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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
procure her peace and to put all the Churches of God in confusion rather then in order 21. Is it credible that God should have given his Son to death to purchase us an Order whereby all Churches might live in Peace and Unity and yet make them to quit all Sacramentall Communion one with another having no common Confession of Faith nor any common plat-forme of Ecclesiasticall Government among them Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be an Jndependency of Churches CHAP. I. The Question Stated AS M. S. of the first Question made two so doth he here of the second other two viz. his third Question for Presbyteriall Government whereof he treated in the former chap. and his 4. Question of Independency whereof he treateth in this his 4. chap. but they are not two Questions but two divers Opinions about one and the same Question so having committed this fault he commits againe another much worse for he goeth on very confusedly in the beginning of his Dispute and without ever stating the Question or declaring what he meaneth by Independency he goeth about to justifie his Independent government in a Cataskevastique or assertive way wherefore to the end that the Reader may the better judge both of his Cataskevastique and of my Anaskevastique way I will state the Question and shew what he hath to prove and I to refute 1. Note therefore I pray thee courteous Reader that Independency is a sort of Ecclesiastical Government whereby every particular Church is ruled by its Minister its Doctor some Ruling Elders and all those who are admitted to be Members thereof who how Heterodox and Haereticall soever they be in Doctrine and how wicked and damnable soever they be in their Lives will not yet submit to any Ecclesiasticall power whatsoever yea not to that of all the Churches of the world were they never so Orthodox and holy in their lives 2. Note that the reason wherefore they will not submit to any Ecclesiasticall authority according to their opinion is not out of any disobedience in themselves as they pretend but for want of authority in the Churches for they beleeve that howbeit any particular Church or any of her members should fal into never so damnable Heresies or wickednesse that yet God hath not ordained any authoritative power to judge her but that her power is as great as that of all the Churches in the world and that all that they can do in such a case is no more but only to Counsell her as she may do them and in case she will not follow their Counsell that they ought to do nothing else but onely declare that they will have no more communion with her as she may likewise do to them in the like case viz. if they will not follow her Advice when she is offended with their Doctrine Government Life or Proceedings The Question then betwixt us and them is whether God hath established any such Independent Government in his Church or not We deny it M. S. affirmeth it and argueth as followeth M. S. Page 75. of his Book Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government That can I quoth A. S. in effect page 38 39. c. I have 10. Reasons or Objections against it A. S. I confesse that M. S. braggeth of this his Independent Government as his words expresse but it is a manifest untruth that ever I bragged of 16. Reasons as M. S. most foolishly representeth me here It is A. S. his custome to bring Reasons and not to boast of them as it is M. S. his manner to boast and bragg with high words without any reason at all And for answer to this I say there is no one such word or expression in all my Booke It is but M. S. his words and fiction M. S. I shall not spend time in transcribing these your Reasons but shall desire the Reader though it may be some discourtesie unto you to take your Booke into his hand A. S. I am bound to your courtesie good Sir that will not let my weake Reasons appeare in Front against your strong Answers But since it is not M. S. his pleasure that they appeare in his most worthy Booke I hope that the courteous Reader shall not be offended if I make them together with his Answers and A. S. his Duplyes appeare here in mine My Arguments then were such as follow CHAP. II. Reasons against the Independency of Particular Congregations 1. THe Independent Churches have no sufficient remedy for miscariages though never so grosse no reliefe for wrongfull Sentences or Persons injured by them no Powerfull or Effectuall meanes to reduce a Church or Churches that fall into Heresie or Schisme c. All that they can doe is only to pronounce a Sentence of Non-Communion against Delinquent Churches as on the other side Delinquent Churches may doe against them 2. This Remedy is new neither was it known to the Independent Congregations before that emergent Case in Holland related in the Apologeticall Narration for if that Church offending had known so much it is not credible that she would against all charity and the common Order of all Churches have committed so great a Scandall 3. This Remedy is not sufficient nor satisfactory because all Churches according to your Tenets are equall in Authority independent one of another and Par in parem non habet imperium None hath power or authority over his Equall How then could any Church binde another to any such Account but out of its free will as a Party may doe to its Party 4. Because the Churches that are or that pretend to be offended by a Delinquent Church cannot judge her for then they become both Iudge and Party in one cause which cannot be granted to those who have no Authoritative power one over another as when a Private man offendeth the State and We our God 5. What if many Churches yea all the Churches should offend one should that one Church gather all the rest together judge them all and in case of not submitting themselves to her judgement separate her selfe from them all If so we should have Separations and Schismes enough which should be continued to all Posteritie to come 6. What if Churches were so remote one from another that they could not so easily meet together upon every occasion Then there should be no Remedy at least no easie Remedy 7. What if the Offence were small Should so many Churches for every trifle gather together and put themselves to so great cost and trouble 8. What if the Churches should differ in their Iudgements one from another In such a case should they all by Schismes separate themselves one from another 9. This sort of Government giveth no more Power or Authority to a thousand Churches over one then to a Tinker yea to a Hangman over a thousand for he may desire them all out of charitie to give an account of their Iudgement in case he be offended
of the New Now answer me What if the great Sanedrim had miscarried in the Old Testament as some times it did or the Parliament and the Kings Counsell in the State what should be be done in such a Case And then I shall answer you the other It is a foolery to dispute against Gods Ordinance 6. I answer That in such an extraordinary Case which goeth beyond all particular Laws and Orders established in the Church viz. When all the ordinary Seers become blinde or mislead the Flock there being no ordinary we must have recourse to such extraordinary remedies as are most convenient or at least not repugnant to Gods Word and attend upon Gods extraordinary Providence The Provinciall Synods may refuse to put in execution the Acts of the Generall Assembly so may particular Churches for they are not bound to be Actors for the generall Assembly in any thing against Gods Word 7. But what if in your petty Congregations of seven or eight persons four persons or peradventure all the Congregation miscarry What shall be done You will happily say 1. Seck Counsell But if all the Congregation be corrupted none of them will ask counsell but they will all rather lurk and hide their Tenets as the Independents do here at the Synod If you say again Other Churches that are offended may complain to Neighbour Churches But what if they know not their Tenets What if the Delinquent Church will not own them but Iesuitically elude all Interrogatories as the Antinomians the Independents and all other Sectaries do here What if they own them What can the Churches offended do for M. S. will tell you they cannot be Iudge since they are Parties or if they judge they can but judge as so many Lackeys or Foot-Boyes They have no more Authority to command that Delinquent Church then that Delinquent Church hath to command them all Object But they will pronounce a Sentence of non-Communion against Her Answ So will she against them and what then What remedy for all this disorder that is not taken away by all this but still increaseth It may be yet said they may go to the Civill Magistrate A. S. But that is no Ecclesiasticall remedy and M. S. will tell you 1. as well as I have done that so the last resolution of Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Judgements should be in the secular power which he holds impossible 2. Yea in the power of a Pagan or Antichristian Christian 3. And I must say That things are never resolved but into their own Principles and such is not Politicall Authority in respect of Ecclesiasticall 4. So you have not entirenesse of jurisdiction as M. S. and the rest of the Independents pretend in his first Reason 5. So you are put to trouble and charges which is against your other Reason So 6. you are subject to Strangers which destroyeth your other Reason for you hold for Strangers all such as be not of your particular Congregations as your Reasons hereafter following fully declare 7. You are not ruled within your selves which destroyes your other Reason So 8. you shall not be judged by your own Pastour which is another of your Reasons 9. You shall be judged by one who appearingly cannot fall in the same Case and so it destroyes your other Reason 10. The party being tender Foreheaded might be changed into a stone before Medusa's Head as you say in presence of strange Faces and of his Betters which destroyeth again another of your Reasons I might bring many more Inconveniences against him which he bringeth against us as destructory to the sweet Liberties and Priviledges of the Church But I must be short Onely I adde that to speak morè humano it is not credible That all Inferiour Iudicatories will or dare be so impudent as to miscarry in any thing so manifestly contrary to the common Tenets or Practises of the whole Nationall Church for the Inferiour Iudicatories will evermore fear in case of their unjust Iudgement to be condemned and censured in the Superiour and the Supreme it self may fear That if they judge any thing amisse their Iudgements will not be approved and put in execution in Particular Churches and in all humane probability they are like to be crossed M. S. asketh what if an Occumenicall or Generall Counsell erre A. S. His suppositions are so extraordinary that they cannot belong but to Independent M. S. And yet what I have already said may satisfie this also Onely this man intends to defame Gods Ordinances and his Word as insufficient to rule the Church and so he may take the Bishops and Papists by the hand And I ask what if a Parliament erre What if the great Sanedrin had erred in the Old Testament What if the Councell at Jerusalem had erred Answer me this and then I shall answer you The rest of this Section p. 77. containeth nothing but Repetitions big Words but no Reason CHAP. IV. The justification of A. S. his Reason How Presbyteriall Government is not subject to such Inconveniences as the Independencie VVHereas in my ninth Reason I shew That the Presbyteriall Government is subject to none of these Inconveniences c. Here M. S. answereth 1. Here is a remedy indeed against some inconveniences A. S. I willingly accept of this your confession M. S. But whether the inconveniences be not much better then the remedy adhuc sub judice lis est A. S. So it is a doubt in M. S. his conceit Whether it be not much better to tolerate yea to admit and permit a thousand Heresies and Blasphemies and to let whole Churches go to Hell then to submit to Presbyteriall Government such as we have defined it 1. To let a Church be Hereticall then to be reduced to Christ by any Ecclesiasticall power meerly Spirituall and Ministeriall or any other such as was in the Old Testament or as is in the State M. S. What if your combined Eldership hath neither footing or foundation in the Word of God A. S. What if it have foot and foundation on the Word of God What if we have proved it already What if it had no foot in Gods Word but were no way repugnant unto it Yet were it not in such a case to be rejected but by a thousand fold to be preferred before Independency whereupon follow so many abominable absurdities so repugnant to Gods Word yea unto Naturall Reason M. S. It is not the serviceablenesse of it against a thousand such inconveniencies as were mentioned that will justifie it and this he proveth by the examples of Sauls offering Sacrifice 1 Sam. 23.9 13 14. Of Vzzah in putting forth his hand to the Ark. Peters zeal in drawing his sword And addeth That the Popes absolute Authority is as Soveraign a Remedy against all these Inconveniencies as Classique Authority A. S. 1. I argued not from meer inconveniences but from conveniences and the want of inconveniences and repugnancy to Gods Word to justifie our Government and from inconveniences
to refuse yours Neither can a Negative Thesis be otherwayes proved but by a Medium that is repugnant either to the Attribute or to the Subject of the Question So this your Censure is very ridiculous absurd and impertinent 2. I have proved it to be conform to Gods Word 3. It is not credible but that Government is most convenient to Gods Word which is most convenient and commensurate unto the end That God commands us to intend and to tend into neither can I beleeve that God hath ordained us any means that are not fit and proper for the end that he intends or commands us to intend for that were repugnant to his Soveraign Wisedom 4. And as for your Examples they are not to the purpose for all these facts of Saul Vzzah c. were contrary to Gods expresse command neither were they convenient to the end intended by God or that we should tend unto viz. Filiall Obedience to the command and the Typifying of Christ and his Benefits The example of Saint Peter was 1. a manifest breach of the sixth Commandment in killing a man without publike Authority 2. It implyed an act of diffidence and of too great confidence as if Christ had had no other means to deliver himself but his sword in this Peter trusted too much to his own sword and too little to Gods Providence 3. It contained an act of Precipitation and too great boldnesse and rashnesse in drawing his sword in his Masters presence without yea against his Masters will and command 4. It was repugnant to the end for which Christ came into the Word viz. Christs death and the Redemption of mankinde by it whereof Peter before that time had been so oft advertised c. So is it not in Presbyteriall Discipline Neither is there any damnable Errour or Heresie in Consistoriall Government as in the Papacy We say not that any of our Assemblies are Infallible as the Pope pretends himself and his Generall Councell to be neither pretend we That our Assemblies have any despoticall or lordly domination over the Church as the Pope doth we say not That our Assemblies are above Gods Word as they do These comparisons of M. S. are no lesse then blasphemous And here I must advertise the Reader That all the Presbyteriall Assemblies together take no greater Authority over the Church then six or seven Independent Tinkers an Hangman with them together with one of their Ministers do over the flock The Independent Preacher with his six or seven persons are liker to the Pope and the Consistory of his Cardinalls because of their Independency then any of our Churches which are all Dependents and subject to Superiour Authority M. S. pag. 79. § in his second Answer telleth me That he cannot inform himself 1. What A. S. means by Authoritative power 2. Or from whence our Churches have it A. S. I have 1 fully declared in my Annotations and here above what it is 2. And from whence it proceedeth It is a Ministeriall power to command such as are subject thereunto which bindeth or obligeth them to obedience and whereby in case of disobedience they may inflict Spirituall punishments It is of God or from God and therefore lawfull Now whether it be of God as Author of Nature or of Grace by the Law of Nature or any Positive Law Naturall or Supernaturall it is not a Question de re sed de modo rei not of the thing it self but of the manner thereof Grant me either that it is lawfull or deny it If it be a lawfull power it is of God for there is no lawfull power but of God Rom. 13.2 Grant me the thing and afterwards I shall dispute with you de modo rei They have it not of the Parliament nor of the State as you pretend for secular men cannot give any Spirituall power into the Church they have it of God and by Gods Word directè or per consequentiam and in some things per non repugnantiam It is an untruth in M. S. in his third Answer whereas he sayeth that I seem to imply That the Church hath this power from the Law of the State for howbeit the Civill Magistrate by his Laws put a Politicall Obligation upon Christians to obey the Churches Spirituall Authority which is from God yet is not his Civill Authority the cause of the Churches Spirituall Authority or of the Obligation whereby a Christian is bound to obey the Church for howbeit there were no Civill Magistrate or howbeit he should dissent from such an Obedience yet should the Church have Spirituall power and all the Members of the Church in a Spirituall way should be bound to Obedience But what then doth the Civill Magistrates Law Answ It puts a new Bond or Obligation upon the Members of the Church and bindes them again by a Civill Authority Extrinsecall to the Church to a Spirituall Obedience who heretofore were onely bound by a Spirituall Obligation so he bindes them to a Spirituall Obedience but not spiritually as the Church Authority doth but onely materially and that by Civill Authority So the Ministers of the Gospel or rather God by them oblige and binde the Subjects in the State in a Spirituall way by Gods Word to obey the Civill Magistrate or Politicall and Civill Obedience but not Politically or Civilly but Spiritually so it followeth not That the Civill Magistrate hath power to form Ecclesiasticall Government onely it followeth That in a Politicall way he may oblige or binde men to obey it No more followeth it that I resolve Church Government into the humors wills and pleasures of the World c. Onely it followeth That the Civill Obligation laid upon men to obey the Church so far forth as Civill must be finally resolved into the Civill Magistrates power and not into his humours as M. S. most contemptuously speaketh of him M. S. his fourth Answer is in retorting my Arguments 1. What if a Particular Congregation under the jurisdiction of your Eldership reflecting upon the Oath or Covenant it hath taken for subjection thereunto as likewise upon all other ingagements that way as unlawfull shall peremptorily refuse to stand to the awards or determinations of it what will you do in this Case Will you Excommunicate this Church The Apologists in their way do little lesse or will you deliver them brachio seculari To be hampered and taught better then it seemeth you can teach them by Prisons Fines Banishments c. Churches had need take heed how they chuse men for their guardians that will so dispose of them if they please them not 2. And what if in the Session of your combined Eldership there be no such thing as Pluralitie of Votes concerning the Excommunication of such a Church Is not the remedy you speak of now in the dust A. S. To the first Quaere I answer That we must do by Spirituall power in the Church that that the Civill Magistrate doth by the secular power in the
State in such a Case 2. The Ministers in the New Testament must proceed spiritually against all Delinquent and Impenitent persons as the Ministers in the Old Testament did against theirs according to Gods Word unlesse such a proceeding be abrogated in the New Testament 3. They must do as M. S. hath taught us as they do against particular persons in commensurating the punishments to the sins i. e. They must proceed by particular Admonitions and Censures against lesser sins in private or before the Presbytery by suspension from the Lords Table against greater sins by publike suspension or lesser Excommunication against greater sins and by the great Excommunication against the greatest sins 4. M. S. confesseth That the Apologists in their way do little lesse A. S. If so then they do a little worse then the Presbyterians and so they quit a little M. S. his own rule whereby he willeth them to proceed as against particular Persons 5. If all this suffice not it is the Civill Magistrates part to proceed against them as Troublers of the Peace of the Church and consequently of the Christian State and not to permit them to erect a new Sect as it is ordinarily practised amongst the Independents of New England 6. They must be punished for their Perjury and for the breach of their Covenant but none of those punishments can be inflicted but after sufficient conviction at least Morally in foro externo And such punishments are the fittest for them after such a conviction when they pertinaciously resist the Spirit of God for such men fear more the Gibbet then Hell-fire What you say of your second Chapter it is sufficiently answered What you say of Churches That they had need to take heed how they chuse men for their Guardians c. If by those Guardians you mean the Civill Magistrate it is not wisely said of you If Church-Ministers they must choose such as will delate pertinacious sinners to the Civill Magistrate To your second Question What if in the Session c. Answ 1. What if it be so in your Assemblies or Synods 2. If it be any inferior Ecclesiasticall Iudicatory they must remit it to a superior ever till they come to some wherein the Votes may preponderate And if in the supreme Iudicatory viz. in a Nationall Assembly the Votes preponderate not concerning the Excommunication of such a Church which is very extraordinary she cannot be excommunicated and yet if her opinion or sin be condemned the combined Eldership may inflict some lesser Spirituall punishment and if such a Church continue still pertinacious the Civill Magistrate may proceed against her in a Civill way as we have said Neither is this a compliance with Papists in quality of Papists but in so far forth as they agree with Scripture 1. For so proceeded the Church of the Old Testament 2. So proceeded the Church of the New Testament in the times of good Emperours as under Constantine the Great Theodosius c. 3. So proceed they at Geneva 4. So in the Netherlands 5. So the Independents of New-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
he sayes in the next § of my feare it is a just feare grounded upon experience But M. S. Replyeth 1. That some Independents hold that all Sects and Opinions are to be Tolerated as A. S. relateth Ergo In that case his Sect may be secured also A. S. I Answer to the Antecedent And that We feare also viz. That ye would Tolerate all Sects which we will not Tolerate 2. VVe cannot be secure among all Sects for there be some that will not Tolerate us 3. Ye speak so but for the present but if ye had power we know not what ye would do It were better not to Tolerate Sects when we can hinder them then to bring them in amongst us to tolerate us and to give us so just a cause of feare 4. I said onely that there be some of you who would Tolerate all Sects who peradventure are the far lesser part and should not prevaile in their Voices 5. And we know not upon what tearmes they would tolerate us if they were the strongest 6. Neither can your pretended probity secure us we see the Examples and have the experience of your mercilesse Pitty in New England ye are all ejusdem farinae and Caelum non animum mutat qui trans mare currit And what I said of your Piety it can serve you little 1. For I spake but of a few of you viz. of the 5. Apologists 2. Because it was but a judgement of Charity wherein I may be deceived yea wherein I have been deceived 3. Good men sometimes may for want of light be dogged enough to use your own tearmes as ye grant your selfe of your New England Independents Unto his 3. Reply That a poore Toleration is far from Superiority it is true But from a Toleration it is to be feared ye goe further And if ye can get the Civill Magistrate drawn into your Faction as in New-England ye may be as dogged in a short time as they are To the 4. Reply That he thinketh not that I know any such Island It is a wonder that he knoweth it not as well as I but it is little to purpose No more is his Answer for it is but a currish jeere and toucheth not the Argument at all He puts in 5. a Jeere for a Reason God have mercy on the silly Argumenter A. S. My 17. Argument was That the Scripture forbiddeth all Toleration of Sects Revel 2.20 1 Cor. 1.12 3.3 11.16 18 19 20. Heb. 10.25 Gal. 5.12 M. S. his 1. Answer The Scripture doth not forbid all nor any such Toleration as the Apologists desire And remitteth us to his Answer unto my 15. Reason And I remit the Reader to my Reply To the Text of the Revelation 2.20 he saith That by the Toleration of Jezabel is not meant ◠Civill or State-toleration but an Ecclesiastique or Church toleration A. S. Howbeit formally there only be meant an Ecclesiastique Toleration yet by Consequence it reaches to a State Toleration 1. For whatsoever the Ecclesiasticall Senate or Presbytery is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the Church that the Civill Magistrate or Senate is bound not to tolerate but must suppresse in the State since he is a Nurse of the Church and a Keeper of the two Tables 2. And so did the Judges and the Kings of Gods people 3. And so doe the Christian Independent Magistrates in New-England 4. Neither is the Christian Magistrate lesse bound to put it out of the State then the Presbytery to put it out of the Church 5. And I would willingly know of the five Apologists their judgement upon this Point neither beleeve I that they dare say or at least doe beleeve that he is not bound to suppresse all sort of Sects that creep in into the Church when the whole Kingdome professeth the true Religion and Discipline 6 However M. S. say that they desire only a toleration for themselves and their Churches in the State yet he pleadeth for a toleration for all Schismaticks Hereticks and Idolaters that may spring up either in their own or any other Church 7. Neither can the Civill Magistrate if he follow Gods Word grant a Toleration without the consent of the Church if he judge it is not corrupted 8. And a Magistrate should be worse then mad that should permit a Sect to come into the Kingdome to preach down the Gospel which he beleeveth 9. Neither can he be Orthodox and tolerate a new Sect unlesse he tolerate us to believe that he is either corrupted by monies or some other way so to doe M.S. his 2. Answer p. 105. is That since only the Church of Thyatira is here charged with this Toleration evident it is that the power of redressing emerging enormities in a Church in every kind is committed by Christ to every particular Church respectively within it selfe and so that they must be cut off only by the particular Church which is troubled by them if there be no remedy otherwise A.S. 1. At least then thus much I gaine by this Argument as you confesse That a particular Church must cut off such as trouble her and consequently is bound not to tolerate them 2. For the same reason other Churches must not tolerate them since they are all sister-Churches Ergo no Church must tolerate them Ergo no member of the Church must tolerate them If no member Ergo the Civill Magistrate in quality of a member of the Church must not tolerate them or he must tolerate them against his Conscience And what he cannot tolerate in the Church as a member of the Christian Church that can he not tolerate in quality of a Christian Magistrate in a Christian State if he can hinder it And if he hath power to punish such as trouble one particular Church how much more hath he power to punish such as trouble all the Churches in the Kingdome as Schismaticks and Hereticks The Civill Magistrate then by consequence may cut them off from the State As for that Question which M. S. moveth here about the Independent power of particular Congregations it is not to the purpose and we discusse it more at large in its own place A.S. There must be no such speeches among us as I am of Paul I of Apollos c. M.S. We joyn heart and hand with you A. S. And I with you so they must not be tolerated when they can be hindred M. S. addeth here a But 1. Every man that saith I am of Paul or I am of Apollos is not to be taught to speak better by fining imprisoning un-Churching or the like but by soundnesse of Conviction A. S. I answer as I have sundry times done Sinners according to the Doctrine of our Churches are 1. To be heard 2. To be sufficiently convicted 3. After sufficient conviction if they be pertinacious to be punished condignely by Ecclesiasticall Censures viz. suspension from the Lords Table or Excommunication And afterward the Civill Magistrate is to doe his duty
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
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
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
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
Deut. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.13 14 20.23.33 34.37 Deut. 7.6 7 8 9 10. Deut. 10.12.15.21 Deut. 26.17 18 19. Deut. 28.9 10. Deut. 29.13 14 15. And Deut. 32. vers 8 9. c. When the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance when he seperated the sons of Adam Iacob was the Lot of his Inheritance c. Amos 3.2 You onely have I known of all the Families of the Earth Deut. 39.29 Happy art thou O Israel who is like unto thee O People saved by the Lord the shield of thy help and who is the sword of thy Encellency 2. Because Independents define a Congregationall Church a number of men Covenanted together to participate of Gods Ordinances viz. the hearing of the Word the receiving of the Sacraments c. in some one place every Sabbath day But all the Church of the Jewes could not meet in one place in such a fashion as every man will easily grant Ergo 3. Because the great Sanedrim at Jerusalem judged of all Ecclesiasticall Causes throughout all the Kingdome 4. Because the People of God besides their Assemblyes in the Temple which was an holy place common to all their Nationall Church had their particular Conventions in particular Synagogues And however men may doubt of these Synagogues whether they were exinstituto divino or not and of the time when first they began yet can it not be denied but if they were not divinae institutionis they were at least divinae approbationis 1. For they are no where condemned in Scripture 2. But Christ and his Apostles approved them in that they went ordinarily to them disputed and expounded Scripture in them 3. And submitted themselves unto the order and Discipline established therein Answ But the Independents will say that the Nationall Church is abrogated in the New Testament Iust 1. Then it is their part to point us to the place in the New Testament where it is abrogated 2. It cannot be abrogated in the New Testament for those Ordinances only of the Old Testament are abrogated in the New that belonged unto the Ceremoniall Law But to have a Church or a Church Government more then Congregationall per se or considered in it selfe belong not to the Ceremoniall Law Ergo The Major is certaine I prove the Minor 1. For it might have been even in the State of Integrity without the Ceremoniall Law 2. And so indeed it was after the Fall before ever Moses his Ceremoniall Law was made 3. And that is not meerely Ceremoniall whereof we may evidently give naturall reason or that which is evidently grounded in naturall reason or at least in so far as evidently grounded in naturall reason since it is meerely Positive But supposing that there is a Church of God to have a Church or a Church Government more then Congregationall and Independent is evidently grounded in naturall reason or a thing where evidently we may give Naturall reason c. as wee shall see hereafter Ergo 3. Only those things of the Old Testament are abrogated by the New which were shadows of things to come viz. of Christ Reall or Mistycall But such a Church i. e. more then a Congregationall Independent Church was not a shadow of things to come in Christ c. Ergo The Major is certaine for the things commanded or approved in the Old Testament belonged either to the Morall or to the Ceremoniall or to the Judiciall Law As for the things of the first sort they are juris naturalis and consequently perpetuall which are not abrogated and of themselves were not shadows of things to come As for those of the Judiciall Law of themselves they are not shadows but belong unto Civill Government which Christ abrogated not since his Kingdom was not of this world and if the Jews had submitted themselves to Christ and had been freed from externall oppression it is probable that they should have enjoyed their own Government according to the Judiciall Law so far forth as Judiciall neither was it his aym to overthrow any worldly States Policies or Politicall Laws Christs Kingdom was and is compatible with all the Kingdoms and States of the world if they will not destroy it and he will let them reign over mens bodies and purses if they can let him reign over their Souls These that were commanded in the Ceremoniall Law were indeed shadows but such was not a Church more then Congregationall To all these Reasons some have answered That they would have it proved by Scriptures of the New Testament just 1. But wherefore prove they their opinion by the Old Testament if they will not permit us the same liberty 2. Our former Reasons have sufficiently proved That proofs taken from the Old Testament should hold in all that which is not abrogated in the New 3. If in this Subject they reject the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the Jews in all things that of the New there will be two Errors Diametrically opposite the one to the other theirs and the Jews But to give them more contentment we will prove it likewise by Texts of the New Testament and first from that of the Acts Chapters 1 2 4 and 5. 2. A Church compounded of 8120. is more then a Parishionall or Congregationall Independent Church But the Church of Jerusalem Acts 1.15 Acts 2.41 Acts 4.4 was a Church compounded of 8120. yea of more as appeareth by Acts 5.14 26. Ergo The Church of Jerusalem was more sure then a Parishionall or Congregationall Independent Church The Major Proposition is certain for the Independents define their Church which Christ in his Gospel hath instituted and to which he hath committed the Keyes of his Kingdom the Power of binding and loosing the Tables and Seales of the Covenant the Officers and Censures of his Church the Administration of his publike Worship and Ordinances Caetus a company of Beleevers meeting in one place every Lords day for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God to publike Edification The Way of the Church of Christ in New England The due Right of Presbyteries Chap. 1. Prop. 1. From hence I argue thus The Church whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition because of its multitude is more then an Independent Congregationall Church But a Church compounded of 8120 is a Church whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition c. Ergo. The Major is certain The Minor I prove it for 8120. could not meet together every Lords day in one House c. For in those times Christians had not yet any Temples but gathered together in particular Houses which could not receive them all 1. Because they were not ordinarily spacious as great and rich mens Houses for as the Apostle sayeth There are not many wise men after the flesh nor many mighty nor many noble called but the foolish weak base and despised things of the world 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28. 2. Howbeit they had been spacious as rich mens houses yet could they not have received such
of the Presbyterian Remedy against such mischief or of the mischief it self for we must never in any Case accept of malum culpae such as is the acceptation of Apostasie or Heresie in a whole Church 4. Neither is there any nor have you yet shewn any Inconveniency in the Presbyteriall way But we have shewn many as Reall in the Independent way as those are imaginary that you attribute to the Presbyterian way 5. All the Inconveniency that this man pretends to be in the Presbyterian way is Dependency of particular Congregations upon Superiour Assemblies viz. Classes Synods c. Or Subordination amongst Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories for this Sect must be altogether Independent and every one in their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Judges and their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories be they never so Hereticall or prophane But this Inconveniency may be pressed home again 1. For there is Subordination among their particular Congregations and their Synods onely they hate the Authority of Synods 2. There was a Subordination of Authority in the Old Testament 3. So is there in Civill Government And whatsoever Inconveniency they presse against us it will hold in all the rest as we shall see hereafter God willing 4. If such a Dependency or Subordination be any Inconveniency then God is the cause of it as we have heretofore fully demonstrated it M. S. Delinquency of whole Churches is not an every dayes Case no more in the way of Congregationall then of Presbyteriall Government A. S. 1. It may be as ordinary a Case in the Church as that of Inferiour Iudicatories in the State 2. And it fell out amongst the Arminians and us 3. So did it amongst your Churches in Holland 4. So doth it betwixt you and us since ye are become Sectaries 5. So doth it among all Churches that become Hereticall or Schismaticall and the Orthodox Church and the Apostle telleth us that there must be Heresies 1 Cor. 11.19 So it is not so extraordinary a Case as you M. S. make it And therefore there must be an Ecclesiasticall Ordinance for it as well in the Church as in the State 1. Unlesse you say That God is more provident for the State then for the Church or more negligent in his care of the Church then of the State 2. There was a remedy for such Cases in the Old Testament as I shewed you in my Annotations wherefore not also in the New Testament 3. Howbeit it be not an every dayes Case yet the Independents have a remedy for it viz. The Sentence of non-Communion whereof I may say as much as he sayes of Excommunication for the Independent Churches could not pronounce such a Sentence unlesse they had or pretended to have an Authoritative power to do it for it belongeth to the power of the Keyes 4. It is or may be more ordinary amongst the Independent Churches then among ours 1. Because of their Independency and want of Superiour Ecclesiasticall power to keep them in order 2. Because they tye the Members of their Churches never to quit them without the Churches consent whereof they are Members which may breed quarrels betwixt two Churches if a Member of the one without her consent joyn himself to the other 3. And this may be confirmed by the Examples of those most bitter quarrels betwixt two of your Churches and their Pastors in Holland as it is related by Master Edwards in his Antapologia but according to ordinary Providence no such thing can fall out among our Churches and if it should fall out we have a present remedy viz. a Classe which may be gathered within the space of four or five dayes if that do not the businesse we may gather a Synod or a Superiour power which cannot Morally be contemned among us by any Inferiour power as the equall power of Independent Churches may by their equall If it fall out extraordinarily amongst us we have an ordinary remedy for such an extraordinary Case And howbeit it were extraordinary and very rare yet should there be a remedy provided for it so soon as once it falleth out for it is a Case that bringeth a very great mischief with it viz. The revoult of a Church or many Churches that is an inconvenience yea a mischief a thousand times worse howbeit it should fall out but once in an Age then all the droppings of Master Goodwin or all the inconveniencies that can be alleadged against a constant remedy were they as reall as they are fictitious and imaginary Thirdly M. S. answereth my first Argument They that implead the Congregationall way for being defective suppose that God hath put a sufficiency of power into the hands of men to remedy all possible defects errours and miscarriages of men whatsoever But that is untrue Ergo. A. S. I answer They suppose not that God hath put into their hands a sufficiency of power to remedy all defects and miscarriages whatsoever or all possible absolutely but ex suppositione finis obtinendi i. e. that may conduce to obtain the end that God hath commanded us to intend and to tend unto for since his will is that spirituall diseases be cured it must consequently be to give the remedies necessary or sufficient to obtain such an end or cure 2. I suppose not that God hath given us all means sufficient Physicè but moraliter i. e. that are morally sufficient and whereby morally we may be convicted of sin if we use them not as cured of our ill if we use them 3. I suppose that they must be sufficient according to Gods ordinary providence whereby he governeth ordinarily his Church and not absolutely 4. As sufficient as in the Civill State or as in the Old Testament at least since the Government in the New Testament is as perfect as in the Old and not simply or absolutely And so the Assumption is false M. S. proveth that this inconveniency presseth as well the Presbyterians as the Independents If your Supreme Session of Presbyteries should miscarry saith he and give us Hay Stubble and Wood instead of Silver and Gold what remedy A. S. This is a very extraordinary Case yea the most extraordinary that can be imagined viz. That all the Churches both in Superiour and Inferiour Judicatories should so miscarry and yet if a man have used all possible means and this miscarry also which is more then any ordinary Case we may say 1. that we have had all means that are morally possible and that no more can morally be desired 2. We have had all the means and if we served our selves of them all till we came to this extraordinary Case we are excusable 3. We have had all the means possible according to Gods ordinary Providence 4. All means that they had in the Old Testament or that they have in the State 5. I answer that this Supposition may as well be propounded against Gods Providence in the Government of the State and of the Church of the Old Testament as against that
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
2. But in case he be there oppressed it is unjust that he should not have liberty to desend himselfe before another viz. a Classe which happily may be holden in his own Town or within one two or three miles of it which is more tolerable to him then to be oppressed by Factions as sundry times men are amongst the Independents as appeareth by Mr. Edwards Relation of the businesse touched in the Apologeticall Narration 3. What if there fall out sixe or seven such differences among your Churches and that particular persons desire some redresse of their Grievances before a Synod amongst you can ye not hold one Synod for five or sixe such Complaints Then in such a case they must all goe to the Synod out of their own Churches and then even amongst your selves ye find the same inconvenience that ye object to us If ye cannot but for every such Grievance there must be a particular Synod and your Messengers of other Churches must goe to the place then many in stead of one lose their time and labour 4. This Reason beats down as well the Government of the State And 5. the Government of the Church of the Iewes which was established by God himselfe And 6. the Proceedings of the Church of Antioch as of Ours Secondly saith M.S. the Proceedings against him in his own sociaty shall be regulated managed and ordered by his own Pastor who is a Father unto him in the Lord and who in all reason and according to the course of almost all constant experience is more tender affectionate and compassionate towards him then the Pastors of other Fhocks and those that are strangers to him Ergo every man should be judged in his owne particular Congregation A.S. This Argument destroyeth no lesse the Civill then the Church-Government for so it may be said that a man being judged by the Iudge of his own sown shall be more tenderly dealt with then before the Kings Councell 2. The Government of the Church of the Old Testament as I have already declared 3. The proceedings of the Church of Antioch that sent its Controversie to be judged at Hierusalem 4. That of the Independents themselves who in their Synods pretend to determine matters of Doctrine 5. I deny the Antecedent for when either the whole Church or any member thereof hath any debate with their own Pastor or two Pastors of one Church amongst themselves or two persons or two Pastors of different Congregations or two Churches are at odds one with another that will not hold 6. The Paster of the Congregation may affect more one of his own Congregation then another and so out of too much affection he may miscary 7. Things must not be carried by tender affection but by equity 8. If his own Pastor be more tender-hearted towards him he of another Congregation may be more indifferent which of the two is more necessary in a Iudge that judgeth between two parties 9. Pastors of other Flocks in a Synod are not altogether strangers to him since they are his Brethren and his Fathers in so far forth as they represent all the Churches of that Province or Nationall Synod The Example of Pharaoh that knew not Joseph is very impertinent for he was not a Pastor and know there is to acknowledge and affectionate a man but all the Pastors of the Church as I declared in my Observations have power to preach in all the militant Church and therefore are Fathers in the whole Church according to their generall Vocation so was none of those Pharaohs 10. In first Instance a man hath all that you desire before his Pastor Thirdly M.S. in substance saith that he shall be tryed and sentenced by those who may be tryed and sentenced by him againe which will teach them more moderation then a Consistory of standing Iudges Ergo he must be onely judged in his owne Congregation A. S. This Argument concludeth 1. against the Subordination of Iudicatories in the State 2. Against all sorts of Courts wherein he that is sentenced cannot sentence his Iudges againe 3. Against the Ecclesiasticall proceedings in the Old Testament wherein he that was sentenced had not evermore power to sentence his Iudge again 4. Against the proceedings of the Church of Antioch 5. Against that of the Independents 6. Such a proceeding of mutuall judgement out of feare to be judged againe will make the Iudgements partiall whereas they should be neutrall and it is no better then if one should say Sir looke you favour me this day otherwise expect no favour from me another day 7. We have no Consistory of standing Iudges but the simple Presbytery as you have 8. In our way we are judged by those who if they doe us wrong may be judged not by us who are parties but by higher and more impartiall Iudges viz. a simple Presbytery by a Classe a Classe by a Provinciall Synod and a Provinciall by a Nationall Synod And as for that Maxime Nunquam satis fida potentia ubi nimia it is very true if it be applyed to your Independent Authority in particular Congregations 4. M. S. fourth Reason is because it is a great encouragement to a man that is accused if he be tender fore-headed before those with whose person he is well acquainted and the contrary is a kind of oppression of such a man Ergo he must only be judged in his owne Congregation and Independently A. S. 1. In first instance he may be judged as you say 2. But if he will not stand to the sentence of his owne particular Presbytery and afterward be changed as you say into a stone he getteth no wrong but what he hath procured unto himselfe 3. But if his party acquiesce not but appeale yet may he have his owne Pastor at the Classe or Provinciall Synod to lay open his businesse and it is the duty of the particular Presbytery Session or Consistory to make good their Iudgement so as he needs not to feare 4. And it is the custome of our Presbyteries Classes and Synods in such a ease to have a care of such persons that they receive no wrong 5. This Reason as the rest striketh at the Kings the Parliaments and all Civill Magistrates Authority as well since they are not familiar with every Cobler 6. At the Ecclesiasticall proceedings in the Old Testament 7. And that of Antioch 8. I deny the consequence for these Reasons alleadged M. S. his 5. Reason is because in this Congregationall Government private Christians may see the judiciall proceedings in the Churth which will be a Schoole of wisdome and Experience But it is not so in remote Consistories A. S. What conclude you Ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Such an opportunity may be found in the Presbyteriall way in their Parochiall Iudicatories in such matters as require not silence 2. Neither is it fit that all sorts of Persons as women especially young Damosells and young men should heare all sort of businesses that may
be discussed in those Iudicatories 3. They have more in our way for they have our Confession of Faith and our Discipline written or in Print and may study it every day at home which is not usuall amongst the Independents who are never resolved neither in their Confession of Faith nor in their Government neither will they have any one common to all their Churches If private Christians desire more then this they may goe to the Universities 4. This Argument striketh at the Government of the State that of the Old Testament and at the proceedings of the Apostles Act. 15. and 16. M. S. his 6. Arg. in substance is that the Premisses whereupon Conclusions are grounded cannot be so well known and examined in Classes and Synods as in an Independent Congregation wherein the matter is passed Ergo it should be judged there and not in Classes Synods c. A. S. 1. This Argument as the rest concludes as well against the proceedings in Civill Iudicatories that of the Church of the Old Testament that at Antiochia and at Hierusalens as against the Presbyterian way 2. Amongst us the businesses are first examined before the Parochiall Presbytery or Session where all the Premisses may be as well tryed as in the Independent Congregation and in case of Appeale they may be carried to the Classe or Synod 3. What if the difference be betwixt two divers Churches or two persons of divers Churches and the premisses be Actions or Offences committed out of both the Churches then in such a case the businesse cannot be proved in any of the Churches what if the businesse need no proofe but be some scandalous Doctrinc M. S. addeth that for brevities sake he would not strengthen his Arguments as he might A. S. And in this we praise his prudence in publishing unto the world such frivolous Arguments yea that have not so much as any apparent probability in them Whether an Independent Government ought to be tolerated in this Kingdom TO the end we may proceed cleerly in this Question it is to be noted That by this Kingdom I mean the Kingdom of England wherein this Government hath never yet been received 2. It is to be noted That a Toleration is either positivè whereby Positively by Law Actuall Consent Approbation or otherwayes we receive or give way to any thing or negativè when neither by any Posicive Act Law Actuall Consent or Approbation we give way to any thing but onely actually we oppose it not make no Law against it dissent not reprove it not c. Again Both the one and the other is either of particular men or of Churches And again That of particular men either simply to enjoy their Consciences in not obliging them to be Actors in any thing against the light thereof or to give them leave freely to discourse upon all occasions with others concerning their Tenets yea though it were to seduce them 3. It it is again to be noted That by Independent Government I mean that whereby every particular Congregation is so governed that every Member thereof hath an hand in it and all the parts of it and so as not to acknowledge any Ecclesiasticall Power in this World above it The State of the Question then is Whether such Independents should have any Positive or Negative but principally a Positive Toleration not onely for their Persons but also for their Churches in this Kingdons wherein they are not yet admitted M. S. with the rest of his Sect the Brownists Anabaptists Antinomians Familists Arminians Servetists Socinians and other Sects in this Kingdom maintain the affirmative But the Orthodoxes stand for the negative The Reasons for the Orthodox Part may be these that follow 1. Such a Toleration cannot but open a door to all sorts of erroneous opinions M. S. denieth this Assumption for saith he by the same Reason he that receiveth one discreet Servant into his House must receive all Prince Ruperts Troops to rack and manger with him A. S. But M. S. understands not or takes upon him that he understands not my Argument for my meaning is not as he misconstrueth it That by the same Reason all other Sects must be admitted which is my fourth Reasonâ—â— a pari but that Independency being once received into the State it will per se and naturâ suâ of it self open a door to all sorts of erroneous Opinions which is an Argument not a pari as the other but a causâ ad effectum for if the Independent Churches acknowledge no superiour Ecclesiasticall Power and that the Civill Magistrate in good conscience cannot punish them then in case any or many of them fall into Heresie it will open a door to Heresie 2. M. S. answereth That a Toleration of Independency will be an effectuall means of chasing away of erroneous opinions A. S. This is but a strong imagination of M. S. which may as easily be denied by us upon our Reason here above alleadged as it is boldly asserted by him without any Reason at all As for that which he citeth out of my Book that I acknowledge them for men of Abilities sufficient enough to dispute their Opinions A. S. I have answered this sundry times 1. It is but a judgement of one man 2. But a judgement of Charity which howbeit it be Practically true yet oftentimes it proveth Speculatively false 3. It is not a certain but a probable judgement whereof he doth not well to brag so much 4. Howbeit they may not want Abilities to dispute probably yet may they want Abilities to demonstrate their opinions Theologically Yea neither all they nor ten thousand such as M.S. with them shall ever be able to bring any strong Argument for any one of their Tenets that they hold against us 5. If they have so great Abilities to dispute their opinions the Devill hath yet greater Cannot able Lawyers dispute very well a very ill Cause Know ye not what is said of a very able man Vbi benè nemo meliùs ubi malè nemo pejùs Truely ye dispute with such heat and ardency for the Independent learning and godlinesse that it seemeth almost the onely quarrell ye have against us whether ye be the learnedst and godliest men in this Kingdom or not You and they seem to maintain the affirmative at least concerning the last part of this Thesis if not both and scarcely see we any Book of Independency set forth wherein we see not great complaìnts that their Abilities are not high enough prized And what they say of their pretended piety all the World knoweth whereas your pretended Adversaries speak never a word but of the Cause unlesse they be provoked by the vain and exorbitant praises that ye ever and anon undeservedly bestow upon your selves 6. But how able soever you or they be yet for them it is cleer the Assembly hath divers times put them to a non-plus 7. And if they be so able what other reason can there be that they plead no
better their Cause fave onely that it is naught It is truely a strange thing that men of so great abilities should be able to say no more for themselves 8. And since you M.S. and they are so able will you or they I pray condescend to some private meeting with some of the Presbyterians that it may be seen who hath the best Cause and whether or no all your deep learning and great skill in Sophistications wherein ye so excell can set any probable shew or face of reason upon your opinions which ye hold to be no lesse then Gods revealed Word M. S. Answer 3. Better a door opened to all sorts of erroneous opinions yea and to many other inconveniencies greater then this then that the guilt of any persecution or of any evill entreatings of the Saints and people of God should cleave unto the people or State A. S. this M. S. supposeth 1. That the Independents are the Saints 2. And that in case they be not tolerated in establishing publikely their Church Government and other Tenets in despight of Church and Parliament both in the Church and State that it is no lesse then the guilt of persecution against the Saints drawn upon the State 3. That it were better that all the Heresies of the World and worse should creep into the Church then that they should not be tolerated but chastised in case they trouble the peace of either Church or state I answer That all that M. S. here sayeth are damnable untruths and that it were better that all the Independents of this World were in America and that ten thousand times worse should befall them then that the good Name of God should be dishonoured by filthy Heresies And if the Independents had any fear of God before their eyes and loved not themselves better a great deal then Gods glory they would rather desire with Moses to be scrap't out of the Book of life or with Paul to be separated from Christ then that Christs Church should so suffer or Gods blessed Name be so dishonoured A. S. 2. Reason It is dangerous for the State it may breed Factions and Divisions betwixt all Persons of whatsoever relation betwixt the Magistrate and the Subject the Husband and the Wife the Father and the Son Brethren and Sisters the Master and the Servant when the one is of one Religion or Ecclesiasticall Government and the other of another as ye yea to your no very great advantage have experimented it severall times The Son may refuse to receive any Communion with the Father and the Brother with the Brother to the utter dissolution of all naturall civill and domesticall bonds of Societie And the reason of this may be because the one may Excommunicate the other as daily Experience testifies M. S. The shadows of the Mountains seem Men unto you Judg. 9.36 A. S. So said Zebul the servant of Abimelech the son of the Concubine who by a conspiracy with the Schichemites was made King and afterwards murthered his Brethren and yet they were men viz. Wicked Abimelech with his Army and no shadows of Mountains M. S. would have us live in security and would rather tolerate Socinianism Arminianism yea Iudaism and Mahumetanism then that his own Sect should not be tolerated Of so large a conscience is he A.S. It may breed Factions c. M.S. But A. S. his may may possibly not come in an Age no nor in many Generations and would he have so many Thousands of the deare People of God as do Apologize to eat their bread in darknesse And he said heretofore that May commeth but once a yeere A.S. It is subtilly argued M.S. of you with your May but it is too much that such a May come once a yeere or once in an Age and better were it ten thousand of you should perish then God be so offended for it is a Maxime in Divinity Quodvis malum Paenae etiam maximum eligendum potius quà m minimum malum Culpae nam quaevis Culpa pejor quavis Poenâ 2. But I pray you learne of me that as impossibile morale in morall matters such as this whereof we dispute is not that which never but which rarely or hardly falleth out so is possibile morale idem quod facilè which easily and oftentimes falleth out and not that falleth out but once in an Age And that it falleth out so very oft we may prove it by the Divisions in France the Netherlands Germany Poland Transilvania c. What I pray transported the Crown of Swede from the Nephew to the Vnkle What moved a King of Spaine to consent to his own Sons death What is the cause of so great a War betwixt the Turk and the Persian And finally what is the cause of this our present War but the favouring of Popery the Negotiations with Rome our Agents there Father Con and the Popes Nuncio here 2. Ye are not so many Thousands as ye brag of save in London and a few miles about it your Sect I think may easily be counted by Hundreds and as for the remoter parts of the Kingdome they are unknowne Creatures to them 3. If they be so deare to God they can never qua tales suffer for so wicked a cause as for all Licentiousnesse in Religion 4. They need not to suffer if they will not be turbulent but quiet and submit unto the Lawes of the Kingdome and such an Ecclesiasticall Government as in Gods mercy shall be established in the Church What a sawcinesse is this that they will be content with nothing unlesse in despight of Church and State they may doe what they will 5. As for his Rhetorications in telling me that I am bred of Rocks and suck'd the milk of Tygers All that shall not hinder me to maintaine that the Independents must be subject to Order and Authority both Civill and Ecclesiasticall as other men are or else suffer for their turbulent humour M. S. I would know of him whether he deemeth himselfe to be of another Religion then the Apologists If so Candorem tuum A.S. in that malignant expression c. A.S. As for my Religion you may know it M.S. It is that which is declared in the Confessions of the Churches of Scotland England the Netherlands France c. But as for yours Sed vos qui tandem quibus aut venistis ab eris Quovè tenetis iter that I know not and consequently whether I be of your Religion or not Ye will have no Confession of Faith or Discipline but what you may change Fidem diariam aut ad summum menstruam such as you may change with every Moon But to come more neere to the Point I pray you set forth a Confession of Faith in the name of all the Independent Churches and subscribe all of you that ye will stand to it and then I will answer your Question If ye will not here I will give you the best satisfaction I can and it is this viz.
I maintain that no other according to Gods Word should be tolerated The Independents maintain that theirs should be tolerated I reply if so why not others also To this M. S. can say nothing but will is the cause of it and that Presbyterianism according to this Reason cannot be tolerated I have proved the contrary and am ready to grant that if it be a Sect as theirs is or if the Church and State judge it to be repugnant to Gods Word it should not be tolerated but so have they not done yea they have declared the contrary the Parliament in their Covenant and the Assembly in giving thanks to the Scots Commissioners for their Book 9. And to be short I adjure thee M. S. by the reliques of thy Conscience and pray all men fearing God to declare whether or not in taking of the Covenant and in swearing so solemnly according to their power to put down Popery Prelacy and all Schisms they intended to tolerate them all as M. S. maintaineth they should do M. S. asks me what Opinions donandae sint Ecclesiâ A. S. If the Question be what Opinions are to be approved in the Church in foro externo my Answer is onely such as are approved by publike Ecclesiasticall Authority according to Gods ordinary Providence If the Question be what Opinions are to be tolerated then either you mean to be tolerated in the Church by publike Ecclesiasticall Authority or in private persons If the first I answer None but such as Gods Word tolerateth and the Church judgeth to be true or not repugnant to the Word If the second I answer That that depends upon the Circumstances of Time Persons Place and other c. 1. No false Opinions are to be tolerated by any positive Toleration Consent or Approbation 2. If men erre for want of light much may be tolerated negativè i. e. In not proceeding severely against them till they be sufficiently convicted in case they give no offence to the Church of God but if they give offence they must be punished condignly and after a sufficient morall Conviction they may be punished condignly both by the Church and the Civill Magistrate if they continue and become pertinacious And because I adde That the lesse the difference be the greater is the Schism M. S. pag. 89. Answer 5. telleth us That the man speaking of me knoweth not what Schism is A. S. It a strange thing that having given so cleer a Definition of Schism he should so doubt M. S. Either grant my Definition to be true and so grant that I know it or deny it and I shall God willing make it good But it is but a small matter what I know or know not whether I be ignorant or not for that is no wayes materiall or to the purpose The lesse I know and the more ignorant I am the more easie is it for such an Epistemon as M. S. is to refute me Come to the point I pray thee good M. S The reason of this my Assertion is this viz. The lesse the difference be betwixt Independency and the true Discipline that is to be established whether it be Presbyteriall Government or any other the greater is the breach of Charity and Ecclesiasticall Communion in making so great a Schism and Separation from the true Church of God for so small a matter If it be so ye your selves must make a Separation among your selves for every trifle wherein ye differ in judgement either in Doctrine Discipline or Holinesse of life one from another which ye do not or if ye be minded to do so ye must make all men in your Churches of your minde in every Opinion ye have or else I pray tell me for what Opinions ye are minded to make a Schism and what not A. S. his third Reason God in the Old Testament granted no Toleration of divers Religions or Disciplines Ergo It is not to be granted in the New since the New Testament requireth no lesse Union among Christians then the Old among Jews M. S. p. 89. Answ 1. 1. denyeth the Consequence and the Proof brought by me he granteth So my Conclusion must hold Onely he saith it is ill applyed but it is applyed by way of Argumentation whereof he would have done well to have shewn the defect M. S. pag. 90. and 91. Answ 4. yet doth it not require That he that is stronger should cudgell him that is weaker A. S. God be thanked ye need not much complain of any cudgelling that ye have yet received since this Parliament neither need ye to fear it in time to come if ye force not a new Religion upon the Kingdom against their will or if ye will submit unto lawfull Authority and not make your inconsiderable number the Judges of all this businesse against the Laws of the Kingdom And what you said in your second Chapter we have shewn how absurd it is and how horrible impieties will follow upon your Tenets M. S. p. 89. in his 1. and 2. Answers to the Consequence is That it followeth not Dare you say in matters of knowledge authority and power Ero similis Altissimo remember the fall of the Son of the morning A. S. We pretend not to be like unto God in these considerations in going against the Command as Lucifer but in holinesse as he is holy which cannot be without obedience as in the good Angels Now ye confesse your selves That God hath onely commanded one Discipline and Government in the Church under the New Testament how are we then Lucifers in desiring this onely and no other to be admitted of in the Church How do ye then plead for the Introduction of any other then the true Discipline If Baal be God serve him but if Jehovah be God serve him So if Independency be the Ordinance of God let it be admitted and no other and so of Presbyteriall and all other Government We impose none but desire that the true Discipline may be sought for and afterwards imposed by the Parliament and the Church by each of them according to their Vocation M. S. his second Answer p. 89. is That he denyeth the Antecedent of my Argument or rather distinguishes it viz. That in the Old Testament it was not granted in terminis but in sensu or by consequence for this must be the other part of his Distinction because he prohibited all manner of violence and oppression and charged the rich not to enslave the poor A. S. Reply 1. This is no Law of Ecclesiasticall Government or of Toleration of Heresies Schisms or divers Disciplines in the Church but a Morall Law and a part of the sixth Commandment in not offering violence to the weaker And of the eighth Thou shalt not steal forbidding all sort of Extortion against the poor Now ye are not poor neither is there any man either of the Parliament or Synod about to take your Purse M. S. Yet the Equity and spirit of such Laws extend to spiritualls A.
M. S. In his second Answ denieth the Antecedent of my Argument or doubteth of it and asketh by what Authority I undertake to secure them A. S. 1. It is an untruth that I undertake to secure them I undertake nothing but tell a truth 2. And if I lye I pray M. S. to shew me where ever the Parliament or Assembly hath pressed them to be Actors against their Conscience 3. And yet however I have no Authority to secure them yet have I Reason sufficient enough to prove it For if their Consciences be weake or tender the Parliament declareth and hath declared their care and resolution not to suffer weake or tender Consciences to be wronged or pressed to be Actors against the Dictats thereof And if yee cannot beleeve or trust them how can they or shall they trust you 4. Because it is an ordinary Maxime amongst Presbyterians Not to persecute men for their Consciences nor to accuse them to the Civill Magistrate unlesse they be turbulent and trouble the peace of the Church or State As for your jeeres and injurious speeches here against Presbyterians we pardon Mr. Goodwins temperament for it is not Reason nor the Man but the Humour of the Man that speaketh M. S. p. 93. bringeth his 3. Answer to the Antecedent That this Promise is broken by A. S. seven times in his Discourse and by sundry others of his Party A. S. 1. The Antecedent of my Argument conteined no Promise but a simple Enunciation and therefore I could not break any Promise therein conteined for Non Entis nulla sunt Accidentia and what never was could never be broken 2. Put the case it were a Promise made by me How or wherein have I ever or could I presse any of you to be Actors against your Consciences 3. As much may I say of others 4. But to say it is against your Consciences is an old shift an hundred times made use of and as oft answered 5. We have never heard of any that threatned you and therefore we cannot answer this accusation We know of sundry extraordinary favours put upon you by this Parliament but nothing of so many threatnings of miseries against you unlesse you account it your misery to receive good fat Benefices and to be well paid for many Lectures up and down by very many whom it is well known you scarce own for members of your Church and so doe clip the wooll off the sheeps backs that are not of your flocks A.S. Arg. 8. It is against the Nature of the Communion of Saints to live in Sects apart without communicating at the Lords Table which very hardly will be avoyded if a Toleration be granted M. S. reduceth this my Argument unto this Hypotheticall Proposition viz. If it be against the nature of the Communion of Saints to live in Sects apart without communicating at the Lords Table then ought not the Apologists to be tolerated But c. A.S. But M.S. is not so good an Analyser of Arguments as I took him to be he faileth here 1. in reducing it unto an Hypotheticall Proposition which poseth nothing absolutely as this my Argument doth 2. He maketh the Antecedent the Consequent and the Consequent the Antecedent for who seeth not that in reducing of it to an Hypotheticall Proposition that must be the Antecedent which is joyned with the Hypotheticall Conjunction if viz. If Toleration be granted and that the Consequent that is inferred upon it viz. It will be against the nature of the Communion of Saints 3. But to help him and to make him to see its face I will reduce it into a Syllogisme which is such What is against the Communion of Saints is not to be granted But Toleration viz. of Independencie is against the Communion of Saints Ergo Toleration is not to be granted The Major is certaine neither will M.S. deny it The Minor is proved thus To live in Sects apart without Communicating at the Lords Table is against the Communion of Saints Toleration is to live in Sects apart without Communicating at the Lords Table Ergo Toleration is against the Communion of Saints M.S. answereth denying the Minor of the second Argument But A. S. saith he doe you conceive that men would under Toleration live without communicating at the Lords Table A.S. But good Mr. M.S. 1. Howbeit they live not without communicating at the Lords Table absolutely in so far forth as those of one Congregation communicate or may communicate together yet live they without communicating at the Lords Table secundum quid in some respect viz. in so far as according to the Maximes of Independency those of one Congregation amongst you can have no right to communicate in another Congregation much lesse will ye admit the members of our Churches to communicate in yours or ye your selves comunicate in ours whom ye take up on you to reckon in the number of your Sister-Churches Now we conceive that according to Scripture it is a part of the Communion of Saints that all the members of the visible Church here upon Earth have right in vertue of their spirituall fraternitie in Christ to communicate one with another at the Lords Table when occasion is offered It is not true that the Communion at the Lords Table is all the breach of the Communion of Saints that Toleration breedeth for it is also against the Communion in Discipline and in Christian Conversation at least per se or of it selfe His 2. Answer is If living in Sects apart be so offensive saith he to your zeale over the Communion of Saints why doe you not rather mediate a Toleration for them then oppose it A.S. 1. My credit is but small as you confesse your self 2. Howbeit were it as great as it is small yet hope I I should never so far abuse it as to turne a Mediator for the setting up of Sects 3. To your Quaere I answer It should be wickedly done to mediate for the setting up of Sects because to mediate for it were to mediate for the overthrow of the Communion of Saints M. S. If you shall suffer them to work with you they will be so much the more free to eat and drink with you A.S. We are not so carefull for your eating and drinking for ye may eat and drink with Epicures Pagans as well as with us but for your spirituall Communion which cannot be maintained if ye have a Toleration to be separated from us and one of you from another into particular Conventicles A. S. Arg. 9. Because the Scripture exhorts us evermore unto Vnity which cannot be easily procured by a Toleration of Sects and cannot but beget new Schismes and Divisions M. S. denieth the Consequence and supposeth that the force of my Reason consisteth in this viz. That if the Unitie whereunto the Scripture exhorts us cannot be procured by Toleration Toleration is not to be granted A. S. But he is deceived or rather treacherously deceiveth others for he should have added
Communion 2. If you cannot shew any materiall difference in Doctrine and other things yea ye confesse your selves that it is not great ye cannot separate your selves from us in Sacramentall Communion and Discipline 3. Neither hitherto have ye shewn any practise in Sacramentall Communion wherein ye differ from us for we have no Idolatry among us and men openly vicious are not admitted to the Lords Table among us Neither can any particular man abstain from Sacramentall Communion in a Church upon pretext that this or that man is vicious for it belongeth not to him but to the Rulers of the Church to judge of particular mens lives whether they be in a State to Communicate or not No more appertains it to one particular Church to judge of the Members of another particular Church Wherefore that not being their Act it cannot be imputed to them and consequently they have no Reason in such a Case to be so scrupulous M. S. his second Answer is Howbeit they be bound to one Communion and Discipline yet would they be led to it by light and not by fear A. S. 1. There is light enough shewn you if ye wil open your eyes to see it And we desire you not to joyn in this Unity out of any fear of men but of God 2. Howbeit you cannot see the Light yet no Approbation Consent or Positive Permission or Toleration should be granted you to live in Darknesse much lesse to erect Schools and Synagogues of Darknesse 3. The Parliament and all good men I am confident will tolerate you in your Darknesse till Jesus Christ enlighten you if ye can be content to live in quality of private men and not erect Churches and Schools to blinde others Neither can they grant you any thing more for howsoever they cannot compell your Consciences yet mast they hinder you to undo other mens Consciences in sowing of your Tares and wilde Oats M. S. 3. Answer That duty which lieth upon all Christians to have but one Communion and Discipline among them is no Dispensation unto any Party or number of them to smite their Brethren with the fist of uncharitablenesse or to dismount them from their Ministeriall standings in the Church because they will not or rather cannot knit and joyn in the same Communion and Discipline with them A. S. 1. You are very ingrate unthankfull unto the Parliament and your Brethren of the Assembly Ye have experimented no uncharitablenesse from any of them Hitherto they have dealt with you in all meeknesse and brotherly affection 2. None of you have been put out of your Ministery for your Opinions howbeit many of you have merited it for your insolency and malepertnesse in erecting of new Churches and Sects against your own Tenets for ye maintain that a Church cannot be erected without the Magistrates Consent and the Right hand of Association of Neighbour Churches which ye have not had in your Churches here in Old England 3. But wherefore may not Sectaries be dismounted who mount so high at their own hand 4. If ye will not joyn with the rest the Churches of this Kingdom and submit to the Parliament and the Church of God here but be Eus per se Ens independens and have particular Priviledges beyond the rest of the Subjects ye may be gone and stay there from whence ye came ye may goe to New-England and mount as high as pleaseth you there Only trouble not the Church and Kingdome here and the Church and Kingdome will not trouble you there 4. The Church here doth you no wrong only she mainteineth that your Tenets are contrary to Gods Word and confesseth That if the Parliament will tolerate you it may but that in so doing their Iudgement is since they are commanded to give it that it is flatly against Gods Word And I may say such a thing might breed ill blood of Friends make Enemies and peradventure undoe the State and who knoweth if it should please God in his mercy to end this War but it might make a Sacrifice of all such as should have hand in it All Christians are bound in Conscience to oppose such Licentiousnesse and Libertinisme in Religion M. S. his 4. Answer is that those of his Sect are kept under Hatches and oppressed A. S. Unto this we have answered and in this they do as Children that weepe before they be whipt A. S. 14. If visible Churches have Disciplines or Government different in their Species then the Churches must be different in their Species also But the consequent is false Ergo So is the Antecedent So Churches have not different Disciplines and Governments The Connexion in my Argument is proved because all collective Bodies that are governed are differenced in their Species by their specificall Governments as we see in Civill Government in the Constitution of States Kingdoms and Republicks The Assumption is proved because the visible Church is but one Church in its Species M.S. jeeres jeasts and flouts this Argument he makes as though he helpt it but it is strong enough without his help the matter being sound enough and the Syllogisme in forme M. S. His first Answer is that from hence cannot be gathered that the Apologisme is not tolerable A. S. This is not the Conclusion that I have to prove for I never reade in Scripture or else where of any Ecclesiasticall Discipline or Government named Apologisme Away then with your new coyned tearmes of Apologisme and Quinque Ecclesian Ministers c. The Conclusion that I have to prove is this Presbyterians and your Independent Churches have not according to Gods word or should not have different Disciplines which any Neophyt in Logick can easily deduce by the power of Syllogismes For it is known in Logick that a Syllogisme that can inferre an universall Conclusion may inferre all the particulars of that universall Conclusion as when I conclude that all men have reasonable soules I conclude that Peter Paul and John have reasonable soules so then when I conclude here universally that no Church hath or should have different Disciplines Ergo Presbyterians Independents and other Churches should not have different Disciplines or Government I conclude there must be but one Church and one Government what ever it be If the Lord be God then follow him But if Baal then follow him So if Presbyterian Discipline or Government be Gods follow it if Independents Discipline be Gods follow it and no other Let not the Child be devided in two as the false Mother that had stolen the Child would have had it but let it live as the true Mother desired No more Pluralities I pray of Disciplines then of Benefices Let no man bargain about Government Let Gods Ordinance hold what ever it be and whereever Independent Government be whether in Aries Taurus Cancer or Capricorne ye may goe there and enjoy it peaceably We only speak of the Discipline of Christs Church in England what it should be M. S. It followeth not from hence
that therefore that Government which is more generally established and practised in the World should be that specificall Government whereby it ought to be governed A. S. Neither intended I to inferre or conclude any such thing Only I say that whatever the Assembly conclude or the Parliament establish in the State yet according to Gods Word Pluralitie of Ecclesiasticall Disciplines or Governments can no wayes be concluded or established and consequently ye goe against Gods Word in pleading for it And therefore all is lost that you build thereupon I cannot better answer your comparing of me with Herod then to slight it with the rest of the overflowings of your Call One good Argument would help your Cause more then a hundred Injuries Is this the Independent Power of Pietie you talk so much of Unto M. S. his 2. Answer I grant him That before he and his Colleagues be sufficiently informed of the lawfulnesse of any Government that in Gods mercy shall be established they are not bound to obey much lesse ought they to be scourged as he speaketh But when they are sufficiently informed of the lawfulnesse of it I meane sufficientiâ morali which is all that Men can furnish them but not Physicâ which is only in Gods hands they must obey and no wayes plead with all Hereticks and Schismaticks non-Conviction and pretended Conscience and Toleration and want of Authority in the Civill Magistrate to punish them They must obey as well as the false Prophets and Schismaticks of the Old Testament M.S. 3. Answ The servants of Christ should not fall foule for uniformitie in Discipline and the greater eat up the lesse God hath provided other meanes A. S. If divers Disciplines be established by Law the good Ministers must tolerate that which they cannot mend and serve themselves of all the means they can according to Gods Word to reduce their Brethren to the right way But if they be not yet established none but one should be approved by the servants of God and the Civill Magistrate in imitation of Moses or rather of God is bound in duty only to admit one and that the most conform to Scripture unlesse he will bring in Factions and Schismes both into Church and Commonwealth and that principally when any of them may be dangerous for both as Independencie which may prove more dangerous then seven Heresies But in all this M.S. answereth not my Argument formally but most ridiculously grants the Premisses and denieth the Conclusion A. S. 15. Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever granted any Toleration to divers Sects and Governments in the Church Wherefore then will ye be Suiters for that which they never granted M. S. here neither denieth the Antecedent nor the Consequence of this my Argument but singeth his old song That neither Christ nor his Apostles did ever grant a power to a major part of Profossours in a Kingdom or Nation to grind the faces of their Brethren either because they could not conform their Judgements with them or because they kept a good Conscience A. S. 1. We grant you all that 2. Neither are your faces grinded 3. Much lesse grinded for non-conformitie of your Judgements with theirs or keeping of a good Conscience 4. Your Conscience is very ill that will not be informed of the Truth 5. We have told you that Anabaptists Separatists and others like unto you pretend the same thing 6. Ye furnish us here an Argument against New-England men in their proceedings with Godly Ministers here 7. Live quietly and trouble not the Church nor the State and ye may live here a peaceable life without any trouble to your Consciences 8. But it is a foolery in you to think that your faces are grinded because your Brethren will not consent that ye erect a Sect have Pulpits allowed you to beat down the Truth They are bound in Conscience to resist you as ye take your selves bound to resist them 9. If you think your faces grinded here you may be gone and live in contentment there from whence ye came 10. And yet howbeit your Brethren of the Ministeris take not upon themselves any thing but to resist you with the Arms of the Spirit yet must you thinke that the Civill Magistrate hath no lesse power over you here then your Civill Magistrate hath over Sectaries in New-England 11. But it were better for you Brethren to take a resolution to live with us in unitie under such a Discipline as may be concluded and setled in the feare of God But cannot you live in this World unlesse you give a Law to all the World What you say of Presbyterians in assuming of something imperious c. is but a Calumny M.S. 2. answers my Argument with a Question Whence we have a Toleration of our Presbyterian Discipline A. S. 1. It is a Maxime in Philosophie that Questio questionem non solvit one Question solves not another 2. I answer That we have its institution from God in his Word as we have already demonstrated it and He in instituting of it hath ordained that it be not only tolerated but also received and preached through all the World as I have already proved 3. In France it was brought in by Christs Ministers established by a Protestant King and some others before him who had some taste of the Gospel 4. It hath been there established by the Law of the Kingdome and the Protestant Armies which God blessed under a Protestant King against the Pope the Papists and Jesuites who would have pulled the Crown off his head to set it upon Don Philips that so fighting for his Crown he might also fight for that of Christ Iesus and establish it gloriously in his Kingdome And all this may be easily confirmed by the French History and sundry Edicts in favour of Protestants It is an untruth that ever it was tolerated by the Romish Church for they imployed all their endeavours to oppresse it yea against all Law They are bound to their King who is also bound to them for fighting for his Cause In England it is established as I have sundry times told you in the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Churches by the Kings and Parliaments Authority And how it hath been established in Scotland it is better known then I can declare it viz. by Civill and Ecclesiasticall Authority M. S. his 3. Answer or Objection against my Reason commeth to this That by the same Reason Papists will not tolerate Protestants whom they hold for Schismaticks A.S. 1. This is only said but not proved 2. They neither tolerate Hereticks nor Schismaticks when they can hinder them 3. The Papists hold not us simply for Schismaticks but also for Hereticks 4. And consequently if your Argument hold That we must tolerate whatsoever they tolerate since they tolerate us in quality of Hereticks in their judgement we must also tolerate Hereticks yea Iewes also and permit them Synagogues as they doe yea we must tolerate an hundred Religions as
the States of Poland doe 5. The question is not what Papists will but what both we and they should doe or rather what Gods Word commands us to doe We take not Antichrist but Christ and his Word for a patterne of our duty M.S. his 4. Answ Whereas you say that they granted not a Toleration to divers Sects doe you not imply that they did grant a Toleration to some one Sect at least And how know you whether the Apologisme be not that Sect A.S. Truly M.S. is very subtile who of a Negative infers an Affirmative even as if I should conclude thus M. S. is not divers Schismaticks or Hereticks Ergo He is one Heretick This man hath not committed divers Adulteries Ergo He hath committed one Adultery Have you never learned good M.S. that old Rhime wherein there is more Reason then Poetrie Syllogisari non est ex Particulari Neve Negativis rectè concludere si vis since it follows not I know not at all that Christ or his Apostles ever granted a Toleration to the Sect of Apologisme as you stile it 3. And since you appeale to my Conscience in this Point you must submit to my Iudgement otherwise you profane the Name of God M. S. 5. Answer is That Toleration is rei malae and therefore the Apologists should not be Suiters for a Toleration but should be encouraged A.S. M.S. is minded to be merry but I must be serious and therefore 1. I deny your Antecedent and I gave you the Reason heretofore 2. Apologisme I have told you is res pessima and more dangerous by consequence then 10. Heresies as I have sufficiently proved to all men who will sit down with Reason Then he addeth That if they sin in suing for a Toleration Ergo To prevent that sin it should be granted them A. S. By the same reason if a man sin in suing for a toleration of Mahumetanisme or Adultery to the end to prevent such sins they should be tolerated This Argument of M.S. is as ridiculous as impious M. S. But sixthly and lastly What doe you think of Sinite utrumque crescere Let both grow together untill the Harvest Math. 13.30 A.S. Since you are so desirous of my judgement I shall willingly give it you 1. I answer by your own Maxime that Symbolica Theologia non est argumentativa Symbolicall or Parabolicall Theologie furnisheth no good Argument Now this is a Parable for the Text saith v. 3. And he spake many things to them in Parables◠2. I beleeve that by both viz. the Wheat and the Tares our Saviour meaneth not Hereticks but all the Good or the Faithfull and the Wicked so that if out of this you will conclude a Toleration ye must conclude a Toleration for Adulterers Murtherers Parricides Ravilliacks and Gunpowder Traitors Chatells Regi-cides 3. If by a Toleration ye mean a positive Toleration or Consent such as ye desire then we must all positively tolerate or consent to have men of such ill qualities and ill conditions to live amongst us with all impunity yea and approbation 4. I beleeve that Christ speaketh there to the Apostles and will not that they usurpe the Civill Magistrates power in punishing of them that are of his cognizince yea though he will not doe it And so doe our learned and godly Ministers they doe their duty with the sword of the Spirit and leave the Materiall sword unto the Civill Magistrate as proper unto him as the Spirituall is unto them for He caries not the sword in vain Neither must they meddle with the Materiall nor he with the Spirituall sword 5. If they must be tolerated according to Gods Word how have you taken the Covenant and so solemnly sworne and subscribed with your hands the extirpation of Papists and of all the Hierarchy 6. Servet who called the Trinity a three-headed Cat and denyed the Incarnation of the Son of God and his Mediator-ship and his Followers brought this very Argument for him and his Sect that you now do So here ye bring no new thing but what sundry Hereticks brought before you so yee tread directly in their steps and have made choice of a prety pattern A. S. 16. Argument is taken from the practise of the Independents of New England whose wayes and practises say they are improved to a better edition and greater refinement whom also they compare in their Apology with Father Abraham and being put in form will be this That courtesie which no man can obtain of the Independents where they have authority viz. in New England That courtesie should they not be suiters for here in Old England But a Toleration of a New Religion or Discipline of Sects and Heresies is a courtesie that no man can obtain of the Independents where they have authority viz. in New England Ergo Toleration is a courtesie that they i. e. Independents should not be suiters for here in Old England The Major Proposition may be confirmed for it is à pari and such measure as they measure with such should be measured unto them again for the Lex Talionis requireth it And what reason is it that men should be tolerated by us in their erroneous Tenets who will not tolerate the truth What if they should increase here What more favour could we hope for from them then our dear Brethren have tasted already in the sorrowfull times of their Afflictions Without doubt being great Politicians and Undertakers zealous in the Noviciate and Infaney of their Sect and no lesse cunning and politique then the Iesuites themselves the Church of God and the State also should seriously lay to heart what they may do here likewise And their activity in making of Proselytes both in the Army and the City should give all men subject enough to be diffident of them The Minor appeareth cleerly by the proceedings of New England and the Sectaries bred in the Independent Sect whereof some women have been the Ring-leaders as one Mistresse Hutchinson and sundry others whom they would no wayes tolerate amongst them but punished by Imprisonment and Exiling of their persons howsoever they went out of Old England with them and were Companions of the same misery pretended Persecution and Undertaking No better dealt they with some Presbyterians of Old England who being grievously persecuted here for Non-Conformity yet would they not so much a◠tolerate them in any corner of the Country yea not so much as in that which was next to the Barbarians where they could not but consequently be exposed to the greatest danger such were their mercies and bowels of compassion towards their poore and afflicted Brethren whom yet they acknowledged to be of very sound Doctrine and holinesse of life As for this Argument M. S. because he cannot answer the Minor he sends me to New England to seeke the Solution But I purpose not to undertake such a voyage for Independent Sophistications since the Argument convicts my understanding M. S. 2. Answereth That he would
will overthrow all other Government and addeth Faxit Deus A. S. 1. My words contain no prophesie but a consequence 2. I said not that the Independent Government which is no Government but aequivocè as canis coelestis is canis but that the toleration of Independent Government would overthrow all Government 3. In the 2. § of that Page 110. he acknowledgeth his mistake because of my following words And so this Order by necessary Consequence will breed all sort of disorder To this M.S. answereth 1. That it will not breed the disorder of oppressing Consciencious men for Conscience sake A. S. 1. All sort of disorder must not be taken pro singulis generum sed pro generibus singulorum 2. The Syncategorema all there signifies onely a great number of disorders 3. No more doth the Presbyterian Order oppresse Consciencious men or do any thing that you tell there 4. Howbeit it breed not those disorders which you mention there yet it breedeth sundry other disorders which we have already demonstrated 5. It oppresseth Consciencious men 1. In hindering them to get their Consciences fully satisfied in a higher Indicatory 2. By an absolute authority of seven or eight idle yea peradventure debauched Knaves who howbeit their Opinions were never so Hereticall and their practises never so tyrannicall will not submit but oppresse men better then themselves compell them to be gone from their Congregation and so undo them 3. In making them to attend peradventure a yeer or two before they will meet with other Churches to have their unjust Iudgement judged and reversed of which practises see sundry very strange Stories in Master Edwards Book who knoweth them intus in cute which one of their Sect writing in their favour not many dayes ago doth ingenuously confesse They make not indeed men to walk sundry miles for what they might have at home but they sundry times oppresse them at home and undo them for what they might have gotten within a few miles for the hundred part of the losse that they suffered at home whereof see Master Edwards his Antapologia 2. M. S. denieth that they may run from Church to Church But I prove it for if other Churches be Independent of all Authoritative Power they may admit them and howbeit they could not run from Church to Church yet could they set up a Church themselves compounded of seven or eight debauched Fellows like unto themselves as they do here in London M. S. scorneth to answer the rest of my Reasons amounting to the number of seven under pretext that I say that I omitted them but however I omit them the judicious Reader will do well to take notice of them M. S. in all this Chapter bringeth but one onely Text of Scripture for his Opinion and that not by way of Argument but of Answer to one of my Arguments but in the beginning of it he hath some ten frivolous Arguments grounded on the corrupt Reason of his own brains which I will here set down in order and answer them hoping through Gods Mercy that the very weaknesse of the Independents Reasons howbeit we brought no Reasons at all against them would evidently shew how sleight their Opinions and how fond their conceits are M. S. Suppose the Opinion maintained in the latter part of the second Chapter were waved and such a Coercive Power in matters of Religion as A. S. contends for allowed in the Magistrates hand yet that any man should plead for the drawing of his sword against those men c. And a little after that any I say on this side of malignancy should consult the sorrow trouble disgrace suppression ruine of men so holy so harmlesse of such eminent desert in the Cause of Religion State Kingdom me thinks should exceed the line of Humanity and be thought some Inspiration or Suggestion from the great Enemy of mankinde A. S. 1. This Discourse seemeth to imply two Arguments First Men very holy very harmlesse of very eminent deserts in the Cause of Religion State Kingdom should not receive sorrow trouble disgrace suppression or ruine But we the Independents are such Ergo. M. S. his second Argument They who plead for the drawing of the sword consult sorrow c. against so holy men c. have some Inspiration from the Devill or great Enemy of mankinde But A. S. pleads for the drawing of the sword c. Ergo. To the first Argument I answer 1. In generall That I am sorry that this M. S. will hazard the Independents honour in so weak an Argument for if I deny the Minor they will presently cry out that I offend their pretended Power of Piety their harmlessenesse c. And therefore not to offend them I will not say that they are not such Onely I say that whosoever pleads for a Toleration of all damnable and most detestable Hereticks such as deny the Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God his Mediatorship who call him a Knave and an Impostor who died for us all as this M. S. doth here in his Book can neither be holy nor harmlesse 2. I deny the Major if it be taken absolutely without any distinction for if the Righteous turn from his righteousnesse and do the thing that is wicked he shall die therein Ezek. 33.28 So they are not to suffer for their harmlessenesse and eminent gifts but for something worse 3. I must say That the Minor smelleth somewhat the Pharisee who seemed just in his own eyes And to say nothing else we can produce you a great number of Independents and Independent Ministers no better then other mortall men To the second Argument I answer to the Major 1. They have some inspiration c. if they consult sorrow against them for their holinesse it is true But the Minor is false for I never pleaded any sorrow against them for their holinesse neither am I minded to plead any sorrow or the drawing of the sword against them but onely against such who are turbulent and trouble the Church and State who erect Churches in despite of the Parliament or overthrow the Kings the Parliaments and all Civill Magistrates Authority about the Church and Religion I will not answer unto this Independents Injuries when he calleth all those Malignants who plead for the Civill Magistrates Power as I do and men inspired by the Devill Onely this I say That if such men who curb so the Kings the Parliaments and all Civill Magistrates Authority in such a manner should be protected and maintained by them as they pretend they should be and vaunt they will be which yet I hope shall never be that turdus sibi malum cacat and that they are worthy to drink such as they brew M. S. The Independents have such a considerable strength if not of evidence yet of reason for what they practise and professe A. S. Ergo I know not what I think he would infer they should not suffer sorrow but be tolerated A. S. 1.
I know not what M. S. meaneth by his strength here for he seemeth to say That it is strength of reason and then we deny the Antecedent for if they had any they should do well to shew it and not to vaunt of it 2. He is not confident to call it evident Ergo It is inevident and obscure Ergo It is uncertain if these reasons or strength be taken from Nature for in Nature all Reasons that are inevident are uncertain if he meaneth Reasons taken from divine Authority then he needed not to doubt in saying if not in evidence for all Arguments taken from divine Authority are inevident And the meanest Logicians know that Argumentum ab Authoritate ductum est inevidens inartificiale And Faith which is evermore inevident is such because that it is grounded upon Authority Heb. 11.1 M. S. 2. They i. e. Independents have a like if not a more considerable strength against that way of Government which they cannot submit unto A. S. Ergo What followeth They must be tolerated A. S. 1. Is this to argue to assume the Antecedent in both these Arguments so peremptoriously without any proof Truely a Midwife might have argued every jot as well I deny it and let the Reader judge of both our Reasons 2. I deny the Consequence for howbeit they had as considerable a strength of Reasons as the other way yet should not their way be admitted for if the other be already approved by Authority and the Independent way not yet admitted the old way which is as probable as theirs is not to be put away for yours For all Changes in Church and State are very dangerous unlesse some urgent necessity presse it 3. And there is something in their way which may easily overthrow all States and Churches wherein it may be admitted M. S. 3. They are by their fiercest Adversaries and Opposites themselves acknowledged ten times over for very pious godly and learned men Ergo They must be tolerated A. S. These men are almost mad in praising and in hearing of others praise their Piety Godlinesse and Learning as if this were the finis ultimus of this Sect Neither ever heard I of any Sect so foolish as this that is ever more trumpeting abroad its own praises We are holy we are pious we have the power of piety And all the World acknowledges us for holy men And there is none that have the power of piety or like to have it in any juncture of time to come as we have it These seem rather the Expressions of some distempered brain or at least of a man very vain then of any wise or godly Christian Wherefore instead of sparing of you and concealing some of these weaknesses of yours which I thought to have passed over in silence since I am put to it hear what I say to the Argument 1. I deny then the Consequence for howbeit some acknowledge you for such yet they are but very few who acknowledge you such 2. And yet it is but Tostimonium humanum which is onely a Topick or probable and no certain or necessary Argument 3. It is but the Testimony of one man viz. of A. S. whereof for any thing I know ye make little esteem 4. I deny That if A. S. commend you for some good Ergo Ye should be tolerated in your foolish and pernicious practises which cannot but in all morall probability overthrow the State and the Church of God There must onely be one Government admitted in the Church what ever it be whether yours ours or any other and that for fear of Divisions 2. As for the Antecedent indeed it was my judgement of Charity which suffereth long and is kinde envieth not vaunteth not it self as ye do is not puffed up as ye are that is not easily provoked thinketh not evil beareth all things beleeveth all things hopeth all things endureth all things 1 Cor. 13.4 5 7. But since that time having read M. S. his Book licenced doubtlessely by some Independent or some other disguised person so stuffed with these his impious Maximes against the Church the State and all Piety and with mine own ears heard some very dangerous Expressions of the Sectaries who passe under the name of Independents I have at least changed much or suspended my former judgement of them For Charity rejoyteth not in Iniquity but rejoyceth in the Truth I will not speak ill of your persons but if Master Edwards have such things under the Independents hands as his Book mentions as in Charity I am bound to beleeve he hath I am bound to think otherwayes then I have done of your Opinions And howbeit I had never heard or read any such things of the Independents yet it is too much for you Sir so proudly to insult upon a bare judgement of Charity Know you not that praises and great commendations of vertues are rather to shew what men should be then alwayes what they are Wise and godly men rest not so much upon other mens Testimonies as upon that of a good Conscience M. S. 4. Argument Independents have been at least the generality of them and so continue men of the most affectionate and with all the most effectuall activity and forwardnesse to promote the great cause of Religion Parliament and Kingdom Ergo Without all doubt they must be tolerated A. S. 1. It is a wonder how this man is not ashamed bringing so little reason for his Conclusion so to vaunt 2. This Antecedent is odious containing nothing else but a proud and impertinent comparison I should be sorry to go on upon this foolish way with him God knoweth who have most advanced the businesse or retarded it Truely it is the common speech of wise men that none but the Independent Faction retards Businesses in the Assembly 3. If the way to promote the businesse be to plead for impunity in favour of Gods Enemies of all Heretiques and Schismatiques this M. S. indeed then promoteth it as much as any man 4. As for the activity of your Faction ye are all but too active in those things wherein your pains were a great deal better spared M. S. his fifth Argument Independents are as deep in or if you will as much out of their Estates rateably for the support of this Cause as any other sort of men whatsoever Ergo They must be tolerated in their Religion and practises A. S. 1. And yet will he continue as the Pharisees did to publish with sound of Trumpet the Works of Supererogation of the Independent Sect. 2. Yea but what if many say that many of them have bettered their Estates by this War 3. I will not enter into contestation with this man about mens disbursements in this Cause for I never reckoned with them what was in their purses or how much they are now out of purse But it seemeth that M. S. hath calculated to a Farthing every mans Estate and what he hath laid out in this War If so I pray
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
not for us to distinguish or restrain it He is the Minister of God for good Vers 4. Ergo For this good viz. to have a care of Religion and to punish such as trouble it by their Schisms and Heresies And therefore 6. I deny the Consequence For Posito uno Medio non negantur reliqua It followeth not That if God serve himself of some means in the Church Ergo He serveth himself of any other means viz. of Civill Authority about the Church and out of the Church That were as if I should say The internall Causes as Materia Forma are necessary to the Generation of a man Ergo The Externall as the Efficient and Finall viz. God and man are not necessary M. S. 2. The Ministers of the Church must perform their Office with meeknesse 2 Tim. 2.24 Ergo They must not threaten men with delivering them over to the Civill Magistrate A. S. I answer to the Antecedent They must perform their duty not onely with meeknesse but also with severity when necessity requireth it as we see in Saint Paul 2. The Text 2 Tim. 2.24 speaketh onely of meeknesse in teaching In meeknesse saith the Apostle instructing those that oppose themselves if peradventure God will give them repentance 3. It onely saith that they must use meeknesse when men are docilo when there is any hope of Repentance and not with pertinacious Heretiques and Schismatiques of whom we cannot expect Repentance 4. I deny the Consequence When the Ministers of the Church threaten them to deliver them over unto the Civill Magistrate they may do that also with meeknesse Neither is such a proceeding contrary to meeknesse for the meekest man of the World may accuse his Party before the Civill Magistrate and yet not be thought inhumane or cruell 5. Thus All being beaten down all that he builds upon this ruinous Foundation must needs fall to ground M. S. his third Reason That which is a speciall gift of God and whereof no man is capable by his own industry the want of it being in it self a judgement of God and withall no wayes prejudiciall or hurtfull unto others should not expose him to further punishment and misery But Repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth is a speciall gift of God and the want thereof a judgement of God c. Ergo. A. S. 1. I deny the first Proposition For if he be bound to have it and had the faculty and sufficient means to have had it and to keep it after that he had it or might have it and if by his own fault he want it he cannot excuse himself neither from the Obligation to have nor from the Punishment due to him for the want of it as our Divines teach against the Arminians 2. I deny the Assumption for it is prejudiciall to others by the ill example he gives and by the malice proceeding from thence that induces others to the same sin to false Doctrines Schisms and Heresies 3. This Argument proveth not M. S. his Thesis viz. That the Civill Magistrate should not punish Heretiques and Schismatiques or that they should be tolerated in the State And therefore 4. we may grant him all the Argument Neither doth the Civill Magistrate punish any man for want of Repentance or for his ignorance which are in the minde and will and consequently unknown to him but for the pertinacious Externall Profession of them in so far forth as they trouble the peace of the Church and the State Neither refuseth he to tolerate ignorance or want of repentance yea if there be nothing worse in them both the Civill Magistrate and the Ministers of Christ must pitty them and travell for their instruction and amendment This is far from proving either a Toleration of the Publike Exercise of Hereticall Doctrines or of Schisms or that the Civill Magistrate hath not power to punish them M. S. his fourth Reason being put in Form will be thus That which maketh men worse and Hypocrites to professe outwardly what they beleeve not in their Consciences is not lawfull But Externall Compulsion of Hereticks Schismaticks c. in matters of Religion made by the Civill Magistrate is such Ergo It is unlawfull and consequently not to be tolerated A. S. I answer to the first Proposition If it make men worse per Accidens not of it self but in vertue of some Accident annexed to the person that becometh worse it is false If it do it per se by its own vertue and efficacy it is true But then the Assumption is false for the Civill Magistrate in punishing Hereticks and Schismaticks c. maketh them not worse per se for neither is it finis Operantis or Operationis since neither he intends to make them worse but better nor tends his Operation i. e. his Iudgement and Command to make them at all ill much lesse to make them worse since the effect of it per se is onely to imprison their bodies to fine them or if they merit it to exile them or take their lives which produceth no morall ill but a great good viz. a hinderance of them to vent abroad their Heresies and Schisms So it maketh them not Hypocrites per se but onely they per se make themselves Hypocrites They are bound to suffer themselves to be taught the Truth so to beleeve it and so they shall not be Hypocrites M. S. replieth That he stands already engaged in a greater band hereunto viz. His peace with God and the safety of his Soul then suffering temporally from the Civill Power A. S. Your erroneous Conscience can breed no true and reall Obligation or Engagement against God 1. For you are bound and obliged to God to cast away your Ignorance and ill Conscience 2. What if your Erroneous Conscience dictate you that you must kill the King as that of Ravalliack did to him in France to kill Henry the fourth and that of the Jesuites and Priests in England did them to blow up the Parliament and many Papists of their own Religion Must you I pray obey the dictate of such a Conscience 3. Away with such wicked Consciences and to the Law and Prophets if you be a Protestant 4. Either that band is laid upon you by God or the Devill But it cannot be laid upon you by God for he cannot lay a band upon you to serve the Devill or to despight himself for so he should be the Author of sin nor by the Devill for then the band laid upon you to serve him should be greater then that which God hath laid upon you in his Word to serve him It may be said That so long as my Erroneous Conscience lasteth I must obey it A. S. I answer you must obey it as he who is captive under sin must obey sin being a slave unto sin that hath voluntarily rendered him such but he unjustly rendered himself a slave to sin and unjustly in vertue thereof remaineth a sinner and obeyeth it Some will Answer 7.
Hereticall and go to the Devill But I answer 1. The Assumption is false for the Externall Coactive Power that A. S. grants unto the Civill Magistrate is onely to represse Hereticks and Schismaticks after that they are sufficiently convicted by the Church in an ordinary way or by others in an extraordinary way when the Church is negligent in her duty 2. Neither doth M. S. his Confirmation or Case of Conscience conclude any thing against that which A. S. sayes And as for his Supposition either that Conscience whereof he speaketh is right or erroneous If it be right the Civill Magistrate should not presse it against its light or if he happen to do so it is not by Power but by abuse of Power And in such a case he who hath his Conscience well informed must resolve himself to be quiet in case the Civill Magistrate oblige him not to be Actor in any thing against it But if such a man any other or others with him will rise up within the Kingdom or come from Forraign Countries and urge their Religion upon the State and establish it without permission of the Magistrate or against his Laws then their Consciences cannot be right for wherefore should the King Parliament and State be rather bound to admit such mens Religion without sufficient conviction then they to admit his Religion And in such a Case the Civill Magistrate so long as such persons as urge their Religion upon him convict not sufficiently his Conscience may with a good Conscience punish them severely yea with good Conscience cut off their Heads If such a mans Conscience be erroneous the Civill Magistrate doth him no wrong to endeavour that he who hath it be sufficiently convicted and if after sufficient conviction he will not be quiet especially when he is not obliged to be Actor in any thing against his pretended Conscience but will still trouble both Church and State wherefore on Gods Name should he not be punished 2. Is it not better that such a man should perish then that he should make thousands to perish 3. Ravalliack in France and the Monks and Fryers that kill Kings pretend evermore Conscience as the Independents do and yet the Civill Magistrate puts them to death 4. If any mans Conscience which God forbid should dictate him to kill the King and blow up the Parliament should such a man be tolerated under pretext of his tender Conscience 5. Is it not a sin to have an erroneous Conscience And is not he that hath it bound to reform it and to suffer for it in case he reform it not when he hath sufficient means to do it 6. But must every man that doth ill be presently believed when he saith that he hath such a Conscience 7. All this long Sermon of M. S. proveth not that the Magistrate directly and per se but rather that the man himself hardeneth his own Conscience for there is no created Power that directly per se and Physically can work upon a mans Conscience it can onely move it morally in propounding of Objects to it or in Reasoning and yet every true Christian hath a sufficient power to resist such motions which is sufficient to make him in-excusable 8. Neither can his erroneous Conscience excuse him unlesse that its Errour be Invincible Antecedent and he no wayes the cause of it but if it be Vincible Concomitant or Subsequent and he himself the cause of it then it excuseth him not but is a sin and aggravates the sin that proceedeth of it at least extensivè if not intensivè For in such a case it is not his erroneous Conscience that is the cause of the sinfull action of his Will but his sinfull Will that is the cause of his erroneous Conscience 9. The Civill Magistrates threatning per se and directly maketh not his Conscience erroneous but found it such 10. Neither is it the cause that he goes against it For whether ye consider the Civill Magistrates Intention his Iudgement or the Execution of it in such a case they cause no ill but good for his Intention is onely that they be gained to Christ and that they seduce not others His Iudgement condemneth onely their Opinion and commands a punishment answerable to their Sin whereby onely they are hindered to continue in their Heresies or Schisms or to seduce others No more doth the Execution of his Iudgement Ergo. 11. And I pray this new Casuist to tell me whether in some Cases it were not a lesser Sin for a man to go against his erroneous Conscience then to follow its Dictates Whether it were not better for him to sit at home against the Dictate of his Conscience then to go to a Pagan Church and there to adore a Crocodile or a Toad according to the Dictates of it So we see how licentious and detestable this Conscience is that Independents plead so much for that thinketh that it cannot sufficiently enjoy its liberty unlesse that all Schismaticks Hereticks Jews Mahumetans and Idolaters have a free liberty of their erroneous Consciences to adore a thousand Gods yea a thousand Devils a Jupiter a Bacchus a Venus a blinde Fortuna and to Preach such Abominations and that the Civill Magistrates power be ever curtaled or rather altogether taken away in matters in Religion I will not call this a madnesse but I am well assured that many are recommended to the Churches Prayers that are not half so sick either in Soul or Body as these men are in their Consciences Wherefore all that I have more to say unto them shall be onely this The Lord have mercy upon them Christian Reader HAving been desired by some Friends to give a short Discourse of the Independent Government I am resolved to present thee with this following Epitome which sundry have oftentimes required of me The Independent Church is so called because that no particular Congregation amongst them how small how Hereticall and vicious soever it be will depend upon or submit to the Judgement of any other Church yea not to that of all the Churches of the World how Orthodox and holy and how true and just soever their Judgement be They define it Coetus Fidelium a Company of Beleevers meeting in one place every Lords Day for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God to publike Edification So according to this Definition neither the Catholike Church which we beleeve in the Creed nor any Nationall Church can be a true Church since they cannot meet together every Lords Day in one place In the Efficient Cause of the Church I see no great Difference betwixt us and them save onely this That they hold it necessary to the Constitution of a Church and of every Member thereof that they all joyn in a particular Church-Covenant as they call it different from that of Grace revealed in Scripture wherein they all swear to live in the Faith and in subjection to all the Ordinances of God cleaving one to another as Members