A VINDICATION OF CHURCHES, COMMONLY CALLED INDEPENDENT: OR A brief answer to two Books; the one, entitled, Twelve considerable serious Questions, touching CHURCH-GOVERNMENT: The other, INDEPENDENCY examined, unmasked, refuted, &c. Both lately published by WILLIAM PRINNE, of Lincolns-inn, Esquire.  
By HENRY BURTON, a Brother of his, and late Companion in Tribulation.  MAT. 10. 34, 35, 36. 
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.  
If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.  Luk. 9 23. 
The second Edition. Entered and printed according to Order.  
LONDON; Printed for Henry Overton, in Popes-head Alley. 1644.   

To Mr. WILLIAM PRINNE, &c.  
MY dear Brother, and late companion in tribulation, you propound your twelve Questions to all sober minded Christians, cordially affecting a speedy settled Reformation, and brotherly Christian union in all the Churches, (as you write in Front) and myself being one of these, (and no other you shall find me) do with the right hand take your Propositions as made to me among the rest▪ craving your leave to return you a brotherly Answer. And brotherly in nothing more, then by a candid and Christian dealing with you all along, and that also in a matter of such high moment, as concerns the kingdom and glory of Jesus Christ. The zeal whereof is that alone, which puts me upon this task; it being otherwise far beyond my thoughts, that you and I, having been fellow-sufferers, and spectacles to the world, upon that tragical stage of Antichristian tyranny, should ever come upon the Theatre as Antagonists, one against the other, about the kingdom of Jesus Christ. But surely as an Antagonist against you I come not, but in the bowels of a brother. And had not the Book had your name in the Front, my stomach had not stooped so low, as to take it up or down. But because most men are apt to take all upon trust, where they find Mr. Prinnes name engaged: and the Cause being so precious, as it hath by right taken up my whole heart, to become an Advocate to plead the excellency of it: I could not, though the meanest of all, but for the love of Christ constraining me, and by his grace assisting, undertake this task. Otherwise unwilling in hoc ulcere esse unguis, as the Roman Orator said in another case. And this Answer was brought to the birth soon after yours: but it wanted a Midwife, whereof you have plenty. And I have had many interruptions. Nor am I so quick of foot, as you. But I may say, as Jerome once to young Augustin; Bos lassus fortiùs figit pedem. And so in the spirit of love I come to your book.   

A VINDICATION OF CHURCHES, COMMONLY CALLED INDEPENDENT.  
YOu are for a speedy accomplishment of a Reformation. 
Pag. 2.  And so am I, and so our late Covenant taken, binds every man to begin with himself, and those under him, and each to prevent other in the work. But yet this is sooner said then done. For 
* Esa. 66. 8.  shall a Nation be borne at once? Shall a corrupt, profane, polluted Land, not yet washed from her old superstitions, not yet wained from the Egyptian fleshpots, not yet wrought off from the spirit of bondage, become all on a sudden a Reformed Nation? But yet Optandum est ut fiat, conandum est ut fiat, (to use Augustins' words of the Conversion of the Jews) It were to be wished, and should be ind●voured. But as Rome was not built in one day, nor the mystery of iniquity perfected in one day: so neither can Rome be so easily pulled down in one day: nor can England become a Mount Zion in one day; first the old rubbish will require some time to be removed out of your Church-walls, but how much longer time out of men's hearts, where they have been so long, so fast incorporated? And you know, that the materials of that typical Temple, the timber, the stone, were all ●ewed first, and squared, before they came to make up the building. Therefore soft and fair. The People are generally ignorant of a right Reformation. A right Reformation is a setting up of Christ's spiritual kingdom, first over the hearts and consciences, and then over the several Churches. For this, the 
* Zach. 20.  Carpenters and Masons must be set a work, godly and able Ministers must be sought out, and sought for of the Lord, to fit the crooked timber, and rugged stones, for the spiritual Temple. For England is generally ignorant of the mystery of Christ's kingdom; the Prelates usurped all, suppressed altogether this spiritual kingdom; no Ministers durst so much as mutter a word of it. Who durst say, that men's Consciences are subject to none, but Christ? That Christ is the only lawgiver of his Church? That the Churches of Christ ought not to be burdened with any human ordinances in God's Worship? That all human rites and ceremonies invented by men, and imposed on men in God's service, are all a 
* Col. 2. 23.  will-worship, condemned by the Apostle? And the like. And yet we deny not that every member in a Church is to be subject to the Officers thereof, holding out the Word, for conscience sake, Hebr. 13. 17. Now if the People have not heard of Christ thus a King, no, not to this day in most Congregations of England do hear, or understand any thing of Christ's kingly Office over Consciences and Churches, as whereupon a right reformation doth principally depend: how can such a Reformation be speedily set up, when the preaching up of Christ's kingdom is altogether silent, as if Ministers mouths were not yet freed from their old muzzle? Therefore, I conceive, if the better heed be not taken, there may be more host to a Reformation, then good speed: when among so many Congregations, so many thousands in England, very few would be found to have on the Wedding garment. A Reformation therefore, such as God requires, will necessarily require longer time yet, that we may not go blindfold about it.  
You tell us, that importunity of some reverend friends hath drawn from you your digested subitane apprehensions of these distracting Controversies. Who those reverend friends are, it matters not. But had I been accounted worthy to be reckoned among those reverend friends, to have been made acquainted with such a purpose, I should have used all importunity▪ seasoned with strong reasons, to have dissuaded you from those subitane apprehensions. And seeing I come to know them, though somewhat too late, in that they cannot be recalled; admit yourself were Aristotle, and your friend Plato, yet I will say, Amicus Aristotle's, Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. And therefore I must be plain with you, otherwise I should neither love you, nor your friend, nor yet the truth itself. To be plain therefore, though I know you to be a very Heluo librorum, of vast & indefatigable reading, and to have a stomach proportionable, of a strong digestion: yet give me leave to tell you, as my loving and beloved friend and brother, that the subject you here deal with, is not of so easy a digestion, as that subitane, or sudden apprehensions thereof may be w●ll said to be digested. Strong meats, you know, taken down liberally into the stomach, do require the longer time for a kindly digestion. And a sudden digestion is apt to leave many indigested crud●●ies, engendering malignant humours in the body.  
You digest your apprehensions into considerable Questions, (as you call them) to be solemnly debated by sober minds: but passing along (brother) I find your Questions turned into your own resolutions, so as in stead of debating them by sober minded men, 
Pag. 3. Qu. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  you forestall them, and tell us, that these Independents, (as you style them) are guilty of Arrogancy, schism, Contumacy, and liable to such penalties, as are due to these offences, in case they shall not submit to such a public Church-Government, Rites, Discipline, as a Synod and Parliament shall conceive most consonant to God's Word, &c. And all along, your Queries are so digested by you, as that they cast up a very ill sent, if not rather a judicial sentence against those Churches, which not honoris causa you name Independents. But we shall answer to the particulars, as they come in order. Thus much of your proem, or Preface.  

To your first Question.  
Before I punctually answer this, and so the rest of your Questions, let me premise this, as an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which I must demand of you a due to my Profession: that forasmuch as you are a learned Lawyer, and able to speak much of laws, and customs of Nations, and Churches, and myself am a professor of divinity, the Rules and Principles whereof, are all of them laid down in the Scripture, unto which alone all Questions about Faith and Religion are so reducible, and finally determinable, as who so denieth this, denieth the faith, and is not to be disputed with, as a denier of Principles: therefore I require of you, 
Contranegantem principia non est disputandum.  as a Christian brother, to join issue with me in this point, that all your Questions may be resolved by clear Scriptures, and reason, evidently deduced from them; and this with all brevity and perspicuity.  
Now to your first question, the sum whereof is, Whether every several Nation, republic, and national Church, hath not under the gospel a 
* 1 Cor. 14. 40. & 11. 34.  liberty and latitude left them to choose and settle such an orderly form of Church-government, Discipline, and ecclesiastical Rites, as is most suitable to their particular civil government, laws, manners, customs, being not repugnant to the word of God. This being (as I conceive) a generally received truth among all Protestant Churches. And whether some things in all Church-governments, 
Harm. of Confessions, sect. 10 11, 26.  Discipline, Ceremonies whatsoever, are not, and must not be left to human prudence, for which there is no direct precept nor pattern in sacred writ? Which truth is assented to by all parties, Churches, whatsoever, in theory or practice. This is the substance of your first Question.  
To which I answer: And first to your quotation of the Harmony, I will answer one for all. Sect. 16. August. Confessio 4. Traditiones de ●●riis, &c. We condemn not Traditions of holidays, of the Lord's day, of the Nativity, of Easter, and the rest, for a politic end. Here, you see, they put the observation of the Lord's day, among human Traditions, which I suppose you do not approve. 
Ibid. Observationes brevissimae in totam Harmoniam. sect. 19 Append. sect. 10.  Again, they allow only such observations, as God by the moral Law, and the voice of Nature itself commandeth. And thirdly, That human rites be not imposed, Ne conscientiae onerentur, That men's consciences be not burdened. And in a word: To shape Religion in point of Church-government, Discipline, Ceremonies, to every Nation, republic, national Church, and to civil Government, laws, Manners, customs, and so to human Prudence, (as you say) what is it but to shape a coat for the moon? Whereas the Scripture holds forth unto us, but only one form of Church-government, and Discipline, which ought not to be altered according to the diversity of human laws and customs in all kingdoms and commonweals, as you affirm. And whereas you make a proviso, always provided, every thing be consonant, and no way repugnant to the word of God: To what purpose is this, when the very liberty you give of altering Church-government and Discipline as may be suitable to human Laws and customs, is itself repugnant, and no way consonant to the word of God; as we shall show by and by. This is 
Vide Appendices locorum, &c. ibid.  transformare Ecclesiam in humanam politiam, to transform the Church into a human polity. 
* Ibid.  Hae imaginationes omnibus aetatibus inde usque ab initio mundi nocuerunt Ecclesiae, & semper nocebunt, These imaginations, or fancies, have in all ages from the beginning of the world hurt the Church, and will always hu●t. Thus the Harmony 
* See also the close of Gualther. Homil. in the Acts.   
Now, brother, whereas you seem to challenge us infallibly to evidence by any Gospel Text, that Christ hath peremptorily prescribed one and the selfsame form of ecclesiastical government, Discipline, Rites, to all Nations, Churches, in all particulars, from which they may in no case vary, under pain of mortal sin, schism, or being no true Churches of Christ, with whom good Christians may not safely communicate: First, what evidence from Scripture can you bring, why it should not necessarily be so? You would seem to make this a ground why Church-government, Discipline, Rites, should be alterable according to the several laws and customs of several Nations: Because (say you) Christ enjoined the preaching of the Gospel to all Nations and People whatsoever, who have their several established defferent forms of civil government, Laws, Manners, 
Not but that we grant a vari●ty in the meth●d and manner in po 〈…〉 t of circumstance, so the sub 〈…〉 ce b● k 〈…〉, ●s repentance f●●m dead Work●, & fai●● towards our Saviour Jesus Christ: So in Church-government.  Rules and customs, suitable to their respective dispositions, Climes, republics. By this reason you might argue, that therefore the Gospel itself may be preached variously, according to the variation of the climate*: and if not so, then (say I) neither is the Church-government and Discipline to be varied according to the diversity of Nations, Laws, customs, Climates. For, brother, the Church-government and Discipline now in the time of the Gospel, is a part of the Gospel, as being the Gospel-government, and Discipline of the Evan 〈…〉 l Churches. And, brother why should you think that Christ now under the Gospel, or New Testament, hath ●e●t a greater liberty to men to alter that form of Church-government and Discipline, which in the New Testament is laid down, than he did in the Old Testament under the levitical Law? What a strict charge did this lawmaker give to Moses? 
Exod 25. 40. Heb. 8. 5.  See (saith he) that thou do all things according to the pattern showed thee in the Mount. He must not vary one pin 
* But we do not say that the same things are prescribed under the Gospel, nor doth it come to such circumstantia●s ● but we say, what it prescribeth, is to be kept. . But some will say, When the Tribes of Israel were reduced under a kingly government, as in David's time, the service of God was in greater state and external pomp, when the Temple was built, than it was before in the Tabernacle; whereby it may appear, that there was a liberty left to David to alter the form of worship so, as was suitable to the regal state. But I answer, Here was no liberty left to man to alter any thing in the worship of God, or in the Church-government. For God was so exact in this, that he would not leave it to David himself, though both a King and a Prophet, and a man after God's own heart, to set up what worship he pleased in the Temple, but God gave him an exact pattern of all, and that not only by his Spirit, but in writing, that he might neither add nor omit in the least tittle, 1 Chron. 28. And you know it was never left to the Kings of Judah, to do the least thing in point of Reformation, but only to see, that the Priests do all strictly, (not any thing as seemed good to them, but all) according to the precise rule of the Law, 2 Chron. 31. Now was the great lawgiver so strict under the old Testament, and is he grown more remiss under the New? In Ezekiel's vision of the Temple, or Church in the time of the Gospel, Ezek. 43. 10, 11. we read of a pattern, form, fashion of every particular thing of the House of God, which is his Church, exactly set down, and measured by God's own special direction. Or are men more wise and more faithful now than David was, that Christ should trust every Nation with such a liberty as this, to alter and diversify Church-government and Discipline, so as might be most agreeable to this or that Kingdoms, commonweals, country's custom, commodity, conveniency? And as for your national Church here mentioned, we shall take a just measure of it when we come to your ninth Question.  
And whereas you quote in the margin, 1 Cor. 14. 40. & 11. 34. on which you ground your liberty to form your Church-government & Discipline suitably to each particular civil government: Alas, brother, these very Scriptures our Prelates abused to maintain their unlimited liberty of setting up their rites and ceremonies, as suitable to the Civil government; which absurdity I have fully refelled in my Reply to Canterbury's Relation. Whereas the Apostle there exhorteth, that all things be done decently and in order, according to those rules they had received of him: to which agreeth the other place alleged by you, Other things will I set in order when I come, as Titus 1. 5. He left Titus in Crete, that he might set in order the things that remained; but all according to the Apostles direction for Church-government, and choice of Officers. And we should have a mad world of it, if civil States in several countries should have liberty to frame Church-government and Discipline, as should most suit with their particular conditions. This liberty is that which both ecclesiastical and civil States usurping, turned the spiritual Kingdom of Christ over Consciences and Churches, into a temporal and secular Kingdom, or rather indeed an Anti-christian Tyranny, or Hierarchy, so as by this means it came to pass, that the second Beast ascending out of the earth, to wit, the Pope, (Revel. 13. 11.) commands the inhabitants of the earth to make an image, that is, to set up a form of Religion and Church-government, suitable to the Image of the first Beast, to wit, the imperial State of Rome. And thus came to be erected the hierarchical Church-government, in all pomp and points suitable with the Roman Monarchy. So dangerous is that liberty which brings such bondage. According to that, Licentia sumus omnes deteriores: this brings not liberty, but licentiousness.  
Your second Question is: Whether if any kingdom or Nation shall by a national council, Synod and Parliament, upon serious debate, elect such a public Church-government, Rites, Discipline, as they conceive to be most consonant to God's Word, to the Laws, Government under which they live, and manners of their people, and then settle them by a general Law; all particular Churches, members of that kingdom and Nation, be not therefore actually obliged in point of 
* 1 Cor. 14. 32, 33. Rom. 13. 1●. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14, 15. 1 Cor. 10. 32, 33.  conscience and Christianity, readily to submit thereto, and no ways to seek an exemption from it, under pain of being guilty of arrogancy. schism, contumacy, and liable to such penalties as are due to these offences.  
I answer: That is, Whether the kingdom and Nation of England, &c. The sum is, you would here make way for a political State Church-government, or a mixed Church-government, partly, according to God's word; and partly to the Laws and government under which we live; and partly, to the manners of the people. Humano capiti cervicem jungere equinam. Or, populout placerent, &c. Truly, brother, your very question is heretical, you must pardon the expression, which otherwise would not come home to the full truth. And your word Elect, imports no less. For Elect taken in that sense, as you here apply it, to set up a form of Religion, of Church-government, and Discipline, with Rites and ceremonies suitable to the Laws and customs of a State, and manners of the people: and, AS MEN CONCEIVE, is of the same signification with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which signifieth a taking up an heresy upon human election; or, as you say, As they conceive. For you say not, Such a Church-government, &c. as is most consonant to God's word: but such as they conceive to be most consonant. So as you hang your Church-government upon men's conceit, or opinion of consonancy with God's word, and not upon a real and essential consonancy. Just like the Prelate of Canterbury, who in his Relation hangs the credit of the Scripture upon the Author, and the opinion we have (saith he) of his sufficiency. Which I have noted in my Reply. But thus you open a wide sluice, to let in an ocean of inundation of all sorts of Religion into all parts of the world, when every Religion shall be measured by the line of man's conception, what men CONCEIVE agreeable to God's word. Thus might Henry 4. the late French King (to make his way the easier to the Crown through so many difficulties) apostatise from the Protestant Religion, and turn to Popery, as conceiving it suitable to the word of God, to comply with the State of France, and the manners of the people, for the establishing of his kingdom (as he conceived, though he was deceived) by becoming himself a Popish King. And so Jeroboam with his counsel might CONCEIVE it agreeable enough to God's word, to set up his calf's most suitable to the new laws and customs of that State, and to the manners of the people, who are apt enough to embrace idolatry and superstition, as Ephraim willingly walked after the commandment, Hos. 5. 11. And so in the rest. Now that is an heresy which is an error conceived and maintained against the word of God. That the maintaining of such a liberty as you assume here, is so, we have in part showed already from the Scripture, whence you are not able to bring the least shadow of reason to maintain it. Nay, we need go no further for the disfranchising of this your liberty, but your own words. Your words are asistata, they cannot cohere in any true theological sense. For first, we ought not to assume, or pretend a liberty, as left us of God, when we want our evidence, and are not able to produce our Charter out of the Magna Charta, the Scripture. And this, brother, not you, nor any man can do. Again, nothing is more presumptuous; then to attempt to mingle heaven & earth together, that is, to mingle Christ's Kingdom with the kingdoms of the world, or to these to frame and fashion that, which what is it else, but to set up a Babylonish Church-government. Did the Apostles thus? Did they frame Christ's Kingdom & Church-government to the laws and customs of the Romance Empire? Or did they vary their orders for Church-government & Discipline, according to the different manners and customs of those Nations, countries or Provinces where they planted their Churches? Had they one order for the Church of Corinth, and another for the Churches of Galatia, and a third for the Churches of Asia and the rest? No: But* so ordain I in all Churches, saith the Apostle. 
1 Cor. 7. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 1.  And* concerning the collection for the Saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye. So also for making of Ministers and other Church-officers, Act. 1. & 14. 23.  
Again, Your Church-government must be conceived to be consonant to God's Word, yet with this restriction or limitation, that it be also consonant to the Laws and Government under which we live. You speak indeed like a pure Lawyer, & one that will stand for your Profession, were this the way to uphold it. But cannot your Law, and our Gospel cotton together, unless the Gospel wear the Laws livery, like to your sergeants gown, made up of two several colours'; or unless Law and Gospel be woven together into a linsey-wolsey garment? But what if your Law present, stand still in force for Church-government, without being repealed? Must the Gospel be brought again under your prelatical Church-government? Or rather why should not a general law (to use your words) be enacted, to inhibit all forms of Church-government and Discipline, which are not every way consonant to God's Word, without this addition, And to the Laws and Government under which we live? For certainly, if the laws and Government of the State under which we live, be good and just, there is no need why you should put upon Christ's kingly Government in his Church, such hard conditions, as not to be admitted, but so far as it is consonant to man's Laws. As Tertullian said, when upon the Emperor Tiberius his motion to the Roman Senate, that Christ might be admitted and enrowled among Rome's gods, and the Senate refused, because they had made a Law, that none should be chosen for a god, unless first propounded by the Senate: Ergo nisi homini placuerit, Deus non erit Deus; Therefore if it please not man, God shall not be God. So let it be lawful for me to say; If it please not man, not the Senate, Christ shall not be King, his kingdom shall have no place in this or that Nation. As if the good Laws of a civil State, and the good Laws of Christ's kingdom, could not, ought not to stand together in their distinct forms unmixed; when certainly a State stands strongest, while most consonant to God's Word, and to the Church-government and Discipline of Christ, and not when Christ's kingdom and Government is made suitable to the Laws and customs of the State.  
Famous was that Answer of Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, to Lucius King of Britain, when this country of Britain first received the faith (being the first Province that received it) where the Gospel began freely to be preached, without impeachment or inhibition of the Prince (as the 
* Hollinshed● Description of Britain, Chap. 7. About the year 187.  Story saith) and that without any ceremonies at all: King Lucius sending to E●eutherius for some model, or form of Church-Government and Discipline: he received this Answer; That Christ had left sufficient Order in the Scripture for the Government of the Church; and not only for that, but also for the regiment of his whole realm, if he would submit himself to follow that Rule. You require of us (saith he) the Roman Ordinances, with the imperial Statutes also to be sent unto you, which you desire to practise: The Roman Laws we may find to be faulty, but God's Laws never. You have received of late through God's mercy, in the realm of Britain, the law and faith of Christ; you have with you both volumes of the Scriptures: Out of them therefore by God's grace, and the counsel of your Realm, take you a law, and by that law through God's sufferance rule your kingdom. Now this Eleutherius being the 14th Bishop of Rome, by Platina's account, it shows unto us the great difference between that, and aftertimes, wherein the Mystery of Iniquity grew up to its height, in assuming such an unlimited liberty to set up such a Church-Government, and ceremonies of human invention, as were haled in by the head and shoulders. But brother Prinne, you see here, how in those purer primitive times, even the Bishop of Rome himself was so far from admitting a Church-Government suitable to the several laws and customs of every Nation, (as you would have it) as he tells King Lucius, he hath both the Testaments, by the rule whereof he should not only see the Church to be governed, but his own realm also. Ergo, the Kingly government of Christ in his Church is not to be fashioned and moulded according to the laws and customs of temporal and civil States, but contrarily the laws of civil States are to be reduced to the rule of God's Word.  
But you add also, And manners of their people: that is, in their several Countries, and commonweals. Surely this reflects mine eye upon that Reformation begun in King Edward's reign. But now what Church-Government and Discipline was to be set up? Why, the manners of the people must be the line and plummet to regulate this building by. The people of England had been so long rooted in a superstitious Egyptian soil: but because fat, and filling their fleshpots with Onions and garlic, 
Fox his Monuments.  they could the better brook the burdens which their taskmasters the Prelates enured their shoulders withal. And withal they must have their mass-service, though translated out of the Roman into the English language. This in King Edward his letter to the Cornishmen, standing up for their mass-book, stilled the babes when they understood the English service-book was no other than the Romish mass clad in an English weed, though since it hath put off many of those rags, but not all it should. So much it importeth, to have an eye to the people's manners, and how they stand affected. When the Lord Cromwell had set forth the primer, or Psalter, without the litany, all the Popishly affected, which were not a few, could not be quiet till they had cried up the litany again into its old place. So as in sine, through the love of superstition in the people, and the love of the world in the prelates (alias the Reformers, many of whom afterwards God reformed and purged in the flames of martyrdom) such a Reformation was set up, as for Church-government and Discipline (Only translating the Pope's headship, and setting it upon the King's shoulders) was the very same with that which was in Henry 8. his days, and is at this day in Rome; and did so well suit with the civil Government and manners of the people, that a general Law was enacted for the ratifying of that prelatical Government and Discipline, which hath bred such manners in the people generally to this day, as if another Reformation shall be set up, wherein the people's manners shall be no less looked upon, then in the former (as you here do more than seem to plead for) I can conjecture, if not certainly divine, what a Reformation both for Church-Government and Discipline, your Church of England is like to have. For if you ask the prelatical party, consisting of multitudes of their Priests, and of their ignorant and profane people, together with all the King's Army, they will all with one voice and vote, roar it out at the canon's mouth, W will have the Bishop's Church-government and Discipline continued without alteration. If ye ask the ordinary Protestant professors at large, they cry, No, no; not that; but we will have such a Church-government, as under which we may enjoy no less liberty for our manners, than we had under the Prelates.  
But you refer us to the serious debate of a national counsel, Synod, Parliament. But yet give us leave to put a vast difference between all these, and the Scripture, Christ's own voice. If they truly inform us of the mind of Christ in the Scripture, we will bless God for it: but yet if we can find out the mind of Christ by his immediate voice, we dare not suspend our belief and practice of it, until we have it at the second hand from men. And should we wait never so long upon the Issaes of their debate, commended unto us to be such as men conceive to be agreeable and cons●nant to God's Word: yet for as much as we dare not 
* Act. 17. 11.  pin our souls upon men's sleeves, as not knowing (as one 
Camden's Remains.  said) whither they might possibly carry them: therefore we must examine all men's determinations in matters of Religion by 
* Act. 17. 11.  searching the Scriptures, and laying every thing to this line and rule. For the Bereans are commended, as the more noble, in that they examined diligently and daily, even the Apostles doctrine by the Scriptures: and much more are we to try the spirits of men, that are not Apostles, and so not immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost with infallibility of truth, as never any general council after the Apostles hath been So as you know how miserably and shamefully general counsels have erred. The first council of Nice, consisting of 318. Bishops, how did they all agree to bring in a Doctrine of devils, prohibiting Priests marriage, had not one Confessor, Paphnutius, by evidence of Scripture, and reason, cried it down, and so swayed the whole council? And you know very well, that general counsels, as well as national, have not infallibility of judgement in all things. And it cannot be unknown to you, that even this Assembly of Divines are of different judgements about church-government and Discipline; nor have they perhaps had so much time since their being under the Prelacy, as to be throughly informed of the way of Churches, commonly called Independent, but that many of them may possibly gain much more knowledge of it, by spending some more time and study in it.  
But Sir, besides all this, you seem to lead them such a way, (should they follow you) as would necessarily bring them into an inevitable and inextricable error, in case they should elect such a public Church-government, Rites, Discipline, as they conceive to be most consonant to God's Word, to the laws, Government under which we live, and manner of the people. For if they look upon the manner of the people, which they must needs find to be for the most part very loose (to speak nothing of Ignorants and Popish Malignants) some men might conceive, that such a Church-government and Discipline were most suitable, as doth most comply with, and give some indulgence to such manners, as cannot easily be brought to enter in at the straight gate, and narrow way, that leads into Christ's kingdom. And whatsoever Church-government and Discipline comes not full home in all things to the word of God, is not that which is consonant thereunto▪ and so not pleasing unto God; and the more consonant it is to God's Word, the more strict and holy it will be found to be, and so the less consonant to the common profane manners of this Nation at this day. Worthy of our observation is that of the Lord to the Prophet Jeremy, Jere. 15. 19 If thou take forth the pretions from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. Whereupon the most learned Interpreter (as the learned Beza constantly styles him) Calvin, among many other excellent observations on this place, thus concludeth; Summa est, veritatem Dei non debere flecti ad hominum arbitrium, quae Deus non mutatur▪ ita nec verbum ejus ullam varietatem admittit: The sum is; That the truth of God ought not to be bended according to man's will or conceit, because God is not mutable, so neither doth his Word admit of any change. Now the form of church-government and Discipline laid down in the New Testament, is a Doctrine of Christ, and no more alterable according to the varieties of men's customs and manners in all nations and ages, than the Gospel itself is; which the Apostle would not have to be altered into another Gospel; though another Gospel cannot be; as neither another kingdom of Christ, another church-government, another Church-discipline ought not to be, but that alone which we find in God's Word, which must not be reduced or conformed (as a nose of wax, to which the Papists, as Hosius, and Pighius do compare the Scripture) to the fashions of worldly governments, (Rom. 12. 2.) and popular manners, but these must be conformed to the Scripture.  
Hence it may appear, how rough your conclusion of this Question is, if to such a general law, as you propose, all particular Churches, members of this kingdom and Nation, should not yield to be actually obliged in point of conscience, and Christianity, and readily to submit thereunto, and no ways to seek an exemption from it, under pain of being guilty of arrogancy, schism, c●ntumacy, and liable to such penalties, as are due to these offences. Good Brother, be not so legal. What if that resolution of an Assembly, and that general Law for the confirmation of it, be such; as the conscience of godly people cannot without sin submit thereunto? Must they either violate their consciences, or be undone by your unavodable intolerable penalties, as both to suffer in their good names for Arrogant, contumacious, Schismatick●, yea and in their Consciences too under the guilt of these, and to be liable to I wot not what penalties besides? and no ways to seek an exemption from it? Why, good Brother, if we should go and live under the Turkish Government, and could not in conscience turn Turks in the Religion there by Law established, yet there is a way to seek an Exemption from it, namely, by becoming Tributary to that State, as many Christians do.  
Good Brother let's not have any of Dracoes' laws executed upon Innocents. And remember how not long ago the Prelates served us; we could not have the benefit of Law, of appeal, no exemption from blood letting, and eare-cropping, and pillorying, &c. And shall we now turn worse persecutors of the Saints, than the Prelates were? Non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco, saith that heathen Princess.  
But in the margin you put some places of Scripture to prove this. But truly, when I well view the places, I find them not to answer to what you would seem to prove by the Quotation. The first is, 1 Cor. 14. 32, 33. For the Spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets. And what of this? Ergo, the Spirit of all the Prophets in England must be subject to the Prophets in the Assembly upon pain of being guilty of Arrogancy, schism, Contumacy, and liable to such penalties, as are due to these offences. O brother Prynne, you must as well note, as quote the place. But let me note it for you. The Apostle there speaks both to, and of the Church of Corinth, when assembled together in one place: that the Prophets should observe order, and give place each to other in prophesying; as the reason is rendered, and not of any such Assembly of that sublime and supreme authority, or the only Prophets, to whom all other Prophets wheresoever dispersed must be subject. Ver. 33. For God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. Which place also is no less wide from your purpose. What? Will there be no peace, but all confusion, unless all be subject to the Assembly upon such pain, as before? The Apostle speaks here of the Order to be observed in every Church, as in all the Churches of the Saints. The other places quoted by you, are no less misapplied. Will they prove, trow you, blind obedience?  
But come on brother, (if you will needs put us upon such hard exigents, as to give us no quarter, without present laying down our arms and cause, and so captivating our consciences to the Dictates and Decrees of men; If you will make no covenant with us, but upon this one only condition, that 
1 Sam. 11. 2.  you might thrust out all our right eyes; and if there be no other remedy, yet give us leave to capitulate with you about some terms of accommodation, that we may not altogether betray our consciences and liberties, which our Redeemer Christ hath so dearly purchased for us. And the first and main is this: First, brother, make it clear unto us, that an Assembly of men learned, pious, what you will, living in ages succeeding the Apostles, have, or ever had, infallibility of judgement, so as to say, (as Acts 15. 28.) It pleased the holy Ghost and Us, to make these Decrees, that so we may without further scruple of conscience, submit and conform thereunto. But (I say) you must give us very good assurance and evidence hereof, that they are infallibly guided by the holy Ghost, that when they shall say, It pleased the holy Ghost and Us, we may safely believe them. For when you can resolve us of their conclusions no further, then as they conceive to be consonant to the word of God: Alas! Sir, you leave us in a Wood, or Maze, whence no extricating of ourselves, without Ariadne's thread, God's word, to set us where we were before. For you knew what variety of conceits many men have, Quot capita, tot sententiae. This is the first and main condition we stand upon; and truly it were sufficient alone. We might in a second rank (but not equal to the former) name a self-denial, and humble spirit, &c. You know the story of the monks of Bangor coming before Austin the first Archbishop of Canterbury, whom they seeing to fit in his pontifical chair, and not rising up, nor moving unto them, they left him as a man no● sent of God: And so, if we should behold men carrying themselves loftily over their brethren, who are not of their counsel, we should be apt to suspect that Christ's Spirit is not there, because there is not the spirit of humility, neither the Spirit of truth to be found. A Cardinal in the Conclave at Viterbium, after almost three years' agitation about the election of a new Pope, (as many years as we have been about to set up a Reformation, and the foundation not yet laid) each Cardinal ambitiously a spiring to be the Pope,* one of them rose up and said, Domine, &c. let us uncover the roofe of this Chamber, seeing the holy Ghost cannot get in unto us through so many tiles. But this by the way. And so enough of this question.   

The third and fourth Questions.  
I come now to your third and fourth question. But lest my 
Quest. 3.  answers may prove too voluminous, and so fastidious to everyday-news Readers, I shall in the rest contract myself. And this I must do by trussi●g up your questions within the list of a syllogism, respectively. For (as I noted before) all your questions are rather conclusive than interrogatory, rather positive resolutions, then unresolved questions. The sum therefore of your third and fourth questions (for this dependeth on that) is reduced into this syllogism: 
Rroposition.   
That which hath sufficient (if not best) warrant for it in the New Testament, the examples of the Primitive Church, &c. most prevents heresies, schisms, injustice; is to be received as a true and undoubted Church-Government, and to be preferred before that, which hath no such express warrant in Scripture, no pattern for it in the Primitive, or best reformed Churches, &c.  
But the presbyterial form of Church-government, if rightly 
Assumptions which takes up the fourth question. Conclusion.  ordered, hath sufficient (if not best) warrant for it in the New Testament, &c. The Independent not so.  
Therefore the former is to be preferred and received before the latter, without any long debate.   

The Answer.  
Both your Propositions are lame and interfeere one against the other. Sufficient (if not best) warrant, will not prove so sufficient a warrant, as if there be found a better. And so your Argument, by crossing shins with itself, falleth to ground. Again, your presbyterial government hath neither best, nor any sufficient warrant, as we judge, in the New Testament, no nor any warrant at all in God's word. But the true form of Church-government hath both sufficient, and (without comparison) best warrant in the Scripture. And in truth, whereas you oppose presbyterial and Independent (as you call it) one against the other; let me tell you, that that which you call Independent, is the only true, original, and primitive presbyterial. Which Presbytery is proper and peculiar to every particular Church of Christ● and is not a Presbytery collective of many Churches by way of jurisdiction one, or many over each, or of a national Church, as you term it. For neither of these can you find either in the New testaments, or in the Old. In the old we read of one Church, to wit, that of the Nation of the Jews: But that whole Church was one entire congregation, Act. 7. 38. they had one Church officer over all, it is called the Tabernacle of the congregation in the singular; and they all assembled three times in the year at Jerusalem, in the Temple, where they offered Sacrifice, and not else where: So as the Church was a type of every particular Church of Christ under the New Testament, as being both one entire Church and absolute, subject to no other form of government, but only that of the only lawgiver and Mediator Jesus Christ; and no pattern of any such national Church as you would have. Every particular Church now, consisting of visible Saints, is under Christ, as the only Head, King, governor, lawgiver of it, and so is subject to no other jurisdiction then that of Christ, his Spirit, his Word. Were there none other particular Church in the world, than one, as that of Abraham's Family, should it not be a complete Church, until there were other Churches on whose jurisdiction it should depend; though for ordinary Families, they cannot have such a number as is requisite to make up a ministerial body, & so are bound to unite to others for this end. We hold communion and consociation of Churches for counsel in doubts, and comfort in distress: but we deny any such combination of Churches as whereby the true liberty of every particular Church is taken away, And this communion of Churches doth no less (if not more) prevent Heresies, schisms, Injustice, than your presbyterial. Nor can you show reason to the contrary. And yet would you have our Churches more perfect than those of the Apostles own planting and gathering as to be altogether exempted from Heresies, schisms, Injustice? Did not the Apostle tell the Church of Corinth, There must be Heresies even 
1 Cor. 11▪  among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest? And could those Primitive Churches after the Apostles, preserve themselves from Heresics? How soon did the whole world groan and wonder, that it was become an Arian? And this within the fourth Century after the birth of Christ, when the Churches were governed by the Bishops and their Presbyteries. And how soon did the kingdom of the Beast mount up to such a height, as it overtopped all the Western Churches, and brought them under his dominion?  
And for our truly and properly Presbyterian Churches (your Independents) to which you deny express warrant in Scripture; the whole New Testament is both an express and ample witness on our side. All those particular Churches which the Apostles planted, were all of absolute▪ authority amongst themselves respectively, and equal one of the other. You can show unto us no rule or example to the contrary. That in Act. 15. is a transcendent, and stands alone, not to be paralleled, and therefore very impertinently objected by many, before you, as we shall have occasion to show afterwards.  
And for pattern in the primitive Churches after the Apostles we are not curious to seek it in the corrupt current of succeeding ages, when we find it the pure fountain. It appears, say the Centurists, Cent, 1. 7 Tit●de consociatione Eccles. that the Government of Churches in the second hundreth year, was almost popular, every Church had equal power of ordaining or casting out, if need were, those Ministers they had ord●ined, with other things very material in that whole Title, as also in the Title de Synodis privatis. And for the best reformed Churches, if in them we cannot find that pattern so fully followed as the Scripture holds forth unto us, we cruve leave without prejudice, to take it as we find it in the Word, without the least variation. And you may know●, in the beginning of Protestant Reformation, could they▪ so clearly see in the dawning, as we may now in the meridian, if we will but open our eyes? The reformed Churches have taken up one or other of them upon the matter the main things we contend for: 1. The Church of Holland receive none to the Table, nor have a vote as a member of that Church; but such as first give satisfaction to the Elderships and then to the Congregation: and 2. have a form of covenant propounded by them. Secondly, the French Churches exercise excommunication in their particular congregations, though with liberty of appeal. And this was the government of the Primitive Churches in the 2d hundreth year, as appears, Cent. 2. c. 7. Tit. de Synodis: but especially. Tit. de consociatione eccles So as no long debate need to be, if but Christ's word alone may take place, without the necessary accommodation of human laws, customs, Manners of the people, as you do plead.  
And lastly for appeals in case of Injustice, you know, brother, that if injustice be done in any civil matter, if redress may not be had by the mediation of the Church, whereof the parties are members, than the Law is open there to appeal for justice. And if it be about the church's censure for some miscarriage of a member towards the Church▪ or any member thereof, if the censure be unjust, the party grieved may desire to have his cause heard by some other Churches, who may accordingly deal with their Sister-church to require a brotherly account of the whole business, as is the duty of all the Churches in such cases. And if it be in matter of opinion, here the appeal lies principally and in the first place, to the Scripture, as the supreme Judge; and if the things be obscure, & too hard for that Church to resolve by the Scripture, then to call in the help of other Churches for their best information. And in sum, brother, there is no case can fall out in any Church, which hath not as many helps by a free communion of Churches, wherein every Churches peculiar liberties and privileges are preserved as they ought to be: as any you can name to be in your obligatory combination of Churches, whereby the liberty of each Church is by common consent sold over to others, by which it ceaseth now to be a free Church of Christ, under his only jurisdiction and government. So as hereby great mischiefs may redound even to the purest Church, when once things come to be carried by the vote of a general or classical Assembly of Divines, swaying things besides the Rule, and stretching them beyond their line. And therefore famous was that saying of nazianzen's, 
* See also Nicolas de Clemangüs, super materia Concilii generalis, circa initium. Non oportet nos Ecclesiae triumphantis, Ecclesiae titulos ascribere, ut infallibilis sit, &c.  That he never saw any good to come of general counsels; because commonly chameleon-like they change their hue with the nearest object, complying with the condition of the present times, and State: as suppose prelatical Spirits should turn to be your Presbyterians, or as when (in case the Lord Christ shall resume his kingdom over his Churches in a civil State) we should perhaps see some of your Presbyterians as fast to turn independents, were the preferments suitable.  
But some may object, that one Church standing by itself, is 
Obj.  more subject to fall into error, than when combined with other Churches.  
To which I answer; That every particular Church enjoying 
Answ.  its own freedom, without any enjoined combination with other Churches, may much longer preserve itself from danger of error, when it hath its free choice in matters of difference or difficulty, to consult only with those Churches, which it knows to be most sound and orthodox, then when it is fast bound, and encircled with this or that combination of Churches, being in number twelve or twenty, or more or less, whose votes must carry every controversy, according to the several humours of such and such, at all adventure. And (brother Prynne) the world is not so plentiful of sound spirits, as to supply every Hundred in the Land with twelve or twenty able and godly Ministers to be of a combination. Nay, you may observe what poor shifts are used for the supplying of places with godly and able Ministers, which are grown so geason, that the City now is fain to be supplied with plundered country Ministers, in stead of their out-cast Malignants: And suppose all these to be as good as they should be, where shall those country-places be supplied? And besides, such is the penury of good Ministers (if not of care to provide better, if possible) that such as are for their demerits cast out of one place, are (for I wot not what merits) put upon some other people, where their good qualities are not known. Being such as verify the Proverb, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; They change their mansion, but not their manners. And besides all this, he is one very meanly gifted now adays, that will be wooed and won to take a Benefice under a hundred or sixscore pounds. And brother, why should godly Ministers indeed be yoked with such earthworms, and Mammonists, as are in some Parishes, and as some of your Presbyterian combinations would necessitate us unto? If you say, if things go amiss in lesser Classes, they may be remedied in a general Assembly: then I say, there is the like reason of a general Assembly, that there is of all the several classes put together. For, totius & partium eadem est ratio; if all the members be corrupt, so also must the whole body be. Therefore the case must needs be hard, when one or two Churches in a classis or combination, that are sound, should be bound to the decisions of the rest being unsound; and so for the general Assembly in the like proportion.   

The fifth Question.  
It is reduced thus;  
That, whose grounds and reasons tend inevitably to endanger, 
Proposition.  overthrow, and embroil ecclesiastical or civil forms of Government, ought not to be suffered.  
But such is the Independent church-government: it tends inevitably, 
Assumption.  &c. Therefore it ought not to be suffered,  
I deny the Assumption: The grounds and reasons of true church-government, do not in their own nature tend to the endangering, overthrowing, and embroiling of ecclesiastical or civil forms of Government (Horm. confess. sect. 11. of the confess. of A●spurg. art. 7.) Power ecclesiastical no more hindereth the civil, than the skill of music, neither is it to be confounded with civil. And ibid. They, to wit, the Prelates, transform the church into a human Government. For they would do all in imitation of civil Government. But if they produce any such effect, it is only accidental, and the main cause is in such ecclesiastical or civil bodies, when they show some antipathy in their constitution to Christ's kingdom and government, by their opposing or oppressing of it. Hereupon Christ saith; 
* Mat. 10. 34.  Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. And it was the preaching of the Gospel of the kingdom, both by Christ, and his Apostles, for which they were exclaimed against, and persecuted, as troublers of the State, both ecclesiastic and politic, as movers of 
Luk. 23. 2. 14. Act. 14. 5.  sedition, and perverters of the people, and the like. And will you thereupon conclude, that the preaching of the Gospel, and setting up of Christ's kingdom in his churches, is a troubler of the State, and a mover of sedition, and a seducer of the people, because hierarchical Government hath an Antipathy with Christ's spiritual kingdom, and Church-government?   

The sixth Question.  
The sum where of is:  
That which from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel 
Proposition.  downwards, till this present age, had no being in the world, can doubtless be no Church-Government of Christ's, or his Apostles.  
But such (say you) is the Government of Independent 
Assumption.  Churches.  
Therefore not Christs; or the Apostles Church-government.  
I deny your Assumption. And for further answer thereto, I refer you to my Answer to your third and fourth Question, where is clearly proved, that all the Churches, founded and planted by Christ and his Apostles, were in themselves respectively absolute and free Churches, which though they had communion with all their Sister-Churches, yet you can never prove your classical, or synodical Jurisdiction of either a provincial Church (as you call it) or a general counsel over every particular Church, to have the least footing, or being at all in the Scripture. 2. In the ecclesiastical Histories for the first 200. years we find (as was noted above) sufficient ground for it; but none for the combined coercive Presbytery; let that be shown; afterwards indeed, as times grow worse, you find your P●r●archall, metropolitical, prelatical, national, provincial church-governments, general and provincial counsels, subordination and subjection of the lesser Churches to the greater, by which very means the papal Antichristian kingdom came gradually to be erected; (as is noted before) but can you show us the least print of one footstep in the Word of God, of any such hierarchy, or of any such subordination and subjection of one Church to another; And if the mystery of iniquity began to work even in the Apostles own times, which was the very hierarchy itself, in the affection of Primacy; as we see practised by Di●trepes, who is noted to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a lover of Primacy, or pre-eminence, and that even above the Apostle John himself; with other like suitable practices; This mystery growing up and spreading mightily by degrees, after the Apostles were dead, and so prevailing as a general deluge over the face of the earth, as nothing could be seen but Diocesan Bishops seas, overflowing everywhere: Therefore were there never such Churches extant? But suppose there were no examples to be found of it in Church Story, which yet we have proved the contrary, nevertheless, you know brother, when a man's evidences of lands are lost, there be public Records, as the rolls of chancery, where they may be found again. And if there they be found, will you not allow them, because the man cannot otherwise show them? Now we have the sacred Scripture, where our Evidences are safely recorded. Suffice it then, that there we show them. The contrary opinion doth manifestly establish Traditions unwritten, as the Papists do. And to give the Reader some intimation how the Churches of Christ came in time (and that in short time after the Apostles) to lose their liberties; I crave leave of you to note that passage in Ambrose (who lived 
Synagoga, & postea Ecclesia s●n●o●●● habu●t, quoru● si●e ●onsis●o nihil age●atur in Ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia obsol●v●●it nescio, nisi Doctorum desidia, aut magis sup●rbia, dum soli volunt aliquid videri. comment. Ambrosii in c. 5. Epist. ad Tim. 1. 5.  within the fourth Century) upon 1 Tim. 5. Synagoga, & postea Ecclesia, &c. The Jews Synagogue, and afterwards the▪ Christian Church had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. Which by what neglect it grew out of use, I know not, unless is were perhaps the sl●ath, or rather pride of the Teachers, whilst, alone, they would seem to be some body. So Ambrose the Bishop of Milan confessed. I confess I cannot show many such instances or records, as perhaps yourself in your multifarious reading may observe: But this one, from such a reverend and ancient author too, of pious memory, may serve instead of many; considering also that this is the greater rarity, and antiquity, and much to be wondered at, how it escaped the expurgatory Index, by those that were the first fathers of the Mystery of Iniquity, that they did not quite expunge this record also, that not a pin of the old pattern should remain. Now that the Church this Ancient there speaketh of, was particular Congregation, answerable to the Synagogue, governed by the counsel of its own Elders, cannot be denied. Whereby all men may▪ clearly see, in how short a time the government of Churches, instituted by Christ and his Apostles, came to be changed from being free Churches, to become servile and subject to the usurpation of the greater, the Prelates and their clergy now making up the Church, as if the congregations themselves were no churches, as being stripped of all their Rights and privileges, yea and of Crist their King, his kingdom now being turned into an Oligarcy▪ or Oligarchill Tyranny, mixed of two of the worst forms of Government; though you seem to put Oligarchy in the rank of the the best; but I suppose you would have said, instead of Oligarchy, (having named monarchical, and aristocratical) democraty: Oligarchy being heterogeneal to the other two. But enough of this.   

The seventh Question.  
Thus reduced▪ Those Churches, which do not conform their 
Proposition.  Church-government to some one or other public form of civil Government, dividing themselves into many parochial Churches, Dioceses, Provinces, but do gather, Churches not out of Infidels, but of men already converted to▪ and settled in the Chiristian faith, and do admit them into the Church by way of Covenant; no one example, or direct Scripture, Reason, or Authority can be produced, to satisfy conscience of the lawfulness of them.  
But such are the Independent Churches, they do not conform as afore; Therefore conscience cannot be satisfied of the lawfulness of them.  
The Argument (or Question) contains many branches, scarce 
Assumption  reducible to one head: but I have bundled them in one cord, as well as I could And for answer, first this Question is coincident with all that went before, and so is already in that respect answered. Secondly, Your parallel betwixt the civil association and ecclesiastic, is not grounded on Scripture; for neither God taught, neither the Churches practised any such necessary union and dependence of one Church on another, though they might have done it, and had need of it, as being in times of persecution (which hindered it not, no more than it doth in France now) 2. You confidently affirm, that all ecclesiastical Histories testify so much, which is manifestly untrue, as hath been showed before. 3. Though churches springing out of other churches had dependence on them, what is this to churches that are far distant one from another, and never had such a ground of relation one to another? Besides the harmony of confessions, which you quote for you▪ (though I find not that in those places they say any thing to the point) yet Sect. 11. cap. of the keys, that the keys are committed to each particular, even the least ecclesiastical Society. Thirdy, Christ's true churches here on earth, are not to be 
* John 4. Acts. 10 35 Matth 28. 20.  limited to this or that place; as, because there are so many Parishes, Dioceses, Provinces, in a civil State, therefore those must be so many fixed, Parocihall, Diocesan, provincial churches. And here, Brother Prynne, would reduce (tanquam ex postliminio) the provincial, Diocesan, parochial church▪ Government, to the same form it had before? Would you have the provincial Arichbishops▪ with their Diocesan Bishops, and parochial clergy, or Priests set up again? For a province hath relation to its provincial, and a Diocese to its Diocesan, and a Parish (to speak in the old Dialect) to its Parish-Priest. Da veniam verbo. And as for division of Provinces, Dioceses, and Parishes, into so many churches, you know where and when it began. For in the year 267. Dyonisius Bishop of Rome made this division: 
Polydor Vi●g●l de ●nven t● ib. rerum. lib 4 cap 9  which division turned the churches into a Babylonish confusion; when now all that dwelled together in every Parish, and so in every Diocese, who ever they were, Tag, and Rag, must make up a church, as so many members do one body: whereas the churches planted by the Apostles, were called and gathered out of the wide world, where the Word of God came, and took place. So as not every city became a church, but so many as were called in 
1 Cor. 1 2. so Rom. 1. 7. so Ephes. 1. 1, etc  every city. Paul writes not to all in Corinth, but to the church there, consisting of the Saints only.  
But you object the gathering of churches, not of Infidels, but of men already converted to, and settled in the christian faith, of which form of congregating churches, you say you could never discern example, or any direct Scripture to satisfy conscinces. We would gladly say Amen to that assertion, that the whole Nation is christian, established in the faith; but if not, you dispute ex falso supposito. May it please you then, brother, to take notice of the example both of John Baptist and of Christ himself, and of the Apostles, who 
* Mat. 3. 5. 7. Io●. 4 1. Acts 2. 40.  all of them did call and gather christian churches out of the Jews church: which might suffice to satisfy any man's conscience in this point; and so much the more, when they consider this is a time of Reformation, and we have all taken a covenant each to go before other, in reforming not only ourselves, but all others within our line, according to the word of God. And again, the case between our Reformation at this time, and that of the Jews church, is much alike: For as th' a was the gospel-reformation, so is this; as that was a gathering of such churches out of that of the Jews, as acknowledged Christ to be their only King and lawgiver, to govern consciences and churches by his Word, when the rest of that church, even the main body of it, did reject Christ, and renounce him for their King, this being the very Title set over him on his cross, for which they crucified him: So the preaching up of Christ's kingdom in these days, is that which calleth and gathereth those unto Christ, who acknowledge him alone for their King to govern them; and this out of those, that do not, or will not submit unto his Kingly government, but depend upon the sole determination of men, what kind of church-government they will set up in the Land, which you tell us must be suitable to the laws and customs of the realm, and manners of the people.  
But there is yet one thing more, for which you say, you can see no ground, and that is particular church-government. Why, brother, why should the lawfulness of this be doubted, whether explicit or implicit? It is the church's wisdom and care, yea, conscience and duty too, as we humbly conceive to admit of none but such as can give some account of the work of grace wrought in them, though but in the least degree, yet in truth, so far as we may discern them to be Saints: for such only are fit members of a church, or body of Christ, so as to partake of those holy Ordinances of Christ, which none but visible Saints ought to partake of. And who are fit to receive the seals of the covenant, but such as profess to be in covenant? And surely if any shall refuse to make this profession of their being in covenant, as being ashamed thereof, with what conscience can the Church admit them into fellowship? And you know this is a time of Reformation, and we have long been under a yoke of Antichristian-government, and of human ordinances in the worship of God; wherein we have all violated our vow and covenant made in our names in our baptism: Now, doth not reason require, that we should renew our covenant in our own persons, when we come to enter into the way of Reformation, and that in as full a manner as possibly we can? And when the people 
jerem. 50. 5.  of God came out of Babylon to inhabit Jerusalem again, they made a covenant among themselves, when seeking the way with their faces thitherward, they say, Come and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten. The case is ours in a great measure, who are now inquiring the war to Zion, with our faces thitherward; and shall we be abashed to come to Zion from all the relics of Babylon, and not incite one another, as they did, to enter into a perpetual covenant with the Lord Christ, as our only King not to be forgotten? And the like we read Ezra 10. 5. and Nehem. 9 38. so did King Asa, 2 Chron. 15. 12. Now if any require an example hereof in the New Testament, I answer, what needs it, when we have it in the Old? What example have we in the New Testament for baptising of Infants? Yet having a* commandment in the Old 
gen. 17 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.  for circumcising the Infants of believing Abraham, as being included in the same covenant with faithful Abraham▪ the entail of this Covenant never yet out off, but reaching to all Abraham's seed, walking in the steps of Abraham's faith now under the Gospel; 
Rom. 4. 11, 16  infants of believing parents professing to be in covenant, have the same right unto baptism, as being within the covenant, which the infants of believing▪ Abraham had unto circumcision (in stead whereof baptism by God's institution succeeded) and this by a strict charge and command from God (Gen. 17. 13, 14.) which is as strong now for baptising of Infants of believing parents, as it was to the infants of believing Abraham for circumcision. Again, what example, yea or precept is there of giving women the Lord's Supper in the New Testament? yet upon good consequence it is drawn from thence. But this by the way. And to conclude this point, what reason can any man bring against this particular Church-covenant? And if any do disrelish it, they are only such as take a disgust of the way itself, and then no marvel if every thing about it be quarrelled and questioned, though no other reason can be given of it, but a Nolumus: such as the Jews gave when they said of Christ, Nolumus: 
* Luke 19 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  We will not have this man to reign over us. Which speech was the more notorious, as being delivered by an Embassage, a solemn act of State of the Eldership, and they his own Citizens, though a little after (Verse 27.) he declares them his enemies, and for this very thing, that they would not he should reign over them, commandeth them to be brought and slain before him. But this by the way, though not unworthy of wise men's sad observation.  
Object. But it will be said, we have covenanted already in the national Covenant.  
Answ. This is against things upon supposition, that we were convinced of the evil of them, but not about our own persons, as enquiring whether we indeed are willing to give up ourselves to the Lord Jesus. 2. This was put in by such outward authority, that many for fear took it, which a Church-covenant under the gospel (where the people are to be such as come willingly) will not bear; for under the Law indeed there was another order, but appointed by God, that they might be forced to the covenant that they had received in their▪ father's: but our fathers were overawed, and secondly, no such order now.   

The eighth Question.  
This question, though somewhat involved and perplexed with many branches, yet the scope being to prove a national Church, and so a common Presbyterian classical government, to which particular congregations, persons, aught to be subordinate, and thereby an apparent subversion of the novel Independent invention. (These are your words.)  
The whole I reduce into form thus:  
Where there be infallible proofs of national Churches, 
Proposition.  there of necessity must be a common Presbyterian, classical government, to which particular congregations, persons, aught to be subordinate, to the apparent subversion of the NOVEL INDEPENDENT INVENTION.  
But there be infallible proofs of national Churches; as the 
Assumption.  Catholic Church, the national Church of the Jews, the synodal Assembly of the Apostles, Acts 15. who made and sent binding decrees to the Churches; seconded with all ecumenical, national, provincial counsels, Synods, and the Church-government exercised throughout the world in all Christian realms, States, from their first reception of the gospel, till this present; compared with twelve places of Scripture at the least, &c.  
Therefore there must be of necessity, a common Presbyterian 
Conclusion.  classical government, to which particular Congregations, persons, aught to be subordinate, to the apparent subversion of the novel Independent Inventions.  
Now for answer to this large Argument, brieflly: And first, to the Proposition. I deny that you can bring any infallible proofs, or one proof, that there either are, or ever have been any national Churches by any other institution, but merely human; nor any one of divine institution, but only that of the Jews in the old Testament, and now wholly dissolved; of which we have spoken sufficiently before: And which also was not only national, but in a manner Oecumenick and universal, as appears Acts 2. and such therefore as I hope you contend not for now; for then there would be a Pope, as there was an high Priest then &c. And brother, you must give us leave to stand upon this, as for our lives, that we dare not admit of any Churches, as the true and genuine Churches of Christ, which are not of his own institution, that is, such as are not called and gathered by the voice of Christ in his word, and by that sceptre of his swayed, and by that alone Law of his governed. And therefore be entreated, good brother, not to press upon us such your Churches, whose not only institution in their several divisions, but government also in their combinations, is merely human, and therefore as a house founded on a sand, which against a storm cannot stand You must first be able to found your national Church in the Scripture, or assure yourself, if a man will build upon it a common presbyterial classical government, and dwell there, he will bring an old house upon his head, when God shall begin to storm it.  
But to come to your particular instances in the Assumption, for the proof of your national Church. The first is, the Catholic Church throughout the world. What is this to a national Church? Though the Catholic include all the true Churches throughout the world, yet doth it not therefore conclude any Church to be national.  
The second instance is, the national Church of the Jews, and from hence you can conclude as little for your national Churches; as before we have showed. For bring us any one national, that is one entire Church, or congregation, as that of the Jews was: or, that is of one family, as that was: or, that is a type of Christ's spiritual kingdom, as that was: or, that is the universal Church of God visible on earth, as that was: or, that is governed by the like laws, that that was: when yourself do confess, that the government of your national Churches is to be regulated by human laws, customs, Manners, and not by God's word alone; whereas that of the Jews was wholly governed by God's own Law, and not at all by the laws of men, until it came to be corrupted, contrary to the express Law of God. And you confess also, that the government of your national Churches is alterable, according to the laws, customs, Manners of several Nations: whereas the government of the Church of the Jews was unalterable, till Christ himself did put a period to that economy. In a word, your national Churches are a mixed multitude, consisting for the greatest part of profane persons, being as a confused lu●p, whereof there are nine parts of leaven to one of pure flower, so as the whole is miserably soured, and the flower made altogether unsavoury: But that of the Jews, in its natural and external constitution, was all holy,* an holy Nation, a royal 
Exod. 5, 6. 〈◊〉. 1●. 3.  Priesthood, a peculiar People,* all the congregation holy, every one of them: So as in no one particular, do your national Churches hold parallel with that of the Jews, no not in the least resemblance▪  
Your third instance is the synodal Assembly of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren at Jerusalem, Acts 15. who made and sent Binding Decrees, to the Churches. And what of this, brother? Therefore national Churches, or general counsels, or provincial, have the like power to make and impose binding Decrees, and send them to the Churches? Why, first of all, that Assembly was not any national Church representative. Secondly, neither was it a general or provincial council. Thirdly, being an Assembly of the Apostles▪ with the Elders and Brethren, it could not err: for the Apostles had infallibility of judgement, being guided by the holy Ghost infallibly, and the Elders and Brethren did assent to their determinations. And was there ever such a synodical Assembly since that? Had ever any council besides that, infallibility of judgement? Show it, brother, and then we will believe they may make Binding Decrees, and we will submit unto them. Nay, dare any Assembly of men on earth, say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and Us? That's enough for the black mouth of blasphemy, the Roman lying Oracle. But in your second thoughts, you traverse this 
* Act. 15.  place more largely, which we shall consider when we come to it. In the mean time, what I have here and before said, may suffice to stay the Readers stomace.  
But you add, All this is seconded with all occumenical, national, provincial counsels, Synods, and the Church-government throughout the world in all Christian realms, States, &c. Alas, brother, all these put together, are in no sort suitable to make a second to that apostolical Assembly; they cannot hold the least proportion with it, to make a second to that unsampled sample, though they make never so great a sum.  
And whereas you make the upshot of this your question, to the apparent sub version of novel Independent Invention, (these be your words) we have proved it to be neither man's Invention, but God's own institution, nor novel, as having its foundation in the New Testament; nor yet Independent, otherwise than that it depends not upon any human authority, or jurisdiction out of itself; not upon any such conformity to human laws, or customs, or manners of every Nation or people, as you speak of. Neither do you take away our Argument from the most usual phrase of the Apostles calling the Churches in the plural, by saying, Historians often speak of the Churches in England: for they do not so speak when they mean the congregations, but the material Temples: but speak of England as one Church when they understand the people; and there hath not been shown any dependence of those Churches, as the dependency of the English Churches is known.   

The ninth Question.  
Thus reduced in sum:  
That liberty which the Apostles had and used in ordaining, 
Proposition.  supplying, instituting new Rites, Orders, Canons, &c. for the church's peace and welfare, they transmitted to posterity:  
But the Apostles had and used such liberty &c. 
Assumption. Conclusion.   
Therefore the same liberty have all Churches in the world, in all ages succeeding the Apostles, in ordaining, supplying, instituting new Rites, Orders, Canons, for the church's peace and welfare.  
I answer to the Proposition: 1. That the Apostles themselves had no other liberty to do any thing about the calling, planting, ordering, and regulating of Churches, but what they had immediarely given them by Christ, and his Spirit. 2. This liberty so given them reached no further, then to those things only which were given them in charge, and which they accordingly, as faithful Stewards, did practise concerning the Churches. 
Heb. 3. ●.  Even as Christ himself, being the Son of God, and set over his house, was faithful in all things, doing nothing, but what he had by special Commission and Command from the Father. So as▪ if the Son himself, God blessed for ever, took not the liberty to himself to do what himself pleased, as Mediator, though as the son he thought it no robbery to be equal with God the Father; but did every thing as he had received commandment from him▪ how much less have the servants of God any liberty to do what pleaseth them, but that, and those things alone, which they have in command from their Master. If therefore they who profess to succeed the Apostles in their several generations, will challenge the same liberty, which the Apostles had and used about the Churches of God, they must first of all show us their immediate Commission from Christ, as the Apostles had. Secondly, They must all show us, that what they do in Church-matters, under colour and pretence of apostolical liberty, is none other, but what they have by express command from Christ by his Spirit. And thirdly, because they are not able to show this, they must use their liberty no further, than the lists and limits of Scripture do permit, which holds forth an exact and perfect rule, for all precisely to observe, without the least variation. As knowing that severe law of God, often used in Scripture, and wherewith, as with a bounder-stone, the whole Book of God is closed up, and that with a solemn protestation of Christ himself: If any man shall add unto these things, God 
revel 22. 18, 19▪ So Deut. 4. 2▪ and 12. 32▪ Prov. 30. ●.  shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall diminish aught thereof, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy city.  
But some will haply object; This is meant, not in point of Church-government, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, as left to man's liberty to ordain, add, supply, institute, according to the diversity of the laws and customs of every Nation; but in matter of Doctrine, Story, and Prophecy. To which I answer (though sufficiently noted before, and now in one word) if God were so exact about the form of the Tabernacle, (a type of Christ's Church under the gospel) to have all things observed according to the pattern, even unto the least pin; what reason can any reasonable man give, why Christ, the same lawgiver▪ and pattern itself, should be less careful over his Church in the New Testament, so as to leave it at six and seven, to the liberty of all kingdoms and Nations of the world, to set up in the Church what Government, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Canons, they pleased, upon what pretence soever as for the church's peace and welfare? Hath not the opening of this one sluice, let in such an Inundation of all manner of human inventions in this kind, as hath well-nigh drowned the whole world in all manner of superstition and error? Therefore, my dear brother Prinne, assure yourself, not all the wits, not all the learning in the world, will be able to assert this your assertion, but that it must of necessity fall to around with its own weight; and there▪ brother▪ let it lie, or father die, and bury it there, whence it came. All that Christ appointed is exactly to be followed, though Christ was not so ●●act in circumstantials under the gospel; because 1. That was a typical and figurative worship. 2. Christ now looks more to substantials, Joh. 4. 24. wherein he is more strict, 1 Cor. 5.  
And where you say, that as in the Apostles times, Christians multiplied, so also their Churches, Church-Officers, and their Church-Government, Discipline varied: Consider that here was no variation of the Rule; but by degrees the rule of Church-government and Discipline was perfected, not varied. The Temple was seven years in building, first hewing, squaring, then erecting 
1 Chron. ●8.  stone after stone, timber after timber▪ each in his proper place, here was no variation of the frame and form of the Temple all this while, but the work went up day by day, till it came to perfection, according to the pattern in writing given to David by the Spirit. Even so, while the spiritual Temple is framing, the daily goings up of it by order after order, and rule after rule, is no variation, but a gradual tending to perfection, till all be finished; as we now see the whole frame of Church-government for all true Evangelical Churches so completed in the New Testament, as nothing under the pain aforesaid, may either be diminished, or added to it. And the same Orders are prescribed to all the Churches; So ordain I in all Churches, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 17. So for the collection for the Saints, and for the first day of the week for public meetings (as before) the same order he gives to the Church of Corinth which he doth for the Churches of Galatia, 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. So Officers chosen and ordained in every Church, Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. 7. So as if one Church for the smallness of it have fewer Officers, and another Church for the largeness of it more in number (as the Church in Jerusalem had need of seven Deacons, both for the magnitude of the Congregation, and the multitude of the poor therein, Act. 6.) yet this makes no variation in the form of Church-government, as differing one from another either for substance, or circumstance, saving only socundum magis & minus, as a little man is a man, as well as the tallest man.  
In a word, those Arguments, which you by way of derision set down in your own form of words, with their Ergoes, for as much as they are of your own devising, I therefore leave them with you to consider better of them. Only one I cannot pass by, without wrong to Christ, to his word, to his Spirit, to his Apostles.  
Every man (say you) in his Infancy, is borne destitute of Religion, of the use of speech, reason, understanding, faith, legs, &c.  
Ergo, He ought to continue so, when he is grown a man.  
Yet this is the main Argument of some Independents; say you: O brother! Of what Independents? As whence this Argument? Because they hold, that in nothing they ought to swerve from the exact Rule, God's Word, for the government of Churches? And do you compare the Scripture (as it was in the Apostles time) to a child in his Innocency, destitute, & c? So as, if we will not transgress the bounds of Scripture for Church-government, we do as much in effect, as argue, Every man in his Infancy is borne destitute of Religion, &c. Ergo, he ought to continue so, when he is grown a man? We dare go no further, than the Scripture leads us; therefore we are a company of Infants. Good brother, call in these extravagants. 2. We say the Churches were as perfect then as ever since; they had all Ordinances, the most eminent Officers, the most large gifts, &c. and as many in a place called to the Faith, as can be shown in any one place since, to have come in voluntarily to the gospel, Act. 8. 10. 12. Chap. 21. 20.   

The tenth Question.  
This Question is reduced thus;  
Such as cannot produce any one solid reason, why they ought 
Proposition.  not (in point of conscience) willingly submit to a presbyterial Government, in case it shall be established among us, by the general consent of the Synod, and Parliament, as most consonant to God's Word, the laws & Government of our realm: ought to be reputed to be in a high degree of Obstinacy, singularity, Arrogancy, self-ends, and peremptory schism.  
But Independents cannot produce any one solid reason, why 
Assumption.  they ought not so to do, as aforesaid.  
Therefore Independents ought to be reputed to be in a high 
Conclusion.  degree of Obstinacy, Singularity, Arrogancy, self-ends, and peremptory schism.  
Now truly brother, a heavy charge you lay upon those poor creatures you do so becall Independents. As 1. of Obstinacy. If that be obstinacy, against men's consciences not to yield blind obedience to men's commands in point of Religion. 2. Of singularity. If that be singularity, for a few to enter in at the strait gate, and to walk in at the narrow way. If that be singularity, to do that which the multitude will not do: to ●o●ne under the government of Christ's kingdom, in the Government of our consciences, and of his Churches which is a Principle▪ you yourself in terms cannot, dare not deny. 3. Of Arrogancy: If that be Arrogancy, for one Church not to exalt itself over another, or for Pastors not to Lord it over their flocks. 4. Of self-ends: If that be self seeking▪ which (if any other) is a self-denying, and 
Luke 9 23▪  a taking up of our cross daily, as Malefactors ready to be crucified, as without which resolution we cannot follow Christ. If that be self-seeking, to strip ourselves of the preferments and favours of the world, to be exposed naked to the reproach of all, to be accounted the outcasts of the world, and the offscouring of all things, as at this day. And lastly, Of peremptory schism: If that be schism whereby we ought to separate ourselves from all doctrines contrary to what is delivered, Rom. 16, 17. and so far as is possible, from all the ●udiments of the world, from the Ordinances of men, which are not a●ter Christ, that so we might adhere to him, and walk in him, being taught by him, as 
Eph. 1. 21▪ Col. 2. 6.  the t●●th is in Jesus.  
But ●o●, that these Independents should undergo all these, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, hard speeckes, and yet not to be able to show one solid 
Jude 15.  rason for it, surely then, a fools cap and a bell were fittest for them. But I hope, brother, if you have but read hitherto, and well weighed in a just balance, the many reasons we have already given you, perhaps in some of them at least, if not in all, you will find something, that may challenge the title of solid, in your clearer and more solid judgement.  
Now to your Argument▪ First of all I might deny the necessity of the consequence of your Proposition. For it is not necessary that every truth should cease to be truth, because every one cannot 
Formae rerum nesciuntur. Scaliger. Exerci●▪  show a solid reason for it. The fire hath an essential form, and yet no man can find it ou●, It burneth, yet none can show a solid reason why. The Martyrs some of them professed they could not dispute for that truth they held: but (say they) we can die for it. And what if that Church-government, which your silly Independents hold, be a truth, and yet some of them not able to show one solid reason for it? Must it therefore not be a truth? As the Apostle saith; What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the 
Rom. 3. 3.  saith of God without effect?  
But I flatly deny your Assumption; and affirm, that your Independents both have, and do, and can produce many solid Reasons, why they may not, ought not in point of Conscience, willingly submit to such a presbyterial Government, as you prescribe, because framed by the general consent of a Synod and Parliament, conc●●ved by them as consonant to God's Word, the laws and Government of our realm. One Reason is, Consonant to God's Word, and conform to the laws of this, or any other realm, cannot stand together; as before is showed. And the reason hereof is, because Christ's kingdom is so transcendent, so absolute, distinct, Independent, (if you will) as it is not obliged to conform and stoop to human laws, and people's manners, as you put a necessity upon it. A second Reason; because you require obedience to that, which men shall conceive consonant to God's word, &c. Touched also before, and now again to put you in mind. And therefore upon this ground we ought not in point of conscience to subject and captivate our saith to men's opinions. A third Reason, why we may not do it, is, because you require absolute obedience to the general consent of Assembly and Parliament. Now we dare not pin our faith upon generality of men's opinions, The generality of the votes of the Jews State carried it away, to crucify their King. If the whole world might vote this day, the generality would be against Christ, as he is indeed the only Anoyn●ed King, Priest, and Prophet. What if the generality vote amiss, while yet they may conceive all to be right, because consonant to what they most ●ffect? No, though orthodox and godly, as was showed before in the instance of Paphnutius in the council of Nice, A fourth Reason; Because we acknowledge Christ alone to be Lord of our Conscience, and no power of men on earth herein to be joined with him. Harm. Confess. sect. 11. The Magistrate rules the body, not the mind. And therefore we dare not subjucate our conscience to human laws, customs, and manners, as to God's Word, with which you do so equally yoke them. So as we answer you with the Apostles, when all the syn●dri●n of the Jewish State with one general voice interd●cted them from preaching in Christ's Name: Whether it be equal in the sight of God, to o●ey you rather than God, judge ye. A ●●●●● Reason: Because the Holy Ghost by the Apostle expressly condemns all human Ordinances in matters of faith and Religion, whereof Church-government is a branch. 
Act. 4. 1●. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c.  and a doct●inall part, so as man's law therein may not bind the conscience; As Col. 2. from verse 8. to the end of the Chapter. A sixth Reason: Because it is Antichristian to deny Jesus to be the Christ, that is, the only King, Priest, and Prophet of his Church he is an Antichrist, that denieth any of these three 
1 John 2. ●●▪  Offices. But to deny Christ to be the only King of his Church, is to deny him in one of his Incommunicable Offices. And they thus deny Jesus to be the Christ, that place man with Christ in his throne, that set human laws and customs of all Nations cheek by jowl with the Word of God. Here Jesus is denied to be the Christ. I could here add many more reasons to those: but these may suffice, that you may see there be some Reasons which your Independents can produce, and those so solid, as the Gates of hell shall not prevail against.  
But, say you, if we thus claim exemption from such binding Decrees of men in the matters of Christ, and that in point of conscience, then may also Papists, Anabaptiss, and all other ●ects claim the like exemptiens, upon the like groun●s. Brother, for that, I hope you will put a difference between orthodox Churches, and he●erodox. But I say again, for any man's conscience, be it never so erroneous, as that of Papists, yet certainly the conscience of such simply considered in itself, nor you, nor any man in the world hath any thing to do, further than to instruct and admonish and labour to inform and iectifie: enforce it you may not.  
But shall we tolerate Popery, and so idolatry in our Land▪ 
Obj.   
I answer; ●t is one thing to tolerate Popery and Idolatry publicly 
Answ.  in a land, and another to tolerate a man in his Conscience. Magistrates may not tolerate open Popery and Idolatry to be set up in the land: but the conscience o● a Papist, they are no masters, or judges of. If the civil Magistrate see any of God's commandments actually violated, he beareth not the sword 
Rom. 13.  for nought; evil actions he must punish: but he hath no power, over the conscience of any, to punish a man for that, so long as he makes no open breach of God's commandments, or the just laws of the Land And so in the rest. And, brother, in your twelfth Question, you confess so much reproving (but how justly) you Independents for censuring the very hearts and spiritual estates of others; and alleging that Scripture, that forbids men to judge, because God only knows men's hearts. Now, brother, that which you deny to others, as to be judges of men's hearts, and spiritual estates, why will you either assume it to yourself, or attribute it to others, by placing them in Christ● throne, and thereby displacing Christ himself? As the Apostle saith, Who art thou that judgest another's servant? To his Master he 
Rom. 14. 4.  standeth, or falleth. Much more, who art thou, that judgest God's servant? And ver. 10. And why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at ●aught thy brother? We shall all stand at the judgement se●t of Christ. Christ therefore is the ●ole judge o● every man's conscience; even he alone, that is the judge of quick and dead. And brother, let me put it to your Conscience, do you think it equal, that either your conscience should be a rule of mine, or mine of yours? And if no one man's conscience may be the rule of another's; certa●nly neither may all the men's consciences in the world be the judge of any one man's. 2 How ever we find neither rule, example, nor reason from Scripture, to force men to Religion originally; ye the R●bins say, if man kept the seven precepts of Noah, he might not be forced further.   

The eleventh Question.  
Concerning this question, it containeth in it nothing but grievous invectives against the way you call Independent: You call it a Seminary of schisms and dangerous divisions in Church, State: So did Tertullus the ●ews Advocate against Paul, charge him for a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews, throughout the world, Acts 24. 5. You pretend to ponder it in the balance of Scripture, or right reason; but you neither show us Scripture not right reason, to balance it in. You call it a Floodgate to let in an Inundation of heresies, errors, sects, libertinism, and lawlessness, without means of suppressing them, when introduced. For this you bring Mr. William's his bloody tenant. Now suppose him, or his book, heretical: will you make the way of Christ so too? There was one Judas a traitor, shall therefore all the rest of the Apostles, or their apostolical calling, be so too? You allege also anabaptistical, ●ntinomian, heretical, Ath●ishicall opinions, as of the souls mortality, Divorce at pleasure: will you therefore father all these upon Ch●ists Kingly government? In Luther's time ●undry heresies sprung up; was Luther therefore either the cause or occasion of them? Do we not know, that moths are bred in the parest cloth? And the dunghills send forth strongest savours when the sun shines hottest. Is either the cloth the proper cause of the moth, or the sun of the stinking vapour? Never greater errors have been, then since the gospel hath clearly shined forth. True it is indeed, that th●se divisions, and diversities of opinions, are with bleeding hearts to be bewailed: But shall the gospel of the kingdom bear the burden of all? This were, as with the Christians in Rome in Nero's time; when any judgement of God fell upon the City, he would still im●●●e it to the Christians, and punish them for it. But we are taught better. When the good▪ husbandman sowed pure wheat in in his field, the enemy came and supersemina●ed tares; shall we therefore blame the wheat, because the t●res come up with them?  
But that you impu●e to this way libertinism and lawlessness: Good brother conside●, are we Libertines? or are we lawless? Nay may we not herein plead for ourselves, that in all things we indeavou● to conform ou● selves wholly to the law of Christ● and if many thing we off●nd ju●●ly any just law o●●h● l●n●, we re●u●e not to suffer. Only, brother, le● not ●a● Impe●iall Edict be revived, that if any confessed themselves to be Christians they should be put to death; so such as you call 〈…〉, should for this very name suffer. As Tertullian said, Nomen pro●●●i●ine, when the very name of Christian was taken for a crime▪ ●nd for means of suppressing errors, what means could suppress those many errors that sprung up to the successive ages o● the Church? Was not the word of God the only means, and not human power? yea human power is as well a means to maintain heresies, as to suppress them. You know what Constantine and his son did to maintain the Arian heresy. And orthodox Independent Churches are as good means as any other; together with the care and countenance of the Magistrate, if it may be had, to defend them, and enable them to send forth labourers, without which the Presbytery will be as barren, breast and womb, as any other.   

The twelfth Question.  
The sundry passages of this question, as I find them scattered along, I shall glean them, and so bundle them up for a conclusion at this time: For this question seems to be a Lerna of Queries.  
And first, you quarrel the Title of independency. Truly, brother, none of all those whom you thus entitle, do at all glory in this name, so as to give you thanks for your so often styling them thus in one poor sheet of paper, seeing th●y cannot imagine you do it honoris gratia, while everywhere you set it as a brand. Notwithstanding we are not so ashamed of it, as utterly to disclaim it; and that for two reasons. First, for distinction sake between us, and that which you call your presbyterial government. The second is, because this word Independent is to signify, that we hold all particular Churches of Christ, to be of equal authority, and none to have or exercise jurisdiction over another, but that each Church is under Christ's government, as the sole Head, King▪ Lord, Law give● thereof. But we would not that you should give us this as a nick name, or a name of reproach, or badge of scorn: no● that you should call us so, as if we denied subjection to civil authority in matters of civil government nor yet that you should mean such an Independe●cie, as if we held not good correspondence with all sister-Churches, by way of conseciation, consultation, communion, communication, mutual consolation, supportation and (in a word) in all things, duties, offices, as wherein Christ's Kingdom is held up, the graces of the Churches exercised, & the liberties of each Church preserved entire, which is the glory of Christ, which we have touched before. And therefore, brother, you mightily mistake the matter, when you interpret Independency, as not needing both the Communion and assistance of other persons, Nations, Churches.  
Then secondly you question, Whether the national Covenant dothin sundry respects strongly engage the Nation against Independency? Truly, brother, not at all, so long as all our Reformation is to be reduced to, and regulated by the word of God. And that is a sure foundation, whereon our independency dependeth. In which respect the Nation is by the Covenant ●●g●ged for independency.  
Thirdly, you query, whether if independency (rightly taken still as before) if stripped of all disg●ising pretences, be not pharisaical, vainglorious, self-conceitedness, &c. Here, brother, you lash us with a whip of many cords, but that our armour is p●oo●. So you have done more than ten times, yea all along. And that all this should come from a friend, a brother, a suffe●er, from a companion, & counsellor, how hard is it to be born? 〈…〉 you tell us of disguising pretences, if stripped; and for this, you have provided an unma●king for us. O brother, we have no such d●sguisings, as to fear your unmaskings. We may in this boldly answer with the Apostle, 1 I hess. 2. 3. 4. 5. And for pharisaical▪ spiritual pride, vainglory, singularity, self-constitedness of superlative holiness, which as dirt you throw so liberally in our face; To this brother, I will say no more but this: S● sat est accusasse▪ quis innoeens erit? It a bare and malicious accu●a●ion be e●ou●h to fasten a crime, who shall be innocent? And did you ever enter into our hearts, to see what secret spiritual tumors, and apostumations be there? and if not, how come you presently, in the very same sentence, and with the same breath to blow all this besmearing dust into your own face? For you charge us with passing uncharitable censures upon men's hearts, and spiritual ●states; of which (say you) God never made us judges, and forbids us for to judge because he only knows men's hearts (as was noted before.) Now then, brother, why do you thus judge the hearts and spiritual estates of your brethren? Consider it well in cold blood. And, brother, what do you see in the independency, that you should thus judge them? The Tree is known by the Fruits. Are they ambitions of preferments, of glory of the world, of favour of great ones, of praise of men that do voluntarily forsake all, and strip themselves of all to follow naked Christ▪ Pharisees indeed loved the praise of men more than 
Nudum Christum, nudus sequere▪ Hieron  the praise of God. That's pharisaical, so in the rest. Therefore brother, tell not the world what malice may suggest unto you to think of us, but what you ●●e or observe in us. And yet, brother, the ●n●e of charity is, that you should first tell your brother privately o● his fault, before you blaze it to the world. But thus at least we come to know our ●a●●t. And what is it? We do, (say you d●●m ourselves too transcendently hol● s●●stified and religious a●ov●o he●s; that we esteem them altogether unworthy of yea who●● exclude them from our Communion & ourch-society, as Publicans, heathens, or p●of●ne ●ersons (though perhaps as good, or better than ourselves) unless they will submit to their Church-covenants, & government, ref●sing ●l true brotherly familiarity▪ society with them. So you. Now, brother Pryn, I confess I am one of th●se, whom you call Independents▪ and did you ever observe any such supercisious strangeness of ●●r●●age in me towards you, and other of your and my friend▪ 〈…〉 e zealous against Independents, than yourself, ●s youchange us withal? Have there not been many interchangeable invitations between you and me, with loving acceptations, whereby we have enjoyed mutual society, in all friendly and brotherly entertainment, saving ●●ill some quarrels about 〈…〉 way, but ever parting friends? And more frequent it had been, had your occasions, and sometimes mine own, permitted▪ And neither at this day, since these you● invectives came forth, (though they were no small grief to me, and that even for your sak●) am I become a greater stranger to you, either in face or affection, than I was be o●● For I am so persuaded of your good nature, that did you truly epprehend, and dive into the mystery of Christ's Kingly government in his Churches and Children, certainly you would never have thus sharpened and imbittered your style against your brethren; the Lord open your eyes to see it. But however, brother, either be more moderate in censuring, or else censure not at al●, without ju●● cause.  
But we exclude (say you) as good or better than ourselves from communion and Church-society with us. Surely it may be so; but, brother, we exclude them not; but they exclude themselves. And you give the reason, because they will not submit to the church's government. But it doth not hence follow, that we therefore deem either ourselves so transcende●tly holy (as you say) or others altogether unworthy. But, brother, we esteem the government of Christ's Church so holy▪ as we cannot think them fit to be admitted (be they never so good) that think so slightly of the way, and of them that walk in it, that they refuse to agree to walk in this way with the people of God. Would you admit of a member into your family who is disaffected with your courses, and orders of the family? What cause then hath he to complain, if upon knowledge thereof you refuse to entertain him? If therefore every family should be careful to provide for its own peace, by having all in it of like affection and judgement, (if possible) why not Christ's own house and family? And, brother, the truth is, (for we love no disguising, as to need any unmasking) we love not in a time of reformation, after a general tincture of superstition and will-worship, blindly to go to work, to admit of all comers, and to cast Christ's pearls and holy things to such as we know not. Or if we b● persuaded they be truly godly, and yet they are not persuaded of the warrantableness of this way, how can they with a good conscience desire communion with us? And if not, how can the Church receive them? Nor indeed do any such offer themselves; nor doth the Church impose any such conditions, as a godly Christian hath cause not to accept. We desire to do those things that please God, namely, such as he commends and commands. Rev. 2. 2. Christ commends the angel of the Church of Ephesus, for not hearing with those that are wicked, and for trying those that said they were Apostles, and were not, but were found liars. So some may come that profess themselves to be Christians, that is, to be godly, to be believers, but we dare not receive them without trial: if they refuse to be tried, we may the more suspect them. And what interest hath any to Church Communion, that is not a member, or to the seal, that is not in Covenant? And we love not to do that, for which to repent afterwards. We desire all our members may be such as they may peaceably and sweetly continue with us. We are loath to have the world offended by the unworthy walking of any one member. And we desire by our best providence to prevent, that none once admitted, should ever be cast out again. And brother, all this we hold to be our duty, for the preferring of the honour of Christ, and of his Ordinances, and of his Churches in the beauties of holiness. Others may take a broader way, if they please; we dare not. The Church and body of Christ is not of so slight account with us, as that we should carelessly and promiscuously admit of every one that offer themselves, without some trial of them, both for the church's satisfaction, and for the account she must make to Jesus Christ. How strict the Jews were, Airsworth in Gen. 12. v. 17. relates out of the R●●bines. And even Bellarmine himself had such a clear apprehension of the general nature of Christ's Church, (though himself did not experimentally and particularly know it) that he useth th●se words: Ecclesia precip●è, &c. The Church especially and intention●lly, gathereth only believers, such 
Ecclesia prae●●pue & ex intentione, fi ●●●s tantum ●ol●● gi●, qui veram fidem in corde ●●●●nt. Cum autem admiscentur a●●qui ●ic●i, qui verè non credunt, id accidit praeter intention●m Ecclesiae si ●n●m eos n●sse posset, nunquam admitteret, aut c●su admissos, continuè excluder●t. Bellar. de Eccles. l 3. c. 10. See also D. Field of the Church, Book 1. cap. 7.  as have true faith in their heart. And when any hypocrites are mingled among, such as truly believe not▪ i● falleth out besides the intention of the Church. For if it could know them, it would never admit them; or being casually admitted, it would so thwith exclude them. Thus Bell●rmi e; which he sets down as a most true speculative Prinple (though but ill applied, and worse practised by him and his, and such like,) which yet all true Churches should be careful to observe, and pot in practice. And truly, brother, we desire to do this, that, if it be possible, no misbeleever, no profane liver, no hypocrite be admitted a member of Christ's body (though an hypocrite having his vizard on, may sometimes 
* Such were called of old, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Euseb.  creep in unawares into the Church) And therefore diligent circumspection is used for prevention. And ●urpius ejicitur, quam non admittitur h●s●es: A guest is in refairly kept out, then cast out. This, brother, is our course, that we hold in admitting of members; we think we cannot be too wary, though too strict we are not. We suspect the gold that will not abide the touch. A Christian name may silver over the copper, such as the Scripture calls reprobate silver, jerem. 6. 30▪ Though we know each currant coin hath its allowance of allay; and each believing Saint so many grains allowance; but all sincere, no thing counterfeit. And as for Church covenant, we have sufficiently spoken before.  
The last charge you lay upon independency, is, uncharitableness, carelessness, and neglect of one another welfare, and the like. Brother, for uncharitableness, let our practices, the best proofs of true charity▪ plead for us. We ●●ve manifested our love and loyalty to the State, whereof we are natural and political members. For the safety thereof we have poured out our estates to the very bottom. We dare herein compare with all others of our rank and means. Myself a poor man, am out for the State▪ between four and five hundred pounds; and, I bless God, I have done it with a cheerful heart, nor for squint respects to lay out so much at once, to receive of the State so much annuity. Yet I speak it not to glory, but you have compelled me. And besides their means, none have more prodigally adventured and spent their lives for the State, than your Independents have; and for none hath the God of battles appeared more. And but for stirring up envy (which needs not) I should put you in mind of Marston-moore. In a word, brother, we dare challenge all the world in point of fidelity to the State, and our native country. Where be they that more love, honour our senate, Synod, Syn●drion? Who pray more frequently, more fervently for them? So that herein you cannot say we are Independents, as for want of true love, and that of the best kind, to the public Cause and State, from which our independency is so far from separating our hearts and affections, with all our abilities to serve it, as that it hath cleared itself to be as fast & firmly united unto it, as any other whatsoever. And for true charitableness▪ brother, where is it to be found, if not in those Churches you call Independent? But you will say, this love is among ourselves. And God grant it may ever be so: Yet it ends not here, but extends to all▪ And, brother, for a close, I challange you to show me any one parochial Congregation in England, where in there is, or can be the like love one to another, the like care one for another, the like spiritual watchfulness one over another, the like union and communion of members in one mystical body, in a sympathy of affections, in such a fraternity as is described, Psal. 133. a lively type of a true Church of Christ. Till you show us the like in any of your parochial Assemblies, consisting of your mixed multitude, good brother, restrain your spirit so mightily imbittered against us, lest in charging us with uncharitableness, yourself alone be found to be uncharitable. And so I have done with your first twelve Questions.    

A VINDICATION OF CHURCHES, COMMONLY CALLED INDEPENDENT. OR AN answer To Mr. Prynne's second Book.  
MY dear Brother, to your twelve new Interrogatories I present you with a new Answer. I call it new, because I shall cull out such passages, as I find new, or not so much insisted on in your former twelve. Which as they are fewer, so I shall be the shorter, for as much as in the former, I have been the larger. But brother, I find not that in your Book, which you pretend in your Title, to wit, the Unmasking of Independency. Nor can we expect it of you: for in your proem you say, that the Independents have not dogmatically, and in direct terms, discovered the full truth of what they assert. If not, what kind of visage will you discover, when you have taken off the mask? Surely, by your handling of the matter, you mean to unmask some hag's face, such as pleased the Painter. Which when you have done, it will appear to all the wise-hearted, that it is not the face of Independency, as wherein there shines forth such a beauty, as it seemeth you yet never saw.  
In your Preface to the Courteous R●●der, you say, We politicly conceal the principal grounds, and more deformed parts of our church-platform, for fear of miscarrying. Good brother, who told you so● Remember your own lesson before, Judge not. But indeed, had you reproved us (yet in love and meekness) for not setting forth more fully a complete model of this fabric, or spiritual house, it had been something. Which yet if it were done, you would not impute it to policy, that it was not 
* Eph. 2. 21.  sooner done. But when it is exactly done, you will find no deformed parts at all in it: but contrariwise a greater beauty then in that famous Temple that Solomon built, as being the spiritual Temple of Jesus Christ; so as I am sorry you are put to the pains of pumping out our determinations (as you say) by your Questions: 
Prov. 5. 16.  When as you should rather find it as a fountain flowing forth in the streets. But brother, how do you write by Question, not decision (as you say) when your Questions prove to be decisions, as your former twelve are? And what do you else, but refute upon bare conjectures, Andabatarum more pugnando, as those at blind-man-buff. For your Charges upon us are very sore, and (as many do say) bitter, so far beyond reason, as you are not able truly to say, Wherefore.  
For your first Question, Whether the Independent form of Church-government be anywhere to be found in the Old or New Testament: this we have resolved in your former Twelve Questions: so as this is no new Interrogatory, unless you put the greater difference between Questions, and Interrogatories. And though it were in no antiquity (which yet we have shown before) nevertheless, if it be found in the Scripture (as there it is) whatsoever clouds of the mastery of iniquity have darkened the lustre of it for so many hundred years: yet this cannot plead prescription against it. For if Nullum tempus occurrit Regi: then surely no tract of time can prescribe against the law of Christ's kingdom, which we find upon sacred record. But where, say you? Why, brother, this House of God wherein Christ rules as King, stands upon so many Principles, as so many main pillars, not to be shaken. As  

1. It is a spiritual house, whose only builder and governor 
1.  is Christ, and not man.  
2. It is a spiritual kingdom, whose only King is Christ, 
2.  and not man.  
3. It is a spiritual republic, whose only lawgiver is 
3.  Christ, and not man.  
4. It is a spiritual Corporation, or body, whose only head 
4.  is Christ, and not man.  
5. It is a Communion of Saints, governed by Christ's Spirit, 
5.  not man's.  
6. Christ's Church is a Congregation called and gathered out 
6.  of the world by Christ's Spirit and Word, and not by man.   
These Principles are such, as the Adversaries themselves of this kingdom of Christ, cannot, dare not deny. And out of these Principles do issue these Conclusions.  

1. That no man is the builder of this spiritual house. 
1.   
2. That no man, nor power on earth hath a kingly power 
2.  over this kingdom.  
3. That no earthly lawgivers may give laws for the 
3.  government of this republic.  
4. That no man may claim or exercise a headship over this 
4.  Body.  
5. That no man can, or aught to undertake the Government 
5.  of this Communion of Saints. Item, That none are of this Communion, but visible Saints. Ergo, a true visible Church of Christ cannot be defined, or confined to a parochial multitude. Item, ●hat, that Government of this Communion, is not extrinsical, but intrinsical, by the Spirit of the Word, and by the Word of the Spirit.  
6. That men may not appoint, limit, constitute what Congregations 
6.  of all sorts they please, to be Churches of Christ, as Nations and Parishes.   
But you confess in general, Christ to be the Builder, the King, 
Obj.  the lawgiver, the Head, the governor, the Caller, the Gatherer of his Churches.  
If you do, you must approve of those Churches you call Independent, 
Ans.  as whereof Christ is the only Builder, King, lawgiver, Head, governor, Caller, and Gatherer. If you do not, in denying Christ in these relations, you deny Christ in his absolute regality.  
But in your Answer to your Antiquerist, pag. 6. you do in part grant Christ to be King internally in the soul, which, you say, may pass for tolerable. O brother! No more but may pass for toleráble? You that are so l●rge-●earred to your friends, are you so straitlaced to Christ? Surely, Brother, Christ is the full and sole King, reigning in the heart and conscience of every true believer. It were intolerable, not to grant this in its full latitude. But you absolutely deny Christ's sole kingly Government, external over his Churches. Brother, this is no less Christ's kingly Prerogative, than the former. He that is King over every part of the body, must needs be King over the whole body. It therefore Christ be the only King over every man's conscience, so as no man, nor power on earth, may sit with him in this his Throne: then consequently by the se●f-same reason, must he by the Word of the kingdom, as the only Law thereof, exercise his kingly office over his Churches; so as no human power or law may intermeddle to prescribe rules for the government, or forms of this spiritual House, and kingdom. For otherwise, if man should set up a form of Government over the Church of Christ, to which all must conform; then of necessity should man b● Lord over the conscience, which is the highest presumption against the most High. And than what mischiefs would follow● What intolerable tyranny over the conscience? Then must your words (ibid.) come to pass: If a moderated or regulated Ep●scopacie the same with Presbyterio, should by the Synods advice, be unanim●usly established in Parliament, as most consonant to the Scriptures, and most agrerable to the civil Government, I shall readily submit unto it without opposition, and why not you, and al● others? So you. O Brother, I stand amazed! But I go on.  
Then again, the Scripture, as it sets down the qualifications of the members of this body, so the forming of them in the body in the parts thereof, more principal, and less, superior and inferior, for order and well-being: As Pastors and Teachers, 
1 Tim. 5. 17. Phil. ●. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28.  Teaching and Ruling Elders, helps, Governments, Bishops, and Deacons, or by what other means soever they are diversified in Scripture. And this is one uniform form of Government, which Christ hath fixed in his Churches, without any difference at all, but secundum●magis & minus (as before) as lesser Churches 
A●●● 6. & 20.  have fewer Officers, greater more. So as, brother, if the old Wine be better, old Presby●erie, old unlordly Episc●p●cy, surel▪ the Independents do justly challenge it: Which had you once truly tasted of, you would never have desired to drink other. The Lord remove that aguish humour 
* ●alingen.  Vexatus f●bre recus●t ●ptima.  
Your second Interrogatory is, about the lawful powe● of civil Magistrates in all matters of Church-government, wherein you tax some Independents for extraordinary eclipsing the same. Some: what some may say, is one thing, must therefore the Independent Church-government say it too? You allege for this a passage in the Answer of two of the brethren to A. S. for which one of them is lately questioned: but, I hope, he will clear himself. But the weight of this whole Interrogatory lies in your marginal note: where you peremptorily conclude; That the chief Government and ordering of the Church, and power of making ecclesiastical laws, or Canons to bind it, before the Law belonged to the patriarchs and others, was not as they were Priests, but Rulers, and Fathers of their Families: under the Law (say you) it belonged to Moses, to the Kings of Judah, Israel, and the moral Assemblies or Congregations of the Princes, Nobles, chief Captains, Heads, and Elders of the people: Therefore under the Gospel, by like reason and equity, and because it is a part of Christ's kingly, not Priestly, or prophetical Office▪ it must needs belong to Christian Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, to whom Christ hath delegated his kingly Office; not to Ministers, to whom he hath given only his prophetical or Priestly authority, not the royal, as the Scriptures at large relate: nor yet to particular Congregations, who are not Magistrates, nor higher Powers, invested with Christ's royal authority.  
So you, where you tell us many strange things, but prove nothing. But, brother, in such a weighty Argument as this, your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, will not serve the turn: yea, you here overthrow those Principles forementioned, That Christ is the only King, so the only Priest, the only Prophet of his Church; which his three offices are incommunicable to any creature, as they are proper and peculiar only to him; He is the only King, &c. Now to be solus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The only Potentate, the King of Kings, and 
1 Tim. 6. 15.  Lord of Lords; this is Christ's regal prerogative, which is in communicable to any, or to all the powers on earth. It is no less incommunicable, than his omnipotency, his omniscience his omnipresence, and the rest of his incommunicable Attributes; no less than his Mediatorship. Those Patriarchs and Princes of Israel before the Law, and under the Law, from Adam to Christ, never had this power or prerogative, to make ecclesiastical laws, or binding Canons; no nor yet Moses, no● Kings of Judah, Israel, and general Assemblies, Princes, Nobles, chief captains, and Elders of the people, as you muster them up together in your marginal note. A seeming goodly Army indeed; but so many shadows of men, for any such power they had, as you would with your penfull of ink paint cut unto us. And first for those before the Law was given in Sinai: had they this power you speak of? Cain and Abel brought their Sacrifices. 
Gen. 4. 4.  What? Was it a 
* Heb. 13. 10. 15.  will-worship of their own election? If so, God had regarded Abel's sacrifice no more than Cains. How 
Col. 2. 23.  then? Their Sacrifice was of God's own appointment: Adam had it from God, and his children from him. For as God revealed to Adam, Christ, so those Sacrifices, types of Christ. Whence the learned Interpreter Calvin saith, Tenendum est, &c. We are 
calu. Comment. in Gen. cap. 4. Tenendum est, non fuisse temerè ex cogitatu● ab illis sacrificandi morem, sed traditum divinitus, &c.  to hold, that the manner of sacrificing was not unadvisedly devised by them, but delivered to them from God▪ For seeing the Apostle res●●res the dignity of Abel's sacrifice, as attributed to faith, it follows, he offered it not without God's commandment. So as it could not have pleased God, had it not been according to his commandment. So Calvin. Nor is all here expressed: no doubt they had an Altar also, whereon to offer for the sanctifying and accepting the offering; which Altar was a type of Christ the true 
* Heb. 13. 10. 15.  Altar, to whom Abel's faith had respect. Though we read not of Altar before Gen. 8. 28. We read also of difference of beasts clean, & unclean, Gen. 7. By all which it is evident, that God gave a law to Adam and his offspring, suitable to that in Mount Sinai, for a rule of divine worship; so also for Church-government. And this further appeareth by the Law in Sinai afterwards, where Moses is expressly charged to do all things (both for worship and Church-government) according to the pattern showed him in the Mount; as before we noted. And when the Temple was to be built, God gave to David 
1 Chron. 28. 11. 12, &c. to v. 19  an exact pattern of all things, yea, of every particular, both in writing and by his Spirit, not only for worship, but for the whole ministration about the Temple, a type of Christ's Church under the gospel, so as neither Moses nor Kings of Judah, had the least power to devise any other form, then that prescribed of God. The keeping of the Passover once in the second month by Ezechiah, was extraordinary, upon a case of necessity. And for the Kings of Israel, will you equal them with the Kings of Judah? Had they lawful power, as Jerobam, to set up his two golden ●●lvs, and so to change the form of worship & Church-government? When that King A●as set up his Damascen Altar, was it by a regal power invested in him from God? So of other Kings of Juda, good or bad, they had no lawful power at all to alter the form prescribed of God, one jot. And therefore, brother, you are wondered at, that being a man of much reading, and mighty parts, you should utter such strange things (ne quid dicam durius) as these are, and that so confidently, when you neither do, nor ever can bring the least proof, yea or colour of what you affirm. And therefore your inference upon such empty premises, that therefore under the Gospel, by like reason and equity, it must needs belong to Christian Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, to whom Christ hath delegated his Kingly office, &c. is no consequence. Whence I note two things: 1. Like reason and equity. Now in your premises there is neither reason nor equity, because no truth in them. 2. Christ hath not delegated his Kingly office to any Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, to set up any form of worship or Church-government of their devising, or conceiving, no more than he did to all, or any of those you reckon up in the Old Testament. I pray God give you a better understanding in this mystery of Christ, and godly sorrow for these things. Take then the counsel of this great King: be wise therefore, and understand; and 
Psal. 2.  kiss this King, this son of God, by obeying him in all that he saith, as being not only the only King, but the only Prophet of his Church (as before) whom whoso heareth not IN ALL THINGS, shall even be cut off from his people. But how then 
Act. 3. 22.  do you say, This is a part of Christ's Kingly office, not Priestly, or prophetical, to set up a government; and, he hath not communicated those other offices to Princes and Parliaments: Whereas Christ doth in all things regulate his Kingly office by his Prophetical office? And again, how say you, Christ hath not given his Kingly office to Ministers, but only his Priestly and prophetical; and yet you make an Assembly of Ministers as Rector Chori to be the leaders and guides to a Form of Reformation, and that necessarily? And denying such to be Kings, or to have a Kingly office, you exclude them out of the Albe of those faithful ones, whom Christ hath made▪ a 
* 1 Pet. 2. 4.  royal Priesthood; even 
* revel 1. 6.  Kings and Priests to God his Father. But so much of this second Interrogatory.  

The third Interrogatory.  
Touching this: 1. We assume not the power to gather Churches, but being sent or called to preach the Word of the kingdom, thereby people thus called of God, come to be gathered into Church-fellowship, and so by consent do choose their Officers.  
2. Such as are thus called, to acknowledge Christ their only King, were not begotten to this acknowledgement by such Ministers as you speak of, who deny, disclaim, and preach against Christ's Kingly government over men's consciences and Churches. So as such a conversion as you speak of, comes not home to whole Christ: and such, with their converters, do deny Christ's Kingly government; what kind of converts call you these? Or at least and best they are converted but in part; and that main thing wanting, to wit, Christ's Kingly office, they come up to by the preaching thereof.  
3. Such Ministers, when they set up Christ's government, may (being agreed upon by all sides) have those Parishioners again, that for want of it at the first went from them.  
4. Our solemn Vow and Covenant obligeth us not to any thing that is prejudicial to the authority of God's word, and the liberty of a good conscience, considering how Churches are gathered out of all the world, not this place, nor that, not this house nor that, but out of 
* Mat. 13. 19  every nation, such as fear God, and 
* Act. 10. 3●. Luke. 19 6, 7, 8, 10.  out of every house the sons of peace, & out of 
* Act. 10. 3●. Luke. 19 6, 7, 8, 10.  every city or Town, all that receive the Gospel, are called and gathered to Christ.  
5. Concerning Christian liberty in joining to several Churches, as in the same house some to affect one, some another: you know what Christ saith, Luke 12. 51, 52, 53. And it is God that persuadeth I●ph●t to dwell in the Tents of Shem. 
Gen. 9 27.  And, brother, all that noise you make all along, with extreme aggravations, as Confusion, Distraction, implacable Contestations, schisms, Tum●lts, &c. What are they but the very out-cries which the prelates ever used for the crying and keeping up of their Hierarchy, built upon the same sandy foundation. This is well noted in the Harmony of Confessions, Sect. 11. Confession of Ausburg. These Senater-like Declamations though they be very plausible, and incense the minds of many against us, yet they may be confuted by most true and substantial arguments. As, All the Prophets and Apostles were true lovers of the peace and concord of Nations and people: yet were they constrained by the commandment of God, to war against the devil's kingdom, to preach heavenly doctrine, to collect a Church unto God, and the like. And, The true doctrine of God, and his true worship, must needs be embraced and received; and all errors, that tend to the dishonour of God, must be abhorred and forsaken, though all the world should break and fall down. And much more there.  
6. Though we are fully persuaded by God's Word and Spirit▪ that this our way is Christ's way; yet we neither do, nor dare judge others to be reprobates, that walk not with us in it, but we leave all judgement to God, and heartily pray for them: we ourselves have been formerly ignorant of it, therefore we pity others.  
7. Where you object, that under pretence of Christian liberty, whole Houses, Parishes, Counties, may thus come to be divided into several forms of Churches, as some for the presbyterial, some for the hierarchical, and so cause schisms and ruins; or at least unavoidably subvert all ancient bounds of Parishes, all settled maintenance for the ministry by tithes, &c. Brother, for Christian liberty, who shall persuade the conscience, or who hath power over it, but he that made it, even God, the only Judge thereof? And for difference of men's judgements in points of Religion, how can it be avoided? And yet it follows not, that upon such differences should come ruin to a State. What serveth the Magistrate, and the laws of a civil State for, but to keep the peace? And as for Parishes, will you allow no Churches but Parishes? Or are Parishes originally any other but of human, politic, and civil constitution, and for civil ends? Or can you say, that so many as inhabit in every Parish respectively, shall be a Church? Should such Churches and Parishes then necessarily be Churches of God's calling and gathering? Are they not congregations of man's collection, constitution and coaction merely? What Churches then? And as for Tithes: what Tithes, I pray you, had the Apostles? Such as be faithful and painful Ministers of Christ, he will certainly provide for them: as when he sent forth his Disciples without any purse, or provision, he asked them, Lacked you any thing? They said, Nothing. Surely, the labourer is worthy of his hire. And as for Ministers maintenance by Tithes, I refer you to the judgement of your learned brother Mr. Selden. And as for your Independent Ministers, they plead no other maintenance than the New Testament holds forth, yet not denying the Magistrate and State a power to appoint maintenance for the preaching of the word, as is done in New England, to those that are not members of Churches. And where you charge them, for having the faith of Christ in respect of persons, as if they admitted the rich, rather than the poor: Brother, I hope it is not so with others; I am sure, not so with me. And lastly, for your marginal young Interrogatories: As,  
1. Of how many members each Congregation? I am sure your Congregations admit neither augmentation nor diminution, but according to the capacity of every Parish.  
2. Within what precincts? Christ's Churches are not limited either to place or number.  
3. What set Stipends allowed? Sufficient more or less.  
4. When and where Churches should assemble? For when? at times convenient. For where? Not necessarily in this or that place.  
5. Who shall prescribe extraordinary times of fasting, or thanksgiving to them upon just occasions? If the occasion be the Churches peculiar Interest, the Church agrees upon the time. But if it be public, concerning the politic body of the State, whereof we are native members, in whose weal or woe we sympathize, either we keep days of our own appointment extraordinary, or if the civil State command and appoint a day, we refuse not to observe it.  
6. Who shall rectify their Church-Covenants, Discipline, Censures, Government, if erroneous, or unjust? First, Each Church useth her best means left her of Christ, within herself. Secondly, If need require, she useth the help of Sister-Churches. Thirdly, If any other, as the civil State, be not satisfied, she 
* Act. 25. 11.  refuseth not to yield an account of her actions, being required.  
7. show us (say you) a sufficient satisfactory Commission from God's Word for all they do, or desire, before they gather any Churches. Brother Prynne, you say you will pump out our thoughts▪ yea, it seems, you will exanclate, pump out every drop that is in us. But stay, brother, you are not yet a Magistrate. And 2. we hope you will not take up again the Oath ex Officio to pump out all our secrets. And 3. Though I have for my part dealt very freely with you, as my brother, all along: yet give me leave to keep a Reserve, Done● ad Triarios redieritres, until it come to a dead lift, in case we shall be brought before 
* Mat. 10 ●●.  Princes and Rulers, to give an account of what we do, or desire. And 4. you put us upon too unreasonable a task, to satisfy you in all that we do, or DESIRE. First make your particular exceptions, and demands for this, or that▪ and then we shall know the better how to shape you an Answer, as you see we have here done. What are all your books of Law▪ cases, all the Volumes of the Casuists, to the resolution upon general grounds, of incident matters, which could not be ruled till they happened? and yet the Government of States is one, and the doctrine of the Scripture in all generally necessary points clear. And we desire you not too too much to grow upon us, when you see we are so coming, and free.   

The fourth Interrogatory.  
This is much like the next before. For that was about Ministers power to gather Churches: this, concerning the people's power in uniting themselves in a Church, choosing their Minister, erecting such a Government, as they conceive most suitable to the Scripture. And so all manner of heretics may set up Churches, and all manner of heresies, sects, be brought in.  
I answer, as before. A Church is a city of God, which by her Charter becomes a city, being called of God, and by the same Charter (the Scripture) chooseth her own Officers: and sets up no other government, but what her Charter prescribes. If any other do otherwise, and do pervert the Scripture, it is not to be imputed to the Church of Christ. Her liberties are no law for others licentiousness. It was so in the Apostles times, and the next ages after. The true church's liberties were no true cause of so many heresies; no more than the Christians of old were the cause of the calamities of the city or Empire of Rome, because Nero and other Tyrants falsely charged them, and as injuriously dealt with them. Nor may we cast away the privileges of Christians, because others abuse them. Yea, whether we use our privileges, or no, errors and heresies will be. The Apostles, and Apostolic Churches, could neither keep, nor cast them out; as is showed before.  
But brother, where you say, that if this liberty of setting up an Independent Church-government be admitted: then by the selfsame reason, they must have a like liberty to elect, erect what Civil form of government they please: to set up a new Independent republic▪ kingdom, &c. By the selfsame reason? Surely by no reason at all. Show us a reason hereof, and take all. And you know, that republics, kingdoms are Independent, though not of Churches electing, erecting. It is unsatisfiable injury, and extreme irrationality thus to argue; for hath Christ given the same command to his people, as such who are not of this world, nor their kingdom, as he hath done to them in spirituals which he commands them to practise whosoever forbids? 2. They set up no form, but take that which is prescribed, which God hath not done in civil government, but left it free, 1 Pet. 2 Rom. 13.   

The fifth Interrogatory.  
Herein you make a comparison between presbyterial and Independent Churches; Why not that, as well as this? And if this, why do we not show solid proof of it? I answer: We desire to enjoy ours, without making comparison with yours▪ For proof we have showed sufficient.  
Then to a second Quere; the answer is, not the Minister alone, nor the Congregation alone, but both together admit members, and set up Christ's Government, not their own. And how ever you make us a Conventicle, consisting of inconsiderable ignorant members: I believe, brother Prynne, when you shall have any thing to do with the most contemptible of such Conventicles, as you esteem us, you will not altogether find us such, as you are pleased to term us. And for national Parliaments, States, we honour them with whatsoever honour is due unto them, as God's 
* Rom. 13. 7.  Word commandeth us. And for a national council, as this is, called to advise, not to be peremptory Judges in the matters of God over our consciences, we detract not their due honour too, as they are pious, and learned men. 2. Where you would have them have the same power in a Parliament and Synod, that they have in a Church, if they be members, it is answered, that all power is restrained to its own sphere and place, so that we may have a greater power in another kind, and yet not that; as no Parliament man hath the power of a Master of a family in the Parliament, though he have a greater.   

The sixth Interrogatory.  
This Interrogatory hath sundry branches: the answer whereunto respectively, will intimate what they be.  
1. We say, as before, None of our Ministers do by any usurped authority gather Churches.  
2. We cannot conceive, that any law of the Land is against the setting up of Christ's kingdom in the hearts of his people; and in those Congregations called and gathered by the voice of his Word. Nor doth the ministry of Christ's word more in this, than it did by John Baptist, Christ himself, and his Apostles, when they called Christian Congregations out of the Jews national Church. Even the imperial heathen Roman laws gave way to the preaching of Christ's kingdom, and gathering of Churches within their Territories, Provinces, Cities.  
3. For Church-government, Covenant, we have said enough before.  
4. Concerning a national Church also, we have spoke already in the former Answer. And I desire brevity, and not to answer all your repetitions and aggravations, lest I may nauseam movere.  
5. It is one thing for a State to set up a new form of ecclesiastical Government, and another to pull down the old. This they were bound unto by the Word of God: but not so that, unless it be the same Church-government which Christ sets down in his Word; besides which none other ought to be set up, though never so much pretended, and by men conceived to be according to God's Word, when made suitable to the laws, customs of every Nation, and manners of the people, as you affirm; of which before.  
Lastly, This Church-government, which we profess, you shall never be able to prove ridiculous and absurd, as you conclude your Interrogatory.   

The seventh Interrogatory.  
This Interrogatory is about the dismissing of members: 1. to become members of presbyterial Churches: 2. Or of other Independent Churches. I answer, If any will desert their Congregation, who can let them? Yet it is the church's care and duty to preserve itself, and all the members in unity of the body; and also from whatsoever may be sinful. If any shall repent, and fall back, Churches are not more free, than 
* joh. 6. 66.  Christ himself was. If any for conveniency sake, or necessary occasion, desire to join with some other Church, do you think it unreasonable, first to acquaint the Church with their desire? And do you not allow of Letters of recommendation, when any is to pass to other Churches? May not else jealousies and suspicions arise, and heartburnings between Churches? Do you not remember, what divisions and emulations the want hereof did cause among the Churches of old? And, brother, we desire to do all things in love. And we desire that others should do no otherwise unto us, than we do unto them: as you object. You twit us again, for respecting the rich, more than the poor. If it be true, it is 
* 1 Cor. 11, 22.  our fault, and ought not so to be: if not true, it is yours, and that so often as (as you do) you cast it in our dish.   

The eight Interrogatory.  
This Interrogatory is to charge us, for not admitting to baptism any Infants of such Parents, who are not members of our Churches. And, brother, you make this a most heinous and intolerable thing. Why, you know, if we would admit of all, it would be no small benefit and advantage to us, especially when we are to deal with rich men's children, such as you say we have in such high estimation. Therefore that we do it not for rich men, you may think there is something in it, that covetousness is not▪ so predominant in us▪ as to corrupt our Conscience. And therefore brother, let some charitable thought take place in you, that we do it rather of Conscience, then of covetousness. And what say you to this, brother? We preach Christ to the Parents. We preach him no less a King, than a Priest and Prophet. We preach him the only King of our Conscience, and the only lawgiver and governor of his Churches. We exhort them to set up this King in their hearts. We exhort them to become and profess to be those Saints, of whom he is King. For he is 
* revel 15▪ 3.  King of Saints. But, brother, they will not believe us; they will not depend upon Christ, as the only Lawgiver, and King over their consciences. Now, what would you have us to do in this case? Baptise the Infants of such Parents, as will not, in this respect, profess, nor confess Christ to be their King? Why, do you not know, that no Infants have any title to baptism, that are not within the Covenant visibly? And how are they within the Covenant visibly, but by virtue of their parent's faith outwardly professed? And what outward profession of faith in the Parents, that refuse Christ for their only King? that are ashamed, or afraid, to profess to be in covenant with Christ, as their King? If therefore the Parents profess not▪ yea refuse thus to be in visible, Covenant, can the children be said to be in visible Covenant, and so to have a right to baptism, the external seal of the Covenant? Brother, here is obex, a bar put.  
If you say, The child shall not bear the iniquity of the father. 
Obj.   
True; but the Parents keep themselves off from the covenant 
Ans.  by refusing Christ, in whom alone the believer hath right to the Covenant; and so the child is withal kept off. For it is not now under the Gospel, as it was from Abraham to Christ, The covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, so as by virtue hereof all the male Infants of believing Abraham were and aught to be circumcised. But now under the Gospel, those only are accounted Abraham's seed, who profess the faith of Abraham, which faith looked upon Christ, and embraceth whole Christ in all his offices, and profess the same outwardly, Rom. 10. 9, 10. So as the Covenant is entailed only to believers now, and so to their children (as Act. 2. 39) If then the Parents by refusing Christ as their King, as the Jews did (Luk 19 14.) do hereby out themselves off from the Covenant, they do therewith cut off their children too: and this not to be recovered in the child, until either the Parent be restored, or the child coming in time to believe, and to profess the faith of Christ, do hereby claim his right to the Covenant, and so to baptism, as being a 
* Rom. 4. 11. 16  child of Abraham. Let this suffice for the present, why we dare not baptize the children of those Parents, that refuse to profess the faith of Christ, as their only King, as well as their only Priest and Prophet. For Christ divided, becomes no Christ to the divider. This is, according to the vulgar Latin translation, (1 Joh. 4. 3.) solvere Iesum, to dissolve Jesus, that is, to receive him only in part, and not in whole. Which is the spirit of Antichrist. Besides, willing disobedience to any good order in a Church, deprives a man of the liberties of the Church: (for so he may not eat of the provender, that will not undergo the yoke) Now this of a voluntary profession to walk with the Saints of such a place, according to Christ, is a thing so just, as following the example of the old Church, who were in particular Covenant with God. 2. In the New, they professed their giving themselves to God, 2 Cor. 8. 5. 3. All societies require some promise of their members. If it be said, we are members of the universal Church by faith and repentance: we reply, 1. this faith must be shown by a voluntary giving ourselves to Christ visibly, and then to some Church of his, if opportunity serve; for Christ will not have his people to be wandering sheep, when they may have a fold; nor to be individua vaga, when they may be reduced to order.   

The ninth Interrogatory.  
This Interrogatory lays a charge upon Independents, for refusing to admit to the Lord's Supper such as are not notoriously scandalous, nor grossly ignorant, but profess repentance, &c. which you say, is a very uncharitable, arrogant, yea unchristian practice, contrary to Christ's own example in admitting Judas to the Lord's Supper; Also to that of Paul, 1 Cor. 11. you calling it also a transcendent strain of tyrannical usurpation over souls and consciences, and God's Ordinances, worse than our most domineering Lordly Prelates, &c. yea Lording over Christ himself, and more than ever the Apostles did, but only by their extraordinary calling, &c.  
I answer in one word (omitting your copious aggravations, and sharp censures) that we look further, then to a general profession and conversation, namely, to their faith in Christ, that it be sound entire, and whole, and namely, whether they hold him to be as the only Prophet and High Priest, so the only Prince of his People, the only Lord, and Lawgiver to every man's conscience, and over every Congregation or Church of his Saints. If they thus acknowledge not Christ's kingly office, as well as his other offices, we do not, we dare not receive them. And what have they to do with the seals, that refuse by covenant to own Christ for their King? As for Judas, he received the sop, not the supper; for, after the sop, he went out 
* John 13. 30.  immediately, saith John. So as it appears, the other Evangelists relate some other passages by a hysteron proteron, as is not unusual in Scripture story. And none of them saith, that he received the Supper. And suppose ●e did: the church's Censure had not yet past upon him: only John by a secret sign knew he was to be the traitor. For that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 28. that was a true Church, though now disordered; and the Apostle refers the redressing of their abuses to themselves. The case is otherwise here, so as all your accumulated calumniations fall to ground. And concerning the Apostles extraordinary calling, if we must expect the like calling, we must not in the mean time admit of any, either to baptism, or to the Lord's Supper; neither should there be any gathering of Churches at all; as some from hence do gather. Besides, what shall the authority be, that Luther gathered the Churches by, and those that followed him? and what lawful gathering then have the Reformed Churches?  
For your marginal note of Moses, David, Solomon, about settling Religion by God's own direction: herein you come home to that I said before, alleged against your unlimited law. But in that you now restrain by their example, all Church-government to the Civil Magistrates; you must make it out by holding close to the rule, that is, To settle Religion by God's own direction, as you here confess, and not to elect, erect a form of Religion, and Church-government, such as they shall conceive suitable, &c. as before you told us. And Moses, David, Solomon, were all types of Christ, who put an end to all such. And while you there exclude the Priests from having any thing to do in Reforming, or advising: What will the Assembly say to you? But they may advise, you will say. But the Priests might do nothing, but according to God's prescript law; no more than Moses, David, Solomon. And if the Priests (as you say) had no ruling votes: then by this reckoning, what votes do you allow the Assembly-men, in their mixed Committees with the members of Parliament, or in the Assembly itself? Reconcile these I pray you.   

The tenth Interrogatory.  
This Interrogatory questions, or rather (as all the rest) concludes, that that Text (Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17.) is not meant of any ecclesiastical censure, as of Excommunication, but only of the civil Court of Justice. Brother, if you did speak hereas a 
The writings of B●za and Er●stus one against the other, are extant.  Divine, and not merely as a lawyer, you would not have, against the judgement of most learned Divines, ancient and modern, and not Papists, &c. so interpreted this place. And what speak I of Divines? The Text itself is its own clearest Interpreter. For it is immediately added (v. 18.) Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Which is without controversy spoken of Church-censure, or of the power of the keys in exercising Church-discipline; as that (Matth. 16. 19) is spoken of doctrine, as the learned Calvin well observeth. So as this very context cleareth the former to be meant of Church-censure, as it was among the Jews. You allege on the contrary, that learned Lawyer whom we all honour for his learning. Good brother, I could wish that all this zeal of yours against Independents, might not arise from any jealousy, as if Church-censures should prejudicate or trench upon your pleadings at the bar of civil justice. Far be it, that we should have our motion beyond our own sphere. Content yourself with your own Orb, and we shall confine ourselves to ours, I dare warrant you. Again, to what purpose do you urge this interpretation of this Text against us? Do not all the Presbyterians expound it so? And if this Text, which is made the great pillar of Presbyterian excommunication, be taken off, you leave no more to a Classis then we, scil. to consult and advise. And with this foot you have dashed all the milk you gave them.   

The eleventh Interrogatory.  
This Interrogatory is to perswadeus, that in that Assembly, or Evangelical Synod (as you call it) Acts 15. the Apostles voted not as they were Apostles infallibly guided by the holy Ghost, but rather as they were in their ordinary capacity, as Elders and chief members of it. Whereupon (producing your six reasons for it) you peremptorily conclude, that this is an undeniable Scripture-authority for the lawfulness, use of Parliaments, counsels, Synods, under the Gospel, upon all like necessary occasions; and for their power to determine controversies of Religion, to make Canons in things necessary for the church's peace and concernment, maugre all evasions, exceptions (of Independents) to elude it.  
But let us examine your six reasons, why the Apostles sat not as Apostles, but as ordinary Elders, &c. Where first, we lay this ground for the contrary, scil. that they sat as Apostles, because not ordinary Elders, as Elders, can say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. But the Apostles, as Apostles, might say so, because in any doctrinal point they had the promise of the Spirit, to be led into all truth, as upon whom the Church was to be built, Eph. 2. 20. Secondly, if they sat as ordinary Elders, than their decrees did no further bind, then as they might appear to agree with Scripture; otherwise Elders, as Elders, may bind the conscience, let the decree be never so wicked. But to your reasons:  
First, For else (say you) Paul and Barnabas being Apostles themselves, might have decided that controversy at Antioch, without sending to Jerusalem. Answ. 1. By your favour, brother, Barnabas was not (to speak properly) an Apostle, though an apostolical man. 2. They argued with those Legalists at Antioch, sufficiently to convince them; but they coming from Judea, and pretending the use of circumcision, and Moses Law, to be still in force in the Church at Jerusalem, and the controversy being between two great parties, the Christian Jews, and Christian Gentiles; hereupon the Church at Antioch thought it requisite, for the fuller satisfaction to all parties, to send Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. And 3. because Paul and Barnabas are thus sent, doth it follow, that they were not sufficient (yea Paul alone, as an Apostle infallibly guided by the holy Ghost) to have decided the question at Antioch? As no doubt sufficiently they did, though not so satisfactorily to all. And 4. that they are thus by the Church at Antioch sent to the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem: here is a good example for the use of communion of Churches, as in doubtful cases to consult one with another.  
2. Else (say you) the Church at Antioch would have sent to none, to resolve their doubts, but to the Apostles only, and not to the Elders.  
I answer: In that they sent to the Elders also, it shows the respect that one Church should have to another. 2. Those Elders were men endowed with the gifts of the holy Ghost. 3. Though they had not infallibility, as the Apostles had, yet their assent to the determination, was a witness-bearing to the truth thereof.  
3. Else (say you) Paul and Barnabas would have put the question to the Apostles only, not to the Elders and Church, as well as to them, verse 4, 5, 6.  
This is answered in the former.  
4. Else the Apostles would not have called all the Elders and brethren to consult, v. 6. when themselves might have done it alone.  
I answer: 1. Though the Apostles might have done it alone, yet they would not, but called together the Elders and Brethren, yea, and the whole Church at Jerusalem (vers. 4, 22.) hereby to give a precedent to all Presbyters, or Elders of Churches, that in cases of difference arising, they call the whole Church together, for assistance and counsel therein. 2. In so doing, the Apostles diminished nothing of that Judicial power and authority which Christ left with them for deciding of controversies, being infallibly guided by the holy Ghost, while they thought it not fit to do such things in a corner, which concerned the whole Church.  
5. Peter and James (say you) would not have argued the case so largely, and proved it by Arguments and Scriptures, as they did, one after another, but have peremptorily resolved it without dispute, had they sat and determined it by their extraordinary infallible power.  
I answer: This follows no more than the former. For the Arguments they used, with the conclusion, were by the direction of the holy Ghost. And 2. The holy Ghost is not so peremptory, but will have his truths examined by the Scriptures, as Acts 17. 11. The Bereans are commended by the holy Ghost for examining Paul's Sermon by the Scripture, though he were an Apostle, and spoke by the holy Ghost. And 3. the church's assent was taken in for a witness ex abundanti.  
6. The final resolution (say you) Letters and Canons of this Synod, had run only in the Apostles names, had they proceeded only by their apostolical infallible authority, and not in the names of the Elders and brethren too.  
I answer: There is as little reason in this, as in all the rest of your reasons: for then by this reason sundry of Paul's Epistles, which were all dictated by the holy Ghost, did not proceed from that infallibility of Spirit alone wherewith the Apostle was guided, because we find others, not Apostles, joined with him. As (1 Cor. 1. 1.) Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and Sosthenes a brother, to the Church of God &c. And 2 Cor. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy a brother, to the Church, &c. And Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, &c. and all the brethren that are with me, to the church▪ of Galatia, &c. So Phil. 1. 1. Col. 1. 1. 1 Thess. 1. 1. Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timotheus, to the Church, &c. In all which places, though there was but one Apostle, guided with infallibility of the holy Ghost to write the Scriptures, yet many brethren are joined in the salutation of the Churches; and yet Paul, as Apostle, did write those Epistles, and not simply as a brother, or fellow-servant with them of Jesus Christ. Neither are those brethren (so named) accounted the penmen of the Scripture, as Paul of right is. Thus you see, brother, there was no necessity, that either the Apostles names should be put alone, because they only were guided by the spirit's infallibility: or that the names of the Elders and Brethren should not be put, without a necessary conclusion deduced thence, that the Decree there was therefore binding, as being the Decree of a Synod, and so exemplary for all Parliaments, counsels, Synods, to make the like binding Decrees.  
But (good brother) for all your punctual quotations of that Scripture, you do not all this while tell us▪ (which is the main of all) that which we find in the 28. verse of that chapter, IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND us, TO LAY upon YOU NO GREATER burden, than THESE NECESSARY THINGS. Now, brother, we challenge you to show us any Parliament, council, Synod, ever since the Apostles, that could or can say thus, IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND us, to determine controversies of religion, to make and impose Canons to bind all men, &c. show this to us, at this time, and we will obey. But if you cannot, as you never can, never let any man press upon us that Scripture, that Synod, which hath no parallel in the whole world, and so is no precedent, pattern, for any council, Synod, Parliaments.  
Let me conclude with a passage of the learned and famous 
Panstratie Catholicae. Tom. 3. De libertate Christiana. lib. 15. c. 10. De prohibitis Idolothytis, sanguine, & suffocato. Illis aderat extra ordinem spiritus sanctus: adeo ut quae illi proponerent, a Deo simpliciter manarent. Atreliquis Pastoribus adsistentia spiritus nulla extra ordinem: itaque ne eorum quidom sanctiones eodem loco habitae cum Apostolorum sanctionibꝰ. Precip autem discrimé in obligatio ● Conscientiae, quae se restem habet, Deum solum Judicem: ideo unhabet aliquid imperatum a Deo, non potest non obstringi.  Chamierus, that grand Antagonist of Bellarmine's. Bellarmine upon the same Scripture you allege (Act. 15.) (as also our late Prelates have usually done) would deduce the same conclusion, that you do, for human authority in binding men's consciences. To which Chamierus thus answereth: that this consequence holds not: Quia non eadem sit authoritas Apostolorum, & reliquorum Ecclesiae Pastorum: Because there is not the same authority of the Apostles, and of other Pastors of the Church. For with those the Holy Ghost was extraordinarily present: so as what they propounded, did simply proceed of God. But other Pastors have no such extraordinary assistance of the Spirit: and therefore their Decrees are not to be paralleled with the Apostles Decrees. Which is a special difference in binding of the conscience, which hath itself for witness, and God for the only judge: therefore, when it hath any thing commanded of God, it must needs stand bound. Where (inter caetera) is to be noted, That God is the only judge and binder of the Conscience. The great question in controversy at this day.  
Obj. But you will here object, That although (as before you say of Priests) a council, or Synod, have not this authority to make and impose binding decrees, yet a Parliament hath; and you deduce it from this Synod, Act. 15.  
Answ. Now truly, brother, by your favour, this doth no way hold proportion, that that which you call a Synod (as a pattern for binding Decrees) should not qualify a Synod of Divines with the like power, and yet transmit it over to a Parliament for binding authority over the consciences of a whole Nation: surely that Apostolic Assembly, or Church meeting, was neither a Parliament, nor Diet, nor Senate, nor any such thing, that you should build any such power of Parliaments upon it, for the making of binding Decrees over the consciences of men. Therefore, good brother, be not so peremptory, but take in your topsail, too high to bear up against so stiff a gale, both of Scripture and Reason. But I come to your twelfth and last Interrogatory.   

The twelfth Interrogatory.  
This Interrogatory is concerning the lawful coercive power of Civil Magistrates in suppressing Heresies, &c. Or, setters up of new forms of ecclesiastical Government, &c.  
For answer hereunto, we do acknowledge and submit unto the lawful coercive power of civil Magistrates, according to the Scripture, Rom. 13. But brother, however, you must distinguish between men's consciences and their practices. The conscience simply considered in itself, is for God, the Lord of the conscience, alone to judge, as before. But for a man's practices, (of which alone, man can take cognizance of) if they be against any of God's Commandments of the first, or second Table; that appertains to the civil Magistrate to punish, who is for this cause called, Custos utriusque Tabulae. The keeper of both Tables: and therefore the Apostle saith, (Rom. 13. 3, 4.) For Rulers are not a terror to good WORKS, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? DO that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the Minister of God to thee for good; but if thou DO that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that DOTH evil. So as we see here, what is the object of civil power, to wit; actions, good, or bad. Not bare opinions, not thoughts, not conscience, but actions. And yourself exempts the preaching of the Gospel and truth of God, from being restrained by the civil Magistrate. But now brother, the time hath been, and somewhere is, and will be, that the 
* 2 Thes. 2.  truth of God hath been withholden in unrighteousness, and by the civil Magistrate punished with death, being condemned for heresy. And you see in these days, great diversities of men's opinions and judgements: one judging thus, another so; you think my way erroneous, and I may do as much for you. But do you or I, DO that which is evil, in actually breaking of any of God's commandments, or any just laws of the land? then we lie open to course of civil justice; but so long as we differ only in opinion, which of us shall be punished first? or which of us is in the error? you write books, I write against them; yet sub judice lis est, who shall be Judge? you? or I? surely neither. Among other things, you would have the civil Magistrate to suppress, restrain, imprison, confine, banish the setters up of new forms of ecclesiastical government without lawful authority. It may be you will involve me in the number. But what if I prove that which you call a new form, to be the old form: and the lawful authority of setting it up, to be of Christ? Must I therefore undergo all these your terrible censures, because you so judge? What if your judgement herein be altogether erroneous? What punishment then is due to him that condemns the innocent? you may be a civil Judge one day; remember then, brother, that if I come before you, you meddle not with my conscience, nor with me for it. If I shall offend any of your just laws, punish me and spare not. But if you should make a law like to that of the Jews, that who so shall confess Christ to be the Son of God, and the only lawgiver, Lord, King, governor over Consciences, Churches, and not man, not Assemblies, not counsels, or Senates, though after much Fasting, Prayers, Disputes, (as you say) I confess, I shall be apt to transgress that law; but yet take you heed how you punish me for that trangression, with an Ense recidendum, or I wot not what club-law. So ends your Book, and so my Answer.  
Now brother, you have since published a third Book, partly in answer to your first Answerer, and partly touching Mr. Joh. Goodwin; I leave the parties interessed to acquit themselves; Only your stating the Question in the conclusion of the Book, I could not omit. You sta●● it thus: Whether a whole representative Church and State, hath not as great, or greater ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole Realm & Churches, with all the members, than any one Independent Minister or Congregation challenge over their members. Brother, I answer, if you can prove your Jurisdiction good, we will easily grant it to be greater. But if the Jurisdiction of the Churches you call Independent be good, as having Christ for the founder and owner of it, as we have clearly proved, then certainly, it will prove the greater: For, magna est veritas, & praevalet: for Christ's kingdom shall stand up, when all opposite earthly kingdoms, like earthen vessels, shall with his iron rod be dashed in pieces: This for the Clause.  
Another passage in the same Book, is touching my person: where you say, That none of us three-brethren-Sufferers, suffered for opposing Bishops legal authority, or any Ceremonies by act of Parliament established: Here brother, give me leave to answer for myself: First, for all manner of Ceremonies of human ordinance, imposed upon the conscience in the worship of God, I openly, for the space almost of a twelvemonth, immediately before my troubles, preached against them, every Lord's day, out of Col. 2. from the 8th verse to the end of the Chapter; so as when I was summoned into the High Commission Court, the Articles read against me, were not only for my two Sermons, nou. 5th, but also for those other Sermons against the Ceremonies: so as this might challenge to be one ingredient in my censure in Star-Chamber, and no less than a pillory matter.  
And concerning my opposing of Bishops themselves, not only their extravagancies (for which I also was censured, and suffered) you may remember one passage in that Book, For God & the King, affixed to the information; Were there a law in England, as once among the Locrians, that who should come to propound a new law, he● should come with a rope about his neck; I would be the first myself, to petition the Parliament, that the government of Bishops might be abolished, and another set up more agreeable to the Scripture, (although I confess, were I to make such a proposition now, I should ●● much alter my style, as the condition of this present time differs from that, I should mount much higher.) And do you not think, brother, that this helped to put the hangman's knife (though not the halter) so close to the very root of mine ears, that it opened the wider sluices for the blood to stream out (with yours my dear Fellow-sufferers) to fill the whore's cup, and make her drunk and spew, and fall, and rise up no more? Although the more cautelous and self-wise, or discreet any of us (but especially myself) then was, to avoid the fear of men, or force of law, certainly now, brother, it abates so much the more of the honour of that suffering; and the less honour, the more shame. But take we the shame to ourselves, and give we all the honour to whom it is due; and brother, wherein we then came short, let us now make it up, by being zealous for our Christ, in labouring to advance the throne of his kingly government in all our souls, and over all the Churches of the Saints, and with those four and twenty Elders, cast ourselves and crowns before him that sitteth on the throne, saying. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power, for 
Rev. 4. 10.  evermore. Amen. And let this be our main contention, who shall most honour Christ, and most love one another, Farewell.  
FINIS.