travell to bring in Presbyteriall Government Are they richer then before they were Are they to be in greater places then Ministers of the Word Truely I may say something that I have seen Some of them sundry times so exhausted their sickly bodies with pains in this Cause that sundry times they lost their health and fell sick but for worldly profit and preferment I never heard of it How great a fortune made Calvin with it Who as it is known and faithfully related by those who did write his life sundry times refused worldly means in a very fair and honourable way offered unto him and whose Inventory after his death hardly could amount to 40 pounds We had say ye nothing else to do but simply and singly to consider how to worship God acceptably Answ So much may many others say But most truely may as much be said of our first Parents in Paradise yet they gave themselves some other thing to do Besides all this ye are too peremptorious ye five to speak in the name of all the rest for howsoever every one of you may answer for one viz. for himself yet can none of you nor ye all answer for all those of your profession since their hearts are unknown to you and ye have no warrant from them Sect. 6. pag. 4. We were not engaged by Education c. And yet it is a blessing of God by Education to be engaged to good and bred in a true Doctrine and Ecclesiasticall Discipline Neither esteem I that it was a curse to the People of God to have been bred in his Covenant Neither think ye it a curse to yours to have been bred amongst you Ye suppose that other Reformed Churches might not see in all things So suppose we of you and that with greater reason being but five men not comparable with so many lights of the World of whom ye make your selves judges And yet ye esteem wrong in esteeming that their intention was most spent in the Reformation of Doctrine 1. For that is indirectly to accuse them of negligence in reforming of Discipline 2. Because their Consultations and Epistles sent to sundry Churches abroad testifies the contrary 3. Because the French tia vell very much about their Discipline and have reformed sundry things therein 4 And have a great many more helps then ye to frame it to Gods Word for it is expresly injoyned every Church Ruler to read it diligently Once every three moneths it is read in their Consistory and what ever any man findeth defectuous in it is represented to the Synod wherein there are so many of the learnedst most judicious and holy Divines of the whole Kingdom by whom after due Examination by Common-advice in the fear of the Lord at may much better be reformed then by the advice of one Independent Minister and two or three Ruling Elders in their particular Congregation And to think that one of you can see more then so many learned and Godly men gathered in the fear of the Lord cannot be thought without too good opinion of your selves 5. Besides all this a good Discipline may very well be established by men of lesse holinesse of life so be it they have greater abilities for the gift of constituting a good Discipline is not a gift proper to a good man but to a good Church Officer it is not Gratia grarum faciens sed gratis data not a saving gift or grace that maketh us gracious or acceptable to God but graciously given or bestowed upon us not to save our selves but other men as the gift of Prophesie for a man in preaching and ruling may save others and damn himself And a man may be a very good Prophet or Ruler in the Church if he have the abilities thereunto and exercise them well and an ill man if he let not himself be taught and ruled So we may say a man may be a good Citizen a good King a good Souldier or a good Cobler but an ill man Ye grant that In Doctrine they had a most happy hand but wherefore may ye not judge them as well to have had an happy hand in Discipline Was Gods hand more deficient to them in the one then in the other Or had they lesse abilities Or used they not their abilities What reason rather for the one then for the other Had they more Kingdoms to subdue then ye Or any other politicall ayms Or greater temptations then ye In the same Paragraph ye propound your Obtervations viz. That that Government viz. Presbyteriall hath been accompanied with more peace then yours and it is very true for who can tell how many Schismes and Heresies your Government is subject unto What Divisions and immortall hatreds it hath bred in New-England c. 2. If it hath more peace then it is such as it should be and obtaineth its adequate end which is the externall peace of the Church Ye adde That the power of godliness had not bin advanced amongst thē at in this Island From whence ye seem to infer that it is not so good as yours Ans 1. As for your Antecedent it is too bold to make your selves Judges of the power of godlinesse in other Churches and to judge your selves the holiest of all others But ye prove it by their own Confession Answ Brethren ye do not well to take advantage upon other mens Humilitie for to depresse them and extoll your selves They do well to think soberly of themselves So do not ye in esteeming so highly of your selves and so meanly of them 2. And the French are very courteous and civill but the more courteous and civill they be the more discourteous and uncivill be ye that take advantage by their courteousnesse and civilitie to depresse them under your selves 3. They have also this defect that they have too many complements But they say also Let compliments ne doibvent point estre pris au pied de la lettre Complements must not be taken literally It seems ye have not much travelled amongst them or remarked well the fashion of the Countrey But put the case your Antecedent were as true as it is false yet your Consequence is naught because of many captions and sophistications it containeth onely I will touch two the first is fallacia non causae ut causae a fallacious argumentation which bringeth a false and apparent cause for the true cause of the effect or a false effect for the true effect of the cause for if there were a greater power of godlinesse amongst you then in other Churches the cause thereof should not be the fault of the Government but of the Divell of those that govern or are governed not because your Discipline is better then ours or ours worse then yours But 1. because the Divell evermore assaults more the true Church the true Doctrine and true Discipline then the corrupted Church her corrupted Doctrine or Discipline to the end that thereby he may calumniate them all imputing craftily to
the Church of God to the true Doctrine and Discipline that which should be imputed to himself Or 2. Because that the Governours or Rulers of the Church put not the Discipline duly in execution Or 3. Because they that should be governed will not obey the trueth 3. Put the case the Antecedent were true and there were no such captious argumentation Yet from hence should it not follow that Independent but that Episcopall Government should be better then the Presbyterian because the power of godlinesse acknowledged by strangers to be greater here then with them was not in Holland or in New-England under Independency but in old England not under Independent which hath never here been received but dependent viz. Episcopall Government that could not endure Indepency but persecuted it So Brethren here according to your fashion you prove that which ye intend least to prove wherein ordinarily ye are very unfortunate And if this ye prove it is another Sophistication commonly called fallacia ignorationis elenchi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when ye prove one question or conclusion for another Ye had said ye the light of old Non-conformists and their draughts of Discipline But ye condemned all as Soveraign Judges And that much more commended to us because say ye they were our own Here ye manifest a temptation which ye concealed before Ye had the fatall miscarriages and shipwrack of those of the Separation whom ye say we call Brownists But so call not ye them because ye symbolize more with them and had rather call us Calvinians with the Papist then them Brownists with us as they merit because of the Author of their Sect. Afterwards in the last part of this Paragraph ye come to the examples of New-England improved as ye say to a better Edition and greater refinement whom ye extoll very highly in comparing them with our father Abraham and yet ye stood say ye as unengaged Spectators So then your Religion in this point was in abstractione praecisionis abstracted and separated from all Religion without all Religion and to live as Spectators This your Religion in this point was very speculative and if it were in any other matter then that of Religion we might justly say Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici We resolved not say ye to take up our Religion by or from any part Neither could ye being so abstract from all parties for ye dissented from all the World ye held all the World for parties and made your selves Judges of all the World till ye had made choice of your new Religion If this Method in making choice of Religion be good and honest then all those that are bred in your Religion should do so which as I beleeve ye will no wayes grant Upon this Section wherein ye so much extoll your New-England-men I must say something of those that stood for Presbyterian Government And not to insist upon this how some of them as the Histories relate had the gift of Prophesie What miracles or at least marvellous things were done by or about them in the time of their Imprisonment and afterwards in their Exile for that Cause How God extraordinarily poured forth his Judgements upon those that were instruments of their vexation and afterward extraordinarily delivered them upon their repentance How some of them in strange Countries extraordinarily got the Language of the Countrey in three moneths so as to be able to Preach How the people flockt about them in their houses How powerfully they preached twice a day which was thought insupportable to humane nature in respect of the violence of their action and that not for one day but all the dayes of their lives to the admiration of many thousands How the Papists themselves howsoever ordinarily in their speeches they condemned all Huguenots to hell yet excepted them because of the holinesse of their lives How they were never out of Prayers Meditation or Preaching as sundry eye witnesses here can testifie How all the Priests and Doctors even the learnedst of them that were sent to the place where they were to hinder the conversion of the Papists were converted themselves Onely I will say one word of some who not above four or five years ago undertook a Voyage for a new Plantation in America in as great a Wildernesse as any of your New-England-men and that with far lesse worldly means onely for Gods Service These men I say being about the number of one hundred and twenty in one Bottom and some thousands of miles on their way it pleased God that a Tempest so violent seized them as in it they lost their Rudder spent all their Masts save one and sprung three Leaks whereby the water came in in such aboundance that notwithstanding their extraordinary diligence at the Pumps as also their indefatigable pains in lading it out by Buckets hardly could they save the Ship from sinking under them And yet in this case ever hoping against hope the Tempest continuing it pleased him who commands the Windes and Tempests by the same Tempest to bring them back to the very Port they set out of and after wards made them Judges of those that had unjustly judged them and instruments with the rest of the Kingdom for the establishing of the Presbyteriall Government in greater purity there from whence it was almost cast out What these mens lives were the world can with no lesse admiration wonder at then at their wondrous deliverance And yet for all this will I not compare these men with any men in the World in any juncture of time that may fall out As I honour their gifts so do I other mens also but which of them all be the best men or most impartiall Judges he knoweth best who knows the hearts of all men Sect. 7. In this Section ye give out your judgement of other Churches and in the next viz. 8o. other Churches judgement of you I beleeve ye understand those of the Netherlands Ye acknowledge the Churches under Episcopall Government in England and under Presbyteriall in France Holland and Scotland for true Churches and their Ministery for a true Ministery But here I desire with many others to know what ye understand by true Churches and a true Ministery Whether a Metaphysicall Logicall or a Morall veritie If ye understand that they be true Churches Veritate Metaphysica Entis Transcendentali such as Dú Plessis and many of our Divines grant unto the Romish Church viz. That she is a true Church as a Pocky whore is a true Woman howsoever her flesh be so consumed with corruption that she cannot live but must die of it and that none can touch her without danger of being infected with her sicknesse for she is an Harlot and a Whore howsoever clothed with Scarlet We thank you for your favour Ye hold us in the same Categorie with Rome If ye hold us a true Church veritate logica and morally for a pure Church wherefore desire ye a Toleration
to the Lords Table I answer That the true Reformed Churches in Scotland France the Netherlands c. receive no man to the Lords Table whom they judge to be prophane or scandalous none but such as give an accompt of their Faith and testifie it by externall Confession and Profession in Doctrine and Sanctification If any Preacher or the Consistory of Ruling Elders do other wayes it is not by rule or their ordinary practise but through their negligence which when it is known is condemned by all We wish that none come to the Communion of Christs Body amongst us but such as have and feel some measure of Christ in themselves But who hath this measure of Christ It is hard for any mortall man to know it but he onely that hath it It is likewise hard to know what measure of Grace is requisite to make up a member of Christ or of his Church Some of the Casuists esteem that it sufficeth a Roman Catholike explicite as they call it expresly cleerly and plainlie to beleeve this onely Article I beleeve what the Church beleeveth Others esteem it not enough and therefore adde this Article I beleeve also That the Church cannot erre Others think this yet not enough for they wish Christians to beleeve this one more viz. I beleeve there is a God Some adde one more viz. That they must beleeve Gods Providence c. We beleeve that men are bound to beleeve all Divine Truths revealed in Scripture as necessary to Salvation and to beleeve them by a justifying Faith But what be these that be absolutely necessary to Salvation What are these Fundamentalia Essentialia and Superstructories How may they be distinguished one from another What is maximum quod sic and minimum quod non Or minimum quod sic maximum quod non Or your least of Christ whereupon a man may be admitted to be a Member of Christ we cannot define it We leave the Decision to more subtle Spirits and to our Brethren who use those termes and who upon this minimum quod sic or least bit of Christ do found the Reception of Christs Members into the Church We esteem their Disputes too subtle in the practise of Christianitie in judging others And wish with the Apostle rather every man to examine and try himself For this directive Principle we esteem surer then that of our Brethren We esteem that such a Confession of Faith and desire of Communion as ordinarily is professed by them who are admitted in Protestant Churches may suffice Here in the second Instance of set Forme of Prayers our Brethren note with a Parenthesis that they condemn not others who approve set Formes of Prayers prescribed and the Liturgis But whether these of New-England and others of their Profession will not condemn them in this we know not I wish that this were not added rather in a compliance with the present time then otherwise Item They tell us That the framing of Prayers and Sermons out of their own Gifts are the Fruits of Christs Ascension But why not also of his death and Resurrection Since he did merit this by his death In their third Instance about Government and Ecclesiasticall Discipline we care not what they say The practise of the Orthodox Churches is this They have divers Ecclesiasticall Senats or Courts wherein some are coordinate and others subordinated one to another The loweest is their Consistory or Session of the Pastours and the Ruling Elders in one Parish Church Then they have their Classes which some call Colloques others Presbyteries made of all the Preachers of all the Parish Churches belonging to such Colloques every one of them accompanied with one Elder of his Church 3. Their Provinciall Synods made up of all the Ministers of the Province accompanied every one of them with one or two ruling Elders 4. The Nationall Synod compounded of a certain number of Ministers and Ruling Elders according to the exigence of time place and other occasions and circumstances Delegate from all the Provinces or Provinciall Synods In the Consistory or Senate of the Parish Church they judge onely of things that be proper unto it and of lesse importance that have no great difficultie In the Colloque of that which is common to all the Churches of that Colloque and of businesse of greater importance that cannot be judged or well determined in a Parish Church In a Provinciall Synod of that which is common to all the Churches of the Province other things of great importance and all cases that cannot so soundly or so surely be determined in the former Assemblies In a Nationall of that which is common to all the Churches of the whole Kingdom and others that cannot be determined in the precedent Assemblies as of matters of Appeal c. Item From the first if any of the Parties finde themselves grieved by its judgement they may appeal to the second as from the second to the third and from the third to the fourth And all these Judgements and Proceedings are without money charges pecuniarie mulcts or fines And as their ayms are spirituall so be their punishments that they inflict upon their Delinquents Their punishments are censures Suspension from the Lords Table and their greater Excommunication which ordinarily are never inflicted upon whole Churches as our Brethren unjustly would challenge us but on particular Persons If they had read the Discipline of the Scots French Netherlands and other Reformed Churches they needed not here have troubled themselves and us with so many mistakes Or if they have read them they deal not fairly with us In some Churches particular or Parochiall Senates or Consistories have power to suspend from their Communion those that be Members thereof yea also to Excommunicate them from the which sentence neverthelesse they may appeal unto the Superiour Senate or Judicatorie and that for some particular reasons But this question God willing we shall hereafter more fully discusse Onely I note in passing that our Brethren First are here too sparing of Titles to some and too liberall to others They name Cartwright onely Cartwright but Baynes holy Baynes in the same line as if they would Canonize the one making him Saint Baynes which we condemn in the Pope and esteem the other prophane or of the vulgar and dregs of Divines which as it is said with reverence and respect of the one so it cannot be said without disparagement of the other As for the distinction of Ecclesiae in Primas Ortas it requireth a particular Question apart They say 1. Every Church hath a full and entire power compleat within it self till it should be challenged to erre grosly Pag. 14. § 15. Either by a compleat Power ye understand a Power absosolutely compleat or in its own kinde or sort If ye understand the first it must be Independent for if it depend upon a Superiour to rectifie it whereunto it must give an account of its judgement and submit it self in
what Opinions are to be tolerated and what not which will be a question inextricable which no mortall man appearingly is able distinctly to determine And some may say The lesse the difference be the lesse need is there for a Toleration to be granted to such a Sect For the lesse it be the greater is the Schisme 5. God in the Old Testament granted no Toleration of divers Religions or Disciplines and the New Testament requireth no lesse union amongst Christians then the old amongst the Jews 6. Either our Brethren do assent to our Doctrine and are resolved likewise to assent to the Discipline which God willing shall be established by common consent or do not If they grant the first what need they any other Toleration then the rest If the second it would be first discussed wherein they are resolved to dissent and afterwards considered whether it be of so great importance that in consideration thereof they dare not in good Conscience entertain communion with us 7. They are not pressed to be Actors in any thing against their Consciences Ergo They need not to be suiters for a Toleration or if they be it may justly be refused 8. It is against the nature of the Communion of Saints to live in Sects apart without communicating at the Lords Table which very hardly will be avoided if Toleration be granted 9. Because the Scripture exhorts us evermore unto unitie which cannot be easily procured by a Toleration of Sects which cannot but daily beget new Schismes and Divisions 10. Because there was greater difference amongst the Members of the Church of Corinth in the rim of Saint Paul and yet they communicated together yea the Apostle exhorted them unto mutuall communion and forbearance of Sects and Divisions 11. Because the Opinion of our Brethren symbolizeth too much with that of the Donatists who separated themselves from other Churches under pretext that they were not so holy as their own Neither is it unlike to the Convents and Monasteries amongst the Papists for as they all professe one Doctrine with the Romish Church and yet every Order hath its own Discipline that of S. Francis one that of S. Dominick another and in every Order one Generall and in every Monastery one Abbot Prior or President So all your Churches beleeve one Doctrine together with us and every one of your Churches hath one Minister as their Convents a particular Abbot or Prior. Ye onely differ in this That ye have no Generall or any thing answerable thereunto to keep you in unitie and conformitie 12. It is the Civill Magistrates part to take away Heresies Superstitions and Corruptions in manners after the examples of the Kings of Juda Wherefore then is not his dutie likewise to take away all Schismes which are the high-way to Heresie and consequently to deny Toleration which is a way to both 13. We have but one God one Christ and one Lord one Spirit we are one Body we have one Faith and one Baptism whereby we enter into the Church Wherefore shall we not have one Communion whereby to be spiritually fed and one Discipline to be ruled by 14. If Churches have Disciplines or Governments different in their Species then the Churches must be different in their Species also for all Collective bodies or Consociations that are governed are differenced by their different Governments as we see in Civill Government in the Constitution and Distinction of States Kingdoms and Republikes Wherefore as many divers Governments as there be in Churches as many different Species of Churches must we admit of I speak here of the Church considered according to her visible forme but the consequent is false since there is but one Church Ergo. 15. Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted any Toleration to divers Sects and Governments in the Church wherefore then will ye be Suiters for that which they never granted 16. Yea your New-England men whose wayes and practises in Government ye say are improved to a better Edition and greater refinement whom ye compare with our Father Abraham Pag. 5. tolerated not their Brethren who did hazard their lives in that voyage but made them go again as our Father Abraham to seek out some new Habitations in strange Countreyes yea in strange Wildernesses for themselves and their seed after them yea they would not so much as some very godly and learned Divine relateth in his learned Book against Toleration as receive some men otherwise approved by themselves both for their life and Doctrine to live in any corner of New-England howsoever here they were in danger to be persecuted for Non-conformitie And that mee ly because they differed a little from them in point of Discipline How then can our Brethren of that profession be Suiters for a Toleration in Old England where they are no more persecuted when as those of their profession refused it to those of New-England in time of great persecution Is it not to be feared That if they had the upper hand over us here as there they should send us all to some Isle of Dogs as they have done others 17. Besides all this the Scripture forbiddeth all such Toleration Reve. 2 20 1 Cor 1.12 as that of Jezabel There must be no such speeches amongst us as I am of Paul I of Apollos I of Cephas nor that some are Calvinians as ye terme us some Independenters some Brownists some Anabaptists c. We must all be Christs we must all think and speak the same things Vers 10. Otherwise men are carnall 1 Cor. 3.3 1 Cor. 11.16 18 19 20. Heb 10.25 Gal. 5.12 Neither hath the Church of God a custome to be contentious Neither permitteth the Apostle Schismes We must not quit our mutuall meetings as others do and as must be done in a publike Toleration They that trouble the Church must be cut off 18. Such a Toleration cannot but expose our Churches unto the calumnies of Papists who evermore object unto Protestants the innumerable number of their Sects whereas they pretend to be nothing but one Church 19. Of such a Toleration follows all we formerly deduced out of Independency 20. If it be granted it cannot but be thought that it hath been granted or rather extorted by force of Reason and that all the Assembly were not able to answer our Brethrens whereas indeed their Opinion and Demands are against all Reason as sundry of themselves could not deny and had nothing to say save onely that it was Gods Ordinance which yet they never could shew out of Gods Word On the contrary if it be refused it will help to confirm the Churches and the people in the Truth 21. Neither can it but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiasticall Government for a man being censured in one Church may fly to another and being again suspended in that other from thence to another and so scorn all the Churches of God and their Censures And so this order by necessary consequence will breed all sort
Wherefore will ye not joyn with us and communicate as Brethren with us But ye adde a little after the middle part of this Section That ye both did and would hold a Communion with all those Churches as with the Churches of Christ But what communion is this ye hold with these rather then with Papists Brownists Anabaptists in England and the Lutherans If ye say in Doctrine that Union is not externall since ye testifie it not by your externall Communion in the Sacraments with us for ye will not admit all those to your Communion that we admit to ours 2. Neither will those of New-England whom ye cry up and extoll so highly admit those of our Church to their Communion or to be Members of their Churches unlesse of late they have changed their opinion and ye and they temporize in conforming your opinions to the times and commensurate them to Politicall ayms for Toleration 3. Neither know we whether they will communicate with us at least their Writings and Letters from New-England which heretofore we have seen testifie no such thing so that in this ye dissent from them unlesse they within this yeer dissent from themselves 4. By the same reason ye may communicate with Schismaticks and men that are excommunicated amongst your selves for their ill life viz. drunkards blasphemous persons c. 5. By the same reason ye communicate with some Papists in profession that beleeve all that we beleeve in Doctrine 6. And with them all and all Hereticks in part because they agree in part in the Doctrine with us If it be replied That they with whom they communicate must also be of good life I duply then it is not a meer Communion in Doctrine but in some other thing beside viz. In good life And then 2. If they have both sound Doctrine and be of a good life or have Faith which causes good Doctrine and Charitie the cause of a good life Wherefore desire ye a Toleration to make a Sect apart or what desire ye more to make up one Church with them But howsoever ye pretend this reall Profession of Communion with us yet ye overthrow it by your restriction afterwards viz. To such as ye know to be Godly that came to visit you in your exile But ye will not admit all the Members of our Churches but such as ye onely judge not we to be Members of our Church Ye say in the same Section That ye Baptize your Children in our Parishionell Congregations Wherefore then will ye not as well communicate at the Lords Table with us all And if so Wherefore will ye not likewise admit us all to your Communion In the 8. § And as we alwayes c. In this Paragraph or Section ye shew the judgement of forraign Churches concerning you how ye both mutually gave and received the right â—â—â—ds of fellowship How they gave you Churches to Preach in some Priviledges a maintenance annually for your Ministers c. So here in England hitherto ye have had libertie to Preach in our Churches and may have if ye will and some of you have some Benefices But if ye go on ayming at a Toleration and consequentlie at some Separation as we have shewed I doubt if ye shall or should have any annuall allowance at all or Churches to Preach in as before you had Moreover we know not upon what grounds ye were tolerated in the Netherlands whether it was not in consideration of your precedent afflictions hoping that ye might submit your selves to Presbyteriall Government in your own Countrey if it were well establisht or in favour of some Merchants by publike or private authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Civill or other wayes Onely we say That many Sects are tolerated there Neither howbeit ye were tolerated in the Netherlands Polonia or Germany where many Religions are tolerated and permitted out of Civill respects Is it equitable ye should be tolerated here where there is one onely Religion professed and one Goverment as we shall see hereafter In the 9.10.11.12.13.14 ye give account of your Practices in publike Worship Church Officers matter of Government and Censures and your directive principles in all this Hence in the 15.16.17.18.19.20.21 ye infer your Conclusion of Independencie of every particular Congregation As for the parts of your publike worship we consent with you In your Church Officers ye acknowledge with us four viz. Pastours Teachers Ruling Elders and Deacons But ye lash us a little with your Parenthesis about our Ruling Elders With us not Lay but Ecclesiastique persons separated to that service Here ye seem to accuse the Reformed Churches in France the Netherlands Scotland c. as if they all esteemed them Lay and not Ecclesiasticall Persons If this be your minde it is a great mistake in you and we can produce their writings to the contrarie if not we know not to what end ye inserted this particular Parenthesis As ye therefore inserted yours so do we ours but not Preachers or Teachers of the Word And therefore we desire to know of you if Ruling Elders have power to teach as it is maintained by other Independents and if they Preach or Teach how they can be distinguished from Preachers and Teachers For all Charges receive their unitie and distinction from their Acts and Ends Wherefore if the Ruling Elder Preach or Teach which is the Act and End of the Preacher and Teacher he must have the same Office with Preachers and Teachers 2. The Apostle also distinguishes them 1 Cor. 12. Wherefore then confound ye them Ye adde in this 9. Section concerning Excommunication upon obstinacy and impenitency this Parenthesis as worthy of some particular observation which we blesse God we never used as if your Churches were so pure that not one man should deserve it We cannot say so much of our Churches Neither can your Brethren of New-England say so much of theirs We know that some have been Independenters as we our selves have heard from their own mouthes that now are become Anabaptists And whether such men merited it or not judge ye If they merited it ye have been very partiall and unjust in not using of it So that proceeds not from want of demerits in the persons to be punished but of justice in the Rulers to execute it Neither do we deny but a number of very holy persons may be gathered together who may so carrie themselves for some time as not to commit any great offence with pertinacie to deserve Excommunication if the choice be good But to say that it may last long so in Populous Congregations and in a great number of Churches ye may tell us this news when your Churches are multiplied and become as Populous and have endured as long as ours We could tell wonders also of our Churches in some parts in the beginning of the Reformation But the question is not who liveth holiest but whose Discipline is most conform unto Gods Word Your Directive Principles were three 1. Gods Word and
the Law of Nature fully known 2. Not to make your present judgement and practise a binding Law unto your selves for the future 3. In matters of greatest moment and controversie ye still thosed to practise safely and so as ye had reason to judge that all sorts or most of all the Churches did acknowledge warrantable although they make additaments thereunto We agree with you in these principles in generall § 11. p. 9. and neverthelesse we must touch a word in passing of that which we observe in every one of them and in every Paragraph And first in the 11. § about the midst thereof where ye say That in Gods Word ye found Principles enough not onely fundamentall and essentiall to the being of a Church but superstructory also to the welbeing of it and those to you clear and certain We know not what ye call Fundamentall and Essentiall unto a Church for the Essences of things are unknown unto us Yea the most part of the Philosophers themselves who dispute about Essences confesse that we know the Essence of nothing but that onely of man which they say is animal rationale and yet in this they dissent and many say that this is but an accidentall expression of his Being If ye cannot then declare us the Fundament and Essence of the Church ye are barbarous to us and speak in a Language as unknown to us as unto your selves Again we desire to know What ye understand here by the Being of a Church whether her internall or externall Being In Doctrine and Holinesse or in Discipline If the first it is not to the purpose for we have no Dispute here with you about the internall Being or Doctrine of the Church as ye confesse your selves but about her externall Being or Discipline And in this also we confesse our ignorance that we know not wherein consisteth its Essence or Being and that we cannot distinguish it well from its Accidents or Superstructories till ye teach us and therefore desire you to avoyd those obscure terms and to give it us in some cleerer Ye adde That they will serve to preserve your Churches in peace whereof ye were not content Sect. 6 saying That howsoever Presbyteriall Government obtained this end yet it differenced them not from carnall Christians In your third Directory Principle Sect. 13. Pag. 11. ye go very subtillie to work by Metaphysicall Abstractions as Philosophers in abstracting their Genericall degrees of Essences from the speciall and their Specificall from their Individuall For ye take some thing wherein we all consent but not all to the end there may be something wherein ye dissent from us all And so did the Arminians in their Confession of Faith wherein they abstracted a degree of consent amongst the most part of Christians yea with the Socinians who deny the Trinitie and the Incarnation of the Son of God and left that wherein they dissented as indifferent But this cannot hold For howsoever that wherein ye agree with us be safe yet is not that so safe wherein ye dissent from us all Neither is it safe for so few men to dissent From all the World unlesse they have very strong reasons for their dissent and principallie when the point wherein they dissent is not of great importance For the lesse it is the greater is the Schisme Besides this in this Directory Principle howsoever ye seem to defer and attribute very much to all Churches in following their common Practises yet ye give them nothing at all for ye submit their judgement to your own and whatsoever they hold commonly against you ye call it an Additament so that ye are not ready in any thing to assent with them unlesse they first assent unto you which is a very prudent and subtle Principle as well to direct them by you as you by them 3. This Principle also cannot hold 1. For in vertue thereof ye have as well Union and Communion with Socinians Arrians Anabaptists Papists Jesuites and other Hereticks as with us howbeit not so much for ye consent with them all in some common Principles as with us And so as for your dissent in particular Principles from them ye may separate and do separate your selves in effect from them so must ye do from us unlesse ye shew us some other reason of Externall Union and Separation then yet you do Before I quit this Paragraph or Section I must pray the Reader to note your subtle way of disputing how ye chuse some things wherein you and we agree calling the test Additaments to the end ye may not be bound to prove any thing But this subtiltie is sowed but with white thred so as it evidentlie appears to all men and will serve you for nothing 1. For either these Additaments are conform or repugnant to Gods Word or indifferent If conform wherefore reject ye them If repugnant ye are bound to prove it by the Word how they are condemned by it If indifferent ye have no reason to condemn them or for them to be such eager Suitors for a Toleration of a contrary practise 2. Item If that which we have more then these common Principles be an Additament what be those that ye hold instead of them For ye remain not within the Limits of bare Abstractions and Precisions but proceed farther to some particular Positive Principles in your practise for every Negation is founded in some Affirmation and sin is not a meer Negation of good but also includeth something Positivelie contrary to good either Physically or Morally Really or by reason § 14. p. 11. Ye bring some Instances of this Principle 1. About the qualification of the Members of the Church and promiscuous receiving of good and bad And say That ye chuse the better part viz. the good and not the bad which ye suppose to be the practise of all Protestant Churches So ye must judge all Infants born in the Church and admitted to Baptism amongst you to be good and to have some portion of Christ before they have the use of reason to know Christ and so to be regenerate when they are generated or to consort your selves with the Anabaptists here in England in excluding Children from Baptism till they have the use of reason and professe Faith for in Independencie and all other things they agree with you as they themselves avow But of this question about the Members of the Church we shall God willing hear more hereafter in a particular question Ten lines after ye say That the Rules which ye gave up your judgements unto to judge those ye received in amongst you by were of that Latitude as would take in any Member of Christ the meanest in whom there may be supposed to be the least of Christ Pag. 11 12. If this be understood of the receiving of men to the Church absolutely or of their first entry therein we have answered already and by the grace of God shall answer more hereafter If of the reception of them
incompossibiles A whole thing cannot be wholly or all wayes or according to all its possible Modifications for many of them severally or apart are possible which conjunctly are incompossible if I may so expresse my self or rather impossible So a man may be white and he may be black but he cannot be white and black together for these two qualities being contrary are impossible or incompatible one with another If then feeding either by way of teaching or ruling or the power to feed be taken in actu primo viz. for the facultie to feed this Proposition The combined Eldership or a Classicall or Synodall Assembly and every particular Elder considered apart and separated from the combined Presbyteries have power to feed teach or rule all particular Churches is true And as for the particular Elders which may seem the most absurd it appeareth cleerly for if they had it not how could ye or they Preach in sundry and divers particular Churches as ye do out of your own particular Churches If it be answered that ye do it onely Occasionally and not Ordinarily I reply That before ye can do it either Occasionally or Ordinarily ye must have a power to do it absolutely for actus secundus supponit primum the second act supposeth the first or all actions suppose some active power from whence they proceed for a man that is no Minister can neither Preach Ordinarily nor Occasionally Item It is a certain Maxime in Logick that a Parte in modo ad Totum argument amur affirmativè ut est homo albus Ergo est homo We argue from a modified part or taken with some limitation or modification to the whole as if I say this is a white man Ergo this is a man So I say this man may Preach occasionally Ergo this man may Preach or have Authoritie to Preach For Power or Authoritie to Preach is Totum in modo and Power or Authoritie to Preach occasionally or ordinarily are partes in modo If it be objected That if every particular Minister hath Power or Authoritie to Preach in every Church or Congregation then every Minister is an universall Pastour as the Apostles But so it is not Ergo. Answ I deny the Consequence of the first Proposition for an Apostle not onely hath an universall Vocation to teach all particular Churches and Flocks but also to teach all particular and ordinary Pastours or Ministers of all particular Churches and Flocks 2. Item The Vocation of the Apostles was immediately from God 3. They were infallible in Doctrine 4. Endowed with extraordinarie Gifts 5. They had no particular Mission to restrain them to any particular Church And these four last Conditions were most conveniently annexed unto the Universalitie of their Charge which cannot be said of ordinary and particular Ministers If it be replied At least they differ not from them in the Universalitie of their Charge but onely in some Accidents as in Infallibilitie some extraordinarie Gifts c. that are meerly Extrinsecall unto the Charge and to the Universalitie thereof I answer First That these Accidents are not meerly Extrinsecall unto the Universalitie of the Apostolicall Charge but Intrinsecally annexed unto it by Gods Ordinance by Congruitie and Morally since it could not be Universally exercised without them Secondly For the better cleering of this I observe That to the Charge of a Minister three things are necessary 1. A generall Vocation to Preach and that not unlike to that which Masters of Arts and Doctors receive in Universities with this clause Hic ubique terrarum to Teach here and through all the World 2. A speciall Mission either 1. by God alone or 2. or also from the Representative Church 3. A particular Election and Admission whereby the Minister is elected by a Reall particular Church and so admitted therein to exercise his Charge The first of these three is common to the Apostles with all ordinary Ministers The second is universall in the Apostles for Christ sent them to teach all Nations and sitted them with gifts convenient thereunto But it is particular in Particular and Ordinary Ministers for orders sake and that jure divine as many learned and godly Divines hold The third jure divine should be universall in respect of the Apostles for every Particular Church was bound to admit the Apostles in case they would have preached amongst them and if any should have refused them yet in vertue of their generall Vocation and universall Mission from God they had power and Authoritie to Preach among them and in them all But in Particular and Ordinary Ministers it is onely Particular and not Universall for neither doth every Particular Church chuse elect or admit every Ordinary Minister to be its Minister neither is it bound so to do The first of these three is the remote foundation or the remote and principall cause of the Power and Authoritie that a Minister hath to Preach or to rule the Church of God The second and third are the next and immediate foundation or cause thereof or conditio sine qua non viz. The universall Mission and Admission of Ministers is the immediate cause of their universall Power and Authoritie but the particular Mission and Admission is the immediate cause of the Power and Authoritie of Particular Ministers And as we never finde the Philosophers Particularia without their Vniversalia in Particularibus inclusa never a Genus but in some Species nor a Species but in some Individuum by whose Differences their indifferent Nature is limited and determined No more finde we over this vast and generall Vocation in Ordinary Ministers without this Particular Mission of some Representative Church and Admission in and by some Reall and Particular Church or at least it should not be for without this consent Election and Admission a Minister is no more its Minister then a Man is a Womans Husband without her consent Neither can a Man be married to a Woman in generall or to an Individuam vagam but to this or that Particular Woman with whom he contracteth No more can a Preacher be sent to Preach to the Church in generall or to Particular Churches indefinitely viz. Unto quaedam Ecclesia but to this Church distinctly 1. And so I answer that a Particular and Ordinary Minister is differenced from an Universall Minister or an Apostle by the Particularitie of his charge in vertue of his Particular Mission which he hath of God by a Representative Church and of his Particular Election and Admission which depend upon that Particular Reall Church whose Minister he is and not in vertue of his generall Vocation which is common unto both Nam Principium convenientiae non est Principium differentiae That wherein things do agree cannot distinguish or make them differ 2. Every particular or Ordinary Minister may feed teach and rule all the Church but not alwayes Totam militantem Ecclesiam sed non totaliter All particular Churches but not particularly for as we have
said he may teach in every Church because he may Preach in them being invited thereunto but he cannot Teach in them all alwayes in every particular way by way of a Particular and Ordinary Mission and Admission as their Particular Pastour For neither is he called to Teach in them all neither can he rule them all conjunctim in one time but one onely Ordinarily and two or three Extraordinarily in case of some urgent necessitie 3. Yea we may say That a Particular Minister cannot evermore neither doth he evermore feed his own Particular Church totam totaliter the whole Church wholly as Experience teacheth us but sometimes he feedeth it one way sometimes another sometimes in teaching sometimes in ruling c. 4. It may be said That the consociated or combined Presbyteries and Presbyters rule all the Churches from which they have Commission 1. In qualitie of Particular Ministers as we have already declared 2. In a Particular way in vertue of their Commission from Particular Churches in whose name they appear and in vertue of their Admission in a Classicall or Synodall Assembly but not in sensu diviso every one apart for if they dissent in their voices from the major part of the Assembly they feed no Church at all at least actually and in actu exercito howsoever they may be said to rule them all that be subject to that Assembly potentia in actu signato 5. The whole collective or combined Presbyterie or Eldership being-taken collectively or as combined ruleth many Particular Churches that are subject unto it I say being taken as combined or collectivè for if the Presbyters of the Assembly be taken distributivè they are not an Assembly not a Collection or Combination of Presbyters formally but severall Presbyters apart and divers unities which are the matter of this combination and consociation in the Assembly 6. Those whole combined Presbyteries qua tota sed non qua tataliter considerata as whole or totals but not considered totally feed in any Particular Churches The first part is certain for they judge of Points of Doctrine and Discipline already revealed in Holy Scripture and give us new Ecclesiasticall Laws of things indifferent and so Teach and Rule the Churches which is nothing else but to Feed them 7. Yet these combined Presbyteries being considered totally viz. according to every respect every part every modification and determination they can have rule them not for every one of the Combined Presbyteries have not this Power For as we have said 2.3 4. or 5 c. may dissent from the major part and in that case they rule not in the Assembly muchlesse rule they out of the Assembly being considered as Materiall parts thereof and the reason is because Non quic quid convenit Toti per accidens aggregato confuso vel ordinato id convenit singulu partibus it is not needfull that whatsoever belongeth or is attributed to the collective body should be attributed to every part thereof so ten is twice five which cannot be said of five which is a part of ten for it is not twice but once five 8. Neither can these combined Presbyteries or Elderships taken materially 1. i.e. before their combination feed many Churches as when they are combined for in that sense they are not formally a combination or a collective body but the matter thereof and therefore to them cannot belong that which belongeth unto the collective body formally or in vertue of its forme 9. The collective or combined body of divers Presbyteries feeds not many reall Particular Churches in actu exercito as if they exercised actually the act of feeding them in a particular way as their Particular and Ordinarie Ministers do but in actu signato in signifying and representing unto them all in vertue of their Commissions by their Judgements and Laws what should be done by them all which these Particular Ministers do in actu exercito and in a more speciall way And the reason of this is because if it were not so we should confound the charge of combined Presbyteries with that of one Presbyter 10. This Proposition may yet receive this sence All the combined Presbyteries feed all the particular Churches that they represent 1. All the Presbyters together feed and rule all Churches together as combined 2. In this combination or collection of Presbyters or Elders every one of the Presbyters or Elders feedeth his own Church 3. All the collective body of combined Elders feed every Church apart as we said before 4. Every Presbyter or Elder in this combination ruleth all Churches as we have declared it also 1 Eth. ad Nicomach c. 1. So the Philosophers in expounding that Maxime Bonum est quod omnia appetunt that is good which all things desire give us almost the like interpretations viz. 1. All good things taken collectively are those that all desirers taken collectively do desire 2. That every one in this collection of desirers desireth his own good in the collection of all good as a man mans good a horse that which is good for a horse c. 3. That the whole collection of desirers desireth every good as it serveth for every part and so for the totall or whole that consisteth of the parts 4. That every desirer apart desireth or loveth the whole collection of good insomuch as in that collection of good it findeth its own good But none of these senses approved by us can serve our Bethren More might here have been said and I hope that others God willing shall say more But this may suffice for one Annotation and I am assured will sufficiently dissolve all their Arguments hitherto founded upon this Proposition About the end of this 15 § Ye say That this challenge of all spirituall power from Christ had need have a cleer pattent from Christ and that noted by a Particular Parenthesis as very considerable so had your Independent and Omnipotent power within your Particular Congregations Neither do our Synods challenge all power but a Ministeriall Power such as we have already expounded Neither needs it any Pattent expresly and formally from Christ It sufficeth that it have one from Nature for that sufficeth to binde us all unto obedience for Christ as Mediator and head of the Church is not represented unto us in Scripture as Author of Nature but of Grace For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ who is Mediator of a better Covenant Neither came he to abrogate or destroy but to fulfill and to accomplish the Law The Author of grace poseth not but presupposeth the Law of Nature And yet we can shew a Pattent for it not onely from the Law of Nature which should suffice but also from the Law of Grace in the Old and New Testament Immediately after ye say That nothing was written upon this Subject before the Books set forth by two Divines of Scotland one of England and others of Holland
in case of Non-satisfaction whereas all punishments should be commensurate unto the severall offences 11. And so ye seem to approve the opinion of the Stoicks who held all sins to be equall since ye inflict the same punishment upon them all 12. Not onely this Discipline cannot easily be put in execution in great Kingdoms as England wherein all the Churches offended cannot so easily meet together but also 13. Because the person offended after he hath represented his grievances unto one Church and that Church having received satisfaction it may go to another and that Church likewise having received satisfaction it may go to another and so continually in infinitum to the Worlds end evermore taking those Churches for the Partie that judge it which is most absurde and foolish 14. What if the Partie offended be poor and have not the means to post up and down from Neighbour-Church to Neighbour-Church to pray them to make the offending Church to give an account of her Judgement muchlesse to attend upon their uncertain conveniencie Here will be found true Pauper ubique jacet whereas in Presbyteriall Government the Partie offended may easily be 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 Appeal he may binde the Church offending to appear at the day appointed 15. What if there should fall out an hundred such Offences in a small time Must so many Churches evermore gather together for every one of them apart 16. What if Churches be poor and cannot be at so great expence Then in that case it should seem there is no order to meet with Offences And as for those precepts 1 Cor. 10. and 1 Tim. 5. The first of them is not a Rule of Government or ruling of the Church but a generall command common to all Christians whereby the Apostle forewarnes the Corinthians in things indifferent not to give any occasion of Offence unto the Church of God or to any other but therein to comply with all men as he doeth himself From whence ye cannot draw a Rule or Law of ruling the Church or how the Church should take order with such Offenders so that it sheweth indeed every mans dutie towards the Church in things indifferent but not the Churches dutie towards every one of them in judging or ruling Ye might as well have proved it from this Principle Fly from all evil or from that We must love God above all things and our Neighbour as our selves neither see I any greater connexion that it hath with the one then with the other And truely I cannot sufficiently admire how out of that Principle Give no offence ne to any man ye can inferre this conclusion Ergo a Church offended may make a Church offending to give an account of her judgement before all the world and in case of impenitency pronounce a Sentence of withdrawing and renouncing all Christian Communion with her and further to declare it to all other Churches No more can it be inferred of the other viz. Be not partakers in other mens sins for the Apostle there giveth rules about the Vocation of Ministers forbiddeth Timothy to receive any man rashly into the Ministery least in so doing he be the cause of an unlawfull Vocation because saith he vers 24. their sin and incapacity will soon appear to all men But how is it possible out of this to spin out the former Couclusion § 18. Pag. 17 ye prove your former Conclusion thus 1. For that ye saw no further authority in Scripture in proceedings purcly Ecclesiasticall of one or many sister Churches towards another whole Church or Churches offending 2. Because no other Authority can rationally be put in execution without the Magistrates power Answ 1. Ye saw no more in Scripture yea but saw ye your own Conclusion in Scripture 2. Truely we see no Word of God for it and if we take it not upon your word we shall never take it 3. If ye see no Scripture for it yet others may see 4. Ye may if ye will see it in the ordinary Practice of the Church of the Jews in the old Testament which is not abrogated in the New since it is not Ceremoniall but grounded in the Law of Nature Ye may see it in the History of the New Testament in the judgement given out at the Synod of Hierusalem concerning the businesse of Antiochia which I hope ye shall see cleerly demonstrated to you by a better hand before it be long 6. It may be proved by the Law of Nature which is a praecognitum to Scripture and supposed by Scripture for Grace is not destructory of Nature but a Superstructory above Nature So that when Scripture containeth nothing contradictory to the Dictats of Nature we are bound to believe them unlesse we will misbelieve God who is no lesse the Author of Nature and of the Dictats thereof then of Grace 2. Because no other Authority can rationally be put in execution without the Civill Magistrates power Answ 1. Our Brethren here as every where else stand very stiffly to Negations They never prove any positive Doctrine and it is known in the Schools how easie a thing it is to deny all things and to prove nothing If they had that to prove wherein they agree with us I suppose they should have more to do then we to prove that wherein they disagree from us But to take away all mistakes and captious Evasions we suppose that our Churches arrogate to themselves no Imperiall or Magisteriall but onely a Ministeriall Power or Authority 2. That it is meerly Spirituall consisting 1. in the Creation Suspension and Deposition of Church-Officers 2. in determining matters of Doctrine 3. in making of Ecclesiasticall Laws concerning things indifferent 4. in Ecclesiasticall Censures as in Suspension Excommunication c. They prove That no more can rationally be put in execution viz. then to call an offending Church to an account and in case of her impenitency to declare it to all other Churches Answ We deny the Assumption They prove it for that Christ gave no power to Churches to excommunicate their neighbour Churches Answ 1. This is again another mistake in our Brethren for they suppose that we excommunicate whole Churches which we never do 2. Neither believe I that they can bring us any examples of it The reason why we do not so is Because whole Churches ordinarily amongst us contemn not the superiour Ecclesiasticall Power viz. of Synods being bound by their Oath and Covenant to observe and maintain the Order of the Church 3. And therefore we have no Ecclesiasticall Laws concerning such cases for Lex est ordinatio rationis and Laws are not made of things that never fall out or of things that fall out extraordinarily but of things that are ordinary 4 Much lesse think I that ever any such case did fall out in any one of the Reformed Churches Item it is
come neerer unto Presbyteriall Government then formerly 6. But we know not whether they of New-England will stand fast to them in this decision If we knew all the Circumstances of that proceeding we might it may be say much more then upon such a superficiall and unwilling Relation as ye make we can say here Again I pray you note That they acknowledge their Churches to be bound to give an account and to be censurable by the Christian Magistrate and Neighbour Churches in their judgements From whence I infer Ergo Their power is not full perfect and compleat within themselves but receives some correction and perfection from that of the Civill Magistrate above them or Neighbour Churches about them But what is this but an authoritative power to correct them and to inflict on them spirituall punishments viz. Censures in commanding them to satisfie the Partie offended and to consesse their fault Neither do the Presbyterians pretend to inflict any corporall punishment or pecuniary mulcts since the aym of their Government is spirituall viz. To save the soul not to kill the body or empty the purse by catching mens money § 22. Pag 22. Ye give an account of your proceedings since your return to your Countrey And here again ye terme the Reformation of the Protestant Churches by the name of Calvinian as if this name in this matter pleased you above all others yet will we not retaliate it unto you in calling your Churches Goodwinians Nyans Bridgians Burroughesians Sympsonians or Good-Ny Bridg-Burrough-Sympsonians for we take no pleasure in such fictions Afterwards ye give your five judgements about that Reformation viz. That our Churches stand in need of a further Reformation 1. But stand not yours in need of some further Reformation also 2. Neither is it in question whether our Churches stand in need of any further Reformation But whether they stand in need of that which ye call Reformation And if it be not rather a Deformation then a Reformation of the Church of Christ The Reasons of this your judgement are grounded upon meer Possibilities and generalities as we shall see God willing hereafter The first is Because it may be thought that they coming new out of Popery and the founders of that Reformation not having Apostolique infallibitie might not be fully perfect the first day Answ 1. It may be but a possâ— ad â—ssâ— non valet consequentia 2. It followeth not it may be Ergo It is Neither will ye permit us to argue in this manner Master Goodwin Master Nays c. opinion may be false Ergo It is false 3. Muchlesse may it be thought or imagined Ergo It is so For we think all your Tenets wherein ye dissent from us are false and untrue Neither will ye grant it for all our thoughts No more will we grant you what ye pretend for all your thoughts unlesse ye bring us some better reason for many mens thoughts be erroneous as yours in this particular 4. Your Argument is a Genere ad Specicm affirmativè ye argue affirmatively from a generalitie to a particular viz. It might not be fully perfect or imperfect Ergo In this or that point it was not perfect or imperfect 5. Neither is it needfull to a perfect Reformation in Doctrine or Discipline that we have an Apostolicall perfection that is Personall or tyed unto our Person but Scripturall viz. Revealed in Scripture which we have not of one but of many Prophets Evangelists and Apostles 6. This expression of yours viz. Might not be fully perfect the first dâ—â— is ambiguous and may be taken either Negative in putting the negation not before the principall Verbe viz. might or Infinite in putting of it after the Verbe might before the infinitie Verbe be In the first way the sense of it is this They that come new from Popery without Apostolicall infallibility cannot be perfect the first day or it was not possible they should be perfect the first day and so it is evidently false for it should imply a contradiction that any man or Church could have a perfect Doctrine or Discipline without an Apostolicall infallibilitie or a long time In the second way the sense is this They that come new from Popery without Apostolicall infallibilitie may not be perfect or it is possible they be not perfect the first day and so it is true But as it is possible they be not perfect so is it possible by Gods mercy they be perfect And so the Argument will proceed a posse ad esse whereof Logicians say Non valet consequentia So your Argument is naught Of these two Propositions the first is Negative and the last Infinite They differ as Non possibile est esse Possibile est non esse The one hath the Mood or Modification Negative the other the Subject or Dictum Negative the one is true and the other false as ye may see in these Examples It was not possible to Adam before his fall to fall False It was possible to Adam before his fall not to fall True So. It is not possible that Peter sleep False It is possible that Peter sleep not True Neither doth time contribute so much neither hath it any influence upon true Religion which is a gift of God Faith is not acquired by our labour but infused into our understanding by Gods Mercy And yet we have had more time and a greater number of able men then ye to perfect our Reformation And as it was possible that the Reformation of our Church was not perfect the first day So may it be possible that yours be not perfect neither the first nor the last day But ye grant us § 5. Pag. 4. That the first Reformers in Protestant Churches had a most happy hand in the Reformation of Doctrine and that in the beginning and without any Apostolicall infallibilitie wherefore I pray then might they not also have it as well in Discipline or Government I remit the Reader to that Section and my Annotation thereupon 2. Your second Reason is grounded not onely upon possibilities but also upon hope for it may be hopefully conceived say ye that God in his infinite mercy and purpose reserved and provided some better thing for this Nation when it should come to be reformed that the other Churches might not be made perfect without it as the Apostle speaks Answ 1. This is but a possibile est esse it may be quod nihil ponit in esse that maketh nothing to be The question is not what may be but what is in effect 2. And as it may be so may it not be 3. It is not so much as a may be of any thing that is to be but a may be or a possible hope of a thing that may be O how far is this Reason from proving the thing to be 4 And as for that Text of the Apostle Heb. 11.48 Ye abuse mightily the place of Scripture or are abused for it is not to be understood of