Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	colonel_n	john_n	sir_n	20,460	5	7.2304	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27046	A third defence of the cause of peace proving 1. the need of our concord, 2. the impossibility of it, on the terms of the present impositions against the accusations and storms of, viz., Mr. John Hinckley, a nameless impleader, a nameless reflector, or Speculum, &c., Mr. John Cheny's second accusation, Mr. Roger L'Strange, justice, &c., the Dialogue between the Pope and a fanatic, J. Varney's phanatic Prophesie / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1681 (1681)	Wing B1419; ESTC R647	161,764	297

is one that will not persecute and undo such Puritans We had divers such Presbyterian Bishops Usher Bedle Downam Davenant Hall c. And before them Grindal Abbots and the most of our Bishops for Queen Elizabeth's Reign Again I confess that it was some such Presbyterians as these that raised the Parliaments Army in England The two next Sections evincing your Errour and Calumny you pass by § 22. Is of no further use to us only about Dr. Jo. Reignolds you are a most deceived and deceiving Historian 1. You do not know c. But you might have known that there is extant in Print his Letters to Sir Francis Knowles against Prelacy for a meer Moderatorship or Presidency 2. You say Did he not live and die in full Conformity with the Church of England Answ A known falshood if a Question may be false What matter of Fact shall ever come to Posterity by such hands without falsification if Cartwright and Reignolds the leading Non-conformists of England were Conformists Sir I and hundreds more have offered long to Conform as far to the utmost as either of these did And yet we are unworthy to Preach the the Gospel of Christ for want of Conformity It may be left it prove them to be Presbyterians that will not prosecute us Learn better whether ever Dr. Reignolds did subscribe to the Liturgy and Ceremonies whether ever he took the Oath of Canonical Obedience or was not against the present Prelacy Whether he was for the Cross in Baptism c. But you verily think that were he now alive he would be as hard a Màwl of the Schismaticks and Non-conformists c. Answ 1. Of the Schismaticks no doubt for he wrote against both Prelacy and Separation 2. Wonderful What cannot you verily believe which you are but willing should be true That an Archbishop is a Presbyterian and that the Leading Non-conformist would be a Mawl of the Non-conformists when 1. Twice as much is now required of Conformists as was then 2. And Dr. Reignolds was not a man to do what he did without such Reason as would have made him constant And to requite you with as strong Confidence Sir I do not rashly but soberly and deliberately profess that were they all alive at this day the old Religious Conformable Divines themselves such as Dr. Io. White Dr. Willet Dr. Challoner Dr. Field Mr. Whateley Mr. Crooks Mr. Robert Bolton Dr. Preston Dr. Sibbes Dr. Stoughton Dr. Taylor with a thousand more and a thousand yea these that wrote for the old Conformity Mr. Sprint Mr. Paybody Dr. Jo. Burges Forbes yea the old Bishops themselves Jewell Sands Grindall Abbot Miles Smith c. I do firmly believe without hesitation that the generality of them would have been resolved Non-conformists at this time not changing their judgment but because of the great Change of Conformity For I know that Cornelius Burges the Learned Gataker Dr. Robert Harris and almost all the late Westminster Assembly were formerly such kind of Conformists as these were And I know the same Non-conformists now though not many would have yielded to the old Conformity Yea more I am perswaded that were Rogers Bradford Sanders c. Yea Bishop Hooper Bishop Farrar and Bishop Latimer alive now they would all choose rather to burn at a Stake again than to do what is required of us Say not that I reproach the Laws for I only speak of the matter of Fact whether they or the present Bishops were the wiser I meddle not Yea more yet I much doubt whether all the Bishops of England now would Conform themselves as Ministers do if they were put to it For I suppose you to know that they are not put to the Declarations and Subscriptions as the Ministers were nor to their Oaths But in this I am not confident but only doubt But of such old Conformists as Bolton Whateley c. I make no doubt at all 3. But your Proof is That he received Absolution according to the Church of England Answer Is this proving So would I do yea I do receive the Lords Supper according to the Liturgie Am I therefore a Conformist Doth it follow that he would swear subscribe declare use the Image of the Cross as a symbole of Christianity c. § 23. Your intimated Calumny about Popery it 's well you let fall though you confess it not § 24. We come now to the greatest of our Differences which you call my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about a notorious matter of Fact Whether they were Presbyterians or Episcopal and ●rastians that first raised the Armies in England against the King When in the very Age that it was done such a thing can be so confiuently denied what Credit is there in some mens History I thought all these set together had been proof enough 1. That former Episcopal Parliaments began the Business and left it where those found it 2. Heylin himself sheweth fully that the difference was long working between the two sorts of Episcopal men about Arminianism favouring Papists Innovations and Propriety 3. That such as Jewel Bilson and Hooker gives us the Principles on which they did proceed And Sir Edward Sands that hath written for high Conformity and was Hooker's Pupill and bosom Friend was one of the Chief for the People interest in th●se Parliaments 4. That H●ylin and Rushworth and Fuller acquaint us That Abbot was laid by for refusing to license Sibthorp's Book and how the rest did prosecute Mainwaring 5. That we knew our selves abundance of the Parliament-men who were all of their Judgment Viz. That Moderate Episcopacy was the best Government and that the Bishops that followed Lawd did by Innovation seek to destroy both Religion and the Subjects Liberty as they thought and that it was necessary to bring down the Bishop's Power in Temporals and to get better men that would be confined more to Spiritual Government and use it better But that no Episcopacy was so necessary as that the State should be hazarded to support it This was the Judgment of almost all them that I could hear or know of 6. That even to this day 1671. there are yet about threescore of them alive besides Lords from whom the matter may be known 7. That understanding conscionable Members of the House yet living openly profess that Presbytery was fearce known among them and that there was but one known Presbyterian then in that House which was Mr. Tate of Northamptonshire an honest man 8. That when they had raised their Army in their Propositions sent to the King at Nottingham they offer the moderating of Episcopacy and not Presbytery 9 That the Earl of Fssex General the Earl of Bedford General of the Horse the Earl of Peterborough Sir John Merick Dolbiere the Earl of Stamford the Earl of Huntington the now Earl of Denbigh the Lord S. John the Lord Roberts the Lord Mandevile late Earl of Manchester the now Lord Hollis Colonel Essex Col. Goodwins Colonel Grantham Sir

Henry Cholmley and so through the rest of the Colonels were no Presbyterians though the Lord Say Lord Brook and the Lord Wharton were not Episcopal 10. That except these three last named all the Parliament's Lord-Lieutenants through England that ever I could hear of were men accounted Episcopal and Conformable and these three were not accounted Presbyterians but honest godly Independents or neither 11. That their Major Generals in the several Parts of the Land were commonly Episcopal and Conformable men yea the Earl of Stamford Sir William Waller Mr. G. Brown Mr. G. Massey Mr. Lawghorn Ferdinando Lord Fairfax Mr. G. Pointz Mr. G. Morgan Sir Thomas Middleton Mr. G. Mitton Sir John Gell c. 12. That the Synod at Westminster at first were all Conformists except about nine or ten As Doctor Hammond telleth them in his Answer to the London Ministers 13. That the Scots themselves as may be seen in a late Answer to the Bishop of Dumblanes Accommodation do profess That as England never was Presbyterian so they never supposed that they should immediately be such but only put into the Covenant the general words of Reforming according to the word of God and the Example of the best Reformed Churches That they might engage them further to enquire what is the Reformation which is most agreeable hereunto that so in time they might attain it So that when the said Bishop now Archbishop of Glasgoe being known to me citeth my own words and other mens to prove that the Assembly or Parliament never intended the Renunciation of Episcopacy but of the English exorbitant Prelacy the Scots Presbyterians deny it not but answer as aforesaid 14. That it is a commonly known thing that the Covenant came in not only after the Wars were begun but when the Parliament was brought so low as to seek to the Scots for aid And that Presbytery was little known in England till the Scots brought in the knowledge of it 15. And it was a notorious thing that the Parliament yielded to Presbytery and to exclude Episcopacy at last not because they thought that a moderate Episcopacy was not lawful and best but because they had no way to hold up their Wars without which they thought they had no way to uphold themselves but by the help of the Scots and such as were against Episcopacy And because they had seen the Prelacy fly so high and now to be so strong against them that they had no hope of moderating it but fear'd it would bear down all Insomuch that Mr. Thomas Coleman gave the Covenant to the Lords with this open profession That it signified not the Renunciation of Episcopacy 16. And it is a notorious thing that before the Parliament 1640 there were not so many Non-conformable Ministers in England Presbyterians Independents and Anabaptists altogether as there were Counties in the Kingdom And 17. It is known that few of those few had any hand in raising or promoting the War Mr. Dod in Northamptonshire Mr. Ball in Staffordshire Mr. Langley in Cheshire poor Mr. Barnet of Uppington in Shropshire Mr. Oliver Thomas and Mr. Wrath in Wales that quickly died as almost all the rest did Mr. Augier in Lancashire Mr. Slater Mr. Root and a few more in all England And 18. It is known that when necessity had drawn them to please the Scots and take the Covenant the Parliament would never be drawn though they made Ordinances for it to appoint any to settle Presbytery in the Counties in execution of their Ordinances But purposely delayed and never did it except in London Lancashire Warwickshire and a few more places 19. And it is known that the Ministers of England themselves were but few of them indeed Presbyterians and therefore were the backwarder to set up that Discipline And therefore our Worcestershire Agreement to concur in all that the three Parties are agreed in did the more easily and generally take and that the People themselves were so generally against Presbytery except some of the stricter sort that they never would submit to it And so de facto it was never indeed set up save in the few places forenamed 20. Lastly It is visible that the Reasons of the Parliament's War published in their Remonstrances and Declarations do suppose their Consent to Episcopacy and mention nothing of a change And that the Lawyers of the House as Judge Brown Selden Glin c. were generally Episcopal Erastians that thought Episcopacy lawful as being from the Soveraign Power which they thought might appoint Church Government as he please As Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenic pleads and as the Kings late Acts in Scotland intimate so far as to determine that all the external Government belongs to the King And I will not believe though you should swear it that the King is a Presbyterian I did think that these Twenty Evidences set together would have proved to any sober man that on both sides it was Episcopal men and Episcopal Erastians that raised the first War in England But all this Evidence notwithstanding this is to you the strangest Paradox in Historical Transactions that ever saw the light A serious Confutation of it would have shewed you to be in a delirium c. Answ You have hit on the best Confutation of it in those words that the Cause was capable of For now ignorant strangers and Posterity may possibly think that a man would not so confidently deny a notorious thing without some ground But what are those grounds for it is almost all one as to dispute whether the English War was between Protestants or between English-men Why 1. you say That the Spirit of Presbytery and Non-conformity was stirring in those Parliaments though not known by those Names Answ Nay then there is no dealing with you in History We judge of mens Hearts by their Professions and direct practice and take him for conformable that saith he is so and actually conformeth But you see deeper into the Spirit So you may say that it was the Spirit of Socinianism that workt in the Arminians as others say it was the Spirit of Popery that workt in A. Bishop Laud and his Party and others say that it is the Spirit of Democracy that worketh in popular Princes and the Spirit of Rebellion that workt in Hooker and the Spirit of Independency that worketh in the Presbyterians and the Spirit of Anabaptism that worketh in the Independents and so Bagshaw and his Brethren say it is the Spirit of Conformity that worketh in us And so whatever Errour a man runs not as far from as frightned or furious Adversaries do he must be said to have the Spirit of that Error As if a Pythagorean should tell you that you have the Spirit of Ajax Thraso or of some Brute Sir we plain people have hitherto taken a Presbyterian to be one that holdeth That the Church is and ought to be governed by Sessions Classes and Synods the lesser subordinate to the greater to which there lieth an Appeal

Conformists that desired a Deliverance But this proveth not that the Parliament was Presbyterians then much less that they were so before the Wars But you that meddle not with Lay-men remember that Lay-men sent those Propasitions You next tell me of Alderman Pennington and the Apprentices Answ 1. Few of those Apprentices knew what Presbytery was but were exasperated against Episcopacy for the sake of the present Bishops as the common people be now within these nine years thinking that it 's they that silence their Teachers and cause all our Divisions But alas little knew they what Church-Government to desire But most that were in judgment against Episcopacy were Independents and Separatists then And how inconsiderable a number in London were those Apprentices 2. And our Question is not what Party of Lads or Apprentices or Women did clamour against Bishops But what Party it was that raised the War Did these Lads give the Earl of Essex his Commission But you find none that said any thing against their Petition but the Lord Digby Answ And hath not he forsaken you also 1. Where did you seek to find it Not in the Parliament Journal sure else you might have found more 2. The truth is the Episcopal Parliament themselves perceiving what Party they must trust to opposed not those Petitions because the Petitioners might serve their turns and I doubt were too well contented with them But as no man must say that the King had the Spirit of Popery because he was willing that the Papists should help him So no man can prove that the Episcopal Parliament had the Spirit of Presbytery or were against Episcopacy it self because they were willing to be helped by all sorts who on a sudden were fallen out with Bishops The truth is the suspending and silencing of Ministers and the cropping the Ears and stigmatizing Prin with Burton and Bastwick had suddenly raised in the London Apprentices and others a great distate of the Bishops though they knew little of any Controversies about Church-Government at all When you say that Episcopacy or rather Bishops Lands was the Palladium c. 1. Episcopacy was not so till after the Army was raised It was so no doubt in the private designs of some particular men Apprentices and Women in the City and Kingdom that is all that were against it desired it should fall And many that were Episcopal desired that it should rather fall than the Abuses of it continue by such men as they thought would else ruine Church and State thinking that there was no other way to save them so far did different apprehensions about Propriety Liberty Popery and Arminianism carry men from one another who were all for Episcopacy But forget not 1. That it is the major Vote of the Parliament and not a few secret designers within or without doors that is the Parliament 2. That it was the Parliament that raised the Militia and Armies 3. That this Parliament was not at that time against Episcopacy Therefore your talk of the Isle of Wight so long after is liker a Jest than serious Besides that you seem ignorant of the Parliament resolved to accept of the Kings Concessions as Prins long Printed Speech will shew you and therefore immediately before they should have voted that closure were pulled out by Cromwell who had secret intelligence what they were going to do 2. And your oblivion caused you by your Parenthesis to contradict what you have hitherto said your self For if it were Bishops Lands rather than Bishops that they would have down it implyeth that they were not Presbyterians nor against Episcopacy Would you make an English-man of this age believe that none of your own Church have an appetite to Bishops Lands Try them and they will confute you more effectually than I can Do you think that of the Multitude that now drink and ●rant and roar and whore and rob there are none whose Consciences could be content that Bishops fell that they might have their Lands you will say perhaps these are not truly for Episcopacy Ridiculous Must we write Histories out of mens secret thoughts and hearts and call men only what they are conscientiously and in sincerity Who knoweth another mans sincerity but God Come into London or go among these Gallants and tell them that they are not Sons of the Church if you dare Hearken whether they talk not more for Bishops than for any other Sect Whether they do not curse and damn the Presbyterians and Fanaticks and their Conventicles and deride their Preaching and praying and say as bad of them as you can wish them Though I know that too great abundance since our silencing are fallen off from you to Infidelity or Atheism and to make a Jest of the Sacred Scriptures and the Papists say that very many thousands are turned to them yet I speak of those that still call themselves Protestants of the Church of England Really if you will take none to be of your Church that would sell the Bishops Lands or none that are not conscientiously for you I doubt your Church yet will prove invisible and as little as some of the housed Sects And if that will serve your turn I pray deal equally and let the Sectaries also have leave to say of any of their Party that killed the King or were guilty of Treason he was not truly one of us The War was first called Bellum Episcopale by the Parliament-men because they thought or said that Land and his Adherents were the Causes of it by seeking to reduce the Scots to their will and to set up Altars and other Innovations in England But not because the Parliament at that time renounced Episcopacy it self As to the particular Members of the Armies I confess I did know them better than you I speak not of Fairfax or Cromwell's Army but of Essex's And it s well that you have so much modesty as not to deny that they were Episcopal or no Presbyterians But you venture to say of those yet living That they were so whilst they assisted in the support of the late Cause I have not so far renounced my Reason and Experience as to fall in with your account And if we persevere in this new Doctrine we shall be as distant as the two Poles Answ Now you are at your Strength your Confidence and Resolution to believe or say you believe as you do is all the life of your Cause It is now taken for no dishonour to the greatest Lords to say that they are for Episcopacy There are yet living the Earl of Bedford the Earl of Denbeigh the Earl of Stamford the Lord Grey of Warke the Lord Hollis the Lord Asthey the Lord Roberts the Earl of Anglesey though he be no Souldier Major General Morgan Mr. G. Massey Sir John Gell and many more Enquire of themselves or any that know them whether they were ever Presbyterians or against a moderate Episcopacy Sir William Waller was most called a Presbyterian

us Suppose that the Powers were bound to take it in the Imposers sense but did not the Question is whether it bind them not in their own sense And in some possible Cases in both and to both You add You mention some good things in the Covenant as the Declaration against Popery Schism and Prophaneness But you pass by the second Article c. Ans So I perceive you would have me Conform that I may Preach And what should I Preach against but Sin And will you not give me leave to suppose that Perjury is one of the greatest of all sins and that he that is knowingly for Perjury is against humane society and not capable of Trust or Credit and is against the safety of the King which dependeth much on the Conscience of the Oath of Allegiance in his Subjects and that he that would but say I would declare my self for Perjury that I may preach against all other sins ●● These things being premised I ask you Are you in good sadness What! after such a confident Perswasive to Conformity Will you tell your Hearers If you Vow to God Repentance Obedience or any Good this Vow bindeth none of you all if there were but some Evil joyned with it And so if a Jesuit would take the Oath of Allegiance or Supremacy yea or the Vow of Baptism be taken at our Christening if either Ignorance or Knavery do but joyn some bad things with it nothing of all the rest is obligatory What Cheater then will not foist in some bad thing into his Vows that he may be disobliged from all the rest If you dare preach such Doctrine and dare die in the Aprobation of it and dare perswade others to do the like as their Duty to God your Book 's Title shall make me view S. Paul's warning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Would you have me deliberately undertake to justifie all men from the lawful or good parts of a Vow that I may have leave to preach against sin You add And the Power imposing the whole Answ Still all alike What will you tell your Hearers that no Oath or Vow bindeth them which powerless man imposed The want of power in the Imposers proveth indeed that no Power of theirs obliged you to take it But what if you had taken it to save your life from a Thief or within your Closet-walls voluntarily without the command of any Power doth it not oblige to lawful matters Bishop Sanderson would have taught you otherwise to resolve that Case This is a hard way to Conformity You add What was good in it we were obliged to by a former Covenant Answ And what then Is that another Doctrine that Conformists must preach That no Vow or Oath obligeth you to any good that you were obliged to before Oh dreadful The Jesuits Morals would abhor such a Doctrine If there may be new Vows to the same thing there may be new or additional Obligations to the same thing else all the following Vows are no Vows What if the Oath of Allegiance be thrice taken Doth it oblige only the first time Then if a man be at Baptism obliged to Christianity no after Vows at the Lords Supper or other time are obligatory Sir be not angry with me for telling you that Non-conformists have somewhat in them that will not permit them to take these for indifferent things And that the diminution of your glory and mens temptation to separation from you hath too much occasion and colour from your selves You add The worst of Hereticks maintain some Truths Answ And quid inde Suppose so the Covenant hath some good Our question is not whether we are bound to the bad but to the good And will you say that I must receive no truth which a Heretick holdeth or am bound by it to no good which is contained in a Vow that hath evil with it § 12 13 14. Will any thing convince you of an Error or Sin if the visibility of my words and yours and my reminding you of your visible misreport will not do it but still when you see your words and mine and hear of your mistake you will yet go on yea and falsly add that In one breath I say I did and I did not retract them This practice and your fore-going Doctrine well agree When I had askt you Whether it be all one to say I had expunged all that you accuse me of or charge me with and that I expunged all that you pervert or falsly took occasion from for a visible slander This is no stop to you nor worthy of any Answer but you go on Yea when you tell me the Page you meant and see that there is no such thing there as you mentioned yet all this nor my many Writings against that same Opinion are nothing at all to stop your Calumny I am not justifying what I expunged but if it were faulty must it needs contain a Doctrine which it never mentioned which I openly wrote against This dealing is enough to tell me to what purpose a Disputation of Conformity with you would prove when Sense it self will not convince you And all your justification is you give the sense though not the words Utterly false there are no words there how bad soever of any such sense The words speak mostly De fine belli and not of the Justifying power which is ever supposed besides a good end I never thought that War might be made against Authority for Religion sake what ever I might then think of the Subjectum in quo of that Authority though not as Hooker did § Still Confusion and Untruth twisted I deny not that I led many if you will call Convincing Reason Leading into an Association was that in the Question before I rejoyce and glory in it and thank God for it as much as almost any passage of my life I told you before and two Printed Agreements told the World what our Associations were for One was to exercise so much Discipline as all the three Parties were agreed in contradicting none of them in our Agreement The other for Catechising and Instructing every Family at stated Days every Week in course And what 's this to mens present coming to your Churches which you talk of If they Conform no more than I I am not ashamed to be esteemed a Promoter of their Judgment If they Conform less than I that they never had that from me my Five Disputes of Church Government then written are a visible Witness against your rash and heedless Calumny § 16. Be not offended with me for judging some Conformists honest And I could wish that you would consider of it before you teach your People that there are no honest Sinners For that 's all one as to say that the World hath never had one honest man but Christ and Adam and Eve a while Though a man be not honest quatenus vel in quantum a sinner nor I think quatenus a Conformist yet I hope

the King hath not the said Power of the Spiritual Keys and Sacraments 5. And specially the most learned and zealous Defenders of Monarchy and Prelacy Bilson of Chest Obed. and Perp. Gov. and Andrews in Tortura Torti have most plainly and vehemently renounced it and shewed their malice or ignorance that impute such an Arrogation to our Kings So also Carlton of Jurisdic Jewel Whitaker and who not 6. What a King may do virtually by another I think unless Inconveniencies hinder the exercise he hath power to do himself But I think the King may not Administer Sacraments or Spiritual Discipline himself Which of our Kings did it Or who since Uzziah offered Sacrifice among the Jews 7. Our Kings never yet pretended so much as to Ordain that is to Invest another in that Power Ministerially in the Name of Christ But as to the Supremacy it 's true that the King is the Supream over Physicians Philosophers c. but not the Supream Physician or Philosopher He exerciseth Coercive Government by the Sword over Bishops who use Spiritual Government by the Keys and Word but hath not Authority to use this same sort of oversight himself unless a Clergy-man were King as some are Magistrates As to the Proxies of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament when you have as well proved that Christ hath allowed them to Preach Administer Sacraments and exercise the Keys by Proxies I will yield all that Cause But they will be loath to go to Heaven by Proxy Page 21. As to Jebosaphats Mission and his Nobles Teaching I answer 1. Teaching is not so proper to a Pastor or Clergy-man as the Keys and Sacraments Parents have their Office or Power of teaching and School-masters and Lay Catechists have theirs and Magistrates have theirs Judges on the Bench do usually teach the People even religious Duties so did Constantine and so may any King But there is a different teaching whith is proper to the Clergy which is by teaching to gather Churches and guide them and edifie them as Pastors devoted or separated to this as their proper Office As there is a difference between the Office of a Physician and a Womans healing a cut finger or giving a Cordial to one that fainteth But this proper Teaching which God did not leave in common to others no Prince can use no Bishop can do by Proxy Nor can he delegate to a Lay-man the power of the Keys and Sacraments 2. And the King may no doubt command Pastors to do their Duty as well as Physicians to do theirs I take none of this to be quarrelling but plain truth Your telling us that Chancellors may direct and advise the Surrogates may signifie something in another Land but not with us If we had never seen their Courts nor read Travers Of the difference between Christs Discipline and theirs yet Cousin's Tables are in our Libraries You add We are all but the Bishops Curates in the exercise of it Answ 1. I ventured to deny that to Bag shaw who made it the Reason of Separation And I will yet deny it of some others though not of you If we are all but the Bishops Curates the Italian Bishops of Trent were not so absurd as they were made in making the Bishops the Popes Curates How easie should I be were I a Curate could I believe that I have no more to answer for than the Bishop imposed on me and that he must answer for all the rest I suppose that the Office of the Presbyters or Ministers of Christ is immediately Instituted and described in the Scriptures and that the Bishop doth but Invest them in it and that their work is their own as properly as the Bishop's is his own and that his Precminence maketh not him the Communicator of the Power to them as from himself nor them to be his Curates 2. And while I think that I can prove this very easily censure us not too deeply for not swearing to the Bishops if the sence of it be to make us his Curates Not that I think my self too good to be a Servant to the Bishop's Coach man but that I dare not subvert Christ's established Church Orders As for your Engine and Wonders and Babel and Lucifer and trembling I have not learning enough to answer them As to your talk of Absolute Autocratical c. they are but Oratorical Flowers that speak against none of our particular Doctrines but are the rant of your Magisterial style And your talk of Excommunicating Kings may pass as part of your equal ways to one that hath written so oft against Excommunicating Kings when yet Bishop Andrews and other Prelates maintain the Refusing them the Communion and you know in what Case Chrysostom rather offered to lose Hand and Life even then to give the Sacrament to the Greatest that was unworthy Prove that ever any of the present Non-conformists who were called to present the judgment or desires of the rest did ever say more than Andrews and Bilson or so much But the Lord Digby is your Author Answ 1. Were we and our present Controversie for the most of us in being and at age when the Lord Digby spake that Is not Conformity now another thing Do all or half the Non-conformists profess themselves Presbyterians Are Presbyterians all for Excommunicating Kings And do not some that are for it confine it only to such Pastors as Kings themselves shall commit their Souls to and give leave to exercise that Power Are we I say we now living and silenced answerable for all that any Presbyterian holdeth any more than you are for what Hooker holdeth Some Scots-men refuse the Oath of Supremacy Are we guilty of that Mistake who Take it and Write for it Or did we spring out of their Loins and must be silenced for such Original sin derived from them that were no kin to us 2. But where did the Lord Digby say it You cite no Book or Speech of his but cite Rushworth p. 218. Where is no syllable of any such matter nor any where else that I can yet find 3. Suppose he had Did he not say in his Letter to Sir Ken. Digby Printed That the Primitive Church Government will be found pecking towards Presbytery He was then Episcopal he is now a Papist Is not his Authority then ad hominem while he was one of your own more valued against you than against them that were not of his Party or way and is this good arguing Whatever the Lord Digby Bancroft Heylin and if you will Bellarmine charge the Presbyterians with 1640 or I know not when or where all that are the Non-conformists Episcopal Presbyterians Independents and Catholick Moderators are guilty of in 1671. But the Lord Digby sometimes said that the Presbyterians would Excommunicate Kings Ergo the present Nonconformists even Episcopal and all are guilty of that Opinion even they that write against it But all your ways are just and equal But I pray you why was no Article about