The grand debate between the most reverend bishops and the Presbyterian divines appointed by…

Reply. If when the express words of a Statute are cited, you can so easily put it off, by saying (it does not forbid it,) and you dare not think that a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Christ his Church hath commanded,) and (you must not interpret it as contradicting that Act which confirms the Liturgy,) we must think that indeed we are no less regardful of the Laws of the Governors than you; But first, we understand not what Authority this is that you set against the King and Parliament, as supposing they will not forbid what it commands? You call it Christs Church, we suppose you mean not Christ himself, by his Apostles infallibly directed and inspired: If it be the National Church of England, they are the Kings Subjects; and why may he not forbid a Ceremony which they command; or why should they command it if he forbid it? If it be any Foreign Church, there's none hath power over us. If it be any pretended head of the Church universal, whether Pope or general Council, having power to make Laws that bind the whole Church, it is a thing so copiously disproved by Protestants against both the Italian and French Papists, that we think it needless to confute it, nor indeed dare imagine that you intend it. We know not the refore what you mean; But whatever you mean you seem to contradict the forecited Article of the Church of England, that makes all humane Laws about Rites and Ceremonies of the Church to be unchangeable, by each particular National Church; And that it is not necessary that Ceremonies or Traditions be in all places one, or utterly like▪ we most earnestly beseech you be cautious how you obtrude upon us a Foreign Power, under the name of Christs Church, that may command Ceremonies which King and Parliament may not forbid, whether it be one man or a thousand, we fear it is against our Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, for us ⟨p. 70⟩do own any such Power.

Reply. If when the expresse words of a Statute are cited, you can so easily put it off, by saying (it does not forbid it,) and you dare not think that a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Christ his Church hath commanded,) and (you must not interpret it as contradicting that Act which confirms the Liturgy,) we must think that indeed we are no lesse regardful of the Laws of the Governours than you; But first, we understand not what Authority this is that you set against the King and Parliament, as supposing they will not forbid what it commands? You call it Christs Church, we suppose you mean not Christ himself, by his Apostles infallibly directed and inspired: If it be the National Church of England, they are the Kings Subjects; and why may he not forbid a Ceremony which they command; or why should they command it if he forbid it? If it be any Foreign Church, ther's none hath power over us. If it be any pretended head of the Church universal, whether Pope or general Council, having power to make Laws that bind the whole Church, it is a thing so copiously disproved by Protestants against both the Italian and French Papists, that we think it needlesse to confute it, nor indeed dare imagine that you intend it. We know not the refore what you mean; But whatever you mean you seem to contradict the forecited Article of the Church of England, that makes all humane Laws about Rites and Ceremonies of the Church to be unchangeable, by each particular National Church; And that it is not necessary that Ceremonies or Traditions be in all places one, or utterly like we most earnestly beseech you be cautious how you obtrude upon us a Foreign Power, under the name of Christs Church, that may command Ceremonies which King and Parliament may not forbid, whether it be one man or a thousand, we fear it is against our Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, for us