speak of to make good his cause against them We may also infer if the difference be so little as he acknowledgeth as indeed it is not much then may we sure infer that if the Ordination of the one be compleat the Ordination of the other cannot be effentially defective Augustine is impertinently cited by you Sine nostro officio est plebi certa pernities Without our without the Episcopal office there is certain ruin to the people For though Augustine were a Bishop and wrote to a Bishop as you say yet by that without our office he plainly means the office of the Ministery in general not of Episcopacie For he makes it lawful to flee in that Epistle as Paul did when there be others to look to the Church Fugiant saith he ubi ab alijs qui non ita requiruntur non deseratur Ecclesia sed praebeant cibaria consenvis suis qui aliter vivere non possunt Let them flee where the Church is not forsaken of others that have not such an eye upon them but they will minister spiripual food to their fellow servants which otherwise cannot live Now what were those others not Bishops for there were not many of them in one City or Countrey but Presbyters But now you will prove it by the Protestation and Covenant First by the Protestation You have vowed in the presence of Almighty God to maintain the true reformed Protestant Religion expressed in Doctrine of the Church of England Add I pray you against all Poperie and Popish innovations And you must remember again presently upon the framing of the protestation there was an Explanation put forth before it was taken in the Countrey or Citie that under the Doctrine of the Church of England the Discipline then in the Church of Egland was not included So your Argument from the Protestation is of no value But yet let us see what you can say for this out of the Doctrine of the Church of England First the ordinary way to heaven is by the Word and Sacraments No man may preach and administer the Sacrament but he that is lawfully called and sent none are lawfully called and sent but they onely who are called and sent by those who have authority Bishops and onely Bishops have authority to send in this kinde Article 39. Here you play leger-demain for the Article holds forth the way of ordination by the Book of Consecration to be a lawful way but not the only lawful way For the Composers of those Articles knew very well that there was another way of ordination in other Churches whom they alwaies held as sisters which they did not with the Papists condemn though the Article approve the English way and that being held forth as a lawful not the onely lawful way it hinders not but others may be authorized to ordain as in other Reformed Churches and therefore if the Protestation for the maintenance of the Doctrine of the Church of England were without exception against the Discipline it will not prove your no Bishop no Priest The Book you say was composed in the dayes of King Edward the sixth by those holy men who after were blessed Martyrs But these men I must tell you were not of your minde that the distinction of Bishops from Presbyters was any other then what Jerome had taught them by humane custome * Dr Downam in answer to his reply is driven to this If the Bishops better informed concernning their functions had now reformed their judgements that is to hold their offices not by humane but Divine disposition In his answer to the Replyers Preface who had prest him with the judgement of Whitguift and Jewel nor held the power of the keyes belonged onely to them for in this Book of ordination they charge the Presbyter not only with care in Word and Sacraments but the Discipline of Christ too And whereas you add That the Articles were confirmed 13. Elizabeth and subscription enjoyned You should remember it was with limitation so far as they contained the Doctrine of the Church not the discipline You conclude thus far with the Protestation But yet a little further I pray you For the Protestation adds that the Doctrine of the Church of England is to be maintained against all Popery Now you may finde in Bellarmins lib. de Clericis your argument of no Bishop no Priest so no Sacrament so no Church wherein all Protestant-writers oppose him English and others and therefore surely the Doctrine of the Church of England rightly understood condemns your position which is a position in Popery to overthrow Protestant Churches CHAP. IV. PARAG. 2. Where in is shewed that the National Covenant doth not engage to uphold Episcopacy In Answer to Doctor Boughens fift Chapter IN your fift Chapter you attempt to prove that the solemn league covenant engageth to maintain Episcopacy I might tell you this is nothing to me nor to the matter for whatever you fancie of the Covenant they that framed it will follow it in their own sence and if any Covenanters be of that minde as you are that not your but moderated Episcopacie that is a Super-intendencie over a Presbyterie be neerest the word of God yet they were not so considerable as to be able to make peace without abrogation of Episcopacie nor without peace to preserve King and Kingdom If they could then my Treatise were answered by change of circumstances that argues the lawfulness of the Kings condescention chiefly in that circumstance But to the matter it self you have not nor do you here bring any thing to satisfie First Parag. 1 2 3. You come with your Crambe his coctâ That no salvation but by hearing and Sacraments nor these without mission The Apostles were sent of Christ and they sent others Titus and Timothie to ordain Ministers To all which I have answered before and in part cleared it That the Apostles and Timothy and Titus their assistansts as Evangelists were extraordinarie officers and ceased and that the onely ordinary officers now are Pastors and Teachers Ephes 4.11 Touching whom the Apostle gives direction 1 Tim. 5. Titus 1. under the name of Bishops and Elders and these are Successors of the Apostles to all that power that is ordinarie and neceslarie in the Church and among these ther 's by Gods law no prioritie but of gifts and order delegated by election But for any Bishops that are of the same order with the Apostles it s a strange and groundless notion Almost all Divines tell you that Apostleship was an extraordinarie office that ceased and though an Apostle may be said allusively to be a Bishop yet a Bishop may not be said to be an Apostle yet these things you over with again in this Chapter and tell us of two sorts of Apostles the Apostles of Christ and the Apostles of the Churches Philip. 2.25 2 Cor. 8.23 Whereas I have shewed you that for Epaphroditus he is said there either to be a messenger onely from
orbi commune saith Beza in respon ad Sarav de grad Minist pag. ult But who knows not the great defect amongst us of congruous maintenance for Parochiall Pastors by whom the work of the Ministrie is chiefly to be performed And if those large revenues of the Prelates were directed to supply with sufficient maintenance all the defective Parishes in England there would be no danger of sacriledg And this would not be to ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages and turn pomp into use and impediments into helps A work for which following generations should not need to pitie the king as put upon it by misfortune but rise up and call him blessed whose many other disasters ended in so good and usefull a work Had the motives of Henry the 8. been as honest to cast off Papall jurisdiction as the act was holy and the improvement of Abbey lands as conformable to divine law as the dissolution of Abbeys to the rules of Divine wisdom He might not only have been honourable in our Annals but if I may so speak a Saint in our Calender It was the circumstances of actions in themselves glorious which made them a dishonour to him though advantagious to the Church which circumstances being avoided in the thing in question God and good men will highly approve it which is the only reall and regardable honour Thus far my first opponent CHAP. IX Wherein is shewed that the converting of Bishops Lands to maintain preaching-Ministers would not be sacriledg but a good work in answer to Doctor Boughen's 15. Chapter I Come now to answer to your 15. Chapter wherein you dispute the Case whether it be lawfull to confer Bishops Lands on Presbyters and first you say the Church is like our Saviour Christ between two theeves Independents and Presbyterians but neither of them for our Saviour But the best of it is your tongue is no slander for if preaching Christ be being for Christ I dare boldly affirm that the most of either of those that dislike Episcopacie are far more for Christ then you and your Prelates a few only excepted and of them the more they be for Christ the less violent usually for Bishops especially for your apostle-Apostle-Bishops which they account a fancie After you say I like theft so I and my fellow Presbyterians may be gainers but your position is false I abhor theft as much as you do nor do I look at the gain of my self or Presbyterians but of the Church of God for I am no pluralist whatever D. B. is nor do I nor many other Presbyters expect any more means if this should be but that the Church may have more Presbyters apt to rule well and labour in the word and doctrine and be examples to the flock we having found in experience that scandalous livings occasion scandalous Ministers And this we think is in the power of king and Parliament to do without theft The revenues annext to Cathedrals being intended for the best good of the Church But Parag. 2. You acknowledg I am against sacrilegious alienation but I and Master Beza cannot prevent it Who can help it We have cleared our own souls yet if the Prelates would have consented to resignation when this case was first presented I verily believe that dishonourable alienation had been prevented Parag. 3. You confess I would fain set a fair gloss upon a detestable fact But every thing is not detestable which you call so that which would tend to have Christ more preacht would be profitable to the Church and acceptable to God For Ordination we have spoken before and shewed that Presbyters have as much power from God to ordain as your Prelates and are as good Bishops onely the other by custom gradatim have rob'd them We shall have a choyce peece when you come to examine Divine right I shall wish the Divines to be more careful to provide patience to bear your railings then perspicacity to discern your subtilties For you are not like to trouble their heads with much of the latter Parag. 4. You say If there be a diversion of the waintenance who shall make the conveyance and When it s made it s not valid without the proprietary and that is God c. and what is separated to holy use cannot return to common Good but what is given to God may be improved to the utmost for God and that 's the aim and would be the issue of the diversion â—poken of that Christ might more preach'd even to those that have long sate in darkness and in the shadow of death Nor is every diversion as you say Parag. 5. a turning â—out of the right channel But out of the former channel and the latter may be better and so righter in regard of the chief intentions of the Donor And this done by the unquestionable authority of the Land will I doubt not be approv'd by as wise and as honest men as you Do not you your self pag. 119. say concerning Abbies and Pryories That good and pious men have wisht that the abuses had been pruned off and that the land had been disposed of according to the Donors intentions What 's that but diversion from the corrupt way of Abbeys and Pryoryes to support other pious and charitable uses Parag. 6 7 8. You tell us a story of the antiquity of endowing Churches and the riches of them And that the use and Dominion of Church-goods belong'd to Bishops and this not onely by custom but by Canon But withal you say at his charge as it were the Presbyters and other Clerks of the Church Were fed Sure you have told a good tale for your self for by it it appears that the wealth wherewith the Church was endowed was not given to any persons but the Church in which the Bishop had no propriety but power of use for what he himself needed and of disposing the rest to Presbyters and other Clerks which now the Bishop neglecting and many Parishes in his Diocesses wanting preaching Presbyters for want of maintenance and many that preach'd wanting subsistance and the Bishop who you say should maintain them maintaining Princely * I my self once saw the Bishop of Yorke riding towards London with fourty five men in his Livery And I wondering at the number was told by one of them that there was above twenty left behinde that wore their Lords Livery State a number of Serving-men c. To divert a great deal of the maintenance to preaching Presbyters would be a returning of it into the old channel by your own confession But Parag. 9 The Bishops followed the steps of the Apostolick Church for Act. 4. we read that the well minded when they sold their lands laid the prices at the Apostles feet not the Presbyters How could they when there was as yet none ordained But after by the Apostles direction there were Deacons set over this business of Church-treasures Good and those Deacons continued and distributed Church-goods some to
use exhortation and application This finisht the rest meet together and the two speakers go aside untill the Moderator of the Presbyterie asketh every ones opinion of the doctrine delivered And if to say no worse they do but smell out any thing either it s forthwith buryed by common suffrage or if the Presbytery be divided in any question yet at least the whole matter is husht in silence untill the next Synod which come twice a yeer Hither come all the Pastors of the whole Province accompanied with their Elders as the state of every Church requires The Moderator of the precedent Synod begins with a Sermon and then either a new Moderator is chosen or which seldom falls out the old is continued The question refer'd to the Synod is either composed or husht up again in silence and refer'd to the National Synod held once every year Hither come not onely the Pastors but the King or his Commissioner and usually some of all degrees sufficiently furnisht with judgement and authority to compose any controversie so Heresie is stifled in the very birth So you may see that Presbyterie is a better way to keep out or under Schisms and Heresies in King James his judgement grounded on experience then Episcopacy For what you add That the Pulpits and Presses are lock'd up to all Orthodox men Is false if to any it is my grief I am not to answer for others faults Parag. 13. You say It s true and not true that by Parochial Pastors the work of the Ministery is chiefly to be performed True you say it is in the Fathers sence not in mine But my sence I shall prove to you is Scripture sence For Pastors in my sence are such as were ordained Act. 14.13 and Tit. 1.5 in every Church and were by the Holy Ghost made over-seers of them to feed them Act. 20.28 This you confess for these places you understand of Presbyter-Bishops And I hope you will not oppose Fathers to Scriptures if you do you know who must fall Gal. 1.8 It s true that the place of a Bishops jurisdiction was sometime called a Parish But that Parish was usually not so bigg as some Parishes in England now If they were how could six Bishops be assembled to the censure of every Presbyter as the Canon was sure thats above the number of all the Bishops that are in one of our Provinces which grates hard on your Diocesans shewing how unlike they are to ancient Bishops ' Nor are the ordering of the Church or ordaining of Presbyters without the sphear of Presbyters by any law of God but humane custom No nor are these the chief works of the Ministery No Doctor Preaching and sound Doctrine are the chief acts of the Ministery which deserve most reward as you may see 1 Tim. 5.17 and 1 Cor. 1.17 and therefore when Saint Paul reckons up Ministers and their Ministerial acts governing comes behinde teaching 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. But Parag. 14. You think to prove ' That your Bishops do the chief work virtually from an axiom in philosophy propter quod aliquid est tale illud ipsum est magis tale But herein you shew your self as bad a Philosopher as Divine for doth propter quod note out an efficient cause or the final cause think you You are therefore mistaken in your axiom which is false being as if you had said Presbyters are made Preachers propter populum for the people ergo the people are more Preachers A wise conclusion We have a rule indeed quicquid efficit tale est mag is tale And I will grant that they that ordain Preachers ought to be more Preachers themselves but that you know is false in experience in most of your Bishops therefore you should know that such Axioms are true onely in natural not in voluntary causes as the Logicians will teach you Neither are the Bishops the total causes of Preachers Alas at the most they give them but Commission to use their gifts authoritatively which gifts they have from God and are the fundamental cause to make them Preachers Nor can Bishops alone ordain Presbyters that I have proved before And what if I should prove it now by an axiom of philosophie Generare sibi simile To beget his like is the affection of a living creature And Presbyterie you know is a living office ergo Presbyters may ordain Presbyters I believe you will sweat to give a rational answer to it What you add about ordinary Courts of justice and Parliament Sir though I count the Parliament the supream Court yet justice is chiefly done by inferiour Courts because it ordinarily lies on them and the Parliament is onely to supply and rectifie their errors But you proceed and Parag. 15.16 Compare the Ministers to souldiers in an Army and to Mariners in a Navy and your Bishops are as the General they are as the Admiral So then the people are no part of the Ship or Army or else you level the Presbyters with the people whom the Holy Ghost calls their guids set over them Such similitudes you use to make But every Preacher is not fit to be a Bishop that 's your judgement but the Holy Ghost saith none should preach except he be sent and none should be sent but such as are fitted to take the care and over sight of the Church and that 's the Holy Ghost's Bishop Whatever your opinion is see 1 Tim. 3.5 Acts 20.28 Indeed such a Bishop as you would have Monarchically to govern a whol Diocess of a Shier or two cannot be made ex quolibet ligno but neither Scriptures nor primitive times acknowledg any such Bishop But such a Bishop as may joyn with others in the government of a Church a meaner man may be without prejudice for others maturitie in judgement may help his want of experience What you object Parag. 17. about the Levellers Doctrine is sutable to this Is but a capritious fancie of your own for God hath comprized all ordinarie Ministers under the same name of Pastors and therefore man can make no difference among them but for orders sake Neither do I go about to level all Benefices you know there is a difference in a great disproportion which may be for men of different parts But Parag. 18. You exclaim because I say there will be no danger of sacriledg in my way And first you say to overthrow Episcopacy is to overthrow the Church and for that it s not enough for you to abuse a Father but an Apostle too for when Saint Paul saith we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 What 's that saith Beza but Jesus Christ So the Apostle who is the best interpreter of himself explicates it 1 Cor. 3.9 and adds Planè est Anti-Christus quî sibi tribnit quod unius Christi est He is plainly anti-Christ that arrogates to himself or to any other what is onely Christs What think you of this Again those that
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
King and Parliament as the Layties In answer to Doctor Boughen 's tenth Chapter p. 53. CHAP. V. PARAG. II. Wherein is shewed That the distinction that is between Clergie and Laytie and their priviledges in this Kingdom hinders not but the priviledges of the one are alterable by King and Parliament as well as of the other in answer to Doctor Boughen's eleventh Chapter p. 57. CHAP. VI. Answering Doctor Boughen's Exclamation for the removeal of Bishops out of the House of Peers p. 61. CHAP. VII Shewing that the Monarchical jurisdiction and great revenues of the Bishops may be divided to the advantage of the Church in answer to Doctor Boughens thirteenth Chapter p. 67. CHAP. VIII Shewing that abuses are a forfeiture of some priviledges in answer to Doctor Boughens fourteenth Chapter p. 73. CHAP. IX Wherein is shewed that the converting of Bishops Lands to maintain preaching Ministers would not be Sacriledg but a good work in answer to Doctor Boughens fifteenth Chapter p. 82. CHAP. X. PARAG. I. Wherein is shewed what is the true intention of the Kings oath for the maintenance of Episcopacy in answer to Doctor Boughens 7. Chapter p. 24. CHAP. X. PARAAG II. Shewing the right sence of the Kings Coronation oath that what he undertakes for the Bishops must not be conceived to cross what he hath promised to the people in Answer to Dr. Boughens eighth Chapter p. 98. CHAP. X. PARAG. III. Shewing that the Clergie are equally under the Parliament as well as the Layty in Answer to Dr Boughens ninth chapter p. 103. CHAP. XI Shewing that the King is not bound to protect the Bishops Honours with the lives of his good subjects in Answer to Doctor Boughens 16. chapter p. 108. CHAP. XII Wherein it is cleared that though the King be the Supream Magistrate yet that supreamacy which is over all Laws is in this Kingdom not in the King alone but in the King and Parliament in answer to Doctor Boughens seventeenth Chapter p. 118. Imprimatur JA. CRANFORD August 21. 1648. CHAP. I. Containing ANIMADVERSIONS on Doctor BOUGHENS first Chapter wherein he playes with the Introductions to the dispute and herein is discovered his subtilty in the whole and ridiculous trifling in this part of the Book WE have heard your malicious charges against the Author of the little Treatise which you undertake to answer Now I must minde the Reader of a Serpentine subtilty that you use to deceive him into a belief of your foul slanders if he be not cautelous which is not to set down the treatise entire nor to take it in order as it lyes lest the view of it if it had been entirely set down should clearly have cryed false on your slanders but here and there pack some of it in your margent in what method you please I shall therefore take this course to set down the first Treatise by parts entire A case Resolved that the Reader may the better judg whether is true my Apology or your Calumny and when I have set down any entire part of the case resolved I shall indeavour to cleer what you have objected against it in any part of your prolix Sieve First therefore the Introduction into the dispute runs thus in my printed Treatise Case Resolved VVHether the King considering his oath at Coronation to protect the clergy and their priviledges can salvâ conscientiâ consent to the abrogation of Episcopacy Aff. When I consider first that there is no hope of the Kings or kingdomes safety without an union between our King and Parliament Secondly that such an union is tantùm non impossibile unless the King condescend in point of episcopacy Thirdly for the King to condescend renitente conscientiâ though it might gratifie us it would be sinful in him and so he should forfeit inward to procure outward peace and be represented to himself in the glass of conscience to adventure the heavenly to retain an earthly crown Fourthly the oath taken at the Kings Coronation hath been prest by some learned pens with that probability that may stumble a right intelligent Reader neither have they that I know received any satisfactory answer in print Now I conceive it may be a work worth some paines to resolve this case and cleer those objections that while they stand unanswered cast an ill reflection both upon the King in condescending to abrogate Episcopacy and the Parliament in pressing him to it This is the introduction wherein the Reader may see the scope of the Book to be safety and union of the King and Parliament and not the ruine of the King and Kingdome as Dr. Boughen unjustly suggested in his Epistle to the Reader Again the grounds of undertaking the resolution are so weighty and the candor towards Antagonists in giving them due testimony so cleer that one would think it a fitter object for envy then carping but Dr. Boughen can finde a knot in a bulrush and therefore because in the title it is said that in the Book it is cleared that the King may without impeachment to his Coronation oath abrogate Episcopacy the Dr. saith Doctor Boughen pag. 1. chap. 1. par 1. I full magisterially determine before the case be so much as proposed Is this the fashion first to resolve and then to propose the case This may be the course of Hereticks not of Catholiques But you are resolved to maintain that a Christian may swear and forswear without the least prejudice to his soul Thus the Dr. wherein he hath given a specimen in the porch what stuffe we are like to meet with in the building and gives me just cause to bewail my unhappiness that having at first to deal with learned and rational men am now fallen into the hands of a passionate trifler for doth not every intelligent man know that though titles of Books be first set yet they are last made and usually last printed and contain in them the Summe of the Book wherein I doubt not he will finde not a magisterial but so rational a decision that he will in answering it haerere in luto before I have done with him For the accusation wherewith he closeth his paragraph being groundless rayling I know where it will reflect shame with the impartial Reader and therefore it needs no other answer but a peremptory denyal nothing being more abhorrent from my soul or the scope of this Treatise then either to maintain swearing or forswearing But parag 2. He affirmes my practise is accordingly because those of my perswasion have taken up armes against their Soveraign and hold the Parliament subordinate to no power under heaven But here his assertions are not onely impertinent to the case but known to be false by those that know me but then he comes in with a second scornful expression that I have taken the oath of a canonical obedience and yet indeavour the abrogation of Episcopacy But how knows he that I have taken the oath of canonical obedience sure I am
were many other honours peculiar to the Apostles themselves not communicable to their successors You may read in Bilsons perp Govern chap. 9. pag. 106. But you say this is evident in S. James Bishop of Jerusalem Epaphroditus Bishop of Philippi and in Apollos Bishop of Corinth But for S. James that he was an Apostle Scriptures witness indeed Gal. 1.19 but that he was ordained of the Apostles in that Scriptures are silent nor hath Jerome any such words but that he was called an Apostle illud in causa est omnes qui dominum viderunt eum postea praedicassent suisse Apostolos nominatos He was therefore called an Apostle because all that had seen the Lord and afterwards preach't him were called Apostles Jerom. in Gal. 1.19 But to make a man truly and properly and Apostle was required somewhat more scilicet immediate inspiration and mission by Christ as may be gathered from S. Pauls proving his Apostleship from these Gal. 1.11 12 15 16 17. And James was an Apostle truly and properly yea a chief Apostle Gal. 2.2.9 And so he is mentioned in the Scripture as an Apostle in Jerusalem not a Bishop of Jerusalem See Act. 15.2 13 23. Here Iames is contained under the name Apostle with the rest without any hint of precedency there as Bishop And therefore whereas he is called Bishop of Ierusalem sometimes by the ancients that is to be taken but in an allusive not a proper sense because he exercised his Apostolical function there while others exercised theirs else where and some of the Apostolical power was emulated in the Fathers times by Bishops But a Bishop there properly he was not for that were to degrade him an Apostle being an office extraordinary and so higher then the ordinary office of Bishop And such degradation is not onely injurious But if the resolution of the Chalcedon Counsel be true cited by Bilson pag. 280. To bring back a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter is sacriledg Then certain to bring down an Apostle to the degree of any ordinary Officer as a Bishop is cannot want guilt And for Apollos if he were Bishop of Corinth I pray you why did not Saint Paul write to him when he blames them for not excommunicating the incestuous person and blame him for that neglect of discipline and enjoyn him to see it done and not the Church Or why doth he say that the censure was inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2.6 if Apollos were their Bishop who alone had power of excommunication If he be contained under the title of Apostle 1 Cor. 4.9 which Calvin approves not yet is he called Apostle in a large not strict sense as contradistinct to other Church-officers Ephes 4.12 For Epaphroditus indeed he is called in the Epistle to the Phlliippians Your Apostle but that is most generally taken as Walo Messalinus confesseth by Greek and moderne Interpreters to hint not the name of a Church-officer but a messenger from the Church to Saint Paul as our last translation takes it and the words following imply part of his message he that ministred to my wants And though Walo Messalinus dissents yet he confesseth his exposition not to agree so well with propriety of speech But these you say are confessed to be Apostoli ab ipsis Apostolis ordinati First this is false for neither Calvin nor Messalinus speak of their Ordination And the very phrase an Apostle ordained of Apostles shews that the title Apostle is taken improperly But Parag. 5. you say Apostles they were at that time called but afterwards the name Bishop was setled on them For this you cite Theodoret. The same persons were sometimes called both Presbyters and Bishops but those who are now named Bishops were then called Apostles but in process of time the title of an Apostle was reserved to those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles properly and truly so called And the name of Bishop came appropriated to those who were lately called Apostles For answer to this First I observe you have given us a clear confession out of Theodoret that Bishops and Presbyters were all one divers names of the same office Secondly those that Theodoret affirms that being in his time called Bishops were formerly called Apostles were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly but onely called so because they had preheminence over others in his times as the Apostles had over others in the first time of the Gospel Thirdly he gives us no proof that those that are now called Bishops were formerly called Apostles and his conjecture is not infallible Nay is it not apparently false that the name of Bishop came appropriated to those that were lately called Apostles but were not so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for was not the name of Bishop continued common to Iames Peter and others that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles truly so called Continued I say by the Fathers calling them Bishops allusively But though the name of Bishop was given to Apostles by the Fathers It cannot be shewen where those that are now called Bishops were called Apostles as Apostle signifieth a Gospel officer by the Scripture If they were let the Doctor produce the place where in Scripture any ordinary officer was stiled an Apostle which if he cannot do Theodorets assertion in one part contrary to the plain expressions of the Fathers and in the other without ground of Scripture cannot have much force on any unprejudiced Reader The Doctors inference is observable Hence is it saith he that Timothy and Titus are called Bishops and Apostles Bishops in the post-scripts of the Epistles which were written to them by S. Paul but Apostles by Ignatius Theodoret and many others Whence plainly it appears that the post scripts of the Epistles were not Saint Pauls but some other later then Ignatius and Theodoret And so have no force to prove Timothy and Titus Bishops Parag. 6. You add Bishops then they were called c. That is They were so called by men that spake of officers in the Scriptures according to the stile of their own times but in Scripture-sence they were a degree above Bishops Apostles or Evangelists and in that sence speaks Walo Messalinus whose name you abuse Parag. 7. You argue They that have the same name and office with the true Apostles are of the same order with the true Apostles But Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus have the same name and office with the true Apostles This argument you seem to glory in but with how little reason the Reader shall see For whereas you say Bishop Timothy and Bishop Titus and Bishop Epaphroditus had the same name and office with the Apostles This is manifestly false First for the name neither have Timothy nor Titus the name of Bishop or Apostle given them by Scripture and for other authors as Ignatius and Theodoret that call them Apostles you must remember Theodorets distinction of some that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and others that were
called so only allusively The true and proper Apostles were the twelve and Saint Paul and such like that had extraordinary mission and inspiration Now in this proper sence Timothy and Titus were not called Apostles but by way of allusion and to have the same name and not in the same sence argues nothing For your proof from Salmatius for Epaphroditus being called Apostle besides that in giving such a sence of Phil. 2.25 he differs from many others whose opinion is more probable he onely calls him an Apostle allusively not properly and as you fail in the proof of the same name so fail you more in proving they had the same office for this you prove onely from one part of Apostolical power Ordination and Jurisdiction Which they had from the Apostle Paul in particular places whereas the Apostolical office had power immediately from Christ for such jurisdiction all the world over Matth. 28.19 And whereas the Apostle makes Apostles and Evangelists distinct offices Ephes 4.11 and bids Timothy do the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 The Apostle shews plainly that Timothy was in that rank And thence it 's clear that Timothy and Titus had not the same office with Apostles but were in an inferiour order of Evangelists So your argument falls to the ground For your close that Bishops and onely Bishops succeed the Apostles in ordination and jurisdiction It 's true of Scripture-Bishops but for your Bishops we shall not believe it till you better prove it Parag. 8. You proceed Since then Apostleship and Episcopacy are one and the same office He that is the root and Author of the one is the root and Author of the other But I have in part shewed already and shall more fully hereafter that Apostleship and Episcopacy are divers offices Episcopacy if it hath any place in Saint Pauls Catalogue Ephes 4.11 being under Pastors which is two degrees below an Apostle but you further infer in covenanting to take away Episcopacy root and branch you have done no less then covenanted to take away Jesus Christ Answ Were Christ the ordainer of Episcopacy as he is not your inference is but a childish mistake for neither doth the Covenant speak of root or branch nor if it did would it follow that Christ should be rooted up for there is a root properly of Propagation and a root metaphorical of Institution which is by appointment the original of a thing Christ if all were true that you say is but a metaphoricall root a root by Institution whose eradication cannot be inferr'd if Bishops root and branch be pluckt up If a man undertake to take away all the trees in an Orchard root and branch will it follow he must root up the Master that planted it too Nothing less so nor in this case After this you fall a raving shooting arrows not caring where you hit telling of Parsons and Vicars sequestred by my instigation Which is a rash if not a wilful slander And now I hope its clear you have done little to discharge the Kings oath of sin or to prove the Covenant a bond of iniquitie But Parag. 9. You think you put a shrewd quaery if root and branch must up how comes it that some branches may be preserved as Presbyters ordained by Bishops c. Still you run on in your mistake whereas the Covenant hath no such terms as root and branch What a Doctor present such plain mistakes to a Prince Nor if there were such an expression were there any force in your objection for do you not know that many of our Divines distinguish between the Church of Rome and the Papacy which they compare to a wen on a body So may we between the Ministery of the Church of England and your Prelacie which is but a high-swoln wen. Now I hope that a wen may be cut out core and all and yet the body be left sound yea more sound so for this CHAP. III. Wherein it is cleared that Prelacy as it stood in England was an usurpation on the office of Presbyters in answer to Doctor Boughens third Chapter IN your third Chapter parag 1. You represent me saying that the Kings oath to maintain Episcopacy is sin Where do I say so I say if the Kings oath be to maintain Episcopacy as it stood in England then it is sin and if you leave out this limitation as it stood you trifle and change the state of the question and I must minde you of a true rule in dispute Qui verba supprimit quaestionis aut imperitus est aut tergiversatur qui calumniae magis studeat quà m doctrinae He that suppresses words of the question is either unskilful or wrangles and indeavours rather to calumniate then teach Which latter you plainly do for hence you infer that I condemn all the Kings and Queens of this Land that have taken this oath But first you must prove that they have taken the oath in this sence to maintain Episcopacy as it then stood which sure our present Soveraign hath declared he did not and so we may judge of the rest for he hath offered to reduce Episcopacie to that power which it had in ancient times In his message from the I le of Wight Nov. 17. 1647. to exercise no jurisdiction without its Presbytery Whereby the King doth manifest either he is not by his oath bound to maintain Episcopacie as it then stood or else that notwithstanding his oath he may alter some of Episcopal jurisdiction at the motion of his Houses Either of which will cut your combe especially the latter Secondly you say I condemn all those Fathers and Counsels that justifie the necessity of Bishops Thirdly and last of all you say I condemn the whole Church of Christ which from her infancy hath been governed by Bishops Where you still leave out my limitation as it then stood which added your inferences will appear most false Since it is apparent that both Counsels and Fathers and ancient Churches asserted and were governed not by Episcopacie without but with the joynt help of Presbyters Hear what Bilson saith in his Epistle to the Reader before his perp Govern God forbid I should urge any other but such as were Pastors over their Churches and governours of the Presbyteries under them And again That Elders at first did govern the Church by common advice is no doubt at all with us this is it which is doubted c. that those Elders were Lay-men pag. 158 159. But had our Bishops as they then stood any Presbyteries joyned with them Presbyters they had but had they any Presbyteries wherein the Presbyters met for acts of government that the Bishop did govern And therefore your interrogations about blasphemy c. are but the meer calumnies of a tergiversator altering the state of the question And as ignorant and impertinent trifling is your second parag Wherein you talk of the abuses of particular persons as some Princes or Parliaments Whereas my
argument runs not on the men but the office it self as it then stood excluding Presbyters from part in government which was not the act of any extravagant Bishop but the ordinarie custome of them all so not the men but the office it self was in an abusive posture in excluding Presbyterie from participation in government which is the thing to be proved Which thing you confess I endeavour to prove by Syllogism which you set down parag 3. That power which despoyls 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 But this Prelacy did as it stood in England ergo English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God Parag. 4. You think to retort this argument on the Parliament to prove them as well to be an usurpation because they have sequestred and dispoyled many of you Presbyters of preaching and ruling in their Congregations But herein I must tell you you bewray your own not the weakness of my argument for my argument runs not upon any particular officers whether justly or unjustly despoiled But of all the officers as they are officers of which Episcopacie was guiltie excluding all Presbyters from partnership in government And had you had your wits about you that can put the dul man upon others this you might easily have seen and that any in the Syllogism notes not particulars in any office but the kinds of officers prescribed by Christ But Parag. 5. You would teach me to speak had you said say you that power that wrongfully dispoyls any of Christs officers and then you tell me I have not learnt it seems to distinguish between justly and unjustly But it seems you though a D. D. have not learnt to understand plain sence For in that sence that my words should be taken can I pray you any kinde of officers be wholly dispoiled of a privileledg or abridged in a dutie lest on record by Christ justly Sure then there must be some power that can controul Christs institution without injustice or usurpation You add as wise an amplification that Gods word and mine are two Gods word saith Non est potestas nisi a Deo there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 But you say say you of me that there is a power which is an usurpation against the word of God It seems then you think that there is no usurped power in the world or Church no not the Popes claim to both the swords Sure you are a learned interpreter of Scriptures whereas its plain the Apostle speaks onely of all kinds of lawful civil powers not denying but some may usurpe a power that belongs not to them as the Pope doth and it s in question between you and me whether Prelacie did or no. You add I cannot distinguish between the office and the abuse Will you then acknowledg it was an abuse in Episcopacie to ingross all government If you do you grant the question if not you trifle Do you not know Master Doctor that these be two things an usurp'd power and an usurpation in power If Episcopacie have no inflitution from Christ it s an usurp'd power an office without institution that question I wave If there be institution for Episcopacie yet if Presbyterie should govern with it and be excluded this is not an abuse of persons but an incroachment of one office upon another This I accuse prelacie of as it stood one would think this were plain enough to a vulgar capacitie yet you run on in your mistake And Parag. 6. Mention divers examples of particular officers and abusing their power in unjust censures or using it in a just way Which is meer trifling as I shall make it appear by your last instance about Bishops depriving Ministers For I question not now the Bishops or you for calling Truth Heresie nor for the abuse of power in suspending or depriving for unjust causes but for doing it solely without the counsel and consent of a Presbyterie wherein I shall hereafter clear to you they usurp more then the practise and counsels of former Bishops allowed them This is the plain state of the business and its ridiculous to undertake the answer of a Treatise and mistake the plain state of the question But Parag. 7. You come to the Minor and that 's trifling still on the same mistake but to seem to say something at last you say It is as false aspeech to say Prelacy dispoiles any as to say Judicatory wrongs any Where still you bewray your ignorance in comparing an act to an office but may not one Court dispoil another Did not you or some Prelates think these Courts did dispoyl them of their rights heretofore that granted Prohibitions in point of tythes c. and so the Civil power incroach on the Ecclesiastique Why else were some Judges so frown'd on by some Prelates for such prohibitions Parag. 8. You come to my proof which I set down Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their Congregations as well as preach you adde in your own character to as well as much why you know best others may guess For proof I bring four Scriptures the first from 1 Tim. 3.5 If any cannot rule his own house how shall he take care for the Church of God Here is care saith the Doctor to be taken for the Church but no rule given to the Presbyter in the Church unless you will allow as much power to rule in his Parish as he hath in his own house Is it so Doctor is there none given because none is exprest Is there not rule in the Church implyed Hear Theophilact a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in 1 Tim. 3.4 Again in ver 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the house is but as a little Church If therefore he know not how to rule a little and easily circumscribed and known Church how shall he govern so many souls whose mindes he cannot know To the same purpose Chrysostome b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for the Church is a certain house but if the Rector of the Church have assistants in government so hath the husband the wife in his house Now what the Rectors fellows in government are whether lay-Elders or no let the Doctor inquire He concludes it is far more easie to govern an house then the Church therefore he that cannot govern an house c. So you see that place gives by implication government to a Presbyter If you object what Chrysostome after hinteth as though the things here spoken were meant of one of your Bishops first you your self judge the contrary next it will do you no good for he saith the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons not mentioning the order of Presbyters because between a Bishop and a Presbyter there 's almost no difference for the care of the Church is committed to them to wit Presbyters and what
he said of Bishops belongs also to Presbyters Bishops being only in ordination above them Thus Chrysostome Presbyters then were not excluded from governing So Theophylact gives the same reason why Presbyters are not mentioned Quia quae de c. Because what he spake of Bishops belongs to Presbyters for to them the office of teaching and government of the Church is committed being only inferior in regard of election And for what you object about Deacons that we allow them no rule in the Church It 's false they have rule in their sphear that is in disposing the treasury though not persons of the Church they being not over persons which the Presbyter is but the Treasurie The next proof is for the Doctor happily misprinted 1 Tim. 5.21 instead of verse 17. which I believe the Doctor could not but suspect but he was loth to meddle with it yet if he mean to replie I must now minde him of it 1 Tim. 5.17 It is thus written Doctor Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine These you will grant were Presbyter-Bishops for to allow any other at Ephesus would marr the market and see here is ruling distinct from teaching ascribed to Presbyterie Parag. 10. You come to the third Scripture Heb. 13.17 Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls c. Here rule is given to Presbyters Now here the Doctor is pitifully puzled and comes off poorly He asks who are these rulers here mentioned are they Presbyters only Again that he speaks of Presbyters I deny not but that he speaks of Presbyters onely that I deny Good Doctor am I to prove that Presbyters only are rulers or that Bishops are not the only rulers as they were with us If then Presbyters be here meant and they be rulers the Holy Ghost ascribes power of ruling to them which is the question so now I have confitentem reum And your simile Parag. 11. of commanders in an Army helps me not you for though Captains and Lievtenants be not sole rulers they are co-rulers in an Army you know both over their Companies and other Officers in a Counsel of war So if there be Bishops in the Church which you here beg yet they are not to be sole Governours as they stood with us What you have concerning Timothy Parag. 11.12 though I deny not the things it will not serve your turn sith Timothy was not a Bishop in your sense but an extraordinary Officer an Evangelist a distinct office Ephes 4.11 and ascribed to Timothy 2 Tim. 4.5 he had therefore an office and power above a Bishop of your fancle though afterwards from the custome in the Church and some acts that Bishops did like his but not solely he was allusively only if not abusively as Walo Messalinus hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called a Bishop But this digression about Timothy was but to bafflle the Reader and to take him off the plain evidence of the former Scriptures for the close that such power was not in Presbyter-Bishops par enim in parem non habet potestatem Your rule holds while they are single but a company of one kinde is above one single one of the same rank a Presbytery is above any one Presbyter as well as a Synod of Bishops above one Bishop and so a Presbytery may exercise power over one of their Presbyters as well as a Synod of Bishops over one of their fellow Bishops You come to the fourth place 1 Thess 5.12 Parag. 13. We beseech you brethren that ye know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you In answer to this if the Doctor go not against his own conscience he hath but little science First he saith that a great friend of Presbytery saith this place is paralel to that 1 Tim. 5.17 And so say I too And then if it be not cited as you know who cited Scripture with mutilation there will be ruledom for Elders The Elders that rule well But you leave out these words and onely take the latter That these Presbyters are worthy of double honour who labour in the word and doctrine Whence you gather ruling is nothing but labouring in the word and doctrine A collection just like that Matt. 4.6 of Christ casting himself off the pinnacle from Psalm 91.11 lamely quoted You add Theodoret Those that are over you in the Lord that is they that offer up prayers and supplications for you These words of Theodoret you bring cunningly as though they onely expounded the words that are over you Whereas it is all he saith to the expression of admonishing whereby its plain Theodoret by his exposition rather denotes the person intended there to be the Minister then describes his whole work I appeal to your own conscience whether you think the genuine meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to pray for people but in Calvin whom you cite afterwards how egregious is your fraud for though the words you cite are in him yet they are in opening that other part of the text for their works sake but when he comes to that wherein government is how plain is he to my purpose Qui praesunt in domino Hoc additum videtur ad notandum spirituale regimen Which are over you in the Lord. This seems to be added to note the spiritual government praeesse in Domino dicuntur qui Christi nomine mandato Ecclesiam gubernant They are said to be over them in the Lord who govern the Church in the name and in the command of Christ. You abuse Calvin as much in misciting his institutions lib. 4.2 3 5 15. where he speaks not of 1 Thess 4.12 but of Timothy and Titus to whom in the government of the Church he ascribed a Presidency not a Monarchy as his words shew Falluntur si putant c. They are deceived if they think that Timothy or Titus did usurp a kingdom in the Church to dispose of all things at their own arbitriment Praefuerunt enim tantùm ut bonis salutaribus consilijs populo praeirent non ut soli exclusis alijs omnibus agerent quod placeret They were over others onely that they might go before others with good and wholesom counsels Not that all other being excluded they alone might do what they pleased So that this is spoken of those that you call Apostles not Presbyter-Bishops Thus it is apparent how ungroundedly you confine the rule of Presbyters to prayer instruction admonition advise But you say this is all the rule that you can finde belonging to Presbyters All that you will finde you should have said for you might have found it in the name Bishop which is a name of authoritie and rule used by Heathens sometimes for the Rulers of Countries and Provinces who are called Episcopi And why else did that Presbyter that had the chief
honour in rule and after by manifest usurpation ingrost all appropriate the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to himself but that the word notes rule And this title is given to all Presbyters Act. 20.28 Feed the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops Over-seers This is said of all the Presbyters without any hint of distinction and doth not this note government Let me ask you a question have you not read Bilsons perp government of the Church of Christ Can you finde no rule belonging there to Presbyters It s then because you cannot see wood for trees pag. 140. He notes government to be comprehended under the titles of Shepherd Watchmen Over-seers Rulers Guides and these titles belong to all Presbyters And pag. 141. The government spoken of 1 Cor. 12.28 He makes common to Pastors Prophets and Teachers and producing that of Jerom Communi Presbytorum consilio regebantur Ecclesiae He adds of his own That Elders at first did govern by common advice is no doubt at all to us This is it which is doubted and denyed by us that those Elders were lay-men pag. 158.159 And after to prove that the Presbyters were not Lay but Ecclesiastical he produceth Jeroms words with approbation Bishops and Presbyters were at first all one and what doth a Bishop save Ordination which a Presbyter doth not Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then truth of the Lords disposition and ought to govern the Church in common pag. 150. And all this he cites out of Jerome for his own defence That what Jerome spake he spake of teaching not ruling Presbyters But what need I add particulars the sume of his 11 Chapter is not to deny but taking it for granted that in Primitive times there was a Presbyterie that was joyned in government with the Bishops without which he neither could nor ought to do any thing in point of censure taking I say this for granted he endeavours to prove those Presbyters consisted onely of teaching not lay-Elders Chapter 14. Setting out the use of Presbyters in the fourth use he hath these words The government of the Church was as first so constituted that neither the Presbyteries should do any thing without the Bishop nor the Bishop without a Presbytery pag. 307. Thus far Bilson How clear is that of Tertullian for the rule of Presbyters Nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicij praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit â—ut a commucicatione orationis conventus omnis Sancti commercij relegetur Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non praetio sed testimonio adepti Thus it is as clear as the Sun that ruling is injoyned as a duty and given as a priviledg to the Presbyter of which it was dispoiled in England by Episcopacie and therefore to maintain Episcopacie in that posture was to maintain it in usurpation against Christs disposition and so unlawful But you require Parag. 14. one place of Scripture that allows Presbyters to excommunicate or absolve of their own authority I answer in all the places where they are made Church-Governours they are inabled in a regular way to pass all Church-censures and of those places I have produced and asserted many as also where the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven are given to the Ministerie in general in the Apostles and the place above cited in Tertullian doth it not extend to excommunication and that censure to be pass'd by Elders But do you shew me on the contrary in Scripture a Bishop that is an ordinary Pastor distinct from a Presbyter indued with sole power of rule in the Church I will be of your mind Your instances of Timothy and Titus will not serve your turn for that they were Evangelists Bilson confesseth more then once the Scripture never calls them Bishops They are called so by the ancients because they did those acts that by humane custome were afterwards appropriated to Bishops in regard of presidencie but they did them not as Bishops which they are not called but as Evangelists which they were and were called in Scripture For your speech in this clause of particular mens silencing it 's impertiment and for the cause it 's delivered in your railing Dialect which I pass by and of the same railing strain is all your 15. Parag. only you tell us by Scriptures we are made subject to Bishops and I have told you and you confess in Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are all one only you have a vain conceit of an Apostle-Bishop of which more anon Parag. 16.17 You endeavour an answer to that that the Presbyters were subjected to lay-Chancellors but it is only by way of retorsion direct answers you are not furnished with but refer us to the Doctors Commons and yet I doubt not but you have taken the oath with an c. that swears to perpetuitie more then Chancellors but how do you retort first we have set many lay-Chancellors for one as the Parliament and Committees ridiculous when we speak of Ecclesiastical Officers to retort touching those that are civil But secondly you retort that though we complain of one lay-Chancellor we subject Gentry and Commonalty to many Lay-Elders and say not say you that there be preaching Elders with them lest it be return'd upon you that the lay-Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer in such cases of Judicature c. But I will say that they have preaching Presbyters amongst them and more then you can say for Chancellors yet they are to be chosen by the people in general over whom they are to be and though you say the Chancellor is but the Bishops Officer Yet it is apparent in the woful experience of many Ministers that he is such an Officer that without and against the Bishops minde hath convented and suspended Ministers which is more power then the Bishop ought to have Episcopus sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest auferre non potest confest by Bilson perpet govern pag. 107. where the Counsel of Hispalis 2 ca. 2. and Counsel of Afric ca. 26. are cited what you add about institutions by Chancellors is nothing to me who never yet had institution nor hath it any sense in it that it should be against Gods direction to receive institution from a lay-Chancellor as our land makes a Rectorie an inheritance wherein the Civil Magistrate doth protect us You conclude Parag. 18. That my first argument you hope is sufficiently confuted You have done your best it 's like yet it stands in full force and vertue That if the Kings oath bindes him to maintain Episcopacie as it stood in practise and as it is in your famous c. oath It is an engagement in that point to what is against Scriptures rale and primitive practice therefore an obligation to what is unlawful and in that point invalid In the close you cannot give off
without calumniating though never so irrationally I say in answer who ever they be that hinder the Ministers of God from any part or dutie of their calling required of God usurp upon them and they that maintain them in that maintain them in usurpation this is a truth without derogation from any authoritie and so I close this second chapter CHAP. IV. PARAG. I. Wherein it is cleared that Episcopacy is not to be upheld by our Protestation and that there may be ordination without it in answer to Doctor Boughen 's fourth chapter Case of Conscience Resolved BUt though this way of invalidating the Kings oath be most satisfactory to some yet to those that are not convinc'd of the unlawfulness of Episcopacie it will not hold and so it would cast the resolution of this doubt about the oath upon another question touching the unlawfulness of Episcopacie which is a larger field I shall therefore endeavour to shew that though for argument sake it be granted that Episcopacie be lawful yet notwithstanding that his oath the King without impeachment may in this circumstance consent to abrogate Episcopacie To answer this passage you descend cap. 4. but there begin with such notorious trifling as I never saw in a man pretending to learning For Parag. 1. You infer if Episcopacy be lawful then the Kings oath is not vinculum iniquitatis egregiam laudem c. who knows not that on that supposition the oath is lawful You adde but mine own conscience began to check me for this because I say it is only satisfactory to some You are mistaken sir The reason why I disputed the oath on a second bottom was because though I thought you and men of your affection might interpret the Kings oath to maintain Episcopacie in that usurping height wherein it stood that by his oath you might keep up your own absurd c. oath yet I perceived that his Majestie and other impartial Judges might interpret Episcopacie in a more moderate way as it is now come to pass his Majestie offering to bring Episcopacie to that tenor that they shall do nothing without their Presbyters and with such moderation many count it lawful nay few count it unlawful therefore I disputed the case under the second notion though Episcopacie were lawful understanding as you may perceive by the scope lawful only not necessarie yet the King might consent by Bill to abrogate it After having spent parag 2. in impertinent slander according to your custome parag 3. You ridiculously descant upon two phrases satisfactory and not hold though being applyed to divers persons your own conscience tells you there 's no incongruitie in them And then you tell what pity it is that I have to deal with learned and rational men and not with Ignoramus and his Dulman Sir to ease your passion I have to deal with both In my first attempt with the first which I ingeniously acknowledg in this second with the latter which I have in part and shall more clearly evince and that in the next Paragraph For I having said that the King without impeachment of his oath might in this circumstance consent to abrogation of Episcopacie You ask what I mean by circumstance whether the Kings oath or Episcopacie and run on in a childish descant unworthy of paper when any but a Dul-man may see plainly enough what I mean by in this circumstance that is according to the grounds of the question in the former page In this state of the nation that no hope of safety without union between King and Parliament no hope of union without abrogation of Episcopacie for the Houses had abrogated it and the sword was in their hands Next Parag. 5. You confess the King may abrogate what is lawful I thank you Doctor you have given me the question for if the King may abrogate what is lawfull then the reason why the King cannot consent to abrogate Episcopacie is not his oath in your judgment but because it is an ordinance of God and more then lawful Well now let us try it there prove Episcopacie to be the ordinance of Christ I will yield you the cause This you say Parag. 6. You have proved already cap. 2.6.7.8 And I there have shewed the weakness and sophistry of your proofs and shall do it more hereafter But you proceed Parag. 7. That Episcopacy is the onely order to which Christ hath given power to ordain Presbyters and Deacons c. What you deliver here is apparently false for first Christ gave power immediately to Apostles to do it and the Apostles to the Evangelists this power they exercised in Ecclesiis constituendis in constituting Churches And these extraordinary officers dying and their extraordinary offices ceasing as almost all confess what parts of their office were of perpetual use as praying preaching administring Sacraments and the use of the keys were left to those ordinary Officers Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 And under them are comprized all ordinary teaching Ministers without any distinction from God the distinction that followed after was but humane for order and to avoid accidentall inconveniences as Ambrose and Jerome witness most plainly and unanswerably unless men set themselves nodum in foirpo quaerere let the reader view the places in Bilson where he brings them to prove the Presbyteries were of preaching not of lay-Elders against lay-â—lders and let his view be impartial and I doubt not but he will approve what I assert You proceed no Bishop no Priest no Priest no Lords Supper Now indeed you reason like a Catholique but a Roman Catholique for just so Bellarmine and others of that leaven argue against Protestant Churches to un-Church them with whom though you may joyn yet all those that according to their profession are true Protestants and imbrace other reformed Churches as dear sisters will not thank you but disdain you and your assertions that do obliquely un-Church the most of them And that which our Divines answer to them shall stand good maugre your teen and skill For they holding and proving that a Bishop and Presbyter differ not by Gods law but humane And knowing that Presbyters are the Pastors meant Ephes 4.11 And that those Pastors are the successors of the Apostles to exercise all perpetual acts of ministerie whereof ordination being one they must needs by divine law be invested with it The Bishop you plead for was but primus Presbyter a chief Presbyter elected to guide and govern the Presbyterie in acts of government For all antiquitie acknowledgeth the Presbyterie did govern with him and ordain with him Now if the Presbyters elect one to be President though not for life why shall not their act be as valid as if the Presidencie were for longer continuance Sure while learned Bilson gathers from the Presbyterians grant of a President in the Prebyterie by Divine law or light of nature though not the same man perpetually that their Presidens differ not materially from those Bishops that the Fathers
Philippi to Saint Paul which is more evident in the same phrase used of those 2 Cor. 8.23 expounded by Bilson himself of messengers from the Churches pag. 75. or else that notes them to be secundarii Apostoli that is as Salmasius takes it Evangelists and so extraordinary Officers but more of this in the next Section Next you proceed to the example of best reformed Churches wherein we agree with you to reform is in primaevam formam reducere but that form is in Scripture that 's our first Christian story and there we finde no Bishop but what is a Presbyter others that are abusively called so were not properly such but Officers of an higher kinde whose Office being extraordinary dyed with them For your particular quotations first that of Zanchi Exempla veteris Ecclesiae nobis debent esse instar praecepti the Examples of the ancient Church ought to be to us as a precept is to be understood of the Church under the Apostles registred in the Scriptures and so the Ministers of London whom you cite also speak expresly that Scripture-examples are obligatorie and that will not serve your turn But for the quotations out of Zanchy that in his conscience they were no better then Schismatiques that counted it a part of reformation to have no Bishop in degree of authority above their true fellow Presbyters I have sought it earnestly in the place cited but cannot finde any such thing de vera reformandae Ecclesiae ratione but in other places I finde the contrary In a short confession of his faith when he was seventie years of age cap. 25. de Eccles. Gubernatione he speaks to this effect He acknowledgeth only Pastors and Teachers to be left by the institution of Christ as ordinary Ministers The superintendency of one taken up by men as a remedy of Schism he dislikes not but from the tyrannie into which that presidencie degenerated he concludes Quo proprius acceditur in ordinibus Ministrorum ad simplicitatem Apostolicam eo magis etiam nobis probetur at que ut ubique accedatur dandam esse operam judicemus In the Orders of Ministers the neerer we come to Apostolicall simplicity the more is it to be approved and diligence should be used that every where such propinquity to the word should be attained Here you have Zanchy directly against what you would have him say as also on the fourth Commandement de diversis Ministrorâ—â—â— generibus he cleerly agreeth with me that Pastors mentioned Eph. 4.11 are the highest Officers now left in the Church and those the same mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. Bishops or Presbyters which he proves to be all one and that superioritie that in process of time one had above another was but by humane grant For what you cite out of Melancthons Epistles touching Bishops It is but one mans private opinion and that when they were in that case that we a long time were and still in the greatest part are without any government setled and undoubtedly the Church had better be under a government that hath some rigour or tyranny in it then under no government so to shake off Bishops as to be under no government is as Melancthon truly saith inexpedient if it were lawful and such a liberty as Luther said is Libertas minimè utilis ad posteritatem a liberty no wayes profitable to posterity But what is this to the Covenant which resates not to persons but to Churches ' Now it is apparent that the Churches of Germany have reformed Episcopacie so that they have no such Apostle-Bishop as you dream of but Presbyterie at the most with the superintendency of one in their Presbyteries neither hath that any weight that you speak of the Convention at Auspurg for they were then but in a way of reformation it was but the dawning of the day with them and they could not see all things at the first but we see when they come to settle the order of their Churches they setled Presbyterie not Episcopacie And yet I deny not that if the Bishops would then have been reasonable they would have admitted their jurisdiction for peace-sake as Melancthon saith redimere pacem And truly Sir though I maintain that the King for peace may abolish Episcopacie Yet I am of that minde and wish others were so too redimere pacem duriori conditione as Melancthon said to redeem peace with an harder condition with Episcopacie so regulated as at first to preside and rule in his Presbyterie But onething I may not pass for whereas Melancthon saith that they did grant to Bishops potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis the power of order and jurisdiction you enquire What is this power of Order certainly a power that Presbyters had not that is a power at least to ordain Ministers But here Master Doctor you bewray too much ignorance for a D. D. for in power of order not only Protestants but most Papists make Bishops and Presbyters one for that is to perform as officers prayers consecrate sacraments c. and power of jurisdiction only they make a Bishops peculiar For what you prosecute touching power of Ordination to be only in their Bishops not Presbyters I will speak more fully to that in the following Section In the mean time I must tell you that in quoting Salmatius Parag. 15 Of this Chapter you shew egregious negligence in reading or which is worse deceit for the words you cite out of him touching Timothy and Titus that they were Bishops indeed of the same right and of the same Order whereof at this day they are accounted who govern the Churches and are over Presbyters This he brings only by way of explication of Theodorets opinion but when he comes to deliver his own He saith pag. 63. That Timothy was rather super-Episcopus above a Bishop an Apostle And again pag. 69. He saith of them per abusum igitur impropriè Episcopi appellabantur they were improperly and abusively called Bishops Thus also you use the London 1. D. who you say confess that their government is not above 80. years standing whereas they assert the institution of it by Christ and the restitution only for 80 years when they did likewise reform the corrupt doctrines in Poperie And do not you speak against your conscience when you say Calvin would have crusht that government in the bud that sometimes you make a Geneva invention Who would think a D. D. should be such a citer of authors But to conclude this Section if Bishops have no place in Scripture the best reformation must be to abolish Episcopacie though well limited they may be tolerated and that they have no place in Scripture is the work of the next Section CHAP. IV. PARAG. 3. Wherein for a fuller answer to what the Doctor hath said to prove Episcopacy Christs institution this Quession 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 successor of the Apostles indued with power of ordination and other jurisdiction the other the Successor of the Presbyters ordained by Timothy and Titus endued with power of administring word and Sacraments Neg. FOr the sounder and clearer resolving of this question I shall proceed by way of Thesis fetching things from the first original barely proposing only what is confest by all but proving those things wherein there is any controversie or whereon the controversie hath dependance Thesis 1. first its agreed amongst all that all the teaching Officers that can challenge Livine institution are set down in an intire Catalogue Eph. 4.11 And gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers and therefore all that cannot derive their pedigree from one of these must be in the case of those Neh. 7.64 Thesis 2. That of these Officers some were extraordinary some ordinary Thesis 3. That Apostles Prophets Evangelists were extraordinary officers for the first planting of Churches and Pastors and Teachers ordinarie Thesis 4. That the extraordinary officers were temporary and the ordinary to be perpetual in the Church Bilson perp govern p. 300. The office of Evangelists was extraordinary and temporary Field of the Church lib. 5. c. 22. And indeed whatsoever is extraordinary is temporary Thesis 5. That Apostles were the highest of extraordinary officers and Pastors the highest of those that were ordinary Apostles are named first and all that are named before Pastors are acknowledged extraordinary Ephes 4.11 Thesis 6. That in the extraordinary Officers there were some gifts and acts peculiar to them as such as to the Apostles immediate calling divine inspiration infallibility in doctrine universal charge and in the Evangelist to be an assistant to an Apostle not to be perpetually fixt to any place but for the finishing some special work as Timothy at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 Titus at Creet cap. 1.5 3.12 Secondly There were some qualities and actions which though required in and done by them as extraordinary officers in an extraordinary way yet are of necessitie and are in an ordinarie way perpetually to be continued in the Church of God as abilities to teach and rule the Church and the acts of teaching praying ordination of Ministers Church-censures c. See Bilson perp govern chap. 7. pag. 106 107. Thesis 7. That these Pastors Eph. 4.11 that are the highest ordinary Officers are Successors to the Apostles in all that power and authoritie and all those acts flowing from it which are necessary perpetual and ordinary in the Church of God This also is clear power and authoritie require a subject divine power and authoritie a subject of divine institution Now no other remains of those of Gods institution but Pastors and Teachers which if they be not the same Pastor is the chief The other as temporary are ceased therefore Pastors must be their successors in all this power and in them must the commands for execution be kept without spot or unrebukable untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6.14 And to them must that Apostolical promise be performed Matth. 28.20 Behold I am with you to the end of the world Thesis 8. The Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 are no other but Synonymaes with those Elders ordained in every Church Acts 14.23 and in every City Tit. 1.5 This is clear for those Elders that were here ordained were officers of Christs giving The Apostles would ordain no other it had been sacrilegious presumption but they were neither Apostles Prophets nor Evangelists Ergo if Christs they must be under either Pastors or Teachers Thesis 9. These Elders were by the Holy Ghost also stiled Bishops and were indeed Bishops aliud aetatis aliud officii nomen and of them it is that direction is given under the name of Bishops 1 Tim. 3. Herein Jerome is most plain seconded by Ambrose or Hilary an approved Author under his name who though they differ from other fathers who understand by Bishop Hieron in Ep. ad Titum 1 Tim. 3.2 Bishop distinct from a Presbyter such as was in their times Yet Jeromes reason preponderates all because drawn out of the bowels of the Text 1 Titus 1.5 6 7. Attend saith he the words of the Apostle who having discours'd of the qualities of a Presbyter after infers for a Bishop must be blameless c. Therefore a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same Again if any yet doubt saith he whether a Bishop and a Presbyter be not all one let him read the Apostle Phil. 1.1 Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ to all the Saints which are in Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons Philippi saith he was a City of Macedonia and certainly in one City as now they are called more Bishops could not be But St. Paul thus wrote because at that time Presbyters and Bishops were all one If yet this seem ambiguous saith he that Presbyters and Bishops were all one it may be proved by another testimony It 's written in the Acts of the Apostles when St. Paul came to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called to him thence the Elders of that Church to whom amongst other things he spake thus Take heed to your selves and to your flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. Observe this diligently saith he how calling the Presbyters of one City Ephesus he afterwards calls them Bishops he adds Heb. 13.17 1 Pet. 5.1 2. and concludes these things that we might shew that amongst the Ancients Presbyters and Bishops were the same Thesis 10. After the decease of the extraordinary Officers Apostles Prophets Evangelists and their Office with cause of it with them the Church acknowledgd no other Church-Officers as instituted of Christ but only the two mentioned 1 Tim. 3. Titus 1. 1 Bishops or Presbyters 2 Deacons Clemens mentioned Phil. 4.3 who is witnessed by Tertullian to be ordained of St. Peter himself de prescrip in an Epistle to the Corinthians writes thus The Apostles preaching through the Countries and Regions their first fruits whom they had tryed by the spirit they appointed for Bishops and Deacons to believers Here you see by the Apostles were constituted but these two Offices Bishops and Deacons of whom he afterwards saith that those that have humbly and unblameably ministred to the sheep-fold of Christ those we may not think may be justly thrown out of their Ministry whence he infers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It 's a filthy thing beloved yea very filthy and unworthy that conversation which is in Christ Jesus to hear that the most strong and ancient Church of Corinth for one or two persons should make a faction against their Presbyters He concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You therefore who have laid the foundation of sedition be instructed to repent and be subject to your Presbyters so whom he called Bishops he now calls
Presbyters and gives not so much as any hint of any singular Bishops but the company of Presbyters or Bishops over the Church of God vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron p. 11 12. Polycarpe in an Epistle to the Philippians Be ye subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ and here you see but two offices and therefore yet the Presbyters ruled the Church in Common Blond ubi supra p. 14 1â— where many more witnesses may be seen And in this the Master of the Sentences consents too lib. 4. Dist 24. de Presbyteris unde Apud veteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuêre quia illud est nomen dignitatis non aetatis and a little after excellenter tamen canones duos tantùm sacros ordines appellari censent Diaconatus scilicet Presbyteratus quia hos solos primitiva ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solis praeceptum Apostoli habemus Thesis 11. Amongst these Bishops or Presbyters there was one who by the consent of the rest either by their free election or for his priority in conversion and ordination had a preheminence of honour above the rest for order-sake who had no new ordination or none for a great while but what he had from his fellow-Presbyters who chose him and exalted him without any further ado So Hierom ep 85. ad Evagrium which he confirms from Alexandria For saith he Alexandriae c. At Alexandria even to Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops The Elders did always name one Bishop chosen out of themselves and by them placed in excelsiori gradu in an higher degree of honour not office Now whether in their choice they did only look at merit or whether they did a good while till as * Ambrose or Hilary on the Ephesians Quia primâ—m Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur c. For he calls Timothy who was created a Presbyter by him a Bishop because at first Presbyters were called Bishops that one with-drawing another did succeed but because the following Presbyters were found unworthy to hold that primacy the way was changed a Counsel providing that not order of time but merit should make the Bishop constituted by the judgement of many Presbyters lest an unworthy man should rashly usurp it and be a scandal to many Ambrose saith it proved inconvenient advance him that was the next senior it is argued both waies though in my opinion Blundel hath made it most probable that according to Ambrose his expression it went by senioritie for certain yeers in his preface to the fore-cited Book Some think it went by senioritie in some places and by election in others Thesis 11. This preheminency that one had above the rest was by Ecclesiastical custom not by Divine institution and advanc'd him onely to an higher degree or dignity not to another order distinct from his fellow-Presbyters so that still he must derive his succession from the Presbyters or Bishops that were to be ordained in every Church and is to finde his place in the divine Catalogue of officers Ephes 4.11 under astors and not Evangelists or Prophets That this preheminence was not from any divine institution but Ecclesiastical ordination Jerom is express The Bishops must know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custome then Divine disposition Hieron in Tit. So Augustine ep 19. Although according to the words of honour which the Churches use hath obtained Episcopacy is greater then Presbytery c. Yet See bere the precedencie of Bishops is an honour of words and a fruit of use And this may be further cleared from what was first done in conferring this preheminence It was but a bare act of the rest of the Presbyters as appears by the example brought by Hierom in the Church of Alexandria They chose out of themselves and set him in an higher degree This they did of themselves and by themselves without any Divine command Let it be produced if there be any yea without any example in any of the Churches in the Scripture and they did it by themselves without the concurrence of other and they could not set him in an higher order Presbyters cannot make an Apostle Thirdly this may appear from that little difference that was between such a Bishop and a Presbyter in the fathers times Chrysost Theophylact Hilary on 1 Tim. 3. Inquiring the reason why the Apostle passeth from directions about Bishops to directions about Deacons no mention being made of a Presbyter Give answer First Hilary or Ambrose Quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus Because of an Elder and a Bishop there is but one ordination both are Presbyters but a Bishop is first And Chysostom Because a Presbyter doth so little differ from a Bishop to wit in nothing but ordination saith he In nothing but election saith Theophylact Now where the difference is so little that one direction for qualification will serve for both there is plainly acknowledged a difference in dignity or degree of excellencie onely not in order or office That conceit then of Theodorets that they that are now called Bishops were heretofore called Apostles and those that are now called Presbyters were then i. e. in the Apostles times called Bishops is it self too groundless a fancie for you Doctor Boughen to ground your distinction of Apostle-Bishops and Presbyter-Bishops as though our now Bishops were Apostle-Bishops and so of an higher Order and indued by that order from Jesus Christ to many peculiar acts which a Presbyter could not do And that they are not only an higher degree of Presbyter-Bishops indued with power by humane wisdome to proceed and order those actions which by divine right belong to all their fellow-Presbyters who are to joyn with them in these acts of jurisdictions This distinction I say of yours it hath no bottom to bear it up Vide Morton Appl. Cathol l. 1. c. 33. Crim. tertia For first you see its directly contrary to Hierome and Ambrose or Hilary and many others who make Bishops in their times to be the same with Presbyters or Presbyter-Bishops as you call them Nay it differs from other Fathers who though they acknowledg not an Identity of a Bishop and Presbyter yet they take that which you say is spoken of a Presbyter-Bishop 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. of such Bishops as were in their time which you would have to be Apostle-Bishops 3. It hath no ground in Scripture The Scriptures sets no other orders but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers which are those Presbyter-Bishops spoken of Acts 14.23 Acts 20.28 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. Now the three first are extraordinarie and ceas'd the latter only remain And therefore the Bishop for what of him is divine must be a Pastor and that 's the same with a Presbyter-Bishop else shew us some institution for him To talk of Timothy and Titus is vain being it is witnessed by Scripture confes'd by all that they were
Evangelists which is extraordinary Successors they may and must have in the work of ordination but in their office they have not but the same work is done by Pastors succeeding them in those acts of Discipline as well as in those of teaching and administring the Sacraments Neither need we be moved with the appellation which the Fathers bestow on them calling them Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and saying that St. Paul in them taught all Bishops For when Scripture calls them Evangelists and reckons Evangelists among extraordinarie offices that Christ hath given what authoritie is of force against this testimony Therefore we favourably interpret the saying of those Fathers that they call them Bishops with relation to the custome of their times who called them Bishops that did those acts that Timothy and Titus did not that they were properly so For they were of an higher order and did these acts as Evangelists which their successors are to do as ordinarie Pastors Neither will their being Evangelists hinder the use of their examples or the precepts given to them For the same acts done by whatsoever officer are to be done by the same rule and therefore as directions given to them for preaching so for acting in government are to be followed by other ordinary Officers upon whom by their decease the power and care of their acts are devolved though of an inferior order Timothy was to imitate Paul an Evangelist an Apostle and every Pastor is to imitate these Evangelists in such acts as are common to Evangelists with them Thesis 13. All Presbyters being of the same Order and that the highest of those that are now in the Church have by divine law equal power in places where the Holy Ghost hath set them Pastors and Bishops as to preach the word and administer Sacraments so to do all other acts of government when called requisite for the edification and perservation of the Church and the Bishop who is but primus Presbyter made by man for Orders sake can rightly challenge no Monopoly or sole interest but only a presidencie to guide rule and order that Presbyterie wherein acts of jurisdiction are exercised whether acts of ordination or deposition binding or loosing excommunicating or absolving This I prove by these reasons Argument 1. Those who are truly and equally the successors of the Apostles in ordinarie and necessary acts of the Ministry to those by their office belong all the acts of jurisdiction that are necessary and ordinary acts of jurisdiction But Presbyter-Bishops are such successors of the Apostles ergo The Major is clear of it self the Minor I prove thus Pastors are truly and equally successors of the Apostles in necessary and ordinarie duties of the Ministry as appears Ephes 4.11 Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors The three former were extraordinarie temporary and ceas'd so the Pastor must be the successor if they have any But Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Chost to feed it are equally and truly Pastors ergo The minor is clear from the definition of a Pastor which is an officer set over the flock of God to feed it definitio competit omni essentia non variatur gradibus See Acts 20.28 Argument 2. Those that by divine law are equall in the power of order those are equal in the power of government or jurisdiction All Presbyters first and second are equall in power of order ergo For the Minor that all Presbyters are equal in the power of order it may appear by the definition of the power of order Lib. 5. of the Church cap. 27 the power of order saith Field is that whereby persons are sanctified and inabled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can do as is the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments Now all Presbyters See Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 39. as Field confesseth are equal in the power of Order yea not only he with other Protestants but many School-men and other Papists also as he there shews For every Priest saith Durand in regard of his Priestly power may minister all Sacraments ea quae sunt ordinum saith Aureolus omnes recipiunt immediatè à Christo ita quòd in potestate nullius imò nec Papae est illa auferre in 4. sent Dist 24. Art 2. Sect. tertia ratio c. And this also appears because they must all sit under the same title of Pastors Ephes 4.11 For the Major I prove it thus Power of jurisdiction is indeed but a branch of the power of Order A man by the power of order is made a Minister of Christ and so consecrated to serve Christ in all ministerial services required of such a Minister of Christ Now these services are to edifie the Church either by food or physick to further their salvation by word or rod of Discipline Now both these being ministerial acts and orders making a man a Minister hence it follows that they that are equall in orders in actu primo in regard of power when they have a call are equally inabled to the exercise of discipline or jurisdiction as well as preaching and consecrating Sacraments both being acts of that office to which he is advanc'd by orders And thus much Field doth ina manner confess Three things saith he are implyed in the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers First An election choice or designment of persons fit for so high and excellent imployment Secondly the consecration of them and giving them power and authority to intermeddle with things that pertain to the service of God to perform eminent acts of gracious efficacy and admirable force tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men and yield unto them whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood all the comfortable means assurances helps that may set forward their eternal salvation Thirdly the assigning and dividing out to each man thus sanctified to so excellent a work that portion of Gods people that he is to take care of c. Now here plainly under assurances means and helps to set forward salvation acts of Discipline must needs be contained 1 Cor. 5.5 6. and this flows from power of order as its habit is actus primus induing a man with power * There is indeed this difference between acts of jurisdiction other acts of order the one every Presbyter may do alone the other only in a Presbytery So imposition of hands 1 Tim. 4.14 was in and by the Presbytery so censures 2 Cor. 2.7 by many But a Minister may preach baptize administer the Lords Supper alone and this was the use of the ancient Churches who had their Presbyters mentroned both in Scriptures and Fathers Now to streighten the Presbyter in this act of his orders he hath recourse to that feeble shift That the Bishop only is Pastor and the other Presbyters are but as it were curates under him which if true it is enough to
make a Bishop despair as well as a Presbyter to be despised for how can he discharge the cure of souls in an hundred miles circuit But the contrary is evident in the Presbyters of Ephesus Acts â—0 28 the Holy Ghost had placed them Bishops to feed the stock of God Neither is his objection from the Angel of the Churches Rev. 2.3 weighty for if there be not a Syâ—echdoche in the word Angel which Rev. 2.10 Some of you c. seems plainly to manifest yet its clear he had only a priority of order not of charge And the prioritie of order was ground enough for directing to him what belonged to and was communicated to all as now it is to any temporary president of a Classis or as the things that concern the whole Houses are directed to the Speaker of either The same is plain of the Elders of Alexandria whose superintendent had no other charge from God but only a precedencie of honour and order from themselves Besides all Presbyter-Bishops set over charges by the Holy Ghost are of those Pastors Eph. 4.11 And I hope no modest learned man will think that any President or Bishop then was the sole Pastor or that these Presbyter-Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost could not act in their Ministrâ— without leave of him and therefore those rules of restraint mentioned in Fathers and Counsels were but invasions on the liberties of Presbyters who had their cures not from the Bishop but from the Holy Ghost Argument 3. To whom the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are equally given they have equall power of jurisdiction but to all Presbyter-Bishops the keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given and equally given ergo The Major is clear for the keys of the Kingdom of heaven contain all jurisdiction that 's without all question and the Apostles are hereby usually proved to be equall in jurisdiction because the keys were equally given to them For the Minor the keys are appendants to the office of the Minister The Apostles with mission had the keys John 20. and so the confession of the Church of England agrees harmoniously with the rest in this that the power of the keys is equally in all Ministers Harmon of conf chap 18. p. 362. So at the ordination of a Presbyter the key of Discipline was given to the Presbyter as well as that of Doctrine in the Church of England And if there be an equalitie in that order whereof the keys are an appendix they must have the appendix following in equality likewise that are equal in that order Argument 4. That to which a man hath right and in acting is restrained only by custom novell constitutions or Ecclesiasticall Canons that by Gods law he hath equal right to with others But Presbyter-Bishops are restrained from or limited in acts of government to which they have right only by custome novell constitutions of Emperours or Ecclesiasticall Canons ergo Jure Divino power of government is in them equally with others For the Minor that they have power of government I have formerly proved because it is an act of their office for the exercise of it sometimes in ordination Paul witnesseth 1 Tim. 4.14 and for government Jerome gives clear testimonie Ecclesiae olim communi Pres by â—erorum regebantur consilio and they did consecrate their Bishop in Alexandria from St. Mark to Heraclas as he witnesseth So did they ordain with the Bishop and without the Bishop the Chorepiscopi the City Presbyters till inhibited by the Counsell of Ancyra held in the beginning of the fourth Centurie Panormitanus is express olim inquit Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant sacerdotes pariter conferebant omnia Sacramenta in lib. 1. decret de consuet cap. quarto Here is the right and practise asserted Now for prohibitions if any out of the word shew them for the Fathers they declare what the custome was in their times Counsels and Emperors made laws only limiting power to prevent inconveniences and as Jerome saith contra Luciferianos many reservations were made potius ad honorem sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem * Decreto Hisp. Synodi 2. Presbyteris quibus cum Episcopis plurima ministeriorum communis est Dispâ—nsatio edicitur ut quaedam novell is Ecclesiastiâ—is constitutionibus sibi prohibita noverint sicut Presbyterorum ac diaconorum virginum consecratio c. And therefore I conclude the power of government of binding and loosing and of ordination is by divine right an appendant to the office of a Presbyter-Bishop and as there is no proof for so no â—eed of your Apostle-Bishop And so the chief corner-stone of your whole Book which you relate to from chapter to chapter is found but untempered mortar that is crumbled away when it comes to hard canvassing and your building must down with it We are indeed much prest in this question with the authoritie of Fathers But I say first the most ancient as is to be seen in Blundell * Apol. pro sententia Hieron speak but of two orders of Gospel-Officers in their time which they sometimes call Bishops and Deacons sometimes Presbyters and Deacons Only Ignatius is urged as a great friend of Bishops but indeed he is too great a friend for he doth so far exceed in his expressions and so differ in that from other writers of his time that for that and many other things all or the greatest part of his Epiâ—â—les lie under great suspition of subornation or corruption vid. Blond Apol. pro sanct Hieron Cooks censura patrum Secondly the most rationall of the Fathers as Hierome and Augustine have witnessed not speaking obiter or popularly but purposely giving their judgment in the thing that the difference between Bishop and Presbyter is the issue of custome and use not divine institution Thirdly the Fathers generally give the Bishop but a Presidency not a Monarchy in jurisdiction They ascribe to him a Presbyterie in which and with which he was to ordain and censure and without which he was not to act in these things And this plainly enough shews that the Bishops Presidencie was but for order sake not that power rested only in him for that power that is restrained by Divine ordinance to one order may not be interposed in by another * See Forbesii Iren. p. 180. where he dispures against the Papists thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministerium solis Episcopis à Christo tributum est id non potest Papa c. committere Presbyteris At ministerium conferendi ordines potest Papa c. committere Presbyteris Ergo c. the Levites might not joyn with the Priests in offering sacrifice because it was a particular above their sphear appropriated to the Priests which neither in the absence of the Priest nor by his leave or commission a Levite might do But we know at first ordination was in the City and Country Presbyters and forbidden
the Laytie may be altered by King and Parliament without breach of his oath so also the laws that concern the rights of the Clergie be alterable by the same power As impertinent false and absurd is your reply Parag. 15. that I argue from any rights of the Kingdom to all the rights of the Clergie when the same sign any is used in both places as your self set it down but three lines before The Star-chamber and high Commission Courts stood by law yet these were abolisht so may Bishops and their Courts and yet ample liberties and immunities may belong to the Clergy and as usefull to the Church of God and more suitable to his Word as hath been shewn and therefore your question whether it be lawful to take away all that the Clergy hath is meerly to make shew of saying something when indeed you are destitute of a rationall answer for do I infer that the King may take away all that the Clergy hath or only such particulars as upon consideration to him and his Houses of Parliament seem inconvenient let the reader judge Parag. 16. But you say it cannot be done by a just power because justice gives every one his own according to Gods command Render to every one his due Good Doctor doth this prove any more the injustice of altering laws concerning Clergy then concerning Laity are not their laws their rights and inheritances but with this proviso that they may be judged on by Parliament whether convenient or inconvenient and accordingly either continue or receive repeal with the consent of the King and no wrong done for the laws are but their due with that restriction so the case is with the Clergy till you disprove it which though you would fain do yet for ought I see you are at your wits end by your fillings up parag 17.18 with such things as contain nothing towards an answer but somewhat to confirm my assertion out of Augustine charity prefers publique good before her own private interest So some priviledges of the Clergy are to be submitted by them to publike interest promoted by peace and union At last you come to say something to the purpose that the only regular way to abrogate any of the rights of the Clergy or Laity is at their own motion or consent made and delivered by their representatives in Parliament or convocation Is this true in the general was it true of the abrogation of the Popes Supremacies and such live immunities of the Clergy as their Sanctuaries for criminall offendors c. could not there be an alteration of these regularly attempted without it had proceeded from the representative of the Clergy Sure then I doubt they had stood much longer then they did to the prejudice of the Church and kingdom Reason it is I confess that if any of their Priviledges be in question that they should be heard and their reasons weighed but if after all they can say it appears to the King and Parliament that some priviledg of theirs is inconvenient to weal-publique it may be altered without them if they be froward and yet we allow them the priviledg of subjects for all other subjects have their priviledges thus subjected to the wisdom of king and Parliament and yet this no tyranny but good and needfull policy and so also 20. 21. parag which are the last of this chapter are answered CHAP. V. PARAG. 2. Wherein is shewed that the distinction that is between Clergy and Laity and their priviledges in this Kingdom hinders not but the priviledges of the one are alterable by King and Parliament as well as of the other in answer to Doctor Boughens 11. Chapter IN your 11. Chap. Parag. 1. You say to grate the very bones of the Clergy I tell you that this oath was so framed when the Clergy of England was a distinct society or corporation from the people of England I do say indeed that the Clergy and Laitie were distinct Corporations but not for that end that you mention to grate the very bones of the Clergy but to deliver the laborious Clergy rather from that tyrannie that they were not so long since under by a few usurpers or abusers of power and I do not only say but prove that the Clergy and Laitie were such distinct corporations as that they were under two Supremacies and that I say was popery deny it if you have the face but first you ask when this oath was framed which is but a cavill sith you know it was framed before Henry 8. in whose daies the Pope lost his Supremacie here We read of the oath before the Altar according to the custome in William 1. Dan. histor pag. 36. But you say his Majesties oath is grounded on the word of God according to the promise Kings shall be nursing fathers I answer the question is not whether the king doth well to maintain the rights and priviledges of the Church he is bound to maintain the just rights and priviledges of Church and Laytie both but the question is whether as notwithstanding his engagement to the Laytie he may at the motion or if it like you better at the Petition of the Houses alter any law that concerns the people he may not also on the like petition alter what concerns the Clergie therefore you must speak to this or you speak not ad idem and proceed by the fallacie ex ignoratione elenchi I would have you also know the Bishops are not the Church that is a Popish fancie Church is otherwaies taken in the note you touch parag 3. even for the whole body of the Jews Parag. 4. You seem to oppose my assertion that now the Clergy and Laytie are one body politique but by a weak reason Why then are the Bishops thrust out of the House of Peers as though every societie of the body politique were to have a party in the House of Peers neither were they thrust out as you uncivilly express it but excluded by a legal Bill After Parag. 5. You confess what before you made semblance to deny that the Clergy are not a severall and distinct body but a severall state or Corporation under the same body which I willingly grant but thence infer if they be but a distinct member of the same body then the heads of the body politique under which they are have the same power over them and their priviledges as over the other part of the body the Laytie It is therefore needless and useless pains to prove that a Clergie-man and others may have distinct relations Parag. 5. 6. 7. Who denies it but it s a false calumnie that the Ministers and Stewards of God are cut out of all for the thing aimed at in this treatise is but to restore to some of them what others without warrant from God had usurp'd from them Whereas you inquire parag 8. If this distinction between Clergie and Laytie be a branch of Popery You must add so distinct as to be under
two Supremacies for so it was before Henry 8. and so it s exprest in my Case and where I pray you is such a distinction exprest to be continued since Henry the 8th You cannot shew it nor doth any thing that you bring Parag 8. or 9. conclude it distinct they were but not so distinct but still they and their priviledges were under the power of the same Supremacie as your self confess Parag. 10 11. where your insinuation against me of seting up two Supremacies is but a flash for I shall shew in the last Chapter that the Supremacie I give to the Parliament is not absolute but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and two such are not inconsistent neither doth such respective Supremacie make the Parliament lawless or subject to no power and for your closing question Where then are the two Supremacies that you erect I answer I affirm it was so but now it is abolisht and so I charge not you with it but infer that being equally under one Supremacie that one Supremacie hath equal power over the priviledges of both which was the thing to be proved Neither do I deny what you affirm parag 12 13. That there are two distinct jurisdictions in our Land under the same head Neither do I denie de facto but a Bishop by the standing laws is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of Justice in causes Ecclesiastical But the querie is whether this be so unalterable that the King and Parliament may not put it to a companie of Presbyters Which you have not yet disproved Whether covetousnes and ambition be more amongst Prelates then Presbyters whom you accuse God must judge But whether they be not like to rest more among those that would ingross all then among those that would have jurisdiction and maintenance divided men may easily judge For what you say parag 14. of Timothy and Titus I formerly proved them to be Evangelists and what they had extraordinarie to be ceas'd what they have ordinary to rest in Pastors who are Presbyter-Bishops the highest ordinarie Officers For that saying of Cyprian Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur I would have you reconcile it with that 1 Cor. 3.11 Other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd Jesus Christ We acknowledg de facto in Cyprians time that the acts of the Church were ruled by the Bishops but that as Jeroms tells you was by humane custome not Divine disposition nor was it without Presbyters as you would have it who therefore are as far from the government of his times as we what you quote after may be but the heat of a Bishop to whom we oppose Saint Ierem on Titus 1. and Phil. 1. What you cite out of Ignatius is spoken as upon search I finde onely of that Bishop as he then stood Orthodox in opposition to some cursed weeds or Hereticks of the devils planting but when the Bishop was an Heretick as you know in many places it often fell out would they have been blessed or cursed that held with the Bishop think you For what you add touching the privileges of Clergy For the most part you falsly calumniate me that I seek to ruine them you know I call the alieanation of their means Sacriledg neither do I envie any of their just priviledges but this is that which I have in hand whereas there be two sorts of priviledges some Divine some humane I question onely whether those humane priviledges separable from the offices appointed by Christ in his word such as the Monarchie of one above all other may not upon advisement for the good of the Republique admit of alteration as well as Laypriviledges Therefore you slander me grosly in objecting that I would take away all honour from the Ministery that the Scriptures by prophesie or precept have given to them But you on the contrarie egregiously abuse the Scripture in applying what the Scripture saith by way of honour or priviledg of the Ministerie that is of Apostles Prophets Evanglists and Presbyter-Bishops which onely are the Scriptures Bishops to a few Diocesans Creatures whom the holy page never knew And so you-sleight the generalitie of Pastors to exalt a few lord-Lord-Bishops Constantines affection was pious to the Ministers of Christ But the Bishops he honoured so were men of another condition then those you plead for they lorded it not in the Church without the joynt help of their Presbyters in government And further if there were not some error of the times in some of the honours which he gave how came they so quickly to fall together by the ears for Primacie And to give occasion to that observation That when their Chalices were wooden the Bishops were golden but the Bishops became woodden when their Chalices became golden Sure the general abuse gives occasion to suspect some error in expression of those affections But I hope I have said enough to let the intelligent Reader see how far that assertion that I maintain to prooure peace and safetie to Church and Kingdom ready to perish by an unnatural war is from detracting from any just or useful respect commanded from the people to the Ministers if faithful though the meanest Pastours which I know and people will finde God will reward as done to himself But one thing is not unworthy notice in parag 8. Where you say Paul willeth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus their Apostle or Bishop and also chargeth them to hold such in reputation Consider I pray you had not the Philippians then other such as Epaphroditus else why doth he give them charge of others of like quality And may you not thence see that Epaphroditus was no singular Bishop but such an one as might have other Presbyters his fellows in like honours Case of Conscience Resolved VVHo knows not that one of the priviledges of the Clergie was for the Bishops to sit and vote in the House of Peers yet that is abolisht as incongruous to their calling And then why may not the removall of their Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be consented to as well if it prove inconvenient and prejudicial to the Church The abolition of the one is no more against the oath then of the other CHAP. VI. Answering Doctor Boughens explanations for the removall of Bishops out of the House of Lords in his 12. chapter I Proceed now to examine your 12. Chapter spent most upon the Theam whether it be incongruous to the calling of Bishops to sit and vote in Parliament And here you are very passionate but I must first tell you your passionate follie falls more foul on King and Parliament then me for I do but render the reason given by them in effect in the very statute * Anno 17. Car. R. An act for disabling all persons in holy Orders to exercise any temporall jurisdiction or authority The words are these whereas Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled with secular jurisdiction the office of the
out of season as Timothy was to do 2 Tim. 4.1 2. But you are mistaken when you say that the Priests are in Scripture called the horse-men of Israel and the chariots thereof For that was spoken of Prophets not Priests viz. of Elijah and Elisha Parag. 16. You argue Alogically the King can have no Subsidies granted without them because none hath yet been granted a non esse ad non posse non valet argumentatio As ill do you abuse the Scripture against the King and Parliament as Removers of bounds who have rectified it confining Clergie men to their own sphear Divinity leaving seculars to secular-men therefore your curse causeles shall not come To parag 17. I say I delivered not ex tripode but out of the marrow of the act it self that the votes of Bishops in the house of Peers was taken away as incongruous to their calling and I infer nothing else to be taken away unless it seems good to King and Parliament whose wisedom and conscience I dare far better trust then yours and you abuse your Reader to say I argued from the bare fact when I argue from the fact with its ground to the like on the like warrantable ground And that the abolition of the one is no more against the Kings oath then the other which you confess yet you say flatly 123. If the King yield to let down Episcopacy he breaks his oath what then do you lay to his charge implicitly in consenting to the abolition of their votes but perjurie Is this you that can calumniate others without cause as spitting in the face of authoritie and yet do this and present it to the King himself to read his own doom But you distinguish between priviledges that are the grants of God and such as are of the favour of Princes such as sitting and voting with Peers The distinction is good and helps to clear what I intend that the King may alter the Prelacie in question which is but the gift of Princes not God See the erudition of a Christian man on the Sacrament of orders And Princes may revoke their own grants but for that jurisdiction which you say is a grant of God I confess it is but by him setled on Pastors the highest degree of Church officers now and those are Presbyter-Bishops and therefore the setling of it on them in general is but restitution no donation of any thing new to the Presbyters nor unjust detraction from the Bishops who had without the grant of God ingrost all power into their own hands Case of Conscience resolved AGain when this oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times with divers unlawful immunities in all which respects the oath was invalid being vinculum iniquitatis and some were pared off as light shined forth And why may not the great revenues of the Bishops with their sole jurisdiction in so large a circuit be indicted and convict to be against the edification of the Church and it be found more for the glory of God that both the revenue be divided to maintain a preaching Ministerie and their jurisdiction also for the better over-sight and censure of manners And then is there as good a plea notwithstanding the oath to alter this useless anti-Evangelical pompe and domination of a few as to antiquate other immunities arising from the error of the times not the tenure of Scripture Were indeed the priviledgs in question such as were for the advantage of the Church to further her edificacation or had the Prelates been good Stewards and innocent in the use of them then had the plea carried a fairer shew But these having been so many forfeitures by abuse and these great promotions and jurisdictions being as unwieldy to a spiritual souldier as Sauls armour to David and so do not further but hinder the work of the Gospel whose strong holds are to be vanquisht not by carnal pomp but spiritual furniture mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4 I see no just ingagement to maintain such cumbersom greatness adding onely glory to the person not vigour to the main work of the Ecclesiastick Again thus I argue If the king may consent to alter the laws of the Nation notwithstanding his oath then so he may also the Clergies immunities for those rights and immunities they either hold them by law or otherwaies If by law then the Parliament which hath power to alter all laws hath power to alter such laws as give them their immunities and those laws altered the immunitie ceaseth and so the kings ingagement in that particular If their immunity be not by law it is either an usurpation without just title which upon discovery is null Or it was given by Papall power in times of darkness which being an Anti-christian usurpation is long since abolisht in this kingdom CHAP. VII Shewing that the Monarchicall jurisdiction and great revenues of the Bishops may be divided to the advantage of the Church in answer to Doctor Boughens 13. Chapter THis passage of my Case you attempt to answer chap. 13. and tell us that there 's a great cry against the jurisdiction of Bishops as inconvenient and prejudiciall to the the Church against unlawful immunities Anti-evangelicall pom pcumbersome greatness and forfeitures by abuse and these you say are cryed out of but none of them proved I answer the very expression were so clear of things obvious to every impartiall eye that proof seem'd needless and sure I am you would disprove it if you could it stands you upon which not doing it may pass for currant yet one quirk you have in this 1. parag on the word unlawfull immunities You argue if they were held by law then not un lawfull but legall I answer legall they were because allowed by mans law yet unlawful because against Gods law Your next quarrell is at the expression when the oath was framed the Church was indued by the ignorance of the times But you complain parag 2. I tell you not when this time was but what then do you not know it was in times of Poperie and do you think there was as much true light at Westminster then as now as you intimate in this parag Sure if you do you have not only a Bishop but as they say a Pope in your belly Parag. 3. You take notice that I conclude the Kings oath is invalid in these respects vinculum iniquitatis then you mention 5. particulars 4. of which you say you have quitted already but I have therein disproved you and do not you think that to exempt malefactors from trial that fled to Churches for sanctuarie and the Clergies exemptions from secular punishments which multiplied many slaughters by them as Daniel witnesseth in his story of Henry 2. pag. 83. and yet Becket Arch-Bishop of Canterbury asserted this as one of the liberties of the Church which the king had sworn to maintain pag. 84. I say did not these and such like think you flow from
ignorance but it grieves you more that I should say the oath in this respect is vinculum iniquitatis and say Parag. 4. I wilfully scandalize divers Princes of blessed memory and charge them almost as deeply as St. Peter did Simon Magus with the bond of iniquity Acts. 8.23 Al-most we say in the north saves many a lâ—e for is affirming that Princes for want of light which they wanted means for do ingage themselves with a pious zeal but not according to knowledg charging them with a crime answerable to Magus his base self-seeking hypocrisie or so inconsistent with a state of grace If it should what case do you put king and Parliament in which more then once charge them with perjurie But tell me sincerely do you not think in times of Poperie many unlawfull things were given to the Clergie and that many Canonicall priviledges were unlawfull Sure either their immunities or the reformation of them was unlawful had you rather condemn the reformation then the corruption for fear of obliquely blaming the ancient Princes Do you not hereby cast an imputation on those latter Princes whom you are more bound to respect Your parag 5. is a scornful Ironie hinting somethings false somethings irrational false it is That what immunities were unlawful in Bishops We would challenge or inherit their anti-Evangelical pomp and as irrational is it not to apprehend that divers scores of Presbyters marshalled into Presbyteries in the several parts of a Diocess may not more easily see and more speedily take course to redress errors and applie general remedies for the reclaiming of the scandalous then one Bishop over divers hundred Congregations some of them the better part of a hundred miles from him The Diocesses of Bishops heretofore were called Parishes and indeed at first few of them equal to some Parishes in England and yet then they had Presbyters Now their Diocesses are as large as Shiers nay it may be contain more Shiers and Presbyteries discarded Is not this prejudicial to the edification of the Church Besides have you not heard what Queen Elizabeth used to say That when she bad made a Bishop she had spoyled a good Preacher And how few of that rank imitate the Apostles diligence or charge for preaching 2 Tim. 4.1 2. Is not this a sign that the greatness is cumbersom Yet we denie not that there was preaching under the Bishops but I am sure there was the less for many of them they silenc'd Preachers prohibited preaching on Lords daies Afternoon c. And there was censure of manners but yet Visitations were but once a year and Presentations to be but twice and might not many a man fall into and perish in sin for all this Besides that their censures were more nimble against me for strictness then loosness or prophaness I believe therefore the intelligent Reader will not be scoff'd out of his belief of what I have hinted Your Parag. 6. Begins as you call it with distempered foame ends with appeal to last judgement which is one main thing which hath made quiet me under Prelatical oppression having referred my self to him that judgeth righteously More of your foame you cast in your fume Parag. 7. First you ask Why we are fallen from abolition to alteration I answer this alteration will prove an abolition to them quâ Bishops do not you fear Next this alteration you jeer not sparing to abuse Scripture to adorne your sarcasms and yet I confess htis alteration of the jurisdiction into more hands and of the means of Bishops to maintain more mouthes to preach the Gospel is the best plea I have against Bishops I confess it is and you shall never prove it anti-Evangelical or anti-Christian But I by it shall blow off all your aspersions that you lay upon me as an enemy of the Church and Ministery in my plea against Bishops whereas this one thing shews I seek the good of both and that rationally Parag. 8. You trifle again about the word altar the vanitie of which exception was before shewed After you cast about your foame which deserves no answer but indignation but whereas you would abuse Saint Augustine to prove me an Heretick citing out of him that he is an Heretick that for any temporary commodity and chiefly for his own glory and preferment doth either raise or follow false and new opinions Mine answer is that I have proved my opinions grounded on Scripture and so neither false nor new And for any end of mine in it besides the peace of the land and the edification of the Church I leave my self to him that tries the heart and reins Parag. 9. You come to examine what I said touching the legalitie of your priviledges that if they be held by law the Parliament that hath power to alter all laws may alter those laws and so the immunity ceaseth You here first grant you claim no priviledges but what is legal but you cavil at that which is said that the Parliament hath power to alter all laws nay you affirm it is Atheisticall to affirm that the Parliament can alter the laws of God but all this is but trifling for you know by laws I mean only humane laws of their own making and all laws are understood by me divisim not conjunctim that is they have power to advise upon any particular law whatsoever or whomsoever it concerns and if on advisement it seem conducible to weal-publike to alter it they have power to proceed to alteration and so the Londoners themselves whom here you would jeer or provoke against me would not I am sure they should not deny the Parliaments power to alter any of their immunities that are convinc'd prejudicial to the weal-publique Parag. 12. To that which I say upon the alteration of the law the immunitie ceaseth you in effect deny the conclusion for you answer not the argument convincing but hold the Thesis You add indeed that an ordinance was never conceived sufficient to alter a law but what 's this to the purpose who speaks of ordinances my argument runs of laws If any think themselves absolv'd from the oath of alliegance by an ordinance let them bear their burthen neither do I go about to absolve the King from his oath of protection as you here calumniate me but interpret the bond rationally which you cannot answer and so vent your self in impertinent accusations But you conclude Parag. 13. that suppose there be such a law could it be just c. You are pleased to acknowledg our priviledges to be our rights how then can they be taken from us without injury 1. You alter the state of the question for every injurie is not perjurie the quaerie was whether they could be taken away without perjurie 2. I acknowledg them your rights that is such as you have a legal claim to while the laws thus stand but these your rights were of three sorts 1. Some of your Canonicall priviledges at least formerly were corrupt Such were
allow all this and in as full words pag. 4. of Case resolved but I affirm this office by its incroachments excluding Presbyters and Canonical priviledges which it challengeth is grown burthensom instead of useful and the incumbents for the general much degenerate both neglecting the main of a Pastors office preaching and abusing their power to the hindring of it in others And for that which you add of the forfeitures of other Corporations as that of Drapers or Grocers or the City of London it self I believe if the King had conquer'd you would have been as ready as any to have impleaded the Companies of London of forfeiture for assisting in the War against him And who knows not that Corporations may and often do forfeit and lose their Charters of priviledges by abuse and misdemeanours For what you say ' of Parliaments power Parag. 6. I would you would alwaies speak so modestly By Parliamentarie power when I speak so largely I take it as containing the three estates the King the head and the Lords and Commons as the body yet I abhor to think of ascribing to them power to make that which is unjust just as I do disdain that comparison of the witness brought by me against Episcopacie to that brought against Naboth by suborned Knights of the Posts for the testimonies I brought were out of the Scripturures of Truth But Parag. 7 8 9. We have a great out-cry made but the best is it s a great deal of cry and little wooll The out-cry is at these words If King and Parliament release the engagement in the case of money the engagement were gon in law though not in equity The Order would be valid in law though in jurious First you question the validity of an Order of Parliament but you should remember I speak of an Order past by King and Parliament and that amounts to a law and later laws over-rule former Then you bid men take heed of their purses for I speak of sums of money But this is but to make a noise for you know my Opponent brought in the instance of money and I did but answer about it But the greatest out-cry is at this gon in law not in equity valid in law though injurious behold say you law without equity God bless me from such law I say so too but the Divinity is good enough by your leave For were not the Statutes in Queen Maries time laws though injurious And the Martyrs brought to a legal tryal by the Statute-laws of the Land though injurious ones This is so plain that no rational man can deny it and all the shew you make to the contrary is but from the word Jus because that properly signifies such a constitution as is just But if an unequal Statute may not be called Jus properly may it not be called Lex or a Statute-law your own word * Your self say pag. 40. Lex non obligat subditos in foro conscientiae nisi sit juste The law binds not Subjects in the Court of conscience unless it be just But then this implyes in foro humano it doth which agrees to what I say but that you have a minde to quarrel pag. 94. l. 12. shews that you are not so ignorant as not to know it nor so impudent as to deny it And therefore your accusations here of Divinity without conscience c. are Sophistical and childish or malicious whereas you say I stretch my conscience and justifie a power in the Parliament to do injury and not onely so but a power to make laws to justifie this injury It s a most false slander I say there is in King and Parliament that Peerless power that their agreement makes a law but if they stretch this to unjust things they abuse their power and become injurious and sin yet we have no plea against them in law that is in foro humano but in equity and conscience Parag. 10. You quarrel in like manner with those words So if there be no injury the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation which your dulness or passion makes you not understand and so you play the ape with them The meaning is this The King and Houses being the supream power what they ratifie stands firm and what they abolish no man can claim by any constitution of the Nation And in matters not injurious they may lawfully put this power committed to them into act Now Parag. 11. It may appear that you well understood what I meant in distinguishing between law equity in that you say What is according to law true law is lawful Why do you say true law but to note a distinction of laws Some are made by lawful authoritie and so valid in foro humano in mans Court yet that authoritie observes not the right rules of equitie but abuseth power to decree unjust things and so it is a law but not a true law that is not a law for that intent that laws were ordained to prevent injury not decree it I conclude therefore that you make these rehearsals of law without equity ad faciendum populum against your own conscience but the intelligent will see and deride this beggarly fraud Parag. 12. You harp upon the old string that an office can forfeit nothing And I grant it of such an office that is of God and of such priviledges as are necessarie or usefull but neither is Episcopacie such an office nor their large jurisdiction and great pomp such priviledges Parag. 13. Runs on the same string touching an office instituted of God which Episcopacie is not though Ministrie be And then kindly as often formerly grant the question that of priviledges perchance there may be a forfeiture where they prove prejudiciall to the publike good and so waves the question from that which is de jure of right which he hath been disputing all this while to that which is de facto of the fact of prejudice to the publike in which question how confident soever he be in the negative I must mind him that not he and the Prelates nor I that are parties but the King and Parliament must be Judges For what you say out of the great Charter Parag. 14. ' We grant to God and confirm the Church of England free c. I answer but the Bishops are not the Church you do not I hope approve that popish language they were then but a part and an unsound part being vassals to the man of sin Yet William the Conqueror did ill to appropriate Church-lands for covetousness and for it might miscarry so did they for the same cause rob the Temples of the Heathen Deities whence the proverbe Aurum Tolosanum in Aulus Gel. Noct. Attic. lib. 3. c. 9. Yet they did well that conscientiously abolish'd both Idols and Temples What you add that in strictness of Reformation Episcopacy was continued in England as most useful for the Church How this observation is connected I know not It is a suddain
motion I may also justly take occasion to give notice that our Reformation hath been counted defective for keeping up Episcopacy in its height and not either abolishing it or at lest bringing it within the ancient limits with a Presbytery which now is offered by the King And what other reformed Churches can the Author name but it was part of their Reformation to take away Diocesan Episcopacy Parag. 15. You express a needless grief to hear from a Preacher of the Word that the Bishops must lay down wealth honour and Mytres or else the Crown must run an hazzard Are you sorrie to hear a Preacher speak the truth hath not the Crown run an hazzard in this respect as well as others But whereas you say I give notice of what hath been the cause of my factious preaching you falsly slander for though I know no cause that I should have had to grieve to see the Bishops stript of their greatness in a fair way yet I have as seriously and sincerely grieved for the hazzard of of the Crown as your self and have been as far from furthering it For that you add that few of the Bishops have gained so much by the Church as their breeding cost their parents It will be credible but to a few except to those that know at what rates they made friends in the Court to procure them Parag. 16. You tell me I might have done well to have directed this passage to the Parliament Truly you say true and those that know me know I have not been backward to press and perswade a condescension on their parts as well as on the Kings and that in writing too which on as good an occasion as I had to print my Case may see the light But the Bishops have not been so innocent as you make them for schism they did not prevent it but partly made it by casting out both Ministers and people for their own inventions that willingly and peaceably would have held communion in all Gods ordinances partly occasion'd it by neglect of good Discipline and rigorously requiring conformitie to humane ceremonies for Heresies they did foster them How did the most of them connive at Papists advance Arminians and Socinians while they pretended against Socinianism Blasphemie in one kinde they hinder'd not in that they let blaspemous swearers pass without discipline and enjoy the priviledges of Sacraments Atheism they promoted by hindring the preaching of the Gospel which they were enemies to for the most part to uphold their dumb Ministerie and for fear their idleness should be censured They taught rebellion against the Lord in teaching men to prophane his Sabboths They hindred not but occasioned blood-shed in oppressing Scotland with illegal impositions stirring up the King to war against them and to break his Pacification with them which was the egg that hath bred this cockatrice that is like to destroy all This I speak not of all but some of them nor out of a delight I have to rake in other mens sores but to shew you that Bishops grew not into such odium among the people for nothing nor were they without miscarriages that occasioned such a violence against them and yet for my part I grieve that the peoples dislike of them had not acted in a more orderly and regular way Parag. 17. For Seldens distinction between the Abbot and the Abbey it seems he is better at relating distinctions then practising them And its good to observe that distinction where the man is Gods instituted Officer but that neither Abbot was nor Diocesan Bishop is but both humane creatures Parag. 18. Your quarrell is at my expression of bringing Bishops to moderation which you in a jeering way say is annihilation but as wise a man as you may be deceived for though that relation or title of Episcopacie be taken away wherewith man hath exalted them yet they may retain that place that God hath given them to serve him as Pastors in some parochiall charge as they did before their Episcopacie which he that disdains or thinks nothing or that it is too low for him I dare be bold to say it is too good for him Parag. 19. For that you say that the King suffers for the Bishops obstinacy the more disrespective they not to yield that he may be enlarged if that would do it you know what Gregory Nazianzen not inferior to any of them did for peace for what you relate here and else-where in an accusatorie way of what is done to the Bishops and Clergie I might object what hath been done to the Clergie of the other side when under opposite power but I have neither furthered nor approved the oppressions of neither side but bewail them and fear Gods judgments for them And therefore in your Parag. 20. is slander out of malice or mistake that I have preacht for the Bishops wealth or Mytre c. but your opinion is at last if others be so violent to put him to it the King and his posterity must perish e're you will consent to part with your greatness and honour Sure if you count those that put the King upon this strait his enemies no wise man will count you who will rather let him perish by the rigour of others then relieve him by your condescension good friends you love greatness so that you will rather lose it with him then release it to contribute to his preservation Is this your boasted of affection and loyaltie This shews what you pretend love to the King for to uphold your own greatness not his further then it upholds yours Parag. 21. You conclude that if the Bishops knew themselves guilty of the difference between the King and Parliament God forbid but they should part with all they may c. And if they will remember the beginning of it in Scotland with the occasion they may see guilt enough especially he that called it Bellum Episcopale who it is to be feared spake the minde of the rest But yet they cannot give up what is Gods nor would I have them but for God and to God for his glory both to promote a blessed peace and to set in its proper sphear Presbyter-Bishops of his own appointing and support more able of them to feed the flock of God that may live divers years without one Sermon for many a Diocesan Bishop Case of Conscience Resolved BEsides this argument there be other insinuations brought in by the same Author that it would be dishonourable to the Kings memorie to be an unfortunate instrument to pull down Cathedrals and impoverish them c. Answ To abolish Prelacie and seize the revenue of Prelates to private or civill interest undoubtedly could neither want stain nor guilt such kinde of impropriation as hapned in the dayes of Henry the 8. was cryed out of all the Christian world over Illam bonorum Ecclesiasticorum dissipationem cum detestando sacrilegio conjunctam tecum cum bonis omnibus deploramus scelus universo
the Pastor some to the poor some to other pious uses but when your Prelates grew Lordly the like not that and therefore by little and little they changed the Deacons office and made themselves proprietaries of the great revenues and thereby great Princes and you can abuse Scripture to confirm it as the Papists do to exalt the Pope But Paul say you commanded Timothy that the Presbyters be well provided for 1 Tim. 5.17 And to what purpose was this charge unless he were to provide for the Presbyters of his Church For very good purpose as the Apostle shews you himself 1 Tim. 4.11 These things command and teach He was to teach it others to perform it for though he set Presbyters on work in some sense yet it was not for himself but Christ and his Church and they who reap'd their spirituals were to pay them temporals 1 Cor. 9. And you dream when you talk of Timothyes table or allowing maintenance Alas he had no Palace then he kept no Prince-like table to feed his Presbyters these fancies will be ridiculous to learned men especially to Bishops to lay the charge on them to maintain all the Presbyters in their Diocess Yet you say in those times Bishops and Presbyters were used to live in the same house What all the Presbyters in a Diocess and in the Apostles time Alas Sir they were like their Master they had no houses but what they hired nor no tables but where they sojourned as appears by Divine story With what face can you deliver such improbabilities But Parag. 10. You enquire Whence the want of maintenance for preaching Presbyters ariseth and you answer it is from the appropriation of tythes at the dissolution of Abbeys This is true in part but not in the whole for I believe the greater part of Appropriations are held of Bishops and Deans and Chapters and if the Bishops be to maintain the Presbyters and withhold the tythes who is the thief now At least thus far the attempt is just to restore their impropirations And I must tell you this too That there was scarce any Gentleman of any ingenuitie or affection to religion but he made a far more considerable addition out of his impropriation to the incumbent then either Bishops or Deans and Chapters Though the one purchased them when the other swore they came into them freely Nay some Gentlemen resigned their impropriations freely I can hear of no Bishop that hath done so though you say they are bound to maintain their Presbyters You close with a jeer but therein discover your ignorance Impropriations were injurious you confess and if they be not valid in law why do not you supply the cure of some great impropriation and recover the tythes in a legall way if you cannot my position is truth and so not dissonant from the God of truth Parag. 11. You bring my words that if Bishops Lands were bestowed on Presbyters This would be not ruine but to rectifie the devotion of former ages which you say is somewhat like Cardinall Woolsey's pretence who dissolved fourty small Monasteries of ignorant Monks to erect two goodly Colledges for the breeding up learned and industrious Divines was not this to turn impediments into helps was not this as fair a pretence as mine yes the very same and I think few godly and rationall men will disallow it But you would prove by the event that this was not accepted of God because his Colledges were not brought to perfection But vulgus res eventu metitur it s for vulgar capacities to judge of things by the event not Doctors of Divinitie And had Cardinall Woolsey think you no other sins to make God blast his design but this pious attempt Sure no man that knows his story will so judg but this gave occasion to profuse sacriledg but occasions are not alwaies culpable of ill events unless they becauses also as this was not but the covetousness and igonrance with other lusts of ill-guided men Parag. 12. you enquire what the meaning of these words is this will turn pomp into use I answer not what you say but so that wealth which of late served for the useless pomp of one only Princely Lord Bishop would provide many able preachers for the use and edification of the Church But you proceed and say that the power of Bishops which were the main impediments to schism and heresie we have covenanted to root out and have brought in all helps to irreligion and Atheism c. But this is but a false suggestion of yours for though the power of Episcopacie as Jerome saith was first erected to prevent schism yet amongst us of late as I have shewed it was the great occasion of schism the fautor of divers heresies That there have of late appeared more heresies and schism among us then formerly is not because Episcopacie was pul d down but because we were so long without Presbyterie setled which is yet but lamely done for where that is setled it would far better prevent the rise and growth of heresie then Episcopacie as King James demonstrated to Mountague Bishop of Bath and Wells demanding of him upon the occasion of Legatts Arrianism what the reason should be that Scotland was so free from schism and heresie when England was far more pestered with both The relation out of a learned Author you may take as followeth When Legatt the Arrian and Weakman Scoti paracl contra Tileri praen from the relation of a Courtier of good credit lib. 1. c. 8 that affirmed himself to be the Holy Ghost were put to death Mountague Bishop of Bath and Wells ask'd King James seriously whence it was that England did bring forth Sects heresies schisms insomuch that many families before we were aware separated from us and fled away whereas no such thing was observed to happen in the Church of Scotland To whom the King as most skilfull in this cause most wisely answered That such was the Discipline of the Scotch Church that it was impossible for such things to fall out amongst them for first saith the King you must know that every Church hath its Pastor alwaies resident and vigilant in his parish and this Pastor hath joyned with him Seniors and Deacons which every week meet together at a set time and place for the censure of manners that almost the whole flock is known by face to the Pastor and the conditions disposition and religion of everyone is made apparent no heresie therefore can spring up in a Parish without notice taken by the Pastor and to prevent the rooting of any error in a Pastor They have every week their Presbyteries composed of all the Pastors in a Shrievalty or Deanrie in the chief City of that precinct and this not only to decide the more weighty questions touching manners but also to try doctrine it self Here do prophesie at least two whereof the first doth only open the text and expound it The second doth give the
take the Apostles to be the foundation is it in respect of their persons authoritie or doctrine Their doctrine I believe Sir and will you compare your Bishops for doctrine to the Apostles and Prophets Who as such were infallible Nay do you not confess the doctrinal part of the Ministerie to belong to the Presbyter as well as your Prelate and to be more performed by them and have you not made a fine proof of the fall of the Church with Bishops out of this place But you add Parag. 19. What no danger of sacriledg in robbing Father and Mother But you answer for me that it is no sacriledg because the means shall stil be setled on the Church and that 's a reason which you cannot answer For sacriledg is an alienating of that which was justly devoted for sacred to civil or prophane use therefore change so there be a continuance of holy use is no sacriledg Nor shall we rob our Father for as you confess holy treasure was first given to the Church in general The Bishops had not propriety but use of some and with the rest they were to maintain the Presbyters which are wanting in many places for want of maintenance Now for those in whom authority lyes to take care for the edification of the Church To dispose the Churches Patrimonie so as may be best for edification of the Church appointing it to maintain preachers not pomp will be counted neither sacriledg nor theft by rationall and good men But you say we rob the Church of her husband too for though a Church have 1000 Presbyters yet she hath but one husband so that great Counsell of Calcedon but that Counsell spake according to the corrupt customes of those times not according to the tenure of Scriptures who make all the Presbyters over-seers over their particular flocks to dwell with them as men of knowledg and to take care for them and that 's to be in your sence husband is it not After you have made the Church a widow without a Bishop you add while a widow she can bring forth nothing but a bastard brood consider that yes I shall consider it but to your shame what if a Church continue as often it hath through covetousness and faction long without a Bishop are all the Converts begotten by the word of truth preach'd by Prebyters bastards nay what if Churches cast off Episcopacie are all her Presbyters bastards Do you thus gratifie the Papists and abuse all the Ministers of our sister reformed Churches many of which far outstrip you in all ministeriall qualification your assertion therefore is very considerable to discover what a Popish spirit you are of For Parag. 20. Whether your conclusion will follow on the premises or mine I now leave to the judicious Reader I would not have the King for fear of the people to do any unlawfull act I disclaimed it in the very entrance of my Case resolved but I only perswade to what for ought I yet see I have proved lawfull and that to rescue a perishing kingdom and prevent the hazard of his Crown which that it may be free and flourishing on his head is my daily and heartie prayer as those that know me can very well witness notwithstanding your ignorant calumniations to the contrarie Case of Conscience Resolved MY second Antagonist exceeds the first both in subtiltie and peremptoriness for he plainly affirms that the King cannot desert Episcopacie without flat perjurie and hence falls foul both on those that would force him to it and also on those moderate Courtiers that for peace sake counsell'd it He disputes thus There 's difference between laws and oaths Where the supream Jus dominii is there is a power above all laws but not above their own oaths in whom that power is for law bindes only while it is a law that is till it be repealed But an oath bindeth as long as it pleaseth him to whom it is taken The reason is because the supream power may cedere jure suo and obliege himself where before he was free which if they do by promise justice bindes them to performance but if by an oath the matter being lawful then are they bound in religion and conscience for an oath adds a religious bond unto God If this were not so no oath were binding to them I answer First it s a ground laid down by this Author in the same place that no oath is obligatorie beyond the intention of it and then I first propound it to consideration whether the intention of this oath be not only against a tyrannous invasion on the rights of the Clergie not against an orderly alteration of them if any prove inconvenient and to protect them against violence not against legal waies of change For first this is as much as is rationall for a King to undertake and therfore in right reason the oath should have no other sense if the words of the oath will bear it as the words of this oath will Secondly this oath to the Clergie must not be intended in a sense inconsistent with the Kings oath to the people first taken for their protection in their laws and liberties for then the latter oath will be a present breach of the former and so unlawfull Now one of the Priviledges of the People is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with the consent of the King to alter whatever in any particular estate is inconvenient to the whole And therefore he cannot afterward engage himself to any particular estate to exempt it from this power for by that oath at least cessit jure suo in this Authors judgment The Clergie and their priviledges are subject to the Parliament or they are not I hope they will not now claim an exemption from fecular power But if they be under Parliamentarie power how can it be rationally conceived to be the meaning of the Kings oath to preserve the Priviledges of the Clergie against that power to which they are legally subject or how were the oath in that sense consistent with the priviledges of the nation formerly sworn to by the king If the oath had such a sence in times of Poperie when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation yet when that exemption was abolish'd as a branch of Anti-Christian usurpation The change of their condition must needs change the intention of the oath unless they will say that the Crown stands still engaged to them to maintain such priviledges as by Act of Parliament were long since abolish'd which is to make his oath to them contrariant to that taken before for the maintenance of the laws It s apparent then to make the intention of the oath to be against a legal alteration by Parliament makes it unlawfull and so not obligatorie And if it be not intended against legall alteration the king may pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie when his Houses of Parliament think it convenient and petition for it without
violation of his oath CHAP. X. PARAG. 1. Wherein is shewed what the true intention of the Kings oath is for maintenance of Episcopacie in answer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter I Come now to answer the 8. Chapter wherein you were pleased to take in hand this passage beginning with my answer to my latter opponent first and yet you did not make an end with him before you undertook to reply to my answer to my first opponent which how judicious it is let the Reader judge for what advantage you did it you best know The question is you say Whether the King may desert Episcopacie without perjury a question too high for any subject but you are enforced to make that a question that is harsh to loyal ears lest you may seem to avoid my subtile and saucie cavils as unanswerable Good words Doctor If the question be too high for a subject have not I the same plea for medling with it that you have being led into it by my opponents but the truth is the question is fit enough for discussion so it be done with reverence whatever I am I know you will confess that both my former opponents knew as well their dutie to our Soveraign as you your self and were as observant of it when men are to act by counsel or prayer for kings unless they know in Cases proposed what is conscionable for him to do or not to do how can they rightly perform their duties To balk such questions therefore on just occasion is not dutie but flatterie and to leave kings and their Counsellors without needfull light But you have a quarrell to me for saying my second Antagonist affirms that the King cannot desert Episcopacie without flat perjury and say his words are far more mannerly why did you not then set down his more mannerly words but abuse your reader with a falsitie but you will prove the thing that Episcopacie may not be deserted without violation of oath and the Church left to swine No Sir we would purge it of swine and doggs too which they exposed its choicest outward priviledges to but how do you prove it First Parag. 2. You go a begging telling one of my confession when I do but take the words of the oath from my Antagonists mouth and dispute ex concesso that the oath is as he relates it To protect the Bishops c and then you bring your observations 1. Good Kings protect Bishops 2. They ought to do it 3. In right they ought to do it But when I confess that these words are in the oath must I therefore approve all that is in the oath yea and take them in your sense too I hope not Thus far I approve the kings protecting Bishops within the limits of their calling set them of God but our Prelates have excluded their fellow-Presbyters But thirdly as of right he ought to do I take to be a limitation how far he engageth himself that is so far as a good king in right ought to do and if he go no further he is injurious to none though he displeases many as you say Parag. 3. Parag. 4. You add the King hath sworn to be protector of the Church under his government but that cannot be unless he protect the Bishops who are the Ministerial spouse of the Church This is a false inference for though the Ministerie be necessarie to the Church yet not your Prelacie which is but an humane additament your proof is presumptuous to make any man a Ministeriall spouse of the Church as well as it is for the Pope to be made a Ministerial head of it Yet you repeat it Parag. 5. With our frequent dish of no ordination without them which hath been often enough answered You conclude if Bishops be of the same order with the Apostles you have Calvins acknowledgment that the Church cannot stand without them yea and mine too and yet never the nearer for Ante Leves ergo c. as soon shall you finde Harts feeding in the middle region of the air as your Bishops among the Apostles You add Parag. 6. that the Church cannot be without the Bishop if we believe Cyprian that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop you add that the Church is in the Bishop causally c. If you understand by the Bishop the Ministerie and by causally as an instrument of its preservation I grant it without any inconvenience otherwaies we can grant the Church to be causally in none other but Jesus Christ the true head of it nor is there any other that is fountain of it it s as flat Poperie to judg otherwaies as to make the Pope the head of the Church nay worse For Hart makes the Pope to be the head not as the fountain of life as your similitude imports but only in regard of directing the outward functions and yet for this that mirror of learning Doctor Reynolds doth implead Mr. Hart of high treason against Christ And I remember also there a witty and rationall answer that our learned Doctor makes to a place cited out of Leo. He grants Leo was an ancient learned holy and witty man yet a man and a Bishop of Rome c. and applies to him a saying of Tully to Hortensius when he immoderately praised eloquence that he would lift her up to heaven that himself might go up with her so did Leo lift up St. Peter c. So Cyprian was an holy man but a Bishop so he might extoll Bishops that he might lift up himself with them See confer between Reynolds and Hart. cap. 1. divis 2. therefore your premisses have not yet force to draw my consent to their conclusion Parag. 7. You grant that the oath is not obligatory beyond the intention that is say you according to the common plain and literall meaning of it good as the plain literall meaning is to be found out of the grammar of it and other circumstances that may convince Reason of the intention of it You add Parag. 8. That the oath is to the Clergie The King must have respect to them and their intention I answer not mentall but what the words of the oath import considered with its circumstances nor so much to the intention of the now giver as the first framer Now I beseech you if the King should have ask'd the Bishops at the giving whether if a Case should fall out that he must not only venture which he hath done but lose his Crown rather then fail to save them whether they would have said yea that is the meaning Truly I believe not and if they had the King and Peers and people would have hiss'd them out rather then the one would have perswaded or the other would have yielded to have taken it with that sense and intention Parag. 9. You enquire whether what hath been done hath not been a tyrannous invasion I answer there hath been too much tumult and Ministers have suffered too irregularly
on both sides but when the Houses present a Petition to the king with a Bill for abolition of Episcopacie that only is the regular way that I defend the king not to be ingaged against Parag. 10. You say it was his duty to protect you while it was in his power I answer it was and is his dutie so far as it was intended in the oath but was not to hazard the destruction of himself and kingdom for your Prelates yet I advise not the breaking of his oath as you would hint but I limit the intention of the engagement of the oath as in reason it ought to be If you be not against an orderly alteration as you say Parag. 4. You grant the question for then if the Parliament lay down their swords and come with a Petition to desire his assent notwithstanding his oath he may assent which was the thing to be proved For my part I abhor force upon a king but if he might sign a Bill without force I see no reason why danger of force can make it unlawfull To Parag. 12. I say if the king hath done his best to protect them against violence they can require no more he hath done as much as his oath doth require now he may take care to preserve himself issue and people And for his Ministers let them answer for themselves CHAP. X. PARAG. 2. Shewing the right sence of the Kings Coronation-Oath from this that what he undertakes for the Bishops must not be conceived to cross what he hath promised to the people in answer to Doctor Boughen's 8. Chapter I Proceed now to answer your eight Chapter whose very Title is ominious Whether the Kings Oath taken to the Clergie be injurious to his other subjects and inconsistent with his oath to his people Hereby you would insinuate that I affirm it is whereas I affirm it cannot be conceived so to be and therefore we must not put a sence upon it to make it so to be and from this ground I impugne your false sence of the oath namely that it takes away all power from the King at the suit of his Parliament to alter any of their jurisdictions whereof they shew the grievance It s therefore a calumnious insinuation of yours that I do set the liberties of the people against the Clergies It s your false inhansing your priviledges above those of the people alterable by King and Parliament that is guiltie of the incompatibilitie of their priviledges if such an evil be and therefore I say Amen to your prayer closing Parag. 1. Parag. 2. I agree that Gods law is unalerable by man And I desire no more from you then that what is seled by man is alterable by man For I plead for alteration of no priviledg but what is from humane indulgence and that such an one too that the Church may better want it then have it in her Clergie That of Par. 3.4 Touching justness of laws may pass with some Animadversion of that of Ocham that laws nemini notabile afferant nocumentum If by nocumentum we understand dammage For the law to pull down the houses in Rome that stood in the Augurs way their principles granted was just yet it brought notable dammage to the owners but the publike good was to carrie it away So laws among us against Monopolies undid some yet the publike emolument made the law just Parag. 5.6 Are ignorant trifling or worse For first you quarrel at the phrase the protection of the peoples laws who say you made them Law-makers Not I Sir but when King and Parliament have made them they have propriety in them The priviledg of them is usually called part of their birth-right A man may call an house his own because he possesseth it and hath the benefit of it though he made it not So I call the laws the peoples But yet the following cavil is worse For whereas I say one of the priviledges of the people is that the Peers and Commons in Parliament have power with consent of the King to alter what ever in any estate is prejudicial to the whole I had thought say you this had not been a priviledg of the people but the Parliament Representers not the people Representees c. And again parag 6. How the Lords will take this I know not Can they endure their power to be derivative c. Which all are but trifling and odious mistakes For he might well know that by People I mean all in distinction from the King of what state soever Peers or others Nay doth not he himself take it so witness his own expression pag. 49. lin 1.2 ' Vnder this word People are comprehended the Nobility Clergy and Commons of this Kingdom How trifling then are his exceptions as though I set the people against the Parliament When under People I comprehend as himself doth all the Members of the Parliament And yet more absurd is your trifling parag 7. in arguing against those words That the Peers and Commons have power to alter whatsoever is inconvenient because it is in the Kings consent to confirm or cause a law Sith I add in the same place as you confess in parag 8. with the consent of the King and so ascribe not power of alteration without him but with him sure as they say the â—agle is hungrie when she catches at such Flies As impertinent are your questions and answers parag 8.9 But parag 10. You proceed to number up the inconveniences that will arise to the people by stripping the Clergy of their immunities But you must tye your self to the immunities in question else you say just nothing to the purpose ' First the curse for sacriledg but I have freed the alteration intended from guilt of sacriledg and therefore that is the curse causeless that shall not come If no more be done then by my case I prove lawful If any do proceed further and commit sacriledg Whether many or few young or old wittingly or ignorantlie I excuse them not but joyn in your censure parag 10.11.12 But parag 13. When the Church is stript of her means ' what kinde of Clergy shall we have Jeroboams Priests the lowest of the people say you And have we not had many such under the Bishops in their and other Lay-impropriations Nay was it not a design to fill all the Parishes in the Episcopal Cities with the Singing-men of the Cathedral Which was in a great part effected and were not they of the lowest and many times of the worst condition of the people This is like to continue and increase if the Church be farther spoiled But if the Bishops and Deans and Chapters lands be imploied to maintain Parochial Pastors this will help to fill the Church with able and learned Preachers and encourage men to dedicate their Children to the Ministery and them to imbrace it because if they be learned and unblameable there will be more opportunitie of competent though not of so great
sence and intention of it which the review of the Covenant saith is all the obligation of an oath Parag. 9. You speak about the change of the condition of the Clergie as though the intent were to make it slavery Sure Sir it s far from my intent The English Laytie are not slaves He that saith the Priviledges of the English Clergie that they hold by law are inviolable to them while the law remains but that the laws concerning them are alterable makes them not slaves but equall in freedom to any English Lay-subject But Parag. 10. You would pretend to a little subtiltie for you say the change of the Clergies condition from Popery to Protestancy was for the better or for the worse I answer undoubtedly for better morally for now we are in Christs way Let every soul be subject c. Rom. 13.1 Then we were in Anti-Christs way but yet in a civill respect we have not such exemptions or liberties as we had we are more under uncivil power but this is for the better for that libertie that is without Gods leave is not indeed a priviledg but a snare to the partie holding it I confess with you that the intent of the Kings oath was to protect his subjects in their severall places dignities and degrees and not to suffer them to oppress one another but not to deny any Bill that upon advisement shall be presented and manifested to conduce to the weal publique You proceed Parag. 11. The intention of the oath is to maintain the ancient legall and the just rights of the Clergie I have answered it is to maintain them against illegall oppression but not against legall alteration that you should prove but do not The continual practice of the nation is with me wherein by divers statutes many Canonical Priviledges have been altered as 25. H. 8. all Canonicall Priviledges contrariant to the Kings Prerogative and civil laws and 1 of Elizabeth in giving power to the Crown to exercise all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction by whom she will appoint and this is all that I affirm that Priviledges are alterable by an orderly way in Parliament and therefore you may take the Ghostly Fathers place to the man of sin which you would bequeath to me you are fitter to serve the Pope then I you hold no Bishop no Church but such passions I look at but as winchings when an argument pincheth For Parag. 12. I consent to Sir Edward Cook in his opinion of the Kings engagement to maintain the rights and inheritance of the Church nor is he against my limitation for it s known what his opinion was of the power of Parliaments That they might alter what ever they saw inconvenient to publikeweal In your parag 12. You wilfully slander me that I would perswade the Laytie that the Clergies weal is their woe I only affirm that if all such Priviledges of the Clergie that are in their nature alterable be made unalterable by the kings oath that let the kingdom sink or swim the King cannot consent by Act of Parliament to alter them then are they inconsistent with the people and this I say again And I am carried thereto by evidence of truth and not any caninus appetitus after wealth and honour Those that know me will but laugh at your rashness in these mistaken calumnies The former part of your 14. Parag. is passionate non-sense the latter part is a contradiction for you say if this oath be not against legall alteration in the true and literal sense c. The King may not without violation of his oath pass a Bill for the abolition of Episcopacie What I pray you is legall alteration of any thing here in England but alteration by consent of the King and Parliament How can this oath then if it be not against a legall alteration be against an alteration by Bill in Parliament which is the only legall alteration of Priviledges founded on law in England you are the strangest opponent that ever I met with you make nothing of giving the cause and railing at me for carrying it To as little purpose is all you conclude with parag 15. Whereas I say he may pass a Bill you wonder I say not he must pass a Bill you add I say that which is equivalent He cannot now deny consent without sin but yet Sir this must arise not from any authoritie of the Houses but from the condition of the King to preserve or restore peace to his kingdoms For the kings negative voice I alwaies asserted it as well as you both in word and writing but I affirm he hath power of an affirmative voice to confirm any thing that is for good of his people which he hath not nor ought not to swear away It may be you will say true if abolition of Episcopacie were for the good of the nation I answer that 's to pass to another question and to grant this in hand but besides the King and Parliament are to judg of the goodness of it for the nation and if they erre they are answerable to God alone Case of Conscience resolved SEcondly I answer from the expressions of the oath it self as they are set down by the same Author pag. 74. To protect the Bishops and their Priviledges to his power as every good king in his kingdom ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under their government Here you see the engagement of the king is but to his power as every good King ought in right to protect c. Now such power is no further then he can do it without sinning against God and being injurious to the rest of his people When then he hath interposed his authoritie for them and put forth all the power he hath to preserve them if after all this he must let them fall or support them with the bloud of his good subjects and those unwilling too to engage their lives for the others priviledges I think none need question but that he hath gone to the extent of his power and as far as good Kings are bound in right for it is not equall to engage the lives of some to uphold the honours of others That were to be cruel to many thousands to be indulgent to a few Suppose a king put a Commander into a City and give him an oath to maintain the Priviledges of it and keep it for him to his power and this Commander keeps this town till he hath no more strength to hold it unless he force the Townes-men to arms against that priviledg which he hath sworn to maintain If this Governor now surrender this town upon composition doth he violate his oath I think none will affirm it Such is the case with the king in this particular when he hath gone as far in their protection as is consistent with the weal of other his liege people which he is sworn to tender he hath protected them to his power and his obligation is no further by the
words of the oath The only objection as I conceive which lyeth against this is that though it be not in the Kings power to uphold them yet it is in his power not to consent to their fall Answ If the king should be peremptorie in denyal what help would this be to them Such peremptoriness in this circumstance might indanger his Crown not save their Miters Besides though it be in his power to deny assent to their abolition in a natural sence because voluntas non potest cogi yet is it not in his power in a morall sence because he cannot now deny consent without sin for if he consent not there will evidently continue such distraction and confusion as is most repugnant to the weal of his people which he is bound by the rule of government and his oath to provide for CHAP. XI Shewing that the King is not bound to protect the Bishops honours with the lives of his good subjects in answer to Doctor Boughen's 16. Chapter I Proceed to the answer of your 16. Chapter entituled how far forth the King ought to protect the Church and Bishops You begin it is confessed to my hand that the King is engaged to his power to protect the Bishops and their Priviledges as every good King ought in right to protect the Bishops and Churches under their government It is confessed that these are the expressions of the oath as it is set down by the Reviewer but you should conceive that I propose these two clauses as limitations of the kings engagement that is 1. To his power 2. only so far forth as in right he ought and I do not say the engagement is put upon him by the Author as you ignorantly suggest but that these are the expressions of the oath delivered by the Author but he is not in right bound to protect their priviledges against an orderly alteration by act of Parliament if any appear inconvenient to the whole body for that is not right Parag. 2. You confess the King is not bound further to exercise his power in protection of Bishops then he can do it without sinning And I after prove he cannot so protect them as to denie a Bill in that circumstance of affairs he and the land were in without sin what you answer to my proof will be seen in the sequel of this Chapter How I have answered your proofs that he cannot let fall Bishops without mischief to his people c. in your eighth Chapter let the Reader judge In that you say parag 3. That the Kings interposing the power he hath vexeth my confederacy Is I doubt your wilful ignorance for the frame of my Book might clearly enough hint unto you that I neither was of nor liked any confederacie against the King Neither have I as you say parag 4. Confest that what the King hath done is right Right it is indeed upon his principles But I do not think the King is bound in right to maintain Bishops in statu quo in the state wherein they were and he is willing now to regulate them by their Presbyters But whatever I confess in justification of the King is not as you say the justification of an enemy unless he that pleadeth prayeth suffereth for the King and his just and Kingly libertie be his enemy because he is against the usurping power of Bishops Parag. 5. If after all this he must perforce let the Bishops fal you and your schism have much to answer for Still a Slanderer it s none of my schism to force the King to let them fall for though I prove he may let them fall and that it is for the advantage of the Church that they should fall yet I was alwaies against forcing him to it for I think it is much more reason that his conscience should be left free in its determination then my own or any private mans in as much as God hath set him in so high a degree of eminencie in his Kingdoms But that you say the sword was never drawn on the Kings side to maintain Religion established They never learn'd to fight for Religion It is an ignorant speech misbecoming a D. D. For what juster cause of War or more weightie then to maintain Religion establish'd It s true we may not fight to set up a Religion which is true against the laws and authoritie of the land where we live that were against the direction to Christians under Heathen Emperors Rom. 13.1.2 But to joyn with authoritie to maintain Religion establish'd supposing it true with the last drop of our blood is the most glorious quarrel and so I doubt not but the Royal partie learned though not from you yet from better Divines For your clinch about good subjects It s frivolous for the War costs blood on both sides and the King loseth on both sides for all are his subjects and I doubt not but he hath good Subjects on both sides in regard of meaning and intention though its true one side must needs be in a grand error Parag. 6. You confess it is an hard case for one man to engage his life for the maintenance of anothers priviledges But who did so Not a man say you engag'd himself but by the Kings command which you after prove and state the question us you please But this is but to shuffle and alters the state of a question to elude the force of an Argument which you cannot answer That which I said was it was not equal for the King to engage by his command the lives of some to maintain the priviledges of others which I spake upon this supposition That if the King had condescended in point of Episcopacie the War would have been at an end Laws restored to exercise c. For both City and the Scotish Nation would have closed with him and for this cause alone viz. to maintain power of Bishops I say it would not have been equal to have engaged the lives of others nor were they willing as I have been informed Nobles nor others It may be the King thought condescention in this would not have set him and his people in quiet possession of their rights but I cannot but wish that it had been tryed that nothing lawful had been omitted by which there was any hope to have saved a great deal of misery that his Majestie his Royal relations and the whole Nation hath suffered But Par. 7. You deny them to be others priviledges and affirm them to be the peoples because they reap spirituals from them But truely I must tell you that the people reaped but little in spirituals from many of the Bishops who seldom preached themselves and rob'd many people of their spirituals by silencing their Ministers and though there were no Bishops in England the people may reap spiritual things from the Clergie as plentifully if not more then ever they did as well as without them they do in other reformed Churches But what you add That in