weakens them not but overthroweth the Government of all States That of the Church of the Old Testament the Practice of the Apostles and Apostolike Churches and the fundaments of Independent Government it self as God willing we shall see hereafter The first of my Reasons that he snaps at is the 3. viz. This Remedy viz. of non-Communion is not sufficient nor satisfactory because all Churches according to your Tenets be equall in authority Independent one of another and par in parem non habet imperium none hath power or authority over his equall How then could any Church binde any other to any such accompt but out of its freewill as a party may doe to its party M. S. 1. Suppose that course which the Apologists insist upon be not in the eye of reason a means sufficient to such a purpose yet if it be a meanes which God hath authorized for the effecting it it will do the deed A.S. It seemth that M.S. would fain enter into the Lists against Reason it self but he must know that Gods Ordinance and Reason are not opposite one to another since he who is the author of Nature is the Author of Grace also neither as Author of Nature sights he against himself as Author of Grace 2. It is a Maxime of Popery and Lutheranisme to oppose Nature Grace 3. Christ and the Apostles served themselves of Naturall Reason in Scripture 4. And out of the case of supernaturall revelation above it which cannot be contrary unto it it must be beleeved 5 He supposeth that Independency and withdrawing and renouncing all Christian Communion with such Churches untill they repent is a sufficient meanes authorized by God which hitherto appeareth not yea
of the New Now answer me What if the great Sanedrim had miscarried in the Old Testament as some times it did or the Parliament and the Kings Counsell in the State what should be be done in such a Case And then I shall answer you the other It is a foolery to dispute against Gods Ordinance 6. I answer That in such an extraordinary Case which goeth beyond all particular Laws and Orders established in the Church viz. When all the ordinary Seers become blinde or mislead the Flock there being no ordinary we must have recourse to such extraordinary remedies as are most convenient or at least not repugnant to Gods Word and attend upon Gods extraordinary Providence The Provinciall Synods may refuse to put in execution the Acts of the Generall Assembly so may particular Churches for they are not bound to be Actors for the generall Assembly in any thing against Gods Word 7. But what if in your petty Congregations of seven or eight persons four persons or peradventure all the Congregation miscarry What shall be done You will happily say 1. Seck Counsell But if all the Congregation be corrupted none of them will ask counsell but they will all rather lurk and hide their Tenets as the Independents do here at the Synod If you say again Other Churches that are offended may complain to Neighbour Churches But what if they know not their Tenets What if the Delinquent Church will not own them but Iesuitically elude all Interrogatories as the Antinomians the Independents and all other Sectaries do here What if they own them What can the Churches offended do for M. S. will tell you they cannot be Iudge since they are Parties or if they judge they can but judge as so many Lackeys or Foot-Boyes They have no more Authority to command that Delinquent Church then that Delinquent Church hath to command them all Object But they will pronounce a Sentence of non-Communion against Her Answ So will she against them and what then What remedy for all this disorder that is not taken away by all this but still increaseth It may be yet said they may go to the Civill Magistrate A. S. But that is no Ecclesiasticall remedy and M. S. will tell you 1. as well as I have done that so the last resolution of Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Judgements should be in the secular power which he holds impossible 2. Yea in the power of a Pagan or Antichristian Christian 3. And I must say That things are never resolved but into their own Principles and such is not Politicall Authority in respect of Ecclesiasticall 4. So you have not entirenesse of jurisdiction as M. S. and the rest of the Independents pretend in his first Reason 5. So you are put to trouble and charges which is against your other Reason So 6. you are subject to Strangers which destroyeth your other Reason for you hold for Strangers all such as be not of your particular Congregations as your Reasons hereafter following fully declare 7. You are not ruled within your selves which destroyes your other Reason So 8. you shall not be judged by your own Pastour which is another of your Reasons 9. You shall be judged by one who appearingly cannot fall in the same Case and so it destroyes your other Reason 10. The party being tender Foreheaded might be changed into a stone before Medusa's Head as you say in presence of strange Faces and of his Betters which destroyeth again another of your Reasons I might bring many more Inconveniences against him which he bringeth against us as destructory to the sweet Liberties and Priviledges of the Church But I must be short Onely I adde that to speak morè humano it is not credible That all Inferiour Iudicatories will or dare be so impudent as to miscarry in any thing so manifestly contrary to the common Tenets or Practises of the whole Nationall Church for the Inferiour Iudicatories will evermore fear in case of their unjust Iudgement to be condemned and censured in the Superiour and the Supreme it self may fear That if they judge any thing amisse their Iudgements will not be approved and put in execution in Particular Churches and in all humane probability they are like to be crossed M. S. asketh what if an Occumenicall or Generall Counsell erre A. S. His suppositions are so extraordinary that they cannot belong but to Independent M. S. And yet what I have already said may satisfie this also Onely this man intends to defame Gods Ordinances and his Word as insufficient to rule the Church and so he may take the Bishops and Papists by the hand And I ask what if a Parliament erre What if the great Sanedrin had erred in the Old Testament What if the Councell at Jerusalem had erred Answer me this and then I shall answer you The rest of this Section p. 77. containeth nothing but Repetitions big Words but no Reason CHAP. IV. The justification of A. S. his Reason How Presbyteriall Government is not subject to such Inconveniences as the Independencie VVHereas in my ninth Reason I shew That the Presbyteriall Government is subject to none of these Inconveniences c. Here M. S. answereth 1. Here is a remedy indeed against some inconveniences A. S. I willingly accept of this your confession M. S. But whether the inconveniences be not much better then the remedy adhuc sub judice lis est A. S. So it is a doubt in M. S. his conceit Whether it be not much better to tolerate yea to admit and permit a thousand Heresies and Blasphemies and to let whole Churches go to Hell then to submit to Presbyteriall Government such as we have defined it 1. To let a Church be Hereticall then to be reduced to Christ by any Ecclesiasticall power meerly Spirituall and Ministeriall or any other such as was in the Old Testament or as is in the State M. S. What if your combined Eldership hath neither footing or foundation in the Word of God A. S. What if it have foot and foundation on the Word of God What if we have proved it already What if it had no foot in Gods Word but were no way repugnant unto it Yet were it not in such a case to be rejected but by a thousand fold to be preferred before Independency whereupon follow so many abominable absurdities so repugnant to Gods Word yea unto Naturall Reason M. S. It is not the serviceablenesse of it against a thousand such inconveniencies as were mentioned that will justifie it and this he proveth by the examples of Sauls offering Sacrifice 1 Sam. 23.9 13 14. Of Vzzah in putting forth his hand to the Ark. Peters zeal in drawing his sword And addeth That the Popes absolute Authority is as Soveraign a Remedy against all these Inconveniencies as Classique Authority A. S. 1. I argued not from meer inconveniences but from conveniences and the want of inconveniences and repugnancy to Gods Word to justifie our Government and from inconveniences
will have some force otherwayes it hath none at all M. S. 3. Reason If they do not think their Presbyteriall Churches more holy then the Congregationall they are far more guilty of Schism then their Brethren i. e. then Independents For then they are at liberty in point of Conscience to come over and joyn with them whereas the other are in bands and fetters of Conscience and can passe unto them Their Brethren would come to them but cannot they can come over unto these but will not It is the Will and not the Act that maketh Schism and Separation A. S. 1. But if they think not their Presbyteriall Churches more holy all your Argument is ridiculous 2. And I must confesse that M. S. with his Faction are very slight who can make very few Arguments that have any appearance of reason unlesse they be grounded upon their pretended holinesse and that this be supposed as a Principle of Independent Divinity What Seneca saith of Presumptuous Scholars Multi ad sapientiam pervenissent nisi se jam jam pervenisse putassent may be more justly said of your ridiculous Sect changing onely sapientiam in veram pietatem aut vitae sanâ—â—â—iatem 3. Howbeit ye were holier then we yet could we not come unto you and that not so much because ye are not holy as because we finde in your Opinions a great folly yea by consequence more Impiety and Heresie then in sundry Hereticall Churches as we and many others also have elsewhere shewed 4. But can you think that to pleasure every Melancholious brain that differs not from us in Doctrine if he be lesse vicious then others howbeit no wayes more vertuous but onely in opinion concerning Discipline in case that under pretext of Conscience he will not submit unto our Churches that presently all our Churches must submit unto him Or were it not better that he and all his should be sent into America a while till their brains may be brought to better temper We cannot be so foolish as to come unto so inconsiderable a Party whose opinions too are yet unknown And of those that are known some more dangerous then many Heresies 5. What should we have to do with men who plead on this manner for impunity for all sin and Heresie should we admit into our Churches an Anarchy and give power to ignorant Fellows to Preach and make Ministers shall we grant unto women the shingling or gingling of the Keyes of the Church to serve my self with the trim and fine termes of Independent Divinity 6. It is a silly affected distinction of M. S. to say that it is the Will and not the Act that maketh a Schism It is both for Schism is an Act of the Will or a voluntary Act It must be Actus Voluntatis elicitus aut imperatus M.S. 4. Answer That he seeth not wherein the Apologists symbolize with Convents c. A. S. I have shewn it 1. In their Separation from others under pretext of greater Holinesse then other men have 2. And because every Order is Independent one of another just as your Congregationall Churches the Members whereof have no more Communion with Churches amongst us or amongst themselves then the Monks of one Convent with those of another Convent M. S. 5. You couple your self with these Popish Convents implying that your Presbyterians have their Soveraign Judicatory as they A. S. We have no supreme Iudicatory but that of the living God If we have Superiour and Inferiour Iudicatories and the Papists also neither we nor they precisely are to be blamed in that but so far forth as they have the Pope one man for supreme Iudge and Head of the Church which is proper to Christ In that they prove that he is the Antichrist And as it is great pride in them to make him with his Consistory supreme Iudge over the Universall Church So is it a peece of extraordinary pride and self-wit in your Churches that ye constitute sometimes seven or eight simple Fellows how Hereticall soever be their Doctrine and how abominable soever their life supreme Iudges Gods immediate Lievtenants and Independent of all the Iudgements of all the Churches of the World how Orthodox soever be their Opinions and how pious and holy soever be their Practises But against such a Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories as we have according to Gods Word no man can take just Exception M. S. saith That he hath answered my twelfth Reason and I have shewed how Absurdly he hath answered A. S. 13. Argument M. S. with his Logico Divinity by a Doctorall priviledge under pretext to reform my Argument deformeth and disfigureth it altogether by his Additions and Confusions in making it Hypotheticall whereas it is meerly Categoricall If he had desired to put it in Form he needed not but to have added or expressed the Proposition which was onely suppressed in this manner They who have but one God one Christ one Lord and one Spirit who are one Body who have one Faith and one Baptism whereby they enter into the Church should have one Communion whereby to be Spiritually fed and one Discipline to be ruled by But we all i. e. Presbyterians as ye call us and Independents we have but one God one Christ one Lord and one Spirit c. Ergo We all i. e. Presbyterians and Independents should have but one Spirituall Communion whereby to be Spiritually fed and one Discipline to be ruled by And from this he inferreth very well Ergo The Independents are not to be tolerated viz. In their Schism Separation or non-Communion M. S. grants all the Argument and afterward distinguishes the Conclusion which is an odde manner of answering of Arguments and proper to his Sect But we must take of ill pay-masters what we may He saith then 1. My Conclusions do not follow from my Premises A. S. But the Argument is in Form If it follow not shew me what fault there is in the Form of it M. S. 2. jeereth the termes of my Argument in calling them one one and one and my multiplied unity and so jeereth the Holy Ghost himself from whom I have borrowed them Eph. 4. Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. and 8. 1 Tim. 2.5 I might have added more unities as that we should with one mouth glorifie God Rom. 5.6 we are one Bread 1 Cor. 10.17 we drink in one Spirit vers 13. we are all one in Christ Gal. 3.28 one Law-giver and Iudge Jam. 4.12 Christ prayeth that we may be all one anomgst our selves and one in the Father and the Son John 17.22 23. M. S. his first Solution then is That we ought all to have one Communion and Discipline but not that that is of Classique Inspiration no more then that of Papall or Episcopall Recommendation A. S. 1. At least of this viz. We should have one Communion and Discipline it follows That there should be no Schism or Toleration granted that may make a Schism in the body and dissolve our