I Will not stand upon the many loose passages and hard speeches that this Reply is full of, desiring rather the opening of truth, then the discovery of any mans corruptions; wise men (that must see us both) will judge us, not by our words, but by our reason. If truth be on his side, surely he hath very much spoiled her beautifull face with his black and uncharitable language. Truth is most glorious in her owne garments, whatever men cloath her with but her owne apparell doth but deforme her: If this be her attire that Master Prinne presents here arrayed in, certainly she hath changed her forme, she never came out so of the bosome of Christ, she was never wont to appeare among the Saints in such a garbe; passion and railing were never wont to be her companions; peace, gentlenesse, and meeknesse ever attended her as handmaids: How little of this waits on his Reply, let any that was ever acquainted with such a spirit, judge. In the very title-leafe he cryes out (an anonymous Author ashamed of his name;) were you ashamed of your name (Sir) when you put forth The unbishoping of Timothy and Titus? The quench Coale? The Abrevi­ate? all which you owne in this Reply; You that writ The Ana­tomy of Independency; The mystery of Iniquity; The Subjects liberty, all without your name; call in your Books write no more, You are asha­med of your names: You are not ignorant of the many worthy things that have beene put forth without a name, there be many reasons may be given for it; it is not the name but the thing; not who [Page 2] writ, but what is written, that will satisfie. The truth is, we are falne into times wherein (as Tertullian of old complained) men re­ceive fidem ex hominibus, non homines ex fide. I desired naked truth might appeare, though I was not seene in the setting of it forth; in his Preface he cryes out, He is hated, envied, [...]pugned, for telling of the truth. If to answer be to envy, hate, &c. no truth of Christ can lawfully be stood for; surely the Spirit of Christ never taught you to jduge so harshly of those who onely labour to vindicate the truth of Christ, and friendly to examine your ungrounded queries about it. To passe over many other things, which to speake to will rather fill up the paper then be satisfactory: observe but one or two of these reasons he gives for his writing, by way of question.

First,In his Preface to independency exami­ned, &c. that he saith the Independents had never dogmatically (to his knowledge) resolved or discovered in print what that Church-government is they so eagerly contend for; and yet take notice, he confutes them, urgeth these Queries as his Reasons; What a contradiction this is, let all judge: how a man can confute that in an opinion which he knowes not to be held in it; and out-argue that he never knew dogmatically resolved on, is beyond my intellectuals to conceive. Neither I (saith he) nor any one writer ever discovered it, and yet Master Prinne hath confuted it unanswerably, For that (saith he) he seriously profes­seth thefore God, Angels, or men, that he could never yet discover in least footsteps of it in Scripture, Antiquity, &c. I shall only pray that God would anoint your eyes with the eye-salve of the Word, that you may see these truths of Jesus Christ which are yet hid from your eyes, which many precious Saints humbly conceive they see, and so see that (if God should call them) are willing to seale their sight with their blood. But to the matter.

To the first question he saith, I give no answer, but onely mis­reciteth the question without his limitations, and then refute what my selfe propounded, not be; he should have shewne wherein, and then might justly have challenged me for it; I shall intreat the judi­cious Reader but to compare both. It seems Master Prinne is asha­med now to thinke that there is no positive rule in the Word for Church-government, but that it may be suited to States. He saith, I should have exactly proved by direct Scriptures that Christ hath prescribed one set immutable forme of Government to all Christians, Nati­ons, &c. from which none must vary in a tittle; and then have proved from [Page 3] Gospel Texts, that which he calls independencie to be this Government, but in this Point the Respondent is wholly silent, and I shall expect (saith he) his Answer Ad Graecas Calendas. Observe (Reader) that yet he saith in the following words, I indeavour to prove it: to say nothing, to be wholly silent, and to indeavour to prove a thing, to me can have no better title, then a grosse contradiction: but to the thing.

First, Whereas he requires of me, as in the former words, so here, a full discovery of Church-government in the world; and this is that he in all his papers demands, that we will fully disco­ver this Government in the word.

I answer: First, If by a full discovery, he meanes that we say all that can be said of it in the word, or is laid up there: it is Ini­quum postulatum, most unjustly demanded; for even In credendis, in matters of faith, neither Master Prin, nor any else is able to say all that can be said of it, or fully to discover the many things that the word holds forth to be beleeved for salvation; God reveales more and more of the Gospel every day in a fuller and clearer manner; much lesse can any man, as yet, discover what is required for matter of Government: As for our parts, we are far from such a thought, that we know all things in the word about Church-government; but that more of it may be still revealed, and we dai­ly search, and wait for more knowledge in it.

But secondly, if he meanes we should discover what we hold concerning it, let him know, that for what we hold in it, we can evidence from Scripture every particular, and as much as is need­full in this Controversie.

For the matter of a Church, that it should be Saints, we con­ceive it to be evident from these Scriptures, Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Ephes. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. and in vers. 7. [...], its a righ­teous thing for me to judge so of you all; now the Apostle wrote to them as they were Churches of Christ; and to explaine what they were, he calls them Saints, such, as it were an unrighteous thing to judge otherwise of them; and its reason that members of Churches should be thus judged Saints, because all the Ordinan­ces that Christ hath left, its for to build up the Church, they are to be administred in the Church; now none have right to the Or­dinances but Saints, and therefore none may be admitted but such as can be judged so by the Saints.

Againe, for the former, which we say is consent or agreement [Page 4] (whether by covenant or any other way, we stand not on it) we conceive first, it ariseth from the nature of the thing, the Church being a politick body, wherein is rule and authority, nothing but free consent or agreement to walk in such wayes can constitute it, as in all other policies: What makes England as a Common­wealth, or as a Church to be such a policie, but the consent of the people, who have given up themselves to be governed by such Laws and Constitutions.

Secondly, if this be not granted, there can be no distinction of Churches in the world, but all must be under one power: for what makes England as a Church distinct from Scotland, or Scotland from all Churches, that they have no authoritative power over each other, but onely this, that the members of England, or Scot­land, have not consented to walk under any other power but their own? Surely the bounds of Seas or Rivers can no more distinguish Churches, then a wall or a doore can, if there be no other distin­ction; and no other thing but consent can forme a Policie.

Besides, Scripture is no way silent for the proof of this: Not to urge many, that place is famous, and may serve for all, in Act. 9. 26. Paul after he was converted, it is said, Assayed to joyne himselfe to the Disciples at Jerusalem; and the word is [...], which signi­fieth, to be glewed to them: Now observe, Paul was converted, and a Saint, yet not joyned to the Church, he was in that place where they were, he was joyned to them as they were Saints, yet he was not joyned to them as a Church; and this joyning was not Physi­call, but Morall: Now this must be done by free consent, and wil­ling subjection to the Ordinances, or no way.

For the ordinary Officers of the Church, they are Pastors, Teachers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. Teaching-Elders, and Ruling-Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 17. Deacons, Acts 6. 1 Tim. 3. Wi­dows, 1 Tim. 5. 9. Rom. 16. 1. That the Church hath power of choosing its own Officers, is cleare from Acts 1. 21. Acts 6. 3. and Chap. 14. 23.

That a Church is but one Congregation, having power within it selfe to exercise all the Ordinances, is apparent in the new Te­stament, neither do we read of any other there: First, the word ( [...]) used for the Church, signifieth no other; neither hath it any other signification in the new Testament, when referred to any visible Company; neither is it used by any profane [Page 5] Author for to note out a larger Society then could meet together in one place: For the Church at Jerusalem, it was but one Church, Acts 2. 46. and 5. 12. and 6. 1. and 15. 25. and 21. 22. and 25. 22. so the Church of Antiochia was but one Church, Acts 14. 27. they are said to gather the Church together; now that could not be the Elders, for, for Elders onely the word Church is never used; and the same persons that are called the Church, vers. 27. are in vers. 28. called the Disciples: and Chap. 15. 1. the Brethren: so Acts 11. 26. the same persons are called the Church, Disciples, and Christians. Besides, the Church of Corinth was but one Church, was but one particular Congregation, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Cor. 11. 17. vers. 23. In uno & codem loco: neither can the word ( [...]) ever be shewed to signifie any thing else besides one particular Assem­bly, as learned Baines wel observes. I shal conclude this with quoting of what that judicious Divine D. Ames saith in this particular, Med. p. 190. Hine variae Congregationes fixae ejusdem Regionis ac Provinciae plu­rali numero semper appellantur Ecclesiae, non una Ecclesia, etiam in Judaea quae tota fuit antea una Ecclesia Nationalis, Act. 2. 46. & 15. 12. & 14. 27. 1 Cor. 5. 4 & 11. 17. 23. 1 Thes. 2. 14. Acts 14. 23. and 15. 41. Rom. 16. 4. 5. 16. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1. 19. 2 Cor. 8. 1. 18. 19. Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Rev. Ecclesiae enim illae particulares quae in N. T. com­memorantur, convenice solent, [...], neque in toto N. T. legitue de institutione Ecclesiae amplioris a quo minores Congregationes penderent, &c. Thus you see a short description and discovery of what we hold about Church-government, with some Scriptures in stead of others that move us to this way: The Reasons and Grounds I doubt not but we shall see at large when that shall be made publike which our Brethren have urged in the Assembly, and presented to the Parliament. But to proceed:

For that part wherein he saith, I should have proved that Christ hath set one immutable forme of government, and have made it out by direct Scriptures, besides what is laid down in the Observa­tions (which I doubt not to make good against his cavills:) I thought Master Prin had read learned Master Parker, de Eccles. Pol. Cartwright, and the most of the Nonconformists, who though Presbyteriall in their judgement, yet have largely proved that; to whom I shall refer him for larger satisfaction. I know none that ever writ against the immutablenesse of a forme of Church-go­vernment in the new Testament, but Episcopall, and Pontificiall men, as Hooker, Bilson.

[Page 6] The judgement of the Church of Scotland is quite contrary: For they assert their Presbytery to be Jure Divino, and holds its Title onely from heaven; it seems the Presbyterians differ as well as the Independants, and they are also various in their judgements, some think there is no forme of government, others that there is. But to the Arguments:

First,Exod. 25. 40. I said, if this were granted, the Gospel would be straiter then the Law,Heb. 8. 5. Christ more unfaithfull then Moses: and the Argu­ment lies thus according to his own drawing: if God set a pat­tern to Moses of every thing to be done in the Church, from which he was not to vary upon any termes, these being but carnall Ordi­nances comparatively:Heb. 9. 10. then he hath prescribed a forme of go­vernment in the new Testament to all Churches, Nations, &c. from which they may not vary: but the former, Ergo, the Medium, or ground of arguing between these two is from the care that God hath of the Church at all times, being one and the same, rather more in the new Testament God had shewed lesse care over his Churches now than then, if he had not prescribed a set Go­vernment for them also; besides, their Ordinances had been more spirituall far then ours; for that which God directly appoints, is more spirituall then what man appoints in Gods worship; though for the kinde more noble, and the use in reason far more excellent: To this he saith in generall thus; That if I, or any other, can shew him such a patterne, so clearly delineated in the new Testament, as that in the old, he will beleeve my sequell, else he shall judge it a meere independent Argument to this before; Master Prin knows its a good way of reasoning, if the same ground hold the same consequence: we are sure, for your Presbyteriall-government you cannot have the least direct Texts, and you are faine to go to miserable extorted consequences, &c. there is nothing that we hold, but we will shew in cleare Scriptures, as be­fore: where did you, or any one ever read of either name, or thing of a classicall Presbytery, of a Provinciall, or Nationall Synod, either alone, or by way of subordination?

He goes on in way of Answer, and saith, if this consequence will follow, then this must needs also.

God prescribed to Moses the expresse patterne and fashion of Aarons and his sons garments, &c. under the Law, Exod. Ergo, He hath like­wise shewed the expresse patterne, fashion, and colour of all Bishops, Presby­ters, and Ministers garments under the Gospel.

[Page 7] How weake this absurdity is that he labours to fasten on this Argument, let wise men judge.

First, I say not, That what ever was commanded in the old Te­stament must be commanded now for the matter of it, if my mean­ing had been so, this consequence had been good; but when I ar­gue from the exact description of every thing in the old Testa­ment, to the like in the new, I argue from the equity, and common reason that is in the thing; there was something in the Ceremo­nies, and in their forme of worship that was Juris Moralis, & Naturalis; the equity of which remaines for ever, and the Apostle argues from it in severall places: as that God should be worshipped after his own way, and according to his own prescript, not through mens inventions, &c. As for the matter of the things commanded in the old Testament, these things that were Ceremonies then, and had a spirituall signification, are but circumstances now, and not to be regarded, as Place, Garments, &c. You shall finde the Apostle arguing thus from this very head and instance in that Heb. 8. 5. See that thou do all things according to the patterne in the mount; he speaks this of Christs Priestly Office, and proves that Christ was a true and reall Priest, and he proves it by this, because all the Priests of the Law served but to the example of heavenly things, and they had their Commission onely from heaven, God gave it Moses in the mount: surely then Christ (saith the Apostle) must needs be a reall high Priest, in whom all these things are fulfilled eminently: and he instanceth in this of the Tabernacle, which could not prove it but by reason of the equity of the thing; and its one of Calvins Obser­vations from the place; Hic docemur perversos esse omnes cultus & adul­terinos, quos sibi proprio ingenio, & citra mandatum Dei, comminisci homi­nes permittunt; nam cum praescribat Deus ut fiant omnia secundum suam regulam, nihil penitus alienum facere licet; He applies this to all wor­ship in generall, and that from the equity of the thing it selfe.

To quell this Argument, saith he further: 1. The patterne in the mount was meant onely of the materialls, forme, utensils of the Tabernacle, not of the Government and Discipline; therefore ve­ry impertinent to prove a seeled form of Church-government.

Answ. I never said that the Tabernacle was a patterne of Church-government, and therefore that will not answer; for grant it to be a prescribing of the materialls, &c. yet there is as great a reason that God should prescribe the forme of govern­ment [Page 8] as that; and God did prescribe a forme of government to them, from which they could not vary; I onely instance in this, because the Apostle makes use of it, to prove as different the thing, as this: there was nothing to be done either in Church or Com­mon-wealth, but was discovered to Moses as a rule for him to walk by,See Exo 2 [...], 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Chapter. which he could not vary from in a tittle; & there is a great reason it should be so now, because the Ordinance and Government of the Church is more spirituall. The Materials of the Tabernacle he grants were exactly prescribed; and why not then the particu­lars of Government, seeing it is as great an Ordinance as that?

Secondly, he saith, It was shewed to Moses the Temporall Magi­strate, not to Aaron or any independant Priest; and therefore if there be any consequence from this, Kings, Parliaments, &c. ought to prescribe, and set up such a Church-government as is according to the word, &c.

I answer, its no matter at all, neither doth it a jot prejudice my consequence to whom it was discovered, whether Moses or Aaron, they were not to vary from it; and there is as good reason for Church-government as that: but let me ask a question or two of you, seeing you have urged that.

First, Was this discovered to him, Quae a Magistrate, under that consideration onely, or no?

Secondly, If to him as a Magistrate, then where will you finde a correlate to Moses now?

Thirdly, Whether as a Magistrate he durst prescribe any thing more in a tittle, or any thing besides the patterne in the mount, let Magistrates shew us what they have received immediatly as the minde of God, and we will as willingly take it from them as any; durst Moses, though chiefe Magistrate in a prudentiall way for the good of the people, prescribe any thing besides the patternes? much lesse may any now, who never had the minde of God revealed to them as Moses had.

In fine, saith he, If there be any expresse unalterable form, pray, inform me why it was not as punctually described in the new Testament, as the forme of the Tabernacle. To which is answered againe, that it is as punctu­ally described, as hath been formerly shewen. Nay, saith he, why was the Tabernacle altered into a Temple different from it, and why did the se­cond Temple vary from the first in the same Church and Nation?

I answer: I never said that God tied himselfe so as he could not alter the frame of Government, but that no man could; if God [Page 9] will change the Tabernacle into a Temple, its his pleasure, and that is our rule, but none else could do it; had David or Solomon done it without a word from heaven, what thanks would they have had? It was a sinne in Jeroboam to set up places of worship in Dan and Bethel, when God said they should go onely to Jerusalem; though afterwards God changed it, and made every place fit to lift up pure hands to God in. Besides, God changed things among the Jewes according to the fitnesse and conveniencie of their con­dition; the Tabernacle was made, as suiting with their condition in the wildernesse, being fit to carry up and down with them: but when they vvere become a setled nation, rich and vvealthy, and in peace, then God commands to build a Temple. Under the Go­spel its otherwise; Christ being come himselfe, as King of his Church, hath made a covenant with no nation under heaven, but in every nation he that feares him is accepted with him; his Laws being onely spirituall, and that concerning the conscience: it suits with the condition of all Saints, and may be practised in every Kingdome, neither can it be altered, the Laws written in the new Testament being the last that ever shall be given to the Churches for ever; so that Master Prins Reasons against this Argument will not hold when they are truly tried.

To that part of the Argument wherein it is said, that Christ should be more unfaithfull then Moses if he should not prescribe a set unalterable Discipline in the word, he answers nothing: whereas the Apostle ur­geth it in Heb. 3. 2. 5. 6. Moses was faithfull in his own house as a servant, but Christ as a son: wherein lay the faithfulnesse of Mo­ses, but in declaring faithfully what God had prescribed to him in the governing of the Church, and ordering all things, which con­cerned the worship of God, according to the patterne given in the mount? Now how much more unfaithfull then Moses should Christ be if he should not as eminently do the like to his own house? For it was not onely matters of Doctrine, and the foundations of Re­ligion, that Moses was faithfull in prescribing to the people, but all the Ceremonies and parts of instituted worship, to which Di­scipline is to be referred; he did not onely give them the Deca­logue, but every thing that was to be practised by them, even to a pin of the Tabernacle, and therein lay his faithfulnesse. And is not Christ as faithfull as Moses?

To the second Argument: That Christ should neither be faith­full [Page 10] as a husband, head, nor King of his Church, if he should give others power to order it as they pleased to their own civil govern­ment, not setting down his own Laws for them to walk by: he saith, its both a fallacie and absurdity, yet he shews neither. That he sayes to make it good, is this: That one may be as faithfull a Husband, Head, King, though he lay not down particular. Laws to regulare his Wife, Subjects, &c. To which I answer: That its against the law of nature to require obedience of a Subject, Wife, &c. in things immediatly appertai­ning to a Husband, King, and not to prescribe rules of obedience; and its greatest unfaithfulnesse that can be, to leave these that are committed to ones care and trust to others to rule and order, who cannot do for them as the party intrusted can: Should the Parlia­ment be faithfull to the Kingdome, if they should not make parti­cular Laws for the governing of it, but leave it either to others, or else set down generall, dark, confused things, like so many blanks, and Et cetera's, that every one may adde what they will? Either the Government of the Church is a part of Christs Kingly Office or not, if it be, he cannot be faithfull if he prescribes not particular Lawes for them to walke by: Besides, either the Discipline of the Church is spirituall, and to edification, or not; and if it be spirituall, then none can prescribe it but Christ; for that is onely spirituall in instituted worship, which hath Christs Precept for it: Neither will the giving of generall rules take away this ble­mish, as that Rom. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently, and in order, (which you call a generall rule for Church-government:) for every particu­lar Office, and Ordinance in the Church, is for to effect some su­pernaturall end, to build up the soule in grace; now no Office, or Ordinance, can do that, but onely what is instituted by Christ to that end: For that place in the Corinthians I spake somewhat of it in the Observations, and I wonder he past it over without men­tioning; for these words, Let all things be done decently, and in order, is onely meant of ordering things in a Church already constituted, not of giving rules for the constitution of it; and the words im­port nothing lesse: for what is order but a fit disposing of things already made and constituted in their proper place, it being a word taken from martiall Discipline, where every man is set in his Rank and File according as occasion is. Now you shall finde the Apostle applying of it so in the place quoted, for he speaks it to re­gulate the exercise of Prophesie in that Church; and whereas they [Page 11] were wont to use that Ordinance confusedly, one speaking when another spake, he tells them they might all speak one by one, if they would but stay before each other had done; and then layes down this as a rule to direct in the exercise of this, and all other Ordinances; Let all things be done decently, and in order: I wonder how men that are not lost in prejudice, that haue any intellectualls about them, can so mistake this place, as to say its a generall rule of prescribing a forme of Church-government left arbitrary to any people: seeing neither the signification of the words, nor the coherence of the place, hath the least shadow of such an interpreta­tion: where the fallacie of this Argument lies, I cannot as yet di­scerne, much lesse where the absurdity is which Master Prin hath charged it with.

His third Argument (saith he) is that Revel. 11. 1, 2. we read of a measuring of the Temple, and Revel. 21. 1, 2. of the new Jeru­salem comming out of heaven, &c. Ergo, There is a setled divine Church-government universally prescribed to all Christians in the new Testament: To this he saith nothing in answer, either to the interpretation of the place, or the application of it to this particular: onely he seems to retort: First, That this is no better proofe of this Assertion, then the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is of our Prelates Lordly Hierarchie Jure Divino: but how, or wherein the parallel holds he shews not; yet this he thinks is a full Answer.

Secondly, (he saith) I might as well, yea more properly conclude thence That the Altar was measured as well as the Temple, Rev. 11. 1. (referring to the Jewish, not Christian Church, which hath no Temple nor Altar:) Ergo, We ought to have an Altar, yea one set forme of Altars in all Chri­stian Churches under the Gospel: Thus far he: What the sense of these words is, I cannot as yet understand, much lesse where the Argument lies; I never thought to have found such a piece of ab­surdity fall from Master Prins mouth. His Argument will run thus, if put into forme: If the Temple was measured, then (as an absur­dity) the Altar was measured, and if the Altar was measured, which was Jewish and not Christian, then we ought to have an Al­tar, yea one set forme of Altars under the Gospel: Who doubts but the Altar was also measured? for the Text saith it expresly. Now by Altar was meant the worship, as by Temple the Church, and so its commonly used in all the new Testament; the Altar is put by Synechdoche, Piscator in lo­cum. for all the worship in the Gospel, as the Temple for the Church; and here Master Prin gives a good encouragement [Page 12] to the Papists for the maintenance of their Altars, if he will inter­pret these Scriptures literally. The Apostle saith, Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar, &c. And what can the Papists infer otherwise, if they will argue from the word, but that there may be Altars now? for that he saith, it refers to the Jewish, not Christian Church, if he mean by referring, that there are used the tearms given to the wor­ship and Church of the Jews, its granted; but if (as his words carry it) he meanes that it is meant of the Jewish Church, and the measuring of their Discipline and worship, nothing can be more absurd; because that Church-State they were in was disanulled, and new Ordinances of the Gospel were brought in and the Book of the Revelation is not an Historie, but a Prophesie; Nay, the holy Ghost using the same words, and tearms of the worship and Ordi­nances of the old Testament, in expressing the worship of the new, gives a cleare ground to infer, that as their patterne was punctual­ly described, (viz. of the Temple and the Altar, &c.) so also now is the worship and discipline of the new Testament signified by these expressions, as punctually prescribed. What is that measuring of the Temple spoken of in Ezech. 40. and 41. Chap. but the exact de­scribing of the frame and fashion of it, with the utensils in it? and what must this measuring of the Temple and Altar here be, but the doing the same spiritually? That which is observed from this place of the Revelation, is, First, That under the Gospel there is a Temple and Altar; that is, a Church, and worship in it.

Secondly, That this was to be measured; that is, the exact pro­portion of it taken: now nothing can be measured without a rule, and the following words cleare it, for the holy Ghost speakes of witnesses, who give Testimony to it, and are slain for it: now who would be so used for that which was never written as a rule, but left arbitrary to every nation and kingdome? and that it was wor­ship they witnessed to, is plaine both from the words, Temple and Altar, being never used for doctrine in the new Testament, but for discipline and worship; as likewise from the types and parallel of them, as compare vers. 4. with Zach. 4. now what did Joshua and Zerubbabel witnesse to but the worship? Its Master Brightmans note upon the place, Pag. 347. The true Christian Church is shaddowed out by the types of the old Temple, each part whereof was most exactly decyphered, and measured out in the old, by the comman­dement of God himselfe, and that unto this end, that men might know that this house is framed by God, and is not made by mans [Page 13] might and cunning; and that therefore they should not take upon them any power to change matters at their pleasure, as if the Di­vine Wisdome had not provided sufficiently to ordaine every thing in the fittest manner that could be: thus far he: So that yet, Rea­der, you may see that this Argument is not yet quelled, nor the absurdity of it in any measure shewen, how ere the full Replyer boasts, and gives it out to the world.

But yet to make this more evident, let this be an Argument: That which tends to the salvation, and edification of the soul, must be appointed by God, and so have the word for its rule; but such doth discipline in a Church: Ergo, The Major is denied by none that I know: yet for instance, the Sacraments, Bread and Wine, and Water, have nothing in themselves, or their own nature, to produce such spirituall effects as they do, but onely because Christ hath in­stituted them to that purpose, and it is that which gives them such an efficacie, this was the great, and indeed unanswerable Ar­gument the Non-Conformist alwayes: used against the Ceremonies, that the imposers of them put a peculiar significancie in them, and gave them as helps fit and apt to stir up the dull mindes of men the better to serve God; as is exprest in the Preface of the Book of Common-Prayer: now, say they, none can give that as a help to build up a mans soule, or to stir him up to any spirituall thing, which in its owne nature hath nothing to produce such an effect, unlesse they can give these things power for the working of it; and nothing but what comes from God will carry to God.

For the Minor, or assumption, that the discipline of the Church is for salvation, the Apostle is cleare in 1 Cor. 5. 5. speaking of Ex­communication, one of the chiefe parts of discipline, saith, It is for the salvation of the soule; now what is said of that may be said of every part of Discipline, every part being homogeneall, and of the same nature: Ile end this with the saying of Master Brightman, on Rev. 2. p. 50. The Government of the Church is common to all times and places, and is not permitted to be at the arbitrement of men to follow what they list; but alwayes in Reforming Churches we must have recourse to the first begin­nings, unto the which as our onely rule we must call back what ever strayeth from it, and that they are not to be turned and tuned according to the croo­kednesse, and jarring sounds of succeeding Churches.

In the next place, (saith he) He pretends my third Querie contra­dicts the first, because I suppose a Church: government may be consonant to [Page 14] Gods word in the generall, which is not particularly prescribed in it: a pret­ty fancie (quoth he) as if nothing could be consonant to Gods word, which is not particularized or verbally injoyned in it.

To which I answer, passing by many bitter expressions that fol­low it, that things to be done in or about the worship of God, are either matters of circumstance, as garments, place, time, &c. such as these come under generall rules of the word, such as that 1 Cor. 14. To let all things be done decently, and that they be consonant to the word, is sufficient: Or else; secondly, Things are such as par­take of the nature of worship, and are to edifie, and to attaine a spirituall end; so nothing is consonant to the word, but what ei­ther is punctually exprest, or can be deduced by necessary & imme­diate consequence, and in this sense its not sufficient that its no where denied, unlesse it be some where commanded; and the rea­son is this, because matters of instituted worship (as Divines call it) depend onely on the will of God, and there is no necessity in the nature of the things for their appointment: As for example, why God would be worshipped by Sacraments, why excommuni­cation, or other acts of discipline should be appointed as a meanes to save the soule; there is no reason to be given from the thing, but onely Gods will; now that is onely exprest in the word, or natural­ly to be drawne from it: as for things civill, such as he instanceth, as temporall Magistrates, Parliaments, &c. Its left by God to every Common-wealth to sit themselves, and dispose of things, as may be most for their peace and profit; and consonancie to the Morall and Politick rules of justice and equity, is enough to warrant these undertakings.

From this he passeth to my Anti-quaeries: First, If no prescript forme (of Church-government) in the word, why not Episcopacie, especially regulated and moderated, as well as Presbytery?

To which he Answers: If you meane it of Lordly Episcopacie, there are abundant Texts against it, if of moderated and regulated Episcopacie, the same with Presbytery; if the Parliament by the Synods advice unanimously establish, &c. I shall readily submit to it, and why not you and all others?

In which, first, let all the world observe: That Master Pryn grants that Presbytery is but a regulated Episcopacie: Oh noble hearted Saints, and well bred Christians of England, who have felt so much the power of Episcopacie, which was the Lion let go about without its chaine, think what Presbytery will be, which is but the same [Page 15] Lion in a fetter; if ever it break loose, with what redoubled might will it tear and devoure? Episcopacie to be cut off root and branch was one part of that first noble Petition of this famous Ci­ty, signed with 15000. hands; and doth not that reach Master Pryns Presbytery? This was the great suggestion both in Parlia­ment and elsewhere, among the judicious and godly, that if they should cut the Bishops Locks, a little regulate them, their hair would soon grow again, and pull down the house of the Com­mon-wealth about us all: in a Presbytery there is no more, accord­ing to Mr. Pryns own judgement; the Bishops nails will be cut a little to grow out the faster, to claw the sorer; or rather, the Bishops power in a Presbytery is dilated from 26. unto 600. what one could not reach to do, you may be sure many will; and as the Bishops would call men Puritans and Non-Conformists, and so persecute them; so will the Presbytery call men Schismaticks, Hereticks, Antinomians, Separatists, and do the like. And whereas it may be said, The Presby­tery will be godly men: I Answer, so were the first Bishops of Rome in the beginning: and these which are now good may leave the government next to as bad men as may be, and then the misery will be greater, by how much the multitude that have power are greater.

I do not think the Pope is called Antichrist so much because of his Temporall power, as because of his taking such power of juris­diction over the Consciences of men, prescribing for them Laws to walk by, and punishing men for disobeying: Neither was the Epi­scopacie unlawfull so much because of their Lordships, as for their supream power they arrogated over the Church, and Consciences of men, and because there were no footsteps for it in the word. Whereas he saith, if the Parliament and Synod shall establish a Presbytery, he shall readily submit, and asketh why not we? Let him know, if he can sell away his Judgement and Conscience, we cannot; yet though we cannot go against our Conscience to obey actively, we have lear­ned to submit to Authority passively, if they can in Conscience take any such course with us.

2. Antiquerie was, if Church-government be to be suited to States, whether Politicians are not more fit to consult about it, and why is an Assembly of Divines called?

To which he answers: That his Position is, that Church-government ought to be suitable to the Word, as also to the Civill State; and therefore [Page 16] Polititians and Statesmen, and divines are to be consulted with, &c. In this An­swer Master Pryn give, the greatest ground to hold up the Bishop pow­ers in States, and so of Mi­nisters also to be Statesmen, as can be, if the civill power and Ecclesiasticall have such a dependence on each other that the one must be suit­ed to the o­ther. If by suiting to States he meanes that the government of Christs Church must be suited to every forme of civill government; then there must be as many sorts of Church-government as there are of civill, which is the greatest confusion that can be; and then you need not put in that clause, that it be suitable to the word, for that is suitable to the word which suits the State; for either there is but one government in the word set down to all, and then it is no mat­ter where it suit the State, for that must be followed what ever States say, or else that government which suits the State is suitable to the word, and then what need such calling and urging the pat­terne of the best reformed Churches? what have we to doe with a Scottish government, or French, or any, seeing our civill government dissers from both? this conceit is the greatest doctrine of Liberty in the world. If by suiting of States he meanes that the govern­ment of Christ should be no disturbance to the proceedings or peace of a State, its granted; and so the congregationall way is as suitable to States, as Presbyterie, or any other government in the world.

To the third question he answers, That it is more fit that the State should be subject to Christs rule then Christ to it, but this question, saith he, is besides the question, untill you prove a set unalterable Government, which I have done sufficiently; yet to say somewhat to what he saith in the fol­lowing words, whether Christian Princes, Parliaments, Synods, under the Gospel have not power to bind all the Churches under their dominions as the major part of an Independent Church to bind their own members. To which I answer.

First, if majoritie be considered absolutely in it self; that where there is the greater number or greater part of the Catholick Church, they may make Laws for other Churches; then, another kingdome if it be greater then this, and the numbers of the Church more, may make Ecclesiasticall Laws for this kingdome, yea then that must call in all the Churches in the world in every matter. For where there is more, there is authoritie; yea onely the Catholick Church must rule, and make laws for it self.

Secondly, the reason why the major part of a congregation binds (yet onely in particular actions which concerne themselves, not in prescribing a rule of Church government unto others) is, be­cause of the promise which God hath made with them. Matth. 18. [Page 17] where two or three are gathered together in my Name, I will be in the midst, saith Christ, when he speaks of the Churches censuring an offender; and this is strength enough to every action, and we need not fear what the matter is that is to be handled, when Christ will be present, we have no such promise to any societie else.

As for the latter part of the quaere (saith he) 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 (saith he) he means it onely of matters of faith it may passe as tolera­ble; but if he means of externall Ecclesiasticall government, discipline, or or­der in the Church, he must renounce his oath of Allegeance, his late Protesta­tion, Nationall vow, and Covenant, &c.

In which observe two things. First, that to hold Christ is King in matters of faith and internall government over mens souls may passe but as a tolerable thing; how to passe by this expression with a lesse character then sleighting Christs kingly office I know not; bone Deus! and good Christians, to what passe is Religion come? if this must passe but as a tolerable doctrine, that Christ is sole King of souls, and is it not undeniably without controversies, as true as God himself? and is it not horrid blasphemie to have the least thought to the contrary? the truth is, I wondred when I saw such a mistake fall from Mr. Prynnes pen; its no marvell if other things be intolerable to passe, if this be but tolerable.

Secondly, to hold Christ King in externall government, is against the Oath of Allegiance, &c. who told you that the meaning of any Covenant or Protestation intends any such thing? We cannot think the Parliament would be so injurious to Christ as to take away any of his Kingly office from him, as Mr. Prynne would needs affirme; we doubt not but they have learnt to give up the Scepter and su­preame power of governing the Church to Christ, as Christ hath given the supreame power of the Common-wealth to them. In what clause of the Protestation, or Covenant doth this lie, I never found it yet. I know none that ever protested that Christ was not sole King of the Church, and the prescriber of laws to his Church: shew me the clause, and I will unsubscribe to that particular, as be­ing most derogatory to the honour of our heavenly Prince and Lord Jesus Christ.

In his answer to my second quaere, (saith he) he firstCharity would have said weakly. wilfully misre­cites it, and then infers a blind obedience from it to all superior commands, [Page 18] be they never so unjust or contrarie to the Word, whereas my question onely speaks of lawfull decrees, and consonant to the Word, &c. to which every Christian is bound in conscience to submit, Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14, 15. Tit. 3. 1. If any man deny this, he must renounce, not onely his Christia­nitie, but his Allegiance and humanitie too.

For answer to this, I will not enter into that common place how farre the power of Magistrates may reach in matters of Religion, to the binding the conscience, though I wish it were rightly stated, that Christ might not lose his due, as they might not theirs. Yet I desire humbly to propound one argument to Mr. Prynne, which hath a little puzled my thoughts: and I desire him not to mis-in­terpret it, as if I went to undermine the priviledge of Parliament, if the Magistrate must be obeyed, as having power to command in matters of Worship, it is either, qua a Magistrate, or as a Christian Magistrate: if as a Magistrate, it holds in all, as well Heathen as Christian power, being equall, alike in both, as they are Magistrates: for Civill power is not, as the Papists say, founded in Grace or Re­ligion, but in the compact and agreement of the Common-wealth. whatever belongs to a man, as a man, belongs to every man, be he rich or poore; whatever belongs to a Magistrate, as a Magistrate, belongs to every Magistrate, be he Christian or Heathen; and then the Heathen Magistrates Subjects are as much bound in Conscience to obey what Worship they set up, as Christian Subjects are to obey theirs whom they are under.

If as a Christian Magistrate, then shew your rule, these Scrip­tures Rom, 13. &c. are spoken in generall of power limited to none, nay they prove directly against you; for the Magistrates, the Apo­stles and Primitive Saints lived under, were Heathens, not Christi­ans: Againe, if as Christian, then he must be obeyed, because he commands, or for what he commands, either because of his owne power, or the authority of the things themselves; if for the for­mer, then its qua a Magistrate, and so it belongs to all, his Authori­ty not arising from his Christianity, but his Magistracie: if for the latter, then its not the Magistrate, but the Word of God that must be obeyed; now that must be seen before it can be followed; there is no greater eating Worme in the Power of Magistracie then to found it in Religion, for thence the Jesuites infer undenyably, if Government belong to Magistrates, as Christian, as religious, then he that is not a Christian Magistrate, is an usurper, and may be depo­sed [Page 19] at pleasure; nay indeed he is no more then a private man, when once excommunicated, and all their ensuing commands are not to be obeyed: yea it will come to this, that the Church hath power over States and Kingdomes, for the Church is to deale in all matters of Religion most powerfully, now that is to get States to be their ser­vants, and exercise what power the Church pleaseth upon offen­ders; besides, if they have power to command, I have no power actually to obey, unlesse my conscience be convinced of the lawful­nesse of it, for whatever is not of faith is sin; to the reason I urged for this, he answers nothing yet further to confirme him.

1.Its neither a humane nor religious act that is not done with understand­ing. God would not have us to be­lieve him, without wee see the ground of it in the Word. All Protestant Writers give to every man judician pri­vatae discretio­nis, they give the testimony of mans con­science, as one way wherby we know the Word of God to be the Word. For any to require a man to practise that in the Worship of God, upon paine of Schisme, arrogancie, &c. before a man seeth it to be commanded of God, is to require more then God requires, who would have every man practise according to his light; in natu­rall Worship indeed God requires obedience of all alike, because they all once knew how to serve God: God gave Adam for all his, and men have lost them by their owne default, and though they should never heare the Word, yet they shall be condemned for not serving God in that way, for it was ingraven in every mans heart naturally, but its not so in instituted Worship, which depends meer­ly on Gods will, for in this God requires we should search to know, but will never punish any man for the not obeying that he searcheth after, prayeth God to reveale, and yet cannot find it to be the mind of God; much lesse should men force men, (who not only have no light in the thing, but their light is against it,) to obey what they conceive is the mind of God.

2. That Doctrine that puts upon any man an inevitablenesse of sinning, may not be admitted, but such doth this, that men must o­bey what superiours command in the Worship of God, though their judgements be against it: and the minor is proved thus by in­stance, to go against my light and conscience is sin, and to disobey the Magistrates commands is sin, and one I must doe; yea its the greatest hypocrisie that can be, to follow that authority commands, which yet mans conscience thinks is not to be done: besides, what do I know, but the light I have is from the Spirit of God? and if I go against it, I am guilty of resisting and grieving the Spirit, which is the greatest sin that can be.

3. It is the greatest tyranny over mens souls that can be: what can be greater then to make other mens judgments the rule of my con­science, [Page 20] to sweare obedience to that my understanding is against: surely its the greatest soul-inquisition that can be; however Master Pryn saith, I infer a blind obedience from his Position, I know not how to infer otherwise, for that must needs be blind obedience, when a man must obey (take it in what you will of this kind) that which he seeth not, either exprest, or any way warranted by the Word; its to put men above God, at least in this place: for if I must obey, because higher Powers judge it so, their power must be the rule of my conscience, which alone is subject to the Word; and its the greatest basenesse of spirit, it dis-ennobles mens spirits, hinders, and utterly crusheth the growth of any ones gifts; for if other mens judgments must be my rule, and I sin in not submitting to it, what need any man study to find out truth, or with the noble Bereans, to search the Scripture, to see whether these things be so? give men eyes, and they will soon follow you, else never call for such unlimited obedience.

Againe, what if the Parliament and Synod should erre in setting up a Government, must every one be bound to joine with them?

To which he answers; First, such an oversight is not to be presumed untill it be actually committed; and its neither Christian, charitable, nor any way of Christ, thus to prejudge their resolutions. And yet you to presume to determine what the Congregationall way is, and censure what effects will follow, though you professe you know not what they hold, and never saw the way exercised; we know as much of Pres­byteriall and its effects, as ever any can speak of the Congregatio­nall, therefore leave off your scandalous Titles of this way, which yet you never saw did commit any thing worthy of them.

As for your sufferings you speak of, I never mentioned them as your shame, though you have made the honour of them lesse then the World thought it was, in that you say, you suffered not for op­posing any Ceremony legally established, or the Bishops calling, but their Lordly power; however you suffered, (and now we are glad we know for what you suffered) yet holy Master Burton, for his part, confesseth the contrary, that he suffered for preaching a­gainst the Bishops Government, and the Ceremonies. I doubt not, but if ever God shall call us to suffer for this truth, we shall have as much comfort and strength in standing for the Prerogative of King Jesus, as ever you had for maintaining any Statute-Law whatsoever.

[Page 21] In the fifth (saith he) he grants, that Independency will overthrow all Nationall Churches and Synods. 1. Is it not even a turbulent, dangerous, Schismaticall unquiet, (that I say not insufferable) Government, which will admit no equall nor corrivall? and thus he goes on with his uncivill ca­lumnies, for many lines. But bona verba quaeso, if you understand the words thus, that in the judgments of these that are of this way, there can be no Nationall Churches according to the Word, so it overthrowes it; but yet only in intellectu, as I may say, they cannot think it to be a Gospel Institution of a Church; as the hol­ding one opinion overthrowes another, so is this, that all Natio­nall Churches will be overthrowne by your Congregationall way, and this sense (which I meane) deserves not such unworthy Lan­guage; but if you take it (as it seems you do) that the Congregatio­nall way cannot live by the other Government, or in a Nation which is a Church, but it will endeavour by force and armes to extirpate, overthrow, unchurch them that disturbe their peace, slay their members, &c. It hath not as yet conceived such a thought, and its contrary to its nature to bring it forth; there is nothing so detestable to our judgements, and, I doubt not, that should be more contrary to our practice, then the disturbing the peace of a Nation, what ever scandall men fasten on us.

To the sixth, he sayes, I returne no answer, but plainly yeeld that there was never any Independent Church in any age or nation whatever to­tally converted to the Christian faith, &c.

If Mr. Pryn understand the words thus, That the congregation­all way hath not beene set up as the government of any one Na­tion, its granted; but that there was never a congregationall Church in any one nation is denied, and it will put him to it to make it out: Nay, for the first foure or 500. yeeres I durst chal­lenge him to produce any other then particular Churches that had the power of censures within themselves; Justin and Irenaeus knew no kinde of Church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabbath; and as learned Mr. Baines proves out of Euseb. l. 3. 44. lib. See Bains di­ocesan triall. 4. cap. 21. and lib. 2. cap. 6. that Churches at first were but Pa­rishes, and Parishes within Cities, and he quotes Saint John lib. 3. cap. 23. saying to the Bishop, Redde juvenem quem tibi ego & Chri­stus, teste Ecclesia tua, tradidimus. Tertullian. Apol. c. 39. knew no Churches which had not power of censures within themselves, and we hold no more. Saith Cyprian lib. 4. ep. 1. Schismes were said to [Page 22] be from hence, Quod Episcopo universa fraternitas non obtemperat. And the same Author, Epist. 55. tota fraternitas, i. e. unius congregationis tota multitudo, ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis. Sabino de uni­versae fraternitatis suffragio Episcopatus fuit delatus. And againe, lib. 1. epist. 47. 58. 68. Ecclesiae igitur circuitus non fuit major, quam ut Epis­copatus totam plebem fuam in negotiis hujusmodi convocare potuerit. He which is skil'd in Antiquity, I doubt not but may bring forth mul­titudes of such testimonies as these; all that we say is, that a Church is a particular congregation of Saints, having power of censures within themselves, and exercising all the Ordinances of Christ. Now this Antiquity proves to be in the primitive times, even many yeeres after the Apostle; but suppose the contrary, that there could not any such footsteps of this way be found in Antiquity, yet have we no ground to thinke its not true; great was the Apo­stacie of the Churches from the Apostles doctrine; that truth hath beene lost for a long time among the most. It is a great mer­cy that since that defection from the pure wayes of Christ to An­tichrist, there have beene any glimmerings of light preserved, any in secret that might worship him after his owne minde, that any thing hath beene refined and restored to its primitive institution; yet all times are not alike, now God hath in an abundant cleere manner so scattered the mists of Popery and darknesse, hath revea­led many truths which formerly lay hid. Unhappy we, if we yet see not more then the godly formerly did, who but then came out of Antichristian darknesse! God is now opening the mysteries of the Gospell, discovering the truths that concerne Christs Kingly Office, & why may not this be one, though never discovered before; or if discovered, yet crusht and made light of. The opinion of the thousand yeers which was antiently generally condemned for a Heresie, is now imbraced as a precious truth, and maintained by many learned lights, as Alstede, Mede, Doctor Twisse, Doctor Stoughton, with divers others. That is ancient which is primitive, and to be found in the Scriptures; neither are the names of these that either have beene of this judgement, or have or doe practise it of meane and contemptible reputation, but they have given suffi­cient testimony to the world of their learning and godlinesse, as learned Baines, Ames, Cotton, with the many in these times, both in New-England, here, and other places, men not a jot behinde any of their Predecessors in the knowledge of the mysteries of the [Page 23] Gospel; yea, anointed with the gifts of the Spirit above most of their fellows. Notwithstanding that you say, that for any reverend godly person, who now contends about this new Modell, though I reverence their persons, and judgements too in other things, yet I cannot subscribe to them in this new dangerous by way. Yet those men cannot think you reve­rence dither their persons or judgements, for then you would not be so rash as to condemn what they hold, before you knew what it was, or whether it was so or no; for either you think them judici­ous and conscientious, or not: if the former, then you would judge what they hold they have ground for: if the latter, that then they durst not practise that is generally opposed without a clear warrant (at least in their own judgements) from the Scriptures. Neither do they desire you should subscribe to their judgements in this or any thing else: yet this is your duty, to give them the right hand of fel­lowship a while, and not rail on, and condemn with all bitternesse the way they practise, untill you had heard what they could say for themselves.

In the seventh (saith he the grants, That the Law of nature that teacheth men to unite themselves into one nationall State, or civill Government, doth likewise teach them to joyn and subject themselves to one nationall Church, and to nationall Synods, and Parliaments in point of Church-government.

Let any one judge that reads what I answered, whether there be so much as a shadow for such a mis-recitation; the sunne of my Answer was this: That the Law of nature teacheth every man to joyn himself to such a particular Society, where every man may have his personall vote in every thing that concerns him, as well as any one, or a Company to set up either one, or more over them, to whose judgement they will submit, and who shall be the Vltinum of all their Appeals and Counsels. And that there is as great a su­tablenesse to the Law of Nature in a Democraticall, and Aristocra­ticall Government (of which the Congregation consists) as in a Monarchicall, or [...] Arisocraticall. The Liberties of Saints and Subjects differ; though Subjects may put theirs into the hands of others, the Saints cannot theirs without ingratitude for Christs purchase of them, and disloyalty to his Soveraignty, who alone is King of his Churches: for if I give up my power unto others, I must stand to what they determine, what ever my Conscience be to the contrary; and what if they crie? He grants that the Magistrate hath not still power over mens Consciences, is over mens bodies: yet he saith, [...] [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [Page 24] that God hath enjoyned us to be subject to every lawfull Ordinance of man, and not repugnant to the Word, &c. To which I answer: What if the commands be repugnant to direct Consequence of Scripture, though not against any expresse Texts? And what if a man thinks it repugnant to the Word, must a man obey it? that which to me is repugnant to the Word, is my sin if I do it: Besides, what if it should be repugnant? Either you must say the Magistrate can com­mand nothing repugnant to the Word, and therefore must be o­beyed; or else a man must see it in his own judgement not to be re­pugnant before he can obey it. God forbid a tittle of the power God hath given Magistrates should be taken from them, yet I would things were so stated, that Christ might not lose his Prero­gative: Master Prin in his other twelve Queries, and the latter end of this, labours to perswade the Parliament, that these whom he cals Independents, are against the power of Parliaments, on pur­pose to make them odious in their eyes. But let that honourable Assembly know, that what ever power the Principles of Presbytery will give them, the Congregationall way will give much more: neither have the Parliament truer friends then they, who will be more willing to venture their lives, and sacrifice all they have for them; onely this is desired by them, (which they know is the desire of that Honourable Assembly) that the Rights and Liberties Christ hath purchased by his own precious blood, and left the Saints as his last Legacie, may not be taken away by the secular power; as that the secular power might not be encroached on by Christian Liberty. After this, he goes on to justifie his bitter and unchristian passage, in comparing our Church-meetings to the Conventicles of of the Arrians, Donatists, &c. Could you finde no smoother or lo­vinger comparison to scandalize us by? Can no other title be bad enough, but a Conventicle? A name given by the Bishops, and all their crew, to all the godly meetings of the Saints. Take heed, that you that are so skilled in the Bishops language, come not to take up their weapons too; what do you but in one word cal us hereticks, Schismaticks, and the worst of men? For this you say in the Mar­that 35. Eli. c. 1. none are Conventicles but the meetings of Hereticks, and Schismaticks, who separate themselves, &c. Though your pas­sion would not, yet your charity might have given us better lan­guage. You and your Party are very full of these tearms, though you nor they ever define what Schisme or Heresie is. We desire, [Page 25] and challenge you to tell us what Heresies we have broached in these Conventicles? In what Fundamentalls do we differ from you which is Heresie? What Acts against the power of godlinesse can you manifest against us? What Treasons have we plotted against the Parliament in our meetings? Should I call you Heretick, and Schismatick, &c. because your judgement is Presbyteriall, would you take it well? The Lord learn you meeknesse, and a more sober Spirit, not to tax so highly, and slander so insufferably, unlesse you make it out that we are such.

To the eighth, he saith, I answer negatively, and well I may.

My first Answer was, that the nationall Church of the Jews can­not be a pattern for us now, because the Covenant of the Gospel is not made with any one particular nation, but to all in every nation that beleeve; you have no promise nor Prophesie of any nation to be holy to God, but the Jews when they shall be called again.

To which he Replyes, 1. That the Independents have not the least Precept, or Example for a solemn Covenant, but in the old Testament, and Church of the Israelites; and that no private Congregationall, but publike nationall Covenant, prescribed by the supream temporall Magistrate, and Assembly, yea, the principall Precepts and Presidents for sanctifying the Sabbath, pub­like or private Fasts, you likewise derive from the old Testament, and that Church; Why should not therefore their nationall Church be a pattern for us? &c.

To which I Answer: First, For the Covenant, we hold not that such a formall Covenant constitutes a Church; this is enough, that there be an union, whether by Covenant explicite or implicit, or consent; that is certain the Union is Morall, as all other must be that constitute a Policie: yet for that he saith, there is no Precept or pattern but in the old Testament for a Covenant: its answered; Secondly, That its ground enough for such a practise, the Cove­nant not being Ceremoniall, but Morall, and that which of neces­sity goes to such a Constitution; it did not constitute the Church as nationall, but as a Church: Indeed the Covenant was nationall, be­cause the Church was so, but that was accidentall. Its no part of the essence of a Covenant, that it should be nationall, that doth ac­cedere to it as it constitutes such a Policie; and the same, or which is equivalent, must constitute a particular Church, the same formall Constitution that was in that Church, as a Church, must be in every Church also: and though the dispensation in Churches be diffe­rent, [Page 26] yet the same constitutive Principles remain in all.

For that he saith, the principall Precepts, for a Sabbath, and Fasts, we take out of the old, Testament, and therefore why should not their [...] Church be a pattern for us to imitate, as well as their nationall Covenant, Sabbaths? &c.

I Answer: We keep the Sabbath onely as it is a Morall Pre­cept in the Decalogue, not as peculiar to the Jews; for where there was any ceremonialnesse (in it, as the seventh day) its changed a­mong us; and for Fasts, there is as great equity, that when we have displeased God, we should solemnly humble our selves before him. But that the Church was Nationall, was meerly accidentall; and he might as well argue, and it will as rightly follow, that there must be but one visible Church in all the world, and that one nation, as the Jews were; for if he argue from one part, which is accidentall, he must argue from, another that is so likewise. Besides, if this be a property of a Church, that it be nationall, then there is no Church but what is nationall if that did convenire to the Church of the Jews, as a Church, that it was nationall, then it doth so unto every Church; and the same may be said, that there was but that one Church in the world then, therefore there is but one now. Many such absurdities will necessarily follow such an Argument.

To that that I say, that the Covenant of the Gospel is made with no particular nation, but with every one in every nation that beleeves, and that there is no Prophesie or Promise of any one na­tion to be converted, but the Jews.

He Answers: That this Reason is both absurd and false, the Covenant extending not only to particular persons, but to all nations, &c. And for this he quotes many Scriptures in the Margent, the summe of which is contained in Psal. 2. 8. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. And that in Esay 2. 2, 3. The mountain of the Lord shall be exalted on the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow to it. Therefore God hath made a Covenant with particular nations to be Churches.

To which, I answer, 1. That if these Texts be to be understood so, Jesus Christ never had a Church since the dissolution of the Jewish State; for there hath been no nation in the world yet whol­ly given to Christ, none that may be called a holy nation; as yet that Prophesie is not fulfilled: what may be hereafter I know not.

[Page 27] Secondly, You may as well say that the Covenant of the Go­spel is made with all nations, and that all nations are, or shall be, Churches to Christ, for so the words run in the generall: I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth, &c. and all nations shall flow in unto the Church; and become such.

Thirdly, That in Psalm. 2. is not meant of God covenant­ing with any people, but it shews that all the world is in subjection to Christ, and that the Father hath given him all rule and power from one end of the earth to the other; and the following words imply so much; for he saith, He shall rule them with a rod of iron; now its not meant so much of the Church, as of the Kings, and Po­tentates, and great men of the world, that band themselves against Christ. Christ rules not his Church with a rod of iron, but with a golden Scepter; and if all nations were given to Christ, that is, really converted, and in Covenant, there would not be so many Potentates, Kings, and great ones, to band themselves against Christ and his Church; and for that place Esay 2. That all nati­ons shall flow into the Church when once its exalted, its no more then what was fulfilled in Acts 2. where men of every nation under heaven beleeved, and so is the word commonly used for some of all nations; and the utmost that can be said of them, and all the other places brought, is but this, that when Jews and Gentiles shall all be called together, the most part of the nations shall beleeve, and come to Christ, in 1 Pet. 2. 9. which he quotes: The Apostle calls the scattered Saints a holy nation, yet they were no nation, but scattered thorow many nations; and these Scriptures are meant of the multiplicity of beleevers that shall be brought under Jesus Christs Dominion: and these Texts do no more prove a na­tionall Church, or any one nation wholly converted, then that Text, Go preach the Gospel unto every nation, Matth. 28. proves that every nation shall therefore be converted to Christ; and they ra­ther prove, that all nations shall be reall Saints, then that any one nation or more shall be so. Besides, if the Church be nationall, every one of the nation is a member, and there can be no censures of Excommunication rightly administred; for there can be no Ex­communication, but either by cutting the person off from this life, or else banishing, which are for destruction, not edification; for whiles he lives in the Kingdom, he is a member, and the bounds and limits of the nation are the bounds and limits of the Church.

[Page 28] Againe, of what Nation in the world can it be said which is said of the Church, you are a peculiar and holy people? nay are not all the Nations corrupted, few or none, in the most, imbracing the Gospel? England hath been accounted as Protestant, and as refined a Nation, as any hath been for Doctrine; yet how many vipers hath it bred in its own bowels? who ever have been more wicked then they? where have the Saints been more persecuted then here?

Againe, if Nations may be Churches, there will be no distin­ction between the World and the Church: all will be Saints, and as far members of the visible Church, as the best Saints.

To that I say, that he cannot shew any Nation, every Member whereof is qualified sufficiently to make up a Church, unlesse wee will take in Drunkards, Whoremongers, &c. and this cannot be a­voided in a Nationall Church, he answers: that he daces not be wiser then his Lord and Master, who informes him that there will and must be alwaies in the visible Church on earth goats among the sheep, ch [...]ffe amongst the wheat, &c.

I answer: 1. That there will be goats, is most certaine: but that there must be, is neither necessitate praecepti nor med [...]j. Christ never commanded it, neither is it of absolute necessity, for the Saints can live & be built up without any mixture of such society is it a delight and pleasure to Christ to see goats among his sheep, in his own fold? what need then [this must] be so confidently put in?

Secondly, goats, chaffe, bad fish, are taken for hypocrites as well as profane men, and in these places they are only to be taken so; as for example, that place Mat. 13. 24. of the good seed and the tares which he quotes, by tares are not meant profane persons, but hypocrites: 1. the Scutietus in obse. vat. in Mat. Pasor. Lexicon. in [...]b. Word expresseth no more, tares (as Histo­rians observe) are a weed like the wheat: now profane men are no way like the Saints: 2. if it be meant of profane men, and Master Pryn take it of their being in the Church, then all the censures of the Church are out off ipso facto, for the Text saith expressely, they must be let alone till the harvest, (that is, the day of judgment) so that no wicked man may be excommunicated, or any censure passe upon him: yea 3. it is plaine, they are hypocrites, they were disco­vered by none but the Angells: yea 4. if you will needs take it of profane men, the Text saith expressely, that these were not in the Church, but in the world; the field is the world, vers. 38. whereas he saith, he finds that in the Churches of Galathia, Collosse, Pergamus, &c. [Page 29] there were drunkards, Epicures, whoremongers, &c. I answer in general, that I know no Churches openly taxt for any such grosse acts of sin in all the New Testament; only the Church of Corinth abou the incestuous Corinthian, which is spoken as a defilement, and a blot upon them, whereby they were corrupted; and he therefore exhorts them to cast him out, that they might be a new lumpe, 1 Cor. 5. As for 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle saith, one is thirsty and another is drunke, I think it not meant of that grosse act, which we call drunkennesse, but the same with that which is said of Joseph and his brethren, Gen. 43. 5. they dranke and were merry; they drank more freely then they ought at that time, though it might be lawfull at another time; but however, though there were these in such Churches: Yet

First, I speak of the first constitution of a Church, and what Churches should be, not what they are degenerated into.

Secondly, they were most spirituall sins that were laid to the charge of the seven Churches, and other Churches, as that they lost their first love, countenanced false teachers, &c. not such grosse acts of prophanesse, as whoring, &c. Yet

Thirdly, what heavy and sad threatnings are there denounced by God against these, if the continued in that estate, and what judg­ment did follow? for God is very tender of his worship, and what is become of all these Churches now? how greatly hath God been displeased with them? the Jewes might not enter into marriage with the daughters of a strange Land, much lesse might they admit them to ordinances among them, unlesse really converted, and made proselytes: now such are all not visible Saints, in the judg­ment of the Saints, unto those that are really called, and joine to­gether in the ordinances, and they ought to be as shye of those, as they were of them: whatever a Church rightly constituted may fall into by defection, I speak not of; but what they ought to be, such as the word calls Saints, which can hardly be given by any know­ing Saint, to the most part of men in England: For that he asketh, whether we have not drunkards, cozeners, usurers, &c. members of our Chur­ches? I answer, we know none, and we should thank Master Pryn if he could discover any such, & account him our reall friend in it: For that he saith, where was there ever a Church of all elected ones? that is a state for heaven, not for this world: I answer, theres none saith a Church must be all of elect, but of such as can be judged by the Saints to be elect. If men be not saved, its not because the Church [Page 30] is deceived, but themselves: the Church goes only on these proba­ble rules of judging by which the word prescribes; the visible Church, in Scripture, is called Heaven often times, as Mat. 25. 1. Heb. 12. 26. Mat 13. and in Esa. 4. 5. its called glory, to intimate that none should properly be of the Church, but should go to Hea­ven; and its called the body of Christ, none should be admitted as members of that body, but those who can really be judged to be so: if prophane persons must be in the Church, as you say, then I know no reason but all may be in the Church, and no man in the world may be said to be out of the Church; for the most are ungod­ly: if ungodly ones do steal in among the Saints to a Church, they prosper not, and Christ will discover them to their everlasting shame; and more dreadfull judgments follow none as these: Christ dwells in his house, which is the Church, and its no pleasure to Christ to see a mixture among his owne: he that made a whip of cords to drive out the buyers and sellers out of the materiall Tem­ple; will take rods of iron to whip out such ungodly wretches. I am sure Christs bread belongs to no such dogs, only the children are welcome, and he hath given power to his Church to keep out these that have not a judged right.

Againe, if prophane persons, and such as walke not like Saints, are to be cast out of the church, then such as are judged so must not be admitted into the church; but the former is true, Ergo. That they are to be cast out of the Church, is cleer from the Scriptures, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. that therefore they ought not to be admitted, is as cleare: for the same ground is in both; they are admitted in, be­cause they walke as Saints, and so are judged to be Saints; they are cast out because they walk not as such: the truth is, this principle will soon lessen a Nationall Church, and therefore no wonder the Presbyterians are shye of holding it; for they must cast out the most of their members, assoon as they receive them in. Its the strangest thing to me, and I startle at it many times, what strict rules the Presbyterians have laid down in their Sermons in print,Master D [...]s preparation to the Sacra­ment. and their Sermons before the Sacrament every moneth, in which they lay on men such qualifications, both habituall and actuall, that there is not one in a hundred of the best Saints can follow them, and yet blame their brethren for keeping of there, which they cannot judge to have the least degree of these qualifications: they tell them it be­longs not to them, they will eate and drinke their owne damnati­on, [Page 31] on, and yet cry out in these that would not have these poor souls contract such guilt, and draw on such ruine on their own souls, and therefore keep them back; do you take in these who are drun­kards, whoremongers, &c. into communion in the ordinances blame us not if we keep our selves from such defilements.

For his answer (saith he) to that of Act. 15, all ages, Churches till this present, have held it as an expresse warrant for provinciall and nationall Sy­nods, and their making Cannons in Church affaires: I shall not say much to this, not doubting but we shal see these things shortly in print, which our brethren have urged in the Assembly.

How that can be a formall Synod I could never see yet made forth: For

First, This was not a gathering of the Elders of many Church­es, who make a Synod, but only some messengers (whether Elders or no the Text speaks not) occasionally sent up to Jerusalem, to that Church there.

Secondly, here was the whole multitude, viz. the Brethren pre­sent, besides the Apostles and Elders, and the Letter that is sent is as much written in their name, as of any of the Elders: now the Brethren or multitude are not usuall to be Members of Synods.

Thirdly, the Message is sent as the mind of the Holy Ghost, and not their bare judgments, but that which they had principally re­ceived by inspiration from the Spirit, and is not now ordinary to any Synod, for what Synod, I can say, it seemeth good to the Ho­ly Ghost, and us to lay such things on you.

Fourthly, if this were a Synod made up of Elders of severall Congregations, and that Paul and Barnabas went not up to prove the false Apostles lyars, but to have the truth manifested, which they could not do; then a Synod of Elders have more power then bare Apostles to order things in the Church; Paul and Barnabas were men very unfit to be Apostles, if they could not have determined such a question whether it was necessary for the Gentiles to be cir­cumcised, who were to plant and order things in all the Churches; and who had power over all Churches, and were to write the man I of God to them: surely, one Apostle had more knowledge of the things of God, and of matters of controversie in the Church, then all the Synods in the world besides; nay all are to follow what they loft to the Churches; it were greatly to diminists the Apostles power, and the highnesse of that office, to think than [Page 32] they could not determine such a question, but must go to a Synod to have it cleared up to them. Besides, it was an Apostle, when they came up to Jerusalem, (viz. Peter) who decided the controversie, and Paul and Barnabas were men of as great judgement, and had as much power as he. However we think not that to be a Synod, yet the convening of Assemblies and Synods for advice and counsell we deny not, but that any Synod or Councell hath an authoritative jurisdiction to impose Laws and Canons for all Churches to walk by, we conceive cannot be proved, neither from this of Acts 15. or any other Text: Yea, even this Assembly now among us the Par­liament have called onely for advice, not intending to give them a power of jurisdiction over them and all the Kingdome: Master Pryn saith, and takes much pains to prove (in his late triumphing book) that Synods, and Councells, and Magistrates have ever used to make Laws for the Church, & to exercise a coercive power in mat­ters of Religion, De Facto, (and he might have saved himself la­bour to have proved it:) but whether, De Jure, there is such a power invested in them, and from what Scripture I have not yet seen, and should be glad to be informed by him.

To my ninth Querie (saith he) and Argument in it, he returns nothing worthy Reply, but upon this Petitio principii, that the Scriptures and the Apostles have prescribed a set form of Government, &c. (which I have proved before:) and that the Churches in the Apostles dayes were Independent, though doubtlesse (saith he) all Churches were then subject to the Apostles Laws and Edicts, &c. therefore not Independent.

What there is in this worthy of Reply, I am ignorant of; yet this is to be noted, hwo the Presbyterians make a market of this scandalous name of Independents they have fastened on us: viz. To make the world beleeve that we are subject to no Laws, that neither Gods Word nor mans is a rule to us, for this is the naturall sense of his words: he saith, The Primitive Churches were subject to the Apostles Laws: Ergo, Not Independent. As if we held that we were Independent from the Apostles Laws. And if he put it as an Ar­gument, it runs thus: if the Primitive Churches were subject to the Apostles Laws & Rules, then are all Churches now subject to a Pres­bytery and Synods; the consequence we desire you to prove: To whom should the Church be subject but to these, who gave them the minde of God immediatly? And here let the Reader observe, that in this Head Master Pryn brought in many Arguments by way [Page 33] of absurdity, upon the holding of the Primitive Churches to be a pattern of all other, which, it seems, he is ashamed to mention, and seeth now, because of what was retorted on him, that even they themselves are absurd. For that he saith of my retorted, That the Scriptures were written in the infancie of the Church, therefore better might be written now; that is a blasphemous conclusion: Its confessed. Yet had it as good a consequence as yours, that the Churches now had a more perfect constitution then the Churches in the Apostles times, because they were the first, and, as you call them, Infant churches.

Whereas you say that the Scripture was writ by the Ancient of dayes, who hath neither infancie nor imperfection, as the Church hath. I Answer: That the Scripture was writ to be a Rule to perfect the Churches, and the reason of the imperfection of the Churches, is, because it comes not up to that Rule; and these Churches (how ever you deemed them Infant) had more knowledge of that Rule then ever any yet have had, they receiving it more immediatly from Gods mouth then any since; and their Churches must needs be more ex­actly constituted then any since, who lived under the Apostles di­rection, and had all they had from them, as from God.

To that I say, that he would make a Nationall Church more perfect then a Congregationall, he saith, he doubts not to averre it, since warranted by directEph. 4. 11, 12, 13. 2 Cor. 13. 9. Heb 6. 1. 1 Pet. 9. 10. Phil. 3. 12. 2. Heb. 13. 21. James 1. 4. Scriptures; to the which I shall re­fer the Reader but to look over, and then let him learn hereafter to be taken with Master Pryns Marginall Quotations; what shad­dow there is of proof in these Scriptures, but a cast of an eye will discern: But yet I answer; Imperfection in any thing ariseth more or lesse, either from the defect of something essentiall, or which is to the beauty and ornament and glory of a thing, or both; then is a thing more or lesse perfect, when either its essentialls are more perfect, or that which accidentally goes to the adorning of it. What there is more of these two in a Nationall Church, then in a Congregationall, I know not; unlesse the mixt multitude of be­leevers, and profane persons growing up together into a bitter bulk of sin, should adde either to the essence or ornament of a Church: if God had seen so much beauty in Nationall-churches above others, he would not have destroyed the Jewish State, or at least would have stablished the like in the Gospel, and would have converted the heathen Empires, and have took them in to be a [Page 34] Church to him. It was the mixt multitude which came out of E­gypt with the Israelites that brought them to so much wo; indeed, were a whole nation such as could be judged reall Saints, it would be a lovely sight to behold so many Churches walking together in the unity of the faith, but that never hath been yet; we know not what may be, we have little hopes of it untill the Jews be called, (if then.) And which is a more perfect State, a company of visi­ble Saints joyned together in love, and walking in all the Ordi­nances of God according to their light, or a whole nation, wherein there is here and there a Saint walking with Whoremasters, Drun­kards, and all sorts of ungodly ones without distinction, and en­joying all these Ordinances that the most have no right unto? The comparison between a grown experienced Christian, and a babe in grace, is no way proportionable to this thing. Wherein lies the growth and perfection, and experience in a Nationall-church, that is not in a Congregationall? Either it lies in the Presbytery, and Nationall-assembly, or in the distinct Parishes, and the Members of them: If in the Assembly that they are so experienced, the people have little benefit by it, unlesse to subject their necks to what they say; and there is the same in many Congregationall-churches, when met for advice; if in the Parishes and the severall Congrega­tions, the same is, in this way we speak of, much more; little is the edification the members have from the perfection of a Nationall-church, seeing they cannot meet together, or be present at the hea­ring of these experiences that others have; the onely benefit the members have is from the enjoyment of the gifts of their own Pa­stour; and it may be he one that they never chose as Pastour to them, but was imposed on them: and the truth is, this is but to circumscribe the Church in the Ministers, for else there may be more understanding men, and experienced Christians in a Con­gregationall-church, then generally thorowout a nation; the common people being most ignorant every where.

One thing he urgeth more in this; That a Congregationall-church is forced to pray in the aid of other Churches for advice, assistance, &c. which a Nationall-church need not.

Now here let all the world observe, whether he or any of the Presbyterians have cause to call us Independent: What more inde­pendent then a Nationall-church? Its a Pope, infallible, needs no aid, assistance of any Church in the world, it hath a spirit of in­fallibility [Page 35] tied to its girdle. We acknowledge we need help and assistance from other Churches, they need none; and here all you Presbyterians, either renounce Master Pryns opinion, and get some other Champion for you, or else for ever cease to open your mouth to call any of the Congregationall way Independent.

In fine (saith he) He himself confesseth that the Apostles made new rules for Government and Discipline, as occasion served and as God fitted occa­sions, so he made known new rules successively, by degrees, not at once, &c. Therefore the Infant-Church in the Apostles dayes was not so compleat and perfect in all its parts, as the multiplied and grown Churches afterwards.

A. How much he hath failed in the recitall of this, let the Rea­der compare, and judge; (I will not say wilfully, as he saith of me) for he hath left out that part which was the strength of all, which if he had took in, his Position had been overthrown; which was, that though the Apostles added by degrees, according as occasion served, new Rules, and Offices (for to what end should they adde untill there was occasion?) yet so, as at length they discovered all the minde of God concerning his Churches Government, and left it as a pattern to all the Churches: As the Scriptures were not written all at once, but some Epistles were written to some Chur­ches, before others, according as occasion was, and the Revelation discovered last, as concerning the last Ages of the Church,; yet so; as still at length, that the whole Scripture should be written, and left as the minde of God to all ages. And unlesse Master Pryn saith, that the Churches constituted by the Apostles had not at length a full discovery of Church-government, he hath no ground to think they were not so compleat as the following Churches.

My tenth Querie (saith he) he wilfully mis-recites, as he doth the rest: and then returns an Answer by way of Dilemma,Charity would have prompted you other­wise. to which he Answers thus: That if the Parliament and Synod shall by publike consent establish a Pres­byterian Government, as consonant to the Word, the Laws and Regiment of this Kingdome, Independents and all others are bound in conscience to sub­mit, under pain of obstinacie, singularity, in case they cannot prove it Dia­metrally opposite to the Scripture, &c.

Something hath been said in Answer to this before: Yet further, if Master Pryn means by submitting, that actually we must yeeld to the Presbyteriall judgement, and on the first setting of it up, pre­sently lay down every thought of Reason and Argument we have raised up against it, and say it is the way of Christ, and the onely [Page 36] way which we must serve Christ in; if he thinks any of us to have the least principles of reason, he cannot imagine we should do so. But if he means thus, That we ought not to stand against that Au­thority that sets it up, but submit to the penalty (if the least can in conscience be imposed) which shall be laid on us; we grant it: I hope we shall not be found despisers of Authority in that; but shall expect as great assistance from Jesus Christ, as ever you did, in a matter far lower, even the writing against a Bishops Court, or a Cardinalls Cap, as crossing the Statutes of the land; and as you confesse, but a matter of meer opinion: I speak not this to upbraid you, or detract from your sufferings (which are indeed badges of honour, not of shame;) but as far as your self detract from them, in telling us the true ground of them, that we might not too much glory in you. These places you so often quote, Rom. 13. 1. 1. Tim. 2. 1. &c. They make as much for Heathen Magistrates as Christian, and in every thing as well as any thing, if it be meant of actuall obedience.

To his crosse Interrogatories (saith he) I Answer: First, That if the Popes Councell command lawfull things to them that are under their power, they ought to be obeyed as well as the commands of Heathen Empe­rours, Magistrates, Parents, by Christian Subjects, Wives, Servants living under them.

Notwithstanding this, the Argument is still in force: That Hea­then Emperours are to be obeyed as well as any Christian Magi­strates, if that as Magistrates they must be obeyed; for that you say, and seem to make a distinction of it, if they command lawfull thing. But the question is still, who shall be Judge of that? Is it not as great a reason, that I shall be Judge of the lawfulnesse of the things I am to obey, as the Magistrate should judge of that he commands to be lawfull? If this be not granted, blinde obedience must necessarily follow. If I obey, because he judges it lawfull, I obey not out of a principle of judgement concerning the thing, but meerly because of the command: what blinder obedience there can be, I know not. Again, as before, either the power comman­ding is to be obeyed, or else the things themselves command obe­dience: If the former, that is alike to all Magistrates, and in every thing there must be obedience, where that power is: If for the lat­ter, then the things themselves binde, and then I must needs see it to be lawfull; and that necessity of sinning put upon a man by this, [Page 37] is not taken away by any thing I see in Master Pryns Reasons; for if I obey not the power commanding of lawfull things, I sin, if I do obey before I am convinced of the lawfulnesse of it, or have a scruple or doubt of its unlawfulnesse, (much more when I positively think so) I sin against God, and he will condemne me as an hypo­crite, a time-server, as one sinning against my light; and contradi­cting these motions, that, for ought I know, are from his good spi­rit, God cares not for, nay will condemne whatever is done with­out knowledge, though the things themselves be what he hath commanded: so that either we shall intreat Master Pryn to give us new eyes, or else not to censure us, if we actually follow not that we have no knowledge in.

Secondly, saith he, there is a great difference between matters of opini­nion only, and of practice, as whether Episcopacy be jure divino &c. though the resolutions of a Synod and Parliament should be affirmative, they could not binde my judgment (saith he) absolutely, so far as to subscribe to their o­pinion, as an undoubted truth, unlesse they could satisfie my arguments, yet they should and ought to binde me to practise: So if the Parliament and Synod should establish any Church-government, though it bindes not Inde­pendents to be simply of their opinion, or unlesse your reasons and arguments be sufficient to convince their judgments; yet it bindes them in point of pra­ctice and obedience outwardly to submit thereunto.

This Argument contradicteth the fundamentals of Religion, and gives way to the greatest hypocrisie in the world; this is that God requires in all services, that the heart, and the head, and the hand goe together; to oppose the practice and the judgement in spirituall obedience, is to separate the soul from the body, and bid the body act; God hath put the understanding in a man, to be a light to his path; a mans understanding is a mans practice, as the eye to the body, without which it cannot walk safely; and men may be what they will if this be true, that a mans judgment may be one way, and a mans practice another; a man may deny God, break the Sabbath, sweare in his practice, so his judgement be con­trary: But it may be Master Pryn meanes it of indifferent things, meerly circumstantiall, but I hope he accounts not matters of wor­ship and Church-government so; whatever is not of faith is sin; no mans practice can be of faith, who knowes not what he doth law­full, much lesse whose judgement is contrary. Its true, matter of opinion is one thing, if it be a meer opinion that is not reducible [Page 38] to practise, and I may only hold an opinion, and being contradi­cted by higher powers, though I may not be convinced, yet I may be silent, but when things come to be prest on me to practise, and that in the worship of God, and my judgment is not satisfied, then I must be convinc't, or else its a sin for me to practise; how Master Pryn thinks in his conscience we can submit actually to the power of a Presbyteriall government, who in our judgments thinke it not the power Christ would have his Churches be governed by, I know not, unlesse he would have us be the veryest hypocrites, time-servers, these which will do any thing to save our selves, surely, how ever he can practise one thing, and judge otherwise of it, we dare not; for as we account it below rationall creatures, to put out their own eyes to see by other means, so we thinke it hypocrisie in the highest, to practise that our judgments are against: that is not a humane action, much lesse christian, that is not done praeeunte judicio intel­lectus; and how much lesse when it is against the thing.

To his eleventh Quaere he saith, I give only a negative answer, and then declaime against Presbyterie, without any ground or reason; which he saith he will prove no further, except in two particulars: First, that inde­pendency is in reality meer separation and Brownisme, lately christened with a new title to take off its Odium. To which I shall say no more in a way of answer but this, that it will be well if Presbytery prove not in reality a tyrannicall Episcopacy, only newly baptized with the fair word [regulated] a regulated Episcopacy, saith Master Pryn himself; and I wish it may not break its bridle shortly.

Secondly, he saith, that we find what bloody divisions, wars, Schis­mes, the toleration but of one Religion in our Realme, contrary to that e­stablished, (viz. Popery and Papists) hath produced in all our Domi­nions, &c.

To which I answer: First, that there is no comparison between Popery, and this way we speak for; they differing in all funda­mentalls, their principles being absolutely against the secular pow­er which is not of their Religion; neither is ours; different Reli­gion, but the same; only in some points; wherein the beauty of Religion lies, we differ; we have the same faith, baptisme, we all professe the same Christ, yea, we differ but in a point, and that meerly out of conscience.

Secondly, how will you help the growing of Sects? do what you can they will grow, not all the counsells yet, and strictest go­vernments [Page 39] in the world, have ever kept their dominions free; nay, the more severitie is used, the more they will grow: for that which is opposed and cried out against, men will the more prye into; Bishops made more Puritans against their will, then ever was before; and it will be so in other things too: men will be doubting whether that power be lawfull, which is so cruell: er­rors are like camorile, the more you tread them downe, the more they will grow, let them alone they will fall off themselves.

Thirdly, Uniformity is no marke of a true Church, that is the Papists glory, the Apostle saith, there must be heresies, that the truth may be manifested; this is the glory of the Saints, that though their light differ, yet their hearts are one; and they love one another, though in some things they have not received equall knowledge.

Yet farther to come to this way, for that is it you intend, that there may not be any sufferance of it.

If it must not be tolerated; its either for somthing in its self, or for its inconsistency with states, or for feare that they should grow too numerous for the power of the Magistrate to curbe.

For the first, let all the world judge that knowes it, what it holds, I know nothing, that either in its foundation or structure hath any poyson or sting in it; any thing that may not in chari­ty be borne with, that seeks not preeminence or jurisdiction over others; it meddles not with other mens matters, to disturbe them in their peace; all that it differs from you, is in matters of Discipline, and what is not immediatly belonging to salvation, yet they are the liberties of Christ, as is conceived.

As Secondly, neither is it inconsistent with States, for it was set up under the Heathen Emperours, that were the most cruell, and there is nothing in its principles, that hath so much as a sha­dow of inconsistency, for it meddles not with their power; be­sides, we see in other Kingdoms (as flourishing States as any are) many others besides this way are tolerated, yet no disturbance to the State; yea, though the publike government of the Church be Presbyteriall: he knowes little in History, who knowes not, that men of different Religion have been suffered and tolerated to enjoy their conscience, yea, even among Heathens; how much [Page 40] more when the difference is only in smaller things; States lose nothing by preserving the Liberties of mens consciences. In France the Protestants are accounted the best Subjects, they are tolera­ted contrary to the publike Government of the State, yet are not inconsistent with the well being and flourishing condition of it. And surely, even Papists will rise up in judgement against us, who suffer those who are contrary to their principles, and Religion, to enjoy their consciences, if we shall not suffer these who differ not in Religion absolutely, but in points of lesser consequence, to injoy their Liberties amongst us. If upon triall it proves inconsistent with State, then may the Magistrate curbe them.

But this is the fear, you will say, lest they grow to a Party, and be too strong for the Magistrate.

First, Its against their Principles, to have any hand in oppo­sing the Magistrate, to keep up their own Priviledges.

Yet secondly, If there were any such thought, (which their soul abhors) yet there are many eyes over them, who will watch them close enough to take the least advantage against them, whereby to bring them into bondage: Besides, they are the smal­lest, and most contemptible Party in the Kingdom.

This may as much, nay more probably, be feared of the Presby­tery, who are more numerous, and of greater sway; and we say the same; Who shall restrain them? And what if they take distaste against the proceedings of Parliament, or the like, having got so much power in the Kingdom, what will become of things then? The State gives not Presbytery any power but that it supposeth it is able to restrain and overtop them if they offend, and grow insolent; and it may on the same consideration give a toleration unto others, knowing that when ever it breaks out, it can soon check, and bound them: Besides, as Master Pryn saith himself, Such a thing as not to be presumed of before it be actually committed.

But yet further, That there ought to be an indulgence unto such as differ in lesser matters, for to that I onely speak now.

First, That naturall right we have to the Kingdom (though I will not urge it as an Argument) as well as the Presbyterians that cryes loud for it; we are men as free born as they, have as [Page 41] great interest here as they; nay, many of us having been for­merly deprived of their Liberties, while others did eat the sweet, and drink the fat at home: Yea, further, we have ingaged our selves in getting a setled Peace, in maintaining of the Priviledges of Parliament, the Liberty of the Subject and Religion, and we think this, in justice, but an ordinary reward, (though we expect no more, and blesse God for that:) For the lives of so many that we are sure were of our judgement, and had this in their eye, and which when they were gasping out their last, they re­joyced in the thoughts of, that they should procure Liberties for the Churches: and surely it would be somewhat sad, that our lives should go to set Presbyterians on the Throne, (though much good may it do them) while we our selves, that serve the same God, are of the same faith, shall not have wherewithall to lay our head, and that meerly for our conscience.

Secondly, If a man ought not to lay a stumbling block before any tender conscience, nor offend him in the use of lawfull things, in which his conscience is scrupled, as the Apostle saith Rom. 14. 15. then much lesse ought any one to punish any one so scrupled; especially when they are known to be godly, and what they hold they have much reason for: This is to grieve indeed, and to destroy indeed, any tender conscience: Him that is weak receive not to doubtfull Disputations, Rom. 14. Beza inter­preteth the word thus: Though we think you may not eat, &c. he saith not, Cast him out of the Kingdom.

Thirdly, do but hold this, that for difference in smaller mat­ters men are not to be suffered, and you lay a ground of a con­tinuall, and most bitter persecution as can be; for if one King­dom may not suffer them, and this be because of the Law of God; another may not suffer them likewise, for the same Law bindes all; and then there is no way but death for them; men are not to live in the world, who are not of the same size with o­thers. Now the Religion which is from above, is more mercifull and just then this; if a man swear, be drunk, commit unclean­nesse, there is but a common mulct of the Statute on him, he is suffered to live in the land; and why should a greater punish­ment be inflicted on those that differ in judgement in smaller; [Page 42] things; it is not because of it self, for the sin is not so hainous, if it be a sin; neither is it in respect of the authority, that is de­spised, for that is alike in the other: What a sad thing is this, that a man for following his judgement (which God will damn him for if he go against it, while it is judgement;) should not be suffered a place in the world; for if one State will not suffer him, why should another.

Fourthly, these which are subject to errors and mistakes them­selves, may not punish those who hold an opinion different from them; for what if that they punish for should be a truth (as there is none can infallably determine the contrary;) their pu­nishment would be persecution; what if it should not, but they think so, to punish would be oppression; for even they themselves are subject to the same errors; yea, and that they themselves hold may be an error.

Fifthly, consider the power God hath given to conscience, and I argue thus, no man is to be punished for his duty; this is a mans duty that God requires, that conscience should give war­rants and direction for every act; and the rule is cleer, Rom. 14. v. last, whatever is not of faith is sin, man can do nothing religi­ously without the perswasion of his conscience; let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind; now what justice can there be in punishing a man for not sinning against God?

Sixthly, that way which is not adaequate to, or is ineffectuall for the recovery of any in error, or their salvation is not to be taken; but such is an externall punishment for a meer spirituall offence (which yet is questionable whether it be an offence) to banish men, or imprison them, meerly for their judgment, is a very unfit means to recover them; neither hath God ever sancti­fied it to such an end: nay, there is nothing more hardens men in their error then such a course, and makes them more refra­ctory and incorrigible: men will be led and not drawn; few or none ever were recovered, with whom such course have been taken.

Seventhly, that course which will never bring about, even the end of the punishers themselves may not be taken, the great end in mens not suffering those which are of different judgement to [Page 43] enjoy their liberty, is to bring in a uniformity which never hath been yet, nor never is to be expected while we are here; for as long as men have reason in them, and a free understanding, there will be different apprehensions of things; and that old saying, quot homines, tot sententia, will ever be. Herein is the manifold wis­dome, and fulnesse of God seen, in giving different gifts to men; and untill you can compound all men into one head and reason, you can never bring this about; yea, even the same man, at the same time, hath different apprehensions of things, and now his understanding is cleer for that which now through stronger rea­sons he is against: its true, all the Saints agree in fundamentals, but for other things it is as light is revealed from heaven to them: and if the matter were sifted, this crying out for uni­formity, is but to make all men subscribe to the Clergie, who must see for all the rest of the people; and let a mans judgment be never so rationall, yet if not suitable to the common clamour of the times, both the man and his man, and his judgment; must not have a being in the Kingdome, yea, though before accounted most godly: either you must infuse into all men, one and the same individuall conscience, and give men the same understanding with you, or else you must suffer them; unlesse you will make every man a grosse hypocrite.

Eightly, That which puts a state or people upon the greatest hazard, not probably only, but most times necessarily, of persecu­ting the most godly, and grieving the hearts of those whom Christ would not have grieved, that is not a way of Christ; but doth this opinion, that none that differ from a State in any thing may be tolerated; its a thousand to one but some Saints, who love the Lord Jesus dearly, are of those opinion, (I am sure, of this opinion I now contend for, hundreds are) now their sides must be wounded, and their habitations made desolate, though they are such as Christ loves; who follow their judgments meer­ly out of love to truth, and thorough the convictions of their conscience; especially the godly are oftentimes, if they are overtaken with errors of smaller and lesser consequence, such as are on the right hand; and what a persecution is this, unpa­ralleld in any age, not to suffer them in the same Kingdome with [Page 44] them. Even the Papists in Queen Maries time punished not for matters of Discipline, but for fundamentall differences of their Religion: there can be no State free from the blood of Mar­tyrs, if this Principle be ingrafted to them, and practised by them.

Ninthly, this will be the greatest hindrance of knowledge and growth in Religion that can be; for it puts out mens own eyes and judgment, and ties them to see by others; every man (which hath not his conscience and judgment quite sold to the com­mon opinions, and lost in the common road) will be affraid to read the Scriptures, or search them throughly, for if God should dart in any light from them, or his own ingenuity thorough the strength of his reason should be forced to dissent from the multitude, either he must stiffle in the birth his divine conception, (for so it may be) (for if he be known to be of such a judgment (though in it self never so small) he must loose all he hath, and ipso facto, be liable to the greatest censure;) or else he must dissemble his judgment, and wound his conscience, what a strait is this? this will be only growth in religion, to grow up more conformable to the opinion of the times; & he will be ac­counted the most knowing man, who hath the language of the times most by heart, no man durst set to himself a higher pitch in walking with God then the State hath set to him, upon pain of the greatest hazard; and wheras God reveals divers truths in divers ages & times (especially in matters of government and worship) more and more, as men come out of Antichristian dark­nesse, yet none must be suffered and tolerated, but that one, it may it self be Antichristian; at the least miserable cold and formall.

Tenthly, if you will needs be punishing for smaller difference in judgment, I desire you to shew your Commission and War­rant from the Lord Jesus, and I am sure he never gave either patterne or precept for such a course, he knowes his gifts he gives to men are different, and that light he communicates, is more and lesse, and he beares with his Saints who are of different growth and stature, and I thinke we ought to beare much more; who are as infirme as any others; he bore with his Disciple, [Page 45] weaknesse, when they believed not the resurrection, and came with peace in his mouth to them; how much more would he have borne, if they had doubted only of matters of Discipline? Rom. 15. 1. you which are strong ought to heare with the infirmities of the weak, and not to please your selves, as Christ pleased not himself.

I hope you will walk as Christ walked, Christ told his Disci­ples, Luk. 9. 54. that they knew not of what spirit they were of; when they would have fire to come down from heaven to con­sume those that would not receive him, there are many such spi­rits now a day, but they know not what spirit they are of.

Object. But it will be said, and its the maine objection they have, if we tolerate you, we must likewise tolerate Papists, &c.

Answ. That doth not follow, for their very principles op­poseth the secular power, they differ in fundamentalls, and are properly another Religion, and yet the State faith, when they execute Jesuites and Fryers, &c. it is not for their con­science or religion only: That we differ is but in a point, not of absolute necessity to salvation, though neerer the beauty and or­nament of Religion, and being a truth of Christ, (as is concei­ved, it must be prized, and we dare not discharge our conscience of it. I shall say no more of this; but let men take heed how they persecute the Saints, and oppresse their Brethren, lest Jesus Christ draw forth his Iron Scepter against them, to vindicate the innocency of his people.

To my twelfth quaere (saith he) he only answers, That I fall a jeering of my Brethren, and that I put a nick name on them, to make them odious, not answering one sillable to the substance of the Question.

To what I should answer, more then I did, I am not yet infor­med; for this was his Question, whether it be not a proud inso­lent name we arrogate to be independent? I answered, that wee disclaime it, and that in print: and therefore his Quaere could be nothing but a jeare. To which he answers, first, That this ti­tle was at first assumed, approved of by your selves, and is still owned by many; you should have named the persons that assumed it, as for our parts, as many as I know abhor the name as its fathered on us. Indeed we are independent in this regard, that [Page 46] we will not subject our judgements and cause to the juridicall power either of Master Pryn, or any others, though we will lie down at the foot of Christ in whatever he shall command us out of his Word; and the truth is, the Presbytery is the onely inde­pendent in the world, and may most properly be called so, for you neither depend on the Scriptures for it, for you af­firme not jure divino, neither hath it dependence on others, for you say in your third Reply, pag. 13. that it needs not the aid and assistance of other Churches: for as the ever honoured Lord Brookes said in his booke against Bishops, I know no reason why one Congregation should be accounted more independent in respect of a whole Nation, then Geneva in respect of France, and France in re­spect of all Europs cominent. Therefore you are best to take up that title on your selves, as most suiting with your principles. As for our part we are accomptable for our actions to every neighbour Church that shall in the name of Christ require it; and we stand not independent from, but hold communion with all other Churches, both in Ordinances and asking counsell mutually; though we thinke no Church hath a power of jurisdiction to command or impose any thing on us.

To which you answer: That if we are accountable for our actions to every particular neighbour Church, then why not much more to a Parli­ament or Synod: To which I answer: We shall be as ready to give an account to the Parliament and Synod of any action we do, with the reason of it, as well—nay, rather then to any other; as for the way of doing of it, we are accountable by way of information, and satisfaction; and in some cases unto the Magistrate by way of just appeal: as in case an obstinate offen­der shall be excommunicated, and he be unruly, he or we may appeal to the Magistrate for redresse; we, that if the Magi­strate judge him justly excommunicated, he may be restrained from disturbing of us: he, that if the Magistrate judge the sentence unjust, may be publikely cleared and vindicated. But for any authorative power of jurisdiction that Synods or any have to make Canons and impose on us which we are bound to follow, we humbly conceive it not be the minde of Christ; and we shall desire Master Pryn to shew us his Rule in Scripture.

[Page 47] To the second he answers: That if you stand not independant from other Churches, but hold communion with them: Then first, why do you separate from them as no true Christians?

Answ. I answer in generall: We separate from none we know to be true Churches; but if you mean by your true Church the whole bulk of the nation, whom you call a Church, we must needs separate from it, for we acknowledge no such Church. Yet,

Secondly, Though we acknowledge not England as a nation to be a true Church, yet we acknowledge many true Churches in England, with whom yet we cannot communicate in Church Or­dinances, because of many personall defilements among them, or yet purged out: and if they would give us leave in our commu­nion with them to professe against these corruptions which we think defile them, we should not scruple communion with them. You know that one may be a reall man, yee so corrupted with diseases and sores, that it may be dangerous to come nigh him, or eat or drink with him. Glad should we be to joyn with them, if they were so reformed, and that mixture taken away, that, as nigh as could be, none but such as had a right to Christ might partake of the Ordinances; untill then you must excuse us, if though we think many to be true Churches, we cannot actu­ally communicate with them.

You tell us (saith he) that neither I, nor any Synods, nor this Synod is infallible, &c. Therefore men are not bound to obey their decrees on pe­nalty of sin. To which he answers onely by way of Querie; May not you and your Independent Ministers erre as well others? O yes surely, there­fore they arrogate not such a power to make Laws for others; as for that of the Major Votes, its answered before. How ever slight Master Pryn makes of this reason, yet untill he hath an­swered, he must give us leave to beleeve it. For if Synods have power to binde the conscience, it is either because they can en­joyn nothing but truth (for truth onely binds the conscience) and so are infallible, or else because of their own power and authority; I know no other ground for it. Is this good Logick, or Divinity? (saith he) Good Ministers may, and do erre in some points of Divinity, therefore we will beleeve them in none. In that you say true, [Page 48] there is neither Logick nor Divinity; but the Consequence, as I draw it, is this: Ministers may erre, therefore none are abso­lutely bound to beleeve every thing they say as Scripture, and so to sin if they obey not: for its a certain truth, not probable, that binds the conscience. Certain, I say, either as I apprehend it, or in regard of it self; if I am bound to beleeve what ever they say that are in authority, who may erre, then my conscience is sub­ject to errour, as well as truth; for that which is commanded may be errour, yea, if I think it errour, yet I must obey it: and this holds in every thing, as well as any thing: for in all things that is commanded, they who command are to go by their own [...]dgements of the truth of the thing that they enjoyn, and their judgements may erre, yet I am bound to obey, and sin if I do not: Nay, suppose what they command to be a truth, yet I think it an errour, and so it is to me, (my conscience so judging) yet I am bound to obey, else I sin. The Lord learn you, and those in authority, more tendernesse to Saints consciences, that you may not put such a yoke upon our necks, that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.