The Second Part of the DUPLY TO M. S. alias Two Brethren. WHEREIN Are maintained The Kings, Parliaments, and all Civil Magistrate's Authority about the Church. Subordination of Ecclesiastical Judicatories. refuted the Independency of particular Congregations. Licentiousness of wicked Conscience, and Toleration of all sorts of most detestable Schisms, Heresies and Religions; as, Idolatry, Paganism, Turkism, Judaisme, Arrianisme, Brownisme, Anabaptism, etc. which M. S. maintain in their Book. WITH A brief Epitome and Refutation of all the whole INDEPENDENT-Government. Most humbly submitted to the Kings most excellent Majesty. To the most Honourable Houses of Parliament. The most Reverend and Learned Divines of the Assembly. And all the Protestant Churches in this Island and abroad. By ADAM STEVART. Octob. 3. 1644. Imprimatur JA: CRANFORD. London: Printed for john Field, and are to be sold at his house upon Addle-hill, near Baynards-Castle. 1644. TO THE Most High and Illustrious, CHARLES LODOWICK, By the Grace of God, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Archidapifer, and Prince Elector of the Sacred Empire, Duke of Bavarta, etc. IT is ordinary with Writers in their Dedicatory Epistles, highly to extol and commend the Persons and Virtues of those, to whom they Dedicate their Books; for the most part little heeding, whether the Praises they give them, be just or unjust, deserved or undeserved: And if any one chance to ask the reason, they usually answer, That they and Paint them out, much like Xenophon his Cyrus; not altogether such, as they are, but as they should be: As for myself, I may safely and ingenuously say, that I am very far from these men's courses, or any thing at all, that looketh that way: My main aim hereby, is rather to declare unto others, then to Your Highness, the true Motives and Reasons, that induced me to Dedicate this Piece unto Your Highness. The first and chiefest was, for that the Subject of this Treatise, is concerning the Reformation of Abuses, and the Extirpation of Schisms and Heresies, in the Church of God: Now then, Your Highness' most Illustrious Predecessors have been the first of all other Princes of Germany, or else where that received the Reformed Religion in the greatest Purity of it; And not only so, but who from time to time have been the surest Asylum, and Refuge, to all the Saints of God, that suffered for it, yea and a Terror also to all such, as persecuted it: And this the great Forces, wherewith so potently they assisted the French, as also the States of the Low-countrieses, so oppressed by those, who so unjustly have oppressed Your Highness, manifesteth so abundantly, that whoever knoweth it not, must be born, and bred with the Antipodes, and be altogether a Stranger in the whole Christian World. What also those Illustrious Princes of blessed Memory, Your Father, and Grandfather, did for the old Duke of Bovillion, in all Christian, Civil, and Military Virtues, the very Hero's of His time, I myself and many others, have been Eye-witnesses. And as for Your Princely Virtues, I know, that Your Highness taketh no pleasure to hear them so highly commended, as they merit; neither is my Pen able to do it; and if I should attempt any such thing, I am assured, I should come as far short, as he, who would go about to Paint the Sun with a Coal: Nevertheless, this I hold myself bound to say unto the World, That I have heard sundry of the prime men of this Island, both Noblemen, and Ecclesiastiques, yea, those of the most Learned and Godly of them, extol very Highly Your Princely Virtues; and it is no small praise and commendation to be praised and commended by those, who themselves are so praise worthy and commendable. To whom then should I rather Dedicate this Book, that concerneth Reformation, then to his Highness, whose Illustrious Ancestors are so celebrated in all Histories, for promoting of the blessed Work of Reformation? And this, as I said before, God knoweth, I say not to flatter Your Highness; but to the end, that Your Highness having so great and worthy Examples of so Heroic Virtues, and those not far sought, but found at home, you may thereby be encouraged against all difficulties, to go on in that Royal Way, that they have scored out unto you: Your Afflictions verily are great, and such as I cannot think upon, but with a bleeding heart, and that no less for ourselves, then for Your Highness; for alas! what a check, and affront is this put upon all the Protestant Churches, to see Him brought so low, whose Predecessors put them so high, even when they were at their lowest ebb? What a dishonour must it needs be to the three Kingdoms, to see the King's Majesty's Nephew reduced to such an Estate? What serveth our Alliance for? What esteem can Foreign Nations make of us, who esteem no more our own Blood? Truly, God hath put your greatest Enemies very low; Some also, who formerly have hindered that seasonable Assistance, that we should have afforded you, are now themselves on the suffering hand; And who knoweth, whether this be not one of the present quarrels God hath against us at this time? Oh! that God would pity us so far, as that we could but once learn to pity ourselves; then might His Majesty be a glorious King; we most happy Subjects; and You, Right Illustrious Prince, soon be restored to Your Ancient Sovereignty's, and Dominions, so long, and so unjustly usurped upon You, by Yours, ours, and all Protestant Princes open and professed Enemy: And now it seemeth, that God hath already prepared the way, if we could prepare ourselves to enter into it: We see how the Lord hath poured out his vengeance upon the House of Austria, and raised up against it the French, whose Predecessors stand so many ways obliged to Your Highness' House, and that of late memory, yea, in our own times: We have seen heretofore what hath been the King of Denmark's zeal in this Cause; and I doubt not, but the States of the Low-countrieses would contribute as much, as any other, to put down their Immortal Enemy, and to raise up again their old Confederate, and dearest Friend. If at this present, when other Princes are in Arms one against another, we could serve ourselves of such an occasion, to make a Peace here at home, we might easily procure an happy Agreement amongst our Friends and Confederates abroad; so we might make ourselves no less considerable every where, by such a Peace, than now by our Distractions, we are inconsiderable to all the World. But this I leave, and return to Your Highness: In a word; my aim in pleading here, for a Reformation, is to let all true Protestants know, how this Dispute is due to Your Highness; and how they stand all bound in Conscience, to take to heart the Cause of such a Prince, whose Ancestors were the first Reform, and truest Reformers, and who Himself, in the midst of so many Temptations, so constantly continueth in their ways: If they should (which God forbidden) forget so great Services, that those never sufficiently commended Princes of Your Illustrious House have done for the Cause of God, they could not but prove very unthankful, both to God, and to Your Highness: And yet in such a case, must not Your Highness for all that lose courage; Your Cause is his Cause, who is All-Sufficient; And therefore Your Highness will do well to cast Your Self wholly upon him, attending his good pleasure; and I am assured, that Your deliverance shall come in his good time; which, that he would be pleased to hasten, So prayeth, so hopeth, so earnestly desireth he, who is wholly resolved, in all sincerity, all his life long, to remain Your Highness' most Humble, most Obedient, and most Faithful Servant, Adam Stevart. How great is, and wherein consisteth the Civil Magistrates power, in matters Ecclesiastical, or concerning Religion? CHAP. I. The State of the Question. IT is an old trick of Heretics, and Schismatics, that when the Orthodox Churches oppose their novelties, what they cannot get of the Church, they travel to obtain it at Court; and therefore to arrive at their aims they flatter the Princes of the earth, and the Civil Magistrate, in crying up the Civil, and decrying the Ecclesiastical Power: and thus did the Arrians in former, and the Arminians in latter times, in whose footsteps our Brethren the Independents at this present do seem to tread; and for this end they confound all things, yea what ever is well said, as may be seen by this their scratching, and biting at my words, travelling as they do every where to confound what I have most clearly written. Wherefore the better to show this Author's fraud and guile, and mine own sincerity, I will here set down what I said, and what he opposeth. Apol. Narr. in speaking to the Parliament, nameth it, The Supreme judicatory, severe Tribunal, the most Sacred refuge, and Asylum for mistaken and misjudged innocence. A. S. The Parliament indeed is all this in Civil Causes, but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion, by Teaching, or Preaching, or judgeing of controversies of Religion; nor any executive power, that is intrinsecall unto the Church, as in the Vocation, Deposition, and Suspension of Ministers, in Ecclesiastical Censures, in Excommunication, etc. which are merely spiritual; but only an executive, coercive, and external power, which is not in, but about the Church, and for the Church, whereby it compelleth refractory men to obey the Church: And this Authority belongeth actually, and in effect, In actu exercito, as they say, & jure in re to true Christian Magistrates; but to others potentially in actu signato & jure in rem, till they become true Christians. My Adversary here carpeth first at the word arrogate, as if it were evermore taken in ill part, and signified to assume proudly to a man's self. A. Stewart. But he might know, that being a stranger, and having lived the most part of my life abroad, I am now and then constrained to take the words upon tru●t; yet for this word, since he hath put me upon the perusal of my Dictionary, I must tell him I find no such thing as he saith; there indeed I find the words arrogant, arrogantly, and arrogancy to be taken as he such, but not the word arrogate; for it is turned in French, S'arroger S'attribuer, S'appropri●r; and in Latin arrogo; all which were taken in good part, before ever Independency was in rerum natura: but I will not let myself be caption fly drawn from the question, by this man's Grammatical sophistications. If any thing were here amiss, as there is nothing, it will I hope be sufficient that I here declare, that that was never my meaning: I confess they have more, and better Language than I; but I am content, that my Reasons go as fare beyond theirs, as their Language beyond mine. Afterwards in the same page, he accuseth me of contradicting myself, in following Propositions. The Parliament has no directive Power by teaching, Preaching, etc. The Parliament is wise enough to know what is convenient for the Church. I answer, and answered again, That every young boy, that learns his rudiments in Logic, knows, that a Contradiction is only betwixt two Propositions, which have the same Attributes, which is not to be found here; for the Attribute in the first is, having no directive Power, etc. but in the second, wise enough, etc. 2. Neither is it credible, that every man, who is wi●e enough to know what is convenient for the Church, has a Directive Power therein, in Preaching, Teaching, etc. for the Independents have many amongst them in their Churches, who have as much Learning, three or four days before they be received to be members of their Church, as three or four days after; and yet before they were received members into their Church, howsoever they knew well enough what was convenient for the Church, had yet no Directive Power in it to teach, etc. 3. A little after, viz. p. 34. §. 2. this judicious Observator of Contradictions declareth ingeniously, that he knoweth not what I mean by a Directive Power; and yet here he telleth me, that I contradicted myself: but how is it possible, that he should know that I contradicted myself in that, that he himself understands not: He knoweth not what things I pose, and yet he findeth them opposed one to another. I find him here opposed to himself, and in finding out a contradiction in my words, he contradicteth himself, and so taketh away this pretended contradiction. Because he knoweth not what is a directive Power, wherein he found'st this imaginary contradiction, he saith, A. S. should befriend my intellect, to tell me plainly and distinctly, what he meaneth by a Directive Power in matters of Religion. A. S. Wherefore if I cannot befriend your Will, I will travel to befriend your Intellect, not only in declaring you, what is a Directive Power, etc. but also in expounding all the terms of this question; learn therefore, I pray you, 1. That the Civil Magistrate, qua talis, is he who governeth the State, qua talem; I say qua talis, and qua talem; for it may fall out, that he who is a Civil Magistrate to govern the State, may also be chosen to govern the Church in quality of a Ruling Elder, etc. but that he doth not, in quality of a Civil Magistrate, for than he should not need to be chosen to be a Ruling Elder; for in quality of a Civil Magistrate already he should have had that power. 2. Learn, that by the word Church I understand the Visible, Militant Church, both real, and representative in Church Officers, viz. 1. In Sessions, or Presbyteries. 2. In Classes. 3. In Provincial, and 4. In Nationall, and 5. in Ecumenical Synods; but so, that it must be taken sometimes for the real Church alone, as when we say, The Presbytery ruleth the Church: sometimes for the representative alone, as when we say, Tell the Church: and evermore, ratione subjectae materiae. 3. Learn, that the word Power, which here is nothing else, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestas, authoritas, etc. signifieth not; 1. Any Natural Faculty or power in the Predicament of Quality. 2. Or any Habitude, either Natural, purchased by our industry, or 3. Supernatural, infused into the soul, by God's bounty. 1. For the Power of Ruling, whether it be Directive, Imperative, or Executive, belongeth not to us by birth, as natural powers; nor can we purchase it by our own industry alone, as we do Natural Habitudes: nor is it evermore supernatural or infused by God, as we see in the Civil Power amongst Pagans; yea it is very probable, that some Preachers may have an Ecclesiastical Power, who have no Supernatural, but only their aturall gifts. 2. And a man before he be called to a charge in the State, or Church, may have all the natural powers or faculties of his soul; and all the natural, or supernatural habitudes or abilities that he hath after his calling; and yet not have that power to judge, command, and punish, which he hath after his calling; it hath no real, but only an intelligible being, which is not to be, but to be understood, conceived, or intelligible; and therefore it is no work of nature, but of reason: and the main reason of this is; 1. Because the being of this power, which is not potentia, but potestas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & authoritas; as also that of the charge or Office to which it belongeth, depends upon a mere assent of the understanding, and destination of the will, in those who choose the person or persons to this charge and power, and of him who is so chosen. Now the assent of the understanding and destination of the will, (since they are immanent actions, and no ways transient) cannot produce any real or permanent effect out of themselves: And yet however it be no real faculty, habitude or ability, yet both can it pose, and indeed it doth presuppose some real being: for in punishing of Malefactors it poseth sometimes a very real eff ct, as that of burning and hanging of persons; and before it be, it presupposeth the natural faculties of the soul, some natural habitudes or abilities therein, as that of jurisprudence, in Civil Magistrates and judges: sometimes some supernatural habitudes also, as that of divine faith. Ecclesiastical charges, as in Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastors. 2. Because a man in receiving of such a Power, potestas or charge, finds no real changement in himself, as in receiving of a new real being, or quality. No more can it formally consist in the real being, qualities, or effects, that the charge or this power produceth; for they are all posterior to it. So it may be defined a work of reason, or a moral being, whereby he who is sufficiently called, by sufficient assent and destination of the Will of those who call him, and consent of his own, and endowed with sufficient abilities, may justly exercise such acts as they intent by such a calling. I call it, 1. a work of Reason, etc. to the exclusion of the works of Nature. 2. I say, He who is called. Here you have, 1. the Subject of this power, viz. Herald 2. The efficient cause thereof, somewhat obscurely expressed, by sufficient Calling; and afterward, 3. more distinctly, by the assent and destination of the will of those who call him, and consent of the person called. 4. Endowed, etc. Here is expressed the fundamentum remotum of this charge, whereby he is enabled to the acts of this power. 5. May justly exercise, etc. Here is the finis, or act of this power, wherein we have to observe, that this act may be considered, 1. in its naturality; 2. In its habitualitie or faculty; 3. In its morality; 4. In its particular legality. The first is from the natural faculties of the Soul; The second, from the habitudes or abilities thereof; The third is from moral habitudes in the Will: The fourth from this potestas; the natural faculty maketh it an act; the habitudes or abilities, an habitual act, or easily produced by the soul, if it be merely natural: (but if it be a supernatural act, quoad substantiam, then there must be some supernatural habitude, that supplieth the place both of the deficient faculty, and habitude or ability) the virtue of justice in the will, i. a just act: but this moral power, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, maketh it a legal and public act, for what before his calling he could not do, but illegally, (howsoever he had abilities enough) now after his calling, he can do legally. Item, this moral power induceth a moral obligation to obedience, which all his natural powers, all his natural and supernatural habitudes, and all his particular moral virtues and justice, could not do without it. This moral power is either private or particular, as the Paternal, Marital, (if it be merely moral) and despotical, in domestical and such like societies, whereof we speak not; Or public, as that of the Secular Magistrate, and Ecclesiastical judge: and evermore it produceth an obligation unto obedience in those that are subject thereunto: So the power of the Civil Magistrate binds the Subject to Civil, and that of Ecclesiastical persons, the people to Ecclesiastical or spiritual obedience; That of the Husband, the Wife, to conjugal; that of the Father, the Son, to filial; and that of the Lord, the servant, to servile obedience or service. This power, as it is in Church-Officers, is either Directive or Executive, and this either imperative, or strictly executive: Or if you like better of a Trichotomie, it is either Directive, Imperative, or Executive. The directive power of the Church, is that whereby she showeth us what is to be believed or done; which is done by Teaching, Ecclesiastical judgements, Laws, and the interpretation thereof, whereby we are directed and taught. The Imperative power is, whereby she commands what is to be done: as, Hoc fac: which the Doctors of the Laws ordinarily express, by jubeo, impero, mando; and some Kings, by this; For it is our will and pleasure. The Executive power is, whereby Ecclesiastical judgements are put in execution; which is done by binding and losing, in some ways answerable to distributive justice, remunerative and coercive. Now to befriend yet more this Man's understanding, and to show the Christian Reader how fairly I deal with him, and all those of his party, not hiding myself, as they ordinarily do, I give another note very necessary in this matter, which I hope shall discover a great part of these men's cavils and fraudulent sophistications: and it is this: viz. That the power circa Spiritualia & Ecclesiastica, about Spiritual and Ecclesiastical matters, is either intrinsical to the Church, i. e. not only about the Church, but also in the Church; as that of Church officers, which is only in the Church or Church officers, in quality of Church and Church officers; as the power to preach, to excommunicate, etc. for no other but Ecclesiastical persons can preach, or excommunicate; Neither can the Civil 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 Civil Magistrate maketh Laws concerning the Church, in confirming or ratifying her laws, 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 Apostolical discipline, all men should be called Christians; otherways 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 elsewhere in the Civil Laws. But this power to judge, command, and punish, is not Ecclesiastical, but Civil. CHAP. II. The first Conclusion about the Intrinsical power of the Civil Magistrate in the Church. THis being presupposed, I put my first Conclusion thus: The Civil Magistrate, qua talis, or under the notion of a Civil Magistrate, hath no intrinsical power in the Church: 1. Because the Scripture, which Independents acknowledge for the only rule of Church-Government, containeth no such thing. 2. Because his authority, qua talis, is not Ecclesiastical, but Political or Civil, Ergo, qua talis, it is not intrinsecall to the Church. 3. Because such must be his power or authority in the Church, as the acts thereof, at least in genere morum, or morally. But the acts of his power, as to punish refractory persons in a Civil way, by imprisonment, pecuniary mulcts, etc. are not intrinsecall, yea no ways Ecclesiastical, Ergo, no more is his power or authority. 4. Because the authority that is intrinsecall unto the Church, must be exercised by Ecclesiastical persons. But so is not that of the Civil Magistrate. The Minor is certain, because it is only to be exercised by the Civil 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 Heretics to death, as Servet. etc. And it is a certain maxim, that, Ecclesia nescit sanguinem: as may appear 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 Civil Magistrate himself, qua talis, is no Ecclesiastical person, or Intrinsecall unto the Church, since he may be a Pagan; how then can his authority be Ecclesiastical, 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 intrinsical power of the Church is principally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things that are spiritual, or for spiritual ends; But so is not that of the Civil Magistrate; since oftentimes he knoweth him not, as when he is a Turk or a Pagan. 7. Because this opinion confounds the Kingdom of this World, with that of Christ, in granting unto the Civil Magistrate the Intrinsical power of the Church, which Christ only granted unto the Ministers thereof, 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 Caesar's, Mat. 22.21. 8. Because the immediate rule of the intrinsical power of the Church, is only God's Word, formally, by consequence or presupposition: so is it not in respect of the Civil Magistrates power, which is immediately and formally ruled by the Laws of the State; Ergo, the Civil Magistrates power is not intrinsecall unto the Church. 9 The intrinsical power of the Church is only Ministerial, no ways despotical, Imperial, Regal, Majestical, or Majesty: So is not that of the Civil Magistrate, in taking the word in a large signification, as it is sometimes, for the supreme and subaltern Magistrate; For the power of the Civil Magistrate, at least in the Supreme or Prince, is not Ministerial, but sometimes despotical or Lordly, sometimes Imperial, sometimes Regal, sometimes Aristocratical, sometimes democratical, and evermore Majestical. Ergo, The Assumption is certain; so is the Proposition: for they who have this intrinsecall power in the Church, are only Christ's Ministers and Servants. 10. Because (as we said heretofore) not only the Civil 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 Christened, or a Christian by name; as the Tuck the Emperor, the French King, and some others, who by maxim 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 external unto the Church, have any intrinsecall power in the Church? 11. Because the Civil Magistrate hath no intrinsical power, either directive or executive, in common Trades, as that of Brewers, Shoemakers, Carters, Watermen, etc. whose trades are within the reach of Nature, and which he directeth only extrinsecally: Neither knoweth the King how to brew, how to make shoes, etc. neither can he brew, or make shoes: How much less than is it needful that he have any intern power, either directive or executive, in Ecclesiastical matters, which are altogether spiritual and supernatural, above the reach of all natural prudence, and quite out of the sphere of his activity. 12. By the same reason the Civil Magistrate should have an internal power both directive and executive, over all Economical 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 intrinsically, and so do the duty of a Husband, of a Father and Master in all things, in every man's family, which could not but be found very absurd, impious, and altogether intolerable. Heretofore the Independents did, as much as any men, complain of such an absolute and independent power in the King: How then is it, that now they grant it? 13. If such an intrinsical power in Ecclesiastical matters, be a part of all civil Magistrates power; then the Magistrates who have it not, are not complete and perfect Magistrates, since they want one of the principal parts of the civil Magistrates power, viz. The intrinsical, directive, and executive power in Ecclesiastical matters. But the consequent is untrue, yea criminal, and traitorous; for many Pagans, Antichristians, yea in concreto, and in sensu composito have a full and perfect civil power over their Subjects, and yet are destitute of all such intrinsical or Ecclesiastical 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 civil Magistrate, in quality of civil Magistrate, hath any such intrinsical power or authority about the Church, Church business, and Religion, then must it not be called only a political, civil, or secular, but also an Ecclesiastical and spiritual power; Yea, the civil Magistrate, and his power, must as well be defined by spiritual and Ecclesiastical actions of direction and Government, and by spiritual and ecclesiastial matters, as by civil actions and matters; for it is ordinary to define all faculties, habitudes, and all natural or moral 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But so is it not of the civil Magistrates power, for neither is it called Ecclesiastical, Religious, or Spiritual; neither is it the custom of any learned Politician, who ever defined it exactly, to define it in such a manner. Ergo, 15. If it were so, the civil Magistrate could not be a good Magistrate, unless he ruled the Church well; for in omitting this, he should omit the principal part of his office, so not being skilled in Divinity, he should be unworthy of his charge, and worthy to be deposed, which I believe none but Independent Magistrates will grant. 16. Yea, to be a true Magistrate, and acquit himself of his charge, he must be an Independent; for to acquit himself of the charge of a civil Magistrate, he must rule the Church well; to rule the Church well, he must rule it in the Independent way, (for Episcopal Government is naught, not being so much as essentially Ecclesiastical Government, and Presbyterian Government, if they be believed, is nothing else but Episcopal Government) to rule it in the Independent way, he must be an Independent. Ergo, a primo ad ultimum, to be a true or lawful Magistrate, he must be an Independent: This, for any thing I can see, falleth very little short of Treason, for howsoever happily they intent it not, yet they tend as fast as they can to it. 17. That moral power, whereof the external acts are morally impossible, is morally impossible: But such is that intrinsical power in the civil Magistrate, about Spiritual matters in the Government of the Church, Ergo, That intrinsecall power. etc. must be morally impossible. The Major proposition is certain, for neither God, nor Nature, nor men in their right wits ever ordained any moral 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 sail, we should never build ships to sail with: I prove the Minor, for I put the case there were an Ecumenical Council, 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 Council, unless 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 civil 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 Laws 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 books have divulged their judgements, upon the matters in debate in the Synod, and brought in so many novelties in Religion, and all this against the formal Ordinance of both the Houses of Parliament, to which they pretend so much submission? 19 This opinion maketh all Ecclesiastical power unnecessary, and superfluous; for since the civil Magistrate has an intrinsical 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 civil Magistrate has power enough to govern both the State and the Church? But the Ecclesiastical 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 Maxim 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 civil 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 civil Magistrates have any internal Directive, Imperative, or Executive power over the Church, either it should be Supreme and Sovereign, or Subaltern; if Supreme, or Sovereign, than 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 Subaltern, than the King, and Parliament, and all Magistrates are subject to some Ecclesiastical power, and are not supreme judges in the Church. 22. If the Magistrate have any such power, either the Supreme, or Subaltern Magistrate has it: But the supreme has it not, as we have seen; 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 Ecumenical 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 terms; 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 believe, to the civil Magistrate in your Synod in the Netherlands. But what reason is it that the subaltern Magistrate of one Town, should rule over the Synod, rather than the Magistrate of the Town from whence is sent an other Commissioner? 23. If the civil Magistrates or any 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 Kingdom: so some Kings (as in Hereditary Kingdoms) should be Kings and rulers of the Church by birth. 24. Some by War, Invasion or usurpation, which is a pretty way to obtain power in the Church. 25. By money in buying of a principality, 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 speak in the Church, which St. Paul directly prohibiteth them. 28. A Prince, being a known Atheist, or a Magician, should have an internal power to rule the Church, and so be a member thereof; for his Atheism and Magic could not 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, unless it appear, 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 Counsel, 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 Churchmen, they must carry their own burden themselves, and not lay it upon others. 2. By the same reason, other Ministers of the Church might do 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 fantasy, might exercise his gift of Prophecy, just for all the world as they do amongst the Independents. 30. Yea, mad men might rule the Church, since their madness hinders them not to be Kings, when they have right to the Crown, so might mad men be Preachers also: for if madness 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 commandment of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. That no man be admitted a judge 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, etc. 32. Whosoever hath any Ecclesiastical power must be called of God, as Aaron, Heb. 5.4. and Christ took not this honour, but after a lawful vocation. But Princes and Magistrates are not so called of God, as Aaron. 33. He who hath any intrinsical power in the Church, must first accept of it, and have some internal vocation, before that he have it: But many Magistrates accept not of it, nor have they any internal vocation, as Papists, who will not accept of it, neither have they any vocation to it. 34. If the Civil 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 Cobbler, 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 than 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 kind: for if it should augment it, or increase it, it should be some part or degree of Magistracy, 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 judge in all; then he must have an intrinsecall power in all those Religions, and all the several Churches that profess them, and consequently he must be a member of every one of them, and so of 365 Religions: For, whosoever hath an intrinsical power in the Church, or is a Governor of it, must be a member, yea the principal 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 Church's Religions, then either he must be of one, or none of them: If of one of them only, than he shall be partial in judging and ruling them all, and so an incompetent judge: If of none, so indeed he shall be indifferent and impartial, but a very dangerous man of no Religion at all: and so cannot be a competent judge, unless he be of no Religion at all. But it were better to quit such a power, then to have it upon such terms. 37. We have examples of Kings punished for interposing themselves in matters of Religion, which cost some of them no less than their Crowns: as we read of Saul, 1 Sam. 13.8, 9, etc. Others were strucken with leprosy, 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 leprosy by God, and opposed by Azariah with fourscore Priests, valiant men, who thrust him out from thence: so dwelled he several in a house, being a Leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord. All this saith the Text, and no less; 2 King. 15.5. 2 Chron. 26.16, 17, etc. 38. The Civil Magistrate may be received unto the Magistracy, before he be a member of the Church: for the Independents receive no man, yea, not the King's Majesty, and the Parliament, to be members of their Church, but after a long trial: Yea, however they profess the Orthodox Religion, and live Christianly, not giving offence to any man, Ergo, in such a case the civil Magistrate is out of the Church, and so must his authority be, and consequently, neither he, qua talis, nor his authority is intrinsecall unto the Church, so long as he is out of the Church; for the Magistrate's authority can be no more intrinsecall unto the Church, than the Magistrate himself is. And if it be said, that the Civil Magistrates authority is intrinsecall unto the Church, but not the Civil Magistrate: I answer, That then the Church hath the civil Magistrates authority, and not his person; so the Church hath the Magistracy, and not the Magistrate, and so the Church has civil, viz. Imperial, Royal, or despotical authority over the subjects: But that cannot be said, for it is Treason; Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, and the Church beareth no material sword. 39 The Intrinsical way to govern Christ's Church is convenient unto God's wisdom, since it is an act of wisdom, and divine providence: But an Intrinsical power granted to Heathen, and Antichristian Christians, and Magistrates, to govern Christ's Church, is not convenient unto his wisdom, but repugnant unto it; for it is, as if he should choose a Wolf to keep the Lambs, and a Kite to shelter the Chickens, which are not means convenient unto such ends. 40. Such a sort of Government is repugnant unto God's mercy towards his Church, for how is it credible that he, who has given Christ his only Son for his Church, to redeem her, should give her Antichrists and Pagans to lead her away from Christ to Antichrist, yea to the Devil, and Hell itself, from which he hath redeemed her. 41. I might here ask what Magistrate has this Intrinsical power; whether the Supreme, or the Subaltern? If the Supreme, than he has such an authority in the Church, as in the State, viz. Monarchical, despotical, Imperial, Royal, etc. Aristocratical, or democratical; 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 Subaltern has it also, than it must be derived unto him from the Prince or Sovereign; Nulla enim potestas, nisi in Principe, aut a Principe; there is no power, but in the Prince, or from the Prince, so Ecclesiastical charges shall be venal or saleable, as Subaltern Magistracies in some Kingdoms are, where the only way to be preferred unto them, is, that notable Maxim of old Judas, Quantum mihi dabitis? CHAP. III. The second Conclusion about the Extrinsecall power of the Civil Magistrate, in Ecclesiastical matters, proved by Scripture. Conclus. II. THe Civil Magistrate hath an extrinsecall, both Directive and Executive power about the Church, whereby not only he may rule it by Political Laws, 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 Kingdom 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 civil 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 reform it, he may command, yea compel them to do it. Or if they will not, he may extraordinarily do it himself. 5. When the Church is Reform, he may command them, when they are negligent, to be diligent in their charge. 6. If they oppress any man in their Ecclesiastical judgements and censures, against the Laws of the Kingdom, he may desire them, yea, command them to revise their judgements; and in case they reform them not, command them, yea compel them by his civil power, to give him satisfaction, according to the Laws of the Kingdom, 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 means be not delapidated, and that they be not Sacrilegiously rob of them. 8. And what here I say of the Church, I say also of Universities and Schools, that are the Seminaries of able men for the Church. 9 He may grant unto the Church some Liberties, Privileges, or Immunities, as sundry Princes have done, and confirm them by Law, as we see in the Civil Law. 10. He is bound with his Civil power to maintain the Order, and Discipline of the Church; and consequently: 11. To hinder all disorder in it. And 12. By his Civil Authority, to compel all refractory persons to obey the Church. And 13. To banish, and exile all Sects, Schisms, and Heresies, as we may see by sundry of the Roman Laws, and especially in the first 13. Titles of the first book of Instinians Codex, in the Pandects and else where. All this we grant to the Civil 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 Civil and Secular, Supreme, Imperial, Royal, Aristocratical, or democratical, Legislative, and coactive Power, armed with the sword, howsoever extrinsecall to the Church; but more Absolute, Independent, and Potent in suo genere, than any Ecclesiastical Power whatsoever, which is Intrinsecall to the Church, which is no ways Absolute, nor Independent, but Dependent; no ways Coactive by Externall force, but Spiritual, merely Ministerial (howsoever imperative in the name of God) that cannot make any Laws, but of things merely Circumstantial, much less abrogate the Laws 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 proof of it, I am ready to satisfy his desire herein. Wherefore I prove it, 1. From sundry examples of the judges, 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 Ringleaders, or principals of those that adored the golden Calf; 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 war against Reuben, Gad, and the half 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. judg. 6.31. joash 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 Queen, because she had made an Idol in a Grove, and Asa destroyed her Idol, and burned it by the brook Kedron. Here Asa punisheth his own Mother for Idolatry, and destroyeth her Idol: so no doubt may the Civil Magistrate do with all false Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, false Doctors, Worshippers, and Church Governors; he may abolish them, and punish their persons, according to the quality of their false Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, and 2. Chro. 14.4. He, i.e. Asa commanded judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers. 5. He took away the high places. Chap. 15.12. They entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart, and with all their soul. 13. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Jsrael should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. 5. 2 Kings 10. from the ver. 18. to the 31. jehu destroyeth Baal, all his Images, Prophets, Priests, Servants, and Worshippers, and this fact is highly commended, and recompensed by God himself, ver. 30. 6. jehosaphat, 2 Chro. 17. taken away the high places, and Groves out of Judah, ver. 6. He sent his Princes, the Priests and Levites to teach throughout all Juda, ver. 7.8, 9 and Chap. 19 he reformeth the two Sanedrims, and establisheth Amariah the chief Priest over them in all matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah for all the King's matters: which he could not lawfully do without some power. Now we shall show hereafter, that it cannot be Intrinsical to the Church, since he was no Ecclesiastic Person, Ergo it must be extrinsecall. 7. 2 Kings 11.18. Under the King jehoash all the people of the Land went into the house of Baal, and broke it down, his Altars, and his Jmages broke they in pieces throughly, and slew Matton the Priest of Baal; this they did in virtue of their Covenant betwixt the King and the People, with their God; and it is approved in Scripture, as it appeareth by the Text. 8. 2 Kings 18.4. Ezechias remooved the high places, and broke the Images, and cut down the Groves, and broke in pieces the brazen Serpent, that Moses had made, for unto those days the Children of Israel did burn Incense to it. Here not only is Idolatry put down, but also the High Places remooved, and the brazen Serpent, a thing in itself indifferent, but yet ex instituto Divino set up, put down, when the people abused it in matter of Religion: Wherefore then may not the Civil Magistrate do as much with Independency, if it be found contrary to true Doctrine, Worship, or Discipline? So, 2 Chron. 31. He reform the Discipline, v. 2. and provided sufficient maintenance for Church Officers. 9 Josiah, 2 Reg. 23. put down the idolatrous Priests, whom the King of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the High places in the Cities of judah. He slew all the Priests of the High places, whether they were Idolaters, or not: for the Text here hath no distinction, and therefore it is not to us to distinguish. So that no King's dispensation, Toleration, or command, can excuse any man from suffering, if he sin against God, if the Magistrate that succeedeth him will do his duty. 10. So Manasses reform the Church, 2 Chron. 23.15. and 11.5. See the example of Ezra, Ezr. 9 & 10. and of Nehemiah, Neh. 13. 11. So did Nabuchadnezzar ordain, Dan. 3.29. Therefore I make a Decree, that every People, Nation, and Language, which speaketh any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill; because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. Neither need I to speak, 12, of Darius, 13. Cyrus, 14. Darius Histaspes, 15. Artaxerxes, and other Pagan Princes, who employed their Civil power about Religion, Esd. 1.1, 2, 3, 4. and 4.17, 18, 19, etc. and Nehem. 7. We have yet some other examples, 16. of Phineas, 17. Heliah, 18. Mattathias, 19 Judah, and some others, who in quality of extraordinary judges, punished Heretics and Idolaters, yea some of them by death, Num. 25.8. 1 King. 18.40. 1 Macch. 2. 2 Macch. 36. Now howbeit these acts of extraordinary judges are not to be drawn into consequence by private persons: nevertheless they are to be imitated by ordinary judges: for, what they did extraordinarily in respect of their calling, and in quality of judges, ordinary judges should do it ordinarily, since it is their ordinary charge, as the others extraordinarily, and is commended in Scripture. We have some examples in the New Testament: in S. Peter's person, who in quality of an extraordinary judge, when there was no Christian Magistrate, put to death Ananias and Saphyra, for their hypocrisy and dissimulation, Act. 5.5.10. How much more might he have done it for Heresy, which is worse? And S. Paul struck Elymas the Sorcerer blind, because he would have seduced Paulus Sergius the Proconsul from the saith, Act. 13.8, 10. because the Magistrate did not his duty, or because there was no Christian Magistrate in those times. Now what they did as extraordinary Magistrates, not being ordinary, the ordinary Magistrate may do it ordinarily, as an ordinary act of his charge. We have also the express commandment of God, to punish the Idolater, Heretic, or false Prophet, and dreamer of dreams, be he never so near to us, wife, brother, son, friend, etc. Deut. 13.1. And the reason is, because He hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, v. 5.10. So, whosoever seduceth us from the Lord our God, as Heretics, are to suffer, if they be pertinacious; Yea, whole Cities are to be destroyed for this sin, ver. 15. See Exod. 22.20. Deut. 17.2. Yea, it was not so much as permitted to the people of God to make any Covenant, or marriage with Idolatrous people, for fear of turning them away from God's service, Deut. 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Exod. 34.11.15. Ezra 9.10. Nehem. 9 And this was signified by a prohibition, not to let their cattles so much as gender with a divers kind, not to sow their ground with mingled seed, nor to wear garments mingled with linen and , Levit. 19 as Zepperus in Explanatione legum Mosaicarum forensium, l. 4. c. 2. expounds it. We nave the Roman laws, in the first Book of the Code of Justinian, through all the first 14 or 15 Titles, and elsewhere, to this very Head. So we have solemn Covenants in Scripture, to observe the Law of God, and consequently the first Commandment, and so to destroy Heresy and Schisms, which are contrary to it: As (1) that of Moses, pronouncing sundry benedictions to the keepers, and curses to the transgressors thereof, Deut. 27. & 28. (2) Of joshua, 23. & 24. (3) Of Asa, 2 Chro. 15.12. (4) Of Joash, 2 Chro 23.16. (5) Of Josiah, 2 Chro. 34.30. (6) Of Ezra, c. 10.3. (7) Of Nehemiah. chap. 9 v. 28. and 10.1. to the 30. They make a sure Covenant and write it; and enter into a curse, yea and that with an oath, to walk in God's law, etc. so far were they from tolerating Heretics and Schismatics, that might turn them away from it, as our Independents go about to do. Our own Covenant also obligeth the Magistrate to punish all Heretics and Schismatics, and the People to assist him herein: yea, the Independents themselves, in as much as they have entered into the same Covenant, stand equally obliged to reform Religion, according to their power. Now God hath given them the power to reform it, in punishing Heretics and Schismatics, according to their demerits; which if either We, or They do not, we are forsworn, and God one day will call us to an account. CHAP. IU. Containing our Adversaries Evasions. NOw what says M. S. to all this, who was so desirous of some proofs from Scripture? His first Answer is, That A. S. bringeth those Examples, for want of better Arguments. A. S. Rep. 1. And so he jeereth God's Word. 2. Wherefore are not Arguments drawn from God's Word, good enough in matter of Religion? 3. These Examples are approved in Scripture, and therefore may very well have the force of a Command. M. S. 2. His second Answer is, that none of the good Kings of judah ever offered any violence to the true Prophets of the Lord. A. S. Repl. Neither say I any such thing, only I say they had a Royal, or Political Power (which was extrinsecall unto the Church, or of another nature, as your Apologists speak) to conserve the true Religion; and in case of corruption to reform it. M. S. his third Answer proves nothing for the persecuting, annoying, crushing, disgracing, banishing, fining the Apologists, whom himself (more than once, or twice) acknowledgeth for very Pious, Godly, and Learned men. A. S. Neither bring I them to prove any such thing, I hope they shall prove no false Prophets, Heretics, Schismatics, to be so dealt with. 2. Only I bring these Passages to prove, that the Civil Magistrate may, and is bound in duty to punish all false Prophets, Heretics and Schismatics, whoever they be. And howbeit they could perchance find favour enough to establish themselves in one time, by a Prince's Authority, yet notwithstanding all that another, or the very same Prince upon better information, yea, or a subsequent Parliament may, nay aught to revoke any such favour so granted them, and to punish the Sectaries, as those good Kings did. Whereas he saith, that I acknowledge the Apologists for Pious Persons; I Answer; Heretofore I judged so of them, by a judgement of Charity, which believeth all things; but I would pray him, and them both, under pretext of such a charitable judgement of mine, not to be too licentious in broaching, or publishing of erroneous Opinions, lest they make me to write some Book of Retractations, which he, and they will certainly force me to do, if they continue: Neither shall I be ashamed if they deceive me, but I hope better things of them: And God forbidden that they should go on upon his violent course, rather to sufferdeath, then to change: God change his heart, and I hope in his Mercy he shall do it. M. S. 4. He saith: Neither did any of those Kings ever compel any man to the jewish Religion, nor yet to profess the jewish Religion against their judgements. A. S. They could not compel their heart or will, but at leastwise they hindered them from the Externall Acts of idolatry, and other Religions, so far forth as death could hinder them, as appeared from all those Texts. They could also compel their external actions, read the members of their body to give no offence unto the Church of God; If they could not cut off an ill will, yet could they cut away an ill tongue. M. S. 5. Answereth. It was permitted to Persons of other Nations to live amongst them without being Circumcised, yea or without smarting for want. A. S. But he bringeth no Text of Scripture to prove, that when the jews were a free people, and had good Rulers, they then permitted any such uncircumcised men to live amongst them. 2. Neither doth this any thing against my Argument, which only proveth a Political Power in the Civil Magistrate, who is Extrinsecall to the Church, whereby he might punish Idolaters, false Prophets, and Priests, for their Idolatries, false Doctrine, and Worship. 3. If he did it not, he sinned against the Covenant. 4. However such might live amongst them for some time uncircumcised; yet could they not be Inhabitants, or true Denizens without Circumcision. 5. Much less was the Religion of uncircumcised Persons tolerated amongst them in the times of good Judges, or Kings, as appearech by all those Texts. 6. But least of all had they power to write Books against their Religion, as the Independents do here in face of the Parliament, and the Assembly against ours. 7. Yea they could not so much as take a stranger to their Wife, as we read, Ezra chap. 9 and 10. and in the Covenant, Neh. 10. ver. 30. and 13.23, 24, 25. where it is said, that Nehemiah smote them for such Marriages, and plucked off their hair, v. 27, 28. And Ezra, chap. 10. made them to put away their strange Wives, and such as were borne of them. Wherefore then may not the Christian Magistrate do as much? M. S. 6. Answ. Nor do we ever read that ever they attempted any thing against any Sectaries, or Schismatics (as A. S. would call them) which yet abounded in great variety, and numbers amongst them, as Scribes, or Pharisees, or Herodians, or Persons of any other Sect in the Profession of the jewish Religion, that lived peaceably in their State. Idolatry and Idolaters were, as it seems, the adequate Object of their coercive power in matters of Religion. A. S. Repl. But we read, that they attempted something against false Prophets, if death be any attempt against them, as all the Texts, cited by me, show evidently. 2. I deny your Consequence; we read it not, Ergo it was not, for we cannot argue à testimonio negatiuè, yea, not of Scripture, unless it be in things necessary to salvation, such as are not Histories of particular facts. 3. The cause wherefore we read it not is, because under good judges or Kings, they were never tolerated: ill Kings would not punish them; but their examples are not to be drawn in Consequence. 4. As for the Scribes, Pharisees, and Herodians, no wonder, if they were not punished. 1. For these Sects begun very late, not long before the coming of Christ, when the Religion was mightily corrupted, which Christ came to reform. 2. Because the jews were not then a free people, neither had they the Civil Power absolutely in their own hands. 3. They had no good Rulers. 4. No more were the Sadduces punished, who denied God's Providence, the Resurrection of the Body, the Immortality of the Soul, and all spiritual natures, as some testify of them; and yet they were more punished by God's Law, than Idolaters, since their error was greater; so should the Herodians have been punished, since they took Herod to be the Messiah, and that he should come again after that he had been strucken by the Angel; and yet they were not punished. 5. The Idolaters were to be punished, and yet they lived in profession of the jewish Religion, for they apostatised not. It is false, that the Idolatry was the adequate Object of their coercive power, for they also were punished, who married strange Women, etc. It is also a mistake in him, to think, Scribe was the name of a Sect, it is not the name of a Sect, but of an Office, or Profession; for one man may be a Scribe, and a Pharisee; a Scribe by his Office, and a Pharisee by his Sect; as you may see, Mat. 22.35. Then one of them, viz. of the Pharisees, which was a Lawyer, asked him a question: A Lawyer, i. e. a Scribe as Mark interprets it, chap. 12.28. And one of the Scribes, whom Matthew calleth one of the Pharisees. 2. Esdras also was a Scribe, and no Pharisee. 3. It is commonly thought by Divines, that there was three sorts of Scribes, Some about the King, which they prove from 2 Sam. 8.17. Sariah was the Scribe, and 20.25. Sheva was Scribe, see 2 Kings 12.10. and 22.3. Others were Public Notaries, as were the Kenites, that came of Hemath, the father of the House of Rechab, 1 Chronicles, 2.25. who had no Heritage with the rest of the Tribes, see jer. 32.11. where ye see an Evidence drawn up by such a Notary, and what was the custom in drawing up of such Evidences. Others were as it were Doctors, or Professors of the Law, whose charge was to write the Law, and to expound it in the Temple, and in the Synagogues, wherefore they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lawyers, Matth. 7.29. and 17.10. and 23.13. Mar. 12.28. Luk. 7.30. and 11.46. and wise men, jer. 8.8. 1 Cor. 1.19. None of them all were accounted for Sectaries. M. S. 7. Answ. P. 51. Sect. 21. Nor did they, nor were they to inflict any outward punishment upon every kind of Idolater, though of the jewish both Nation and Religion; as first, not upon covetous Persons, who yet are a kind of Idolaters: Nor secondly, upon those, who yet worshipped the true God of Israel, though with some violation of the second Commandment, as when they sacrificed upon the High Places, etc. But 1. Upon such only, who apostatised from the God of Israel; and yet 2. Not upon such simply, as such, but as attempting to draw away others of the People unto the same Idolatries with them. A. S. 1. It is an untruth, that they punished not, or at least were not bound to punish all Idolatry, properly so called, since we have produced you formal examples, and Covenants to the contrary; as Exod. 32.27. Deut. 22.11.2. Neither were they Apostates, that pleaded for Baal, and yet a sentence of death was given against them conditionally, judg. 6.31, or they of whom it is spoken. 1 Kings 15.12. 2 Chro. 14.4, 5.3. Neither could the small ones in the 15. chap. ver. 13. yet be Apostates, or entice others to Idolatry: and yet in case of Idolatry, or of not seeking the Lord, they were to die. 4. Nor read we, that Maachah the King's Mother, who was punished, was an Apostate. 5. Or those that are mentioned in Esdras, and Nehemiah. 6. Yea when the Kings, or people fell away to Idolatry, we never find that they apostatised, for than they should have been no more God's people. 7. Only they joined Idolatry with the service of the true God; yea our Divines in disputing against Papists, maintain the Papists are Idolaters, for the adoration of Statues and Images; and that the people of the jews were not so mad, as to have imagined their Statues or Images to be true Gods: only they adored God in Images and Statues, and the act of their Adoration terminative was related to God, and not to the Image, as that of the Papists. And as for your instance of Covetous Persons; it is ridiculous, for covetousness is not properly Idolatry, such as the Scripture speaketh of in the Texts, which I produce; or such as is comprehended in the second Commandment, and is against God; but improperly, since it is not formally a breach of the First, but of the Second Table. 2. Not formally and immediately a sin against God, but against our Neighbour. Nor is the sacrificing upon the High Places formally, and essentially Idolatry. 1. For Idolatry is a sin against the second Commandment, which is juris naturalis & perpetui, but to sacrifice upon High Places is not formally and essentially against any Commandment, that is Juris naturalis & perpetui. 2. But only against a Positive, and temporal commandment of not sacrificing in the high places; after that the Temple was built, whereunto God tied the Religious act of sacrifice. 3. Because the Prohibitive Commandment about sacrificing upon High Places came long after the Second Commandment about Idolatry, viz. after that the Temple was built. Neither can M. S. bring any Text of Scripture for what he saith, viz. that only Apostates, or Idolaters, who enticed others to Idolatry, were to be punished. 2. Howbeit they be to be punished, yet others are not to be excluded from punishment. I pray the Reader to consider, how tenderhearted this man is towards Idolaters and false Prophets; he pleadeth for them, as if he had a will to be one of them himself: Neither in our Religion use we the rigour of this Law, against such as are not pertinacious, or who will repent of their sin: Our Churches desire not the death of a sinner, but of the sin; not of the Heretic or Schismatic, but of the Schism and Heresy. We distinguish betwixt Heresy, and Heresy; Schism, and Schism; for some are of more, some of less dangerous consequence: Item betwixt Heretics, and Heretics; Schismatics, and Schismatics; for some are Ringleaders, some misled: some more, some less pertinacious and malicious, etc. and every one of them are to be punished according to the quality of the Heresy and Heretic, of the Schism and Schismatic. Sometimes also the Circumstances of Times, Places, and Persons are to be considered. And we are to do what we may, and not what we may not: M. S. His eighth Answer (as if what he had said were only to exercise his quick spirit, and to show how cunningly he can elude strong Arguments) is, That there are two reasons why the Kings of Judah might be invested by God with a larger power in matters of Religion, than Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel: 1. Because their Kings were types of Christ, which ours are not: 2. And their People of the spiritual Church of Christ, and their Land of the Heavenly inheritance of that Church, which we cannot claim. A. S. Answ. 1. To be a type of Christ, is not a sufficient ground of a Political power over the Church, or about the Church: For 1. then the Priests, and some Prophets, as Ionas, should have had it: Yea, Adam, Isaac, yea some other thing, as the Tree of Life, the first born of the Flock offered in Sacrifice by Abel, the Paschall Lamb, the brazen Serpent, all the Victimes of the Old Testament, the Ark and the Propitiatory: for they were all types of Christ. 2. Because it hath no influence upon Civil Authority. 3. Because it could not represent any Civil authority in Christ, since his Kingdom was not of this World. 4. It may be doubted how they were types of Christ, whether in respect of their Civil 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 God's 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, than 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 apostatised from the Ceremonial Law that ordained all the types: for a type, whether it be a thing, a person, persons, action, effect, or event, it must signify something to come. 2. It must signify, by God's 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 typical might be taken away, and that which was political may remain. 8. And I put the case, that the jews had received Christ, as absolutely they might have done, who can doubt but their Political Government might have continued, and their Kings ruled as well the Church externally, as they did before his coming, since Christ's Kingdom was not of this World, and that he came not to abolish or to diminish the power of Kings, but to save their souls: they were no ways losers by Christ's coming, but rather gainers. He might as well have said, they had a Civil 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 jews types of the Christian Church, in respect of the Civil, but of the Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Government by Church-officers, and the People subject thereunto. So also was their Land a type of the Celestial Jerusalem, not as it contained 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 Political or Moral Law, as Magistrates, and their Authority, (at least, qua tales) but only by the Ceremonial Law. True it is, that God may serve himself of a thing instituted by the Moral Law to be a type, but he must make it a type by some subsequent Ceremonial 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, Heretics, and Sectaries; who are never such, till they be sufficiently convicted, and after that remain pertinacious: But no ways good people, under the notion of good people, but so far forth as they do amiss: And what reason, if he who heretofore by the judgement of Charity was thought a good man, if he become an Heretic, or a Murderer, 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 judah had such a power by a Moral law, which is of a perpetual obligation and engagement upon other Nations. A.S. Answ. It suffices, that I have proved it by a Political Law; and that the same reason obliges Christian Princes, v●z. B. cause they will turn thee from the Lord thy God, Deut. 13.5.10. ●● Thus Political law is grounded upon the fifth Commandment, which is juris naturalis. It must be so, since it is grounded in natural reason. 4. And our Reasons (God willing) hereafter shall make it appear. 5. In the mean time, take for an example Nabuchadnezzar, who, since he was no le●●, could not do it in virtue of any Political law of the jews, for he was no Subject of the Kingdom of juda: only he could do it in virtue of the Moral, or some Political law grounded on the Moral, or the law of Nature. M. S. It was no more Moral, then that of the staying of the inhabitants of the idolatrous City, and the cattles thereof, etc. A. S. I deny it, for the one is grounded upon Natural and Divine reason, as we have seen, 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 juda only exercised their power about Idolatry, and Idolaters. A. S. I deny it: 1. For they exercised it also in beating down 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 Commandment, the violation whereof is more directly against God's Honour; for sacrificing in High Places is but a circumstance of the second Commandment violated, but Heresy and Schism are formal breaches of the first Commandment; 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 Jews, and not their Kings that was invested with it by God, Deut. 13. and 7.5. and 12.2, 3. A. S. Here is Anabaptism in divesting 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 jews? 2. Was their Government democratical? or rather anarchical? Had women, children, and servants this Power? I grant you that in virtue 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 contain 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 Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical matters, even no more than to the meanest of the people? Truly 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 find 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 jews, that were invested with it; for God never invested the confused multitude in any judicial, 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 Civil Magitrate had in the old Testament, and is not abrogated in the New may yet continue in the New, or the Civil Magistrate may have it in the New. But the power to punish Heretics, and Schismatics is a Power, which the Civil Magistrate had in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New Testament. Ergo the power to punish Heretics, and Schismatics, is a such a Power he may Civil Magistrate may have in the New, and so in virtue of Power, which the punish them. The Major is certain, 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 certain, as appeareth by the Texts of Scripture already alleged. The second Part may easily be proved, because only the Ceremonial Law, which contained the shadow of things to come, was abrogated in the New Testament. The Moral Law was not abrogated so fare forth as it is a Rule of obedience, nor as it binds us thereunto: No more is the Political Law in quality of Political; for by the same reason Christ should have overthrown and abrogated all the Political Laws, and policies of the world. But that is false, for Christ's Kingdom was not of this world; and he submitteth himself unto the Political Law of the Jews, yea unto that of the Romans also, established amongst the Jews: So did Paul and the Apostles, who pleaded their causes before Heathen Magistrates; I appeal unto Caesar, saith Paul, Non auferet mortalia, qui regna dat Coelestia. 2. Yea, if the Jews had received Christ for their Messiah, I doubt not but the Political Law of Moses, in quality of Political, should have continued amongst them, and the Civil Magistrate amongst them should have punished Heretics, Schismatics, Idolaters, etc. in the New Testament, as they did in the Old. Neither is there any reason, wherefore Christ, or his Apostles should have hindered him by his Political power to maintain 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 Civil 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 maintain God's Cause, and Religion. 4. And the holier our Covenant is, and the further it surpasses the Old, so much the greater should the Civil Magistrates care be, to maintain it by his Civil Power. 5. If it were not so, the State of the Church in regard of the Civil Magistrate should be worse in the New, then in the Old Testament; for than he maintained it by his Civil Power, and by the sword; and now he doth it not, nor yet hath the power to do it. 6. Is not this plain Anabaptism, to approve the authority of the Civil Magistrate in the Old Testament, and to reject it in the New; for as the Anabaptists reject it wholly in the New Testament, so do the Independents in part, yea in a great part, viz. in that, which concerneth the defence of the Church in punishing Heretics, Schismatics, Idolaters, etc. 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 alleged, and in Pharaoh, and Esay 1.49.22. where it is promised that Kings shall be Nurses of the Church. 8. What if foreign Princes would invade the Church of God? may not godly Princes in such a case justly defend it, and repress them by the sword? wherefore then may they not do the like to their own Subjects, who will trouble her peace, and by so doing compel them to their duty? 9 Doth not the Civil Magistrate this in New England? wherefore then may he not do it in Old England, unless forsooth the Majestaticall presence of five or six Independent Ministers here be capable to dazzle, and discountenance him here, whereas they receive all their lustre and influence from him there, or that as Monks and Friars ye plead pro immunitate Clericorum, or that the ridiculous thunderbolts of Master goodwin's pretended Judgements of God, be capable to dash it all in pieces here? 10. If the Civil Magistrate have not a sufficient Power to punish Idolaters, Heretics, and Schismatics for Religion, than all the Roman Laws in the Code made against Heretics, and those of this Kingdom made against jesuites, Monks, and Priests, must be unjust; yea the judgements given out against them since this Parliament begun are unjust; and if so, you would do well to tell them of it: If we believe these American Christians, the Parliaments Laws are little less than tyrannical. 11. That for which all Princes are commended in Scripture, that all good Princes should do; and for which they are discommended, that should they not do. But for punishing of Idolaters, Schismatics, Heretics, etc. all Princes that did so in Scripture are commended, and for sparing of them are discommended. Ergo all good Princes should punish Heretics, etc. and not spare them. The Major is certain, the Minor is sufficiently proved by the Examples of all the good Kings of Juda, and of jehu. 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 Civil Magistrate be not bound by his Office to punish Heretics, Schismatics, etc. he is bound to tolerate them all; and so to tolerate all Independents, all Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists, Socinians, etc. yea some, who deny the Immortality of the Soul, that hold a general 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 judgement: peradventure of Lice, Flies, Worms, etc. and so he shall do well to Licence the Books of such subjects, till Master Goodwin, alias M. S. resute them; for he finds no other remedy in God's Word, but to refute such Books. If we believe this new gospeler, ye shall have in a short time as many Religions as days, yea as hours in a year: yea without all doubt, I tremble to say it, (the Lord preserve us from it) as many Gods as ever the Greakes, and Remans' had. Wherefore in the name of God take heed, ye all most Honourable Worthies of the two Houses of Parliament, to this most damnable Tenet. 14. Princes, Kings, and judges in Scripture are called Deliverers, or Saviour's of the people, because they defend the Church from her Oppressors, judg. 2.16. such as be Heretics, Schismatics, etc. If therefore ye be our judges, most Honourable, and worthy Senators, it is your part to defend God's people, the Religion, which he hath established in his Word, and to destroy Oppressors, and the Enemies thereof; I mean not their Bodies, but their Oppressions, their Heresies and Schisms. 15. Master's have power to put Heretics and Schismatics out of their houses, in case they be pertinacious; Ergo Princess and Magistrates have the same power in the State, for there is the same reason for both, viz. not to suffer God to be offended so far forth as in us lieth. 16. What power is juris naturalis, is to be exercised in all times and places according to our power: But the power to punish Heretics, etc. is juris naturalis, Erge it is to be exercised in all times, and places. The first Proposition is certain; for that which is juris naturalis changeth not, but is the same in all times and places, because it is not grounded in any inconstant or voluntary institution of our will, but in the immutable ordinance of Nature, which dictates the same thing to all Persons, in all times, and in all places. The second I prove, because it is a Dictate of the Law of Nature, that such, as trouble the true Religion, are to be punished; and Moses gives you a natural reason of it, viz. for they will turn thy heart away from the Lord thy God, Deut. 7.4. and 13.5. the reason will be thus: who ever in all Moral probability will turn the people's heart away from God, it is the Civil Magistrates duty to punish him. But Heretics, etc. are such, Ergo it is the Civil Magistrates duty to punish them; it is Moses argument. 17. If the Civil Magistrate punish not Heretics, he should become a partaker of other men's sins, because he hindereth them not, so fare forth as in him lieth by his Civil Power, viz. in punishing them: neither carrieth he the sword in vain; neither can it be better employed then in punishing pertinacious sinners, such as are Heretics and Schismatics: But he should not become a partaker of other men's sins, as the light of Nature, and Scripture teacheth us, 1 Tim. 5.22. 18. If he punish not Heretics, than every man in the Kingdom shall have power to mould himself a new Religion, according to his own heart, as the Israelites did their golden Calf, and do what should seem right in his own eyes. But the Consequent is absurd, Deut. 13.8. Neither was it permitted amongst the Heathens themselves, that any man should bring in new Gods, or new Religions, by their own private authority. We read how the Athenians sentenced Diagoras, Anaxagoras, and Socrates for their new Opinions in matter of Religion; and Philastrius telleth us, how the Audianis were condemned for Heretics, because that they commended all Sects and Heresies; why not also the Independents, for commending and defending the toleration of them all? 19 Because we pray to God for Kings, and for all that be in Authority; that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2.2. By their conversion to Christ, v. 3, 4, 5. to the end, that being converted, they may defend Religion, in punishing Heretics and Schismatics, and so in repressing of Schism and Heresy. 20. Because in a State wherein all men profess the truth, the peace of the State cannot be otherways preserved; nor the safety of the Kingdom, which is the ultimate end of the Civil Magistrate, qua talis, and the supreme Law of the Republic be obtained: for how shall peace, safety, and unity be procured amongst Orthodox Subjects, but by unity in Truth? and how can the bond of unity be any ways so soon, and so easily broken, as by diversity of Religions? And this the Ecclesiastical History fully showeth us: for what miseries cannot these Schisms breed; when the Husband is of one Religion, and the wife of another; the Father of one, and the Son of another; Brethren and Sisters of divers Religions; the King of one, and the Subjects of another? How many Families hath it dissolved? how many Cities hath it destroyed? Have we not Examples fresh and bleeding before us in Ireland, & c? It hath cost some Kings their Crowns, some their lives, and endangered others of their life and Kingdom both. Yea, what is one of the principal causes of our present divisions betwixt the King and the Subjects? Is not Arminianism, Socinianism, the archiepiscopal (I know not what) Religion? Some call it Popery, some Socinianism, others Arminianism, others Lutheranism, others some mixture of Religion, not much unlike to Samaritanism. But be it what it will; diversity of Religion, and not punishing of Heretics and Schismatics, is the principal cause of all these our miseries and confusions. 21. The Civil Magistrate is to punish such as marry with those of a contrary Religion, and that because they are of contrary Religions, as appeareth by the texts of Scripture already alleged, [Deut. 7.2.3.] How much more those, who are of contrary Religions? nam propter quod unumquodque tale, id magis tale: for it is a greater sin to be an Idolater, or an Heretic, then to be married to them. 22. Those, with whom we cannot enter into Covenant, cannot be tolerated among us, but must be at least exiled by the Civil Magistrate: for, to live amongst us, they must, at least, enter into Covenant with us for an offensive and defensive war against foreign Enemies: But with Idolaters, Heretics, etc. we cannot enter into Covenant, Deut. 7.2. so Esdras and Nehemiah above quoted: Ergo, 23. Because God hath promised to destroy our Enemies, if we destroy his: wherefore, rather than God should not destroy ours, were it not policy to labour the destruction of his? 24. The man who will not hearken to the Ministers of the Church, and the Civil Magistrate, the Civil Magistrate must punish him. But Heretics and Schismatics are the men, who will not hearken unto the Ministers of the Church, and to the Civil Magistrate; Ergo, the Civil Magistrate must punish them. The first Proposition is clear: The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die, Deut. 12.12. Neither know I what can be answered, save only, that that must be understood of the Priest of the Old Testament. But there is the same reason for the Ministers of the New Testament, viz. 1. The taking away of evil, the conservation of order and unity, and to avoid Schism. 2. Neither did Christ by his death obtain for us an immunity from all obedience, or an independent licentiousness to do ill. 3. And this is the Holy Ghosts reason in that same place: And thou shalt put away the evil from Israel: And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do 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 himself, wherefore the Civil Magistrate must punish Idolaters, false Prophets, or Heretics, etc. 26. Because God's people is an holy people to the Lord. 27. Because they know that God is faithful, 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 six. NOw I will propound M.S. his Objections, whereof many conclude, that this Intrinsecall power not only doth belong to the Civil 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 Civil Magistrate, and himself, viz. A.S. with his fellow Presbyters, hath he not made the one Judex, and the other Carnifex: the one, i e. the Civil Magistrate, must give the sentence; the other must do execution. Answ. A.S. 1. There is no decision at all between the Civil 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 Intrinsical power, both directive and executive, to the Church; and an Extrinsecall to the Civil Magistrate, (viz. which is extrinsecall in respect of Ecclesiastical power, but intrinsecall to Civil power) make the Church or Ecclesiastical Assembly a Judge, and the Parliament or Civil Magistrate a Hangman (to remember his most humble respects unto the King, Parliament, and all the judges of this Kingdom) For the Ecclesiastical Assemblies (as it is the common opinion of all our Divines) cannot judge of the Civil 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 Civil Government. 4. That the Church, which is the Kingdom of Christ, hath no Civil power, since it is not of this World, Joh. 18.26. 5. That the Civil Magistrate commanding and compelling such as be refractory and disobedient to the Church, must not see with the Church's eyes, but with his own Civil or Political eyes. 6. And that in so doing he obeyeth not the Church, or any Ecclesiastical power, but God, whose power he exerciseth in the State, as the Ecclesiastical Assemblies do exercise Christ's power in the Church. 7. Yea more, that sometimes the Civil Magistrate may not punish those who are disobedient to the Church, viz. if thereupon may follow the undoing of the State, etc. 8. For the same reason, it is most untrue, that the one giveth out the sentence, and the other must do execution. 9 And moreover, because they are two several judicatories, they are both independent one upon another, howsoever both divers ways subject one to another: for the Civil Magistrate is subject in a spiritual way to the Church; He must learn God's will by the Ministers of the Church, who are Gods Ambassadors, sent unto him: He must be subject unto Ecclesiastical Censures, as we see by the Examples of the Kings in the Old Testament, and Theodosius the Emperor in the New. So the Church again is subject not in a Spiritual, but in a Civil way, to the Government of the Civil Magistrate, as all Protestants, and Ministers themselves confess, and plead for it against the Roman Clergy, in favour of the Civil Magistrate. 10. The Civil 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 Civil Magistrate or the Church commands them to do their duty. 13. The Carnifex or Executioner pronounceth not a sentence as the Magistrate. M. S. Obj. 2. pag. 33. The Civil Magistrate is much beholding to the Presbyter, for giving him a Consecrated sword to fight the Presbiterian battles; and for persuading 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, than what he brings here, all he saith is utterly false. 1. The Presbyterians have none but spiritual battles to fight; 2 Cor. 10.3, 4. the weapons of their warfare are not carnal. 2. They do not war after the flesh; neither wrestle they against flesh and blood, but against the Rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness 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 spiritual sword; they cannot quit it: much less can they give him the material 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 evil. 2. It is false, that the Presbyterians persuade him to pull out his own eyes, or to see with theirs. 1. For they teach him to learn the Gospel, by reading the Word, and hearing it Preached by the Ministers thereof, according to God's Word, and not by every Cobbler, as amongst Independents in exercising their gifts. 2. And afterwards to see and judge by his own eyes. 3. They say and Preach that it is a great sin in him, if he judge with any other than his own eyes. 4. He must judge according to the Laws of the State; otherwise he doth not the part of a judge. 5. Yea if his judgement descent from the judgement of the Law, we know well enough he ought to quit both his own judgement, and that of the Church, and to judge against his own private conscience according to the Law, and his public conscience which he is bound to have, as a public person, conform to Law; for he sitteth not upon the Tribunal as a private, but as a public Person, not as james or Charles, but as King james, or King Charles. So in this there is no policy, as this malignant spirit calumniateth. I omit here his deep policy in comparing the Civil Magistrate, 1. King, Parliament, etc. with a Dog. 2. And the Presbytery with an Ape: whether this be not profanation, and impiety at least, and that in a pretty high degree, I submit to the judgement of those whom it so nearly concerneth, if they be Apes I wonder you will call them Brethren. What brother Ape, and so Apes yourselves, according to your Tenet: so let the Conclusion hold for you; but we deny the Antecedent, in so far forth as applied to Presbyterians. M. S. Obj. 3. Surely the frame and constitution of Presbytery is exactly calculated for the Meridian of this present World: And indeed A. S. himself is somewhat ingenuous, in acknowledging, that this Government hath little or no relation unto, or compliance with the World, which is to come; professing, p. 13. the external peace of the Church to be the adequate end thereof. The Argument will be thus: That Government, whose adequate end is the external peace of the Church, hath no compliance with the world to come, but is calculated for the Meridian of this world: But Presbyterian Government is a Government, whose adequate end is the Externall peace of the Church, as A. S. confesseth, p. 13. Ergo: The Presbyterian Government hath no compliance, etc. A.S. To be short here; Note, when I say, that the peace of the Church is the adequate end of Church-Government; 1. That by the Church-Government, I mean not the Church, according to her essential, but to her accidental or visible form: 2. And consequently, that by Government I mean not the internal Government, which belongeth to her, in respect of her essential, but the external, which belongeth to her, by reason of her accidental or visible form: the first is proper to Christ, or God in Christ, who only hath a domination over our souls. But the second he exerciseth by the Ministry of men. 3. That by the peace of the Church, I mean not a worldly, but a spiritual peace or quietness, void of Ecclesiastical trouble, by corruption of Doctrine, Discipline, or manners; for in the midst of worldly troubles and persecutions, this peace may be had; neither can there one word of all this be denied, since our dispute here is only about the visible Church. 4. That by the word end I meant not, 1. Finem ultimum simpliciter, sed in suo genere, i. e. not the ultimate end absolutely, but in its own kind; nor 2. Finem operantis Artificis, or operis; but Artis & Operationis; not the end of the Agent, of the Artist, or of his work; but of the Art or Habitude, whereby he operateth, and of his Operation. Nor 3. the external end of Government, such as is the World to come, or eternal life; but the internal end, which is her peace and quietness; which however it be an external accident of the Church's Essence, yet it is the intrinsical end of her external Government. Nor, 4. the common end of Government, which is the end of other things also, as, the World to come; which is the end of our Faith, Charity, of all Christian virtues, of Discipline and Government also, but the proper and particular end thereof. 5. Non finem obtinendum solum, but, producendum. And I could not, nor should have taken it otherwise, as this man most impertinently would have me to do: for things are defined, notified, and distinguished by their internal, proper, ultimate ends in suo genere, and that are to be wrought; and not by their extrinsecall, common, absolutely ultimate ends, etc. as the Philosophers do teach us. So I answer, that the Proposition is false; for Church-Government may have the Externall peace of the Church for its adequate, Intrinsecall, proper, ultimate end, in sno genere, and for the end of Government and Discipline, which is finis producendus; And the World to come, for its Extrinsecall, common, absolutely ultimate end; for the end that is to be obtained, and end of the Agent, and of his work. And if it be objected, that the adequate end of Church-Government should contain in itself all its ends, and consequently the life to come. I answer, that that is most false, for it containeth only its partial ends. 2. If it be the Internal end, it containeth not the Externall end thereof: If it be the proper end, it cannot contain the common end, but the common end containeth it: neither is it needful that it contain the mediate and ultimate ends, or the ultimate absolutely, and the ultimate in its own kind or sort; for only it containeth in it the partial ends, such as are not subordinate, as the mediate and ultimate end, or as the ultimate absolutely, and in its own kind or sort: And the reason of it is this; because, as parts and compartes, so partial ends are coordinate and opposed one to another, and not subordinate, as the mediate and ultimate end, or as the ultimate absolutely, and in its own kind, as the Externall peace of the Church, and the World to come. Object. 4. The sum of M.S. his discourse, p. 33. §. 5. and p. 34. cometh to this; If the civil Magistrate hath not a Directive power in the Church, but the Church-Assemblies have it alone; then the Church-Assembly must have the gift of Infallibility. A.S. This is a Papistical Argument, whereby the jesuites prove, that the Romish Church cannot err: But I answer him, and Papists both. Ans. 1. I deny this connexum: for a Directive power may be, where there is no infallibility. 2. The Independents arrogate to their congregational Churches and Presbyteries, a Directive power, without any gift of infallibility. 3. They grant a Directive power unto the Civil Magistrate, whom they grant to be fallible. 4. And howbeit the Civil Magistrate be fallible, yet they will not grant, that the Presbytery may, or should judge over him; no more can the Civil Magistrate judge over the Presbytery, however it be fallible. 5. For by the same reason, any man might judge them both, since they are both fallible. 6. Howbeit any judge, either Secular or Ecclesiastical, be fallible, yet must they be obeyed, till judicially they be convicted of error; otherwise controversies should never be ended, since we have no infallible judge or judgement in this life, unless God extraordinarily should reveal it to us. Object. 5. After such stuff, as we have seen, M. S. p. 34. §. 2. guesses what I mean by a Directive power, and brings three acceptions of it, but all short of what I mean: The first is, that it may signify a liberty or power of considering, advising, and proposing of what may be expedient to be done in matters of Religion, and for the 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 aught 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 Kingdom of Christ also. To this, A. S. saith, that all men may grant it to be true, if they claimed any sovereign, Royal authoritative power: But if they claim only a Ministerial 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 prudential faculty or ability to direct, order, or prescribe, whether to a man's self, or to others, what in a way of reason, humane conjecture, or probability, is best and fittest to be done, followed, or embraced 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 ways guessed at my mind: for by a Directive power, however I mean a prudential Prudence, yet mean I not a private prudential Prudence, which may be found in Midwives, Maidservants, and Watermens; for in granting such a Power to the Parliament and Ecclesiastical Senates, he grants them no more, then to the meanest of the people; but I mean an authoritative public, and Ecclesiastical prudential power, not Sovereign, Imperial, Royal, or despotical, or Magisteriall; but Ministerial, such as may belong to Ministers, and Ambassadors of Christ: And as I have said, it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof Aristotle speaketh in the Category of Quality, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no natural power, no natural or supernatural Habitude; but Potestas or Moral 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. Reason's 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 Civil Magistrate doth claim, 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. Answ. I deny the consequence, for that contrivance and publishing of their Ordinance, is not a directive power, intrinsecall to the Church, whereof we speak, for neither directs it them intrinsically in Doctrine, Discipline or manners, but extrinsecally; 1. because the Ecclesiastical 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 Ecclesiastical act: Now what is before a Synod beginneth, and without any Ecclesiastical Act cannot be intrinsical to the Synod, or to the Church. 3. Because the Directive power, whereof I speak, was in judging of Controversies of Religion, etc. but the publishing of an Ordinance for calling the Assembly, is no such thing. Ergo, 4. Because that calling of the Assembly by Civil Authority alone, was extraordinary, howbeit very just and conform unto God's Word. Neither could this be an Ecclesiastical Assembly, unless it were virtually called by the Church Officers in virtue of their subsequent consent thereunto: and all these Answers must be taken conjunctly, and not severally. 5. Because this Assembly is not Ecclesiastical in virtue of the Ordinance of the Parliament, but of the virtual consent of the Church. The virtual indiction of it by Church Authority, contributeth to make it intrinsically Ecclesiastical: But the Ordinance of the Parliament is extrinsecall unto it, in so fare forth as Ecclesiastical, howsoever it be very just and necessary: but it is intrinsecall to it accidentally, and in so fare 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 subject or Argument, on which it was permitted them to debate; they did no less, i. e. they exercised a directive power. A. S. Answ. 1. But this is no intrinsical directive power, whereof I speak, viz. in Teaching, Preaching, judging of Controversies of Religion, etc. 2. This was no Ecclesiastical, but a Civil Power. 3. In so doing, the Parliament judged not what was to be believed or practised in the Church, but ordained them to judge, which is the true intrinsical, directive power. 4. And this was extraordinary in respect of Gods particular, howbeit not in respect of his general 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 says not, that it belongs unto them, but, that they claim it, exercise, act, and make use of it; but quo jure, quave injuriâ, he telleth not. 3. In all this there appeareth no intrinsical, or Ecclesiastical Power, they did it not by a Spiritual, but by a Secular Power. 4. And if the Church had not a Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Power to determine; and to conclude, what needed the Parliament to forbid it the Synod, rather than ordinary Tradesmen, who have no such power to determine such matters. 5. Neither by this command is it the Parliaments mind, as I believe, 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 fare it can prevail by fair means to gain pertinacious men, who may oppo●e it; and happily also till it receive full satisfaction itself, before it confirm 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 less Civil and Secular Authority to receive, or not receive it by a Civil Law into the state, than any Synod hath spiritual authority to establish, or not establish it by an Ecclesiastical Law in the Church. Wherefore in this the Parliament intended not to cross the Church Government, nor to be crossed in their Civil Government by the Church, as in former times, but to live together, as Moses and Aaron, both looking to one end, but each one of them with their own eyes, the one with a Political, the other with a Spiritual or Ecclesiastical eye. And this appeareth by those words of the Ordinance, during this present Parliament, or until 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 do more in this extraordinarily miserable estate of Religion, when now Satan hath so manifest and palpable an entrance into the Church of God, under so many ill-portending shapes, as of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, Socinians, etc. they had need take upon them, for the defence of the Church, more than in ordinary cases they do. 7. Only I add 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 find 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 enjoining 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 enjoin, in case of difference, etc. have an Internal power in the Church, much less an internal Directive power. 2. This injunction was not in reference to the 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 Civil Law, intended to approve and confirm the Ecclesiastical Law. 3. Item, it was to see, if by any means and ways of meekness, it could persuade 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 justice. And yet they ordained, that what is carried by plurality of Votes in the Assembly, should pass 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 Kingdom, when such a swarm of Sects are crept in; some coming 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, etc. (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, Ecclesiastical 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 sat there: but in quality of extraordinary Ecclesiastical persons, according to this extraordinary state and exigence of the Church. 3. If they had no Vote at all, and yet sat, they were not Members of the Assembly, but this was a special privilege 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 General Assemblies. 4. Or rather they sit there in name of the Parliament, to procure by their Civil power, the Externall order that should be in such Assemblies: But this is no Ecclesiastical or Internal 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 than they should profess themselves thereby to be Protestants; only they have power to oppose things, that they believe to be prejudicial to the King or the State. 5. Neither believe I, that they vote in points of Doctrine. 6. And if they vote in matter of Government, they do it in quality of Ruling Elders, either extraordinary or ordinary, in virtue of some virtual election made by the Synod, or by the Synods toleration, or approbation; for no man can rule the Church intrinsically, but he that is intrinsically 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 do they else, but claim 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 intrinsical 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 Civil power, can command the Church to use its Ecclesiastical 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 Intrinsical 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? 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 public Political Authoritative judgement, and a coactive Political power, to compel the Subjects to admit in the State such or such a true Doctrine or Discipline of the Church, howbeit not to believe 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 than they, and will needs continue Adversaries to them? A.S. Answ. 1. Though ye vaunt evermore of your sufferings, we have never seen them. 2. These, whom ye unjustly call your Adversaries, have suffered much more than 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 do. 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 condemn you all, who condemn it. 10. Neither doth all this prove a Directive Ecclesiastical power, belonging to the Civil 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 than 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 Civil and Ecclesiastical Judicatories; Neither can Independents change it. 15. Ibid. M.S. reasoneth thus: If our Saviour's testimony concerning himself, in his own cause, was not valid; how much less 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 bear witness of myself, my witness is not true, i. e. it is not in a formal and Legal interpretation true, but you may reasonably wave it. A.S. Ans. 1. Either Christ here speaking of his own testimony, speaketh of himself according to his Divine, to his Humane, or according to both his Natures. Item, 2. Either he speaketh of its validity in itself, or in respect of the jews, to whom he did speak, and who should have admitted of it. Item, 3. Either of his public and judicial, 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 himself according to his Divine Nature, or to both, or as Mediator; for under that notion he is judge of quick and dead: and Christ says, joh. 8.14. that if he testify of himself, his testimony is true. 2. Or if he speak of himself under this notion, than he speaketh not of his testimony, as it is in itself, but as it is in respect of them, who received it not, viz the jews, and unbelievers, who received it not as the testimony of God, or of the Mediator, (however it was such) for they knew him not, joh. 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 Christ's 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 fellows should not believe the testimony of your Presbytery or Assembly. 3. I retort then the Argument: If Christ's 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 itself without sin, 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 sinful 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 judges, in judging according to Law, in things that concern not so much their persons, as the Society that they represent in judgement, as the Assembly, and all Ecclesiastical judges do, is to be preferred before the testimony of any particular man. 6. And if this Maxim of the Independents hold, the judgement of no Civil Magistrate yea not of the Parliament itself sh●ll hold, if any of them, or any Delinquent, take the Parliament to party in any business. The Parliament will do well to take notice of such Independent Maxims. 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 ●eare, they mean to unite the two Sects in one. 8. Christ was not here speaking of himself, how far forth his testimony and judgement might hold in a judicial way, (whereof we speak here) but in a private way; for this action was not judicial, but a particular discourse. 9 Neither are the businesses now in hand at the Synod, of particular, but of public concernment, viz. the Church; wherein the Church, that is judge, cannot be taken to party, however ye call her a crowd, wherein many particular persons are concerned. M. S. Ob. 16. p. 37. §. 2. They who are Party, cannot be their Parties Judge, since they are all equals, Et par in parem non habet imperium; and to be both judge, and Party in one cause, cannot be granted to those, that have no authoritative power one over another, as A.S. himself affirms. But the Assembly are those, who are Party to the Independents, and nothing else, but their equals, Ergo the Assembly cannot be their Judges. A. S. Ans. A Party cannot judge a Party; I distinguish, for either this Party is only pretended, and so I deny the Major; or real; and then this real Party either compeareth in some personal, or real actions of his own alone; or in some cause of public concernment: if he compeare under the first notion, the Major is true, but the Minor is false; for the Members of the Assembly compeare not in the Assembly for any personal or real action of their own alone, or of particular concernment: if he compeareth under the second notion, the Major is false, unless ye have sufficient cause to forsake him for judge. 2. Item, If it be a Party, that hath no power over the Party in such a cause, the Major is true, but the Minor is false; for the Assembly in matters of Discipline hath power over all the Independents in England, viz. to condemn their Tenets according to God's Word: If it be a party, that hath power over the Party in such a cause, as a judge, the Major is false, and so it was reasoned, and this your Tenet judged, and condemned in the Arminians, as I hope, it shall be in this Arminian and the Independents, in this Assembly. 3. It is false that parties are equals, when the one hath power over another; or when the one, that is pretended to be party, judgeth not in a matter concerning himself, but the public. 4. For if that should hold, the parties of the Independent Churches might reject the judgement of whole Churches, yea of all the Churches of the world, pretending them to be parties. 5. Yea for the same reason they might reject the judgement of the Parliament. 6. This Argument proveth not the question, viz. that the Parliament hath an intrinsical, directive power in matters of Religion, or an Ecclesiastical power, to judge in matters of Religion. 7. It is a very proud and Independent expression of yours, when you say, that the Synod and all the Churches in the Christian world are but the Apologists equals; you will find them, I hope in God, their Judges; and yet they are put in authority by the Parliament, to represent the whole Church of England, which is more than such an inconsiderable number of Independents. M. S. Ob. 17. p. 37. §. 2. If all Churches were equal, (as for aught I know, or for any thing A.S. allegeth to the contrary, they are) there can be neither superiors, nor inferiors, and consequently no obedience or disobedience: But the first is true. A. S. Ans. 1. This proveth not that the Parliament hath any intrinsical power in the Church; much less any directive intrinsecall power. 2. Only it pretendeth to prove an Independent Power in the Church, which taketh away their directive power of the Civil Magistrate, and the Parliament; for if their Churches depend not of any superior, how can they depend upon the Parliament, or any other Civil Magistrate? I deny the Assumption, viz. that all Churches are equal; but he proveth it, because they are such for aught he knoweth, or that A. S. allegeth to the contrary. Answ. 1. This is, but to confess your ignorance. 2. I deny the Consequence, for it may be otherwise, howbeit he be ignorant of it. 3. Neither is his knowledge the measure of divine, or natural verity, but to be measured by them. 4. Howbeit A. S. should say nothing to the contrary, yet the contrary may be; for A. S. hath not said all things, that may be said upon this, or any other subject: and there be thousands, who can say more, and better than he; yea, many have said more and better. 5. It is an untruth also, that he hath said nothing to the contrary, for he might have seen something to the contrary in his Observations, and in his Answers to a Libel; and if that be not enough, he hath more in this Book. 6. When he saith that A. S. argueth so, it is an untruth; for neither hath A. S. the Assumption, nor the Conclusion, in the 38. page of his Observations cited by him, for he destroyeth the Consequent to destroy the Antecedent: whereas M. S. poseth the Antecedent to infer the Consequent. M. S. Ob. 18. If justice consisteth not in an Arithmetical, but Geometrical proportion, then is there no reason, that peremptoriousnesse of Vote, how Arithmetically soever privileged, but weight and worth of Arguments should carry it against them. But the first is true, Ergo the second also. A. S. Answ. This Argument with its peremptorious censure of a pretended peremptoriousnesse of Votes, Arithmetically privileged, seemeth to censure the Parliament, which ordained, that that should be offered unto them, as the judgement of the Assembly, which the major part assented unto. i e. that, that was judged by Plurality of Votes. 2. If by peremptoriousnesse of Vote, he meaneth Plurality of Votes, I deny the consequence or connexion; for when things are fully balanced by reason, in any Assembly, it is more probable, that that is most true, that is carried by plurality of votes, and that Geometrical proportion, wherein consisteth distributive justice, may be more easily found out by Plurarity of votes, then by fewer votes; otherwise it were a folly to vote any thing; for wherefore vote they any thing in any Assemblies, but that it may be judged by plurality of votes? 3. And the Apostle willeth, that the spirit of Prophets be subject to the Prophets: Neither is it credible, that the Major part will submit unto the lesser part. 4. And we would willingly know of you, Sir, how things are ordinarily carried in your Assemblies? whether things being debated, and every man's Reasons heard, the Major part submitteth to the lesser, or the lesser to the Major? or whether that is thought truth, that the Major or Minor part Voteth? 5. If by peremptoriousnesse of votes, you mean a bold and imperious carrying of things by plurality of votes, without reason, I shall readily grant you such Assemblies are unlawful; neither is there any such established amongst us; neither hath the Parliament established any such Ecclesiastical Assembly here; neither doth the Assembly arrogate unto itself any such unjust power: if this Argument hold, it shall beat down as well the proceed of the Parliament; and all Civil judicatories, wherein things are carried by Plurality of votes, as those of the Assembly: wherefore all the Civil Powers in the world will do well to take notice of this peremptorious censure of them all; for if it stand, they must fall and do homage to the Independent Churches. Besides this, I know not what he meaneth by Arithmetically privileged; for it is no term either in Divinity, or in Laws, or in Philosophy, for any thing I know: Neither heard I ever before of any Arithmetical privilege. Obj. 19 M. S. What is granted to every other man in the Kingdom, cannot be denied to the Parliament. But a calling to judge between, the Apologists, and their Brethren, yea, and somewhat more than a calling a special and weighty necessity to do it (though not after the same manner, in respect of the consequence of their judgement) is granted to every other man in the Kingdom. Ergo a calling to judge, &c. cannot be denied to the Parliament. A. S. Answ. Howbeit I might say much to the first Proposition, 1. yet I deny the Assumption, if it be taken absolutely: Or rather 2. to evite his cavillations, I distinguish it: if by the word calling he mean a public and particular calling, such as have the Officers, and Ministers, or Rulers of the Church; it is false; for no man hath such a calling, but he who is called, as Aaron: if He mean a private or common calling. I grant him all the Argument, but it is nothing to the purpose; for by such a calling they cannot judge in Public or in Ecclesiastical Assemblies. 3. I distinguish the word judge, for either it signifies an Official, Public, Ministerial, and authoritative judgement; or a private common judgement of discretion, such as belongeth to women, and all Christians: if the first, the Minor is false; for what necessity can lie upon every private man, yea, Watermens, Cobblers, and Oyster-women to go to the Assembly, and judge between the Apologists and them? If so, the Parliament hath done them wrong, in not calling of them, or rather in excluding them from so noble and necessary acts of their calling. And here I must pray the Parliament to consider, whether this Doctrine of his in this point be not seditious, and sufficient to excitate the ignorant people to challenge such a pretended calling and liberty, or licentiousness of judgement? If every one be a judge to Rule, who shall be ruled? If every one command, who shall obey? how then hath the Apostle distinguished Rulers from others? If the socond, we grant him all the Argument; but that conclusion in that sense is not the question, that is controversed between us. But 20. Arg. M. S. seems to prove the Assumption, if it be not a new Argument: Would A. S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and submission to the Assembly, without their understanding? A.S. I retort the Argument: 1. Will M.S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and submission to the King, Parliament, or any Civil Magistrate, without their understanding? 2. Would M. S. have even the meanest to sing obedience to the Independent Churches, without their understanding? 3. The Church must use all possible means to inform such as pretend ignorance, or conscience: having sufficiently convicted them, she must proceed against them as contumacious, and inflict upon them such spiritual punishments, as their sins may deserve. 4. In such a c●●e, not only the meanest, but also the greatest must sing obedience passi●è, 〈◊〉 suff●●ing the Churches proceed against them; pormittendo, tolerando, no● 〈◊〉; in permitting the Church to proceed against them, in tolera●●● nor judgement, in not resisting it: for it is an old saying of a very wise Scoick: Tolerand● sunt, quae emendari non possunt: since particular persons have no public vocation or power to oppose the Church, actiué, they must suffer; yet they may resist in not obeying actiuè, as in confessing an untruth, in case the Charch urge them thereunto: Or, in a word, they must obey, in case they be not made Actors in things against their Conscience; for it is no sin to suffer what we cannot mend; but to do what we should not do, or omit what we should do, and may do. Object. 21. If the meanest of men have not a calling to judge betwixt the Assembly, and the Independents, than they must sing obedience and submission to the Assembly, without their understanding. But the Consequent is false, Ergo, so is the Antecedent also. A.S. Answ. I deny the Consequence of the first Proposition: for to sing obedience to the Assembly, it is not needful, that one be judge betwixt them and the Independents; but, that they know whether the judgement of the Assembly be just, or not, or rather, whether their Obedience be just, or not: for the Assembly, and they who have power to judge, may judge justly; and he who is judged, justly disobey: as, if a man should legally, in foro Externo, be convicted of Heresy, or any other crime, the fact being proved by false witnesses, and he afterwards condemned to acknowledge an Heresy or crime; both the judgement should be just, for the judges judged justly, juxta allegata & probata; but the Obedience to such a judgement should be unjust, and his disobedience just; for he should sinne grievously against God, and give offence to his Neighbour, in acknowledging an Heresy, or a filthy crime, where there is none at all. 2. By a calling to judge, either he understands a public and particular calling to judge authoritatiuè, in consulting in Ecclesiastical Assemblies of matters of Religion, and deciding them, and so inducing an obligation unto obedience; or a common and private calling, out of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, by himself alone, or in private with a friend, to judge by a judgement of discretion, which induceth no bond or obligation to obedience. If by a Calling he mean the first, the first Proposition is false; neither will all the Independents, Arminians, Anabaptists, and Socinians ever be able to prove it. If the second, all the Argument may be granted, viz. That the meanest of men have a common calling to judge by judgement of Discretion, (which induceth no obligation) betwixt the Synod, and the Independents: but that is not the Question in debate. 3. I distinguish the word obedience and submission; for either this obedience is actiuè, when we are commanded by our Superiors, to be Agents or Actors in any thing, as to bow before an Idol, or Religiously to adore Altars, the Bread and Wine at the Lords Table, etc. Or permissiuè, when I am not commanded to be an Actor, or to do any thing, but to permit it, not hinder it, or not oppose it, if I do it not myself; as when men are exhorted, or commanded to assist the poor; if I will not assist them, I am bound not to oppose the Command, or to hinder others from doing it: so, if a Minister preach not according to my palate, whatever be my private judgement of him, as if he preach too sublimely, too speculatively, less methodically, etc. yet must I let him alone, I may not oppose or cross him, because that I have no public calling to censure or hinder him. If obedience be taken in the first way, the first Proposition is false; for every man in obeying actively, or when he is an Actor, must know whether he doth well, or ill, at least by a particular judgement: if in the second, it is true, that men are bound sometimes to sing a permissive obedience, without their understanding, because in so doing, they do nothing themselves, but permit other men to do; as when there is a Minister called by the Church to preach, it may be, that some ordinary Mechanic will judge his Sermons to be too sublime, more speculative than practical, happily also he will think them not methodical: in such a case the Mechanic 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 unsavoury to his palate, is savoury to another's. 4. If this Argument hold, it shall press no less the Parliament, than the Assembly: for I put the case that the Assembly judge, and that all the Assembly and Independents go 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, than 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 do 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 War against his nei●●bour-Prince, every Cobbler knoweth not the true cause of the War, or 〈◊〉 it be just, or not; for he cannot penetrate into his Princes secret Counsels, and yet if the Prince lay Assizes upon the people, or press Soldiers, they must, in all this, obey, howbeit they know not the secrets of his Counsels, yea, howbeit they suspect the War to be unjust, they must obey; for it is not expedient, that every Independent Cobbler be admitted into the Counsel of State; or if that be not granted, that presently he resist his Prince, and raise a Rebellion in the Kingdom. 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 judgement, in things that are resolved, or to be resolved in all Civil or Ecclesiastical Assemblies? And if not, what can be the force of this Argument? What here he addeth, The glory of a Synod lies 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 premises: Things are sufficiently discussed in the Assembly, and their Conclusions evidently enough inferred out of their premises: but this is an incurable sickness in these men, that they never think any Conclusion well inferred, unless it be for themselves. Obj. 22. He telleth us afterwards his judgement, that the conclusions of the Assembly should not be swallowed, without showing, etc. 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 sum whereof is this. Obj. 24. Christ hath not divested himself, nor made a delegation of such a directive power in matters of Religion, as A. S. would sequester for the honour of the Presbytery: Ergo he will not acknowledge it. A. S. Answ. 1. I deny the Consequence: for to acknowledge such a Ministerial power, as we grant unto the Ministers of the Assembly, or our Presbyteries, it is not needful, that Christ divest himself of it, or make a delegation, but a donation of it; for Christ was never vested with such a Ministerial and subordinate power, for he is Lord and supreme Judge in the Church, and therefore could never divest himself of it. 2. If he mean the supreme power proper to Christ, we neither desire him to believe, nor believe we, that Christ hath divested, or could divest himself of it, to give it to the Church, for he kept to himself, his own supreme or Royal Power; but gave unto his Ministers subaltern, and Ministerial power, which derogateth no ways from his Royal 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 uncertain as itself. After this petty Argument he maketh his Testament, resolving himself to die a Martyr, amongst good men, whom he hath most highly offended, and who profess, that they compel no man to profess any truth, much less untruth, against the light of their Conscience; how ridiculous a Martyr is this? They profess that they may undergo a voluntary exile, for fear of persecution: if you, sir, fear any such thing, you may be gone, according to the Principles of your own Divinity. And then he telleth us, that he will allow any directive power of man, so it be not compulsory unto men by any external 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 external 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 judgement 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 compel you not to subscribe; yet the Civil Magistrate, after sufficient conviction, may compel you to subscribe, or to be gone; for after sufficient conviction, Morally, it is, and should be supposed, that ye know the Truth, or should know it; or if ye know it not, that nothing can have hindered you, but your own pertinaciousness, which cannot excuse, but rather now accuses, and aggravates your sin, since one sin, formally, and per se, cannot excuse another; Neither have our Churches ever gone further, as may appear by our Confessions of Faith, and Covenants of the Churches of Scotland, France, the Netherlands, Geneva, etc. M. S. hath some more poor Reasons in his 2. Chap. about the executive power of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion; Here he employeth near upon four pages in quarto, in a very small Print, about things that are nothing at all to the purpose. 1. In threatening the Parliament with Gods most heavy judgements, in case they meddle themselves with any executive, or coercive power, against his new canonised Independent Saints; He supposeth them 1. to be Saints. 2. Those little ones, Matth. 18.6. He telleth them, is were better a Millstone were hanged about their neck, then to meddle with one of these little ones; and that because the Holy Ghost prophesieth of the putting down of all rule, and all authority, and power 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 Christ's little Saints, and the King and Parliament to be his Enemies, in case they meddle with them, in hindering them to set up their Sect: but to the contrary. God's Saints, as themselves, in case they suffer not Presbyterians, or any others, no more than the Independents do in New England: so the Independents shall reign over us all. 2. In guessing what I mean 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 terms, 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. When Parties pretend to be offended with the Church or the Church judge any thing amiss, the Civil Magistrate may command the Church to re-examine its judgement, etc. What reason then hath he to be so invective against the Apologists, p. 49. & 50. for holding, that Kings, or Civil Magistrates are above the Church? A.S. Answ. 1. The question is not, whether the King and the Civil Magistrate be above the Church, or not. We grant, that the Civil Magistrate is above the Church, as having a supreme, Political, or Civil power, Imperial, Regal, Aristocratical, or democratical, yea altogether independent upon all the Powers of this World, and only dependent upon God, according to the Laws of the State wherein he ruleth; yet not Spiritual, Ecclesiastical, 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 Royal 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 general 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 innocence, we should have had Magistrates without any Mediator, or Covenant of Grace. A. S. will easily grant you, that the Civil Magistrate is above the Church; only he denies, that he is above the Church by any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, as Independents hold, but by his Civil 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 confess. 2. It is also false, that I inveigh against the Apologists, p. 49. 50. unless 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 form, will be thus: They who may command the Church, are above the Church: The Civil Magistrate may command the Church; Ergo, The Civil 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 Civil Magistrate is above the Church extrinsecally and Politically: But if ye take both the words, viz. command, for an an internal and Ecclesiastical command, that is within the Church; and the word above, for above Internally and Ecclesiastically in a Churchway: 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 Civil Magistrate hath power to command the Church to revise her judgement, when she judgeth any thing amiss, surely he hath power to examine and judge of her proceed, 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 Civil 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 Political, Civil, and Extrinsecall; Ergo, such also must be his power to judge, or Directive power in matters of Religion, viz. Civil, Political, and Extrinsecall to the Church, howsoever Intrinsecall to the State: for as he hath a Civil, Royal, Imperial, or Aristocratical power to command, so hath he a Civil, Royal, Imperial, or Aristocratical power, etc. to judge, and to direct him in his Commands, unless he command without judgement: But I deny, that this concludeth, that he hath any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual power that is Intrinsecall to the Church, or Church-Officers, who govern 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 form, will be thus: They, who may determine, and judge amiss, should not compel, or make the people, under their Government, to swear obedience or subjection unto their Orders, which yet, by your own confession, they do: But your Presbyterial Assembly may determine and judge amiss, Ergo. A.S. Answ. 1. The Proposition is false. 2. Or if it be true, I subsume, But the Civil Magistrate, both in Ecclesiastical, and State matters, may judge amiss; Ergo, the Civil Magistrate should not compel the people under his obedience unto his Order; Ergo, the Parliament should not compel, or make any man to swear the Covenant; Ergo, The Independents should not have taken the Covenant, because that the Parliament might determine and judge amiss. 3. By this reason, a man must be tolerated in rejecting all Confessions or Faith, because they, who contrive them, may err. 4. In New-England, since they may err, they can compel no man to your Religion, but must tolerate them, which ye will never grant. 5. I deny the Assumption, 1. For our Churches compel not the people to swear obedience or subjection unto their Order; for, Compulsion is a principio externo, contra inclinationem agentis; it proceedeth from an Externall principle, against the Natural inclination of the Agent, viz. that is compelled to produce the action, and so is exercised only against the Body, over which the Church taketh no authority, but the Civil Magistrate alone. 2. Neither said I, to my knowledge, any such thing. 3. Neither cite you the place. 4. Only I remember, that in my Observations and Annotations upon the Apology, p. 39 §. 4 I said, That the combined Eldership, having an Authoritative power, all men, and Churches thereof, are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves thereunto, viz. in a Spiritual manner, since the power is Spiritual. Never a word here of compulsion or violence. Our Churches neither compel men's bodies, nor have they any Prisons, or any pecuniary mulcts: but if any man will trouble the Church, and be disobedient, it is the duty of the Christian Civil Magistrate to use his power, to hinder such a disorder. If we have not a Christian, and an Orthodox Magistrate in some places, as in France, and in some parts of Germany; or if the Christian Magistrate will not do his duty, he who will not submit unto our Church-Government, is cast out, and punished Spiritually, by simple Censure, Suspension, or Excommunication, according to the quality of his sin. 5. Learn also, I pray you, M.S. that it is not fallibility, but actual failing, or ignorance, that may excuse him, who is subject unto any Government or Authority, from obedience: Nor yet all failing in judgement or error, but only that which is antecedent to all the acts of our Will, which morally we cannot shun, and is invincible. 6. Neither is it evermore expedient, that Subjects know certainly, whether their Governors' judge, or do right, in what they do; for Subjects, in some cases, must obey, in virtue of a probable knowledge, or conjecture, that their Governors command justly; and especially, when they are not compelled to be Actors in that, which they believe to be unlawful for them to do. For I put the case, that the King and Parliament take a resolution to make War against any Foreign Prince, and press some men to serve in such a War, It is not for every pressed man to call the King and Parliament to an account, about the equity of the War, neither are they bound to discover to every Soldier all the secrets and particularities of State thereupon. M.S. Ob. 28. Why are you not satisfied with that subjection to your Presbyterial Decisions, that pleadeth no exemption, but only in case of non-satisfaction about the lawfulness or truth of them? A.S. Ans. 1. We are content with it. 2. And in case of non-satisfaction, our Churches give them sufficient satisfaction. 3. But if they will not be satisfied, when many thousands are satisfied, we maintain, that it is not equitable, that when 20000. or 30000. are satisfied, two, or three, under pretext of non-satisfaction, or twenty, or thirty pertinacious fellows should have liberty to trouble all the Churches of God in the World. 4. We say moreover, that the Church, in disputing and conferring with them, and afterward in judging that she hath given them sufficient satisfaction, hath given them sufficient satisfaction morally; and that wise men should judge it sufficient, in foro Externo; and thereupon, that they are to be condemned by the Church in foro Externo; for there is no other way to proceed to sentence, either in foro Civili, or Ecclesiastico. 5. If this will not satisfy them, yet if they will be quiet, and not trouble the Church of God with their Conventicles, we can in Christian charity tolerate them in their weakness, yea in their malice (if there be any) till God impart unto them more grace. But this serveth nothing for Independents, who are come over the Sea to beg a quarrel of us, and to erect Churches in despite of the Civil Magistrate, against all Laws, yea against their own Tenets, if they writ, as they believe; for they pretend, that Churches cannot be erected without the Civil Magistrates consent. 6. If all this content them not, and their Conscience will not permit them to do otherwise, the Ports are free for them, they may be gone, and live in all liberty of Conscience in New England, and trouble no more the Country here, than the Country shall trouble them there. 7. Or if this will not content them, wherefore will they have more liberty here, than they will grant us in New-England? M.S. Ob. 29. If Parties may have cause to be offended with the Church, then have they power to judge of their actions, as well as they of theirs: But the first is true; Ergo, the second also. A.S. I distinguish the Consequent of the Proposition; They may judge by a public Judgement: It is false; for every particular or private man hath not a public power to judge, nor consequently, a Public judgement: they may judge by a private power, (which properly is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestas, authoritas, or Authoritative power) or judgement, but a judgement of Discretion: so it is true: but such a Judgement is not sufficient to exempt him from obedience, I mean not an active, but a passive, or rather a permissive obedience; for howsoever his erroneous judgement may excuse and dispense him from an act, wherein he is Actor against his Conscience; yet can it not excuse him from suffering the judgement of the Church: for, if he will not do what they will according to God's Word, they may do, and he must suffer, and permit them to do what he willeth not, and what they will according to God's Word, whereof he hath no Public power to judge: he must no way oppose actiuè the public Judgement and Authority of the Church, since he hath no public power; he must not set up a new Church, but deal with the Church, according to his vocation; and if he cannot prevail in conferring with the Church, he may appeal from a Parish Presbytery to a Class; if there he be likewise oppressed, he may appeal to a Provincial Synod; if there again he be wronged by their Judgement, he may appeal unto a Nationall Synod; if there he be oppressed (which probably will not ordinarily fall out in all these Judicatories, rather than in first and last instance in an Independent Church, compounded peradventure of seven or eight idle Fellows) or pretend to be offended, he must sit down patiently; And if he have any scruple of Conscience, he may consult foreign Divines; and if those satisfy him not in this singularity of his opinion, I then propound my question; Whether it be more equitable, That all the Churches of the World submit to this particular man's opinion, or he to theirs? Object. But what if they err all, and he be right? Answ. When God hath not given you any ordinary remedy, you must have patience; there must be Offences, yea Heresies; But woe unto him that is the Cause. There was no other way in the Old, or in the New Testament; there is no other in Civil Judicatories; there can be no other found in this world. And to end this Argument, I ask you, What if a man be oppressed in one of your Churches, (as it is possible a man may be, as well as in one of ours, unless ye have the power of Piety, in a more Independent degree, yea, beyond all flesh and blood in any juncture of time to come) and afterward he complains to Neighbour Churches, and they oppress him by their Judgements; What other remedy can he have but patience, and to appeal to the Judge of quick and dead, or else acquiesce to the sentence, or at least suffer it? For a man cannot sin in mere sufferance; for actual sin materially is ever more an action of the will, or a voluntary omission of some action. M. S. Ob. 30. p. 46. sect. 2. What power is Intrinsecall to Religion, it is Intrinsecall to the Church: But the Civil Magistrates Power is Intrinsecall to Religion; for A. S. sayeth, That the Parliament pretends no Directive power in matters of Religion, but an Executive power only, viz. In matters of Religion. Ergo, The Civil Magistrates power is Intrinsecall to the Church. A. S. Answ. What ever may be said of the Proposition, I deny the Assumption; and to the confirmation thereof, I answer, 1. That, when I say the Civil Magistrate hath power in Religion, the word (in) signifies about; for Religion signifieth the object of the Civil Magistrate; and so we speak ordinarily, as when we say, A rich man's heart is in his Money and Riches; so in here signifieth not an Intrinsical, but an Extrinsecall Denomination; as when I say, The Sun is seen, the Attribute in this Affirmative Proposition is said to be in the Subject, not by any Intrinsical Inherence, or Denomination, but by an Extrinsecall Adherence, Attribution, or Denomination: This little Childish Sophistication, is more worthy of some young smatterer in Logic then of a Divine, or any Conscientious man: It is not possible, that M. S. could be ignorant of this; and therefore in this Dispute, if he have any power of Piety, I desire more Conscience and Sincerity in him: I may also say, That the Civil Magistrate hath an Extrinsecall power in the Church, if the word (in) there signify a bare Attribution, or Extrinsecall Denomination, as it is ordinary amongst Divines, Philosophers, and common people; and yet I confess it is more properly said about Religion, and about the Church, as Apollonius observeth, and as I have expressed myself; but then there should have been a concurrence of in's, which would have made my Expression obscure; for than I must have said, The Civil Magistrate about matters of Religion, hath an Extrinsecall power, as also about the Church, as this Professor of Eloquence would have me to speak; which kind of Expression, I believe few or none could have understood. If the Independent cause depend upon such ridiculous puntillios, and be so Independent upon good reason, I know not of the two which is better, Dependency or Independency. M. S. Ob. 31. p. 46. sect. 11. The power of Citation is Extrinsecall to the Church. The power of Citation is Ecclesiastical. Ergo, Some Ecclesiastical power is Extrinsecall to the Church. A. S. I distinguish the word power of Citation; for it is either Ecclesiastical, which is proper unto the Church, viz. In Church Officers gathered together in an Ecclesiastical Assembly; And this is both in, and about the Church or Civil, which is proper to the Christian, and in some way to a non-Christian Magistrate, where by his Civil power he maintaineth the Church; and this is out of the Church, in the Magistrate, and yet about the Church, which is its object: And so I answer to this silly Argument, That it is captious and grounded on an Equivocation; for it taketh the power of Citation in one signification in the Major, viz. For a Political power of Citation; and in an other in the Minor, viz. For an Ecclesiastical power of Citation. 2. Or if it be taken in both for an Ecclesiastical power, than the Major is false; for Christ gave it to the Church, to which it is Intrinsecall, and not to the Civil Magistrate. 3. Or if it be taken in both for a Civil power, than the Minor is false; for the Civil power of Citation is not in the Church, but in the Magistrate; neither ever gave Christ it (as Mediator) either to the Church, or to the Civil Magistrate; but God by Christ (as God) gave it only to the Civil Magistrate: And the Piece, whereof the Press, as M. S. sayeth, hath been lately delivered, sayeth no other thing than I say, if M. S. his Diana of Ephesus can permit him to understand it, or he do not willingly dissemble his understanding of it. M. S. If a Classis shall cite or excommunicate a Member of a Church, against the judgement and consent of the Elders of that Church, let all the World judge, whether that be not an Act of Externall power without the Church. A. S. This Argument is ridiculous. 1. For it proveth not that which is in question, viz. That the Civil Magistrate hath an Ecclesiastical or Intrinsical power in the Church. 2. Only it proveth, that the Church hath an Authority, that in some respect may be called Extrinsecall. 3. But to take away this Equivocation, and many others, and to explain more fully this question, note again, 1. That the Church may be considered, either according to its Real and Natural, or according to its Moral being. 2. That the Church according to its Moral being (I speak of the Representative) is either Particular of one Parish or Congregation, or more General, as a Classical or Synodall Assembly. 3. Note, that the particular Church, may be considered either Absolutely, and in itself alone, without any reference to a Class or a Synod, whereof it is a part; or Relatively with a reference to the more General Church, viz. a Classis or Synod, whereof it is a part, or in quality, and under the notion of a part, in so far forth, as by some formal or virtual Assent, it hath once Covenanted to be a part of such a Classis or Synod, and Stipulated to send its Commissioners to such Classical or Synodall Meetings. 1. If then we consider Citation or Excommunication with reference to the Church, either more General or Particular, according to its Natural being, it may be Extrinsecall to them both; for the Act of Citation or Excommunication is not really produced or pronounced, according to its Natural being, by the Church considered under the notion of its Real being, but by one man, as all wise men will grant. 2. If they be taken morally according to their Moral being, grounded on some Covenant, than the Acts of Excommunication and Citation are not Extrinsecall to the more General Church, since they are exercised by Her power and consent. 3. If they be considered with reference to the Particular Church, then if the Particular Church be considered Absolutely, they may be Extrinsecall unto Her, since neither Excommunication nor Citation are exercised by Her Absolutely, at least Ordinarily. 4. If we consider a Particular Church in reference to the more General Church, viz. under the notion of a part of the more General Church; then we may consider Her either, 1. According to Her first Consent and Covenant, Real or Virtual, whereby She joined together in one Consociation with many other Particular Churches, to make up together one Class or Synod; the which Consent preceded the Act of Citation or Excommunication; and whereby the Class or Synod received Power to cite or excommunicate particular Persons: Or 2. according to Her Consent, in sending Her Commissioners to the Class or Synod: Or 3. according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent to the Act of Excommunication or Citation. 4. If then She be considered according to Her first Covenant and consent, or in the second, i e. in sending Her Commissioners, the Act of Citation and Excommunication is voluntary, and Intrinsecall to that Particular Church, notwithstanding Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent; for that Act of Citation and Excommunication is done in virtue of such precedent Consents, which are Her Deeds, and very Legal. 5. If the Particular Church be considered according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent, these Acts are involuntary, and Extrinsecall to that Particular Church: But such a Dissent is not properly and formally an Ecclesiastical Act, since it is not ruled by any Ecclesiastical Rule of Discipline, but by private interest, or passion, which must ever give place to the Weal of the whole Church; for as Natural bodies may be considered either Absolutely, or under the notion of a Part, which is for the whole; and in the first notion, they have their Particular Inclinations and Motions, whereby they decline whatsoever is hurtful unto them, as when the hand flieth from a blow of a Sword; but under the second, they are not led by their own particular, but by the general Inclination and Interest of the whole, since parts are not so much for themselves, as for the whole; and so it neglecteth its own particular good or interest, for the weal or interest of the whole; as when the hand for fear lest the head should be cut off, whereof might ensue the destruction of the whole man, exposeth itself to the danger in receiving the blow itself, to save the whole: So in Political or Ecclesiastical Consociations, particular Towns, or Churches, may be carried by their own Interests to some particular Dissent in some Cases; but if they move Regularly, sometimes against their own Interests, they must Consent against themselves, according to the general Inclination of the whole Consociated body, or Church Classical, Synodall, etc. 6. If this Argument hold, it will conclude, 1. Against that which is done by Plurality of Votes in their particular Congregations; For that which is concluded, is against the Consent of the Minor part. 2. Against that which is done in their Synods, by their Messengers, if they conclude against, or without the Consent of the Churches, whereof they are Messengers: And 3. Against the Parliament, if they conclude any thing against the particular Consent of particular Towns; for they Consent not thereunto; And so what they conclude or do against them shall not be done by Consent of the Kingdom; And so this man shall destroy the Parliament, and the pretended Order of Independents, as well as that of Protestant Presbyteries. But M. S. telleth us, that so the Classis is like to the Magistrate, who is a Bishop without, and about the Church. Answ. 1. I deny your Simile; for the Magistrate's Power and Act, being only Political and Civil, has no Internal reference to Citation or Excommunication, in quality of Ecclesiastical Acts, as that of the Church, and Church Officers, which is Ecclesiastical; and this your Quinqu' Ecclesian Ministers acknowledge themselves, when they tell us, that the Civil Power is of another nature than the Ecclesiastical. Obj. But if the Civil Magistrate have this Externall coactive power, they must all have it, as well Pagans as Christians: But so it is not; for A.S. will not grant it to Pagans, Ergo, none of them have it. Answ. The Assumption is false, for I grant it to them all, but not in the same manner; To a Pagan only in actu signato, but to a true Christian in actu exercito. I expound it in my Annotations upon the Apologetical Narration. M. S. scratches at this distinction, 1. as not good; for, saith he, I never heard of any thing belonging to a Person in actu exercito, but that belonged to him, and that per prius in actu signato: He, to whom the principle or power of acting doth not belong, cannot stand engaged for the exercise of acting such a power. A. S. Sir, If you heard it not, others, yea of the best sort, and ablest, both Divines and Philosophers, may have heard it; for we have learned in the Category of Substantia, that Substantiae primae maximè propriè Substantiae dicuntur: whereupon they ground this other Maxim, Prima Substantia magis est Substantia quam Secunda: and they say, that it is magis Substantia in actu exercito, sed non in signato; sed contra, secunda est magis substantia quam Prima in actu signato; as all the Philosophers, who serve themselves with this distinction, in the explication of that propriety of Substance, declare in that place. 2. It is also an error in you, to think, that in actu signato, and exercito, is nothing else but actu & potentia. 3. Put the case it be so, and that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu signato, belongeth to it in actu exercito, what is that to the purpose? is not that enough to found a distinction upon? Wherever there is prius and posterius, is there not there some distinction, at least formal, or modal, if not real? 4. Yea, put the case, the one part were really included in the other; yet should there ever be distinctio includentis, & inclusi. 5. And howsoever it be, that what belongeth to a person in actu exercito, belongeth to him in actu signato; yet what belongeth to a Thing in actu signato, belongeth not to it in actu exercito. Neither said I, that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu exercito, belongeth not to it also in actu signato. Where said I it, I pray you? or if I said it not, wherefore beg you here a needless quarrel with me about it? 2. M. S. desires to know, wherefore a power about the Church, and for the Church, should not belong actually, and in effect, in actu exercito, and jure in re, as well to a Magistrate not yet truly Christian, as to him that is such, i. e as well to a Pagan, as a Christian. A.S. Answ. 1. Because being not yet a Christian, he is not a member 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? Nun Affirmantis est probare? The Scripture containeth not formal rules or testimonies of mere 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) than we, for things that are not: It is enough for me to say, that the Scripture, that containeth all things needful to salvation, containeth no Extrinsecall power, in actu exercito, for Civil Magistrates, that are not Christians. M.S. But hath not then an Heathen, or Heterodox Magistrate power to do good to the Church? A.S. Ans. 1. The Heathen Magistrate hath a Natural, but not a Moral public power, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do 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 do 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 ways the object of his Knowledge, or Will. He may do it, as an Ass, that carrieth the corn to the Mill; or as Caiaphas, who judged, that one man must die for the People; but knew not what he said. He cannot do it by any power Intrinsecall to the Church, as M.S. pretends: And howbeit I should grant unto a jew, or a Pagan, a Civil power to do good to the Church, both in actu signato, and exercito: yet from thence cannot be concluded an Intrinsical or Ecclesiastical power belonging to a jew, 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 Civil Magistrate, upon whom he would seem to bestow such a power; but in stead of Answer, racketeth it back to him with jeering and babbling: But I answer him, 1. that Quaestio Quaestionem non solvit, one Question satisfieth not another. 2. I answer, that the Magistrate, who I believe 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 Laws. 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 himself, in looking for 20 Distinctions of me, to answer him to this Question. We answer him candidè, in all simplicity, and fear not to declare to the World what we hold, as the Sectaries do. M.S. p. 49. §. 15. Was it not lawful 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 Godliness and honesty? If not, then was that exhortation, 1 Tim. 2.2. to be laid up in Lavender for some hundreds of years, 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 Intrinsical 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 himself 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 Godliness and Piety, express finem intentum, sed non eventum; not the Event, but the End intended by the Christians who prayed; for they obtained 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 Civil Magistrate, in taking away Superstition and Heresy, had need of some other security, than the Synod can give him. A.S. The Civil Magistrate, as a Christian man, must learn God's will, by all the means 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 Political prudence, and knowledge of Scriptures to direct him in judging about Superstition, Heresy, and matters of Religion; 6. He must serve himself of prayer, and all the rest of the means that God hath ordained him; 7. Neither say we, that he must be directed by a Synod alone. This is one of the means that God hath ordained him in his Providence, but not all, as this M. S. falsely would persuade the Reader, if he be not altogether impertinent. Whether in the Militant visible Church there should be any Subordination in Ecclesiastical 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 amiss 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 Believers, compounded of men and women, endowed with Justifying Faith, which is invisible to us; but of the visible Church, professing the true Faith. 3. Nor of every visible Church of Believers, but of that which is compounded of all its Organical Parts, viz. Preachers, Teachers, Ruling Elders, Deacons, and Flock. 4. It is to be observed, That this Church is either Real, or Representative; We call Real Churches, those wherein such Church Officers, and Flocks, are really, as in every Parish, Provincial or Nation Church: But a Representative Church is that, wherein the Real Church is represented in Her Church Officers, as a Presbytery, Session, or Consistory, consisting of the Preachers and Ruling Elders, or the Deacons also of a Parish Church gathered together, for ordering of Church business in Doctrine, Government, or otherways, who altogether represent the Church of a Parish: A Class, that representeth that of a Class, and judgeth of all the Church business of one Class: A Provincial Synod, which consisteth of the Ministers, and a certain number of Ruling Elders of one Province, representing all the Real Churches of such a Province, in judging of Church Affairs in that Province; and a Nationall Synod compounded of a certain number of Ministers and Ruling Elders, deputed from all the Provinces of the Nation, to judge of the Church business in Doctrine, Discipline, etc. which concerneth the whole Church of such a Nation or Kingdom. 2. Concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiastical Judicatories, it is to be observed, 1. That an Ecclesiastical Judicatory is nothing else but a certain number of men, gathered together, and endowed with an Authoritative power, according to Gods will, to judge of Church business, for God's glory, and the Weal of the Church, or in a word, the Representative Church of one Parish, Class, Province, Nation, or of all the World. 2. That Subordination in Ecclesiastical Judicatories, is a Relation of Order, betwixt a Superior, and an Inferior Judicatory, or Representative Church, whereby the judgement and Authority of the Inferior, depends upon the judgement, and Authority of the Superior: Such we conceive to be betwixt Presbyteries and Classes, Classes and Provincial, Provincial and Nationall, Nationall and Ecumenical Synods. 3. Here it would be noted, That this Subordination is grounded upon the Authoritative power of Superior judicatories, over their Inferiors, or Subordinated; and therefore here is to be noted, first, That this Power of the Church is not Natural, that floweth from the Nature, or Essence of the Subject, such as are the Faculties of the Soul; nor Habitual, or an Habitude either Naturally acquired by Custom, or Supernaturally infused by Grace; for men may have all the Natural Faculties of the Soul, and many Natural, and Supernatural Habitudes; yea, all those that are necessary for this Authoritative power, and yet not have it, as any one may easily see in many learned and godly Divines, who are not Ministers of the Church, and consequently have no Authoritative power in the Church: But it is a Moral power (ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or potestas) whereby in virtue of God's Ordinance, the Superior Church hath power over the Inferiors, or other Churches subordinated unto Her, to rectify their judgements in case of Aberration, or to enjoin them any thing according to God's holy Ordinance. So when particular Churches judge any thing amiss either in Doctrine or Discipline, a Class or a Provincial Synod may judge of that judgement, and in case it find it have need, may in the Name of God, command it to reform its judgement; and in case of disobedience, command the people not to obey their Pastors or Presbyteries commands; or if there be any thing, that concerneth the Weal of all the Churches in the Kingdom, the Nationall Synod hath an Authoritative power, to judge it, and enjoin it upon the Churches in the Name of God; so may a Provincial Church do in things concerning all the Churches of a Province. I call an Authoritative power, that which may command, and in virtue of its command, enjoin an obligation of Obedience upon all those that are subject thereunto; and in case of Disobedience, inflict Spiritual punishments, according to the quality of the Disobedience, viz. Simple Censure, the lesser or greater Excommunication. If ye inquire further, what is this Moral power, or wherein it consists; I answer, It is no Real, but a Moral being; it is no Real quality in the Subject that hath it, and consequently it is no Real or Natural power; but as 〈◊〉 were a Natural power; for as our Natural powers and faculties do flow from the Essence of the Subject, or from our Essential Forms; so doth this Moral power flow from the consent and will of them who give it, and his will, who consents to accept it; and this consent producing such a Moral power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no less forma internè vel externè denominans, & efficaciter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 producens, quàm forma essentialis is forma informans potentiam naturalem a se, & in se vel in subjecto profundens. And as natural powers are for the Weal of their Subjects, in accomplishing and perfecting of them in their operations, convenient to their nature; so it's this Moral power for the Weal of its Moral Subject, or of the consociation in perfecting it in its operations, convenient to its Moral being, Domestical, Political or Ecclesiastical, in Nature or in Grace. Wherefore Amesius, and sundry Independents, that follow his opinion, are mightily mistaken, whilst they think it floweth from the Essence of the Church. 1. For it hath not its being from the Essence of the Church, but ex instituto divino. 2. Because it is not produced necessarily, as Natural proprieties, but freely and willingly, not as depending upon Nature, but upon Will. 3. If it did flow from the Essence of the Church, God could not change it; And yet howsoever this Moral power hath no Real being in itself; yet may it be called Real; 1. In consideration of its Cause, viz. Of the Real destination of the Will, from which it's produced. 2. Of its Foundation, viz. Because it presupposeth some Real qualities in him, or those, who have it, viz. Natural faculties, and some natural or supernatural Abilities to exercise it. 3. Of its Effects that are Real; for howsoever the power of a Magistrate be not a Real quality, yet it is able to produce very Real Effects in Subjects, in remunerating such as deserve well of the State, and in punishing Delinquents, as by imprisoning their persons, or cutting off their Heads, if the crime be of that nature. Again it must be observed, That this Moral power is, 1. either merely Directive, which only showeth what is to be done, or Imperative, that cannot only show, or discern what is to be done; but also commands, and in virtue of such a command, binds those that are subject to such a Power to Obedience, and in case of Disobedience, inflicts condign punishments. 2. That this Moral power is either Civil or Ecclesiastical; the first belongs to the Civil Magistrate, the second to Ecclesiastical persons. 3. That Power is either Imperial, Royal, or Magisteriall, such as Emperors, Kings, or Lords, have over their Subjects, as that of the Civil Magistrate; or Ministerial, such as State-Ministers have under their Masters, or Lords, as that of Ambassadors, Pursuivants, etc. Finally it must be observed, That as Power, so punishments inflicted by Power, are either Civil or Ecclesiastical; Civil punishments are such as are inflicted by the Civil Magistrate, and are often times corporal, as Mutilation, Stigmatising, and Death, etc. sometimes Pecuniary mulcts, sometimes Infamy, etc. Ecclesiastical punishments are altogether Spiritual, 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 Moral, Ecclesiastical, Imperative, and Ministerial Power in judging, Commanding, and Inflicting of Spiritual punishments only, and not an Imperial, Magisteriall, or Royal Power, whereby the Church may command in a domineering way, or compel men's bodies, or punish them by inflicting any Corporal punishment on them, or imposing any Pecuniary mulcts; as the Independents most craftily go about to persuade the World. The Independents than deny, That there is any Church furnished with any Authoritative or Imperative Power, save only the Parishional, or to speak in their own Terms, the congregational Church. And therefore they renounce all Classical and Synodical Churches; or if they do acknowledge them, they allow them no Authoritative or Imperative, but a Consultative Power only, or a Power to counsel 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 Counsel, at their own like and pleasure: so as in conclusion, they acknowledge no Authoritative, or Imperative Ecclesiastical 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 Heretical) is altogether Independent in its judgement, upon all the judgements of all the Churches of the World, be they never so Just 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 ways then any one private man might do an other, i e. By way of Counsel, which they may either follow or reject at their pleasure. The Orthodox and Reformed Churches, especially of Scotland, France, the Netherlands, etc. on the other part hold, That there is and aught to be Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical Judicatories, viz. That Nationall Synods are above Provincial Synods; these above Classes, and Classes above Presbyteries or Sessions; and that the Superior Judicatories have a Ministerial Authoritative or Imperative, but no Magisteriall, despotical, or Imperial, Authoritative power over the Inferior, that are subordinate unto them. Item, That they may inflict upon Inferior Churches, in case of Disobedience, Spiritual, though no Corporal 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 remark, 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 Ecclesiastical 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 himself 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 Ecclesiastical judicatories, quoad Essentialia, aut Substantialia, in its Essential parts, is juris Divini, aut Naturalis, i. e. authorised by God's Divine Law, or by the Law of Nature. 2. Presbyterian Discipline, quoad accidentalia, & circumstantialias, i. e. in its accidental or circumstantial parts, it may be juris Humani. Neither believe I, that there is any great dispute amongst us, and the Independents, about these Positions, unless 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 certain as any Article of Faith; as, for example, this; The one part of a Contradiction is true, and the other false: and this, Twice ten are twenty. And yet none of them hath any formal Patent from God's Word. 3. If God be as well the Author of Natural, as of Divine truth, wherefore will ye reject Natural truth? 4. All men are bound to believe all Natural truths, when they are sufficiently manifested unto them; or at least, not to descent from them, because we must not lie, as we are taught by the 9 Commandment, which not only forbiddeth us to misbelieve or contradict any Supernatural, but also all Natural truths sufficiently manifested unto us. 5. But what reason hath this M.S. to reject Natural 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 reveal me nothing above Nature: yea, I am not bound to go 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 supernatural truth, that Christ's 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, unless they suppose this Principle of Nature, viz. One individual Body actually existent, cannot at one time be in divers total places] to be true: For the Scripture poseth it not formally, but presupposeth it to be true. Now I pray you, M.S. show me, wherein any Presbyterians contradict these Assertions, that I have laid down: you name none, and therefore I am not bound to answer. Only you say, I contradict myself. But wherein? Because (saith M.S.) I say, p. 27. §. 3. 1. Subordination between superior and inferrour Ecclesiastical judicatories, is partim juris Divini, partim Natura lis aut mixti. 2. This Subordination, etc. needs not any pattern expressly and formally from Christ; It sufficeth, that it have one from Nature, p. 36. §. 2. 3. And yet we can show a patent for it, not only from the Law of Nature, which should suffice, but also from the Law of Grace, in the Old and New Testaments. 4. It is only from God, that can give power to any man in his Church, pag. 48. 5. Only God's Word is the rule or measure, in matter of Ecclesiastical or Presbyterial Government, p. 61. 6. Combined Presbyteries judge of Points of Doctrine and Discipline already revealed in the holy Scripture, and give us new Ecclesiastical Laws of things indifferent, p. 34. Answ. In my second Proposition, he putteth Pattern for Patent. 2. Here in all these Propositions there is no contradiction, neither showeth M.S. wherein it consisteth here. It may be partim juris Divini, and partim Humani, 1. In respect of its divers parts, whereof some may be revealed in Scripture, and some proved by Natural reason. 2. In respect of the same parts, which may be both known by Nature, and by Divine revelation, or some supervenient Divine Ordinance. So Divines hold, that we know God to be, both by Natural Knowledge, and Supernatural Revelation. 3. In so far forth, as that which is juris Naturalis, is also juris Divini, when jus Divinum supposeth jus Naturale: for in such a case, jus Naturale becometh Divinum, not Thetically, but Hypothetically; not by any formal Divine Position, but by some Divine real Supposition; as I show it clearly in that passage of my Book, that he citeth, p. 36. These three last Propositions contradict not the rest; For in the 4. Proposition, p. 48. of my Book, I speak not of the ground of Ecclesiastical Discipline, nor of it all; only I say, that it is not in Church-Ministers power to transfer the Ecclesiastical power unto the Civil Magistrate: Which contradicteth not the first three. In the 5. Only God's Word, etc. But, 1. God's Word, there, must not be taken strictly, for that which is God's Word formally, in terminis, & Theticè; but in a more large signification, 1. For God's Word, formally, or by consequence: 2. In terminis, aut in sensu: 3. Theticè, aut Hypotheticè, by some Position, or Supposition. 3. If ye take God's Word in the last sense, than Discipline, or Government must be taken for Discipline in its essential and principal integrant parts, and not in all its accidental and circumstantial parts: Neither is it needful, that we have any particular rules from Scripture, for every circumstance of Doctrine or Discipline: As for example, That Sermons should be on such or such Weekdays; so long, viz. an hour, or two hours long; in the morning, or afternoon; That Ecclesiastical Senates should sit once a day, once a week, or once a month. In the 6. Proposition, 1. Discipline there, must be taken for Discipline quoad Essentialia, Substantialia, & Necessaria; and not quoad Accidentalia, Circumstantialia, Contigentia, & Indifferentia; as appeareth by my words in the last part thereof, New Ecclesiastical Laws in things indifferent, etc. 2. Holy Scripture must be taken in a large signification, as I have already declared: for so only is it taken by our Doctors, when we prove against the Papists, that it is the only Rule of Faith. In the 2. Position, when I say, Subordination needeth not, etc. the word needeth must not be taken for necessarium absolutè, or quoad esse; but, secundum quid, & ad bene esse; not to its being, but to its well-being: for howbeit Christ had not given us any patent of Subordination in Ecclesiastical Judicatories, in the Gospel; yet the Law of Nature, and the Scripture of the Old Testament had been sufficient to direct us therein, and had bound the Church of the New Testament to the Presbyterian Government: And this, M. S. acknowledgeth himself, (howbeit not without some Comedian jeers, more ordinary with him then any apparent Reason) and confesseth, that the words following in the 3. Proposition, declare it. But put the case, that Presbyterians differed (as he saith) whether it be juris Divini, Naturalis, aut Humani: as they differ not, for any thing I know, or have read: Yet they agree in this, That it is Juris. Confess this, and ye may live in a Fraternal communion with us, for the Difference, viz. If one say, it is juris Divini; another, Naturalis; another, Ecclesiastici; will not breed a Schism; for it is not a Dispute de re, sed de modo rei, to know whether it proceedeth from God, as Author of the Law of Nature, or of Grace, by a Natural, or a Positive Law: Much less material is it to know, whether it be in Scripture explicitè, or implicitè; formaliter, aut per consequentiam; in terminis, aut in sensu, et consequenter; Theticè, or Hypotheticè. CHAP. III. Containing the Arguments, whereby we prove the Opinion of the Orthodox Churches, against the Independents, borrowed from the Old Testament. THe Arguments, that might be brought for the Orthodox Churches against all Sectaries, are many, whereof I will touch a few, some from Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and others from reason, founded on Scripture; but to proceed more clearly, I intent to prove, 1. That in Scripture there is more, than a congregational, Independent Church; 2. a Subordination of Churches, and that in Authority. Whether in Scripture, or in Reason, we find more than a congregational Church? We affirm, and prove it thus, 1. Such a Church, and Church-government, as was amongst the people of God in the Old Testament, and is not abrogated in the New, may be admitted amongst his people in the New. But a Church, and Church Government, more than congregational, and Independent, was amongst the people of God, in the Old Testament, and is not abrogated in the New Testament. Ergo, A Church and Church Government, more than congregational and Independent, may be admitted amongst his people in the New Testament. As for the first Proposition, I believe our Adversaries will not deny it, for if it was in the Old Testament, it was either by God's Ordinance, or by his Approbation; If God ordained it, how can they abolish it? If he approved it, how can they reprove it? And for the Assumption, I prove it; 1. For they had a Nationall Church; God dealt not so with every Nation, Psal. 147.19, 20. 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 etc. When the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam; jacob was the Lot of his Inheritance, etc. Amos 3.2. You only 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 congregational Church, a number of men, Covenanted together, to participate of God's Ordinances, viz. the hearing of the Word, the receiving of the Sacraments etc. in some one place, every Sabbath day. But all the Church of the Jews 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 Ecclesiastical Causes throughout all the Kingdom. 4. Because the People of God, besides their Assemblies 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 not 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 Ceremonial Law: But to have a Church, or a Church Government, more than congregational, per se, or considered in itself, belong not to the Ceremonial Law. Ergo, The Major is certain, I prove the Minor. 1. For it might have been even in the State of Integrity, without the Ceremonial Law. 2. And so indeed it was after the Fall, before ever Moses his Ceremonial Law was made. 3. And that is not merely Ceremonial, whereof we may evidently give natural reason, or that which is evidently grounded in natural reason, or at least in so far as evidently grounded in natural reason, since it is merely Positive. But (supposing that there is a Church of God) to have, a Church, or a Church Government, more than congregational and Independent, is evidently grounded in natural reason, or a thing where evidently we may give Natural reason, etc. as we 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 Real, or mystical; But such a Church, i. e. more than a congregational, Independent Church, was not a shadow of things to come in Christ, etc. Ergo, The Major is certain, for the things commanded, or approved in the Old Testament, belonged, either to the Moral or to the Ceremonial, or to the Judicial Law: As for the things of the first sort, they are juris naturalis, and consequently perpetual, which are not abrogated, and of themselves were not shadows of things to come: As for those of the Judicial Law, of themselves they are not shadows, but belong unto Civil 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 external oppression, it is probable, that they should have enjoyed their own Government, according to the Judicial Law, so far forth as Judicial; neither was it his aim to overthrow any worldly States, Policies, or Political Laws: Christ's 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 men's bodies and purses, if they can let him reign over their Souls. These, that were commanded in the Ceremonial Law, were indeed shadows; but such was not a Church more than congregational. 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. more than a Parishional, or congregational 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 Parishional, or congregational 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 Keys of his Kingdom, the Power of binding and losing, the Tables and Seals of the Covenant, the Officers and Censures of his Church, the Administration of his public Worship and Ordinances. Caetus, a company of Believers, meeting in one place every Lord's day, for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God, to public 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 applied this Definition, because of its multitude, is more than an Independent congregational Church. But a Church compounded of 8120, is a Church, whereunto cannot be applied this Definition, etc. Ergo. The Major is certain: The Minor I prove it; for 8120. could not meet together every Lord's day in one House, etc. 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 men's 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 men's houses, yet could they not have received such a number. 3. Howbeit they could have received such a number, yet could not such a number have all heard a Minister Preaching; yea, though he had the voice of a Stentor, such, as were not all the Apostles; for St. Paul had his voice very weak, His Letters (say they, i. e. his Adversaries) are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible, 2 Cor. 10.10. 5. Howbeit, they could have all met together, to hear the Word, yet could they not meet together, to participate of the Lords Holy Table; for in those times, the Custom was to Communicate at Table sitting, according to the Custom of other Oriental people, in circle, every one having his hand upon his fellows breast, and their feet without, which 8120. could not so conveniently do in one room. 6. Put the case they could have all heard the Word, and Communicated at the Lords Table together, yet could they not so conveniently have voted in Ecclesiastical Senates, or judicatories, as they pretend every Member of the Church hath power to do, and as they do actually in case of Appeal from the Presbytery, unto the people. For I put the case, that those 8120. should have gathered together, to judge in some matter of Doctrine, or Censure, and that every one of the people should have employed one fourth part of an hour in delivering of his judgement, (whereas, I'll warrant you, some of them might employ a whole day, and at night say little to purpose) this voting would take up 20. or 30. hours: Put the case again, they should sit four hours every day (which hardly every Tradesman can spare) it should amount to 507. days, which is almost two years, omitting the Lords days; so in gathering their votes once only, there would be spent nigh upon two years: But what if there should fall in many (put the case ten or twelve) incidents, and that some of this Reverend Synod would protract the business, as some do here, to spin out time, as we understand? When should these businesses be decided? Again, What if some of the people, peradventure some considerable number should be absent (for appearingly they could not ever all be present) could any judgement given in their absence, bind them to condescend unto it? If it could, it should be but a very blind obedience; if not, there must of necessity be matter of Schism, which per see would ordinarily fall out in such a Constitution of an Independent Church. Many things will happily here be replied about divers compendious ways of gathering of suffrages, as in divers Senates, as amongst the Romans, Athenians, the Parliaments in France, in Venice, etc. but to no purpose, for this extravagant fashion of voting of so great multitudes, wherein every one pretends a liberty, or licentiousness rather, in prophesying, whereunto such ways of gathering of suffrages can no ways be applied. Some will answer, 1. That this Church, Acts 1. was an extraordinary Church, compounded of Apostles, who were extraordinary Ministers. Inst. The Text sayeth not, that it was extraordinary or compounded of Apostles alone. 2. The Apostles were only twelve, but this Church was of ten times twelve, i e. of one hundred and twenty, Acts 1.15. and eight thousand more. 3. The twelve Apostles could not make it extraordinary in number, in such a manner as that they could not meet together in one place; for they were but twelve, who might have been received in as small rooms, as other men. Some will answer, 2. It may be said, That the Church, Acts 1. was but of one hundred and twenty persons. Inst. I reply. But that of one hundred and twenty persons, and that of 8120. persons, was all one formally; and they differed only in their matter, as an Infant, and a Man of forty years. 2. That it sufficeth, that a Church, according to God's Ordinance, may be compounded of so many persons, as are incompatible with the Constitution of an Independent Church. 3. And howbeit it be not Acts 1. yet Scripture, Acts 2. and 4. is no less Canonical, then Acts 1.4. and yet that passage Acts 1. doth the business; for that Church provided a Minister for all the Churches of the World, which is more, than any Independent or congregational Church can do. And whosoever calls this Assembly, or the Acts thereof, extraordinary; yet may not the Independents do so, since that from this place, some of them, as Robinson, Insti. p. 168, 169. proves an ordinary power in the Church to ordain, and depose Her Officers; the which proof should be very ridiculous and impertinent, if from an extraordinary Church, or an extraordinary Act, they should infer an ordinary Church, or an ordinary Act of an ordinary Church; It should be all one, as if they should prove, That Independents have power to raise the dead, because the Apostles had such a power. 3. Arg. Act. 5. After that visible judgement of God, that befell Ananias and Saphira, vers. 5, 10. Believers were the more added unto the Lord, multitudes both men and women, vers. 14. The number of the Disciples were much more multiplied, cap. 6. v. 1. in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the Faith, ver. 7. who could not all meet together. Arg. 4. Act. 6. v. 1. When the number of the Disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration; whereupon there were appointed 7 Deacons for all the Churches of judaea, and sundry others: for the Church was compounded of people of divers Countries, Act. 2.9, 10, 11. This Argument proveth very probably, that at Jerusalem there was more than an Independent Church, since it ordained Church-Officers for sundry Congregations, or at least for a Church, which could not meet in one place. CHAP. IU. The same Doctrine proved from Act. 13.14.15. and 16 chap. of the Church of Jerusalem, and Antioch. Arg. 5. SO Act. 15. in that dispute of S. Paul and Barnabas with some Pharises converted to the Faith, about Circumcision, and the Observation of the Ceremonial Law, at Antioch; it was resolved, that the question should be determined by the Church, that was at Jerusalem: as it was. From whence I argue thus: That Church, to whose judgement other Churches submitted themselves, and which gave out Decrees or Sentences to be obeyed by other Churches, was more than an Independent congregational Church: But the Church that was gathered at Jerusalem, was a Church, to whose judgement other Churches submitted themselves, or to which they were bound to submit, and which gave out Decrees or Sentences to be obeyed by other Churches: Ergo, The Church, that was gathered at Jerusalem, was more than a congregational Independent Church. The Major is certain; for no simple congregational Church can give out Decrees and Sentences, to be obeyed by other Churches; nor will other Independent congregational Churches submit thereunto. The Minor is certain. 1. For, The Church of Antioch determined, that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders, about that question, Act. 15.2. 2. Because the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem is called a Sentence, v. 19 A burden; To lay no greater burden upon you, v. 28. Item, Decrees and Ordinances: They delivered them the Decrees to keep, that were ordained for the Apostles and Elders, which were at Jerusalem, cap. 16. v, 4. 3. Because not only the Church or Churches in Antioch, but also all those of Syria and Cilicia were bound to obey them, since they were delivered them by the Apostles, Evangelists, and Disciples, to keep, cap. 16.4. 4. Because the stile of the Epistle, and of the judgement, argueth authority over the Churches: As that, Act. 15.24. To whom we gave no such commandment: Ergo, They had power to command them to preach. And the Pharises appearingly pretended to have had some such commandment from that Church at Jerusalem, as some infer from this Text. Item, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things, Act. 15.25. 5. Because they commanded the Churches some things indifferent in themselves; as, to abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, v. 29. What may be answered to this Reason, we shall, God willing, see hereafter. Arg. 6. The Church of Antioch is one, and yet it is probable, that there were many congregational Churches there; for many of the Jews and Religious Proselytes at Antioch followed Paul and Barnabas, Act. 13. v. 43. And the next Sabbath day, came almost the whole City together, to hear the Word of God, v. 44. And the Word of the Lord was published throughout all the Region, v. 49. so that there were many, that professed Christ. So there were certain Prophets, and Teachers, as Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manahem, Act. 13. v. 1. and sundry others, which had come down from judea, Act. 15. v. 1. Now it is not credible, that where there were so many Believers, and so many Preachers, but there must have been many Congregations, and yet they are all called one Church, Act. 14. v. 27. CHAP. V The same Doctrine proved by the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 2 Cor. 1. Act. 18. and of Ephesus, Act. 19 Arg. 7. SO, 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.1. the Church of Corinth is called a Church. There Paul reasoned in the Synagogue every Sabbath day, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks, Act. 18.4. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised, v. 8. And the Lord spoke by vision to Paul, saying, I have much people in this City, v. 10. Paul continued there a year and six months, v. 11. God promised him, that no man should set on him to hurt him, v. 10. The jews, that had made an insurrection against him, v. 12. were drawn from the judgement seat by Gallio the Proconsul or Deputy of Achaia, v. 18. Sosthenes, the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, beaten away by the Greeks, v. 17. This Gallio was not Paul's, or the Christians enemy, as appeareth by all his proceed, v. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. where it is to be observed, that Corinth was the Metropolis of Achaia, so potent and opulent, that it might have disputed the Empire of the World with any other, which the Romans reckoned only three in the World fit to do, viz. Carthage, Corinth, and Capua. Now since the City was so great, so rich, so populous, and S. Paul by so special a manner of Divine providence and promise assisted there, so as that Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue was converted, Gallio the Proconsul became Paul's friend, and peradventure not far from the Kingdom of Heaven; S. Paul's credit so great, that the jews were drawn from the Tribunal seat, and Sosthenes beaten away; so many Corinthians converted, and that he abode there so long: What a number, in all probability, must have been converted? Out of all doubt, more than could conveniently meet together in one house, to participate of all Christ's Ordinances: And it was not Paul's custom to stay long in any place, where the Gospel was much contradicted, or prospered not, as we may collect from the 6. verse of this chapter, and from chap. 19 v. 9 Arg. 8. We may prove as much from the 19 chapter, concerning the City of Ephesus: where I pray the Reader to consider, how Ephesus was a very potent, rich, and populous City of Asia minor, of great Trading in regard of its situation betwixt the South and West, it being the way to sail from Syria and Egypt into Greece and Macedonia. For all these reasons it was very famous, as also for the Temple of Diana, its Idolatry, and many curious Arts there professed, as Natural, and Diabolical Magic; the profession whereof, some Independents, as it is related by M. S. use, it should seem, now and then, to consult about men of Letters, and their Books, in these calamitous times of Reformation. About that time that S. Paul taught there, there was one Apollonius Thyanaeus, who, as it is related of him, erected a School of Magic there, who by the voice of Birds knew their very imaginations and desires, etc. This man was Christ's, and S. Paul's enemy, as it is related of him. We have also an Adage in Erasmus, Ephesiae literae, which were some Magic characters, and words, which made such as carried them, victorious in all they undertook: See more about them in that Adage, in the Title Imposturae. Without doubt, Paul converted here more than could meet in one Congregation; and yet it is called a Church. 1. At his first entry, by the imposition of his hands, he gave the Holy Ghost unto 12 Disciples, or rather, it was given them by Jesus Christ, upon the imposition of his hands, so that they spoke with Tongues, and prophesied, v. 6. and so there was now a good number of good Instruments. 2. He disputed boldly in the Synagogue for the space of three months, persuading the things concerning the Kingdom of God, v. 8. which he could not have done, unless he had had many good friends there. 3. Afterwards, daily in the School of one Tyrannus, for the space of two years, v. 9.10. which without doubt he had not continued to do so long, if the Gospel had not had great fruits there; for so soon as some spoke evil of it, in the Synagogue, the Text says, He separated his Disciples from it. I know, that there is some dispute about these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Schola Tyranni cujusdam, v. 9 some thinking, that Tyrannus is a proper name, others, that it is a common name, signifying some great-man, of great credit and authority, as some great Lord, perchance: and Schola may signify a School, is a Hall, or place of recreation, such as Noblemen use to have: But however it be taken, this Text proveth plainly, that S. Paul had great credit, was in a high est●eme, and that the Gospel had a great progress, and a happy success. 4. But let this Tyrannus be the proper name of some Master, or Professor in a College, as Tyrannus Sophista, as Baronius would have him to be, tom. 1. Annal. or any other; it is a sign, whatever he was, that he was not contrary, but became a great friend to the Gospel, since he permitted S. Paul to teach so long in his College, during which time, it is probable, he might be converted himself. 5. If it be a common name, or signifies any great Lord, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify some great Hall, Porticum, or spacious place, as some will have it to do; it is a sign, that he had great credit, and access to great men, since he had such an House at command to make a School of, and that for so long time together, as the space of two years: Without all doubt, a Nobleman, that would endure this trouble for the Gospel, was not far from Christ, if he was not a Christian altogether; for Noblemen willingly never favour pretended Novelties, such as the Gospel was amongst the Ephesians. 6. And if S. Paul made choice of such a place, to the end he might be protected by the Lord of it, as many of the Expositors of this place are of opinion; without all doubt, there were a great party there Christians; for Noblemen willingly will not hazard their estates for Religion, nor suffer public exercise of a new Religion in their houses, nor protect Novelties of so great consequence, if they see any danger, or fear a stronger party: and therefore in all probability, the Christians were very strong there, since they had such public exercise of their Religion, and so many friends, and those of the greatest. 7. This may be confirmed further, by the great apprehension that Demetrius, and all the Silversmiths had conceived of their utter undoing, by reason of the notable progress of the Gospel; and by the tumult that he made, which, it is like, he would not have done, unless he had mightily apprehended the party of the Christians, and the undoing of Diana, and her Temple; And by his discourse, viz. that Paul had persuaded much people, not in Ephesus alone, but almost throughout all Asia. 8. Because, howbeit in this tumult the people had laid hold on Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's companions, and rushed into the Theatre; yet did they them no harm, for fear, in all likelihood, of the Christians party; for fear fell on them all, v. 12.9. And all this may be confirmed, for that Paul had many of the greatest of Asia for his friends, as appeareth from the 31. verse, who hindered him to enter into the tumult, for fear he should receive any hurt: And the Great men, doubtless, drew many of meaner condition after them. 10. Because S. Paul wrought great miracles amongst them, to the terror of some, to the admiration of others, and to the great contentment and profit of others: To the terror of some, as appeareth by the accidents that befell some Exoreists of the jews, the sons of Sceva, chief of the Priests; after the which, the Text saith, fearefell upon them, v. 17. To the admiration of others, because miracles, they are admirable, and especially those that are unimitable by others: To the contentment and profit of others, because that the handkerchiefs or aprons carried from S. Paul's body, cured their diseases, and chased a way the evil spirits out of them, v. 12. the which could not but draw very many Disciples unto him. 11. Because all these things were known to all the jews and Greeks of Ephesus, which could not be, without at least a toleration, and some approbation of those that were in authority: and so the Party was great and strong. 12. Because this being known to them all, the name of the Lord jesus was magnified, v. 17.13. Because many that believed, came and confessed their deeds, v. 18. So then many believed. 14. Because many of them also, which used curious Arts, burned their Books, amounting to the sum of 15000. pieces of silver, v. 19 yet it is not said, that they all, but that many of them burned their Books; so that besides those Magicians who burned their Books, there must have been many other Magicians converted; And yet those Books being of so great a value, could not but belong to many; and indeed the Text calleth them many. Now in a great City, ordinarily, are but a small number that give their minds to Letters, but far less, that give their minds to Sciences, and yet fewer, that apply their minds to curious Arts and Sciences; and yet here they were many. Note yet, that these curious Arts could not be Natural Magic, nor judicial Astrology, Physiognomy, etc. for these Arts being lawfully used, are lawful, and therefore it had been no need to burn the Books which treated of them, it had been much better to sell them for the necessities of distressed Christians; ergo, they must have been some Diabolical Arts, such as Apollonius Thyanaus professed, whereunto belonged those Literae Ephesiae also. Now of all those, who are given to curious Arts, very few are given to Diabolical Arts against nature: since then there were so many of such Diabolical Scholars, whose conversion, above all other men, is the hardest; how many might there have been of other men of Letters converted? but how many more of the People? It is probable, that Tyrannus School was a School of Magic, and peradventure, Apollonius Thyanaus was his Second or Usher, and had the title of Professor, in his absence; and, that the Word of God grew so mightily, and prevailed, as the Text saith, v. 20. by the means of S. Paul's Mieacles, whereby the Devil, and all his Magicians were so mightily affronted; and that those Magicians being so affronted and converted, many others were converted by their example. 15. It is to be noted, that all these things, viz. Miracles, Conversion of so many to the Gospel amongst them, their Profession thereof, and the burning of those Books, were done publicly, which appearingly they would not have done, if they had not had a strong Party, and had been a very great number; Durst a few men, or many inconsiderable men so publicly have renounced the Religion of their Country, and their Great Diana of Egphesus, if they had not been backed with force enough? For howsoever perchance some zealous men might have done so, yet is it searce credible, that many would have done it; for of those, who receive Christ, many, yet the best men are sundry times tempted with fear, as we see in St. Peter his denying his Master, and in all the Apostles in flying away; neither is it evermore needful, that we make so open profession of Christ, when we may appearingly suffer for him; for the sheep may fly away from the Wolf, as the woman fled into the wilderness to hid herself for a while. This Conclusion may be further confirmed by sundry other Texts of Scripture; and, 9 by Act. 20.7, 8, 9 There was such a throng at St. Paul's Sermon, which he made in an upper Chamber in the night upon occasion of his departure from Troas, that Eutychus, and doubtless also some others were forced to sit in the windows; note that this was in the night; what a throng might there have been, had it been on the Day time: out of all doubt, the Chamber would not have held them all: but certainly they could not meet every Lordsday in any one Room, such as were their places of meeting in those times, and consequently there must have been there more, than one of the Independent congregational Churches. 10. We have also clear Texts of Scripture to prove, that the Church is taken for a greater, then for any Independent Congregation, as Act. 8.1. And at that time, there was a great persecution against the Church, that was at Jerusalem; This Persecution was not against one only Independent congregational Church, but against the whole Churches of judea. 11. So in the same Chap. vers. 3. Saul made havoc of the Church. And chap. 9.1. breathing out threaten and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord: now of this Church some members were in Damascus, v. 2. so he says of himself, I persecuted the Church, 1. Cor. 15.9. Phil. 3.6. from whence I argue thus, The Church that Saul persecuted, was greater than a particular Congregation, or an Independent Church. But the Church here meant, is that which Saul persecuted. Ergo, The Church here meant, is greater than a particular Congregation. The Minor is certain; the Major I prove it; for he persecuted not one only particular Congregation, but that, wherever there were Disciples of the Lord, chap. 9.1. in Jerusalem, chap. 8. vers. 1.3. and in Damascus, chap. 9 v. 1.2. 12. And, Act 12.1. Herod the King stretched out his hand to vex certain of the Church. Here the word Church must signify more, than a particular Congregation; for Herod did it to pleasure the jews, which he could not have done, in vexing the members of one particular Church alone. 2. Because here must be meant the Church, whereof Peter was a Member, v. 3. which was not one particular Church alone, but that of all Judea, since Peter and John had a particular Vocation, Mission, or Commission to teach there, as Paul to the Gentiles, Gal. 2.7. or rather of the whole Militant Church of their time, since they were Apostles, or Universal Ministers of the Gospel. 3. Because if the Church here signify a particular Church, whereof Peter and james were Members; then that Church might have deposed them of their Ministry: For the Independents grant this Authority to their Churches over their Pastors: And if it be said, that they have it over particular, but not over universal Pastors, as the Apostles: Ergo. If they acknowledge them to be universal Pastors, they must have universal Flocks, or Churches; so there was an universal Militant Church upon Earth, whereof they were Pastors in their time, which is more than a particular Congregation. 4. Put the case they had been but Ministers of particular Churches or Congregations, yet must the word Church there signify a Church, whereof they were both Members, for such a Church is meant here, v. 7.2, 3. But such a Church must be more than a particular one, for it must contain both their Churches, and Persons, since they are called some of the Church, i. e. of one Church. 13. So vers. 5. But Prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for him, i. e. for Peter, who was in Prison; And out of all doubt this was not one only Independent Church, but all the Churches that knew of Peter's imprisonment, and depended upon him, as upon their Pastor. 14. Give no offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God, 1 Cor. 10.32. which cannot be a simple Independent Church, but all the Churches we converse with; 1. for Charity bindeth us to give no offence to all, or any of them. 2. Because this Church is called the Church of God, which cannot be restrained to one particular Church, if they be all the Church of God. 3. Because it is opposed to the jews, and the Gentiles. 15. Because the Church, wherein God did place Apostles, and Evangelists, 1. Cor. 12.28. was not an Independent Congregation, but more; for they were universal Ministers of the Militant Church of their time; now if there be an universal Militant Church through all the world, how much rather may we admit a Provincial or Nationall Church? 16. I had rather speak five words, saith St. Paul, with my understanding in the Church then, etc. 1. Cor. 14.19. This Church, wherein the Apostle desires to speak, is more than an Independent Congregation; for he was not tied to any particular Congregation. 17. The Apostle willeth women to keep silence in the Churches, 1. Cor. 14.38. and these Churches are called the Church, It is a shame for a Woman to speak in the Church, vers. 35. which cannot be a particular Congregation; for he willeth them not to speak in any Church. We may bring many other Passages of Scripture, and Reasons; but because they serve both for this, and the next Conclusion, therefore to decline repetitions, we remit them unto that Conclusion. CHAP. VII. The Second Conclusion, concerning the Subordination of Authority in the Church. SEcondly I say, Conclus. that betwixt the Churches of God, there should be some Subordination in authority, i. e. such, as wherein the judgements of inferior Churches, and their proceed may be subject unto the judgement of the Superior Church, whereunto they are Subordinate: And this may be proved sufficiently from all the Testimonies of Scripture, aleadged for the former Conclusion; For if there be a Church more than a particular congregational, viz. Provincial, or Nationall, out of all doubt, the particular Congregations must be subject to them, 1. because a part is subject unto the whole, as the hand unto the whole body; nam pars magis sui totius quam sui; item, because the part is for the whole, as a medium for its end: now the Mediums must be subject unto their Ends, and not the Ends unto their Mediums; and Media commensurantur finibus, non fines Mediis; neither shape we the horse back for the saddle, but the saddle for the horse his back; so the government of particular Churches must not be shaped or framed according to their particular exigencies and conveniencies alone, but according to that of the whole Provincial, Nationall, and Universal Militant Church here upon Earth, in such a manner, that it hinder it not. 2. Particularly, it may be proved from the Custom of the Old Testament, which is not abrogated in the New; for therein the judgements of Synagogicall Assemblies were subject unto that of the middle Sanedrim; and that of the middle, to that of the Supreme: or if there were only two, that of the lesser Sanedrim unto that of the great one; as has been proved by Mr. Rutherford, Gillispy, Hearl, etc. Art. 1. and 2. 3. The Representative Church, or first General Council, at Jerusalem, had Power and Authority over all the Churches of the world; since it gave them a Minister, viz. Mathias: Ergo, All other Churches in their judgements and Power of creating such a Minister, were subject unto it. Object. If it be said, That it was an extraordinary Council, 1. Because it was indicted and convocated by Christ; 2. Because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons; 3. Because the Persons received extraordinary gifts there; 4. Because, it was in the birth and beginning of the Church. Reply. The Scripture saith not, That it was Extraordinary. As for the the Proofs; I answer to the first, 1. That howbeit it was indicted and convocated by Christ, yet was it not indicted and convocated in an extraordinary way. 2. That a Council may be extraordinarily indicted and convocated, and yet be ordinary in its proceed. 3. That the Indiction and Convocation of a Council is Extrinsecall, and Antecedent to a Council; because that it is before that the Council be; and therefore cannot make it Intrinsically extraordinary when it is existent: So, Adam was made in an extraordinary way of Earth, and by creation; and Eva of Adam's Rib; and yet they were not extraordinary persons, in their nature, existence, conservation, or accidents. 4. Neither read we, that it was convocated in an extraordinary way. 5. Neither can it be extraordinary, because it was convocated by Christ; for by the same reason, all that ever Christ did to men, should have been extraordinary. To the second, I have already answered. To the third, I answer, 1. That the extraordinary gifts were personal only, and belonged unto the material parts of the Council, and not to the form thereof; and therefore could not make it formally extraordinary, in quality of a Council; for formal denominations are not taken from the matter, but from the form; so, if there be six or seven Ecclesiastical persons assembled to dinetogether, we call it not an Ecclesiastical Assembly. 2. I answer, That these extra ordinary gifts were subsequent unto the Council, or at least to that Ecclesiastical proceeding, in the election of Mathias; Now that, which is subsequent to any thing, cannot denominate it formally, or at least in the time precedent; when the Subject precedeth such a subsequent Adjunct or Circumstance. See more concerning this Argument heretofore. To the fourth, I answer, 1. That all that, which was in the birth and infancy of the Church, was not Extraordinary; for by that reason, the Preaching of the Gospel, and the Administration of the Sacraments should have been Extraordinary. 2. Things, that are Ordinary, must have a beginning. 3. And howsoever, at their beginning, they be Extraordinary in respect of time, because, before their beginning, they were not Ordinary, but out of the precedent order; yet they are Ordinary, in respect of God's Ordinance or Law, which is ordinatio rationis, that should be ordinary in God's Church. Object. If it be yet said, That Mathias was an Extraordinary Minister, and his Vocation Extraordinary. I answer, That all that is true; and yet, in this Extraordinary Vocation, there was something Ordinary, viz. The Nomination, and Election, or Admittance of him to be a Minister of the Church, according to the Independents opinion, otherways their Argument should be very impertinent, in proving from hence, the power of the people, in choosing their Ministers. That which there was Extraordinary, was not done by the Council, and therefore could not make the Council Extraordinary. As much may be said of that Council, that created seven Deacons for many Churches. 5. But principally we will urge that business of Antioch, in that difference betwixt St. Paul and Barnabas, on the one part, and some Pharisees converted to the Christian Faith, on the other. Hereupon it was resolved that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jernsalem, unto the Apostles and Elders, about that question, v. 2. they were sent by the Church of Antioch, v. 3. they were received by the Church, and by the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, v. 4 the Assembly being gathered at Jerusalem, the Cause was heard, v. 4.5. considered, v. 6. discussed, v. 7. voiced, v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 judged, v. 22. the judgement, or Decree of the Council or Assembly, sent to Antioch, from the 22. v. to the 30. read, and obeyed by the Church at Antioch, etc. v. 31. Here is the Church of Antioch, judged by a superior Church, at jerusalem; an Appeal, form or interjected, from the one to the other; received by the other; judged and obeyed: And therefore it cannot be denied, but there was some Subordination betwixt these two Churches, and that the one had authority over the other. To this Argument some answer, 1. That if it prove any thing, it can only conclude an Appeal from one Parish Church, or particular Congregation unto another, since the Church of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, were no other than Parish Churches. Rep. 1. This Answer cannot hold, 1. Because no such thing can probably be collected out of this Text, or of any other in Scripture; and therefore it may be as easily rejected by us, as it is alleged by them. 2. Because hardly can it be proved, that in those times Churches were divided into Parishes. 3. Because an Appeal cannot be from one Parish or congregational Church unto another, since their authority is equal; but only from an inferior to a superior Church or Judicatory. 4. Because if it was from one particular Congregation to another, than that Congregation, from which it was appealed, was not complete in its Judgement, but had need of some Extrinsecall power, which is against the Tenets of Independents themselves. 5. Because if we might appeal from one particular Congregation to another, how much more from a particular Congregation unto a Synod, wherein the Spirit of God, and especially that of Prophecy doth more abound. 6. Because the Apostles in Jerusalem were not members of any particular Church. 7. Because, if the Assembly at Jerusalem had been a particular or congregational Church, it could not have given out a Decree, which should have bound so many Churches to obedience, viz. those of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, v. 23. 2. It may be otherways answered, That it was an Appeal, but not to any Ordinary, but an Extraordinary Church, viz. to that of the Apostles; and that for these Reasons. 1. Because it was Extraordinarily gathered; 2. By Extraordinary persons; 3. It was compounded of Extraordinary persons, viz. the Apostles; 4. Because this Appeal was to the Apostles, who were infallible and Extraordinary Ministers; 5. Because it was in the birth, and beginning of the Gospel. Rep. 2. This Answer cannot hold, 1. Because the Scripture declareth not, that this Church or Assembly was Extraordinary. 2. Neither is it a satisfactory Answer, whenever we bring passages of Scripture to prove our Opinion, that they answer us, that they are of Extraordinary things, and practices; unless the Scripture ●●clare them to be such, or that they go beyond the general Rules commanded in Scripture. 3. Because here the proceed are conform to those, that we have in other Scriptures, as in the Old Testament etc. As for the Reasons; to the first I answer, that it cannot be proved, that it was extraordinarily gathered. 2. And howbeit it had been extraordinarily gathered, yet the proceed therein might have been, and were ordinary. 3. Because the gathering or indicting of an Assembly is Extrinsecall unto an Assembly, and antecedent to it, and therefore cannot make it Intrinsically extraordinary in its proceed. 4. It is only circumstantial, which cannot make it extraordinary, quoad substantiam, sed quoad modum, and that modus also is Extrinsecall; and not so much a manner of being of the Assembly, as of him, or them, who indict, or gather it. To the 2. Extraordinary Persons, who gather an Assembly, are not sufficient to make an Assembly extraordinary. 1. For then all the Churches gathered by the Apostles had been extraordinary, which is most false. 2. If they made it extraordinary, they must have imparted unto it some extraordinary quality, which they did not, or at least, which appeareth not from Scripture; and so it must be holden as if it were not; for Scripture is only a Rule to us in that which it sayeth, and not in that which it sayeth not. To the 3. Because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons, viz. Apostles. This answer satisfieth not the Argument. 1. It is ridiculous to call all extraordinary, that maketh against them. 2. Because it was not compounded of the Apostles alone, but also of the Elders, vers. 2.3. 3. Because not only the Apostles, but also the Elders judged the business, v. 2.3. 4. Howbeit this Appeal was to the Apostles, yet was it not to them in quality of Apostles, neither are we bound to believe it, since the Scripture hath no such thing of it. 5. If it had been to the Apostles, in quality of Apostles, or men, who were infallible, then could they not have appealed from Paul at Antioch, to the Apostles at Jerusalem, since he was as infallible at Antioch, as they all at Jerusalem. 6. The judgement of the Elders had been superfluous; for the judgement of the Apostles alone, and their Letter alone, had sufficed as Canonical Scripture, to direct them at Antioch in their Proceed: What needed they add a fallible judgement to that, that was infallible, or man's judgement to Gods? and yet they contented not themselves with that of the Apostles alone. 7. If this Assembly at Jerusalem had been extraordinary, and infallible, because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons, viz. of Apostles. Ergo. so was that of Antioch, because there was St. Paul an Apostle. 8. By the same reason, it must have been ordinary and fallible, because it was compounded of ordinary and fallible persons, viz. the Elders. 9 If the Apostles had been there in quality of Apostles, and infallible Ministers, what needed they so long to consult and dispute in the Assembly, v. 10? A simple Decision, without any Consultation might have sufficed; for Disputes and Consultatio●● amongst men, are not of things, which they hold altogether certain, and out of doubt, but of things uncertain and doubtful. 10. I deny the Consequence, viz. That if a Council or Assembly be compounded of extraordinary Persons, Ergo, it is extraordinary; for by the same reason, if there were seven, or eight Apostles dineing or sleeping together, it should be an extraordinary and Apostolical dinner or sleeping. 11. Neither are all things, that are done by extraordinary Persons, extraordinary; for the Apostles did eat, drink, and sleep, neither yet was that Extraordinary Eating, Drinking, or Sleeeping, but ordinary, as in other men. 12. Because the Apostles were material parts, or members of the Assembly; their gifts, as infallibility and offices were personal, and denominated themselves only, and not every Assembly, wherein they were, or might be, for as the Form that denominateth their persons, belongeth only to them, so doth the denomination proceeding from it. 13. Because the parts of Assemblies and Consociations, may have contrary Forms and denominations, secundum entiatem, as we see in Republics; for the whole Republic may be rich and potent, and the members thereof very poor, because of the great Tributes they pay to the State, and the Statepoor; and the members or Subjects rich; because of the Subjects great Trading and profit, and their small Contributions to the State; So in the Church, in an Ecclesiastical Assembly of Prophets, as that of Achab, there may be one Prophet infallible, yea, if there had been 400. yet that Council had been; as it was, fallible, because of the Plurality of the votes of the false Prophets; so an Army of 40000000. of Pigmees and Dwarves is a great Army, and every one of them a little man. To the 3. I have already answered. To the 4. Answ. 1. It was not to the Apostles, in quality of Apostles, as I have proved it. 2. Because it was also to the Elders. 3. I deny the consequence; for by the same reason it should be ordinary, since it was to the Elders, who were ordinary Ministers. To the 5. 1. I deny the consequence, for all things that were in the beginning of the Church were not extraordinary, since many of them continue now as ordinary. 2. Because if it be extraordinary, because it was in the beginning of the Church, Ergo, all that we have in Christian Religion must be Extraordinary, since there is no thing in it, but it had a Beginning: so Faith, Justification, the Sacraments and all the Ordinary Ministers of the Church should be extraordinary, since they have a beginning with the Church. 3. Howbeit it was Extraordinary in respect of Time, as all things at their first Beginning, yet was it not Extraordinary in respect of God's Law, which ordains it to be ordinary. Answ. 3. This Argument may be other ways eluded, in saying, that this business was not judged at Jerusalem by way of Appeal, but by way of Council, not by Judges, but by Friends, and Brethren. Rep. But this Evaston is no better than the rest; 1. Because the Text containeth no such thing; and we cannot take it upon their word, no more than they will take it upon ours, unless we prove it, as we here do. 2. Because heretofore we have shown many, yea almost all the conditions necessary to an Appeal, whereof the rest may be inferred by necessary consequence. 3. Because S. James (who as some Divines conceive, was the Moderator or Praeses of the Assembly) saith not, My Counsel is, but My Sentence is; which is not the stile of a Counsellor to a friend, but of a Judge. 4. The Judgement in the Text is called a Decree. 5. If it had been but a Council, the Pharisees might as well, yea more easily have rejected it, than the judgement 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 judicatory 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 business, than the Parties. 7. If it had been judged at Jerusalem by way of Counsel only, this Counsel had likely been only given to the Church of Antioch; for counsel ordinarily is only given to those, who desire and crave it: But so it is not here, for the Church of Jerusalem not only judged so concerning the Church of Antioch alone, but also of all others; and the Apostles, and their Disciples urged this judgement upon all the rest of the Churches, where they passed. Some New-England Preachers answer, That this Assembly at Jerusalem clear up the truth dogmatically; for the word translated Decrees, is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Provincial, Nationall, or Ecumenical. A.S. Answ. This cannot hold, 1. For whoever have a Dogmatic power, they have also a power to Censure; for he who may judge, that this must be believed, and according to God's Word, meriteth such an Ecclesiastical or Spiritual punishment, wherefore may he not also sentence the Delinquents, who merit to be so censured? 2. Because, in giving a Dogmatic power to some, and a Corrective power unto others, they divide the Keys, 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 Ceremonial Law, but either from the Law of Nature, or the Political Ecclesiastical 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 judge, and the other the Executioner, 5. Because in all States, and Civil Governments, judges, or Senates, who have the Dogmatic power, have also the Corrective or Coercive power; and there is the same reason for both. 6. The Text containeth no such thing; neither can they show us in any part of Scripture any ground for any such division of these two Powers; Neither can that silly Grammatical observation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve them; for the Apostle serveth not himself of this word in the whole latitude of all its Grammatical significations, that it may have according to its Etymology and Derivation; but in a Legal way, as it is taken in Law, for Placitum, Statutum, Institutum, Decretum, Edictum, as in the Civil Laws, wherein these words signify Laws, or Ordinances: and Calvin telleth us, in Lexico juridico, 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 Ecclesiastical Laws, 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 dogmatise, or to bring in a new Opinion, Custom, or Ceremony, Col. 2.20. which here was not done by any private man, but by authority of a Council. 9 Neither can the Authors of this Evasion ever show us, that Dogma, in Law, is taken for a power merely dogmatic, separated from all coercive or corrective power. And moreover, if this will not satisfy them, we have, Act. 15. v. 24. To whom we commanded no such thing; Ergo, Those of Antioch supposed, that that Council at Jerusalem had power to command; and the Council 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, than 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 Latin codex, Praecipiens custodire praecepta Apostolorum & Seniorum; which argueth, that they had not only a Directive, but also an Imperative power over the Churches, in virtue of that Decree of the Council. 13. The Dogmatic power is like unto the Legislative power, and whoever hath a Legislative power, hath also a Corrective power. 14. This Council had not only a Dogmatic, but also a Legislative power about things of themselves indifferent, as appeareth here, in making a Law, that the Christians should abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled. 4. Some (it may be) will find out this Evasion, and say, That it was not a Council, nor an ordinary Decree of Ecclesiastical judges, but of Arbiters. Rep. But 1. the Text hath no such thing. 2. Arbiters are either given by the ordinary judge, ordinarily called judices pedanei; or chosen by the Parties themselves, otherways called Compromissarii: If ye grant me the first, then particular Churches are subject unto Superior Ecclesiastical judicatories, 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 herself subject and dependent; for we cannot dispose of our own liberty, granted to us by Christ, to make ourselves servants, or subject to men in Matters of Religion. 3. We cannot submit God's Cause to others, then to whom he hath submitted it himself. How could they accept them for judges, who had no vocation of God to judge them? 5. Arbitrary judges, that are given, have a Superior power over the Church, that they judge; and so ye acknowledge, that the Church of jerusalem had power over that of Antioch, if that of jerusalem was an Arbiter datus aut delegatus. 2. These given Arbiters are given by a judge or Superior: Ergo, They presuppose some Superior judge over the Party judged. 6. The Compromissory Arbiter judgeth not according to the Law, but according to equity: but in all Ecclesiastical judgements, he that judgeth must judge, according to the Law, or God's Word. Ergo, He that judgeth in Ecclesiastical judgements cannot be a Compromissory Arbiter, who only properly is an Arbiter, in so far as an Arbiter is distinguished from a judge. 7. The judgement of a Compromissory Arbiter cannot hold, nor oblige me to obedience, since it is not grounded on public Authority, but on the will of the Parties, who, qua tales, are private persons; But the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem, can, and must hold, and oblige all the Churches of that time to obedience, according to that which the Council intended, by the judgement. 8. Compromissory Arbiters only judge of the Parties, which compromise to submit themselves to their judgement: But the Church, Apostles, and Presbyters at Jerusalem judged, not only of the Parties that compromissed to submit unto them, but of all the Churches, as the Text telleth us. 9 In Arbitrary judgements ordinarily, they are the Parties that make choice of their Arbiters, and not a third, that ordaineth them, as the Church of Antioch did in this Case, in sending this Message or Ambassage to jerusalem. 10. Whether it was an extraordinary Counsel, or judgement of Arbiters; yet followeth it not, that such judgements of themselves are ill, or against God's Word; since God never ordained, nor the Apostles ever made choice of any breach of God's Law, or of any disorder, to establish any order in his Church by; for God needeth not the Devils help to do his Work; he can do it himself without him. 11. If they were Compromissorii judices, then particular or Parishional Congregations may combine themselves together in a consociation, and give power to Classes, and to Synods, to be their judges, which is the practice of all the Reformed Churches. 5. It may yet be answered, That in all this proceeding, there was no Reference or Appeal, no Arbitrary judgement, nor any Counsel concerning the Church of Antioch; but only an examen of a Message, sent or pretended to have been sent from Jerusalem, viz. Of some Pharisees, Members of the Church of Jerusalem, who pretended to have had charge from the Apostles, to urge the Circumcision, and the Observation of the Ceremonial Law, as may be collected from verse 24. Rep. 1. This is not true, 1. Because all this is said without Scripture. 2. And vers. 24. it is not said, That these Pharisees pretended to have had any such charge from the Apostles; but the Apostles say, That they gave them no such command: But this Argument may seem somewhat weak; for howsoever the Text have it not in terminis, yet seems it to follow of the Text by a Moral necessity; for that expression, To whom we gave no such commandment, seemeth to presuppose some pretention of a commandment on the Pharisees part. 3. And howbeit it is said, That they went out from the Apostles, yet is it not said, they were Members of the Church of jerusalem. 4. Neither read we, That there was any dispute about their Message, or Commission, but about their Doctrine. 5. Because the Sentence or Decree is only about their Doctrine. 6. Because in that Decree, not only the Pharisees are sentenced, but all the Churches; upon which the Observation of the Canons of the Apostles is enjoined; only there is a word, in passing, said of the Pharisees; but however it be, that was no way the principal Question. Finally, here cometh in M. S. in an ordinary Independent way, never proving any thing Positively, that they believe (for in this point, they show themselves the weakest of all Sectaries) but ever more denying what we prove, which requires no great abilities, as is known and confessed amongst all men, that do but pretend to learning; neither can they do otherways; for they will not be tied in time to come to any Positive Doctrine, no not so much as to that they hold at this present, for any thing I can collect from the Apologetical Narration: only they stand stoutly to some Nego's, and will, that we prove all, and they nothing at all. He telleth us then in the third Chapter of his Book, that before this Argument of ours Acts 15. can hold, we have ten Particulars to prove; 1. That the Apostles sat here in quality of Apostles. 2. That this Council had their state and set times of meeting. 3. That they had Authoritatem Citationis. 4. That the Members of this Synod were sent hereunto by the particular Churches, over whom they claimed jurisdiction. 5. That only Churchmen had power to sit there. 6. That it had as well power to make Laws of things indifferent, as to impose things necessary. 7. That the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia, had their Delegates sitting there. 8. That Paul and Barnabas sat as Commissioners, for the Church of Antioch. 9 That ordinary Synods may proceed, as they did, in saying, It seemed good, etc. 10. That these words in the close of the Epistle, ye shall do well, verse 29. did import some intimation, That if they did not submit, some further course must be taken with them. Item, In this Chapter he telleth us, That Presbyterians agree not about the Pedigree of their Government; and to tell us all this, he employeth no less, than ten Pages in Quarto in a very small Print. As for the first, we have already proved it sufficiently, and attend his reply; As for that ridiculous demand of his, that we prove, That the Apostles waved and silenced the Spirit of Infallibility. Answ. They might have it, and not wave it, howbeit they sat not there in quality of men that had it; for the Elders that had it not, sat there in the same quality with them. Some dispute also, 1. Whether the Apostles, in all times, and in all places, and upon all occasions, yea, sleeping and sick, had the gift of Infallibility in actu secundo, so that their will could not hinder the Externall Act. See the Example of Nathan, S. Peter, Thomas, etc. who had the gift of Infallibility in actu primo; but sundry times they had it not in actu secundo. 2. Some doubt also, what is the gift of Prophecy or Infallibility; Whether it be liker unto an Habitude, which is a Permanent quality, or to a Passion or Afflatus, which is not Permanent, but suddenly flies away. To the second: 1. It is but a circumstance of time, which followeth necessarily of the substance of the thing. 1. For if Counsels sit, they must sit in some time; but in what time, whether once, twice, or thrice a year, that depends upon other Circumstances, as of Church opportunities, and exigences, of the Civil Magistrates Permission, etc. 2. In things Circumstantial, Discipline depends on the Law of Nature according to the Apologists own Confession. To the third; It may be necessarily inferred of the Authoritative power; for where there is an Authoritative power to judge, and censure, there is evermore an Authoritative power of citation, and calling of all those, who are within the compass of such a jurisdiction; for citation is a medium, whereby we come to judgement; and it is a maxim most certain, that Media accipiunt suam necessitatem a fine; finis mediis conciliat amabilitatem. To the fourth; Some think it very probable, that Paul and Barnabas were sent thither from Antiochia: but Paul was not Minister of any particular Church; no more was Barnabas, for any thing we read in Scripture; and therefore appearingly, they could not be sent from Antioch, a their particular Ministers; but since they were also Universal Ministers, they might receive a particular Commission from particular Churches, since the Apostolate, the charge of an Evangelist, and Prophet, contain in themselves virtually the charges of ordinary Ministers. If it be said, That they were Party, and therefore could not sit as Judges; It may be answered, That men cannot be taken for Party, when they compear before the Synod; and when they are taken for Party by Innovators and Sectaries only, and persevere in the Doctrine already received in the Church; for if that were admitted, That every man promiscuously might be taken for Party, then might a Felon, or Traitor, take all his Judges for Party, and so never be judged: and therefore in judgement, when any one will decline the Sentence of his judges, and take them for Party, his Reasons are examined and considered, whether they be of force and validity, or not. 2. It may be, that they were chosen to be Members in the Synod, before that this dispute fell out. 3. It is not needful, that we prove all singular Circumstances from Scripture: It will serve our turn if we prove, That it was some Occumenick, Nationall, or Provincial Synod, from whence we may infer, by necessary consequence, that Commissioners were sent from particular Churches thereunto. Now whether S. Paul and Barnabas were there in quality of Commissioners, it is not needful to know. 4. This Assembly was a General, or Nationall Assembly, as we have proved: Ergo, Either it was a set Assembly, as the Pope's Consistory; or as a Chapter; or such as we have taken it for: But ye deny the first two: Ergo, Ye must grant the third, or give some other. 5. Ye yourselves admit Synods, to which particular Congregations send their Commissioners, Delegates, or Messengers, call them, as it pleases you: Ergo, Ye cannot deny them; If ye deny their quality or power to judge, that is another question, which is different from this. To the fifth, I prove it, For no man hath power to judge in Ecclesiastical Causes, but they who have the abilities, such as are only Church Officers; because no man can take this office, but he who is called, as Aaron; such as are not every one of the people; amongst whom, as ye say, many have not confidence enough, but are timorous, and others are rude or impertinent. If ye had answered all my Book, ye might have found more Reasons: but of this you are like to hear more, God willing, in a particular Question. To the sixth, This Council imposed upon the Church some things indifferent of their own Nature, as that of abstaining from blood, and things strangled; for howsoever they were necessary, necessitate praecepti, in so far as commanded; yet were they not necessary in themselves, or necessitate medii; and so they are called in the Text, things necessary, partly necessitate praecepti, partly of conveniency, or remedy, for to avoid offence: Some call it necessitas non facti, sed facientis, when the thing of itself is not needful, but the Agent maketh it necessary to himself, as we do, in abstaining from things, whereat our Brethren may take offence, howbeit we give them none. 2. Your Independent Church taketh that Authority unto herself, as when she ordains a certain day, and a certain hour, for her Sermons and meetings: Wherefore then may not a Synod do it? 3. The Church by God's Authority, may ordain of things Necessary; so may she of things Indifferent, when they may conduce to a thing that is necessary; Nam media accipiunt necessitatem à fine. 4. For howsoever some things be indifferent in general, yet are they not such in particular, in matter of Practice; for than they become necessary, because of some particular determinations, and references, that they have to some good ends, in respect of time, place, persons, etc. 5. This is but one only Point of Presbyterian Government, and not all; and howbeit ye should gain all this, (as ye do not) yet would it not follow, that the Presbyterian Discipline were absolutely to be condemned. To the 7. The Proofs of the 4. may prove this also. 1. For if it was a Provincial, Nationall, or General Synod or Council, every Church concerned therein, must have had their Commissioners. 2. Ye yourselves acknowledge Synods to have a Synodical authority, (howbeit, not as we) and thereunto ye send your Messengers, as ye call them: and therefore, what right ye claim to send your Messengers, the same had the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia, to send theirs to Jerusalem; but if they did it not, the more were they to blame for such neglect: Now it sufficeth me, to prove that they had power, and were bound to send their Commissioners thither. To the 8. I answer, 1. It is not needful we prove, that Paul, and Barnabas were Commissioners at Jerusalem, for the Church of Antioch: It may be, that they were their Commissioners; it may be, that they had some others. 2. It sufficeth, that they had power to send their Commissioners thither, and were bound to do it: And this bindeth them to submit themselves to their Decrees. 3. This Disputer is absurd, whereas he will oblige us to prove every particular, yea individual Circumstance: It is a common Maxim, that, de singularibus non datur scientia: The Scripture obligeth us not to know all the singular Circumstances of every thing it propounds; but it delivereth us Documents of all things necessary unto Salvation, which either contain formally, or from whence may be concluded all that we are bound to know, either directly, or indirectly, and per deductionem ad impossibile, mediately or immediately. To the 9 I answer, that every particular Minister may preach, and admonish in the name of God; for they are all Ambassadors of God: We are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God, 2 Cor. 5.20. It is also said, that the Lord did work with them, Mark. 16.20. and that they are co-operators, or labourers together with the Lord, 1 Cor. 3.9. Since therefore they are Gods co-operators, or labourers with the Lord, and the Lord with them, yea in their Deliberations, judgements, and Preach; wherefore may they not say, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, viz. to the Holy Ghost, as the prime cause, and to them, as to his Ministers and Ambassadors; yea, if it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost, it should seem good to all his Ministers. 2. And I pray you, M.S. when it seemeth good to an Independent Minister to declare the Doctrine, that denieth Christ's Divinity, heretical, whether think you, seems it not good to God, and to the Holy Ghost also? and if it seem good to both, why may not the Minister say. It seemeth good to God, and to me also, to declare this Heretical? 3. And if that is bound, or loosed in Heaven, which the Church bindeth, or looseth on Earth; wherefore, when they bind, or lose sinners, may they not say, It seemeth good to God, and to me also, to lose this sinner? To the 10. I answer, It is altogether ridiculous; for, this one particular expression containeth not all the expressions that are used in Ecclesiastical judgements; the Church useth not evermore Comminations in her judgements, but against such as are disobedient, and that after sundry Admonitions; Neither is every judgement or Law evermore expressly Penal, as ye might have learned both out of your Civil, and Canon Law. CHAP. VIII. Wherein the same Doctrine is further confirmed by Reason. THis Subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories, may be likewise proved by the practice of the Old Testament; for in the Old Testament, there were Synagogicall and Synedriall judicatories; amongst them there was a Subordination, and from the first they appealed to the second; neither find we ever, that God abrogated it, since it was not Ceremonial, as I have showed. 2. It may likewise be proved from the Subordination of Civil judicatories, in all great Civil States; and there is a like reason for them both. 3. If it be granted, that there are Ecclesiastical Assemblies greater in Authority one then another, as appeareth by all these former Texts; either this inequality of Greatness or Power is by Co-ordination, or by Subordination: But it cannot be by Co-ordination; for one Power hath no power over the other, as that of Jerusalem had over the rest of the Churches, in giving them a Pastor, Act. 1.2. & 6. chap. and Laws and Commands, Act. 15. & 16. Ergo, It must be by Subordination; And then the power of the subordinate Church is under that of the superior Church, whereunto it is subordinated, as in Civil judicatories, subordinated one to another. 4. If there were no Subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories, in matters of Power and Authority, or their Authoritative Power; then any particular Congregation, by an irresistible power, in despite of all the Churches of the the World, might establish amongst themselves all sort of most damnable Heresies, commit all sort of sin and uncleanness, and so infect all the World with their wickedness, and no Churches, or Christians, qua tales, could hinder them, or say to them (even as the Pope pretends they cannot say to him) Domine, quare hoc facis? 5. But can our Adversaries, risen up of the new, show any such Government as theirs in the Church of God, in any time, since Christ's Incarnation, yea, from the Creation of the World to this time, wherein there was no Subalternation, but a mere Independency amongst all Ecclesiastical judicatories? We could wish they would show us the Institution of it in Scripture, where any where Christ commanded, that all Churches should be altogether Independent, and consequently Incorrigible? Where at any time he granted them such a Licentiousness of power to go irresistably to Hell? What an abominable Licentiousness is this, to plead on this manner, for all sort of Independency, and of Ecclesiastical Impunity, in doing of all sort of wickedness and mischief. 6. The want of this Subordination taketh away all sort of remedy against the offences of particular Congregations. 7. It destroyeth the Unity of the Militant visible Church, both Provincial, Nationall, and Universal; which cannot appear, but in a Provincial, Nationall, or Universal Synod, or Council. 8. And consequently, the visibility of the Church, for she is not visible, but in her Symbol or Confession of Faith, and Canons of Ecclesiastical Discipline, as appeareth by the Symbol of the Apostles. 9 To take away such Representative Churches, as Synods, is to destroy the Externall Church-Communion of Saints, or the Communion of Saints amongst divers Churches, which cannot so well appear, as in Synods, where their Real Communion one with another is best represented; for if particular Churches be destroyed by persecution, and a little remnant escape, as sometimes it falleth out upon the Turks Invasion, and the Papists Massacres, as woeful experience hath furnished us but too many examples in Germany, France, England, and elsewhere, what Externall Union or Communion of Saints can appear amongst you; since in such a case ye will neither receive men in age to the Lords Table, nor the children of such Martyrs to Baptism; and so all the recompense they can have amongst you for all their sufferings for the Name of Christ, is, That they are like to be utterly excluded from all Church-Communion whatsoever. 10. So this is a very poor comfort for Martyrs, who having suffered much in their own persons, lost their wives, children, and goods, for the good Name of Christ, shall no more now be esteemed Christians after all their sufferings, whereas they were thought to be of the very best before that time. 11. Such a Subordination of Representative Churches in matter of Government, is a means very necessary to conserve the Churches; for by the Authoritative power thereof Churches are kept in Order, Unity, and Union, and so preserved, as we see in France, Holland, Scotland, and elsewhere, ever since the beginning of the World; whereas by the contrary Independent way, consisting of dis-union, they may easily be destroyed, as we see in the innumerable number of Sects, that in a short space of time have sprouted out of the Independent Sect; no less opposite one to another, then to us. 12. If there be no Subordination of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, but every one be Independent, and every member of the Church have a vote in all Ecclesiastical matters, and be made acquainted with all that passeth, as amongst the Independents; hardly can the Counsels, and the Resolutions, that are taken for mutual conservation, be kept secret, but they will every hour be betrayed, and so the Church given up to her Enemies: which appearingly cannot so easily fall out in the Synodical way, wherein 20. 30. or 40. only, and those of the best sort, and the wisest men, are acquainted with the business: for, in all moral probability, it is not credible, but 20. 30. or 40. may better keep a business secret, then 20000. or 30000, whereof the Churches that they represent, may be compounded. 13. Since Christ ordained Universal Ministers to rule over the whole Militant Church, and all the particular Congregations thereof, wherefore should there not be some unity of Government amongst them? and wherefore may they not all depend on one Council, as well as on one man? certainly, there is the same reason for both; for as the Apostles, under the notion of Apostles, and Church-Ministers, endowed with extraordinary gifts, and namely of Infallibility, governed the whole Church extraordinarily: so do General Counsels, endowed with ordinary gifts, govern it ordinarily. 14. I would willingly inquire of the Independents, to what Church were added so many thousands, that were baptised by the Apostles, and added unto the Church in one day? Whether to a Particular Congregation, or to a greater Ecclesiastical 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 Universal Ministers, set over the Universal Militant Church; and therefore, in virtue 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 Jerusalem, howsoever so long as they did stay there, they might participate as well of all the rest of God's Ordinances, as of Baptism: 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 baptised them, could not refuse to admit them unto the Lord's Table, wherever they celebrated the Sacrament. If it be answered, That this Argument only proveth a greater Real, but not a greater Representative Church. I reply, That directly only it proveth a greater Real, viz. an Universal Militant Church; but yet, by consequence, it proveth also a Representative Church of the same extent; for every Real 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 judging, which must be Authoritative, and cannot be merely Consultative, such as is that of every Tinker, who may give counsel to a Church; and that of one Church, which hath power to give counsel to a thousand, yea, to ten thousand, represented in a Synod; for particular Churches, being parts of the whole Provincial, Nationall, or Universal Militant Church, must be subject to the whole; for it is a Maxim in Philosophy, that Totum non subjicitur parti, sed pars toti; Item, Totum non regitur motu partis, sed Pars Totius: And they distinguish between the Universal, 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 Universal Inclination, as it is for the Totall, it ascends: And so it is, or should be in Political, and all Spiritual 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 general Law of more general Cases, and Consociations; for the general 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 Republic, tied together by Faith, Charity, and other Particular Christian virtues; as that in Heaven another: Now it is a Maxim in Politics, Salus Reipub. suprema Lex esto. Ergo, There must be one Law, common to this whole Christian Republic: If so, Ergo, There must be some visible judges to judge according to this Law, otherways in vain should we have it; Now this visible judge can be no other, but a Synod; For if ye say, it is Christ, than we cannot be legally judged, according to this Law, till the day of judgement, when Christ shall judge the quick and the dead; which is most ridiculous. 16. C. C. acknowledgeth, That by Baptism we are made Members of the Universal Militant Church, and consequently Subjects of some Christian Republic: Ergo, There are some judges to judge such Subjects: But those judges are not in one Particular Church; for by Baptism, as he sayeth, They are not admitted to the society of any Particular Church. Ergo, They must be judged by some greater Representative Church, which must be either Classical, Provincial, Nationall, or Ecumenical. 17. It is a general 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 lest cannot easily, and commodiously be obtained in the Independent Opposition, or Coordination, as in some Subordination of Ecclesiastical Assemblies or judicatories; for when all are equal, there is no subjection of one to another. 18. This Doctrine of Subordination of Inferior Ecclesiastical judicatories to their Superiors, with a Coordination of Inferior judicatories, or Ecclesiastical 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 mere Opposition, Independency, or at most a Coordination of Churches, founded on a mere will and charity, 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, Verse. 33. Now, where there is no Subordination of Ecclesiastical Judicatories; When none of them is subject one to another, but they are all equal; 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 show, how that this Subordination is most convenient, and the contrary Independency, Opposition, or Coordination of Churches founded on man's mere will, is most repugnant, 1. unto the perfection, that appeareth in all God's Works, both in those of Nature, and of Grace: 2. To God's Truth and Wisdom, in giving no better means for redressing of Offences. 3. To his justice, in making of Laws, that cannot suppress Heresies, and all sort of wickedness 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 cross 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 procure her peace, and to put all the Churches of God in confusion, rather than 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 Sacramental Communion one with another, having no common Confession of Faith, nor any common platform of Ecclesiastical 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 Presbyterial 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 again 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 justify 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 show, 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 Ecclesiastical 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 Ecclesiastical 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 believe that howbeit any particular Church, or any of her members should fall into never so damnable Heresies, or wickedness, 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 Counsel her, as she may do them; and in case she will not follow their Counsel, that they ought to do nothing else, but only 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 Proceed. 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 etc. I have 10. Reasons or Objections against it. A. S. I confess that M. S. braggeth of this his Independent Government, as his words express; 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 custom to bring Reasons, and not to boast of them; as it is M. S. his manner to boast and brag 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 Book: 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 discourtesy unto you, to take your Book into his hand. A. S. I am bound to your courtesy, good Sir, that will not let my weak Reasons appear in Front against your strong Answers: But since it is not M. S. his pleasure, that they appear in his most worthy Book, I hope that the courteous Reader shall not be offended, if I make them, together with his Answers, and A. S. his Duplyes appear 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 miscarriages, though never so gross; no relief for wrongful Sentences, or Persons injured by them; no Powerful or Effectual means to reduce a Church, or Churches, that fall into Heresy, or Schism, etc. All that they can do, is only to pronounce a Sentence of Non-Communion against Delinquent Churches, as on the other side, Delinquent Churches may do against them. 2. This Remedy is new, neither was it known to the Independent Congregations, before that emergent Case in Holland, related in the Apologetical 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 Scandal. 3. This Remedy is not sufficient, nor satisfactory, because all Churches, according to your Tenets, are equal in Authority, independent one of another; and Par in parem non habet imperium, None hath power or authority over his Equal; How then could any Church bind another to any such Account, but out of its free will, as a Party may do to its Party? 4. Because the Churches, that are, or that pretend to be offended by a Delinquent Church, cannot judge her, for than they become both judge, 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 herself from them all? If so, we should have Separations and Schisms enough, which should be continued to all Posterity 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 not easy 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 judgements, one from another? In such a case, should they all, by Schisms, 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 charity, to give an account of their judgement, in case he be offended by them; Neither see I what more our Brethren grant to all the Churches of the World over one. But the Presbyterial Government is subject to none of these inconveniences; for the collective or combined Eldership having an Authoritative power, all men and Churches thereof are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves thereunto: Every man knoweth their set times of meeting, wherein sundry matters are dispatched, and all things carried by Plurality of Voices, without any Schism or Separation. 10. This Government, viz. jedependency, is a Power, wherein the Party is judged, if he will; and so the judgement of the judges suspended upon the judgement of the Party judged; which is most ridiculous, without any example in Civil, or Ecclesiastical judicatories: a judgement not very unlike to that, which is related of a merry man, who said, That he had the best, and most obedient Wife in the World, because, saith he, she willeth nothing, but what I will: And as all men wondered at it, (knowing her to be the most disobedient) yea (saith he) but I must first will what she willeth, else she wills nothing that I will. 11. This sort of Government is unjust, and unreasonable; for not only the Party judgeth its Party, but also inflicteth the same punishment, viz. Separation, upon all offending Churches, whatever the offence be, great or small, in case of non-satisfaction; whereas all Punishments should be commensurable unto the several Offences. 12. And so ye seem to approve the Opinion of the Stoics, who held all sins to be equal; since ye inflict the same punishment upon them all. 13. Not only this Discipline cannot be easily put in execution in great Kingdoms, as England, wherein all the Churches offended cannot so easily meet together: But also, 14. Because the person offended, after he hath represented his grievances unto the Church, and that Church hath received satisfaction, he may go to another; and so continually, in infinitum, to the World's end, evermore taking those Churches for the Party, that judge it; which is most absurd and foolish. 15. What if the Party offended be poor, and have not the means to post up and down from neigbour-Church to neighbour-Church, to pray them to make the offending Church to give an account of her judgement? Much less, to attend upon their uncertain conveniency? Here will be found true, Pauper ubique jacet; Whereas in Presbyterial Government, the Party offended may be easily redressed, and get satisfaction, as not having need so to post up and down, to be at so great charges, or to attend their conveniency; for by a simple Appeal he may bind the Church offending to appear at the day appointed. 16. What if there should fall out an hundred such offences in a short time? Must so many Churches evermore gather together for every one of them apart? 17. What if Churches be poor, and cannot be at so great expense? Then in that case, it should seem, there is no Order to meet with Offences. I may add these following Reasons: 18. This Independency maketh all the Churches of Christ like so many Scopae dissolutae, lose Brooms, that have no tye or band to hold them together; and so destroyeth the unity of the Militant Church. 19 The very word Independency, applied to men, how much more the thing signified thereby, should be odious to all Christian ears, as being proper to God Almighty. How proud & abominable is this expression; We seven men, who constitute this Church, we will not depend on all the Churches of this World; We will not depend on any create Ecclesiastical power, yea not upon all the Angels in Heaven, and men upon Earth: but will be Independents, and have others to depend upon us? 20. If so, what is the cause that ye oppose the King's Majesties Absolute or Independent power in State matters? Truly, this being only Secular, cannot be so dangerous as the other, viz. as Yours; for this only may be prejudicial to our Bodies, or States; but Yours may kill millions of Souls: neither is the King's Authority more limited in the State, then yours is in the Church. 21. What? will ye, that wherever there is 7. or 8. of you combined together, to make up a Church, ye shall depend on no man, but have an independent and absolute power to bring into the Kingdom whatever Heresy ye please, to blaspheme God, and so, vi irresistibili, with the Arminians, to go to Hell? If so, God have mercy on you. But it may be said, that the Civil Magistrate may hinder them: But M.S. will answer, 1. That he should not punish any man for Religion. 2. That the Civil Power is of another sort then Ecclesiastical. 3. What if the Civil Magistrate be not a Protestant? or what if he be a profane man? 4. Howbeit he were a Protestant, and a good Christian, yet should it follow, that the Church-power is neither sufficient, nor perfect, in suo genere; since it must have recourse unto the Civil Magistrates power, which is of another nature, and extra hoc Genus. CHAP. III. M.S. his Evasions refuted, and my Arguments made good, and first, those that he bringeth against the third Argument. M.S. answereth not all, nor any considerable number of my Arguments, as he confesseth himself; but scratcheth at a few of them, whereby he weakens them not; but overthroweth the Government of all States; That of the Church of the Old Testament, the Practice of the Apostles, and Apostolic Churches, and the fundaments of Independent Government itself, as, God willing, we shall see hereafter. The first of my Reasons, that he snaps at, is the 3. viz. This Remedy, viz. of non-Communion, is not sufficient, nor satisfactory; because all Churches according to your Tenets be equal in authority, Independent one of another, and par in parem non habet imperium, none hath power or authority over his equal: How then could any Church bind any other to any such account, but out of its freewill, as a party may do to its party? M. S. 1. Suppose that course, which the Apologists insist upon, be not in the eye of reason, a means sufficient to such a purpose, yet if it be a means which God hath authorized, for the effecting it, it will do the deed. A.S. It seemth that M.S. would feign enter into the Lists against Reason itself; but he must know, that God's Ordinance, and Reason, are not opposite one to another; since he who is the author of Nature, is the Author of Grace also: neither as Author of Nature, sights he against himself, as Author of Grace. 2. It is a Maxim of Popery and Lutheranism, to oppose Nature & Grace. 3. Christ and the Apostles served themselves of Natural Reason in Scripture. 4. And out of the case of supernatural revelation above it, which cannot be contrary unto it, it must be believed. 5 He supposeth, that Independency, and withdrawing and renouncing all Christian Communion with such Churches, until they repent, is a sufficient means, authorized by God, which hitherto appeareth not; yea the contrary appeareth by our Reasons. 6. Yet is it something, that I have reason, for me, and he none; yea nothing but his Independent will. M. S. will not make good the Reasons brought for this Opinion by the Apologists, which I have abundantly resuted, but proveth, as followeth; That a withdrawing of Christian Communion from persons walking inordinately, is an Ordinance, or means appointed by God, for the reducing, and reclaiming of them. 2. Thes. 3.6.14. We warn you Brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every Brother, that walketh inordinately, (A. S. I add the rest) Vers. 7. For we behaved not ourselves inordinately among you. Vers. 8. Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but wrought with labour and travel, night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you. Vers. 10. This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Vers. 11. For we hear, that there are some which walk among you inordinately, working not at all, but are busybodies. Vers. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Vers. 15. Yet count him not as an Enemy, but admonish him as a Brother. A. S. But this proof, is no better, then that of the Apologists; and to Answer it, I will not serve myself with the Answer, that some men bring here, viz. That this Testimony of Scripture is not to be taken of the great Excommunication, which only you seem to acknowledge for Excommunication: nor of the lesser, which you seem to call non-Communion, or with the Apostle here, withdrawing of Christian Communion. 2. Or that it is a Commandment only given to particular persons, to forbear such persons, who were idle, and yet busybodies, running from house to house, living upon other men's charges, under pretext (peradventure) of Piety: But not to the Church, to excommunicate them; and that, because the Apostle addeth, v. 15. Yet count him not as an Enemy, but as a Brother: for this Reason is weak: and an Excommunicate person, if he be Excommunicated Excommunicatione minori, yea and sometimes majori, may be accounted as a Brother, so long as there is any hope of his Repentance. I had rather say, 1. That here the Apostle speaketh of Excommunication; 1. Because he says, Note him, i. e. that he may be discerned from others. 2. He says, Have no company, or meddle not with him. Now what is Excommunication, but to have no Communion or company with a man. 2. I say, that he speaketh not of the greater, but of the lesser Excommunication, 1. Because, that it is not for any great crime, but for an ordinary sin, viz. Idleness. 2. Because this note of Excommunication, is only, that he may be ashamed. 3. Because he is not to be reputed for an enemy of the Church, but as a Brother. 4. Because the Apostle biddeth only, Note him, and admonish him: which is less than to be given over to Satan; yea it is credible, that it was only a private Suspension from the Lords Table, not in public, in face of the whole Church, but before the particular Presbytery. 3. He seemeth not to speak directly of whole Churches, but of particular persons. 1. Since he says, From every Brother, vers. 6. 2. Because he says, that there are some among you that walk inordinately: Now the whole Church cannot be said to be among the Church, or some of the Church, but particular persons only. 3. Because he sayeth, If any man obey not, let that man be noted; but if the whole Church were such, there should be none there to note him. 4. That man cannot signify that Church. 5. Because the Apostle, vers. 15. commandeth to admonish him as a Brother, but a Brother is not a Church. 4. And nevertheless, howsoever the Apostle speaks principally, directly, and formally of the Excommunication of Persons; yet must he consequently and directly mean also the Excommunication of Churches; and that for the Reasons, that I brought else where, viz. in the Observations and Annotations upon the Apologetical Narration, page 43. §. 2. 1. For Church's Offences may deserve it. 2. The Scripture hath nothing to the contrary of Excommunication of Churches. 3 Because there is the same reason for the Excommunication of whole Churches, as of particular Persons, viz. The taking away of Scandal, and the conversion of sinners, 1 Cor. 5.5. 2 Cor. 2.7. 2. Thes. 3.14. 1 Tim. 1.20. and that such a contagion infect not others, 1 Cor. 5.6, 7. And this reason M. S. very wisely borrowed from me in this place, saying, There is the same reason of Churches in this behalf, which there is of persons, M. S. to A. S. page 76. Only this I note here, that if there be the same reason of Churches. Ergo, As a Particular person may be Excommunicated Excommunicatione minori, by a public, or a particular sentence of non- Communion, for a lesser fault; so may a whole Church: And consequently, as a particular person may be Excommunicated, Excommunicatione majori, for a very great sin, and wickedness; so may a whole particular Church, which the Independent Sect will no ways grant. And this, I pray the Reader to observe, and to press it against them; for I am assured they cannot here escape, unless M. S. escape them. 4. Because 7000. Church's may as well Excommunicate one compounded of seventeen Persons, as that one may Excommunicate seven of its Members. 5. Because an Heretical Church is Excommunicated in Heaven; Wherefore then shall she not be Excommunicated by Christ's Ministers here upon Earth, when they learn it by Scripture? Must not the Churches here upon Earth, concur as well with God's Sentence in Heaven, as God with theirs here upon Earth, Matth. 18? 6. Because the Church of Jerusalem Excommunicated that of the ten Tribes. M. S. his second Answer to this Argument. Suppose there were no such sufficient, or satisfactory remedy for the inconveniency mentioned in the way of the Apologists, yet Lawyers have a saying, That a mischief is better than an inconveniency, etc. (and afterwards) Now then much better is it to want a remedy against such an evil, which possibly may not fall out within an age, though it be greater, when it doth fall, than it is to expose ourselves to continual droppings, I mean to those daily inconveniencies, which we lately shown to be incident to the Classic Government. A. S. 1. I accept of your Supposition, viz. That there is no sufficient, or satisfactory remedy, etc. as it appeareth clearly by my Reasons. 2. To your Maxim of Law, I grant you willingly, That ye have no remedy against mischiefs, but your Churches must necessarily suffer them, and are exposed to them: Praised be God, that Presbyterians serve themselves with no mischievous, but with very holy Remedies. 3. I deny, that it is better to want a Remedy against such a mischief: viz. If a Church Apostatise, become Heretical, etc. then to accept of the Presbyterian Remedy against such mischief, or of the mischief itself; for we must never in any Case accept of malum culpae, such as is the acceptation of Apostasy or Heresy in a whole Church. 4. Neither is there any, nor have you yet shown any Inconveniency in the Presbyterial way: But we have shown many, as Real 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 Superior Assemblies, viz. Classes, Synods, etc. Or Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical judicatories; for this Sect must be altogether Independent, and every one in their Churches supreme Ecclesiastical Judges, and their Churches supreme Ecclesiastical judicatories, be they never so Heretical or profane: But this Inconveniency may be pressed home again, 1. For there is Subordination among their particular Congregations, and their Synods; only they hate the Authority of Synods. 2. There was a Subordination of Authority in the Old Testament. 3. So is there in Civil Government; And whatsoever Inconveniency they press 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, than God is the cause of it, as we have heretofore fully demonstrated it. M. S. Delinquency of whole Churches is not an every day's Case, no more in the way of congregational, then of Presbyterial Government. A. S. 1. It may be as ordinary a Case in the Church, as that of Inferior judicatories 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 Heretical, or Schismatical, 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 Ecclesiastical Ordinance for it, as well in the Church, as in the State; 1. Unless 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 shown you in my Annotations; wherefore not also in the New Testament? 3. Howbeit, it be not an every day's Case, yet the Independents have a remedy for it; viz. The Sentence of non-Communion, whereof I may say as much, as he says of Excommunication; for the Independent Churches could not pronounce such a Sentence, unless they had, or pretended to have an Authoritative power to do it; for it belongeth to the power of the Keys. 4. It is, or may be more ordinary amongst the Independent Churches, then among ours. 1. Because of their Independency, and want of Superior Ecclesiastical power, to keep them in order: 2. Because they tie the Members of their Churches, never to quit them, without the Church's consent, whereof they are Members, which may breed quarrels betwixt two- Churches, if a Member of the one, without her consent, join 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 Edward's 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 Class, which may be gathered within the space of four or five days: if that do not the business, we may gather a Synod or a Superior power, which cannot Morally be contemned among us by any Inferior power, as the equal power of Independent Churches may by their equal. 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, than all the droppings of Master Goodwin, or all the inconveniencies, that can be alleged against a constant remedy, were they as real, as they are fictitious and imaginary. Thirdly, M. S. answereth my first Argument: They that implead the congregational way, for being defective; suppose, that God hath put a sufficiency of power into the hands of men, to remedy all possible defects, errors, 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 intent, and to tend unto; for since his will is, that spiritual 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 God's ordinary providence, whereby he governeth ordinarily his Church, and not absolutely. 4. As sufficient, as in the Civil 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 Superior and Inferior Judicatories should so miscarry; and yet if a man have used all possible means, and this miscarry also, which is more than 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 ourselves of them all, till we came to this extraordinary Case, we are excusable. 3. We have had all the means possible, according to God's 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 God's Providence in the Government of the State, and of the Church of the Old Testament, as against that 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 King's Counsel 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 God's 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 blind, or misled the Flock, there being no ordinary, we must have recourse to such extraordinary remedies, as are most convenient, or at least not repugnant to God's Word, and attend upon God's extraordinary Providence. The Provincial Synods may refuse to put in execution the Acts of the General Assembly; so may particular Churches, for they are not bound to be Actors for the general Assembly, in any thing against God's 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 Counsel: But if all the Congregation be corrupted, none of them will ask counsel, but they will all rather lurk, and hid 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 jesuitically 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 judge, since they are Parties; or if they judge, they can but judge, as so many Lackeys or Footboys: They have no more Authority to command that Delinquent Church, than 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 Civil Magistrate. A. S. But that is no Ecclesiastical remedy; and M. S. will tell you, 1. as well as I have done, that so the last resolution of Ecclesiastical and Spiritual 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 Political Authority in respect of Ecclesiastical. 4. So you have not entireness 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 yourselves, which destroys your other Reason: So 8. you shall not be judged by your own Pastor, which is another of your Reasons. 9 You shall be judged by one, who appearingly cannot fall in the same Case, and so it destroys 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 Privileges of the Church; But I must be short: Only I add, that to speak morè humano; it is not credible, That all Inferior judicatories, will or dare, be so impudent, as to miscarry in any thing, so manifestly contrary to the common Tenets or Practices of the whole Nationall Church, for the Inferior judicatories will evermore fear, in case of their unjust judgement, to be condemned and censured in the Superior; and the Supreme itself may fear, That if they judge any thing amiss, their judgements 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 General Counsel err? A. S. His suppositions are so extraordinary, that they cannot belong but to Independent M. S. And yet, what I have already said, may satisfy this also. Only this man intends to defame God's 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 err? What if the great Sanedrin had erred in the Old Testament? What if the Council 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. IU. The justification of A. S. his Reason, How Presbyterial Government is not subject to such Inconveniences as the Independency. Whereas in my ninth Reason, I show, That the Presbyterial Government is subject to none of these Inconveniences, etc. 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, than 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 Presbyterial Government, such as we have defined it. 1. To let a Church be Heretical, then to be reduced to Christ by any Ecclesiastical power, merely Spiritual and Ministerial, 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 God's 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 God's Word, yea unto Natural Reason. M. S. It is not the serviceableness of it, against a thousand such inconveniencies, as were mentioned, that will justify it, and this he proveth by the examples of saul's offering Sacrifice, 1 Sam. 23.9, 13, 14. Of Vzzah in putting forth his hand to the Ark. Peter's zeal in drawing his sword; And addeth, That the Pope's absolute Authority, is as Sovereign a Remedy against all these Inconveniencies as Classic Authority. A. S. 1. I argued not from mere inconveniences, but from conveniences; and the want of inconveniences, and repugnancy to God's Word to justify our Government, and from inconveniences to refuse yours; Neither can a Negative Thesis, be otherways 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 God's Word. 3. It is not credible, but that Government is most convenient to God's Word, which is most convenient, and commensurate unto the end, That God commands us to intent, and to tend into; neither can I believe, that God hath ordained us any means, that are not fit and proper for the end, that he intends, or commands us to intent; for that were repugnant to his Sovereign Wisdom. 4. And as for your Examples, they are not to the purpose; for all these facts of Saul, Vzzah, etc. were contrary to Gods express command; neither were they convenient to the end intended by God, or that we should tend unto, viz. Filial 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 public Authority. 2. It employed 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 God's Providence. 3. It contained an act of Precipitation, and too great boldness, and rashness, in drawing his sword in his Master's presence, without, yea, against his Masters will and command. 4. It was repugnant to the end, for which Christ came into the Word, viz. Christ's death, and the Redemption of mankind by it, whereof Peter before that time had been so oft advertised, etc. So is it not in Presbyterial Discipline: Neither is there any damnable Error or Heresy in consistorial Government, as in the Papacy: We say not that any of our Assemblies are Infallible, as the Pope pretends himself and his General Council to be; neither pretend we, That our Assemblies have any despotical or lordly domination over the Church, as the Pope doth; we say not, That our Assemblies are above God's Word, as they do. These comparisons of M. S. are no less than blasphemous. And here I must advertise the Reader, That all the Presbyterial Assemblies together, take no greater Authority over the Church, than 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 Cardinals, because of their Independency, than any of our Churches, which are all Dependants, and subject to Superior 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 Ministerial power to command such as are subject thereunto, which bindeth, or obligeth them to obedience, and whereby, in case of disobedience, they may inflict Spiritual punishments. It is of God, or from God; and therefore lawful; Now whether it be of God, as Author of Nature, or of Grace, by the Law of Nature, or any Positive Law, Natural, or Supernatural; it is not a Question de re: sed de modo rei, not of the thing itself, but of the manner thereof. Grant me, either that it is lawful, or deny it; If it be a lawful power, it is of God, for there is no lawful 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 Spiritual power into the Church; they have it of God, and by God's 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 Civil Magistrate, by his Laws put a Political Obligation upon Christians, to obey the Churches Spiritual Authority, which is from God; yet is not his Civil Authority the cause of the Churches Spiritual Authority, or of the Obligation, whereby a Christian is bound to obey the Church; for howbeit, there were no Civil Magistrate; or howbeit, he should descent from such an Obedience, yet should the Church have Spiritual power; and all the Members of the Church in a Spiritual way should be bound to Obedience: But what then doth the Civil Magistrates Law? Answ. It puts a new Bond or Obligation upon the Members of the Church, and binds them again, by a Civil Authority, Extrinsecall to the Church, to a Spiritual Obedience, who heretofore were only bound by a Spiritual Obligation; so he binds them to a Spiritual Obedience, but not spiritually, as the Church Authority doth, but only materially, and that by Civil Authority: So the Ministers of the Gospel, (or rather God by them) oblige and bind the Subjects in the State, in a Spiritual way, by God's Word, to obey the Civil Magistrate, or Political and Civil Obedience, but not Politically, or Civilly; but Spiritually: so it followeth not, That the Civil Magistrate hath power to form Ecclesiastical Government: only it followeth, That in a Political way, he may oblige, or bind men to obey it. No more followeth it, that I resolve Church Government into the humours, wills, and pleasures of the World, etc. Only it followeth, That the Civil Obligation, laid upon men, to obey the Church, so far forth as Civil, must be finally resolved into the Civil 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 engagements that way, as unlawful, 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 less; or will you deliver them, brachio seculari? To be hampered, and taught better than it seemeth you can teach them by Prisons, Fines, Banishments, etc. Churches had need take heed how they choose 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 Plurality 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 Spiritual power in the Church, that, that the Civil 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 God's Word, unless 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 public 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 less. A. S. If so, than they do a little worse than 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 Civil 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, than 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 choose men for their Guardians, etc. If by those Guardians you mean the Civil Magistrate, it is not wisely said of you; If Church-Ministers, they must choose such, as will delate pertinacious sinners to the Civil Magistrate. To your second Question, What if in the Session, etc. Answ. 1. What if it be so in your Assemblies or Synods? 2. If it be any inferior Ecclesiastical judicatory, they must remit it to a superior, ever till they come to some, wherein the Votes may preponderate: And if in the supreme judicatory, 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 Spiritual punishment; and if such a Church continue still pertinacious, the Civil Magistrate may proceed against her in a Civil 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 Emperors, as under Constantine the Great, Theodosius, etc. 3. So proceed they at Geneva. 4. So in the Netherlands. 5. So the Independents of New-England. 6. So should M.S. rather do, then to tolerate open Blasphemers of the blessed Name of God. 7. Darest thou, M. S. so openly plead in favour of Paganism of all sorts of Heresies, and mischiefs, and for all sort of impunity for them all?, 8. The Truth falleth not to the dust in such a case, but sin 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 Spiritual and Ministerial) as the Parliament over particular Judicatories in the Kingdom: 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, unless 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 judgements; whether the great Sanedrim was not both judge 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 judge? 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 Kingdom: or if it be evermore needful, that some particular Person or Persons compeare in quality of Party against particular Consociations or Towns. 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 Ecclesiastical Judicatories. 2. Core, Dathan, and Abiram objected no less against Moses and Aaron: yea, as much may be objected against God himself, who is judge and Party; and jesus Christ, who is Party, and yet shall judge the quick and the dead: For if Criminals may so escape, they will not fail to take their judges evermore for Party. M. S. To hold, that all those that have an Authoritative Power over men, may lawfully, in virtue of such a Power, be both judges and Parties, is to exalt all manner of Tyranny, etc. 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: Add, 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 public will, or in quality of public persons, whose wills are declared in, or restrained according to Law. Neither commandeth Carolus the Kingdom, qua Carolus, but qua Rex, or qua Carolus Rex, & Lex viva: and under this notion, he is not his own carver, but the Law carveth for him, and us both; neither can he serve himself of other men's Estates, etc. but in so far as the Law permitteth him: But how much the Law permitteth him, it is not for every particular person, nor for every particular and inferior judicatory to define it; for Inferiors, qua tales, cannot judge their Superiors, at least ordinarily; and in such a case, they remain no more Inferiors, but become Superiors. To the 3. Inconveniency, which I note, §. 9 M.S. retorteth it in this manner: Tell me plainly and distinctly, what Power more your Government giveth to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker, or the Hangman over a thousand. A.S. Answ. When they are represented in a Representative Church, they have a spiritual Authoritative power over all the Churches that they represen, both Collectiuè, and every one of them Distributiuè; which no Tinker or Hangman hath, either over many, or any one of them; for they have no Authoritative power at all. But amongst the Independents, a thousand Churches, whether they be taken Distributiuè, or Collectiuè, representing all their particular Congregations, have no Authoritative power at all; and consequently, no more than a Tinker or a Hangman. M.S. What makes you think, that the Government of the Apologists gives no more power to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker or Hangman over a thousand? Vbi, quando, quibus testibus, did this Government, or any Son it hath, ever make any such comparison? A.S. 1. I say not that you make any such comparison, but only I deduce it out of your Tenets by necessary consequence. 2. Neither do you deny my consequence, you grant it freely, and tell me, that it is no disparagement for a thousand Churches, that a Tinker, or a Hangman have as much Authoritative power over them all, as they have all over any particular Church. And to confirm it, you bring me no Reason, nor Scripture, but two Testimonies; the first of Charron; who saith, That every Humane Proposition hath equal authority, if Reason make not the difference: To which I answer, 1. That this is but an Humane Authority; 2. Of a Papist; 3. And, as many in France think, of an Atheist; 4. And yet it may be granted in this sense, viz. That it hath as much Natural, but not so much Moral authority: for these be Maxims in Nature, and in Reason; Magis credendum pluribus quàm paucioribus, testimonio publico quàm privato, sapientibus quam insipientibus, peritis quam imperitis, videntibus quàm audientibus: Plus valet oculatus testis unus, quàm auriti decem. 5. I answer, that every Humane Proposition hath equal authority according to the species of its authority, but not according to the degrees thereof; as all white colours are equally white according to their species, (since the definition of white belongeth equally to them all; unless you say, that Album est genus analogum respectu hujus & istius, magis & minus albi: which no true Philosopher, to my knowledge, ever granted:) But not according to the gradual latitude of perfection contained within the species of Whiteness. 6. And here I ask of M.S. whether he thinketh that a Proposition of Indas, and of S. Peter, or Adam before his fall, be all of equal authority? Item, Whether a Proposition of Adam before his fall, and after his fall, be of equal authority? Item, Whether a Proposition of Christ, qua homo, or as proceeding from his Humane Nature, be of no more authority, then that which proceeds from Simon the Magician. If I had leisure here to dispute about the foundation of Authority, I might show many absurdities and impertinencies in this Proposition, in M. S. his sense; but I must be brief. The second Authority is of Gerson, and is this: The saying of a simple man, and no ways authorized, if he be well seen in the Scriptures, is rather to be believed then the Popes own determination. But this Proposition is not against me; for a man well seen in Scriptures, qua talis, speaketh according to God's Word, and is some ways authorized by it; but the Pope's Determination without God's Word, is merely Humane, yea, ordinarily passionate. M. S. confesseth ingenuously, that I propound many more Inconveniencies against Independency; but out of modesty, he will not answer them; Only here I note, that M.S. in all this his Discourse, answereth very little to my Arguments, and objecteth rather against our Doctrine, then justifieth his own: And to elude my Arguments, pretends evermore ignorance of things that are most easy, and obvious to all men, which nevertheless I expound most clearly: sometimes he contemneth them, as unworthy of any Solution; which is a very odd, and new Independent way, a la mode. CHAP. V M. S. his first two Reasons for Independency, with the Solutions thereof. M. S. with other Independents, prove their Independent Government of every particular Congregation, by some frivolous Reasons. The first is this: If a single Congregation being solitary, and without Neighbours, hath entireness of Jurisdiction. Ergo, every single Congregation hath it. But the first is true, according to the Presbyterians Confession. Ergo, so must the second be also. A. S. I deny the first Proposition, or rather distinguish it in this manner. If a single Congregation have entireness of jurisdiction absolutely, it is true; but then the Assumption, or second Proposition is false. If a single Congregation have it secundum quid, viz. In case of Solitariness, as it is expressed in the first Proposition, or in case of any other necessity, that hindereth its consociation with Neighbour Churches, as distance of place, persecution, etc. then all other particular Churches must have it, in the same case; it is true: But I deny that such is the case of all single Congregations, for they are not all remote from all Neighbourhood of other Churches; nor are they all hindered by persecution, etc. M. S. But when a solitary Congregation hath an entire Jurisdiction, then certainly it hath a lawful right, title, or claim to it. Ergo, She hath it evermore. A.S. 1. She hath a lawful right by a general Law of necessity, whereby it is ordained, that when we have not all the best helps that are necessity to do the best, we are then to serve ourselves with the best we can, and such as we have at hand to serve God by: So if we have not Wine to celebrate the Lords Supper with, we may celebrate it with some other liquor most usual for drink; and there is an Article in the French Discipline, whereby it is permitted to any man, that cannot drink wine, to communicate in participating only of the Bread: So if men be cast upon any Island, very remote from the Continent, and have none amongst them endowed with sufficient abilities to preach, or teach them, they may choose the ablest (howbeit he be not absolutely able enough) to preach, rather than to live without God's Ordinances altogether: So David, wanting Bread, did eat of the Shewbread; and a man, in case of necessity, may take other men's meat, and eat it, rather than starve. 2. I distinguish the Consequent: she hath it evermore, in such a cause, i. e. in case of necessity, when she can have no help of Neighbour Churches. I grant it all, otherways I deny it. M. S. desireth to know, by what right Neighbour Churches, by their presence, can take such a right from her. A. S. Neighbour Churches by their presence take no right from her, but by their Neighbourhood give her, or rather add unto her a new right, to Rule herself more perfectly, and to help to Rule Neighbour Churches also, which she could not do before; so it is not Jurisdictionis diminutio, sed ampliatio, it is no diminution, but an augmentation of power intensiuè, or in certitude within herself, and extensiuè, in respect of other Churches: so it is a Blessing of God, added to that Church, and no power or ability, but a lack of power, a weakness, an unpowerfulnesse (as I may so say) and infirmity taken away; it is not to take away what she had, but to give her a power or help, that she had not, being alone; Even so as when two or three Regiments coming to join with one, or two others against their common Enemy, these two or three Regiments take no power or force from the one, or the two precedent Regiments, but help them, and make them more able to beat the Enemy. M. S. Those that God hath put together, let not man put asunder; But God put together a single Congregation, and an entire jurisdiction. Ergo, A. S. That Text in the first Proposition is to be expounded of those only that are put together by Marriage, but if you take it Universally, it will be found false; for God hath put a Tree, and the Branches thereof together, and yet I trow you will not say, a man may not cut a Branch off from a Tree. 2. I answer, if God hath put them together in all cases, it is true, but the Minor is false: If God hath only put them together in some particular Case, than they may be separated in an other Case. 3. I answer to the Minor; If by an entire jurisdiction, be meant a supreme Ministerial Jurisdiction absolutely, such as should be in Synods, to the well-being of the Church, it is false, for it wants a Synodall Jurisdiction: If by an entire jurisdiction be meant entire, secundum quid, in suo genere, & per accidens, in some way, in its own kind, and by Accident, it is true; for such a jurisdiction is only congregational or consistorial, and so perfect in that kind, and supreme by accident, for want of Neighbour Churches; so it is entire in that kind, but not absolutely, as it should be in Case of Neighbour Churches. Master Mather, and Master Thomson, in their Answer to Master Herle, argue thus: The power that floweth immediately, and necessarily from the very Essence of a Church, cannot be separated from the Essence of a particular Church: But such an entire power of jurisdiction floweth from the very Essence of a Church. Ergo, A. S. 1. I deny the Minor; for that, which belongeth to any thing, ex instituto, floweth not from its Essence: But so it is of the entireness of Jurisdiction; it belongeth not to the Church by nature, but by will, and Law, viz. by God's Ordinance. 2. If it flowed necessarily from the very Essence of every Church, then could not God change it; for God cannot destroy nor change the proper Accidents, or take them away from their subjects: But the consequent is false; for since jurisdiction belongs to the Church by God's freewill, he may as freely take it away from the Church, and change it, as he bestowed it upon the Church. 3. Yea, God hath actually changed it; for all the Militant Churches, since the fall of Adam, viz. Before the Law, under the Law, and under the Gospel are of the same nature, and Species, or the same in substance, and only differ in Circumstances; and yet they have had divers sorts of jurisdiction, and Governments, which could not be, if it flowed immediately and necessarily from its Essence. 4. Put the Case, it flowed from its Essence, as it doth not; yet this entireness of jurisdiction should only be entireness of Consistorian or Parochial jurisdiction, which is entire in its own kind, but not of Synodall jurisdiction, yea, not so much, as of your Synodall power, in defining dogmatically the points of Doctrine. M. S. his second Argument, If a Church, yet single, be invested with a power of jurisdiction, within itself, and should be cashiered of this power, by the rising up of more Churches near unto her, then that which is intended by God, as a Table, should become a snare unto her; she should suffer loss, and have sorrow from those, by whom she ought to be comforted. But the first is true. Ergo. A. S. I deny the Consequence; neither hath M. S. proved it: The Reason of this my Negation is, because she is not ensnared, but drawn out of the snare by the rising of such Churches which can help her, and counsel her, and reform her judgements, conjunctly with herself, in case of aberration; neither should this be any just matter of sorrow unto her; if she should sorrow at it, her sorrow should be unjust, and wicked, and at God's Ordinance. 2. I deny the Assumption, for the Consistorian power, that such a single Church had before the rising of such Neighbour Churches, is not cashiered by their rising, but a more eminent, viz. A Classical or Synodall Power, which she had not, is superadded unto her Consistorian, or Parochial power, whereby it is mightily perfected. CHAP. VI M. S. his third Reason answered. M. S. THirdly, If a single Church should suffer loss of so considerable a privilege, as entireness of Jurisdiction is, by the multiplication of Churches near unto her, then cannot this Church pray for the Propagation of the Gospel in places near to it; but she must pray against her own comfort, and peace, which is a fore temptation upon her, either to pray very faintly, or not to pray at all for such a thing. But the consequent is false. Ergo. A. S. I deny the consequence of the first Proposition; for the rule and measure of our Prayers, is not our privilege and jurisdiction, but God's glory and the Salvation of our souls, revealed in Scripture, which may be very well obtained without any power of jurisdiction, as we see in Women; and it seems, that M. S. will not pray for the prosperity of Jerusalem, unless God grant him an Independent power of jurisdiction therein. 2. I deny the Assumption, for by the multiplication of Neighbour Churches, that single Church suffers no loss of the Parochial jurisdiction, that she had, for she retains it; but she receiveth more power in becoming a part of a Class, and so receiveth in part a Classical power of jurisdiction, whereby the Parochial power, which formerly she had, is more sure, and made less subject to aberration, than it was before: So her jurisdiction is not impaired, but improved; neither in itself 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 entireness of Government, or subjection only to those, that are of the same society, is a special mercy: And their Nobles shall be of themselves (saith God, speaking of that great Goodness he meant to show unto his people, after their return from Babylon) and their Governors 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 jews were expressly forbidden to set strangers to rule over them: A.S. What follows? Ergo, Entireness 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 bashful, 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 tells us, that are naturally servile. Ergo, They have need to be ruled by others. And the Polonians sometimes choose Foreign Princes to rule over them: The Ragusians in Slavonia, to entertain perfect equality amongst themselves, choose 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 than it should follow, 1. That it is not good, much less best for us, that jesus Christ, who according to his Manhood, or the Apostles, who were jews, should have been Universal Ministers over all the whole World, since they were not chosen of every particular Kingdom; much less of every Province, but least of all, of every particular Independent Congregation compounded of seven or eight weak Fore-headed men, as M. S. styles 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 lose 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 judah, as by David, Solomon, Rehoboam, etc. for they were not of all the Tribes, much less of every particular Congregation of seven or eight persons. 4. This Maxim 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, unless 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 Traitorous, how Heretical, and blasphemous this most abominable Maxim is, tending to the total subversion of the Church, King, Parliament, State, and Kingdoms. 7. Yea, it overthroweth even their own Maxims; for their Synods are gathered of Members of different Churches, as ours are. 8. And finally, Howbeit I should grant him his Maxim; yet, as I have said, particular Congregations, by the increase and multiplication of Churches, and their combination in Synods, lose not their entireness of jurisdiction, which they had before, viz. their Parochial, congregational, or simple Presbyterial power, but retain it as formerly. As for those Texts of Scripture, 1. not one of them says, that entireness of Government within themselves, is evermore best, and a mercy of God. 2. Much less, that entireness 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 judicatories in the Kingdom. 3. The passage cited out of jerem. 30.21. speaketh of Christ, as appeareth by the Text; for it is added, And I will cause him to draw near, 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 jesus Christ? 1. But Christ was not a Governor of one particular Independent Church only, but of them all; so this place concludeth an Universal Church, instead of an Independent Congregation: 2. Neither can it be expounded of the people of the jews, 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 Republic. Afterwards, Alexander the Great, being pacified towards the Iews, 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 ducal, and all their Dukes of the House of David, to the number of fifteen, from Zerobabel to janna: Afterwards, the Royal and Ecclesiastical power was in the hands of the Priests, in the Assamoneans Family, of the Tribe of Levi, the which Government was extraordinary, if not unlawful; and then the division about the Royal and Sacerdotal power, betwixt the two Brethren, viz. Aristobulus, and Hircanus, who had recourse to Pompey, some sixty years 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 Governor, 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 from amongst their Brethren: So were the Rulers over Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Ten, answerable to our Provincial Synods, Classes, and simple Presbyteries. Under Augustus, the Senate of Rome, made Herod, an Idumean, King of the jews; And he, as afterward some of the Governors, and Proconsul's of Syria, made, and deposed the High Priests, according to their pleasure; so that all this time almost, the Government of the jews was ever Tyrannical, and so a punishment rather than any mercy of God here promised. As for the Text, Ezek. 27.8. it is not said, That all things that are here related, are mercies of God; but that Tyrus gloried in them, Verse. 3. 2. Neither were they Governors of one Independent Consociation, as amongst the Independents: but here there were Superior and Inferior judicatories, as amongst the Protestant Churches. To that Text, joel 2.17. Give not thine heritage to reproach, that the Heathen should rule over them: Wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God? I answer, This is only a Prayer, that the Heathen rule not over God's people: and if there had been any of them tolerated among the people of God, as M. S. pretends, this Prayer would as well hold, as if they had not been amongst them, but had lived as strangers in other Countries: and it appeareth clearly by the Reason that is added, Wherefore, etc. i.e. lest thy Name be dishonoured by such reproaches, as if our God could not deliver us, or as if we had not a God to deliver us. And howbeit it were so great a blessing, evermore to have Government within themselves, yet can it not be meant of Independent Government in every College or Consociation, without any subordination to superior judicatories, as M.S. hath to prove. To the Text, Deut. 17.15. One from amongst thy Brethren thou shalt set King over thee: thou mayest not set a Stranger over thee, which is not thy Brother. I answer, 1. That this is not a Moral, but a Positive Law; for in Elective Kingdoms they choose Strangers to be Kings, and in so doing, they sinne not against the Moral, or the Law of Nature. 2. That this Commandment is only conditional, grounded upon the condition contained in the beginning of the Verse, viz. That only they should establish him for King over them, whom the Lord their God should choose. 3. Neither was this Government independent in every Town, or particular Congregation; or without subordination, as among the Independents: but according to the Law of Nature and Grace, with some subordination and dependence of inferior judicatories upon some superior. 4. By a stranger here, I believe, that he means principally a stranger in Religion; and consequently, by habitation; because it is added, that is not thy Brother: item, because he was to have a copy of the Law, to read it, and learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words thereof: which the Heathens could not do. Or, 5. The reason may be, because God was minded to tie the Crown to one Family, viz. to that of judah. 6. Neither was it lawful for them to choose any Brother, or Countryman of theirs, but him only that was of the Tribe of judah, at least, after the Promise made unto David; and that for a special Reason, viz. to the end we may know CHRIST'S Descent, etc. After these silly Objections that this M.S. hath brought, he objects to himself, But Pastors and Elders of neighbour Churches are not to be looked upon as Strangers, but as Brethren: (And he might have confirmed it; for there is no distinction betwixt the jew and the Greek, Rom. 10.12.) and answers, That they are Brethren in respect of the unbelievers, and yet have more of the relation of Strangers to them, than those that were (as it were) of the same domestic Society with them; and therefore subjection unto them must have less of the Blessing, and more of the Curse, than Subjection to their own. A. S. I answer, 1. in matter of Argumentation, to prove a categorical and Absolute Proposition, we use not these, as it were, or Metaphorical terms; for they are termini diminuentes; and if it be only, as it were, Ergo it is not really. 2. I pray you, M.S. tell me, if a man, that is not of your Congregation, and hath more Faith, or at least professeth more than one of your Congregation, What reason, that he should rather be a stranger unto you, or less your Brother in Christ, than he who hath less Faith? 3. Should not he, that hath a greater union with Christ, which undoubtedly he hath by his greater Faith, have a greater union with you? I see, that he shall be least beloved of you, who is most beloved of Christ, and of whom Christ is most beloved. 4. And so you esteem it a greater curse to be subject to those who have more Faith, and a greater blessing to be subject to such as have less Faith, and haply none at all: Siccinè soles bear Amicos? M. S. 3. Reason: The Grant of Government and Rule within themselves, unto Towns and Corporations, was ever esteemed a matter of special Grace and favour from Princes, and hath sometimes been purchased with great sums of money by the Inhabitants. A. S. What followeth? Ergo, so must it be in the Church: if ye conclude any thing at all. 1. So you are the Disciples of Simon Magus. 2. That Grant of Government within themselves was no Independent Government, as amongst the Independent Churches; for than they must have been Sovereigns. 3. I retort the Argument: In all such Privileges of Incorporations, there is evermore a Subordination of Government, as among the Protestant Churches: Ergo, so should it be among you, if you will imitate them, or will have this Argument to make any thing at all for you. 4. Neither could it be a special Grace, if it be independent; for Grace is only amongst the superior and the inferior, dependent upon his superior. 5. Such a Grace should take away the Subjects subjection, and so of a Prince make no Prince; for no man is Prince, but he, upon whom the Subjects depend. CHAP. VII. M. S. his fourth Reason answered. M. S. FOurthly and lastly, Reason itself (faith he) demonstrates Entireness of Government to be a sweet Privilege and Benefit to a Particular Church. A. S. Ans. 1. As if all he had said hitherto were without Reason, he now cometh to his Reasons, which are very irrational. 2. It is sweet to the Flesh, but not to the Spirit, if a man be lead by the Spirit of God. 3. If it be only a Privilege, Ergo, it's a clear case, you have it not by Law. M.S. 1. Reason to confirm this Assertion. First, in case a man be questioned, he saves a proportion both of time and labour, in respect of what he must undergo, if he were to make his Answer at a Consistory further off. A. S. Ans. 1. He answers first in his own Parish, in his own particular Consistory, and so saves his time. 2. But in case he be there oppressed, it is unjust, that he should not have liberty to descend himself before another, viz. a Class, 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. Edward's Relation of the business, touched in the Apologetical Narration. 3. What if there fall out six or seven such differences among your Churches, and that particular persons desire some redress of their Grievances before a Synod amongst you? can ye not hold one Synod for five or six such Complaints? Then in such a case, they must all go to the Synod, out of their own Churches: and then even amongst yourselves 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 go 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 jews, which was established by God himself; And 6. the Proceed of the Church of Antioch, as of Ours. Secondly (saith M.S.) the Proceed 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, than the Pastors of other Fhocks, and those that are strangers to him; Ergo, every man should be judged in his own particular Congregation. A.S. This Argument destroyeth no less the Civil, than the Church-Government; for so it may be said, that a man being judged by the judge of his own swoon, shall be more tenderly dealt with then before the King's Council. 2. The Government of the Church of the Old Testament, as I have already declared. 3. The proceed of the Church of Antioch, that sent its Controversy to be judged at Jerusalem. 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 miscarry. 7. Things must not be carried by tender affection, but by equity. 8. If his own Pastor be more tenderhearted towards him, he of another Congregation may be more indifferent, which of the two is more necessary in a judge, 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 general 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 tried and sentenced by those, who may be tried, and sentenced by him again, which will teach them more moderation, than a Consistory of standing judges, Ergo he must be only judged in his own Congregation. A. S. This Argument concludeth 1. against the Subordination of judicatories in the State. 2. Against all sorts of Courts, wherein he that is sentenced, cannot sentence his judges again. 3. Against the Ecclesiastical proceed in the Old Testament, wherein he that was sentenced had not evermore power to sentence his judge again. 4. Against the proceed of the Church of Antioch. 5. Against that of the Independents. 6. Such a proceeding of mutual judgement, out of fear to be judged again, will make the judgements partial, whereas they should be neutral; and it is no better, then if one should say; Sir, look you favour me this day, otherwise expect no favour from me another day. 7. We have no Consistory of standing judges, but the simple Presbytery, as you have. 8. In our way we are judged by those, who if they do us wrong, may be judged not by us, who are parties, but by higher and more impartial judges, viz. a simple Presbytery by a Class; a Class by a Provincial Synod; and a Provincial by a Nationall Synod. And as for that Maxim, Nunquam satis fida potentia, ubi nimia, it is very true, if it be applied 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 own 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 own particular Presbytery, and afterward be changed as you say into a stone, he getteth no wrong, but what he hath procured unto himself. 3. But if his party acquiesce not, but appeal, yet may he have his own Pastor at the Class, or Provincial Synod, to lay open his business, and it is the duty of the particular Presbytery, Session or Consistory, to make good their judgement, so as he needs not to fear. 4. And it is the custom 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 Civil Magistrate's Authority as well, since they are not familiar with every Cobbler. 6. At the Ecclesiastical proceed in the Old Testament. 7. And that of Antioch. 8. I deny the consequence, for these Reasons alleged. M. S. his 5. Reason is, because in this congregational Government, private Christians may see the judicial proceed in the Churth, which will be a School of wisdom 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 Presbyterial way, in their Parochial judicatories, in such matters, as require not silence. 2. Neither is it fit, that all sorts of Persons, as women, especially young Damosels, and young men should hear all sort of businesses, that may be discussed in those judicatories. 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 usual 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 than this, they may go to the Universities. 4. This Argument striketh at the Government of the State, that of the Old Testament, and at the proceed of the Apostles, Act. 15. and 16. M. S. his 6. Arg. in substance is, that the Premises, 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, etc. A. S. 1. This Argument, as the rest, concludes, as well against the proceed in Civil judicatories, 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 Parochial Presbytery, or Session, where all the Premises may be as well tried, as in the Independent Congregation; and in case of Appeal they may be carried to the Class, or Synod. 3. What if the difference be betwixt two divers Churches, or two persons of divers Churches, and the premises be Actions, or Offences committed out of both the Churches; then in such a case, the business cannot be proved in any of the Churches; what if the business need no proof, but be some scandalous Doctrinc? M. S. addeth, that for brevity's 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 clearly 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 positiuè, whereby Positively by Law, Actual Consent, Approbation, or otherways we receive, or give way to any thing, or negatiuè; when neither by any Posicive Act, Law, Actual Consent, or Approbation, we give way to any thing, but only actually we oppose it not, make no Law against it, descent not, reprove it not, etc. 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 Ecclesiastical Power in this World above it. The State of the Question than is, Whether such Independents should have any Positive, or Negative; but principally a Positive Toleration, not only 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 rupert's 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 Reason●● a pari; but that Independency being once received into the State, it will per se, and naturâ suâ, of itself 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 superior Ecclesiastical Power, and that the Civil Magistrate in good conscience, cannot punish them; then in case any, or many of them fall into Heresy, it will open a door to Heresy. 2. M. S. answereth, That a Toleration of Independency will be an effectual means of chase 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 alleged, 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 Devil 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? Truly, ye dispute with such heat and ardency for the Independent learning, and godliness, that it seemeth almost the only quarrel 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, unless they be provoked by the vain and exorbitant praises, that ye ever and anon undeservedly bestow upon yourselves. 6. But how able soever you, or they be, yet for them, it is clear, the Assembly hath divers times put them to a nonplus. 7. And if they be so able, what other reason can there be, that they plead no better their Cause, fave only, that it is naught? It is truly 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 excel) can set any probable show, or face of reason upon your opinions, which ye hold to be no less than Gods revealed Word. M. S. Answer, 3. Better a door opened to all sorts of erroneous opinions, yea, and to many other inconveniencies greater than this, then that the guilt of any persecution, or of any evil entreat 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 publicly their Church Government, and other Tenets, in despite of Church and Parliament, both in the Church and State, that it is no less than 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 God's glory, they would rather desire with Moses to be scraped out of the Book of life, or with Paul to be separated from Christ, then that Christ's Church should so suffer, or God's 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 Ecclesiastical Government, and the other of another, as ye, yea, to your no very great advantage, have experimented it several times. The Son may refuse to receive any Communion with the Father, and the Brother with the Brother, to the utter dissolution of all natural, civil, and domestical bonds of Society: 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 murdered 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, judaism, and Mahumetanism, then that his own Sect should not be tolerated; Of so large a conscience is he. A.S. It may breed Factions, etc. 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 dear People of God, as do Apologise, to eat their bread in darkness? And he said heretofore, that May cometh but once a year. A.S. It is subtly argued, M.S. of you with your May, but it is too much that such a May come once a year, or once in an Age; and better were it, ten thousand of you should perish, than God be so offended; for it is a Maxim in Divinity, Quodvis malum Paenae, etiam maximum, eligendum potius quàm minimum malum Culpae; nam quaevis Culpa pejor quavis Poenâ. 2. But I pray you learn of me, that as impossibile morale in moral 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, etc. What, I pray, transported the Crown of Swede from the Nephew to the Uncle? What moved a King of Spain 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 Pope's 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 Kingdom, they are unknown Creatures to them. 3. If they be so dear to God, they can never, qua tales, suffer for so wicked a cause, as for all Licentiousness in Religion. 4. They need not to suffer, if they will not be turbulent, but quiet, and submit unto the Laws of the Kingdom, and such an Ecclesiastical Government, as in God's mercy shall be established in the Church. What a sauciness is this, that they will be content with nothing, unless, in despite of Church and State, they may do what they will? 5. As for his Rhetorications, in telling me that I am bred of Rocks, and sucked the milk of Tigers; All that shall not hinder me to maintain, that the Independents must be subject to Order and Authority, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, as other men are, or else suffer for their turbulent humour. M. S. I would know of him, whether he deemeth himself to be of another Religion than the Apologists? If so, Candorem tuum, A.S. in that malignant expression, etc. 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, etc. But as for yours, Sed vos, qui tandem? quibus aut venistis ab eris? Quouè 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 near 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. That not long since, I heard one of the Ringleaders of the Independent Sect deliver this Doctrine in a Sermon at the Abbey of Westminster, viz. That to a saving knowledge of God, it sufficeth not to know him in the Book of Nature, or 2. as revealed in the holy Scriptures; but that we must also know him as abstract from his Mercy, and all his Attributes. Now if this be a common Tenet of your Religion, I must confess, I am none of yours; My Reasons are, 1. Because that if it be so, rude people, that know nothing of so refined Abstractions, must be damned. 2. Because, to be saved, it is most necessary to know God as concrete with his Mercy, or as merciful towards us in Christ. 3. If I know God evermore under this refined abstraction from Mercy, I must be damned. 4. Because, if I know God abstracted from his Mercy, I know him out of Christ, and out of the Gospel; for God in Christ, and in the Gospel, is not abstract, but concrete with Mercy. 5. Because the knowledge of God, as revealed in Scripture, is sufficient to salvation, Ergo, it is not needful to know him any otherways in this life. 6. Because, if I know God out of Scripture, and abstract from Mercy, it is a Knowledge without Faith; for Faith's formal Object is God in Christ, as revealed in Scripture; and therefore it is a knowledge of God in Christ, as revealed in Scripture; and therefore there must be some saving knowledge of God without Faith. 7. If a saving knowledge of God be of God as abstract from all his Attributes, it must be a knowledge of God without any Simplicity, and so of God as abstract from a pure Act. 8. As abstract from all his Perfections, i.e. without all his Perfections. 9 E. of God, as abstract from his Goodness, and so as without his Goodness. 10. Of God as without Insinitie. 11. Without Omnipresence. 12. Without Immutability: 13. Without Eternity. 14. Without Life, without Knowledge, Science or Wisdom. 15. Without any Will. 16. Without any Love towards Mankind. 17. Without Hatred of Sin or Sinners. 18. Without Power or Omnipotency. 19 Without any Decree of Predestination or Reprobation. 20. Without any Providence or care of his Creatures. 21. Without Creation, and so not as Creator: For to know God as abstract from these Attributes, is to know God as without them: Now who dare say, that to know God, as abstract from all those Attributes, or without them, is a saving knowledge: This is indeed an Independent saving knowledge, independent on God's Word, on Christ, on Faith, and all Grace; and consequently most graceless: 23. To know God, as abstract from all his Attributes, is to know God, as abstract from his Essence, and so to know God, as without himself, or his own Essence or Being; for God's Attributes are not only eadem cum Essentid ut personae, sed & de Essentia, de quidditativo ejus conceptu, & praedicatae ejus essentialiae, and some of them, quasi de specifico ejus conceptu; from which God can no ways be abstracted. 24. If God be considered, as abstract from all his Attributes; it is no more a knowledge of God, but some Idol of the Independents brains; sicque habes meum candorem & vestrum pariteratrorem: Now let the Reader judge, which of our two expressions is most Malignant. M. S. his third Answer comes to this; Grant them their desires, i. e. A full liberty, and they will bray no more than the wild Ass doth, when he hath Grass. A. S. 1. All Heretics say as much, yea, the Devil would be glad to agree with God upon such terms. 2. But God hath forbid the Church to tolerate you; 3. In New England, they of your Party will tolerate no Sects; 4. And such a Toleration here cannot but breed all sorts of Divisions; Whereas, if there be one only Discipline or Church Government established, we shall have no Distractions at all. 5. But how can (I pray unriddle it me) a Liberty granted to contest and quarrel one with another, ever take away contestations and quarrels? 6. If the Presbyterians be the cause of Divisions, because they tolerate not you (as you say;) so was Moses, and Aaron, for not tolerating, Core, Dathan, and Abiron. Your Simile of him, who murdered the Duke of Burgundy, will hold, if it be applied to your Sect; otherways, it is altogether impertinent, and beside the present purpose. M. S. his fourth Answer cometh to this, That in case one Government were established, it would breed as great, or more Factions and Divisions, then if a Toleration were granted. A. S. This Argument concludeth, as well against Moses, in favour of Core, Dathan, and Abiron, as against us; for if Moses had granted such a Toleration to them, and their Sect, as the Independents are now Suitors for, it would not have bred such Divisions; And if the non-Toleration of it breed as great Divisions, as the Toleration of it would have done, what is the cause that this Toleration of your Sect breedeth so many injurious and calumnious Expressions against the Presbyterians? What would ye not say and do, had ye once gotten a Toleration? To M. S. his fifth Answer, That sundry persons of one Family, in the City, hear divers Ministers, without any Division? A.S. I answer, That those Ministers are not of divers Sects, or if they be, without doubt, it breedeth many Divisions, and alienates their minds one from another: Neither can any Godly good man, who is bound by duty to have a care of his Family, but be grieved, when he seethe his Children, his Wife, and Servants separated in affection from him, and the Church, wherein he serveth God, and to eat at his Table in his House, when they will not eat at the Lords Table with him, in the House of God. What ye say of a House of bondage; if we were all under one Government, it is most false; For by the same Reason, the People of God should have been in an House of bondage, when they came out of Egypt, and were brought into the Land of Canaan, because that there they had but one Government. So with you it must be an House of bondage, in every State, that hath but one sort of Civil Government. I will not answer his vain vaunting, in extolling his own Sect: Only I wonder, that he is offended at us, that we desire but one good Government, what ever it be; Is it ill to have but one good Government? Wherefore does he plead for many ill Governments? Wherefore will not those of New England admit many, if it be so good? If it be want of Mercy not to tolerate others, how merciless were the Mercies of New England, that would not tolerate Presbyterians, no not in a corner of their Country, when their Necks were put in the Pillories, their Noses slitted, their Ears cut, and their persons imprisoned? What M. S. sayeth of distractions of minds, under Episcopal Government; it was not for want of a Toleration of all Sects, and all sort of Ecclesiastical Governments: Neither have I ever heard of any Petition made about it, much less for any Independent Government. M. S. And where Conscience is tender, a little violence is a great torment to it. A. S. It hath been told you, twenty times; 1. That no man violateth or forceth your Consciences; 2. And all Sects bring the same pretext of tender Consciences. 3. And we tell you again, That your ways are not ways of tender, but of turbulent Consciences. A. S. 3. Argument. No State in Christendom, where there is one only Religion established, will admit the public exercise of any other, or endure a Schism in that, which is already received: Wherefore then should it be done here? M. S. his third Reason, 1. Supposeth that malignant Supposition, viz. That Presbytery and Apologism, make two differing Religions. 2. That there is no State in Christendom, etc. 3. That Apologism, in case it be tolerated, must needs become a Schism, in that Religion, which is established in the Land. A. S. To the first I answer, 1. That neither I do suppose, nor yet can suppose any such thing; For we see no common Confession of Faith of the Apologism; neither will the Apologists be known or declare their Tenets; but are evermore in the Synod, and out of the Synod, observing what is there said or done, taking their advantage upon all occasions, and shaping their Tenets, according to the current of the times. 2. If the word, Religion, be taken in a large signification, as it containeth in itself both doctrine and Discipline, than the Independents are of a different Religion from us, since their Discipline is altogether different. 3. If it be taken for a potential part of Justice, which inclineth the will to honour God; then the Independents differ from us in very many acts of Religion, both in those that it exerciseth, whether they be internal or external, and in those, that it commands to other virtues; and consequently in Religion itself; For they have much superstition in the Acts of their Religion; 1. In respect of the persons, in that they make every man a Minister, to Preach, and to Rule. 2. In their Sacraments, in that they take their selves to be so holy, that no Protestant, yea, though he so live, as that he give no offence to any man, is yet worthy of their Communion, etc. If it be taken for the Doctrine of Faith; We know not the Doctrine of their Churches, since they are all Independent one upon another; but as for that of particular Independent Persons, Master goodwin's Religion of Coalmanstreet (who is thought to be an Independent, and matriculated into the Independent Society) is a Religion different from ours, as appeareth by his Books, which are blamed by the best Ministers of London, whereof some of them have written against him: So is that of that other most famous Independent, who preached not long ago at Westminster, of some of whose Doctrines, I gave you a short relation, but even now. As for the second Supposition, M. S. he saith, that it is manifestly untrue, as it is notoriously known in France, the Low-Countries, etc. A. S. But it is notoriously known in France, that it is against the will of the State, and of all Papists, that Protestants are tolerated there, as it appeareth evidently; 1. By so many bloody Massacres, and Butcheries of the Protestants there. 2. By so many Wars, whereby they obtained a Liberty of Conscience. 3. They had many Princes of the Royal Blood for them, who were Protestants; many Officers of the Crown; many of the Parliament in Paris; and finally, King Henry the fourth, who in the beginning was a Protestant, to whom by Succession belonged the Crown; for whose right they sought very stoutly in sundry Battles, furnished him with men and moneys for the War; And he after his external revoult, remaining evermore a Protestant in his heart, as it is commonly believed; and fearing the Jesuitical Faction, in recompense of their good service, granted them Liberty of their Consciences, Free Exercise of their Religion, and Towns of surety and security: therefore they obtained then their Liberties by the Sword; And afterward, they were confirmed by Law, but sore against the State, and the Papists will: And all this notwithstanding, the Papistical Sect evermore undermines them, and by little and little, against all Law, cuts them short of those Liberties, so dear purchased by them. But if you take France, for such a Refuge for Libertinism, you would do well to try, whether ye can settle a Colony of yours there; I believe you would quickly experiment it, how little favour ye should receive there, in respect of that you have already received of your own Countrymen. As for the Netherlands, if there were but one Religion there, they would not tolerate any other; And what they have done in tolerating many, it is not so much will, as necessity, that hath forced them to do so: And the History testifies how unwilling they were in the beginning, to grant any Toleration at all to the Papists, where they were already established. If yours of late have been tolerated there; 1. It was, because ye taught not there in their Language, but in English to English men. 2. And there ye professed not (for any thing we know) that Presbyterial Government was Episcopal, or contrary to God's Word, as ye do here. 3. They believed, that if ye could have gotten the Exercise of Presbyterial Government in England, ye would not have been so averse from it, as ye are. 4. We know not whether your Religion was tolerated by the State's General; or whether it was tolerated Positive or Negatiuè. The third Supposition is true. But M. S. replieth, or rather answereth, That every difference in judgement doth not make a Schism in that Religion, which is professed on both sides. A. S. Neither said I any such thing. But M. S. here giveth himself much to do, with many long and idle discourses, without any reason at all. If he desire to know what Independency is, whether an Heresy, or a Schism? I have evermore dealt fairly with him, I have given a Definition of both. Heresy is an error in part, in matters of Faith, in him, who once professed it, whereof he being sufficiently convicted, yet he continueth, and pertinaciously perseveres in it: But Schism is a breach of Christian Charity only, whereby men separate themselves from the Communion of the true Church; and after sufficient Conviction, pertinaciously persevere in the same. Here I take Heresy and Schism in a strict signification, as they are taken by Divines, both Protestants and Schoolmen, when they distinguish them, one from another. If he admit these Definitions, which are ordinarily approved of in the Schools; we may examine thereby the Independency, and see whether it be a Schism or an Heresy, or not: If he reject it, I would pray him, to give us some better one: I say not that Independency is a Schism, or that the Independent Churches are Schismatical, for some diversity of Opinion; for that belongeth rather to Heresy, then to Schism: Nor 2. that it is a Schism, because that it is tolerated, or not tolerated; for Toleration is a Consequent of Schism, and Extrinsecall to it; The true Reason wherefore it is a Schism, and they Schismatical, is because it is a breach of Charity, in that they separate themselves from the Communion of the true Church, yea and from all the true Churches in the World, both in Sacramental Communion, and that of Discipline: Neither is it a Schism, because that it is a separation from Presbyterial Churches precisely, under the notion of Presbyterial, but of true and Orthodox Churches, which press them no ways to be Actors in any thing against their Consciences. But M. S. in despite of all reason will prove, that I cannot convict the Independents of Schism, and that by this his most seriall Argument, which here I put in form, with all the force it can have; He that knoweth not, what is Schism, cannot convict the Independents of Schism. But, A. S. knoweth not what is Schism. Ergo, A. S. cannot convict the Independents of Schism. The Major is certain; The Minor, he proveth thus; He that knoweth not what is the Church, knoweth not what is Schism, or a rent of the Church; For Rectum est Index sui et obliqui: and entia privativa Cognoscuntur ex suis positivis etc. But A. S. knoweth not what is the Church; for he sayeth, we know not wherein consists its Essence, p. 21. Ergo: A. S. I answer to the first Argument, that the Minor is false, as appeareth by the Definition that I have given of it, both in my Annotations upon the Apologetical Narration; in my Answer unto a Libel of C. C. and he retofore, somewhere in this Book, against the which M. S. had nothing to reply. To the confirmation of the Minor, I answer, that if by the word, knoweth, M. S. meaneth a distinct knowledge of the Essential parts of the Church, the Major is false; for Schism is not a renting of the Essential parts of the Church, or of its transcendental or Metaphysical Unity, but of its integrant parts, and integrant Unity; for the first cannot be destroyed, so long as it is a true Church: And Schismatical Churches may have their transcendent unity, verity, and goodness, howsoever they lose their integrant unity, verity, and goodness: If by the word, knoweth, he mean any knowledge of the Church, either confused or distinct, whereby we may know the Church, by her external Causes, her integrant parts, her Accidents, etc. The Minor is false, for not only A. S. but little Children at School have such a knowledge of the Church, which they learn in their Catechisms, And by any such confuse or distinct knowledge of the Church by her Causes, Accidents, or Effects, etc. we may confusedly, or distinctly know, what is Schism, howbeit not Essentially. As for the Confirmation of the Minor; By my words, I said not there, that I knew not what the Church is confusedly, or distinctly by her Causes, integrant parts, her Accidents, etc. But that we know not distinctly the Essences of things, as distinguished from their Accidents, as the Reader may see, if he look in my Book; for there, in that page 21. I speak in formal terms of that, which is Essential to the Church: Now if M. S. pretend to any such profound knowledge of things, we must confess him to be an other Epistemon. Doctor du Molin, Professor in Divinity at Sedan, holds the same Tenet, in his Thesis de Summo Bono: So did the other Professors of Divinity there; for they say, that no Creature, neither in this life, nor in the life to come, yea, not the very Angels know the Essence of any thing; And from thence they conclude, that we shall not see the Essence of God in the life to come: The which Assertion, howsoever I confess it to be true, de hominibus viatoribus: yet can I not believe it to be true, de Angelis viatoribus; and much less de Angelis, aut hominibus comprehensoribus: M. S. should have done better, to have Answered my Reasons that I bring there pag. 21. then so against the light of his Conscience, to scratch at a known truth: Neither can I believe him to be so ignorant, as not to know, and acknowledge the truth of it in himself, however out of desire of Contestation he manifests the contrary. But M. S. to the end he seem not altogether impertinent, proveth it by an Argument taken ab Exemplo; or by an imperfect Induction; if it be not a Pari; or from them altogether. I cannot believe (saith he) that he should perfectly know the nature of darkness, that is ignorant of what belongeth to the nature of light; Nor that he should know what a Schism or Rend means, that knows not what belongs to the nature of Unity and Entireness of the Body; for Rectum est index sui, & obliqui, and Entia privativa cognoscuntur ex suis positivis. A.S. We know not perfectly the nature of Light, and consequently we know not perfectly the nature of Darkness; if to know perfectly, be taken for a distinct knowledge of its Essence, as distingnished from its Accidents: only we know light imperfectly, by its external causes, by its effects, by its subject, adjuncts, etc. and not essentially. And as for your first Maxim, Rectum est index sui, & obliqui; it is true; sed non per distinctum aliquem conceptum sui essentialem, as Philosophers say. Your second Maxim, whomsoever you imitate in that Expression, is improper; for Privations are not properly Entia privativa, but Entium privationes, not Essences or Being's, but negations of Being; neither is Darkness any thing but a negation of something, viz. of Light: so Poverty is not a thing, but a want of some thing, viz. of Riches. 2. But I will pardon him this mistake: howbeit it were true, yet followeth it not, that if I know a Privation by the Positive Form which it destroyeth, that I know that Form essentially, by its Essence, and in itself: I know the Form only accidentally, or by its extrinsecall causes, or by its Existence. 3. Item, So we conceive Privations, under the notion of Negations, or destructions of the Existences, rather than of the Essences of things; or at most, as destructions of the Existence primario; and of the Essence secundariò, if they be destroyed by Privations: Neither can I believe, that the Fire burneth and destroyeth immediately the Essence of a Man, or any part thereof; for the Reasonable soul is spiritual, and cannot be burnt; so is the other part of his Essence, viz. his materia prima, incombustible, yea naturally incorruptible: and as for the Physical essence of the whole man, when M. S. shall declare wherein it consists, I shall dispute with him: But, silly man, with this babbling Logic, knows he not that Accidents are never defined by their Essential differences, but evermore by their Externall Causes, or by their Accidents; and sometimes by their Opposites, and Negations of some other things: The very Apprentices in Logic know thus much. 4. But if we know the Essences of things in themselves, as this M.S. pretends, if he say any thing to purpose, how is it, that there is so great debate about them? as 1. about the soul of a man, whether it be spiritual or corporal? 2. About the total Essence of a man, whether it be the Soul alone? his Soul and Body? the Soul and its materia prima? the union of both, the image of God, Religion, or some other thing? And to urge this more home upon your Example of the Light; If we know the Essences of things distinctly, and in themselves, as I said, what is the cause of so great a diversity, yea of so great a contrariety of opinions about its Essence or Nature? How is it, that some Philosophers hold it to be in some Predicament, others to be in none? some, to be a Substance, others an Accident? some, to be a spiritual substance, others, to be a Body; others, neither, viz. neither to be a corporeal, nor a spiritual, but a spiritalis substantia; others, the presence of a luminous body; others, a real colour; others, an apparent colour; others, a spiritual Quality; some, a natural power; others, a sensible quality? If we knew it essentially and distinctly in itself, and not merely accidentally, we could not so doubt of its Essence, wherein it consists. But it seems, that this Man, Doctor Holmes, and some of that Sect, are as Heretical in Philosophy, as Schismatical in Divinity; and so they have conspired with as little success against Natural, as against Divine truth. M.S. says, that my meaning may be, that if a Toleration be granted for Independency, the Practice of it should become a Schism from the Presbyterian Church. A.S. No such thing; but I maintain, that Independency is already, at least materially, yea Formally, ratione Formae essentialis, & in foro Conscientiae interno, a schism from all the true Churches in the World, since they willingly have separated themselves from them all in matter of Sacramental Communion, as also in that of Discipline: And you should have done well to have answered this, which no doubt you met with in my former Book; and not oblige me to repeat it here. It will also be a Schism ratione Formae Accidentalis externae, & in fore externo, from the Church of England, if, in God's mercy, any other Discipline, then Independent, be established in it. So is it also, in respect of the Presbyterian Church, which is already established in France, Holland, etc. yea and here in England, in the French, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish Churches. So is it in respect of the Church of Scotland; the Discipline whereof is approved by the King, which ye have all sworn to maintain. But, says he, we have no Presbyterian Church among us; and so if a Toleration be granted, before such a Government be established, it is apparently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the reach of such an imputation for ever. A. S. 1. It is false, that we have no Presbyterian Church among us; We have it in the French, Dutch, and other Churches, wherewith the Church of England professed evermore a Sacramental Communion, which the Independents break. 2. Whether it be granted by the Parliament, or not, that hinders it not from being a Schism; for the Toleration of the Parliament is altogether extrinsecall to Schism; and there were Schisms in the Primitive Church, without any Toleration of the Civil Magistrate. 3. His Supposition is impious and ridiculous; for Toleration, according to M.S. his judgement, is evermore of some real, or at least of some apparent Evil: Now, can the Parliament, or the Assembly of Divines, in good Conscience, tolerate an ill Government, before that they establish any good one? Is not that to begin with the Devil to serve him, before that we serve God? Should not the Parliament begin with You, as the most considerable Party? A. S. his 4. Reason. If a Toleration be granted to our Brethren, I cannot see, how it can be well denied to other Sects. M.S. answereth, that Bernardus non videt omnia. A.S. But I pray you then, Father Epistemon, that sees all things, make me, by some Reason or other, to see how it can be denied to other Sects; for there is the same Reason for a Toleration of them all. M.S. bringeth this Reason: He (saith he) that keepeth a door with lock and key, and bolts to it, may let in one man, that knocks, without letting in all comers. A.S. But if the other knocketh also, wherefore will he not open to him, and let him in as well as the other? If he open not, there is no Reason, but Will that keeps him out; so there is the same Reason, but not the same Will for both: it is a mere Prosopolepsiia, or Acceptation of persons, which is not well done. If it be said, that other Sects differ more from us, than the Independents: Ans. 1. It is all one; Magis & minus non mutant speciem, in matter of Toleration: 1. For then all must be tolerated; howsoever some more, some less: 2. And some of our Brethren, viz. M. S. grants all the Argument. 3. And if we distinguish so, they must declare and expound clearly, what Sects, and what Opinions are to be tolerated, and what not: which will be a Question inextricable, which no mortal man, appearingly, is able distinctly to determine. M. S. answereth not to any of my Reasons; only he is offended, that I say, it is a Question inextricable, etc. He says then, 1. That I prevaricate with my own Cause: but wherein, here altum silentium. 2. He saith, that I put the Magistrate to a stand, whether he should tolerate Presbyterian Government, or not. But I have already answered; 1. That it is already approved here in England, in the French, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish Churches; 2. That the English Divines, in the name of all this Kingdom, approved it in Holland. 3. That the King's Majesty confirmed it in Scotland. 4. That we entertain Sacramental Communion with all the Protestant Reform Churches; and that the Independents alone do quit it. 5. That all the three Kingdoms, and the Independents with them, by their Covenant and Oath, are bound to maintain Presbyterial Government in Scotland. 6. And they are bound to Reform the Church of England, according to the example of the best Reformed Protestant Churches, and namely that of Scotland, which all have only Presbyterian Government. 7. And we have sufficiently confirmed it by sundry Testimonies of Scripture, and other Arguments, grounded on Scripture. 8. Neither is this his Question to the purpose; for quaestio quaestionem non solvit: I ask him what Sects are to be tolerated in a Kingdom, wherein the true Doctrine, and true Discipline, according to the public Judgement, both of the State, and of the Church, are established: I maintain, that no other, according to God's 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 God's 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 relics 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, only such as are approved by public Ecclesiastical Authority, according to God's ordinary Providence: If the Question be, what Opinions are to be tolerated; then either you mean to be tolerated in the Church by public Ecclesiastical Authority, or in private persons. If the first, I answer: None but such as God's 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, etc. 1. No false Opinions are to be tolerated by any positive Toleration, Consent or Approbation. 2. If men err for want of light, much may be tolerated negatiuè, 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 moral Conviction, they may be punished condignly, both by the Church, and the Civil Magistrate, if they continue and become pertinacious. And because, I add, That the less 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 clear 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 ways material, or to the purpose: The less I know, and the more ignorant I am, the more easy 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 less the difference be betwixt Independency, and the true Discipline, that is to be established, whether it be Presbyterial Government, or any other, the greater is the breach of Charity, and Ecclesiastical 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 yourselves must make a Separation among yourselves, for every trifle wherein ye differ in judgement, either in Doctrine, Discipline, or Holiness 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 mind, 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 less Union among Christians, than 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: Only he saith, it is ill applied; but it is applied by way of Argumentation; whereof he would have done well, to have shown the defect. M. S. pag. 90. and 91. Answ. 4. yet doth it not require, That he that is stronger should cudgel 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 lawful Authority; and not make your inconsiderable number the Judges of all this business, against the Laws of the Kingdom: And what you said in your second Chapter, we have shown, 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 holiness, as he is holy, which cannot be without obedience, as in the good Angels; Now ye confess yourselves, That God hath only commanded one Discipline, and Government, in the Church under the New Testament; how are we then Lucifers, in desiring this only; and no other to be admitted of in the Church? How do ye then plead for the Introduction of any other, than 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 Presbyterial, 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 Ecclesiastical Government, or of Toleration of Heresies, Schisms, or divers Disciplines in the Church; but a Moral 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 spirituals. A. S. 1. Your Argument is so spiritual, that we cannot understand it; Theologia symbolica non est argumentativa. 2. We say, it is no violence, to oblige all to be subject unto God's Ordinances. 3. And to deny a Toleration to them, that are contrary, for by the same reason all Thiefs should be tolerated, and it should be forbidden to punish them. M. S. telleth us, pag. 90. in case the Minor part in that Nation, had dissented from the Major, about the sense of such or such a Law, relating unto practice, and so had dissented in this practice: In case the Major part had taken the advantage of their brethren's weakness, and because they were fewer in number, should have forced them against the light of their judgements to have altered their practice, or if they refused, should have trodden and trampled upon them, it should have been as apparent a breach of the Laws we speak of, as any oppression in Civil Proceed. A. S. If the Major part, In such a case, had oppressed the Minor part, in consideration of their weakness, or because of their weakness, it would have been true; but if the Major part in not forcing the Minor, to be Actors in any thing against their conscience, had hindered it from bringing in of a new Religion, and a new Discipline, against that, which was ordained by God, it had been no oppression, no violence, but an act of obedience to their God. And as for that pretext of the tenderness of Conscience, it is the common refuge of all Heretics and Schismatics of the World: Your pretended tenderness of 〈◊〉, were it never so tender, ought not to prejudice God's Law, ye must learn Obedience unto God's Word, if ye pretend to be his 〈◊〉; and ye must learn, that every man must not do as seemeth good in his own eyes, but that the Spirit of Prophets, in public Government, must be subject unto the Prophets; otherways all shall go in confusion. M. S. telleth us again, That to conscientious men, Civil Liberty, without Liberty of Conscience, is of little value. A. S. The greatest Liberty, that Conscientious men can desire, is to serve God, and to obey his Ordinances; and what is beside that, is not Liberty, but Licentiousness: If ye value not such a Liberty, ye are not worthy of it? You may have Liberty of Conscience, howbeit ye establish no new Discipline in the Kingdom. M.S. his 3. Answ. p. 90. Though God gave no such Toleration, as you speak of, by Law, yet he did actually tolerate for a long time together, with much patience, not only a Minor, but a Major part of the Jewish Nation, in a manner the whole Nation forty years, in opinions note riously sinful, Act. 13.18. So than you must tolerate your Brethren, not only in some Opinions and Practices, which are Dialectically and Topically evil, but even also in those, which are Demonstratively such; if you will follow the practice of God. A. S. I answer, 1. to the Antecedent, That God tolerated not the Israelites in their sin absolutely; for sundry times he punished their sins, and that very grievously with pestilence, mortality, and making of them a prey unto their Enemies, till such time as they repent and turned from their sin unto him, and then he turned his anger from them; yea, Core, Dathan, Abiron, and their Adherents, for their Schism, were swallowed up quick by the Earth; and Aaron and Mirian, strucken with Leprosy; and God kept them all in the Wilderness, as in a Prison, for the space of forty years, and suffered none of them to enter into the Land of Promise: Only he tolerated them, in not punishing them by eternal death, or ex condigno. 2. Neither did God make any Law in favour of their sin, to tolerate it, as the Independents require here. 3. Howbeit, God himself tolerated much in them, yet ordained he not, that Churchmen and the Civil Magistrate should tolerate them, but commanded them both to oppose, every one according to their Vocation, and ordained sundry punishments against such kinds of sin in●●● Law. 2. I deny the Consequence. 1. For God is the Sovereign Legislator, or Lawgiver, who may dispense with his own Law, and remit sin committed against it, but so cannot we. 2. Because we are subject to the Law, and must obey it; so is it not with God. 3. We are bound by a particular Obligation, and Duty, to put it in execution; so is it not of God. 4. By the same reason, ye may conclude as well, That we must pardon sins, give our Children to death for other men's sins, or create a World, if we will follow Gods practise: 5. God's practice is not to be followed by man, but in that, which is conform to his Law, and his revealed Word; For Christ's Church is a Country, wherein his people live not, by custom, or imitation of practice, but by Law: Wherefore since there is no Law for Toleration of Heresies and sins, they must not be tolerated. 6. I retort your Argument; for since God punished his people grievously in those forty years in the Wilderness, for their sin; so should men now be punished for it. 7. And since Core, Dathan, Abiron, and their Adherents, for their Schisms, and complaints against Authoritative Power, were punished by death; so should such sinners now a days be so punished in like manner. 8. And since the Israelites were not permitted to enter into the Land of Canaan, which was a Type of the Christian Church, no more should Heretics, Schismatics, and other sinners, have liberty to enter into the Christian Church; for in so doing, we should imitate God. 9 If this Argument hold, all Adulteries, Poligamies, Drunkenness, Gluttony, Idolatry, etc. must be tolerated in the New Testament; since God tolerated such sins, those forty years, in his people, when they were in the Wilderness: I am exceedingly ashamed of you M. S. that you should be so absurd and impious, as to plead thus for impiety, and all sorts of Heresy; and to hinder the Civil Magistrate, so far as in you lieth, from punishing sinners. A. S. 6. Reason was: Either our Brethren do assent to our Doctrine, and are resolved likewise to assent to the Discipline, which God willing, shall be established by common Consent, or do not: If they grant the first, what need they any other Toleration, than the rest? If the second, it would be first discussed, wherein they are resolved to descent; and afterwards considered, whether it be of so great importance, that in consideration thereof, they dare not, in good conscience, entertain communion with us. M. S. Answer 1, Scarce see we any face of Reason in it. A. S. 1. And yet, if ye have any skill in Logic, ye may see a Disjunctive Syllogism here. 2. M. S. here falsifies my Reason; for instead of these words, The Discipline, which shall, etc. he puts in your Discipline, viz. Presbyterial Authority: which are not mine, but his own words. 3. Having so falsified my words, he distinguishes his own fancies, or words, viz. To assent to 〈◊〉 Discipline, in this manner: If your meaning be in case, they assent to your Doctrine, and are resolved to assent to your Discipline, viz. Immediately, when it hath but the stamp of Presbyterial Authority set upon it, we are of your mind, but so even the Presbyterial Party standeth in need of a Toleration, as well as ours: But if your meaning be, that a resolution in your Brethren (the Apologists) to assent to your Discipline, viz. When, and assoon as they can possibly satisfy themselves, touching the lawfulness of it, it will exempt them from a necessity of Toleration. As for the first part of his Distinction: 1. It is not true, that Presbyterial Discipline will stand in need of a Toleration; for what ever be concluded, it cannot stand in need of a Toleration, since it is already approved, as I have already showed; unless the Parliament and Assembly of Divines recall that precedent Approbation. 2. Neither by a Resolution, mean I a precipitated Resolution to Assent, as you mean in the first part of your Distinction; nor a Resolution to Assent, when ye are satisfied yourselves, as you mean in the second part; for God knoweth, what can, or will satisfy pertinacious men; but a Resolution to Assent and Obey, after that ye have received sufficient satisfaction Morally, by the Synod, in all their Conclusions and Determinations: I say Morally, for God alone, who hath created the soul of man, can satisfy its understanding, and will, Physically: And if ye Assent not to it, ye may be justly condemned, as Schismatics, at least: And if it were not so, no Judgement could be concluded in any Judicatory of this World, neither Ecclesiastical or Political; yea, not in the Independent Congregations themselves: For he, that is to be condemned, will evermore say, That he is not satisfied with the judgement, if he hope to escape so. M. S. That you add, is very incongruous, etc. 1. We marvel who ye mean, etc. A. S. But others, who are not Independents, will not marvel: And if you be so dull and blockish as ye would seem to be, I will help you; My meaning is this, That if ye be not minded to assent to the Discipline, which the Assembly, God willing, shall establish, (as it seems ye are not, as appeareth by your Books, and your suing thus for a Toleration, and in declaring how ye are minded to die in your Independency, what ever may befall you) Then the Assembly having given their judgement, and concluded upon some form of Discipline, must discuss the points, wherein ye descent from their Determinations, and consider, whether they be such, as in good Conscience, ye cannot entertain Communion with us: and so proceed to a judgement against you all, according as your Opinions may deserve. Whereas, you say, How should you resolve before hand? And yet M. S. himself, as we have seen it under his hand, in this Book, is resolved to suffer all things, rather than to quit his Opinion. M. S. We grant, that men of good abilities, and conscience, may draw up a very satisfactory Resolution, concerning such, or such a Case, or practice, about which I am scru pled; but it will not follow from hence, that therefore this Resolution will be satisfactory unto me, or that I with a good conscience, may walk by it. A. S. It will not follow, that this Resolution will be satisfactory unto you, but it will follow, that it should be, and that with good conscience you should walk by it: And consequently, that if you be not satisfied with that, which should satisfy you, and in good conscience walk by that, whereby you should walk, you should be punished; For you must learn to be satisfied with that which is satisfactory; now it is your sin, not to be satisfied with that, which is satisfactory; and I see not how this sin can excuse another sin proceeding from it. A. S. 7. They are not pressed to be Actors in any thing against their consciences. Ergo, They need not to be suitors for a Toleration: or if they be, it justly may be refused. M.S. Pag. 92. Answ. 1. He denieth the Consequence of this Argument. A. S. But I prove it: For the Parliament being resolved, and having enjoined the Assembly to seek out, and give their judgements, what Discipline is most conform unto God's Word, which can be but one, and that we being all sworn by Covenant to establish and preserve it, and to oppose all Heresy and Schism, there is no door open for more than one true Discipline: And so, this Hypothesis being granted, I argue thus; supposing we cannot have any more but one Discipline, etc. and that thereby Independents are not pressed to be Actors in any thing against their Consciences, they need not be Suitors for a Toleration: But the first is true, as appeareth by our Covenant, and the Ordinance of the Parliament. Ergo, The Connexion in the first Proposition is evident; For, if they stand in need to be Suitors for any such Toleration, they consequently have need to be Suitors for Perjury, and a breach of the Nationall Covenant, whereby we have all sworn the contrary. But M. S. bringeth his Reason, wherefore they must be Suitors for such a Toleration, against the Covenant, and the Parliaments Ordinance, viz. That so they may be Actors in good, according to their Consciences. A. S. 1. So to be Suitors for a liberty, that they may perjure themselves in breaking of their Covenant, and the Parliaments Ordinance, is to be Suitors for good. 2. M. S. here beggeth the question, viz. That there is no good Discipline, but Independency; and whatsoever is, or shall be concluded, that yet the Independent way must hold, and they be Suitors for it. 3. We have proved heretofore, that it is not good, but very pernicious, and by consequence more dangerous than many Heresies; yea then Lutheranism, Popery or Arminiansme. M.S. addeth, It would be a greater honour to your Presbytery, than the contrary peremtoriousnesse is like to be, viz. To be Suitors for a Toleration of Independency. A. S. Oh, how much are we beholding to you, good M. S. for your pains, in teaching the Presbytery a point of honour, to perjure themselves by violating their Covenant, and the Parliaments Ordinance. God keep us from your greater honour, and give us grace to perform our Vows unto the Lord. M. S. The Apologists conceive, there is a necessity upon them, to save the Souls of others, as well as their own. A.S. 1. There is no necessity laid upon them to save Souls, by such means as are not the way to save other men's Souls, but the ready way to damn their own. 2. And is there no other way to save them, but by Independency? 3. If ye conceive so, then if other men conceive a necessity laid upon them to save souls, by suppressing of Independency, they must necessarily suppress it: 4. Your conceits must not be taken for Rules, whereby the Parliament, and the Assembly must be guided. 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 lie, I pray M. S. to show 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 weak, or tender, the Parliament declareth, and hath declared their care and resolution, not to suffer weak or tender Consciences to be wronged, or pressed to be Actors against the Dictates thereof: And if ye cannot believe or trust them, how can they, or shall they trust you? 4. Because it is an ordinary Maxim amongst Presbyterians, Not to persecute men for their Consciences, nor to accuse them to the Civil Magistrate, unless they be turbulent, and trouble the peace of the Church or State. As for your jeers and injurious speeches here against Presbyterians, we pardon Mr. goodwin's 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 contained no Promise, but a simple Enunciation; and therefore I could not break any Promise therein contained; 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 press 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 threatened 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 threaten of miseries against you; unless 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 do clip the wool off the sheep's 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 avoided, if a Toleration be granted. M. S. reduceth this my Argument unto this hypothetical 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, etc. 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 hypothetical Proposition, which poseth nothing absolutely, as this my Argument doth. 2. He maketh the Antecedent the Consequent, and the Consequent the Antecedent; for who seethe not, that in reducing of it to an hypothetical Proposition, that must be the Antecedent, which is joined with the hypothetical 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 Syllogism, which is such: What is against the Communion of Saints, is not to be granted: But Toleration, viz. of Independency, is against the Communion of Saints: Ergo, Toleration is not to be granted. The Major is certain; 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) do 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 Maxims of Independency, those of one Congregation amongst you, can have no right to communicate in another Congregation; much less will ye admit the members of our Churches to communicate in yours, or ye yourselves 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 virtue of their spiritual fraternity 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 itself. His 2. Answer is: If living in Sects apart be so offensive (saith he) to your zeal over the Communion of Saints, why do you not rather mediate a Toleration for them, then oppose it? A.S. 1. My credit is but small, as you confess yourself. 2. Howbeit, were it as great, as it is small, yet hope I, I should never so far abuse it, as to turn 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 careful for your eating and drinking, for ye may eat and drink with Epicures & Pagans, as well as with us: but for your spiritual 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 Unity; which cannot be easily procured by a Toleration of Sects; and cannot but beget new Schisms and Divisions. M. S. denieth the Consequence; and supposeth, that the force of my Reason consisteth in this, viz. That if the Unity, 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 the rest, viz. Which cannot, &c. for if it begets Sects and Schisms, it must destroy the unity of the Church. I say nothing to the Hyperbolical praises he giveth to those of his Sect; They will doubtlessly do as much for him again. M.S. perceiving this, Answereth, 2. That howbeit Toleration of Sects cannot but beget new Schisms and Divisions, yet it is to be granted; for many Sicknesses are in the world, that come by eating & drinking, yet are these to be tolerated. A. S. If Toleration, per se, begets them, it is not to be tolerated; for that, which is in se, and of its own nature, the cause of Evil, is evil; at least, it is not to be tolerated positively, by Approbation, Consent, etc. for we must not approve Sin, or consent thereunto; but we are bound to hinder it so far as in us lieth. As for your Simile, it is altogether dissimile; for Sicknesses are not Sins, but Natural Evils, which are not forbidden by Nature; neither hath God ever said to man, Thou shalt not be sick; as he saith, Thou shalt not kill: Neither is it in our power, to avoid Sickness, as Sin: Neither is it eating or drinking, but too much, or too little eating or drinking, that maketh us sick; and therefore they are also forbidden, and not to be tolerated or approved. M. S. 3. denieth, 1. that they plead for a toleration of any Sect: and 2. that they are a Sect. But if a Sect be so called à secande, for cutting themselves off from the true Church's Communion, as they have done, and as we have already demonstrated it, they must be a Sect, and consequently plead for a Sect. I will not answer to this M.S. his braggings; for I am only for to resolve his Sophistications: He doth well, not to compare the Apologisme with A. S. which is Adam Stevart; but with Assisme; for they are liker to the one, then to the other. M. S. 4. Whereas you say, that a toleration of Sects cannot but daily beget new Schisms, etc. We answer, that God's toleration or long-suffering towards sinners, doth not only lead all sinners to repentance, but also bring many thereunto: And why should not Man's toleration expect an effect answerable thereunto? A. S. What shall I say to such Impieties? 1. I deny the Consequence. 2. And, if this be true, then if God's toleration of Idolatry, Incest, Sin against Nature, of Sacrilege, Wars, and all sorts of violence and mischief, bringeth men unto Repentance; wherefore should not Man's toleration expect an answerable effect? 3. The reason wherefore it should not expect an answerable effect, is, because we have not received power of God to tolerate Crimes, nor have we it in ourselves, as he hath it. 4. We are bound to hinder sin, so far forth as in us lieth. 5. He hath given a Law unto Men, not to tolerate, but to punish and hinder them. 6. If so, then M. S. and his Sect must toltrate Brothel-houses, and all sort of mischief. 7. If God's toleration bringeth sinners to Repentance, is it not of itself, but by accident, in virtue of some Mercy and Grace annexed thereunto; which if we could give, as God can, we should not be peradventure so much blamed, in tolerating of sin: but that can we not do. 8. Neither doth God tolerate sins positively by Law, Consent, or Approbation thereof, such as the Independents are Suitors for; but negatively, in not hindering of it Extraordinarily, in a way out of his ordinary Providence of Nature, or of Grace: Ergo, no more should the State, Christian Magistrate, or the Ecclesiastical Senate tolerate it Positively: And then, where are you, M. S.? M.S. 5. Answ. is, That, as the Disciples in the Ship, feared Christ walking upon the Waters had been a foul Spirit, and would have sunk them: so doth A.S. fear toleration, and it may prove the Dissolver of Schism. A. S. 1. This Simile savoureth rather of good Wine, then of good Reason. 2. And the things compared are as like one to another, as M. S. is to his A. S. sisme, or an Apple to an Oyster. 3. This is but a may be; and, as he saith, May comes but once a year; but this his may will never be. He addeth, That that means, of all others, that hath God in it, is likest to do the deed. Is God then in this toleration of all sorts of mischief? What deed (I pray) is it like to do, but to damn men eternally? The Lord preserve us from your means, if this be it, as from the Plague. 4. I pray you, good M.S. who told you, that the Apostles believed, that Christ was a foul Spirit, since the Text hath no such thing? The Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth any vain vision, appearance, shadow, image, or false representation; such, as I am afraid, hath carried you off from the true, to such a roving Exposition of the word. This M. S. afterwards will needs force a favour upon me, and (as he saith) help my 10. Argument, by putting it in form: but because he puts but the form, and leaveth out a part of the matter, I must help him; which if he permit me not to do, I shall con him little thanks for such a Courtesy. A. S. My 10. Argument then in form will be this: If there were greater Differences amongst the members of the Church of Corinth, in the time of S. Paul; and yet they Communicated together, yea, he exhorted them unto mutual Communion, and forbearance of Sects and Divisions: How much more should Presbyterians and Independents, viz. who have less Difference among them, Communicate together, and be exhorted to mutual Communion, and forbearance of Sects and Divisions? But so it was, that there were greate● Differences amongst the Members, etc. Ergo, M. S. Seemeth to deny the Proposition, or the Connexum; and his Reason is, or should be, according to his discourse, not because my Argument, as he speaketh, but because the Connexum (as he pretends) is built upon a false foundation, viz. That the Reason why the Apologists refuse Communion with you, (You mean I suppose in your Sacramental Actions; add, and in Government, etc.) is because of the degree of the differences in judgement between you and them; whereas the Reason of their refusal in this kind is the nature, or particularity of the difference, together with your practice depending upon your Opinion in opposition unto theirs, not the height, weight, or importance of either. A. S. But I prove my connexum; for the ground of non-Communion together, must either be difference of judgement, or a breach of Charity; for these are the two only ways, whereby Christians are united unto their Head, and are one with another; the one in the understanding, the other in the will; the two principal Faculties of the Soul, wherein consists the Image of God; so that the less difference there is of judgement in the understanding, or breach of Charity in the will, the less reason is there for any Separation, non-Communion, or Schism: So your Supposition is false, viz. That I suppose, that the ground of such a refusal of Communion consisteth only in difference of judgement; 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 replied, 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 rutherford's Book, whereby he demonstrates how ridiculous and frivolous this pretext is: Neither is it needful, 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 not ways persuaded the Major part amongst them, to cast our, cut off, or suppress, the Underling Parties, but exhorted them to mutual 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 Reform, ye will have all things according to your fancy, or ye will be gone and renounce your Mother: O what sort of Children and Domestics 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 joining 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 minds, 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 sympathise 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 profess all one Doctrine, but are independent one upon another, etc. 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 profess the same Doctrine, as if they were holier than 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 in Devils, for that agreement should be an impeachment, both to their Holiness, and Happiness. 2. Neither agreeth A. S. with Nestorius, in making way to any Heresy of his own, as Nestorius, wherein he was . 3. No more is it to the purpose, that ye are not like to Monks, for their Paunches, idleness, or in their Buildings; howbeit, some of them be as lean, and as busy, in their own way, as any of you Independents can be in yours: Neither is it a sin, to be fat. Only I compare you with them, in that wherein we all blame them, viz. In separating themselves from others, under pretext of greater holiness. 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 profess the same Doctrine, and that under pretext, that they are holier than 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 only in such opinions and practices, wherein they cannot get leave of their Consciences to join 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 practices one from another. A.S. 1. It is true; but that is in things, that are not very material. 2. Or if they be material, 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 practices, which are not material; 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 mutual communion together, both in Sacrament, and Government; and they admit one another unto their Synodall and Sacramental 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 ourselves from the Romish Church, because of greater, or less holiness in our Church, or in particular Persons, then in theirs; but because we conceive that the Romish Church erreth in Fundamentals. 2. Not only committeth, but also, 3. Teaches Idolatry, and 4. compelleth men against their Conscience, to commit, and profess 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 losing both body and soul. 6. Neither yet separate we from any Church, that holds the same Doctrine with us. 7. Neither believe 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 Heresy, Idolatry, or great vice, you see taught or approved of amongst us, that should compel you to quit our Churches, as we found amongst the Papists, and then your Argument will have some force; otherways it hath none at all. M. S. 3. Reason. If they do not think their Presbyterial Churches more holy than the congregational, they are far more guilty of Schism than their Brethren, i. e. then Independents; For than they are at liberty in point of Conscience, to come over and join with them, whereas the other are in bands and fetters of Conscience, and can pass unto them. Their Brethren would come to them, but cannot; they can come over unto these, but will not. It is the Will, and not the Act, that maketh Schism and Separation. A. S. 1. But if they think not their Presbyterial Churches more holy, all your Argument is ridiculous. 2. And I must confess, that M. S. with his Faction are very slight, who can make very few Arguments, that have any appearance of reason, unless they be grounded upon their pretended holiness; and that this be supposed as a Principle of Independent Divinity: What Seneca saith of Presumptuous Scholars, Multi ad sapientiam pervenissent nisi se jam jam pervenisse putassent, may be more justly said of your ridiculous Sect, changing only sapientiam, in veram pietatem aut vitae san●●●iatem. 3. Howbeit, ye were holier than we, yet could we not come unto you; and that not so much because ye are not holy, as because we find in your Opinions a great folly, yea, by consequence more Impiety and Heresy, then in sundry Heretical Churches, as we, and many others also have elsewhere showed: 4. But can you think, that to pleasure every Melancholious brain, that differs not from us in Doctrine, (if he be less vicious than others, howbeit no ways more virtuous) but only in opinion concerning Discipline; in case, that under pretext of Conscience, he will not submit unto our Churches, that presently all our Churches must submit unto him? Or were it not better that he, and all his, should be sent into America, a while, till their brains may be brought to better temper. We cannot be so foolish, as to come unto so inconsiderable a Party; whose opinions too, are yet unknown: And of those, that are known, some more dangerous, than many Heresies. 5. What should we have to do with men, who plead on this manner for impunity for all sin and Heresy; should we admit into our Churches an Anarchy; and give power to ignorant Fellows, to Preach, and make Ministers; shall we grant unto women the shingling, or gingling of the Keys of the Church, to serve myself with the trim, and fine terms of Independent Divinity? 6. It is a silly affected distinction of M. S. to say, that it is the Will, and not the Act, that maketh a Schism: It is both; for Schism is an Act of the Will, or a voluntary Act; It must be Actus Voluntatis elicitus, aut imperatus. M.S. 4. Answer, That he seethe not wherein the Apologists symbolise with Convents, etc. A. S. I have shown it, 1. In their Separation from others, under pretext of greater Holiness, than other men have. 2. And because every Order is Independent one of another, just as your congregational Churches, the Members whereof have no more Communion with Churches amongst us, or amongst themselves, than the Monks of one Convent, with those of another Convent. M. S. 5. You couple yourself with these Popish Convents, implying that your Presbyterians have their Sovereign Judicatory, as they. A. S. We have no supreme judicatory, but that of the living God: If we have Superior, and Inferior judicatories, and the Papists also; neither we, nor they, precisely are to be blamed in that; but so far forth, as they have the Pope, one man, for supreme judge, and Head of the Church, which is proper to Christ; In that they prove, that he is the Antichrist. And as it is great pride, in them, to make him with his Consistory supreme judge over the Universal Church: So is it a piece of extraordinary pride, and self-wit in your Churches, that ye constitute sometimes seven or eight simple Fellows, how Heretical soever be their Doctrine, and how abominable soever their life, supreme judges, Gods immediate Lieutenants, and Independent of all the judgements of all the Churches of the World, how Orthodox soever be their Opinions, and how pious and holy soever be their Practices. But against such a Subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories, as we have according to God's Word, no man can take just Exception. M. S. saith, That he hath answered my twelfth Reason; and I have showed, how Absurdly he hath answered. A. S. 13. Argument. M. S. with his Logico Divinity, by a Doctoral privilege, under pretext to reform my Argument, deformeth and disfigureth it altogether by his Additions, and Confusions, in making it hypothetical, whereas it is merely categorical: If he had desired to put it in Form, he needed not, but to have added, or expressed the Proposition, which was only suppressed in this manner. They who have but one God, one Christ, one Lord, and one Spirit, who are one Body, who have one Faith, and one Baptism, whereby they enter into the Church, should have one Communion, whereby to be Spiritually fed, and one Discipline to be ruled by. But we all, i. e. Presbyterians (as ye call us) and Independents, we have but one God, one Christ, one Lord, and one Spirit, etc. Ergo, We all, i. e. Presbyterians, and Independents, should have but one Spiritual Communion, whereby to be Spiritually fed, and one Discipline to be ruled by. And from this, he inferreth very well. Ergo, The Independents are not to be tolerated, viz. In their Schism, Separation, or non-Communion. M. S. grants all the Argument, and afterward distinguishes the Conclusion, which is an odd manner of answering of Arguments, and proper to his Sect: But we must take of ill paymasters, what we may. He saith then 1. My Conclusions do not follow from my Premises. A. S. But the Argument is in Form: If it follow not, show me, what fault there is in the Form of it. M. S. 2. jeereth the terms of my Argument in calling them, one, one, and one, and my multiplied unity, and so jeereth the Holy Ghost himself, from whom I have borrowed them, Eph. 4. Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. and 8. 1 Tim. 2.5. I might have added more unities; as that we should with one mouth glorify God, Rom. 5.6. we are one Bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. we drink in one Spirit, vers. 13. we are all one in Christ, Gal. 3.28. one Lawgiver and judge, Jam. 4.12. Christ prayeth, that we may be all one anomgst ourselves, and one in the Father, and the Son, John 17.22, 23. M. S. his first Solution than is, That we ought all to have one Communion and Discipline, but not that, that is of Classic Inspiration, no more than that of Papal, or Episcopal Recommendation. A. S. 1. At least of this, viz. We should have one Communion and Discipline; it follows, That there should be no Schism or Toleration granted, that may make a Schism in the body, and dissolve our Communion. 2. If you cannot show any material difference in Doctrine, and other things, (yea, ye confess yourselves, that it is not great) ye cannot separate yourselves from us in Sacramental Communion and Discipline. 3. Neither hitherto have ye shown any practice in Sacramental 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 Sacramental 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 men's 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 shown you, if ye will! open your eyes to see it. And we desire you not to join 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 Darkness, much less to erect Schools and Synagogues of Darkness. 3. The Parliament, and all good men, I am confident, will tolerate you in your Darkness, till Jesus Christ enlighten you, if ye can be content to live in quality of private men, and not erect Churches and Schools, to blind others: Neither can they grant you any thing more; for howsoever, they cannot compel your Consciences, yet must they hinder you, to undo other men's Consciences in sowing of your Tares, and wild 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 uncharitableness, or to dismount them from their Ministerial stand in the Church, because they will not, or rather cannot, knit and join in the same Communion and Discipline with them. A. S. 1. You are very ingrate, unthankful unto the Parliament, and your Brethren of the Assembly: Ye have experimented no uncharitableness from any of them: Hitherto they have dealt with you in all meekness, and brotherly affection. 2. None of you have been put out of your Ministry, for your Opinions; howbeit, many of you have merited it, for your insolency, and malapertness, 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 join 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 Privileges beyond the rest of the Subjects; ye may be gone, and stay there from whence ye came; ye may go to New-England, and mount as high as pleaseth you, there; Only trouble not the Church and Kingdom here, and the Church and Kingdom will not trouble you there. 4. The Church here doth you no wrong; only she maintaineth, that your Tenets are contrary to God's Word: and confesseth, That if the Parliament will tolerate you, it may; but that, in so doing, their judgement is (since they are commanded to give it) that it is flatly against God's Word. And I may say, such a thing might breed ill blood, of Friends make Enemies, and peradventure undo 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 Licentiousness and Libertinism 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 weep, before they be whipped. A. S. 14. If visible Churches have Disciplines or Government, different in their Species, than 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 specifical Governments, as we see in Civil Government, in the Constitution of States, Kingdoms, and Republics. The Assumption is proved, because the visible Church is but one Church in its Species. M.S. jeers, jests, and flouts this Argument: he makes as though he helped it; but it is strong enough without his help, the matter being sound enough, and the Syllogism in form. 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 read in Scripture, or else where, of any Ecclesiastical Discipline, or Government, named Apologisme: Away then with your new coined terms of Apologisme, and Quinque Ecclesian Ministers, etc. The Conclusion, that I have to prove, is this; Presbyterians, and your Independent Churches have not, according to God's word, or should not have different Disciplines, which any Neophyt in Logic can easily deduce by the power of Syllogisms: For it is known in Logic, that a Syllogism, that can infer an universal Conclusion, may infer all the particulars of that universal Conclusion, as when I conclude, that all men have reasonable souls, I conclude that Peter, Paul, and John, have reasonable souls; 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 divided 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 God's Ordinance hold, what ever it be; and wherever Independent Government be, whether in Aries, Taurus, Cancer, or Capricorn, ye may go there, and enjoy it peaceably: We only speak of the Discipline of Christ's 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 specifical Government, whereby it ought to be governed. A. S. Neither intended I to infer or conclude any such thing: Only I say, that whatever the Assembly conclude, or the Parliament establish in the State, yet, according to God's Word, Plurality of Ecclesiastical Disciplines or Governments can no ways be concluded or established; and consequently, ye go against God's 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 than a hundred Injuries: Is this the Independent Power of Piety 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 lawfulness of any Government, that in God's mercy, shall be established, they are not bound to obey, much less ought they to be scourged, as he speaketh. But when they are sufficiently informed of the lawfulness of it, (I mean sufficientiâ morali, which is all that Men can furnish them; but not Physicâ, which is only in God's hands) they must obey, and no ways plead, with all Heretics and Schismatics, non-Conviction, and pretended Conscience, and Toleration, and want of Authority in the Civil Magistrate to punish them: They must obey, as well as the false Prophets, and Schismatics of the Old Testament. M.S. 3. Answ. The servants of Christ should not fall foul for uniformity in Discipline, and the greater eat up the less: God hath provided other means. 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 God's 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 Civil Magistrate, in imitation of Moses, or rather of God, is bound in duty, only to admit one, and that the most conform to Scripture; unless he will bring in Factions and Schisms both into Church and Commonwealth: and that principally, when any of them may be dangerous for both, as Independency, which may prove more dangerous than seven Heresies. But in all this, M.S. answereth not my Argument formally, but most ridiculously grants the Premises, 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 Suitors 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 less grinded for non-conformity 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 proceed 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 yourselves 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 Ministeriss take not upon themselves any thing, but to resist you with the Arms of the Spirit; yet must you think, that the Civil Magistrate hath no less power over you here, than your Civil Magistrate hath over Sectaries in New-England. 11. But it were better for you, Brethren, to take a resolution to live with us in unity, under such a Discipline, as may be concluded and settled in the fear of God. But cannot you live in this World, unless you give a Law to all the World? What you say of Presbyterians, in assuming of something imperious, etc. 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 Maxim in Philosophy, 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 Christ's 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 Kingdom, and the Protestant Armies, which God blessed under a Protestant King, against the Pope, the Papists and Jesuits, who would have pulled the Crown off his head, to set it upon Don Philip's; that so fight for his Crown, he might also fight for that of Christ jesus, and establish it gloriously in his Kingdom. 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 employed all their endeavours to oppress it, yea against all Law: They are bound to their King, who is also bound to them, for fight 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, than I can declare it, viz. by Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority. M. S. his 3. Answer or Objection against my Reason, cometh to this; That by the same Reason, Papists will not tolerate Protestants, whom they hold for Schismatics. A.S. 1. This is only said, but not proved. 2. They neither tolerate Heretics, nor Schismatics, when they can hinder them. 3. The Papists hold not us simply for Schismatics, but also for Heretics. 4. And consequently, if your Argument hold, That we must tolerate whatsoever they tolerate; since they tolerate us in quality of Heretics, in their judgement, we must also tolerate Heretics, yea jews also, and permit them Synagogues, as they do; yea, we must tolerate an hundred Religions, as the States of Poland do. 5. The question is not, what Papists will, but what both we, and they should do; or rather what Gods Word commands us to do: We take not Antichrist, but Christ and his Word for a pattern of our duty. M.S. his 4. Answ. Whereas you say, that they granted not a Toleration to divers Sects, do 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 subtle, who of a Negative infers an Affirmative; even as if I should conclude thus: M. S. is not divers Schismatics or Heretics; Ergo, He is one Heretic: This man hath not committed divers Adulteries; Ergo, He hath committed one Adultery. Have you never learned, good M.S. that old Rhyme, wherein there is more Reason than Poetry: 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 style it. 3. And since you appeal to my Conscience in this Point, you must submit to my judgement; otherwise you profane the Name of God. M. S. 5. Answer is, That Toleration is rei malae; and therefore the Apologists should not be Suitors 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, than 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 do you think of Sinite utrumque crescere; Let both grow together until 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 Maxim, that Symbolica Theologia non est argumentativa; Symbolical or parabolical Theology furnisheth no good Argument. Now this is a Parable; for the Text saith, v. 3. And he spoke many things to them in Parables● 2. I believe, that by both, viz. the Wheat and the Tares, our Saviour meaneth not Heretics, but all the Good, or the Faithful, and the Wicked; so that, if out of this you will conclude a Toleration, ye must conclude a Toleration for Adulterers, Murderers, Parricides, Ravilliacks, and Gunpowder Traitors, Chatells, Regicides. 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 believe, that Christ speaketh there to the Apostles, and will not that they usurp the Civil Magistrates power, in punishing of them that are of his cognizince, yea, though he will not do it. And so do our learned and godly Ministers; they do their duty with the sword of the Spirit, and leave the Material sword unto the Civil Magistrate, as proper unto him, as the Spiritual is unto them, for He caries not the sword in vain. Neither must they meddle with the Material, nor he with the Spiritual sword. 5. If they must be tolerated, according to God's Word, how have you taken the Covenant, and so solemnly sworn, and subscribed with your hands, the extirpation of Papists and of all the Hierarchy? 6. Servet (who called the Trinity a threeheaded Cat, and denied 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 Heretics brought before you; so ye tread directly in their steps, and have made choice of a pretty pattern. A. S. 16. Argument is taken from the practice of the Independents of New England; whose ways and practices (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 courtesy, which no man can obtain of the Independents, where they have authority, viz. in New England; That courtesy should they not be suitors for here in Old England. But a Toleration of a New Religion, or Discipline, of Sects and Heresies, is a courtesy, that no man can obtain of the Independents, where they have authority, viz. in New England. Ergo, Toleration is a courtesy, that they i e. Independents should not be suitors 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, than our dear Brethren have tasted already in the sorrowful times of their Afflictions? Without doubt, being great Politicians, and Undertakers, zealous in the Noviciate and Infaney of their Sect, and no less cunning, and politic, than the jesuites 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 clearly, by the proceed of New England, and the Sectaries bred in the Independent Sect, whereof some women have been the Ringleaders, as one Mistress Hutchinson, and sundry others, whom they would not ways 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 Nonconformity; 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 poor, and afflicted Brethren, whom yet they acknowledged to be of very sound Doctrine, and holiness of life. As for this Argument, M. S. because he cannot answer the Minor, he sends me to New England to seek 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 fain know, what I mean to do with this Story. A. S. Since he pretends so great dulness, I have put the Argument in Form for him, and shown him, how I serve myself of it, to confirm my Minor by. M. S. proveth, that this Story cannot serve me, for, saith he, i. e. A. S. doth not approve of those proceed, viz. of the Independents of N. E. A. S. It is all one, for I argue only ex Concessis, which maketh it an Argument ad hominem, and showeth how that in so doing, and by such Suing for a Toleration here, ye stand not to your own principles, but change them with the Climate; whereof I say, what a very grave Precedent of the Court of Parliament of Paris said to the jesuits, upon the like case: The Lord keep me from men that have one faith on the one, and another on the other side of the Alps: So I to you, God keep me from Men, who maintain some Principles in America, or New England, and the contrary in Europe or in Old England. I pray you, holy Fathers, drink together and agree, before ye come to put us here in combustion. M. S. Is the man so full of the spirit of Reprehension, against such practices? and yet so full of the spirit of imitation? i. e. If A. S. reprove such practices; he should not imitate them. A. S. I have answered, 1. That my Argument proves not, what I should do; but what ye should not do: It is Argumentum ad hominem: 2. I Answer again, that we persecute not Independents, as you say; but hinder them, to sow their Tares; They have never been, nor are they, nor are they ever like to be persecuted by the Parliament, as I hope: I hope the Independents will have more Conscience, then to give just occasion unto the Parliament to punish them; but if they continue in their pertinacy and the Parliament refuse then to grant them a Toleration, it will no more be a Persecution, than it would be, to hinder men to blaspheme God's Name. 3. I cannot imitate them, for I have no power or authority, as those, whose practices I refute; Only I plead for the Truth, and show what should be done. 4. Howbeit I had authority amongst the Dependants, as they have amongst those pretended Independent Creatures; yet could I not imitate them, in refusing of a toleration; for the case would not be the same, or alike. 5. And I grant you, that if the Cause ye maintain, were as just, as it is unjust, those of New England should do well to refuse us a Toleration. 6. And yet could they not so justly refuse us our demand, as we refuse you yours; for the Presbyterians, who were Suitors for a Toleration in New England, were only Suitors for Presbyterians, and those very few in number; whereas M. S. and his Colleagues plead for a Toleration of all sorts of Independents, yea of all the Sects of the World, for any thing we know. In the same Sect p. 103. He condemneth such practices in his Brethren of New England, in saying, that in such proceed, they justified not themselves in the sight of God, viz. justitia causae. 7. Neither doth either God, or our Conscience judge us in such proceed. i e. Condemn us, for we judge according to God's Word, that divers Sects, which ye would have Tolerated, are not to be Tolerated, but that they are all to be suppressed. 8. Whereas he sayeth, that I am more of the Opinion of the Independents of New England, than the Apologists, I am glad, that he is ashamed of his Fathers. And I agree with them in this, that Heretics, Schismatics, and Idolaters, are not to be Tolerated by the Church of God, which the Independents of Old England deny most boldly. What ye say of the Independent Apologists, that they profess not persecution merely for little differences in point of Discipline; I Answer, 1. They do well to profess it, since their power, as yet, is very small; But what they may profess, if they can get any power into their hands, we know not. 2. Only we say, that the American Independents, who are Ejusdem speciei with you, so soon as ever they had authority, did other ways, than ye say the Apologetical Independents do profess without authority. 3. And it may be, that they being Ministers, will profess it; but will you assure us, that your Magistrates, who are Independents, shall profess the same? M. S. Addeth, if they did so for want of light, must this be a band of conscience upon them to bow down their backs, and to suffer Presbyterian greatness to go over them, as stones in the street? A. S. In a word, this is to deny the consequence of my Major, which I have confirmed. But I Answer, 1. The Question is not of Presbyterians; neither did I speak of them in my Argument. 2. The Presbyterians, yea their Nationall Churches inflict none, but spiritual punishments, which every congregational Independent Church, compounded, peradventure of seven, or eight, idle Fellows only arrogate unto themselves. 3. What you say of the want of Light in the Independents of New England, it is ridiculous; for they say, that they have more Light, than all the Quinqu' Ecclesian Ministers, and will hold you, as blind, as ye hold them: No wonder, that so Independent Lights be so contradictory one to another. 4. I wonder how ye can call that rather a Presbyterian greatness, wherein the Spirit of Prophets submit unto Prophets, and the less unto the greater Light, then that, wherein six, or seven, silly Fellows, and a little Independent Minister, be they never so erroneous in their Opinions, and execrable in their lives, will not submit unto the whole Christian World. M. S. Again, he says p. 104. that out of fear they are Suitors for a Toleration, if they do not bestir themselves by some means or other to prevent it. A. S. This is not Metus justus, sed injustus, qui non cadit in virum constantem, It is not a just, but an unjust fear, that becometh not men, but Children, who fear their own shadows at Noonday; Some men do fear flies, and such is your fear, for it is a Maxim of our Discipline, that men should not be compelled to be Actors in any thing against their Conscience; and this might suffice to put you out of fear; which if it cannot do, we cannot cure Pisander's fear: What ill usage have you received here of the Parliament, that should make you so fearful? What you mean by your means to prevent it, I know not, unless they be those, that some of the People offered, who were so capable of new impressions, that the 5. Apologists mention in their Apology, or that other, viz. That the Independent party did offer to entertain 4000 men in these Wars, provided they might have had liberty to have made choice of their Commanders. What he says in the rest of this § in his 4. Answer, is but a tale, and is sundry times answered. As for that he says in the next § of my fear, it is a just fear, grounded upon experience. But M. S. Replieth, 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 fear also, viz. That ye would Tolerate all Sects, which we will not Tolerate. 2. We 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 fear. 4. I said only, that there be some of you, who would Tolerate all Sects, who peradventure are the far lesser part, and should not prevail in their Voices. 5. And we know not upon what terms 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 merciless Pity 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 spoke 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 terms) as ye grant yourself of your New England Independents. Unto his 3. Reply, That a poor Toleration is far from Superiority; it is true: But from a Toleration, it is to be feared, ye go further: And if ye can get the Civil 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 jeer, and toucheth not the Argument at all. He puts in 5. a Jeer 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 ● Civil or State-toleration, but an Ecclesiastic or Church toleration. A. S. Howbeit formally there only be meant an Ecclesiastic Toleration; yet by Consequence it reaches to a State Toleration. 1. For whatsoever the Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery is bound not to tolerate, but must suppress in the Church; that the Civil Magistrate or Senate is bound not to tolerate, but must suppress 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 God's people. 3. And so do the Christian Independent Magistrates in New-England. 4. Neither is the Christian Magistrate less bound to put it out of the State, than 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 believe I, that they dare say, or at least do believe, that he is not bound to suppress all sort of Sects, that creep in into the Church, when the whole Kingdom 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 Schismatics, Heretics, and Idolaters, that may spring up, either in their own, or any other Church. 7. Neither can the Civil Magistrate, if he follow God's Word, grant a Toleration without the consent of the Church, if he judge it is not corrupted. 8. And a Magistrate should be worse than mad, that should permit a Sect to come into the Kingdom, to preach down the Gospel, which he believeth. 9 Neither can he be Orthodox, and tolerate a new Sect, unless he tolerate us to believe, that he is either corrupted by moneys, or some other way, so to do. 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 itself; 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 gain by this Argument, as you confess; 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 Civil 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 Kingdom, as Schismatics, and Heretics? The Civil 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 discuss 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 Apollo's, etc. M.S. We join heart and hand with you. A. S. And I with you; so they must not be tolerated, when they can be hindered. M. S. addeth here a But: 1. Every man that saith, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollo's, is not to be taught to speak better by fining, imprisoning, un-Churching, or the like; but by soundness 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 condignly by Ecclesiastical Censures, viz. suspension from the Lords Table, or Excommunication: And afterward the Civil Magistrate is to do his duty, as a Nurse of the Church, in compelling them by the Civil power, to obey the Church: But in both these punishments, viz. Spiritual and Temporal, it is not for the Sinner to judge whether or no he be sufficiently convicted, since he being a Party, cannot be judge in his own cause; but it is the part of the Ecclesiastical Senate to judge, whether he be sufficiently convicted in foro Ecclesiastico; and of the Civil 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, etc. I mean not the names, but the things signified by such names. A.S. Neither hath the Church of Goda custom to be contentious, 1 Cor. 11.16. This I brought to prove, that Schisms 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 custom 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 impertinency; 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 intolerableness of a toleration of Sects. I prove sufficiently elsewhere, what you can desire about the subordination of Ecclesiastical Judicatories. A. S. Neither permitteth the Apostle Schisms. 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 mutual meetings, as others do, and as must be done in a public 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 form by any Logician, against Toleration; It will be thus: What maketh us to quit our mutual meetings, as others do, is not to be tolerated: But Schisms and Heresies make us to quit our mutual meetings: Ergo, They are not to be tolerated. M.S. We do not know, what quitting of meetings there is like to be more under a public Toleration, then is for the present. A.S. So he seemeth to deny the Minor; but I prove it; for in tolerating of Schisms, we see, that men, being deceived by the Schismatics, do quit the meetings of the Church, to which before they were joined: And we see, how the Independents frequent not willingly our Churches, and will not all join with us in our meetings at the Lords Table: Neither believe I, that any of the five Apologetic Ministers have ever communicated in our Assemblies, since this Parliament. A. S. 18. Because that M.S. chargeth my 18. Reason with Atheism, I will put it in form: 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 certain; for it is scandalum datum, which all Divines do condemn. The Minor, I prove it; for it giveth, and the Papists thereupon take too just a cause of Scandal 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 Christ's Churches in pieces. M. S. to this answereth not, but propoundeth some Questions. 1. Will you, saith he, redeem yourself out of the hands of the Papists calumnies by symbolising with them? A. S. I Answer, 1. That it is no symbolising with Papists if we tolerate not Heretics and Schismatics; for you have already confessed, that in your particular Churches you tolerate them not; and yet you believe that your Churches symbolise no more with them then ours. 2. It is a strange thing, if my Argument be Atheological, 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 Atheological in your judgement, I am assured that all Theologues will conceive better of it, then of this your Theological Answer. Neither have I forgot my 11. Reason, for you symbolise with them in their Popery, and I in true Theology, viz. in maintaining the Unity of the Church with Saint Paul, as you symbolise with Sectaries in maintaining the renting of the Church by Schisms: If you had shown any Contradiction in my words, I had either answered it, or, if I could not, I should have rendered myself 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, sense, nonsense, any thing, nothing, etc. A. S. All this is no sense, nothing, but words and wind of Goodwin. As for the 19th. Reason, he remitteth us to the former Question to seek 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 only that it was God's Ordinance, which yet they could never show out of God's Word: On the contrary, if it be refused, it will help to confirm the Churches, and the people in the truth. M. S. In substance, 1. denieth that a Toleration will seem 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 seem 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 Book, it is not my expression, but M. S. his fiction and imposture. Neither should the Assembly (in my poor Opinion) so easily suffer themselves to be entreated for ill; neither is there any mercy in tolerating and not suppressing of Schisms and Heresies, as M. S. believeth. 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 creep into the Church; and it is most absurd, that there should be no Ecclesiastical power to repress the Heresies and abominable sins of seven or eight wicked Fellows, whereof a particular Independent Church may be compoed, in case they fall into Heresy, or such abominable sins. Whereas M. S. says, that it is not like, that so very learned men, etc. such as are the 5. Apologists, should rise up to defend an opinion so contrary to all reason. A. S. It is more like that learned men of great abilities should do so, than ignorants that have not the abilities. The Devil is learneder, than they all, and yet sustaineth as absurd Opinions: Divine Plato as learned, as they, defended the Community of Wives, of Children, and Goods: Zeno did maintain, that there was no moving at all: So did sundry great Philosophers maintain great Errors; and great Divines, as Origine, and sundry of the Fathers strangely mistook sundry things. Ifthey 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 doth 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 show, 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 Errors; 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 godliness amongst them above all the World, and that they do what Flesh and Blood can do in any juncture of time to come, must they plead, 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 entreat others to pardon my mistaken Charity; Bring not my Charity by any means for an Argument against me: Believe, I pray you, that praises signify rather the virtue, 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 fight for their Protestant Prince, against Papists; 2. And their Discipline opens not a gate to all Heresies and Licentiousness, as yours. 3. And if they had had no greater difference with the Papists, than 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 yourselves; 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, than 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 licentiousness 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 judgement; they needed not to be suitors for a Toleration; for the Discipline, that they suffered for, was already established by Law; As for the rest of this Section, it containeth only his proud judgement 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, etc. 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 God's Word, whereof we see nothing here. 3. M. S. saith, that they have shown it from God's 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 shown, 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: Only this I say, That of your hope, you may say, O spes inanes. M. S. To that, where I say, the refusal 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 believe, 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 errors, they will not be so diligent to inquire for the Truth, as otherways they might be. A. S. 21. Argument. Neither can it, viz. Toleration, but overthrow all sort of Ecclesiastical 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 Prophesy, that the Independent Government will overthrow all other Government, and addeth, Faxit Deus. A. S. 1. My words contain no prophecy, 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 Conscientious 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 only a great number of disorders. 3. No more doth the Presbyterian Order oppress Conscientious 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 Conscientious 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 Heretical, and their practices never so tyrannical, will not submit, but oppress men better than themselves, compel them to be gone from their Congregation, and so undo them, 3. In making them to attend, peradventure a year, or two, before they will meet with other Churches, to have their unjust judgement judged and reversed; of which practices, see sundry very strange Stories in Master Edward's Book, who knoweth them intus & in cute; which one of their Sect, writing in their favour not many days ago, doth ingenuously confess, They make not (indeed) men to walk sundry miles, for what they might have at home; but they sundry times oppress them at home, and undo them, for what they might have gotten within a few miles, for the hundred part of the loss that they suffered at home; whereof see Master Edward's 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 only 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 God's Mercy, that the very weakness of the Independents Reasons, (howbeit we brought no Reasons at all against them) would evidently show, how slight 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 Magistrate's hand; yet, that any man should plead for the drawing of his sword against those men, etc. And a little after, that any (I say) on this side of malignancy, should consult the sorrow, trouble, disgrace, suppression, ruin of men so holy, so harmless, 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 mankind. A. S. 1. This Discourse seemeth to imply two Arguments. First, Men very holy, very harmless, of very eminent deserts in the Cause of Religion, State, Kingdom, should not receive sorrow, trouble, disgrace, suppression, or ruin. But we the Independents are such. Ergo. M. S. his second Argument, They who plead for the drawing of the sword, consult sorrow, etc. against so holy men, etc. have some Inspiration from the Devil, or great Enemy of mankind. But A. S. pleads for the drawing of the sword, etc. Ergo. To the first Argument I answer: 1. In general, 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 harmlessness, etc. And therefore, not to offend them, I will not say, that they are not such: Only I say, that whosoever pleads for a Toleration of all damnable and most detestable Heretics, (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 harmless. 2. I deny the Major, if it be taken absolutely, without any distinction; for if the Righteous turn from his righteousness, and do the thing that is wicked, he shall die therein, Ezek. 33.28. So they are not to suffer for their harmlessness, 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, than other mortal men. To the second Argument, I answer to the Major. 1. They have some inspiration, etc. if they consult sorrow against them for their holiness, it is true: But the Minor is false; for I never pleaded any sorrow against them, for their holiness; neither am I minded to plead any sorrow, or the drawing of the sword against them; but only 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 Civil Magistrate's Authority, about the Church and Religion. I will not answer unto this Independents Injuries, when he calleth all those, Malignants, who plead for the Civil Magistrates Power, as I do, and men inspired by the Devil. Only this I say, That if such men who kerb so the Kings, the Parliaments, and all Civil Magistrate's 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 profess: 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 show 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, than 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? Truly 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, unless some urgent necessity press 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, Godliness, 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 only 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 practices, which cannot, but in all moral probability, overthrew the State, and the Church of God: There must only 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 kind; envieth not; vaunteth not itself, as ye do, is not puffed up, as ye are; that is not easily provoked, thinketh not evil; beareth all things, believeth 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, doubtlessly, by some Independent, or some other disguised person) so stuffed with these his impious Maxims against the Church, the State, and all Piety, and with mine own ears, heard some very dangerous Expressions of the Sectaries, who pass 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 rejoiceth in the Truth. I will not speak ill of your persons; but if Master Edward's have such things under the Independents hands, as his Book mentions, as in Charity I am bound to believe he hath, I am bound to think otherways, than 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 virtues, are rather to show what men should be, than always what they are. Wise and godly men rest not so much upon other men's 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 effectual activity and forwardness, 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 business, or retarded it: Truly, 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 business, be to plead for impunity, in favour of God's Enemies, of all Heretics and Schismatics, 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 practices. 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 men's 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 man's Estate, and what he hath laid out in this War: If so, I pray you M. S. tell me, what Soldiers and Officers; whether of the Independents, Presbyterians, or others, have been best paid? 4. I deny the Consequence; for they must not buy a toleration of their odd ways and practices with Money; for that were no better, than Simony; if they laid it out with aim at any such thing, they are worthy to be deceived. M. S. his sixth Argument. They have many of them, such as were meet for such a Service, adventured their Persons and Lives in the face of the rage and fury of the common Enemy, continuing still in the same Engagements. Ergo, They must be tolerated. A. S. 1. Will you never desist from bragging of your Independent merits, and from making of these odious comparisons. 2. It is a strange thing, that this M. S. who, as I hear, is but a Minister, having no other Calling, can judge so peremptoriously of all men's Estates, Piety, and Valour: Men, who knoweth him not, in reading of such Stories, would think, that he had been evermore in the Field; and had seen a proof of every particular man's valour in all these Fights. 3. But did not many others, that were but mercenary, yea, eightpeny Soldiers, as much? 4. And yet will ye not infer, I trow, from thence, that they merit a toleration in their wicked ways. 5. It is a poor advantage for you, to compare yourselves with good men, in that wherein many ill men, yea, wicked men may compare with you both, yea, and perchance go beyond you. 6. They have indeed done well; but it was for the maintenance of their Estates, for their Country, and for their Liberties, etc. But the French, yea, others also, and those Presbyterians, came out of their Country, that had no Estates, or Liberties here to lose; and yet did what they could for the Cause; and yet will not I compare them with any others, for fear lest I should offend them both. M. S. his seventh Argument. Some of them have exposed themselves to more danger, and harder terms from the Adverse Party, then ordinary (in case they should prevail) by a public vindication of the Cause of the Parliament in Print, from the Scriptures, and that before any man of differing judgement from them in Church-Affairs, appeared in the Cause, upon such terms. Ergo, Men so holy, so harmless, of such eminent desert in the Cause of Religion, State, and Kingdom, should be tolerated. A. S. 1. But what a Braggadochio is this? It's pity, but he had been a Spaniard; What is there in all these Arguments, but bragging, boasting, vaunting, and proud, and odious comparisons? I will say nothing here of this Sect, yet must I say of this M. S. and the rest of the Ringleaders of it, That I have never read of any Divines so selfconceited. 2. No man can say, that any of these Arguments have any other medium or ground, save pride, and self-conceit: It is for aught, we know, or that appeareth in writing, the likest to Lucifers, that ever we saw. 3. If such cracking merit any Answer at all, the Antecedent is notoriously false; for the Scots appeared before that any of your Independents ever shown their Heads, yea, before that the Parliament was called here. Master Prynne also, who is no Independent, appeared from the beginning, and yet continues a man in Learning, Piety, and Reading, as I believe, inferior to none of you all; as appeareth by his writing against Arminians, Episcopacy, yea, and the Archb. of Canterbury, in the most dangerous times, having put him down by Scripture, and invincible Arguments grounded thereupon; and afterwards by his Law, so involved him in Premunires, that what ever Counsel he could take, he could never Extricate himself. Neither did he, as your pretended Martyrs, when he was in prison; he scorned to live upon other men's purses, or to make himself rich by his Martyrdom, in taking, what ever good Christians could offer them; he was chargeable to no man; and yet I am assured, as I am well informed, he might by his sufferings have become rich: Neither say I this to flatter him, or to depress you, (for I never frequented him much; neither, according to ordinary Providence, can I in time to come, have much to do with any of you) but to beat down that insupportable and proud Argument of yours, grounded upon your merits of Supererogation. It would seem by your Discourse, that neither Heaven, nor Earth, is sufficient to recompense so deserving men. 4. I deny the Consequence; for your Sect is not to be tolerated for any service you have done to the State, if it be not conform to God's Word. 1. For I'll warrant you, if Jews could obtain such a Toleration, as ye aim at, they would appear upon the same terms, as you do. 2. And the Popish Rebels of Ireland propound the same Argument to the King's Majesty, that ye propound here. 5. They deal a great deal fairer, who press every man to keep his Covenant with God; in pulling down of Popery, Arminianism, all Sects and Heresies, according to their solemn Oath, for a Toleration whereof you are here a suitor, against your Oath. Ergo, I will say nothing but this, That it is just with God, that he never tolerate them, who will tolerate so many Sects, to dishonour him: As for myself, if all the World should subscribe such an Oath, I hope in God's Mercy, I should never be drawn to subscribe it: 7. Neither think I, that any man can do it, without perjury, and manifest breach of that solemn Covenant, already entered into. The Lord preserve us from playing thus fast, and lose with Oaths. 8. If such a Toleration of all Sects, which this man disputes so hard for, were granted, what could it be, but the utter dishonour of this Parliament, the Church of God, and all the three Kingdoms? 9 Should not the Jesuits have just subject to jeer at all the Books we have formerly written against their Equivocations, if we ourselves should so equivocate with the living God? 10. Should we not justify the Bishops, who have so calumniated, and cried down the Parliament, for bringing in, and tolerating of so many Sects and Heresies, Tub-Preaching? etc. 11. Is the Religion of Oxford, yea, of the Rebels of Ireland, worse than this? 12. What had we to do to undergo such a War against the Malignants, if we were minded to tolerate all the Religions, we now fight against? yea, and many others ten times worse? What were that, but to show ourselves more Malignant's than they are? yea, to declare them just, and ourselves, perfidious Rebels? Sure he, that would subscribe such a Toleration, must be out of his wits, worse than a Papist, yea, than a Pagan. 13. Neither know we any such Toleration, but amongst the Turks, who yet tolerate no man to speak against Mahumet. 14. And I must say, that it were better living amongst the Turks, then amongst such Christians; for the less their light is, the more are they; and the greater ours, the greater is our sin, and the more inexcusable are we. 15. And if the Parliament should follow your Counsel, 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, than 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 Maxim 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 Temporal and Civil Matters hath not an absolute, but a limited Power, and that because, that Sovereign Power is originally in the People, but subjectiuè, 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 itself; wherefore then will Independents be Suitors 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 Maxims of State, so pernicious 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 easy to offer yourselves to be Sacrificed, when there is no Priest, and when no man offers you any violence, but only prays 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 believe, that ye speak sincerely: Always, 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 lose 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 yourselves; and what an undervalue ye put upon all the World besides. I am assured, that servatâ proportione, one of your lives is better than the Kings, and all the Parliaments, put together; for there is none of them, but rather than that one man should die, 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 Civil Magistrate, to punish Idolaters, Heretics, and Schismatics, 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 Ministry thereof, For the casting down imaginations, and every high thing, that exalts itself 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, etc. Ephes. 4.11, 12. etc. Ergo, The Civil Magistrate hath no power to punish Heretics, Schismatics, etc. but must tolerate them. A. S. 1. I deny the Consequence; For the Ministers of the Church are anointed to beat them down by Spiritual means, viz. The Word, etc. whereof alone those Texts speak: But the Civil Magistrate is anointed, or called to beat them down by other means, viz. by Civil Power, and Civil Laws, which he is bound to make thereabouts, and to see observed. 2. If this Argument hold, the Civil Magistrate cannot beat down, by his Civil Authority, Sins committed against the second Table, as Adultery, Murder, etc. 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 Ministry, or Ecclesiastical 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 Ministry alone, and no other means, or Ministers, as the Laws of the Kingdom and the Civil Magistrate, in a Political way, for such an effect. 5. It is true, as M. S. says, that God gave not some in the Church, to be Kings, Princes, Judges, and Justices of Peace, Pursuivants, Jailers, etc. For Christ, and his Apostles erected not any Civil Government in the State, but supposed it already constituted in the Old Testament: And that the Civil Magistrate therein, was endowed with Civil Authority, to punish such as trouble the Peace of the Church. 6. Howbeit, that in this Text, there is no mention made of the Civil 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 Final 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 Political Ordinance concerning God's service, Whosoever resisteth his power, resists the Ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselvet condemnation, both eternal and temporal, Vers. 2. if thou do that which is evil, 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 evil: 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, Verse. 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 Civil Authority about the Church, and out of the Church: That were, as if I should say; The internal Causes, as Materia & Forma, are necessary to the Generation of a man; Ergo, The Externall, as the Efficient and Final, viz. God and man are not necessary. M. S. 2. The Ministers of the Church must perform their Office with meekness, 2 Tim. 2.24. Ergo, They must not threaten men with delivering them over to the Civil Magistrate. A. S. I answer to the Antecedent; They must perform their duty, not only with meekness; but also with severity, when necessity requireth it, as we see in Saint Paul. 2. The Text, 2 Tim. 2.24. speaketh only of meekness in teaching; In meekness (saith the Apostle) instructing those that oppose themselves, if peradventure God will give them repentance. 3. It only saith, that they must use meekness, when men are docilo; when there is any hope of Repentance; and not with pertinacious Heretics, and Schismatics, 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 Civil Magistrate, they may do that also with meekness: Neither is such a proceeding contrary to meekness; for the meekest man of the World may accuse his Party before the Civil Magistrate; and yet not be thought inhuman, or cruel. 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 special gift of God, and whereof no man is capable, by his own industry, the want of it (being in itself a judgement of God, and withal, no ways prejudicial, or hurtful unto others) should not expose him to further punishment and misery: But Repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth, is a special gift of God, and the want thereof, a judgement of God; etc. 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 prejudicial 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 Civil Magistrate should not punish Heretics and Schismatics, or that they should be tolerated in the State. And therefore, 4. we may grant him all the Argument. Neither doth the Civil Magistrate punish any man for want of Repentance, or for his ignorance, which are in the mind 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 Civil Magistrate, and the Ministers of Christ, must pity them, and travel for their instruction and amendment. This is far from proving either a Toleration of the Public Exercise of Heretical Doctrines, or of Schisms, or that the Civil 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 profess outwardly, what they believe not in their Consciences, is not lawful: But Externall Compulsion of Heretics, Schismatics, etc. in matters of Religion, made by the Civil Magistrate, is such: Ergo, It is unlawful, and consequently not to be tolerated. A. S. I answer to the first Proposition; If it make men worse per Accidens, not of itself, but in virtue of some Accident, annexed to the person, that becometh worse; it is false: If it do it per se, by its own virtue, and efficacy; it is true: But then the Assumption is false; for the Civil Magistrate, in punishing Heretics and Schismatics, etc. 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 judgement and Command to make them at all ill, much less to make them worse; since the effect of it per se is only to imprison their bodies, to fine them, or, if they merit it, to exile them, or take their lives; which produceth no moral ill, but a great good, viz. a hindrance of them to vent abroad their Heresies and Schisms. So it maketh them not Hypocrites per se; but only they per se make themselves Hypocrites: They are bound to suffer themselves to be taught the Truth, so to believe 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 Civil Power. A. S. Your erroneous Conscience can breed no true, and real 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 Jesuits 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 Devil: But it cannot be laid upon you by God; for he cannot lay a band upon you, to serve the Devil, or to despite himself, for so he should be the Author of sin; nor by the Devil; for then the band laid upon you to serve him, should be greater than 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 virtue thereof, remaineth a sinner, and obeyeth it. Some will Answer, 7. That Conscientia erronea ligat, sed non obligat, an erroneous Conscience binds 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 Heretic is bound to believe what the Magistrate willeth him to believe; But whether he should have power to erect Churches against the Orthodox Religion, as the Independents would; And whether, or no, the Civil Magistrate can hinder him by his Civil Power, from so doing. Now the Argument proveth not the Negative part; neither doth the Civil Magistrate compel private men to believe, but not to trouble the peace of the Church, in setting up of others without his permission. M. S. his fifth Reason; If the Civil Magistrate hath an actual Coercive power to suppress Schisms and Heresies, etc. because he is truly a Christian; then Christianity changeth the property, and tenor of his Magistracy, and that for the worse; for in virtue 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 actual Coercive power, howbeit, they have not both actually the act of that Power; for both the one, and the other, hath that Moral power in actu signato, or the Remote power; but the Christian Magistrate only 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 Child, 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 terror to good works. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power? Do that which is good, Verse. 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 fight 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, etc. Ergo. The Assumption, he proveth it, because the Opinions that he sees by other men's eyes to be schismatical, may be the ways of God. 1. Because the judgements of these men are not Apostolical. 2. Frequent experience shows, that a Minor part, yea, an inconsiderable number of godly Persons in a Church, may have the mind 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, than the Magistracy itself: so as if it be dangerous to own the Magistracy; so is it likewise to own that part of it, whereby, in virtue of his Civil 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 less against the Civil, and Ecclesiastical Government of the Old Testament, and that of the Civil 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 virtue of the Magistracy, to accept it, as the principal part thereof. 4. The greater that the danger and difficulty be, so much the greater is the virtue 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 Apostolical: 1. But no more are the judgements of your particular Congregations. 2. Or those of the King and Parliament, or of any mortal men, at least ordinarily, and yet notwithstanding they are lawful. 3. Neither is it needful, that they be infallible, but without fault only. 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, God's truth Ordinarily should not prevail. 5. All Schismatics and Heretics, who are few in number, may say as much; So Mistress Hutchinson in New England, I'll warrant you, said no less. To the third. 1. I deny, that the truth, whereof we dispute, hath been under the Hatches, as ye pretend. 2. All Heretics and Schismatics 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 profane Politician, who would rule the Church and Religion, according to Political Ends. M. S. 7. Reason. That Power, which was never attributed to the Civil Magistrate, by any Christians, but only 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 Errors, Schisms, Heresies, etc. was never attributed to the Civil Magistrate, by any Christian, but only 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 Ecclesiastical 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 Political Power, that is extrinsecall to the Church, whereby he punishes Heretics and Schismatics, by Civil punishments, the Minor is false, as I have already showed by my Arguments; And what he saith of my tenderness, etc. 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 nearer Immediate power, or in actu exercito, the Minor is true of the , 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 Civil 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 Civil Magistrate, against Heretics, Schismatics, etc. in matters of Religion, tends directly to prevent, hinder, or suppress, 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 Civil 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 find it, against the Tenets of the Civil Magistrate, one of two things must follow. Either out of fear of punishment, he withholdeth the truth in unrighteousness; 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 denied. 2. I deny that the power of the Civil Magistrate, since it is only 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 error; 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 Civil Magistrate, tends to the gratification of Satan, and of carnal and profane men: Ergo, It is not of God. A. S. I deny the Antecedent; for than it should be a gratification of Satan, to punish Heretics and Schismatics; 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 judgement. 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 Civil Magistrates Authority; and some of you, as one M. S. in the first Edition of his Book, writes, that the name of Stevart hath been funest to England, in King James, and King Charles. 2. If they suffer, I'll 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 lose, or no Conscience, should delight to swim against the streams of greatness or plurality in matters of Religion. A. S. But the Devil 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 swimming against the streams of greatness and plurality. M. S. proveth the second part of the Assumption, viz. That such a Civil Power in the Civil Magistrate, about matters of Religion, is a gratification of ignorant and carnal men; because they desire always, Sects, and Opinions in Religion to be suppressed, save only 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 carnal, who desire one only, and that the true Religion to be established; and they only learned, and spiritual, that desire many Sects, and Heresies, whereby the good Name of God is blasphemed, to subsist? 3. If that be ill; I am afraid 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 criminal, 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 show your great Learning in refuting of them, as the Soldiers would have the War to continue, to show their valour, and therein to find 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 Civil Magistrate. Ergo. The Major, I grant it. The Assumption, if it have any sense, is this in substance: When a man is deeply threatened, in case he shall not comply with the State, in their Religion, against his Conscience, 1. Either God leaves such a man's Conscience to itself, and it is hardened; 2. Or by reflecting upon what it hath done, it brings itself 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 Heretical, and go to the Devil. But I answer, 1. The Assumption is false; for the Externall Coactive Power, that A. S. grants unto the Civil Magistrate, is only to repress Heretics, and Schismatics, 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. says: And as for his Supposition, either that Conscience, whereof he speaketh, is right, or erroneous: If it be right; the Civil Magistrate should not press 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 Civil 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 Foreign Countries, and urge their Religion upon the State, and establish it, without permission of the Magistrate, or against his Laws, than their Consciences cannot be right; for wherefore should the King, Parliament, and State, be rather bound to admit such men's Religion, without sufficient conviction, than they to admit his Religion? And in such a Case, the Civil 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 man's Conscience be erroneous, the Civil 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 God's 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 Friars, that kill Kings, pretend evermore Conscience, as the Independents do; and yet the Civil Magistrate puts them to death. 4. If any man's Conscience, (which God forbidden) 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 man's Conscience; it can only 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, unless that its Error be Invincible, Antecedent, and he no ways the cause of it; but if it be Vincible, Concomitant, or Subsequent, and he himself the cause of it, than it excuseth him not, but is a sin, and aggravates the sin that proceedeth of it, at least extensiuè, if not intensiuè; For in such a case, it is not his erroneous Conscience, that is the cause of the sinful action of his Will, but his sinful Will, that is the cause of his erroneous Conscience. 9 The Civil Magistrates threatening, 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 Civil Magistrates Intention, his judgement, or the Execution of it in such a case, they cause no ill, but good; for his Intention is only, that they be gained to Christ, and that they seduce not others; His judgement condemneth only their Opinion, and commands a punishment answerable to their Sin, whereby only they are hindered to continue in their Heresies, or Schisms, or to seduce others: No more doth the Execution of his judgement. 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, unless that all Schismatics, Heretics, Jews, Mahometans, 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 blind Fortuna, and to Preach such Abominations; and that the Civil Magistrates power be ever curtaled, or rather altogether taken away in matters in Religion. I will not call this a madness, but I am well assured, that many are recommended to the Church's 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 only 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 Heretical, 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 Believers, meeting in one place, every Lord's Day, for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God, to public Edification. So according to this Definition, neither the Catholic Church, which we believe in the Creed, nor any Nationall Church can be a true Church, since they cannot meet together, every Lord's Day in one place. In the Efficient Cause of the Church, I see no great Difference betwixt us, and them, save only this, That they hold it necessary to the Constitution of a Church, and of every Member thereof, that they all join 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 of one Body, and not to departed from the said particular Church, whereof they become Members, without the consent thereof. The Antecedents of this Covenant are: 1. Sundry Meetings together of such, as are to join in it, till such time, as they may all have a sufficient proof, and trial of the spiritual estate, one of another. 2. The Civil Magistrates Consent, to set up their Church. 3. The Consent of Neighbour Churches. 4. They ordain a solemn Fast; and after Prayers, and Sermons, one in the name of all the rest propounds the Covenant. 5. And they all take it. The Consequents of it are, 1. The Right hand of Fellowship, which is given them by the Neighbour Churches. 2. Those, who join in Covenant, are exhorted to stand fast in the Lord. 3. Followeth a Prayer made to God for pardon of their Sins, and acceptance of the People. We condemn not all Church-Covenants; but we cannot approve this of the Independents, 1. Because it is not commanded in Scripture. 2. We find no example of it in Scripture. 3. And therefore it is nothing else, but an humane Tradition. 4. Because all, or almost all the Covenants concerning Religion, that we read of in Scripture, are of those, that are already, and not of those, that are to be Members of the Church. 5. Because we are in Covenant with God before ever we come to be of Age; I shall be thy God, and of thy Seed, Gen. 17.7. Item, Be baptised; for to you and your Children the Promise is made, Acts 2.38. And from hence all Protestants prove the Baptism of Infants against Anabaptists. 6. Because, those that were Circumcised in the Old, and that are Baptised in the New Testament, are Members of the Universal Church, without any vocal Covenant, as double C, who is one of these M. S. ses, as I hear, confesseth freely: Ergo, They must be Members of some Particular Church; for how can they be in the Universal Church, and out of all Particular Churches? So a man might be in the World, and in no part of it, or out of all the parts of it. 7. Because if Children Circumcised or Baptised were not in the Church, their condition should be no better, then that of Jews and Pagans, which can be no great Consolation to any Christian Parents. 8. If a man of one Church should take to Wife one of another, a hundred miles distant from him, she must adhere to her Husband, live with him, and so quit her own Church, and be out of all Churches, like a Pagan; for she cannot be admitted to the Church, whereunto she goeth, but after a long trial: So to be married, she becometh as a Pagan. 9 Such an Oath or Promise is not lawful; for a man may have just Causes, which are not evermore to be declared to a whole Church, that may oblige him to go, and live elsewhere in an other Church. 10. Because the Apostles, Evangelists, and their Followers, could not lawfully enter into any such Covenant, since they were Universal Ministers, & consequently Members of all the Churches of the World: 11. Neither could they make such a trial of three thousand persons, that in seven or eight hours' time were added unto the Church, Acts 2.12. Such a Covenant includeth a Schism, and Separation from all the Churches of the World. 13. Neither did the Apostles, and other Ministers of the Church, for the first three hundred years, require the Civil Magistrates Consent, to set up their Churches: 14. Neither is it necessary to the Internal Constitution, or Conservation of it, since it is Extrinsecall to the Church. 15. And some times it is impossible to be had, as when he is a Pagan, or an Antichristian Christian. The Final Cause of their Church, they pretend to be, 1. God's glory. 2. The Salvation of the Church, and every Member thereof. 3. The Internal and Externall Acts of mutual Communion in Faith and Charity. The Matter of their Church, they hold to be such Persons, as can give some particular Evidences of saving Grace, and of their Election, and who enter into Church-Covenant together; such as may be Arminians, as Master Goodwin, alias M. S. And as for the Members of other Churches, whether they be Dependants, or Independents, they will not admit them to the Lords Table, nor Baptise their Children, upon any Letters of Recommendation, that they can bring from other Churches; yea, howbeit they give a sufficient account of their Faith, and live without giving any offence at all to any man; and so they hold them little better than Pagans. The Integrant p rts of this Church, are the Flock or People, and the Rulers, viz. Preachers, Teachers, Ruling Elders, and Deacons. They admit none to be Ruling Elders, but such as Preach; yea, to the People, they give liberty to Preach also; and so quite confound the Offices of Preachers, and Ruling Elders, which the Apostle distinguishes, Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. 1 Tim. 5. Matth. 18. So they confound the charge of the Pastor, with the duty of the Sheep, and a Ruler with him that is ruled. The Form of their Church seemeth to consist in their Church-Covenant. The Accidents of it, are, 1. The number, viz. the smallest, seven Persons; and the greatest, as many, as can conveniently meet in one place, for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God. 2. Their Doctrine, which may be Arminian, as appeareth by M. S. alias Master Goodwin, who holds very many Arminian Tenets, as Justification by Faith, as it is an Act, or Quality, etc. Item, As some testify of him; A sleeping of the Soul. 3. They have no common Confession of Faith, or Platform of Discipline in their Churches; neither will they have any; yea, they will not have any constant Confession of Faith, or Platform of Discipline in any Particular; such is the Liberty, or rather the Licentiousness of their Faith, and Discipline. 4. The power to Teach, which they gram, as I have already said, not only to Preachers, but also to Ruling Elders, and some of the People. 5. The power of the Keys, which they put in the hands of the People; yea, of the most ignorant, impertinent, and insufficient of them, who have power to create their own Ministers, to examine their Doctrine, and sufficiency, and afterward to admit them to the Charge. But whether they have, 1. Abilities. 2. And prudence enough to do it. 3. Whether Christ have committed the Keys unto them. 4. Whether they can do it without confusion. 5. Whether they had it in the Old Testament; I leave it to any judicious Readers consideration. 6. Yea, some of them in the Synod, grant unto Women, some sprinkling; I believe, as some corrected them there, they would have said, the gingling of the Keys; but of this spinking, sprinkling, or gingling of the Keys, we read nothing in the Word of God. 7. They hold the Object of Excommunication only to be errors of the Mind, against the common, and uncontroverted Principles; and of the Will, against the common, and universal practices of Christianity; and both against the Parties known light. So hardly can any man be Excommunicated. 1. For we cannot well know, when a man goeth against the common Principles of Christianity, since no man can well define them. 2. muchless, when he goeth against the light of his Conscience; or 3. against the common practices of Christianity, which are not well known. 4. According to this Tenet, we cannot Excommunicate Socinians, Arminians, and other Heretics; and therefore M. S. is admitted to be a Minister in one of their Churches. 5. Howbeit, they acknowledge no man in their Parish to be a Member of their Church, yet can they very well, and in good Conscience, take a Benefice, were it never so great, yea, of 300, 400, or 500 l. a year. 6. They believe, that the Civil Magistrate should not, and consequently hath no power to punish Idolaters, or Heretics, were their Heresy never so great: And first, so (be it said without Blasphemy) God should have been in the wrong, in commanding it in the Old Testament. Secondly, And it were very strange, that a man should be punished for offending a man, and not for blaspheming the good Name of God. Thirdly, So he should be punished, for calling some Independents Knaves, but not for calling Jesus Christ the Sun of God, and the Redeemer of our Souls a Knave. FINIS.