A Moderate ANSWER TO Mr. Prins full Reply To certain Observations on his first Twelve Questions: Wherein all his Reasons and Objections are candidly examined and refuted.  
A short description of the congregational way discovered.  
Some Arguments for indulgence to tender Consciences modestly propounded.  
By the same Author.  
LONDON, Printed for Benjamin Allen, and are to be sold at his shop in Pope's head Alley at the sign of the Crown. 1645.   

A Moderate Answer to Master Prinnes Book, called, A FULL REPLY.  
I Will not stand upon the many lose passages and hard speeches that this Reply is full of, desiring rather the opening of truth, than the discovery of any man's corruptions; wise men (that must see us both) will judge us, not by our words, but by our reason. If truth be on his side, surely he hath very much spoiled her beautiful face with his black and uncharitable language. Truth is most glorious in her own garments, whatever men cloth her with but her own apparel doth but deform her: If this be her attire that Master Prinne presents here arrayed in, certainly she hath changed her form, she never came out so of the bosom of Christ, she was never wont to appear among the Saints in such a garb; passion and railing were never wont to be her companions; peace, gentleness, and meekness ever attended her as handmaids: How little of this waits on his Reply, let any that was ever acquainted with such a spirit, judge. In the very title-leafe he cries out (an anonymous Author ashamed of his name;) were you ashamed of your name (Sir) when you put forth The unbishoping of Timothy and Titus? The quench Coal? The Abreviate? all which you own in this Reply; You that writ The Anatomy of Independency; The mystery of Iniquity; The Subject's liberty, all without your name; call in your Books writ no more, You are ashamed of your names: You are not ignorant of the many worthy things that have been put forth without a name, there be many reasons may be given for it; it is not the name but the thing; not who writ, but what is written, that will satisfy. The truth is, we are fall'n into times wherein (as Tertullian of old complained) men receive fidem ex hominibus, non homines ex fide. I desired naked truth might appear, though I was not seen in the setting of it forth; in his Preface he cries out, He is hated, envied, ●…pugned, for telling of the truth. If to answer be to envy, hate, etc. no truth of Christ can lawfully be stood for; surely the Spirit of Christ never taught you to jduge so harshly of those who only labour to vindicate the truth of Christ, and friendly to examine your ungrounded queries about it. To pass over many other things, which to speak to will rather fill up the paper then be satisfactory: observe but one or two of these reasons he gives for his writing, by way of question.  
First, 
In his Preface to independency examined, etc.  that he saith the Independents had never dogmatically (to his knowledge) resolved or discovered in print what that Church-government is they so eagerly contend for; and yet take notice, he confutes them, urgeth these Queries as his Reasons; What a contradiction this is, let all judge: how a man can confute that in an opinion which he knows not to be held in it; and out-argue that he never knew dogmatically resolved on, is beyond my intellectuals to conceive. Neither I (saith he) nor any one writer ever discovered it, and yet Master Prinne hath confuted it unanswerably, For that (saith he) he seriously professeth therefore God, Angels, or men, that he could never yet discover in least footsteps of it in Scripture, Antiquity, etc. I shall only pray that God would anoint your eyes with the eyesalve of the Word, that you may see these truths of Jesus Christ which are yet hid from your eyes, which many precious Saints humbly conceive they see, and so see that (if God should call them) are willing to seal their sight with their blood. But to the matter.  
To the first question he saith, I give no answer, but only misreciteth the question without his limitations, and then refute what myself propounded, not be; he should have shown wherein, and then might justly have challenged me for it; I shall entreat the judicious Reader but to compare both. It seems Master Prinne is ashamed now to think that there is no positive rule in the Word for Church-government, but that it may be suited to States. He saith, I should have exactly proved by direct Scriptures that Christ hath prescribed one set immutable form of Government to all Christians, Nations, etc. from which none must vary in a tittle; and then have proved from Gospel Texts, that which he calls independency to be this Government, but in this Point the Respondent is wholly silent, and I shall expect (saith he) his Answer Ad Graecas Calendas. Observe (Reader) that yet he saith in the following words, I endeavour to prove it: to say nothing, to be wholly silent, and to endeavour to prove a thing, to me can have no better title, than a gross contradiction: but to the thing.  
First, Whereas he requires of me, as in the former words, so here, a full discovery of Church-government in the world; and this is that he in all his papers demands, that we will fully discover this Government in the word.  
I answer: First, If by a full discovery, he means that we say all that can be said of it in the word, or is laid up there: it is Iniquum postulatum, most unjustly demanded; for even In credendis, in matters of faith, neither Master Prin, nor any else is able to say all that can be said of it, or fully to discover the many things that the word holds forth to be believed for salvation; God reveals more and more of the Gospel every day in a fuller and clearer manner; much less can any man, as yet, discover what is required for matter of Government: As for our parts, we are far from such a thought, that we know all things in the word about Church-government; but that more of it may be still revealed, and we daily search, and wait for more knowledge in it.  
But secondly, if he means we should discover what we hold concerning it, let him know, that for what we hold in it, we can evidence from Scripture every particular, and as much as is needful in this Controversy.  
For the matter of a Church, that it should be Saints, we conceive it to be evident from these Scriptures, Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Ephes. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. and in vers. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it's a righteous thing for me to judge so of you all; now the Apostle wrote to them as they were Churches of Christ; and to explain what they were, he calls them Saints, such, as it were an unrighteous thing to judge otherwise of them; and its reason that members of Churches should be thus judged Saints, because all the Ordinances that Christ hath left, it's for to build up the Church, they are to be administered in the Church; now none have right to the Ordinances but Saints, and therefore none may be admitted but such as can be judged so by the Saints.  
Again, for the former, which we say is consent or agreement (whether by covenant or any other way, we stand not on it) we conceive first, it ariseth from the nature of the thing, the Church being a politic body, wherein is rule and authority, nothing but free consent or agreement to walk in such ways can constitute it, as in all other policies: What makes England as a Commonwealth, or as a Church to be such a policy, but the consent of the people, who have given up themselves to be governed by such Laws and Constitutions.  
Secondly, if this be not granted, there can be no distinction of Churches in the world, but all must be under one power: for what makes England as a Church distinct from Scotland, or Scotland from all Churches, that they have no authoritative power over each other, but only this, that the members of England, or Scotland, have not consented to walk under any other power but their own? Surely the bounds of Seas or Rivers can no more distinguish Churches, than a wall or a door can, if there be no other distinction; and no other thing but consent can form a Policy.  
Besides, Scripture is no way silent for the proof of this: Not to urge many, that place is famous, and may serve for all, in Act. 9 26. Paul after he was converted, it is said, Assayed to join himself to the Disciples at Jerusalem; and the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth, to be glued to them: Now observe, Paul was converted, and a Saint, yet not joined to the Church, he was in that place where they were, he was joined to them as they were Saints, yet he was not joined to them as a Church; and this joining was not Physical, but Moral: Now this must be done by free consent, and willing subjection to the Ordinances, or no way.  
For the ordinary Officers of the Church, they are Pastors, Teachers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. Teaching-Elders, and Ruling-Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 17. Deacons, Acts 6. 1 Tim. 3. Widows, 1 Tim. 5. 9 Rom. 16. 1. That the Church hath power of choosing its own Officers, is clear from Acts 1. 21. Acts 6. 3. and Chap. 14. 23.  
That a Church is but one Congregation, having power within itself to exercise all the Ordinances, is apparent in the new Testament, neither do we read of any other there: First, the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) used for the Church, signifieth no other; neither hath it any other signification in the new Testament, when referred to any visible Company; neither is it used by any profane Author for to note out a larger Society than could meet together in one place: For the Church at Jerusalem, it was but one Church, Acts 2. 46. and 5. 12. and 6. 1. and 15. 25. and 21. 22. and 25. 22. so the Church of Antiochia was but one Church, Acts 14. 27. they are said to gather the Church together; now that could not be the Elders, for, for Elders only the word Church is never used; and the same persons that are called the Church, vers. 27. are in vers. 28. called the Disciples: and Chap. 15. 1. the Brethren: so Acts 11. 26. the same persons are called the Church, Disciples, and Christians. Besides, the Church of Corinth was but one Church, was but one particular Congregation, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Cor. 11. 17. vers. 23. In uno & codem loco: neither can the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ever be showed to signify any thing else besides one particular Assembly, as learned Baines well observes. I shall conclude this with quoting of what that judicious Divine D. Ames saith in this particular, Med. p. 190. Hine variae Congregationes fixae ejusdem Regionis ac Provinciae plurali numero semper appellantur Ecclesiae, non una Ecclesia, etiam in Judaea quae tota fuit antea una Ecclesia Nationalis, 
Act. 2. 46. & 15. 12. & 14. 27. 1 Cor. 5. 4 & 11. 17. 23.  1 Thes. 2. 14. Acts 14. 23. and 15. 41. Rom. 16. 4. 5. 16. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1. 19 2 Cor. 8. 1. 18. 19 Gal. 1. 2. 22. 1. Rev. Ecclesiae enim illae particulares quae in N. T. commemorantur, convenice solent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neque in toto N. T. legitue de institutione Ecclesiae amplioris a quo minores Congregationes penderent, etc. Thus you see a short description and discovery of what we hold about Church-government, with some Scriptures in stead of others that move us to this way: The Reasons and Grounds I doubt not but we shall see at large when that shall be made public which our Brethren have urged in the Assembly, and presented to the Parliament. But to proceed:  
For that part wherein he saith, I should have proved that Christ hath set one immutable form of government, and have made it out by direct Scriptures, besides what is laid down in the Observations (which I doubt not to make good against his cavils:) I thought Master Prin had read learned Master Parker, de Eccles. Pol. Cartwright, and the most of the Nonconformists, who though Presbyterial in their judgement, yet have largely proved that; to whom I shall refer him for larger satisfaction. I know none that ever writ against the immutableness of a form of Church-government in the new Testament, but Episcopal, and Pontificial men, as Hooker, Bilson.  
The judgement of the Church of Scotland is quite contrary: For they assert their Presbytery to be Jure Divino, and holds its Title only from heaven; it seems the Presbyterians differ as well as the Independants, and they are also various in their judgements, some think there is no form of government, others that there is. But to the Arguments:  
First, 
Exod. 25. 40.  I said, if this were granted, the Gospel would be straiter than the Law, 
Heb. 8. 5.  Christ more unfaithful than Moses: and the Argument lies thus according to his own drawing: if God set a pattern to Moses of every thing to be done in the Church, from which he was not to vary upon any terms, these being but carnal Ordinances comparatively: 
Heb. 9 10.  then he hath prescribed a form of government in the new Testament to all Churches, Nations, etc. from which they may not vary: but the former, Ergo, the Medium, or ground of arguing between these two is from the care that God hath of the Church at all times, being one and the same, rather more in the new Testament God had showed less care over his Churches now than then, if he had not prescribed a set Government for them also; besides, their Ordinances had been more spiritual far than ours; for that which God directly appoints, is more spiritual than what man appoints in God's worship; though for the kind more noble, and the use in reason far more excellent: To this he saith in general thus; That if I, or any other, can show him such a pattern, so clearly delineated in the new Testament, as that in the old, he will believe my sequel, else he shall judge it a mere independent Argument to this before; Master Prin knows its a good way of reasoning, if the same ground hold the same consequence: we are sure, for your Presbyteriall-government you cannot have the least direct Texts, and you are feign to go to miserable extorted consequences, etc. there is nothing that we hold, but we will show in clear Scriptures, as before: where did you, or any one ever read of either name, or thing of a classical Presbytery, of a Provincial, or Nationall Synod, either alone, or by way of subordination?  
He goes on in way of Answer, and saith, if this consequence will follow, than this must needs also.  
God prescribed to Moses the express pattern and fashion of Aaron's and his sons garments, etc. under the Law, Exod. Ergo, He hath likewise showed the express pattern, fashion, and colour of all Bishops, Presbyters, and Ministers garments under the Gospel.  
How weak this absurdity is that he labours to fasten on this Argument, let wise men judge.  
First, I say not, That what ever was commanded in the old Testament must be commanded now for the matter of it, if my meaning had been so, this consequence had been good; but when I argue from the exact description of every thing in the old Testament, to the like in the new, I argue from the equity, and common reason that is in the thing; there was something in the Ceremonies, and in their form of worship that was Juris Moralis, & Naturalis; the equity of which remains for ever, and the Apostle argues from it in several places: as that God should be worshipped after his own way, and according to his own prescript, not through men's inventions, etc. As for the matter of the things commanded in the old Testament, these things that were Ceremonies then, and had a spiritual signification, are but circumstances now, and not to be regarded, as Place, Garments, etc. You shall find the Apostle arguing thus from this very head and instance in that Heb. 8. 5. See that thou do all things according to the pattern in the mount; he speaks this of Christ's Priestly Office, and proves that Christ was a true and real Priest, and he proves it by this, because all the Priests of the Law served but to the example of heavenly things, and they had their Commission only from heaven, God gave it Moses in the mount: surely then Christ (saith the Apostle) must needs be a real high Priest, in whom all these things are fulfilled eminently: and he instanceth in this of the Tabernacle, which could not prove it but by reason of the equity of the thing; and its one of calvin's Observations from the place; Hic docemur perversos esse omnes cultus & adulterinos, quos sibi proprio ingenio, & citra mandatum Dei, comminisci homines permittunt; nam cum praescribat Deus ut fiant omnia secundum suam regulam, nihil penitus alienum facere licet; He applies this to all worship in general, and that from the equity of the thing itself.  
To quell this Argument, saith he further: 1. The pattern in the mount was meant only of the materials, form, utensils of the Tabernacle, not of the Government and Discipline; therefore very impertinent to prove a seeled form of Church-government.  
Answ. I never said that the Tabernacle was a pattern of Church-government, and therefore that will not answer; for grant it to be a prescribing of the materials, etc. yet there is as great a reason that God should prescribe the form of government as that; and God did prescribe a form of government to them, from which they could not vary; I only instance in this, because the Apostle makes use of it, to prove as different the thing, as this: there was nothing to be done either in Church or Commonwealth, but was discovered to Moses as a rule for him to walk by, 
See Exo 2●, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Chapter.  which he could not vary from in a tittle; & there is a great reason it should be so now, because the Ordinance and Government of the Church is more spiritual. The Materials of the Tabernacle he grants were exactly prescribed; and why not then the particulars of Government, seeing it is as great an Ordinance as that?  
Secondly, he saith, It was showed to Moses the Temporal Magistrate, not to Aaron or any independent Priest; and therefore if there be any consequence from this, Kings, Parliaments, etc. aught to prescribe, and set up such a Church-government as is according to the word, etc.  
I answer, it's no matter at all, neither doth it a jot prejudice my consequence to whom it was discovered, whether Moses or Aaron, they were not to vary from it; and there is as good reason for Church-government as that: but let me ask a question or two of you, seeing you have urged that.  
First, Was this discovered to him, Quae a Magistrate, under that consideration only, or no?  
Secondly, If to him as a Magistrate, then where will you find a correlate to Moses now?  
Thirdly, Whether as a Magistrate he durst prescribe any thing more in a tittle, or any thing besides the pattern in the mount, let Magistrates show us what they have received immediately as the mind of God, and we will as willingly take it from them as any; durst Moses, though chief Magistrate in a prudential way for the good of the people, prescribe any thing besides the patterns? much less may any now, who never had the mind of God revealed to them as Moses had.  
In fine, saith he, If there be any express unalterable form, pray, inform me why it was not as punctually described in the new Testament, as the form of the Tabernacle. To which is answered again, that it is as punctually described, as hath been formerly shown. Nay, saith he, why was the Tabernacle altered into a Temple different from it, and why did the second Temple vary from the first in the same Church and Nation?  
I answer: I never said that God tied himself so as he could not alter the frame of Government, but that no man could; if God will change the Tabernacle into a Temple, it's his pleasure, and that is our rule, but none else could do it; had David or Solomon done it without a word from heaven, what thanks would they have had? It was a sin in Jeroboam to set up places of worship in Dan and Bethel, when God said they should go only to Jerusalem; though afterwards God changed it, and made every place fit to lift up pure hands to God in. Besides, God changed things among the Jews according to the fitness and conveniency of their condition; the Tabernacle was made, as suiting with their condition in the wilderness, being fit to carry up and down with them: but when they were become a settled nation, rich and wealth, and in peace, than God commands to build a Temple. Under the Gospel it's otherwise; Christ being come himself, as King of his Church, hath made a covenant with no nation under heaven, but in every nation he that fears him is accepted with him; his Laws being only spiritual, and that concerning the conscience: it suits with the condition of all Saints, and may be practised in every Kingdom, neither can it be altered, the Laws written in the new Testament being the last that ever shall be given to the Churches for ever; so that Master Prins Reasons against this Argument will not hold when they are truly tried.  
To that part of the Argument wherein it is said, that Christ should be more unfaithful than Moses if he should not prescribe a set unalterable Discipline in the word, he answers nothing: whereas the Apostle urgeth it in Heb. 3. 2. 5. 6. Moses was faithful in his own house as a servant, but Christ as a son: wherein lay the faithfulness of Moses, but in declaring faithfully what God had prescribed to him in the governing of the Church, and ordering all things, which concerned the worship of God, according to the pattern given in the mount? Now how much more unfaithful than Moses should Christ be if he should not as eminently do the like to his own house? For it was not only matters of Doctrine, and the foundations of Religion, that Moses was faithful in prescribing to the people, but all the Ceremonies and parts of instituted worship, to which Discipline is to be referred; he did not only give them the Decalogue, but every thing that was to be practised by them, even to a pin of the Tabernacle, and therein lay his faithfulness. And is not Christ as faithful as Moses?  
To the second Argument: That Christ should neither be faithful as a husband, head, nor King of his Church, if he should give others power to order it as they pleased to their own civil government, not setting down his own Laws for them to walk by: he saith, it's both a fallacy and absurdity, yet he shows neither. That he says to make it good, is this: That one may be as faithful a Husband, Head, King, though he lay not down particular. Laws to regulare his Wife, Subjects, etc. To which I answer: That its against the law of nature to require obedience of a Subject, Wife, etc. in things immediately appertaining to a Husband, King, and not to prescribe rules of obedience; and its greatest unfaithfulness that can be, to leave these that are committed to one's care and trust to others to rule and order, who cannot do for them as the party entrusted can: Should the Parliament be faithful to the Kingdom, if they should not make particular Laws for the governing of it, but leave it either to others, or else set down general, dark, confused things, like so many blanks, and Et cetera's, that every one may add what they will? Either the Government of the Church is a part of Christ's Kingly Office or not, if it be, he cannot be faithful if he prescribes not particular Laws for them to walk by: Besides, either the Discipline of the Church is spiritual, and to edification, or not; and if it be spiritual, than none can prescribe it but Christ; for that is only spiritual in instituted worship, which hath Christ's Precept for it: Neither will the giving of general rules take away this blemish, as that Rom. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently, and in order, (which you call a general rule for Church-government:) for every particular Office, and Ordinance in the Church, is for to effect some supernatural end, to build up the soul in grace; now no Office, or Ordinance, can do that, but only what is instituted by Christ to that end: For that place in the Corinthians I spoke somewhat of it in the Observations, and I wonder he passed it over without mentioning; for these words, Let all things be done decently, and in order, is only meant of ordering things in a Church already constituted, not of giving rules for the constitution of it; and the words import nothing less: for what is order but a fit disposing of things already made and constituted in their proper place, it being a word taken from martial Discipline, where every man is set in his Rank and File according as occasion is. Now you shall find the Apostle applying of it so in the place quoted, for he speaks it to regulate the exercise of Prophecy in that Church; and whereas they were wont to use that Ordinance confusedly, one speaking when another spoke, he tells them they might all speak one by one, if they would but stay before each other had done; and then lays down this as a rule to direct in the exercise of this, and all other Ordinances; Let all things be done decently, and in order: I wonder how men that are not lost in prejudice, that have any intellectuals about them, can so mistake this place, as to say its a general rule of prescribing a form of Church-government left arbitrary to any people: seeing neither the signification of the words, nor the coherence of the place, hath the least shadow of such an interpretation: where the fallacy of this Argument lies, I cannot as yet discern, much less where the absurdity is which Master Prin hath charged it with.  
His third Argument (saith he) is that Revel. 11. 1, 2. we read of a measuring of the Temple, and Revel. 21. 1, 2. of the new Jerusalem coming out of heaven, etc. Ergo, There is a settled divine Church-government universally prescribed to all Christians in the new Testament: To this he saith nothing in answer, either to the interpretation of the place, or the application of it to this particular: only he seems to retort: First, That this is no better proof of this Assertion, than the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is of our Prelates Lordly Hierarchy Jure Divino: but how, or wherein the parallel holds he shows not; yet this he thinks is a full Answer.  
Secondly, (he saith) I might as well, yea more properly conclude thence That the Altar was measured as well as the Temple, Rev. 11. 1. (referring to the Jewish, not Christian Church, which hath no Temple nor Altar:) Ergo, We ought to have an Altar, yea one set form of Altars in all Christian Churches under the Gospel: Thus far he: What the sense of these words is, I cannot as yet understand, much less where the Argument lies; I never thought to have found such a piece of absurdity fall from Master Prins mouth. His Argument will run thus, if put into form: If the Temple was measured, then (as an absurdity) the Altar was measured, and if the Altar was measured, which was Jewish and not Christian, than we ought to have an Altar, yea one set form of Altars under the Gospel: Who doubts but the Altar was also measured? for the Text saith it expressly. Now by Altar was meant the worship, as by Temple the Church, and so it's commonly used in all the new Testament; the Altar is put by Synecdoche, 
Piscator in locum.  for all the worship in the Gospel, as the Temple for the Church; and here Master Prin gives a good encouragement to the Papists for the maintenance of their Altars, if he will interpret these Scriptures literally. The Apostle saith, Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar, etc. And what can the Papists infer otherwise, if they will argue from the word, but that there may be Altars now? for that he saith, it refers to the Jewish, not Christian Church, if he mean by referring, that there are used the terms given to the worship and Church of the Jews, it's granted; but if (as his words carry it) he means that it is meant of the Jewish Church, and the measuring of their Discipline and worship, nothing can be more absurd; because that Church-State they were in was disannulled, and new Ordinances of the Gospel were brought in and the Book of the Revelation is not an History, but a Prophecy; Nay, the holy Ghost using the same words, and terms of the worship and Ordinances of the old Testament, in expressing the worship of the new, giveth a clear ground to infer, that as their pattern was punctually described, (viz. of the Temple and the Altar, etc.) so also now is the worship and discipline of the new Testament signified by these expressions, as punctually prescribed. What is that measuring of the Temple spoken of in Ezech. 40. and 41. Chap. but the exact describing of the frame and fashion of it, with the utensils in it? and what must this measuring of the Temple and Altar here be, but the doing the same spiritually? That which is observed from this place of the Revelation, is, First, That under the Gospel there is a Temple and Altar; that is, a Church, and worship in it.  
Secondly, That this was to be measured; that is, the exact proportion of it taken: now nothing can be measured without a rule, and the following words clear it, for the holy Ghost speaks of witnesses, who give Testimony to it, and are slain for it: now who would be so used for that which was never written as a rule, but left arbitrary to every nation and kingdom? and that it was worship they witnessed to, is plain both from the words, Temple and Altar, being never used for doctrine in the new Testament, but for discipline and worship; as likewise from the types and parallel of them, as compare vers. 4. with Zach. 4. now what did Joshua and Zerubbabel witness to but the worship? It's Master Brightmen note upon the place, Pag. 347. The true Christian Church is shadowed out by the types of the old Temple, each part whereof was most exactly deciphered, and measured out in the old, by the commandment of God himself, and that unto this end, that men might know that this house is framed by God, and is not made by man's might and cunning; and that therefore they should not take upon them any power to change matters at their pleasure, as if the Divine Wisdom had not provided sufficiently to ordain every thing in the fittest manner that could be: thus far he: So that yet, Reader, you may see that this Argument is not yet quelled, nor the absurdity of it in any measure shown, how ere the full Replyer boasts, and gives it out to the world.  
But yet to make this more evident, let this be an Argument: That which tends to the salvation, and edification of the soul, must be appointed by God, and so have the word for its rule; but such doth discipline in a Church: Ergo, The Major is denied by none that I know: yet for instance, the Sacraments, Bread and Wine, and Water, have nothing in themselves, or their own nature, to produce such spiritual effects as they do, but only because Christ hath instituted them to that purpose, and it is that which gives them such an efficacy, this was the great, and indeed unanswerable Argument the Nonconformist always: used against the Ceremonies, that the imposers of them put a peculiar significancy in them, and gave them as helps fit and apt to stir up the dull minds of men the better to serve God; as is expressed in the Preface of the Book of Common-Prayer: now, say they, none can give that as a help to build up a man's soul, or to stir him up to any spiritual thing, which in its own nature hath nothing to produce such an effect, unless they can give these things power for the working of it; and nothing but what comes from God will carry to God.  
For the Minor, or assumption, that the discipline of the Church is for salvation, the Apostle is clear in 1 Cor. 5. 5. speaking of Excommunication, one of the chief parts of discipline, saith, It is for the salvation of the soul; now what is said of that may be said of every part of Discipline, every part being homogeneal, and of the same nature: I'll end this with the saying of Master Brightman, on Rev. 2. p. 50. The Government of the Church is common to all times and places, and is not permitted to be at the arbitrement of men to follow what they list; but always in Reforming Churches we must have recourse to the first beginnings, unto the which as our only rule we must call back what ever strayeth from it, and that they are not to be turned and tuned according to the crookedness, and jarring sounds of succeeding Churches.  
In the next place, (saith he) He pretends my third Querie contradicts the first, because I suppose a Church: government may be consonant to God's word in the general, which is not particularly prescribed in it: a pretty fancy (quoth he) as if nothing could be consonant to God's word, which is not particularised or verbally enjoined in it.  
To which I answer, passing by many bitter expressions that follow it, that things to be done in or about the worship of God, are either matters of circumstance, as garments, place, time, etc. such as these come under general rules of the word, such as that 1 Cor. 14. To let all things be done decently, and that they be consonant to the word, is sufficient: Or else; secondly, Things are such as partake of the nature of worship, and are to edify, and to attain a spiritual end; so nothing is consonant to the word, but what either is punctually expressed, or can be deduced by necessary & immediate consequence, and in this sense it's not sufficient that it's no where denied, unless it be some where commanded; and the reason is this, because matters of instituted worship (as Divines call it) depend only on the will of God, and there is no necessity in the nature of the things for their appointment: As for example, why God would be worshipped by Sacraments, why excommunication, or other acts of discipline should be appointed as a means to save the soul; there is no reason to be given from the thing, but only Gods will; now that is only expressed in the word, or naturally to be drawn from it: as for things civil, such as he instanceth, as temporal Magistrates, Parliaments, etc. It's left by God to every Commonwealth to sit themselves, and dispose of things, as may be most for their peace and profit; and consonancy to the Moral and Politic rules of justice and equity, is enough to warrant these undertake.  
From this he passeth to my Antiquaeries: First, If no prescript form (of Church-government) in the word, why not Episcopacy, especially regulated and moderated, as well as Presbytery?  
To which he Answers: If you mean it of Lordly Episcopacy, there are abundant Texts against it, if of moderated and regulated Episcopacy, the same with Presbytery; if the Parliament by the Synods advice unanimously establish, etc. I shall readily submit to it, and why not you and all others?  
In which, first, let all the world observe: That Master Pryn grants that Presbytery is but a regulated Episcopacy: Oh noble hearted Saints, and well bred Christians of England, who have felt so much the power of Episcopacy, which was the Lion let go about without its chain, think what Presbytery will be, which is but the same Lion in a fetter; if ever it break lose, with what redoubled might will it tear and devour? Episcopacy to be cut off root and branch was one part of that first noble Petition of this famous City, signed with 15000. hands; and doth not that reach Master pryn's Presbytery? This was the great suggestion both in Parliament and elsewhere, among the judicious and godly, that if they should cut the Bishop's Locks, a little regulate them, their hair would soon grow again, and pull down the house of the Commonwealth about us all: in a Presbytery there is no more, according to Mr. pryn's own judgement; the Bishop's nails will be cut a little to grow out the faster, to claw the sorer; or rather, the Bishop's power in a Presbytery is dilated from 26. unto 600. what one could not reach to do, you may be sure many will; and as the Bishops would call men Puritan and Non-Conformists, and so persecute them; so will the Presbytery call men Schismatics, Heretics, Antinomians, Separatists, and do the like. And whereas it may be said, The Presbytery will be godly men: I Answer, so were the first Bishops of Rome in the beginning: and these which are now good may leave the government next to as bad men as may be, and then the misery will be greater, by how much the multitude that have power are greater.  
I do not think the Pope is called Antichrist so much because of his Temporal power, as because of his taking such power of jurisdiction over the Consciences of men, prescribing for them Laws to walk by, and punishing men for disobeying: Neither was the Episcopacy unlawful so much because of their Lordships, as for their supreme power they arrogated over the Church, and Consciences of men, and because there were no footsteps for it in the word. Whereas he saith, if the Parliament and Synod shall establish a Presbytery, he shall readily submit, and asketh why not we? Let him know, if he can sell away his Judgement and Conscience, we cannot; yet though we cannot go against our Conscience to obey actively, we have learned to submit to Authority passively, if they can in Conscience take any such course with us.  
2. Antiquerie was, if Church-government be to be suited to States, whether Politicians are not more fit to consult about it, and why is an Assembly of Divines called?  
To which he answers: That his Position is, that Church-government ought to be suitable to the Word, as also to the Civil State; and therefore Politicians and Statesmen, and divines are to be consulted with, etc. 
In this Answer Master Pryn give, the greatest ground to hold up the Bishop powers in States, and so of Ministers also to be Statesmen, as can be, if the civil power and Ecclesiastical have such a dependence on each other that the one must be suited to the other.  If by suiting to States he means that the government of Christ's Church must be suited to every form of civil government; then there must be as many sorts of Church-government as there are of civil, which is the greatest confusion that can be; and than you need not put in that clause, that it be suitable to the word, for that is suitable to the word which suits the State; for either there is but one government in the word set down to all, and then it is no matter where it suit the State, for that must be followed what ever States say, or else that government which suits the State is suitable to the word, and then what need such calling and urging the pattern of the best reformed Churches? what have we to do with a Scottish government, or French, or any, seeing our civil government dissers from both? this conceit is the greatest doctrine of Liberty in the world. If by suiting of States he means that the government of Christ should be no disturbance to the proceed or peace of a State, it's granted; and so the congregational way is as suitable to States, as Presbytery, or any other government in the world.  
To the third question he answers, That it is more fit that the State should be subject to Christ's rule then Christ to it, but this question, saith he, is besides the question, until you prove a set unalterable Government, which I have done sufficiently; yet to say somewhat to what he saith in the following words, whether Christian Princes, Parliaments, Synods, under the Gospel have not power to bind all the Churches under their dominions as the major part of an Independent Church to bind their own members. To which I answer.  
First, if majority be considered absolutely in itself; that where there is the greater number or greater part of the Catholic Church, they may make Laws for other Churches; then, another kingdom if it be greater than this, and the numbers of the Church more, may make Ecclesiastical Laws for this kingdom, yea then that must call in all the Churches in the world in every matter. For where there is more, there is authority; yea only the Catholic Church must rule, and make laws for itself.  
Secondly, the reason why the major part of a congregation binds (yet only in particular actions which concern themselves, not in prescribing a rule of Church government unto others) is, because of the promise which God hath made with them. Matth. 18. where two or three are gathered together in my Name, I will be in the midst, saith Christ, when he speaks of the Churches censuring an offender; and this is strength enough to every action, and we need not fear what the matter is that is to be handled, when Christ will be present, we have no such promise to any society else.  
As for the latter part of the quaere (saith he) that the Saints think Christ is King alone over his Churches, and hath not left them to substitutes, and the politic considerations of men to be governed by: if (saith he) he means it only of matters of faith it may pass as tolerable; but if he means of external Ecclesiastical government, discipline, or order in the Church, he must renounce his oath of Allegiance, his late Protestation, Nationall vow, and Covenant, etc.  
In which observe two things. First, that to hold Christ is King in matters of faith and internal government over men's souls may pass but as a tolerable thing; how to pass by this expression with a less character then slighting Christ's kingly office I know not; bone Deus! and good Christians, to what pass is Religion come? if this must pass but as a tolerable doctrine, that Christ is sole King of souls, and is it not undeniably without controversies, as true as God himself? and is it not horrid blasphemy to have the least thought to the contrary? the truth is, I wondered when I saw such a mistake fall from Mr. Prynnes pen; it's no marvel if other things be intolerable to pass, if this be but tolerable.  
Secondly, to hold Christ King in external government, is against the Oath of Allegiance, etc. who told you that the meaning of any Covenant or Protestation intends any such thing? We cannot think the Parliament would be so injurious to Christ as to take away any of his Kingly office from him, as Mr. Prynne would needs affirm; we doubt not but they have learned to give up the Sceptre and supreme power of governing the Church to Christ, as Christ hath given the supreme power of the Commonwealth to them. In what clause of the Protestation, or Covenant doth this lie, I never found it yet. I know none that ever protested that Christ was not sole King of the Church, and the prescriber of laws to his Church: show me the clause, and I will unsubscribe to that particular, as being most derogatory to the honour of our heavenly Prince and Lord Jesus Christ.  
In his answer to my second quaere, (saith he) he first 
* Charity would have said weakly.  wilfully misrecites it, and then infers a blind obedience from it to all superior commands, be they never so unjust or contrary to the Word, whereas my question only speaks of lawful decrees, and consonant to the Word, etc. to which every Christian is bound in conscience to submit, Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14, 15. Tit. 3. 1. If any man deny this, he must renounce, not only his Christianity, but his Allegiance and humanity too.  
For answer to this, I will not enter into that common place how fare the power of Magistrates may reach in matters of Religion, to the binding the conscience, though I wish it were rightly stated, that Christ might not lose his due, as they might not theirs. Yet I desire humbly to propound one argument to Mr. Prynne, which hath a little puzzled my thoughts: and I desire him not to misinterpret it, as if I went to undermine the privilege of Parliament, if the Magistrate must be obeyed, as having power to command in matters of Worship, it is either, qua a Magistrate, or as a Christian Magistrate: if as a Magistrate, it holds in all, as well Heathen as Christian power, being equal, alike in both, as they are Magistrates: for Civil power is not, as the Papists say, founded in Grace or Religion, but in the compact and agreement of the Commonwealth. whatever belongs to a man, as a man, belongs to every man, be he rich or poor; whatever belongs to a Magistrate, as a Magistrate, belongs to every Magistrate, be he Christian or Heathen; and then the Heathen Magistrates Subjects are as much bound in Conscience to obey what Worship they set up, as Christian Subjects are to obey theirs whom they are under.  
If as a Christian Magistrate, then show your rule, these Scriptures Rom, 13. etc. are spoken in general of power limited to none, nay they prove directly against you; for the Magistrates, the Apostles and Primitive Saints lived under, were Heathens, not Christians: Again, if as Christian, than he must be obeyed, because he commands, or for what he commands, either because of his own power, or the authority of the things themselves; if for the former, than its qua a Magistrate, and so it belongs to all, his Authority not arising from his Christianity, but his Magistracy: if for the latter, then it's not the Magistrate, but the Word of God that must be obeyed; now that must be seen before it can be followed; there is no greater eating Worm in the Power of Magistracy then to found it in Religion, for thence the Jesuits infer undeniably, if Government belong to Magistrates, as Christian, as religious, than he that is not a Christian Magistrate, is an usurper, and may be deposed at pleasure; nay indeed he is no more than a private man, when once excommunicated, and all their ensuing commands are not to be obeyed: yea it will come to this, that the Church hath power over States and Kingdoms, for the Church is to deal in all matters of Religion most powerfully, now that is to get States to be their servants, and exercise what power the Church pleaseth upon offenders; besides, if they have power to command, I have no power actually to obey, unless my conscience be convinced of the lawfulness of it, for whatever is not of faith is sin; to the reason I urged for this, he answers nothing yet further to confirm him.  
1. 
It's neither a humane nor religious act that is not done with understanding. God would not have us to believe him, without we see the ground of it in the Word. All Protestant Writers give to every man judician privatae discretionis, they give the testimony of man's conscience, as one way whereby we know the Word of God to be the Word.  For any to require a man to practise that in the Worship of God, upon pain of Schism, arrogancy, etc. before a man seethe it to be commanded of God, is to require more than God requires, who would have every man practise according to his light; in natural Worship indeed God requires obedience of all alike, because they all once knew how to serve God: God gave Adam for all his, and men have lost them by their own default, and though they should never hear the Word, yet they shall be condemned for not serving God in that way, for it was engraven in every man's heart naturally, but it's not so in instituted Worship, which depends merely on God's will, for in this God requires we should search to know, but will never punish any man for the not obeying that he searcheth after, prayeth God to reveal, and yet cannot find it to be the mind of God; much less should men force men, (who not only have no light in the thing, but their light is against it,) to obey what they conceive is the mind of God.  
2. That Doctrine that puts upon any man an inevitableness of sinning, may not be admitted, but such doth this, that men must obey what superiors command in the Worship of God, though their judgements be against it: and the minor is proved thus by instance, to go against my light and conscience is sin, and to disobey the Magistrates commands is sin, and one I must do; yea it's the greatest hypocrisy that can be, to follow that authority commands, which yet man's conscience thinks is not to be done: besides, what do I know, but the light I have is from the Spirit of God? and if I go against it, I am guilty of resisting and grieving the Spirit, which is the greatest sin that can be.  
3. It is the greatest tyranny over men's souls that can be: what can be greater than to make other men's judgements the rule of my conscience, to swear obedience to that my understanding is against: surely its the greatest soul-inquisition that can be; however Master Pryn saith, I infer a blind obedience from his Position, I know not how to infer otherwise, for that must needs be blind obedience, when a man must obey (take it in what you will of this kind) that which he seethe not, either expressed, or any way warranted by the Word; it's to put men above God, at least in this place: for if I must obey, because higher Powers judge it so, their power must be the rule of my conscience, which alone is subject to the Word; and it's the greatest baseness of spirit, it disennobles men's spirits, hinders, and utterly crusheth the growth of any one's gifts; for if other men's judgements must be my rule, and I sin in not submitting to it, what need any man study to find out truth, or with the noble Bereans, to search the Scripture, to see whether these things be so? give men eyes, and they will soon follow you, else never call for such unlimited obedience.  
Again, what if the Parliament and Synod should err in setting up a Government, must every one be bound to join with them?  
To which he answers; First, such an oversight is not to be presumed until it be actually committed; and it's neither Christian, charitable, nor any way of Christ, thus to prejudge their resolutions. And yet you to presume to determine what the congregational way is, and censure what effects will follow, though you profess you know not what they hold, and never saw the way exercised; we know as much of Presbyterial and its effects, as ever any can speak of the congregational, therefore leave off your scandalous Titles of this way, which yet you never saw did commit any thing worthy of them.  
As for your sufferings you speak of, I never mentioned them as your shame, though you have made the honour of them less than the World thought it was, in that you say, you suffered not for opposing any Ceremony legally established, or the Bishop's calling, but their Lordly power; however you suffered, (and now we are glad we know for what you suffered) yet holy Master Burton, for his part, confesseth the contrary, that he suffered for preaching against the Bishop's Government, and the Ceremonies. I doubt not, but if ever God shall call us to suffer for this truth, we shall have as much comfort and strength in standing for the Prerogative of King Jesus, as ever you had for maintaining any Statute-Law whatsoever.  
In the fifth (saith he) he grants, that Independency will overthrow all Nationall Churches and Synods. 1. Is it not even a turbulent, dangerous, Schismatical unquiet, (that I say not insufferable) Government, which will admit no equal nor corrival? and thus he goes on with his uncivil calumnies, for many lines. But bona verba quaeso, if you understand the words thus, that in the judgements of these that are of this way, there can be no Nationall Churches according to the Word, so it overthrows it; but yet only in intellectu, as I may say, they cannot think it to be a Gospel Institution of a Church; as the holding one opinion overthrows another, so is this, that all Nationall Churches will be overthrown by your congregational way, and this sense (which I mean) deserves not such unworthy Language; but if you take it (as it seems you do) that the congregational way cannot live by the other Government, or in a Nation which is a Church, but it will endeavour by force and arms to extirpate, overthrow, unchurch them that disturb their peace, slay their members, etc. It hath not as yet conceived such a thought, and its contrary to its nature to bring it forth; there is nothing so detestable to our judgements, and, I doubt not, that should be more contrary to our practice, than the disturbing the peace of a Nation, what ever scandal men fasten on us.  
To the sixth, he says, I return no answer, but plainly yield that there was never any Independent Church in any age or nation whatever totally converted to the Christian faith, etc.  
If Mr. Pryn understand the words thus, That the congregational way hath not been set up as the government of any one Nation, it's granted; but that there was never a congregational Church in any one nation is denied, and it will put him to it to make it out: Nay, for the first four or 500 years I durst challenge him to produce any other then particular Churches that had the power of censures within themselves; Justin and Irenaeus knew no kind of Church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabbath; and as learned Mr. Baines proves out of Euseb. l. 3. 44. lib. 
See Bains diocesan trial.  4. cap. 21. and lib. 2. cap. 6. that Churches at first were but Parishes, and Parishes within Cities, and he quotes Saint John lib. 3. cap. 23. saying to the Bishop, Red juvenem quem tibi ego & Christus, teste Ecclesia tua, tradidimus. Tertullian. Apol. c. 39 knew not Churches which had not power of censures within themselves, and we hold no more. Saith Cyprian lib. 4. ep. 1. Schisms were said to be from hence, Quod Episcopo universa fraternitas non obtemperat. And the same Author, Epist. 55. tota fraternitas, i. e. unius congregationis tota multitudo, ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis. Sabino de universae fraternitatis suffragio Episcopatus fuit delatus. And again, lib. 1. epist. 47. 58. 68 Ecclesiae igitur circuitus non fuit major, quam ut Episcopatus totam plebem fuam in negotiis hujusmodi convocare potuerit. He which is skilled in Antiquity, I doubt not but may bring forth multitudes of such testimonies as these; all that we say is, that a Church is a particular congregation of Saints, having power of censures within themselves, and exercising all the Ordinances of Christ. Now this Antiquity proves to be in the primitive times, even many years after the Apostle; but suppose the contrary, that there could not any such footsteps of this way be found in Antiquity, yet have we no ground to think it's not true; great was the Apostasy of the Churches from the Apostles doctrine; that truth hath been lost for a long time among the most. It is a great mercy that since that defection from the pure ways of Christ to Antichrist, there have been any glimmerings of light preserved, any in secret that might worship him after his own mind, that any thing hath been refined and restored to its primitive institution; yet all times are not alike, now God hath in an abundant clear manner so scattered the mists of Popery and darkness, hath revealed many truths which formerly lay hid. Unhappy we, if we yet see not more than the godly formerly did, who but then came out of Antichristian darkness! God is now opening the mysteries of the Gospel, discovering the truths that concern Christ's Kingly Office, & why may not this be one, though never discovered before; or if discovered, yet crushed and made light of. The opinion of the thousand years which was anciently generally condemned for a Heresy, is now embraced as a precious truth, and maintained by many learned lights, as Alstede, Mede, Doctor Twisse, Doctor Stoughton, with divers others. That is ancient which is primitive, and to be found in the Scriptures; neither are the names of these that either have been of this judgement, or have or do practise it of mean and contemptible reputation, but they have given sufficient testimony to the world of their learning and godliness, as learned Baines, Ames, Cotton, with the many in these times, both in New-England, here, and other places, men not a jot behind any of their Predecessors in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel; yea, anointed with the gifts of the Spirit above most of their fellows. Notwithstanding that you say, that for any reverend godly person, who now contends about this new Model, though I reverence their persons, and judgements too in other things, yet I cannot subscribe to them in this new dangerous by way. Yet those men cannot think you reverence dither their persons or judgements, for than you would not be so rash as to condemn what they hold, before you knew what it was, or whether it was so or no; for either you think them judicious and conscientious, or not: if the former, than you would judge what they hold they have ground for: if the latter, that then they durst not practise that is generally opposed without a clear warrant (at least in their own judgements) from the Scriptures. Neither do they desire you should subscribe to their judgements in this or any thing else: yet this is your duty, to give them the right hand of fellowship a while, and not rail on, and condemn with all bitterness the way they practise, until you had heard what they could say for themselves.  
In the seventh (saith he the grants, That the Law of nature that teacheth men to unite themselves into one national State, or civil Government, doth likewise teach them to join and subject themselves to one national Church, and to national Synods, and Parliaments in point of Church-government.  
Let any one judge that reads what I answered, whether there be so much as a shadow for such a mis-recitation; the sun of my Answer was this: That the Law of nature teacheth every man to join himself to such a particular Society, where every man may have his personal vote in every thing that concerns him, as well as any one, or a Company to set up either one, or more over them, to whose judgement they will submit, and who shall be the Vltinum of all their Appeals and Counsels. And that there is as great a suitableness to the Law of Nature in a democratical, and Aristocratical Government (of which the Congregation consists) as in a Monarchical, or 〈◊〉 Arisocraticall. The Liberties of Saints and Subjects differ; though Subjects may put theirs into the hands of others, the Saints cannot theirs without ingratitude for Christ's purchase of them, and disloyalty to his Sovereignty, who alone is King of his Churches: for if I give up my power unto others, I must stand to what they determine, what ever my Conscience be to the contrary; and what if they cry? He grants that the Magistrate hath not still power over men's Consciences, is over men's bodies: yet he saith, that God hath enjoined us to be subject to every lawful Ordinance of man, and not repugnant to the Word, etc. To which I answer: What if the commands be repugnant to direct Consequence of Scripture, though not against any express Texts? And what if a man thinks it repugnant to the Word, must a man obey it? that which to me is repugnant to the Word, is my sin if I do it: Besides, what if it should be repugnant? Either you must say the Magistrate can command nothing repugnant to the Word, and therefore must be obeyed; or else a man must see it in his own judgement not to be repugnant before he can obey it. God forbidden a tittle of the power God hath given Magistrates should be taken from them, yet I would things were so stated, that Christ might not lose his Prerogative: Master Prin in his other twelve Queries, and the latter end of this, labours to persuade the Parliament, that these whom he calls Independents, are against the power of Parliaments, on purpose to make them odious in their eyes. But let that honourable Assembly know, that what ever power the Principles of Presbytery will give them, the congregational way will give much more: neither have the Parliament truer friends than they, who will be more willing to venture their lives, and sacrifice all they have for them; only this is desired by them, (which they know is the desire of that Honourable Assembly) that the Rights and Liberties Christ hath purchased by his own precious blood, and left the Saints as his last Legacy, may not be taken away by the secular power; as that the secular power might not be encroached on by Christian Liberty. After this, he goes on to justify his bitter and unchristian passage, in comparing our Church-meetings to the Conventicles of of the Arrians, Donatists, etc. Can you find no smother or lovinger comparison to scandalise us by? Can no other title be bad enough, but a Conventicle? A name given by the Bishops, and all their crew, to all the godly meetings of the Saints. Take heed, that you that are so skilled in the Bishop's language, come not to take up their weapons too; what do you but in one word call us heretics, Schismatics, and the worst of men? For this you say in the Marthat 35. Eli. c. 1. none are Conventicles but the meetings of Heretics, and Schismatics, who separate themselves, etc. Though your passion would not, yet your charity might have given us better language. You and your Party are very full of these terms, though you nor they ever define what Schism or Heresy is. We desire, and challenge you to tell us what Heresies we have broached in these Conventicles? In what Fundamentals do we differ from you which is Heresy? What Acts against the power of godliness can you manifest against us? What Treasons have we plotted against the Parliament in our meetings? Should I call you Heretic, and Schismatic, etc. because your judgement is Presbyterial, would you take it well? The Lord learn you meekness, and a more sober Spirit, not to tax so highly, and slander so insufferably, unless you make it out that we are such.  
To the eighth, he saith, I answer negatively, and well I may.  
My first Answer was, that the national 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, but to all in every nation that believe; you have no promise nor Prophesy of any nation to be holy to God, but the Jews when they shall be called again.  
To which he Replies, 1. That the Independents have not the least Precept, or Example for a solemn Covenant, but in the old Testament, and Church of the Israelites; and that no private congregational, but public national Covenant, prescribed by the supreme temporal Magistrate, and Assembly, yea, the principal Precepts and Precedents for sanctifying the Sabbath, public or private Fasts, you likewise derive from the old Testament, and that Church; Why should not therefore their national Church be a pattern for us? etc.  
To which I Answer: First, For the Covenant, we hold not that such a formal Covenant constitutes a Church; this is enough, that there be an union, whether by Covenant explicit or implicit, or consent; that is certain the Union is Moral, as all other must be that constitute a Policy: yet for that he saith, there is no Precept or pattern but in the old Testament for a Covenant: it's answered; Secondly, That its ground enough for such a practice, the Covenant not being Ceremonial, but Moral, and that which of necessity goes to such a Constitution; it did not constitute the Church as national, but as a Church: Indeed the Covenant was national, because the Church was so, but that was accidental. It's no part of the essence of a Covenant, that it should be national, that doth accedere to it as it constitutes such a Policy; and the same, or which is equivalent, must constitute a particular Church, the same formal Constitution that was in that Church, as a Church, must be in every Church also: and though the dispensation in Churches be different, yet the same constitutive Principles remain in all.  
For that he saith, the principal Precepts, for a Sabbath, and Fasts, we take out of the old, Testament, and therefore why should not their 〈…〉 Church be a pattern for us to imitate, as well as their national Covenant, Sabbaths? etc.  
I Answer: We keep the Sabbath only as it is a Moral Precept in the Decalogue, not as peculiar to the Jews; for where there was any ceremonialnesse (in it, as the seventh day) it's changed among us; and for Fasts, there is as great equity, that when we have displeased God, we should solemnly humble ourselves before him. But that the Church was Nationall, was merely accidental; and he might as well argue, and it will as rightly follow, that there must be but one visible Church in all the world, and that one nation, as the Jews were; for if he argue from one part, which is accidental, he must argue from, another that is so likewise. Besides, if this be a property of a Church, that it be national, then there is no Church but what is national if that did convenire to the Church of the Jews, as a Church, that it was national, than it doth so unto every Church; and the same may be said, that there was but that one Church in the world then, therefore there is but one now. Many such absurdities will necessarily follow such an Argument.  
To that that I say, that the Covenant of the Gospel is made with no particular nation, but with every one in every nation that believes, and that there is no Prophecy or Promise of any one nation to be converted, but the Jews.  
He Answers: That this Reason is both absurd and false, the Covenant extending not only to particular persons, but to all nations, etc. And for this he quotes many Scriptures in the Margin, the sum of which is contained in Psal. 2. 8. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. And that in Esay 2. 2, 3. The mountain of the Lord shall be exalted on the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow to it. Therefore God hath made a Covenant with particular nations to be Churches.  
To which, I answer, 1. That if these Texts be to be understood so, Jesus Christ never had a Church since the dissolution of the Jewish State; for there hath been no nation in the world yet wholly given to Christ, none that may be called a holy nation; as yet that Prophecy is not fulfilled: what may be hereafter I know not.  
Secondly, You may as well say that the Covenant of the Gospel is made with all nations, and that all nations are, or shall be, Churches to Christ, for so the words run in the general: I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth, etc. and all nations shall flow in unto the Church; and become such.  
Thirdly, That in Psalm. 2. is not meant of God covenanting with any people, but it shows that all the world is in subjection to Christ, and that the Father hath given him all rule and power from one end of the earth to the other; and the following words imply so much; for he saith, He shall rule them with a rod of iron; now it's not meant so much of the Church, as of the Kings, and Potentates, and great men of the world, that band themselves against Christ. Christ rules not his Church with a rod of iron, but with a golden Sceptre; and if all nations were given to Christ, that is, really converted, and in Covenant, there would not be so many Potentates, Kings, and great ones, to band themselves against Christ and his Church; and for that place Esay 2. That all nations shall flow into the Church when once it's exalted, it's no more than what was fulfilled in Acts 2. where men of every nation under heaven believed, and so is the word commonly used for some of all nations; and the utmost that can be said of them, and all the other places brought, is but this, that when Jews and Gentiles shall all be called together, the most part of the nations shall believe, and come to Christ, in 1 Pet. 2. 9 which he quotes: The Apostle calls the scattered Saints a holy nation, yet they were no nation, but scattered thorough many nations; and these Scriptures are meant of the multiplicity of believers that shall be brought under Jesus Christ's Dominion: and these Texts do no more prove a national Church, or any one nation wholly converted, than that Text, Go preach the Gospel unto every nation, Matth. 28. proves that every nation shall therefore be converted to Christ; and they rather prove, that all nations shall be real Saints, then that any one nation or more shall be so. Besides, if the Church be national, every one of the nation is a member, and there can be no censures of Excommunication rightly administered; for there can be no Excommunication, but either by cutting the person off from this life, or else banishing, which are for destruction, not edification; for whiles he lives in the Kingdom, he is a member, and the bounds and limits of the nation are the bounds and limits of the Church.  
Again, of what Nation in the world can it be said which is said of the Church, you are a peculiar and holy people? nay are not all the Nations corrupted, few or none, in the most, embracing the Gospel? England hath been accounted as Protestant, and as refined a Nation, as any hath been for Doctrine; yet how many vipers hath it bred in its own bowels? who ever have been more wicked than they? where have the Saints been more persecuted then here?  
Again, if Nations may be Churches, there will be no distinction between the World and the Church: all will be Saints, and as far members of the visible Church, as the best Saints.  
To that I say, that he cannot show any Nation, every Member whereof is qualified sufficiently to make up a Church, unless we will take in Drunkards, Whoremongers, etc. and this cannot be avoided in a Nationall Church, he answers: that he daces not be wiser than his Lord and Master, who informs him that there will and must be always in the visible Church on earth goats among the sheep, ch●ffe amongst the wheat, etc.  
I answer: 1. That there will be goats, is most certain: but that there must be, is neither necessitate praecepti nor med●j. Christ never commanded it, neither is it of absolute necessity, for the Saints can live & be built up without any mixture of such society is it a delight and pleasure to Christ to see goats among his sheep, in his own fold? what need then [this must] be so confidently put in?  
Secondly, goats, chaff, bad fish, are taken for hypocrites as well as profane men, and in these places they are only to be taken so; as for example, that place Mat. 13. 24. of the good seed and the tares which he quotes, by tares are not meant profane persons, but hypocrites: 1. the 
* Scutietus in obse. vat. in Mat. Pasor. Lexicon. in ●…b.  Word expresseth no more, tares (as Historians observe) are a weed like the wheat: now profane men are no way like the Saints: 2. if it be meant of profane men, and Master Pryn take it of their being in the Church, than all the censures of the Church are out off ipso facto, for the Text saith expressly, they must be let alone till the harvest, (that is, the day of judgement) so that no wicked man may be excommunicated, or any censure pass upon him: yea 3. it is plain, they are hypocrites, they were discovered by none but the Angels: yea 4. if you will needs take it of profane men, the Text saith expressly, that these were not in the Church, but in the world; the field is the world, vers. 38. whereas he saith, he finds that in the Churches of Galathia, Colosse, Pergamus, etc. there were drunkards, Epicures, whoremongers, etc. I answer in general, that I know no Churches openly taxed for any such gross acts of sin in all the New Testament; only the Church of Corinth above the incestuous Corinthian, which is spoken as a defilement, and a blot upon them, whereby they were corrupted; and he therefore exhorts them to cast him out, that they might be a new lump, 1 Cor. 5. As for 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle saith, one is thirsty and another is drunk, I think it not meant of that gross act, which we call drunkenness, but the same with that which is said of Joseph and his brethren, Gen. 43. 5. they drank and were merry; they drank more freely than they ought at that time, though it might be lawful at another time; but however, though there were these in such Churches: Yet  
First, I speak of the first constitution of a Church, and what Churches should be, not what they are degenerated into.  
Secondly, they were most spiritual sins that were laid to the charge of the seven Churches, and other Churches, as that they lost their first love, countenanced false teachers, etc. not such gross acts of profaneness, as whoring, etc. Yet  
Thirdly, what heavy and sad threaten are there denounced by God against these, if the continued in that estate, and what judgement did follow? for God is very tender of his worship, and what is become of all these Churches now? how greatly hath God been displeased with them? the Jews might not enter into marriage with the daughters of a strange Land, much less might they admit them to ordinances among them, unless really converted, and made proselytes: now such are all not visible Saints, in the judgement of the Saints, unto those that are really called, and join together in the ordinances, and they ought to be as shy of those, as they were of them: whatever a Church rightly constituted may fall into by defection, I speak not of; but what they ought to be, such as the word calls Saints, which can hardly be given by any knowing Saint, to the most part of men in England: For that he asketh, whether we have not drunkards, cozeners, usurers, etc. members of our Churches? I answer, we know none, and we should thank Master Pryn if he could discover any such, & account him our real friend in it: For that he saith, where was there ever a Church of all elected ones? that is a state for heaven, not for this world: I answer, there's none saith a Church must be all of elect, but of such as can be judged by the Saints to be elect. If men be not saved, it's not because the Church is deceived, but themselves: the Church goes only on these probable rules of judging by which the word prescribes; the visible Church, in Scripture, is called Heaven often times, as Mat. 25. 1. Heb. 12. 26. Mat 13. and in Esa. 4. 5. its called glory, to intimate that none should properly be of the Church, but should go to Heaven; and it's called the body of Christ, none should be admitted as members of that body, but those who can really be judged to be so: if profane persons must be in the Church, as you say, than I know no reason but all may be in the Church, and no man in the world may be said to be out of the Church; for the most are ungodly: if ungodly ones do steal in among the Saints to a Church, they prosper not, and Christ will discover them to their everlasting shame; and more dreadful judgements follow none as these: Christ dwells in his house, which is the Church, and it's no pleasure to Christ to see a mixture among his own: he that made a whip of cords to drive out the buyers and sellers out of the material Temple; will take rods of iron to whip out such ungodly wretches. I am sure Christ's bread belongs to no such dogs, only the children are welcome, and he hath given power to his Church to keep out these that have not a judged right.  
Again, if profane persons, and such as walk not like Saints, are to be cast out of the church, than such as are judged so must not be admitted into the church; but the former is true, Ergo. That they are to be cast out of the Church, is clear from the Scriptures, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. that therefore they ought not to be admitted, is as clear: for the same ground is in both; they are admitted in, because they walk as Saints, and so are judged to be Saints; they are cast out because they walk not as such: the truth is, this principle will soon lessen a Nationall Church, and therefore no wonder the Presbyterians are shy of holding it; for they must cast out the most of their members, assoon as they receive them in. It's the strangest thing to me, and I startle at it many times, what strict rules the Presbyterians have laid down in their Sermons in print, 
Master D●…s preparation to the Sacrament.  and their Sermons before the Sacrament every month, in which they lay on men such qualifications, both habitual and actual, that there is not one in a hundred of the best Saints can follow them, and yet blame their brethren for keeping of there, which they cannot judge to have the least degree of these qualifications: they tell them it belongs not to them, they will eat and drink their own damnation, on, and yet cry out in these that would not have these poor souls contract such guilt, and draw on such ruin on their own souls, and therefore keep them back; do you take in these who are drunkards, whoremongers, etc. into communion in the ordinances blame us not if we keep ourselves from such defilements.  
For his answer (saith he) to that of Act. 15, all ages, Churches till this present, have held it as an express warrant for provincial and national Synods, and their making Cannons in Church affairs: I shall not say much to this, not doubting but we shall see these things shortly in print, which our brethren have urged in the Assembly.  
How that can be a formal Synod I could never see yet made forth: For  
First, This was not a gathering of the Elders of many Churches, who make a Synod, but only some messengers (whether Elders or no the Text speaks not) occasionally sent up to Jerusalem, to that Church there.  
Secondly, here was the whole multitude, viz. the Brethren present, besides the Apostles and Elders, and the Letter that is sent is as much written in their name, as of any of the Elders: now the Brethren or multitude are not usual to be Members of Synods.  
Thirdly, the Message is sent as the mind of the Holy Ghost, and not their bare judgements, but that which they had principally received by inspiration from the Spirit, and is not now ordinary to any Synod, for what Synod, I can say, it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost, and us to lay such things on you.  
Fourthly, if this were a Synod made up of Elders of several Congregations, and that Paul and Barnabas went not up to prove the false Apostles liars, but to have the truth manifested, which they could not do; then a Synod of Elders have more power then bare Apostles to order things in the Church; Paul and Barnabas were men very unfit to be Apostles, if they could not have determined such a question whether it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised, who were to plant and order things in all the Churches; and who had power over all Churches, and were to write the man I of God to them: surely, one Apostle had more knowledge of the things of God, and of matters of controversy in the Church, than all the Synods in the world besides; nay all are to follow what they loft to the Churches; it were greatly to diminists the Apostles power, and the highness of that office, to think than they could not determine such a question, but must go to a Synod to have it cleared up to them. Besides, it was an Apostle, when they came up to Jerusalem, (viz. Peter) who decided the controversy, and Paul and Barnabas were men of as great judgement, and had as much power as he. However we think not that to be a Synod, yet the convening of Assemblies and Synods for advice and counsel we deny not, but that any Synod or Council hath an authoritative jurisdiction to impose Laws and Canons for all Churches to walk by, we conceive cannot be proved, neither from this of Acts 15. or any other Text: Yea, even this Assembly now among us the Parliament have called only for advice, not intending to give them a power of jurisdiction over them and all the Kingdom: Master Pryn saith, and takes much pains to prove (in his late triumphing book) that Synods, and Counsels, and Magistrates have ever used to make Laws for the Church, & to exercise a coercive power in matters of Religion, De Facto, (and he might have saved himself labour to have proved it:) but whether, De Jure, there is such a power invested in them, and from what Scripture I have not yet seen, and should be glad to be informed by him.  
To my ninth Querie (saith he) and Argument in it, he returns nothing worthy Reply, but upon this Petitio principii, that the Scriptures and the Apostles have prescribed a set form of Government, etc. (which I have proved before:) and that the Churches in the Apostles days were Independent, though doubtless (saith he) all Churches were then subject to the Apostles Laws and Edicts, etc. therefore not Independent.  
What there is in this worthy of Reply, I am ignorant of; yet this is to be noted, who the Presbyterians make a market of this scandalous name of Independents they have fastened on us: viz. To make the world believe that we are subject to no Laws, that neither God's Word nor man's is a rule to us, for this is the natural sense of his words: he saith, The Primitive Churches were subject to the Apostles Laws: Ergo, Not Independent. As if we held that we were Independent from the Apostles Laws. And if he put it as an Argument, it runs thus: if the Primitive Churches were subject to the Apostles Laws & Rules, then are all Churches now subject to a Presbytery and Synods; the consequence we desire you to prove: To whom should the Church be subject but to these, who gave them the mind of God immediately? And here let the Reader observe, that in this Head Master Pryn brought in many Arguments by way of absurdity, upon the holding of the Primitive Churches to be a pattern of all other, which, it seems, he is ashamed to mention, and seethe now, because of what was retorted on him, that even they themselves are absurd. For that he saith of my retorted, That the Scriptures were written in the infancy of the Church, therefore better might be written now; that is a blasphemous conclusion: It's confessed. Yet had it as good a consequence as yours, that the Churches now had a more perfect constitution then the Churches in the Apostles times, because they were the first, and, as you call them, Infant churches.  
Whereas you say that the Scripture was writ by the Ancient of days, who hath neither infancy nor imperfection, as the Church hath. I Answer: That the Scripture was writ to be a Rule to perfect the Churches, and the reason of the imperfection of the Churches, is, because it comes not up to that Rule; and these Churches (how ever you deemed them Infant) had more knowledge of that Rule then ever any yet have had, they receiving it more immediately from God's mouth then any since; and their Churches must needs be more exactly constituted then any since, who lived under the Apostles direction, and had all they had from them, as from God.  
To that I say, that he would make a Nationall Church more perfect than a congregational, he saith, he doubts not to aver it, since warranted by direct 
* Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13. 2 Cor. 13. 9 Heb 6. 1. 1 Pet. 9 10. Phil. 3. 12. 2. Heb. 13. 21. James 1. 4.  Scriptures; to the which I shall refer the Reader but to look over, and then let him learn hereafter to be taken with Master pryn's Marginal Quotations; what shadow there is of proof in these Scriptures, but a cast of an eye will discern: But yet I answer; Imperfection in any thing ariseth more or less, either from the defect of something essential, or which is to the beauty and ornament and glory of a thing, or both; then is a thing more or less perfect, when either its essentials are more perfect, or that which accidentally goes to the adorning of it. What there is more of these two in a Nationall Church, then in a congregational, I know not; unless the mixed multitude of believers, and profane persons growing up together into a bitter bulk of sin, should add either to the essence or ornament of a Church: if God had seen so much beauty in Nationall-churches above others, he would not have destroyed the Jewish State, or at least would have established the like in the Gospel, and would have converted the heathen Empires, and have took them in to be a Church to him. It was the mixed multitude which came out of Egypt with the Israelites that brought them to so much woe; indeed, were a whole nation such as could be judged real Saints, it would be a lovely sight to behold so many Churches walking together in the unity of the faith, but that never hath been yet; we know not what may be, we have little hopes of it until the Jews be called, (if then.) And which is a more perfect State, a company of visible Saints joined together in love, and walking in all the Ordinances of God according to their light, or a whole nation, wherein there is here and there a Saint walking with Whoremasters, Drunkards, and all sorts of ungodly ones without distinction, and enjoying all these Ordinances that the most have no right unto? The comparison between a grown experienced Christian, and a babe in grace, is no way proportionable to this thing. Wherein lies the growth and perfection, and experience in a national-church, that is not in a congregational? Either it lies in the Presbytery, and Nationall-assembly, or in the distinct Parishes, and the Members of them: If in the Assembly that they are so experienced, the people have little benefit by it, unless to subject their necks to what they say; and there is the same in many Congregationall-churches, when met for advice; if in the Parishes and the several Congregations, the same is, in this way we speak of, much more; little is the edification the members have from the perfection of a national-church, seeing they cannot meet together, or be present at the hearing of these experiences that others have; the only benefit the members have is from the enjoyment of the gifts of their own Pastor; and it may be he one that they never chose as Pastor to them, but was imposed on them: and the truth is, this is but to circumscribe the Church in the Ministers, for else there may be more understanding men, and experienced Christians in a Congregationall-church, then generally throughout a nation; the common people being most ignorant every where.  
One thing he urgeth more in this; That a Congregationall-church is forced to pray in the aid of other Churches for advice, assistance, etc. which a national-church need not.  
Now here let all the world observe, whether he or any of the Presbyterians have cause to call us Independent: What more independent than a national-church? It's a Pope, infallible, needs no aid, assistance of any Church in the world, it hath a spirit of infallibility tied to its girdle. We acknowledge we need help and assistance from other Churches, they need none; and here all you Presbyterians, either renounce Master pryn's opinion, and get some other Champion for you, or else for ever cease to open your mouth to call any of the congregational way Independent.  
In fine (saith he) He himself confesseth that the Apostles made new rules for Government and Discipline, as occasion served and as God fitted occasions, so he made known new rules successively, by degrees, not at once, etc. Therefore the Infant-Church in the Apostles days was not so complete and perfect in all its parts, as the multiplied and grown Churches afterwards.  
A. How much he hath failed in the recital of this, let the Reader compare, and judge; (I will not say wilfully, as he saith of me) for he hath left out that part which was the strength of all, which if he had took in, his Position had been overthrown; which was, that though the Apostles added by degrees, according as occasion served, new Rules, and Offices (for to what end should they add until there was occasion?) yet so, as at length they discovered all the mind of God concerning his Church's Government, and left it as a pattern to all the Churches: As the Scriptures were not written all at once, but some Epistles were written to some Churches, before others, according as occasion was, and the Revelation discovered last, as concerning the last Ages of the Church,; yet so; as still at length, that the whole Scripture should be written, and left as the mind of God to all ages. And unless Master Pryn saith, that the Churches constituted by the Apostles had not at length a full discovery of Church-government, he hath no ground to think they were not so complete as the following Churches.  
My tenth Querie (saith he) he wilfully misrecites, as he doth the rest: and then returns an Answer by way of Dilemma, 
Charity would have prompted you otherwise.  to which he Answers thus: That if the Parliament and Synod shall by public consent establish a Presbyterian Government, as consonant to the Word, the Laws and Regiment of this Kingdom, Independents and all others are bound in conscience to submit, under pain of obstinacy, singularity, in case they cannot prove it Diametrally opposite to the Scripture, etc.  
Something hath been said in Answer to this before: Yet further, if Master Pryn means by submitting, that actually we must yield to the Presbyterial judgement, and on the first setting of it up, presently lay down every thought of Reason and Argument we have raised up against it, and say it is the way of Christ, and the only way which we must serve Christ in; if he thinks any of us to have the least principles of reason, he cannot imagine we should do so. But if he means thus, That we ought not to stand against that Authority that sets it up, but submit to the penalty (if the least can in conscience be imposed) which shall be laid on us; we grant it: I hope we shall not be found despisers of Authority in that; but shall expect as great assistance from Jesus Christ, as ever you did, in a matter far lower, even the writing against a Bishop's Court, or a Cardinal's Cap, as crossing the Statutes of the land; and as you confess, but a matter of mere opinion: I speak not this to upbraid you, or detract from your sufferings (which are indeed badges of honour, not of shame;) but as far as yourself detract from them, in telling us the true ground of them, that we might not too much glory in you. These places you so often quote, Rom. 13. 1. 1. Tim. 2. 1. etc. They make as much for Heathen Magistrates as Christian, and in every thing as well as any thing, if it be meant of actual obedience.  
To his cross Interrogatories (saith he) I Answer: First, That if the Pope's Council command lawful things to them that are under their power, they ought to be obeyed as well as the commands of Heathen Emperors, Magistrates, Parents, by Christian Subjects, Wives, Servants living under them.  
Notwithstanding this, the Argument is still in force: That Heathen Emperors are to be obeyed as well as any Christian Magistrates, if that as Magistrates they must be obeyed; for that you say, and seem to make a distinction of it, if they command lawful thing. But the question is still, who shall be Judge of that? Is it not as great a reason, that I shall be Judge of the lawfulness of the things I am to obey, as the Magistrate should judge of that he commands to be lawful? If this be not granted, blind obedience must necessarily follow. If I obey, because he judges it lawful, I obey not out of a principle of judgement concerning the thing, but merely because of the command: what blinder obedience there can be, I know not. Again, as before, either the power commanding is to be obeyed, or else the things themselves command obedience: If the former, that is alike to all Magistrates, and in every thing there must be obedience, where that power is: If for the latter, than the things themselves bind, and then I must needs see it to be lawful; and that necessity of sinning put upon a man by this, is not taken away by any thing I see in Master pryn's Reasons; for if I obey not the power commanding of lawful things, I sin, if I do obey before I am convinced of the lawfulness of it, or have a scruple or doubt of its unlawfulness, (much more when I positively think so) I sin against God, and he will condemn me as an hypocrite, a , as one sinning against my light; and contradicting these motions, that, for aught I know, are from his good spirit, God cares not for, nay will condemn whatever is done without knowledge, though the things themselves be what he hath commanded: so that either we shall entreat Master Pryn to give us new eyes, or else not to censure us, if we actually follow not that we have no knowledge in.  
Secondly, saith he, there is a great difference between matters of opininion only, and of practice, as whether Episcopacy be jure divino etc. though the resolutions of a Synod and Parliament should be affirmative, they could not bind my judgement (saith he) absolutely, so far as to subscribe to their opinion, as an undoubted truth, unless they could satisfy my arguments, yet they should and ought to bind me to practise: So if the Parliament and Synod should establish any Church-government, though it binds not Independents to be simply of their opinion, or unless your reasons and arguments be sufficient to convince their judgements; yet it binds them in point of practice and obedience outwardly to submit thereunto.  
This Argument contradicteth the fundamentals of Religion, and gives way to the greatest hypocrisy in the world; this is that God requires in all services, that the heart, and the head, and the hand go together; to oppose the practice and the judgement in spiritual obedience, is to separate the soul from the body, and bid the body act; God hath put the understanding in a man, to be a light to his path; a man's understanding is a man's practice, as the eye to the body, without which it cannot walk safely; and men may be what they will if this be true, that a man's judgement may be one way, and a man's practice another; a man may deny God, break the Sabbath, swear in his practice, so his judgement be contrary: But it may be Master Pryn means it of indifferent things, merely circumstantial, but I hope he accounts not matters of worship and Church-government so; whatever is not of faith is sin; no man's practice can be of faith, who knows not what he doth lawful, much less whose judgement is contrary. It's true, matter of opinion is one thing, if it be a mere opinion that is not reducible to practise, and I may only hold an opinion, and being contradicted by higher powers, though I may not be convinced, yet I may be silent, but when things come to be pressed on me to practise, and that in the worship of God, and my judgement is not satisfied, than I must be convinced, or else it's a sin for me to practise; how Master Pryn thinks in his conscience we can submit actually to the power of a Presbyterial government, who in our judgements think it not the power Christ would have his Churches be governed by, I know not, unless he would have us be the veriest hypocrites, time-servers, these which will do any thing to save ourselves, surely, how ever he can practise one thing, and judge otherwise of it, we dare not; for as we account it below rational creatures, to put out their own eyes to see by other means, so we think it hypocrisy in the highest, to practise that our judgements are against: that is not a humane action, much less christian, that is not done praeeunte judicio intellectus; and how much less when it is against the thing.  
To his eleventh Quaere he saith, I give only a negative answer, and then declaim against Presbytery, without any ground or reason; which he saith he will prove no further, except in two particulars: First, that independency is in reality mere separation and Brownism, lately christened with a new title to take off its Odium. To which I shall say no more in a way of answer but this, that it will be well if Presbytery prove not in reality a tyrannical Episcopacy, only newly baptised with the fair word [regulated] a regulated Episcopacy, saith Master Pryn himself; and I wish it may not break its bridle shortly.  
Secondly, he saith, that we find what bloody divisions, wars, Schisms, the toleration but of one Religion in our Realm, contrary to that established, (viz. Popery and Papists) hath produced in all our Dominions, etc.  
To which I answer: First, that there is no comparison between Popery, and this way we speak for; they differing in all fundamentals, their principles being absolutely against the secular power which is not of their Religion; neither is ours; different Religion, but the same; only in some points; wherein the beauty of Religion lies, we differ; we have the same faith, baptism, we all profess the same Christ, yea, we differ but in a point, and that merely out of conscience.  
Secondly, how will you help the growing of Sects? do what you can they will grow, not all the counsels yet, and strictest governments in the world, have ever kept their dominions free; nay, the more severity is used, the more they will grow: for that which is opposed and cried out against, men will the more pry into; Bishops made more Puritans against their will, than ever was before; and it will be so in other things too: men will be doubting whether that power be lawful, which is so cruel: errors are like camorile, the more you tread them down, the more they will grow, let them alone they will fall off themselves.  
Thirdly, Uniformity is no mark of a true Church, that is the Papists glory, the Apostle saith, there must be heresies, that the truth may be manifested; this is the glory of the Saints, that though their light differ, yet their hearts are one; and they love one another, though in some things they have not received equal knowledge.  
Yet farther to come to this way, for that is it you intent, that there may not be any sufferance of it.  
If it must not be tolerated; it's either for something in its self, or for its inconsistency with states, or for fear that they should grow too numerous for the power of the Magistrate to curb.  
For the first, let all the world judge that knows it, what it holds, I know nothing, that either in its foundation or structure hath any poison or sting in it; any thing that may not in charity be borne with, that seeks not preeminence or jurisdiction over others; it meddles not with other men's matters, to disturb them in their peace; all that it differs from you, is in matters of Discipline, and what is not immediately belonging to salvation, yet they are the liberties of Christ, as is conceived.  
As Secondly, neither is it inconsistent with States, for it was set up under the Heathen Emperors, that were the most cruel, and there is nothing in its principles, that hath so much as a shadow of inconsistency, for it meddles not with their power; besides, we see in other Kingdoms (as flourishing States as any are) many others besides this way are tolerated, yet no disturbance to the State; yea, though the public government of the Church be Presbyterial: he knows little in History, who knows not, that men of different Religion have been suffered and tolerated to enjoy their conscience, yea, even among Heathens; how much more when the difference is only in smaller things; States lose nothing by preserving the Liberties of men's consciences. In France the Protestants are accounted the best Subjects, they are tolerated contrary to the public Government of the State, yet are not inconsistent with the well being and flourishing condition of it. And surely, even Papists will rise up in judgement against us, who suffer those who are contrary to their principles, and Religion, to enjoy their consciences, if we shall not suffer these who differ not in Religion absolutely, but in points of lesser consequence, to enjoy their Liberties amongst us. If upon trial it proves inconsistent with State, then may the Magistrate curb them.  
But this is the fear, you will say, lest they grow to a Party, and be too strong for the Magistrate.  
First, It's against their Principles, to have any hand in opposing the Magistrate, to keep up their own Privileges.  
Yet secondly, If there were any such thought, (which their soul abhors) yet there are many eyes over them, who will watch them close enough to take the least advantage against them, whereby to bring them into bondage: Besides, they are the smallest, and most contemptible Party in the Kingdom.  
This may as much, nay more probably, be feared of the Presbytery, who are more numerous, and of greater sway; and we say the same; Who shall restrain them? And what if they take distaste against the proceed of Parliament, or the like, having got so much power in the Kingdom, what will become of things then? The State gives not Presbytery any power but that it supposeth it is able to restrain and overtop them if they offend, and grow insolent; and it may on the same consideration give a toleration unto others, knowing that when ever it breaks out, it can soon check, and bound them: Besides, as Master Pryn saith himself, Such a thing as not to be presumed of before it be actually committed.  
But yet further, That there ought to be an indulgence unto such as differ in lesser matters, for to that I only speak now.  
First, That natural right we have to the Kingdom (though I will not urge it as an Argument) as well as the Presbyterians that cries loud for it; we are men as free born as they, have as great interest here as they; nay, many of us having been formerly deprived of their Liberties, while others did eat the sweet, and drink the fat at home: Yea, further, we have engaged ourselves in getting a settled Peace, in maintaining of the Privileges of Parliament, the Liberty of the Subject and Religion, and we think this, in justice, but an ordinary reward, (though we expect no more, and bless God for that:) For the lives of so many that we are sure were of our judgement, and had this in their eye, and which when they were gasping out their last, they rejoiced in the thoughts of, that they should procure Liberties for the Churches: and surely it would be somewhat sad, that our lives should go to set Presbyterians on the Throne, (though much good may it do them) while we ourselves, that serve the same God, are of the same faith, shall not have wherewithal to lay our head, and that merely for our conscience.  
Secondly, If a man ought not to lay a stumbling block before any tender conscience, nor offend him in the use of lawful things, in which his conscience is scrupled, as the Apostle saith Rom. 14. 15. then much less ought any one to punish any one so scrupled; especially when they are known to be godly, and what they hold they have much reason for: This is to grieve indeed, and to destroy indeed, any tender conscience: Him that is weak receive not to doubtful Disputations, Rom. 14. Beza interpreteth the word thus: Though we think you may not eat, etc. he saith not, Cast him out of the Kingdom.  
Thirdly, do but hold this, that for difference in smaller matters men are not to be suffered, and you lay a ground of a continual, and most bitter persecution as can be; for if one Kingdom may not suffer them, and this be because of the Law of God; another may not suffer them likewise, for the same Law binds all; and then there is no way but death for them; men are not to live in the world, who are not of the same size with others. Now the Religion which is from above, is more merciful and just than this; if a man swear, be drunk, commit uncleanness, there is but a common mulct of the Statute on him, he is suffered to live in the land; and why should a greater punishment be inflicted on those that differ in judgement in smaller; things; it is not because of itself, for the sin is not so heinous, if it be a sin; neither is it in respect of the authority, that is despised, for that is alike in the other: What a sad thing is this, that a man for following his judgement (which God will damn him for if he go against it, while it is judgement;) should not be suffered a place in the world; for if one State will not suffer him, why should another.  
Fourthly, these which are subject to errors and mistakes themselves, may not punish those who hold an opinion different from them; for what if that they punish for should be a truth (as there is none can infallably determine the contrary;) their punishment would be persecution; what if it should not, but they think so, to punish would be oppression; for even they themselves are subject to the same errors; yea, and that they themselves hold may be an error.  
Fifthly, consider the power God hath given to conscience, and I argue thus, no man is to be punished for his duty; this is a man's duty that God requires, that conscience should give warrants and direction for every act; and the rule is clear, Rom. 14. v. last, whatever is not of faith is sin, man can do nothing religiously without the persuasion of his conscience; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; now what justice can there be in punishing a man for not sinning against God?  
Sixthly, that way which is not adequate to, or is ineffectual for the recovery of any in error, or their salvation is not to be taken; but such is an external punishment for a mere spiritual offence (which yet is questionable whether it be an offence) to banish men, or imprison them, merely for their judgement, is a very unfit means to recover them; neither hath God ever sanctified it to such an end: nay, there is nothing more hardens men in their error then such a course, and makes them more refractory and incorrigible: men will be led and not drawn; few or none ever were recovered, with whom such course have been taken.  
Seventhly, that course which will never bring about, even the end of the punishers themselves may not be taken, the great end in men's not suffering those which are of different judgement to enjoy their liberty, is to bring in a uniformity which never hath been yet, nor never is to be expected while we are here; for as long as men have reason in them, and a free understanding, there will be different apprehensions of things; and that old saying, quot homines, tot sententia, will ever be. Herein is the manifold wisdom, and fullness of God seen, in giving different gifts to men; and until you can compound all men into one head and reason, you can never bring this about; yea, even the same man, at the same time, hath different apprehensions of things, and now his understanding is clear for that which now through stronger reasons he is against: its true, all the Saints agree in fundamentals, but for other things it is as light is revealed from heaven to them: and if the matter were sifted, this crying out for uniformity, is but to make all men subscribe to the Clergy, who must see for all the rest of the people; and let a man's judgement be never so rational, yet if not suitable to the common clamour of the times, both the man and his man, and his judgement; must not have a being in the Kingdom, yea, though before accounted most godly: either you must infuse into all men, one and the same individual conscience, and give men the same understanding with you, or else you must suffer them; unless you will make every man a gross hypocrite.  
Eightly, That which puts a state or people upon the greatest hazard, not probably only, but most times necessarily, of persecuting the most godly, and grieving the hearts of those whom Christ would not have grieved, that is not a way of Christ; but doth this opinion, that none that differ from a State in any thing may be tolerated; it's a thousand to one but some Saints, who love the Lord Jesus dearly, are of those opinion, (I am sure, of this opinion I now contend for, hundreds are) now their sides must be wounded, and their habitations made desolate, though they are such as Christ loves; who follow their judgements merely out of love to truth, and through the convictions of their conscience; especially the godly are oftentimes, if they are overtaken with errors of smaller and lesser consequence, such as are on the right hand; and what a persecution is this, unparallelled in any age, not to suffer them in the same Kingdom with them. Even the Papists in Queen Mary's time punished not for matters of Discipline, but for fundamental differences of their Religion: there can be no State free from the blood of Martyrs, if this Principle be engrafted to them, and practised by them.  
Ninthly, this will be the greatest hindrance of knowledge and growth in Religion that can be; for it puts out men's own eyes and judgement, and ties them to see by others; every man (which hath not his conscience and judgement quite sold to the common opinions, and lost in the common road) will be afraid to read the Scriptures, or search them throughly, for if God should dart in any light from them, or his own ingenuity through the strength of his reason should be forced to descent from the multitude, either he must stifle in the birth his divine conception, (for so it may be) (for if he be known to be of such a judgement (though in itself never so small) he must lose all he hath, and ipso facto, be liable to the greatest censure;) or else he must dissemble his judgement, and wound his conscience, what a straight is this? this will be only growth in religion, to grow up more conformable to the opinion of the times; & he will be accounted the most knowing man, who hath the language of the times most by heart, no man durst set to himself a higher pitch in walking with God than the State hath set to him, upon pain of the greatest hazard; and whereas God reveals divers truths in divers ages & times (especially in matters of government and worship) more and more, as men come out of Antichristian darkness, yet none must be suffered and tolerated, but that one, it may itself be Antichristian; at the least miserable cold and formal.  
Tenthly, if you will needs be punishing for smaller difference in judgement, I desire you to show your Commission and Warrant from the Lord Jesus, and I am sure he never gave either pattern or precept for such a course, he knows his gifts he gives to men are different, and that light he communicates, is more and less, and he bears with his Saints who are of different growth and stature, and I think we ought to bear much more; who are as infirm as any others; he bore with his Disciple, weakness, when they believed not the resurrection, and came with peace in his mouth to them; how much more would he have borne, if they had doubted only of matters of Discipline? Rom. 15. 1. you which are strong aught to hear with the infirmities of the weak, and not to please yourselves, as Christ pleased not himself.  
I hope you will walk as Christ walked, Christ told his Disciples, Luk. 9 54. that they knew not of what spirit they were of; when they would have fire to come down from heaven to consume those that would not receive him, there are many such spirits now a day, but they know not what spirit they are of.  
Object. But it will be said, and its the main objection they have, if we tolerate you, we must likewise tolerate Papists, etc.  
Answ. That doth not follow, for their very principles opposeth the secular power, they differ in fundamentals, and are properly another Religion, and yet the State faith, when they execute Jesuits and Friars, etc. it is not for their conscience or religion only: That we differ is but in a point, not of absolute necessity to salvation, though nearer the beauty and ornament of Religion, and being a truth of Christ, (as is conceived, it must be prized, and we dare not discharge our conscience of it. I shall say no more of this; but let men take heed how they persecute the Saints, and oppress their Brethren, lest Jesus Christ draw forth his Iron Sceptre against them, to vindicate the innocency of his people.  
To my twelfth quaere (saith he) he only answers, That I fall a jeering of my Brethren, and that I put a nick name on them, to make them odious, not answering one syllable to the substance of the Question.  
To what I should answer, more than I did, I am not yet informed; for this was his Question, whether it be not a proud insolent name we arrogate to be independent? I answered, that we disclaim it, and that in print: and therefore his Quaere could be nothing but a jeer. To which he answers, first, That this title was at first assumed, approved of by yourselves, and is still owned by many; you should have named the persons that assumed it, as for our parts, as many as I know abhor the name as it's fathered on us. Indeed we are independent in this regard, that we will not subject our judgements and cause to the juridical power either of Master Pryn, or any others, though we will lie down at the foot of Christ in whatever he shall command us out of his Word; and the truth is, the Presbytery is the only independent in the world, and may most properly be called so, for you neither depend on the Scriptures for it, for you affirm not jure divino, neither hath it dependence on others, for you say in your third Reply, pag. 13. that it needs not the aid and assistance of other Churches: for as the ever honoured Lord Brooks said in his book against Bishops, I know no reason why one Congregation should be accounted more independent in respect of a whole Nation, than Geneva in respect of France, and France in respect of all Europa's cominent. Therefore you are best to take up that title on yourselves, as most suiting with your principles. As for our part we are accountable for our actions to every neighbour Church that shall in the name of Christ require it; and we stand not independent from, but hold communion with all other Churches, both in Ordinances and ask counsel mutually; though we think no Church hath a power of jurisdiction to command or impose any thing on us.  
To which you answer: That if we are accountable for our actions to every particular neighbour Church, then why not much more to a Parliament or Synod: To which I answer: We shall be as ready to give an account to the Parliament and Synod of any action we do, with the reason of it, as well— nay, rather than to any other; as for the way of doing of it, we are accountable by way of information, and satisfaction; and in some cases unto the Magistrate by way of just appeal: as in case an obstinate offender shall be excommunicated, and he be unruly, he or we may appeal to the Magistrate for redress; we, that if the Magistrate judge him justly excommunicated, he may be restrained from disturbing of us: he, that if the Magistrate judge the sentence unjust, may be publicly cleared and vindicated. But for any authorative power of jurisdiction that Synods or any have to make Canons and impose on us which we are bound to follow, we humbly conceive it not be the mind of Christ; and we shall desire Master Pryn to show us his Rule in Scripture.  
To the second he answers: That if you stand not independent from other Churches, but hold communion with them: Then first, why do you separate from them as no true Christians?  
Answ. I answer in general: We separate from none we know to be true Churches; but if you mean by your true Church the whole bulk of the nation, whom you call a Church, we must needs separate from it, for we acknowledge no such Church. Yet,  
Secondly, Though we acknowledge not England as a nation to be a true Church, yet we acknowledge many true Churches in England, with whom yet we cannot communicate in Church Ordinances, because of many personal defilements among them, or yet purged out: and if they would give us leave in our communion with them to profess against these corruptions which we think defile them, we should not scruple communion with them. You know that one may be a real man, ye so corrupted with diseases and sores, that it may be dangerous to come nigh him, or eat or drink with him. Glad should we be to join with them, if they were so reform, and that mixture taken away, that, as nigh as could be, none but such as had a right to Christ might partake of the Ordinances; until than you must excuse us, if though we think many to be true Churches, we cannot actually communicate with them.  
You tell us (saith he) that neither I, nor any Synods, nor this Synod is infallible, etc. Therefore men are not bound to obey their decrees on penalty of sin. To which he answers only by way of Querie; May not you and your Independent Ministers err as well others? O yes surely, therefore they arrogate not such a power to make Laws for others; as for that of the Major Votes, it's answered before. How ever slight Master Pryn makes of this reason, yet until he hath answered, he must give us leave to believe it. For if Synods have power to bind the conscience, it is either because they can enjoin nothing but truth (for truth only binds the conscience) and so are infallible, or else because of their own power and authority; I know no other ground for it. Is this good Logic, or Divinity? (saith he) Good Ministers may, and do err in some points of Divinity, therefore we will believe them in none. In that you say true, there is neither Logic nor Divinity; but the Consequence, as I draw it, is this: Ministers may err, therefore none are absolutely bound to believe every thing they say as Scripture, and so to sin if they obey not: for it's a certain truth, not probable, that binds the conscience. Certain, I say, either as I apprehend it, or in regard of itself; if I am bound to believe what ever they say that are in authority, who may err, than my conscience is subject to error, as well as truth; for that which is commanded may be error, yea, if I think it error, yet I must obey it: and this holds in every thing, as well as any thing: for in all things that is commanded, they who command are to go by their own ●…dgements of the truth of the thing that they enjoin, and their judgements may err, yet I am bound to obey, and sin if I do not: Nay, suppose what they command to be a truth, yet I think it an error, and so it is to me, (my conscience so judging) yet I am bound to obey, else I sin. The Lord learn you, and those in authority, more tenderness to Saints consciences, that you may not put such a yoke upon our necks, that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.  
FINIS.