Innocency and Truth Triumphing together; OR, The latter part of an ANSWER to the back-part of a DISCOURSE, lately published By William Prynne Esquire, called, A FULL REPLY, &c. Beginning at the foot of p. 17. of the said Discourse, with this title or superscription, Certain brief Animadversions on Mr. JOHN GOODWINS Theomachia. Wherein the Argumentative part of the said Animadversions is examined; Together with some few Animadversions upon some former Passages in the said REPLY.

Qui innocentiae debitum servat, poenitentiae non solvit usuram,

Chrysost.

Nolo mihi imperet ille vel ille, qui me opprimere potest, docere non potest,

Hieronymus.

Non est delicata in Deum, & secura confessio: qui in me credit, debet sanguinem suum sundere

ibidem.

Ignosci potuit simpliciter errantibus: post inspirationem verò & revelationem factam, sine ignorantiae veniâ peccatur,

Cypr. Ep.

Pios hoc nomen & titulum in mundo oportet gerere, quòd seditiosi ac schismatici, ac infinitorum malorum authores sunt,

Lutherus Gal. c. 5.

Not that wee have dominion over your faith: but are helpers of your joy, 2 Cor. 1. 24. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if any of yee be otherwise minded, God shall reveale even the same unto you,

Phil. 3. 15.

Licensed and Printed according to Order.

LONDON; Printed by Matthew Simmons, for Henry Overton, at his Shop in Popes-head-Alley, 1645.

To the unpartiall and unprejudic'd READER.

AM I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth 1 Cor. 15. 10., (saith the first-born1 Cor. 15. 8., and yet the last born al­so Gal. 14. 16., of the Apostles to his Galathians;) The interrogation is a constructive asser­tion of two things. First, that to speak the truth in some cases, is very opportune to sinister interpreta­tion, and apt to represent the speaker as a man of no benevo­lous or friendly comportance with those, to whom he so speak­eth. The reason whereof seems to be this: Errors and mispri­sions are many times very indulgent and bountifull to the flesh; and he that incounters men under such injoyments, with the truth, seems to them rather to strike at these injoy­ments, then at the error or opinion, by whose consent they have first taken, and still keep possession of them. Themselves esteeming the opinion of small value (as well it deserves) save onely in reference to those carnall gratifications; are very apt to conceive that neither doe others so much minde that, or take offence at that, as at those priviledges or accom­modations which they injoy by it: and this they judge to be a straine of an hostile inclination.

Secondly, The prementioned Interrogation supposeth, that no manifestation or speaking of what truth soever unto men, simply as such, is any argument at all of want of affection, and that in the highest, unto them. The reason is, because [Page] there is no Truth, which being imbraced, and honoured with sutable practise, but will give farre better wages and consi­deration to her servants in due time, then any error whatso­ever. Yea, the truth is, that the greater breach, or spoyle, a Truth makes in any mans worldly possessions or enjoyments, it is of so much the richer and the more advantagious con­cernment unto him, and will honour him the more abundant­ly. It is the manner and guise of divine truth, to pull downe houses built with firres and brick, and to build them up a­gaine with cedars and hewne stones.

He that deals much either in the discoverie, (or recovery rather) or inforcement of such truths, which are opposed in the world, not onely by errors and contrary misprisons, but by secular accommodations also, as of honour, power, riches, pleasures, or the like, takes a very direct course to make him­self conformable to the image of his Saviour, who being so great a Benefactor to the world, was yet numbred amongst Transgressors. To attempt the casting downe of such i­magination, which do not onely exalt themselves in the minds of men, but contribute also to the exaltation of men themselves in the world, be they never so extravagant or ec­centricall to the truth, is an undertaking of almost as doubt­full a presage, as they that speak Proverbs are wont to repre­sent by the taking a Lion by the beard, or an Elephant by the tooth. And did not the God of Truth umpire (and that with an high hand) amongst the thoughts and counsells of the sons of men, and put many a by ingredient into his providence of soveraign reliefe to those, whose hearts are set, and hands lift up to magnifie such Truths, which be­ing advanced are like to doe justice in the world, and to re­duce all usurpations and unrighteous detainments amongst men,Amos 7. 10. the Earth would not be able to beare the words of such men; and the world soone become too hot a climate for Truths of such a complexion.

[Page] It is a matter of somewhat a sad contemplation, (and yet in part, delightfull also, viz. as those Oracles of Heaven, the Scriptures, are mightily asserted and vindicated like themselves thereby) to see, what commotions, tumults, and combustions are presently raised in the minds and spirits of men upon the birth (or resurrection rather) of any Truth in­to the world, concerning which there is the least jealousie, that in case it should reigne, it would rack them from off the lees of their old customes, or compell them to a restitution of what they have unjustly taken, and peaceably injoyed for a long time, or any wayes expose them to any outward suffer­ings, or disaccommodations in the world; to see, what hurry­ings up and downe, what ingaging of parties, what inqui­ring after parts and abilities, what rembling over Authors old and new, what incensing of Authoritie, what streynings of wits and consciences, what slighting of solid arguments, what evading substantiall and cleare interpretations of Scripture, what magnifying of those that are streined and farre fetch'd in their stead, what casting abroad of calumnies and reproaches, what incrustations, and misrepresentations of opinions, sayings, practises, actions, what shiftings, what blendings, what colourings, what pretendings, what dis­gracings, yea, what conventings, what persecutions, what evill intreatings of men, what appealings to fire, sword, pri­sons, banishment, confiscations, and all to turn a beam of light and glorie, into darknes & shame, to keep a new-born Truth from ruling over them. As soone as Herod the King heard that Christ was borne, and that wise men were come from the East to worship him, inquiring after him, as a King; the Text saith,Mat. 2. 1, 2, 3. that he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him: and how unnaturall and bloudy a design was there presently put in execution, to prevent the reigning of him that was but now borne into the world? That one, who yet [Page] was their lawfull King, might not reigne over them, many poore infants (innocents altogether in this) were not suffe­red to live amongst them. This Scene also was acted in Ger­many, when God first made Luther as life from the dead Rom. 11. 25. vnto the Doctrine of free justification and remission of sins; a Doctrine not so much opposed by the Popish Tenet concern­ing the vertue and validitie of Papall Indulgences, as by theAuri sacra fames. sacred thirst of that gold and silver which the trade of such merchandize formerly driven by the Grand Seignior of Rome and his Factors throughout the Christian world, brought into their coffers in that bewitching and transport­ing abundance.

Reader,2 Cor. 12. 5. of any wrong done to my self, I will not complaine: but I know a man, who hath been forsaken of his friends, found those of his own house to be his enemies, who hath been reviled, traduced, reproached, way-laid, by tongues, by pens, by practises, reported to have lost his wits, abilities, parts, suffered losse of his due and necessary subsistence, wrongfully deteined from him, and for which he hath laboured faithful­ly, brought before Rulers and Magistrates, represented to Soveraigne Authoritie, as a wilfull and presumptuous underminer of their undoubted priviledges, and that diametrally contrary to his Vow and Covenant; be­sides twenty more hard sayings and practises of men against him; and all this for no other cause, upon none other ground or exception, but onely because he holds forth such a Truth (as in all his heart and all his soule he is verily perswaded) which, if entertained, is like to blesse the world, though it be as by fire, 1 Cor. 3. 15. I meane by casting downe the present thoughts, and crossing the present desires and designs of many in it: Of the injuries & indignities offered to such a man, I have cause (with many others) to complaine; but for any suffer­ings or evill intreaties of mine own from men, I count it be­neath [Page] my ingagements to him, who strengtheneth me to doe and to suffer all things [...]. Phil. 4. 13., to stoop to take up any lamentati­on or complaint.

In these leaves following, I make payment of a debt unto thee, contracted by a promise and ingagement made in my late briefe defence, which I styled, Innocencies Triumph; with some small additionall consideration, for thy present forbearance. For in the former sections till about pag. 54. I animadvert upon some select passages in the former part and body of that piece, in whose tayle lies the sting of my ac­cusation; the pulling out whereof, is my taske from the third section unto the end. In the carriage of the discourse, I pro­jected these foure; Brevitie, persecuitie, moderation, satis­faction. How I have performed or prospered in my designe, is a case now presented unto the Great Judicatorie of the world to judge and determine. I shall not court thy favour or approbation: if thou wilt deale hardly either with the Truth or her Friends, at thine own perill be it: Injure what thou canst, we shall be repaired; yea, and have all our for­bearance and delay, in full consideration and recompence. Yet a very little while, and he that doth come, will come, and will not tarry Heb. 10. 37: and behold, his reward is with him Rev. 22. 12. In the day of whose coming, however thou shalt deale with me in the interim, I cordially wish thee peace, and that lifting up of the head, after which it shall never hang downe more.

Thine, all that thy soule desi­reth, in the love of the truth, J. G.

Errata.

Pag. 3. line 36. dele, only, and close the parenthesis at the word, government.

P. 8. l. 26. dele,).

P. 17. l. 5. for vere, r. vero.

P. 13. l. 7. for apparent, r. apparan.

P. 39. l. 3. for distances, r. disturbances; ibid. l. 36. for disturban­ces, r. disturbance.

P. 47. l. 33. for, ingagements, r. inducements.

P. 49. l. 14. for, leave, r. give.

P. 51. l. 31. for, in ordinary, r. in an ordinary.

P. 53. l. 1. for, faith, r. truth.

P. 56. l. 34. for. praise, r. honour.

P. 59. l. 11. for, still, r. till.

P. 61. l. 35. for, is more, r. is of more.

P. 62. l. 15. in the margent, for ipsa, r. ipsam.

P. 65. l. 4. for, precedent, r. president. ibid. l. 12. for guiltie, r. guilt.

P. 68. l. 9. those words, and lastly, to be closed in a parenthesis.

P. 70. l. 18. for, together by, r. together for by.

P. 80. l. 10. for, the, r. that.

P. 87. l. 25. for, exemptively, r. executively.

Some other lesser mistakes, as in points, parentheses, or the like, the Reader is desired to pardon, and amend.

Innocency and Truth Triumphing together: OR, The latter Part of an ANSWER to the back-part of a Discourse, lately published by WILLIAM PRYNNE Esquire, called, A FULL REPLY, &c.

THe Gentleman who hath vouchsafed me the honour of so noble an Antagonist, Sect. 1. as him­self, p. 8. of his Full Reply, hath this inge­nuous saying: I presume my friends are so in­genuous, as not to be offended with mee for re­proving only their errours with ingenuous free­dome, in which I manifest my self their greatest friend, because I neither spare nor flatter them in their mistakes. I cannot doubt, but that hee will put the same in­terpretation upon the ingenuous freedome of his friend in the same kind, which hee presumes his friends will put upon his; and will make no other construction of my not-sparing or flattering him in his mistakes, then as a manifestation of my self to be his greatest friend. The truth is, that if he shall put any other construction upon them, but this, it is a signe that he understands not the dialect or language of mine intentions.

[Page 2] Upon the stock of so faire and rich an incouragement,Sect. 2. as this, I conceive it very proper for mee to graffe (at least) the presenta­tion of some errors and mistakes (more then so called) to Master Prynnes view, which himself had first scatteringly, presented to the view of the world, in his late piece, called, A full Reply, &c. and will (I trust) assist my Pen with his in the censure and condemna­tion of them; I make no question, but that he will acknowledge it an errour and mistake in any man, to confute concealed errours and mistakes with those that are open and professed. Hee makes a sad complaint (in the very beginning of his work) that his condition still hath been to have his best actions and publique services (he means performed by his Pen) misconstrued and traduced; and yet a few lines after, hee affirms that his twelve Questions touching Church-Go­vernment, gave ample satisfaction to many truly Religious, of all ranks and qualities, who returned him speciall thanks. He that can give men, yea, the best of men, men truly Religious, yea, not a few of these men neither, but many, and that of all ranks and qualities satisfacti­on, yea, ample satisfaction (and receive thanks accordingly) only by asking Questions, seems to write with Fortunatus his Pen; and may well beare the burthen of much misprision from other men, out of the strength of the joy of this rare successe. Ordinarily, men of greatest worth and learning, have much ado to give satis­faction, by the most elaborate and exact resolutions; which is ano­ther manner of service to the world, then asking Questions is: A weak man may ask moe Questions in an houre, then seven wise men can answer in seven yeeres. And when hee saith, that our Saviour both instructed and refuted his opposites and auditors, by demanding Questions only, I conceive it is a mistake: As for those Scriptures which hee cites to prove this, some of them being more then half Chapters, most of them very large portions of Chapters; he that shall please to peruse them, shall finde more in them, then demanding Questions only. No question demanded by our Saviour was further instructive, then as it gave occasion to an answer. It is the marrow of the an­swer, not the bone of the Question that nourisheth with instruction; And Luke 2. 47. (the first Scripture alledged by him in this Cause) it is said, That all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and ANSWERS, not at his Questions. Notwithstanding, we ac­knowledge Aristotles [...] to be very usefull and service­able [Page 3] for the advancement of knowledge; only herein we must crave pardon, if we judge it no signe of any depth or thoroughness in an Argument or Subject, to be imperious and sore in asking Questions about it, and but weak and superficiall in giving Answers.

Again,Sect. 3. whereas hee supposeth, p. 4. that Independent Ministers and Congregations lay claim to a soveraign Temporall all Jurisdiction, for the prescribing and setting up of a Church-Government; certainly it is a mistake, (whatsoever it is more) they claim to Jurisdiction at all, much lesse any temporall Jurisdiction, least of all any soveraign Juris­diction, to prescribe unto any (much less, to command or injoyn un­der penalties, which is proper to soveraign Temporall Jurisdiction) any Church-Government whatsoever: they only submit to that good and holy and perfect Will of God, for the regulation of themselves, in point of order amongst themselves, as far as he hath pleased to inlighten them with the knowledge thereof; without taking any offence at others, for being contrary-minded to them, and without the least semblance or shew of claiming any Authoritative or Temporall power to impose or force what they practise themselves upon others.

Again, whereas because some of the Independents (as he char­geth them, p. 5. whether truly or no, I can neither affirm, nor deny) refuse to heare the Scriptures read in our Churches, hee thinks to evict this practice of theirs, by proving (and that by no lesse then thir­teen Texts of Scripture) that publique reading of them is an ordinance of God; I conceive it is a defect or mistake in point of proof. Be­cause, if such refusall be made by any, it is not made either upon denying or questioning, whether publike reading of the Scriptures, be an Ordinance of God; but either upon questioning, whether the bare reading of them in publique, without giving the sense of them, or framing some exhortation upon them, or the like, be an Ordi­nance of God (which some of the Scriptures cited by himself, par­ticularly, Neh. 8. 8. make very questionable) or else upon this reason and ground of conscience, that a man may very safely refuse an in­feriour accommodation for his soul, when he hath a lawfull op­portunity to injoy a superiour.

Again,Sect. 4. whereas he affirms, p. 5. the only point in question (I pre­sume he means about Church-Government only to be, whether the Independent modell alone be that exact, unalterable form of Church-Government, which Christ hath punctually & particularly set down for all [Page 4] Christian nations, Churches to follow; and yet both in the same page afterwards, and in severall passages besides in this Discourse, denies that there is any such form of Government, so punctually and particuar­ly set down by Christ, doubtles it cannot but be a mistake, if it amounts not to an error: for they that hold the Independent modell (as hee calleth it) to be the only form of Church-Government, which Christ hath so punctually and particularly set down, must needs hold withall, that Christ hath set down a form of Church-Government upon such terms, I mean, which is, and must be, unalterable. Now Mr. Prynne, (with many others of his judgement, in this controversie) denying this latter opinion, as well as the former, evident it is, that the for­mer cannot be the only point in question. But the truth is, that besides both the one point & the other, there are many others in question, though possibly not of that difficulty or importance: yea, himself in the following page, propounds another question, differing from this, to which notwithstanding hee appropriates the same honour, and affirms it to be the sole Question too.

Again,Sect. 5. p. 6. whereas he determines, moderated or regulated Episco­pacy, to be the same with Presbyterie; I conceive this determination will hardly be voted orthodox in the Assembly it self, nor in the generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland. For my part, though I cannot approve of it as matter of truth, yet for matter of incon­venience otherwise, I have nothing to charge it with.

Again, whereas (in the same page) in case the Parliament by the Synods advice, should unanimously establish a moderated Episcopacy, as most consonant to the Scriptures, he professeth for himself, that hee shall readily submit unto it; and withall demands of the Anti-Querist, Why not hee, and all others? as if either the consonancy of a practice to the Scriptures, or the example of one man submit­ting unto it as consonant thereunto, were a sufficient ground for all men whatsoever to submit likewise unto it, without any more ado; this savours strongly of that error, which comports so well with the practice of some, viz. that if men in Authority shall conclude and injoyn any thing, as consonant to the Word of God, all men are bound readily to submit unto it, without asking any Question for conscience sake; yea, or whether they see either conso­nancy or dissonancy in it thereunto.

Again,Sect. 6. whereas he owns this saying, p. 6. as the naturall issue [Page 5] lawfully begotten of the body or soule (th'one) of his own posi­tion, that Politicians and Statesman are fit to be consulted with to suit a Church-government best to the Civill State; certainly it is no asser­tion to be rejoyced in. For as the Apostles made their enemies themselves judges in this point between them, Whether it was meet to obey God, or them: So shall I willingly abide the arbitration of a­ny of all those that make but the least conscience of fearing God and his King (Christ,) whether the government of Christs Church and Kingdome should condescend, and be compelled by Politici­ans and Statesmen to doe obeysance to civill States in accommo­dating them; or whether the government of these should not ra­ther veyle, and doe homage unto that, and deny themselves in their most indeered Principles and maximes of State, to give all accommodation and honour unto it. The truth is, that the govern­ment of Christs Kingdome in a civill State, will never do any great thing for it, except it first receive accommodation from it. The truth knowes no compliance, but onely with those that submit to it.

Whereas (pag.Sect. 7. 6.) he placeth the whole representative as well Church as State of England in the Parliament, though I dare not gain-say it, fearing lest Mr. Pryn, claiming (as it should seem) a priviledge to make the privileges of Parliament what he pleaseth, should make it a presumptuous and wilfull undermining of the undoubted priviledges of Parliament by the very roots: yet I must ingenuously professe, that it is a notion which I know not how to procure quarter for in my brain, as yet. What I may doe hereafter when the Gentleman shall bestow more cost and pains upon it to reconcile the disproportion which for the present it carrieth to my understanding, I will not predetermine. But none of all the Authors or Books that ever yet I was debtor unto, for any grain or scruple of that knowledge wherewith God hath pleased to recompence my labour in study­ing, ever licensed mee to call any Assembly the Representative Church of any State or Kingdome wherein there is not so much as any one Church-officer to be found

Whereas he affirmes it (in the same page) a truth so cleare, Sect. 8. that no rationall man, good Christian, or subject, can deny it, that the whole re­presentative Church and State of England in Parliament, have sufficient authoritie by Gods law to over-rule and bind all, or any particular mem­bers [Page 6] 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; though for the danger a­foresaid, it be not (perhaps) so safe for me simply to call the latter assertion touching the comparison between the two powers, either an error or a mistake; yet that this assertion should be a truth so royally qualified, that no reasonable man, or good Christian can deny it, seemes not so reasonable. The reason is, because in an Independent congregation, all the members by free and voluntary consent have submitted themselves to the regulati­on and order of the whole body, or (which is the same) of the major part of it: and therefore this body having received a law­full power in a lawfull way, for the reiglement of her respective members, may lawfully exercise it according to the tenor and true intent of the delegation of it: whereas there are many thousands in the Church and State of England, who by Mr. Prynnes owne ac­knowledgement (p. 24. line 3. 4.) have not given any such consent for their regulation in matters Ecclesiasticall, and which concerne Religion, unto the Parliament; yea, and there are many thou­sands more besides those which hee there describes and intends, who will not owne any such Resignation. Therefore the difference between the one case and the other, is very broad, and no lesse con­siderable, so that a reasonable man may without any dispraise to his Reason, and a good Christian, without any prejudice to the good­nesse of his Christianity, demurre a while before judgement upon the case.

Besides, there is no question, or ground of doubting, but that a good Christian may lawfully, and with a good conscience, submit himself unto a godly, able, and faithfull Pastor, together with his people, whom he hath good ground to judge godly, and faithfull also, as well for their edification in their most holy faith, as for the in­spection & regulation of themselves in matters of life and conver­sation: But whether it be lawfull to submit to any man, or any rank or association of men, (especially of men, of whose sufficiencie and faith fulnesse in the things of God, and Jesus Christ, we have either but a very slender or no testimony at all, yea whose persons are al­together unknowne to us) in matters which concerne the worship and service of God, cannot but be a question, and that of great [Page 7] moment, to all considering and conscientious men, who are not already satisfied in the negative part of it. The Apostles doe not onely permit, but give it in charge to Christians in Church-fellow­ship, to submit themselves one to another in the feare of God, Eph. 5. 21. i. to be yeelding, and tractable, easie to be intreated one by ano­ther. And, submit your selves every man unto another, 1 Pet. 5. 5. If one man ought to submit to another man in this kind, much more ought one to submit unto many, and most of all to the whole so­ciety of Saints whereof he is a member. But as touching submission unto any man, or men whatsoever in matters which concerne the worship and service of God, the Scripture is so farre from im­posing this upon any man, that it imposeth the contrary, and that with great Emphasis and weight, Call no man your father upon earth, (is our Saviours owne charge, Matth. 23. 9.) for one is your Father which is in heaven. And in the preceding verse, Be ye not called Rab­bi: for one is your master (or Doctor) even Christ, and ye all are brethren. And the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 23. Yee are bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men. He speakes of a servility or subjection in judge­ment and conscience, to the decisions or determinations of men in matters of conscience and Religion. And whosoever doth submit or subject himselfe in things of this nature unto any man or men whosoever, that is, resigne up his judgement and con­science to be ordered, obliged, and tied, by the meere authority or magistery of men in such things, Call's men Fathers on earth, makes himselfe a servant unto men: and consequently makes himself a trans­gressor both of our Saviours injunction and charge in this behalf, and of his Apostles also.

Thirdly, he that submits himselfe to a Pastor and Congregati­on of Saints for such regulation as hath been mentioned, is presu­med to know and understand before-hand, of what spirit both the one and the other are; how matters appertaining to the worship and service of God, are carried, managed, and ordered amongst them; so that he may with the full concurrence and consent of his judgement and conscience, submit himselfe unto them, as tou­ching communion with them in their practice in this kind: but what any Synod, Assembly, or Court of men will determine or enjoyn in such things, cannot be known before-hand by any man; and consequently, no man can with a good conscience submit [Page 8] himselfe unto them, as touching any of their determinations or decisions, untill he first understands what they are, and whether according to the light and judicature of his conscience, agreeable to the word of God.

Fourthly, in case a Pastor and Congregation shall after­wards so farre alter and vary from that posture either in Do­ctrine or practice, wherein they stood, when a man first joyned and submitted himselfe unto them, that hee cannot with the peace of his conscience walk any longer with them, hee may with leave ob­tained, or otherwise if by request it cannot be obtained, withdraw himselfe without any inconvenience, from their communion, and incorporate himselfe elswhere, as he judgeth best. This may bee done with farre lesse trouble and inconvenience, then ordinarily a man upon a dislike of his Parochial Pastor, can remove out of one Parish into another. But when such things concerning the worship and service of God, which a man cannot with a good conscience submit unto, shall be enacted and commanded, under mulcts and penalties by those that have power and authority over us, wee can­not refuse subjection hereunto, but at our perill, and with the sustaining of what detriment or dammage, whether in our e­states, liberties, or otherwise, as the commanders shall please to impose. Therefore the case between a particular Congregation, and the representative body of a Kingdome, is farre different.

Fifthly and lastly, the representative Church and State of a King­dome, may (and doth ordinarily) differ from it selfe in poynt of judgement touching matters of Religion) at severall times, as much as heaven and earth. Such Bodies in the dayes of Queene Mary, and before, stood up for Lordly Episcopacie, which you confesse, page 8. that Body which now is, hath by solemne cove­nant abjured. And besides, enacted many things concerning the worship & service of God, which other Bodies of the same repre­sentation and power, have since repealed. And the nature and claim of such Bodies as these in their severall successions, is, that what powersoever hath been either given unto, or exercised by any of the Predecessors, of right appertains to the Successor. So that suppose the representative Body now in being, shall be freely and willingly submitted unto, as having a lawfull power to establish what they shall please in matters of Religion, as most agreeable to the word [Page 9] of God: this submission doth not onely interesse or confirm them in this power, but in the consequence and construction of it, is the like interessing and confirmation in the same power, of all their successors, of what constitution or judgement soever they shall bee for matters of Religion. Whereas for particular Independent Congregations (loquendum ut vulgus) their present constitution be­ing sound & safe, as touching their members, being all in the judg­ment of charity (and discretion too) persons of conscience, and of competent understanding, they are not like in an ordinary way of providence, to degenerate or decline in their successors: and besides, in case they should, their interest and authority over any of their members, may at any time, and under their greatest confirmati­ons, be declin'd without any considerable dammage, or inconve­ence, as was formerly shewed. So that Mr. Prynnes Truth now un­der consideration (I meane his Assertion so called) is nothing so cleare, but that a rationall man may deny it; yea, the more rationall a man is, he is the more like to deny it.

The Antiquerist having said,Sect. 9. that the Saints think Christ alone is King over his Churches, and hath not left them to Substitutes, &c. whereas Mr. Prynne, page 6. replies thus; If hee meanes it onely of matters of Faith, or of internall government over the soules of men, it may pass as tolerable; it is (as I conceive) an expression which may not pass as tolerable, being worse then an ordinary error, or then more then an ordinary mistake. He that calls any thing tolerable, must needs suppose it either to be evil, or inconvenient (at the best.) Now if Mr. Prynne thinks it either evill or inconvenient, that Christ should be King alone over his Churches, in matters of faith and internall government of their soules, it is no marvell if he seeks to interesse men in a Legisla­tive power over his Churches in respect of their externall govern­ment; it is a marvell rather, that he seekes not to infringe his title and claime even to the internall government of their soules also, and that hee anoints not Representative Bodies of Churches and States, with authority to repeale the Articles of the old Creed, and to enact another.

Whereas (in the same page) hee tells his Antiquerist,Sect. 10. that hee must renounce his oath of Allegeance, his late Protestation, and Nationall Vow and Covenant, make foure or five Canonicall Scriptures Apocrypha, with some such other mormolukies as these, if he thinkes Christ to [Page 10] be King alone over his Churches, in point of externall Ecclesiasticall go­vernment, Discipline, or Order; I conceive this consequence of his to be inconsequent & a mistake. For first, the Scriptures he specifies, Rom 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4. speake no­thing of Ecclesiasticall Government, nor of any subjection unto Kings or Rulers in matters of Conscience, or Religion; but one­ly of that obedience which is due unto them in civill things: yea some of them (the last by name) not so much as of either. And secondly, for the Nationall vow and Covenant, doubtlesse they that took and sware that, did not abjure the absolute Monarchicall In­dependent power of Christ over his Churches, nor did they swear homage or fealty to any other Lord or Lords, but with a Salvo jure, &c. saving the rights and priviledges of the Lord Paramount, Jesus Christ; amongst which that is one of the most undoubted ones, to have the sole dominion over the faith and consciences of men, especially in things concerning the worship and service of God. And thirdly and lastly, for the Oath of Allegeance, and late Prote­station, either there is nothing contained in either of these, but what is of a cleare and perfect consistence with this sole dominion of Christ over the faith and consciences of men: or if there be, the renoun­cing of them will be more honourable and safe for Christians, then their taking of them was, or then their standing by their ingage­ment in that kind will be.

But whereas (page 7.)Sect. 11. he affirmes, that Christ hath delegated his Kingly power to Christian Kings, Magistrates, and highest civill pow­ers; as likewise bequeathed his Propheticall Office unto Ministers: these certo certius are errors in the highest, undermining (I shall not abate, wilfully and presumptuously, in the reckoning) the undoubted privi­ledges of the Throne of Jesus Christ by the very roots. For are not the Offices of Christ incommunicable? appropriable only unto him who is [...], God & Man, and Mediator? Or is Christ retired from the throne of his glory, to live privatly as a Recluse, to solace & enjoy himselfe in some solitary angle or by-corner of heaven? Or hath he eas'd his shoulder of that great burthen of the government of the world, which was laid by God upon it, devolving it upon the shoulders of others? Where is then the promise of the Everlasting­nesse of his Kingdome, and of the continuance of his dominion through­out all ages? And where is the prediction of his delivering up his [Page 11] Kingdome unto his Father, if he hath delivered it up (or down rather) unto men? Surely he means to call for it againe out of their hands, before that day. But if Kings and Magistrates have the Kingly Power of Christ delegated unto them, they have all power given unto them both in Heaven and Earth, and consequently have not onely a right and lawfullnesse of Authoritie to command as well all the Angels of Heaven, as men on Earth, but also to incline and bow the hearts of both, to the willing execution & fulfilling of those commands. And if so, let them impose what Ecclesiasticall Government or Di­scipline they please, they may, if they please, be obeyed and submit­ted unto upon what terms, with what willingnesse and readinesse, and by whom they desire. And if Ministers be invested in the Pro­pheticall office of Christ, how dares Mr Prynne refuse to hearken unto them? or ingage himself in a theologicall warre against them, ha­ving no part or fellowship in this office himself? Will he subject the spirit of the Prophets, yea, of those that prophecie in the Authori­tie, and by the vertue of the Propheticall office of Christ, unto himself, and his own spirit, being no Prophet at all? Letentur tenebrae, eru­bescat lux.

Againe,Sect. 12. whereas (in the same page) he votes, that if any man de­ny a certain odd kind of veritie (so called and asserted by him) he must renounce not onely his Christianitie, but his Allegeance and Humanitie too; I utterly renounce the consequence, conceiving it to be tanta­mont with an absolute mistake. For a man may deny, that every Christian in point of Conscience is bound by the expresse resolution of Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 14, 15. (with severall other Scriptures as little to the purpose) without any danger of blind obedience, to lawfull decreas, con­sonant to Gods Word, &c. without renouncing, yea, or so much as a shew of renouncing his Christianitie (and much more of his Humani­tie.) For what hath a mans humanitie to doe with the expresse resolu­tion of Rom. 13. 1. to 6. Ezra. 7. 26. Josh. 1. 16, 17, &c. Or what hath the expresse Resolution of these and other Texts, to preserve a mans Christianitie from the danger of bind obedience, even to lawfull decrees, in case the lawfulnesse of them be not seene, nor so much as exami­ned, by those that submit unto them? A man is in the same danger of blind obedience, as well in respect of lawfull, as unlawfull decrees. Yea, a man that after a serious and conscientious debate, shall upon a mistaken ground submit unto an unlawfull decree, acquits himself [Page 12] more like a Christian, and with better acceptation unto God by following the light of his conscience upon such terms, then he that shall subject himself unto a lawfull decree, without knowing, or ca­ring to know, what, why, or wherefore he so doth.

Againe,Sect. 13. Whereas (in the same page) he taxeth the Anti-que­rist for presuming an oversight in the Parliament and Synod, before it be actually committed, and censures this (imaginary) act of his, as nei­ther Christian, charitable, nor any way of Christ; and for the proofe hereof, cites 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. Certainly, all this is an oversight, and nothing els but the presuming of an oversight, where none is. For he that saith thus, Suppose the whole Parliament and Synod should erre in commanding a Government, &c. doth not so much as suppose, much lesse presume, that either of them will so erre; no more then the A­postle Paul, in saying, If Christ be not risen 1 Cor. 15. 14., presumes, that Christ is not risen: least of all doth that Text, 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. prove that act or speech of the Anti-querist here taxed, to be either unchristian, or uncharitable.

Nor is that marginall note in the same page excusable at any lower rate then a mistake of that kind,Sect. 14. which they that speak spa­ringly, are wont to call an untruth; which chargeth the Indepen­dent party, that without discovery or proofe of their way, they will have the Presbyterians blindly to submit unto it, as the onely way of Christ. Never was a poor innocent margin compell'd to carry a more guil­ty Annotation then this. It is the first-born of abhorrencies in In­dependency, to compell any man blindly to submit unto any thing. That infinuation following, is an arrow shot from the same bow, viz. that the Anti-querist and his, oppose and prejudicate both the Par­liaments and Synods Proceedings, though never so pious, conscientious and religious. This were something to the purpose, if there were any thing to the proofe. Verùm de genere hoc adeò sunt multa, &c.

Whereas p. Sect. 15. 8. because the two Brethren in their Reply to A. S. used this expression concerning the Congregationall Government, that in time it cannot but overthrow all other sorts of Ecclesiasticall Go­vernment, he gathers upon them with this insulting Interrogatory; Is it not then a turbulent, dangerous, schismaticall, unquiet (that I say not, insufferable) Government by your own confessions, which will admit no equall nor corrivall, &c. is not this, either through weaknesse of understanding, or strength of a worse principle, an insufferable in­terpretation? [Page 13] Or can it but call to remembrance, that testimony of those two against our Saviour (who are call'd false witnesses for their labour, Mat. 26. 60.) wherein they testified, that he had said, I can destroy the Temple of God, and build it againe in three dayes, as if he had spake concerning the materiall Temple, whereas it is evi­dent from Joh. 2. 21. that he spake concerning the Temple of his body? In like manner, what the two Brethren spake (as is most apparent in the passage cited by him from p. 111. of the said Reply) concern­ing the finall prevailing of the Congregationall Government over other Governments, by reason of that affinitie which it hath with the Truth, and consonancy with the word of God, this man will needs interpret, as if they spake it in respect of some fierce, fiery, turbulent & domineering spirit, wherewith that way of Government should be haunted or inspired above all others; yea, his pen blusheth not to avouch (in effect) that themselves confesse as much. The whole passage in the said Reply, that the Reader may the better judge, is this; Indeed, by the beauty and perfect consonancy of this Government to the word of God, it may very reasonably (yea and upon higher terms then of reason, meaning I suppose, of Faith) be thought that in time it can­not but overthrow all sorts of Ecclesiasticall Government, and stand up it self in their stead. Those words in this period, it cannot but over­throw all sorts of Church-Government, they borrow from the pen of their Adversary, (as appeares by their different character) in which respect, for a man confederate with him in the same cause, to put a sinister or malevolent construction upon them, though used by his opposites, is very unnaturall, and a breach of ingenuitie (I verily beleeve) without president.

Whereas a few lines after,Sect. 16. he vapours thus; Will any Parliament, State, or Nation (think you) suffer such a Government to take root a­mong them, which will un-King, un-Parliament, un-Church, un-Na­tion them altogether, and make each severall Congregation an absolute Monarchie, Church, &c. A man would think he were calling for the making of three Tabernacles, one for Moses, and one for Elias, and a third for himself, not knowing indeed what he speaketh. In case a few poore Christians, persons truly fearing God, shall be permit­ted to worship and serve God in such a way, wherein they may in­joy the peace of their consciences being tender, is such a permission as this, of any such formidable aspect, as to threaten, either the un-Kinging [Page 14] of a State, or the un-Parliamenting of a Parliament, or the un-Nationing of a Nation, or the un-Churching of a Church? Or are such persons more likely, or upon terms of any moe advantage (in case their inclinations stood for it) to bring any of these doomes-dayes upon a State or Nation, when they are permitted to worship and serve God with peaceablenesse of Conscience, then they would be, in case they were compelled contrary to their Conscience in both? Surely the man to whom the shadowes of the mountaines see­med men, was very prudent and advised in his feare, in respect of him that is terriculamented with such apocryphall pretences of feare, as these.

Et si nullus erit pulvis, tamen excute nullum:
Quaelibet officio causa sit apta tuo.

Whereas he saith,Sect. 17. p. 9. that in Parliaments every particular man hath his vote, though not in proper person, yet in their Deputies; and yet p. 24. that there be a degree of vulgar people, who have no votes in Par­liamentary elections, (and consequently can have no Deputies) I shall claime no priviledge of determining, which is the error or mi­stake; but freely give him leave to be his own carver herein: let ei­ther number 9, or number 24. be condemned for either, that so the Law of Contradictories however may be satisfied, and all my demands are satisfied in this particular.

Whereas p. Sect. 18. 9. he so much rejoyceth over that saying of his own, That there is no example of gathering Independent Congregations, not of Infidels, but of men already converted to, & setled in the Christian Faith, unlesse derived from the private Conventicles, of Arrians, Novations, Donatists, and other Heretiques, who yet were not Independent among themselves; as if it were a true saying indeed, and onely bitter to In­dependents, because undeniable; the truth is, that the truth of it (were it granted) will hardly equall the dust in the ballance, to make the cause he maintains weight. He that saith, there is no example of ga­thering Independent Congregations of men already converted to, and set­led in the Christian Faith, unlesse derived, &c. must needs suppose and grant, that there are examples of gathering such Congregations of men not yet setled in the Christian Faith, which are not so derived, &c. ac­cording to the tenor of that knowne maxime; Exceptio firm it Regu­lam in non exceptis. He that should say thus, there is no example of [Page 15] any man truly sanctified, that ever finally apostatis'd from his Christian profession; implies and grants, that there are or may be examples of persons never truly sanctified, who did so apostatise. Now if there be examples of gathering Independent Congregations, of men onely converted to the Christian Faith, though not yet establi­shed or setled in it, other then those that are derived from the Conven­ticles of Heretiques; it is an argument of more strength to counte­nance the Congregationall Government, then any Mr Prynne hath brought either to disable that, or to strengthen the other, in whose defence his pen so much triumpheth. Suppose the Apostles did build up or gather Independent Churches or Congregations onely of persons newly converted to the Christian Faith, and not of such as had been setled herein, yet 1. this amounts to an expresse patterne of (and consequently to a sufficient warrant for) gathering Inde­pendent Congregations simply, or in such cases, wherein there is not error in personis. Nay, 2. if these Apostolicall Independent Congrega­tions did at their first gathering or framing consist onely of persons lately Infidells, and as yet newly converted unto, and not setled in Christianitie, yet afterwards, the same Congregations must needs be supposed to consist of persons setled in Christianitie also, unlesse we will suppose either that such as were converted by the Apostles to the Faith, were never either by them, or any others setled herein; or els that upon such setling of them, their Congregations were ei­ther broken up and dissolved, or els specifically chang'd in their Government. Either of which suppositions, though to others they may be but as gnats, easie to be swallowed, yet to me they are Ca­mells, I cannot get them downe. So that we see Mr Prynne hath gotten nothing yet by his true undeniable passage, (for which notwithstanding, he scarcely refraineth from sacrificing unto his pen) but onely the giving of his adversaries such an argument for their cause, which he will never be able to take away from them. And whereas in the latter part of this passage, he would insinuate, (that which more plainly he affirms a few periods after) that those that gather Independent Congregations, derive their practise from the examples, of Novatians, Donatists, and other Heretiques; whom yet he denies to have been Independent amongst themselves; it is as if he should challenge women that are modest and chaste, for deriving their behaviour from the example of Josephs Mistresse, or servants [Page 16] that were loyall and faithfull to their Masters, for imitating the practise of Judas Iscariot. Now since the passage we wot of, whilst supposed true and undeniable, doth us more service, then the evicti­on of it for false, would doe; I conceive not my self bound, either in point of wisdome or conscience, to make a labour of the confu­tation or conviction of it.

Whereas p. Sect. 19. 10. he demands, Why the Nationall Church of the Jews under the Old Testament, should not be a patterne for us to imitate, as well as their Nationall Covenant, Fasting, Sabbath-keeping; the que­stion (I conceive) carries an error (or at least a mistake) in the ground and foundation of it. It supposeth, that we covenant, fast, keep Sabbath, &c. onely in imitation of that Nation, who did the like, and that we have no other ground for these practises, but the nationalitie of the like observations amongst the Jews: whereas if we had no better foundation for them then this, the nationall I­dolatries of that people would be a patterne for us to imitate, as well as these. If Mr Prynne will needs have the Nationall Church of the Jews, a pattern for us to imitate, let him procure an Injunction from Heaven for the imitation, and we are ready to joyne issue with him.

Whereas p. Sect. 20. 11. he saith, that wicked members of a Church, when excommunicated, after they are baptized, do not actually cease to be mem­bers, &c. Certainly it is a mistake, one or more, if nihil supra. For 1. if such members when excommunicated, doe not actually cease to be mem­bers, I would know whether then they cease to be such potentially onely? If so, they ceased thus to be members, as soone as ever they became members; they were then in potentiâ remotâ of ceasing to be members, as a man is of dying, as soone as he is borne: or if we speak of potentia propinqua, they thus ceas'd to be members, upon the com­mitting of those sins, which rendered them justly obnoxious either unto excommunication by the Church, or unto death by the Civill Magistrate, before either of these censures or sentences pass'd upon them. Therefore if they actually cease not to be members when excom­municated, they cease not at all to be members; or at least no other­wise, then they ceased to be before such excommunication: and if ei­ther, what doe we with this learned impertinencie, actually? But 2. if wicked members when excommunicated, doe not actually cease to be members, I marvaile our Saviour should allow them no better quar­ter [Page 17] amongst their fellows, then to be look'd upon as Heathens and Publicans? Mat. 18. 17. It seems Heathens and Publicans may be actuall members of Mr Prynnes Presbyterian Church; yea, though they be by the highest hand the Church can lift up, cast out of it. Ne verè, ne me ad tales compellite coetus. And 3. and lastly, what my­sterious notion he should intend to let in, or what dangerous con­ceit he should intend to shut out by that emphaticall insertion, af­ter they are baptized, is out of the hemisphere of my apprehension. All that I can work out of it, is this; that there is or may be a two-fold excommunication of the members in a Christian Church; one, before they are baptized, and another, after: and that by the power of the former excommunication, they actually cease to be members of their respective Churches; not so by vertue of the lat­ter, which (it seems) is either more indulgent, or lesse vigorous and active. If this be Mr Prynnes Doctrine, it is most properly and peculiarly his; Libera per primos posuit vestigia Princeps: if it be not his, Sensum & sententiam vestram, ô verba, after they are baptized.

Whereas immediately after,Sect. 21 he argues thus, that since none sepa­rated from the Churches of Ephesus, Colosse, Smyrna, and though they had some corruptions and evill members, therefore for us to separate from, and un-church such Nationall or Parochiall Churches, which have such members in them, is to un-church all Churches in the old and new Testa­ment, &c. He commits as many errors in arguing, as a man shall lightly meet with within such a compasse of words. For 1. he must be beholding either to an abundant weaknesse or charitie (th'one) in his Reader, to obtaine the grant of that which is the base or rise of this whole argumentation, viz. that none separated from the Chur­ches of Ephesus, Colosse, &c. Negative proofes from the Scripture in this case are not concluding. But suppose charitie should cover the nakednesse or weaknesse of this supposition, and passe it as a truth, yet 2. that such a supposition should argue, that to separate from Na­tionall or Parochiall Churches which have evill members in them, is to un-church all Churches in the old and new Testament, hath neither head, nor foot, neither body nor soule of reason in it. For 1. they who separate from a Nationall Church, supposing no place or ground for such a Church under the New Testament, have no ground or co­lour but to judge that such a Church was lawfull, and truly so cal­led [Page 18] under the old: as they who now separate themselves from Cir­cumcision and other Judaicall observations, as superstitious and highly displeasing unto God, doe in no reasonable construction hereby deny, but that sometimes they were, or might have been, a legitimate and acceptable worship unto him. 2. Nor is there any si­new or strength of reason at all in this position; they who separate from a Nationall or Parochiall Church, which have wicked members in them, doe therefore separate, because of these members, more then there is in this; they who avoid the company of men with heads, doe therefore avoid them, because they have heads. There may be rea­sons more then enough, of separating either from a Nationall, or from a Parochiall Church, besides the wickednesse of some of the members of them: yea, I doe not conceive that ever any man separated from either of these Churches, Nationall or Parochiall, simply or solely up­on this ground: nor doe I judge it a sufficient cause of separation from either. Mr Prynne himself hath separated from the Church of England as Episcopall, and hath given the strength of his assistance to cast it into another frame or mould of Government, whereby it will specifically differ from it self: and yet it is a plain case, that he hath not made this separation from it, because of the wickednesse of some of the members that were in it, whilst Episcopall; because it is like to have many of this character, in case it shall be torkened to Presbyterall. Therefore a man may separate either from a Nationall or Parochiall Church which have wicked members in it, without un­churching (yea, or disparaging) any Church at all, either in the Old or New Testament.

Whereas p. Sect. 22. 12. he collects thus; If Independents denie that there were diverse particular Congregations at Jerusalem, then they must prove, that all the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, were Pastors but of one and the self-same Individuall Congregation; it is at least a mistake, though pardonable in a Lawyer, yet not in a Logician. For 1. suppose there were diverse particular Congregations at Jerusalem, it doth not follow, therefore all the Elders belonging to these severall Congregations, were Pastors of them, except we stretch the signification of the word, Pastor, beyond the Staple of the Scriptures, (as Presbyterians I confesse, usually doe to help themselves at a dead lift) and ex­tend it unto all manner of Governours and Officers in the Church. And consequently, a pluralitie of Congregations at Jerusalem may be [Page 19] denied; though no proofe or supposition be made, that all the A­postles and Elders at Jerusalem, were PASTORS to one Individuall Con­gregation. 2. A pluralitie of Congregations supposed, it doth not fol­low, that all, or any of the Apostles, were Pastors unto any of them; Pastors and Apostles being contra-distinguished, Eph. 4. 11. He there­fore gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers. The Apostles had a Commission to preach unto any par­ticular Church, or Churches, without being made Pastors unto them: yea, himself afterwards in this very page confesseth, that the Apostles were not immediate Ministers or Pastors to particular Churches. Therefore Mr Prynnes collection (however) faulters. 3. (And lastly) The presence or continuance of so many of the Apostles at Jerusa­lem for a time (for that all the Apostles should be present at the meeting, Act. 15. is onely Mr. Prynnes Gospel) no wayes implies, that their stay there was so much either for the Government or edification of the particular Church of Jerusalem, whether consist­ing of one or more Congregations, as for the generall accommo­dation of the Gospel, and of the affaires of all particular Churches elsewhere; this Citie being their Head-quarter, or Rendevouz, from whence upon occasion they might, and did the more commodious­ly issue forth by parties into other parts, upon their spirituall de­signs, as God called them, or gave opportunitie. So that there is no 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 [Page 20] 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. Sect. 23. 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 [Page 21] 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 LawExod. 23. 25. Deut. 6. 12, 13. Deut. 10. 12. & 11. 13. & 13. 14. & 30. 16. Joih. 22. 5. & 24. 14. 23. (which they had all owned and voluntarily subjected themselves unto for­merly Exod. 19. 8. & 24 3. Deut. 5. 27. & 26. 17. Josh. 24. 16, 21, 22, 24..) The contrary to it, viz. Idolatry, being as expresly and plainly forbidden in the same Law, and that ten times overExod. 20. 23. & 23. 24, 32, 33 Deut. 5. 7, 8, 9, & 6. 14. & 7. 5. 16. & 8. 19. & 12. 30. & 13. 2, 3. & 29. 17, 18.. 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. [Page 22]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.Sect. 24.) 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 later dayes of the Apostles in the world, when they had supplied and added all things necessary, and any wayes appertaining to the beauty and well-being of these Churches in point of Government and Discipline; yet it follows not from hence, that either these, or any other succeeding Churches after the Apostles dayes, how mul­tiplied or grown soever, ever grew to more beauty or perfection in point of government, then these had attained unto, before the A­postles were taken away by death from them. This conclusion in­deed, if Mr. Prynne could have made lawfull prize of it, from the premises of his adversary, would have smiled a little upon his cause: but for the other, it holds no correspondencie at all with it, but rather frowns upon it. For if the Apostles left the Churches of Christ in the perfection of beauty for matter of government, it must needs follow, that any variation from that forme of government wherein they left them, is rather matter of deformity then perfe­ction.

Whereas (in the same page) he affirmes with an high hand,Sect. 25. that if the Parliament and Synod shall by publicke consent establish a Presbyte­riall Church-government, as most consonant to Gods word, —Inde­pendents and all others are bound in conscience to submit unto it, under pain of obstinacie, singularity, &c. in case they cannot really, by direct texts, and precepts, prove it diametrically contrary to the Scripture. —I conceive it to be a jeofaile in Theologie, a mistake in stead of a truth. For first, a man is not bound in conscience to doe any thing [Page 23] that is commanded, though both the authority whereby it is com­manded, yea and the thing it selfe which is commanded, be never so lawfull, whilst his judgement and conscience remain considerably doubtfull, and unsatisfied touching the lawfulnesse of it, especially whilst they vehemently incline to thinke and judge the contrary; least of all, whilst the contrary is the absolute and unquestioned decision of both; yea, though the grounds of such a doubt or de­termination bee never so insufficient and weake. The Scripture is cleare in this, Let every man be fully perswaded (or assured) in his own mind, or understanding, (viz. concerning the lawfulnes of what he doth) & not build upon, or content himself with the mind and un­derstanding of others, Rom. 14. 5. Again, He that doubteth, is condem­ned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; i. not out of a ful perswasion or knowledge in himselfe of the lawfulnes of his eating in such a kind: For whatsoever is not of Faith [i. is acted or done, and not out of such a knowledge] is sinne, Rom. 14. 23. Now certaine it is, that no man is bound in conscience, under pain of obstinacie, singulari­ty, &c. to sinne, or bring damnation upon himselfe. The truth is, that to scruple or question the lawfulnes of any thing that is com­manded by the high hand of Authority to be done, is somwhat sin­gular in the world; and so deserves not the pain, but the honour of singularity: But that such a behaviour or deportment as this, should suffer the pain of obstinacy, is as contrary to reason, as that the Sunne should be arrested for being a nuysance unto the world with his darknes. 2ly, if by proving the contrariety of what he speaks of, unto the Scriptures, by direct texts and precepts, he means, the producing of such texts of Scripture wherin this contrariety is [...] in terminis, or in tofidem verbis expressed, he binds a heavier burthen on the shoul­ders of others, then he is willing himself to touch wth the least of his fingers, in all he hath publickly discoursed hitherto upon this sub­ject; yea, heavier then either God, or the common light of reason in men, will suffer to be bound upon them in this case. The Saddu­cees were bound to beleeve the resurrection of the dead by vertue of this text, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, Exod. 3. 6. wherein notwithstanding there is no di­rect or expresse mention made of this resurrection, as appears Mat. 22. 31, 32. In like manner the Corinthians were bound to think it a matter of duty to minister in their carnall things, unto those that [Page 24] sowed spirituall things unto them, by vertue & warrant of this Scrip­ture, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that tradeth out the Corn, Deu. 25. 4. (as appears 1 Cor. 9. 8, 9.) & yet evident it is, that the direct letter of such a duty is not here to be found. What proposition soever, shall, or may be found to be a legitimate and native conse­quence or deduction from any text in Scripture being found, ought to be of the same sacred consideration unto us, and according to the tenor of it, of the same obligation upon us, with that Scrip­ture-ground from whence it issueth and is derived. For if the first fruits bee holy, so is the whole lump: and if the root bee holy, so are the branches, Rom. 11. 16. Therefore that Church-government which shall be overthrowne by a direct and pregnant consequence from a text, is as sufficiently overthrowne, as if the defeat had been given by the most direct and expresse letter of such a text.

Whereas (page 14.)Sect. 26. hee superaddes this notion (in a passage much of the same import with the last brought under examina­tion) that though the establishment of a government by the Parliament and Assembly, doth not bind all Independents to be simply of their opini­on, yet it binds them in point of practice and obedience outwardly there­to, and not to separate under pain of arrogancie, faction, schisme, unlesse they can clearly manifest it to be absolutely unlawfull and repagnant to the Scriptures. I conceive he addes unto his mistakes, if not unto his errors. For first, whereas he here supposeth, that Independenters must separate from the government that shall bee established by Parliament and Assembly, (and so must undergoe the pains and penalties imposed upon that crime by the law of his pen) in case they doe not, or shall not submit unto it, hee should have done well to consider, that separation still presupposeth former union. Those whom God hath joyned together, let not man separate, Mat. 19. 6. or put a­sunder. That woman cannot bee divorced, nor yet forsake her husband, which never was married; no more can Independents be said (unlesse by saying that which had been better unsaid) to separate from that government unto which they never were yet u­nited. Therefore let Mr. Prynne, and all other of the Presbyterian judgement, know assuredly, that they will never gain any thing but the wages of unrighteousnesse by charging their brethren of the Congregationall way, either with separation or schisme.

Secondly, to affirme, that a man though he be not of their opinion, [Page 25] who shall establish a Government (he must meane, touching the law­fulnesse of the Government so established, or else it is nothing to the purpose) is yet bound in point of outward practise and obedience to submit thereunto, is a note beyond that Elah of the Familists, where­in they teach, that if a man shall keep his heart and mind sound and uncorrupted within, he may for his safety or accommodation otherwise, comply outwardly with any Idolatrous worships or su­perstitions, or other unlawfull practises whatsoever. This gene­ration it self, doth not hold such an outward compliance as this, simply necessary, in point of dutie or conscience, but onely lawfull in point of Christian libertie. Therefore Mr. Prynne wades deeper into these polluted waters, then they.

3. And (lastly) whereas he thinks sufficiently to proviso his for­mer assertion, by adding, unlesse they can cleerly manifest it to be ab­solutely unlawfull and repugnant to the Scriptures; the truth is, that here is neither shield nor buckler that can saye it harmlesse. For 1. it is not the truth or soundnesse of a mans judgement standing in opposition to the supposed or asserted lawfulnesse of a thing, that makes the practise of the thing, during the present state of his judgement, unlawfull to him; but the very tenor or state of his judgement in respect of such opposition, whether this state of it be good or bad, sound or unsound. Much lesse 2. is it an abilitie in men to manifest unto others the truth or soundnesse of their judge­ments, when they stand bent against a practise that is injoyned as lawfull, that onely can excuse them from subjection. Mens acti­ons are not to be regulated either by a Rhetoricall or Logicall fa­cultie of expressing themselves or their judgements to the convicti­on and satisfaction of others; but by those impressions of righte­ousnesse and equitie that are in and upon their judgements, whe­ther they be able to represent or commend them for such unto o­thers, or no.Dan. 3. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were not able cleer­ly to manifest it unto Nabuchadnezzar and his Nobles, that it was ab­solutely unlawfull for them to fall downe and worship the golden Image which he had set up: yet was it not therefore unlawfull for them to refuse subjection unto the Kings commandement in that behalf. If the lawfulnesse of our refusing our Superiours in their in­junctions and commands, be suspended upon our abilitie to con­vince them of the unlawfulnesse of these commands, there will not [Page 26] be much danger in it to bid the Papists God speed, when they bring the Doctrine of blind obedience unto us. Rare are those superiours, that care to impose any thing by way of command, of the unlaw­fulnesse whereof they can be willing to be convinced, especially by the commanded: and where there is no disposition, no willingnesse towards a conviction, arguments and demonstrations are (for the most part) but as sounding brasse, and tinkling cymballs. Leviathan in regard of the strength and toughnesse of his skin and scales, esteemeth iron as straw, and brasse as rotten wood: The arrow cannot make him flee: the stones of the sling are turned with him into stubble, Job 41. 27, 28.

Whereas (p. Sect. 27. 14.) he saith, that if the Parliament should settle In­dependencie, I am certain you would then write and preach for universall obedience to it, without dispute; doubtlesse this certaintie of his is but a confident mistake; For 1. it is no wayes consistent with the prin­ciples of that Government he speaks of, to urge or presse universall obedience to it; because it professeth an absolute incapacitie in farre the greatest part of men (for the present) for it; nor doth it ex­pect that the universalitie of men will ever become capable of it. This Government pleadeth for no subjection to it, but from those that are Saints, at least in view, such I mean, who doe not in works or deeds denie that Faith, which in words they professe. Such as these the Scripture pronounceth to be worse then Infidells: 1 Tim. 5. 8. and therefore whilst such, they are not capable of part & fellowship in that Go­vernment, which is appropriate to the Kingdome, or Churches of Christ. Neverthelesse, it earnestly prayeth for, and by every other good way and means is ready to endevour the conversion of these unto God: onely it judgeth not meet to bring them into the Tem­ple, untill they be purified.

Nor 2. doth this Government presse for subjection unto it from the Saints themselves, without dispute: it cares for no Proselytes, but for those that are first instructed, and made disciples. It dis­daignes so far to undervalue its beautie and lovelinesse, as to ravish or force the conscience of any man.

Whereas (p. Sect. 28. 16.) he makes it an apparent schisme, separation from all other Churches, for Independent Churches to appeale onely to Churches of their own partie; I conceive it is a repetition of a former mistake, with the augmentation of a new. For 1. there is no place for the [Page 27] crimes of schisme or separation, but where a preceding union hath prepared it. Well may it be a crime or fault of another nature or kind in Congregationall Churches, to limit themselves in point of appeale, unto Churches onely of their own constitution; but for the crimes of schisme and separation here charged upon it, it is un­questionably innocent. And Mr Prynnes Printer (I presume rather casually, then consultedly) by making it, not an apparant, but an apparent Schisme, hath much eased the burthen of the charge; and represents the action more like unto it selfe in point of truth, then the Author himself intended; for the truth is, there is no realitie or truth, but onely an appearance or shew (at most) of a schisme or separation in it.

2. It is but a mistaken supposition in him, to suppose, that in case an aggrieved partie in an Independent Church, shall chuse rather to appeale to a Church (one, or more) of a differing Government and constitution from their own, that this Church will refuse to be accountable unto the Church or Churches so appealed unto, because they are not of the same constitution with it self. I beleeve there is no Congregationall Church any where, but if it be law­fully and in a Christian manner required or called upon to do it, will be ready and willing to render an account of any of her acti­ons or proceedings, not onely to a Presbyterian Church, but even to the meanest member of it. But

3. Why he should call a voluntary account given by a Church, a meere mockery in stead of an account, unlesse the Church accounted unto, should have power to inforce it to correct its errors or injustice, my eyes can see no reason. For in case the Church which willing­ly accounteth for her actions unto another, shall, upon the disco­very and sight of any error or injustice in these her actions, as wil­lingly retract and reforme them (which, with the help and assi­stance of a very little charitie, may ordinarily, if not universally, be presum'd of Saints) why shall not such a reformation as this, being voluntary and free, be every whit as commendable and reall, as a reformation compelled or inforced would be? And conse­quently, why should not an arbitrary or voluntary account, be as Christian, as satisfactory, as reall, as that which is purchased by an iron rod? Or doth any Church or association of Churches, obtaine a quicker or richer spirit of discerning, or a more accom­plished [Page 28] facultie of convincing Churches that are delinquent, of their errors or injustice, by being armed with a compulsive power over them, then they were or would be capable of, if their autho­ritie were consultative and perswasive onely? Or hath a Church called to an account for error or injustice, any more reason to ac­knowledge either for such, because they are adjudged such unto her, by Churches (one or more) having a coactive power over her, then if this sentence were passed by Churches not daring to claime, owne, or exercise any such power?

4. And lastly, I would faine know, why it should be more schisme or separation, for an Independent Church to appeale onely unto Churches of their owne partie, and not unto the Presbyterian, then it is for Presbyterian Churches, to appeale onely to Churches of their partie, and not unto the Independent; considering, that Churches of this constitution, are every whit as much (at least) Churches of Christ, as those of the other. But the truth is, it being lawfull and free (as himself here supposeth) for Churches to appeale to Churches, as well of the one constitution, as of the other, that it is somewhat an uncouth and strange conceit, to make schisme or separation of appealing either unto the one, or the other.

Whereas (p. Sect. 29. 17.) he gives us leave to differ in judgement from the decrees of Synods and Parliaments, when erroneous and contrariant to the expresse Word, not to our owne fancies, inferences, or opinions; doubtlesse, he mistakes, taking that away from us with the one hand, which he gives us with the other; which, I presume was not his intention. For if we may not differ in judgement from Syno­dicall decrees, when they are contrariant to our opinions, wee may not so differ from them at any time. Or may we, or can we dif­fer in judgement from that, which is not contrary to our opinion? Though Mr Prynne differs in judgement from those that hold forth the Congregationall way, yet (it seems) he may be of the same opini­on with them concerning that way.

Whereas (in the same page) he demands of us,Sect. 30. If we deem not our selves more holy then our brethren, or be not sweld up with spirituall pride, why refuse we to close with them now, as we have done heretofore? The ground of the demand (questionlesse) is a mistake, and should not suffer ultrâ condignum, if it were called an error. There may be many reasons why one man closeth not with another in point of [Page 29] judgement (and consequently why not in practice also?) besides dee­ming himselfe more holy then his brother, from whom hee dissenteth, or being sweld up with spirituall pride. I doe not conceive that the Apostle Paul deemed himselfe more holy then Peter, much lesse that he was sweld up with spirituall pride, when hee not onely dissented from him touching the justifiablenesse of that course and practice wherein Peter now walked, but (as the text saithGal. 2. 11.) withstood him to his face; but that the true ground of such both dissent and resistance, was partly the standing of Pauls judgement in oppositi­on unto, and dislike of what Peter did; partly the desire hee had of doing his fellow Apostle the Christian kindnesse of making streight that which was crooked in his way; partly also (if not principally) his zeal and faithfulnesse to his Lord and Master Je­sus Christ, and his Gospel, and his Saints, that none of these might suffer losse or disadvantage in the world by the misprisions, or miscarriages of any man, how great or holy soever, as farre as lay in his power to prevent it. Nor would it have been any disparage­ment or dishonour at all to the name of Mr. Prynne, nor wound (I beleeve) to his conscience, if hee had wav'd those hard sugge­stions we spake of, and substituted these or the like in their stead, as the true grounds of his brethrens not closing with him, and those of his judgement in the Presbyterian way. The truth is, that for my part (and I verily beleeve that I may truly speak the same for many thousands more) any conceit or deeming of my selfe more holy then others, was so far from interessing either my judgement or af­fections for the congregational way in the least, or from keeping me at any distance from my brethren of a contrary judgement, that a sense of mine owne defectivenesse therein, together with an earnest desire of better accommodations for my supplies, was not the least of those motives and arguments which carried and set my heart upon that way. And here I make open profession in the presence of Heaven and Earth, that if any of my brethren of opposite judgement, shall give me any reasonable account, or satisfaction, how in an ordinary way of providence, or experience, I may build up my selfe in holinesse, better (or, if it be but as well) in the way of Presbytery, then in that way wherein I am for the present in­gaged, I will soon pull down what I have built, and dwell no lon­ger in the Tents of Independencie, but devote my selfe, and all my [Page 30] strength and might, to the service of that way, which for distin­ction sake is called Presbyterie. For I make no question, but that way of Church-government which hath the richest sympa­thy, and most direct and full compliance with the edification of the Saints in holinesse, is against all reasons, grounds, and argu­ments of what seeming strength or evidence soever, the way which Jesus Christ hath sealed.

For any harsh censures cast, or passed by any Congregationall men upon Mr. Prynne, or other of their brethren of Mr. Prynnes judgement and way, I trust the complaint is to the height of the crime. I cannot justifie one harsh censure given, by a thousand re­ceived: but if there were a Law for any such attonement, I make no question but that all the Congregational delinquency in that kind, would be fully purged. If my pen hath trespassed in this kinde, (whereof notwithstanding I am no ways conscious, though upon some charge, I have made diligent enquirie after my own guilt) I hope the last period in this Mr. Prynnes Reply Where he chargeth mee to have pre­sumptuously undermined the undoub­ted privile­ges of Parlia­ment, with I know not how many more Anti-parlia­mentary pas­sages diame­trally contra­ry to my na­tionall vow and cove­uant, &c., will speak a good word for it, and salve the imputation of such a sin.

Hitherto I have examined onely such passages in the Reply which concerne the common cause depending between the two wayes of Church-government, so much ingaged in competition. My Pen must now travaile for her selfe, and make triall of her strength for the redeeming of her own Innocency out of the hand of those accusations,Sect. 31. which have laid violent hands upon her. I intend scarce so much as to touch or mention any thing that was brought to the touch-stone in the former part of this discourse: a single vindication is large allowance for criminations without ei­ther substance, or colour of truth: the chiefe (& almost the only) thing which I have now to doe, is to weigh the discussions of Mr. Prynnes pen in opposition to those of 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,Sect. 32. (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 [Page 31] 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.Sect. 33. 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 [Page 32] 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.Jam. 2. 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, wch 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, Page 18. Parliaments, Emperours, Kings, Judges, Magistrates, Ministers, Page. 24., even for conscience sake, and the Lords sake too Page 9.. 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,Sect. 34. 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 [Page 33] 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 consequent of a Doctrine as this, is foundation large enough to build a confident determination upon, that it is hetero­dox and intolerable.

And for the body of this Reason, wherein he informes us at large (and that with truth enough) that Satan and his ministers also tranforme themselves into Angels of light, that false Teachers u­sually come to seduce men in sheeps cloathing, that there is no Heretique, Schismatique, or Sectary whatsoever, though never so pernicious, grosse, and detestable, but pretends his way, Doctrine, practise, to be the way and truth of Christ; with many other good sayings to like effect; I cannot but marvaile, what a reasonable man should imagine to be in all this, to make him question the truth of this Doctrine, that for any man to attempt the suppression of any Doctrine, practise, or way which is from God, is to fight against God. Because false Teachers pretend their Doctrine to be from God, doth it therefore follow, that the suppressing of such a Doctrine which is from God, should not be a fighting against God? It is somewhat an hard case, that a man should be arrested of a presumptuous undermining the undoubted pri­viledges of Parliament by the very roots, at the suite of such a conse­quence as this.

[Page 34] Whereas upon the former assertions, he enters his action in such an Interrogatory as this: Must we therefore not speedily oppose, resist, avoyd, suppresse them now, because they thus pretend they are of, and from God, but stay till God hath renounced them, &c. I joyne issue with him, and say; that there is little lesse then a meere Contra­diction in the forme of his Plea; Those Doctrines, practises, opinions, which in the former part of his Plea, he had censured and con­demned for Heresies, Errors, Schismes, Sects, &c. in this latter part of it he supposeth, that God hath not yet disclaimed, or renounced from Heaven; and that we see not their condemnation yet written with the beame of the Sun. Else why should he represent it as so unreasona­ble and hainous a thing, that we should stay the opposing and sup­pressing of them, till such things were done? Surely Mr. Prynne can­not be so hardy, as to condemne any Doctrine or practise for Hereticall or errneous, untill God hath some wayes or other dis­claimed or renounced them from Heaven, for such. It is he, not Mr. Prynne, that must, not onely determine, what is Heresie, Error, and Schisme, but also signifie his determinations in this kinde, before it comes to Mr. Prynnes turne, or any mans beside, to give any such sentence against them at the barre of their Judgements.

A second Reason which created that jealousie in him we spake of,Sect. 35. against the forenamed Doctrine, is the contrarietie of it to forty and one expresse precepts and presidents (if my Arithmetique failes me not in the computation) in the old and new Testament; one whereof (viz. Jer. 4. 30, 31.) he avoucheth for pregnant; but the rest (it seems) must be compared together, or else the contrarietie in them to the Doctrine which he opposeth, will not utter it self. And it is well that he can be content to afford us leasure for the perusall of these Scripture precepts and presidents, though he would afford us none, to peruse or consider of Doctrines or practises, as we heard before. But

1. I must professe the second time, that I can little lesse then wonder, that the Gentleman should onely question or suspect the Orthodoxnesse of a Doctrine, and not positively and peremptorily conclude it Heterodox, which carrieth a contrarietie in it to forty-one expresse precepts and presidents of Scripture. A man would think by such a streine of tendernesse and indulgence as this, that he were a very faire and favourable interpreter of mens opinions and wayes; [Page 35] and would never exact or stand upon Summam jus (which the Proverb interprets to be Summam injuriam) with any man.

2. If all the precepts and presidents here drawne together from the Scriptures, be expresse, why is that one, Jer. 4. 30, 31. separated from all its fellows by this parenthes [...]s of preferment, [a pregnant place] as if all the rest were barren and empty of that conception, which is indifferently fathered, or mothered rather, upon them all? and one other of them (viz. Gal. 2. 4. to 18.) singularized with this parenthesis, [a noted place]? If no contrarietie to the suspected Doctrine be found either in the pregnant place, or in the noted place, I trust all the rest of the places will give place, and confesse them­selves strangers thereunto. First, for the pregnant place, Jer. 4. 30, 31. doubtlesse, there is not so much as an [...] or an em­bryo of such a contrarietie to be found there. The tenor of the place is this; And when thou art spoyled, what wilt thou doe? Though thou cloathest thy self with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with paynting; in vaine shalt thou make thy self faire, thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life, ver. 30. For I have heard a voyce as of a woman in travaile, and the an­guish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voyce of the daugh­ter of Zion, that bewaileth her self, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now: for my soule is wearied because of murtherers, ver. 31. I am not able to discerne the least swelling or bearing-out of the womb of either of these verses, with any contrarietie in the least, to the im­port of the Doctrine now under protection. To attempt the suppressi­on of any Doctrine or Way which is from God, may be a fighting against God, and yet God say to the daughter of his people, And when thou art spoyled, what wilt thou doe? together with all that which followeth in the two transcribed verses. I beleeve the noted place is every whit as voyde of that contrarietie we speak of, as we found the pregnant place to be. Mr. Prynne himself, partly transcribes, partly argues this place, beautifying the words or clause wherein he chiefly puts his trust, with emphaticall letters, thus; Paul would not give way to false Apostles, NO NOT FOR AN HOURE, that the truth of the Gospel might continue among the Galatians, and resisted Peter to his face, as soone as ever he walked disorderly, (he should have spake more truth, if he had said, as soone as ever he understood or knew, that he so walked) and gave the least countenance to false Teachers, &c.

[Page 36]
—Fortassè cupressum,
Scis simulare: quid hoc, si fractis enatet expes
Navibus, aere dato qui pingitur?

Mr. Prynne doth very substantially prove, by this passage, and that which followes, that errour in Doctrines, and miscarriages in persons, are to be resisted and withstood, (by wayes and means warrantable by the Word of God) as soone as ever they are cer­tainly discerned, or known to be such: but here is not the least semblance of an Argument to prove, either that the one or the other, ought to be resisted or suppressed, before they are discove­red or manifested to be such; or that being discovered or mani­fested to be such, they ought to be either resisted or suppressed by any other means, then what God himself hath authorized in that behalf; least of all, is there any jot, tittle, or peep of a proof of that, which is the burthen of Mr. Prynnes undertaking, viz. that to attempt the suppressing of any Doctrine or Way which is from God, is not to fight against God.

Nor doth his third Reason any whit more accommodate his enterprize,Sect. 36. then the former. For what contrariety, or shew of con­trariety is there in these unquestionable maximes, of Divinity, Policy, and Morality, Principiis obsta [...]e: venienti occarrite morbo, &c. to that Doctrine, which only pronounceth, the attempt of suppressing any Doctrine or Way which is of God, to be a fighting against God? yea, or to this; that no Doctrine or Way ought to be suppressed, untill it be certainly known, whether they be from God, or no? He that gave coun­sell, Principiis obstare, i [...] to withstand beginnings, did not mean to advise men to make resistance against such beginnings, which might, for ought they know, be as wel the beginings, of good, or of strength, as of evill or sicknesse; but only such beginnings, which did cleerly presage inconvenience ensuing, if not timely prevented. And though all wise men hold preventing physique best for their bodies; yet no wise man holds such Physique best, or good in any degree for his body, which is as like to prevent the health and sound constitution of his body, as any infirmity or distemper of it. He that will either launce or seare, before he knowes whether the condition of his bo­dy requires either, may abound in flesh, but sure is no true born son of Wisdome. That creature which is indued by God with prin­ciples of discerning, certainly was not made to act (especially in [Page 37] things of highest importance, as matters of Religion are) at per­adventure.

His 4th and last Reason holds no correspondence at all with the Truth.Sect. 37. For what contrariety is there in the Doctrine under Mr. Pryns arrest, to the Policy, Practice of most godly Magistrates, Princes, Mi­nisters, Churches in all Ages, Nations? When did the Policy or Practice of any of these affirm, that to attempt the suppression of any Doctrine or Way which is from God, is not to fight against God? If his meaning be, that the Policy and Practice of the persons hee repre­sents, never indulged any known Heresies, Errors, Schismes; no, not for an houre, the Doctrine against which hee contends, in this con­tends not at all against him, but gives him the right hand of fel­lowship in such an apprehension. Only it adviceth godly Ma­gistrates, Prince, Ministers, Churches, to be very carefull and wary, of suppressing Angels of light indeed, instead of Satan transformed into an Angel of light; of baiting and hunting the sheep of Christ, in stead of Wolves that come in sheeps clothing; of smothering light in stead of darknesse, of smiting truth in stead of error and heresie. And is there any harme in this counsell or contrariety either to the Policy or Practice of any wise or godly man? Or, if there be any con­trariety to either, it is because there is a contrariety in them to the Word and Wildome of God.

Whereas in the same Reason, Sect. 38. he makes himself a further debtor unto mee, by charging mee, that I plead for Schismes and CON­VENTICLES set up only by private spirits in opposition to the publique established Church-reiglement.

My Answer is:

1. That I know a publique Church-reiglement abrogated and de­molished, but I know none as yet established. When Mr. Prynne by his Logique shall convince mee of acting in opposition to that which is not, I trust I shall be provided with mine to give him a satisfy­ing answer.

2. Whereas he declares against me, as a Pleader for Schismes and Conventicles; I answer, that hee is the happiest man I know of his Profession, if he never pleaded any worse Cause, then that which I plead in those Sermons. But whereas in other places of his Reply, his margent glorieth with quotations in abundance, here (it seems) it is ashamed, as not knowing what to say, nor where to finde or [Page 38] point at, any pleading for Schismes and Conventicles, as the lines in the page adventure to affirm.

3. What Mr. Prynnes privie notion of a Schisme or Conventicle is, I am not able to say: but if hee be here of the same minde and judgement with his own marginall note, p. 10. which affirmeth, that none are Conventiclers but Heretiques and Schismatiques, who wholly separate themselves from our publique assemblies established by law; certain I am, that I plead for no Conventicles in those Ser­mons; nor do I approve of the practice of any, who wholly sepa­rate themselves from our publique assemblies. But calumniare audacter; aliquid haerebit, holds good (it seems) in Law. But,

4. If by pleading for Schismes and Conventicles, he means a plead­ing for the spirituall liberties of the Congregations of the Saints, and of the Assemblies of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven, whom Jesus Christ hath made Kings and Priests unto God his Fa­ther, Rev. 1. 6. and who are shortly to judge the world, if the vindication (I say) of the rights and priviledges of these in point of exemption and immunity in their spirituall affaires, and such as concern the regulation of their consciences in matters appertaining to the worship and service of God, from the Jurisdiction and interest of the Commissioners and Delegates of the world; if this (once again) be pleading for Schismes and Conventicles, I had quitted my self much more like a faithfull Minister of Jesus Christ, if I had pleaded for them yet seven times more, then now I have done. My sorrow and shame (in part) is, that I have pleaded this ho­nourable Cause so weakly, as to leave thoughts and imaginations in Mr. Prynne, which still exalt and magnifie themselves against the righteousnesse, truth, and equity of it.

5. And lastly, whereas hee calls the Church-government which I plead for, a Government set up only by private spirits; if it be found to be a Government set up by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures (the consideration unto which all my pleadings for it in those Sermons are homagers, being all of them conditionall, and none peremptory or absolute) Mr. Prynnes spirit, and the spirits of all others that shall oppose it, how publique soever their persons may be, will be found to be the private spirits, disallowed in the Scrip­tures by the Spirit of God.

Whereas hee yet addes, Sect. 39. that differences and varieties in matters [Page 39] of government are such tender things, that they cannot be tolerated in one and the self-same Church and State, without infinite inconve­niences and distances, &c. I answer,

1. That differences and varieties in matters of Government, are not things so tender in any degree, as the consciences of the Saints; and therefore no reason, that Reason of State should be more tenderly respected, then these. Better a thousand men in­convenienced in their temporalls, then one righteous soul woun­ded in his spiritualls; yea, or then one sin committed to prevent all those inconveniences. Vna Dei gloria (saith Calvin, a great Presbyterian) praeferri meretur centum mundis. Yea, and one greater then Calvin (I mean the Apostle Paul) saith, (neither saith he any thing more then what an whole Christian State or Nation is bound to say) If meat offendeth my brother, I will eat no flesh whilest the world standeth, that I may not offend my brother, 1 Cor. 8. 13. But,

2. Whereas wee still heare of wars and rumors of wars from Presbyteriall pens, of infinite inconveniences and disturbances, and turnings of all things upside down in States, as if they should never die any other death, in case any other Government should be indured, but their own; the truth is, that such predictions (or pretences rather) as these, are but a kind of politique agents sent forth to negotiate their Cause with the ignorance and simplicity of the generality of men; who being indifferent for matter of Church-government, but of firmly-resolv'd judgements to keep themselves as far from all that which is called trouble or distur­bances as possibly they can, are apt to drink in the impressions of all overtures or pretences which sound that way, as fishes drink water, and so are made Proselytes of a zealous inspiration for the Classique Consistory. Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor. That mixture of ignorance and feare which is commonly found in vulgar consti­tutions, may easily be wrought and fashion'd by a politique hand, almost into what apprehensions, and indeavours suitable, a man desireth; if his design in this kind exceed not the compasse and content of nature: for the darknesse of ignorance hath no com­munion at all with the kingdome of light; but being in conjuncti­on with an awakened passion of feare, it disposeth the hearts and souls of men to receive any superstitious impressions of what shape and from soever the intellectus agens, or hee that worketh upon it, [Page 40] shal desire. For my part, I am not able to calculate the least rational proportion or conexion between a variety or diffrence of Church-government, & the distractions, or disturbances in a State; nor can I easily beleeve, that all the Presbyterian Writers themselves, do truly & unfainedly fear any such effect from such a cause, though some peradventure may. For what if every congregation or Parish in & about London, had a different government, or way of ordering their Church-affairs, as they generally have somewhat (more or lesse) differing in the ordering and managing of their Vestries, or Parochiall civill affaires, the one being supposed as agreeable to the civill Lawes of the State, as the other, and each Parish respe­ctively satisfied, and well apaid with their own government, I am not able to discerne, nor cast it in my thoughts, how the peace or safety of the civill State should suffer in the least by it. But I can very easily conceive, how a State may be very probably disturbed, (and I can give instances of many that have been) by an universall compulsion of all the subjects thereof, to one and the same Religi­on; yea, and how by the like compulsion to one and the same Church-government. It is very strange to me that they that know (and how generally it is knowne) what variety of Churches and Church-government, yea, and professions of Religion there are, and have for a long time been in the dominion of the States of Holland, and withall, how pacate, flourishing, and free from di­sturbance this State hath been; and againe, how that not onely a forme of Church-government differing from that kinde of go­vernment which is more generally practised throughout the king­dome of France, but even a different Religion also, have with­out the least occasion of inconvenience or disturbance to the State, (yea I might say, to the great advantage and benefite of the State,) been tolerated, yea little lesse then countenanced, and that neer the very heart, & chiefe places of this Kingdom; very strange (I say) to me it is, that they that cannot lightly but know these things (besides many other instances in other States and Repub­licks, of like consideration) should yet pretend fears, yea certainties of I know not what inconveniences and disturbances to the State, if a­ny more Church-governments then one should take place, or bee endured in it. They that shall please to peruse page 23. of the Re­ply of the two brethren to A. S. shall finde many Scriptures, of a [Page 41] friendly and harmlesse consistence of severall Religions (and there­fore doubtlesse of severall Church-governments) in the same State, besides some others. And Lucas Osiander in his Epitome of the Ec­clesiasticall History, written by the Magdeburgenses, in the 6th Cen­tury, relates severall examples of successfull issues and events of such mutuall tolerations, as wee now speak of. Troubles and disturbances of States, are far more like to be the fruits and conse­quents of rigour and hard measure, measured out unto the Saints, then of favour or condescension unto them for their accommo­dation. They that think a State should work wisely for it self, by any hard intreaty of the servants of God, have forgotten where­fore Pharoah and his great host perished together in the red Sea.

Whereas p.Sect. 40. 19. he taxeth me with a default, that I neither disco­ver unto him what that Way is, which I there so earnestly plead for, nor produce any one text to prove it Christs own way, nor one example to war­rant it, &c. My Answer is,

1. I suppose, that an understanding man, as all men acknow­ledge Mr. Prynne to be, that prosecutes a Way with so much vio­lence and bitternesse, as hee doth the Way there pleaded for, un­derstandeth it all over, through and through, (and so needeth not any further discovery of it to be made unto him). Such a man (doubtlesse) will take heed above all caution, of stumbling at that stone above all other, whereat the Princes of this world stumbled, and were broke to pieces, when they crucified the Lord of glory, before they knew who he was, 1 Cor. 2. 8.

2. I answer further, that it was no part of my design or intent in those Sermons, to justifie the Way so oft there mentioned, simply, or as a Way of Christ against all contradiction; but only to justifie it against those common exceptions and vulgar objections there insisted upon; and to demonstrate, that it may be Christs own Way, notwithstanding any thing that hath yet appeared to take away that crowne from it: and so upon this consideration, to perswade men, as they love and tender their own safety and peace, not to lay violent hands upon it, untill they should have better grounds to judge it none of Christs Way, then yet they had any. This be­ing the adequate and precise tenor of my intention in that Dis­course, I kept my self close to it; and so had no occasion to argue any thing (or very little) in a cataskenastique or positive Way for it.

[Page 42] But because I produce nothing positively to prove the Way I plead for, Sect. 41. (or rather, against the suppression of it) to be Christs own Way, Mr. Prynne takes the courage to assault the credit and re­putation of it by four Reasons or Arguments, (as hee desires to have their number thought) though the second and fourth be but one and the same; and the third, nothing but what hee had said before, and that unsuceessefully, (as was argued in the 39th Section of this Discourse) and the first, second, third and fourth, nothing to prophane the excellency, or pollute the beauty of that Cause, against which his pen is armed. But let us answer them, so far as they have not been answered already; only this one thing pre­observ'd, that Mr. Prynn's conscience, with the assistance of all his four Arguments, doth not yet serve him, peremptorily or simply to condemn this Way, as none of Christs own Way, but only to suspect it none of his, as himself expresseth himself in the last line of pag. 19. Now being advanced no further in the confidence of his judgement against this Way, but only to suspect it for none of Christs, I trust, that remembring what Cameron (a learned Pres­byterian) saith, viz. that suspicion of falsity, was ever a calamity in­cident to truth, he will advance no further in his opposition to it, untill his suspicion be grown up to the stature of a perfect, cleere, and certain knowledge. This only premised, let us try whether the grounds of his jealousie it self will not shake.

To the first wee answer,Sect. 42.

1. That whereas this Way is here charged to be a new Way, ne­ver yet heard of, in any age or Church of Christ; it hath been suffici­ently proved by those that have written in the defence of it; that in point of Antiquity, it hath the preheminence of its Competi­tresse to the value of 1500 yeers, as having been that Way of Go­vernment, wherein the Primitive Churches of Christ, through his gracious & wise indulgence administred unto them by his Apostles in this behalf rejoyced for the space of about 200. yeers, as Mr. Bur­ton in his Answer to Mr. Prynn's two first pieces upon this subject, lately published, cleerly manifests, p. 19. and 24.Mr Jacob affirmeth, that for the space of 200. or 300. yeeres after Christ, every visible church had power to exercise Ecclesiasticall Government, and all other Gods spirituall Ordinances (the means of salvation) in and for it self, immediatly from Christ. Sions Prerogative, p. 28, 29. shewing more­over, how these Churches in time came to degenerate in point of Government, and to lose their spirituall liberties therein.

[Page 43] 2. Whereas the opposition of the generality of Magistrates, Mini­sters and people to this Way, is pleaded in barre to the legitimacy and truth of it; We answer,

1. That according to the tenor of Poeticall story; Vlysses af­ter twenty yeers absence from his house and home, was grown out of the knowledge of his friends and neighbours; yea, Penelope her self (his wife) knew him not at his return at first, but upon some conference and discoveries otherwise, hee became known both to the one and the other. Nor should it seem strange to any, that a Church-government, set up by the Apostles, so many hundreth yeers since, and having for a thousand yeers and upwards been in exile, the rights, priviledges and possessions of it seised upon, and usurped by others, should not presently at the first return of it, be acknowledged by the generality of men, no, nor by the genera­lity of her friends themselves, I mean, godly, sober, and under­standing men; whom I call her friends, because I make no questi­on, but there lies love and friendship to her, at the root and bot­tome of their hearts, though there be a crust of enmity and oppo­sition at the top, for a season. Joseph will in due time, make him­self known unto his brethren.

2. Though numbers of those that are opposite to this Way, if we compute the generality of them, be confessedly far greater, then of those that plead for her; yet the barren begins to rejoyce, and to beare children apace; and the desolate may in time come to have more children then she that hath an husband. John Baptist had many moe Disciples and followers at first, then Christ himself; yet ingenu­ously subscribed to the dignity of Christ above himself, saying, He must increase, but I must decrease, Joh. 3. 30.

3. The judgements both of Magistrates and common people, concerning this Way, depending chiefly (if not solely) upon the judgements of Ministers, it is the lesse strange, that there should be found such a grand concurrence in the judgements of both against it, especially for a time. There are these twelve Reasons (among others) why the judgements of Ministers especially may, according to the course of humane affairs in other like cases, stand off at some distance form this Goverment, for a season.

First, their judgements have for a long time conversed familiar­ly with another, and that with approbation and contentment; by [Page 44] means whereof there is a kinde of a pleasing sympathy or conna­turalnesse growne between them; which is such a conveniencie or accommodation, that nature will not suddenly quit or lose, nor without good consideration: No man (saith our Saviour) that hath drunk old wine, streight way desireth new; for he saith, the old is bet­ter, Luke 5. 39.

Secondly, godly Ministers (more generally) stand publiquely declared in their judgements for another Government. And how hard a thing is it, even for good men (in the Philosophers phrase) [...], to do execution upon their own tenets and opi­nions, especially when they have own'd them in the sight of the world? The casting out of his son Ismael, is said to have been a thing very grievous in Abrahams sight, notwithstanding he had the advantage of the expresse Commandement of God upon him, to make it easie, Gen. 21. 11. It is confessed, that this, (haply with some others of the Reasons following) beares as hard against some Independents in their adhesion unto, and stiff-standing by their Way, as it doth against Presbyterians in their resolvednesse for theirs. But this rather confirms, then any way infeebles, the ar­gumentative authority of it for that probation, which it un­dertakes.

Thirdly, many Ministers conceive, that if they shall pull out but one stone out of their building, though never so ill laid, they shall shake the foundations of the whole fabrique, and that in case themselves should begin with any one of those Doctrines wch they have taught, to disclaim it, the people will follow their example herein, and do the like by all the rest. Whereas on the contrary, the truth is, that to separate the vile from the precious, is to raise the honour and esteem of that which is precious; and the cancelling of some things, which a man hath taught, as erroneous, is an high confirmation of all the rest; according to that Schoole maxime, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis.

Fourthly, many by being declaredly ingag'd for such or such an opinion, have fared the better for it, either in their credits and reputations, or otherwise; yea, and haply at unawares, have gained deep interest and honour with persons of name and prime respects in the world, by means of a co-ingagement in the same opinion with them. Now as our Saviour saith,Mar. 9. 39. there is no man that [Page 45] shall doe a miracle in my name, that can lightly speake evill of me; No more will men easily be brought to make refuse or untruth of any such opinion, which hath been, and still continues, such a Bene­factresse unto them. Ministers may truly say in such cases, Benefi­cium accepi, libertatem vendidi: i. by receiving a benefit, I have sold my liberty.

Fifthly, many are not able to be baptized with the baptisme where­with Paul was baptized, Act. 17. 18. where he was charged to bee a setter forth of new Gods: they are not able to beare the reproach of being teachers of new doctrines; of being charged with whim­zies and Independent Crotchets Mr. Prynne. full Replies. p 74., of trading in Apes avd Peacocks M. Edwards Antapol. p. 261., &c. and so resolve to hold on in such a way, wherein though they may meet with some reproofes, yet they are sure of farre more with them, then they can feare being against them.

Sixthly, some think it a point of humility to build upon other mens foundations, and feare they should pollute the memories and honour of Calvin, Beza, and other famous lights in the Church of God, if they should recede from their principles in the least.

Seventhly, some have laesum principium, a maimed principle of seeing any thing that is new, except they see it first, cannot stoop so low, as to carry any mans honor after him, (especially that con­verseth upon the earth with him: Pascitur in vivis livor:) nor yet so farre disparage their own parts and abilities, as to judge any thing which is of a new discovery, to be Truth, except they bee some wayes or other interessed in the discovery of it. Ingenio qui vult cedere, rarus erit. There is a notion (unsound as it seemes to me) of a kind of knowledge supposed to be in God,Twiss de Sci­entia med. called Sci­entia media, lately started amongst the Schoolmen: and how doe the great masters of that learning, contend amongst themselves for the primacie of that invention? Fonseca stands up, and tells the world,Ego (inquit Fons [...]ca) in A­cademia Co­n [...]mbricensi, hoc primus ob­servavi. Imo potius ego (cla­mat Molina) apud, Eboren­ses meos. His non cedit Leo­nardus Les­sius Lovani­ensis, & suo cer [...]bello, de codem partu ambitiosè gra­tulatur. Prid. Lect. 2. de Scient. med. that he was the first that observed it amongst his Co­nimbrians. Nay rather (saith Molina) I am he that first discovered it amongst my Eborans. In comes Lessius from amongst his Lova­nians, and takes away this Crown from them both, and sets it up­on his own brain.

Eighthly, some are of opinion, that matters of truth in point of Church-government, are neither too great nor too good, to bee sacrificed upon the service of peace; though Luthers saying was, [Page 46] that unus apex verbi, major est coelo & terra: i. the least tittle, or poynt of the word of God, is greater then heaven, and earth.

Ninthly, some are more addicted to Authors then Arguments, for the furnishing of their judgements, and regulating their con­sciences in matters of Religion: and then it is no marvell if these make Silver and Gold of the Presbyteriall, and Hey and Stubble of the Congregationall way; though it bee true also on the other hand, that in very many Authors, and those of Classique authori­ty, both ancient and modern, there are manifesta rotae vestigia cer­nendi, manifest prints and footsteps of this waySee Sions prerogdtive, almost throughout..

Tenthly, the Congregationall way puts Ministers upon a more immediate dependence upon God and his providence for matter of maintenance and outward accommodation: and how few are there but had rather see, then beleeve? have the knowne Lawes of a State, then the unknowne purposes and decrees of heaven, the vouchers of their livelihood and supports to such a proportion or degree?

Eleventhly, (some it's like) are afraid lest the wrath and discon­tent of the generality of the people of the Land, should evince the error and untruth of the Congregationall way, by offering violence to those that shall hold it forth in practice; and so chuse rather to build upon the peoples generall acceptation of the Presbyterian way (which they cannot much question) as an unquestionable de­monstration of the truth and goodnesse thereof.

Twelfthly (and lastly) others (probably) are jealous, and fore­see, that they shall not be able to give that quarter of contentment to many great persons, and men in place of authority, in the Con­gregationall way, which they know they may in the Presbyterian. Yea, they cannot lightly but foresee, that in the practice of the Congregationall way, they shall (in all likelihood and without the gracious hand of God preventing) contract the odium and ill will of many great ones, who under God have power to grind their fa­ces, and break their bones. And who will be willing to study and take pains, and be earnest with God in prayer night and day, for the conviction of such a Truth, which being discovered, will either expose a man to all that danger of hardship and misery in the world, which we speak of, or else doe him a worse displeasure then so, by tormenting his conscience, in case he shall refuse to be so ex­posed?

[Page 47] These with many other like reasons there are, why Ministers (rather then others) may more generally incline to fall in rather with the Presbyterian, then the Congregationall way (and con­sequently why Magistrates and people, who see much by their eyes, should fall in also) and yet such a constellation no signe from hea­ven, but onely from the earth, (the element made to be trampled under foot) of the truth & righteousnes of that Way. But that I may not be mistaken, nor leave the least touch or tast of offence in the mind of any man, by occasion of the reasons insisted upon, I so­lemnly professe, as in the presence of God, that I intend no ill re­flexion upon any of my brethren in the Ministery, who are con­trary minded to me in point of Church-government, as such in a­ny of them; nor to infinuate as if they, either divisim or conjunctim, were swayed in their judgements by any of the said motives in the present controversie: but to demonstrate against my Antagonist, that such tentations are very incident to the nature of man, yea, even when it is under the best accomplishments of nature, industry & grace it self: and consequently, that his argument drawne, A mul­titudine taliter sentientium, is of little force. I freely acknowledge, that Ministers very possibly may have (yea I verily beleeve that ma­ny have) the Presbyterian way in their hearts, who never consulted with any of those Oracles about the bringing of it in thither: and that many of this judgement are as candid, free, unspotted, and untouched by any of those respects, in their way, as many who imbrace the Congregationall way, are in theirs. Yet

4. I must answer this one thing further to my Repliers Argu­ment, that the testimony of a few godly persons, having little or nothing of this world to accommodate their judgements, but a thousand things to distance and distaste them, is in reasonablenesse and fairnesse of construction, of more consideration for the aver­ment of a truth, then the judgement of many who have the Sunne, Moone, and twelve Starres to give light unto them, I mean all or most of this worlds endowments to confirme them.

5. (And lastly) the known case happening at the Councel of Nice between Paphnutius and the rest of the learned members thereof, with that of Athanasius opposing (in a manner) the whose Christian world now turned Arrian, with some others of like consideration that might be added, have broke the heart of that [Page 48] Topique place, Quod pluribus videtur, &c. and made it void and invalid for ever.

To his second Argument, which (it seemes) strengthens the hand of his great jealousie against the Congregationall cause, I answer.

First, I am unduly and untruly charged, to acknowledge the Con­gregationall government set up by a few private men, against the Autho­rity and commands of the Parliament, &c. I no where mention any Authority or command of Parliament declared against this Way; nei­ther indeed doe I know any to this houre. Nor doe I either hope or feare to live to that day, wherein private men may not both feare God, and obey Jesus Christ, without offending against the authority and commands of Parliament. But this charge being hard to find in my discourse, and he that affirmes it, being desirous to make it as hard to answer or disprove, he takes field-room enough for his reference, and in his Margine bids us (in effect) looke from page 30. to 52. telling us, that if we look narrowly enough, wee shall find it somewhere within that circuit, though himselfe (it seems) knowes not well where.

2. Nor do I any where, either tacitly or vocally acknowledge that this way, not onely denies, but oppugnes the temporall Magistrates, Parliaments, Synods directions or coercive power in Ecclesiasticall affairs. If any man of this way doth denie, much more if hee oppugneth ei­ther the one or the other, it is not necessary that he should doe ei­ther, as a Son of this Way, nor by any influence of those grounds and principles upon which this Way is built. But I verily beleeve, that Mr. Prynne never knew any man of this Way, that ever denied, much lesse oppugned any directions whether from Parliaments or Synods, (or from farre meaner hands then either of these) unlesse they saw or apprehended them contrary to the mind and will of God in the Scriptures; in which case I have that Christian and honourable opinion of the authour of this charge, that he would deny them himselfe. What he meanes by the word oppugning, in such an emphaticall opposition to a denying, is none of my under­standing. It he meanes onely a pleading or an arguing in opposi­tum, I conceive it no wayes opposite unto, but of a just and neces­sary concurrence with a deniall. For he that denies any thing affir­med by another, is bound to, (or at least very lawfully may) give a [Page 49] reason of that his deniall; which must needs be an oppugning (in this sense) of the others assertion. If by oppugning, he means, an opposing or resisting by force, the charge is a most unworthy and unchristian slander. I no where give the least intimation that the way I plead for in any of her principles or maximes, thus oppugneth either Parliaments or Synods, either in their directions, or in the ex­ercise of any coercive power. As for a coercive power in Synods, I think Mr. Prynnes way denies, if not oppugns, it, as well as mine. And to gratifie the Civill Magistrate with such a power as this, in matters of Religion, denying him withall any Directive power for the or­dering and government of it (which is the bountie of the Presbyte­rian way to the Civill MagistrateThe Civill Magistrate ar­rogates not to himself any di­rective power in matters of Religion. A. S. in his Observ. & Annot. p. 5. And againe, p. 7. To grant them such a power (viz. of judging que­stions in de­bate between the two par­ties in the As­sembly, speak­ing of the Par­liament) were nothing else but to joyne your selves with the Ar­minians, &c.) is no such eminency of desert at his hand, above what the Congregationall way doth willingly and chearfully leave unto him. The understanding and reason of a man, is certainly better then the strength of an Elephant, or a Lyon.

3. I absolutely deny, that Mr. Prynne hath either largely, or contractedly proved, either by many Texts, or any Texts, either in his Independencie examined, or in any other of his writings whatso­ever, whether examined or unexamined the deniall of any such coer­cive power, either in Parliaments or Synods, to be either directly or in­directly contrary to the Scriptures, which either the Congregationall way, or any Patron or friend of this way, that I know of, have de­nied, or doe deny unto either. And whereas his page boasts of his large proofe hereof by many Texts, and by this finger (o) points us to his margent, as if that would justifie and make good this boasting; the honest margent, as conscious to the vanitie thereof, refuseth to say any thing at all, jot or tittle, to it.

4. Whereas he pleads, that Paul himself even in matters of Reli­gion pleaded his cause before Festus, Felix, and King Agrippa, all this is granted in point of Truth, but absolutely denied in point of per­tinencie to his purpose. If Independents be brought before Kings and Rulers for Christs sake, or for their conscience sake, it is their wisest course (and that which well becomes them, yea, and that which they would doe, if so brought) to plead their cause before them as well as they can, as Paul did before Festus, &c. But though Paul was a chosen vessell of Christ to carry his Name before Kings Act. 9. 15., yet they were chosen vessels of Satan, who compell'd or brought him before [Page 50] Kings to answer for his life, because he preach'd and practis'd the doctrine of Christ, notwithstanding he alwayes carried the Name of Christ with him, whensoever he was brought before them. Nor doth his pleading his cause before Festus, &c. any whit more prove that Festus had a lawfull coercive power in matters of Religi­on, then James his being slaine by Herods sword, or Christs being crucified by Pilates power, prove that Civill Magistrates have a lawfull power to sentence the faithfullest and most innocent men unto death. As for Pauls appeale unto Caesar, (an Heathen Empe­rour) can we blame him for it, when as he hop'd to find more e­quall and faire proceedings before him, then at the Judicatories of inferior Judges? If Mr. Prynne will accept or interpret, either the pleading of our cause before a Civill Magistracy when we are brought before it, or an appealing from an inferior Civill Judicatory when we feele or feare injustice, to a Superior, or an acknowledgement of a lawfull power in the Civill Magistrate to restraine the violence and unjust proceedings and practises of men against us; if (I say) he will interpret any, or all these, to be an acknowledgement of a Coercive power in the Civill Magistrate, in Ecclesiasticall affaires, there is an end of this strife between us; we will all readily subscribe, that such a coercive power as this in matters of Religion and Ecclesia­sticall affaires, is the undoubted priviledge of the Civill Magistrate, and of right belongs unto him.

5. Wee freely likewise subscribe unto those injunctions of the Apostle, where he injoyns all Christians to pray, even for heathen Kings, Magistrates, and to submit to all their lawfull commands for conscience sake: yea, and are heartily sorry that any such commands should at any time proceed from Kings, Magistrates, whether Heathen or Christian, unto which we cannot submit with a good conscience, and for conscience sake; but are necessitated even for conscience sake to decline them. Onely we question, whether Kings, Magistrates, Heathen or Christian, have any power from God, to punish good and godly men, for declining such commands of theirs for conscience sake, which they cannot for conscience sake submit unto.

6. For those Princes and Magistrates who were long sence predicted to become nursing Fathers to the Church under the Gospel, we wish them all Christian care, tendernesse, and compassion, according to the nature and tenor of this so honourable a service and imployment, [Page 51] so long sence by prophecie from God assign'd and recommended un­to them. But whether it be proper for those, that desire to be look'd upon as nursing Fathers of the Church, to sacrifice the peace and comfort of one part of the children of the Church upon the service of the wills or humors of another part of them, I leave to nursing mothers, who have twins of their womb hanging upon their breasts, to judge and determine.

7. And lastly, for the good and wholesome Laws enacted by Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, &c. for the worship of God, &c. We gave (I trust) a good and wholesome answer in the former part of this discourse, published some weeks since. Wee freely grant a power, yea, and more then a power, a necessitie by way of dutie, in Kings, Magi­strates, to further the honour and service of the true God, and his people in the worship of him. It is onely a power of discouraging his people, of interrupting and hindring their peace and comfort in the wor­ship and service of the true God, which we conceive incompetible un­to Magistracie, as any gift or donation setled upon it by God.

His third Argument or ground of jealousie against the way of his great Contestation,Sect. 44. is, that it appears to be a way that will breed infi­nite confusions, disorders, by confounding the bounds of Parishes, &c. We answer

1. That Physicians seldome complain of sickly times; nor Mil­lars of those that bring griest to their mills. The old saying was, De morbo gaudet medicus. It is strange to me that Mr. Prynne should thus prevaricate with his profession. But it may be this argument is figurative, and cat-antiphrasticall: And so, by confusions, disor­ders, &c. he means, peace, unitie and concord amongst men, whereby confusions, disorders, and consequently suits at Law, will be prevented and cut off. And the truth is that such peace, unitie, and concord amongst men, whereby such unchristian mischiefes and miseries as these, may in ordinary way of providence be prevented, is the genuine and naturall product of this way, and a fruit that is daily gathered from it by many.

2. Whereas he chargeth this way, with confounding the bounds of Parishes, and in his margent cites p. 38. to 40. of my two Sermons, for the justification of this charge; the truth is, that both charge and justification may go together, and serve in the Forlorne hope, having neither reason nor truth to second either. For 1. the way [Page 52] he speaks of, intermeddles not with, offers no violence to the bounds of Parishes onely it thinks it equall that the bounds of Parishes should not offer violence, or be houses of bondage unto the consciences of the Saints, nor be as barres of iron against them in the way of their comfort, and spirituall edification. 2. Whereas I am sub-pena'd for a witnesse against this way, touching the crime objected, I meane of trespassing upon the bounds of Parishes. May answer is, that the printed copie of those Sermons of mine, which I have, hath ne gry quidem, either in pag. 38, 39, or 40. of any such matter: nor hath it any where else, any page, passage, sentence, line, word, syllable, let­ter, point, or tittle, amounting to the import of such a charge.

3. Whereas his pen spits this black reproach in the face of Inde­pendencie, that it is a Government inconsistent with Royaltie and the ci­vill Government; My answer is, that look in what degree this accu­sation and charge would be weighty and sore, in case it could be prov'd; in the same degree it is light and contemptible, through a deficiencie of all, and all manner of proofe, or colour of proofe, whatsoever. The Roman Empire lost nothing of her beautie, strength, or interest, by the Churches of Christ practising this Go­vernment in severall places within the bounds and territories of it. If it sustained losse in any of these, by occasion of this Government, it was not because of their toleration of, but their opposition to it.

4. Nor is this charge, that it giveth way to every sect to choose Mi­nisters, erect Churches of their owne without controule, of any better commendation in point of truth, then the former. For it giveth way to no sect whatsoever without controule; it reproves, oppugns, censures, and condemns sects and sectaries of all sorts; so far is it from granting allowance to them, to choose Ministers, and erect Churches, without controule. Indeed it knows no authoritie or com­mission which it hath from God, to countenance the controulement of the civill sword against such persons, who in the simplicitie (not convicted obstinacy) of their hearts, are misled in matters of Reli­gion: it trembles to make misprisions in things of that difficult, high, and rare attainment, as the acknowledgement of supernatu­rall truth is in matters of Religion, and the things of God, to be matter either of confiscation of goods, imprisonment, banishment, death, unto men: though it denies not a power of restraint from [Page 53] opposing the received faith, with publick disturbance and of­fence.

5. Whereas in Answer to somewhat argued by me to make the innocency of Independencie touching matter of Divisions, as cleare as the noone day, he repones thus; That those who in point of conscience cannot communicate or agree together in one Church, will never questio­lesse accord well together in one familie, bed, Parish, Kingdome, as expe­rience manifests; I answer,

1. That experience manifests the quite contrary. How many Ministers of the Presbyterian judgement are there in the Kingdome, yea, in and about the Citie, that hold communion in all deare and Christian respects, and terms of love and friendship, with many called Independent, and these againe with them? The difference in judgement between them in point of Church-Government, in some rather increasing, then diminishing or dissolving their fami­liaritie and acquaintance. How oft doth Mr. Edwards himself in his Antapologie, acknowledge his Apologists to be dearly and deep­ly interessed in the love and care of many of his judgementMany god­ly and learned Ministers—even such as are their good friends, & tē ­der enough of them, &c p. 3. their friends & familiars, p. 4. That all the godly Mini­sters of Citie and Countrey should carrie themselvs to­wards you wth love, respect, fairness, bro­therly kindnes &c. Et max: The Ministers courted them by all waies of respect & oft high enter­tainment of them inloving speech, friend­ly coūtenance, familiar cōver sing, &c. p. 226? Yea, he commends his own love and affections towards them, once and twice and the third time alsoI love their persons & va­lue them as Brethren, yea, some of them above Bre­thren, and be­sides that love I bear to them as Saints, I have a perso­nall love, and a particular love of friend­ship to some of them, &c. Epist. p. 7.. How many families are there in and about the Citie, wherein the respective members injoy themselves together with much Christian sweetnesse and peace, notwithstanding relations to severall Pastors & Churches among them? I had it from a person worthy credit in a greater matter, that a friend of his (a man also very well knowne to my self, and knowne for a man both of honesty and understanding) related to him; how that having but foure persons in his familie, (himself be­ing one of the foure) and every of these constantly repairing to a different Congregation and Ministery, yet liv'd very peaceably, comfortably, and contentedly together in the same house. Yea, and that he moreover added; that except he should grant this li­bertie to the rest respectively, he could not expect that good accord and agreement with them and between them in his family, which now he found.

Yea, 2. Experience manifests yet more then this; viz. that not onely persons dissenting in point of Church-Government, being otherwise united in the profession of the same pure, Orthodox and undefiled Religion; but that persons dissenting in the very sub­stantialls [Page 52] [...] [Page 53] [...] [Page 54] of their respective Religions, doe lovingly and peaceably combine and live together, not onely in the same State or King­dome, but even in the same Citie, yea, in the same street or neigh­bour-hood; and are mutually helpfull and serviceable one to ano­ther in all matters of civill courtesie, often meet, eat and drink to­gether; yea, and are all of one heart and of one mind, in promo­ting and maintaining the peace and safety of the State where they live. I have received every whit as much as this in report from persons of good esteem and worth, who have been ey-witnesses and diligent observers of such things, both in the Low-Countries and in France.

Yea, 3. (that which is yet more then all this) the Scripture it self implies, that persons, not onely distanced in their judgements about Church-Government, but about the God-head of Christ, and truth of the true and Christian Religion, may not onely ac­cord and agree together in one and the same State, as Abraham and his people did with the Amorites, Gen. 14. 13. with the Philistims at Gerar, Gen. 20. 1. with the AEgyptians, Gen. 12. 10. &c. Christi­ans with Pagan Idolaters, 1 Cor. 10. 27. but in the one and the same familie, yea, and hed also, 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13. 1. Pet. 3. 1. &c.

4. And lastly, Not onely experience, but even Reason it self mani­fests, that those who cannot in point of conscience communicate and agree together in one Church, may yet very well accord together, in one fami­lie, bed, Parish, Kingdome: yea, evident it is, that they, who cannot in point of conscience agree together in one Church, cannot possibly (or lightly at least) but agree together in familie, Parish, bed, Kingdome. For if it be conscience that sets them at a distance in matter of Church-government, it must needs unite them in the performance of all such duties, which are cleerly and manifestly such. He that out of conscience abstains from any practise, as not being satisfied in his judgement touching the lawfulnesse thereof; cannot but be ready and willing to practise every such dutie, of the necessitie where of he stands convinced, either by the light of nature, or by the Word of God; Conscience being unpartiall between the negative and the affirmative, and equally respecting its own comfort and peace in both. Now it is no wayes probable, (if possible) that such as are truly conscientious in point of Church-Government, should be ignorant of such duties required of them by God in the foure [Page 55] mentioned relations, family, parish, bed, kingdome, the practise and performance whereof will strongly and sweetly unite and accord them in the said Relations, respectively. All these things consider­ed, I cannot wonder a little, that the Gentleman, who makes so many Questions, should make that Questionlesse in the negative, which is so palpably plain and questionlesse in the affirmative. But

6. Whereas I onely argue and demonstrate, that the repairing of persons out of severall Parishes to one and the same Ministery or Pastor, needs be no more trouble or disturbance, then the like repair of persons of the respective Companies in London, to one and the same Hall; he represents this demonstration of mine, as if I thereby intended to prove or justifie the Congregationall Go­vernment simply, and accordingly insists upon 3 differences be­tween the one and the other. I know nothing but that he might easily have found out not onely 3, but 23 differences, and have ar­gued them all with as much pertinencie to his purpose, as he hath done the three. For we do not urge the analogie of the Govern­ment of Companies of Corporations in all the relations or appur­tenances belonging to it, as any ground or proof of the Congre­gationall Government; we are better provided in this kind, then so: we onely urge the particular mentioned, to accommodate and heal the pretended offensivenesse in the like, in this Government. Notwithstanding let us briefly see what advantage he hath gotten against the Independent way, by his 3 great differences found be­tween severall Trades and Hals in one Citie, Parish, Kingdom, and se­verall forms of Church-Government. As to the first we answer.

1. That it is not so without dispute, as he makes it, whether all Trades, Societies, bold one another lawfull, usefull, necessarie, agreeable to the Laws of God, and the Realme. I know both some Trades, yea and some Societies too in London, much questioned upon all, or most of these particulars. But passe we this. Whereas he infers up­on it, that so they breed no contrarietie of opinions or disaffections, &c. We answer.

2. That certainly experience doth not manifest this Contentions, differences, disaffections, yea and Law-suits sometimes betweene Trades and Trades, Societies and Societies, are known occurren­ces in and about the Citie. Whereas he addes: that each different Church deems the other unlawfull, so as they cannot with safe conscience [Page 56] joyn or communicate together, and thereupon sever one from another; We answer.

3. That according to Mr. Prynnes notion of Church-Govern­ment, it is not necessarie that each different Church should judge the other unlawfull, &c. because he supposeth, that the Scripture is so indulgent in this behalf, as to leave roome enough for variety of forms of this Government. So that if he will but give others leave to be of his judgement, this reasoning of his fals to the ground. But

Fourthly (and lastly) Though each different Church do deem the other unlawfull, and so cannot with safe conscience communicate toge­ther in Church-ship; yet this hinders not, but that they may judge and think as well one of anothers persons (and consequently love and affect one another, and combine together as affectionately,) as persons of severall Trades and Societies do; who have no more communion together in their respective Trades, then different Churches have in their respective Churches; yea, there is far better ground (as hath been partly touched already) why different Churches, though they deemeach other unlawfull, should yet think better of, yea and love the respective members each of other, then there is, that persons of severall Trades, or members of severall civill Societies, should do either the one or the other among them­selves.

To his second difference,Sect. 45. I answer,

1. That experience manifests the contrary to what he here af­firms, viz. that the subordination or subjection of severall Trades, So­cieties, to the whole Corporation, Parliament, or supreame Magistrate, doth not keep them all in peace and writie. What contentiones, quar­rels, emulations, suits amongst them from day to day, any such subordination or subjection notwithstanding?

2. Whereas by way of opposition he addes, that Independent Churches will be regulated, obliged onely by their own peculiar edicts, which must needs occasion infinite schismes and disorders; We answer.

1. We wish that by way of commendation and praise in many cases, to Parliaments, temporall Magistrates, and Synods, which is here cast upon Independent Churches by way of imputation and charge, I mean regulation and obligement by their own peculiar edicts. But

[Page 57] 2. Whereas the charge is thus laid against these Churches, that they will be regulated, obliged onely by their own peculiar Edicts; the truth is, that they are every whit as willing to be regulated, obliged, by the Edicts of any other, as by their own, alwayes provided that they be conform to the Word, and this conformitie sufficiently proved and made known unto them. They put no difference at all between the mind of Christ presented unto them by others or dis­covered and found out by themselves. Yea and that subordination and subjection which they all professe and own to the written word of God, is a farre more effectuall and hopefull means, to keep them all in peace and unitie, then that subordination mentioned by Mr. Prynne, is to keep all Trades and Societies in the same precious po­sture. Onely in this one thing these poore Independent Churches desire Parliaments and Magistrates and Synods to be mercifull unto them, that they cannot write any of them, infallible, nor yet sub­scribe unto any their injunctions or decisions in matters of Faith, or which concern the worship and service of God, without retain­ing the Scriptures for their Counsell, and advising with them what to do therein.

To his third and last difference also,Sect. 46. we answer.

1. That he saith very well, in point of truth, when he saith, that Christians, as Christians, are all of one and the self same society and profession, as those of one trade and calling are. But this truth as yet, is not at all conscious to his intention or purpose. Therefore he addes: therefore they should all have but one Church and Government, as these trades have. Nor doth this, if granted, make any whit more for the Presbyterian cause, then for the Independent: because it doth not follow; Christians, as Christians, ought all to have one and the same Church and Government: therefore this Church and Go­vernment ought to be Presbyterian. Take a parallel: Simeon and Levi ought to have been Brethren: therefore they ought to have been Brethren in iniquitie. Take another: A [...]ania [...] and Sapphira, being man and wife, ought to have agreed together: therefore they ought to have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord. But

2. If by his one Church, he means, one and the same Catho­lique, mysticall, and invisible Church; We answer, that Christians, as Christians, have all one and the same Church; in this sense, they are all members of this one Church. But if he means, one and the same [Page 58] ministeriall and visible Church, we answer, by demanding, How can this thing be? We have heard indeed of some Oecumenicall Councels; but of Oecumenicall visible Churches, wherein all Chri­stians should be comprehended as members, I beleeve there hath been Oecumenicall silence unto this day.

3. Whereas he goeth about to set the comparison (of his own making) upright, by stating it thus: If some of one Fraternitie in Lon­don (suppose Merchant-t tylors, Sadlers, &c.) should fall out among themselves, and one would have one form of Government, another ano­ther, and thereupon divide themselves into severall conventicles and pety meetings in corners, not at their common Hall, and one chuse one Govern­ment or Master, another another, and so sever the Company, and continue Independent, this (no doubt) would prove an apparent schisme and semi­nary of infinite divisions, to the distraction, destruction of the whole Company and Fraternitie; and then addes, This is the true State of your Independencie: We answer, that the comparison thus stated holds no proportion or correspondence with the State of Independencie. For,

1. That number of Christians which pleads for Independencie (so called) is not the whole Socieitie of Christians (nor indeed any confiderable part thereof, in respect of number) as that Fraternitie of Merchant-tayloes or Sadlers the comparison speaks of, is therein supposed to be the whole Societie of such a Company. Therefore to set Mr. Prynnes comparison upright, and make it agree with the State of Independencie, in this particular, it must be stated thus; Sup­pose two or three members of a numerous and vast companie, con­sisting (it may be) of ten or twenty thousand persons, should differ from the rest of the Societie in some things about their Govern­ment, and hereupon should withdraw themselvs from that Society, and seek incorporation elsewhere; would such a dissent or with­drawing of so few from amongst so many, any waies threaten the distraction, much lesse the destruction of the whole Company?

2. Suppose a considerable part of a Company, should out of a conscientious dislike of the carriage of things in the Government of the body withdraw themselves, and refuse subjection to this Go­vernment so ordered and administred; though in probabilitie this act of theirs may occasion some distraction or disturbance in the rest of the body for a season; yet supposing it done upon substan­tiall [Page 59] and due grounds, it may be so farre bringing destruction to this body, that very possibly it may occasion the Reformation and amendment of those things that were unjust in this Govern­ment, (and consequently destructive to the bodie) and so become a means of the preservation of it from destruction. And this is the true state of our Independencie.

3. In case the Fraternity of Merchant-taylors in London should fall out amongst themselves, and one would have one form of Government, and another another, and thereupon divide themselves, &c. What ever inconvenience should, or might hereupon ensue to the Company, yet still it was determined by equall and prudent Judges, who, or which partie gave the chief occasion of these distractions and rents; there is no reason why any one partie should fall foule upon all the rest, and give an extrajudiciall sentence for themselves. For any thing that God hath yet determined to the contrary, the In­dependent partie of Christians in the Kingdom, may be as inno­cent (yea more innocent) of the breaches and distractions amongst us in point of Church Government, them the Presbyterian. They that call and plead for that Government which is held forth in the Scriptures, calling and pleading for it in a regular, meek and Christian manner, are those that are innocent; and those that call and plead for any other, or indeed for any in a violent, preposte­rous, and unchristian manner, (light the stroke where it will) are those that are guiltie. I confesse that in one respect, and that of very great consequence, I could really wish that the beam were in the eye of Independencie, and the moat in the eye of Presbyte­rie; because in this case it would (I conceive) be the sooner and the more easily plucked out. For as Austin said long since: Vitiun quod inebriat multitudinem, examinis amittit veritatem. A sin or error that hath taken the heads and hearts of a multitude, is hardly curableGravis enim est, & pe­riculosus error in plurimis: & multorum lap­sus, etiamsi se intelligat, ex­urgend pudo­re, authorita­tem sibi praesu­mit, ex numero habens hoc im­pudentiae, ut quod errat, in­telligentiā esse veritatis asse­rat, dùm minus error is esse ex­istimatur in multu. Hil. l. 6. An error in a few, is but as smoke, it may be ap­proach'd unto, handled, and dealt with, without danger: but in many it becomes a flame of fire; and he that attempts the quench­ing of it, had need purifie himself, as men at Sea do, when they see the breakings of Leviathan, and look for nothing but present death. Job. 41. 25.

4. In case any parcell or lesse number of the Company of Mer­chant-taylors in London, could not with a good conscience continue [Page 60] their union and incorporation with the Societie, apprehending some things sinfull amongst them, of the sinfulnesse whereof they conceive an unavoidable necessitie that themselves must be parta­kers, whilest they continue their relation to the Company, the rest of the Company all this while resenting no evill in the things stumbled at by those other, and so are able to keep on their way without scruple; in this case it is so farre from being a thing de­structive to this Company, that the partie so scrupul'd, should with­draw, that it is the best accommodation, thing standing as they do, whereof they are capable; it being certain that no Company or Societie whatsoever but suffers losse and disadvantage by union and communion with such members, who walk with gainsaying judgements, and polluted consciences with them. And this also is the true State of Independencie. The Great Communitie and So­cietie of Christians in the Kingdom, suffer farre lesse by the Inde­pendents withdrawing of themselves from the Presbyterian Go­vernment, their judgements in this point standing as they do, then they would by their joyning with them therein. Their joyning with them under the reclamation of their judgements and consci­eaces, would but disaccommodate both parties; whereas their refusall in this kind, convenienceth both; and so hath the true character of a legitimate contract or bargain between man and man, which still ought to be so conditioned, that both parties may be bettered in their conditions by it. Therefore Mr. Prynne hath not set the comparison upright to the point in hand.

5. And lastly, There is no arguing in Divinitie, either from conveniences or inconveniences, from disturbances or from peace, from life or from death, against the necessitie of avoiding sin, and keeping a good and a cleere conscience towards God. Therefore supposing that the Company of Merchant-taylors in London, would by such fractions and divisions amongst the members thereof, as are presented in Mr. Prynnes comparison, be in danger of ruine and dissolution; yet better were it that this ruine & dissolution should come upon it, then that God should be dishonoured by the least sin, or the meanest soule indangered, for the presevation of itCum tur­pis est medici­na, sanari pu­deat.. In like manner, it is more agreeable to the mind of God, and to all principles of Christianitie, that even the greatest numbers and multitudes of Christians should rather suffer, though very deep, [Page 61] in their externall conveniences, then that the least sin should be committed by the meanest of them, for their accommodation. And this likewise is the true state of things between our Independency, and Mr. Prynnes Presbyterie. Many other particulars there are, wherein it might be made further to appeare, how ill his compari­son comports with the case and state of Independencie: but enough (as the Proverb saith) is as good as a feast.

To what he subjoyns concerning my present case in my own Parish, Sect. 47. miserably divided, disordered by my Independent way, &c. I have an­swered in part in my Innocencies Triumph. I here adde

1. That my Parish is no otherwise divided, disordered, by my In­dependent way, then the world commonly is by the Gospel, when it cometh in power amongst the inhabitants thereof. Think not (saith our Saviour) that I am come to send peace on Earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his Father, and the daughter against the another, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-low: And a mans foes shall be they of his owne houshold, Mat. 10. 34, 35, 36.

2. It was not my Independent way, (as Mr. Prynne affirmeth) but the opposition to it, that caused those divisions, disorders, (if any such be) in my Parish: If the partie which now opposeth, had been willing, either to have complied with him whom they acknowled­ged for their Pastor, and the rest of their Brethren, who submit­ted themselves unto him in this way; or else patiently to have wai­ted upon God, untill he should please to reveale the goodnesse of the way unto them, in case they saw no sufficient ground at the pre­sent, for their submission in this kind (as many of the best of them have done hitherto:) there had been no place for any division or disorder amongst them. And whether it be not more fitting, for a people to follow their Pastor, giving them substantiall grounds and reasons for that way wherein he desires to lead them; then for a Pastor to follow his people in such a way, whereof they neither give, nor (I verily beleeve) can give, any account like men, I leave to Mr. Prynne, and all unpartiall Judges, to determine.

3. (And lastly) Nothing is more regular, or of more constant observation in all ages, then for troubles, commotions, and distur­bances, to attend for a while, any considerable mutation or change, especially, for the better, either made, or attempted to be made, [Page 62] in any State or Societie of men whatsoever. Calvin in his Preface before his Institutions, dedicated to the King of France, complains postr [...]mò nō satis cā dide fa­c [...]ūt, [...]ū invid. ose cōmemorāt, quātas turbas, tumultus, con­tentiones secū traxer [...]t nostrae Doctrinae prae­dicatio, et quos nunc in multis fructꝰ crat. Nā horū malorum culpa indignè in ipsa derivatur, quae in Satanae militiā torque­r [...] debuerat. Et mox: Haec certissima et in­prim [...] fidelis no tanquâ dis [...]nt tursverbū à vi nū) à medacibꝰ Dactrinis, quae sefacile prodūt dum aequis on [...] ­niū auribꝰ re­cipiuntur, & à mūdo plaudē ­te aud [...]untur. of the indirect and unworthy dealings of his adversaries, who charged the preaching of the Doctrine of the Gospel, with being the cause of I know not what troubles, tumults, and contentions; Where­as such things as these, should have been charged upon the Militia or A­gents of the Devill. And then addes this memorable saying: Est hic divini verbi quidam quasi genius, ut nunquam emergat, quieto ac dor­miente Satana: It is (as it were) the lot and destinie of the word of God, never to find Satan in a good mood, or asleep, when it comes abroad into the world: in the following words, making this a most certaine and faithfull mark or signe, whereby it is discern'd from false Doctrines, which (saith he) soone bewray themselves by this, that the world ap­plauds them in the hearing, and gives them intertainment in a posture of fairnesse, favour, and peace. What storms, tempests, whirle-winds of troubles, tumults, commotions, did Satan and his auxiliaries raise in all places and parts in the worldLutherus velu [...] molum Eridis misit in mūdum, cujus nuliam omninò partè non tur­ba [...]ā video. E­rasm. l. 14. ep. 7., wheresoever Luthers 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. Pios hoc no­men & titulum in mundo opor­tet gerere, quòd seditiosiac schis­matici ac infi­nitorū malorū authores sunt Luth. in Gal. 5. 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 Hab. 2. 21. with Heb. 12. 26, 27., 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 [Page 63] 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 Mat. [...]6. 6, 5? 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,Sect. 48. 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 [Page 64] 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 Act. 14. 11.; 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. [Page 65] 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, adding (after a parenthesis of much untruth, there being many that have represen­ted the way he speaks of in her native colours and lineaments The New England Cate­chisme, called The Govern­ment of the Church, com­pos'd by Mr. Cotton, and thrice printed. A Guide unto Sion. Another small treatise, butful of lear­ning, reading and strength, called, Sions Prerogative Royall. The an­swer of the El­ders of the se­verall Chur­ches of New England to 32 questions, sent &c. Another Answer of the same Elders to 9. other Que­stions about Church Go­vernment. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Mathors answer to Mr. Charles Herles Independencie. Mr. Tho. Welds answer to Mr. W. Rathbone; besides many other Treati­ses published upon this sub­ject.) that I rather aggravate, then extenuate the guiltie of the said passage, by my explanation, which he there recites; I answer,

1. That for matter of guilt, the passage referred unto, standeth as yet, cleare, innocent, and untouch'd, as concerning any thing in way of demerit, that hath been prov'd against it.

2. As concerning the explanation, that also keeps its standing, and that upon holy ground, notwithstanding all that Mr. Prynne hath done, or attempted to doe, for the removall of it; ‘—manet illa, suó (que) est robore tuta.’ Yea, the truth is, that in all his contra-remonstrance, he hath not so much as once touch'd or mentioned that which is the maine base or foundation of the principall conclusion managed in the said explanation, and principally opposed by him. The conclusion is not that which Mr. Prynne extracts from the passage which he cites, viz. that there is not onely an improbabilitie, but an absolute im­possibilitie, that the Parliament should have any power at all to enact Lawes and Statutes in matters of Religion, Church-Government, &c. Here are words, which the explanation knows not, either in the letter, or in the spirit of them, as by name these, not onely an impro­babilitie, an absolute impossibilitie, no power at all, &c. but the maine conclusion driven at in the passage, is this; That the generalitie or pro­miscuous multitude of the Land, have no authoritie or power from Christ to nominate or appoint, who shall be the men that shall order the affaires of Christs Kingdome, or institute the Government of his Churches. The maine foundation or base of reason, upon which this pillar of Truth stands in the said passage, is this; Because such an Authoritie or power (viz. to nominate or appoint who shall order the affaires [Page 66] of Christs Kingdome, or institute the Government of his Chur­ches) is greater then ever Christ himself had, (I meane as man, or Me­diator) at least then ever he exercised, which in the sequell I explaine and prove. Now then this is that which I say, that Mr. Prynne in all his long reasoning against the Conclusion, doth not so much as with the least of his fingers once touch this ground, or answer any thing at all to it. So that he hath not as yet the least colour or pretence to blame me, if I be not proselyted to his opinion by what he hath written here. And because I desire faire and Chri­stian quarter with him for the future, I doe here promise and pro­test in the sight of God, Angels, and men, that if Mr. Prynne shall at any time (God preserving my life and understanding) plainly and substantially demonstrate and prove, either that the generalitie, and promiscuous multitude of the Land, have a power greater then ever the Lord Christ himself had, or exercised as man, or Mediator; or, that a power to nominate and appoint whom they please amongst men, to order the affaires of Christs Kingdome, and institute the Government of his Churches, is not a power greater then ever Christ had, or at least exerci­sed, as either man, or Mediator; I promise and protest againe, as be­fore, that if Mr. Prynne, or any other, shall at any time clearly and fairly prove, either the one or the other of these propositions, I will pull downe with both mine hands, what I have built up but with one, and without any more adoe joyn judgement with Mr. Prynne touching the power of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion: but till this be done, I neither see how Mr. Prynne can with a good conscience persist in his, nor require me to desist from mine. It is true, the Lord Christ as Mediator, had all power given him both in Heaven and on Earth, Mat. 28. 18. That is, had the whole and in­tire execution and transaction of all his Fathers will, pleasure, and decrees, concerning all men, Angels & creatures whatsoever, put in­to his hand & power. And hath given him Authoritie TO EXECUTE judgement also, because he is the son of man, Joh. 5. 27. But he had no power or Authoritie given him, to carry any thing contrary to his Fathers will or pleasure. Verily, verily, I say unto you, (saith he him­self, Joh. 5. 19.) the Son can doe nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doe, &c. So againe, ver. 30. I can doe nothing of my self— Now then as Christ had no commission or power to give eternall life, but onely to those whom God the Father had given unto him, [Page 67] Joh. 17. 2. Joh. 6. 37. So neither had he any Authoritative power to institute or appoint any other government for his Churches, then that which he had seene with, or received from his Father: much lesse had he any such power, to delegate unto men (least of all unto unsanctified persons and rude multitudes) a power of nomi­nating whom they should please, to appoint and settle what go­vernment they pleas'd in the Churches of God. Certain I am, that Christ never exercised any such power as this: and therefore have little hope of being convinc'd that he ever had it. Howsoever, let us give the Gentleman an unpartial hearing in what he pleads against the aforesaid Conclusion.

1. To his former marginall Annotation (p. 22.) honoured with a Preface made of this word,Sect. 49. Note, wherein he tells me that Gama­liel and my Text never taught me any such Anti-Parliamentary Doctrine. I answer, that neither doth Gamaliel, nor my Text, nor any other Text whatsoever in Scripture, teach Mr. Prynne to call the truth an Anti-Parliament try Doctrine. But both Gamaliel and my Text teach me to take heed of fighting against God; and I being taught so high and necessary a point of wisdome, conceiv'd it my dutie not to eat such a morsell alone, but to spread a Table for as many of my Bre­thren as pleas'd to come, and sit downe and eat of the same with me. I and my Doctrine are onely in such a sense Anti-Parliamenta­rian, as Christ and his were Anti-Cesarean.

2. To a second Marginall note in the same page,Sect. 50. ordered like­wise to be noted (as the former) I answer likewise, that though people have authoritie to nominate such who by the rule of Gods Word may limit some particulars, though not by their own bare Authoritie, without, or against the Word, yet it followeth not; either

1. That they have authoritie to nominate such, who shall have au­thoritie by vertue of such nomination to peremptorize by fire or sword all their limitations whatsoever, as agreeable to Gods Word. Nor

2. Doth it follow, that, in case their limitations should be agree­able to the word of God, therefore they have power to compell any man by externall violence, to subject either in their judgement or practise unto them; especially whilst they are not able to convince them of any such excellency in these limitations, as an agreeablenesse to the word of God? It is no waies agreeable to the word of God, that [Page 68] 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 anotherRom 14. 2, 3, 4.; 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.Sect. 51. 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 do1 Tim 6. 13. 17, 18. 1 Tim. 4. 11. &c. 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 [Page 69] 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 It is not safe for any to receive mat­ters of Reli­gion without terious exa­mination. —Who ever be the Church, the Authoritie of it, is not sufficient; possibly the Church may one and there­fore we must flee to the Throne of Jesus Christ the Head of the Church for satisfaction. Whom shall we rather beleeve concerning God, then God himself? if there were a Coun­cell of the most learned Doctors that ever the world had, yea, if an Assembly of Angels yet in matters of Religion, concerning the good way, the last Resolution must be into Thus saith the Lord. Mr. Th. H [...]ll (an High-resolved Presbyterian) in a Sermon, staled the Good old way, Gods way, &c.) preached before the L. Maior, &c. Apr. 24. 1 [...]44. pa. 16, 17.. 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, [Page 70] 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,Sect. 52. 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 [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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,Sect. 53. 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.

[Page 73] To his third Reason we answer likewise;Sect. 54. 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 its 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;Sect. 55.

1. That whereas he affirms, that I do not onely grant, but argue, that every private man hath, yea ought to have, power to elect and con­stitute his own Minister, causing these words to be printed in a differ­ing character, as if they were mine, and onely transcribed by him, citing (in his margin) pag. 25. 26. as their quarter in my discourse; the truth is, that this is no fair play; for there is no such line or juncto of wordseither in either of those pages, or elsewhere in those Sermons. It never came into my thoughts to think, (nor surely ever issued out of my pen) that every private man hath, or ought to [Page 74] 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 [...]ouls; nor unto any Congregation, but onely that whereof [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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,Sect. 56.

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 [Page 77] 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 saidAct. 19. 11., 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 [Page 78] 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 Due right of Presbyte­ries part. 2. pag. 404. 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 Mat. 15. 5.; 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 [Page 79] 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 of Religion, worship, and Church-Government, alwayes have been and ever will be exposed unto. The point of agreeablenesse to the word of God, in Lawes and Statutes about matters of Religion, will be a farre longer suite and Question between Legislators in that kind, and conscienti­ous subjects, then ever any Chancerie suite was, or is like to be

3. To me it is a question, whether in this assertion (at least un­derstood according to the proper importance of the words) Men have power to make Laws and Statutes in matters of Religion, worship, &c. agreeable to the word of God; there be not contradictio in adjuncto (as Logicians speak). It is a very hard matter for me to conceive how any thing should be agreeable to the Word of God, at least in mat­ters of Religion, worship, &c. but onely that, which for the spirit, matter and substance of it, is the word of God it self. There is no great agreeablenesse between that which is necessarie, and that which is unnecessarie; between that which is indulgent and favourable to the Saints and others in point of libertie, and that which inthrals and brings them into bondage; between that which is of divine inspiration, and that which is of humane. Now certain it is, that whatsoever is imposed upon men by the word of God, is necessarie, [Page 80] and of divine inspiration; and whatsoever the word of God doth not impose upon men, it doth it in a way of a gracious libertie and in­dulgence unto men. And as certain it is, that whatsoever shall be imposed upon the Saints or others by men, especially in matters of Religion, worship, &c. which for the matter and substance of it is not the very word of God it self, is first unnecessarie, (for otherwise we must make the Word of God imperfect, and defective even in matters of necessitie, which is Popery in the highest) and second­ly, it is but of humane inspiration, except we hold Enthusiasme, and the revelations eccentrick to the Scriptures are yet authentique and of propheticall authority: thirdly (and lastly) it is an abridge­ment of the libertie, a cancelling of that indulgence, wherewith God in his Word hath gratified the world. Therefore whatsoever shall be imposed by men upon men in matter of Religion, worship, &c. under a pretence of an agreeablenesse to the word of God, in case it be not (in the sense declared) the very word of God it self, it can have no other agree thlenesse with this word, then Pelop's shoulder, which (if Poets feign not) was made of yvorie, had with the other limbs and members of his body which were all living and sound flesh. Yea and whether any Law or Statute, can in any sense be said to be agreeable to the word of God, which shall make the Saints servants and bondmen, where God in his Word hath either made them, or left them free, I refer to further and more mature consi­deration. But

4. And lastly, Suppose it were granted, as a thing convenient, that some should be intrusted or invested with a power of making Laws and Statutes in matters of Religion, worship, &c. provided they be agreeable to the Word of God; yet in asmuch as the making of such Laws and Statutes upon such terms, necessarily requireth the most exact and profound knowledge and understanding of the Scrip­tures; I cannot conceive that unsanctified persons, or rude multitudes, should be Authorized by God, or by any principle of sound rea­son, to have the nomination or election of those men; but rather another Generation, who may in reason be conceived to have a more excellent spirit of discerning of such abilities in men, then they. When men stand in need of the help and advise of a Physi­cian, Lawyer, or Divine, they do not addresse themselves to a company of children playing together in the market place, (as our [Page 81] Saviour speaksLuk. 7. 32.) to nominate or vote amongst them, what per­son in any of these professions they should imploy & commit their concernments unto. No more did God ever issue any commission out of Heaven to unsanctified persons, rude multitudes, men ignorant of God and of the Scriptures, to nominate or chuse for him, who, or what men he should imploy to make Lawes and Statutes for his Saints and Churches, in matters of Religion, and which concerne his worship. A man of ordinary discretion, and that knows any thing of the nature or disposition of the Fox, will never chuse a Fox to be his Caterer (as our English Proverb hath it).

To his sixt and last Argument, I answer, and end.

1. That it is not alwayes found, that those who have no skill at all in Law, Sect. 57. Physicke, or Architecture, have yet judgement and reason enough to make choyce of the best Lawyers, Physicians, Architects, when they need their help. If this were true, these professions would prove malig­nant unto, and eat up the far greatest part of their own children and professors: there would be very few in any of them, that ever should have imployments. For who is there that would set a bung­ler on work, that hath judgement and reason enough to chuse a Ma­ster-workman? Especially considering what our Engish Proverb saith; The best, is best cheape. There is no man will ride upon an ox, that may have a well-manag'd and mettal'd gelding to carrie him. But

2. Suppose it should be granted, as universally true, that men who have no skill at all in the said professions, yet had judgement and reason enough to make choyce of the best in every of them respectively, when they stood in need of their help; yet this supposition must be made withall, that these best Practitioners, which according to the other supposition will be chosen, have given a sufficient account & proofe, and that to publick satisfaction of their respective abilities in their severall professions. Otherwise how shall they who have no skill in their professions, come to know or understand, so much as by conjecture, who are the best in them? This being so, Mr. Prynnes comparison or parallel, halts right-downe. Because many of those, who are by the Laws of the Land eligible into places of Parliamen­tarie trust and power, yea, haply many of those who are of the best and richest accomplishment for the discharge of that part of this trust, which Mr. Prynne will needs suppose belongeth to them, (I [Page 82] meane in making Lawes in matters of Religion, worship, Church-Go­vernment, &c. agreeable to the word of God) never have given any pub­lick account or proofe (nor perhaps ever had opportunitie to doe it) of those abilities which God hath given them in that kinde. And if so, how should the rude multitudes, or the generalitie of the people ever come to know or understand who are the best or fittest men to be chosen into those great places of trust and power?

3. When men stand in need of the help either of a Lawyer, Physician, or Architect, it is a far easier matter to know how to chuse a man in any of these professions, without running the hazard of much detriment in his occasions, then it is for men to know how to chuse men tolerably qualified for Parliamentary imployment; especially, if one part of this imployment consists in making Lawes & Statutes in matters of Religion, worship, &c. agreeable to the word of God. The reason of the difference is plaine: Recourse is made to Lawyers (and so to Physicians, Architects respectively) onely for one kind of help or imployment, and that such which is proper to their profession, and wherein their abilitie and sufficiencie, is or very possibly may be sufficiently knowne; But Parliamentarie service or imployment consisting (according to Mr. Prynnes notion) as well in making Church-lawes, in matters of Religion, worship, & agreeable to the word of God, as in framing Laws politique, to accommodate the civill af­faires of the Common-wealth (which are imployments of a very differing nature, hardly incident unto, and very rarely found in one and the same person) it must needs be conceived to be a mat­ter of very great difficultie, and requiring a very choyce and excel­lent spirit of discerning, to make a commendable, yea, or a com­petent choice of men for that investiture and trust. Yea, himself [...] acknowledgeth little lesse then an utter inconsistencie of re­spective abilities in one and the same person, for these so different imployments; For here he requires, both Politicians and States­men os fit to be consulted with a suit a Church-Government to the Ci­vill State, and likewise an Assembly of Divines, to square it by, and to the word. But in as much as whatsoever an Assembly of Divines shall determine in or about Churh-Government, or other matters of Reli­gion, cannot passe into an Act, Law, or Statute, but by the super­veening of Parliamentarie interest upon their determinations and there beeing every whit as great (if not farre greater) abilities in [Page 83] Divinitie and knowledge of the Scriptures, requisite to enable men rightly to discerne and judge, whether a Church-Government, or o­ther Decision in matter of Religion, be agreeable to the word of God, as there are to discourse and make out that in either kind which is agreeable thereunto; yea and further, it being no waies either Christian or reasonable, that a Parliament should passe that into an Act, Law, or Statute, as agreeable to the word of God, and obliege an whole Kingdome under mulcts and penalties to submit unto it accordingly, which themselves are not able to dis­cerne whether it be indeed agreeable unto the word of God, or no; these three things (I say) duly considered, evident it is, that it is a matter almost of infinite difficultie, (and therefore not so obvi­ous to unsanctified persons, and rude multitudes, as Mr. Prynnes would carrie it) to discerne or make choice of persons of a due temper and composition for Parliamentarie operations, Mr. Prynnes sup­position being admitted, viz. that making Lawes in matters of Reli­gion, as well as in civill affaires, is a part of these operations. To set then his comparison upright, wee must state it thus: Suppose Mr. Prynne were of none of the three Professions he speaks of, neither Lawyer, nor Physician, nor Architect, but stood in need of the help of them all, having 1. a suite at Law of very great concern­ment to him; 2. a dangerous distemper or disease upon his body; 3. an house to build for his necessary accommodation; and in this posture of necessities, were necessitated or limited to make choyce of three men, but all of one and the same profession, either all Lawyers, or all Physicians, or all Architects, to minister unto him in all his respective concernments and necessities; I beleeve that under such a constellation of circumstances and occasions as these, though he be a man of farre greater judgement and reason, then the generalitie of men are, yet he would not find it so easie a matter to satisfie himself in the choyce of his men within the compasse of any one of the three professions. This is the true state and case of the difficultie of Parliamentarie Elections, upon Mr. Prynnes suppositi­on of Parliamentarie interest and power.

4. Suppose yet further,Sect. 58. that unsanctified persons and rude multi­tudes had skill enough to elect the most eminent and ablest men for Par­liamentary service; yet who knoweth not but that there is some­what (yea, much) more then knowledge of what is a mans du­tie, [Page 84] required to make him willing to doe it. To him that knoweth to doe good, and doth it not, to him it is sin (saith James) Jam. 4. 17. It is no wayes reasonable to think, that unsanctified persons, and men addicted to sinfull lusts and pleasures, should willingly and by the ducture of their own inclinations, put a power of making Lawes into the hands of such men, who they know are professed enemies to those lawlesse waies of theirs, and therefore are like, being interessed in such a power, to make Lawes for the restraint and punishment of them. That God, when he pleaseth, may by an extraordinarie hand of Providence, over-rule the natures and dis­positions of men in this kind, and serve unfanctified persons in their Parliamentary Elections, as he did the Syrian host of old, which he led blindfold into the midst of Samaria, 2 King. 6. 20. when they thought they had been going to Dothan, is not denied; yea, it is acknowledged, that in grace and mercy to this Nation, he hath stretched out that very hand of Providence we speake of in the choyce of many mem­bers of the Honourable Assembly of Parliament; whose perseve­rance in a faithfull discharge of their imployment, declares, that their Election was more from God, then from men. Therefore that one word of Mr. Prynnes which follows p. 24. viz. That the choyce which your vilest and most unworthy of men have made this Par­liament, may for ever refute this childish reason, the corner stone of your Independent fabrique fastened together with Independent crotchets, un­able to abide the Test; this one word (I say) is no word either of rea­son or of truth. An happy election made by men over-acted by God in the action, doth no more prove either a proportionable­nesse of wisdome, or a sutablenesse of affection in such persons to make such a choyce, then that praise which God hath ordained, and which he accordingly draws out of the mouths of babes and suck­lings, proves these babes and sucklings to be indued with a naturall strength and abilitie of yeelding such praise unto God: or then the service which the Ravens did the Prophet in bringing unto him bread and flesh duly morning and evening1 King. 17. 6., proves that they had a principle of reason and understanding, to know and to consider the necessities of godly and faithfull men; or that such men ought to renounce their estates and callings, and to depend upon Ravens for their sustenance. And besides, how doth the e­lection of so many members of this Parliament, who stand by [Page 85] their trust with faithfulnesse and honour, more refute; then the election of so many unworthy ones, who have not onely turned their back, but head also upon both, confirm my reason? not to mention so many elections as have been made both in Queen Ma­ries dayes, and many a time before these, of such members, who made many a Law as agreeable to the Word of God, as harp is to har­row. Which further shews, of how slender esteeme in point of truth, that assertion of his pa. 23. is: where he saith, that those that are unjit or unable to be Members of Parliament themselves, yet have had wisdom enough in all ages, and especially at this present, to elect the must eminent and ablest men for such a service. So that if my pen were not more bashfull then Mr. Prynnes, it would say, that the Reason Defendant is by many degrees more childish then the Reason Plain­tiffe: and that this Presbyterian engins wherewith he makes account to batter my Independent Fabrick, are made of Independent metall, able to do no execution at all. There is not one brick or tyle in all my Independent Fabrick, as yet bruised, crack'd or shaken, by all the hot and loud play of Mr. Prynnes artillery against it. But

5.Sect. 59. 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 [Page 86] 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 [Page 87] 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 the Republique or common-wealth it self; and which continues as long as the body thereof remains, yea and stands firm under all vacancies of Personall Empire, and all alterations and changes of Government: in which respect he saith it may be called the foundation or ground-work of the Common-wealth. This majestie in the people he cals, Reall; that in the King or chief Ruler, Personall: this he saith, still fals and ex­pires [Page 88] with the death of the person invesred with it; and returns to the people, or commonwealth. Yea and adds, that the people in making or setting up a King over them, transferre onely a power of admini­string, not of constituting the common-wealth. With more to like ef­fect Ea (que) (ma­jestas) [...] quae in constanendâ) & personalem, (quae in administrandâ seu gubernandâ Republicâ consistit) dividi videtur. Et meat Majestas Realis seu Imper [...], Republicae est coaeva; quamdiu corpus ejus durat, per manet: & etiam sub inter regnis & alterationibus persistit: quam ideò fundamentum Republicae possu­ [...] are. Personalis conci [...] cum personâ, & ad Rempublicam redit. Hujus majestatis [...] etiam post [...] Legem, populum Romanum aliquam retinuesse dicitur majestatem. § 4. [...] c. l. 7. § [...] maj statem nostram. F. de captiv. & postium. l. 1. [...] Majestatem publica ad L. Iuliā majest. Lex nam (que) Regia de personalis [...] is translatione intell g [...]debet: ego in tract. de monarchia cap. 4. num 4. ac [...] per eam populus potestatem administrationis, non constitutionis. Et constat ex l. 2 § 1. [...] administrationem Re publicae, non aliqu [...]d ultrà, Imperatori datum esse. Christoph. [...] Dess [...] Politico- [...] de Majestate, &c. Sect. 1. p. 5. Therefore the opinion of this man with his Associates clearly is, that the people have Really or actually, that Authority or power which by their election they transfer upon, or derive unto their Rulers and Governours.

3. (And lastly, for this) whereas he affirmeth, that such a power, as he supposeth to have been delegated by me to eight Substitutes, is not transcrible to others by any Law of God or man; and yet demands, Why the common people may not as well delegate a Lawfull Ecclesiasticall legislative Authoritie in Church-affaires unto their elected Parliamen­tarie and Synodall members, as I delegate such a power; I answer and confesse, that they may every whit as well (and no whit better) delegate such an Authoritie to such their members, as I delegate such a power to my Substitutes.

6. Whereas in prosecution of his last argument, Sect. 60. he further ar­gues and interrogates thus; Why may not a man bring an Ecclesiasti­call or spirituall extraction out of a secular roote, as well as a Regall, Magisteriall, Parliamentall, Ministeriall extraction out of a meere po­pular or servile roote? or the best strong waters out of the vilest lees? the richest mineralls out of the coursest earth? the most Orient pearles, out of the basest Oysters? I answer,

1. That no Regall, Magisteriall, Parliamentall, Ministeriall ex­traction can be made out of a meere servile roote. A people meerely servile, can have no libertie or power to appoint or chuse unto themselves either Kings, Masters, Parliaments, or Ministers. Therefore Mr. [Page 89] Prynnes Question very truly imports, that the one extraction may [...]s well be made, as the other; but it no waies proves a possibilitie of either.

2. There is a plain reason, why and how a Regall, Magisteriall, Parliamentall extraction may be made out of a popular roote: but there is a loud reclamation in reason and Religion both, against a pos­sibilitie of making a spirituall extraction out of a secular roote. Regall, Magisteriall, Parliamentall extractions, are in their respective natures and tendencies, means proportioned to the civill and temporall ends, or good of the people; and God having endued men, (I meane the common sort or generalitie of men, the people) with wis­dome and understanding to accommodate and provide for them­selves in such things as these, hath given them power accordingly to make use of such principles and endowments in a regular way, for the accomplishment and obtaining of such ends. Now civill Rule and Government being a naturall, proper, and direct means, whereby a good societie or communitie of men may best obtaine a civill or politique good, viz. a safe, just, and peaceable living and conversing together in the world; God therefore hath given them a libertie and power to contrive and cast themselves into what forme of Government they should judge most conducible to such ends. Upon which indulgence or grant from Heaven, they have a lawfull power by consent among themselves to elect and chuse whom they please to governe them, and that upon such terms, as they conceive most agreeable to those ends. And yet even in this Government it self, one communitie or corporation of men have no right or lawfulnesse of power, to chuse or appoint either Go­vernment, or Governors over another: least of all hath any com­munitie, consisting of men altogether uncivill, ignorant, and un­experienced in matters of Government, any lawfulnesse of power to appoint either Rule or Rulers over other Societies, whose mem­bers generally are of a better accomplishment, for civilitie, & parts of wisdome, learning, and understanding; But all societies of men since the dissolution of the Judaicall politie, are left free by God and nature, to set over themselves what Government and Gover­nors they shall judge of best accommodation, for their temporall safety and peace. But now in spirituall things, and matters of Re­ligion, the case is farre otherwise; differing as much from the for­mer, [Page 90] as the Heavens from the Earth. God hath not endued the ge­neralitie of men with spirituall wisdome and understanding, nor with the knowledge of those things which are of a supernaturall concernment unto them; and consequently hath not invested them with any power of casting themselves into what forme of Govern­ment they please in respect of these, nor of chusing whom they please to rule over them, no nor yet of appointing upon what terms they will be governed in these. The naturall man (saith the Scripture) perceiveth not (or, receiveth not) the things of the Spi­rit of God; for they are foolishnesse unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2. 14. Now certaine it is, that the farre greater part of men in every State Politique or King­dome, are naturall men, and consequently perceive not the things of the Spirit of God. Many are called, (saith our Saviour) but few chosen. And 2. as certaine it is, that God doth not interesse or invest any man or men, with a power of interposing in such things, which are not of their cognizance, and whereof they have no knowledge or perceivance. Much lesse 3. hath he given a power to naturall men who perceive not the things of the Spirit of God, to appoint Rulers and Governors in these, over men that are spirituall, and which doe perceive them. This were to give a power unto the blind, to lead not the blind onely, but even the seeing also. Nay, 4. and lastly, God hath not given unto spirituall men themselves any power to nomi­nate or chuse men, to make any new Lawes or Articles in matters of Religion, Worship, Church-Government, &c. but onely to admini­ster, execute and teach those, which are already ordained and esta­blished by God himself, as hath been prov'd already. Thus then we see there is reason enough and to spare, why such a spirituall ex­traction as the two Brethren speak of, cannot be made out of a secu­lar roote; though a Regall, Magisteriall, Parliamentall extraction, may well be made out of a popular roote. But

3. Whereas Mr. Prynne supposeth that a Ministeriall Extraction (as he calleth it) is, or may be made out of a meere popular or servile roote, this supposition is not made without opposition to the truth. For no people or men, meerly such, that is, as they are simply people or men, have any power delegated unto them by God or by Christ, to set a Minister or Pastor over them; neither can they as meerly such, by any call, election, or ordination whatsoever, conferre a [Page 91] Pastorall office or dignitie upon any man. The reason is, because it is an essentiall propertie or part of the Pastorall office, to feed, rule, and governe a flock of Christs sheepAct. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2., (I meane a Societie, or company of such persons, who in the judgement of charitie are to be reputed such) and to administer the seales of the Covenant ordinarily unto them, &c. Now no company of men, meerly and simply as men, have any power to invest any man, with any autho­ritative power to performe either of those administrations. One company or societie of men however qualified, cannot derive any Authoritative power upon any man, to performe the office of a Pastor to another societie of men. Therefore except that company of men, which calls and chuseth a person into the place or office of a Pastor (as it supposeth) be such a flock of Christ as was ex­pressed, their act in so calling and chusing, is but a nullitie; the per­son called hath indeed and in truth no Pastorall investiture upon him by vertue of such a call. As for example; Suppose a company of ignorantly prophane, and desperately debauch'd men, should make choyce of a man of worth, to be a Pastor unto them; the man thus called and chosen, hath no authoritie or power hereby, either to feed or govern any flock of Christ, (no, not so much as any flock of Christ in appearance) or to administer the seales of the Cove­nant unto any; and consequently is made no Pastor thereby.

Or if Mr. Prynnes meaning be, that a root meerly popular, that is, any company of people whatsoever, may lawfully call or chuse a man to preach the Gospel unto them, and in this sense be said to make a Minister; I answer; that the man thus called, is no more a Minister then he was before; nor hath he any more Authorita­tive power to preach the Gospel unto them, by vertue of such a call, then he had without it; onely he hath thereby a greater opportu­nitie, and a more speciall invitation from the providence of God to preach the Gospel unto those who so call him, then unto others. Therefore in this case there is no ministeriall extraction made out of a meere popular roote.

4. Whereas he speaks parables,Sect. 61. and further demands, Why not a spirituall extraction out of a secular roote, as well as the best strong waters out of the vilest lees? the richest mineralls out of the coursest earth? the most Orient pearles out of the basest Oysters? I answer,

1. That I know not by what rule of true speaking, Mr. Prynne [Page 92] either calls those the basest oysters, out of which the most orient pearls, or that the coursest earth, out of which the richest mineralls, or those the vilest lees, out of which the best strong waters are extracted. That expression of the Poet,—Veios habitante Camillo, — [...] Ro­ma fuit, I never yet heard censured by any. Noble births and inha­bitants, ennoble Cities and Countries.Mat. 2. 6. And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda, art not the least among the Princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my people Israel. By the consent of this principle, which hath testimony both from God and men, those are not the basest, but the noblest oysters, which give birth and breeding to the most ortent pearles; nor that the coursest, but the finest and best earth, that yeelds the richest mineralls; nor those the vilest, but the most generous and best deserving lees, which gratifie their Distillator with the best strong waters. But

2. (Not to impose any tax upon an acyrologie) there is this plain reason, why no spirituall extraction out of a secular roote, though all those other extractions may be made out of those respective roots appropriated unto them: because a man may very possibly find a thing where it is; but it is unpossible for him to find it where it is not. A man may very easily and very lawfully extract five shillings out of his purse that hath five shillings, or more, in it: but he that shall undertake to make an extraction of five shillings, out of a purse that is emptie, must Acheronta movere, make himself a debtor to the black art. The pearle is in the oyster, and the minerall in the Earth, and the strong water in the lee: and therefore it is no great matter for art and nature joyning together, partly by allurement and in­vitation, partly by a stronger and more forcible hand, to seque­ster all these from their native and proper elements, and to draw them out of their dark and secret habitations. Nor is it any waies unlawfull thus to practise upon them, because God hath not serv'd any prohibition upon men, to inhibite any such extractions or separations, either in a naturall or artificiall way. But there is no such spirituall extraction as the two Brethren speak of, in their secular roote: there is no Ecclesiasticall Legislative power in matters of Religion, worship, and Church-Government, neither for­mally, nor eminently, in unsanctified persons, rude multitudes, men ignorant of God, &c. therefore no such power can by any ex­traction whatsoever, proceed or be drawne out of these. There [Page 93] is indeed a lawfulnesse of power in them (if they had a princi­ple to incline them to the due exercise of it) to assist the servants of God against violence and wrong, to incourage and counte­nance them in well-doing, to admonish and reprove them for do­ing any such evill which falls within the compasse of their cogni­ance; yea, there is a lawfulnesse of power in them, if they have not given it out of their hands already, and invested others with it, to make Lawes for the regulation of the Saints themselves, in all their civill affaires, and to restraine them by mulcts and penalties from all such courses, actions, and practices, which are properly and in their natures disserviceable unto the common peace, and weal-publick: And all such power as this, they may lawfully devise, and demise unto persons meet for the manage and exercise of it; because in this case they doe but give of their own; yea, they give it in a regular and rationall way; upon which termes God hath given unto every man a liberty or power to doe with his owne what he pleaseth Mat. 20. 15.. But the persons we now speak of, never had a power of regulating the Saints in their Religious or Spirituall af­fairs; or of compelling them under temporal mulcts and penalties, to order themselves in the worship and service of God, as they pleased, or to preach and teach onely such points and doctrines a­mongst them, as they should think well of. Therefore how they should convey or make over any such power as this unto others, by a Title or Conveyance good in Law, I desire Mr. Prynne to con­sider. If his desire had been to have paralleld the Brethrens spiri­tuall extraction out of a Secular root, with naturall comparisons or similitudes, he should have done it not with those which hee hath made use of in this kind, or the like; for we have shewed a manifest and main disproportion in them; but with these, and such as these which follow: Why not a spirituall extraction out of a Secular root, as well as a man out of a mouse, or of water out of a flint, or of the element of fire out of the midst of the Sea? He might rational­ly enough have argued and concluded here; Why not the one as well as the other? But

5. Whereas his Margine demandeth, Why not a spirituall extra­ction out of a secular root, as well as himselfe extracts many spiritual do­ctrines out of Gamaliels Secular speech? My answer is, that hee hath made this demand at the perill of his owne reputation in what he [Page 94] had said but in the former page, where he supposeth, that God powred out a spirit of prophesie upon Gamaliel, as hee had formerly done upon Balaam and Saul, If Gamaliel spake as the spirit of prophesie which was poured out upon him, gave him utterance, his speech was not secu­lar, but spirituall and divine. And

2. Suppose there was no spirit of prophesie upon Gamaliel, when he spake that speech, from which I extract my Doctrines; yet the speech it selfe, being for the matter, tenor, and substance of it, nothing but what is fully agreeable to the undoubted word of God else­where, (which I clearly demonstrate in the particular doctrine handled in those Sermons) it is not to be reputed Secular, though the person speaking it had been Secular; but Divine, because the matter of it being a truth of Divine revelation elswhere, is Divine. This saying, Jesus Christ is the Sanne of God, or the holy One of God, is not, therefore a Devilish saying, because the Devill spake itMark. 1. 24. Luke 4. 34., but an holy or divine saying or sentence, because the truth contained in it, which is the matter of it, is from God.

But 3. the person speaking it was Ecclesiasticall, a Doctor of the Law, Acts 5. 34.

4. And lastly, it was about matters of the Church, and so Ec­clesiasticall also.

6. Whereas in the context of the same margine, hee calls my principall Argument (as he calls it) drawn from the non-jurisdiction of the seven Churches of Asia one over another, a meer Independencie, gi­ving this for the ground or reason of this so severe an award, that these Churches were under different civill Dominions, and not members of the selfe-same Christian Republicke; I answer,

1. That why he should call this my principall Argument, which I doe not so much as mention, nor make any argument at all (as least in those Sermons against which his pen riseth up in this dis­course with so much indignation) I am behind hand in my under­standing. I suppose he would willingly make that my principall Argument, from the dint whereof he knowes how to contrive some plausible evasion and escape. It was an wholsome admonition of Austin long since,Procliviores sumus quaere­re potiùs, quid contra ea re­spondeamus, —quae nostro ob­jiciuntur erro­ri, quàm in­tendere ea quae sunt salubria, ut careamus errore. That we are very inclinable and prone, rather to seeke out how to answer or evade those things which are brought to re­fute our error, then to minde that which is wholsome, that so wee may bee free from error. But

[Page 95] 2. If that be a reason, why the Churches in Asia had no jurisdicti­on one over another, because they were not members of the selfe-same Christian Republicke; then neither had the Church of Jerusalem ei­ther divisim, and by it selfe, nor yet conjuncti [...] with others, any power of jurisdiction over the Church of Antioch. For neither were their Churches members of the selfe-same Christian Republicke, no nor yet any other Churches in the Apostles dayes, there being then no Christian Republick in the world.

3. Neither can I well understand how the seven Churches of Asia should be under different civill dominions, when as one and the same man had power to command that all the world should be taxed, Luke 2. 1. Certain I am, that Mr. Pryn doth not befriend either his owne exception, or my understanding so farre, as to inform what these different civill dominions were; or under what or whose domi­nion every or any of these Churches did respectively consist. The consideration whereof moderately inclines me to conceive, that he put this peece of his answer to the making, and affirmed it onely de bene esse, that the seven Churches of Asia were under different civill dominions. Is it not much more probable, that the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, which yet by the Assertors of Presbytery, are generally and with importune confidence made confederate in Classique association, were under different civill dominions? Consi­dering, 1. that their Cities were two hundred miles distant one from the other (a distance greater almost by an hundred miles, then any two of the seven Churches of Asia stood one from the o­ther, as will appear presently.) And 2. that Judea was an intire Province by it self, & Luke 3. 1. is said to have been under the go­vernment of Pontias Pilate. So that subjection under different civill dominions, is not like to have been any obstruction in the way of those Asian Churches, to impede their Presbyteriall conjunction, had they felt the weight either of divine institution, or of any Christian accommodation of their respective affaires, lying upon them for the ingaging themselves in it.

4. And lastly, some that seeme to have perfect knowledge of those parts where these seven Churches with their respective Cities stood, affirme that some of them were not situate above twelve miles distance from some others of them; and that the greatest di­stance between any two of them, was not above an hundred and [Page 96] twenty miles, which is not the one half of the distance between ma­ny Churches in this Kingdom. So that had the Presbyteriall com­bination or subordination of Churches been an ordinance of God, there is little question to be made, but that these Churches with their respective Angels, especially under such an opportunity, would have subjected themselves unto the will of God in this be­halfe, and not have remained single and uncombined in their go­vernment, as they did.

If it be objected, they were times of persecution; wee answer, So were they afterward, when (as men of the Presbyterian way suppose) they had Presbyteries; and after that when they had E­piscopall government. This hath been the case of the Protestants in France, where they now have, & constantly have had, a Presbyte­rial government. So it is of the Papists in England, where they have had ever since the Reformation, a Papall jurisdiction. And to speak to the particular, so was it a time of persecution against the Presbyteriall government in Queen Elizabeths time, and yet it was then exercised in severall places of this Kingdome. See Rogers Preface to his Analysis of the Articles of Religion.

6. Whereas he seemes to require a reprievement for his opinion, onely till Independents can shew him better grounds against it,Sect. 64. then any yet produced; and informe him why our representative Church and State should not of right enjoy and exercise as great or Ecclesiasticall ju­risdiction over all particular persons and Churches, who are members of our Church and Realm, as any Independent Minister or Congregation challenge or usurp unto themselves over their own members, &c. My an­swer is,

1. That now I trust he will willingly surrender his opinion in­to the hand of Justice, and plead no further for it. First, because though haply there have been no better grounds produced in this dis­course against it, then have been formerly in others; yet I cannot but conceive and judge, that better arguments and grounds against it, have been here produced, then Mr. Prynne hath had either the happinesse or opportunity to meet with elsewhere; especially con­sidering partly the frequencie of his complaint, that Independents have given little or no account of their way in writing; partly that it is a thing hardly consistent with Mr. Pryns abilities, being sweetned with so much ingenuity, not to see and acknowledge the delin­quencie [Page 97] of such an opinion, in whose condemnation so full a Jury of the first borne principles as well of Reason as Religion, as hath been here impannelled, doe conspire. And secondly, because In­formation hath been given him again and again (and more particu­larly in the eighth Section, page 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. of this discourse) why our whole representative Church and State; (though I doe not clearly understand what he meanes by our Representative Church in this place) but why the Parliament and Synod should not exercise as great or greater Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over particular persons & Chur­ches within the Realme, &c. as an Independent Minister AND Con­gregation (for his disjunctive particle, Or, turnes him quite out of the way of his question) may exercise over their owne mem­bers. But

2. Whereas he states the question thus: Whether our Represen­tative Church and State, may not exercise as great or greater Ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction over, &c. as an Independent Minister or Congregation challenge or USURP unto themselves over their own members; My answer is, that doubtlesse they may; one unrighteous or unjust thing, may be as lawfully done as another every whit as unrigh­teous and unjust as it. For Mr. Prynne may please to take know­ledge, that Independent Ministers and Congregations doe not usurp any power at all unto themselves over their own members, that is, over themselves; but onely administer that regular and lawfull power over and amongst themselves, which every of their respective members have mutually and freely given one to another, and every particular member unto the whole body, over it selfe, and that as well for its own benefit and behoofe, as for the benefit and good of the whole body. And lawfull (questionlesse) it is (yea matter of duty) for every man to give such a power of, or over himself, un­to others, which he hath sufficient ground either from the Scrip­tures, or reason otherwise, to conceive and expect that it will bee administred for his good; especially having ground to conceive yet further, that this act of his, in thus submitting himselfe unto others, will according to the ordinary course of Providence and experience, be of Christian accommodation unto others also for their good. Submitting your selves one to another in the feare of God, Eph. 5. 21. which submission doubtlesse ought so farre to extend, as in reason it may accommodate, or promote the edification and [Page 98] spirituall good, both of the persons by whom, and to whom it is made. And by the same reason it is no usurpation in those, to whom the submission is made, to administer or exercise that power which is committed unto them, according to the regular intentions of those who have given it: yea, such an administration of it as this, is so farre from being an usurpation, that a non-administration of it upon such terms, would be a very unchristian prevarication both with God and men. Therefore

7. (And lastly, to conclude) Whereas Mr. Prynne referres me to the High Court of Parliament, either to crave their pardon, or to under­goe their justice, for my Anti-parliamentarie passages, &c. I shall request no other favour of this most honourable Court, then that I may stand right and streight in their opinions, and be respited from censure onely so long, till my Accuser shall make good his charge against me by sufficient evidence and proofe; and substantially an­swer and refute this my Apologeticall plea. When the light of this day of darknesse shall dawne upon me, I shall willingly submit un­to his demand, and either crave the Pardon of that Honourable and High Court he speaks of, or otherwise undergoe their justice: in the meane season I presume he will subscribe my Petition for a re­prieve, as just and equall. And if the result of his more serious thoughts shall be, to resume and prosecute the bill of endictment which he hath preferr'd against me; my earnest request unto him is, as well for his own ease and conveniencie, as mine, 1. That he will not argue from pluralities, but pertinences of Scriptures; and shew how, and wherein every Text alledged, according to the ge­nuine sense and rationall dependance of the words, stands by him in what he intends to prove from it. And 2. that he will not place the strength and confidence of his cause, either in humane Autho­rities, humane practises, statutes or ordinances of men, excepting onely such, whose truth, justice and equitie he shall first demonstrate either from the word of God; and that not by Texts barely cited, chapter and verse, though in never such abundance; but through­ly argued, and examined upon the matter in question; or els from sound principles of reason and equitie, managed in a cleare and ra­tionall way, and so drawne up to a faire compliance with the con­clusion, seeking testimony and proofe from them. For otherwise, what sayings, doings, Lawes or Ordinances of men soever shall be [Page 99] produc'd or insisted upon, for confirmation or proofe of any thing; it will be sufficient to Answer, that men as wise, as just, as vertuous as they, have both said and done, things neither true nor meet to be done; and have made Lawes and Statutes of no better constitu­tion; yea, and have been of a contrary opinion to Mr. Prynne in the particular questioned: which made Augustine often decline that way of reasoning, as we reade in his 48. Epistle, and elsewhere. Thirdly and lastly, that he would put lesse vinegar and gall into his inke, and more wooll or cotton: or (in the Apostles words, Eph. 4. 31.) that all bitternesse and evill speaking be put away, and that we follow the truth in love, and language that becometh Brethren.

This treble request I make unto him with much earnestnesse and importunitie upon the supposition aforesaid, because I had much rather yeeld, might I do it upon honourable and Christian terms, then to be put to take the field yet againe. As for any opinion held by me, when once I perceive that it will not make knowledge, I am ready to give the right hand of fellowship unto any man in casting it out as unsavoury salt upon the dunghill. I never yet thought my self (nor I hope ever shall) such a debtor unto error, as to sacri­fice my time, paines, occasions, credit, conscience, upon the service of it. But unto Mr. Prynne I shall willingly acknowledge my self a debtor, if he will either acquit me of my crime by silence, or deli­ver me from my error by his pen.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.