having never had institution nor induction it was never profer'd me but because he it seems hath been so ready to swear all must be in that bond but what if I had taken the oath I know no engagement to inhibit me to seek the abrogation of Episcopacy from the oath sith I was never forbidden by the Diocesan to seek it nay I can assure him that Dr. Bishop of Glocester Smith who imposed hands on me and in whose dioces while he liv'd I exercised my Ministry was of Ieromes mind that a Bishop was an humane creature as he exprest himself in conference to a friend of mine and so not unalterable For his 3 Parag. Touching Smectimnuus making a Bishop and an Elder all one a and thence his wonder how they indure my proposition being he knows that Author speaks of Bishop and Presbyter in a Scripture-sense which anon will cut his combe and I speak of a Diocesan Bishop as now he stands as he confesseth Parag. 4. That his quirk about Smectimnuus and the Masters of the Assembly is ridiculous trifling fitter for a boy disputing in Parvis to lengthen out an argument then for a D.D. writing a book in a case of moment But now to the motives which he saith I produce for the abrogation of Episcopacy he should have said for writing this case about it For the first no hope of the Kings and kingdoms safety without union between the King and our Parliament he doth not deny it but yet he divides them seditiously Our King and your Parliament I acknowledg him as my King pray and act for him in my sphear as my Soveraign the King hath written to them as his Parliament yet the Dr. divides them though he cannot deny no safety without union For his petitions made in Scriptures phrase they are from him as his heart is which I leave to God and in a good sense say Amen For the Second ground there is no probable means of union without the Kings condescention in point of Episcopacy This parag 6. and 7. he denies not but adds some things out of his own distempered minde viz. unless he lay down his lands c. Which he cannot prove though I am truly sorry that he hath any colour to set them off as credible to any For the third If the King should do it renitente conscientia it would be sinful c. To this Parag. 8. he saith that I perceive and in a manner confess that this he must do for you say it would be sinful to himself Thus you perswade our Soveraign into sin c. Was there ever a more false or irrational passage dropt from a D.D. pen do I say it absolutely when I only say if he should condescend renitente conscientia or do I perswade to sin when I shew such inconveniences of sin as cannot be ballanc'd But by way of amplification we have another piece of Divinity worthy such a D. D. Every reluctance of conscience makes not a grant sinfull but when my conscience checks me on just grounds Is this catholike doctrine I am sure it is not orthodox for it is point-blank to Saint Paul speaking of those that act against conscience for want of light in indifferent things and so not on just grounds Rom. 14.17 compared with verse 25. The kingdome of God is not in meat and drink But he that doubteth is damned if he eateth because he eateth it not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin For the last that the Coronation oath is prest by learned pens c. he first takes notice of my confession Parag. 9. Wherein he might observe my candor to my Antagonists and therein read my intentions that not out of distaste to persons but out of love to peace and with a quiet and well affected heart to those I oppose I wrote the resolution of this case but the Doctors blood-shot eye can see none of this He hath not so much ingenuity as the Heathen virtus in hoste No he was resolved to carry on his Book with railings and scoffs and I am resolved neither to envy nor to imitate him being well assured that such dealing will prejudice both the work and Author with any pious and prudent Reader Next he trifles about an expression touching the Kings condescention I beseech you do you dream who told you that his Majesty had condescended to this impious and anti-christian demand saith he Whereas he knows the context of my words evidence them to be spoken hypothetically not catogorically But we must give him leave to catch at shows that wants real exceptions For his other expressions That desire of abrogation of Episcopacy is impious and anti-christian This will appear but froth unless he can make his Diocesan Lord Bishop an Ordinance of God which will now come to tryal CHAP. II. Wherein it is cleared that the Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacy root and branch nor is Episcopacy of Christs institution in answer to Dr. B. Second Chapter Case of Conscience Resolved NOw the bond of the Kings oath may be taken off two wayes either by clearing the unlawfulness of it that it was vinculum iniquitatis and so void the first day For quâ— jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium And if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution then to maintain it is sin and all bonds to sin are frustrate And truly as Prelacy stood with us in England ingrossing all ruledom in the Church into the hands of a few L. Bishops I think it may be cleared to be an usurpation by this one argument That power that dispoyls any of Christs Officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word of God But this did Prelacy as it stood in England therefore English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God The Major is cleer of it self The Minor is thus proved Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own congregations as well as preach See 1 Tim. 3.5 5,17 Heb. 13.17 1 Thess 5.12 Now as Prelacy stood in England the Presbyters were not onely excluded from all society of rule but which was more prejudicial to the dignity and liberty of the ministery were subjected to a lay-Chancellor and was not here usurpation against Gods direction Now what saith Dr. Boughen you say true saith he that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day c. And hitherto your argument is good and in it he will joynissue c. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work this passage hath on the Doctor taken together and considered when the blood was down now all goes current yet this is the place for which he spit so much poyson of aspes in his Epistle to the Reader I hope the Reader will observe and by appealing from the Doctor in passion to the Doctor out of passion
two Supremacies for so it was before Henry 8. and so it s exprest in my Case and where I pray you is such a distinction exprest to be continued since Henry the 8th You cannot shew it nor doth any thing that you bring Parag 8. or 9. conclude it distinct they were but not so distinct but still they and their priviledges were under the power of the same Supremacie as your self confess Parag. 10 11. where your insinuation against me of seting up two Supremacies is but a flash for I shall shew in the last Chapter that the Supremacie I give to the Parliament is not absolute but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and two such are not inconsistent neither doth such respective Supremacie make the Parliament lawless or subject to no power and for your closing question Where then are the two Supremacies that you erect I answer I affirm it was so but now it is abolisht and so I charge not you with it but infer that being equally under one Supremacie that one Supremacie hath equal power over the priviledges of both which was the thing to be proved Neither do I deny what you affirm parag 12 13. That there are two distinct jurisdictions in our Land under the same head Neither do I denie de facto but a Bishop by the standing laws is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiastical But the querie is whether this be so unalterable that the King and Parliament may not put it to a companie of Presbyters Which you have not yet disproved Whether covetousnes and ambition be more amongst Prelates then Presbyters whom you accuse God must judge But whether they be not like to rest more among those that would ingross all then among those that would have jurisdiction and maintenance divided men may easily judge For what you say parag 14. of Timothy and Titus I formerly proved them to be Evangelists and what they had extraordinarie to be ceas'd what they have ordinary to rest in Pastors who are Presbyter-Bishops the highest ordinarie Officers For that saying of Cyprian Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur I would have you reconcile it with that 1 Cor. 3.11 Other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd Jesus Christ We acknowledg de facto in Cyprians time that the acts of the Church were ruled by the Bishops but that as Jeroms tells you was by humane custome not Divine disposition nor was it without Presbyters as you would have it who therefore are as far from the government of his times as we what you quote after may be but the heat of a Bishop to whom we oppose Saint Ierem on Titus 1. and Phil. 1. What you cite out of Ignatius is spoken as upon search I finde onely of that Bishop as he then stood Orthodox in opposition to some cursed weeds or Hereticks of the devils planting but when the Bishop was an Heretick as you know in many places it often fell out would they have been blessed or cursed that held with the Bishop think you For what you add touching the privileges of Clergy For the most part you falsly calumniate me that I seek to ruine them you know I call the alieanation of their means Sacriledg neither do I envie any of their just priviledges but this is that which I have in hand whereas there be two sorts of priviledges some Divine some humane I question onely whether those humane priviledges separable from the offices appointed by Christ in his word such as the Monarchie of one above all other may not upon advisement for the good of the Republique admit of alteration as well as Laypriviledges Therefore you slander me grosly in objecting that I would take away all honour from the Ministery that the Scriptures by prophesie or precept have given to them But you on the contrarie egregiously abuse the Scripture in applying what the Scripture saith by way of honour or priviledg of the Ministerie that is of Apostles Prophets Evanglists and Presbyter-Bishops which onely are the Scriptures Bishops to a few Diocesans Creatures whom the holy page never knew And so you-sleight the generalitie of Pastors to exalt a few Lord-Bishops Constantines affection was pious to the Ministers of Christ But the Bishops he honoured so were men of another condition then those you plead for they lorded it not in the Church without the joynt help of their Presbyters in government And further if there were not some error of the times in some of the honours which he gave how came they so quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacie And to give occasion to that observation That when their Chalices were wooden the Bishops were golden but the Bishops became woodden when their Chalices became golden Sure the general abuse gives occasion to suspect some error in expression of those affections But I hope I have said enough to let the intelligent Reader see how far that assertion that I maintain to prooure peace and safetie to Church and Kingdom ready to perish by an unnatural war is from detracting from any just or useful respect commanded from the people to the Ministers if faithful though the meanest Pastours which I know and people will finde God will reward as done to himself But one thing is not unworthy notice in parag 8. Where you say Paul willeth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus their Apostle or Bishop and also chargeth them to hold such in reputation Consider I pray you had not the Philippians then other such as Epaphroditus else why doth he give them charge of others of like quality And may you not thence see that Epaphroditus was no singular Bishop but such an one as might have other Presbyters his fellows in like honours Case of Conscience Resolved VVHo knows not that one of the priviledges of the Clergie was for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers yet that is abolisht as incongruous to their calling And then why may not the removall of their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be consented to as well if it prove inconvenient and prejudicial to the Church The abolition of the one is no more against the oath then of the other CHAP. VI. Answering Doctor Boughens explanations for the removall of Bishops out of the House of Lords in his 12. chapter I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter spent most upon the Theam whether it be incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit and vote in Parliament And here you are very passionate but I must first tell you your passionate follie falls more foul on King and Parliament then me for I do but render the reason given by them in effect in the very statute * Anno 17. Car. R. An act for disabling all persons in holy Orders to exercise any temporall jurisdiction or authority The words are these whereas Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled with secular jurisdiction the office of the
Ministery being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man and that it is found by long experience that their intermedling with secular jurisdictions hath occasioned great mischief and scandall both to Church and State His Majestie out of his religious care of the Church and souls of his people is graciously pleased that it be enacted And by authority of this Parliament be it enacted that no Arch-Bishop c. shall have any seat or place suffrage or voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliament of this Realm Now hath my phrase done any more then express the reason given for abolition in this Statute by King and Parliament while therefore you rave so at me doth not all more properly light on them I may therefore say as sometimes Moses who am I Your murmurings are not against me but against king and Parliament But you question whether they were not thrust out to make way for these civill broyles The Incendiaries knew well enough that those messengers and makers of peace would never have passed a vote for war I answer they should be makers of peace but have they been so indeed of late I pray who occasioned the war by Liturgie illegally put upon the Scots but Prelates who put on the king to raise an Army against them more then Prelates You know * Bishop Bath and Wells to excite his Clergy to contribute who called it Bellum Episcopale Who put on the king to break his first pacification with the Scots but Prelates Then oaths were no ingagements with them when against Prelates But now the kings oath must be cryed up to keep them up but you should remember Quicquid fit propter deum fit aequaliter which hints the hypocrisie of your pretences of renderness of an oath in this case if you had not the same tenderness in the other case Then Parag. 2. You tell an Apocrypha tale of the outcries of some Clothiers that occasioned the making of that statute as though men would believe your traditional tale before the express words of king and Parliament contained in the act Parag. 3.4 You inquire why it is incongruous to the calling of Bishop to sit and vote in the House of Peers and raise imaginary reasons and confute them looking over that in the statute That Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled in secular jurisdiction and this is grounded on Scripture 2 Tim. 2. comparing v. 4. 7. and more expresly speak the Apostles and you make Bishops Apostles It is not reason we should leave the Word of God Act. 6.2 and serve tables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza and the vulgar non est aequum See how the grounds mentioned by king and Parliament in the statute are grounded on Scripture But Parag. 5. You would prove that there could be no incongruity between their calling and voting in the House of Peers by Scripture For then Melchizedeck that was both King and Priest had never been a type of our Saviour It doth not follow for he was therefore a type to shew that Christ should be both king and Priest but his kingdom was not of this world he would not intangle himself with the affairs of this life and divide inheritances Again you bring the example of Moses and Eli who were extraordinary persons as though God doth not things extraordinarily that are incongruous ordinarily as to make Deborah and Huldah Prophetesses But Joash thrived so long as he followed Jehojada the high Priest as though a good Bishop cannot give good counsell to a king unless he sit and vote among Peers You tell us also how some of our Kings prospered by their Counsels Is it not as easie to tell you of a Bishop that preached my head aketh to usher in the dethroning of a king to tell you how R. 2. was undone by the unpolitique counsell of the pious Bishop of Carlile which shews that usually the best Bishops are the worst States men Parag. 6. You add a wonder it is that my faction spies this incongruity which was never discerned by the wisest of our fore-fathers See you not how you call king and Parliament a faction whose sense I exprest If I had been so rude what out-cries should we have had of blaspheming and spitting in the face of authority Of the same nature are other your foolish arguings parag 7.8 about the writ of summons to Parliament as though the Supremacie being in king and Parliament they cannot change the state of the Parliament and so of the writ And therefore all your strange language doth not only question the integrity of king and Parliament in their expression and their wisdom in making but their power in performing which insolency whether it deserve words to answer let the reader judg and this same answer will also take off your 13. parag What you say parag 9. touching the sufficiency of Bishops for this work is not of validity to infer the conclusion which you would have are they more able to vote in Parliament then the Apostles to serve tables have they not a sphear as Ministers that will swallow up all their abilities why should they then any more then the Apostles leave their spiritual work for secular imployments What you add touching David parag 10. that he err'd for want of the presence and advice of the Priests and suffered but after he calls for the Priests and acknowledgeth his error c. This is true and yet withall his fault was not in not having the Priests at first but not using them as he should they drove the cart whereon it was instead of carrying it on their shoulders neither is it mentioned that they discovered the error to him but he to them having it as it seems by divine revelations on his humiliation and prayer 1 Chron. 15.2 But may there not be the Counsell and advice of Divines to a Parliament in matters of God unless they sit and vote with Peers in matters secular May they not in a Convocation or Assembly advise in matter of religion where they shall keep the sphear of Divinitie and meddle with nothing Heretogeneal to their calling So your reasonings parag 11 12. are too weak to infer votes with Peers For your statute Parag. 14. I know not what to say to it because I know not where to finde it But do you bring this to involve this king and Parliament under a curse and blame me for a moderate and necessary expression of vinculum iniquitatis Turp◠est Doctori c. What you say Parag. 15. Of the benefit of good Bishops as Ministers of the Gospel I assent to it but neither of the places speak as having them Ministers of State A King and Parliament may have the blessing of faithful Bishops by their preaching and prayers without their votes and presence among Peers yea more then with it for that usually makes them too great to preach in season and
out of season as Timothy was to do 2 Tim. 4.1 2. But you are mistaken when you say that the Priests are in Scripture called the horse-men of Israel and the chariots thereof For that was spoken of Prophets not Priests viz. of Elijah and Elisha Parag. 16. You argue Alogically the King can have no Subsidies granted without them because none hath yet been granted a non esse ad non posse non valet argumentatio As ill do you abuse the Scripture against the King and Parliament as Removers of bounds who have rectified it confining Clergie men to their own sphear Divinity leaving seculars to secular-men therefore your curse causeles shall not come To parag 17. I say I delivered not ex tripode but out of the marrow of the act it self that the votes of Bishops in the house of Peers was taken away as incongruous to their calling and I infer nothing else to be taken away unless it seems good to King and Parliament whose wisedom and conscience I dare far better trust then yours and you abuse your Reader to say I argued from the bare fact when I argue from the fact with its ground to the like on the like warrantable ground And that the abolition of the one is no more against the Kings oath then the other which you confess yet you say flatly 123. If the King yield to let down Episcopacy he breaks his oath what then do you lay to his charge implicitly in consenting to the abolition of their votes but perjurie Is this you that can calumniate others without cause as spitting in the face of authoritie and yet do this and present it to the King himself to read his own doom But you distinguish between priviledges that are the grants of God and such as are of the favour of Princes such as sitting and voting with Peers The distinction is good and helps to clear what I intend that the King may alter the Prelacie in question which is but the gift of Princes not God See the erudition of a Christian man on the Sacrament of orders And Princes may revoke their own grants but for that jurisdiction which you say is a grant of God I confess it is but by him setled on Pastors the highest degree of Church officers now and those are Presbyter-Bishops and therefore the setling of it on them in general is but restitution no donation of any thing new to the Presbyters nor unjust detraction from the Bishops who had without the grant of God ingrost all power into their own hands Case of Conscience resolved AGain when this oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times with divers unlawful immunities in all which respects the oath was invalid being vinculum iniquitatis and some were pared off as light shined forth And why may not the great revenues of the Bishops with their sole jurisdiction in so large a circuit be indicted and convict to be against the edification of the Church and it be found more for the glory of God that both the revenue be divided to maintain a preaching Ministerie and their jurisdiction also for the better over-sight and censure of manners And then is there as good a plea notwithstanding the oath to alter this useless anti-Evangelical pompe and domination of a few as to antiquate other immunities arising from the error of the times not the tenure of Scripture Were indeed the priviledgs in question such as were for the advantage of the Church to further her edificacation or had the Prelates been good Stewards and innocent in the use of them then had the plea carried a fairer shew But these having been so many forfeitures by abuse and these great promotions and jurisdictions being as unwieldy to a spiritual souldier as Sauls armour to David and so do not further but hinder the work of the Gospel whose strong holds are to be vanquisht not by carnal pomp but spiritual furniture mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4 I see no just ingagement to maintain such cumbersom greatness adding onely glory to the person not vigour to the main work of the Ecclesiastick Again thus I argue If the king may consent to alter the laws of the Nation notwithstanding his oath then so he may also the Clergies immunities for those rights and immunities they either hold them by law or otherwaies If by law then the Parliament which hath power to alter all laws hath power to alter such laws as give them their immunities and those laws altered the immunitie ceaseth and so the kings ingagement in that particular If their immunity be not by law it is either an usurpation without just title which upon discovery is null Or it was given by Papall power in times of darkness which being an Anti-christian usurpation is long since abolisht in this kingdom CHAP. VII Shewing that the Monarchicall jurisdiction and great revenues of the Bishops may be divided to the advantage of the Church in answer to Doctor Boughens 13. Chapter THis passage of my Case you attempt to answer chap. 13. and tell us that there 's a great cry against the jurisdiction of Bishops as inconvenient and prejudiciall to the the Church against unlawful immunities Anti-evangelicall pom pcumbersome greatness and forfeitures by abuse and these you say are cryed out of but none of them proved I answer the very expression were so clear of things obvious to every impartiall eye that proof seem'd needless and sure I am you would disprove it if you could it stands you upon which not doing it may pass for currant yet one quirk you have in this 1. parag on the word unlawfull immunities You argue if they were held by law then not un lawfull but legall I answer legall they were because allowed by mans law yet unlawful because against Gods law Your next quarrell is at the expression when the oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times But you complain parag 2. I tell you not when this time was but what then do you not know it was in times of Poperie and do you think there was as much true light at Westminster then as now as you intimate in this parag Sure if you do you have not only a Bishop but as they say a Pope in your belly Parag. 3. You take notice that I conclude the Kings oath is invalid in these respects vinculum iniquitatis then you mention 5. particulars 4. of which you say you have quitted already but I have therein disproved you and do not you think that to exempt malefactors from trial that fled to Churches for sanctuarie and the Clergies exemptions from secular punishments which multiplied many slaughters by them as Daniel witnesseth in his story of Henry 2. pag. 83. and yet Becket Arch-Bishop of Canterbury asserted this as one of the liberties of the Church which the king had sworn to maintain pag. 84. I say did not these and such like think you flow from
promotion which was competible but to a few So the second inconvenience pressed parag 13.14.15 is avoided also parag 16. All the inconvenience you say that Master Geree presseth is that we are not subject to the Parliament But how far forth we are and are not we shall hear anon Parag. 17.18 You tell me I speak much of a first and ' second oath I answer if that be an error I was led into it by my first Opponent that distinguish'd between oath and oath and the oath to maintain the priviledges of the Clergie he saith expresly is taken after the oath to the whole Realm neither do I see any thing in your Analysis of the oath here or the delineation of the oath in the beginning of your Book that invalidates the expression of my Opponent in realitie though in some formalitie it doth For there I see that the King had particularly and distinctly engaged himself to the whole Realm before he came to the Bishops which are the onely part of the Clergie about whom our controversie is and what he last promises to them confirmed by his oath must not contradict what he hath promised to the other which promise must be understood to have a prioritie in order in the bond of the oath as well as in the bond of the promise Parag. 19. You speak of sending us to Magna Charta to know who the People and Commons of this Kingdom are c. whith only fills up so much paper being nothing to the question in hand But Parag. 20. You reckon up the Priviledges of the Church as you have gleaned them out of Magna Charta and Sir Edward Cook in number 8. The second is that no Ecclesiasticall person be amerced according to the value of his Ecclesiasticall benefice but according to his lay-tenement and according to the quality of his offence The latter clause is reason the former a priviledg without reason and prejudiciall to the Civill state and gives many Ecclesiastical persons leave to sin impunè The fourth That all Ecclesiasticall persons shall enjoy all their lawfull jurisdictions and other rights wholly without any diminution or substraction whatsoever I pray you if the Kings Coronation-oath engage so to the confirmation of this priviledg that the king cannot consent to allow it by Act of Parliament how can that act be justified that enables the Crown of England to appoint what persons else they will to execute all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in this kingdom If that statute were lawfully made notwithstanding this oath why then may not another statute be made against their standing sith by the former they may be made unusefull and yet the former you brag you have engaged your selves to maintain in your oath of supremacie Parag. 9. The fifth priviledg you name is that a Bishop is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of justice in causes Ecclesiasticall Whence I gather that by our law a Bishop is a kings creature no Apostle for he was the immediate Officer of Christ though subject in doing or suffering to the Civill Magistrate though heathen You conclude that it is provided by act of Parliament that if any judgment be given contrary to any points in the great Charter it shall be holden for nought c. True unless it be upon some particular statute of a latter Parliament with the king enacting things to the contrarie Parag. 21. You say that I go forward as if it were certain that this to the Clergie was a severall oath from that to the people I answer I disputed upon my opponents proposals and learned opponents do not use to make their cause worse then it is nor indeed doth he for though the king swear but once yet he ptomiseth the things he sweareth severally and the promise of this to the Bishops in question is last and therefore in competition must give way to other engagements neither do the statutes for confirmation of Magna Charta binde the hands of succeeding Parliaments Whose hands as the leaaned Chancellor Bacon observes cannot be bound by their Predecessors if they see reason of alteration a supream and absolute power saith he cannot conclude it self Hist of H. 7. p. 145. CHAP. X. PARAG. 3. Shewing that the Clergie are equally under the Parliament as well as Laytie in answer to Doctor Boughen's 9. Chapter I Now come to answer your ninth Chapter which is an angrie one which makes me think that you were sorely puzled My Dilemma is They are subject to the Parliament or they are not He answers subject they are to the Parliament consisting of head and members not to the members alone without the head for we are subject to the members only for the heads sake Truly this grant is all that I desire or need for the Parliament I propose the Dilemma about is that which consists of head and members united to which if they be subject then may these joyntly determine of any of their priviledges in their own nature alterable as they do of those of the people Indeed the King and Parliament ought not to take away any priviledges that are for edification but such as prove impediments rather but of that they are to be Judges in the application of their power and that 's all needfull to be said to parag 1 2 3 4 5. And yet I leave it with confidence to the judicious Reader as also what I have said in the former Paragraph touching a former and latter oath But whereas you ask Parag. 6. with what face I can say that the Kings oath to the Clergie is inconsistent with his oath to the people parag 6. I wonder with what face you can aver it when as I directly say it must not and therefore take off an interpretation of it that would make it inconsistent whereas you say the nation is weary of the Presbyterian government in three years it s but a piece of none-sence sith this three years except a little liveless shew in the City of London and some few places more the truth is and our miserie is that we have been under no Ecclesiasticall government at all Parag. 7. You mention my words if the oath had such a sence when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation on which you spend your judgment if you know what sence is Truly Sir you are the worst at picking out sence that ever I knew of a D. D. My meaning is plain if the oath had a sence to exempt them from power of Parliament it must be when they were a distinct Corporation under another Supremacie which now you disclaim Parag. 8. You mistake in saying I am zealous in distinguishing you and your Priviledges I answer to the distinction brought by my opponent that it is not such but that the Priviledges of Clergie and People I mean such as are alterable are equally under Parliamentarie power for alteration on just grounds And the kings oath to you is as obligatorie as to the people in the right
sence and intention of it which the review of the Covenant saith is all the obligation of an oath Parag. 9. You speak about the change of the condition of the Clergie as though the intent were to make it slavery Sure Sir it s far from my intent The English Laytie are not slaves He that saith the Priviledges of the English Clergie that they hold by law are inviolable to them while the law remains but that the laws concerning them are alterable makes them not slaves but equall in freedom to any English Lay-subject But Parag. 10. You would pretend to a little subtiltie for you say the change of the Clergies condition from Popery to Protestancy was for the better or for the worse I answer undoubtedly for better morally for now we are in Christs way Let every soul be subject c. Rom. 13.1 Then we were in Anti-Christs way but yet in a civill respect we have not such exemptions or liberties as we had we are more under uncivil power but this is for the better for that libertie that is without Gods leave is not indeed a priviledg but a snare to the partie holding it I confess with you that the intent of the Kings oath was to protect his subjects in their severall places dignities and degrees and not to suffer them to oppress one another but not to deny any Bill that upon advisement shall be presented and manifested to conduce to the weal publique You proceed Parag. 11. The intention of the oath is to maintain the ancient legall and the just rights of the Clergie I have answered it is to maintain them against illegall oppression but not against legall alteration that you should prove but do not The continual practice of the nation is with me wherein by divers statutes many Canonical Priviledges have been altered as 25. H. 8. all Canonicall Priviledges contrariant to the Kings Prerogative and civil laws and 1 of Elizabeth in giving power to the Crown to exercise all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction by whom she will appoint and this is all that I affirm that Priviledges are alterable by an orderly way in Parliament and therefore you may take the Ghostly Fathers place to the man of sin which you would bequeath to me you are fitter to serve the Pope then I you hold no Bishop no Church but such passions I look at but as winchings when an argument pincheth For Parag. 12. I consent to Sir Edward Cook in his opinion of the Kings engagement to maintain the rights and inheritance of the Church nor is he against my limitation for it s known what his opinion was of the power of Parliaments That they might alter what ever they saw inconvenient to publikeweal In your parag 12. You wilfully slander me that I would perswade the Laytie that the Clergies weal is their woe I only affirm that if all such Priviledges of the Clergie that are in their nature alterable be made unalterable by the kings oath that let the kingdom sink or swim the King cannot consent by Act of Parliament to alter them then are they inconsistent with the people and this I say again And I am carried thereto by evidence of truth and not any caninus appetitus after wealth and honour Those that know me will but laugh at your rashness in these mistaken calumnies The former part of your 14. Parag. is passionate non-sense the latter part is a contradiction for you say if this oath be not against legall alteration in the true and literal sense c. The King may not without violation of his oath pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie What I pray you is legall alteration of any thing here in England but alteration by consent of the King and Parliament How can this oath then if it be not against a legall alteration be against an alteration by Bill in Parliament which is the only legall alteration of Priviledges founded on law in England you are the strangest opponent that ever I met with you make nothing of giving the cause and railing at me for carrying it To as little purpose is all you conclude with parag 15. Whereas I say he may pass a Bill you wonder I say not he must pass a Bill you add I say that which is equivalent He cannot now deny consent without sin but yet Sir this must arise not from any authoritie of the Houses but from the condition of the King to preserve or restore peace to his kingdoms For the kings negative voice I alwaies asserted it as well as you both in word and writing but I affirm he hath power of an affirmative voice to confirm any thing that is for good of his people which he hath not nor ought not to swear away It may be you will say true if abolition of Episcopacie were for the good of the nation I answer that 's to pass to another question and to grant this in hand but besides the King and Parliament are to judg of the goodness of it for the nation and if they erre they are answerable to God alone Case of Conscience resolved SEcondly I answer from the expressions of the oath it self as they are set down by the same Author pag. 74. To protect the Bishops and their Priviledges to his power as every good king in his kingdom ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their government Here you see the engagement of the king is but to his power as every good King ought in right to protect c. Now such power is no further then he can do it without sinning against God and being injurious to the rest of his people When then he hath interposed his authoritie for them and put forth all the power he hath to preserve them if after all this he must let them fall or support them with the bloud of his good subjects and those unwilling too to engage their lives for the others priviledges I think none need question but that he hath gone to the extent of his power and as far as good Kings are bound in right for it is not equall to engage the lives of some to uphold the honours of others That were to be cruel to many thousands to be indulgent to a few Suppose a king put a Commander into a City and give him an oath to maintain the Priviledges of it and keep it for him to his power and this Commander keeps this town till he hath no more strength to hold it unless he force the Townes-men to arms against that priviledg which he hath sworn to maintain If this Governor now surrender this town upon composition doth he violate his oath I think none will affirm it Such is the case with the king in this particular when he hath gone as far in their protection as is consistent with the weal of other his liege people which he is sworn to tender he hath protected them to his power and his obligation is no further by the
now comes a precious one He believes it well appears That supremacie over all Laws to make or disanul them is in the King alone at the Petition of both Houses Ridiculum caput for it s as much as to say it s in the King alone with the help of others a notorious Bull. That power is in a man alone which he can execute without the concurrence of others but this the King cannot do without the Houses manifesting their consent and desire by Petition Besides have you forgot the statute your self quoted pag. 85 That no Act of Par liament be passed by any Sovereign of this Realm or any other authority whatsoever without the advice and consent of the three Estates of the Kingdom c. Oportet te esse memorem But you will come to Scriptures Fathers and moderne Authors as Parag. 6. ' Peter ascribeth supremacie to the King 1 Pet. 2.13 14. But that is clearly as I have said as Supream Magistrate to whom others are subordinate and this admonition must be with limitation too where Kings are supream You do not think that the Apostle doth level all Kings and give them all one equal supremacie No the Apostle had no power nor would not attempt to alter the constitution of Nations Now Grotius will tell you some Kings are not supream Those of Athens were under the power of the people those of Lacedemon under the Ephori See Grot. de jure bel pac lib. 1. cap. 2. parag 8. The sentences out of Fathers which you quote parag 6 and 7. speak of absolute Monarchs which you ignorantly or flatteringly say ours is but our King denies it calling our government a mixture of all the three and a regular Monarchie Collect. of Declar. c. pag. 320. 321. And that sentence cited by you out of Grotius will confute you That 's the supream civil power cujus actus alterius juri non subsunt Whose acts are not subject to another mans censure For those acts that any do by the Kings authoritie are the Kings acts and the Parliament hath power to disanul these acts and punish these agents as the King informeth Collect. of Remonstr pag. 321. to shew the compleatness of our government Our Law indeed saith the king can do no wrong that is he cannot work but by Agents and the law takes no notice of him in it but of the Agents to punish them But you proceed Parag. 8. I â—â—ow say you you relye more upon the laws of the Land then upon the Word of God But I believe therein you speak against your conscience what you produce that the king is the supream Head is no more then what I ascribe to him to be supream Magistrate and in that he is alone and the head one and therefore the Bull of two Supremacies you speak of is but a Calf of your own fancie What you say Parag. 9 10. 13. Touching the Parliament being subjects and petitioning to him as subjects and that Bills are not in force without him I confess but these onely denie that supremacie in the Parlament which I never asserted but do not assert the supremacy in the king to make or un-make laws without them Therefore all this is trifling Par. 11. You ask What supremacie can be in that Court that cannot lawfully Convene till the King summonthem There is this The supremacie of a Court as you confess to be the supream Court that is there is no appeal from them but appeals from all Courts to them and you know they can reverse decrees in Courts which the King cannot he can pardon not reverse sentences They can reverse Verdicts but not pardon offenders You add Parag. 12. The King is to regulate them for the time I acknowledg it this Parliament onely excepted by a particular Statute made in this Parliament with the Kings assent And for the manner The king himself saith they are free and have priviledges of their own For the great Lawyers judgement you speak of in Richard the 2. time That if any in Parliament proceed upon other Articles or in other manner then is limited by the King c. they are to be punished as Traytors I wonder you will mention it sith that great Lawyer was flattering Tresilyan who by such ill Counsel helpt to over-throw his Sovereign and in a Parliament held in the 13 year of Richard 2. was for this by the Lords in Parliament condemned to be hanged drawn and quartered which was presently executed on him as our Historians shew Your Collections Par. 14. were disproved before what you say ' for the Kings regulating Courts of justice You mistake the Law is their rule and that regulates them which if they transgress he may punish them but the law they are sworn to follow against any private instructions of his that 's clearly known You sum up your arguments Parag. 15. But they are all short of your conclusion for they conclude not against the Parliaments being a supream Court which is all I assert and you confess in the following page Nay in this page parag 17. and what you have parag 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Are superfluous For they onely concludet he King to be supream Magistrate but exclude not the Parliament from being the supream Court you say but yet it is the Kings Court I deny it not I denie him onely to be above it in the capacitie of a Court though it sit by his writ Therefore all you do here is but lis de lana caprina meer trifling And as captious a conceipt is that that you conceive not They have power to make and alter laws at pleasure for there is great danger in altering laws without urgent cause Who doubts it What need you prove it But to make up want of proof in things to be proved Who knows not that wisedom and moderation in Law makers is to regulate that power that they may put forth upon any that they put it not forth but upon just occasion Parag. 22. You infer If the King cannot do any thing against the legal rights of others so nor Parliaments True they ought not to over-rule or alter the rights of other but for the publike good but for that they may you know there were many had legal rights in offices in Star-Chamber and yet for publike good the King condescended to a Bill of abrogation Parag. 23. You tell us ' The King is above law That is say you Common-law But this is your fiction for the King saith he is a regular Monarch that is regulated by laws so in a sence under them The common custom of our Nation is that actions may be commenced against the King at the Common-law therefore you speak against experience in saying that the king is above the Common-law which appears also in that the Judges of the Common as well as Statute-law are sworn not to denie or delay justice to any for any Letter or Prohibition of the king And though his taking
a Presbyter The one a successor of the Apostles indued with power of ordination and other jurisdiction the other the Successor of the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus endued with power of administring word and Sacraments Neg. FOr the sounder and clearer resolving of this question I shall proceed by way of Thesis fetching things from the first original barely proposing only what is confest by all but proving those things wherein there is any controversie or whereon the controversie hath dependance Thesis 1. first its agreed amongst all that all the teaching Officers that can challenge Livine institution are set down in an intire Catalogue Eph. 4.11 And gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and therefore all that cannot derive their pedigree from one of these must be in the case of those Neh. 7.64 Thesis 2. That of these Officers some were extraordinary some ordinary Thesis 3. That Apostles Prophets Evangelists were extraordinary officers for the first planting of Churches and Pastors and Teachers ordinarie Thesis 4. That the extraordinary officers were temporary and the ordinary to be perpetual in the Church Bilson perp govern p. 300. The office of Evangelists was extraordinary and temporary Field of the Church lib. 5. c. 22. And indeed whatsoever is extraordinary is temporary Thesis 5. That Apostles were the highest of extraordinary officers and Pastors the highest of those that were ordinary Apostles are named first and all that are named before Pastors are acknowledged extraordinary Ephes 4.11 Thesis 6. That in the extraordinary Officers there were some gifts and acts peculiar to them as such as to the Apostles immediate calling divine inspiration infallibility in doctrine universal charge and in the Evangelist to be an assistant to an Apostle not to be perpetually fixt to any place but for the finishing some special work as Timothy at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 Titus at Creet cap. 1.5 3.12 Secondly There were some qualities and actions which though required in and done by them as extraordinary officers in an extraordinary way yet are of necessitie and are in an ordinarie way perpetually to be continued in the Church of God as abilities to teach and rule the Church and the acts of teaching praying ordination of Ministers Church-censures c. See Bilson perp govern chap. 7. pag. 106 107. Thesis 7. That these Pastors Eph. 4.11 that are the highest ordinary Officers are Successors to the Apostles in all that power and authoritie and all those acts flowing from it which are necessary perpetual and ordinary in the Church of God This also is clear power and authoritie require a subject divine power and authoritie a subject of divine institution Now no other remains of those of Gods institution but Pastors and Teachers which if they be not the same Pastor is the chief The other as temporary are ceased therefore Pastors must be their successors in all this power and in them must the commands for execution be kept without spot or unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 And to them must that Apostolical promise be performed Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Thesis 8. The Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 are no other but Synonymaes with those Elders ordained in every Church Acts 14.23 and in every City Tit. 1.5 This is clear for those Elders that were here ordained were officers of Christs giving The Apostles would ordain no other it had been sacrilegious presumption but they were neither Apostles Prophets nor Evangelists Ergo if Christs they must be under either Pastors or Teachers Thesis 9. These Elders were by the Holy Ghost also stiled Bishops and were indeed Bishops aliud aetatis aliud officii nomen and of them it is that direction is given under the name of Bishops 1 Tim. 3. Herein Jerome is most plain seconded by Ambrose or Hilary an approved Author under his name who though they differ from other fathers who understand by Bishop Hieron in Ep. ad Titum 1 Tim. 3.2 Bishop distinct from a Presbyter such as was in their times Yet Jeromes reason preponderates all because drawn out of the bowels of the Text 1 Titus 1.5 6 7. Attend saith he the words of the Apostle who having discours'd of the qualities of a Presbyter after infers for a Bishop must be blameless c. Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same Again if any yet doubt saith he whether a Bishop and a Presbyter be not all one let him read the Apostle Phil. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ to all the Saints which are in Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi saith he was a City of Macedonia and certainly in one City as now they are called more Bishops could not be But St. Paul thus wrote because at that time Presbyters and Bishops were all one If yet this seem ambiguous saith he that Presbyters and Bishops were all one it may be proved by another testimony It 's written in the Acts of the Apostles when St. Paul came to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called to him thence the Elders of that Church to whom amongst other things he spake thus Take heed to your selves and to your flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. Observe this diligently saith he how calling the Presbyters of one City Ephesus he afterwards calls them Bishops he adds Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and concludes these things that we might shew that amongst the Ancients Presbyters and Bishops were the same Thesis 10. After the decease of the extraordinary Officers Apostles Prophets Evangelists and their Office with cause of it with them the Church acknowledgd no other Church-Officers as instituted of Christ but only the two mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. 1 Bishops or Presbyters 2 Deacons Clemens mentioned Phil. 4.3 who is witnessed by Tertullian to be ordained of St. Peter himself de prescrip in an Epistle to the Corinthians writes thus The Apostles preaching through the Countries and Regions their first fruits whom they had tryed by the spirit they appointed for Bishops and Deacons to believers Here you see by the Apostles were constituted but these two Offices Bishops and Deacons of whom he afterwards saith that those that have humbly and unblameably ministred to the sheep-fold of Christ those we may not think may be justly thrown out of their Ministry whence he infers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It 's a filthy thing beloved yea very filthy and unworthy that conversation which is in Christ Jesus to hear that the most strong and ancient Church of Corinth for one or two persons should make a faction against their Presbyters He concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You therefore who have laid the foundation of sedition be instructed to repent and be subject to your Presbyters so whom he called Bishops he now calls
Evangelists which is extraordinary Successors they may and must have in the work of ordination but in their office they have not but the same work is done by Pastors succeeding them in those acts of Discipline as well as in those of teaching and administring the Sacraments Neither need we be moved with the appellation which the Fathers bestow on them calling them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and saying that St. Paul in them taught all Bishops For when Scripture calls them Evangelists and reckons Evangelists among extraordinarie offices that Christ hath given what authoritie is of force against this testimony Therefore we favourably interpret the saying of those Fathers that they call them Bishops with relation to the custome of their times who called them Bishops that did those acts that Timothy and Titus did not that they were properly so For they were of an higher order and did these acts as Evangelists which their successors are to do as ordinarie Pastors Neither will their being Evangelists hinder the use of their examples or the precepts given to them For the same acts done by whatsoever officer are to be done by the same rule and therefore as directions given to them for preaching so for acting in government are to be followed by other ordinary Officers upon whom by their decease the power and care of their acts are devolved though of an inferior order Timothy was to imitate Paul an Evangelist an Apostle and every Pastor is to imitate these Evangelists in such acts as are common to Evangelists with them Thesis 13. All Presbyters being of the same Order and that the highest of those that are now in the Church have by divine law equal power in places where the Holy Ghost hath set them Pastors and Bishops as to preach the word and administer Sacraments so to do all other acts of government when called requisite for the edification and perservation of the Church and the Bishop who is but primus Presbyter made by man for Orders sake can rightly challenge no Monopoly or sole interest but only a presidencie to guide rule and order that Presbyterie wherein acts of jurisdiction are exercised whether acts of ordination or deposition binding or loosing excommunicating or absolving This I prove by these reasons Argument 1. Those who are truly and equally the successors of the Apostles in ordinarie and necessary acts of the Ministry to those by their office belong all the acts of jurisdiction that are necessary and ordinary acts of jurisdiction But Presbyter-Bishops are such successors of the Apostles ergo The Major is clear of it self the Minor I prove thus Pastors are truly and equally successors of the Apostles in necessary and ordinarie duties of the Ministry as appears Ephes 4.11 Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors The three former were extraordinarie temporary and ceas'd so the Pastor must be the successor if they have any But Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Chost to feed it are equally and truly Pastors ergo The minor is clear from the definition of a Pastor which is an officer set over the flock of God to feed it definitio competit omni essentia non variatur gradibus See Acts 20.28 Argument 2. Those that by divine law are equall in the power of order those are equal in the power of government or jurisdiction All Presbyters first and second are equall in power of order ergo For the Minor that all Presbyters are equal in the power of order it may appear by the definition of the power of order Lib. 5. of the Church cap. 27 the power of order saith Field is that whereby persons are sanctified and inabled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can do as is the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments Now all Presbyters See Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39. as Field confesseth are equal in the power of Order yea not only he with other Protestants but many School-men and other Papists also as he there shews For every Priest saith Durand in regard of his Priestly power may minister all Sacraments ea quae sunt ordinum saith Aureolus omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quòd in potestate nullius imò nec Papae est illa auferre in 4. sent Dist 24. Art 2. Sect. tertia ratio c. And this also appears because they must all sit under the same title of Pastors Ephes 4.11 For the Major I prove it thus Power of jurisdiction is indeed but a branch of the power of Order A man by the power of order is made a Minister of Christ and so consecrated to serve Christ in all ministerial services required of such a Minister of Christ Now these services are to edifie the Church either by food or physick to further their salvation by word or rod of Discipline Now both these being ministerial acts and orders making a man a Minister hence it follows that they that are equall in orders in actu primo in regard of power when they have a call are equally inabled to the exercise of discipline or jurisdiction as well as preaching and consecrating Sacraments both being acts of that office to which he is advanc'd by orders And thus much Field doth ina manner confess Three things saith he are implyed in the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers First An election choice or designment of persons fit for so high and excellent imployment Secondly the consecration of them and giving them power and authority to intermeddle with things that pertain to the service of God to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy and admirable force tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men and yield unto them whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood all the comfortable means assurances helps that may set forward their eternal salvation Thirdly the assigning and dividing out to each man thus sanctified to so excellent a work that portion of Gods people that he is to take care of c. Now here plainly under assurances means and helps to set forward salvation acts of Discipline must needs be contained 1 Cor. 5.5 6. and this flows from power of order as its habit is actus primus induing a man with power * There is indeed this difference between acts of jurisdiction other acts of order the one every Presbyter may do alone the other only in a Presbytery So imposition of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 was in and by the Presbytery so censures 2 Cor. 2.7 by many But a Minister may preach baptize administer the Lords Supper alone and this was the use of the ancient Churches who had their Presbyters mentroned both in Scriptures and Fathers Now to streighten the Presbyter in this act of his orders he hath recourse to that feeble shift That the Bishop only is Pastor and the other Presbyters are but as it were curates under him which if true it is enough to
them only with a Proviso unless they had the consent or commission of the Bishops which prohibition doth plainly shew that before they were used to ordain without him and after might with his leave Fourthly the Fathers differ more from the high Prelatists then from the Presbyterian For the Presbyterian alwaies have a President to guide their actions which they acknowledg may be perpetuall durante vitâ modò se bene gesserit or temporary to avoid inconvenience which Bilson in his preface and again and again in his book of perp gover takes hold of as advantageous because so little discrepant as he saith from what he maintains but now the high Prelatists exclude a Presbyterie as having nothing to do with jurisdiction which they put as far above the sphear of a Presbyter as sacrificing above a Levites to wit an act restrained to an higher order whereas the Fathers acknowledg a Presbyterie and in divers cases Counsels tye the Bishop to do nothing without them and so its clear the high Prelatists are at a further distance from the Fathers then the Presbyterians Fifthly for that wherein we differ from the Fathers we have the Plea of one of the most judicious of the Fathers Augustine who being prest with the authoritie of Cyprian answers lib. contra Cresscon 2. cap. 32. His writings I hold not as Canonicall but examine them by the Canonicall writings And in them what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise what agreeth not I refuse with his leave This is our apologie in dissenting in this thing from some of the Fathers wherein you see we follow a Father and in that wherein Bilson makes use of him to put off the authorities of some learned men of his age and adds God suffers the best of men to have some blemishes lest their writings should be received as authentique p. 15.2 Lastly if we differ from the Fathers in point of Prelacie wherein our opponents are in no better terms with them then we yet I would have them to consider in how many things we jump with the Fathers wherein many of them have been dissenting both in opinion and practice as touching promiscuous dancing especially on the Lords day 2. Touching residency of Pastors in their Churches which excludes also pluralities 3. Frequencie and diligence in preaching 4. Touching the abuse of health drinking or drinking ad aequales calices 5. Touching Bishops not intangling themselves with secular affairs or businesses of State in Princes Courts 6. Touching gaming at Cards or Dice and such like so that they can with no great confidence triumph in the Fathers against us in this one point wherein themselves also are at a distance from them while we keep closer to the Fathers then they do in many others And thus Doctor I shall leave it to the judgment of the indifferent reader whether Apostle-Bishops be not a meer fancy of your own framing and indeed now there be no other but Presbyter-Bishops one of which for Ecclesiastical custome for pious ends had some power added to his Presidency for order which afterwards degenerated into tyranny CHAP. IV. PARAG. 4. Wherein is shewed the impertinency of the Doctors sixth chapter against perjury which the Author of the Case detests as much as be TO come now to your 6. Chapter where you propose the question whether the King without the impeachment of his Oath at his Coronation may consent to the abrogation of Episcopacie And then tell us Parag. 1. This question hath two branches 1. Whether a Christian King be bound to keep his oath 2. Whether he may not c. But did not your eyes dazzle when you made this division Did I ever question whether the Kings oath was obligatory so far as it was lawful and in that sence that it was intended and so dispute whether the sence of it were not the same of that with the people that ingageth only till alteration by consent in Parliament Did not I express in the preface that unless it did appear that abrogation of Episcopacy might stand with the sence of the oath the King ought not to consent how falsly do you then affirm that I perswade the King to break his oath and how useless is this whole chapter either taking for granted what is not proved that Episcopacy is a truth and ordinance of Christ or proving what is not in question that oaths are to be kept perjury to be avoided wherein you are so vehement that you faâ—l into rank anabaptistry pag. 34. asserting that oaths therefore must be avoided lest we fall into condemnation as though all oaths were unlawfull for fear of perjury You do also admixe so many foul and bold slanders uttered with such bitterness and such evident falseness that any but a partial reader will detest them and therefore I think them unworthy any answer If I had said as that Court-Preacher Herles answer to Doctor Fern. p. 3. that the King is not bound to keep any oath he took to the people to be ruled therein by law His oath was but a piece of Coronation-show he might take it to day and break it to morrow c. On such a man you might have spent some of your zeal against perjury but to me it is impertinent as the judicious reader shall plainly see by that which follows now to be set down out of the Case resolved which supposes the oath ought to be kept and only enquires after the true sense and intention of it and this may satisfie this impertinent chapter The Case Resolved THe usual way of clearing this assertion is thus The King is sworn to maintain the laws of the Land in force at his Coronation yet no man questions and the constant practice shews that it is not unlawful after to abrogate any upon the motion or with the consent of his Parliament The meaning of the oath being known to be to maintain the laws while they are laws but when they are abrogated by a just power in a regular way they are then wiped out of his charge and oath So the King by his oath is bound to maintain the rights of his Clergie while they continue such But if any of their rights be abrogated by just power he stands no longer engag'd to that particular And this I conceive to be a sound resolution For the Kings oath is against acting or suffering a tyrannous invasion on laws and rights not against a Parliamentarie alteration of either But here steps in my first opponent and though he disputes modestly onely proposing what he holds forth A nameless Author in a Book impleading all War against the King to serious consideration yet he objects subtilly and his Discourse runs thus The oath for maintenance of laws is made Populo Anglicano to the people of England and so may be taken off by a future act because it is by their own consent represented in Parliament But the oath to maintain the priviledges
allow all this and in as full words pag. 4. of Case resolved but I affirm this office by its incroachments excluding Presbyters and Canonical priviledges which it challengeth is grown burthensom instead of useful and the incumbents for the general much degenerate both neglecting the main of a Pastors office preaching and abusing their power to the hindring of it in others And for that which you add of the forfeitures of other Corporations as that of Drapers or Grocers or the City of London it self I believe if the King had conquer'd you would have been as ready as any to have impleaded the Companies of London of forfeiture for assisting in the War against him And who knows not that Corporations may and often do forfeit and lose their Charters of priviledges by abuse and misdemeanours For what you say ' of Parliaments power Parag. 6. I would you would alwaies speak so modestly By Parliamentarie power when I speak so largely I take it as containing the three estates the King the head and the Lords and Commons as the body yet I abhor to think of ascribing to them power to make that which is unjust just as I do disdain that comparison of the witness brought by me against Episcopacie to that brought against Naboth by suborned Knights of the Posts for the testimonies I brought were out of the Scripturures of Truth But Parag. 7 8 9. We have a great out-cry made but the best is it s a great deal of cry and little wooll The out-cry is at these words If King and Parliament release the engagement in the case of money the engagement were gon in law though not in equity The Order would be valid in law though in jurious First you question the validity of an Order of Parliament but you should remember I speak of an Order past by King and Parliament and that amounts to a law and later laws over-rule former Then you bid men take heed of their purses for I speak of sums of money But this is but to make a noise for you know my Opponent brought in the instance of money and I did but answer about it But the greatest out-cry is at this gon in law not in equity valid in law though injurious behold say you law without equity God bless me from such law I say so too but the Divinity is good enough by your leave For were not the Statutes in Queen Maries time laws though injurious And the Martyrs brought to a legal tryal by the Statute-laws of the Land though injurious ones This is so plain that no rational man can deny it and all the shew you make to the contrary is but from the word Jus because that properly signifies such a constitution as is just But if an unequal Statute may not be called Jus properly may it not be called Lex or a Statute-law your own word * Your self say pag. 40. Lex non obligat subditos in foro conscientiae nisi sit juste The law binds not Subjects in the Court of conscience unless it be just But then this implyes in foro humano it doth which agrees to what I say but that you have a minde to quarrel pag. 94. l. 12. shews that you are not so ignorant as not to know it nor so impudent as to deny it And therefore your accusations here of Divinity without conscience c. are Sophistical and childish or malicious whereas you say I stretch my conscience and justifie a power in the Parliament to do injury and not onely so but a power to make laws to justifie this injury It s a most false slander I say there is in King and Parliament that Peerless power that their agreement makes a law but if they stretch this to unjust things they abuse their power and become injurious and sin yet we have no plea against them in law that is in foro humano but in equity and conscience Parag. 10. You quarrel in like manner with those words So if there be no injury the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation which your dulness or passion makes you not understand and so you play the ape with them The meaning is this The King and Houses being the supream power what they ratifie stands firm and what they abolish no man can claim by any constitution of the Nation And in matters not injurious they may lawfully put this power committed to them into act Now Parag. 11. It may appear that you well understood what I meant in distinguishing between law equity in that you say What is according to law true law is lawful Why do you say true law but to note a distinction of laws Some are made by lawful authoritie and so valid in foro humano in mans Court yet that authoritie observes not the right rules of equitie but abuseth power to decree unjust things and so it is a law but not a true law that is not a law for that intent that laws were ordained to prevent injury not decree it I conclude therefore that you make these rehearsals of law without equity ad faciendum populum against your own conscience but the intelligent will see and deride this beggarly fraud Parag. 12. You harp upon the old string that an office can forfeit nothing And I grant it of such an office that is of God and of such priviledges as are necessarie or usefull but neither is Episcopacie such an office nor their large jurisdiction and great pomp such priviledges Parag. 13. Runs on the same string touching an office instituted of God which Episcopacie is not though Ministrie be And then kindly as often formerly grant the question that of priviledges perchance there may be a forfeiture where they prove prejudiciall to the publike good and so waves the question from that which is de jure of right which he hath been disputing all this while to that which is de facto of the fact of prejudice to the publike in which question how confident soever he be in the negative I must mind him that not he and the Prelates nor I that are parties but the King and Parliament must be Judges For what you say out of the great Charter Parag. 14. ' We grant to God and confirm the Church of England free c. I answer but the Bishops are not the Church you do not I hope approve that popish language they were then but a part and an unsound part being vassals to the man of sin Yet William the Conqueror did ill to appropriate Church-lands for covetousness and for it might miscarry so did they for the same cause rob the Temples of the Heathen Deities whence the proverbe Aurum Tolosanum in Aulus Gel. Noct. Attic. lib. 3. c. 9. Yet they did well that conscientiously abolish'd both Idols and Temples What you add that in strictness of Reformation Episcopacy was continued in England as most useful for the Church How this observation is connected I know not It is a suddain
orbi commune saith Beza in respon ad Sarav de grad Minist pag. ult But who knows not the great defect amongst us of congruous maintenance for Parochiall Pastors by whom the work of the Ministrie is chiefly to be performed And if those large revenues of the Prelates were directed to supply with sufficient maintenance all the defective Parishes in England there would be no danger of sacriledg And this would not be to ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages and turn pomp into use and impediments into helps A work for which following generations should not need to pitie the king as put upon it by misfortune but rise up and call him blessed whose many other disasters ended in so good and usefull a work Had the motives of Henry the 8. been as honest to cast off Papall jurisdiction as the act was holy and the improvement of Abbey lands as conformable to divine law as the dissolution of Abbeys to the rules of Divine wisdom He might not only have been honourable in our Annals but if I may so speak a Saint in our Calender It was the circumstances of actions in themselves glorious which made them a dishonour to him though advantagious to the Church which circumstances being avoided in the thing in question God and good men will highly approve it which is the only reall and regardable honour Thus far my first opponent CHAP. IX Wherein is shewed that the converting of Bishops Lands to maintain preaching-Ministers would not be sacriledg but a good work in answer to Doctor Boughen's 15. Chapter I Come now to answer to your 15. Chapter wherein you dispute the Case whether it be lawfull to confer Bishops Lands on Presbyters and first you say the Church is like our Saviour Christ between two theeves Independents and Presbyterians but neither of them for our Saviour But the best of it is your tongue is no slander for if preaching Christ be being for Christ I dare boldly affirm that the most of either of those that dislike Episcopacie are far more for Christ then you and your Prelates a few only excepted and of them the more they be for Christ the less violent usually for Bishops especially for your Apostle-Bishops which they account a fancie After you say I like theft so I and my fellow Presbyterians may be gainers but your position is false I abhor theft as much as you do nor do I look at the gain of my self or Presbyterians but of the Church of God for I am no pluralist whatever D. B. is nor do I nor many other Presbyters expect any more means if this should be but that the Church may have more Presbyters apt to rule well and labour in the word and doctrine and be examples to the flock we having found in experience that scandalous livings occasion scandalous Ministers And this we think is in the power of king and Parliament to do without theft The revenues annext to Cathedrals being intended for the best good of the Church But Parag. 2. You acknowledg I am against sacrilegious alienation but I and Master Beza cannot prevent it Who can help it We have cleared our own souls yet if the Prelates would have consented to resignation when this case was first presented I verily believe that dishonourable alienation had been prevented Parag. 3. You confess I would fain set a fair gloss upon a detestable fact But every thing is not detestable which you call so that which would tend to have Christ more preacht would be profitable to the Church and acceptable to God For Ordination we have spoken before and shewed that Presbyters have as much power from God to ordain as your Prelates and are as good Bishops onely the other by custom gradatim have rob'd them We shall have a choyce peece when you come to examine Divine right I shall wish the Divines to be more careful to provide patience to bear your railings then perspicacity to discern your subtilties For you are not like to trouble their heads with much of the latter Parag. 4. You say If there be a diversion of the waintenance who shall make the conveyance and When it s made it s not valid without the proprietary and that is God c. and what is separated to holy use cannot return to common Good but what is given to God may be improved to the utmost for God and that 's the aim and would be the issue of the diversion â—poken of that Christ might more preach'd even to those that have long sate in darkness and in the shadow of death Nor is every diversion as you say Parag. 5. a turning â—out of the right channel But out of the former channel and the latter may be better and so righter in regard of the chief intentions of the Donor And this done by the unquestionable authority of the Land will I doubt not be approv'd by as wise and as honest men as you Do not you your self pag. 119. say concerning Abbies and Pryories That good and pious men have wisht that the abuses had been pruned off and that the land had been disposed of according to the Donors intentions What 's that but diversion from the corrupt way of Abbeys and Pryoryes to support other pious and charitable uses Parag. 6 7 8. You tell us a story of the antiquity of endowing Churches and the riches of them And that the use and Dominion of Church-goods belong'd to Bishops and this not onely by custom but by Canon But withal you say at his charge as it were the Presbyters and other Clerks of the Church Were fed Sure you have told a good tale for your self for by it it appears that the wealth wherewith the Church was endowed was not given to any persons but the Church in which the Bishop had no propriety but power of use for what he himself needed and of disposing the rest to Presbyters and other Clerks which now the Bishop neglecting and many Parishes in his Diocesses wanting preaching Presbyters for want of maintenance and many that preach'd wanting subsistance and the Bishop who you say should maintain them maintaining Princely * I my self once saw the Bishop of Yorke riding towards London with fourty five men in his Livery And I wondering at the number was told by one of them that there was above twenty left behinde that wore their Lords Livery State a number of Serving-men c. To divert a great deal of the maintenance to preaching Presbyters would be a returning of it into the old channel by your own confession But Parag. 9 The Bishops followed the steps of the Apostolick Church for Act. 4. we read that the well minded when they sold their lands laid the prices at the Apostles feet not the Presbyters How could they when there was as yet none ordained But after by the Apostles direction there were Deacons set over this business of Church-treasures Good and those Deacons continued and distributed Church-goods some to
take the Apostles to be the foundation is it in respect of their persons authoritie or doctrine Their doctrine I believe Sir and will you compare your Bishops for doctrine to the Apostles and Prophets Who as such were infallible Nay do you not confess the doctrinal part of the Ministerie to belong to the Presbyter as well as your Prelate and to be more performed by them and have you not made a fine proof of the fall of the Church with Bishops out of this place But you add Parag. 19. What no danger of sacriledg in robbing Father and Mother But you answer for me that it is no sacriledg because the means shall stil be setled on the Church and that 's a reason which you cannot answer For sacriledg is an alienating of that which was justly devoted for sacred to civil or prophane use therefore change so there be a continuance of holy use is no sacriledg Nor shall we rob our Father for as you confess holy treasure was first given to the Church in general The Bishops had not propriety but use of some and with the rest they were to maintain the Presbyters which are wanting in many places for want of maintenance Now for those in whom authority lyes to take care for the edification of the Church To dispose the Churches Patrimonie so as may be best for edification of the Church appointing it to maintain preachers not pomp will be counted neither sacriledg nor theft by rationall and good men But you say we rob the Church of her husband too for though a Church have 1000 Presbyters yet she hath but one husband so that great Counsell of Calcedon but that Counsell spake according to the corrupt customes of those times not according to the tenure of Scriptures who make all the Presbyters over-seers over their particular flocks to dwell with them as men of knowledg and to take care for them and that 's to be in your sence husband is it not After you have made the Church a widow without a Bishop you add while a widow she can bring forth nothing but a bastard brood consider that yes I shall consider it but to your shame what if a Church continue as often it hath through covetousness and faction long without a Bishop are all the Converts begotten by the word of truth preach'd by Prebyters bastards nay what if Churches cast off Episcopacie are all her Presbyters bastards Do you thus gratifie the Papists and abuse all the Ministers of our sister reformed Churches many of which far outstrip you in all ministeriall qualification your assertion therefore is very considerable to discover what a Popish spirit you are of For Parag. 20. Whether your conclusion will follow on the premises or mine I now leave to the judicious Reader I would not have the King for fear of the people to do any unlawfull act I disclaimed it in the very entrance of my Case resolved but I only perswade to what for ought I yet see I have proved lawfull and that to rescue a perishing kingdom and prevent the hazard of his Crown which that it may be free and flourishing on his head is my daily and heartie prayer as those that know me can very well witness notwithstanding your ignorant calumniations to the contrarie Case of Conscience Resolved MY second Antagonist exceeds the first both in subtiltie and peremptoriness for he plainly affirms that the King cannot desert Episcopacie without flat perjurie and hence falls foul both on those that would force him to it and also on those moderate Courtiers that for peace sake counsell'd it He disputes thus There 's difference between laws and oaths Where the supream Jus dominii is there is a power above all laws but not above their own oaths in whom that power is for law bindes only while it is a law that is till it be repealed But an oath bindeth as long as it pleaseth him to whom it is taken The reason is because the supream power may cedere jure suo and obliege himself where before he was free which if they do by promise justice bindes them to performance but if by an oath the matter being lawful then are they bound in religion and conscience for an oath adds a religious bond unto God If this were not so no oath were binding to them I answer First it s a ground laid down by this Author in the same place that no oath is obligatorie beyond the intention of it and then I first propound it to consideration whether the intention of this oath be not only against a tyrannous invasion on the rights of the Clergie not against an orderly alteration of them if any prove inconvenient and to protect them against violence not against legal waies of change For first this is as much as is rationall for a King to undertake and therfore in right reason the oath should have no other sense if the words of the oath will bear it as the words of this oath will Secondly this oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings oath to the people first taken for their protection in their laws and liberties for then the latter oath will be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull Now one of the Priviledges of the People is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter whatever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole And therefore he cannot afterward engage himself to any particular estate to exempt it from this power for by that oath at least cessit jure suo in this Authors judgment The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament or they are not I hope they will not now claim an exemption from fecular power But if they be under Parliamentarie power how can it be rationally conceived to be the meaning of the Kings oath to preserve the Priviledges of the Clergie against that power to which they are legally subject or how were the oath in that sense consistent with the priviledges of the nation formerly sworn to by the king If the oath had such a sence in times of Poperie when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation yet when that exemption was abolish'd as a branch of Anti-Christian usurpation The change of their condition must needs change the intention of the oath unless they will say that the Crown stands still engaged to them to maintain such priviledges as by Act of Parliament were long since abolish'd which is to make his oath to them contrariant to that taken before for the maintenance of the laws It s apparent then to make the intention of the oath to be against a legal alteration by Parliament makes it unlawfull and so not obligatorie And if it be not intended against legall alteration the king may pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient and petition for it without
the suffering of the Clergie all Families suffer you substitute Clergie for Bishops Other of the Clergie may be in better condition by the removall of Lording Bishops but in your proof that one of the Tribe of Judah of the most remarkable Family turn'd Priest That is so gross an oversight that it is most unbeseeming a D. D. for its expresly said that young man was a Levite by birth And the argument of Micah plainly proves him so or else he had been in no better case with him then with one of his own sons whom he had consecrated if that would have made a Priest See Judg. 17. v. 5.13 The Levite indeed turned Priest which was his wickedness for a Levite was not to do the Priests office There is indeed an ambiguous expression touching this Levite v. 7. A young man of Bethlehem Judah of the family of Judah But if you had consulted Interpreters you would have found them generally agreeing that he was a Levite though differing in their opinions how he was of the family of Judah Some saying by his Mother some referring it to the City to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Zabulon c. You add parag 8. What if Magna Charta do obliege all to stand up for the due observation of these priviledges then we must acknowledg that we are bound to obey his Majesty commanding c. Still you alter the question for the question is Whether it can be supposed equal that the King should stand bound to engage the lives of many for the priviledges of a few Lord Bishops I hope you think it not the meaning of Magna Charta that every one should engage their lives for every paltrie priviledg of another But it s well you can now confess that Magna Charta is a great and justly magnified Charter If you and your Prelates had been of this minde formerly and not been so deep in breaking and countenancing the breach of it in others by illegal imprisonments impositions fines both of Laytie and Clergie England might have scap'd this cannensem calamitatem this mine-threatning calamitie under which it is readie to expire to which the breaches of Magna Charta gave the first occasion and the fairest colour Parag. 2. You make an objection touching Abbots and Priors provided for by the same Charter yet since taken away by act of Parliament which you confess But first you you would have us observe how they prospered that did it Secondly that Master Beza and my self call it sacriledg We do so and that we judge the cause why they prosper'd not that did it because they did it with that sinful circumstance of devouring holy things which shewed also their want of sinceritie in it Thirdly you say that they are for it stiled enemies of our Sovereign But they did not hear it they were born long after the Statute of 25. Edward 3. Fourthly you cite the Counsel of Chalcedon that no consecrated Monastery may be turned to a secular dwelling I answer Counsels may erre and so may that of Chalcedon if the profit of the house had been imployed for pious uses I see no ground of complaint or censure Fiftly you say you hope I will make a difference between our Saviours institution and mans invention Truely I do and have proved Diocesan-Bishops to be no institution of Christ but man in the foregoing Discourse And lastly I joyn With the wishes of those pious men and move as you know not a devouring but a diversion of Chathedrals maintenance Besides what is requisite to maintain needful preaching there to procure and encourage able Parochial Pastors who are the undoubted Ordinance of Jesus Christ all the Land over Parag. 10. You do but beat the same bush again in citing again Magna Charta I confess the kings engagement to maintain the Priviledges of the Clergie so far as he is bound by right nor is any act of the king or the Houses without the king valid against it but king and Parliament joyning they may over-rule some parts of it and upon just ground warrantably as appears in all experience as in paring Episcopall Canonical priviledges niminishing their jurisdiction by the high Commission annext to and set over Bishops c. Parag. 11. You enquire Whether it be equall to engage the lives of some to destroy the honours of others This is impertinent to my Case and though I count not your Bishops plantations of Gods right hand yet sith they had footing by law it hath been my grief that force hath been used to pluck them up for me they should have stayed for his day who hath said every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up but when I have made complaint of this it hath been replyed to me by many that this was not the cause of the engagement in war though I believe the most considerable part of the people had an eye on this but this is on the by Parag. 12 13. You take into consideration my Case of a Captain engaged by oath to maintain the Priviledges of Townes-men and keep a town to his power whether he may not notwithstanding his oath make his composition if he cannot defend it without the Townes-men and they will not fight without violation of his oath I think none will affirm it You do not only deny it but take the Name of God in vain to make a jeer at it doth that become a Divine But let 's hear your reason because there 's no town in England can have such a priviledg as not to bear arms against the Kings enemies Suppose it be so I am no Lawyer yet you know it s not unusuall in cases to suppose things that are not so they be not impossible as this is not for the king may grant such an immunitie if he please that none shall be compell'd to bear arms and therefore it was but a shift that error in the Case may be easily mended and it will pinch the Doctor as hard as ever it did for suppose that so many of the souldiers in the town are slain or taken prisoners that the Governour can defend it no longer then I hope Mr. Doctor will yield that he may make his composition so was it with the king at the publishing my small Treatise and now notwithstanding my former fails as he saith Parag. 14. for want of skill in law the difficulty is returned on the Doctor get out how he can I make an Objection that though the king cannot in such a state uphold them yet it is in his power not to consent to their fall this I say is the only exception The Doctor saith its a just one though not the only one yet he shews no other but then he is angry for the phrase peremptoriness in denying assent to the fall of Bishops used to the King as uncivil I am no Courtier I confess and may fail in phrase yet peremptoriness in a candid sense is no more then