concluded thence That the Altar was measured as well as the Temple Rev. 11. 1. referring only to the * Jewish not christian Church which hath no * Temple nor Altar Ergo we ought to have an Altar yea one divine set form of Altars in all christian Churches under the Gospel which I hope you dare not aver After these three Independent Arguments he pretends my third Quere contradicts the first because I suppose a church-government may be consonant to Gods Word in the generall which is not particularly prescribed in it A pretty fancy As if nothing could be consonant to Gods Word which is not particularized or verbally enjoyned in it Are not our materiall churches garments temporall Magistrates Majors Corporations Parliaments Courts of justice Laws of all sorts yea Festivals Covenants monthly Fasts c. agreeable to Gods Word because not literally prescribed in it Are your private church-covenants unmixt Communions as you phrase them erections of Independent congregations without the licence of temporall Magistrates not consonant to the Word in your owne opinions though no where extant in it If not then all your divine pretences for them vanish and you yeeld your cause If yea you must then recant this pretence of a contradiction till you are able to prove 〈◊〉 better then yet you have done Having played the Logicians and contradictors part so well he next betakes himself to his Anti-queries to prove a set church-modell which are three 1. If no prescript forme of church-government in the Word why not Episcopacy especially regulated and moderated as well as Presbytery I answere if you meane it of Lordly Episcopacy there are abundant pregnant Texts against it to prove it opposite to Gods Word If of moderated or regulated Episcopacy the same with Presbytery if the Parliament by the Synodâ—… advice unanimously establish it as most consonant to the Scriptures and most agreeable to the civill Government I shall readily submit unto it without opposition and why not you and all others 2. If church-government be suited to States whether Politicians are not more fit to consult about establishing it Why is an Assembly of Divines called to search the Word about it I answer that my position is That every church-government ought to be suitable to Gods Word as likewise to the civill State Therefore Politicians and States-men are fit to be consulted with to suit it best to the civill State and an Assembly of Divines to square it likewise by and to the Word the true reason why in this our Realme and all other Christian States as I can abundantly manifest if need be Ecclesiasticall Laweâ—… and formes of government have ever been setled by Parliaments with the advice of Synods Councells wherein States-men and Church-men have jointly concurred in their deliberations and votes using both the Bible and the Law to settle it and not throwing either of them aside as incompatible as ignorant or lawlesse persons deeme them but joyning both together True civill or ecclesiasticall Policy skill in Government Arts wholsome Lawes boing †Gods gift as well as spirituall graces To his third Anti-quere I answer That it is more reasonable the * State should be subject to Christs rule then Christ to its direction But this Quere is quite besides the Question till you prove infallibly That Christ hath prescribed a set unalterable divine government to which all churches Nations States must necessarily conform and clearly manifest what this Government is in all its particulars Till this be done the sole question is Whether christian Princes Parliaments States Synods under the Gospel have not a lawfull power to prescribe Ecclesiasticall Lawes and forms of Government not repugnant to the Word not to Christ himself as you pretend who is †King of Kings and Lord of Lords above the reach or command of humane power but to all particular Christian churches congregations subjects under their respective jurisdictions and whether the whole representative Church and State of England in Parliament have not sufficient authority by Gods law to over-rule and bind all or any particular members or congregatious of it as well as the major part of an Independent congregation power to * over-vote and rule the lesser part and to order yea bind any of their particular members A truth so clear that no rationall man good Christian or Subject can deny it Your prime argument then wherewith you deceive poore silly people That Kings Parliaments cannot prescribe Lawes and Canons to Christ himselfe the Soveraigne Lord and King of his Church Ergo they cannot prescrib them to their Christian subjects and Churches who by Christs owne ordinance are subject to their lawfull soveraigne authority is pure Independent Non-sence much like this A Master Father cannot prescribe Laws Rules to the King or Parliament who are paramount him Ergo not to his servants children who are subject to him As for the latter part of this Querie That the Saints thinke CHRIST is King alone over his Churches and hath not left them to substitutes and the politicke considerations of men to bee governed by If hee meanes it onely of matters of Faith or of meere internall government over the soules of men it may passe as tolerable but if hee intends it of externall Ecclesiasticall Government Discipline or order in the Church or State as Christian hee must renounce his Oath of Allegeance his late Protestation Nationall Vow and Covenant and make Rom. 13. 1 to 6. 1. Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. to be Apocryphall the Confessions of all Protestant Churches heterodox and deny christian Kings Magistrates highest civill powers to be Christs substitutes Vicars in point of Government to whom Christ hath delegated his * Kingly power as truely as Ministers are his deputies in point of instruction admonition to whom he hath bequeathed his Propheticall office 2. In his answer to my second Quere he first wilfully misrecites it then infers †a blind obedience from it to all superiours commands be they never so unjust or contrary to Gods Word whereas my Question speaks onely of lawfull decrees c. consonant to Gods Word and to the civill Lawes Government and manners of the people to which every Christian in point of conscience is bound to submit without any danger of blinde obedience by the expresse resolution of Rom. 13. 1 to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14 15. Tit. 3. 1. Ezra 7. 26. Josh. 1. 16 17 18. Heb. 13. 17. If any man deny this verity he must renounce not onely his Christianity but his Allegeance and Humanity too But suppose saith he the whole Parliament and Synode should erre in commanding a Government that is erronious or untrue must we then submit unto it I answer first such an oversight is not to be presumed before it be actually committed and it is neither * christian charitable nor any way of Christ thus to prejudge their resolutions Secondly if the Decrees or Government
multitude of the Land yea of a greater power then ever Iesus Christ himselfe had at least then ever he exercised For as dare Râ—…gem argues a greater power then esse Râ—…gem as hee that buildeth an house hath more honour then the house Hebr. 3. 3. so to nominate and appoint who shall have power to umpire in matters of conscience and of God * to determine what shall be preached and what not what shall be beleeved and what not is a branch of a greater root of power then the exercise of the power that is committed to others in this behalfe Now though Iesus Christ had a power and was authorized by God to be a Law-giver himselfe unto his Churches and Saints in their spirituall Republike yet it is hard to prove that he ever he invested any other with such a power His Apostles themselves were no Lords over the faith of the Saints nor had they anie power or authoritie to impose any thing upon men as †necessarie either to be beleeved or practised but what they had in expresse commission and charge from Jesus Christ himselfe to impose upon such termes c. The summe of this large passage is that there is not onelie an improbabilitie but absolute impossibilitie that the Parliament should have any power at all to enact Lawes and Statutes in matters of Religion church-government Gods worship or service because the people who elect them have no such power and so an impossibilitie of deriving any such authoritie to them and to affirme the contrarie is not onely to awake the eyes of jealousie upon them but exceedingly destructive to and undermining of not onely their power but honour peace and safetie also Whether this be not directly to undermine the authority of Parliaments and temporal Magistrates in all church-affairs and matters of Religion contrarie to your late Covenant and Protestation and that in the most transcendent maner that ever any have hitherto attempted in print let all wise men judg I am sory such ill passages should fall from so good a pen But to give a short Answer to this extravagant discourse First this objection might be made against the generall Assemblies Parliament Kings of the Israelites who a were chosen by the people yet they made Lawes and Statutes concerning Religion and Gods worship with his approbation without any such exception as I have elsewhere proved Secondly God himself as I formerly â—…uched used the ministry assistance of Cyrus Artaxerxes Durius with other heathen Princes and Magistrates for the building of his Temple and advancement of his worship for which they made Decrees Statutes notwithstanding this objected reason reflects more upon them and their electors then on such who are Christians by externall profession Thirdly most Christian Kings and Magistrates in the World even those who claime to be hereditary as the yet continued formes of their Coronations and instalments manifest come in by the peoples election as well as such members of Parliament who are eligible yet you cannot without disloialty and absurdity deny them authoritie in matters of Religion and Church-government Fourthly your selfe doe not onely grant but argue b That every private man hath yea ought to have power to elect and constitute his own Minister and no doubt you will grant that private men have power likewise to set up independent Congregations which have authority to prescribe such Covenants Lawes and Rules of Government Discipline Worship as themselves think most agreeable to the Word If then they may derive such an Ecclesiasticall authority to independent Ministers and Churches why not as well to Parliaments and Synods likewise by the self-same reason Fiâ—…hly it is cleare by sundry instances in Scripture and your owne Text that God doth oft times make use of unsanctified persons and the rude multitude whom you so much under-value to advance his glory propagate his Gospel promote his Worship vindicate his Truth and edifie his Church He can poure a spirit of prophesie upon c a Baalam a Saul a Gamaliel a persecuting High-Priest he can make a d Judas an Apostle yea send him to preach and build his Church as well as a Peter Wee read in the Evangelists that none were so forward as the vulgar e multitule to beleeve follow professe Christ and embrace the Gospel though many of them did it out of sinister ends Therefore they may well have power to chuse such persons who shall and may make Lawes to promote the Gospel and Government of the Church of Christ Sixthly those who have no skill at all in Law Physick or Architecture have yet judgment and reason enough to make choice of the best Lawyers Physitians Architects when they need their help Those who are unfit or unable to be members of Parliament themselves as most of the electors are have yet had wisdom enough in all ages and especially at this present to elect the most eminent ablest men for such a service Those who are unmeet to be Kings Magistrates Commanders or Ministers have yet skill enough to chuse able persons for such offices power to delegate to them such Parliamentary Royall Magisteriall Pastorall authority as is necessary for their severall offices which those who elected them never had actually but onely originally or virtually in them not to use but derive them unto others why then may not our free-holders who have voices in electing the members of our Parliaments and the Commonalty of the Land whom you scandalously terme the vilest and most unworthy of men though there be a degree of vulgar people viler and unworthier then they in all respects who have no votes in such elections have sufficient authority in them to elect and nominate such fitte persons who by virtue of such nomination or election shall have right and power to enact Lawes Statutes in matters of Religion Worship and Church-government not dissonant from Gods Word to which themselves and others by Gods owne ordinance must submit If the common people who neither are nor can be Parliaments * Emperors Kings Judges Magistrates Ministers have yet a lawful power to make others such by their bare election to give them such authority and power as themselves never actually were or can be possessors of then why by the self-same reason may they not likewise delegate a lawfull Ecclesiasticall legislative authority in church-affairs to their elected Parliamentary and Synodall Members which was never actually in themselves as well as Mr * Goodwin delegate the power of determining who should be fit persons to receive the Sacrament and to become members of his independent Congregation to eight select substitutes which was never actually vested in himselfe nor transferrible thus to others by any Law of God or man why may not a man bring an ecclesiastical or spiritual extraction out of a secular root contrary to your Paradox as * well as a Râ—…gall Magisteriall Parliamentall Ministeriall extraction out of a
private prayers and some of them the use of the Lords owne prayer together with there ading of set Homilies upon which very grounds they must also deny all set formes of church-government as well as of Prayer and Preaching And then have positively delineated exactly proved the modell of this pretended Government Discipline in every particle thereof by Gospel-Texts so far as to satisfie mens erronious judgments consciences herein that so they might either submit thereto without dispute or propound their objections against the same But in this maine point whereon the hinge of the controversie turnes the Respondent is wholly silent and I shall expect his answer ad Graecas Calendas Only lest he might seem to say nothing he endevours to prove that there is a set forme of Church-government prescribed by Christ in the Gospel not by direct Texts but from pretended absurdities of his owne fancying for which he can produce no Text nor Reason wherein he hath prevaricated and shewes himselfe absurd First writes he if this were granted that there is no such set form of Church-government prescribed to all the Gospell would be * straiter then the Law Christ more unfaithfull then Moses If we deny these absurd consequences you shall have these sound proofes of both subjoined God set a patterne to Moses of a carnal Temple you mistake good Sir it was a Tabernacle and that not carnall which he charged him not to vary from in a tittle well I grant it because you produce * two full Scriptures for it Ergo he hath prescribed a set pattern of Church-government and Discipline to all Christian Nations Churches in the new Testament from which they must not vary in one tittle If he or any other can shew me such a pattern as he contends for so clearly delineated to us in the new Testament as that pattern of the Tabernacle God shewed Moses was in the old and then produce as direct precepts enjoyning all Christians Republikes Churches not to vary from it in one tittle as Moses had not to vary from his I shall beleeve his sequell till then I shall deeme it a true Independent argument and as grosse a Non-sequitur as this which necessarily followes upon the concession of it God shewed and prescribed to Moses the expresse pattern or fashion of Aarons and his Sons garments ornaments under the Law Exod. 28. Ergo he hath likewise shewed and prescribed the expresse pattern fashion and colour of all Bishops Presbyters Ministers garments ornaments under the Gospel most likely in the Roman Ceremoniall and Pontificall If the one consequence be ridiculous the other must needs be so But to quell this your principall Argument First the patterne in the mount was meant onely of the materials forme vessels and utensils of the Tabernacle not of the Government and Discipline of the Iewish church therfore very impeâ—…tinent to prove a setled Church-government Discipline under the Gospel Secondly it was shewed only to Moses the temporall Magistrate and chief Ruler of the Israelites not to Aaron or any private Independent Priest or Synagogue of the Iewes yea Moses not they was to make or sâ—…e all things †made according to the pattern in the mount Ergo if there be any consequence from this patterne not the Independent Minister or congregation but Kings chief temporall Magistrates and Parliaments the supreme civill Powers Councels â—…e likewise under the Gospell to prescribe and set up such a church-government as is agreeable to Gods Word as Moses Joshua David Solomon Hezekiah Joshiah Nehemiah and other godly Princes Governours with their Parliaments or generall Assemblies did under the Law And then what becomes of your Independent Ministers Congregations claimes to this Soveraigne temporall jurisdiction a part of Christs Kingly office delegated onely to Kings and highest temporall powers which was never conferred on them In fine if there be any such expresse unalterable divine patterne of church-government under the Gospel I pray informe me why it was not as punctually as particularly described in the new Testament as the forme of the Tabernacle of its materialls with all the services ornaments appurtenances of it and of the Temple were under the Law Nay why was the Tabernacle altered into a * Temple different from it and why did the second * Temple vary from the first and that in the self same Church and Nation If these were patterns of the church-government under the Gospel and yet varied altered successively in this manner then by consequence the Government Discipline under the Gospel is variable alterable too and so not fixed nor immutable His 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 owne civill Government not setting downe his owne Lawes for them to walke by is both a fallacy absurdity There is no man doubts but that Christ in the Scriptures which some of you refuse to heare read in our Churches though publike reading of them be Gods owne ordinance hath prescribed to us all necessary Rules Lawes both for our faith lives either in a general or special manner which aâ—…l must pursue But that he hath punctually or particularly set down any exact unalterable form of church-government for all Christian Nations Churches to follow under pain of being unfaithfull in all the former respects and that the Independens Modell alone is that very patterne the onely point in question remains on your part to make good A man may be a faithfull husband King Master Father though he prescribe not distinct particular Lawes to regulate each particular action of his Wife Subjects Servants Children * Let all things be done decently and in order a generall rule for church-government is sufficient to excuse Christ from these your presumptuous reproaches and regulate all particulars though left indefinite as well as this generall Rule for our Christian conversation Phil. 1. 27. Let your conversation be as becommeth the Gospel of Christ and this other for our speech Eph. 4. 29. Let no corrupt communication come out of your moâ—… but that which is good to the use of edifying You may as well charge Christ with unfaithfulnesse for not prescribing to us a generall Liturgy or every particular action we should doe every word we should speak or Ministers preach upon any occasion as for not prescribing a particular forme of church-government His third Argument that Rev. 11. 1 2. we read of a †measuring of the Temple and Rev. 21. 1 2. of the new Jerusalem comming downe from God out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband Ergo there is a setled divine church-government universally prescribed to all Christians in the new Testament is no better a proofe of this assertion then the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is of our Prelats Lordly hierarchy jure divino He might as well yea more properly have
they establish be not directly against Gods Word nor pernicious to our soules though not altogether such as we could wish yet we ought contentedly to submit unto it without opposition If contrary to the Word we must then 〈◊〉 submit thereto for the present and expect a redresse in Gods due time But if it be such a Government and Discipline under which we may freely enjoy the sincere and powerfull preaching of the Word the due administration of the Sacraments and all other Ordinances of God necessary for our salvation and edification as we may doubtlesse do under a Presbytery and that government our pious Parliament intends to settle we ought cordially and cheerfully to submit thereto yea thankfully to embrace and blesse God for it and can neither waiwardly oppugne nor refuse submission to it without arrogancy contumacy and apparent schisme As for his question concerning my owne and follow-brethrens sufferings which we deeme our Honour not our Shame I answer that none of us suffered for opposing writing or speaking against the Bishops legall authority or any ceremonies established in our Church by Act of Parliament but onely against their pretended divine right to their Episcopall Lordly power diametrally contrary to Scripture Fathers Councels the best Protestant and Popish Authors the * Statutes of our Realm and against their Innovations in doctrine discipline ceremonies canons c. contrary to the Lawes of the land Articles and Homilies of our Church as the Parliament hath resolved them as all our Books demonstrate and Dr Bastwicke in direct termes in the Preface of his Flagellum And therefore it could be neither pride arrogance nor schisme but meer conscience and duty in us to oppose them in these their usurpations and innovations only contrary to the Laws of God and the Realme If he and his would containe themselves within these our bounds our Church should enjoy more peace their persons more honour then now they are likely to gaine by opposing prejudicating both the Parliaments and Synods proceedings though never so pious consciencious religious 3. His pretended contradiction of the third Quere to the first is formerly answered I shall onely adde that things may be consonant to the * generall Rules of Gods Word though not precisely prescribed in it All Independent Ladies Gentlewomen and you I hope will grant that their different fashions habits colours attires are all agreeable to Gods Word if modest and warranted by this generall precept 1 Tim. 2. 9. Let women adorn themselves in modest apparel though not particularized in the Text So may a church-government or Dresse be consonant to Scripture though not precisely delineated or enjoyned by it 4. To the fourth he gives no answer at all but bids me prove it which I have done already in my Independency examined till it be disproved 5. To the fifth he grants that Independency will overthrow all Nationall Churches and Synods and the two Independent Brethren assure us in their Reply to A. S p. 111 that in time it cannot but overthrow all other sorts of Ecclesiasticall governments Is it not then a turbulent dangerous schismaticall unquiet that I say not insufferable Government by your owne confessions which will admit no equall nor corrivall nor yet any Nationall Church Synod Parliament Prince or temporall Magistrate to exercise any Ecclesiasticall Legislative or Magisteriall authority over any of their Conventicles members persons liberties estates much lesse over their consciences as they are Christians Will any Parliament State or Nation think you suffer such a Government to take root among them which will un-King un-Parliament un-church un-Nation them altogether and make each severall congregation an absolute Monarchy Church Republick Nation within it selfe depending on subordinate wholly to it selfe as if it and they were no part or members of the publike The Lord preserve us from such a dividing and overturning Government As for his invectives against the Formality Tyranny and enslaving of mens judgments in the Presbyteriall way as inconsistent with spirituall liberty and State priviledges they are meere groundlesse calumnies to draw an odium on it some of your male-contented party professing they would rather set up Lordly Episcopacy which they have abjured then it whereas these aspersions suit better with your independent modell which is more rigid uncharitable unsociable Papall tyrannicall Anti-monarchicall Anti-synodicall yea Anti-parliamentall as I have elsewhere manifested then any other church-government whatsoever For my pretended bitter expressions they are so suitable to the effects and reall consequences of this New way as you stile it that I could not expresse my self in other language without injury to the truth and if any of my best Friends who stood by me in my sufferings deem themselves injured or reproached by them as you pretend though none of them have yet complained to me it is I hope onely scandalum acceptum non datum and I presume my Friends are so ingenuous as not to be offended with me for * reproving only their errors with ingenuous freedom in which I manifest my self their greatest Friend because I neither spare nor flatter them in their mistakes However though I really honour all my Christian Friends as well Independent as Presbyteriall whom you most scandalously traduce as Episcopall and time-servers heretofore yet I preferre the * truth of God the peace and safety of my Native bleeding dying Church and Countrey now much endangered by our unhappy divisions before all Friends or earthly comforts whatsoever As for your pretended unsubjection of Presbyterian Synods and Churches to the Parliament in setling Ecclesiasticall matters I neither know nor plead for any such and our present Assembly being both appointed directed by and submitting all their determinations wholly to the Parliament as they are obliged both by Orders Protestation Covenant and professe they ought to doe armes me sufficiently against any such improbable untrue surmise 6. To the sixth Quere he returnes no answer but plainly yeelds that there was never any Independent Church in any age or Nation whatsoever totally converted to the christian faith till this present nor any one Author that maintained it till Mr Ainsworth a Separarist from whom the Apologists professe their dissent in some things As for any reverend godly persons who now contend for this new Modell whose piety eminecy make their errors not lesse false but farre more dangerous infectious though I reverence their persons yea judgments too in other things yet I cannot subscrib to them in this new dangerous Bypath wch is not yet so beaten as to deserve the name of Christs Road-way For the new supposed light discovered in these dayes touching church-government if you meane it onely of your Independency which you borrowed from the Brownists or Low-countrey Anabaptists the first inventors of this Government I doubt when brought out to the light and examined by the word of light it will for the most part prove but twilight * if not darknesse If
themselves upon all occasions when brought before them without demurring to their jurisdictions Therfore Christian Princes Magistrates who were long since predicted to become nursing Fathers to the Church under the Gospel have much more power and jurisdiction in Church-government and affairs within their own Dominions 3 For that it appears to be away that will breed infinite confusions disorders by confounding v the bounds of parishes renting Congregations families and most relations assunder giving way to every sect to chuse Ministers erect Churches of their own without controle in point of position though their practise be quite contrary where they have power they admitting no other kind of government but Independency in New-England and excommunicating or banishing those who will not submit unto it a government inconsistent with Royalty and the civill government and so none of Christs who never erected any Church-gouernment to clash with or controle the civill 4 Whereas he pretends that x persons of one family or parish may be members of severall Churches without any inconvenience schisme or distraction as well as members of severall companies and trades and therefore Independency is no occasion of divisions I answer 1. That y two cannot walke peaceably and lovingly together unlesse they are agreed especially in matters of Religion and those who in point of conscience cannot communicate or agree together in one Church will never questionlesse accord well together in one family bed parish kingdom as experience manifests 2. There is a great difference between severall trades and Halls in one City parish kingdome and severall formes of Church-government in these particulars which occasion unity in the one but schismes in the others 1. All trades societies hold one another lawfull usefull necessary agreeable to the lawes of God and the Realme without dispute so they breed no contrariety of opinions or disaffection but each different Church deems the other unlawful in no way of Christ so as they cannot with safe conscience joyn or communicate together and therupon they sever one from another 2. Every several trade and society even in their very trade is subject to the general Government Laws of the City Realm wherin they are to which they appeale and have recourse upon all occasions of difference none craving an exemption or Independency from the whole Corporation Parliament or supream Magistrate in matters which concern their government but deriving their Corporations Charters Laws and priviledges from them which subordination keeps them all in peace and unity But Independent Churches deny any subordination subjection to the Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Edicts of Parlements of temporall Magistrates or Synods and will be regulated obliged onely by their own peculiar Edicts which must needs occasion infinite Schismes and disorders therefore the cases are far different from one the other Thirdly Christians as Christians are all of one and the self-same society and profession as those of one Trade or Calling are therefore they should have all but one common Church and government as these Trades have To set then the comparison upright we must state it thus If some of one Fraternity in London suppose the Merchant-taylers Sadlers Mercers or the like should fall out among themselves and one would have one forme of government another another and thereupon divide themselves into severall conventicles and petty meetings in corners not at their common hall and one chuse one Government Master or Warden another another and so sever the company and continue independent this no doubt would prove an apparent schisme and seminary of infinite divisions to the distraction destruction of the whole Company and Fraternity This is the true state of your Independency yea Mr Goodwins present case in his own Parish miserably divided disordered by his Independent way which hath induced him to refuse to administer the Lords Supper yea Baptisme to some children of Parishioners for a yeares space or more though they offer to be examined by him esteeming them none of his Flocke preaching but seldome to them though he receive their tithes and instead thereof to gather an Independent congregation to himselfe out of divers Parishes and his owne to whom hee prescribes a Covenant ere they be admitted members of it preaching praying administring the Sacrament to them alone in private conventicles neglecting his Parishioners which hath engendred such discontents and rents in his Parish even among the well-affected and truely religious that he must either desert it or his Independent way What schismes and discords this New way hath raised in other Parishes is so well knowne to the World that I need no other evidence to prove it a schismaticall By-path and so no way of Christ the * Prince of peace who prescribes nought else but precepts of peace and unity to his Churches and is most offended with their schismes Finallie I cannot thinke this way a way of Christ because I finde it a Pioner and underminer of Parliamentary authority devesting Parliaments of all manner of jurisdiction in matters of Religion and church-government witnesse the passage of the Two independent Brethren recited in my Independency examined p. 3. which certainly weares a Maske as yet since she never appeared bare-faced to the world not one of her Patrons hitherto presenting us with her in her native colours or lineaments whose guilt this Author by his explanation to make it good rather aggravates then extenuates He writes That the Brethren in the mentioned period and expressions reflected onely upon the generalitie of the Land who according to the Lawes yea according to the principles of all reason and equitie have the right of nominating persons unto Parliamentarie trust and power but HAVE NO AVTHORITY OR POWER FROM CHRIST â—…O NOMINATE OR APPOINT WHO SHALL BE THE MEN THAT SHALL ORDER THE AFFAIRES OF CHRISTS KINGDOME OR INSTITVTE THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHVRCHES These are that secular root out of which the Brethren conceive AN IMPOSSIBILITY that a spirituall extraction should be made that is THAT A LEGITIMATE ECCLESIASTICK POWER SHOVLD ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF CHRIST OR ANY PRECEPT OR PRESIDENT OF SCRIPTVRE BEE BY THEM CONFERRED VPON ANY MAN And this IMPOSSIBILITY conceived by them they onelie illustrate and declare by that parallel expression in Job Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane c. But to hold that the persons so elected as hath been said have a power by vertue of such nomination or election to enact Lawes and Statutes in matters of Religion and to order under mulcts and penalties how men shall worship and serve God as it is a meanes to awaken the eye of jealousie upon them and so is seven times more destructive unto and undermining not onlie of their power but of their honour peace and safetie also then any thing that is found in the way so ill intreated so it is a setling of a power upon the electors of such persons I meane the promiscuous
20. c. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 2. Heb. 5. 12 13 14. 1 Ioh. 2. 11. to 15. Ephes. 4. 15. 16 †1 Tim. 3 6. †Ezek. 16. 13. * Rom. 13. 1 to 7. 1 Tim 2 1 2 3. Tit 3. 1 1 Pet. 1. 2. to 24 c. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 1 to 18. Eph. 5. 22 23. c. 6. 1. to 10. Col. 3. 18 to 25. †See my Catalogue c. The unbishoping of Timothy and Titus A Breviate and Antipathy of the English Lordly Prelacy †See my humble Remonstrance against Ship-money * In his Sermon on Feb. 25 * Deut. 12. 8. Judges 〈◊〉 6. r. 21. 25. †Yea never more dangerous errours refâ—…ted suppressed then in the 4. first general Councels and some Synods since as that of Dort and other Protestant Synods See the Harmony of confessionâ—…s Where therefore they determine rightly you must submit unto them where they confirm apparent dangerous errours there you may vary from them when proved such * These are the true grounds of all sâ—…rations Esa 65. 5. Luk. 18. 10 to 16. lude 18. 19. witnesses the Novatians Dunatists of old The severall orders of Monks Nuns Eremâ—…s Anchorites in the Church of Rome and their new order of Jesuits each of them preâ—…nding more sanctity and strictnesse then another and so severing in their different orders habits Monâ—… rules covenants one from another †Mr Goodwins Theomachia p 24 25. The Reply of two of the Brethren pasâ—… * Epistle to the Reader p g. 11. 33. 44. to 52. b Page 18. 22. 52. and else Gamaliell Himselfe no Apostle nor Christian from whose words you yet take your text is Gospell was not altogether of this opinion 1. * Sec Epiphanius Basil Augustine and all the Bookes of or against any Hereticks and Sectaries * Matth. 4 6. * Mat. 24. 11. 23. to 27. c. 7. 15. 2 Cor. 11 13 14 15. Ephes. 4. 14. 2 Thes. 2. 9. 10 Rev. 13. 2. to â—…8 2 Ioh. 10. 〈◊〉 f Gal. 2. 4. to 18 * Rom. 19. 15 16 26. h See Iustinian Cod. l. 〈◊〉 Tit. 8. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 35. Eliz. c. 1. 2. 2 i Page 21. k See the London Ministers Petition against it 1 l See 1 Cor. 11. 16. c 10. 32. 33. m See p. 30. to 52. 2 n p. 3 4. 11. 12. p Ezra I. 1. to the end c. 4 17. to 24. c. 6. 2. to 17. c. 7. 12. to 28. Neh 2. 1. to 27. 2 Chron. 36. 22 23. Isay 44. 28. Dan. 3. 29. c. 6. 25 26 27. Ionah 3. 5 6 7. r Acts 24 5. 26 27 28. 2 Tim. 4. 10. 17. s 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 3. Rom. 13. 1. to 7. Tit 3. 1 t Matt. 10. 17 18. 21. c. 26 27. Amos 13. 9. c. 15. Acts 4. 1. to 24. c. 5. 17. to 4. c. 6. 12 13. c. 9. 1 2. 3. c. 11. 2 3 4. c. 16. 10. to 40. c. 18. 12. q Tim. 2. 1 Ier. 29. 7. v Page 38. 10 40. x Pag. 30. 31 y Amos 3. 3. * Esa. 9. 6. See my twelve Questions p. 7 8. Pag. 48 49 50. This he more fully expressed in a Sermon in February last Note Gamaliell your Text never taught you any such Anti-Parliamentary Doctrine Note * The people having power to elect Princes Magistrates Ministers Parliaments Synods have likewise authority â—…o nominate such who by the rule of Gods Word may limit these particulars though not by their owne bare authority without or against the Word †Every Magistrate Parliament and Synod have power to declare and en joâ—…n what is necessary to be beleeved practised by or according to Gods Word not without or contrary to it a See my Appendix to the soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes p. 122. to 131. Twelve considerable Queries p. 4 5. Independency examined p. 2 11 12. b Page 25 26. c Num. 22. 35 c. 23 24. 1 Sam. 10. Act. 5. 34. to 40. Joh. 11. 49 to 53. d Ioh. 6. 70 71 Mar. 6. 7. to 14. e Matth. 5. 1. c. 13. 1 2. c. 8. 18. c. 9. 36. c. 14 14 19 c. 11. 32 33. c. 21 8 9 10. Luk. 6. 17 19. c. 8. 44 45. Joh. 6. 2 5. Mar. 12. 12 37. Luk. 13 17. c. 18. 43. c. 21. 38. c. 22. 1. Joh. 7 40. 43. c. c. 8. 2. Act. 2. 47. * This he confessed and it appeared by a writing before the Committee of plundered Ministers * Or as well ashimselfe extracts many spirituall Doctrines out of Gamaliels secular speech in these very sermons * Therefore your principall Argument that the seven particular Churches in Asia had no Iurisdiction one over another being under different civil Dominions and not members of the selfe-same Christian Republike â—…rgo the whol Parliament and Church of England have no Iurisdiction over particular parish Churches or Independent Congregations in England is a meere Independency