Act. II. 22 26. And because that Church was governed by Elders Acts 11.30 which were Elders of that Church and did together for Acts of Government And the Apostles themselves in that meeting Acts 15. acted not as Apostles but as Elders stating the Question debating it in the ordinary way of disputation and having by search of Scripture found the will of God they conclude It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us which in the judgement of the learned may be spoken by any Assembly upon like evidence of Scripture The like Presbyterian Government had place in the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. in the times of the Apostles and after them for many yeares when one of the Presbytery was made Episcopus Praeses even then Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur saith Jerome Episcopos magis consuctudine quam Dispositionis Divinae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere ecclesiam regere 5. Farre be it form me to think such a thought as that your Majesty did intend any Fallacy in your other maine Argument from Antiquity As we are to distinguish between Intentio Operantis Conditio Operis so may we in this case consider the difference between Intentio Argumentantis Conditio Argumenti And where your Majesty argues that if your Opinion be not admitted we will be forced to give place to the Interpretation or private Spirits which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle Peter and will prove to be of dangerous consequence I humbly offer to be considered by Your Majesty what some of chief note among the Papists themselves have taught us That the Interpretation of Scriptures and the Spirits whence they proceed may be called private in a threefold sense 1. Ratione Personae if the Interpreter be of a private condition 2. Rationen Modi Medii when Persons although not private use not the publique meanes which are necessary for finding out the Truth but follow their owne fancies 3. Ratione finis when the Interpretation is not proposed as Authenticall to bind others but is intended onely for our owne private satisfaction The first is not to be despised the second is to be exploded and is condemned by the Apostle Peter the third ought not to be censured But that Interpretation which is Authenticall and of supreme Authority which even mans conscience is bound to yeild unto is of an higher nature And although the Generall Councell should resolve it and the Consent of the Fathers should be had unto it yet there must alwaies be place left to the judgment of Discretion as Davenant late Bishop of Salisbury beside divers others hath learnedly made appeare in his Booke De Judice Controversiarum where also the Power of Kings in matter of Religion is solidly and unpartially determined Two words onely I adde one is that notwithstanding all that is pretended from Antiquity a Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction will never be found in Prime Antiquity The other is that many of the Fathers did unwittingly bring forth that Antichrist which was conceived in the times of the Apostles and therefore are incompetent Judges in the Question of Hierarchy And upon the other part the Lights of the Christian Church at and since the beginning of the Reformation have dâ—scovered many secrets concerning the Antichrist and his Hierarchy which were not knowne to former Ages And diverse of the learned in the Roman Church have not feared to pronounce That whosoever denies the true and literall sense of many Texts of Scripture to have been found out in this last Age is unthankfull to God who hath so plentifully powred forth his Spirit upon the Children of this Generation and ungratefull towards those men who with so great paines so happy successe so much benefit to Gods Church have travailed therein This might be instanced in many places of Scripture I wind together Diotrephes and the Mystery of Iniquity the one as an old example of Church-ambition which was also too palpable in the Apostles themselves And the other as a cover of Ambition afterwards discovered which two brought forth the great Mystery of the Papacy at last 6. Although your Majesty be not made a Judge of the Reformed Churches yet you so farre censure them and their actions as without Bishops in your judgment they cannot have a lawfull Ministery nor a due Administration of the Sacraments Against which dangerous destructive Opinion I did alledge what I supposed your Majesty would not have denied 1. That Presbyters without a Bishop may Ordaine other Presbyters 2. That Baptisme administred by such a Presbyter is another thing than Baptisme administred by a private Person or by a Midwife Of the first your Majesty calls for proofe I told before that in Scripture it is manifest I Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee which was given Thee by the Prophesie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery so it is in the English Translation And the word Presbytery so often as it is used in the New Testament alwaies signifies the Persons and not the Office And although the Offices of Bishop and Presbyter were distinct yet doth not the Presbyter derive his power of Order from the Bishop The Evangelists were inferior to the Apostles yet had they their power not from the Apostles but from Christ The same I affirme of the 70. Disciples who had their power immediately from Christ no lesse then the Apostles had theirs It may upon better reason be averred that the Bishops have their power from the Pope than that Presbyters have their power from the Prelats It is true Jerome saith Quid facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter but in the same place he proves from Scripture that Episcopus Presbyter are one and the same and therefore when he appropriates Ordination to the Bishop he speaketh of the degenerated custome of his time 2. Concerning Baptisme a private Person may performe the externall Action and Rites both of it and of the Encharist yet is neither of the two a Sacrament or hath any efficacy unlesse it be done by him that is lawfully called thereunto or by a Person made publique and clothed with Authority by Ordination This Errour in the matter of Baptisme is begot by another Errour of the Absolute Necessity of Baptisme 7. To that which hath been said concerning your Majesties Oath I shall adde nothing not being willing to enter upon the Question of the subordination of the Church to the Civill power whether to King or Parliament or both and to either of them in their owne place Such an Headship as the Kings of England hath claimed and such a supremacy as the Houses of Parliament crave with Appeales from the supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicature to them as set over the Church in the same line of Subordination I doe utterly disclaime upon such Reasons as give my selfe satisfaction although no man
began and Q. Elizabeth that perfected it nor did I ever averre that the beginning of any Humane Action was perfect no more then you can prove that God hath ever given approbation to Multitudes to Reforme the Negligence of Princes For you know there is much Difference between Permission and Approbation But all this time I find no Reasons according to your Promise for a Reformation or Change I mean since Q. Elizabeths time As for your Romanorum Malleus his saying it is well you come of it with yet this I may say for it seems to imply as if you neither ought nor would justifie that bloudy ungodly saying and for your comparing our Reformation here to the Laodicean lukewarmenesse proved by Complaints Grievings c. all that doth and but unhandsomely Petere principium nor can Generalls satisfie Me for you must first prove that those Men had reason to complaine those Churches to be Grieved and how we were truely the Causers of this schisme and separation as for those words which you will not use I will not answer 4. Here indeed you truly repeat the first of My two maine Arguments but by your favour you take as I conceive a wrong way to convince Me It is I must make good the Affirmative for I believe a Negative cannot be proved Instead of which if you had made appeare the Practice of the Presbyterian Government in the Primitive times you had done much for I doe avetre that this Government was never Practised before Calvin's time the Affirmative of which I leave you to prove My taske being to shew the lawfulnesse and succession of Episcopacy and as I believe the necessity of it For doing whereof I must have such Books as I shall call for which possibly upon perusall may one way or other give Me satisfaction but I cannot absolutely promise it without the Assistance of some learned Man whom I can trust to find out all such Citations as I have use of wherefore blame Me not if time be unnecessarily lost 5. Now for the fallaciousnesse of My Argument to My knowledge it was never My practice nor doe I confesse to have begun now For if the Practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers be not a convincing Argument when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtfull I know nothing For if this be not then of necessity the Interpretation of private Spirits must be admitted the which contradicts Saint Peter 2 Pet. 1.20 is the Mother of all Sects and will if not prevented bring these Kingdomes into confusion And to say that an Argument is ill because the Papists use it or that such a thing is good because it is the Custome of some of the Reformed Churches cannot weigh with Me untill you prove these to be infallible or that to maintaine no Truth And how Diotrephes ambition who directly opposed the Apostle S. John can be an Argument against Episcopacy I doe not understand 6. When I am made a Judge over the Reformed Churches then and not before will I censure their Actions as you must prove before I confesse it that Presbyters without a Bishop may lawfully ordain other Presbyters And as for the Administration of Baptisme as I thinke none will say that a Woman can lawfully or Duly administer it though when done it be valid so none ought to doe it but a lawfull Presbyter whom you cannot deny but to be absolutely necessary for the Sacrament of the Eucharist 7. You make a learned succinct discourse of Oathes in generall and their severall Obligations to which I fully agree intending in the particular now in question to be guided by your owne Rule which is when any Oath hath a speciall reference to the Benefit of those to whom I make the Promise if we have their desire or consent the Obligation ceaseth Now it must be knowne to whom this Oath hath reference and to whose Benefit the Answer is clear onely to the Church of England as by the Record will e plainly made appeare and you much mistake in alleaging that the two Houses of Parliament especially as they are now constituted can have this Disobligatory Power for besides that they are not named in it I am confident to make it clearly appear to you that this Church never did submit nor was subordinate to them and that it was onely the King and Clergy who made the Reformation the Parliament meerly serving to help to give the Civill Saction all this being proved of which I make no question it must necessarily follow that it is onely the Church of England in whose favour I took this Oath that can release me from it wherefore when the Church of England being lawfully Assembled shall declare that I am free then and not before I shall esteeme My selfe so 8. To your last concerning the King my Father of happy and famous Memory both for his Piety and Learning I must tell you that I had the happinesse to know him much better then you wherefore I desire you not to be too confident in the knowledge of his Opinions For I dare say should his Ghost now speake he would tell you that a Bloudy Reformation was never lawfull as not warranted by Gods word and that Preces lachrymae sunt Arma Ecclesiae 9. To conclude having replied to all your Paper I cannot but observe to you that you have given Me no Answer to My last Quaere it may be you are as Chaucer sayes like the People of England what they not like they never understand but in earnest that Question is so pertinent to the Purpose in hand that it will much serve for My satisfaction and besides it may be usefull for other things C. R. Newcastle June 6. 1646. For His Majestie Mr. Alex Henderson's second Paper SIR THe smaller the encouragements be in relation to the successe which how small they are your Majesty well knowes the more apparent and I hope the more acceptable will my obedience be in that which in all humility I now go about at your Majesties command yet while I consider that the way of man is not in himselfe nor is it in man that walketh to direct his owne steps and when I remember how many supplications with strong crying and teares have been openly and in secret offered up in your Majesties behalfe unto God that heareth prayer I have no reason to despaire of a blessed successe 1. I have been averse from a disputation of Divines 1. For saving of time which the present exigence extremity of affairs make more then ordinarily pretious While Archimedes at Syracuse was drawing his Figures Circlings in the sand Marcellus interupted his demonstration 2. Because the common result of Disputes of this kinde answerable to the prejudicate opinions of the Parties is rather Victory then Verity while tanquam tentativi Dialectici they study more to overcome their adverse Party then to be overcome if Truth although this be the most glorious
Victory 3. When I was commanded to come hither no such thing was proposed to me nor expected by me I never judged so meanly of the Cause nor so highly of my selfe as to venture it upon such weaknesse Much more might be spoken to this purpose but I forbeare 2. I will not further trouble your Majesty with that which is contained in the second Section hoping that your Majesty will no more insist upon Education prescription of Time c. which are sufficient to prevent Admiration but which your Majesty acknowledges must give place to Reason and are no sure ground of resolution of our Faith in any point to be believed although it be true that the most part of men make these the like to be the ground and rule of their Faith an Evidence that their Faith is not a Divine faith but an humane Credulity 3. Concerning Reformation of Religion in the third Section I had need of a Preface to so thorny a Theame as your Majesty hath brought me upon 1. For the Reforming power it is conceived when a Generall Defection like a deluge hath covered the whole face of the Church so that scarcely the tops of the Mountains doe appeare a Generall Councell is necessary but because that can hardly be obtained severall Kingdomes which we see was done at the time of the Reformation are to reforme themselves and that by the Authority of their Prince and Magistrates if the Prince or supreme Magistrate be unwilling then may be inferior Magistrate and the People being before rightly informed in the grounds of Religion lawfully Reforme within their owne Sphere and if the light shine upon all or the major part they may after all other means assayed make a Publique Reformation This before this time I never wrote or spoke yet the Maintainers of this Doctrine conceive that they are able to make it good But Sir were I worthy to give advice to Your Majesty or to the Kings and supreme Powers on Earth may humble Opinion would be that they should draw the minds tongues and pens of the learned to dispute about other matter then the power or Prerogative of Kings and Princes and in this kind your Majesty hath suffered and lost more then will easily be restored to your selfe or your Posterity for a long time It is not denied but the prime Reforming power is in Kings and Princes Quibus deficientibus it comes to the inferior Magistrate Quibus Deficientibus it descendeth to the Body of the People supposing that there is a necessity of Reformation and that by no meanes it can be obtained of their Superiors It is true that such a Reformation is more imperfect in respect of the Instruments and manner of Procedure yet for the most part more pure and perfect in relation to the effect and product And for this end did I cite the Examples of old of Reformation by Regall Authority of which none was perfect in the second way of perfection except that of Josiah Concerning the saying of Grostead whom the Cardinals at Rome confest to be a more Godly man than any of themselves it was his Complaint and Prediction of what was likely to ensue not his desire or Election if Reformation could have been obtained in the ordinary way I might bring two unpartiall Witnesses Jewell and Bilson both famous English Bishops to prove that the tumults and troubles raised in Scotland at the time of Reformation were to be imputed to the Papists opposing of the Reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline as an Hereticall Innovation and note to be ascribed to the Nobility or People who under God were the Instruments of it intending and seeking nothing but the purging out of Errour and setling of the Truth 2. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I conceive whether it was begun or not in K. Henry the 8. time it was not finished by Q. Elizabeth the Father stirred the humors of the diseased Church but neither the Sonne nor the Daughter although we have great reason to blesse God for both did purge them out perfectly This Perfection is yet reserved for your Majesty Where it is said that all this time I bring no Reasons for a further Change the fourth Section of may last Paper hath many hints of Reasons against Episcopall Government with an offer of more or clearing of those which your Majesty hath not thought fit to take notice of And learned men have observed many Defects in that Reformation As that the Government of the Church of England for about this is the Question now is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles which they at least cannot deny who professe Church-Government to be Mutable and Ambulatory and such were the greater part of Archbishops and Bishops in England contenting themselves with the Constitutions of the Church and the Authority and Munificence of Princes till of late that some few have pleaded it to be Jure Divino That the English Reformation hath not perfectly purged out the Roman Leaven which is one of the Reasons that have given ground to the comparing of this Church to be Church of Laodicaea as being neither hot nor cold neither Popish nor Reformed but of a lukewarme temper betwixt the two That it hath depraved the Discipline of the Church by conforming of it to the Civill Policy That is hath added many Church Offices higher and lower unto those instituted by the Sonne of God which is as unlawfull as to take away Offices warranted by the Divine Institution And other the like which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent nisi jam se pervenisse crederent 4. In my Answer to the first of your Majesties many Arguments I brought a Breviate of some Reasons to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same in Scripture from which by necessary consequence I did inferre the negative Therefore no differences in Scripture between a Bishop and a Presbyter the one name signifying Industriam Curae Pastoralis the other Sapientiae Maturitatem saith Beda And whereas your Majesty averres that Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvin's time your Majesty knowes the common objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches where as your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luther's time One part of the common Answer is that is was from the beginning and is to be found in Scripture The same I affirme of Presbyterian-Government And for proving of this the Assembly of Divines at Westminster have made manifest that the Primitive Christian Church at Jerusalem was governed by a Presbytery while they shew 1. That the Church of Jerusalem consisted of more Congregations then one from the multitude of Believers from the many Apostles and other Preachers in that Church and from the diversity of Languages among the Believers 2. That all these Congregations were under one Presbyteriall Government because they were for Government one Church
shall be more willing to submit to Civill Powers each one in their owne place and more unwilling to make any trouble then my selfe Onely concerning the application of the Generalls of an Oath to the particular case now in hand under favour I conceive not how the Clergy of the Church of England is or ought to be principally intended in your Oath For although they were esteemed to be the Representative Church yet even that is for the benefit of the Church Collective Salus Populi being Suprema Lex and to be principally intended Your Majesty knowes it was so in the Church of Scotland where the like alteration was made And if nothing of this kind can be done without the consent of the Clergy what Reformation can be expected in France or Spaine or Rome it selfe It is no to be expected that the Pope or Prelate will consent to their owne ruine 8. I will not presume upon any secret knowledge of the Opinions held by the King your Majesties Father of famous Memory they being much better knowne to your Majesty I did onely produce what was profest by him before the world And although Prayers and Teares be the Armes of the Church yet it is neither acceptable to God nor conducible for Kings and Princes to force the Church to put on these Armes Nor could I ever heare a reason why a necessary Defensive Warre against unjust Violence is unlawfull although it be joyned with offence and invasion which is intended for Defence but so that Armes are layed downe when the Offensive War ceaseth by which it doth appeare that the War on the other side was in the nature thereof Defensive 9. Concerning the forcing of Conscience which I pretermitted in my other Paper I am forced now but without forcing of my Conscience to speake of Our Conscience may be said to be forced either by our selves or by others By our selves 1. when we stop the eare of our Conscience and will not hearken or give place to information resolving obstinately Ne si persuaseris persuadebis which is no lesse then a resisting of the Holy Ghost and the hardning of our hearts 2. Or when we stop the mouth and suppresse the clamours of our Conscience resolving rather to suffer the worme to gnaw and the fire to burne inwardly then to make profession of that we are convinced to be Truth 3. Or when we seare our Conscience as with an hot Iron that it becometh senslesse which is the punishment of the former unto which is opposed the truly Tender Conscience such as Josiah had 2 Kings 22.19 Againe 1. Our Conscience is said to be forced by others when they obtrude upon us what is in it selfe evill and unlawfull which if we admit against our owne Conscience we sinne two waies one is by doing that which is in it selfe evill and unlawfull the other is by doing it against a dictate of Conscience which is a contempt of God whose Vicegerent it is 2. Or when others urge us to doe that which is in it selfe good or may lawfully be done but through errour of Conscience we judge it to be evill and unlawfull in this case if we doe not that which is prest upon us we sinne because the thing is good and lawfull And if we doe it we sinne because we doe against our Conscience Which in this case bindeth but obligeth not And yet there is a way to escape out of this labyrinth it being repugnant to the equity of the will of God to lay a Necessity of sinning upon any man The onely way is to lay aside such a Conscience it being a part of the Old man Which we are commanded to put off otherwise we being sufficiently informed and yet cleaving to our old errour we rather doe violence to our Conscience our selves then suffer violence from others The Application for Answering the Quaere I leave to your Majesty Newcastle June 17. 1646. For Mr. Alex. Henderson In Reply to his second Paper June 22. 1646. His MAJETIES third Paper 1. I It were arrogance besides losse of time in Me to vie preambles with you For it is truth I seek and neither praise nor victory wherefore I shall only insist upon those things which are meerly necessary to my owne satisfaction in order to which I desired the assistance of some Divines whereupon I will insist no further save onely to wish that you may not as I have knowne many Men doe lose time by being mistaken in the way to save it wherein I have onely sought to disburden My selfe but to lay no blame upon you and so I leave it 2. Nor will I say more of the second then this that I am glad you have so well approved of what I have said concerning My education and reason but then remember that another Mans will is at least as weake a ground to build My Faith upon as My former education 3. In this there are two points First concerning the Reforming power then anent the English Reformation For the first I confesse you now speake clearly which before you did but darkly mention wherein I shall mainly differ with you untill you shall shew Me better reason yet thus farre I will goe along with you that when a Generall Councell cannot be had severall Kingdomes may reforme themselves which is learnedly and fully proved by the late Archbishop of Canterbury in his disputation against Fisher but that the inferior Magistrates of People take it which way you will have this power I utterly deny For which by your favour you have yet made no sufficient proofe to My judgement Indeed if you could have brought or can bring authority of Scripture for this opinion I would and will yet with all reverence submit but as for your Examples out of the Old Testament in My mind they rather make for than against Me all those reformations being made by Kings and it is a good probable though I will not say convincing Argument that if God would have approved of a popular reforming way there were Kings of Judah and Israel sufficiently negligent and ill to have made such examples by but by the contrary the 16. Chap. of Numbers shewes clearly how God disapproves of such courses but I forget this Assertion is to be proved by you yet I may put you in the way wherefore let me tell you that this pretended power in the People must as all others either be directly or else declaratorily by approbation given by God which how soon you can doe I submit Otherwise you prove nothing For the citing of private Mens opinions more then as they concurre with the generall consent of the Church in their time weighs little with Me it being too well known that Rebels never wanted Writers to maintain their unjust actions and though I much reverence Bishop Jewels memory I never thought him infallible for Bilson I remember well what opinion the King My Father had of him for those Opinions and how He shewed him some
favour in hope of his recantation as His good nature made Him do many things of that kind but whether he did or not I cannot say To conclude this point untill you shall prove this position by the word of God as I will Regall Authority I shall think all popular Reformation little better than Rebellions for I hold that no Authority is lawfull but that which is either directly given or at least approved by God 2ly Concerning the English Reformation the first reason you bring why Q. Elizabeth did not finish it is because she tooke not away Episcopacy the hints of reason against which Government yor say I take no notice of now I thought it was sufficient notice yea and answer too when I told you a negative as I conceived could not be proved and that it was for Me to prove the affirmative which I shall either doe or yeild the Argument as soone as I shall be assisted with Bookes or such Men of My opinion who like you have a Library in their braine And so I must leave this particular untill I be furnished with means to put it to an issue which had been sooner done if I could have had My will indeed your second well proved is most sufficient which is that the English Church-Government is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles but I conceive your probation of this doubly defective for first albeit our Archbishops and Bishops should have professed Church-government to be mutable ambulatory I conceive it not sufficient to prove your Assertion and secondly I am confident you cannot prove that most of them maintained this walking position for some particulars must not conclude the generall for which you must find much better Arguments than their being content with the Constitution of the Church and the authority and munificence of Princes or you will fall extreamly short As for the retaining of the Roman leven you must prove it as well as say it else you say little But that the conforming of the Church discipline to the civill policy should be a depraving of it I absolutely deny for I averre that without it the Church can neither flourish nor be happy And for your last instance you shall doe well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named and yet in one sence I doe not conceive that the Church of England hath added any for an Archbishop is onely a distinction for order of Government not a new Officer and so of the rest and of this kind I believe there are diverse now in Scotland which you will not condemne as the Moderators of Assemblies and others 4. Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be alwaies so it is in the Apostles time now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour albeit in their time they caused diverse to be called so as Barnabas and others so that I believe this Argument makes little for you As for your proofe of the antiquity of Presbyterian Government it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can doe more then Eusebius could and I shall believe when I see it for your former Paper affirmes that those times were very darke for matter of fact and will be so still for Me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it then those you mention for because there were diverse Congregations in Jerusalem ergo what are there not divers Parishes in one Diocess your two first I answer but as one Argument and because the Apostles met with those of the inferior Orders for Acts of Government what then even so in these times doe the Deanes and Chapters and many times those of the inferior Clergy assist the Bishops but I hope you will not pretend to say that there was an equality between the Apostles and other Presbyters which not being doth in My judgment quite invalidate these Arguments And if you can say no more for the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. then you have for Jerusalem it will gaine no ground on Me As for S. Jerome it is well knowne that he was no great Friend to Bishops as being none himselfe yet take him altogether and you will find that he makes a cleer distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter as your self confesses but the truth is he was angry with those who maintained Deacons to be equall to Presbyters 5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your meaning concerning the word Fallacy though I thinke to have had reason for saying what I did But by your favour I doe not conceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture and I appeale to the practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers to be judge between us methinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer neither of which to My understanding you have yet done nor have you shewne how waving those Judges I appeale unto the mischiefe of the interpretation by private Spirits can be prevented Indeed if I cannot prove by antiquity that Ordination and Jurisdiction belongs to Bishops thereby cleerly distinguishing them from other Presbyters I shall then begin to misdoubt many of My former foundations as for Bishop Davenant he is none of those to whom I have appealed or will submit unto but for the exception you take to Fathers I take it to be a begging of the Question as likewise those great discoveries of secrets not knowne to former Ages I shall call new invented fancies untill particularly you shall prove the contrary and for your Roman Authors it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts whereby to maintaine Novelties as well as the Puritans As for Church-ambition it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be Pope for I take it to be no point of humility to endeavour to be independent of Kings it being possible that Papacy in a multitude may be as dangerous as in one 6. As I am no Judge over the Reformed Churches so neither doe I censure them for many things may be avowable upon necessity which otherwaies are unlawfull but know once for all that I esteeme nothing the better because it is done by such a particular Church though it were by the Church of England which I avow most to reverence but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the purity of the primitive Doctrine and Discipline as I believe this doth Now concerning Ordination I bad you prove that Presbyters without a Bishop might lawfully ordaine which yet I conceive you have not done For 2 Tim. 1.6 it is evident that Saint Paul was at Timothies ordination And albeit that all the seventy had their