and after the example of their Master Jesus Christ and that by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from him as deputed by him Governours of his Church Or at least that Episcopal Aristocracy may lay a more just title and claim to a Divine Institution than Papal Monarchy Presbyterial Democracy and Independants by particular Congregations or gathered Churches 2. We are assured by the undoubted testimony of Ancient Records and later History that this Form of Government hath been continued with such an universal uninterrupted unquestioned succession in all the Churches and in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for fifteen hundred years together that there never was in all that time any considerable opposition against it that of Aerius was the greatest which grew from discontent and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick From which antiquity to depart they fear by this extirpation to give advantage to the Papists by contempt of antiquity and should diminish the Authority due to the consentient judgement and practice of the universal Church c. Sir this is a very fair and specious exception for Divine Institution and ancient universal practice are very strong bars against any Oath and strong conjecture of the one and certain assurance of the other do forcibly supersede any mans acting to the contrary yet Sir I wonder that these learned men do but think of a Divine Institution and yet are assured of ancient universal practice uninterrupted for fifteen hundred year methinks the last should rather have remained doubtful for conscience can only be satisfied in the certainty of the former A think so in a Divine Warrant is both sinful and dangerous and I think the universal uniterrupted practice of the Church for fifteen hundred years might well run back unto the times of our Lord and Saviour and at least the Acts of his Apostles and the Sacred as well as Ecclesiastical Story might make mention of this Government and so create an undeniable certainty for the one is a very uncertain ground of assurance without the other But stay Sir I forgot the year in which these learned men wrote it was 1647. and so indeed one hundred and forty years might return before Episcopal Government appeared in the World and yet they may by antient Records and later Histories find the practice of it fifteen hundred years but this will more weaken than strengthen the Divine Right for without doubt the most primitive and pure estate of the Church was in the first one hundred and forty years 2. Their Argument loseth its force by the ambiguity of their terms for I am Sir at the same loss with them for the Ratio formalis objecti Saint Peters Bonds abide p. 2 3. the thing to be extirpated as in my last with Dr. Gauden They tell us of an Episcopal Government and an Episcopal Aristocracy but do not describe it it is no marvel that the Popes Legates should interdict the dispute in the Council of Trent History of the Council of Trent Edit 3. p. 591 592. concerning the Divine Right of Episcopal Superiority or direct it into such general and uncertain debates that there might be of it no determination but Sir I think it very strange that a Protestant University professedly seeking satisfaction to their conscience should so sophistically by general terms of an uncertain acceptation maintain to themselves doubts to which they desire resolution They well know Episcopal Government may denominate the Government Communi Concilio Presbyterorum by all Ministers in the Church who are the very true undoubted Scripture-Bishops unto which or whom there may be ordinis causa for method sake a Superintendent Moderator or Chair-man and this Episcopal Government is undoubtedly of Divine Institution and antient practice prescribed by the Holy Ghost and propounded in the sacred story of the Acts of the Apostles Chap. 20.28 where as in other Scriptures Bishops and Presbyters are terms synonimous denominating persons invested with the same Office and Authority and enjoying the same qualifications and by common consent ruling the Church of Christ and then Sir we must tell them this is not to be endeavoured to be extirpated nor doth the Covenant so propound it which if it do I consent to reject it But if by Episcopal Government they mean that special Form and Frame of Government wherein one person is advanced into a distinct order of Ministry above other Ministers and is invested with Prince-like power over them enjoying an Authority peculiar to him eonomine as Bishop of sole Ordination and Jurisdiction unto whom all other his Fellow-Ministers are Subjects and must swear to him obedience who must have a Council denominated Deans Deacons Prebends Chapters and the like over and among whom he sits as Lord and yet over him acknowledgeth a more superiour order under the title of Arch-bishop to whom he oweth and sweareth obedience and in this superiour order and lordly manner he ruleth all Pastours and People somtimes by himself somtimes by his Chancellor or Comissary his Surrogates Deans and Arch-deacons with all Officers of State and Power within such prefixed bounds and limits which is called his peculiar Diocess and either they must mean this or mistake the meaning of the Covenant which yet doth very plainly describe the Prelacy to be extirpated to be a Government by Arch-bishops Bishops their Chancellours Commissaries Deans c. And then Sir I must deny not that they think for I must believe the profession of their thought though I think it strange but that there is any good ground for such thoughts and the opinion of an University will not without good demonstration in this point beget such thoughts in me That the Apostles by vertue of their ordinary power and authority derived from Christ and deputed Governours of his Church did ever establish this Episcopal Government or that it was according to the mind and after the example of Jesus Christ who himself did never exercise a Pompous and Princely power over his Disciples but conversed with them as his Peers and Equals and gave them in charge that they should not affect Superiority one over another or Princely power over Gods Heritage I must put these Masters and Scholars of Oxford to prove by plain and pregnant Scripture That the Office of the Ministry may in Ordination be divided and only some part of it be thereby committed so as that the Deacons may preach and baptize but not consecrate the Lords Supper That there are more orders of the Ministry than one the Bishop or Presbyter or more Officers in the Church than Elders and Deacons appointed by Christ or his Apostles by their Apostolical Authority who have only described their qualification and directed the Ordination of these two and no more That the Presbyter in whom is required the same qualification to whom is to be yielded the same obedience subjection and respest who receiveth the same Ordination and is charged with the same duty
and invested with the same power of feeding and governing the Church of God with the Bishop and none other is an order distinct from and subject to the Bishop so to be ruled by him and not to exercise his Office but by the Bishops License and at his pleasure and that the Presbyter is bound to swear obedience to the Bishop as his Ordinary That certain particular Priests or Deacons shuld by Papal constitution and Princely indulgence without the counsel and common suffrages of the Colledge of Presbyters bespeaking their conset or consent of the common people The force of Prelacy covenanted against be constituted a Colledge or Cathedral Council to the Bishop to advise with him and rule under him by the name of Deans Deans and Chapters Arch-deacon and Prebends to Elect the Bishop in vacancy and hold Courts constitute Canons and exercise all Jurisdiction over all Churches and Ministers not being so much as chosen by them or having their consent much less commission so to do That any one Minister or Bishop doth stand charged with all the Congregations and Pastors of them in one County or many Counties making one Diocess and be by vertue of office bound to the inspection and pastoral Correction and Government of them and that the several Bishops of a Kingdom be themselves subject to one Metropolitan Church and Arch-bishop to whom they shall swear obedience and shall be subject to be by him overseen ordered and corrected sure if the Word of God conclude such superiority over the Church in one Kingdom it will conclude a Catholick superiority over the universal Church and advance the Pope as warrantably above the Arch-bishops as the Arch-bishops are above the Bishops and the Bishops above the Presbyters for these are not differences of kind but of degree nor is there pleaded for Divine Right or Apostolical Institution of the one in the Church of England what is not pleaded for the other by the Fathers of the Council of Trent and by Bellarmine that Cardinal Popes Champion Bellarm. de Clericis lib. 1.5 cap. 14. and who can deny a quatenus ad omne c Lastly That Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel may exercise their Office and Function by Vicegerents and Deputies Commissaries or Chancellours or that by any Apostolical direction they may and have authority to Commissionate any such or that the determination and disposal of Civil Affairs Matters of Marriage and Administrations belong to them that they must by themselves or joyning unto themselves Professors and Students of the Civil Law keep Courts on which Proctors Apparitros and the like are dependent and so judicially rule and govern in these cases This is the Form of Government these learned Casuists must think is if not of Divine Right by immediate precept from God yet established by the Apostles according to the mind and after the example of their Master Jesus Christ and that by vertue of their power and authority as deputed Governours of the Church or otherwise their thoughts are very vain and impertinent for not an Episcopal Government wherein all the Bishops Ministers of the Church within any City Country or Kingdom invested with equal authority and dignity being all of the same Order do by common Council govern the Church but this specifical Prelacy presuming it self to be an Hierarchy or holy Government and chief Priest-hood not to be gain-sayed without high profaness or with-stood and destroyed without sacriledge formally existing in Arch-bishops super our Princes to Bishops Bishops Soveraign Lords to all Ministers or Presbyters and enjoying the standing Cathedral Council and subordinate Judges Deans Arch-deacons Deans and Chapter and transmitting their power and Episcopal authority to Chancellours and Commissaries and so ruling with all state and pompous attendants not only mens profession of Religion but their propriety of civil enjoyments is Covenanted to be extirpated I hope Sir that these serious men would not cozen their own Consciences and cheat the World by their observation the Covenant would bind us against Episcopacy and Bishops in general and not take notice how it is limited to one particular kind and then Sir I must be free to tell them That the Divine Right or Apostolical Institution of this Episcopal Government is but a think so of no more value than a dream for I not only think but am sure the libraries of learning in all that famous Univesity will never lay us down this Form of Government in the Church of Ephesus though I should grant Timothy to be a Bishop therein Antioch Philippi Creet or the seven Churches of Asia supposing their Angels to have been Bishops in all which I deny not a Government by Bishops and those made by the Holy Ghost to whom I will presume to think had I then lived and been invested with that Ministerial authority I now by Gods grace enjoy poor simple I might have stood up as a Peer or at least Bishop Suffragan and if they give not some Scripture instance I think Ecclesiastical story will never prove the Apostles established this Form of Government in the Church or at least not by their Apostolical power and authority as deputed by Christ governours of the Church and I am sure not after the example nor according to the mind of Jesus Christ their Master it being directly inconsistent with the quality of this Kingdom and dictated parity of his Ministers Sir with Reverence may I speak it I think it had been very sutable to the learning and gravity of this learned Assembly to have laid down in this case of conscience some clear Reasons for their conjecture of this Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and Establishment And the rather for that Pope Nicholas hath affirmed Omnes sive Patriarchae cujuslibet apicem sive Metropolean primatus aut Episcopatuum Cathedras vel Eccl siarum sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem instituit Romana Ecclesia That Rome appointed all Ecclesiastical Dignities of Bishops Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons c. And Pope * Apud Gratian. Dist 22. cap. 1. Lucius and Clement with whom agreeth Peter Lombard and our own Historians That King Lucius instituted three Arch-bishopricks and * Distinct 80. lib. 4. dif 24. Brit Hist lib. 4. pag. 126. Polichro lib. 4. c. 16. fol. 163. Pagets Christianography Foxe saith 28. chief Priests called Flammens Acts and Monuments p. 96. Fol. 59 60. twenty five Bishopricks in the room and stead of the three Archflamens and twenty five flamens And that Devotus the Bishop of Winchester falling into the seat of the flamen thereof had all the possessions within twelve Miles cmopass containing thirty two Villages conferred on him and his Clergy And the Archbishops Bishops and Clergy of England in their Institution of a Christian man dedicated to Henry the eighth have told all the World It is out of all doubt that there is no mention made neither in the Scripture neither in the Writings of any authentical Doctor or Auctor of
their certain assurance in matter of Fact be any better bottomed than their think so in point of Divine Right I know not what might be their undoubted testimony of ancient Records and later Histories for they mention none and therein their faith must be unto themselves but by such Ancient or Modern Histories as I have observed it is very difficult to find this Form of Government which must relate unto that to be extirpated by the Covenant or else it is vain to have been either universal or uninterrupted in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for half fifteen hundred years for if they account backward from the time of their writing they will find a violent interruption and indeed extirpation of this Form of Government by Christian the King of Denmark in the year 1537. as contrary to Christ his Institution and then they will lose more then one of their fifteen hundred years without interruption and that in a Kingdom called Christian and this Sir was to sense whatever it was to reason a more considerable opposition than that of Aerius not to mention the interruptions and extirpation in Scotland which I presume may be to them of little weight that people in their eye scarce appearing Christian And if they will account forward from the Nativity of our Lord their fifteen hundred years of universal uninterrupted Episcopal Government by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters will rise very heavily for let it be considered that the division and distribution of Churches into Parishes and Diocesses came not into the world for more than two hundred and sixty years Polid. Virg. Invent l. 4. c. 9. and untill that time small Towns and Villages had their Bishops and all Bishops were before and after that chosen by the people not by their Princes and so long there could be no Metropolitan Archiepiscopi vero su Hibernia nulli fuerunt sed tantum se invicem Episcopi consecrabant donec Johannes Papyrio Romanae sedis legatus ad venit Hic 4. Pallia in Hiberniam portavit Archiepiscopal seat nor Cathedral Episcopal Diocess And will they give an Irish man leave to tell them that Saint Patrick sent into Ireland by Eleuth rius more than two hundred years after Christ did consecrate as many Bishops as he did constitute Churches in that Kingdom three hundred and sixty five of each and that from his time to the coming in of Johannes Papyrio the Popes Legate Anno 1152. Girald Cambr. Topograph Hiber destinct 3. cap. 17. Vid. The Religion professed by the Ancient Irish in an Epistle to the late Primate Usher by Sir Christopher Sipthorpe Knight pag. 58. there were no Arch-bishopricks in that Kingdom and yet it was called Christian and if the instance may not offend them I would mind them that Bishop Usher the late Primate of Armagh in his Treatise De Primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannicarum pag. 800. doth affirm out of John Major De Gestis Scotorum That in ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian Faith by the Priests and Monks and had no Bishops before the coming of Palladius into their Countrey and after that Palladius made Bishops they had no Diocess untill Malcolme the third King of Scotland but every Bishop did exercise his Episcopal Function wherever he came who citeth also John Fordon Scotichronicon lib. 3. cap. 8. on the same account so that then we shall not find this Form of Government by Diocesan Bishops Cathedral Churches and by Arch-bishops to have been received in some Kingdoms half fifteen hundred years and what then becomes of the assurance of these learned men Moreover though the opposition of Aerius seem in their eye on inconsiderable one yet it is such as stated a principle which being once admittee as it cannot be denyed and obtained but liberty to be improved to the direction of the Government to be practised will subvert the foundation and pull down the superiority of Arch-bishops Bishop Deans and the like for if all Ministers Presbyters and Bishops be of the same order office and authority we cannot but infer Who are ye that advance your selves in the house of God and Lord it over your Brethren and Gods heritage and notwithstanding that this principle be clouded by the occasion on which it was divulged by him the mans discontent we must say that Discontent is a better Dictator than Judge and God knoweth how to make mens grudges grind out the knowledge of his truth mind and will I hope it will be deemed but a poor defence of the Popes Supreamacy in England to say that King Henry the eighth in a discontented humour did cast it off and was for it excommunicated and here the Reason is the same a great noise is made and advantage taken that Aerius was reputed an Heretick for affirming the parity of Presbyters with Bishops and yet Sir it would be well noted by whom and by what authority he was branded as an Heretick it was not by any Council or Primitive Fathers but by one only man Epiphanius though to be Reverenced in the Church yet by this administers little cause of regard I think many in Oxford will be loth to have Arminian notions more opposite to the grace of God than Aerius notions to good order publickly damned as Heresie which yet were condemned by the Synod of Dort and though that were not a general Council it wins more Authority than the censure of Epiphanius Saint Augustine therefore repeating the opinion of Aerius as recited by Epiphanius doth more modestly denominate it Proprium Dogma August de haeresibus cap. 53. and others repeating the Heresies of Aerius make no mention of this among them nor indeed was there Reason if in the Council of Trent Michael of Medina were deservedly chidden for saying History of the Council of Trent p. 591. Hierom and Austin fell into the Heresie of Aerius and affirmed the degree of a Bishop was no greater than the degree of a Priest I hope that is not Heresie in Aerius which is Orthodox in Austin Jerom and others truly Sir I think the ingenuity of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford might have led them to have considered and indeed publickly contradicted * Collected by Mr. William Prynne as an Appendix to his unbishoping Timothy and Titus the Catalogue of testimonies in all Ages evidencing Bishops and Presbyters to be one equal and the same in Jurisdiction Dignity Order and Degree whereby in five several squadrons Christ and his Apostles Ignatius Policarpus Anacletus Justin Martyr and many of the ancient Fathers Peter Lombard Gratian Hugo Cardinalis and many other Canonists and Schoolmen the Waldenses Alphonsus Castro Gersomus Bucer and a multitude of Forraign Divines and Churches our own Sedulus Anselme Beda Occham Fulk Juel Reynolds Whitaker and almost who not in every place and age are produced as thinking the same thing which in Aâ—rius is called Heresie for certainly so general a consent to a
and Archbishops of the essence and formality of the true Reformed Protestant Religion Will not the assertion thereof tend more to Schism than Scotlands supposed making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church As denying the Reformed Churches beyond the Sea to have attained to the true Reformed Protestant Religion which yet they handed over to us But what reason had these Gentlemen of Oxford to understand the Doctrine of the Church of England in such a latitude when the sence of it is limited by them who were then known to be Legislators and a power sufficient to prescribe an Oath unto which themselves subjected and were the best expositors thereof viz. the House of Commons who thus declared Whereas some doubts have been raised concerning the meaning of these words The true Reformed Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine This House doth declare that by these words was and is meant only the publick Doctrine professed in the said Church so far as it is opposite to Popery and Popish innovations And that the said words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any form of Worship Discipline and Government nor of any the Rites and Ceremonies of the said Church of England By which these Gentlemen might have understood 1. The Realm and Church of England were two different Subjects the one professing Doctrine in the other wherein also there was Doctrine tending to Popery and Popish Innovation 2. There were in the Doctrines professed by the Church of England some adjuncts of Rites Ceremonies Government or some special order of Worship which might need Reformation and were not view'd to be maintained So that according to this sence of them who prescribed both there is more of consistency than contradiction between the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant So that the manifest perjury they feared hath not so much as a seeming ground And as for the supposed contradiction of this Branch of the Covenant unto the Oath of Supremacy it will on examination vanish as an apparition a thing which so seemed but cannot be so proved For if they will not hiss me out of their Schools I will grant them their Proposition in the Oath and assumption in the Statute by them quoted and yet find a way to avoid the conclusion because a meer non sequitur on their premises and this if they will have the Argument logically resolved by denying the consequence of their major Proposition for I will grant unto them that the Oath of Supremacy doth bind us to our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted and belonging to the Kings Highness his heirs and successors or united and annexed unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm And assume with them That the King had the whole power and Authority for Reformation Order and Correction of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c. and yet deny the sequel viz. That we may not endeavour in our places and callings to reform Religion For the defence of the Kings power is no way repugnant with the duty of our particular capacity I hope a Minister may by his preaching or a Divine by his disputation in the Schools endeavour the correction and Reformation of Error and Heresie Schism or Superstition and yet not intrench on his Majesties Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so interfer with their Oath of Supremacy Yea in reference to judicial and authoritative Correction and Reformation which we will suppose can only be done by the King mens endeavor may be in their places and callings by Counsel Proposal Remonstrance Petition Supplication and the like to procure His Majesties consent and authority to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and then Sir where is the Contradiction Yet Sir if I were to dispute with a single though Senior Sophister of Oxford I would deny both Propositions the major as to its sequel or consequence as before and the assumption as that which the Statute doth not prove viz. The whole power of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for Correction and Reformation is annexed to the King and Imperial Crown of this Realm For the power by that Statute is special and particular not general and universal as themselves have cited it is viz. such Jurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Preheminences Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any c. and as the Statute proceeds Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for Visitation of any Ecclesiastical State or Persons and for Reformation c. So that the power given to the King is such a powor as Bishops Cardinals or Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Jurisdicton in themselves over both Church and Crown enjoyed and exercised This power was purely executive not Legislative over persons and particular Societies not over the Kingdom and whole Realm I presume the Gentlemen of Oxford were not ignoront of the power and Legislative Authority which the Parliaments of England ever held over their Bishops and the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical estate of this Land tying them in all their administrations of Discipline and Government to the Customs and Statutes of this Realme as they may read at large in the Statute of the Submission of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 wherein they confess many of their Canons and Constitutions be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whereby they did not only Restrain the exorbitancies and from time to time Reform the abuses of the Church but also extend the Prerogative and Jurisdiction of the King as in that Statute 1 Elizab. and Limit Restrain and Repeal it as in the case of this individual specifical power granted in the words of the Statute quoted by the Statute 17 Caroli entituled An Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 10 Elizab. concerning Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical which clause repealed is part of this very recited Paragraph and immediately annexed unto and dependent on this very grant of power and authority Nor are these Masters and Scholars of Oxford insensible that there is a vast difference between Executive and Legislative power and authority and that as no Ecclesiastical persons did ever enjoy however the Pope and his Bishops did contend for it so no King of England did ever pretend or lay claim unto the Legislative power further than allowed by Act of Parliaments who were ever Dictators of a general Reformation in the Land Church and Kingdom as at this time in the Reformation covenanted Nor can they be ignorant that it is very bad Logick from such Jurisdictions and Specifical Executive Authority to infer that the whole power of Reformation is so in the King that the Parliament may not propose or the people covenant in their places and callings to endeavor a Reformation
the Church being within the time of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or institute any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves or between the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power authority and jurisdiction and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles such difference among the Bishops it was devised by the antient Fathers of the primitive Church for the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholick Church and that either by the consent and authority or else by the permission and suffering of the Prince and civil power for the time ruling the said Fathers considering the infinite multitude of Christians so greatly encreased taking examples from the Old Testament thought it expedient to make degrees among Bishops and to limit their several Diocesses bounds of Jurisdiction and Power And then Sir this Form of Government will seem to be more Jewish Papal Paganish or at best political and civil than Apostolical the last of which the Statutes of our Kingdom do declare it to be affirming that the Arch-bishops Bishops Arch-deacons and other Ecclesiastical persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical 26. Hen 8. cap. 26.31 Henr. 8. cap. 9 10.37 Hen 8 cap. 17. 1. Ed. 6 cap. 2 1 5 8. Eliz c. 1. but by under and from the Kings Royal Majesty and Patrick Adamson Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews in Scotland Anno 1591. in his Recantation at the Synod at Fife professed sincerely ex animo That Bishops and Ministers are by the Word of God equal and the Hierarchy or Superiority of the Bishops nullo nititur verbi fundamento And I think it had been but Reason some satisfactory answer had been given to Gersom Bucer his Dissertationes de Gubernatione Ecclesiae Didoclavius his Altare Damascenum Cartwright's Exceptions Paul Bains his Diocesan Tryal Smectymnus and especially Mr. William Pryns publick and positive Challenge in the unbishoping of Timothy and Titus which I think will be ad Grecas Calendas before they think so of an University had been published as a stumbling Block to the peoples swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant when thereunto called by Parliament But it may be Sir I run too fast methinks their think so of Divine Right and Apostolical establishment is asserted very faintly and therefore it is restrained and limited with an Episcopal Aristocracy hath a fairer pretension and may lay a juster title and claim to a Divine Institution than Papal Monarchy Presbyterian Democracy or Independent Yet I must say fair pretension and comparative claims are very weak props against Parliamentary Resolves and the power of an Oath it must be plain and undeniable Divine Right must stand against them But what is that they call Episcopal Aristocracy Are not these learned men mistaken in their terms hath not Englands Episcopacy been ever deemed a Monarchy and of the same kind but lower degree with Papacy How can it be conformable to the Government of the Nation which these very men tell us is Merum Imperium an Empire Monarchy p. 11 and establish that Maxim no Bishop no King if it be an Aristocracy Whoever deemed Presbytery a Democracy Or on what colourable ground can it be so deemed doth not this Form fix the Government in the seniores and illustrior pars populi The Officers of the Church ordering all and ruling the whole Church excluding the Congregation from all Acts of Government save a shewing their just exception to any Order Office or Censure If Presbytery be a Democracy what can Independency be judged I find these learned men by the nicety of this distinction at a loss for its name as well they might and so I shall leave it and suppose a willingness in the University of Oxford to assent to Doctor Whitakers Thesis That Regimen Ecclesiae non est Monarchicum nec Aristocraticum nec Democraticum sed Democratica Monarchica Aristocratica That the Government of the Church is a Formal Aristocracy qualified with something of Monarchy which he means not to be the superiority of Prelates and Democracy by which is not meant the ruling power of the people let but this learned Doctor explain himself and Mr. Thomas Cartwright expound nay translate his words and we shall find a Government which will lay a very fair claim unto a Divine Right Si velimus Christum ipsum respiscere fuit semper Ecclesiae Regimen Monarchicum Whitak oper Tom. 2. de Rom. Pont. Quest 12. de Origin Eccles Cartwrights first Reply to Whitakers gift page 35 si Ecclesiae Presbyteros qui in Doctrina Disciplina suas partes agebant Aristocratioun si totum corpus Ecclesiae quatenus in Electione Episcoporum Presbyterorum suffragia ferebat ita tamen ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper Presbyteris servatur Democraticum which Cartwright thus renders The Church is governed with that kind of Government the Philosophers have affirmed to be the best for in respect of Christ the head not his Vicar or Superiority of single Prelates it is a Monarchy in respect of the Ancients and Pastours that govern in common all the Presbytery with like Authority among themselves not a Superiority over them it is an Aristocracy and in respect the people are not excluded but have their interest unto exception in Church-matters it is a Democracy If then these men will take down the towring power of Prelates and turn their Magisterial Throne into a Ministerial Chair and bring into the Cathedral Council of Deans and Chapters all the Presbyters and let these lofty persons stand amongst their Fellows till by common consent for common order one of them be set in the Chair to gather Suffrages regulate the Assembly declare their sentence and see to the execution of their Decrees and summon them together they shall constitute a Government which I think will not only fairly pretend unto but plainly appear to have an Apostolical Institution and Establishment and there are very many both ancient and moderne Authors of my opinion and then we need no more dispute the matter of extirpation of Prelacy for in this sense the Covenant will rather establish it Their think so of Divine Right turns into an assurance of universal uninterrupted succession of this Form of Government in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for fifteen hundred years together without any considerable opposition save that of Aerius which sprang from discontent and gain'd him the reputation of an Heretick This is Sir the old only and usual guard of Prelacy I will not deny Antiquity its due Reverence though I put not on it The Antiquity of Englands Prelacy observed nor consent unto it an authority equal with or as the Papists Idolize it above the Scriptures I confess in matters of Fact it may give a clearer conviction than direction and assert things past done rather than that they should be done and continue It is well if
Ingenuity for to him All things might be lawful but were not expedient was a Rule but their Reasons might restrain these learned men and they are five in number 1. They had by subscribing the 39. Articles testified their approbation of that government 2. Received orders from their hands 3. Petitioned the continuance thereof 4. Htld their Livelyhood under such titles and in the exercise of that Government or some part thereof 5. Had sworn as Members of such societies to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same Vnto all which I shall say very briefly 1 It is worth their enquity whether they subscribed the 39. Articles judiciously and judicially and so gave their approbation to this Government we grant that in the 39. Articles commonly published there is one viz. the 36. which relateth to the Book of Consecration of Bishops and Arch-bishops c. But that it affirmeth that Book to contain in it nothing contrary to the Word of God I find not in either the Latine or English Copy of these Articles which I have seen these learned men sure read these Articles with the Parliaments Remonstrance before mentioned and so misread them both but suppose the Article had so affirmed it had laid no bar to the alteration or extirpation of this Government for it might be as indeed all our Stattues do suggest a meer Political Civil constitution and so though an Adiaphoron not contrary any more than consonant to the Word of God and alterable at the pleasure of Englands Parliaments and then Sir with whatever judgment these Gentlemen subscribed this Article I am sure there is not much in pleading it as a Bar to the duty enjoyned by Parliament Yet I must confess I am not satisfied that the Books of ordering Priests and Deacons and Consecration of Bishops and Archbishops did contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God for I not believe nor is it evident to me by Holy Scripture or ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there hath been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons for I find no Priests in the new Testament and conceive Presbyters and Bishops to be no more than different denominations of the same order and make not different orders any more than Pastours Teachers Stewards Angels Stars and the like and if there were these orders yet it is I think contrary to the Word of God to add a fourth Arch-bishops and if they be not an order how come they to have the same consecration with Bishops a contended for order of the Ministry and how come Bishops to swear unto them obedience neither the one nor the other is common to a gradual preheminence the Speaker of the Parliament or Lord Chief Justice hath no such like Solemnity I question whether the word will allow an Ordination to some part of the Ministry and give Authority to apply one Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant and not the other nor am I clear the Deacons Office doth at all consist in Ministry of Word and Baptism and assistance at the Communion the Scripture specially points them to the poor and to serve Tables I question whether mute service in a publick solemn Assembly be not contrary to the Word of God where all as well prayer as preaching ought to tend to Edification I question whether a Magisterial and Authoritative giving the Holy Ghost peculiar to Christ who did it in reality be not contrary to the Word of God or according to the words of the Article Superstitious and ungodly And whether Ministers swearing Caronical obedience to the Bishop or Bishops to the Arch-bishops be not plainly Papal and ungodly If these learned men considered and were convinced of the consonancy of these and the like things with the Word I hope they subscribed this Article judiciously yet I must enquire how judicially I imagine the Satute of Queen Elizabeth will nos be produced as their warrant for subscription to this Article for the Articles thereby enjoyned 13. Eliz. 13. do only concern the confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments and this particle only is exclusive to Discipline and Government which by the whole current of our Laws are concluded to be Political in their nature only Ecclesiastical ratione objecti at the pleasure of the Magistrate and therefore could not be made an Article of the true Christian Faith I hope such as leave this Article out of their Creed shall not be shut out of the Christian Church Now Sir were there any force in this exception to the Covenant I would advise that subscription to be taken into second thoughts yet it is as ponderous as the next They received Orders from their hands and should ill requite them for laying their hands on them to lay to their hands to root them up and cannot tell for what That they should root them up who had laid their hands on them was not required they might continue Men Ministers it is like better Christians and more painful Preachers when they were not Bishops I hope Prelates and Prelacy were not inseparable that the one must be ruined in the removal of the other and our question is of the thing not person in which degradation was the worst they could do them who had they been affected with the dream of Richard Havering Arch-bishop of Dublin The Annals of Ireland in Cambd. Britan pag. 169. That a certain Monster heavier than the whole World stood eminently aloft upon his breast from the weight whereof he chose rather to be delivered than alone to have all the goods of the World when he waked he thought this was nothing but the Bishoprick of Dublin and so forthwith renounced it Or had they enjoyed the Spirit of Antoninus Elected Arch-bishop of Florence who refused on fear of hazarding his salvation to accept it and when thundred into it by the counsel of his friends frowns of the Magistrates and the Popes Bull kept only eight persons no stately furniture in his house no Coach and Horses and kept his usual method of devotion in his Family saying They should do him a special favour to thrust him fram his Bishoprick wherein he continued with very great Regret They would acknowledge a kindness done unto them and yet were it an unkindness these Gentlemen were acquitted from the ingratitude they have petitioned their continuance and were not able to withstand the pleasure of their Superiors on whose pleasure their whole enjoyments did depend nor had they been without Parallel if not a plea of Justice For the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England Rochester excepted in the time of Henry the eighth had voluntarily without the command of the King or Parliament sworn to root up the Pope the Apex of this Episcopacy from whom they had received their Palls Properties Power Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 564. 565 566 567. I had almost said Papacy Their third Reason I pass as an
signification yet by long and common appropriation as obvious to vulgar capacity to denote a special kind of government in the Church as tyranny in reference to the Common-wealth Yet it is restrained by a more particular denomination Hierarchy holy government by the order of holy high Priesthood as some do fancy and specifical description by its enumerated substantial parts Archbishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters in which it formally existed and separable adjuncts Commissaries Chancellors and other Officers depending thereupon so that these not in sensu composito that the removal of any one Officer might suffice but complexo the Government conaining all or any of these is the object sworne against appears to every unprejudiced Reader and so it squares with the Act expressed by the most significant word which could be devised viz. Extirpate which certainly every ordinary reader knoweth to amount unto more than mutation by dismembring some separable adjuncts thereupon dependent as Commissaries or Chancellors or by limitation and regulation which yet makes the Bishops holy hands essential to all acts of confirmation of Catechumenists or Ordination of Ministers or Jurisdiction in the Church though there be never so many grave learned and pious Presbyters and Pastors a few of whom may be his Lordships Council without any intrinsecal authority in themselves and without him whilst all men know to extirpate signifieth una cum stirpe evellere to pluck up by the very root In this point if the words of the Oath were not sufficiently clear and the Lawyers rule Lex currit cum praxi may point us to a Comment The Petition opposed by the * Bishop Hall Remonstrant defended by Smectymnuus presented to the Parliament the debates many speeches and resolves in the Houses which preceded and produced the advice of the Assembly of Divines Ordinances of Parliament and Oath of His most Sacred Majesty as King of Great Britain in pursuit of the Covenant which ensued upon the swearing the same hath written this sense in such legible Characters that all may run and read it And although I would not require any thing more I can take nothing lesse because God alloweth no abatements in an Oath than what hath been sworn though it should appear good and profitable but not necessary necessitate precepti divini However others may flagge and faulter or fall off from the Covenant I must tell the assertors of the Presbyterial Government that if they have no conscience they are hedged into the observance of it on the account of Credit Reasons of the present judgment of the University of Oxford concerning the Solemn League and Covenant Sect. 7 p. 21. for the University of Oxford as with them combin'd to their reproach from the Jesuites and Sectaries hath charged it to be their property to swear one thing in their words and in their own sense to mean another to invent Oaths and Covenants for the Kingdom dispence vvith them vvhen they please swear and forswear as the wind turneth like a godly Presbyter which if any of them will dare to verifie they shall give me leave to mourn alone for their iniquity for by Gods grace my soul shall not enter into the secrets of an Art so sinful and shameful before God and men but study that Rule Be vvise as Serpents but innocent as Doves Courteous Reader I have held thee too long in the threshold I shall stay thee no longer save to tell thee if in any thing I seem indiscreet it is in venturing something of Answer to the Reasons of the University of Oxford which every simple Anti-covenanter and scurrilous Pamphleter not able by the least Casuistical consideration to discharge the Covenant do revive and run into as the Gordian knot never to be loosed and to which my Antagonist Dr. Gauden beaten out of his own Divinity doth retreat as to his impregnable Castle of confidence which may indeed savour something of arrogancy in any single opponent by whose over-matched weaknesse the cause may suffer Give me leave to tell thee the dread hereof hath smothered in silence what is now drawn out by the reputation of unansvverable Reasons they have received amongst the enemies of the Covenant I cannot live by an implicite faith but in a case of conscience must examine the considerations of the most learned Society General Councils are more authoritative and authentick than any single University yet they have erred and their errors have been detected by single persons And how foolish soever I may seem I have so much wit as to know Timidi ignavi nunquam erigent Trophaeum Honor attends not Dastards And again Trophaeum ferre me à forti viro pulchrum est sin autem vincar vinci à tali nullum est probrum It is an honor to Scanderbeg to beat not any shame to be beaten by the numerous Turks If I be vanquished by their more learned pens it can be to me no disgrace nor to truth any great dammage whilst my being over-poured in so good a cause will engage more able men who have any zeal for or conscience of the Oath of God which lieth on us our King and Kingdom to appear for the relief and defence thereof In expectation of which I cast my self on thy candor and ingenuity Zach. Crofton ΑÎΑΛΗΨΙΣ ΑÎΕΛΗΦΘΗ The Fastning of St Peter's Fetters OR The Solemn League and Covenant and its Conscience-binding Power Asserted and Vindicated c. in an Epistle to the Right Worshipful Sir Lawrence Bromfield Knight and Colonel in LONDON The PREFACE Right Worshipful IF without suspition of blasphemy and irreverence towards Sacred men and Sacred writ I may pursue Dr. John Gauden's Metaphor I cannot but tell you mens prophane neglect and contempt of the Covenant did not a little perplex me but that Solemn and Sacred Oaths should be deemed St. Peters Bonds and that Protestant Divines dreaming of an Apostolical Priority should by Popish Arguments attempt his Release to the Re-establishment of the Papatum alterius mundi as it was is and must be owned of Episcopacy in Lawn sleeves exercising Paternal Authority over their brethren as the peoples * Dr. John Ganden's Analysis of the Covenant p. 17. equals and inferiors because in black coats did much more afflict my spirit Sir in sence hereof I did send out my Analepsis after the Doctors Analysis and made bold to withstand St. Peter to his face for he was to be blamed and indeed condemned as * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word in Gal. 2.11 doth signifie and brought him back to prison it must be so esteemed with silence hearkning for his joyful songs under Christ his Masters yoke and in those holy Stocks and resolved submissively to wait on God to perfect the peace and purity of his Church in England and plead the quarrel of the Covenant but the Grating Files of some more willing than able to dismiss my prisoner have disturbed my rest Truly Sir I love St. Peter better in
that thereof they were still perswaded Sir what effect had been wrought on their consciences I cannot tell I will hope they were not seared or shut up by a resolution of non-perswasion to the contrary yet had I been amongst them with submission I must have expostulated with them and enquire Whether they had not subscribed to the use of the Common Prayer and form in the said Book prescribed in publick prayer Enjoyned to be subscribed by every Minister before he be ordained in Canons of 1603. Ca. 36. and NONE OTHER Did none of these Masters publickly pray in St Maryes in Oxford and other Churches before and after their Sermons Were not such prayers publick prayer Did they at such times use the Common Prayer If not did not their consciences mind them of their subscribed promise solemnly made in entring on so holy a calling Are not NONE OTHER words as fully exclusive of their own forms extemporary or premeditate as can be expressed Admit we this Common Prayer to be lawful yea necessary is not this exclusive subscription a plain limitation of the Spirit rejection of the gift of prayer and robbing the Church of Ministerial parts unto prayer as well as preaching to the edification thereof Did Christ when he prescribed the most perfect prayer tye his Disciples to use that and None other Can any rationally-religious man subscribe this promise and approve it to be agreeable to the VVord of God and stand perswaded it is not contrary thereunto Secondly Is it agreeable to the Word of God to affix a sentence of mans conception and framing to divine service and denominate it a Sentence of Scripture In the Rubrick of the Common Prayer the Priest is appointed to read one of these sentences of Scripture which follow The very first of which is At what time soever a sinner repenteth him of his sin from the bottom of his heart I will put all his wickednesse out of my remembrance saith the Lord the which is referred in the Margine as are the following sentences to their places unto Ezek. 18.21 As is Dr. Boyes in his Exposition of the Liturgy p. 1. 22 to say nothing of the effect though accidental of this supposed Scripture how many have been deceived really believing it to be a Sentence of Scripture when it is not found in all the Bible Methinks these men should have observed how our late Masters had corrected this gross and obvious fault in the Scotch Liturgy before they had thus confidently told the world They were perswaded there is nothing in the worship of England which is not agreeable to the VVord of God Thirdly In the VVorship of England much of Canonical Scripture is omitted and never to be read a fault complained of by the first Compilers of the Common-Prayer-Book and much of the Ap crypha Vide. The Preface of it vain false and ridiculous is appointed to be publickly read the great Bible-Translation of the Psalms is thrust out The titles of the Psalmes Psa 72. Psa 14. Psa 105.28 and a most corrupt Translation of them omitting some whole sentences adding whole verses and falsly translating many places and Texts is affixed unto the Common-Prayer-Book and made part of it Some part of Scripture is dignified above other parts thereof the Gospel must be honoured with the standing up of the people the Epistle no way different in the matter Christ crucified but only in the name and manner of Revelation from the Gospel is slighted Will the Gentlemen of Oxford say this is agreeable to the VVord of God They must prove it for we shall not believe them and the rather for that this gross abuse is palliated by this false profession in the Preface to this Book That nothing is ordained to be read but the pure VVord of God the holy Scriptures or that which is evidently grounded thereupon Vide. The Anatomy of the Service-book p. 18. and the rather for that we find the Common-Prayer-Book condemned in respect of these particulars by Dr. Spark no mean Son of the Church Fourthly Will these Masters and Scholars stand perswaded that the extraordinary Solemn Worship appointed by the Common-Prayer-Book unto holy dayes and their Eves is agreeable to the Word of God wherein every particular holy-day hath its distinct and particular Collects Epistles and Gospels as its Solemn Service appointed not to insist on the supposed influence of that reputed sanctity on the Six or Seaven days following directing the same service to be impertinently continued as in the Feast of the Nativity Easter Whitsuntide Ascension and others nor the unwaerrantable preheminence given to some parts of Scripture above others or the irrational denomination of some Prophetical and Historical portions of Scripture Epistles all which are well urged by many Non-conformists I would enquire what part of Sacred Writ stamps Sanctity on Wednesday and Friday more than the other four dayes of the week and sets them into a parity with Sunday to retain their Dialect that the same more Solemn service shall be read on those dayes as on that day By what Scripture-waâ—â— mediate or immediate are other dayes besides the Lords day made holy or sanctified in honour of the Saints so as in their nature to interdict mens labour in their lawful calling engage men to the exercises of Religion as oft as they return and become Subjects of that Solemn Service which may not on other dayes be offered unto God Is not a Religious owning and observation of some time as not appointed by the God of our time whose sole Prerogative it is to make it Solemn and Holy time to be Religiously employed a plain and formal Superstition repugnant to Gospel-Rules Gal. 4.10 Coloss 2.16 I am not ignorant that some holy-dayes have been of ancient and universal observation in the Church and have laid claim to Apostolical tradition and occasioned much controversie in the Church but I stand unsatisfied in their institution I deny not the just authority of the Church or Christian Magistrate over our time but I think there is a vast difference between time as the subject and as the adjunct of Religion God only can make it the first humane authority may appoint holy Fasting and holy Feasting those transient acts of Worship dependant on and subservient unto Gods dispensations of providence to his people and so may determine the second time like the dayes of Purim as a necessary adjunct to those acts of Worship but to make holy-dayes Subjects of Solemn Sacred service I have not seen any Commission that doth authorize the Church thereunto Eminent Saints call for the esteem of the Church but the keeping of them in a Calendar and appointing them their several holy-dayes sets them a pitch too high and shews the Church partial respecters of persons having some in admiration and slighting others no less deserving or subjects here unto an intolerable burden by necessitating every day to be Holy The Nativity Circumcission Passion
in Baptism Surplice in divine service supposed to be established Or those since pressed as the Bowing at the Name of Jesus Turning Tables into Altars and Bowing to them and placing on them Candlesticks and Tapers The Consecration of Churches and the like though I should which I confess I cannot admit what is pretended in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book that they are apt to stirre up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified yet I must enquire by what authority are they appointed the highest pretended is the Church and I see no Commission the Church hath to appoint such things If I mistake not the power of the Church is declarative executive and Ministerial not judicial and magisterial She may publish the matter and prescribe the Order of Gods Worship but not constitute or ordain new matter though never so much tending to edification against which she is expresly barr'd by the 2d Commandment And if she hath power to continue our Ceremonies because significant why or how shall those be excluded which are more antient and significant Such as were the baptizing for the Dead putting Cream and Honey into the mouth of the baptized insufflation and spitting at the Devil and the World and coming to baptism in a white Garment which was left behind and profitably produced as a pledge against Elpidophorus when Apostatized from the Faith in which he had been baptized and many such like Tertul Coron mil. pa. 449. Contra Marcion lib. 7. p. 155. which Tertullian mentioneth as used in the Church in the Year of our Lord 62. in the times of the Apostles than which the use of the Cross cannot be more ancient nor is it indeed so ancient If then the Church have not a power to ordain them on what basis do all our Ceremonies stand save that prophane Maxime No Ceremonies no Bishop Before it be determined that these Ceremonies are agreeable to the Word of God I wish it may be determined whether the appointment and Religious exercise of matter significant and so in it self tending to edification not instituted by Jesus Christ be not the very formality of Superstition Seventhly and Lastly Is it agreeable to the Word of God in ordination to divide the work of the Ministry and give authority to apply one of the Sacraments and not the other to baptize but not administer the Lords Supper otherwise than as Assistant to him who hath ministerial power of consecration as it is done in the Ordering of Deacons Again is it agreeable to the Word to denominate Gospel Ministers Priests which properly relate to a Sacrifice and Altar If so why did our late Masters altar the Title into Presbyters in the Scotch Liturgy It is agreeable to the Word that the Ministers of Jesus Christ swear or Solemnly promise obedience unto their fellow Ministers under the notion of an ordinary and Cheif Minister It is reason they keep order and be subject to the Assembly but parity of Office and Authority admits not of obedience Is it agreeable to the Word that Bishops sweare or Solemnly promise obedience unto the Archbishops If so why not Archbishops to Cardinals or Patriarchs and they to the Pope Is it because the Sea bounds our Papacy Is it in the forme of ordination agreeable to the Word that the Bishop ordaining do Magisterially repeat the words of Jesus Christ who had a power and did effect it viz. Receive thou the Holy Ghost Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained as actually giving the Holy Ghost as a qualification for that Office and after this to give authority of administration with a Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to minister the Holy Sacraments Is it agreeable to the Word of God by a special Solemn and Religious act to Consecrate unto a degree convenient and only necessary for the method and Order of an Assembly as if it were and indeed however others think by reason of the variation of the word I believe it was intended to be an actual Ordination to a distinct Office of Ministry in the Church like the Cheif Priest-hood among the Jews I am at a loss in Civil or Religious Policy to finde a warrant for so Sacred a forme in an advancement to a degree yet I will not deny the formalities of the Chaire Is it agreeable to the Word of God that excommunication the last and greatest of Censures do proceed without admonition and be inflicted ipso facto before obstinacy the proper and only ground of it be detected much lesse convicted and that so dreadful a Censure be denounced on the non-observance of Rites and Ceremonies declared indifferent and other light and frivolous occasions nay on the very discharge of duty As suppose an exercise in a Market-Town Canons of 1603. Can. 72. or a Fast kept in the Parish Church on the occasion of some special exigency of that Parish or by a Minister in a private family whose domestick concernments may call for the house and family to mourn apart and intreat the assistance of their special particular friends in prayer and yet in all these cases it is directed in the Canons made by the Convocation in London of which the Bishop of London sate President Anno 1603. Sir these things and such like in the Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of England are obvious and have been often urged as needing Reformation and as Reasons Apologizing for the Non-subscription of the Sober Learned and Pious Non-conformists ever since the Reformation as by Mr. Thomas Cartwright the Ministers of Devonshire and Cornwal the Ministers within the Diocess of Lincolne and many others whose Printed Books could not but have been seen by at least some of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford and might have convinced their judgments that they had done amiss by their personal subscription to approve that all things in the four specified particulars were agreeable to the Word of God Sixthly Their confidence that all things in these four specified particulars are agreeable to the Word of God and need no Reformation may well engage them to conclude that they are much better than those of Scotland which they wear to swear to preserve For the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government in the Church of Scotland differeth in all the particulars mentioned and so must needs be dissonant if these be AGREEABLE TO THE WORD OF GOD Yet Sir methinks the good grounds on which they thought so might for their clearer Apology and satisfaction of other souls called to swear the same Covenant have been specified and declared the rather for that they seemed to be in a strait when they pointed unto the accounting of Bishops Antichristian and indifferent Ceremonies unlawful the making their Discipline the mark of a true Church and the setting up thereof the erecting of the
Remonstrance they had declared to be so oppressive and dangerous if they will evade the influence compass and danger of the fourth Article of this Covenant in the first case I dare secure them from it in reference to the second 5. But the main thing which concerneth the Church of England is her foundation which if it be removed what shall the Righteous do And these serious Casuists do tell us That the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England and they proved it by the Law for Gospel without doubt they had none to prove it that laying the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation and Christ an enemy to Prelacy the corner stone and in their Margin they cite the Statute of Carlile 25. Ed. 1. Recited 25. Ed 3. on which they profess They dare not by extirpation of Prelacy strike at the foundation of the Church which they are bound to uphold Truly Sir their care of the Church and its foundation is commendable but how comes it to pass that this Form of Government must be made the foundation of the Church without any danger of Schism by them to whom Scotlands making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church did seem so much tending to Schism Must the Government of England be a fundamental point of Religion the very esse of the Church and may not Scotland make her Government a note of distinction Turpe est doctori c. Sir we cannot deny the proofs cited and declaring the holy Church of England to be founded in the estate of Prelacy but I cannot but stand amazed to find men making Apologies propounding doubts professing a serious desire to have conscience satisfied so much to content themselves and cozen their Readers with plain fallacies such Sophisme as better beseems the Logick than Divinity Schools and common Halls than the Regent house Two things are to be explained What they mean by holy Church and what foundation this is to which the Statutes relate These learned men wel know that by holy Church in the acceptation of that Age and of those very Acts the Statute of Edward the first at Carlile and the Statute of Edward the third was meant the Pompous Popish Ecclesiastical State whereof Abbies and Priories were no small Members as in Magna Charta and other Grants of Kings which had then such influence on the Civil State as that no Act of Parliament could bind or be deemed valid without the ratifying censure of holy Church whose manner was by her authority to curse all that should not keep such Lawes as were agreed I wish the Masters and Scholars would speak out and tell us whether they think they are bound to uphold this holy Church or that the Church of Christ may not yea do not subsist in England now holy Church is driven out the Church simply Christian is very different from the pompous popish holy Church Again Sir the foundation mentioned in these Statutes is sutable to the Fabrick Foxe his Acts and Monuments p. 22. holy Churches viz. the temporal endowments whereby she was made so pompous the Lands Mannors and large Revenues given by the King or Nobles of the Land as the question occasioning the same doth plainly evidence which was Whether the exactions of the first fruits of Churches and Abbies and all Benefices in England and the profit of vacancies by Pope Clement were just and as the very words and scope of the Statute of 25. Edward 3d. doth plainly declare providing for the advousance and disposal of all Benefices and the profits thereof in manner as the founders that is first donors had established and so the Prelacy in which it was founded is an Independency as to Rome and a sole Power and Prerogative which England had free and within her self in respect of which in the very words of the Statutes themselves it is said The Bishop of Rome usurping the Seigniores of such Possessions and Benefices doth give and grant the same to Aliens which did not and Cardinals which might not dwel in England as if he had been Patron or Advowe of the said Benefices as he was not of right after the Law of England so that this Prelacy is purely Political and the foundation more profitable than pious could these learned men be so absurd as to make the very being of the Church to stand on such a foundation were there not Churches of Christ before Patrons Possessons and Presentations and may they not be when these large endowments are taken away from the places to which they are affixed This Prelacy will determine the Church of England by the fall of Monasteries to have been shaken in the foundation and by vertue of this Political Prelacy the Kings of England have given the possessions of Bishopricks to their Chancellours Treasurers Secretaries Kinsmen meer Lay-persons for increase of their means Pryns Catalogue of Testimonies for the parity of Presbyters and Bishops p. 16 17 18. and have kept the Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Seas void for 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 15 20. and sometimes 30. years together by what loadstone do these learned men think the holy Church did subsist when her Prelates her foundation in their sense was wanting or can they make us believe Denmark or Scotland have lost or the Reformed Churches never had the being of a Church of Christ because they never had or have expelled their Episcopal Prelacy Ecclesiastical Prelacy like the Petrae and Rupes as in the time of King Henery the third have ever been such swelling foundations to the Church and in the State that they have constrained the Kings and Parliament of England as of all other Nations in all Ages to exercise an high Prelacy over them by strict Laws and severe exactions to keep them within their bounds and at last to Covenant the extirpation thereof wherein the Oxford Reasons would make us believe we not only pull an old house about our ears but destroy the very Church if we have not wit enough to see how they would cosen us by the Law of man instead of the Law of God and a false gloss on fair words Having found so little weight in what is urged from the Government by Episcopacy of the estate of the Church of England we shall not expect much in what is incumbent upon themselves against their Covenanting to endeavour to extirpate this kind of Government yet that little we shall consider and it relates unto their personal capacities in their third exception or more publick Obigations in their fifth exception In reference to their personal capacities they say They are not satisfied how it can stand with justice ingenuity or humanity to require the extirpation of this Government Oxford Reasons third exception against extirpation of Prelacy unless it had been proved unlawful what Sir if it had been proved inexpedient it would have been consistent with Saint Pauls Justice Humanity and
expression of their affection only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty And for the fourth and fifth That they held their livelyhoods by such titles and were sworn to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons and publick much more particular societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind and so their plea in this amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished unless they prove Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters to be built on a better foundation which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned Their fifth exception is In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King Oxford Reasons fifth Exception to the 2d Article of the Covenant and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the Oath of Supremacy Coronation Oath The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate The â—greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom Unto which I answer briefly That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons and that by the Oath of Supremacy and the protestation of the fifth of May they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate and Jurisdiction we freely grant but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. I see not the danger of disloyalty or injury to the King or double perjury to our selves or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects distributively or particularly considered no sober man will deny or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour Power and Authority with which the Collective Body of the Nation the three Estates in Parliament Assembled in respect of which the Lords and Commons Methodiet Majestatis causa apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord no Regular man will deny and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice so that the Judges are by and from Him and in His Name and Authority and so all Submission Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him no good Statist or Civilian will deny and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Ratione objecti or circa Ecclesiam the Executive Administration about not in the Church within His Dominions in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power no Free-born Subject Good Christian or Protestant will deny but that He is so Supream as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political but belonging to the Church such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith in such a Form and Method of Articles such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship and such a National Discipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm so as that the People in Parliament Assembled may not debate consult conclude concerning them and sedente Parliamâ—â—to put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation as in other Affairs of the Nation I think no Loyal Subject Wise Politician Good Statesman or True-born English-man will affirm for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church no less than of the Civil State and the thirty nine Articles Form of Common Prayer and the Government of the Church lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction and the Parliament in the Remonstrance of December 1641. owned and cited by these learned men do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof doth oppose the King to the Pope and * That is to say under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within her Majesties Dominions or Countries of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal as no Forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Admon Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy quinto Elizab. primo Forraign power not to the Parliament and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or authority which heretofore hath been and may be lawfully exercised which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman in his late learned Speech concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily did declare the King to be Supream that is beyond the Coercive power of His people but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast so as to Rule at His own Will and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes quas populus elegerit as the people shall choose so that His Majesties Supremacy is not denied when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes Resolves Orders or imposed Oaths to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and administer His Supremacy being purely executive and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour Estate and Jurisdiction of the King may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy as to this or that particular and in this or that species inconsistent with or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly understood And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant keep and confirm the Laws Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King Saint Edward and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical priviledges c. which
capacity may run and read it if he know any thing of the late Hierarchy in this Church Dr. Gauden hath appeared no less willing to suppose and suggest the same Ambiguities in his Analysis to which I have before Answered in my Analepsis and he that hath but half an eye cannot but see that the very and whole frame of Government by Arch-deacons Prebends Chapters Deans Bishops and Arch-bishops whereby all Government which belongs to Presbyters in Common was engrossed by a few pretended Ministers to Cathedral Churches and a Superiority of Office and Order above Presbyters not ordained by God or consented to by themselves was exercised is utterly to be abolished the which is so clearly expressed that it can admit of no evasive Salvoes The next Ambiguity is imagined by the Masters and Scholars of Oxford to be in the fourth Article in the word Malignants The Fourth Ambiguity charged on the Covenant and they enquire who are to be accounted Malignants as if it were left in its latitude to be understood by every mans private fancy whilst it is expressely limited and explained in the Article it self such as have been or shall be Malignants by hindring Reformation of Religion dividing the King from his people or one Kingdom from another so that the Malignity predicated is described and specified by the formality of it but those learned men know not how farre the hindring Reformation of Religion may be extended To which I say it matters not unto the discovery of a Malignant for they will not deny both these to admit majus and minus if Reformation be hindred it is Malignity which is in degree more or less according to the measure of that obstruction which is made Again they know not what are meant by the Supream Judicatories of both Kingdoms sure they will not pretend to ignorance in the signification they know well what a Judicatory is and wherein Supream almost every Englishman knoweth the sence of these Roman terms I believe their doubt was which be the Supream Judicatories and the words can be construed no otherwise than to mean those to which the other Courts of Judgement are subject and from which there is no appeal if they please to ask Lawyers I presume they will tell them it is the Parliament yet this is not necessary to be known to the expounding of the words of the Covenant These are Oxford Reasons sect 6. p. 17 18. Sir the ambiguous terms which in the judgment of these learned men are of a dark and doubtful construction whether really and in themselves let rational men judge others they do stick at but profess the use men have made thereof doth occasion it they well know false glosses male interpretations and a strained sence may by wicked men be put on the plainest text yet it doth not lose its genuine and proper signification especially in an Oath wherein some men are willing to wrest it with rigour beyond its scope others to writh themselves out of its just obligation I shall be free to tell them that no Rules of right Reason will justifie the rigorous sence put on the third Article in the Case of the King by Mr. Challoner though in a speech in Parliament nor the Laxe sence put on the second Article in the Case of Prelacy by Dr. John Gauden though unto the Loosing of St. Peters bonds nor will the words of the Covenant warrant the one or the other But such ambiguities are made according to mens wills minds fancies and lusts not found in the words which are clear and plain to every common capacity These supposed ambiguities are not more visible to have been imagined without any real ground in the words of the Covenant than the suggested contradictions in it self the learned men of Oxford do charge the Covenant to be an Oath in which one part is contradictory to another but with Reverence may I tell them one part is confined to their breasts or to such to whom they shew it Oxford Reasons sect 6. p. 16. for it goeth not abroad with the Covenant as will appear in the very naming of their supposed suggested contradictions which are these 1. To preserve as it is without change 1. Contradiction charged on the Covenant and yet to reform and alter and not to preserve one and the same Reformed Religion In what Articles of the Covenant this contradiction lieth they do not tell us nor can I see it the Reformed Religion in Scotland is to be preserved and Reformation of Religion in England endeavored Are these opposites and contraries were there not Doctrins Worship Discipline and Government in England which were no part of the Reformed Religion and cannot these be altered and abolished whilst that is preserved where then is the contradiction 2. Absolutely and without exception to preserve 2 Contradiction charged on the Covenant and yet upon supposition to extirpate the self-same thing viz. the present Religion of the Church of Scotland I want Sir their eyes to read this contradiction the first part to preserve is legible in the Covenant but to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland I read not Oh but they tell us it is on a supposition but I suppose that supposition must be expressed in plain terms in the Covenant to make a contradictory part thereof The Extirpation covenanted relates to Popery Prelacy Errour Heresie Schisme c. which of those can we suppose the present Religion of Scotland to be they will bring good Compurgators for every of them I know the University did suppose * Reason sect 4 p. 4. there were some things in the Church of Scotland which to their thinking did tend to schism and superstition yet they dare not charge it do but suppose it and that not to be but tend toward superstition and schism and they do not affirm them neither to be the Religion of Scotland such supposed extirpation may suppose a contradiction justly deserving to be charged to be a suppositum non supponendum Their next Contradiction is as clear a supposition as this 3. Contradiction charged on the Covenant to reform Church-Government in England and Ireland according to the Word of God and yet to extirpate that we are perswaded is according to the Word of God here it is visible the contradiction is between the Covenant and their perswasion not one part against another part of it self how well-grounded their perswasion is we have before enquired I shall therefore only tell them it is not fair play to beg the question and on their own perswasion to arraign the Covenant as an Oath contradictory to it self yet The next is of the very same nature 4. Contradiction charged on the Covenant to extirpate heresie schismes and prophaneness and yet to extirpate the Government we conceive the want of which is the chief cause of all evils and the restoring and continuance of which the proper and effectual remedy Sure