〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Usher renders it Ordinem those that translate it a List would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let them contend about words as long as they please the true import of the place is plain enough to those that consider it with the foregoing Paragraph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 100. for there we find the Jewish Contests about the Priesthood and those of the Christians about the Episcopacy are compared together the case may be thus contracted Moses knowing that the Tribes would contend about the glorious Title of the Priesthood ordered them to bring their Rods each inscribed with the Name of its Tribe and he laid them up in the Tabernacle telling them That the Tribe whose Rod should blossom God had approved and chosen for the Priesthood Even so the Apostles c. That is as the Sacerdotal Tribe was chosen and approved of God so none must take upon them the office of Episcopacy but Men well approved this seems to me the true sence of the place and the only one that it is capable of And what is here to prove that Bishops are a distinct Order from Presbyters not one word but rather to the contrary for here it is said the Apostles constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 98. the aforesaid go a few lines backward and you have the word again and there you will find it refers to Bishops and Deacons which the Apostles ordained for those that should believe Now if they only appointed these two sorts of Officers what is become of subordinate Presbyters the Apostles we see appointed none such the distinction betwixt Bishops and Presbyters according to Clemens is not by Divine or Apostolical institution and it is observable that in this very Paragraph he makes them the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It will be no small Sin in us to reject those that have discharged the Duties of their Episcopal Function in an holy and unblameable manner happy are those Presbyters who have finished their course They fear not being turned out of their present Settlement It is strange these Gentlemen should threaten us with Clement who as he writ next to the Apostles so he is next to them most friendly to our Cause and this was so evident to the learned Grotius That he gives it as a reason why he thinks this Epistle to be Genuine Quod nusquam meminit exortis Epist 182. ad Bignon c. because he no where mentions that extravagant Authority of Bishops which by the Custom of the Church began to be introduced at Alexandria but plainly shews as the Apostle does that Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops His next Author is Ignatius and it must be confess'd he puts a distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter and bids them all be observant of the Bishop and do nothing without the consent of the Bishop but still here is not a word to prove a Superiority of Office by divine right we grant that in his time the Name of Bishop began to be appropriated to the Senior Presbyter who was as Pastor and the rest his Curats or Assistants but this will make little for the Diocesan Prelate That Ignatius's Bishop was no more than the Pastor of a particular Church his own words abundantly manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Philad There is to every Church one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my Fellow-Servants here we have the principle of Individuation in Churches not that all the Members of the Church must be no more than can always meet together in one place there be many things that may make that difficult but they must all have One Altar that is One Communion-Table Many Tricks and Salvo's have been invented to evade this instance some say by One Table is meant specifically One but so are all in the World Others One Supream Altar to which the rest were Subordinate but why then may we not say by One Bishop is meant One Supream Prelate with other Bishops under him There is no reason assignable why the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken Numerically and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise That by One Altar is meant One Consistory as Dr. Morrice would suggest is very improbable when in the same Sentence we read of One Bishop with his Presbytery which sure must signifie the Consistory if any thing that Sentence does and is much more likely to do so than One Altar This is so apparent that Mr. Mede confesses Proof of Churches in the second Cent. p. 29. It should seem that in those first times before Diocesan were divided into lesser and subordinate Churches we now call Parishes and Presbyters assigned to them they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum but one Altar to a Church taking a Church for the Company or Corporation of the faithful united under one Bishop and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his Residence Dr. Morrice would disable this Evidence because Mr. Mede expresses it with Caution and Modesty it should seem But such modesty makes it more valuable being the humor and way of that learned man he had made as strict researches into these things as he could and upon the whole it seemed thus to him but if there was a more than ordinary Caution observed in the Words some will be apt to think it was not for want of evidence that the case was really so but rather because he knew the Notion would not be very agreeable to the Governours of that Church of which he was an Excellent Member The Author of a late Treatise called a Defence of Pluralities supposed to be Mr. Wharton notwithstanding the heights of his Zeal for the Hierarchy which appear sufficiently throughout the Book yet ingenuously acknowledges That at the beginning Page 59. the Bishop and his Presbyters lived altogether in one common place and were maintain'd by the free Oblations of the People which were brought to the Cathedral and deposited upon the Altar or Communion Table when the number of Christians encreased they began to build more Churches than one in a City these new Churches were but as Chappels of Ease annexed to and depending upon the Cathedral Church where the Holy Eucharist was Consecrated This may suffice to shew what kind of Diocess Ignatius's Bishop had and what he means by one Altar Enquiry into the Constitut Discip Vnity c. Of the Primitive Churches Chap. 2. and a late Author has said a great deal to prove out of Ignatius himself that the several Bishopricks of Smyrna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia and Trallium were but so many single Congregations governed by a Bishop as Pastor and his Presbyters as Assistants and this he makes the true distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter in those times But whether that be so or no is not so material as that our
as the common Sentiments of the Churches of Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germany Hungary and the Low Countries that Bishops and Presbyters are by Divine Institution the same and though some of those Churches admit a kind of Episcopacy yet they never pretend a Jus Divinum for it but acknowledge it to be only a Prudential Constitution but I know the Humor of some Men has led them to despise the Reformed Churches and to condemn and unchurch them too I shall therefore more distinctly shew what has been the Judgment of our Learned Country Men concerning this Question Caelius Sedulius Scotus who flourished about the year of our Lord 390 falls in with the opinion and the very words of Jerom Expos Tit. cap. 1. and citing Acts 20.17 bids us observe how the Apostle calling the Elders of but one City Ephesus Fuisse Presbyt quos Episc doth afterwards stile them Bishops which thing says he I have alledged to shew that among the Antients Presbyters were the same with Bishops Venerable Bede speaking of these things Alcuine de div Offic. cap. 35. says Conjunctus est gradus in Multis pene Similis in Acta Apost cap. 20. Tom. 5. Col. 657. Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury above 600 years ago a man so Learned that for his Confutation of the Greeks in the Council of Bari in Apuleia he was dignified to sit at the Popes right Foot is wholly with us in this Point Constat ergo Apostolica institutione omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos Enarr in Ep. ad Philip. and speaks in the Words of Jerom Sciant Episcopi se magis consuetudine c. And before him the Canons of Aelfrick Anno 990. speaking of Bishops and Presbyters say Spelman Concil Tom. 1. p. 570. Unum tenent eundemque Ordinem Rich. Armachanus a Learned Prelate de Questionibus Armenorum cap. 2. affirms that the Degrees of Patriarch Arch-Bishop and Bishop were invented by the Devotion of Men not instituted by Christ and that no Prelate how great soever hath any greater Degree of the Power of Order than a simple Presbyter and in the 4th Chap. he proves by Acts 7.14 1 Tim. 4. That the Power of Confirmation and Imposition of Hands belongs to the Jurisdiction of the Presbyter and declares that Presbyters succeed the Apostles and makes all the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to be this he that hath a Cure is a Bishop he that hath not is a Presbyter which agrees with Dr. Of the Church l. 15. c. 27. Fields Notion of Episcopal Jurisdiction and also with that of the Impartial Enquirer into the Government of the Primitive Church before mentioned Come we now to our Reformers John Wickliffe called by Mr. Fox the English Apostle speaks thus Some multiply the Characters in Orders but one thing I confidently averr that in the Primitive Church in Pauls time two Orders sufficed the Presbyter and the Deacon then was not invented the distinction of Pope and Cardinals Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials and Deans with other Officers of which there is neither Number nor Order that every one of these is an Order and that in the receiving thereof there is a Character imprinted as ours Babble it seems good to me to be silent because they prove not what they affirm it is sufficient to me if there be Presbyters and Deacons keeping the State and Office that Christ hath imposed upon them Quia certum videtur quod superbia Cesarea hos gradus ordines adinvenit because it seems certain to me that Imperious Pride hath invented these other Orders and Degrees In the Year 1537. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and York and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation whose Names are all subscribed to their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian Man Dedicated to the King and ratified by the Statute of 32. Hen 8. thus determine The Truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders but only of Deacons or Ministers and of Priests or Bishops and of these two Orders that is to say Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention c. The Judgment of Arch-Bishop Cranmer as Dr. Stillingfleet reports it ex ipso Autographo was that Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christs Religion Irenic p. 392. That Godly Martyr Mr. Bradford in his Conference with Dr. Harpsfield averrs Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 293. that the Scripture knows no difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers that is Priests and when Harpsfield asked him Were not the Apostle Bishops answered no unless you 'll give a new Definition of a Bishop that is give him no certain place Thomas Beacon a Prebendary of Canterbury and Refugee for Religion in Queen Maries Reign in his Catechism Printed at London and Dedicated to both Arch-Bishops puts the Question What difference is there between a Bishop and a Presbyter And Answers None at all their Office is the same their Authority and Power is One therefore St. Paul calls Ministers sometimes Bishops sometimes Presbyters sometimes Pastors sometimes Doctors Dr. Bridges Dean of Salisbury afterward Bishop of Oxford P. 359 360. in his Book called The Supremacy of Christian Princes endeavours to clear Aerius from the charge of Heresie in this matter and thus replies upon Stapleton Jerome who lived in the same Age with Epiphanius will tell you or if you have not read him your own Canons will tell you Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli Studia c. This was the Judgement of the Antient Fathers and yet they were no Arians nor Aerians therefore and then cites Lombard and Durandus and thus summs up the whole That in Substance Order or Character as they call it there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop That the difference is but of accidents and circumstances That in the Primitive times this difference was not known c. Dr. Jewel Defence of the Apology Part. 2. C. 9. Divis I. That most excellent Bishop of Salisbury brings in Mr. Harding alledging that they which denied the distinction of a Bishop and Priest were condemned of Heresie as we find in Sr. Austixe and Epiphanius and the Council of Constance to which he answers in the Margent Untruth for hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerome and other good men are condemned of Heresie and afterwards says farther Is it so horrible an Heresie as he maketh it to say that by the Scriptures a Bishop and Priest are all one Or knoweth he how far or to whom he reacheth the name of a Heretick Verily Chrysostome saith between a Bishop and a Priest in a manner there is no difference St. Jerome saith somewhat in rougher sort I hear say there is one become so peevish that he setteth Deacons before Priests that is before Bishops whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth us
same over all Churches and this Surveyor says The Bishops succeed them in the same Authority only the exercise thereof is limited by humane Agreements and asks the Vindicator whether a Bishop be not as truly a Bishop and a Presbyter as truly a Presbyter in any other Man's Diocese or Parish as in his own But here he puts things together that should be kept distinct a Bishop in the received and ordinary sence of the word is a Relative term and always connotes a Bishoprick either in Possession or Title as his Charge and Cure and therefore though he be Bishop in another Man's Diocese he is not Bishop of that Diocese indeed as a Minister of the Gospel he may Preach and Administer the Sacraments any where that Providence casts him and gives him an opportunity of so doing and if this be all the Episcopal Power they pretend to we will allow it to be as Universal as they please but the Power of Jurisdiction over Ministers and People which they call the Apostolical Power they have not any where but in their own Dioceses and yet even that Power the Apostles had all the World over and could not be limited in it by any Humane Agreements whatsoever By this Notion our Gentleman has advanced the Bishop of Chester has no more Authority in Cheshire than the Bishop of Rome Review p. 40. but what is founded on Humane Agreements and what thanks his Diocesan will give him for such a Doctrine I cannot tell for he afterwards acknowledges that the Bishop of Rome has no Authority at all in England which makes the whole Power of our Bishops to depend upon Humane Agreements without which he that has none at all would have as much as they Or perhaps it is liable to a worse Consequence than that for if every Bishop has Universal Power in all Dioceses by the Grant of Christ and is only restrained in the Exercise thereof by Humane Agreements then may the Bishop of Rome with Apostolical Authority make Canons for all England and Excommunicate us all if we receive them not for Christ gave him Universal Power only it was limited by Humane Agreements which he never agreed to and if he had that could not render his Act unauthoritative but only irregular Only the best on 't is any Bishop in England may make Canons for Rome too and Damn them all Pope and Cardinals and all if they will not obey I would gladly understand this Doctrine a little better and therefore I beg the favour of this Gentleman to tell me what Agreements these are of which he speaks where and when made and by whom Are they only made by the Bishops amongst themselves or had the People a hand therein or does he mean the Laws of the Land If Bishops can by mutual Agreement so restrain the Exercise of their Power why may they not by the like Agreements constitute one to be Head over them all I wish this Gentleman would go to School to a learned Doctor of his own Church though he was not in Communion with him in these Notions yet I hope no Schismatick for all that Treat of Supremacy p. 120 121. 't is the worthy Dr. Isaac Barrow whose words are The Offices of an Apostle and Bishop are not in their own Nature well consistent for the Apostleship is an extraordinary Office charged with the Instruction and Government of the whole World and calling for an answerable Care the Apostles being Rulers as St. Chrysostom saith ordained by God Rulers not taking several Nations and Cities but all of them in common intrusted with the whole World but Episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to One place and requiring a special Attendance there who as St. Chrysostom saith do sit and are employed in one place Now he that hath such a General Care can hardly discharge such a particular Office and he that is fixed to so particular an Attendance can hardly look well after so General a Charge I need not repeat what has been said about the Powers of Timothy and Titus what the Gentleman here alledges is anticipated and answered He must prove that Presbyters may not do what Timothy and Titus did that they may not ordain that they may not reprove one another for their Faults as they have occasion He says These are the Powers that Bishops have exercised all along and so have Presbyters too and if exercise proves the Title they must therefore be Bishops also He adds The Congregational Invention allows of no such Officers the most ordinary Pastors being all Independent without ever a Timothy or Titus to Govern them and therefore by Scripture stands condemned and if it be so I am sure Episcopacy is involved in the same Condemnation for the Bishops are by their own Party accounted the only Pastors and the Inferiour Clergy are but their Curates and yet these Pastors have none to supervise them but are as Independent as can be there 's no Paul to govern these Timothies and Titus's and therefore their Churches are to use his own words plainly contrary to the Apostolical Pattern And Dr. Morrice has told us That it is not essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations under him Bishops may be Pastors of single Congregations yea they may not have one Presbyter under them Review p. 60. and yet be Bishops still for Milles the Martyr was a Bishop and yet had no Christian in his Diocese and yet I think there are few Pastors of our Congregational Churches but what have Presbyters under them so that Episcopacy and Independency may very well comport together for Episcopacy is Independent and may be Congregational and if the one be condemned by Scripture the other must fall with it He says It is an idle fancy to suppose that the Office of Timothy and Titus was itinerant for then says he they were out of their Office when they were at home the one in Ephesus and the other in Crete If by calling those places their Homes he would insinuate that they were their proper Diocesan Sees where they were to reside 't is a begging of the Question and every Body knows that's the way of Idle Persons it is as certain as our Bibles can make it that Timothy was only to abide at Ephesus for a Season till Paul's return out of Macedonia 1 Tim. 3.14 after which he accompanied Paul into Asia Chap. 4.13 from thence to Italy Heb. 13.23 thence Paul declares he would send him to Philippi Chap. 2.19 and we find him at Rome again Col. 1.1 And Titus was so far from being resident at Crete Gal. 2.1 3. 2 Cor. 2.12 7. 13. 12.8 2 Tim. 4.10 that he was commanded away to Nicopolis before Winter Chap. 3.12 he was sent to Corinth and Dalmatia and went up to Jerusalem with Paul and came to him during his Imprisonment at Rome These Removes our Gent. would have us to think were their Episcopal Visitations but that would
See Fuller lb. But Cranmer and Ridley and others who by Politick compliances had weathered out the Storm very stiffly defended them under the pretences of Antiquity and Decency The Unhappy differences betwixt Ridley and Hooper about these things are sufficiently known and so is that happy agreement to which they came when they were Prisoners for the Truth in the Marian days And by Ridleys Letter to Hooper it appears that his sufferings had changed his Thoughts concerning those by-matters as he calls them for which in Prosperity he had so warmly contended he confesseth it was Hoopers Wisdom to reject them and his Simplicity to urge them Your Wisdom and my Simplicity I grant hath a little jarred A learned and worthy Person that has lately descanted upon that Letter B. of S. seems to think that this was only spoken out of Ridleys abundant humility and condescention and that it should be taken for granted that Ridley was in the right and Hooper in the wrong especially because a Law interposed but with all possible respect to that great Man we cannot easily admit this supposition We do verily believe Ridley was in the wrong and though he acted according to his Judgment which was really great in other matters yet in this it was misinformed and we think our selves obliged to believe him when he expresly says it was his simplicity to jarr with Hooper in this matter And that which made his Rigor the more blameable was that he persisted in it notwithstanding the King 's earnest Request to the contrary first by the Earl of Warwick then under his own Signet wherein he highly commends Hooper's Learning Judgment Discretion and Probity and promises to save the Bishops from all Penalties they might incur by passing over those Rites and Ceremonies that were offensive to his Conscience but instead of complying herewith Hooper is sent to Prison no wonder if this caused Ridley to make such reflections upon himself when he was under the like Confinement The Learned Author adds That Ridley spoke these diminishing things of himself in the absence of the Law when it was repealed but that I suppose does not in the least alter the case for if his contending with Hooper was justifiable at first it would have remained so still and the quality of the action could not be changed by any thing ex post-facto but must needs stand good or bad as it was when first done and under those Circumstances no doubt it was reviewed when the simplicity thereof was acknowledged and I fear it will not so well consist with the honour that is due to the Memory of that blessed Martyr to think that out of meer Complement to Hooper he would disapprove of what he had done had he really believed he had done well in it He that was ready to suffer the utmost extremity for the great Truths of Religion would not upon any account have recanted his Judicious Zeal for the Unity of the Church and Decency of Religion if he had so esteemed of it but his Sentiments were now changed and that which before he thought to be Wisdom and Zeal he now confesses was simplicity Whilst this good Bishop was thus acknowledging his weakness and gladly embracing those to whom he had been formerly somewhat troublesome others of his Brethren who had escaped the Fiery Tryal and were not humbled enough to see their folly werefomenting differences even in the Sanctuaries to which they fled The most famous Congregation of English Exiles was seated at Frankfort where they had a Church granted them by the Magistrates Troubles of Frankfort printed 1575 who required them to observe the Model of the French Churches in their Service which they willingly consented to forbearing to answer aloud after the Minister omitting the Litany Surplice and other Ceremonies as superfluous and superstitious instead of the Confession in the English Liturgy used another better fitted to the present time and state of Affairs then sang a Psalm in Metre in a plain Tune then the Minister prayed for the Divine Assistance and so proceeded to the Sermon then followed a prayer for all States particularly for England which ended with the Lord's Prayer then the rehearsal of the Articles of our Belief then another Psalm and the Minister concluded with the Blessing In this posture the Affairs of that Church stood Fuller Ch. Histor Cent. 16. l. 8. p. 30. when Dr. Cox arrived there out of England who being a man of a high Spirit as Dr. Fuller speaks of him came one day into the Congregation and made a great disturbance amongst them answering aloud after the Minister and the next Lord's day one of his company without the knowledge and consent of the Congregation got up into the Pulpit and there read all the Litany using the English Ceremonies therein this no doubt was done for the sake of Decency and Order and Church-Unity though impartial men will think it was a very improper Method for the accomplishment of such designs These Irregular proceedings Dr. Burnet acknowledges that this Dr. Cox was the unhappy occasion of all the Troubles at Frankfort Observat upon Ridleys Letter to Hooper p. 4. Dr. Fuller ib. had almost ruined all for the Principal Magistrates of the Place protest if the Reformed Order of the Churches of Frankfort were not observed the Doors should be shut upon them again and thus says Fuller the Coxan Party depressed embrac'd a strange way to raise themselves accusing Mr. Knox the Pastor of the Church of High Treason against the Emperor in words spoken several years before in another Land and Language when he owed no Allegiance to him and this was so zealously urged that the Magistrates could do no less than will him to depart the City lest they should not seem tender enough of the Emperor's Honour so that at last Dr. Cox might say as the Historian observes With great rather than good Wrestlings have I wrestled and have prevailed When Queen Elizabeth came to the Throne there seemed a fair prospect of further Reformation and Union and divers of the Bishops that had been sufferers were willing to have promoted it but others were still tenacious of their Old Customs and greatly affected External Pomp and Gallantry in Divine Service and the Queen her self was very much of that humour as appears by Grindal's Letter to Bullinger dated August 27. Burnets Letters p. 52. 1566. where he writes that all the Bishops who had been beyond Sea dealt with the Queen to let the matter of the Habits fall but she was so prepossest that though they endeavoured to divert her from prosecuting that matter she continued still inflexible And Bishop Jewel in a Letter to the same Person dated July 16. 1565. writes of the Act concerning the Habits with great regret and expresses some hopes that it might be Repealed the next Session of Parliament Ibid. p. 53. if the Popish Party did not hinder it And the present Bishop
to the World as a Bloody Seditious Sect and Traiterous Obstructors of what all the Godly People of the Kingdom do earnestly desire for the establishing of Religion and Peace in that we stick at the Execution of the King while yet we are as they falsly affirm content to have him Convicted and Condemned all which we must and do from our Hearts disclaim before the whole World For when we did first engage with the Parliament which we did not till called thereunto we did it with Loyal Hearts and Affections towards the King and his Posterity not intending the least hurt to his Person but to stop his Party from doing further hurt to the Kingdom not to bring his Majesty to Justice as some now speak but to put him into a better Capacity to do Justice to remove the wicked from before him that his Throne might be established in Righteousness not to Dethrone and Destroy him which we fear is the ready way to the Destruction of all his Kingdoms That which put any of us on at first to appear for the Parliament was the Propositions and Orders of the Lords and Commons in Parliament June 10. 1642. for bringing in of Money and Plate c. Wherein they assured us that whatsoever should be brought in thereupon should be employed upon no other occasion than to maintain The Protestant Religion The Kings Authority and His Person in his Royal Dignity the Free Course of Justice the Laws of the Land the Peace of the Kingdom and the Priviledges of Parliament against any force which shall oppose them As for the present actings at Westminster since the time that so many of the Members were by force secluded divers imprisoned and others thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons and there being not that Conjunction of the two Houses as heretofore we are wholly unsatisfied therein because we conceive them to be so far from being warranted by sufficient Authority as that in our Apprehensions they tend to an actual Alteration if not Subversion of that which the Honourable House of Commons in their Declaration of April 17. 1646. have taught us to call the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom which they therein assure us if we understand them they would never alter Yea we hold our selves bound in Duty to God Religion the King Parliament and Kingdom to profess before God Angels and Men That we verily believe that which is so much feared to be now in Agitation the taking away the Life of the King in the present way of Trial is contrary to the Word of God the Principles of the Protestant Religion never yet stained with the least drop of the Blood of a King the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom as also to the Oath of Allegiance the Protestation of May 5.1641 and the Solemn League and Covenant from all or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others Therefore according to our Covenant we do in the Name of the great God to whom all must give a strict account warn and exhort all who either more immediately belong to our respective Charges or any way depend on our Ministry or to whom we have administred the said Covenant that we may not by our Silence suffer them to run into that provoking Sin of Perjury to keep close to the ways of God and the rules of Religion the Laws and their Vows in their constant maintaining the true Reformed Religion the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom as also in preserving the Priviledges of both Houses of Parliament and the Union between the two Nations of England and Scotland to mourn bitterly for their own Sins the Sins of the City Army People and Kingdom and the miscarriages of the King himself which we cannot but acknowledge to be many and great in his Government that have cost the Kingdoms so dear and cast him down from his Excellency into a horrid pit of Misery almost beyond Example and to pray that God would give him effectual Repentance and sanctifie that bitter Cup of Divine displeasure that Divine Providence hath put into his hand and also that God would restrain the Violence of men that they may not dare to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the Blood of their Soveraign c. This was back't with a Letter to the General and his Council of War to the same effect and yet all this has not been sufficient to defend them from the malicious slanders of men that either were then unborn or had not the Courage to run those hazards for the sake of their unfortunate Prince as they did The deplorable Death of this King has been made great use of in the Late Reigns to run down Dissenters and to justifie those unmerciful Laws that have been made and executed against them and to make it the better serve such designs they have made the highest Panegyricks upon that Prince and his extraordinary Piety and Devotion in which they have commonly taken their Text out of ΕΙΚΩΠΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ a Book which next to the Bible excell'd all others in pure Seraphick strains but alas the grave Cheat is at length discovered and though some men are very angry there is no remedy for heat and ill Language will never retrieve its blasted Reputation only the best on 't is there is another of the same kind pourtraying his Unhappy Son in his Solitudes and Sufferings too and those that regret the Disparagement of the former may try whether they can support the Credit of the latter but the World I hope grows too wise to be enamoured of such Pageantry The Vindicator affirmed That it was by the Address and Interest of the Party called Presbyterian under God That King Charles the Second was restored and he adds the solemn Promises fair Words and great Assurances that were given them by the Church and Court Party upon the Treaty of Restoration are very well known and the speedy and bare-faced Violation of all is not to be parallell'd in Story which T. W. misreports as if the Vindicator had said that King Charles the Second was not to be parallell'd in Story tho' afterwards having cleared his Eyes he confesses these things are charged upon the Church and Court Party and how will be bring them off he says All is Fiction and Forgery for the King referr'd all to the Parliament and they re-established and Confirmed all things to the satisfaction of the Nation in General Well if we cannot prove these things to be true we will own the Forgery and submit to all the Reproaches this Gentleman can heap upon us I would feign know where the Fiction lies Were there no Promises made by the Court and Church Party or were they not broken It is strange we should be obliged to prove that such Promises were made when the Kings Declaration speaks it so plainly in these Words We do declare a Liberty to tender Consciences and