Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	act_n	authority_n	enact_v	3,620	5	10.4262	5	false

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

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-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

Parishioners for a yeares space or more though they offer to be examined by him esteeming them none of his Flocke preaching but seldome to them though he receive their tithes and instead thereof to gather an Independent congregation to himselfe out of divers Parishes and his owne to whom hee prescribes a Covenant ere they be admitted members of it preaching praying administring the Sacrament to them alone in private conventicles neglecting his Parishioners which hath engendred such discontents and rents in his Parish even among the well-affected and truely religious that he must either desert it or his Independent way What schismes and discords this New war hath raised in other Parishes is so well knowne to the World that I need no other evidence to prove it a schismaticall By-path and so no way of Christ the * Prince of peace who prescribes nought else but precepts of peace and unity to his Churches and is most offended with their schismes Finallie I cannot thinke this way a way of Christ because I finde it a Pioner and underminer of Parliamentary authority devesting Parliaments of all manner of jurisdiction in matters of Religion and Church-government witnesse the passage of the Two independent Brethren recited in my Independency examined p. 3. which certainly weares a Maske as yet since she never appeared bare-faced to the world not one of her Parrons hitherto presenting us with her in her native colours or lineaments whose guilt this Author by his explanation to make it good rather aggravates then extenuates He writes That the Brethren in the mentioned period and expressions reflected onely upon the generalitie of the Land who according to the Lawes yea according to the principles of all reason and equitie have the right of nominating persons unto Parliamentarie trust and power but HAVE NO AVTHORITY OR POWER FROM CHRIST TO NOMINATE OR APPOINT WHO SHALL BE THE MEN THAT SHALL ORDER THE AFFAIRES OF CHRISTS KINGDOME OR INSTITVTE THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHVRCHES These are that secular root out of which the Brethren conceive AN IMPOSSIBILITY that a spirituall extraction should be made that is THAT A LEGITIMATE ECCLESIASTICK POWER SHOVLD ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF CHRIST OR ANY PRECEPT OR PRESIDENT OF SCRIPTVRE BEE BY THEM CONFERRED VPON ANY MAN And this IMPOSSIBILITY conceived by them they onelie illustrate and declare by that parallel expression in Job Who can bring a cleane thing out of an uncleane c. But to hold that the persons so elected as hath been said have a power by vertue of such nomination or election to enact Lawes and Statutes in matters of Religion and to order under mulcts and penalties how men shall worship and serve God as it is a meanes to awaken the eye of jealousie upon them and so is seven times more destructive unto and undermining not onlie of their power but of their honour peace and safetie also then any thing that is found in the way so ill intreated so it is a setling of a power upon the electors of such persons I meane the promiscuous multitude of the Land yea of a greater power then ever Iesus Christ himselfe had at least then ever he exercised For as dare Regem argues a greater power then esse Regem as hee that buildeth an house hath more honour then the house Hebr. 3. 3. so to nominate and appoint who shall have power to umpire in matters of conscience and of God * to determine what shall be preached and what not what shall be beleeved and what not is a branch of a greater root of power then the exercise of the power that is committed to others in this behalfe Now though Iesus Christ had a power and was authorized by God to be a Law-giver himselfe unto his Churches and Saints in their spirituall Republike yet it is hard to prove that he ever he invested any other with such a power His Apostles themselves were no Lords over the faith of the Saints nor had they anie power or authoritie to impose any thing upon men as † necessarie either to be beleeved or practised but what they had in expresse commission and charge from Jesus Christ himselfe to impose upon such termes c. The summe of this large passage is that there is not onelie an improbabilitie but absolute impossibilitie that the Parliament should have any power at all to enact Lawes and Statutes in matters of Religion church-government Gods worship or service because the people who elect them have no such power and so an impossibilitie of deriving any such authoritie to them and to affirme the contrarie is not onely to awake the eyes of jealousie upon them but exceedingly destructive to and undermining of not onely their power but honour peace and safetie also Whether this be not directly to undermine the authority of Parliaments and temporal Magistrates in all church-affairs and matters of Religion contrarie to your late Covenant and Protestation and that in the most transcendent maner that ever any have hitherto attempted in print let all wise men judg I am sory such ill passages should fall from so good a pen But to give a short Answer to this extravagant discourse First this objection might be made against the generall Assemblies Parliaments Kings of the Israelites who a were chosen by the people yet they made Lawes and Statutes concerning Religion and Gods worship with his approbation without any such exception as I have elsewhere proved Secondly God himself as I formerly touched used the ministry assistance of Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius with other heathen Princes and Magistrates for the building of his Temple and advancement of his worship for which they made Decrees Statutes notwithstanding this objected reason reflects more upon them and their electors then on such who are Christians by externall profession Thirdly most Christian Kings and Magistrates in the World even those who claime to be hereditary as the yet continued formes of their Coronations and instalments manifest come in by the peoples election as well as such members of Parliament who are eligible yet you cannot without disloialty and absurdity deny them authoritie in matters of Religion and Church-government Fourthly your selfe doe not onely grant but argue b That every private man hath yea ought to have power to elect and constitute his own Minister and no doubt you will grant that private men have power likewise to set up independent Congregations which have authority to prescribe such Covenants Lawes and Rules of Government Discipline Worship as themselves think most agreeable to the Word If then they may derive such an Ecclesiasticall authority to independent Ministers and Churches why not as well to Parliaments and Synods likewise by the self same reason Fifthly it is cleare by sundry instances in Scripture and your owne Text that God doth oft times make use of unsanctified persons and the rude multitude whom you so much under-value to advance his glory propagate his Gospel