differences but evermore by their Externall Causes or by their Accidents and sometimes by their Opposites and Negations of some other things The very Apprentices in Logick know thus much 4. But if we know the Essences of things in themselves as this M.S. pretends if he say any thing to purpose how is it that there is so great debate about them as 1. about the soule of a man whether it be spirituall or corporall 2. About the totall Essence of a man whether it be the Soule alone his Soule and Body the Soule and its materia prima the union of both the image of God Religion or some other thing And to urge this more home upon your Example of the Light If we know the Essences of things distinctly and in themselves as I said what is the cause of so great a diversity yea of so great a contrariety of opinions about its Essence or Nature How is it that some Philosophers hold it to be in some Predicament others to be in none some to be a Substance others an Accident some to be a spirituall substance others to be a Body others neither viz. neither to be a corporeall nor a spirituall but a spiritalis substantia others the presence of a luminous body others a reall colour others an apparent colour others a spirituall Quality some a naturall power others a sensible quality If we knew it essentially and distinctly in it self and not meerly accidentally we could not so doubt of its Essence wherein it consists But it seems that this Man Doctor Holmes and some of that Sect are as Hereticall in Philosophie as Schismaticall in Divinitie and so they have conspired with as little successe against Naturall as against Divine truth M.S. sayes that my meaning may be that if a Toleration be granted for Independencie the Practice of it should become a Schisme from the Presbyterian Church A.S. No such thing but I maintain that Independencie is already at least materially yea Formally ratione Formae essentialis in foro Conscientiae interno a schisme from all the true Churches in the World since they willingly have separated themselves from them all in matter of Sacramentall Communion as also in that of Discipline And you should have done well to have answered this which no doubt you met with in my former Book and not oblige me to repeat it here It will also be a Schisme ratione Formae Accidentalis externae in fore externo from the Church of England if in Gods mercy any other Discipline then Independent be established in it So is it also in respect of the Presbyterian Church which is already established in France Holland c. yea and here in England in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches So is it in respect of the Church of Scotland the Discipline whereof is approved by the King which ye have all sworne to maintain But sayes he we have no Presbyterian Church among us and so if a Toleration be granted before such a Government be established it is apparently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the reach of such an imputation for ever A. S. 1. It is false that we have no Presbyterian Church among us We have it in the French Dutch and other Churches wherewith the Church of England professed evermore a Sacramentall Communion which the Independents break 2. Whether it be granted by the Parliament or not that hinders it not from being a Schisme for the Toleration of the Parliament is altogether extrinsecall to Schisme and there were Schismes in the Primitive Church without any Toleration of the Civill Magistrate 3. His Supposition is impious and ridiculous for Toleration according to M.S. his judgement is evermore of some reall or at least of some apparent Evill Now can the Parliament or the Assembly of Divines in good Conscience tolerate an ill Government before that they establish any good one Is not that to begin with the Devill to serve him before that we serve God Should not the Parliament begin with You as the most considerable Party A. S. his 4. Reason If a Toleration be granted to our Brethren I cannot see how it can be well denied to other Sects M.S. answereth that Bernardus non videt omnia A.S. But I pray you then Father Epistemon that sees all things make me by some Reason or other to see how it can be denyed to other Sects for there is the same Reason for a Toleration of them all M.S. bringeth this Reason He saith he that keepeth a doore with lock and key and bolts to it may let in one man that knocks without letting in all commers A.S. But if the other knocketh also wherefore will he not open to him and let him in as well as the other If he open not there is no Reason but Will that keeps him out so there is the same Reason but not the same Will for both it is a meere Prosopolepsiia or Acceptation of persons which is not well done If it be said that other Sects differ more from us then the Independents Ans 1. It is all one Magis minus non mutant speciem in matter of Toleration 1. For then all must be tolerated howsoever some more some lesse 2. And some of our Brethren viz. M. S. grants all the Argument 3. And if we distinguish so they must declare and expound cleerly what Sects and what Opinions are to be tolerated and what not which will be a Question inextricable which no mortall man appearingly is able distinctly to determine M. S. answereth not to any of my Reasons only he is offended that I say it is a Question inextricable c. He sayes then 1. That I prevaricate with my own Cause but wherein here altum silentium 2. He saith that I put the Magistrate to a stand whether he should tolerate Presbyterian Government or not But I have already answered 1. That it is already approved here in England in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches 2. That the English Divines in the name of all this Kingdom approved it in Holland 3. That the Kings Majestie confirmed it in Scotland 4. That we entertain Sacramentall Communion with all the Protestant Reformed Churches and that the Independents alone do quit it 5. That all the three Kingdoms and the Independents with them by their Covenant and Oath are bound to maintain Presbyteriall Government in Scotland 6. And they are bound to Reform the Church of England according to the example of the best Reformed Protestant Churches and namely that of Scotland which all have onely Presbyterian Government 7. And we have sufficiently confirmed it by sundry Testimonies of Scripture and other Arguments grounded on Scripture 8. Neither is this his Question to the purpose for quaestio quaestionem non solvit I ask him what Sects are to be tolerated in a Kingdom wherein the true Doctrine and true Discipline according to the publike Judgement both of the State and of the Church are established
yea if it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost it should seem good to all his Ministers 2. And I pray you M.S. when it seemeth good to an Independent Minister to declare the Doctrine that denieth Christs Divinity hereticall whether think you seemes it not good to God and to the Holy Ghost also and if it seem good to both why may not the Minister say It seemeth good to God and to me also to declare this Hereticall 3. And if that is bound or loosed in Heaven which the Church bindeth or looseth on Earth wherefore when they bind or loose sinners may they not say It seemeth good to God and to me also to loose this sinner To the 10. I answer It is altogether ridiculous for this one particular expression conteineth not all the expressions that are used in Ecclesiasticall Iudgements the Church useth not evermore Comminations in her Iudgements but against such as are disobedient and that after sundry Admonitions Neither is every Iudgement or Law evermore expresly Penall as ye might have learned both out of your Civill and Canon Law CHAP. VIII Wherein the same Doctrine is further confirmed by Reason THis Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories may be likewise proved by the practice of the Old Testament for in the Old Testament there were Synagogicall and Synedriall Iudicatories amongst them there was a Subordination and from the first they appealed to the second neither find we ever that God abrogated it since it was not Ceremoniall as I have shewed 2. It may likewise be proved from the Subordination of Civill Iudicatories in all great Civill States and there is a like reason for them both 3. If it be granted that there are Ecclesiasticall Assemblies greater in Authority one then another as appeareth by all these former Texts either this inequality of Greatnesse or Power is by Co-ordination or by Subordination But it cannot be by Co-ordination for one co-ordinate Power hath no power over the other as that of Hierusalem had over the rest of the Churches in giving them a Pastor Act. 1.2 6. chap. and Lawes and Commands Act. 15. 16. Ergo It must be by Subordination And then the power of the subordinate Church is under that of the superior Church whereunto it is subordinated as in Civill Iudicatories subordinated one to another 4. If there were no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories in matters of Power and Authority or their Authoritative Power then any particular Congregation by an irresistible power in despite of all the Churches of the the World might establish amongst themselves all sort of most damnable Heresies commit all sort of sinne and uncleannesse and so infect all the World with their wickednesse and no Churches or Christians qua tales could hinder them or say to them even as the Pope pretends they cannot say to him Domine quare hoc facis 5. But can our Adversaries risen up of the new shew any such Government as theirs in the Church of God in any time since Christs Incarnation yea from the Creation of the World to this time wherein there was no Subalternation but a meer Independency amongst all Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories We could wish they would shew us the Institution of it in Scripture where any where Christ commanded that all Churches should be altogether Independent and consequently Incorrigible Where at any time he granted them such a Licenciousnesse of power to go irresistably to Hell What an abominable Licenciousnesse is this to plead on this manner for all sort of Independency and of Ecclesiasticall Impunity in doing of all sort of wickednesse and mischief 6. The want of this Subordination taketh away all sort of remedy against the offences of particular Congregations 7. It destroyeth the Unitie of the Militant visible Church both Provinciall Nationall and Universall which cannot appear but in a Provinciall Nationall or Universall Synod or Councell 8. And consequently the visibility of the Church for she is not visible but in her Symbole or Confession of Faith and Canons of Ecclesiasticall Discipline as appeareth by the Symbole of the Apostles 9. To take away such Representative Churches as Synods is to destroy the Externall church-Church-Communion of Saints or the Communion of Saints amongst divers Churches which cannot so well appear as in Synods where their Reall Communion one with another is best represented for if particular Churches be destroyed by persecution and a little remnant escape as sometimes it falleth out upon the Turks Invasion and the Papists Massacres as wofull experience hath furnished us but too many examples in Germany France England and elsewhere what Externall Union or Communion of Saints can appear amongst you since in such a case ye will neither receive men in age to the Lords Table nor the children of such Martyrs to Baptism and so all the recompence they can have amongst you for all their sufferings for the Name of Christ is That they are like to be utterly excluded from all Church-Communion whatsoever 10. So this is a very poor comfort for Martyrs who having suffered much in their own persons lost their wives children and goods for the good Name of Christ shall no more now be esteemed Christians after all their sufferings whereas they were thought to be of the very best before that time 11. Such a Subordination of Representative Churches in matter of Government is a means very necessary to conserve the Churches for by the Authoritative power thereof Churches are kept in Order Unitie and Union and so preserved as we see in France Holland Scotland and elsewhere ever since the beginning of the World whereas by the contrary Independent way consisting of dis-union they may easily be destroyed as we see in the innumerable number of Sects that in a short space of time have sprouted out of the Independent Sect no lesse opposite one to another then to us 12. If there be no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies but every one be Independent and every member of the Church have a vote in all Ecclesiasticall matters and be made acquainted with all that passeth as amongst the Independents hardly can the Counsels and the Resolutions that are taken for mutuall conservation be kept secret but they will every houre be betrayed and so the Church given up to her Enemies which appearingly cannot so easily fall out in the Synodicall way wherein 20. 30. or 40. only and those of the best sort and the wisest men are acquainted with the businesse for in all morall probability it is not credible but 20. 30. or 40. may better keep a businesse secret then 20000. or 30000 whereof the Churches that they represent may be compounded 13. Since Christ ordained Universall Ministers to rule over the whole Militant Church and all the particular Congregations thereof wherefore should there not be some unity of Government amongst them and wherefore may they not all depend on one Councell as well as on one man certainly there is the same reason for both for as the Apostles
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
A.S. Answ The Parliament hath power and a calling to judge Politicè about the Church and Church matters What Decisions and Constitutions of the Church Assemblies they will approve or disapprove what Religion Doctrine and Discipline they will admit or tolerate in the State But they have no calling or Directive Authoritative power in the Church to judge this or that to be the true Doctrine or Discipline this belongeth to Church-Officers Yet they have a private judgement of Discretion about such matters as other Christians and a publique Politicall Authoritative judgement and a coactive Politicall power to compell the Subjects to admit in the State such or such a true Doctrine or Discipline of the Church howbeit not to beleeve it or to love or approve it in their judgement or will M. S. Ob. 14. asketh Whether it be reasonable that the Apologists matters yet remaining undecided and unjudged between them and their Brethren should suffer as men convicted only because their Adversaries and Accusers the Brethren ye know of are more in number then they and will needs continue Adversaries to them A.S. Answ 1. Though yee vaunt evermore of your sufferings we have never seen them 2. These whom ye unjustly call your Adversaries have suffered much more then you and yet publish it not unto the World 3. It is absolutely false that ye suffer 4. And yet much falser that ye suffer as men convicted 5. And yet falser that ye suffer because your Adversaries are more in number And 6. falsest of all that only ye suffer for that 7. Men that suffer are not honoured as ye are neither receive they so great favours Presents and Benefices as ye doe 8. It is a great sufferance to the Church of God to be calumniated and upbraided by so contemptible a number of Ministers and to see so many Libels printed against her by those of your Sect. 9. It is false that ye are not condemned for the Church of England and all other Protestant Churches in approving the Presbyterian Government as we said heretofore could not but disprove and condemne you all who condemn it 10. Neither doth all this prove a Directive Ecclesiasticall power belonging to the Civill Magistrate 11. Ye have no Adversaries here but your False Opinions 12. Neither are your Brethren Adversaries to you but to your erronions Opinions which are a thousand times more your Adversaries then they 13. And both ye and any of us must legally suffer according to our demerits when we are sufficiently convicted and condemned by plurality of Votes in foro externo as ye are already in very many things for this is the way of all Civill and Ecclesiasticall Judicatories Neither can Independents change it 15. Ibid. M.S. reasoneth thus If our Saviours testimony concerning himselfe in his own cause was not valid how much lesse the testimony of any other yea of a thousand in any matter that concerneth themselves and consequently that of our Brethren in the Synod But the first is true Joh. 5.31 If I beare witnesse of my selfe my witnesse is not true i. e. it is not in a formall and Legall interpretation true but you may reasonably wave it A.S. Ans 1. Either Christ here speaking of his own testimony speaketh of himselfe according to his Divine to his Humane or according to both his Natures Item 2. Either he speaketh of its validity in it selfe or in respect of the Iewes to whom he did speak and who should have admitted of it Item 3. Either of his publique and judiciall or of his private testimony 1. If in the first Proposition we take our Saviour according to his Divine nature or according to both viz. as Mediator the Assumption is false for there Christ speaketh not of himselfe according to his Divine Nature or to both or as Mediator for under that notion he is Iudge of quick and dead and Christ sayes Ioh. 8.14 that if he testifie of himselfe his testimony is true 2. Or if he speak of himselfe under this notion then he speaketh not of his testimony as it is in it self but as it is in respect of them who received it not viz the Iewes and unbeleevers who received it not as the testimony of God or of the Mediator however it was such for they knew him not Ioh. 8.15.19 but they judged according to the flesh neither knew they him nor his Father And if they had known the King of Glory they had never crucified him And then the Proposition is false for it followeth not that if Christs testimony who is God was not acknowledged as valid by those who knew it not Ergo the testimony of a Presbytery or Synod should not be acknowledged by such as are subject thereunto and know it for by the same reason two or three idle fellowes should not beleeve the testimony of your Presbytery or Assembly 3. I retort then the Argument If Christs testimony was not legally valid in his own cause Ergo Yours in your Presbyteries and Assemblies is not legally true or valid in your own cause when ye judge in matters of Faith and and Discipline But the first is true Ergo the second also 4. If Christ be here taken according to his Humane Nature then either he is taken according to his Humane nature as it is in it selfe without sinne or as it was in the Pharises estimation If in the first way the Assumption is false for there the Pharises took Christ for a sinfull man and who can deny but that the testimony of a man in the state of integrity is valid 5. If it be taken in the second way I deny the first Proposition for the testimony of Iudges in judging according to Law in things that concerne not so much their persons as the Society that they represent in judgement as the Assembly and all Ecclesiasticall Iudges doe is to be preferred before the testimony of any particular man 6. And if this Maxime of the Independents hold the judgement of no Civill Magistrate yea not of the Parliament it selfe shâ—ll hold if any of them or any Dâ—linquent take the Parliament to party in any businesse The Parliament will doe well to take notice of such Independent Maximes 7. But this was the Arminians way at the Synod of Dort to the end they might decline the judgement of the Synod and he is an Arminian who propounds this Argument who of late is become an Independent I â—eare they mean to unite the two Sects in one 8. Christ was not here speaking of himselfe how far forth his testimony and judgement might hold in a judiciall way whereof we speak here but in a private way for this action was not judiciall but a particular discourse 9. Neither are the businesses now in hand at the Synod of particular but of publike concernment viz. the Church wherein the Church that is Iudge cannot be taken to party however ye call her a crowd wherein many particular persons are concerned M. S. Ob. 16. p. 37.
§ 2. They who are Party cannot be their Parties Judge since they are all equals Et par in parem non habet imperium and to be both Iudge and Party in one cause cannot be granted to those that have no authoritative power one over another as A.S. himselfe affirmes But the Assembly are those who are Party to the Independents and nothing else but their equals Ergo the Assembly cannot be their Judges A. S. Ans A Party cannot judge a Party I distinguish for either this Party is only pretended and so I deny the Major or reall and then this reall Party either compeareth in some personall or reall actions of his owne alone or in some cause of publick concernment if he compeare under the first notion the Major is true but the Minor is false for the Members of the Assembly compeare not in the Assembly for any personall or reall action of their owne alone or of particular concernment if he compeareth under the second notion the Major is false unlesse yee have sufficient cause to forsake him for Iudge 2. Item If it be a Party that hath no power over the Party in such a cause the Major is true but the Minor is false for the Assembly in matters of Discipline hath power over all the Independents in England viz. to condemne their Tenets according to Gods VVord If it be a party that hath power over the Party in such a cause as a Iudge the Major is false and so it was reasoned and this your Tenet judged and condemned in the Arminians as I hope it shall be in this Arminian and the Independents in this Assembly 3. It is false that parties are equals when the one hath power over another or when the one that is pretended to be party judgeth not in a matter concerning himselfe but the publick 4. For if that should hold the parties of the Independent Churches might reject the judgement of whole Churches yea of all the Churches of the world pretending them to be parties 5. Yea for the same reason they might reject the Iudgement of the Parliament 6. This Argument proveth not the question viz. that the Parliament hath an intrinsecall directive power in matters of Religion or an Ecclesiasticall power to judge in matters of Religion 7. It is a very proud and Independent expression of yours when you say that the Synod and all the Churches in the Christian world are but the Apologists equals you will finde them I hope in God their Judges and yet they are put in authority by the Parliament to represent the whole Church of England which is more then such an inconsiderable number of Independents M. S. Ob. 17. p. 37. § 2. If all Churches vvere equall as for ought I know or for any thing A.S. alledgeth to the contrary they are there can be neither superiours nor inferiours and consequently no obedience or disobedience But the first is true A. S. Ans 1. This proveth not that the Parliament hath any intrinsecall povver in the Church much lesse any directive intrinsecall povver 2. Only it pretendeth to prove an Independent Povver in the Church which taketh away their directive povver of the Civill Magistrate and the Parliament for if their Churches depend not of any superiour how can they depend upon the Parliament or any other Civill Magistrate I deny the Assumption viz. that all Churches are equall but he proveth it because they are such for ought he knoweth or that A. S. alleadgeth to the contrary Ansvv 1. This is but to confesse your ignorance 2. I deny the Consequence for it may be otherwise howbeit he be ignorant of it 3. Neither is his knowledge the measure of divine or naturall verity but to be measured by them 4. Howbeit A. S. should say nothing to the contrary yet the contrary may be for A. S. hath not said all things that may be said upon this or any other subject and there be thousands who can say more and better then he yea many have said more and better 5. It is an untruth also that he hath said nothing to the contrary for he might have seene something to the contrary in his Observations and in his Answers to a Libell and if that be not enough he hath more in this Booke 6. When he saith that A. S. argueth so it is an untruth for neither hath A. S. the Assumption nor the Conclusion in the 38. page of his Observations cited by him for he destroyeth the Consequent to destroy the Antecedent whereas M. S. poseth the Antecedent to infer the Consequent M. S. Ob. 18. If Iustice consisteth not in an Arithmeticall but Geometricall proportion then is there no reason that peremptoriousnesse of Vote how Arithmetically soever priviledged but weight and worth of Arguments should carry it against them But the first is true Ergo the second also A. S. Ansvv This Argument with its peremptorious censure of a pretended peremptoriousnesse of Votes Arithmetically priviledged seemeth to censure the Parliament which ordained that that should be offered unto them as the Iudgement of the Assembly vvhich the major part assented unto i. e. that that was judged by Plurality of Votes 2. If by peremptoriousnesse of Vote he meaneth Plurality of Votes I deny the consequence or connexion for when things are fully ballanced by reason in any Assembly it is more probable that that is most true that is carried by plurality of votes and that Geometricall proportion wherein consisteth distributive Iustice may be more easily found out by Plurarity of votes then by fewer votes otherwise it were a folly to vote any thing for wherefore vote they any thing in any Assemblies but that it may be judged by plurality of votes 3. And the Apostle willeth that the spirit of Prophets be subject to the Prophets Neither is it credible that the Major part will submit unto the lesser part 4. And we would willingly know of you Sir how things are ordinarily carried in your Assemblies whether things being debated and every mans Reasons heard the Major part submitteth to the lesser or the lesser to the Major or whether that is thought truth that the Major or Minor part Voteth 5. If by peremptoriousnesse of votes you mean a bold and imperious carrying of things by plurality of votes without reason I shall readily grant you such Assemblies are unlawfull neither is there any such established amongst us neither hath the Parliament established any such Ecclesiasticall Assembly here neither doth the Assembly arrogate unto it selfe any such unjust power if this Argument hold it shall beate downe as well the proceedings of the Parliament and all Civill Iudicatories wherein things are carried by Plurality of votes as those of the Assembly wherefore all the Civill Powers in the world will doe well to take notice of this peremptorious censure of them all for if it stand they must fall and doe homage to the Independent Churches Besides this I know not what he meaneth by Arithmetically
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
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
rejected it then the Iudgement at Antioch which they did not but acquiesced therein for any thing we know to the contrary 6. Some may peradventure prove it in this manner That if it had not been a Synod and a superior Iudicatory in respect of Antioch those of Antioch had not sent the two Parties but had done better to have sent some indifferent Person for indifferent Persons are more proper to consult a businesse then the Parties 7. If it had been judged at Hierusalem by way of Counsell only this Counsell had likely been only given to the Church of Antioch for counsell ordinarily is only given to those who desire and crave it But so it is not here for the Church of Hierusalem not only judged so concerning the Church of Antioch alone but also of all others and the Apostles and their Disciples urged this Iudgement upon all the rest of the Churches where they passed Some new-New-England Preachers answer That this Assembly at Hierusalem cleer up the truth dogmatically for the word translated Decrees is in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 16.4 but imports not to Censure Item that they cannot see why the ultimate power of Censures may not reside in the Congregation as well as in the Synod Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall A.S. Answ This cannot hold 1. For whoever have a Dogmaticall power they have also a power to Censure for he who may judge that this must be believed and according to Gods Word meriteth such an Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall punishment wherefore may he not also sentence the Delinquents who merit to be so censured 2. Because in giving a Dogmaticall power to some and a Corrective power unto others they divide the Keyes and give one unto one Assembly and another unto another and so make one Assembly see with the others eyes 3. These Powers were not separated in the Church or Church-Assemblies in the Old Testament Ergo No more should they be separated in the New since the union of these two Powers proceeds not from any Ceremoniall Law but either from the Law of Nature or the Politicall Ecclesiasticall Law in so far forth as grounded on the Law of Nature 4. Because such a way were as M.S. speaketh to make the one Iudex and the other Carnisex the one to be the Iudge and the other the Executioner 5. Because in all States and Civill Governments Iudges or Senates who have the Dogmaticall power have also the Corrective or Coercive power and there is the same reason for both 6. The Text conteineth no such thing neither can they shew us in any part of Scripture any ground for any such division of these two Powers Neither can that silly Grammaticall observation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve them for the Apostle serveth not himselfe of this word in the whole latitude of all its Grammaticall significations that it may have according to its Etymologie and Derivation but in a Legall way as it is taken in Law for Placitum Statutum Institutum Decretum Edictum as in the Civill Lawes wherein these words signifie Lawes or Ordinances and Calvin telleth us in Lexico Iuridico that Dogma est lex docens scientiam fidei l. 2. F. F. ad Senatus-con Vellejan Decretum Senatus-consultum significat pro quo Modestinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 F. F. de excus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixit Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing else but Decretum Scitum Plebiscitum The cause wherefore the Apostle taketh it in a Court or Law-signification is because that they were making Ecclesiasticall Lawes and so took it ratione subjectae materiae 7. And this may be confirmed because they are not only called dogmata but it is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text i. e. quae decreta fuerunt ab Apostolis that were decreed by the Apostles 8. And what else is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to dogmatize or to bring in a new Opinion Custome or Ceremony Col. 2.20 which here was not done by any private man but by authority of a Councell 9. Neither can the Authors of this Evasion ever shew us that Dogma in Law is taken for a power meerly dogmaticall separated from all coercive or corrective power And moreover if this will not satisfie them we have Act. 15. v. 24. To whom we commanded no such thing Ergo Those of Antioch supposed that that Councell at Hierusalem had power to command and the Councell denieth not that they had Power to command but the Act of the Power viz. that they had commanded any such thing v. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things Ergo they laid a burden but no greater burden upon them 2. It was laid upon them 3. It was necessary necessitate praecepti But they who had such a power had they not think we power also to censure 12. Beza telleth us also that in his Codex in chap. 15. v. 41. this is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in some Latine codex Praecipiens custodire praecepta Apostolorum Seniorum which argueth that they had not only a Directive but also an Imperative power over the Churches in vertue of that Decree of the Councell 13. The Dogmaticall power is like unto the Legislative power and whoever hath a Legislative power hath also a Corrective power 14. This Councell had not only a Dogmaticall but also a Legislative power about things of themselves indifferent as appeareth here in making a Law that the Christians should abstaine from meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled 4. Some it may be will finde out this Evasion and say That it was not a Councell nor an ordinary Decree of Ecclesiasticall Iudges but of Arbiters Rep. But 1. the Text hath no such thing 2. Arbiters are either given by the ordinary Iudge ordinarily called Iudices pedanei or chosen by the Parties themselves otherwayes called Compromissarii If ye grant me the first then particular Churches are subject unto Superiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories that give them such Arbiters which is all we look for If the second then if the Word of God hath granted an Independent liberty unto the Church she ought not to quit it in making her self subject and dependent for we cannot dispose of our own liberty granted to us by Christ to make our selves servants or subject to men in Matters of Religion 3. We cannot submit Gods Cause to others then to whom he hath submitted it himself How could they accept them for Iudges who had no vocation of God to judge them 5. Arbitrary Iudges that are given have a Superiour power over the Church that they judge and so ye acknowledge that the Church of Ierusalem had power over that of Antioch if that of Ierusalem was an Arbiter datus aut delegatus 2. These given Arbiters are given by a Iudge or Superiour Ergo They presuppose some Superiour Iudge over the
State in such a Case 2. The Ministers in the New Testament must proceed spiritually against all Delinquent and Impenitent persons as the Ministers in the Old Testament did against theirs according to Gods Word unlesse such a proceeding be abrogated in the New Testament 3. They must do as M. S. hath taught us as they do against particular persons in commensurating the punishments to the sins i. e. They must proceed by particular Admonitions and Censures against lesser sins in private or before the Presbytery by suspension from the Lords Table against greater sins by publike suspension or lesser Excommunication against greater sins and by the great Excommunication against the greatest sins 4. M. S. confesseth That the Apologists in their way do little lesse A. S. If so then they do a little worse then the Presbyterians and so they quit a little M. S. his own rule whereby he willeth them to proceed as against particular Persons 5. If all this suffice not it is the Civill Magistrates part to proceed against them as Troublers of the Peace of the Church and consequently of the Christian State and not to permit them to erect a new Sect as it is ordinarily practised amongst the Independents of New England 6. They must be punished for their Perjury and for the breach of their Covenant but none of those punishments can be inflicted but after sufficient conviction at least Morally in foro externo And such punishments are the fittest for them after such a conviction when they pertinaciously resist the Spirit of God for such men fear more the Gibbet then Hell-fire What you say of your second Chapter it is sufficiently answered What you say of Churches That they had need to take heed how they chuse men for their Guardians c. If by those Guardians you mean the Civill Magistrate it is not wisely said of you If Church-Ministers they must choose such as will delate pertinacious sinners to the Civill Magistrate To your second Question What if in the Session c. Answ 1. What if it be so in your Assemblies or Synods 2. If it be any inferior Ecclesiasticall Iudicatory they must remit it to a superior ever till they come to some wherein the Votes may preponderate And if in the supreme Iudicatory viz. in a Nationall Assembly the Votes preponderate not concerning the Excommunication of such a Church which is very extraordinary she cannot be excommunicated and yet if her opinion or sin be condemned the combined Eldership may inflict some lesser Spirituall punishment and if such a Church continue still pertinacious the Civill Magistrate may proceed against her in a Civill way as we have said Neither is this a compliance with Papists in quality of Papists but in so far forth as they agree with Scripture 1. For so proceeded the Church of the Old Testament 2. So proceeded the Church of the New Testament in the times of good Emperours as under Constantine the Great Theodosius c. 3. So proceed they at Geneva 4. So in the Netherlands 5. So the Independents of new-New-England 6. So should M.S. rather doe then to tolerate open Blasphemers of the blessed Name of God 7. Darest thou M. S. so openly plead in favour of Paganisme of all sorts of Heresies and mischiefs and for all sort of impunitie for them all 8. The Truth falleth not to the dust in such a case but sinne is punished but not in such a degree as it should be To the second Inconveniency that I object against the Independents § 4. viz. That the Independent Churches offended if they judge the offending Church they should be both Judge and Party M. S. replieth p. 80. § 3. When your combined Eldership proceedeth against a particular Church amongst you upon offence taken is not this Eldership as well Party as Judge A.S. My Argument implieth the Solution of this Objection viz. That the combined Eldership cannot be Party in such a cause because it hath an Authoritative power over the particular Church howbeit Spirituall and Ministeriall as the Parliament over particular Judicatories in the Kingdome but Parties look one to another as par parem and not as superior inferiorem 2. Neither can any man or Consociation take his ordinary Judge to Party unlesse he have some particular Exceptions against him 3. I propound you the same Question concerning the particular Tribes and the Synagogicall Judicatories amongst the people of God in the Old Testament when the great Sanedrim took offence at them or at their Iudgements whether the great Sanedrim was not both Iudge and Party Or rather whether under the notion of Offence taken it was not to be considered as a Party and under the notion of Authoritative power as a Iudge 4. I propound it of the State whether the Parliament may not be considered as Party being offended at any particular Consociation and as Judge in quality of the Representative Body of the whole Kingdome or if it be evermore needfull that some particular Person or Persons compeare in quality of Party against particular Consociations or Townes 5. In your particular Congregations may not your Church under divers notions be considered as Judge and Party or may every Delinquent take your whole Presbytery or Congregation to Party 6. Did not the Arminians serve themselves of this Independent Argument against the Synod of Dort to decline the Synods power and were not both they and this their Argument condemned by the judgement of the Synod as very absurd and unapt 7. This Argument concludeth against all the superior Powers of this World Again M.S. 1. telleth us that this Authoritative power of combined Presbyteries over Congregations is not from above A. S. But we have proved it to be from above and from God as Author of Nature and of Grace See the Question concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories 2. Core Dathan and Abiram objected no lesse against Moses and Aaron yea as much may be objected against God himselfe who is Iudge and Party and Iesus Christ who is Party and yet shall judge the quick and the dead For if Criminals may so escape they will not faile to take their Iudges evermore for Party M. S. To hold that all those that have an Authoritative Power over men may lawfully in vertue of such a Power be both Iudges and Parties is to exalt all manner of Tyranny c. by Law for so in Church and State men invested with such a power may be their own carvers and serve themselves of the estates liberties and lives of those that are under them how and when and as oft as they list Adde But the Consequence is false Ergo so is the Antecedent A.S. I deny the Consequence for they have not an absolute but a limited power according to Law and not to their own particular but publike will or in quality of publike persons whose wills are declared in or restrained according to Law Neither commandeth Carolus the Kingdome qua Carolus but
better their Cause fave onely that it is naught It is truely a strange thing that men of so great abilities should be able to say no more for themselves 8. And since you M.S. and they are so able will you or they I pray condescend to some private meeting with some of the Presbyterians that it may be seen who hath the best Cause and whether or no all your deep learning and great skill in Sophistications wherein ye so excell can set any probable shew or face of reason upon your opinions which ye hold to be no lesse then Gods revealed Word M. S. Answer 3. Better a door opened to all sorts of erroneous opinions yea and to many other inconveniencies greater then this then that the guilt of any persecution or of any evill entreatings of the Saints and people of God should cleave unto the people or State A. S. this M. S. supposeth 1. That the Independents are the Saints 2. And that in case they be not tolerated in establishing publikely their Church Government and other Tenets in despight of Church and Parliament both in the Church and State that it is no lesse then the guilt of persecution against the Saints drawn upon the State 3. That it were better that all the Heresies of the World and worse should creep into the Church then that they should not be tolerated but chastised in case they trouble the peace of either Church or state I answer That all that M. S. here sayeth are damnable untruths and that it were better that all the Independents of this World were in America and that ten thousand times worse should befall them then that the good Name of God should be dishonoured by filthy Heresies And if the Independents had any fear of God before their eyes and loved not themselves better a great deal then Gods glory they would rather desire with Moses to be scrap't out of the Book of life or with Paul to be separated from Christ then that Christs Church should so suffer or Gods blessed Name be so dishonoured A. S. 2. Reason It is dangerous for the State it may breed Factions and Divisions betwixt all Persons of whatsoever relation betwixt the Magistrate and the Subject the Husband and the Wife the Father and the Son Brethren and Sisters the Master and the Servant when the one is of one Religion or Ecclesiasticall Government and the other of another as ye yea to your no very great advantage have experimented it severall times The Son may refuse to receive any Communion with the Father and the Brother with the Brother to the utter dissolution of all naturall civill and domesticall bonds of Societie And the reason of this may be because the one may Excommunicate the other as daily Experience testifies M. S. The shadows of the Mountains seem Men unto you Judg. 9.36 A. S. So said Zebul the servant of Abimelech the son of the Concubine who by a conspiracy with the Schichemites was made King and afterwards murthered his Brethren and yet they were men viz. Wicked Abimelech with his Army and no shadows of Mountains M. S. would have us live in security and would rather tolerate Socinianism Arminianism yea Iudaism and Mahumetanism then that his own Sect should not be tolerated Of so large a conscience is he A.S. It may breed Factions c. M.S. But A. S. his may may possibly not come in an Age no nor in many Generations and would he have so many Thousands of the deare People of God as do Apologize to eat their bread in darknesse And he said heretofore that May commeth but once a yeere A.S. It is subtilly argued M.S. of you with your May but it is too much that such a May come once a yeere or once in an Age and better were it ten thousand of you should perish then God be so offended for it is a Maxime in Divinity Quodvis malum Paenae etiam maximum eligendum potius quà m minimum malum Culpae nam quaevis Culpa pejor quavis Poenâ 2. But I pray you learne of me that as impossibile morale in morall matters such as this whereof we dispute is not that which never but which rarely or hardly falleth out so is possibile morale idem quod facilè which easily and oftentimes falleth out and not that falleth out but once in an Age And that it falleth out so very oft we may prove it by the Divisions in France the Netherlands Germany Poland Transilvania c. What I pray transported the Crown of Swede from the Nephew to the Vnkle What moved a King of Spaine to consent to his own Sons death What is the cause of so great a War betwixt the Turk and the Persian And finally what is the cause of this our present War but the favouring of Popery the Negotiations with Rome our Agents there Father Con and the Popes Nuncio here 2. Ye are not so many Thousands as ye brag of save in London and a few miles about it your Sect I think may easily be counted by Hundreds and as for the remoter parts of the Kingdome they are unknowne Creatures to them 3. If they be so deare to God they can never qua tales suffer for so wicked a cause as for all Licentiousnesse in Religion 4. They need not to suffer if they will not be turbulent but quiet and submit unto the Lawes of the Kingdome and such an Ecclesiasticall Government as in Gods mercy shall be established in the Church What a sawcinesse is this that they will be content with nothing unlesse in despight of Church and State they may doe what they will 5. As for his Rhetorications in telling me that I am bred of Rocks and suck'd the milk of Tygers All that shall not hinder me to maintaine that the Independents must be subject to Order and Authority both Civill and Ecclesiasticall as other men are or else suffer for their turbulent humour M. S. I would know of him whether he deemeth himselfe to be of another Religion then the Apologists If so Candorem tuum A.S. in that malignant expression c. A.S. As for my Religion you may know it M.S. It is that which is declared in the Confessions of the Churches of Scotland England the Netherlands France c. But as for yours Sed vos qui tandem quibus aut venistis ab eris Quovè tenetis iter that I know not and consequently whether I be of your Religion or not Ye will have no Confession of Faith or Discipline but what you may change Fidem diariam aut ad summum menstruam such as you may change with every Moon But to come more neere to the Point I pray you set forth a Confession of Faith in the name of all the Independent Churches and subscribe all of you that ye will stand to it and then I will answer your Question If ye will not here I will give you the best satisfaction I can and it is this viz.
That not long since I heard one of the Ringleaders of the Independent Sect deliver this Doctrine in a Sermon at the Abby of Westminster viz. That to a saving knowledge of God it sufficeth not to know him in the Book of Nature or 2. as revealed in the holy Scriptures but that we must also know him as abstract from his Mercy and all his Attributes Now if this be a common Tenet of your Religion I must confesse I am none of yours My Reasons are 1. Because that if it be so rude people that know nothing of so refined Abstractions must be damned 2. Because to be saved it is most necessary to know God as concrete with his Mercy or as mercifull towards us in Christ 3. If I know God evermore under this refined abstraction from Mercy I must be damned 4. Because if I know God abstracted from his Mercy I know him out of Christ and out of the Gospel for God in Christ and in the Gospel is not abstract but concrete with Mercy 5. Because the knowledge of God as revealed in Scripture is sufficient to salvation Ergo it is not needfull to know him any otherwayes in this life 6. Because if I know God out of Scripture and abstract from Mercy it is a Knowledge without Faith for Faiths formall Object is God in Christ as revealed in Scripture and therefore it is a knowledge of God in Christ as revealed in Scripture and therefore there must be some saving knowledge of God without Faith 7. If a saving knowledge of God be of God as abstract from all his Attributes it must be a knowledge of God without any Simplicity and so of God as abstract from a pure Act. 8. As abstract from all his Perfections i.e. without all his Perfections 9. E. of God as abstract from his Goodnes and so as without his Goodnes 10. Of God as without Insinitie 11. Without Omnipresence 12. Without Immutability 13. Without Eternity 14. Without Life without Knowledge Science or Wisdome 15. Without any Will 16. Without any Love towards Mankind 17. Without Hatred of Sin or Sinners 18. Without Power or Omnipotencie 19. Without any Decree of Predestination or Reprobation 20. Without any Providence or care of his Creatures 21. Without Creation and so not as Creator For to know God as abstract from these Attributes is to know God as without them Now who dare say that to know God as abstract from all those Attributes or without them is a saving knowledge This is indeed an Independent saving knowledge independent on Gods Word on Christ on Faith and all Grace and consequently most gracelesse 23. To know God as abstract from all his Attributes is to know God as abstract from his Essence and so to know God as without himself or his own Essence or Being for Gods Attributes are not only eadem cum Essentid ut personae sed de Essentia de quidditativo ejus conceptu praedicatae ejus essentialiae and some of them quasi de specifico ejus conceptu from which God can no wayes be abstracted 24. If God be considered as abstract from all his Attributes it is no more a knowledge of God but some Idol of the Independents brains sicque habes meum candorem vestrum pariteratrorem Now let the Reader judge which of our two expressions is most Malignant M. S. his third Answer comes to this Grant them their desires i. e. A full liberty and they will bray no more then the wilde Asse doth when he hath Grasse A. S. 1. All Hereticks say as much yea the Devill would be glad to agree with God upon such terms 2. But God hath forbid the Church to tolerate you 3. In New England they of your Party will tolerate no Sects 4. And such a Toleration here cannot but breed all sorts of Divisions Whereas if there be one onely Discipline or Church Government established we shall have no Distractions at all 5. But how can I pray unriddle it me a Liberty granted to contest and quarrell one with another ever take away contestations and quarrells 6. If the Presbyterians be the cause of Divisions because they tolerate not you as you say so was Moses and Aaron for not tolerating Core Dathan and Abiron Your Simile of him who murthered the Duke of Burgundie will hold if it be applyed to your Sect otherwayes it is altogether impertinent and beside the present purpose M. S. his fourth Answer cometh to this That in case one Government were established it would breed as great or more Factions and Divisions then if a Toleration were granted A. S. This Argument concludeth as well against Moses in favour of Core Dathan and Abiron as against us for if Moses had granted such a Toleration to them and their Sect as the Independents are now Suitors for it would not have bred such Divisions And if the non-Toleration of it breed as great Divisions as the Toleration of it would have done what is the cause that this Toleration of your Sect breedeth so many injurious and calumnious Expressions against the Presbyterians What would ye not say and do had ye once gotten a Toleration To M. S. his fifth Answer That sundry persons of one Family in the City hear divers Ministers without any Division A.S. I answer That those Ministers are not of divers Sects or if they be without doubt it breedeth many Divisions and alienates their mindes one from another Neither can any Godly good man who is bound by duty to have a care of his Family but be grieved when he seeth his Children his Wife and Servants separated in affection from him and the Church wherein he serveth God and to eat at his Table in his House when they will not eat at the Lords Table with him in the House of God What ye say of a House of bondage if we were all under one Government it is most false For by the same Reason the People of God should have been in an House of bondage when they came out of Egypt and were brought into the Land of Canaan because that there they had but one Government So with you it must be an House of bondage in every State that hath but one sort of Civil Government I will not answer his vain vaunting in extolling his own Sect Onely I wonder that he is offended at us that we desire but one good Government what ever it be Is it ill to have but one good Government Wherefore does he plead for many ill Governments Wherefore will not those of New England admit many if it be so good If it be want of Mercy not to tolerate others how mercilesse were the Mercies of New England that would not tolerate Presbyterians no not in a corner of their Countrey when their Necks were put in the Pillories their Noses slitted their Ears cut and their persons imprisoned What M. S. sayeth of distractions of mindes under Episcopall Government it was not for want of a Toleration of all
Communion 2. If you cannot shew any materiall difference in Doctrine and other things yea ye confesse your selves that it is not great ye cannot separate your selves from us in Sacramentall Communion and Discipline 3. Neither hitherto have ye shewn any practise in Sacramentall Communion wherein ye differ from us for we have no Idolatry among us and men openly vicious are not admitted to the Lords Table among us Neither can any particular man abstain from Sacramentall Communion in a Church upon pretext that this or that man is vicious for it belongeth not to him but to the Rulers of the Church to judge of particular mens lives whether they be in a State to Communicate or not No more appertains it to one particular Church to judge of the Members of another particular Church Wherefore that not being their Act it cannot be imputed to them and consequently they have no Reason in such a Case to be so scrupulous M. S. his second Answer is Howbeit they be bound to one Communion and Discipline yet would they be led to it by light and not by fear A. S. 1. There is light enough shewn you if ye wil open your eyes to see it And we desire you not to joyn in this Unity out of any fear of men but of God 2. Howbeit you cannot see the Light yet no Approbation Consent or Positive Permission or Toleration should be granted you to live in Darknesse much lesse to erect Schools and Synagogues of Darknesse 3. The Parliament and all good men I am confident will tolerate you in your Darknesse till Jesus Christ enlighten you if ye can be content to live in quality of private men and not erect Churches and Schools to blinde others Neither can they grant you any thing more for howsoever they cannot compell your Consciences yet mast they hinder you to undo other mens Consciences in sowing of your Tares and wilde Oats M. S. 3. Answer That duty which lieth upon all Christians to have but one Communion and Discipline among them is no Dispensation unto any Party or number of them to smite their Brethren with the fist of uncharitablenesse or to dismount them from their Ministeriall standings in the Church because they will not or rather cannot knit and joyn in the same Communion and Discipline with them A. S. 1. You are very ingrate unthankfull unto the Parliament and your Brethren of the Assembly Ye have experimented no uncharitablenesse from any of them Hitherto they have dealt with you in all meeknesse and brotherly affection 2. None of you have been put out of your Ministery for your Opinions howbeit many of you have merited it for your insolency and malepertnesse in erecting of new Churches and Sects against your own Tenets for ye maintain that a Church cannot be erected without the Magistrates Consent and the Right hand of Association of Neighbour Churches which ye have not had in your Churches here in Old England 3. But wherefore may not Sectaries be dismounted who mount so high at their own hand 4. If ye will not joyn with the rest the Churches of this Kingdom and submit to the Parliament and the Church of God here but be Eus per se Ens independens and have particular Priviledges beyond the rest of the Subjects ye may be gone and stay there from whence ye came ye may goe to new-New-England and mount as high as pleaseth you there Only trouble not the Church and Kingdome here and the Church and Kingdome will not trouble you there 4. The Church here doth you no wrong only she mainteineth that your Tenets are contrary to Gods Word and confesseth That if the Parliament will tolerate you it may but that in so doing their Iudgement is since they are commanded to give it that it is flatly against Gods Word And I may say such a thing might breed ill blood of Friends make Enemies and peradventure undoe the State and who knoweth if it should please God in his mercy to end this War but it might make a Sacrifice of all such as should have hand in it All Christians are bound in Conscience to oppose such Licentiousnesse and Libertinisme in Religion M. S. his 4. Answer is that those of his Sect are kept under Hatches and oppressed A. S. Unto this we have answered and in this they do as Children that weepe before they be whipt A. S. 14. If visible Churches have Disciplines or Government different in their Species then the Churches must be different in their Species also But the consequent is false Ergo So is the Antecedent So Churches have not different Disciplines and Governments The Connexion in my Argument is proved because all collective Bodies that are governed are differenced in their Species by their specificall Governments as we see in Civill Government in the Constitution of States Kingdoms and Republicks The Assumption is proved because the visible Church is but one Church in its Species M.S. jeeres jeasts and flouts this Argument he makes as though he helpt it but it is strong enough without his help the matter being sound enough and the Syllogisme in forme M. S. His first Answer is that from hence cannot be gathered that the Apologisme is not tolerable A. S. This is not the Conclusion that I have to prove for I never reade in Scripture or else where of any Ecclesiasticall Discipline or Government named Apologisme Away then with your new coyned tearmes of Apologisme and Quinque Ecclesian Ministers c. The Conclusion that I have to prove is this Presbyterians and your Independent Churches have not according to Gods word or should not have different Disciplines which any Neophyt in Logick can easily deduce by the power of Syllogismes For it is known in Logick that a Syllogisme that can inferre an universall Conclusion may inferre all the particulars of that universall Conclusion as when I conclude that all men have reasonable soules I conclude that Peter Paul and John have reasonable soules so then when I conclude here universally that no Church hath or should have different Disciplines Ergo Presbyterians Independents and other Churches should not have different Disciplines or Government I conclude there must be but one Church and one Government what ever it be If the Lord be God then follow him But if Baal then follow him So if Presbyterian Discipline or Government be Gods follow it if Independents Discipline be Gods follow it and no other Let not the Child be devided in two as the false Mother that had stolen the Child would have had it but let it live as the true Mother desired No more Pluralities I pray of Disciplines then of Benefices Let no man bargain about Government Let Gods Ordinance hold what ever it be and whereever Independent Government be whether in Aries Taurus Cancer or Capricorne ye may goe there and enjoy it peaceably We only speak of the Discipline of Christs Church in England what it should be M. S. It followeth not from hence
that therefore that Government which is more generally established and practised in the World should be that specificall Government whereby it ought to be governed A. S. Neither intended I to inferre or conclude any such thing Only I say that whatever the Assembly conclude or the Parliament establish in the State yet according to Gods Word Pluralitie of Ecclesiasticall Disciplines or Governments can no wayes be concluded or established and consequently ye goe against Gods Word in pleading for it And therefore all is lost that you build thereupon I cannot better answer your comparing of me with Herod then to slight it with the rest of the overflowings of your Call One good Argument would help your Cause more then a hundred Injuries Is this the Independent Power of Pietie you talk so much of Unto M. S. his 2. Answer I grant him That before he and his Colleagues be sufficiently informed of the lawfulnesse of any Government that in Gods mercy shall be established they are not bound to obey much lesse ought they to be scourged as he speaketh But when they are sufficiently informed of the lawfulnesse of it I meane sufficientiâ morali which is all that Men can furnish them but not Physicâ which is only in Gods hands they must obey and no wayes plead with all Hereticks and Schismaticks non-Conviction and pretended Conscience and Toleration and want of Authority in the Civill Magistrate to punish them They must obey as well as the false Prophets and Schismaticks of the Old Testament M.S. 3. Answ The servants of Christ should not fall foule for uniformitie in Discipline and the greater eat up the lesse God hath provided other meanes A. S. If divers Disciplines be established by Law the good Ministers must tolerate that which they cannot mend and serve themselves of all the means they can according to Gods Word to reduce their Brethren to the right way But if they be not yet established none but one should be approved by the servants of God and the Civill Magistrate in imitation of Moses or rather of God is bound in duty only to admit one and that the most conform to Scripture unlesse he will bring in Factions and Schismes both into Church and Commonwealth and that principally when any of them may be dangerous for both as Independencie which may prove more dangerous then seven Heresies But in all this M.S. answereth not my Argument formally but most ridiculously grants the Premisses and denieth the Conclusion A. S. 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 M. S. here neither denieth the Antecedent nor the Consequence of this my Argument but singeth his old song That neither Christ nor his Apostles did ever grant a power to a major part of Profossours in a Kingdom or Nation to grind the faces of their Brethren either because they could not conform their Judgements with them or because they kept a good Conscience A. S. 1. We grant you all that 2. Neither are your faces grinded 3. Much lesse grinded for non-conformitie of your Judgements with theirs or keeping of a good Conscience 4. Your Conscience is very ill that will not be informed of the Truth 5. We have told you that Anabaptists Separatists and others like unto you pretend the same thing 6. Ye furnish us here an Argument against New-England men in their proceedings with Godly Ministers here 7. Live quietly and trouble not the Church nor the State and ye may live here a peaceable life without any trouble to your Consciences 8. But it is a foolery in you to think that your faces are grinded because your Brethren will not consent that ye erect a Sect have Pulpits allowed you to beat down the Truth They are bound in Conscience to resist you as ye take your selves bound to resist them 9. If you think your faces grinded here you may be gone and live in contentment there from whence ye came 10. And yet howbeit your Brethren of the Ministeris take not upon themselves any thing but to resist you with the Arms of the Spirit yet must you thinke that the Civill Magistrate hath no lesse power over you here then your Civill Magistrate hath over Sectaries in New-England 11. But it were better for you Brethren to take a resolution to live with us in unitie under such a Discipline as may be concluded and setled in the feare of God But cannot you live in this World unlesse you give a Law to all the World What you say of Presbyterians in assuming of something imperious c. is but a Calumny M.S. 2. answers my Argument with a Question Whence we have a Toleration of our Presbyterian Discipline A. S. 1. It is a Maxime in Philosophie that Questio questionem non solvit one Question solves not another 2. I answer That we have its institution from God in his Word as we have already demonstrated it and He in instituting of it hath ordained that it be not only tolerated but also received and preached through all the World as I have already proved 3. In France it was brought in by Christs Ministers established by a Protestant King and some others before him who had some taste of the Gospel 4. It hath been there established by the Law of the Kingdome and the Protestant Armies which God blessed under a Protestant King against the Pope the Papists and Jesuites who would have pulled the Crown off his head to set it upon Don Philips that so fighting for his Crown he might also fight for that of Christ Iesus and establish it gloriously in his Kingdome And all this may be easily confirmed by the French History and sundry Edicts in favour of Protestants It is an untruth that ever it was tolerated by the Romish Church for they imployed all their endeavours to oppresse it yea against all Law They are bound to their King who is also bound to them for fighting for his Cause In England it is established as I have sundry times told you in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches by the Kings and Parliaments Authority And how it hath been established in Scotland it is better known then I can declare it viz. by Civill and Ecclesiasticall Authority M. S. his 3. Answer or Objection against my Reason commeth to this That by the same Reason Papists will not tolerate Protestants whom they hold for Schismaticks A.S. 1. This is only said but not proved 2. They neither tolerate Hereticks nor Schismaticks when they can hinder them 3. The Papists hold not us simply for Schismaticks but also for Hereticks 4. And consequently if your Argument hold That we must tolerate whatsoever they tolerate since they tolerate us in quality of Hereticks in their judgement we must also tolerate Hereticks yea Iewes also and permit them Synagogues as they doe yea we must tolerate an hundred Religions as
the States of Poland doe 5. The question is not what Papists will but what both we and they should doe or rather what Gods Word commands us to doe We take not Antichrist but Christ and his Word for a patterne of our duty M.S. his 4. Answ Whereas you say that they granted not a Toleration to divers Sects doe you not imply that they did grant a Toleration to some one Sect at least And how know you whether the Apologisme be not that Sect A.S. Truly M.S. is very subtile who of a Negative infers an Affirmative even as if I should conclude thus M. S. is not divers Schismaticks or Hereticks Ergo He is one Heretick This man hath not committed divers Adulteries Ergo He hath committed one Adultery Have you never learned good M.S. that old Rhime wherein there is more Reason then Poetrie Syllogisari non est ex Particulari Neve Negativis rectè concludere si vis since it follows not I know not at all that Christ or his Apostles ever granted a Toleration to the Sect of Apologisme as you stile it 3. And since you appeale to my Conscience in this Point you must submit to my Iudgement otherwise you profane the Name of God M. S. 5. Answer is That Toleration is rei malae and therefore the Apologists should not be Suiters for a Toleration but should be encouraged A.S. M.S. is minded to be merry but I must be serious and therefore 1. I deny your Antecedent and I gave you the Reason heretofore 2. Apologisme I have told you is res pessima and more dangerous by consequence then 10. Heresies as I have sufficiently proved to all men who will sit down with Reason Then he addeth That if they sin in suing for a Toleration Ergo To prevent that sin it should be granted them A. S. By the same reason if a man sin in suing for a toleration of Mahumetanisme or Adultery to the end to prevent such sins they should be tolerated This Argument of M.S. is as ridiculous as impious M. S. But sixthly and lastly What doe you think of Sinite utrumque crescere Let both grow together untill the Harvest Math. 13.30 A.S. Since you are so desirous of my judgement I shall willingly give it you 1. I answer by your own Maxime that Symbolica Theologia non est argumentativa Symbolicall or Parabolicall Theologie furnisheth no good Argument Now this is a Parable for the Text saith v. 3. And he spake many things to them in Parables◠2. I beleeve that by both viz. the Wheat and the Tares our Saviour meaneth not Hereticks but all the Good or the Faithfull and the Wicked so that if out of this you will conclude a Toleration ye must conclude a Toleration for Adulterers Murtherers Parricides Ravilliacks and Gunpowder Traitors Chatells Regi-cides 3. If by a Toleration ye mean a positive Toleration or Consent such as ye desire then we must all positively tolerate or consent to have men of such ill qualities and ill conditions to live amongst us with all impunity yea and approbation 4. I beleeve that Christ speaketh there to the Apostles and will not that they usurpe the Civill Magistrates power in punishing of them that are of his cognizince yea though he will not doe it And so doe our learned and godly Ministers they doe their duty with the sword of the Spirit and leave the Materiall sword unto the Civill Magistrate as proper unto him as the Spirituall is unto them for He caries not the sword in vain Neither must they meddle with the Materiall nor he with the Spirituall sword 5. If they must be tolerated according to Gods Word how have you taken the Covenant and so solemnly sworne and subscribed with your hands the extirpation of Papists and of all the Hierarchy 6. Servet who called the Trinity a three-headed Cat and denyed the Incarnation of the Son of God and his Mediator-ship and his Followers brought this very Argument for him and his Sect that you now do So here ye bring no new thing but what sundry Hereticks brought before you so yee tread directly in their steps and have made choice of a prety pattern A. S. 16. Argument is taken from the practise of the Independents of New England whose wayes and practises say they are improved to a better edition and greater refinement whom also they compare in their Apology with Father Abraham and being put in form will be this That courtesie which no man can obtain of the Independents where they have authority viz. in New England That courtesie should they not be suiters for here in Old England But a Toleration of a New Religion or Discipline of Sects and Heresies is a courtesie that no man can obtain of the Independents where they have authority viz. in New England Ergo Toleration is a courtesie that they i. e. Independents should not be suiters for here in Old England The Major Proposition may be confirmed for it is à pari and such measure as they measure with such should be measured unto them again for the Lex Talionis requireth it And what reason is it that men should be tolerated by us in their erroneous Tenets who will not tolerate the truth What if they should increase here What more favour could we hope for from them then our dear Brethren have tasted already in the sorrowfull times of their Afflictions Without doubt being great Politicians and Undertakers zealous in the Noviciate and Infaney of their Sect and no lesse cunning and politique then the Iesuites themselves the Church of God and the State also should seriously lay to heart what they may do here likewise And their activity in making of Proselytes both in the Army and the City should give all men subject enough to be diffident of them The Minor appeareth cleerly by the proceedings of New England and the Sectaries bred in the Independent Sect whereof some women have been the Ring-leaders as one Mistresse Hutchinson and sundry others whom they would no wayes tolerate amongst them but punished by Imprisonment and Exiling of their persons howsoever they went out of Old England with them and were Companions of the same misery pretended Persecution and Undertaking No better dealt they with some Presbyterians of Old England who being grievously persecuted here for Non-Conformity yet would they not so much a◠tolerate them in any corner of the Country yea not so much as in that which was next to the Barbarians where they could not but consequently be exposed to the greatest danger such were their mercies and bowels of compassion towards their poore and afflicted Brethren whom yet they acknowledged to be of very sound Doctrine and holinesse of life As for this Argument M. S. because he cannot answer the Minor he sends me to New England to seeke the Solution But I purpose not to undertake such a voyage for Independent Sophistications since the Argument convicts my understanding M. S. 2. Answereth That he would
fain know what I meane to do with this Story A. S. Since he pretends so great dulnesse I have put the Argument in Forme for him and shewed him how I serve my selfe of it to confirme my Minor by M. S. proveth that this Story cannot serve me for saith he i. e. A. S. doth not approve of those proceedings viz. of the Independents of N. E. A. S. It is all one for I argue onely ex Concessis which maketh it an Argument ad hominem and sheweth how that in so doing and by such Suing for a Toleration here yee stand not to your own principles but change them with the Climate whereof I say what a very grave President of the Court of Parliament of Paris said to the Iesuits upon the like case The Lord keepe me from men that have one faith on the one and another on the other side of the Alpes So I to you God keepe me from Men who maintaine some Principles in America or New England and the contrary in Europe or in Old England I pray you holy Fathers drinke together and agree before ye come to put us here in combustion M. S. Is the man so full of the spirit of Reprehension against such practises and yet so full of the spirit of imitation i. e. If A. S. reprove such practises he should not imitate them A. S. I have answered 1. That my Argument proves not what I should do but what yee should not do It is Argumentum ad hominem 2. I Answer again that we persecute not Independents as you say but hinder them to sow their Tares They have never been nor are they nor are they ever like to be persecuted by the Parliament as I hope I hope the Independents will have more Conscience then to give just occasion unto the Parliament to punish them but if they continue in their pertinacy and the Parliament refuse then to grant them a Toleration it will no more be a Persecution then it would be to hinder men to blaspheme Gods Name 3. I cannot imitate them for I have no power or authority as those whose practises I refute Onely I pleade for the Truth and shew what should be done 4. Howbeit I had authority amongst the Dependents as they have amongst those pretended Independent Creatures yet could I not imitate them in refusing of a toleration for the case would not be the same or alike 5. And I grant you that if the Cause ye maintain were as just as it is unjust those of New England should do well to refuse us a Toleration 6. And yet could they not so justly refuse us our demand as we refuse you yours for the Presbyterians who were Suitors for a Toleration in New England were onely Suitors for Presbyterians and those very few in number whereas M. S. and his Collegues plead for a Toleration of all sorts of Independents yea of all the Sects of the World for any thing we know In the same Sect p. 103. He condemneth such practises in his Brethren of New England in saying that in such proceedings they justified not themselves in the sight of God viz. justitia causae 7. Neither doth either God or our Conscience judge us in such proceedings i. e. Condemne us for we judge according to Gods Word that divers Sects which yee would have Tolerated are not to be Tolerated but that they are all to be suppressed 8. Whereas he sayeth that I am more of the Opinion of the Independents of New England then the Apologists I am glad that he is ashamed of his Fathers And I agree with them in this that Hereticks Schismaticks and Idolaters are not to be Tolerated by the Church of God which the Independents of Old England deny most boldly What yee say of the Independent Apologists that they professe not persecution meerly for little differences in point of Discipline I Answer 1. They do well to professe it since their power as yet is very small But what they may professe if they can get any power into their hands we know not 2. Onely we say that the American Independents who are Ejusdem speciei with you so soon as ever they had authority did other wayes then yee say the Apologeticall Independents do professe without authority 3. And it may be that they being Ministers will professe it but will you assure us that your Magistrats who are Independents shall professe the same M. S. Addeth if they did so for want of light must this be a band of conscience upon them to bow down their backs and to suffer Presbyterian greatnesse to go over them as stones in the street A. S. In a word this is to deny the consequence of my Major which I have confirmed But I Answer 1. The Question is not of Presbyterians neither did I speake of them in my Argument 2. The Presbyterians yea their Nationall Churches inflict none but spirituall punishments which every Congregationall Independent Church compounded peradventure of seven or eight idle Fellowes onely arrogate unto themselves 3. What you say of the want of Light in the Independents of New England it is ridiculous for they say that they have more Light then all the Quinqu ' Ecclesian Ministers and will hold you as blind as yee hold them No wonder that so Independent Lights be so contradictory one to another 4. I wonder how yee can call that rather a Presbyterian greatnesse wherein the Spirit of Prophets submit unto Prophets and the lesse unto the greater Light then that wherein six or seven silly Fellowes and a little Independent Minister be they never so erronious in their Opinions and execrable in their lives will not submit unto the whole Christian World M. S. Again he sayes p. 104. that out of feare they are Suitors for a Toleration if they do not bestir themselves by some means or other to prevent it A. S. This is not Metus justus sed injustus qui non cadit in virum constantem It is not a just but an unjust feare that becometh not men but Children who feare their own shadowes at Noone-day Some men do feare flies and such is your feare for it is a Maxime of our Discipline that men should not be compelled to be Actors in any thing against their Conscience and this might suffice to put you out of feare which if it cannot do we cannot cure Pisanders feare What ill usage have you received here of the Parliament that should make you so fearefull What you meane by your meanes to prevent it I know not unlesse they be those that some of the People offered who were so capable of new impressions that the 5. Apologists mention in their Apologie or that other viz. That the Independent party did offer to entertain 4000. men in these Wars provided they might have had liberty to have made choyse of their Commanders What he sayes in the rest of this § in his 4. Answer is but a tale and is sundry times answered As for that
he sayes in the next § of my feare it is a just feare grounded upon experience But M. S. Replyeth 1. That some Independents hold that all Sects and Opinions are to be Tolerated as A. S. relateth Ergo In that case his Sect may be secured also A. S. I Answer to the Antecedent And that We feare also viz. That ye would Tolerate all Sects which we will not Tolerate 2. VVe cannot be secure among all Sects for there be some that will not Tolerate us 3. Ye speak so but for the present but if ye had power we know not what ye would do It were better not to Tolerate Sects when we can hinder them then to bring them in amongst us to tolerate us and to give us so just a cause of feare 4. I said onely that there be some of you who would Tolerate all Sects who peradventure are the far lesser part and should not prevaile in their Voices 5. And we know not upon what tearmes they would tolerate us if they were the strongest 6. Neither can your pretended probity secure us we see the Examples and have the experience of your mercilesse Pitty in New England ye are all ejusdem farinae and Caelum non animum mutat qui trans mare currit And what I said of your Piety it can serve you little 1. For I spake but of a few of you viz. of the 5. Apologists 2. Because it was but a judgement of Charity wherein I may be deceived yea wherein I have been deceived 3. Good men sometimes may for want of light be dogged enough to use your own tearmes as ye grant your selfe of your New England Independents Unto his 3. Reply That a poore Toleration is far from Superiority it is true But from a Toleration it is to be feared ye goe further And if ye can get the Civill Magistrate drawn into your Faction as in New-England ye may be as dogged in a short time as they are To the 4. Reply That he thinketh not that I know any such Island It is a wonder that he knoweth it not as well as I but it is little to purpose No more is his Answer for it is but a currish jeere and toucheth not the Argument at all He puts in 5. a Jeere for a Reason God have mercy on the silly Argumenter A. S. My 17. Argument was That the Scripture forbiddeth all Toleration of Sects Revel 2.20 1 Cor. 1.12 3.3 11.16 18 19 20. Heb. 10.25 Gal. 5.12 M. S. his 1. Answer The Scripture doth not forbid all nor any such Toleration as the Apologists desire And remitteth us to his Answer unto my 15. Reason And I remit the Reader to my Reply To the Text of the Revelation 2.20 he saith That by the Toleration of Jezabel is not meant ◠Civill or State-toleration but an Ecclesiastique or Church toleration A. S. Howbeit formally there only be meant an Ecclesiastique Toleration yet by Consequence it reaches to a State Toleration 1. For whatsoever the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the Church that the Civill Magistrate or Senate is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the State since he is a Nurse of the Church and a Keeper of the two Tables 2. And so did the Judges and the Kings of Gods people 3. And so doe the Christian Independent Magistrates in new-New-England 4. Neither is the Christian Magistrate lesse bound to put it out of the State then the Presbytery to put it out of the Church 5. And I would willingly know of the five Apologists their judgement upon this Point neither beleeve I that they dare say or at least doe beleeve that he is not bound to suppresse all sort of Sects that creep in into the Church when the whole Kingdome professeth the true Religion and Discipline 6 However M. S. say that they desire only a toleration for themselves and their Churches in the State yet he pleadeth for a toleration for all Schismaticks Hereticks and Idolaters that may spring up either in their own or any other Church 7. Neither can the Civill Magistrate if he follow Gods Word grant a Toleration without the consent of the Church if he judge it is not corrupted 8. And a Magistrate should be worse then mad that should permit a Sect to come into the Kingdome to preach down the Gospel which he beleeveth 9. Neither can he be Orthodox and tolerate a new Sect unlesse he tolerate us to believe that he is either corrupted by monies or some other way so to doe M.S. his 2. Answer p. 105. is That since only the Church of Thyatira is here charged with this Toleration evident it is that the power of redressing emerging enormities in a Church in every kind is committed by Christ to every particular Church respectively within it selfe and so that they must be cut off only by the particular Church which is troubled by them if there be no remedy otherwise A.S. 1. At least then thus much I gaine by this Argument as you confesse That a particular Church must cut off such as trouble her and consequently is bound not to tolerate them 2. For the same reason other Churches must not tolerate them since they are all sister-Churches Ergo no Church must tolerate them Ergo no member of the Church must tolerate them If no member Ergo the Civill Magistrate in quality of a member of the Church must not tolerate them or he must tolerate them against his Conscience And what he cannot tolerate in the Church as a member of the Christian Church that can he not tolerate in quality of a Christian Magistrate in a Christian State if he can hinder it And if he hath power to punish such as trouble one particular Church how much more hath he power to punish such as trouble all the Churches in the Kingdome as Schismaticks and Hereticks The Civill Magistrate then by consequence may cut them off from the State As for that Question which M. S. moveth here about the Independent power of particular Congregations it is not to the purpose and we discusse it more at large in its own place A.S. There must be no such speeches among us as I am of Paul I of Apollos c. M.S. We joyn heart and hand with you A. S. And I with you so they must not be tolerated when they can be hindred M. S. addeth here a But 1. Every man that saith I am of Paul or I am of Apollos is not to be taught to speak better by fining imprisoning un-Churching or the like but by soundnesse of Conviction A. S. I answer as I have sundry times done Sinners according to the Doctrine of our Churches are 1. To be heard 2. To be sufficiently convicted 3. After sufficient conviction if they be pertinacious to be punished condignely by Ecclesiasticall Censures viz. suspension from the Lords Table or Excommunication And afterward the Civill Magistrate is to doe his duty