the worst oft carried the possession and Councils themselves were for divers whih was the Episcopal communion 3. Is communion and subjection all one with him or divers If divers I have communion with many Bishops that I am not subject to If the same how many must each man be subject to and in what order and cases 4. Communion is 1. mental or local and the first 1. In essentials 2. Integrals 3. Accidents of Christianity I have communion with all Christians in Essentials with the best in most integrals with none in all nor in all accidents 4. I am more secure in the mental communion of many Bishops than of some one and of All in Essentials and certain things than of some one in suspected things especially in universal communion with Christ and his whole Church 2. He that hath no communion with any true Bishops of Gods institution in his judgment will and profession hath no communion with Christs Church But if they are 1. of a false species 2. incapable 3. unordained 4. obtruders not consented to by the Clergy and the Flock it 's safest to disown them 5. And â—f they turn wolves thorns and thistles or hereticks 2. It 's dangerous to refuse communion with the true Episcopi Gregis but not with such as depose them 3. And its doubtful as to the Episcopi Episcoporum 1. It 's but deceit to distinguish only ordinary and extraordinary in speaking of the necessity of means The Gospel written or preached is an ordinary means which to want is hazardous indeed so is meditation prayer and sacraments where they may well be had and Pastors to administer them But there are many lesser means that may be wanting or ignorantly refused where salvation is safe The Church of England thinks preaching to be such which forbiddeth men to go for Preaching and from a bare Reader in his own Parish And the Indians converted by Frumentius and Edesius might have certain salvation before they had any Pastor And so may they that cannot know among contenders which is the true Pastor either as to the species or individual But 2. Comunion in every lawful thing is no ordinary requisite means of salvation Mark Reader that he said that suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by such Governours for refusing submission to unsinful things And Dr. Saywell Bishop Gunnings Chaplain and this man make such refusal and schism damnable Now mark here how they make all indifferent imposed things consequently necessary to salvation and make all such indifferences to be Articles of faith or necessary to salvation to be believed E.g. if Organs the Cross in Baptism Surplices Church-images Exorcisms and five hundred such be indifferent and commanded by the Bishop he that is excommunicated for not conforming to them or withdraweth for it is a damnable Schismatick Ergo it is necessary to salvation to conform to every one of them in that case Ergo it 's necessary to salvation to hold them to be lawful or else to use them while I verily take them to be sins To what a mass now have these men brought the Aâ—ticles or necessaries to salvation Doth any living man know all lawful things to be such 1. Then in Abassia where there is but one Abuna Bishop local Communion with him is impossible to most 2. And how is the Patriarch of Alexandria who ordaineth him of that Place that is another Kingdom 2. Then in one Place-Communion with Papists in another with Greeks Moscovites Abisines Armenians c. is necessary in unsinful things 3. Who will judg but the Excommunicator what is unsinful as to his act 4. What a case were men in at Rome under Formosus Stephen Sergius Eugenius 4. Iohn 12. and 22. c. and at Alexandria under Peter Meletius Paulinus Flavianus and so oft in other Schisms and Nullities 5. The Novatians and Ioannites had the ordinary means of salvation in Constantinople under separate Pastors But it 's true that the ordinary means are confined to the visible Church and its external Communion where it may be had Of which more anon 1. Some think that if God had only commanded men to love him call upon him hate sin seek life eternal without an express promise one might be sure it should not be done in vain 2 But God hath expresly promised salvation to all that truly love trust and obey him and seek first Gods Kingdom and are pure in heart holy and love all men though they were excommunicate for not crossing subscribing or thinking Diocesans unlawful Chap. 3. The Promises of God and his Covenant on his part are all one Those that God promiseth to save shall certainly be savâ—d who those are the Gospel fully tâ—lls us yea and told men before the particular Churches were fixed under their proper Pastors called Elders and Bishops in the Scripture 3 Transaction is an ambiguous word 1. It was transacted by making the promise by Christ on Earth 2. It is transacted by giving the consenting penitent Believer a Right before God to Christ and salvation when he first truly so consenteth 3. It is transacted by a solemn Mâ—nisterial Investiture sealing and delivering that Right for the fuller comfort of the consenter and in soro Ecclesiae to give the Right of external Communion as a Tessara when the person is baptizâ—d 4. It is transacted by renewed confirmation and for further grace daily in the Eucharist I love not to offend you but I must be true to truth and souls and therefore tell men that these Generals and Confusions are but Cheats 3. Would you have men believe that external solemnities are necessary to the Right of Heart Covenanters before God as to salvetion Or that all external solemnities are of the same necessity The Church of England takes Confirmation to de an external solemnity for assuring men of Gods favour by the sign of Imposition of a Diocesans hands and yet bind you to profess that it is not necessary to salvation but the baptized Infants are certainly and undoubtedly saved without it Litanies Processions and many external solemnities are not essential to external Communion with the visible Church Chap. 8 O tremendous Is it no other Is not the universal visible Church consisting of all professed Christians Headed only by Christ the only universal Church visible in the world Is there no Communion with this as such Had the baptized Eunuch by Philip the Evangelist no Communion with the visible Church nor promise of salvation nor the Iberians Indians and many others that were baptized before they knew or had a Bishop Do not baptizing Presbyters and Lay-men say Turtullian and the Papists assure men of salvation though they should not hear of a Bishop Why was not Diocesan Episcopacy in the Creed if the belief and obedience be necessary to salvation a 1. 1. Apostles and Evangelists took men into the visible Communion of the universal Church before they had particular Church-Bishops 2. Fixed Church-Communion was exercised universally under
perceive from whom they come when the damnation of poor people must be so easily submitted to if the Bishop do but command the means Methinks you wrong the Bishops by such odious Suppositions and Assertions as if you would make men believe that they are the Grievous Wolves that spare not the flock and the thorns and thistles that are made to prick and rend the people But I believe that the Bishops faultiness in mens damnation would be no exeuse to me if I be accessory 4. And I doubt not but if you unjustly ipso facto Excommunicate men it neither depriveth them of the right nor absolveth them from the duty of publick Worship and Church-Communion And I am ashamed to read and hear Preachers publickly reproaching them for not holding constant Communion with the Parish-Churches when it 's notorious that the Canon hath thus Excommunicated them yea though it were their duty sometime to intrude And I beseech you judg as a Christian or a man whether you can think such Arguments should draw the people themselves to be of your mind Go to them and speak out Neighbours I confess that while you live in ignorance and sin for want of teaching and publick worship you are in the way to damnation but it is the Bishop and not the silenced Preacher that shall answer for it Will they not reply And shall not the Bishop then he damned instead of us as well as instead of the silenced Preacher VIII Your doubt about mens power to change Christs setled form of Church-government is but a consequent of your first of mens absolute power But 1. if they change Gods Laws or instituted Church-forms or Government may they not change their own And if so there is some hope of a Reformation But why then did the Canons of 1640. in the Et caetera Oath swear the Clergy never to consent to change And why are we now to swear in the Oxford Oath That we will never endeavour any alteration of Church-Government tho' the keys be in the power of Lay-Chancellors and tho' the King may command us to endeavour it must the Nation or Clergy swear never in their own places to endeavour any alteration of the Bishops Institutions as you take them and yet may the Bishops alter the very Form of Government and Churches made by our Universal King 2. What an uncertain mutable thing may Christs Laws or Church-Government prove while mutable men may change it at their pleasure 3. To what purpose is Antiquity and Tradition so much pleaded by Hierarchical Divines as if that were the Test to know the right Government and Church if the Bishops may alter it 4. If thus much of Christs Laws and Institutions may be altered by Prelates how shall we be sure that all the rest is not also at their will and mercy or which is it that they may alter and which not 5. Doth not this set man so far above God or equal with him as will still tempt men to think that more are Antichristian than the Pope If you say that it is by Gods own grant I wait for your proof that God granteth power to any man above his Laws Those that he made but Local or Temporary himself are not abrogated or changed by man where they bind not for they never bound any but their proper subjects e. g. The Iewish Laws as such never bound the Gentile world and the command of washing feet bound only thâ—se where the use of going bare-leg'd with Sandals in a hot Country made it an office of kindness and so of other Temporary precepts 6. How contrary is this to the common Christian Doctrine that we must obey none that command us to sin against God For by the first assertion and this it seemeth that it cannot be a sin which the Bishops command 7. I pray you put in an exception for the Power and Lives of Kings and the Laws of the Land and the Property and Liberty of the Subjects and one word for the Protestant Religion For we English-men think God to be greater than the King or St. Patrick and Gods Laws to be firmer than the Statutes of King and Parliament And yet I doubt that the King and some Parliament will be angry if you do but say that the Bishops by consent may change their Statutes or lawful Officers and Powers And Bishops if you say that Episcopacy may be changed IX Baptism as such entereth not the Baptized into any particular Church but only into the Vniversal headed by Christ yet a man may at the same time be entered into the Vniversal and into a particular Church but that is by a double consent and not by Baptism as such In this I know none that agree with you but some few of the Independents in New-England and some of the Papists I confess Bellarmine saith That by Baptism we are virtually obliged to the Pope being baptized by a Ministry and into a Church of which he is the Head But the contrary is proved 1. From the express form of the Baptismal Covenant which only tyeth us to Christ and his Universal Church and maketh us Christians But to be a Christian dedicated to the Father Son and Holy Ghost is one thing and to be a part of the Pastoral Charge of A. B. or N. N. is another thing 2. What particular Church was the Eunuch Act. 8. baptized into Not that of Ierusalem for he was going from it never like to see it more Not that in Ethiopia for there was none till he began it If you say of Philips Church 1. I pray you where was that 2. And how prove you it 3. Specially if it was Philip the Deacon that had no Church being no Bishop 3. May not men be baptized in Turkey or among other Infidels or Indians where there is no Church And is the first baptized man among them a Church himself Paul thanketh God that he baptized no more of the Corinthians lest they should think that he baptized into his own name And doth every Baptizer baptize to himself or to his Bishop A man may baptize out of all Diocesses or in another's X. As to your next Assertion I grant that when a Bishop or a beggar speaketh the Commands of God and a King speaketh against it we must follow that Bishop or beggar rather than the King because this is but obeying God before men But supposing that it is a thing indifferent and but circa sacra and not a proper part of the Agent Pastors Office I confess to you I will obey the King before the Bishop 1. Because it is a thing that is under the Power of the King to command and if so the King is the Supreme and not the Bishop 2. Bishops themselves are Subjects of the King and owe him obedience Therefore rule not over or before him in matters belonging to his Office 3. Bishops are chosen by the King for I suppose no man takes the Dean and Chapters choice for
him a damnable schismatick 14. And hereby there are as many hundred new Articles of Faith made as there are things lawful which a Prelate will command For though all is not to be done that is to be believed yet all must be believed to be lawful and duty which must be done as such e. g. We cannot love God worship him hear and read his Word c. as by Divine obedience unless we believe it to be our duty by a Divine command Therefore when as Mr. Dodwell Dr. Saywell and such others tell us what damning schism it is to disobey such commands of the Bishops or to suffer our selves to be Excommunicate it plainly includeth that it is as damning a sin to take any lawful thing to be a sin and not to believe it to be lawful whatever the Bishop shall command And so to how many hundred indifferent things may the Articles of our Faith be extended while it is made ordinarily necessary to Salvation to do them and therefore to believe them to be lawful 15 By this he confoundeth Communion and Obedience I may have communion with many Bishops whom I am not bound to obey But I cannot hinder them from Excommunicating me without obeying them 16. Yea he maketh Communion and Salvation to lye not only on such obedience but on such perfection of obedience as reacheth to every lawful indifferent thing Whereas God himself under the Gospel accepteth of sincerity instead of perfection which the Law required of perfect man 17. This is the way to make Bishops absolute Lords of Kings and States and all the world if they can make them believe that on pain of damnation for schism all must obey them even in every indifferent thing 18. If you would ferret him out of his Burrough ask Mr. Dodwell what if the Bishop of the place where I live contradict the Archbishop or the Synod or most of the Bishops in the land which must I obey to escape damning schism Doubtless he will allow me to disobey my Bishop But what if the National Synod gainsay the Provincial He will say I may disobey the Provincial But what if a Council of many Nations called General gainsay the National and it be known that our National Church is gainsayed by the far greatest part of the Bishops in the world which must I obey If the National why not a Provincial against them And why are not they Schismaticks for disobeying a General Council If it be the greater Council that I must obey 1. What 's become then of his doctrine of obeying the Episcopacy of the place where we live 2. And then we are brought under a foreign Jurisdiction 3. And who but the Pope must call that General Council preside approve c. 4. And among all the erroneous and contradicting Councils called General how shall all Christians know which of them to obey We see whither all will come at last But saith Bishop Bilson To such Councils called General we owe respect for concord if they abuse us not by error or usurpation but subjection and obedience we owe them none 19. How hardly will these men ever resolve one's conscience which is to be taken for the Episcopacy of the place when there are in the same place both different species of Bishops and also divers Bishops of the same species and all pretending to be right In Ireland both the Papist and Protestant Bishops pretend to just succession and so they did in Bohemia Poland Transylvania Hungary c. And doth salvation lye on mens knowledg who hath right 20. And how contrary is it to the way of Christ and the ancient Church that made the Baptismal covenant the terms of salvation for men to make it necessary for every poor man and woman that will have Covenant-right to salvation and escape damning schism to be able to decide the controversies between all such pretenders and to know whether their Bishops be of a true species and have true Ordination and to be such rare Historians as to know that all the line of Ordainers down from the Apostles to their Bishops were truly ordained O difficult terms 21. Doth he not condemn all those Ancient and Modern Christians as Fautors oâ— damning Doctrine who thought that when there were none of the Clergy to do it lay-men might baptize and give the Lords Supper Grotius told us his judgment for it in Dissertat de Caenae administrat ubi Pastores non sunt And he hath vindicated Tertullian's judgment for it confessed by Rigaltius Anton. Govea tells us it was the case of the Christians of Malabar c. called of St. Thomas whose Bishops being all destroyed they caused a Deacon to administer the Eucharist as the Bishops and Presbyters had done which Grotius also repeateth Ionan Antiochenus magnified by Socrates lib. 6. cap. 3. when at Antioch there were two Churches with two Bishops Meletius and Paulinus stuck to Meletius till he died and after for three years would communicate with neither Did he by this become a damned Schismatick or lose his Covenant-right to salvation 22. Many of old were chosen for Bishops before they were baptized the cases of Ambrose Nectarius Synesius c. are known If the Church thought them all to be in a state of damnation for want of the Sacrament it 's strange that they would choose them to be their Bishops though it was irregular Indeed it 's true that Grotius saith ibid. in fine that Chrysostomes Nazianzenes and others cases tell us that it was ordinary in the Greek-Church to delay baptizing even the children of the faithful till at full years about Twenty Were they all that while without any promise of salvation or ordinary hope 23. What a task will it be for Mr. Dodwell to tell us what state the baptized are in till they receive the Lords Supper Baptism saveth them once but yet till they receive the Lords Supper by a Minister in successive Episcopal Orders they have no Covenant-title to salvation by his way But some Communicate not till Thirty years old some not till One and Twenty and in England scarce any before Sixteen Are they all this while the children of God or of the Devil And when is it that their Christianity ceaseth for want of the other Sacrament I believe that if they truly believe they are Gods children before they come to the second Sacrament or the third as some call it Was Constantine Mag. in a state of damnation who was not baptized till near his death Or the good Emperour Valentinian who died unbaptizâ—d but taken by Ambrose for a blessed man What absurdities are men fain to use to get the Mastery of the Christian world by making men believe that they can save or damn them by the power of Sacraments 24. And how is this man for Conformity by which they subscribe assent to the certain salvation of Infants so dying without Confirmation and ordain that the Lords Supper be not Administred to any till they are
that was Ordained in our Synods § 33. And he hath half disabled me to answer him from p. 50. forwards where he feigneth me to maintain that Authority must necessarily result from true qualifications For it is taken for uncivil to give his words their proper name But if the Reader will pardon the Repetition I may remind him how probable it is that Mr. Dodwell trusted that his Reader would believe his words without perusing what I wrote where he might have seen 1. That I say that the Authority resulteth not from the qualifications but from Christs Law Grant or Charter 2. That personal qualifications of gifts or grace are but part of the necessary Dispasitio Recipientis but that moreover there is needful 1. Opportunity 2. And need of his Office 3. And to a Bishop the flocks consent if not election And ordinis gratia where moral necessiâ—y dispenseth not with order the Ordainers approbation and consent 5. And to regular possession where it may be had a due Investiture so that there is a Relative part as well as a Qualitative of the Receptive disposition necessary And all the following leaves in which he disputeth against me as maintaining a power resulting from meer qualities are so unbeseeming a Divine and a Câ—ristian that I will not soul my paper with their due confutation But they are suitable to that man who thinks himself wise good and fit enough to Unchurch and condemn so much as he doth of the Christian world on pretence of pleading for obedience to the Diocesans § 34. And where he adds p. 50. Or that it so depends on them qualifications as that where the persons ordained may want any of them there the whol Ordination must be null because of the incapacity of the matter This also he denieth Ans. 1. I still distinguish between the Qualifications necessary ad esse and those only ad bene esse or integral If he would perswade the Reader that I null Ordination for want of the latter his weakness or designed ill intent is such as warneth his Readers to take heed of believing him If he mean it only of the former as I speak I have before confuted him that dare say that no qualification is necessary ad esse Then a Pope Ioan or woman-Priest or Prelate or a professed enemy of God or Christ may be a Priest And he may be a Pastor of a Church to feed them by the Word who never heard or know what was the Word or Church Cannot the best believer go to Heaven if all your Priests will but deny him the Sacrament and yet may a man be validly a Bishop and the Key keeper of Heaven that believeth not that there is a God a Christ or Heaven and so professeth This maketh me remember the old Roman Canons how no Bishop must be deposed for lying with his own Sister unless a great multitude of Witnesses testifie it and the Councils that decreed no Layman shall witness against a Clergy-man c. But Election consent the Ordainers approbation ordinarily are part of my Qualifications And if these be unnecessary what doth the man plead for And is a false approbation of a man that wanteth Essentials more necessary than having them How contrary is this to the Doctrine of the Council of Carthage in the Epistle in Cyprian of Martial and Basilides and to many honest Councils § 35. P. 90. At the end of this insinuated false accusation he asketh Where do we find that God ever gave Bishops Presbyters and Deacons though he gave Apostles Pastors and Teachers those extraordinary Offices indeed seem to have been made neither of man nor by man but by God immediately c. Ans. 1. Hath he said a word to prove that Pastors and Teachers are not ordinary Officers contrary to the common judgment of the Church in all ages 2. Whether he mean Bishops in the Dative Case or the Accusative I know not If the later let him speak out and say God gave not Bishops But how proveth he that Presbyters and Bishops are not Pastors or Teachers 3. The Text tells you Ephes. 4.14 15 16. that these offices were given for the continued stated use of the Church For the perfecting of the Saints the work of the Ministry for the edifying the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledg of the Son of God to a perfect man c. Was this temporary 4. It seems he disclaimeth Bishops being made in making Apostles 5. Christ by his Spirit in the Apostles ordered the Churches § 36. P. 65. he saith They never find any of those Officers to whom succession is at present pretended made immediately by God but by the intervention of men c. Ans. Still deceiving confusion 1. Intervention is a word of fraud and may signifie only that act which determineth of and qualifieth the receiver and it may signifie the Donation or making of the office It is this that we speak of 2. The Intervention of infallibly inspired men commissioned to deliver and record Christs own will hath an efficiency instrumental in making the office in that the Spirit in them doth it and they do make instrumentally the Charter or Law which giveth the power and Christ doth what they did by his Commission and Spirit If you can prove that our Diocesans have this Commission spirit and power if they write new Sacred Scriptures or make new Sacraments and Church-forms and offices we will obey them But prove it well 3. Did any man but Christ send forth the Seventy Yet most Prelatists hold that those were the predecessors of the Presbyters 4. By this it seems he again denieth that Christ himself instituted the Order of Bishops by making Apostles And if so he will sorely shake his standing for then they must prove all their power from the Apostles or following persons institutions and not make them successors of the Apostles own Office for they made not their own Office And Dr. Stillingfleet thinks there were no Bishops or few made in the Apostles times as Dr. Hammond thinks of subject-Presbyters And if Christs Spirit in the Apostles made not these Offices who made the Scripture which is Gods Law I despair of seeing it proved that any since them were authorized to make them And if men only made the Episcopal and Presbyters Office men may unmake them § 37. A case put to me within this hour remindeth me how much these men prefer Ordination not only in it self but in this circumstance of Prelatical uninterrupted succession before Baptism which is our Christning There are some godly young men that have Communicated in the Lords Supper that were the children of Quakers and Anabaptists some were never baptized and some know not whether they were or not and being born near Two hundred Miles hence cannot learn or come to any certainty The question is Whether these that have Communicated should yet be baptized which is to make Christians of
practice Is this the rate of these mens wise disputations 1. A murderers practice may be disputed at the Assizes when his act is past 2. Shall not all the actions of men in this world be examined and judged of by Christ hereafter What no men judged according to their works or for any thing done in the body 3. Or did he mean that God will justifie us for any Villany that we shall do in obedience to the Supreme Clergy 4. Or did he think that by appealing to Gods judgment we challenge them there to dispute with us What to make of this mans demonstrations little do I know § 48. He adds P. 82. For how fallible soever they may be conceived to be in expounding Scripture yet none can deny them to be the most certain as well as the most competent Iudges of their own intentions Ans. 1. That 's true And if their intentions may make Doctrine Worship and Priesthood what they please it much concerneth us that they conceal not their intentions But I would I knew whose intention this must be whether the supreme Clergies or the Ordainers and what to do if divers mens intentions differ and what bounds are set to their intentions and how many hundred sorts of Priests Doctrine or worship they may make 2. You touch their fallibility tenderly as a thing that some may conceive But it seems let them never so falsely expound Scripture their own intentions still shall prevail against all the word of God I would you would answer Dr. Stillingfleet's Rational Account which confuteth you § 49. He proceeds As certainly therefore as God hath made his Church a visible society and constituted a visible Government in it so certainly it is to be presumed that their Hypothesis must be false c. Ans. 1. Trifle not at this deceiving rate with plain men that love the light If by a visible Society with a visible Government you mean as we have great reason to think With a visible Government over it besides Christ do not thus as Mr. Thorndike and others of you do go on to beg it and build vast structures on it but prove it to us and we will yield prove to me that the Vniversal Church is a Society that must have one visâ—ble supreme Government under Christ and I here declare to you that I will turn Papist presently and will not wrangle against any man for calling me a Papist though I may not own all that Popes say and do as those do that Grotius called Papists I will not talk with Bishop Gunning of a Collegium Pastorum governing all the Christian world per literas formatas nor be so moderate as those French Papists that make an Vniversal Council which never was nor ever must be the supreme Church-power I will presently be for the Pope though not as absolute But why answer you not what we have said against it particularly my Sermon in the Morning-Lectures against Popery 2. But if by a visible power in the Church you mean not one over the Church the Independents deny it not while every City hath its proper Mayor and so every Church its Pastor it is a visible power in the Kingdom but not over it as a Kingdom All the Justices of Peace are visible powers in the Kingdom but not Supreme nor as one Aristocracy over the whole Seeing all my dissent from Popery and from you is founded in my judgment against any one universal Supreme besides Christ Monarch Aristocracy or Democracy I seriously intreat you to write your strongest arguments on that subject to convince me and answer what I have said to Mr. Iohnson and you may spare all the rest of your labour as to me This will do all § 50. P. 83. He adds How can subjects preserve their due Subordination to their Superiors if they practice differently and while they defend their practices and pretend Divine authority for them Ans. 1. As the three Confessors did Dan. 3. and as Daniel did Dan. 6. and as the Apostles did Act. 2. 3. 4. And as all the Bishops and Churches did for three hundred years And as the Orthodox did under Valens Constantine Theodosius junior Anastasius Philippicus c. 2. They may defend it by proving that there is a God who is supreme and that there is no power but of him and none against him and that man is not God and therefore hath no power but limited and that to disobey usurpation is not to disobey power and that God must be obeyed before man 3. This is high language and harsh to Protestant and Christian ears What! are you serious Must none in Rome Italy Spain France c. practise contrary to their Governours nor in Turky neither Nor in China Iapan c Is it unlawful to read the Scripture to pray to worship God to be baptized to profess our selves Christians to speak a good word or do a good deed to feed our Children or relieve our Parents c. if Governours forbid us This is far worse than to forbid the Scripture in a known tongue if when we know it we must not obey it if Governours forbid us nor so much as plead Divine Authority for doing what Gods word commandeth us Is Gods authority so contemptible in comparison of Prelates Or doth it so little concern us as that we may not so much as plead it for any practice forbidden us by superiours This Doctrine must needs startle a Christians heart It 's far unlike Bishop Bilsons of subjection and such others If you really mean so that whatever God commandeth us in Scripture we must do none of it if the Governours forbid us or else we overthrow all Governments speak it out and prove it but Christians will abhor it And yet this same man calleth the Martyrs Saints when his argument makes them rebels W. Iohnson would not have talkt at this rate § 51. And I would fain know whether he that first saith that it subverteth all Government and after nameth supreme Church-Government do really mean it of all or of Church-Government only 1. If of all the man is no Papist I will gratifie him to proclaim it for he is no Christian. He that thinks that men must not plead Gods Authority for doing any thing different from the wills of Turkish Iewish or Heathen Governours surely is no Christian No nor if he had confined this power to Christian Governours 2. But if he mean it only of Church-Governours how come they to have so absolute a power more than Civil Magistrates May we plead Gods Authority against a King and not against the Prelates What proof was ever given of this Then the Prelates is far above the Kings Then the Prelate is an absolute Governour of the King himself Let Kings and Parliaments but understand these men and we fear not their deceits Are they willing to give over all worship of God and confessing Christ and all duties of Religion Justice or Charity if the Supreme