Book is scarce exceeded by Knot 's Volume against Chillingworth In it several hypothetical majors are to be met with but the minors are either not mentioned or else presumed to be true without any attempt made to prove them so Now Zachary Crofton tells us in his Berith Anti-Baal p. 62. that Ifs are no proofs or demonstrations What good duty justice morality or religion may not be ruined if a mans fancied If be reason enough against it This way of disputing as apparently Jesuitical irrational Machiavellian barbarous The Rector of Bramshot thus proceeds with reverence to soveraign Majesty I crave leave to speak this word of truth and soberness Parturiunt Montes one would think some very sage and important Oracle should forthwith drop from the Pen of this Reverend Dictator In a knowing age quoth he flattery doth not really exalt or secure the Royal Prerogative Quid nascitur Such a Triobolary Truth as I believe there 's scarce any Presbyterian so simple as to be ignorant of it But there 's something suggested in it that I am afraid will one day be found a notorious and fatal falshood viz. that this hath been a knowing Age as to those parties who have opposed and sought against the Royal interest whereas I doubt 't is far easier to prove that in that respect it hath been either the most ignorant I mean of most grand concerning Truths or the most maliciously wicked profligated and debauched Age that ever Protestant England knew The Authority of Parliaments being depressed and undervalued is the more searched into and urged By Parliaments here 't is evident enough he means the two Houses in contradistinction yea opposition to the King But says Lex Terrae p. 80. The Lords and Commons make no more a Parliament by the Law of the Land than a Body without a Head makes a man for a Parliament is a body composed of a King their head Lords and Commons the members all three together make one body and that is the Parliament and none other The two Houses are not the Parliament but only parts thereof and by the abuse and misunderstanding of this word Parliament they have miserably deceived the people And his late Majesty in answer to their Declaration of May 19. 1642. and to that part of it wherein they complain that the Heads of the Malignant party have with much Art and Industry advised him to suffer divers unjust scandals and imputations upon the Parliament to be published in his Name has these words If we were guilty of that aspersion we must not only be active in raising the scandal but passive in the mischief begotten by that scandal We being an essential part of the Parliament And we hope the just defence of our self and our Authority and the necessary Vindication of our innocence and justice from the imputation laid on us by a major part then present of either or both Houses shall no more be called a scandal upon the Parliament than the opinion of such a part be reputed an Act of Parliament And we hope our good Subjects will not be long misled by that common expression in all the Declarations wherein they usurp the word Parliament and apply it to countenance any resolution or Vote some few have a mind to make by calling it the resolution of Parliament which can never be without our consent p. 5. Neither can the vote of either or both Houses make a greater alteration in the Laws of this Kingdom either by commanding or inhibiting any thing besides the known Rule of the Law than our single direction or mandate can do to which we do not ascribe the Authority And now let this Author search his Law-Books with the exactest diligence and skill he can and then let him tell us by what Law the two Houses abstracted from the King have any Parliamentary Authority Indeed his own following words do clearly enough imply that they have no such Authority For p. 51. 61. he is so inconsiderately bold as to assert that Concerning the utmost bounds and limits of Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary power the Law in deep wisdom chooses to keep silence for it always supposes union not division between King and Parliament Whence all that I shall conclude is that the power of a Parliament truly so called viz. King Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons is not limited by Law and thence I gather either that some Acts of Parliament are no Laws or that that part of some Acts wherein 't is declared that any following statutes contrariant to such and such preceding statutes shall be utterly void is vain and ridiculous But 2. That the two Houses when they usurped the power of a Parliament as well as the name and acted in opposition to the King had no Law on their side to justifie their actings For if the Law always supposes union between King and Parliament it speaks nothing of the Rights and Priviledges of the two Houses in case of their division from and opposition to the King And 3. That the Kings power and prerogative is absolute and notwithstanding all Law of this Nation infinite for if the Law be silent and that in deep wisdom too as to the utmost bounds of the Royal Prerogative it hath very wisely lest it unbounded which latter conclusions and the first also are so prejudicial to the Presbyterian Interest and Party that I doubt they will conclude him either the veryest Fool if indeed he knew not that the Kings Prerogative was bounded by Law or the most Malignant Flatterer that this knowing Age hath brought forth His next Argument to evince Presbyterian Loyalty is that The subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom could never be effected till those Members of Parliament that were Presbyterian were many of them imprisoned others forcibly secluded by the violence of the Army and the rest thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons An assertion so notoriously false that it puts me in mind of the proverb in the late War that some men would not swear but they would lye basely The truth is the subversion of the Fundamental Government of this Kingdom both in Church and State was the great work of the Long-Parliament which they effected in the Church by overthrowing the Hierarchy and that Prelacy in which the Holy Church of England was founded Stat. of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. recited 25 Edw. 3. in the State by passing and pressing upon the King that Bill against the Bishops sitting and voting in Parliament who were in all Parliaments either personally or by Proxy since we had any who were once of the States of Parliament and in the Act of Parliament 8 Eliz. c. 1. acknowledged one of the greatest States of this Realm all whose Liberties and Priviledges and consequently that of sitting in Parliament to which they ought to be summoned ex debito Justitiae Cookes Institut 4. c. 9. are confirmed to them by Magna Charta which was it self ratified by 32 Acts
so far from suffering themselves humbly peaceably and patiently to be trodden under foot that their Tongues were sharpned like Serpents Adders poyson was under their Lips stinging and poysoning the name and repute of the Army p. 16. calling them a Rebellious Army a generation of Vipers a Viperous brood c. And that on Sabbath-days and Fast-days in Preaching and Praying they still girded at the Parliament viz. the Independent majority as men that declined their Solemn League and Covenant hindred reformation minded nothing but their own Interest He tells us also p. 14. That the morning Lectures which they called the Ark of God in their frequent removals moneth after moneth from place to place were so modelled and constituted that in them a lamentable slaughter was made of the sweet affections of love kindness gentleness goodness patience each toward other p. 2. That that Ark of theirs seems frequently to be drawn by Bulls of Basan tossing and goring the Parliament and Army and their dissenting Brethren from day to day maliciously fomenting contentions strifes and divisions p. 3. That the London Ministers did by conjunction of Counsels and debates in Sion-Colledge London's nay England's distemper conceive sinful resolution to engage and tamper privately with chief Citizens in publick places as Common-Council-men c. and publickly in Pulpit and Press stirring up the people by all possible means under the pretence of the glory of God a blessed Reformation the keeping of the Covenant c. to set all together by the ears and raise a new War p. 18 19. From which premises I may for ought I see well enough conclude that this Author instead of pretending that Presbyterians suffered themselves rather to be trodden under foot than to comply with men of violence in changing the Government should in Truth and Justice have thus represented them That rather than they would comply with the men of violence when they presumed they were about to change the Government they endeavoured to prevent the being trodden under foot by them by imbittering mens spirits against them in their preachments and direful Prayers by sowing the seeds of contention and division and by inflaming mens minds to take Arms resist and destroy them and when notwithstanding all such English and Scotch endeavours Independents had effected the change of those small remains and parcels of the English Government which Presbyterian violence had left unchanged that Party generally did by degrees so far comply even with that change also that rather than they would be trodden under foot outlawed and sequestred they engaged to be faithful to the Commonwealth of England as then establisht by the men of violence without King or House of Lords it seems they who thus act are said in the Presbyterian dialect to suffer themselves to be trodden under foot And now judge whether statuimus must not here again signifie abrogamus Let us as our Author proceeds further examine Are the persons that adhere to Prelacy more conscientious in duty to God and Man than those that affect Presbytery Are the former only sober just and godly and the latter vicious unrighteous profane A. Though I could speak something to these Questions from my own experience having lived both in Episcopal and Presbyterian Families and places and being acquainted with divers Persons Ministers and others of both perswasions yet because comparisons of this kind are odious I shall answer only in reference to the main thing in Question that there 's more reason of State for the pro ecting a drunken Royalist than a sober Rebel and yet I am fully perswaded that neither of them so remaining have holiness enough in this world to render them capable of happiness in the next Nor do I doubt but it may be as much the lot of some Traiterous spirits to be sober as 't is if this Author tell truth in the following lines of some that adhere to Prelacy to be loyal but whether I have not already said enough to prove that Presbyterian principles encline to Rebellion and the principles of English prelatists to Loyalty let all impartial Readers judge If this be not answer sufficient to those Quaeries I shall supply the defects of it with transcribing for this Authors sake a passage or two out of the writings of his fellow-Rebels The first shall be out of William Sedgwick's Leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of the Nations p. 36. Of the two 't is more strange to see that the Presbyterian who the other day was opprest by the Bishop for his conscience in point of the Sabbath c. who could not long since live without the favour of the Bishop should now thrust out those under whom he lived for not taking the Covenant which is contrary to their conscience and shew less favour to them than he received from them and do that which he condemned in others and this upon weak and fleshly grounds admiring his own way which is to pray and preach longer and more than another to be strict in repetition on Sabbath-days and some such poor formal things to set up this as the power of Godliness and Reformation to the ruine of another who it may be is a man of more justice ability and wisdom more sobriety more stability more patience and constancy in suffering c. The other shall be out of J. Price's Clerico-Classicum p. 40. Have we not cause to judge better of many of the Prelatical party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves you Presbyterian Ministers of London making no distunbances rents divisions Factions by Pulpit and Press as you do from day to day as all men observe that being conscious to themselves of the many Oaths Vows Covenants that they have made of subjection and obedience unto Bishops the then establisht Church Government Book of Common Prayer Homilies Canons c. cannot take the Solemn League and Covenant and rather chuse to lose their Livings and Livelihoods committing themselves Wives and Children to the mercy of God having no visible means of subsisting than to break the peace of their Consciences by taking an Oath Vow or Covenant contrary to all their former Oaths before satisfaction received than of you or some of you that presently turn'd Presbyterians cast away Episcopacy took the Covenant and having taken it turn it and wind it wring it and wrest it making it to look East and West North and South as your Interest works with King Parliament or Army or against them all And this says he is not my saying only but it is vox Populi the late King the Lords the Commons the City the Countrey the whole Kingdom observed it To these I shall add some passages of the like import out of Dr. Owen in his Mortification of Sin in Believers p. 29. There is indeed says he a broad light fallen upon the men of this generation and together therewith many spiritual
Discipline and Government is founded and exercised 2. Whether those English Presbyterians who have covenanted to endeavour the reformation of Religion in the Kingdom of England in Discipline and Government according to the example of the best reformed Churches in the number of which Churches they may well be supposed to reckon the Kirk of Scotland ought not to be look'd upon as persons engaging themselves to imitate that Kirk by endeavouring the Introduction of the like practices here in England grounded on the like principles 3. Whether therefore such an approbation of those Principles and Practices ought not in justice to have been mentioned as part of their Character and 4. Whether persons that may justly have such a character affixt upon them ought in justice or reason of State to be protected and encouraged or rejected and depressed Whereas this Author tells us p. 24. 34. that the men of the Presbyterian perswasion are not lukewarm but true zelots I answer They are so much the more dangerous and more likely to be Instruments of mischief unless their zeal be ballasted with knowledge and discretion and exerted in lawful ways Indeed if they are like the Scotch Disciplinarian zelots before mentioned they are so far from being lukewarm that they are rather Seditious Incendiaries and prone to nothing more than the kindling of devouring Fires in that Nation where they are encourag'd Nevertheless says he they have no fellowship with the spirit of Enthusiastical and Anabaptistical fancy and frenzy What! not in their main and rooted Principles By which he characterizes them p. 20 21. 30 31. which I intimate chiefly as another Argument of the lameness and imperfection of that character We have reason to believe that our modern Presbyterians are somewhat better than their Forefathers if they do not agree with them and the Anabaptists 1. In disturbing the Church under pretence of reforming it 2. In labouring both by conferences in private and by Sermons in publick to draw the common people from their liking the present State 3. In publishing factious Books to the view of the world 4. In disdaining and reproaching Magistrates for endeavouring to bring them to conformity by compulsion 5. In slandering and reviling those Ministers that withstand their factious proceedings attributing much good to themselves and pouring contempt and discredit upon their opposites 6. In impugning the prescript Form of Prayer 7. In holding that the word of God must of necessity be preach'd before the Administration of the Sacraments 8. In protesting that they go not about to take any authority from Magistrates even while they seek to overthrow the Government of the State That the Anabaptists in Germany were thus guilty and the Presbyterians in England in Q. Elizabeth's days I refer the Reader for proof to Oliver Ormerod's picture of a Puritan written about those times and reprinted 1605. wherein he endeavours to prove that the Puritans then resembled the Anabaptists in above fourscore Points See also Archbishop Whitgift's defence of his Answer to the Admonition p. 33 34. in Fol. And I wish it were not easie to manifest that our late Covenanting Presbyterians have had too much fellowship with the spirit of these Anabaptistical Frenzies now mention'd who says this Author are no Fanaticks although they begin to be by some abus'd under that name But he might have known that turbulent Presbyterians have been so call'd long since by one that had skill enough to give persons such names as were suitable to their Natures even King James himself in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. 2. where speaking of some Scotch Puritans such fiery-spirited-Presbyterians as endeavoured to introduce a parity in the Church you shall never find says he with any High-land or Border Thieves more lies and vile perjuries than with those Fanatick Spirits c. But says this Author they are persons of known learning prudence piety and gravity in great numbers Here it may be question'd 1. How he can prove this Encomium of them to be true 2. Whether the Quakers do not excel them in gravity the Anabaptists in piety the Independents in prudence the Prelatists in learning and some Jesuits in all four and yet this Author seems willing enough to have all these parties rejected and depressed Besides of inferior rank a vast multitude of knowing serious honest people 1. This also wants proof 2. The more learning prudence piety and gravity those of the superior rank have the more peaceably and quietly they will live under lawful Governours and the more obediently they will submit to their Laws which therefore if either they or those of inferior rank refuse to do they are either less knowing or less serious and honest than in conscience it concerns those to be who expect to be protected and encouraged by Governors None of all which are led blindfold by Tradition or implicit Faith This man sure is a very knowing person himself if he be so well acquainted with all the Presbyterians as to be able to aver this of them all or of a vast multitude of them upon good grounds But is he indeed certain that none of them are so lazy ignorant and sottish as to be led blindâ—old by the Tradition and dictates of their Presbyterian Parsons Did none of them by an implicit Faith believe it lawful to take the Covenant Do none of them by an implicit Faith believe the Rites and Forms by Law and Canons establisht among us unlawful p. 29. 39. Was it not an implicit Faith in the seditious Doctrines of the Society of Jesus whereby they believed it lawful to take up Arms against their lawful Soveraign Or do run headlong into Fanatick delusions Are any turn'd Fanaticks at last but those that were first such Presbyterians as himself describes p. 21 22 But they give up themselves to the sole direction and authority of the holy Scriptures He hath told us before that they deny not due respect and reverence to venerable Antiquity p. 20. 30. Let him shew if he can how they respect and reverence venerable Antiquity if they afford it not some directive Authority 2. Why may not Independents and Anabaptists as well be said to give up themselves to the sole direction and Authority of the holy Scriptures as Presbyterians Wherefore impartial Reason will conclude that they chose this way as with sincerity of affection so with gravity of judgment and that the things themselves even the more disputable part of them as that against the Hierarchy and Ceremonies are such as may frequently prevail with good and wise men Which inference signifies nothing till the truth of the premises be clear'd except the Authors confidence that the Prelatists have reason to believe whatsoever he says in the praise of Presbyterians merely because he is bold enough to say it Inasmuch as they appear to those that have embrac'd them to have the Impress of Divine Authority and the Character of Evangelical Purity Dares this Author deny that the Principles of
to it so it takes nothing away from it If there be any clashing of Jurisdictions or defect in this kind they lay the fault at the Magistrates door accounting it a great sin or wickedness for the Magistrate to hinder the exercise or execution of Ecclesiastical Discipline But we say they do give Christian Magistrates a Political power to convocate Synods to preside in Synods to ratify the Acts of Synods to reform the Church we make him the keeper of both Tables Take nothing says the discerning Bishop and hold it fust Here are good words but they signify nothing for they teach that this power of the Christian Magistrate is not privative and destructive to the power of the Church but cumulative and only auxiliary or assisting Which very Doctrine is taught by the highest of the Presbyterian way here in England in their Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici where their concessions just now mentioned by this Author are to be found but p. 77. with this restriction All the former power say they that is granted or may be granted circa sacra to the Magistrate is only cumulative not privative he may help her in Reformation not hinder her in reforming her self convening Synods her self as in Act. 15. otherwise her condition were better without than with a Magistrate The Christian Magistrate much less ought to prejudice her herein otherwise her state were worse under the Christian than under the Pagan Magistrate Thus the Presbyterian Authors or Author of that Book Besides the power as the Bishop goes on which they abusively call authoritative but is indeed ministerial of executing their Decrees and contributing to their settlement they ascribe to the Magistrate concerning the Acts of Synods that which every private man hath a judgment of discretion but they retain to themselves the judgment of Jurisdiction and if he judge not as they would have him but suspend out of conscience the influence of his Political power where they would have him exercise it they will either teach him another part of Popery that is an implicit Faith or he may perchance feel the weight of their Church-censures and find quickly what manner of men they be as our late gracious King Charles and before him his Father his Grandmother and his great-Grandmother did all to their cost See more p. 11 12. Mr. Parker in his discourse concerning Puritans printed 1641 though he talk sometimes extravagantly enough in their favour yet now and then he has his Lucida intervalla wherein he speaks more agreeably to Truth and Reason Having mentioned some Tenents concerning Spiritual and Temporal Jurisdiction maintained by that great Arch-Prelate Mr. Calvin p. 28. according to the Popish Grounds p. 29. he tells us that that method of Mr. Calvin ' s is the way to crect Regnum in Regno and to maintain such concurrent Jurisdictions as cannot possibly stand together p. 31. for all being subject to sin and offence as well the Spiritual as Temporal either the one or other must go unquestioned and this may produce division or else both and that will cause most certain confâ—â—sion Both sides here seem says he sâ—rangely puzzled of which assertion he subjoyns not so much as a seeming reason as to the Episcopal side but proceeds thus The rigidest of the Episcopal Faction allow Princes a coercive power over Priests and Prelates where they perform not what their duty is in their Functions or Jurisdictions and this power requires an higher power of summoning arraigning and legally trying them and yet the moderatest of the Presbyterian Faction would have Princes questionable tryable and punishable by the Spiritualty Which sufficiently implyes that he thought not any Episcopal men guilty of that crime From which premisses I conclude that notwithstanding any thing produc'd here by this Author to the contrary this first charge against Presbyterians is a true accusation not a calumny He proceeds to a second and tells us p. 43. 53. There goes a voice that Presbyterians are Antimonarchical as if 't were vox praeterea nihil But are their Principles inconsistent with Monarchy or any impeachment to the same These are contained in the character above written But what if that Character of them be traiterously partial and in reference to the Question here treated of ridiculously impertinent and abominably deceitful whereof if this Author or any of his Brethren desire farther proof I may chance to satisfy their desires before I conclude these Animadversions In the mean time let 's listen to his fine Apologies Peradventure says he p. 44. 54. the exact Presbytery that is the parity of degree and Authority in all Ministers is that against which this charge is directed Judge then whether that forementioned character where that which is exact Presbytery is altogether concealed be an exact description of Presbytery Although this parity is not insisted on Was it not insisted on at the Isle of Wight Treaty or urged to the breach of peace He did but think p. 20. that most Presbyterians here in England allowed in order to peace Episcopum Praesidem but here he 's more peremptory and withal it seems so scandalously ignorant as to believe that Tumults Riots Covenanting and fighting in the behalf of Scotch-Presbytery is no breach of peace Neither is it essential to Presbytery whence I gather that exact Presbytery is not essential to Presbytery but was it not essential to the Presbytery contended for at the Isle of Wight was it not essential to that Form of Government which they had before Covenanted to introduce Yet what reason can be rendred why this may not comport with Kingly Government A. Even the self-same reason which some of his own party have as I take it made use of to prove that Episcopacy cannot comport with Kingly Government viz. that it pretends as some men discourse of it to be Jure Divino which since presbyterian parity also pretends to 't is upon that score inconsistent with Monarchical Government as much as Episcopacy the argument is as good against both Forms as against either But 2. Since this Author is guilty either of such gross ignorance or such Treasonable dishonesty as to make us believe either that there is or that he knows not any ground of this Accusation but what is fetcht from the presbyterian parity I shall for his and other such mens better information take the pains to transcribe part of the Answer to a Letter written at Oxford and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Examine says the Answerer p. 15. the Presbyterian principles and you will clearly find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new Government in the Scottish sence which allows no appeal to any other power and then it 's plain that where men admit this they admit of a Supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequence of two several supremacies within the bounds of the self-same Kingdom which can
the Authors of is not yet exhausted but will work us more mischief and be very prejudicial to those initials of Order and Tranquillity which at present we through mercy enjoy The words of our late Soveraign quoted p. 58. 68. are no proof of that which this Author asserts and would prove by them viz. that Presbytery was decried and exposed to prejudice by those that were in sway in the more early times of the late Wars for those words speak rather of the conclusion of the Wars for 't was then and not in the more early times that Military success discovered to several Factions their particular advantages and invited them to part stakes but they are a considerable proof that 't is no such unreasonable thing as this Author pretends to object that the late wild postures and extravagances were the work of Presbytery For they inform us that Presbytery was the great Master of the lesser Factions Independents Anabaptists c. Which Factions were so well disciplin'd and documentized by that Arch-Faction that being some of them also men of quick apprehensions they speedily and throughly learnt the Presbyterian Arts of dividing and dissipating yea those Factious Scholars made such zealous diligent and sagacious Improvements of those Factious Principles which the great Presbyterian Faction had inculcated into them both by Doctrine and Practice that they became two-fold more the children of Hell than their Teachers and so extravagant and unruly at last as to whip their great Master out of that seditious and Tyrannical School with Rods of his own making and to rout Presbytery in the strength of those very principles by which Presbyterians had before routed Prelacy first and then Majesty Neither says he can Sects or Schisms with any Truth or Justice be reckoned the Off-spring of Presbytery If he mean by Presbytery exact Presbytery p. 44. 54. and that Scotch Form of Ecclesiastical Polity 59. 69. where there is no presiding Bishop he contradicts Father Hierome who though Presbyterians account him their great Friend testifies in several places that Episcopacy was instituted unus caeteri praepositus superpositus for the preventing of those Schisms which were begotten by Presbytery In Schismatis remedium factum est nè unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperit Ep. ad Evagrium ut Schismatum semina tolerentur and those studia in Religione which happened when the Churches were governed communi Presbyterorum consilio in Ep. ad Titum c. 1. ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur ibid. Nay in his Dialogue against the Luciferians he tells us that Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot Sacerdotes The welfare of the Church depends upon the dignity of the chief Priest to whom if some extraordinary and supereminent power be not granted there will be as many Schisms in the Churches as Priests Yea he contradicts Mr. Calvin who acknowledges also that Episcopacy was agreed upon Nè ex aequalitate ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur lest equality among Ministers should as 't is wont to do produce division I may conclude therefore with a late writer that if any Presbyterian Churches do keep themselves entire from the Gangrene of Sects and Schisms that Vnity springs from some other Fountain and is the effect of some collateral cause which has Antidote enough in it to preserve those Churches from the venemous contagion of Exact Presbytery A wide breach if he speak truth was once made in the Netherlands by Arminius and his followers but after some years conflict 't was healed by the Synod of Dort I discern not why this Author should produce this instance to prove that Schisms cannot truly or justly be reckoned the off-spring of Presbytery unless 't were because he was either ignorant or had forgot that the men who as he says made that breach viz. Arminius and his Followers were Presbyterians as vehement and resolute maintainers of the Ministerial parity as any that concluded or accepted the Judgment of that Synod say the Brittish Divines there present in their Joint attestation c. men that though they were not so presumptuous as to condemn our English Hierarchy as unlawful or so contentious as to fancy with our Puritans See their Exam. Consure Leyd Fol. 232. Brownists and others that they ought to divide and separate themselves from our Church because governed by Prelacy if so be Prelates did not degenerate into Tyrants yet they not only deny that the superiority of one Minister above another is by divine right but also seem unwilling that that form of Government should be introduced into the Netherlands and yet they produce a pregnant Testimony from Bishop Carleton's book against Bishop Mountague's Appeal that the chief of their Belgick adversaries at that Synod were desirous of enjoying a Form of Church-Government modelled according to the English pattern And when that Bishop of Chichester had openly in that Synod declared against that parity of Ministers spoken of in the Belgick-Dort confession as instituted by Christ and manifested that imparity among Ministers and superiority was ordained by our Saviour and challenged any there present to prove the contrary he was answered only with silence And when afterwards he did in private conference with several of the best learned in that Synod maintain that the cause of all their troubles was the want of Bishops by whose Authority turbulent and contentious Novelists might be checked censured and suppressed they did not deny it but answered that they did very much revere and honour the good Order and Discipline of the Church of England and would heartily and gladly receive the same into their own Churches if the state of Affairs among them would permit it but that could not be expected and therefore they hoped that God would be merciful to them if they did what they could since they could not do what they would Which answer of theirs the Bishop lookt on as a sufficient Apology in that they did not openly defend that Anarchy and popular confusion which Presbyterian parity tends to Well it seems that wide breach was after some years conflict healed by the Synod of Dort Set certes if this Rector had a wide breach made in his body and if his Physicians should in order to his cure handle him in such an inhumane and imperious manner as those Synodists treated the Remonstrants yea and some moderate men of their own Party he would be loth to call it Healing His most virulent enemy could not easily wish him a greater torment on earth than to have a Bogerman for his Doctor a Sibrandus or Gomarus for his Chirurgion Let him read the brief account of the Synod of Dort annext by Tilenus to his Result of false Principles lately publisht or those letters from Mr. Hales and Mr. Balcanqual out of which 't is extracted or the Acta