Innocency and Truth Triumphing together OR The latter part of an ANSWER to the back-part of a DISCOURSE lately published By William Prynne Esquire called A FULL REPLY c. Beginning at the foot of p. 17. of the said Discourse with this title or superscription Certain brief Animadversions on Mr. JOHN GOODWINS Theomachia Wherein the Argumentative part of the said Animadversions is examined Together with some few Animadversions upon some former Passages in the said REPLY Qui innocentiae debitum servat poenitentiae non solvit usuram Chrysost Nolo mihi imperet ille vel ille qui me opprimere potest docere non potest Hieronymus Non est delicata in Deum secura confessio qui in me credit debet sanguinem suum sundere ibidem Ignosci potuit simpliciter errantibus post inspirationem verò revelationem factam sine ignorantiae veniâ peccatur Cypr. Ep. Pios hoc nomen titulum in mundo oportet gerere quòd seditiosi ac schismatici ac infinitorum malorum authores sunt Lutherus Gal. c. 5. Not that wee have dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy 2 Cor. 1. 24. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if any of yee be otherwise minded God shall reveale even the same unto you Phil. 3. 15. Licensed and Printed according to Order LONDON Printed by Matthew Simmons for Henry Overton at his Shop in Popes-head-Alley 1645. To the unpartiall and unprejudic'd READER AM I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth saith the first-born and yet the last born also of the Apostles to his Galathians The interrogation is a constructive assertion of two things First that to speak the truth in some cases is very opportune to sinister interpretation and apt to represent the speaker as a man of no benevolous or friendly comportance with those to whom he so speaketh The reason whereof seems to be this Errors and misprisions are many times very indulgent and bountifull to the flesh and he that incounters men under such injoyments with the truth seems to them rather to strike at these injoyments then at the error or opinion by whose consent they have first taken and still keep possession of them Themselves esteeming the opinion of small value as well it deserves save onely in reference to those carnall gratifications are very apt to conceive that neither doe others so much minde that or take offence at that as at those priviledges or accommodations which they injoy by it and this they judge to be a straine of an hostile inclination Secondly The prementioned Interrogation supposeth that no manifestation or speaking of what truth soever unto men simply as such is any argument at all of want of affection and that in the highest unto them The reason is because there is no Truth which being imbraced and honoured with sutable practise but will give farre better wages and consideration to her servants in due time then any error whatsoever Yea the truth is that the greater breach or spoyle a Truth makes in any mans worldly possessions or enjoyments it is of so much the richer and the more advantagious concernment unto him and will honour him the more abundantly It is the manner and guise of divine truth to pull downe houses built with firres and brick and to build them up againe with cedars and hewne stones He that deals much either in the discoverie or recovery rather or inforcement of such truths which are opposed in the world not onely by errors and contrary misprisons but by secular accommodations also as of honour power riches pleasures or the like takes a very direct course to make himself conformable to the image of his Saviour who being so great a Benefactor to the world was yet numbred amongst Transgressors To attempt the casting downe of such imagination which do not onely exalt themselves in the minds of men but contribute also to the exaltation of men themselves in the world be they never so extravagant or eccentricall to the truth is an undertaking of almost as doubtfull a presage as they that speak Proverbs are wont to represent by the taking a Lion by the beard or an Elephant by the tooth And did not the God of Truth umpire and that with an high hand amongst the thoughts and counsells of the sons of men and put many a by ingredient into his providence of soveraign reliefe to those whose hearts are set and hands lift up to magnifie such Truths which being advanced are like to doe justice in the world and to reduce all usurpations and unrighteous detainments amongst men the Earth would not be able to beare the words of such men and the world soone become too hot a climate for Truths of such a complexion It is a matter of somewhat a sad contemplation and yet in part delightfull also viz. as those Oracles of Heaven the Scriptures are mightily asserted and vindicated like themselves thereby to see what commotions tumults and combustions are presently raised in the minds and spirits of men upon the birth or resurrection rather of any Truth into the world concerning which there is the least jealousie that in case it should reigne it would rack them from off the lees of their old customes or compell them to a restitution of what they have unjustly taken and peaceably injoyed for a long time or any wayes expose them to any outward sufferings or disaccommodations in the world to see what hurryings up and downe what ingaging of parties what inquiring after parts and abilities what rembling over Authors old and new what incensing of Authoritie what streynings of wits and consciences what slighting of solid arguments what evading substantiall and cleare interpretations of Scripture what magnifying of those that are streined and farre fetch'd in their stead what casting abroad of calumnies and reproaches what incrustations and misrepresentations of opinions sayings practises actions what shiftings what blendings what colourings what pretendings what disgracings yea what conventings what persecutions what evill intreatings of men what appealings to fire sword prisons banishment confiscations and all to turn a beam of light and glorie into darknes shame to keep a new-born Truth from ruling over them As soone as Herod the King heard that Christ was borne and that wise men were come from the East to worship him inquiring after him as a King the Text saith that he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him and how unnaturall and bloudy a design was there presently put in execution to prevent the reigning of him that was but now borne into the world That one who yet was their lawfull King might not reigne over them many poore infants innocents altogether in this were not suffered to live amongst them This Scene also was acted in Germany when God first made Luther as life from the dead vnto the Doctrine of free justification and remission of sins a Doctrine not so
consequent of a Doctrine as this is foundation large enough to build a confident determination upon that it is heterodox and intolerable And for the body of this Reason wherein he informes us at large and that with truth enough that Satan and his ministers also tranforme themselves into Angels of light that false Teachers usually come to seduce men in sheeps cloathing that there is no Heretique Schismatique or Sectary whatsoever though never so pernicious grosse and detestable but pretends his way Doctrine practise to be the way and truth of Christ with many other good sayings to like effect I cannot but marvaile what a reasonable man should imagine to be in all this to make him question the truth of this Doctrine that for any man to attempt the suppression of any Doctrine practise or way which is from God is to fight against God Because false Teachers pretend their Doctrine to be from God doth it therefore follow that the suppressing of such a Doctrine which is from God should not be a fighting against God It is somewhat an hard case that a man should be arrested of a presumptuous undermining the undoubted priviledges of Parliament by the very roots at the suite of such a consequence as this Whereas upon the former assertions he enters his action in such an Interrogatory as this Must we therefore not speedily oppose resist avoyd suppresse them now because they thus pretend they are of and from God but stay till God hath renounced them c. I joyne issue with him and say that there is little lesse then a meere Contradiction in the forme of his Plea Those Doctrines practises opinions which in the former part of his Plea he had censured and condemned for Heresies Errors Schismes Sects c. in this latter part of it he supposeth that God hath not yet disclaimed or renounced from Heaven and that we see not their condemnation yet written with the beame of the Sun Else why should he represent it as so unreasonable and hainous a thing that we should stay the opposing and suppressing of them till such things were done Surely Mr. Prynne cannot be so hardy as to condemne any Doctrine or practise for Hereticall or errneous untill God hath some wayes or other disclaimed or renounced them from Heaven for such It is he not Mr. Prynne that must not onely determine what is Heresie Error and Schisme but also signifie his determinations in this kinde before it comes to Mr. Prynnes turne or any mans beside to give any such sentence against them at the barre of their Judgements A second Reason which created that jealousie in him we spake of against the forenamed Doctrine is the contrarietie of it to forty and one expresse precepts and presidents if my Arithmetique failes me not in the computation in the old and new Testament one whereof viz. Jer. 4. 30 31. he avoucheth for pregnant but the rest it seems must be compared together or else the contrarietie in them to the Doctrine which he opposeth will not utter it self And it is well that he can be content to afford us leasure for the perusall of these Scripture precepts and presidents though he would afford us none to peruse or consider of Doctrines or practises as we heard before But 1. I must professe the second time that I can little lesse then wonder that the Gentleman should onely question or suspect the Orthodoxnesse of a Doctrine and not positively and peremptorily conclude it Heterodox which carrieth a contrarietie in it to forty-one expresse precepts and presidents of Scripture A man would think by such a streine of tendernesse and indulgence as this that he were a very faire and favourable interpreter of mens opinions and wayes and would never exact or stand upon Summam jus which the Proverb interprets to be Summam injuriam with any man 2. If all the precepts and presidents here drawne together from the Scriptures be expresse why is that one Jer. 4. 30 31. separated from all its fellows by this parenthesâ—s of preferment a pregnant place as if all the rest were barren and empty of that conception which is indifferently fathered or mothered rather upon them all and one other of them viz. Gal. 2. 4. to 18. singularized with this parenthesis a noted place If no contrarietie to the suspected Doctrine be found either in the pregnant place or in the noted place I trust all the rest of the places will give place and confesse themselves strangers thereunto First for the pregnant place Jer. 4. 30 31. doubtlesse there is not so much as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an embryo of such a contrarietie to be found there The tenor of the place is this And when thou art spoyled what wilt thou doe Though thou cloathest thy self with crimson though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold though thou rentest thy face with paynting in vaine shalt thou make thy self faire thy lovers will despise thee they will seek thy life ver 30. For I have heard a voyce as of a woman in travaile and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child the voyce of the daughter of Zion that bewaileth her self that spreadeth her hands saying Woe is me now for my soule is wearied because of murtherers ver 31. I am not able to discerne the least swelling or bearing-out of the womb of either of these verses with any contrarietie in the least to the import of the Doctrine now under protection To attempt the suppression of any Doctrine or Way which is from God may be a fighting against God and yet God say to the daughter of his people And when thou art spoyled what wilt thou doe together with all that which followeth in the two transcribed verses I beleeve the noted place is every whit as voyde of that contrarietie we speak of as we found the pregnant place to be Mr. Prynne himself partly transcribes partly argues this place beautifying the words or clause wherein he chiefly puts his trust with emphaticall letters thus Paul would not give way to false Apostles NO NOT FOR AN HOURE that the truth of the Gospel might continue among the Galatians and resisted Peter to his face as soone as ever he walked disorderly he should have spake more truth if he had said as soone as ever he understood or knew that he so walked and gave the least countenance to false Teachers c. Fortassè cupressum Scis simulare quid hoc si fractis enatet expes Navibus aere dato qui pingitur Mr. Prynne doth very substantially prove by this passage and that which followes that errour in Doctrines and miscarriages in persons are to be resisted and withstood by wayes and means warrantable by the Word of God as soone as ever they are certainly discerned or known to be such but here is not the least semblance of an Argument to prove either that the one or the other ought to be resisted or suppressed
adding after a parenthesis of much untruth there being many that have represented the way he speaks of in her native colours and lineaments that I rather aggravate then extenuate the guiltie of the said passage by my explanation which he there recites I answer 1. That for matter of guilt the passage referred unto standeth as yet cleare innocent and untouch'd as concerning any thing in way of demerit that hath been prov'd against it 2. As concerning the explanation that also keeps its standing and that upon holy ground notwithstanding all that Mr. Prynne hath done or attempted to doe for the removall of it manet illa suóque est robore tuta Yea the truth is that in all his contra-remonstrance he hath not so much as once touch'd or mentioned that which is the maine base or foundation of the principall conclusion managed in the said explanation and principally opposed by him The conclusion is not that which Mr. Prynne extracts from the passage which he cites viz. that there is not onely an improbabilitie but an absolute impossibilitie that the Parliament should have any power at all to enact Lawes and Statutes in matters of Religion Church-Government c. Here are words which the explanation knows not either in the letter or in the spirit of them as by name these not onely an improbabilitie an absolute impossibilitie no power at all c. but the maine conclusion driven at in the passage is this That the generalitie or promiscuous multitude of the Land have no authoritie or power from Christ to nominate or appoint who shall be the men that shall order the affaires of Christs Kingdome or institute the Government of his Churches The maine foundation or base of reason upon which this pillar of Truth stands in the said passage is this Because such an Authoritie or power viz. to nominate or appoint who shall order the affaires of Christs Kingdome or institute the Government of his Churches is greater then ever Christ himself had I meane as man or Mediator at least then ever he exercised which in the sequell I explaine and prove Now then this is that which I say that Mr. Prynne in all his long reasoning against the Conclusion doth not so much as with the least of his fingers once touch this ground or answer any thing at all to it So that he hath not as yet the least colour or pretence to blame me if I be not proselyted to his opinion by what he hath written here And because I desire faire and Christian quarter with him for the future I doe here promise and protest in the sight of God Angels and men that if Mr. Prynne shall at any time God preserving my life and understanding plainly and substantially demonstrate and prove either that the generalitie and promiscuous multitude of the Land have a power greater then ever the Lord Christ himself had or exercised as man or Mediator or that a power to nominate and appoint whom they please amongst men to order the affaires of Christs Kingdome and institute the Government of his Churches is not a power greater then ever Christ had or at least exercised as either man or Mediator I promise and protest againe as before that if Mr. Prynne or any other shall at any time clearly and fairly prove either the one or the other of these propositions I will pull downe with both mine hands what I have built up but with one and without any more adoe joyn judgement with Mr. Prynne touching the power of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion but till this be done I neither see how Mr. Prynne can with a good conscience persist in his nor require me to desist from mine It is true the Lord Christ as Mediator had all power given him both in Heaven and on Earth Mat. 28. 18. That is had the whole and intire execution and transaction of all his Fathers will pleasure and decrees concerning all men Angels creatures whatsoever put into his hand power And hath given him Authoritie TO EXECUTE judgement also because he is the son of man Joh. 5. 27. But he had no power or Authoritie given him to carry any thing contrary to his Fathers will or pleasure Verily verily I say unto you saith he himself Joh. 5. 19. the Son can doe nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father doe c. So againe ver 30. I can doe nothing of my self Now then as Christ had no commission or power to give eternall life but onely to those whom God the Father had given unto him Joh. 17. 2. Joh. 6. 37. So neither had he any Authoritative power to institute or appoint any other government for his Churches then that which he had seene with or received from his Father much lesse had he any such power to delegate unto men least of all unto unsanctified persons and rude multitudes a power of nominating whom they should please to appoint and settle what government they pleas'd in the Churches of God Certain I am that Christ never exercised any such power as this and therefore have little hope of being convinc'd that he ever had it Howsoever let us give the Gentleman an unpartial hearing in what he pleads against the aforesaid Conclusion 1. To his former marginall Annotation p. 22. honoured with a Preface made of this word Note wherein he tells me that Gamaliel and my Text never taught me any such Anti-Parliamentary Doctrine I answer that neither doth Gamaliel nor my Text nor any other Text whatsoever in Scripture teach Mr. Prynne to call the truth an Anti-Parliament try Doctrine But both Gamaliel and my Text teach me to take heed of fighting against God and I being taught so high and necessary a point of wisdome conceiv'd it my dutie not to eat such a morsell alone but to spread a Table for as many of my Brethren as pleas'd to come and sit downe and eat of the same with me I and my Doctrine are onely in such a sense Anti-Parliamentarian as Christ and his were Anti-Cesarean 2. To a second Marginall note in the same page ordered likewise to be noted as the former I answer likewise that though people have authoritie to nominate such who by the rule of Gods Word may limit some particulars though not by their own bare Authoritie without or against the Word yet it followeth not either 1. That they have authoritie to nominate such who shall have authoritie by vertue of such nomination to peremptorize by fire or sword all their limitations whatsoever as agreeable to Gods Word Nor 2. Doth it follow that in case their limitations should be agreeable to the word of God therefore they have power to compell any man by externall violence to subject either in their judgement or practise unto them especially whilst they are not able to convince them of any such excellency in these limitations as an agreeablenesse to the word of God It is no waies agreeable
to the word of God that men should be punish'd either in their bodies or estates for not siding with the truth in difficult and hard Questions as all such may well be presum'd to be wherein sober and conscientious persons cannot be satisfied The word of God doth not permit two persons or parties of a dissenting judgement about an hard case or question to judge or think hardly one of another much lesse doth it permit them to punish or lay violent hands one upon another Nor 3. And lastly doth it follow that though Princes Magistrates Ministers Parliaments Synods should be nominated or elected by the lawfull power of the people and withall should have Authoritie by the word of God to limit any particulars thereof that therefore this Authoritie should be deriv'd upon them by means of such nomination Every private man hath sufficient Authoritie though perhaps he may want abilitie of gifts to limit any particular in the word of God according to the word of God this being nothing else but a true and right apprehending or understanding of this word Which apprehension or understanding of his though he hath no power by way of office to impart unto others yet hath he a right yea and an obligation upon him by way of dutie so to impart it when God affords season and opportunitie time and place for it So that this marginall note is not accessory to any harme done to the said Conclusion 3. To a third marginall note subservient in the same page to the two former I answer 1. That though it should be granted that every Magistrate Parliament and Synod have power to declare and injoyn what is necessarie to be beleeved practised by or according to Gods Word yet this is nothing more then what every Pastor or Minister over a congregation hath power to do yea and ought to do from day to day in the course of his ministery But 2. If by declaring and enjoyning he means any such declaring and enjoyning whereby Magistrate Parliament or Synod shall be enabled temporally to punish those who shall either not beleeve or not practise I answer that this is but petitio Principii a supposall of that which is the main Question and therefore waits still upon Mr. Prynne's pen for a more sufficient proof the old writ of Ipse dixit being out of date long since We have reconciled the margent and nothing doubt but that the page will be of as easie accommodation Therefore 4. Whereas he puts himself to the needlesse labour of repeating the charge formerly charged upon my Doctrine a an underminer of the Authority of Parliaments c. I shall take admonition by it and save a needlesse labour of repeating what hath been already said in way of answer to it Onely I shall adde that this Repetition of Mr. Prinnes judgement and charge of my fore-mentioned Doctrine compared with my own thoughts and apprehensions of it puts me in mind of a saying of a great Casuist Eadem possunt alicui videri manifestè vera quae alteri videntur manifestè falsa The same things may seem to one manifestly true which to another seem as manifestly false That Doctrine which Mr. Prynne arraigns as an underminer of Parliamentary Authority I conceive to be a Doctrine of the richest establishment and confirmation to it of which apprehension of mine I have given a sufficient account elsewhere 5. Whereas he further chargeth the said Doctrine with contrarietie to my late Covenant and Protestation and that in the most transcendent manner that ever any have hitherto attempted in print and refers himself to all wise men to judge whether this be not so I referre both himself and all his wise men to judge whether I have not given a sufficient answer hereunto in my Innocencies Triumph p. 4 5 6 c. yet lest sentence should be given against me herein I here adde that certainly no clause in that Covenant and Protestation intended that the Subscribers unto it should be bound in conscience by vertue of such subscription to make Gods of men or which interpreted amounts to as much to give any man Dominion over his Faith If this be but granted my Doctrine is no Delinquent at all against the Covenant and Protestation 6. Whereas he promises or threatens which he pleaseth short answer to my extravagant discourse and first alledgeth that the objection might be made against the generall Assemblies Parliaments Kings of the Israelites who were chosen by the people yet they made Laws and Statutes concerning Religion and Gods worship with his approbation I answer 1. That the Generall Assemblies and Kings of Israel were not chosen by the people at least by any formall free choice of one out of many as our Parliaments and Assemblies are For first the Generall Assemblies consisted of the generalitie of the people and so were not chosen at all for where all are admitted there is no choice Or secondly if by the Generall Assemblies of Israel he means the seventy persons spoken of Numb 11. 16. 24. c. it is evident from the context first that they were not chosen by the people into that Assembly but by Moses and that by expresse order and command from God They might possibly be chosen by the people into the places of Elders and Governours over their respective Families and Tribes but they had no right or calling by vertue of such eldership to gather themselves into an Assembly of seventy upon any such terms or for any such ends as the fore-mentioned Assembly were drawn together by God Secondly evident like-wise it is from ver 25. that these seventy had a speciall anointing of the Holy Ghost from God and prophecied Therefore there is a great difference between this Assembly and generall Assemblies now 2. Neither were the Kings of Israel chosen by the people but by God except we will call a subsequent consent and that by way of duty and homage to the choice made by God a choice When thou shalt come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee and shalt possesse it and dwell therein if thou say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations that are about me Then shalt thou make him King over thee whom the LORD THY GOD SHALL CHVSE c. Deut. 17. 14 15. Saul their first King was chosen and appointed by God 1 Sam. 9. 15 16. So David their second King 1 Sam. 16. 1. yea his seed likewise was chosen and appointed by God to succeed in this Kingdom and to reign after him for ever 2 Sam. 7. 12. 16. yea and notwithstanding this generall choice and designation Solomon their King is particularly said to have been chosen by God 1 Chron. 29. 1. So for the Kings that reigned over the ten Tribes after the rent of the ten Tribes from the other two Jeroboam the first King was chosen by God 1 King 11. 31. yea and his seed also conditionally ver 38.
detriment in his occasions then it is for men to know how to chuse men tolerably qualified for Parliamentary imployment especially if one part of this imployment consists in making Lawes Statutes in matters of Religion worship c. agreeable to the word of God The reason of the difference is plaine Recourse is made to Lawyers and so to Physicians Architects respectively onely for one kind of help or imployment and that such which is proper to their profession and wherein their abilitie and sufficiencie is or very possibly may be sufficiently knowne But Parliamentarie service or imployment consisting according to Mr. Prynnes notion as well in making Church-lawes in matters of Religion worship agreeable to the word of God as in framing Laws politique to accommodate the civill affaires of the Common-wealth which are imployments of a very differing nature hardly incident unto and very rarely found in one and the same person it must needs be conceived to be a matter of very great difficultie and requiring a very choyce and excellent spirit of discerning to make a commendable yea or a competent choice of men for that investiture and trust Yea himself 〈◊〉 acknowledgeth little lesse then an utter inconsistencie of respective abilities in one and the same person for these so different imployments For here he requires both Politicians and Statesmen os fit to be consulted with a suit a Church-Government to the Civill State and likewise an Assembly of Divines to square it by and to the word But in as much as whatsoever an Assembly of Divines shall determine in or about Churh-Government or other matters of Religion cannot passe into an Act Law or Statute but by the superveening of Parliamentarie interest upon their determinations and there beeing every whit as great if not farre greater abilities in Divinitie and knowledge of the Scriptures requisite to enable men rightly to discerne and judge whether a Church-Government or other Decision in matter of Religion be agreeable to the word of God as there are to discourse and make out that in either kind which is agreeable thereunto yea and further it being no waies either Christian or reasonable that a Parliament should passe that into an Act Law or Statute as agreeable to the word of God and obliege an whole Kingdome under mulcts and penalties to submit unto it accordingly which themselves are not able to discerne whether it be indeed agreeable unto the word of God or no these three things I say duly considered evident it is that it is a matter almost of infinite difficultie and therefore not so obvious to unsanctified persons and rude multitudes as Mr. Prynnes would carrie it to discerne or make choice of persons of a due temper and composition for Parliamentarie operations Mr. Prynnes supposition being admitted viz. that making Lawes in matters of Religion as well as in civill affaires is a part of these operations To set then his comparison upright wee must state it thus Suppose Mr. Prynne were of none of the three Professions he speaks of neither Lawyer nor Physician nor Architect but stood in need of the help of them all having 1. a suite at Law of very great concernment to him 2. a dangerous distemper or disease upon his body 3. an house to build for his necessary accommodation and in this posture of necessities were necessitated or limited to make choyce of three men but all of one and the same profession either all Lawyers or all Physicians or all Architects to minister unto him in all his respective concernments and necessities I beleeve that under such a constellation of circumstances and occasions as these though he be a man of farre greater judgement and reason then the generalitie of men are yet he would not find it so easie a matter to satisfie himself in the choyce of his men within the compasse of any one of the three professions This is the true state and case of the difficultie of Parliamentarie Elections upon Mr. Prynnes supposition of Parliamentarie interest and power 4. Suppose yet further that unsanctified persons and rude multitudes had skill enough to elect the most eminent and ablest men for Parliamentary service yet who knoweth not but that there is somewhat yea much more then knowledge of what is a mans dutie required to make him willing to doe it To him that knoweth to doe good and doth it not to him it is sin saith James Jam. 4. 17. It is no wayes reasonable to think that unsanctified persons and men addicted to sinfull lusts and pleasures should willingly and by the ducture of their own inclinations put a power of making Lawes into the hands of such men who they know are professed enemies to those lawlesse waies of theirs and therefore are like being interessed in such a power to make Lawes for the restraint and punishment of them That God when he pleaseth may by an extraordinarie hand of Providence over-rule the natures and dispositions of men in this kind and serve unfanctified persons in their Parliamentary Elections as he did the Syrian host of old which he led blindfold into the midst of Samaria when they thought they had been going to Dothan is not denied yea it is acknowledged that in grace and mercy to this Nation he hath stretched out that very hand of Providence we speake of in the choyce of many members of the Honourable Assembly of Parliament whose perseverance in a faithfull discharge of their imployment declares that their Election was more from God then from men Therefore that one word of Mr. Prynnes which follows p. 24. viz. That the choyce which your vilest and most unworthy of men have made this Parliament may for ever refute this childish reason the corner stone of your Independent fabrique fastened together with Independent crotchets unable to abide the Test this one word I say is no word either of reason or of truth An happy election made by men over-acted by God in the action doth no more prove either a proportionablenesse of wisdome or a sutablenesse of affection in such persons to make such a choyce then that praise which God hath ordained and which he accordingly draws out of the mouths of babes and sucklings proves these babes and sucklings to be indued with a naturall strength and abilitie of yeelding such praise unto God or then the service which the Ravens did the Prophet in bringing unto him bread and flesh duly morning and evening proves that they had a principle of reason and understanding to know and to consider the necessities of godly and faithfull men or that such men ought to renounce their estates and callings and to depend upon Ravens for their sustenance And besides how doth the election of so many members of this Parliament who stand by their trust with faithfulnesse and honour more refute then the election of so many unworthy ones who have not onely turned their back but head also upon both confirm my reason not
to mention so many elections as have been made both in Queen Maries dayes and many a time before these of such members who made many a Law as agreeable to the Word of God as harp is to harrow Which further shews of how slender esteeme in point of truth that assertion of his pa. 23. is where he saith that those that are unjit or unable to be Members of Parliament themselves yet have had wisdom enough in all ages and especially at this present to elect the must eminent and ablest men for such a service So that if my pen were not more bashfull then Mr. Prynnes it would say that the Reason Defendant is by many degrees more childish then the Reason Plaintiffe and that this Presbyterian engins wherewith he makes account to batter my Independent Fabrick are made of Independent metall able to do no execution at all There is not one brick or tyle in all my Independent Fabrick as yet bruised crack'd or shaken by all the hot and loud play of Mr. Prynnes artillery against it But 5. Whereas in further prosecution of this last reason he argues thus If the common people which neither are nor can be Parliaments Emperours Kings Judges Magistrates Ministers have yet a lawfull power to make others such by their bare election to give them such Authority and power as themselves never actually were nor can be possessors of then why by the self same reason may they not likewise delegate a lawful Ecclesiasticall Legislative Authoritie in Church affairs to their elected Parliamentary and Synodicall 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 himself nor transferible thus to others by any Law of God or man In answer passing by the Grammatical illegality of the period 1. That Mr. Goodwin never delegated the power he speaks of of determining who c. to any Substitutes but this delegation was made respectively by those who had power yea haply and dutie too by the Law of God and power sufficient by the Law of man to referre themselves for matter of examination and triall touching their fitnesse for the Sacrament unto persons of competent abilities for such a Christian service Mr. Prynnes pen is I think the most unhappie and un-successefull in matters of impeachment and charge that ever contested against the misdemeanors of men it seldome or never lays the indictment right Here he chargeth me with delegating such and such a power to eight Substitutes a little after that I have wilfully yea and presumptuously undermined the undoubted priviledges of Parliament by the very roots a little before that I scandalously terme the Commonaltie of the Land the vilest and most unworthy of men not long before this viz. pa. 21. that I preach but seldome to my Parishioners that I receive their tithes that I gather an Independent Congregation to my self that I prescribe a Covenant unto them before they be admitted members of it that I preach to these alone neglecting my Parishioners c. in all which suggestions and charges there is but one and the same proportion of love and truth 2. Whereas he supposeth that the common people by their bare election give such an Authority and power to Parliaments Emperours Kings c. as themselves never actually were nor can be possessours of he doth not I conceive speak like a man of his profession certain I am that he doth not speak the truth no nor yet the thoughts of men of learning and judgement in the point For 1. to reason the case a little in point of truth if the common people were not actually possessed of that Authority and power which by their election they give to Parliaments Emperours Kings c. I demand how or after what manner they were possessed of it For in saying they were not ACTVALLY possessed of it he supposes and grants that they were some wayes or other possessed of it No man excludes one speciall modification from a thing but for the gratification of another Now then if the common people were not ACTVALLY possessed of that Authority and power which by their election they give unto Parliaments Emperours c. they were onely potentially possessed of it For actually and potentially are opposita yea and of that kind which they call opposita immediata So that whatsoever is had or possessed by any and not actually must of necessiue be had or possessed potentially and potentially onely at least in respect of an actuall possession Now then I reason first thus If the people have that power though not actually yet potentially which by their election they give to Parliaments Emperours Kings c. then are they capable of it even actually also which yet Mr. Prynne here plainly denies in these words Nor can be possessours of The consequence is undeniable For whatsoever any entire subject hath or is potentiâ there is no impossibilitie but that it may have or be actu or actually So that Mr. Prynne is here upon the matter in an absolute contradiction For he supposeth that the people may have that Authoritie or power potentially which yet he saith is unpossible they should ever have actually Again I would willingly for the bettering of mine understanding know and learn how any person or other Agent whatsoever can actually conferre that upon or communicate that unto another which it hath onely potentially it self Water whilest it is actually cold and onely potentially hot cannot heat that which is put into it Nor can a man that is actually ignorant of such or such a truth and potentially onely knowing it actually communicate or impart the knowledge thereof unto another by vertue of that potentiall knowledge which he hath No more can a people that is onely potentially possessed of any Authority or power actually give or conferre it upon any whether Parliaments Emperours Kings c. The ground of all such consequences as these is that common principle or maxime in reason Modus operandi sequitur modum essendi Things that have but a weak or imperfect being themselves cannot give strength or perfection of being unto others But had Mr. Prynne said the body of a Nation have that authority really vertually eminently and collectively which they cannot have formally distributively and exemptively I should have had the lesse to say unto him For the judgement of men learned in matters of this concernment he that shall please to read the Discourse of Christophorus Besoldus intituled Dissertatio Politico-Juridica de Majestate in genere c. shall find a little Jurie of Lawyers joyning with him in the verdict of his judgement upon the case the tenor whereof is that there is not onely an Authoritie or power but that which is somewhat more a majestie also in the people which is coevall with
as meerly such by any call election or ordination whatsoever conferre a Pastorall office or dignitie upon any man The reason is because it is an essentiall propertie or part of the Pastorall office to feed rule and governe a flock of Christs sheep I meane a Societie or company of such persons who in the judgement of charitie are to be reputed such and to administer the seales of the Covenant ordinarily unto them c. Now no company of men meerly and simply as men have any power to invest any man with any authoritative power to performe either of those administrations One company or societie of men however qualified cannot derive any Authoritative power upon any man to performe the office of a Pastor to another societie of men Therefore except that company of men which calls and chuseth a person into the place or office of a Pastor as it supposeth be such a flock of Christ as was expressed their act in so calling and chusing is but a nullitie the person called hath indeed and in truth no Pastorall investiture upon him by vertue of such a call As for example Suppose a company of ignorantly prophane and desperately debauch'd men should make choyce of a man of worth to be a Pastor unto them the man thus called and chosen hath no authoritie or power hereby either to feed or govern any flock of Christ no not so much as any flock of Christ in appearance or to administer the seales of the Covenant unto any and consequently is made no Pastor thereby Or if Mr. Prynnes meaning be that a root meerly popular that is any company of people whatsoever may lawfully call or chuse a man to preach the Gospel unto them and in this sense be said to make a Minister I answer that the man thus called is no more a Minister then he was before nor hath he any more Authoritative power to preach the Gospel unto them by vertue of such a call then he had without it onely he hath thereby a greater opportunitie and a more speciall invitation from the providence of God to preach the Gospel unto those who so call him then unto others Therefore in this case there is no ministeriall extraction made out of a meere popular roote 4. Whereas he speaks parables and further demands Why not a spirituall extraction out of a secular roote as well as the best strong waters out of the vilest lees the richest mineralls out of the coursest earth the most Orient pearles out of the basest Oysters I answer 1. That I know not by what rule of true speaking Mr. Prynne either calls those the basest oysters out of which the most orient pearls or that the coursest earth out of which the richest mineralls or those the vilest lees out of which the best strong waters are extracted That expression of the Poet Veios habitante Camillo 〈◊〉 Roma fuit I never yet heard censured by any Noble births and inhabitants ennoble Cities and Countries And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda art not the least among the Princes of Juda for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my people Israel By the consent of this principle which hath testimony both from God and men those are not the basest but the noblest oysters which give birth and breeding to the most ortent pearles nor that the coursest but the finest and best earth that yeelds the richest mineralls nor those the vilest but the most generous and best deserving lees which gratifie their Distillator with the best strong waters But 2. Not to impose any tax upon an acyrologie there is this plain reason why no spirituall extraction out of a secular roote though all those other extractions may be made out of those respective roots appropriated unto them because a man may very possibly find a thing where it is but it is unpossible for him to find it where it is not A man may very easily and very lawfully extract five shillings out of his purse that hath five shillings or more in it but he that shall undertake to make an extraction of five shillings out of a purse that is emptie must Acheronta movere make himself a debtor to the black art The pearle is in the oyster and the minerall in the Earth and the strong water in the lee and therefore it is no great matter for art and nature joyning together partly by allurement and invitation partly by a stronger and more forcible hand to sequester all these from their native and proper elements and to draw them out of their dark and secret habitations Nor is it any waies unlawfull thus to practise upon them because God hath not serv'd any prohibition upon men to inhibite any such extractions or separations either in a naturall or artificiall way But there is no such spirituall extraction as the two Brethren speak of in their secular roote there is no Ecclesiasticall Legislative power in matters of Religion worship and Church-Government neither formally nor eminently in unsanctified persons rude multitudes men ignorant of God c. therefore no such power can by any extraction whatsoever proceed or be drawne out of these There is indeed a lawfulnesse of power in them if they had a principle to incline them to the due exercise of it to assist the servants of God against violence and wrong to incourage and countenance them in well-doing to admonish and reprove them for doing any such evill which falls within the compasse of their cogniance yea there is a lawfulnesse of power in them if they have not given it out of their hands already and invested others with it to make Lawes for the regulation of the Saints themselves in all their civill affaires and to restraine them by mulcts and penalties from all such courses actions and practices which are properly and in their natures disserviceable unto the common peace and weal-publick And all such power as this they may lawfully devise and demise unto persons meet for the manage and exercise of it because in this case they doe but give of their own yea they give it in a regular and rationall way upon which termes God hath given unto every man a liberty or power to doe with his owne what he pleaseth But the persons we now speak of never had a power of regulating the Saints in their Religious or Spirituall affairs or of compelling them under temporal mulcts and penalties to order themselves in the worship and service of God as they pleased or to preach and teach onely such points and doctrines amongst them as they should think well of Therefore how they should convey or make over any such power as this unto others by a Title or Conveyance good in Law I desire Mr. Prynne to consider If his desire had been to have paralleld the Brethrens spirituall extraction out of a Secular root with naturall comparisons or similitudes he should have done it not with those which hee hath
made use of in this kind or the like for we have shewed a manifest and main disproportion in them but with these and such as these which follow Why not a spirituall extraction out of a Secular root as well as a man out of a mouse or of water out of a flint or of the element of fire out of the midst of the Sea He might rationally enough have argued and concluded here Why not the one as well as the other But 5. Whereas his Margine demandeth Why not a spirituall extraction out of a secular root as well as himselfe extracts many spiritual doctrines out of Gamaliels Secular speech My answer is that hee hath made this demand at the perill of his owne reputation in what he had said but in the former page where he supposeth that God powred out a spirit of prophesie upon Gamaliel as hee had formerly done upon Balaam and Saul If Gamaliel spake as the spirit of prophesie which was poured out upon him gave him utterance his speech was not secular but spirituall and divine And 2. Suppose there was no spirit of prophesie upon Gamaliel when he spake that speech from which I extract my Doctrines yet the speech it selfe being for the matter tenor and substance of it nothing but what is fully agreeable to the undoubted word of God elsewhere which I clearly demonstrate in the particular doctrine handled in those Sermons it is not to be reputed Secular though the person speaking it had been Secular but Divine because the matter of it being a truth of Divine revelation elswhere is Divine This saying Jesus Christ is the Sanne of God or the holy One of God is not therefore a Devilish saying because the Devill spake it but an holy or divine saying or sentence because the truth contained in it which is the matter of it is from God But 3. the person speaking it was Ecclesiasticall a Doctor of the Law Acts 5. 34. 4. And lastly it was about matters of the Church and so Ecclesiasticall also 6. Whereas in the context of the same margine hee calls my principall Argument as he calls it drawn from the non-jurisdiction of the seven Churches of Asia one over another a meer Independencie giving this for the ground or reason of this so severe an award that these Churches were under different civill Dominions and not members of the selfe-same Christian Republicke I answer 1. That why he should call this my principall Argument which I doe not so much as mention nor make any argument at all as least in those Sermons against which his pen riseth up in this discourse with so much indignation I am behind hand in my understanding I suppose he would willingly make that my principall Argument from the dint whereof he knowes how to contrive some plausible evasion and escape It was an wholsome admonition of Austin long since That we are very inclinable and prone rather to seeke out how to answer or evade those things which are brought to refute our error then to minde that which is wholsome that so wee may bee free from error But 2. If that be a reason why the Churches in Asia had no jurisdiction one over another because they were not members of the selfe-same Christian Republicke then neither had the Church of Jerusalem either divisim and by it selfe nor yet conjunctiâ—â— with others any power of jurisdiction over the Church of Antioch For neither were their Churches members of the selfe-same Christian Republicke no nor yet any other Churches in the Apostles dayes there being then no Christian Republick in the world 3. Neither can I well understand how the seven Churches of Asia should be under different civill dominions when as one and the same man had power to command that all the world should be taxed Luke 2. 1. Certain I am that Mr. Pryn doth not befriend either his owne exception or my understanding so farre as to inform what these different civill dominions were or under what or whose dominion every or any of these Churches did respectively consist The consideration whereof moderately inclines me to conceive that he put this peece of his answer to the making and affirmed it onely de bene esse that the seven Churches of Asia were under different civill dominions Is it not much more probable that the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch which yet by the Assertors of Presbytery are generally and with importune confidence made confederate in Classique association were under different civill dominions Considering 1. that their Cities were two hundred miles distant one from the other a distance greater almost by an hundred miles then any two of the seven Churches of Asia stood one from the other as will appear presently And 2. that Judea was an intire Province by it self Luke 3. 1. is said to have been under the government of Pontias Pilate So that subjection under different civill dominions is not like to have been any obstruction in the way of those Asian Churches to impede their Presbyteriall conjunction had they felt the weight either of divine institution or of any Christian accommodation of their respective affaires lying upon them for the ingaging themselves in it 4. And lastly some that seeme to have perfect knowledge of those parts where these seven Churches with their respective Cities stood affirme that some of them were not situate above twelve miles distance from some others of them and that the greatest distance between any two of them was not above an hundred and twenty miles which is not the one half of the distance between many Churches in this Kingdom So that had the Presbyteriall combination or subordination of Churches been an ordinance of God there is little question to be made but that these Churches with their respective Angels especially under such an opportunity would have subjected themselves unto the will of God in this behalfe and not have remained single and uncombined in their government as they did If it be objected they were times of persecution wee answer So were they afterward when as men of the Presbyterian way suppose they had Presbyteries and after that when they had Episcopall government This hath been the case of the Protestants in France where they now have constantly have had a Presbyterial government So it is of the Papists in England where they have had ever since the Reformation a Papall jurisdiction And to speak to the particular so was it a time of persecution against the Presbyteriall government in Queen Elizabeths time and yet it was then exercised in severall places of this Kingdome See Rogers Preface to his Analysis of the Articles of Religion 6. Whereas he seemes to require a reprievement for his opinion onely till Independents can shew him better grounds against it then any yet produced and informe him why our representative Church and State should not of right enjoy and exercise as great or Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction over all particular persons
and Churches who are members of our Church and Realm as any Independent Minister or Congregation challenge or usurp unto themselves over their own members c. My answer is 1. That now I trust he will willingly surrender his opinion into the hand of Justice and plead no further for it First because though haply there have been no better grounds produced in this discourse against it then have been formerly in others yet I cannot but conceive and judge that better arguments and grounds against it have been here produced then Mr. Prynne hath had either the happinesse or opportunity to meet with elsewhere especially considering partly the frequencie of his complaint that Independents have given little or no account of their way in writing partly that it is a thing hardly consistent with Mr. Pryns abilities being sweetned with so much ingenuity not to see and acknowledge the delinquencie of such an opinion in whose condemnation so full a Jury of the first borne principles as well of Reason as Religion as hath been here impannelled doe conspire And secondly because Information hath been given him again and again and more particularly in the eighth Section page 5 6 7 8 9. of this discourse why our whole representative Church and State though I doe not clearly understand what he meanes by our Representative Church in this place but why the Parliament and Synod should not exercise as great or greater Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over particular persons Churches within the Realme c. as an Independent Minister AND Congregation for his disjunctive particle Or turnes him quite out of the way of his question may exercise over their owne members But 2. Whereas he states the question thus Whether our Representative Church and State may not exercise as great or greater Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction over c. as an Independent Minister or Congregation challenge or USURP unto themselves over their own members My answer is that doubtlesse they may one unrighteous or unjust thing may be as lawfully done as another every whit as unrighteous and unjust as it For Mr. Prynne may please to take knowledge that Independent Ministers and Congregations doe not usurp any power at all unto themselves over their own members that is over themselves but onely administer that regular and lawfull power over and amongst themselves which every of their respective members have mutually and freely given one to another and every particular member unto the whole body over it selfe and that as well for its own benefit and behoofe as for the benefit and good of the whole body And lawfull questionlesse it is yea matter of duty for every man to give such a power of or over himself unto others which he hath sufficient ground either from the Scriptures or reason otherwise to conceive and expect that it will bee administred for his good especially having ground to conceive yet further that this act of his in thus submitting himselfe unto others will according to the ordinary course of Providence and experience be of Christian accommodation unto others also for their good Submitting your selves one to another in the feare of God Eph. 5. 21. which submission doubtlesse ought so farre to extend as in reason it may accommodate or promote the edification and spirituall good both of the persons by whom and to whom it is made And by the same reason it is no usurpation in those to whom the submission is made to administer or exercise that power which is committed unto them according to the regular intentions of those who have given it yea such an administration of it as this is so farre from being an usurpation that a non-administration of it upon such terms would be a very unchristian prevarication both with God and men Therefore 7. And lastly to conclude Whereas Mr. Prynne referres me to the High Court of Parliament either to crave their pardon or to undergoe their justice for my Anti-parliamentarie passages c. I shall request no other favour of this most honourable Court then that I may stand right and streight in their opinions and be respited from censure onely so long till my Accuser shall make good his charge against me by sufficient evidence and proofe and substantially answer and refute this my Apologeticall plea. When the light of this day of darknesse shall dawne upon me I shall willingly submit unto his demand and either crave the Pardon of that Honourable and High Court he speaks of or otherwise undergoe their justice in the meane season I presume he will subscribe my Petition for a reprieve as just and equall And if the result of his more serious thoughts shall be to resume and prosecute the bill of endictment which he hath preferr'd against me my earnest request unto him is as well for his own ease and conveniencie as mine 1. That he will not argue from pluralities but pertinences of Scriptures and shew how and wherein every Text alledged according to the genuine sense and rationall dependance of the words stands by him in what he intends to prove from it And 2. that he will not place the strength and confidence of his cause either in humane Authorities humane practises statutes or ordinances of men excepting onely such whose truth justice and equitie he shall first demonstrate either from the word of God and that not by Texts barely cited chapter and verse though in never such abundance but throughly argued and examined upon the matter in question or els from sound principles of reason and equitie managed in a cleare and rationall way and so drawne up to a faire compliance with the conclusion seeking testimony and proofe from them For otherwise what sayings doings Lawes or Ordinances of men soever shall be produc'd or insisted upon for confirmation or proofe of any thing it will be sufficient to Answer that men as wise as just as vertuous as they have both said and done things neither true nor meet to be done and have made Lawes and Statutes of no better constitution yea and have been of a contrary opinion to Mr. Prynne in the particular questioned which made Augustine often decline that way of reasoning as we reade in his 48. Epistle and elsewhere Thirdly and lastly that he would put lesse vinegar and gall into his inke and more wooll or cotton or in the Apostles words Eph. 4. 31. that all bitternesse and evill speaking be put away and that we follow the truth in love and language that becometh Brethren This treble request I make unto him with much earnestnesse and importunitie upon the supposition aforesaid because I had much rather yeeld might I do it upon honourable and Christian terms then to be put to take the field yet againe As for any opinion held by me when once I perceive that it will not make knowledge I am ready to give the right hand of fellowship unto any man in casting it out as unsavoury salt upon the dunghill I never yet thought my self nor
But Nadah his son proving wicked brake the condition and cut off the intailment Their third King Baasha was not chosen by the people neither but was fore-chosent by God 1 King 14. 14. to do that execution upon the house of Ieroboam which is recorded 1 King 15. 27 28 29. Elab their next King succeeded his Father by right of inheritance and is no where said to have been chosen by the people into the throne Zimri the next was a bloody Traytor and usurper The two next following him Omri and Tibni were set up indeed by the people but not in any way of a lawfull and regular election but by way of tumult and faction and the one partie prevailing the King followed by the other was soon suppressed Ahab the son of the prevailing King without any election by the people except a connivence or permission be called an election by the ascent of descent or succession got up into the throne After the same manner also Ahaziah his son came to be King This Ahaziath dying without children his Brother Jeboram another son of Ahath and next to him by birth as it seems by the priviledge of his birth came peaceably to the Kingdom without any election by the people any where heard of 2 King 1. 17. The next King Jehu by name was chosen by God himself after a speciall manner 2 King 9. 1 2. and his children after him to the fourth generation 2 King 10. 30. to sit upon the throne of Israel Shallum who succeeded Ahab and his race their date of Reiglement being expired came to the Kingdome by blood and is indeed said to have smote Zachariah the last of Ahabs race before the people and so to have reigned in his stead 2 King 15. 10. but by what maxime enle ley the murthering of a King before the people will be interpreted a being chosen King by the people I understand not Menahem his successor after a moneths reigne found the same way to the Kingdome I mean by blood which his Predecessour had chalked out Pekahiah his son and successour had no other choice we read of but onely by that his relation Nor had Pekah who succeeded him in the throne any other choice into this dignitie but onely by the murther he committed upon his Master except it be said that he was chosen by those 52. men who assisted him in that bloody execution 2. King 15. 25. Nor had Hoshea the last of these Kings any other choice entrance or accesse we read of unto the Throne but the same with his Predecessor a bloodie conspiracie against his Lord and Master So that Mr. Prynne is absolutely mistaken in the very bottome and groundwork of his first allegation affirming the Generall Assemblies Parliament Kings of the Israelites to have been chosen by the people 3. And lastly neither did they make Laws and Statutes concerning Religion and Gods worship with his approbation except his approbation went along with the transgression of his Law For by this they stood expresly charg'd not to adde unto the word which he commanded them nor yet to diminish ought from it Deut. 4. 2. And againe Deut. 12. 32. And what addition could be made with an higher hand or with more provocation in the sight of God unto this word of his then an enacting Laws and Statutes concerning Religion and his worship whereunto men should stand bound in conscience to submit as well as unto the Lawes of God themselves declared in this word Or if it be said that men were not bound in conscience to submit to such Laws and Statutes as well as unto the Laws of God then were they not to be punished for non-submission to them unlesse we will say that men ought to be punished for somewhat else besides sin To his second reason against the Doctrine and Conclusion aforesaid I answer that as God himself used the ministery assistance of Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius for the building of his Temple and advancement of his worship for which they made Decrees Statutes so I conceive he doth expect and require the ministery assistance of Christian Magistrates Parliaments and Laws and Statutes to be made by them for the promotion of his worship But as Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius made no Decree Statute to discourage any of the true worshipers of God nor yet to compell them to any kinde of worship contrary in their judgements to the word of God or in case they did make or should have made any such Decree Statute they should have exceeded the limits of their just power and not have done justifiably in the sight of God So neither can Christian Princes Magistrates commend themselves unto God in any such exercise of their power whereby they shall constraine or enforce the conscientious faithfull servants of God to any kind of worship contrary to their conscience or by the performance whereof condemning it in their judgements for unlawfull they should pollute and condemne themselves in the sight of God To his third Reason we answer likewise that for most Christian Kings and Magistrates in the world whether claiming to be hereditarie or whether eligible by the people as the Members of Parliament are we CAN without either disloyaltie or absurdity deny them any such Authority in matters of Religion and Church-Government whereby they should be enabled to destroy crush or undo such persons as live godlily and peaceably under their jurisdiction and that for none other reason or offence on their parts but either for weaknesse in judgement and understanding by reason whereof they cannot see the agreeablenesse of those things that are imposed on them to the Word of God in case they be indeed so qualified or else for the goodnesse of their conscience which is unwilling to ship-wrack it s own peace by going contrarie to its own light and dictate We freely allow to all Christian Kings and Magistrates in the world any Authoritie whatsoever in matters of Religion Church-Government or in what other causes or cases soever it can be desired either by them or for them which will not claim or challenge a right of power to punishmen for not being as wise as learned as farre insighted into matters of Religion as themselves or for such matters of fact which are occasioned directly and meerly by such defects as these We allow a power to all Magistrates to punish the wickednesse of mens wils when this discovers it self by any sutable action in what matters or cases soever but the weaknesse of mens judgements we conceive cals rather for means of instruction then matter of punishment from the Magistrates hand We cannot judge that the mistaking of a mans way in a dark controversie deserves a prison or any other stroke with the civill sword To his fourth we answer 1. That whereas he affirms that I do not onely grant but argue that every private man hath yea ought to have power to elect and constitute his own Minister causing these words
to be printed in a differing character as if they were mine and onely transcribed by him citing in his margin pag. 25. 26. as their quarter in my discourse the truth is that this is no fair play for there is no such line or juncto of wordseither in either of those pages or elsewhere in those Sermons It never came into my thoughts to think nor surely ever issued out of my pen that every private man hath or ought to have a power to constitute his own Minister And besides he puts a more quaint and subtlle distinction upon me then I am capable of I cannot conceive that any private man hath a power to elect or constitute his Minister except he ought to have it That power which God hath been pleased to conferre upon any man he both ought to have and hath though the exercise and benefit of that power may be injuriously denied unto him or withheld from him 2. Whereas he further presumes that I will grant that private men have power likewise to set up Independent Congregations which have Authoritie to prescribe such Covenants Laws and rules of Government Discipline worship as themselves think most agreeable to the Word and hereupon demands 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 I answer 1. That he is mistaken in his good opinion of my bountie For I do not grant either first that all or every sort of private men have power to set up any Independent Congregation Or 2. That any private men have power to set up any such congregation consisting of other men then themselves but onely to agree together amongst themselves to become such a congregation Or 3. That any Congregation whatsoever hath any Authoritie to practise much lesse to prescribe either such Covenants Laws Rules of Government or worship as themselves onely think most agreeable to the Word of God but onely to practise those amongst themselves which they know to be agreeable to the Word of God without prescribing either these or any other unto others God gives no person or Congregation any Authoritie or power so much as to practise themselves what they simple think most agreeable to his Word but onely that which REALLY IS agreeable unto his Word much lesse doth he give either the one or the other any Authority to prescribe their thinkings in this kind unto others But 2. Whereas he demands Why private men may not derive an Ecclesiasticall Authority unto Parliaments and Synods as well as unto Independent Ministers and Churches the account is readie 1. No private men whatsoever can in any sense neither in whole nor in part derive any Ecclesiasticall Authority either unto any Minister but onely him unto whom they commit the charge of their â—ouls nor unto any Congregation but onely that whereof they are members themselves Therefore it no wayes follows Private men have power to derive Ecclesiasticall Authoritie to those Congregations whereof they are the respective members themselves therefore they have the like power to derive the same Authority to Parliaments and Synods whereof they are no members Take a parallel The Assistants in the Company of Chirurgians have an interest in the Government and carriage of the affairs of their own Companie therefore they have the same interest in the Government of the affairs of the Company of Merchant-taylors 2. A person qualified for the office and work of the Ministery according to the word of God is a subject capable of Ecclesiasticall Authority and may accordingly by persons Authorized by the word of God thereunto be lawfully invested with that power But we have no rule or direction from the word of God either 1. to judge whether or when either Parliaments or Synods are subjects capable of Ecclesiasticall Authoritie nor 2. is there any rule or warrant to be found there for the Authorizing of any sort or rank of men actually to conferre such an Authority or power in case they should be found subjects capable of it Therefore Mr. Prynnes arguing in this place is of no better form or strength then this Private men may do that which Gods Word authorizeth them to do therefore they may do that also which Gods Word doth not authorize them unto But 3. And lastly The main foundation and ground-work upon which he builds the fabrique of his reasoning here is an utter mistake For I neither grant nor think that private men either when by consent they first congregate themselves and chuse a Minister or Pastor over them much lesse when they joyn themselves to a Congregation already gathered and form'd do derive any Ecclesiasticall Authority unto it but that a company of persons fearing God and consenting together to become a Church-body or holy Congregation have an Authoritie which you may call Ecclesiastique if you please but I shall not commend the terme unto you in this case nor would I willingly call it an authoritie but rather a right or priviledge derived unto them not by themselves but from God First to chuse unto themselves a Pastor and other officers as opportunity shall be such as are recommended in the Scriptures as meet for such places and then by and together with these to administer and order their Church-affaires in all the concernments thereof according to the word of God in the name and authoritie of our Lord Jesus Christ whose properly all Ecclesiasticall authoritie is To his fift argument we answer 1. By a demurre whether God doth oft-times makes use of unsanctified persons and the rude multitude which I doe not under-value because I refuse to entitle them to a power in Church-matters greater then ever the Apostles had to advance his glory propagate his Gospel promote his worship vindicate his truth edifie his Church A Judas a Balaam a Saul a Gamaliel a persecuting High Priest were not the rude multitude unsanctified persons it is like they were at least most of them But God did not oft-times make use either of Balam or Saul or Gamaliel or the persecuting High Priest either to propagate his Gospel promote his worship edifie his Church c. but the Devill oft-times made use of them to the contrary viz. to hinder his Gospel to pollute his worship to persecute his Church c. And for the vulgar multitude which he commends as none-such for forwardnesse to beleeve follow professe Christ embrace the Gospel though he confesseth that many of them did it for sinister ends I answer 1. That this multitude was but one swallow not a multitude of swallows and therefore not sufficient to make his spring of Gods oft-times using the rude multitude to doe such and such things 2. They that beleeve follow professe Christ embrace the Gospel out of sinister ends when they decline and fall back as all sinister-ended Professors are like to doe first or last and as this vulgar multitude generally did are like more