abolish'd by Henry the 8. These were your rights that is you had claim to them by mans not Gods law 2. Some were essentiall to the callings grounded on the Word of God 3. Some were indulged by the Prince and State The first sort were void to a Christian by their anomie The second unviolable by the unquestionable authoritie of God the Author of them The third are under the Consult of Parliaments as other laws which are the peoples birth-right and they may alter both if they see occasion So the laws that concern the Clergie make them neither worse nor better then those laws that concern the Laytie render them Case of Conscience Resolved THe Author illustrateth the force of his argument by an example holding forth an inconvenience Where publique faith is given for money it is not releaseable by Parliament without consent of the partie for if it be it is in effect no ingagement c. Answ There 's a great deal of difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations and that which is made gratis to an office or societie subservient to publique good Of the former kinde is the engagement to pay sums of money of whom they were borrowed for publike good which is indispensible without the consent of the lender Of the latter sort is this engagement to the English Clergie Now engagements to a Societie to maintain their rights indulged for the personall worth of present incumbents or to promote the usefulness of that office If in their matter they prove prejudiciall to the office or the succeeding officers by their ill demeanor forfeit them their engagement becomes alterable There is no injustice done to make a law to over-rule or alter this engagement There 's no question of power in the Parliament to over-rule it for in the former case of money if the King and Parliament should ordain release of the engagement the engagement was gone in law not in equitie the order would be valid in law though injurious So if there be no injurie the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation And where there is forfeiture by miscarriage or the priviledg to a Ministrie which ought to hold nothing but for publike good proves prejudiciall the abrogation will be just as well as legall there will be no injurie done But take it at the worst it is but for the King to get the Clergies consent and I hope in this case they will not be so tenacious of their wealth and honour as to let the Crown run an hazzard rather then they lay down their Mitres and indanger the whole land to be brought to nothing rather then themselves to moderation I cannot but have a better conceit of the Major part of them at this time which will amount to a consent and that in this Authors judgment takes off the scruple about the oath CHAP. VIII Shewing that abuses are a forfeiture of some priviledges in answer to Doctor Boughen's 14. Chapter I Come now to answer your 14. Chapter which you entitle whether the lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanor of the Clergie But here I must minde you and the Christian reader that whereas there are two parts of the Clergie in England 1. Parochiall Pastors which stand by the ordinance of God who appointed the ordaining of Elders in every Church 2. Diocesan Bishops which I have proved to be but humane creatures invented and set up as Jerome saith to prevent Schismes That which I have spoken of forfeitures belongs to the latter which are not Gods ordinance though it may be so they would keep within ancient bounds and express ancient worth they might not be only tolerable but usefull yet if these abuse their power and become an inconvenience instead of curing an inconvenience and any thing indulged to them for the honour of God be abused to his dishonour in the hurt of the Churches then they make forfeiture Now the Case thus stated Your instance Parag. 1. of Abiathars being succeeded by another not the office abolisht is not a pari for that was in an office expresly Gods ordinance so Episcopacie is not What you say Parag. 2. about justice out of Lactantius who in that place distinguisheth between Jus civile quod pro moribus ubique variatur vera justitia quà m uniformem ac simplicem proposuit omnibus Deus I acknowledg the truth of his speech nor would I nor do I maintain any thing against true justice But what you infer from thence that where true justice is wanting there 's no law nor no Common-wealth c. It is evidently contrarie to his minde for though this true and perfect justice was wanting in all heathen societies for they had some constitutions that swerv'd from it yet no man will say there were no Common-wealths but tyrannies among the heathen though they were not such compleat Common-wealths as they might have been had they known the rule of Gods perfect justice Parag. 3. To that that there 's great difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations and which is made gratis to an office or societie subservient to publique good You answer that the setling of land upon a Corporation is more firm and that gift gives as good propriety as purchase wherein you wilfully mistake the scope of my speech or ignorantly for the difference I speak of is in regard of the injurie in alteration and that too where and when there is miscarriage Now I hope though I must return to a corrupt man what is his own yet it is no injurie to deny courtesies which are given gratis to men for their worth Artaxerxes bestowed a great largess on the Ministers of the Sanctuarie and he did excellently wel in it and in the confirmation of it yet you simply make that expression the Law of God and of the King to relate to that one Decree of Darius which you will plainly see if you read Ezra 7.24 25 26. together But the question is if the following Priests had set up themselves with that the Kings benevolence and neglected the work of God and had grown insolent against the Monarch Whether it had been injurious in the succeeding Monarchs to have recalled that gift given to good men to make them more serviceable to God and devout in their prayers for the King But Par. 4. You say these lands and immunities were made to the office and Episcopacy is a living office But I answer it s an office that may dye for the Diocesan-Bishop can finde his Register in Gods Book he is later then the word written and therefore this plea will not help him Parag. 5. To that what is granted to personal worth of present incumbents and given to promote the usefulness of the office You say It is fixed till the office be found useless and abolisht but till then it is injustice to take it away without which the usefulness of that office cannot be so well promoted I
of my thoughts was that except the second Article about Episcopacy mutatis mutandis those things being altered that upon Accommodation must have admitted alteration there was nothing that might greatly scruple a minde moderate and peaceable And for that second Article considering the government of the Church by Bishops was never determined by our Church to be Jure Divino And that we acknowledg as Sisters those Churches that have admitted Presbytery And sith what is Humane is upon good and weighty motives alterable And what more weightie motive can be to induce a Prince to consent to alter what is alterable then to preserve three flourishing Churches and Kingdoms from blood and ashes The onely difficulty I apprehended in reference to his Majesty in that Article supposing him to be of the same judgement with this most learned Father touching Episcopacy in his Basilicon Doron rested in his oath at Coronation which I had read urged strongly but modestly in an Anonymus Book written on the Royal side about this War and afterward prest with more violence in a Treatise against the Covenant On these Books therefore I resolved to make an assay whether what was objected in that particular were solveable And on this occasion was the Case Resolved first compiled Which having finish'd I communicated to one of the Kings Chaplains as learned rational and sincerely affected to his Majestie as Doctor Boughen though not so froward who agreed with me in desiring and endeavouring accommodation He presented it to a Counsellor of State a lover of peace and in good esteem with his Majestie What use he made of it I know not But mine own Copy lay dead in my hands till the King went from Oxford into the Scots Army By whom being brought to New-Castle his Majestie had divers disputes with Master Hinderson about this very subject which occasioned me to re-view my notes and shew them to a learned friend who judging them not contemptible told the Scots Ministers of the Assembly of such a Tract that he had seen whereupon they earnestly desired it either in Print or in Writing On this occasion after some moneths if not years it saw the light And some Copies being given to the Scots Commissioners they presented one to the King who read it and if my Intelligencer fail me not though he received not satisfaction by it yet his censure of it did neither discover passion nor contempt but the contrary But Quorsum haec That the Reader may know with what an innocent and upright heart my Case of Conscience Resolved was composed The main intention of it being nothing but a good accommodation for the honour and safety of Sovereign and Countrey That thereby not onely the uncharitableness but the impertinency falseness and injustice may appear of those bitter calumnies that are every where scattered in the Answerers Treatise like Vlcers in an unsound Body of which his two Epistles are not free which come first to receive Animadversions PARAG. II. ANIMADVERSIONS on Doctor Boughen's two Epistles clearing the Author of the Case Resolved from imputations of sleighting Authority and retorting them on the Accuser DOctor Boughen dedicates his Book to the King and gives his reason because It is a Justification of his Coronation-oath of his Crown and Dignity And the fairest Flower of it Spreamacy Touching the Oath we shall consider in the body of the Book it self But what speaks he of defending the Kings Crown and dignity As though that were endangered by the Case Resolved Whereas the occasion and intention of that Treatise was as the Introduction expresseth and the matter evidenceth to prevent that great hazzard of both which since they have undergone And was written by one as well affected to his Majesties Crown and dignitie and I doubt more sincerely then D. B. is Nor hath he more need to defend the Kings Supreamacy from any danger that it was in by my Book For I doubt not but when I come to the last Chapter of his Book wherein the point of Supreamacy is handled to make it evident that I have detracted nothing of that Supreamacie which the King doth challenge Nor what I had not warrant for from his Majesties own Pen No nor but what this Answerer himself is forced to relinquish while and where he makes a Mimick shew of opposition There is one passage more in this Epistle which I cannot pass by Where he hath spoken of one That during the Eclipse of Heaven durst acknowledg our Saviours Kingdom c. He interrogates with reference to the King and shall I be ashamed to do the like Give me leave Sir to answer your question No wise men will think you need be ashamed of Dedicating a book to his Majestie though under an Eclipse But they may doubt whether you may not be ashamed of making a question of it 2. And more whether you may not be ashamed of representing the Author you answer as an enemy to the Kings Crown and Dignity when the Treatise it self bespeaks him quite the contrary 3. But most of all whether you may not be ashamed of dedicating a Book better stored with railing then reason to so rational a Prince In his Epistle to the Reader he tells him How being moved by a Friend to consider of my Case of Conscience c. he was willing to undeceive his seduced Countrimen and so yeelded to his request and found the Treatise small but dangerous It aims at the ruin both of Church and Kingdom It perswades the King that his oath at Coronation is a wicked oath and that he ought to break it yea he affirms it to be vinculum iniquitatis the bond of iniquity No sooner read I this saith the Doctor but my heart was hot within me and while I was musing on this Psalm 39.4 and the like Blasphemies the fire kindled within me and at the last I spake with my tongue Why should this Shimei blaspheme my Lord the King c. Bloody words but the Prudent Reader will remember Si satis sit accusari quis eritâ—innocens If accusation be sufficient proof of a crime who shall be innocent And I doubt not but by a fair Apology to stop the mouth of this Slanderer 2 Sam. 16.4.6 7 8. and prove him to play Ziba's while I clear my self from acting Shimei's part For first whereas he saith that ' this Treatise aims at the ruine both of the Church and Kingdom This is most notoriously false the scope of it being expressed in the very entrance of it to be the preservation of both by Union and Accommodation For want of which how both have been hazzarded is evident to every prudent observer of things Again for that he saith That I tell the King that his Coronation-oath is a wicked oath yea affirm it to be vinculum iniquitatis the bond of iniquity This is in part false in part uncharitable and crafty wresting words to draw blood out of them For there is no such expression
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
in all my Book as that the Kings oath at Coronation is a wicked oath And though I use the tearm vinculum iniquitatis yet by the expressions annexed if he had set them down there would have appeard no such vileness in it as he interprets it the words are thus 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 c. Now here the Reader may observe that vinculum iniquitatis was used by me onely to note the unlawfulness of the oath in that particular and it s an usual phrase to note the unlawfulness of the matter in any oath yet I did not English it because it might seem harsher in our Language Besides I did not assert that the Kings oath was unlawful in that point unless it did engage him to maintain Episcopacy as then it stood which the King hath declared it did not in that he hath offered their regulation by Presbyters How false then is the Doctor in this also in positively affirming that I make the kings oath vinculum iniquitatis When I do it onely upon a supposition which the king denies yea and which I did imagine the king might deny and so declined that way of invalidating the bond of the kings oath as appears plainly in my Treatise But whether that argument that I brought did prove it unlawful to swear to maintain the Bishops in the power they then executed will appear when I come to discover the sillyness of the Doctors Answer And if the oath be proved in that sence unlawful then I hope tits no offence but necessary in dispute so to call it unless we be to flatter Superiors in what ever they do and so not honour but Idolize them and lay snares for their feet But with musing on these and other blasphemies fire was kindled in the Doctor What were these other blasphemies Those he names not nor are we ever like to know But that the fire was kindled is evident by the fruits of it but such a fire that I doubt not but that the Reader will judge that he might for it more pertinently have cited James 3.6 then Psalm 39.4 After to present me more odious he cites a place out of Doctor Burgess's fire of the Sanctuary touching imprecations and Seditious raylings against the Rulers of the people and rude bitter unseemly speeches uttered against them Also out of Master Wards Sermon before the Commons about suffering vile men to blaspheme and spit in the face of authority And affirms all this Master Geree hath done undeservedly Hath he used imprecations or bitter railings against the Prince Hath he used rude bitter unseemly speeches against him Hath he blasphemed or spit in the face of Authority Convince all these or any of these and you shall finde him ready to repent and ask God and his Prince forgiveness But if he hath not done all no nor any of these then is Doctor Boughen a malicious Slanderer and whose agent he is in these accusations he may easily see if he be pleased to view Joh. 8.44 and Revel 12.10 But hath not Doctor Boughen in truth done that to the Parliament which he falsely accuseth me to have done against the Prince And is not the Parliament an Assembly of Gods Psalm 82.1 And neerest in honour and Authority to the king Nay hath not he done worse to the king then any thing that he laies to my charge For is not perjurie worse then through incogitancie to swear to some thing that seems good but is not lawful which is all that can be objected to me to have said in reference to the King And doth not Doctor Boughen while he saith to abolish Episcopacie is no more against the kings oath then to take away their Votes in the House of Peers pag. 87. and that he cannot consent to abolish Episcopacy without perjurie pag. 123. charge the king with perjurie in consenting to a Bill for taking away the Bishops priviledg of Sitting and Voting in the House of Peers Then let him consider who is neerer Simon Magus and who hath more need to pray forgiveness in this particular As touching Simon Magus I am sure I never profer'd money for any Ecclesiastical Gifts nor Livings and so am free from Simony And to clear me from being a Magician I Printed a Book against judicial Astrologie at the same time with the Treatise which the Doctor would Answer which hath nettl'd Lily and Booker no great friends to the king neer as much as my Case Resolved did Doctor Boughen He closeth with two things First He that answers a Book is bound to confute all but what he approves This I deny unless he mean all that is pertinent and weightie For impertinent triflings and railings of which the Doctors Book hath too much deserve no answer nor the waste of Paper The other is The guides he wisheth the Reader to be led by in judging viz. Reason Scriptures and Authority And therein I fully close with him so far as Autority the third is guided by the two former Scriptures and Reason And so far onely it deserves respect And thus far for his Epistles Reader observe that in this Treatise D. B. stands for Doctor Boughen And D. D. for Doctor in Divinity The Contents of the several Chapters CHAP. I. ANimadversions on Doctor Boughen's first chapter wherein he playes with the Introduction to the dispute and herein is discovered his subtilty in the whole and ridiculous trifling in this part of his book Page 1. Chap. 2. Wherein is cleered that the National Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacie root and branch Nor is Episcopvcie of Christs institution in answer to Doctor Boughen's second chapter pag. 6. Chap. 3. Wherein it is cleered That Prelacy as it stood in England was an usurpation on the office of Presbyters In answer to Doctor Boughen's third Chapter p. 15. Chap. 4. Parag. 1. Wherein it is cleered That Episcopacie is not to be upheld by our Protestation and that there may be ordination without it in answer to Doctor Boughen's fourth Chapter p. 20. Chap. 4. Parag. 2. Wherein is shewed That the National Covenant doth not engage to uphold Episcopacie In answer to Doctor Boughen's fifth Chapter p. 31. Chap. 4. Par. 3. Wherein for a ful answer to what Doctor Boughen hath said to prove Episcopacy Christs institution This Question is resolved Whether a Bishop now usually so called be by the Ordinance of Christ a distinct officer from him that is usually called a Presbyter The one a successour of the Apostles endued with power of Ordination and other jurisdiction The other the successour of the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus Endued with power of administring Word and Sacraments p. 36. Chap. 4. Parag. 4. Wherein is shewed the impertinency of Doctor Boughen's sixth Chapter against perjury p. 50. CHAP. V. PARAG. I. Shewing That the Clergies rights are as alterable by