AN answer TO Mr. WILLIAM PRYNN'S Twelve Questions concerning Church Government: At the end whereof, are mentioned several gross absurdities, and dangerous consequences of highest nature, which do necessarily follow the tenets of presbyterial, or any other besides a perfect Independent Government. Together with certain queries.  
SIR,  
HAving perused certain Questions concerning Church Government, which carry your name Imprinted in the Frontice-piece: The well-wishes which I bare towards you, did soon prevail with me to make an Answer to them, conceiving you may cast an eye thereon as purposely directed to yourself, by an unknown Well-willer, rather than on sundry larger Discourses; which if you had seriously considered, I cannot but imagine, you would have been better informed, than, for the present, I perceive you to be in this particular:  
The Title says, Considerable serious questions sadly propounded: And the Preface tells the World. You have neither leisure, nor opportunity to debate the late unhappy differences touching Church Government, &c. which moved you to digest your subitane apprehensions of these distracting controversies into the ensuing considerable Questions, to be sadly pondered, and solidly debated by sober minded, peaceably disposed men, of greater ability and vacancy for such a work, &c. Surely 'twill seem strange to many, that subitane apprehensions should so easily be digested into considerable questions, by one who in his own confession, had neither leisure, opportunity, nor ability for the work; and yet it will likely be thought more wonderful that you seem to think so lightly concerning the distractions of the Churches, (from whence not a few of no little piety and judgement conceive the distractions of the kingdom to arise) as to imagine the publishing of subitane apprehensions, should in any considerable degree conduce to a composing of them.  
1. To the first Question than I answer: That the Gospel being by Christ's own injunction to be preached to all Nations, Matth. 28. 19▪ 20. &c. (who have their established different forms of civil government) Christ hath not peremptorily prescribed one, and the self same form of ecclesiastical Government, Discipline and Rites unto all Nations: (the more to blame are such as go about to prescribe one throughout whole kingdoms throughout the world) and that every several Nation, republic, yea and every particular Christian ought to have under the Gospel a liberty and latitude, to choose such a form of Church government, as he himself, for his particular use, in his own reason and understanding apprehendeth to be according to God's Word, and not run on implicitly, subjecting himself to whatsoever shall be projected or set up by others, whereof he himself doubting, incurs damnation, Rom. 14. 22, 23. But for the Articles and Statutes of England or Ireland, you know they are for episcopacy, and were once as strong for Popery, never for Presbytery: but what if they should be for Popery again, Judaism or turcism? 'tis no offence to make a query, nor impossible to come to pass: the greatest part of such as choose our Parliament men are thought to be Popishly or Malignantly affected, and if it ever happen so, by the same Law and Doctrine the whole kingdoms must in consequence, and such obedience as you dictate, conform themselves to Popery▪ Judaism or turcism: But you will mean the State may impose no other government but what is consonant to the Word of God? I answer: That the Papists, Jews and Turks, do all affirm that both their discipline and doctrine are according to the Word of God, and their yea is full as good as your no: If then you say we must suffer rather th●n submit unto such Antichristians; you say well: but withal, I answer, that you agree with them or approve them (even whilst they persecute you) in theirs or your principles (for both have one and the self same) of persecution: and though many things in all Church governments, Discipline and Ceremonies are left to human prudence; the Magistrate may not impose aught upon the Subjects in general, or upon any one in particular, which by them or him cannot be assented to, or performed with a good conscience both towards God and men, Act, 24. 16.  
But since you take notice of Christ's injunction for preaching of the Gospel to all Nations, Matth. 28. 19 let it not seem strange if I affirm it to be impossible for man to propound a rational way, or so much as a possibility of preaching the Gospel unto all Nations, without Liberty of Conscience, or in any other than an Independent way: for how can you imagine that heretics or unbelievers will come and live amongst you, that they may be won unto the Gospel by your conversation, or by your convincing them from evidence of Scripture, if they know your manner is to ravish their Religion from them before their judgements be fully informed and satisfied? or what hopes have you that erroneous or misbelieving States and Princes will suffer such to lurk within their territories under pretence of propagating the Gospel in simplicity and truth, who hold opinions (too much savouring of Popery) that when they have converted a sufficient party unto their belief, they may therewith under pretext of pulling down Idolatry and superstition, divest them of their power and Country, unless they will forgo their Religion, from which only (how erroneous soever) they expect salvation?  
Suppose a Turk desirous to turn Christian; the Calvinist, Lutheran, Papist, Brownist and Anabaptist seeking to make him a proselyte to their faith, each of them produce their grounds and reasons from the Scriptures, as the rule and guide to warrant and direct them in this Christian warfare: Suppose again, that these several sorts of Christians may differ about the sense of Scripture, nay about the translation or original Text itself; how must this Turk be directed which of them to yield unto, or be swayed withal? must it be to them that have the sharpest sword or buffet him the most? doubtless he must not respect the numbers or persons of the men, nor yet be led away by the opinions of either which may be more complying with his lust, so are the yea and nay of one or other of them all alike: 'Tis true, the Papists pretend miracles to confirm their doctrine with, and I have heard the truth and reality thereof affirmed by many travellers, whereof some have passed for Protestant Gentlemen; but though I conceive myself to have been as desirous, and to have had greater opportunity than many others, as having lived much amongst them, to have been a witness of them (if possible) at some time or other, yet could I never attain so near as to conceive the least likelihood thereof; and yet if the Papists could, and did make use of false miracles, how may they be known from true ones? the very devils are reported to be subject and subordinate amongst themselves, according whereunto they submit unto, or vanquish one another; and we know the Egyptian Sorcerers went very far in competition with Moses and Aaron, so that we must not be swayed with miracles neither, little more than with the bare yea and nay of men, until we see an evident demonstration, an infallible guide, the very finger of God himself in the gifts of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 2. 4. 5. who requires of us no other than a reasonable service, Rom. 12. 1. and will in likelihood at the great day of judgement condemn more for believing false Gospels without just grounds, than for rejecting of the true Gospel, notwithstanding it was accompanied with such signs and wonders as were never done before, Joh. 15. 24. As in natural things, we believe nothing but what we see a natural reason for; so in supernatural things, less than a supernatural evidence will not suffice: But how then must this Turk be guided and directed to whom he should yield himself a convert? Surely I know no guide he has besides the reason which God has given him: no thing in the whole creation is to bear such sway with us as reason: but what should then induce this Turks reason to believe the one rather than the other, concerning the revelation of God's Will unto the World by the publication of the Law and Gospel? whether any, or which of their translations is the truest? with the most orthodox interpretation of any or every portion of the Scriptures? and in sum, which is the right or truest Religion of them all? And since they all alike pretend authority of Scripture with no less confidence than the Jews, who ceased not to cry, The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord, even whilst they were deepest engaged to their sins, Jer. 7. 4. I query what may be the infallible unerring rule to lead this Turk unto the true Religion? what it was in the beginning? whether it be still the same? whether less than infallible be a good guide herein? whether rectified reason be not an infallible guide? how came reason to be offuscated and depraved? how may we know when it is vitiated? how recover it and keep it so? And if upon serious disquisition of the truth, we be found involved over head and ears in ignorance and error, no small portion of pretended knowledge to be bare opinion only, and the greatest part of most religions Antichristian void of reason: how ought such as go about to fasten a yoke of their own doctrine and opinions on others, be accounted the most ignorant, absurd, presumptuous, and the greatest enemies both to God and man of any people under heaven, deserving death more than a murderer or traitor? besides, it will easily appear upon due scrutiny, That the compelling men to a uniformity by civil Powers, the enforcing of a national Church, the exacting obedience to whatsoever Religion shall be established by Law, and consequently to change so often as the politic civil State shall find requisite for worldly ends, is the only way to banish all Religion from their hearts, and breed in men a doubting of the Scriptures, if not of God himself.  
If true believers having got the upper hand may banish misbelievers, for fear of being tainted with their errors; than ought not the true believers when they are few in number (suppose them Protestant Merchants or others in Turkish or Popish Countries) by any means remain among the misbelievers, but forthwith to depart their territories, which the Apostles and Primitive Christians did not practise? nay the contrary is insinuated, whilst Peter exhorted, the Jews turned Christians to have their conversations honest amongst the Gentiles, that they▪ which spoke evil of them as evil doers, might by their good works which they should see, glorify God in the day of visitation, 1 Pet. 2 12. Paul's advice likewise was, That the believing husband should not put away the unbelieving wife in hopes of her conversion, 1 Cor. 7. 12. 16. And Peter bids wives be subject to unbelieving husbands for the same reason, 1 Pet. 3. 1. 2. And since the power of miracles through want of saith is ceased, we have no means so efficacious for convincing people of their errors, and bringing them unto the truth as a godly conversation, the benefit and fruit whereof would be quite frustrated, if the Saints of God being the greater party were either to banish the miss or unbelievers, or to withdraw themselves if they were fewer: I desire this argument may be well reflected on, which though it be brief, and not enforced, I conceive it very pat and apposite unto the point in controversy.  
I know the permitting men of so many different opinions in a Country, is usually objected as a bugbear of all confusion, and disturber of the civil State: (but to wave the experience of the contrary truth which we see in Holland, Germany, France, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Barbary, and elsewhere) why may they not as well live as peaceably and civilly under one Prince or State, as under different neighbouring or remoter powers, betwixt whom, viz. Christians and Turks, Protestants and Papists, Lutherans and Calvinists, we see concluded and maintained peaceable leagues and covenants, with a free egress, regress, or continuance of the respective Subjects in one another's territories? why should it breed greater confusion, or discompose the civil peace of England, by permitting an English Lutheran, Brownist, Antinomian, Anabaptist, Jew, Turk, or others, more than if they were of any other Nation? or with what sense or reason can that privilege or freedom be denied unto an Englishman in his own country, because he differs from the State Religion or opinions that be in fashion, which every foreigner of any Nation of what profession soever in amity with England enjoys without control? would it not be a pretty fancy to banish English Anabaptists, or others dissenting in opinion from their native inheritance, their friends and livelihoods, whilst all our Ports, towns, and houses are open to receive Spanish Papists, and Dutch Anabaptists to take the bread out of our mouths? I only make a query of it that better judgements may reflect thereon.  
2. Particular Churches, members of a kingdom and Nation are not obliged in point of conscience and Christianity, to submit unto whatsoever public Church Government, Rites and Discipline a national council, Synod and Parliament shall conceive most consonant to God's Word, unless it prove so in the whole kingdoms, Nations, and those very particular church's judgement; for by the contrary position, they and Mr. Pryn himself should be subject unto the Popish or episcopal government again, if this present Parliament and Synod do but say the word; and the Scriptures you aim to prove it with, do not only fail, but make against you, viz. 1 Cor. 32. 33. which text makes the whole Church, or rather every member thereof capable of prophesying all alike; and I find not but the Spirits of the Prophets which the Apostle insinuates to be subject, might possibly be of as wise, learned and noble as any the Christian world afforded, in that he said, Ye may all prophesy one by one, v. 31. and whether it be not greater confusion in the sight of God to compel a hundred men of twenty several opinions to join in one imposed worship, than permit each of them to serve God after his own manner; and a kind of constraining God to curse the true worshippers for the false worshippers sake, or whether he will or not to bless the false worshippers for the true worshippers which are amongst them: And lastly, whether way is most peaceable, to desire only a Christian liberty for ourselves of serving God in such manner as we find ourselves bound in conscience to do, or the imposing a prescript way, our own, a human ordinance upon others, who neither understand it to be reasonable or godly; let man see and judge as God doth in judgement and in truth.  
As touching your texts for Subjection to the Powers, viz. Rom. 13. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. 15. We must bate them in this case, or be subject to episcopacy, which I would be loath to be, though it boast of Statute Law as yet: And for 1 Cor. 10. 32, 33. deal equally with me: can you conceive that you give me less offence in forcing me to join with you in such a way of worship as I think sinful or less pleasing unto God, than I should give unto you by peaceably serving God after another manner, only different from yours, without so much as maligning yours, much less compelling of your person? or do you any way seek my profit that I might be saved, when you force me to serve God (as you allege) after such a manner whereof I doubt, and so am damned? Rom. 14. 22, 23.  
3. and 4. To the third and fourth Question, I answer: That in all the New Testament you find no national Churches, but several Independent ones, to wit, so many Churches as you read of in all the New Testament, no one depending on the other: But for presbyterial government, I find there no print thereof, far better colour for episcopacy; yet lest episcopacy should attempt to show her horns again, I propound it as a query; whether superiority, or episcopal pre-eminence, which the Apostles enjoyed in those days, was not only by reason of the immediate Call, Commission, and a higher measure of inspiration which they enjoyed above their brethren? and that since neither Bishops, Synods, nor classical Presbyteries can now boast more of the Holy Ghost than others; whether Presbyters should not be contented to become level with their brethren, or restore again the superiority to Bishops, unto the Apostles and their successors.  
The unity, peace and amity which you insinuate to be established by presbyterial Government, is it otherwise than of the outward man? can you compel them into an unity of hearts and minds as well as bodies? was a coercive power ever sanctified for such a purpose? had a subordinate government of Churches, or a national Church been so beautiful in the eyes of Christ, do we not think the Apostles and Primitive Christians would have been as wise to find it out, and as daring to practise it as were the Papists of England, who always governed themselves by Bishops, their Bishop of Chalcedon being continually resident in the Land till within these ten years? which yet caused such a difference betwixt the Jesuits and the secular Priests, as that they have been impleading one another at the Court of Rome for above these twenty years: methinks you should have known of this, and not presuppose the Apostles and Primitive Christians inferior to Papists for piety or discipline.  
But as for the capacity you say this Government hath to prevent heresy, errors, faction, libertinism, injustice, and other inconveniences: I appeal to the throne of reason (since that of Christ Jesus being spiritual is so little apprehended by the carnally minded) whether the quite contrary be not the truth itself out of this consideration only, viz. The national Church government to be afterwards established, must first be made choice of by most voices, and so imposed upon the rest for evangelical; the most are most commonly the most corrupt, most licentious, most injust, most factious, either quite careless or regardless of every Religion of all devotion; and by their Club-law which they are able to manage, being the major party, they will both erect their government, and compel others to be like themselves; and I desire to propound it to your saddest thoughts to be seriously considered on, whether such as are so earnest that the State should prescribe them what Religion to be of, and after what manner to worship God, do not so for the most part out of idleness, because they themselves will not take pains to try the Spirits, 1 Joh. 4. 1. whether they be not mere formalists, and such as may be thought to be of opinion, and pass their lives, as though the State must give account both of their faith and works at the day of judgement, and not they themselves.  
As I told you before, I find no national Church in the New Testament, but several Independent ones, which I entreat you to consider on: If you say there was no whole Nation converted to the Christian Faith in those days, and that the Christians wanted civil power; I answer, That there were so many proselytes, so many converted as made several Churches▪ if not in one City, in one Province at least, and within a few (some 12) miles one of another, to wit, the 7 Churches of Asia, no two whereof, besides the first Christian Antioch and others, were above 120 miles distant, and yet all these were Independent, as appears by the respective directions, and the distinct charges which the Blessed Spirit in the Revelation pronounced against them: and whether the civil powers were then Christian or Antichristian, had the dependency and subordination of Churches been an Ordinance of God, good Christians would have submitted without a civil power to pillory or whip them to it, and the Apostles not omitted to reprehend them if they had done amiss in not observing it: Since then a classical presbyterial government has no precedent in the New Testament, and episcopal which domineered in some degree, almost ever since has been voted Antichristian, and neither of them by coercive means can work more upon Christians than they can upon so many head of Cattle by impounding them in what place they please, no one of them may warrantably be established.  
5. As the grounds of Independent government attribute nothing to the Magistrate in Church affairs farther than the Magistrate is a member of their Churches and Assemblies▪ so no people under heaven ascribe more unto the Magistrate than the Independent do in civil matters. The Great Turk is not so absolute a Monarch, as a Prince, a Magistrate may be over a people independent in matters of Religion, who being such as make a conscience of all they do, would not only give unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's, but even suffer their own, their propriety in part to be taken from them, rather than resist the Powers, so they may quietly enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences; the Scriptures, the principles on which they ground themselves, do necessarily enforce them to it.  
6. Doubtless in all Nations from the first preaching of the Gospel till now, Christians did multiply, and particular Churches likewise, which for the most part had dependency on, and communion one with another, and were all subordinate to national and provincial Synods, and public ecclesiastical constitutions; but such Churches as were chiefly papal or episcopal, and never presbyterial till within the memory of our Fathers: and why we may not retreat back again into the errors of a hundred years, as well as not pass forward unto a farther measure of light and knowledge, I find little satisfaction, Phil. 3. 12, 13, 14.  
7. The self same Law of Nature, God, and rectified reason which instructed and warranted all Nations to subject themselves unto some public form of civil government, obliging all persons and societies of men alike, which they conceived most advantageous, doth not warrant us to do the like in Church affairs; because whatsoever civil action the civil Magistrate requires, may be performed by the outward man, or else be expiated by penalty without taint of conscience: But the Church government as it aims at, and regards the spiritual service and performance, Joh. 4. 24. so the punishments must have a spiritual effect, Mat. 18. 18. and cannot be undergone, or work upon a man's spirit unless he will himself, neither may he be willing thereunto, unless he apprehend them to be according to Christ's Government and Institution.  
8. From Exod. 23. 17. and 34. 23, 24. with Exod. 34 23, 24. and Deut. 16. 16. Levit. 17. 3. 4. 8 9 which speaks of the national Church of the Jews appearing at Jerusalem thrice a year, you can no fitter apply it to prove a national Church of Christians, than make it possible for all the world if they were Christians (which in such a sense must be national) to appear thrice a year at Jerusalem, or excuse them if they did not appear: and if you grant a Catholic Church throughout the world which may reach from one end thereof even to the other: I wonder how it can be denied, that such as join in an Independent Church way may not as possibly be accounted and prove true members of the Catholic: but for the distinct Synagogues and parochial Assemblies, as you call them, of the Jews, to which the people living together in a City were allotted and restrained, I find no ground in Scripture; but strong evidence for a kind of Independent Churches amongst the very Jewsd, as you may gather from Deutt. 12. 12. 18. c. 16. 11. 14. c. 26. 11. 12. Judg. 17. 18. Chapters, by such of them as kept Levites to officiate in their families.  
The synodal Assembly you point at in the Acts 15. was no formal Synod, neither would you as I conceive be contented to be bound by such an other, to wit, by a particular Church (that is a Parish Church in your account if you hold any such in those days) of another place, whereof you yourself are no member: If you say an assembly of brethren at Jerusalem, or any other particular place would now want inspired Apostles to make them synodal, or their Decrees of binding power, I cannot help you till it please God to send us others; neither do I find it in the power of man, because they have not an apostolical spirit to supply the want thereof by numbers, by multiplying or assembling so many more Presbyters or Presbyteries, all men subject to the same passions with ourselves, Act. 14. 15. which is such a piece of simony as we must be driven to grant, that God Almighty hath heretofore infatuated such inventions, or yield the Papists therein the upper hand.  
But where do we find that those of Jerusalem sent binding decrees to the Churches of the Gentiles? I see it not in Act. 15. 22. to 32. c. 16. 14. ●. 21. 25. which you produced for that purpose; since whatsoever their decrees were, though they were infallibly assisted by the presence of the Holy Ghost, v. 28. the penalty thereof was no more, than, If you do observe these things you shall do well, v. 29. In God's name then, if you will needs have Synods, and equalise them with the Apostles in making of decrees, which I fear me, may amount unto presumption, let them at least bind no otherwise than the Apostles, than these of Jerusalem, to wit Spiritually; give them no sting or poison of civil power, which will subtly undermine, enervate, and quite eat out the spiritual, other than which, you will (and may well for this very cause) acknowledge the Apostles neither had nor exercised: But what are these binding decrees of that synodal Assembly? are they any other than a small portion, or historical narration of the Acts of the Apostles? did they then bind the Churches of the Gentiles, or all Christians since, any otherwise than other portions of Scripture do? And if you will have Synods and Parliaments to make the like binding decrees at present, do you not say by consequence, and in effect that they may prescribe us another Gospel, other Scriptures? which though they were not differing, but alike to what we have received, are we not forbid to add unto them upon peril of damnation? Rev. 22. 18, 19  
But for the Churches of England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, &c. recorded by Historians and Canons, I fear me, if well examined, they will rather be found Church walls, than Church Assemblies, living Temples of the Lord, whereof Christ Jesus is the corner stone, 1 Cor. 3. 16, 17. Eph. 2. 20, 21, 22. such stocks and stones have the lazy, covetous, aspiring, and which is worst of all, persecuting (lergie-men endeavoured to bring poor Christians to, the laity as they call them, that they might afterwards hew and hammer them into whatsoever else their own lusts most desired.  
9 In my answer to your 3. and 4. Questions, I hope to have given you, if you consider of it, some satisfaction, that even in the Apostles times, the Christians if they had been inspired thereto, or so desired, might have made themselves a national Church, what ever the civil Magistrate had been, as well as Papists in England, who always were and still are subject to their Bishop in chief, from whom they have appeal to Rome; or the Jews themselves, which so long as they were a Church, were still a national Church, though subjected to heathen Princes as touching civil matters, in captivity and strictest bondage: For suppose England ought to be, and were a national Church of Calvinists, or other kind of Protestants; if the Prince think, good to alter his own Religion, or some party of the Subjects, a fourth, fift or so; does the kingdom cease to be a national Church? if it do not, let the kingdom enjoy their national Church, and particulars, such as will, their Independent way; but if it do, it is a strong argument that the erecting of national Churches is no Ordinance of God, as being over liable to casualty and subversion, if the Prince thereof only, or every lesser part has a capacity to overthrow it.  
But whereas you say, that as the Christians multiplied, so were Church Officers, and their Church Government and Discipline varied, the Church Officers increased, & new Gospels written, prescribing new necessary rules, canons and directions, &c. and transmitting the same liberty unto posterity of supplying and instituting the like as they themselves should afterwards find requisite: the phrase, or rather doctrine of new Gospels stumbles me not a little, conceiving we find it branded with a curse, Gal. 1. 8. 9 1 Tim. 1. 3. and I fear me, you may as well question whether we have that true Gospel which was once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. as multiply or coin us new ones, for if there be more than one, or since all Christians are endowed with Christian liberty all alike; if a Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist or Brownist; if a papal presbyterial or other Synod; if Rome, Spain, France or England may make new Gospels, all other States, Synods and People of what opinion soever may do the like; and than what spirit less than wonderful and infallible can assure us which is the true one? and yet such as will make new Rites and Ordinances (their very Ceremonies becoming Ordinances by their enjoining them) to bind the consciences of their brethren, must necessarily derive their warrant from some new and unknown Gospel, or have no new ones, their own confession implying no less, in that they hold a necessity of new Rites and Ceremonies, whereof they acknowledge to have no express warrant for them in the Scriptures which are common to us: and for the liberty you say Independents use in this respect, they impose it no otherwise upon any, but that every particular man which apprehends it not to be God's way, may peaceably withdraw himself.  
But for Micah 4. 1. to 5. Zach. 8 22. and Es. 2. 2. 3. And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house, shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all Nations shall flow unto it. And people shall go and say, come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; which you bring to prove the prophet's prediction of national conversions, and consequently of national Churches after their days; but you can no more justify a national Church of Christians from thence, than that the same national Church of Christians shall likewise go up to the Temple of Jerusalem, from whence by the same prophecy they are also to receive the Word of God, and not from Parliament, Pope, Synod or Presbytery: nay the same prophecy goes further, and says, That they shall then break their swords into mattocks, and their spears into scythes; Nation shall not rise up against Nation, neither shall they learn to sight any more, v. 4. May then a Presbyterial Spirit carve or mince this prophecy out unto us by peece-meales which the Spirit of the most High hath joined? and if it be to be verified of our times, that Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation, neither shall they learn to fight any more; must not these sons of thunder, these men of war, these Church Incendiaries, which do little besides preaching fire and sword, with incensing of their over credulous disciples to drive out of the Country, out of the World, or persecute even unto death such as only dissent from them in opinion; must they not I say condemn themselves? this course may make a People become a Nation of devils, or sooner cut a whole Nation off, than make them grow into a national Church to serve the Lord in sincerity and truth: But what if whole Nations should be converted? if national conversions may or aught to prove so many national Churches, suppose English, Scotch, Dutch, French, whereof no one will submit unto the other, though they were all orthodox Protestants, would not they be all independent in respect to one another? why then may it not be tolerable in the eyes of God, for as many lesser Churches or congregational Assemblies in one State or kingdom to enjoy a like independency? is God a respecter of numbers or of Nations? but if the several Nations so converted aught to make but one national Church, why may not the proselytes of all Countries as well make one national Church, since we find in Zach 14. 16. whilst he prophesieth of a national Church and worship, that every one that is left of all the Nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship? and which of them shall have the honour of the denomination and christening of it? wherefore should it be called after one, rather than after any other of them? I fear me, the Gossips will not agree about the name, especially the Spaniards who have the Catholic King, and think all Nations of the World bound to leave their own, and learn their fashions, language, and what not: and yet the Jews will tug hard for it, both with Rome, the Spaniard, and all others, pretending that all prophecies and other Scriptures which do make for a national Church, declare it plainly to be Jewish, Es. 49. c. Mic. 4 1. 5. and the truth is, that under the Law, whoever of the Nations were then converted, were properly said to be of the Jewish Church in whatsoever climate or Country they were resident; but how an Englishman can be a member of several national Churches at once (as he may happen in his life time to have lived several years in several Countries) or be one year a member of one national Church, and another year of another, I know not but conceive it to be totally inconsistent, and yet you will make him be a member of the national Church where ever he resides for the present, and that if the Church be now national, whosoever is once a member, can no more cease to be a member (by leaving one national Church and joining to another) than in time of the Jews when there were but two estates, to wit, within or without the Jewish Church.  
But if several national Churches may make up one Catholic, why may not so many more Independent Churches do so too? And if all believers must now make but one national Christian Church, must it not insinute one High Priest, one Pope to be head thereof that it may the better hold parallel with the Jewish? If well examined 'tis not unlikely something equavalent thereunto may be discovered: will not these changelings like Micha's vagabond Priests which remove from one Benefice, Living, and Lecture to another as often as a more plentiful is proffered, think it better to officiate to a Tribe and Nation, than to a petty assembly or family, and so betray their flocks? Judg. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 18, 19, 20. Is it not to be feared that men cry out for a subordination of Churches or Presbyteries to enlarge their own jurisdiction? and will not the same mercurial spirits at times and opportunities refine the business, and discover when a papal plenipotentia may best conduce to unity, and that with good reason too according to their carnal principles? for why should not a monarchical Government be as lawful in Church as Commonwealth, if the insinuated argument in your seventh Question be good, it should be necessary so far forth, as many judicious Writers hold a monarchical Government to be most exquisite and perfect for every civil State? nay why should it not be so? or how dare the favourers, abetters of a national Christian Church endure any other than a monarchical head and government, such a one as God himself prescribed unto the Jews, and fully as much (even both at once or not at all, I mean a monarchical head to the national Christian Church) as he did a national Church unto the Christians?  
10. It will be no more obstinacy, singularity, arrogancy, self-ends, nor peremptory schism for Independents to submit unto a government established by consent of Parliament, and Synod hereafter, than it would have been heretofore, if the said government shall require any thing of them which they cannot yield unto without defiling of their consciences: you will, I presume, grant they might do so in time of Popery or episcopacy; and why a Presbytery should have a liberty of forcing men to sin against their own faith; of doing evil, and exercising dominion over the consciences of their brethren, which neither the Pope nor Bishops might, is to me a riddle.  
But I conceive I may safely bring my appeal home to Mr. Pryn's own conscience, and ask him seriously why he might not have made his tenth whole query unto himself when he opposed the whole Church and State of England, not having then so many to side with him therein, as through God's goodness the Independents now have hundreds? Oh! how do you give offence unto your brethren, and cause to think you then stood out upon a wrong foundation, in that you do not see the Independents have the same, and so much better? nay do you not justify the Archbishop in all his harsh proceedings then against you, whom now you yet prosecute, for what he did then, the very same which you, if you had power, would do to Independents? reconcile but yourself unto yourself, and i● I mistake not, you will be far nearer composing the distracting controversies you speak of in your Preface, whereof your 12 bloody Queries, with doctrines and spirits of the same allay are the only causers.  
But good now, tell me, were they Statesmen, Bishops, a Star-chamber or High-Commission Court, whose government when time was you so withstood? what if a presbyterial Discipline seem as unwarrantable and ungodly unto a thousand Christians who you call Independents, and in the opinion of understanding and pious men may likely be as conscientious and knowing as yourself? but what if you a single man or so, were then in the right, though you withstood the settled government of a State or national Church, and a thousand Independents now in an error for delivering their opinions concerning presbyterial government which is but getting into the Throne, not yet established, were in the wrong? what infallible rule or spirit did you then discover unto the State whereby they might be prevailed upon to think you then were in the right, which a thousand Independents may not rather be thought to have now, done the like and more, though yet they were in the wrong? if than we be all subject to the same passions and infirmities, Rom. 14. 15. let us use instructing and admonishing with meekness, bearing one another's burden, Gal. 6. 2.  
1 Pet. 5. 2. Peter exhorts the Elders to take the oversight of the flock of God amongst them, not by constrains but willingly: Perhaps some may apprehend the sense of these words constraint and willingly to be doubtful, to wit, whether of the two be to be understood actively in reference to the Elders, and whether of them passively; in which respect the better to find out the Apostles meaning, it may not be amiss to try both ways, whereby I doubt not but we shall easily make appear which of them doth best agree with the coherence as well of that which does precede, as of that which follows. If the word constraint be to be understood passively in relation to the Elders, than the meaning of the words, as I suppose, can be no otherwise then this: I exhort you Elders to be forward in taking willingly the oversight of God's flock, not delaying so long as that the flock compel you thereunto; and if it signify actively, then will it amount to this purpose: I exhort you Elders to take the oversight of the flock of God so far forth only as they are willing to be subject unto your oversight without constraint: If then we examine which of these two interpretations of the Apostles word will suit best with the context, we shall find the former not only like a patch of old cloth in a new garment, but if we will make it to be sense, we must suppose the flock of God might constrain the Elders to take the oversight, if of themselves they were unwilling, which I suppose you will explode: But that the intention of the Apostle was to exhort the Elders to take the oversight, and rule over the flock of God so far forth only as the flock was willing, is clear by the following words, v. 3. where he adds, that they should not take the oversight as Lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock; as if he should say, Though the flock of God have willingly, and of their own accord chosen you to have the oversight and rule over them in the Lord, yet think not that you have hereby obtained any lordly power or dominion over God's heritage, but that you might only serve as more eminent ensamples of well-doing unto the flock: but if they might have taken the oversight by constraint, to wit, whether the flock would or no; then must they necessarily in that respect have been as Lords over God's heritage, which the Apostle expressly prohibits them.  
If then the Elders, Presbyters and Bishops may not take this oversight of the flock of God, farther than the flock doth willingly consent thereto, how will your Parish Churches, much less your national endure this Scripture? how can you longer uphold either of them, or they subsist, so long as you believe and yield obedience to it? unless you will say the greater part which are willing, will sufficiently constitute a parochial or national Church, and this the Independents will not grudge you, much less abridge you of, so long as you are contented to expect, according to the Apostles long suffering, Eph. 4. 2, 3, 4. 2 Tim. 4. 2. till they can be convinced to join with you therein.  
What think you is the reason that the Kings and Parliaments Forces have been kept thus in a balance destroying one another, whilst it may have been observed for the most part, that when either side was in best condition and height of glorying expecting a total victory, as I may say, the next encounter proved their overthrow; but that the design of most voices on both sides, is to get power to persecute the other for cause of conscience? We may be confident that if both sides had not only notoriously, but even equally offended God in highest measure through a desire of power to persecute their brethren merely for differing in opinion, God would have put an end unto the common miseries in giving victory to one of them; but alas! let it be no offence to say, his infinite wisdom finds neither of them capable of such mercy whilst they are so merciless to one another: is it not too too evident that both the episcopal and presbyterial clergy contrary to Paul's profession, 2 Cor. 1. 24. aspire at rule and dominion over the faith of others, God's most conscientious and dearest servants? are not their Assemblies full of these alarms? are not the Pulpit cushions worn out with tragical actions suitable thereunto? are not these the comfortable doctrines the disconsolate people are forced to feed upon in these miserable distractions, whilst they kill one another in the field, or so many grow mad at home, and die of penury and desperation? and what think we made our brethren the Scotch so successless here in England, whilst the wars are now beginning to kindle in their own Country, if it were not that they join with this Nation, or rather provoke to establish their so much idolised presbyterial Discipline of persecution? when yet they themselves thought they had just cause to be highly offended with the same (their own) persecuting spirit in episcopacy. When the Lord required the Israelites to appear before him at Jerusalem thrice a year, he promised that no man should invade their habitations in their absence, Exod. 34. 23, 24. which gracious providence of his no doubt continues still protecting all such as are employed by his command; but unless our brethren of Scotland bethink themselves in time, and consider that even as the persecuting Bishops of England attempting to impose their government in Scotland gave occasion to begin the Wars in England; so if the persecuting Presbyters of Scotland continue to advance, and get set up the Scotch government in England, it may likely bring all three kingdoms to make the seat of War in Scotland: I would be loath to prophesy upon this occasion, but do much fear, that in how bad condition soever both England and Ireland are at present, if the Wars last but a little longer, Scotland will yet be in far worse: God of his infinite mercy open the eyes of all three kingdoms in this their heavy visitation, reconciling himself unto them all, and them to one another for his dear son Christ Jesus sake.  
11. The Independent Government will not so certainly let in heresies into their Churches, as the settling of a coercive jurisdiction in or at the Clergies beck would keep truth out from a national Church; but if heresies do multiply without, in the world (in a national Church) that is no more than was foretold and must follow of necessity, Mat. 24. 24. 1 Cor. 11. 19 this concerns not the Independent Government which permits no heretics to be amongst them within their Churches: they make use of instructing, admonishing, reproving and rebuking, with such other spiritual means and armour, as are only proper and sanctified by God Almighty for preventing heresies and schisms; whereas all other Discipline which uses imprisoning, whipping, stigmatising, and evil entreating even unto death, a course fitter to be practised towards beasts than men, may make the outward man turn hypocrite, two fold worse the child of the devil, Matth. 23. 15. but never prevail upon the Spirit, which, such proceedings may easily exasperate and keep further off, but will never win unto the truth.  
Men do not embrace errors otherwise than as they account them truths, and therefore 'tis no marvel if they prove as pertinacious in defence of the one, as they are constant in defending of the other; in which respect what ever men's opinions be, they must be dealt withal by the spirit of meekness and long suffering, gall 6. 1. 2 Tim. 4. 2. 5. Tit. 2. 15. 2 Thess. 3. 14. we know not God's secret times and seasons for bringing men unto the truth; 'tis a dangerous thing to anticipate God's judgements, even on those which afterwards were to be condemned; some are not called until the 11 hour in God's account; and our Saviour taught us to ask forgiveness no otherwise than we forgive our brethren, and no heretic how gross soever, has greater need of a merciful Presbytery, than that Presbytery has of the Father of mercies.  
'Tis an easy matter to exclaim against anabaptistical, Antinomian, heretical, atheistical opinions, as of the soul's mortality, divorce pleasure, &c. but one dram of apposite Scripture, and rectified reason would convince men of their errors, far sooner than the clubs & slaves which were and are still employed against our Saviour and his Saints when they could not resist the Spirit and wisdom wherewith they spoke, Act 6. 10. I can easily believe that since this Parliament time of speaking and writing truth, many errors have thereby been published, but even you yourself by this means have not acquired a farther knowledge of some truth which otherwise might still in likelihood have been witheld, I must either stand amazed at the transcendent perfection of your knowledge, or conceive you have spent more time in writing then in reading.  
12. Independency is not so like a pharisaical dangerous spiritual pride, vainglorious singularity, or self-conceitednesse of a man's own superlative holiness, as the papal episcopal, presbyterial, or other such like Spirit, which is not contented to enjoy God and himself in peace of conscience; but what ever giddy whimsy, or phanaticke projects invade & captivate his understanding, is restless, and Haman like, Est. 3. 5. 6. pines away until he have brought his neighbour, the town, Country, and all the World to bow to him perforce, to be of his opinion.  
You yourself in what you stood out against the Bishops or the State were Independent, and like enough would then in modesty have been contented barely to have enjoyed your independency, for what you found yourself not able to submit unto in conscience; and now that you think you have gained an opportunity, do you take it to be justice or good doctrine to foment and be a ringleader unto others towards the obtaining and exercising dominion over the consciences of your brethren? Oh the impartiality and falsehood of a man's own heart and understanding.  
At the beginning of this Parliament the whole kingdom sided with both Houses in the vindication of their Liberties, and so it continued until such as did overmuch idolise Presbytery, prevailed for a Bill to damn episcopacy root and branch, that Presbytery might succeed it with its fascibus & fustibus, with its Pentifiealibus & Synodalibus; nothing to be abated which concerned either wealth or jurisdiction, only an episcopal tyranny to be exchanged for a presbyterial slavery; which, so soon as the Court clergy discovered, they quickly plotted a countermine, they quickly prevailed to bring arms into the Field for asserting the national Church Government and Discipline established by Law; and thus between episcopacy and Presbytery, between the covetous and aspiring domineering clergymen of War on both sides, not only the Grand design, the vindication of our just Liberties, through God's just judgement, is well near blasted, which was so likely to be compassed by a universal union and concurrence without the least bloodshed, save of some few notorious Delinquents, and in stead thereof by their several and yet joint contrivances, like Samson's Foxes, the depraved clergymen of both sides have engaged all three kingdoms in so violent and execrable a civil war to the destruction and sudden death of so many thousand Christians, Protestants, as the whole Christian World in so short a time had never felt the like. Can Mr. Pryn deny but that the parties now in arms, at least the Grand Instruments, those principal Engines which set all the wheels a running till they are grown quite giddy, may notwithstanding their subtle carriage of it, be justly denominated episcopal and presbyterial? have they not as the Prophet Daniel saith, 11. 39 divided the kingdoms betwixt them at present, and as Esaiah tells us, 56. 11. do they not look to their own way only, whilst every one has his chief aim at the gain which comes from his quarter? nay, hath not each of them designed to reduce all three kingdoms totally to their command and bondage hereafter? may not the Apostle James his reprehension be thought purposely directed to them? From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence even of our lusts? James 4 1. aut Caesar, aut nullus, nothing will serve their turns less than absolute conquest of the kingdom, of the whole man both soul and body; imprisonment and banishment, fire and sword to all alike, to Independents as well as to Papists, though the Papists till they renounce some certain tenets, can be true to neither, but the Independents unto either, as well as the Apostles and Primitive Christians were to the Antichristian Roman Emperors.  
Did Micah, to whom the Word of the Lord came, c. 1. 1. tell the Jews how they hated the good, and loved the evil, that they plucked off the skin and flesh from their bones; that they did eat the flesh of God's people, and flayed their skin from off them, that they broke their bones and chopped them in pieces as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron: they build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity, the heads thereof judge for reward, the Priests teach for hire, and the Prophets thereof divine for money; yet will they say is not the Lord amongst us? Micah 4. 2. 3. 10. 11. and may it not now as truly, if not then Prophetically, be said of too too many on both sides at present, that they seek to settle uniformity, and build up a national Church in blood and rapine? did Micah then tell the Jews, v. 11. That their Heads did judge for reward, and may it not now be said as truly, that neither widow nor fatherless, neither poor nor oppressed can tell whom to fly to for relief or comfort? no Saint to help them within hearing; the drums and Trumpets, with imminent necessities, are made excuses to continue the whole kingdoms in unsufferable misery, except such as can make friendship by their unrighteous mammon which they have got with fishing in these troubled waters, Luke 16. 9 may it not now be said as justly, that the Priests of both sides, the episcopal and presbyterial clergy do teach for hire, and prophesy for money? doth not the same Prophet Micah say truly of them, He that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare War against him? do they not with the most prostitute Popelings cry out, No penny, no Pater noster? Is not maintenance, maintenance, the burden of all their Parlour or Pulpit pastime? and why should they so sacrilegiously set a price on that which is but supposititious, the fancy of their own brains, the real truth whereof God required all true Disciples to give for nothing? Mat 10 8. Es. 55. 1. 2. or why should people be forced to buy the chaffer of these Clergie-merchants, rather than the wares or labour of a shoemaker or porter? would not such dealing be damned for an unjust monopoly, which yet these encroachers practise without a patent, if any but themselves should do the like? nay why must we be forced to pay these mercenary clergymen for such counterfeit service and ministration which others will discharge better, and that for nothing? is not this the greatest infringing of the Subjects propriety which the kingdom suffers? I say not this to undervalue the ministry of the gospel, or to dissuade an ample and abundant maintenance to such as truly labour in God's Vineyard; but to exaggerate the heinousness of those that do not only set, as they pretend, the inestimable treasure of the gospel, the unvaluable Word of God to sale as if it were an unholy thing, Heb. 10. 29. but as much as in them lies, compel all people and Nations by fire and sword to buy trash and trumpery in stead thereof, and that at what price they themselves please: And lastly, as Micah pronounced a curse upon the Israelites for these iniquities of theirs, v. 12. so have we, instead of peace and propriety, nothing remaining besides direful Wars and barbarous devastations; and instead of a national Church, through God's just judgements, we see three Nations weltering in one another's blood.  
If then we have thus fallen into these miseries, may we not by retrograding get cut again? if episcopacy and Presbytery have set the State on fire through an ambitious desire of Empire, together with a pestilent spirit of persecuting one another, may not the serving both alike reduce us to quietness again? they are these pretended clergymen that love to be called the great rabbis and Doctors, that affect the uppermost seats at feasts and meetings, Mat. 23. 6. 7. these think the Blessed Spirit departed from all the Saints, to be retreated and confined unto their breasts; they will allow nobody to prophesy besides themselves, contrary to Paul's testimony, 1 Cor. 14. 31. in which respect the people being for the most part bred up in invincible ignorance, or most erroneously both disciplined and doctrinated, through all which they become plunged into such a desperate and inextricable misery, who may and ought justly to be called unto account for it, but the whole clergy of the kingdom? a charge was laid upon the Prophet Ezekiel 3. 18. to instruct and warn the Jews of their wicked ways, and if he failed therein, the punishment was threatened to himself; and since the clergy in other cases as of separating themselves like a tribe of Levi▪ usurping tithes, &c. appeal unto the Law▪ why should not they with their scrolls and catalogues of offences be tried by the Law, as Festus said to Paul when he sent him unto Caesar? Act. 25. 12.  
Consider a little, I entreat you, the case of one upon the high way going quietly and soberly about his business; if another should quarrel with him and say he goes the wrong way, he understands not his own business, and so compel him with threats and violence to go and do as he would have him; would not every traveller that beheld it, take this other to be impertinent, proud, presumptuous and injurious? and yet thus doth the world treat the despised Independents, the meekest of all Christians, which our Saviour sent into the world like sheep in the midst of wolves, Mat. 10. 6. And as Paul then thought he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, Act. 26. 9 Ioh. 16. 2. So most men think they do God good service in reviling, mocking, and persecuting the Independents by all manner of ways, and for no other cause but that they are more scrupulous than most men seem ordinarily, in desiring to keep a good conscience both towards God and man.  
And whereas you say that Independency casts off the strongest bonds of brotherly love and care, &c. I beseech you consider a little better of their ways; Is it not Paul's golden rule and theirs, to give no offence neither to the Jew, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God, 1 Cor. 10. 32. to walk in wisdom towards them that are without? Col. 4. 5. Is it not a special and peculiar drift of theirs to win even such as are without the word by their lowly and pious conversation, 1 Pet. 3. 1. Nay, do they not treat far more humanly and Christianly all such with whom, by reason of their unbelief or errors they can have no Church fellowship, than Presbyterian or any coercive Church government does those whom they would compel by persecution to join with them in Church society? if they put to death the bodies of their friends, and consequently damn their soul, for they cause them to die as obstinate persons as heretics; what exquisite and new invented torments conjured from below the pit of hell have such in store to treat their enemies withal? or how do they follow Paul's injunction, who ordered the incestuous person to be proceeded against in such a manner only, as though the flesh were mortified or destroyed, yet the spirit might be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 5. 5. I have purposely insisted only upon the most material passages of your Questions, fearing I should have proved over tedious if I had done otherwise; however for a further dilucidation and strengthening of what I have already said, give me leave to add a few lines more.  
If a Pope, State, or Synod may impose Articles of Faith, or forms of Worship, prescribe men how they shall understand the Scriptures, stint them to discourse on certain portions only, and how far forth from hence will follow these several gross absurdities: 1. That it is superfluous for common people to have or read the Bible, because they may not be known to believe any part thereof farther than they are dispensed withal, and that may be imparted to them in such respective Treatises approved of by the Pope, State, or Synod. 2. That it is needless to try the Spirits, because according to such constitutions, they may neither fly from them though they discover them to be erroneous, nor embrace them if they be of God; but must implicitly conform to whatsoever is required of them. 3. That it were no blessing for God to have given unto any man a more discerning spirit than ordinarily, because though never so transcendently full of the Holy Ghost, he must notwithstanding quench, renounce it, and submit unto their magisterial decrees whether they be true or false. 4. If a Pope, State or Synod will expect spiritual obedience to their Decrees, they must assume to them the Spirit of infallibility, something above the common sphere of mankind, otherwise they take too much upon them, and their brethren will be apt to examine, question and judge them too when they see cause; and from the opinion of their infallibility will follow, that it should be needless for the Pope to take counsel of his Cardinals; the Statesmen to receive information from the Subjects whom they represent, and from whom they receive their authority in trust only; Synods of any others, or for they themselves to study the points before hand or as private men; but Peter's chair, the statehouse or Convocation-house would ipso facto inspire, and translate them with Saul amongst the Prophets what ever their condition had been before. 5. It would follow that whosoever take upon them this infallibility of deciding controversies, should never fail therein if their civil power be strong enough to back them in it; because both Popes, States and Synods do alike lay claim, at least require the same obedience to whatsoever they decree, in defiance of one another, defending themselves and doctrines more by civil power than either right or reason, it being the Sword, not the Scriptures or reason, which decides the controversy between carnal and persecuting people: And lastly, if fining, imprisoning, or any degree of persecuting, or using of coercive means against such as differ from them in opinion were lawful in the true Church or people of God; the Papists or any other heretics, because they take themselves to be the true Church, were bound to use the same even against the Saints of God because they differ from them; neither should it be any aggravation unto the Jews at the day of judgement for crucifying of our Saviour, and shedding so much innocent blood of Saints, which yet we find to fall upon them heavily, Matth. 23. 35. if persecution for cause of Conscience, were lawful in any people; since in such case both Jews, Papists and Protestants of any sort which persecute might say; The true Church had leave to persecute, we held ourselves to be the true Church, and thought we had done God service in killing such as differed from us, Joh. 16. 2. the putting of the Saints to death is but a consequence which necessarily follows the doctrine of persecution for cause of Conscience, though never so erroneous.  
I will not deny but Independents ought to take advice and be directed by the wisdom, learning and piety of others who are better gifted than themselves, neither may they do any thing rashly contrary thereunto, but rather suspend a while, still desiring farther light and information: yet when it comes unto an issue, and that we must necessarily declare ourselves; we may not by any composition, or for any respect whatsoever be finally overswayed by the wisdom, learning, and piety of others never so eminently gifted, nor be prevailed upon to do any thing against our own consciences and understanding.  

Eight queries.  
Whether have not Parliaments and Synods of England in times past established Popery? And whether may they not possibly do so again hereafter? Whether in case a Parliament and Synod should set up Popery, may they therein be disobeyed by the people? If they may be disobeyed in one particular, whether may they not upon the like grounds be disobeyed in another? whether the people be not judge of the grounds for denying obedience to Parliament and Synod in such a case? Whether the pretence of giving a Parliament and Synod power to establish Religion, and yet reserve in our own hands a Prerogative of yielding or denying obedience thereunto, as we ourselves think good, be not an absolute contradiction? and lastly, Whether they that attribute such a power to Parliaments and Synods as they themselves will question and disobey, when they think good do not in effect weaken and quite enervate the power of Parliaments, or else condemn themselves in censuring the Independents for withholding of obedience from Parliament and Synod in such things wherein they never gave, or meant them to have power?  
If the whole kingdom may deny obedience unto Popish Acts and Canons, or upon any other the like just occasion, and they themselves be judge whether the occasion be just or no; whether may not Independents, a part of the kingdom only do the like in all respects? or whether ought they because a lesser part of the kingdom, to yield obedience to Popish Acts and Canons, because a major part approve of and agree with a Parliament and Synod in establishing them?  
Whether would it not be an ungodly course for any people to hazard any thing at the disposal of others, or to be carried by most voices, which may possibly, if not more than probably he decided in such a mannee as the yielding obedience thereunto would be burdensome to their consciences, if not absolutely sinful?  
Whether were it not an ungodly course for the whole Commons of a Kingdoms, so far differing in Religion as that they profess before hand that they dare not yield to one another upon peril of damnation, to make choice of a Parliament and Synod, with entering into Vow and Covenant to become afterwards all of that Religion whatsoever the Parliament and Synod should agree on? whether it be not absurd for men to say they will be of such a Religion as shall be settled, before they se● evidence to convince them? and whether it be in the power of man to be really of what Religion he will, until he see reason and demonstration for it?  
If a representative State or Magistrate may make laws for setting up a Religion, or establishing what Church government they please; whether have not the people the same power originally in themselves, to assume again, and put it in execution when they please? and whether were this otherwise than to attribute unto a mixed multitude, to the World, if not absolutely as it is distinguished from the Saints in Scripture, Joh. 15. 18. 19 and 17. 6. 9 11. 14. at least by most voices, to make choice of a Religion, Laws and Discipline, wherewith the Saints, household and Church of God must necessarily be governed?  
Suppose a Lutheran and Calvinist, or any others differing in opinion; Whether may they out of hypocrisy or implicitly submit and be comformable to one another's discipline and doctrine whereof they doubt, before they be convinced? Whether have either of them an infallible way to convince the other, and bring them over to be sincerely of their opinion before their understandings be satisfied? if they have, why do they not put it in execution? if they have not, why should they be offended with one another if they continue differing?  
Whether opposing God's people or their ways be not a fighting against God? whether it be not extremest rashness, if not absolute madness and presumption to attempt any thing which may possibly prove a fighting against God? and whether any man in these days can have a fuller assurance in his own conscience, or give better evidence unto others that he doth not oppose the people of God whilst he opposes such as differ from him in opinion, than Paul whilst he persecuted the Church, Phil. 3. 6. thought he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, Act. 26. 9?   

Postscript.  
COuld the foregoing Answer have found as free a passage at the press as your Questions did, it might have presented itself to you a month ago; & though in the interim I have had the sight of a second dozen of Interrogatories, I may safely profess the reading of them did not administer unto me any other matter of edifying, than to find and bemoan the want of those sober minded, and peaceably disposed men, &c. you spoke of in your Preface to the former dozen, which might sadly ponder and seriously debate them: however since they are presented as a second course, though I confess my stomach was overcome at very first, yet that you may see I am not easily prevailed upon to pass by any thing of Mr. Pryn's without perusal, please to be contented that I observe your 2 interrogatory is, Whether Independents do not extraordinarily eclipse, impeach, if not absolutely deny and subvert the lawful power of civil Magistrates, all former Parliaments, and this present too in all matters of Church Government, and ecclesiastical affairs, &c. But from what is thereby insinuated A. S. doth freely clear the Independents in his Observat. and Annotat. upon the apologetical narration, where he says, That the civil Magistrate arrogates not to himself (not so much as) any directive power in matters of Religion. p. 5. The civil Magistrate arrogates no Spiretuall authority to himself. p. 48. The Parliament indeed is the supreme Judicatory, severe tribunal, the most sacred refuge, &c. in civil causes, but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion, by teaching or preaching, or judging of controversies of Religion; nor any executive power that is intrinsical to the Church, as in the vocation, deposition, and suspension of Ministers, &c. (which I conceive the Committee for Religion will not like of) which are merely, spiritual. p. 6. If your meaning be that the Parliament should judge between the Independents and Presbyterians, you go against the Parliaments intention: ibid. and lastly, For intrinsical spiritual power, it is not in your power to grant the civil Magistrate any at all; neither can you give him more spiritual obedience than Scripture permitteth you, or give him a part of the spiritual power which you have received of God, It is only in God who can give power therein to any man we dare not be so bold. p. 28. Now if this doctrine be Presbyterian, and Presbyterian good, and that deny unto, nay make the civil Magistrate disclaim all authority in matters of Religion; with what justice are Independents censured as subverters of the civil powers for saying but the same? If it be objected, that A. S. seems to be of another opinion in other passages; let but the objecters reconcile him to himself, and the great controversy between Independents and Presbyterians will be well near composed: But that you may see the Independents assume no greater liberty of dissenting from their brethren in matters of opinion than is warrantable by the Presbyterian rule: See likewise what A. S. says p. 22. to wit; It is safe even for a few men to dissent from all the World if they have very strong reason for their dissent. p. 28. Particular congregations are not subject unto the judgement of Senates or Assemblies, but according to the word of God: and lastly, It is holden for a certain and undoubted maxim amongst all Procestants, that the Church has no absolute power in her judgements, &c. You yourself cannot say less, unless you make an idol of them; yet if you will but grant them thus much, they are totally and sincerely the civil Magistrates, and yours in all the rest.  
In your third interrogatory, you insinuate That the Independents conceive a right and liberty of gathering to themselves such as are Parishioners of 20 other godly Ministers by the established laws and customs, which you say our solemns Vow and Covenant obligeth us to maintain: Good Sir, tell me, Are they the episcopal Laws of England, the presbyterial Laws of Scotland, or the popish Laws of Ireland which you call established Laws? for the whole kingdom of Ireland both representative and represented, will now no doubt he able to declare by Club-law wherein your best argument and strength consists, that the Popish are now the established Laws of Ireland; which of them is it your expect us to be engaged to by out solemn Vow and Covenant? (for doubtless there are many who think the Covenant obliges us unto all three alike in their respective senses, for no few both Popish, episcopal, presbyterial and Independent men have taken it in no other:) The Popish I conceive you will renounce, though by your own manner of arguing you cannot even at present get clear thereof as touching Ireland nor England when e'er we have a Popish Parliament again: As touching Episcopacy, I presume you understand of a Bill prepared for its extirpation; and why may not Presbytery be kept out as lawfully if the State and Nation shall think fitting according to your second-considerable Question? wherein since you do in effect gratify a Parliament and presbyterial Synod with a power of setting up a national Church Government and Religion: and in your fourth Interrogatory you tell us, That Kings and Parliaments have the self same jurisdiction in and over all ecclesiastical matters which are not positively of divine institution and injunction, as in and over temporal; will it not follow by the same argument, that a Popish or episcopal King and Parliament may do, or have the same in England and in Ireland? But have you not in these two lines said in effect, That men must conform to presbyterial, episcopal, or Popish rites and government to all alike, if King and Parliament be such, whilst they proclaim them to be according to the Word of God? Nay, may not this present Assembly, whom you court with most orthodox, pious, conscientious learned Ministers, especially selected, 2 Interg. taking up your own words, call this a cursed project, or new kind of Gunpowder, 2 Interg▪ whereby you have left them nothing to debate or give consent to, but what the King and Parliament might do without them? for where find: we warrant for assembling of a Synod to debate or decree any thing which was before positively divine institution and injunction? and for all the rest, have you not granted it to King and Parliament? Surely you have no way to make the covetous amongst the clergy amends for this escape of yours, unless you vindicate their tithes; this, and this only may yet procure your pardon & indulgency; you drive it forward with a gentle blow both in the beginning and end of your 3 Interg. concerning which, having given them as brief a touch in my Answer to your 12 Question, I refer you to what else is said in this behalf more largely in the Bloody Tenet, (not so bloody a tractate as your dozens of Questions and Interrogatoryes) Compassionate Samaritan, (fitter to deal with your immedicable vni●u●) and John the Baptist, (who cried, Prepare the way of the Lord, Mat▪ 3. 3. whereas your Questions & Interrogatories prepare the ways of men only, crying, Room, room for Proclamations & Decrees which require the consciences of God's Saints to be subjected thereunto, as if they had authority to say, It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and them it should be so▪ Act. 15▪ 28.)  
But if episcopacy be guilty and condemned both root and branch, must not Presbytery have it Mittimus and pack away therewith? where are the branches of episcopacy to be found unless amongst the Presbyters? how can episcopacy be Antichristian, and the Presbyters who have no other ministry, require the same Jewish tithes, and though formerly, but subordinately, do now jointly execute the same dominion over the consciences of their brethren? But if you mean that we are bound by the League and Covenant to maintain the established Laws and customs of the respective kingdoms, and bring them to such a uniformity (with all means sanctified for such a purpose can lead them to) according to the word of God; you say well, if our Brethren of Scotland mean the like: But will they be contented that an Act of our present Parliament prepared to cut off English episcopacy shall do the like good justice upon the Scotch Presbytery if they conceive it requisite? Nay, will they give us leave to examine, refine, purge and punish their Presbytery for such misdemeanours, such trampling underfoot of Christian Liberty, such enslaving the consciences of God's people by human Acts and Ordinances, with divers others, all which are thought fitting to be censured in episcopacy?  
To conclude then, we find it prophesied of our Saviour before his birth, That he should neither strive, ●or cry, nor make a no●●● the streets, he should not break a bru●sed reed▪ nor quench the smoking flax, Mat. 1. ●●9▪ 20. The ditty which the choir of heavenly Host sang at his nativity was, Glory be to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will towards men, Luke 2. 13. 14. according whereunto his own actions were full of peace even toward those that would not receive him, as when they of Samaria refused to make ready for him, Luke 9 52. to 56. and the Garga●e●es who preferring their hogs before him, desired him to depart their Country, Mat. 8. ●4. with divers others: His Commission to his Apostles was that they should have peace one with another, Mark. 9 50. That they should proclaim peace unto whatsoever place or house they came, Mat. 10. 14. Mark. 6. 11. Luke 10 5. and at His departure He left his peace with them as a legacy, Joh. 14. 27. which they continually improved, baptising and peaceably edifying all such as gladly received & heard them, Acts 2. 41. Rom. 14. 17. 18. and quietly departing from such as did refuse them and their gospel, Acts 13. 46. and 18. 6. 7. and 19 9 But whosoever will reflect upon the gospel and Government, your Questions and Interrogatories point at they will quickly discover how point blank quarrelling and fighting they are with that which our Saviour and his Apostles taught, which causes me so much more seriously to apprehend and bewail the want of those sober minded and peaceable disposed men you spoke of, to whom how few soever, I recommend you, and your immedicable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and satisfaction to your second thoughts until I may perceive the foregoing 〈◊〉 unto your 〈◊〉 has been accepted or refuted; Farewell.  
FINIS▪