mine in the ballance of reason and truth that so the reader to whom judgement in this case belongeth may give sentence accordingly But first it is a thing almost incredible doubtlesse farre beyond the belief of any sober or ingenuous man that a man of that Name and Reputation not only for learning but for Religion also which Mr. Prynne is should affirme those 15. lines about the middle of page 18. to be the main doctrine prosecuted in my discourse called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the said 15 lines being nothing else but a rapsody or collection of severall words phrases and expressions scattered here and there throughout the Discourse some of them being expressly contrary to those restrictions and limitations under which the doctrine there prosecuted is propounded and asserted in the explication of it As for example whereas page 18. of the said Theomachia I expresse my selfe thus If to attempt the suppression or keeping downe any way doctrine or practice which is from God bee of no lesse concernment of no safer interpretation then a fighting against God then certainly it is the greatest imprudence or improvidence under heaven for any man or rank of men whatsoever to appeare especially in any high-handed opposition or contestation against any way c. In stead of those words To appeare especially in any high-handed opposition he most unworthily and unchristianly substitutes these to appeare or so much as to lift up an hand or thought against any way c. Which falsification of my words is so much the more unsufferable because in the explanation of my doctrine page 12. I expresse my selfe thus It is not every degree or kind of opposing a way doctrine or designe of God which either the Text or the doctrine calleth a fighting against God but onely such an opposing which is peremptory and carried on with an high hand so that those instruments of God which hee hath anointed to hold forth that way doctrine or designe of his in the world are not suffered to execute their commission but are countermanded either by the authority or over-bearing strength or power of men And immediatly after for the further explanation of my intent in the doctrine proposed I distinguish thus It is one thing to oppose or contend against a doctrine or way of God per modum doctoris another to doe it per modum judicis The former I grant may befall the best and faithfullest of men yea the later I grant to be somtimes incident to men otherwise upright in the main before God onely affirming that the children of this later contention and contestation against their maker must expect to be taught more wisdome and reverence towards him with thorns and briers And that the Reader may yet more clearly see and judge of Mr. Prynnes artifice in swelling my two lines at most of doctrine into his 14. or 15. of representation that so hee may have the fairer mark and bigger But to hit I shall verbatim transcribe it as it is laid down about the middle of page 12. of the said discourse The content and words of it are onely these That for any man to endevour or attempt the suppression of any doctrine practice or way which is from God is to fight against God himselfe Which doctrine especially so qualified and understood as the subsequent explication states the sense purport and meaning of it I could not lightly expect should ever have been opposed or contested against by any that were willing to owne Abrahams relation of friendship unto God But with what successe Mr. Prynne hath attempted to shake the foundations of the truth of it or whether indeed he hath attempted this at all and not rather contrary to the Law of all regular disputation fallen foule onely upon the conclusion it selfe without giving any answer at all unto the premises shall bee presently taken into consideration In the mean time let mee adde this That if the grossest and most abhorred Heretickes in the world might have but the same liberty to prove their hereticall opinions out of the Scriptures which Pryn taketh to represent the doctrine prosecuted by me and quarrelled against by him out of my Sermons they might prove them and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from thence For what opinion is there or lightly can be imagined but that all the words wherin it is or at least very easily might be conceived may be found some where or other scattered here and there severally in the Scripture so be framed together into a sentence By the law of such a liberty as this I might say that Mr. Prynne in his Full Reply holds That wee must speedily oppose resist avoid suppresse Parliaments Emperours Kings Judges Magistrates Ministers even for conscience sake and the Lords sake too For all these words and clauses are to be found in this discourse of his as the pages cited in the margine doe direct yea and twenty moe as wild and uncouth opinions and as farre from Mr. Prinnes judgement as this might by the liberty aforesaid be collected out of the same piece But let us come to consider those grounds and reasons upon which in Mr. Prynnes judgement it may justly be questioned whether the Doctrine expressed towards the beginning of the last Section which is the maine indeed the onely Doctrine prosecuted in those two innocently-offending Sermons be Orthodox or tolerable His first Reason is because it opens a wide gate to the reviving of all the old the speading and propagating of all new Heresies Errors without the least timely opposition or prevention to the endangering of infinite soules and disturbance of the Churches Kingdomes peace For there is no Heretique Schismatique or Sectarie whatsoever but pretends his way Doctrine practise opinions to be the way of Christ c. Will any reasonable man conceive that there is any reason at all in all this to question the truth or soundnesse of the prementioned Doctrine For any man to forbeare the suppression of any Doctrine or Way which is for any thing that is knowne to the contrary from God and that least he should fight against God is this to open a wide gate to all heresies errors and schismes Then by the rule of contraries the suppression of all Doctrines and wayes which for any thing that is knowne to the contrary are from God must be the fast-shutting of the gate against all heresies errors and schismes This is the heart soule of the first reason which interesseth Mr. Prynnes judgement in questioning the Orthodoxisme yea the tolerablenesse of the premised Doctrine But by the way if Mr. Prynnes judgement concerning the Doctrine be that it opens a wide gate to all heresies errors schismes sects whatsoever both new and old c. it is marvaile it should have no further operation upon him then onely to prevaile with him to question whether it be Orthodox or tolerable Such an effect or
Doctrine and Reformation did but touch to render them the hatred and indignation of the world Yea and Luther himself doubted not to raise it to a generall maxime or observation that Godly men must beare the name title of men that are seditious schismaticall and Authors of infinite evills and troubles in the world That great and blessed alteration and change that God made in the State of Religion and things of his worship by the sending of Jesus Christ into the world and the preaching of the Gospel is called the shaking of the Heavens and the Earth because of the great concussions troubles distractions rents and divisions in the great concussions troubles distractions rents and divisions in the world which did and doe yet daily accompany them by reason of the pride ignorance and unbeliefe of those which oppose either the one or the other And as the Doctrine of the Gospel in the generall never comes amongst any people in excellencie and power but that it smites the foundations of that unitie and peace wherein it finds them makes breaches upon them renting one part of them from another upon which discontents and disorders follow like the waves of the Sea in like manner every considerable piece or branch of the Gospel in the first discovery and breaking out of it even in such places and among such persons where and amongst whom the Doctrine of the Gospel in the generall hath been of a long time professed by reason of the strangenesse of it and that contrarietie and crossenesse which it beares to the judgements and wills of many must needs be offensive and distastefull unto them and so occasion distractions disorders discontents So that Mr. Prynne by representing my Parish as divided disordered by my Independent way hath rather given testimony to the truth and Evangelicalnesse of it then brought any argument to disprove either And to say as he doth a few lines after that he needs no other evidence to prove it a schismaticall by-path and so no way of Christ then the schismes and discords which it hath raised in other Parishes is just such a saying and resolution as that of the High Priest against our Saviour when he rent his cloaths and said He hath spoken blasphemie What further need have we of Witnesses The blasphemie of Christ and the guiltinesse of Independencie touching the matter of division and disorder are sins much of the same order and calculation To his fourth and last reason which renders him a man of jealousie against the way of Independencie and prevailes with him so farre that he cannot as he saith think it a Way of Christ wee Answer 1. That this way is no Pioner or underminer of Parliamentarie Authoritie nor hath Mr. Prynne found it nor ever shall find it such the principles of this way being none other then what are laid in the Scriptures unpossible it is that it should destroy or pull downe any thing which they build up Therefore if Mr. Prynne hath ought in this kind against any of the sons of this way let him implead these in a lawfull triall and spare not but if for their sakes he will needs blaspheme the way he will open a dore of example very effectuall for those that are opposite to his way of Presbyterie to heap shame infamie and reproach upon the head thereof without end yea and for those also that are enemies to Christian Religion to render that as hatefull wicked vile in the eyes of men as themselves can desire it should be esteemed If all the errors and misprisions found in the writings of Presbyteriall men should be charged upon the way of Presbyterie as the Authoresse and Foundresse of them she would appeare ten times more erroneous and deformed then her Independent adversaries are yet willing to judge or conceive her to be 2. For the Sons or Patrons of this way as Mr. Prynne pleaseth to term them I verily beleeve that there is none of them all but are willing ready and chearfull to invest Parliaments with as full high and compleat a power and Authoritie as are by any by all the rules and principles either of reason or Religion competible unto men If Mr. Prynne or any other of the Presbyterian way conceive that in times of Parliaments when they apprehend them like to be for them they may and ought to say that Gods are come down to us in the likenesse of men we confesse that we cannot our reason our Religion will not beare it at our hands subscribe any such Apotheosie But let him and his first survey the territories patrimonie and heritance of Heaven the royalties and prerogative of the most high God and of the Lord Jesus Christ blessed for ever and set them out by the line and rule either of reason or Religion and look what power Authoritie Jurisdiction soever shall be found situate lying and being without the compasse of this line no waies enterfeering with those that are within wee all unanimously universally professe that incunctanter and with both our hands we will cast and heap it upon the Parliament asking no further question for conscience sake Therefore whereas he challengeth this way for devesting Parliaments of all manner of Jurisdiction in matters of Religion and Church-Government we answer 3. That neither this way nor the Patrons of it devest them of any or any manner of Authoritie in what matters soever unto which Mr. Prynne or any other Master of the Presbyterian way is able Salvo jure coeli to entitle them For jurisdiction in matters of Religion and Church-Government we willingly give unto them the same line measure and proportion herein to the full which himself asserteth unto them from the examples of those Kings and Princes Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius c. which he insists upon p. 20. Who as he here said enacted good and wholsome Lawes for the worship honour and service of the true God Let him instance particularly in any such Law or Lawes enacted by any of them and doubtlesse none of us will denie the Parliament a power of enacting exceptis excipiendis the like But if Mr. Prynnes intent be to make Precedent of whatsoever was enacted or done by any or all of these Heathen Kings Princes and States to warrant a lawfulnesse of power in the Parliament of enacting or doing the same we conceive that he neither hath nor knows where to have any thing to justifie such an intent I trust that that Law enacted by Nebuchadnezzar and his Nobles Dan. 3. 6. That whosoever falleth not downe and worshippeth shall the same houre be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace shall not be drawne by him into precedent for the vindication of a Parliamentary Jurisdiction in matters of Religion and Church-Government 4. Whereas to make good his last charge against the way so often smitten by his pen he referres to the passage of the two Independent Brethren recited p. 3. of his Independencie examined
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.
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
necessitie at all lying upon them who conceive that there was onely one Congregation at Jerusalem to prove that all the Apostles and Elders there were Pastors of one and the self-same individuall Congregation He tells me p. 24. of my Independent fabrique fastened together with Independent Grochets but I can assure him that if his Presbyterian fabrique be not fastened together and supported by better Crochets and Crutches whether dependent or independent then are to be found in the words either of his twelve considerable serious Questions or of his Independencie examined or of this his Full Reply it will drop one piece from another and the honour of it soone lie in the dust The inference which he would make by way of question in the words immediately following those already insisted upon complaines of the same weaknesse with the former And then saith he what becomes of their independent Churches which have no Apostle and onely one Pastor c. I presume his Presbyterian Churches want Apostles as much as the Independent and if these be peccant through such a defect I hope those will not be justified But how effeminate and loose a consequence is this The Church at Jerusalem had Apostles and Elders to be the Pastors of it therefore that Church that hath not both Apostles and Elders to be the Pastors of it is or can be no true Church as if Pastors made of Apostles in case there had been such had been of the essence of the Church at Jerusalem If either Mr. Prynne or any other shall shew me any one such Independent crochet as this and twenty more in this Reply in any of my writings I shall freely confesse a Judgement against them to the fire Whereas p. 12. he pretends to find an impregnable evidence of the lawfulnesse of Nationall Synods Parliaments in all Christian Kingdomes and of an Authoritie given them to determine all Ecclesiasticall Controversies settle order all Church-affaires c. in the frequent Generall Nationall Assemblies Synods among the Israelites prescribed appointed by God and no waies contradicted revoked under the Gospel invested with such Authoritie c. he is questionlesse mistaken over and over For 1. the Assembly spoken of 1 Chron. 13. 1. to the 14. the prime place produced by him to prove his Generall Nationall Assemblies Synods amongst the Israelites prescribed appointed by God is neither there nor any where else in Scripture said to have been prescribed appointed by God Nor 2. did this Assembly consisting the King himself excepted of the Captaines of thousands and of hundreds of every Leader a very strange Synod to determine all Ecclesiasticall Controversies either claime or exercise any authoritie in this kind but only resolved upon the sending to and gathering together the Priests and Levites with the generalitie of the people of the Land from all parts as not thinking it meet to remove the Ark without their presence and consent Nor 3. were the members of this Assembly Synod chosen by the respective Synagogicall Congregations in the Land and consequently no such impregnable evidence of the lawfulnesse of Nationall Assemblies Synods now though for my part I never questioned the lawfulness of such Assemblies Synods as these but onely the lawfulnesse of some power which some of these claim and exercise 4. Nor did this nor any other Generall Nationall Assembly Synod any where to be found in Scripture ever enact any thing concerning the worship and service of God under mulcts and penalties but what God himself had plainly determined and adjudged to be done in his Law Nor was this done by any select Assembly Synod consisting onely of Priests and Levites or of persons voted into places of Authoritie by the generalitie of the people of the Land but by the generality of the people themselves met together with an uniforme full and free consent and approbation on all hands It is said 2 Chron. 15. 9 10. 12 13 c. another Scripture cited by Mr. Prynne to prove the aforesaid gain-said conclusion that all Judah and Benjamin and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh and out of Simeon gathered themselves together at Jerusalem And entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their soule That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great And all Israel rejoyced at the Oath c. Here is no compelling of any man by any Authoritative Synod of Priests and Levites nor by any assembly of the Nobles or persons delegated by the people to submit-unto such a Law or such a Covenant as is mentioned but the generalitie of the people in their proper persons did voluntarily and freely with one consent enter into this association or agreement between themselves and confirmed it by an Oath 5. And lastly that which was here generally agreed upon and solemnly sworne by the people under the penaltie of death viz. The seeking of the Lord God of their Fathers c. was not any matter of doubtfull disputation any determination of the sense and meaning of any conttoversall passage of Scripture was not any thing ensnaring any thing destructive to the peace and comfort of those that were tender and conscientious amongst them no it was nothing but what in expresness and plainness of words was required of them by God himself in their written Law which they had all owned and voluntarily subjected themselves unto formerly The contrary to it viz. Idolatry being as expresly and plainly forbidden in the same Law and that ten times over Yea it was the effect of the first greatest commandement of this Law Some lively sparkes and impressions whereof remaine to this day in the fleshly tables of mens hearts anciently written by the finger of God without the mediation of Scripture instruction Thus you see Mr. Prynnes impregnable evidence for the lawfulnesse of an Authoritie in Nationall Synods Parliaments Assemblies for determining all Ecclesiasticall Controversies c. plainly non-suited and defaced Irus est subito qui modo Croesus erat No such authority as that wherein he seekes to infeoffe Generall Nationall Assemblies Synods in determining Ecclesiasticall controversies c. will ever be evidenced from any Assembly Synod heard of in the Scriptures Whereas page 13. from the words of his Antagonist there expressed he drawes this conclusion Therefore the Infant-Church in the Apostles dayes was not so compleat perfect in all points as the multiplied or grown Churches afterwards either he amphibologizeth or else his conclusion is an absolute mistake in reference to his purpose For though the Infant-church in the Apostles dayes that is Christian Churches in their first bud and spring in and about the beginning of the Apostles dayes and their first going forth into the world to preach the Gospell were not so compleat perfect in all points as either the same or other Churches were afterwards viz. towards the
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
to hinder and set back the Gospel by their declining then ever they propagated or promoted it by their profesion But 2. Whereas he inferres that therefore they may well have power to chuse such persons who shall and may make Lawes to promote the Gospel and Government of the Church of Christ I answer 1. That Gods power to make use of unsanctified persons or a rude multitude to promote the affaires of his Gospel Worship Churches c. is no argument to prove that therefore men may commit the care and trust of these affaires to such persons or multitudes or interesse them in any such power which it is ten to one but they will use rather in a destructive then promotive way thereunto Gods power to powre out a Spirit of prophecie upon a person altogether ignorant of the Scriptures and so to powre out a Spirit of grace and holinesse upon a gracelesse and prophane person is no ground or warrant for a Christian Congregation to chuse either such an ignorant or prophane person for their Minister or Pastor 2. Neither is Gods will act or example in this kind as viz. when to shew the soveraigntie of his power over and above the powers of darknesse and the God of this world he makes use of Satan to give testimony unto his Son Jesus Christ as he did Mar. 1. 24. Luk. 4. 34. and so to exercise the patience of Job by afflicting him as he did Job 1. Such acts I say or dispensations of God as these are no grounds for the justification of such men who shall make use of the Devill to preach the Gospel or to afflict the Saints for the exercise or improvement of their patience Therefore nothing that ever God hath done how oft soever he hath done it either by unsanctified persons or by rude multitudes for the propagation of his Gospel the edification of his Church c. doth any waies countenance or warrant men to invest either the one or the other with such a power whereby they may endamage and make havock and spoyle both of the one and the other The reason is plaine because the evill Spirit that said Jesus I know and Paul I know yet said to the Exorcists but who are yee So the powers of sin and wickednesse in men which will tremble at the voyce of God and forget their natures and motions at his command will laugh all the conjurements and charmings of men in the face to scorne and will act their own parts and drive on their own way with what fury and violence they please notwithstanding all charges intercessions and obtestations of men to the contrary Therefore no power can with reason equitie or conscience be put into the hand of such persons I meane persons unsanctified and rude multitudes or nominating whom they please I meane from amongst persons eligible enough by the Lawes of the Land either for Parliamentary or Synodicall interest to umpire in the affaires of the Gospel and to make what Lawes they please for the government of the Church of Christ If it be yet objected and said But why may not unsanctified persons and rude multitudes nominate and chuse such who by vertue of such nomination may have power to make Lawes in matters of Religion Worship Government of the Church c. though not according as they please yet according to the word of God and such as are agreeable thereunto What inconvenience is there in this I answer 1. By way of concession that the grant of a power in persons so nominated and chosen to make Lawes onely of incouragement and protection to the servants of God in matters of Religion and Church-Government or to order some particularities in either onely upon incouragements to those that shall obey without penall enactions against those that cannot obey may possibly not tend or sort to much inconvenience Nor let any man think that outward mulcts and penalties are essentiall unto Laws whether in matters of Religion worship or in any other cases Threatning of bodily punishment saith learned Mr. Rutherford one of the Commissioners for the Kingdome of Scotland is not essentiall to Lawes in the generall because some Lawes are seconded onely with rewards Yet this inconvenience it's like would attend even such a power were it granted Those Lawes which should be made in matters of Religion worship c. by men in authoritie would be of like consequence amongst the generalitie of men with the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees by which they made the Commandements of God of none effect I meane they would so interesse themselves in the hearts and affections of the common sort of men that they would soone place more in the observation of them then in keeping the Commandements of God An experiment of which inconvenience we had in folio in the Ceremoniall and superstitious injunctions of the late Prelaticall power when men thought better of themselves for standing up at the Creed joyning in Gloria Patri secundum usum Sarum bowing at the Name Jesus cringing before an Altar c. then they did of others for hearing the Word of God preached with reverence and attention or for walking in a conscientious conformitie unto it But 2. If a further power shall be granted unto men so chosen I meane by unsanctified persons and rude multitudes as Mr. Prynne calleth them as viz. a power of enacting Lawes and Statutes in matters of Religion worship c. under what mulcts and penalties they please who shall judge whether these Lawes and Statutes be agreeable to the word of God or no If they themselves the Law-makers shall be Judges miserable is the condition of the servants of God under them like to be because it is not to be expected but that they will avouch whatever Lawes or Statutes they shall make in this kind to be agreeable to the word of God The Popish Parliaments during the reigne of Antichristianisme in the Land did no lesse If the people from whom obedience and subjection to such Lawes is expected shall be authorized to judge whether these Lawes be agreeable to the word of God or no which of necessitie must be granted otherwise obedience unto them can never be yeelded with a good conscience this will reflect prejudice and disparagement upon the wisdome and prudence of the Law-givers and consequently enervate their Authoritie especially when any of these Judges shall give sentence in oppositum and determine a nullitie in such Lawes for want of due correspondence with the word of God The nomothetique power or Authoritie wherever it resides will never consult honour interest confirmation or strength to it self by making such Lawes which in their very nature frame and constitution are matters of dispute and which must passe and abide the tests of the judgements and consciences of the best and wisest of those that are to yeeld subjection unto them and that with so much hazard of censure and contradiction as Lawes made in matters
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