Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	5,442	5	9.2031	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91190	A full reply to certaine briefe observations and anti-queries on Master Prynnes twelve questions about church-government: vvherein the frivolousnesse, falsenesse, and grosse mistakes of this anonymous answerer (ashamed of his name) and his weak grounds for independency, and separation, are modestly discovered, refelled. / By William Prynne of Lincolnes Inne, Esquire.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1644 (1644)	Wing P3966; Thomason E257_7; ESTC R210038	32,460	24

them so I dare not stile them Conventicles in an ill sense since not † such by Law being only lawfull Assemblies of private Christians to seek unto God by prayer fasting upon extraordinary occasions which all good Christians cannot but approve But all these meetings were farre from being then stiled reputed Independent Churches or having any affinity with them so as they make nothing for his cause To the eighth Quere he gives a negative Answer First in generall next in particular to some instances First he grants that there was a Nationall Church yea Nationall assemblies Parliaments determining church-affaires of the Jewes but these saith he cannot be a pattern for its now because the covenant of the Gospell is not made with any one particular Nation as with the Jewes but to all Nations that embrace the Gospel and beleeve in Christ you have no promise nor prophesie of any Nation to be holy to God but the Jewes Nation when they shall bee called againe To which I reply first That Independents have not the least precept or example for any solemne Covenant made betwixt God and men to walke in the wayes of God c. but onely * in the old Testament and Church of the Israelites and that no private congregationall but publike Nationall covenant prescribed by the supreme temporall Magistrate and Assembly not by the Priests or private Synagogues yea the principall precepts presidents for publike or private fasts sanctifying the Sabbath c. you likewise derive from the old Testament and that Church why then should not their Nationall Church be a pattern for us and you to imitate as well as their Nationall covenant fasting sabbath-keeping the Church of God being all one as it is a Church both under the old Teastament and new and the pattern of it under the Law a better pesident for the Church under the Gospel of which it was a type and fore-tunner then the pattern of the Tabernacle shewed in the Mount so frequent in your Lips and Books a president for your Independent Modell to which it hath no analogy 2. This reason is most absurd and false the Covenant of the Gospel extending not onely to particular persons but to † all Nations and people whatsoever who are both prophesied and promised to become Christs own inheritance possession people spouse church and to be an HOLY NATION A PECVLIAR PEOPLE c. to the Lord in infinite Texts both of the old and new Testament which I wonder the Respondent should either not see or forget being ten thousand fold more cleare and visible then his Independent platforme which few or none can yet espy in Scripture History or Politiques 2. He addes that I cannot shew any Nation every member whereof is qualified sufficiently to make up a church which is Christs body unlesse I will take in Drunkards Whore-masters c. to be members of a church whereas the Word saith they must be visible Saints and this cannot be avoided in a Nationall church I answer that I dare not be wiser then my Master Christ who Informes me that there will and must be alwayes in the visible church on earth be it Nationall parochiall presbyteriall or congregationall * goats among the sheep chaffe among the wheat which must grow together till the harvest at the end of the world to wit the day of judgment good fish mixed with the bad in the churches Not. 2. I finde a a Judas a Devill among the Apostles many b grosse sinners idolaters and corruptions in the Jewish church many abuses Epicures Drunkards Whore-masters Libertines uncleane persons and false Teachers in the churches of Galatia Ephesus Colosse Pergamus Smynna Thyatira and Laodicea yet the Scripture expresly stiles them c the body and churches of Christ and rep●tes such members though corrupt ones of those Churches who doe not actually cease to be members when excommunicated or suspended for a season after they are baptized and professe the Christian faith nor did any separate from these churches though they had some corruptions and evill members For you therefore to separate from and unchurch such Nationall or Parochiall churches which have such members in them is to unchurch all churches both in the old and new Testament and the world it self yea your own churches too 3. The Scripture is expresse d that many are called but few chosen and saved that all must be compelled to come into the church though they want the wedding-garment There never was nor shall be here on earth any one visible church compacted wholly of reall elected Saints without any mixture of Reprobates such a church we shall meet with onely in heaven I am sure you can gather none such on earth 4. Are there no corrupt or drunken members in your independent churches but onely reall visible Saints are there no usurers oppressors corrupt dealers covetous proud malicious uncharitable censorious persons no apparent hypocrites or dissemblers yea are there not many sinnes and corruptions in the best the choicest of all your members who cannot depart away or quite separate themselves from their owne bosome corruptions as there is and will be in the best of men during their mortality If your Independent congregations consist of such members as these of men subject to like passions sinnes infirmities as others in Presbyteriall churches what then is become of this your reason and principall ground of Independency or rather Separation or Brownism its ancient proper title you may lay it up in Lavander for another world but can make no use of it in this where you cannot so much as dream of a church of reall Saints without any mixture of corruption 3. For his answers to that of Acts 15. all ages churches till this present have held it both an expresse warrant and president for the lawfulnesse , usefulness of Nationall and Provinciall Synods to determine differences in Religion which particular churches persons cannot decide and making necessary Canons for church-affaires neither can all his shifts elude it To his first and second reasons or rather evasions I answer it is clear by Act. 15. 2. that the church of Antiech it selfe could not decide the question nor Paul nor Barnabas satisfactorily determine it so farre as to quiet all parties and therefore they sent Delegates to the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalom there to decide it None is so ignorant but knowes that there are many controversies now on foot concerning doctrine discipline and church-government which no particular congregations nay hardly an whole Synod and Parliament together are sufficient to settle and determine therefore there is a kinde of necessity of Nationall Synods as well as of Parliaments whence all ages churches have used them To his third reason I reply that it is evident by expresse words vers. 2. 5. 6. 7. 10. 19. 20. 24. that the principall end why the Apostles went up to Hierusalem and why this Synod assembled was not to prove

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 carnall 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 therefore very impertinent 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 see 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 are 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 Josiah 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 and absurdity There is no man doubts but that Christ in the Scriptures which some of you refuse to heare read in our Churches though * publicke reading of them be Gods owne ordinance hath prescribed to us all necessary Rules and Lawes both for our faith and lives either in a generall or speciall manner but that Christ hath punctually and particularly set downe 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 Independent 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 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 Prelates Lordly hierarchy jure divino He might as well yea more properly have concluded thence That the Altar was measured as well as the Temple Revelat. 11. 1. referring onely to the * Jewish not christian Church which hath no * Temple nor Altar Ergo we ought to have an Altar yea and one set form of Altars in all christian Churches under the Gospell which I hope you dare not averre 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. consonant 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 it 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 preseript 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 Synods 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 Lawes 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 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 but to all particular 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 congregations 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 As for the latter part of this Querie That the Saints think Christ is King alone over his Churches and hath not left them to substitutes and the politick considerations of men to be governed by If he meanes it onely of matters of Faith or of internall government over the soules of men it may passe as tolerable but if he 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 and 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 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 passively 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 fellow-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 yea 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

are subject to their power they are as well to be obeyed as the commands of * heathen Emperours Magistrates Parents Husbands by Christian Subjects Wives Servants living under them are 2. That there is a great difference between matters of opinion onely and of practise That his instanced points Whether Lordly Episcopacy be jure divino or their making out Processe under their owne Names and Seales be agreeable to the Law of the Land are matters onely of opinion simply in themselves and if a Synod and Parliament should have determined the first and the Iudges resolved the last affirmatively their resolutions could not binde my judgement absolutely so farre as to subscribe their opinions as undoubted truths unlesse they could satisfie my arguments and authorities to the contrary but yet they should ought to bind me for the present so far as to submit to their authority Processe in their own names in things within their legall cognisance So if the Parliament and Assembly shall establish any Church-government as most agreeable to the Scriptures and our Lawes though this binds not all Independents to be simply of their opinion unlesse the reasons and arguments produced for it be sufficient to convince their judgments yet it binds them in point of practise and obedience outwardly to submit thereto and not to separate from it under pain of arrogancy faction schisme unlesse they can clearly manifest it to be absolutely unlawfull and repugnant to the Scripture As for my own objected challenge to the Bishops Iudges about the jus divinum of Lordly Prelacy and Bishops Processe in their own names when I made it I was certain I had both † Scripture Fathers Councels Acts of Parliament the suffrages of all forraigne Reformed Churches Writers and our owne learnedest Bishops Authors in all times against the first and direct Acts Resolutions of Parliament Patents unanswerable Law-authorities and Reasons against the latter Therefore a few Lordly Prelates opinions in their owne case or the subitane forced extrajudiciall resolution of the Iudges not then published could no more conclude my judgment nor make me guilty of arrogancy obstinacy or schism then than their forced judgments for the lawfulnesse of Loanes and Ship-money against expresse Acts and judgments of Parliament oblige me or others then or now not to deeme that taxe illegall and when you can produce as many good authorities Reasons from Scripture Antiquity Acts of Parliament Writers of all sorts against the lawfulnesse of Presbytery as I have done against Lordly Episcopacy by divine right Bishops making out Processe under their own Names Seals and † Ship-mony neither of which were ever setled by any former Parliament and have all bin expresly voted against in this I shall then excuse you from arrogancy and schisme but till this be done as I presume it will never be the guilt of both these wil stick fast upon you if you readily conforme not in outward practice to that Government the Parliament shall establish If they should settle Independency I am certaine you would then write and preach for universall obedience to it which you now publikely call for so eagerly without authority or proof of its Divinity because thus setled without dispute therefore by like reason you ought to submit to a Presbytery or such other Government as shall be resolved on by those Intrusted with this care To my 11. Quere he gives only a negative answer and then declaims against Presbytery without ground or reason But because I have proved the truth of what he denies in my Independency examined and in some following pages I shal not trouble you with any further proof except these two particulars 1. That Independency is in reality meer Separation and Brownism lately christened with this new title to take off its odium and if so I doubt not but it is a nursery of schisms Sectaries c. 2. That we finde by wofull experience what bloudy divisions warres schisms the toleration but of one Religion and Sect in our Realms contrary to that established to wit Popery and Pupists hath produced in all our Dominions to their imminent danger and almost utter ruine what then will the free permission of many Independent different forms of Churches Sectaries do will it not produce many more troubles dangers wars schisms then we have hitherto felt Yea if every man ought to have freedom of conscience to vent what opinions set up what Governments he deems most conformable to the Word in his own private fantie you must indulge Papists this liberty as well as others and then how soone will they over-run us for the future how justly can we take up armes to suppresse them for the present Consider seriously of those and other publike-mischiefes of your way and that liberty of conscience you so much contest for which in truth is nothing but meere lawlesnesse or licentiousnesse to do * what seemes good in your owne eyes as if there was no King in Israel without respect to the publike peace or weale and then happily you may in time discerne recant your errour To my twelfth Quere he onely answers that I fall a jeering of my brethren a palpable untruth and that I put a nick-name on them to make them odious to wit the title of Independents which they disclaime not answering one syllable to the substance of the Question To which I reply First that the title of Independency of which you are now ashamed was at first assumed approved by your selves and many of your party doe still owne though some disclaim it of purpose to evade the titles of Separatists and Brownists with whom you really concurre in practice Besides you very well know that this title was imposed on and owned by you long before I writ therefore I could not father this brat upon you But if you be offended with this name I desire you in your next Pamphlet to discover to us your owne Christian name with the true title of your party and the government you plead for as the only way of Christs institution all which you have hitherto concealed and then God willing I shall give you a further answer to this cavill or retract this title till then I must informe you that it most proper for your party who will have every of your owne private congregations a complete absolute corporation exempted from unsubjected to independent on any other be it a Nationall Synodall Provinciall Parochiall assembly Parliament or Kings themselves in any Church-affaires You must therefore still retaine this Title while● you maintaine such Paradoxes both in opinion and practice as justly appropriate it to you Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis being never more exactly verified then in this your suitable name But you object first That you are accountable for your actions to every neighbour Church that shall in the name of Christ require it Secondly That you stand not independent from but hold communion with all other