Partie judged 6. The Compromissory Arbiter judgeth not according to the Law but according to equity but in all Ecclesiasticall judgements he that judgeth must judge according to the Law or Gods Word Ergo He that judgeth in Ecclesiasticall judgements cannot be a Compromissory Arbiter who onely properly is an Arbiter in so far as an Arbiter is distinguished from a Iudge 7. The Iudgement of a Compromissory Arbiter cannot hold nor oblige me to obedience since it is not grounded on publike Authority but on the will of the Parties who qua tales are private persons But the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem can and must hold and oblige all the Churches of that time to obedience according to that which the Councell intended by the Iudgement 8. Compromissory Arbiters onely judge of the Parties which compromise to submit themselves to their judgement But the Church Apostles and Presbyters at Jerusalem judged not onely of the Parties that compromissed to submit unto them but of all the Churches as the Text telleth us 9. In Arbitrary judgements ordinarily they are the Parties that make choice of their Arbiters and not a third that ordaineth them as the Church of Antioch did in this Case in sending this Message or Ambassage to Ierusalem 10. Whether it was an extraordinary Counsell or judgement of Arbiters yet followeth it not that such judgements of themselves are ill or against Gods Word since God never ordained nor the Apostles ever made choice of any breach of Gods Law or of any disorder to establish any order in his Church by for God needeth not the Devils help to do his Work he can do it himself without him 11. If they were Compromissorii Iudices then particular or Parishionall Congregations may combine themselves together in a consociation and give power to Classes and to Synods to be their Iudges which is the practice of all the Reformed Churches 5. It may yet be answered That in all this proceeding there was no Reference or Appeal no Arbitrary judgement nor any Counsell concerning the Church of Antioch but onely an examen of a Message sent or pretended to have been sent from Jerusalem viz. Of some Pharisees Members of the Church of Jerusalem who pretended to have had charge from the Apostles to urge the Circumcision and the Observation of the Ceremoniall Law as may be collected from verse 24. Rep. 1. This is not true 1. Because all this is said without Scripture 2. And vers 24. it is not said That these Pharisees pretended to have had any such charge from the Apostles but the Apostles say That they gave them no such command But this Argument may seem somewhat weak for howsoever the Text have it not in terminis yet seems it to follow of the Text by a Morall necessity for that expression To whom we gave no such commandment seemeth to presuppose some pretention of a commandment on the Pharisees part 3. And howbeit it is said That they went out from the Apostles yet is it not said they were Members of the Church of Ierusalem 4. Neither read we That there was any dispute about their Message or Commission but about their Doctrine 5. Because the Sentence or Decree is onely about their Doctrine 6. Because in that Decree not onely the Pharisees are sentenced but all the Churches upon which the Observation of the Canons of the Apostles is enjoyned onely there is a word in passing said of the Pharisees but however it be that was no way the principall Question Finally here cometh in M. S. in an ordinary Independent way never proving any thing Positively that they beleeve for in this point they shew themselves the weakest of all Sectaries but ever more denying what we prove which requires no great abilities as is known and confessed amongst all men that do but pretend to learning neither can they do otherwayes for they will not be tyed in time to come to any Positive Doctrine no not so much as to that they hold at this present for any thing I can collect from the Apologeticall Narration onely they stand stoutly to some Nego's and will that we prove all and they nothing at all He telleth us then in the third Chapter of his Book that before this Argument of ours Acts 15. can hold we have ten Particulars to prove 1. That the Apostles sate here in quality of Apostles 2. That this Councell had their state and set times of meeting 3. That they had Authoritatem Citationis 4. That the Members of this Synod were sent hereunto by the particular Churches over whom they claimed jurisdiction 5. That onely Church-men had power to sit there 6. That it had as well power to make Laws of things indifferent as to impose things necessary 7. That the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had their Delegats sitting there 8. That Paul and Barnabas sate as Commissioners for the Church of Antioch 9. That ordinary Synods may proceed as they did in saying It seemed good c. 10. That these words in the close of the Epistle ye shall do well verse 29. did import some intimation That if they did not submit some further course must be taken with them Item In this Chapter he telleth us That Presbyterians agree not about the Pedigree of their Government and to tell us all this he imployeth no lesse then ten Pages in Quarto in a very small Print As for the first we have already proved it sufficiently and attend his reply As for that ridiculous demand of his that we prove That the Apostles waved and silenced the Spirit of Infallibility Answ They might have it and not wave it howbeit they sate not there in quality of men that had it for the Elders that had it not sate there in the same quality with them Some dispute also 1. Whether the Apostles in all times and in all places and upon all occasions yea sleeping and sick had the gift of Infallibility in actu secundo so that their will could not hinder the Externall Act. See the Example of Nathan S. Peter Thomas c. who had the gift of Infallibility in actu primo but sundry times they had it not in actu secundo 2. Some doubt also what is the gift of Prophesie or Infallibility Whether it be liker unto an Habitude which is a Permanent quality or to a Passion or Afflatus which is not Permanent but suddenly flies away To the second 1. It is but a circumstance of time which followeth necessarily of the substance of the thing 1. For if Councells sit they must sit in some time but in what time whether once twice or thrice a yeer that depends upon other Circumstances as of Church opportunities and exigences of the Civill Magistrates Permission c. 2. In things Circumstantiall Discipline depends on the Law of Nature according to the Apologists own Confession To the third It may be necessarily inferred of the Authoritative power for where there is an Authoritative power to judge and censure
part of a Classe and so receiveth in part a Classicall power of jurisdiction whereby the Parochiall power which formerly she had is more sure and made lesse subject to aberration then it was before So her jurisdiction is not impaired but improved neither in it self should it be a temptation to you not to pray or to pray faintly as you say since such an Improvement to every good Christian ought to be matter of Thanksgiving M. S. But entirenesse of Government or subjection onely to those that are of the same society is a speciall mercy And their Nobles shall be of themselves saith God speaking of that great Goodnesse he meant to shew unto his people after their return from Babylon and their Governours shall proceed from the midst of them Jer. 20.21 So as it is made a Character of the prosperous Estate of Tyrus That her wise men that were in her i. e. of her own Nation were her Pilots Ezek. 27.8 2. Subjection unto Strangers is still spoken of as matter of punishment and sorrow Give not thine Inheritance to reproach that the Heathen should reign over it Joel 2.17 The Nation of the Iews were expresly forbidden to set strangers to rule over them A.S. What follows Ergo Entirenesse of Government i. e. An Independent Government in every particular Congregation compounded of seven or eight silly Fellows whereof many of them are tender Foreheaded and bashfull as M. S. telleth us pag. 74. is a mercy and blessing of God A. S. The Antecedent is not universally true 1. For it is good for Families Republikes and Kingdoms that cannot rule themselves that they be ruled by some others and there are some people as Aristotle tels us that are naturally servile Ergo They have need to be ruled by others And the Polonians sometimes chuse Forraign Princes to rule over them The Ragusians in Slavonia to entertain perfect equality amongst themselves chuse evermore a Stranger for their Bishop and therefore hold it not evermore best to be ruled by one of themselves So do they in sundry Elective Kingdoms 2. Howbeit I should grant that it is absolutely best yet should it not follow that it is best for every sort of Society every where and evermore for then it should follow 1. That it is not good much lesse best for us that Iesus Christ who according to his Manhood or the Apostles who were Iews should have been Universall Ministers over all the whole World since they were not chosen of every particular Kingdom much lesse of every Province but least of all of every particular Independent Congregation compounded of seven or eight weak Fore-headed men as M. S. stiles them 2. It should not be a blessing of God that the Crown of France should be subject to the Crown of England for so it should not be subject to a French man so we loose our right to the Crown of France 3. It should have been a punishment to the people of God to have been ruled by a King of one Tribe viz. of Benjamine as by Saul or of Iudah as by David Solomon Rehoboam c. for they were not of all the Tribes much lesse of every particular Congregation of seven or eight persons 4. This Maxime cannot stand with the State of our three Crowns for so it else should be a blessing to Ireland to be ruled by one of the Irish Rebels and a punishment to be subject to the Crown of England 5. By that same reason the Kingdom of Scotland and England could not without some punishment or curse of God upon the one or the other subsist in an Union together unlesse the King were both an English and a Scotchman 6. The Parliament could not be a blessing but a curse of God since the Members thereof are from divers Provinces Shires and Burroughes as the Members of our Nationall Synods So let the World consider how Traiterous how Hereticall and blasphemous this most abominable Maxime is tending to the totall subversion of the Church King Parliament State and Kingdoms 7. Yea it overthroweth even their own Maximes for their Synods are gathered of Members of different Churches as ours are 8. And finally Howbeit I should grant him his Maxime yet as I have said particular Congregations by the increase and multiplication of Churches and their combination in Synods loose not their entirenesse of jurisdiction which they had before viz. their Parochiall Congregationall or simple Presbyteriall power but retain it as formerly As for those Texts of Scripture 1. not one of them sayes that entirenesse of Government within themselves is evermore best and a mercy of God 2. Much lesse that entirenesse of Government within a petty Independent Church compounded of seven or eight weak Foreheaded Fellows is best for it For if it were so we must have as many little Popes in the Church and as many Kings in the State as there can be Independent Churches or particular Iudicatories in the Kingdom 3. The passage cited out of Ierem. 30.21 speaketh of Christ as appeareth by the Text for it is added And I will cause him to draw neer and he shall approach unto me For who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me saith the Lord Now who is this but Iesus Christ 1. But Christ was not a Governour of one particular Independent Church onely but of them all so this place concludeth an Universall Church instead of an Independent Congregation 2. Neither can it be expounded of the people of the Iews after the Captivity for after it they had no King from amongst themselves at least ordinarily For after the Captivity of Babylon Zerobabel and Nehemiah were as it were Vassals to the King of Persia even till Esdras obtained of Artaxerxes Longimanus that they should set it up again in form of a Republike Afterwards Alexander the Great being pacified towards the lews by the Intercession of Jaddus the High Priest they obtained liberty to live after their own Laws Afterwards Ptolomaeus son of Lagus King of Egypt having taken the City used them hardly No better usage got they afterwards under Antiochus Epiphanes the eight King of Syria Hitherto the Government was Ducall and all their Dukes of the House of David to the number of fifteen from Zerobabel to Ianna Afterwards the Royall and Ecclesiasticall power was in the hands of the Priests in the Assamoneans Family of the Tribe of Levi the which Government was extraordinary if not unlawfull and then the division about the Royall and Sacerdotall power betwixt the two Brethren viz. Aristobulus and Hircanus who had recourse to Pompey some sixty yeers before the coming of Christ made them to be reduced under the power of the Romans so that this great blessing of so great a Governour as is mentioned here cannot be interpreted of any worldly Prince or if it be so it is liker to the Presbyterian then to the Independent Government for the great Sanedrim was as it were our Nationall Synod both taken
Services that those never sufficiently commended Princes of Your Illustrious House have done for the Cause of God they could not but prove very unthankfull both to God and to Your Highnesse And yet in such a case must not Your Highnesse for all that loose courage Your Cause is his Cause who is All-Sufficient And therefore Your Highnesse will do well to cast Your Self wholly upon him attending his good pleasure and I am assured that Your deliverance shall come in his good time which that he would be pleased to hasten So prayeth so hopeth so earnestly desireth he who is wholly resolved in all sincerity all his life long to remain Your Highnesse's most Humble most Obedient and most Faithfull Servant Adam Steuart How great is and wherein consisteth the Civill Magistrates power in matters Ecclesiasticall or concerning Religion CHAP. I. The State of the Question IT is an old trick of Hereticks and Schismaticks that when the Orthodox Churches oppose their novelties what they cannot get of the Church they travell to obtaine it at Court and therefore to arrive at their aymes they flatter the Princes of the earth and the Civill Magistrate in crying up the Civill and decrying the Ecclesiasticall Power and thus did the Arrians in former and the Arminians in latter times in whose foot-steps our Brethren the Independents at this present doe seem to tread and for this end they confound all things yea what ever is well said as may be seene by this their scratching and biting at my words travelling as they doe every where to confound what I have most clearely written Wherefore the better to shew this Authors fraud and guile and mine owne sincerity I will here set down what I said and what he opposeth Apol. Narr in speaking to the Parliament nameth it The Supreame Iudicatory severe Tribunall the most Sacred refuge and Asylum for mistaken and misjudged innocence A. S. The Parliament indeed is all this in Civill Causes but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion by Teaching or Preaching or Iudgeing of controversies of Religion nor any executive power that is intrinsecall unto the Church as in the Vocation Deposition and Suspension of Ministers in Ecclesiasticall Censures in Excommunication c. which are meerly spirituall but only an executive coercive and externall power which is not in but about the Church and for the Church whereby it compelleth refractory men to obey the Church And this Authority belongeth actually and in effect In actu exercito as they say jure in re to true Christian Magistrates but to others potentially in actu signato jure in rem till they become true Christians My Adversary here carpeth first at the word arrogate as if it were evermore taken in ill part and signified to assume proudly to a mans selfe A. Stewart But he might know that being a stranger and having lived the most part of my life abroad I am now and then constrained to take the words upon truâ—t yet for this word since he hath put me upon the perusall of my Dictionary I must tell him I finde no such thing as he saith there indeed I finde the words arrogant arrogantly and arrogancie to be taken as he such but not the word arrogate for it is turned in French S'arroger S'attribuer S'appropriâ—r and in Latine arrogo all which were taken in good part before ever Independency was in rerum natura but I will not let my selfe be caption fly drawne from the question by this mans Grammaticall sophistications If any thing were here amisse as there is nothing it will I hope be sufficient that I here declare that that was never my meaning I confesse they have more and better Language then I but I am content that my Reasons goe as farre beyond theirs as their Language beyond mine Afterwards in the same page he accuseth me of contradicting my selfe in following Propositions The Parliament has no directive Power by teaching Preaching c. The Parliament is wise enough to know what is convenient for the Church I answer and answered againe That every young boy that learnes his rudiments in Logick knowes that a Contradiction is only betwixt two Propositions which have the same Attributes which is not to be found here for the Attribute in the first is having no directive Power c. but in the second wise enough c. 2. Neither is it credible that every man who is wiâ—e enough to know what is convenient for the Church has a Directive Power therein in Preaching Teaching c. for the Independents have many amongst them in their Churches who have as much Learning three or foure daies before they be received to be members of their Church as three or foure daies after and yet before they were received members into their Church howsoever they knew well enough what was convenient for the Church had yet no Directive Power in it to teach c. 3. A little after viz. p. 34. § 2. this judicious Observator of Contradictions declareth ingeniously that he knoweth not what I meane by a Directive Power and yet here he telleth me that I contradicted my selfe but how is it possible that he should know that I contradicted my selfe in that that he himselfe understands not He knoweth not what things I pose and yet he findeth them opposed one to another I finde him here opposed to himselfe and in finding out a contradiction in my words he contradicteth himselfe and so taketh away this pretended contradiction Because he knoweth not what is a directive Power wherein he founds this imaginary contradiction he saith A. S. should befriend my intellect to tell me plainly and distinctly what he meaneth by a Directive Power in matters of Religion A. S. Wherefore if I cannot befriend your Will I will travell to befriend your Intellect not only in declaring you what is a Directive Power c. but also in expounding all the termes of this question learne therefore I pray you 1. That the Civill Magistrate qua talis is he who governeth the State qua talem I say qua talis and qua talem for it may fall out that he who is a Civill Magistrate to governe the State may also be chosen to governe the Church in quality of a Ruling Elder c. but that he doth not in quality of a Civill Magistrate for then he should not need to be chosen to be a Ruling Elder for in quality of a Civill Magistrate already he should have had that power 2. Learne that by the word Church I understand the Visible Militant Church both reall and representative in Church Officers viz. 1. In Sessions or Presbyteries 2. In Classes 3. In Provinciall and 4. In Nationall and 5. in Oecumenicall Synods but so that it must be taken sometimes for the reall Church alone as when we say The Presbytery ruleth the Church sometimes for the representative alone as when we say Tell the Church and evermore ratione subjectae materiae 3.
and perfect civill power over their Subjects and yet are destitute of all such intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall power either directive or executive since neither they know nor will know the word of God which is the only directive or regulative principle in Ecclesiastical matters Government neither ever do they or will they exercise any of these powers yea they renounce them both Now morally he is not said to have power to exercise an Act who never exercises nor will exercise it but renounces it and all power unto it Ergo 14. If the civill Magistrate in qualitie of civill Magistrate hath any such intrinsecall power or authority about the Church Church businesse and Religion then must it not be called only a politicall civill or secular but also an Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power Yea the civill Magistrate and his power must as well be defined by spirituall and Ecclesiasticall actions of direction and Government and by spirituall and Ecclesiastiall matters as by civill actions and matters for it is ordinary to define all faculties habitudes and all naturall or morall powers and authorities by their acts and objects whereunto they have any intrinsecall reference as visum per visibile auditum per audibile Logicam per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phisicam per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But so is it not of the civill Magistrates power for neither is it called Ecclesiasticall Religious or Spirituall neither is it the custome of any learned Politician who ever defined it exactly to define it in such a manner Ergo 15. If it were so the civill Magistrate could not be a good Magistrate unlesse he ruled the Church well for in omitting this he should omit the principall part of his office so not being skilled in Divinity he should be unworthy of his charge and worthy to be deposed which I beleeve none but Independent Magistrates will grant 16. Yea to be a true Magistrate and acquit himselfe of his charge he must be an Independent for to acquit himselfe of the charge of a civill Magistrate he must rule the Church well to rule the Church well he must rule it in the Independent way for Episcopall Government is naught not being so much as essentially Ecclesiasticall Government and Presbyterian Government if they be beleeved is nothing else but Episcopall Government to rule it in the Independent way he must be an Independent Ergo a primo ad ultimum to be a true or lawfull Magistrate he must be an Independent This for any thing I can see falleth very little short of Treason for howsoever happily they intend it not yet they tend as fast as they can to it 17. That morall power whereof the externall acts are morally impossible is morally impossible But such is that intrinsecall power in the civill Magistrate about Spirituall matters in the Government of the Church Ergo That intrinsecall power c. must be morally impossible The Major proposition is certain for neither God nor Nature nor men in their right wits ever ordained any morall power whereof the act is morally impossible for active powers are only for their acts as for their ends now if the end be impossible so must that which is for that end be impossible and if it were impossible to saile we should never build ships to saile with I prove the Minor for I put the case there were an Oecumenicall Councell as hath been seen in former times and may be in times to come then should it not be possible for any Christian Magistrate to put in execution any such power over an Oecumenick Councell unlesse he were an Oecumenick Magistrate to whose authority it could submit But such a Magistrate morally is not like to be found E. 18. If the King and Parliament or any civill Magistrate be judge betwixt us and the Independents then must the Independents submit to their judgement and command If so how is it that against the Lawes of the Kingdom and their own Tenets they erect so many Independent Churches without their permission and consent and that the Independent Ministers of the Synod in printed bookes have divulged their judgments upon the matters in debate in the Synod and brought in so many novelties in Religion and all this against the formall Ordinance of both the Houses of Parliament to which they pretend so much submission 19. This opinion maketh all Ecclesiasticall power unnecessary and superfluous for since the civill Magistrate has an intrinsecall power both directive and executive to govern the Church as this M. S. would make us beseeve what need is it that the Ministers of the Church have any such power for the civill Magistrate has power enough to govern both the State and the Church But the Ecclesiasticall power is not unnecessary or superfluous since God hath ordained Presbyteries and some in the Church to be Rulers and others to be ruled For it is a Maxime both in Nature and in Grace that Deus et Natura nihil faciunt frustra Ergo the Independents opinion whereof these absurdities follow must be false 20. Because the Evangelists Prophets Pastors Doctors and other Christians of the Primitive Church would never acknowledge any such authority in the civill Magistrates or obey them as we see throughout all the History of the Acts and of the Primitive Church 21. If Kings Parliaments and the civill Magistrates have any internall Directive Imperative or Executive power over the Church either it should be Supream and Soveraign or Subaltern if Supreame or Soveraign then we have Kings in the Church yea some higher Offices and Officers in the Church then that of the Apostolate and the Apostles which is contrary to St. Paul 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Eph. 4. If Subalterne then the King and Parliament and all Magistrates are subject to some Ecclesiasticall power and are not supreame Iudges in the Church 22. If the Magistrate have any such power either the Supreame or Subaltern Magistrate has it But the supreame has it not as we have seene nor the Subaltern for what reason that every Justice of Peace yea be he never so ignorant in Divinity or never so vicious in his life should have power over a whole Nationall or Oecumenicall Synod It is not possible for he has no power over all the Churches that they represent neither did ever all the Churches send their Commissioners to the Synod upon any such tearmes neither has it ever been acknowledged by any Synod how ridiculous were it to think that every Justice of Peace who has not so much liberty as to enter in to this present Synod should notwithstanding rule it or domineer over it Neither did ye grant so much authority as I beleeve to the civill Magistrate in your Synod in the Netherlands But what reason is it that the subalterne Magistrate of one Towne should rule over the Synod rather then the Magistrate of the Towne from whence is sent an other Commissioner 23. If the civill Magistrates or any
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
§ 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
reference to the Particular Church then if the Particular Church be considered Absolutely they may be Extrinsecall unto Her since neither Excommunication nor Citation are exercised by Her Absolutely at least Ordinarily 4. If we consider a Particular Church in reference to the more Generall Church viz. under the notion of a part of the more Generall Church then we may consider Her either 1. According to Her first Consent and Covenant Reall or Virtuall whereby She joyned together in one Consociation with many other Particular Churches to make up together one Classe or Synod the which Consent preceded the Act of Citation or Excommunication and whereby the Classe or Synod received Power to cite or excommunicate particular Persons Or 2. according to Her Consent in sending Her Commissioners to the Classe or Synod Or 3. according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent to the Act of Excommunication or Citation 4. If then She be considered according to Her first Covenant and consent or in the second i. e. in sending Her Commissioners the Act of Citation and Excommunication is voluntary and Intrinsecall to that Particular Church notwithstanding Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent for that Act of Citation and Excommunication is done in vertue of such precedent Consents which are Her Deeds and very Legall 5. If the Particular Church be considered according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent these Acts are involuntary and Extrinsecall to that Particular Church But such a Dissent is not properly and formally an Ecclesiasticall Act since it is not ruled by any Ecclesiasticall Rule of Discipline but by private interest or passion which must ever give place to the Weal of the whole Church for as Naturall bodies may be considered either Absolutely or under the notion of a Part which is for the whole and in the first notion they have their Particular Inclinations and Motions whereby they decline whatsoever is hurtfull unto them as when the hand flyeth from a blow of a Sword but under the second they are not led by their own particular but by the generall Inclination and Interest of the whole since parts are not so much for themselves as for the whole and so it neglecteth its own particular good or interest for the weal or interest of the whole as when the hand for fear least the head should be cut off whereof might ensue the destruction of the whole man exposeth it self to the danger in receiving the blow it self to save the whole So in Politicall or Ecclesiasticall Consociations particular Towns or Churches may be carried by their own Interests to some particular Dissent in some Cases but if they move Regularly sometimes against their own Interests they must Consent against themselves according to the generall Inclination of the whole Consociated body or Church Classicall Synodall c. 6. If this Argument hold it will conclude 1. Against that which is done by Plurality of Votes in their particular Congregations For that which is concluded is against the Consent of the Minor part 2. Against that which is done in their Synods by their Messengers if they conclude against or without the Consent of the Churches whereof they are Messengers And 3. Against the Parliament if they conclude any thing against the particular Consent of particular Towns for they Consent not thereunto And so what they conclude or do against them shall not be done by Consent of the Kingdom And so this man shall destroy the Parliament and the pretended Order of Independents as well as that of Protestant Presbyteries But M. S. telleth us that so the Classis is like to the Magistrate who is a Bishop without and about the Church Answ 1. I deny your Simile for the Magistrates Power and Act being onely Politicall and Civill has no Internall reference to Citation or Excommunication in quality of Ecclesiasticall Acts as that of the Church and Church Officers which is Ecclesiasticall and this your Quinqu ' Ecclesian Ministers acknowledge themselves when they tell us that the Civill Power is of another nature then the Ecclesiasticall Obj. But if the Civill Magistrate have this Externall coactive power they must all have it as well Pagans as Christians But so it is not for A.S. will not grant it to Pagans Ergo none of them have it Answ The Assumption is false for I grant it to them all but not in the same manner To a Pagan only in actu signato but to a true Christian in actu exercito I expound it in my Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration M. S. scratches at this distinction 1. as not good for saith he I never heard of any thing belonging to a Person in actu exercito but that belonged to him and that per prius in actu signato He to whom the principle or power of acting doth not belong cannot stand ingaged for the exercise of acting such a power A. S. Sir If you heard it not others yea of the best sort and ablest both Divines and Philosophers may have heard it for we have learned in the Category of Substantia that Substantiae primae maximè propriè Substantiae dicuntur whereupon they ground this other Maxime Prima Substantia magis est Substantia quam Secunda and they say that it is magis Substantia in actu exercito sed non in signato sed contra secunda est magis substantia quam Prima in actu signato as all the Philosophers who serve themselves with this distinction in the explication of that propriety of Substance declare in that place 2. It is also an error in you to think that in actu signato and exercito is nothing else but actu potentia 3. Put the case it be so and that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu signato belongeth to it in actu exercito what is that to the purpose is not that enough to found a distinction upon Wherever there is prius and posterius is there not there some distinction at least formall or modall if not reall 4. Yea put the case the one part were really included in the other yet should there ever be distinctio includentis inclusi 5. And howsoever it be that what belongeth to a person in actu exercito belongeth to him in actu signato yet what belongeth to a Thing in actu signato belongeth not to it in actu exercito Neither said I that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu exercito belongeth not to it also in actu signato Where said I it I pray you or if I said it not wherefore beg you here a needlesse quarrell with me about it 2. M. S. desires to know wherefore a power about the Church and for the Church should not belong actually and in effect in actu exercito and jure in re as well to a Magistrate not yet truly Christian as to him that is such i. e as well to a Pagan as a Christian A.S. Answ 1. Because being not yet a Christian he is not a member
professing the true Faith 3. Nor of every visible Church of Beleevers but of that which is compounded of all its Organicall Parts viz. Preachers Teachers Ruling Elders Deacons and Flock 4. It is to be observed That this Church is either Reall or Representative We call Reall Churches those wherein such Church Officers and Flocks are really as in every Parish Provinciall or Nation Church But a Representative Church is that wherein the Reall Church is represented in Her Church Officers as a Presbytery Session or Consistory consisting of the Preachers and Ruling Elders or the Deacons also of a Parish Church gathered together for ordering of Church businesse in Doctrine Government or otherwayes who altogether represent the Church of a Parish A Classe that representeth that of a Classe and judgeth of all the Church businesse of one Classe A Provinciall Synod which consisteth of the Ministers and a certain number of Ruling Elders of one Province representing all the Reall Churches of such a Province in judging of Church Affairs in that Province and a Nationall Synod compounded of a certain number of Ministers and Ruling Elders deputed from all the Provinces of the Nation to judge of the Church businesse in Doctrine Discipline c. which concerneth the whole Church of such a Nation or Kingdom 2. Concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories it is to be observed 1. That an Ecclesiasticall Judicatory is nothing else but a certain number of men gathered together and endowed with an Authoritative power according to Gods will to judge of Church businesse for Gods glory and the Weal of the Church or in a word the Representative Church of one Parish Classe Province Nation or of all the World 2. That Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories is a Relation of Order betwixt a Superiour and an Inferiour Judicatory or Representative Church whereby the Iudgement and Authority of the Inferiour depends upon the Iudgement and Authority of the Superiour Such we conceive to be betwixt Presbyteries and Classes Classes and Provinciall Provinciall and Nationall Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods 3. Here it would be noted That this Subordination is grounded upon the Authoritative power of Superiour Iudicatories over their Inferiours or Subordinated and therefore here is to be noted first That this Power of the Church is not Naturall that floweth from the Nature or Essence of the Subject such as are the Faculties of the Soul nor Habituall or an Habitude either Naturally acquired by Custome or Supernaturally infused by Grace for men may have all the Naturall Faculties of the Soul and many Naturall and Supernaturall Habitudes yea all those that are necessary for this Authoritative power and yet not have it as any one may easily see in many learned and godly Divines who are not Ministers of the Church and consequently have no Authoritative power in the Church But it is a Morall power ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or potestas whereby in vertue of Gods Ordinance the Superiour Church hath power over the Inferiours or other Churches subordinated unto Her to rectifie their Iudgements in case of Aberration or to enjoyn them any thing according to Gods holy Ordinance So when particular Churches judge any thing amisse either in Doctrine or Discipline a Classe or a Provinciall Synod may judge of that Iudgement and in case it finde it have need may in the Name of God command it to reform its Iudgement and in case of disobedience command the people not to obey their Pastors or Presbyteries commands or if there be any thing that concerneth the Weal of all the Churches in the Kingdom the Nationall Synod hath an Authoritative power to judge it and enjoyn it upon the Churches in the Name of God so may a Provinciall Church do in things concerning all the Churches of a Province I call an Authoritative power that which may command and in vertue of its command enjoyn an obligation of Obedience upon all those that are subject thereunto and in case of Disobedience inflict Spirituall punishments according to the quality of the Disobedience viz. Simple Censure the lesser or greater Excommunication If ye inquire further what is this Morall power or wherein it consists I answer It is no Reall but a Morall being it is no Reall quality in the Subject that hath it and consequently it is no Reall or Naturall power but as 〈◊〉 were a Naturall power for as our Naturall powers and faculties do flow from the Essence of the Subject or from our Essentiall Forms so doth this Morall power flow from the consent and will of them who give it and his will who consents to accept it and this consent producing such a Morall power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no lesse forma internè vel externè denominans efficaciter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 producens quà m forma essentialis is forma informans potentiam naturalem a se in se vel in subjecto profundens And as naturall powers are for the Weal of their Subjects in accomplishing and perfecting of them in their operations convenient to their nature so it s this Morall power for the Weal of its Morall Subject or of the consociation in perfecting it in its operations convenient to its Morall being Domesticall Politicall or Ecclesiasticall in Nature or in Grace Wherefore Amesius and sundry Independents that follow his opinion are mightily mistaken whilest they think it floweth from the Essence of the Church 1. For it hath not its being from the Essence of the Church but ex instituto divino 2. Because it is not produced necessarily as Naturall proprieties but freely and willingly not as depending upon Nature but upon Will 3. If it did flow from the Essence of the Church God could not change it And yet howsoever this Morall power hath no Reall being in it self yet may it be called Reall 1. In consideration of its Cause viz. Of the Reall destination of the Will from which it s produced 2. Of its Foundation viz. Because it presupposeth some Reall qualities in him or those who have it viz. Naturall faculties and some naturall or supernaturall Abilities to exercise it 3. Of its Effects that are Reall for howsoever the power of a Magistrate be not a Reall quality yet it is able to produce very Reall Effects in Subjects in remunerating such as deserve well of the State and in punishing Delinquents as by imprisoning their persons or cutting off their Heads if the crime be of that nature Again it must be observed That this Morall power is 1. either meerly Directive which onely sheweth what is to be done or Imperative that cannot onely shew or discern what is to be done but also commands and in vertue of such a command bindes those that are subject to such a Power to Obedience and in case of Disobedience inflicts condign punishments 2. That this Morall power is either Civill or Ecclesiasticall the first belongs to the Civill Magistrate the second to Ecclesiasticall persons 3.
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
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-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
under the notion of Apostles and Church-Ministers endowed with extraordinary gifts and namely of Infallibility governed the whole Church extraordinarily so doe Generall Councels endowed with ordinary gifts govern it ordinarily 14. I would willingly enquire of the Independents to what Church were added so many thousands that were baptized by the Apostles and added unto the Church in one day Whether to a Particular Congregation or to a greater Ecclesiasticall Consociation It could not be to a Particular Congregation 1. For the Reasons I have already produced 2. Because the Apostles were not Particular but Universall Ministers set over the Universall Militant Church and therefore in vertue of their charge admitted them to be Members of all the Churches whereof they were Ministers 3. Because they were of divers and sundry Countries neither is it credible that to be a Member of the Church they were bound to quit their Countries and to stay at Hierusalem howsoever so long as they did stay there they might participate as well of all the rest of Gods Ordinances as of Baptisme Ergo they were added to some greater Consociation viz. to that and to all those whereof the Apostles were Ministers for out of all doubt the Apostles who baptized them could not refuse to admit them unto the Lords Table wherever they celebrated the Sacrament If it be answered That this Argument only proveth a greater Reall but not a greater Representative Church I reply That directly only it proveth a greater Reall viz. an Vniversall Militant Church but yet by consequence it proveth also a Representative Church of the same extent for every Reall Church may be represented in its Commissioners or Messengers as ye call them that meet in a Synod If it be yet answered that this may prove a greater Representative Church but not endowed with any Authoritative power I reply It is a power of Iudging which must be Authoritative and cannot be meerly Consultative such as is that of every Tinker who may give counsell to a Church and that of one Church which hath power to give counsell to a thousand yea to ten thousand represented in a Synod for particular Churches being parts of the whole Provinciall Nationall or Universall Militant Church must be subject to the whole for it is a Maxime in Philosophie that Totum non subjicitur parti sed pars toti Item Totum non regitur motu partis sed Pars Totius And they distinguish between the Universall and Particular Inclination of things and tell us That a part doth sometimes quit its Particular Inclination to be ruled according to the Inclination of the whole as when water which according to its Particular Inclination descends yet to avoid the vacuum whereof might ensue the overthrow of the world against its Particular Inclination but according to its Universall Inclination as it is for the Totall it ascends And so it is or should be in Politicall and all Spirituall Consociations for the parts cannot be conserved but in the whole The Politicians also tell us that Lex paerticularis cedit generali so Laws that concern Particular Cases or Consociations must give place to the generall Law of more generall Cases and Consociations for the generall good of Consociations is to be preferred before the Particular good of Particular Persons or Particular Consociations 15. All the Churches here upon Earth make up one Republike tyed together by Faith Charity and other Particular Christian vertues as that in Heaven another Now it is a Maxime in Politicks Salus Reipub. suprema Lex esto Ergo There must be one Law common to this whole Christian Republike If so Ergo There must be some visible Iudges to judge according to this Law otherwayes in vain should we have it Now this visible Iudge can be no other but a Synod For if ye say it is Christ then we cannot be legally Iudged according to this Law till the day of Iudgement when Christ shall Iudge the quick and the dead which is most ridiculous 16. C. C. acknowledgeth That by Baptism we are made Members of the Universall Militant Church and consequently Subjects of some Christian Republike Ergo There are some Iudges to judge such Subjects But those Iudges are not in one Particular Church for by Baptism as he sayeth They are not admitted to the societie of any Particular Church Ergo They must be judged by some greater Representative Church which must be either Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall 17. It is a generall Rule of S. Paul in matter of Church Government That the Spirits of Prophets be subject to Prophets 1 Cor. 14 32. Which cannot at all or at least cannot easily and commodiously be obtained in the Independent Opposition or Coordination as in some Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies or Iudicatories for when all are equall there is no subjection of one to another 18. This Doctrine of Subordination of Inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories to their Superiours with a Coordination of Inferiour Iudicatories or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies amongst themselves is most convenient to the nature of the Sacraments in receiving unto them all such as are our Brethren in Christ whereas a meer Opposition Independency or at most a Coordination of Churches founded on a meer will and charitie without any Law is repugnant to it in so far forth as it debarreth from them such as are worthy to be received 19. The Apostle commands That all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 And telleth us That God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace Vers 33. Now where there is no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories When none of them is subject one to another but they are all equall when one Church be she never so corrupted in life and Doctrine hath as great Authority over all the Churches of the World represented together in a Synod be they never so sound in their life and Doctrine as they all have over her What can be done decently and in order I adjure you all tell me in Conscience Whether ye think that God can be the Author of any such order or rather of so abominable a confusion 20. I could shew how that this Subordination is most convenient and the contrary Independency Opposition or Coordination of Churches founded on mans meer will is most repugnant 1. unto the perfection that appeareth in all Gods Works both in those of Nature and of Grace 2. To Gods Truth and Wisdom in giving no better means for redressing of Offences 3. To his Iustice in making of Laws that cannot suppresse Heresies and all sort of wickednesse in disordered Churches 4. To his Mercy that in furnishing us so graciously so many means and helps to Salvation he should have given us this Independent Anarchy to crosse them all yea to lead us irresistibly to Hell 5. To his Providence in providing of means so disproportionate and incommensurated for so excellent an end viz. for the peace of the Church means more fit to trouble then to
State in such a Case 2. The Ministers in the New Testament must proceed spiritually against all Delinquent and Impenitent persons as the Ministers in the Old Testament did against theirs according to Gods Word unlesse such a proceeding be abrogated in the New Testament 3. They must do as M. S. hath taught us as they do against particular persons in commensurating the punishments to the sins i. e. They must proceed by particular Admonitions and Censures against lesser sins in private or before the Presbytery by suspension from the Lords Table against greater sins by publike suspension or lesser Excommunication against greater sins and by the great Excommunication against the greatest sins 4. M. S. confesseth That the Apologists in their way do little lesse A. S. If so then they do a little worse then the Presbyterians and so they quit a little M. S. his own rule whereby he willeth them to proceed as against particular Persons 5. If all this suffice not it is the Civill Magistrates part to proceed against them as Troublers of the Peace of the Church and consequently of the Christian State and not to permit them to erect a new Sect as it is ordinarily practised amongst the Independents of New England 6. They must be punished for their Perjury and for the breach of their Covenant but none of those punishments can be inflicted but after sufficient conviction at least Morally in foro externo And such punishments are the fittest for them after such a conviction when they pertinaciously resist the Spirit of God for such men fear more the Gibbet then Hell-fire What you say of your second Chapter it is sufficiently answered What you say of Churches That they had need to take heed how they chuse men for their Guardians c. If by those Guardians you mean the Civill Magistrate it is not wisely said of you If Church-Ministers they must choose such as will delate pertinacious sinners to the Civill Magistrate To your second Question What if in the Session c. Answ 1. What if it be so in your Assemblies or Synods 2. If it be any inferior Ecclesiasticall Iudicatory they must remit it to a superior ever till they come to some wherein the Votes may preponderate And if in the supreme Iudicatory viz. in a Nationall Assembly the Votes preponderate not concerning the Excommunication of such a Church which is very extraordinary she cannot be excommunicated and yet if her opinion or sin be condemned the combined Eldership may inflict some lesser Spirituall punishment and if such a Church continue still pertinacious the Civill Magistrate may proceed against her in a Civill way as we have said Neither is this a compliance with Papists in quality of Papists but in so far forth as they agree with Scripture 1. For so proceeded the Church of the Old Testament 2. So proceeded the Church of the New Testament in the times of good Emperours as under Constantine the Great Theodosius c. 3. So proceed they at Geneva 4. So in the Netherlands 5. So the Independents of New-England 6. So should M.S. rather doe then to tolerate open Blasphemers of the blessed Name of God 7. Darest thou M. S. so openly plead in favour of Paganisme of all sorts of Heresies and mischiefs and for all sort of impunitie for them all 8. The Truth falleth not to the dust in such a case but sinne is punished but not in such a degree as it should be To the second Inconveniency that I object against the Independents § 4. viz. That the Independent Churches offended if they judge the offending Church they should be both Judge and Party M. S. replieth p. 80. § 3. When your combined Eldership proceedeth against a particular Church amongst you upon offence taken is not this Eldership as well Party as Judge A.S. My Argument implieth the Solution of this Objection viz. That the combined Eldership cannot be Party in such a cause because it hath an Authoritative power over the particular Church howbeit Spirituall and Ministeriall as the Parliament over particular Judicatories in the Kingdome but Parties look one to another as par parem and not as superior inferiorem 2. Neither can any man or Consociation take his ordinary Judge to Party unlesse he have some particular Exceptions against him 3. I propound you the same Question concerning the particular Tribes and the Synagogicall Judicatories amongst the people of God in the Old Testament when the great Sanedrim took offence at them or at their Iudgements whether the great Sanedrim was not both Iudge and Party Or rather whether under the notion of Offence taken it was not to be considered as a Party and under the notion of Authoritative power as a Iudge 4. I propound it of the State whether the Parliament may not be considered as Party being offended at any particular Consociation and as Judge in quality of the Representative Body of the whole Kingdome or if it be evermore needfull that some particular Person or Persons compeare in quality of Party against particular Consociations or Townes 5. In your particular Congregations may not your Church under divers notions be considered as Judge and Party or may every Delinquent take your whole Presbytery or Congregation to Party 6. Did not the Arminians serve themselves of this Independent Argument against the Synod of Dort to decline the Synods power and were not both they and this their Argument condemned by the judgement of the Synod as very absurd and unapt 7. This Argument concludeth against all the superior Powers of this World Again M.S. 1. telleth us that this Authoritative power of combined Presbyteries over Congregations is not from above A. S. But we have proved it to be from above and from God as Author of Nature and of Grace See the Question concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories 2. Core Dathan and Abiram objected no lesse against Moses and Aaron yea as much may be objected against God himselfe who is Iudge and Party and Iesus Christ who is Party and yet shall judge the quick and the dead For if Criminals may so escape they will not faile to take their Iudges evermore for Party M. S. To hold that all those that have an Authoritative Power over men may lawfully in vertue of such a Power be both Iudges and Parties is to exalt all manner of Tyranny c. by Law for so in Church and State men invested with such a power may be their own carvers and serve themselves of the estates liberties and lives of those that are under them how and when and as oft as they list Adde But the Consequence is false Ergo so is the Antecedent A.S. I deny the Consequence for they have not an absolute but a limited power according to Law and not to their own particular but publike will or in quality of publike persons whose wills are declared in or restrained according to Law Neither commandeth Carolus the Kingdome qua Carolus but
absolutely able enough to preach rather then to live without Gods Ordinances altogether So David wanting Bread did eate of the Shew-bread and a man in case of necessity may take other mens meate and eate it rather then starve 2. I distinguish the Consequent she hath it evermore in such a cause i. e. in case of necessity when she can have no help of Neighbour Churches I grant it all otherwayes I deny it M. S. desireth to know by what right Neighbour Churches by their presence can take such a right from her A. S. Neighbour Churches by their presence take no right from her but by their Neighbour-hood give her or rather adde unto her a new right to Rule her selfe more perfectly and to help to Rule Neighbour Churches also which she could not do before so it is not Jurisdictionis diminutio sed ampliatio it is no diminution but an augmentation of power intensivè or in certitude within her selfe and extensivè in respect of other Churches so it is a Blessing of God added to that Church and no power or abilitie but a lacke of power a weakenesse an unpowerfulnesse as I may so say and infirmity taken away it is not to take away what she had but to give her a power or helpe that she had not being alone Even so as when two or three Regiments coming to joyn with one or two others against their common Enemy these two or three Regiments take no power or force from the one or the two precedent Regiments but help them and make them more able to beate the Enemy M. S. Those that God hath put together let not man put asunder But God put together a single Congregation and an entire Iurisdiction Ergo A. S. That Text in the first Proposition is to be expounded of those onely that are put together by Marriage but if you take it Universally it will be found false for God hath put a Tree and the Branches thereof together and yet I trow you will not say a man may not cut a Branch off from a Tree 2. I answer if God hath put them together in all cases it is true but the Minor is false If God hath onely put them together in some particular Case then they may be separated in an other Case 3. I answer to the Minor If by an entire Iurisdiction be meant a supreme Ministeriall Jurisdiction absolutely such as should be in Synods to the well-being of the Church it is false for it wants a Synodall Jurisdiction If by an entire Iurisdiction be meant entire secundum quid in suo genere per accidens in some way in its own kind and by Accident it is true for such a Iurisdiction is onely Congregationall or Consistoriall and so perfect in that kinde and supreme by accident for want of Neighbour Churches so it is entire in that kinde but not absolutely as it should be in Case of Neighbour Churches Master Mather and Master Thomson in their Answer to Master Herle argue thus The power that floweth immediately and necessarily from the very Essence of a Church cannot be separated from the Essence of a particular Church But such an entire power of Iurisdiction floweth from the very Essence of a Church Ergo A. S. 1. I deny the Minor for that which belongeth to any thing ex instituto floweth not from its Essence But so it is of the entirenesse of Jurisdiction it belongeth not to the Church by nature but by will and Law viz. by Gods Ordinance 2. If it flowed necessarily from the very Essence of every Church then could not God change it for God cannot destroy nor change the proper Accidents or take them away from their subjects But the consequent is false for since Iurisdiction belongs to the Church by Gods freewill he may as freely take it away from the Church and change it as he bestowed it upon the Church 3. Yea God hath actually changed it for all the Militant Churches since the fall of Adam viz. Before the Law under the Law and under the Gospel are of the same nature and Species or the same in substance and onely differ in Circumstances and yet they have had divers sorts of Iurisdiction and Governments which could not be if it flowed immediately and necessarily from its Essence 4. Put the Case it flowed from its Essence as it doth not yet this entirenesse of jurisdiction should onely be entirenesse of Consistorian or Parochiall jurisdiction which is entire in its own kinde but not of Synodall jurisdiction yea not so much as of your Synodall power in defining dogmatically the points of Doctrine M. S. his second Argument If a Church yet single be invested with a power of jurisdiction within it self and should be cashiered of this power by the rising up of more Churches neer unto her then that which is intended by God as a Table should become a snare unto her she should suffer losse and have sorrow from those by whom she ought to be comforted But the first is true Ergo. A. S. I deny the Consequence neither hath M. S. proved it The Reason of this my Negation is because she is not ensnared but drawn out of the snare by the rising of such Churches which can help her and counsell her and reform her Iudgements conjunctly with her self in case of aberration neither should this be any just matter of sorrow unto her if she should sorrow at it her sorrow should be unjust and wicked and at Gods Ordinance 2. I deny the Assumption for the Consistorian power that such a single Church had before the rising of such Neighbour Churches is not cashiered by their rising but a more eminent viz. A Classicall or Synodall Power which she had not is superadded unto her Consistorian or Parochiall power whereby it is mightily perfected CHAP. VI. M. S. his third Reason answered M. S. THirdly If a single Church should suffer losse of so considerable a priviledge as entirenesse of Jurisdiction is by the multiplication of Churches neer unto her then cannot this Church pray for the Propagation of the Gospel in places neer to it but she must pray against her own comfort and peace which is a fore temptation upon her either to pray very faintly or not to pray at all for such a thing But the consequent is false Ergo. A. S. I deny the consequence of the first Proposition for the rule and measure of our Prayers is not our priviledge and jurisdiction but Gods glory and the Salvation of our souls revealed in Scripture which may be very well obtained without any power of jurisdiction as we see in Women and it seems that M. S. will not pray for the prosperity of Jerusalem unlesse God grant him an Independent power of jurisdiction therein 2. I deny the Assumption for by the multiplication of Neighbour Churches that single Church suffers no losse of the Parochiall jurisdiction that she had for she retains it but she receiveth more power in becoming a
Learne that the word Power which here is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestas authoritas c. signifieth not 1. Any Naturall Faculty or power in the Predicament of Quality 2. Or any Habitude either Naturall purchased by our industry or 3. Supernaturall infused into the soule by Gods bounty 1. For the Power of Ruling whether it be Directive Imperative or Executive belongeth not to us by birth as naturall powers nor can we purchase it by our owne industry alone as we doe Naturall Habitudes nor is it evermore supernaturall or infused by God as we see in the Civill Power amongst Pagans yea it is very probable that some Preachers may have an Ecclesiasticall Power who have no Supernaturall but only their aturall gifts 2. And a man before he be called to a charge in the State or Church may have all the naturall powers or faculties of his soule and all the naturall or supernaturall habitudes or abilities that he hath after his calling and yet not have that power to judge command and punish which he hath after his calling it hath no reall but only an intelligible being which is not to be but to be understood conceived or intelligible and therefore it is no vvork of nature but of reason and the maine reason of this is 1. Because the being of this povver which is not potentia but potestas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authoritas as also that of the charge or Office to which it belongeth depends upon a meere assent of the understanding and destination of the will in those who choose the person or persons to this charge and power and of him who is so chosen Now the assent of the understanding and destination of the vvill since they are immanent actions and no wayes transient cannot produce any reall or permanent effect out of themselves And yet however it be no reall faculty habitude or ability yet both can it pose and indeed it doth presuppose some reall being for in punishing of Malefactours it poseth sometimes a very reall eff ct as that of burning and hanging of persons and before it be it presupposeth the naturall faculties of the soule some naturall habitudes or abilities therein as that of jurisprudence in Civill Magistrates and Iudges sometimes some supernaturall habitudes also as that of divine faith Ecclesiasticall charges as in Apostles Prophets Evangelists and Pastors 2. Because a man in receiving of such a Povver potestas or charge findes no reall changement in himselfe as in receiving of a new reall being or quality No more can it formally consist in the reall being qualities or effects that the charge or this power produceth for they are all posterior to it So it may be defined a worke of reason or a morall being whereby he who is sufficiently called by sufficient assent and destination of the Will of those who call him and consent of his own and endowed with sufficient abilities may justly exercise such acts as they intend by such a calling I call it 1. a work of Reason c. to the exclusion of the works of Nature 2. I say He who is called Here you have 1. the Subject of this power viz. He. 2. The efficient cause thereof somewhat obscurely expressed by sufficient Calling and afterward 3. more distinctly by the assent and destination of the will of those who call him and consent of the person called 4. Endowed c. Here is expressed the fundamentum remotum of this charge whereby he is enabled to the acts of this power 5. May justly exercise c. Here is the finis or act of this power wherein we have to observe that this act may be considered 1. in its naturalitie 2. In its habitualitie or facultie 3. In its moralitie 4. In its particular legalitie The first is from the naturall faculties of the Soule The second from the habitudes or abilities thereof The third is from morall habitudes in the Will The fourth from this potestas the naturall facultie maketh it an act the habitudes or abilities an habituall act or easily produced by the soul if it be meerly naturall but if it be a supernaturall act quoad substantiam then there must be some supernatural habitude that supplieth the place both of the deficient facultie and habitude or abilitie the vertue of justice in the will i. a just act but this morall power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh it a legall and publique act for what before his calling he could not doe but illegally howsoever he had abilities enough now after his calling he can doe legally Item this morall power induceth a morall obligation to obedience which all his naturall powers all his naturall and supernaturall habitudes and all his particular morall vertues and justice could not doe without it This morall power is either private or particular as the Paternall Maritall if it be meerly morall and despoticall in domesticall and such like societies whereof we speak not Or publique as that of the Secular Magistrate and Ecclesiasticall Iudge and evermore it produceth an obligation unto obedience in those that are subject thereunto So the power of the Civill Magistrate binds the Subject to Civill and that of Ecclesiasticall persons the people to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall obedience That of the Husband the Wife to conjugall that of the Father the Sonne to filiall and that of the Lord the servant to servile obedience or service This power as it is in Church-Officers is either Directive or Executive and this either imperative or strictly executive Or if you like better of a Trichotomie it is either Directive Imperative or Executive The directive power of the Church is that whereby she sheweth us what is to be believed or done which is done by Teaching Ecclesiasticall judgements Lawes and the interpretation thereof whereby we are directed and taught The Imperative power is whereby she commands what is to be done as Hoc fac which the Doctors of the Laws ordinarily expresse by jubeo impero mando and some Kings by this For it is our will and pleasure The Executive power is whereby Ecclesiasticall judgements are put in execution which is done by binding and loosing in some wayes answerable to distributive Iustice remunerative and coercive Now to befriend yet more this Mans understanding and to shew the Christian Reader how fairly I deale with him and all those of his party not hiding my selfe as they ordinarily doe I give another note very necessary in this matter which I hope shall discover a great part of these mens cavils and fraudulent sophistications and it is this viz. That the power circa Spiritualia Ecclesiastica about Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters is either intrinsecall to the Church i. e. not only about the Church but also in the Church as that of Church officers which is only in the Church or Church officers in quality of Church and Church officers as the power to preach to excommunicate c. for no other but
Ecclesiasticall persons can preach or excommunicate Neither can the Civill Magistrate or any other exercise such acts Or Extrinsecall i. e. about the Church but not in the Church in quality of a Church as when the Civill Magistrate maketh Lawes concerning the Church in confirming or ratifying her lawes in making them to be received as well in the State as in the Church So Justinian declared that according to the Evangelicall doctrine and Apostolicall discipline all men should be called Christians otherwayes that they should be declared distracted and infamous persons and that they that were punished spiritually by the Church should afterwards be punished civilly by the civil Magistrate as we may see in the first book of the Codex tit de summa Trinitate tit de sacrosanctis Ecclesiis tit de Episc Cler. Orphanotroph And through all the first thirteen Titles of that book and elswhere in the Civill Lawes But this power to judge command and punish is not Ecclesiasticall but Civill CHAP. II. The first Conclusion about the Intrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate in the Church THis being presupposed I put my first Conclusion thus The Civill Magistrate qua talis or under the notion of a Civill Magistrate hath no intrinsecall power in the Church 1. Because the Scripture which Independents acknowledge for the only rule of Church-Government conteineth no such thing 2. Because his authoritie qua talis is not Ecclesiasticall but Politicall or Civill Ergo qua talis it is not intrinsecall to the Church 3. Because such must be his power or authoritie in the Church as the acts thereof at least in genere morum or morally But the acts of his power as to punish refractorie persons in a Civill way by imprisonment pecuniary mulcts c. are not intrinsecall yea no wayes Ecclesiasticall Ergo no more is his power or authority 4. Because the authority that is intrinsecall unto the Church must be exercised by Ecclesiasticall persons But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate The Minor is certaine because it is only to be exercised by the Civill Magistrate or his officers and not by Elders of the Church as when he imprisons any man for his disobedience unto the Church or puts Apostates or some abominable Hereticks to death as Servet c. And it is a certaine maxime that Ecclesia nescit sanguinem as may appeare by sundry Canons of the Canon Law Ergo The Major is indubitable because the power and the exercise thereof belongeth unto the same sort of persons 5. Because the Civill Magistrate himselfe qua talis is no Ecclesiasticall person or Intrinsecall unto the Church since he may be a Pagan how then can his authority be Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall unto the Church since the authority of a person out of the Church qua talis must be Extrinsecall or out of the Church 6. Because the object of the intrinsecall power of the Church is principally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things that are spirituall or for spirituall ends But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate since oftentimes he knoweth him not as when he is a Turk or a Pagan 7. Because this opinion confounds the Kingdome of this World with that of Christ in granting unto the Civill Magistrate the Intrinsecall power of the Church which Christ only granted unto the Ministers therof viz. unto Preachers Teachers and ruling Elders But so should it not be for Christ distinguished these powers when he commanded to give unto God that which is Gods and unto Caesar that which is Caesars Mat. 22.21 8. Because the immediate rule of the intrinsecall power of the Church is only Gods Word formally by consequence or presupposition so is it not in respect of the Civill Magistrates power which is immediately and formally ruled by the Lawes of the State Ergo the Civill Magistrates power is not intrinsecall unto the Church 9. The intrinsecall power of the Church is only Ministeriall no wayes Despoticall Imperiall Regall Majesticall or Majestie So is not that of the Civill Magistrate in taking the word in a large signification as it is sometimes for the supreme and subalterne Magistrate For the power of the Civil Magistrate at least in the Supreme or Prince is not Ministeriall but sometimes Despoticall or Lordly sometimes Imperiall sometimes Regall sometimes Aristocraticall sometimes Democraticall and evermore Majesticall Ergo The Assumption is certaine so is the Proposition for they who have this intrinsecall power in the Church are only Christs Ministers and Servants 10. Because as we said heretofore not only the Civill Magistrate sometimes is not a member of the true Church of Christ but is a member of the Antichristian Church yea sometimes not so much as Christned or a Christian by name as the Tuck the Emperor the French King and some others who by maxime of State have made some Edicts in favour of true Christians for the exercise of their Religion But how shall he that is not in the Church that is no true Christian yea that is an Antichristian Christian yea not so much as a Christian by name but an open Enemy to the name of Christ as Herod Nero Dioclesian Julian the Apostate that are externall unto the Church have any intrinsecall power in the Church 11. Because the Civill Magistrate hath no intrinsecall power either directive or executive in common Trades as that of Brewers Shoemakers Carters Watermen c. whose trades are within the reach of Nature and which he directeth only extrinsecally Neither knoweth the King how to brew how to make shooes c. neither can he brew or make shooes How much lesse then is it needfull that he have any interne power either directive or executive in Ecclesiasticall matters which are altogether spirituall and supernaturall above the reach of all naturall prudence and quite out of the sphere of his activitie 12. By the same reason the Civill Magistrate should have an internall power both directive and executive over all Oeconomicall Societies under him viz. over the Husband and the Wife the Father and the Son the Master and the Servant He might direct them in their duties and execute their charges intrinsecally and so doe the duty of a Husband of a Father and Master in all things in every mans familie which could not but be found very absurd impious and altogether intolerable Heretofore the Independents did as much as any men complaine of such an absolute and independent power in the King How then is it that now they grant it 13. If such an intrinsecall power in Ecclesiasticall matters be a part of all civill Magistrates power then the Magistrates who have it not are not compleat and perfect Magistrates since they want one of the principall parts of the civill Magistrates power viz. The intrinsecall directive and executive power in Ecclesiasticall matters But the consequent is untrue yea criminall and trayterous for many Pagans Antichristians yea in concreto and in sensu composito have a full
King qua talis be a Ruler of the Church or have any intrinsecall authoritative power to rule it he should have the same right to it that he hath to the State or Kingdome so some Kings as in Hereditarie Kingdoms should be Kings and rulers of the Church by birth 24. Some by Warre Invasion or usurpation which is a pretty way to obtain power in the Church 25. By money in buying of a Principallity and so by direct Simony 26. By trooquing and exchange 27. A Woman since she may be Queen might be a Church Ruler and so speake in the Church which St. Paul directly prohibiteth them 28. A Prince being a known Atheist or a Magician should have an internall power to rule the Church and so be a member thereof for his Atheisme and Magick could no more hinder him from being a Ruler in the Church then in the State Neither is it possible that the Ruler of a Church or of any other Society should not be a member thereof if so the Church should be very well guided and have holy members But this is against the principles of Independency for they will acknowledge no man for a Member of their Church unlesse it appeare that he have the power of Piety and of Sanctifying Grace 29. Children and Babes who may be Kings should be Rulers of the Church So they who have not the use of reason should rule the Church without reason And if it be replied that they might guide the Church by their Counsell and other Officers Answ 1. God is not served by Commissioners and Proctors in the Church as in the State Whatever charge God layeth upon Church-men they must carrie their own burden themselves and not lay it upon others 2. By the same reason other Ministers of the Church might doe the like and so they likewise might be born Gods Ministers as the King and so have need of no vocation at all but every man according to his phantasie might exercise his gift of Prophecy just for all the world as they doe amongst the Independents 30. Yea mad men might rule the Church since their madnesse hinders them not to be Kings when they have right to the Crowne so might mad men be Preachers also for if madnesse hinder not a Prince or a King to be a Ruler in the Church or any other to rule the Church no more should it hinder any other Minister to be a Preacher since there is the same reason for them all 31. It is a commandement of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. That no man be admitted a Iudge in Christ Church but after due examination viz. of their life and Doctrine But Magistrates and especially the supreme Magistrate in taking the word in a large signification are not so admitted and some of them cannot be so admitted as Princes who are Infants mad c. 32. Whosoever hath any Ecclesiasticall power must be called of God as Aaron Heb. 5.4 and Christ took not this honour but after a lawfull vocation But Princes and Magistrates are not so called of God as Aaron 33. He who hath any intrinsecall power in the Church must first accept of it and have some internall vocation before that he have it But many Magistrates accept not of it nor have they any internall vocation as Papists who will not accept of it neither have they any vocation to it 34. If the Civill Magistrate have any such power either he hath it as a Magistrate as a Christian or as a Christian Magistrate But he hath it not as a Magistrate for as a Magistrate only he ruleth the State and not the Church and if he had it as a Magistrate all Magistrates yea Nero Julian the Apostate should have it as we have proved Not as a Christian for then every Christian should have that power yea a Cobler as well as a King nam quod convenit alicui qua tali convenit omni Nor finally as a Christian Magistrate for as a Christian Magistrate he hath no more then as a Magistrate and a Christian Now he hath it not as a Magistrate and a Christian for Christianity augmenteth not the power of a Magistrate since it is not of the same kinde for if it should augment it or increase it it should be some part or degree of Magistracie which is false Neither if it could be augmented or increased could it receive any increase but either extensive or intensive in its parts or quantity or in its degrees But since Christianity is not a part or a degree of Magistracy nor Magistracy of Christianity the one cannot increase or augment the other 35. If we should have a Toleration of all sorts of Religions put the case of 365. as M. S. wisheth and that the King were Iudge in all then he must have an intrinsecall power in all those Religions and all the severall Churches that professe them and consequently he must be a member of every one of them and so of 365 Religions For whosoever hath an intrinsecall power in the Church or is a Governour of it must be a member yea the principall member of it But the King must not be of so many viz. 365 Religons Ergo 36. If the King be not of all those Churches Religions then either he must be of one or none of them If of one of them only then he shall be partiall in judging and ruling them all and so an incompetent Iudge If of none so indeed he shall be indifferent and impartiall but a very dangerous man of no Religion at all and so cannot be a competent Iudge unlesse he be of no Religion at all But it were better to quit such a power then to have it upon such termes 37. We have examples of Kings punished for interposing themselves in matters of Religion which cost some of them no lesse then their Crowns as we read of Saul 1 Sam. 13.8 9 c. Others were strucken with leprosie as Vzziah for undertaking to sacrifice And howbeit that before he had been a glorious and a triumphant King yet for that act was he strucken with leprosie by God and opposed by Azariah with fourscore Priests valiant men who thrust him out from thence so dwelt he severall in a house being a Leper for he was cut off from the house of the Lord. All this saith the Text and no lesse 2 King 15.5 2 Chron. 26.16 17 c. 38. The Civill Magistrate may be received unto the Magistracy before he be a member of the Church for the Independents receive no man yea not the Kings Majesty and the Parliament to be members of their Church but after a long tryall Yea however they professe the Orthodox Religion and live Christianly not giving offence to any man Ergo in such a case the civill Magistrate is out of the Church and so must his authority be and consequently neither he qua talis nor his authority is intrinsecall unto the Church so long as he is out of the Church for
the Magistrates authority can be no more intrinsecall unto the Church then the Magistrate himselfe is And if it be said that the Civill Magistrates authority is intrinsecall unto the Church but not the Civill Magistrate I answer That then the Church hath the civill Magistrates authority and not his person so the Church hath the Magistracy and not the Magistrate and so the Church has civill viz. Imperiall Royall or Despoticall authority over the subjects But that cannot be said for it is Treason Christs Kingdom is not of this world and the Church beareth no materiall sword 39. The Intrinsecall way to governe Christs Church is convenient unto Gods wisdome since it is an act of wisdome and divine providence But an Intrinsecall power granted to Heathen and Antichristian Christians and Magistrates to govern Christs Church is not convenient unto his wisdome but repugnant unto it for it is as if he should choose a Wolfe to keepe the Lambs and a Kite to shelter the Chickens which are not meanes convenient unto such ends 40. Such a sort of Government is repugnant unto Gods mercy towards his Church for how is it credible that he who has given Christ his onely Sonne for his Church to redeeme her should give her Antichrists and Pagans to leade her away from Christ to Antichrist yea to the Devill and Hell it selfe from which he hath redeemed her 41. I might here aske what Magistrate has this Intrinsecall power whether the Supreame or the Subalterne If the Supreame then he has such an authority in the Church as in the State viz. Monarchicall Despoticall Imperiall Royall c. Aristocraticall or Democraticall so the Government of the Church is not one but manifold and may change and be diversified as the governments of this world If the Subalterne has it also then it must be derived unto him from the Prince or Soveraigne Nulla enim potestas nisi in Principe aut a Principe there is no power but in the Prince or from the Prince so Ecclesiasticall charges shall be venall or saleable as Subalterne Magistracies in some Kingdomes are where the only way to be preferred unto them is that notable Maxime of old Judas Quantum mihi dabitis CHAP. III. The second Conclusion about the Extrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall matters proved by Scripture Conclus II. THe Civill Magistrate hath an extrinsecall both Directive and Executive power about the Church whereby not onely he may rule it by Politicall Lawes as Pagan but also as Christian because he is or should be a Nursing Father of the Church Esay 49.23 who 1. is bound to admit in his Kingdome the true Church and true Religion 2. He has power not to admit it to reject it yea when it is not received or approved and confirmed by his secular and civill authority to reject it and exile it however he do it not as a Nurse of the Church 3. If the Church be corrupt and Church Officers negligent in their charge and will not reforme it he may command yea compell them to do it Or if they will not he may extraordinarily do it himselfe 5. When the Church is Reformed he may command them when they are negligent to be diligent in their charge 6. If they oppresse any man in their Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures against the Lawes of the Kingdome he may desire them yea command them to revise their judgements and in case they reforme them not command them yea compell them by his civill power to give him satisfaction according to the Lawes of the Kingdome if they derogate not from the Law of God 7. He may yea he is bound to provide sufficient maintenance for the Ministers of the Churches and to take a care that their meanes be not delapidated and that they be not Sacrilegiously robbed of them 8. And what here I say of the Church I say also of Universities and Schooles that are the Seminaries of able men for the Church 9. He may grant unto the Church some Liberties Priviledges or Immunities as sundry Princes have done and confirme them by Law as we see in the Civill Law 10. He is bound with his Civill power to maintaine the Order and Discipline of the Church and consequently 11. To hinder all disorder in it And 12. By his Civill Authority to compell all refractory persons to obey the Church And 13. To banish and exile all Sects Schismes and Heresies as we may see by sundry of the Roman Lawes and especially in the first 13. Titles of the first booke of Instinians Codex in the Pandects and else where All this we grant to the Civill Magistrate and if the Quinq Ecclesian Ministers with the rest of that Sect contest it not we need not to prove it only we say that he doth all this by a Civill and Secular Supreame Imperiall Royall Aristocraticall or Democraticall Legislative and coactive Power armed with the sword howsoever extrinsecall to the Church but more Absolute Independent and Potent in suo genere then any Ecclesiasticall Power whatsoever which is Intrinsecall to the Church which is no waies Absolute nor Independent but Dependent no waies Coactive by Externall force but Spirituall meerly Ministeriall howsoever imperative in the name of God that cannot make any Lawes but of things meerely Circumstantiall much lesse abrogate the Lawes concerning the constitution and Government of the Church already made by God in his Word Now that the Magistrate hath an extrinsecall Power over the Church in compelling all refractory persons to submit themselves to her just commands since M. S. seemeth to question it and desireth a proofe of it I am ready to satisfie his desire herein Wherefore I prove it 1. From sundry examples of the Iudges and Kings of the people of God in the old Testament Exod. 32.27 Moses commanded the Levites to kill about three thousand of the Ring-leaders or principalls of those that adored the golden Calfe in the performance of which service the Text saith that they consecrated themselves unto the Lord verse 29. 2. Deut. 22.11 to the end of the Chapter we read how the rest of the Tribes of Israel resolved to warre against Reuben Gad and the halfe Tribe of Manasseh for building of an Altar as they believed in transgression against the Lord which they would not have done had they not conceived it to be just 3. Iudg. 6.31 Ioash ordained thus He that will plead for him i. e. Baal let him be put to death 4. 1 Kings 15.12 Asa removed all the Idols that his fathers had made 13. And also Maachah his mother even her he removed from being Queene because she had made an Idoll in a Grove and Asa destroyed her Idoll and burnt it by the brooke Kedron Here Asa punisheth his owne Mother for Idolatry and destroyeth her Idoll so no doubt may the Civill Magistrate doe with all false Doctrine Worship and Discipline false Doctors Worshippers and Church Governours he may abolish them and
of their coercive power for they also were punished who married strange Women c. It is also a mistake in him to think Scribe was the name of a Sect it is not the name of a Sect but of an Office or Profession for one man may be a Scribe and a Pharisee a Scribe by his Office and a Pharisee by his Sect as you may see Mat. 22.35 Then one of them viz. of the Pharisees which was a Lawyer asked him a question A Lavvyer i. e. a Scribe as Mark interprets it chap. 12.28 And one of the Scribes whom Matthew calleth one of the Pharisees 2. Esdras also was a Scribe and no Pharisee 3. It is commonly thought by Divines that there was three sorts of Scribes Some about the King which they prove from 2 Sam. 8.17 Sariah was the Scribe and 20.25 Sheva vvas Scribe see 2 Kings 12.10 and 22.3 Others were Publick Notaries as were the Kenites that came of Hemath the father of the House of Rechab 1 Chronicles 2.25 who had no Heritage with the rest of the Tribes see Ier. 32.11 where yee see an Evidence drawn up by such a Notary and what was the custome in drawing up of such Evidences Others were as it were Doctors or Professors of the Law whose charge was to write the Law and to expound it in the Temple and in the Synagogues wherefore they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lawyers Matth. 7.29 and 17.10 and 23.13 Mar. 12.28 Luk. 7.30 and 11.46 and wise men Ier. 8.8 1 Cor. 1.19 None of them all were accounted for Sectaries M. S. 7. Answ P. 51. Sect. 21. Nor did they nor were they to inflict any outward punishment upon every kind of Idolater though of the Iewish both Nation and Religion as first not upon covetous Persons who yet are a kind of Idolaters Nor secondly upon those who yet worshipped the true God of Israel though with some violation of the second Commandement as when they sacrificed upon the High Places c. But 1. Vpon such only who apostatized from the God of Israel and yet 2. Not upon such simply as such but as attempting to draw away others of the People unto the same Idolatries with them A. S. 1. It is an untruth that they punished not or at least were not bound to punish all Idolatry properly so called since we have produced you formall examples and Covenants to the contrary as Exod. 32.27 Deut. 22.11.2 Neither were they Apostates that pleaded for Baal and yet a sentence of death was given against them conditionally Iudg. 6.31 or they of whom it is spoken 1 Kings 15.12 2 Chro. 14.4 5.3 Neither could the small ones in the 15. chap. ver 13. yet be Apostates or entice others to Idolatry and yet in case of Idolatry or of not seeking the Lord they were to dye 4. Nor read we that Maachah the Kings Mother who was punished was an Apostate 5. Or those that are mentioned in Esdras and Nehemiah 6. Yea when the Kings or people fell away to Idolatry we never finde that they apostatized for then they should have been no more Gods people 7. Only they joyned Idolatry with the service of the true God yea our Divines in disputing against Papists maintaine the Papists are Idolaters for the adoration of Statues and Images and that the people of the Iewes were not so mad as to have imagined their Statues or Images to be true Gods only they adored God in Images and Statues and the act of their Adoration terminative was related to God and not to the Image as that of the Papists And as for your instance of Covetous Persons it is ridiculous for covetousnesse is not properly Idolatry such as the Scripture speaketh of in the Texts which I produce or such as is comprehended in the second Commandement and is against God but improperly since it is not formally a breach of the First but of the Second Table 2. Not formally and immediatly a sinne against God but against our Neighbour Nor is the sacrificing upon the High Places formally and essentially Idolatry 1. For Idolatry is a sinne against the second Commandement which is Iuris naturalis perpetui but to sacrifice upon High Places is not formally and essentially against any Commandement that is Juris naturalis perpetui 2. But only against a Positive and temporall commandement of not sacrificing in the high places after that the Temple was built whereunto God tyed the Religious act of sacrifice 3. Because the Prohibitive Commandement about sacrificing upon High Places came long after the Second Commandement about Idolatry viz. after that the Temple was built Neither can M. S. bring any Text of Scripture for what he saith viz. that only Apostates or Idolaters who enticed others to Idolatry were to be punished 2. Howbeit they be to be punished yet others are not to be excluded from punishment I pray the Reader to consider how tender-hearted this man is towards Idolaters and false Prophets he pleadeth for them as if he had a will to be one of them himselfe Neither in our Religion use we the rigour of this Law against such as are not pertinacious or who will repent of their sinne Our Churches desire not the death of a sinner but of the sinne not of the Hereticke or Schismatick but of the Schisme and Heresie We distinguish betwixt Heresie and Heresie Schisme and Schisme for some are of more some of lesse dangerous consequence Item betwixt Hereticks and Hereticks Schismaticks and Schismaticks for some are Ring-leaders some misled some more some lesse pertinacious and malicious c. and every one of them are to be punish't according to the quality of the Heresie and Heretick of the Schisme and Schismatick Sometimes also the Circumstances of Times Places and Persons are to be considered And we are to doe what we may and not what we may not M. S. His eighth Answer as if what he had said were only to exercise his quick spirit and to shew how cunningly he can elude strong Arguments is That there are two reasons why the Kings of Judah might be invested by God with a larger power in matters of Religion then Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel 1. Because their Kings were types of Christ which ours are not 2. And their People of the spirituall Church of Christ and their Land of the Heavenly inheritance of that Church which wee cannot claime A. S. Answ 1. To be a type of Christ is not a sufficient ground of a Politicall power over the Church or about the Church For 1. then the Priests and some Prophets as Jonas should have had it Yea Adam Isaac yea some other thing as the Tree of Life the first born of the Flock offered in Sacrifice by Abel the Paschall Lambe the brazen Serpent all the Victimes of the Old Testament the Ark and the Propitiatory for they were all types of Christ 2. Because it hath no influence upon Civill Authority 3. Because it could not
represent any Civill authority in Christ since his Kingdome was not of this World 4. It may be doubted how they were types of Christ whether in respect of their Civill authority over the Church or over the State or otherwise 5. It may be doubted if they were all types of Christ as Athalia Manasseh Ammon who destroyed Gods service and the order of the Church item Herod who persecuted Christ was sure no type of Christ and yet was King 6. If so then the King of Egypt of Syria of the Philistims yea the Romans who domineered over them were types of Christ At least the Kings of Israel were not types of Christ since they were all apostatized from the Ceremoniall Law that ordained all the types for a type whether it be a thing a person persons action effect or event it must signifie something to come 2. It must signifie by Gods institution or ordinance and therefore neither was the Nazareate or all the Nazarites types of Christ as some Divines hold 1. Because the Nazareate was not a ceremony ordained by God but voluntarily vowed 2. Because it prefigurated not Christ to come or his benefits and therefore say they Christ drank wine and touched the dead only they vowed it to bring under their flesh and for a pious exercise 7. Howbeit they had been types of Christ in regard of their authority about the Church yet will it not follow that Christian Princes cannot have it for that which was typicall might be taken away and that which was politicall may remaine 8. And I put the case that the Iewes had received Christ as absolutely they might have done who can doubt but their Politicall Government might have continued and their Kings ruled as well the Church externally as they did before his comming since Christs Kingdome was not of this World and that he came not to abolish or to diminish the power of Kings but to save their soules they were no wayes losers by Christs comming but rather gainers He might as well have said they had a Civill power about the Church because they had their noses betwixt their eyes Many were types of Christ that had not this authority about the Church and many had this authority about the Church who were not types of Christ Ergo this reason of his is false and ridiculous No more were the people of the Iewes types of the Christian Church in respect of the Civill but of the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Government by Church-officers and the People subject thereunto So also was their Land a type of the Celestiall Hierusalem not as it conteined the State but the Church otherwise it should have been a type of Heaven before that the people of God had any right to it And finally types are not ordained by the Politicall or Morall Law as Magistrates and their Authority at least qua tales but only by the Ceremoniall Law True it is that God may serve himselfe of a thing instituted by the Morall Law to be a type but he must make it a type by some subsequent Ceremoniall Law What he saith against all this p. 52. §. 23 that good Kings never oppressed godly persons when they were for a while tender in conscience it is not to the purpose We only say here that they may punish Idolaters Seducers Hereticks and Sectaries who are never such till they be sufficiently convicted and after that remain pertinacious But no wayes good people under the notion of good people but so far forth as they doe amisse And what reason if he who heretofore by the judgement of Charity was thought a good man if he become an Heretick or a Murtherer should not be punished according to Law since the Magistrate punisheth him not for his good but for his ill § 24. He saith that I must prove that the Kings of Iudah had such a power by a Morall law which is of a perpetuall obligation and engagement upon other Nations A.S. Answ It suffices that I have proved it by a Politicall Law and that the same reason obliges Christian Princes vâ—z B. cause they will turne thee from the Lord thy God Deut. 13.5.10 â—â— Thus Politicall law is grounded upon the fifth Commandement which is Iuris naturalis It must be so since it is grounded in naturall reason 4. And our Reasons God willing hereafter shall make it appeare 5. In the mean time take for an example Nebuchadnezzar who since he was no leâ—â— could not doe it in vertue of any Politicall law of the Iewes for he was no Subject of the Kingdome of Iuda only he could doe it in vertue of the Morall or some Politicall law grounded on the Morall or the law of Nature M. S. It was no more Morall then that of the staying of the inhabitants of the idolatrous City and the cattell thereof c. A. S. I deny it for the one is grounded upon Naturall and Divine reason as we have seene and God willing shall see more fully by our following reasons but so is not the other P. 52 53. § 25. Answ 8. M. S. Answers 1. That the Kings of Iuda only exercised their power about Idolatry and Idolaters A. S. I deny it 1. For they exercised it also in beating downe of the High Places wherein there was not Idolatry as having been permitted before the building of the Temple 2. Because there is the same reason binding them to exercise it against the transgressions of the first Commandement the violation whereof is more directly against Gods Honour for sacrificing in High Places is but a circumstance of the second Commandement violated but Heresie and Schisme are formall breaches of the first Commandement the one of faith the other of charity therein commanded and the false Prophet was to be put to death 2. In the same Section he saith that it was the generality of the Church or Nation of the Jewes and not their Kings that was invested with it by God Deut. 13. and 7.5 and 12.2 3. A. S. Here is Anabaptisme in devesting the Magistrate of his Power and vesting the people with it What had every one the power of the Sword amongst the people of the Iewes 2. Was their Government Democraticall or rather Anarchicall Had women children and servants this Power I grant you that in vertue of the Law and their Covenant they had all an hand in in the matter but not absolutely but every man according to his Vocation the King and Magistrate as Judges but the people only to execute according to their Commands Neither is it credible that when a false Prophet or an Idolater was to be punished every one of the people was to judge him at his pleasure or to stone him to death Neither containe these Passages that you cite any such thing and therefore you did very cunningly not to quote the words themselves whereupon you ground this conclusion And is this all the power and respect you give to the Parliament and Civill Magistrate in
Ecclesiasticall matters even no more then to the meanest of the people Truely they are much beholden to you for your great liberality And if so ride on in despite of King and Parliament to your beloved Conventicles Neither can I finde in these passages Deut. 7.5 and 12.2 3. or Deut. 13. any such thing viz. that it was the generality of the Church or Nation of the Iewes that were invested with it for God never invested the confused multitude in any judiciall or authoritative power CHAP. V. Wherein the same Conclusion is further proved by Reasons NOw after these Testimonies out of Holy Writ I bring these Reasons following grounded upon it and 1. That power which the Civill Magitrate had in the old Testament and is not abrogated in the New may yet continue in the New or the Civill Magistrate may have it in the New But the power to punish Hereticks and Schismaticks is a Power which the Civill Magistrate had in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New Testament Ergo the power to punish Hereticks and Schismaticks is a such a Power he may Civill Magistrate may have in the New and so in vertue of Power which the punish them The Major is certaine for there is no other true way to make it not to continue but only the abrogation As for the Minor the first part of it is certaine as appeareth by the Texts of Scripture already alleadged The second Part may easily be proved because only the Ceremoniall Law which contained the shadow of things to come was abrogated in the New Testament The Morall Law was not abrogated so farre forth as it is a Rule of obedience nor as it bindes us thereunto No more is the Politicall Law in quality of Politicall for by the same reason Christ should have over-thrown and abrogated all the Politicall Lawes and policies of the world But that is false for Christs Kingdome was not of this world and he submitteth himselfe unto the Politicall Law of the Jewes yea unto that of the Romans also established amongst the Jewes So did Paul and the Apostles who pleaded their causes before Heathen Magistrates I appeale unto Caesar saith Paul Non auferet mortalia qui regna dat Coelestia 2. Yea if the Jewes had received Christ for their Messias I doubt not but the Politicall Law of Moses in quality of Politicall should have continued amongst them and the Civill Magistrate amongst them should have punished Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters c. in the New Testament as they did in the Old Neither is there any reason wherefore Christ or his Apostles should have hindred him by his Politicall power to maintaine the Christian Religion in the New Testament as before he did in the Old 3. And it may be further confirmed because the greater the favours be that the Civill Magistrate hath received of God in the New Testament then in the Old so much the greater obligation is laid upon him by his Power to maintaine Gods Cause and Religion 4. And the holier our Covenant is and the further it surpasses the Old so much the greater should the Civill Magistrates care be to maintaine it by his Civill Power 5. If it were not so the State of the Church in regard of the Civill Magistrate should be worse in the New then in the Old Testament for then he maintained it by his Civill Power and by the sword and now he doth it not nor yet hath the power to doe it 6. Is not this plaine Anabaptisme to approve the authority of the Civill Magistrate in the Old Testament and to reject it in the New for as the Anabaptists reject it wholly in the New Testament so doe the Independents in part yea in a great part viz. in that which concerneth the defence of the Church in punishing Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters c. 7. He who should be a Nurse and a Tutor of the Church in the New Testament should defend her by all his power But Kings and Princes and good Magistrates should be such as we may see in all the Examples heretofore alleadged and in Pharaoh and Esay 1.49.22 where it is promised that Kings shall be Nurses of the Church 8. What if forraigne Princes would invade the Church of God may not godly Princes in such a case justly defend it and represse them by the sword wherefore then may they not doe the like to their owne Subjects who will trouble her peace and by so doing compell them to their duty 9. Doth not the Civill Magistrate this in New England wherefore then may he not doe it in Old England unlesse forsooth the Majestaticall presence of five or six Independent Ministers here be capable to dazle and discountenance him here whereas they receive all their lustre and influence from him there or that as Monkes and Friers yee plead pro immunitate Clericorum or that the ridiculous thunder-bolts of Master Goodwins pretended Judgements of God be capeable to dash it all in pieces here 10. If the Civill Magistrate have not a sufficient Power to punish Idolaters Hereticks and Schismaticks for Religion then all the Roman Lawes in the Code made against Hereticks and those of this Kingdome made against Iesuites Monkes and Priests must be unjust yea the Iudgements given out against them since this Parliament begun are unjust and if so you would doe well to tell them of it If we beleeve these American Christians the Parliaments Lawes are little lesse then tyrannicall 11. That for which all Princes are commended in Scripture that all good Princes should doe and for which they are discommended that should they not doe But for punishing of Idolaters Schismaticks Hereticks c. all Princes that did so in Scripture are commended and for sparing of them are discommended Ergo all good Princes should punish Hereticks c. and not spare them The Major is certaine the Minor is sufficiently proved by the Examples of all the good Kings of Juda and of Iehu 12. They are bound to punish all such as trouble the peace of the State Ergo they are likewise bound to punish such as trouble the peace of the Church for who ever troubleth the peace of the Christian Church troubleth also the peace of the State when the State is Christian 13. If the Civill Magistrate be not bound by his Office to punish Hereticks Schismaticks c. he is bound to tolerate them all and so to tolerate all Independents all Brownists Anabaptists Familists Socinians c. yea some who deny the Immortality of the Soule that hold a generall Resurrection of all Beasts as well as of men yea of all that ever have been since the Creation of the world or shall be to the day of Iudgement peradventure of Lice Flyes VVormes c. and so he shall doe well to Licence the Bookes of such subjects till Master Goodwin alias M. S. resute them for he findes no other remedy in Gods Word but to refute such Bookes If we beleeve this new
The taking away of evill the conservation of order and unity and to avoyd Schisme 2. Neither did Christ by his death obtaine for us an immunity from all obedience or an independent licentiousnesse to doe ill 3. And this is the Holy Ghosts reason in that same place And thou shalt put away the evill from Israel And all the people shall heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously ver 12.13 which obligeth us as well unto obedience under the New Testament as those of the Old Testament 25. So we have an Example of Corah Dathan Abiram and On who were Independents and for their independency and not subjection unto the authoritative power of Moses and Aaron were severely punished by Moses and perished miserably We might bring many reasons of the Holy Ghost himselfe wherefore the Civill Magistrate must punish Idolaters false Prophets or Hereticks c. 26. Because Gods people is an holy people to the Lord. 27. Because they know that God is faithfull and keepeth his Covenant Deut. 7. and 13. Neither can any man blame such Arguments but those who will blame the Holy Ghost his Arguments for they are not mine but His. CHAP. VI. Wherein are answered M.S. his Reasons that he hath Chap. 1. And first the first sixe NOw I will propound M.S. his Objections whereof many conclude that this Intrinsecall power not only doth belong to the Civill Magistrate but also to all the members of the Church M.S. then p. 33. § 2. argueth 1. thus By such an umpirage and decision as this between the Civill Magistrate and himselfe viz. A.S. with his fellow Presbyters hath he not made the one Judex and the other Carnifex the one i. e. the Civill Magistrate must give the sentence the other must doe execution Answ A.S. 1. There is no decision at all between the Civill Magistrate and A. S. for A. S. is but a private man neither Magistrate nor Church-Officer 2. Neither are the Presbyters his fellow-Presbyters since he is no Presbyter These then in the beginning are manifest untruths 3. Neither can this decision in granting an Intrinsecall povver both directive and executive to the Church and an Extrinsecall to the Civill Magistrate viz. which is extrinsecall in respect of Ecclesiasticall povver but intrinsecall to Civill povver make the Church or Ecclesiasticall Assembly a Judge and the Parliament or Civill Magistrate a Hangman to remember his most humble respects unto the King Parliament and all the Iudges of this Kingdome For the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies as it is the common opinion of all our Divines cannot judge of the Civill Magistrate his duty 2. Neither have they ever been so foolish as M. S. most passionately and impudently calumniateth them here to command him any thing 3. They acknowledge most willingly that the Church being materially a part of the State is subject to Civill Government 4. That the Church which is the Kingdome of Christ hath no Civill power since it is not of this World Joh. 18.26 5. That the Civill Magistrate commanding and compelling such as be refractory and disobedient to the Church must not see with the Churches eyes but with his own Civill or Politicall eyes 6. And that in so doing he obeyeth not the Church or any Ecclesiasticall power but God whose power he exerciseth in the State as the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies doe exercise Christs power in the Church 7. Yea more that sometimes the Civill Magistrate may not punish those who are disobedient to the Church viz. if thereupon may follow the undoing of the State c. 8. For the same reason it is most untrue that the one giveth out the sentence and the other must doe execution 9. And moreover because they are two severall Iudicatories they are both independent one upon another howsoever both divers wayes subject one to another for the Civill Magistrate is subject in a spirituall way to the Church He must learne Gods will by the Ministers of the Church who are Gods Ambassadours sent unto him He must be subject unto Ecclesiasticall Censures as we see by the Examples of the Kings in the Old Testament and Theodosius the Emperour in the New So the Church againe is subject not in a Spirituall but in a Civill way to the Government of the Civill Magistrate as all Protestants and Ministers themselves confesse and plead for it against the Romane Clergie in favour of the Civill Magistrate 10. The Civill Magistrate hath power not to receive into the State all that which the Church judgeth fitting He may irresistably hinder it if he will 11. If he be Carnifex because that he commands it to be put in execution he should be Carnifex when ever he should command his own judgements to be put in execution 12. So should Independents be Carnifices when either the Civill Magistrate or the Church commands them to doe their duty 13. The Carnifex or Executioner pronounceth not a sentence as the Magistrate M. S. Obj. 2. pag. 33. The Civill Magistrate is much beholding to the Presbyter for giving him a Consecrated sword to fight the Presbiterian battels and for perswading of him to pull out his own eyes upon this presumption that he shall see better with his A. S. As able as this man is in jeering and calumniating as unable is he in arguing against this truth especially if he have no better arguments in his Budget by way of Reserve then what he brings here all he saith is utterly false 1. The Presbyterians have none but spirituall battels to fight 2 Cor. 10.3 4. the weapons of their warfare are not carnall 2. They doe not warre after the flesh neither wrastle they against flesh and bloud but against the Rulers of the darknesse of this world against spirituall wickednesse in High Places their sword is the sword of the spirit Eph. 6.12 And therefore they cannot nor pretend they to give him this spirituall sword they cannot quit it much lesse can they give him the materiall sword which is none of theirs to give for he hath it of God he is the Minister of God Rom. 13.4 avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill 2. It is false that the Presbyterians perswade him to pull out his ovvn eyes or to see vvith theirs 1. For they teach him to learne the Gospell by reading the Word and hearing it Preached by the Ministers thereof according to Gods Word and not by every Cobler as amongst Independents in exercising their gifts 2. And afterwards to see and judge by his owne eyes 3. They say and Preach that it is a great sin in him if he judge with any other then his owne eyes 4. He must judge according to the Lawes of the State otherwise he doth not the part of a Iudge 5. Yea if his judgement dissent from the judgement of the Law we know well enough he ought to quit both his owne judgement and that of the Church and to judge against his owne private conscience according to the Law and his
publick conscience which he is bound to have as a publick person conforme to Law for he sitteth not upon the Tribunall as a private but as a publick Person not as Iames or Charles but as King Iames or King Charles So in this there is no policy as this malignant spirit calumniateth I omit here his deepe policy in comparing the Civill Magistrate 1. King Parliament c. with a Dogge 2. And the Presbytery with an Ape whether this be not prophanation and impiety at least and that in a pretty high degree I submit to the judgement of those whom it so nearely concerneth if they be Apes I wonder you will call them Brethren VVhat brother Ape and so Apes your selves according to your Tenet so let the Conclusion hold for you but we deny the Antecedent in so far forth as applyed to Presbyterians M. S. Obj. 3. Surely the frame and constitution of Presbyterie is exactly calculated for the Meridian of this present World And indeed A. S. himselfe is somewhat ingenuous in acknowledging that this Government hath little or no relation unto or compliance with the World which is to come professing p. 13. the externall peace of the Church to be the adequate end thereof The Argument will be thus That Government whose adequate end is the externall peace of the Church hath no compliance with the world to come but is calculated for the Meridian of this world But Presbyterian Government is a Government whose adequate end is the Externall peace of the Church as A. S. confesseth p. 13. Ergo The Presbyterian Government hath no compliance c. A.S. To be short here Note when I say that the peace of the Church is the adequate end of Church-Government 1. That by the Church-Government I meane not the Church according to her essentiall but to her accidentall or visible forme 2. And consequently that by Government I meane not the internall Government which belongeth to her in respect of her essentiall but the externall which belongeth to her by reason of her accidentall or visible forme the first is proper to Christ or God in Christ who only hath a domination over our soules But the second he exerciseth by the Ministery of men 3. That by the peace of the Church I meane not a worldly but a spirituall peace or quietnesse voyd of Ecclesiasticall trouble by corruption of Doctrine Discipline or manners for in the midst of wordly troubles and persecutions this peace may be had neither can there one word of all this be denyed since our dispute here is only about the visible Church 4. That by the word end I mean't not 1. Finem ultimum simpliciter sed in suo genere i. e. not the ultimate end absolutely but in its owne kind nor 2. Finem operantis Artificis or operis but Artis Operationis not the end of the Agent of the Artist or of his worke but of the Art or Habitude whereby he operateth and of his Operation Nor 3. the externall end of Government such as is the World to come or eternall life but the internall end which is her peace and quietnesse which however it be an externall accident of the Churches Essence yet it is the intrinsecall end of her externall Government Nor 4. the common end of Government which is the end of other things also as the World to come which is the end of our Faith Charity of all Christian vertues of Discipline and Government also but the proper and particular end thereof 5. Non finem obtinendum solum but producendum And I could not nor should have taken it otherwise as this man most impertinently would have me to doe for things are defined notified and distinguished by their internall proper ultimate ends in suo genere and that are to be wrought and not by their extrinsecall common absolutely ultimate ends c. as the Philosophers doe teach us So I answer that the Proposition is false for Church-Government may have the Externall peace of the Church for its adequate Intrinsecall proper ultimate end in sno genere and for the end of Government and Discipline which is finis producendus And the World to come for its Extrinsecall common absolutely ultimate end for the end that is to be obteined and end of the Agent and of his worke And if it be objected that the adequate end of Church-Government should containe in it selfe all its ends and consequently the life to come I answer that that is most false for it containeth only its partiall ends 2. If it be the Internall end it containeth not the Externall end thereof If it be the proper end it cannot containe the common end but the common end containeth it neither is it needfull that it containe the mediate and ultimate ends or the ultimate absolutely and the ultimate in its own kind or sort for only it containeth in it the partiall ends such as are not subordinate as the mediate and ultimate end or as the ultimate absolutely and in its own kind or sort And the reason of it is this because as partes and compartes so partiall ends are coordinate and opposed one to another and not subordinate as the mediate and ultimate end or as the ultimate absolutely and in its own kind as the Externall peace of the Church and the VVorld to come Object 4. The sum of M.S. his discourse p. 33. § 5. and p. 34. commeth to this If the civill Magistrate hath not a Directive power in the Church but the Church-Assemblies have it alone then the Church-Assembly must have the gift of Infallibility A.S. This is a Papisticall Argument whereby the Iesuites prove that the Romish Church cannot erre But I answer him and Papists both Ans 1. I deny this connexum for a Directive power may be where there is no infallibility 2. The Independents arrogate to their Congregationall Churches and Presbyteries a Directive power without any gift of infallibility 3. They grant a Directive power unto the Civill Magistrate whom they grant to be fallible 4. And howbeit the Civill Magistrate be fallible yet they will not grant that the Presbyterie may or should iudge over him no more can the Civill Magistrate judge over the Presbyterie however it be fallible 5. For by the same reason any man might judge them both since they are both fallible 6. Howbeit any Iudge either Secular or Ecclesiasticall be fallible yet must they be obeyed till judicially they be convicted of error otherwise controversies should never be ended since wee have no infallible Iudge or Iudgement in this life unlesse God extraordinarily should reveale it to us Object 5. After such stuffe as we have seen M. S. p. 34. § 2. guesses what I meane by a Directive power and brings three acceptions of it but all short of what I meane The first is that it may signifie a liberty or power of considering advising and proposing of what may be expedient to be done in matters of Religion and for the
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.
priviledged for it is no terme either in Divinity or in Lawes or in Philosophy for any thing I know Neither heard I ever before of any Arithmeticall priviledge Obj. 19. M. S. What is granted to every other man in the Kingdome cannot be denyed to the Parliament But a calling to judge between the Apologists and their Brethren yea and somewhat more then a calling a speciall and weighty necessity to doe it though not after the same manner in respect of the consequence of their judgement is granted to every other man in the Kingdome Ergo a calling to Iudge c. cannot be denyed to the Parliament A. S. Answ Howbeit I might say much to the first Proposition 1. yet I deny the Assumption if it be taken absolutely Or rather 2. to evite his cavillations I distinguish it if by the word calling he meane a publick and particular calling such as have the Officers and Ministers or Rulers of the Church it is false for no man hath such a calling but he who is called as Aaron if He meane a private or common calling I grant him all the Argument but it is nothing to the purpose for by such a calling they cannot judge in Publicke or in Ecclesiasticall Assemblies 3. I distinguish the word judge for either it signifies an Officiall Publicke Ministeriall and authoritative judgement or a private common judgement of discretion such as belongeth to women and all Christians if the first the Minor is false for what necessity can lye upon every private man yea Water-men Coblers and Oyster-women to goe to the Assembly and judge between the Apologists and them If so the Parliament hath done them wrong in not calling of them or rather in excluding them from so noble and necessary acts of their calling And here I must pray the Parliament to consider whether this Doctrine of his in this point be not seditious and sufficient to excitate the ignorant people to challenge such a pretended calling and liberty or licentiousnesse of judgement If every one be a Iudge to Rule who shall be ruled If every one command who shall obey how then hath the Apostle distinguished Rulers from others If the socond we grant him all the Argument but that conclusion in that sence is not the question that is controversed between us But 20. Arg. M. S. seemes to prove the Assumption if it be not a new Argument Would A. S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and submission to the Assembly without their understanding A.S. I retort the Argument 1. Will M.S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and submission to the King Parliament or any Civill Magistrate without their understanding 2. Would M. S. have even the meanest to sing obedience to the Independent Churches without their understanding 3. The Church must use all possible meanes to informe such as pretend ignorance or conscience having sufficiently convicted them she must proceed against them as contumacious and inflict upon them such spirituall punishments as their sinnes may deserve 4. In such a câ—â—e not only the meanest but also the greatest must sing obedience passiâ—è 〈◊〉 suffâ—â—ing the Churches proceedings against them pormittendo tolerando no◠〈◊〉 in permitting the Church to proceed against them in toleraâ—â—â— nor judgement in not resisting it for it is an old saying of a very wise Scoick Tolerandâ— sunt quae emendari non possunt since particular persons have no publike vocation or power to oppose the Church activé they must suffer yet they may resist in not obeying activè as in confessing an untruth in case the Charch urge them thereunto Or in a word they must obey in case they be not made Actors in things against their Conscience for it is no sinne to suffer what we cannot mend but to doe what we should not doe or omit what we should doe and may doe Object 21. If the meanest of men have not a calling to judge betwixt the Assembly and the Independents then they must sing obedience and submission to the Assembly without their understanding But the Consequent is false Ergo so is the Antecedent also A.S. Answ I deny the Consequence of the first Proposition for to sing obedience to the Assembly it is not needfull that one be Iudge betwixt them and the Independents but that they know whether the Iudgement of the Assembly be just or not or rather whether their Obedience be just or not for the Assembly and they who have power to judge may judge justly and he who is judged justly disobey as if a man should legally in foro Externo be convicted of Heresie or any other crime the fact being proved by false witnesses and he afterwards condemned to acknowledge an Heresie or crime both the judgement should be just for the Iudges judged justly juxta allegata probata but the Obedience to such a judgement should be unjust and his disobedience just for he should sinne grievously against God and give offence to his Neighbour in acknowledging an Heresie or a filthy crime where there is none at all 2. By a calling to judge either he understands a publike and particular calling to judge authoritativè in consulting in Ecclesiasticall Assemblies of matters of Religion and deciding them and so inducing an obligation unto obedience or a common and private calling out of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies by himselfe alone or in private with a friend to judge by a judgement of discretion which induceth no bond or obligation to obedience If by a Calling he meane the first the first Proposition is false neither will all the Independents Arminians Anabaptists and Socinians ever be able to prove it If the second all the Argument may be granted viz. That the meanest of men have a common calling to judge by judgement of Discretion which induceth no obligation betwixt the Synod and the Independents but that is not the Question in debate 3. I distinguish the word obedience and submission for either this obedience is activè when we are commanded by our Superiours to be Agents or Actors in any thing as to bow before an Idol or Religiously to adore Altars the Bread and Wine at the Lords Table c. Or permissivè when I am not commanded to be an Actor or to doe any thing but to permit it not hinder it or not oppose it if I doe it not my self as when men are exhorted or commanded to assist the poore if I will not assist them I am bound not to oppose the Command or to hinder others from doing it so if a Minister preach not according to my palate whatever be my private judgment of him as if he preach too sublimely too speculatively lesse methodically c. yet must I let him alone I may not oppose or crosse him because that I have no publike calling to censure or hinder him If obedience be taken in the first way the first Proposition is false for every man in obeying actively or when he is an Actor
must know whether he doth well or ill at least by a particular judgement if in the second it is true that men are bound sometimes to sing a permissive obedience without their understanding because in so doing they doe nothing themselves but permit other men to doe as when there is a Minister called by the Church to preach it may be that some ordinary Mechanick will judge his Sermons to be too sublime more speculative then practicall happily also he will think them not methodicall in such a case the Mechanick hath no power to hinder the Preacher from preaching or preaching so he must obey in permitting and not opposing him in preaching for what is unsavory to his palate is savory to anothers 4. If this Argument hold it shall presse no lesse the Parliament then the Assembly for I put the case that the Assembly judge and that all the Assembly and Independents goe one way and the Parliament another which I trust in God shall never happen I frame the Argument thus If the meanest of men have not a calling to judge betwixt the Parliament and the Assembly then they must sing obedience and submission to the Parliament without their understanding But the Consequent is false Ergo And so your Independents shall neither obey Parliament nor Assembly And the Parliament would doe well to note this 5. I say more that sometimes Subjects are bound to obey their Rulers when they know not distinctly the equity of the Command for put the case a Prince undertake a Warre against his neiâ—â—bour-Prince every Cobler knoweth not the true cause of the Warre or 〈◊〉 it be just or not for he cannot penetrate into his Princes secret Counsells and yet if the Prince lay Assizes upon the people or presse Souldiers they must in all this obey howbeit they know not the secrets of his Counsels yea howbeit they suspect the Warre to be unjust they must obey for it is not expedient that every Independent Cobler be admitted into the Counsell of State or if that be not granted that presently he resist his Prince and raise a Rebellion in the Kingdome 6. I pray this man to tell me whether in New England amongst the Independents every man be not bound to obey what is judged in their Assemblies however he be of a contrary judgement 7. And whether it be Morally possible that every man be of the same judgment in things that are resolved or to be resolved in all Civill or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies And if not what can be the force of this Argument What here he addeth The glory of a Synod lyes not so much in the force of their Conclusions as of their premises is impertinent for the force of the premises and conclusions are not to be opposed one to the other but to be composed one to another for the conclusion followeth necessarily of its premisses Things are sufficiently discussed in the Assembly and their Conclusions evidently enough inferred out of their premisses but this is an incurable sicknesse in these men that they never thinke any Conclusion well inferred unlesse it be for themselves Obj. 22. He telleth us afterwards his judgement that the conclusions of the Assembly should not be swallowed without shewing c. which the Parliament and Assembly will both grant him Obj. 23. M. S. In his Sect. 12. he bringeth in quality of an Argument as it seemeth an Answer unto one of mine taken ab exemplo or a simili which I have answered and afterwards Sect. 16. he hath an Argument the summe whereof is this Obj. 24. Christ hath not divested himselfe nor made a delegation of such a directive power in matters of Religion as A. S. would sequester for the honour of the Presbyterie Ergo he will not acknowledge it A. S. Ansvv 1. I deny the Consequence for to acknowledge such a Ministeriall power as we grant unto the Ministers of the Assembly or our Presbyteries it is not needfull that Christ divest himselfe of it or make a delegation but a donation of it for Christ was never vested with such a Ministeriall and subordinate power for he is Lord and supreame Judge in the Church and therefore could never divest himselfe of it 2. If he meane the supreame power proper to Christ we neither desire him to beleeve nor beleeve we that Christ hath divested or could divest himselfe of it to give it to the Church for he kept to himselfe his owne supreame or Royall Power but gave unto his Ministers subalterne and Ministeriall power which derogateth no waies from his Royall power since this is subordinate unto that 3. However he takes it this Argument is captious and is nothing else but a plain petitio principii and proving the same thing by the same or a Conclusion by a Premisse as uncertaine as it selfe After this petty Argument he maketh his Testament resolving himselfe to dye a Martyr amongst good men whom he hath most highly offended and who professe that they compell no man to professe any truth much lesse untruth against the light of their Conscience how ridiculous a Martyr is this They professe that they may undergoe a voluntary exile for feare of persecution if you sir feare any such thing you may be gone according to the Principles of your owne Divinity And then he telleth us that he will allow any directive power of man so it be not compulsory unto men by any externall violence whether directly or indirectly to subscribe against their judgements and consciences to it A. S. Answ 1. Our Presbyteries attribute not to themselves any directive power that is compulsory unto men by externall violence to subscribe against their judgements 2. But if a few men differ in their judgements from all the rest of the Church or will needs bring in new Religions or novelties against the common Tenets of the Church then indeed they will cast them out of the Church or excommunicate them according to their demerits neither is it equitable that they abide in a Church or enjoy a Church consociation who will not submit unto her Iudgement and Discipline Neither will his Quinque Ecclesian Ministers admit unto or receive any man into their Church who differs in judgement from them or who will not submit unto their judgement But howbeit the Church compell you not to subscribe yet the Civill Magistrate after sufficient conviction may compell you to subscribe or to be gone for after sufficient conviction Morally it is and should be supposed that yee know the Truth or should know it or if yee know it not that nothing can have hindred you but your owne pertinaciousnesse which cannot excuse but rather now accuses and aggravates your sinne since one sinne formally and per se cannot excuse another Neither have our Churches ever gone further as may appeare by our Confessions of Faith and Covenants of the Churches of Scotland France the Netherlands Geneva c. M. S. hath some more poore Reasons in his 2. Chap. about the
executive power of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion Here he imployeth neare upon foure pages in quarto in a very small Print about things that are nothing at all to the purpose 1. In threatning the Parliament with Gods most heavy judgements in case they meddle themselves with any executive or coercive power against his new canonized Independent Saints He supposeth them 1. to be Saints 2. Those little ones Matth. 18.6 He telleth them is were better a Milstone vvere hanged about their necke then to meddle vvith one of these little ones and that because the Holy Ghost prophesieth of the putting dovvn of all rule and all authority and povver by Christ for he must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet 1 Cor. 15.24 25. this argumentation will hold if ye suppose the Independents to be Christs little Saints and the King and Parliament to be his Enemies in case they meddle with them in hindring them to set up their Sect but to the contrary Gods Saints as themselves in case they suffer not Presbyterians or any others no more then the Independents doe in New England so the Independents shall reigne over us all 2. In guessing what I meane by the word Church whether a Church in folio or in decimo sexto I have fully expounded it howbeit not in so chosen new Divinity termes in folio and decimo sexto So I come to the rest of his Reasons CHAP. VIII Wherein are answered M. S. his Objections 25 26 27. Ob. 25. M.S. VVHen Parties pretend to be offended with the Church or the Church judge any thing amisse the Civill Magistrate may command the Church to re-examine its judgement c. What reason then hath he to be so invective against the Apologists p. 49. 50. for holding that Kings or Civill Magistrates are above the Church A.S. Answ 1. The question is not whether the King and the Civill Magistrate be above the Church or not VVe grant that the Civill Magistrate is above the Church as having a supreame Politicall or Civill power Imperiall Regall Aristocraticall or Democraticall yea altogether independent upon all the Powers of this World and only dependent upon God according to the Lawes of the State wherein he ruleth yet not Spirituall Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall to the Church but Secular and Extrinsecall In his Office he is not subordinate or Vicegerent unto Christ as Christ but as God not in his Royall or Divine office whereby he ruleth his Church but in his Divine Nature or Power whereby he ruleth the World not in his particular Providence about his Saints but in his generall about all men and States not according to the Covenant of Grace if he be considered only as a Magistrate for then only they who are in this Covenant should be Magistrates but of Nature for if Adam had continued in the state of innocencie we should have had Magistrates without any Mediator or Covenant of Grace A. S. will easily grant you that the Civill Magistrate is above the Church only he denies that he is above the Church by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power as Independents hold but by his Civill and secular Authority which is not subordinate to Christ as Mediator as King or Head of his Church His power over the Church is not intrinsecall as ye hold but extrinsecall as we confesse 2. It is also false that I inveigh against the Apologists p. 49. 50. unlesse Reasons be Invectives I pray the Reader to look the place to the end he may see how little Conscience these men make of untruths and if there be any Invectives there I am ready to suffer 3. This Argument being put in forme will be thus They who may command the Church are above the Church The Civill Magistrate may command the Church Ergo The Civill Magistrate is above the Church Answ If the words command and to be above be taken for to command and to be above Externally and Politically I grant you all the Argument viz. That the Civill Magistrate is above the Church extrinsecally and Politically But if ye take both the words viz. command for an an internall and Ecclesiasticall command that is within the Church and the word above for above Internally and Ecclesiastically in a Church-way I deny your Minor If ye take the one word one way and the other another way I deny your first Proposition M.S. Ob. 26. p. 44. § 7. If the Civill Magistrate hath power to command the Church to revise her judgement when she judgeth any thing amisse surely he hath power to examine and judge of her proceedings and consequently hath a Directive power in matters of Religion But the first is granted by A.S. his concession Ergo so must the second A.S. Answ 1. I answer to your Proposition that in the same way the Civill Magistrate hath power to judge or a Directive power in matters of Religion he hath power to command Now his power to command as I have said is only Politicall Civill and Extrinsecall Ergo such also must be his power to judge or Directive power in matters of Religion viz. Civill Politicall and Extrinsecall to the Church howsoever Intrinsecall to the State for as he hath a Civill Royall Imperiall or Aristocraticall power to command so hath he a Civill Royall Imperiall or Aristocraticall power c. to judge and to direct him in his Commands unlesse he command without judgement But I deny that this concludeth that he hath any Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power that is Intrinsecall to the Church or Church-Officers who governe the Church 2. This Argument concludeth not an Executive power which is the Title of the Chapter and that which he intendeth to prove This is like to Montagnes Discourses who sundry times hath one thing in the Title and another in the Chapter M. S. Obj. 27. p. 44. sect 7. § 3. being put in forme will be thus They who may determine and judge amisse should not compell or make the people under their Government to sweare obedience or subjection unto their Orders which yet by your owne confession they doe But your Presbyteriall Assembly may determine and judge amisse Ergo. A.S. Answ 1. The Proposition is false 2. Or if it be true I subsume But the Civill Magistrate both in Ecclesiasticall and State matters may judge amisse Ergo the Civill Magistrate should not compell the people under his obedience unto his Order Ergo the Parliament should not compell or make any man to sweare the Covenant Ergo The Independents should not have taken the Covenant because that the Parliament might determine and judge amisse 3. By this reason a man must be tolerated in rejecting all Confessions or Faith because they who contrive them may erre 4. In New-England since they may erre they can compell no man to your Religion but must tolerate them which ye will never grant 5. I deny the Assumption 1. For our Churches compell not the people to sweare obedience or
There was no other way in the Old or in the New Testament there is no other in Civill Judicatories there can be no other found in this world And to end this Argument I ask you What if a man be oppressed in one of your Churches as it is possible a man may be as well as in one of ours unlesse ye have the power of Piety in a more Independent degree yea beyond all flesh and blood in any juncture of time to come and afterward he complains to Neighbour Churches and they oppresse him by their Judgements What other remedy can he have but patience and to appeal to the Judge of quick and dead or else acquiesce to the sentence or at least suffer it For a man cannot sin in meer sufferance for actuall sin materially is ever more an action of the will or a voluntary omission of some action M. S. Ob. 30. p. 46. sect 2. What power is Intrinsecall to Religion it is Intrinsecall to the Church But the Civill Magistrates Power is Intrinsecall to Religion for A. S. sayeth That the Parliament pretends no Directive power in matters of Religion but an Executive power onely viz. In matters of Religion Ergo The Civill Magistrates power is Intrinsecall to the Church A. S. Answ What ever may be said of the Proposition I deny the Assumption and to the confirmation thereof I answer 1. That when I say the Civill Magistrate hath power in Religion the word in signifies about for Religion signifieth the object of the Civill Magistrate and so we speak ordinarily as when we say A rich mans heart is in his Money and Riches so in here signifieth not an Intrinsecall but an Extrinsecall Denomination as when I say The Sun is seen the Attribute in this Affirmative Proposition is said to be in the Subject not by any Intrinsecall Inherence or Denomination but by an Extrinsecall Adherence Attribution or Denomination This little Childish Sophistication is more worthy of some young smatterer in Logick then of a Divine or any Conscientious man It is not possible that M. S. could be ignorant of this and therefore in this Dispute if he have any power of Piety I desire more Conscience and Sincerity in him I may also say That the Civill Magistrate hath an Extrinsecall power in the Church if the word in there signifie a bare Attribution or Extrinsecall Denomination as it is ordinary amongst Divines Philosophers and common people and yet I confesse it is more properly said about Religion and about the Church as Apollonius observeth and as I have expressed my self but then there should have been a concurrence of in 's which would have made my Expression obscure for then I must have said The Civill Magistrate about matters of Religion hath an Extrinsecall power as also about the Church as this Professor of Eloquence would have me to speak which kinde of Expression I beleeve few or none could have understood If the Independent cause depend upon such ridiculous puntillio's and be so Independent upon good reason I know not of the two which is better Dependency or Independency M. S. Ob. 31. p. 46. sect 11. The power of Citation is Extrinsecall to the Church The power of Citation is Ecclesiasticall Ergo Some Ecclesiasticall power is Extrinsecall to the Church A. S. I distinguish the word power of Citation for it is either Ecclesiasticall which is proper unto the Church viz. In Church Officers gathered together in an Ecclesiasticall Assembly And this is both in and about the Church or Civill which is proper to the Christian and in some way to a non-Christian Magistrate where by his Civill power he maintaineth the Church and this is out of the Church in the Magistrate and yet about the Church which is its object And so I answer to this silly Argument That it is captious and grounded on an Equivocation for it taketh the power of Citation in one signification in the Major viz. For a Politicall power of Citation and in an other in the Minor viz. For an Ecclesiasticall power of Citation 2. Or if it be taken in both for an Ecclesiasticall power then the Major is false for Christ gave it to the Church to which it is Intrinsecall and not to the Civill Magistrate 3. Or if it be taken in both for a Civill power then the Minor is false for the Civill power of Citation is not in the Church but in the Magistrate neither ever gave Christ it as Mediator either to the Church or to the Civill Magistrate but God by Christ as God gave it onely to the Civill Magistrate And the Peece whereof the Presse as M. S. sayeth hath been lately delivered sayeth no other thing then I say if M. S. his Diana of Ephesus can permit him to understand it or he do not willingly dissemble his understanding of it M. S. If a Classis shall cite or excommunicate a Member of a Church against the judgement and consent of the Elders of that Church let all the World judge whether that be not an Act of Externall power without the Church A. S. This Argument is ridiculous 1. For it proveth not that which is in question viz. That the Civill Magistrate hath an Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall power in the Church 2. Onely it proveth that the Church hath an Authority that in some respect may be called Extrinsecall 3. But to take away this Equivocation and many others and to explain more fully this question note again 1. That the Church may be considered either according to its Reall and Naturall or according to its Morall being 2. That the Church according to its Morall being I speak of the Representative is either Particular of one Parish or Congregation or more Generall as a Classicall or Synodall Assembly 3. Note that the particular Church may be considered either Absolutely and in it self alone without any reference to a Classe or a Synod whereof it is a part or Relatively with a reference to the more Generall Church viz. a Classis or Synod whereof it is a part or in quality and under the notion of a part in so far forth as by some formall or virtuall Assent it hath once Covenanted to be a part of such a Classis or Synod and Stipulated to send its Commissioners to such Classicall or Synodall Meetings 1. If then we consider Citation or Excommunication with reference to the Church either more Generall or Particular according to its Naturall being it may be Extrinsecall to them both for the Act of Citation or Excommunication is not really produced or pronounced according to its Naturall being by the Church considered under the notion of its Reall being but by one man as all wise men will grant 2. If they be taken morally according to their Morall being grounded on some Covenant then the Acts of Excommunication and Citation are not Extrinsecall to the more Generall Church since they are exercised by Her power and consent 3. If they be considered with
of the Christian Church 2. Because a Pagan qua talis knoweth not the Principles of Christian Religion and consequently wants the Directive power without the which he can never well or justly use the Imperative or Executive power 3. Because without the knowledge of our Religion he can neither direct nor act any thing about the Church or for the Church but by conjecture or guessing at it 4. Because God never ordained any such Externall power for Pagans about the Church 5. To end my answer to this Argument Where learned M. S. to desire him that denieth any thing to prove his negation Nonne Affirmantis est probare The Scripture conteineth not formall rules or testimonies of meere Negations or of things that are not but of Affirmations and things that are Now M.S. that affirmeth a thing to be might more easily have found authorities for it in Scripture if any such had been then we for things that are not It is enough for me to say that the Scripture that conteineth all things needfull to salvation conteineth no Extrinsecall power in actu exercito for Civill Magistrates that are not Christians M.S. But hath not then an Heathen or Heterodox Magistrate power to doe good to the Church A.S. Ans 1. The Heathen Magistrate hath a Naturall but not a Morall publique power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to doe good to the Church 2. Or if he hath it he hath it not in actu exercito as I have already proved 3. Or if he hath it so he hath it not to doe good to the Church in quality of a Church for neither can he know or love the Church in quality of a Church but of men or members of the State for the Church in quality of a Church is no wayes the object of his Knowledge or Will He may doe it as an Asse that carrieth the corne to the Mill or as Caiaphas who judged that one man must dye for the People but knew not what he said He cannot doe it by any power Intrinsecall to the Church as M.S. pretends And howbeit I should grant unto a Iew or a Pagan a Civill power to doe good to the Church both in actu signato and exercito yet from thence cannot be concluded an Intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall power belonging to a Iew a Pagan or to an Antichristian to rule the Church Internally M. S. p. 48. § 13. of this Chapter durst not answer A.S. what he meaneth by the Civill Magistrate upon whom he would seem to bestow such a power but in stead of Answer racketeth it back to him with jeering and babling But I answer him 1. that Quaestio Quaestionem non solvit one Question satisfieth not another 2. I answer that the Magistrate who I beleeve should have such a power in actu exercito must be such as is not a professed Enemy to the true Religion at least in quality of a Magistrate or in his Lawes And so it is false that M.S. saith of the King for in quality of King he hath professed Presbyterian Discipline in Scotland in as much as he confirmed it by his Authority so hath he done in England in favour of the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches so did King James by his Divines approve the Presbyterian Discipline at the Synod of Dort So M. S. sees how much he hath deceived himselfe in looking for 20 Distinctions of me to answer him to this Question We answer him candidè in all simplicity and feare not to declare to the World what we hold as the Sectaries doe M.S. p. 49. § 15. Was it not lawfull for them i. e. unchristian Kings to interpose with their Authority that the Churches of Christ in their Dominations might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and honestie If not then was that exhortation 1 Tim. 2.2 to be laid up in Lavender for some hundreds of yeers after it was given or else the benefit and blessing the obtaining whereof by prayer is made the ground of the exhortation must have been made over in the intentions of those that had so prayed unto their posterities after many generations A.S. 1. This Argument proveth not that any Magistrate either Christian or other hath any Intrinsecall power in the Church either Directive or Executive 2. It proveth not that an unchristian Magistrate hath any power in actu exercito in the Church 3. As for that Text 1 Tim. 2.2 the sense of the Text is that we should pray for the conversion of Kings to the Gospel which appeareth evidently by the Apostles reason v. 3. 4. For saith he this is good and acceptable in the sight of God v. 4. who will have all men saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth And another reason v. 6. For Christ gave himselfe for all men And another v. 7. Because the Apostle is a Preacher of the Gospel to all men Now these words That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and Piety expresse finem intentum sed non eventum not the Event but the End intended by the Christians who prayed for they obteined not in those times a quiet or a peaceable life under the Heathen Kings 2. Neither prayed they here that any Nero should have had the Government of the Church in his hand for they obeyed him not neither in Doctrine nor in Discipline M.S. p. 50. § 17. doth nothing but repeat what he hath said viz. That the Civill Magistrate in taking away Superstition and Heresie had need of some other security then the Synod can give him A.S. The Civill Magistrate as a Christian man must learne Gods will by all the meanes that God hath appointed him viz. 1. By reading of Scriptures 2. Comparing one Scripture with another 3. Conferring in private about Scriptures of any difficulties he hath with other Christians of whom he may learn any thing 4. Hearing of Sermons 5. As a Magistrate he must have a Politicall prudence and knowledge of Scriptures to direct him in judging about Superstition Heresie and matters of Religion 6. He must serve himselfe of prayer and all the rest of the meanes that God hath ordained him 7. Neither say we that he must be directed by a Synod alone This is one of the meanes that God hath ordained him in his Providence but not all as this M. S. falsely would perswade the Reader if he be not altogether impertinent Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be any Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories CHAP. I. Containing the State of the Question TO the end we may the better and more easily resolve this Question it will not be amisse to note concerning the word Church 1. That we mean not here the Triumphant Church in Heaven but the Militant upon Earth 2. That it is not meant touching the invisible Church viz. The Church of Beleevers compounded of men and women endowed with Justifying Faith which is invisible to us but of the visible Church
That Power is either Imperiall Royall or Magisteriall such as Emperours Kings or Lords have over their Subjects as that of the Civill Magistrate or Ministeriall such as State-Ministers have under their Masters or Lords as that of Ambassadors Pursevants c. Finally it must be observed That as Power so punishments inflicted by Power are either Civill or Ecclesiasticall Civill punishments are such as are inflicted by the Civil Magistrate and are often times corporall as Mutilation Stigmatizing and Death c. sometimes Pecuniary mulcts sometimes Infamy c. Ecclesiasticall punishments are altogether Spirituall consisting of Censures Suspension from the Lords Table and Excommunication These things being presupposed By the word Church here must be meant the visible Militant Church and principally the Representative Church in Presbyteries Classes Synods 2. By the word Subordination must be meant a Subordination of Power and Judgement 3. By Power must be meant a Morall Ecclesiasticall Imperative and Ministeriall Power in Iudging Commanding and Inflicting of Spirituall punishments onely and not an Imperiall Magisteriall or Royall Power whereby the Church may command in a domineering way or compell mens bodies or punish them by inflicting any Corporall punishment on them or imposing any Pecuniary mulcts as the Independents most craftily go about to perswade the World The Independents then deny That there is any Church furnished with any Authoritative or Imperative Power save onely the Parishionall or to speak in their own Terms the Congregationall Church And therefore they renounce all Classicall and Synodicall Churches or if they do acknowledge them they allow them no Authoritative or Imperative but a Consultative Power onely or a Power to counsell one of their little Congregations compounded happily of seven or eight persons what they think fittest to be done so that this petty Congregation may either accept or reject their Counsell at their own likings and pleasure so as in conclusion they acknowledge no Authoritative or Imperative Ecclesiasticall power above that of their little Congregations for they maintain that every Church be it never so small yea though it be composed but of seven or eight persons be it never so Erroneous and Hereticall is altogether Independent in its Iudgement upon all the Iudgements of all the Churches of the World be they never so Iust and Orthodox and consequently that what ever they teach how Heretically soever and what ever they do be it never so wicked that all the Orthodox Churches in the World have no Authority of God to Censure or to Excommunicate or so much as to command them other wayes then any one private man might do an other i. e. By way of Counsell which they may either follow or reject at their pleasure The Orthodox and Reformed Churches especially of Scotland France the Netherlands c. on the other part hold That there is and ought to be Subordination amongst Ecclesiasticall Judicatories viz. That Nationall Synods are above Provinciall Synods these above Classes and Classes above Presbyteries or Sessions and that the Superiour Judicatories have a Ministeriall Authoritative or Imperative but no Magisteriall Despoticall or Imperiall Authoritative power over the Inferiour that are subordinate unto them Item That they may inflict upon Inferiour Churches in case of Disobedience Spirituall though no Corporall punishments or Pecuniary mulcts or such like Civil punishments CHAP. II. Containing some imaginary and ridiculous Contradictions objected by M.S. to A.S. removed BUt before I prove my Conclusion I must pray the Reader to re-marke in passing the falschood and manifold cavillations whereby this M.S. saluteth him in the entry of this Question for this is his safest way for the present howbeit it cannot but prove damnable in the end 1. He saith that Presbyterians agree not about the Author of this subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories and Presbyterian Government whether it be juris Divini or Humani As if some of them esteemed it to be juris Divini others juris Humani Ecclesiastici others juris Naturalis others partim juris Divini partim Naturalis aut mixti 2. He saith that A.S. contradicteth himselfe in the same manner For refutation whereof I need not but to propound our Opinion which is thus 1. All the Presbyterian Discipline and specially subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories quoad Essentialia aut Substantialia in its Essentiall parts is juris Divini aut Naturalis i. e. authorised by Gods Divine Law or by the Law of Nature 2. Presbyterian Discipline quoad accidentalia circumstantialia i. e. in its accidentall or circumstantiall parts it may be juris Humani Neither believe I that there is any great dispute amongst us and the Independents about these Positions unlesse M.S. make it Neither know I what can anger him in all this save only this that we give him no subject of quarrelling us It may be and it seemeth that he finds fault with the first Proposition wherein I say it is either juris Divini aut Naturalis And that he will have no Doctrine of Faith or Discipline that is juris Naturalis i. e. grounded on the light of Nature But 1. What if the Scripture presuppose the truth of some Principles known by Nature dare he reject them 2. Some of them are as certaine as any Article of Faith as for example this The one part of a Contradiction is true and the other false and this Twise ten are twenty And yet none of them hath any formall Patent from Gods Word 3. If God be as well the Author of Naturall as of Divine truth wherefore will ye reject Naturall truth 4. All men are bound to beleeve all Naturall truths when they are sufficiently manifested unto them or at least not to dissent from them because we must not lye as we are taught by the 9. Commandement which not only forbiddeth us to misbelieve or contradict any Supernaturall but also all Naturall truths sufficiently manifested unto us 5. But what reason hath this M.S. to reject Naturall truths when there is nothing in Scripture to the contrary 6. Yea by the Law of Nature I am bound to be ruled by them in case the Scripture reveale me nothing above Nature yea I am not bound to goe above them but in the cases that Scripture revealeth unto me 7. What Law we were bound unto in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New that Law are we bound to follow as a rule of direction in the New yea in Church-Discipline But the Law of Nature is a Law whereunto we were bound in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New Ergo The Law of Nature is a Law that we are bound to follow as a rule of direction in the New Testament yea in Church-Discipline 8. It is holden amongst Protestants for an indubitable and supernaturall truth that Christs body cannot be in two places at one time which neither M.S. nor all the Independent wit in the world is able to prove unlesse they suppose this Principle of Nature
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