Five disputations of church-government and worship

§. 5. The same Reverend man in his Humble Remonstrance hath these words, Pag. 29, 30▪ 31. [The second is intended to raise envy against us, as the uncharitable censurers and condemners of those Reformed Churches abroad, which differ from our Government: wherein we do justly complain of a slanderous aspersion cast upon us: We love and honour those Sister Churches, as the dear spouse of Christ; we bless God for them; and we do heartily wish unto them that happiness in the Partnership of our administration, which I doubt not but they do no less heartily wish unto themselves, Good words you will perhaps say; but what is all this fair complement, if our act condemn them? For if Episcopacy stand by Divine right, what becomes of these Churches that want it? Malice and ignorance are met together in this unjust aggravation: 1. Our position is only affirmative, implying the justifiableness and holiness of an Episcopal calling, without any further implication: Next, when we speak of Divine right, we mean not an express Law ⟨p. 342⟩of God requiring it upon the absolute Necessity of the Being of a Church (what hinderances soever may interpose) but a Divine institution warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had. Every Church therefore which is capable of this form of Government, both may and ought to affect it — but those particular Churches to whom this power and faculty is denied, lose nothing of the true essence of a Church, though they miss some thing of their glory and perfection — And page 32. [Our form of Government — differs little from their own, save in the perpetuity of their ([Greek or Hebrew]) Moderatorship, and the exclusion of that Lay-Presbytery which never till this age had footing in the Christian Church.] — And Page 41, 42. [Alas my Brethren, while we do fully agree in all these, and all other Doctrinal and Practical points of Religion, why will you be so uncharitable, as by these frivolous and causeless Divisions to •end the seamless coat of Christ?

§. 5. The same Reverend man in his Humble Remonstrance hath these words, Pag. 29, 30▪ 31. [The second is intended to raise envy against us, as the uncharitable censurers and condemners of those Reformed Churches abroad, which differ from our Government: wherein we do justly complain of a slanderous aspersion cast upon us: We love and honour those Sister Churches, as the dear spouse of Christ; we bless God for them; and we do heartily wish unto them that happiness in the Partnership of our adminstration, which I doubt not but they do no less heartily wish unto themselves, Good words you will perhaps say; but what is all this fair complement, if our act condemn them? For if Episcopacy stand by Divine right, what becomes of these Churches that want it? Maice and ignorance are met together in this unjust aggravatin: 1. Our position is only affirmative, implying the justifiableness and holiness of an Episcopal calling, without any further implication: Next, when we speak of Divine right, we mean not an express Law