Certain brief OBSERVATIONS AND ANTIQVAERIES: ON MASTER PRIN's TWELVE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT. Wherein is modestly shown, how unuseful and frivolous they are; How bitter and unchristian in censuring that way; whereas there are no Reasons brought to contradict it.  
By a well-willer to the Truth, and Master PRIN.  
Printed in the year 1644.   

Certain brief Observations and Antiquaeries on Mr. PRIN's Twelve Questions about Church-government.  
THere is no sight so lovely, and taking to the eyes of all ingenivous and sincere hearts, as naked truth; these which know its excellency will study to find it out. Truth is a jewel which lies out of sight, as it were, in the bowels of many reasons, men must search for it, that will find it out, among truths, this of Church Government is not the least. There are many things this age hath brought forth about it to little purpose; most men beating about the bush; few that I have scene have discovered it in its nature. Some writ so voluminous, heaping up so many distinctions about it, that they rather darken the truth than set it forth, rather entangle a man's understanding then inform it; others writ so full of passion, as if they writ with poison of Asps, reckoning up men's personal failings to disgrace the Cause, not urging their arguments to convince the judgement, (among these I have observed one Master Edward's hath the quickest pen, and I have often thought that book should rather have been writ by Doct. Pocklinton, Doct. Heylin, or one of the Archbishop's Chaplains, than Master Edward's, who hath been sometimes accounted godly.) Master Prin hath begun another way as unsatisfactory as any; though we hope there is more candour in his spirit: He professeth in the beginning he hath not leisure to debate the controversy; and then it's wondered why he propounds these Queries. For either, first he lays them down as positions undisputable, undeniable in respect of the clearness of them unto all understandings, or because of his name to them; for else he knows (as all know) that have any light in this Controversy, that all these grounds, these whom he calls independents will deny, and their answer would be negative to every one. Or secondly, he propounds them as affirmatives which he intends to prove and clear by  arguments, and then he must have leisure to do it; and as yet the others negation is as strong as his affirmation, for here is no proof for it. Or else thirdly, as considerations in which he desires satisfaction as one being in doubt which way to walk, only these things for the present move him to be of a contrary judgement; the style of the book doth not much favour this last, as being too full of confidence, and bitterness: If Master Prin had such a sense of the public divisions, he would not have gone to make the breach wider by setting forth Queries stuffed with such invectives. I had thought sufferings had learned Master Prin a little more meekness; Mr. Prin knows his name is famous abroad, and that the common people will all think that that must needs be true which he pleads for. Besides, he knows that the Reverend Assembly is now controverting of the thing, and that Queries will do little good while Arguments are expected on both sides: but since they are out let us see what are in them.  
The sum of the first Quaerie, is, whether Christ hath set down in the Word any prescript form of government for Kingdom and Churches to follow; or whether (seeing there be different forms of civil government in almost every Kingdom) there is not a latitude, and liberty left them by Christ to choose a government suitable to their State.  
If this were granted, what absurdities would follow? Answ.  
For the Gospel would be straiter than the Law, Christ more unfaithful than Moses, God set a 
* Exod. 25. 40. Hebr. 8. 5.  pattern to Moses, which he charged him not to vary from in a title, that was but a carnal Temple in comparison of this, nay, it was a type of the Church under the Gospsll, Christ should neither be faithful as a husband, head, nor King of his Church, if he should give others power to order it, to suit it as they pleased to their own civil government, not setting down his own Laws for them to walk by. In Revel. 11. 1, 2. you read of a measuring of the Temple: Now how can you measure without a rule? The meaning of that, according to Master Prin, must be thus (measured) that is, frame it according to your civil State, a miserable measure for a Church. In Revelat. 20. 1, it's said the pattern of the new jerusalem, (which is but the Church in her purest state, the same for form with the former Church) came down from heaven.  
Besides, look in this Quaerie and you shall find a contradiction, for he asks whether Church government may not be framed to any civil State if it be consonant to the Word, and yet questions whether there be any rule in the Word.  
Secondly, if no prescript form in the Word, why not Episcopacy as well as Presbytery? why such crying down of Bishops as Antichristian, for how can that be more Antichristian then any other, seeing there is no certain government in the Word? Episcopacy regulated and moderated (if all were known) is more consonant and agreeable to a Monarchical government than Presbytery.  
Thirdly, I ask of Master Prin, if Church government must be suited to States, whether Politicians are not more fit to consult about stablishing it: And why is an Assembly of Divines called to search the Word about it? Surely Statesmen know better how to fit the Commonwealth than Divines: there must be something in it, surely, or else the Parliament did very ill to have a Synod. If the Doctrine be true, throw aside the Bible, in this matter study the Law; and than it is well done of Master Prin to write of it, being his profession.  
Fourthly, Whether Master Prin thinks it more reason that the State should be subject to Christ's rule, or Christ to their direction; that the government of his Church should be fitted to States, or they to it. I know his religion, though his reason should stand a fare off, would abhor the thought of it: if you, and the Presbyterians go on that principle, the Saints will hardly be of your judgement, for they think Christ is King alone over his Churches, and hath not left them to substitutes, and the politic considerations of men for to govern them.  
These two places you urge out of 1 Cor. 14. 40. and the 11. 34. where the Apostle speehes of doing all things decently, etc. is far from this, it being about things that are merely circumstantial, and ordering of things in a Church already constituted, not of the constitution of any Church.  
The second Quarie, in sum, is, whether if any government be established by any State upon serious debate, every one is not bound in conscience to submit to it, and no ways to seek an exemption from it, under pain of being guilty of arrogancy, etc. The Scriptures in the margin I wonder to what end Master Prin quotes them so little to purpose, look on that place 1 Cor. 14. 32. The spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets; how full to the thing let all judge who know the scope of that place; by the Prophets there doth he mean the civil State, or the Synod, or both? And is not that spoken to a particular congregation, for the regulating the exercise of prophesying; or doth he mean by being subject, that the Prophets have an authoritative power over the other Prophets; I know not what he means by that place. The other places, Rom. 13. 1, 2. of submitting to every ordinance, etc. If that be true, than every man is bound to put out his own eyes, to yield to blind obedience, never to search into the truth, for if he search and find it contrary to the Word, he must follow his judgement, and to follow his judgement is to be a Schismatic, to be guilty of arrogancy, etc. to contradict the Word, to oppose an ordinance of God; so that a man must inevitably sin, take either part. Is not this to uphold the Papist tenant of believing as the Church believeth? etc. I put it to Master Prin, if the Parliament and Synod should set up an Episcopal government, which he thinks is Antichristian, whether he would not speak a word against it? Is not this a base bondage, jurare in verba alterius, to give up a man's faith and conscience to men's direction; but if the former be true, than this second must follow, if no rule, than you must obey what is commanded you. Suppose that is commanded may prove untrue, what if that way be not right, if that Synod and State should err, what would you think of it then? etc.  
Secondly, I humbly demand of Master Prin whether he and the other two holy men were not justly stigmatised and censured for speaking against the Bishops and Ceremonies? etc. which were established by so many Synods, and Acts of Parliament; and how h● can excuse himself from pride and arrogancy in such a course; for by his own rule he should have actually obeyed and not spoke a word to the contrary. Such divinity will overthrow all the power of Scripture over men's consciences, only make that to bind which a Synod thinks good.  
The third Quaerie contradicts the first, in the first he asks 
In this Quaerie he quotes a saying in a Book called The bloody Tenent, which was written by one as contrary to this as the Independents, as he is to the Presbyterians and they utterly disavow the Book.  whether there be any rule in the Word; here he asks whether that government which hath sufficient, if not most warrant in the new Testament is not to be chosen. In this he cries up the one government (which he instanceth in the fourth Quaerie to be presbyterial) as tending to establish Christian unity; peace, etc. that which serves most effectually to prevent Heresies, Schisms, etc. Here is a bare affirmation, and the independents, No, is as good as your, I. Its desired Master Prin would prove what he says, that independent government hath not such express warrant from the Word (another contradiction) as presbyterial; prove that, and you shall be Magnus Apollo; as for the Scriptures you bring will little help you.  
For the fifth, it's answered by way of concession, that it will overthrow all national Churches, as not conceiving any such warrant in the Word, but for any form of civil government it will stand better with them then Presbytery can; the mischiefs of Presbytery, are vailed with orthodoxness, and preventing Schisms, &c, But if the Saints would pry into the formality, tyranny, enslaving men's judgements and consciences the Presbyterial way, etc. they would look upon it as that which is most inconsistent with their spiritual liberty, and with State privileges. It's politicly done of you to put the best terms on your own way how will you have it take else; I will let pass your bitter expressions (that one man would be, if possible, a independent Church, and republic subject to no laws) I thought such language would not suit with you spirit, Master Prin especially that you would not speak so of them who were your best friends in your sufferings; which stood to you, and refreshed you when most of your presbiterians (Episcopal enough then) were shy of you, I could name the men that used you kindly whom you now implicitly reproach; the independents give more to civil power then your presbyterians do; I would feign know whether your presbyterians do not hold; that an Act of a Synod or a Nationall Assembly is as valid and binding in ecclesiastics, as an Act of Parliament in civils; and whether the Parliament can de jure contradict their proceed, whether they will affirm that the Parliament hath any jurisdiction over them in settling Ecclesiastical matters, this is not a Quaerie without ground; for as far as the independents understand of the presbyterial government in Scotland, it's absolutely independent from the Parliament in respect of decreeing and enacting matters of government; only this honour presbyterians give to their Magistrate, they must be the executioners of their judgements, to hang whom they condemn.  
The sum of the sixth Quaerie, is, whether since the first preaching the Gospel, believers multiplying, they did not gather into Churches which had dependency on, and was subordinate to Nationall Synods, etc. And if not to show the place where, and to name any eminent Author that ever maintained the contrary. This Quaerie is very bold and daring, yet I answer that believers did as soon as they were converted gather into particular Churches, as is apparent, but that they were subordinate unto Nationall Synods, etc. sub judice lis est; And if in many Kingdoms it might be so, de facto, yet whether de jure, and from a pattern in the Word that we desire may be proved.  
Suppose this should be true, that there cannot in any Kingdom such a Church be shown for many years; or at lest no Writer expresseth it; if so be it can be made forth from the Word, and consonant to the Saints practise in the Apostles times. I know no such Schism in dissenting from all men's practices to follow the clear truth. You challenge all to show you one eminent Writer who maintained the same; I will not go so far back into antiquity, as to bring you out a catalogue of Fathers, who though they had not a clear light in that way, yet had many  hints and notions in many things, which are practised by these you call independent. There be many latter Writers as eminent in holiness, and without disparagement in learning to many whom you can produce for the other: (as learned Doct. Ames in Medul. theolog. de eccles. Master Ains●… Master Cotton, with many of this age known unto you, to whom you will not deny eminency in learning) which have stood for this way; besides, doth Master Prin think we have no more light discovered in these days about Church-government, than the godly had in former days; or must all the Saints be regulated by former patterns, than should Episcopacy be more followed than Presbytery, it being as anciently practised, & as learnedly writ for as it.  
Your seventh Quaerie is the same in form with the first and sixth, and as little in it as in any; for first he asks whether the Law of Nature that teacheth men to subject themselves to one public form of government in a State, doth not teach to subject to a National or Provincial Synod in matters of Church-government. This is answered in the first, beside the independents think that it's as suitable to the law of nature, rectified reason, etc. for every particular man to have his vote in that which most concerns him; not to give away his reason to another, not to subject his conscience to any but Christ; reason, and politics will show, Master Prin, that there is a suitableness to the Law of Nature in a democratical, and Aristocratical government (for this way of Church-government is made up of both these) as in Monarchical, or mere Aristocratical; besides, Christ hath given to men no such power over men's consciences, as he hath to Magistrates over men's bodies. To let pass your bitter speeches, saying that there is no example for particular Congregations, (which you can Independents) except derived from the conventicles of the Arrians, Donatists, and other Heretics. Leave off these names of Heretics, Master Prin, you have been paid enough with that title, you may bless God for these conventicles, in which you were remembered with tears, when others durst not name you.  
Master Prins eaghth and ninth Queries are in sum all one, thus, whether the concession of one Catholic Church, the Nationall assembly of the Israelites, the Synodall assembly of the Apostles be not an infallible proof of National Churches of a common Presbytery, etc. It's answered negatively. And though he say that the Independents answers are but evasions, we shall judge them  arguments till we see the contrary. The Nationall Church of the Jews cannot be a pattern for us now, because the covenant of the Gospel is not made with any one particular Nation, as with the Jews, but to all persons that embrace the Gospel, and believe in Christ. You have no promise nor prophesy of any Nation to be holy to God but the Jews Nation, when they shall be called again.  
Secondly, Neither can Master Prin show any Nation, every member whereof is qualified for to make up a Church; which is the body of Christ, unless Master Prin will take in all drunkards, whoremasters, etc. to be members of a Church; whereas the Word says, they must be visible Saints; and this cannot be avoided 
1 Cor. 1. 1. Phil. 5. 1.  in a Nationall Church. Neither is that Assembly in Acts 15. which you call a Synod, any proof for a Presbyterial government. For first, I demand whether that Church had not power within itself to debate the business, and settle the controversy, seeing there was a great strife among them about it. Secondly, I demand of Master Prin, whether Paul and Barnabas had not power (being Apostles) to determine the matter, 
Act. 15. 1.  as well as the Synod of Elders?  
Thirdly, Whether they went not up principally to prove the false Apostles, that werr among them, liars, for they told them they were sent by the Apostles to make known that they must be 
Vers. 24.  Circumcised. Now to give testimony unto this, that they came not from the Apostles, they send chosen men to Jerusalem about it?  
Fourthly, Whether this was not an occasional meeting, not a Synod, which is a collection of the Elders of divers Churches into a body, but only some of the Church chosen out and sent to the other Church at Jerusalem for advise.  
Master Prin may think as slightly of the arguments given by the Independents, (as he calls them) from this head, yet notwithstanding his word, he must give them leave to judge they are sufficient, unless the authority of Master Prin's name be argument; the Scriptures quoted serve to fill up the margin, nothing else, unless you open them, and argue from them; for these texts are used by the contrary side against you, and as validly still as yours, before more be shown.  
The ninth Quaerie, Whether the Independents challenging the Presbyterians to show a National Church in Christ's time, be not an irrational and unjust demand, Ans. no, if the Scripture hath a form of government for the Churches of Christ in after ages to walk in; but to you it may seem irrational, who think Church-government must be ordered according to civil State, and be cast into that mould.  
Master Prin from his Queries falls to his Logic, and demands whether a Syllogism framed from the former, viz No Nationall Church in the Apostles time. Ergo, None ought to be now, be not as absurd as these.  
There was no meeting of Christians in public Churches, but in caves, corners, etc. Therefore they ought not to meet in public Churches now, but in caves, etc.  
I thought that Master Prin's Logic would have distinguished between the form of a thing, and the circumstance of place in the exercise of it, which is left to every Church's discretion, would this be a good argument in his Logic? that because the ordering of circumstances of time and place are in the Church's power; therefore the making of new forms of government, is, when the congregation men argue from the not being of a national constitution of a Church in the Apostles days, to the denying of any now; they argue on this ground, being able to make it appear, that the form of the constitution of Churches in the Apostles time, is a pattern for all Churches to follow, and in no kind to vary from it.  
Again, he demands whether that way of arguing be not as absurd as this?  
There was no Nation, Kingdom, City, Republic, Catholic, congregational, or Parochial Church in Adam's younger days, before people were multiplied, but a family government.  
Ergo, There aught to be none but a Family government now, no man would be so void of reason, no truly Sir, neither did the Independents think you would be so void of reason, as to father such an absurdity on them, who are as rational as yourself.  
As for Civil government, let men alter it as they will, and if God will alter the government of the Church, as he did from a Family into a Nation among the Jews, and if again from a Nation God will alter it unto a oeconimicall or congregational, we must yield.  
Thirdly, Again, whether it be not as absurd as this: Every man in his infancy is born destitute of religion, reason, etc. Therefore he ought to continue so when grown a man.  
The Christian Church in the Apostles time, while in her infancy was not National, but so and so, (what I pray) (not Independent. How know you that, Master Prin, we will not take your word.) Ergo, It ought not to be Nationall now. Here observe Reader.  
Master Prin accounts the Church in the Apostles time, a poor weak Church, that had not so much reason for things then, as we have now; the Apostles, the stablishers of it, weak men; whereas there was more light of the Gospel, and gifts of the Holy Ghost poured out then, then ever since; even private Christians being as able to deal in the things of God, as most of our Scholars and Ministers are now; yet Master Prin compares the following that pattern, the following of a child in his infancy, that hath neither reason nor religion. Master Prin, follow you your perfect Church, we will follow this infant pattern, and I beseech you, is not this argument you bring to fasten an absurdity on them, as absurd as this.  
The Scriptures were writ in the infancy of the Church, therefore wiser and better Scriptures may be writ now, the Church being grown up into a Nation, having so many reverend Divines in it.  
Secondly, You would needs make a Nationall Church State more perfect, understanding, and ripe Church then a congregational; we would think so too, if we had a Word for it.  
And whereas you say the History of the Acts shows that as believers multiplied their Church government and discipline varied, it's answered if you mean by varying, that things before established by the Apostles in any Church was altered, it's denied, and pray show the place if you mean by varied that they added rules for government as occasion served we grant it, for as they received not the knowledge of the Gospel at once so neither of discipline, neither had the Churches need of all the rules at once, but as God fitted occasions so he made known rules, yet so as at length to discover the whole form of his House, as he did the whole mystery of divinity, to be as rule to all generations afterwards you see what your logic is come to Master Prin, draw better consequences next.  
Your tenth Quaerie is the same in sum with your secord, only there you speak in general, here you perticularise, and you ask of the independents whether in conscience they are not bound to submit unto presbyterial government in case that the Parliament and Synod should establish it; and whether it would not be a high degree of ob●…nancy singularity, self end, etc. to oppose this form of government.  
I Ans. If you require this of them, & charge them so highly in not submiting, I hope you will show your authority; either you would have them submit because what they command is of divine institution, or because commanded by their authority, if in the former sense, they must have eyes to see it as well as the Synod, or else their obedience will be hypocritical most displeasing to God; if in the latter, than the Pope's council, decreeing any thing must out of as much conscience be obeyed by these that be under his authority, as the best things commnded by a Godly Synod, for a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia; if because they command, than what ever they command must be done; I put the case to M. Prin, whether when he challenged all the Divines in England to make good against them that Episcopacy was not jure de vino, whether if the King had called a Synod and had concluded it as the most Divines thought; he would have given up his judgements to their votes and submitted to their determination, it had been height of arrogancy, self ends, schism in Master Prin not to do so, & so in point of law when most of the Judges had given in their judgements contrary to M. Prin, why did not he submit, because the contrary was clear to him, and he had sinned against his own conscience if he had gone back one jot from his opinion; what if independency should be set up, what if the Synod should maintain the errors of Antinomians, etc. was Master Prin bound in conscience to say as they did, to speak against it would be shisme, faction, arrogancy, &c, Master Prin how is your spirit changed what will you now submit to any thing, are you become a time server? have you given up your faith to other men? when Synods can say as they, Acts 15. it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us to lay these things on you, than we will think we are bound in conscience to submit, else you must help us with new eyes.  
In your eleventh Quaerie you go on in your way of bitterness and ask whether that independency be not a womb to all schisms, heresies, etc. it's Answered no, it's a seminary of holiness a nourisher of love, a way to build up unto the fullness of Christ, your presbyterial way is a way inflaving men's consciences; crushing the parts of these Saints which you ●all Laymen, is a way to depress truth to hinder growth in grace and Spiritual communion with Christ, the Saints shall soon find it so.  
In the last Quaerie M. Prin falls a jeering of his brethren. He would needs father a child on them, of the presbyterians begetting; they have put a nickname on them to make them odious, and now he asketh whether it be not an insolent proud name, etc. unfit for any Christian to arrogat, your presbyterians have pretty slights to defame these that are of a contrary opinion; as if one should call an honest man thief, and ask a man whether it were not a shameful thing for him to be given to stealing. Know Master Prin these men scorn the name, they have disavowed it in 
* See M. Simpsons' Anatomy, anatomised.  print; the term is more fit for you & these whom you stand for, a term fit for your provincial, and national Synods from whom there is no appeal, but to whose judgments all must submit as to an ordinance of Christ, & though but to question what is done by them is to be guilty of faction, schism, arrogancy; these you call independants, confess that they are accountable for their actions to every neighbour Church that shall in the name of Christ require it, they stand not independent from others but hold communion with all other Churches, both in the ordinances, and ask counsel and advise mutually; to let your other lose language pass much with what is in the former; take some Christian advice; remember you have not your hand in darkening the glory of any of the Saints; take heed of defaming a way which for aught you know may be a way of Christ; it will cost you many a sigh afterward if God should convince you, you know Christ will never own bitterness in maintaining any way though consonant to his Word. Remember, neither you nor the Synod are infalliable, but as subject to errors as others; never more damnable Heresies confirmed then by Synods (I speak not this to cast 
Concil. Trent.  any blot on Synods or this Synod espcially in which there are many holy and learned men) but to show that a man is not bound in conscience to follow their decrees upon penalty of sin, arrogancy, etc. and not to seek the least exemption from what they determine whose decrees may be subject to as great errors as any. Oh that a spirit of love were maintained among these which are brethren, though men differ in judgement must they needs differ in affection! M. Prin if you will needs be busy in this controversy leave off your Queries for we will deny them all; state your question; set forth your arguments, open the Scriptures you quote to fill up the margin, be as brief as may be; call in your passion and consider, and doubt not of an answer to what you shall modestly set forth.  
FINIS