THE FALSEHOOD OF Mr. WILLIAM PRYN'S TRUTH TRIUMPHING, In the Antiquity of Popish Princes and PARLIAMENTS.  
TO WHICH, He attributes a Sole, Sovereign, Legislative, Coercive power in all matters of Religion; discovered to be full of absurdities, contradictions▪ sacrilege, and to make more in favour of Rome and Antichrist, than all the books and pamphlets which were ever published, whether by Papal or Episcopal Prelates, or Parisites, since the Reformation.  
WITH Twelve Queries, Eight whereof visit Mr. Pryn the second time, because they could not be satisfied at the first.  
Printed in London, 1645.   

EPIST. DEDICATORY. To Mr. William Fryn of Lincoln's Inn, Esquire.  
SIR,  
I May safely appeal to Whatsoever is of esteem and dear unto you, how I could much rather have bemoaned in private that perverse and implacable spirit of yours, had not you of late so inconsiderately bespattered so many Pamphlets, which have infected the very air, far worse than any most malignant epidemical contagion, by having inherited the privilege to be cried up and down the streets and public places, instead of Royal Proclamations, to the great scandal of your most conscientious Brethren, and suppressing truth both Spiritual and Civil, which had more than begun to shine out so gloriously, since the first assembling of this present Parliament.  
You have done as much as in you lies to divide the Independents from the Parliament, by grudging them a peaceable abiding place in the land of their inheritance; and provoked our Brethren of Scotland by fixing or fastening upon Christian Emperors, Kings, Magistrates, Parliaments, the undoubted legislative coercive power in all matters of Religion, Title page; and that even without the assistance or advice of Synods; page 88 I do but advertise you thereof, though it be known so publicly, that Aulicus took notice of it so long since: consider the high consequences thereof, and the mischief it may grow unto, unless prevented opportunely.  
Both King and Parliament pretend to have taken up Arms to defend the Protestant Religion, etc. and yet fight one against another, no less, than both of them opposed it: The King wonders the Parliament should entertain Brownists and Anabaptists to fight for the Protestant Religion; and the Parliament marvels no less that the King should entertain Papists to do the same: But may they not both alike wonder at each other in this particular? or rather, why should either of them at all wonder at such proceed, since the Papists in matter of doctrine believe all which Protestants believe; and both Brownists and Anabaptists hate Popery and superstition as much as Protestants? But if the Protestant Religion can be truly propagated by fight; surely both Papists, Brownists and Anabaptists, even Turks and very Dogs may be brought and taught to fight for it, all alike; but when you have spent your spirits, and distilled away your brains, you will perceive at last if ever your eyes be open as I desire unfeignedly) that it is the most irrational and Vn-Gospel-like course under heaven, to employ the arm of flesh to work upon the spirit.  
Take heed then what you say; or explain to us what you and your party mean, when you make the supreme Civil Magistrate to be custodem utriusque tabulae: Tell us whether the Great Turk, Emperor, Kings of Spain, France, Poland, etc. be not lawful Civil Magistrates; how you can abridge them this Prerogative of both Tables, or quit their duty in taking charge of them, more than any Prince or Magistrate of Christendom.  
Did not Paul tell Timothy, and Mr. Pryn in him, that the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine, but turn away their ears from the truth, heaping to themselves teachers after their own lusts, 2 Tim. 12 3, 4, 5. What if Mr. Pryn were another Timothy, or had the very spirit of the self same Timothy, and could infallibly assure us that these were the times which Paul then spoke of, and the Independents those who were then foretold to have itching ears, and to be turned unto fables? may Mr. Pryn be more officious, or exceed the commission which was given unto Timothy, himself? Paul, and Christ, whose Apostle and Minister Paul was, gave Timothy no other, than that in such a case he should be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an Evangelist, make full proof of his Ministry, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine, v. 2.  
Consider, I beseech you, for the love of God and men, or your own sake, if you have any symptoms of respect to either; Does the Apostle, think you, there understand by reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine, that Timothy should upbraid, reproach, defame such as but differed from him in some opinion only, as you have done to Mr. John Goodwin, and that not for turning away from, but for holding out such truths, as none in Scripture are more evident, or may more warrantably, and that more easily too, be made good, next to the very Scriptures themselves to any equal judge, and even to every man himself, who will not put out the eyes of his own reason and understanding, to be led blindefold and superstitiously by other men's, whereof we can have no other assurance than what is full Popishly implicit? To do the work of an Evangelist, to make full proof of his Ministry, is it, think you, to become an informer of the Civil Magistrate? to provoke them unto wrath and rage against your Brethren of the Independent way? to become an accuser of them, a persecuter, a very executioner, (properties most eminently peculiar to the Arch-enemy both of God, and any thing like godliness in any of his Saints) as you have done most tragically to your eternal infamy, unless God in mercy work your bitterness of spirit into a more Christian temper of mildness and humility? which till attained to, shall continually be the prayer of One, who, till you be such, or at least, less Basilisk-like, must only rest,  
Your friend in private.   

Christian Reader;  
I Conceive it may not a little conduce towards the enlightening the Presbyterian party, to see the whole Catalogue of their errors, did they but once cast an eye upon the fierce clashings and diametrical contradictions, in which their most eminent Champions would inconsiderately involve them: to which purpose, amongst many, I do here in the two next pages present thee with some few of them as in a lookingglass; peruse them impartially, and when thou findest that no distinctions, how sophistical soever, can possibly reconcile such contrarieties, be jealous and suspect the rest; free thy conscience from the thraldom and bondage of these Egyptian Spiritual Taskmasters; disclaim the very countenancing such spirits, who care not what trash and trumperies they vent, so they may gain Proselytes and Contributions: Let Reason be thy guide, Peace and Truth thy aim; and the God of Peace and Truth, who requires no other than a reasonable service, will infallibly be both thy rewarder and reward itself: Farewell.   

Divines of the Church of Scotland, Discipl. pag. 89.  
THe Nationall Assemblies ought always to be received in their own liberty, and have their own place.— And all men, as well Magistrates as inferiors, to be subject to the judgement of the same in Ecclesiastical causes without any reclamation or appellation to any judge, Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm.   

Doctor Adam Stuart's second part of his Duply to the two Brethren, p. 30.  
The Civil Magistrate is subject in a spiritual way unto the Church; He must learn God's will by the Ministers of the Church, who are Gods Ambassadors sent to him; He must be subject to Ecclesiastical censures.   

Mr. William Pryn in the Title page terms his Truth triumphing over Falsehood.  
A just and seasonable vindication of the undoubted Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Right, Legislative, Coercive power of Christian Emperors, Kings, Magistrates, Parliaments in all matters of Religion, Church-government, Discipline, Ceremonies, Manners.   

Author of the Pamphlet, entitled, The readiness of the Scots advance into England, 6. of November, 1643.  
The General Assembly is subordinate to no Civil judicature whatsoever, etc.   

Apollonius Considerate. Quarund. Controvers. etc. p. 108.  
Particular Churches as well as General Assemblies have their authority immediately from God.   

Mr. Thomas Edward's says in his Antapologia, p. 163.  
Junius, Zanchius, Amesius, etc. make the subject matter of political adminstration to be res humanae, humane things and matters; but of Ecclesiastical, divine and sacred.  
Page 166. Is it that you do give a power to the Magistrate in Ecclesiastical things, of the ultimate determination of matters purely Ecclesiastical, which the Presbyterians principles do not, as in matters of doctrine scandal etc. And page 168. Spiritual remedies and means must be used in the Kingdom of Christ, and by them Christ doth his work. And hence in Ecclesiastical Discipline, and those scandals in the Church, which are the point in hand; punishments in the body or in the purse, which can be by the power of the Magistrate, have no place.   

Divines of the Church of Scotland in a book called, A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland, p. 150.  
It followeth that Christ hath committed the power of judging, defining, and making laws about those matters, viz. which concern the worship of God, not to Magistrates, but to the Ministers of the Church.   

Calvin Institut. l. 4. c. 11. sect. 16.  
Since the Church hath of its own any power of compelling, neither may require it (I speak of Civil coercive power) it is the duty of pious Kings and Princes to uphold Religion by their laws, edicts and judgements.   

Junius Controvers. 3. l. 3. c. 26. sect. 12.  
Whereas some things are matters of conscience, and belong to the judicatory of Heaven (that I may speak according to the Canonists;) others humane and temporal appertaining to an earthly judicatory; in sacred, divine, and Church affairs, the judgement is never lawfully committed unto the Civil Magistrate, no, not to the Emperor himself, because holy things are of another Kingdom and cognizance.   

Six Impossibilities which do necessarily accompany persecution for cause of Conscience.  
1 IT is impossible that the Gospel should come to be preached unto all Nations, if men may be questioned for matters of conscience.  
2 It is impossible that such as know but in part, should grow in knowledge or from one measure and degree of faith unto another.  
3 It is impossible that in a rational way there should be a firm secure peace throughout the world, nay not in a Province, City or Town, so long as men make a point of conscience to compel one another to their opinions.  
4 It is impossible to prescribe such a way for suppressing new or different opinions whatsoever, which to any State or Church may seem heretical, but there will still be left a gap, a possibility of fight against God, even when such State or Church think they fight for him most of all.  
5 It is impossible that either the weak believers, misbelievers or unbelievers can be won by our godly conversation as is required, 1 Pet. 2. 12. and 3. 1. 2. 1 Cor. 7. 12. 16. so long as we will not suffer them to live amongst us.  
6 It is impossible for a man to hold fast the truth, or be fully persuaded in his own heart of what he does, of what Religion he makes choice of; unless after he hath searched the Scriptures, and tried the spirits whether they be of God or no, it be lawful for him to reject that which shall appear to him as evil, and adhere to that which seems good in his own judgement and apprehension.   

The Falsehood of Mr. William Prynn's Truth Triumphing, briefly discovered.  
Sir:  
YOur Title says, Truth triumphing over Falsehood, Antiquity over Novelty; you mean, I suppose, Antic Truth over Novel Falsehood; And the truth is, whoever considers your ensuing Discourse, will find it to be Antic Truth, very Antic; such as to the Reformed World of Christians would well near have quite been antiquated, and totally become ridiculous, had not such unskilful Antiquaries as William Prynne of Lincoln's Inn, Esquire, taken so much unnecessary and thankless pains in gathering them up from Dunghills, and by whole Volumes and Impressions to delude and cousin the unstable people of his party; the truth whereof, that himself and all others into whose hands this paper happens, may suddenly perceive; besides the several absurdities and contradictions, let them only take notice, that both the Truth and Antiquity he so much speaks and boasts of, are deduced only from the abominable precedents of superstitious Popery; some whereof I shall particularly, and yet briefly mention, as I find them confusedly pestered amongst themselves, in the undigested rhapsody of his more vain Discourse.  
But before I leave the specious Title thereof, I desire all Readers may observe how amongst others, you term it a Vindication of the undoubted Ecclesiastical jurisdiction Legislative of Christian Emperors by Scripture texts; as if amongst your Antic readings you had discovered some Newfoundland, wherein you would make your over credulous Disciples think there had lived Christian Emperors before, or at the writing of the Scriptures who verified your Antic Doctrine and Assertions.  
This Grand task, like a very Atlas, you pretend to take upon you in Refutation of Mr. John Goodwin, without so much as disturbing any of his arguments, or of the Answers to your twelve Questions, which, both your Epistle and the latter part of your Book take notice of; but because you cannot make a satisfactory Reply, and yet are not so ingenuous as to acknowledge it and yield to Truth, you traduce as malicious and full of virulency against Presbytery and the Scots, page 125. and worse than the Popish Gunpowder plot, Epist. Dedic. Are not these powerful Arguments able to confute the very Apostles had they but been alleged in their days by such an irreconcilable and implacable spirit as is Mr. Prynn's (witness, besides others, his proceed against Colonel Fines?) Surely your friends will think you have better in your budget, or be ashamed of you, when they have leisure but to consider of it.  
'Tis true, you complain that Mr. rutherford's due Rights of Presbytery, Mr. Thomas Edward's his Antiapologia, and Gulielmus Apollonius, with the Vallacrean Ministers, were never answered.  
'Tis likely the Independents do not desire to make, no nor be thought to have any difference with their Scotch Brethren, if possibly to be avoided; and you know the Proverb says, The second blow makes the fray; And though you would not take notice of a completely fit and full answer to Mr. Edward's, and so much the more, because 'twas made by a mild, meek spirited servant of God, quite contrary to that of Mr. Edward's his; I hope Mr. Pryn will no longer say Mr. Edward's is not answered, now that Mr. Chidley hath so clearly and fairly foiled him the second time; And that you may see Apollonius speaks no better Latin for Presbytery than you do English, please but to cast your eye upon cap. 3. p. 44, 45. in answer to the Assemblies letters to the Churches of Zealand, where he says in substance, That the body of Believers in general have not a power of governing and judging Ecclesiastical matters by any spiritual jurisdiction; but that the Presbyters themselves have received this power of ruling immediately from Christ the King of the Church: which, what ever he allege to prove it with, these gross absurdities, besides how many others, will plainly follow:  
1. That all Church Officers have either intruded themselves into their offices, or else they must have been thrust in by some supernatural means; of the latter there is no evidence; of the former there is no allowance.  
2. If the Believers the Brethren did not choose the Officers, so neither might they turn them out.  
3. Then in such case it would be in the Officers power to tyrannize even to the highest extent their own lust should lead them to, without any just authority on earth to question or restrain them; for if their Presbytery, their officiating, their governing, ruling, be by divine Right, and not the people's free choice; however they behave themselves in it, they cannot be turned out by the people.  
But how doth it appear that they have their Office or Eldership immediately from God? Is it sufficient for them to say so? Then may any other number of their Brethren pretend the like.  
He alleadges 2. Cor. 5. 20. Now than we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us: We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God: But may not so many Tinkers use the very same Text, and saying they are Christ's Ambassadors, thrust themselves over any Congregation in the world if this be fair dealing? If there goes no more thereunto but confidence and laying claim, he that can justle hardest will doubtless get it, though Simon Magus could not carry it with money.  
But what kind of Ambassadors did Paul make himself and those Primitive Christians to be? What power did they take upon them? And how fare? They were Christ's Ambassadors; we know them by their entreating, mildness, gentleness and long-suffering, as in the same 2 Cor. 5. 20. with Rom. 15. 1. Gal. 6. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 2 Tim. 4. 2. Eph. 4. 2. But the Prelatical Presbytery, the pretended Ambassadors of Christ in these times, we know to be Wolves that worry, starve or flay the very Lambs of Christ alive; and as if their cruelty were not satisfied with the destruction of their bodies, endeavour what they can, to put a yoke of bondage upon the very souls of their Brethren, Act. 20. from v. 28. to 31. Matth. 20. 25, 26. 3 Joh. 9  
The other place produced is, 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God; but the Presbyters which we speak of, instead of taking upon them a Ministry, lay claim unto a Jurisdiction, Dominion, a Prelaty; Instead of being Stewards, they command, require, expecting lordly obedience and submission; They scorn to use entreating and beseeching, as Paul the aged, 2 Cor. 10. 1. 3. stet pro ratione voluntas is their motto, their symbol.  
Thus we may see the Texts produced to maintain the Presbyterial government to be of Divine Right, make eminently against it; neither is it more evident in Scripture, than from reason and experience, to wit, That what power the Presbyters have and exercise, they have it from man, and not immediately from God, since the Brethren do either explicitly or implicitly make choice of them, and might as well have chosen any other if they had pleased: Church Officers are no more immediately from God, than Civil Officers.  
The truth is, Apollonius acknowledges the Presbytery to be the Representative Church, but denies the means, without which I never yet knew it pretended so much as possible to be constituted: First, he says, Multitudo fidelium in Ecclesia potestatem regendi, & jurisdictione spirituali negotia Ecclesiastica dijudicandi non habet jure Dei, proinde eam senioribus & Presbyteris delegare non potest: Hoc sensu igitur Representativam Ecclesiam non agnoscimus. Nec talem agnoscimus Ecclesiam Representativam quae à multitudine fidelium missa, absolutam potestatem per leges & jurisdictiones actus suos obligandi multitudinem ejus fidem & conscientias subjiciendi; ita ut absque examine ut laudatum susciperet quicquid ab hac Ecclesia statutum foret. At Ecclesiam Representativam hanc ex sacris literis agnoscimus, quae est caetus Presbyterorum à multitudine Ecclesiae electus, qui authoritate & jurisdictione Ecclesiasticâ à Christo accepta Ecclesiae praeest & invigilat, & decretis secundum sacram Scripturam factis & jurisdictione spirituali eam regit: which in effect is thus: First, That Believers in general have no power to judge concerning Church affairs, therefore they cannot give or derive unto the Presbyters what they themselves never had; and secondly, that the Laws of Country are not sufficient to authorize Believers for choosing Church Commissioners, who may afterwards oblige them and their consciences by whatsoever decrees shall be by them agreed upon without examining it themselves; But says he, a Representative Church is an Assembly of Presbyters chosen by the multitude, who having received Ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction from Christ, do watch over the Church, and govern it according to the Scripture. To him therefore, or Mr. Pryn that quotes him, I should desire to make these following Queries.  
The truth is, Apollonius acknowledges the Presbytery to be the Representative Church, but denies the means, without which I never yet knew it pretended so much as possible to be constituted: First, he says, Multitudo fidelium in Ecclesia potestatem regendi, & jurisdictione spirituali negotia Ecclesiastica dijudicandi non habet jure Dei, proinde eam senioribus & Presbyteris delegare non potest: Hoc sensu igitur Representativam Ecclesiam non agnoscimus. Nec talem agnoscimus Ecclesiam Representativam quae à multitudine fidelium missa, absolutam potestatem per leges & jurisdictiones actus suos obligandi multitudinem ejus fidem & conscientias subjiciendi; ita ut absque examine ut laudatum susciperet quicquid ab hac Ecclesia statutum foret. At Ecclesiam Representativam hanc ex sacris literis agnoscimus, quae est caetus Presbyterorum à multitudine Ecclesiae electus, qui authoritate & jurisdictione Ecclesiasticâ à Christo accepta Ecclesiae praeest & invigilat, & decretis secundum sacram Scripturam factis & jurisdictione spirituali eam regit: which in effect is thus: First, That Believers in general have no power to judge concerning Church affairs, therefore they cannot give or derive unto the Presbyters what they themselves never had; and secondly, that the Laws of Country are not sufficient to authorize Believers for choosing Church Commissioners, who may afterwards oblige them and their consciences by whatsoever decrees shall be by them agreed upon without examining it themselves; But says he, a Representative Church is an Assembly of Presbyters chosen by the multitude, who having received Ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction from Christ, do watch over the Church, and govern it according to the Scripture. To him therefore, or Mr. Pryn that quotes him, I should desire to make these following Queries.  
At what time do the Presbyters receive their Church power from Christ? By what means and mediation? Whether before they be chosen Presbyters or afterwards? If before; Whether did this power lie idle in them till they became Presbyters? And might it not possibly have continued so all their life time, if they had never been chosen Presbyters, or are they predestinated to be chosen, when Christ has once made a deed of gift unto them of some considerable proportion of spiritual power? But if we see they cannot exercise any spiritual power until they be chosen Presbyters, and that we might have chosen others as well as they; Do you think the people will ever be brought to think they have any other jurisdiction than what they give, and suffer them to enjoy? Whether do the Presbyters ever part from their spiritual power after they have once received it? and how come they to lose possession and the exercise thereof ever after? Surely if these Queries be well answered, all the power the Presbyters have, besides what the people derive unto them, will be one of the strongest fantastical delusions and Chimeras which ever yet was heard of.  
But because you make so much of Apollonius, since he is upon the Stage, if the indifferent Reader please to run over these few following passages, he will not only find him contradict himself, but Mr. Pryn also in the very title and whole subject matter of his Book: Mr. Pryn throughout this volume of his affirms and endeavours to prove, that, Princes and Parliaments have the sole sovereign and legislative power in all matters of Religion both for Discipline and Doctrine.  
On the contrary Apollonius says it is in Ecclesiastical Assemblies and Synods in these words, c. 6. p. 107. Competit ex jure Dei Ecclesiis in Classibus & Synodis junctis, potestas Canones legesque Ecclesiasticas ferendi, quae omnes Ecclesias particulares unius Provinciae aut Regni constringunt ad obedientiam: which is in effect, That, Ecclesiastical Assemblies, Synods, have by Divine Right a power of making Canons and Ecclesiastical Laws which do bind unto obedience all the particular Churches of a Province or Kingdom, (he may as well say of all the world:) and p. 109. He tells us that, That Union and Communion of particular Churches in Ecclesiastical Discipline and Government common to them all, which is exercised in Synods and Classes, is of Divine Right, and proposed to us in the example of the Apostolical Church, for imitation.  
Thus is Apollonius point blank in opposition to Mr. Pryn; neither is he at better agreement with himself, for p. 108. He says, The power of Synods doth not take away or disturb the Ecclesiastical power and liberty of particular Churches; but serves to direct, conserve and promote their Ecclesiastical power and liberty, that they may become more efficacious, powerful and fit to edify; and yet p. 144. He says; Classibus & Synodis competit authoritativa quaedam inspectio, & judicium non tantum discretionis sed & jurisdictionis & approbationis in excommunicationibus à particularibus Ecclesiis peragendis; ita ut nulla Ecclesia particularis quae communionem suam Ecclesiasticam cum aliis Ecclesiis in Synodis & Classibus colit, aliquod suae communionis membrum excommunicare, & Sathanae tradere legitimè possit absque Classis aut Synodi authoritativo judicio & approbatione: that is, There is due to Classes and Synods a certain authorative inspection and judgement, not only of discretion, but also of jurisdiction and approbation in excommunications to be passed by particular Churches; so that no particular Church which keeps Ecclesiastical fellowship with other Churches assembled in a Synod may lawfully excommunicate or deliver up to Satan any of their members, without the authoritative judgement and approbation of the Synod; and to mend the matter he yet tells us, p. 108. That the power which particular Churches have, is granted them immediately from ●od, not derived unto them by Synods; as also, that the power of Synods is granted them immediately from God, not derived to them from particular Churches: which is as much as if he had said, that each of them must be Independent and absolute of itself; and yet one must submit unto the other; contradiction upon contradiction, or else I understand it not.  
But to return again to Mr. Pryn himself; who would think that any one who had but the head-piece of a man, much less one that takes upon him to be a Champion, should be so miserably transported with vainglory as thus to play the Bragadocio, and fill the world with books and pamphlets as if he had got the victory, or spoken somewhat to the purpose, when yet it may appear upon due search of an indifferent judge, that neither in the whole catalogue of his books which was lately printed, nor in whatsoever came since to light, will there be found so much as one leaf truly worth reading, or any whit availing him in this controversy which he (not without recanting in his own heart I believe by this time, to see he thrives no better in it) hath undertaken against the Independents; remaining still so shameless, that not being able to conceal, or any longer to uphold his vain undertaking, flies unto the High Court of Parliament, endeavouring to exasperate their power against such, whose prayers and contributions, in likelihood, have been the only, or chiefest means to keep him thus long alive?  
But alas, what can we expect of this volume of Civill-Common-Law-Divinity of yours, when you acknowledge it to be distracted subitane collections, indigested nocturnal lucubrations (you may like enough say dreams) borrowed from the hours allotted to your necessary natural rest, Epist. Dedic. One would have thought the Answerer of your subitane apprehensions digested into 12 considerable serious questions, when you confessed, you had neither leisure nor opportunity, had given you a seasonable and sufficient item, not to trouble the world with such trash again; and yet you are not ashamed to say you published them principally for satisfaction of the learned, and such as most seduce the ignorant; when doubtless such learning as this of yours, is good for nothing else but to seduce the ignorant, who more admire a margin full of rusty antic Authors, than whole leaves and chapters of arguments and sound reason; and according to your own arguing you do hereby as you think, with your indigested readings of superstitious Popish writers, enable such, as you call learned, still farther to seduce the ignorant.  
You tell the Parliament in your Epistle Dedicatory, that having had the honour of vindicating their sovereign power in all Civil and Military affairs, you expected a quietus est from all other coutroversies concerning the jurisdiction of Parliaments especially in Ecclesiastical matters: Surely you might have said with as much truth and reason, that having vindicated the sovereign power of the Roman Emperors, suppose the persecuting Nero, Domitian, Trajan, or who else lived in any of the Apostles or Primitive times, you had likewise vindicated their legislative power in matters of Christianity, about propagating the Gospel, etc. justifying them in putting to death our Saviour, and so many of his Saints: The just rights and power of Magistrates, are to all Magistrates alike; all one, whether they be Christian or Pagan: Their power is given them as Magistrates, not as Christians; and the subjection which we were commanded in the Gospel, Matth. 22. 21. Rom. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 12. 13. to render them, was as to Heathen Magistrates, since at that time there were no other.  
But why tro do you say, how most men imagined that controversies about the Parliaments jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters had been put to eternal silence, when our lordly Prelates lost their votes and session in Parliament by a public law? Did you not intent that Presbyters should succeed Bishops? or did you think them to be less lordly than their Reverend Fathers from whom they spring? Surely you show yourself very ignorant of the Presbyterians pretences, or endeavour much to conceal them.  
Methinks you might have seen a Pamphlet entitled The readiness of the Scots advance into England, wherein, besides others, is a letter bearing date the 6 of November, 1643. from Edinburgh, upon occasion as it relates of certain propositions made by the French Agent unto the Privy Council there, which says, The General Assembly is subordinate to no Civil judicature whatsoever, etc. And because I find Mr. Pryn so captious, and apt to seek subterfugies; lest he should cast this off as the bare assertion of some Anonimous, he may, if he please, find not a little to the same purpose in A. Steward's Observations and Annotations upon the Apologetical Narration, in these words; The Civil Magistrate arrogates not unto himself (not so much as) any directive power in matters of Religion, p. 5. The Civil Magistrate arrogates no spiritual authority to himself, p. 48. The Parliament indeed is the supreme Judicature, severe Tribunal, the most sacred Refuge, etc. in Civil causes, but it pretends no directive power in matters of Religion, by teaching, or preaching, or judging of controversies of Religion, nor any executive power that is intrinsecall to the Church, as in the vocation, deposition, and suspension of Ministers, etc. which are merely spiritual, p. 6. If your meaning be that the Parliament should judge between the Independents and Presbyterians, you go against the Parliaments intentions, ibid. and lastly. For intrinsecall spiritual power, it is not in your power to grant the Civil Magistrate any at all; neither can you give him more spiritual obedience than Scripture permitteth you, or give him a part of the spiritual power which you have received of God: It is only in God who can give power therein to any man, we dare not be so bold, p. 28. All this the Answerer of your 12 considerable Questions, as you called them, auvertised you of in p. 26. And for Apollonius whom you so much glory in, as I told you a little before, he says that both particular Churches, as well as General Assemblies have their authority immediately from God, p. 108. which diametrical variance amongst these Presbyterian Champions, doubtless must needs be ominous, and presage no less than ruin, so much more speedier as they protract the reconciling them: In which respect if Mr. Pryn would be so good for the Gospel's sake, as to give the Independents rest, and take A. S. with Apollonius to task; who knows but that they may do some good upon one another? I am sure it were not more than needful, each of their fancies abounding with excrescencies, which they might much advantage each other in cutting off.  
But what availeth it to have the head of one lordly Episcopal Prelate cut off, when a Hydra, a multitude, above 77 times as many Presbyterial Prelates succeed instead thereof? Prelatia, Prelaty, Prelacy, as we use it vulgarly, is a preferring one before another; and the Presbyterial government is much more truly said to be Prelatical, than either Episcopal or Papal; unless you will say that neither Episcopal nor Papal be Prelatical at all; for in either of those Governments there are but few Prelates; but in the other there are many; to wit, so many Prelates as there are Presbyters, each whereof is an absolute Prelate, that is one preferred above his Brethren.  
You speak of the defunct Prelates souls transmigrated into the Independents, acknowledging them for the most part really cordial in their affections, actions to the Parliament and Church of England, for which, and for their piety, you say, they are to be highly honoured: But me thinks this amounts to little less than contradiction; Can the earthly Tabernacles of Independents, with the defunct Prelates souls in them make men of piety, cordial in their affections, actions to the Parliament, and Church of England highly to be honoured? I wish Mr. Pryn would tell me whether it were the Prelatical souls, or their earthly Tabernacles for whose sake he casts this grand Elogium on them: Doubtless the soul must have pre-eminence of the body, unless your mind be altered, and hold the immortality of the soul, which you seemed to discountenance in your 12 Inconsiderable serious Questions, p. 7. But if Independents having Prelatical souls in their earthly Tabernacles are for the most part men of piety highly to be honoured; why should not the Prelates be so too? The truth is, I cannot deny but Mr. Pryn was once by more than a many and they godly too, held to be a man of piety, and was highly honoured; in whose books and pamphlets, notwithstanding, which have been published of late, may be observed, more corrupted principles, and a far worse spirit of persecution, than ever was discovered in the late Delinquent decapilated Archbishop, from his first ascending unto his highest growth of authority and greatness; and in the Diary of his life, which I suppose Mr. Pryn printed not to do him honour (though after ages will not be tied to be no wiser than Mr. Pryn) I find such eminent signs of a moral noble pious mind, according to such weak principles as he had been bred up in, (his own persecuting disposition disabling him from being instructed better;) and particularly so ingenuous a passage in his Funeral Sermon whereby he justifies the Parliament in putting him to death, as I may safely profess unto all the world, I never could yet discern any thing near of like piety or ingenuity to be in Mr. Pryn, by all that ever I yet heard of him from first to last, or by all the books of his which ever came to may hands, wherein yet I have hitherto done him the honour in being at charges to buy as many, I mean one of every sort, as I could ever meet withal.  
But I wish seriously that both Presbyterial Prelates, and all others now surviving, who are any ways possessed with this unruly spirit, this legion of persecution, would, even for their own sakes, not so suddenly forget the little late Arch-Prelate, though his head be off; since for my part, through some small knowledge and experience of him both in his life and death, I am fully satisfied, that his endeavouring to subvert the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, and introducing another Religion, for which he was charged, and suffered death, arose only from that depraved principle of enduring no body of any other Religion or opinion but his own: I hope both Mr. Pryn and others of the same allay may think it worth revolving in their saddest thoughts: Persecuters are worse than birds and beasts of rapine amongst the rest, whom even Nature teaches to associate and join together against this common and most pestilent of all enemies: Bears and Lions are not so hurtful in a Country, as a misguided zeal grown furious, is torrent like, and carries all before it: Such whose Religion teaches to persecute, or but prevails upon to make use of Civil coercive means for differences of Religion of Opinion, will easily be carried on from one degree unto another, until their ends be compassed, whether by fire or water, Gun-powder-plots, or Maritime Invasions; Nothing comes amiss to them whom Religion once innitiates with the cruelties of compelling consciences.  
'Tis worth observing, how whilst the truth constrained Mr. Pryn to acknowledge the Independents piety, with their real and cordial affections and actions unto the Parliament and Church of England in his Epistle to the Parliament, he tells them only that they are justly to be blamed as great disturbers of our public peace and unity (the better to amuse them) whilst in his other pamphlets and this farraginous hotchpotch of obsolet, Antic Popish Histories and Precedents, for the most part, which perhaps he thinks few or none of them will vouchsafe to read through, he seeks to captivate and poison the people's understanding into an evil conception of the Independents, and so incense them, whilst he himself exclaims, traduces, and persecutes them, unto his power, with fire and faggot, merely for nothing but because they sue and seek for, in all humility and meekness, a possibility of keeping a good conscience both towards God and man; This is all they desire as touching Ecclesiastical matters; let Mr. Pryn, who thinks himself to have deserved so well of Parliaments, become their Advocate, procure but thus much for them, and take the rest for his fees.  
He flourishes, and cries out against the Arminians of the Netherlands about ascribing, at the first, unto the Civil Magistrate, a power of passing ultimate judgements in all controversies of Faith and other Ecclesiastical matters arising in the Church; and afterwards contracting or denying such a power belonging to the Civil Magistrate: Might he not even as well, nay much better blame former Parliaments of England for first acknowledging the Pope head of the English Church, and afterwards renouncing of the Pope (much against his Holiness his good liking no doubt) to choose Henry 8. in his stead? And if Henry 8. then but a Papist were a fit Head of the Church; Queen Elizabeth was no less: (though the Papists cry out of a female Head of the Church of England, as much as Protestants of a female Pope of Rome) and then surely King Charles must have succeeded in this Headship of the Church of England, and here I desire to leave him, and yet to find him here rather than a Presbyterian Synodall Head, until Mr. Pryn resolve me what it is to be Head of the English Church; what his Power and Authority is over the Church's Body; whether the Body may or can do any thing without the Head: And whether any, or what power one member or part of the Body hath over another: But before you put pen to paper, or your paper to the Press at least, that you will remember how King Charles the only supreme Head of the English Church according to the oath of Supremacy, is now at Oxford, with such, and so great a part of the English Nationall Church, which if they should call another Assemby of Divines would likely pass judgement in sundry points of Faith and other Ecclesiastical matters, quite contrary to the Parliament and Divines at Westminster.  
Page 29. of your Discourse you quote a passage out of the last Convocation Canons that had the &c. in the tail, which you approve of, saying; The power to call and dissolve Counsels both Nationall and Provincial is the true right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms or Territories: Now if this be so; to what purpose do the Assembly of Divines at Westminster spend time in sitting there? Why should the Commonwealth be at 4s. a day charges for each of them? Why do they not repair unto their flocks? Where will King Charles his Writ appear for summoning them? and for want thereof, will not all the pains they take be lost? Might not therefore the disturbance and offence they give their Independent Brethren have well been spared? Are not both Houses of Parliament tacitly aspersed by Mr. Pryn for causing them thus to assemble without King Charles his Writ, and so against his true Rights and Prerogative Royal? and lastly, if this be not an absolute making void and null, whatsoever the Assembly shall conclude on, or the Parliament establish by their advice, besides a justifying of the Independents for not submitting thereunto, let Mr. Pryn himself upon review be judge: For certainly it will seem strange to every body else, how Mr. Pryn producing, besides others, in page 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. no less than four of King Charles his letters, only to prove the due right of Christian Princes for calling such Assemblies, can any ways make legal the present sitting of the Divines at Westminster; or how he can make atonement for himself to give occasion that both their assembling and whole proceed may thus be called in question.  
But p. 88 you bring in a Parenthesis (which doubtless the Assembly will think had far better been left out) that the assent of the Clergy is only by way of assistance and advice, not simply necessary to the Parliaments determining what is heresy; however, for my part, I do not much dissent with you therein; and if the Assembly did like as well thereof, should think it might somewhat qualify their over forward and eager appetites, which else might too likely lead them to declare those ways heretical, after which Paul was not ashamed to say he worshipped the God of his Fathers, Act. 24. 14.  
But may not both Kings and Parliaments reprove you (like an unlucky Cow, who having given great quantity of milk kicks it down with her foot) for contradicting yourself, and plundering them so speedily of all Ecclesiastical power which before in a good mood you cast upon them so liberally without allowance, saying p. 141. That there is the self same reason and equity for several combined Churches in a Council, Synod, Presbytery to have a coercive power over every particular Congregation in their limits, as for any particular Congregation to claim or exercise a jurisdiction in point of direction or correction, over any or every particular member of it. This assertion, I conceive, is yet more prodigious than all your Popish precedents with which you ever were acquainted, and I believe that never any body hereafter will so much as acknowledge you in this opinion: Whereas the Title of your Book and whole Discourse in general ascribe all power and authority unto the Civil Magistrate both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters; This passage gives the same unto a Synod, even a Coercive, that is, all Power and Authority, and that both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters, provided they do but colour and call them Ecclesiastical, for nothing of Coercive can be otherwise than Civil properly: If you excuse yourself by saying you meant a Synod ratified by Authority of Parliament; I answer, that you must mean a Synod so ratified by Authority of Parliament, as some Presbyterians of Scotland mean when they expect that Parliaments must do it ex officio, whether they be willing or unwilling; and if your meaning had been otherwise, you might have brought your comparison between a Parliament and particular Congregations, not a Synod; besides that, the power of direction, which you acknowledge to be in every particular Congregation towards any or every member thereof, I do not find to be granted them, or so much as meddled with by Authority of Parliament; so likewise, if you will have it any ways hold parallel, you must mean the Synods Canons so confirmed by authority of Parliament, as that the Parliaments confirmation must still wait upon and follow the Synods beck and requisition.  
That part of the Statute 37. H. 8. c. 17. which you bring to establish the King Head of the Church, says, That by Holy Scripture All Authority and Power is wholly given to him to hear and determine All manner of causes Ecclesiastical, and to correct All vice and sin whatsoever, and such persons as his Majesty shall appoint thereunto: So that whereas a negative voice which hath been, and is still the great controversy betwixt the King and Parliament in Civil matters only; this Statute 37. H. 8. c. 17. with Mr. pryn's opinion and consequences thereupon, do freely grant the King in all spiritual causes and affairs: Surely if all Englishmen did agree with Mr. Pryn in this particular; the King might like enough be willing for the present to part from his negative voice in Civil matters, in full assurance of regaining it in recompense of Pardons and Dispensations, which he might grant by virtue of his Headship of the Church, with the sole authority of correcting all vice and sin, and final determining all causes Ecclesiastical.  
The truth is, that Christian Kings and Princes have de facto done much with Civil censures in maintenance of Religion, whether right or wrong, established by Law: But the point is, what they did, or might do lawfully, de jure: Whence is their power derived? Surely the power of Princes pretending to the name of Christian, whether Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Brownists or Anabaptists, and even of Turkish and Pagan Princes is all alike: So that whatsoever power the best Reformed Princes can justly assume unto themselves in Ecclesiastical affairs; even Popish Kings and the Great Turk may fully pretend and act as much in and about the Churches within their Territories, and neither of them be more disobeyed or resisted than the other: The power is given to them as Magistrates and Princes, not as Christians; otherwise they might be deposed at any time if they became Antichristian, which is exploded for a Popish doctrine.  
But as Artaxerxes did not make that Decree for building of the Temple out of love or conscience unto the God of Ezra, Ezra 7. from v. 21. to 26. So can it not be concluded from Kings and Magistrates interposing their Civil power about matters merely Ecclesiastical, that therefore they might and did do it by full authority from God; since by the self same manner of arguing, it would follow that Popery were the truest Religion, because most Christian Princes, as they are called, have established Popery.  
But it may have been observed, how Princes and Magistrates in all ages who have had the Sword of Justice in their keeping, have for the most part been kept in an ignorant and superstitious overawfulnesse by the Clergy of those times, who still for their own private ends, prevailed with them to countenance and enforce their Constitutions by coercive means upon the people; by which device of theirs, both Prince and People became so entangled and ensnared to them by degrees; that if either of them afterwards sought to withdraw themselves forth from this bondage, they still found such a party of the other, as was able to curb and bring them again into subjection of Holy Church; as they pretended, though never so Popish or otherwise corrupt; And this series of corrupted and corrupting precedents with their tyrannical dominion over men's faith and consciences, which the Apostle Paul disclaimed, 2 Cor. 1. 24. Mr. Pryn produces as orthodox, requiring it should be established after the manner of Medes and Persians irrevocable, and made very Scripture of; ascribing by this Antic rabble of quotations as great a power unto the Civil Magistrate in spiritual matters as ever any Pope of Rome assumed unto himself.  
But if the Civil Magistrate must be masters of our faith, determining all controversies in Church affairs; why, I pray, was Mr. Pryn so refractory to the Bishops who then were authorised by the Civil Magistrate of the united Kingdom, which now to the universal grief, is so mortally divided? These are hard questions I confess; but Mr. Pryn will get the more glory when he knows how to answer them.  
If the Arminians upon the improving of their studies about their other controversies, or the Civil Magistrates bade employing a power ascribed, but not due to them, saw their error and amended; must they be upbraided? I would be loath that Mr. Pryn should want of such encouragements of providence and mercy, lest it might hinder his repentance of what, I fear me, he is too highly guilty; God is contented to toll us to him and to his truth, even with variety of enticements and provocations: frail mankind is dull and stupid; no less than God's infinite wisdom together with his unmeasurable bounty will serve to animate and raise us up to new discoveries of knowledge and obedience.  
Take this then for your learning, that whosoever attributes to any man or Magistrate, a power of imposing any thing upon the consciences of others in matters of Religion, do justify them in whatsoever they impose, though it be erroneous, so they impose according to their own judgements and understandings, condemning the other for not submitting, though it be unto erroneous impositions: for if the one may impose, his own reason must teach him what he may impose; And if he have just authority to impose, the other is obliged in conscience to obey; and so by consequence, should be engaged to submit implicitly to whatsoever superstitious ceremonies and worship were put upon him.  
In your Epistle to the Reader, you say the Independents may upon the same grounds deny the Catholic Church, an article of the Creed, upon which they deny a Nationall Church; as though so many more particular Churches might not as well make one Catholic, as several, but yet so many fewer Nationall Churches; or as though particular Christians who lived straggling in Turkey or any Pagan Countries where they could not possibly be members of a Nationall Church, could not possibly be members of the Catholic Church.  
You accuse the Independents as believing most things with a reserve, according to their present light, with a liberty of changing as new light shall be discovered to them: But did ever any man so overshoot himself? Certainly this is so high a character of the Independents compleatest posture ensuring or growing stature in the School of Christ, as could be applied unto them, wherein they glory not a little, and place it as the only groundwork and foundation, without which they cannot grow in grace from one degree of faith unto another, until they become perfect Men, perfect Saints, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, Eph. 4. 12, 13. and yet your Law-Divinity knows no better, than to say, this is in truth to bring a Skepticisme into Religion.  
And whereas you say their principles dissolve all relations, all subordinations, and humane society itself: I answer, that this is even as if you should affirm a Turk not to be a man, unless he will be a Christian, unless he will be a member of some Nationall Church; nay, of every Nationall Church, since his not being of any one is all alike prejudicial or damageable: But they are the Presbyterial and such other Prelatical tenets which destroy, and expressly murder all humane society, in avouching as William Pryn with his ense recidendum, and A. Stewart, does, that says whosoever is cut off or cast out of the Church, must likewise be cast out, and cut off from the Civil state, p. 166. in 2. part of his Duply, etc.  
Sir, I confess I have spent more time and paper about your Epistles than I intended, which if you and the Reader will but excuse, I shall endeavour to make you amends in part by troubling you the less with your rusty, musty rubbish of Popish times and precedents.  
Page 1. Your first proposition is, That the calling of Synods or Assemblies about Church matters belongs not to Bishops, Ministers, nor private or particular Congregations; but to Princes or supreme temporal Magistrates and Powers; So that if the Magistrate be Turkish under whose jurisdiction live many Protestant Greeks, I mean such as disavow the Pope with the greatest part of his unsound doctrine; If he be Popish as the Emperor of Germany, with the Kings of France and Polonia, in whose territories inhabit millions of Protestants, all which Protestants must never meet together in Synods and Assemblies about Church affairs, because those Emperors and Kings are never likely to summon Synods for them, or put them in mind to do it themselves.  
You still quote multitudes of texts to prove your Propositions with, in hopes perhaps that if one fail you another may do the deed; but you happen to be so successelesse therein, as if you used still to press the Scriptures which came first to hand, ranking them in your margin whether they would or no; which 'tis true, has stood you in stead no more, than a forced Militia does the King or Parliament; & yet doubtless, that God with whom the Word was from the beginning, and who is the very Word, Joh. 1. 1. will not approve that his blessed Word should be made use 〈◊〉 and employed so vainly, impertinently, preposterously, rashly, and irreverently: Wherefore I would gladly advise Mr. Pryn for the future, to insert the very words themselves of every text he quotes, in hopes that if he do but once read them over by himself, he will find they make nothing to the purpose, and so have ingenuity enough to leave them out.  
After you have done belying sacred Scripture, you fly for assistance unto profane, and from thence tell us by whose authority the first General Counsels were convocated; which proves nothing else, but that whether it be King or Parliament that have the strongest sword, or shall prevail and get the better over the other in this Civil War; the Assembly of Divines now at Westminster must sit no longer, not any of their coat ever meet again above two in company, unless the present ruling party please, lest they be termed a Conventicle, and fall into a Pramunire.  
But by what authority trow did the pretended Synod of Jerusalem assemble? Act. 15. What Kings or Parliaments Writs, or Letters-patents had they for so doing? What Court countenance did they procure to second their proceed? for my part, I had rather follow such a precedent, and err with them, if you will needs esteem it such; than degenerate with the weaker Christians of after ages, in supplicating of Powers and Princes in such a manner, whereby they should be moved to think I granted them such a power, as God never gave them, or confirmed them in, supposing they had a just liberty of denying, what through want perhaps of Christian courage only, or the Civil powers protection, I durst not put in practice without their order and commission.  
Page 4. I am glad to find you acknowledging a passage of the Bishop's letters, wherein they return thanks to Valentinian and Theodosius for assembling the Council of Illyria, which says,  nemo deesset volens; nemo cog●tur invitus; That no Bishop might be absent who was desirous to be there, and none compelled who were unwilling to be present; from whence follows an irrefragable consequence, that their Counsels, Decrees or Canons, did not bind all people universally, but only such as of their own accords submitted thereunto: If Mr. Pryn will but procure the same just privilege for his Independent Brethren, they will have the less occasion of exceptions, if he domineer over the volunteers of the Presbyterian party.  
Page 87. You say, The Statutes in Q. Mary's days repealing divers Acts touching Religion in K. Edward 6. his Reign, and setting up Mass and the old [Popish] Liturgies again, do sufficiently evidence the jurisdiction of our Princes and Parliaments in matters of the Church and Religion; which is in effect; first, That this present Parliament, or any other hereafter have a jurisdiction to set up Popery again, and so Judaisme or Turkism, even what they please; for all Parliaments have equal power: And secondly, that if they do set up Popery, Judaisme or Turkism, that then all England must submit thereunto, and consequently become Papists, Jews and Turks (or Hypocrites which is more worse then either:) for whatsoever a Magistrate, especially the supreme, has jurisdiction in, that, he may justly and lawfully put in execution; and that, the people may not disobey, upon pain of sinning, and danger of damnation, Rom 13. 2.  
But under what colour and pretence than did Mr. Pryn refuse subjection unto Church government by Episcopacy, and according to the common-prayer-book? Do not take it ill that I spur the question so soon unto you again; I may ask it ofttimes, before you will be able to answer once, without condemning yourself according to your principles and laws, by which you proyoke justice against the Independents.  
Were not Episcopacy and the common-prayer-book established by Act of Parliament, which had as great a power than as this present Parliament has now, or any other can have hereafter? Nay, you say expressly, p. 88 That the Statute, 1 Eliz. chap. 2. for uniformity of Common-Prayer and Service in the Church, and administration of the Sacraments, enjoining conformity under temporal and Ecclesiastical punishments is an irrefragable proof of the Parliaments power in all Church matters: What was it tro, that then encouraged you to withstand the jurisdiction of Parliaments when they agreed not with your own humour and disposition, which you now press so violently upon the tender consciences of your Independent Brethren? Can there appear any other clearer reason for it, to the apprehension of standers by, moderate men even of Mr. pryn's best friends, or any that have their wits about them; than that Mr. Pryn having suffered (for Christ's cause as he thought, to think more charitably of him than he doth of others) upon false principles, grew weary of it, and resolved that as the Bishops domineered and persecuted him; so he would repair himself by persecuting others?  
But did the only wise God, think we, resolve to create man after his own Image, to estate him in such a sad and execrable condition, worse than that of Beasts, Wolves, Bears, and Tigers; as that he must necessarily tyrannize, or be tyrannised over both in soul & body? and yet it cannot possibly be otherwise, if you will grant a power to Kings, Parliaments or Synods to require conformity from others in any thing which is not agreeable to their consciences; for if such a latitude and height of jurisdiction be granted but to the more orthodox Kings, Parliaments and Synods; both Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists and Independents, pretending and really taking themselves to be the most orthodox, are bound in conscience to lay claim to, and put in execution this power of compelling all the world unto their uniformity; and so infallibly produce the most cursed enmity and hatred betwixt all people but differing in opinion, exceeding that of Cannibals; or the profoundest of antipathies between any irrational creatures whatsoever; and therefore you are mightily mistaken p. 96. to be so confident that Independents would preach universal obedience and subjection under penalties Ecclesiastical and Civil, if the Parliament should establish an Independent government, which are clearly incompatible, and contradictory to themselves and principles; the ignorance whereof, though to some it may seem as slight, as easily apprehended by a willing and enquiring spirit, I persuade myself, hath not only transported Mr. Pryn himself, but many others into multitudes of impertinencies and absurdities.  
Oh that Mr. Pryn therefore, or any one of the Presbyterian way, who wishes well to godliness, would but please to cast an eye upon John the Baptist, chap. 10. and considerately give their opinion, whether to be persecuted be not even the most infallible mark of the true Church and Saints of Christ; notwithstanding most Christians thus persecute one another.  
Page 94. and 109. You say the opposites to Parliaments Ecclesiastical jurisdiction have formerly and more especially in this present Parliament, addressed several petitions to this High and Honourable Court for Reformation of the Church, etc. wherein, under favour, I conceive you have misapprehended their proceed and intentions, which doubtless were for the most part, or best affected, that the Parliament, in whom they acknowledged the sovereign power to reside, would permit, countenance and encourage all godly men of gifts in preaching down Heresies, errors, Idolatry, Popery, etc. many whereof had either been formerly established by law, or not permitted to be preached down through the Prelate's corruption contrary to the Law.  
This is the best, even all the Reformation, which the Civil Magistrate, as Civil, has a capacity of compassing against all Heresies and errors, which must necessarily be vanquished by the sword of the Spirit, and cannot possibly be suppressed by carnal weapons or the Civil sword; they may destroy the flesh, but cannot properly be said to touch and work upon the spirit.  
Page 109. After a frantic, infectious, pestilential fever-fit of railing, the likest that of Billingsgate, you tell Mr. John Goodwin, with much gravity, forsooth, but far more saucy ignorance, that it was no less than high presumption for him, being a mere Divine, and a man altogether ignorant of, or unskilful in the ancient Rights and privileges of our Parliament (as his writings demonstrate, and himself intimates, page 5.) to undertake and determine, to judge of them so peremptorily, and in such manner as he has done, etc. But how come you trow, a mere Lawyer (I wish you were good at that, at any thing) to take so much upon you in Divinity, (if Divinity and the knowledge of Parliamentary privileges be inconsistent, as you seem to insinuate) to pin the Gospel with its propagation and whole affairs upon Civil powers; the greatest share, or major part, whereof (which should both by your polity and divinity be submitted to) is in the hands of Turks of Infidels? where's your licence from the Court of Heaven for subjugating the Gospel of peace to your litigious lawcases and precedents, most whereof are all Popish? To sacrifice the Scriptures, the Word, even God himself, Joh. 1. 1. whole Christianity, both Discipline and Doctrine unto Acts of Parliaments, which have been heretofore so Popish, and may possibly be so again hereafter; to which according to your grounds, the whole Kingdom must conform and be obedient not only passively but actively, and that for conscience sake?  
But what lawful calling or warrant have you (if a man may be so bold with you as you are with other men) from God's Word, or our Laws, to handle the Jurisdiction and Rights of Parliament more than Mr. Goodwin? Was not his Imprimatur as legal or authentical as yours? Do you think the Parliament had not far rather hear the submissive cautions and mementoes of a loving tender and affectionate remembrancer, as in the presence of the God of Heaven, whose duty is to teach all Nations, Matth. 28. 19 as occasion is offered, from Parliament to peasant; than be flattered and soothed up with fusty sweep of Popish precedents, by one, who yet (I think) pretends to be (no Canon but) a Protestant Lawyer, best versed at Common-pleas and Chancery bills? Certainly 'tis none of Mr. pryn's least oversights thus to bring himself, a Lawyer, whose wrangling faculty sets and keeps all people at worse war amongst themselves, than all foreign enemies can do, with Mr. Goodwin, whose zeal, piety, and fervent interceding towards the Throne of Grace for reconciling unto the God of peace, not only all such as join with him, but whosoever else are capable thereof, hath been heretofore, and is at present well known to all the godly and well affected in or about the City both far and near, which does and still will tend so much more to Mr. pryn's great reproach and infamy, for thus shamefully traducing him?  
If Mr. Pryn were a man truly godly and conscientious, he might long ere this time have considered the unlawfulness of his very Calling, according to the greatest part of Lawyer's practice, in entertaining more causes than they can possibly take care of as they ought, in taking of excessive fees, prolonging suits, and so involving the whole Kingdom in their sophistical quirks, tricks and quillens, as that a man can neither buy nor sell, speak nor do any thing, but he must be liable to fall into their talons, without ever being able to redeem himself; the Lawyers having most of their mysteries written in a little less than heathen language, and detaining us in such ignorance or captivity, as that we may not plead nor understand our own cases; by which and such like devises of theirs, they are become the greatest grievance, crying loudest to Heaven for justice to be done upon them by this Parliament, next to the corrupted depraved Clergymen.  
Page 153. When you are told that the Apostolical Church of Jerusalem, Act. 15. (improperly by you and all Popish writers called a Synod, and Grand precedent for Synods) was infallible, and therefore might say it pleased the Holy Ghost and them; and that, since you cannot say of whatsoever you shall do, that it doth infallibly please the Holy Ghost, and for that cause may not be permitted to make binding determinations: you answer (most appositely no doubt) that the Apostles preached by an infallible spirit, ergo, none ought to preach but such as have alike infallible spirit with the Apostles.  
But I wonder Mr. pryn's wits are thus a woolgathering; or rather that he proclaims it to the world so much; for I must needs say, I never knew them otherwise! Cannot you let Independents preach by way of instruction, advice, etc. though you were not sure whether they have the Holy Ghost or no; as well as they give you leave to do the like if you can; yea, to sit and vote in Parliaments and Synods, enacting Ordinances, Decrees, and what you please, even as much as your pretended Synod of Jerusalem (call it a Parliament too if you will) since there is no remedy, though to my knowledge you are brim full of little else than all fallibility? But when you have attained to be a Parliament or Synod-man, do no more than that Apostolical infallible Assembly of Jerusalem did; say, we do well if we observe your Ordinances and Decrees; and if we do not, we may do better, and therein be confident you say well infallibly: Thus you hear how you may become a Synod-man, and how your Independent Brethren may easily have leave to preach, though neither of you be infallible; Let your Decrees and Ordinance pass as peaceably as their Sermons, and both may lodge together, and likelier become friends the sooner.  
Act. 15. 4. 22. We find the pretended Synod styled a Church [that is the Church at Jerusalem] if a Church, it must have Church officers, that is, ruling and teaching Elders and Deacons; which I do not perceive observed in any Synod since, nor can possibly be, unless they can turn the fixed Churches of any particular place into Synods; and if that could be done, what would this be otherwise than for one sister-Church to make and impose Canons and Decrees, according to you principles, upon all other sister-Churches?  
Now and then, 'tis true, you refresh us with an ingenuous confession, which if you did but follow close, would clear your understanding from multitudes of gross errors, and unparallelled mistakes.  
You acknowledge a possibility of erring, or some actual errors in Counsels, Synods, Parliaments, and that such as apparently erroneous and repugnant unto Scriptures may be disobeyed: And now I see you have almost satisfied one of the 8 Queries in answer to your 12 considerable serious Questions, which hitherto I thought you had not been able to give the least satisfaction to, because I heard it not in Print cried up and down the streets, a privilege which any thing, or every thing of Mr. pryn's enjoys peculiarly.  
But this short acknowledgement of yours, if you understand what you say, and stick to it, will undoubtedly bring you over unto the Independents.  
And now (that your book, and such as read it over may make a comfortable end) since you are so good to grant a little, you shall see the Independents will comply with you, and say they'll ask no more: They only desire it may be lawful for them to disobey your Counsels, Synods, Parliaments when they actually err, and are apparently repugnant unto Scripture: But now, when they tell you so at any time, and challenge this free grant of yours, professing in the presence of God and Men, that they speak the truth and lie not, their conscience bearing witness, Rom. 9 1. unless you will renounce Christianity in practice, you must believe them, and not measure their consciences and understandings by your own, lest they come short of their due; you must not be both judge and party: no, nor judge only, where all aught to be Brethren, Matth. 23. 8. Their own reason must guide them: Their own understanding must be the ultimate resolver of their wills; and none but their own faith can save them, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 6. 4. 5. Rom. 14. 12. From the non-submitting unto some Counsels, Synods, and Parliaments, which you perhaps may not think erroneous, will follow no other worse consequence, than this; That a man may likewise refuse to hear or not believe some Sermons, which you perhaps may hold worth hearing, and necessary to be believed (though others as wise and godly as yourself, do think the contrary) which you may well be so indulgent as to grant your Independent Brethren, since they will do the like for you, expecting with long-suffering until you be convinced, or you convince them, peaceably.  
Page 154. You proceed and say, admit Synods, Counsels, Parliaments have sometimes erred out of human frailty; yet this is a most certain truth, that they are not so apt to err, as private men, or Conventicles of persons less learned, less experienced, etc. But this may not pass for orthodox neither, if, not many wise, not many learned are called, be Scripture, 1 Cor. 1. 20. 26. besides, experience teaches us, that God doth not discover his truth by wholesale, nor to whole Nationall Churches or General Counsels at once, but rather by degrees, and that for the most part, at first, to some contemptible person, perhaps, in the eyes of the world, who had no earthly superfluities, or so much as any natural pre-eminence to tempt or to withdraw him from being God's Ambassador or Trumpeter to publish it unto a people or whole Nation, it may be, not without his utmost peril.  
And besides; do we not find that even these more learned, of whom the Counsels and Synods are pretended to be compacted, are they, who most of all deceive? Are they not by their unsanctified human learning and wisdom, the better enabled; nay, do they not by that means become like so many decoys to lead the multitude, the rabble after them over hedge and ditch, and, too too often, into the very ditch itself?  
But what if Synods, Counsels and Parliaments were less apt to err, and best qualified to discover Truth, and debate matters of controversy? It will not follow from thence, that either of them may therefore impose their supposed Truths (for other than suppose they cannot be, for want of infallibility) or final determinations upon the other: If there were a necessity that the greater part should have this spiritual dominion, or rather a Civil power in a spiritual government over the lesser, or the lesser over the greater; then there might be some colour for the greater to have precedency in some respects: But since either of them would be absolutely sinful, we must grant it unto neither.  
Page 155. You say, That though it cannot be proved that all the Elders, Brethren, and whole Church of Jerusalem were infallibly inspired, yet they all said it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and them: To which I answer, that their saying so, was an infallible sign that all of them were then, as concerning what they affirmed, infallibly inspired; otherwise, not only the Brethren with the rest of the Church, but the Apostles also might possibly have told a lie, in saying so, in joining with them in one common verdict, Act. 15. v. 23. Nay, it might even now, and ever may be said hereafter to the end of the world, that this passage in the Acts of the Apostles, It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us, is not of infallible truth, unless, that both the Apostles, Brethren, and whole Church had been infallibly assisted in saying so; They spoke not One for All, but All of them in One, or One Spirit, even God himself, who is One, in All of them infallible: Say but as much, and upon as good grounds and reason, in behalf of the Synod which sits now at Westminster, and you say something: but for your great promise under the Gospel, that God will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh; surely it makes as much for Independents, unless you suppose them to be some Newfound Land-fish: But you yield it may be objected, how perhaps all or the greatest part of the Parliament and Assembly are not endued with the sanctifying Spirit of God, therefore they cannot use this language, [It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us:] This objecting of yours I confess is somewhat ingenious; but alas! it seems, you desire not to continue so, in that you take such pains in shruging and shifting to evade the force and truth thereof, by saying, 'Tis only known to God who are his; and admit there may be some few among them, who have not God's sanctifying Spirit, yet I doubt not but very many, if not the major part of them have: Is not this profoundly answered? Thousands of conscientious godly people object, how it is possible that all, or the greatest part of the Parliament and Assembly may not be endued with the sanctifying Spirit of God; and Mr. Pryn pretends to answer them by saying, he doubts not but they have: Is he not a doughty champion? But what if it should be objected, that it may yet more fully, than by perchance, be said, it cannot be made appear that there is so much as one, neither in the Parliament nor Assembly, who have had an infallible assistance of the sanctifying Spirit, in any thing they have done already, or shall ever do hereafter? and must we then necessarily be of their Religion, of their faith implicitly? yet we submit, you see, unto them in Civil matters; our estates, our lives, and what ever we have that is mortal, has been devoted, if not sacrificed to justify their power, and our subjection, but the rest must be reserved for him only, who is Lord Paramont of spirits as well as flesh.  
Surely, Mr. Pryn, 'tis no small disservice which you do both Parliament and Assembly, in thus exposing their proceed to be questioned by no little, and that the most conscionable and best affected party of the Kingdom; such spirits of contention, as this of yours, were those which made the first great breach amongst the Parliaments friends; I mean, betwixt the Independents and Presbyterians; and now yourself as the chief Ringleader has begun a subdivision, even among the Presbyterians, by attributing (after such an imperious and reproaching manner towards all such as descent from your opinion) that supreme legislative power to Civil Magistrates in all matters of Religion, which our Brethren of Scotland appropriate only to Nationall Assemblies: How great a stumbling-blocke this may grow to in time, and the miserable consequences thereof, I leave to your saddest morning thoughts to be better considered on; and wish you would forbear to publish such midnight, subitane, distracted lucubrations, as you yourself well call them, to the great detriment and endangering both of Church and Commonwealth.  

Twelve Queries, Eight whereof presume to make a second visit to Mr. Pryn, importuning his resolution in Christian modesty and charity, for the satisfaction of many troubled consciences.  
1 WHether have not Parliaments and Synods of England in times past established Popery? And whether may they not possibly do so again hereafter?  
2 Whether in case a Parliament and Synod should set up Popery, may they therein be disobeyed by the people? If they may be disobeyed in one particular, whether may they not upon the like grounds be disobeyed in another? whether the people be not judge of the grounds for denying obedience to Parliament and Synod in such a case? Whether the pretence of giving a Parliament and Synod power to establish Religion, and yet reserve in our own hands a Prerogative of yielding or denying obedience thereunto, as we ourselves think good, be not an absolute contradiction? and lastly, Whether they that attribute such a power to Parliaments and Synods as they themselves will question and disobey, when they think good, do not in effect weaken and quite enervate the power of Parliaments, or else condemn themselves in censuring the Independents for withholding of obedience from Parliament and Synod in such things wherein they never gave, or meant them to have power?  
3 If the whole Kingdom may deny obedience unto Popish Acts and Canons, or upon any other the like just occasion, and they themselves be judge whether the occasion be just or no; whether may not Independents, a part of the Kingdom only do the like in all respects? or whether ought they because a lesser part of the Kingdom, to yield obedience to Popish Acts and Canons, because a major part approve of and agree with a Parliament and Synod in establishing them?  
4 Whether would it not be an ungodly course for any people to hazard any thing at the disposal of others, or to be carried by most voices, which may possibly, if not more then probably be decided in such a manner as the yielding obedience thereunto would be burdensome to their consciences, if not absolutely sinful?  
5 Whether were it not an ungodly course for the whole Commons of a Kingdom, so far differing in Religion as that they profess before hand that they dare not yield to one another upon peril of damnation, to make choice of a Parliament and Synod, with entering into Vow and Covenant to become afterwards all of that Religion whatsoever the Parliament and Synod should agree on? whether it be not absurd for men to say they will be of such a Religion as shall be settled, before they see evidence to convince them? and whether it be in the power of man to be really of what Religion he will, until he see reason & demonstration for it?  
6 If a representative State or Magistrate may make Laws for setting up a Religion, or establishing what Church government they please; whether have not the people the same power originally in themselves, to assume again, and put it in execution when they please? and whether were this otherwise then to attribute unto a mixed multitude to the World, if not absolutely as it is distinguished from the Saints in Scripture, Joh. 15. 18, 19 and 17. 6. 9 11. 14. at least by most voices, to make choice of a Religion, Laws and Discipline, wherewith the Saints, household, and Church of God must necessarily be governed?  
7 Suppose a Luther an and Calvinist, or any others differing in opinion; whether they may out of hypocrisy or implicitly submit and be conformable to one another's discipline and doctrine whereof they doubt, before they be convinced? Whether have either of them an infallible way to convince the other, and bring them over to be sincerely of their opinion before their understandings besatisfied? if they have, why do they not put it in execution? if they have not, why should they be offended with one another if they continue differing?  
8 Whether opposing God's people or their ways be not a fight against God? whether it be not extremest rashness, if not absolute madness and presumption to attempt any thing which may possibly prove a fight against God? and whether any man in these days can have a fuller assurance in his own conscience, or give better evidence unto others that he doth not oppose the people of God whilst he opposes such as differ from him in opinion, than Paul whilst he persecuted the Church, Phil. 3 6. thought he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth, Act. 26. 9?  
9 Which of the two parties may best be thought proud, presumptuous or contentious? whether Independents who seek only to enjoy their own consciences in all peaceableness and meekness, without giving the least disturbance to such as differ from them in opinion; or the Presbyterians, who Haman like, are never at rest within themselves, until they bring all others to be conformable unto them both for Discipline and Doctrine, though to an equal judge they may probably, be as erroneous as other men's; and possibly, most superstitious and heretical?  
10 If there be but one Christ and many Antichrists; one true way and many false: Whether do not all men and women in general, and every one in particular, run a greater hazard to have the truth withheld from them both in Discipline and Doctrine, if all manner of opinions and religious worship but one, were banished the Country where they live, than if there were a toleration of them all?  
11 If a State may lawfully compel a Nation to be of this or that Religion, as in Spain, Italy, and England, during the Bishop's Reign; Whether is it possible for the people of such a Nation to be damned by submitting to such State Religions, though false? Whether are not such respective States bound in justice to be accountable for all the souls which do miscarry by conforming unto such State Religions? And whether were it discretion for any man to run a hazard of so many souls, though he might thereby gain the Empire of the World?  
12 Whether are not all Religions alike, nothing available to salvation, to him that takes his Religion upon trust? If we be obliged to try the Spirits, to search the Scriptures, and hold fast the truth, whether must we not be fully persuaded thereof in ourselves, according to our own reason and understanding? Whether is there a necessity that the State Religion for the time in fashion, must always appear to be the true one, in every man's judgement, who really endeavours and desires to have such an opinion of it, so it might be with a good conscience? And what Gospel warrant is there for Magistrates imprisoning, fining, banishing, or so much as discountenancing any man for not believing, or not doing that, which he could not possibly believe, or do without sinning damnably?  
FINIS.