Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	earl_n	john_n	king_n	50,169	5	4.1692	3	true

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

I am sure to play with Oaths is a mark of the contrary God will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain All things by temptation may go for lawful to him to whom Perjury deliberate studied Perjury seems lawful yea and a duty And avoiding the name is no avoiding of the thing He that will commit Murder Adultery Theft c. and then prove it to be no Murder c. doth not thereby escape the guilt And he that is not willing to know Sin to be sin that he may leave it is wilful and wicked as well as he that will not leave it when he knoweth it We do search the Scripture to know what is Perjury as well as we can And we are the less likely to be partial when our judgment loseth us the favour of so many and our Maintenance and Liberty and in Prisons hazardeth our Lives besides our Ministry the most of all Few men will take this way for the flesh yet this is no proof that our Cause is good But let the Evidence shew whether in fearing Perjury we fear a Serpent under every Leaf or a Gorgons head in every Bush and bring this Woe upon our selves or not If we do it is not for worldy ends nor is it by a superstitious fear of things indifferent If so many in Queen Maries days were burnt for denying the Real Presence c. Shall I not fear Perjury § 44. Next p. 20. you come to the Liturgies Confession that our Discipline is imperfect and think that should satisfie me Ans So it doth satisfie me not to assent and consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Book of Ordination and the Liturgie and not to forswear all lawful endeavours of a Reformation it seeming unmeet for me whatever others do to give so plenary assent and consent thus to swear to that which in the same Book is confest imperfect I can live in Communion with a Church that hath imperfections and keep its peace but not assent consent or swear to its Imperfections 2. An you give me no reason yet why a Confession the imperfection of Discipline should satisfie u● that all things in the Church Government or all Church-Government is both lawful and necessary and unalterable For if it be alterable by King and Parliament I wil ●●●● swear never to endeavour an alteration though they command me Nor will I believe you if you say that this Case of their command is excepted while the terms are universal without exception Remembring that the long Parliament long before the Wars when the Lord Falkland Lord Digby and the rest joyned with them did exagitate the Et caetera Oath for the word Not consent as establishing Prelacy as an unalterable thing whereas they knew not but the King and Parliament might be brought to see cause for some alteration And this Parliament hath not restored that Oath and Canons Ib. § 44. My Consutation of your horned Reasoning and of the common peralium I perceive offendeth you as triumphant It is natural for men that see plain truth to be guilty of calling it truth In this if we cannot be pardoned we must be patient Truth it self is our reward and satisfaction The force of my Reply you indeed leave intire and untoucht For when you say that you break my Chain at the first Link you do but repeat what I replyed to and put me but to say over again what I said You say that Lay-Chancellors excommunicate neither as Lay-men or as Clergy-men formally or by any proper Causality but from the Surrogates Answ And were you willing here to be understood Either they do Excommunicate by proper Causality without causality no Act is done or they do not If you mean that indeed they do not why would you not say so and deal plainly If you mean they Excommunicate but ●●●● by Causality why would you not say so which ●●most absurd If they do it they do it formally as some persons and in some capacity and by some power or right whatever it is That they do Excommunicate and Absolve decretively as the stated publick Judges is notorious to the Land That the Person in which they do it is formally Lay or Clergy I thought had been past doubt and the enumeration had been sufficient But you do dare tertium find out a third Mumber He is formally neither Lay nor Clergy but doth it from the Surrogates See you not how you change the Question In what person he doth it into from whom he doth it or make that from to signifie a third Species which you could not or would not name And when I say that if he do it from the Surrogate yet he doth it either as a Lay-man or a Clergy-man you answer me as neither but from the Surrogate You might have said as well As neither but from the King But who ever it is from tell us of what Species that man is in acting who is neither formally a Lay-man nor a Clergy-man whereas in our present sence as a Clergy-man signifieth One in the Priesthood or Deaconship dedicated to the Sacred Church-Offices I easily prove that in the World there is no third sort because the terms signifie Opposita contradicentia contradictio est omnium oppositionum maxima prima reliquarum mensura For to be a Lay-man is to be one that is not devoted and separated as aforesaid And Devotus non devotus separatus ad sacra non separatus vel persona sacrata non sacrata are contradicentia And if you allow me not to swear or conform till you prove that some men are neither Lay nor Clergy you will be no succesful Pithanalogist with me But I desired to know who this Surrogate is that you mean and you will not tell me If you mean any one that is absent and no Member of the Court. 1. The Chancellor hath his power from no such man as is notorious 2. You might better say that he had it from the Bishop But still I should ask in what person he acted and whether as a Lay or a Clergy-man But if you mean the Priest present who pronounceth the sentence I never heard that he was called the Surrogate till now But call him how you will 1. It is notorious that he giveth not the Chancellor his power at all 2. And as notorious that he hath not nor exerciseth the power himself But to judge any man to Excommunication or Absolution is the Chancellors part and the present Priest is but like the Parish Priest who readeth or speaketh as a Cryer what the Chancellor judgeth and ordereth And whether such Priest be any Member of the Court or constantly used I leave to your Enquiry but certainly he is no Judge at all nor doth any thing but pronounce as he is bid And still my Arguing is unanswered For had this Presbyter the power it would be either as a Presbyter or as a Bishop Not as a Presbyter

say the Prelatists for then it will set Presbyters too high or rather take hundreds from that which belongeth to their Office whilst one in the same Office exerciseth the Keys upon all their people and themselves that are his equals Et par in parem non habet potestatem Not as Bishops for they are not such really and the Episcopacy cannot be delegated as I proved You said which I am glad of That it may be you could wish that Excommunication were reduced into a more Scriptural Apostolical and Primitive Channel as much as my self But you never look that the Church below should be without spot or wrinkle Answ You speak here so well that it half reconcileth us If so then the main difference left is not whether we shall live peaceably in such a Church or promise to do so for that I have oft done yea and did subscribe to the Archbishop that now is when he gave me a Licence to Preach and I could have had it without subscribing a word that I would not Preach against the Doctrine Liturgy or Ceremonies of the Church But whether I may deliberately give my hand and profession that I assent and consent to such a frame and may swear that I will not any time endeavour an alteration of that Government which runs not in the Scriptural Apostolick Primitive Channel nor of its acknowledged spots and wrinkles That is To promise or swear that I will not obey God nor seek the Reformation of any such thing in his Church which is acknowledged amiss no not in my place and calling and by any lawful means Whereas in my Baptism I vowed my self and service to Christ as the Saviour of his Body and in my Ordination I vowed my self to him as a Minister and I daily pray for the hallowing of his Name the coming of his Kingdom the doing of his Will on Earth even as it is done in Heaven And therefore will not by swearing to the contrary renounce my Baptism Ministery or Prayers Pardon the description of the Sin as it would be to me I do not say that it is such in you or another that seeth not what I see Good Meanings and Latitudes and stretching Expositions will not make this pass with me among things indifferent And for your own sake not mine who stand or fall to a higher Tribunal I entreat you to judge of us in this as of men that are dying daily and neer a World where Preferments and Wealth and humane Favour signifie nothing and who are so unwilling to neglect our undertaken Office for mens Souls that we offer our Superiours to take it joyfully as a Favour to be any way punished for this supposed Sin of not lying nor being perjur'd so it may not hinder us from Preaching the Gospel of Salvation Even to be punished as deeply as common Swearers Drunkards or Adulterers are to rid Channels to Dig or Plow or to be burnt in the hand as Felons are or our Ears bored or cropt as Rogues or perjur'd Persons are so we may but Preach Christ or see the Kingdoms so supplyed as that our Labours may be truly needless to mens Salvation I would take all this thankfully on my Knees much more be denied the Levites Bread or Ministerial Maintenance But these are too high Favours for such as we to hope for in such a time and from such Persons as Experience proveth except that the Clemency of the King vouchsafeth us some convenience against the will of such of the Clergy as you Nothing but either Debauching our Consciences and stretching them so wide as that any thing will afterward go down or else deserting the Preaching of Christ for mens Salvation will serve with some men that I have talkt with For it is not my Superiours now that I am speaking of I did all that I was able unfeignedly to have brought all men once to Union with the Church upon any other terms than these when the thing was feasible as to the most But was an Enemy and one that deserved shame and ruine for it But I am gone back To return I am glad also that you say That the Surrogates have the power of the Keys and indeed so most School-men say and so Spalatensis hath notably and oft proved But what it will infer against Bishops denying them to all the Presbyters in a whole Diocess save one or two or few I will not repeat You say I did not well to overlook what you said about Chancellour's Skill in the Civil Law c. Answ I did not overlook it but past it by as an Impertinency supposing we had been agreed 1. That the holy Scriptures are the Universal Rule of Church Discipline as to the Essentials and the Laws of the Land and Canonical Agreements the subservient Rules about Circumstances and Adjuncts and for the execution of the former 2. And that Ability in Scriptures much less in the Roman Laws doth give no man authority to the exercise of the Spiritual Keys without a Call being but his remote Capacity 3. And that he that is called hereunto is called to be a Clergy-man to whome the Keys are proper I pray you Sir deny none of this Let Begging this once go instead of Arguing 4. And he may be fit to Advise and Assist a Bishop that is himself no Clergy man but Advising and judicial Decreeing are several things 5. And I am weary with saying that we submit to Chancellors as Magistrates doing that which belongeth to Magistrates according to the sense of the Oath of Supremacy But what 's all this to our Case in hand You add Tell me Sir may not a man be said to do that virtually which he doth not immediately Answ Yes a man may pay a Debt by his Servant or Deputy but not Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper or Discipline by another because Christ hath annexed the Office to the Person and the Office is an Obligation and Authority to do the work You add The King doth neither Preach nor Administer Sacraments yet hath a Supremacy of Power in all things belonging to the Church Answ Now I cannot follow you so far as to believe that the King doth virtually Administer the Sacraments per alios At least I durst not swear it If you think it is but a Gorgons head that affrighteth me hear and judge 1. Christ gave the Keys immediately to Ministers and not to Kings and distinguished their Offices 2. Queen Elizabeth ' K. Iames and the Convocation have publickly disclaimed such a sense of the Oath of Supremacy and taken it for the Papists slanders and disclaimed such a Power of the Keys in the King and so hath our present King wisely in my hearing 3. Some Scots are well charged with an injurious refusal of the Oath of Supremacy on the account of such a false Exposition which is the Papists Case 4. Almost all the Papists and Protestants in the World that ever I heard or read are agreed that

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