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
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
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
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
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
use exhortation and application This finisht the rest meet together and the two speakers go aside untill the Moderator of the Presbyterie asketh every ones opinion of the doctrine delivered And if to say no worse they do but smell out any thing either it s forthwith buryed by common suffrage or if the Presbytery be divided in any question yet at least the whole matter is husht in silence untill the next Synod which come twice a yeer Hither come all the Pastors of the whole Province accompanied with their Elders as the state of every Church requires The Moderator of the precedent Synod begins with a Sermon and then either a new Moderator is chosen or which seldom falls out the old is continued The question refer'd to the Synod is either composed or husht up again in silence and refer'd to the National Synod held once every year Hither come not onely the Pastors but the King or his Commissioner and usually some of all degrees sufficiently furnisht with judgement and authority to compose any controversie so Heresie is stifled in the very birth So you may see that Presbyterie is a better way to keep out or under Schisms and Heresies in King James his judgement grounded on experience then Episcopacy For what you add That the Pulpits and Presses are lock'd up to all Orthodox men Is false if to any it is my grief I am not to answer for others faults Parag. 13. You say It s true and not true that by Parochial Pastors the work of the Ministery is chiefly to be performed True you say it is in the Fathers sence not in mine But my sence I shall prove to you is Scripture sence For Pastors in my sence are such as were ordained Act. 14.13 and Tit. 1.5 in every Church and were by the Holy Ghost made over-seers of them to feed them Act. 20.28 This you confess for these places you understand of Presbyter-Bishops And I hope you will not oppose Fathers to Scriptures if you do you know who must fall Gal. 1.8 It s true that the place of a Bishops jurisdiction was sometime called a Parish But that Parish was usually not so bigg as some Parishes in England now If they were how could six Bishops be assembled to the censure of every Presbyter as the Canon was sure thats above the number of all the Bishops that are in one of our Provinces which grates hard on your Diocesans shewing how unlike they are to ancient Bishops ' Nor are the ordering of the Church or ordaining of Presbyters without the sphear of Presbyters by any law of God but humane custom No nor are these the chief works of the Ministery No Doctor Preaching and sound Doctrine are the chief acts of the Ministery which deserve most reward as you may see 1 Tim. 5.17 and 1 Cor. 1.17 and therefore when Saint Paul reckons up Ministers and their Ministerial acts governing comes behinde teaching 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. But Parag. 14. You think to prove ' That your Bishops do the chief work virtually from an axiom in philosophy propter quod aliquid est tale illud ipsum est magis tale But herein you shew your self as bad a Philosopher as Divine for doth propter quod note out an efficient cause or the final cause think you You are therefore mistaken in your axiom which is false being as if you had said Presbyters are made Preachers propter populum for the people ergo the people are more Preachers A wise conclusion We have a rule indeed quicquid efficit tale est mag is tale And I will grant that they that ordain Preachers ought to be more Preachers themselves but that you know is false in experience in most of your Bishops therefore you should know that such Axioms are true onely in natural not in voluntary causes as the Logicians will teach you Neither are the Bishops the total causes of Preachers Alas at the most they give them but Commission to use their gifts authoritatively which gifts they have from God and are the fundamental cause to make them Preachers Nor can Bishops alone ordain Presbyters that I have proved before And what if I should prove it now by an axiom of philosophie Generare sibi simile To beget his like is the affection of a living creature And Presbyterie you know is a living office ergo Presbyters may ordain Presbyters I believe you will sweat to give a rational answer to it What you add about ordinary Courts of justice and Parliament Sir though I count the Parliament the supream Court yet justice is chiefly done by inferiour Courts because it ordinarily lies on them and the Parliament is onely to supply and rectifie their errors But you proceed and Parag. 15.16 Compare the Ministers to souldiers in an Army and to Mariners in a Navy and your Bishops are as the General they are as the Admiral So then the people are no part of the Ship or Army or else you level the Presbyters with the people whom the Holy Ghost calls their guids set over them Such similitudes you use to make But every Preacher is not fit to be a Bishop that 's your judgement but the Holy Ghost saith none should preach except he be sent and none should be sent but such as are fitted to take the care and over sight of the Church and that 's the Holy Ghost's Bishop Whatever your opinion is see 1 Tim. 3.5 Acts 20.28 Indeed such a Bishop as you would have Monarchically to govern a whol Diocess of a Shier or two cannot be made ex quolibet ligno but neither Scriptures nor primitive times acknowledg any such Bishop But such a Bishop as may joyn with others in the government of a Church a meaner man may be without prejudice for others maturitie in judgement may help his want of experience What you object Parag. 17. about the Levellers Doctrine is sutable to this Is but a capritious fancie of your own for God hath comprized all ordinarie Ministers under the same name of Pastors and therefore man can make no difference among them but for orders sake Neither do I go about to level all Benefices you know there is a difference in a great disproportion which may be for men of different parts But Parag. 18. You exclaim because I say there will be no danger of sacriledg in my way And first you say to overthrow Episcopacy is to overthrow the Church and for that it s not enough for you to abuse a Father but an Apostle too for when Saint Paul saith we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 What 's that saith Beza but Jesus Christ So the Apostle who is the best interpreter of himself explicates it 1 Cor. 3.9 and adds Planè est Anti-Christus quî sibi tribnit quod unius Christi est He is plainly anti-Christ that arrogates to himself or to any other what is onely Christs What think you of this Again those that