those who can really be judged to be so if prophane persons must be in the Church as you say then I know no reason but all may be in the Church and no man in the world may be said to be out of the Church for the most are ungodly if ungodly ones do steal in among the Saints to a Church they prosper not and Christ will discover them to their everlasting shame and more dreadfull judgments follow none as these Christ dwells in his house which is the Church and it s no pleasure to Christ to see a mixture among his owne he that made a whip of cords to drive out the buyers and sellers out of the materiall Temple will take rods of iron to whip out such ungodly wretches I am sure Christs bread belongs to no such dogs only the children are welcome and he hath given power to his Church to keep out these that have not a judged right Againe if prophane persons and such as walke not like Saints are to be cast out of the church then such as are judged so must not be admitted into the church but the former is true Ergo. That they are to be cast out of the Church is cleer from the Scriptures Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. that therefore they ought not to be admitted is as cleare for the same ground is in both they are admitted in because they walke as Saints and so are judged to be Saints they are cast out because they walk not as such the truth is this principle will soon lessen a Nationall Church and therefore no wonder the Presbyterians are shye of holding it for they must cast out the most of their members assoon as they receive them in It s the strangest thing to me and I startle at it many times what strict rules the Presbyterians have laid down in their Sermons in print Master Dâ—…s preparation to the Sacrament and their Sermons before the Sacrament every moneth in which they lay on men such qualifications both habituall and actuall that there is not one in a hundred of the best Saints can follow them and yet blame their brethren for keeping of there which they cannot judge to have the least degree of these qualifications they tell them it belongs not to them they will eate and drinke their owne damnation on and yet cry out in these that would not have these poor souls contract such guilt and draw on such ruine on their own souls and therefore keep them back do you take in these who are drunkards whoremongers c. into communion in the ordinances blame us not if we keep our selves from such defilements For his answer saith he to that of Act. 15 all ages Churches till this present have held it as an expresse warrant for provinciall and nationall Synods and their making Cannons in Church affaires I shall not say much to this not doubting but we shal see these things shortly in print which our brethren have urged in the Assembly How that can be a formall Synod I could never see yet made forth For First This was not a gathering of the Elders of many Churches who make a Synod but only some messengers whether Elders or no the Text speaks not occasionally sent up to Jerusalem to that Church there Secondly here was the whole multitude viz. the Brethren present besides the Apostles and Elders and the Letter that is sent is as much written in their name as of any of the Elders now the Brethren or multitude are not usuall to be Members of Synods Thirdly the Message is sent as the mind of the Holy Ghost and not their bare judgments but that which they had principally received by inspiration from the Spirit and is not now ordinary to any Synod for what Synod I can say it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us to lay such things on you Fourthly if this were a Synod made up of Elders of severall Congregations and that Paul and Barnabas went not up to prove the false Apostles lyars but to have the truth manifested which they could not do then a Synod of Elders have more power then bare Apostles to order things in the Church Paul and Barnabas were men very unfit to be Apostles if they could not have determined such a question whether it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised who were to plant and order things in all the Churches and who had power over all Churches and were to write the man I of God to them surely one Apostle had more knowledge of the things of God and of matters of controversie in the Church then all the Synods in the world besides nay all are to follow what they loft to the Churches it were greatly to diminists the Apostles power and the highnesse of that office to think than they could not determine such a question but must go to a Synod to have it cleared up to them Besides it was an Apostle when they came up to Jerusalem viz. Peter who decided the controversie and Paul and Barnabas were men of as great judgement and had as much power as he However we think not that to be a Synod yet the convening of Assemblies and Synods for advice and counsell we deny not but that any Synod or Councell hath an authoritative jurisdiction to impose Laws and Canons for all Churches to walk by we conceive cannot be proved neither from this of Acts 15. or any other Text Yea even this Assembly now among us the Parliament have called onely for advice not intending to give them a power of jurisdiction over them and all the Kingdome Master Pryn saith and takes much pains to prove in his late triumphing book that Synods and Councells and Magistrates have ever used to make Laws for the Church to exercise a coercive power in matters of Religion De Facto and he might have saved himself labour to have proved it but whether De Jure there is such a power invested in them and from what Scripture I have not yet seen and should be glad to be informed by him To my ninth Querie saith he and Argument in it he returns nothing worthy Reply but upon this Petitio principii that the Scriptures and the Apostles have prescribed a set form of Government c. which I have proved before and that the Churches in the Apostles dayes were Independent though doubtlesse saith he all Churches were then subject to the Apostles Laws and Edicts c. therefore not Independent What there is in this worthy of Reply I am ignorant of yet this is to be noted hwo the Presbyterians make a market of this scandalous name of Independents they have fastened on us viz. To make the world beleeve that we are subject to no Laws that neither Gods Word nor mans is a rule to us for this is the naturall sense of his words he saith The Primitive Churches were subject to the Apostles Laws Ergo Not Independent As if we held that we were
State free from the blood of Martyrs if this Principle be ingrafted to them and practised by them Ninthly this will be the greatest hindrance of knowledge and growth in Religion that can be for it puts out mens own eyes and judgment and ties them to see by others every man which hath not his conscience and judgment quite sold to the common opinions and lost in the common road will be affraid to read the Scriptures or search them throughly for if God should dart in any light from them or his own ingenuity thorough the strength of his reason should be forced to dissent from the multitude either he must stiffle in the birth his divine conception for so it may be for if he be known to be of such a judgment though in it self never so small he must loose all he hath and ipso facto be liable to the greatest censure or else he must dissemble his judgment and wound his conscience what a strait is this this will be only growth in religion to grow up more conformable to the opinion of the times he will be accounted the most knowing man who hath the language of the times most by heart no man durst set to himself a higher pitch in walking with God then the State hath set to him upon pain of the greatest hazard and wheras God reveals divers truths in divers ages times especially in matters of government and worship more and more as men come out of Antichristian darknesse yet none must be suffered and tolerated but that one it may it self be Antichristian at the least miserable cold and formall Tenthly if you will needs be punishing for smaller difference in judgment I desire you to shew your Commission and Warrant from the Lord Jesus and I am sure he never gave either patterne or precept for such a course he knowes his gifts he gives to men are different and that light he communicates is more and lesse and he beares with his Saints who are of different growth and stature and I thinke we ought to beare much more who are as infirme as any others he bore with his Disciple weaknesse when they believed not the resurrection and came with peace in his mouth to them how much more would he have borne if they had doubted only of matters of Discipline Rom. 15. 1. you which are strong ought to heare with the infirmities of the weak and not to please your selves as Christ pleased not himself I hope you will walk as Christ walked Christ told his Disciples Luk. 9. 54. that they knew not of what spirit they were of when they would have fire to come down from heaven to consume those that would not receive him there are many such spirits now a day but they know not what spirit they are of Object But it will be said and its the maine objection they have if we tolerate you we must likewise tolerate Papists c. Answ That doth not follow for their very principles opposeth the secular power they differ in fundamentalls and are properly another Religion and yet the State faith when they execute Jesuites and Fryers c. it is not for their conscience or religion only That we differ is but in a point not of absolute necessity to salvation though neerer the beauty and ornament of Religion and being a truth of Christ as is conceived it must be prized and we dare not discharge our conscience of it I shall say no more of this but let men take heed how they persecute the Saints and oppresse their Brethren lest Jesus Christ draw forth his Iron Scepter against them to vindicate the innocency of his people To my twelfth quaere saith he he only answers That I fall a jeering of my Brethren and that I put a nick name on them to make them odious not answering one sillable to the substance of the Question To what I should answer more then I did I am not yet informed for this was his Question whether it be not a proud insolent name we arrogate to be independent I answered that wee disclaime it and that in print and therefore his Quaere could be nothing but a jeare To which he answers first That this title was at first assumed approved of by your selves and is still owned by many you should have named the persons that assumed it as for our parts as many as I know abhor the name as it s fathered on us Indeed we are independent in this regard that we will not subject our judgements and cause to the juridicall power either of Master Pryn or any others though we will lie down at the foot of Christ in whatever he shall command us out of his Word and the truth is the Presbytery is the onely independent in the world and may most properly be called so for you neither depend on the Scriptures for it for you affirme not jure divino neither hath it dependence on others for you say in your third Reply pag. 13. that it needs not the aid and assistance of other Churches for as the ever honoured Lord Brookes said in his booke against Bishops I know no reason why one Congregation should be accounted more independent in respect of a whole Nation then Geneva in respect of France and France in respect of all Europs cominent Therefore you are best to take up that title on your selves as most suiting with your principles As for our part we are accomptable for our actions to every neighbour Church that shall in the name of Christ require it and we stand not independent from but hold communion with all other Churches both in Ordinances and asking counsell mutually though we thinke no Church hath a power of jurisdiction to command or impose any thing on us To which you answer That if we are accountable for our actions to every particular neighbour Church then why not much more to a Parliament or Synod To which I answer We shall be as ready to give an account to the Parliament and Synod of any action we do with the reason of it as well nay rather then to any other as for the way of doing of it we are accountable by way of information and satisfaction and in some cases unto the Magistrate by way of just appeal as in case an obstinate offender shall be excommunicated and he be unruly he or we may appeal to the Magistrate for redresse we that if the Magistrate judge him justly excommunicated he may be restrained from disturbing of us he that if the Magistrate judge the sentence unjust may be publikely cleared and vindicated But for any authorative power of jurisdiction that Synods or any have to make Canons and impose on us which we are bound to follow we humbly conceive it not be the minde of Christ and we shall desire Master Pryn to shew us his Rule in Scripture To the second he answers That if you stand not independant from other Churches but hold communion with them
members of Churches should be thus judged Saints because all the Ordinances that Christ hath left it s for to build up the Church they are to be administred in the Church now none have right to the Ordinances but Saints and therefore none may be admitted but such as can be judged so by the Saints Againe for the former which we say is consent or agreement whether by covenant or any other way we stand not on it we conceive first it ariseth from the nature of the thing the Church being a politick body wherein is rule and authority nothing but free consent or agreement to walk in such wayes can constitute it as in all other policies What makes England as a Common-wealth or as a Church to be such a policie but the consent of the people who have given up themselves to be governed by such Laws and Constitutions Secondly if this be not granted there can be no distinction of Churches in the world but all must be under one power for what makes England as a Church distinct from Scotland or Scotland from all Churches that they have no authoritative power over each other but onely this that the members of England or Scotland have not consented to walk under any other power but their own Surely the bounds of Seas or Rivers can no more distinguish Churches then a wall or a doore can if there be no other distinction and no other thing but consent can forme a Policie Besides Scripture is no way silent for the proof of this Not to urge many that place is famous and may serve for all in Act. 9. 26. Paul after he was converted it is said Assayed to joyne himselfe to the Disciples at Jerusalem and the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be glewed to them Now observe Paul was converted and a Saint yet not joyned to the Church he was in that place where they were he was joyned to them as they were Saints yet he was not joyned to them as a Church and this joyning was not Physicall but Morall Now this must be done by free consent and willing subjection to the Ordinances or no way For the ordinary Officers of the Church they are Pastors Teachers 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes 4. 11. Teaching-Elders and Ruling-Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. Deacons Acts 6. 1 Tim. 3. Widows 1 Tim. 5. 9. Rom. 16. 1. That the Church hath power of choosing its own Officers is cleare from Acts 1. 21. Acts 6. 3. and Chap. 14. 23. That a Church is but one Congregation having power within it selfe to exercise all the Ordinances is apparent in the new Testament neither do we read of any other there First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for the Church signifieth no other neither hath it any other signification in the new Testament when referred to any visible Company neither is it used by any profane Author for to note out a larger Society then could meet together in one place For the Church at Jerusalem it was but one Church Acts 2. 46. and 5. 12. and 6. 1. and 15. 25. and 21. 22. and 25. 22. so the Church of Antiochia was but one Church Acts 14. 27. they are said to gather the Church together now that could not be the Elders for for Elders onely the word Church is never used and the same persons that are called the Church vers 27. are in vers 28. called the Disciples and Chap. 15. 1. the Brethren so Acts 11. 26. the same persons are called the Church Disciples and Christians Besides the Church of Corinth was but one Church was but one particular Congregation 1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Cor. 11. 17. vers 23. In uno codem loco neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever be shewed to signifie any thing else besides one particular Assembly as learned Baines wel observes I shal conclude this with quoting of what that judicious Divine D. Ames saith in this particular Med. p. 190. Hine variae Congregationes fixae ejusdem Regionis ac Provinciae plurali numero semper appellantur Ecclesiae non una Ecclesia etiam in Judaea quae tota fuit antea una Ecclesia Nationalis Act. 2. 46. 15. 12. 14. 27. 1 Cor. 5. 4 11. 17. 23. 1 Thes 2. 14. Acts 14. 23. and 15. 41. Rom. 16. 4. 5. 16. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1. 19. 2 Cor. 8. 1. 18. 19. Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Rev. Ecclesiae enim illae particulares quae in N. T. commemorantur convenice solent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neque in toto N. T. legitue de institutione Ecclesiae amplioris a quo minores Congregationes penderent c. Thus you see a short description and discovery of what we hold about Church-government with some Scriptures in stead of others that move us to this way The Reasons and Grounds I doubt not but we shall see at large when that shall be made publike which our Brethren have urged in the Assembly and presented to the Parliament But to proceed For that part wherein he saith I should have proved that Christ hath set one immutable forme of government and have made it out by direct Scriptures besides what is laid down in the Observations which I doubt not to make good against his cavills I thought Master Prin had read learned Master Parker de Eccles Pol. Cartwright and the most of the Nonconformists who though Presbyteriall in their judgement yet have largely proved that to whom I shall refer him for larger satisfaction I know none that ever writ against the immutablenesse of a forme of Church-government in the new Testament but Episcopall and Pontificiall men as Hooker Bilson The judgement of the Church of Scotland is quite contrary For they assert their Presbytery to be Jure Divino and holds its Title onely from heaven it seems the Presbyterians differ as well as the Independants and they are also various in their judgements some think there is no forme of government others that there is But to the Arguments First Exod. 25. 40. I said if this were granted the Gospel would be straiter then the Law Heb. 8. 5. Christ more unfaithfull then Moses and the Argument lies thus according to his own drawing if God set a pattern to Moses of every thing to be done in the Church from which he was not to vary upon any termes these being but carnall Ordinances comparatively Heb. 9. 10. then he hath prescribed a forme of government in the new Testament to all Churches Nations c. from which they may not vary but the former Ergo the Medium or ground of arguing between these two is from the care that God hath of the Church at all times being one and the same rather more in the new Testament God had shewed lesse care over his Churches now than then if he had not prescribed a set Government for them also besides their Ordinances had been more spirituall far then ours
things among the Jewes according to the fitnesse and conveniencie of their condition the Tabernacle was made as suiting with their condition in the wildernesse being fit to carry up and down with them but when they vvere become a setled nation rich and vvealthy and in peace then God commands to build a Temple Under the Gospel it s otherwise Christ being come himselfe as King of his Church hath made a covenant with no nation under heaven but in every nation he that feares him is accepted with him his Laws being onely spirituall and that concerning the conscience it suits with the condition of all Saints and may be practised in every Kingdome neither can it be altered the Laws written in the new Testament being the last that ever shall be given to the Churches for ever so that Master Prins Reasons against this Argument will not hold when they are truly tried To that part of the Argument wherein it is said that Christ should be more unfaithfull then Moses if he should not prescribe a set unalterable Discipline in the word he answers nothing whereas the Apostle urgeth it in Heb. 3. 2. 5. 6. Moses was faithfull in his own house as a servant but Christ as a son wherein lay the faithfulnesse of Moses but in declaring faithfully what God had prescribed to him in the governing of the Church and ordering all things which concerned the worship of God according to the patterne given in the mount Now how much more unfaithfull then Moses should Christ be if he should not as eminently do the like to his own house For it was not onely matters of Doctrine and the foundations of Religion that Moses was faithfull in prescribing to the people but all the Ceremonies and parts of instituted worship to which Discipline is to be referred he did not onely give them the Decalogue but every thing that was to be practised by them even to a pin of the Tabernacle and therein lay his faithfulnesse And is not Christ as faithfull as Moses To the second Argument That Christ should neither be faithfull as a husband head nor King of his Church if he should give others power to order it as they pleased to their own civil government not setting down his own Laws for them to walk by he saith it s both a fallacie and absurdity yet he shews neither That he sayes to make it good is this That one may be as faithfull a Husband Head King though he lay not down particular Laws to regulare his Wife Subjects c. To which I answer That its against the law of nature to require obedience of a Subject Wife c. in things immediatly appertaining to a Husband King and not to prescribe rules of obedience and its greatest unfaithfulnesse that can be to leave these that are committed to ones care and trust to others to rule and order who cannot do for them as the party intrusted can Should the Parliament be faithfull to the Kingdome if they should not make particular Laws for the governing of it but leave it either to others or else set down generall dark confused things like so many blanks and Et cetera's that every one may adde what they will Either the Government of the Church is a part of Christs Kingly Office or not if it be he cannot be faithfull if he prescribes not particular Lawes for them to walke by Besides either the Discipline of the Church is spirituall and to edification or not and if it be spirituall then none can prescribe it but Christ for that is onely spirituall in instituted worship which hath Christs Precept for it Neither will the giving of generall rules take away this blemish as that Rom. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order which you call a generall rule for Church-government for every particular Office and Ordinance in the Church is for to effect some supernaturall end to build up the soule in grace now no Office or Ordinance can do that but onely what is instituted by Christ to that end For that place in the Corinthians I spake somewhat of it in the Observations and I wonder he past it over without mentioning for these words Let all things be done decently and in order is onely meant of ordering things in a Church already constituted not of giving rules for the constitution of it and the words import nothing lesse for what is order but a fit disposing of things already made and constituted in their proper place it being a word taken from martiall Discipline where every man is set in his Rank and File according as occasion is Now you shall finde the Apostle applying of it so in the place quoted for he speaks it to regulate the exercise of Prophesie in that Church and whereas they were wont to use that Ordinance confusedly one speaking when another spake he tells them they might all speak one by one if they would but stay before each other had done and then layes down this as a rule to direct in the exercise of this and all other Ordinances Let all things be done decently and in order I wonder how men that are not lost in prejudice that haue any intellectualls about them can so mistake this place as to say its a generall rule of prescribing a forme of Church-government left arbitrary to any people seeing neither the signification of the words nor the coherence of the place hath the least shadow of such an interpretation where the fallacie of this Argument lies I cannot as yet discerne much lesse where the absurdity is which Master Prin hath charged it with His third Argument saith he is that Revel 11. 1 2. we read of a measuring of the Temple and Revel 21. 1 2. of the new Jerusalem comming out of heaven c. Ergo There is a setled divine Church-government universally prescribed to all Christians in the new Testament To this he saith nothing in answer either to the interpretation of the place or the application of it to this particular onely he seems to retort First That this is no better proofe of this Assertion then the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is of our Prelates Lordly Hierarchie Jure Divino but how or wherein the parallel holds he shews not yet this he thinks is a full Answer Secondly he saith I might as well yea more properly conclude thence That the Altar was measured as well as the Temple Rev. 11. 1. referring to the Jewish not Christian Church which hath no Temple nor Altar Ergo We ought to have an Altar yea one set forme of Altars in all Christian Churches under the Gospel Thus far he What the sense of these words is I cannot as yet understand much lesse where the Argument lies I never thought to have found such a piece of absurdity fall from Master Prins mouth His Argument will run thus if put into forme If the Temple was measured then as an absurdity the Altar was measured and
onely on the will of God and there is no necessity in the nature of the things for their appointment As for example why God would be worshipped by Sacraments why excommunication or other acts of discipline should be appointed as a meanes to save the soule there is no reason to be given from the thing but onely Gods will now that is onely exprest in the word or naturally to be drawne from it as for things civill such as he instanceth as temporall Magistrates Parliaments c. It s left by God to every Common-wealth to sit themselves and dispose of things as may be most for their peace and profit and consonancie to the Morall and Politick rules of justice and equity is enough to warrant these undertakings From this he passeth to my Anti-quaeries First If no prescript forme of Church-government in the word why not Episcopacie especially regulated and moderated as well as Presbytery To which he Answers If you meane it of Lordly Episcopacie there are abundant Texts against it if of moderated and regulated Episcopacie the same with Presbytery if the Parliament by the Synods advice unanimously establish c. I shall readily submit to it and why not you and all others In which first let all the world observe That Master Pryn grants that Presbytery is but a regulated Episcopacie Oh noble hearted Saints and well bred Christians of England who have felt so much the power of Episcopacie which was the Lion let go about without its chaine think what Presbytery will be which is but the same Lion in a fetter if ever it break loose with what redoubled might will it tear and devoure Episcopacie to be cut off root and branch was one part of that first noble Petition of this famous City signed with 15000. hands and doth not that reach Master Pryns Presbytery This was the great suggestion both in Parliament and elsewhere among the judicious and godly that if they should cut the Bishops Locks a little regulate them their hair would soon grow again and pull down the house of the Common-wealth about us all in a Presbytery there is no more according to Mr. Pryns own judgement the Bishops nails will be cut a little to grow out the faster to claw the sorer or rather the Bishops power in a Presbytery is dilated from 26. unto 600. what one could not reach to do you may be sure many will and as the Bishops would call men Puritans and Non-Conformists and so persecute them so will the Presbytery call men Schismaticks Hereticks Antinomians Separatists and do the like And whereas it may be said The Presbytery will be godly men I Answer so were the first Bishops of Rome in the beginning and these which are now good may leave the government next to as bad men as may be and then the misery will be greater by how much the multitude that have power are greater I do not think the Pope is called Antichrist so much because of his Temporall power as because of his taking such power of jurisdiction over the Consciences of men prescribing for them Laws to walk by and punishing men for disobeying Neither was the Episcopacie unlawfull so much because of their Lordships as for their supream power they arrogated over the Church and Consciences of men and because there were no footsteps for it in the word Whereas he saith if the Parliament and Synod shall establish a Presbytery he shall readily submit and asketh why not we Let him know if he can sell away his Judgement and Conscience we cannot yet though we cannot go against our Conscience to obey actively we have learned to submit to Authority passively if they can in Conscience take any such course with us 2. Antiquerie was if Church-government be to be suited to States whether Politicians are not more fit to consult about it and why is an Assembly of Divines called To which he answers That his Position is that Church-government ought to be suitable to the Word as also to the Civill State and therefore Polititians and Statesmen and divines are to be consulted with c. In this Answer Master Pryn give the greatest ground to hold up the Bishop powers in States and so of Ministers also to be Statesmen as can be if the civill power and Ecclesiasticall have such a dependence on each other that the one must be suited to the other If by suiting to States he meanes that the government of Christs Church must be suited to every forme of civill government then there must be as many sorts of Church-government as there are of civill which is the greatest confusion that can be and then you need not put in that clause that it be suitable to the word for that is suitable to the word which suits the State for either there is but one government in the word set down to all and then it is no matter where it suit the State for that must be followed what ever States say or else that government which suits the State is suitable to the word and then what need such calling and urging the patterne of the best reformed Churches what have we to doe with a Scottish government or French or any seeing our civill government dissers from both this conceit is the greatest doctrine of Liberty in the world If by suiting of States he meanes that the government of Christ should be no disturbance to the proceedings or peace of a State it s granted and so the congregationall way is as suitable to States as Presbyterie or any other government in the world To the third question he answers That it is more fit that the State should be subject to Christs rule then Christ to it but this question saith he is besides the question untill you prove a set unalterable Government which I have done sufficiently yet to say somewhat to what he saith in the following words whether Christian Princes Parliaments Synods under the Gospel have not power to bind all the Churches under their dominions as the major part of an Independent Church to bind their own members To which I answer First if majoritie be considered absolutely in it self that where there is the greater number or greater part of the Catholick Church they may make Laws for other Churches then another kingdome if it be greater then this and the numbers of the Church more may make Ecclesiasticall Laws for this kingdome yea then that must call in all the Churches in the world in every matter For where there is more there is authoritie yea onely the Catholick Church must rule and make laws for it self Secondly the reason why the major part of a congregation binds yet onely in particular actions which concerne themselves not in prescribing a rule of Church government unto others is because of the promise which God hath made with them Matth. 18. where two or three are gathered together in my Name I will be in the midst saith Christ when he speaks of the
Churches censuring an offender and this is strength enough to every action and we need not fear what the matter is that is to be handled when Christ will be present we have no such promise to any societie else As for the latter part of the quaere saith he that the Saints think Christ is King alone over his Churches and hath not left them to substitutes and the politick considerations of men to be governed by if saith he he means it onely of matters of faith it may passe as tolerable but if he means of externall Ecclesiasticall government discipline or order in the Church he must renounce his oath of Allegeance his late Protestation Nationall vow and Covenant c. In which observe two things First that to hold Christ is King in matters of faith and internall government over mens souls may passe but as a tolerable thing how to passe by this expression with a lesse character then sleighting Christs kingly office I know not bone Deus and good Christians to what passe is Religion come if this must passe but as a tolerable doctrine that Christ is sole King of souls and is it not undeniably without controversies as true as God himself and is it not horrid blasphemie to have the least thought to the contrary the truth is I wondred when I saw such a mistake fall from Mr. Prynnes pen it s no marvell if other things be intolerable to passe if this be but tolerable Secondly to hold Christ King in externall government is against the Oath of Allegiance c. who told you that the meaning of any Covenant or Protestation intends any such thing We cannot think the Parliament would be so injurious to Christ as to take away any of his Kingly office from him as Mr. Prynne would needs affirme we doubt not but they have learnt to give up the Scepter and supreame power of governing the Church to Christ as Christ hath given the supreame power of the Common-wealth to them In what clause of the Protestation or Covenant doth this lie I never found it yet I know none that ever protested that Christ was not sole King of the Church and the prescriber of laws to his Church shew me the clause and I will unsubscribe to that particular as being most derogatory to the honour of our heavenly Prince and Lord Jesus Christ In his answer to my second quaere saith he he first * Charity would have said weakly wilfully misrecites it and then infers a blind obedience from it to all superior commands be they never so unjust or contrarie to the Word whereas my question onely speaks of lawfull decrees and consonant to the Word c. to which every Christian is bound in conscience to submit Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14 15. Tit. 3. 1. If any man deny this he must renounce not onely his Christianitie but his Allegiance and humanitie too For answer to this I will not enter into that common place how farre the power of Magistrates may reach in matters of Religion to the binding the conscience though I wish it were rightly stated that Christ might not lose his due as they might not theirs Yet I desire humbly to propound one argument to Mr. Prynne which hath a little puzled my thoughts and I desire him not to mis-interpret it as if I went to undermine the priviledge of Parliament if the Magistrate must be obeyed as having power to command in matters of Worship it is either qua a Magistrate or as a Christian Magistrate if as a Magistrate it holds in all as well Heathen as Christian power being equall alike in both as they are Magistrates for Civill power is not as the Papists say founded in Grace or Religion but in the compact and agreement of the Common-wealth whatever belongs to a man as a man belongs to every man be he rich or poore whatever belongs to a Magistrate as a Magistrate belongs to every Magistrate be he Christian or Heathen and then the Heathen Magistrates Subjects are as much bound in Conscience to obey what Worship they set up as Christian Subjects are to obey theirs whom they are under If as a Christian Magistrate then shew your rule these Scriptures Rom 13. c. are spoken in generall of power limited to none nay they prove directly against you for the Magistrates the Apostles and Primitive Saints lived under were Heathens not Christians Againe if as Christian then he must be obeyed because he commands or for what he commands either because of his owne power or the authority of the things themselves if for the former then its qua a Magistrate and so it belongs to all his Authority not arising from his Christianity but his Magistracie if for the latter then it s not the Magistrate but the Word of God that must be obeyed now that must be seen before it can be followed there is no greater eating Worme in the Power of Magistracie then to found it in Religion for thence the Jesuites infer undenyably if Government belong to Magistrates as Christian as religious then he that is not a Christian Magistrate is an usurper and may be deposed at pleasure nay indeed he is no more then a private man when once excommunicated and all their ensuing commands are not to be obeyed yea it will come to this that the Church hath power over States and Kingdomes for the Church is to deale in all matters of Religion most powerfully now that is to get States to be their servants and exercise what power the Church pleaseth upon offenders besides if they have power to command I have no power actually to obey unlesse my conscience be convinced of the lawfulnesse of it for whatever is not of faith is sin to the reason I urged for this he answers nothing yet further to confirme him 1. It s neither a humane nor religious act that is not done with understanding God would not have us to believe him without wee see the ground of it in the Word All Protestant Writers give to every man judician privatae discretionis they give the testimony of mans conscience as one way wherby we know the Word of God to be the Word For any to require a man to practise that in the Worship of God upon paine of Schisme arrogancie c. before a man seeth it to be commanded of God is to require more then God requires who would have every man practise according to his light in naturall Worship indeed God requires obedience of all alike because they all once knew how to serve God God gave Adam for all his and men have lost them by their owne default and though they should never heare the Word yet they shall be condemned for not serving God in that way for it was ingraven in every mans heart naturally but it s not so in instituted Worship which depends meerly on Gods will for in this God requires we should search to know but
will never punish any man for the not obeying that he searcheth after prayeth God to reveale and yet cannot find it to be the mind of God much lesse should men force men who not only have no light in the thing but their light is against it to obey what they conceive is the mind of God 2. That Doctrine that puts upon any man an inevitablenesse of sinning may not be admitted but such doth this that men must obey what superiours command in the Worship of God though their judgements be against it and the minor is proved thus by instance to go against my light and conscience is sin and to disobey the Magistrates commands is sin and one I must doe yea it s the greatest hypocrisie that can be to follow that authority commands which yet mans conscience thinks is not to be done besides what do I know but the light I have is from the Spirit of God and if I go against it I am guilty of resisting and grieving the Spirit which is the greatest sin that can be 3. It is the greatest tyranny over mens souls that can be what can be greater then to make other mens judgments the rule of my conscience to sweare obedience to that my understanding is against surely its the greatest soul-inquisition that can be however Master Pryn saith I infer a blind obedience from his Position I know not how to infer otherwise for that must needs be blind obedience when a man must obey take it in what you will of this kind that which he seeth not either exprest or any way warranted by the Word it s to put men above God at least in this place for if I must obey because higher Powers judge it so their power must be the rule of my conscience which alone is subject to the Word and it s the greatest basenesse of spirit it dis-ennobles mens spirits hinders and utterly crusheth the growth of any ones gifts for if other mens judgments must be my rule and I sin in not submitting to it what need any man study to find out truth or with the noble Bereans to search the Scripture to see whether these things be so give men eyes and they will soon follow you else never call for such unlimited obedience Againe what if the Parliament and Synod should erre in setting up a Government must every one be bound to joine with them To which he answers First such an oversight is not to be presumed untill it be actually committed and it s neither Christian charitable nor any way of Christ thus to prejudge their resolutions And yet you to presume to determine what the Congregationall way is and censure what effects will follow though you professe you know not what they hold and never saw the way exercised we know as much of Presbyteriall and its effects as ever any can speak of the Congregationall therefore leave off your scandalous Titles of this way which yet you never saw did commit any thing worthy of them As for your sufferings you speak of I never mentioned them as your shame though you have made the honour of them lesse then the World thought it was in that you say you suffered not for opposing any Ceremony legally established or the Bishops calling but their Lordly power however you suffered and now we are glad we know for what you suffered yet holy Master Burton for his part confesseth the contrary that he suffered for preaching against the Bishops Government and the Ceremonies I doubt not but if ever God shall call us to suffer for this truth we shall have as much comfort and strength in standing for the Prerogative of King Jesus as ever you had for maintaining any Statute-Law whatsoever In the fifth saith he he grants that Independency will overthrow all Nationall Churches and Synods 1. Is it not even a turbulent dangerous Schismaticall unquiet that I say not insufferable Government which will admit no equall nor corrivall and thus he goes on with his uncivill calumnies for many lines But bona verba quaeso if you understand the words thus that in the judgments of these that are of this way there can be no Nationall Churches according to the Word so it overthrowes it but yet only in intellectu as I may say they cannot think it to be a Gospel Institution of a Church as the holding one opinion overthrowes another so is this that all Nationall Churches will be overthrowne by your Congregationall way and this sense which I meane deserves not such unworthy Language but if you take it as it seems you do that the Congregationall way cannot live by the other Government or in a Nation which is a Church but it will endeavour by force and armes to extirpate overthrow unchurch them that disturbe their peace slay their members c. It hath not as yet conceived such a thought and its contrary to its nature to bring it forth there is nothing so detestable to our judgements and I doubt not that should be more contrary to our practice then the disturbing the peace of a Nation what ever scandall men fasten on us To the sixth he sayes I returne no answer but plainly yeeld that there was never any Independent Church in any age or nation whatever totally converted to the Christian faith c. If Mr. Pryn understand the words thus That the congregationall way hath not beene set up as the government of any one Nation it s granted but that there was never a congregationall Church in any one nation is denied and it will put him to it to make it out Nay for the first foure or 500. yeeres I durst challenge him to produce any other then particular Churches that had the power of censures within themselves Justin and Irenaeus knew no kinde of Church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabbath and as learned Mr. Baines proves out of Euseb l. 3. 44. lib. See Bains diocesan triall 4. cap. 21. and lib. 2. cap. 6. that Churches at first were but Parishes and Parishes within Cities and he quotes Saint John lib. 3. cap. 23. saying to the Bishop Redde juvenem quem tibi ego Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus Tertullian Apol. c. 39. knew no Churches which had not power of censures within themselves and we hold no more Saith Cyprian lib. 4. ep 1. Schismes were said to be from hence Quod Episcopo universa fraternitas non obtemperat And the same Author Epist 55. tota fraternitas i. e. unius congregationis tota multitudo ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis Sabino de universae fraternitatis suffragio Episcopatus fuit delatus And againe lib. 1. epist 47. 58. 68. Ecclesiae igitur circuitus non fuit major quam ut Episcopatus totam plebem fuam in negotiis hujusmodi convocare potuerit He which is skil'd in Antiquity I doubt not but may bring forth multitudes of such testimonies as these all that we say is that a
Church is a particular congregation of Saints having power of censures within themselves and exercising all the Ordinances of Christ Now this Antiquity proves to be in the primitive times even many yeeres after the Apostle but suppose the contrary that there could not any such footsteps of this way be found in Antiquity yet have we no ground to thinke it s not true great was the Apostacie of the Churches from the Apostles doctrine that truth hath beene lost for a long time among the most It is a great mercy that since that defection from the pure wayes of Christ to Antichrist there have beene any glimmerings of light preserved any in secret that might worship him after his owne minde that any thing hath beene refined and restored to its primitive institution yet all times are not alike now God hath in an abundant cleere manner so scattered the mists of Popery and darknesse hath revealed many truths which formerly lay hid Unhappy we if we yet see not more then the godly formerly did who but then came out of Antichristian darknesse God is now opening the mysteries of the Gospell discovering the truths that concerne Christs Kingly Office why may not this be one though never discovered before or if discovered yet crusht and made light of The opinion of the thousand yeers which was antiently generally condemned for a Heresie is now imbraced as a precious truth and maintained by many learned lights as Alstede Mede Doctor Twisse Doctor Stoughton with divers others That is ancient which is primitive and to be found in the Scriptures neither are the names of these that either have beene of this judgement or have or doe practise it of meane and contemptible reputation but they have given sufficient testimony to the world of their learning and godlinesse as learned Baines Ames Cotton with the many in these times both in New-England here and other places men not a jot behinde any of their Predecessors in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel yea anointed with the gifts of the Spirit above most of their fellows Notwithstanding that you say that for any reverend godly person who now contends about this new Modell though I reverence their persons and judgements too in other things yet I cannot subscribe to them in this new dangerous by way Yet those men cannot think you reverence dither their persons or judgements for then you would not be so rash as to condemn what they hold before you knew what it was or whether it was so or no for either you think them judicious and conscientious or not if the former then you would judge what they hold they have ground for if the latter that then they durst not practise that is generally opposed without a clear warrant at least in their own judgements from the Scriptures Neither do they desire you should subscribe to their judgements in this or any thing else yet this is your duty to give them the right hand of fellowship a while and not rail on and condemn with all bitternesse the way they practise untill you had heard what they could say for themselves In the seventh saith he the grants That the Law of nature that teacheth men to unite themselves into one nationall State or civill Government doth likewise teach them to joyn and subject themselves to one nationall Church and to nationall Synods and Parliaments in point of Church-government Let any one judge that reads what I answered whether there be so much as a shadow for such a mis-recitation the sunne of my Answer was this That the Law of nature teacheth every man to joyn himself to such a particular Society where every man may have his personall vote in every thing that concerns him as well as any one or a Company to set up either one or more over them to whose judgement they will submit and who shall be the Vltinum of all their Appeals and Counsels And that there is as great a sutablenesse to the Law of Nature in a Democraticall and Aristocraticall Government of which the Congregation consists as in a Monarchicall or 〈◊〉 Arisocraticall The Liberties of Saints and Subjects differ though Subjects may put theirs into the hands of others the Saints cannot theirs without ingratitude for Christs purchase of them and disloyalty to his Soveraignty who alone is King of his Churches for if I give up my power unto others I must stand to what they determine what ever my Conscience be to the contrary and what if they crie He grants that the Magistrate hath not still power over mens Consciences is over mens bodies yet he saith that God hath enjoyned us to be subject to every lawfull Ordinance of man and not repugnant to the Word c. To which I answer What if the commands be repugnant to direct Consequence of Scripture though not against any expresse Texts And what if a man thinks it repugnant to the Word must a man obey it that which to me is repugnant to the Word is my sin if I do it Besides what if it should be repugnant Either you must say the Magistrate can command nothing repugnant to the Word and therefore must be obeyed or else a man must see it in his own judgement not to be repugnant before he can obey it God forbid a tittle of the power God hath given Magistrates should be taken from them yet I would things were so stated that Christ might not lose his Prerogative Master Prin in his other twelve Queries and the latter end of this labours to perswade the Parliament that these whom he cals Independents are against the power of Parliaments on purpose to make them odious in their eyes But let that honourable Assembly know that what ever power the Principles of Presbytery will give them the Congregationall way will give much more neither have the Parliament truer friends then they who will be more willing to venture their lives and sacrifice all they have for them onely this is desired by them which they know is the desire of that Honourable Assembly that the Rights and Liberties Christ hath purchased by his own precious blood and left the Saints as his last Legacie may not be taken away by the secular power as that the secular power might not be encroached on by Christian Liberty After this he goes on to justifie his bitter and unchristian passage in comparing our Church-meetings to the Conventicles of of the Arrians Donatists c. Could you finde no smoother or lovinger comparison to scandalize us by Can no other title be bad enough but a Conventicle A name given by the Bishops and all their crew to all the godly meetings of the Saints Take heed that you that are so skilled in the Bishops language come not to take up their weapons too what do you but in one word cal us hereticks Schismaticks and the worst of men For this you say in the Marthat 35. Eli. c. 1. none are Conventicles but
the meetings of Hereticks and Schismaticks who separate themselves c. Though your passion would not yet your charity might have given us better language You and your Party are very full of these tearms though you nor they ever define what Schisme or Heresie is We desire and challenge you to tell us what Heresies we have broached in these Conventicles In what Fundamentalls do we differ from you which is Heresie What Acts against the power of godlinesse can you manifest against us What Treasons have we plotted against the Parliament in our meetings Should I call you Heretick and Schismatick c. because your judgement is Presbyteriall would you take it well The Lord learn you meeknesse and a more sober Spirit not to tax so highly and slander so insufferably unlesse you make it out that we are such To the eighth he saith I answer negatively and well I may My first Answer was that the nationall Church of the Jews cannot be a pattern for us now because the Covenant of the Gospel is not made with any one particular nation but to all in every nation that beleeve you have no promise nor Prophesie of any nation to be holy to God but the Jews when they shall be called again To which he Replyes 1. That the Independents have not the least Precept or Example for a solemn Covenant but in the old Testament and Church of the Israelites and that no private Congregationall but publike nationall Covenant prescribed by the supream temporall Magistrate and Assembly yea the principall Precepts and Presidents for sanctifying the Sabbath publike or private Fasts you likewise derive from the old Testament and that Church Why should not therefore their nationall Church be a pattern for us c. To which I Answer First For the Covenant we hold not that such a formall Covenant constitutes a Church this is enough that there be an union whether by Covenant explicite or implicit or consent that is certain the Union is Morall as all other must be that constitute a Policie yet for that he saith there is no Precept or pattern but in the old Testament for a Covenant it s answered Secondly That its ground enough for such a practise the Covenant not being Ceremoniall but Morall and that which of necessity goes to such a Constitution it did not constitute the Church as nationall but as a Church Indeed the Covenant was nationall because the Church was so but that was accidentall It s no part of the essence of a Covenant that it should be nationall that doth accedere to it as it constitutes such a Policie and the same or which is equivalent must constitute a particular Church the same formall Constitution that was in that Church as a Church must be in every Church also and though the dispensation in Churches be different yet the same constitutive Principles remain in all For that he saith the principall Precepts for a Sabbath and Fasts we take out of the old Testament and therefore why should not their 〈…〉 Church be a pattern for us to imitate as well as their nationall Covenant Sabbaths c. I Answer We keep the Sabbath onely as it is a Morall Precept in the Decalogue not as peculiar to the Jews for where there was any ceremonialnesse in it as the seventh day it s changed among us and for Fasts there is as great equity that when we have displeased God we should solemnly humble our selves before him But that the Church was Nationall was meerly accidentall and he might as well argue and it will as rightly follow that there must be but one visible Church in all the world and that one nation as the Jews were for if he argue from one part which is accidentall he must argue from another that is so likewise Besides if this be a property of a Church that it be nationall then there is no Church but what is nationall if that did convenire to the Church of the Jews as a Church that it was nationall then it doth so unto every Church and the same may be said that there was but that one Church in the world then therefore there is but one now Many such absurdities will necessarily follow such an Argument To that that I say that the Covenant of the Gospel is made with no particular nation but with every one in every nation that beleeves and that there is no Prophesie or Promise of any one nation to be converted but the Jews He Answers That this Reason is both absurd and false the Covenant extending not only to particular persons but to all nations c. And for this he quotes many Scriptures in the Margent the summe of which is contained in Psal 2. 8. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession And that in Esay 2. 2 3. The mountain of the Lord shall be exalted on the top of the mountains and all nations shall flow to it Therefore God hath made a Covenant with particular nations to be Churches To which I answer 1. That if these Texts be to be understood so Jesus Christ never had a Church since the dissolution of the Jewish State for there hath been no nation in the world yet wholly given to Christ none that may be called a holy nation as yet that Prophesie is not fulfilled what may be hereafter I know not Secondly You may as well say that the Covenant of the Gospel is made with all nations and that all nations are or shall be Churches to Christ for so the words run in the generall I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth c. and all nations shall flow in unto the Church and become such Thirdly That in Psalm 2. is not meant of God covenanting with any people but it shews that all the world is in subjection to Christ and that the Father hath given him all rule and power from one end of the earth to the other and the following words imply so much for he saith He shall rule them with a rod of iron now it s not meant so much of the Church as of the Kings and Potentates and great men of the world that band themselves against Christ Christ rules not his Church with a rod of iron but with a golden Scepter and if all nations were given to Christ that is really converted and in Covenant there would not be so many Potentates Kings and great ones to band themselves against Christ and his Church and for that place Esay 2. That all nations shall flow into the Church when once it s exalted it s no more then what was fulfilled in Acts 2. where men of every nation under heaven beleeved and so is the word commonly used for some of all nations and the utmost that can be said of them and all the other places brought is but this that when Jews and Gentiles
Then first why do you separate from them as no true Christians Answ I answer in generall We separate from none we know to be true Churches but if you mean by your true Church the whole bulk of the nation whom you call a Church we must needs separate from it for we acknowledge no such Church Yet Secondly Though we acknowledge not England as a nation to be a true Church yet we acknowledge many true Churches in England with whom yet we cannot communicate in Church Ordinances because of many personall defilements among them or yet purged out and if they would give us leave in our communion with them to professe against these corruptions which we think defile them we should not scruple communion with them You know that one may be a reall man yee so corrupted with diseases and sores that it may be dangerous to come nigh him or eat or drink with him Glad should we be to joyn with them if they were so reformed and that mixture taken away that as nigh as could be none but such as had a right to Christ might partake of the Ordinances untill then you must excuse us if though we think many to be true Churches we cannot actually communicate with them You tell us saith he that neither I nor any Synods nor this Synod is infallible c. Therefore men are not bound to obey their decrees on penalty of sin To which he answers onely by way of Querie May not you and your Independent Ministers erre as well others O yes surely therefore they arrogate not such a power to make Laws for others as for that of the Major Votes it s answered before How ever slight Master Pryn makes of this reason yet untill he hath answered he must give us leave to beleeve it For if Synods have power to binde the conscience it is either because they can enjoyn nothing but truth for truth onely binds the conscience and so are infallible or else because of their own power and authority I know no other ground for it Is this good Logick or Divinity saith he Good Ministers may and do erre in some points of Divinity therefore we will beleeve them in none In that you say true there is neither Logick nor Divinity but the Consequence as I draw it is this Ministers may erre therefore none are absolutely bound to beleeve every thing they say as Scripture and so to sin if they obey not for it s a certain truth not probable that binds the conscience Certain I say either as I apprehend it or in regard of it self if I am bound to beleeve what ever they say that are in authority who may erre then my conscience is subject to errour as well as truth for that which is commanded may be errour yea if I think it errour yet I must obey it and this holds in every thing as well as any thing for in all things that is commanded they who command are to go by their own â—…dgements of the truth of the thing that they enjoyn and their judgements may erre yet I am bound to obey and sin if I do not Nay suppose what they command to be a truth yet I think it an errour and so it is to me my conscience so judging yet I am bound to obey else I sin The Lord learn you and those in authority more tendernesse to Saints consciences that you may not put such a yoke upon our necks that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear FINIS