will have some force otherwayes it hath none at all M. S. 3. Reason If they do not think their Presbyteriall Churches more holy then the Congregationall they are far more guilty of Schism then their Brethren i. e. then Independents For then they are at liberty in point of Conscience to come over and joyn with them whereas the other are in bands and fetters of Conscience and can passe unto them Their Brethren would come to them but cannot they can come over unto these but will not It is the Will and not the Act that maketh Schism and Separation A. S. 1. But if they think not their Presbyteriall Churches more holy all your Argument is ridiculous 2. And I must confesse that M. S. with his Faction are very slight who can make very few Arguments that have any appearance of reason unlesse they be grounded upon their pretended holinesse and that this be supposed as a Principle of Independent Divinity What Seneca saith of Presumptuous Scholars Multi ad sapientiam pervenissent nisi se jam jam pervenisse putassent may be more justly said of your ridiculous Sect changing onely sapientiam in veram pietatem aut vitae sanâ—â—â—iatem 3. Howbeit ye were holier then we yet could we not come unto you and that not so much because ye are not holy as because we finde in your Opinions a great folly yea by consequence more Impiety and Heresie then in sundry Hereticall Churches as we and many others also have elsewhere shewed 4. But can you think that to pleasure every Melancholious brain that differs not from us in Doctrine if he be lesse vicious then others howbeit no wayes more vertuous but onely in opinion concerning Discipline in case that under pretext of Conscience he will not submit unto our Churches that presently all our Churches must submit unto him Or were it not better that he and all his should be sent into America a while till their brains may be brought to better temper We cannot be so foolish as to come unto so inconsiderable a Party whose opinions too are yet unknown And of those that are known some more dangerous then many Heresies 5. What should we have to do with men who plead on this manner for impunity for all sin and Heresie should we admit into our Churches an Anarchy and give power to ignorant Fellows to Preach and make Ministers shall we grant unto women the shingling or gingling of the Keyes of the Church to serve my self with the trim and fine termes of Independent Divinity 6. It is a silly affected distinction of M. S. to say that it is the Will and not the Act that maketh a Schism It is both for Schism is an Act of the Will or a voluntary Act It must be Actus Voluntatis elicitus aut imperatus M.S. 4. Answer That he seeth not wherein the Apologists symbolize with Convents c. A. S. I have shewn it 1. In their Separation from others under pretext of greater Holinesse then other men have 2. And because every Order is Independent one of another just as your Congregationall Churches the Members whereof have no more Communion with Churches amongst us or amongst themselves then the Monks of one Convent with those of another Convent M. S. 5. You couple your self with these Popish Convents implying that your Presbyterians have their Soveraign Judicatory as they A. S. We have no supreme Iudicatory but that of the living God If we have Superiour and Inferiour Iudicatories and the Papists also neither we nor they precisely are to be blamed in that but so far forth as they have the Pope one man for supreme Iudge and Head of the Church which is proper to Christ In that they prove that he is the Antichrist And as it is great pride in them to make him with his Consistory supreme Iudge over the Universall Church So is it a peece of extraordinary pride and self-wit in your Churches that ye constitute sometimes seven or eight simple Fellows how Hereticall soever be their Doctrine and how abominable soever their life supreme Iudges Gods immediate Lievtenants and Independent of all the Iudgements of all the Churches of the World how Orthodox soever be their Opinions and how pious and holy soever be their Practises But against such a Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories as we have according to Gods Word no man can take just Exception M. S. saith That he hath answered my twelfth Reason and I have shewed how Absurdly he hath answered A. S. 13. Argument M. S. with his Logico Divinity by a Doctorall priviledge under pretext to reform my Argument deformeth and disfigureth it altogether by his Additions and Confusions in making it Hypotheticall whereas it is meerly Categoricall If he had desired to put it in Form he needed not but to have added or expressed the Proposition which was onely suppressed in this manner They who have but one God one Christ one Lord and one Spirit who are one Body who have one Faith and one Baptism whereby they enter into the Church should have one Communion whereby to be Spiritually fed and one Discipline to be ruled by But we all i. e. Presbyterians as ye call us and Independents we have but one God one Christ one Lord and one Spirit c. Ergo We all i. e. Presbyterians and Independents should have but one Spirituall Communion whereby to be Spiritually fed and one Discipline to be ruled by And from this he inferreth very well Ergo The Independents are not to be tolerated viz. In their Schism Separation or non-Communion M. S. grants all the Argument and afterward distinguishes the Conclusion which is an odde manner of answering of Arguments and proper to his Sect But we must take of ill pay-masters what we may He saith then 1. My Conclusions do not follow from my Premises A. S. But the Argument is in Form If it follow not shew me what fault there is in the Form of it M. S. 2. jeereth the termes of my Argument in calling them one one and one and my multiplied unity and so jeereth the Holy Ghost himself from whom I have borrowed them Eph. 4. Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. and 8. 1 Tim. 2.5 I might have added more unities as that we should with one mouth glorifie God Rom. 5.6 we are one Bread 1 Cor. 10.17 we drink in one Spirit vers 13. we are all one in Christ Gal. 3.28 one Law-giver and Iudge Jam. 4.12 Christ prayeth that we may be all one anomgst our selves and one in the Father and the Son John 17.22 23. M. S. his first Solution then is That we ought all to have one Communion and Discipline but not that that is of Classique Inspiration no more then that of Papall or Episcopall Recommendation A. S. 1. At least of this viz. We should have one Communion and Discipline it follows That there should be no Schism or Toleration granted that may make a Schism in the body and dissolve our
procure her peace and to put all the Churches of God in confusion rather then in order 21. Is it credible that God should have given his Son to death to purchase us an Order whereby all Churches might live in Peace and Unity and yet make them to quit all Sacramentall Communion one with another having no common Confession of Faith nor any common plat-forme of Ecclesiasticall Government among them Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be an Jndependency of Churches CHAP. I. The Question Stated AS M. S. of the first Question made two so doth he here of the second other two viz. his third Question for Presbyteriall Government whereof he treated in the former chap. and his 4. Question of Independency whereof he treateth in this his 4. chap. but they are not two Questions but two divers Opinions about one and the same Question so having committed this fault he commits againe another much worse for he goeth on very confusedly in the beginning of his Dispute and without ever stating the Question or declaring what he meaneth by Independency he goeth about to justifie his Independent government in a Cataskevastique or assertive way wherefore to the end that the Reader may the better judge both of his Cataskevastique and of my Anaskevastique way I will state the Question and shew what he hath to prove and I to refute 1. Note therefore I pray thee courteous Reader that Independency is a sort of Ecclesiastical Government whereby every particular Church is ruled by its Minister its Doctor some Ruling Elders and all those who are admitted to be Members thereof who how Heterodox and Haereticall soever they be in Doctrine and how wicked and damnable soever they be in their Lives will not yet submit to any Ecclesiasticall power whatsoever yea not to that of all the Churches of the world were they never so Orthodox and holy in their lives 2. Note that the reason wherefore they will not submit to any Ecclesiasticall authority according to their opinion is not out of any disobedience in themselves as they pretend but for want of authority in the Churches for they beleeve that howbeit any particular Church or any of her members should fal into never so damnable Heresies or wickednesse that yet God hath not ordained any authoritative power to judge her but that her power is as great as that of all the Churches in the world and that all that they can do in such a case is no more but only to Counsell her as she may do them and in case she will not follow their Counsell that they ought to do nothing else but onely declare that they will have no more communion with her as she may likewise do to them in the like case viz. if they will not follow her Advice when she is offended with their Doctrine Government Life or Proceedings The Question then betwixt us and them is whether God hath established any such Independent Government in his Church or not We deny it M. S. affirmeth it and argueth as followeth M. S. Page 75. of his Book Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government That can I quoth A. S. in effect page 38 39. c. I have 10. Reasons or Objections against it A. S. I confesse that M. S. braggeth of this his Independent Government as his words expresse but it is a manifest untruth that ever I bragged of 16. Reasons as M. S. most foolishly representeth me here It is A. S. his custome to bring Reasons and not to boast of them as it is M. S. his manner to boast and bragg with high words without any reason at all And for answer to this I say there is no one such word or expression in all my Booke It is but M. S. his words and fiction M. S. I shall not spend time in transcribing these your Reasons but shall desire the Reader though it may be some discourtesie unto you to take your Booke into his hand A. S. I am bound to your courtesie good Sir that will not let my weake Reasons appeare in Front against your strong Answers But since it is not M. S. his pleasure that they appeare in his most worthy Booke I hope that the courteous Reader shall not be offended if I make them together with his Answers and A. S. his Duplyes appeare here in mine My Arguments then were such as follow CHAP. II. Reasons against the Independency of Particular Congregations 1. THe Independent Churches have no sufficient remedy for miscariages though never so grosse no reliefe for wrongfull Sentences or Persons injured by them no Powerfull or Effectuall meanes to reduce a Church or Churches that fall into Heresie or Schisme c. All that they can doe is only to pronounce a Sentence of Non-Communion against Delinquent Churches as on the other side Delinquent Churches may doe against them 2. This Remedy is new neither was it known to the Independent Congregations before that emergent Case in Holland related in the Apologeticall Narration for if that Church offending had known so much it is not credible that she would against all charity and the common Order of all Churches have committed so great a Scandall 3. This Remedy is not sufficient nor satisfactory because all Churches according to your Tenets are equall in Authority independent one of another and Par in parem non habet imperium None hath power or authority over his Equall How then could any Church binde another to any such Account but out of its free will as a Party may doe to its Party 4. Because the Churches that are or that pretend to be offended by a Delinquent Church cannot judge her for then they become both Iudge and Party in one cause which cannot be granted to those who have no Authoritative power one over another as when a Private man offendeth the State and We our God 5. What if many Churches yea all the Churches should offend one should that one Church gather all the rest together judge them all and in case of not submitting themselves to her judgement separate her selfe from them all If so we should have Separations and Schismes enough which should be continued to all Posteritie to come 6. What if Churches were so remote one from another that they could not so easily meet together upon every occasion Then there should be no Remedy at least no easie Remedy 7. What if the Offence were small Should so many Churches for every trifle gather together and put themselves to so great cost and trouble 8. What if the Churches should differ in their Iudgements one from another In such a case should they all by Schismes separate themselves one from another 9. This sort of Government giveth no more Power or Authority to a thousand Churches over one then to a Tinker yea to a Hangman over a thousand for he may desire them all out of charitie to give an account of their Iudgement in case he be offended
I maintain that no other according to Gods Word should be tolerated The Independents maintain that theirs should be tolerated I reply if so why not others also To this M. S. can say nothing but will is the cause of it and that Presbyterianism according to this Reason cannot be tolerated I have proved the contrary and am ready to grant that if it be a Sect as theirs is or if the Church and State judge it to be repugnant to Gods Word it should not be tolerated but so have they not done yea they have declared the contrary the Parliament in their Covenant and the Assembly in giving thanks to the Scots Commissioners for their Book 9. And to be short I adjure thee M. S. by the reliques of thy Conscience and pray all men fearing God to declare whether or not in taking of the Covenant and in swearing so solemnly according to their power to put down Popery Prelacy and all Schisms they intended to tolerate them all as M. S. maintaineth they should do M. S. asks me what Opinions donandae sint Ecclesiâ A. S. If the Question be what Opinions are to be approved in the Church in foro externo my Answer is onely such as are approved by publike Ecclesiasticall Authority according to Gods ordinary Providence If the Question be what Opinions are to be tolerated then either you mean to be tolerated in the Church by publike Ecclesiasticall Authority or in private persons If the first I answer None but such as Gods Word tolerateth and the Church judgeth to be true or not repugnant to the Word If the second I answer That that depends upon the Circumstances of Time Persons Place and other c. 1. No false Opinions are to be tolerated by any positive Toleration Consent or Approbation 2. If men erre for want of light much may be tolerated negativè i. e. In not proceeding severely against them till they be sufficiently convicted in case they give no offence to the Church of God but if they give offence they must be punished condignly and after a sufficient morall Conviction they may be punished condignly both by the Church and the Civill Magistrate if they continue and become pertinacious And because I adde That the lesse the difference be the greater is the Schism M. S. pag. 89. Answer 5. telleth us That the man speaking of me knoweth not what Schism is A. S. It a strange thing that having given so cleer a Definition of Schism he should so doubt M. S. Either grant my Definition to be true and so grant that I know it or deny it and I shall God willing make it good But it is but a small matter what I know or know not whether I be ignorant or not for that is no wayes materiall or to the purpose The lesse I know and the more ignorant I am the more easie is it for such an Epistemon as M. S. is to refute me Come to the point I pray thee good M. S The reason of this my Assertion is this viz. The lesse the difference be betwixt Independency and the true Discipline that is to be established whether it be Presbyteriall Government or any other the greater is the breach of Charity and Ecclesiasticall Communion in making so great a Schism and Separation from the true Church of God for so small a matter If it be so ye your selves must make a Separation among your selves for every trifle wherein ye differ in judgement either in Doctrine Discipline or Holinesse of life one from another which ye do not or if ye be minded to do so ye must make all men in your Churches of your minde in every Opinion ye have or else I pray tell me for what Opinions ye are minded to make a Schism and what not A. S. his third Reason God in the Old Testament granted no Toleration of divers Religions or Disciplines Ergo It is not to be granted in the New since the New Testament requireth no lesse Union among Christians then the Old among Jews M. S. p. 89. Answ 1. 1. denyeth the Consequence and the Proof brought by me he granteth So my Conclusion must hold Onely he saith it is ill applyed but it is applyed by way of Argumentation whereof he would have done well to have shewn the defect M. S. pag. 90. and 91. Answ 4. yet doth it not require That he that is stronger should cudgell him that is weaker A. S. God be thanked ye need not much complain of any cudgelling that ye have yet received since this Parliament neither need ye to fear it in time to come if ye force not a new Religion upon the Kingdom against their will or if ye will submit unto lawfull Authority and not make your inconsiderable number the Judges of all this businesse against the Laws of the Kingdom And what you said in your second Chapter we have shewn how absurd it is and how horrible impieties will follow upon your Tenets M. S. p. 89. in his 1. and 2. Answers to the Consequence is That it followeth not Dare you say in matters of knowledge authority and power Ero similis Altissimo remember the fall of the Son of the morning A. S. We pretend not to be like unto God in these considerations in going against the Command as Lucifer but in holinesse as he is holy which cannot be without obedience as in the good Angels Now ye confesse your selves That God hath onely commanded one Discipline and Government in the Church under the New Testament how are we then Lucifers in desiring this onely and no other to be admitted of in the Church How do ye then plead for the Introduction of any other then the true Discipline If Baal be God serve him but if Jehovah be God serve him So if Independency be the Ordinance of God let it be admitted and no other and so of Presbyteriall and all other Government We impose none but desire that the true Discipline may be sought for and afterwards imposed by the Parliament and the Church by each of them according to their Vocation M. S. his second Answer p. 89. is That he denyeth the Antecedent of my Argument or rather distinguishes it viz. That in the Old Testament it was not granted in terminis but in sensu or by consequence for this must be the other part of his Distinction because he prohibited all manner of violence and oppression and charged the rich not to enslave the poor A. S. Reply 1. This is no Law of Ecclesiasticall Government or of Toleration of Heresies Schisms or divers Disciplines in the Church but a Morall Law and a part of the sixth Commandment in not offering violence to the weaker And of the eighth Thou shalt not steal forbidding all sort of Extortion against the poor Now ye are not poor neither is there any man either of the Parliament or Synod about to take your Purse M. S. Yet the Equity and spirit of such Laws extend to spiritualls A.
as a Nurse of the Church in compelling them by the Civill power to obey the Church But in both these punishments viz. Spirituall and Temporall it is not for the Sinner to judge whether or no he be sufficiently convicted since he being a Party cannot be Iudge in his own cause but it is the part of the Ecclesiasticall Senate to judge whether he be sufficiently convicted in foro Ecclesiastico and of the Civill Magistrate to judge whether he be sufficiently convicted in foro Civili in that whereof he is to judge To your 2. Answer I reply That by Brownists Independents Anabaptists c. I meane not the names but the things signified by such names A.S. Neither hath the Church of Goda custome to be contentious 1 Cor. 11.16 This I brought to prove that Schismes are not to be tolerated for they breed Contentions in Churches M.S. 3. But he doth not say that these Churches of God had any custome to erect a Presbyterian throne or a combined Eldership amongst them to keep them from Contentions A. S. I answer you M. S. that I must endure your impertinencie 1. For if you had frequented our Presbyteries you should have seen that they have no Throne 2. You might have seen that by this Argument I intended not to prove a combined Presbytery as you call it but the intolerablenesse of a toleration of Sects I prove sufficiently elsewhere what you can desire about the subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories A. S. Neither permitteth the Apostle Schismes M. S. saith that he hath already answered this A. S. saith that he hath replied to M. S. his Answer A.S. We must not quit our mutuall meetings as others doe and as must be done in a publike Toleration Heb. 10.25 M. S. We understand not your words A. S. But they are the Apostles words 2. And my Argument may easily be formed by any Logician against Toleration It will be thus What maketh us to quit our mutuall meetings as others doe is not to be tolerated But Schismes and Heresies make us to quit our mutuall meetings Ergo They are not to be tolerated M.S. We doe not know what quitting of meetings there is like to be more under a publique Toleration then is for the present A.S. So he seemeth to deny the Minor but I prove it for in tolerating of Schismes we see that men being deceived by the Schismaticks doe quit the meetings of the Church to which before they were joyned And we see how the Independents frequent not willingly our Churches and will not all joyne with us in our meetings at the Lords Table Neither beleeve I that any of the five Apologetick Ministers have ever communicated in our Assemblies since this Parliament A. S. 18. Because that M.S. chargeth my 18. Reason with Atheisme I will put it in forme That which per se giveth offence unto Papists and others or that exposeth the Protestant Churches unto the calumnies of Papists should not be granted by us But the Toleration of many Sects doth so Ergo it is not to be granted The Major is certaine for it is scandalum datum which all Divines doe condemne The Minor I prove it for it giveth and the Papists thereupon take too just a cause of Scandall or Offence and indeed it cannot but be a just subject of Offence by to open to be reproached with such an innumerable number of Sects to the renting of Christs Churches in peeces M. S. to this answereth not but propoundeth some Questions 1. Will you saith he redeem your self out of the hands of the Papists calumnies by symbolizing with them A. S. I Answer 1. That it is no symbolizing with Papists if we tolerate not Hereticks and Schismaticks for you have already confessed that in your particular Churches you tolerate them not and yet you beleeve that your Churches symbolize no more with them then ours 2. It is a strange thing if my Argument be Atheologicall if it prove that Atheists and such as deny the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God are not to be tolerated If such an Argument be Atheologicall in your judgement I am assured that all Theologues will conceive better of it then of this your Theologicall Answer Neither have I forgot my 11. Reason for you symbolize with them in their Popery and I in true Theologie viz. in maintaining the Unity of the Church with Saint Paul as you symbolize with Sectaries in maintaining the renting of the Church by Schismes If you had shewen any Contradiction in my words I had either answered it or if I could not I should have rendered my self to the truth But M. S. will not prove it but terrifies me as a Child with his great words It seemeth saith he Contradictions Inconsistencyes Impertinencyes Vn-intelligibilities sence non-sence any thing nothing c. A. S. All this is no sence nothing but words and wind of Goodwin As for the 19th Reason he remitteth us to the former Question to seeke an Answer A. S. 20. If it i. e. Toleration be granted it cannot but be thought that it hath been granted or rather extorted by force of reason and that all the Assembly were not able to answer our Brethren whereas indeed their Opinions and Demands are against all Reason as sundry of themselves could not deny and had nothing to say save onely that it was Gods Ordinance which yet they could never shew out of Gods Word On the contrary if it be refused it will help to confirme the Churches and the people in the truth M. S. In substance 1. denieth that a Toleration will seeme to be extorted if it be granted A. S. But if a thing so absurd and against all Piety be granted by so venerable an Assembly wherein things are carried by Reason it cannot seeme but extorted by Reason M. S. saith that I tell the Assembly that howsoever their Consciences might savour the Independents in point of Toleration yet their credits and reputations would suffer by it A. S. It is false there is no such expression in my Booke it is not my expression but M. S. his fiction and imposture Neither should the Assembly in my poore Opinion so easily suffer themselves to be intreated for ill neither is there any mercy in tolerating and not suppressing of Schismes and Heresies as M. S. beleeveth M. S. denieth that their Opinion and Demand is against all Reason but I have sundry times proved it viz. Because by such a Toleration of Independency all sorts of Heresies will creepe into the Church and it is most absurd that there should be no Ecclesiasticall power to represse the Heresies and abominable sins of seven or eight wicked Fellowes whereof a particular Independent Church may be compoed in case they fall into Heresie or such abominable sins Whereas M. S. saies that it is not like that so very learned men c. such as are the 5. Apologists should rise up to defend an opinion so contrary to all reason A.
good of the Church which he would have to belong to the Parliament and all others 2. An Authoritative power to conclude say and set down what shall must or ought to be done against all contradiction in matters of Religion and this he grants to God alone and addeth If the Presbyterians demand such a Directive power let them ask the Crown Throne and Kingdome of Christ also To this A. S. saith that all men may grant it to be true if they claimed any soveraigne Royall authoritative power But if they claime only a Ministeriall power it is as great a sacrilege to deny them it as blasphemy in them to arrogate the other since they are Gods Ministers and Ambassadors for Christ 3. A prudentiall faculty or ability to direct order or prescribe whether to a mans selfe or to others what in a way of reason humane conjecture or probability is best and fittest to be done followed or imbraced in matters of Religion and this he grants to the Parliament to many private Members of particular Churches and to Presbyteries and Synods also howsoever with a restriction But in all these his Conjectures he hath no waies guessed at my mind for by a Directive power however I meane a prudentiall Prudence yet meane I not a private prudentiall Prudence which may be found in Midwives Maid-servants and VVater-men for in granting such a Power to the Parliament and Ecclesiasticall Senates he grants them no more then to the meanest of the people but I meane an authoritative publick and Ecclesiasticall prudentiall power not Soveraign Imperiall Royall or Despoticall or Magisteriall but Ministeriall such as may belong to Ministers and Ambassadours of Christ And as I have said it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof Aristotle speaketh in the Category of Quality but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no naturall power no naturall or supernaturall Habitude but Potestas or Morall Power depending upon will and not upon Nature or that is the work of will and not of Nature CHAP. VII Wherein are dissolved his 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. Reasons borrowed from the Parliaments Ordinance Ob. 6. AFter all his guessing so little to purpose p. 35. § 6. he endeavoureth to prove by the Ordinance of the Parliament for the calling of the Assembly that the Civill Magistrate doth claime yea and exercise act and make use of such an authority from day to day as occasion requireth Because the Parliament published their Ordinance for calling the Assembly A. S. Ansvv I deny the consequence for that contrivance and publishing of their Ordinance is not a directive power intrinsecall to the Church whereof we speake for neither directs it them intrinsecally in Doctrine Discipline or manners but extrinsecally 1. because the Ecclesiasticall Assembly may be and hath sundry times been convocated without it as in the Primitive Church 2. Because it was before ever the Synod began and without any Ecclesiasticall act Now what is before a Synod beginneth and without any Ecclesiasticall Act cannot be intrinsecall to the Synod or to the Church 3. Because the Directive power whereof I speake was in Iudging of Controversies of Religion c. but the publishing of an Ordinance for calling the Assembly is no such thing Ergo 4. Because that calling of the Assembly by Civill Authority alone was extraordinary howbeit very just and conforme unto Gods Word Neither could this be an Ecclesiasticall Assembly unlesse it were vertually called by the Church Officers in vertue of their subsequent consent thereunto and all these Answers must be taken conjunctly and not severally 5. Because this Assembly is not Ecclesiasticall in vertue of the Ordinance of the Parliament but of the virtuall consent of the Church The vertuall indiction of it by Church Authority contributeth to make it intrinsecally Ecclesiasticall But the Ordinance of the Parliament is extrinsecall unto it in so farre forth as Ecclesiasticall howsoever it be very just and necessary but it is intrinsecall to it accidentally and in so farre as is to be received in the State which absolutely is extrinsecall to the Church Ob. M. S. In limiting those that were to be of the Assembly to the subiect or Argument on which it was permitted them to debate they did no lesse i. e. they exercised a directive power A. S. Answ 1. But this is no intrinsecall directive power whereof I speake viz. in Teaching Preaching judgeing of Controversies of Religion c. 2. This was no Ecclesiasticall but a Civill Power 3. In so doing the Parliament judged not what was to be beleeved or practised in the Church but ordained them to judge which is the true intrinsecall directive power 4. And this was extraordinary in respect of Gods particular howbeit not in respect of his generall Providence in the Government of his Church M. S. Ob. 8. In appointing and ordering them not to determine or conclude of things as they pleased by Pluralities of Votes but to deliver their Opinions and advices as should be most agreeable to the Word of God another proviso in the Ordinance they did the same A.S. 1. M.S. would here seem to give some great power unto the Parliament in matters of Religion yet it is nothing else but that which he grants to too many private Members of particular Churches So that if the King and Parliament will become Members of this M. S. his Church and He please to admit them it may be that he will grant them as much power as to other private Members thereof 2. Note that he saies not that it belongs unto them but that they claime it exercise act and make use of it but quo jure quave injuriâ he telleth not 3. In all this there appeareth no intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall Power they did it not by a Spirituall but by a Secular Power 4. And if the Church had not a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Power to determine and to conclude what needed the Parliament to forbid it the Synod rather then ordinary Tradesmen who have no such power to determine such matters 5. Neither by this command is it the Parliaments mind as I beleeve to take away from the Church the directive and intrinsecall Power that God hath granted her but only to desire her to put off her Determinations till it see how farre it can prevaile by faire meanes to gaine pertinacious men who may oppoâ—e it and happily also till it receive full satisfaction it selfe before it confirme such Determinations by an Act of Parliament and so make them to be received by their authority in the State for the Parliament hath no lesse Civill and Secular Authority to receive or not receive it by a Civill Law into the state then any Synod hath spirituall authority to establish or not establish it by an Ecclesiasticall Law in the Church Wherefore in this the Parliament intended not to crosse the Church Government nor to be crossed in their Civill Government by the Church as in former times
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
lesser Sanedrim unto that of the great one as has been proved by Mr. Rutherford Gillispy Hearl c. Art 1. and 2. 3. The Representative Church or first Generall Councell at Jerusalem had Power and Authority over all the Churches of the world since it gave them a Minister viz. Mathias Ergo All other Churches in their Iudgements and Power of creating such a Minister were subject unto it Object If it be said That it was an extraordinary Councell 1. Because it was indicted and convocated by Christ 2. Because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons 3. Because the Persons received extraordinary gifts there 4. Because it was in the birth and beginning of the Church Reply The Scripture saith not That it was Extraordinary As for the the Proofs I answer to the first 1. That howbeit it was indicted and convocated by Christ yet was it not indicted and convocated in an extraordinary way 2. That a Councell may be extraordinarily indicted and convocated and yet be ordinary in its proceedings 3. That the Indiction and Convocation of a Councell is Extrinsecall and Antecedent to a Councell because that it is before that the Councell be and therefore cannot make it Intrinsecally extraordinary when it is existent So Adam was made in an extraordinary way of Earth and by creation and Eva of Adams Rib and yet they were not extraordinary persons in their nature existence conservation or accidents 4. Neither read we that it was convocated in an extraordinary way 5. Neither can it be extraordinary because it was convocated by Christ for by the same reason all that ever Christ did to men should have been extraordinary To the second I have already answered To the third I answer 1. That the extraordinary gifts were personall only and belonged unto the materiall parts of the Councell and not to the form thereof and therefore could not make it formally extraordinary in quality of a Councell for formall denominations are not taken from the matter but from the form so if there be six or seven Ecclesiasticall persons assembled to dinetogether we call it not an Ecclesiastical Assembly 2. I answer That these extra ordinary gifts were subsequent unto the Councell or at least to that Ecclesiasticall proceeding in the election of Mathias Now that which is subsequent to any thing cannot denominate it formally or at least in the time precedent when the Subject precedeth such a subsequent Adjunct or Circumstance See more concerning this Argument heretofore To the fourth I answer 1. That all that which was in the birth and infancie of the Church was not Extraordinary for by that reason the Preaching of the Gospel and the Administration of the Sacraments should have been Extraordinary 2. Things that are Ordinary must have a beginning 3. And howsoever at their beginning they be Extraordinary in respect of time because before their beginning they were not Ordinary but out of the precedent order yet they are Ordinary in respect of Gods Ordinance or Law which is ordinatio rationis that should be ordinary in Gods Church Object If it be yet said That Mathias was an Extraordinary Minister and his Vocation Extraordinary I answer That all that is true and yet in this Extraordinary Vocation there was something Ordinary viz. The Nomination and Election or Admittance of him to be a Minister of the Church according to the Independents opinion otherwayes their Argument should be very impertinent in proving from hence the power of the people in choosing their Ministers That which there was Extraordinary was not done by the Councell and therefore could not make the Councell Extraordinary As much may be said of that Councell that created seven Deacons for many Churches 5. But principally we will urge that businesse of Antioch in that difference betwixt St. Paul and Barnabas on the one part and some Pharisees converted to the Christian Faith on the other Hereupon it was resolved that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jernsalem unto the Apostles and Elders about that question v. 2. they were sent by the Church of Antioch v. 3. they were received by the Church and by the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem v. 4 the Assembly being gathered at Jerusalem the Cause was heard v. 4.5 considered v. 6. discussed v. 7. voyced v. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 judged v. 22. the Iudgement or Decree of the Councell or Assembly sent to Antioch from the 22. v. to the 30. read and obeyed by the Church at Antioch c. v. 31. Here is the Church of Antioch judged by a superiour Church at Ierusalem an Appeal formed or interjected from the one to the other received by the other judged and obeyed And therefore it cannot be denyed but there was some Subordination betwixt these two Churches and that the one had authority over the other To this Argument some answer 1. That if it prove any thing it can only conclude an Appeal from one Parish Church or particular Congregation unto another since the Church of Antioch and of Hierusalem were no other then Parish Churches Rep. 1. This Answer cannot hold 1. Because no such thing can probably be collected out of this Text or of any other in Scripture and therefore it may be as easily rejected by us as it is alleadged by them 2. Because hardly can it be proved that in those times Churches were divided into Parishes 3. Because an Appeale cannot be from one Parish or Congregationall Church unto another since their authority is equall but only from an inferior to a superior Church or Judicatory 4. Because if it was from one particular Congregation to another then that Congregation from which it was appealed was not compleat in its Judgement but had need of some Extrinsecall power which is against the Tenets of Independents themselves 5. Because if we might appeale from one particular Congregation to another how much more from a particular Congregation unto a Synod wherein the Spirit of God and especially that of Prophecie doth more abound 6. Because the Apostles in Hierusalem were not members of any particular Church 7. Because if the Assembly at Hierusalem had been a particular or Congregationall Church it could not have given out a Decree which should have bound so many Churches to obedience viz. those of Antioch Syria and Cilicia v. 23. 2. It may be otherwayes answered That it was an Appeale but not to any Ordinary but an Extraordinary Church viz. to that of the Apostles and that for these Reasons 1. Because it was Extraordinarily gathered 2. By Extraordinary persons 3. It was compounded of Extraordinary persons viz. the Apostles 4. Because this Appeale was to the Apostles who were infallible and Extraordinary Ministers 5. Because it was in the birth and beginning of the Gospel Rep. 2. This Answer cannot hold 1. Because the Scripture declareth not that this Church or Assembly was Extraordinary 2. Neither is it a satisfactory Answer whenever
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.
viz. To assent to 〈◊〉 Discipline in this manner If your meaning be in case they assent to your Doctrine and are resolved to assent to your Discipline viz. Immediately when it hath but the stamp of Presbyteriall Authority set upon it we are of your minde but so even the Presbyteriall Party standeth in need of a Toleration as well as ours But if your meaning be that a resolution in your Brethren the Apologists to assent to your Discipline viz. When and assoon as they can possibly satisfie themselves touching the lawfulnesse of it it will exempt them from a necessity of Toleration As for the first part of his Distinction 1. It is not true that Presbyteriall Discipline will stand in need of a Toleration for what ever be concluded it cannot stand in need of a Toleration since it is already approved as I have already shewed unlesse the Parliament and Assembly of Divines recall that precedent Approbation 2. Neither by a Resolution mean I a precipitated Resolution to Assent as you mean in the first part of your Distinction nor a Resolution to Assent when ye are satisfied your selves as you mean in the second part for God knoweth what can or will satisfie pertinacious men but a Resolution to Assent and Obey after that ye have received sufficient satisfaction Morally by the Synod in all their Conclusions and Determinations I say Morally for God alone who hath created the soul of man can satisfie its understanding and will Physically And if ye Assent not to it ye may be justly condemned as Schismaticks at least And if it were not so no Judgement could be concluded in any Judicatory of this World neither Ecclesiasticall or Politicall yea not in the Independent Congregations themselves For he that is to be condemned will evermore say That he is not satisfied with the Iudgement if he hope to escape so M. S. That you adde is very incongruous c. 1. We marvell who yee meane c. A. S. But others who are not Independents will not marvell And if you be so dull and blockish as yee would seem to be I will help you My meaning is this That if yee be not minded to assent to the Discipline which the Assembly God willing shall establish as it seems ye are not as appeareth by your Bookes and your suing thus for a Toleration and in declaring how yee are minded to die in your Independency what ever may befall you Then the Assembly having given their Iudgement and concluded upon some form of Discipline must discusse the points wherein yee discent from their Determinations and consider whether they be such as in good Conscience ye cannot entertain Communion with us and so proceed to a Iudgement against you all according as your Opinions may deserve Whereas you say How should you resolve before hand And yet M. S. himselfe as we have seen it under his hand in this Booke is resolved to suffer all things rather then to quit his Opinion M. S. We grant that men of good abilities and conscience may draw up a very satisfactory Resolution concerning such or such a Case or practice about which I am scru pled but it will not follow from hence that therefore this Resolution will be satisfactory unto me or that I with a good conscience may walke by it A. S. It will not follow that this Resolution will be satisfactory unto you but it will follow that it should be and that with good conscience you should walke by it And consequently that if you be not satisfied with that which should satisfie you and in good conscience walke by that whereby you should walke you should be punished For you must learne to be satisfied with that which is satisfactory now it is your sin not to be satisfied with that which is satisfactory and I see not how this sin can excuse another sin proceeding from it A. S. 7. They are not pressed to be Actors in any thing against their consciences Ergo They neede not to be suitors for a Toleration or if they be it justly may be refused M.S. Pag. 92. Answ 1. He denieth the Consequence of this Argument A. S. But I prove it For the Parliament being resolved and having enjoyned the Assembly to seeke out and give their Iudgements what Discipline is most conforme unto Gods Word which can be but one and that we being all sworn by Covenant to establish and preserve it and to oppose all Heresie and Schisme there is no doore open for more then one true Discipline And so this Hypothesis being granted I argue thus supposing we cannot have any more but one Discipline c. and that thereby Independents are not pressed to be Actors in any thing against their Consciences they neede not be Suitors for a Toleration But the first is true as appeareth by our Covenant and the Ordinance of the Parliament Ergo The Connexion in the first Proposition is evident For if they stand in need to be Suitors for any such Toleration they consequently have neede to be Suitors for Perjury and a breach of the Nationall Covenant whereby we have all sworn the contrary But M. S. bringeth his Reason wherefore they must be Suitors for such a Toleration against the Covenant and the Parliaments Ordinance viz. That so they may be Actors in good according to their Consciences A. S. 1. So to be Suitors for a liberty that they may perjure themselves in breaking of their Covenant and the Parliaments Ordinance is to be Suitors for good 2. M. S. here beggeth the question viz. That there is no good Discipline but Independency and whatsoever is or shall be concluded that yet the Independent way must hold and they be Suitors for it 3. We have proved heretofore that it is not good but very pernicious and by consequence more dangerous then many Heresies yea then Lutheranisme Popery or Arminiansme M.S. addeth It would be a greater honor to your Presbytery then the contrary peremtoriousnesse is like to be viz. To be Suitors for a Toleration of Independency A. S. Oh how much are we beholding to you good M. S. for your pains in teaching the Presbytery a point of honour to perjure themselves by violating their Covenant and the Parliaments Ordinance God keepe us from your greater honour and give us grace to performe our Vowes unto the Lord. M. S. The Apologists conceave there is a necessity upon them to save the Soules of others as well as their own A.S. 1. There is no necessity laid upon them to save Soules by such meanes as are not the way to save other mens Soules but the ready way to damne their owne 2. And is there no other way to save them but by Independency 3. If yee conceive so then if other men conceive a necessity laid upon them to save soules by suppressing of Independency they must necessarily suppresse it 4. Your conceits must not be taken for Rules whereby the Parliament and the Assembly must be guided
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