Christians ought not to press or judge one another in the performance or forbearance of things in themselves indifferent as acceptable and well-pleasing to God without his warrant and therefore the force and effect of humane Laws ordering and commanding things in order to the Politick ends of Government and in so farre by the Lord commanded to be obeyed are not by this Doctrine in the least demurred Now that your Ceremonies and other impositions being all relative to the service and worship of God wherein as every thing is to be observed with the faith of the Lords acceptation so nothing can be acceptable without his warrant are not of the nature of things as objected to civill commands but plainly such wherein Paul pleads for liberty is manifest Nay you your self know so well that the very things scrupled at by us as enjoyned toward a religious observance would be readily complied with upon any other reasonable occasion and that thousands who detest the Surplice would chearfully engadge in a Camisado for their Prince's service that I add nothing If you say that the things in debate though commanded for religious uses are never the less enjoyned not as acceptable to God and under this formality but are only necessary because commanded You bewray not only a sinful gaudie licentiousness of doing things for and in the house of the God of Heaven not commanded by the God of Heaven wherein even Heathens let be Christians have been tender but expose the purity and simplicity of Religion to all the corruptions of mans vain imagination As to what you adde anent the pretext which this liberty may give to offenders to decline Discipline it is yet less to the purpose in as much as submission to Discipline doth in effect flow from the Lords Authority whereby it becomes necessary and Mens part therein is only a naked ministerial application Lastly if you object that publick Peace and Order require your conforming obedience Your opinion and method in this point is much different from the Apostles he makes it his great argument not only for not judging and censuring Non-conformists but also in the case of offence for complying with them in their forbearance That we ought to follow the things which make for peace and wherewith one may edisie another But you and your partie for all the noise you make for publick Peace before you tolerat a Non-conforming in the greatest indifferencies and howsoever tender and innocuous will sooner both deprive your Brethren of Peace and for your vain trifles destroy the work of God whereas though you had faith in these things yet you ought to have it to your selves before God But Sir it is already too manifest that as in practice you know not the way of Peace so in this discourse by pressing a strict obedience from the free Spirit of Christian liberty which you seem to commend you palpably condemn your self in that which you appear to allow Having thus farre in the pursute of your reasonings digressed in the explanation of true Christian Liberty because of its after use in the perusal of your remaining purposes I shall not stick in the considering of what you make your N. C. add That we forbear the things pressed for avoiding the scandal of others I have already told you that the reasons of our forbearance have no less then the indispensable motive of the will and Oath of God Yea suppose the things required were meere externals and indifferent as they are not yet I have so clearly proven that your abridging of our Christian liberty therein by vertue of your commands is in it self repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine and in its effects pernicious that your requiring to make the restraint of Authority abused to these impositions the warrant of Practice to the forcing of Conscience and the offending of a Christian Brother is a Sophisme no better then if the hardie practiser or proud imposer who is expressly commanded in Christian tenderness to regard his Brothers offence should by a vain pretending of his own offence taken from the others indulged forbearance or recusancie thereby turne the Argument and elude the exhortation to the very scorne of Scripture That which I rather observe is that seing that to give Scandal is not ill defined by you to be a stretching of our liberty to practice to the drawing of others to the like or grieving or making them weak who have not the same clearness why do you not begin your application at Prelats Who having first streatched their practice to the ensâ—aring do also frame unjust decrees to the forcing of such who have no clearness to conform And on the other hand ought you not to indulge such who only desire to reâ—uge their Conscience in the Sanctuary of an allowed forbearance But these are the men whom having first sinfully spoiled of liberty you scornfully abuse by telling they may now act without regard to Scandal since you do permit them no liberty to the contraire But I hasten to your more closs examination of the matter of Conformity And first you ask why do not our Ministers join with your Courts for Church-discipline It 's answered it were tedious to examine the follies of you and your N. C. in this point we join not in your Courts because they are not the Courts of Jesus Christ but of the King and Prelates If this you deny read the Act Par 1. 1661 Sessâ— 1. Concerning Religion and Church-Government the proclamation of Councel thereafter discharging all Presbytries untill Authorized by the Bishops and the Act Par. eod Sess. 2. For the restitution of Bishops where as you will finde that Presbytries were made Precarious as to their continuance not as to their right which is indeed Divine by the first Act and then simpliciter discharged and broken up by the Proclamation so that which returnes in their place by the last Act and what ensued is not the former Presbyteries but only the Exercises of the Brethren having both their regulation and authority from the Bishops who have all their Church-power and Jurisdiction in a dependance upon and subordination unto the soveraign power of the King as Supream So that the Kings Authority and Prerogative Royal is plainly the proper fountain and last resort of all the power and jurisdiction to be found either in your Church or its Meetings Nay further this 〈◊〉 so certain that as his Majesty doth not so much as pretend a Commission from Jesus Christ as the anointed King of his Church for this effect which yet the Pope in his most wicked usurpation did alwayes Judge necessary so if it be Treason as it is dict sess of the same Parliament act 3. to derogat from the prerogative of the Imperial Crown of this Realm and if absolute supremacie in Ecclesiasticks incapable either of superior or conjunct do thereto by the late Act of Supremacie appertain certainly to make our Lord so much as a sharer with the King in
John his base râ—signation exercise over England a particular authority that after the Reformation and the shaking of the papal voke the Oath of Supremacie was brought in to exclude all forraign Iurisdiction and reinstate the King is his Civill Authority That Henrie the 8th did indeed set up a Civill Papacie but the Reformation of England was never dated from his breach with Rome that the Oath of supremacie was never designed to take away the Churches intrinseck Power or to make the power of Ordination of giving Sacraments or of Discipline to flow from the King that however because the generality of the words might suggest scruples they are explained in an Act of Parliament of Q. Elizabeth and in one of the 29. Articles and morefully by B. Usher with King Iames approbation And lastly since we have this oath from England none ought to scruple the words being sufficiently plain and the English meaning ours This is the full and clear account which you promise But who knows not these poor and insignificant pretenses King Iohn's resignation was indeed so base that by all disinterested it was ever held to be invalid and in after times scarce ever mentioned let be pleaded It is therefore the Pop's general tyrannie and what it was and whether abolished in these Kingdomes or in effect only transferred from him to the Prince that we are here to consider And I think I may take it for granted that you judge the Pope's exorbitant usurpation specially his assumming to himselfe not an external assisting oversight which we grant to be the proper right of Princes but by way of an intrinseck and direct power the sole and uncontrolable care of the Church her ministry and ministers with his arrogating an architectonick power in the ordering of Gods Worship so that in all Ecclesiastick meetings and matters therein proposed he may enact what canons he pleases to be parts of the Papal tyranny not only as in him but in all men under our Lord Jesus Christ unwarrantable and antichristian nay some of these are points of so high a nature that the greater part even of the members of the Romish Church do reclaim against them Now questionlesse if this power be to the Pope unlawful and incompetent all secular persons and Princes are therefore much more excluded in asmuch as the Pope being at least in shew a Church-man and according to the hypothese even of your Hierarchy the first Bishop of the westerne if not of the whole Church he is fortified by certain seeming pretenses of which the clame of civil Princes is wholly destitute To come then to our purpose that after the Reformation the Popish yoke not only as to the particulars above mentioned but also as to his forreign Jurisdiction unlawfully usurped over Church-men in civills to the prejudice of the King's Soveraignity was righteously shaken off and the King re-instated in his Civil authority over all Persons and also in all Causes in so far as they are committed to his royal direction and tuition is not at all denyed If that matters had here sisted and upon the abolition of the Papal domination the things of God and of Caesar had been equally restored who could have gain-said it But that on the contrary by the Pop's exclusion and in place of this righteous restitution the King under pretence of the vindication of his own Supremacy did procure to himself a very formal and full translation of what the Pope had not only usurped from him but arrogate from God specially in the things above-specified both the occasion of this change and the manner how this Supremacy hath since been exercised do aboundantly declare And for clearing the occasion it may be remembred 1. That the Peter-pence called in the beginning the King's almes imposed by on Ina King of the West Saxons was discharged by Act of Parliament in the reigne of Edward the Third and the contention anent the exemption of Church-men from the King's Courts most hotly agitate in the reigâ—es of Henry Second and King Iohn was composed many years before the dayes of Henry the Eight So that neither that exaction nor this old debate and far less King Iohn's most invalide resignation not worth the naming could be the cause of King Henry his acclaiming the Supremacy 2. The only motive that we find in History whereby Henry was instigat to reject the Pope and to declare himself to be supreme in causes Ecclesiastick aswell as civil was his purpose of divorce from Queen Katharine wherein finding himself abused by the Pope and his Legates their delayes he discharges all appeals to Rome appointing them to be made from the Comissary to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop and from the Archbishop to the King and is thereafter first called by the Clergy and then declared by the Parliament to be Supreme head of the Church in liew of the Pope whose authority was abrogat by the same Act These things then being certain and you your selfe acknowledging that King Henry did set up a civil Papacy It is easy to determine that this change was not a bare exclusion but a plain translation of the Popes usurped power We know the Reformation of England was never dated from that breach with the Bishop of Rome But what then Can you deny that this was both the rise and establishment of the Supremacy which being transmitted to Edvard the sixth and then renounced by Queen Mary and again restored to the Pope was by Queen Elizabeth reassumed and so continueth untill this day It is true that after the breaking up of the more clear light of Reformation whereby not only Rom's Superstition bot also the Popes usurpation and tyranny in many things was upon better reasons rejected and especially after the succession of Queen Elizabeth to whose Sexe the former title of headship for all the smoothings that had been before used was nevertheless construed not to be so agreeable Many explications were adhibite for qualifying the Supremacy both in answer to the opposition of Papists and for removing the offence of the Protestant Churches But the truth is these explications though more sound in their grounds yet in their explication were nothing conclusive as to the present debate and their Authors arguing for the Supremacy from the examples of reforming Kings and Emperours acting not by vertue of an assumed prerogative but only from that extraordinary power which the necessity of the end upon the failzour of other midses doth measure out to Princes first and to others also if in a competent capacity did rather infer the justification of the work then conclude the approbation of the Supremacy notwithstanding it was therein imployed Nay while by these their reasonings they went about from such extraordinary interpositions only warranted by the exigence of necessity and the rectitude of the work thereby effectuat to establish to the Prince a constant setled authority properly conversant about these matters the argument is far more
Devil did that and so do all Sects do you therefore mean that it should be laid aside as an insufficient Judge or that we use it no better then the Devil did I desire you may explain your self if not for our concernment at least for the Scriptures vindication In the mean time I am heartily willing that both what you and what I have said be rightly pondered and whether the Church in matters of Government be lest to rove in your pretended liberty or more excellently established by the infinite wisdom unspeakable love and most tender care of its only Lord and Head let Scripture and Reason impartially decide But to conclude all you tell us with a preface That the Angels of the Churches afford us fairer likely hoods for Bishops then ever we shall finde in the Bible for Presbyterie It 's answered seing you your self do acknowledge that nothing in it whether you mean in this place or in the whole Scripture the words are ambiguous amounts to a demonstration I remit the matter to the Scriptures by me adduced whereby I am confident all your Likelihoods are more then counterballanced He who is further desiâ—ous to have them removed may consult M. Durham upon the Text for my own part since ever I had the understanding to consider that the Râ—velation was made in a Mystick phrase that the Seven starres who are the Angels do certainly signifie the many teachers that were in every one of these Churches that in the Candle-sticks as in the Starres we finde the same oneness and number and lastly that though to the Angel be the inscription for address yet we finde the body of all the Epistles written directly to the whole Churches these things I say occurring I protest I could never discerne more reason in this argument for subjecting these Churches unto seven superior single Prelates then for making the same Prelats really Angels or turning every Church into a Candle stick Or if I may adduce another instance not absimilare to your Faire Likelihoods for interpreting the two Witnesses to be the two arch-Arch-Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow When you have spent your endeavours upon the Authority of Episcopacie you think to seconde it in the next place with its Antiquity derived you say from the times next to the Apostles whereupon you conclude in these words That how this excrescing power should have crept into the whole Church and no mention when it came in no Prince or Universal Council to introduce it in the times of persecution when the Church usually is purest and most free of pride no Secular consideration to flatter but the first brunt of the persecution alwayes against it and how none opposed it if this was not introduced by Apostles or Apostolicall men passeth my Divination And really Sir as to its particular Methods and increase so doth it mine And so much more then it doth yours that I am perswaded from clear Scripture that it was not only not introduced but plainly reprobate by our Lord and his Apostles Yet am I so little thereby stumbled that the more dark and obscure I finde its rise and progresse I am the more confirmed that it is the very Mysterie of iniquity and do so much the more admire the incorruptible and eternall Truth of the Gospel which as in the beginning it foretold the coming and took very early Notice of the first motions of this prodigie of wickednesse So hath it through the many ages of its exaltation preserved it self against and now in the latter dayes overcomes its Malice But to review your discourse more particularly I have already shewed that the Ministery and Government institute by our Lord and confirmed and practised by the Apostles was plainly Presbyterian if so what place for further inquirie Is your alledged traditional subsequent humane institution of Prelacie of greater moment 2. That even in the Primitive times and for 140. years after our Saviour no vestige of Prelacie appears upon record is the consentient opinion of the best Searchers both on your and our part 3. This plea of Antiquity hath already been so fully handled and improved both by yours and ours specially Hamond on your part and Blondel Salmasius and other Learned servants of Christ on ours that there needs nothing be added and where the advantage is the Ingenuous may easily discerne He that desires a solid and short accompt of the matter may read the appendix to the jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici But you proceed to give in some poor scrapes of pretended Antiquity which not only the most sure and clear and farre more ancient Scriptures of Truth but even the convincing answeres which they have often receaved might well have made you to forbear And first you say That Ignatius his Epistles are plain language And so they are indeed but too plain for you to have cited as the following passages compared with the Scriptures subjoined may evince In the Epistle to the Tralliani we have what is a Bishop but he that is possest of all Principality and Authority beyond all as much as is possible for men Reverence the Bishop as ye do'Christ as the holy Apostles have Commanded c. As the Lord Christ doth nothing without his Father so must ye do nothing without your Bishop Let nothing seem right or equall to you that is contra to his judgement In the Epistle to the Philad Let the Princes obey the Emperours the Souldiers the Princes the Deacons and the rest of the Clergie with all the People and the Souldiers and the Princes and the Emperour let them obey the Bishop no doubt the Bishop of Rome In the Epistle to the Smyrnenses The Scripture saith honour God and the King but I say honour God as the Author and Lord of all things and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests resembling the image of God of God for his principality of Christ for his Priesthood c. There is none greater then the Bishop in the Church who is consecrated for the Salvation of the whole World c. Let all men follow the Bishop as Christ the Father c. It is not Lawfull without the Bishop to baptize or offer c. He that doth any thing without consulting the Bishop Worshippeth the Devil Now on the other hand let us hear what the Scripture saith to this purpose Who then is Paul who Apollo but Ministers by whom ye beleeve Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ for we preach not our selves but Christ Iesus the Lord and our selves your Servants for Iesus sake Not that we have dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy for by faith ye stand But so shall it not be among you whosoever will be great among you shall be your Minister and whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be Servant of all to these adde the practices and other professions of the Apostles concerning themselves and their fellow-Labourers and really Sir when
that happens to be promoted and that the order or institution it self destitute of divine warrant and promise and clearly occasioned by evil contention and introduced into the house of God by humane invention could not at first have any thing in it recommendable and hath since produced most corrupt â—ruits Neither the existence of Many excellent and great men in this degree nor the laudable yea extraordinary advantages that the Church hath received from them in the concret can now justify and maintain the Order it self in the abstract If this arguing were good able and well qualifyed men vested with such a power or placed in such a condition have proven and may prove notable instruments of Good therefore it is reasonable and expedient that such a constant order should be erected we might not only have Bishops but most of the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church We finde Peter with the singular benefite of the Church exercing a power of Life and Death and that given him from above and not assumed could therefore an order of Church-men pretending to the like Authority be rationally thence maintained in the Church No wayes Accidental advantages do not commend unwarranted institutions much less can they justle out our Lords express constitution But it is he the perfect orderer of his own house who hath positively defined and blessed its Officers and their power and not left the matter Arbitrarie to the probable contrivances of apparent benefite farre less to the dissembling pretenses of mens Lusts and corrupt Interest 8. It is to be noted that although the great measure of Grace given to the Primitive Church and the hard and frequent persecutions wherewith it was exercised did for a time hinder that strange depravation and incredible â—ruption of wickedness whereunto the setting up of the Ancient Prostasia the rudiment of your Prelacie did from its first beginnings secretly and covertly bend Yet this is most evident that so soon as the Church of God obtained the countenance and was favoured by the more fond in many things such as excessive Doâ—ations and Grants of privileges then prudently pious benevolence of Secular Princes this Prelatick order which in its depression had been indeed honoured with many shining lights and Glorious Martyres attaining then to its ascendent did not only debauch the Lords Ministers for the most part unto idleness avarice and luxurie but continually climb up according to its proper Genius of Ambition until the Devils design in its rise and progress was fully discovered and consummate in the revelation of the Son of perdition 9. This being the rise progress and product of Prelacie in the first Churches as may be clearly gathered from the writtings of these times how it was introduced in other Churches thereafter gathered and brought in may be found in their Histories Only this is certain that as in almost no Church it can be shewed to have been coëvous with Christianity and in all the western Churches where it obtained place was ever a sprig of Romes Hierarchie propagate by her ambition and deceit and the like practices So the Church of Scotland in special was in the beginning and for some centuries thereafter instructed and guided by Monks without Bishops until palladius from Rome did set up Prelacie among us as many Authors witness Nay we may finde it on Record that even in the 816. year a Synod in England did prohibite the Scots any function in their Church because they gave no honour to Metropolitans and other Bishops By these observations having in some sort delineate the mysterious and crooked windings of this excrescing Power in its first motions and setting forth and very clearly and naturally traced its progressions and thence deduced that most prodigious production of the Antichristian Papacie as any considerate man may thereby easily perceive not only how it might but how de facto it hath crept into the whole Church without an Apostolicall introduction notwithstanding of all your contrarie insinuations so I am confident that what ever other advantages these primitive times had above our latter dayes yet our discovery made after so full a revelation compared to the obscure appearances of this wickedness in the first ages of the Church cannot be thereby rationally disproved and your scurrile disparaging of the latter times of reformation as the fagg end oâ— sexteen hundred years doth with little less success plead for the Pope and Antichrist then for your Anâ—ichristian Prelacie As for the rest of your discourse wherein you tell your N. C. that though the ancient Bishops were better men then either Bishops or Presbyters alive Yet in Presbyteries Specially in the matter of Ordination they were sine quibus non and what ever be the present abuse of the Episcopall power Yet it is a rational and most necessary thing that the more approven and gifted be peculiarly incharged with the inspection of the Clergie an order of men neâ—ding much to be regulate and seing all humane things and Presbytery also are liable to be abused the common maxime remains to be applied remove the abuse of Bishops but retain their use In answere hereto I need not inlarge he who knows Church History best will easily grant that as for the first Centurie and an half we have no vestige upon record of your Prelatick power So when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had place their concurrence in Presbyteries was only for order as being the Modâ—rators a consideration of the same exigence and effect whether they be fixed or unfixed and not from any peculiar power proper to them as a superior order A thing so certainly disowned by the primitive Church that even after the Bishops thought themselves well stated in their Prelacie and were beginning to contend among themselves for the Papacie Hierom doth plainly deny them any such prerogative above Presbyters and was not therefore contradicted by any How much more then doth this condemn that sole power both of Ordination and Jurisdiction whereunto your Bishops do pretend As for your alledged reason and necessity of promoting the better gifted over the unruly Clâ—rgie whatever application it may have to that naughty Company of your insufficient and profane Curats or Conformity to the Court yea the worlds prejudice against our Lord Jesus his Ministers and all his followers Yet these two things are most evident 1. That as that lowely and ministerial Government appointed by Christ in his own house admitting no superiority or inequality of power among Ministers is not subjected to and alterable at the arbitriment of humane reason so the advantage of Gifts whereupon you would found it doth so little favour your conclusion that the direct contrarie is recommended by our Lord as its best evidence and fruit he that will be chief among you let him be your Servant and that not only as to the grace of humility but in plain opposition to that superior Authority exercised in Secular Rule whereof the imitation in this place is expresty
distinction will be found but a groundless malicious forgery but to confirm it you remember a passage of one of our Preachers allowing Sharpness in defence of the Truth and to check the proud conceit of Adversaries and though it arise most natively from the words and be clearly verifiable in all times and occasions yet loving to rake in our former divisions you will have it to be directed against the insolence forsooth of the then protesting partie and to serve as a complete apology for any sharpness you have used But Sir as you cannot subsume in the termes of that doctrine either upon your own defense of the Truth or upon our proud conceit and consequently do fall short of your designed apology so your reflecting upon these differences wherein you are nothing concerned being plainly intended for the disgracing of the whole party doth far more discover your malice then our infirmities and therefore to use the words of the Text seeing you use these of the doctrine although there be mockers with us and our eye doth continow in their provocation at which upright men may be astonied yet let the innocent stir up himself against the hypocrite and the righteous hold on his way and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger The next wedge which you set and drive for to divide us is to tell the world that our humors and sollies are not chargeable upon the whole Presbyterian party that the English Presbyterians are â—ar beyond us in moderation as appeares from Baxter's Disputations on Church-government and all they desired in the late treaty was to be joyned with the Bishops in the exercise of Discipline which we refuse 'T is answered what your opinion is of the whole party shall not be taken from your fraudulent insinuations but as these are plainly enough confuted by your more free expressions in other parts particularly in your 1. Dialogue Pag. 6. Where you say Rebellion was the soul of our whole worke and the Covenant the bond thereof and Dial. 4. P. 62. where you charge both English and Scots with all the blood of the late war So these umbrages of differences which you alledge either from a particular person his problematick disputations or a streatch of Accommodation flowing in a great pressure of necessity from men not by oath tyed with us to this preservation of that where unto they had not actually attained but only to endeavour a Reformation according to the sure rules therein set down ought not to be either a matter of stumbling or an excuse to your deceit But now forgetting your distinction with the same breath you exhibite one of your former charges against us all in these words before the late dissorders all the Presbyterians in Scotland did sit in the Courts for Church-discipline and why may not you aswel do the like And to this you make your N. C. Answere upon the old legal establishment then standing and never rescinded untill the year 1662. On purpose that you may surprise him as you speake with a new discovery forsooth of an Act published and printed now 57 years ago whereby you say the Act. 1592. Sâ—tling Presbytery was expresly annulled and hereupon you pretend such amazement and do make such exclamations upon our disingenuous forgery or intolerable ignorance and groundless and presumptuous shisme that this whole passage saving your reverence doth plainly appeare to me to be but the schareleton tricks of a pitiful impostor For 1. I told you before upon your 4. Diâ—l Where I confess I waved this matter as not worthy the answering That the reason of our different practice now in order to your meetings from what was used formerly is plainly this that Prelacy being at first introduced in this Church mostly by cunning and a lent procedure our true Presbyteries were not thereby discontinued but only injuriously invaded and usurped upon of which practices any honest Minister being free and purging himself of all appearance of accession by open protestation might very lawfully sit still and serve his Master therein but in the late overturning all things being carried at a far different rate and not only the old Presbyteries distolâ—ed but a new foundation being laid of the Kings Supremacy and all the power and jurisdiction of this Church therein fountained and both Bishops and the present pretended Presbyteries thereon founded it is most manifest that your present meetings being no lawful Churchâ— inâ—sicatories are not to be countenanced by any true Minister of Jesus Christ. 2. You make your N. C. lay claime to a legal establishment as a necessary warrant to impower Ministers to meet in Ecclesiastick-courts whereas you know that although we judge Magistrats bound to give Christs Church the assistance and protection of their authority and laws yet we constantly hold the power of assembling as well as of Discipline to be intrinseck in the Church derived unto it from Jesus Christ its head and this is certainly a jus divinum to which all true Non-conformists do constantly adhere and which your N. C. doth very foolishly and weakly omit 3. The noise you make that it is in all our mouths that the law for Presâ—yteries was in force untill the year 1662. Which for my own part I may declare I never either thought or heard alledged as the account of the different practice wherewith you here urge us and your pretended surprise and vain account of being undeceived by a person of great honour who shewed you the Act. 1612. Which I hardly believe that there is any in Scotland of your coaâ— ignorant of What do they signify but the dress of a ridiculous fable to impose upon the simple to our prejudice 4. If the matter were worth the contending for I could shew you that that person of great honour is not much oblidged to your report for the credit of his knowledge in as much as your words do import that both he and you do understand the Act. 1592. setling Presbytery to have been by the Act 1612. totally rescinded and Presbyteries thereby totally disolved whereas the clause of the Act runneth verbatim thus annulling and rescinding the 114 Act. Parl. 1592. Aud all and whatsomever Acts Laws Ordinances and Customes in so far as they or any part thereof are contrary or derogatory unto the Articles above written so that there being no Article or provision in the Act. 1612. Making void the approbation given to the being and meetings of Presbyteries by the 1592. Although I grant their power and priviledges are thereby much diminished It is evident that the power of meeting and doing all other things not altered by the posterior did still remain allowed to Presbyteries by vertue of the prior Say not that the first part of the abovementioned rescissory clause relative to the Act. 1592. Is simple and doth there terminat as I heard once affirmed by one of your party not 't is like of so great honour as your informer but I am sure in
you shall make these things found in Ignatius consistent even with the strain of pure Religion and the truth of the Gospel let be to the Orthodoxie and Piety of Ignatius and the simplicity of his times then shall I cede to the Authority of these Letters Only in the mean time let me tell you that for all the pains that Hamond hath taken to assert their Faith the words above cited do savour so strongly of most gross and corrupt interpolation that not only I reject their Testimony as to the matter of Prelacie but do esteem even the passages that may be therein found for Presbyterie as to the Trallians be subject to the Presbyterie as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ The Presbyters are the Council of God and joint Assembly of the Apostlâ—s and such like of little or no value 2. You mention Cyprians time but hold I preceive your second Edition mends your first and this your practice like to that of your more innocent friend Mr. Coluin in his verses of giving us second Editions bearing additions without advertissment had indeed abused me If by accident I had not fallen in the review of my papers to make use of your second Copie and in this you tell us in the next place of the Apostolicall Canons a work of very venerable Antiquitie at least the first fiftie of them though perhaps none of the Apostles But first why say you Perhaps in a matter beyond all peradventure 2. Not to trouble you with Criticisms he who would be resolved anent the Authority of these Canons let him only read them And as I am confident he will be farre from thinking either the first 50 or the rest of them Apostolicall So I am certain the mention made in the 3. Can. of Sacrificium Altare Oleum in Candelabrum Incensum oblationis tempore a Sacrifice Altar oyl in the lamp and incense in the time of offering the 17. Can qui viduam duxit Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus esse non potest he who hath married a widow cannot be a Bishop or a Presbyter or a Deacon the 25. Can. Ex his qui caelibes in Clerum pervenerunt jubemus ut Lectores tantum cantores si velint nuptias contrahant Of Bachelors who hath entered into orders Readers only and Singers if they will may marrie the great and constant distinction therein made inter Clericum Laicum and the many other vanities therein to be found specially in the last part of them will easily render their venerable Antiquity of no moment in our present Controversie so that neither your 40 but in effect the 38. Canon though it were more positive and expresse for your Prelatick preheminence nor your Synodicall injunction to the same purpose both posterior to the first Primitive purity are of any regard but 3. so wretched is the cause that you defend that even in your clearest evidences your partiality and hypocrisie is manifest You alledge the Apostolicall Canons in defence of your Prelatick Order and yet you consider not that the same Canons do not only condemn your Prelates But subvert their present constitution I shall not insist upon the 24. Canon Episcopus aut Presbyter in fornicatione aut perjurio deprehensus deponitor Let a Bishop or a Presbyter guilty ofsornication or perjury be deposed the 20. Episcopum aut Presbyterum qui fideles delinquentes quid ergo si Innocentes percutit terrorem ipsis hoc modo incutit deponi praecipimus We command that the Bishop or Presbyter who smiteth delinquents and so becometh a terrour unto them be deposed what then if they smite the innocent the 28â— 41. 53. 57 75. which I am most assured if observed would remove all the present Bishops and Curats in Scotland but the Canons I offer are the 4. Omnium aliorum Pomorum Primitiae Episcopo Presbyteris domum mittuntor Manifestum autem est quod Episcopus et Presbyteri inter Diaconos reliquos Clericos eas dividunt Let the first â—ruits of all others aples be sent home to the Bishop and Presbyters for it is Manifest that the Bishop and Presbyters divide them among the Deacons and the rest of the Clergie 33. Cujusque gentis Episcopos oportet scire quinam inter ipsos primus sit neque sine illius voluntate quicquam agere insolitum illa autem quemque prosetractâ—re quae ad Parochiam ejus loca ipsi subdita attinent sed neque ille citra omnium voluntatem aliquid facito 36. Bis in Anno Episcoporum celebrator Synodus pietatis inter se dogmata in disquistionem vocanto and 80. Dicimus quod non oporteat Episcopum aut Presbyterum publicis se adminiâ—â—rationibus immiscere sed vâ—care commodum se exhibere usibus Ecclesiasticis animum igitur inducito hoc non facere aut deponitor together with the obvious strain of the whole plainly insinuating the Bishop to be the person to whom the flock is principally and immediatly committed and who as the Primus Presbyter the first Presbyter ought chiefly to minde the charge In which Canons although I grant that their appears a precedencie of Order given to the Bishop over the Presbyters who in these times were many Ministers living in one City and Society having the charge in common among themselves and with and under their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Church and Flock in their bounds and also to the first Bishop of a Province over his Coëpiscopi Yet I am sure your Prelatick power and Superiority acclaiming the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction is no where thereby approved but rather condemned Your third Testimony you bring from Cyprian in whose time you say That the power of Bishops was well regulate and Setled and here knowing that he professeth That he would do nothing without the Clergie that he could do nothing without them nor take upon him alone Whereby the antient Prostasia and not your Prelacie is plainly and only held forth You insinuate as much as if he had afterward retracted this opinion and this you prove very pitifully 1. From his answere to one Rogatian a Bishop that he by his Episcopall vigour and Authority had power presently to punish a Deacon for an affront received which yet doth not at all seclude the Presbyters according to the Rule of the Canon Law Episcopus non potest judicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo Senioribus The Bishop cannot judge a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Synod and Eldersâ— 2. From this Censure of Hereticks and Schismaticks for proud contempt of their then Bishops which we do as little allow as you do 3. From a letter written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome after the Death of Fabian wherein they complain of the want of one to Moderate and with Authority and advice to take accompt of Matters whence you say that surely they thought little of Persbyters being equal in power to Bishops who
write so where the Episcopal power seemed to be devolved upon them but pray Sir If a society consisting of Members all equal in power but having a Head or President for order and good Rule do regret his loss during the vacancie in these very termes wherein lyeth the inconsistence How foolish then is that stricture of your vanity which you here subjoin viz. but. I believe few of you know these writings whereas to be plain with you in my thought neither you nor I have given any great Specimen of this knowledge or said so much as the half of what is obviously to be found in almost any printed debate anent this matter Sir I must tell you further if I my selfe were alone concerned in this reflectionâ— I would scarce look upon it as a reproach worth the wipeing off to be as great a stranger to these things as ye take me to be nor would I think many cubits were added to my stature to be as knowing in them as your self yet it is known that I tell the world no news when I say that there have been and to this day are not a few great men of our way who have given such proof of their knowledge in these ancillarie and minutious things whereof you represente us as ignorant as have made your greatest Rabbies finde that wherein they gloried they were not short of them and if ye know not this yet seem to have lost your silly self in the Labyrinth of Antiquitie and by this means are fallen under the shameful reproach of being peregrinus Domi and if ye know it and yet so superciliously assert the contraire what Apologie can ye make for speaking so great an untruth that will either satisfie the world or your own Conscience But Sir ingenously I professe I pitie you for your Vanitie and folly for it seems ye think this the only expedient to make the world beleeve the pregnancie of your pate and Pronounce you worthie of the Chair but Sir it will onely make the more serious weep to remember who did once fill it and should have filled it still when they consider how it is become the seat of a scorner and the lesse serious will laugh at your prodigious folly I have only one overture to propose unto you that your vanity may be with some handsomeness hereafter coutched and the world may let pass what you say without quarrelling at it as a known falshood And it is this in your after comparings and measurings of your abilities that you may be taken notice of for a Nonsuch be so wise as to compare your self with your Fellow-Curats if ye hope to bear the bell but when ye insinuate a comparison with so many burning and shining lights and then in your Juvenile pride and self-conceit arrogate a preference to these ye do only force men to take notice of and enquire into your shame and short-coming And if I mistake not fall upon the most certain method of making your self â—â—ink above ground Sir if in these two or three lines I have digressed contrary to my inclination the occasion will justifie it and charity persuades to it But 3. You tell us that in the Council of Nice Speaking of the power of Metropolitans the Canon sayes let the ancient customes be in force It 's answered 1. We finde that Council did conveen in the year 325. Now admit that certain Customes concerning Metropolitans as well as Bishops were bâ—ought into the Church about 165. years before the Councel which is the highest period from whence they can be calculat These customes in this respect might will therein be termed Antient without the least contrariety to my assertion 2. It 's evident enough from many suffrages that as the primitive Episcopacie which succeeded to Presbyterie the Government first institute by our Lord and his Apostles and exercised in the Christian Church did only import the humane invention of a Prostasia for Order So the custome of Metropolitans in these times did differ nothing from it as may appear from the 33. Canon of these called Apostolical already cited wherein he is only termed Primus Gentis Episcopus and tyed to the advice of his Coëpiscopi In the next place you tell us that nothing can be alledged against your Episcopal power but Some few or disjointed places of some Authors which at most Prove that they judged not the origen of Bishops to be divine and none save Aerius repute an Heretick did ever speak against the difference betuixt Bishops and Presbyters Sir if you did not here acknowledge almost all that I desire I could easily shew you that not only the Scriptures of the New Testament and the agreeable practice of the Apostles and their Immediate successors are against your Prelatick excrescent power but that even for several ages thereafter while both Bishops and Metropolitans did exercise their Prostasian your Diocesan Prelat having the sole power of Ordination and jurisdiction was unknown yea expresly reprobate but because the appendix whereunto I have already referred and Smectymnus do plainly make out this point I shall not detain you As for Aâ—rius it 's true he held that a Bishop and a Presbyter do not differ and that Augustin cals this proprium ejus dogma his proper Opinion and Epiphanius dogma furiosum et stolidum a furious and foolish opinion and that both of them do ranck him among Hereticks but seing they also accuse him of Arrâ—anisme and withal do also taxe him for error in some points which are clâ—ar truth viz. that it is not lawful to pray and offer for the dead their censure is as little to be noticed as his Testimony specially seing many Learned men do plainly assert that not only Hierom but even Augustin himself Chrisostom and many others of the Fathers were of the same opinion with Aërius as to the matter of this difference but for Ierom you go about to alleviat his Testimonye viz. Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus Therefore a Presbyter is one and the same with a Bishop noverint Episcopi se magis consuetudine quan dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyter is esse majores c. And let the Bishops know that they are above Preebyters more through custome then any divine warrant Because he himself was but a Presbyter Pray Sir who were they whom your men cite so fast for Bishops were not they themselves Bishops and yet the truth is there were Bishops also at that time of his Opinion 2. You say that his fervent if not sirie Spirit drives him along in every things to an excess Good Sir where is now your veneration for Antiquity and the holy fathers For us seing we do not found on mans Authority this your brusk character discovering more of your partiality then of Ieroms infirmity doth not offend Only this I must say that whatever be his fervor in his other writtings yet I am sure that both in his Commentarie upon Titus and in
his Epistle ad Evagrium he confirms his assertion above set down with Scripture Arguments most calmly solidly and unanswerably 3. You alledge that Notwithstanding that he make the Bishop and Presbyter to differ in degree only and not in office and that by Ecclesiastick and not Divine Authority yet he confesseth that Presbyters did not ordain and that the origen of the exercising power was in the dayes of the Apostles to prevent schismes c. It 's answered he saith indeed quid enim facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non facit But as he is there pointing only at the custome then in use so this doth nothing derogate from that equality yea identitie of power which he attributeth to both from Scripture what you mean by the origen of the exercising power c. Is not so clear It 's true he affirmeth that at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters did always name one chosen of themselves and placed in higher degree Bishop but what says this more then that in all that time for orders sake they had successive Presidents at first it 's like moveable and thereafter fixed during life And we have already both acknowledged and regreted the grievous abuse occasioned by that latter practice You adde that he compares the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church â—to the high Priest Priests and Levites in the Temple and since there was at that time from Ecclesiastick custome then allowed which according to his use and as he useth to speak promiscuously writing of Lent he here indifferently termeth an Apostolick Tradition a ground of resemblance why might he not use the similitude without stretching it either to evert what he had said or countenance your Prelacie Lastly you alledge that he sayes that it was decreed through the whole World that a Presbyter should be over the rest to roote out the seede of difference It 's answered that this in toto orbe decretum est may and is to be understood not of an express Decree which doth no where appeare but of a General consentient custome taking place every where both the truth of the thing and Hieroms after Paulatim ad unum omnis Solicitudo est delata by little and little all the care is devolved upon one do abundantly cleare How ever this may be warrantably said that as this custome did with time universally obtain and in Ieroms dayes not having much exceeded the limits of a simple Prostasia was by him also approved as the remedy of dissention so he holding it to be not of Divine disposition no doubt if he had these other holy men were this day to see the hundred part of these sad and fearful effects that it hath produced nothing could be able to breake their astonishment at the surprizing sight of such prodigious consequences of this Mystery of iniquity but sorrow and Lamentation together with deep regrete that they did not better forsee and more timously resist the first tendencies and beginnings of this evil Now whether or not Antiquity be on your side and if our grounds from Scripture against your Episcopall Authority be not much confirmed both by Ierom and the other passages here handled I willingly submit it to all the lovers of truth but lest you think that by the representation I have made in the beginning of my answere to your alledgeance from Antiquity of the early and strange rise and grouth of Episcopacie I do thereby derogate from that light and purity which with you I acknowledge in these Primitive times I must note first That pride as it was the first sin and corrupter of Mans integrity from which the felicities of Paradise could not exempt him So is it of all sins the most inward rooted and subtile attending a man in all conditions finding Matter in all occasions and immixing it self even in our fairest and purest actions 2. That the Disciples of our Lord notwithstanding of his own presence holy instruction and humble example were not free of the motions of this evil the History of the Gospel doth plainly testify 3. I note that the times of the Apostles the most pure and powerfull that ever the Church enjoyed were many wayes infested with this plague I mention not the contentions betuixt Paul and Barnabas which no doubt sprung from this latent corruption but he who considereth the great numberâ— and many wicked practices of false Apostles Hereticks and Schismaticks in these days boasting against and despising even Paul himself with the affected Preheminence of Diotrephes and the then begun working of the mystery of iniquity toward the exalting of the Son of perdition in place of denying must of necessity marveil how this Devil of pride could in so gracious and short a time destitute of all Earthly encouragements so greatly prevail and plainly perceive that this active Spirit would not be wanting to imbrace and improve all occasions and opportunities offered 4 That as order did no doubt at first in all meetings require a President whom I also easily grant to have been as any occasion did require rather recommended by desert no evil consequence being then apprehended then presented by a constant and compleat Rotation So it is very probable and confirmed by Hieroms suffrage that contentions did first both fixe the presidencie or prostasia and exalt it to any notable eminencie but whether by way of remedy or by way of victory to the increase of the Maladie is indeed the most observable points and as I apprehend that whereupon we will divide and therefore I note 5. That although the Authority of able and holy men at first advanced to a fixed Presidencie might then appeare as in these dayes of great simplicity and humility in it self very innocent and in the event also effectuall to concord Yet without all question at best it was but an humane invention copied from the patern of the manner of the then Civil Government of the Empire to which our Lord expresly commanded his Disciples not to conforme 6. That seing affected preheminence and the contentions thence arising did clearly occasion the introducing of this Prostasia though in many yea most places the prevailing number of good men might thereto advance worthy and deserving persons studying more the prospering of the Gospel and unity of the Church then adverting to the bad consequences that thence might ensue Yet it is not only most certain that this promotion was that whereunto these strivings did every where directly aspire but also most probable that even in the first beginnings many ambitious pretenders wanting a just opposition did carry their design and were preferred 7. That by plain dealing I may satisfy all pretenses I observe that albeit power and Authority unite in the Prostasia of one amongst many may be thereby rendered more strong and effectual Yet seing the benefits of this union and advancement doth only flow from the accidental worth and ability of the person
me to a discovery which rendreth its event so dishonourable to our King's memory Having run thorow so many examples with such success as we have spoken you conclude And thus I have cleared the Churches abroad of that inâ—urious stain you brand them with But seeing I have so mamanifestly discovered your falshood and presumption in this matter I will not insult over this your folly You go on in the next place to our Britain and tell us of the English Reformation and how that it was stained with no blood save that of Martyrs and that indeed was no stain but as you do well correct your selfe its chief Ornament But Sir if the Reformation in other places were no less confirmed and rendred glorious by this zeal and testimony and withall the People by defensively resisting when in a sufficient capacity did evidence a greater and more universal constancy not versatile by every blast of Authority and ambulatory at Princes their pleasure doth it not rather augment then diminish their praise You adde That in England though a Popish and persecuting Queen interveened betwixt the first Reformation of King Edward and the second of Queen Elizabeth yet none rebelled And what then Pray Sir how or wherefore doth Scotland want that glory Sure I am that the Reformation being established in Scotland after a sharp war and by the way you may remember that Queen Elizabeth sided with the subject both by Pacification Authority and determination of a General Assembly yet we received Queen Mary from France a declared violent Papist without the least question anent her right of Government or any opposition moved against her until provoked by such weakness wickednesse as I am ashamed to mention Wherein then in this regard are we inferior to England unless it be that neither for the favour nor fear of a woman we were moved by any publict act let be by vote of Parliament as the Representative of that Nation to deny the â—aith and again take on theyoke of the Romane Antichrist Or how are you not ashamed to reproach your Nation with a nimious fervour specially upon this occasion wherein our worthy Reformers did make the Court complyance back-drawing and lukwarmness of a few temporizers their great and continual complaint In the next place you tell us that all that travelled the World can witness that we were not approven in our late rebellion and passing by Diodat Spanhem Rivet Salmasius Blondel Amerald de Moulin and others not named as all either in print or publick discourse declaring for you you say There was an act made by the Consistory of Charentoun that no man should be barred the communion for the Scots Excommunication except it were for a crime And this forsooth was a loud declaration of their disowning of our practice 'T is answered 1. Though you could give a account of the opinion of the Nations abroad concerning our late wars yet their judgement in matters so remote from their knowledge and wherein the favour generally born to Kings specially when so fatally unfortunat as Charles the first was is able to create in the most part very little inquisitive a very strong prejudice cannot amount to a testimony of any moment 2. That the more knowing among them did both by their Histories and other writtings also by their letters approve our proceedings might be very easily made out by an unanswerable condescendence nay that the generality both of Dutch and French Protestants did condemne the King's party and their practices I am certain none of these to whom you appeal in this matter can justly disown it As for Diodat and the rest you name why do you not eâ—hibite their words You say indeed for some of them very wisely and safely That they did only declare themselves in their Discourses and Sermons And for these I think you must be excused because you heard them not But for the rest I ingage that whatever passages you shall adduce from them on your part I shall redargue either their information in matter of fact or their reasons in matter of Right to the satisfaction of all unbyassed men Beside Salmasius is most exceptionable in respect he was imployed and got money in the cause and yet in the judgement of many though he had unanswerable advantages as to the main design of his defence he was even in that shamefully baffled And for Amerauld read but his own vain and ridiculous Dedication of his paraphrase upon the Psalmes to the King in the year of his restitution and I am certain you will allow us to think the want of his suffrage no prejudice to our cause Now for your act made at Charenton I confess your not producing of it doth the more dissatisfy because you represent it in termes little consistent viz. That the Scoâ—s Excommunication should not debar unless it were for a crime That you take a crime in this place in its larger acceptation for an offense and not in that more strict and proper wherein Lawyers use it it were disingenuity in me for to call it in question But then how Excommunication can otherwise proceed without the allegation of any crime as you seem to accuse us is indeed to me a difficulty inexplicable whereof I am sure our Church could not be guilty and therefore seing the Consistorie could not doubt that the Church of Scotland did hold an offense and obstinacie to be the necessary causes of excommunication for them to have â—lighted the tryal by us made and judged the particular grounds of our procedure not answerable to the general rule had been breach of Christian communion and charity whereof your naked assertion shall never make me think the French Church guilty withal yow know that the Bishop of Galloway whom you alledge to have been upon this act admitted to the Lords Table notwithstanding of his excommunication was excommunicate upon the accusation of clear crimes So that what you call a loud declaration on the Consistories part I apprehend to be only a loud calumny on yours But whatever be in that act or the Bishops admission upon his own information in opposition to all your vain pretenses of contrary Authorities it is certain that not only the truth and right was on our side but also that our practices were approven yea applauded and we therein encouraged by letters from several of the reformed Churches yet extant upon record But in the next place your N. C. Demanding it you undertake to tell him ingenuously what precedents there are in History for subjects fighting upon the account of Religion And the first you say that you know is that of Gregory the seventh arming the subjects of Germanie against Henry the fourth from whom other Popes taking example they made no bones upon any displeasure pretending alwayes some matter of Religion to depose Princes and liberat their subjects As you instance in Frederick the. 1. und 2. Lewes of Bavier and several others but the latest
Kingdome But can you or any man thence conclude that therefore he acted from an ordinary power and facultie a priviledge proper to his office Why then should men be so absurdly unequal as from the like extraordinary interpositions of Princes in Church perturbations to attribute to them a proper inherent right and perpetual prerogative Next you say That the Emperours also judged in matters of Schisme But seing that any judgement given by them was consequent to the Churches determination though perhapes with a little attemperation for conveniency whereof determinations in these matters do very naturally allow the instance is no more favourable then the rest you have adduced But the Code Basilicks Capitulers of Charles the great shew that they never thought it without their sphere to make laws in Ecclesiastick matters 'T is answ This objection shewes that either you are little acquainted with what is in these Books or little advertent to the conclusion you have in hand The laws you mention are either imperial confirmations of the truth owned by the Church or for condemning and punishing of declared hereticks or for authorizing and ordering a slender umbrage of jurisdiction called episcopalis audientia granted to Church-men in charitable and favourable cases or for restraining and correcting their dissolute manners or lastly anent the regulating of Hospitals Alms-houses other things pertaining to the outward policy of the Church Pray Sir what make these for your Supremacie Or was ever this part of his Majesties power by us questioned But where wil you finde in all approven antiquity that ever a Prince by vertue of a pretended inherent right in his Crown or any acclaimed prerogative and Supremacie in causes Ecclesiastick took upon him with one blow summarily to overturne the established Ministery of a Church by himselfe formerly by solemn Oath confirmed introduce new Office-bearers set up a new frame of Church-government declaring himselfe to be the sole head and fountain thereof to whom all others as subordinat must be accountable for their admistrations In what antient record did you ever read of a Commission granted by a King for Ecclesiastick affaires impowering Secular persons to appoint Ministers to be censured by suspension and deposition and Church-men to punish by fining confining incarcerating and other corporal paints What Emperour or Prince did ever assume to himselfe in the right of his royal power at once to impose upon a whole Church a new liturgie and form of service never before heard of among them Or did it ever enter in the heart of a Christian Potentat to declare for a Law that what ever he should please to enact anent Church-meetings and matters should upon the publication be by all obeyed and observed and in suite of it to statute that if either Minister or other person not allowed by his or his Bishops authority do preach expone Scripture or pray except in his own house and to these only of his own family it shall be judged a Coventicle and liable to pains of Law These are a part of the native fruits of your Supremacie If you look back to confirme it by antient precedents pray give us but one parallel I grant that Iustinian in some of his Constitutions after having declared and confirmed the truth received by the Church and dâ—termined by her Councils not only condemnes but anathematizes the contrary heresies But seing his using of that phrase peculiar to the Church and properly importing a power acknowledged not to be competent to secular Athority doth only express his more enixe detestation of these errours and approbation of the Church her censures against them it cannot with any colour of reason be made use of for your purpose But you proceed to tell us that the Bishops not excepting the Bishope of Rome were named at least their elections approven by the Emperours And what then For my part if the Emperour and all Christian Princes should agree at once to reduce them aswell as they advanced them it should not be accounted an invasion of the Churches power or priviledge But because it is like that these Emperours you speak of did indeed regard them as true Church-officers nevertheless medled as is mentioned in their elections I answer further that the true cause of Princes their first medling in the elections of Bishops was either the diffidence of the Bishops as to that office and title wherein not being satisfied from Scripture-warrant they were inclined to apply to the Emperour for the supplement of his confirmation or els their solicitous ambition which in thesearly contests that they had for precedency did prompt them among other artifices to fortify their pretensions by the Emperour's favour and suffrage However this is very certain that whether the Emperour 's medling was first procured by the Bishops address or did flow from their own proper motive had these Church-men contained themselves within the rules and limits set to them by our Lord they had never judged the Emperours confirmation requisite to the validity of their office and title and therefore seing the true account of this matter is that the aspiring of Ecclesiasticks did give the first rise unto this secular medling whether we take it to be no usurpation as being conversant about that which to say the truth is not Christian let be Ecclesiastick or to be a partaking in the Church-men their usurpation either of the two doâ—h equally make void your argument After the reasons which we have heard you conclude That Kings their medling in Ecclesiastick affaires was never controverted till the Romane Church swelled to the hight of tyranny and since the reformation it hath been still stated as one of the differences betwixt us and them It is answered If Princes had at first exceeded and intruded too far in Church-matters and then the Pope acted by a worse spirit and no less aspiring had risen up against his Masters and thrust himselfe into their rooms what would this make for your advantage Or doth it to either of them conclude a right Suppose a Papist debating this question should argue thus that the Pope his headship in Ecclesiastick affaires in England was never controverted till Henry the Eight impatient through lust did arrogate to himself the Supremacy and since that time it hath still been stated as one of the controverted differences would you think this reasoning pungent Why then is not your discerning equall to your judgement But the clear truth in this matter is that although the Emperours of old did at no time lay claime to this Supremacy questioned yet they and the succeeding Princes having too much connived at and countenanced the Antichristian ambition working in Prelacy toward the Papacy it was from the righteous judgement of God that upon its exaltation they were blinded and involved in these contentions and justly plagued by the transcendent insolence of an evill which they had too much fomented And therefore your dating the period of these contests