Reply to Observations and Anti-Queries, Title page
A FVLL REPLY To certaine briefe Obſervations and Anti-Queries ON Maſter PRYNNES twelve Queſtions about Church-Government: Wherein the Frivolouſneſſe, Falſeneſſe, and groſſe Miſtakes of this Anonymous Anſwerer (aſhamed of his Name) and his weak grounds for Independency, and Separation, are modeſtly diſcovered, refelled. By William Prynne of Lincolnes Inne, Eſquire.
Socrates Scholaſticus Eccleſ. Hiſt. l. 5. c. 20.
Eccleſia cum ſemel eſſet diviſa, non una diviſione acquievit, ſed homines ab ſe mutuò averſi, al…er ab altero denuò ſceſſerunt; atque adeò EXIGVAM LEVICVLAMQVE OCCASIONEM nacti, mutuae communionis conſociationiſque vincula diſruperunt.
Mark 9. 50.
Have ſalt in your ſelves, and have peace one with another.
Iohn 18. 37.
To this end was I born, and for this cauſe come I into the world, that I ſhould beare witneſſe unto the truth.
Gal. 4. 16.
Am I therefore become your enemy, becauſe I tell you the truth?
LONDON, Printed by F. L. for Michael Sparke Senior, and are to bee ſold at the Blew-Bible in Green-Arbour. 1644.
A full Reply to certaine briefe Obſervations and Anti-queries to Mr Prynnes Twelve Queſtions about Church-Government.
OF all the vanities and vexations of spirit, enumerated by the royall Preacher, this is one of the principall,aEccleſ. 4. 4. That for all travell, and every right worke, a man is envied (yea, many times hated, oppugned) by his neighbour. This hath been alwayes my condition heretofore and now; my beſt actions and publike ſervices for the common good, have been miſconſtrued, traduced, nay cenſured in an high degree, as evill, by many; though (bleſſed be God) approved, yea gratefully accepted by the beſt-affected to the felicity, tranquilliry of Church and State.
The importunity of ſome Reverend friends, lamenting the deplorable diſtractions of our Church, which threaten diſunion, and ſo ruine to us, in theſe unhappy times of inteſtine warres, prevailed ſo farre, as to induce me to compile and publiſh Twelve conſiderable ſerious queſtions touching Church-government; out of a cordial deſire (as much as in me lay) to cloſe up, not widen our diviſions. Which though they have given ample ſatisfaction to many truely religious, of all ranks and qualities, who have returned me ſpeciall thanks; yet they have found very harſh entertainment from others, who of Friends bGal. 4. 1….are become my profeſſed Antagoniſts (if not enemies) in print, becauſe I have told them the truth: to whom I ſhould have returned no Reply but ſilence (there being nought in theſe Obſervations worthy anſwer) but only to rectifie ſome miſtakes therin, and ſhew the oppoſite party thoſe common errours whereby they deceive themſelves and others.
The firſt thing this nameleſſe Reſpondent quarrels with, iscPage 1. 2. For my writing by may of Quere; To which I anſwer, that I had both Preſidents and Reaſons for it.
Preſidents, from our Saviour himſelfe, who both inſtructed, refuted, convinced his oppoſites and auditors by demanding Queſtions onelyonly, Luk. 2. 46, 47. Matth. 11. 1, to 20. c. 12. 3, to 13. 26. 27. 29. c. 21. 23, to 43. c. 22. 18, to 23. c. 16. 26. Preſidents from Philoſophers, Fathers, School-men, and all ſorts of Writers, ancient▪ modern, over-tedious to recite.
Reaſons: 1. I conceived the Queſtions touching church-government were not rightly ſtated by moſt; and that the right ſtating of them by way of Queſtion, would be the beſt and ſpeedieſt meanes to decide them. 2. The Independent party had neither then, nor ſince (to my knowledg) dogmatically reſolved or diſcovered in print, what that church-government is they ſo eagerly contend for, and pretend to be ſo plainly ſet down in the Word of God: and therefore I conjectured ſuch Queries to be the onelyonly meanes to diſcover and refute their concealed Platforme. 3. The controverſies concerning church-government, were then and now in agitation in the Synode and high Court of Parliament, the propereſt Iudges of them; therefore I thought it better became me in point of modeſty and good manners, to expreſſe my opinion of them by way of Queſtion, then Deciſion. Finally, I found all Independents guilty of Petitio principii, in their Writings, Sermons, Diſcourſes, peremptorily concluding their forme of church-government, todThe Apologeticall Narration, Mr Sympſon. A Reply of two of the Brethren, with others. be the onelyonly Government inſtituted by Chriſt, the ONLY WAY OF GOD, which hath more of God and Chriſt in it then any other; the Kingdome, Scepter, and Throne of Chriſt himſelfe, and no other way beſide it; eA Reply of two of the Brethren to A. …. p. 111.That by the beauty and perfect conſonancy of this Government with the Word of God, it may very reaſonably (yea, and upon higher termes then of reaſon) bee thought, THAT IN TIME IT CANNOT BVT OVERTHROW ALL SORTS OF ECCLESIASTICALL GOVERNMENT, (and I feare civill too by the ſelfe-ſame-reaſon) AND STAND VP IT SELFE IN THEIR STEAD; which they cloſe up with a, Faxit Deus & feſtinet: and, that writing or diſputing againſt this Government, or oppoſing it in any kind, yea in thought, is no leſſe then fMaſter Iohn Goodwins θεομαχια.A FIGHTING AGAINST GOD, which will bring certain ruine on our Realme in generall, and all private, open oppoſers of it: yet not one of them (nor this Reſpondent) hath hitherto fully diſcovered to us, what this WAY or Government is; nor produced any one Scripture or Reaſon to warrant theſe ſuperlative Encomiums of it, but we muſt take all they ſay as Gospel, upon their own bare words, without examination or diſpute: And therefore I propoſed theſe, with 12 other ſubſequent Queſtions to them; to induce them to make good theſe tranſcendent (that I ſay not arrogant) Poſitions touching their Way; ſince I ſeriouſly profeſſe before God, Angels, and men, that I could never yet diſcover the leaſt footſteps of it in Scripture, or Antiquity, nor defery this their Patern in the Mount, which no age till ours had ever the happineſs to behold; if it be worth the viewing, when unvailed by them to us.
Having thus given this Respondent the true grounds of my writing by way of Queſtion, I ſhall briefly anſwer all his materiall Obſervations and Anti-queries upon my twelve Queſtions, pretermitting his Impertinencies.
1. To the firſt Queſtion the Reſpondent gives no Anſwer at all to the things demanded, but only miſrecites the Queſtion, without my limitations; and then ſeemes to refute, what himſelfe propounds, not I: He ſhould have demonſtrated by direct Scriptures, That Chriſt hath preſcribed one ſet immutable forme of Government to all Chriſtian Nations, Churches in the World, from which none muſt vary in the leaſt degree, without ſinne, ſchiſme, or being no true Churches of Chriſt, with whom good Chriſtians may with ſafe conſcience communicate; that nothing herein is, or can be left free to humane prudence: And then have poſitively delineated, exactly proved the modell of this pretended Government, Diſcipline, in every particle thereof, by Gospel-Texts, ſo far as to ſatisfie mens erronious judgments, conſciences herein, that ſo they might either ſubmit thereto without diſpute, or propound their objections againſt the ſame. But in this maine point (whereon the hinge of the controverſie turnes) the Reſpondent is wholly ſilent, and I ſhall expect his anſwer ad Graecas Calendas. Only leſt he might ſeem to ſay nothing, he endevours to prove, that there is a ſet forme of Church-government preſcribed by Chriſt in the Goſpel, not by direct Texts, but from pretended abſurdities of his owne fancying, (for which he can produce no Text nor Reaſon) wherein he hath prevaricated, and ſhewes himſelfe abſurd.
Firſt, (writes he) if this were granted (that there is no ſuch ſet form of Church-government preſcribed to all) the Goſpell would be *He ſhould ſay …eer, where the government is left arbitarry.ſtraiter then the Law, Chriſt more unfaithfull then Moſes. If we deny theſe abſurd conſequences, you ſhall have theſe ſound proofes of both ſubjoined; God ſet a patterne to *Exod. 25. 40 Heb. 8. 5.Moſes of a carnall Temple, (you miſtake good Sir, it was a Tabernacle, and that not carnall) which he charged him not to vary from in a tittle: (well, I grant it, becauſe you produce * two full Scriptures for it) Ergo, he hath preſcribed a ſet pattern of Church-government and Diſcipline to all Chriſtian Nations, Churches in the new Teſtament, from which they muſt not vary in one tittle. If he (or any other) can ſhew me ſuch a pattern as he contends for, ſo clearly delineated to us in the new Teſtament, as that pattern of the Tabernacle God ſhewed Moſes was in the old, and then produce as direct precepts enjoyning all Chriſtians, Republikes, Churches, not to vary from it in one tittle, as Moſes had not to vary from his, I ſhall beleeve his ſequell; till then I ſhall deeme it a true Independent argument, and as groſſe a Non-ſequitur as this, which neceſſarily followes upon the conceſſion of it.
God ſhewed and preſcribed to Moſes the expreſſe pattern or faſhion of Aarons and his Sons garments, ornaments, under the Law, Exod. 28. Ergo he hath likewiſe ſhewed and preſcribed the expreſſe pattern, faſhion, and colour, of all Biſhops, Presbyters, Miniſters garments, ornaments under the Goſpel, (moſt likely in the Roman Ceremoniall and Pontificall.) If the one conſequence be ridiculous, the other muſt needs be ſo.
But to quell this your principall Argument, Firſt, the patterne in the mount was meant onelyonly of the materials, forme, veſſels and utenſils of the Tabernacle, not of the Government and Diſcipline of the Iewiſh church; therefore very impertinent to prove a ſetled Church-government, Diſcipline, under the Goſpel. Secondly, it was ſhewed only to Moſes, the temporall Magiſtrate and chief Ruler of the Iſraelites; not to Aaron, or any private Independent Prieſt or Synagogue of the Iewes; yea Moſes (not they) was to make, or ſee all things made according to the pattern in the mount; Ergo (if there be any conſequence from this patterne) not the Independent Miniſter or congregation, but Kings, chief temporall Magiſtrates, and Parliaments (the ſupreme civill Powers, Councels, are likewiſe (under the Goſpell) to preſcribe and ſet up ſuch a church-government as is agreeable to Gods Word: as Moſes, Joſhua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Joſiah, Nehemiah, and other godly Princes, Governours, with their Parliaments or generall Aſſemblies did under the Law: And then what becomes of your Independent Miniſters, Congregations claimes to this Soveraigne temporall juriſdiction, (a part of Chriſts Kingly office, delegated onelyonly to Kings, and higheſt temporall powers) which was never conferred on them? In fine, if there be any ſuch expreſſe unalterable divine patterne of church-government under the Goſpel, I pray informe me, why it was not as punctually, as particularly deſcribed in the new Teſtament, as the forme of the Tabernacle, of its materialls, with all the ſervices, ornaments, appurtenances of it, and of the Temple were under the Law? Nay, why was the Tabernacle altered into a*2. Chron. c. … Temple, different from it? and why did the ſecond*Ezra 3. 10. 12. Hag. … 3. to 10. Temple vary from the firſt, and that in the ſelf ſame Church and Nation? If theſe were patterns of the church-government under the Goſpel, and yet varied, altered ſucceſſively in this manner; then by conſequence the Government, Diſcipline under the Goſpel is variable, alterable too, and ſo not fixed, nor immutable.
His ſecond Argument, That Chriſt ſhould neither be faithfull as a husband, head, nor King of his Church, if he ſhould give others power to order it as they pleaſed to their owne civill Government, not ſetting downe his owne Lawes for them to walke by, is both a fallacy and abſurdity. There is no man doubts but that Chriſt in the Scriptures (which ſome of you refuſe to heare read in our Churches, though *Exod 24. 7. Deut. 31. 11. Ioſh. 8. 34. 2 Kings 23. 2. 2 Chro. 34. 30 Neh. 8 2, 3, &c c. 9. 3. c. 13. 1. Ier. 36. 6. to 24 Luke 4. 16. Act. 13. 15, 27 c. 15. 21, 31. Col. 4. 16. 1 Theſ. 5. 27.publicke reading of them be Gods owne ordinance) hath preſcribed to us all neceſſary Rules and Lawes both for our faith and lives, either in a generall or ſpeciall manner; but that Chriſt hath punctually and particularly ſet downe any exact unalterable form of church-government, for all Chriſtian Nations, Churches to follow, under pain of being unfaithfull in all the former reſpects; and that the Independent Modell alone is that very patterne (the onelyonly point in queſtion) remains on your part to make good. A man may be a faithfull husband, King, Maſter, Father, though he preſcribe not diſtinct particular Lawes, to regulate each particular action of his Wife, Subjects, Servants, Children:*1 Cor. 14. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order, (a generall rule for church-government) is ſufficient to excuſe Chriſt from theſe your preſumptuous reproaches▪ and regulate all particulars, though left indefinite.
His third Argument, that Rev. 11. 1, 2. we read of a †Belike the Reed by which he meaſured it was Independency.meaſuring of the Temple; and Rev. 21. 1, 2. of the new Jeruſalem comming downe from God out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; Ergo there is a ſetled divine church-government univerſally preſcribed to all Chriſtians in the new Teſtament; is no better a proofe of this aſſertion, then the Angel of the Church of Epheſus, is of our Prelates Lordly hierarchy jure divino. He might as well, yea more properly have concluded thence, That the Altar was meaſured as well as the Temple, Revelat. 11. 1. (referring onelyonly to the*Ezech. 40. & 41. Jewiſh not chriſtian Church, which hath no*Rev. 21 22. 1 Cor. 9. 13, 14. Temple nor Altar:) Ergo we ought to have an Altar, yea and one ſet form of Altars in all chriſtian Churches under the Goſpell: which I hope you dare not averre.
After theſe three Independent Arguments,Heb. 7. 13. he pretends my third Quere contradicts the firſt, becauſe I ſuppoſe a church-government may be conſonant to Gods Word in the generall, which is not particularly preſcribed in it: A pretty fancy! As if nothing could be conſonant to Gods Word, which is not particularized or verbally enjoyned in it: Are not our materiall churches, garments, temporall Magiſtrates, Majors, Corporations, Parliaments, Courts of juſtice, Laws of all ſorts, yea Feſtivals, Covenants, monthly Faſts, &c. conſonant to Gods Word, becauſe not literally preſcribed in it? Are your private church-covenants, unmixt Communions (as you phraſe them▪) erections of Independent congregations without the licence of temporall Magiſtrates, not conſonant to the Word in your owne opinions, though no where extant in it? If not, then all your divine pretences for them vaniſh and you yeeld your cauſe: If yea, you muſt then recant this pretence of a contradiction, till you are able to prove it better then yet you have done.
Having played the Logicians and contradictors part ſo well, he next betakes himſelf to his Anti-queries to prove a ſet church-modell: which are three.
1. If no preſeript forme (of church-government) in the Word, why not Epiſcopacy (eſpecially regulated and moderated) as well as Presbytery?
I anſwere, if you meane it of Lordly Epiſcopacy, there are abundant pregnant Texts againſt it, to prove it oppoſite to Gods Word. If of moderated or regulated Epiſcopacy, the ſame with Presbytery: if the Parliament by the Synods advice unanimouſly eſtabliſh it, as moſt conſonant to the Scriptures, and moſt agreeable to the civill Government, I ſhall readily ſubmit unto it without oppoſition, and why not you and all others?
2. If church-government be ſuited to States, whether Politicians are not more fit to conſult about eſtabliſhing it? Why is an Aſſembly of Divines called to ſearch the Word about it?
I anſwer, that my poſition is, That every church-government ought to be ſuitable to Gods Word, as likewiſe to the civill State; Therefore Politicians and Stateſ-men are fit to be conſulted with, to ſuit it beſt to the civill State; and an Aſſembly of Divines, to ſquare it likewiſe by and to the Word: the true reaſon why in this our Realme, and all other Chriſtian States (as I can abundantly manifeſt if need be) Eccleſiaſticall Lawes and formes of government have ever been ſetled by Parliaments, with the advice of Synods, Councells, wherein Stateſ-men and Church-men have jointly concurred in their deliberations and votes, uſing both the Bible and the Law to ſettle it, and not throwing either of them aſide, as incompatible, as ignorant or lawleſſe perſons deeme them, but joyning both together.
To his third Anti-quere I anſwer, That it is more reaſonable the*But very unreaſonable that Chriſt, the Church, State, Synod, Parliament, ſhould be ſubject to your dictates, not you to theirs. State ſhould be ſubject to Chriſts rule, then Chriſt to its direction: But this Quere is quite beſides the Queſtion, till you prove infallibly, That Chriſt hath preſcribed a ſet unalterable divine government, to which all churches, Nations, States, muſt neceſſarily conform; and clearly manifeſt what this Government is in all its particulars. Till this be done the ſole queſtion is, Whether chriſtian Princes, Parliaments, States, Synods, under the Goſpel, have not a lawfull power to preſcribe Eccleſiaſticall Lawes and forms of Government, not repugnant to the Word, not to Chriſt himſelf, (as you pretend) but to all particular churches, congregations, ſubjects under their reſpective juriſdictions? aud whether the whole repreſentative Church and State of England in Parliament, have not ſufficient authority by Gods law to over-rule and bind all, or any particular members or congregations of it, as well as the major part of an Independent congregation, power to *This Rule holds firm in all Church-aſſemblies, Synods, Parliaments, elections by ſuffrages whatſoever.over-vote and rule the leſſer part, and to order, yea bind any of their particular members? A truth ſo clear, that no rationall man good Chriſtian or Subject can deny it. As for the latter part of this Querie, That the Saints think Chriſt is King alone over his Churches, and hath not left them to ſubſtitutes, and the politick conſiderations of men to be governed by; If he meanes it onelyonly of matters of Faith, or of internall government over the ſoules of men, it may paſſe as tolerable; but if he intends it of externall Eccleſiaſticall Government, Diſcipline, or order in the Church, or State as Chriſtian, hee muſt renounce his Oath of Allegeance, his late Proteſtation, Nationall Vow and Covenant, and make Rom. 13. 1, to 6. 1. Pet. 2. 13, 14. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. to be Apocryphall; the Confeſſions of all Proteſtant Churches heterodox; and deny chriſtian Kings, Magiſtrates, and higheſt civill powers, to be Chriſts ſubſtitutes, Vicars, in point of Government, (to whom Chriſt hath delegated his Kingly power) as truely as Miniſters are his deputies in point of inſtruction, admonition, to whom he hath bequeathed his Propheticall office.
2. In his anſwer to my ſecond Quere, he firſt wilfully miſrecites it, then infers †Your party are moſt guilty of it, who without diſcovery or proof of your New-way, will have us blindly to ſubmit unto it as the onelyonly way of Chriſt.a blind obedience from it to all ſuperiours commands, be they never ſo unjuſt or contrary to Gods Word; whereas my Queſtion ſpeaks onelyonly of lawfull decrees, &c. conſonant to Gods Word, and to the civill Lawes, Government, and manners of the people; to which every Chriſtian in point of conſcience is bound to ſubmit, (without any danger of blinde obedience) by the expreſſe reſolution of Rom. 13. 1, to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14, 15. Tit. 3. 1. Ezra 7. 26. Joſh. 1. 16, 17, 18. Heb. 13. 17. If any man deny this verity, he muſt renounce not onelyonly his Chriſtianity, but his Allegeance and Humanity too. But ſuppoſe (ſaith he) the whole Parliament and Synode ſhould erre in commanding a Government that is erronious or untrue, must we then ſubmit unto it? I anſwer, firſt, ſuch an overſight is not to be preſumed before it be actually committed; and it is neither *1 Cor. 13. 5, 7.chriſtian, charitable, nor any way of Chriſt, thus to prejudge their reſolutions. Secondly, if the Decrees or Government they eſtabliſh be not directly againſt Gods Word, nor pernicious to our ſoules, though not altogether ſuch as we could wiſh, yet we ought contentedly to ſubmit unto it without oppoſition: If contrary to the Word, we muſt then paſſively ſubmit thereto for the preſent, and expect a redreſſe in Gods due time. But if it be ſuch a Government and Diſcipline, under which we may freely enjoy the ſincere and powerfull preaching of the Word, the due adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and all other Ordinances of God neceſſary for our ſalvation and edification, (as we may doubtleſſe do under a Presbytery, and that government our pious Parliament intends to ſettle) we ought cordially and cheerfully to ſubmit thereto; yea thankfully to embrace and bleſſe God for it, and can neither waiwardly oppugne nor refuſe ſubmiſſion to it, without arrogancy, contumacy, and apparent ſchiſme. As for his queſtion concerning my owne and fellow-brethrens ſufferings, (which we deeme our Honour, not our Shame) I anſwer, that none of us ſuffered for oppoſing, writing, or ſpeaking againſt the Biſhops legall authority, or any ceremonies eſtabliſhed in our Church by Act of Parliament; but onelyonly againſt their pretended divine right to their Epiſcopall Lordly power, diametrally contrary to Scripture, Fathers, Councels, the beſt Proteſtant and Popiſh Authors, the *37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. E. 6. c. 1. 1. Eliz c. 1. See my Breviate againſt Biſhops Encroachments, &c. The Vnbiſhoping of Timothy and Titus. The Catalogue of authors in all ages concerning the parity and identity of Biſhops and Presbyters. The antipathy of the Engliſh Lordly prelacy. The Quenchcoale, &c.Statutes of our Realm; and againſt their Innovations in doctrine, diſcipline, ceremonies, canons, &c. contrary to the Lawes of the land, Articles, and Homilies of our Church; as the Parliament hath reſolved, yea all our Books demonſtrate, and Dr Baſtwicke in direct termes, in the Preface of his Flagellum: And therefore it could be neither pride, arrogance, nor ſchiſme, but meer conſcience and duty in us, to oppoſe them in theſe their uſurpations and innovations only, contrary to the Laws of God and the Realme: If he and his would containe themſelves within theſe our bounds, our Church ſhould enjoy more peace, their perſons more honour, then now they are likely to gaine, by oppoſing, prejudicating both the Parliaments and Synods proceedings, though never ſo pious, conſciencious, religious.
3. His pretended contradiction of the third Quere to the firſt, is formerly anſwered; I ſhall onelyonly adde, that things may be conſonant to the generall Rules of Gods Word, though not preciſely preſcribed in it: Yea, Independent Ladies and Gentlewomen, (and you I hope) will grant, that their different faſhions, habits, colours, attires, are all agreeable to Gods Word, (if modeſt) and warranted by this generall precept 1 Tim. 2. 9. Let women adorn themſelves in modeſt apparel, though not particularized in the Text: So may a church-government or Dreſſe be conſonant to Scripture, though not preciſely delineated or enjoyned by it.
To the fourth he gives no anſwer at all, but bids me prove it; which I have done already in my Independency examined, till it be diſproved.
To the fifth, he grants that Independency will overthrow all Nationall Churches and Synods; Nota.and the two Independent Brethren aſſure us in their Reply to A. S p. 111 that in time it cannot but overthrow all other ſorts of Eccleſiaſticall governments: Is it not then a turbulent, dangerous, ſchiſmaticall, unquiet (that I ſay not inſufferable) Government, by your owne confeſſions, which will admit no equall nor corrivall; nor yet any Nationall Church, Synod, Parliament, Prince, or temporall Magiſtrate, to exerciſe any, Eccleſiaſticall, Legiſlative, or Magiſteriall authority over any of their Conventicles, members, perſons, liberties, eſtates, much leſſe their conſciences, as they are Chriſtians? Will any Parliament, State, or Nation, (thinke 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 Monarchy, Church, Republick, Nation, within it ſelfe, depending on, ſubordinate wholly to it ſelfe, as if it and they were no part or members of the publike? The Lord preſerve us from ſuch a dividing and overturning Government. As for his invectives againſt the Formality, Tyranny, and enſlaving of mens judgments in the Presbyteriall way, as inconſiſtent with ſpirituall liberty and State priviledges, they are meere groundleſſe calumnies, to draw an odium on it, (ſome of your male-contented party profeſſing they would rather ſet up Lordly Epiſcopacy, which they have abjured, then it) whereas theſe aſperſions ſuit better with your independent modell, which is more rigid, uncharitable, unſociable, Papall, tyrannicall, Anti-monarchicall, Anti-ſynodicall, yea Anti-parliamentall, (as I have elſewhere manifeſted) then any other church-government whatſoever. As for my pretended bitter expreſſions, they are ſo ſuitable to the effects and reall conſequences of this New way, (as you ſtile it) that I could not expreſſe my ſelf in other language, without injury to the truth: and if any of my beſt Friends, who ſtood by me in my ſufferings, deem themſelves injured or reproached by them, (as you pretend, though none of them have yet complained to me) it is (I hope) onelyonly ſcandalum acceptum, non datum; and I preſume my Friends are ſo ingenuous, as not to be offended with me for *Lev. 19. 17 Gal. 4. 16. c. 2. 11. 14. Tit. 1. 13, 14. Rev. 3. 13. will juſtifie me herein.reproving only their errors with ingenuous freedom, in which I manifeſt my ſelf their greateſt Friend, becauſe I neither ſpare not flatter them in their miſtakes: However, though I really honour all my Chriſtian Friends, as well Independent as Presbyteriall, (whom you moſt ſcandalouſly traduce as Epiſcopall and time-ſervers heretofore) yet I preferre the*Pro. 23. 23. Maximè ami… veritas. truth of God, the peace, and ſafety of my Native, bleeding, dying Church and Countrey, (now much endangered by our unhappy diviſions) before all Friends or earthly comforts whatſoever. As for your pretended unſubjection of Pre…byterian Synods and Churches to the Parliament in ſetling Eccleſiaſticall matters, I neither know nor plead for any ſuch▪ and our preſent Aſſembly being both appointed, directed by, and ſubmitting all their determinations wholly to the Parliament, (as they are obliged both by Orders, Proteſtation, Covenant, and profeſſe they ought to doe) armes me ſufficiently againſt any ſuch improbable untrue ſurmiſe.
6. To the ſixth Quere he returnes no anſwer, but plainly yeelds, that there was never any Independent Church in any age or Nation whatſoever, totally converted to the chriſtian faith, till this preſent; nor any one Author that maintained it, till Mr Ainſworth (a Separatiſt) from whom the Apologiſts profeſſe their diſſent in ſome things. As for any reverend godly perſons who now contend for this new Modell, though I reverence their perſons, judgements too in other things, yet I cannot ſubſcribe to them in this new dangerous By-path, which is not yet ſo beaten as to deſerve the name of Chriſts Road-way. For the new ſuppoſed light▪ diſcovered in theſe dayes, touching church-government, if you meane it onelyonly of your Independency, (which you borrowed from the Browniſts, or Low-countrey Anabaptiſts, the firſt inventors of this Government) I doubt when brought out to the light, and examined by the word of light, it will for the moſt part prove but twilight, if not darkneſſe: If you meane it of any other light, that is truely ſuch, we bleſſe God for it, and deſire to walke brotherly and unanimouſly in it.
In the ſeventh he grants, that the Law of Nature, which inſtructs men to unite themſelves into one Nationall State, or civill Government, doth likewiſe teach them to joine themſelves into, ſubject themſelves unto one Nationall Church, and to Nationall Synods, Parliaments, in point of church-government; in which every particular man hath his Vote, though not in proper perſon, (ſince all cannot poſſibly aſſemble) yet in their deputies, Knights, Burgeſſes, or ſelected Commiſſioners: and though it be true that Chriſt hath not given Magiſtrates ſuch abſolute authority over mens conſciences as bodies, (as you object) yet he hath enjoyned us to be *Rom. 13. …. 1 Pet. 2. 14.ſubject to the higher powers, and to every lawfull ordinance of man (not repugnant to his Word) EVEN FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE, and THE LORDS SAKE too. For my paſſage, That there is no example of gathering independeut congregations, not of Infidels but of men already converted to, and ſetled in the Chriſtian Faith, unleſſe derived from the private conventicles of Arrians, Novatians; Donatiſts, and other Hereticks, who yet were not independent among themthemſelves; it is not a bitter ſpeech, (as you phraſe it) but a true one, and onelyonly bitter to you becauſe undeniable: For as it was the*Iuſtinian Codicis. l. 1. tit. 8. Socrates. ſcholaſt. Eccl. Inſt. l 7 c. 5. l. 5. c. 4, 5, 15, 20, 21 23. l. 4. c. 12, 13. l. 2. c. 33. common practice of thoſe ſeducing Hereticks, Sectaries, to gather private Conventicles of their own, and labour to draw other orthodox Chriſtians from their proper Miniſters, to incorporate themſelves into their private ſeparated congregations, as Hiſtorians informe us: So no ſuch practice of alluring and ſtealing away other Paſtors ſheep from their proper Shepheard, who firſt coverted them to, and edified them in the faith and grace of Chriſt, can be produced, but only in theſe Hereticks and Sectaries, whoſe practice your Independents imitate.* See 35. El…z c. 1. As for thoſe private conventicles (as he phraſeth them) for which he ſaith I may bleſſe God, that I was remembred in them with tears, when others durſt not name me; as I do really bleſſe God for them, and thoſe who remembred me effectually in them, ſo I dare not ſtile them Conventicles in an ill ſenſe, ſince not†See 35. Eliz. c. 1. None are Conventiclers but Hereticks or Schiſmatickes, who wholy ſeperate themſelves from our publique Aſſemblies eſtabliſhed by Law. ſuch by Law, being only lawfull Aſſemblies of private Chriſtians to ſeek unto God by prayer & faſting upon extraordinary occaſions, which all good Chriſtians cannot but approve: But all theſe meetings were farre from being then ſtiled, reputed Independent Churches, or having any affinity with them; ſo as they make nothing for his cauſe.
To the eighth Quere he gives a negative Anſwer, Firſt in generall, next in particular to ſome inſtances. Firſt he grants, that there was a Nationall Church (yea Nationall aſſemblies, Parliaments, determining church-affaires,) of the Jewes, but theſe (ſaith he) cannot be a pattern for its now, becauſe the covenant of the Gospell is not made with any one particular Nation, as with the Jewes, but to all Nations that embrace the Goſpel, and beleeve in Chriſt; you have no promiſe nor propheſie of any Nation to be holy to God but the Jewes Nation, when they ſhall bee called againe.
To which I reply, firſt, That Independents have not the leaſt precept or example for any ſolemne Covenant made betwixt God and men to walke in the wayes of God, &c. but onelyonly*2 Chro. 15. 8, to 16. c. 34. 29, to 33 8. 29 10. Ezra 10. 3. Neh. 9. 38. c. 10. 1. &c. in the old Teſtament, and Church of the Iſraelites, and that no private congregationall, but publike Nationall covenant, preſcribed by the ſupreme temporall Magiſtrate and Aſſembly, not by the Prieſts or private Synagogues; yea the principall precepts, preſidents for publike or private faſts, ſanctifying the Sabbath, &c. you likewiſe derive from the old Teſtament and that Church; why then ſhould not their Nationall Church be a pattern for us, and you to imitate, as well as their Nationall covenant, faſting, ſabbath-keeping; the Church of God being all one, (as it is a Church) both under the old Teſtaſtament and new; and the pattern of it under the Law a better peſident for the Church under the Goſpel, (of which it was a type and fore-tunner) then the pattern of the Tabernacle ſhewed in the Mount (ſo frequent in your Lips and Books) a preſident for your Independent Modell, to which it hath no analogy. 2. This reaſon is moſt abſurd and falſe, the Covenant of the Goſpel extending not onelyonly to particular perſons, but to †Pſal. ….. 8, 9. Pſal. 72. 8, to 18. Pſ. 82. 8. Pſ. 86. 9. Pſ. 65 …. Pſ. 67. 2, 3. 4. 5. Iſa. 2. 2, 3. c. 9. 22, 23. c. 11. 9, to 16. c. 54. 1, 2, 3. c. 60. 3. to 22. Mich: 4. 1. to 5 Mal. 1. 11. Zach. 8. 22. Act. 13. 46; 47 48. Matth. 28. 19, 20. Mar. 14. 15. Rom. 10. 18, 20. c. 11. 4. Iſa. 62. to the end. 1 Pet. 2. 9. 10.all Nations and people whatſoever, who are both propheſied and promiſed to become Chriſts own inheritance, poſſeſſion, people, ſpouſe, church, and to be an HOLY NATION, A PECVLIAR PEOPLE &c. to the Lord, in infinite Texts both of the old and new Teſtament, which I wonder the Reſpondent ſhould either not ſee, or forget, being ten thouſand fold more cleare and viſible then his Independent platforme, which few or none can yet eſpy in Scripture, Hiſtory, or Politiques.
2. He addes, that I cannot ſhew any Nation, every member whereof is qualified ſufficiently to make up a church, which is Chriſts body, unleſſe I will take in Drunkards, Whore-maſters &c. to be members of a church, whereas the Word ſaith, they muſt be viſible Saints, and this cannot be avoided in a Nationall church.
I anſwer that I dare not be wiſer then my Maſter Chriſt who Informes me, that there will, and muſt be alwayes in the viſible church on earth (be: it Nationall, parochiall, presbyteriall, or congregationall) *Matth. 3. 12 c. 13. 24. to 52 c. 25. 32. 33.goats among the ſheep, chaffe among the wheat (which muſt grow together till the harveſt, at the end of the world, to wit the day of judgment) & good fiſh mixed with the bad in the churches Not. 2. I finde aaJoh. 6. 70, 71 Judas, a Devill, among the Apoſtles, many bSee Iudges, Samuel, Kings Chronicles, Nehemiah, Ezra, and all the Prophets.groſſe ſinners idolaters, and corruptions in the Jewiſh church; many abuſes, Epicures, Drunkards, Whoremaſters, Libertines, uncleane perſons, and falſe Teachers, in the churches of Galatia, Epheſus, Coloſſe, Pergamus, Smynna, Thyatira, and Laodicea; yet the Scripture expreſly ſtiles them cSee Pauls and Johns, yea Chriſts Epiſtles to them, Rev. 2, & 3. 1. Cor. 11. 13 to 34. c. 12. 12. 27.the body and churches of Chriſt and rep…tes ſuch, members (though corrupt ones) of thoſe Churches; who doe not actually ceaſe to be members when excommunicated or ſuſpended for a ſeaſon, after they are baptized, and profeſſe the Chriſtian faith: nor did any ſeparate from theſe churches, though they had ſome corruptions and evill members. For you therefore to ſeparate from, and unchurch ſuch Nationall or Parochiall churches, which have ſuch members in them, is to unchurch all churches both in the old and new Teſtament and the world it ſelf, yea your own churches too. 3. The Scripture is expreſſe, dMat. 24. 14. 15. c. 26. 16. Luk. 14. 23, &c. c. 13. 23, 24.that many are called, but few choſen and ſaved; that all muſt be compelled to come into the church, though they want the wedding-garment: There never was, nor ſhall be here on earth, any one viſible church compacted wholly of reall elected Saints, without any mixture of Reprobates; ſuch a church we ſhall meet with onelyonly in heaven, I am ſure you can gather none ſuch on earth. 4. Are there no corrupt or drunken members in your independent churches, but onelyonly reall viſible Saints? are there no uſurers, oppreſſors, corrupt dealers, covetous, proud, malicious, uncharitable, cenſorious perſons; no apparent hypocrites or diſſemblers? yea, are there not many ſinnes and corruptions in the beſt, the choiceſt of all your members; (who cannot depart away, or quite ſeparate themſelves from their owne boſome corruptions,) as there is and will be in the beſt of men during their mortality? If your Independent congregations conſiſt of ſuch members as theſe, of men ſubject to like paſſions, ſinnes, infirmities as others in Presbyteriall churches, what then is become of this your reaſon and principall ground of Independency, or rather, Separation, or Browniſm, its ancient proper title? you may lay it up in Lavander for another world, but can make no uſe of it in this, where you cannot ſo much as dream of a church of reall Saints, without any mixture of corruption.
3. For his anſwers to that of Acts 15. all ages, churches, till this preſent, have held it both an expreſſe warrant and preſident for the lawfulneſſe▪, uſefulneſs of Nationall and Provinciall Synods to determine differences in Religion, (which particular churches, perſons cannot decide) and making neceſſary Canons for church-affaires; neither can all his ſhifts elude it: To his firſt and ſecond reaſons, or rather evaſions I anſwer, it is clear by Act. 15. 2. that the church of Antiech it ſelfe could not decide the queſtion, nor Paul nor Barnabas ſatiſfactorily determine it, ſo farre as to quiet all parties; and therefore they ſent Delegates to the Apoſtles and Elders at Hieruſalom, there to decide it: None is ſo ignorant but knowes, that there are many controverſies now on foot concerning doctrine, diſcipline, and church-government, which no particular congregations, (nay hardly an whole Synod and Parliament together) are ſufficient to ſettle and determine; therefore there is a kinde of neceſſity of Nationall Synods as well as of Parliaments, whence all ages, churches, have uſed them. To his third reaſon I reply, that it is evident by expreſſe words verſ. 2. 5. 6. 7. 10. 19. 20. 24. that the principall end why the Apoſtles went up to Hieruſalem, and why this Synod aſſembled was not to prove the falſe Apoſtles lyars, (as he aſſirmeth) but to debate and conſider THIS QVESTION AND MATTER, whether the Gentiles ought to be circumciſed? To his fourth, I ſay, that though this meeting was occaſional, yet it i… a ſufficient warrant for generall meetings, which are uſually called, only upon ſpeciall occaſions of moment: In it there was a generall aſſembling of all the Apoſtles, Elders, and Brethren at Hieruſalem, (where there were then divers particular congregations, as, our Aſſembly long ſince reſolved from Acts 2. 6. 41, 42. 46, 47. c. 4. 4. c. 5. 14 15, 16, 42. c. 6. 1, to 9. c. 8. 2, 3, 4. c. 11. 1, 2. c. 12. 12, 13. c. 21. 17, 18 23, 22. which if Independents deny, then they muſt prove, that all the Apoſtles and Elders at Hieruſalem were Paſtors but of one and the ſelf-ſame individuall congregation; and then what becomes of their Independent churches, which have no Apoſtle, and onelyonly one Paſtor, but ſcarce any Elders in them) who upon this ſpeciall and ſome other publike occaſions met all together, and that not to adviſe onelyonly, but determine and reſolve, as is evident by verſ. 6. to. 32. c. 16. 4. c. 21. 25. which compared with the Texts of the old Teſtament in the Margin of my Quere, where we finde frequent Nationall generall Aſſemblies, Synods, or Parliaments (if I may ſo ſtile them) among the Iſraelites (preſcribed, appointed by God, and no wayes contradicted, revoked under the Goſpel) determining †… Chro. 13. … to 14. c. 28, & 29. 2 Chro. 5. 2, &c. c. 6, & 7. c. 15. 9, to 29 c. 17 7, 8, &c. c 20 3, 4. 5. c. 24. …, to 16. c. 29. 3, to 36. c. 30. v. 31. c. 31. 29, to the end. c. 35. 1, to 19. Ezra & Neh. throughout. Eſth. 9. 17. to 32.all Eccleſiaſticall controverſies, ſetling, ordering all churchaffaires, matters concerning the Arke, Temple, Sacrifices, Paſſeover, Prieſts▪ Nationall covenants, Faſting-dayes, Feſtivalls, ſuppreſſions of Idolatry, falſe-Worſhip, Reliques of Idolatry, and the like; are an impregnable evidence of the lawfulneſſe of Nationall Synods, Parliaments, Aſſemblies, in all Chriſtian Kingdomes, Republikes, upon the like occaſions, and that they are endued with equivalent authority; there being no one Text in the old or new Teſtament, nor any ſhadow of reaſon, (but meer ſhifts or obſtinacy of ſpirit againſt publike goverment, order, and authority) to controll it. If any pretend they doe it onelyonly out of conſcience, if they will but ſeriouſly gage their owne deceitfull hearts, I feare their conſcience will prove but wilfulneſſe, having neither precept, preſident, nor reaſon to direct it: So as I may truely retort his owne calumny againſt me on him and his, that his and their own name, will, or opinion, is their onelyonly argument againſt this ſhining truth, which all ages, Churches, have acknowledged, ratified, practiſed, without the leaſt diſpute.
To my ninth Quere, and arguments in it, he returnes nothing worthy Reply, but upon this Petitio principii, or begging of the thing diſputed; that the Scripture and Apoſtles have preſcribed a ſet forme of Government in all after ages for the Churches of Chriſt, which he neither can, nor endevours to prove; and that Churches in the Apoſtles dayes were Independent, though doubtleſſe all Churches were then ſubject to the Apoſtles Lawes, Orders, Edicts, Deciſions, though no immediate Miniſters or Paſtors of them, (as appeares by their Epiſtles to them) therefore not Independent: ſo as my arguments hold firme, and his anſwers weak. As for his retorted argument; That the Scriptures were writ in the infancy of the Church: Therefore wiſer and better Scriptures may be writ now; it is a blaſphemous and abſurd concluſion, they being all writ by the ſpirit and inſpiration of God himſelfe, the very*Dan. 7 9, 13 …. Ancient of dayes, who hath neither infancy nor perfection, as the Church hath.
To his ſecond, that I would needs make a Nationall Church, State, more perfect, underſtanding, and wiſe, th…n a congregationall: I feare not to averre it, ſince your ſelves muſt grant, that the Church under the Law was more perfect then that before it; the Church under the Goſpel more perfect then that under the Law; and the Churches under the Goſpel, at the end of the Apoſtles dayes, when furniſhed with more divine knowledge, Scriptures, Goſpels, Officers, and rules of Faith, Manners, Diſcipline, more compleat and perfect then at their beginning to preach: No man doubts, that though a *1 Cor. 13, 11, 12. c. 14. 20. c. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 2. Heb. 5. 12, 13, 14. 1 Ioh. 2. 11. to 15. Epheſ. 4. 15. 16new-born infant and Chriſtian have all the parts and members of a man and Saint, yet they have not ſo much perfection, underſtanding, knowledg, judgment, ſtrength of grace, or ſpirituall wiſdome, as grown men and Chriſtians. An aged, expetienced, growne Miniſter; Chriſtian, is more compleat and perfect theu a new converted†1 Tim. 3 6. Novice, or Babe in grace; Ergo a growne and Nationall Church, then one but in the Embryo. Your Independent Churches, in their primitive infancy, when they had but two or three members onelyonly in them, and wanted both Elders, Deacons, and other neceſſary church-officers (as Mr. Sympſons church firſt did) I am certain in your own opinion were not ſo complete and mature as you intended to make them afterwards by degrees: a Village is not ſo complete a Republike or Corporation as a City, nor a City as a†Ezek. 16. 13 Kingdom, nor a Family as a County, nor a Conſiſtory as a Synod, nor a court of Aldermen as a common-councell, nor that as a Parliament: Therefore an Independent ſingular congregation not ſo complete as a Nationall church, being oft enforced to pray in the aid of other churches for advice, aſſiſtance &c. (as your ſelves confeſſe) which an whole Nationall Church need not to doe. In fine, himſelfe confeſſeth, that the Apoſtles made new rules for government and diſcipline as occaſion ſerved; and that as God fitted occaſions, ſo he made knowne new rules ſucceſſively by degrees, not at once; and added new Officers, as Evangelicall Biſhops, Elders, Deacons, Widowes, Evangeliſts, Doctors, Paſtors, Teachers (which ſome diſtinguiſh from Presbyters, and define to be ſeverall offices:) Therefore the infant Church in the Apoſtles dayes was not ſo compleat, perfect in all parts, as the multiplied and growne churches afterwards.
My tenth Quere he wilfully miſrecites, as he doth the reſt; elſe he had not the leaſt ſhadow of exception againſt it, as I propounded it, and then returnes an anſwer by way of dilemma to it: To which I reply, That if the Parliament and Synod ſhall by publike conſent eſtabliſh a Presbyteriall church-government, as moſt conſonant to Gods Word, the Lawes and Reiglement of this Kingdome, Independents and all others are bound in conſcience to ſubmit unto it, under paine of obſtinacy, ſingularity, &c. in caſe they cannot really prove it diametrally contrary to the Scriptures, and ſimply unlawfull in point of conſcience, not by fancies, or remote inconſequences, but by direct Texts and precepts, (which they can never doe;) and that becauſe it is thus commanded, eſtabliſhed by the higher powers, to which in all lawfull or indifferent things wee are bound to render all chearfull obedience, without reſiſtance, even for conſcience ſake, by expreſſe Goſpel Texts, Rom. 13. 1, to 7. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 14, 15. which I wiſh you would practiſe better, and make make more conſcience of then now you doe. As for his croſſe Interrogatories, I anſwer, 1. That if the Popes Councels command lawfull things to thoſe who are ſubject to their power they are as well to be obeyed as the commands of *Rom 13. 1, to 7. 1 Tim 2 1, 2, 3. Tit. 3. 1 1 Pet. 1. 2. to 24 c. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 1, to 18. Eph. 5. 22. 23. c. 6 1. to 10 Col. 3. 18, to 25.heathen Emperours, Magiſtrates, Parents, Husbands, by Chriſtian Subjects, Wives, Servants, living under them are. 2. That there is a great difference between matters of opinion onelyonly, and of practiſe; That his inſtanced points, Whether Lordly Epiſcopacy be jure divino; or their making out Proceſſe under their owne Names and Seales be agreeable to the Law of the Land, are matters onelyonly of opinion ſimply in themſelves; and if a Synod and Parliament ſhould have determined the firſt, and the Iudges reſolved the laſt, affirmatively, their reſolutions could not binde my judgement abſolutely, ſo farre as to ſubſcribe their opinions as undoubted truths, unleſſe they could ſatisfie my arguments and authorities to the contrary; but yet they ſhould & ought to bind me for the preſent ſo far as to ſubmit to their authority & Proceſſe in their own names in things within their legall cogniſance: So if the Parliament and Aſſembly ſhall eſtabliſh any Churchgovernment, as moſt agreeable to the Scriptures and our Lawes, though this binds not all Independents to be ſimply of their opinion, unleſſe the reaſons and arguments produced for it be ſufficient to convince their judgments, yet it binds them in point of practiſe and obedience, outwardly to ſubmit thereto, and not to ſeparate from it, under pain of arrogancy, faction, ſchiſme, unleſſe they can clearly manifeſt it to be abſolutely unlawfull and repugnant to the Scripture. As for my own objected challenge to the Biſhops & Iudges▪ about the jus divinum of Lordly Prelacy, and Biſhops Proceſſe in their own names; when I made it I was certain I had both†See my Catalogue, &c. The unbiſhoping of Timothy and Titus. A Breviate, and Antipathy of the Engliſh Lordly Prelacy. Scripture, Fathers, Councels Acts of Parliament, the ſuffrages of all forraigne Reformed Churches, Writers, and our owne learnedeſt Biſhops, Authors in all times againſt the firſt; and direct Acts, Reſolutions of Parliament, Patents, unanſwerable Law-authorities, and Reaſons againſt the latter: Therefore a few Lordly Prelates opinions in their owne caſe or the ſubitane, forced, extrajudiciall reſolution of the Iudges (not then publiſhed) could no more conclude my judgment, nor make me guilty of arrogancy, obſtinacy, or ſchiſm then, than their forced judgments for the lawfulneſſe of Loanes and Ship-money, againſt expreſſe Acts and judgments of Parliament, oblige me or others, then or now, not to deeme that taxe illegall: and when you can produce as many good authorities, Reaſons from Scripture, Antiquity, Acts of Parliament, Writers of all ſorts, againſt the lawfulneſſe of Presbytery, as I have done againſt Lordly Epiſcopacy by divine right Biſhops making out Proceſſe under their own Names, Seals and†See my humble Remonſtrance againſt Shipmoney. Ship-mony, neither of which were ever ſetled by any former Parliament, and have all bin expreſly voted againſt in this: I ſhall then excuſe you from arrogancy and ſchiſme, but till this be done, (as I preſume it will never be) the guilt of both theſe wil ſtick faſt upon you, if you readily conforme not in outward practice to that Government the Parliament ſhall eſtabliſh. If they ſhould ſettle Independency, I am certaine you would then write and preach for univerſall obedience to it, (which you now publikely call for ſo eagerly without authority or proof of its Divinity, becauſe thus ſetled) without diſpute: therefore by like reaſon you ought to ſubmit to a Presbytery, or ſuch other Government as ſhall be reſolved on by thoſe Intruſted with this care.
To my 11. Quere he gives only a negative anſwer and then declaims againſt Presbytery without ground or reaſon: But becauſe I have proved the truth of what he denies in my Independency examined and in ſome following pages, I ſhal not trouble you with any further proof, except theſe two particulars: 1. That Independency is in reality meer Separation and Browniſm, lately chriſtened with this new title, to take off its odium: and if ſo, I doubt not but it is a nurſery of ſchiſms, Sectaries, &c. 2. That we finde by wofull experience, what bloudy diviſions, warres, ſchiſms, the toleration but of one Religion and Sect in our Realms contrary to that eſtabliſhed, (to wit Popery and Pupiſts) hath produced in all our Dominions, to their imminent danger, and almoſt utter ruine; what then will the free permiſſion of many Independent different forms of Churches, Sectaries do? will it not produce many more troubles, dangers, wars, ſchiſms, then we have hitherto felt? Yea, if every man ought to have freedom of conſcience, to vent what opinions, & ſet up what Governments he deems moſt conformable to the Word in his own private fantie, you muſt indulge Papiſts this liberty as well as others: and then how ſoone will they over-run us for the future, how juſtly can we take up armes to ſuppreſſe them for the preſent? Conſider ſeriouſly of thoſe and other publike-miſchiefes of your way, and that liberty of conſcience you ſo much conteſt for, (which in truth is nothing but meere lawleſneſſe, or licentiouſneſſe, to do*Deut. 12. 8. Judges 17. 6. 1. 21. 25. what ſeemes good in your owne eyes, as if there was no King in Iſrael, without reſpect to the publike peace or weale) and then happily you may in time diſcerne, recant your errour.
To my twelfth Quere he onelyonly anſwers, that I fall a jeering of my brethren, (a palpable untruth) and that I put a nick-name on them, to make them odious; to wit, the title of Independents, which they diſclaime▪ not anſwering one ſyllable to the ſubſtance of the Queſtion. To which I reply: Firſt, that the title of Independency (of which you are now aſhamed) was at firſt aſſumed, approved by your ſelves, and many of your party doe ſtill owne, though ſome diſclaim it, of purpoſe to evade the titles of Separatiſts and Browniſts, with whom you really concurre in practice: Beſides, you very well know that this title was impoſed on, and owned by you long before I writ; therefore I could not father this brat upon you: But if you be offended with this name, I deſire you in your next Pamphlet to diſcover to us your owne Chriſtian name, with the true title of your party, and the government you plead for as the only way of Chriſts inſtitution (all which you have hitherto concealed) and then (God willing) I ſhall give you a further anſwer to this cavill, or retract this title; till then I muſt informe you that it moſt proper for your party, who will have every of your owne private congregations, a complete abſolute corporation, exempted from; unſubjected to independent on any other, be it a Nationall Synodall, Provinciall, Parochiall aſſembly, Parliament or Kings themſelves in any Church-affaires: You muſt therefore ſtill retaine this Title, while… you maintaine ſuch Paradoxes both in opinion and practice as juſtly appropriate it to you, Conveniunt rebus nomina ſaepe ſuis, being never more exactly verified then in this your ſuitable name.
But you object, firſt, That you are accountable for your actions to every neighbour Church, that ſhall in the name of Chriſt require it. Secondly, That you ſtand not independent from, but hold communion with all other Churches, both in the Ordinances, and in asking counſell and advice mutually.
To the firſt I anſwer, 1. That if you are accountable for your actions to every particular neighbour Church, then why not much more to a Synod or Parliament, whoſe eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction over you or your Churches is denied by you? Secondly, if you are thus accountable to every neighbour Church, doe you intend it of Parochiall, Epiſcopall, or Presbyteriall Churches, as well as Independent; or of Independent onelyonly? If of Independent onelyonly, as I ſuppoſe you doe, then you appeale onelyonly to Churches of your owne partie, frame, judgment, and make one of them ſubordinate, accountable to another, but not to any other Church; which is an apparent ſchiſme, ſeparation from all other Churches, and contradicts your ſecond objection: If of all other ſorts of Churches as well as Independent, you muſt either grant them true Churches of Chriſt, and then you have no ground to ſever from them; or if falſe, or no true Churches of Chriſt, (as you in truth repute them) then by your own principles they are no competent Iudges of Eccleſiaſticall affaires, nor you accountable to them. Thirdly▪ How (I pray) doe you hold your ſelves accountable to every neighbour Church? by way of ſubordination, or correction? that I am certain you will deny: or only by way of voluntary information and ſatisfaction, when required, which I conceive you mean? If ſo only, then this is properly no account at all▪ or but arbitrary at moſt, which you may deny if you pleaſe; and if you erre or prove faulty, this neighbour Church can but admoniſh, not enforce you to correct your errours or injuſtice: and ſo this will prove but a meere mockery in ſtead of an account.
To the ſecond I anſwer, That if you ſtand not Independent from other Churches, but hold communion with them in Ordinances, and in mutuall counſell and advice, Then 1. why doe you ſeparate from them as no true Churches, and oppoſe their way of Government with ſo much bitterneſſe? Secondly, why doe you refuſe to adminiſter Baptiſme and the Lords Supper to thoſe who are their members, in your Churches, unleſſe they be profeſſed members of ſome Independent Congregation? Thirdly, why do you not follow their advice, counſell, or the Parliaments, Synodes, and ſubmit thereto; who now earneſtly diſſwade you from your way of ſeparation, diviſion, in theſe diſtracted times? the end of demanding good counſell and advice being but to follow, not reject it, where there is humility, ingenuity, or ſincerity in thoſe who aske it. You muſt therefore either diſclaime theſe objected conceſſions, or become more tractable for the future. 4. You tell us in the next ſucceeding lines, That neither I, nor Synods, nor this Synod, are infallible, but as ſubject to errours as others; and that never †Yea, never more dangerous errours refuted, ſuppreſſed, then in the 4. firſt general Councels, and ſome Synods ſince, as that of Dort, and other Proteſtant Synods in the Harmony of Confeſsions: Where therefore they determine rightly, you muſt ſubmit unto them; where they confirm apparent dangerous errours, there you may vary from them when proved ſuch.more dangerous errours have been confirmed then by Synods: and therfore men are not bound in conſcience to their decrees upon penaltie of ſinne, arrogancy, &c. But pray Sir may not you and your Independent Miniſters Churches erre as well as others? Is infallibility annexed onelyonly to your private Chaires, conventicles? If not, then why may not your new-minted Way be a meere erronious By-path, and no way of Chriſt as well as other waies, and you erre herein as well as Synods in other things? Why will you have the major vote in your congregationall deciſions to over-rule and bind the reſt to obedience; (as your practice and opinions intimate) ſince the major part may poſſibly be miſtaken, as well as the leſſe diſſenting? Shall nothing binde in any Churches, but what is unanimouſly voted nemine contradicente? or ſhall one or two diſſenting voices over-rule the reſt, or not be bound by the moſt? or where all conſent may not all yet be in an errour, and not diſcerne it▪ through ſelfe-love to their owne wayes and opinions, till others of contrary judgements diſcover and convince them of their errour? Away then with this fond argument and evaſion; Synods and Parliaments may erre in ſome things, Ergo they muſt binde us in no thing: Is this good Logicke or Divinity? Good Miniſters may and doe erre ſometimes in ſome points of Divinitie, Ergo wee will beleeve them in none, no not in thoſe things in which they doe not erre. Will you throw away all the Apple becauſe… one part of it only is rotten? or reject Communion with the beſt of men becauſe they have ſome infirmities? Deal then with the Eccleſiaſticall decrees of Synods and Parliaments as in wiſdome, in conſcience you are bound to doe: Where they are juſt, equall, not oppoſite to the word, embrace, ſubmit unto them; when erronious or contrariant to the expreſſe word (not to your own fancies, inferences or opinions) you may differ from them in judgment, but you muſt patiently ſuffer under them in point of practiſe & obedience (if meerly practicall) till a further ſeaſon, and not diſturb the Churches peace by oppoſition or ſchiſm: which is as good, as ſeaſonable Chriſtian advice, as that you conclude with unto me, which I heartily wiſh your ſelfe had firſt followed▪ who have more defamed the ways of Chriſt and u…ed more perſonall unchriſtian betterneſſe then I am guilty of. You wiſh indeed, O that a ſpirit of love were maintained among thoſe that are brethren: though they differ in judgment▪ muſt they needs differ in affection? I ſay the ſame. But O then why ſeperate you from us, yea paſſe uncharitable cenſures on us as if we were not your Brethren? One Kingdom, one City, Houſe, doth now, one heaven ſhall heareafter contain us both: why not then one church government, one Church Militant, as well as one Triumphant? If you deem not your *Th…e are the true grounds of all ſ…parations. Eſa 65. 5. Luk. 18. 10, to 16. Iude 18. 19. witneſſes the Novatians, Donatiſts, of old: The ſeverall orders of Monks, Nuns▪ Eremites, Anchorites, in the Church of Rome, and their new order of Jeſuits, …th of them pret…nding; more ſanctity and ſtrictneſſe then anoth…r, and ſo ſevering in their different orders, habits, Monaſteries, rules, covenants, one from another.ſelves more holy then your brethren, or be not ſwelled up with ſpirituall pride (as your ſtiling your ſelves†Mr. Good…ns Theomachia p 24, 25. The Reply of two of the Brethren paſsion. Men of rich anoynting from God, the moſt religiouſly affected, and beſt conſcienced people of the land, the moſt precious men, &c. with your ſeparation from us, and harſh cenſures of us, make moſt men ſuſpect) then why refuſe you to cloſe with us now, as you have done heretofore? Could our Miniſters, Churches, when more corrupt, convert, regenerate. edifie, ſave you, and yet not now ſo much as hold you, when more refined and reformed? If yea, then let us both ſhake hands without any more encounters; if nay, then fairely▪ chalke out your yet concealed independent way and platforme in all its ſeverall lineaments, and beautifull native colours; produce your ſeverall punctuall Scriptures, Arguments, to maintain it, (there being none of them extant in theſe your Obſervations for ought I can find) that ſo I may ſee the frame and grounds of this new Fabricke, in as large or narrow a Modell as you pleaſe: and then doubt not but an Anſwer ſhall be given to what ever you modeſtly ſet forth, (if worthy anſwer) in caſe it be not ſatisfactorie; or elſe a friendly embrace thereof, if agreeable to the Spirit and Word of truth, by him who hath learned Pauls peremptorie reſolution, 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing againſt the truth, but for the truth; in which reſolution (God aſſiſting) I reſolve to live and die.