as a Nurse of the Church in compelling them by the Civill power to obey the Church But in both these punishments viz. Spirituall and Temporall it is not for the Sinner to judge whether or no he be sufficiently convicted since he being a Party cannot be Iudge in his own cause but it is the part of the Ecclesiasticall Senate to judge whether he be sufficiently convicted in foro Ecclesiastico and of the Civill Magistrate to judge whether he be sufficiently convicted in foro Civili in that whereof he is to judge To your 2. Answer I reply That by Brownists Independents Anabaptists c. I meane not the names but the things signified by such names A.S. Neither hath the Church of Goda custome to be contentious 1 Cor. 11.16 This I brought to prove that Schismes are not to be tolerated for they breed Contentions in Churches M.S. 3. But he doth not say that these Churches of God had any custome to erect a Presbyterian throne or a combined Eldership amongst them to keep them from Contentions A. S. I answer you M. S. that I must endure your impertinencie 1. For if you had frequented our Presbyteries you should have seen that they have no Throne 2. You might have seen that by this Argument I intended not to prove a combined Presbytery as you call it but the intolerablenesse of a toleration of Sects I prove sufficiently elsewhere what you can desire about the subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories A. S. Neither permitteth the Apostle Schismes M. S. saith that he hath already answered this A. S. saith that he hath replied to M. S. his Answer A.S. We must not quit our mutuall meetings as others doe and as must be done in a publike Toleration Heb. 10.25 M. S. We understand not your words A. S. But they are the Apostles words 2. And my Argument may easily be formed by any Logician against Toleration It will be thus What maketh us to quit our mutuall meetings as others doe is not to be tolerated But Schismes and Heresies make us to quit our mutuall meetings Ergo They are not to be tolerated M.S. We doe not know what quitting of meetings there is like to be more under a publique Toleration then is for the present A.S. So he seemeth to deny the Minor but I prove it for in tolerating of Schismes we see that men being deceived by the Schismaticks doe quit the meetings of the Church to which before they were joyned And we see how the Independents frequent not willingly our Churches and will not all joyne with us in our meetings at the Lords Table Neither beleeve I that any of the five Apologetick Ministers have ever communicated in our Assemblies since this Parliament A. S. 18. Because that M.S. chargeth my 18. Reason with Atheisme I will put it in forme That which per se giveth offence unto Papists and others or that exposeth the Protestant Churches unto the calumnies of Papists should not be granted by us But the Toleration of many Sects doth so Ergo it is not to be granted The Major is certaine for it is scandalum datum which all Divines doe condemne The Minor I prove it for it giveth and the Papists thereupon take too just a cause of Scandall or Offence and indeed it cannot but be a just subject of Offence by to open to be reproached with such an innumerable number of Sects to the renting of Christs Churches in peeces M. S. to this answereth not but propoundeth some Questions 1. Will you saith he redeem your self out of the hands of the Papists calumnies by symbolizing with them A. S. I Answer 1. That it is no symbolizing with Papists if we tolerate not Hereticks and Schismaticks for you have already confessed that in your particular Churches you tolerate them not and yet you beleeve that your Churches symbolize no more with them then ours 2. It is a strange thing if my Argument be Atheologicall if it prove that Atheists and such as deny the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God are not to be tolerated If such an Argument be Atheologicall in your judgement I am assured that all Theologues will conceive better of it then of this your Theologicall Answer Neither have I forgot my 11. Reason for you symbolize with them in their Popery and I in true Theologie viz. in maintaining the Unity of the Church with Saint Paul as you symbolize with Sectaries in maintaining the renting of the Church by Schismes If you had shewen any Contradiction in my words I had either answered it or if I could not I should have rendered my self to the truth But M. S. will not prove it but terrifies me as a Child with his great words It seemeth saith he Contradictions Inconsistencyes Impertinencyes Vn-intelligibilities sence non-sence any thing nothing c. A. S. All this is no sence nothing but words and wind of Goodwin As for the 19th Reason he remitteth us to the former Question to seeke an Answer A. S. 20. If it i. e. Toleration be granted it cannot but be thought that it hath been granted or rather extorted by force of reason and that all the Assembly were not able to answer our Brethren whereas indeed their Opinions and Demands are against all Reason as sundry of themselves could not deny and had nothing to say save onely that it was Gods Ordinance which yet they could never shew out of Gods Word On the contrary if it be refused it will help to confirme the Churches and the people in the truth M. S. In substance 1. denieth that a Toleration will seeme to be extorted if it be granted A. S. But if a thing so absurd and against all Piety be granted by so venerable an Assembly wherein things are carried by Reason it cannot seeme but extorted by Reason M. S. saith that I tell the Assembly that howsoever their Consciences might savour the Independents in point of Toleration yet their credits and reputations would suffer by it A. S. It is false there is no such expression in my Booke it is not my expression but M. S. his fiction and imposture Neither should the Assembly in my poore Opinion so easily suffer themselves to be intreated for ill neither is there any mercy in tolerating and not suppressing of Schismes and Heresies as M. S. beleeveth M. S. denieth that their Opinion and Demand is against all Reason but I have sundry times proved it viz. Because by such a Toleration of Independency all sorts of Heresies will creepe into the Church and it is most absurd that there should be no Ecclesiasticall power to represse the Heresies and abominable sins of seven or eight wicked Fellowes whereof a particular Independent Church may be compoed in case they fall into Heresie or such abominable sins Whereas M. S. saies that it is not like that so very learned men c. such as are the 5. Apologists should rise up to defend an opinion so contrary to all reason A.
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.
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
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
sin and the more inexcuseable are we 15. And if the Parliament should follow your Counsell good M. S. it should be to be feared they should be ill obeyed and that many good men would rather take the Bishops and Cavaliers by the hand and in case of necessity tolerate them both and let themselves be plundered then consent to such an abominable perjury and I am assured the one is much more tolerable then the other is and then what should become of the Parliament and us all 16. But tell me I pray thee M. S. Is it not a Maxime of State laid down as indubitable by those who have written in favour of these Defensive Wars of both the Kingdoms That the King in Temporall and Civill Matters hath not an absolute but a limitted Power and that because that Soveraign Power is originally in the People but subjectivè or quoad usum exercitium in the King If that hold in the King wherefore not also in the Parliament But how much more in matters of Religion that depend not either of King or Parliament but of Gods Will All power here is originally in Christ and quoad exercitium Ministeriale in his Officers but from Christ What Power hath either King or Parliament to intrude and force upon the Kingdom new Religions or a Toleration of all Sects 17. The Parliament assumes no such power to it self wherefore then will Independents be Suiters to them for any such things which they declare themselves they have not power to grant Away with thee M. S. and all thy Independent Sect and all your unhappy Maximes of State so pernitious to all States of the World After all this this M. S. telleth us that they will with Isaac patiently suffer themselves to be bound and offered in Sacrifice if need be A. S. It is easie to offer your selves to be Sacrificed when there is no Priest and when no man offers you any violence but onely prayes you to live amongst us as Brethren and not to trouble the Church State or Kingdom If you be minded to become such a Free-will-offering in good earnest ye would do well all of you in the first place to quit the good fat Benefices ye have in the Church But so long as ye keep them we cannot beleeve that ye speak sincerely Alwayes it is a pretty Compliment and a painted Sacrifice not with red but in white and black And to close up his Reasons he concludes thus Better a thousand times is it that such distempers as these though found in millions of men should suffer were it never so deep then that the least Hair of the Head of one of those men should fall to the ground i. e. Better that millions of us who desire the suppression of all Sects should suffer then that any of them should loose but one yea the least Hair of their Head A. S. To this I can say nothing But if we in your Opinion be so distempered for the desire we have to see Sects suppressed whereby God is offended the Lord be judge betwixt us How precious in your eyes one little Hair of your Head is which ye prefer before the sufferings of so many millions the Reader will do well to take it into his consideration and accordingly to judge of you what a high rate you set by your selves and what an undervalue ye put upon all the World besides I am assured that servatâ proportione one of your lives is better then the Kings and all the Parliaments put together for there is none of them but rather then that one man should dye they would part with the Hair of their Heads and Beards both AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER M S. in the second Chapter of his Book Section 28. hath some Arguments against the Power of the Civill Magistrate to punish Idolaters Heretiques and Schismatiques which seem also to make for a Toleration for these two Questions have a great Affinity together Wherefore I thought it fittest to put off my Answer unto them to the last place The first is God hath anointed his Word and the Ministery thereof For the casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts it self against the knowledge of God and for the bringing into captivity every high thought unto the Obedience of Christ 2 Cor. 10.5 And he gave some to be Apostles c. Ephes 4.11 12. c. Ergo The Civill Magistrate hath no power to punish Heretiques Schismatiques c. but must tolerate them A. S. 1. I deny the Consequence For the Ministers of the Church are anointed to beat them down by Spirituall means viz. The Word c. whereof alone those Texts speak But the Civill Magistrate is anointed or called to beat them down by other means viz. by Civill Power and Civill Laws which he is bound to make thereabouts and to see observed 2. If this Argument hold the Civill Magistrate cannot beat down by his Civill Authority Sins committed against the second Table as Adultery Murther c. because that the Ministers of God in the Church beat them down spiritually by the Word And this Text is as well to be understood of Sins against the one as the other Table 3. Howsoever the power of the Ministery or Ecclesiasticall Power be able and sufficient to beat down all sin spiritually yet is it not sufficient or able to beat it down politically 4. Neither say these Texts that God hath anointed or ordained the Word and Ministery alone and no other means or Ministers as the Laws of the Kingdom and the Civill Magistrate in a Politicall way for such an effect 5. It is true as M. S. sayes that God gave not some in the Church to be Kings Princes Judges and Justices of Peace Pursevants Jaylors c. For Christ and his Apostles erected not any Civill Government in the State but supposed it already constituted in the Old Testament And that the Civill Magistrate therein was endowed with Civill Authority to punish such as trouble the Peace of the Church 6. Howbeit that in this Text there is no mention made of the Civill Magistrates Power to punish such persons yet is it declared in other Texts as Rom. 13.1 There is no power but of God Ergo It is for God since God is both the first Efficient and the last or ultimate Finall Cause of all things if he be for God Ergo He is to revenge his Cause since he is his Minister Ver. 4. And when he maketh a Politicall Ordinance concerning Gods service Whosoever resisteth his power resists the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselvet condemnation both eternall and temporall Vers 2. if thou do that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the Minister of God as well in the State as the Preacher in the Church a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Here there is no distinction or restriction in the Law Ergo It is
be taken for a Politicall Power that is extrinsecall to the Church whereby he punishes Hereticks and Schismaticks by Civill punishments the Minor is false as I have already shewed by my Arguments And what he saith of my tendernesse c. it is but Language instead of Reasons 2. If the Extrinsecall power be taken for a remote power or in actu signato the Minor is false neither proveth he it but we have proved the contrary for both Pagans and Christians have it If it be taken for a neerer Immediate power or in actu exercito the Minor is true of the Vnchristian but false of the Christian Magistrate as I have told you again and again and proved it 3. But is not this Power granted to the Civill Magistrate by the Christians of New England 4. And was it not granted him in the Old Testament M. S. 8. Argument The exercise of a Coactive power of the Civill Magistrate against Hereticks Schismaticks c. in matters of Religion tends directly to prevent hinder or suppresse the growth of the Knowledge of God and Jesus Christ in the Church and State and the Reformation of Doctrine and Discipline Ergo It is not of Divine Institution A. S. I answer 1. I deny the Antecedent or I distinguish it if it do all that per accidens I deny the Consequence if per se the Antecedent is false But M. S. proveth his Assumption in substance thus When the Civill Magistrate holds any thing in Religion it is a great temptation and discouragement upon the Subject to search out the Truth in Scripture for if he finde it against the Tenets of the Civill Magistrate one of two things must follow Either out of fear of punishment he withholdeth the truth in unrighteousnesse and so hath God and his own Conscience for his Enemy or else he professeth it and so hath his bones broken for it So these two dangers may tempt him not to read the Scripture A. S. 1. This proveth not that thing which is denyed 2. I deny that the power of the Civill Magistrate since it is onely to good Rom. 13. can per se cause any such Temptation 3. Howbeit a man discover any Truth in Scripture against the Tenets of the Christian Magistrate that he needs to fear any such thing for the true Christian Magistrate will not be so barbarous against the Truth howbeit he think it to be an errour for he may be curious to learn it and if he that hath found it be prudent and not turbulent he needs not to suffer for it M. S. 9. Argument The exercise of a Coactive power in matters of Religion which A. S. and many others pin upon the Civill Magistrate tends to the gratification of Satan and of carnall and prophane men Ergo It is not of God A. S. I deny the Antecedent for then it should be a gratification of Satan to punish Hereticks and Schismaticks and so to destroy his Kingdom which is mainly up held by them But M. S. proveth it 1. For many of those that are like to suffer by it are men of good Conscience and truly fearing God as the Apologists and men of their Iudgement A. S. 1. We see no appearance that those your men of good conscience are like to suffer howsoever they have very highly offended against the Civill Magistrates Authority and some of you as one M. S. in the first Edition of his Book writes that the name of Steuart hath been funest to England in King James and King Charls 2. If they suffer I le warrant you it will never be for their good Conscience but for some worse thing Again M. S. for fear that we should deny them to be men of good Conscience proveth it by two Reasons 1. Because A. S. confessed it But this hath been sundry times answered 2. Because it is not ordinary that men of loose or no Conscience should delight to swim against the streams of greatnesse or pluralitie in matters of Religion A. S. But the Devill hath his own Martyrs as God hath his And one Vaninus an Atheist in France chose rather to die then to renounce his Atheism and so was drowned for his thus swiming against the streams of greatnesse and plurality M. S. proveth the second part of the Assumption viz. That such a Civill Power in the Civill Magistrate about matters of Religion is a gratification of ignorant and carnall men because they desire alwayes Sects and Opinions in Religion to be suppressed save onely that which shall be authorized and practised in the State for so they shall not be much troubled to seek it they know not where or amongst whom A. S. 1. And if the true Religion be to be established in the State wherefore are they not to be gratified therein What greater crime is it in them then in good men to desire the true Religion to be established in the State and all Sects and Heresies to be suppressed 2. Are they ignorant and carnall who desire one onely and that the true Religion to be established and they onely learned and spirituall that desire many Sects and Heresies whereby the good Name of God is blasphemed to subsist 3. If that be ill I am affraid the next word will be that you will say God did not well in establishing the true Religion amongst his people and in suppressing of Sects 4. And no better do your Independents in New England in suppressing of all Sects save their own If this be a crime I pray God we be all criminall and that God have no greater crime to charge us with 5. But desire you M. S. to have many Sects and Heresies in the Kingdom to shew your great Learning in refuting of them as the Souldiers would have the War to continue to shew their valour and therein to finde their preferment I pray you not to be offended with us if we desire to be gratified with the most ignorant in suppressing them and in establishing the true Religion So the Parliament and Synod are ignorant for this is their desire M. S. 10. Argument That power which in the use of it directly tends to defile the Conscience of men is a power from beneath and not from above But such is the Coercive power in matters of Religion wherewith A. S. would fain befriend himself with the Civill Magistrate Ergo. The Major I grant it The Assumption if it have any sense is this in substance When a man is deeply threatned in case he shall not comply with the State in their Religion against his Conscience 1. Either God leaves such a mans Conscience to it self and it is hardned 2. Or by reflecting upon what it hath done it brings it self into grievous Agonies of which it never recovers afterward A. S. This is a very strange Case of Conscience viz. That M. S. his and such like Independent Consciences are so tender and delicate that they are sorely wounded if they may not have a liberty to become