must know whether he doth well or ill at least by a particular judgement if in the second it is true that men are bound sometimes to sing a permissive obedience without their understanding because in so doing they doe nothing themselves but permit other men to doe as when there is a Minister called by the Church to preach it may be that some ordinary Mechanick will judge his Sermons to be too sublime more speculative then practicall happily also he will think them not methodicall in such a case the Mechanick hath no power to hinder the Preacher from preaching or preaching so he must obey in permitting and not opposing him in preaching for what is unsavory to his palate is savory to anothers 4. If this Argument hold it shall presse no lesse the Parliament then the Assembly for I put the case that the Assembly judge and that all the Assembly and Independents goe one way and the Parliament another which I trust in God shall never happen I frame the Argument thus If the meanest of men have not a calling to judge betwixt the Parliament and the Assembly then they must sing obedience and submission to the Parliament without their understanding But the Consequent is false Ergo And so your Independents shall neither obey Parliament nor Assembly And the Parliament would doe well to note this 5. I say more that sometimes Subjects are bound to obey their Rulers when they know not distinctly the equity of the Command for put the case a Prince undertake a Warre against his neiâ—â—bour-Prince every Cobler knoweth not the true cause of the Warre or 〈◊〉 it be just or not for he cannot penetrate into his Princes secret Counsells and yet if the Prince lay Assizes upon the people or presse Souldiers they must in all this obey howbeit they know not the secrets of his Counsels yea howbeit they suspect the Warre to be unjust they must obey for it is not expedient that every Independent Cobler be admitted into the Counsell of State or if that be not granted that presently he resist his Prince and raise a Rebellion in the Kingdome 6. I pray this man to tell me whether in New England amongst the Independents every man be not bound to obey what is judged in their Assemblies however he be of a contrary judgement 7. And whether it be Morally possible that every man be of the same judgment in things that are resolved or to be resolved in all Civill or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies And if not what can be the force of this Argument What here he addeth The glory of a Synod lyes not so much in the force of their Conclusions as of their premises is impertinent for the force of the premises and conclusions are not to be opposed one to the other but to be composed one to another for the conclusion followeth necessarily of its premisses Things are sufficiently discussed in the Assembly and their Conclusions evidently enough inferred out of their premisses but this is an incurable sicknesse in these men that they never thinke any Conclusion well inferred unlesse it be for themselves Obj. 22. He telleth us afterwards his judgement that the conclusions of the Assembly should not be swallowed without shewing c. which the Parliament and Assembly will both grant him Obj. 23. M. S. In his Sect. 12. he bringeth in quality of an Argument as it seemeth an Answer unto one of mine taken ab exemplo or a simili which I have answered and afterwards Sect. 16. he hath an Argument the summe whereof is this Obj. 24. Christ hath not divested himselfe nor made a delegation of such a directive power in matters of Religion as A. S. would sequester for the honour of the Presbyterie Ergo he will not acknowledge it A. S. Ansvv 1. I deny the Consequence for to acknowledge such a Ministeriall power as we grant unto the Ministers of the Assembly or our Presbyteries it is not needfull that Christ divest himselfe of it or make a delegation but a donation of it for Christ was never vested with such a Ministeriall and subordinate power for he is Lord and supreame Judge in the Church and therefore could never divest himselfe of it 2. If he meane the supreame power proper to Christ we neither desire him to beleeve nor beleeve we that Christ hath divested or could divest himselfe of it to give it to the Church for he kept to himselfe his owne supreame or Royall Power but gave unto his Ministers subalterne and Ministeriall power which derogateth no waies from his Royall power since this is subordinate unto that 3. However he takes it this Argument is captious and is nothing else but a plain petitio principii and proving the same thing by the same or a Conclusion by a Premisse as uncertaine as it selfe After this petty Argument he maketh his Testament resolving himselfe to dye a Martyr amongst good men whom he hath most highly offended and who professe that they compell no man to professe any truth much lesse untruth against the light of their Conscience how ridiculous a Martyr is this They professe that they may undergoe a voluntary exile for feare of persecution if you sir feare any such thing you may be gone according to the Principles of your owne Divinity And then he telleth us that he will allow any directive power of man so it be not compulsory unto men by any externall violence whether directly or indirectly to subscribe against their judgements and consciences to it A. S. Answ 1. Our Presbyteries attribute not to themselves any directive power that is compulsory unto men by externall violence to subscribe against their judgements 2. But if a few men differ in their judgements from all the rest of the Church or will needs bring in new Religions or novelties against the common Tenets of the Church then indeed they will cast them out of the Church or excommunicate them according to their demerits neither is it equitable that they abide in a Church or enjoy a Church consociation who will not submit unto her Iudgement and Discipline Neither will his Quinque Ecclesian Ministers admit unto or receive any man into their Church who differs in judgement from them or who will not submit unto their judgement But howbeit the Church compell you not to subscribe yet the Civill Magistrate after sufficient conviction may compell you to subscribe or to be gone for after sufficient conviction Morally it is and should be supposed that yee know the Truth or should know it or if yee know it not that nothing can have hindred you but your owne pertinaciousnesse which cannot excuse but rather now accuses and aggravates your sinne since one sinne formally and per se cannot excuse another Neither have our Churches ever gone further as may appeare by our Confessions of Faith and Covenants of the Churches of Scotland France the Netherlands Geneva c. M. S. hath some more poore Reasons in his 2. Chap. about the
S. It is more like that learned men of great abilities should do so then ignorants that have not the abilities The Devill is learneder then they all and yet susteineth as absurd Opinions Divine Plato as learned as they defended the Community of Wives of Children and Goods Zeno did maintaine that there was no moving at all So did sundry great Philosophers maintaine great Errors and great Divines as Origine and sundry of the Fathers strangely mistooke sundry things If-they be so Learned I may say of them what an other said of a very Learned man Vbi bene nemo meliùs ubi malè nemo pejùs where they do well no men do better where they do ill no man doeth worse For Optima cum degenerant fiunt pessima as the Philosophers tell us If formerly I gave them so great praises it was out of Charity which they should not take in rigore justitiae And I must tell you that I have been grievously censured for that my Charitable judgement and that by very learned and godly Divines both here by word of mouth and by some others abroad by Letters which I could easily shew if occasion required What if my Charity gave them as great praises as they were capable of However it be great men may have great Errours what if there be a great Pride with great Learning since it is most certain that Scientia inflat Neither for all their Plea for the power of godlinesse amongst them above all the World and that they do what Flesh and Bloud can do in any juncture of time to come must they pleade that they are without sin I thought not that such praises would so have puffed them up as to have made them thus bragging in their Writings For if they answer not my commendations of them they affront me and then I shall pray them not to be proud of my praises but to merit them And I shall intreat others to pardon my mistaken Charity Bring not my Charity by any meanes for an Argument against me Beleeve I pray you that praises signifie rather the vertue that should be and that we expect of men then that that evermore is If you and they will not be such as I take you to be you must give me leave to take you for such as ye are As for the Protostants in France their example of Suing for a toleration of their Religion serves you nothing 1. For they have obtained it as I told you by the sword in fighting for their Protestant Prince against Papists 2. And their Discipline opens not a gate to all Heresies and Licenciousnesse as yours 3. And if they had had no greater difference with the Papists then the Independents say they have with us they had never been so mad as to have either fought or sued so long for it 4. They were compelled to Idolatry and to be Actors in the damnation of their own souls against the light of their Consciences but ye can say no such thing for your selves neither is it more reason that such Protestants as ye are should be rather tolerated by Protestants for your Discipline as I have sundry times said openeth a door to all Heresies and Corruptions that Satan can invent it is worse by consequence a hundred times then either Popery or Arminianism are formally As for your eminent deserts and merits 1. I know them not 2. As some Independents may merit and deserve well of the State so may others demerit as much 3. But no man can merit a licentiousnesse to be wicked and to bring a mischief upon the State and Church both such as a Toleration of all Sects and Heresies would bring If you cannot submit unto a common Government of the Church as others and live more humano it is against all reason that ye should be tolerated neither must Religion be framed according to your Accommodation as you pretend but your Accommodation rather according to Religion To your Demand about those that are of my Iudgement they needed not to be suiters for a Toleration for the Discipline that they suffered for was already established by Law As for the rest of this Section it containeth onely his proud Iudgement of my Reasons and some fooleries which I hold it not worth the while to take notice of To your secondly I answer that those of whom I say that sundry of themselves could not deny it c. are not the five Apologists but others Independent Ministers and some of the ablest among them whom I did entertain upon that discourse And M. S. himself telleth us Suppose that course or means which the Apologists insist upon be not in the eye of reason or humane conjecture a mean sufficient for such a purpose yet if it be a means which God hath authorized for the effecting it will do the deed Here he mistrusteth the reason and appealeth to Gods Word whereof we see nothing here 3. M. S. saith that they have shewn it from Gods Word but God and men it seems are not yet agreed to have it so generally seen as is to be desired A. S. Neither is it shewn neither can it appear Nam non entis nulla sunt accidentia things that are not have no Accidents neither can they be seen And what men can agree unto I know not for some times they dream that they see things that are not But sure I am that God will never agree that it be according to his Word And what you say of your hope all the Kings of the World cannot hinder you to hope for no man is without all hope but the damned souls in Hell Onely this I say That of your hope you may say O spes inanes M. S. To that where I say the refusall of a toleration will help to confirm the Churches and the people in the Truth He answers That he knoweth not in what truth Therefore I tell him that I mean the Truth of our Discipline and the Truth how intolerable is a toleration of Sects and of so dangerous a Sect And the reason is because that if ever the rest of the Churches or the People see so venerable and learned an Assembly condescend to such an absurd Opinion and Demand they will not beleeve that it is so absurd as it is For many men are led by Authority and take many things upon the trust of great men or when they see such an Assembly condescend unto such errours they will not be so diligent to enquire for the Truth as otherwayes they might be A. S. 21. Argument Neither can it viz. Toleration but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiasticall Government for a man being censured in one Church may fly to an other and being again suspended in that other fly from thence to another and so scorn all the Churches of God and their Censures and so this Order by necessary consequence will breed all sort of disorder M. S. Answereth 1. That he joyeth that I Prophesie that the Independent Government
That Power is either Imperiall Royall or Magisteriall such as Emperours Kings or Lords have over their Subjects as that of the Civill Magistrate or Ministeriall such as State-Ministers have under their Masters or Lords as that of Ambassadors Pursevants c. Finally it must be observed That as Power so punishments inflicted by Power are either Civill or Ecclesiasticall Civill punishments are such as are inflicted by the Civil Magistrate and are often times corporall as Mutilation Stigmatizing and Death c. sometimes Pecuniary mulcts sometimes Infamy c. Ecclesiasticall punishments are altogether Spirituall consisting of Censures Suspension from the Lords Table and Excommunication These things being presupposed By the word Church here must be meant the visible Militant Church and principally the Representative Church in Presbyteries Classes Synods 2. By the word Subordination must be meant a Subordination of Power and Judgement 3. By Power must be meant a Morall Ecclesiasticall Imperative and Ministeriall Power in Iudging Commanding and Inflicting of Spirituall punishments onely and not an Imperiall Magisteriall or Royall Power whereby the Church may command in a domineering way or compell mens bodies or punish them by inflicting any Corporall punishment on them or imposing any Pecuniary mulcts as the Independents most craftily go about to perswade the World The Independents then deny That there is any Church furnished with any Authoritative or Imperative Power save onely the Parishionall or to speak in their own Terms the Congregationall Church And therefore they renounce all Classicall and Synodicall Churches or if they do acknowledge them they allow them no Authoritative or Imperative but a Consultative Power onely or a Power to counsell one of their little Congregations compounded happily of seven or eight persons what they think fittest to be done so that this petty Congregation may either accept or reject their Counsell at their own likings and pleasure so as in conclusion they acknowledge no Authoritative or Imperative Ecclesiasticall power above that of their little Congregations for they maintain that every Church be it never so small yea though it be composed but of seven or eight persons be it never so Erroneous and Hereticall is altogether Independent in its Iudgement upon all the Iudgements of all the Churches of the World be they never so Iust and Orthodox and consequently that what ever they teach how Heretically soever and what ever they do be it never so wicked that all the Orthodox Churches in the World have no Authority of God to Censure or to Excommunicate or so much as to command them other wayes then any one private man might do an other i. e. By way of Counsell which they may either follow or reject at their pleasure The Orthodox and Reformed Churches especially of Scotland France the Netherlands c. on the other part hold That there is and ought to be Subordination amongst Ecclesiasticall Judicatories viz. That Nationall Synods are above Provinciall Synods these above Classes and Classes above Presbyteries or Sessions and that the Superiour Judicatories have a Ministeriall Authoritative or Imperative but no Magisteriall Despoticall or Imperiall Authoritative power over the Inferiour that are subordinate unto them Item That they may inflict upon Inferiour Churches in case of Disobedience Spirituall though no Corporall punishments or Pecuniary mulcts or such like Civil punishments CHAP. II. Containing some imaginary and ridiculous Contradictions objected by M.S. to A.S. removed BUt before I prove my Conclusion I must pray the Reader to re-marke in passing the falschood and manifold cavillations whereby this M.S. saluteth him in the entry of this Question for this is his safest way for the present howbeit it cannot but prove damnable in the end 1. He saith that Presbyterians agree not about the Author of this subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories and Presbyterian Government whether it be juris Divini or Humani As if some of them esteemed it to be juris Divini others juris Humani Ecclesiastici others juris Naturalis others partim juris Divini partim Naturalis aut mixti 2. He saith that A.S. contradicteth himselfe in the same manner For refutation whereof I need not but to propound our Opinion which is thus 1. All the Presbyterian Discipline and specially subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories quoad Essentialia aut Substantialia in its Essentiall parts is juris Divini aut Naturalis i. e. authorised by Gods Divine Law or by the Law of Nature 2. Presbyterian Discipline quoad accidentalia circumstantialia i. e. in its accidentall or circumstantiall parts it may be juris Humani Neither believe I that there is any great dispute amongst us and the Independents about these Positions unlesse M.S. make it Neither know I what can anger him in all this save only this that we give him no subject of quarrelling us It may be and it seemeth that he finds fault with the first Proposition wherein I say it is either juris Divini aut Naturalis And that he will have no Doctrine of Faith or Discipline that is juris Naturalis i. e. grounded on the light of Nature But 1. What if the Scripture presuppose the truth of some Principles known by Nature dare he reject them 2. Some of them are as certaine as any Article of Faith as for example this The one part of a Contradiction is true and the other false and this Twise ten are twenty And yet none of them hath any formall Patent from Gods Word 3. If God be as well the Author of Naturall as of Divine truth wherefore will ye reject Naturall truth 4. All men are bound to beleeve all Naturall truths when they are sufficiently manifested unto them or at least not to dissent from them because we must not lye as we are taught by the 9. Commandement which not only forbiddeth us to misbelieve or contradict any Supernaturall but also all Naturall truths sufficiently manifested unto us 5. But what reason hath this M.S. to reject Naturall truths when there is nothing in Scripture to the contrary 6. Yea by the Law of Nature I am bound to be ruled by them in case the Scripture reveale me nothing above Nature yea I am not bound to goe above them but in the cases that Scripture revealeth unto me 7. What Law we were bound unto in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New that Law are we bound to follow as a rule of direction in the New yea in Church-Discipline But the Law of Nature is a Law whereunto we were bound in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New Ergo The Law of Nature is a Law that we are bound to follow as a rule of direction in the New Testament yea in Church-Discipline 8. It is holden amongst Protestants for an indubitable and supernaturall truth that Christs body cannot be in two places at one time which neither M.S. nor all the Independent wit in the world is able to prove unlesse they suppose this Principle of Nature
rejected it then the Iudgement at Antioch which they did not but acquiesced therein for any thing we know to the contrary 6. Some may peradventure prove it in this manner That if it had not been a Synod and a superior Iudicatory in respect of Antioch those of Antioch had not sent the two Parties but had done better to have sent some indifferent Person for indifferent Persons are more proper to consult a businesse then the Parties 7. If it had been judged at Hierusalem by way of Counsell only this Counsell had likely been only given to the Church of Antioch for counsell ordinarily is only given to those who desire and crave it But so it is not here for the Church of Hierusalem not only judged so concerning the Church of Antioch alone but also of all others and the Apostles and their Disciples urged this Iudgement upon all the rest of the Churches where they passed Some New-England Preachers answer That this Assembly at Hierusalem cleer up the truth dogmatically for the word translated Decrees is in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 16.4 but imports not to Censure Item that they cannot see why the ultimate power of Censures may not reside in the Congregation as well as in the Synod Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall A.S. Answ This cannot hold 1. For whoever have a Dogmaticall power they have also a power to Censure for he who may judge that this must be believed and according to Gods Word meriteth such an Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall punishment wherefore may he not also sentence the Delinquents who merit to be so censured 2. Because in giving a Dogmaticall power to some and a Corrective power unto others they divide the Keyes and give one unto one Assembly and another unto another and so make one Assembly see with the others eyes 3. These Powers were not separated in the Church or Church-Assemblies in the Old Testament Ergo No more should they be separated in the New since the union of these two Powers proceeds not from any Ceremoniall Law but either from the Law of Nature or the Politicall Ecclesiasticall Law in so far forth as grounded on the Law of Nature 4. Because such a way were as M.S. speaketh to make the one Iudex and the other Carnisex the one to be the Iudge and the other the Executioner 5. Because in all States and Civill Governments Iudges or Senates who have the Dogmaticall power have also the Corrective or Coercive power and there is the same reason for both 6. The Text conteineth no such thing neither can they shew us in any part of Scripture any ground for any such division of these two Powers Neither can that silly Grammaticall observation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve them for the Apostle serveth not himselfe of this word in the whole latitude of all its Grammaticall significations that it may have according to its Etymologie and Derivation but in a Legall way as it is taken in Law for Placitum Statutum Institutum Decretum Edictum as in the Civill Lawes wherein these words signifie Lawes or Ordinances and Calvin telleth us in Lexico Iuridico that Dogma est lex docens scientiam fidei l. 2. F. F. ad Senatus-con Vellejan Decretum Senatus-consultum significat pro quo Modestinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 F. F. de excus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixit Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing else but Decretum Scitum Plebiscitum The cause wherefore the Apostle taketh it in a Court or Law-signification is because that they were making Ecclesiasticall Lawes and so took it ratione subjectae materiae 7. And this may be confirmed because they are not only called dogmata but it is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text i. e. quae decreta fuerunt ab Apostolis that were decreed by the Apostles 8. And what else is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to dogmatize or to bring in a new Opinion Custome or Ceremony Col. 2.20 which here was not done by any private man but by authority of a Councell 9. Neither can the Authors of this Evasion ever shew us that Dogma in Law is taken for a power meerly dogmaticall separated from all coercive or corrective power And moreover if this will not satisfie them we have Act. 15. v. 24. To whom we commanded no such thing Ergo Those of Antioch supposed that that Councell at Hierusalem had power to command and the Councell denieth not that they had Power to command but the Act of the Power viz. that they had commanded any such thing v. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things Ergo they laid a burden but no greater burden upon them 2. It was laid upon them 3. It was necessary necessitate praecepti But they who had such a power had they not think we power also to censure 12. Beza telleth us also that in his Codex in chap. 15. v. 41. this is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in some Latine codex Praecipiens custodire praecepta Apostolorum Seniorum which argueth that they had not only a Directive but also an Imperative power over the Churches in vertue of that Decree of the Councell 13. The Dogmaticall power is like unto the Legislative power and whoever hath a Legislative power hath also a Corrective power 14. This Councell had not only a Dogmaticall but also a Legislative power about things of themselves indifferent as appeareth here in making a Law that the Christians should abstaine from meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled 4. Some it may be will finde out this Evasion and say That it was not a Councell nor an ordinary Decree of Ecclesiasticall Iudges but of Arbiters Rep. But 1. the Text hath no such thing 2. Arbiters are either given by the ordinary Iudge ordinarily called Iudices pedanei or chosen by the Parties themselves otherwayes called Compromissarii If ye grant me the first then particular Churches are subject unto Superiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories that give them such Arbiters which is all we look for If the second then if the Word of God hath granted an Independent liberty unto the Church she ought not to quit it in making her self subject and dependent for we cannot dispose of our own liberty granted to us by Christ to make our selves servants or subject to men in Matters of Religion 3. We cannot submit Gods Cause to others then to whom he hath submitted it himself How could they accept them for Iudges who had no vocation of God to judge them 5. Arbitrary Iudges that are given have a Superiour power over the Church that they judge and so ye acknowledge that the Church of Ierusalem had power over that of Antioch if that of Ierusalem was an Arbiter datus aut delegatus 2. These given Arbiters are given by a Iudge or Superiour Ergo They presuppose some Superiour Iudge over the
under the notion of Apostles and Church-Ministers endowed with extraordinary gifts and namely of Infallibility governed the whole Church extraordinarily so doe Generall Councels endowed with ordinary gifts govern it ordinarily 14. I would willingly enquire of the Independents to what Church were added so many thousands that were baptized by the Apostles and added unto the Church in one day Whether to a Particular Congregation or to a greater Ecclesiasticall Consociation It could not be to a Particular Congregation 1. For the Reasons I have already produced 2. Because the Apostles were not Particular but Universall Ministers set over the Universall Militant Church and therefore in vertue of their charge admitted them to be Members of all the Churches whereof they were Ministers 3. Because they were of divers and sundry Countries neither is it credible that to be a Member of the Church they were bound to quit their Countries and to stay at Hierusalem howsoever so long as they did stay there they might participate as well of all the rest of Gods Ordinances as of Baptisme Ergo they were added to some greater Consociation viz. to that and to all those whereof the Apostles were Ministers for out of all doubt the Apostles who baptized them could not refuse to admit them unto the Lords Table wherever they celebrated the Sacrament If it be answered That this Argument only proveth a greater Reall but not a greater Representative Church I reply That directly only it proveth a greater Reall viz. an Vniversall Militant Church but yet by consequence it proveth also a Representative Church of the same extent for every Reall Church may be represented in its Commissioners or Messengers as ye call them that meet in a Synod If it be yet answered that this may prove a greater Representative Church but not endowed with any Authoritative power I reply It is a power of Iudging which must be Authoritative and cannot be meerly Consultative such as is that of every Tinker who may give counsell to a Church and that of one Church which hath power to give counsell to a thousand yea to ten thousand represented in a Synod for particular Churches being parts of the whole Provinciall Nationall or Universall Militant Church must be subject to the whole for it is a Maxime in Philosophie that Totum non subjicitur parti sed pars toti Item Totum non regitur motu partis sed Pars Totius And they distinguish between the Universall and Particular Inclination of things and tell us That a part doth sometimes quit its Particular Inclination to be ruled according to the Inclination of the whole as when water which according to its Particular Inclination descends yet to avoid the vacuum whereof might ensue the overthrow of the world against its Particular Inclination but according to its Universall Inclination as it is for the Totall it ascends And so it is or should be in Politicall and all Spirituall Consociations for the parts cannot be conserved but in the whole The Politicians also tell us that Lex paerticularis cedit generali so Laws that concern Particular Cases or Consociations must give place to the generall Law of more generall Cases and Consociations for the generall good of Consociations is to be preferred before the Particular good of Particular Persons or Particular Consociations 15. All the Churches here upon Earth make up one Republike tyed together by Faith Charity and other Particular Christian vertues as that in Heaven another Now it is a Maxime in Politicks Salus Reipub. suprema Lex esto Ergo There must be one Law common to this whole Christian Republike If so Ergo There must be some visible Iudges to judge according to this Law otherwayes in vain should we have it Now this visible Iudge can be no other but a Synod For if ye say it is Christ then we cannot be legally Iudged according to this Law till the day of Iudgement when Christ shall Iudge the quick and the dead which is most ridiculous 16. C. C. acknowledgeth That by Baptism we are made Members of the Universall Militant Church and consequently Subjects of some Christian Republike Ergo There are some Iudges to judge such Subjects But those Iudges are not in one Particular Church for by Baptism as he sayeth They are not admitted to the societie of any Particular Church Ergo They must be judged by some greater Representative Church which must be either Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall 17. It is a generall Rule of S. Paul in matter of Church Government That the Spirits of Prophets be subject to Prophets 1 Cor. 14 32. Which cannot at all or at least cannot easily and commodiously be obtained in the Independent Opposition or Coordination as in some Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies or Iudicatories for when all are equall there is no subjection of one to another 18. This Doctrine of Subordination of Inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories to their Superiours with a Coordination of Inferiour Iudicatories or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies amongst themselves is most convenient to the nature of the Sacraments in receiving unto them all such as are our Brethren in Christ whereas a meer Opposition Independency or at most a Coordination of Churches founded on a meer will and charitie without any Law is repugnant to it in so far forth as it debarreth from them such as are worthy to be received 19. The Apostle commands That all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40 And telleth us That God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace Vers 33. Now where there is no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories When none of them is subject one to another but they are all equall when one Church be she never so corrupted in life and Doctrine hath as great Authority over all the Churches of the World represented together in a Synod be they never so sound in their life and Doctrine as they all have over her What can be done decently and in order I adjure you all tell me in Conscience Whether ye think that God can be the Author of any such order or rather of so abominable a confusion 20. I could shew how that this Subordination is most convenient and the contrary Independency Opposition or Coordination of Churches founded on mans meer will is most repugnant 1. unto the perfection that appeareth in all Gods Works both in those of Nature and of Grace 2. To Gods Truth and Wisdom in giving no better means for redressing of Offences 3. To his Iustice in making of Laws that cannot suppresse Heresies and all sort of wickednesse in disordered Churches 4. To his Mercy that in furnishing us so graciously so many means and helps to Salvation he should have given us this Independent Anarchy to crosse them all yea to lead us irresistibly to Hell 5. To his Providence in providing of means so disproportionate and incommensurated for so excellent an end viz. for the peace of the Church means more fit to trouble then to
non-Communion or Schism So your Supposition is false viz. That I suppose that the ground of such a refusall of Communion consisteth onely in difference of Iudgement for I suppose that the ground of it may be a breach of Charity and in particular persons a vicious life 2. M. S. should have done well to declare us here in particular what is the nature or particularity of this difference betwixt us and them for we cannot in practicis dispute accurately upon Generalities so abstract from all Particularity If it be replyed That it is because we admit vicious persons unto our Communion I have answered it in my Annotations whereunto he pretends to answer He should have refuted my Reasons here as also sundry others in Master Rutherfords Book whereby he demonstrates how ridiculous and frivolous this pretext is Neither is it needfull that I should repeal them to swell up a Book with them M. S. his second Answer If there were so many and great differences amongst the Members of the Church of Corinth as you speak of and yet Paul no wayes perswaded the Major part amongst them to cast our cut off or suppresse the Vnderling Parties but exhorted them to mutuall Communion why do not ye the like A. S. We cast you not out nor off but ye run away we exhort you but ye will not obey ye slight and contemn your Mother that begot you and when the House of God is to be Reformed ye will have all things according to your fancy or ye will be gone and renounce your Mother O what sort of Children and Domesticks of the Faith are ye M. S. his third Answer He denyeth the Assumption viz. That there was greater difference amongst the Members of the Church of Corinth then betwixt the Independents and our Churches A. S. I prove it for both they differed in Articles of Faith some of them denying the Resurrection the Doctrine of the Law and Sacraments some of them joyning the Law with the Gospel and Circumcision with Baptism And in Charity some crying up some Apostles and Pastors and rejecting of others others of the same Church being of contrary mindes and wills without any Separation in Externall Communion either in Sacraments or Government for any thing we read in Scripture A. S. 11. Reason in Substance is this That the Opinion of our Brethren symbolizeth much jumpeth in conceit and that they sympathize with the Donatists who separated themselves from other Churches under pretext That they were not so holy as their own neither is their Discipline unlike to that of the Convents and Monasteries amongst the Papists which professe all one Doctrine but are independent one upon another c. M. S. Answer 1. Symbolisa Theologia non est Argumentativa A. S. But this Argument is taken a Simili and holds quia similium eadem est ratio viz. In eo in quo similia sunt Now they are blamed in separating themselves from the rest of those that professe the same Doctrine as if they were holier then the rest Ergo so are the Independents to be blamed for the same Reason His Instances are childish and fond for Angels and Devils agree not in that which is blameable in Devils for that agreement should be an impeachment both to their Holinesse and Happinesse 2. Neither agreeth A. S. with Nestorius in making way to any Heresie of his own as Nestorius wherein he was blameable 3. No more is it to the purpose that ye are not like to Monks for their Paunches idlenesse or in their Buildings howbeit some of them be as lean and as busie in their own way as any of you Independents can be in yours Neither is it a sin to be fat Onely I compare you with them in that wherein we all blame them viz. In separating themselves from others under pretext of greater holinesse To his Answer to the third point I reply That I make not this comparison betwixt the Donatists and the Apologists as M. S. sayeth here but betwixt them and all those that are of the Independents opinion And so to his first Answer I reply That however some of the Apologists of whom alone I speak not have not Churches yet have they the same opinion concerning the Separation of their Churches from others that professe the same Doctrine and that under pretext that they are holier then the rest Secondly M. S. answereth That neither in substance nor truth doth it touch any of them or their opinion 1. For they do not separate from other Churches but onely in such opinions and practises wherein they cannot get leave of their Consciences to joyn with them A. S. I have proved that it touches them in truth and as for his proof the Donatists did just so Whereas M. S. saith That they of the Presbytery differ in Opinions and practises one from another A.S. 1. It is true but that is in things that are not very materiall 2. Or if they be materiall they are particular Opinions of particular men that are not known not of whole Churches nor approved by whole Churches 3. And howbeit some of them though very few differ in some practises which are not materiall yet is it not so much they that make these differences as that they are compelled by others to suffer them as they have declared themselves in their Letters sent to the Assembly 4. That small difference breeds no Schism or Sects among them but they entertain mutuall communion together both in Sacrament and Government and they admit one another unto their Synodall and Sacramentall Communion so do not Independent Churches amongst themselves nor with ours M. S. 2. Argument for this his Assertion is because A. S. himself and his Party do separate themselves from the Church of Rome because they think not that Church to be so holy as their own A. S. 1. We separate not our selves from the Romish Church because of greater or lesse holinesse in our Church or in particular Persons then in theirs but because we conceive that the Romish Church erreth in Fundamentalls 2. Not onely committeth but also 3. Teaches Idolatry and 4. compelleth men against their Conscience to commit and professe it 5. Neither did we separate from the Papists but they separated from us and did cast us out of their Church and persecuted us to death so that neither could we entertain Communion with them without loosing both body and soul 6. Neither yet separate we from any Church that holds the same Doctrine with us 7. Neither beleeve we that any Church holding the same Doctrine with us can morally fall into Idolatry or urge us to be Actors against our Consciences in any Idolatrous Act And this Liberty of Conscience Independents may have in our Churches 8. We pray you also to declare unto us what Heresie Idolatry or great vice you see taught or approved of amongst us that should compell you to quit our Churches as we found amongst the Papists and then your Argument
as a Nurse of the Church in compelling them by the Civill power to obey the Church But in both these punishments viz. Spirituall and Temporall it is not for the Sinner to judge whether or no he be sufficiently convicted since he being a Party cannot be Iudge in his own cause but it is the part of the Ecclesiasticall Senate to judge whether he be sufficiently convicted in foro Ecclesiastico and of the Civill Magistrate to judge whether he be sufficiently convicted in foro Civili in that whereof he is to judge To your 2. Answer I reply That by Brownists Independents Anabaptists c. I meane not the names but the things signified by such names A.S. Neither hath the Church of Goda custome to be contentious 1 Cor. 11.16 This I brought to prove that Schismes are not to be tolerated for they breed Contentions in Churches M.S. 3. But he doth not say that these Churches of God had any custome to erect a Presbyterian throne or a combined Eldership amongst them to keep them from Contentions A. S. I answer you M. S. that I must endure your impertinencie 1. For if you had frequented our Presbyteries you should have seen that they have no Throne 2. You might have seen that by this Argument I intended not to prove a combined Presbytery as you call it but the intolerablenesse of a toleration of Sects I prove sufficiently elsewhere what you can desire about the subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories A. S. Neither permitteth the Apostle Schismes M. S. saith that he hath already answered this A. S. saith that he hath replied to M. S. his Answer A.S. We must not quit our mutuall meetings as others doe and as must be done in a publike Toleration Heb. 10.25 M. S. We understand not your words A. S. But they are the Apostles words 2. And my Argument may easily be formed by any Logician against Toleration It will be thus What maketh us to quit our mutuall meetings as others doe is not to be tolerated But Schismes and Heresies make us to quit our mutuall meetings Ergo They are not to be tolerated M.S. We doe not know what quitting of meetings there is like to be more under a publique Toleration then is for the present A.S. So he seemeth to deny the Minor but I prove it for in tolerating of Schismes we see that men being deceived by the Schismaticks doe quit the meetings of the Church to which before they were joyned And we see how the Independents frequent not willingly our Churches and will not all joyne with us in our meetings at the Lords Table Neither beleeve I that any of the five Apologetick Ministers have ever communicated in our Assemblies since this Parliament A. S. 18. Because that M.S. chargeth my 18. Reason with Atheisme I will put it in forme That which per se giveth offence unto Papists and others or that exposeth the Protestant Churches unto the calumnies of Papists should not be granted by us But the Toleration of many Sects doth so Ergo it is not to be granted The Major is certaine for it is scandalum datum which all Divines doe condemne The Minor I prove it for it giveth and the Papists thereupon take too just a cause of Scandall or Offence and indeed it cannot but be a just subject of Offence by to open to be reproached with such an innumerable number of Sects to the renting of Christs Churches in peeces M. S. to this answereth not but propoundeth some Questions 1. Will you saith he redeem your self out of the hands of the Papists calumnies by symbolizing with them A. S. I Answer 1. That it is no symbolizing with Papists if we tolerate not Hereticks and Schismaticks for you have already confessed that in your particular Churches you tolerate them not and yet you beleeve that your Churches symbolize no more with them then ours 2. It is a strange thing if my Argument be Atheologicall if it prove that Atheists and such as deny the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God are not to be tolerated If such an Argument be Atheologicall in your judgement I am assured that all Theologues will conceive better of it then of this your Theologicall Answer Neither have I forgot my 11. Reason for you symbolize with them in their Popery and I in true Theologie viz. in maintaining the Unity of the Church with Saint Paul as you symbolize with Sectaries in maintaining the renting of the Church by Schismes If you had shewen any Contradiction in my words I had either answered it or if I could not I should have rendered my self to the truth But M. S. will not prove it but terrifies me as a Child with his great words It seemeth saith he Contradictions Inconsistencyes Impertinencyes Vn-intelligibilities sence non-sence any thing nothing c. A. S. All this is no sence nothing but words and wind of Goodwin As for the 19th Reason he remitteth us to the former Question to seeke an Answer A. S. 20. If it i. e. Toleration be granted it cannot but be thought that it hath been granted or rather extorted by force of reason and that all the Assembly were not able to answer our Brethren whereas indeed their Opinions and Demands are against all Reason as sundry of themselves could not deny and had nothing to say save onely that it was Gods Ordinance which yet they could never shew out of Gods Word On the contrary if it be refused it will help to confirme the Churches and the people in the truth M. S. In substance 1. denieth that a Toleration will seeme to be extorted if it be granted A. S. But if a thing so absurd and against all Piety be granted by so venerable an Assembly wherein things are carried by Reason it cannot seeme but extorted by Reason M. S. saith that I tell the Assembly that howsoever their Consciences might savour the Independents in point of Toleration yet their credits and reputations would suffer by it A. S. It is false there is no such expression in my Booke it is not my expression but M. S. his fiction and imposture Neither should the Assembly in my poore Opinion so easily suffer themselves to be intreated for ill neither is there any mercy in tolerating and not suppressing of Schismes and Heresies as M. S. beleeveth M. S. denieth that their Opinion and Demand is against all Reason but I have sundry times proved it viz. Because by such a Toleration of Independency all sorts of Heresies will creepe into the Church and it is most absurd that there should be no Ecclesiasticall power to represse the Heresies and abominable sins of seven or eight wicked Fellowes whereof a particular Independent Church may be compoed in case they fall into Heresie or such abominable sins Whereas M. S. saies that it is not like that so very learned men c. such as are the 5. Apologists should rise up to defend an opinion so contrary to all reason A.
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
That Conscientia erronea ligat sed non obligat an erroneous Conscience bindes a man so up that it hindereth him to do the good but it obliges him not to do the ill that it dictateth Neither is this the Question Whether an Heretick is bound to beleeve what the Magistrate willeth him to beleeve But whether he should have power to erect Churches against the Orthodox Religion as the Independents would And whether or no the Civill Magistrate can hinder him by his Civill Power from so doing Now the Argument proveth not the Negative part neither doth the Civill Magistrate compell private men to beleeve but not to trouble the peace of the Church in setting up of others without his permission M. S. his fifth Reason If the Civill Magistrate hath an actuall Coercive power to suppresse Schisms and Heresies c. because he is truely a Christian then Christianity changeth the propertie and tenour of his Magistracy and that for the worse for in vertue thereof he acquireth a power to crush his Subjects for the exercise of their Conscience yea to persecute the Saints which he had not before If so Christians have little reason to pray for his Conversion But the Consequent is false Ergo. A. S. 1. I deny the Consequence of the Proposition for both the Christian and Unchristian Magistrate have the actuall Coercive power howbeit they have not both actually the act of that Power for both the one and the other hath that Morall power in actu signato or the Remote power but the Christian Magistrate onely hath it in actu exercito i. e. The immediate Authority to exercise it because he hath or should have or is supposed morally to have all things requisite to the exercise thereof So is it not in a Pagan for he hath not the knowledge of the Gospel whereby he should exercise it nor the will to exercise it justly which is presupposed to it so he hath as it were potestatem sed caret usu potestatis as a Childe that hath a reasonable Soul and all the reasonable Faculties that a man hath but he hath not the use of Reason or of those reasonable Faculties he hath facultatem quasi ligatam as he who cannot see for a tye that he hath in his eye 2. I deny that Christianity changeth his power to worse for it is not as you say to crush good but to mend and reform ignorant and ill men and to chastise them Nulla enim potentia ad malum the Apostle telleth you that he is the Minister of God to thee for good Rom. 3.4 Rulers are not a terrour to good works Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power Do that which is good Vers 3. M. S. his sixth Argument That power is very dangerous to a Magistrate to own in the exercise whereof he may very easily run an hazard at least in fighting against God or in plucking up that which God hath planted or in pulling down that which God hath built But such is that power of suppressing Schisms Heresies c. Ergo. The Assumption he proveth it because the Opinions that he sees by other mens eyes to be schismaticall may be the wayes of God 1. Because the judgements of these men are not Apostolicall 2. Frequent experience shews that a Minor part yea an inconsiderable number of godly Persons in a Church may have the minde of God in some particularities before the Major part have it 3. It seldom or never falleth out that any truth which hath for a long time been under Hatches and unknown to the generality of Ministers in a Church hath been at the first and on the sudden revealed either to the Generality or to the Major part of them Ergo. A. S. I answer 1. to the first It is no more dangerous then the Magistracy it self so as if it be dangerous to own the Magistracy so is it likewise to own that part of it whereby in vertue of his Civill Power he ruleth the Church civilly and so all the Argument may be granted and the greater that the danger is to own it the greater a great deal should his circumspection be 2. If this Argument hold it will conclude no lesse against the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Government of the Old Testament and that of the Civill Magistrate of New England also 3. I may deny the Major for if he accept of the Magistracy it is a far greater danger not to accept this part of the charge for there is a necessity laid upon him in vertue of the Magistracy to accept it as the principall part thereof 4. The greater that the danger and difficulty be so much the greater is the vertue in exercising of it and the greater will the retribution be for it 5. It is not very dangerous to own the charge but not to exercise it faithfully 6. To the Assumption I Answer That it is but one of M. S. his may be 's quod nihil ponit in re The Confirmations of it also contain but may be 's Their judgements I grant you are not Apostolicall 1. But no more are the judgements of your particular Congregations 2. Or those of the King and Parliament or of any mortall men at least ordinarily and yet notwithstanding they are lawfull 3. Neither is it needfull that they be infallible but without fault onely To the second proof 1. It is but a may be which yet may not be 2. And it is extraordinary 3. And howbeit it were so ordinarily yet followeth it not that your Independents are such 4. If it were so Gods truth Ordinarily should not prevail 5. All Schismaticks and Hereticks who are few in number may say as much So Mistresse Hutchinson in New England I le warrant you said no lesse To the third 1. I deny that the truth whereof we dispute hath been under the Hatches as ye pretend 2. All Hereticks and Schismaticks say the same 3. And in all these his Reasons he argueth evermore a facto ad jus from the Fact to the Law and from that which is to that which should be and from that which may be to that which is The Authority of Gamaliel Act. 4. is but of a prophane Politician who would rule the Church and Religion according to Politicall Ends. M. S. 7. Reason That Power which was never attributed to the Civill Magistrate by any Christians but onely by those that had very good assurance that it should be used for them appertaineth not to him by divine right But that Coercive Power in matters of Religion for the suppressing of Errours Schisms Heresies c. was never attributed to the Civill Magistrate by any Christian but onely by those that had very good assurance that it should be used for them Ergo. A. S. I answer That if the word Power in the Major and Minor be taken for an Ecclesiasticall Power which is intrinsecall to the Church I grant you all the Argument neither concludes it any thing against us But if it
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