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
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
having never had institution nor induction it was never profer'd me but because he it seems hath been so ready to swear all must be in that bond but what if I had taken the oath I know no engagement to inhibit me to seek the abrogation of Episcopacy from the oath sith I was never forbidden by the Diocesan to seek it nay I can assure him that Dr. Bishop of Glocester Smith who imposed hands on me and in whose dioces while he liv'd I exercised my Ministry was of Ieromes mind that a Bishop was an humane creature as he exprest himself in conference to a friend of mine and so not unalterable For his 3 Parag. Touching Smectimnuus making a Bishop and an Elder all one a and thence his wonder how they indure my proposition being he knows that Author speaks of Bishop and Presbyter in a Scripture-sense which anon will cut his combe and I speak of a Diocesan Bishop as now he stands as he confesseth Parag. 4. That his quirk about Smectimnuus and the Masters of the Assembly is ridiculous trifling fitter for a boy disputing in Parvis to lengthen out an argument then for a D.D. writing a book in a case of moment But now to the motives which he saith I produce for the abrogation of Episcopacy he should have said for writing this case about it For the first no hope of the Kings and kingdoms safety without union between the King and our Parliament he doth not deny it but yet he divides them seditiously Our King and your Parliament I acknowledg him as my King pray and act for him in my sphear as my Soveraign the King hath written to them as his Parliament yet the Dr. divides them though he cannot deny no safety without union For his petitions made in Scriptures phrase they are from him as his heart is which I leave to God and in a good sense say Amen For the Second ground there is no probable means of union without the Kings condescention in point of Episcopacy This parag 6. and 7. he denies not but adds some things out of his own distempered minde viz. unless he lay down his lands c. Which he cannot prove though I am truly sorry that he hath any colour to set them off as credible to any For the third If the King should do it renitente conscientia it would be sinful c. To this Parag. 8. he saith that I perceive and in a manner confess that this he must do for you say it would be sinful to himself Thus you perswade our Soveraign into sin c. Was there ever a more false or irrational passage dropt from a D.D. pen do I say it absolutely when I only say if he should condescend renitente conscientia or do I perswade to sin when I shew such inconveniences of sin as cannot be ballanc'd But by way of amplification we have another piece of Divinity worthy such a D. D. Every reluctance of conscience makes not a grant sinfull but when my conscience checks me on just grounds Is this catholike doctrine I am sure it is not orthodox for it is point-blank to Saint Paul speaking of those that act against conscience for want of light in indifferent things and so not on just grounds Rom. 14.17 compared with verse 25. The kingdome of God is not in meat and drink But he that doubteth is damned if he eateth because he eateth it not of faith for whatsoever is not of faith is sin For the last that the Coronation oath is prest by learned pens c. he first takes notice of my confession Parag. 9. Wherein he might observe my candor to my Antagonists and therein read my intentions that not out of distaste to persons but out of love to peace and with a quiet and well affected heart to those I oppose I wrote the resolution of this case but the Doctors blood-shot eye can see none of this He hath not so much ingenuity as the Heathen virtus in hoste No he was resolved to carry on his Book with railings and scoffs and I am resolved neither to envy nor to imitate him being well assured that such dealing will prejudice both the work and Author with any pious and prudent Reader Next he trifles about an expression touching the Kings condescention I beseech you do you dream who told you that his Majesty had condescended to this impious and anti-christian demand saith he Whereas he knows the context of my words evidence them to be spoken hypothetically not catogorically But we must give him leave to catch at shows that wants real exceptions For his other expressions That desire of abrogation of Episcopacy is impious and anti-christian This will appear but froth unless he can make his Diocesan Lord Bishop an Ordinance of God which will now come to tryal CHAP. II. Wherein it is cleared that the Covenant is not to abolish Episcopacy root and branch nor is Episcopacy of Christs institution in answer to Dr. B. Second Chapter Case of Conscience Resolved NOw the bond of the Kings oath may be taken off two wayes either by clearing the unlawfulness of it that it was vinculum iniquitatis and so void the first day For quâ— jurat in iniquum obligatur in contrarium And if Prelacy in the Church be an usurpation contrary to Christs institution then to maintain it is sin and all bonds to sin are frustrate And truly as Prelacy stood with us in England ingrossing all ruledom in the Church into the hands of a few L. Bishops I think it may be cleared to be an usurpation by this one argument That power that dispoyls any of Christs Officers of any priviledg or duty indulged or injoyned them by the word of God that power is an usurpation against the word of God But this did Prelacy as it stood in England therefore English Prelacy was an usurpation against the word of God The Major is cleer of it self The Minor is thus proved Presbyters are by Christs warrant in Scripture indued with power to rule in their own congregations as well as preach See 1 Tim. 3.5 5,17 Heb. 13.17 1 Thess 5.12 Now as Prelacy stood in England the Presbyters were not onely excluded from all society of rule but which was more prejudicial to the dignity and liberty of the ministery were subjected to a lay-Chancellor and was not here usurpation against Gods direction Now what saith Dr. Boughen you say true saith he that the oath which is Vinculum iniquitatis is void the first day c. And hitherto your argument is good and in it he will joynissue c. Cap. 2. Parag. 1. See what a work this passage hath on the Doctor taken together and considered when the blood was down now all goes current yet this is the place for which he spit so much poyson of aspes in his Epistle to the Reader I hope the Reader will observe and by appealing from the Doctor in passion to the Doctor out of passion
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
abolish'd by Henry the 8. These were your rights that is you had claim to them by mans not Gods law 2. Some were essentiall to the callings grounded on the Word of God 3. Some were indulged by the Prince and State The first sort were void to a Christian by their anomie The second unviolable by the unquestionable authoritie of God the Author of them The third are under the Consult of Parliaments as other laws which are the peoples birth-right and they may alter both if they see occasion So the laws that concern the Clergie make them neither worse nor better then those laws that concern the Laytie render them Case of Conscience Resolved THe Author illustrateth the force of his argument by an example holding forth an inconvenience Where publique faith is given for money it is not releaseable by Parliament without consent of the partie for if it be it is in effect no ingagement c. Answ There 's a great deal of difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations and that which is made gratis to an office or societie subservient to publique good Of the former kinde is the engagement to pay sums of money of whom they were borrowed for publike good which is indispensible without the consent of the lender Of the latter sort is this engagement to the English Clergie Now engagements to a Societie to maintain their rights indulged for the personall worth of present incumbents or to promote the usefulness of that office If in their matter they prove prejudiciall to the office or the succeeding officers by their ill demeanor forfeit them their engagement becomes alterable There is no injustice done to make a law to over-rule or alter this engagement There 's no question of power in the Parliament to over-rule it for in the former case of money if the King and Parliament should ordain release of the engagement the engagement was gone in law not in equitie the order would be valid in law though injurious So if there be no injurie the King and Parliament may cancel any obligation And where there is forfeiture by miscarriage or the priviledg to a Ministrie which ought to hold nothing but for publike good proves prejudiciall the abrogation will be just as well as legall there will be no injurie done But take it at the worst it is but for the King to get the Clergies consent and I hope in this case they will not be so tenacious of their wealth and honour as to let the Crown run an hazzard rather then they lay down their Mitres and indanger the whole land to be brought to nothing rather then themselves to moderation I cannot but have a better conceit of the Major part of them at this time which will amount to a consent and that in this Authors judgment takes off the scruple about the oath CHAP. VIII Shewing that abuses are a forfeiture of some priviledges in answer to Doctor Boughen's 14. Chapter I Come now to answer your 14. Chapter which you entitle whether the lands of the Church may be forfeited by the misdemeanor of the Clergie But here I must minde you and the Christian reader that whereas there are two parts of the Clergie in England 1. Parochiall Pastors which stand by the ordinance of God who appointed the ordaining of Elders in every Church 2. Diocesan Bishops which I have proved to be but humane creatures invented and set up as Jerome saith to prevent Schismes That which I have spoken of forfeitures belongs to the latter which are not Gods ordinance though it may be so they would keep within ancient bounds and express ancient worth they might not be only tolerable but usefull yet if these abuse their power and become an inconvenience instead of curing an inconvenience and any thing indulged to them for the honour of God be abused to his dishonour in the hurt of the Churches then they make forfeiture Now the Case thus stated Your instance Parag. 1. of Abiathars being succeeded by another not the office abolisht is not a pari for that was in an office expresly Gods ordinance so Episcopacie is not What you say Parag. 2. about justice out of Lactantius who in that place distinguisheth between Jus civile quod pro moribus ubique variatur vera justitia quà m uniformem ac simplicem proposuit omnibus Deus I acknowledg the truth of his speech nor would I nor do I maintain any thing against true justice But what you infer from thence that where true justice is wanting there 's no law nor no Common-wealth c. It is evidently contrarie to his minde for though this true and perfect justice was wanting in all heathen societies for they had some constitutions that swerv'd from it yet no man will say there were no Common-wealths but tyrannies among the heathen though they were not such compleat Common-wealths as they might have been had they known the rule of Gods perfect justice Parag. 3. To that that there 's great difference between an engagement made to persons on valuable considerations and which is made gratis to an office or societie subservient to publique good You answer that the setling of land upon a Corporation is more firm and that gift gives as good propriety as purchase wherein you wilfully mistake the scope of my speech or ignorantly for the difference I speak of is in regard of the injurie in alteration and that too where and when there is miscarriage Now I hope though I must return to a corrupt man what is his own yet it is no injurie to deny courtesies which are given gratis to men for their worth Artaxerxes bestowed a great largess on the Ministers of the Sanctuarie and he did excellently wel in it and in the confirmation of it yet you simply make that expression the Law of God and of the King to relate to that one Decree of Darius which you will plainly see if you read Ezra 7.24 25 26. together But the question is if the following Priests had set up themselves with that the Kings benevolence and neglected the work of God and had grown insolent against the Monarch Whether it had been injurious in the succeeding Monarchs to have recalled that gift given to good men to make them more serviceable to God and devout in their prayers for the King But Par. 4. You say these lands and immunities were made to the office and Episcopacy is a living office But I answer it s an office that may dye for the Diocesan-Bishop can finde his Register in Gods Book he is later then the word written and therefore this plea will not help him Parag. 5. To that what is granted to personal worth of present incumbents and given to promote the usefulness of the office You say It is fixed till the office be found useless and abolisht but till then it is injustice to take it away without which the usefulness of that office cannot be so well promoted I
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
Parliament is the supream Court by which all other Courts which derive their power for execution of laws from the King by his Commissioners are to be regulated and the King and the Parliament are the supream power to make and disanul laws Sith then this supremum jus Dominij that is over all laws is not in the King He cannot lawfully make any engagement to any against the laws and legal rites of others for that were not cedere jure suo sed alieno This oath then to the Clergie cannot engage him against the legal priviledges of the people or the Parliament which he is bound to maintain one of which is to be readie by confirming needful Bills to relieve them from whatsoever grievance they suffer from any And thus I think the Case is sufficiently cleared that notwithstanding the Kings oath to the Clergie at his Coronation he may consent to the extirpation of Prelacie out of the Church of England CHAP. XII Wherein it is cleared that though the King be the Supream Magistrate yet that supremacy which is over all laws is in this Kingdom not in the King alone but in the King and Parliament in Answer to Doctor Boughen's 17. Chapter I Come now to your last Chapter entituled Whether there be two Supremacies in this Kingdom But why not as wel three You know I make three supremacies but two fitted your Bow better which you had prepared to shoot your Arrows in even bitter words But I shal let you see that as there is more vapour so more vanitie and lightness in this then in any other Chapter and some of it against your own words and I believe more of it against your own light First you begin to tell me That I blame them that set up two supremacies and yet cannot see the beam in my own eye and then calumniate at pleasure Yet all is but winde I blame them that set up two absolute supremacies that had power to make laws independantly one of another onely the Clergie had the better end of the staff for the Laytie must be subject to their laws but they would be exempt from the Layties This I condemned out of Marsilus Patavinus as an enemy to quiet because such were alwaies apt and usually in act clashing one against another But the supremacies that I speak of cannot cross one another so no danger of disturbance Again Doctor in sober sadness do you not know a difference between a supremacy and the Supremacie A D. D. cannot be so ignorant You cannot chuse but have learned the difference between absolute summum and summum secundùm quid Chiefs in some respect may be many chief absolutely but one and when I say a Supremacie did not that hint to you onely a Supremacie secundum quid in some respect onely and yet more expresly when I call it the supream Court that is supream not absolute but in respect of judicature there lies an appeal from all Courts to it by petition but from it to none Is not this a Supremacie Nay do not you your self ascribe as much to it when you say This I say that the Parliament is Curia Capitalis the supream Court of this Kingdom Your own words pag. 136. if Supream there 's supremacie quicquid dicitur de in est in it cannot be denominated supream but there is supremacie in it in some respect denominatio fit ab inhaesione did you not then cavil against conscience at a supremacie in the Parliament and raise dust to darken the light Parag. 2. After a light quirk misbecoming a D. D. you ask Whether this be not against the oath of supremacy Wherein we swear that the Kings highness is the onely supream Governour of this Land c How are my positions against this oath Do not I ascribe to the king to be the onely Supream Magistrate You that could play with summum and supremus Can you tell us a difference between Magistrate and Governour If not he that asserts the King the supream Magistrate reacheth the sence of that oath which maketh him supream Governour Therefore I need fear no humane penalties against perjurie for this No Doctor I hope once the Lord will not hold him guilty will more make me dread perjurie then all other penalties Parag. 3. you say I clip his Majesties wings and say that the supremum jus Dominij which is above laws figere refigere is not in the King to say it is in him is in our State a manifest error What 's become of the oath of Supremacy then say you Safe enough say I The King remains still supream Governour he is said to be onely so in government which notes execution of laws and so doth the phrases Ecclesiastical and Civil but you say in your estate it is no error Sure Sir in King Charles his Kingdom of England it is an error in which assertion I should not have been so peremptory at first nor now had I not received this light from his own pen in his answer to the Parliaments 19. Propositions sent to him in York-shire where first he tels them that the experience Col. of Remonst and pag. 320. 321. and wisedom of their Ancestors hath so moulded our government out of a mixture of all the three viz. absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy as to give to this Kingdom as far as humane providence can provide the conveniences of all three without the inconveniences of any one c. And then a little after In this Kingdom the laws are joyntly made by a King by an House of Peers and by an House of Commons chosen by the people all having free votes and particular priviledges The government according to these laws is trusted to the King c. Have not I now followed my copy right the supream power to make laws is Aristocrati cal in three States free to vote and the King the supream Magistrate to execute laws One would think if this would not make you blush for what is past yet it may stop your mouth for future and I need not say no more on this point yet I will give a little touch to shew the vanitie of your flourishes Your Parag. 4. Is a meer flash attended with the sparkles of light calumnies For I have not made one of two I yet leave one absolute Supaemacie as you confess in the next parag the Supremacie to make and unmake laws This is neither in King nor Houses apart but conjoyned Here then we are fallen back to one Supremacie Why did you then trifle so much about two But this say you is to skip from Monarchie to Aristocracie just as his Majestie hath told you in this government there 's a mixture its Aristocratical in Legis lation Monarchical for execution and therein is the excellency of it the one being fittest for Law-making by solidity the other for execution by celeritie and yet this D.D. jeers as though this was never seen before because he wanted eyes But