THere is no sight so lovely, and taking to the eyes of all ingeniuous and sincere hearts, as naked truth; these which know its excellency will study to find it out. Truth is a jewell which lyes out of sight, as it were, in the bowels of many reasons, men must search for it, that wil find it out, among truthes, this of Church Government is not the least. There are many things this age hath brought forth about it to little purpose; most men beating about the bush; few that I have scene have discovered it in its nature. Some write so voluminous, heaping up so many distin­ctions about it, that they rather darken the truth then set it forth, rather intangle a mans understanding then informe it; others write so full of passion, as if they writ with poyson of Aspes, rec­koning up mens personall failings to disgrace the Cause, not urging their arguments to convince the judgement, (among these I have observed one Master Edwards hath the quickest pen, and I have often thought that book should rather have been writ by Doct. Pocklinton, Doct. Heylin, or one of the Archbishops Chaplaines, then Master Edwards, who hath been sometimes ac­counted godly.) Master Prin hath begun another way as unsa­tisfactory as any; though we hope there is more candor in his spirit: He professeth in the beginning he hath not leasure to de­bate the controversie; and then its wondred why he propounds these Quaeries. For either, first he layes them downe as positi­ons undisputable, undeniable in respect of the clearnesse of them [Page 2] unto all understandings, or because of his name to them; for else he knowes (as all know) that have any light in this Controver­sie, that all these grounds, these whom he calls independents will deny, and their answer would be negative to every one. Or secondly, he propounds them as affirmatives which he intends to prove and cleere by solide arguments, and then he must have leasure to do it; and as yet the others negation is as strong as his affirmation, for here is no proofe for it. Or else thirdly, as con­siderations in which he desires satisfaction as one being in doubt which way to walke, only these things for the present move him to be of a contrary judgement; the style of the booke doth not much favour this last, as being too full of confidence, and bitter­nesse: If Master Prin had such a sense of the publike divisions, he would not have gone to make the breach wider by setting forth Quaeries stuft with such invectives. I had thought suffer­ings had learn'd Master Prin a little more meeknesse; M ^r. Prin knowes his name is famous abroad, and that the common peo­ple will all thinke that that must needs be true which he pleads for. Besides, hee knowes that the Reverend Assembly is now controverting of the thing, and that Quaeries will do little good while Arguments are expected on both sides: but since they are out let us see what are in them.

The summe of the first Quaerie, is, whether Christ hath set down in the Word any prescript forme of government for King­dome and Churches to follow; or whether (seeing there be dif­ferent formes of civill government in almost every Kingdome) there is not a latitude, and liberty left them by Christ to chuse a government sutable to their State.

If this were granted, what absurdities would follow? Answ.

For the Gospell would be straiter then the Law, Christ more unfaithfull then Moses, God set a Exod. 25. 40. Hebr. 8. 5. patterne to Moses, which he charged him not to vary frō in a title, that was but a carnal Tem­ple in comparison of this, nay, it was a type of the Church under the Gospsll, Christ should neither be faithfull as a husband, head, nor King of his Church, if he should give others power to order it, to suit it as they pleased to their owne civill government, not setting down his own Lawes for them to walk by. In Revel. 11. 1, 2. you reade of a measuring of the Temple: Now how can [Page 3] you measure without a rule? The meaning of that, according to Master Prin, must be thus (measured) that is, frame it according to your civill State, a miserable measure for a Church. In Re­velat. 20. 1, its said the patterne of the new Ierusalem, (which is but the Church in her purest state, the same for forme with the former Church) came down from heaven.

Besides, look in this Quaerie and you shall find a contradiction, for he askes whether Church government may not be framed to any civill State if it be consonant to the Word, and yet questions whether there be any rule in the Word.

Secondly, if no prescript forme in the Word, why not Episco­pacy as well as Presbytery? why such crying down of Bishops as Antichristian, for how can that be more Antichristian then any other, seeing there is no certain government in the Word? Epis­copacy regulated and moderated (if all were knowne) is more consonant and agreeable to a Monarchicall government then Presbytery.

Thirdly, I aske of Master Prin, if Church government must be suited to States, whether Politicians are not more fit to con­sult about stablishing it: And why is an Assembly of Divines called to search the Word about it? Surely Statesmen know bet­ter how to fit the Common-wealth then Divines: there must be something in it, surely, or else the Parliament did very ill to have a Synod. If the Doctrine be true, throw aside the Bible, in this matter study the Law; and then it is well done of Master Prin to write of it, being his profession.

Fourthly, Whether Master Prin thinks it more reason that the State should be subject to Christs rule, or Christ to their directi­on; that the government of his Church should be fitted to States, or they to it. I know his religion, though his reason should stand a farre off, would abhor the thought of it: if you, and the Pres­byterians go on that principle, the Saints will hardly be of your judgement, for they think Christ is King alone over his Chur­ches, and hath not left them to substitutes, and the politick con­siderations of men for to governe them.

These two places you urge out of 1 Cor. 14. 40. and the 11. 34. where the Apostle speehes of doing all things decently, &c. is far from this, it being about things that are meerly circumstan­tiall, [Page 4] and ordering of things in a Church already constituted, not of the constitution of any Church.

The second Quarie, in summe, is, whether if any govern­ment be stablished by any State upon serious debate, every one is not bound in conscience to submit to it, and no wayes to seeke an exemption from it, under paine of being guilty of arrogancy, &c. The Scriptures in the margent I wonder to what end Master Prin quotes them so little to purpose, looke on that place 1 Cor. 14. 32. The spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets; how full to the thing let all judge who know the scope of that place; by the Prophets there doth he mean the civill State, or the Synod, or both? And is not that spoken to a particular congregation, for the regulating the exercise of prophesying; or doth he meane by being subject, that the Prophets have an authoritative power o­ver the other Prophets; I know not what he means by that place. The other places, Rom. 13. 1, 2. of submitting to every ordinance, &c. If that be true, then every man is bound to put out his owne eyes, to yeeld to blind obedience, never to search into the truth, for if he search and find it contrary to the Word, he must follow his judgement, and to follow his judgement is to be a Schisma­tick, to be guilty of arrogancy, &c. to contradict the Word, to oppose an ordinance of God; so that a man must inevitably sin, take either part. Is not this to uphold the Papist tenent of belee­ving as the Church beleeveth? &c. I put it to Master Prin, if the Parliament and Synod should set up an Episcopall government, which he thinkes is Antichristian, whether he would not speak a word against it? Is not this a base bondage, jurare in verba al­terius, to give up a mans faith and conscience to mens direction; but if the former be true, then this second must follow, if no rule, then you must obey what is commanded you. Suppose that is commanded may prove untrue, what if that way be not right, if that Synod and State should erre, what would you thinke of it then? &c.

Secondly, I humbly demand of Master Prin whether he and the other two holy men were not justly stigmatised and censured for speaking against the Bishops and Ceremonies? &c. which were stablished by so many Synods, and Acts of Parliament; and how h [...] can excuse himselfe from pride and arrogancy in [Page 5] such a course; for by his owne rule he should have actually obeyed and not spake a word to the contrary. Such divinity will over­throw all the power of Scripture over mens consciences, only make that to bind which a Synod thinks good.

The third Quaerie contradicts the first, in the first hee askes In this Quae­rie hee quotes a saying in a Booke called The bloudy Te­nent, which was written by one as contrary to this as the In­dependents, as he is to the Presbyterians and they ut­terly disavow the Booke. whether there be any rule in the Word; here he askes whether that government which hath sufficient, if not most warrant in the new Testament is not to be chosen. In this he cryes up the one government (which he instanceth in the fourth Quaerie to be presbyteriall) as tending to establish Christian unity; peace, &c. that which serves most effectually to prevent Heresies, Schismes, &c. Here is a bare affirmation, and the independents, No, is as good as your, I. Its desired Master Prin would prove what hee sayes, that independent government hath not such expresse war­rant from the Word (another contradiction) as presbyteriall; prove that, and you shall be Magnus Apollo; as for the Scriptures you bring will little help you.

For the fifth, its answered by way of concession, that it will overthrow all nationall Churches, as not conceiving any such warrant in the Word, but for any forme of civill government it will stand better with them then Presbytery can; the mischiefes of Presbytery, are vailed with Orthodoxnesse, and preventing Schismes, &c, But if the Saints would pry into the formality, tyranny, inslaving mens judgements and consciences the Pres­byteriall way, &c. they would looke upon it as that which is most inconsistent with their spirituall liberty, and with State priviledges. Its politickly done of you to put the best termes on your owne way how will you have it take else; I will let passe your bitter expressions (that one man would be, if possible, a independent Church, and republicke subject to no lawes) I thought such language would not suit with you spirrit, Master Prin especially that you would not speake so of them who were your best frinds in your sufferings; which stood to you, and refreshed you when most of your presbiterians (Episcopall enough then) were shye of you, I could name the men that used you kindly whom you now implicitly reproach; the indepen­dents giue more to civell power then your presbyterians doe; I would faine know whether your presbyterians doe not hold; [Page 6] that an Act of a Synod or a Nationall Assembly is as valid and binding in Ecclesiasticks, as an Act of Parliament in civills; and whether the Parliament can de jure contradict their proceedings, whether they will affirme that the Parliament hath any jurisdi­ction over them in settling Ecclesiasticall matters, this is not a Quaerie without ground; for as far as the independents under­stand of the presbyteriall government in Scotland, its absolutely independent from the Parliament in respect of decreeing and in­acting matters of government; only this honor presbyterians give to their Magistrate, they must be the executioners of their Iudge­ments, to hang whom they condemne.

The summe of the sixth Quaerie, is, whether since the first prea­ching the Gospell, beleevers multiplying, they did not gather in­to Churches which had dependencie on, and was subordinate to Nationall Synods, &c. And if not to show the place where, and to name any eminent Author that ever maintained the contrary. This Quaerie is very bold and daring, yet I answer that beleevers did as soone as they were converted gather into particular Chur­ches, as is apparent, but that they were subordinate unto Natio­nall Synods, &c. sub judice lis est; And if in many Kingdomes it might be so, de facto, yet whether de jure, and from a patterne in the Word that we desire may be proved.

Suppose this should be true, that there cannot in any Kingdom such a Church be showne for many yeares; or at least no Writer expresseth it; if so be it can be made forth from the Word, and consonant to the Saints practise in the Apostles times. I know no such Schisme in dissenting from all mens practises to follow the cleare truth. You challenge all to show you one eminent Writer who maintained the same; I will not go so far back into antiquity, as to bring you out a catalogue of Fathers, who though they had not a cleare light in that way, yet had many shrowd hints and notions in many things, which are practised by these you call independent. There be many latter Writers as eminent in holinesse, and without disparagement in learning to many whom you can produce for the other: (as learned Doct. Ames in Medul. theolog. de eccles. Master Ains [...] Master Cotton, with many of this age knowne unto you, to whom you will not deny eminency in learning) which have stood for this way; be­sides, [Page 7] doth Master Prin think we have no more light discovered in these dayes about Church-government, then the godly had in former dayes; or must all the Saints be regulated by former pat­ternes, then should Episcopacie be more followed then Presby­tery, it being as anciently practised, & as learnedly writ for as it.

Your seventh Quaerie is the same in forme with the first and sixth, and as little in it as in any; for first he askes whether the Law of Nature that teacheth men to subj [...]ct themselves to one publike forme of government in a State, doth not teach to subject to a National or Provincial Synod in matters of Church-govern­ment. This is answered in the first, beside the independents think that its as sutable to the law of nature, rectified reason, &c. for eve­ry particular man to have his vote in that which most concernes him; not to give away his reason to another, not to subject his conscience to any but Christ; reason, and politicks will show, Master Prin, that there is a sutablenesse to the Law of Nature in a Democraticall, and Aristocraticall government (for this way of Church-government is made up of both these) as in Monar­chicall, or meere Aristocraticall; besides, Christ hath given to men no such power over mens consciences, as he hath to Magi­strates over mens bodies. To let passe your bitter speeches, saying that there is no example for particular Congregations, (which you can Independents) except derived from the conventicles of the Arrians, Donatists, and other Heretickes. Leave off these names of Heretickes, Master Prin, you have been paid enough with that title, you may blesse God for these conventicles, in which you were remembred with teares, when others durst not name you.

Master Prins eaghth and ninth Quaeries are in summe all one, thus, whether the concession of one Catholike Church, the Na­tionall assembly of the Israelites, the Synodall assembly of the A­postles be not an infallible proofe of National Churches of a com­mon Presbytery, &c. Its answered negatively. And though he say that the Independents answers are but evasions, wee shall judge them solide arguments till we see the contrary. The Na­tionall Church of the Jewes cannot be a patterne for us now, be­cause the covenant of the Gospell is not made with any one par­ticular Nation, as with the Jewes, but to all persons that em­brace [Page 8] the Gospell, and beleeve in Christ. You have no promise nor prophesie of any Nation to bee holy to God but the Jewes Nation, when they shall be called againe.

Secondly, Neither can Master Prin show any Nation, every member whereof is qualified for to make up a Church; which is the body of Christ, unlesse Master Prin will take in all drunkards, whore-masters, &c. to be members of a Church; whereas the Word sayes, they must be visible Saints; and this cannot be a­voided 1 Cor. 1. 1. Phil. 5. 1. in a Nationall Church. Neither is that Assembly in Acts 15. which you call a Synod, any proofe for a Presbyteriall go­vernment. For first, I demand whether that Church had not power within it selfe to debate the businesse, and settle the con­troversie, seeing there was a great strife among them about it. Secondly, I demand of Master Prin, whether Paul and Bar­nabas had not power (being Apostles) to determine the matter, Act. 15. 1. as well as the Synod of Elders?

Thirdly, Whether they went not up principally to prove the false Apostles, that werr among them, lyers, for they told them they were sent by the Apostles to make known that they must be Vers. 24. Circumcised. Now to give testimony unto this, that they came not from the Apostles, they send chosen men to Jerusalem a­bout it?

Fourthly, Whether this was not an occasionall meeting, not a Synod, which is a collection of the Elders of divers Churches in­to a body, but onely some of the Church chosen out and sent to the other Church at Jerusalem for advise.

Master Prin may think as slightly of the arguments given by the Independents, (as he calls them) from this head, yet not­withstanding his word, hee must give them leave to judge they are sufficient, unlesse the authority of Master Prin's name be ar­gument; the Scriptures quoted serve to fill up the margent, no­thing else, unlesse you open them, and argue from them; for these texts are used by the contrary side against you, and as validly still as yours, before more be showne.

The ninth Quaerie, Whether the Independents challenging the Presbyterians to show a National Church in Christs time, be not an irrationall and unjust demand, Ans. no, if the Scripture hath a forme of government for the Churches of Christ in after ages [Page 9] to walke in; but to you it may seeme irrationall, who thinke Church-government must be ordered according to civill State, and be cast into that mould.

Master Prin from his Quaeries fals to his Logick, and demands whether a Syllogisme framed from the former, viz No Nationall Church in the Apostles time. Ergo, None ought to be now, be not as absurd as these.

There was no meeting of Christians in publike Churches, but in caves, corners, &c. Therefore they ought not to meet in pub­like Churches now, but in caves, &c.

I thought that Master Prin's Logick would have distinguish­ed between the forme of a thing, and the circumstance of place in the exercise of it, which is left to every Churches discretion, would this be a good argument in his Logick? that because the ordering of circumstances of time and place are in the Churches power; therefore the making of new formes of government, is, when the congregation men argue frō the not being of a national constitution of a Church in the Apostles dayes, to the denying of any now; they argue on this ground, being able to make it ap­peare, that the forme of the constitution of Churches in the A­postles time, is a patterne for all Churches to follow, and in no kind to vary from it.

Againe, he demands whether that way of arguing be not as absurd as this?

There was no Nation, Kingdome, City, Republike, Catho­like, Congregationall, or Parochiall Church in Adam's younger dayes, before people were multiplied, but a family government.

Ergo, There ought to be none but a Family government now, no man would be so void of reason, no truly Sir, neither did the Independents think you would be so void of reason, as to father such an absurdity on them, who are as rationall as your selfe.

As for Civill government, let men alter it as they will, and if God will alter the government of the Church, as he did from a Family into a Nation among the Jewes, and if againe from a Nation God will alter it unto a oeconimicall or congregationall, we must yeeld.

Thirdly, Againe, whether it be not as absurd as this: Every man in his infancy is born destitute of religiō, reason, &c. [Page 10] Therefore he ought to continue so when growne a man.

The Christian Church in the Apostles time, while in her infan­cie was not National, but so and so, (what I pray) (not Indepen­dent. How know you that, Master Prin, we will not take your word.) Ergo, It ought not to be Nationall now. Here observe Reader.

Master Prin accounts the Church in the Apostles time, a poor weak Church, that had not so much reason for things then, as we have now; the Apostles, the stablishers of it, weake men; where­as there was more light of the Gospell, and gifts of the Holy Ghost powred out then, then ever since; even private Christians being as able to deale in the things of God, as most of our Schol­lers and Ministers are now; yet Master Prin compares the fol­lowing that patterne, the following of a child in his infancy, that hath neither reason nor religion. Master Prin, follow you your perfect Church, wee will follow this infant patterne, and I be­seech you, is not this argument you bring to fasten an absurdity on them, as absurd as this.

The Scriptures were writ in the infancy of the Church, there­fore wiser and better Scriptures may be writ now, the Church being growne up into a Nation, having so many reverent Divines in it.

Secondly, You would needs make a Nationall Church State more perfect, understanding, and ripe Church then a Congrega­tionall; we would thinke so too, if we had a Word for it.

And whereas you say the History of the Acts showes that as beleevers multiplied their Church goverment and discipline va­ried, its answered if you meane by varying, that things before established by the Apostles in any Church was altered, its denied, and pray show the place if you meane by varied that they added rules for goverment as occasion served we grant it, for as they received not the knowledge of the Gospell at once so neither of discipline, neither had the Churches need of all the rules at once, but as God fitted occasions so he made knowne rules, yet so as at length to discover the whole forme of his House, as he did the whole mystery of divinity, to be as rule to all generations after­wards you see what your logicke is come to Master Prin, draw better consequences next.

[Page 11] Your tenth Quaerie is the same in summe with your secord, only there you speake in generall, here you perticularise, and you aske of the independents whether in cōscience they are not bound to submit unto presbyteriall goverment in case that the Parliament and Synod should establish it; and whether it would not be a high degree of ob [...]nancy singularity, selfe end, &c. to oppose this forme of government.

I Ans. If you require this of them, & charge them so highly in not submiting, I hope you will show your authoritie; either you would have them submit because what they comand is of divine institution, or because commanded by their authority, if in the former sence, they must haue eyes to see it as well as the Synod, or else their obedience will be hypocriticall most displeasing to God; if in the latter, then the Popes councel, decreeing any thing must out of as much conscience be obeyed by these that be under his authority, as the best things commnded by a Godly Synod, for a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia; if because they command, then what ever they command must be done; I put the case to M. Prin, whether when he challenged all the Divines in Eng­land to make good against them that Episcopacy was not jure de vino, whether if the King had called a Synod and had concluded it as the most Divines thought; he would have given up his judg­ments to their votes and submited to their determination, it had beene hight of arrogancy, selfe ends, schisme in Master Prin not to do so, & so in point of law when most of the Judges had given in their judgements contrary to M. Prin, why did not hee sub­mit, because the contrary was cleere to him, and he had sinned against his own conscience if he had gone back one jot from his o­pinion; what if independency should be set up, what if the Synod should maintaine the errours of Antinomians, &c. was Master Prin bound in conscience to say as they did, to speake against it would be shisme, faction, arrogancy, &c, Master Prin how is your spirit changed what wil you now submit to any thing, are you become a time server? have you given up your faith to other men? when Synods can say as they, Acts 15. it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us to lay these things on you, then wee will thinke we are bound in conscience to submit, else you must helpe us with new eyes.

[Page 12] In your eleventh Quaerie you go on in your way of bitternesse and aske whether that independencie be not a wombe to all schismes, heresies, &c. its Answered no, its a seminary of holy­nesse a nourisher of love, a way to build up unto the fulnesse of Christ, your presbyterial way is a way inflauing mens cōsciences; crushing the parts of these Saints which you [...]all Lay-men, is a way to depresse truth to hinder growth in grace and Spirituall communion with Christ, the Saints shall soone find it so.

In the last Quaerie M. Prin falls a jeering of his brethren. He would needs father a child on them, of the presbyterians beget­ting; they have put a nickname on them to make them odious, and now he asketh whether it be not an insolent proud name, &c. unfit for any Christian to arrogat, your presbytereans have pretty slights to defame these that are of a contrary opinion; as if one should call an honest man theefe, and aske a man whether it were not a shamefull thing for him to be given to stealing. Know Master Prin these men scorn the name, they have disavowed it in See M. Simp­sons Anato­mie, anato­mised. print; the terme is more fit for you & these whom you stand for, a terme fit for your provinciall, and nationall Synods from whom there is no appeale, but to whose judg ments all must submit as to an ordinance of Christ, & though but to question what is done by them is to be guilty of faction, schisme, arrogancy; these you call independants, confesse that they are accountable for their actions to every neighbour Church that shall in the name of Christ require it, they stand not independent from others but hold communion with all other Churches, both in the ordinances, and asking counsall and advise mutually; to let your other loose lan­guage passe much with what is in the former; take some Christi­an advise; remember you have not your hand in darkening the glory of any of the Saints; take heed of defaming a way w ^ch for ought you know may be a way of Christ; it will cost you many a sigh afterward if God should convince you, you know Christ will never owne bitternesse in maintaining any way though consonant to his Word. Remember, neither you nor the Synod are infalliable, but as subject to errors as others; never more dam­nable Heresies confirmed then by Synods (I speak not this to cast Concil. Trent. any blot on Synods or this Synod espcially in which there are many holy and learned men) but to show that a man is not bound [Page 13] in conscience to follow their decrees upō penalty of sin, arrogan­cy, &c. and not to seeke the least exemption from what they de­termin whose decrees may be subject to as great errors as any. Oh that a spirit of love were maintained among these which are bre­thren, though men differ in judgment must they needs differ in af­fection! M. Prin if you will needs be busie in this controuersie leave off your Quaeries for we will deny them all; state your que­stion; set forth your arguments, open the Scriptures you quote to fill up the margent, be as breefe as may be; call in your passion and consider, and doubt not of an answer to what you shall mo­destly set forth.