A Reply to a Relation, Part 3 (5 of 9)

A Reply to a Relation · Part 3 (5 of 9)

p. 245L. p. 141. Well, thus the whole Militant Church is holy, and so we beleeve. And if she erre in the Foundation, that is, in some one, or more Fundamentall points of Faith, **A most … conclusi…n of an erronious fai…h.then she may be a Church of Christ still, but not Holy, but becomes Hereticall; And most certaine it is, that no Assembly (be it never so Generall) of such Hereticks, is or can be holy.

P. Doe you beleeve the whole Militant Church to be holy? And so doe I. But your whole Militant Church is not the same with that, which I beleeve is holy. For your whole Militant Church whereof you professe to be a member, is, in plain terms, the Antichristian Church, and the Church Malignant, which is a persecuter of the true Militant Church of Christ; as both hath been, and yet will be made more manifest. So as your Militant Church is properly so called, for no other reason, but because it makes Warre against Christ and his Saints, Rev. 12.7. and 13.7. and 16.14. and 17.14. but the true Militant Church of Christ, is so called, because she fights spiritually under Christs banner against Sinne, the World, the Flesh, the Devil, and cruell Persecuters, whom ‡‡Rev. 13.12.Rev 13:12she overcomes by the blood of the Lambe, and by the word of her Testimony, not loving her life unto the death. So as your Militant Church is a name which you have usurped, abused, and perverted; whereas it is to be named according to its nature, The Church Malignant. For further proofe hereof, you say, if she erre in some one, or more Fundamentall points, &c. Which implyes your Militant Church may erre in points Fundamentall. Which cannot possibly be understood of the onelyonly true, holy, Catholicke Militant Church of Iesus Christ. For this whole Militant Church of the Elect cannot, either in whole, or in part, or in the least member of it, erre in any Fundamentall point, so as thereby to bec…me unholy. For this were else to fall from Christ, and from …he Com… munion of Saints, by being seduced by Antichrists and ‡‡Mat. 24.24.Matt 24:24false Prophets, p. 246who shall deceive, if it were possible (but it is not possible) the ver… Elect. This erring in the Foundation belongs, and extends to all the Reprobates of the world, who are by Antichrist seduced unto their perdition; who **2 Thes 2.1….11.2 Thess 2:12 Thess 2:11because they receive not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong Delusions, to b…leeve a lye, yea to beleeve that for truth, which their own …eared Conscience tells them is a lye. For not to receive the love of the truth, implyes, that they had received the truth unto acknowledgement and conviction, but the love of this truth they imbraced not. But the whole Militant Church of Christ (I say) cannot be so seduced unto perdition, or to fall from Christ. What is it to fall from Christ? To fall from Christ is to fall from that Faith and love of Christ, which once they professed; that is, from the Faith of the Doctrine of Christ, and from that love, which they professed towards it. And this fa…ling from the Faith of Christ, is when any one Fundamentall point of faith is denyed, and persisted in, as we have formerly proved; as in the ‡‡1 Cor. 15.141 Cor 15:14Resurrection, and §§Gal. 5.2.4.Gal 5:2Gal 5:4Circumcision, and sundry others. I might adde here many other Instances; as the Deniall of all the Doctrines of Grace in Gods Free Election, Redemption, &c. which Grace and Merit of Christ is peculiar to the Elect onelyonly. I will onelyonly adde one more here which I but touched before.O… the Lords …-Day. He that denyes the Lords day, to be the Sabbath day of Christians, commanded no lesse to Christians in the 4th Commandement, then the seventh, or last day of the week was to the Iewes: he erres in the Foundation, becomes unholy, and falls away from the Faith of Christ. This I demonstrate thus. First, The 4th Commandement is Morall, and so eternall, and unchangeable. And as the eternall sabbatisme is in heaven, belonging to the Church Tryumphant, so there is a sabbatisme temporall, pertaining to the Church Militant in this world. This sabbatisme (as the other) is the rest of God. ††Psal. 95.Ps 95His Rest, saith David. This Sabbatisme in the Church Militant is by God himselfe appointed to be solemnly observed of the whole Congregation on that seventh day of the week, wheron himselfe rested. This Sabbath or rest of God was on the seventh or last day of the week, upon the finishing of the worke of creation. And therfore, for that very cause, God commanded his People in the Old Testament to sanctifie that Sabbath day weekly. This is given as the Reason of its sanctification by the People: The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: For in six d…yes he made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh: Therfore, &c. Remember to sanctifie the Sabbath day, the Lords Sabbath day. And note, he saith not, Remember to sanctifie the seventh p. 247or last day of the week: but Remember to sanctifie the Sabbath day. These words are the Morall substance of the Commandement. The rest is an exposition and application of it, the exposition to keep holy that Day for Sabbath, which is the Lords own Sabbath day, wherein himselfe hath rested. Note this well ▪ for I will speak much here in few words. Weigh them therfore, number them not. The particular application of the seventh or last day of the week, as wherein God rested from his works of Creation, is commended and commanded to Gods people under the Old Testament. So as if there had not come in afterwards, a more glorious Sabbath, or rest of Gods, as from a more glorious worke of a more glorious Creation: we Christians also should have kept that seventh day that the Jewes kept. But that this more glorious day of a more glorious rest of God from a more glorious worke, being come: then the same 4th Commandement commands us Christians to keep this new Day of Rest, of the Lord our God. So as though the Day be changed, yet the Commandement is the same. It binds us still to sanctifie the Sabbath of the Lord our God.

Secondly, for the application of the 4th Commandement to us Christians. Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy. What Sabbath day? Or what day for Sabbath? The Sabbath day of the Lord thy God, wherein himselfe rested. What day is that? The first day of the weeke. This is another seventh day, reckoning the weeke backward. Now on this first day of the week the Lord our God Iesus Christ, after that he had finished the worke of Redemption (being a new Creation, and much more glorious then the former, in many respects) rose againe from the dead, and so entred into his Rest that morning and moment of his Rising again. He entred then I say into the state of Rest, though not into the place of Rest, till his Ascension. This is sufficient. But the work of Redemption was finished on the Crosse. Not altogether▪ on the Crosse, Christ indured and finished his suffering of the pangs and paines of death, when he said Consummatum est, It is finished: but there remained the bonds of death to be indured, and that was in the grave 3 dayes, to redeem us, aswell our bodies from the grave, as our soules from hell on the Crosse. Now all this being finished, to wit, the whole worke of Redemtion: Christ rising the 3d day, therein rested from his worke. And this being the Sabbath or Rest of the Lord our God, surpassing the former Rest in glory, and into which rest or sabbatisme all beleeving Christians do enter, and have an Interest (as Heb. 4.3.) it p. 248follows necessarily, that as by Christs example of Resting on that day, as by his Commandement to keep the Sabbath day of the Lord our God, wherein himselfe hath rested, that we Christians do sanctifie the Lords day, the first day of the week, for our Christian Sabbath day, according to the 4th Commandement. Which if we doe not, as not holding our selves bound by the 4th Commandement: Then all these errors in the fundamentalls of faith follow upon it:

As first, by not sanctifying the Lords day for our Christian Sabbath day, we utterly deny, overthrow and destroy the Morality of the 4th Commandement, which to the Militant Church on earth stands in this, To sanctifie the Sabbath day of the Lord our God. It commands us this, or nothing; and if nothing, it loseth both the Nature and Name of a Commandement. And if you doe acknowledge and beleeve it to be (as it is) one of Gods ten Morall Commandements: then of necessity you must either sanctifie the first day of the week for Sabbath, whereon Christ arose and rested: or else, you must sanctifie that seventh day of the Old Testament, which God rested on from his worke of Creation, which the Jewes observed. And if you keep the Jewes Sabbath, you must turn Jew, and deny Christ to be come in the flesh. For in **Deut. 5.12.13.14.15▪Deut 5:12Deut 5:13Deut 5:14Deut 5:15Deuteronomy God commands them to keep the Sabbath day, in memory of their Redemption from Aegipt; and so their Sabbath day was turned into a type of another Sabbath or Rest, that was to be brought in upon the accomplishment of our spirituall Redemption. Which being now finished, that typicall Sabbath is vanished, being the last Type which was fulfilled by Christ, resting in his Grave on that day, and so utterly abolished in that more glorious Rest of his Resurrection. If then you keep the Jewes Sabbath▪ you do with them deny Christ to be come. And if you sanctifie not the first day of the weeke, instead of, and succeding in place of the old Sabbath day: then as you utterly deny and destroy the 4th Commandement, so you deny the worke of Redemption finished on the Crosse and in the Grave: you deny his Resurrection, wherein he rested from that worke: and you deny the very rest of heaven: and you deny the Communion of Saints, both in the Church Militant and Triumphant. First you deny the Accomplishment of the worke of Redemption on the Crosse, and in the Redemption it selfe, in denying the Rest of Christ in the day of his Resurrection. For if he then rested not, the worke of Redemption was not finished. And you deny he rested, in denying p. 249his rest to be the rest of the Lord our God, which the 4th Commandement commands us Christians to keepe weekly on that day; which if we keep not, Christ hath not rested, and so he hath not redeemed us. Secondly, in denying Christs rest, you deny his Resurrection. For if he rested not, he arose not. For the very first moment of his Resurrection began his rest. If then you sanctifie not the Day of his rest for the Christian Sabbath day, you deny as Christs rest, so his Resurrection, and the whole vertue of it, by which we arise from Sinne spiritually, and from the Grave corporally. And cursed is he, that hath not his part in the first Resurrection: for on him the second death, that is, eternall death shall have power: because **Reve. 20.5.Rev 20:5Blessed and holy is he that hath his part in the first Resurrection: for on him the second death shall have no power. Thirdly, in thus denying Christs rest in his Resurrection ▪ while you deny that day to be the holy rest, or Sabbath day of Christians, you deny, as Christs eternall rest in heaven, so that rest, or sabbatisme, which remaines for the people of God. As the ‡‡Heb. 4.9.Heb 4:9Apostle saith, There remaineth therfore Sabbatismòs, a sabbatisme, or Sabbaticall holy rest for the people of God. Therfore? Wherupon is this inferred? Upon the ‡‡vers. 8.former verse, where he speaks of this very Sabbath, or Rest day of Christians, which is as the first fruits of the eternall sabbatisme. For saith he, If Iesus (Iosua) had given them rest, then would he not afterwards have spoken of another day. Another day? What other day, but that rest day, which our Iesus rested on, and which is our rest day? For when Christ in his Resurrection entred into his rest, he made that day the day of our rest, which gives us an Interest in, and brings us to his eternall rest. For Certainly if we doe not rest with Christ in the Day of his Rest weekly here, according to the Commandement, we shall never rest with him eternally in heaven. He that keeps not this §§Heb. 4.8.9▪Heb 4:8Heb 4:9Other Day, which succeeded that under the Law, hath no sabbatisme remaining for him in heaven. Lastly, in denying this Rest-day of Christ to be our Christian Sabbath, to be sanctified according to the Commandment, you deny the Communion of Saints in the Church Militant, and consequently in the Church Triumphant. For except there be a Communion of Saints in the Church Militant, which is the seed of the Church Triumphant, what Communion of Saints can be in heaven. For none are Saints there, which were not fi…st Saints here. And what Communion of Saints can be here, but especially in the holy and solemne Assemblies, where they are to Communicate together in Prayer and Thanks-giving, and p. 250hearing of the Word, and receiving of the Sacrament. And how can this be, if there be not a set day for it? And who shall appoint this day▪ but God himselfe? And what Day so fit, as his own Day of Rest, which he hath Commanded to be sanctified weekly of us▪ if we be his people, and he the Lord our God, who hath redeemed us in his holy and eternall Law, and in which day we resting, do partake and communicate of his holy and eternall rest, begun here by Christ, and consummate in heaven in that pangúrei, solemne Generall Assembly and Congregation of the first borne written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. And to conclude) if the ten Commandements belong to us Christians under the Covenant of Grace, then certainly the 4th Commandement, which commands to keep the Sabbath of the Lord our God, which is the Lords day.

Now by this which hath been spoken, you may examine how farre you and your Church of England have erred in the foundation, that is, in this, and other fundamentall points of Faith: at least if those Acts, …dicts, and Books, that have been published against the aforesaid Doctrines, shalbe avowed for the Doctrines of the Church of England, as they are pressed. And if with Rome you be thus fallen, holy you are not by your own confession; nor onelyonly so, but Hereticall: yea more then that, Infidel. For in the same page you say, If the Church can erre quite from the Foundation, Pag. 141.then she is nor Holy, nor Church, but becomes an Infidell. Now we have proved, that to erre in one, or more, though not in all fundamentall points of Faith, is to fall quite off from the foundation. But if you thus cease to be holy, how are you the Church of Christ still, as you say? For holinesse is essentiall unto, and so is of the Difinition of the true Church of Christ: I beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church. And so of every particular Church, if it be a true member of the true Catholicke, it is holy For Eadem est ratio totius & partium: If the whole be holy, so every member and part. But the whole true Church is holy; For 'tis Christs body mysticall, whereof he the Head: he the root, and we the Branches: and **Rom. 11.16.Rom 11:16if the root be holy, so are the branches, as the Apostle saith. And he saith againe, ‡‡1 Cor. 3.17.1 Cor 3:17The Temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are. And (I say) Christ being the Head ▪ and the Church h…s body, the spirit of holinesse and sanctification flows down from the Head to all the m…mbers, as the Oyle powred on Aarons head went down to the skirts of his clothing: which was a type of the holy anoynting oyle of Christs spirit powred on him, which he communicates to all the members of his misticall body; even as a mans p. 251head communicates of Animal spirits of motion to all the parts of his body, as we touched before. Except with Bellarmine you will have a dead member to be a true member. Indeed a dead member of a dead body, is a true member of that body. And certainly, if a Church cease to be holy, it ceaseth to be a Church of Christ any more… But I pray you, what should move you to say thus: Though the Church ceaseth to be Holy, yet ceaseth not to be a Church of Christ. You have it not from the Schoole of Divinity; not scarce can you rake it out of the puddle of the Iesuites themselves. But haply you might suspect, that the Church of Rome might be proved to be fallen quite from the Foundation (as hath been already proved before) and therfore your Charity would provide one refuge for it, that though thus she ceaseth to be holy, yet not to be a true Church still. But you may doe well to study this point a little better, how to make it good, How a Church may cease to be Holy, becoming Hereticall, and yet be a Church of Christ still.

L. p. 141.142. Those Errors that are dyed in Graine, cannot consist with holinesse, of which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation. And therfore if we will keep up our Creed, the whole Militant Church must still be holy.

P. This confirmes, what before I concluded of the Church of Rome, as no Church of Chhist, because by your own verdict, not holy. For her Errors, and that in the fundamentall points of Faith, are all dyed in graine, so as they will never change colour, nor looke of another hue. For both they are of no small antiquity, and since their first hatching, they have been by sundry Councels confirmed, and at last most irrefragably in the Councel of Trent, as hath been shewed. For as those things which you elswhere instance: Worship of Images first erected in the 2d Councel of Nice, the seventh Generall: Transubstantiation, first Decreed in the Councel of Laterian under Innocent the third and the taking away of the Cup in the Sacrament, first decreed in the Councel of Constance: so the Title of Antichrist, of Vniversall Bishop and Head of the Church, obtained first by Boniface 3. above a thousand yeares agoe: with many or most, or all the Rest of Popery, have been ever since their severall erections upon all occasions more and more ratified (never any corrected) and by generall practice upheld, and against all opposition and conviction stiffly maintained. Are they not dyed in graine then? And if so, you confesse they consist not of holinesse. But (say you) if we will keep up our Creed, the whole Melitant Church must still be Holy. Here you enterfere againe. For notwithstanding all that is said, or (I suppose) can p. 252be said, you will have the Church of Rome to be holy still, as being a member of the Church Militant, in despight of the Pope. But let her be a member of your Church Militant, is she therfore holy? Say not you, your Church Militant may fall into errors, so as to cease to be holy? And if the Church of Rome hath thus fallen, hath she not for her part, ceased to be holy? But not, if she keep up the Creed. What call you that? To hold the letter of the Creed, and to deny the Faith of it? so we have proved before. She hath lost the Faith of Christ, the foundation of Holinesse: Ergo she hath lost Holinesse. Ergo lost the Essence of a Church: Ergo she is not in the compasse of your Creed, I beleeve the Holy Catholicke Church.

L. p. 142. I say it, and most true it is, That it was ill done if those, who ere they were, A peremptory speech.that made the seperation.

P. It should be most true, if you doe but say it. Yet we find not all to be most true, you say. How true this is I know not yet▪ Let us here. I remember a little before, you performed a thanklesse office for the Protestants, in making an Apology for them, as not the first in the fault of this seperation. Which I answered. And here you put the fault on those, that made the seperation who ere they were, which might be aswell the Protestants, as the Papists But speake out.

L. p. 145. For my part, I am of the same opinion for the continuing of the Schisme, that I was for the making of it▪ That is, That it is ill, Plain dealing.very ill done of those▪ who ever they be, Papists or Protestants, that give just cause to continue a seperation.

P. Here you speake plain: Papists or Protestants: and why not then Protestants as well as Papists, that did very ill in making the seperation, as they doe ill in continuing of it? But yet your meaning here may possibly be, that as it was ill done of the Roman party to give the first cause of the separation: so it were no lesse ill done to continue the same cause to the continuing of the Schisme. You may doe well to perswade Rome to lay down all her Corruptions, which the Protestants have and doe protest against her, that so, if the Schisme be any long…r continued, it may then appeare to be long of the Protestants. …ut if Rome be obstinate and incorrigible in her errors, you have no reason to say, it is ill done on the Protestant party to continue the Schisme. But it may be perhaps ill done of the Protestant Church of England notwithstanding, to continue the Schisme, for as it may be well done of you to sowder it againe. And therfore while the case is thus in agitation and Rome maks no more hast to meet you, the multitude of her impedimenta, p. 253bagge, and baggage, and all kind of Trumpery retaining her peace, and which in no sort she will part withall, and so will not stirre a foot over Tiber: what's wanting on her part, you will supply, with all expedition dressing up her sister the Church of England in Romes fashion, unto such a conformity and symphony, as promiseth a making up of the ma…ch with all faults on both sides, sooner perhaps then Rome could hope for.

L. ibid. The Kings and the Church of England had no reason to admit of a publick Dispute with the English Romish Clergy, till they should be able to shew it under the Seale, or Powers of Rome, That that Church will submit to a third, who may be an Indifferent Iudge between us and them; or to such a Generall Councel, as is after mentioned.

P. First, the English Romish Clergie are by the Laws of England Traitors, and therfore to be disputed withall at Tiburne. So as if you put them to shew their warrant to dispute with you under Romes seale: they will require of you perhaps to shew them under Englands seale an abrogation of the Laws against them. And you tell us before, that the Church of England knows well, that a Parliament cannot be called at all times. Nor will the Powers of Rome permit their Religion to be disputed on. And whom will you chuse to dispute with them? some peaceable men, that will not be apt to fall out with the Jesuites, your Lordship being Moderator. But you know Rome denyes the Rule of Faith, the Scripture. And Contra negantem Principia non est disputandum. Who shall else be the Umpier? Who the Third? Who the Indifferent Iudge? Could both the Churches joyntly chuse a more Indifferent Iudge, then your selfe? Sure Rome her selfe would nominate you before Bellarmine himselfe if he were living. A Generall Councel indeed of Romish, English, and other Prelates, might do much: so you should be sure to exclude all the Protestant Reformed Churches for wranglers ▪ as Franciscus à S. Clara well adviseth. And then if a Generall Councel should reconcile and compose all differences, though never so erroniously, yet the Error must stand, till another Generall Councel shall reverse it, as you tell us at after. But you adde.

L. p. ibid. and 146. And this is an honest, and I think a full Answer. And without this, all Disputation must end in a clamour; and therfore the more publick the worse, because as the Clamour is the greater, so perhaps wilbe the Schisme too.

p. 254P Nay, my Lord, if you stand upon termes of honesty indeed, you should have nominated the Scripture for the onelyonly sufficient and upright Iudge between you. This had been honest in one that professeth but the name onelyonly of a Protestant. But for that you told us enough before, whereby we understand, that this point of honesty is no part of your meaning. But if your Answere were not in this respect honest, I must tell you, neither was it full, but an empty and frivolous Answere. To dispute of Divinity or Religion, where Scripture is not the onelyonly Iudge, is as to judge of gold by the colour, without the touchstone. And so he that could shew the best colour for his matter by a false light, should carry it away. And I may say truely, without the Scripture be Iudge, your disputation must needs end in a clamour, where the voyce of God is of no authority. But then also if Scripture should be the Iudge, you might well say, The more publicke the worse. For it is such a light, as would discover all your fallacies; and so raysing a clamour of the publicke Audience, when they should observe such collusion between the English Clergie, and the English Romists, it might breed such a detestation against all Reconciliation with Rome, as would make the rent the wider, and so all your labour should be in vaine. And then you might use the Proverbe, As good never a whit, as never the better.

L. p. 148. That there are errorr in Doctrine, and some of them such, as most manifestly indanger salvation in the Church of Rome, i… evident to them that will not shut their eyes.

P. To indanger Salvation, is much; and for you to say so much, is much too▪ and you saying so much, we need not make much doubt of the truth of that you say in this Case. And yet in saying so much, you speake not all truth. The truth is (as we have proved, and shall yet further) That Romes Errors in Doctrine are damnable, and cannot consist with salvation; as is evident to those, whose eyes are truly opened.

L. ibid. A. C. himselfe confesses, that error in Doctrine of the Faith, is a just cause of seperation, so just, as that no cause is just but that. Now had I leasure to descend into particulars, or will to make the rent in the Church wider: The tender-hearted Prelate … to make the rent wider.'tis no hard matter to prove, that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith, and dangerously too: And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to particulars, A. C. his importunity forcing me to it.

P. By A. C. his canfession then, the Protestants are able to justifie their seperation abundantly. As for your Lordship, you p. 255are so charitably and peaceably affected, that you are loth upon any termes (though it concerne the salvation of mens soules in such a case to speake the truth home) to make the rent wider, till by your Adversaries importunity (I would say A. C.) you be forced to it. You have too tender a heart to be a Surgion, when for feare, least the opening of the wound make it wider, you suffer it to fester inwardly It were well if you were halfe so tender hearted to the poore Sheepe and Lambs of Gods fold; there you feare not most stoutly to make wide wounds, and make no b…n…s of it. Put true Protestants doe hold, that the wider the rent is made between them and Rome, the better it is. I know this is to you as the widening of a ghastly wound. But it is the truth Yet you put us in some hope to heare what you will say, when you are forced to it. As Cowards will fight most terribly, when they are forced to it Though I hope you will not indanger Rome more, then her errors indanger her own salvation.

L. p. 149. Nor can you say that Israel, from the time of the separation, was not a Church; for there were true Prophets in it, Elias, Elizeus, and others, and thousands, that had not bowed knees to Baal.

P. But I can say (and that upon good evidence) that Israel, the ten Tribes, from the time of their setting up and following the Calves, were no true visible Church of God. For they had no visible signes or markes of a visible Church. Their whole Religion consisted in the worship of the two Calves: neither had they any Leviticall Priesthood, or Priests of Aarons order: nor went they up three times in the yeare to worship at Ierusalem, according the Law (1 King. 12.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, …3.) Here was not one footstep of a visible true Church of God, but of the Devil indeed, whom they worshiped in the Calves But (say you there were true Prophets in it. True.**2 Chro. 11▪ 15.2 Chr 11:15 But that was upon some extraordinary occasion, when they were sent, and prophecied. But for all their Prophecyings, did the King and People abandon their Calves? Yea when Elias had caused Baals Prophets to be slain: or when ‡‡2 King. 1….2 Kgs 1Iehu slew all the remainder of them, and their worshipers: both he and the People followed the Calves still And besides, they had not true Priests, but those of Ieroboams Order. And if they had no true Priests, will you allow them (for all their Prophets) to be a true Church of God? Doe you not exclude all the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas from being true Churches of God, because (notwithstanding all their Prophets, to wit Preachers and Ministers of God) they have no p. 256Priests, no Prelates, no Priesthood? Would you account or call Rome a true Church, if she had not her Priesthood? Although her Priesthood is of no other Order, then that of Ieroboam, of humane Ordinance, not of Divine Institution: sacrificing Priests, as those were. Now as Ierome saith (as you cite at after) Vbi non est Sacerd…s, non est Ecclesia: Where there is no Priest, there is no Church. Israel had no true Priest, and so no true worship of God. Nor doth Ierome (and so the antient Fathers, when they used the word Sacerdos) thereby meane any such sacrificing Priests; as are at this day in the Church of Rome. For the Fathers held no Transubstantiation, ergo no sacrificing Priests. Whereas your Romish Priests, have no other Order, but of sacrificing Priests expresly in their Ordination, in these words, Take thou a power to sacrifice the body of Iesus Christ upon the Altar; or to the like effect. And this by the way proveth Rome to be no better a Church of God, then that of the ten Tribes was, when they had their Calves and Priests sutable. And as for those Prophets you speake of, Elias, and Elizeus, were their Prophecies regarded? Nay were they not persecuted, by Ahab and Iez…bel, and their Son Iehoram? Yea and 100 Prophets of the Lord more, whom good Obadiah hid in a Cave, and fed with bread and water, and so preserved them from Iezebels fury? Yea and all the Prophets, whom the Lord sent, were they not persecuted by the State, and Court of Israel? Was not **Amos 7.10, 11, 12, 13.Amos 7:10Amos 7:11Amos 7:12Amos 7:13Amos forbid by Amasiah King Ieroboams Court-Priest, to preach at Bethel, saying, Prophecy no more at Bethel: for it is the Kings Chappell▪ and it is the Kings Court? And did not this Court-Priest complaine of the Prophet to King Ieroboam, saying, Amos hath conspired against▪ thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the Land is not able to beare all his words? And it were well if there were no such Priests in Christian Kings Courts, that doe such offices against the Lords Prophets and Preachers, complaining of them to the King, that they are a sort of factious Conspirators against him (such as those whom you have called shallower waters, as before) and the Land cannot beare all their words, although they speake nothing but truth, which Gods word teacheth, and gives them good warrant for. But this by the way. To return to Israel. Is a people presently a Church, upon the coming of a Prophet, or Minister of God to preach unto them: untill they doe imbrace Gods word, and set up his pure worship amongst them? But those ten Tribes, still minced and contemned Gods word, and persecuted Gods Prophets that were sent unto them, and with a high hand maintained their Calfe-worship ▪ p. 257the Devils service (though they pretend it was Gods service, as Exod. 32. These are thy Gods ô Israel, that brought thee out of Aegypt) untill there was no remedy, that the Lord gave them up to perpetuall Captivity.

Againe, I cannot but a little wonder, that your Lordship should so grosly forget your selfe, as because of a Prophet, or two to give such a state the stile of a true Church of God. For do you any where allow a true Church, which hath no Priests? And it is cleare, that Israel then had no true Priests, but counterfeit, such as Rome now hath. So in this respect rather I suppose you mean that was then a true Church, because of their Priests, such as they were, Baalish, such as your Babylonish Priests, as good an Argument to prove Rome a true Church.

But you alledge, there were thousands among them, that had not bowed knees to Baal. 'Tis true, God told Elias, when he complained he was left alone, that he had reserved to himselfe 7000. that had not bowed the knee to Baal, nor kissed his mouth. But they were all so hid, that (you see) the Prophet himselfe knew no such thing, till the Lord told him. They made no open profession of the true Religion. And if they had any private meetings to pray together, and to read and expound the Law, will your Lordship call that a Church, Though those Assemblies were indeed the true Churches of God. But would not you, if you had been in Amaziah the Priests stead, have called those private meetings Conventicles, and would have hunted them out with your Pursuivants? And therefore those seven thousand not being of the Kings Religion, nor Communion Ecclesiasticall with the other many thousands of Israel, and lying hid in Corners here and there, they would not denominate the whole state of the ten Tribes a true visible Church of God, themselves living as it were invisible, at least so invisible, as though others took notice of their Persons, where they conversed, yet they saw not their Religion, for themselves durst not openly professe it. So as those seven thousand I cannot more fitly compare, then to those, whom you call a sort of Puritanicall Separatists, whom you by your Altar services and other superstitions drive from your Communion, who will not bow the knee to your Baal, to your God-Altar, nor at your Name Iesus, and therfore you Ferret them out of their holes, because they will not do as their Neighbours do, goe with them like loving Neighbours, and good Fellows to Bethel and Dan, and there make merry, eat, drinke before their God, and rise up to play, as you give p. 258your people leave to doe on their Holy dayes, and on the Lords dayes too. OnelyOnly here is the difference, it seemeth that in those dayes of old of the ten Tribes, there were no Pursuivants to hunt out those poore Snakes, that lurked in holes, and would not bow the knee. For then sure Elias should have heard of them, and they should have been served with the same sawce, that the Lords Prophets tasted of. And again, there was in Israel ▪ one good Obadiah, that hid an hundred of the Lords Prophets in a Cave from wicked Iezebel, as there was in Iudah a good **Ier. 38.Jer 38Ebedmelech, that spake to the King for the Prophet Ieremiah whom the Princes had put into the muddy Dungion: but where there is an Arch-Prelate, or Arch-Priest, that takes upon him to rule the rost, there is not found one Obadiah, or one Ebedmeleck that dare so much as speake one good word to the King for the Prophets of the Lord, who are most unjustly and most cruelly confi…ed, and that to perpetuall imprisonment and banishment, for no other cause, but faithfully executing their Propheticall office; as before.

But a little after you adde, That Israel is called the People of the Lord: 2 King. 9.6. therfore a Church still. I answere: They might be so called, because they were Abrahams seed according to the flesh, ‡‡Rom. 9.6.17.Rom 9:6Rom 9:17which the Apostle distinguisheth from Abrahams …eed according to the promise: For all they are not Israel, which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all Children. Yet they were called the Children of Abraham, and so the people of God. Or secondly, they might still be called Gods people, in regard of the Covenant made with them in Abrahams …oynes, the externall badge wherof they wore in Circumcision, and a type of the Promise wherof they injoyed in the Promised Land of Canaan, which now they possessed; so as they might retain the name of Gods people in that respect, till they were quite cast out of that profession. Or Thirdly, as Antichrist is said to sit in the Temple of God; that is, in that place, and over those, where was once the Church of God, or over mens Consciences, which of right are the Temple of God; so as Antichrist usurping Gods right, and puting him as it were out of possession, is truly said to sit in the Temple of God, though now turned into the Temple of Antichrist: so the ten Tribes, have been once, with the rest of their brethren, the true Church of God, and now fallen from it, yet they might retain that name still, to be called the Lords people, untill there was no remedy, that they were utterly cast out, and cast off by a Bill of perpetuall Divorce. Even as p. 259the Church of Rome, untill the Councel of Trent, notwithstanding her manyfold corruptions, and abominable Idolatries, yet was generally taken for, and called a true visible Church of Christ, though in truth in the Generall it was not, but a false Antichristian Hierarchy, and Tyranny over mens Soules and Consciences: yet when (after all admonitions and convictions of her Errors by many of Gods Prophets, who **Ier. 51.… ▪Jer 51wou…d …av… cur… a Babylon, but she was not cured; nay she was so farre off from cure, and … all remedy, or hope of remedy, as in her councel of Trent she hath for ever in perpetuam memoriam ratified and consumed all her damnable errors, and detestable Apostacie, so as all within her Verge must under Anathema be of the same Apostacy with her) she remaines wilfully obdurate and obstinate: notwithstanding we must give you leave to call Rome still, A true Church of God.

L. p. 153.154. The Councel of M…l…nis, in which S. Augustine was present, condemned the whole Course of Heresie of Pelag…, that great and bewitching Heresy, in the yeare …16. The second Councel at Aur…na, a Provinciall too, handled the great Controversies of Grace, and Free-will, and set the Church right in them in the yeare 444.

P. Call you the Heresie of Pelag…us, That great and bewitching Heresie? So I have heard many say of Tobacco, complaining how they are bewitched with it, when they would same leave it, but have not the power. Is it in this respect, that your Lordship calls that Heresie of Pelagius, That great and bewitching Heresie? Then it is in this respect, that I never heard of any willingnesse and desire you have to leave it; yea the contrary whereof you have manifes…ed, and doe dayly, by suppressing the Doctrines of Grace, which are directly contrary to that great bewitching Heresie. And surely as all Heresie is of a bewitching nature (‡‡Gal. 3.1.Gal 3:1 Who hath bewitched you, saith the Apostle? &c.) so this of Pelagius more especially, as advancing Mans Nature above Gods Grace. But had you indeed read the many ‡‡As, De ….excellent Polem…call Tracts of the Malleus Pelagianorum, Augustine, it might have been of force (were there but one sparke of true Grace) to have conjured and unwitched this Pelagian spirit. There you might read in Terminis, all those Controversies about Grace discussed, and the Pelagian and Semipelagian Heresie in all o… them by cleare evidence, and abundant pregnant Testimony from Scripture, confuted: as, That Election and Pred…stinat…on of some to Salvation and Glory, and Reprobation of others is by an … Decree: That, The Grace of Effectuall Redemption by Christ p. 260pertaines to the Elect onelyonly, which he calls the world of the Elect, distinguishing it from the world of the Reprobate. As also Ambrose, who saith, that in mundo Electorum censetur specialis universitas: In the world of the Elect is reckoned a spirituall universality, as where it is said, Christ redeemed the whole world: that is, saith Augustine the whole world of the Elect. As also, that the **Rom. 8.28.Rom 8:28Calling of Gods Elect is according to Gods Purpose, and so differing from the common Calling, of which, many are called, but few chosen ▪ And that the Elect are Called by an Omnipotent power of Grace working in them: and that they certainly persevere in Grace unto Glory, and never fall away; and, that those who doe fall away, had never any true sanctifying Grace, nor ever were the true Children of God, though we called them such, while they professed the Truth. And all these points (I say) he proveth by such pregnant Testimonies of Scripture, that both Councels and Popes afterwards, that had to doe against the Pelagians, did set down whole large passages verbatim out of Augustins works, as you may read in Binius his Councels. And therfore (I say) had you indeed perused well those Tracts, and yet had persisted such a tanter of that Heresie, which Arminius of late hath raked out of hell, which Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers and Councels had remaunded to hell: you for your part (and so others too) might truly call it That Great Bewitching Heresie.

And that the Councel of Aurang, as you say, did set the Church right in those Doctrines of Grace and Free-will, wherein they followed Augustins judgement before them: how have you set the Now Church of England right, of being one Instrument at least (if not the greatest, if not sole) of seting forth such an Edict (no Decree of a Councel, so much as Provinciall) wherein those Articles of Religion concerning the foresaid Points, and Doctrines of Grace (which were set so Right, before you unset them, as the whole Church of England maintained the Orthodox truth of them according to the Scriptures, and so Augustine and the Fathers, and that unanimously, and universally) are made like Ianus with two faces, the one, looking (but frowningly) upon the Orthodox party (who are forbid to preach the Orthodox Doctrines) the other, looking upon your Arminian Favorites, and that with an Amiable aspect, as who may find their opinions in your Articles, and so not onelyonly impunity for preaching them, but Dignities in your Church for but affecting and holding those Opinions, so Great a bewitching Heresie is it. O blind Guides of the Church of England! and thou qui Primas p. 261tenes, the Pilot that steers the stern, if you be capable of any shame, and have not drunk of that Circaean Cup: blush at these things. And dost thou (after all thy notorious practises in suppressing the Preaching of the Doctrines of Grace, and the Printing of Books written in defence of Gods saving Truth, in the Church of England too intollerable to be borne, and which the earth groaneth under, and for which the wrath of heaven is already kindled) now come, thinking to blanch all by telling us a tale of this and that Councel, and of St. Augustine, and of that Great bewitching Pelagian Heresy? Dost thou think the world is such a Baby grown, or the Old Mother Church of England come to that Dotage, as to beleeve, because her Arch-Prelate tells her, such a Provinciall councel wherein S. Augustine was condemned the whole course of the Great bewitching Heresy of Pelagius, and another Provinciall set the Church right in those great Controversies of Grace and Free-will; therfore her Arminian Pilot is no Pelagian? Thinkest thou (I say) to bewitch the world with these thy inchantments, which thou workest by the golden cup of thine hypocrisie? Surely heavens patience cannot long brooke these darings, and deep dissemblings, which yet are so grosse, as they are not of a thread fine enough for Hypocrisie to make a veyle of.

L. p. 155. To these two (to wit, Our Princes, and the Clergy) Principally the power and direction for Reformation belongs.

P. You told us **Epistle Dedicatory.before, how the King and the Priest, more then any other, are bound to looke to the Integrity of the Church in Doctrine and Manners, and that in the first place: Here you tell us of Princes and Clergy. This is some inlargement. For Clergy is not one Priest: except one Priest be so great, as that of Rome, or Canterbury, that he is equivalent to the whole Clergy, or is in himselfe the Clergy Collective. And yet suppose your whole Clergy of Priests were assembled in Convocation, what relation have you to the Princes? you doe not meane (I dare say) the Princes assembled in Parliament. Beware of that. No you are content but to obtaine a Congè or License from the King to have your Convocation, and then let you alone for Reformation. The Princes shall not need to trouble themselves further. That's your sole worke. But yet this agrees not with your two Patterns, which you set in the Margent (touched before) to wit of King Ezechiah, 2 Chro 29. and King Iosia, 4. Reg. 23. (though you might as well have cited 2 King. 23. according to our English: but you love the old latine vulgar p. 262better) Now as we noted before, the Kings of Israel in their Reformations of Religion did not mate themselves with the Clergy, but together with all the Princes, and chiefe Fathers in Israel (like a Parliament for all the world) commanded the Priests to execute their office according to the expresse Law of God, and they also looked strictly to have it done. And this you confesse elsewhere, **Pag. 205.That those Kings reformed no otherwise, but according to the prescript Rule of Gods Law. Ergo▪ The Priest reformed not, but was himselfe to be reformed by the King, and all according to Gods prescript Law. But now if the Prince and Clergy, or rather (as I said) the Clergy by the Princes leave (which you can no where shew Gods prescript Law for) should be the Principall, or rather sole for Reformation: I pray you what Reformation should we have, or could we expect? The Church of England once thought her selfe to be under Reformation (as you ‡‡Epistle Dedicatory.tell us before) although at the best it was but as one calls it (in his Sermon preached in Queen Elizabeths dayes at Pauls Crosse, and published in Print by Authority) a halfe Reformation, because (as the Author of the Hunting of the Fox saith) the great Fox, the Pope had but his eares cropt, but his whole body remained still in England in the Prelacy; yet this was called a Reformateon, … which the Church of England thought her selfe well separated from Rome, yet this is not that Reformation, that gives you content. And much lesse that Reformation beyond the Seas. Well, what Reformation is it then which you mean here? Surely the same, which you meant before by sincerity and integrity in Doctrine and Manners in the Church, to which I referre the Reader, where he shall find this Reformation clearly expounded. And in summe your Reformation here will differ from the former Reformation of the Church of England in this: that as that was but a halfe Reformation, because it retained the Prelacy, with some of Romes Ceremonies: Englands halfe Reformation now made a whole Deformation.so this your Reformation shall make that up; in reducing the Church of England to the Integrity and sincerity of the Church of Rome in Doctrine and Manners full and whole. A thing indeed, which can no otherwise but be expected, so long as the Hierarchy stands in its full ruffe, as it doth now in England. For like will to like, as you know who used the Proverbe to the Colyer. Or as the Philosopher saith, Every thing aspires after its perfection. And the Perfection of the Hierarchy is at Rome, and thence All Hierarchy and Prelacy now adayes hath and had its first Rise and Originall. And therfore no mervaile if Prelates naturally affect their native Countrey p. 263Rome. As the Romane **Ovid.Poet said in his banishment,

Nescio qua natale solum dulcedine cunctos

Ducit, & immemores non sinit esse sui.

Some secret sweetnesse in mans native home

Draws him to mind it still, where ere become.

L. Ibid. In a corrupt Time, or Place, 'tis as necessary in Religion to deny falshood, as to assert and vindicate truth. Indeed this latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done, but by the former: an affirmative verity being ever included in the negative to a falshood.

P. Then I hope in a corrupt Time and Place, is it not necessary in Religion to deny your falshoods, and to assert and vindicate the Truth, by you so undermined and oppugned? And your own Words here are sufficient to leave your Deeds without excuse.

L. p. 157. If it be a Cause common to both parties, a third must judge, and that is the Scripture, Thus still no… the Scripture must be Iudge.or if there be jealousie or doubt of the sense of the Scripture, they must either both repaire to the exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that, or both call and submit to a Generall Councel.

P. The Scripture? That's honest as I noted before. Yea, and submit to, and rest in that, which you say not. But of the Scripture the onelyonly Judge of all Controversies, we have spoken sufficiently before, and so for matters of jealousie or doubt; and not either to your Primitive Church, or to a Generall Councel. For further Answere we shall have further occasion.

L. p. 171. Pope Urban 2 at the Councel held at Bari in Ap…lia, accounted my Worthy Predecessor S. Augustine, as his own comp…e, and said, He was as the Apostolicke, and Patriarch of the other world: so he then turned this Iland.

P. As worthy as your predecessor Anselme was, and though now one of Romes Saints, yet he was against your Priests Marriage. But perhaps therfore the more worthy. And he was so holy, it seems, that he said he never repented him of any thing in all his life, but about the eating of some Fish one time. But if the Pope gave your Worthy Predecessor the Title of Apostolicke, and Patriarch of the other world, of England: why should not the same Title descend to his successors. p. 264And it seems you are not a little affected with it. For you say, A Primate is greater then a Metropolitan; and a Patriarch then a Primate. And none were above Patriarch but Pope. If then you succeed Anselme in his Patriarchate of the other world: you are in the next degree to succeed him, that is Papa totius Orbis. But how ever you glory in these titles: I assure you, for my part, I shall ever preferre a good honest Cobler, that feares God above them all. For he hath an honest calling: you none. And you all are persecuters of them that truly feare God, and so enemies of Christ. And though you would be called Apostolicke: yet to be Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, Pope, are all swelling Titles of pride, which the Apostles never knew, and which Christ expresly forbids; as hath been noted, and will be more. As followeth.

L. p. 175. The calling and Authority of Bishops over the Inferiour Clergy, that was a thing of known use, and benefit, for preservation of unity and peace in the Church.

P. For this you cite Hierome. But you omit his other words, where he saith, That your Diocesan Bishops (for of such onelyonly the Question is) were brought in, but, humana praesumptione, non Institutione Divina, by humane Presumption, not by Divine Institution, or Gods Ordinance: and this (as men presumed) in Schismata remedia, for a remedy of Schisme. But it proved to be Schisma magnum, the Great Schisme, that made up the body of Antichrist, the Great Rent from Christ, filling up the Mystery of Iniquity, as hath been shewed. And out of Ieromes Sacerdos, Priest, where he saith, No Priest, no Church, you conclude in the Pag. 176.Margent, so even with him, No Bishop, no Church. As if to be a Priest, must needs be a Bishop.

And idid. you say, This was to settle in the minds of men from the very Infancy of the Christian Church, as that it had not been to that time contradicted by any. In the very Infancy of the Church? But your Prelacy was but an Infant then, and Innocent in comparison to the Giants now. We shewed **Epistle Dedicatory.before how this Mystery wrought even in the Apostles times, which they knockt down: yet still Satan kept it afoot. The use of it hath great Antiquity, but the Apostles condemned it as a meere abuse, and Christ, as Heathenish. And you talke here of use, but you are not able to shew us any Authority from Scripture, either from Apostolik Ordinance and Example. The Apostles indeed before Christs Resurrection were blindly ambitious of being chief in Christs Kingdome: and Christ told his two kinsmen p. 265Iames and Iohn, They asked they knew not what: and yet Mark tells us, that Christ asking them, what they reasoned of by the way, they were ashamed to tell him, as being selfe-guilty of pride and ambition: and still when he had but newly told them of his Passion to be at Ierusalem, they not understanding what it meant, were still at it afresh, who should be the chiefe: but after that Christ was risen again, and his holy Spirit was breathed into them, then they were of another mind, they never after contended who should be chiefest, but rather who should be …umblest, and ho…yest, and most painfull and faithfull in the spirituall Kingdome of Christ, in the execution of their Apostolicall Charge. Which argues plainly, that the Prelacy is a meere carnall thing, a temporall Kingdome (contrary to Christs Kingdome) which carnall men, voyd of Christs Spirit and Grace are blindly ambitious of, calling their Prelacy an Hierarchy, or ho…y Government, or Kingdome, but know not what holinesse, or Christs Kingdome meaneth. And doe we see any men in the world of any ranke whatsoever more Lordly, more proud, more ambitious, more covetous, more profane, more corrupt, then those of the Hierarchy? Take the best of them now in England, the most learned of them: have they any zeale or courage for the truth, now, when they see Religion and the Faith of Christ turned topsieturvie? Doe they not all seeke their own, not that which is Iesus Christs? And when your Chapleins gueld their Works, have they any virility left in them, to maintain the truth of that which they have written? If their Metropolitan doe but speake the word, is it not with them, as in the Comedy of the Parasite, Ait quis? Aio. Negat? Nego. But what say I of those Prelates, that are fallen upon the very Lees and Dregges of the worst, and last times? Alas, in the first Generall Councell of Nece under Constantine, in the Infancy of the Church, as you call it: what hot contentions among the Prelates one against another? What bundels and fardels of complaints brought they into the Councel before Constantine? Enough to set all in a combustion, had not the Emperour the more wisely put all their Bills and mutuall complaints in a combustion, by burning them in a faire fire before him in the view of all the Councel. And the maine point of their Contentions was about Precedency, which Bishoprick should be before another. Oh devout and humble Prelates! O holy successors of the Apostles! Are these men like to remedy Schisme in the Church, that are the Authors of them themselvs? How came the great Schisme p. 266of Arius, but by the Prelates, when but **Athanasius.one chiefly stood up against him? How got Antichrist to be Caput Vniversale, Universall Head, or Bishop, but by the dessent of the Bishops, which causing their Appeales to Rome, brought the Roman Bishop to that height? so as the Prelates being worse divided among themselves, then the Presbyters had been before them, for remedy of whose Schisme they were by mans prescription erected: gave occasion to the two Bishops of the two Imperiall Cities, Rome and Constantinople to stickle for one Headship over all, to reconcile all. And so the Popedome it selfe, the Throne of the Beast was erected in Schismatis remedium: for the onelyonly Remedy of all Schisme. And it is to be noted how these two Prelates strove for this supremacy, and both under the veile of humility. Iohn of Constantinople becomes a great Faster; whereupon he was styled Iohannes Iejunator, Iohn the Faster. Gregory, then of Rome, though he thundred against Iohns Ambition calling him that had, or affected that Title, the forerunner of Antichrist, yet seeing Iohn like to prevaile with pretence of holinesse and humility: Gregory stiles himselfe servus servorum Dei. He thought he would not come behind for humility, but indeed therein bewraying his pride, when his humility was but in emulation. And we see in Gregories Registrum, in sundry of his Epistles, how low he descends in most base flattery to that Parricide Phocas, and his Empres, to visit the thresholds of Peter and Paul, &c. But what will not Episcopall zeale doe for the Hierarchy? But thus he kept Iohn off: and so made way for his own Prophecy which was, Filius superbiae prope est. The son of pride (that is Antichrist) is neere at hand. And neerer surely, then he was aware. For Gregory deceasing; and Sabianus succeeding, and siting but one yeare: Boniface 3. the next successor obtaind this Title of Phocas: and so each confirmed other, the Emperour the Pope in the Throne of Antichrist, which is a Tyranny over mens Soules: and the Pope the Emperours Cruelty in a Tyranny over mens Bodyes. And thus came that Prophecy of the Angel (Revel. 17.18) to be fulfilled, The Woman which thou sawest is that great City, which reigned over the Kings of the Earth. As Rome then did in S. Iohns time. So as according to Gods word, not Constantinople (which was not the Imperiall C…ty, till Constantine so made it) but Rome must be the feat of the Beast, and of the Whore thus described. Thus from Bishops emulation, ambition, contention, one against another, for honour, precedency, and greatnesse in the world, came Antichrist to p. 267mount upon that Beast which had 7 heads and ten hornes. And your selfe **Pag. 176.confesseth, The difficulty was, to accommodate the Places and Precedencies of Bishops among themselves. And for this you say, The most equall and impartiall way was, that the ‡‡H…w comes then Canterbury to have the … Y…ke ra…r then … there Constantine was …. And the the old Prop…e… is, York… shalbe.Honours of the Church, should follow the Honours of the State. So that the greater City, the greater Bishop. And thus Romes Primacy in Order, brought him to his supremacy in Authority.

Againe, you say, The Calling of Bishops, Whence this Calling? Not from God. And of Aarons Priesthood it was said, No man takes this honour upon him, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron: Heb. 5.4. So all the Apostles had a speciall Calling and Commission from Christ to preach, &c. Paul Called to be an ††Rom. 1.1. 1 Cor. 1.1. 2. Cor. 1.1. &c.Rom 1:11 Cor 1:12 Cor 1:1Apos…le of Iesus Christ. He stood upon his Calling, he had a lawfull Calling, wheron his Apostolicke Authority was founded Now you would be accounted Apostolick, and the Apostles successors: but where's your Calling? We find no such Calling, as of Lord-bishops in the Scripture. Therfore you have no Authority over the inferiour Clergy, not over Gods Ministers, I meane. Either therfore prove your Calling from God, or give us leave to deny your Authority, as being an usurped Tyranny. If you aledge those Bishops so called, Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.1. 1 Tim. 3.1. Tit. 1.7. &c. Prove they were Diocesan Bishops. We prove them by the plain Text to be but Presbyters over the severall Congregations, over which the Holy Ghost made them Episkópous, Bishops, or Overseers, as more fully at after. If you aledge Timothy and Titus for Bishops, that's soon answered, they were onelyonly Euangelists, no Bishops. Those Epigraphees in the end of that to 2 Tim. and Tit. they are no part of the Text, but were added long after, at the leas… 400. years. It behoves you therfore to prove your Calling better, before you so presse and oppresse us with your Authority. But you adde:

L. p. 177. Among these (to wit, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops) there was effectuall subjection respectively grounded upon Canon, and positive Law in their severall quarters.

P. Here you confesse, that all subjection of Metropolitans to the Patriarchs, and of Bishops to the Metropolitans, was but grounded upon Canon, and Positive Law: Ergo, not upon the Canon of Scripture nor the Law of God. As you confessed openly in High Commission, that no one Apostle had Authority or Iurisdiction over the Rest, or any of their fellows. so as though you call p. 268your calling Apostolicke, yet your Arch-Bishoprick is not Apostolicke, in exercising Authority and Iurisdiction over all the Bishops in your Province. This you have not from the Scripture: I know not from what Papall Canon. For as for Positive, if you meane the Politick Laws of Princes, you will not take your Authority from them. And the Judges have declared their judgement in the Kings Edict, that your exercising your Authority, and keeping Courts in your own Names, is now no more a trenching upon the Kings Prerogative, then formerly it hath been. Where the Judges are to be commended for their Discretion. But it is very well. Thus you are loose off from the Positive Law of the Prince: and we deny you any title either of Authority or Calling over the Ministry: and so you may prove to sit between two stooles; or as he that hath not one string to his bow. But whereas you confesse before, that Bishops have no Jurisdiction one over another, because the Apostles had not: hence it is evident, that those who are true Bishops, to wit, Presbyters, have no jurisdiction over one another; and so there is no such Order, or Calling of Lord Bishops, whereby they have Authority over the true Bishops and Pastors of the flocks of Christ. These things are noted sufficiently before: but as Augustine writing against the Pelagians, saith, By these things so often repeated, though the importunity of the Adversary will not be repressed, yet the Truth shalbe the more confirmed, and the Faith of Beleevers the more firmly established.

L. p. 183. The Patriarch of Rome had potentiorem Principalitatem, a more powerfull Principality, then other Churches had. And that the Protestants grant too: and that not onelyonly because the Roman Prelate was Ordine primus, First in Order and Degree, which some one must be, to avoyd confusion: but, &c.

P. What the Protestants grant to have been de facto, is one thing, that such a thing is, or was so and so: but what they grant to have been de Iure, but what Right is another. And this the Reformed Protestants never granted to the Pope, or any Prelate. But there must be some one (say you) to avoyd Confusion: and this according to the honour of the state and Place. And that must needs be the Pope of Rome. But for the purpose, or end, you are farre wide. For instead of avoyding Confusion, this strowed the way to build up Babylon, Confusion it selfe. And your selfe saith as much: **Pag. 176.This was the very fountaine of Papall Greatnesse, the Pope having his Residence in the Great Imperiall City. So as Primacy joynd with Power, and Authority too, p. 269as that of the Pope in Rome, and yours in England, the Pope residing in the Imperiall City, and you in the Royall Court, What confusion the one hath brought to the Empire it selfe, the world knows, and what the other may bring to the State Royall, the Lord knows, and he in mercy prevent: and if such confusion to States, then what to the true Religion, and the Churches of Christ.

But hath the Pope then (that pretended successor of the poore Fisherman) such a Principality? This is more then Primacy. Unlesse Primacy be, by your interpretation, Principality. Nay it must needs be so: because, if the Popes Principality be more potent, then other Churches: then surely your Primacy is at least a Principality too, though lesse potent. And who doubts of that. For at your High Commission Board at Dr BASTVVICKS Censure, you did prove most bravely from Scripture it selfe, that you were Princes. What Scripture? You aledged Psal. 45.16. Instead of thy Fathers shalbe thy Children, Psal. 45.16.Ps 45:16whom thou mayst make Princes in all the Earth. What conclude you hence? Ergo, Prelates are Princes. We deny your inference, and consequence. How prove you it? I know you will straight appeale to a Generall Councel, if we doubt of it. Stay awhile. A Generall Councel is an Assembly of Prelates. And then, They shalbe their own Iudges. That's not faire play. And Bellarmine would have a great stroke there, for he also aledges this place for you, and himselfe too, to prove that the Pope is a Prince, and so all Prelates under him. But by your leave we appeale to the Scriptures themselves for Interpretation, as best knowing their own meaning, and ablest to expresse themselves. Now comparing this with other Scriptures, we find, that those Princes there spoken of in all Lands, are understood of all Gods Children, true Beleevers, throughout the whole earth now under the Gospell. For of these the Spirit saith, He (Christ) hath made us Kings, Rev. 1.6.Rev 1:6and Priests to God his Father. Now if all true Beleevers be Kings, then also Princes. And in **1 Pet. 2.9▪ Rev. 5.9, 10. Iam. 2.5.1 Pet 2:9Rev 5:9Rev 5:10Jas 2:5Peter, we are called a royall Priesthood. So Rev. 5.9, 10. Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, and hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests, &c. And Jam. 2.5. Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poore of this world, to be rich in Faith, and heires of the Kingdome, which God hath promised to them that love him? How if heires of the Kingdome, then Princes And Rom. 8.16, 17.Rom. 8.16, 17▪Rom 8:16Rom 8:17 The Spirit it selfe beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the Children of God. And if Children, then heires, heires of God, and joynt heires with Christ, if s… be we p. 270suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. And many other places to this purpose. We are the **Rom. 8.29. Heb. 2.11.Rom 8:29Heb 2:11brethren of Christ, the congregation of the first borne. Therfore Princes. And yet poore in this world. But if Prelates be Princes, they are such as Salomon describes, by another Title, being compared to the true Princes, Gods Children. There is (saith he) an evil, which I have seen under the Sun (and he saw it by the eye of Prophecy) as an error, which proceedeth from the Ruler. What is the evil? What that error of Rulers? Namely, Folly is set in great Dignity, and the Rich set in low place: I have seen Servants on Horses, and Princes walking as Servants upon the earth. Now who are these rich, that sit in a low place? The rich in Faith saith Iames. And who are these Princes, that walke as Servants upon the earth? Namely Gods Children, who are true Princes, heires of the Kingdome, that are afflicted and oppressed in the world. And what folly is that, which is set in great dignity? Who more properly then Prelates, which are as those of whom Iames speakes, in rich and gorgeous apparell, who are set in a goodly place, while Gods poore Children sit below on the footstoole. And who those Servants on Horses? Prelates on their footcloth, riding in pompe, while Gods people trudge a foot on the earth. If you say, you are not here meant: because you are no fooles, nor servants. Indeed you are no small fooles. For there are no greater fooles in the world, then such as seem wisest in their own conceit, as Prelates doe. As Salomon saith, ‡‡Pro. 26.12.Prov 26:12Seest thou a man wise in his owne conceit? there is more hope of a foole then of him ▪ Now doe not you make your selves the wisest men in the world, as the onelyonly Guides and Oracles of the Church, and that even as you are Prelates? And againe, are there any such fooles, as those, who preferre the riches and honours in the world, before heaven? Or that warre and fight against Christ, and his Kingdome? And doe not you Prelates so? Your own vain profession, and practises proclaime you to be folly it selfe, set in great dignity? And are you not servants, servants of sinne, servants of your own lusts, and other mens, ‡‡Iude. 16.Jude 1:16having them in admiration, for advantage? And under colour of humility, as if you were servi servorum, servant of servantes as the proud Pope styles himself, which was §§Gen. 9.Gen 9Chams curse) doe you not exalt your selves as Domini dominantium, mounted on your rich and prancing Palphrys, while you ††Psa…. 66.12.ride over the heads of the true heaven bred Princes, that goe afoot on the ground? And how came you to be so mounted, but through the … of Rulers of the earth. How mounted the Pope, but by the Emperours holding of his stirrup. And when the Pope was terrible p. 271angry with the **Fredericke.Emperour, for holding the wrong stirrup, did not the Emperour trow you then begin to see his error? But it was now too late. Having given ‡‡Revel. 17.Rev 17their Kingdome to the Beast, 'tis just with God, they should become his Vasalls, till the time appointed.

But to conclude this your Ordine primus, which you apply to … Pope, I cannot more properly and truly parallell or compare it, then to Iudas, the Standard-bearer of that troope, that came to apprehend Christ; for Iudas came to Christ with Hale Master, and kissed him, and with this kisse, as by the signall given, betrayed him. And is not your Ordine primus by this very Character known to be Antichrist, while pretending to be Apostolick, and a Successor of the Apostles, he doth the more easily betray Christ in his Word and Members into the hands and bands of men?

Object. But Peter was Ordine primus. What, such as to avoyd confusion? As a head uniting all the members, and governing all the body, as your Ordine primus to avoyd confusion, necessarily imports? Did Peter at any time convent the Apostles? Was he that Ordine primus, that struck the stroke, and gave the Difinitive sentences in that first Generall and Apostolicall Councel, Act. 15. Did not Iames determine, and the whole Church assented? And Gal. 2.9. Is not Iames set before Peter: Act. 15. Gal. 2.….Acts 15Gal 2And was ‡‡Act. 8.1.… ▪Acts 8:1not Peter and Iohn sent by the rest of the Apostles to Samaria? When was this necessity then of an Ordine primus, to avoyd confusion? And what confusion is avoyded this day in the Church of England by your being Ordine primus, nay prim-as, both in honour and Authority and Iurisdiction? Have you not by that your Ordine primus brought a confusion upon Religion? Upon the Doctrinall Articles? Upon the Consciences and Faith of men, not knowing what to beleeve, or what to doe, or how to live in any peace, inward or outward? But you thinke to shift well enough for one, so long as you put an other Ordine primus before (as before is noted) upon whose back you may lay all your burthens. So as if any thing be amisse, or succeed not well, you are not then the Ordine primus.

Lastly, one thing I observe more from your Ordine primus, and that is, the necessity of it, which say you, some one must be. What one soever this is, whether the Patriarch of the greater world, or he of the lesser, or other World, but Rome rather must be she, there's a necessity for this, that one be Ordine primus. What's this? By the necessity of this Ordine primus, is p. 272brought in a necessity of your new Catholicke Militant Church, consisting of the Prelacy, or Hierarchy, which is so one, as one must be Ordine primus, as generall of the whole Army, as the Dragon and his Angels to warre against Michael and his Angels. So as here is an indissoluble and inseparable combination and confederacy of Prelates throughout the world, making up that one Militant or Malignant Church, whereof one must … the chiefe, to order the battel, that there be no disorder, but that every one keep his ranke, and fight in his station against the true Militant Church of Christ, as was before noted.

L. p. 182. Let Rome reduce it selfe to the observation of Tradition Apostolicke, to which it held in Irenaeus his time, and I will say as he did, That it will be then necessary for every Church, and for the faithfull every where to agree with it.

P. Let Rome reduce it selfe to the rule of the Scripture in all things, which the faithfull there held in Pauls time, when he was prisoner, yet Preacher in Rome, and then I will say (and wilbe the first that will doe it) I wilbe one of the faithfull, that will agree with it. But for Tradition Apostolicke, I know not what you meane, and therfore I dare not say as you doe. But still you hold with Ordine primus, I am sure of it. You hold fast together for your Hierarchy, wherein you place the Pope your Ordine primus. Which while you doe, Whatsoever Tradition Apostolicke Rome shall reduce it selfe to, it wilbe most perillous and pernicious too for any of the faithfull to agree with it. And I am sure the Hierarchy, and our Ordine primus in that, was no Tradition Apostolicke. So for that, ther's no talke of reducing, either for Romes or Canterbury. And could you perswade the world to agree with with the Ordine primus at Rome, then that speech of yours (pag. 182.) would easily take place in these our times, as well as Irenaeus his time. **pag. 182.Very great reason was there in Irenaeus his time, that upon any difference arising in the Faith, Omnes undique fideles, all the faithfull, or, if you will, all the Churches round about, should have recourse, that is, resort to Rome, being the Imperiall City, and so a Church of more powerfull Principality, then any other at that time, in those parts of the world. But the meaning of A.C. is, we must so have recourse to Rome, as to submit our faith to hers. And should I grant them their own sense, that all the faithfull every where must agree with Rome (which I may give, but can never grant) yet were not this saying any whit prejudiciall to us now. For first, here's a powerfull Principality ascribed to the Church of Rome ▪ so you. Here are many words conningly woven, and packt up together, that to discover p. 273your full meaning, you had need to un…old your whole pack. Now all round about Rome, is a large compasse; for the whole world lyes round about Rome, it being also (at least there) the Imperiall City, and so a Church of more powerfull Principality, then any other, which might therfore challenge resort of all unto it, as to the onelyonly Oracle for resolving all your faithfull every where in doubts of Faith. Yea and if you should grant too, that all must submit their faith to Rome, you say, it were no whit prejudiciall to us now. And should you not grant it, how should it agree with your necessity of having one Ordine primus. For to what purpose should there be one Ordine primus to avoyd confusion, i… to his Call, Summons and Judgement all your faithfull resorting, they should not rest this their faith in his Determination. Otherwise, how should Confusion be avoyded. For then to what one Ordine primus should they goe? But do you yeeld it, or no? You say, you may give it, but can never grant it. I pray you, whether shall your affirmative giving, or your negative granting be of more force? Or if you give it, how do you not grant it too? Yea giving is more then granting. If therfore you give it, you doe more then grant it. But suppose you restrain it onelyonly to Irenaeus his time. Had Rome then an Infallible Oracle in the Popes brest? Or was his Iudgement the more infallible, because his Chaire was in the Imperiall City? Or his sentence of the more credit, because his Church had the more powerfull Principality? Then why in all doubtfull cases of Faith should not all the faithfull in England resort to the Chaire of Canterbury, as which hath the most powerfull Principality, of all the Prelates in England? Why should not the thresholds of your Palace be as much worne with the footsteps of those that come to your Oracle for resolution in matters of faith: as the Shrine of your Predecessor S. Thomas of Canterbury, with the keyes of his blind votaries? And so much the more in these dayes; as wherein you have put all England to a stand and stagger what to beleeve in point of Faith, considering that the Articles of Religion, like Meteors hang in suspense in the ayre, no man knowing what to make of them, whether they be white or blacke, or what such Comets portend, untill to that Edict of the Court (that binds up the sense of the Articles fast asleep, or in a slumber between Hawke and Buzzard, or as a speaking in a dreame) you shall superadde the Definitive Decree of the Chaire of Canterbury, to interpret unto us what they have dreamed all this while. But I suppose, the Board calling you so much away from your Chaire, you are the more p. 274willing, and that in such a case of necessity to send all the faithfull to your Ordine primus at Rome, and to Peters Chaire there (if any such thing be there) which may like Iunoes three footed stoole, resolve all their doubts. And so (as you **idid.say to A C.) Rome may thanke you for it. But alwayes provided, tha… Rome first reduce her selfe (as you say) to the Observation of Tradition Apostolicke, and then you will say Latinè, plainly, That it wilbe then necessary for every Church, and for the faithfull every where to agree with it, to have recourse to Rome, and to rest their Faith there, where is the most Powerfull Principality. And thus (as well as I could) I have pickt up your meaning, wherein if I have come short, you must pardon me, and blame your selfe, for your being no more perspicuous in matters of such moment, as about consulting of Oracles, considering, that that of Apollo and Delphos was long agoe put to silence. But to proceed.

L. p. 199. The Bishop of Rome hath no power from Christ, over the whole Church to be Iudge in Controversies: nay out of all doubt, 'tis not the least reason, why de facto he hath so little successe, because de Jure he hath no power given.

P. Not over the whole Church. This seems to imply, that the Bishop of Rome hath a power from Christ to be Iudge in Controversies over all the Churches at least within his own more powerfull Principality. And consequently, that the Primate of Canterbury hath the like power from Christ to be Judge in Controversies over the whole Church of England. If you have, yet it wilbe some ease to the English, that they have an Oracle so neare home to resolve them in all doubts, so as they need not (as formerly) go trudge to Rome for the matter. But neither to the Pope in his Powerfull Principality, nor to you in your Primacy hath Christ given any power at all to be Judge in Controversies of Faith. And because you have no Calling, nor Commission from Christ, therfore 'tis true you say in this, that the Pope hath no better successe. And I pray you ‡‡Selfe-condemned.what successe have you had, since you took upon you to sway the Crosier staffe of Canterbury, and to be Judge in Controversies of Faith, making and raysing controversies there, where there was none before, as namely in the Articles of Religion? 'Tis true, you have put many a good Minister to Silence, thrust many a one out of his Cure, and Countrey, levied your way for an universall Conformity to Rome, prevailed much in your Designes that way: but yet have you any great cause to boast of your successe, all things Considered? I say no more. Verbum sapienti: you understand me well enough. And certainly when p. 275you cast up your reckoning, you will find your selfe to be as much behind hand for successe, as you do the Pope. And your Reason is true: because you have no power, no Authority, no Calling, no Commission from Christ, either to possesse such a place, or to execute such an Office. For as the Lord saith in **Ier. 23.32.Jer 23:32Ieremie (speaking of false Prophets) I sent them not, neither commanded them: therfore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. So, neither have you reason to thinke, that because you may do what you list in turning things upside down, in seting up your Altars, in suppressing Gods word, in oppressing Gods Ministers, in advancing your Arminian and Popish faction, and you hitherto prosper therein, while there is never a man left, that dare so much as mutter a word against these your practises, so great is your Power, and so terrible your Cruelty, and Ministers so Cowardly, so as by this meanes your Cause and Course seems to prosper, while you can crush any that shall interpose himselfe, or lawfully in his place oppose your violent courses: therfore Christ hath given you this power thus to tyrannise, wherein you doe so prosper. True it is, that Christ hath given way to Satan to rage in these times, because he knows he hath but a short time: and hereby Christ will try and humble his people, that he may doe them good, and be glorified in their deliverance, and in the destruction of all such Papall and Antichristian Tyranny.

L. p. 200. The Church being as large as the world, Blasphemy against Christ as being Author of the Antichristian Hierarchy.Christ thought it fitter to governe it Aristocratically, by Divers, rather then by One Viceroy. And I beleeve that this is true. For all the time of the first 300. yeares, and somwhat bettter, it was governed Aristocratically, to wit, by the Bishops, &c.

P. Here you give us occasion further to launch into the Deep of this Mystery, that we may sound the bottome of it, and so discerne what ground it floats upon (mudde, or sand, or both) although we have in part discovered it before. Here you say, and you say you beleeve it too (it is an Article of your Creed) that Christ thought it fitter to govern the Church Aristocratically by diverse, rather then by one Viceroy. And you give the Reason, The Church being as large as the world. We will first take an Assay of your words, and then of your Reason. For to a vulgar Reader some of your words are somwhat obscure, and some also very finely couched, that every eye cannot at the first discerne the Mystery of them.

And first, for Aristocratically: Aristotle, the famous Philosopher, and no meane statesman, in his Politicks layes down 3 kinds of p. 276Civil Government, taken in the better part: The first is Monarchia, which is a government by One: the second is, Aristocratia, which is a Government of the Best Men: the third is Democratia, which is a Government Popular, or of the People. Opposite to these three, he sets three sorts of bad Government: the first is Tyranny, which is opposed to Monarchy; Tyranny ruling either without, or contrary to the good Laws established: but a Monarchy governing according to the established good Laws of the State, Kingdome, or Common-weale. The second is, Oligarchia, which signifies the Government of a few; and this standing in opposition to Aristocratia (the Government of the best men) it signifieth the Government of a few of the worst men. The third is, Anarchia, that is, no Government at all, when without Law, or Ruler, every one doth that, which seems good in his own eyes (as Jude 17 6. and 21.25.) and this is opposed to Democratia, a Government of the people by good Laws. These things thus plainly layd down, we shall the more clearly proceed in our Point.

Secondly, I note here your word Vice-Roy; which every man knows doth signifie a Vice-King, or one Deputed by the King to governe a Kingdome in his personall absence, whereof there is usually but one in a Kingdome; as the Vice-Roy of the Kingdome of Naples under the King of Spaine; or the Lord Duputy of Ireland under the King thereof. But yet every one doth not perhaps understand, that among diverse Prelates, you make your selfe a Vice-roy. But looking more narrowly into your words, we shall find that sense easily resulting from them. For you say, That Christ thought it fitter to governe his Church by Diverse, then by One Vice-Roy: that is, by Diverse Vice-Roys, rather then by One. All comes to one reckoning. And besides you expresse the word Diverse, and the word One ▪ with a Capitall, to note, that both have reference to Vice-Roy. So as it runs Currant both wayes, whether you say, By Diverse, rather then by One Vice-Roy: or, By Diverse Vice-Roys, rather then by One. Thus 'tis plaine enough.

Lastly, a third word here is of some difficulty: that you say, Christ thought it fitter. Now I never took you to be one of Christs Privy Councel, so as to be made Privy to Christs thoughts, and that in these things, which he hath no where expressed in his word. But this is familiar with you (as before) to tell us Gods thoughts. But shew us where Christ hath expressed any such thought of his in his expresse word, the Scripture. If you cannot (as you cannot) how presume you to say, Christ thought p. 277so. Certainly my Lord Iesus Christ, that **1 Tim 6.15.1 Tim 6:15onelyonly Potentate, and ‡‡Rom. 16.27.Rom 16:27onelyonly wise King, useth not to entertaine such as you are to be of his Privy Councel, or Cabinet, that dare discover his secrets, nay dare report that of him, which never came into his thought. And if ye be so bold with Christ, others may be warned hereby how farre to trust you with their secrets, and others againe, how farre to beleeve your reports of Princes Pleasures, or Purposes, when perhaps 'tis neither so nor so. But my Lord, your Places, and Grace, attended with all the Princely Pompe, suits not with Christs Privy-Councel-Board. He admitted none thither, but a company of poore simple Fishermen. Those were his ‡‡Ioh. 15.14, 15.John 15:14John 15:15Friends, to whom he did communicate and impart his councels and secrets. As §§Gen. 18.17.Gen 18:17Abraham being the ††Iam. 2.23.Jas 2:23Friend of God, God said he would hide nothing from him. No, nor from any of his true-bred seed. ‡̶‡̶Psal. 25.14.Ps 25:14The secret of the Lord is with them that feare him; and he will shew them his Covenant. They are either strangers in the world, as **Dan.Daniel in Babylon: or exiles from the world, as ‡‡Rev. 1.Rev 1Iohn in the Ile of Pathmos; or such as live sub Dio, in the wildernesse, as Iohn Baptist: or dwell in a poore thatcht Cottage, or so, to whom the Lord Iesus Christ reveales his thoughts; and not lightly to those that live deliciously, and are in Kings Cours, and goe in soft clothing, their ‡‡Rev. 12.4.Rev 12:4Traine borne up after them, wherewith they draw the third part of the starres of heaven. As a Cardinall at the Election of a Pope, when there was a solemn Masse sung to call down the Holy Ghost, to set the dissenting Factions of the Cardinalls at one, and it would not be, said, Let us uncover the Roofe, for the Holy Ghost cannot find a way to passe through so many tyles. And my Lord, if you tell us this as a revelation, what Christ thought: we have no more, but your bare word (as in many other things of like nature) so as unlesse (in a matter of such moment as this is) you can shew us the truth hereof by some Miracle for confirmation, as the §§2 Th…ss 2.Romish Priests doe for their Transubstantiation, and Purgatory, and such like secrets: you must pardon us, if we doe not give credit to what you so boldly say of Christs thought here.

But from your words come we to the matter, which they import, and which I say we still require proofe of, which will trouble you worse to find, then all the writing of your Book hath done. And seeing you compare your Episcopall Government with the Aristocraticall, which is the Government Optimatum, of the Best men: prove unto us (to make your comparison good, and that in the prime notion of it) that Prelates are the Best p. 278men in the Church. You are Megístoi indeed, the greatest: but are you Aristoi, Cicer. Offic.the Best. Riches and Honours (saith Cicero) make a man to be Majorem, greater: Meliorem verò quomodo? but how, better? I could never beleeve, that the Papall Miter, could infuse holinesse, or an Archiepiscopall Pall, Grace. Nor could I see any Reason why Prelates should take place in precedency one of another, according to the greatnesse of their Principality respectively, as if the Pope were ever the more learned, vertuous, religious, holy, because he is Bishop of Rome, or your Lordship because you are Titled His Grace of Canterbury. Whereas precedency of persons should goe by their personall worth, and age, and inward indowments, and not by any Prelaticall outward Prerogatives. But this by the way.