salus in summi Sacerdotii dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur Potestas Hieron adâ—ers Luciferiaâ— Circ Med. tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot Sacerdotes unde venit ut sine Chrismate Episcopi Jussione neque Presbyter neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi The safety of the Church saith hee depends upon the dignity of the chief Priesthood so hee calls Episcopacy unto which unless there be granted an exempted and above all eminent power there will bee so many Schisms in the Churches as there are Priests whence it comes to pass that without the Ordination â—hrismate and Authority Jussione of the Bâ—â—hop neither Presbâ—ter nor Deacon hath power to baptize Which last words exclude the notion of this place its being understood of Christs Again Ut Pontifices Christi qui tamen rectam fidem praedicant Ad Theophilum advers Error Jo. Heros Tom. 2. non Dominorum metu sed Patrum honore reveremur non sumus tam instati cordis ut ignoremus quid debeatur Sacerdotibus Christi c. That wee may saith hee those namely which preach the Orthodox Faith prosecute such Bishops not with the fear of Masters but the honour of Fathers For wee are not so swollen with pride that wee understand not what is due to the Priests of God Now in these places Although hee do sometimes imply Episcopacy to be of divine Authority as where he compares it to the office of Aaron Sometimes Apostolical as where hee saith it of their Tradition And sometimes Ecclesiastical but by the Authority of the whole world yet in all hee acknowledgeth such power in the Bishop to do that in the Church that none other may either in the nature of the thing as the extirpation of Schisms which could not be done before or in the right of Authority as Ordination and imposition of hands without which the Presbyters have no power at all not so much as to baptize So that let Episcopacy and Presbytery differ in order or in degree onely so long as some main parts of Jurisdiction can be performed onely by him or not without his pre-eminent Authority why struggle wee with that truth and that sword of the Spirit on which edge soever whereof wee fall wee are certainly wounded The General is but a souldier to use the Brethrens own comparison but may hee not do something that a common souldier yea the whole Council of Commanders cannot do So the Pylot in a ship not onely for his skill but for his place Magistrates may be said all to bee in the same order and to differ in degree one y But what Protestant is so weak of head and wilde of heart as to top Tyburn for denying the Kings Supremacy It being granted that there is the same use of a Bishop in the Church as of an Emperour or Commander in chief in an Army For the Church is an Army with banners as both Hieron Cant. 6.4 and the Brethren yeeld the question is not in what raâ—k or file but in what pâ—ace and power Not what Name but what Authority hee hath But too too much of this Criticism SUBSECT III. Necessit Ref. p. 44. TO that which the Brethren oppose viz. That there are examples of Ordinâ—tion in the New Testament without a Bishop if the assertion were strong yet is the proof weak For the laying on of the hands of Simeon Niger of Lucius of Cyrene and Mana en mentioned upon Paul and Barnabas Act. 13.1 was no Ordination for the one was an Apostle and the other an Evangelist before It was but a special and solemn mission Imposition of hands in which case laying on of hands was usual in that * Eam ceremoniam mutuati fuerant Apostoli ex veteri gentis suae consuetudine Cal. in 2 Tim. 1.6 Heb. 7. Nation even by those who were not properly Ecclesiastical men as Jacob laid his hands upon Ephraim and Manasseth and even among our selves wee often lay our hands on the head of a childe when wee pray God to bless him This imposition of hands therefore doth not argue â—urâ—sdiction in this place but the symbol of Blessing For if it were and that without controversie the less is blessed of the g eater Then must these Brethren be superiours to the Apostle Paul and Barnabas none of them beiâ—g an Apostle themselves which I suppose the Brethren will not say Mat. 18. Our Saviours laying his hands upon the children and blessing them was according to the custome though with more than common efficacy and authority That afterward it was applied to Ordination and by a Metonymy set for Ordination it self 〈…〉 doth not make it proper unto that but makes that the more solemn by this Again it might be said that these named in the Church of Antioch were Prophets as the Text calls them and Teachers but such as were Apostolical men such as Barnabas who afterward visited in his own name being accompanied by John Mark Act. 15. for societies sakes the Churches of Cyprus and 't is like several others also So that such persons are sometime called Apostles Rom. 16.7 Andronicus and Junia were of note among the Apostles Titus and the Brethren sent to Hierusalem are said to be the Apostles so in the original of the Churches And some were tryed 2 Cor. 8.23 which said they were Apostles but were not Rev. 2.2 which could not be understood of the Twelve nor of Paul Thirdly What might be done by extraordinary power or precept of the Holy Ghost doth not prejudice the observation of order where there is no such foundation Numb 23. Else every man that sees such a thing as Phinees did might do present execution Fourthly What might be done by such as were no Bishops where no Bishop was appointed doth not justifie the usurpation of those who contemn such Authority Moses did consecrate before Aaron was instituted but afterward it had been intrusion for him so to do Exod. 24. And the young men did sacrifice before the institution of the Priesthood might they do so also afterward 1 Tim. 4.14 Calvin in loâ— That Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery The text saith But Calvin saith that hee rather thinketh it was the office than the Colledge of the Presbyters But howsoever yet this excludes not the Apostles presence who elsewhere saith it was by the Imposition of his hands Yea so 2 Tim. 1.6 that huc magis inclinat conjectura unum tantum fuisse qui manus imponeret That the conjecture leads rather to think that one onely laid on hands though in the name of the rest saith Mr. Calvin Sole Oâ—dinâ—tion Which may obstruct the Brethrens confidence that say there is no example in Scripture of sole Ordination but for this we contend not To say that the Ordination by the Presbyters made him a Preaching
But all this so as that no Article of the Confession no point of Doctrine no part of Worship is altered And yet the Brethren have raised such a hue and cry as if the later Bishops yea and Princes not excepting Queen Elizabeth had a design to corrupt the Articles to poison the Worship to impose unestablished things upon the conscience and liberty of the Subject and to punish men for disobedience thereunto As if all Religion were pessundated and Omnia in pejus ruere retro subâ—apsa referri All goes to ruine Thames to Tyber flows Th' Assembly to a Convocation grows As if as Pauls by the Brethrens fautors so the whole Church were like to be an Augaean Stable Well spake Tertullian of their fathers Prescript adv Heres non longè ab initio Scripturas obtendunt hac suâ audacia statim quosdam movent in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant infirmos capiunt medios cum scrupulo dimittunt They pretend Scripture saith he and by this their confidence they presently move some In disputation they trouble those that are strong they take the weak and send away the middle sort with doubting I conclude that notwithstanding the exceptions of the Brethren the Common-prayer-book as well as the Articles Act for uniformity of Com. prayer is established by Act of Parliament And that therefore If any manner of Parson Vicar or other whatsoever Minister shall preach declare or speak any thing in the derogation or depraving of the said faid Book or any thing therein contained or any part thereof and shall be thereof lawfully convicted shall forfeit c. I have done with the second Head of Objections viz. The establishing of the Liturgy and Worship Subsect 3. Discipline established Object I Come to that against the third the Discipline which they say is not established neither The discipline not establish'd They instance in the Episcopal Courts and Canons the first whereof is Jurisdiction Now the Bishops are of age Answ let them speak for themselves One of them Arch-bishop Whitgift against T. Cartwright Bishops Courts Lord Cant. speech at the censure of Dr. Bastwick c. in the Preface and the greatest in his time doth acknowledge That they exercise their jurisdiction in their Courts by vertue of the Laws and Commissions Royal onely The next in the same rank goes farther and upon occasion of such calumny makes it his suit unto the King and I do humbly in the Churches name desire your Majesty that it may be resolved by all the reverend Judges of England and then published by your Majesty that our keeping Courts and issuing Process in our own names and the like exceptions * Namely by T. Cartwright and others formerly taken and now renewed are not against the Laws of this Realm as 't is most certain they are not Thus far he What can indifferent men desire more then an appeal to all the legal Interpreters the Judges of that Law which they are said to violate and to the supreme Judge and spring-head thereof the King This for their Courts The Canons of the Church K. James As for the Canons Because the King-craft of that Prince which did confirm them as himself calls it is herein question'd as if he understood not what did touch his own prerogative and the Laws for he by his Authority under the Broad Seal confirmed those Canons I shall not take upon me the vindicatâ—on of so great a Person seeing he hath a Grandson and Successor our present Soveraign to do it for him at whose feet and the Laws I shall let that lie the rather because that point is like very shortly to be determined by publick authority So much for Discipline Subsect 4. Of Government Episcopal THe last is Government Episcopal namely and here 25 Edw. 3. Ann. 1350. Necessity of Reform p. 40. illis adhaeret aqua Themselves acknowledge and cite the Act saying That whereas the holy Church of England was FOVNDED in the estate of PRELACY within the said Realm of England by the said Grandfather Edw. 1. and his Progenitors and the Earls and other Nobles of his said Realm and their Ancestors to inform them and the people in the Law of God c. This then is granted to be according to the constitutions of this Nation Legal which is moreover known to all by this That all Acts of Parliament since that foundation have given the precedency of Baronship unto the Bishops the form usually being The Kings Majesty with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Object doth enact c. Nay but though Episcopacy was established by Law 17 Car. cap. 1. Office of Episcopacy ceased yet it is not so now For the Act of 17 Car. 1.11 repeating the clause of the Act of 1 Eliz. 1. which instals the Queen and her Successors with power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction the onely ground of the Bishops authority and jurisdiction Reasons for necessity of Reform p. 51 52 53. and repealing that clause did besides the taking away their Votes in Parliament take also away their power authority and jurisdiction and so the very office it self of Episcopacy whereupon the Ordinance of Lords and Commons makes all their grants void since 17 Car. 1. because then their Office expired Answ 1 For answer first in general That it was neither in the purpose nor to speak as the thing is in the power with due observance be it uttered of either Parliament or Prince to take away the powers which are essential and unseparable from the Crown and Office of a King which we see of right to have belonged and with praise to have been executed not onely in the Scripture both by Jewish and Heathenish Princes as by Nebuchadnezzar by Cyrus Dan. 3.29 Ezr. 6. Jon. 2. by Darius by the King of Ninive c. as well as by David Jehosophat Hezekiah and Josiah but also in the primitive Church by Constantine and Answ 2 others after him Besides we may not conceive the Parliament intended to countervene an express Article of the Confession of this Church Artic. 37. of the Civil Magistrate which having named the Queens Majesty saith Unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain That prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself And in particular that it was not the Answ 3 purpose of the King or the two Houses as then they were to take away the office and ordinary jurisdiction of Episcopacy appears evidently in that the King he asserts it to be a main cause of the war Ei kâ—â— Basilic Med. 9. and of his own calamity for that he would not consent thereunto How oft saith the King was the business of the Bishops injoying their antient places Bishops Votes in Parliam and undoubted privileges in the
with his Presbytery But the Bishops themselves were judged by the Synod Moreover when the world began to be filled with Churches and the Metropolitanes themselves stood in need of particular Government over themselves for although they grew in number Patriarches yet all were not according to their places either prudent or vigilant for in all orders of men Note those of worth are but few the Fathers did commend the care of whole Provinces together unto certain Bishops of the chief Cities which persons they afterward called Patriarchs Thus far Bucer there And after noting the abuse of these powers and the usurpation of them by the Bishops of Rome whom hee calleth Antichrist which I note to evidence that a man may be full for Episcopacy yea and Archiepiscopacy and yet be as full against Popery which some should mark hee subjoyns what is very considerable in these times viz. At quia omnino necesse est ut singuli Clerici suos habeant proprios Custodes Curatores instaurenda est ut Episcoporum ita et Archidiaconorum aliorumque omnium quibuscunque censeantur nominibus quibus portio aliqua commissa est custodiendi gubernandique Cleri authoritas potestas sed vigilantia animadversio ne quis omnino sit in hoc ordine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But because saith hee it is altogether necessary that every Minister and Clergy man should have their proper Guardians and Governours both the Authority of Bishops Bishops and of Archdeacons Archdeacons and of all * As Metropolitanes c. other officers by what names soever they be called unto whom any part of the power of guarding and governing the Ministry is committed ought to be restored As also watchfulness and observation least any man whatsoever of this profession be without government and not under rule Thus far hee With whose testimony not onely for his learning and piety both which were eminent in him but also for his reference to this Church as having been one of the reformers of it I close these Allegations and Witnesses Vide Bucer Script Anglican Onely adding this That had the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas observed this counsel of these their own learned men they had not given that advantage to the adversary by making a Schism in Government from the whole Universal Church scandalizing it also Nor had they given occasion to those who out of true or pretended imitation of them have brought Scotland and by it England the glory and refuge of the Reformed Churches and by both Ireland into those horrid confusions which have fallen upon them upon that quarrel as is noted by (a) Icon. Basilic Medit. 17. one who well knew and is not denyed by (b) Ministeâ—s Reasons for Reformation 1660. in the Preface others who had no small activity in blowing those fires some coals whereof they have still retained and by them attempted to kindle new flames as is noted by (c) Kings Declaration Oct. 5. 1660. pag. 7. another Authentique Author And for those our Brethren who had destroyed this Government among us it is to be feared it may be in many of them upon the like ground that the Rabbin saith the Jew the body of them D. Kimchi in Isa 53.9 for so hee expoundeth that Prophecy which the Chaldee Version applies to the Messiah as wee do was slaughtered in the captivity whilst hee explains those word with the rich in his death Hee saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Which sentence because it is in Rhyme wee may thus render The Wether had no fault but that His fleece was good and hee was fat Mark 12.7 According to this Come let us kill him and the Inheritance shall bee ours As it hath appeared since SECT III. Exceptions against the Government and Discipline THe Brethren the Authors of the former Tract Reasons of the necessity of Reformation p. 40. except also against the Government and Jurisdiction of the Bishops First That it is not by Divine Right in this Nation but that the Church of England is founded in the estate of Prelacy within the Realm of England by Law and authority of Parliament onely Where first we accept of their Concession Prelacy Episcopacy established by Law in England 25. Edw. 3. Anno 1350. then our Church Government by Episcopacy is established by Law in this Nation Now if they have this office by Law they must also have a power for the Execution of it as a Prelacy that is a superiour order of men to govern in Ecclesiastical Affairs which is their jurisdiction and power to exercise Discipline But the Brethren reply Object that this is taken away by the Act of 17th Carol. I. 11. wherein their sitting in Parliament is removed and the power of the King to authorize Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical which was granted by an Act 1. Eliz. cap. 1. Reas neces ref Pag. 51. And that there is not any branch or clause in that whole Act that gives more or other jurisdiction to Bishops or any other Ecclesiastical persons whatsoever But Answer unto this is given elsewhere in this Treatise therefore I leave it here and come to that which is more material viz. The Divine Right at least by consequent of that function Which having evidenced so plentifully before out of both Ancient and Modern Testimonies and those of some the greater Lights of the Reformed Churches And replyed to the Objections on the contrary And particularly because the Brethren do not here oppose it I shall need to say the less Onely take a verdict from one whom some of the Brethrens opinion cite as a witness which is St. Cyprian Which will at once carry with it both the Divine Right and also the inseparable adjunct of it though not a sole yet a superiour jurisdiction For that of sole jurisdiction seems a needless quarrel seeing the Bishop doth neither exercise any part of it alone but with others assistance and without which assistance hee cannot orderly administer it And the Church declares her self whilst shee appointeth in the ordering of Priests and consecrating of Bishops one of the greatest Acts pertaining to Government that there shall be other also assistant to the Bishop in Imposition of hands Though in that lesser point of Confirmation of Children and ordering of Deacons it is not so appointed though not excluding it But as I said Cyprian hath these words Neque enim aliunde haereses abortae sunt Cypr. lib. 1. Ep. 3. Vide in eand sentent ips lib. 3. Ep. 1. aut nata sunt Schismata quà m inde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur Nec Unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur Cui si secundum Magisteria divina obtemperaret fraternitas Universa nemo adversum Sacerdotum Collegium quicquam moveret Let not the Reader nauseate this once or twice
resentment of the premises and which hath wrought this repentance may never be repented of nor that there ever be cause that I retract these retractations Amen Yea there may be those who having lost me may by some artifice effect that I shall lose those whom they think I now intend to win that so being by both deserted I might be ruined But God who sees their plots and my plainness in this affair will I hope disappoint them But if he shall for his glory and my further mortification permit them I hope my suffering shall be like that of Mephibosheth for even David may be abused by a treacherous Ziba for my Loyalty 2 Sam. 19.27 1 King 2. not like that of Shimei for my Apostacy And that I shall never prove either * Qui Sacr. libros tradebancâ— ethnicis Traditor or Proditor false to this Church or faithless to my Country Quia qui in pace militibus suis futuram praenunciat pugnâ—m dabit militantibus in congressione victâ—riam Because he that hath warned his Souldiers of the approaching Battel Cypr. Epist 2. l. 1. will also in the conflict assist to victory And I may give them this taste of my spirit and his grace That whereas upon his Majesties return by prayer I was often importuned to ask and assured to have I wilingâ—y let slip the season that I might evidence I did not follow Christ for the Lâ—eaves nor the King for a Living As also that I might by the publishing this being not onely my retractation but confession also of my faith clearly be known and so no error personae or ignorantia facti be complained of afterward Besides Providence hath so disposed in outward matters that I may in the state I am perhaps not uncomfortably subsist without much addition Sect. 6. Proof that the Author went no further Now for close and confirmation that my lapse was not so exorbitant through the mercy of God as to my principles in either of the former causes I shall subjoyn a passage touching each out of those my actings which were most eminent in these particulars and first for the War Serm. on Judg 5.23 Jun 19 1642. at Trin. Ch. in Camb. Prov. 19. In that Discourse wherein I gave Answer in the University unto Dr. Feams Book at its first appearance there are these words Object 3. But the King forbids this help viz. by the War and commands the contrary Now where the word of a King is there is power and his wrath is as the roaring of a Lion Eccles 8. Ibid. And I counsel thee obey the Kings commandment and that because of the Oath of God vers 4. Rom. 13. And who shall say to the King What dost thou And He that resists resists the Ordinance of God c. Answ We are not to take notice of the Kings commands as they look upon the publick but by his Laws which are his deliberate will and by those whom the Law hath appointed interpreters of it And then indeed when a King comes in his Laws he is more than a man for he is the Minister of God and whosoever resists resists the Ordinance of God and he that resists shall receive to himself damnation Object 4. But the King saith He proceeded according to Law who shall judge Resp The same body rightly gathered that made the Law i. e. the Common-wealth can best judge of its own meaning And seeing Law is not declared by the King but in his Courts and the higher Court being that of Parliament we are to rest in their declaration unless we see manifestly to the contrary By which passage it doth appear that there was this especially that did misguide me viz. The misapplication of some true principles First That the Law of Nature allowing self-preservation to a Nation as well as a Man it might be endeavoured in case of necessity as to particular Laws illegally Which is untrue Rom. 3. for We must not do evil that good may come thereof Secondly That the King being always to be obey'd in his Laws declared in his Courts and the Parliament being the highest Court therefore what the two H. H. did declare to be Law was so wherein there was a doubble mistake 1. That the two Houses were the Parliament in exclusion of and opposition to the King that I say not a lesser part for number of Lords and Commons though enough in formality of Law 2. That it was Law which they declared to be so See the Declaration of 2 H. H. Novemb 2. 1642. in answer to that of the Kings May 26. pag. 22. though no Law was shewed but a sentence out of Bracton who wrote in Hen. 3. in the time of the Barons Wars and who in another place hath the clean contrary as shall appear and it may be a sentence or two out of some other private Lawyer against the constant sentence of Lawyers and the known practice of the Law and Parliaments This for the War that I might shew that Law the Authority of Parliament mistaken and no private headiness did transport me Next for Independency In the Tract I published on that Argument Vindiciae Catholicae cap. 1. p. 3. there is this passage Now the scope of this Treatise is not to unfasten the ground of all Church-combination and to lay a foundation for absolute Independency The conveniency and sometime the necessity of Classes and Synods for direction and determination and that by Divine Authority is freely acknowledged though no with power properly Juridical yea I add that Episcopacy it self was and might be maintained as also Presbytery if confined to a particular Church and not subjected to Superior Ecclesiastical power which was the most antient way of it might both consist together in a particular one Again The violation of Parochial limits oft-times manifestly prejudicial to edification yet am not I for the drawing of any godly able pag. 69. and faithful Ministers people from him who is for the substance of Reformation though with many defects in lesser things Again But this is not their my own and some others opinion pag. 79. that it is essentially requisite to the being of a visible Church that it meet in one place they hold it de benè esse for conveniency not absolutely necessary From which passages it is evident first That not such an Independency as some practised was pleaded for but such as might agree not with Presbytery onely but with Episcopacy and not onely with a Parochial Church or the Church of a City but such as might agree with a Nation also As indeed the Church of England and other National Churches are independent as to right of Jurisdiction from all other Churches There being no such thing in re as an universal Visible governing Church as I have I think evinced in the Treatise above mentioned but every expression in that passage I own not But to conclude I repeat that of Bucer
the Kingdom Dec. 15. 1642. was the fountain of all the following mischiefs The very first line is Your Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled Next the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy do declare That the Kings Majesty is the onely Supream Governor of this Realm over all persons and in all causes 2. Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance 3 Eliz. cap. 1. Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. Remonstr of Lords and Commons Nov. 2. 1642. Ecclesiastical and Temporal and of all other his Dominions and Countries Yea and every Parliament-man before he can sit is bound by Law to swear them Now this is not answered in my judgment by a saying out of a Private * Fleta lib. 1. cap. 17. de justitiariis substituendis Lawyer that Rex habet in populo regendo superiores legem per quam factus est curiam suam videlicet Comites Barones And by that other that Rex est major singulis but minor universis For the former Author hath that sentence and words out of Bracton who hath several times also the quite contrary as shall appear Again It is against the tenor and current of Law and Lawyers and the known practise of the Nation Thirdly It may bear an other interpretation namely understanding the Law either of God who makes Kings Prov. 8. or of men made with the Kings consent whereunto he hath voluntarily obliged himself from which at first he might be free And by the superiority of his Court their legal jurisdiction conferred on them by his approbation for decision of ordinary controversies that may fall betwixt himself and his Subjects but not simply his superiors first because he calls it His Court now the owner is greater than the thing owned as such Again else the Earls and Barons were the superior power to the King Fourthly This refers not at all to the House of Commons whereof neither Fleta nor his Author Bracton in this sentence make any mention Again secondly the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance and the style the Parliament speak in of his Majesties loyal and humble subjects the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. are not answered by saying that this of supream head and governor over all persons Object in all causes is meant of singular persons rather than of Courts or of the collective Body of the whole Kingdom And that it is meant in Curia not in Camera in his Courts not in his private Capacity and properly onely in his high Court of Parliament wherein and wherewith his Majesty hath supream Power For first Answ 1 The Oathes speak comprehensively both of Persons and Causes over all and in all So again the style of humble and obedient subjects is spoken as from them as the two Houses of Parliament for so they say assembled in Parliament Now if Subjects then and there sure Soveraigns or associates in Soveraignty they cannot be the terms in the same respect are contradictory Thirdly If the King be acknowledged to be the fountain of justice as the Law and Lawyers say he is of which anon then both Laws and Courts flow from him and thence are called his Laws his Courts and so ordine naturae dignitatis both in nature and dignity must be before and above both His splendor is in his Courts but his Supremacy not onely there but in his person also from whence it was derived to his Courts For there must be a First in nature either the King or his Courts and if they be His Courts then he made them and therefore in esse naturae before them Neither doth it hence follow as is there inferred Object That then the King may over-rule all his Courts Ibid. even the Parliament it self and so the goodly frame of Government should soon be dissolved and Arbitrary power brought in Answ For the King having both consented and sworn to the Laws and to the maintaining the jurisdiction of his Courts acting according to those Laws is not now in that respect sui juris and arbitrary in Government but obliged both to God and man to act by Laws and to preserve his Courts unviolate But if any Court shall assume a greater power than the King and Law hath given them or act in opposition to that power from whom they had their being whilst he doth not openly reject all Laws and Government much less when he doth rationally together with as many or more both of Lords and Commons though excluded the formality of being in such a place judge that he acts according to Law in the main of his proceedings In such case and in such actings they are not such a Court nor are not authorised with power from above but act excentrically and as private persons unto whom the Declaration grants the King to be superior As the Army having received Commission from the two Houses of Parliament afterward turned their Arms against them which they could not do by their Commission as also a great fautor of their proceedings since then spake in my hearing God thereby perhaps representing to the Houses by the Army their own failings toward their Superior And the Armies reasoning was on the like principles viz. That they were entrusted with power for the Kingdoms preservation and that the Parliament degenerating they must not see the Kingdom perish Object 3 Neither may it be received that if the Parliament may take account of what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour Courts Ibid. much more of what is done by him without the authority of any Court For to speak properly the Parliament takes account not of the Kings actions or authority in his Courts but of his Officers and of their administration of that authority and this also by the Kings consent established by Law whereby they are enabled so to do Or to speak yet more properly The Parliament that is the King Lords and Commons for the Parliament is not without the King as being the Head of it but without and in opposition unto him and the Laws they do not take such cognizance Again for that saying That they might much more take account of the Kings actions that are done without the authority of any Court meaning the great administration of Justice and the raising of Arms Seeing no Court is superior to its Author the King therefore no Court can give authority to him but he to them nor can they call him to account for then they were his superiors and had the Regal Power and himself should be no King as is expresly affirm'd in Mr. St. John's speech against Ship-mony of which afterward Humbly represent to him they may his miscarriages and punish his Ministers so it may be done without sedition and assuming the Sword which is inseparable from the Supreme Power Lastly How can this be assented unto that because when the Title is dubious Ibid. pag. ult he is
to be accepted for King whom the two Houses declare to be so by the Statute of 11 H. 7. that therefore much more they may judge in the great question what is the best service of the King and Kingdom Whence also it will follow that they have the power of declaring Law in all cases How I say can this be received namely to argue from a power in doubtful cases to a power in cases that are clear in Law and reason or sense Secondly when there is no King actually their power may be more as the wife that hath no husband Thirdly The Declaration of Parliament doth not give the King his title or authority but onely declares recognizeth and acknowledges that he had it before As for those assertions in that Declaration Ibid. viz. That the Soveraign Power resides in the King and both Houses of Parliament That the two Houses are judges superior to all others That the Kings negative voice doth not imply a liberty to deny c. because no Law is produced and that they oppose such as are known as also the practise of Parliament in this Nation conscience is to seek for a foundation of assent unto them It is delivered as Law that the King is the * Mr. Pym's speech at the attainder of the Earl of Straffâ—rd p. 10. Father the Husband of the Common-wealth he is the Head they are the body * Mr. St. Johns speech at the same Attaind p. m. 7. That the Laws are the Kings Laws he is the fountain from whence in their several channels they are derived to the subject * The case of Ship-mony a speech in Parliament Nov. 3. 1640. pag. 12 13. Note That he is the soul of the Law in whose power it is ALONE to execute Law and yet not be constrained thereunto That the Sacred PERSON of the King is INVIOLABLE and subject to no force or compulsion of any other and free from any coercive or vindicative power That this freedom is unsepar ble from the Person of the King because no force can be used but by Superiors or Equals and he that hath Superiors or Equals is no KING Again first The Judges in Calv. case recited by D. Austin Allegiance not impeached cap. 1. That allegiance of the subject is due to the King by the Law of Nature Secondly That the Law of Nature was before any Judicial or Municipal Law as being written from the beginning in mans heart Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable Fourthly That this immutable Law of Nature Bractoâ— is a part of the Law of England That Rex in regno parem habere non debet cum par in parem non habeat potestatem multo fortiùs non habeat superiorem The King in his Kingdom ought to have no equal because one equal cannot have power over another much less should he have any superior Object And this is not to be taken with that exposition as above Remonstr Nov. 2. 1642. Serg. Bradshaw at the sentencing hâ—s late Majesty vâ—z That he is major singulis minor universis Greater then any one but less then all For both the Statute is express That this Realm of England hath been accepted for an Empire governed by one supream Head unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People Answ of the Spirituality and Temporality 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. 4. Declarat of Parliament Proposition in Parliament Apr. 25. 4 Car. propos 5. Rushworth Collect. p. 553. are bound next unto God in a natural obedience As also it is acknowledged in full Parliament First in general by the House of Lords As touching his Majesties Royal Prerogative intrinsecal to his Soveraignty and betrusted him withall from God Ad communem totius populi salutem non ad destructionem That his Majesty would resolve not to use or divert the same to the prejudice of any of his loyal people in the property of their goods or liberty of their persons is prayed by the Lords And in particular by the Commons Most dread Soveraign We your dutiful Commons now assembled in Parliament we think it is a meet and most necessary duty being called by your Majesty to consult and advise of the great and urgent affairs of this Church and Common-wealth Commons Remonstrance against the Duke 4 Car. Anno 1628. Rush Collect. pag. 631. Note finding them at this time in apparent danger of ruine and destruction faithfully and dutifully to inform your Majesty thereof and with bleeding hearts and bended knees to crave your speedy redress therein as to your wisdom unto which we most humbly SUBMIT our selves and our desires shall seem most convenient So then first the Kings prerogative is intrinsecal unto his Soveraignty and betrusted to him by God say the House of Lords And they most humbly submit themselves and their desires to the wisdâ—m of the King say the House of Commons even then when both Church and Common-wealth were in apparent danger of ruine and destruction And to return again unto the judgment of the Sages of the Law the former Author saith That the King is the most excellent * Bract. l. 1. c. 8. Majestas Intemerata pag. 38. Bract. l. 2. de Acquir rer domin c. 24. Stamf. r. 7. 11. Majestas Intemerata p. 32. part of the Common-wealth next unto â—od Again Dominus Rex habet ordinariam jurisdictionem dignitatem potestatem super omnes qui in regno suo sunt Our Lord the King saith the same * Bracton cited by Stamford lib. 2. cap. 2. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant sect 7. pag. 27. Bracton hath ordinary jurisdiction dignity and power over all which are in his Kingdom And ea quae jurisdictionis sunt pacis ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam dignitatem regiam nec à Coronâ separari possunt And that therefore those things which are annexed to justice and peace belong to none but the Crown and dignity Royal neither can they be separated from the Crown We have heard the testimony of Lawyers yea and of the Law it self the dialect also and speech of Parliament and the judgment of those who have not by the way Dr. Bilson of Subj Rebel Part. 3. ed. Lond. 1586. p. 277. but ex professo handled this argument with the full witness of one of which number and that an eminent one I shall conclude this particular who speaking of the German Wars and of their Laws and ours saith Their States be free and may resist any wrong by the Laws of the Empire The German Emperor is elected and his power abated by the liberties and prerogatives of his Princes The Queen of England inheriteth and hath ONE and the same right over ALL her subjects be they NOBLES or others Now all the fore-mentioned allegations concerning the Person Power and Prerogative of the King and the subjection of all persons and our allegiance
due by nature to him being uttered as Law and in Parliament and cited by those that in the late contest appeared against him are authentick And the the things being so as they came farther into my knowledge and consideration the same sense of the Laws and my allegiance as that before of Religion did concuss and shake me from the one and setle me on the other side And this to the first Motive 2. The Integrity of the persons and their ability To the second the integrity and ability of many of the persons inviting to this contest might be very great yet all of them were not for it as shall be seen anon Besides Answ it is the doctrine of our Church that a Council may Artic. 21. Paphnut Socrates H. lib. 1. cap. 8. 3. Authority of the two Houses and have erred even in things pertaining to God And in the first and great Council of the Primitive Church in a very material point they all erred but one and suffered themselves by him to be corrected To the third the Authority of the two Houses I did not then so throughly consider though I had some doubts as was noted above that they were the Child the King Answ 1 the Parent that they were the Spouse the King the Husband 1. Their Relation that they were the Body the King the Head as we heard above out of Mr. Pym. Now these relations doubtless could not regularly act without much less in opposition to the chief relatum unless in cases of infancy alienation of mind voluntary absence abdication of the Government 2. Their Style and such like of which more anon Besides we heard even now themselves in Parliament style themselves His Majesties most humble and loyal subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament in that Declaration wherein they did not onely pare the nails but even also pierce the quick 3. Their Title and Power whereon founded and in what consisting Moreover what power and authority they have it must be by Law Power publick and authoritative I suppose consists especially in three points first in making Laws secondly in declaring Law lastly in executing Law Touching the first Although the King being the fountain of Law it must primarily flow from him though into his Courts yet it is condescended unto and a share is granted them in making Laws and protecting Liberties Kings answer to the 19 propâ—sit 1642. pag. 12. what that is his late Majesty you will say hath fully opened In this Kingdom saith he the Laws are joyntly made by a King by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the People all having free votes and particular privileges The Government according to those Laws is trusted to the King 1 power of Treaties of war and peace 1. Kings prerogative 2 of making Peers 3 of choosing Officers and Counsellors for State 4 Judges for Law 5 Commanders for Forts and Castles 6 giving Commissions for raising men to make war abroad or to prevent or provide against invasions or insurrections at home 7 benefit of confiscations 8 power of pardoning and some more of the like kind are placed in the King 2. House of Commons Next for the House of Commons he saith Again That the Prince may not make use of this high and perpetual power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it and make use of the name of publick necessity for the gain of his private favourites and followers to the detriment of his people The House of Commons an excellent conserver of liberty but never intended for any share in government for they do not administer an Oath or the choosing of them that should govern is solely intrusted with the first Propositions concerning the levies of monies which is the sinews as well of peace as of war and the impeachment of those who for their own ends though countenanced by any surreptitiously gotten command of the King have violated that Law which he is bound when he knows it to protect and to the protection of which they were bound to advise him at least not to serve him in the contrary This for the Commons Next for the House of Lords he proceedeth And the Lords 3. House of Lords being trusted with a judicatory power are an excellent skreen and bank between the Prince and People to assist each against any encroachment of the other and by just judgment to preserve that Law which ought to be the rule of every one of the three Whence he adds Since therefore the power legally placed in both Houses is more than sufficient to prevent and restrain the power of tyranny c. Thus far the King A share then they have in their several degrees in the Legislative power though neither supreme nor co-ordinate but subalternate and by descent from the high unto the lower 2. Declaring Law In his speech after his assent to the Petition of Right Kings Answer to the Remonstrance of the 19 of May 1642. pag. 21. Touching the next the power of declaring Law though the King do avow That the power of declaring Law be not in either or both Houses of Parliament without his consent and that the Judges are the interpreters of Law under himself Yet he saith We deny not but that they the Lords and Commons in Parliament may have a power to declare in a particular doubtful case regularly brought before them what Law is but to make a general declaration whereby the known rule of the Law may be crossed or altered they have no power nor can exercise any without bringing the life and liberty of the subject to a lawless and arbitrary subjection Lastly as to the execution of Law or judging by it This is not in any other 3. Execution of Laws but either in the House of Peers in Parliament with the Kings consent who must sign all their capital sentences or in the Judges and other Officers by Commission from the King in whose name they all proceed So then the power of government original and final and of execution of the Laws is in the King so far as is made known by the constant practice of the Nation A power therefore of resistance publickly and by Arms how should they have in opposition to the King who have no power of judging or execution of the Law but by authority from him and his consent formally expressed 4. Their silence in point of particular Law Lastly There was though spoken of and they urged to produce it never any Law shewn nor the Charter or Custom or Act named that did either formally or virtually imply a power of Government and much less of Arms without and in opposition to the King which might settle and satisfie the conscience The Barons Wars For some presidents in tumultuous times of some great men will not be a fit example for a Parliament And some very few sentences of one or two Lawyers
Object whereof one contradicts himself is not a sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a firm footing to stand upon to shake not the earth onely but heaven also Bracton writing in Henry the third his time fol. 34. A. when the Barâ—ns had raised a Militia against the King saith indeed Rex habet superiorem Deum scilicet item legem per quà m factus est Rex item curiam suam viz. Comites Barones c. That the King hath a Superior namely God also the Law whereby he was made King also his Court to wit the Earls and Barons The like sentence verbatim almost is cited out of * lib. 1. c. 17. de justitiariis substituendis Declar. L. L. Com. Nov. 2. 1642. pag. 22. Fleta that the King had in populâ— regendo superiores legem per quam f ctus est curiam suam viz. Comites Barones c. But the former place in Bracton and so in Fleta is not meant of the Court of Parliament for there 's no mention of the Commons but it follows in the same place debent ei fraenum imponere they ought to bridle him Dr. Fearns's Conscience satisfied sect 4. pag. 17. 1248. It is likely he spake this in favour of the Militia raised against Henry the third for then he wrote and might call that Assembly of Earls and Barons then combined against the King Curiam the higher Court or Counsel But he contradicts this else-where not onely in that sentence Rex in regno parem habere non debet cum par in parem non habeat potestatem multò fortiùs non habeat superiorem That the King in his Kingdom ought to have no equal because one equal can have no power over another much less should he have any superior But also by other sentences quoted out of him above Somewhat perhaps like Cicero sometime with Pompey sometime for Cesar as not a few have been in our time Another also is cited who saith 2. Fortescue fol. 25. â— By the fuller answer to Dr. Fearn pag. 3. Ad hanc potestatem a pâ—pulo effluxam ipse habet quo non licet ei potestate aliâ populo suo dominari That the King by having this power flowing from the people is obliged so that it is not lawful for him to rule over them by any other authority Answ 1 But this assertion being back'd with no antient record or custom nor with any judged case or Act of Parliament yea contrary to the known process and practise of the Law and Acts of Parliament and general sentences of Lawyers cannot satisfie especially if we consider that if such power had flowen from the people yet as the King observes it doth not follow that it must therefore return unto them 2. Answer to the Remonstr of May 26. 1642. pag. 10. at least when and in what manner they will As in the case of the power of the Husband which first did flow unto him from the Wife but may not be resumed without breach of wedlock 3. 24 H. 8. c. 12. and that also adjudged lawfully The Law is otherwise which teacheth us That this Realm of England hath been accepted for an Empire governed by one supream Head unto whom a body politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people of the Spiritualty and Temporalty are bound to bear next unto God a natural obedience And that by the Law of nature and of the Land we owe Allegiance as we saw above Now this is not answered Reply to Dr. Ferm's answer sect 3. pag. 18. by saying ' By the preamble of the Statute it appears so to be made to prevent appeals to Rome and that by the supreme Head is meant such a one as is able to do all needful acts of justice which the King in his natural capacity cannot do and therefore must be understood in his politick capacity which takes in Law and Parliament For the whole body politick whether Parliament or People are governed and made subâ—ect to this Supreme Head and do owe unto him natural obedience And accordingly in His not in the Houses of Parliament's name though sitting do all judgments and executions of Law proceed The authority then of the two Houses of Parliament is the authority of the Body not of the Head by which even it also must be governed and against which it may not oppose it self 1 Tim. 2. For as he said I permit not a woman to usurp authority over the man but to live in subjection holds betwixt the political Spouse and Husband also I have done with the third 4. Case of Necessity To the fourth Motive the case of Necessity We must here note Thesin Hypothesin the general and the particular state of the Question 1. In Thesi and in general 'T is true Pleaders for Regal power do acknowledge that there may indeed fall out some cases wherein such designments may be warrantable As first Abbot de Anti-Ch cap. 7. n. 5. 6. in general when per patrias leges licere judicarunt Hîc verò politica res agitur Quid principi juris in subditos per leges cujusque reipublicae fundatrices permissum sit c. When they might judge that it was lawful by the Laws of their Country Now here the Question is civil and political namely What power is given to the Prince over his subjects by the fundamental Laws of each Common-wealth c. saith the Bishop of Salisbury Here Law is made the bottom in general but that Law must be produced that may be known In particular two or three cases are alleadg'd wherein onely it is found allowable Non alias igitur populo in eum potestas est Gull Barcla contr Monarchom lib. 3. prope sin quà m si id committat propter quod ipso jure Rex esse desinat Tunc enim quia se ipse principatu exuit atque in privatis constituit liber hoc modo populus superior efficitur reverso ad illum scilicet jure illo quod ante regem inauguratum in interregno habuit duo tantum commissa invenio duos inquam casus Horum unus est si regnum Rempublicam evertere conetur hoc est Aurel. Victor de Caesarib Sueton. cap. 49. cap. 30. si id ei propositum eaque intentio fuerit ut regnum disperdat quemadmodum de Nerone fertur de Caligula Talia cum Rex aliquis meditatur molitur serio omnem regnandi curam animum illico abjicit ac proinde imperium in subditos amittit ut * l. 1. ult D. pro. derelict dominus servi pro derelicto habiti dominium Alter casus est si Rex in alicujus clientelam se contulerit ac regnum quòd liberum à majoribus populo traditum accepit alienae ditioni mancipaverit c. And instanceth in Baliol King of Scots that subjected his Crown and Kingdom to Edward the first of England then
superbiam quemadmodum digni sunt Dei justo judicio in omnibus supervenienti By whose command saith he men are born by the same command Kings are constituted fit for those who in each time are to be governed by them Some of them are given for the amendment and profit of their subjects and preservation of Justice but some for terrour and punishment and rebuke and some for mockery and contumely and pride according as men deserve the just judgment of God prevailing in all things Thus he by which he implies prayer and patience but no resistance Tertullian likewise Apologet. cap. 30. cap. 33. cap. 37. A quo sunt secundi Reges post quem Deum primi ante omnes super omnes Deos. From whom God they Kings are second after whom they are first before all and above all Gods that is above all inferiour Magistrates In a word we may see the sense of Antiquity in this point in him Instit l. 3. c. 3. § 10. Aug. Contr. Faust lib. 22. cap. 75. from whom Calvin would have us learn it in all viz. S. Austin Ordo naturalis hoc poscit ut suscipiendi belli Anthoritas penes principem sit exequendi autem ministerium milites debeant Natural order saith he requires this that the Authority of undertaking war be in the power of the Prince but that the souldiers owe the service of execution and management And that they wanted not either number or strength one of the former Authours gives us assurance Tertul. Apologet cap. 37. Si enim hostes extraneos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis res numerorum copiarum If we would saith he become open enemies and not secret revengers would there be wanting to us the force either of number or Armies And so shews that the Christians filled all places insomuch that should they but have withdrawn themselves only from the rest of men they should have made a desolation in the world And thus of the Primitive Christians * Anticavalierism 7. Reformed Churches So vain is it to say that Tertullian was mistaken in their number 7. In the last place come we to the examples of the Reformed Churches particularly those of France and Holland who are said to have defended themselves by arms as we have done defended by our Writers and owned by our Princes For Answer First we are to note that though perhaps it should be granted that it may be lawful in some cases for oppressed subjects to call for help unto other Foraign and lawful power because these powers are coordinate with their own in respect of degree and dignity and in such case there is no violation of order by the rising up of the inferiour against his Prince But secondly they were neither defended by our Writers Difference of Subject and Rebel part 3. pag. 279. Ed. Lond. 1586. nor patronized by our Princes farther then the Laws and their case as represented by them did allow If the Laws of the Land saith Dr. Bilson speaking of the French the Scottish and the Holland Civil wars do not permit them to guard their lives when they are assaulted with unjust force against law we will never excuse them from rebellion And a little after for my part I must confess saith he that except the Laws of those Realms do permit the people to stand on their right if the Prince would offer that wrong I dare not allow their arms And another treating of the same example saith Quarum injuriarum atrocitates Abbot de Antichrist cap. 7. n. 5 6. occasionem fortè dederunt bello civili dum vim vi propulsant tantummodo qui contra jus fasque indignissimè habiti id sibi per patrias LEGES licere judicarunt The horribleness of which injuries saith he peradventure gave occasion to the Civil war whilst they do only repell force by force and who contrary to all right and equity were treated most unworthily and did judge that they might do so by the Laws of their Country And again Hîc verò politica res agitur quid principi juris in subditos per leges cujusque Reip. fundatrices permissum sit The question here saith he is matter of Civil policy viz. What power the Prince hath over his subjects by the fundamental Laws of each Common-wealth So that we see they defended these actions of the Protestants abroad so far only as they were legal This for their cause But as to ours the former Authour shews it to be different The German Emperour saith he is elected and his power abated by the liberties of the Princes Bils of Subj and Rebel part 3. p. 277. But the Queen of England hath one and the same right over all her subjects be they NOBLES or others You see he makes our cause and case Kings of Engl laws and allegiance to differ from the former CHAP. VII Reply to certain general Reasons for the War Scripture and Reason for defence of Arms a Book so called AND now to draw towards an end of this first point the War The defences made in the justification of the War they are of three sorts from Scripture from Law and from Reason Those from Scripture and Law have been replyed to before SECT I. Law TO those from Reason laid down in the Book quoted in the Margin a seven fold errour more especially hath miscarried the Authours though men otherwise of Learning and Piety first in mistaking the word Law They seem to take the word Law to signifie only the agreements pactions and rules established by mutual consent betwixt Prince and people and make this only to be the ground of subjection and of commanding So that what is beyond it is no way obligatory either to be performed or suffered under farther then necessity and the want of power to resist doth enforce But they forget that there is another and superiour Law viz. that of God's Soveraignty oftentimes appointing an Invader or an Usurper or a Tyrant to rule for the punishment of a people Whose will only is the Law and whom God will have obeyed by all subjects in things lawful and not resisted in things unlawful So he appointed Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 25.15 not onely to rule over the Jews but over all the Nations there mentioned and they are enjoyned to obedience unto him So Hos 13.11 Hos 13.11 Jeroboam and the following Kings over the ten Tribes in his wrath as himself saith or even over all Israel as Saul who is understood to be pointed at in that Text. And of their Kings 't is expresly said they should onely be able to cry out in that day which by their practise 1 Sam. 8.18 may be understood that they should be allowed to do no other For else why joyned they not with David or why did not David himself resist him but always fled from him And the punishment of all those subjects that rebelled in the
Ethelred the Saxon King being married to Henry the first brought us forth a Royal seed derived from the antient blood of the Saxon Kings Yet why may we not think that some of our Princes originally might be as free as another lately who had no such such title either of Succession or Conquest professeth himself to have been in points of Law and Government Lord Protectors speech Septemb. 12. p. 11. and p. 13. untill he limited himself I say saith he the Authority I had in my hand being so boundless Again my power again by this resignation was boundless and unlimited as before All things being subject to Arbitrariness and a person having power over the three Nations pag. 14. boundless and unlimited Again The Government limited me and bâ—und my hands to act nothing to the prejudice of the Nations without consent of a Councel until Parliament and then limited by a Parliament I did accept it I was arbitrary in power May it not then have been in Princes as it was in this Vsurper and invader of the publick Liberties And indeed the Coronation-Oath seems to imply so much Coronation-Oath H. scrips 24. Apr. 61. die Coronationis casu non consilio dum opus recognoscerem wherein among other things the King is asked ' Sir will you grant to hold and keep the Laws and rightful customs which the Commonalty of this Realm consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit His Majesties answer to the Remonstrance of May 26. 1642. pag. 17. 15. whether you expound it have or shall choose Which words do not imply a force upon the King It is for the ease of Princes and satisfaction of Subjects that that unlimited power given by God to Princes is bounded in all places by Laws with their own consent Dr. Sandersons preface to Dr. Usher of the right of Kings pag. 12. but a desire of his engagement Therefore the choice of Laws being not the Princes but the Peoples advantage and priviledge is left unto them not as implying a co-ordinate power but a concession of liberty not now to be changed because established both by Law and Oath yet so that the King reserves to himself the power of a negative voice Negative voice and of refusing to pass their Elections into Laws if he like them not If it be said Object That the Houses have the like negative voice that 's a mistake Answ they have it in order the one house to the other but not in order to the King because he doth not propound Laws unto them his desiâ—es he may but they to him So that there is no such thing as a negative voice in the Houses about the Laws in order to the King it is onely in reference of the one House to the other So that to speak properly according to the known practise of the Parliament the two Houses seem to have no co-ordinate share in making Laws but in choosing things to be made Laws the King onely making of them for the Houses acknowledge Declar. Parl. ' That they are not Laws till the Royal assent But I may not correct the King who saith Object in this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made by a King Kings answ to the 19 proposit p. 12. by a House of Peers and by a House of Commons chosen by the people all having free votes and particular privileges Nor do I but explain what he must intend Answ The making of the matter of the Laws belongs to the two Houses the conferring of the form Declar. Parl. in defence of that May 26. 1642. and giving them the esse and being of Laws is from the King onely and so acknowledged by the Houses viz. That if he do deny it is no Law without him Script Reas sect 5. p. 64. Kings answ to 19 Proposit p. 19. and so acknowledged by the greatest pleaders for the taking up of Arms. But secondly because his Majesty saith a little after We conjure you that you allow us our share in the Legislative power which would be counted in us not onely a breach of priviledge but Tyranny and subversion of Parliaments to deny you Which implies the other have a share also I answer That they have a share but derivative not original subordinate as subjects even in Parliament for so they call themselves not co-ordinate as equals The wife hath a share in the government of the family for sure she is more in point of right relating to the government of it than a servant but it is not a co-ordinate but subordinate power The King would not be understood to confute his Father Himself or the Laws Not his Father K. James's Law of Free Monarchies who saith That the King is above the Law as both the Author and giver of strength thereto Not Himself who hath several times avowed his Soveraignty though not his solitude his Supremacy though not his aloneness in government who at the time of publishing that answer had drawn his sword to vindicate his Sovereinty prerogative Nor was it his intent to confute the Law which maketh him the fountain of justice as we saw above therfore what waters of power any else have must needs flow originally from him Thirdly the King hath said he is no Lawyer neither is it necessary that he should so be if then his Majesty out of zeal to content his subjects should let fal any * To the 19 Propositions expression in that answer of his so much insisted on that might prejudice his legal right it ought not in duty as it cannot in conscience be improved against him contrary to the known practise of Laws and Parliament It is true the two Houses say in their declaration of November 2. 1642. That the Kings Soveraignty is in and with the two Houses That they are the supreme Court whose determinations ought not to be question'd by the King That the Kings power is a trust from the people That the two Houses may dispose of any thing of the King or Kingdoms But seeing no Law is produc'd a sentence of out Fleta above answered is not sufficient to bottom in my conscience so high assertions To conclude All that have share in Legislative power have it not equally the King is acknowledged by the Oath of Supremacy sworn by every Parliament man before he sit to be Supreme over all in these his Dominions Neither have they it originally but by concession and grant though now setledly But though they have this derivative power in Legâ—slation and in some cases in declaring Law so it be not against the known Lavvs yet have they none in execution of the Lavvs much less the povver of the Sword further then the King shall grant unto them For vvhich though Laws vvere spoken of yet vvere they never produc'd Though the King declare That there is no power in either or both Houses Kings Answer to the Declaration of both Houses in answer to his
1â— Quis non his pollicitationibus non alliceretur praesertim adolescentis animus cupidus veri Who would not have been inveigled with these promises especially the mind of a young man thirsty for truth As Austin once of himself in refeference unto the Manichees SECT IV. Of the Contents of Independency and in particular of the second and third of them viz. congregation and non subjection The Ingredients of Indep coll g ble out of the Apologetic Narration of the 5. Br. BUt to come neerer and to particulars There are three things in Independency especially First separation viz. from full and constant fellowship and communion with the Parochial Assemblies Secondly Congregation or collecting and constituting themselves into another body Lastly Independency and assuming or usurping of intire Ecclesiastical power into that body so as to be judicially and of right subject unto none other which is the esse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Independency Of the two latter viz. Congregation and non subjection I shall speak here because I shall have occasion of much more large Discourse about the former namely separation And now for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that they do so congregate that is visible for they do by a certain covenant constitute themselves into a distinct body And that they arrogate an Independency also Apologet. Narrat pag. 23. although in words they reject the name saying That proud and insolent title of Independency was affixed unto us yet in as much as they do in terminis affirm first that any other particular Church hath only power to declare non communion with an offending Church pag. 19. Secondly that a Classis or combination of Churches have no juridical power over any particular one Pag. 15. pag. 17. Thirdly that the Magistrates power is of another nature though of use over the Church doth it not follow They also rightly denying a Catholick visible Church unavoidably that as a Church and as to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction they depend on none and therefore are Independent That therefore such they are as to congregating and Independing is beyond all contradiction Now then for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their grounds why they are so to shew the unsufficiency of them or which is all one that they ought not so to do is the next thing to be evidenced And 't is not so hard nor needs so long a proof if we consider their own grounds already yeilded and the unlawfulness of separation which shall the Lord assisting be cleared in the consequent and which themselves also seem to damn For we had likewise the fatal miscarriages and shipwâ—aâ—ks of the separation say they as Land-marks to forewarn us of those rocks and shelves they ran upon Apologetic Narrat pag. 5. And would God it had done it for the Independents have split upon the very same divisions First then for their concessions If it be true that all that conscience of the defilements say they we conceived to cleave to the true worship of God in them pag. 6. Concessions of Independents against Independency or of the unwarranted power in Church Governours exercised therein did never work in us any other thought much less opinion but that multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the true Churches and body of Christ and the Ministry thereof a true Ministry Then doubtless first their habitual Separation from such though in some acts rarely they did communicate with some of them was ipso facto unlawful and a Schisme evident This the foundation falling their superstructure of congregating into a body and binding themselves to that society which implies a constant renunciation of the former Churches is as drunkenness to thirst and their arrogating of a self-sufficient and independent power is as the fastening their iniquity with cords of vanity So that there seems no more needful for this place then that ex ore tuo serve nequam Matth. 25. out of thy own mouth thou shalt be judged Dost thou confess that notwithstanding any defilements in the worship any usurpation in the Church-Governours any pag. 6. mixture in the Congregations that yet multitudes of them were the true Churches and body of Christ and wilt thou separate thy self constantly and draw others from the true body of Christ Joh. 15. Are not the branches when broken off from the true Vine cut off from the * Quicquid à matrice discesserit seorsim vivere spirari non poterit substantian salutis amittit Cypr. de Simplic prolator p. edit Erasm 1520. 173. juice sap and life of the tree must they not needs wither and in the end be gathered to be burned I end this with that knock of the Hammer of this headless Schism for they are Independent St. Austin Hoc ergo Tichoâ—ius cùm vehementer copioseque dissereret ora contradicentium multis magnis ac manifestis sanctarum scripturarum testimoniis oppilaret non vidit quod consequenter videndum fuit Parmenianus autem ceterique Donatistae viderunt hoc esse consequens maluerunt suscipere obstinatissimum animum adversus apertissimam veritatem quam eâ concessâ superari ab Africanus Ecclesiis Aug. contr Ep. Parm. l. 1. c. 1. Independents This that the Church was not in Africk onely 1. their Inconsiderateness but diffused through the whole world when as Ticonius had earnestly and copiously discoursed and by many weighty and evident arguments of the holy Scriptures stopt the mouthes of the gain-sayers yet did not see that which by consequence did clearly follow 2. Or their Obstinacy On the other side Parmenian and the rest of the Donatists the separation saw the consequence and would rather assume a most stubborn resolution against manifest truth than by yielding to it be overcome of the African I may add in reference to those we speak of the English Churches But secondly toward satisfaction unto others if not to them What kind of Independency is here condemned I must explain my self All Independency of Churches is not denyed For then we must condemn the Church of England and other reformed who do not act as acknowledging any superior body on whom they do depend But according to the confession of this Church every particular or National Church Artic. 34. hath authority to ordain change and abolish Ceremonies or rites of the Church ordain'd onely by mans authority so that all things be done to edifying So Article 57 The Queens Majesty hath the chief power unto whom the chief government of all estates of of this Realm in all causes doth appertain and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction It speaks of causes Ecclesiastical Vindiciae Catholicae or the Rights of particular Christian Churches asserted Which kind of Independency I have elsewhere sufficiently if I mistake not vindicated But the Independency here opposed is that whereby Christians being before incorporated as members
to the judgment of these Brethren that the Q. and these Parl. then were in matter of the greatest moment the establishing of the Doctrine and Worship Articles and Liturgy of Almighty God and means of the salvation of men either so ignorant that they understood not what was requisite to the full establishment of their own Acts or so negligent that they minded it not as they should And seeing all the Kings and Parliaments since have swallowed their error As also all the Judges of the Land who do not only sit in Parliam to give advice but also have judged in their several Circuits the violations of those Books And because the present and future Parliaments may be subject to the like miscarriages may it be prevented in a better way then by the Parliam restoring to the Clergy the liberty of being elected Burgesses lost as I take it but in Henry the 8 th his time and so the Brethren may obtain places in the House of Commons and the Parliament enjoy the benefit of their guidance 2. To their instances particular in their printed sheet of alterations in the first printed book of Queen Elizabeth from that of Edward 6. viz. certain Saints days in the Kalender 1 Saints days but in black letters instead of others that were named in that of Edw. 6. Secondly certain Lessons of the Apocrypha appointed to be read instead of some out of the Canonical Scripture which were before appointed in the book of Edw. 6. For answer to both these first in general we have heard above to which I refer the reader Next in particular to that of the Saints days it doth not seem to hazzard the bringing in of new Holy-days both because as the brethren acknowledge they are set down in black letters those to be kept Holy-days in red but especially because the number of Holy-days is stinted they are set down by name in the Liturgy and a prohibition of any other to be kept so that as long as the book remains as now it is there can be no peril of that It may be the change of names was because the days now put in might be days of payment of mony or days of Law or perhaps unworthy persons names put out and better put in their room as Mr. Fox did in that Kalender of his Martyrology But this whatsoever it be makes no alteration in the Service or in the reading Yea but the alteration of the Chapters does 2. Apocryphal chapters To that therefore I say that this alteration was done either casu and by chance or consilio and of purpose And then either by privat hands or by publick authority by the Queen or Commissioners from her according to the clause in this Act authorising her for explanations In all which respects I refer unto the general answer afore-going But more particularly They might be altered upon some such suggestions as was made afterward by the Brethrens Ancestors modestly at the Conference of Hampton-Court of which afterwards To the Second 2. Book of Common-prayer aâ— it now stands established The book of Common-prayer as it now stands as established which the Brethren oppose as differing from that of Queen Elizabeth in alterations detractions and additions For answer first in general We must reflect on what hath been said above viz. That such alterations as have been made by Royal authority by commission under the great Seal being made but for explanations fake and containing nothing contrary to any thing in the book contained doth not derogate from the authority and establishment of the book but such alterations are confirmed such power being yielded to the Kings of this Nation by the Laws K. James Proclamation for uniformity of Com. prayer And for that purpose gave forth Our Commission undes Our Great Seal of England to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and others according to the form which the LAWS of this Realm in like case prescribed to be used to make the said EXPLANATION c. saith the King upon occasion of the alterations made at the Instance of the Brethrens predecessors at the Conference at Hampton-Court But to come unto particulars first to the Alterations 1. Alterations in the Liturgy That of Holy-days hath beâ—n replyed unto as also that of Apocryphal Chapters To which I add R. Hook eccles pol. l. 5. § 20. That it cannot be reasonably thought that we do thereby offer disgrace unto the word of God For in such choice we do not think but that fitness of speech may be more respected than worthiness of matter But this alteration whatsoever it were was made as by the authority of the King By whose means the Apocryphal chapters were altered so it seems by the occasion of Dr. Reynolds anotations For the King said That Dr. Reynolds should note those chapters in the Apocrypha books where those offensive places were and bring them But why do the Brethren appear now so zealous for the reading of the Scripture Conf. Hamp Court p. 63. Matth. 15. which they had almost laid aside in the publick worship for their own traditions i. e. for what they thought better to deliver unto the people 3. As for the alterations made for explanations sake K. James explanation of the present Liturgy by the King at the suit of the Non-conformists at that Conference now made violations of the Statute and essential alterations of the book they were not in any part of the substance of the book it self not in any prayer Not any alteration in the matter of the Liturgy or Exhortation and so in no one point either of Doctrine or Worship let the Reader note against the calumnies insinuated by these Brethren but onely in some two or three words in the old Translation of the Gospels And in a few Rubricks Hook eccles pol. l. 5. § 19. which are directions for the service The words altered in the Gospels wherein the steps of the Latine-service-book have been somewhat too nearly followed they are these 1. ' And Jesus said to them Conf. Hamp Court p. 86. to be put twice into the Dominical Gospels instead of Jesus said to his Disciples Though at the Conference it was answered That for ought that could appear by the places Ibid. pag. 63. he might speak as well to his Disciples as to the Pharisees The alterations in the Rubricks are Ibid. pag. 86. 1. Before the general Absolution is put or Remission of sins which before was onely Absolution 2. In private Baptism the lawful Minister present before it was then they minister it 3. In the same Rubrick they procure not their children to be baptised before it was they baptize not children 4. In that before Confirmation Examination with Confirmation of children it was appointed but I do not find it was done So that as the alterations of the words of the old Translation were but two so these in the Rubricks are but three And none of
House of Peers carried for them by far the major part of Lords Yet after five repulses contrary to all order and custom it was by tumultuary instigation obtruded again and by a few carried when most of the Peers were forced to absent themselves In like manner was the Bill against root and branch brought on by tumultuary clamours and schismatical terrors Bill against Episcopacy which could never pass till both Houses were sufficiently thinned and over-awed To which partiality while in all reason justice and religion my conscience forbids me by consenting to make up their Votes to Acts of Parliament I must now be urged with an Army and constrained either to hazard my own A cause of the War defence of Episcopacy and my Kingdoms ruine by my defence or prostrate my conscience to the blind obedience of those men whose zealous superstition thinks or pretends they cannot do God and the Church a greater service than utterly to destroy that Primitive Apostolical and antiently Vniversal government of the Church by Bishops And the King hath the like complaint * Kings declaration to all his loving subjects Aug. 12. 1642. p. 8. print Cambr. else-where So that we see what was the mind and affection the scope and intent of the King and the two Houses as then when that Act passed touching Episcopacy Whence it will follow that as they had no intention nor ever consented to the Bill for it to destroy the office so neither did the Commons think that it was so by that Act of taking away their votes or by recalling of the former clause of 1 Eliz. 1. touching Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for then they would not have prepared another Act for it which never passed the Houses whilst full nor the Kings assent afterward and so is no Law It remaineth therefore that the intention of the Parliament in the repealing of that clause was onely in reference unto the High-commission Court or other excentrical from the legal jurisdiction of Bishops and raised onely by the Kings prerogative yet of use whilst established but removed not for its unprofitableness as to prevent some greater inconvenience It was their jurisdiction in those cases and upon such special commission from the King that there ceased not their ordinary legal and per se Episcopal power of government in this Church * By Act of this present Parliament for restoring Episcopal jurisdiction As hath been of late more authentically evidenced Answ 4 even before this was printed As for the Ordinance that especially at that time as it could at no time cannot countervene a setled Law Neither have the Houses power to declare any thing against Law as we heard above Lord Cant. speech ubi suprà For close therefore I repeat that suit of his and do humbly in the Churches name desire of his Majesty that it may be resolved not onely by all the Reverend Judges of England A supplication to his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament but by his Majejesty and both Houses of Parliament and then published by them that the Doctrine and Articles of Religion the Liturgy and Worship the Discipline and Government are not against or besides the Laws of this Realm That so the Church-Governors may go on cheerfully in their duty and the peoples minds be quieted by this assurance that neither the Laws nor their Liberties are infringed as Subjects thereby SECT VII Of the Obligation of the League and Covenant AGain it is objected that there is an engagement for the Reformation of the Doctrine Worship Assemblies Discipline and Government in the solemn League and Covenant therefore they are not to be adhered unto Subsect 1. That the Covenant obligeth not OMitting the elaborate and excellent pains of the University of Oxford in this argument Reasons of the University of Oxford concerning the Covenant 1647. Duplies of the professors of Aberdeen to the Brethr. concerning the Covenant 1638. Dr. Lesly Bish of Down in his Visitation speech Lond. 1638. 1. Argument Because it is opposite to after other Oaths c. Gal. 3.14 18. as also that of the Professors of Aberdeen in Scotland And of the Bishop of Down in Ireland the testimony of the three Kingdoms against it I shall propound only four Arguments to evince first the nullity of its obligation and then from thence collect what it binds yet unto The Arguments touching the former are First from the nature and order of this Oath The second from the power imposing of it The third from the matter of the oath it self The last from the scope and end of its framing and imposing First from the nature and order of this Oath When there are two oaths touching the same things and they contradictory one to another if the former be lawful and obliging the latter cannot be so too but void and null ipso facto Hence it is that our Apostle proveth the invalidity of the Ceremonial Law and Covenant being different from and in some sort opposite to the Covenant of Grace because it was made four hundred years after and so could not make the other void So this Oath and Covenant whereof we now speak being contradictory as shall be seen and is evident of it self to former lawful Oaths and Engagements confirmed by the Laws of the Kingdome as the Oath of Allegiance Supremacy Canonical Obedience Subscriptions to the three Articles and Protestations cannot make those former of none effect and is therefore void being taken as it was unlawful to take it unless the Obligation of the former Oaths and Engagements had been by the same or superiour power relaxed As was done by Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen to his subjects Sleid. Com. l. 18 Ad Ann. 1547. when he was no longer able to protect them Which was not our case Our former Oaths and Engagements were agreeable to Law and Equity both in their matter and authority injoyning them This contradictory to them and by an inferiour power yea by such a power as had not authority to do it which brings me to the second Argument 2. Arg. Because it was in posed by unsufficient power in opposition to the lawful authority namely taken from the power or rather the impotency of the imposers as to this act It is proved above that in the Government the King is Supreme by the Laws But if he were but equal yet in a coordinate power if when one desires to do his duty and is well able thereunto the other shall exclude him and act in opposition not only to him but also to the Laws established by all and impose upon the Subjects who are not obliged but as it proceeds from all to submit and to accept of such impositions if voluntarily is a threefold iniquity and injustice First Unto the person excluded against his will and right Secondly Against the liberty of the Subject who is not liable to injunctions proceeding from some but all Thirdly Against the priviledge
their usual mistakes For first they are in the Roman and Paris Edition of the Greek and in many antient Eastern Psalters as is noted in those Bibles As also are they in that Edition so magnifi'd by Austin which he followed in his Exposition of the Psalms Aug. in Ps 13. But howsoever they are Scripture and are found altogether in Rom. 3. as themselves acknowledge I might add that they are also in that follow'd by Jerom Hieron in Ps 13. if that Commentary upon the Psalmes be his which Bellarmine saith is obscura quaestio a difficult Problem When they add Insert sheet pag. 6. Object Answ that the Translation of the Epistles and Gospels is as antient as 25 Hen. 8. and taken out of the Mass-book This is added to make this Translation odious but sure they will grant that the Epistles and Gospels in the Mass-book were first taken out of the Scripture it self But of the Mass-book in general we have spoken above and shewen that every thing in it ought not to be rejected Hook eccles pol. 5. § 19. Conf. Hamp Court pag. 45 46. Lastly for the particular places they name some of them have been objected and answered long since And the difference not overthrowing either faith or manners there being also a correct translation for constant use appointed and these but onely in the Epistles and Gospels which are to be used not so frequently these faults moreover not being many nor of any great consequence are venial That of Hezekiah his destroying the brazen Serpent might have here been omitted having been so fully replyed unto and the disproportion shewn by a learned Pen so long ago And afterward briefly by a learned King Hook eccles pol. l. 5. § 65. Conf. Hamp Court pag. 73. Of which Books and Answers the Brethren take not the least notice whether out of ignorance or want of ingenuity may be left in medio without danger of the Law I hope Necess Reform pag. 18. 1. The Kalender Next after the man that bore the Armour comes the Champion himself after the inserted sheet the solemn treatise where the first title is of the Kalender And the main quarrel against it for appointing so much of the Apocrypha to be read In the Answer to the fourth general Exception of which above To the particulars if any thing sound toward error or be indeed dross should that deprive the Church of the gold contained in the rest Do we not read of the Midwifes lying of Abrahams twice of Rachels stealing her fathers Idols and many other in Scripture which ought not therefore to be rejected Again if it were requisite to spend time in the particulars there might not want perhaps a probable defence Tob. 3. of what either the daughter of Raguel or Raphael the Angel or Asmodeus the evil Spirit or Judith are there said to have done or spoken Jacob said He obtained the portion of Sichem with his sword and with his bowe much after that sense that Judith there speaks according unto Calvins Exposition Jus victoriae ad se transfert quasi divinitus sibi concessum quia in ejus gratiam homicidis Deut peperceret Calv. in Genes 48.22 Simeon and Levi might have a laudable zeal as Judith speaks and God might use it in his secret counsel and did so to purchase a place for Jacob And Jacob own the Land as his conquest though he detest the action The like may be said touching Judith's prayer as no doubt Jahel had hers before she cut of Sisera's head Judg. 4. whom also she slew by the deceit of her lips as well as Judith did Holofernes Genes 30. Did not Rachel and Leah with great Religion bless God for the children that they had made their husband Jacob beget upon their Handmaids Times and persons must be noted And every thing in Scripture is not to be imitated Else we might say as the Brethren Are not these gallant chapters to be read in the Churches The examples then in Scripture must be interpreted by rule and may not also the Apocrypha The next Regiment assaulted by the Brethren are the Redcoats the Rubricks so called 2. The Rubricks because antiently written in red Letters and are directions how to officiate and read the Common-prayer-book the first whereof is cloathed not with a coat of Male but of a Priest at which they fire They say Priest is the old style and title in the Mass-book This Mass-book is the Gorgons head wherewith they terrifie all assailants But was the Mass book ever in English True indeed Fox Act. Mon. in Edw. 6. King Edward the sixth for the appeasing of a rebellion told the Rebels so but that was not as it was the Mass-book but as it was a Prayer-book as little as might be at that time different Besides that prayer-book is not the same with ours now for it hath been reformed more than once since The Mass then never having been in English the word Priest could not be taken thence Yea but it answers to Sacerdos in the Mass-book which signifies Priest Priest That 's the Brethrens translation to avoid Presbyter out of the Mass-book whose evident derivative Priest is with very little alteration If this please not may one more antient and more cheerful be admitted viz. Walter Mapes Arch-deac of Oxf. in King Johns time M. Sâ—r. Sacerdos enim est cùm sacra dederit Tunc verò Presbyter cùm ter praebiberit i. e. When sacred things he gives he is a Priest A Presbyter when thrice before the rest He takes his Cup and so begins the Feast Thirdly Is it equipollent the word Priest to a sacrifice surely not in the etymology for it signifies onely an administration of holy things nor in the use unless we shall say that in the Primitive Church they owned a proper and real sacrifice These Bâ—ethren with the finger point us to take notice That they have seriously consulted Antiquity pag. 47. did they never in all their reading meet amongst a multitude of the like with such a passage as this Cùm haec tanta ac talia multa alia exempla praecedant Cypr. lib. 1. ep 3. quibus Sacerdotalis authoritas potestas divina dignatione formatur quales putas esse eos qui Sacerdotum hostes contra ecclesiam catholicam rebelles nec praemonentis domini comminatione nec futuri judicii ultione terrentur c. Whereas these such so great and so many examples have gone before us of the admonitions and executions of the judgments of God against the despisers of the Priesthood whereby the authority and power of Priesthood is by Gods special providence established what kind of men wouldst thou take them to be who being enemies to Priests and rebels against the Catholick Church are neither terrified with the Lords forewarning nor with the punishment of the judgment to come And what more usual than that title
among the Antients yet without the notion of a proper sacrifice and so may we If any superstition have been joyned to it since Act. 27. yet what hinders but that St. Luke may call the Ship by the usual name of Castor and Pollux although it had it from those Idols Why must we needs always for often the Brethren acknowledge the Liturgy uses the word Minister declare our selves so far distant from those whom in Religion we have left as that we will not use our Mothers tongue because they once have spoken with it unless it be that we have so delivered them unto Sathan that we will alienate their minds from us and from the truth lest at any time they should be converted by it Yet we refuse not the other title that of Minister so there be no design in assuming it as there may be in casting the other wholly off And may not that name as much lower the Officers of God if so be that be not done even thereby already which perhaps discerned hath occasion'd the assumption of a more specious one viz. that of Presbyter as the other had in it peril either of pride or superstition Although to speak as the thing is what man is there now especially Minister for whose direction the Rubricks chiefly are that reading of that word in the Liturgy do so much as dream of an Altar or a Sacrifice but takes it onely as signifying the Officer of holy things in the Church Certain it is pag. 22. Bucer Melancthon Pistorius in the Liturgy composed for Colen do indifferently use this word with Pastor and Minister But enough have we conversed with these Nominals Next for want of fault in the things themselves they labour to find one in their opposition Contradiction in the Rubricks That because one Rubrick appoints the Collect Epistle and Gospel to be read all the week that is appointed for the Sunday and another Rubrick runs thus The Collects Epistles and Gospels to be used at the holy Communion therefore these were not intended to be read but at the Lords Supper and so contrary to the other when there is no Communion that appoints them to be read every day But how doth it follow that because these Collects Epistles Answ Propositio particularis in materia non necessaria aequipollet indefinitae and Gospels are appointed to be read at the Communion that they may not be read at other times yea the former Rubrick appoints them If there be a Communion they are to be read if there be none they may be read That the Communion was antiently administred every day in the Church of England is not proved by the Rubrick after the first Exhortation at the holy Communion for there is none such there nor any Rubrick at all that I find Yea the Rubrick after the Collects at the end of the Communion expresly saith Upon the holy-days if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion Whence first it appears they did not think any contradiction to be betwixt the two Rubricks above mention'd Secondly that the Communion was not necessary to be administer'd every day which appears further in the next Rubrick which appoints that in Cathedral Churches c. they shall receive the Communion every Sunday at the least as supposing there may be Holy-days in the week wherein there might be no Communion Object p. 23. n. 3. Exception is further taken that the general Confession before the Communion is permitted to be pronounced by the people This say the Brethren gives liberty to Lay or private men to officiate 3. Confession to be pronounced by one of the people at least in part as to this Confession which is a branch of the Office peculiar to the Minister Sometimes the exception is that the Church or Bishops tyrannize over the people deprive them of all priviledge Ecclesiastical Now 't is a quarrel that it yields so much unto them Answ 1 First I might remember them that some of the Antients in certain cases yielded more Aug. contr Parmen l. 2. c. 13. As do also those of the Lutheran Confession Etsi laicus aliquis pereunti dederit Baptism necessitate compulsus quòd quum ipse acciperet dandum esse addidicit nescio an pie quisquam dixerit esse repetendum Nulla enim cogente necessitate si fiat Hieron adv Luciferian Lumbard lib. 4. dist 6. A. dist 5. C. Baptizari Châ—mait Exam. part 2. de Alsolutione alieni muneris usurpatio est c. i. e. Although a Lay-man if he administer Baptism and it be not a case of necessity he usurps another mans office Si autem necessitas urgeat aut nullum aut veniale delictum est The same is the seâ—tence of St. Jerom as also of the School and of the Canon-Law And of the Lutherans also But the Church of England for the abuses of that practise hath removed it Secondly the unlawfulness of administrations Answ 2 in the Church ariseth hence if any man take this honour unto himself and be not called of God by the hand of his Church But as the habitual power is fixed on such persons so may a temporary and transient one on any other by the authority of the Church But Answ 3 thirdly Ecclesiastical power Ecclesiastical power consists especially in dispensing and giving forth the things of God unto the people viz. The Word Sacraments and Administration of the Keys in binding and loosing in Excommunicating and Absolving Prayer is a more general and common act communicable also unto others Fourthly This particular Answ 4 hath a special consideration Inasmuch as it is a more immediate act of the Congregation the people is therefore not unproper to be pronounced by one of them especially being allowed by the Church thereunto as is Absolution the proper act of the Minister which following immediately upon the former seems to point at the peoples Confession before But this the Church hath left Arbitrary Lastly It is not in use and therefore Answ 5 needed no such animosity and opposition The fourth Exception The four h Except That the same Collect should be said on certain Festivals seven daies after with the Word as on this day As if as they jeered above the Minister might not change Queen for King The fifth Exception is against the last Rubrick after the Communion which saith The fifth Exception Rites and Sacram That every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year of which Easter to be one and shall also receive the Sacraments and other Rites c. Thus they recite the Rubrick And having made it for their turn they discharge three bruta fulmina against it First That it is contradictory to the Exhortation before the Communion who doth bid all present in the name of God to come c. Then the former seems to dispence with Gods own invitation Next That Easter should be one
displeased God so sore and filthily defiled his holy house and his place of prayer Which last words the Brethren refer to piping singing and playing on Organs Whereas 't is evident that passage hath respect especially to that before where it spake of Images Idols Altars with gross and filthy corrupting the Lords holy Supper and the Gazeing sights Again It condemneth not all piping singing or playing on Organs but such as they were wont to have which was both superstitious for kind and too much for quantity Matth. 6. He that forbad us to pray as the Heathen either for babling or length did not forbid us to pray soberly and upon just occasion largely Thirdly If you take all in concreto and together then singing is also condemned by the Homily for it is ranked with piping and Organs Therefore it must be understood with the former restriction such singing as was then and so such piping such organing namely such as took up so much time and was fitted more to please the fancy than for godly delight and spiritual excitation of the affection and edification Lastly The Composers of these Homilies were Bishops the Homil. were approved by Bishops and by Princes and Parliaments who had Organs and singing in their Chappels and Cathedrals besides the Royal Chappel And therefore cannot be understood to condemn that thing in Doctrine which themselves did allow in practise unless we should compare them to him * Deletum in Autographo repositum ab operis who having an Altar in his Chappel yet wrote strenuously for The holy Table Name and Thing This detorting therefore of mens words against their scope and meaning by the Brethren savours of their folly who as he speaks Job 13.7 will lie for God which he as little owns as stands in need of To the last The Bishops omitting the Pastoral Staff which by the 2 Edw. 6. he is enjoyned to have in his hand or to have it born by his Chaplain First the Common-prayer in the Rubrick referrs to that Act of 2 Edw. 6. onely in respect of ornaments to be used in the time of the Communion Rubrick before the Confession of sins and other times of his Ministration not to other things or times as this which is an ornament to themselves which for humility's sake they have omitted and to avoid ostentation but this is no example for otheâ—s to neglect the things that concern the more immediate worship of God In the former things the Law gives it as a priviledge in these it puts it on as an obligation A Knight shall wear his Spurs and Sword that is he may but He shall serve the King in his Wars that is he must I shall end this discourse with that which Austin ended his de Ritib Ecclesiae concerning the Ceremonies of the Church Ep. 119. Januar cap. ult Sic itaque adhibeatur scientia tanquam machina quaedam per quam structura charitatis assurgat quae maneat in aeternum etiam cùm scientia destruetur quae ad finem charitatis adhibita multum est utilis per se autem ipsam sine tali sine non modo superflua sed etiam pernitiosa probata est Let us therefore so make use of knowledge as we would do of an Engine by which the building of Charity may be raised which abideth for ever even when Knowledge shall be destroyed Which knowledge when it is applyed to charity is very useful that of it self without such an end and use is not onely found to be a supersluous but even a pernitious matter Saith this Father I add Vade tu fac similiter And thus we have found mighty and vehement informations K. James Proclamation for the uniformity of Com. prayer supported with so weak and ssender proof as it appeareth unto Us and Our Councel that there was no cause why any change at all should be made in that which was most impugned the Book of Common-prayer neither in the Doctrine which appeared to be sincere neither in the Forms and Rites which were justified out of the practice of the Primitive Church saith King James I conclude with an Admonition an earnest Suit 1. An Admonition and an humble Supplication My Admonition is to all first that they beware lest this * Let not every wanton Wit be permitted to bring what fancies he list into the Pulpit c. Dr. Ushers Serm. before the Commons Feb. 18. 1620. pag. 6. Exod. 32. Amos 8.11 wantonness arising from spiritual fulness as it is in the bodily They ate and drank and then rose up to play be not punished with a famine not of bread and water but of hearing the Word of God either in the letter or in the saving power of it and of enjoying his holy Worship Next That they would apply to this in its proportion what one of the learned Professors of Tigur hath concerning the Scripture on an occasion of the curiosities of some about that Quis enim alius in Scripturis praeter Dei cognitionem fidem vitae nostrae officium scopus nobis esse vel possit vel debeat non video * R. Gualter presat in 3. Tom. operum Zuinglii VVhat things we are to aim at in reading of Scripture More then the knowledge of God Faith and the duties of our life what other end we should aim at in Scripture I say or in a confession of faith and form of Worship I see not Now these by the Articles and Liturgy as they are that we have as plentifully enjoyed as any other Church is acknowledged by other Churches as shall appear and is on all hands owned My earnnest suit is unto these Brethren 2. A Suit Isa that now labour of this Book that they would not travell to bring forth but wind That they would consider the water is now troubled on both sides the penny in the bottom will not be seen That in paring of the nails too near there is peril of cutting of the flesh And that if any thing in it self considered may need amendment yet as in some diseases at least in some remedies Medicina est morbo pejor The medicine worse than the malady Plutarch de sanitat inenda non procul à fine According to that of the Philosopher Longissimè a recta ratione absunt qui ejiciendorum è corpore redundantium humorum causa qui familiares corpori sunt consueti in corpus inficiunt coccos Gnidios scammoniam aliaque medicamenta a temperie corporis aliena saeva Accustomed humors though not so good in the body are yet better grapled with then scammony 3. An humble Supplication unto Authority Isa 49. Revel 12. My humble supplication is to those who are in power if so be that this voice shall by any eccho ascend their ears That they would be as 't is promised nursing fathers unto this child-birth of the Church That they would be as a wall to
unto the fifth and last thing the Government under which I comprehend the Ministry as well as Episcopacy both in their Calling and employment First The Ministry To whose constitution it is required that he be orthodox in Doctrine able in parts Conditions requisite to the constitution of a Ministry innocent of life examined by such as are in place so to do that he be not excepted against by the People and solemnly consecrated by prayer and imposition of hands thereunto More we shall not finde in Scripture necessary as by the consideration of 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Act. 14.23 with other places may appear Now if unto all this God do give evident testimony to his Ministry by his presence therewith both on the hearts of his people and conviction of the adversaries All of them observed in the Church of England Book of Ordination of Ministers Book of Canons Can. 34 and 35. and by appearing for him otherwise there is then a further seal of his Ministry The former six Particulars are all observed in the Church of England in the ordering of Ministers as by the Book of Ordination may appear although perhaps not with that exactness at all times as might be wished And for the seventh and last God hath set to his seal in the plentiful blessing of their Labours 'T is true that one of the Ancients saith Cum ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem eligendi dignos sacerdotes Cypr. l. 1. ep 4. vel indignos recusandi That the People especially have the power of choosing good Ministers or refusing those who are bad He doth not mean a jurisdiction and authority but a liberty of accepting or refusing upon just ground alledged touching their conversation not as if the power as People and distinct from the Ministery were in their hands for so he explaineth himself in the same place Vt plebe praesente vel detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur The people being present that the crimes of those that are evil may be discovered and the merit of the godly may be declared And a little after he expresseth the same thing more fully shewing the Form of Ordination of Ministers in his time De traditione divina Apostolica observatione servandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque ferè per provincias universas tenetur ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione prospexit That is It is to be observed and kept as a divine and Apostolical Institution which is also held by us and almost in all Provinces That for the right Ordination of a Minister the Bishops of that Province do assemble unto that people unto whom the Bishop or Minister is to be ordained and that the Bishop or Minister be ordained in the presence of the people who do know perfectly the life of every one and perceiveth their actions by conversing with them But by this testimony it appeareth That the Interest of the People was a liberty from their knowledge of the life of the person to accept or refuse but that the Election was not wholly by them but the Bishops or Ministry were to regulate the Election which he expresseth in the Epistle before also Nemo adversum sacerdotum collegium quicquam moneret Epist. 3. l. 1. nemo post divinum judicium post populi suffragium post coepiscoporum consensum judicem se non jam Episcopi sed Dei faceret No man saith he would if the Brotherhood did obey their Ordinary according to the Institution of Christ move any thing to wit against the Bishop after the Judgement of the Colledge of Ministers after the divine Approbation after the suffrages of the People and after the consent of the other Bishops c. But that the People should have the power of Election of Ministers Instit l. 4. cap. 4. s 12. Calvin cites against it and approves the Councel of Laodicea Can. 13. Est equidem illud fateor optima ratione sancitum in Laodicensi concilio ne turbis electio permittatur Vix enim unquam evenit ut tot capita uno sensu rem aliquam bene componat ut ferè illud verum est Incertum scindi studia in contraria vulgus primum soli clerici eligebant quem elegerant offerebant magistratui tum ad multitudinem res deferebatur Aut si à multitudine incipiebatur tantum id fiebat ut sciretur quem potissimum expeteret Auditis popularium vota clerici demum eligebant Hunc ordinem ponit Leo Epist 87. expectanda sunt vota Civium testimonia populorum honoratorum arbitrium electio clericorum That is That truly I confess is with very good reason decreed by the Councel of Laodicea Can. 13. Popular Elections not allowed That the Election of Ministers should not be permitted to the People For it hardly at any time comes to pass that so many heads do with one consent compose any business well and that is commonly true which the Poet saith ' The common people being weak 'To several Factions quickly break First therefore the Ministers chose then they offered him to the Magistrate afterward the matter was brought to the people or if the business began with the people it was onely that they might know whom especially they desired which when they understood then the Clergy did choose Thus Calvin Beza also De Minister Grad cap. 23. Quod tota multitudo simul fuit convocata suffragium tulit nec essentiale nec perpetuum fuit i. e. That the People were called and gave their voyce was neither of the essence of the Call nor perpetual And with us Book of Canons Can. 31. the Ordination of Ministers is appointed at four times of the year at which time Prayer and Fasting is enjoyned any that will are permitted to be present See the Book of Ordination proclamation made unto them to except against the persons to be ordained And no Bishop permitted to ordain any not of his Diocess without Letters testimonial Canon 34 35. under pain of suspension But if in this there may be any defect or have been abuse yet we are to consider that of the Church of England saying That in the Primitive Church in the beginning of Lent The Commination at the end of the Liturgy and at the beginning notorious sinners were put to open penance and punished in this world in stead whereof until the said Discipline be restored which thing is much to be wished it is thought good c. may perhaps imply that it would if it might without greater peril reform some other things also among which this of the somewhat more particular approbation or acceptation of the people if it should be found
for use that without it the Churches could not be preserved neither in Truth nor Vnity And though Hierome seem to imply that there was some times when the Churches were governed without it yet unless hee mean the time of the Apostles who were themselves instead of it no time by his own words can be assigned when the Church either could or did want it neither doth hee name any certain time or alledge any Author as hee useth to do in case of History neither under correction of men of larger reading do I beleeve hee could Seeing it is evident in the Ecclesiastical History and by the Monuments of the most Antient Writers that Episcopacy was contiguous with the Apostles time as appears by Ignatius Policarpus Vide Eus Hist Hieron de Scriptorib Ecclesiast Clemens Irenaeus and others Whereas Hierome lived in the fourth Century above three hundred years after Christ 'T is true St. Austin that mirrour of Modesty and Humility writing unto this same Hierome when hee had received some contemptuous expressions from him as I said before Aug. ad Hieron Epist. 19. that Father was a little high in answer to him saith Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major sit Object tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est Although saith hee according to titles of honour which now the USE of the Church hath obtained Episcopacy be superiour to Presbytery yet in many things Austin is inferiour to Hierome Answ Hee saith it is by use of the Church that Episcopacy is above Presbytery but hee speaketh of the difference of names and tiles implying that in the Scripture they have often all one name Epist ad Evagrium as Hierome had proved in that Commentary upon the first of Titus and elsewhere but doth not deny nor imply that the Office was the same Again hee saith the Use of the Church now this Use may be as antient as the Apostles Lastly Hee knew with whom hee was dealing and on purpose composed his expression to the qualifying of Jerome Vide Epist ad Hieron 15. as appears in his other Epistles to him hee doth not dispute ex professo this point Cyprian the antient of them both in the place now cited carries it very far for the dignity of Episcopacy â—â—pr lib. 1. Ep. 3. and the eminency of one both in Place and Authority Having proved by many examples the preheminency of place and duty of Obedience by the Scripture given to the High Priests among the Jews applying to the Bishop in a Christian Church hee saith Cum haec tanta ac talia multa alia exempla praecedant quibus Sacerdotalis autoritas potestas divina dignatione firmatur quales putas esse eos qui Sacerdotum hostes contra Ecclesiam Catholicam rebelles nec praemonentis Domini comminatione nec futuri judicii ultione terrentur Neque enim aliundè haereses abortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata quà m inde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtempetatur nec UNUS in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur Cui si secundum Magisteria divina obtemperaret fraternitas universa nemo adversum Sacerdotum Collegium quicquam moneret nemo post divinum judicium post populi suffragium post Co-episcoporum consensum judicem se non jam Episcopi sed Dei faceret nemo dissidio unitatis Christi Ecclesiam scinderet that is Seeing these so great such and so many other examples have gone before by which the authority and power of the Priestly dignity is confirmed by Gods institution what kind of men do you think them who being enemies of the Priesthood and rebels against the Catholick Church are neither terrified by Gods threatnings nor yet with fear of the judgement to come For from no other cause do Heresies arise nor Factions in the Church have their beginning than from hence that there is not given obedience to the Priest of God hee means the Bishop as the words following will shew neither is considered that for the time there is but One Priest namely chief that ought to be in the Church of God and for the time but one Judge in the stead of Christ To whom according to the Doctrine of Christ did the whole Brother-hood give obedience no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests by whom the Bishops was chosen no man would make himself Judge not now of the Bishop but of God himself after that hee hath been chosen by the Divine Judgement by the suffrage of the people desired and by the consent of other Bishops confirmed I urge this Testimony being very antient Cyprian lived about the year 250. to shew the judgement of Antiquity touching Episcopacy namely the Institution Use and End of it viz. preservation of Truth and Peace in the Church as wee saw before out of St. Hierome Spurâ—ous testimonies though grayer-headed I pass not at Yea and Hieron himself elsewhere doth imply that a Bishop might ordain which a Presbyter could not do Quid enim facit exceptâ ordinatione Hieron Epist ad Evagr. Tom. 3. Episcopus quod Presbyter non facit that is what doth a Bishop do except Ordination which a Presbyter doth not thus hee but Ordination carries with it some Superiour jurisdiction Since my writing of this De Evangel Ministerium gradib cap. 23. I have consulted what Savania hath observed upon this place of Hierome on Tit. 1.5 against Beza and finde that his cogitations are the same much-what with mine as indeed it is obvious to any one considering of it neither do I see cause to alter them Savania Beza for any thing I finde in Beza his reply unto them whose judgement in this point wee shall hear anon out of the same writing And so I dismiss the Testimony from Antiquity Proceed wee now to the Judgement of the Reformed Churches expressed by their chief Writers and even those who have erected another Government Calvin the supposed Parent of Presbytery 1. The Reformed Christian Churches Judgement of Episcopacy but hee was onely the foster Father for Farel and Viret had before him ejected Episcopacy at Geneva or rather the Bishop hee the ground being as it were vacant raised Presbytery or rather ripened it in the room thereof Hee first argues the right of Episcopacy for the substance of it from Nature it self Calvin 1. Hoc natura dictat Unum ex singulis Collegiis delegendum exi precipua cura incumbat Epist. ad R pol. 1554. 2. Fateor quidem ut sunt hominum ingenia mores non posse ordinem stare inter verbi Ministros quin reliquis praesit Unus Praes ad duc Witemberg ante Epist ad Gal. Epist ad R. pol. 1554. then acknowledges the Necessity of it for the upholding of the order of the Ministery from the disposition and spirit of men both
they said in the Preface and in the Prayer in both which the book speaks of them as of several orders as wee saw but now for that word of Consecration is used for honours sake onely as being the separation of a person to a more eminent order If the Brethren could make advantage of it they might by the same Logomachy prove that Bishops Priests and Deacons are consecrated also for the Title of the Book saies The form and manner of consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons Ergo Priests and Deacons are consecrated as well it may bee said as that Bishops are consecrated therefore not ordered This for the judgement of the Church of England and of the Articles whereof the book of Ordination is a branch unto which the Brethren as it seems have also subscribed Artic. 36. For revolting from which Can. 38. they have merited the censures of the Church but that they say those Canons have now no powder but there may bee some in making If Linwood and Anshelme say Linwood constitut Anshelm in Phâ—l 1. that Episcopacy is not an order distinct from Presbyters wee are to note that these and many streams like have but one head which when it issued out this was a little troubled it is St. Hierom whom in this they follow and whose words they use Who being provoaked by John Bishop of Hierusalem Ad Evagr. Tom 2. in Ep. ad Tit. 1. took occasion warmly to make that a general note which hee had but from a few particular instances and the latitude of the word Bishop in Scripture That because there was not at that time any one so constituted at Ephesus Act. 22. when Paul left that Church therefore there was not one afterward when John wrote his Revelation and Christ sent the message to the Angel especially of that Church To say that Angel was the company of the Ministers Apoc 2. is to beg the question not to answer the proof Also because there was none one while more specially designed by Paul at Philippi or at least spoken to therefore there was none at Colosse when as the Apostle directs his speech to bee delivered to Archippus To say there was no other Minister there is to avoid what can not by such evasion be escaped Ephesus had a Bishop or call him what you will a superiour Governour to all the Ministers 1 Tim. 1. when Timothy was there and so had the Isle of Crete when Titus governed it Tit. 1. When the Apostle admonisheth the Hebrews to obey them that have the Rule over them Heb. 13. Act. 15. Gal. 2. 1 Cor. 3 5. 2 Cor. 3.6 Eph. 6.21 Rom. 13.4 cap. 15.8 doth it exclude the government of James or of Peter to whom Paul applyed himself as the pillars and rectors of that Church A speech uttered to many doth not shut out the precedency of some one among them The word Deacon is sometime applyed to the Apostles themselves and to the Evangelists And to the Magistrate Luk. 19.44 1 Pet. 2.12 and to â—hr st himself So the word Episcopacy sometimes signiâ—ies viâ—itation in general in the Scripture sometimes the offiâ—e of A ostleship Act. 1.20 And his Bishoprick let ano her take â—nâ— sometimes the office of a Bishop or Pastor or Presbyter 1 Tim. 3. Hee that desireth the office of a Bishop But this latitude of the Word in Scripture impedeth not but that the thing now understood thereby may be in Scripâ—ure distinct from that of Presbyter and is in all those plaâ—es and persons where and who had jurisdiction over other Ministers as the Apostles the Evangelists and others such as Timothy and Titus were But that Hieron even when hee disputes upon the Word was not so clear against the thing Ep. ad Evagr. in ipso fine appeâ—rs in that hee saith Presbyter Episcopus aliud aetatis aliud dignitatis est nomen Unde ad â—imotheum de ordinatione Episcopi Diaconi dicitur de Presbyteris omnino reticetur quia in Episcopo Presbyter continetur Et ut sciamus traditiones Apâ—stolicas sumptas de Veteri Testamento Qâ—od Aaron silii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia The name saith hee of Presbyter and Bishops the one is a title of years the other of dignity Whence it is that in the Epistle to Timothy there is mention made of the ordination of a Bishop and a Deacon by the way note Consecration an Ordination that Antiquity doth name the consecration of a Bishop ordination which the Brethren deny but there is no mention there of the ordination of a Presbyter because that in a Bishop a Presbyter is also contained And that wee may understand the postolical traditions taken out of the Old Testament Hieron judgement of Epâ—scopacy whilst he dâ—sputes against it look what Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple Let the Bishops and he Presbyters and the Deacons challenge unto themselves in the Church where first we have as much distinction yeelded as was betwixt Aaron and his Sons and the Levites between the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons Secondly That this distinction is Apostolical and grounded on the equity of the orders of the Ministery in the Old Testament so that it is agreeable unto Scripture both in the Old and New Testament Thirdly That the word Bishop is used for Presbyter sometimes because it comprehends it But hee doth not say it is comprehended also of it SUBSECT II. Answ 2 BUt wee may quit this controversie about the distinction of the orders of Episcopacy and Presbytery for the question is of the power which of men in the same degree is not alwaies the same When the same Father saith in the same Epistle Quid enim facit exceptâ ordinatione Ep. ad Evagr. Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter What doth a Bishop excepting Ordination which a Presbyter doth not and where elsewhere hee saith That imposition of hands or confirmation of the Baptized was proper to the Bishops though hee qualifie it by saying that it was done ad honorem potius Sacerdotis quam ad legis necessitatem ' for the honour of the Priesthood for so by way of excellency hee often as also other of that time call Episcopacy as we saw above out of Cyprian rather than by necessity of the institution ' And when in the former Epistle and elsewhere hee saith Ad Evagr. in Tâ—t cap. 1. In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollâ—rentur That it was decreed through the whole world that one should be elected out of the Presbyters and set over the rest unto whom the whole care of the Church should belong and the seeds of Schism taken away Also Ecclesiae
follows that no Minister can be made but hee must have the Authority of the Holy Ghost Secondly It is necessary also that hee receive the Holy Ghost it self in the gifts and abilities of it for the discharge of this calling For no man can say that is effectually teach that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. And every spirit that confesseth that is soundly preacheth that Jesus is the Christ is of God 1 John 4.1 2. John 16. For it is the Holy Ghost onely that leadeth into all Truth concerning Christ Thirdly The conveyance of the Holy Ghost in all publick Ordinances is by some Ministerial hand as in Baptism and the Lords Supper wherein at least unto the faithful the Holy Ghost is conveyed So as in respect of the thing it self the Holy Ghost is necessary to bee conveyed to every Minister that is to bee ordained Sense of the words 2. Next for the meaning of the phrase First wee must observe That the word Holy Ghost here may be either taken for his person and gifts or for his Authority or both by a Metonymy It is taken for his gifts where it is said John 7. that the Holy Ghost was not yet because Christ was not yet glorified It is taken for his Authority when the Apostle saith that the Holy Ghost had made the Ministers of Ephesus the overseers of the flock Act. 20. Secondly wee may expound the words by way of declaration and solemn pronouncing as well as imparative or communicative bidding And the other words may bee so expounded also according as in absolution it is in one place in the Common Prayer-Book pronounced authoritatively yet it is expounded to bee onely a declaring and pronouncing Now to apply the former The word Holy Ghost here seems to bee taken for the Authority especially of the Holy Ghost to the exercise of the Ministerial function As if it were said Take thou the Authority of the Holy Ghost which hee hath appointed his Church to communicate and dispense to persons worthy for the Ministry of the Word in binding and loosing and of the Sacraments 3. To their exceptions First To the exception general it self that this form hath no warrant No warrant It is answered Answ That in other things they urge the Letter of the Scripture And surely where there is no incongruity in the thing nor impediment from some other cause from using the very words of Institution there cannot bee desired a better warrant Now that there is no such incongruity nor impediment shall bee shewn in answering unto the Reasons of the former exception whereof the first is that Proof none but God himself hath power to give the Holy Ghost But it hindreth not but that what none but a superiour Authority can have power to give originally may yet bee given ministerially Answ and by delegation from that superiour power Neither Moses had power to consecrate Aaron nor Samuel to confer the Kingdome unto David nor the Apostles themselves to give the Holy Ghost but by delegation and commission Which power if as to that right of the conferring the power and authority of the Holy Ghost to the ordaining of a Minister the Church ministerially hath not for without that power it cannot bee done then must every Minister receive his authority and outward call immediately from Heaven Neither is repugnant hereunto Lib. 1. dist 14. cap. 1. Hic quaeritur Aug. de Trin. l. 15. c. 26. either that of the Master of the sentences nor of Austin himself whence hee hath it viz. Neque enim aliquis discipulorum ejus dedit spiritum sanctum Orabant quippe ut veniret in eos quibus manum imponebant non eum ipsi dabant Quem morem in suis propositis etiam nunc servat Ecclesia Object For neither saith hee any of the Disc ples gave the Holy Ghost but they prayed that hee might come on those upon whom they laid their hands but gave him not themselves which custome the Church even now retaineth in her Bishops For our Church doth pray in laying on of hands and with and under the words Answ 1 of Institution asketh also before and after What form of words the Apostles used in laying on of hands and conferring the Holy Ghost is not expressed but unlikely it is that they used none Now those they used whether they were those used by our Saviour or others in form of praying cannot be determined nor therefore their example urged in that which our Church pretendeth not unto But the former will bee more evident in other ministrations also In Absolution the form is in the Liturgy in the visitation of the sick Imperative and authoritative as I may so speak and in a good sense so it is by his authority committed unto mee I absolve thee from all thy sin c. yet in the general absolution after the general confession at morning-prayer by which the former must bee expounded it is expressed to bee but declaratory by way of solemn and authoritative pronouncing and with the concurrence of prayer for efficacy of such declaration Almighty God who hast given power and commandment to declare and pronounce to his people being penitent the absolution and remission of their sins c. In Baptism the Holy Ghost and remission of sins is given and that by the ministration and the words spoken by the Minister So also in the Lords Supper the body and blood of Christ sacramentally is conferred by the words and action of the Minister none of which is in the power of any to bestow but God onely Shall wee therefore except against the fruits of those Ordinances or against the Minister for pronouncing such words and doing such actions Again as in the Absolution there goeth with the Pronounciation prayer also and so likewise in Baptism and the Lords Supper what hindereth but that the words may be taken under a precatory sense also and as including prayer which more expresly goeth both before and after The words therefore take thou the Holy Ghost do not argue an original or an inherent power but Ministerial onely and so as not excluding a precatory vertue also This to the first Reason The second is because they were the words of Christ himself to his Apostles what Proof 2 then were all Christs words to his Apostles peculiar to them Answ It was to his Apostles that hee gave the command of baptizing and teaching and of giving his last Supper Have none therefore power since to administer these Ordinances Again if no Minister can be made but by the Holy Ghost and his Authority and this Authority were proper onely to the Apostles because the words were spoken to them then is the Church deprived of the Holy Ghost ever since the Apostles nor hath power to ordain a Ministry The third reason is taken from the parallel of other administrations Proof wherein the words of institution in
be read at the consecration of a Bishop Pag. 46. that was read at the Ordination of Priests therefore they infer that the compilers of the book never dreampt of a distinction of orders between Bishops and Presbyters Surely the Brethren are somewhat confident Answ that their readers are very easie either to be perswaded or to be deluded For may not the same Scripture contain matters common to both and peculiar more specially to one of those orders When they have expressed themselves sufficiently before must the appointing of a chapter that containeth precepts for both joyntly yet for the one more eminently argue they meant thereby to confute themselves The next exception is That there is no warrant Except 2 in Scripture for Archbishops Not indeed for the very word as there is not for many other things Answ as for the Trinity Justification by Faith onely Baptism of Infants Women coming to the Lords Supper But for the thing there is The Evangelists as Timothy and Titus had power over other Ministers And the Apostles had power over them If the state of the Church then needed such Superintendents over Bishops and the state of the Church now have the same use and exigency of them There is warrant in Scripture And so there is in Law and Reason viz. to constitute such officers in the Church as well as in the Common-Wealth as whereby the government of it may bee the more conveniently managed The commendation of the wisdome of the Church in this institution of Archbishops wee heard above out of Bucer and Zanchy And may further out of Calvin Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 4. s 4. Quod autem singulae Provinciae unum habebant inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum Quod item in Nicaena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae qui essent ordine dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores id ad disciplinae conservationem pertinebat Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendae Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab eâ quam Deus verbo suo prescripsit Now that saith he every province had among their Bishops one Archbishop Archbishops and Patriarchs approved by Calvin and that in the councel of Nice there were ordained Patriarchs which should be in order and dignity superiour unto Archbishops this was done for the preservation of Discipline and Government But if wee will omitting contention about the Word consider the thing it self wee shall finde that the ancient Bishops intended not to frame any form of Church-Government which was in kinde different from that which God had appointed in his Word Thus far hee Go to now yee that pretend to be followers of Calvin and see whether Archbishops yea Patriarchs have not warrant from the Word of God The Brethrens third Exception is against the Except 3 consecration of an Archbishop but upon the former ground that it is but a humane creature Consecration of Archbishops which ground is confuted But if hee were Answ yet consecration may be requisite as a solemn separation of a person to an office in the Church of so much influence of so much consequence As though Kings themselves bee in some sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an humane creation 1 Pet. 2. though by Gods secret appointment yet no man ever quarrelled with their solemn inauguration by prayer other ceremonies suppose them such as are not superstitious into their office That they say our Church seeth no necessity of the consecration of an Archbishop Inst. because it appointeth the same form for both Answ is to stumble at the same undutiful stone to indeavour to make the Church contradict it self To appoint a consecration for an Archbishop and yet to make it a thing of no necessity That it hath not appointed a different form for this is to let the Brethren and all men understand that they did not count this a different order but degree onely in the same order and therefore the same form of consecration might serve for both Because the Church would not multiply services without necessity To the last Exception which they infer from Except 4 the former viz. That seeing the Archbishop is but of the Churches constitution Oath of common obedience therefore they see no reason why he should receive an oath of Canonical obedience from the Bishop But of the Antecedent wee saw above Answ as to the consequent it is untruly gathered For though an Archbishop bee but of Ecclesiastical constitution what hindereth but that having so great an influence upon the Church the welfare whereof doth so much consist in the obedience of the several Governours thereof unto their Superiours and this by men in place so hardly oftentimes performed without more solemn obligation of conscience what impedeth either in Religion or Reason that for the securing the peace of the Church and the exercise of Government an oath may not be exacted of an inferiour degree But that here 's the cramp it argues too much inferiority and subjection unto the Archbishop of a Bishop with whom the Brethren do count themselves equal who are men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such as cannot bear the yoak especially having now as Caesar once so long ruled that to obey they knew not how But they should remember that a levelling spirit is as dangerous in the Church as in the Common-Wealth and tends to Anarchy and no Government at all What made Diodate else at Geneva come so rarely to the consistory but this that hee said Young men perked up and every one having an equal power there was no place for gravity in the Government which hee expressed to one I know to this effect And thus I have done with their Exceptions against Episcopacy the Government and the solemn initiation thereunto its consecration SECT V. Episcopal Jurisdiction THeir next is against its Right of Jurisdiction Against Episcop Jurisdiction And Except 3 first of sole Jurisdiction Or the exercise of Government alone Where first their assertion not onely that Bishops have not the onely power of Government but also that all Presbyters have a share therein Next their proof of it First to their assertion First Because my scope is onely to vindicate Answ so far as I am able The Doctrine Worship and Government of the Church as agreeable to the Scripture and as received publickly established and practised in this Nation if any do break this fense let the Serpent bite him Eccles 10.8 if hee remove these stones let them fall upon him if hee willingly violate these holy and sacred bonds of Law how weak a Patron soever I am hee shall have no advocate of mee Next the Terms perhaps would bee explained For sole Jurisdiction may bee taken either for sole Right of Government Sole Jurisdiction so that no man else hath any thing to do to govern but himself or by delegation from him or else for the sole Right of the exserting exercise and putting
admit all those to govern whom in that very question and the answer to it they did intend to oblige to subjection and obedience So gross is the Brethrens conscience to dare to utter and their confidence to think that so palpable a Calumny would pass undiscerned yea so ridiculous their hopes as to fancy it would bee beleeved To the third viz. that out of the Liturgy Proof 3 Because it is said in the Rubrick before the Communion Liberty given to the Minister by the Liturgy touching Communicants that the Minister is authorized to restrain notorious offenders from the Sacrament till they have openly declared themselves to have repented The Brethren query What is this but as much and as high jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular Answ But first how shall wee make a coat for the Moon sometime they struggle as even lately if not at present for more power about the Sacrament and when my self mentioned this Rubrick unto one Mr. J. Cas that is no Cypher among them hee said it was not sufficient Again if the Brethren are by Law already instated in as much jurisdiction as any Bishop can use about the Sacrament and that is the greatest point why rest they not in it why blaspheme they the Common-prayer-book wherein it is contained why do they so wrestle imponere pelio ossam And make the Church and State as blocks to be For steps to mount unto their Prelacy But thirdly There are some Acts common in all governments and some proper A petty Constable may charge any man upon a warrant to assist him as well as the Sheriff of the County upon a writ Some kinde of share in government and exercise of Discipline was never denyed to a Minister as a Minister no more than a share with the Bishop in Preaching of the Word But Jurisdiction is a word of a louder sound than Discipline and the Government of the Church than some kinde of restraining a particular communicant Although those Acts belong to Government and are exercised by private Ministers yet they are about lesser things And also it is by concession and delegation not to bee challenged I think of right otherwise than as the officer of the Church appointed in her name to do that which of himself and as a private Minister hee could not do For then there must bee not as the Brethren say if the Bishops have sole Jurisdiction so many Popes that is six and twenty but sixty times six and twenty Popes in England For every Minister might then exclude whom hee pleased from the Communion and exercise an absolute tyranny upon the people And so much of their third proof Their last is from Law Proof 4 which because I do not understand it much that it belongs unto the Judges to determine Answ That the Bishops have appealed thereunto that my self have said above something to that point That * Vid. Tract of the R. Bp. Linc. now published of the Legality of the Bishops Courts c. Wherein the Kings Proclam and Judges sentence are recited it is declared already by the sentence of all the Judges Enrolled in the Courts of Record and by his late Majesties Proclamation and that it is like shortly to be further determined I supersede from further answering although I could Onely I may not pass the great inconsideration of the Brethren with so much virulency resisting the useful restitution of the Bishops into Parliament which is the interest of Christ himself of the Ministry and of the Kingdome First Though we are blessed be God all Christians yet our masters cause will probably bee minded a little more intently by those whom hee hath commissioned for that purpose the Ministry the honour and flower whereof are the Prelacy Again other persons have a vote in Parliament more immediately by their proxyes Why England should observe Episcopacy the Clergy none but in the Bishops Lastly The publick interest to bee concerned may well bee thought from not onely that engagement of thankfulness that lyes upon it unto Prelacy under whose Government and by whose Influence and through the effusion of the blood of whose members Religion hath been restored nor onely in regard they were by the Antient Laws even the first members next the head for the form was The Kings Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Nor onely in respect perhaps of some higher ingagements But from our experience the Mistress of fools For first neither King Lords nor Commons continued in power long after the Bishops ejectment And next hitherto wee have had no face of a Church no certainty of Doctrine no observation of Worship no exercise of Government to speak of but all things have gone to Babylonian confusion and antique Chaos Discite justitiam moniti The Phrygians will not learn till lasht they be If that amend us not then worse are wee I shall for close touching the Civil honour annexed unto Episcopacy in this Nation Zanch. confess cap. 25. Aph. 21. subjoyn the conclusion and judgement of the learned Zanchy and that in the confession of his Faith The conclusion is Episcoporum qui principes sunt politicam authoritatem non negari That the Civil Authority of Bishops which are also Magistrates or Princes is not denyed The explication follows Interim non diffitemur Episcopos qui simul etiam principes sunt praeter autoritatem Ecclesiasticam sua etiam habere jura politica Secularesque potestates quemadmodum reliqui habent principes jus imperandi secularia jus gladii nonnullos jus elegendi confirmandique Reges Imperatores aliaque politica constituendi administrandi subditosque sibi populos ad obedientiam sibi praestandam cogendi c. That besides their Ecclesiastical Authority they have also Civil Rights and SECULAR Powers and may constrain obedience unto such their powers c. which hee contradicts not in the observations Neither doth hee contradict it in his explication of that Aphorism And that place Mat. 20.25 It shall not bee so among you is understood by some to concern all Christians saith hee neither doth hee refute it SECT VI. The close of the Church-Controversie HAving thus far passed through all the five heads of motives unto Separation viz. The Doctrine the Worship the Assemblies the Discipline and the Government with replies unto them and having also vindicated them according to my weak arm by the sword of the spirit against the opposers of them I come now to close this whole dissertation His present Majesty hath indulged to the Brethren and their adherents very much in all the Premises May it prove successeful But his Grandfather King James having tasted of this Solunne geuse and wilde fowl whilst in Scotland and being pressed at his first coming as His Majesty now to the like here hee utters his judgement upon observation of Gods presence with this Church and Nation in these words We have seen the Kingdome under that form of Religion