In some by the advantage of a co-interest and consociation with those Divines that are of your way, and so by a Willingness to think them in the right, and those in the wrong that you take for adversaries: In some by a stiffness and stoutness of disposition, that calls it Constancy to hold your own, and Manliness not to stoop to others, and takes it as dishonourable to seek for Peace, even in Religion with your supposed adversaries; or to yield to it, at least without much ⟨p. 3⟩importunity: With too many (miserable souls!) it is mere ungodliness, and enmity to that way of Piety, that in many that you differ from, appears: And in the best of you it is a Remissness of Charity, and want of Zeal for the Churches Peace, and the Love and Unity of Brethren. To confute the reasonings of all these sorts, would draw out this Preface to too great a length. The first sort my experience hath caused me to observe. Oft have I fallen into company with men that pour forth bitter odious words against Presbytery: and I ask them what that Presbytery is that they speak of with so much abomination? Is it the Name or the Thing, which they so abhor? If the Name, is it not a term of Scripture used by the Holy Ghost? 1 Tim. 4.14. Are not the Pastors of the Church most frequently called the Presbyters, or Elders? Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. & 15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23. 1 Tim. 5.17. Act. 20.17. James 5.14. 1 Pet. 5.1, &c. It must needs then be the Thing, and not the Name which they abominate. And what is that Thing? most of them cannot tell me. Some presently talk of the disuse of the Common Prayer; as if that were a part of Presbytery; and Government, and the form of worship were all one. Some presently run to Scotland, and talk of forcing men to Confession of sin, and of their secular enforcement of their Excommunications. But 1. If this be odious, why was it used by the Bishops? Is it good in them, and bad in others? 2. And why plead you for Discipline, and against Toleration, if you so loath the things you plead for? 3. But will you not, when its known so openly, distinguish the Ministerial Power from the secular? Its known by their Laws and constant Practice, that all the Power that was exercised by Violence, on Body or Estate, by the Assemblies, was derived from the Magistrate, whose Commissioners also sate among them. And the Bishops in England were seconded by the Sword, as ⟨p. 4⟩much as they.
In some by the advantage of a co-interest and consociation with those Divines that are of your way, and so by a Willingness to think them in the right, and those in the wrong that you take for adversaries: In some by a stiffness and stout•ess of disposition, that cals it Constancy to hold your own, and Manliness not to stoop to others, and takes it as dishonourable to seek for Peace, even in Religion with your supposed adversaries; or to yield to it, at least without much ⟨p. 3⟩importunity: With too many (miserable souls!) it is meer ungodliness, and enmity to that way of Piety, that in many that you differ from, appears: And in the best of you it is a Remissness of Charity, and want of Zeal for the Churches Peace, and the Love and Vnity of Brethren. To confute the reasonings of all these sorts, would draw out this Preface to too great a length. The first sort my experience hath caused me to observe. Oft have I faln into company with men that pour forth bitter odious words against Presbyterie: and I ask them what that Presbyterie is that they speak of with so much abomination? Is it the Name or the Thing, which they so abhor? If the Name, is it not a term of Scripture used by the Holy Ghost? 1 Tim. 4.14. Are not the Pastors of the Church most frequently called the Presbyters, or Elders? Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. & 15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23. 1 Tim. 5.17. Act. 20.17. James 5.14. 1 Pet. 5.1, &c. It must needs then be the Thing, and not the Name which they abominate. And what is that Thing? most of them cannot tell me. Some presently talk of the disuse of the Common Prayer; as if that were a part of Presbyterie; and Government, and the form of worship were all one. Some presently run to Scotland, and talk of forcing men to Confession of sin, and of their secular enforcement of their Excommunications. But 1. If this be odious, why was it used by the Bishops? Is it good in them, and bad in others? 2. And why plead you for Discipline, and against Toleration, if you so loath the things you plead for? 3. But will you not, when its known so openly, distinguish the Ministerial Power from the secular? Its known by their Laws and constant Practice, that all the Power that was exercised by Violence, on Body or Estate, by the Assemblies, was derived from the Magistrate, whose Commissioners also sate among them. And the Bishops in England were seconded by the Sword, as
