Innocency and Truth Triumphing together; OR, The latter part of an ANSWER to the backpart of a DISCOURSE, lately published By William Prynne Esquire, called, A FULL REPLY, etc. Beginning at the foot of p. 17. of the said Discourse, with this title or superscription, Certain brief Animadversions on Mr. JOHN goodwin's Theomachia. Wherein the Argumentative part of the said Animadversions is examined; Together with some few Animadversions upon some former Passages in the said REPLY.  
Qui innocentiae debitum servat, poenitentiae non solvit usuram,  Chrysost. 
Nolo mihi imperet ille vel ille, qui me opprimere potest, docere non potest,  Hieronymus. 
Non est delicata in Deum, & secura confessio: qui in me credit, debet sanguinem suum sundere  ibidem. 
Ignosci potuit simpliciter errantibus: post inspirationem verò & revelationem factam, sine ignorantiae veniâ peccatur,  Cypr. Ep. 
Pios hoc nomen & titulum in mundo oportet gerere, quòd seditiosi ac schismatici, ac infinitorum malorum authores sunt,  Lutherus Gal. c. 5. 
Not that we have dominion over your faith: but are helpers of your joy, 2 Cor. 1. 24. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if any of ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even the same unto you,  Phil. 3. 15. 
Licenced and Printed according to Order.  
LONDON; Printed by Matthew Simmons, for Henry Overton, at his Shop in Popes-head-Alley, 1645.   

To the unpartial and unprejudiced READER.  
AM I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth 
a 1 Cor. 15. 10. , (saith the firstborn 
b 1 Cor. 15. 8. , and yet the last born also 
c Gal. 14. 16. , of the Apostles to his Galathians;) The interrogation is a constructive assertion of two things. First, that to speak the truth in some cases, is very opportune to sinister interpretation, and apt to represent the speaker as a man of no benevolous or friendly comportance with those, to whom he so speaketh. The reason whereof seems to be this: Errors and misprisions are many times very indulgent and bountiful to the flesh; and he that encounters men under such enjoyments, with the truth, seems to them rather to strike at these enjoyments, then at the error or opinion, by whose consent they have first taken, and still keep possession of them. Themselves esteeming the opinion of small value (as well it deserves) save only in reference to those carnal gratifications; are very apt to conceive that neither do others so much mind that, or take offence at that, as at those privileges or accommodations which they enjoy by it: and this they judge to be a strain of an hostile inclination.  
Secondly, The prementioned Interrogation supposeth, that no manifestation or speaking of what truth soever unto men, simply as such, is any argument at all of want of affection, and that in the highest, unto them. The reason is, because there is no Truth, which being embraced, and honoured with suitable practice, but will give far better wages and consideration to her servants in due time, than any error whatsoever. Yea, the truth is, that the greater breach, or spoil, a Truth makes in any man's worldly possessions or enjoyments, it is of so much the richer and the more advantageous concernment unto him, and will honour him the more abundantly. It is the manner and guise of divine truth, to pull down houses built with firres and brick, and to build them up again with cedars and hewed stones.  
He that deals much either in the discovery, (or recovery rather) or enforcement of such truths, which are opposed in the world, not only by errors and contrary misprisons, but by secular accommodations also, as of honour, power, riches, pleasures, or the like, takes a very direct course to make himself conformable to the image of his Saviour, who being so great a Benefactor to the world, was yet numbered amongst Transgressor's. To attempt the casting down of such imagination, which do not only exalt themselves in the minds of men, but contribute also to the exaltation of men themselves in the world, be they never so extravagant or eccentrical to the truth, is an undertaking of almost as doubtful a presage, as they that speak Proverbs are wont to represent by the taking a Lion by the beard, or an Elephant by the tooth. And did not the God of Truth umpire (and that with an high hand) amongst the thoughts and counsels of the sons of men, and put many a by ingredient into his providence of sovereign relief to those, whose hearts are set, and hands lift up to magnify such Truths, which being advanced are like to do justice in the world, and to reduce all usurpations and unrighteous detainments amongst men, 
Amos 7. 10.  the Earth would not be able to bear the words of such men; and the world soon become too hot a climate for Truths of such a complexion.  
It is a matter of somewhat a sad contemplation, (and yet in part, delightful also, viz. as those Oracles of Heaven, the Scriptures, are mightily asserted and vindicated like themselves thereby) to see, what commotions, tumults, and combustions are presently raised in the minds and spirits of men upon the birth (or resurrection rather) of any Truth into the world, concerning which there is the least jealousy, that in case it should reign, it would rack them from off the lees of their old customs, or compel them to a restitution of what they have unjustly taken, and peaceably enjoyed for a long time, or any ways expose them to any outward sufferings, or disaccommodations in the world; to see, what hurryings up and down, what engaging of parties, what enquiring after parts and abilities, what rembling over Authors old and new, what incensing of Authority, what streynings of wits and consciences, what slighting of solid arguments, what evading substantial and clear interpretations of Scripture, what magnifying of those that are strained and far fetched in their stead, what casting abroad of calumnies and reproaches, what incrustations, and misrepresentations of opinions, sayings, practices, actions, what shift, what blendings, what colour, what pretendings, what disgrace, yea, what conventings, what persecutions, what evil entreatings of men, what appealing to fire, sword, prisons, banishment, confiscations, and all to turn a beam of light and glory, into darkness & shame, to keep a newborn Truth from ruling over them. As soon as Herod the King heard that Christ was borne, and that wise men were come from the East to worship him, enquiring after him, as a King; the Text saith, 
Mat. 2. 1, 2, 3.  that he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him: and how unnatural and bloody a design was there presently put in execution, to prevent the reigning of him that was but now borne into the world? That one, who yet was their lawful King, might not reign over them, many poor infants (innocents' altogether in this) were not suffered to live amongst them. This Scene also was acted in Germany, when God first made Luther as life from the dead 
a Rom. 11. 25.  unto the Doctrine of free justification and remission of sins; a Doctrine not so much opposed by the Popish Tenet concerning the virtue and validity of Papal Indulgences, as by the 
b Auri sacra fames.  sacred thirst of that gold and silver which the trade of such merchandise formerly driven by the Grand Signior of Rome and his Factors throughout the Christian world, brought into their coffers in that bewitching and transporting abundance.  
Reader, 
2 Cor. 12. 5.  of any wrong done to myself, I will not complain: but I know a man, who hath been forsaken of his friends, found those of his own house to be his enemies, who hath been reviled, traduced, reproached, waylaid, by tongues, by pens, by practices, reported to have lost his wits, abilities, parts, suffered loss of his due and necessary subsistence, wrongfully detained from him, and for which he hath laboured faithfully, brought before Rulers and Magistrates, represented to Sovereign Authority, as a wilful and presumptuous underminer of their undoubted privileges, and that diametrally contrary to his Vow and Covenant; besides twenty more hard sayings and practices of men against him; and all this for no other cause, upon none other ground or exception, but only because he holds forth such a Truth (as in all his heart and all his soul he is verily persuaded) which, if entertained, is like to bless the world, though it be as by fire, 
1 Cor. 3. 15.  I mean by casting down the present thoughts, and crossing the present desires and designs of many in it: Of the injuries & indignities offered to such a man, I have cause (with many others) to complain; but for any sufferings or evil entreaties of mine own from men, I count it beneath my engagements to him, who strengtheneth me to do and to suffer all things 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phil. 4. 13. , to stoop to take up any lamentation or complaint.  
In these leaves following, I make payment of a debt unto thee, contracted by a promise and engagement made in my late brief defence, which I styled, Innocency's Triumph; with some small additional consideration, for thy present forbearance. For in the former sections till about pag. 54. I animadvert upon some select passages in the former part and body of that piece, in whose tail lies the sting of my accusation; the pulling out whereof, is my task from the third section unto the end. In the carriage of the discourse, I projected these four; Brevity, persecuitie, moderation, satisfaction. How I have performed or prospered in my design, is a case now presented unto the Great judicatory of the world to judge and determine. I shall not court thy favour or approbation: if thou wilt deal hardly either with the Truth or her Friends, at thine own peril be it: Injure what thou canst, we shall be repaired; yea, and have all our forbearance and delay, in full consideration and recompense. Yet a very little while, and he that doth come, will come, and will not tarry 
a Heb. 10. 37 : and behold, his reward is with him 
b Rev. 22. 12 . In the day of whose coming, however thou shalt deal with me in the interim, I cordially wish thee peace, and that lifting up of the head, after which it shall never hang down more.  
From my Study in Coleman-street, Jan. 8. 1644. Thine, all that thy soul desireth, in the love of the truth, J. G.   

Errata.  
Pag. 3. line 36. deal, only, and close the parenthesis at the word, government.  
P. 8. l. 26. deal,).  
P. 17. l. 5. for vere, r. vero.  
P. 13. l. 7. for apparent, r. apparan.  
P. 39 l. 3. for distances, r. disturbances; ibid. l. 36. for disturbances, r. disturbance.  
P. 47. l. 33. for, engagements, r. inducements.  
P. 49. l. 14. for, leave, r. give.  
P. 51. l. 31. for, in ordinary, r. in an ordinary.  
P. 53. l. 1. for, faith, r. truth.  
P. 56. l. 34. for. praise, r. honour.  
P. 59 l. 11. for, still, r. till.  
P. 61. l. 35. for, is more, r. is of more.  
P. 62. l. 15. in the margin, for ipsa, r. ipsam.  
P. 65. l. 4. for, precedent, r. precedent. ibid. l. 12. for guilty, r. guilt.  
P. 68 l. 9 those words, and lastly, to be closed in a parenthesis.  
P. 70. l. 18. for, together by, r. together for by.  
P. 80. l. 10. for, the, r. that.  
P. 87. l. 25. for, exemptively, r. executively.  
Some other lesser mistakes, as in points, parentheses, or the like, the Reader is desired to pardon, and amend.   

Innocency and Truth Triumphing together: OR, The latter Part of an ANSWER to the backpart of a Discourse, lately published by WILLIAM PRYNNE Esquire, called, A FULL REPLY, etc.  
THe Gentleman who hath vouchsafed me the honour of so noble an Antagonist, 
Sect. 1.  as himself, p. 8. of his Full Reply, hath this ingenuous saying: I presume my friends are so ingenuous, as not to be offended with me for reproving only their errors with ingenuous freedom, in which I manifest myself their greatest friend, because I neither spare nor flatter them in their mistakes. I cannot doubt, but that he will put the same interpretation upon the ingenuous freedom of his friend in the same kind, which he presumes his friends will put upon his; and will make no other construction of my not-sparing or flattering him in his mistakes, then as a manifestation of myself to be his greatest friend. The truth is, that if he shall put any other construction upon them, but this, it is a sign that he understands not the dialect or language of mine intentions.  
Upon the stock of so fair and rich an encouragement, 
Sect. 2.  as this, I conceive it very proper for me to graft (at least) the presentation of some errors and mistakes (more than so called) to Master Prynnes view, which himself had first scatteringly, presented to the view of the world, in his late piece, called, A full Reply, etc. and will (I trust) assist my Pen with his in the censure and condemnation of them; I make no question, but that he will acknowledge it an error and mistake in any man, to confute concealed errors and mistakes with those that are open and professed. He makes a sad complaint (in the very beginning of his work) that his condition still hath been to have his best actions and public services (he means performed by his Pen) misconstrued and traduced; and yet a few lines after, he affirms that his twelve Questions touching Church-Government, gave ample satisfaction to many truly Religious, of all ranks and qualities, who returned him special thanks. He that can give men, yea, the best of men, men truly Religious, yea, not a few of these men neither, but many, and that of all ranks and qualities satisfaction, yea, ample satisfaction (and receive thanks accordingly) only by ask Questions, seems to write with Fortunatus his Pen; and may well bear the burden of much misprision from other men, out of the strength of the joy of this rare success. Ordinarily, men of greatest worth and learning, have much ado to give satisfaction, by the most elaborate and exact resolutions; which is another manner of service to the world, then ask Questions is: A weak man may ask more Questions in an hour, than seven wise men can answer in seven years. And when he saith, that our Saviour both instructed and refuted his opposites and auditors, by demanding Questions only, I conceive it is a mistake: As for those Scriptures which he citys to prove this, some of them being more than half Chapters, most of them very large portions of Chapters; he that shall please to peruse them, shall find more in them, then demanding Questions only. No question demanded by our Saviour was further instructive, then as it gave occasion to an answer. It is the marrow of the answer, not the bone of the Question that nourisheth with instruction; And Luke 2. 47. (the first Scripture alleged by him in this Cause) it is said, That all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and ANSWERS, not at his Questions. Notwithstanding, we acknowledge Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be very useful and serviceable for the advancement of knowledge; only herein we must crave pardon, if we judge it no sign of any depth or thoroughness in an Argument or Subject, to be imperious and sore in ask Questions about it, and but weak and superficial in giving Answers.  
Again, 
Sect. 3.  whereas he supposeth, p. 4. that Independent Ministers and Congregations lay claim to a sovereign Temporal all Jurisdiction, for the prescribing and setting up of a Church-Government; certainly it is a mistake, (whatsoever it is more) they claim to Jurisdiction at all, much less any temporal Jurisdiction, lest of all any sovereign Jurisdiction, to prescribe unto any (much less, to command or enjoin under penalties, which is proper to sovereign Temporal Jurisdiction) any Church-Government whatsoever: they only submit to that good and holy and perfect Will of God, for the regulation of themselves, in point of order amongst themselves, as far as he hath pleased to enlighten them with the knowledge thereof; without taking any offence at others, for being contrary-minded to them, and without the least semblance or show of claiming any Authoritative or Temporal power to impose or force what they practise themselves upon others.  
Again, whereas because some of the Independents (as he chargeth them, p. 5. whether truly or no, I can neither affirm, nor deny) refuse to hear the Scriptures read in our Churches, he thinks to evict this practice of theirs, by proving (and that by no less than thirteen Texts of Scripture) that public reading of them is an ordinance of God; I conceive it is a defect or mistake in point of proof. Because, if such refusal be made by any, it is not made either upon denying or questioning, whether public reading of the Scriptures, be an Ordinance of God; but either upon questioning, whether the bare reading of them in public, without giving the sense of them, or framing some exhortation upon them, or the like, be an Ordinance of God (which some of the Scriptures cited by himself, particularly, Neh. 8. 8. make very questionable) or else upon this reason and ground of conscience, that a man may very safely refuse an inferior accommodation for his soul, when he hath a lawful opportunity to enjoy a superior.  
Again, 
Sect. 4.  whereas he affirms, p. 5. the only point in question (I presume he means about Church-Government only to be, whether the Independent model alone be that exact, unalterable form of Church-Government, which Christ hath punctually & particularly set down for all Christian nations, Churches to follow; and yet both in the same page afterwards, and in several passages besides in this Discourse, denies that there is any such form of Government, so punctually and particuarly set down by Christ, doubtless it cannot but be a mistake, if it amounts not to an error: for they that hold the Independent model (as he calleth it) to be the only form of Church-Government, which Christ hath so punctually and particularly set down, must needs hold withal, that Christ hath set down a form of Church-Government upon such terms, I mean, which is, and must be, unalterable. Now Mr. Prynne, (with many others of his judgement, in this controversy) denying this latter opinion, as well as the former, evident it is, that the former cannot be the only point in question. But the truth is, that besides both the one point & the other, there are many others in question, though possibly not of that difficulty or importance: yea, himself in the following page, propounds another question, differing from this, to which notwithstanding he appropriates the same honour, and affirms it to be the sole Question too.  
Again, 
Sect. 5.  p. 6. whereas he determines, moderated or regulated Episcopacy, to be the same with Presbytery; I conceive this determination will hardly be voted orthodox in the Assembly itself, nor in the general Assembly of the Church of Scotland. For my part, though I cannot approve of it as matter of truth, yet for matter of inconvenience otherwise, I have nothing to charge it with.  
Again, whereas (in the same page) in case the Parliament by the Synods advice, should unanimously establish a moderated Episcopacy, as most consonant to the Scriptures, he professeth for himself, that he shall readily submit unto it; and withal demands of the Antiquerist, Why not he, and all others? as if either the consonancy of a practice to the Scriptures, or the example of one man submitting unto it as consonant thereunto, were a sufficient ground for all men whatsoever to submit likewise unto it, without any more ado; this savours strongly of that error, which comports so well with the practice of some, viz. that if men in Authority shall conclude and enjoin any thing, as consonant to the Word of God, all men are bound readily to submit unto it, without ask any Question for conscience sake; yea, or whether they see either consonancy or dissonancy in it thereunto.  
Again, 
Sect. 6.  whereas he owns this saying, p. 6. as the natural issue lawfully begotten of the body or soul (th'one) of his own position, that Politicians and Statesman are fit to be consulted with to suit a Church-government best to the Civil State; certainly it is no assertion to be rejoiced in. For as the Apostles made their enemies themselves judges in this point between them, Whether it was meet to obey God, or them: So shall I willingly abide the arbitration of any of all those that make but the least conscience of fearing God and his King (Christ,) whether the government of Christ's Church and Kingdom should condescend, and be compelled by Politicians and Statesmen to do obeisance to civil States in accommodating them; or whether the government of these should not rather veil, and do homage unto that, and deny themselves in their most endeared Principles and maxims of State, to give all accommodation and honour unto it. The truth is, that the government of Christ's Kingdom in a civil State, will never do any great thing for it, except it first receive accommodation from it. The truth knows no compliance, but only with those that submit to it.  
Whereas (pag. 
Sect. 7.  6.) he placeth the whole representative as well Church as State of England in the Parliament, though I dare not gainsay it, fearing lest Mr. Pryn, claiming (as it should seem) a privilege to make the privileges of Parliament what he pleaseth, should make it a presumptuous and wilful undermining of the undoubted privileges of Parliament by the very roots: yet I must ingenuously profess, that it is a notion which I know not how to procure quarter for in my brain, as yet. What I may do hereafter when the Gentleman shall bestow more cost and pains upon it to reconcile the disproportion which for the present it carrieth to my understanding, I will not predetermine. But none of all the Authors or Books that ever yet I was debtor unto, for any grain or scruple of that knowledge wherewith God hath pleased to recompense my labour in studying, ever licenced me to call any Assembly the Representative Church of any State or Kingdom wherein there is not so much as any one Church-officer to be found  
Whereas he affirms it (in the same page) a truth so clear, 
Sect. 8.  that no rational man, good Christian, or subject, can deny it, that the whole representative Church and State of England in Parliament, have sufficient authority by God's law to overrule and bind all, or any particular members or congregations of it, as well as the major part of an Independent Congregation, power to over-vote and rule the lesser part, and to order yea, bind any of their particular members; though for the danger aforesaid, it be not (perhaps) so safe for me simply to call the latter assertion touching the comparison between the two powers, either an error or a mistake; yet that this assertion should be a truth so royally qualified, that no reasonable man, or good Christian can deny it, seems not so reasonable. The reason is, because in an Independent congregation, all the members by free and voluntary consent have submitted themselves to the regulation and order of the whole body, or (which is the same) of the major part of it: and therefore this body having received a lawful power in a lawful way, for the reiglement of her respective members, may lawfully exercise it according to the tenor and true intent of the delegation of it: whereas there are many thousands in the Church and State of England, who by Mr. Prynnes own acknowledgement (p. 24. line 3. 4.) have not given any such consent for their regulation in matters Ecclesiastical, and which concern Religion, unto the Parliament; yea, and there are many thousands more besides those which he there describes and intends, who will not own any such Resignation. Therefore the difference between the one case and the other, is very broad, and no less considerable, so that a reasonable man may without any dispraise to his Reason, and a good Christian, without any prejudice to the goodness of his Christianity, demur a while before judgement upon the case.  
Besides, there is no question, or ground of doubting, but that a good Christian may lawfully, and with a good conscience, submit himself unto a godly, able, and faithful Pastor, together with his people, whom he hath good ground to judge godly, and faithful also, as well for their edification in their most holy faith, as for the inspection & regulation of themselves in matters of life and conversation: But whether it be lawful to submit to any man, or any rank or association of men, (especially of men, of whose sufficiency and faith fullness in the things of God, and Jesus Christ, we have either but a very slender or no testimony at all, yea whose persons are altogether unknown to us) in matters which concern the worship and service of God, cannot but be a question, and that of great moment, to all considering and conscientious men, who are not already satisfied in the negative part of it. The Apostles do not only permit, but give it in charge to Christians in Church-fellowship, to submit themselves one to another in the fear of God, Eph. 5. 21. i to be yielding, and tractable, easy to be entreated one by another. And, submit yourselves every man unto another, 1 Pet. 5. 5. If one man ought to submit to another man in this kind, much more ought one to submit unto many, and most of all to the whole society of Saints whereof he is a member. But as touching submission unto any man, or men whatsoever in matters which concern the worship and service of God, the Scripture is so far from imposing this upon any man, that it imposeth the contrary, and that with great Emphasis and weight, Call no man your father upon earth, (is our Saviour's own charge, Matth. 23. 9) for one is your Father which is in heaven. And in the preceding verse, Be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your master (or Doctor) even Christ, and ye all are brethren. And the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 23. Ye are bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men. He speaks of a servility or subjection in judgement and conscience, to the decisions or determinations of men in matters of conscience and Religion. And whosoever doth submit or subject himself in things of this nature unto any man or men whosoever, that is, resign up his judgement and conscience to be ordered, obliged, and tied, by the mere authority or magistery of men in such things, Calls men Fathers on earth, makes himself a servant unto men: and consequently makes himself a transgressor both of our Saviour's injunction and charge in this behalf, and of his Apostles also.  
Thirdly, he that submits himself to a Pastor and Congregation of Saints for such regulation as hath been mentioned, is presumed to know and understand beforehand, of what spirit both the one and the other are; how matters appertaining to the worship and service of God, are carried, managed, and ordered amongst them; so that he may with the full concurrence and consent of his judgement and conscience, submit himself unto them, as touching communion with them in their practice in this kind: but what any Synod, Assembly, or Court of men will determine or enjoin in such things, cannot be known beforehand by any man; and consequently, no man can with a good conscience submit himself unto them, as touching any of their determinations or decisions, until he first understands what they are, and whether according to the light and judicature of his conscience, agreeable to the word of God.  
Fourthly, in case a Pastor and Congregation shall afterwards so far alter and vary from that posture either in Doctrine or practice, wherein they stood, when a man first joined and submitted himself unto them, that he cannot with the peace of his conscience walk any longer with them, he may with leave obtained, or otherwise if by request it cannot be obtained, withdraw himself without any inconvenience, from their communion, and incorporate himself elsewhere, as he judgeth best. This may be done with far less trouble and inconvenience, then ordinarily a man upon a dislike of his Parochial Pastor, can remove out of one Parish into another. But when such things concerning the worship and service of God, which a man cannot with a good conscience submit unto, shall be enacted and commanded, under mulcts and penalties by those that have power and authority over us, we cannot refuse subjection hereunto, but at our peril, and with the sustaining of what detriment or damage, whether in our estates, liberties, or otherwise, as the commanders shall please to impose. Therefore the case between a particular Congregation, and the representative body of a Kingdom, is far different.  
Fifthly and lastly, the representative Church and State of a Kingdom, may (and doth ordinarily) differ from itself in point of judgement touching matters of Religion) at several times, as much as heaven and earth. Such Bodies in the days of Queen Mary, and before, stood up for Lordly Episcopacy, which you confess, page 8. that Body which now is, hath by solemn covenant abjured. And besides, enacted many things concerning the worship & service of God, which other Bodies of the same representation and power, have since repealed. And the nature and claim of such Bodies as these in their several successions, is, that what powersoever hath been either given unto, or exercised by any of the Predecessors, of right appertains to the Successor. So that suppose the representative Body now in being, shall be freely and willingly submitted unto, as having a lawful power to establish what they shall please in matters of Religion, as most agreeable to the word of God: this submission doth not only interest or confirm them in this power, but in the consequence and construction of it, is the like interessing and confirmation in the same power, of all their successors, of what constitution or judgement soever they shall be for matters of Religion. Whereas for particular Independent Congregations (loquendum ut vulgus) their present constitution being sound & safe, as touching their members, being all in the judgement of charity (and discretion too) persons of conscience, and of competent understanding, they are not like in an ordinary way of providence, to degenerate or decline in their successors: and besides, in case they should, their interest and authority over any of their members, may at any time, and under their greatest confirmations, be declined without any considerable damage, or inconveence, as was formerly showed. So that Mr. Prynnes Truth now under consideration (I mean his Assertion so called) is nothing so clear, but that a rational man may deny it; yea, the more rational a man is, he is the more like to deny it.  
The Antiquerist having said, 
Sect. 9  that the Saints think Christ alone is King over his Churches, and hath not left them to Substitutes, etc. whereas Mr. Prynne, page 6. replies thus; If he means it only of matters of Faith, or of internal government over the souls of men, it may pass as tolerable; it is (as I conceive) an expression which may not pass as tolerable, being worse than an ordinary error, or then more than an ordinary mistake. He that calls any thing tolerable, must needs suppose it either to be evil, or inconvenient (at the best.) Now if Mr. Prynne thinks it either evil or inconvenient, that Christ should be King alone over his Churches, in matters of faith and internal government of their souls, it is no marvel if he seeks to interest men in a Legislative power over his Churches in respect of their external government; it is a marvel rather, that he seeks not to infringe his title and claim even to the internal government of their souls also, and that he anoints not Representative Bodies of Churches and States, with authority to repeal the Articles of the old Creed, and to enact another.  
Whereas (in the same page) he tells his Antiquerist, 
Sect. 10.  that he must renounce his oath of Allegiance, his late Protestation, and national Vow and Covenant, make four or five Canonical Scriptures Apocrypha, with some such other mormolukies as these, if he thinks Christ to be King alone over his Churches, in point of external Ecclesiastical government, Discipline, or Order; I conceive this consequence of his to be inconsequent & a mistake. For first, the Scriptures he specifies, Rome 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4. speak nothing of Ecclesiastical Government, nor of any subjection unto Kings or Rulers in matters of Conscience, or Religion; but only of that obedience which is due unto them in civil things: yea some of them (the last by name) not so much as of either. And secondly, for the national vow and Covenant, doubtless they that took and swore that, did not abjure the absolute Monarchical Independent power of Christ over his Churches, nor did they swear homage or fealty to any other Lord or Lords, but with a Salvo jure, etc. saving the rights and privileges of the Lord Paramount, Jesus Christ; amongst which that is one of the most undoubted ones, to have the sole dominion over the faith and consciences of men, especially in things concerning the worship and service of God. And thirdly and lastly, for the Oath of Allegiance, and late Protestation, either there is nothing contained in either of these, but what is of a clear and perfect consistence with this sole dominion of Christ over the faith and consciences of men: or if there be, the renouncing of them will be more honourable and safe for Christians, than their taking of them was, or then their standing by their engagement in that kind will be.  
But whereas (page 7.) 
Sect. 11.  he affirms, that Christ hath delegated his Kingly power to Christian Kings, Magistrates, and highest civil powers; as likewise bequeathed his Prophetical Office unto Ministers: these certo certius are errors in the highest, undermining (I shall not abate, wilfully and presumptuously, in the reckoning) the undoubted privileges of the Throne of Jesus Christ by the very roots. For are not the Offices of Christ incommunicable? appropriable only unto him who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God & Man, and Mediator? Or is Christ retired from the throne of his glory, to live privately as a Recluse, to solace & enjoy himself in some solitary angle or by-corner of heaven? Or hath he eased his shoulder of that great burden of the government of the world, which was laid by God upon it, devolving it upon the shoulders of others? Where is then the promise of the Everlastingness of his Kingdom, and of the continuance of his dominion throughout all ages? And where is the prediction of his delivering up his Kingdom unto his Father, if he hath delivered it up (or down rather) unto men? Surely he means to call for it again out of their hands, before that day. But if Kings and Magistrates have the Kingly Power of Christ delegated unto them, they have all power given unto them both in Heaven and Earth, and consequently have not only a right and lawfulness of Authority to command as well all the Angels of Heaven, as men on Earth, but also to incline and bow the hearts of both, to the willing execution & fulfilling of those commands. And if so, let them impose what Ecclesiastical Government or Discipline they please, they may, if they please, be obeyed and submitted unto upon what terms, with what willingness and readiness, and by whom they desire. And if Ministers be invested in the Prophetical office of Christ, how dares Mr Prynne refuse to hearken unto them? or engage himself in a theological war against them, having no part or fellowship in this office himself? Will he subject the spirit of the Prophets, yea, of those that prophecy in the Authority, and by the virtue of the Prophetical office of Christ, unto himself, and his own spirit, being no Prophet at all? Letentur tenebrae, erubescat lux.  
Again, 
Sect. 12.  whereas (in the same page) he votes, that if any man deny a certain odd kind of verity (so called and asserted by him) he must renounce not only his Christianity, but his Allegiance and Humanity too; I utterly renounce the consequence, conceiving it to be tantamont with an absolute mistake. For a man may deny, that every Christian in point of Conscience is bound by the express resolution of Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 14, 15. (with several other Scriptures as little to the purpose) without any danger of blind obedience, to lawful decreas, consonant to God's Word, etc. without renouncing, yea, or so much as a show of renouncing his Christianity (and much more of his Humanity.) For what hath a man's humanity to do with the express resolution of Rom. 13. 1. to 6. Ezra. 7. 26. Josh. 1. 16, 17, etc. Or what hath the express Resolution of these and other Texts, to preserve a man's Christianity from the danger of bind obedience, even to lawful decrees, in case the lawfulness of them be not seen, nor so much as examined, by those that submit unto them? A man is in the same danger of blind obedience, as well in respect of lawful, as unlawful decrees. Yea, a man that after a serious and conscientious debate, shall upon a mistaken ground submit unto an unlawful decree, acquits himself more like a Christian, and with better acceptation unto God by following the light of his conscience upon such terms, than he that shall subject himself unto a lawful decree, without knowing, or caring to know, what, why, or wherefore he so doth.  
Again, 
Sect. 13.  Whereas (in the same page) he taxeth the Antiquerist for presuming an oversight in the Parliament and Synod, before it be actually committed, and censures this (imaginary) act of his, as neither Christian, charitable, nor any way of Christ; and for the proof hereof, citys 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. Certainly, all this is an oversight, and nothing else but the presuming of an oversight, where none is. For he that saith thus, Suppose the whole Parliament and Synod should err in commanding a Government, etc. doth not so much as suppose, much less presume, that either of them will so err; no more than the Apostle Paul, in saying, If Christ be not risen 
a 1 Cor. 15. 14. , presumes, that Christ is not risen: lest of all doth that Text, 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. prove that act or speech of the Antiquerist here taxed, to be either unchristian, or uncharitable.  
Nor is that marginal note in the same page excusable at any lower rate than a mistake of that kind, 
Sect. 14.  which they that speak sparingly, are wont to call an untruth; which chargeth the Independent party, that without discovery or proof of their way, they will have the Presbyterians blindly to submit unto it, as the only way of Christ. Never was a poor innocent margin compelled to carry a more guilty Annotation than this. It is the firstborn of abhorrencies in Independency, to compel any man blindly to submit unto any thing. That insinuation following, is an arrow shot from the same bow, viz. that the Antiquerist and his, oppose and prejudicated both the Parliaments and Synods Proceedings, though never so pious, conscientious and religious. This were something to the purpose, if there were any thing to the proof. Verùm de genere hoc adeò sunt multa, etc.  
Whereas p. 
Sect. 15.  8. because the two Brethren in their Reply to A. S. used this expression concerning the congregational Government, that in time it cannot but overthrow all other sorts of Ecclesiastical Government, he gathers upon them with this insulting Interrogatory; Is it not then a turbulent, dangerous, schismatical, unquiet (that I say not, insufferable) Government by your own confessions, which will admit no equal nor corrival, etc. is not this, either through weakness of understanding, or strength of a worse principle, an insufferable interpretation? Or can it but call to remembrance, that testimony of those two against our Saviour (who are called false witnesses for their labour, Mat. 26. 60.) wherein they testified, that he had said, I can destroy the Temple of God, and build it again in three days, as if he had spoke concerning the material Temple, whereas it is evident from Joh. 2. 21. that he spoke concerning the Temple of his body? In like manner, what the two Brethren spoke (as is most apparent in the passage cited by him from p. 111. of the said Reply) concerning the final prevailing of the congregational Government over other Governments, by reason of that affinity which it hath with the Truth, and consonancy with the word of God, this man will needs interpret, as if they spoke it in respect of some fierce, fiery, turbulent & domineering spirit, wherewith that way of Government should be haunted or inspired above all others; yea, his pen blusheth not to avouch (in effect) that themselves confess as much. The whole passage in the said Reply, that the Reader may the better judge, is this; Indeed, by the beauty and perfect consonancy of this Government to the word of God, it may very reasonably (yea and upon higher terms then of reason, meaning I suppose, of Faith) be thought that in time it cannot but overthrow all sorts of Ecclesiastical Government, and stand up itself in their stead. Those words in this period, it cannot but overthrow all sorts of Church-Government, they borrow from the pen of their Adversary, (as appears by their different character) in which respect, for a man confederate with him in the same cause, to put a sinister or malevolent construction upon them, though used by his opposites, is very unnatural, and a breach of ingenuity (I verily believe) without precedent.  
Whereas a few lines after, 
Sect. 16.  he vapours thus; Will any Parliament, State, or Nation (think you) suffer such a Government to take root among them, which will un-King, un-Parliament, un-Church, un-Nation them altogether, and make each several Congregation an absolute Monarchy, Church, etc. A man would think he were calling for the making of three Tabernacles, one for Moses, and one for Elias, and a third for himself, not knowing indeed what he speaketh. In case a few poor Christians, persons truly fearing God, shall be permitted to worship and serve God in such a way, wherein they may enjoy the peace of their consciences being tender, is such a permission as this, of any such formidable aspect, as to threaten, either the un-Kinging of a State, or the un-Parliamenting of a Parliament, or the un-Nationing of a Nation, or the un-Churching of a Church? Or are such persons more likely, or upon terms of any more advantage (in case their inclinations stood for it) to bring any of these doomes-dayes upon a State or Nation, when they are permitted to worship and serve God with peaceableness of Conscience, than they would be, in case they were compelled contrary to their Conscience in both? Surely the man to whom the shadows of the mountains seemed men, was very prudent and advised in his fear, in respect of him that is terriculamented with such apocryphal pretences of fear, as these.  
Et si nullus erit pulvis, tamen excute nullum:  
Quaelibet officio causa sit apta tuo.  
Whereas he saith, 
Sect. 17.  p. 9 that in Parliaments every particular man hath his vote, though not in proper person, yet in their Deputies; and yet p. 24. that there be a degree of vulgar people, who have no votes in Parliamentary elections, (and consequently can have no Deputies) I shall claim no privilege of determining, which is the error or mistake; but freely give him leave to be his own carver herein: let either number 9, or number 24. be condemned for either, that so the Law of Contradictories however may be satisfied, and all my demands are satisfied in this particular.  
Whereas p. 
Sect. 18.  9 he so much rejoiceth over that saying of his own, That there is no example of gathering Independent Congregations, not of Infidels, but of men already converted to, & settled in the Christian Faith, unless derived from the private Conventicles, of Arrians, Novations, Donatists, and other Heretics, who yet were not Independent among themselves; as if it were a true saying indeed, and only bitter to Independents, because undeniable; the truth is, that the truth of it (were it granted) will hardly equal the dust in the balance, to make the cause he maintains weight. He that saith, there is no example of gathering Independent Congregations of men already converted to, and settled in the Christian Faith, unless derived, etc. must needs suppose and grant, that there are examples of gathering such Congregations of men not yet settled in the Christian Faith, which are not so derived, etc. according to the tenor of that known maxim; Exceptio firm it Regulam in non exceptis. He that should say thus, there is no example of any man truly sanctified, that ever finally apostatised from his Christian profession; implies and grants, that there are or may be examples of persons never truly sanctified, who did so apostatise. Now if there be examples of gathering Independent Congregations, of men only converted to the Christian Faith, though not yet established or settled in it, other than those that are derived from the Conventicles of Heretics; it is an argument of more strength to countenance the congregational Government, than any Mr Prynne hath brought either to disable that, or to strengthen the other, in whose defence his pen so much triumpheth. Suppose the Apostles did build up or gather Independent Churches or Congregations only of persons newly converted to the Christian Faith, and not of such as had been settled herein, yet 1. this amounts to an express pattern of (and consequently to a sufficient warrant for) gathering Independent Congregations simply, or in such cases, wherein there is not error in personis. Nay, 2. if these Apostolical Independent Congregations did at their first gathering or framing consist only of persons lately Infidels, and as yet newly converted unto, and not settled in Christianity, yet afterwards, the same Congregations must needs be supposed to consist of persons settled in Christianity also, unless we will suppose either that such as were converted by the Apostles to the Faith, were never either by them, or any others settled herein; or else that upon such settling of them, their Congregations were either broken up and dissolved, or else specifically changed in their Government. Either of which suppositions, though to others they may be but as gnats, easy to be swallowed, yet to me they are Camels, I cannot get them down. So that we see Mr Prynne hath gotten nothing yet by his true undeniable passage, (for which notwithstanding, he scarcely refraineth from sacrificing unto his pen) but only the giving of his adversaries such an argument for their cause, which he will never be able to take away from them. And whereas in the latter part of this passage, he would insinuate, (that which more plainly he affirms a few periods after) that those that gather Independent Congregations, derive their practice from the examples, of Novatians, Donatists, and other Heretics; whom yet he denies to have been Independent amongst themselves; it is as if he should challenge women that are modest and chaste, for deriving their behaviour from the example of joseph's Mistress, or servants that were loyal and faithful to their Masters, for imitating the practice of Judas Iscariot. Now since the passage we wot of, whilst supposed true and undeniable, doth us more service, than the eviction of it for false, would do; I conceive not myself bound, either in point of wisdom or conscience, to make a labour of the confutation or conviction of it.  
Whereas p. 
Sect. 19  10. he demands, Why the national Church of the Jews under the Old Testament, should not be a pattern for us to imitate, as well as their national Covenant, Fasting, Sabbath-keeping; the question (I conceive) carries an error (or at least a mistake) in the ground and foundation of it. It supposeth, that we covenant, fast, keep Sabbath, etc. only in imitation of that Nation, who did the like, and that we have no other ground for these practices, but the nationalitie of the like observations amongst the Jews: whereas if we had no better foundation for them then this, the national Idolatries of that people would be a pattern for us to imitate, as well as these. If Mr Prynne will needs have the national Church of the Jews, a pattern for us to imitate, let him procure an Injunction from Heaven for the imitation, and we are ready to join issue with him.  
Whereas p. 
Sect. 20.  11. he saith, that wicked members of a Church, when excommunicated, after they are baptised, do not actually cease to be members, etc. Certainly it is a mistake, one or more, if nihil supra. For 1. if such members when excommunicated, do not actually cease to be members, I would know whether then they cease to be such potentially only? If so, they ceased thus to be members, as soon as ever they became members; they were then in potentiâ remotâ of ceasing to be members, as a man is of dying, as soon as he is borne: or if we speak of potentia propinqua, they thus ceased to be members, upon the committing of those sins, which rendered them justly obnoxious either unto excommunication by the Church, or unto death by the Civil Magistrate, before either of these censures or sentences passed upon them. Therefore if they actually cease not to be members when excommunicated, they cease not at all to be members; or at least no otherwise, than they ceased to be before such excommunication: and if either, what do we with this learned impertinency, actually? But 2. if wicked members when excommunicated, do not actually cease to be members, I marvel our Saviour should allow them no better quarter amongst their fellows, then to be looked upon as Heathens and Publicans? Mat. 18. 17. It seems Heathens and Publicans may be actual members of Mr Prynnes Presbyterian Church; yea, though they be by the highest hand the Church can lift up, cast out of it. Ne verè, ne me ad tales compellite coetus. And 3. and lastly, what mysterious notion he should intend to let in, or what dangerous conceit he should intend to shut out by that emphatical insertion, after they are baptised, is out of the hemisphere of my apprehension. All that I can work out of it, is this; that there is or may be a twofold excommunication of the members in a Christian Church; one, before they are baptised, and another, after: and that by the power of the former excommunication, they actually cease to be members of their respective Churches; not so by virtue of the latter, which (it seems) is either more indulgent, or less vigorous and active. If this be Mr Prynnes Doctrine, it is most properly and peculiarly his; Libera per primos posuit vestigia Princeps: if it be not his, Sensum & sententiam vestram, o verba, after they are baptised.  
Whereas immediately after, 
Sect. 21  he argues thus, that since none separated from the Churches of Ephesus, Colosse, Smyrna, and though they had some corruptions and evil members, therefore for us to separate from, and un-church such national or Parochial Churches, which have such members in them, is to un-church all Churches in the old and new Testament, etc. He commits as many errors in arguing, as a man shall lightly meet with within such a compass of words. For 1. he must be beholding either to an abundant weakness or charity (th'one) in his Reader, to obtain the grant of that which is the base or rise of this whole argumentation, viz. that none separated from the Churches of Ephesus, Colosse, etc. Negative proofs from the Scripture in this case are not concluding. But suppose charity should cover the nakedness or weakness of this supposition, and pass it as a truth, yet 2. that such a supposition should argue, that to separate from national or Parochial Churches which have evil members in them, is to un-church all Churches in the old and new Testament, hath neither head, nor foot, neither body nor soul of reason in it. For 1. they who separate from a national Church, supposing no place or ground for such a Church under the New Testament, have no ground or colour but to judge that such a Church was lawful, and truly so called under the old: as they who now separate themselves from Circumcision and other Judaical observations, as superstitious and highly displeasing unto God, do in no reasonable construction hereby deny, but that sometimes they were, or might have been, a legitimate and acceptable worship unto him. 2. Nor is there any sinew or strength of reason at all in this position; they who separate from a national or Parochial Church, which have wicked members in them, do therefore separate, because of these members, more than there is in this; they who avoid the company of men with heads, do therefore avoid them, because they have heads. There may be reasons more than enough, of separating either from a national, or from a Parochial Church, besides the wickedness of some of the members of them: yea, I do not conceive that ever any man separated from either of these Churches, national or Parochial, simply or solely upon this ground: nor do I judge it a sufficient cause of separation from either. Mr Prynne himself hath separated from the Church of England as Episcopal, and hath given the strength of his assistance to cast it into another frame or mould of Government, whereby it will specifically differ from itself: and yet it is a plain case, that he hath not made this separation from it, because of the wickedness of some of the members that were in it, whilst Episcopal; because it is like to have many of this character, in case it shall be torkened to Presbyterall. Therefore a man may separate either from a national or Parochial Church which have wicked members in it, without unchurching (yea, or disparaging) any Church at all, either in the Old or New Testament.  
Whereas p. 
Sect. 22.  12. he collects thus; If Independents deny that there were divers particular Congregations at Jerusalem, than they must prove, that all the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, were Pastors but of one and the selfsame Individual Congregation; it is at least a mistake, though pardonable in a Lawyer, yet not in a Logician. For 1. suppose there were divers particular Congregations at Jerusalem, it doth not follow, therefore all the Elders belonging to these several Congregations, were Pastors of them, except we stretch the signification of the word, Pastor, beyond the Staple of the Scriptures, (as Presbyterians I confess, usually do to help themselves at a dead lift) and extend it unto all manner of Governors and Officers in the Church. And consequently, a plurality of Congregations at Jerusalem may be denied; though no proof or supposition be made, that all the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, were PASTORS to one Individual Congregation. 2. A plurality of Congregations supposed, it doth not follow, that all, or any of the Apostles, were Pastors unto any of them; Pastors and Apostles being contra-distinguished, Eph. 4. 11. He therefore gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers. The Apostles had a Commission to preach unto any particular Church, or Churches, without being made Pastors unto them: yea, himself afterwards in this very page confesseth, that the Apostles were not immediate Ministers or Pastors to particular Churches. Therefore Mr Prynnes collection (however) falters. 3. (And last) The presence or continuance of so many of the Apostles at Jerusalem for a time (for that all the Apostles should be present at the meeting, Act. 15. is only Mr. Prynnes Gospel) no ways implies, that their stay there was so much either for the Government or edification of the particular Church of Jerusalem, whether consisting of one or more Congregations, as for the general accommodation of the Gospel, and of the affairs of all particular Churches elsewhere; this City being their Head-quarter, or Rendezvouz, from whence upon occasion they might, and did the more commodiously issue forth by parties into other parts, upon their spiritual designs, as God called them, or gave opportunity. So that there is no necessity at all lying upon them, who conceive that there was only one Congregation at Jerusalem, to prove, that all the Apostles and Elders there were Pastors of one and the selfsame individual Congregation. He tells me p. 24. of my Independent fabric fastened together with Independent Grochets: but I can assure him, that if his Presbyterian fabric be not fastened together and supported by better Crotchets and Crutches, whether dependent, or independent, then are to be found in the words either of his twelve considerable serious Questions, or of his Independency examined, or of this his Full Reply, it will drop one piece from another, and the honour of it soon lie in the dust. The inference which he would make by way of question, in the words immediately following those already insisted upon, complains of the same weakness with the former. And then (saith he) what becomes of their independent Churches, which have no Apostle, and only one Pastor, etc. I presume his Presbyterian Churches want Apostles, as much as the Independent: and if these be peccant through such a defect, I hope those will not be justified. But how effeminate and loose a consequence is this: The Church at Jerusalem had Apostles and Elders to be the Pastors of it: therefore that Church that hath not both Apostles and Elders to be the Pastors of it, is or can be no true Church; as if Pastors made of Apostles (in case there had been such) had been of the essence of the Church at Jerusalem. If either Mr. Prynne, or any other, shall show me any one such Independent crochet as this and twenty more in this Reply, in any of my writings, I shall freely confess a Judgement against them to the fire.  
Whereas (p. 
Sect. 23.  12.) he pretends to find, an impregnable evidence of the lawfulness of national Synods, Parliaments, in all Christian Kingdoms, and of an Authority given them to determine all Ecclesiastical Controversies, settle, order all Church-affaires, etc. in the frequent General national Assemblies, Synods— among the Israelites, prescribed, appointed by God, and no ways contradicted, revoked under the Gospel, invested with such Authority, etc. he is (questionless) mistaken over and over. For 1. the Assembly spoken of 1 Chron. 13. 1. to the 14. (the prime place produced by him to prove his General national Assemblies, Synods, amongst the Israelites, prescribed, appointed by God) is neither there, nor any where else in Scripture said to have been prescribed, appointed by God. Nor 2. did this Assembly, consisting (the King himself excepted) of the Captains of thousands, and of hundreds, of every Leader, (a very strange Synod to determine all Ecclesiastical Controversies) either claim or exercise any authority in this kind; but only resolved upon the sending to, and gathering together the Priests and Levites, with the generality of the people of the Land from all parts, as not thinking it meet to remove the Ark without their presence and consent. Nor 3. were the members of this Assembly, Synod, chosen by the respective Synagogicall Congregations in the Land; and consequently no such impregnable evidence of the lawfulness of national Assemblies, Synods, now; though for my part I never questioned the lawfulness of such Assemblies, Synods, as these, but only the lawfulness of some power, which some of these claim and exercise. 4. Nor did this, nor any other General national Assembly, Synod, any where to be found in Scripture, ever enact any thing concerning the worship and service of God, under mulcts and penalties, but what God himself had plainly determined and adjudged to be done, in his Law. Nor was this done by any select Assembly, Synod, consisting only of Priests and Levites, or of persons voted into places of Authority by the generality of the people of the Land, but by the generality of the people themselves met together, with an uniform, full and free consent and approbation on all hands. It is said, 2 Chron. 15. 9, 10. 12, 13, etc. (another Scripture cited by Mr. Prynne, to prove the aforesaid gainsaid conclusion) that all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and out of Simeon, gathered themselves together at Jerusalem, And entered into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers, with all their heart, and with all their soul, That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great,— And all Israel rejoiced at the Oath, etc. Here is no compelling of any man by any Authoritative Synod of Priests and Levites, nor by any assembly of the Nobles or persons delegated by the people, to submitunto such a Law, or such a Covenant, as is mentioned; but the generality of the people in their proper persons, did voluntarily and freely with one consent enter into this association or agreement between themselves, and confirmed it by an Oath. 5. (And last) that which was here generally agreed upon, and solemnly sworn by the people under the penalty of death, viz. The seeking of the Lord God of their Fathers, etc. was not any matter of doubtful disputation, any determination of the sense and meaning of any conttoversall passage of Scripture, was not any thing ensnaring, any thing destructive to the peace and comfort of those that were tender and conscientious amongst them: no: it was nothing but what in expresness and plainness of words, was required of them by God himself in their written Law 
a Exod. 23. 25. Deut. 6. 12, 13. Deut. 10. 12. & 11. 13. & 13. 14. & 30. 16. Joih. 22. 5. & 24. 14. 23.  (which they had all owned and voluntarily subjected themselves unto formerly 
b Exod. 19 8. & 24 3. Deut. 5. 27. & 26. 17. Josh. 24. 16, 21, 22, 24. .) The contrary to it, viz. Idolatry, being as expressly and plainly forbidden in the same Law, and that ten times over 
c Exod. 20. 23. & 23. 24, 32, 33 Deut. 5. 7, 8, 9, & 6. 14. & 7. 5. 16. & 8. 19 & 12. 30. & 13. 2, 3. & 29. 17, 18. . Yea, it was the effect of the first & greatest commandment of this Law; Some lively sparks and impressions whereof remain to this day in the fleshly tables of men's hearts, anciently written by the finger of God, without the mediation of Scripture instruction. Thus you see Mr. Prynnes impregnable evidence for the lawfulness of an Authority in national Synods, Parliaments, Assemblies, for determining all Ecclesiastical Controversies, etc. plainly nonsuited, and defaced. — Irus & est subito, qui modo Croesus erat. No such authority as that wherein he seeks to infeoff General national Assemblies, Synods, in determining Ecclesiastical controversies, etc. will ever be evidenced from any Assembly, Synod, heard of in the Scriptures.  
Whereas (page 13. 
Sect. 24. ) from the words of his Antagonist there expressed, he draws this conclusion, Therefore the Infant-Church in the Apostles days was not so complete, perfect in all points, as the multiplied or grown Churches afterwards, either he amphibologizeth, or else his conclusion is an absolute mistake in reference to his purpose. For though the Infant-church in the Apostles days, that is, Christian Churches in their first bud and spring, in and about the beginning of the Apostles days, and their first going forth into the world to preach the Gospel, were not so complete, perfect in all points, as either the same, or other Churches were afterwards, viz. towards the later days of the Apostles in the world, when they had supplied and added all things necessary, and any ways appertaining to the beauty and well-being of these Churches in point of Government and Discipline; yet it follows not from hence, that either these, or any other succeeding Churches after the Apostles days, how multiplied or grown soever, ever grew to more beauty or perfection in point of government, than these had attained unto, before the Apostles were taken away by death from them. This conclusion indeed, if Mr. Prynne could have made lawful prize of it, from the premises of his adversary, would have smiled a little upon his cause: but for the other, it holds no correspondency at all with it, but rather frowns upon it. For if the Apostles left the Churches of Christ in the perfection of beauty for matter of government, it must needs follow, that any variation from that form of government wherein they left them, is rather matter of deformity than perfection.  
Whereas (in the same page) he affirms with an high hand, 
Sect. 25.  that if the Parliament and Synod shall by public consent establish a Presbyterial Church-government, as most consonant to God's word,— Independents and all others are bound in conscience to submit unto it, under pain of obstinacy, singularity, etc. in case they cannot really, by direct texts, and precepts, prove it diametrically contrary to the Scripture.— I conceive it to be a jeofaile in Theology, a mistake in stead of a truth. For first, a man is not bound in conscience to do any thing that is commanded, though both the authority whereby it is commanded, yea and the thing itself which is commanded, be never so lawful, whilst his judgement and conscience remain considerably doubtful, and unsatisfied touching the lawfulness of it, especially whilst they vehemently incline to think and judge the contrary; least of all, whilst the contrary is the absolute and unquestioned decision of both; yea, though the grounds of such a doubt or determination be never so insufficient and weak. The Scripture is clear in this, Let every man be fully persuaded (or assured) in his own mind, or understanding, (viz. concerning the lawfulness of what he doth) & not build upon, or content himself with the mind and understanding of others, Rom. 14. 5. Again, He that doubteth, is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; i. not out of a full persuasion or knowledge in himself of the lawfulness of his eating in such a kind: For whatsoever is not of Faith [i. is acted or done, and not out of such a knowledge] is sin, Rom. 14. 23. Now certain it is, that no man is bound in conscience, under pain of obstinacy, singularity, etc. to sin, or bring damnation upon himself. The truth is, that to scruple or question the lawfulness of any thing that is commanded by the high hand of Authority to be done, is somewhat singular in the world; and so deserves not the pain, but the honour of singularity: But that such a behaviour or deportment as this, should suffer the pain of obstinacy, is as contrary to reason, as that the Sun should be arrested for being a nuysance unto the world with his darkness. 2ly, if by proving the contrariety of what he speaks of, unto the Scriptures, by direct texts and precepts, he means, the producing of such texts of Scripture wherein this contrariety is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in terminis, or in tofidem verbis expressed, he binds a heavier burden on the shoulders of others, than he is willing himself to touch with the least of his fingers, in all he hath publicly discoursed hitherto upon this subject; yea, heavier than either God, or the common light of reason in men, will suffer to be bound upon them in this case. The Sadducees were bound to believe the resurrection of the dead by virtue of this text, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, Exod. 3. 6. wherein notwithstanding there is no direct or express mention made of this resurrection, as appears Mat. 22. 31, 32. In like manner the Corinthians were bound to think it a matter of duty to minister in their carnal things, unto those that sowed spiritual things unto them, by virtue & warrant of this Scripture, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that tradeth out the Corn, Deu. 25. 4. (as appears 1 Cor. 9 8, 9) & yet evident it is, that the direct letter of such a duty is not here to be found. What proposition soever, shall, or may be found to be a legitimate and native consequence or deduction from any text in Scripture being found, aught to be of the same sacred consideration unto us, and according to the tenor of it, of the same obligation upon us, with that Scripture-ground from whence it issueth and is derived. For if the first fruits be holy, so is the whole lump: and if the root be holy, so are the branches, Rom. 11. 16. Therefore that Church-government which shall be overthrown by a direct and pregnant consequence from a text, is as sufficiently overthrown, as if the defeat had been given by the most direct and express letter of such a text.  
Whereas (page 14.) 
Sect. 26.  he superadds this notion (in a passage much of the same import with the last brought under examination) that though the establishment of a government by the Parliament and Assembly, doth not bind all Independents to be simply of their opinion, yet it binds them in point of practice and obedience outwardly thereto, and not to separate under pain of arrogancy, faction, schism, unless they can clearly manifest it to be absolutely unlawful and repagnant to the Scriptures. I conceive he adds unto his mistakes, if not unto his errors. For first, whereas he here supposeth, that Independenters must separate from the government that shall be established by Parliament and Assembly, (and so must undergo the pains and penalties imposed upon that crime by the law of his pen) in case they do not, or shall not submit unto it, he should have done well to consider, that separation still presupposeth former union. Those whom God hath joined together, let not man separate, 
a Mat. 19 6.  or put asunder. That woman cannot be divorced, nor yet forsake her husband, which never was married; no more can Independents be said (unless by saying that which had been better unsaid) to separate from that government unto which they never were yet united. Therefore let Mr. Prynne, and all other of the Presbyterian judgement, know assuredly, that they will never gain any thing but the wages of unrighteousness by charging their brethren of the congregational way, either with separation or schism.  
Secondly, to affirm, that a man though he be not of their opinion, who shall establish a Government (he must mean, touching the lawfulness of the Government so established, or else it is nothing to the purpose) is yet bound in point of outward practice and obedience to submit thereunto, is a note beyond that Elah of the Familists, wherein they teach, that if a man shall keep his heart and mind sound and uncorrupted within, he may for his safety or accommodation otherwise, comply outwardly with any Idolatrous worships or superstitions, or other unlawful practices whatsoever. This generation itself, doth not hold such an outward compliance as this, simply necessary, in point of duty or conscience, but only lawful in point of Christian liberty. Therefore Mr. Prynne wades deeper into these polluted waters, than they.  
3. And (lastly) whereas he thinks sufficiently to proviso his former assertion, by adding, unless they can clearly manifest it to be absolutely unlawful and repugnant to the Scriptures; the truth is, that here is neither shield nor buckler that can say it harmless. For 1. it is not the truth or soundness of a man's judgement standing in opposition to the supposed or asserted lawfulness of a thing, that makes the practice of the thing, during the present state of his judgement, unlawful to him; but the very tenor or state of his judgement in respect of such opposition, whether this state of it be good or bad, sound or unsound. Much less 2. is it an ability in men to manifest unto others the truth or soundness of their judgements, when they stand bend against a practice that is enjoined as lawful, that only can excuse them from subjection. men's actions are not to be regulated either by a Rhetorical or Logical faculty of expressing themselves or their judgements to the conviction and satisfaction of others; but by those impressions of righteousness and equity that are in and upon their judgements, whether they be able to represent or commend them for such unto others, or no. 
Dan. 3.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were not able clearly to manifest it unto Nabuchadnezzar and his Nobles, that it was absolutely unlawful for them to fall down and worship the golden Image which he had set up: yet was it not therefore unlawful for them to refuse subjection unto the King's commandment in that behalf. If the lawfulness of our refusing our Superiors in their injunctions and commands, be suspended upon our ability to convince them of the unlawfulness of these commands, there will not be much danger in it to bid the Papists God speed, when they bring the Doctrine of blind obedience unto us. Rare are those superiors, that care to impose any thing by way of command, of the unlawfulness whereof they can be willing to be convinced, especially by the commanded: and where there is no disposition, no willingness towards a conviction, arguments and demonstrations are (for the most part) but as sounding brass, and tinkling cymbals. Leviathan in regard of the strength and toughness of his skin and scales, esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood: The arrow cannot make him flee: the stones of the sling are turned with him into stubble, Job 41. 27, 28.  
Whereas (p. 
Sect. 27.  14.) he saith, that if the Parliament should settle Independency, I am certain you would then write and preach for universal obedience to it, without dispute; doubtless this certainty of his is but a confident mistake; For 1. it is no ways consistent with the principles of that Government he speaks of, to urge or press universal obedience to it; because it professeth an absolute incapacity in far the greatest part of men (for the present) for it; nor doth it expect that the universality of men will ever become capable of it. This Government pleadeth for no subjection to it, but from those that are Saints, at least in view, such I mean, who do not in works or deeds deny that Faith, which in words they profess. Such as these the Scripture pronounceth to be worse than Infidels: 
1 Tim. 5. 8.  and therefore whilst such, they are not capable of part & fellowship in that Government, which is appropriate to the Kingdom, or Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, it earnestly prayeth for, and by every other good way and means is ready to endeavour the conversion of these unto God: only it judgeth not meet to bring them into the Temple, until they be purified.  
Nor 2. doth this Government press for subjection unto it from the Saints themselves, without dispute: it cares for no Proselytes, but for those that are first instructed, and made disciples. It disdaignes so far to undervalue its beauty and loveliness, as to ravish or force the conscience of any man.  
Whereas (p. 
Sect. 28.  16.) he makes it an apparent schism, separation from all other Churches, for Independent Churches to appeal only to Churches of their own party; I conceive it is a repetition of a former mistake, with the augmentation of a new. For 1. there is no place for the crimes of schism or separation, but where a preceding union hath prepared it. Well may it be a crime or fault of another nature or kind in congregational Churches, to limit themselves in point of appeal, unto Churches only of their own constitution; but for the crimes of schism and separation here charged upon it, it is unquestionably innocent. And Mr Prynnes Printer (I presume rather casually, then consultedly) by making it, not an apparent, but an apparent Schism, hath much eased the burden of the charge; and represents the action more like unto itself in point of truth, than the Author himself intended; for the truth is, there is no reality or truth, but only an appearance or show (at most) of a schism or separation in it.  
2. It is but a mistaken supposition in him, to suppose, that in case an aggrieved party in an Independent Church, shall choose rather to appeal to a Church (one, or more) of a differing Government and constitution from their own, that this Church will refuse to be accountable unto the Church or Churches so appealed unto, because they are not of the same constitution with itself. I believe there is no congregational Church any where, but if it be lawfully and in a Christian manner required or called upon to do it, will be ready and willing to render an account of any of her actions or proceedings, not only to a Presbyterian Church, but even to the meanest member of it. But  
3. Why he should call a voluntary account given by a Church, a mere mockery in stead of an account, unless the Church accounted unto, should have power to enforce it to correct its errors or injustice, my eyes can see no reason. For in case the Church which willingly accounteth for her actions unto another, shall, upon the discovery and sight of any error or injustice in these her actions, as willingly retract and reform them (which, with the help and assistance of a very little charity, may ordinarily, if not universally, be presumed of Saints) why shall not such a reformation as this, being voluntary and free, be every whit as commendable and real, as a reformation compelled or enforced would be? And consequently, why should not an arbitrary or voluntary account, be as Christian, as satisfactory, as real, as that which is purchased by an iron rod? Or doth any Church or association of Churches, obtain a quicker or richer spirit of discerning, or a more accomplished faculty of convincing Churches that are delinquent, of their errors or injustice, by being armed with a compulsive power over them, than they were or would be capable of, if their authority were consultative and persuasive only? Or hath a Church called to an account for error or injustice, any more reason to acknowledge either for such, because they are adjudged such unto her, by Churches (one or more) having a coactive power over her, then if this sentence were passed by Churches not daring to claim, own, or exercise any such power?  
4. And lastly, I would fain know, why it should be more schism or separation, for an Independent Church to appeal only unto Churches of their own party, and not unto the Presbyterian, than it is for Presbyterian Churches, to appeal only to Churches of their party, and not unto the Independent; considering, that Churches of this constitution, are every whit as much (at least) Churches of Christ, as those of the other. But the truth is, it being lawful and free (as himself here supposeth) for Churches to appeal to Churches, as well of the one constitution, as of the other, that it is somewhat an uncouth and strange conceit, to make schism or separation of appealing either unto the one, or the other.  
Whereas (p. 
Sect. 29.  17.) he gives us leave to differ in judgement from the decrees of Synods and Parliaments, when erroneous and contrariant to the express Word, not to our own fancies, inferences, or opinions; doubtless, he mistakes, taking that away from us with the one hand, which he gives us with the other; which, I presume was not his intention. For if we may not differ in judgement from Synodical decrees, when they are contrariant to our opinions, we may not so differ from them at any time. Or may we, or can we differ in judgement from that, which is not contrary to our opinion? Though Mr Prynne differs in judgement from those that hold forth the congregational way, yet (it seems) he may be of the same opinion with them concerning that way.  
Whereas (in the same page) he demands of us, 
Sect. 30.  If we deem not ourselves more holy than our brethren, or be not swelled up with spiritual pride, why refuse we to close with them now, as we have done heretofore? The ground of the demand (questionless) is a mistake, and should not suffer ultrâ condignum, if it were called an error. There may be many reasons why one man closeth not with another in point of judgement (and consequently why not in practice also?) besides deeming himself more holy than his brother, from whom he dissenteth, or being swelled up with spiritual pride. I do not conceive that the Apostle Paul deemed himself more holy than Peter, much less that he was swelled up with spiritual pride, when he not only dissented from him touching the justifiableness of that course and practice wherein Peter now walked, but (as the text saith 
a Gal. 2. 11. ) withstood him to his face; but that the true ground of such both dissent and resistance, was partly the standing of Paul's judgement in opposition unto, and dislike of what Peter did; partly the desire he had of doing his fellow Apostle the Christian kindness of making straight that which was crooked in his way; partly also (if not principally) his zeal and faithfulness to his Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and his Gospel, and his Saints, that none of these might suffer loss or disadvantage in the world by the misprisions, or miscarriages of any man, how great or holy soever, as far as lay in his power to prevent it. Nor would it have been any disparagement or dishonour at all to the name of Mr. Prynne, nor wound (I believe) to his conscience, if he had waved those hard suggestions we spoke of, and substituted these or the like in their stead, as the true grounds of his brethren's not closing with him, and those of his judgement in the Presbyterian way. The truth is, that for my part (and I verily believe that I may truly speak the same for many thousands more) any conceit or deeming of myself more holy than others, was so far from interessing either my judgement or affections for the congregational way in the least, or from keeping me at any distance from my brethren of a contrary judgement, that a sense of mine own defectiveness therein, together with an earnest desire of better accommodations for my supplies, was not the least of those motives and arguments which carried and set my heart upon that way. And here I make open profession in the presence of Heaven and Earth, that if any of my brethren of opposite judgement, shall give me any reasonable account, or satisfaction, how in an ordinary way of providence, or experience, I may build up myself in holiness, better (or, if it be but as well) in the way of Presbytery, then in that way wherein I am for the present engaged, I will soon pull down what I have built, and dwell no longer in the Tents of Independency, but devote myself, and all my strength and might, to the service of that way, which for distinction sake is called Presbytery. For I make no question, but that way of Church-government which hath the richest sympathy, and most direct and full compliance with the edification of the Saints in holiness, is against all reasons, grounds, and arguments of what seeming strength or evidence soever, the way which Jesus Christ hath sealed.  
For any harsh censures cast, or passed by any congregational men upon Mr. Prynne, or other of their brethren of Mr. Prynnes judgement and way, I trust the complaint is to the height of the crime. I cannot justify one harsh censure given, by a thousand received: but if there were a Law for any such atonement, I make no question but that all the Congregational delinquency in that kind, would be fully purged. If my pen hath trespassed in this kind, (whereof notwithstanding I am no ways conscious, though upon some charge, I have made diligent enquiry after my own guilt) I hope the last period in this Mr. Prynnes Reply 
a Where he chargeth me to have presumptuously undermined the undoubted privileges of Parliament, with I know not how many more Anti-parliamentary passages diametrally contrary to my national vow and covevant, etc. , will speak a good word for it, and salve the imputation of such a sin.  
Hitherto I have examined only such passages in the Reply which concern the common cause depending between the two ways of Church-government, so much engaged in competition. My Pen must now travail for herself, and make trial of her strength for the redeeming of her own Innocency out of the hand of those accusations, 
Sect. 31.  which have laid violent hands upon her. I intent scarce so much as to touch or mention any thing that was brought to the touchstone in the former part of this discourse: a single vindication is large allowance for criminations without either substance, or colour of truth: the chief (& almost the only) thing which I have now to do, is to weigh the discussions of Mr. Prynnes pen in opposition to those of mine, in the balance of reason and truth, that so the reader, to whom judgement in this case belongeth, may give sentence accordingly.  
But first it is a thing almost incredible, 
Sect. 32.  (doubtless far beyond the belief of any sober or ingenuous man) that a man of that Name and Reputation not only for learning, but for Religion also, which Mr. Prynne is, should affirm, those 15. lines about the middle of page 18. to be the main doctrine prosecuted in my discourse called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the said 15 lines being nothing else but a rhapsody or collection of several words, phrases, and expressions, scattered here and there throughout the Discourse, some of them being expressly contrary to those restrictions and limitations, under which the doctrine there prosecuted, is propounded, and asserted in the explication of it. As for example; whereas page 18. of the said Theomachia, I express myself thus; If to attempt the suppression, or keeping down any way, doctrine or practice, which is from God, be of no less concernment, of no safer interpretation than a fight against God, then certainly it is the greatest imprudence, or improvidence under heaven, for any man, or rank of men whatsoever, to appear, especially in any high-handed opposition, or contestation, against any way, etc. In stead of those words, To appear, especially in any high-handed opposition, he, most unworthily and unchristianly substitutes these, to appear, or so much as to lift up an hand, or thought against any way, etc. Which falsification of my words is so much the more unsufferable because in the explanation of my doctrine, page 12. I express myself thus: It is not every degree or kind of opposing a way, doctrine, or design of God, which either the Text, or the doctrine calleth a fight against God, but only such an opposing which is peremptory, and carried on with an high hand, so that those instruments of God which he hath anointed to hold forth that way, doctrine, or design of his in the world, are not suffered to execute their commission, but are countermanded either by the authority, or over-bearing strength or power of men And immediately after, for the further explanation of my intent in the doctrine proposed, I distinguish thus: It is one thing to oppose, or contend against a doctrine or way of God, per modum doctoris: another to do it per modum judicis: The former I grant, may befall the best and faithfullest of men; yea, the later I grant to be sometimes incident to men otherwise upright in the main before God; only affirming that the children of this later contention and contestation against their maker, must expect to be taught more wisdom and reverence towards him with thorns and briers.  
And that the Reader may yet more clearly see and judge of Mr. 
Sect. 33.  Prynnes artifice in swelling my two lines (at most) of doctrine, into his 14. or 15. of representation, that so he may have the fairer mark, and bigger But to hit, I shall verbatim transcribe it, as it is laid down about the middle of page 12. of the said discourse. The content and words of it are only these: That for any man to endeavour or attempt the suppression of any doctrine, practice or way, which is from God, is to fight against God himself. Which doctrine, especially so qualified and understood, as the subsequent explication states the sense, purport, and meaning of it, I could not lightly expect should ever have been opposed, or contested against by any that were willing to own Abraham's relation of friendship unto God. 
Jam. 2.  But with what success Mr. Prynne hath attempted to shake the foundations of the truth of it, or whether indeed he hath attempted this at all, and not rather (contrary to the Law of all regular disputation) fallen foul only upon the conclusion itself, without giving any answer at all unto the premises, shall be presently taken into consideration. In the mean time let me add this: That if the grossest and most abhorred Heretics in the world, might have but the same liberty to prove their heretical opinions out of the Scriptures, which Pryn taketh to represent the doctrine prosecuted by me, and quarrelled against by him, out of my Sermons, they might prove them, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from thence. For what opinion is there, or lightly can be imagined, but that all the words, wherein it is (or at least very easily might be) conceived, may be found some where or other scattered here and there severally in the Scripture, & so be framed together into a sentence? By the law of such a liberty as this, I might say, that Mr. Prynne, in his Full Reply, holds, That we must speedily oppose, resist, avoid, suppress, 
a Page 18.  Parliaments, Emperors, Kings, Judges, Magistrates, Ministers, 
b Page. 24. , even for conscience sake, and the Lords sake too 
c Page 9 . For all these words and clauses are to be found in this discourse of his, as the pages cited in the margin do direct: yea, and twenty more as wild and uncouth opinions, and as far from Mr. Prinnes judgement as this, might by the liberty aforesaid, be collected out of the same piece.  
But let us come to consider those grounds and reasons, 
Sect. 34.  upon which, in Mr. Prynnes judgement, it may justly be questioned whether the Doctrine expressed towards the beginning of the last Section (which is the main, indeed the only Doctrine prosecuted in those two innocently-offending Sermons) be Orthodox or tolerable.  
His first Reason is; because it opens a wide gate to the reviving of all the old, the speading and propagating of all new Heresies, Errors— without the least timely opposition or prevention, to the endangering of infinite souls, and disturbance of the Churches, Kingdom's peace. For there is no Heretic, schismatic or Sectary whatsoever, but pretends his way, Doctrine, practice, opinions, to be the way of Christ, etc. Will any reasonable man conceive, that there is any reason at all in all this, to question the truth or soundness of the prementioned Doctrine? For any man to forbear the suppression of any Doctrine or Way which is (for any thing that is known to the contrary) from God, and that least he should fight against God, is this, to open a wide gate to all heresies, errors, and schisms? Then by the rule of contraries, the suppression of all Doctrines and ways, which for any thing that is known to the contrary, are from God, must be the fast-shutting of the gate against all heresies, errors, and schisms. This is the heart & soul of the first reason, which interesseth Mr. Prynnes judgement in questioning the Orthodoxism, yea, the tolerablenesse of the premised Doctrine. But by the way, if Mr. Prynnes judgement concerning the Doctrine, be, that it opens a wide gate to all heresies, errors, schisms, sects whatsoever, both new and old, etc. it is marvel it should have no further operation upon him, then only to prevail with him to question whether it be Orthodox or tolerable: Such an effect or consequent of a Doctrine as this, is foundation large enough to build a confident determination upon, that it is heterodox and intolerable.  
And for the body of this Reason, wherein he informs us at large (and that with truth enough) that Satan and his ministers also tranforme themselves into Angels of light, that false Teachers usually come to seduce men in sheep's clothing, that there is no Heretic, schismatic, or Sectary whatsoever, though never so pernicious, gross, and detestable, but pretends his way, Doctrine, practice, to be the way and truth of Christ; with many other good sayings to like effect; I cannot but marvel, what a reasonable man should imagine to be in all this, to make him question the truth of this Doctrine, that for any man to attempt the suppression of any Doctrine, practice, or way which is from God, is to fight against God. Because false Teachers pretend their Doctrine to be from God, doth it therefore follow, that the suppressing of such a Doctrine which is from God, should not be a fight against God? It is somewhat an hard case, that a man should be arrested of a presumptuous undermining the undoubted privileges of Parliament by the very roots, at the suit of such a consequence as this.  
Whereas upon the former assertions, he enters his action in such an Interrogatory as this: Must we therefore not speedily oppose, resist, avoid, suppress them now, because they thus pretend they are of, and from God, but stay till God hath renounced them, etc. I join issue with him, and say; that there is little less than a mere Contradiction in the form of his Plea; Those Doctrines, practices, opinions, which in the former part of his Plea, he had censured and condemned for Heresies, Errors, Schisms, Sects, etc. in this latter part of it he supposeth, that God hath not yet disclaimed, or renounced from Heaven; and that we see not their condemnation yet written with the beam of the Sun. Else why should he represent it as so unreasonable and heinous a thing, that we should stay the opposing and suppressing of them, till such things were done? Surely Mr. Prynne cannot be so hardy, as to condemn any Doctrine or practice for Heretical or errneous, until God hath some ways or other disclaimed or renounced them from Heaven, for such. It is he, not Mr. Prynne, that must, not only determine, what is Heresy, Error, and Schism, but also signify his determinations in this kind, before it comes to Mr. Prynnes turn, or any man's beside, to give any such sentence against them at the bar of their Judgements.  
A second Reason which created that jealousy in him we spoke of, 
Sect. 35.  against the forenamed Doctrine, is the contrariety of it to forty and one express precepts and precedents (if my Arithmetic fails me not in the computation) in the old and new Testament; one whereof (viz. Jer. 4. 30, 31.) he avoucheth for pregnant; but the rest (it seems) must be compared together, or else the contrariety in them to the Doctrine which he opposeth, will not utter itself. And it is well that he can be content to afford us leisure for the perusal of these Scripture precepts and precedents, though he would afford us none, to peruse or consider of Doctrines or practices, as we heard before. But  
1. I must profess the second time, that I can little less than wonder, that the Gentleman should only question or suspect the orthodoxness of a Doctrine, and not positively and peremptorily conclude it Heterodox, which carrieth a contrariety in it to forty-one express precepts and precedents of Scripture. A man would think by such a strain of tenderness and indulgence as this, that he were a very fair and favourable interpreter of men's opinions and ways; and would never exact or stand upon Summam jus (which the Proverb interprets to be Summam injuriam) with any man.  
2. If all the precepts and precedents here drawn together from the Scriptures, be express, why is that one, Jer. 4. 30, 31. separated from all its fellows by this parenthes●s of preferment, [a pregnant place] as if all the rest were barren and empty of that conception, which is indifferently fathered, or mothered rather, upon them all? and one other of them (viz. Gal. 2. 4. to 18.) singularized with this parenthesis, [a noted place]? If no contrariety to the suspected Doctrine be found either in the pregnant place, or in the noted place, I trust all the rest of the places will give place, and confess themselves stranger's thereunto. First, for the pregnant place, Jer. 4. 30, 31. doubtless, there is not so much as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an embryo of such a contrariety to be found there. The tenor of the place is this; And when thou art spoilt, what wilt thou do? Though thou cloathest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting; in vain shalt thou make thyself fair, thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life, ver. 30. For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now: for my soul is wearied because of murderers, ver. 31. I am not able to discern the least swelling or bearing-out of the womb of either of these verses, with any contrariety in the least, to the import of the Doctrine now under protection. To attempt the suppression of any Doctrine or Way which is from God, may be a fight against God, and yet God say to the daughter of his people, And when thou art spoilt, what wilt thou do? together with all that which followeth in the two transcribed verses. I believe the noted place is every whit as void of that contrariety we speak of, as we found the pregnant place to be. Mr. Prynne himself, partly transcribes, partly argues this place, beautifying the words or clause wherein he chiefly puts his trust, with emphatical letters, thus; Paul would not give way to false Apostles, NO NOT FOR AN HOUR, that the truth of the Gospel might continue among the Galatians, and resisted Peter to his face, as soon as ever he walked disorderly, (he should have spoke more truth, if he had said, as soon as ever he understood or knew, that he so walked) and gave the least countenance to false Teachers, etc.  
— Fortassè cupressum,  
Scis simulare: quid hoc, si fractis enatet expes  
Navibus, aere dato qui pingitur?  
Mr. Prynne doth very substantially prove, by this passage, and that which follows, that error in Doctrines, and miscarriages in persons, are to be resisted and withstood, (by ways and means warrantable by the Word of God) as soon as ever they are certainly discerned, or known to be such: but here is not the least semblance of an Argument to prove, either that the one or the other, aught to be resisted or suppressed, before they are discovered or manifested to be such; or that being discovered or manifested to be such, they ought to be either resisted or suppressed by any other means, than what God himself hath authorized in that behalf; lest of all, is there any jot, tittle, or peep of a proof of that, which is the burden of Mr. Prynnes undertaking, viz. that to attempt the suppressing of any Doctrine or Way which is from God, is not to fight against God.  
Nor doth his third Reason any whit more accommodate his enterprise, 
Sect. 36.  than the former. For what contrariety, or show of contrariety is there in these unquestionable maxims, of Divinity, Policy, and Morality, Principiis obsta●e: venienti occarrite morbo, etc. to that Doctrine, which only pronounceth, the attempt of suppressing any Doctrine or Way which is of God, to be a fight against God? yea, or to this; that no Doctrine or Way ought to be suppressed, until it be certainly known, whether they be from God, or no? He that gave counsel, Principiis obstare, i● to withstand beginnings, did not mean to advise men to make resistance against such beginnings, which might, for aught they know, be as well the beginnings, of good, or of strength, as of evil or sickness; but only such beginnings, which did clearly presage inconvenience ensuing, if not timely prevented. And though all wise men hold preventing physic best for their bodies; yet no wise man holds such Physic best, or good in any degree for his body, which is as like to prevent the health and sound constitution of his body, as any infirmity or distemper of it. He that will either lance or sear, before he knows whether the condition of his body requires either, may abound in flesh, but sure is no true born son of Wisdom. That creature which is endued by God with principles of discerning, certainly was not made to act (especially in things of highest importance, as matters of Religion are) at peradventure.  
His 4th and last Reason holds no correspondence at all with the Truth. 
Sect. 37.  For what contrariety is there in the Doctrine under Mr. pryn's arrest, to the Policy, Practice of most godly Magistrates, Princes, Ministers, Churches in all Ages, Nations? When did the Policy or Practice of any of these affirm, that to attempt the suppression of any Doctrine or Way which is from God, is not to fight against God? If his meaning be, that the Policy and Practice of the persons he represents, never indulged any known Heresies, Errors, Schisms; no, not for an hour, the Doctrine against which he contends, in this contends not at all against him, but gives him the right hand of fellowship in such an apprehension. Only it adviceth godly Magistrates, Prince, Ministers, Churches, to be very careful and wary, of suppressing Angels of light indeed, instead of Satan transformed into an Angel of light; of baiting and hunting the sheep of Christ, in stead of Wolves that come in sheep's clothing; of smothering light in stead of darkness, of smiting truth in stead of error and heresy. And is there any harm in this counsel or contrariety either to the Policy or Practice of any wise or godly man? Or, if there be any contrariety to either, it is because there is a contrariety in them to the Word and Wildome of God.  
Whereas in the same Reason, 
Sect. 38.  he makes himself a further debtor unto me, by charging me, that I plead for Schisms and CONVENTICLES set up only by private spirits in opposition to the public established Church-reiglement.  
My Answer is:  
1. That I know a public Church-reiglement abrogated and demolished, but I know none as yet established. When Mr. Prynne by his Logic shall convince me of acting in opposition to that which is not, I trust I shall be provided with mine to give him a satisfying answer.  
2. Whereas he declares against me, as a Pleader for Schisms and Conventicles; I answer, that he is the happiest man I know of his Profession, if he never pleaded any worse Cause, then that which I plead in those Sermons. But whereas in other places of his Reply, his margin glorieth with quotations in abundance, here (it seems) it is ashamed, as not knowing what to say, nor where to find or point at, any pleading for Schisms and Conventicles, as the lines in the page adventure to affirm.  
3. What Mr. Prynnes privy notion of a Schism or Conventicle is, I am not able to say: but if he be here of the same mind and judgement with his own marginal note, p. 10. which affirmeth, that none are Conventiclers but Heretics and Schismatics, who wholly separate themselves from our public assemblies established by law; certain I am, that I plead for no Conventicles in those Sermons; nor do I approve of the practice of any, who wholly separate themselves from our public assemblies. But calumniare audacter; aliquid haerebit, holds good (it seems) in Law. But,  
4. If by pleading for Schisms and Conventicles, he means a pleading for the spiritual liberties of the Congregations of the Saints, and of the Assemblies of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven, whom Jesus Christ hath made Kings and Priests unto God his Father, 
b Rev. 1. 6.  and who are shortly to judge the world, if the vindication (I say) of the rights and privileges of these in point of exemption and immunity in their spiritual affairs, and such as concern the regulation of their consciences in matters appertaining to the worship and service of God, from the Jurisdiction and interest of the Commissioners and Delegates of the world; if this (once again) be pleading for Schisms and Conventicles, I had quitted myself much more like a faithful Minister of Jesus Christ, if I had pleaded for them yet seven times more, than now I have done. My sorrow and shame (in part) is, that I have pleaded this honourable Cause so weakly, as to leave thoughts and imaginations in Mr. Prynne, which still exalt and magnify themselves against the righteousness, truth, and equity of it.  
5. And lastly, whereas he calls the Church-government which I plead for, a Government set up only by private spirits; if it be found to be a Government set up by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures (the consideration unto which all my plead for it in those Sermons are homagers, being all of them conditional, and none peremptory or absolute) Mr. Prynnes spirit, and the spirits of all others that shall oppose it, how public soever their persons may be, will be found to be the private spirits, disallowed in the Scriptures by the Spirit of God.  
Whereas he yet adds, 
Sect. 39  that differences and varieties in matters of government are such tender things, that they cannot be tolerated in one and the selfsame Church and State, without infinite inconveniences and distances, etc. I answer,  
1. That differences and varieties in matters of Government, are not things so tender in any degree, as the consciences of the Saints; and therefore no reason, that Reason of State should be more tenderly respected, than these. Better a thousand men inconvenienced in their temporals, than one righteous soul wounded in his spirituals; yea, or then one sin committed to prevent all those inconveniences. una Dei gloria (saith Calvin, a great Presbyterian) praeferri meretur centum mundis. Yea, and one greater than Calvin (I mean the Apostle Paul) saith, (neither saith he any thing more than what an whole Christian State or Nation is bound to say) If meat offendeth my brother, I will eat no flesh whilst the world standeth, that I may not offend my brother, 1 Cor. 8. 13. But,  
2. Whereas we still hear of wars and rumours of wars from Presbyterial pens, of infinite inconveniences and disturbances, and turnings of all things upside down in States, as if they should never die any other death, in case any other Government should be endured, but their own; the truth is, that such predictions (or pretences rather) as these, are but a kind of politic agents sent forth to negotiate their Cause with the ignorance and simplicity of the generality of men; who being indifferent for matter of Church-government, but of firmly-resolved judgements to keep themselves as far from all that which is called trouble or disturbances as possibly they can, are apt to drink in the impressions of all overtures or pretences which sound that way, as fishes drink water, and so are made Proselytes of a zealous inspiration for the Classic Consistory. Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor. That mixture of ignorance and fear which is commonly found in vulgar constitutions, may easily be wrought and fashioned by a politic hand, almost into what apprehensions, and endeavours suitable, a man desireth; if his design in this kind exceed not the compass and content of nature: for the darkness of ignorance hath no communion at all with the kingdom of light; but being in conjunction with an awakened passion of fear, it disposeth the hearts and souls of men to receive any superstitious impressions of what shape and from soever the intellectus agens, or he that worketh upon it, shall desire. For my part, I am not able to calculate the least rational proportion or conexion between a variety or difference of Church-government, & the distractions, or disturbances in a State; nor can I easily believe, that all the Presbyterian Writers themselves, do truly & unfeignedly fear any such effect from such a cause, though some peradventure may. For what if every congregation or Parish in & about London, had a different government, or way of ordering their Church-affairs, as they generally have somewhat (more or less) differing in the ordering and managing of their Vestries, or Parochial civil affairs, the one being supposed as agreeable to the civil Laws of the State, as the other, and each Parish respectively satisfied, and well paid with their own government, I am not able to discern, nor cast it in my thoughts, how the peace or safety of the civil State should suffer in the least by it. But I can very easily conceive, how a State may be very probably disturbed, (and I can give instances of many that have been) by an universal compulsion of all the subjects thereof, to one and the same Religion; yea, and how by the like compulsion to one and the same Church-government. It is very strange to me that they that know (and how generally it is known) what variety of Churches and Church-government, yea, and professions of Religion there are, and have for a long time been in the dominion of the States of Holland, and withal, how pacate, flourishing, and free from disturbance this State hath been; and again, how that not only a form of Church-government differing from that kind of government which is more generally practised throughout the kingdom of France, but even a different Religion also, have without the least occasion of inconvenience or disturbance to the State, (yea I might say, to the great advantage and benefit of the State,) been tolerated, yea little less than countenanced, and that near the very heart, & chief places of this Kingdom; very strange (I say) to me it is, that they that cannot lightly but know these things (besides many other instances in other States and Republics, of like consideration) should yet pretend fears, yea certainties of I know not what inconveniences and disturbances to the State, if any more Church-governments than one should take place, or be endured in it. They that shall please to peruse page 23. of the Reply of the two brethren to A. S. shall find many Scriptures, of a friendly and harmless consistence of several Religions (and therefore doubtless of several Church-governments) in the same State, besides some others. And Lucas Osiander in his Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History, written by the Magdeburgenses, in the 6th Century, relates several examples of successful issues and events of such mutual tolerations, as we now speak of. Troubles and disturbances of States, are far more like to be the fruits and consequents of rigour and hard measure, measured out unto the Saints, then of favour or condescension unto them for their accommodation. They that think a State should work wisely for itself, by any hard entreaty of the servants of God, have forgotten wherefore Pharaoh and his great host perished together in the red Sea.  
Whereas p. 
Sect. 40.  19 he taxeth me with a default, that I neither discover unto him what that Way is, which I there so earnestly plead for, nor produce any one text to prove it Christ's own way, nor one example to warrant it, etc. My Answer is,  
1. I suppose, that an understanding man, as all men acknowledge Mr. Prynne to be, that prosecutes a Way with so much violence and bitterness, as he doth the Way there pleaded for, understandeth it all over, through and through, (and so needeth not any further discovery of it to be made unto him). Such a man (doubtless) will take heed above all caution, of stumbling at that stone above all other, whereat the Princes of this world stumbled, and were broke to pieces, when they crucified the Lord of glory, before they knew who he was, 1 Cor. 2. 8.  
2. I answer further, that it was no part of my design or intent in those Sermons, to justify the Way so oft there mentioned, simply, or as a Way of Christ against all contradiction; but only to justify it against those common exceptions and vulgar objections there insisted upon; and to demonstrate, that it may be Christ's own Way, notwithstanding any thing that hath yet appeared to take away that crown from it: and so upon this consideration, to persuade men, as they love and tender their own safety and peace, not to lay violent hands upon it, until they should have better grounds to judge it none of Christ's Way, than yet they had any. This being the adequate and precise tenor of my intention in that Discourse, I kept myself close to it; and so had no occasion to argue any thing (or very little) in a cataskenastique or positive Way for it.  
But because I produce nothing positively to prove the Way I plead for, 
Sect. 41.  (or rather, against the suppression of it) to be Christ's own Way, Mr. Prynne takes the courage to assault the credit and reputation of it by four Reasons or Arguments, (as he desires to have their number thought) though the second and fourth be but one and the same; and the third, nothing but what he had said before, and that unsuceessefully, (as was argued in the 39th Section of this Discourse) and the first, second, third and fourth, nothing to profane the excellency, or pollute the beauty of that Cause, against which his pen is armed. But let us answer them, so far as they have not been answered already; only this one thing pre-observed, that Mr. Prynn's conscience, with the assistance of all his four Arguments, doth not yet serve him, peremptorily or simply to condemn this Way, as none of Christ's own Way, but only to suspect it none of his, as himself expresseth himself in the last line of pag. 19 Now being advanced no further in the confidence of his judgement against this Way, but only to suspect it for none of Christ's, I trust, that remembering what Cameron (a learned Presbyterian) saith, viz. that suspicion of falsity, was ever a calamity incident to truth, he will advance no further in his opposition to it, until his suspicion be grown up to the stature of a perfect, clear, and certain knowledge. This only premised, let us try whether the grounds of his jealousy itself will not shake.  
To the first we answer, 
Sect. 42.   
1. That whereas this Way is here charged to be a new Way, never yet heard of, in any age or Church of Christ; it hath been sufficiently proved by those that have written in the defence of it; that in point of Antiquity, it hath the pre-eminence of its Competitrress to the value of 1500 years, as having been that Way of Government, wherein the Primitive Churches of Christ, through his gracious & wise indulgence administered unto them by his Apostles in this behalf rejoiced for the space of about 200. years, as Mr. Burton in his Answer to Mr. Prynn's two first pieces upon this subject, lately published, clearly manifests, p. 19 and 24. 
a Mr Jacob affirmeth, that for the space of 200. or 300. years after Christ, every visible church had power to exercise Ecclesiastical Government, and all other Gods spiritual Ordinances (the means of salvation) in and for itself, immediately from Christ. Zions' Prerogative, p. 28, 29.  showing moreover, how these Churches in time came to degenerate in point of Government, and to lose their spiritual liberties therein.  
2. Whereas the opposition of the generality of Magistrates, Ministers and people to this Way, is pleaded in bar to the legitimacy and truth of it; We answer,  
1. That according to the tenor of Poetical story; Ulysses after twenty year's absence from his house and home, was grown out of the knowledge of his friends and neighbours; yea, Penelope herself (his wife) knew him not at his return at first, but upon some conference and discoveries otherwise, he became known both to the one and the other. Nor should it seem strange to any, that a Church-government, set up by the Apostles, so many hundreth years since, and having for a thousand years and upwards been in exile, the rights, privileges and possessions of it seized upon, and usurped by others, should not presently at the first return of it, be acknowledged by the generality of men, no, nor by the generality of her friends themselves, I mean, godly, sober, and understanding men; whom I call her friends, because I make no question, but there lies love and friendship to her, at the root and bottom of their hearts, though there be a crust of enmity and opposition at the top, for a season. Joseph will in due time, make himself known unto his brethren.  
2. Though numbers of those that are opposite to this Way, if we compute the generality of them, be confessedly far greater, then of those that plead for her; yet the barren begins to rejoice, and to bear children apace; and the desolate may in time come to have more children than she that hath an husband. John Baptist had many more Disciples and followers at first, than Christ himself; yet ingenuously subscribed to the dignity of Christ above himself, saying, He must increase, but I must decrease, Joh. 3. 30.  
3. The judgements both of Magistrates and common people, concerning this Way, depending chiefly (if not solely) upon the judgements of Ministers, it is the less strange, that there should be found such a grand concurrence in the judgements of both against it, especially for a time. There are these twelve Reasons (among others) why the judgements of Ministers especially may, according to the course of humane affairs in other like cases, stand off at some distance form this Government, for a season.  
First, their judgements have for a long time conversed familiarly with another, and that with approbation and contentment; by means whereof there is a kind of a pleasing sympathy or connaturalness grown between them; which is such a conveniency or accommodation, that nature will not suddenly quit or lose, nor without good consideration: No man (saith our Saviour) that hath drunk old wine, straight way desireth new; for he saith, the old is better, Luke 5. 39  
Secondly, godly Ministers (more generally) stand publicly declared in their judgements for another Government. And how hard a thing is it, even for good men (in the Philosopher's phrase) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do execution upon their own tenets and opinions, especially when they have owned them in the sight of the world? The casting out of his son Ishmael, is said to have been a thing very grievous in Abraham's sight, notwithstanding he had the advantage of the express Commandment of God upon him, to make it easy, Gen. 21. 11. It is confessed, that this, (haply with some others of the Reasons following) bears as hard against some Independents in their adhesion unto, and stiff-standing by their Way, as it doth against Presbyterians in their resolvedness for theirs. But this rather confirms, than any way infeebles, the argumentative authority of it for that probation, which it undertakes.  
Thirdly, many Ministers conceive, that if they shall pull out but one stone out of their building, though never so ill laid, they shall shake the foundations of the whole fabric, and that in case themselves should begin with any one of those Doctrines which they have taught, to disclaim it, the people will follow their example herein, and do the like by all the rest. Whereas on the contrary, the truth is, that to separate the vile from the precious, is to raise the honour and esteem of that which is precious; and the cancelling of some things, which a man hath taught, as erroneous, is an high confirmation of all the rest; according to that School maxim, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis.  
Fourthly, many by being declaredly engaged for such or such an opinion, have fared the better for it, either in their credits and reputations, or otherwise; yea, and haply at unawares, have gained deep interest and honour with persons of name and prime respects in the world, by means of a co-ingagement in the same opinion with them. Now as our Saviour saith, 
a Mar. 9 39  there is no man that shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; No more will men easily be brought to make refuse or untruth of any such opinion, which hath been, and still continues, such a Benefactresse unto them. Ministers may truly say in such cases, Beneficium accepi, libertatem vendidi: i. by receiving a benefit, I have sold my liberty.  
Fifthly, many are not able to be baptised with the baptism wherewith Paul was baptised, Act. 17. 18. where he was charged to be a setter forth of new Gods: they are not able to bear the reproach of being teachers of new doctrines; of being charged with whimsies and Independent Crotchets 
a Mr. Prynne. full Replies. p 74. , of trading in Apes aud Peacocks 
b M. Edward's Antapol. p. 261. , etc. and so resolve to hold on in such a way, wherein though they may meet with some reproofs, yet they are sure of far more with them, than they can fear being against them.  
Sixthly, some think it a point of humility to build upon other men's foundations, and fear they should pollute the memories and honour of Calvin, Beza, and other famous lights in the Church of God, if they should recede from their principles in the least.  
Seventhly, some have laesum principium, a maimed principle of seeing any thing that is new, except they see it first, cannot stoop so low, as to carry any man's honour after him, (especially that converseth upon the earth with him: Pascitur in vivis livor:) nor yet so far disparage their own parts and abilities, as to judge any thing which is of a new discovery, to be Truth, except they be some ways or other interessed in the discovery of it. Ingenio qui vult cedere, rarus erit. There is a notion (unsound as it seems to me) of a kind of knowledge supposed to be in God, 
a Twiss de Scientia med.  called Scientia media, lately started amongst the Schoolmen: and how do the great masters of that learning, contend amongst themselves for the primacy of that invention? Fonseca stands up, and tells the world, 
b Ego (inquit Fons●ca) in Academia Con●mbricensi, hoc primus observavi. Imo potius ego (clamat Molina) apud, Eborenses meos. His non cedit Leonardus Lessius Lovaniensis, & suo cer●bello, de codem partu ambitiosè gratulatur. Prid. Lect. 2. de Scient. med.  that he was the first that observed it amongst his Conimbrians. Nay rather (saith Molina) I am he that first discovered it amongst my Eborans. In comes Lessius from amongst his Lovanians, and takes away this Crown from them both, and sets it upon his own brain.  
Eighthly, some are of opinion, that matters of truth in point of Church-government, are neither too great nor too good, to be sacrificed upon the service of peace; though Luther's saying was, that unus apex verbi, major est coelo & terra: i. the least tittle, or point of the word of God, is greater than heaven, and earth.  
Ninthly, some are more addicted to Authors than Arguments, for the furnishing of their judgements, and regulating their consciences in matters of Religion: and then it is no marvel if these make Silver and Gold of the Presbyterial, and hay and Stubble of the congregational way; though it be true also on the other hand, that in very many Authors, and those of Classic authority, both ancient and modern, there are manifesta rotae vestigia cernendi, manifest prints and footsteps of this way 
a See Zions prerogdtive, almost throughout. .  
Tenthly, the congregational way puts Ministers upon a more immediate dependence upon God and his providence for matter of maintenance and outward accommodation: and how few are there but had rather see, then believe? have the known Laws of a State, than the unknown purposes and decrees of heaven, the vouchers of their livelihood and supports to such a proportion or degree?  
Eleventhly, (some its like) are afraid lest the wrath and discontent of the generality of the people of the Land, should evince the error and untruth of the congregational way, by offering violence to those that shall hold it forth in practice; and so choose rather to build upon the people's general acceptation of the Presbyterian way (which they cannot much question) as an unquestionable demonstration of the truth and goodness thereof.  
Twelfthly (and last) others (probably) are jealous, and foresee, that they shall not be able to give that quarter of contentment to many great persons, and men in place of authority, in the congregational way, which they know they may in the Presbyterian. Yea, they cannot lightly but foresee, that in the practice of the congregational way, they shall (in all likelihood and without the gracious hand of God preventing) contract the odium and ill will of many great ones, who under God have power to grind their faces, and break their bones. And who will be willing to study and take pains, and be earnest with God in prayer night and day, for the conviction of such a Truth, which being discovered, will either expose a man to all that danger of hardship and misery in the world, which we speak of, or else do him a worse displeasure than so, by tormenting his conscience, in case he shall refuse to be so exposed?  
These with many other like reasons there are, why Ministers (rather than others) may more generally incline to fall in rather with the Presbyterian, than the congregational way (and consequently why Magistrates and people, who see much by their eyes, should fall in also) and yet such a constellation no sign from heaven, but only from the earth, (the element made to be trampled under foot) of the truth & righteousness of that Way. But that I may not be mistaken, nor leave the least touch or taste of offence in the mind of any man, by occasion of the reasons insisted upon, I solemnly profess, as in the presence of God, that I intent no ill reflection upon any of my brethren in the Ministry, who are contrary minded to me in point of Church-government, as such in any of them; nor to insinuate as if they, either divisim or conjunctim, were swayed in their judgements by any of the said motives in the present controversy: but to demonstrate against my Antagonist, that such tentations are very incident to the nature of man, yea, even when it is under the best accomplishments of nature, industry & grace itself: and consequently, that his argument drawn, A multitudine taliter sentientium, is of little force. I freely acknowledge, that Ministers very possibly may have (yea I verily believe that many have) the Presbyterian way in their hearts, who never consulted with any of those Oracles about the bringing of it in thither: and that many of this judgement are as candid, free, unspotted, and untouched by any of those respects, in their way, as many who embrace the congregational way, are in theirs. Yet  
4. I must answer this one thing further to my Repliers Argument, that the testimony of a few godly persons, having little or nothing of this world to accommodate their judgements, but a thousand things to distance and distaste them, is in reasonableness and fairness of construction, of more consideration for the averment of a truth, than the judgement of many who have the Sun, Moon, and twelve Stars to give light unto them, I mean all or most of this world's endowments to confirm them.  
5. (And last) the known case happening at the Council of Nice between Paphnutius and the rest of the learned members thereof, with that of Athanasius opposing (in a manner) the whose Christian world now turned Arrian, with some others of like consideration that might be added, have broke the heart of that Topique place, Quod pluribus videtur, etc. and made it void and invalid for ever.  
To his second Argument, which (it seems) strengthens the hand of his great jealousy against the congregational cause, I answer.  
First, I am unduly and untruly charged, to acknowledge the congregational government set up by a few private men, against the Authority and commands of the Parliament, etc. I no where mention any Authority or command of Parliament declared against this Way; neither indeed do I know any to this hour. Nor do I either hope or fear to live to that day, wherein private men may not both fear God, and obey Jesus Christ, without offending against the authority and commands of Parliament. But this charge being hard to find in my discourse, and he that affirms it, being desirous to make it as hard to answer or disprove, he takes field-room enough for his reference, and in his Margin bids us (in effect) look from page 30. to 52. telling us, that if we look narrowly enough, we shall find it somewhere within that circuit, though himself (it seems) knows not well where.  
2. Nor do I any where, either tacitly or vocally acknowledge that this way, not only denies, but oppugnes the temporal Magistrates, Parliaments, Synods directions or coercive power in Ecclesiastical affairs. If any man of this way doth deny, much more if he oppugneth either the one or the other, it is not necessary that he should do either, as a Son of this Way, nor by any influence of those grounds and principles upon which this Way is built. But I verily believe, that Mr. Prynne never knew any man of this Way, that ever denied, much less oppugned any directions whether from Parliaments or Synods, (or from far meaner hands then either of these) unless they saw or apprehended them contrary to the mind and will of God in the Scriptures; in which case I have that Christian and honourable opinion of the author of this charge, that he would deny them himself. What he means by the word oppugning, in such an emphatical opposition to a denying, is none of my understanding. It he means only a pleading or an arguing in oppositum, I conceive it no ways opposite unto, but of a just and necessary concurrence with a denial. For he that denies any thing affirmed by another, is bound to, (or at least very lawfully may) give a reason of that his denial; which must needs be an oppugning (in this sense) of the others assertion. If by oppugning, he means, an opposing or resisting by force, the charge is a most unworthy and unchristian slander. I no where give the least intimation that the way I plead for in any of her principles or maxims, thus oppugneth either Parliaments or Synods, either in their directions, or in the exercise of any coercive power. As for a coercive power in Synods, I think Mr. Prynnes way denies, if not oppugns, it, as well as mine. And to gratify the Civil Magistrate with such a power as this, in matters of Religion, denying him withal any Directive power for the ordering and government of it (which is the bounty of the Presbyterian way to the Civil Magistrate 
a The Civil Magistrate arrogates not to himself any directive power in matters of Religion. A. S. in his Observe. & Annot. p. 5. And again, p. 7. To grant them such a power (viz. of judging questions in debate between the two parties in the Assembly, speaking of the Parliament) were nothing else but to join yourselves with the Arminians, etc. ) is no such eminency of desert at his hand, above what the congregational way doth willingly and cheerfully leave unto him. The understanding and reason of a man, is certainly better than the strength of an Elephant, or a Lyon.  
3. I absolutely deny, that Mr. Prynne hath either largely, or contractedly proved, either by many Texts, or any Texts, either in his Independency examined, or in any other of his writings whatsoever, whether examined or unexamined the denial of any such coercive power, either in Parliaments or Synods, to be either directly or indirectly contrary to the Scriptures, which either the congregational way, or any Patron or friend of this way, that I know of, have denied, or do deny unto either. And whereas his page boasts of his large proof hereof by many Texts, and by this finger (o) points us to his margin, as if that would justify and make good this boasting; the honest margin, as conscious to the vanity thereof, refuseth to say any thing at all, jot or tittle, to it.  
4. Whereas he pleads, that Paul himself even in matters of Religion pleaded his cause before Festus, Felix, and King Agrippa, all this is granted in point of Truth, but absolutely denied in point of pertinency to his purpose. If Independents be brought before Kings and Rulers for Christ's sake, or for their conscience sake, it is their wisest course (and that which well becomes them, yea, and that which they would do, if so brought) to plead their cause before them as well as they can, as Paul did before Festus, etc. But though Paul was a chosen vessel of Christ to carry his Name before Kings 
a Act. 9 15. , yet they were chosen vessels of Satan, who compelled or brought him before Kings to answer for his life, because he preached and practised the doctrine of Christ, notwithstanding he always carried the Name of Christ with him, whensoever he was brought before them. Nor doth his pleading his cause before Festus, etc. any whit more prove that Festus had a lawful coercive power in matters of Religion, than James his being slain by Herod's sword, or Christ's being crucified by pilate's power, prove that Civil Magistrates have a lawful power to sentence the faithfullest and most innocent men unto death. As for Paul's appeal unto Caesar, (an Heathen Emperor) can we blame him for it, when as he hoped to find more equal and fair proceedings before him, then at the Judicatories of inferior Judges? If Mr. Prynne will accept or interpret, either the pleading of our cause before a Civil Magistracy when we are brought before it, or an appealing from an inferior Civil Judicatory when we feel or fear injustice, to a Superior, or an acknowledgement of a lawful power in the Civil Magistrate to restrain the violence and unjust proceedings and practices of men against us; if (I say) he will interpret any, or all these, to be an acknowledgement of a Coercive power in the Civil Magistrate, in Ecclesiastical affairs, there is an end of this strife between us; we will all readily subscribe, that such a coercive power as this in matters of Religion and Ecclesiastical affairs, is the undoubted privilege of the Civil Magistrate, and of right belongs unto him.  
5. We freely likewise subscribe unto those injunctions of the Apostle, where he enjoins all Christians to pray, even for heathen Kings, Magistrates, and to submit to all their lawful commands for conscience sake: yea, and are heartily sorry that any such commands should at any time proceed from Kings, Magistrates, whether Heathen or Christian, unto which we cannot submit with a good conscience, and for conscience sake; but are necessitated even for conscience sake to decline them. Only we question, whether Kings, Magistrates, Heathen or Christian, have any power from God, to punish good and godly men, for declining such commands of theirs for conscience sake, which they cannot for conscience sake submit unto.  
6. For those Princes and Magistrates who were long sense predicted to become nursing Fathers to the Church under the Gospel, we wish them all Christian care, tenderness, and compassion, according to the nature and tenor of this so honourable a service and employment, so long sense by prophecy from God assigned and recommended unto them. But whether it be proper for those, that desire to be looked upon as nursing Fathers of the Church, to sacrifice the peace and comfort of one part of the children of the Church upon the service of the wills or humours of another part of them, I leave to nursing mothers, who have twins of their womb hanging upon their breasts, to judge and determine.  
7. And lastly, for the good and wholesome Laws enacted by Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, etc. for the worship of God, etc. We gave (I trust) a good and wholesome answer in the former part of this discourse, published some weeks since. We freely grant a power, yea, and more than a power, a necessity by way of duty, in Kings, Magistrates, to further the honour and service of the true God, and his people in the worship of him. It is only a power of discouraging his people, of interrupting and hindering their peace and comfort in the worship and service of the true God, which we conceive incompetible unto Magistracy, as any gift or donation settled upon it by God.  
His third Argument or ground of jealousy against the way of his great Contestation, 
Sect. 44.  is, that it appears to be a way that will breed infinite confusions, disorders, by confounding the bounds of Parishes, etc. We answer  
1. That Physicians seldom complain of sickly times; nor Miller's of those that bring grist to their mills. The old saying was, De morbo gaudet medicus. It is strange to me that Mr. Prynne should thus prevaricate with his profession. But it may be this argument is figurative, and cat-antiphrasticall: And so, by confusions, disorders, etc. he means, peace, unity and concord amongst men, whereby confusions, disorders, and consequently suits at Law, will be prevented and cut off. And the truth is that such peace, unity, and concord amongst men, whereby such unchristian mischiefs and miseries as these, may in ordinary way of providence be prevented, is the genuine and natural product of this way, and a fruit that is daily gathered from it by many.  
2. Whereas he chargeth this way, with confounding the bounds of Parishes, and in his margin citys p. 38. to 40. of my two Sermons, for the justification of this charge; the truth is, that both charge and justification may go together, and serve in the Forlorn hope, having neither reason nor truth to second either. For 1. the way he speaks of, intermeddles not with, offers no violence to the bounds of Parishes only it thinks it equal that the bounds of Parishes should not offer violence, or be houses of bondage unto the consciences of the Saints, nor be as bars of iron against them in the way of their comfort, and spiritual edification. 2. Whereas I am subpenaed for a witness against this way, touching the crime objected, I mean of trespassing upon the bounds of Parishes. May answer is, that the printed copy of those Sermons of mine, which I have, hath ne gry quidem, either in pag. 38, 39, or 40. of any such matter: nor hath it any where else, any page, passage, sentence, line, word, syllable, letter, point, or tittle, amounting to the import of such a charge.  
3. Whereas his pen spits this black reproach in the face of Independency, that it is a Government inconsistent with Royalty and the civil Government; My answer is, that look in what degree this accusation and charge would be weighty and sore, in case it could be proved; in the same degree it is light and contemptible, through a deficiency of all, and all manner of proof, or colour of proof, whatsoever. The Roman Empire lost nothing of her beauty, strength, or interest, by the Churches of Christ practising this Government in several places within the bounds and territories of it. If it sustained loss in any of these, by occasion of this Government, it was not because of their toleration of, but their opposition to it.  
4. Nor is this charge, that it giveth way to every sect to choose Ministers, erect Churches of their own without control, of any better commendation in point of truth, than the former. For it giveth way to no sect whatsoever without control; it reproves, oppugns, censures, and condemns sects and sectaries of all sorts; so far is it from granting allowance to them, to choose Ministers, and erect Churches, without control. Indeed it knows no authority or commission which it hath from God, to countenance the controlment of the civil sword against such persons, who in the simplicity (not convicted obstinacy) of their hearts, are misled in matters of Religion: it trembles to make misprisions in things of that difficult, high, and rare attainment, as the acknowledgement of supernatural truth is in matters of Religion, and the things of God, to be matter either of confiscation of goods, imprisonment, banishment, death, unto men: though it denies not a power of restraint from opposing the received faith, with public disturbance and offence.  
5. Whereas in Answer to somewhat argued by me to make the innocency of Independency touching matter of Divisions, as clear as the noon day, he repones thus; That those who in point of conscience cannot communicate or agree together in one Church, will never questiolesse accord well together in one family, bed, Parish, Kingdom, as experience manifests; I answer,  
1. That experience manifests the quite contrary. How many Ministers of the Presbyterian judgement are there in the Kingdom, yea, in and about the City, that hold communion in all dear and Christian respects, and terms of love and friendship, with many called Independent, and these again with them? The difference in judgement between them in point of Church-Government, in some rather increasing, then diminishing or dissolving their familiarity and acquaintance. How oft doth Mr. Edward's himself in his Antapology, acknowledge his Apologists to be dearly and deeply interessed in the love and care of many of his judgement 
a Many godly and learned Ministers— even such as are their good friends, & tender enough of them, &c p. 3. their friends & familiars, p. 4. That all the godly Ministers of City and Country should carry themselves towards you with love, respect, fairness, brotherly kindness etc. Et max: The Ministers courted them by all ways of respect & oft high entertainment of them inloving speech, friendly countenance, familiar conver sing, etc. p. 226 ? Yea, he commends his own love and affections towards them, once and twice and the third time also 
b I love their persons & value them as Brethren, yea, some of them above Brethren, and besides that love I bear to them as Saints, I have a personal love, and a particular love of friendship to some of them, etc. Epist. p. 7. . How many families are there in and about the City, wherein the respective members enjoy themselves together with much Christian sweetness and peace, notwithstanding relations to several Pastors & Churches among them? I had it from a person worthy credit in a greater matter, that a friend of his (a man also very well known to myself, and known for a man both of honesty and understanding) related to him; how that having but four persons in his family, (himself being one of the four) and every of these constantly repairing to a different Congregation and Ministry, yet lived very peaceably, comfortably, and contentedly together in the same house. Yea, and that he moreover added; that except he should grant this liberty to the rest respectively, he could not expect that good accord and agreement with them and between them in his family, which now he found.  
Yea, 2. Experience manifests yet more than this; viz. that not only persons dissenting in point of Church-Government, being otherwise united in the profession of the same pure, Orthodox and undefiled Religion; but that persons dissenting in the very substantialls' of their respective Religions, do lovingly and peaceably combine and live together, not only in the same State or Kingdom, but even in the same City, yea, in the same street or neighbourhood; and are mutually helpful and serviceable one to another in all matters of civil courtesy, often meet, eat and drink together; yea, and are all of one heart and of one mind, in promoting and maintaining the peace and safety of the State where they live. I have received every whit as much as this in report from persons of good esteem and worth, who have been eye-witnesses and diligent observers of such things, both in the Low-Countries and in France.  
Yea, 3. (that which is yet more than all this) the Scripture itself implies, that persons, not only distanced in their judgements about Church-Government, but about the Godhead of Christ, and truth of the true and Christian Religion, may not only accord and agree together in one and the same State, as Abraham and his people did with the Amorites, Gen. 14. 13. with the Philistims at Gerar, Gen. 20. 1. with the Egyptians, Gen. 12. 10. etc. Christians with Pagan Idolaters, 1 Cor. 10. 27. but in the one and the same family, yea, and head also, 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13. 1. Pet. 3. 1. etc.  
4. And lastly, Not only experience, but even Reason itself manifests, that those who cannot in point of conscience communicate and agree together in one Church, may yet very well accord together, in one family, bed, Parish, Kingdom: yea, evident it is, that they, who cannot in point of conscience agree together in one Church, cannot possibly (or lightly at least) but agree together in family, Parish, bed, Kingdom. For if it be conscience that sets them at a distance in matter of Church-government, it must needs unite them in the performance of all such duties, which are clearly and manifestly such. He that out of conscience abstains from any practice, as not being satisfied in his judgement touching the lawfulness thereof; cannot but be ready and willing to practise every such duty, of the necessity where of he stands convinced, either by the light of nature, or by the Word of God; Conscience being unpartial between the negative and the affirmative, and equally respecting its own comfort and peace in both. Now it is no ways probable, (if possible) that such as are truly conscientious in point of Church-Government, should be ignorant of such duties required of them by God in the four mentioned relations, family, parish, bed, kingdom, the practice and performance whereof will strongly and sweetly unite and accord them in the said Relations, respectively. All these things considered, I cannot wonder a little, that the Gentleman, who makes so many Questions, should make that Questionless in the negative, which is so palpably plain and questionless in the affirmative. But  
6. Whereas I only argue and demonstrate, that the repairing of persons out of several Parishes to one and the same Ministry or Pastor, needs be no more trouble or disturbance, than the like repair of persons of the respective Companies in London, to one and the same Hall; he represents this demonstration of mine, as if I thereby intended to prove or justify the congregational Government simply, and accordingly insists upon 3 differences between the one and the other. I know nothing but that he might easily have found out not only 3, but 23 differences, and have argued them all with as much pertinency to his purpose, as he hath done the three. For we do not urge the analogy of the Government of Companies of Corporations in all the relations or appurtenances belonging to it, as any ground or proof of the congregational Government; we are better provided in this kind, then so: we only urge the particular mentioned, to accommodate and heal the pretended offensiveness in the like, in this Government. Notwithstanding let us briefly see what advantage he hath gotten against the Independent way, by his 3 great differences found between several Trades and Hals in one City, Parish, Kingdom, and several forms of Church-Government. As to the first we answer.  
1. That it is not so without dispute, as he makes it, whether all Trades, Societies, bold one another lawful, useful, necessary, agreeable to the Laws of God, and the Realm. I know both some Trades, yea and some Societies too in London, much questioned upon all, or most of these particulars. But pass we this. Whereas he infers upon it, that so they breed no contrariety of opinions or disaffections, etc. We answer.  
2. That certainly experience doth not manifest this Contentions, differences, disaffections, yea and Lawsuits sometimes between Trades and Trades, Societies and Societies, are known occurrences in and about the City. Whereas he adds: that each different Church deems the other unlawful, so as they cannot with safe conscience join or communicate together, and thereupon sever one from another; We answer.  
3. That according to Mr. Prynnes notion of Church-Government, it is not necessary that each different Church should judge the other unlawful, etc. because he supposeth, that the Scripture is so indulgent in this behalf, as to leave room enough for variety of forms of this Government. So that if he will but give others leave to be of his judgement, this reasoning of his falls to the ground. But  
Fourthly (and last) Though each different Church do deem the other unlawful, and so cannot with safe conscience communicate together in Church-ship; yet this hinders not, but that they may judge and think as well one of another's persons (and consequently love and affect one another, and combine together as affectionately,) as persons of several Trades and Societies do; who have no more communion together in their respective Trades, then different Churches have in their respective Churches; yea, there is far better ground (as hath been partly touched already) why different Churches, though they deemeach other unlawful, should yet think better of, yea and love the respective members each of other, then there is, that persons of several Trades, or members of several civil Societies, should do either the one or the other among themselves.  
To his second difference, 
Sect. 45.  I answer,  
1. That experience manifests the contrary to what he here affirms, viz. that the subordination or subjection of several Trades, Societies, to the whole Corporation, Parliament, or supreme Magistrate, doth not keep them all in peace and writie. What contentiones, quarrels, emulations, suits amongst them from day to day, any such subordination or subjection notwithstanding?  
2. Whereas by way of opposition he adds, that Independent Churches will be regulated, obliged only by their own peculiar edicts, which must needs occasion infinite schisms and disorders; We answer.  
1. We wish that by way of commendation and praise in many cases, to Parliaments, temporal Magistrates, and Synods, which is here cast upon Independent Churches by way of imputation and charge, I mean regulation and obligement by their own peculiar edicts. But  
2. Whereas the charge is thus laid against these Churches, that they will be regulated, obliged only by their own peculiar Edicts; the truth is, that they are every whit as willing to be regulated, obliged, by the Edicts of any other, as by their own, always provided that they be conform to the Word, and this conformity sufficiently proved and made known unto them. They put no difference at all between the mind of Christ presented unto them by others or discovered and found out by themselves. Yea and that subordination and subjection which they all profess and own to the written word of God, is a far more effectual and hopeful means, to keep them all in peace and unity, than that subordination mentioned by Mr. Prynne, is to keep all Trades and Societies in the same precious posture. Only in this one thing these poor Independent Churches desire Parliaments and Magistrates and Synods to be merciful unto them, that they cannot write any of them, infallible, nor yet subscribe unto any their injunctions or decisions in matters of Faith, or which concern the worship and service of God, without retaining the Scriptures for their Counsel, and advising with them what to do therein.  
To his third and last difference also, 
Sect. 46.  we answer.  
1. That he saith very well, in point of truth, when he saith, that Christians, as Christians, are all of one and the self same society and profession, as those of one trade and calling are. But this truth as yet, is not at all conscious to his intention or purpose. Therefore he adds: therefore they should all have but one Church and Government, as these trades have. Nor doth this, if granted, make any whit more for the Presbyterian cause, then for the Independent: because it doth not follow; Christians, as Christians, ought all to have one and the same Church and Government: therefore this Church and Government ought to be Presbyterian. Take a parallel: Simeon and Levi ought to have been Brethren: therefore they ought to have been Brethren in iniquity. Take another: A●ania● and Sapphira, being man and wife, aught to have agreed together: therefore they ought to have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord. But  
2. If by his one Church, he means, one and the same Catholic, mystical, and invisible Church; We answer, that Christians, as Christians, have all one and the same Church; in this sense, they are all members of this one Church. But if he means, one and the same ministerial and visible Church, we answer, by demanding, How can this thing be? We have heard indeed of some Ecumenical Counsels; but of Ecumenical visible Churches, wherein all Christians should be comprehended as members, I believe there hath been Ecumenical silence unto this day.  
3. Whereas he goeth about to set the comparison (of his own making) upright, by stating it thus: If some of one Fraternity in London (suppose Merchant-t tylors, Saddlers, etc.) should fall out among themselves, and one would have one form of Government, another another, and thereupon divide themselves into several conventicles and petty meetings in corners, not at their common Hall, and one choose one Government or Master, another another, and so sever the Company, and continue Independent, this (no doubt) would prove an apparent schism and seminary of infinite divisions, to the distraction, destruction of the whole Company and Fraternity; and then adds, This is the true State of your Independency: We answer, that the comparison thus stated holds no proportion or correspondence with the State of Independency. For,  
1. That number of Christians which pleads for Independency (so called) is not the whole Socieitie of Christians (nor indeed any considerable part thereof, in respect of number) as that Fraternity of Merchant-tayloes or Sadlers the comparison speaks of, is therein supposed to be the whole Society of such a Company. Therefore to set Mr. Prynnes comparison upright, and make it agree with the State of Independency, in this particular, it must be stated thus; Suppose two or three members of a numerous and vast company, consisting (it may be) of ten or twenty thousand persons, should differ from the rest of the Society in some things about their Government, and hereupon should withdraw themselves from that Society, and seek incorporation elsewhere; would such a dissent or withdrawing of so few from amongst so many, any ways threaten the distraction, much less the destruction of the whole Company?  
2. Suppose a considerable part of a Company, should out of a conscientious dislike of the carriage of things in the Government of the body withdraw themselves, and refuse subjection to this Government so ordered and administered; though in probability this act of theirs may occasion some distraction or disturbance in the rest of the body for a season; yet supposing it done upon substantial and due grounds, it may be so far bringing destruction to this body, that very possibly it may occasion the Reformation and amendment of those things that were unjust in this Government, (and consequently destructive to the body) and so become a means of the preservation of it from destruction. And this is the true state of our Independency.  
3. In case the Fraternity of Merchant-taylors' in London should fall out amongst themselves, and one would have one form of Government, and another another, and thereupon divide themselves, etc. What ever inconvenience should, or might hereupon ensue to the Company, yet still it was determined by equal and prudent Judges, who, or which party gave the chief occasion of these distractions and rents; there is no reason why any one party should fall foul upon all the rest, and give an extrajudicial sentence for themselves. For any thing that God hath yet determined to the contrary, the Independent party of Christians in the Kingdom, may be as innocent (yea more innocent) of the breaches and distractions amongst us in point of Church Government, them the Presbyterian. They that call and plead for that Government which is held forth in the Scriptures, calling and pleading for it in a regular, meek and Christian manner, are those that are innocent; and those that call and plead for any other, or indeed for any in a violent, preposterous, and unchristian manner, (light the stroke where it will) are those that are guilty. I confess that in one respect, and that of very great consequence, I could really wish that the beam were in the eye of Independency, and the moat in the eye of Presbytery; because in this case it would (I conceive) be the sooner and the more easily plucked out. For as Austin said long since: Vitiun quod inebriat multitudinem, examinis amittit veritatem. A sin or error that hath taken the heads and hearts of a multitude, is hardly curable 
a Gravis enim est, & periculosus error in plurimis: & multorum lapsus, etiamsi se intelligat, exurgend pudore, authoritatem sibi praesumit, ex numero habens hoc impudentiae, ut quod errat, intelligentiam esse veritatis asserat, dùm minus error is esse existimatur in multu. Hil. l. 6.  An error in a few, is but as smoke, it may be approached unto, handled, and dealt with, without danger: but in many it becomes a flame of fire; and he that attempts the quenching of it, had need purify himself, as men at Sea do, when they see the break of Leviathan, and look for nothing but present death. Job. 41. 25.  
4. In case any parcel or less number of the Company of Merchant-taylors' in London, could not with a good conscience continue their union and incorporation with the Society, apprehending some things sinful amongst them, of the sinfulness whereof they conceive an unavoidable necessity that themselves must be partakers, whilst they continue their relation to the Company, the rest of the Company all this while resenting no evil in the things stumbled at by those other, and so are able to keep on their way without scruple; in this case it is so far from being a thing destructive to this Company, that the party so scrupuled, should withdraw, that it is the best accommodation, thing standing as they do, whereof they are capable; it being certain that no Company or Society whatsoever but suffers loss and disadvantage by union and communion with such members, who walk with gainsaying judgements, and polluted consciences with them. And this also is the true State of Independency. The Great Community and Society of Christians in the Kingdom, suffer far less by the Independents withdrawing of themselves from the Presbyterian Government, their judgements in this point standing as they do, than they would by their joining with them therein. Their joining with them under the reclamation of their judgements and conscieaces, would but disaccommodate both parties; whereas their refusal in this kind, convenienceth both; and so hath the true character of a legitimate contract or bargain between man and man, which still ought to be so conditioned, that both parties may be bettered in their conditions by it. Therefore Mr. Prynne hath not set the comparison upright to the point in hand.  
5. And lastly, There is no arguing in Divinity, either from conveniences or inconveniences, from disturbances or from peace, from life or from death, against the necessity of avoiding sin, and keeping a good and a clear conscience towards God. Therefore supposing that the Company of Merchant-taylors' in London, would by such fractions and divisions amongst the members thereof, as are presented in Mr. Prynnes comparison, be in danger of ruin and dissolution; yet better were it that this ruin & dissolution should come upon it, then that God should be dishonoured by the least sin, or the meanest soul endangered, for the presevation of it 
a Cum turpis est medicina, sanari pudeat. . In like manner, it is more agreeable to the mind of God, and to all principles of Christianity, that even the greatest numbers and multitudes of Christians should rather suffer, though very deep, in their external conveniences, then that the least sin should be committed by the meanest of them, for their accommodation. And this likewise is the true state of things between our Independency, and Mr. Prynnes Presbytery. Many other particulars there are, wherein it might be made further to appear, how ill his comparison comports with the case and state of Independency: but enough (as the Proverb saith) is as good as a feast.  
To what he subjoins concerning my present case in my own Parish, 
Sect. 47.  miserably divided, disordered by my Independent way, etc. I have answered in part in my Innocency's Triumph. I here add  
1. That my Parish is no otherwise divided, disordered, by my Independent way, than the world commonly is by the Gospel, when it cometh in power amongst the inhabitants thereof. Think not (saith our Saviour) 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 the another, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-low: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household, Mat. 10. 34, 35, 36.  
2. It was not my Independent way, (as Mr. Prynne affirmeth) but the opposition to it, that caused those divisions, disorders, (if any such be) in my Parish: If the party which now opposeth, had been willing, either to have complied with him whom they acknowledged for their Pastor, and the rest of their Brethren, who submitted themselves unto him in this way; or else patiently to have waited upon God, until he should please to reveal the goodness of the way unto them, in case they saw no sufficient ground at the present, for their submission in this kind (as many of the best of them have done hitherto:) there had been no place for any division or disorder amongst them. And whether it be not more fitting, for a people to follow their Pastor, giving them substantial grounds and reasons for that way wherein he desires to lead them; then for a Pastor to follow his people in such a way, whereof they neither give, nor (I verily believe) can give, any account like men, I leave to Mr. Prynne, and all unpartial Judges, to determine.  
3. (And last) Nothing is more regular, or of more constant observation in all ages, then for troubles, commotions, and disturbances, to attend for a while, any considerable mutation or change, especially, for the better, either made, or attempted to be made, in any State or Society of men whatsoever. Calvin in his Preface before his Institutions, dedicated to the King of France, complains 
a postr●mò non satis can died fac●ūt, ●ū invid. ose commemorant, quantas turbas, tumultus, contentiones secum traxer●t nostrae Doctrinae praedicatio, et quos nunc in multis fructꝰ crat. Nam horum malorum culpa indignè in ipsa derivatur, quae in Satanae militian torquer● debuerat. Et mox: Haec certissima et inprim●● fidelis no tanquâ dis●●nt tursverbun à vi num) à medacibꝰ Dactrinis, quae sefacile produnt dum aequis on●niū auribꝰ recipiuntur, & à mundo plaudente aud●untur.  of the indirect and unworthy dealings of his adversaries, who charged the preaching of the Doctrine of the Gospel, with being the cause of I know not what troubles, tumults, and contentions; Whereas such things as these, should have been charged upon the Militia or Agents of the Devil. And then adds this memorable saying: Est hic divini verbi quidam quasi genius, ut nunquam emergat, quieto ac dormiente Satana: It is (as it were) the lot and destiny of the word of God, never to find Satan in a good mood, or asleep, when it comes abroad into the world: in the following words, making this a most certain and faithful mark or sign, whereby it is discerned from false Doctrines, which (saith he) soon bewray themselves by this, that the world applauds them in the hearing, and gives them entertainment in a posture of fairness, favour, and peace. What storms, tempests, whirlwinds of troubles, tumults, commotions, did Satan and his auxiliaries raise in all places and parts in the world 
b Lutherus velu●● molum Eridis misit in mundum, cujus nuliam omninò partè non turba●ā video. Erasm. l. 14. ep. 7. , wheresoever Luther's Doctrine and Reformation did but touch, to render them the hatred and indignation of the world? Yea, and Luther himself doubted not to raise it to a general maxim or observation, that Godly men must bear the name & title of men that are seditious, schismatical, and Authors of infinite evils and troubles in the world. 
c Pios hoc nomen & titulum in mundo oportet gerere, quòd seditiosiac schismatici ac infinitorū malorum authores sunt Luth. in Gal. 5.  That great and blessed alteration and change that God made in the State of Religion, and things of his worship, by the sending of Jesus Christ into the world, and the preaching of the Gospel, is called the shaking of the Heavens and the Earth 
d Hab. 2. 21. with Heb. 12. 26, 27. , because of the great concussions, troubles, distractions, rents, and divisions, in the great concussions, troubles, distractions, rents, and divisions, in the world, which did (and do yet daily) accompany them, by reason of the pride, ignorance, and unbelief of those which oppose either the one or the other. And as the Doctrine of the Gospel in the general, never comes amongst any people in excellency and power, but that it smites the foundations of that unity and peace wherein it finds them, makes breaches upon them, renting one part of them from another, upon which discontents and disorders follow like the waves of the Sea; in like manner, every considerable piece or branch of the Gospel, in the first discovery and breaking out of it, even in such places, and among such persons, where and amongst whom the Doctrine of the Gospel in the general hath been of a long time professed, by reason of the strangeness of it, and that contrariety and crossness which it bears to the judgements and wills of many, must needs be offensive and distasteful unto them, and so occasion distractions, disorders, discontents. So that Mr. Prynne by representing my Parish as divided, disordered by my Independent way, hath rather given testimony to the truth and Evangelicalnesse of it, than brought any argument to disprove either. And to say (as he doth a few lines after) that he needs no other evidence to prove it a schismatical by-path, and so no way of Christ, than the schisms and discords which it hath raised in other Parishes, is just such a saying and resolution, as that of the High Priest against our Saviour, when he rend his clothes, and said, He hath spoken blasphemy: What further need have we of Witnesses 
* Mat. ●6. 6, 5 ? The blasphemy of Christ, and the guiltiness of Independency touching the matter of division and disorder, are sins much of the same order and calculation.  
To his fourth and last reason, 
Sect. 48.  which renders him a man of jealousy against the way of Independency, and prevails with him so far, that he cannot (as he saith) think it a Way of Christ; we Answer.  
1. That this way is no Pioneer or underminer of Parliamentary Authority: nor hath Mr. Prynne found it, nor ever shall find it such: the principles of this way being none other then what are laid in the Scriptures, impossible it is, that it should destroy, or pull down any thing, which they build up. Therefore if Mr. Prynne hath aught in this kind against any of the sons of this way, let him implead these in a lawful trial, and spare not; but if for their sakes he will needs blaspheme the way, he will open a door of example very effectual for those that are opposite to his way of Presbytery, to heap shame, infamy and reproach upon the head thereof without end; (yea, and for those also that are enemies to Christian Religion, to render that as hateful, wicked, vile in the eyes of men, as themselves can desire it should be esteemed). If all the errors and misprisions found in the writings of Presbyterial men, should be charged upon the way of Presbytery, as the Authoress and Foundress of them, she would appear ten times more erroneous and deformed, than her Independent adversaries are yet willing to judge or conceive her to be.  
2. For the Sons or Patrons of this way (as Mr. Prynne pleaseth to term them) I verily believe, that there is none of them all, but are willing, ready and cheerful to invest Parliaments with as full, high, and complete a power and Authority, as are by any, by all the rules and principles, either of reason, or Religion, compatible unto men. If Mr. Prynne, or any other of the Presbyterian way, conceive that in times of Parliaments, when they apprehend them like to be for them, they may and aught to say, that Gods are come down to us in the likeness of men 
* Act. 14. 11. ; we confess, that we cannot (our reason, our Religion will not bear it at our hands) subscribe any such Apotheosie. But let him and his, first survey the territories, patrimony, and heritance of Heaven, the royalties and prerogative of the most high God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, blessed for ever, and set them out by the line and rule either of reason, or Religion; and look what power, Authority, Jurisdiction soever, shall be found situate, lying and being without the compass of this line, no ways enterfeering with those that are within, we all unanimously, universally profess, that incunctanter, and with both our hands we will cast and heap it upon the Parliament, ask no further question for conscience sake. Therefore whereas he challengeth this way, for divesting Parliaments of all manner of Jurisdiction in matters of Religion and Church-Government; we answer,  
3. That neither this way, nor the Patrons of it, divest them of any, or any manner of Authority in what matters soever, unto which Mr. Prynne, or any other Master of the Presbyterian way, is able, Salvo jure coeli, to entitle them. For jurisdiction in matters of Religion and Church-Government, we willingly give unto them the same line, measure, and proportion herein to the full, which himself asserteth unto them from the examples of those Kings and Princes, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, etc. (which he insists upon p. 20.) Who (as he here said) enacted good and wholesome Laws, for the worship, honour and service of the true God. Let him instance particularly in any such Law, or Laws, enacted by any of them: and (doubtless) none of us will deny the Parliament a power of enacting (exceptis excipiendis) the like. But if Mr. Prynnes intent be to make Precedent of whatsoever was enacted or done by any, or all of these Heathen Kings, Princes, and States, to warrant a lawfulness of power in the Parliament of enacting or doing the same, we conceive that he neither hath, nor knows where to have any thing to justify such an intent. I trust that that Law enacted by Nabuchadnezzar and his Nobles, Dan. 3. 6. That whosoever falleth not down and worshippeth, shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace, shall not be drawn by him into precedent, for the vindication of a Parliamentary Jurisdiction in matters of Religion and Church-Government.  
4. Whereas to make good his last charge against the way so often smitten by his pen, he refers to the passage of the two Independent Brethren recited p. 3. of his Independency examined, adding (after a parenthesis of much untruth, there being many that have represented the way he speaks of in her native colours and lineaments 
a The New England Catechism, called The Government of the Church, composed by Mr. Cotton, and thrice printed. A Guide unto Zion. Another small treatise, butful of learning, reading and strength, called, Zions Prerogative Royal. The answer of the Elders of the several Churches of New England to 32 questions, sent etc. Another Answer of the same Elders to 9 other Questions about Church Government. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Mathors' answer to Mr. Charles Herles Independency. Mr. Tho. Wields answer to Mr. W. Rathbone; besides many other Treatises published upon this subject. ) that I rather aggravate, then extenuate the guilty of the said passage, by my explanation, which he there recites; I answer,  
1. That for matter of guilt, the passage referred unto, standeth as yet, clear, innocent, and untouched, as concerning any thing in way of demerit, that hath been proved against it.  
2. As concerning the explanation, that also keeps its standing, and that upon holy ground, notwithstanding all that Mr. Prynne hath done, or attempted to do, for the removal of it; — manet illa, suóque est robore tuta. Yea, the truth is, that in all his contra-remonstrance, he hath not so much as once touched or mentioned that which is the main base or foundation of the principal conclusion managed in the said explanation, and principally opposed by him. The conclusion is not that which Mr. Prynne extracts from the passage which he citys, viz. that there is not only an improbability, but an absolute impossibility, that the Parliament should have any power at all to enact Laws and Statutes in matters of Religion, Church-Government, etc. Here are words, which the explanation knows not, either in the letter, or in the spirit of them, as by name these, not only an improbability, an absolute impossibility, no power at all, etc. but the main conclusion driven at in the passage, is this; That the generality or promiscuous multitude of the Land, have no authority or power from Christ to nominate or appoint, who shall be the men that shall order the affairs of Christ's Kingdom, or institute the Government of his Churches. The main foundation or base of reason, upon which this pillar of Truth stands in the said passage, is this; Because such an Authority or power (viz. to nominate or appoint who shall order the affairs of Christ's Kingdom, or institute the Government of his Churches) is greater than ever Christ himself had, (I mean as man, or Mediator) at least then ever he exercised, which in the sequel I explain and prove. Now than this is that which I say, that Mr. Prynne in all his long reasoning against the Conclusion, doth not so much as with the least of his fingers once touch this ground, or answer any thing at all to it. So that he hath not as yet the least colour or pretence to blame me, if I be not proselyted to his opinion by what he hath written here. And because I desire fair and Christian quarter with him for the future, I do here promise and protest in the sight of God, Angels, and men, that if Mr. Prynne shall at any time (God preserving my life and understanding) plainly and substantially demonstrate and prove, either that the generality, and promiscuous multitude of the Land, have a power greater than ever the Lord Christ himself had, or exercised as man, or Mediator; or, that a power to nominate and appoint whom they please amongst men, to order the affairs of Christ's Kingdom, and institute the Government of his Churches, is not a power greater than ever Christ had, or at least exercised, as either man, or Mediator; I promise and protest again, as before, that if Mr. Prynne, or any other, shall at any time clearly and fairly prove, either the one or the other of these propositions, I will pull down with both mine hands, what I have built up but with one, and without any more ado join judgement with Mr. Prynne touching the power of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion: but till this be done, I neither see how Mr. Prynne can with a good conscience persist in his, nor require me to desist from mine. It is true, the Lord Christ as Mediator, had all power given him both in Heaven and on Earth, Mat. 28. 18. That is, had the whole and entire execution and transaction of all his Father's will, pleasure, and decrees, concerning all men, Angels & creatures whatsoever, put into his hand & power. And hath given him Authority TO EXECUTE judgement also, because he is the son of man, Joh. 5. 27. But he had no power or Authority given him, to carry any thing contrary to his Father's will or pleasure. Verily, verily, I say unto you, (saith he himself, Joh. 5. 19) the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do, etc. So again, ver. 30. I can do nothing of myself— Now then as Christ had no commission or power to give eternal life, but only to those whom God the Father had given unto him, Joh. 17. 2. Joh. 6. 37. So neither had he any Authoritative power to institute or appoint any other government for his Churches, then that which he had seen with, or received from his Father: much less had he any such power, to delegate unto men (lest of all unto unsanctified persons and rude multitudes) a power of nominating whom they should please, to appoint and settle what government they pleased in the Churches of God. Certain I am, that Christ never exercised any such power as this: and therefore have little hope of being convinced that he ever had it. Howsoever, let us give the Gentleman an unpartial hearing in what he pleads against the aforesaid Conclusion.  
1. To his former marginal Annotation (p. 22.) honoured with a Preface made of this word, 
Sect. 49.  Note, wherein he tells me that Gamaliel and my Text never taught me any such Anti-Parliamentary Doctrine. I answer, that neither doth Gamaliel, nor my Text, nor any other Text whatsoever in Scripture, teach Mr. Prynne to call the truth an Anti-Parliament try Doctrine. But both Gamaliel and my Text teach me to take heed of fight against God; and I being taught so high and necessary a point of wisdom, conceived it my duty not to eat such a morsel alone, but to spread a Table for as many of my Brethren as pleased to come, and sit down and eat of the same with me. I and my Doctrine are only in such a sense Anti-Parliamentarian, as Christ and his were Anti-Cesarean.  
2. To a second Marginal note in the same page, 
Sect. 50.  ordered likewise to be noted (as the former) I answer likewise, that though people have authority to nominate such who by the rule of God's Word may limit some particulars, though not by their own bare Authority, without, or against the Word, yet it followeth not; either  
1. That they have authority to nominate such, who shall have authority by virtue of such nomination to peremptorize by fire or sword all their limitations whatsoever, as agreeable to God's Word. Nor  
2. Doth it follow, that, in case their limitations should be agreeable to the word of God, therefore they have power to compel any man by external violence, to subject either in their judgement or practice unto them; especially whilst they are not able to convince them of any such excellency in these limitations, as an agreeableness to the word of God? It is no ways agreeable to the word of God, that men should be punished either in their bodies or estates, for not siding with the truth in difficult and hard Questions; as all such may well be presumed to be, wherein sober and conscientious persons cannot be satisfied. The word of God doth not permit two persons or parties of a dissenting judgement about an hard case or question, to judge or think hardly one of another 
a Rome 14. 2, 3, 4. ; much less doth it permit them to punish, or lay violent hands one upon another. Nor  
3. And lastly, doth it follow, that, though Princes, Magistrates, Ministers, Parliaments, Synods, should be nominated or elected by the lawful power of the people, and withal should have Authority by the word of God to limit any particulars thereof; that therefore this Authority should be derived upon them by means of such nomination. Every private man hath sufficient Authority, (though perhaps he may want ability of gifts) to limit any particular in the word of God according to the word of God; this being nothing else but a true and right apprehending or understanding of this word. Which apprehension or understanding of his, though he hath no power by way of office to impart unto others, yet hath he a right, yea, and an obligation upon him by way of duty, so to impart it, when God affords season and opportunity, time and place for it. So that this marginal note is not accessary to any harm done to the said Conclusion.  
3. 
Sect. 51.  To a third marginal note subservient in the same page to the two former, I answer,  
1. That though it should be granted, that every Magistrate, Parliament and Synod have power to declare and enjoin, what is necessary to be believed, practised, by or according to God's Word, yet this is nothing more than what every Pastor or Minister over a congregation, hath power to do, yea and aught to do 
b 1 Tim 6. 13. 17, 18. 1 Tim. 4. 11. etc.  from day to day in the course of his ministry. But  
2. If by declaring and enjoining, he means any such declaring and enjoining, whereby Magistrate, Parliament, or Synod, shall be enabled temporally to punish those who shall either not believe, or not practise; I answer, that this is but petitio Principii, a supposal of that which is the main Question; and therefore waits still upon Mr. Prynne's pen for a more sufficient proof, the old writ of Ipse dixit, being out of date long since. We have reconciled the margin; and nothing doubt but that the page will be of as easy accommodation. Therefore  
4. Whereas he puts himself to the needless labour of repeating the charge formerly charged upon my Doctrine, a an underminer of the Authority of Parliaments, etc. I shall take admonition by it, and save a needless labour of repeating what hath been already said in way of answer to it. Only I shall add, that this Repetition of Mr. Prinnes judgement and charge of my forementioned Doctrine, compared with my own thoughts and apprehensions of it, puts me in mind of a saying of a great Casuist: Eadem possunt alicui videri manifestè vera, quae alteri videntur manifestè falsa. The same things may seem to one manifestly true, which to another seem as manifestly false. That Doctrine which Mr. Prynne arraigns' as an underminer of Parliamentary Authority, I conceive to be a Doctrine of the richest establishment and confirmation to it: of which apprehension of mine, I have given a sufficient account elsewhere.  
5. Whereas he further chargeth the said Doctrine with contrariety to my late Covenant and Protestation, and that in the most transcendent manner that ever any have hitherto attempted in print; and refers himself to all wise men to judge, whether this be not so; I refer both himself and all his wise men, to judge, whether I have not given a sufficient answer hereunto in my Innocency's Triumph. p. 4, 5, 6, etc. yet lest sentence should be given against me herein, I here add, that certainly no clause in that Covenant and Protestation intended, that the Subscribers unto it should be bound in conscience by virtue of such subscription, to make Gods of men, or (which interpreted, amounts to as much) to give any man Dominion over his Faith 
a It is not safe for any to receive matters of Religion without terious examination.— Who ever be the Church, the Authority of it, is not sufficient; possibly the Church may one and therefore we must flee to the Throne of Jesus Christ the Head of the Church for satisfaction. Whom shall we rather believe concerning God, than God himself? if there were a Council of the most learned Doctors that ever the world had, yea, if an Assembly of Angels yet in matters of Religion, concerning the good way, the last Resolution must be into Thus saith the Lord. Mr. Th. H●ll (an High-resolved Presbyterian) in a Sermon, staled the Good old way, God's way, etc.) preached before the L. Maior, etc. Apr. 24. 1●44. pa. 16, 17. . If this be but granted, my Doctrine is no Delinquent at all against the Covenant and Protestation.  
6. Whereas he promises, or threatens (which he pleaseth) short answer to my extravagant discourse; and first allegeth that the objection might be made against the general Assemblies, Parliaments, Kings of the Israelites, who were chosen by the people, yet they made Laws and Statutes concerning Religion, and God's worship, with his approbation: I answer.  
1. That the, 
Sect. 52.  General Assemblies, and Kings of Israel, were not chosen by the people, at least by any formal free choice of one out of many, as our Parliaments and Assemblies are. For first the General Assemblies consisted of the generality of the people, and so were not chosen at all; for where all are admitted, there is no choice. Or secondly, if by the General Assemblies of Israel, he means the seventy persons spoken of, Numb. 11. 16. 24. etc. it is evident from the context, first, that they were not chosen by the people into that Assembly, but by Moses, and that by express order and command from God. They might possibly be chosen by the people into the places of Elders and Governors over their respective Families and Tribes; but they had no right or calling by virtue of such eldership, to gather themselves into an Assembly of seventy, upon any such terms, or for any such ends, as the forementioned Assembly were drawn together by God. Secondly, evident likewise it is, from ver. 25. that these seventy had a special anointing of the Holy Ghost from God, and prophesied. Therefore there is a great difference between this Assembly, and general Assemblies now.  
2. Neither were the Kings of Israel chosen by the people, but by God; except we will call a subsequent consent and that by way of duty and homage to the choice made by God, a choice. When thou shalt come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it and dwell therein, if thou say, I will set a King over me, like as all the Nations that are about me, Then shalt thou make him King over thee, whom the LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE, etc. Deut. 17. 14, 15. Saul their first King, was chosen and appointed by God, 1 Sam. 9 15, 16. So David their second King, 1 Sam. 16. 1. yea his seed likewise was chosen and appointed by God to succeed in this Kingdom, and to reign after him for ever, 2 Sam. 7. 12. 16. yea and notwithstanding this general choice and designation, Solomon their King, is particularly said to have been chosen by God, 1 Chron. 29. 1. So for the Kings that reigned over the ten Tribes, after the rent of the ten Tribes from the other two; Jeroboam, the first King, was chosen by God, 1 King. 11. 31. yea and his seed also, conditionally, ver. 38. But Nadah his son, proving wicked, broke the condition, and cut off the intailment. Their third King, Baasha, was not chosen by the people neither, but was fore-chosent by God, 1 King. 14. 14. to do that execution upon the house of jeroboam, which is recorded, 1 King. 15. 27, 28, 29. Elab their next King succeeded his Father, by right of inheritance, and is no where said to have been chosen by the people into the throne. Zimri the next, was a bloody Traitor and usurper. The two next following him, Omri and Tibni, were set up indeed by the people, but not in any way of a lawful and regular election, but by way of tumult and faction: and the one party prevailing, the King followed by the other, was soon suppressed. Ahab the son of the prevailing King, without any election by the people (except a connivance or permission, be called an election) by the ascent of descent or succession got up into the throne. After the same manner also Ahaziah his son came to be King. This Ahaziath dying without children, his Brother Jeboram (another son of Ahath, and next to him by birth, as it seems) by the privilege of his birth came peaceably to the Kingdom, without any election by the people any where heard of. 2 King. 1. 17. The next King, Jehu by name, was chosen by God himself after a special manner, 2 King. 9 1, 2. and his children after him to the fourth generation (2 King. 10. 30.) to sit upon the throne of Israel, Shallum, who succeeded Ahab and his race, (their date of Reiglement being expired) came to the Kingdom by blood; and is indeed said to have smote Zachariah (the last of ahab's race) before the people, and so to have reigned in his stead: (2 King. 15. 10.) but by what maxim enle ley, the murdering of a King before the people, will be interpreted, a being chosen King by the people, I understand not. Menahem his successor after a month's reign, found the same way to the Kingdom (I mean, by blood) which his Predecessor had chalked out. Pekahiah his son and successor, had no other choice we read of, but only by that his relation. Nor had Pekah who succeeded him in the throne, any other choice into this dignity, but only by the murder he committed upon his Master; except it be said, that he was chosen by those 52. men who assisted him in that bloody execution. 2. King. 15. 25. Nor had Hoshea (the last of these Kings) any other choice, entrance, or access we read of unto the Throne, but the same with his Predecessor, a bloody conspiracy against his Lord and Master. So that Mr. Prynne is absolutely mistaken in the very bottom and groundwork of his first allegation, affirming the General Assemblies, Parliament, Kings of the Israelites, to have been chosen by the people.  
3. (And last) neither did they make Laws and Statutes concerning Religion and God's worship, with his approbation, except his approbation went along with the transgression of his Law. For by this they stood expressly charged, not to add unto the word which he commanded them, nor yet to diminish aught from it. Deut. 4. 2. And again, Deut. 12. 32. And what addition could be made with an higher hand, or with more provocation in the sight of God, unto this word of his, than an enacting Laws and Statutes concerning Religion, and his worship, whereunto men should stand bound in conscience to submit, as well as unto the Laws of God themselves declared in this word? Or if it be said, that men were not bound in conscience to submit to such Laws and Statutes, as well as unto the Laws of God; then were they not to be punished for non-submission to them, unless we will say, that men ought to be punished for somewhat else, besides sin.  
To his second reason against the Doctrine and Conclusion aforesaid, 
Sect. 53.  I answer, that as God himself used the ministry, assistance of Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, for the building of his Temple, and advancement of his worship, for which they made Decrees, Statutes; so I conceive he doth expect and require the ministry, assistance of Christian Magistrates, Parliaments, and Laws and Statutes to be made by them, for the promotion of his worship, But as Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, made no Decree, Statute, to discourage any of the true worshippers of God, nor yet to compel them to any kind of worship, contrary (in their judgements) to the word of God; or in case they did make, or should have made, any such Decree, Statute, they should have exceeded the limits of their just power, and not have done justifiably in the sight of God; So neither can Christian Princes, Magistrates, commend themselves unto God in any such exercise of their power, whereby they shall constrain or enforce the conscientious & faithful servants of God to any kind of worship, contrary to their conscience, or by the performance whereof, condemning it in their judgements for unlawful, they should pollute and condemn themselves in the sight of God.  
To his third Reason we answer likewise; 
Sect. 54.  that for most Christian Kings and Magistrates in the world, whether claiming to be hereditary, or whether eligible by the people, as the Members of Parliament are, we CAN without either disloyalty or absurdity, deny them any such Authority in matters of Religion and Church-Government, whereby they should be enabled to destroy, crush, or undo such persons as live godlily and peaceably under their jurisdiction, and that for none other reason or offence on their parts, but either for weakness in judgement and understanding, by reason whereof they cannot see the agreeableness of those things that are imposed on them, to the Word of God, (in case they be indeed so qualified) or else for the goodness of their conscience, which is unwilling to shipwreck it's own peace, by going contrary to its own light and dictate. We freely allow to all Christian Kings and Magistrates in the world, any Authority whatsoever in matters of Religion, Church-Government, or in what other causes or cases soever it can be desired either by them, or for them, which will not claim or challenge a right of power to punishmen for not being as wise, as learned, as far insighted into matters of Religion as themselves, or for such matters of fact which are occasioned directly and merely by such defects as these. We allow a power to all Magistrates to punish the wickedness of men's wills; when this discovers itself by any suitable action in what matters or cases soever: but the weakness of men's judgements, we conceive calls rather for means of instruction, than matter of punishment, from the Magistrates hand. We cannot judge, that the mistaking of a man's way in a dark controversy, deserves a prison, or any other stroke with the civil sword.  
To his fourth we answer; 
Sect. 55.   
1. That whereas he affirms, that I do not only grant, but argue, that every private man hath, yea ought to have, power to elect and constitute his own Minister, causing these words to be printed in a differing character, as if they were mine, and only transcribed by him, citing (in his margin) pag. 25. 26. as their quarter in my discourse; the truth is, that this is no fair play; for there is no such line or juncto of wordseither in either of those pages, or elsewhere in those Sermons. It never came into my thoughts to think, (nor surely ever issued out of my pen) that every private man hath, or aught to have a power to constitute his own Minister. And besides he puts a more acquaint and subtlle distinction upon me, than I am capable of. I cannot conceive that any private man hath a power to elect or constitute his Minister, except he ought to have it. That power which God hath been pleased to confer upon any man, he both aught to have, and hath; though the exercise and benefit of that power may be injuriously denied unto him, or withheld from him.  
2. Whereas he further presumes, that I will grant, that private men have power likewise to set up Independent Congregations, which have Authority to prescribe such Covenants, Laws and rules of Government, Discipline, worship, as themselves think most agreeable to the Word; and hereupon demands; if then they may derive such an Ecclesiastical Authority to Independent Ministers and Churches, why not as well to Parliaments, and Synods likewise by the selfsame reason? I answer,  
1. That he is mistaken in his good opinion of my bounty. For I do not grant, either first, that all, or every sort of, private men have power to set up any Independent Congregation. Or 2. That any private men have power to set up any such congregation consisting of other men than themselves: but only to agree together amongst themselves to become such a congregation. Or 3. That any Congregation whatsoever hath any Authority to practise, much less to prescribe either such Covenants, Laws, Rules of Government, or worship, as themselves only think most agreeable to the Word of God; but only to practise those amongst themselves which they know to be agreeable to the Word of God; without prescribing either these or any other, unto others. God gives no person or Congregation any Authority or power so much as to practise themselves what they simple think most agreeable to his Word, but only that which REALLY IS agreeable unto his Word; much less doth he give either the one or the other any Authority to prescribe their think in this kind unto others. But  
2. Whereas he demands, Why private men may not derive an Ecclesiastical Authority unto Parliaments and Synods, as well as unto Independent Ministers and Churches; the account is ready:  
1. No private men whatsoever, can in any sense, neither in whole, nor in part, derive any Ecclesiastical Authority, either unto any Minister, but only him, unto whom they commit the charge of their ●ouls; nor unto any Congregation, but only that whereof they are members themselves. Therefore it no ways follows; Private men have power to derive Ecclesiastical Authority to those Congregations whereof they are the respective members themselves: therefore they have the like power to derive the same Authority to Parliaments, and Synods, whereof they are no members: Take a parallel: The Assistants in the Company of Chirurgeons, have an interest in the Government and carriage of the affairs of their own Company; therefore they have the same interest in the Government of the affairs of the Company, of Merchant-taylors'.  
2. A person qualified for the office and work of the Ministry according to the word of God, is a subject capable of Ecclesiastical Authority; and may accordingly by persons Authorized by the word of God thereunto, be lawfully invested with that power: But we have no rule or direction from the word of God either 1. to judge whether, or when, either Parliaments or Synods are subjects capable of Ecclesiastical Authority: nor 2. is there any rule or warrant to be found there for the Authorising of any sort, or rank of men, actually to confer such an Authority or power, in case they should be found subjects capable of it. Therefore Mr. Prynnes arguing in this place, is of no better form, or strength, than this: Private men may do that which Gods Word authorizeth them to do: therefore they may do that also, which Gods Word doth not authorise them unto. But  
3. (And last) The main foundation and groundwork upon which he builds the fabric of his reasoning here, is an utter mistake. For I neither grant nor think, that private men, either when by consent they first congregate themselves and choose a Minister or Pastor over them, much less when they join themselves to a Congregation already gathered and formed, do derive any Ecclesiastical Authority unto it: but that a company of persons fearing God, and consenting together to become a Church-body or holy Congregation, have an Authority (which you may call Ecclesiastic, if you please; but I shall not commend the term unto you in this case, nor would I willingly call it an authority, but rather a right or privilege) derived unto them, not by themselves, but from God. First to choose unto themselves a Pastor, and other officers, as opportunity shall be, such as are recommended in the Scriptures as meet for such places, and then by, and together, with these to administer and order their Church-affaires, in all the concernments thereof, according to the word of God, in the name and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose properly, all Ecclesiastical authority is.  
To his fifth argument, we answer, 
Sect. 56.   
1. By a demur, whether God doth ofttimes makes use of unsanctified persons, and the rude multitude (which I do not undervalue, because I refuse to entitle them to a power in Church-matters greater than ever the Apostles had) to advance his glory, propagate his Gospel, promote his worship, vindicate his truth, edify his Church. A Judas, a Balaam, a Saul, a Gamaliel, a persecuting High Priest, were not the rude multitude: unsanctified persons it is like they were, at least most of them: But God did not ofttimes make use either of Balam, or Saul, or Gamaliel, or the persecuting High Priest, either to propagate his Gospel, promote his worship, edify his Church, etc. but the Devil ofttimes made use of them to the contrary, viz. to hinder his Gospel, to pollute his worship, to persecute his Church, etc. And for the vulgar multitude, which he commends as none-such, for forwardness to believe, follow, profess Christ, embrace the Gospel, though he confesseth, that many of them did it for sinister ends; I answer, 1. That this multitude was but one swallow, (not a multitude of swallows) and therefore not sufficient to make his spring, of Gods ofttimes using the rude multitude to do such and such things. 2. They that believe, follow, profess Christ, embrace the Gospel out of sinister ends, when they decline and fall back (as all sinister-ended Professors are like to do first, or last, and as this vulgar multitude generally did) are like more to hinder and set back the Gospel by their declining, then ever they propagated or promoted it by their profesion. But  
2. Whereas he infers, that therefore they may well have power to choose such persons, who shall and may make Laws, to promote the Gospel and Government of the Church of Christ; I answer.  
1. That God's power to make use of unsanctified persons, or a rude multitude to promote the affairs of his Gospel, Worship, Churches, etc. is no argument to prove, that therefore men may commit the care and trust of these affairs to such persons or multitudes, or interest them in any such power, which it is ten to one but they will use rather in a destructive, then promotive way thereunto. God's power to pour out a Spirit of prophecy upon a person altogether ignorant of the Scriptures; and so to pour out a Spirit of grace and holiness upon a graceless and profane person, is no ground or warrant for a Christian Congregation to choose either such an ignorant or profane person for their Minister or Pastor.  
2. Neither is God's will, act, or example in this kind, as viz. when to show the sovereignty of his power over and above the powers of darkness, and the God of this world; he makes use of Satan to give testimony unto his Son Jesus Christ, as he did, Mar. 1. 24. Luk. 4. 34. and so to exercise the patience of Job by afflicting him, as he did, Job 1. Such acts (I say) or dispensations of God as these, are no grounds for the justification of such men, who shall make use of the Devil to preach the Gospel, or to afflict the Saints, for the exercise or improvement of their patience. Therefore nothing that ever God hath done (how oft soever he hath done it) either by unsanctified persons, or by rude multitudes, for the propagation of his Gospel, the edification of his Church, etc. doth any ways countenance or warrant men, to invest either the one or the other with such a power, whereby they may endamage and make havoc and spoil both of the one and the other. The reason is plain: because the evil Spirit that said 
a Act. 19 11. , Jesus I know, and Paul I know; yet said to the Exorcists, but who are ye? So the powers of sin and wickedness in men, which will tremble at the voice of God, and forget their natures and motions at his command, will laugh all the conjurements and charm of men in the face to scorn; and will act their own parts, and drive on their own way with what fury and violence they please, notwithstanding all charges, intercessions, and obtestations of men to the contrary. Therefore no power can with reason, equity, or conscience, be put into the hand of such persons, (I mean persons unsanctified and rude multitudes) or nominating whom they please (I mean from amongst persons eligible enough by the Laws of the Land either for Parliamentary or Synodical interest) to umpire in the affairs of the Gospel, and to make what Laws they please for the government of the Church of Christ.  
If it be yet objected and said; But why may not unsanctified persons and rude multitudes nominate and choose such, who by virtue of such nomination may have power to make Laws in matters of Religion, Worship, Government of the Church, etc. though not according as they please, yet according to the word of God, and such as are agreeable thereunto? What inconvenience is there in this? I answer,  
1. By way of concession; that the grant of a power in persons so nominated and chosen to make Laws only of encouragement and protection to the servants of God, in matters of Religion and Church-Government, or to order some particularities in either, only upon encouragements to those that shall obey without penal enactions against those that cannot obey, may possibly not tend or sort to much inconvenience. Nor let any man think, that outward mulcts and penalties are essential unto Laws, whether in matters of Religion, worship, or in any other cases. Threatening of bodily punishment (saith learned Mr. Rutherford, one of the Commissioners for the Kingdom of Scotland 
a Due right of Presbyteries part. 2. pag. 404.  is not essential to Laws in the general, because some Laws are seconded only with rewards. Yet this inconvenience (its like) would attend even such a power, were it granted; Those Laws which should be made in matters of Religion, worship, etc. by men in authority, would be of like consequence amongst the generality of men, with the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, by which they made the Commandments of God of none effect 
b Mat. 15. 5. ; I mean they would so interest themselves in the hearts and affections of the common sort of men, that they would soon place more in the observation of them, then in keeping the Commandments of God. An experiment of which inconvenience we had in folio, in the Ceremonial and superstitious injunctions of the late Prelatical power, when men thought better of themselves for standing up at the Creed, joining in Gloria Patri, secundum usum Sarum, bowing at the Name Jesus, cringing before an Altar, etc. then they did of others for hearing the Word of God preached, with reverence and attention, or for walking in a conscientious conformity unto it. But  
2. If a further power shall be granted unto men so chosen (I mean by unsanctified persons and rude multitudes, as Mr. Prynne calleth them) as viz. a power of enacting Laws and Statutes in matters of Religion, worship, etc. under what mulcts and penalties they please, who shall judge whether these Laws and Statutes be agreeable to the word of God, or no? If they themselves, the Lawmakers, shall be Judges, miserable is the condition of the servants of God under them like to be: because it is not to be expected, but that they will avouch whatever Laws or Statutes they shall make in this kind, to be agreeable to the word of God. The Popish Parliaments, during the reign of Antichristianisme in the Land, did no less. If the people, from whom obedience and subjection to such Laws is expected, shall be authorized to judge, whether these Laws be agreeable to the word of God, or no; (which of necessity must be granted, otherwise obedience unto them can never be yielded with a good conscience) this will reflect prejudice and disparagement upon the wisdom and prudence of the Lawgivers, (and consequently enervate their Authority) especially when any of these Judges shall give sentence in oppositum, and determine a nullity in such Laws, for want of due correspondence with the word of God. The nomothetique power or Authority, wherever it resides, will never consult honour, interest, confirmation or strength to itself, by making such Laws, which in their very nature, frame, and constitution are matters of dispute, and which must pass and abide the tests of the judgements and consciences of the best and wisest of those that are to yield subjection unto them, and that with so much hazard of censure and contradiction, as Laws made in matters of Religion, worship, and Church-Government, always have been and ever will be exposed unto. The point of agreeableness to the word of God, in Laws and Statutes about matters of Religion, will be a far longer suit and Question between Legislators in that kind, and conscientious subjects, than ever any Chancery suit was, or is like to be  
3. To me it is a question, whether in this assertion (at least understood according to the proper importance of the words) Men have power to make Laws and Statutes in matters of Religion, worship, etc. agreeable to the word of God; there be not contradictio in adjuncto (as Logicians speak). It is a very hard matter for me to conceive how any thing should be agreeable to the Word of God, at least in matters of Religion, worship, etc. but only that, which for the spirit, matter and substance of it, is the word of God itself. There is no great agreeableness between that which is necessary, and that which is unnecessary; between that which is indulgent and favourable to the Saints and others in point of liberty, and that which inthrals and brings them into bondage; between that which is of divine inspiration, and that which is of humane. Now certain it is, that whatsoever is imposed upon men by the word of God, is necessary, and of divine inspiration; and whatsoever the word of God doth not impose upon men, it doth it in a way of a gracious liberty and indulgence unto men. And as certain it is, that whatsoever shall be imposed upon the Saints or others by men, especially in matters of Religion, worship, etc. which for the matter and substance of it is not the very word of God itself, is first unnecessary, (for otherwise we must make the Word of God imperfect, and defective even in matters of necessity, which is Popery in the highest) and secondly, it is but of humane inspiration, except we hold Enthusiasm, and the revelations eccentrick to the Scriptures are yet authentic and of prophetical authority: thirdly (and last) it is an abridgement of the liberty, a cancelling of that indulgence, wherewith God in his Word hath gratified the world. Therefore whatsoever shall be imposed by men upon men in matter of Religion, worship, etc. under a pretence of an agreeableness to the word of God, in case it be not (in the sense declared) the very word of God itself, it can have no other agree thlenesse with this word, than Pelops shoulder, which (if Poets feign not) was made of ivory, had with the other limbs and members of his body which were all living and sound flesh. Yea and whether any Law or Statute, can in any sense be said to be agreeable to the word of God, which shall make the Saints servants and bondmen, where God in his Word hath either made them, or left them free, I refer to further and more mature consideration. But  
4. And lastly, Suppose it were granted, as a thing convenient, that some should be entrusted or invested with a power of making Laws and Statutes in matters of Religion, worship, etc. provided they be agreeable to the Word of God; yet in as much as the making of such Laws and Statutes upon such terms, necessarily requireth the most exact and profound knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures; I cannot conceive that unsanctified persons, or rude multitudes, should be Authorized by God, or by any principle of sound reason, to have the nomination or election of those men; but rather another Generation, who may in reason be conceived to have a more excellent spirit of discerning of such abilities in men, than they. When men stand in need of the help and advise of a Physician, Lawyer, or Divine, they do not address themselves to a company of children playing together in the market place, (as our Saviour speaks 
a Luk. 7. 32. ) to nominate or vote amongst them, what person in any of these professions they should employ & commit their concernments unto. No more did God ever issue any commission out of Heaven to unsanctified persons, rude multitudes, men ignorant of God and of the Scriptures, to nominate or choose for him, who, or what men he should employ to make Laws and Statutes for his Saints and Churches, in matters of Religion, and which concern his worship. A man of ordinary discretion, and that knows any thing of the nature or disposition of the Fox, will never choose a Fox to be his Caterer (as our English Proverb hath it).  
To his sixth and last Argument, I answer, and end.  
1. That it is not always found, that those who have no skill at all in Law, 
Sect. 57  Physic, or Architecture, have yet judgement and reason enough to make choice of the best Lawyers, Physicians, Architects, when they need their help. If this were true, these professions would prove malignant unto, and eat up the far greatest part of their own children and professors: there would be very few in any of them, that ever should have employments. For who is there that would set a bungler on work, that hath judgement and reason enough to choose a Master-workman? Especially considering what our Engish Proverb saith; The best, is best cheap. There is no man will ride upon an ox, that may have a well-managed and metalled gelding to carry him. But  
2. Suppose it should be granted, as universally true, that men who have no skill at all in the said professions, yet had judgement and reason enough to make choice of the best in every of them respectively, when they stood in need of their help; yet this supposition must be made withal, that these best Practitioners, which according to the other supposition will be chosen, have given a sufficient account & proof, and that to public satisfaction of their respective abilities in their several professions. Otherwise how shall they who have no skill in their professions, come to know or understand, so much as by conjecture, who are the best in them? This being so, Mr. Prynnes comparison or parallel, halts rightdowne. Because many of those, who are by the Laws of the Land eligible into places of Parliamentary trust and power, yea, haply many of those who are of the best and richest accomplishment for the discharge of that part of this trust, which Mr. Prynne will needs suppose belongeth to them, (I mean in making Laws in matters of Religion, worship, Church-Government, etc. agreeable to the word of God) never have given any public account or proof (nor perhaps ever had opportunity to do it) of those abilities which God hath given them in that kind. And if so, how should the rude multitudes, or the generality of the people ever come to know or understand who are the best or fittest men to be chosen into those great places of trust and power?  
3. When men stand in need of the help either of a Lawyer, Physician, or Architect, it is a far easier matter to know how to choose a man in any of these professions, without running the hazard of much detriment in his occasions, than it is for men to know how to choose men tolerably qualified for Parliamentary employment; especially, if one part of this employment consists in making Laws & Statutes in matters of Religion, worship, etc. agreeable to the word of God. The reason of the difference is plain: Recourse is made to Lawyers (and so to Physicians, Architects respectively) only for one kind of help or employment, and that such which is proper to their profession, and wherein their ability and sufficiency, is or very possibly may be sufficiently known; But Parliamentary service or employment consisting (according to Mr. Prynnes notion) as well in making Church-lawes, in matters of Religion, worship, & agreeable to the word of God, as in framing Laws politic, to accommodate the civil affairs of the Commonwealth (which are employments of a very differing nature, hardly incident unto, and very rarely found in one and the same person) it must needs be conceived to be a matter of very great difficulty, and requiring a very choice and excellent spirit of discerning, to make a commendable, yea, or a competent choice of men for that investiture and trust. Yea, himself 〈◊〉 acknowledgeth little less than an utter inconsistency of respective abilities in one and the same person, for these so different employments; For here he requires, both Politicians and Statesmen os fit to be consulted with a suit a Church-Government to the Civil State, and likewise an Assembly of Divines, to square it by, and to the word. But in as much as whatsoever an Assembly of Divines shall determine in or about Churh-Government, or other matters of Religion, cannot pass into an Act, Law, or Statute, but by the superveening of Parliamentary interest upon their determinations and there being every whit as great (if not far greater) abilities in Divinity and knowledge of the Scriptures, requisite to enable men rightly to discern and judge, whether a Church-Government, or other Decision in matter of Religion, be agreeable to the word of God, as there are to discourse and make out that in either kind which is agreeable thereunto; yea and further, it being no ways either Christian or reasonable, that a Parliament should pass that into an Act, Law, or Statute, as agreeable to the word of God, and oblige an whole Kingdom under mulcts and penalties to submit unto it accordingly, which themselves are not able to discern whether it be indeed agreeable unto the word of God, or no; these three things (I say) duly considered, evident it is, that it is a matter almost of infinite difficulty, (and therefore not so obvious to unsanctified persons, and rude multitudes, as Mr. Prynnes would carry it) to discern or make choice of persons of a due temper and composition for Parliamentary operations, Mr. Prynnes supposition being admitted, viz. that making Laws in matters of Religion, as well as in civil affairs, is a part of these operations. To set then his comparison upright, we must state it thus: Suppose Mr. Prynne were of none of the three Professions he speaks of, neither Lawyer, nor Physician, nor Architect, but stood in need of the help of them all, having 1. a suit at Law of very great concernment to him; 2. a dangerous distemper or disease upon his body; 3. an house to build for his necessary accommodation; and in this posture of necessities, were necessitated or limited to make choice of three men, but all of one and the same profession, either all Lawyers, or all Physicians, or all Architects, to minister unto him in all his respective concernments and necessities; I believe that under such a constellation of circumstances and occasions as these, though he be a man of far greater judgement and reason, than the generality of men are, yet he would not find it so easy a matter to satisfy himself in the choice of his men within the compass of any one of the three professions. This is the true state and case of the difficulty of Parliamentary Elections, upon Mr. Prynnes supposition of Parliamentary interest and power.  
4. Suppose yet further, 
Sect. 58.  that unsanctified persons and rude multitudes had skill enough to elect the most eminent and ablest men for Parliamentary service; yet who knoweth not but that there is somewhat (yea, much) more than knowledge of what is a man's duty, required to make him willing to do it. To him that knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin (saith James) Jam. 4. 17. It is no ways reasonable to think, that unsanctified persons, and men addicted to sinful lusts and pleasures, should willingly and by the ducture of their own inclinations, put a power of making Laws into the hands of such men, who they know are professed enemies to those lawless ways of theirs, and therefore are like, being interessed in such a power, to make Laws for the restraint and punishment of them. That God, when he pleaseth, may by an extraordinary hand of Providence, overrule the natures and dispositions of men in this kind, and serve unfanctified persons in their Parliamentary Elections, as he did the Syrian host of old, which he led blindfold into the midst of Samaria, 
2 King. 6. 20.  when they thought they had been going to Dothan, is not denied; yea, it is acknowledged, that in grace and mercy to this Nation, he hath stretched out that very hand of Providence we speak of in the choice of many members of the Honourable Assembly of Parliament; whose perseverance in a faithful discharge of their employment, declares, that their Election was more from God, then from men. Therefore that one word of Mr. Prynnes which follows p. 24. viz. That the choice which your vilest and most unworthy of men have made this Parliament, may for ever refute this childish reason, the corner stone of your Independent fabric fastened together with Independent crotchets, unable to abide the Test; this one word (I say) is no word either of reason or of truth. An happy election made by men overacted by God in the action, doth no more prove either a proportionableness of wisdom, or a suitableness of affection in such persons to make such a choice, than that praise which God hath ordained, and which he accordingly draws out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, proves these babes and sucklings to be endued with a natural strength and ability of yielding such praise unto God: or then the service which the Ravens did the Prophet in bringing unto him bread and flesh duly morning and evening 
a 1 King. 17. 6. , proves that they had a principle of reason and understanding, to know and to consider the necessities of godly and faithful men; or that such men ought to renounce their estates and callings, and to depend upon Ravens for their sustenance. And besides, how doth the election of so many members of this Parliament, who stand by their trust with faithfulness and honour, more refute; then the election of so many unworthy ones, who have not only turned their back, but head also upon both, confirm my reason? not to mention so many elections as have been made both in Queen Mary's days, and many a time before these, of such members, who made many a Law as agreeable to the Word of God, as harp is to harrow. Which further shows, of how slender esteem in point of truth, that assertion of his pa. 23. is: where he saith, that those that are unjit or unable to be Members of Parliament themselves, yet have had wisdom enough in all ages, and especially at this present, to elect the must eminent and ablest men for such a service. So that if my pen were not more bashful than Mr. Prynnes, it would say, that the Reason Defendant is by many degrees more childish than the Reason Plaintiff: and that this Presbyterian engines wherewith he makes account to batter my Independent Fabric, are made of Independent metal, able to do no execution at all. There is not one brick or tile in all my Independent Fabric, as yet bruised, cracked or shaken, by all the hot and loud play of Mr. Prynnes artillery against it. But  
5. 
Sect. 59  Whereas in further prosecution of this last reason, he argues thus: If the common people, which neither are, nor can be Parliaments, Emperors, Kings, Judges, Magistrates, Ministers, have yet a lawful power to make others such, by their bare election, & to give them such Authority and power as themselves never actually were, nor can be possessors of; then why by the self same reason may they not likewise delegate a lawful Ecclesiastical Legislative Authority in Church affairs to their elected Parliamentary and Synodical members, which was never actually in themselves, as well as Mr. Goodwin delegate the power of determining who should be fit persons to receive the Sacrament, and to become members of his Independent Congregation, to eight select Substitutes, which was never actually vested in himself, nor transferible thus to others by any Law of God, or man? In answer (passing by the Grammatical illegality of the period)  
1. That Mr. Goodwin never delegated the power he speaks of, of determining who, etc. to any Substitutes; but this delegation was made respectively by those, who had power, (yea haply and duty too) by the Law of God, and power sufficient by the Law of man, to refer themselves for matter of examination and trial touching their fitness for the Sacrament, unto persons of competent abilities for such a Christian service. Mr. Prynnes pen is (I think) the most unhappy and unsuccessful in matters of impeachment and charge, that ever contested against the misdemeanours of men; it seldom or never lays the indictment right. Here he chargeth me with delegating such and such a power to eight Substitutes; a little after, that I have wilfully, yea and presumptuously undermined the undoubted privileges of Parliament by the very roots: a little before, that I scandalously term the Commonalty of the Land, the vilest and most unworthy of men: not long before this (viz. pa. 21.) that I preach but seldom to my Parishioners: that I receive their tithes: that I gather an Independent Congregation to myself: that I prescribe a Covenant unto them before they be admitted members of it: that I preach to these alone, neglecting my Parishioners, etc. in all which suggestions and charges there is but one and the same proportion of love and truth.  
2. Whereas he supposeth that the common people, by their bare election, give such an Authority and power, to Parliaments, Emperors, Kings, etc. as themselves never actually were, nor can be possessors of; he doth not (I conceive) speak like a man of his profession; certain I am, that he doth not speak the truth; no, nor yet the thoughts of men of learning and judgement in the point. For 1. (to reason the case a little in point of truth) if the common people were not actually possessed of that Authority and power, which by their election they give to Parliaments, Emperors, Kings, etc. I demand, how, or after what manner they were possessed of it? For in saying, they were not ACTVALLY possessed of it, he supposes and grants, that they were some ways or other possessed of it. No man excludes one special modification from a thing, but for the gratification of another. Now than if the common people were not ACTVALLY possessed of that Authority and power which by their election they give unto Parliaments, Emperors, etc. they were only potentially possessed of it. For actually and potentially, are opposita; yea and of that kind which they call opposita immediata. So that whatsoever is had or possessed by any, and not actually, must of necessive be had or possessed potentially, and potentially only (at least in respect of an actual possession.) Now than I reason first thus: If the people have that power though not actually, yet potentially, which by their election they give to Parliaments, Emperors, Kings, etc. then are they capable of it even actually also; which yet Mr. Prynne here plainly denies, in these words, Nor can be possessors of. The consequence is undeniable: For whatsoever any entire subject hath, or is, potentiâ; there is no impossibility but that it may have, or be, actu, or actually. So that Mr. Prynne is here upon the matter in an absolute contradiction. For he supposeth that the people may have that Authority or power potentially, which yet he saith is impossible they should ever have actually. Again, I would willingly for the bettering of mine understanding, know and learn, how any person, or other Agent whatsoever, can actually confer that upon, or communicate that unto another, which it hath only potentially itself. Water, whilst it is actually cold, and only potentially hot, cannot heat that which is put into it. Nor can a man that is actually ignorant of such or such a truth, and potentially only knowing it, actually communicate or impart the knowledge thereof unto another, by virtue of that potential knowledge which he hath. No more can a people that is only potentially possessed of any Authority or power, actually give or confer it upon any, whether Parliaments, Emperors, Kings, etc. The ground of all such consequences as these, is that common principle or maxim in reason: Modus operandi sequitur modum essendi. Things that have but a weak or imperfect being themselves, cannot give strength or perfection of being unto others. But had Mr. Prynne said the body of a Nation have that authority really, virtually, eminently, and collectively, which they cannot have formally, distributively, and exemptively; I should have had the less to say unto him.  
For the judgement of men learned in matters of this concernment; he that shall please to read the Discourse of Christophorus Besoldus, entitled, Dissertatio Politico-Juridica de Majestate in genere, etc. shall find a little Jury of Lawyers joining with him in the verdict of his judgement upon the case; the tenor whereof is, that there is not only an Authority or power, but (that which is somewhat more) a majesty also in the people, which is coevall with the Republic or commonwealth itself; and which continues as long as the body thereof remains, yea and stands firm under all vacancies of Personal Empire, and all alterations and changes of Government: in which respect he saith it may be called the foundation or groundwork of the Commonwealth. This majesty in the people he calls, Real; that in the King or chief Ruler, Personal: this he saith, still falls and expires with the death of the person invesred with it; and returns to the people, or commonwealth. Yea and adds, that the people in making or setting up a King over them, transfer only a power of administering, not of constituting the commonwealth. With more to like effect 
a Eaque (majestas) 〈…〉 quae in constanendâ) & personalem, (quae in administrandâ seu gubernandâ Republicâ consistit) dividi videtur. Et meat Majestas Realis seu Imper●, Republicae est coaeva; quamdiu corpus ejus durat, per manet: & etiam sub inter regnis & alterationibus persistit: quam ideò fundamentum Republicae possu●● are. Personalis conci●● cum personâ, & ad Rempublicam redit. Hujus majestatis 〈…〉 etiam post 〈◊〉 Legem, populum Romanum aliquam retinuesse dicitur majestatem. § 4. 〈…〉 c. l. 7. § 〈…〉 maj statem nostram. F. de captiv. & postium. l. 1. 〈…〉 Majestatem publica ad L. julian majest. Lex namque Regia de personalis 〈…〉 is translatione intell g●debet: ego in tract. de monarchia cap. 4. num 4. ac 〈…〉 per eam populus potestatem administrationis, non constitutionis. Et constat ex l. 2 § 1. 〈…〉 administrationem Re publicae, non aliqu●d ultrà, Imperatori datum esse. Christoph. 〈…〉 Dess●● Politico- 〈◊〉 de Majestate, etc. Sect. 1. p. 5.  Therefore the opinion of this man with his Associates clearly is, that the people have Really or actually, that Authority or power which by their election they transfer upon, or derive unto their Rulers and Governors.  
3. (And last, for this) whereas he affirmeth, that such a power, as he supposeth to have been delegated by me to eight Substitutes, is not transcrible to others by any Law of God or man; and yet demands, Why the common people may not as well delegate a Lawful Ecclesiastical legislative Authority in Church-affaires unto their elected Parliamentary and Synodall members, as I delegate such a power; I answer and confess, that they may every whit as well (and no whit better) delegate such an Authority to such their members, as I delegate such a power to my Substitutes.  
6. Whereas in prosecution of his last argument, 
Sect. 60.  he further argues and interrogates thus; Why may not a man bring an Ecclesiastical or spiritual extraction out of a secular root, as well as a Regal, Magisteriall, Parliamental, Ministerial extraction out of a mere popular or servile root? or the best strong waters out of the vilest lees? the richest minerals out of the coursest earth? the most Orient pearls, out of the basest Oysters? I answer,  
1. That no Regal, Magisteriall, Parliamental, Ministerial extraction can be made out of a mere servile root. A people merely servile, can have no liberty or power to appoint or choose unto themselves either Kings, Masters, Parliaments, or Ministers. Therefore Mr. Prynnes Question very truly imports, that the one extraction may ●s well be made, as the other; but it no ways proves a possibility of either.  
2. There is a plain reason, why and how a Regal, Magisteriall, Parliamental extraction may be made out of a popular root: but there is a loud reclamation in reason and Religion both, against a possibility of making a spiritual extraction out of a secular root. Regal, Magisteriall, Parliamental extractions, are in their respective natures and tendencies, means proportioned to the civil and temporal ends, or good of the people; and God having endued men, (I mean the common sort or generality of men, the people) with wisdom and understanding to accommodate and provide for themselves in such things as these, hath given them power accordingly to make use of such principles and endowments in a regular way, for the accomplishment and obtaining of such ends. Now civil Rule and Government being a natural, proper, and direct means, whereby a good society or community of men may best obtain a civil or politic good, viz. a safe, just, and peaceable living and conversing together in the world; God therefore hath given them a liberty and power to contrive and cast themselves into what form of Government they should judge most conducible to such ends. Upon which indulgence or grant from Heaven, they have a lawful power by consent among themselves to elect and choose whom they please to govern them, and that upon such terms, as they conceive most agreeable to those ends. And yet even in this Government itself, one community or corporation of men have no right or lawfulness of power, to choose or appoint either Government, or Governors over another: lest of all hath any community, consisting of men altogether uncivil, ignorant, and unexperienced in matters of Government, any lawfulness of power to appoint either Rule or Rulers over other Societies, whose members generally are of a better accomplishment, for civility, & parts of wisdom, learning, and understanding; But all societies of men since the dissolution of the Judaical polity, are left free by God and nature, to set over themselves what Government and Governors they shall judge of best accommodation, for their temporal safety and peace. But now in spiritual things, and matters of Religion, the case is far otherwise; differing as much from the former, as the Heavens from the Earth. God hath not endued the generality of men with spiritual wisdom and understanding, nor with the knowledge of those things which are of a supernatural concernment unto them; and consequently hath not invested them with any power of casting themselves into what form of Government they please in respect of these, nor of choosing whom they please to rule over them, no nor yet of appointing upon what terms they will be governed in these. The natural man (saith the Scripture) perceiveth not (or, receiveth not) the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2. 14. Now certain it is, that the far greater part of men in every State Politic or Kingdom, are natural men, and consequently perceive not the things of the Spirit of God. Many are called, (saith our Saviour) but few chosen. And 2. as certain it is, that God doth not interest or invest any man or men, with a power of interposing in such things, which are not of their cognizance, and whereof they have no knowledge or perceivance. Much less 3. hath he given a power to natural men who perceive not the things of the Spirit of God, to appoint Rulers and Governors in these, over men that are spiritual, and which do perceive them. This were to give a power unto the blind, to lead not the blind only, but even the seeing also. Nay, 4. and lastly, God hath not given unto spiritual men themselves any power to nominate or choose men, to make any new Laws or Articles in matters of Religion, Worship, Church-Government, etc. but only to administer, execute and teach those, which are already ordained and established by God himself, as hath been proved already. Thus than we see there is reason enough and to spare, why such a spiritual extraction as the two Brethren speak of, cannot be made out of a secular root; though a Regal, Magisteriall, Parliamental extraction, may well be made out of a popular root. But  
3. Whereas Mr. Prynne supposeth that a Ministerial Extraction (as he calleth it) is, or may be made out of a mere popular or servile root, this supposition is not made without opposition to the truth. For no people or men, merely such, that is, as they are simply people or men, have any power delegated unto them by God or by Christ, to set a Minister or Pastor over them; neither can they as merely such, by any call, election, or ordination whatsoever, confer a Pastoral office or dignity upon any man. The reason is, because it is an essential property or part of the Pastoral office, to feed, rule, and govern a flock of Christ's sheep 
a Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. , (I mean a Society, or company of such persons, who in the judgement of charity are to be reputed such) and to administer the seals of the Covenant ordinarily unto them, etc. Now no company of men, merely and simply as men, have any power to invest any man, with any authoritative power to perform either of those administrations. One company or society of men however qualified, cannot derive any Authoritative power upon any man, to perform the office of a Pastor to another society of men. Therefore except that company of men, which calls and chooseth a person into the place or office of a Pastor (as it supposeth) be such a flock of Christ as was expressed, their act in so calling and choosing, is but a nullity; the person called hath indeed and in truth no Pastoral investiture upon him by virtue of such a call. As for example; Suppose a company of ignorantly profane, and desperately debauched men, should make choice of a man of worth, to be a Pastor unto them; the man thus called and chosen, hath no authority or power hereby, either to feed or govern any flock of Christ, (no, not so much as any flock of Christ in appearance) or to administer the seals of the Covenant unto any; and consequently is made no Pastor thereby.  
Or if Mr. Prynnes meaning be, that a root merely popular, that is, any company of people whatsoever, may lawfully call or choose a man to preach the Gospel unto them, and in this sense be said to make a Minister; I answer; that the man thus called, is no more a Minister than he was before; nor hath he any more Authoritative power to preach the Gospel unto them, by virtue of such a call, than he had without it; only he hath thereby a greater opportunity, and a more special invitation from the providence of God to preach the Gospel unto those who so call him, then unto others. Therefore in this case there is no ministerial extraction made out of a mere popular root.  
4. Whereas he speaks parables, 
Sect. 61.  and further demands, Why not a spiritual extraction out of a secular root, as well as the best strong waters out of the vilest lees? the richest minerals out of the coursest earth? the most Orient pearls out of the basest Oysters? I answer,  
1. That I know not by what rule of true speaking, Mr. Prynne either calls those the basest oysters, out of which the most orient pearls, or that the coursest earth, out of which the richest minerals, or those the vilest lees, out of which the best strong waters are extracted. That expression of the Poet,— Veios habitante Camillo,— 〈◊〉 Roma fuit, I never yet heard censured by any. Noble births and inhabitants, ennoble Cities and Countries. 
Mat. 2. 6.  And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda, art not the least among the Princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my people Israel. By the consent of this principle, which hath testimony both from God and men, those are not the basest, but the noblest oysters, which give birth and breeding to the most ortent pearls; nor that the coursest, but the finest and best earth, that yields the richest minerals; nor those the vilest, but the most generous and best deserving lees, which gratify their Distillator with the best strong waters. But  
2. (Not to impose any tax upon an acyrologie) there is this plain reason, why no spiritual extraction out of a secular root, though all those other extractions may be made out of those respective roots appropriated unto them: because a man may very possibly find a thing where it is; but it is impossible for him to find it where it is not. A man may very easily and very lawfully extract five shillings out of his purse that hath five shillings, or more, in it: but he that shall undertake to make an extraction of five shillings, out of a purse that is empty, must Acheronta movere, make himself a debtor to the black art. The pearl is in the oyster, and the mineral in the Earth, and the strong water in the lee: and therefore it is no great matter for art and nature joining together, partly by allurement and invitation, partly by a stronger and more forcible hand, to sequester all these from their native and proper elements, and to draw them out of their dark and secret habitations. Nor is it any ways unlawful thus to practise upon them, because God hath not served any prohibition upon men, to inhibit any such extractions or separations, either in a natural or artificial way. But there is no such spiritual extraction as the two Brethren speak of, in their secular root: there is no Ecclesiastical Legislative power in matters of Religion, worship, and Church-Government, neither formally, nor eminently, in unsanctified persons, rude multitudes, men ignorant of God, etc. therefore no such power can by any extraction whatsoever, proceed or be drawn out of these. There is indeed a lawfulness of power in them (if they had a principle to incline them to the due exercise of it) to assist the servants of God against violence and wrong, to encourage and countenance them in well-doing, to admonish and reprove them for doing any such evil which falls within the compass of their cogniance; yea, there is a lawfulness of power in them, if they have not given it out of their hands already, and invested others with it, to make Laws for the regulation of the Saints themselves, in all their civil affairs, and to restrain them by mulcts and penalties from all such courses, actions, and practices, which are properly and in their nature's disserviceable unto the common peace, and weal-public: And all such power as this, they may lawfully devise, and demise unto persons meet for the manage and exercise of it; because in this case they do but give of their own; yea, they give it in a regular and rational way; upon which terms God hath given unto every man a liberty or power to do with his own what he pleaseth 
a Mat. 20. 15. . But the persons we now speak of, never had a power of regulating the Saints in their Religious or Spiritual affairs; or of compelling them under temporal mulcts and penalties, to order themselves in the worship and service of God, as they pleased, or to preach and teach only such points and doctrines amongst them, as they should think well of. Therefore how they should convey or make over any such power as this unto others, by a Title or Conveyance good in Law, I desire Mr. Prynne to consider. If his desire had been to have paralleled the brethren's spiritual extraction out of a Secular root, with natural comparisons or similitudes, he should have done it not with those which he hath made use of in this kind, or the like; for we have showed a manifest and main disproportion in them; but with these, and such as these which follow: Why not a spiritual extraction out of a Secular root, as well as a man out of a mouse, or of water out of a flint, or of the element of fire out of the midst of the Sea? He might rationally enough have argued and concluded here; Why not the one as well as the other? But  
5. Whereas his Margin demandeth, Why not a spiritual extraction out of a secular root, as well as himself extracts many spiritual doctrines out of Gamaliels Secular speech? My answer is, that he hath made this demand at the peril of his own reputation in what he had said but in the former page, where he supposeth, that God poured out a spirit of prophecy upon Gamaliel, as he had formerly done upon Balaam and Saul, If Gamaliel spoke as the spirit of prophecy which was poured out upon him, gave him utterance, his speech was not secular, but spiritual and divine. And  
2. Suppose there was no spirit of prophecy upon Gamaliel, when he spoke that speech, from which I extract my Doctrines; yet the speech itself, being for the matter, tenor, and substance of it, nothing but what is fully agreeable to the undoubted word of God elsewhere, (which I clearly demonstrate in the particular doctrine handled in those Sermons) it is not to be reputed Secular, though the person speaking it had been Secular; but Divine, because the matter of it being a truth of Divine revelation elsewhere, is Divine. This saying, Jesus Christ is the Sanne of God, or the holy One of God, is not, therefore a Devilish saying, because the Devil spoke it 
a Mark. 1. 24. Luke 4. 34. , but an holy or divine saying or sentence, because the truth contained in it, which is the matter of it, is from God.  
But 3. the person speaking it was Ecclesiastical, a Doctor of the Law, Acts 5. 34.  
4. And lastly, it was about matters of the Church, and so Ecclesiastical also.  
6. Whereas in the context of the same margin, he calls my principal Argument (as he calls it) drawn from the non-jurisdiction of the seven Churches of Asia one over another, a mere Independency, giving this for the ground or reason of this so severe an award, that these Churches were under different civil Dominions, and not members of the selfsame Christian Republic; I answer,  
1. That why he should call this my principal Argument, which I do not so much as mention, nor make any argument at all (as least in those Sermons against which his pen riseth up in this discourse with so much indignation) I am behind hand in my understanding. I suppose he would willingly make that my principal Argument, from the dint whereof he knows how to contrive some plausible evasion and escape. It was an wholesome admonition of Austin long since, 
a Procliviores sumus quaerere potius, quid contra ea respondeamus,— quae nostro objiciuntur errori, quam intendere ea quae sunt salubria, ut careamus errore.  That we are very inclinable and prone, rather to seek out how to answer or evade those things which are brought to refute our error, then to mind that which is wholesome, that so we may be free from error. But  
2. If that be a reason, why the Churches in Asia had no jurisdiction one over another, because they were not members of the selfsame Christian Republic; then neither had the Church of Jerusalem either divisim, and by itself, nor yet conjuncti●● with others, any power of jurisdiction over the Church of Antioch. For neither were their Church's members of the selfsame Christian Republic, no nor yet any other Churches in the Apostles days, there being then no Christian Republic in the world.  
3. Neither can I well understand how the seven Churches of Asia should be under different civil dominions, when as one and the same man had power to command that all the world should be taxed, Luke 2. 1. Certain I am, that Mr. Pryn doth not befriend either his own exception, or my understanding so far, as to inform what these different civil dominions were; or under what or whose dominion every or any of these Churches did respectively consist. The consideration whereof moderately inclines me to conceive, that he put this piece of his answer to the making, and affirmed it only de bene esse, that the seven Churches of Asia were under different civil dominions. Is it not much more probable, that the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, which yet by the Assertors of Presbytery, are generally and with importune confidence made confederate in Classic association, were under different civil dominions? Considering, 1. that their Cities were two hundred miles distant one from the other (a distance greater almost by an hundred miles, than any two of the seven Churches of Asia stood one from the other, as will appear presently.) And 2. that Judea was an entire Province by itself, & Luke 3. 1. is said to have been under the government of Pontias Pilate. So that subjection under different civil dominions, is not like to have been any obstruction in the way of those Asian Churches, to impede their Presbyterial conjunction, had they felt the weight either of divine institution, or of any Christian accommodation of their respective affairs, lying upon them for the engaging themselves in it.  
4. And lastly, some that seem to have perfect knowledge of those parts where these seven Churches with their respective Cities stood, affirm that some of them were not situate above twelve miles' distance from some others of them; and that the greatest distance between any two of them, was not above an hundred and twenty miles, which is not the one half of the distance between many Churches in this Kingdom. So that had the Presbyterial combination or subordination of Churches been an ordinance of God, there is little question to be made, but that these Churches with their respective Angels, especially under such an opportunity, would have subjected themselves unto the will of God in this behalf, and not have remained single and uncombined in their government, as they did.  
If it be objected, they were times of persecution; we answer, So were they afterward, when (as men of the Presbyterian way suppose) they had Presbyteries; and after that when they had Episcopal government. This hath been the case of the Protestants in France, where they now have, & constantly have had, a Presbyterial government. So it is of the Papists in England, where they have had ever since the Reformation, a Papal jurisdiction. And to speak to the particular, so was it a time of persecution against the Presbyterial government in Queen Elizabeth's time, and yet it was then exercised in several places of this Kingdom. See Rogers Preface to his Analysis of the Articles of Religion.  
6. Whereas he seems to require a reprievement for his opinion, only till Independents can show him better grounds against it, 
Sect. 64.  than any yet produced; and inform him why our representative Church and State should not of right enjoy and exercise as great or Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over all particular persons and Churches, who are members of our Church and Realm, as any Independent Minister or Congregation challenge or usurp unto themselves over their own members, etc. My answer is,  
1. That now I trust he will willingly surrender his opinion into the hand of Justice, and plead no further for it. First, because though haply there have been no better grounds produced in this discourse against it, then have been formerly in others; yet I cannot but conceive and judge, that better arguments and grounds against it, have been here produced, than Mr. Prynne hath had either the happiness or opportunity to meet with elsewhere; especially considering partly the frequency of his complaint, that Independents have given little or no account of their way in writing; partly that it is a thing hardly consistent with Mr. pryn's abilities, being sweetened with so much ingenuity, not to see and acknowledge the delinquency of such an opinion, in whose condemnation so full a Jury of the first borne principles as well of Reason as Religion, as hath been here impanelled, do conspire. And secondly, because Information hath been given him again and again (and more particularly in the eighth Section, page 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of this discourse) why our whole representative Church and State; (though I do not clearly understand what he means by our Representative Church in this place) but why the Parliament and Synod should not exercise as great or greater Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over particular persons & Churches within the Realm, etc. as an Independent Minister AND Congregation (for his disjunctive particle, Or, turns him quite out of the way of his question) may exercise over their own members. But  
2. Whereas he states the question thus: Whether our Representative Church and State, may not exercise as great or greater Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over, etc. as an Independent Minister or Congregation challenge or USURP unto themselves over their own members; My answer is, that doubtless they may; one unrighteous or unjust thing, may be as lawfully done as another every whit as unrighteous and unjust as it. For Mr. Prynne may please to take knowledge, that Independent Ministers and Congregations do not usurp any power at all unto themselves over their own members, that is, over themselves; but only administer that regular and lawful power over and amongst themselves, which every of their respective members have mutually and freely given one to another, and every particular member unto the whole body, over itself, and that as well for its own benefit and behoof, as for the benefit and good of the whole body. And lawful (questionless) it is (yea matter of duty) for every man to give such a power of, or over himself, unto others, which he hath sufficient ground either from the Scriptures, or reason otherwise, to conceive and expect that it will be administered for his good; especially having ground to conceive yet further, that this act of his, in thus submitting himself unto others, will according to the ordinary course of Providence and experience, be of Christian accommodation unto others also for their good. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God, Eph. 5. 21. which submission doubtless ought so far to extend, as in reason it may accommodate, or promote the edification and spiritual good, both of the persons by whom, and to whom it is made. And by the same reason it is no usurpation in those, to whom the submission is made, to administer or exercise that power which is committed unto them, according to the regular intentions of those who have given it: yea, such an administration of it as this, is so far from being an usurpation, that a non-administration of it upon such terms, would be a very unchristian prevarication both with God and men. Therefore  
7. (And last, to conclude) Whereas Mr. Prynne refers me to the High Court of Parliament, either to crave their pardon, or to undergo their justice, for my Anti-parliamentarie passages, etc. I shall request no other favour of this most honourable Court, then that I may stand right and straight in their opinions, and be respited from censure only so long, till my Accuser shall make good his charge against me by sufficient evidence and proof; and substantially answer and refute this my Apologetical plea. When the light of this day of darkness shall dawn upon me, I shall willingly submit unto his demand, and either crave the Pardon of that Honourable and High Court he speaks of, or otherwise undergo their justice: in the mean season I presume he will subscribe my Petition for a reprieve, as just and equal. And if the result of his more serious thoughts shall be, to resume and prosecute the bill of endictment which he hath preferred against me; my earnest request unto him is, as well for his own ease and conveniency, as mine, 1. That he will not argue from pluralities, but pertinences of Scriptures; and show how, and wherein every Text alleged, according to the genuine sense and rational dependence of the words, stands by him in what he intends to prove from it. And 2. that he will not place the strength and confidence of his cause, either in humane Authorities, humane practices, statutes or ordinances of men, excepting only such, whose truth, justice and equity he shall first demonstrate either from the word of God; and that not by Texts barely cited, chapter and verse, though in never such abundance; but throughly argued, and examined upon the matter in question; or else from sound principles of reason and equity, managed in a clear and rational way, and so drawn up to a fair compliance with the conclusion, seeking testimony and proof from them. For otherwise, what sayings, doings, Laws or Ordinances of men soever shall be produced or insisted upon, for confirmation or proof of any thing; it will be sufficient to Answer, that men as wise, as just, as virtuous as they, have both said and done, things neither true nor meet to be done; and have made Laws and Statutes of no better constitution; yea, and have been of a contrary opinion to Mr. Prynne in the particular questioned: which made Augustine often decline that way of reasoning, as we read in his 48. Epistle, and elsewhere. Thirdly and lastly, that he would put less vinegar and gall into his ink, and more wool or cotton: or (in the Apostles words, Eph. 4. 31.) that all bitterness and evil speaking be put away, and that we follow the truth in love, and language that becometh Brethren.  
This treble request I make unto him with much earnestness and importunity upon the supposition aforesaid, because I had much rather yield, might I do it upon honourable and Christian terms, then to be put to take the field yet again. As for any opinion held by me, when once I perceive that it will not make knowledge, I am ready to give the right hand of fellowship unto any man in casting it out as unsavoury salt upon the dunghill. I never yet thought myself (nor I hope ever shall) such a debtor unto error, as to sacrifice my time, pains, occasions, credit, conscience, upon the service of it. But unto Mr. Prynne I shall willingly acknowledge myself a debtor, if he will either acquit me of my crime by silence, or deliver me from my error by his pen.  
FINIS.