Divine. I have seen and read the book, which surely was written by the special inspiration of the father of lies, that the ample people who never yet saw a Presbytery, may be made afraid of it, as of some hellish monster, as the French Friars made the people believe, that the Huguenots were ugly monsters with Swines faces, and Asses ears. But men of understanding will not be taken with such bold and shameless calumnies as come from the pen of that son of Belial. I could name both the Author, and the lying Records of a persecuting Prelate, whence he borrowed his stories, in which there are many known untruths; and where there is any truth in the matters of fact which he relates, there is such addition of his own Interpretations of mens actions, such variation of circumstances, and such concealing of the true grounds, ends, and circumstances of such actions, as maketh them to appear quite another thing then they were. And if his stories of the speeches, actions, or opinions of particular men were all true (as they are not) yet how doth that prove that Presbyterial government is inconsistent with Monarchy. Magistracy, Laws, Trading, Peace. &c. This must be proved from the principles or necessary concomitants of Presbyterial government, not from the actions or speeches of this or that private man, especially they having so said or done not in any reference to Presbyterial ⟨p. 40⟩Government, but occasionally in reference to such or such persons or purposes. As now if I should rake up the dunghill of all the Treasons, Conspiracies, Oppressions, Persecutions, Adulteries, Blasphemies, Heresies, Atheistical opinions, Superstitions, Profanities of such or such Prelates, (of which the Histories of former times and late experience are full) and thence conclude that Episcopal government is inconsistent with Monarchy, with the safety of the Kingdom, with the liberty of the Subject, with the peace of the Church, with piety, &c. Surely that same Author would be ready to answer me, that this must be proved from their received principles, nor from particular practises. Now that Ministers preaching Treason,1 or committing any other trespass punishable by the law of the land, is not to be judged by the Civill Magistrate, nor any Civill Court, but may appeal from all these to the Ecclesiastical Judicatory, is none of our principles:
Divine. I have seen and read the book, which surely was written by the speciall inspiration of the father of lies, that the •mple people who never yet sawe a Presbytery, may be made afraid of it, as of some hellish monster, as the French Friars made the people beleeve, that the Hugonots were ugly monsters with Swines faces, and Asses eares. But men of understanding will not be taken with such bold and shamelesse calumnies as come from the pen of that son of Belial. I could name both the Author, and the lying Records of a persecuting Prelate, whence he borrowed his stories, in which there are many known untruths; and where there is any truth in the matters of fact which he relates, there is such addition of his own Interpretations of mens actions, such variation of circumstances, and such concealing of the true grounds, ends, and circumstances of such actions, as maketh them to appear quite another thing then they were. And if his stories of the speeches, actions, or opinions of particular men were all true (as they are not) yet how doth that prove that Presbyteriall government is inconsistent with Monarchy. Magistracie, Laws, Trading, Peace. &c. This must be proved from the principles or necessarie concomitants of Presbyteriall government, not from the actions or speeches of this or that private man, especially they having so said or done not in any reference to Presbyteriall ⟨p. 40⟩Government, but occasionally in reference to such or such persons or purposes. As now if I should rake up the dunghill of all the Treasons, Conspiracies, Oppressions, Persecutions, Adulteries, Blasphemies, Heresies, Atheisticall opinions, Superstitions, Prophanities of such or such Prelates, (of which the Histories of former times and late experience are full) and thence conclude that Episcopall government is inconsistent with Monarchy, with the safety of the Kingdome, with the liberty of the Subject, with the peace of the Church, with piety, &c. Surely that same Author would be ready to answer me, that this must be proved from their received principles, nor from particular practises. Now that Ministers preaching Treason,1 or committing any other trespasse punishable by the law of the land, is not to be judged by the Civill Magistrate, nor any Civill Court, but may appeale from all these to the Ecclesiasticall Judicatory, is none of our principles:
- 1•••el. ••••aen., tom. 1. pag. 413 Nullus au•em Rex bab•t porestatem constituend. prectium super aliquem Ecclesiasticum sacris or denibus obligatum, vel super membra, vel sanguinem, vel Saraed ejus, vel super aliquem de suis, qu•a quisque Ecclesiast: cus ut praedictus, babet potest•tē per leg•m Ecclesiasticam orob. and in Synodo, quodl•be: nocum•atum vel da•mum qued ei l•icus satiate, aut Rex aut alius. Item nu•rtenus tales Ecclesiasticus potest compells ad re•pond••••• ali•••i extra Synodum, de delict is s•bi oppositis. Du••nus de sacr. ecci. minist •i 1. c. 2. canfesseth that de causes civilibus Clericorum, nan Sacerdotes elim, sed Praesi•es & mgis Magistratus ••• s•••ant, &c. Verum Constitutions Romanorum Pontisicum, hu•e jury uon parum derogevorun• quibus ca• cum est n•n so'um ut clevici ad Mag str•t•s tribunal i••viti non trabantur, s•d ut •• v•lo•tes •uidem jurisdictioni Magstratus see subjcere pasnl, sve civlis sit, sive criminals camsa.
