YOur Title sayes, Truth triumphing over Falshood, Antiquity over Novelty; you meane, I suppose, Antick Truth over No­vel Falshood; And the truth is, whoever considers your ensuing Discourse, will finde it to bee Antick Truth, very Antick; such as to the Reformed World of Christians would well neere have quite been antiquated, and totally become ridiculous, had not such unskilfull Antiquaries as William Prynne of Lincolns Inn, Esquire, ta­ken so much unnecessary and thankles paines in gathering them up from Dunghills, and by whole Volumnes and Impressions to delude and cozen the unstable people of his party; the truth whereof, that himselfe and all others into whose hands this paper happens, may suddenly perceive; besides the severall absurdities and contradictions, let them only take notice, that both the Truth and Antiquity hee so much speakes and boasts of, are deduced only from the abominable presidents of superstitious Popery; some whereof I shall particularly, and yet briefly mention, as I finde them confusedly pestred amongst themselves, in the undigested rapsody of his more vaine Discourse.

But before I leave the specious Title thereof, I desire all Readers may observe how amongst others, you terme it a Vindication of the un­doubted Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Legislative of Christian Emperours by Scripture texts; as if amongst your Antick readings you had discove­red some New-found-Land, wherein you would make your over cre­dulous Disciples thinke there had lived Christian Emperours before, or at the writing of the Scriptures who verified your Antick Do­ctrine and Assertions.

This Grand taske, like a very Atlas, you pretend to take upon you in Refutation of Mr. John Goodwin, without so much as disturbing any of his arguments, or of the Answers to your twelve Questions, which, both your Epistle and the latter part of your Booke take no­tice of; but because you cannot make a satisfactory Reply, and yet are not so ingenuous as to acknowledge it and yeeld to Truth, you [Page 2] traduce as malicious and full of virulencie against Presbytery and the Scots, page 125. and worse then the Popish Gunpowder plot, Epist. Dedic. Are not these powerfull Arguments able to confute the very Apostles had they but been alledged in their dayes by such an irreconcileable and implacable spirit as is Mr. Prynn's (witnesse, besides others, his proceedings against Colonell Fines?) Surely your friends will thinke you have better in your budget, or be ashamed of you, when they have leisure but to consider of it.

'Tis true, you complaine that Mr. Rutherfords due Rights of Pres­bytery, Mr. Thomas Edwards his Anti-Apologia, and Gulielmus Apol­lonius, with the Vallacrean Ministers, were never answered.

'Tis likely the Independents doe not desire to make, no nor bee thought to have any difference with their Scotch Brethren, if possibly to be avoided; and you know the Proverb sayes, The second blow makes the fray; And though you would not take notice of a compleatly fit and full answer to Mr. Edwards, and so much the more, because 'twas made by a milde, meeke spirited servant of God, quite contrary to that of Mr. Edwards his; I hope Mr. Pryn will no longer say Mr. Edwards is not answered, now that Mr. Chidley hath so clearly and fairly foyld him the second time; And that you may see Apollonius speakes no better Latine for Presbytery than you doe English, please but to cast your eye upon cap. 3. p. 44, 45. in answer to the Assemblies letters to the Churches of Zealand, where he sayes in substance, That the body of Beleevers in generall have not a power of governing and judging Ecclesiasticall matters by any spirituall jurisdiction; but that the Presbyters themselves have received this power of ruling immediately from Christ the King of the Church: which, what ever he alleadge to prove it with, these grosse absurdities, besides how many others, will plainely follow:

1. That all Church Officers have either intruded themselves into their offices, or else they must have beene thrust in by some superna­turall meanes; of the latter there is no evidence; of the former there is no allowance.

2. If the Beleevers the Brethren did not choose the Officers, so neither might they turne them out.

3. Then in such case it would bee in the Officers power to tyran­nize even to the highest extent their owne lust should lead them to, without any just authority on earth to question or restraine them; for [Page 3] if their Presbytery, their officiating, their governing, ruling, be by divine Right, and not the peoples free choice; however they behave themselves in it, they cannot be turned out by the people.

But how doth it appeare that they have their Office or Eldership immediately from God? Is it sufficient for them to say so? Then may any other number of their Brethren pretend the like.

He alleadges 2. Cor. 5. 20. Now then we are Ambassadours for Christ as though God did beseech you by us: We pray you in Christs stead be yee reconciled to God: But may not so many Tinkers use the very same Text, and saying they are Christs Ambassadours, thrust themselves o­ver any Congregation in the world if this be faire dealing? If there goes no more thereunto but confidence and laying claime, hee that can justle hardest will doubtlesse get it, though Simon Magus could not carry it with money.

But what kinde of Ambassadours did Paul make himselfe and those Primitive Christians to be? What power did they take upon them? And how farre? They were Christs Ambassadours; we know them by their entreating, mildnesse, gentlenesse and long-suffering, as in the same 2 Cor. 5. 20. with Rom. 15. 1. Gal. 6. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 2 Tim. 4. 2. Eph. 4. 2. But the Prelaticall Presbytery, the pretended Ambassa­dours of Christ in these times, wee know to be Wolves that worry, sterve or flea the very Lambes of Christ alive; and as if their cruelty were not satisfied with the destruction of their bodies, endeavour what they can, to put a yoake of bondage upon the very soules of their Brethren, Act. 20. from v. 28. to 31. Matth. 20. 25, 26. 3 Joh. 9.

The other place produced is, 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God; but the Presbyters which wee speake of, instead of taking upon them a Ministery, lay claime unto a Jurisdiction, Dominion, a Prelaty; Instead of being Stewards, they command, require, expecting lordly obedi­ence and submission; They scorne to use entreating and beseeching, as Paul the aged, 2 Cor. 10. 1. 3. stet pro ratione voluntas is their motto, their symboll.

Thus we may see the Texts produced to maintaine the Presbyteriall government to be of Divine Right, make eminently against it; neither is it more evident in Scripture, than from reason and experience, to wit, That what power the Presbyters have and exercise, they have it from man, and not immediately from God, since the Brethren doe [Page 4] either explicitly or implicitly make choice of them, and might as well have chosen any other if they had pleased: Church Officers are no more immediately from God, than Civill Officers.

The truth is, Apollonius acknowledges the Presbyterie to bee the Representative Church, but denies the meanes, without which I ne­ver yet knew it pretended so much as possible to bee constituted: First, he sayes, Multitudo fidelium in Ecclesia potestatem regendi, & ju­risdictione spirituali negotia Ecclesiastica dijudicandi non habet jure Dei, proinde eam senioribus & Presbyteris delegare non potest: Hoc sensu igitur Representativam Ecclesiam non agnoscimus. Nec talem agnoscimus Ec­clesiam Representativam quae à multitudine fidelium missa, absolutam pote­statem per leges & jurisdictiones actus suos obligandi multitudinem ejus fidem & conscientias subjiciendi; ita ut abs (que) examine ut laudatum susci­peret quicquid ab hac Ecclesia statutum foret. At Ecclesiam Representa­tivam hanc ex sacris literis agnoscimus, quae est caetus Presbyterorum à mul­titudine Ecclesiae electus, qui authoritate & jurisdictione Ecclesiasticâ à Christo accepta Ecclesiae praeest & invigilat, & decretis secundum sacram Scripturam factis & jurisdictione spirituali eam regit: which in effect is thus: First, That Beleevers in generall have no power to judge con­cerning Church affaires, therefore they cannot give or derive unto the Presbyters what they themselves never had; and secondly, that the Lawes of Country are not sufficient to authorise Beleevers for choosing Church Commissioners, who may afterwards oblige them and their consciences by whatsoever decrees shall be by them agreed upon without examining it themselves; But sayes he, a Representa­tive Church is an Assembly of Presbyters chosen by the multitude, who having received Ecclesiasticall authority and jurisdiction from Christ, doe watch over the Church, and governe it according to the Scripture. To him therefore, or Mr. Pryn that quotes him, I should desire to make these following Queries.

The truth is, Apollonius acknowledges the Presbyterie to bee the Representative Church, but denies the meanes, without which I ne­ver yet knew it pretended so much as possible to bee constituted: First, he sayes, Multitudo fidelium in Ecclesia potestatem regendi, & ju­risdictione spirituali negotia Ecclesiastica dijudicandi non habet jure Dei, proinde eam senioribus & Presbyteris delegare non potest: Hoc sensu igitur Representativam Ecclesiam non agnoscimus. Nec talem agnoscimus Ec­clesiam Representativam quae à multitudine fidelium missa, absolutam pote­statem per leges & jurisdictiones actus suos obligandi multitudinem ejus fidem & conscientias subjiciendi; ita ut abs (que) examine ut laudatum susci­peret quicquid ab hac Ecclesia statutum foret. At Ecclesiam Representa­tivam hanc ex sacris literis agnoscimus, quae est caetus Presbyterorum à mul­titudine Ecclesiae electus, qui authoritate & jurisdictione Ecclesiasticâ à Christo accepta Ecclesiae praeest & invigilat, & decretis secundum sacram Scripturam factis & jurisdictione spirituali eam regit: which in effect is thus: First, That Beleevers in generall have no power to judge con­cerning Church affaires, therefore they cannot give or derive unto the Presbyters what they themselves never had; and secondly, that the Lawes of Country are not sufficient to authorise Beleevers for choosing Church Commissioners, who may afterwards oblige them and their consciences by whatsoever decrees shall be by them agreed upon without examining it themselves; But sayes he, a Representa­tive Church is an Assembly of Presbyters chosen by the multitude, who having received Ecclesiasticall authority and jurisdiction from Christ, doe watch over the Church, and governe it according to the Scripture. To him therefore, or Mr. Pryn that quotes him, I should desire to make these following Queries.

At what time doe the Presbyters receive their Church power from Christ? By what meanes and mediation? Whether before they be chosen Presbyters or afterwards? If before; Whether did this po­wer lye idle in them till they became Presbyters? And might it not possibly have continued so all their life time, if they had never beene chosen Presbyters, or are they predestinated to bee chosen, when Christ has once made a deed of gift unto them of some considerable proportion of spirituall power? But if we see they cannot exercise [Page 5] any spirituall power untill they be chosen Presbyters, and that wee might have chosen others as well as they; Doe you thinke the people will ever bee brought to thinke they have any other jurisdiction than what they give, and suffer them to enjoy? Whether doe the Presby­ters ever part from their spirituall power after they have once recei­ved it? and how come they to lose possession and the exercise there­of ever after? Surely if these Queries be well answered, all the po­wer the Presbyters have, besides what the people derive unto them, will be one of the strongest phantasticall delusions and Chimera's which ever yet was heard of.

But because you make so much of Apollonius, since he is upon the Stage, if the indifferent Reader please to runne over these few fol­lowing passages, he will not only finde him contradict himselfe, but Mr. Pryn also in the very title and whole subject matter of his Book: Mr. Pryn throughout this volumne of his affirmes and endeavours to prove, that, Princes and Parliaments have the sole soveraigne and legisla­tive power in all matters of Religion both for Discipline and Doctrine.

On the contrary Apollonius sayes it is in Ecclesiasticall Assemblies and Synods in these words, c. 6. p. 107. Competit ex jure Dei Ecclesiis in Classibus & Synodis junctis, potestas Canones leges (que) Ecclesiasticas fe­rendi, quae omnes Ecclesias particulares unius Provinciae aut Regni con­stringunt ad obedientiam: which is in effect, That, Ecclesiasticall Assemblies, Synods, have by Divine Right a power of making Canons and Ecclesiasticall Lawes which doe binde unto obedience all the particular Churches of a Province or Kingdome, (he may as well say of all the world:) and p. 109. He tells us that, That Ʋnion and Com­munion of particular Churches in Ecclesiasticall Discipline and Government common to them all, which is exercised in Synods and Classes, is of Divine Right, and proposed to us in the example of the Apostolicall Church, for imitation.

Thus is Apollonius point blanke in opposition to Mr. Pryn; neither is he at better agreement with himselfe, for p. 108. He sayes, The po­wer of Synods doth not take away or disturb the Ecclesiasticall power and liberty of particular Churches; but serves to direct, conserve and promote their Ecclesiasticall power and liberty, that they may become more efficaci­ous, powerfull and fit to edifie; and yet p. 144. He sayes; Classibus & Sy­nodis competit authoritativa quaedam inspectio, & judicium non tantum dis­cretionis sed & jurisdictionis & approbationis in excommunicationibus à [Page 6] particularibus Ecclesiis peragendis; ita ut nulla Ecclesia particularis quae communionem suam Ecclesiasticam cum aliis Ecclesiis in Synodis & Classi­bus colit, aliquod suae communionis membrum excommunicare, & Sathanae tradere legitimè possit abs (que) Classis aut Synodi authoritativo judicio & ap­probatione: that is, There is due to Classes and Synods a certaine au­thorative inspection and judgement, not only of discretion, but also of jurisdiction and approbation in excommunications to bee passed by particular Churches; so that no particular Church which keepes Ecclesiasticall fellowship with other Churches assembled in a Synod may lawfully excommunicate or deliver up to Sathan any of their members, without the authoritative judgement and approbation of the Synod; and to mend the matter he yet tells us, p. 108. That the power which particular Churches have, is granted them immediatly from [...]od, not de­rived unto them by Synods; as also, that the power of Synods is granted them immediately from God, not derived to them from particular Churches: which is as much as if he had said, that each of them must bee Inde­pendent and absolute of it selfe; and yet one must submit unto the o­ther; contradiction upon contradiction, or else I understand it not.

But to returne againe to Mr. Pryn himselfe; who would thinke that any one who had but the head-piece of a man, much lesse one that takes upon him to be a Champion, should be so miserably trans­ported with vain-glory as thus to play the Bragadocio, and fill the world with bookes and pamphlets as if hee had got the victory, or spoken somewhat to the purpose, when yet it may appeare upon due search of an indifferent judge, that neither in the whole catalogue of his bookes which was lately printed, nor in whatsoever came since to light, will there be found so much as one leafe truly worth reading, or any whit availing him in this controversie which he (not without recanting in his owne heart I beleeve by this time, to see he thrives no better in it) hath undertaken against the Independents; remaining still so shamelesse, that not being able to conceale, or any longer to uphold his vaine undertaking, flyes unto the High Court of Parlia­ment, endeavouring to exasperate their power against such, whose prayers and contributions, in likelihood, have been the only, or chie­fest meanes to keepe him thus long alive?

But alas, what can we expect of this volumne of Civill-Common-Law-Divinity of yours, when you acknowledge it to be distracted subitane collections, indigested nocturnall lucubrations (you may like [Page 7] enough say dreames) borrowed from the houres allotted to your ne­cessary naturall rest, Epist. Dedic. One would have thought the Answerer of your subitane apprehensions digested into 12 conside­rable serious questions, when you confessed, you had neither leisure nor opportunity, had given you a seasonable and sufficient item, not to trouble the world with such trash againe; and yet you are not asha­med to say you published them principally for satisfaction of the lear­ned, and such as most seduce the ignorant; when doubtlesse such lear­ning as this of yours, is good for nothing else but to seduce the igno­rant, who more admire a margent full of rusty antick Authours, than whole leaves and chapters of arguments and sound reason; and ac­cording to your own arguing you do hereby as you think, with your indigested readings of superstitious Popish writers, enable such, as you call learned, still farther to seduce the ignorant.

You tell the Parliament in your Epistle Dedicatory, that having had the honour of vindicating their sovereigne power in all Civill and Mili­tary affaires, you expected a quietus est from all other coutroversies concer­ning the jurisdiction of Parliaments especially in Ecclesiasticall matters: Surely you might have said with as much truth and reason, that having vindicated the sovereigne power of the Roman Emperours, suppose the persecuting Nero, Domitian, Trajan, or who else lived in any of the Apostles or Primitive times, you had likewise vindicated their legislative power in matters of Christianity, about propagating the Gospell, &c. justifying them in putting to death our Saviour, and so many of his Saints: The just rights and power of Magistrates, are to all Magistrates alike; all one, whether they be Christian or Pagan: Their power is given them as Magistrates, not as Christians; and the subjection which we were commanded in the Gospell, Matth. 22. 21. Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 12. 13. to render them, was as to Heathen Magi­strates, since at that time there were no other.

But why tro doe you say, how most men imagined that controversies about the Parliaments jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall matters had been put to eternall silence, when our lordly Prelates lost their votes and session in Parliament by a publique law? Did you not intend that Presbyters should succeed Bishops? or did you thinke them to be lesse lordly than their Reverend Fathers from whom they spring? Surely you show your selfe very ignorant of the Presbyterians pretences, or en­deavour much to conceale them.

Meethinks you might have seen a Pamphlet entituled The readinesse of the Scots advance into England, wherein, besides others, is a letter bearing date the 6 of November, 1643. from Edenborough, upon oc­casion as it relates of certaine propositions made by the French Agent unto the Privy Councell there, which sayes, The Generall Assembly is subordinate to no Civill judicature whatsoever, &c. And because I finde Mr. Pryn so captious, and apt to seeke subterfugies; lest he should cast this off as the bare assertion of some Anonimous, he may, if hee please, finde not a little to the same purpose in A. Stewards Observa­tions and Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration, in these words; The Civill Magistrate arrogates not unto himselfe (not so much as) any directive power in matters of Religion, p. 5. The Civill Magistrate arrogates no spirituall authority to himselfe, p. 48. The Parliament indeed is the supreme Judicature, severe Tribunall, the most sacred Refuge, &c. in Civill causes, but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion, by teaching, or preaching, or judging of controversies of Religion, nor any exe­cutive power that is intrinsecall to the Church, as in the vocation, deposition, and suspention of Ministers, &c. which are meerly spirituall, p. 6. If your meaning be that the Parliament should judge between the Independents and Presbyterians, you goe against the Parliaments intentions, ibid. and lastly. For intrinsecall spirituall power, it is not in your power to grant the Civill Magistrate any at all; neither can you give him more spirituall obedience than Scripture permitteth you, or give him a part of the spirituall power which you have received of God: It is only in God who can give power therein to any man, we dare not be so bold, p. 28. All this the Answerer of your 12 considerable Questions, as you called them, auvertised you of in p. 26. And for Apollonius whom you so much glory in, as I told you a little before, he sayes that both particular Churches, as well as Generall Assemblies have their authority immediately from God, p. 108. which diametricall variance amongst these Presbyterian Champions, doubtlesse must needs be ominous, and presage no lesse than ruine, so much more speedier as they protract the reconciling them: In which respect if Mr. Pryn would be so good for the Gospels sake, as to give the Independents rest, and take A. S. with Apollonius to taske; who knowes but that they may doe some good upon one another? I am sure it were not more than needfull, each of their phansies abounding with excrescencies, which they might much advantage each other in cutting off.

But what availeth it to have the head of one lordly Episcopall Pre­late cut off, when a Hydra, a multitude, above 77 times as many Presbyteriall Prelates succeed instead thereof? Prelatia, Prelaty, Prelacy, as we use it vulgarly, is a preferring one before another; and the Presbyteriall government is much more truly said to be Prelati­call, than either Episcopall or Papall; unlesse you will say that neither Episcopall nor Papall be Prelaticall at all; for in either of those Go­vernments there are but few Prelates; but in the other there are ma­ny; to wit, so many Prelates as there are Presbyters, each whereof is an absolute Prelate, that is one preferred above his Brethren.

You speake of the defunct Prelates soules transmigrated into the Independents, acknowledging them for the most part really cordiall in their affections, actions to the Parliament and Church of England, for which, and for their piety, you say, they are to be highly honoured: But mee thinks this amounts to little lesse than contradiction; Can the earthly Tabernacles of Independents, with the defunct Prelates soules in them make men of piety, cordiall in their affections, actions to the Parliament, and Church of England highly to bee honoured? I wish Mr. Pryn would tell me whether it were the Prelaticall soules, or their earthly Tabernacles for whose sake he casts this grand Elo­gium on them: Doubtlesse the soule must have preheminence of the body, unlesse your minde bee altered, and hold the immortality of the soule, which you seemed to discountenance in your 12 Inconside­rable serious Questions, p. 7. But if Independents having Prelaticall soules in their earthly Tabernacles are for the most part men of piety highly to be honoured; why should not the Prelates bee so too? The truth is, I cannot deny but Mr. Pryn was once by more then a many and they godly too, held to be a man of piety, and was highly ho­noured; in whose books and pamphlets, notwithstanding, which have been published of late, may be observed, more corrupted prin­ciples, and a far worse spirit of persecution, than ever was discove­red in the late Delinquent decapilated Archbishop, from his first ascending unto his highest growth of authority and greatnesse; and in the Diary of his life, which I suppose Mr. Pryn printed not to do him honour (though after ages will not be tyed to be no wiser than Mr. Pryn) I finde such eminent signes of a morall noble pious minde, ac­cording to such weake principles as hee had beene bred up in, (his owne persecuting disposition disabling him from being instructed [Page 10] better;) and particularly so ingenuous a passage in his Funerall Ser­mon whereby he justifies the Parliament in putting him to death, as I may safely professe unto all the world, I never could yet discerne any thing neare of like piety or ingenuity to be in Mr. Pryn, by all that ever I yet heard of him from first to last, or by all the bookes of his which ever came to may hands, wherein yet I have hitherto done him the honour in being at charges to buy as many, I meane one of every sort, as I could ever meet withall.

But I wish seriously that both Presbyteriall Prelates, and all others now surviving, who are any wayes possessed with this unruly spirit, this legion of persecution, would, even for their owne sakes, not so suddenly forget the little late Arch-Prelate, though his head bee off; since for my part, through some small knowledge and experience of him both in his life and death, I am fully satisfied, that his endeavou­ring to subvert the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome, and intro­ducing another Religion, for which he was charged, and suffered death, arose only from that depraved principle of enduring no body of any other Religion or opinion but his owne: I hope both Mr. Pryn and others of the same alay may thinke it worth revolving in their saddest thoughts: Persecuters are worse than birds and beasts of rapine amongst the rest, whom even Nature teaches to associate and joyne together against this common and most pestilent of all enemies: Beares and Lions are not so hurtfull in a Country, as a misguided zeale growne furious, is torrent like, and carries all before it: Such whose Religion teaches to persecute, or but prevailes upon to make use of Civill coercive meanes for differences of Religion of Opinion, will easily be carried on from one degree unto another, untill their ends be compassed, whether by fire or wa­ter, Gun-powder-plots, or Maritim Invasions; Nothing comes amisse to them whom Religion once innitiates with the cruelties of compelling con­sciences.

'Tis worth observing, how whilest the truth constrained Mr. Pryn to acknowledge the Independents piety, with their reall and cordiall affe­ctions and actions unto the Parliament and Church of England in his E­pistle to the Parliament, he tells them only that they are justly to bee blamed as great disturbers of our publicke peace and unity (the better to amuse them) whilst in his other pamphlets and this farraginous hotch-potch of obsolet, Anticke Popish Histories and Presidents, for the [Page 11] most part, which perhaps he thinks few or none of them will vout­safe to read through, he seeks to captivate and poyson the peoples un­derstanding into an evill conception of the Independents, and so in­cense them, whilest he himselfe exclames, traduces, and perse­cutes them, unto his power, with fire and fagot, meerly for nothing but because they sue and seeke for, in all humility and meeknesse, a possibility of keeping a good conscience both towards God and man; This is all they desire as touching Ecclesiasticall matters; let Mr. Pryn, who thinks himselfe to have deserved so well of Parlia­ments, become their Advocate, procure but thus much for them, and take the rest for his fees.

He flourishes, and cryes out against the Arminians of the Nether­lands about ascribing, at the first, unto the Civill Magistrate, a power of passing ultimate judgements in all controversies of Faith and other Ecclesiasticall matters arising in the Church; and afterwards con­tracting or denying such a power belonging to the Civill Magistrate: Might he not even as well, nay much better blame former Parliaments of England for first acknowledging the Pope head of the English Church, and afterwards renouncing of the Pope (much against his Holinesse his good liking no doubt) to choose Henry 8. in his stead? And if Henry 8. then but a Papist were a fit Head of the Church; Queene Elizabeth was no lesse: (though the Papists cry out of a fe­mall Head of the Church of England, as much as Protestants of a fe­mall Pope of Rome) and then surely King Charles must have succee­ded in this Headship of the Church of England, and here I desire to leave him, and yet to finde him here rather than a Presbyterian Sy­nodall Head, untill Mr. Pryn resolve me what it is to be Head of the English Church; what his Power and Authority is over the Churches Body; whether the Body may or can doe any thing without the Head: And whether any, or what power one member or part of the Body hath over another: But before you put pen to paper, or your paper to the Presse at least, that you will remember how King Charles the only supreme Head of the English Church according to the oath of Supremacy, is now at Oxford, with such, and so great a part of the English Nationall Church, which if they should call ano­ther Assemby of Divines would likely passe judgement in sundry points of Faith and other Ecclesiasticall matters, quite contrary to the Parliament and Divines at Westminster.

Page 29. of your Discourse you quote a passage out of the last Convocation Canons that had the &c. in the tayle, which you ap­prove of, saying; The power to call and dissolve Councels both Nationall and Provinciall is the true right of all Christian Kings within their owne Realmes or Territories: Now if this be so; to what purpose doe the Assembly of Divines at Westminster spend time in sitting there? Why should the Commonwealth be at 4s. a day charges for each of them? Why do they not repaire unto their flocks? Where will King Charles his Writ appeare for summoning them? and for want thereof, will not all the paines they take be lost? Might not therefore the distur­bance and offence they give their Independent Brethren have well beene spared? Are not both Houses of Parliament tacitly aspersed by Mr. Pryn for causing them thus to assemble without King Charles his Writ, and so against his true Rights and Prerogative Royall? and lastly, if this be not an absolute making void and null, whatsoever the Assembly shall conclude on, or the Parliament establish by their ad­vice, besides a justifying of the Independents for not submitting thereunto, let Mr. Pryn himselfe upon review be judge: For certain­ly it will seeme strange to every body else, how Mr. Pryn producing, besides others, in page 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. no lesse than foure of King Charles his letters, only to prove the due right of Christian Princes for calling such Assemblies, can any wayes make legall the present sitting of the Divines at Westminster; or how he can make atonement for himselfe to give occasion that both their assembling and whole proceedings may thus be called in question.

But p. 88. you bring in a Parenthesis (which doubtlesse the Assem­bly will thinke had far better beene left out) that the assent of the Cler­gy is only by way of assistance and advice, not simply necessary to the Parlia­ments determining what is heresie; however, for my part, I do not much dissent with you therein; and if the Assembly did like as well thereof, should thinke it might somewhat qualifie their over forward and eager appetites, which else might too likely lead them to declare those wayes hereticall, after which Paul was not ashamed to say hee worshipped the God of his Fathers, Act. 24. 14.

But may not both Kings and Parliaments reprove you (like an un­lucky Cow, who having given great quantity of milke kicks it downe with her foot) for contradicting your selfe, and plundring them so speedily of all Ecclesiasticall power which before in a good [Page 13] mood you cast upon them so liberally without allowance, saying p. 141. That there is the selfe same reason and equity for severall combined Churches in a Councell, Synod, Presbytery to have a coercive power over every particular Congregation in their limits, as for any particular Congregation to claime or exercise a jurisdiction in point of direction or correction, over any or every particular member of it. This assertion, I conceive, is yet more prodigious than all your Popish presidents with which you ever were acquainted, and I beleeve that never any body hereafter will so much as acknowledge you in this opinion: Whereas the Title of your Booke and whole Discourse in generall ascribe all power and authority unto the Civill Magistrate both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall matters; This passage gives the same unto a Synod, even a Coercive, that is, all Power and Autho­rity, and that both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall matters, provided they doe but colour and call them Ecclesiasticall, for nothing of Co­ercive can be otherwise than Civill properly: If you excuse your selfe by saying you meant a Synod ratified by Authority of Parlia­ment; I answer, that you must meane a Synod so ratified by Autho­rity of Parliament, as some Presbyterians of Scotland meane when they expect that Parliaments must doe it ex officio, whether they bee willing or unwilling; and if your meaning had been otherwise, you might have brought your comparison betweene a Parliament and particular Congregations, not a Synod; besides that, the power of direction, which you acknowledge to be in every particular Congre­gation towards any or every member thereof, I doe not finde to bee granted them, or so much as medled with by Authority of Parliament; so likewise, if you will have it any wayes hold parallel, you must meane the Synods Canons so confirmed by authority of Parliament, as that the Parliaments confirmation must still wait upon and follow the Synods beck and requisition.

That part of the Statute 37. H. 8. c. 17. which you bring to esta­blish the King Head of the Church, sayes, That by Holy Scrip­ture All Authority and Power is wholly given to him to heare and determine All manner of causes Ecclesiasticall, and to correct All vice and sinne whatsoever, and such persons as his Majesty shall ap­point thereunto: So that whereas a negative voice which hath beene, and is still the great controversie betwixt the King and Parlia­ment in Civill matters only; this Statute 37. H. 8. c. 17. with Mr. Pryns opinion and consequences thereupon, doe freely grant the [Page 14] King in all spirituall causes and affaires: Surely if all Englishmen did agree with Mr. Pryn in this particular; the King might like enough be willing for the present to part from his negative voice in Civill matters, in full assurance of regaining it in recompence of Pardons and Dispensations, which he might grant by virtue of his Headship of the Church, with the sole authority of correcting all vice and sinne, and finall determining all causes Ecclesiasticall.

The truth is, that Christian Kings and Princes have de facto done much with Civill censures in maintenance of Religion, whether right or wrong, established by Law: But the point is, what they did, or might doe lawfully, de jure: Whence is their power derived? Surely the power of Princes pretending to the name of Christian, whether Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Brownists or Anabaptists, and even of Turkish and Pagan Princes is all alike: So that whatsoever power the best Reformed Princes can justly assume unto themselves in Ecclesiasticall affaires; even Popish Kings and the Great Turk may fully pretend and act as much in and about the Churches within their Territories, and neither of them be more disobeyed or resisted than the other: The power is given to them as Magistrates and Princes, not as Christians; otherwise they might be deposed at any time if they be­came Antichristian, which is exploded for a Popish doctrine.

But as Artaxerxes did not make that Decree for building of the Temple out of love or conscience unto the God of Ezra, Ezra 7. from v. 21. to 26. So can it not be concluded from Kings and Magi­strates interposing their Civill power about matters meerly Ecclesi­asticall, that therefore they might and did doe it by full authority from God; since by the selfe same manner of arguing, it would follow that Popery were the truest Religion, because most Christian Princes, as they are called, have established Popery.

But it may have beene observed, how Princes and Magistrates in all ages who have had the Sword of Justice in their keeping, have for the most part beene kept in an ignorant and superstitious over­awfulnesse by the Clergy of those times, who still for their owne pri­vate ends, prevailed with them to countenance and enforce their Constitutions by coercive meanes upon the people; by which de­vice of theirs, both Prince and People became so entangled and en­snared to them by degrees; that if either of them afterwards sought to withdraw themselves forth from this bondage, they still found such a [Page 15] party of the other, as was able to curb and bring them againe into subjection of Holy Church; as they pretended, though never so Popish or otherwise corrupt; And this series of corrupted and corrupting presidents with their tyrannicall dominion over mens faith and con­sciences, which the Apostle Paul disclaimed, 2 Cor. 1. 24. Mr. Pryn produces as orthodox, requiring it should bee established after the manner of Medes and Persians irrevocable, and made very Scrip­ture of; ascribing by this Antick rabble of quotations as great a power unto the Civill Magistrate in spirituall matters as ever any Pope of Rome assumed unto himselfe.

But if the Civill Magistrate must be masters of our faith, determi­ning all controversies in Church affaires; why, I pray, was Mr. Pryn so refractory to the Bishops who then were authorised by the Civill Magistrate of the united Kingdome, which now to the universall griefe, is so mortally divided? These are hard questions I confesse; but Mr. Pryn will get the more glory when hee knowes how to an­swer them.

If the Arminians upon the improving of their studies about their other controversies, or the Civill Magistrates bad imploying a power ascribed, but not due to them, saw their errour and amended; must they be upbrayded? I would be loath that Mr. Pryn should want of such encouragements of providence and mercy, lest it might hinder his repentance of what, I feare mee, he is too highly guilty; God is contented to tole us to him and to his truth, even with variety of in­ticements and provocations: fraile mankinde is dull and stupid; no lesse than Gods infinite wisdome together with his unmeasurable bounty will serve to animate and raise us up to new discoveries of knowledge and obedience.

Take this then for your learning, that whosoever attributes to any man or Magistrate, a power of imposing any thing upon the consci­ences of others in matters of Religion, doe justifie them in whatso­ever they impose, though it be erroneous, so they impose according to their owne judgements and understandings, condemning the o­ther for not submitting, though it be unto erroneous impositions: for if the one may impose, his owne reason must teach him what he may impose; And if he have just authority to impose, the other is obli­ged in conscience to obey; and so by consequence, should be engaged to submit implicitly to whatsoever superstitious ceremonies and wor­ship were put upon him.

In your Epistle to the Reader, you say the Independents may upon the same grounds deny the Catholicke Church, an article of the Creed, upon which they deny a Nationall Church; as though so ma­ny more particular Churches might not as well make one Catholick, as severall, but yet so many fewer Nationall Churches; or as though particular Christians who lived stragling in Turky or any Pagan Countries where they could not possibly be members of a Nationall Church, could not possibly be members of the Catholique Church.

You accuse the Independents as beleeving most things with a re­serve, according to their present light, with a liberty of changing as new light shall bee discovered to them: But did ever any man so o­vershoot himselfe? Certainly this is so high a character of the Inde­pendents compleatest posture ensuring or growing stature in the Schoole of Christ, as could be applyed unto them, wherein they glo­ry not a little, and place it as the only ground-worke and foundation, without which they cannot grow in grace from one degree of faith unto another, untill they become perfect Men, perfect Saints, unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ, Eph. 4. 12, 13. and yet your Law-Divinity knowes no better, than to say, this is in truth to bring a Skepticisme into Religion.

And whereas you say their principles dissolve all relations, all subordinations, and humane society it self: I answer, that this is even as if you should affirme a Turke not to be a man, unlesse he will bee a Christian, unlesse he will be a member of some Nationall Church; nay, of every Nationall Church, since his not being of any one is all alike prejudiciall or damageable: But they are the Presbyteriall and such other Prelaticall tenets which destroy, and expressely murder all humane society, in avouching as William Pryn with his ense recidendum, and A. Stewart, does, that sayes whosoever is cut off or cast out of the Church, must likewise be cast out, and cut off from the Civill state, p. 166. in 2. part of his Duply, &c.

Sir, I confesse I have spent more time and paper about your Epistles than I intended, which if you and the Reader will but excuse, I shall endeavour to make you amends in part by troubling you the lesse with your rusty, musty rubbish of Popish times and presidents.

Page 1. Your first proposition is, That the calling of Synods or Assem­blies about Church matters belongs not to Bishops, Ministers, nor private or particular Congregations; but to Princes or supreme temporall Magi­strates [Page 17] and Powers; So that if the Magistrate be Turkish under whose jurisdiction live many Protestant Greekes, I meane such as disavow the Pope with the greatest part of his unsound doctrine; If he be Po­pish as the Emperour of Germany, with the Kings of France and Polo­nia, in whose territories inhabit millions of Protestants, all which Protestants must never meet together in Synods and Assemblies a­bout Church affaires, because those Emperours and Kings are never likely to summon Synods for them, or put them in minde to doe it themselves.

You still quote multitudes of texts to prove your Propositions with, in hopes perhaps that if one faile you another may doe the deed; but you happen to be so successelesse therin, as if you used still to presse the Scriptures which came first to hand, ranking them in your margent whether they would or no; which 'tis true, has stood you in stead no more, than a forc't Militia does the King or Parliament; & yet doubtles, that God with whom the Word was from the beginning, and who is the very Word, Joh. 1. 1. will not approve that his blessed Word should be made use [...] and imployed so vainly, impertinently, preposterously, rashly, and irreverently: Wherefore I would gladly advise Mr. Pryn for the future, to insert the very words themselves of every text hee quotes, in hopes that if he doe but once read them over by himselfe, he will finde they make nothing to the purpose, and so have ingenuity enough to leave them out.

After you have done belying sacred Scripture, you flye for assistance unto prophane, and from thence tell us by whose authority the first Generall Councells were convocated; which proves nothing else, but that whether it be King or Parliament that have the strongest sword, or shall prevaile and get the better over the other in this Ci­vill War; the Assembly of Divines now at Westminster must sit no longer, not any of their coat ever meet againe above two in compa­ny, unlesse the present ruling party please, lest they be tearmed a Con­venticle, and fall into a Pramunire.

But by what authority tro did the pretended Synod of Jerusalem assemble? Act. 15. What Kings or Parliaments Writs, or Letters-patents had they for so doing? What Court countenance did they procure to second their proceedings? for my part, I had rather fol­low such a president, and erre with them, if you will needs esteem it such; than degenerate with the weaker Christians of after ages, in [Page 18] supplicating of Powers and Princes in such a manner, whereby they should be moved to thinke I granted them such a power, as God ne­ver gave them, or confirmed them in, supposing they had a just liberty of denying, what through want perhaps of Christian courage only, or the Civill powers protection, I durst not put in practice without their order and commission.

Page 4. I am glad to finde you acknowledging a passage of the Bishops letters, wherein they return thanks to Valentinian and Theo­dosius for assembling the Councell of Illirium, which sayes, Ʋt nemo deesset volens; nemo cog [...]tur invitus; That no Bishop might be absent who was desirous to be there, and none compelled who were un­willing to be present; from whence followes an irrefragable conse­quence, that their Councells, Decrees or Canons, did not binde all people universally, but only such as of their owne accords submitted thereunto: If Mr. Pryn will but procure the same just priviledge for his Independent Brethren, they will have the lesse occasion of excep­tions, if he domineere over the volunteers of the Presbyterian party.

Page 87. You say, The Statutes in Q. Maries dayes repealing divers Acts touching Religion in K. Edward 6. his Reigne, and setting up Masse and the old [Popish] Liturgies againe, doe sufficiently evidence the juris­diction of our Princes and Parliaments in matters of the Church and Reli­gion; which is in effect; first, That this present Parliament, or any other hereafter have a jurisdiction to set up Popery againe, and so Judaisme or Turcisme, even what they please; for all Parlia­ments have equall power: And secondly, that if they doe set up Po­pery, Judaisme or Turcisme, that then all England must submit there­unto, and consequently become Papists, Jewes and Turkes (or Hy­pocrites which is more worse then either:) for whatsoever a Magi­strate, especially the supreme, has jurisdiction in, that, he may justly and lawfully put in execution; and that, the people may not disobey, upon paine of sinning, and danger of damnation, Rom 13. 2.

But under what colour and pretence then did Mr. Pryn refuse sub­jection unto Church government by Episcopacy, and according to the Common-Prayer-Booke? Doe not take it ill that I spur the question so soone unto you againe; I may aske it oft-times, before you will be able to answer once, without condemning your selfe ac­cording to your principles and lawes, by which you proyoke justice against the Independents.

Were not Episcopacy and the Common-Prayer-Booke established by Act of Parliament, which had as great a power than as this present Parliament has now, or any other can have hereafter? Nay, you say expressely, p. 88. That the Statute, 1 Eliz. chap. 2. for uniformity of Common-Prayer and Service in the Church, and administration of the Sa­craments, enjoyning conformity under temporall and Ecclesiasticall punish­ments is an irrefragable proofe of the Parliaments power in all Church mat­ters: What was it tro, that then encouraged you to withstand the ju­risdiction of Parliaments when they agreed not with your owne humour and disposition, which you now presse so violently upon the tender consciences of your Independent Brethren? Can there ap­peare any other clearer reason for it, to the apprehension of standers by, moderate men even of Mr. Pryns best friends, or any that have their wits about them; than that Mr. Pryn having suffered (for Christs cause as he thought, to thinke more charitably of him than he doth of others) upon false principles, grew weary of it, and resolv'd that as the Bishops domineer'd and persecuted him; so he would repaire himselfe by persecuting others?

But did the only wise God, thinke we, resolve to create man after his owne Image, to estate him in such a sad and execrable condition, worse then that of Beasts, Wolves, Beares, and Tygres; as that hee must necessarily tyrannize, or be tyrannized over both in soul & body? and yet it cannot possibly be otherwise, if you will grant a power to Kings, Parliaments or Synods to require conformity from others in any thing which is not agreeable to their consciences; for if such a latitude and height of jurisdiction be granted but to the more ortho­dox Kings, Parliaments and Synods; both Papists, Lutherans, Calvi­nists and Independents, pretending and really taking themselves to be the most orthodox, are bound in conscience to lay claime to, and put in execution this power of compelling all the world unto their uni­formity; and so infallibly produce the most cursed enmity and hatred betwixt all people but differing in opinion, exceeding that of Canni­bals; or the profoundest of antipathies between any irrationall crea­tures whatsoever; and therefore you are mightily mistaken p. 96. to be so confident that Independents would preach universall obedi­ence and subjection under penalties Ecclesiasticall and Civill, if the Parliament should establish an Independent government, which are clearly incompatible, and contradictory to themselves and principles; [Page 20] the ignorance whereof, though to some it may seeme as slight, as ea­sily apprehended by a willing and enquiring spirit, I perswade my selfe, hath not only transported Mr. Pryn himselfe, but many others into multitudes of impertinencies and absurdities.

Oh that Mr. Pryn therefore, or any one of the Presbyterian way, who wishes well to godlinesse, would but please to cast an eye upon John the Baptist, chap. 10. and considerately give their opinion, whe­ther to be persecuted be not even the most infallible marke of the true Church and Saints of Christ; notwithstanding most Christians thus persecute one another.

Page 94. and 109. You say the opposites to Parliaments Ecclesia­sticall jurisdiction have formerly and more especially in this present Parliament, addressed severall petitions to this High and Honourable Court for Reformation of the Church, &c. wherein, under favour, I conceive you have misapprehended their proceedings and intenti­ons, which doubtlesse were for the most part, or best affected, that the Parliament, in whom they acknowledged the sovereigne power to reside, would permit, countenance and encourage all godly men of gifts in preaching downe Heresies, errours, Idolatry, Popery, &c. many whereof had either beene formerly established by law, or not permitted to be preached downe through the Prelates corruption contrary to the Law.

This is the best, even all the Reformation, which the Civill Magi­strate, as Civill, has a capacity of compassing against all Heresies and errours, which must necessarily be vanquished by the sword of the Spirit, and cannot possibly be suppressed by carnall weapons or the Civill sword; they may destroy the flesh, but cannot properly be said to touch and worke upon the spirit.

Page 109. After a franticke, infectious, pestilentiall feaver-fit of rayling, the likest that of Billingsgate, you tell Mr. John Goodwin, with much gravity, forsooth, but far more saucie ignorance, that it was no lesse than high presumption for him, being a meere Divine, and a man altogether ignorant of, or unskilfull in the ancient Rights and privi­ledges of our Parliament (as his writings demonstrate, and himselfe intimates, page 5.) to undertake and determine, to judge of them so peremptorily, and in such manner as he has done, &c. But how come you tro, a meere Lawyer (I wish you were good at that, at any thing) to take so much upon you in Divinity, (if Divinity and the [Page 21] knowledge of Parliamentary priviledges be inconsistent, as you seeme to insinuate) to pin the Gospel with its propagation and whole affaires upon Civill powers; the greatest share, or major part, where­of (which should both by your politie and divinity be submitted to) is in the hands of Turkes of Infidels? where's your licence from the Court of Heaven for subjugating the Gospell of peace to your litigious law-cases and presidents, most whereof are all Popish? To sacrifice the Scriptures, the Word, even God himselfe, Joh. 1. 1. whole Chri­stianity, both Discipline and Doctrine unto Acts of Parliaments, which have beene heretofore so Popish, and may possibly be so againe here­after; to which according to your grounds, the whole Kingdome must conforme and be obedient not only passively but actively, and that for conscience sake?

But what lawfull calling or warrant have you (if a man may be so bold with you as you are with other men) from Gods Word, or our Lawes, to handle the Jurisdiction and Rights of Parliament more then Mr. Goodwin? Was not his Imprimatur as legall or authenticall as yours? Doe you thinke the Parliament had not far rather heare the submissive cautions and mementoes of a loving tender and affe­ctionate remembrancer, as in the presence of the God of Heaven, whose duty is to teach all Nations, Matth. 28. 19. as occasion is offe­red, from Parliament to peasant; than be flattered and soothed up with fusty sweepings of Popish presidents, by one, who yet (I think) pretends to be (no Canon but) a Protestant Lawyer, best vers'd at Common-pleas and Chancery bills? Certainly 'tis none of Mr. Pryns least oversights thus to bring himselfe, a Lawyer, whose wrangling faculty sets and keeps all people at worse war amongst themselves, than all forreigne enemies can do, with Mr. Goodwin, whose zeale, piety, and fervent interceding towards the Throne of Grace for re­conciling unto the God of peace, not only all such as joyne with him, but whosoever else are capable thereof, hath beene heretofore, and is at present well knowne to all the godly and well affected in or about the City both far and neare, which does and still will tend so much more to Mr. Pryns great reproach and infamy, for thus shame­fully traducing him?

If Mr. Pryn were a man truly godly and conscientious, he might long ere this time have considered the unlawfulnesse of his very Calling, according to the greatest part of Lawyers practise, in enter­taining [Page 22] more causes than they can possibly take care of as they ought, in taking of excessive fees, prolonging suites, and so involving the whole Kingdome in their sophisticall quirkes, tricks and quille [...]s, as that a man can neither buy nor sell, speake nor doe any thing, but he must be lyable to fall into their talons, without ever being able to re­deeme himselfe; the Lawyers having most of their mysteries written in a little lesse then heathen language, and detaining us in such igno­rance or captivity, as that we may not plead nor understand our own cases; by which and such like devises of theirs, they are become the greatest grievance, crying loudest to Heaven for justice to be done up­on them by this Parliament, next to the corrupted depraved Clergy­men.

Page 153. When you are told that the Apostolicall Church of Jeru­salem, Act. 15. (improperly by you and all Popish writers call'd a Sy­nod, and Grand president for Synods) was infallible, and therefore might say it pleased the Holy Ghost and them; and that, since you cannot say of whatsoever you shall doe, that it doth infallibly please the Holy Ghost, and for that cause may not be permitted to make binding determinations: you answer (most appositly no doubt) that the Apostles preacht by an infal­lible spirit, ergo, none ought to preach but such as have alike infallible spi­rit with the Apostles.

But I wonder Mr. Pryns wits are thus a wool-gathering; or ra­ther that he proclaimes it to the world so much; for I must needs say, I never knew them otherwise! Cannot you let Independents preach by way of instruction, advice, &c. though you were not sure whe­ther they have the Holy Ghost or no; as well as they give you leave to do the like if you can; yea, to sit and vote in Parliaments and Synods, enacting Ordinances, Decrees, and what you please, even as much as your pretended Synod of Jerusalem (call it a Parliament too if you will) since there is no remedy, though to my knowledge you are brim full of little else than all fallibility? But when you have attained to be a Parliament or Synod-man, doe no more than that Apostoli­call infallible Assembly of Jerusalem did; say, we doe well if we ob­serve your Ordinances and Decrees; and if we doe not, we may doe better, and therein be confident you say well infallibly: Thus you heare how you may become a Synod-man, and how your Indepen­dent Brethren may easily have leave to preach, though neither of you be infallible; Let your Decrees and Ordinance passe as peaceably as [Page 23] their Sermons, and both may lodge together, and likelier become friends the sooner.

Act. 15. 4. 22. We finde the pretended Synod stiled a Church [that is the Church at Jerusalem] if a Church, it must have Church officers, that is, ruling and teaching Elders and Deacons; which I doe not perceive observed in any Synod since, nor can possibly be, unlesse they can turne the fixed Churches of any particular place into Sy­nods; and if that could be done, what would this be otherwise than for one sister-Church to make and impose Canons and Decrees, ac­cording to you principles, upon all other sister-Churches?

Now and then, 'tis true, you refresh us with an ingenuous con­fession, which if you did but follow close, would cleare your under­standing from multitudes of grosse errours, and unparallel'd mistakes.

You acknowledge a possibility of erring, or some actuall errours in Councels, Synods, Parliaments, and that such as apparently erronious and repugnant unto Scriptures may be disobeyed: And now I see you have almost satisfied one of the 8 Queries in answer to your 12 conside­rable serious Questions, which hitherto I thought you had not beene able to give the least satisfaction to, because I heard it not in Print cry'd up and downe the streets, a priviledge which any thing, or e­very thing of Mr. Pryns enjoyes peculiarly.

But this short acknowledgement of yours, if you understand what you say, and sticke to it, will undoubtedly bring you over unto the Independents.

And now (that your booke, and such as read it over may make a comfortable end) since you are so good to grant a little, you shall see the Independents will comply with you, and say they'l aske no more: They only desire it may be lawfull for them to disobey your Councells, Synods, Parliaments when they actually erre, and are ap­parently repugnant unto Scripture: But now, when they tell you so at any time, and challenge this free grant of yours, professing in the presence of God and Men, that they speake the truth and lie not, their conscience bearing witnesse, Rom. 9. 1. unlesse you will re­nounce Christianity in practise, you must beleeve them, and not mea­sure their consciences and understandings by your owne, lest they come short of their due; you must not be both judge and party: no, nor judge only, where all ought to be Brethren, Matth. 23. 8. Their owne reason must guide them: Their owne understanding must bee [Page 24] the ultimate resolver of their wills; and none but their owne faith can save them, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 6. 4. 5. Rom. 14. 12. From the non­submitting unto some Councells, Synods, and Parliaments, which you perhaps may not thinke erronious, will follow no other worse consequence, than this; That a man may likewise refuse to heare or not believe some Sermons, which you perhaps may hold worth hea­ring, and necessary to be beleeved (though others as wise and godly as your selfe, doe thinke the contrary) which you may well be so in­dulgent as to grant your Independent Brethren, since they will doe the like for you, expecting with long-suffering untill you be con­vinc'd, or you convince them, peaceably.

Page 154. You proceed and say, admit Synods, Councells, Par­liaments have sometimes erred out of human frailty; yet this is a most certaine truth, that they are not so apt to erre, as private men, or Con­venticles of persons lesse learned, lesse experienc'd, &c. But this may not passe for orthodox neither, if, not many wise, not many learned are called, be Scripture, 1 Cor. 1. 20. 26. besides, experience teaches us, that God doth not discover his truth by whole-sale, nor to whole Nationall Churches or Generall Councells at once, but rather by de­grees, and that for the most part, at first, to some contemptible per­son, perhaps, in the eyes of the world, who had no earthly superflui­ties, or so much as any naturall preheminence to tempt or to with­draw him from being Gods Ambassadour or Trumpeter to publish it unto a people or whole Nation, it may be, not without his utmost perill.

And besides; doe we not finde that even these more learned, of whom the Councells and Synods are pretended to be compacted, are they, who most of all deceive? Are they not by their unsanctified human learning and wisdome, the better enabled; nay, doe they not by that meanes become like so many decoy's to lead the multitude, the rabble after them over hedge and ditch, and, too too often, into the very ditch it selfe?

But what if Synods, Councells and Parliaments were lesse apt to erre, and best qualified to discover Truth, and debate matters of con­troversie? It will not follow from thence, that either of them may therefore impose their supposed Truthes (for other than suppose they cannot be, for want of infallibility) or finall determinations upon the other: If there were a necessity that the greater part should have this [Page 25] spirituall dominion, or rather a Civill power in a spirituall govern­ment over the lesser, or the lesser over the greater; then there might be some colour for the greater to have precedencie in some respects: But since either of them would be absolutely sinfull, we must grant it unto neither.

Page 155. You say, That though it cannot be proved that all the Elders, Brethren, and whole Church of Jerusalem were infallibly inspired, yet they all said it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and them: To which I answer, that their saying so, was an infallible signe that all of them were then, as concerning what they affirmed, infallibly inspired; otherwise, not on­ly the Brethren with the rest of the Church, but the Apostles also might possibly have told a lie, in saying so, in joyning with them in one com­mon verdict, Act. 15. v. 23. Nay, it might even now, and ever may be said hereafter to the end of the world, that this passage in the Acts of the Apostles, It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us, is not of infallible truth, unlesse, that both the Apostles, Brethren, and whole Church had beene infallibly assisted in saying so; They spake not One for All, but All of them in One, or One Spirit, even God himselfe, who is One, in All of them infallible: Say but as much, and upon as good grounds and reason, in behalfe of the Synod which sits now at Westminster, and you say something: but for your great promise under the Gospell, that God will powre out his Spirit upon all flesh; surely it makes as much for Independents, unlesse you suppose them to be some New-found Land-fish: But you yeeld it may be objected, how perhaps all or the greatest part of the Parliament and Assembly are not endued with the sanctifying Spi­rit of God, therefore they cannot use this language, [It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us:] This objecting of yours I confesse is somewhat ingenious; but alas! it seemes, you desire not to continue so, in that you take such paines in shruging and shifting to evade the force and truth thereof, by saying, 'Tis only knowne to God who are his; and admit there may be some few among them, who have not Gods sanctifying Spirit, yet I doubt not but very many, if not the major part of them have: Is not this profound­ly answered? Thousands of conscientious godly people object, how it is possible that all, or the greatest part of the Parliament and Assem­bly may not be indued with the sanctifying Spirit of God; and Mr. Pryn pretends to answer them by saying, he doubts not but they have: Is he not a doughty champion? But what if it should be objected, that it may yet more fully, than by perchance, be said, it cannot be made appeare that there is so much as one, neither in the Parliament nor Assembly, [Page 26] who have had an infallible assistance of the sanctifying Spirit, in any thing they have done already, or shall ever doe hereafter? and must we then necessarily be of their Religion, of their faith implicitly? yet we submit, you see, unto them in Civill matters; our estates, our lives, and what ever we have that is mortall, has beene devoted, if not sacrificed to justifie their power, and our subjection, but the rest must be reser­ved for him only, who is Lord Paramont of spirits as well as flesh.

Surely, Mr. Pryn, 'tis no small disservice which you doe both Parlia­ment and Assembly, in thus exposing their proceedings to be questio­ned by no little, and that the most conscionable and best affected party of the Kingdome; such spirits of contention, as this of yours, were those which made the first great breach amongst the Parliaments friends; I meane, betwixt the Independents and Presbyterians; and now your selfe as the chiefe Ring-leader has begun a subdivision, even among the Presbyterians, by attributing (after such an imperious and reproaching manner towards all such as dissent from your opinion) that supreme legislative power to Civill Magistrates in all matters of Reli­gion, which our Brethren of Scotland appropriate only to Nationall Assemblies: How great a stumbling-blocke this may grow to in time, and the miserable consequences thereof, I leave to your saddest mor­ning thoughts to be better considered on; and wish you would forbear to publish such midnight, subitane, distracted lucubrations, as you your selfe well call them, to the great detriment and endangering both of Church and Common-wealth.