CHAP. I. The State of the Question.

IT is an old trick of Hereticks, and Schismaticks, that when the Orthodox Churches oppose their novelties, what they cannot get of the Church, they travell to obtaine it at Court; and therefore to arrive at their aymes they flatter the Princes of the earth, and the Civill Magistrate, in crying up the Civill, and decrying the Ecclesiasticall Power: and thus did the Arrians in former, and the Arminians in latter times, in whose foot-steps our Brethren the Independents at this present doe seem to tread; and for this end they confound all things, yea what ever is well said, as may be seene by this their scratching, and biting at my words, travelling as they doe every where to confound what I have most clearely written. Wherefore the better to shew this Authors fraud and guile, and mine owne sincerity, I will here set down what I said, and what he opposeth. Apol. Narr. in speaking to the Parliament, nameth it, The Supreame Iudica­tory, severe Tribunall, the most Sacred refuge, and Asylum for mistaken and misjudged innocence.

A. S. The Parliament indeed is all this in Civill Causes, but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion, by Teaching, or Preaching, or Iudge­ing of controversies of Religion; nor any executive power, that is intrinsecall unto the Church, as in the Vocation, Deposition, and Suspension of Mini­sters, in Ecclesiasticall Censures, in Excommunication, &c. which are meer­ly spirituall; but only an executive, coercive, and externall power, which is not in, but about the Church, and for the Church, whereby it compelleth refractory men to obey the Church: And this Authority belongeth actually, and in effect, In actu exercito, as they say, & jure in re to true Christian Magistrates; but to others potentially in actu signato & jure in rem, till they become true Christians.

My Adversary here carpeth first at the word arrogate, as if it were ever­more taken in ill part, and signified to assume proudly to a mans selfe.

A. Stewart. But he might know, that being a stranger, and having lived the most part of my life abroad, I am now and then constrained to take the words upon tru [...]t; yet for this word, since he hath put me upon the per­usall of my Dictionary, I must tell him I finde no such thing as he saith; there indeed I finde the words arrogant, arrogantly, and arrogancie to be ta­ken as he such, but not the word arrogate; for it is turned in French, S'arro­ger S'attribuer, S'appropri [...]r; and in Latine arrogo; all which were taken in good part, before ever Independency was in rerum natura: but I will not let my selfe be caption fly drawne from the question, by this mans Grammati­call sophistications. If any thing were here amisse, as there is nothing, it will I hope be sufficient that I here declare, that that was never my meaning: I confesse they have more, and better Language then I; but I am content, that my Reasons goe as farre beyond theirs, as their Language beyond mine.

Afterwards in the same page, he accuseth me of contradicting my selfe, in following Propositions.

The Parliament has no directive Power by teaching, Preaching, &c.

The Parliament is wise enough to know what is convenient for the Church.

I answer, and answered againe, That every young boy, that learnes his rudiments in Logick, knowes, that a Contradiction is only betwixt two Pro­positions, which have the same Attributes, which is not to be found here; for the Attribute in the first is, having no directive Power, &c. but in the second, wise enough, &c. 2. Neither is it credible, that every man, who is wi [...]e enough to know what is convenient for the Church, has a Directive Po­wer therein, in Preaching, Teaching, &c. for the Independents have many a­mongst them in their Churches, who have as much Learning, three or foure daies before they be received to be members of their Church, as three or foure daies after; and yet before they were received members into their Church, howsoever they knew well enough what was convenient for the Church, had yet no Directive Power in it to teach, &c. 3. A little after, viz. p. 34. §. 2. this judicious Observator of Contradictions declareth ingeniously, that he knoweth not what I meane by a Directive Power; and yet here he telleth me, that I contradicted my selfe: but how is it possible, that he should know that I contradicted my selfe in that, that he himselfe understands not: He knoweth not what things I pose, and yet he findeth them opposed one to a­nother. I finde him here opposed to himselfe, and in finding out a contradicti­on in my words, he contradicteth himselfe, and so taketh away this pretended contradiction.

Because he knoweth not what is a directive Power, wherein he founds this [Page 3]imaginary contradiction, he saith, A. S. should befriend my intellect, to tell me plainly and distinctly, what he meaneth by a Directive Power in matters of Religion.

A. S. Wherefore if I cannot befriend your Will, I will travell to befriend your Intellect, not only in declaring you, what is a Directive Power, &c. but also in expounding all the termes of this question; learne therefore, I pray you, 1. That the Civill Magistrate, qua talis, is he who governeth the State, qua talem; I say qua talis, and qua talem; for it may fall out, that he who is a Civill Magistrate to governe the State, may also be chosen to go­verne the Church in quality of a Ruling Elder, &c. but that he doth not, in quality of a Civill Magistrate, for then he should not need to be chosen to be a Ruling Elder; for in quality of a Civill Magistrate already he should have had that power.

2. Learne, that by the word Church I understand the Visible, Militant Church, both reall, and representative in Church Officers, viz. 1. In Sessions, or Presbyteries. 2. In Classes. 3. In Provinciall, and 4. In Nationall, and 5. in Oecumenicall Synods; but so, that it must be taken sometimes for the reall Church alone, as when we say, The Presbytery ruleth the Church: sometimes for the representative alone, as when we say, Tell the Church: and evermore, ratione subjectae materiae.

3. Learne, that the word Power, which here is nothing else, but [...] potestas, authoritas, &c. signifieth not; 1. Any Naturall Faculty or pow­er in the Predicament of Quality. 2. Or any Habitude, either Naturall, pur­chased by our industry, or 3. Supernaturall, infused into the soule, by Gods bounty. 1. For the Power of Ruling, whether it be Directive, Imperative, or Executive, belongeth not to us by birth, as naturall powers; nor can we pur­chase it by our owne industry alone, as we doe Naturall Habitudes: nor is it evermore supernaturall or infused by God, as we see in the Civill Power a­mongst Pagans; yea it is very probable, that some Preachers may have an Ecclesiasticall Power, who have no Supernaturall, but only their aturall gifts. 2. And a man before he be called to a charge in the State, or Church, may have all the naturall powers or faculties of his soule; and all the naturall, or su­pernaturall habitudes or abilities that he hath after his calling; and yet not have that power to judge, command, and punish, which he hath after his calling; it hath no reall, but only an intelligible being, which is not to be, but to be under­stood, conceived, or intelligible; and therefore it is no vvork of nature, but of rea­son: and the maine reason of this is; 1. Because the being of this povver, which is not potentia, but potestas, [...] & authoritas; as also that of the charge or Office to which it belongeth, depends upon a meere assent of the understand­ing, and destination of the will, in those who choose the person or persons to this charge and power, and of him who is so chosen. Now the assent of the [Page 4]understanding and destination of the vvill, (since they are immanent actions, and no wayes transient) cannot produce any reall or permanent effect out of themselves: And yet however it be no reall faculty, habitude or ability, yet both can it pose, and indeed it doth presuppose some reall being: for in punish­ing of Malefactours it poseth sometimes a very reall eff ct, as that of burning and hanging of persons; and before it be, it presupposeth the naturall faculties of the soule, some naturall habitudes or abilities therein, as that of jurisprudence, in Civill Magistrates and Iudges: sometimes some supernaturall habitudes also, as that of divine faith. Ecclesiasticall charges, as in Apostles, Prophets, Evan­gelists, and Pastors. 2. Because a man in receiving of such a Povver, potestas or charge, findes no reall changement in himselfe, as in receiving of a new reall being, or quality.

No more can it formally consist in the reall being, qualities, or effects, that the charge or this power produceth; for they are all posterior to it.

So it may be defined a worke of reason, or a morall being, whereby he who is sufficiently called, by sufficient assent and destination of the Will of those who call him, and consent of his own, and endowed with sufficient abilities, may justly exercise such acts as they intend by such a calling. I call it, 1. a work of Reason, &c. to the exclusion of the works of Nature. 2. I say, He who is called. Here you have, 1. the Subject of this power, viz. He. 2. The efficient cause thereof, somewhat obscurely expressed, by sufficient Calling; and afterward, 3. more distinctly, by the assent and destination of the will of those who call him, and consent of the person called. 4. Endowed, &c. Here is expressed the fundamentum remotum of this charge, whereby he is enabled to the acts of this power. 5. May justly exercise, &c. Here is the finis, or act of this power, wherein we have to observe, that this act may be considered, 1. in its natura­litie; 2. In its habitualitie or facultie; 3. In its moralitie; 4. In its particular legalitie. The first is from the naturall faculties of the Soule; The second, from the habitudes or abilities thereof; The third is from morall habitudes in the Will: The fourth from this potestas; the naturall facultie maketh it an act; the habitudes or abilities, an habituall act, or easily produced by the soul, if it be meerly naturall: (but if it be a supernaturall act, quoad substantiam, then there must be some supernatural habitude, that supplieth the place both of the deficient facultie, and habitude or abilitie) the vertue of justice in the will, i. a just act: but this morall power, or [...], maketh it a legall and publique act, for what before his calling he could not doe, but illegally, (how­soever he had abilities enough) now after his calling, he can doe legally. Item, this morall power induceth a morall obligation to obedience, which all his na­turall powers, all his naturall and supernaturall habitudes, and all his parti­cular morall vertues and justice, could not doe without it.

This morall power is either private or particular, as the Paternall, Maritall, [Page 5](if it be meerly morall) and despoticall, in domesticall and such like societies, whereof we speak not; Or publique, as that of the Secular Magistrate, and Ecclesiasticall Iudge: and evermore it produceth an obligation unto obedi­ence in those that are subject thereunto: So the power of the Civill Magistrate binds the Subject to Civill, and that of Ecclesiasticall persons, the people to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall obedience; That of the Husband, the Wife, to conjugall; that of the Father, the Sonne, to filiall; and that of the Lord, the servant, to servile obedience or service.

This power, as it is in Church-Officers, is either Directive or Executive, and this either imperative, or strictly executive: Or if you like better of a Trichotomie, it is either Directive, Imperative, or Executive. The directive power of the Church, is that whereby she sheweth us what is to be believed or done; which is done by Teaching, Ecclesiasticall judgements, Lawes, and the interpretation thereof, whereby we are directed and taught. The Imperative power is, whereby she commands what is to be done: as, Hoc fac: which the Doctors of the Laws ordinarily expresse, by jubeo, impero, mando; and some Kings, by this; For it is our will and pleasure. The Executive power is, where­by Ecclesiasticall judgements are put in execution; which is done by binding and loosing, in some wayes answerable to distributive Iustice, remunerative and coercive.

Now to befriend yet more this Mans understanding, and to shew the Chri­stian Reader how fairly I deale with him, and all those of his party, not hiding my selfe, as they ordinarily doe, I give another note very necessary in this mat­ter, which I hope shall discover a great part of these mens cavils and frau­dulent sophistications: and it is this: viz. That the power circa Spiritualia & Ecclesiastica, about Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters, is either intrinse­call to the Church, i. e. not only about the Church, but also in the Church; as that of Church officers, which is only in the Church or Church officers, in quality of Church and Church officers; as the power to preach, to excommu­nicate, &c. for no other but Ecclesiasticall persons can preach, or excom­municate; Neither can the Civill Magistrate, or any other, exercise such acts. Or Extrinsecall, i. e. about the Church, but not in the Church, in quality of a Church; as when the Civill Magistrate maketh Lawes concerning the Church, in confirming or ratifying her lawes, in making them to be received as well in the State as in the Church; So Justinian declared, that according to the Evangelicall doctrine and Apostolicall discipline, all men should be called Christians; otherwayes that they should be declared distracted and infamous persons: and that they that were punished spiritually by the Church, should afterwards be punished civilly, by the civil Magistrate: as we may see in the first book of the Codex, tit. de summa Trinitate, tit. de sacrosanctis Ecclesiis, tit. de [Page 6]Episc. & Cler. & Orphanotroph. And through all the first thirteen Titles of that book, and elswhere in the Civill Lawes. But this power to judge, com­mand, and punish, is not Ecclesiasticall, but Civill.

CHAP. II. The first Conclusion about the Intrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate in the Church.

THis being presupposed, I put my first Conclusion thus: The Civill Ma­gistrate, qua talis, or under the notion of a Civill Magistrate, hath no in­trinsecall power in the Church:

• 1. Because the Scripture, which Independents acknowledge for the only rule of Church-Government, conteineth no such thing.
• 2. Because his authoritie, qua talis, is not Ecclesiasticall, but Politicall or Civill, Ergo, qua talis, it is not intrinsecall to the Church.
• 3. Because such must be his power or authoritie in the Church, as the acts thereof, at least in genere morum, or morally. But the acts of his power, as to punish refractorie persons in a Civill way, by imprisonment, pecuniary mulcts, &c. are not intrinsecall, yea no wayes Ecclesiasticall, Ergo, no more is his power or authority.
• 4. Because the authority that is intrinsecall unto the Church, must be exer­cised by Ecclesiasticall persons. But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate. The Minor is certaine, because it is only to be exercised by the Civill Magi­strate, or his officers; and not by Elders of the Church: as when he impri­sons any man for his disobedience unto the Church, or puts Apostates, or some abominable Hereticks to death, as Servet. &c. And it is a certaine maxime, that, Ecclesia nescit sanguinem: as may appeare by sundry Canons of the Ca­non Law. Ergo, The Major is indubitable, because the power, and the exercise thereof belongeth unto the same sort of persons.
• 5. Because the Civill Magistrate himselfe, qua talis, is no Ecclesiasticall person, or Intrinsecall unto the Church, since he may be a Pagan; how then can his authority be Ecclesiasticall, or Intrinsecall unto the Church, since the authority of a person out of the Church, qua talis, must be Extrinsecall, or out of the Church?
• 6. Because the object of the intrinsecall power of the Church is principally [...], things that are spirituall, or for spirituall ends; But so is not that of the Civill Magistrate; since oftentimes he knoweth him not, as when he is a Turk or a Pagan.
• 7. Because this opinion confounds the Kingdome of this World, with that of Christ, in granting unto the Civill Magistrate the Intrinsecall power of the Church, which Christ only granted unto the Ministers therof, viz. unto Preachers, Teachers, and ruling Elders. But so should it not be; for Christ [Page 7]distinguished these powers, when he commanded to give unto God that which is Gods, and unto Caesar that which is Caesars, Mat. 22.21.
• 8. Because the immediate rule of the intrinsecall power of the Church, is only Gods Word, formally, by consequence or presupposition: so is it not in respect of the Civill Magistrates power, which is immediately and formally ruled by the Lawes of the State; Ergo, the Civill Magistrates power is not intrinsecall unto the Church.
• 9. The intrinsecall power of the Church is only Ministeriall, no wayes De­spoticall, Imperiall, Regall, Majesticall, or Majestie: So is not that of the Civill Magistrate, in taking the word in a large signification, as it is some­times, for the supreme and subalterne Magistrate; For the power of the Civil Magistrate, at least in the Supreme or Prince, is not Ministeriall, but sometimes Despoticall or Lordly, sometimes Imperiall, sometimes Regall, sometimes A­ristocraticall, sometimes Democraticall, and evermore Majesticall. Ergo, The Assumption is certaine; so is the Proposition: for they who have this in­trinsecall power in the Church, are only Christs Ministers and Servants.
• 10. Because (as we said heretofore) not only the Civill Magistrate some­times is not a member of the true Church of Christ, but is a member of the Antichristian Church, yea sometimes not so much as Christned, or a Christian by name; as the Tuck the Emperor, the French King, and some others, who by maxime of State, have made some Edicts in favour of true Christians, for the exercise of their Religion. But how shall he that is not in the Church, that is no true Christian, yea that is an Antichristian Christian, yea not so much as a Christian by name, but an open Enemy to the name of Christ, as Herod, Nero, Dioclesian, Julian the Apostate, that are externall unto the Church, have any intrinsecall power in the Church?
• 11. Because the Civill Magistrate hath no intrinsecall power, either di­rective or executive, in common Trades, as that of Brewers, Shoemakers, Car­ters, Watermen, &c. whose trades are within the reach of Nature, and which he directeth only extrinsecally: Neither knoweth the King how to brew, how to make shooes, &c. neither can he brew, or make shooes: How much lesse then is it needfull that he have any interne power, either directive or executive, in Ecclesiasticall matters, which are altogether spirituall and super­naturall, above the reach of all naturall prudence, and quite out of the sphere of his activitie.
• 12. By the same reason the Civill Magistrate should have an internall power both directive and executive, over all Oeconomicall Societies under him, viz. over the Husband and the Wife, the Father and the Son, the Master and the Servant. He might direct them in their duties, and execute their char­ges intrinsecally, and so doe the duty of a Husband, of a Father and Master in all things, in every mans familie, which could not but be found very absurd, [Page 8]impious, and altogether intolerable. Heretofore the Independents did, as much as any men, complaine of such an absolute and independent power in the King: How then is it, that now they grant it?
• 13. If such an intrinsecall power in Ecclesiasticall matters, be a part of all civill Magistrates power; then the Magistrates who have it not, are not com­pleat and perfect Magistrates, since they want one of the principall parts of the civill Magistrates power, viz. The intrinsecall, directive, and executive power in Ecclesiasticall matters. But the consequent is untrue, yea criminall, and trayterous; for many Pagans, Antichristians, yea in concreto, and in sensu com­posito have a full and perfect civill power over their Subjects, and yet are de­stitute of all such intrinsecall or Ecclesiasticall power, either directive, or ex­ecutive; since neither they know nor will know the word of God, which is the only directive or regulative principle in Ecclesiastical matters & Government: neither ever do they or will they exercise any of these powers; yea they re­nounce them both. Now morally he is not said to have power to exercise an Act, who never exercises, nor will exercise it, but renounces it, and all power unto it. Ergo,
• 14. If the civill Magistrate, in qualitie of civill Magistrate, hath any such intrinsecall power or authority about the Church, Church businesse, and Religion, then must it not be called only a politicall, civill, or secular, but al­so an Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power; Yea, the civill Magistrate, and his po­wer, must as well be defined by spirituall and Ecclesiasticall actions of di­rection and Government, and by spirituall and Ecclesiastiall matters, as by civill actions and matters; for it is ordinary to define all faculties, habitudes, and all naturall or morall powers and authorities by their acts and objects whereunto they have any intrinsecall reference, as visum per visibile; audi­tum per audibile, Logicam per [...], Phisicam per [...], &c. But so is it not of the civill Magistrates power, for neither is it called Ecclesiasticall, Religious, or Spirituall; neither is it the custome of any learned Politician, who ever de­fined it exactly, to define it in such a manner. Ergo,
• 15. If it were so, the civill Magistrate could not be a good Magistrate, un­lesse he ruled the Church well; for in omitting this, he should omit the prin­cipall part of his office, so not being skilled in Divinity, he should be unwor­thy of his charge, and worthy to be deposed, which I beleeve none but Inde­pendent Magistrates will grant.
• 16. Yea, to be a true Magistrate, and acquit himselfe of his charge, he must be an Independent; for to acquit himselfe of the charge of a civill Ma­gistrate, he must rule the Church well; to rule the Church well, he must rule it in the Independent way, (for Episcopall Government is naught, not being so much as essentially Ecclesiasticall Government, and Presbyterian Govern­ment, if they be beleeved, is nothing else but Episcopall Government) to rule [Page 9]it in the Independent way, he must be an Independent. Ergo, a primo ad ulti­mum, to be a true or lawfull Magistrate, he must be an Independent: This, for any thing I can see, falleth very little short of Treason, for howsoever happi­ly they intend it not, yet they tend as fast as they can to it.
• 17. That morall power, whereof the externall acts are morally impossible, is morally impossible: But such is that intrinsecall power in the civill Ma­gistrate, about Spirituall matters in the Government of the Church, Ergo, That intrinsecall power. &c. must be morally impossible. The Major propo­sition is certain, for neither God, nor Nature, nor men in their right wits e­ver ordained any morall power, whereof the act is morally impossible; for active powers are only for their acts, as for their ends; now if the end be im­possible, so must that which is for that end, be impossible; and if it were im­possible to saile, we should never build ships to saile with: I prove the Minor, for I put the case there were an Oecumenicall Councell, as hath been seen in former times, and may be in times to come; then should it not be possible for any Christian Magistrate to put in execution, any such power over an Oe­cumenick Councell, unlesse he were an Oecumenick Magistrate, to whose au­thority it could submit: But such a Magistrate morally is not like to be found. E.
• 18. If the King and Parliament, or any civill Magistrate be judge betwixt us, and the Independents, then must the Independents submit to their judge­ment and command: If so, how is it, that against the Lawes of the Kingdom, and their own Tenets, they erect so many Independent Churches without their permission and consent, and that the Independent Ministers of the Synod in printed bookes have divulged their judgments, upon the matters in debate in the Synod, and brought in so many novelties in Religion, and all this against the formall Ordinance of both the Houses of Parliament, to which they pretend so much submission?
• 19. This opinion maketh all Ecclesiasticall power unnecessary, and super­fluous; for since the civill Magistrate has an intrinsecall power, both directive and executive to govern the Church, as this M. S. would make us beseeve; what need is it, that the Ministers of the Church have any such power, for the civill Magistrate has power enough to govern both the State and the Church? But the Ecclesiasticall power is not unnecessary or superfluous, since God hath ordained Presbyteries, and some in the Church to be Rulers, and others to be ruled: For it is a Maxime both in Nature and in Grace, that Deus et Natura nihil faciunt frustra, Ergo, the Independents opinion, whereof these absurdities follow, must be false.
• 20. Because the Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, Doctors, and other Chri­stians of the Primitive Church, would never acknowledge any such authori­ty in the civill Magistrates, or obey them, as we see throughout all the Hi­story of the Acts, and of the Primitive Church.
• [Page 10]21. If Kings, Parliaments, and the civill Magistrates have any internall Directive, Imperative, or Executive power over the Church, either it should be Supream and Soveraign, or Subaltern; if Supreame, or Soveraign, then we have Kings in the Church; yea some higher Offices and Officers in the Church, then that of the Apostolate and the Apostles, which is contrary to St. Paul, 1. Cor. 12. Rom. 12. Eph. 4. If Subalterne, then the King, and Par­liament, and all Magistrates are subject to some Ecclesiasticall power, and are not supreame Iudges in the Church.
• 22. If the Magistrate have any such power, either the Supreame, or Subal­tern Magistrate has it: But the supreame has it not, as we have seene; nor the Subaltern; for what reason, that every Justice of Peace, yea be he never so ignorant in Divinity, or never so vicious in his life, should have power o­ver a whole Nationall or Oecumenicall Synod? It is not possible, for he has no power over all the Churches that they represent; neither did ever all the Churches send their Commissioners to the Synod upon any such tearmes; nei­ther has it ever been acknowledged by any Synod; how ridiculous were it to think, that every Justice of Peace, who has not so much liberty as to enter in to this present Synod, should notwithstanding rule it, or domineer over it? Neither did ye grant so much authority, as I beleeve, to the civill Magistrate in your Synod in the Netherlands. But what reason is it that the subalterne Magistrate of one Towne, should rule over the Synod, rather then the Magistrate of the Towne from whence is sent an other Commissioner?
• 23. If the civill Magistrates or any King qua talis, be a Ruler of the Church, or have any intrinsecall authoritative power to rule it, he should have the same right to it, that he hath to the State or Kingdome: so some Kings (as in Hereditarie Kingdoms) should be Kings and rulers of the Church by birth.
• 24. Some by Warre, Invasion or usurpation, which is a pretty way to ob­tain power in the Church.
• 25. By money in buying of a Principallity, and so by direct Simony.
• 26. By trooquing and exchange.
• 27. A Woman, since she may be Queen, might be a Church Ruler, and so speake in the Church, which St. Paul directly prohibiteth them.
• 28. A Prince, being a known Atheist, or a Magician, should have an inter­nall power to rule the Church, and so be a member thereof; for his Atheisme and Magick could no more hinder him from being a Ruler in the Church, then in the State: Neither is it possible, that the Ruler of a Church or of any o­ther Society should not be a member thereof; if so, the Church should be very well guided, and have holy members: But this is against the principles of Inde­pendency, for they will acknowledge no man for a Member of their Church, unlesse it appeare, that he have the power of Piety and of Sanctifying Grace,
• [Page 11]29. Children, and Babes, who may be Kings, should be Rulers of the Church: So they, who have not the use of reason, should rule the Church without reason.

And if it be replied, that they might guide the Church by their Counsell, and other Officers:

Answ. 1. God is not served by Commissioners and Proctors, in the Church as in the State: Whatever charge God layeth upon Church-men, they must carrie their own burden themselves, and not lay it upon others. 2. By the same reason, other Ministers of the Church might doe the like, and so they like­wise might be born Gods Ministers, as the King, and so have need of no vo­cation at all; but every man, according to his phantasie, might exercise his gift of Prophecy, just for all the world as they doe amongst the Indepen­dents.

30. Yea, mad men might rule the Church, since their madnesse hinders them not to be Kings, when they have right to the Crowne, so might mad men be Preachers also: for if madnesse hinder not a Prince or a King to be a Ruler in the Church, or any other to rule the Church; no more should it hinder any other Minister to be a Preacher, since there is the same reason for them all.

31. It is a commandement of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. That no man be ad­mitted a Iudge in Christ, Church, but after due examination, viz. of their life and Doctrine: But Magistrates, and especially the supreme Magistrate, in taking the word in a large signification, are not so admitted: and some of them cannot be so admitted, as Princes, who are Infants, mad, &c.

32. Whosoever hath any Ecclesiasticall power must be called of God, as Aaron, Heb. 5.4. and Christ took not this honour, but after a lawfull vocation. But Princes and Magistrates are not so called of God, as Aaron.

33. He who hath any intrinsecall power in the Church, must first accept of it, and have some internall vocation, before that he have it: But many Magi­strates accept not of it, nor have they any internall vocation, as Papists, who will not accept of it, neither have they any vocation to it.

34. If the Civill Magistrate have any such power, either he hath it, as a Ma­gistrate, as a Christian, or as a Christian Magistrate. But he hath it not as a Magistrate: for, as a Magistrate, only he ruleth the State, and not the Church: and if he had it, as a Magistrate, all Magistrates, yea Nero, Julian the Apostate should have it, as we have proved. Not as a Christian; for then every Chri­stian should have that power, yea, a Cobler, as well as a King: nam quod convenit alicui, qua tali, convenit omni. Nor finally, as a Christian Magistrate; for as a Christian Magistrate, he hath no more then as a Magistrate, and a Christian: Now he hath it not as a Magistrate, and a Christian: for Christi­anity augmenteth not the power of a Magistrate, since it is not of the same [Page 12]kinde: for if it should augment it, or increase it, it should be some part or de­gree of Magistracie, which is false; Neither if it could be augmented or in­creased, could it receive any increase, but either extensive or intensive, in its parts or quantity, or in its degrees: But since Christianity is not a part or a degree of Magistracy, nor Magistracy of Christianity, the one cannot increase or augment the other.

35. If we should have a Toleration of all sorts of Religions, put the case of 365. as M. S. wisheth; and that the King were Iudge in all; then he must have an intrinsecall power in all those Religions, and all the severall Churches that professe them, and consequently he must be a member of every one of them, and so of 365 Religions: For, whosoever hath an intrinsecall power in the Church, or is a Governour of it, must be a member, yea the principall member of it: But the King must not be of so many, viz. 365 Religons; Ergo,

36. If the King be not of all those Churches Religions, then either he must be of one, or none of them: If of one of them only, then he shall be partiall in judging and ruling them all, and so an incompetent Iudge: If of none, so in­deed he shall be indifferent and impartiall, but a very dangerous man of no Religion at all: and so cannot be a competent Iudge, unlesse he be of no Re­ligion at all. But it were better to quit such a power, then to have it upon such termes.

37. We have examples of Kings punished for interposing themselves in mat­ters of Religion, which cost some of them no lesse then their Crowns: as we read of Saul, 1 Sam. 13.8, 9, &c. Others were strucken with leprosie, as Ʋz­ziah, for undertaking to sacrifice: And howbeit that before he had been a glorious and a triumphant King, yet for that act was he strucken with leprosie by God, and opposed by Azariah with fourscore Priests, valiant men, who thrust him out from thence: so dwelt he severall in a house, being a Leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord. All this saith the Text, and no lesse; 2 King. 15.5. 2 Chron. 26.16, 17, &c.

38. The Civill Magistrate may be received unto the Magistracy, before he be a member of the Church: for the Independents receive no man, yea, not the Kings Majesty, and the Parliament, to be members of their Church, but after a long tryall: Yea, however they professe the Orthodox Religion, and live Christianly, not giving offence to any man, Ergo, in such a case the civill Magistrate is out of the Church, and so must his authority be, and conse­quently, neither he, qua talis, nor his authority is intrinsecall unto the Church, so long as he is out of the Church; for the Magistrates authority can be no more intrinsecall unto the Church, then the Magistrate himselfe is.

And if it be said, that the Civill Magistrates authority is intrinsecall unto the Church, but not the Civill Magistrate: I answer, That then the Church [Page 13]hath the civill Magistrates authority, and not his person; so the Church hath the Magistracy, and not the Magistrate, and so the Church has civill, viz. Im­periall, Royall, or Despoticall authority over the subjects: But that cannot be said, for it is Treason; Christs Kingdom is not of this world, and the Church beareth no materiall sword.

39. The Intrinsecall way to governe Christs Church is convenient unto Gods wisdome, since it is an act of wisdome, and divine providence: But an Intrinsecall power granted to Heathen, and Antichristian Christians, and Ma­gistrates, to govern Christs Church, is not convenient unto his wisdome, but repugnant unto it; for it is, as if he should choose a Wolfe to keepe the Lambs, and a Kite to shelter the Chickens, which are not meanes convenient unto such ends.

40. Such a sort of Government is repugnant unto Gods mercy towards his Church, for how is it credible that he, who has given Christ his onely Sonne for his Church, to redeeme her, should give her Antichrists and Pa­gans to leade her away from Christ to Antichrist, yea to the Devill, and Hell it selfe, from which he hath redeemed her.

41. I might here aske what Magistrate has this Intrinsecall power; whether the Supreame, or the Subalterne? If the Supreame, then he has such an au­thority in the Church, as in the State, viz. Monarchicall, Despoticall, Im­periall, Royall, &c. Aristocraticall, or Democraticall; so the Government of the Church is not one, but manifold, and may change, and be diversified, as the governments of this world: If the Subalterne has it also, then it must be derived unto him from the Prince or Soveraigne; Nulla enim potestas, nisi in Principe, aut a Principe; there is no power, but in the Prince, or from the Prince, so Ecclesiasticall charges shall be venall or saleable, as Subalterne Magistracies in some Kingdomes are, where the only way to be preferred unto them, is, that notable Maxime of old Judas, Quantum mihi dabitis?

CHAP. III. The second Conclusion about the Extrinsecall power of the Civill Magistrate, in Ecclesiasticall matters, proved by Scripture.

Conclus. II. THe Civill Magistrate hath an extrinsecall, both Directive and Executive power about the Church, whereby not onely he may rule it by Politicall Lawes, as Pagan, but also as Christian; because he is, or should be a Nursing Father of the Church, Esay. 49.23. who 1. is bound to admit in his Kingdome the true Church, and true Religion. 2. He has power, not to admit it, to reject it, yea when it is not received or approved, and confirmed by his secular and civill authority, to reject it, and exile it, however he do it not as a Nurse of the Church. 3. If the Church be cor­rupt, [Page 14]and Church Officers negligent in their charge, and will not reforme it, he may command, yea compell them to do it. Or if they will not, he may ex­traordinarily do it himselfe. 5. When the Church is Reformed, he may command them, when they are negligent, to be diligent in their charge. 6. If they oppresse any man in their Ecclesiasticall judgements and censures, against the Lawes of the Kingdome, he may desire them, yea, command them to re­vise their judgements; and in case they reforme them not, command them, yea compell them by his civill power, to give him satisfaction, according to the Lawes of the Kingdome, if they derogate not from the Law of God. 7. He may, yea he is bound to provide sufficient maintenance for the Ministers of the Churches, and to take a care that their meanes be not delapidated, and that they be not Sacrilegiously robbed of them. 8. And what here I say of the Church, I say also of Universities and Schooles, that are the Seminaries of able men for the Church. 9. He may grant unto the Church some Liberties, Priviledges, or Immunities, as sundry Princes have done, and confirme them by Law, as we see in the Civill Law. 10. He is bound with his Civill power to maintaine the Order, and Discipline of the Church; and consequently: 11. To hinder all disorder in it. And 12. By his Civill Authority, to com­pell all refractory persons to obey the Church. And 13. To banish, and exile all Sects, Schismes, and Heresies, as we may see by sundry of the Roman Lawes, and especially in the first 13. Titles of the first booke of Instinians Codex, in the Pandects and else where. All this we grant to the Civill Ma­gistrate; and if the Quinq Ecclesian Ministers with the rest of that Sect con­test it not, we need not to prove it; only we say, that he doth all this by a Civill and Secular, Supreame, Imperiall, Royall, Aristocraticall, or Democra­ticall, Legislative, and coactive Power, armed with the sword, howsoever extrinsecall to the Church; but more Absolute, Independent, and Potent in suo genere, then any Ecclesiasticall Power whatsoever, which is Intrinsecall to the Church, which is no waies Absolute, nor Independent, but Dependent; no waies Coactive by Externall force, but Spirituall, meerly Ministeriall (howso­ever imperative in the name of God) that cannot make any Lawes, but of things meerely Circumstantiall, much lesse abrogate the Lawes concerning the con­stitution, and Government of the Church, already made by God in his Word.

Now that the Magistrate hath an extrinsecall Power over the Church, in compelling all refractory persons to submit themselves to her just commands, since M. S. seemeth to question it, and desireth a proofe of it, I am ready to satisfie his desire herein. Wherefore I prove it,

1. From sundry examples of the Iudges, and Kings of the people of God, in the old Testament, Exod. 32.27. Moses commanded the Levites to kill about three thousand of the Ring-leaders, or principalls of those that ado­red [Page 15]the golden Calfe; in the performance of which service the Text saith, that they consecrated themselves unto the Lord, verse 29.

2. Deut. 22.11. to the end of the Chapter, we read how the rest of the Tribes of Israel resolved to warre against Reuben, Gad, and the halfe Tribe of Manasseh, for building of an Altar (as they believed) in transgression against the Lord, which they would not have done, had they not conceived it to be just.

3. Iudg. 6.31. Ioash ordained thus, He that will plead for him, i. e. Baal, let him be put to death.

4. 1 Kings 15.12. Asa removed all the Idols that his fathers had made, 13. And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being Queene, because she had made an Idoll in a Grove, and Asa destroyed her Idoll, and burnt it by the brooke Kedron. Here Asa punisheth his owne Mother for Idolatry, and destroyeth her Idoll: so no doubt may the Civill Magistrate doe with all false Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, false Doctors, Worshippers, and Church Governours; he may abolish them, and punish their persons, according to the quality of their false Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, and 2. Chro. 14.4. He, i.e. Asa commanded Iudah to seeke the Lord God of their fathers. 5. He tooke away the high places.

Chap. 15.12. They entred into a Covenant to seeke the Lord God of their fa­thers, with all their heart, and with all their soule. 13. That whosoever would not seeke 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. Iehu destroyeth Baal, all his Images, Prophets, Priests, Servants, and Worshippers, and this fact is highly commended, and recompenced by God himselfe, ver. 30.

6. Iehosaphat, 2 Chro. 17. tooke 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 Kings matters: which he could not lawfully doe without some power. Now we shall shew hereafter, that it cannot be Intrinsecall to the Church, since he was no Ecclesiastick Person, Ergo it must be extrinsecall.

7. 2 Kings 11.18. Under the King Iehoash all the people of the Land went into the house of Baal, and brake it downe, his Altars, and his Jmages brake they in pieces throughly, and slew Matton the Priest of Baal; this they did in vertue 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 brake the Images, and cut down the Groves, and brake in pieces the brasen Serpent, that Moses had made, for unto those daies the Children of Israel did burne Incense to it. Here not only is Idolatrie put downe, but also the High Places remooved, and the [Page 16]brazen Serpent, a thing in it self indifferent, but yet ex instituto Divino set up, put down, when the people abused it in matter of Religion: Wherefore then may not the Civill Magistrate doe as much with Independency, if it be found contrary to true Doctrine, Worship, or Discipline?

So, 2 Chron. 31. He reformed 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 burne incense in the High places in the Cities of Iudah. 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 Kings dispensation, Toleration, or command, can excuse any man from suffering, if he sinne against God, if the Magistrate that succeedeth him will doe his duty.

10. So Manasses reformed 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 Nebuchadnezzar ordaine, Dan. 3.29. Therefore I make a Decree, that every People, Nation, and Language, which speaketh any thing amisse 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 imployed their Civill power about Religion, Esd. 1.1, 2, 3, 4. and 4.17, 18, 19, &c. 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 Iudges, punished Hereticks 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 Iudges are not to be drawn into consequence by private persons: neverthelesse they are to be imitated by ordinary Iudges: for, what they did extraordinarily in respect of their calling, and in quality of Iudges, ordinary Iudges should doe 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. Peters person, who in quality of an extraordinary Iudge, when there was no Christian Ma­gistrate, put to death Ananias and Saphyra, for their hypocrisie and dissimu­lation, Act. 5.5.10. How much more might he have done it for Heresie, which is worse? And S. Paul strook 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 doe it ordinarily, as an ordinary act of his charge.

We have also the expresse commandement of God, to punish the Idolater, Heretick, or false Prophet, and dreamer of dreames, be he never so neare to us, wife, brother, sonne, friend, &c. Deut. 13.1. And the reason is, because He hath spoken to turne you away from the Lord your God, v. 5.10. So, whoso­ever seduceth us from the Lord our God, as Hereticks, 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 mariage with Idolatrous people, for feare of turning them away from Gods 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 cattell so much as gen­der with a divers kind, not to sow their ground with mingled seed, nor to wear garments mingled with linnen and wollen, Levit. 19. as Zepperus in Explana­tione legum Mosaicarum forensium, l. 4. c. 2. expounds it.

We nave the Romane lawes, in the first Book of the Code of Justinian, through all the first 14 or 15 Titles, and elswhere, to this very Head.

So we have solemn Covenants in Scripture, to observe the Law of God, and consequently the first Commandement, and so to destroy Heresie and Schismes, 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 Ioshua, 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 Gods law, &c. so far were they from tolerating Hereticks and Schismaticks, that might turne them away from it, as our Independents goe about to doe. Our own Cove­nant also obligeth the Magistrate to punish all Hereticks and Schismaticks, and the People to assist him herein: yea, the Independents themselves, in as much as they have entred into the same Covenant, stand equally obliged to re­form Religion, according to their power. Now God hath given them the power to reforme it, in punishing Hereticks and Schismaticks, according to their demerits; which if either We, or They doe not, we are forsworne, and God one day will call us to an account.

CHAP. IV. Containing our Adversaries Evasions.

NOw what sayes M. S. to all this, who was so desirous of some proofes 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 Gods Word. 2. Wherefore are not Argu­ments drawne from Gods Word, good enough in matter of Religion? [Page 18]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 Iudah 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 Royall, or Politicall Power (which was extrinsecall unto the Church, or of another nature, as your Apologists speake) to conserve the true Religion; and in case of corruption to reforme it.

M. S. his third Answer proves nothing for the persecuting, annoying, crushing, disgracing, banishing, fining the Apologists, whom himselfe (more then 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, Hereticks, Schismaticks, to be so dealt with. 2. Only I bring these Passages to prove, that the Civill Magistrate may, and is bound in duty to punish all false Prophets, Hereticks and Schismaticks, whoever they be. And howbeit they could perchance finde favour enough to establish themselves in one time, by a Princes Authority, yet notwith­standing all that another, or the very same Prince upon better information, yea, or a subsequent Parliament may, nay ought 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 beleeveth all things; but I would pray him, and them both, under pretext of such a charitable Iudgement of mine, not to be too licentious in broaching, or pub­lishing of erronious Opinions, least they make me to write some Booke of Retractations, which he, and they will certainly force me to doe, if they con­tinue: Neither shall I be ashamed if they deceive me, but I hope better things of them: And God forbid that they should goe on upon his violent course, rather to sufferdeath, then to change: God change his heart, and I hope in his Mercy he shall doe it.

M. S. 4. He saith: Neither did any of those Kings ever compell any man to the Iewish Religion, nor yet to professe the Iewish Religion against their judgements.

A. S. They could not compell their heart or will, but at leastwise they hindred 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 compell their externall 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 Iewes 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 Politicall Power in the Civill 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 lesse 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 Bookes against their Religion, as the Independents doe 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 pluckt off their haire, 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 doe as much?

M. S. 6. Answ. Nor doe we ever read that ever they attempted any thing against any Sectaries, or Schismaticks (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 Iewish Religion, that lived peaceably in their State. Idolatry and Idolaters were, as it seemes, 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, shew evidently. 2. I deny your Consequence; we read it not, Ergo it was not, for we cannot argue à testimonio negativè, yea, not of Scripture, unlesse 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 Iudges or Kings, they were never tolerated: ill Kings would not punish them; but their examples are not to be drawne 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 comming of Christ, when the Re­ligion was mightily corrupted, which Christ came to reforme. 2. Because the Iewes were not then a free people, neither had they the Civill Power ab­solutely in their owne hands. 3. They had no good Rulers. 4. No more were the Sadduces punished, who denyed Gods Providence, the Resurrection of the Body, the Immortality of the Soule, and all spirituall natures, as some testifie of them; and yet they were more punished by Gods Law, then Ido­laters, [Page 20]since their errour was greater; so should the Herodians have been pu­nished, since they tooke Herod to be the Messias, and that he should come a­gaine after that he had been strucken by the Angell; and yet they were not punished. 5. The Idolaters were to be punished, and yet they lived in pro­fession of the Iewish Religion, for they apostatized not. It is false, that the Idolatry was the adequate Object of their coercive power, for they also were punished, who married strange Women, &c. It is also a mistake in him, to think, Scribe was the name of a Sect, it is not the name of a Sect, but of an Office, or Profession; for one man may be a Scribe, and a Pharisee; a Scribe by his Office, and a Pharisee by his Sect; as you may see, Mat. 22.35. Then one of them, viz. of the Pharisees, which was a Lawyer, asked him a question: A Lavvyer, i. e. a Scribe as Mark interprets it, chap. 12.28. And one of the Scribes, whom Matthew calleth one of the Pharisees. 2. Esdras also was a Scribe, and no Pharisee. 3. It is commonly thought by Divines, that there was three sorts of Scribes, Some about the King, which they prove from 2 Sam. 8.17. Sariah was the Scribe, and 20.25. Sheva vvas Scribe, see 2 Kings 12.10. and 22.3. Others were Publick Notaries, as were the Kenites, that came of Hemath, the father of the House of Rechab, 1 Chronicles, 2.25. who had no Heritage with the rest of the Tribes, see Ier. 32.11. where yee see an Evi­dence drawn up by such a Notary, and what was the custome in drawing up of such Evidences. Others were as it were Doctors, or Professors of the Law, whose charge was to write the Law, and to expound it in the Temple, and in the Synagogues, wherefore they were called [...] Lawyers, Matth. 7.29. and 17.10. and 23.13. Mar. 12.28. Luk. 7.30. and 11.46. and wise men, Ier. 8.8. 1 Cor. 1.19. None of them all were accounted for Sectaries.

M. S. 7. Answ. P. 51. Sect. 21. Nor did they, nor were they to inflict any outward punishment upon every kind of Idolater, though of the Iewish both Nation and Religion; as first, not upon covetous Persons, who yet are a kind of Idolaters: Nor secondly, upon those, who yet worshipped the true God of Israel, though with some violation of the second Commandement, as when they sacrificed upon the High Places, &c. But 1. Vpon such only, who aposta­tized from the God of Israel; and yet 2. Not upon such simply, as such, but as attempting to draw away others of the People unto the same Idolatries with them.

A. S. 1. It is an untruth, that they punished not, or at least were not bound to punish all Idolatry, properly so called, since we have produced you for­mall examples, and Covenants to the contrary; as Exod. 32.27. Deut. 22.11.2. Neither were they Apostates, that pleaded for Baal, and yet a sentence of death was given against them conditionally, Iudg. 6.31, or they of whom it is spoken. 1 Kings 15.12. 2 Chro. 14.4, 5.3. Neither could the small ones in the 15. chap. ver. 13. yet be Apostates, or entice others to Idolatry: and yet in case of Idolatry, or of not seeking the Lord, they were to dye. 4. Nor [Page 21]read we, that Maachah the Kings Mother, who was punished, was an Apostate. 5. Or those that are mentioned in Esdras, and Nehemiah. 6. Yea when the Kings, or people fell away to Idolatry, we never finde that they apostatized, for then they should have been no more Gods people. 7. Only they joyned I­dolatry with the service of the true God; yea our Divines in disputing against Papists, maintaine the Papists are Idolaters, for the adoration of Statues and Images; and that the people of the Iewes were not so mad, as to have ima­gined their Statues or Images to be true Gods: only they adored God in Ima­ges and Statues, and the act of their Adoration terminative was related to God, and not to the Image, as that of the Papists. And as for your instance of Covetous Persons; it is ridiculous, for covetousnesse is not properly Idolatry, such as the Scripture speaketh of in the Texts, which I produce; or such as is comprehended in the second Commandement, and is against God; but improperly, since it is not formally a breach of the First, but of the Second Table. 2. Not formally and immediatly a sinne against God, but against our Neighbour. Nor is the sacrificing upon the High Places formally, and essenti­ally Idolatry. 1. For Idolatry is a sinne against the second Commandement, which is Iuris naturalis & perpetui, but to sacrifice upon High Places is not formally and essentially against any Commandement, that is Juris naturalis & perpetui. 2. But only against a Positive, and temporall commandement of not sacrificing in the high places; after that the Temple was built, whereunto God tyed the Religious act of sacrifice. 3. Because the Prohibitive Comman­dement about sacrificing upon High Places came long after the Second Com­mandement about Idolatry, viz. after that the Temple was built. Neither can M. S. bring any Text of Scripture for what he saith, viz. that only Apostates, or Idolaters, who enticed others to Idolatry, were to be punished. 2. Howbeit they be to be punished, yet others are not to be excluded from punishment. I pray the Reader to consider, how tender-hearted this man is towards Ido­laters and false Prophets; he pleadeth for them, as if he had a will to be one of them himselfe: Neither in our Religion use we the rigour of this Law, a­gainst such as are not pertinacious, or who will repent of their sinne: Our Churches desire not the death of a sinner, but of the sinne; not of the Here­ticke or Schismatick, but of the Schisme and Heresie. We distinguish betwixt Heresie, and Heresie; Schisme, and Schisme; for some are of more, some of lesse dangerous consequence: Item betwixt Hereticks, and Hereticks; Schis­maticks, and Schismaticks; for some are Ring-leaders, some misled: some more, some lesse pertinacious and malicious, &c. and every one of them are to be punish't according to the quality of the Heresie and Heretick, of the Schisme and Schismatick. Sometimes also the Circumstances of Times, Places, and Persons are to be considered. And we are to doe what we may, and not what we may not:

M. S. His eighth Answer (as if what he had said were only to exercise [Page 22]his quick spirit, and to shew how cunningly he can elude strong Arguments) is, That there are two reasons why the Kings of Judah might be invested by God with a larger power in matters of Religion, then Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel: 1. Because their Kings were types of Christ, which ours are not: 2. And their People of the spirituall Church of Christ, and their Land of the Heavenly inheritance of that Church, which wee cannot claime.

A. S. Answ. 1. To be a type of Christ, is not a sufficient ground of a Po­liticall power over the Church, or about the Church: For 1. then the Priests, and some Prophets, as Jonas, should have had it: Yea, Adam, Isaac, yea some other thing, as the Tree of Life, the first born of the Flock offered in Sacri­fice by Abel, the Paschall Lambe, the brazen Serpent, all the Victimes of the Old Testament, the Ark and the Propitiatory: for they were all types of Christ.

2. Because it hath no influence upon Civill Authority.

3. Because it could not represent any Civill authority in Christ, since his Kingdome was not of this World.

4. It may be doubted how they were types of Christ, whether in respect of their Civill authority over the Church, or over the State, or otherwise.

5. It may be doubted if they were all types of Christ; as Athalia, Ma­nasseh, Ammon, who destroyed Gods service, and the order of the Church; item, Herod, who persecuted Christ, was sure no type of Christ, and yet was King.

6. If so, then the King of Egypt, of Syria, of the Philistims, yea the Ro­mans, who domineered over them, were types of Christ. At least, the Kings of Israel were not types of Christ, since they were all apostatized from the Cere­moniall Law that ordained all the types: for a type, whether it be a thing, a person, persons, action, effect, or event, it must signifie something to come. 2. It must signifie, by Gods institution or ordinance; and therefore neither was the Nazareate, or all the Nazarites types of Christ, as some Divines hold: 1. Because the Nazareate was not a ceremony ordained by God, but volunta­rily vowed. 2. Because it prefigurated not Christ to come, or his benefits: and therefore, say they, Christ drank wine, and touched the dead: only they vowed it to bring under their flesh, and for a pious exercise.

7. Howbeit they had been types of Christ in regard of their authority a­bout the Church, yet will it not follow, that Christian Princes cannot have it: for that which was typicall might be taken away, and that which was politi­call may remaine.

8. And I put the case, that the Iewes had received Christ, as absolutely they might have done, who can doubt but their Politicall Government might have continued, and their Kings ruled as well the Church externally, as they did before his comming, since Christs Kingdome was not of this World, and [Page 23]that he came not to abolish or to diminish the power of Kings, but to save their soules: they were no wayes losers by Christs comming, but rather gai­ners. He might as well have said, they had a Civill power about the Church, because they had their noses betwixt their eyes. Many were types of Christ, that had not this authority about the Church; and many had this authority about the Church, who were not types of Christ: Ergo, this reason of his is false, and ridiculous.

No more were the people of the Iewes types of the Christian Church, in respect of the Civill, but of the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Government by Church-officers, and the People subject thereunto. So also was their Land a type of the Celestiall Hierusalem, not as it conteined the State, but the Church; otherwise it should have been a type of Heaven, before that the people of God had any right to it. And finally, types are not ordained by the Politicall or Morall Law, as Magistrates, and their Authority, (at least, qua tales) but only by the Ceremoniall Law. True it is, that God may serve himselfe of a thing instituted by the Morall Law to be a type, but he must make it a type by some subsequent Ceremoniall Law.

What he saith against all this, p. 52. §.23. that good Kings never oppressed godly persons, when they were for a while tender in conscience, it is not to the purpose. We only say here, that they may punish Idolaters, Seducers, Hereticks, and Sectaries; who are never such, till they be sufficiently convicted, and after that remain pertinacious: But no wayes good people, under the notion of good people, but so far forth as they doe amisse: And what rea­son, if he who heretofore by the judgement of Charity was thought a good man, if he become an Heretick, or a Murtherer, should not be punished accor­ding to Law, since the Magistrate punisheth him not for his good, but for his ill?

§. 24. He saith, that I must prove that the Kings of Iudah had such a power by a Morall law, which is of a perpetuall obligation and engagement upon o­ther Nations.

A.S. Answ. It suffices, that I have proved it by a Politicall Law; and that the same reason obliges Christian Princes, v [...]z. B. cause they will turne thee from the Lord thy God, Deut. 13.5.10. [...] Thus Politicall law is grounded upon the fifth Commandement, which is Iuris naturalis. It must be so, since it is grounded in naturall reason. 4. And our Reasons (God willing) hereafter shall make it appeare. 5. In the mean time, take for an example Nebuchad­nezzar, who, since he was no le [...], could not doe it in vertue of any Politicall law of the Iewes, for he was no Subject of the Kingdome of Iuda: only he could doe it in vertue of the Morall, or some Politicall law grounded on the Morall, or the law of Nature.

M. S. It was no more Morall, then that of the staying of the inhabitants of the idolatrous City, and the cattell thereof, &c.

A. S. I deny it, for the one is grounded upon Naturall and Divine reason, as we have seene, and (God willing) shall see more fully by our following reasons: but so is not the other.

P. 52, 53. §. 25. Answ. 8. M. S. Answers 1. That the Kings of Iuda only exercised their power about Idolatry, and Idolaters.

A. S. I deny it: 1. For they exercised it also in beating downe of the High Places, wherein there was not Idolatry, as having been permitted before the building of the Temple. 2. Because there is the same reason binding them, to exercise it against the transgressions of the first Commandement, the violation whereof is more directly against Gods Honour; for sacrificing in High Places is but a circumstance of the second Commandement violated, but Heresie and Schisme are formall breaches of the first Commandement; the one of faith, the other of charity therein commanded, and the false Prophet was to be put to death. 2. In the same Section he saith, that it was the generality of the Church, or Nation of the Jewes, and not their Kings that was invested with it by God, Deut. 13. and 7.5. and 12.2, 3.

A. S. Here is Anabaptisme in devesting the Magistrate of his Power, and vesting the people with it. What? had every one the power of the Sword a­mongst the people of the Iewes? 2. Was their Government Democraticall? or rather Anarchicall? Had women, children, and servants this Power? I grant you that in vertue of the Law, and their Covenant, they had all an hand in in the matter; but not absolutely, but every man according to his Vocation: the King and Magistrate, as Judges, but the people only to execute accor­ding to their Commands. Neither is it credible, that when a false Prophet, or an Idolater was to be punished, every one of the people was to judge him at his pleasure, or to stone him to death. Neither containe these Passages, that you cite any such thing, and therefore you did very cunningly not to quote the words themselves, whereupon you ground this conclusion. And is this all the power and respect you give to the Parliament, and Civill Magistrate in Ecclesi­asticall matters, even no more then to the meanest of the people? Truely they are much beholden to you for your great liberality: And if so, ride on in de­spite of King and Parliament to your beloved Conventicles. Neither can I finde in these passages, Deut. 7.5. and 12.2, 3. or Deut. 13. any such thing, viz. that it was the generality of the Church, or Nation of the Iewes, that were invested with it; for God never invested the confused multitude in any judici­all, or authoritative power.

CHAP. V. Wherein the same Conclusion is further proved by Reasons.

NOw after these Testimonies out of Holy Writ, I bring these Reasons fol­lowing, grounded upon it: and 1. That power which the Civill Magi­trate had in the old Testament, and is not abrogated in the New may yet con­tinue [Page 25]in the New, or the Civill Magistrate may have it in the New.

But the power to punish Hereticks, and Schismaticks is a Power, which the Civill Magistrate had in the Old Testament and is not abrogated in the New Testament. Ergo the power to punish Hereticks, and Schismaticks, is a such a Power he may Civill Magistrate may have in the New, and so in vertue of Power, which the punish them.

The Major is certaine, for there is no other true way to make it not to continue, but only the abrogation: As for the Minor, the first part of it is certaine, as appeareth by the Texts of Scripture already alleadged. The se­cond Part may easily be proved, because only the Ceremoniall Law, which contained the shadow of things to come, was abrogated in the New Testa­ment. The Morall Law was not abrogated so farre forth as it is a Rule of obedience, nor as it bindes us thereunto: No more is the Politicall Law in quality of Politicall; for by the same reason Christ should have over-thrown and abrogated all the Politicall Lawes, and policies of the world. But that is false, for Christs Kingdome was not of this world; and he submitteth him­selfe unto the Politicall Law of the Jewes, yea unto that of the Romans also, established amongst the Jewes: So did Paul and the Apostles, who pleaded their causes before Heathen Magistrates; I appeale unto Caesar, saith Paul, Non auferet mortalia, qui regna dat Coelestia.

2. Yea, if the Jewes had received Christ for their Messias, I doubt not but the Politicall Law of Moses, in quality of Politicall, should have continued a­mongst them, and the Civill Magistrate amongst them should have punished Hereticks, Schismaticks, Idolaters, &c. in the New Testament, as they did in the Old. Neither is there any reason, wherefore Christ, or his Apostles should have hindred him by his Politicall power to maintaine the Christian Religion in the New Testament, as before he did in the Old.

3. And it may be further confirmed, because the greater the favours be, that the Civill Magistrate hath received of God in the New Testament then in the Old; so much the greater obligation is laid upon him by his Power, to maintaine Gods Cause, and Religion.

4. And the holier our Covenant is, and the further it surpasses the Old, so much the greater should the Civill Magistrates care be, to maintaine it by his Civill Power.

5. If it were not so, the State of the Church in regard of the Civill Magi­strate should be worse in the New, then in the Old Testament; for then he maintained it by his Civill Power, and by the sword; and now he doth it not, nor yet hath the power to doe it.

6. Is not this plaine Anabaptisme, to approve the authority of the Civill Magistrate in the Old Testament, and to reject it in the New; for as the Ana­baptists reject it wholly in the New Testament, so doe the Independents in part, yea in a great part, viz. in that, which concerneth the defence of the [Page 26]Church in punishing Hereticks, Schismaticks, Idolaters, &c.

7. He who should be a Nurse, and a Tutor of the Church in the New Testament, should defend her by all his power: But Kings and Princes, and good Magistrates should be such, as we may see in all the Examples heretofore alleadged, and in Pharaoh, and Esay 1.49.22. where it is promised that Kings shall be Nurses of the Church.

8. What if forraigne Princes would invade the Church of God? may not godly Princes in such a case justly defend it, and represse them by the sword? wherefore then may they not doe the like to their owne Subjects, who will trouble her peace, and by so doing compell them to their duty?

9. Doth not the Civill Magistrate this in New England? wherefore then may he not doe it in Old England, unlesse forsooth the Majestaticall presence of five or six Independent Ministers here be capable to dazle, and discounte­nance him here, whereas they receive all their lustre and influence from him there, or that as Monkes and Friers yee plead pro immunitate Clericorum, or that the ridiculous thunder-bolts of Master Goodwins pretended Judgements of God, be capeable to dash it all in pieces here?

10. If the Civill Magistrate have not a sufficient Power to punish Idola­ters, Hereticks, and Schismaticks for Religion, then all the Roman Lawes in the Code made against Hereticks, and those of this Kingdome made a­gainst Iesuites, Monkes, and Priests, must be unjust; yea the Iudgements gi­ven out against them since this Parliament begun are unjust; and if so, you would doe well to tell them of it: If we beleeve these American Christians, the Parliaments Lawes are little lesse then tyrannicall.

11. That for which all Princes are commended in Scripture, that all good Princes should doe; and for which they are discommended, that should they not doe. But for punishing of Idolaters, Schismaticks, Hereticks, &c. all Princes that did so in Scripture are commended, and for sparing of them are discommended. Ergo all good Princes should punish Hereticks, &c. and not spare them. The Major is certaine, the Minor is sufficiently proved by the Examples of all the good Kings of Juda, and of Iehu.

12. They are bound to punish all such, as trouble the peace of the State, Ergo they are likewise bound to punish such as trouble the peace of the Church, for who ever troubleth the peace of the Christian Church, troubleth also the peace of the State, when the State is Christian.

13. If the Civill Magistrate be not bound by his Office to punish Hereticks, Schismaticks, &c. he is bound to tolerate them all; and so to tolerate all Independents, all Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists, Socinians, &c. yea some, who deny the Immortality of the Soule, that hold a generall Resur­rection of all Beasts, as well as of men; yea of all, that ever have been since the Creation of the world, or shall be to the day of Iudgement: peradventure of Lice, Flyes, VVormes, &c. and so he shall doe well to Licence the [Page 27]Bookes of such subjects, till Master Goodwin, alias M. S. resute them; for he findes no other remedy in Gods Word, but to refute such Bookes. If we be­leeve this new Gospeller, yee shall have in a short time as many Religions as dayes, yea as houres in a yeare: 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, yee all most Honoura­ble Worthies of the two Houses of Parliament, to this most damnable Tenet.

14. Princes, Kings, and Iudges in Scripture are called Deliverers, or Sa­viours of the people, because they defend the Church from her Oppressors, Iudg. 2.16. such as be Hereticks, Schismaticks, &c. If therefore yee be our Iudges, most Honourable, and worthy Senators, it is your part to defend Gods people, the Religion, which he hath established in his Word, and to destroy Oppressors, and the Enemies thereof; I meane not their Bodies, but their Oppressions, their Heresies and Schismes.

15. Masters have power to put Hereticks and Schismaticks out of their houses, in case they be pertinacious; Ergo Princes 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 lyeth.

16. What power is juris naturalis, is to be exercised in all times and places according to our power: But the power to punish Hereticks, &c. is Iuris naturalis, Erge it is to be exercised in all times, and places. The first Proposi­tion is certaine; 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 naturall reason of it, viz. for they will turne thy heart away from the Lord thy God, Deut. 7.4. and 13.5. the reason will be thus: who ever in all Morall proba­bility will turne the peoples heart away from God, it is the Civill Magistrates duty to punish him. But Hereticks, &c. are such, Ergo it is the Civill Magi­strates duty to punish them; it is Moses argument.

17. If the Civill Magistrate punish not Hereticks, he should become a partaker of other mens sins, because he hindereth them not, so farre forth as in him lyeth by his Civill Power, viz. in punishing them: neither carrieth he the sword in vaine; neither can it be better employed then in punishing pertinacious sinners, such as are Hereticks and Schismaticks: But he should not become a partaker of other mens sins, as the light of Nature, and Scrip­ture teacheth us, 1 Tim. 5.22.

18. If he punish not Hereticks, then every man in the Kingdome shall have power to mould himselfe a new Religion, according to his owne heart, as the [Page 28]Israelites did their golden Calfe, and doe what should seeme right in his owne 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 owne 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 Audiani were condemned for Hereticks, 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 Godlinesse 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 Hereticks and Schismaticks, and so in re­pressing of Schisme and Heresie.

20. Because in a State wherein all men professe the truth, the peace of the State cannot be otherwayes preserved; nor the safety of the Kingdome, which is the ultimate end of the Civill Magistrate, qua talis, and the supreme Law of the Republike 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 wayes so soon, and so easily broken, as by diversity of Religi­ons? And this the Ecclesiasticall History fully sheweth us: for what miseries cannot these Schismes breed; when the Husband is of one Religion, and the wife of another; the Father of one, and the Sonne 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 Kingdome both. Yea, what is one of the principall causes of our present divisions betwixt the King and the Subjects? Is not Arminianisme, Socinianisme, the Archiepiscopall (I know not what) Religion? Some call it Popery, some Socinianisme, others Arminianisme, others Lutheranisme, o­thers some mixture of Religion, not much unlike to Samaritanisme. But be it what it will; diversity of Religion, and not punishing of Hereticks and Schismaticks, is the principall cause of all these our miseries and con­fusions.

21. The Civill 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 alleadged, [ 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 Heretick, then to be married to them.

22. Those, with whom we cannot enter into Covenant, cannot be tole­rated [Page 29]among us, but must be at least exiled by the Civill Magistrate: for, to live amongst us, they must, at least, enter into Covenant with us for an offen­sive and defensive warre against forraigne Enemies:

But with Idolaters, Hereticks, &c. 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 then God should not destroy ours, were it not policie to la­bour the destruction of his?

24. The man who will not hearken to the Ministers of the Church, and the Civill Magistrate, the Civill Magistrate must punish him. But Hereticks and Schismaticks are the men, who will not hearken unto the Ministers of the Church, and to the Civill Magistrate; Ergo, the Civill Magistrate must punish them. The first Proposition is cleere: The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall dye, 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 evill, the conservation of order and unity, and to avoyd Schisme. 2. Neither did Christ by his death obtaine for us an immunity from all obedience, or an independent licentiousnesse to doe ill. 3. And this is the Holy Ghosts reason in that same place: And thou shalt put away the evill from Israel: And all the people shall heare, and feare, and doe no more presumptuously, ver. 12.13. which obligeth us as well unto obedience under the New Testament, as those of the Old Testament.

25. So we have an Example of Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and On, who were Independents, and for their independency, and not subjection unto the authori­tative power of Moses and Aaron, were severely punished by Moses, and pe­rished miserably.

We might bring many reasons of the Holy Ghost himselfe, wherefore the Civill Magistrate must punish Idolaters, false Prophets, or Hereticks, &c.

26. Because Gods people is an holy people to the Lord.

27. Because they know that God is faithfull, and keepeth his Covenant, Deut. 7. and 13. Neither can any man blame such Arguments, but those who will blame the Holy Ghost his Arguments; for they are not mine, but His.

CHAP. VI. Wherein are answered M.S. his Reasons, that he hath, Chap. 1. And first the first sixe.

NOw I will propound M.S. his Objections, whereof many conclude, that this Intrinsecall power not only doth belong to the Civill Magistrate, but also to all the members of the Church.

M.S. then, p. 33. §. 2. argueth, 1. thus: By such an umpirage and decision as this, between the Civill Magistrate, and himselfe, viz. A.S. with his fellow Presbyters, hath he not made the one Judex, and the other Carnifex: the one, i. e. the Civill Magistrate, must give the sentence; the other must doe execution.

Answ. A.S. 1. There is no decision at all between the Civill Magistrate, and A. S. for A. S. is but a private man, neither Magistrate, nor Church-Officer. 2. Neither are the Presbyters his fellow-Presbyters, since he is no Presbyter: These then, in the beginning, are manifest untruths. 3. Neither can this decision in granting an Intrinsecall povver, both directive and execu­tive, to the Church; and an Extrinsecall to the Civill Magistrate, (viz. which is extrinsecall in respect of Ecclesiasticall povver, but intrinsecall to Civill povver) make the Church or Ecclesiasticall Assembly a Judge, and the Parlia­ment or Civill Magistrate a Hangman (to remember his most humble respects unto the King, Parliament, and all the Iudges of this Kingdome) For the Ec­clesiasticall Assemblies (as it is the common opinion of all our Divines) cannot judge of the Civill Magistrate his duty. 2. Neither have they ever been so foolish, as M. S. most passionately and impudently calumniateth them here, to command him any thing. 3. They acknowledge most willingly, that the Church, being materially a part of the State, is subject to Civill Government. 4. That the Church, which is the Kingdome of Christ, hath no Civill power, since it is not of this World, Joh. 18.26. 5. That the Civill Magistrate com­manding and compelling such as be refractory and disobedient to the Church, must not see with the Churches eyes, but with his own Civill or Politicall eyes. 6. And that in so doing he obeyeth not the Church, or any Ecclesi­asticall power, but God, whose power he exerciseth in the State, as the Ec­clesiasticall Assemblies doe exercise Christs power in the Church. 7. Yea more, that sometimes the Civill Magistrate may not punish those who are disobedient to the Church, viz. if thereupon may follow the undoing of the State, &c. 8. For the same reason, it is most untrue, that the one giveth out the sentence, and the other must doe execution. 9. And moreover, because they are two severall Iudicatories, they are both independent one upon another, howsoever both divers wayes subject one to another: for the Civill Magi­strate is subject in a spirituall way to the Church; He must learne Gods will by the Ministers of the Church, who are Gods Ambassadours, sent unto him: He must be subject unto Ecclesiasticall Censures, as we see by the Examples of the Kings in the Old Testament, and Theodosius the Emperour in the New. So the Church againe is subject not in a Spirituall, but in a Civill way, to the Government of the Civill Magistrate, as all Protestants, and Ministers them­selves confesse, and plead for it against the Romane Clergie, in favour of the Civill Magistrate. 10. The Civill Magistrate hath power, not to receive into the State all that which the Church judgeth fitting: He may irresistably hin­der [Page 31]it, if he will. 11. If he be Carnifex, because that he commands it to be put in execution, he should be Carnifex, when ever he should command his own judgements to be put in execution 12. So should Independents be Carnifices, when either the Civill Magistrate or the Church commands them to doe their duty. 13. The Carnifex or Executioner pronounceth not a sentence as the Ma­gistrate.

M. S. Obj. 2. pag. 33. The Civill Magistrate is much beholding to the Presbyter, for giving him a Consecrated sword to fight the Presbiterian bat­tels; and for perswading of him to pull out his own eyes, upon this presump­tion, that he shall see better with his.

A. S. As able as this man is in jeering, and calumniating, as unable is he in arguing against this truth, especially if he have no better arguments in his Budget by way of Reserve, then what he brings here, all he saith is utterly false. 1. The Presbyterians have none but spirituall battels to fight; 2 Cor. 10.3, 4. the weapons of their warfare are not carnall. 2. They doe not warre after the flesh; neither wrastle they against flesh and bloud, but against the Ru­lers of the darknesse of this world, against spirituall wickednesse in High Places; their sword is the sword of the spirit, Eph. 6.12. And therefore they cannot, nor pretend they to give him this spirituall sword; they cannot quit it: much lesse can they give him the materiall sword which is none of theirs to give, for he hath it of God; he is the Minister of God, Rom. 13.4. avenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evill. 2. It is false, that the Presbyterians perswade him to pull out his ovvn eyes, or to see vvith theirs. 1. For they teach him to learne the Gospell, by reading the Word, and hearing it Preached by the Ministers thereof, according to Gods Word, and not by every Cobler, as amongst Independents in exercising their gifts. 2. And afterwards to see and judge by his owne eyes. 3. They say and Preach that it is a great sin in him, if he judge with any other then his owne eyes. 4. He must judge according to the Lawes of the State; otherwise he doth not the part of a Iudge. 5. Yea if his judgement dissent from the judgement of the Law, we know well enough he ought to quit both his owne judgement, and that of the Church, and to judge against his owne private conscience according to the Law, and his pub­lick conscience which he is bound to have, as a publick person, conforme to Law; for he sitteth not upon the Tribunall as a private, but as a publick Per­son, not as Iames or Charles, but as King Iames, or King Charles. So in this there is no policy, as this malignant spirit calumniateth. I omit here his deepe policy in comparing the Civill Magistrate, 1. King, Parliament, &c. with a Dogge. 2. And the Presbytery with an Ape: whether this be not prophanation, and impiety at least, and that in a pretty high degree, I submit to the judgement of those whom it so nearely concerneth, if they be Apes I wonder you will call them Brethren. VVhat brother Ape, and so Apes your selves, according to your Tenet: so let the Conclusion hold for you; but we deny [Page 32]the Antecedent, in so far forth as applyed to Presbyterians.

M. S. Obj. 3. Surely the frame and constitution of Presbyterie is exactly calculated for the Meridian of this present World: And indeed A. S. him­selfe is somewhat ingenuous, in acknowledging, that this Government hath little or no relation unto, or compliance with the World, which is to come; professing, p. 13. the externall peace of the Church to be the adequate end thereof. The Argument will be thus:

That Government, whose adequate end is the externall peace of the Church, hath no compliance with the world to come, but is calculated for the Meridian of this world:

But Presbyterian Government is a Government, whose adequate end is the Externall peace of the Church, as A. S. confesseth, p. 13. Ergo: The Pres­byterian Government hath no compliance, &c.

A.S. To be short here; Note, when I say, that the peace of the Church is the adequate end of Church-Government; 1. That by the Church-Government, I meane not the Church, according to her essentiall, but to her accidentall or visible forme: 2. And consequently, that by Government I meane not the internall Government, which belongeth to her, in respect of her essentiall, but the externall, which belongeth to her, by reason of her acci­dentall or visible forme: the first is proper to Christ, or God in Christ, who only hath a domination over our soules. But the second he exer­ciseth by the Ministery of men. 3. That by the peace of the Church, I meane not a worldly, but a spirituall peace or quietnesse, voyd of Ecclesiasti­call trouble, by corruption of Doctrine, Discipline, or manners; for in the midst of wordly troubles and persecutions, this peace may be had; neither can there one word of all this be denyed, since our dispute here is only about the visible Church. 4. That by the word end I mean't not, 1. Finem ultimum simpliciter, sed in suo genere, i. e. not the ultimate end absolutely, but in its owne kind; nor 2. Finem operantis Artificis, or operis; but Artis & Operatio­nis; not the end of the Agent, of the Artist, or of his worke; but of the Art or Habitude, whereby he operateth, and of his Operation. Nor 3. the exter­nall end of Government, such as is the World to come, or eternall life; but the internall end, which is her peace and quietnesse; which however it be an externall accident of the Churches Essence, yet it is the intrinsecall end of her externall Government. Nor, 4. the common end of Government, which is the end of other things also, as, the World to come; which is the end of our Faith, Charity, of all Christian vertues, of Discipline and Government also, but the proper and particular end thereof. 5. Non finem obtinendum solum, but, pro­ducendum. And I could not, nor should have taken it otherwise, as this man most impertinently would have me to doe: for things are defined, notified, and distinguished by their internall, proper, ultimate ends in suo genere, and that are to be wrought; and not by their extrinsecall, common, absolutely [Page 33]ultimate ends, &c. as the Philosophers doe teach us.

So I answer, that the Proposition is false; for Church-Government may have the Externall peace of the Church for its adequate, Intrinsecall, proper, ultimate end, in sno genere, and for the end of Government and Discipline, which is finis producendus; And the World to come, for its Extrinsecall, com­mon, absolutely ultimate end; for the end that is to be obteined, and end of the Agent, and of his worke.

And if it be objected, that the adequate end of Church-Government should containe in it selfe all its ends, and consequently the life to come. I answer, that that is most false, for it containeth only its partiall ends. 2. If it be the Internall end, it containeth not the Externall end thereof: If it be the proper end, it cannot containe the common end, but the common end containeth it: neither is it needfull that it containe the mediate and ultimate ends, or the ultimate absolutely, and the ultimate in its own kind or sort; for only it con­taineth in it the partiall ends, such as are not subordinate, as the mediate and ultimate end, or as the ultimate absolutely, and in its own kind or sort: And the reason of it is this; because, as partes and compartes, so partiall ends are coordinate and opposed one to another, and not subordinate, as the mediate and ultimate end, or as the ultimate absolutely, and in its own kind, as the Externall peace of the Church, and the VVorld to come.

Object. 4. The sum of M.S. his discourse, p. 33. §. 5. and p. 34. commeth to this; If the civill Magistrate hath not a Directive power in the Church, but the Church-Assemblies have it alone; then the Church-Assembly must have the gift of Infallibility.

A.S. This is a Papisticall Argument, whereby the Iesuites prove, that the Romish Church cannot erre: But I answer him, and Papists both.

Ans. 1. I deny this connexum: for a Directive power may be, where there is no infallibility. 2. The Independents arrogate to their Congregationall Churches and Presbyteries, a Directive power, without any gift of infallibi­lity. 3. They grant a Directive power unto the Civill Magistrate, whom they grant to be fallible. 4. And howbeit the Civill Magistrate be fallible, yet they will not grant, that the Presbyterie may, or should iudge over him; no more can the Civill Magistrate judge over the Presbyterie, however it be fallible. 5. For by the same reason, any man might judge them both, since they are both fallible. 6. Howbeit any Iudge, either Secular or Ecclesiasticall, be fal­lible, yet must they be obeyed, till judicially they be convicted of error; other­wise controversies should never be ended, since wee have no infallible Iudge or Iudgement in this life, unlesse God extraordinarily should reveale it to us.

Object. 5. After such stuffe, as we have seen, M. S. p. 34. §. 2. guesses what I meane by a Directive power, and brings three acceptions of it, but all short of what I meane: The first is, that it may signifie a liberty or power of con­sidering, [Page 34]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 ought to be done (against all contradiction) in matters of Religion: and this he grants to God alone; and addeth; If the Presbyterians demand such a Directive power, let them ask the Crown, Throne, and Kingdome of Christ also. To this, A. S. saith, that all men may grant it to be true, if they claimed any soveraigne, Royall authoritative power: But if they claime only a Ministeriall power, it is as great a sacrilege to deny them it, as blasphemy in them to arrogate the other, since they are Gods Ministers and Ambassadors for Christ. 3. A prudentiall faculty or ability to direct, order, or prescribe, whether to a mans selfe, or to others, what in a way of reason, humane conjecture, or probability, is best and fittest to be done, followed, or imbraced in matters of Religion: and this he grants to the Parliament, to many private Members of particular Churches, and to Presbyteries and Synods also, howsoever with a restriction.

But in all these his Conjectures, he hath no waies guessed at my mind: for by a Directive power, however I meane a prudentiall Prudence, yet meane I not a private prudentiall Prudence, which may be found in Midwives, Maid­servants, and VVater-men; for in granting such a Power to the Parliament and Ecclesiasticall Senates, he grants them no more, then to the meanest of the people; but I meane an authoritative publick, and Ecclesiasticall pruden­tiall power, not Soveraign, Imperiall, Royall, or Despoticall, or Magisteriall; but Ministeriall, such as may belong to Ministers, and Ambassadours of Christ: And as I have said, it is not [...] or [...] whereof Aristotle speaketh in the Category of Quality, but [...], no naturall power, no naturall or superna­turall Habitude; but Potestas or Morall Power depending upon will, and not upon Nature, or that is the work of will, and not of Nature.

CHAP. VII. Wherein are dissolved his 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Reasons borrowed from the Parliaments Ordinance.

Ob. 6. AFter all his guessing, so little to purpose, p. 35. §. 6. he endeavou­reth to prove by the Ordinance of the Parliament for the calling of the Assembly, that the Civill Magistrate doth claime, yea and exercise, act, and make use of such an authority from day to day, as occasion requireth; Be­cause the Parliament published their Ordinance for calling the Assembly.

A. S. Ansvv. I deny the consequence, for that contrivance and publi­shing of their Ordinance, is not a directive power, intrinsecall to the Church, whereof we speake, for neither directs it them intrinsecally in Doctrine, Discipline or manners, but extrinsecally; 1. because the Ecclesiasticall Assembly may be, and hath sundry times been convocated without it, as in the Primi­tive [Page 35]Church. 2. Because it was before ever the Synod began, and without any Ecclesiasticall act: Now what is before a Synod beginneth, and without any Ecclesiasticall Act cannot be intrinsecall to the Synod, or to the Church. 3. Because the Directive power, whereof I speake, was in Iudging of Contro­versies of Religion, &c. but the publishing of an Ordinance for calling the As­sembly, is no such thing. Ergo, 4. Because that calling of the Assembly by Civill Authority alone, was extraordinary, howbeit very just and conforme unto Gods Word. Neither could this be an Ecclesiasticall Assembly, unlesse it were vertually called by the Church Officers in vertue of their subsequent consent thereunto: and all these Answers must be taken conjunctly, and not severally. 5. Because this Assembly is not Ecclesiasticall in vertue of the Ordi­nance of the Parliament, but of the virtuall consent of the Church. The ver­tuall indiction of it by Church Authority, contributeth to make it intrinsecally Ecclesiasticall: But the Ordinance of the Parliament is extrinsecall unto it, in so farre forth as Ecclesiasticall, howsoever it be very just and necessary: but it is intrinsecall to it accidentally, and in so farre as is to be received in the State, which absolutely is extrinsecall to the Church.

Ob. M. S. In limiting those, that were to be of the Assembly, to the sub­iect or Argument, on which it was permitted them to debate; they did no lesse, i. e. they exercised a directive power.

A. S. Answ. 1. But this is no intrinsecall directive power, whereof I speake, viz. in Teaching, Preaching, judgeing of Controversies of Religion, &c. 2. This was no Ecclesiasticall, but a Civill Power. 3. In so doing, the Parliament judged not what was to be beleeved or practised in the Church, but ordained them to judge, which is the true intrinsecall, directive power. 4. And this was extraordinary in respect of Gods particular, howbeit not in respect of his generall Providence in the Government of his Church.

M. S. Ob. 8. In appointing and ordering them not to determine or con­clude of things, as they pleased, by Pluralities of Votes, but to deliver their Opinions and advices as should be most agreeable to the Word of God (another proviso in the Ordinance) they did the same.

A.S. 1. M.S. would here seem to give some great power unto the Parlia­ment in matters of Religion, & yet it is nothing else, but that, which he grants to too many private Members of particular Churches. So that if the King and Parliament will become Members of this M. S. his Church, and He please to admit them, it may be, that he will grant them as much power, as to other private Members thereof. 2. Note, that he saies not, that it belongs unto them, but, that they claime it, exercise, act, and make use of it; but quo jure, quave injuriâ, he telleth not. 3. In all this there appeareth no intrinsecall, or Eccle­siasticall Power, they did it not by a Spirituall, but by a Secular Power. 4. And if the Church had not a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Power to determine; and to conclude, what needed the Parliament to forbid it the Synod, rather [Page 36]then ordinary Tradesmen, who have no such power to determine such matters. 5. Neither by this command is it the Parliaments mind, as I beleeve, to take away from the Church the directive and intrinsecall Power, that God hath granted her, but only to desire her to put off her Determinations, till it see how farre it can prevaile by faire meanes to gaine pertinacious men, who may op­po [...]e it; and happily also till it receive full satisfaction it selfe, before it con­firme such Determinations by an Act of Parliament, and so make them to be received by their authority in the State; for the Parliament hath no lesse Ci­vill and Secular Authority to receive, or not receive it by a Civill Law into the state, then any Synod hath spirituall authority to establish, or not establish it by an Ecclesiasticall Law in the Church. Wherefore in this the Parliament intended not to crosse the Church Government, nor to be crossed in their Civill Government by the Church, as in former times, but to live together, as Moses and Aaron, both looking to one end, but each one of them with their owne eyes, the one with a Politicall, the other with a Spirituall or Ecclesiasti­call eye. And this appeareth by those words of the Ordinance, during this present Parliament, or untill further order be taken. Now, if this Order were full, what needed the Synod attend for a further Order? Neither is there any man of judgement, that can blame the Parliament in all this, yea howbeit it should extraordinarily doe more in this extraordinarily miserable estate of Religion, when now Sathan hath so manifest and palpable an entrance into the Church of God, under so many ill-portending shapes, as of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, Socinians, &c. they had need take upon them, for the defence of the Church, more then in ordinary cases they doe. 7. Only I adde a word, viz. that these words (as they pleased by plurality of Votes) are not in the Ordinance, but are an addition of M. S. in contempt of the Sy­nod, as if the Members thereof voted not according to Scripture, but as pleased themselves. And 8. that in case of difference in Opinion, it is not or­dained, that they represent their Opinions, and the reasons thereof, to either or both the Houses, to the end that they may judge of the matter, but that they may finde out some further direction, whereby the Assembly may judge it. 9. Yea there is another Ordinance since the printed Ordinance, whereby it is ordained, that all things agreed upon and prepared for the Parliament should be openly read, and allowed in the Assembly, and then offered, as the judgement of the Assembly, if the Major part consent: see how the judge­ment of the Major part of the Assembly is here declared by the Parliament, to be acknowledged, as the Decision of the Assembly, which M. S. will not stand unto.

Object. 9. In enjoyning them, in case of difference of opinions between them, to present the same, together with the reasons thereof, to both Houses; they did every whit as much.

A.S. Answ. 1. I deny that they who enjoyne, in case of difference, &c. have [Page 37]an Internall power in the Church, much lesse an internall Directive power. 2. This injunctiō was not in reference to the Intrinsecal power of the Church, which is evermore within the Church; but to the Extrinsecall power about the Church, i.e. to that of the Magistrate, whose power is without the Church, howsoever within the State; and in so far forth as the Parliament, by Civill Law, intended to approve and confirme the Ecclesiasticall Law. 3. Item, it was to see, if by any meanes and wayes of meeknesse, it could perswade a few men of your Sect to submit themselves unto the Order and Government that God hath established in his Church; as they have done you many other favours, which you too much undervalue, arguing from this favour, as from a Law, to that which is, or should be ordinary Iustice. And yet they ordai­ned, that what is caried by plurality of Votes in the Assembly, should passe as the judgement of the whole Assembly.

Object. 10. M.S. In their nominating and calling such and such Ministers, and not others, to be of the Assembly, they acted the same power.

A.S. Answ. That is also Extrinsecall, since it was not in, but out of, and before the Assembly. 2. And extraordinary. 3. And yet very ordinate and ordinary for this extraordinary state of the Church in this Kingdome, when such a swarme of Sects are crept in; some comming from New England, o­thers from the Netherlands, and others from other places: For, if every one of them should have had entry into the Assembly, what should have become of us? 4. Neither doth this prove any Directive power in the Church, in teaching, &c. (as I said) that should belong unto the Magistrate.

M.S. Ob. 11. In framing the temper and constitution of the Assembly, al­laying it with such and such Members of their own, they steered the same course.

A.S. Answ. 1. This cannot conclude any Directive, Ecclesiasticall power that belongeth unto the Parliament. 2. These Members of their own, who did sit in the Assembly, if they had any Vote, did not sit there in quality of Members of the Assembly; for then every Member of the Parliament might have sate there: but in quality of extraordinary Ecclesiasticall persons, ac­cording to this extraordinary state and exigence of the Church. 3. If they had no Vote at all, and yet sate, they were not Members of the Assembly, but this was a speciall priviledge granted unto the Members of the House, which in other places likewise is granted unto persons of meaner rank, yea unto Strangers, as we may see in the Church of Scotland, in their Generall Assemblies. 4. Or rather they sit there in name of the Parliament, to procure by their Civill power, the Externall order that should be in such Assemblies: But this is no Ecclesiasticall or Internall power in the Church, but Externall about the Church, such as the French Kings Commissioners (who are sometimes Papists) have in our Protestant Nationall Synods in France, and yet are not Members of our Synods there, neither Vote they, nei­ther [Page 38]pretend they to have any Intrinsecall power there; for then they should professe themselves thereby to be Protestants; only they have power to oppose things, that they beleeve to be prejudiciall to the King or the State. 5. Neither beleeve I, that they vote in points of Doctrine. 6. And if they vote in matter of Government, they doe it in quality of Ruling Elders, either extraordinary or ordinary, in vertue of some virtuall election made by the Synod, or by the Synods toleration, or approbation; for no man can rule the Church intrin­secally, but he that is intrinsecally a Church-Ruler or Officer, as I have proved it heretofore.

M.S. Object. 12. Lastly, in their messages or Directions sent unto them from time to time, how to proceed, what particulars to wave for the present, what to fall upon, and debate, To hasten the issue of their Consultations; with the like: What doe they else, but claime and exercise such a Directive power in matters of Religion?

A.S. Answ. To proceed, to wave particulars, to debate things, and con­sult of them in the Assembly, argueth an intrinsecall directive power, proper unto the Church: but to send Messages, proveth it not at all to be in the Parliament, but in the Church; and that the Magistrate, by his Civill power, can command the Church to use its Ecclesiasticall power. 2. For the Magi­strate may command the like thing to every Guild or Common-Hall in the City, touching their own professions: Neither can it thereupon be inferred, that he hath an Intrinsecall Directive power in such Trades.

CHAP. VIII Wherein are answered his 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Arguments.

M.S. p. 37. §. 1. Ob. 13. BUt if the Parliament have no calling from God, to judge of matters between the Apologists, and their Brethren (the As­semblers) I would willingly know who hath?

A.S. Answ. The Parliament hath power, and a calling to judge Politicè about the Church and Church matters; What Decisions and Constitutions of the Church Assemblies, they will approve, or disapprove; what Religion, Doctrine, and Discipline they will admit or tolerate in the State: But they have no calling, or Directive Authoritative power in the Church, to judge this or that to be the true Doctrine or Discipline: this belongeth to Church-Officers: Yet they have a private judgement of Discretion about such matters, as other Christians; and a publique Politicall Authoritative judgement, and a coactive Politicall power, to compell the Subjects to admit in the State such or such a true Doctrine or Discipline of the Church, howbeit not to beleeve it, or to love or approve it in their judgement or will.

M. S. Ob. 14. asketh, Whether it be reasonable, that the Apologists mat­ters yet remaining undecided and unjudged between them and their Bre­thren, should suffer as men convicted, only because their Adversaries and [Page 39]Accusers (the Brethren ye know of) are more in number then they, and will needs continue Adversaries to them?

A.S. Answ. 1. Though yee vaunt evermore of your sufferings, we have never seen them. 2. These, whom ye unjustly call your Adversaries, have suffered much more then you, and yet publish it not unto the World. 3. It is absolutely false, that ye suffer. 4. And yet much falser, that ye suffer as men convicted. 5. And yet falser, that ye suffer, because your Adversaries are more in number. And 6. falsest of all, that only ye suffer for that. 7. Men that suffer are not honoured, as ye are, neither receive they so great favours, Presents, and Benefices, as ye doe. 8. It is a great sufferance to the Church of God, to be calumniated and upbraided by so contemptible a number of Mi­nisters, and to see so many Libels printed against her by those of your Sect. 9. It is false, that ye are not condemned: for the Church of England, and all other Protestant Churches, in approving the Presbyterian Government, as we said heretofore, could not but disprove and condemne you all, who condemn it. 10. Neither doth all this prove a Directive Ecclesiasticall power, belong­ing to the Civill Magistrate. 11. Ye have no Adversaries here, but your False Opinions. 12. Neither are your Brethren Adversaries to you, but to your erronions Opinions, which are a thousand times more your Adversaries then they. 13. And both ye, and any of us, must legally suffer according to our demerits, when we are sufficiently convicted and condemned by plurality of Votes, in foro externo, as ye are already, in very many things: for this is the way of all Civill and Ecclesiasticall Judicatories; Neither can Independents change it.

15. Ibid. M.S. reasoneth thus: If our Saviours testimony concerning him­selfe, in his own cause, was not valid; how much lesse the testimony of any other, yea of a thousand, in any matter, that concerneth themselves, and con­sequently that of our Brethren in the Synod? But the first is true, Joh. 5.31. If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true, i. e. it is not in a formall and Legall interpretation true, but you may reasonably wave it.

A.S. Ans. 1. Either Christ here speaking of his own testimony, speaketh of himselfe according to his Divine, to his Humane, or according to both his Natures. Item, 2. Either he speaketh of its validity in it selfe, or in respect of the Iewes, to whom he did speak, and who should have admitted of it. Item, 3. Either of his publique and judiciall, or of his private testimony:

• 1. If in the first Proposition we take our Saviour according to his Divine nature, or according to both, viz. as Mediator, the Assumption is false; for there Christ speaketh not of himselfe according to his Divine Nature, or to both, or as Mediator; for under that notion he is Iudge of quick and dead: and Christ sayes, Ioh. 8.14. that if he testifie of himselfe, his testimony is true.
• 2. Or if he speak of himselfe under this notion, then he speaketh not of his testimony, as it is in it self, but as it is in respect of them, who received [Page 40]it not, viz the Iewes, and unbeleevers, who received it not as the testimony of God, or of the Mediator, (however it was such) for they knew him not, Ioh. 8.15.19. but they judged according to the flesh neither knew they him, nor his Father: And if they had known the King of Glory, they had never crucified him. And then the Proposition is false: for it followeth not, that if Christs testimony, who is God, was not acknowledged as valid by those who knew it not; Ergo, the testimony of a Presbytery or Synod should not be acknow­ledged by such as are subject thereunto, and know it: for by the same reason, two or three idle fellowes should not beleeve the testimony of your Presby­tery or Assembly.
• 3. I retort then the Argument:
  • If Christs testimony was not legally valid in his own cause; Ergo, Yours, in your Presbyteries and Assemblies, is not legally true, or valid in your own cause, when ye judge in matters of Faith and and Discipline,
  • But the first is true: Ergo, the second also.
• 4. If Christ be here taken according to his Humane Nature; then either he is taken according to his Humane nature, as it is in it selfe without sinne, or as it was in the Pharises estimation. If in the first way, the Assumption is false; for there the Pharises took Christ for a sinfull man: and who can deny, but that the testimony of a man, in the state of integrity, is valid?
• 5. If it be taken in the second way, I deny the first Proposition for the testimony of Iudges, in judging according to Law, in things that concerne not so much their persons, as the Society that they represent in judgement, as the Assembly, and all Ecclesiasticall Iudges doe, is to be preferred before the testimony of any particular man.
• 6. And if this Maxime of the Independents hold, the judgement of no Ci­vill Magistrate yea not of the Parliament it selfe sh [...]ll hold, if any of them, or any D [...]linquent, take the Parliament to party in any businesse. The Parlia­ment will doe well to take notice of such Independent Maximes.
• 7. But this was the Arminians way, at the Synod of Dort, to the end they might decline the judgement of the Synod: and he is an Arminian who pro­pounds this Argument, who of late is become an Independent: I [...]eare, they mean to unite the two Sects in one.
• 8. Christ was not here speaking of himselfe, how far forth his testimony and judgement might hold in a judiciall way, (whereof we speak here) but in a private way; for this action was not judiciall, but a particular dis­course.
• 9. Neither are the businesses now in hand at the Synod, of particular, but of publike concernment, viz. the Church; wherein the Church, that is Iudge, cannot be taken to party, however ye call her a crowd, wherein many parti­cular persons are concerned.

M. S. Ob. 16. p. 37. §. 2. They who are Party, cannot be their Parties Judge, since they are all equals, Et par in parem non habet imperium; and to be both Iudge, and Party in one cause, cannot be granted to those, that have no authoritative power one over another, as A.S. himselfe affirmes. But the Assembly are those, who are Party to the Independents, and nothing else, but their equals, Ergo the Assembly cannot be their Judges.

A. S. Ans. A Party cannot judge a Party; I distinguish, for either this Par­ty is only pretended, and so I deny the Major; or reall; and then this reall Party either compeareth in some personall, or reall actions of his owne alone; or in some cause of publick concernment: if he compeare under the first noti­on, the Major is true, but the Minor is false; for the Members of the Assembly compeare not in the Assembly for any personall or reall action of their owne alone, or of particular concernment: if he compeareth under the second no­tion, the Major is false, unlesse yee have sufficient cause to forsake him for Iudge. 2. Item, If it be a Party, that hath no power over the Party in such a cause, the Major is true, but the Minor is false; for the Assembly in matters of Discipline hath power over all the Independents in England, viz. to con­demne their Tenets according to Gods VVord: If it be a party, that hath po­wer over the Party in such a cause, as a Iudge, the Major is false, and so it was reasoned, and this your Tenet judged, and condemned in the Arminians, as I hope, it shall be in this Arminian and the Independents, in this Assembly. 3. It is false that parties are equals, when the one hath power over ano­ther; or when the one, that is pretended to be party, judgeth not in a matter concerning himselfe, but the publick. 4. For if that should hold, the parties of the Independent Churches might reject the judgement of whole Churches, yea of all the Churches of the world, pretending them to be parties. 5. Yea for the same reason they might reject the Iudgement of the Parliament. 6. This Argument proveth not the question, viz. that the Parliament hath an intrinse­call, directive power in matters of Religion, or an Ecclesiasticall power, to judge in matters of Religion. 7. It is a very proud and Independent expres­sion of yours, when you say, that the Synod and all the Churches in the Chri­stian world are but the Apologists equals; you will finde them, I hope in God, their Judges; and yet they are put in authority by the Parliament, to represent the whole Church of England, which is more then such an inconside­rable number of Independents.

M. S. Ob. 17. p. 37. §. 2. If all Churches vvere equall, (as for ought I know, or for any thing A.S. alledgeth to the contrary, they are) there can be neither superiours, nor inferiours, and consequently no obedience or diso­bedience: But the first is true.

A. S. Ans. 1. This proveth not that the Parliament hath any intrinsecall povver in the Church; much lesse any directive intrinsecall povver. 2. Only it pretendeth to prove an Independent Povver in the Church, which taketh a­way [Page 42]their directive povver of the Civill Magistrate, and the Parliament; for if their Churches depend not of any superiour, how can they depend upon the Parliament, or any other Civill Magistrate? I deny the Assumption, viz. that all Churches are equall; but he proveth it, because they are such for ought he knoweth, or that A. S. alleadgeth to the contrary. Ansvv. 1. This is, but to confesse your ignorance. 2. I deny the Consequence, for it may be otherwise, howbeit he be ignorant of it. 3. Neither is his knowledge the measure of di­vine, or naturall verity, but to be measured by them. 4. Howbeit A. S. should say nothing to the contrary, yet the contrary may be; for A. S. hath not said all things, that may be said upon this, or any other subject: and there be thousands, who can say more, and better then he; yea, many have said more and better. 5. It is an untruth also, that he hath said nothing to the contrary, for he might have seene something to the contrary in his Observations, and in his Answers to a Libell; and if that be not enough, he hath more in this Booke. 6. When he saith that A. S. argueth so, it is an untruth; for neither hath A. S. the Assumption, nor the Conclusion, in the 38. page of his Obser­vations cited by him, for he destroyeth the Consequent to destroy the Antece­dent: whereas M. S. poseth the Antecedent to infer the Consequent.

M. S. Ob. 18. If Iustice consisteth not in an Arithmeticall, but Geometri­call proportion, then is there no reason, that peremptoriousnesse of Vote, how Arithmetically soever priviledged, but weight and worth of Argu­ments should carry it against them. But the first is true, Ergo the second also.

A. S. Ansvv. This Argument with its peremptorious censure of a pretended peremptoriousnesse of Votes, Arithmetically priviledged, seemeth to censure the Parliament, which ordained, that that should be offered unto them, as the Iudgement of the Assembly, vvhich the major part assented unto. i. e. that, that was judged by Plurality of Votes. 2. If by peremptoriousnesse of Vote, he mea­neth Plurality of Votes, I deny the consequence or connexion; for when things are fully ballanced by reason, in any Assembly, it is more probable, that that is most true, that is carried by plurality of votes, and that Geometricall proportion, wherein consisteth distributive Iustice, may be more easily found out by Plura­rity of votes, then by fewer votes; otherwise it were a folly to vote any thing; for wherefore vote they any thing in any Assemblies, but that it may be judged by plurality of votes? 3. And the Apostle willeth, that the spirit of Prophets be subject to the Prophets: Neither is it credible, that the Major part will submit unto the lesser part. 4. And we would willingly know of you, Sir, how things are ordinarily carried in your Assemblies? whether things being debated, and every mans Reasons heard, the Major part sub­mitteth to the lesser, or the lesser to the Major? or whether that is thought truth, that the Major or Minor part Voteth? 5. If by peremptoriousnesse of votes, you mean a bold and imperious carrying of things by plurality of votes, [Page 43]without reason, I shall readily grant you such Assemblies are unlawfull; nei­ther is there any such established amongst us; neither hath the Parliament established any such Ecclesiasticall Assembly here; neither doth the Assembly arrogate unto it selfe any such unjust power: if this Argument hold, it shall beate downe as well the proceedings of the Parliament; and all Civill Iudica­tories, wherein things are carried by Plurality of votes, as those of the Assem­bly: wherefore all the Civill Powers in the world will doe well to take notice of this peremptorious censure of them all; for if it stand, they must fall and doe homage to the Independent Churches. Besides this, I know not what he mea­neth by Arithmetically priviledged; for it is no terme either in Divinity, or in Lawes, or in Philosophy, for any thing I know: Neither heard I ever before of any Arithmeticall priviledge.

Obj. 19. M. S. What is granted to every other man in the Kingdome, can­not be denyed to the Parliament.

But a calling to judge between, the Apologists, and their Brethren, yea, and somewhat more then a calling a speciall and weighty necessity to doe it (though not after the same manner, in respect of the consequence of their judgement) is granted to every other man in the Kingdome. Ergo a calling to Iudge, &c. cannot be denyed to the Parliament.

A. S. Answ. Howbeit I might say much to the first Proposition, 1. yet I deny the Assumption, if it be taken absolutely: Or rather 2. to evite his cavillati­ons, I distinguish it: if by the word calling he meane a publick and particular calling, such as have the Officers, and Ministers, or Rulers of the Church; it is false; for no man hath such a calling, but he who is called, as Aaron: if He meane a private or common calling. I grant him all the Argument, but it is no­thing to the purpose; for by such a calling they cannot judge in Publicke or in Ecclesiasticall Assemblies. 3. I distinguish the word judge, for either it signifies an Officiall, Publicke, Ministeriall, and authoritative judgement; or a private common judgement of discretion, such as belongeth to women, and all Christians: if the first, the Minor is false; for what necessity can lye upon every private man, yea, Water-men, Coblers, and Oyster-women to goe to the Assembly, and judge between the Apologists and them? If so, the Parlia­ment hath done them wrong, in not calling of them, or rather in excluding them from so noble and necessary acts of their calling. And here I must pray the Parliament to consider, whether this Doctrine of his in this point be not seditious, and sufficient to excitate the ignorant people to challenge such a pretended calling and liberty, or licentiousnesse of judgement? If every one be a Iudge to Rule, who shall be ruled? If every one command, who shall o­bey? how then hath the Apostle distinguished Rulers from others? If the so­cond, we grant him all the Argument; but that conclusion in that sence is not the question, that is controversed between us.

But 20. Arg. M. S. seemes to prove the Assumption, if it be not a new Ar­gument: [Page 44] Would A. S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and sub­mission to the Assembly, without their understanding?

A.S. I retort the Argument: 1. Will M.S. have even the meanest of men to sing obedience and submission to the King, Parliament, or any Civill Magistrate, without their understanding? 2. Would M. S. have even the meanest to sing obedience to the Independent Churches, without their under­standing? 3. The Church must use all possible meanes to informe such as pre­tend ignorance, or conscience: having sufficiently convicted them, she must proceed against them as contumacious, and inflict upon them such spirituall punishments, as their sinnes may deserve. 4. In such a c [...]e, not only the mea­nest, but also the greatest must sing obedience passi [...]è, [...] suff [...]ing the Churches proceedings 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 publike vocation or power to oppose the Church, activé, they must suffer; yet they may resist in not obeying activè, as in confessing an untruth, in case the Charch urge them thereunto: Or, in a word, they must obey, in case they be not made Actors in things against their Conscience; for it is no sinne to suffer what we cannot mend; but to doe what we should not doe, or omit what we should doe, and may doe.

Object. 21. If the meanest of men have not a calling to judge betwixt the Assembly, and the Independents, then they must sing obedience and submission to the Assembly, without their understanding. But the Consequent is false, Ergo, so is the Antecedent also.

A.S. Answ. I deny the Consequence of the first Proposition: for to sing obedience to the Assembly, it is not needfull, that one be Iudge betwixt them and the Independents; but, that they know whether the Iudgement of the As­sembly be just, or not, or rather, whether their Obedience be just, or not: for the Assembly, and they who have power to judge, may judge justly; and he who is judged, justly disobey: as, if a man should legally, in foro Externo, be convicted of Heresie, or any other crime, the fact being proved by false wit­nesses, and he afterwards condemned to acknowledge an Heresie or crime; both the judgement should be just, for the Iudges judged justly, juxta alle­gata & probata; but the Obedience to such a judgement should be unjust, and his disobedience just; for he should sinne grievously against God, and give offence to his Neighbour, in acknowledging an Heresie, or a filthy crime, where there is none at all. 2. By a calling to judge, either he understands a publike and particular calling to judge authoritativè, in consulting in Ecclesi­asticall Assemblies of matters of Religion, and deciding them, and so indu­cing an obligation unto obedience; or a common and private calling, out of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies, by himselfe alone, or in private with a friend, to [Page 45] judge by a judgement of discretion, which induceth no bond or obligation to obedience. If by a Calling he meane the first, the first Proposition is false; nei­ther will all the Independents, Arminians, Anabaptists, and Socinians ever be able to prove it. If the second, all the Argument may be granted, viz. That the meanest of men have a common calling to judge by judgement of Discretion, (which induceth no obligation) betwixt the Synod, and the Independents: but that is not the Question in debate. 3. I distinguish the word obedience and submission; for either this obedience is activè, when we are commanded by our Superiours, to be Agents or Actors in any thing, as to bow before an Idol, or Religiously to adore Altars, the Bread and Wine at the Lords Table, &c. Or permissivè, when I am not commanded to be an Actor, or to doe any thing, but to permit it, not hinder it, or not oppose it, if I doe it not my self; as when men are exhorted, or commanded to assist the poore; if I will not assist them, I am bound not to oppose the Command, or to hinder others from doing it: so, if a Minister preach not according to my palate, whatever be my private judgment of him, as if he preach too sublimely, too speculatively, lesse methodi­cally, &c. yet must I let him alone, I may not oppose or crosse him, because that I have no publike calling to censure or hinder him. If obedience be taken in the first way, the first Proposition is false; for every man in obeying actively, or when he is an Actor, must know whether he doth well, or ill, at least by a par­ticular judgement: if in the second, it is true, that men are bound sometimes to sing a permissive obedience, without their understanding, because in so do­ing, they doe nothing themselves, but permit other men to doe; as when there is a Minister called by the Church to preach, it may be, that some ordi­nary Mechanick will judge his Sermons to be too sublime, more speculative then practicall, happily also he will think them not methodicall: in such a case the Mechanick hath no power to hinder the Preacher from preaching, or preaching so; he must obey in permitting, and not opposing him in preaching; for what is unsavory to his palate, is savory to anothers. 4. If this Argument hold, it shall presse no lesse the Parliament, then the Assembly: for I put the case that the Assembly judge, and that all the Assembly and Independents goe one way, and the Parliament another, which, I trust in God, shall never happen: I frame the Argument thus:

If the meanest of men have not a calling to judge betwixt the Parliament and the Assembly, then they must sing obedience and submission to the Parliament, without their understanding. But the Consequent is false; Ergo, And so your Independents shall neither obey Parliament nor Assembly. And the Parliament would doe well to note this.

5. I say more, that sometimes Subjects are bound to obey their Rulers, when they know not distinctly the equity of the Command: for, put the case a Prince undertake a Warre against his nei [...]bour-Prince, every Cobler knoweth not the true cause of the Warre, or [...] it be just, or not; for he [Page 44] [...] [Page 45] [...] [Page 46]cannot penetrate into his Princes secret Counsells, and yet if the Prince lay Assizes upon the people, or presse Souldiers, they must, in all this, obey, howbeit they know not the secrets of his Counsels, yea, howbeit they suspect the Warre to be unjust, they must obey; for it is not expedient, that every In­dependent Cobler be admitted into the Counsell of State; or if that be not granted, that presently he resist his Prince, and raise a Rebellion in the Kingdome.

6. I pray this man to tell me, whether in New England amongst the Inde­pendents, every man be not bound to obey what is judged in their Assemblies, however he be of a contrary judgement?

7. And whether it be Morally possible, that every man be of the same judg­ment, in things that are resolved, or to be resolved in all Civill or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies? And if not, what can be the force of this Argument?

What here he addeth, The glory of a Synod lyes not so much in the force of their Conclusions, as of their premises, is impertinent; for the force of the pre­mises and conclusions are not to be opposed one to the other, but to be com­posed one to another; for the conclusion followeth necessarily of its premisses: Things are sufficiently discussed in the Assembly, and their Conclusions evi­dently enough inferred out of their premisses: but this is an incurable sicknesse in these men, that they never thinke any Conclusion well inferred, unlesse it be for themselves.

Obj. 22. He telleth us afterwards his judgement, that the conclusions of the Assembly should not be swallowed, without shewing, &c. which the Parlia­ment and Assembly will both grant him.

Obj. 23. M. S. In his Sect. 12. he bringeth in quality of an Argument, as it seemeth, an Answer unto one of mine, taken ab exemplo, or a simili, which I have answered, and afterwards, Sect. 16. he hath an Argument, the summe whereof is this.

Obj. 24. Christ hath not divested himselfe, nor made a delegation of such a directive power in matters of Religion, as A. S. would sequester for the ho­nour of the Presbyterie: Ergo he will not acknowledge it.

A. S. Ansvv. 1. I deny the Consequence: for to acknowledge such a Mini­steriall power, as we grant unto the Ministers of the Assembly, or our Pres­byteries, it is not needfull, that Christ divest himselfe of it, or make a delega­tion, but a donation of it; for Christ was never vested with such a Ministeri­all and subordinate power, for he is Lord and supreame Judge in the Church, and therefore could never divest himselfe of it. 2. If he meane the supreame power proper to Christ, we neither desire him to beleeve, nor beleeve we, that Christ hath divested, or could divest himselfe of it, to give it to the Church, for he kept to himselfe, his owne supreame or Royall Power; but gave unto his Ministers subalterne, and Ministeriall power, which dero­gateth no waies from his Royall power, since this is subordinate unto that. [Page 47]3. However he takes it, this Argument is captious, and is nothing else but a plain petitio principii, and proving the same thing by the same, or a Conclusion by a Premisse, as uncertaine as it selfe.

After this petty Argument he maketh his Testament, resolving himselfe to dye a Martyr, amongst good men, whom he hath most highly offended, and who professe, that they compell no man to professe any truth, much lesse un­truth, against the light of their Conscience; how ridiculous a Martyr is this? They professe that they may undergoe a voluntary exile, for feare of persecu­tion: if you, sir, feare any such thing, you may be gone, according to the Prin­ciples of your owne Divinity. And then he telleth us, that he will allow any directive power of man, so it be not compulsory unto men by any externall violence, whether directly or indirectly, to subscribe against their judgements and consciences to it.

A. S. Answ. 1. Our Presbyteries attribute not to themselves any directive power, that is compulsory unto men by externall violence, to subscribe against their judgements. 2. But if a few men differ in their judgements from all the rest of the Church, or will needs bring in new Religions, or novelties, a­gainst the common Tenets of the Church: then indeed they will cast them out of the Church, or excommunicate them according to their demerits, neither is it equitable that they abide in a Church, or enjoy a Church consociation, who will not submit unto her Iudgement and Discipline. Neither will his Quin­que Ecclesian Ministers admit unto, or receive any man into their Church, who differs in judgement from them, or who will not submit unto their judgement: But howbeit the Church compell you not to subscribe; yet the Civill Magistrate, after sufficient conviction, may compell you to subscribe, or to be gone; for after sufficient conviction, Morally, it is, and should be supposed, that yee know the Truth, or should know it; or if yee know it not, that nothing can have hin­dred you, but your owne pertinaciousnesse, which cannot excuse, but rather now accuses, and aggravates your sinne, since one sinne, formally, and per se, cannot excuse another; Neither have our Churches ever gone further, as may appeare by our Confessions of Faith, and Covenants of the Churches of Scotland, France, the Netherlands, Geneva, &c.

M. S. hath some more poore Reasons in his 2. Chap. about the executive power of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion; Here he imployeth neare upon foure pages in quarto, in a very small Print, about things that are nothing at all to the purpose. 1. In threatning the Parliament with Gods most heavy judgements, in case they meddle themselves with any executive, or coercive power, against his new canonized Independent Saints; He suppo­seth them 1. to be Saints. 2. Those little ones, Matth. 18.6. He telleth them, is were better a Milstone vvere hanged about their necke, then to meddle vvith one of these little ones; and that because the Holy Ghost prophesieth of the putting dovvn of all rule, and all authority, and povver by Christ; for he must reign [Page 48]till he hath put all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15.24, 25. this argu­mentation will hold, if ye suppose the Independents to be Christs little Saints, and the King and Parliament to be his Enemies, in case they meddle with them, in hindring them to set up their Sect: but to the contrary. Gods Saints, as themselves, in case they suffer not Presbyterians, or any o­thers, no more then the Independents doe in New England: so the Indepen­dents shall reigne over us all. 2. In guessing what I meane by the word Church, whether a Church in folio, or in decimo sexto? I have fully expounded it, howbeit not in so chosen new Divinity termes, in folio, and decimo sexto. So I come to the rest of his Reasons.

CHAP. VIII. Wherein are answered M. S. his Objections 25, 26, 27.

Ob. 25. M.S. VVHen Parties pretend to be offended with the Church or the Church judge any thing amisse, the Civill Magi­strate may command the Church to re-examine its judgement, &c. What reason then hath he to be so invective against the Apologists, p. 49. & 50. for holding, that Kings, or Civill Magistrates are above the Church?

• A.S. Answ. 1. The question is not, whether the King and the Civill Ma­gistrate be above the Church, or not. VVe grant, that the Civill Magistrate is above the Church, as having a supreame, Politicall, or Civill power, Imperi­all, Regall, Aristocraticall, or Democraticall, yea altogether independent up­on all the Powers of this World, and only dependent upon God, according to the Lawes of the State wherein he ruleth; yet not Spirituall, Ecclesiasti­call, or Intrinsecall to the Church, but Secular and Extrinsecall. In his Office he is not subordinate or Vicegerent unto Christ, as Christ, but as God; not in his Royall or Divine office whereby he ruleth his Church; but in his Divine Nature or Power whereby he ruleth the World: not in his particular Providence about his Saints, but in his generall about all men and States: not according to the Covenant of Grace, if he be considered only as a Magistrate; for then, only they, who are in this Covenant, should be Magistrates; but of Na­ture; for if Adam had continued in the state of innocencie, we should have had Magistrates without any Mediator, or Covenant of Grace. A. S. will easily grant you, that the Civill Magistrate is above the Church; only he denies, that he is above the Church by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall power, as Inde­pendents hold, but by his Civill and secular Authority, which is not subordi­nate to Christ, as Mediator, as King, or Head of his Church: His power over the Church is not intrinsecall, as ye hold, but extrinsecall, as we confesse.
• 2. It is also false, that I inveigh against the Apologists, p. 49. 50. unlesse Reasons be Invectives. I pray the Reader to look the place, to the end he may see how little Conscience these men make of untruths: and if there be any Invectives there, I am ready to suffer.
• [Page 49]3. This Argument being put in forme, will be thus:
  • They who may command the Church, are above the Church:
  • The Civill Magistrate may command the Church; Ergo,
  • The Civill Magistrate is above the Church.

Answ. If the words, command, and to be above, be taken for to com­mand, and to be above Externally and Politically, I grant you all the Argu­ment, viz. That the Civill Magistrate is above the Church extrinsecally and Politically: But if ye take both the words, viz. command, for an an internall and Ecclesiasticall command, that is within the Church; and the word above, for above Internally and Ecclesiastically in a Church-way: I deny your Minor. If ye take the one word one way, and the other another way, I deny your first Proposition.

M.S. Ob. 26. p. 44. §. 7. If the Civill Magistrate hath power to command the Church to revise her judgement, when she judgeth any thing amisse, surely he hath power to examine and judge of her proceedings, and consequently, hath a Directive power in matters of Religion. But the first is granted by A.S. his concession, Ergo, so must the second.

A.S. Answ. 1. I answer to your Proposition, that in the same way the Civill Magistrate hath power to judge, or a Directive power in matters of Religi­on, he hath power to command. Now his power to command, (as I have said, is only Politicall, Civill, and Extrinsecall; Ergo, such also must be his power to judge, or Directive power in matters of Religion, viz. Civill, Politicall, and Extrinsecall to the Church, howsoever Intrinsecall to the State: for as he hath a Civill, Royall, Imperiall, or Aristocraticall power to command, so hath he a Civill, Royall, Imperiall, or Aristocraticall power, &c. to judge, and to direct him in his Commands, unlesse he command without judgement: But I deny, that this concludeth, that he hath any Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall power that is Intrinsecall to the Church, or Church-Officers, who governe the Church. 2. This Argument concludeth not an Executive power, which is the Title of the Chapter, and that which he intendeth to prove. This is like to Montagnes Discourses, who sundry times hath one thing in the Title, and an­other in the Chapter.

M. S. Obj. 27. p. 44. sect. 7. §. 3. being put in forme, will be thus:

They, who may determine, and judge amisse, should not compell, or make the people, under their Government, to sweare obedience or subjection unto their Orders, which yet, by your owne confession, they doe:

But your Presbyteriall Assembly may determine and judge amisse, Ergo.

A.S. Answ. 1. The Proposition is false. 2. Or if it be true, I subsume, But the Civill Magistrate, both in Ecclesiasticall, and State matters, may judge amisse; Ergo, the Civill Magistrate should not compell the people under his [Page 50]obedience unto his Order; Ergo, the Parliament should not compell, or make any man to sweare the Covenant; Ergo, The Independents should not have taken the Covenant, because that the Parliament might determine and judge amisse. 3. By this reason, a man must be tolerated in rejecting all Con­fessions or Faith, because they, who contrive them, may erre. 4. In New-England, since they may erre, they can compell no man to your Religion, but must tolerate them, which ye will never grant. 5. I deny the Assumption, 1. For our Churches compell not the people to sweare obedience or subjecti­on unto their Order; for, Compulsion is a principio externo, contra inclinati­onem agentis; it proceedeth from an Externall principle, against the Naturall inclination of the Agent, viz. that is compelled to produce the action, and so is exercised only against the Body, over which the Church taketh no autho­rity, but the Civill Magistrate alone. 2. Neither said I, to my knowledge, any such thing. 3. Neither cite you the place. 4. Only I remember, that in my Observations and Annotations upon the Apologie, p. 39. §. 4 I said, That the combined Eldership, having an Authoritative power, all men, and Churches thereof, are bound by Law and Covenant to submit themselves thereunto, viz. in a Spirituall manner, since the power is Spirituall. Never a word here of compulsion or violence. Our Churches neither compell mens bodies, nor have they any Prisons, or any pecuniary mulcts: but if any man will trouble the Church, and be disobedient, it is the duty of the Christian Civill Magistrate to use his power, to hinder such a disorder. If we have not a Christian, and an Orthodox Magistrate in some places, as in France, and in some parts of Ger­many; or if the Christian Magistrate will not doe his duty, he who will not submit unto our Church-Government, is cast out, and punished Spiritually, by simple Censure, Suspension, or Excommunication, according to the quality of his sin. 5. Learne also, I pray you, M.S. that it is not fallibility, but actuall failing, or ignorance, that may excuse him, who is subject unto any Govern­ment or Authority, from obedience: Nor yet all failing in judgement or error, but only that which is antecedent to all the acts of our Will, which mo­rally we cannot shun, and is invincible. 6. Neither is it evermore expedient, that Subjects know certainly, whether their Governours judge, or doe right, in what they doe; for Subjects, in some cases, must obey, in virtue of a pro­bable knowledge, or conjecture, that their Governours command justly; and especially, when they are not compelled to be Actors in that, which they be­lieve to be unlawfull for them to doe. For I put the case, that the King and Parliament take a resolution to make War against any Foraigne Prince, and presse some men to serve in such a War, It is not for every pressed man to call the King and Parliament to an account, about the equity of the War, neither are they bound to discover to every Souldier all the secrets and particulari­ties of State thereupon.

M.S. Ob. 28. Why are you not satisfied with that subjection to your Pres­byterial [Page 51]Decisions, that pleadeth no exemption, but only in case of non-satis­faction about the lawfulnesse or truth of them?

A.S. Ans. 1. We are content with it. 2. And in case of non-satisfaction, our Churches give them sufficient satisfaction. 3. But if they will not be satisfied, when many thousands are satisfied, we maintaine, that it is not equitable, that when 20000. or 30000. are satisfied, two, or three, under pretext of non-satisfaction, or twenty, or thirty pertinacious fellowes should have liberty to trouble all the Churches of God in the World. 4. We say moreover, that the Church, in disputing and conferring with them, and afterward in judging that she hath given them sufficient satisfaction, hath given them sufficient satis­faction morally; and that wise men should judge it sufficient, in foro Externo; and thereupon, that they are to be condemned by the Church in foro Externo; for there is no other way to proceed to sentence, either in foro Civili, or Ecclesiastico. 5. If this will not satisfie them, yet if they will be quiet, and not trouble the Church of God with their Conventicles, we can in Christian charity tolerate them in their weaknesse, yea in their malice (if there be any) till God impart unto them more grace. But this serveth nothing for Indepen­dents, who are come over the Sea to beg a quarrell of us, and to erect Chur­ches in despite of the Civill Magistrate, against all Lawes, yea against their own Tenets, if they write, as they believe; for they pretend, that Churches cannot be erected without the Civill Magistrates consent. 6. If all this con­tent them not, and their Conscience will not permit them to doe otherwise, the Ports are free for them, they may be gone, and live in all liberty of Con­science in New England, and trouble no more the Country here, then the Country shall trouble them there. 7. Or if this will not content them, where­fore will they have more liberty here, then they will grant us in New-England?

M.S. Ob. 29. If Parties may have cause to be offended with the Church, then have they power to judge of their actions, as well as they of theirs: But the first is true; Ergo, the second also.

A.S. I distinguish the Consequent of the Proposition; They may judge by a publick Judgement: It is false; for every particular or private man hath not a publike power to judge, nor consequently, a Publike judgement: they may judge by a private power, (which properly is not [...] potestas, authoritas, or Authoritative power) or judgement, but a judgement of Discretion: so it is true: but such a Judgement is not sufficient to exempt him from obedience, I meane not an active, but a passive, or rather a permissive obedience; for howsoever his erronious judgement may excuse and dispence him from an act, wherein he is Actor against his Conscience; yet can it not excuse him from suffering the judgement of the Church: for, if he will not doe what they will according to Gods Word, they may doe, and he must suffer, and permit them to doe what he willeth not, and what they will according to Gods Word, whereof he hath no Publike power to judge: he must no way oppose [Page 52] activè the publike Judgement and Authority of the Church, since he hath no publike power; he must not set up a new Church, but deal with the Church, according to his vocation; and if he cannot prevail in confer­ring with the Church, he may appeal from a Parish Presbytery to a Classe; if there he be likewise oppressed, he may appeal to a Provinciall Synod; if there again he be wronged by their Judgement, he may appeal unto a Nationall Synod; if there he be oppressed (which probably will not ordinarily fall out in all these Judicatories, rather then in first and last instance in an Independent Church, compounded peradventure of seven or eight idle Fellows) or pretend to be offended, he must sit down pa­tiently; And if he have any scruple of Conscience, he may consult for­raign Divines; and if those satisfie him not in this singularity of his opinion, I then propound my question; Whether it be more equitable, That all the Churches of the World submit to this particular mans opinion, or he to theirs?

Object. But what if they erre all, and he be right?

Answ. When God hath not given you any ordinary remedy, you must have patience; there must be Offences, yea Heresies; But woe unto him that is the Cause. There was no other way in the Old, or in the New Testament; there is no other in Civill Judicatories; there can be no other found in this world. And to end this Argument, I ask you, What if a man be oppressed in one of your Churches, (as it is possible a man may be, as well as in one of ours, unlesse ye have the power of Piety, in a more Independent degree, yea, be­yond all flesh and blood in any juncture of time to come) and afterward he complains to Neighbour Churches, and they oppresse him by their Judge­ments; What other remedy can he have but patience, and to appeal to the Judge of quick and dead, or else acquiesce to the sentence, or at least suffer it? For a man cannot sin in meer sufferance; for actuall sin materially is ever more an action of the will, or a voluntary omission of some action.

M. S. Ob. 30. p. 46. sect. 2. What power is Intrinsecall to Religion, it is Intrinsecall to the Church: But the Civill Magistrates Power is Intrinsecall to Religion; for A. S. sayeth, That the Parliament pretends no Directive power in matters of Religion, but an Executive power onely, viz. In matters of Religion. Ergo, The Civill Magistrates power is Intrinsecall to the Church.

A. S. Answ. What ever may be said of the Proposition, I deny the As­sumption; and to the confirmation thereof, I answer, 1. That, when I say the Civill Magistrate hath power in Religion, the word (in) signifies about; for Religion signifieth the object of the Civill Magistrate; and so we speak or­dinarily, as when we say, A rich mans heart is in his Money and Riches; so in here signifieth not an Intrinsecall, but an Extrinsecall Denomination; as when I say, The Sun is seen, the Attribute in this Affirmative Proposition is [Page 53]said to be in the Subject, not by any Intrinsecall Inherence, or Denomination, but by an Extrinsecall Adherence, Attribution, or Denomination: This little Childish Sophistication, is more worthy of some young smatterer in Logick then of a Divine, or any Conscientious man: It is not possible, that M. S. could be ignorant of this; and therefore in this Dispute, if he have any power of Piety, I desire more Conscience and Sincerity in him: I may also say, That the Civill Magistrate hath an Extrinsecall power in the Church, if the word (in) there signifie a bare Attribution, or Extrinsecall Denomination, as it is ordinary amongst Divines, Philosophers, and common people; and yet I confesse it is more properly said about Religion, and about the Church, as A­pollonius observeth, and as I have expressed my self; but then there should have been a concurrence of in's, which would have made my Expression ob­scure; for then I must have said, The Civill Magistrate about matters of Re­ligion, hath an Extrinsecall power, as also about the Church, as this Professor of Eloquence would have me to speak; which kinde of Expression, I beleeve few or none could have understood. If the Independent cause depend upon such ridiculous puntillio's, and be so Independent upon good reason, I know not of the two which is better, Dependency or Independency.

M. S. Ob. 31. p. 46. sect. 11. The power of Citation is Extrinsecall to the Church.

The power of Citation is Ecclesiasticall. Ergo,

Some Ecclesiasticall power is Extrinsecall to the Church.

A. S. I distinguish the word power of Citation; for it is either Ecclesia­sticall, which is proper unto the Church, viz. In Church Officers gathered together in an Ecclesiasticall Assembly; And this is both in, and about the Church or Civill, which is proper to the Christian, and in some way to a non-Christian Magistrate, where by his Civill power he maintaineth the Church; and this is out of the Church, in the Magistrate, and yet about the Church, which is its object: And so I answer to this silly Argument, That it is cap­tious and grounded on an Equivocation; for it taketh the power of Citation in one signification in the Major, viz. For a Politicall power of Citation; and in an other in the Minor, viz. For an Ecclesiasticall power of Citation. 2. Or if it be taken in both for an Ecclesiasticall power, then the Major is false; for Christ gave it to the Church, to which it is Intrinsecall, and not to the Civill Magistrate. 3. Or if it be taken in both for a Civill power, then the Minor is false; for the Civill power of Citation is not in the Church, but in the Magistrate; neither ever gave Christ it (as Mediator) either to the Church, or to the Civill Magistrate; but God by Christ (as God) gave it onely to the Civill Magistrate: And the Peece, whereof the Presse, as M. S. sayeth, hath been lately delivered, sayeth no other thing then I say, if M. S. his Diana of Ephesus can permit him to understand it, or he do not willingly dissemble his understanding of it.

M. S. If a Classis shall cite or excommunicate a Member of a Church, against the judgement and consent of the Elders of that Church, let all the World judge, whether that be not an Act of Externall power without the Church.

A. S. This Argument is ridiculous. 1. For it proveth not that which is in question, viz. That the Civill Magistrate hath an Ecclesiasticall or Intrin­secall power in the Church. 2. Onely it proveth, that the Church hath an Authority, that in some respect may be called Extrinsecall. 3. But to take away this Equivocation, and many others, and to explain more fully this question, note again, 1. That the Church may be considered, either according to its Reall and Naturall, or according to its Morall being. 2. That the Church according to its Morall being (I speak of the Representative) is either Particular of one Parish or Congregation, or more Generall, as a Classicall or Synodall Assembly. 3. Note, that the particular Church, may be conside­red either Absolutely, and in it self alone, without any reference to a Classe or a Synod, whereof it is a part; or Relatively with a reference to the more Generall Church, viz. a Classis or Synod, whereof it is a part, or in quality, and under the notion of a part, in so far forth, as by some formall or virtuall Assent, it hath once Covenanted to be a part of such a Classis or Synod, and Stipulated to send its Commissioners to such Classicall or Synodall Meetings. 1. If then we consider Citation or Excommunication with reference to the Church, either more Generall or Particular, according to its Naturall being, it may be Extrinsecall to them both; for the Act of Citation or Excommuni­cation is not really produced or pronounced, according to its Naturall being, by the Church considered under the notion of its Reall being, but by one man, as all wise men will grant. 2. If they be taken morally according to their Morall being, grounded on some Covenant, then the Acts of Excommunica­tion and Citation are not Extrinsecall to the more Generall Church, since they are exercised by Her power and consent. 3. If they be considered with re­ference to the Particular Church, then if the Particular Church be consider­ed Absolutely, they may be Extrinsecall unto Her, since neither Excommuni­cation nor Citation are exercised by Her Absolutely, at least Ordinarily. 4. If we consider a Particular Church in reference to the more Generall Church, viz. under the notion of a part of the more Generall Church; then we may consider Her either, 1. According to Her first Consent and Covenant, Reall or Virtuall, whereby She joyned together in one Consociation with many other Particular Churches, to make up together one Classe or Synod; the which Consent preceded the Act of Citation or Excommunication; and whereby the Classe or Synod received Power to cite or excommunicate particular Per­sons: Or 2. according to Her Consent, in sending Her Commissioners to the Classe or Synod: Or 3. according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent to the Act of Excommunication or Citation. 4. If then She be considered [Page 55]according to Her first Covenant and consent, or in the second, i. e. in sending Her Commissioners, the Act of Citation and Excommunication is voluntary, and Intrinsecall to that Particular Church, notwithstanding Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent; for that Act of Citation and Excommunication is done in vertue of such precedent Consents, which are Her Deeds, and very Legall. 5. If the Particular Church be considered according to Her subsequent or concomitant Dissent, these Acts are involuntary, and Extrinsecall to that Particular Church: But such a Dissent is not properly and formally an Ec­clesiasticall Act, since it is not ruled by any Ecclesiasticall Rule of Discipline, but by private interest, or passion, which must ever give place to the Weal of the whole Church; for as Naturall bodies may be considered either Absolute­ly, or under the notion of a Part, which is for the whole; and in the first notion, they have their Particular Inclinations and Motions, whereby they decline whatsoever is hurtfull unto them, as when the hand flyeth from a blow of a Sword; but under the second, they are not led by their own par­ticular, but by the generall Inclination and Interest of the whole, since parts are not so much for themselves, as for the whole; and so it neglecteth its own particular good or interest, for the weal or interest of the whole; as when the hand for fear least the head should be cut off, whereof might ensue the destruction of the whole man, exposeth it self to the danger in receiving the blow it self, to save the whole: So in Politicall or Ecclesiasticall Consociations, particular Towns, or Churches, may be carried by their own Interests to some particular Dissent in some Cases; but if they move Regularly, sometimes against their own Interests, they must Consent against themselves, according to the generall Inclination of the whole Consociated body, or Church Classi­call, Synodall, &c. 6. If this Argument hold, it will conclude, 1. Against that which is done by Plurality of Votes in their particular Congregations; For that which is concluded, is against the Consent of the Minor part. 2. A­gainst that which is done in their Synods, by their Messengers, if they con­clude against, or without the Consent of the Churches, whereof they are Messengers: And 3. Against the Parliament, if they conclude any thing a­gainst the particular Consent of particular Towns; for they Consent not thereunto; And so what they conclude or do against them shall not be done by Consent of the Kingdom; And so this man shall destroy the Parliament, and the pretended Order of Independents, as well as that of Protestant Pres­byteries.

But M. S. telleth us, that so the Classis is like to the Magistrate, who is a Bishop without, and about the Church.

Answ. 1. I deny your Simile; for the Magistrates Power and Act, being onely Politicall and Civill, has no Internall reference to Citation or Excom­munication, in quality of Ecclesiasticall Acts, as that of the Church, and Church Officers, which is Ecclesiasticall; and this your Quinqu' Ecclesian [Page 56]Ministers acknowledge themselves, when they tell us, that the Civill Power is of another nature then the Ecclesiasticall.

Obj. But if the Civill Magistrate have this Externall coactive power, they must all have it, as well Pagans as Christians: But so it is not; for A.S. will not grant it to Pagans, Ergo, none of them have it.

Answ. The Assumption is false, for I grant it to them all, but not in the same manner; To a Pagan only in actu signato, but to a true Christian in actu exercito. I expound it in my Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration.

M. S. scratches at this distinction, 1. as not good; for, saith he, I never heard of any thing belonging to a Person in actu exercito, but that belonged to him, and that per prius in actu signato: He, to whom the principle or power of acting doth not belong, cannot stand ingaged for the exercise of acting such a power.

A. S. Sir, If you heard it not, others, yea of the best sort, and ablest, both Divines and Philosophers, may have heard it; for we have learned in the Category of Substantia, that Substantiae primae maximè propriè Substantiae dicun­tur: whereupon they ground this other Maxime, Prima Substantia magis est Substantia quam Secunda: and they say, that it is magis Substantia in actu ex­ercito, sed non in signato; sed contra, secunda est magis substantia quam Prima in actu signato; as all the Philosophers, who serve themselves with this distin­ction, in the explication of that propriety of Substance, declare in that place. 2. It is also an error in you, to think, that in actu signato, and exercito, is no­thing else but actu & potentia. 3. Put the case it be so, and that whatever be­longeth to any thing in actu signato, belongeth to it in actu exercito, what is that to the purpose? is not that enough to found a distinction upon? Wherever there is prius and posterius, is there not there some distinction, at least formall, or modall, if not reall? 4. Yea, put the case, the one part were really included in the other; yet should there ever be distinctio includentis, & inclusi. 5. And howsoever it be, that what belongeth to a person in actu exercito, belongeth to him in actu signato; yet what belongeth to a Thing in actu signato, belong­eth not to it in actu exercito. Neither said I, that whatever belongeth to any thing in actu exercito, belongeth not to it also in actu signato. Where said I it, I pray you? or if I said it not, wherefore beg you here a needlesse quarrell with me about it?

2. M. S. desires to know, wherefore a power about the Church, and for the Church, should not belong actually, and in effect, in actu exercito, and jure in re, as well to a Magistrate not yet truly Christian, as to him that is such, i. e as well to a Pagan, as a Christian.

A.S. Answ. 1. Because being not yet a Christian, he is not a member 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 [Page 57]power. 3. Because without the knowledge of our Religion, he can nei­ther direct, nor act any thing about the Church, or for the Church, but by conjecture, or guessing at it. 4. Because God never ordained any such Externall power for Pagans about the Church. 5. To end my answer to this Argu­ment: Where learned M. S. to desire him that denieth any thing, to prove his negation? Nonne Affirmantis est probare? The Scripture conteineth not formall rules or testimonies of meere Negations, or of things that are not, but of Affirmations, and things that are. Now M.S. that affirmeth a thing to be, might more easily have found authorities for it in Scripture, (if any such had been) then we, for things that are not: It is enough for me to say, that the Scripture, that conteineth all things needfull to salvation, conteineth no Extrinsecall power, in actu exercito, for Civill Magistrates, that are not Chri­stians.

M.S. But hath not then an Heathen, or Heterodox Magistrate power to doe good to the Church?

A.S. Ans. 1. The Heathen Magistrate hath a Naturall, but not a Morall publique power, or [...] to doe good to the Church. 2. Or if he hath it, he hath it not in actu exercito, as I have already proved. 3. Or if he hath it so, he hath it not to doe good to the Church, in quality of a Church; for nei­ther can he know, or love the Church, in quality of a Church, but of men, or members of the State: for the Church, in quality of a Church, is no wayes the object of his Knowledge, or Will. He may doe it, as an Asse, that carrieth the corne to the Mill; or as Caiaphas, who judged, that one man must dye for the People; but knew not what he said. He cannot doe it by any power Intrinsecall to the Church, as M.S. pretends: And howbeit I should grant unto a Iew, or a Pagan, a Civill power to doe good to the Church, both in actu signato, and exercito: yet from thence cannot be concluded an Intrin­secall or Ecclesiasticall power belonging to a Iew, a Pagan, or to an Antichri­stian to rule the Church Internally.

M. S. p. 48. §. 13. of this Chapter, durst not answer A.S. what he mea­neth by the Civill Magistrate, upon whom he would seem to bestow such a power; but in stead of Answer, racketeth it back to him with jeering and bab­ling: But I answer him, 1. that Quaestio Quaestionem non solvit, one Question satisfieth not another. 2. I answer, that the Magistrate, who I beleeve should have such a power in actu exercito, must be such, as is not a professed Enemy to the true Religion, at least, in quality of a Magistrate, or in his Lawes.

And so it is false, that M.S. saith of the King; for, in quality of King, he hath professed Presbyterian Discipline in Scotland, in as much as he confirmed it by his Authority: so hath he done in England, in favour of the French, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish Churches: so did King James, by his Divines, approve the Presbyterian Discipline, at the Synod of Dort. So M. S. sees [Page 58]how much he hath deceived himselfe, in looking for 20 Distinctions of me, to answer him to this Question. We answer him candidè, in all simplicity, and feare not to declare to the World what we hold, as the Sectaries doe.

M.S. p. 49. §. 15. Was it not lawfull for them, i. e. unchristian Kings, to in­terpose with their Authority, that the Churches of Christ in their Dominati­ons, might lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all Godlinesse and honestie? If not, then was that exhortation, 1 Tim. 2.2. to be laid up in Lavender for some hundreds of yeers, after it was given; or else the benefit and blessing, the obtaining whereof by prayer, is made the ground of the exhortation, must have been made over in the intentions of those that had so prayed, unto their posterities after many generations.

A.S. 1. This Argument proveth not, that any Magistrate, either Christi­an, or other, hath any Intrinsecall power in the Church, either Directive or Executive. 2. It proveth not, that an unchristian Magistrate hath any power in actu exercito, in the Church. 3. As for that Text, 1 Tim. 2.2. the sense of the Text is, that we should pray for the conversion of Kings to the Gospel: which appeareth evidently by the Apostles reason, v. 3. & 4. For (saith he) this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, v. 4. who will have all men saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth. And another reason, v. 6. For Christ gave himselfe for all men. And another, v. 7. Because the Apostle is a Preacher of the Gospel to all men. Now these words, That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godlinesse and Piety, expresse finem intentum, sed non eventum; not the Event, but the End intended by the Christians who prayed; for they obteined not, in those times, a quiet or a peaceable life, under the Heathen Kings. 2. Neither prayed they here, that any Nero should have had the Government of the Church in his hand; for they obeyed him not, neither in Doctrine, nor in Discipline.

M.S. p. 50. §. 17. doth nothing, but repeat what he hath said, viz. That the Civill Magistrate, in taking away Superstition and Heresie, had need of some other security, then the Synod can give him.

A.S. The Civill Magistrate, as a Christian man, must learne Gods will, by all the meanes that God hath appointed him, viz. 1. By reading of Scriptures; 2. Comparing one Scripture with another; 3. Conferring in private about Scrip­tures, & of any difficulties he hath, with other Christians, of whom he may learn any thing; 4. Hearing of Sermons; 5. As a Magistrate, he must have a Politi­call prudence, and knowledge of Scriptures to direct him in judging about Su­perstition, Heresie, and matters of Religion; 6. He must serve himselfe of prayer, and all the rest of the meanes that God hath ordained him; 7. Nei­ther say we, that he must be directed by a Synod alone. This is one of the meanes that God hath ordained him in his Providence, but not all, as this M. S. falsely would perswade the Reader, if he be not altogether im­pertinent.

CHAP. I. Containing the State of the Question.

TO the end we may the better, and more easily resolve this Question, it will not be amisse to note concerning the word Church. 1. That we mean not here the Triumphant Church in Heaven, but the Militant upon Earth. 2. That it is not meant touching the invisible Church, viz. The Church of Beleevers, compounded of men and women, endowed with Justifying Faith, which is invisible to us; but of the visible Church, professing the true Faith. 3. Nor of every visible Church of Beleevers, but of that which is compounded of all its Organicall Parts, viz. Preachers, Teachers, Ruling Elders, Deacons, and Flock. 4. It is to be observed, That this Church is either Reall, or Representative; We call Reall Churches, those wherein such Church Officers, and Flocks, are really, as in every Parish, Provinciall or Nation Church: But a Representative Church is that, wherein the Reall Church is represented in Her Church Officers, as a Presbytery, Session, or Consistory, consisting of the Preachers and Ruling Elders, or the Deacons also of a Parish Church gathered together, for ordering of Church businesse in Doctrine, Government, or otherwayes, who altogether represent the Church of a Parish: A Classe, that representeth that of a Classe, and judgeth of all the Church businesse of one Classe: A Provinciall Synod, which consisteth of the Ministers, and a certain number of Ruling Elders of one Province, representing all the Reall Churches of such a Province, in judging of Church Affairs in that Province; and a Nationall Synod com­pounded of a certain number of Ministers and Ruling Elders, deputed from all the Provinces of the Nation, to judge of the Church businesse in Doctrine, Discipline, &c. which concerneth the whole Church of such a Nation or Kingdom.

2. Concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories, it is to be observed, 1. That an Ecclesiasticall Judicatory is nothing else but a certain num­ber of men, gathered together, and endowed with an Authoritative power, according to Gods will, to judge of Church businesse, for Gods glory, and the Weal of the Church, or in a word, the Representative Church of one Parish, Classe, Province, Nation, or of all the World. 2. That Subordination in Ecclesiasticall Judicatories, is a Relation of Order, betwixt a Superiour, and an Inferiour Judicatory, or Representative Church, whereby the Iudge­ment and Authority of the Inferiour, depends upon the Iudgement, and Authority of the Superiour: Such we conceive to be betwixt Presbyteries and Classes, Classes and Provinciall, Provinciall and Nationall, Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods.

3. Here it would be noted, That this Subordination is grounded upon the Authoritative power of Superiour Iudicatories, over their Inferiours, or Sub­ordinated; and therefore here is to be noted, first, That this Power of the Church is not Naturall, that floweth from the Nature, or Essence of the Sub­ject, such as are the Faculties of the Soul; nor Habituall, or an Habitude either Naturally acquired by Custome, or Supernaturally infused by Grace; for men may have all the Naturall Faculties of the Soul, and many Naturall, and Su­pernaturall Habitudes; yea, all those that are necessary for this Authoritative power, and yet not have it, as any one may easily see in many learned and godly Divines, who are not Ministers of the Church, and consequently have no Authoritative power in the Church: But it is a Morall power (ordinarily called [...] or potestas) whereby in vertue of Gods Ordinance, the Superiour Church hath power over the Inferiours, or other Churches subordinated unto Her, to rectifie their Iudgements in case of Aberration, or to enjoyn them any thing according to Gods holy Ordinance. So when particular Churches judge any thing amisse either in Doctrine or Discipline, a Classe or a Provin­ciall Synod may judge of that Iudgement, and in case it finde it have need, may in the Name of God, command it to reform its Iudgement; and in case of disobedience, command the people not to obey their Pastors or Presbyte­ries commands; or if there be any thing, that concerneth the Weal of all the Churches in the Kingdom, the Nationall Synod hath an Authoritative power, to judge it, and enjoyn it upon the Churches in the Name of God; so may a Provinciall Church do in things concerning all the Churches of a Province. I call an Authoritative power, that which may command, and in vertue of its command, enjoyn an obligation of Obedience upon all those that are subject thereunto; and in case of Disobedience, inflict Spirituall punish­ments, according to the quality of the Disobedience, viz. Simple Censure, the lesser or greater Excommunication.

If ye inquire further, what is this Morall power, or wherein it consists; I answer, It is no Reall, but a Morall being; it is no Reall quality in the Subject [Page 61]that hath it, and consequently it is no Reall or Naturall power; but as [...] were a Naturall power; for as our Naturall powers and faculties do flow from the Essence of the Subject, or from our Essentiall Forms; so doth this Morall power flow from the consent and will of them who give it, and his will, who consents to accept it; and this consent producing such a Morall power or [...] is no lesse forma internè vel externè denominans, & efficaciter [...] producens, quàm forma essentialis is forma informans potentiam naturalem a se, & in se vel in subjecto profundens. And as naturall powers are for the Weal of their Subjects, in accomplishing and perfecting of them in their operations, con­venient to their nature; so its this Morall power for the Weal of its Morall Subject, or of the consociation in perfecting it in its operations, convenient to its Morall being, Domesticall, Politicall or Ecclesiasticall, in Nature or in Grace. Wherefore Amesius, and sundry Independents, that follow his opinion, are mightily mistaken, whilest they think it floweth from the Essence of the Church. 1. For it hath not its being from the Essence of the Church, but ex instituto divino. 2. Because it is not produced necessarily, as Naturall proprieties, but freely and willingly, not as depending upon Nature, but up­on Will. 3. If it did flow from the Essence of the Church, God could not change it; And yet howsoever this Morall power hath no Reall being in it self; yet may it be called Reall; 1. In consideration of its Cause, viz. Of the Reall destination of the Will, from which its produced. 2. Of its Foundati­on, viz. Because it presupposeth some Reall qualities in him, or those, who have it, viz. Naturall faculties, and some naturall or supernaturall Abilities to exercise it. 3. Of its Effects that are Reall; for howsoever the power of a Magistrate be not a Reall quality, yet it is able to produce very Reall Effects in Subjects, in remunerating such as deserve well of the State, and in punish­ing Delinquents, as by imprisoning their persons, or cutting off their Heads, if the crime be of that nature.

Again it must be observed, That this Morall power is, 1. either meerly Directive, which onely sheweth what is to be done, or Imperative, that cannot onely shew, or discern what is to be done; but also commands, and in vertue of such a command, bindes those that are subject to such a Power to Obedience, and in case of Disobedience, inflicts condign punishments. 2. That this Morall power is either Civill or Ecclesiasticall; the first belongs to the Civill Magistrate, the second to Ecclesiasticall persons. 3. That Power is either Imperiall, Royall, or Magisteriall, such as Emperours, Kings, or Lords, have over their Subjects, as that of the Civill Magistrate; or Mi­nisteriall, such as State-Ministers have under their Masters, or Lords, as that of Ambassadors, Pursevants, &c.

Finally it must be observed, That as Power, so punishments inflicted by Power, are either Civill or Ecclesiasticall; Civill punishments are such as are inflicted by the Civil Magistrate, and are often times corporall, as Mutilation, [Page 62]Stigmatizing, and Death, &c. sometimes Pecuniary mulcts, sometimes In­famy, &c. Ecclesiasticall punishments are altogether Spirituall, consisting of Censures, Suspension from the Lords Table, and Excommunication.

These things being presupposed, By the word Church here must be meant, the visible Militant Church, and principally the Representative Church, in Presbyteries, Classes, Synods. 2. By the word Subordination, must be meant a Subordination of Power and Judgement. 3. By Power must be meant a Morall, Ecclesiasticall, Imperative, and Ministeriall Power in Iudging, Commanding, and Inflicting of Spirituall punishments onely, and not an Imperiall, Magisteriall, or Royall Power, whereby the Church may command in a domineering way, or compell mens bodies, or punish them by inflict­ing any Corporall punishment on them, or imposing any Pecuniary mulcts; as the Independents most craftily go about to perswade the World.

The Independents then deny, That there is any Church furnished with any Authoritative or Imperative Power, save onely the Parishionall, or to speak in their own Terms, the Congregationall Church. And therefore they renounce all Classicall and Synodicall Churches; or if they do acknowledge them, they allow them no Authoritative or Imperative, but a Consultative Power onely, or a Power to counsell one of their little Congregations (compounded happily of seven or eight persons) what they think fittest to be done; so that this petty Congregation may either accept or reject their Counsell, at their own likings and pleasure: so as in conclusion, they acknowledge no Authoritative, or Imperative Ecclesiasticall power, above that of their little Congregations; for they maintain, that every Church, be it never so small, yea, though it be composed but of seven or eight persons (be it never so Erroneous and Here­ticall) is altogether Independent in its Iudgement, upon all the Iudgements of all the Churches of the World, be they never so Iust and Orthodox; and consequently, that what ever they teach, how Heretically soever; and what ever they do, be it never so wicked, that all the Orthodox Churches in the World, have no Authority of God to Censure, or to Excommunicate, or so much, as to command them, other wayes then any one private man might do an other, i. e. By way of Counsell, which they may either follow or reject at their pleasure.

The Orthodox and Reformed Churches, especially of Scotland, France, the Netherlands, &c. on the other part hold, That there is and ought to be Sub­ordination amongst Ecclesiasticall Judicatories, viz. That Nationall Synods are above Provinciall Synods; these above Classes, and Classes above Presby­teries or Sessions; and that the Superiour Judicatories have a Ministeriall Au­thoritative or Imperative, but no Magisteriall, Despoticall, or Imperiall, Au­thoritative power over the Inferiour, that are subordinate unto them. Item, That they may inflict upon Inferiour Churches, in case of Disobedience, Spirituall, though no Corporall punishments, or Pecuniary mulcts, or such like Civil punishments.

CHAP. II. Containing some imaginary and ridiculous Contradictions objected by M.S. to A.S. removed.

BUt before I prove my Conclusion, I must pray the Reader to re-marke, in passing the falschood and manifold cavillations whereby this M.S. salu­teth him in the entry of this Question; for this is his safest way for the pre­sent, howbeit it cannot but prove damnable in the end; 1. He saith, that Presbyterians agree not about the Author of this subordination of Ecclesiasti­call Judicatories, and Presbyterian Government, whether it be juris Divini, or Humani: As if some of them esteemed it to be juris Divini; others, juris Humani, Ecclesiastici; others, juris Naturalis; others, partim juris Divini, partim Naturalis, aut mixti. 2. He saith, that A.S. contradicteth himselfe in the same manner. For refutation whereof, I need not but to propound our Opinion, which is thus: 1. All the Presbyterian Discipline, and specially sub­ordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories, quoad Essentialia, aut Substantialia, in its Essentiall parts, is juris Divini, aut Naturalis, i. e. authorised by Gods Divine Law, or by the Law of Nature. 2. Presbyterian Discipline, quoad acci­dentalia, & circumstantialia, i. e. in its accidentall or circumstantiall parts, it may be juris Humani. Neither believe I, that there is any great dispute a­mongst us, and the Independents, about these Positions, unlesse M.S. make it. Neither know I what can anger him in all this, save only this, that we give him no subject of quarrelling us; It may be, and it seemeth, that he finds fault with the first Proposition, wherein I say, it is either juris Divini, aut Natu­ralis: And, that he will have no Doctrine of Faith, or Discipline, that is juris Naturalis, i. e. grounded on the light of Nature. But,

• 1. What if the Scripture presuppose the truth of some Principles, known by Nature; dare he reject them?
• 2. Some of them are as certaine as any Article of Faith; as, for example, this; The one part of a Contradiction is true, and the other false: and this, Twise ten are twenty. And yet none of them hath any formall Patent from Gods Word.
• 3. If God be as well the Author of Naturall, as of Divine truth, wherefore will ye reject Naturall truth?
• 4. All men are bound to beleeve all Naturall truths, when they are suffici­ently manifested unto them; or at least, not to dissent from them, because we must not lye, as we are taught by the 9. Commandement, which not only forbiddeth us to misbelieve or contradict any Supernaturall, but also all Naturall truths sufficiently manifested unto us.
• 5. But what reason hath this M.S. to reject Naturall truths, when there is nothing in Scripture to the contrary?
• 6. Yea, by the Law of Nature, I am bound to be ruled by them, in case the [Page 64]Scripture reveale me nothing above Nature: yea, I am not bound to goe a­bove them, but in the cases, that Scripture revealeth unto me.
• 7. What Law we were bound unto in the Old Testament, and is not abroga­ted in the New, that Law are we bound to follow, as a rule of direction in the New, yea, in Church-Discipline:
  • But the Law of Nature is a Law, whereunto we were bound in the Old Testament, and is not abrogated in the New; Ergo,
  • The Law of Nature is a Law, that we are bound to follow as a rule of dire­ction in the New Testament, yea, in Church-Discipline.
• 8. It is holden amongst Protestants for an indubitable and supernaturall truth, that Christs body cannot be in two places at one time; which nei­ther M.S. nor all the Independent wit in the world is able to prove, unlesse they suppose this Principle of Nature, viz. One individuall Body actually exi­stent, cannot at one time be in divers totall places] to be true: For the Scrip­ture poseth it not formally, but presupposeth it to be true.

Now I pray you, M.S. shew 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 my selfe. But wherein? Because (saith M.S.) I say, p. 27. §. 3.

• 1. Subordination between superiour and inferrour Ecclesiasticall Iudica­tories, is partim juris Divini, partim Natura lis aut mixti.
• 2. This Subordination, &c. needs not any patterne expresly and formally from Christ; It sufficeth, that it have one from Nature, p. 36. §. 2.
• 3. And yet we can shew 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 Gods Word is the rule or measure, in matter of Ecclesiasticall or Presbyteriall Government, p. 61.
• 6. Combined Presbyteries judge of Points of Doctrine and Discipline al­ready revealed in the holy Scripture, and give us new Ecclesiasticall Lawes of things indifferent, p. 34.

Answ. In my second Proposition, he putteth Patterne for Patent. 2. Here in all these Propositions there is no contradiction, neither sheweth 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 Naturall 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 Naturall Knowledge, and Supernaturall Revelation. 3. In so far forth, as that which is juris Naturalis, is also juris Divini, when jus Divinum supposeth [Page 65] jus Naturale: for in such a case, jus Naturale becommeth Divinum, not Thetically, but Hypothetically; not by any formall Divine Position, but by some Divine reall Supposition; as I shew it cleerly 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 Ecclesiasticall Discipline, nor of it all; only I say, that it is not in Church-Ministers power to transferre the Ecclesiasticall power unto the Civill Magistrate: Which contradicteth not the first three.

In the 5. Only Gods Word, &c. But, 1. Gods Word, there, must not be ta­ken strictly, for that which is Gods Word formally, in terminis, & Theticè; but in a more large signification, 1. For Gods Word, formally, or by conse­quence: 2. In terminis, aut in sensu: 3. Theticè, aut Hypotheticè, by some Po­sition, or Supposition.

3. If ye take Gods Word in the last sense, then Discipline, or Government must be taken for Discipline in its essentiall and principall integrant parts, and not in all its accidentall and circumstantiall parts: Neither is it needfull, 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 Week-dayes; so long, viz. an houre, or two houres long; in the mor­ning, or afternoon; That Ecclesiasticall Senates should sit once a day, once a week, or once a moneth.

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 Ecclesiasticall Lawes in things indifferent, &c. 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, &c. 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 himselfe, (howbeit not without some Comedian jeeres, 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. Confesse this, and ye may [Page 66]live in a Fraternall communion with us, for the Difference, viz. If one say, it is juris Divini; another, Naturalis; another, Ecclesiastici; will not breed a Schisme; 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 Naturall, or a Positive Law: Much lesse materiall 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 Orthodoxe 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 cleerly, I intend to prove, 1. That in Scripture there is more, then a Congregationall, Independent Church; 2. a Subordination of Churches, and that in Authority.

Whether in Scripture, or in Reason, we find more then a Congregationall Church?

We affirme, 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 then Congregationall, 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 then Congregationall and Inde­pendent, may be admitted amongst his people in the New Testament.

As for the first Proposition, I beleeve our Adversaries will not deny it, for if it was in the Old Testament, it was either by Gods 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 vvith 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. &c. When the most High divided to the Nations their Inheritance, when he seperated the sons of Adam; Iacob was the Lot of his Inheritance, &c. Amos 3.2. You onely have I known of all the Families of the Earth. Deut. 39.29. Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, O People? saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy Encellency.

2. Because Independents define a Congregationall Church, a number of men, Covenanted together, to participate of Gods Ordinances, viz. the hearing of the Word, the receiving of the Sacraments &c. in some one place, every Sabbath day.

But all the Church of the Jewes could not meet in one place, in such a fashi­on, as every man will easily grant. Ergo,

3. Because the great Sanedrim at Jerusalem judged of all Ecclesiasticall Causes throughout all the Kingdome.

4. Because the People of God, besides their Assemblyes in the Temple (which was an holy place, common to all their Nationall Church) had their particular Conventions, in particular Synagogues.

And however men may doubt of these Synagogues, whether they were ex­instituto divino, or not, and of the time, when first they began; yet can it not be denied, but if they were not divinae institutionis, they were, at least, divinae approbationis. 1. For they are no where condemned in Scripture. 2. But Christ and his Apostles approved them, in that they went ordinarily to them, disputed and expounded Scripture in them. 3. And submitted themselves unto the order and Discipline established therein.

Answ. But the Independents will say, that the Nationall Church is abro­gated in the New Testament.

Iust. 1. Then it is their part, to point us to the place in the New Testa­ment, where it is abrogated.

2. It cannot be abrogated in the New Testament; for those Ordinances only of the Old Testament are abrogated in the New, that belonged unto the Ceremoniall Law: But to have a Church, or a Church Government, more then Congregationall, per se, or considered in it selfe, belong not to the Ceremoniall Law. Ergo, The Major is certaine, I prove the Minor. 1. For it might have been even in the State of Integrity, without the Ceremoniall Law. 2. And so indeed it was after the Fall, before ever Moses his Ceremo­niall Law was made. 3. And that is not meerely Ceremoniall, whereof we may evidently give naturall reason, or that which is evidently grounded in naturall reason, or at least in so far as evidently grounded in naturall reason, since it is meerely Positive. But (supposing that there is a Church of God) to have, a Church, or a Church Government, more then Congregationall and Inde­pendent, is evidently grounded in naturall reason, or a thing where evi­dently we may give Naturall reason, &c. as wee shall see here­after. Ergo,

3. Only those things of the Old Testament, are abrogated by the New, which were shadows of things to come, viz. of Christ Reall, or Mistycall; But such a Church, i. e. more then a Congregationall, Independent Church, was not a shadow of things to come in Christ, &c. Ergo, The Major is certaine, [Page 68]for the things commanded, or approved in the Old Testament, belonged, either to the Morall or to the Ceremoniall, or to the Judiciall Law: As for the things of the first sort, they are juris naturalis, and consequently perpe­tuall, which are not abrogated, and of themselves were not shadows of things to come: As for those of the Judiciall Law, of themselves they are not shadows, but belong unto Civill Government, which Christ abrogated not, since his Kingdom was not of this world; and if the Jews had submitted themselves to Christ, and had been freed from externall oppression, it is probable, that they should have enjoyed their own Government, according to the Judiciall Law, so far forth as Judiciall; neither was it his aym to over­throw any worldly States, Policies, or Politicall Laws: Christs Kingdom was, and is compatible with all the Kingdoms and States of the world, if they will not destroy it; and he will let them reign over mens bodies and purses, if they can let him reign over their Souls. These, that were commanded in the Ceremoniall Law, were indeed shadows; but such was not a Church more then Congregationall.

To all these Reasons some have answered, That they would have it proved by Scriptures of the New Testament, just: 1. But wherefore prove they their opinion by the Old Testament, if they will not permit us the same liberty? 2. Our former Reasons have sufficiently proved, That proofs taken from the Old Testament, should hold in all that, which is not abrogated in the New. 3. If in this Subject they reject the Scriptures of the Old Testament, as the Jews in all things that of the New, there will be two Errors Diametrically opposite, the one to the other, theirs, and the Jews.

But to give them more contentment, we will prove it likewise by Texts of the New Testament; and first, from that of the Acts, Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5.

2. A Church compounded of 8120. is more then a Parishionall, or Congre­gationall Independent Church.

But the Church of Jerusalem, Acts 1.15. Acts 2.41. Acts 4.4. was a Church, compounded of 8120. yea, of more, as appeareth by Acts 5.14, 26. Ergo,

The Church of Jerusalem was more, sure then a Parishionall, or Congre­gationall Independent Church.

The Major Proposition is certain; for the Independents define their Church, which Christ in his Gospel hath instituted, and to which he hath committed the Keyes of his Kingdom, the Power of binding and loosing, the Tables and Seales of the Covenant, the Officers and Censures of his Church, the Administration of his publike Worship and Ordinances. Caetus, a company of Beleevers, meeting in one place every Lords day, for the Ad­ministration of the Holy Ordinances of God, to publike Edification. [The [Page 69]Way of the Church of Christ in New England] The due Right of Presbyteries, Chap. 1. Prop. 1.] From hence I argue thus:

The Church, whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition, because of its multitude, is more then an Independent Congregationall Church.

But a Church compounded of 8120, is a Church, whereunto cannot be applyed this Definition, &c. Ergo.

The Major is certain: The Minor I prove it; for 8120. could not meet together every Lords day in one House, &c. For in those times Christians had not yet any Temples, but gathered together in particular Houses, which could not receive them all, 1. Because they were not ordinarily spacious, as great and rich mens Houses; for as the Apostle sayeth, There are not many wise men after the flesh, nor many mighty, nor many noble called, but the foolish, weak, base, and despised things of the world, 1 Cor. 1.26, 27, 28. 2. Howbeit they had been spacious, as rich mens houses, yet could they not have received such 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 powerfull, 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 Custome was to Communicate at Table sitting, according to the Custome of other Orientall 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 Ecclesiasticall Senates, or Iudica­tories, 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, Ile 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 Trades-man can spare) it should amount to 507. dayes, which is almost two yeers, omitting the Lords dayes; so in gathering their votes once onely, there would be spent nigh upon two yeers: 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 businesse, 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 [Page 70]number should be absent (for appearingly they could not ever all be present) could any judgement given in their absence, binde them to condescend unto it? If it could, it should be but a very blinde obedience; if not, there must of necessity be matter of Schisme, which per se would ordinarily fall out in such a Constitution of an Independent Church. Many things will happily here be replied about divers compendious wayes of gathering of suffrages, as in divers Senates, as amongst the Romans, Athenians, the Parliaments in France, in Venice, &c. but to no purpose, for this extravagant fashion of voting of so great multitudes, wherein every one pretends a liberty, or licen­tiousnesse rather, in prophecying, whereunto such wayes of gathering of suffrages can no wayes be applyed.

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 onely 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 onely in their matter, as an Infant, and a Man of fourty yeers. 2. That it sufficeth, that a Church, according to Gods 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 lesse Canoni­call, then Acts 1.4. and yet that passage Acts 1. doth the businesse; for that Church provided a Minister for all the Churches of the World, which is more, then any Independent or Congregationall 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. Beleevers were the more added unto the Lord, multitudes both men and women, vers. 14. The number of the Disciples were [Page 71]much more multiplied, cap. 6. v. 1. in Hierusalem 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 Hebrewes, because their widowes were neglected in the dayly ministration; whereupon there were appointed 7 Deacons for all the Churches of Iudaea, 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 Hierusalem there was more then 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. IV. The same Doctrine proved from Act. 13.14.15. and 16 chap. of the Church of Hierusalem, 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 Ceremoniall Law, at Antioch; it was resolved, that the que­stion should be determined by the Church, that was at Hierusalem: 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 then an Independent Congregationall Church:
• But the Church that was gathered at Hierusalem, 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 Hierusalem, was more then a Congre­gationall Independent Church.

The Major is certaine; for no simple Congregationall Church can give out Decrees and Sentences, to be obeyed by other Churches; nor will other Independent Congregationall Churches submit thereunto.

The Minor is certaine. 1. For, The Church of Antioch determined, that Paul, and Barnabas, and certaine others of them should goe up to Hierusalem unto the Apostles and Elders, about that question, Act. 15.2. 2. Because the judgment of the Church of Hierusalem 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 Hierusalem, 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 Iudgement, ar­gueth [Page 72]authority over the Churches: As that, Act. 15.24. To whom we gave no such commandement: Ergo, They had power to command them to preach. And the Pharises appearingly pretended to have had some such commande­ment from that Church at Hierusalem, as some inferre from this Text. Item, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, then these necessary things, Act. 15.25. 5. Because they commanded the Churches some things indifferent in themselves; as, to abstaine 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 Congregationall Churches there; for many of the Jewes 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 heare 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 certaine Prophets, and Teachers, as Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manahem, Act. 13. v. 1. and sundry others, which had come down from Iudea, Act. 15. v. 1. Now it is not credible, that where there were so many Beleevers, 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 per­swaded the Jewes and the Greeks, Act. 18.4. And Crispus the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, beleeved, and were baptized, v. 8. And the Lord spake by vision to Paul, saying, I have much people in this City, v. 10. Paul continued there a yeere and six moneths, v. 11. God promised him, that no man should set on him to hurt him, v. 10. The Iewes, that had made an insurrection against him, v. 12. were drawn from the Iudgement seat by Gallio the Pro-Consul or Deputy of A­chaia, v. 18. Sosthenes, the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue, beaten away by the Greeks, v. 17. This Gallio was not Pauls, or the Christians enemy, as appea­reth by all his proceedings, 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 speciall a manner of Divine providence and promise assisted there, so as that Crispus the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue was converted, Gallio [Page 73]the Proconsul became Pauls friend, and peradventure not far from the King­dome of Heaven; S. Pauls credit so great, that the Iewes were drawn from the Tribunall 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 then could conveniently meet to­gether in one house, to participate of all Christs Ordinances: And it was not Pauls custome 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 saile 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 Naturall, and Diabolicall Magick; the profession whereof, some Independents, as it is related by M. S. use, it should seeme, 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 Schoole of Magick there, who by the voice of Birds knew their very imagi­nations and desires, &c. This man was Christs, and S. Pauls enemy, as it is related of him. We have also an Adage in Erasmus, Ephesiae literae, which were some Magick characters, and words, which made such as caried them, victorious in all they undertook: See more about them in that Adage, in the Title Imposturae. Without doubt, Paul converted here more then 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 spake 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 moneths, perswading the things concerning the Kingdome of God, v. 8. which he could not have done, unlesse he had had many good friends there. 3. Afterwards, daily in the Schoole of one Tyrannus, for the space of two yeeres, v. 9.10. which without doubt he had not continued to doe so long, if the Gospel had not had great fruits there; for so soon as some spake evill of it, in the Synagogue, the Text sayes, 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 signifie a Schoole, is a Hall, or place of recreation, such as Noblemen use to have: But however [Page 74]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 progresse, and a happy successe. 4. But let this Tyrannus be the proper name of some Master, or Professor in a Colledge, as Tyrannus Sophista, as Baronius would have him to be, tom. 1. Annal. or any other; it is a signe, 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 Colledge, during which time, it is probable, he might be con­verted himselfe. 5. If it be a common name, or signifies any great Lord, and that [...] signifie some great Hall, Porticum, or spacious place, as some will have it to doe; it is a signe, that he had great credit, and accesse to great men, since he had such an House at command to make a Schoole of, and that for so long time together, as the space of two yeeres: 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 publike exercise of a new Religion in their houses, nor protect Novelties of so great consequence, if they see any danger, or feare a stronger party: and therefore in all proba­bility, the Christians were very strong there, since they had such publick 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 Silver-Smiths had conceived of their utter undoing, by reason of the notable progresse of the Gospel; and by the tumult that he made, which, it is like, he would not have done, unlesse 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 perswaded 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, Pauls companions, and rushed into the Theatre; yet did they them no harme, for feare, in all likelihood, of the Christians party; for feare 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 hindred him to enter into the tumult, for feare he should receive any hurt: And the Great men, doubtlesse, 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 Iewes, the sonnes of Sceva, chiefe 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 [Page 75]those that are unimitable by others: To the contentment and profit of o­thers, because that the handkerchiefes or aprons caried from S. Pauls body, cured their diseases, and chased a way the evill 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 Iewes 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 Iesus was magnified, v. 17.13. Because many that beleeved, came and confessed their deeds, v. 18. So then many be­leeved. 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 lesse, 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 Naturall Magick, nor Iudiciall Astrologie, Physiognomy, &c. for these Arts being lawfully used, are lawfull, and there­fore it had been no need to burne 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 Diabolicall 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 Diabolicall Arts against na­ture: fince then there were so many of such Diabolicall 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 Schoole was a Schoole of Magick, and perad­venture, Apollonius Thyanaus was his Second or Ʋsher, 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 meanes of S. Pauls Mieacles, whereby the Devill, 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 Bookes, were done publikely, 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 publikely 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 [Page 76]many would have done it; for of those, who receive Christ, many, yet the best men are sundry times tempted with feare, as we see in St. Peter his denying his Master, and in all the Apostles in flying away; neither is it ever­more needfull, that we make so open profession of Christ, when we may ap­pearingly suffer for him; for the sheep may fly away from the Wolfe, as the woman fled into the wildernesse to hide her selfe 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. Pauls Ser­mon, which he made in an upper Chamber in the night upon occasion of his departure from Troas, that Eutychus, and doubtlesse 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 Lords-day in any one Roome, such as were their places of meeting in those times, and consequently there must have been there more, then one of the Independent Congregationall Churches.

10. We have also cleer 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 Hierusalem; This Persecution was not against one onely Independent Congregationall Church, but against the whole Churches of Iudea.

11. So in the same Chap. vers. 3. Saul made havocke of the Church. And chap. 9.1. breathing out threatnings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord: now of this Church some members were in Damascus, v. 2. so he sayes of himselfe, I persecuted the Church, 1. Cor. 15.9. Phil. 3.6. from whence I argue thus,

The Church that Saul persecuted, was greater then a particular Congrega­tion, or an Independent Church.

But the Church here meant, is that which Saul persecuted. Ergo, The Church here meant, is greater then a particular Congregation. The Mi­nor is certain; the Major I prove it; for he persecuted not one onely parti­cular Congregation, but that, wherever there were Disciples of the Lord, chap. 9.1. in Hierusalem, 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 certaine of the Church. Here the word Church must signifie more, then a particular Congregation; for Herod did it to pleasure the Iewes, 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 Ʋniversall Ministers of the Gospel. [Page 77]3. Because if the Church here signifie a particular Church, whereof Peter and Iames were Members; then that Church might have deposed them of their Ministery: 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 universall Pastors, as the Apostles: Ergo. If they acknowledge them to be universall Pastors, they must have universall Flocks, or Churches; so there was an universall Militant Church upon Earth, whereof they were Pastors in their time, which is more then a particular Congregation. 4. Put the case they had been but Ministers of particular Churches or Congregations, yet must the word Church there signifie 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 then a particular one, for it must containe 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 onely Independent Church, but all the Churches that knew of Peters imprison­ment, and depended upon him, as upon their Pastor.

14. Give no offence, neither to the Jewes, 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 Iewes, 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 universall Ministers of the Militant Church of their time; now if there be an universall Militant Church through all the world, how much rather may we admit a Provinciall or Nationall Church?

16. I had rather speak five words, saith St. Paul, with my understanding in the Church then, &c. 1. Cor. 14.19. This Church, wherein the Apostle desires to speake, is more then an Independent Congregation; for he was not tyed to any particular Congregation.

17. The Apostle willeth women to keepe silence in the Churches, 1. Cor. 14.38. and these Churches are called the Church, It is a shame for a Woman to speake in the Church, vers. 35. which cannot be a particular Congregation; for he willeth them not to speake 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 proceedings may be subject unto the judgement of the Superiour 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 then a par­ticular Congregationall, viz. Provinciall, 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 Provinciall, Nationall, and Universall Militant Church here upon Earth, in such a manner, that it hinder it not.

2. Particularly, it may be proved from the Custome of the Old Testament, which is not abrogated in the New; for therein the Iudgements 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 onely two, that of the lesser Sanedrim unto that of the great one; as has been proved by Mr. Rutherford, Gillispy, Hearl, &c. Art. 1. and 2.

3. The Representative Church, or first Generall Councell, at Jerusalem, had Power and Authority over all the Churches of the world; since it gave them a Minister, viz. Mathias: Ergo, All other Churches in their Iudgements and Power of creating such a Minister, were subject unto it.

Object. If it be said, That it was an extraordinary Councell, 1. Because it was indicted and convocated by Christ; 2. Because it was compounded of extraordinary Persons; 3. Because the Persons received extraordinary gifts there; 4. Because, it was in the birth and beginning of the Church.

Reply. The Scripture saith not, That it was Extraordinary. As for the the Proofs; I answer to the first, 1. That howbeit it was indicted and convo­cated by Christ, yet was it not indicted and convocated in an extraordinary way. 2. That a Councell may be extraordinarily indicted and convocated, and yet be ordinary in its proceedings. 3. That the Indiction and Convocation of a Councell is Extrinsecall, and Antecedent to a Councell; because that it is before that the Councell be; and therefore cannot make it Intrinsecally extra­ordinary [Page 79]when it is existent: So, Adam was made in an extraordinary way of Earth, and by creation; and Eva of Adams Rib; and yet they were not extra­ordinary persons, in their nature, existence, conservation, or accidents. 4. Nei­ther read we, that it was convocated in an extraordinary way. 5. Neither can it be extraordinary, because it was convocated by Christ; for by the same rea­son, all that ever Christ did to men, should have been extraordinary.

To the second, I have already answered.

To the third, I answer, 1. That the extraordinary gifts were personall only, and belonged unto the materiall parts of the Councell, and not to the form thereof; and therefore could not make it formally extraordinary, in quality of a Councell; for formall denominations are not taken from the matter, but from the form; so, if there be six or seven Ecclesiasticall persons assembled to dine­together, we call it not an Ecclesiastical Assembly. 2. I answer, That these extra ordinary gifts were subsequent unto the Councell, or at least to that Ecclesia­sticall proceeding, in the election of Mathias; Now that, which is subsequent to any thing, cannot denominate it formally, or at least in the time precedent; when the Subject precedeth such a subsequent Adjunct or Circumstance. See more concerning this Argument heretofore.

To the fourth, I answer, 1. That all that, which was in the birth and infan­cie of the Church, was not Extraordinary; for by that reason, the Preaching of the Gospel, and the Administration of the Sacraments should have been Ex­traordinary. 2. Things, that are Ordinary, must have a beginning. 3. And howsoever, at their beginning, they be Extraordinary in respect of time, be­cause, before their beginning, they were not Ordinary, but out of the prece­dent order; yet they are Ordinary, in respect of Gods Ordinance or Law, which is ordinatio rationis, that should be ordinary in Gods Church.

Object. If it be yet said, That Mathias was an Extraordinary Minister, and his Vocation Extraordinary.

I answer, That all that is true; and yet, in this Extraordinary Vocation, there was something Ordinary, viz. The Nomination, and Election, or Admittance of him to be a Minister of the Church, according to the Independents opinion, otherwayes their Argument should be very impertinent, in proving from hence, the power of the people, in choosing their Ministers. That which there was Extraordinary, was not done by the Councell, and therefore could not make the Councell Extraordinary.

As much may be said of that Councell, that created seven Deacons for ma­ny Churches.

5. But principally we will urge that businesse of Antioch, in that difference betwixt St. Paul and Barnabas, on the one part, and some Pharisees convert­ed to the Christian Faith, on the other. Hereupon it was resolved that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jernsalem, unto the Apostles and Elders, about that question, v. 2. they were sent by the Church of Antioch, v. 3. they were received [Page 80]by the Church, and by the Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, v. 4 the Assembly being gathered at Jerusalem, the Cause was heard, v. 4.5. consi­dered, v. 6. discussed, v. 7. voyced, v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 judged, v. 22. the Iudgement, or Decree of the Councell or Assembly, sent to Antioch, from the 22. v. to the 30. read, and obeyed by the Church at Antioch, &c. v. 31. Here is the Church of Antioch, judged by a superiour Church, at Ierusalem; an Appeal, formed or interjected, from the one to the other; re­ceived by the other; judged and obeyed: And therefore it cannot be denyed, but there was some Subordination betwixt these two Churches, and that the one had authority over the other.

To this Argument some answer, 1. That if it prove any thing, it can only conclude an Appeal from one Parish Church, or particular Congregation un­to another, since the Church of Antioch, and of Hierusalem, were no other then Parish Churches.

Rep. 1. This Answer cannot hold, 1. Because no such thing can probably be collected out of this Text, or of any other in Scripture; and therefore it may be as easily rejected by us, as it is alleadged by them. 2. Because hardly can it be proved, that in those times Churches were divided into Parishes. 3. Because an Appeale cannot be from one Parish or Congregationall Church unto another, since their authority is equall; but only from an inferior to a superior Church or Judicatory. 4. Because if it was from one particular Con­gregation to another, then that Congregation, from which it was appealed, was not compleat in its Judgement, but had need of some Extrinsecall power, which is against the Tenets of Independents themselves. 5. Because if we might appeale from one particular Congregation to another, how much more from a particular Congregation unto a Synod, wherein the Spirit of God, and especially that of Prophecie doth more abound. 6. Because the Apostles in Hierusalem were not members of any particular Church. 7. Because, if the Assembly at Hierusalem had been a particular or Congregationall Church, it could not have given out a Decree, which should have bound so many Chur­ches to obedience, viz. those of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, v. 23.

2. It may be otherwayes answered, That it was an Appeale, but not to any Ordinary, but an Extraordinary Church, viz. to that of the Apostles; and that for these Reasons. 1. Because it was Extraordinarily gathered; 2. By Extra­ordinary persons; 3. It was compounded of Extraordinary persons, viz. the Apostles; 4. Because this Appeale was to the Apostles, who were infallible and Extraordinary Ministers; 5. Because it was in the birth, and beginning of the Gospel.

Rep. 2. This Answer cannot hold, 1. Because the Scripture declareth not, that this Church or Assembly was Extraordinary. 2. Neither is it a satisfactory Answer, whenever we bring passages of Scripture to prove our Opinion, that they answer us, that they are of Extraordinary things, and practises; unlesse [Page 81]the Scripture [...]clare them to be such, or that they go beyond the generall Rules commanded in Scripture. 3. Because here the proceedings are con­forme to those, that we have in other Scriptures, as in the Old Testament &c. 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 proceedings 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 Intrinsecally extraordinary in its proceedings. 4. It is onely circumstantiall, 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 onely 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 onely the Apostles, but also the Elders judged the businesse, v. 2.3. 4. Howbeit this Appeale was to the Apostles, yet was it not to them in quality of Apostles, nei­ther are we bound to beleeve 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 Hierusalem, 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 Canonicall Scrip­ture, to direct them at Antioch in their Proceedings: What needed they adde a fallible judgement to that, that was infallible, or mans 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 [Page 82]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 doubtfull. 10. I deny the Consequence, viz. That if a Councell 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 Apostoli­call dinner or sleeping. 11. Neither are all things, that are done by extraordinary Persons, extraordinary; for the Apostles did eate, drinke, and sleepe, neither yet was that Extraordinary Eating, Drinking, or Sleeeping, but ordinary, as in other men. 12. Because the Apostles were materiall parts, or members of the Assembly; their gifts, as infallibility and offices were personall, and denominated themselves onely, and not every Assembly, where­in they were, or might be, for as the Forme that denominateth their persons, belongeth onely to them, so doth the denomination proceeding from it. 13. Because the parts of Assemblyes and Consociations, may have contrary Formes and denominations, secundum entiatem, as we see in Republicks; for the whole Republick may be rich and potent, and the members thereof very poore, 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 Ecclesiasti­call Assembly of Prophets, as that of Achab, there may be one Prophet in­fallible, yea, if there had been 400. yet that Councell 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 Dwarfs 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 begining 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 Gods Law, which ordains it to be ordinary.

Answ. 3. This Argument may be other wayes eluded, in saying, that this businesse was not judged at Hierusalem by way of Appeale, but by way of Councell, not by Judges, but by Friends, and Brethren.

Rep. But this Evaston is no better then the rest; 1. Because the Text con­teineth no such thing; and we cannot take it upon their word, no more then they will take it upon ours, unlesse we prove it, as we here doe. 2. Because heretofore we have shewn many, yea almost all the conditions necessary to an Appeale, 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 Counsell is, but My Sentence is; which is not the stile of a Counsellour to a friend, but of a Judge. 4. The Judgement in the Text is called a Decree. 5. If it had been but a Councell, the Pharisees might as well, yea more easily have rejected it, then the Iudgement at Antioch, which they did not, but acquiesced therein, for any thing we know to the contrary. 6. Some may peradventure prove it in this manner; That, if it had not been a Synod, and a superior Iudicatory in respect of Antioch, those of Antioch had not sent the two Parties, but had done better, to have sent some indifferent Per­son; for indifferent Persons are more proper to consult a businesse, then the Parties. 7. If it had been judged at Hierusalem by way of Counsell only, this Counsell had likely been only given to the Church of Antioch; for counsell ordinarily is only given to those, who desire and crave it: But so it is not here, for the Church of Hierusalem not only judged so concerning the Church of Antioch alone, but also of all others; and the Apostles, and their Disciples urged this Iudgement upon all the rest of the Churches, where they passed.

Some New-England Preachers answer, That this Assembly at Hierusalem cleer up the truth dogmatically; for the word translated Decrees, is in the Ori­ginall [...] Act. 16.4. but imports not to Censure. Item, that they cannot see, why the ultimate power of Censures may not reside in the Congregation, as well as in the Synod Provinciall, Nationall, or Oecumenicall.

A.S. Answ. This cannot hold, 1. For whoever have a Dogmaticall power, they have also a power to Censure; for he who may judge, that this must be believed, and according to Gods Word, meriteth such an Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall punishment, wherefore may he not also sentence the Delinquents, who merit to be so censured? 2. Because, in giving a Dogmaticall power to some, and a Corrective power unto others, they divide the Keyes, and give one unto one Assembly, and another unto another, and so make one Assembly see with the others eyes. 3. These Powers were not separated in the Church, or Church-Assemblies in the Old Testament, Ergo, No more should they be se­parated in the New, since the union of these two Powers proceeds not from any Ceremoniall Law, but either from the Law of Nature, or the Politicall Ecclesiasticall Law, in so far forth as grounded on the Law of Nature. 4. Be­cause such a way were, as M.S. speaketh, to make the one Iudex, and the o­ther Carnisex, the one to be the Iudge, and the other the Executioner, 5. Be­cause in all States, and Civill Governments, Iudges, or Senates, who have the Dogmaticall power, have also the Corrective or Coercive power; and there is [Page 84]the same reason for both. 6. The Text conteineth no such thing; neither can they shew us in any part of Scripture any ground for any such division of these two Powers; Neither can that silly Grammaticall observation of the word [...] serve them; for the Apostle serveth not himselfe of this word in the whole latitude of all its Grammaticall significations, that it may have according to its Etymologie and Derivation; but in a Legall way, as it is ta­ken in Law, for Placitum, Statutum, Institutum, Decretum, Edictum, as in the Civill Lawes, wherein these words signifie Lawes, or Ordi­nances: and Calvin telleth us, in Lexico Iuridico, that Dogma, est lex docens sci­entiam fidei, l. 2. F. F. ad Senatus-con. Vellejan Decretum: & Senatus-consultum significat, pro quo Modestinus [...] F. F. de excus. [...] dixit: Now [...] is nothing else, but Decretum, Scitum, Plebiscitum. The cause wherefore the Apostle taketh it in a Court, or Law-signification, is, because that they were making Ecclesiasticall Lawes, and so took it ratione subjectae materiae. 7. And this may be confirmed, because they are not only called dogmata, but it is ad­ded [...] in the Text, i. e. quae decreta fuerunt ab Apostolis, that were de­creed by the Apostles. 8. And what else is [...], but to dogmatize, or to bring in a new Opinion, Custome, or Ceremony, Col. 2.20. which here was not done by any private man, but by authority of a Councell. 9. Neither can the Authors of this Evasion ever shew us, that Dogma, in Law, is taken for a power meerly dogmaticall, separated from all coercive or corrective power. And moreover, if this will not satisfie them, we have, Act. 15. v. 24. To whom we commanded no such thing; Ergo, Those of Antioch supposed, that that Councell at Hierusalem had power to command; and the Councell denieth not that they had Power to command, but the Act of the Power, viz. that they had commanded any such thing; v. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, then these necessary things; Ergo, they laid a burden, but no greater burden upon them. 2. It was laid upon them. 3. It was necessary, necessitate praecepti: But they, who had such a power, had they not, think we, power also to censure. 12. Beza telleth us also, that in his Co­dex, in chap. 15. v. 41. this is added, [...], as in some Latine codex, Praecipiens custodire praecepta Apostolorum & Seniorum; which argueth, that they had not only a Directive, but also an Imperative power over the Churches, in vertue of that Decree of the Councell. 13. The Dogmaticall power is like unto the Legislative power, and whoever hath a Legislative power, hath also a Corrective power. 14. This Councell had not only a Dogmaticall, but also a Legislative power about things of themselves indifferent, as appeareth here, in making a Law, that the Christians should abstaine from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled.

4. Some (it may be) will finde out this Evasion, and say, That it was not a Councell, nor an ordinary Decree of Ecclesiasticall Iudges, but of Arbiters.

Rep. But 1. the Text hath no such thing. 2. Arbiters are either given by the ordinary Iudge, ordinarily called Iudices pedanei; or chosen by the Parties themselves, otherwayes called Compromissarii: If ye grant me the first, then particular Churches are subject unto Superiour Ecclesiasticall Iudica­tories, that give them such Arbiters, which is all we look for: If the second, then if the Word of God hath granted an Independent liberty unto the Church, she ought not to quit it, in making her self subject and dependent; for we cannot dispose of our own liberty, granted to us by Christ, to make our selves servants, or subject to men in Matters of Religion. 3. We can­not submit Gods Cause to others, then to whom he hath submitted it himself. How could they accept them for Iudges, who had no vocation of God to judge them?

5. Arbitrary Iudges, that are given, have a Superiour power over the Church, that they judge; and so ye acknowledge, that the Church of Ieru­salem had power over that of Antioch, if that of Ierusalem was an Arbiter datus aut delegatus. 2. These given Arbiters are given by a Iudge or Su­periour: Ergo, They presuppose some Superiour Iudge over the Partie judged.

6. The Compromissory Arbiter judgeth not according to the Law, but accord­ing to equity: but in all Ecclesiasticall judgements, he that judgeth must judge, according to the Law, or Gods Word. Ergo, He that judgeth in Ecclesiasticall judgements cannot be a Compromissory Arbiter, who onely properly is an Arbiter, in so far as an Arbiter is distinguished from a Iudge.

7. The Iudgement of a Compromissory Arbiter cannot hold, nor oblige me to obedience, since it is not grounded on publike Authority, but on the will of the Parties, who, qua tales, are private persons; But the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem, can, and must hold, and oblige all the Churches of that time to obedience, according to that which the Councell intended, by the Iudgement.

8. Compromissory Arbiters onely judge of the Parties, which compromise to submit themselves to their judgement: But the Church, Apostles, and Pres­byters at Jerusalem judged, not onely of the Parties that compromissed to sub­mit unto them, but of all the Churches, as the Text telleth us.

9. In Arbitrary judgements ordinarily, they are the Parties that make choice of their Arbiters, and not a third, that ordaineth them, as the Church of Antioch did in this Case, in sending this Message or Ambassage to Ierusalem.

10. Whether it was an extraordinary Counsell, or judgement of Arbiters; yet followeth it not, that such judgements of themselves are ill, or against Gods Word; since God never ordained, nor the Apostles ever made choice of any breach of Gods Law, or of any disorder, to establish any order in his Church by; for God needeth not the Devils help to do his Work; he can do it himself without him.

11. If they were Compromissorii Iudices, then particular or Parishionall Congregations may combine themselves together in a consociation, and give power to Classes, and to Synods, to be their Iudges, which is the practice of all the Reformed Churches.

5. It may yet be answered, That in all this proceeding, there was no Refe­rence or Appeal, no Arbitrary judgement, nor any Counsell concerning the Church of Antioch; but onely an examen of a Message, sent or pretended to have been sent from Jerusalem, viz. Of some Pharisees, Members of the Church of Jerusalem, who pretended to have had charge from the Apostles, to urge the Circumcision, and the Observation of the Ceremoniall Law, as may be collected from verse 24.

Rep. 1. This is not true, 1. Because all this is said without Scripture. 2. And vers. 24. it is not said, That these Pharisees pretended to have had any such charge from the Apostles; but the Apostles say, That they gave them no such command: But this Argument may seem somewhat weak; for howsoever the Text have it not in terminis, yet seems it to follow of the Text by a Morall necessity; for that expression, To whom we gave no such commandment, seemeth to presuppose some pretention of a commandment on the Pharisees part. 3. And howbeit it is said, That they went out from the Apostles, yet is it not said, they were Members of the Church of Ierusalem. 4. Neither read we, That there was any dispute about their Message, or Commission, but about their Doctrine. 5. Because the Sentence or Decree is onely about their Doctrine. 6. Because in that Decree, not onely the Pharisees are sentenced, but all the Churches; up­on which the Observation of the Canons of the Apostles is enjoyned; onely there is a word, in passing, said of the Pharisees; but however it be, that was no way the principall Question.

Finally, here cometh in M. S. in an ordinary Independent way, never proving any thing Positively, that they beleeve (for in this point, they shew themselves the weakest of all Sectaries) but ever more denying what we prove, which requires no great abilities, as is known and confessed amongst all men, that do but pretend to learning; neither can they do otherwayes; for they will not be tyed in time to come to any Positive Doctrine, no not so much as to that they hold at this present, for any thing I can collect from the Apologeticall Narration: onely they stand stoutly to some Nego's, and will, that we prove all, and they nothing at all.

He telleth us then in the third Chapter of his Book, that before this Argu­ment of ours Acts 15. can hold, we have ten Particulars to prove; 1. That the Apostles sate here in quality of Apostles. 2. That this Councell had their state and set times of meeting. 3. That they had Authoritatem Citationis. 4. That the Members of this Synod were sent hereunto by the particular Churches, over whom they claimed jurisdiction. 5. That onely Church-men had power to sit there. 6. That it had as well power to make Laws of things [Page 87] indifferent, as to impose things necessary. 7. That the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia, had their Delegats sitting there. 8. That Paul and Barnabas sate as Commissioners, for the Church of Antioch. 9. That ordinary Synods may proceed, as they did, in saying, It seemed good, &c. 10. That these words in the close of the Epistle, ye shall do well, verse 29. did import some intimation, That if they did not submit, some further course must be taken with them. Item, In this Chapter he telleth us, That Presbyterians agree not about the Pedigree of their Government; and to tell us all this, he imployeth no lesse, then ten Pages in Quarto in a very small Print.

As for the first, we have already proved it sufficiently, and attend his reply; As for that ridiculous demand of his, that we prove, That the Apostles waved and silenced the Spirit of Infallibility.

Answ. They might have it, and not wave it, howbeit they sate not there in quality of men that had it; for the Elders that had it not, sate there in the same quality with them. Some dispute also, 1. Whether the Apostles, in all times, and in all places, and upon all occasions, yea, sleeping and sick, had the gift of Infallibility in actu secundo, so that their will could not hinder the Ex­ternall Act. See the Example of Nathan, S. Peter, Thomas, &c. who had the gift of Infallibility in actu primo; but sundry times they had it not in actu secundo. 2. Some doubt also, what is the gift of Prophesie or Infallibility; Whether it be liker unto an Habitude, which is a Permanent quality, or to a Passion or Afflatus, which is not Permanent, but suddenly flies away.

To the second: 1. It is but a circumstance of time, which followeth necessa­rily of the substance of the thing. 1. For if Councells sit, they must sit in some time; but in what time, whether once, twice, or thrice a yeer, that depends upon other Circumstances, as of Church opportunities, and exigen­ces, of the Civill Magistrates Permission, &c. 2. In things Circumstantiall, Discipline depends on the Law of Nature according to the Apologists own Confession.

To the third; It may be necessarily inferred of the Authoritative power; for where there is an Authoritative power to judge, and censure, there is ever­more an Authoritative power of citation, and calling of all those, who are within the compasse of such a jurisdiction; for citation is a medium, whereby we come to judgement; and it is a maxime 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 Universall 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 onely, 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 Traytor, take all his Judges for Party, and so never be judged: and therefore in Iudgement, when any one will de­cline the Sentence of his Iudges, 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 needfull, that we prove all singular Circum­stances from Scripture: It will serve our turn if we prove, That it was some Occumenick, Nationall, or Provinciall 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 needfull to know. 4. This Assembly was a Generall, or Nationall Assembly, as we have proved: Ergo, Either it was a set Assembly, as the Popes 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 your selves 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 Ecclesiasticall Causes, but they who have the abilities, such as are onely 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 Councell 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 avoide offence: Some call it necessi­tas non facti, sed facientis, when the thing of it self is not needfull, 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 her self, 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 Gods Authority, [Page 89]may ordaine 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 generall, yet are they not such in particular, in matter of Practice; for then they become necessary, because of some particular determinations, and references, that they have to some good ends, in respect of time, place, persons, &c. 5. This is but one only Point of Presbyterian Government, and not all; and howbeit ye should gaine all this, (as ye doe 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 Pro­vinciall, Nationall, or Generall Synod or Councell, every Church concerned therein, must have had their Commissioners. 2. Ye your selves acknow­ledge Synods to have a Synodicall authority, (howbeit, not as we) and there­unto ye send your Messengers, as ye call them: and therefore, what right ye claime to send your Messengers, the same had the Churches of Syria, and Cilicia, to send theirs to Hierusalem; 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 needfull we prove, that Paul, and Barnabas were Commissioners at Hierusalem, 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 doe 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 individuall Circumstance: It is a common Maxime, 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 Ambassadours of God: We are Am­bassadours for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; We pray you in Christs 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, Iudgements, and Preachings; 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, [Page 90] M.S. when it seemeth good to an Independent Minister to declare the Do­ctrine, that denieth Christs Divinity, hereticall, whether think you, seemes 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 Hereticall? 3. And if that is bound, or loosed in Heaven, which the Church bindeth, or looseth on Earth; wherefore, when they bind, or loose sinners, may they not say, It seemeth good to God, and to me also, to loose this sinner?

To the 10. I answer, It is altogether ridiculous; for, this one particular ex­pression conteineth not all the expressions that are used in Ecclesiasticall Iudgements; the Church useth not evermore Comminations in her Iudge­ments, but against such as are disobedient, and that after sundry Admoni­tions; Neither is every Iudgement or Law evermore expresly Penall, as ye might have learned both out of your Civill, and Canon Law.

CHAP. VIII. Wherein the same Doctrine is further confirmed by Reason.

THis Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories, may be likewise proved by the practice of the Old Testament; for in the Old Testament, there were Synagogicall and Synedriall Iudicatories; 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 Ceremoniall, as I have shewed.

2. It may likewise be proved from the Subordination of Civill Iudicatories, in all great Civill States; and there is a like reason for them both.

3. If it be granted, that there are Ecclesiasticall Assemblies greater in Au­thority one then another, as appeareth by all these former Texts; either this inequality of Greatnesse or Power is by Co-ordination, or by Subordination: But it cannot be by Co-ordination; for one co-ordinate Power hath no power over the other, as that of Hierusalem had over the rest of the Churches, in giving them a Pastor, Act. 1.2. & 6. chap. and Lawes 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 Civill Iudicatories, subordinated one to another.

4. If there were no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories, 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 sinne and uncleannesse, and so infect all the World with their wickednesse, and no Churches, or Christians, qua [Page 91]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, shew any such Govern­ment as theirs in the Church of God, in any time, since Christs Incarnation, yea, from the Creation of the World to this time, wherein there was no Subalternation, but a meer Independency amongst all Ecclesiasticall Iudica­tories?

We could wish they would shew 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 Licenciousnesse of power to go irresistably to Hell?

What an abominable Licenciousnesse is this, to plead on this manner, for all sort of Independency, and of Ecclesiasticall Impunity, in doing of all sort of wickednesse and mischief.

6. The want of this Subordination taketh away all sort of remedy against the offences of particular Congregations.

7. It destroyeth the Unitie of the Militant visible Church, both Provinciall, Nationall, and Universall; which cannot appear, but in a Provinciall, Nation­all, or Universall Synod, or Councell.

8. And consequently, the visibility of the Church, for she is not visible, but in her Symbole or Confession of Faith, and Canons of Ecclesiasticall Dis­cipline, as appeareth by the Symbole 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 Reall 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 wofull 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 recompence 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 [Page 92]power thereof Churches are kept in Order, Unitie, 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 lesse opposite one to another, then to us.

12. If there be no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies, but every one be Independent, and every member of the Church have a vote in all Ec­clesiasticall matters, and be made acquainted with all that passeth, as amongst the Independents; hardly can the Counsels, and the Resolutions, that are taken for mutuall conservation, be kept secret, but they will every houre be betrayed, and so the Church given up to her Enemies: which appearingly cannot so easily fall out in the Synodicall way, wherein 20. 30. or 40. only, and those of the best sort, and the wisest men, are acquainted with the businesse: for, in all morall probability, it is not credible, but 20. 30. or 40. may better keep a businesse secret, then 20000. or 30000, whereof the Churches that they represent, may be compounded.

13. Since Christ ordained Universall 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 Councell, 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 doe Generall Councels, endowed with ordinary gifts, govern it ordinarily.

14. I would willingly enquire of the Independents, to what Church were added so many thousands, that were baptized by the Apostles, and added unto the Church in one day? Whether to a Particular Congregation, or to a grea­ter Ecclesiasticall Consociation? It could not be to a Particular Congregation, 1. For the Reasons I have already produced. 2. Because the Apostles were not Particular, but Universall Ministers, set over the Universall Militant Church; and therefore, in vertue of their charge, admitted them to be Mem­bers of all the Churches, whereof they were Ministers. 3. Because they were of divers and sundry Countries: neither is it credible, that to be a Member of the Church, they were bound to quit their Countries, and to stay at Hie­rusalem, howsoever so long as they did stay there, they might participate as well of all the rest of Gods Ordinances, as of Baptisme: Ergo, they were added to some greater Consociation, viz. to that, and to all those, whereof the Apostles were Ministers; for out of all doubt, the Apostles, who baptized them, could not refuse to admit them unto the Lords Table, wherever they ce­lebrated the Sacrament.

If it be answered, That this Argument only proveth a greater Reall, but not a greater Representative Church.

I reply, That directly only it proveth a greater Reall, viz. an Ʋniversall Militant Church; but yet, by consequence, it proveth also a Representative Church of the same extent; for every Reall Church may be represented in its Commissioners, or Messengers (as ye call them) that meet in a Synod.

If it be yet answered, that this may prove a greater Representative Church, but not endowed with any Authoritative power.

I reply, It is a power of Iudging, which must be Authoritative, and can­not be meerly Consultative, such as is that of every Tinker, who may give counsell to a Church; and that of one Church, which hath power to give counsell to a thousand, yea, to ten thousand, represented in a Synod; for par­ticular Churches, being parts of the whole Provinciall, Nationall, or Univer­sall Militant Church, must be subject to the whole; for it is a Maxime in Philosophie, that Totum non subjicitur parti, sed pars toti; Item, Totum non regitur motu partis, sed Pars Totius: And they distinguish between the Universall, and Particular Inclination of things, and tell us, That a part doth sometimes quit its Particular Inclination, to be ruled according to the Incli­nation of the whole; as when water, which according to its Particular Incli­nation descends, yet to avoid the vacuum (whereof might ensue the over­throw of the world) against its Particular Inclination, but according to its Universall Inclination, as it is for the Totall, it ascends: And so it is, or should be in Politicall, and all Spirituall Consociations; for the parts cannot be conserved, but in the whole. The Politicians also tell us, that Lex paerticu­laris cedit generali; so Laws, that concern Particular Cases or Consociations, must give place to the generall Law of more generall Cases, and Consociati­ons; for the generall good of Consociations, is to be preferred before the Particular good of Particular Persons, or Particular Consociations.

15. All the Churches here upon Earth make up one Republike, tyed toge­ther by Faith, Charity, and other Particular Christian vertues; as that in Heaven another: Now it is a Maxime in Politicks, Salus Reipub. suprema Lex esto. Ergo, There must be one Law, common to this whole Christian Republike: If so, Ergo, There must be some visible Iudges to judge accord­ing to this Law, otherwayes in vain should we have it; Now this visible Iudge can be no other, but a Synod; For if ye say, it is Christ, then we can­not be legally Iudged, according to this Law, till the day of Iudgement, when Christ shall Iudge the quick and the dead; which is most ridicu­lous.

16. C. C. acknowledgeth, That by Baptism we are made Members of the Universall Militant Church, and consequently Subjects of some Christian Republike: Ergo, There are some Iudges to judge such Subjects: But those Iudges are not in one Particular Church; for by Baptism, as he sayeth, They [Page 94]are not admitted to the societie of any Particular Church. Ergo, They must be judged by some greater Representative Church, which must be either Clas­sicall, Provinciall, Nationall, or Oecumenicall.

17. It is a generall Rule of S. Paul in matter of Church Government, That the Spirits of Prophets be subject to Prophets, 1 Cor. 14 32. Which cannot at all, or at least cannot easily, and commodiously be obtained in the Inde­pendent Opposition, or Coordination, as in some Subordination of Ecclesiasti­call Assemblies or Iudicatories; for when all are equall, there is no subjection of one to another.

18. This Doctrine of Subordination of Inferiour Ecclesiasticall Iudicato­ries to their Superiours, with a Coordination of Inferiour Iudicatories, or Ecclesiasticall Assemblies amongst themselves, is most convenient to the na­ture of the Sacraments, in receiving unto them all such, as are our Brethren in Christ; whereas a meer Opposition, Independency, or at most a Coordi­nation of Churches, founded on a meer will and charitie, without any Law, is repugnant to it, in so far forth, as it debarreth from them such as are worthy to be received.

19. The Apostle commands, That all things be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40. And telleth us, That God is not the Author of Confusion, but of Peace, Vers. 33. Now, where there is no Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judi­catories; When none of them is subject one to another, but they are all equall; when one Church, be she never so corrupted in life and Doctrine, hath as great Authority over all the Churches of the World, represented together in a Synod, be they never so sound in their life and Doctrine, as they all have over her, What can be done decently and in order? I adjure you all, tell me in Conscience, Whether ye think that God can be the Author of any such order, or rather of so abominable a confusion.

20. I could shew, how that this Subordination is most convenient, and the contrary Independency, Opposition, or Coordination of Churches founded on mans meer will, is most repugnant, 1. unto the perfection, that appeareth in all Gods Works, both in those of Nature, and of Grace: 2. To Gods Truth and Wisdom, in giving no better means for redressing of Offences. 3. To his Iustice, in making of Laws, that cannot suppresse Heresies, and all sort of wickednesse in disordered Churches. 4. To his Mercy, that in fur­nishing us so graciously so many means, and helps to Salvation, he should have given us this Independent Anarchy, to crosse them all, yea, to lead us irresisti­bly to Hell. 5. To his Providence, in providing of means, so disproportion­ate, and incommensurated for so excellent an end, viz. for the peace of the Church; means more fit to trouble, then to procure her peace, and to put all the Churches of God in confusion, rather then in order.

21. Is it credible, that God should have given his Son to death, to purchase us an Order, whereby all Churches might live in Peace and Unity, and yet [Page 95]make them to quit all Sacramentall Communion one with another, having no common Confession of Faith, nor any common plat-forme of Ecclesiasti­call Government among them?

CHAP. I. The Question Stated.

AS M. S. of the first Question made two, so doth he here of the second other two, viz. his third Question for Presbyte­riall Government, whereof he treated in the former chap. and his 4. Question of Independency, whereof he treateth in this his 4. chap. but they are not two Questions, but two divers Opinions about one, and the same Question; so ha­ving committed this fault, he commits againe another, much worse; for he goeth on very confusedly in the beginning of his Dispute, and without ever stating the Question, or declaring what he meaneth by Inde­pendency, he goeth about to justifie his Independent government in a Cataske­vastique, or assertive way: wherefore to the end that the Reader may the better judge both of his Cataskevastique, and of my Anaskevastique way, I will state the Question, and shew, what he hath to prove, and I to refute. 1. Note therefore I pray thee, courteous Reader, that Independency is a sort of Ecclesiastical Go­vernment, whereby every particular Church is ruled by its Minister, its Doctor, some Ruling Elders, and all those, who are admitted to be Members thereof, who, how Heterodox, and Haereticall soever they be in Doctrine, and how wicked and damnable soever they be in their Lives, will not yet submit to a­ny Ecclesiasticall power whatsoever, yea not to that of all the Churches of the world, were they never so Orthodox and holy in their lives.

2. Note, that the reason, wherefore they will not submit to any Ecclesiasticall authority, according to their opinion, is not out of any disobedience in them­selves, as they pretend, but for want of authority in the Churches; for they be­leeve that howbeit any particular Church, or any of her members should fal in­to never so damnable Heresies, or wickednesse, that yet God hath not ordained any authoritative power to judge her; but that her power is as great, as that of all the Churches in the world; and that all that they can do in such a case, is no more, but only to Counsell her, as she may do them; and in case she will not [Page 96]follow their Counsell, that they ought to do nothing else, but onely declare, that they will have no more communion with her, as she may likewise do to them in the like case, viz. if they will not follow her Advice, when she is of­fended with their Doctrine, Government, Life, or Proceedings.

The Question then betwixt us, and them, is, whether God hath established any such Independent Government in his Church, or not.

We deny it. M. S. affirmeth it, and argueth as followeth:

M. S. Page 75. of his Book, Who then can lay any thing to the charge of this Government? That can I, quoth A. S. in effect, page 38, 39. &c. I have 10. Reasons or Objections against it. A. S. I confesse that M. S. braggeth of this his Independent Government, as his words expresse; but it is a manifest untruth, that ever I bragged of 16. Reasons, as M. S. most foolishly representeth me here: It is A. S. his custome to bring Reasons, and not to boast of them; as it is M. S. his manner to boast and bragg with high words, without any reason at all: And for answer to this, I say there is no one such word or expression in all my Booke: It is but M. S. his words, and fiction.

M. S. I shall not spend time in transcribing these your Reasons, but shall desire the Reader, though it may be some discourtesie unto you, to take your Booke into his hand.

A. S. I am bound to your courtesie, good Sir, that will not let my weake Reasons appeare in Front against your strong Answers: But since it is not M. S. his pleasure, that they appeare in his most wor­thy Booke, I hope that the courteous Reader shall not be offended, if I make them, together with his Answers, and A. S. his Duplyes appeare here in mine.

My Arguments then, were such as follow.

CHAP. II. Reasons against the Independency of Particular Congregations.

1. THe Independent Churches have no sufficient remedy for miscariages, though never so grosse; no reliefe for wrongfull Sentences, or Persons injured by them; no Powerfull or Effectuall meanes to reduce a Church, or Churches, that fall into Heresie, or Schisme, &c. All that they can doe, is only to pronounce a Sentence of Non-Communion against Delinquent Churches, as on the other side, Delinquent Churches may doe against them.

2. This Remedy is new, neither was it known to the Independent Congre­gations, before that emergent Case in Holland, related in the Apologeticall Narration: for if that Church offending had known so much, it is not cre­dible, that she would, against all charity, and the common Order of all Churches, have committed so great a Scandall.

3. This Remedy is not sufficient, nor satisfactory, because all Churches, [Page 97]according to your Tenets, are equall in Authority, independent one of an­other; and Par in parem non habet imperium, None hath power or authority over his Equall; How then could any Church binde another to any such Account, but out of its free will, as a Party may doe to its Party?

4. Because the Churches, that are, or that pretend to be offended by a Delinquent Church, cannot judge her, for then they become both Iudge, and Party in one cause, which cannot be granted to those who have no Authori­tative power one over another; as when a Private man offendeth the State, and We our God.

5. What if many Churches, yea all the Churches should offend one, should that one Church gather all the rest together, judge them all, and in case of not submitting themselves to her judgement, separate her selfe from them all? If so, we should have Separations and Schismes enough, which should be con­tinued to all Posteritie to come.

6. What if Churches were so remote one from another, that they could not so easily meet together upon every occasion? Then there should be no Remedy, at least no easie Remedy.

7. What if the Offence were small? Should so many Churches, for every trifle, gather together, and put themselves to so great cost and trouble?

8. What if the Churches should differ in their Iudgements, one from an­other? In such a case, should they all, by Schismes, separate themselves one from another?

9. This sort of Government giveth no more Power or Authority to a thousand Churches over one, then to a Tinker, yea, to a Hangman, over a thousand; for he may desire them all, out of charitie, to give an account of their Iudgement, in case he be offended by them; Neither see I what more our Brethren grant to all the Churches of the World over one.

But the Presbyteriall 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 caried by Plurality of Voyces, without any Schisme or Separation.

10. This Government, viz. Iedependency, is a Power, wherein the Party is judged, if he will; and so the Iudgement of the Iudges suspended upon the Iudgement of the Party judged; which is most ridiculous, without any exam­ple in Civill, or Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories: a Iudgement 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 wondred 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 inslicteth 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 severall Offences.

12. And so ye seem to approve the Opinion of the Stoicks, who held all sinnes to be equall; since ye inflict the same punishment upon them all.

13. Not only this Discipline cannot be easily put in execution in great Kingdomes, 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 goe to another; and so continually, in infinitum, to the Worlds end, evermore ta­king those Churches for the Party, that judge it; which is most absurd and foolish.

15. What if the Party offended be poore, and have not the meanes 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 Iudgement? Much lesse, to attend upon their uncertain conveniencie? Here will be found true, Pauper ubique jacet; Whereas in Presbyteriall 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 conveniencie; for by a simple Appeale he may binde the Church offending to appeare 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 poore, and cannot be at so great expence? Then in that case, it should seem, there is no Order to meet with Offences. I may adde these following Reasons:

18. This Independencie maketh all the Churches of Christ like so many Scopae dissolutae, loose Broomes, that have no tye or band to hold them together; and so destroyeth the unity of the Militant Church.

19. The very word Independencie, 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 Kings 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 prejudiciall [Page 99]to our Bodies, or States; but Yours may kill millions of Soules: neither is the Kings Authority more limited in the State, then yours is in the Church.

21. What? will ye, that where-ever 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 Kingdome whatever Heresie ye please, to blaspheme God, and so, vi irresistibili, with the Arminians, to goe to Hell? If so, God have mercy on you.

But it may be said, that the Civill Magistrate may hinder them: But M.S. will answer, 1. That he should not punish any man for Religion. 2. That the Civill Power is of another sort then Ecclesiasticall. 3. What if the Civill 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 Civill 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 himselfe; 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 Apostolike Churches, and the fundaments of Independent Government it self, 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 equall in authority, Inde­pendent one of another, and par in parem non habet imperium, none hath power or authority over his equall: How then could any Church binde any o­ther to any such accompt, but out of its freewill, as a party may doe 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 meanes which God hath authorized, for the effecting it, it will do the deed.

A.S. It seemth that M.S. would fain enter into the Lists against Reason it self; but he must know, that Gods 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 Maxime of Popery and Lutheranisme, to oppose Nature & Grace. 3. Christ and the Apostles served themselves of Naturall Reason in Scripture. 4. And out of the case of supernaturall revelation above it, which cannot be contrary [Page 100]unto it, it must be beleeved. 5 He supposeth, that Independency, and with­drawing and renouncing all Christian Communion with such Churches, un­till they repent, is a sufficient meanes, 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 meanes 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 your selves from every Bro­ther, that walketh inordinately, ( A. S. I adde the rest) Vers. 7. For we behaved not our selves inordinately among you. Vers. 8. Neither did we eate any mans bread for nought, but wrought with labour and travell, night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you. Vers. 10. This we commanded you, that if any would not worke, neither should he eate. Vers. 11. For we heare, that there are some which walke among you inordinately, working not at all, but are busie-bodies. 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 proofe, is no better, then that of the Apologists; and to Answer it, I will not serve my selfe with the Answer, that some men bring here, viz. That this Testimony of Scripture is not to be taken of the great Excommunication, which onely you seeme to acknowledge for Excommuni­cation: nor of the lesser, which you seeme to call non-Communion, or with the Apostle here, withdrawing of Christian Communion. 2. Or that it is a Com­mandement onely given to particular persons, to forbear such persons, who were idle, and yet busie-bodies, running from house to house, living upon other mens 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 sayes, Note him, i. e. that he may be discerned from others. 2. He sayes, 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 sinne, viz. Idlenesse. 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 onely, Note him, and admonish him: which is lesse then to be given over to Sathan; yea it is credible, that it was only a private Suspension from the Lords Table, not in publique, in face of the whole Church, but before the particular Presbytery. 3. He seemeth not to speake directly of whole Churches, but of particular persons. 1. Since he sayes, From every Brother, vers. 6. 2. Because he sayes, that there are some among you that walke 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 signifie that Church. 5. Because the Apostle, vers. 15. commandeth to admonish him as a Brother, but a Brother is not a Church.

4. And neverthelesse, howsoever the Apostle speakes principally, directly, and formally of the Excommunication of Persons; yet must he consequently and directly meane also the Excommunication of Churches; and that for the Reasons, that I brought else where, viz. in the Observations and Annotati­ons upon the Apologeticall Narration, page 43. §. 2. 1. For Churches 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 Scandall, 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. Onely 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 publike, 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 wickednesse; so may a whole parti­cular Church, which the Independent Sect will no wayes grant. And this, I pray the Reader to observe, and to presse it against them; for I am assured they cannot here escape, unlesse M. S. escape them. 4. Because 7000. Churches may as well Excommunicate one compounded of seventeen Persons, as that one may Excommunicate seven of its Members. 5. Because an Hereticall Church is Excommunicated in Heaven; Wherefore then shall she not be Excommunicated by Christs Ministers here upon Earth, when they learn it by Scripture? Must not the Churches here upon Earth, concur as well with Gods 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 then an inconveniency, &c. (and afterwards) Now then much better is it to want a remedy against such an evill, which possibly may not fall out within an age, though it be greater, when it doth fall, then it is to expose our selves to continuall droppings, I mean to those daily inconveniencies, which we lately shewed to be incident to the Classique Government.

A. S. 1. I accept of your Supposition, viz. That there is no sufficient, or satisfactory remedy, &c. as it appeareth cleerly by my Reasons. 2. To your Maxime 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 Apostatize, become Hereticall, &c. then to accept of the Presbyterian Remedy against such mis­chief, or of the mischief it self; for we must never in any Case accept of malum culpae, such as is the acceptation of Apostasie or Heresie in a whole Church. 4. Neither is there any, nor have you yet shewn any Inconveni­ency in the Presbyteriall way: But we have shewn many, as Reall in the In­dependent way, as those are imaginary that you attribute to the Presbyterian way. 5. All the Inconveniency that this man pretends to be in the Presbyte­rian way, is, Dependency of particular Congregations upon Superiour Assem­blies, viz. Classes, Synods, &c. Or Subordination amongst Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories; for this Sect must be altogether Independent, and every one in their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Judges, and their Churches supreme Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories, be they never so Hereticall or prophane: But this Inconveniency may be pressed home again, 1. For there is Subordination among their particular Congregations, and their Synods; onely they hate the Authority of Synods. 2. There was a Subordination of Authority in the Old Testament. 3. So is there in Civill Government; And whatsoever In­conveniency they presse against us, it will hold in all the rest, as we shall see hereafter, God willing. 4. If such a Dependency, or Subordination be any Inconveniency, then God is the cause of it, as we have heretofore fully de­monstrated it.

M. S. Delinquency of whole Churches is not an every dayes Case, no more in the way of Congregationall, then of Presbyteriall Government.

A. S. 1. It may be as ordinary a Case in the Church, as that of Inferiour Iudicatories in the State. 2. And it fell out amongst the Arminians, and us; 3. So did it amongst your Churches in Holland; 4. So doth it betwixt you and us, since ye are become Sectaries; 5. So doth it among all Churches, that become Hereticall, or Schismaticall, and the Orthodox Church; and the Apostle tell­eth [Page 103]us, that there must be Heresies, 1 Cor. 11.19. So it is not so extraordinary a Case, as you M. S. make it. And therefore, there must be an Ecclesiasticall Ordinance for it, as well in the Church, as in the State; 1. Unlesse you say, That God is more provident for the State, then for the Church; or more negligent in his care of the Church, then of the State. 2. There was a re­medy for such Cases in the Old Testament, as I shewed you in my Annotations; wherefore not also in the New Testament? 3. Howbeit, it be not an every dayes Case, yet the Independents have a remedy for it; viz. The Sentence of non-Communion, whereof I may say as much, as he sayes of Excommuni­cation; for the Independent Churches could not pronounce such a Sentence, unlesse they had, or pretended to have an Authoritative power to do it; for it belongeth to the power of the Keyes. 4. It is, or may be more ordinary amongst the Independent Churches, then among ours. 1. Because of their In­dependency, and want of Superiour Ecclesiasticall power, to keep them in order: 2. Because they tye the Members of their Churches, never to quit them, without the Churches consent, whereof they are Members, which may breed quarrels betwixt two- Churches, if a Member of the one, without her consent, joyn himself to the other. 3. And this may be confirmed by the Examples of those most bitter quarrels betwixt two of your Churches, and their Pastors in Holland, as it is related by Master Edwards in his Antapologia: but according to ordinary Providence, no such thing can fall out among our Churches; and if it should fall out, we have a present remedy, viz. a Classe, which may be gathered within the space of four or five dayes: if that do not the businesse, we may gather a Synod or a Superiour power, which cannot Morally be contemned among us by any Inferiour power, as the equall power of Independent Churches may by their equall.

If it fall out extraordinarily amongst us, we have an ordinary remedy for such an extraordinary Case.

And howbeit, it were extraordinary, and very rare; yet should there be a remedy provided for it, so soon as once it falleth out, for it is a Case, that bringeth a very great mischief with it, viz. The revoult of a Church or many Churches, that is an inconvenience, yea, a mischief a thousand times worse, howbeit, it should fall out but once in an Age, then all the droppings of Master Goodwin, or all the inconveniencies, that can be alleadged against a constant remedy, were they as reall, as they are fictitious and imaginary.

Thirdly, M. S. answereth my first Argument: They that implead the Con­gregationall way, for being defective; suppose, that God hath put a suffici­ency of power into the hands of men, to remedy all possible defects, errours, and miscarriages of men whatsoever. But that is untrue. Ergo.

A. S. I answer; They suppose not, that God hath put into their hands a sufficiency of power to remedy all defects and miscarriages whatsoever; or all possible absolutely, but ex suppositione finis obtinendi, i. e. that may conduce [Page 104]to obtain the end, that God hath commanded us to intend, and to tend unto; for since his will is, that spirituall diseases be cured, it must consequently be, to give the remedies necessary or sufficient to obtain such an end or cure. 2. I suppose not that God hath given us all means sufficient Physicè, but moraliter, i. e. that are morally sufficient, and whereby morally we may be convicted of sin, if we use them not; as cured of our ill, if we use them. 3. I suppose, that they must be sufficient according to Gods ordinary providence, whereby he governeth ordinarily his Church, and not absolutely. 4. As sufficient, as in the Civill State, or as in the Old Testament at least; since the Government in the New Testament, is as perfect, as in the Old; and not simply or abso­lutely. And so the Assumption is false.

M. S. proveth, that this inconveniency presseth as well the Presbyterians, as the Independents. If your Supreme Session of Presbyteries should miscarry (saith he) and give us Hay, Stubble, and Wood, instead of Silver and Gold, what remedy?

A. S. This is a very extraordinary Case, yea, the most extraordinary that can be imagined, viz. That all the Churches, both in Superiour and Inferiour Judicatories should so miscarry; and yet if a man have used all possible means, and this miscarry also, which is more then any ordinary Case, we may say, 1. that we have had all means that are morally possible, and that no more can morally be desired. 2. We have had all the means, and if we served our selves of them all, till we came to this extraordinary Case, we are excusable. 3. We have had all the means possible, according to Gods ordinary Provi­dence. 4. All means, that they had in the Old Testament, or that they have in the State. 5. I answer, that this Supposition may as well be propounded a­gainst Gods Providence in the Government of the State, and of the Church of the Old Testament, as against that of the New. Now answer me, What if the great Sanedrim had miscarried in the Old Testament, as some times it did; or the Parliament and the Kings Counsell in the State; what should be be done in such a Case? And then I shall answer you the other. It is a foolery to dispute against Gods Ordinance. 6. I answer, That in such an extraordi­nary Case, which goeth beyond all particular Laws, and Orders established in the Church, viz. When all the ordinary Seers become blinde, or mislead the Flock, there being no ordinary, we must have recourse to such extraordi­nary remedies, as are most convenient, or at least not repugnant to Gods Word, and attend upon Gods extraordinary Providence. The Provinciall Synods may refuse to put in execution the Acts of the Generall Assembly; so may particular Churches, for they are not bound to be Actors for the generall Assembly, in any thing against Gods Word. 7. But what if in your petty Congregations of seven or eight persons, four persons, or perad­venture all the Congregation miscarry? What shall be done? You will happily say; 1. Seck Counsell: But if all the Congregation be corrupted, none of them will ask counsell, but they will all rather lurk, and hide their Tenets, [Page 105]as the Independents do here at the Synod: If you say again, Other Churches that are offended, may complain to Neighbour Churches: But what if they know not their Tenets? What if the Delinquent Church will not own them, but Iesuitically elude all Interrogatories, as the Antinomians, the Independents, and all other Sectaries do here? What if they own them? What can the Churches offended do; for M. S. will tell you, they cannot be Iudge, since they are Parties; or if they judge, they can but judge, as so many Lackeys or Foot-Boyes: They have no more Authority to command that Delinquent Church, then that Delinquent Church hath to command them all.

Object. But they will pronounce a Sentence of non-Communion against Her.

Answ. So will she against them; and what then? What remedy for all this disorder, that is not taken away by all this, but still increaseth? It may be yet said, they may go to the Civill Magistrate. A. S. But that is no Ec­clesiasticall remedy; and M. S. will tell you, 1. as well as I have done, that so the last resolution of Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall Judgements should be in the secular power, which he holds impossible. 2. Yea, in the power of a Pagan or Antichristian Christian. 3. And I must say, That things are never resolved, but into their own Principles, and such is not Politicall Authori­ty in respect of Ecclesiasticall. 4. So you have not entirenesse of jurisdiction, as M. S. and the rest of the Independents pretend in his first Reason. 5. So you are put to trouble and charges, which is against your other Reason: So 6. you are subject to Strangers, which destroyeth your other Reason; for you hold for Strangers, all such, as be not of your particular Congregations, as your Reasons hereafter following, fully declare. 7. You are not ruled with­in your selves, which destroyes your other Reason: So 8. you shall not be judged by your own Pastour, which is another of your Reasons. 9. You shall be judged by one, who appearingly cannot fall in the same Case, and so it destroyes your other Reason. 10. The party being tender Foreheaded, might be changed into a stone before Medusa's Head, as you say, in presence of strange Faces, and of his Betters, which destroyeth again another of your Reasons. I might bring many more Inconveniences against him, which he bringeth against us, as destructory to the sweet Liberties and Priviledges of the Church; But I must be short: Onely I adde, that to speak morè humano; it is not credible, That all Inferiour Iudicatories, will or dare, be so impudent, as to miscarry in any thing, so manifestly contrary to the common Tenets or Practises of the whole Nationall Church, for the Inferiour Iudicatories will evermore fear, in case of their unjust Iudgement, to be condemned and cen­sured in the Superiour; and the Supreme it self may fear, That if they judge any thing amisse, their Iudgements will not be approved, and put in executi­on in Particular Churches; and in all humane probability they are like to be crossed.

M. S. asketh, what if an Occumenicall or Generall Counsell erre?

A. S. His suppositions are so extraordinary, that they cannot belong but to Independent M. S. And yet, what I have already said, may satisfie this also. Onely this man intends to defame Gods Ordinances, and his Word, as insuf­ficient to rule the Church; and so he may take the Bishops and Papists by the hand.

And I ask, what if a Parliament erre? What if the great Sanedrin had erred in the Old Testament? What if the Councell at Jerusalem had erred? Answer me this, and then I shall answer you.

The rest of this Section, p. 77. containeth nothing but Repetitions, big Words, but no Reason.

CHAP. IV. The justification of A. S. his Reason, How Presbyteriall Government is not subject to such Inconveniences as the Independencie.

VVHereas in my ninth Reason, I shew, That the Presbyteriall Govern­ment is subject to none of these Inconveniences, &c.

Here M. S. answereth, 1. Here is a remedy indeed against some incon­veniences.

A. S. I willingly accept of this your confession.

M. S. But whether the inconveniences be not much better, then the remedy, adhuc sub judice lis est.

A. S. So it is a doubt in M. S. his conceit, Whether it be not much better to tolerate, yea, to admit, and permit, a thousand Heresies, and Blasphemies, and to let whole Churches go to Hell, then to submit to Presbyteriall Govern­ment, such as we have defined it. 1. To let a Church be Hereticall, then to be reduced to Christ by any Ecclesiasticall power, meerly Spirituall and Mini­steriall, or any other, such as was in the Old Testament, or as is in the State.

M. S. What if your combined Eldership, hath neither footing, or foundati­on in the Word of God?

A. S. What if it have foot and foundation on the Word of God? What if we have proved it already? What if it had no foot in Gods Word, but were no way repugnant unto it? Yet were it not in such a case to be rejected, but by a thousand fold to be preferred before Independency, whereupon fol­low so many abominable absurdities, so repugnant to Gods Word, yea unto Naturall Reason.

M. S. It is not the serviceablenesse of it, against a thousand such inconve­niencies, as were mentioned, that will justifie it, and this he proveth by the examples of Sauls offering Sacrifice, 1 Sam. 23.9, 13, 14. Of Ʋzzah in put­ting forth his hand to the Ark. Peters zeal in drawing his sword; And addeth, [Page 107]That the Popes absolute Authority, is as Soveraign a Remedy against all these Inconveniencies as Classique Authority.

A. S. 1. I argued not from meer inconveniences, but from conveniences; and the want of inconveniences, and repugnancy to Gods Word to justifie our Government, and from inconveniences to refuse yours; Neither can a Nega­tive Thesis, be otherwayes proved, but by a Medium, that is repugnant either to the Attribute, or to the Subject of the Question. So this your Censure is very ridiculous, absurd, and impertinent. 2. I have proved it to be conform to Gods Word. 3. It is not credible, but that Government is most conveni­ent to Gods Word, which is most convenient, and commensurate unto the end, That God commands us to intend, and to tend into; neither can I be­leeve, that God hath ordained us any means, that are not fit and proper for the end, that he intends, or commands us to intend; for that were repugnant to his Soveraign Wisedom. 4. And as for your Examples, they are not to the purpose; for all these facts of Saul, Ʋzzah, &c. were contrary to Gods expresse command; neither were they convenient to the end intended by God, or that we should tend unto, viz. Filiall Obedience to the command, and the Typifying of Christ, and his Benefits. The example of Saint Peter was, 1. a manifest breach of the sixth Commandment, in killing a man with­out publike Authority. 2. It implyed an act of diffidence, and of too great confidence; as if Christ had had no other means to deliver himself, but his sword; in this Peter trusted too much to his own sword, and too little to Gods Providence. 3. It contained an act of Precipitation, and too great boldnesse, and rashnesse, in drawing his sword in his Masters presence, without, yea, against his Masters will and command. 4. It was repugnant to the end, for which Christ came into the Word, viz. Christs death, and the Redemption of mankinde by it, whereof Peter before that time had been so oft advertised, &c. So is it not in Presbyteriall Discipline: Neither is there any damnable Errour or Heresie in Consistoriall Government, as in the Papacy: We say not that any of our Assemblies are Infallible, as the Pope pretends himself and his Generall Councell to be; neither pretend we, That our Assemblies have any despoticall or lordly domination over the Church, as the Pope doth; we say not, That our Assemblies are above Gods Word, as they do. These comparisons of M. S. are no lesse then blasphemous.

And here I must advertise the Reader, That all the Presbyteriall Assemblies together, take no greater Authority over the Church, then six or seven In­dependent Tinkers, an Hangman with them, together with one of their Ministers, do over the flock: The Independent Preacher with his six or seven persons, are liker to the Pope, and the Consistory of his Cardinalls, because of their Independency, then any of our Churches, which are all Dependents, and subject to Superiour Authority.

M. S. pag. 79. §. in his second Answer, telleth me, That he cannot in­form [Page 108]himself, 1. What A. S. means by Authoritative power. 2. Or from whence our Churches have it.

A. S. I have 1, fully declared in my Annotations, and here above, what it is. 2. And from whence it proceedeth.

It is a Ministeriall power to command such as are subject thereunto, which bindeth, or obligeth them to obedience, and whereby, in case of disobedi­ence, they may inflict Spirituall punishments. It is of God, or from God; and therefore lawfull; Now whether it be of God, as Author of Nature, or of Grace, by the Law of Nature, or any Positive Law, Naturall, or Super­naturall; it is not a Question de re: sed de modo rei, not of the thing it self, but of the manner thereof. Grant me, either that it is lawfull, or deny it; If it be a lawfull power, it is of God, for there is no lawfull power, but of God, Rom. 13.2. Grant me the thing, and afterwards I shall dispute with you, de modo rei. They have it not of the Parliament, nor of the State, as you pretend; for secular men cannot give any Spirituall power into the Church; they have it of God, and by Gods Word, directè, or per consequen­tiam; and in some things, per non repugnantiam.

It is an untruth in M. S. in his third Answer, whereas he sayeth, that I seem to imply, That the Church hath this power from the Law of the State; for howbeit, the Civill Magistrate, by his Laws put a Politicall Obligation up­on Christians, to obey the Churches Spirituall Authority, which is from God; yet is not his Civill Authority the cause of the Churches Spirituall Authority, or of the Obligation, whereby a Christian is bound to obey the Church; for howbeit, there were no Civill Magistrate; or howbeit, he should dissent from such an Obedience, yet should the Church have Spirituall power; and all the Members of the Church in a Spirituall way should be bound to Obedience: But what then doth the Civill Magistrates Law? Answ. It puts a new Bond or Obligation upon the Members of the Church, and bindes them again, by a Civill Authority, Extrinsecall to the Church, to a Spirituall Obedience, who heretofore were onely bound by a Spirituall Obligation; so he bindes them to a Spirituall Obedience, but not spiritually, as the Church Authority doth, but onely materially, and that by Civill Authority: So the Ministers of the Gospel, (or rather God by them) oblige and binde the Subjects in the State, in a Spirituall way, by Gods Word, to obey the Civill Magistrate, or Politicall and Civill Obedience, but not Politically, or Civilly; but Spiritually: so it followeth not, That the Civill Magistrate hath power to form Ecclesiasticall Government: onely it followeth, That in a Politicall way, he may oblige, or binde men to obey it. No more followeth it, that I resolve Church Govern­ment into the humors, wills, and pleasures of the World, &c. Onely it follow­eth, That the Civill Obligation, laid upon men, to obey the Church, so far forth as Civill, must be finally resolved into the Civill Magistrates power, and not into his humours, as M. S. most contemptuously speaketh of him.

M. S. his fourth Answer is in retorting my Arguments. 1. What if a Par­ticular Congregation, under the jurisdiction of your Eldership, reflecting upon the Oath or Covenant it hath taken for subjection thereunto, as likewise upon all other ingagements that way, as unlawfull, shall peremptorily refuse to stand to the awards or determinations of it, what will you do in this Case? Will you Excommunicate this Church? The Apologists, in their way do little lesse; or will you deliver them, brachio seculari? To be hampered, and taught better then it seemeth you can teach them by Prisons, Fines, Banish­ments, &c. Churches had need take heed how they chuse men for their guardi­ans, that will so dispose of them, if they please them not.

2. And what if in the Session of your combined Eldership, there be no such thing as Pluralitie of Votes, concerning the Excommunication of such a Church? Is not the remedy you speak of now in the dust?

A. S. To the first Quaere, I answer, That we must do by Spirituall power in the Church, that, that the Civill Magistrate doth by the secular power in the State, in such a Case.

2. The Ministers in the New Testament must proceed spiritually against all Delinquent, and Impenitent persons; as the Ministers in the Old Testament did against theirs, according to Gods Word, unlesse such a proceeding be abrogated in the New Testament.

3. They must do as M. S. hath taught us, as they do against particular persons, in commensurating the punishments to the sins. i. e. They must pro­ceed by particular Admonitions, and Censures against lesser sins in private, or before the Presbytery; by suspension from the Lords Table, against greater sins; by publike suspension or lesser Excommunication, against greater sins; and by the great Excommunication, against the greatest sins.

4. M. S. confesseth, That the Apologists in their way do little lesse.

A. S. If so, then they do a little worse then the Presbyterians, and so they quit a little M. S. his own rule, whereby he willeth them to proceed, as against particular Persons.

5. If all this suffice not, it is the Civill Magistrates part to proceed against them, as Troublers of the Peace of the Church, and consequently of the Christian State, and not to permit them to erect a new Sect, as it is ordinari­ly practised amongst the Independents of New England.

6. They must be punished for their Perjury, and for the breach of their Covenant; but none of those punishments can be inflicted, but after suffici­ent conviction, at least Morally, in foro externo: And such punishments are the fittest for them, after such a conviction, when they pertinaciously resist the Spirit of God; for such men fear more the Gibbet, then Hell-fire. What you say of your second Chapter, it is sufficiently answered; What you say of Churches, That they had need to take heed, how they chuse men for their Guardi­ans, &c. If by those Guardians you mean the Civill Magistrate, it is not [Page 110]wisely said of you; If Church-Ministers, they must choose such, as will delate pertinacious sinners to the Civill Magistrate.

To your second Question, What if in the Session, &c.

Answ. 1. What if it be so in your Assemblies or Synods? 2. If it be any inferior Ecclesiasticall Iudicatory, they must remit it to a superior, ever till they come to some, wherein the Votes may preponderate: And if in the su­preme Iudicatory, viz. in a Nationall Assembly, the Votes preponderate not concerning the Excommunication of such a Church, (which is very extraordi­nary) she cannot be excommunicated; and yet if her opinion, or sin be con­demned, the combined Eldership may inflict some lesser Spirituall punishment; and if such a Church continue still pertinacious, the Civill Magistrate may pro­ceed against her in a Civill way, as we have said. Neither is this a compliance with Papists, in quality of Papists, but in so far forth as they agree with Scrip­ture; 1. For so proceeded the Church of the Old Testament; 2. So procee­ded the Church of the New Testament, in the times of good Emperours, as under Constantine the Great, Theodosius, &c. 3. So proceed they at Geneva. 4. So in the Netherlands. 5. So the Independents of New-England. 6. So should M.S. rather doe, then to tolerate open Blasphemers of the blessed Name of God. 7. Darest thou, M. S. so openly plead in favour of Paganisme of all sorts of Heresies, and mischiefs, and for all sort of impunitie for them all?, 8. The Truth falleth not to the dust in such a case, but sinne is punished, but not in such a degree as it should be.

To the second Inconveniency that I object against the Independents, §. 4. viz. That the Independent Churches offended, if they judge the offending Church, they should be both Judge and Party.

M. S. replieth, p. 80. §. 3. When your combined Eldership proceedeth a­gainst a particular Church amongst you, upon offence taken, is not this Elder­ship as well Party, as Judge?

A.S. My Argument implieth the Solution of this Objection, viz. That the combined Eldership cannot be Party, in such a cause, because it hath an Authori­tative power over the particular Church, (howbeit Spirituall and Ministeriall) as the Parliament over particular Judicatories in the Kingdome: but Parties look one to another as par parem, and not as superior inferiorem. 2. Neither can any man, or Consociation take his ordinary Judge to Party, unlesse he have some particular Exceptions against him. 3. I propound you the same Question concerning the particular Tribes, and the Synagogicall Judicatories amongst the people of God in the Old Testament, when the great Sanedrim took of­fence at them, or at their Iudgements; whether the great Sanedrim was not both Iudge and Party? Or rather, whether under the notion of Offence ta­ken, it was not to be considered as a Party, and under the notion of Authori­tative power, as a Iudge? 4. I propound it of the State, whether the Parlia­ment may not be considered as Party, being offended at any particular Con­sociation, [Page 111]and as Judge, in quality of the Representative Body of the whole King­dome: or if it be evermore needfull, that some particular Person or Persons compeare in quality of Party against particular Consociations or Townes. 5. In your particular Congregations, may not your Church, under divers noti­ons, be considered as Judge and Party? or may every Delinquent take your whole Presbytery or Congregation to Party. 6. Did not the Arminians serve themselves of this Independent Argument, against the Synod of Dort, to de­cline the Synods power? and were not both they, and this their Argument condemned by the judgement of the Synod, as very absurd and unapt? 7. This Argument concludeth against all the superior Powers of this World.

Again, M.S. 1. telleth us, that this Authoritative power of combined Presby­teries over Congregations is not from above. A. S. But we have proved it to be from above, and from God, as Author of Nature, and of Grace. See the Que­stion concerning the Subordination of Ecclesiasticall Judicatories. 2. Core, Da­than, and Abiram objected no lesse against Moses and Aaron: yea, as much may be objected against God himselfe, who is Iudge and Party; and Iesus Christ, who is Party, and yet shall judge the quick and the dead: For if Cri­minals may so escape, they will not faile to take their Iudges evermore for Party.

M. S. To hold, that all those that have an Authoritative Power over men, may lawfully, in vertue of such a Power, be both Iudges and Parties, is to exalt all manner of Tyranny, &c. by Law: for so in Church, and State, men invested with such a power, may be their own carvers, and serve themselves of the estates, liberties and lives of those that are under them, how, and when, and as oft as they list: Adde, But the Consequence is false, Ergo, so is the Ante­cedent.

A.S. I deny the Consequence; for they have not an absolute, but a limited power, according to Law, and not to their own particular, but publike will, or in quality of publike persons, whose wills are declared in, or restrained ac­cording to Law. Neither commandeth Carolus the Kingdome, qua Carolus, but 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 himselfe of other mens Estates, &c. 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 Iudicatory to define it; for Infe­riors, qua tales, cannot judge their Superiors, at least ordinarily; and in such a case, they remaine no more Inferiors, but become Superiors.

To the 3. Inconveniencie, 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 [Page 112]have a spirituall Authoritative power over all the Churches that they repre­sen, both Collectivè, and every one of them Distributivè; 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 Distributivè, or Collectivè, representing all their par­ticular Congregations, have no Authoritative power at all; and consequently, no more then 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? Ʋbi, 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 doe 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 con­firme it, you bring me no Reason, nor Scripture, but two Testimonies; the first of Charron; who saith, That every Humane Proposition hath equall 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 Naturall, but not so much Morall authority: for these be Maximes 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 equall 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; unlesse 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 graduall latitude of per­fection conteined within the species of Whitenesse. 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 equall authority? Item, Whether a Proposition of A­dam before his fall, and after his fall, be of equall 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 leasure here to dispute about the foundation of Authority, I might shew many absurdities and impertinencies in this Proposition, in M. S. his sense; but I must be briefe. The second Authority is of Gerson, and is this: The saying of a simple man, and no wayes authorized, if he be well seen in the Scriptures, is rather to be believed then the Popes own determination. But this Proposition is [Page 113]not against me; for a man well seen in Scriptures, qua talis, speaketh accor­ding to Gods Word, and is some wayes authorized by it; but the Popes De­termination without Gods Word, is meerly Humane, yea, ordinarily passi­onate.

M. S. confesseth ingenuously, that I propound many more Inconveniencies against Independencie; 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 easie, and obvious to all men, which neverthelesse I expound most cleerly: sometimes he contemneth them, as unworthy of any Solution; which is a very odde, 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 frivilous Reasons. The first is this: If a single Congregation being solitary, and without Neigh­bours, hath entirenesse 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 entirenesse of Iurisdiction 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 Solitarinesse, 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, &c. 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, &c.

M. S. But when a solitary Congregation hath an entire Jurisdiction, then certainly it hath a lawfull right, title, or claime to it. Ergo, She hath it e­vermore.

A.S. 1. She hath a lawfull right by a generall 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 our selves 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 liquour most usuall for drinke; and there is an Article in the French Discipline, whereby it is per­mitted to any man, that cannot drinke wine, to communicate in participa­ting [Page 114]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 chuse the ablest (howbeit he be not absolutely able enough) to preach, rather then to live without Gods Ordi­nances altogether: So David, wanting Bread, did eate of the Shew-bread; and a man, in case of necessity, may take other mens meate, and eate it, ra­ther then starve. 2. I distinguish the Consequent: she hath it evermore, in such a cause, i. e. in case of necessity, when she can have no help of Neigh­bour Churches. I grant it all, otherwayes I deny it.

M. S. desireth to know, by what right Neighbour Churches, by their presence, can take such a right from her.

A. S. Neighbour Churches by their presence take no right from her, but by their Neighbour-hood give her, or rather adde unto her a new right, to Rule her selfe more perfectly, and to help to Rule Neighbour Churches also, which she could not do before; so it is not Jurisdictionis diminutio, sed ampliatio, it is no diminution, but an augmentation of power intensivè, or in certitude within her selfe, and extensivè, in respect of other Churches: so it is a Bles­sing of God, added to that Church, and no power or abilitie, but a lacke of power, a weakenesse, an unpowerfulnesse (as I may so say) and infirmity ta­ken away; it is not to take away what she had, but to give her a power or helpe, that she had not, being alone; Even so as when two or three Regi­ments coming to joyn with one, or two others against their common Enemy, these two or three Regiments take no power or force from the one, or the two precedent Regiments, but help them, and make them more able to beate the Enemy.

M. S. Those that God hath put together, let not man put asunder; But God put together a single Congregation, and an entire Iurisdiction. Ergo,

A. S. That Text in the first Proposition is to be expounded of those onely that are put together by Marriage, but if you take it Universally, it will be found false; for God hath put a Tree, and the Branches thereof together, and yet I trow you will not say, a man may not cut a Branch off from a Tree.

2. I answer, if God hath put them together in all cases, it is true, but the Minor is false: If God hath onely put them together in some particular Case, then they may be separated in an other Case.

3. I answer to the Minor; If by an entire Iurisdiction, be meant a supreme Ministeriall Jurisdiction absolutely, such as should be in Synods, to the well-being of the Church, it is false, for it wants a Synodall Jurisdiction: If by an entire Iurisdiction be meant entire, secundum quid, in suo genere, & per accidens, in some way, in its own kind, and by Accident, it is true; for such a [Page 115]Iurisdiction is onely Congregationall or Consistoriall, and so perfect in that kinde, and supreme by accident, for want of Neighbour Churches; so it is entire in that kinde, but not absolutely, as it should be in Case of Neighbour Churches.

Master Mather, and Master Thomson, in their Answer to Master Herle, argue thus: The power that floweth immediately, and necessarily from the very Essence of a Church, cannot be separated from the Essence of a particular Church: But such an entire power of Iurisdiction floweth from the very Essence of a Church. Ergo,

A. S. 1. I deny the Minor; for that, which belongeth to any thing, ex instituto, floweth not from its Essence: But so it is of the entirenesse of Juris­diction; it belongeth not to the Church by nature, but by will, and Law, viz. by Gods Ordinance. 2. If it flowed necessarily from the very Essence of every Church, then could not God change it; for God cannot destroy nor change the proper Accidents, or take them away from their subjects: But the consequent is false; for since Iurisdiction belongs to the Church by Gods freewill, he may as freely take it away from the Church, and change it, as he bestowed it upon the Church. 3. Yea, God hath actually changed it; for all the Militant Churches, since the fall of Adam, viz. Before the Law, under the Law, and under the Gospel are of the same nature, and Species, or the same in substance, and onely differ in Circumstances; and yet they have had divers sorts of Iu­risdiction, and Governments, which could not be, if it flowed immediately and necessarily from its Essence. 4. Put the Case, it flowed from its Essence, as it doth not; yet this entirenesse of jurisdiction should onely be entirenesse of Consistorian or Parochiall jurisdiction, which is entire in its own kinde, but not of Synodall jurisdiction, yea, not so much, as of your Synodall power, in defining dogmatically the points of Doctrine.

M. S. his second Argument, If a Church, yet single, be invested with a power of jurisdiction, within it self, and should be cashiered of this power, by the rising up of more Churches neer unto her, then that which is intended by God, as a Table, should become a snare unto her; she should suffer losse, and have sorrow from those, by whom she ought to be comforted. But the first is true. Ergo.

A. S. I deny the Consequence; neither hath M. S. proved it: The Reason of this my Negation is, because she is not ensnared, but drawn out of the snare by the rising of such Churches which can help her, and counsell her, and reform her Iudgements, conjunctly with her self, in case of aberration; neither should this be any just matter of sorrow unto her; if she should sorrow at it, her sorrow should be unjust, and wicked, and at Gods Ordi­nance.

2. I deny the Assumption, for the Consistorian power, that such a single Church had before the rising of such Neighbour Churches, is not cashiered by [Page 116]their rising, but a more eminent, viz. A Classicall or Synodall Power, which she had not, is superadded unto her Consistorian, or Parochiall power, where­by it is mightily perfected.

CHAP. VI. M. S. his third Reason answered.

M. S. THirdly, If a single Church should suffer losse of so considerable a priviledge, as entirenesse of Jurisdiction is, by the multiplication of Churches neer unto her, then cannot this Church pray for the Propagation of the Gospel in places neer to it; but she must pray against her own comfort, and peace, which is a fore temptation upon her, either to pray very faintly, or not to pray at all for such a thing. But the consequent is false. Ergo.

A. S. I deny the consequence of the first Proposition; for the rule and mea­sure of our Prayers, is not our priviledge and jurisdiction, but Gods glory and the Salvation of our souls, revealed in Scripture, which may be very well obtained without any power of jurisdiction, as we see in Women; and it seems, that M. S. will not pray for the prosperity of Jerusalem, unlesse God grant him an Independent power of jurisdiction therein.

2. I deny the Assumption, for by the multiplication of Neighbour Churches, that single Church suffers no losse of the Parochiall jurisdiction, that she had, for she retains it; but she receiveth more power in becoming a part of a Classe, and so receiveth in part a Classicall power of jurisdiction, whereby the Parochiall power, which formerly she had, is more sure, and made lesse subject to aberration, then it was before: So her jurisdiction is not impaired, but improved; neither in it self should it be a temptation to you not to pray, or to pray faintly, as you say, since such an Improvement to every good Christian ought to be matter of Thanksgiving.

M. S. But entirenesse of Government, or subjection onely to those, that are of the same society, is a speciall mercy: And their Nobles shall be of them­selves (saith God, speaking of that great Goodnesse he meant to shew unto his people, after their return from Babylon) and their Governours shall proceed from the midst of them, Jer. 20.21. So as it is made a Character of the pro­sperous Estate of Tyrus, That her wise men, that were in her, i. e. of her own Nation, were her Pilots, Ezek. 27.8.

2. Subjection unto Strangers, is still spoken of as matter of punishment, and sorrow; Give not thine Inheritance to reproach, that the Heathen should reign over it, Joel 2.17. The Nation of the Iews were expresly forbidden to set strangers to rule over them: A.S. What follows? Ergo, Entirenesse of Govern­ment, i. e. An Independent Government in every particular Congregation, compounded of seven or eight silly Fellows, whereof many of them are tender Foreheaded, and bashfull, as M. S. telleth us, pag. 74. is a mercy and blessing of God.

A. S. The Antecedent is not universally true, 1. For it is good for Families, Republikes, and Kingdoms, that cannot rule themselves, that they be ruled by some others; and there are some people, as Aristotle tels us, that are na­turally servile. Ergo, They have need to be ruled by others. And the Poloni­ans sometimes chuse Forraign Princes to rule over them: The Ragusians in Slavonia, to entertain perfect equality amongst themselves, chuse evermore a Stranger for their Bishop; and therefore hold it not evermore best, to be ruled by one of themselves: So do they in sundry Elective Kingdoms.

2. Howbeit I should grant, that it is absolutely best, yet should it not follow, that it is best for every sort of Society, every where, and evermore; for then it should follow, 1. That it is not good, much lesse best for us, that Iesus Christ, who according to his Manhood, or the Apostles, who were Iews, should have been Universall Ministers over all the whole World, since they were not chosen of every particular Kingdom; much lesse of every Province, but least of all, of every particular Independent Congregation compounded of seven or eight weak Fore-headed men, as M. S. stiles them. 2. It should not be a blessing of God, that the Crown of France should be subject to the Crown of England; for so it should not be subject to a French man; so we loose our right to the Crown of France. 3. It should have been a punishment to the people of God, to have been ruled by a King of one Tribe, viz. of Ben­jamine, as by Saul; or of Iudah, as by David, Solomon, Rehoboam, &c. for they were not of all the Tribes, much lesse of every particular Congre­gation of seven or eight persons. 4. This Maxime cannot stand with the State of our three Crowns; for so it else should be a blessing to Ireland, to be ruled by one of the Irish Rebels, and a punishment to be subject to the Crown of England. 5. By that same reason the Kingdom of Scotland, and England, could not without some punishment or curse of God upon the one or the other, subsist in an Union together, unlesse the King were both an English, and a Scotchman. 6. The Parliament could not be a blessing, but a curse of God, since the Members thereof are from divers Provinces, Shires, and Burroughes, as the Members of our Nationall Synods. So let the World consider how Traiterous, how Hereticall, and blasphemous this most abomi­nable Maxime is, tending to the totall subversion of the Church, King, Parliament, State, and Kingdoms. 7. Yea, it overthroweth even their own Maximes; for their Synods are gathered of Members of different Churches, as ours are. 8. And finally, Howbeit I should grant him his Maxime; yet, as I have said, particular Congregations, by the increase and multiplication of Churches, and their combination in Synods, loose not their entirenesse of juris­diction, which they had before, viz. their Parochiall, Congregationall, or sim­ple Presbyteriall power, but retain it as formerly.

As for those Texts of Scripture, 1. not one of them sayes, that entirenesse of Government within themselves, is evermore best, and a mercy of God.

2. Much lesse, that entirenesse of Government, within a petty Independent Church, compounded of seven or eight weak Foreheaded Fellows, is best for it; For if it were so, we must have as many little Popes in the Church, and as many Kings in the State, as there can be Independent Churches, or particular Iudicatories in the Kingdom.

3. The passage cited out of Ierem. 30.21. speaketh of Christ, as appeareth by the Text; for it is added, And I will cause him to draw neer, and he shall approach unto me; For who is this, that engaged his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord: Now who is this, but Iesus Christ? 1. But Christ was not a Governour of one particular Independent Church onely, but of them all; so this place concludeth an Universall Church, instead of an Independent Congregation: 2. Neither can it be expounded of the people of the Iews, after the Captivity; for after it, they had no King from amongst themselves, at least ordinarily: For after the Captivity of Babylon, Zerobabel, and Ne­hemiah were, as it were Vassals, to the King of Persia, even till Esdras ob­tained of Artaxerxes Longimanus, that they should set it up again in form of a Republike. Afterwards, Alexander the Great, being pacified towards the lews, by the Intercession of Jaddus, the High Priest, they obtained liber­ty to live after their own Laws: Afterwards Ptolomaeus, son of Lagus, King of Egypt, having taken the City, used them hardly: No better usage got they afterwards under Antiochus Epiphanes, the eight King of Syria. Hither­to the Government was Ducall, and all their Dukes of the House of David, to the number of fifteen, from Zerobabel to Ianna: Afterwards, the Royall and Ecclesiasticall power was in the hands of the Priests, in the Assamoneans Family, of the Tribe of Levi, the which Government was extraordinary, if not unlawfull; and then the division about the Royall and Sacerdo­tall power, betwixt the two Brethren, viz. Aristobulus, and Hircanus, who had recourse to Pompey, some sixty yeers before the coming of Christ, made them to be reduced under the power of the Romans; so that this great blessing of so great a Governour, as is mentioned here, cannot be interpreted of any worldly Prince; or if it be so, it is liker to the Presbyterian, then to the Independent Government; for the great Sanedrim was, as it were, our Nationall Synod; both taken from amongst their Brethren: So were the Rulers over Thousands, Hundreds, Fifties, and Tens, answerable to our Provin­ciall Synods, Classes, and simple Presbyteries. Under Augustus, the Senate of Rome, made Herod, an Idumean, King of the Iews; And he, as afterward some of the Governours, and Proconsuls of Syria, made, and deposed the High Priests, according to their pleasure; so that all this time almost, the Government of the Iews was ever Tyrannicall, and so a punishment rather then 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, Vers. 3. 2. Neither [Page 119]were they Governors of one Independent Consociation, as amongst the In­dependents: but here there were Superior and Inferior Iudicatories, as a­mongst the Protestant Churches.

To that Text, Ioel 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 Gods 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 cleerly by the Reason that is added, Wherefore, &c. 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 Colledge or Consociation, without any sub­ordination to superior Iudicatories, 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 Morall, but a Positive Law; for in Elective Kingdomes they choose Strangers to be Kings, and in so doing, they sinne not against the Morall, or the Law of Nature. 2. That this Commandement is only conditionall, grounded upon the condition conteined 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 Iudicatories upon some superior. 4. By a stranger here, I beleeve, that he meanes 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 feare the Lord his God, to keep all the words thereof: which the Heathens could not doe. Or, 5. The reason may be, because God was minded to tye the Crown to one Family, viz. to that of Iudah. 6. Neither was it lawfull for them to choose any Brother, or Countryman of theirs, but him only that was of the Tribe of Iudah, at least, after the Promise made unto David; and that for a speciall Reason, viz. to the end wee may know CHRISTS De­scent, &c.

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 Iew 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, then those that were (as it were) of the same do­mestique [Page 120]Society with them; and therefore subjection unto them must have lesse of the Blessing, and more of the Curse, then Subjection to their own.

A. S. I answer, 1. in matter of Argumentation, to prove a Categoricall and Absolute Proposition, we use not these, as it were, or Metaphoricall termes; 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 then one of your Congregation, What reason, that he should rather be a stranger unto you, or lesse your Brother in Christ, then he who hath lesse 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 lesse Faith, and haply none at all: Siccinè soles beare Amicos?

M. S. 3. Reason: The Grant of Government and Rule within themselves, unto Townes and Corporations, was ever esteemed a matter of speciall 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 then they must have been Soveraigns. 3. I retort the Argument: In all such Priviledges 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 speciall 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 it selfe (faith he) demonstrates Entirenesse of Government to be a sweet Priviledge and Benefit to a Particular Church.

A. S. Ans. 1. As if all he had said hitherto were without Reason, he now commeth to his Reasons, which are very irrationall. 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 Priviledge, Ergo, its a cleer case, you have it not by Law.

M.S. 1. Reason to confirme this Assertion. First, in case a man be questioned, he saves a proportion both of time and labour, in respect of what he must un­dergoe, if he were to make his Answer at a Consistorie further off.

A. S. Ans. 1. He answers first in his own Parish, in his own particular Consistorie, and so saves his time. 2. But in case he be there oppressed, it is unjust, that he should not have liberty to desend himselfe before another, viz. a Classe, which happily may be holden in his own Town, or within one, two, or three miles of it; which is more tolerable to him, then to be oppressed by Factions, as sundry times men are amongst the Independents, as appeareth by Mr. Edwards Relation of the businesse, touched in the Apologeticall Narration. 3. What if there fall out sixe or seven such differences among your Churches, and that particular persons desire some redresse of their Grievances before a Synod amongst you? can ye not hold one Synod for five or sixe such Com­plaints? Then in such a case, they must all goe to the Synod, out of their own Churches: and then even amongst your selves ye find the same inconve­nience that ye object to us: If ye cannot, but for every such Grievance there must be a particular Synod, and your Messengers of other Churches must goe to the place; then many, in stead of one, lose their time and labour. 4. This Reason beats down as well the Government of the State; And 5. the Go­vernment of the Church of the Iewes, which was established by God himselfe; And 6. the Proceedings of the Church of Antioch, as of Ours.

Secondly (saith M.S.) the Proceedings against him in his own sociaty, shall be regulated, managed, and ordered by his own Pastor, who is a Father unto him in the Lord, and who in all reason, and according to the course of almost all constant experience, is more tender, affectionate, and compassionate to­wards him, then the Pastors of other Fhocks, and those that are strangers to him; Ergo, every man should be judged in his owne particular Congre­gation.

A.S. This Argument destroyeth no lesse the Civill, then the Church-Government; for so it may be said, that a man being judged by the Iudge of his own sown, shall be more tenderly dealt with then before the Kings Councell. 2. The Government of the Church of the Old Testament, as I have already declared. 3. The proceedings of the Church of Antioch, that sent its Controversie to be judged at Hierusalem. 4. That of the Independents themselves, who in their Synods pretend to determine matters of Doctrine. 5. I deny the Antecedent; for when either the whole Church, or any mem­ber thereof hath any debate with their own Pastor, or two Pastors of one Church amongst themselves, or two persons, or two Pastors of different Con­gregations, or two Churches are at odds one with another, that will not hold.

6. The Paster of the Congregation may affect more one of his own Congre­gation then another, and so out of too much affection he may miscary. 7. Things [Page 122]must not be carried by tender affection, but by equity. 8. If his own Pastor be more tender-hearted towards him, he of another Congregation may be more indifferent, which of the two is more necessary in a Iudge, that judgeth between two parties. 9. Pastors of other Flocks in a Synod are not altogether strangers to him, since they are his Brethren, and his Fathers, in so far forth as they re­present all the Churches of that Province or Nationall Synod. The Example of Pharaoh, that knew not Joseph, is very impertinent; for he was not a Pastor: and [know] there, is to acknowledge and affectionate a man: but all the Pastors of the Church, as I declared in my Observations, have power to preach in all the militant Church; and therefore are Fathers in the whole Church accor­ding to their generall Vocation; so was none of those Pharaohs. 10. In first In­stance a man hath all that you desire before his Pastor.

Thirdly M.S. in substance saith, that he shall be tryed and sentenced by those, who may be tryed, and sentenced by him againe, which will teach them more moderation, then a Consistory of standing Iudges, Ergo he must be onely judged in his owne Congregation.

A. S. This Argument concludeth 1. against the Subordination of Iudicato­ries in the State. 2. Against all sorts of Courts, wherein he that is sentenced, cannot sentence his Iudges againe. 3. Against the Ecclesiasticall proceedings in the Old Testament, wherein he that was sentenced had not evermore power to sentence his Iudge again. 4. Against the proceedings of the Church of Antioch. 5. Against that of the Independents. 6. Such a proceeding of mutuall judgement, out of feare to be judged againe, will make the Iudge­ments partiall, whereas they should be neutrall; and it is no better, then if one should say; Sir, looke you favour me this day, otherwise expect no favour from me another day. 7. We have no Consistory of standing Iudges, but the simple Presbytery, as you have. 8. In our way we are judged by those, who if they doe us wrong, may be judged not by us, who are parties, but by higher and more impartiall Iudges, viz. a simple Presbytery by a Classe; a Classe by a Provinciall Synod; and a Provinciall by a Nationall Synod. And as for that Maxime, Nunquam satis fida potentia, ubi nimia, it is very true, if it be applyed to your Independent Authority in particular Congrega­tions.

4. M. S. fourth Reason is, because it is a great encouragement to a man that is accused, if he be tender fore-headed, before those, with whose person he is well acquainted, and the contrary is a kind of oppression of such a man; Ergo he must only be judged in his owne Congregation, and Independently.

A. S. 1. In first instance he may be judged, as you say. 2. But if he will not stand to the sentence of his owne particular Presbytery, and afterward be changed as you say into a stone, he getteth no wrong, but what he hath pro­cured unto himselfe. 3. But if his party acquiesce not, but appeale, yet may he have his owne Pastor at the Classe, or Provinciall Synod, to lay open his busi­nesse, [Page 123]and it is the duty of the particular Presbytery, Session or Consistory, to make good their Iudgement, so as he needs not to feare. 4. And it is the custome of our Presbyteries, Classes, and Synods in such a ease, to have a care of such persons, that they receive no wrong. 5. This Reason, as the rest, striketh at the Kings, the Parliaments, and all Civill Magistrates Authority as well, since they are not familiar with every Cobler. 6. At the Ecclesiasticall proceedings in the Old Testament. 7. And that of Antioch. 8. I deny the consequence, for these Reasons alleadged.

M. S. his 5. Reason is, because in this Congregationall Government, pri­vate Christians may see the judiciall proceedings in the Churth, which will be a Schoole of wisdome and Experience. But it is not so in remote Consistories.

A. S. What conclude you? Ergo, [...]. 1. Such an opportunity may be found in the Presbyteriall way, in their Parochiall Iudicatories, in such matters, as require not silence. 2. Neither is it fit, that all sorts of Persons, as women, especially young Damosells, and young men should heare all sort of businesses, that may be discussed in those Iudicatories. 3. They have more in our way, for they have our Confession of Faith, and our Discipline written, or in Print, and may study it every day at home, which is not usuall amongst the Independents, who are never resolved, neither in their Confession of Faith, nor in their Government; neither will they have any one, common to all their Churches. If private Christians desire more then this, they may goe to the Universities. 4. This Argument striketh at the Government of the State, that of the Old Testament, and at the proceedings of the Apostles, Act. 15. and 16.

M. S. his 6. Arg. in substance is, that the Premisses, whereupon Conclusi­ons are grounded, cannot be so well known, and examined in Classes, and Sy­nods, as in an Independent Congregation, wherein the matter is passed, Ergo it should be judged there, and not in Classes, Synods, &c.

A. S. 1. This Argument, as the rest, concludes, as well against the procee­dings in Civill Iudicatories, that of the Church of the Old Testament, that at Antiochia, and at Hierusalens, as against the Presbyterian way. 2. Amongst us the businesses are first examined before the Parochiall Presbytery, or Session, where all the Premisses may be as well tryed, as in the Independent Congre­gation; and in case of Appeale they may be carried to the Classe, or Synod. 3. What if the difference be betwixt two divers Churches, or two persons of divers Churches, and the premisses be Actions, or Offences committed out of both the Churches; then in such a case, the businesse cannot be proved in any of the Churches; what if the businesse need no proofe, but be some scanda­lous Doctrinc?

M. S. addeth, that for brevities sake he would not strengthen his Arguments as he might. A. S. And in this we praise his prudence, in publishing unto the world such frivolous Arguments, yea that have not so much as any apparent probability in them.