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
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
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
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
promotion which was competible but to a few So the second inconvenience pressed parag 13.14.15 is avoided also parag 16. All the inconvenience you say that Master Geree presseth is that we are not subject to the Parliament But how far forth we are and are not we shall hear anon Parag. 17.18 You tell me I speak much of a first and ' second oath I answer if that be an error I was led into it by my first Opponent that distinguish'd between oath and oath and the oath to maintain the priviledges of the Clergie he saith expresly is taken after the oath to the whole Realm neither do I see any thing in your Analysis of the oath here or the delineation of the oath in the beginning of your Book that invalidates the expression of my Opponent in realitie though in some formalitie it doth For there I see that the King had particularly and distinctly engaged himself to the whole Realm before he came to the Bishops which are the onely part of the Clergie about whom our controversie is and what he last promises to them confirmed by his oath must not contradict what he hath promised to the other which promise must be understood to have a prioritie in order in the bond of the oath as well as in the bond of the promise Parag. 19. You speak of sending us to Magna Charta to know who the People and Commons of this Kingdom are c. whith only fills up so much paper being nothing to the question in hand But Parag. 20. You reckon up the Priviledges of the Church as you have gleaned them out of Magna Charta and Sir Edward Cook in number 8. The second is that no Ecclesiasticall person be amerced according to the value of his Ecclesiasticall benefice but according to his lay-tenement and according to the quality of his offence The latter clause is reason the former a priviledg without reason and prejudiciall to the Civill state and gives many Ecclesiastical persons leave to sin impunè The fourth That all Ecclesiasticall persons shall enjoy all their lawfull jurisdictions and other rights wholly without any diminution or substraction whatsoever I pray you if the Kings Coronation-oath engage so to the confirmation of this priviledg that the king cannot consent to allow it by Act of Parliament how can that act be justified that enables the Crown of England to appoint what persons else they will to execute all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in this kingdom If that statute were lawfully made notwithstanding this oath why then may not another statute be made against their standing sith by the former they may be made unusefull and yet the former you brag you have engaged your selves to maintain in your oath of supremacie Parag. 9. The fifth priviledg you name is that a Bishop is regularly the Kings immediate Officer to the Kings Court of justice in causes Ecclesiasticall Whence I gather that by our law a Bishop is a kings creature no Apostle for he was the immediate Officer of Christ though subject in doing or suffering to the Civill Magistrate though heathen You conclude that it is provided by act of Parliament that if any judgment be given contrary to any points in the great Charter it shall be holden for nought c. True unless it be upon some particular statute of a latter Parliament with the king enacting things to the contrarie Parag. 21. You say that I go forward as if it were certain that this to the Clergie was a severall oath from that to the people I answer I disputed upon my opponents proposals and learned opponents do not use to make their cause worse then it is nor indeed doth he for though the king swear but once yet he ptomiseth the things he sweareth severally and the promise of this to the Bishops in question is last and therefore in competition must give way to other engagements neither do the statutes for confirmation of Magna Charta binde the hands of succeeding Parliaments Whose hands as the leaaned Chancellor Bacon observes cannot be bound by their Predecessors if they see reason of alteration a supream and absolute power saith he cannot conclude it self Hist of H. 7. p. 145. CHAP. X. PARAG. 3. Shewing that the Clergie are equally under the Parliament as well as Laytie in answer to Doctor Boughen's 9. Chapter I Now come to answer your ninth Chapter which is an angrie one which makes me think that you were sorely puzled My Dilemma is They are subject to the Parliament or they are not He answers subject they are to the Parliament consisting of head and members not to the members alone without the head for we are subject to the members only for the heads sake Truly this grant is all that I desire or need for the Parliament I propose the Dilemma about is that which consists of head and members united to which if they be subject then may these joyntly determine of any of their priviledges in their own nature alterable as they do of those of the people Indeed the King and Parliament ought not to take away any priviledges that are for edification but such as prove impediments rather but of that they are to be Judges in the application of their power and that 's all needfull to be said to parag 1 2 3 4 5. And yet I leave it with confidence to the judicious Reader as also what I have said in the former Paragraph touching a former and latter oath But whereas you ask Parag. 6. with what face I can say that the Kings oath to the Clergie is inconsistent with his oath to the people parag 6. I wonder with what face you can aver it when as I directly say it must not and therefore take off an interpretation of it that would make it inconsistent whereas you say the nation is weary of the Presbyterian government in three years it s but a piece of none-sence sith this three years except a little liveless shew in the City of London and some few places more the truth is and our miserie is that we have been under no Ecclesiasticall government at all Parag. 7. You mention my words if the oath had such a sence when the Clergie were a distinct Corporation on which you spend your judgment if you know what sence is Truly Sir you are the worst at picking out sence that ever I knew of a D. D. My meaning is plain if the oath had a sence to exempt them from power of Parliament it must be when they were a distinct Corporation under another Supremacie which now you disclaim Parag. 8. You mistake in saying I am zealous in distinguishing you and your Priviledges I answer to the distinction brought by my opponent that it is not such but that the Priviledges of Clergie and People I mean such as are alterable are equally under Parliamentarie power for alteration on just grounds And the kings oath to you is as obligatorie as to the people in the right
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
ΣΙÎΙΟΠΠΑΓΙΑ THE Sifters Sieve broken OR A REPLY To Doctor Boughen's sifting my Case of Conscience touching the Kings Coronation Oath WHEREIN IS cleared That Bishops are not Jure Divino That their sole Government without the help of Presbyters is an usurpation and an innovation That the Kings Oath at Coronation is not to be extended to preserve Bishops with the ruine of Himself and Kingdome Secundùm honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major Aug. Ep. 19. Communi Presbyterorum consilio regebantur Ecclesiae Hieron in Tit. 1. Let the Peace of God rule and sway in your hearts to the which also ye are called in one body Col. 3.15 By John Geree M. A. and Pastor of St. Faiths under Pauls in London LONDON Printed for Christopher Meredith at the sign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard 1648. TO THE RIGHT VVORSHIPFVL Sir Francis Nethersole of Nethersole Knight Grace and Peace Much Honoured Sir THough the great respect which you have been pleased to vouchsafeme might be engagement sufficient to this Scholastical gratitude Yet the suitableness of the subject added much to my inclination in this way to let the world know that I am in the number of those who are grateful honourers of your Learning and Godliness The Book I present to you is Polemical But the intention of my contention is Irenical As it is Polemical your learning renders you able to judg of it As it is Irenical your piety which bears the old stamp will incline you to imbrace it for all that know you throughly will give you testimony to be a lover of peace as it is a thing commanded of God not as it is popular and pleasing to men And that you have been a perswader of it not for private but publique interest not because it is easie but holy having had as deep a sence as any of the sad sufferings of your dear Countrey in her honour strength wealth and Religion by the present unnatural War Sr In this Paper-Combat I have met with such an Adversary as makes me need not onely candor but succour yet not against his subtilties but calumnies Neither this to those that know me but to strangers for his personal criminations are such gross mistakes that they will render him ridiculous to all that understand my judgment and carriage in these present distractions But yet they may make me odious where I am unknown as I am to most of those of quality whom this Reply should satisfie Sir If your name and testimony free my person from prejudice with such that they may ponder the Argument in an equal ballance I have enough for I never desire more from any Reader then what the weight of unprejudic'd Reason inclines him to give Controversies are of themselves troublesome especially when they come to Replies and Rejoynders Therefore that I may not add to your trouble with a long Epistle praying for an increase of your graces and blessing on your self yours and all your good endeavors especially those for an happy Peace I take leave and remain Sir From my Study in Ivy-Lane Sept. 18. 1648. Yours to serve you in the Lord Jesus John Geree The Preface to the Reader PARAG. I. Detecting the false unjust and uncharitable dealing of Doctor Boughen in his Sifting my Case of Conscience Resolved Whereby it may appear whose Sieve he used a civiov Graecè cribrum est apud Hesychium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cribrare apud eundem Cam. Myroth Evang. in luc 22.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cribrari to Sift this Resolution Christian Reader I HERE Present unto thee a Reply to an Answer made to a Book of mine by a man I know not and it seems I am not known to him For in it he chargeth me not onely with error in judgment which is incident to man Humanum est errare But also imputes to me pravity of intention both to King and Kingdom which is Diabolicum the Character of those whom Satan possesses filling their hearts with such corrupt affections Now to manifest my innocency and at the best the Doctors great mistake in these accusations I know no better way then that which Paul took in a case of malitious accusation before Festus and King Agrippa Acts 26. verse 4. To lay open what my manner of carriage hath been in this present National difference all the irregularities whereof on one side my Opponent layes throughout his Book to my charge Thou maiest therefore understand That in these late unnatural distempers of our Church and Nation I have been a zealous Studier of Peace and an hearty mourner not onely for the sins but the hard and irregular sufferings of either partie And have been conscientiously tender of that duty wherein either by the Word of God or the legal oaths of this Nation I stood engaged to my Soveraign Hence have I both suffered for him and with him And in my sympathie I was pierc'd the deeper because I could not but look upon his sufferings as reflecting scandal on our Religion and Nation Neither knew I how to excuse those whom I was bound in conscience in so great a degree to love and honour in their places as wel as his Majestie that not to be able to clear them was I truly profess as Davids sword in my bones Psalm 42.10 This made me restless in my spirit while there was any thing within my sphere for me to do whereby any the least probability appeared to further accommodation For I stood in dread of a prolonged Civil War not onely because it would hazzard the Honour and Weal of King and Parliament in whose Vnion and mutual safetie was involved the Glory Strength and Liberty of this Nation But also because I fore-saw what sluces it would set wide open to all excess of riot And the further the War proceeded the more was I confirmed in my sad prognosticks of it For it seemed evident that though the pretences for War were specious viz. Truth and Purity Either of which is more precious then Peace yet unless by some happie accommodation War were shortned we were in great danger to be no smal losers both in Truth and Holyness Hereupon I drew up a Treatise of accommodation pressing it with Arguments by mutual condescention Which so far had the approbation of some peaceable men of quality that had not some cross accidents prevented it may be it might have seen the light While my thoughts were still busied about peace we had intelligence where I lived that the King sending from Oxford to the Parliament for a Treaty for Accommodation had by the Earl of Essex the Lord General a short answer returned with a Copie of the National Covenant enclosed in it The English whereof was interpreted to be that unless the Covenant were taken no accommodation could be expected thereupon I took a serious view of the Covenant to see what was in it that might cause unanswerable scruple The result
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
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
of the Clergie is made to such a part of his people Clero Anglicano and particularly taken by him after his oath to the whole Realm which were needless unless it meant some other obligation This seems saith the learned Author to make it a distinct obligation and not releaseable without the Clergies consent I answer taking it for granted that the oath is thus taken by the King That oath was so framed when Clerus Anglicanus was a distinct Societie or Corporation as I may so say à populo Anglicano from the people of England This distinction between the Clergie and Laytie we may observe in our Historians Daniel in the life of William the first gives this for a reason whâ— the Clergie did so willingly condescend to him because they had their â—rovince a part whence they supposed a security to their priviledges how ever the Laytie were inslaved The same distinction of the Clergie and Laytie is observed by him in the life of Henry the second pag. 83. And this was not onely in England but other Nations Secularium petentes fastigia in legum lationes seorsum ab alijs quae civium universitatis proruperant Omnem Clerum ab hinc decernentes exemptum Civile schisma principatum supremorum pluralitatem inducentes ex ipsis quam velut impossisilem humanae quieti certaâ—â— hujus inducentes experientiam demonstravimus 170 1 Marsil Patav. defens pacis part 2. cap. 23. Now being the Clergie and Laytie were distinct bodies the Clergie holding their rights by priviledge distinct from the laws of the land an oath to maintain the laws of the land secured not them But as another body they had another oath for their securitie But now this distinction of the Clergy from the Laytie that they should be a distinct Province of themselves being a branch of Poperie is with it quite extinguisht And Laâ—tie and Clergie are now one bodie politick and under the same rule for all priviledges of the Clergie that are contrariant to the laws of the land were abolisht in the raign of H. 8. As undoubtedly that was that any Society should be exempt from secular power for that was to set up two Supremacies And therefore though the oath be continued in that order that it was when the Laytie Clergie were distinct bodies yet now that this distinction is abrogated and they are made one the oath to the Clergie cannot be stronger or more inviolabse then that to the Laytie for the preservation of the laws of the land both subject to regular alteration Thus far the case CHAP. V. PARAG. 1. Shewing that the Clergies rights are as alterable by King and Parliament as the Layities in answer to Doctor Boughen's 10. Chapter HEre you invert the method I went in but without just ground for I followed the Authors I answered in that order in which they came out in publike and to that I shal hold you and therefore now I must come to the 10. Chapter reserving the seventh eighth and nineth to their due place In your tenth Chapter you 'r hard put to it and make a great noise to little purpose First Parag. 1. You make an inference and quarrel with it It s lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy ergo He may abolish Episcopacy It s for all the world as if one should say It s lawful for the King to take away the rights of Lawyers ergo He may also take away Judicature But you are bad at Paralels for there may be Ecclesiastical Judicatures without your Bishops which are but the issue of humane custome as Jerom tels you Then Parag. 2. You raise a fort against a fort It s lawful for the King to abrogate the rights of the Clergy it is therefore lawful for him to abrogate Presbytery I answer we speak not here of lawfulness in general but with relation to the Kings oath and sure you do not think that I conceive the Kings oath makes it unlawful for him to abrogate Presbyterie that is Presbyterial government But for what you say touching the order of Presbyters parag 3. and the order of Bishops there I must tell you that the King cannot take away the one because all confess it to be an Ordinance of Christ But for that of Bishops it s an ordinance of man as I have proved and so alterable Your fourth and fifth Paragraphes arae digression from this Question Parag. 6. You say Well bound he is by his oath to maintain the laws of the land while they are laws c. But how long are these laws in force till abrogated by just power in a regular way To this you subscribe adding but the just power is in his Majestie by your own confession to maintain and abrogate laws I Answer If by power to abrogate laws you mean that they cannot be abrogated without him I confess it but if you mean it as sometime you seem to import it that it is in his power without concurrence of others I may well deny it because he doth not assume to himself such power Your 7 8 9. parag I shall let pass as having nothing of consequence to the case in hand though they contain some extravagant expressions Parag. 10. You examine my words that if any of the Clergies rights be abrogated by just power he stands no longer engaged to that particular Here you quarrel for want of adding just power in a regular way which was not excluded but included in my expression and you your self confess parag 12. when you say just power goes alway in a regular way But you think I left out that expression in a regular way because I am not able to set down a regular way wherein the Clergies right may be abrogated Sure you are deceived for that is the regular way wherein all their canonical priviledges that are contrariant to the laws of the Land are abrogated that is by the King and Houses of Parliament See then how childishly you trifle Parag. 10 22. And with as little reason do you break out parag 13. What a Clergie man and a Preacher of the Word of God and altogether for ruine and destruction Surely this is your corrupt gloss I am for paring off that which is humane addition that the Ministerie which is of Gods institution may be more free and shine more bright and this too to deliver the King and Kingdom from a destroying war Is this to destroy or preserve Let the Reader judge And therefore for your impertinent reviling from Corah and Judas they will but reflect shame on your self neither do I detract from my office when I bring Ministers into the same rank with other Subjects in regard of their humane and alterable honours or priviledges for I speak of none other Next Parag. 14. You ask what rights of the Clergie I would have abrogated An idle question to raise an odium the question being in general whether as the laws that concern the rights of
Ministery being of such great importance that it will take up the whole man and that it is found by long experience that their intermedling with secular jurisdictions hath occasioned great mischief and scandall both to Church and State His Majestie out of his religious care of the Church and souls of his people is graciously pleased that it be enacted And by authority of this Parliament be it enacted that no Arch-Bishop c. shall have any seat or place suffrage or voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliament of this Realm Now hath my phrase done any more then express the reason given for abolition in this Statute by King and Parliament while therefore you rave so at me doth not all more properly light on them I may therefore say as sometimes Moses who am I Your murmurings are not against me but against king and Parliament But you question whether they were not thrust out to make way for these civill broyles The Incendiaries knew well enough that those messengers and makers of peace would never have passed a vote for war I answer they should be makers of peace but have they been so indeed of late I pray who occasioned the war by Liturgie illegally put upon the Scots but Prelates who put on the king to raise an Army against them more then Prelates You know * Bishop Bath and Wells to excite his Clergy to contribute who called it Bellum Episcopale Who put on the king to break his first pacification with the Scots but Prelates Then oaths were no ingagements with them when against Prelates But now the kings oath must be cryed up to keep them up but you should remember Quicquid fit propter deum fit aequaliter which hints the hypocrisie of your pretences of renderness of an oath in this case if you had not the same tenderness in the other case Then Parag. 2. You tell an Apocrypha tale of the outcries of some Clothiers that occasioned the making of that statute as though men would believe your traditional tale before the express words of king and Parliament contained in the act Parag. 3.4 You inquire why it is incongruous to the calling of Bishop to sit and vote in the House of Peers and raise imaginary reasons and confute them looking over that in the statute That Bishops and other persons in holy orders ought not to be intangled in secular jurisdiction and this is grounded on Scripture 2 Tim. 2. comparing v. 4. 7. and more expresly speak the Apostles and you make Bishops Apostles It is not reason we should leave the Word of God Act. 6.2 and serve tables 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza and the vulgar non est aequum See how the grounds mentioned by king and Parliament in the statute are grounded on Scripture But Parag. 5. You would prove that there could be no incongruity between their calling and voting in the House of Peers by Scripture For then Melchizedeck that was both King and Priest had never been a type of our Saviour It doth not follow for he was therefore a type to shew that Christ should be both king and Priest but his kingdom was not of this world he would not intangle himself with the affairs of this life and divide inheritances Again you bring the example of Moses and Eli who were extraordinary persons as though God doth not things extraordinarily that are incongruous ordinarily as to make Deborah and Huldah Prophetesses But Joash thrived so long as he followed Jehojada the high Priest as though a good Bishop cannot give good counsell to a king unless he sit and vote among Peers You tell us also how some of our Kings prospered by their Counsels Is it not as easie to tell you of a Bishop that preached my head aketh to usher in the dethroning of a king to tell you how R. 2. was undone by the unpolitique counsell of the pious Bishop of Carlile which shews that usually the best Bishops are the worst States men Parag. 6. You add a wonder it is that my faction spies this incongruity which was never discerned by the wisest of our fore-fathers See you not how you call king and Parliament a faction whose sense I exprest If I had been so rude what out-cries should we have had of blaspheming and spitting in the face of authority Of the same nature are other your foolish arguings parag 7.8 about the writ of summons to Parliament as though the Supremacie being in king and Parliament they cannot change the state of the Parliament and so of the writ And therefore all your strange language doth not only question the integrity of king and Parliament in their expression and their wisdom in making but their power in performing which insolency whether it deserve words to answer let the reader judg and this same answer will also take off your 13. parag What you say parag 9. touching the sufficiency of Bishops for this work is not of validity to infer the conclusion which you would have are they more able to vote in Parliament then the Apostles to serve tables have they not a sphear as Ministers that will swallow up all their abilities why should they then any more then the Apostles leave their spiritual work for secular imployments What you add touching David parag 10. that he err'd for want of the presence and advice of the Priests and suffered but after he calls for the Priests and acknowledgeth his error c. This is true and yet withall his fault was not in not having the Priests at first but not using them as he should they drove the cart whereon it was instead of carrying it on their shoulders neither is it mentioned that they discovered the error to him but he to them having it as it seems by divine revelations on his humiliation and prayer 1 Chron. 15.2 But may there not be the Counsell and advice of Divines to a Parliament in matters of God unless they sit and vote with Peers in matters secular May they not in a Convocation or Assembly advise in matter of religion where they shall keep the sphear of Divinitie and meddle with nothing Heretogeneal to their calling So your reasonings parag 11 12. are too weak to infer votes with Peers For your statute Parag. 14. I know not what to say to it because I know not where to finde it But do you bring this to involve this king and Parliament under a curse and blame me for a moderate and necessary expression of vinculum iniquitatis Turp◠est Doctori c. What you say Parag. 15. Of the benefit of good Bishops as Ministers of the Gospel I assent to it but neither of the places speak as having them Ministers of State A King and Parliament may have the blessing of faithful Bishops by their preaching and prayers without their votes and presence among Peers yea more then with it for that usually makes them too great to preach in season and
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
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
the Parliament into the joynt assistance of making laws makes not them supream yet it hinders that supremacie of laws-making from being solely in him sith he can do nothing without them For Parag. 24. I would not brand you nor delude the people as you object But onely seek to give a rational sence of the kings oath which they that oppose brand themselves I did believe what I expres'd in my good conceit of the present Bishops tenderness to preserve the King from hazzard but if they be all of your minde I see I am deceived for let the Crown or life of king sink or swim he shall have no consent from you to enlarge his conscience to consent to abolish Episcopacie for the safegard of either For Parag. 25. 26. I desire no more then that the king should give every one his own preferring the publike before any private I confess the kings readiness to confirm Bills such and so large as never were the like but yet I know and you know what danger the king and land hath been and is in for want of consent to let down Episcopacie And in this exigent wherein we are by the corruption of man I humbly give my advice to promote Peace and prevent much of that blood and misery which for want of peace still continues and threatens worse to the Church I confess then either the want or presence of Bishops But your Sun must set under a Cloud and therefore Parag 17. you tell me He that slayeth a Prelate to whom he owes faith and obedience its Treason you amplifie If it be Treason to kill a Prelate then how much greater to kill Prelacy Negatur Argumentum egregie D. D. It follows not for he that kills a Bishop kills a man and he hath Gods Image stampt on him But Episcopacy as I have shewed is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inhumane creature so he may be removed regularly without any injury to God Besides you consider not that Bishop is a concrete word including a man and Episcopacy Concretum relativum as the Logicians call it But Episcopacie is an abstract your similitude onely holds thus as it were worse to kill the species then one man so to abolish Episcopacy then to degrade one Bishop If either were evil But in a regular way I have shewed you both are good therefore as I fear not your law so I doubt not of Gods approbation being conscious to my sincere intentions for the good of King and kingdom in it For your Conclusion Parag. Vlt. I must minde you that it cannot be better then the Prâ—mises Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem Therefore I may conclude That would the abolition of Episcopacy make our peace put an end to blood rapine misery The king may with safety and approbation do it But if God be not pleased to perswade his heart so far If that moderation that he would bring them to would satisfie others I think as the case stands they may do innocently and commendably to close with him Yea I think those who upon a serious consideration of the over-flowing of all sin with an high hand shall yield first that some government may be setled in the Church Laws recover their power in the Common-wealth sin be prevented Justice and amity revived they will be most acceptable to God and ought to be so with men Deo gloria Finis Postscript THe sentence you after all cite out of Doctor Burges I may not pass over Observe the plagues of such men as are never touch'd with the miseries of others They commonly fall under the same judgments which others unpitied have tasted before I thank God this toucheth not me for I have neither caused nor been senceless of the miseries of others But have not many poor Ministers been silenc'd turn'd out of all for things that others counted trifles and might have forborn them in but they scrupled at as sins and could not submit And have they not past unpitied by many Prelates and Prelatical men I speak not of my own Diocesan whom I found most pittiful and would not be slack to requite it with active sympathie upon good opportunity But Doctor you know what pitty you vouchsafe them in this Treatise Nothing but Schismaticks and Hereticks justly ejected c. Therefore now with Josephs Brethren consider how you have been in a fault concerning your Brethren Gen. 42.21.22 and give glory to God that he may lift you up which I heartily wish and beg of God and so Doctor fare you well Errata PAge 17. line 17. read officers page 18. line 24. dele and p. 21 l 10. χ. p. 24. put in the margin against line 7 8 9. Apol. cap. 39. p. 37. l. 31. dele or p. 49. l. 25. r. by p. 61. in title of the 6. chapter for explanations r. exclamations p. 70. l. 2. for me r. men p. 75. l. 14. for can r cannot p. 95. l. 17. for one r. me p. 100. l. 2. for cause r. casse p. 104. l. 24. for uncivil r. civil p. 106. l. 16. r. This must ariseth p. 112. l. 28. r. diminishing p. 114. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 116. l. 9. r. is So Episcopacy p. 119. l. 18. read summus